Shulgi of Ur: Life, Deeds, Ideology and Legacy of a Mesopotamian Ruler As Reflected Primarily in Literary Texts, PhD diss., SOAS (University of London), 2011

ŠULGI OF UR: LIFE, DEEDS, IDEOLOGY AND LEGACY OF A MESOPOTAMIAN RULER AS REFLECTED PRIMARILY IN LITERARY TEXTS Ludek Va...

Author: Ludek Vacin

192 downloads 820 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ŠULGI OF UR: LIFE, DEEDS, IDEOLOGY AND LEGACY OF A MESOPOTAMIAN RULER AS REFLECTED PRIMARILY IN LITERARY TEXTS

Ludek Vacin

Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in Assyriology 2011

Department of the Languages and Cultures of Near and Middle East School of Oriental and African Studies University of London

1

Declaration for PhD thesis

I have read and understood regulation 17.9 of the Regulations for students of the School of Oriental and African Studies concerning plagiarism. I undertake that all the material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person. I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination.

Signed:

Date:

2

28 March 2011

Abstract This thesis focuses on the reign of Neo-Sumerian king Šulgi (2094–2047 B.C.), the second and most illustrious ruler of the IIIrd dynasty of Ur which held sway over Mesopotamia during the last century of the third millennium B.C. Its cardinal aim is to bring together our present knowledge of Šulgi as portrayed mainly in literary texts for the first time in a single, coherent study. The main focus is Šulgi´s royal ideology and his concept of divine kingship, which significantly changed the religio-political outlook of southern Mesopotamian ruling elites for a couple of centuries after the fall of Ur in 2004 B.C. Although centered on that problem together with its concomitant aspects, above all its reflections in contemporary royal literature, the dissertation attempts to discuss other attested aspects of the king´s life and rule as well. It begins with a discussion of Šulgi´s family and continues with an account of the history of Šulgi´s reign as evidenced by historical sources and alluded to in relevant literary texts. A chapter is also devoted to the difficult problem of modern approaches to historical allusions in Sumerian literary texts. It contains a section exploring the interpretative possibilities of a new approach, suggested by the author, i.e. the comparison of literature pertaining to Šulgi with modern propagandistic texts. The dissertation eventually arrives at a general treatment of Šulgi´s royal self-representation and legacy (e.g. the king´s influence on his realm´s cultural life) as left to his successors and future generations of Mesopotamian rulers, especially the kings of the following Isin-Larsa period. Finally, it also contains an edition, complete with handcopies, of eight unpublished cuneiform tablets inscribed with a hymn glorifying Šulgi.

3

Table of Contents Declaration ..............................................................................................................2 Abstract....................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................7 Chapter I: Introduction ...........................................................................................8 I.1) The Purpose and Focus of This Study..........................................................................................8 I.2) The Sources .......................................................................................................................................9 I.2.1) Formal Classification of Major Source Groups and Their Use in This Study................................................. 10 I.2.2) On the Date of Composition of the Šulgi Hymns and Their ‘Sitz im Leben’.................................................. 12 I.2.3) Preliminaries on Identifying Historical Allusions in the Šulgi Hymns ............................................................ 21

I.3) Conventions of Referring to Primary Sources Quoted ............................................................23

Chapter II: Šulgi´s Background and Family......................................................... 25 II.1) Urnamma: The Father..................................................................................................................25 II.1.1) An Outline of Urnamma´s Origin and Rise to Power .................................................................................. 25 II.1.2) An Outline of Urnamma´s Ideological Concepts and Policy.......................................................................... 27 II.1.3) Death of Urnamma ...................................................................................................................................... 33

II.2) Watartum: The Mother ................................................................................................................40 II.3) Grandparents and Siblings...........................................................................................................46 II.4) Wives...............................................................................................................................................47 II.4.1) Tarªmuram ................................................................................................................................................. 47 II.4.2) Gemesuõena ................................................................................................................................................ 48 II.4.3) Šulgisimt‰ .................................................................................................................................................... 49 II.4.4) Gemeninlila ................................................................................................................................................ 53 II.4.5) Eaniša, Ninkala, Simatea, Š¥qurtum ........................................................................................................ 57

II.5) Šulgi´s Offspring ...........................................................................................................................61 II.5.1) Sons and Their Roles within the State Administration ................................................................................. 61 II.5.2) Daughters and Their Roles within the Cult and Diplomacy .......................................................................... 64

Chapter III: Chronological Account of Šulgi´s Reign Based on Historical Sources................................................................................................................ 68 III.1) Introductory Remarks.................................................................................................................68 III.2) Accession to the Throne (Year Š1)...........................................................................................69 III.3) Early Deeds of Religious Nature (Years Š2–4).......................................................................71 III.4) Restoration of D®r (Year Š5).....................................................................................................72 III.5) Care for Road-Traffic Infrastructure and the Ruler´s Legendary Long-Distance Race (Years Š6–Š7).....................................................................................................................74 III.6) Caulking the Barge of Ninlil (Year Š8).....................................................................................75 III.7) Cultic and Mundane Activities in the Years Š9–Š14..............................................................76

4

III.8) Events of the Years Š15–Š20 ....................................................................................................80 III.9) The Last Prewar Years (Š21–Š23) ............................................................................................83 III.10) The First Phase of Military Campaigns (Š24–Š27) ..............................................................86 III.11) Cultic and Diplomatic Interlude (Years Š28–Š30)...............................................................88 III.12) The Second Phase of Military Campaigns (Years Š31–Š35) ..............................................88 III.13) Events of the Years Š36–Š43 ..................................................................................................91 III.14) The Final Phase of Military Campaigns (Š44–Š48)..............................................................96 III.15) Death of Šulgi ..........................................................................................................................100

Chapter IV: Approaches to Historical Allusions in Sumerian Myths, Epics and Royal Praise Poetry ......................................................................... 106 IV.1) The Question of Historical Allusions in Major Sumerian Literary Texts: An Overview .............................................................................................................................106 IV.2) An Outline of Interpretative Possibilities of Comparing the Šulgi Hymns with Modern Propagandistic Literature ................................................................................118 IV.2.1) Methodological Deliberations on Extracting History from Royal Hymns..................................................118 IV.2.2) The Šulgi Hymns as Literary Propaganda ...............................................................................................120 IV.2.3) On the Possibility of Comparing the Šulgi Hymns with Stalinist Propaganda...........................................124 IV.2.4) A Selection of Illustrative Examples ........................................................................................................129

Chapter V: Historical Allusions in Ur III and Old Babylonian Literary Texts Pertaining to Šulgi.................................................................................. 137 V.1) ‘Coronation Hymns’, Hymn Šulgi D+X, and Their Historical Setting..............................137 V.1.1) Hymns Šulgi G, P and F ..........................................................................................................................138 V.1.2) Hymn Šulgi D+X ....................................................................................................................................140 V.1.3) Historical Setting of Šulgi G, P and F: ‘Coronation’, ‘Deification’ Hymns or Both? .................................142 V.1.4) Historical Setting of Šulgi D+X ...............................................................................................................150

V.2) Hymns Šulgi M, T, R and U ......................................................................................................159 V.2.1) Hymn Šulgi M ..........................................................................................................................................159 V.2.2) Hymn Šulgi T ...........................................................................................................................................161 V.2.3) Hymn Šulgi R ...........................................................................................................................................161 V.2.4) Hymn Šulgi U...........................................................................................................................................162

V.3) Hymn Šulgi A and Related Literary Sources...........................................................................163 V.4) Hymn Šulgi B and Related Literary Sources...........................................................................167 V.5) Old Babylonian Omens Concerning Tappadara‹..................................................................171 V.6) Literary Letters Mentioning Šulgi .............................................................................................172 V.7) Old Babylonian Omens and Other Sources Concerning the Death of Šulgi....................174

Chapter VI: Šulgi´s Royal Ideology and Deification .......................................... 178 VI.1) Prerequisites of Šulgi´s Ideological Concept.........................................................................178 VI.1.1) A Survey of Topoi of Ideal Kingship in Texts Pertaining to Šulgi.............................................................178

5

VI.1.2) The Development of Royal Ideology from the Late Uruk Period until Narªmsuõen´s Reign.....................187 VI.1.3) Shift of the Pattern: Deification of Narªmsuõen of Akkad and Its Ideological Consequences ...................191 VI.1.4) Royal Ideology of Šulgi´s Father Urnamma..............................................................................................194

VI.2) Royal Ideology and Deification of Šulgi ................................................................................196 VI.2.1) Textual Reflections, Narªmsuõen´s Influence, Political Motives, Possible Reasons for Success..................196 VI.2.2) The ‘Sacred Marriage’ as a Component of Šulgi´s Concept of Divine Kingship.........................................202 VI.2.3) Implications of Šulgi´s Deification ............................................................................................................218

VI.3) Ideological Background of the Sumerian King List.............................................................221

Chapter VII: Legacy of Šulgi´s Reign................................................................. 228 VII.1) Consolidation of the State ......................................................................................................228 VII.1.1) Šulgi´s Reforms: An Overview of Previous Scholarship ...........................................................................228

VII.2) Cultural Heritage of Šulgi´s Reign.........................................................................................239 VII.2.1) The King´s Care for Education, Literature and Music according to His Hymns .....................................239 VII.2.2) Šulgi´s Royal Hymns of Praise: Their Aim and Impact on Future Generations .....................................241 VII.2.3) Sculpture and Glyptic during Šulgi´s Era ...............................................................................................245

VII.3) Post-Ur III Copies of the Šulgi Texts and the Image of Šulgi in the Omen, Chronicle and Prophetic Literature .......................................................................................248

Chapter VIII: Conclusion.................................................................................... 253 Appendix: New Duplicates of Hymn Šulgi A..................................................... 268 List of Manuscripts ..................................................................................................................................268 Score Transliteration.................................................................................................................................269 Translation...............................................................................................................................................274 Philological Commentary...........................................................................................................................277 A Survey of Textual Variants .................................................................................................................281 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................................287 Plates .......................................................................................................................................................288

Bibliographic Abbreviations ............................................................................... 300 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 309

6

Acknowledgements I would like to express here my sincere gratitude to those people without whom this dissertation would have never seen the light of day. First and foremost to my supervisor, Prof. Andrew George, who taught me so much and whose careful, patient and kind yet uncompromising way of supervising ensured that I never lost track. I am grateful to Prof. George also for arranging for my study of the Schøyen tablets edited in the Appendix. I also wish to thank Prof. Mark Geller for many interesting discussions about Šulgi, the Sumerian language and literature, and for much more. I am indebted to Prof. Pascal Attinger for sharing some of his Sumerian files with me, to Prof. Konrad Volk for his consent to my taking over the Šulgi A tablets in the Schøyen Collection, and to Dr. Cornelia Wunsch, Dr. Marie-Christine Ludwig and Christopher Walker for their advice and support. Dr. Daniel Schwemer is thanked for his careful reading of the manuscript and for some important comments and suggestions. I am most thankful to Mr. Martin Schøyen for his kind permission to work on tablets in his collection and to publish them herein. Many thanks are also due to Ms. Elizabeth Sørenssen for her hospitality with which she allowed me to stay in her house while I visited the Schøyen Collection. I wholeheartedly acknowledge the manifold support provided by my fellow Ph.D. candidates, Lisa Wilhelmi, Gianluca Galetti and Luis Siddall. I am deeply grateful to the Felix Scholarship Committee for granting me one of the scholarships, which enabled me to pursue doctoral studies at SOAS. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Kateřina, without whose understanding, patience and constant care for my spiritual as well as material needs I would never be able to complete the thesis. L.V.

7

Chapter I: Introduction The present thesis deals with king Šulgi, the second and most illustrious ruler of the Third Dynasty of Ur. The idea of writing a dissertation on Šulgi originated during conversations with my Prague teacher, the late Blahoslav Hruška, about Ur III history, ideology and literature years ago. He told me that Jan van Dijk intended to write a book about Šulgi, because he thought that this extraordinary figure of third millennium Near Eastern history deserved monographic treatise. Thus, when contemplating the topic of my doctoral thesis I decided to try if I could carry out the intention of a great scholar, thereby filling a gap in Assyriological literature which still lacks an overall treatment of Šulgi. However, as there always was a wealth of both primary and secondary sources on Šulgi or the various aspects of his life and career and much new evidence as well as many interpretations of evidence already known emerged since the late 1970s, when van Dijk communicated his plan to Hruška, it quickly became clear to me that to cover all the aspects of Šulgi´s life, deeds, ideology and legacy equally well would require much more time and space than allowed in case of a doctoral dissertation. Therefore, this thesis intends to give only a representative cross section through available information on Šulgi and his time, not a definitive biography of the king. Some topics are covered in more detail than others in line with the purpose and focus of the thesis explained below. I.1) The Purpose and Focus of This Study The reign of king Šulgi (2094–2047)1 spanned forty-eight years and represented a time of consolidation of the Ur III kingdom founded by the ruler´s father Urnamma. Šulgi was an apt monarch who shaped his era and left a deep imprint on Mesopotamian history by building up for his descendants a viable model of territorial state based on old traditions yet formed by his innovations in administrative, social, religious, ideological and cultural spheres as well as by his military feats which were remembered for many centuries after the fall of Ur. The purpose of this study is firstly to provide scholars with a new and systematic overview of Šulgi´s family and the political history of his reign based on primary historical sources and at the same time assessing the findings in secondary literature.

1

Dating in this thesis follows the ‘middle chronology’ (i.e. ›ammurªpi: 1792–1750) and all dates are considered B.C. unless otherwise specified.

8

These parts of the dissertation are intended as a handy summary for both the Assyriologist and the Ancient Historian. They do not attempt to present and discuss each and every source relevant to all the issues related to the study of Šulgi´s family and the history of his reign. While chapters covering these topics make frequent use of administrative texts, it must be emphasized here that this thesis is not a study of economic history and administrative organization under Šulgi. Secondly, the dissertation intends to give a detailed discussion of theoretical issues involved in extracting historical data from Sumerian royal hymns and to offer a new method of mining those texts for historical data. Subsequently, it will comprehensively analyse relevant Šulgi hymns as sources valuable for historical research into particularly the first half of his reign. Already this part of the thesis will contain much discussion of the king´s royal ideology as reflected in his praise poems, which will be followed by an in-depth study of Šulgi´s concept of divine kingship, a topic crucial for our understanding of the ephemeral but significant, and in modern times much discussed but poorly understood, phenomenon of royal divinity in early Mesopotamia. Thirdly, the thesis will briefly cover selected issues of Šulgi´s legacy for the subsequent periods of Mesopotamian history. Particularly the ideological and cultural impact of the king´s praise poetry on the Isin-Larsa kings and scribes will be discussed, as will be the repercussions of Šulgi´s reign especially in post-Old Babylonian texts. The discussion of the changes of religio-political, economic, administrative, social and military organization of the state – some obvious, some assumed, and conventionally called the Šulgi reforms – will be limited to a presentation and assessment of modern scholarly opinions including my own. Full analysis of evidence for particular reforms in the thousands of administrative records from the reign of Šulgi, in itself a topic for a separate thesis, would go far beyond the scope of the present dissertation. I.2) The Sources There is a vast body of primary sources bearing on Šulgi and his state primarily from the Ur III and Old Babylonian but also from later periods of Mesopotamian history. It is the purpose of this section to discuss the nature of major source groups and to explain the use of them in this thesis.

9

I.2.1) Formal Classification of Major Source Groups and Their Use in This Study Sources dated to Šulgi´s reign and documenting various facets of his life and career, the status and actions of his family members, the inner working of his state, etc., although meagre and unclear in the initial two decades of his reign, rapidly increased in number and became more informative in the latter half of Šulgi´s rule. Chronologically, these make up the first group of pieces of evidence on Šulgi. The second group comprises sources preserved in later manuscripts, like the Old Babylonian copies of his royal praise poetry on the one hand, and on the other hand e.g. omen texts and other literature remembering the king and/or using the name of this famous ruler to various ends depending on the context. Typologically, sources from the first group are historical in nature, they generally do not employ narrative style and structure of literature, they come from the time span discussed, convey vital information on contemporary events and people and as such can safely be utilized in historical research. These can further be divided into two subgroups: a) royal and votive inscriptions, and b) administrative texts.2 Sources from the second group come from post-Ur III periods, especially the Old Babylonian period. They are literary in nature, employ narrative style and structure and make frequent use of various literary devices related particularly to the king´s self-representation and his ideology. These can further be divided into three subgroups: a) royal hymns of praise, b) royal correpondence, c) omens, chronicles, a prophecy and other sources.3 While royal and votive inscriptions are vehicles of royal self-representation, they are at the same time undisputable contemporary evidence for historical events like temple building, construction of irrigation works, etc. This also applies to the year names used for dating administrative documents. The date formulae appear as abbreviated royal inscriptions. They undoubtedly reveal the king´s version of history and reflect his desire to show himself in the most favourable light. While it is necessary to keep this fact in mind when discussing the evidence of year names, one should also consider that to assume that Ur III kings promulgated, and Ur III scribes used, date formulae which had nothing or little to do with historical reality would be fanciful. Thus, the year names represent the backbone of historical research into the Ur III period because they inform modern scholars about political, economic, religious and social developments of the time in a relative chronological order (known in part from Old Babylonian lists of year 2 Of course, not only royal inscriptions and administrative texts of Šulgi are utilized in this thesis. This general classification is nevertheless valid for sources from the reign of previous and subsequent rulers as well. 3 See fn. 2 above. The same applies to literary sources.

10

names and in part inferred from the evidence of Ur III texts themselves, e.g. the pisaë dub-ba texts and their archaeological context). In the historical parts of this thesis both the royal inscriptions and year names are frequently used. Actually, the historical narrative of Šulgi´s reign proper is based on the sequence of his date formulae. Significantly, the rest of Ur III administrative texts´ content – i.e. excluding the date formulae – is by definition free of any traces of royal self-representation as it reveals directly and clearly the various economic processes involved in the day-to-day administration of the religious, mundane and military affairs of the state, its respective provinces and other administrative units. Administrative texts contain information on the providers, recipients and types of goods and services, on the redistribution system, on the calendar and much more. More than a dozen thousand of these records from the reign of Šulgi are currently known. Obviously, these sources are crucial for the reconstruction of Ur III administration and economy. However, their factualness on the minutiae of Ur III economy, valuable as it is, represents at the same time a limitation because administrative records are not concerned with the general principles of state politics like the highest level policy-making or documenting any details of decisive political events, which a modern historian is very much interested in. No wonder, economic texts cannot be expected to constitute works of historiography. However, administrative texts yield significant results for the inquiry into the general principles of Ur III politics and economy if studied from a contextual viewpoint, for instance prosopographic (e.g. tracing the relationships of people mentioned in a text group to establish official hierarchy of a unit or a province), archival (e.g. exploring archives of a particular province to establish its tasks and importance in the Ur III economy), thematic (e.g. examining evidence for a particular sector of Ur III economy – grain production, animal husbandry, fishing, the crafts, etc. – to increase our understanding of how that sector was administered by the state) and so on. This contextual approach proved to be very fruitful in recent decades and there is a number of monographs scrutinizing various groups of archival records from the reign of all Ur III kings. Further, specific forms of Ur III economic organization, like e.g. the ‘bala’ redistribution system, have also been studied extensively. A comprehensive contextual study of all administrative records from the reign of a particular king, e.g. Šulgi, remains a desideratum, however. As indicated above, this study will not remedy this deficiency as it focuses more on the literary evidence of Šulgi, his reign and royal ideology. A definitive synthesis of every

11

piece of information on Šulgi including a comprehensive scrutiny of all known administrative texts from his reign is yet to be written. Examples of contextual approach to Ur III administrative texts, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, indicate that to cover the whole group of records from Šulgi´s time in all their aspects, contexts and implications is an overwhelming task likely to require decades of reseach resulting in several monographic volumes. This thesis makes only selective and illustrative use of Ur III administrative sources mainly for a reconstruction of political history of Šulgi´s era. In line with the focus of this study, outlined above, a fresh overview of political history of Šulgi´s reign only is one of its main goals. The cardinal purpose is a detailed analysis of literary texts pertaining to Šulgi, more specifically his royal praise poetry. These texts constitute major sources for the study of Šulgi´s self-representation and royal ideology, especially his concept of divine kingship. They also seem to contain historical allusions to important events of Šulgi´s reign, confirmed or unconfirmed by correlating historical sources. Thus, literary texts may yield details of some events only briefly or not at all covered in historical sources and provide a different perspective on those events. Yet, mining the Šulgi hymns for historical data is a complicated issue, as is the very date of composition of those texts and their Sitz im Leben. Since the Šulgi hymns represent a crucial source group for the bulk of this thesis, all this needs to be addressed in some detail. I.2.2) On the Date of Composition of the Šulgi Hymns and Their ‘Sitz im Leben’ While it was always well known that extant copies of the Šulgi hymns come from the Old Babylonian period, Sumerologists invariably regarded the compositions as pieces of Ur III literature. Recently, this view has been challenged due to a different look at Old Babylonian Sumerian literature and a deeper understanding of its use in Old Babylonian school milieu. Following the influential studies of the curricular setting of Sumerian literature,4 Niek Veldhuis offered a thorough discussion of Sumerian literature as a culturally unifying element in the Old Babylonian period with immense significance for the collective identity of the scribes.5 He maintained that Sumerian literature was used to help create an ‘invented tradition’ of Babylonian unity. In his view, scholars should therefore examine the Old Babylonian copies of Sumerian literary texts in their social context as witnesses to Old Babylonian scribal education – and effectively to Old Babylonian understanding of history and collective identity – rather than use them as 4 5

Tinney (1999a), Robson (2001). Veldhuis (2004), pp. 60–80.

12

sources of information on ideological paradigms and historical events of earlier periods to which they refer.6 However, Veldhuis never suggested that the Šulgi hymns were created from scratch in the Old Babylonian period.7 Nicole Brisch in her study of the Larsa court literature took over Veldhuis´ view of curricular Sumerian literature as the vehicle of the ‘invented tradition’ and suggested that royal hymns glorifying deified rulers appear to have been composed only after the death of the respective kings.8 Concerning the hymns of Ur III kings she did not specify, however, whether the date of their composition is to be placed in the (late) Ur III or Old Babylonian period. Other scholars believe that Ur III royal hymns (most prominently those of Šulgi) were not only copied but actually created long after the fall of Ur to serve partly as cultic texts and partly as school texts, and that historical allusions in them resulted from a reconstruction of historical events described in primary sources (such as royal inscriptions) which the Old Babylonian scholars used when composing the hymns.9 This view of the Šulgi hymns as purely Old Babylonian literature, based on the existence of much Old Babylonian evidence for the hymns and their usage in the school curriculum on the one hand, and on the other hand supported by the almost total lack of Ur III evidence for the hymns, is surely justified. Nevertheless, in this thesis the Šulgi hymns are analysed firstly as primary vehicles of the king´s original royal ideology of divine kingship. This is inevitably done on the assumption that they are Ur III compositions faithfully transmitted throughout the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods as traditional pieces of royal literature and used by early Old Babylonian scribes as model texts for composition of hymns in praise of the IsinLarsa kings. Secondly, historical allusions contained in Šulgi´s praise poetry are understood as textual material incorporated into the hymns directly during their creation in the Ur III period. Both points are supported by the following: 1. The incipit of hymn Šulgi A is included in an Ur III literary catalogue housed in the Yale Babylonian Collection (YBC 3654, l. 30). The catalogue also contains incipits of hymns Urnamma E and F (YBC 3654, l. 17). This proves that at least these three hymns were composed during the Ur III period. Given the scope of Ur III literary creativity (the Yale catalogue lists additional 41 incipits and the Nippur catalogue [HS 1360 and Ni 1905] lists 21 incipits), I find it difficult to 6

See also Veldhuis (2002), p. 129. See Veldhuis (2004), pp. 67, 73. 8 Brisch (2007), pp. 29–31 with n. 35. 9 See e.g. Dahl (2007), p. 20, n. 78. 7

13

believe that only three hymns glorifying Urnamma and Šulgi were commissioned during the Ur III period, especially in view of the fact that the Yale catalogue designates 32 incipits as belonging to royal hymns (YBC 3654, l. 33: šu-niëin2 32 en8-du lugal). The fact that only the incipits of Šulgi A and Urnamma E and F can be identified among those may be interepreted as a sign that the rest of the Šulgi hymns were redacted (even though not composed) so thoroughly in the Old Babylonian period that even the initial lines became different. However, the criteria for the inclusion of particular compositions in the two extant Ur III catalogues are unknown and it is conceivable that the rest of the hymns known from Old Babylonian copies were listed in different catalogues (note that there are as many as 13 extant literary catalogues from the Old Babylonian period and it can be assumed that the Ur III period likewise produced more catalogues than the two currently known). In any case it is clear that not all of the hymns praising Ur III kings were adopted by later scribes. 2. A duplicate of hymn Šulgi A has been attributed to the Ur III period (Ni 4254; Alster 1993, p. 5, n. 12). Similarly, a duplicate of hymn Urnamma B has also been attributed to the Ur III period (6N-T288; Civil 1985, pp. 33–4). This would further support the view that hymns praising Ur III kings were composed in the Ur III period. Yet, the attributions remain uncertain. 3. Old Babylonian copies of hymns Šulgi D+X, G, O, P, R and V (likely a copy of a statue inscription) show orthographic and grammatical features found in texts from the previous period.10 This suggests that some hymns were redacted more than the other in the Old Babylonian period. The choice of Old Babylonian scribes to retain Ur III orthographic and grammatical features in their copies of the above poems can currently be explained only by the relative infrequency of copying those compositions, while popular hymns, firmly embedded in the school curriculum (like Šulgi A), were transmitted using the standard Old Babylonian orthography and grammar of Sumerian, apparently to facilitate the lot of apprentice scribes. Thus, it seems that the redaction of the Šulgi hymns in the Old Babylonian period concerned more the form of the texts than their content. Particularly in the case of the above six compositions one would ask why it should be assumed that the scribes changed their content if they obviously strived to retain their traditional form. Therefore, I believe that 10

See Klein (1981b), pp. 64–70, 131–4 (D+X); (1991), pp. 299–301 (G); (1976) (O); (1981a), pp. 27–32 (P); (1990), pp. 96–100 (R); (1985), pp. *14–*19 (V).

14

ideological and historical information contained at least in those texts goes back to the Ur III period. With regard to the viewpoint that the Šulgi hymns were composed from scratch in the Old Babylonian period I deem it unlikely that Old Babylonian scribes should have wished to compose texts in praise of an Ur III king using the orthography and grammar of texts written some 300 years ago and perhaps not too readily available for study (the Ur III di-til-la texts, incantations, etc.), clearly necessary if they were to become proficient in Ur III scribal conventions. 4. Next, the ideology of king Šulgi revealed in the hymns through boastful rhetoric of a divine ruler, and especially through his familial relationship with Urukean deities Ninsun, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš, differs from the ideology promoted in the hymns of early Old Babylonian rulers.11 This shows that if the Šulgi hymns were authored by Old Babylonian scribes, those scribes must have been well informed about Šulgi´s royal ideology from other sources. Moreover, Šulgi´s royal ideology differs from the ideology of king Š¥suõen of Ur whose hymns and inscriptions no longer highlight the ruler´s relationship to Ninsun, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš. Instead, they focus on his military prowess and divine stature. Significantly, this change in ideology in the time of Š¥suõen is testified to by contemporary Ur III sources informing about the construction of temples for him apparently at the expense of the cults of other deities and about installation of his statues at various places throughout the kingdom (e.g. ITT 2 795 [AS09]; ITT 2 3256 [ŠS05-05]; SACT 1 172 [ŠS01]; TCTI 2 3765; RTC 395; DAS 183; DAS 397 [ŠS08]). 5. Following the previous point it must be emphasized that the special attention paid to Uruk, its gods and heroes in the hymns of Urnamma and particularly Šulgi seems to have resulted from the likely kinship of Urnamma and Utu‹eëal (RIME 2 13.6.2001). The extraordinary status of Uruk in the Ur III period is confirmed by the fact that it was the ‘place of the queen’ and a palace of Ur III queens was located there according to administrative texts (e.g. UET 3 906, rev. l. 6; UET 3 901; UET 3 929, obv. l. 3; UET 3 96 [IS04-07-30], rev. l. 2). Furthermore, apart from the focus on Uruk, a focus on Nippur and Ur was also crucial for Šulgi´s royal ideology. His relationship to gods of all three cities is minutely described in three separate hymns (P: Uruk, G: Nippur, F: Ur). The 11

See Tinney (1996), 74–80.

15

importance of the three cities for Ur III royal ideology is likewise confirmed by contemporary administrative texts testifying to king Ibb‰suõen´s consecutive coronation in all of them (JCS 7 p. 48 MAH 19352 [ŠS09-10-01], rev. ll. 6–8; UDT 100 [ŠS09-10-03], rev. ll. 6–8). Points 4. and 5. show that to believe that hymns to Ur III kings were composed in the Old Babylonian period at the same time requires to assume that Old Babylonian scribes were able to reconstruct royal ideologies of Šulgi and Š¥suõen with such accuracy that their creations corresponded to actual situation in the reign of both kings. Which sources could they use to do so? Extant royal inscriptions of Urnamma and Šulgi (including Old Babylonian copies) do not describe the relationship of those kings to the divine and heroic figures of Uruk, let alone the special status of Uruk, Nippur and Ur. Neither do those of Š¥suõen describe any of that, for Š¥suõen abandoned these components of Šulgi´s royal ideology. Therefore, Old Babylonian scribes could not glean much about Šulgi´s royal ideology, let alone the differences in Šulgi´s and Š¥suõen´s ideologies, from studying their royal inscriptions. Thus it seems that the scribes must have been able to see the context and implications of Ur III administrative texts referred to above (if available to them at all) in order to accurately reconstruct royal ideologies of Ur III kings and faithfully reflect the changes in Š¥suõen´s reign by praising him in poems very different from those of Šulgi. 6. In connection to Šulgi´s royal ideology expressed in his hymns, it is necessary to briefly discuss the date of composition of the Sumerian tales about legendary heroes Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš. The rationale behind the composition of stories about these fabulous kings of Uruk is thought to have been the need of Šulgi to anchor his royal ideology in the invented heroic past of the dynasty´s hometown, which would have supported his claim to divine status.12 Indeed, while references to Enmerkar are missing from the Šulgi hymns, both Lugalbanda and Gilgameš are frequently mentioned in them (Šulgi O is devoted solely to the description of the intimate relationship of the king to ‘his brother’ Gilgameš). However, just like the Šulgi hymns, the Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš tales are currently known from dozens of Old Babylonian manuscripts. Therefore, the creation or redaction of these texts in

12

See particularly Michalowski (1988).

16

the Ur III period is in doubt, even though scholars usually take it for granted.13 Yet, there is a fragment of an Ur III version of ‘Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave’ (6N-T638).14 While this version is different from that preserved in Old Babylonian copies of the composition, the existence of the Ur III manuscript proves that some form of the work was known already in the Ur III period. Furthermore, there is an Ur III fragment of ‘Gilgameš and the Bull of Heaven’ (text Na in Cavigneaux and al-Rawi 1993, p. 101). Also, a certain Peštur is mentioned in that composition (Meturªn version, ll. 18, 21) and in ‘Gilgameš and ›uwawa A’ (l. 143) as a sister of the hero. It has been suggested, in my opinion plausibly, that the name Peštur represents a pun on the name of the Ur III princess PešTUR.TUR, a daughter of Šulgi (MVN 13 657 [Š46-02], obv. l. 5).15 This may be taken as a clue for the dating of composition of the Sumerian Gilgameš poems to the Ur III period. Finally, if one dates the composition of the Šulgi hymns often mentioning Lugalbanda and Gilgameš to the Ur III period, one may assume that at least the tales of Lugalbanda and Gilgameš existed in some form at that time. 7. Information contained in several Šulgi hymns correlates well with what is known particularly from date formulae of his regnal years. The crystal clear cases are hymns Šulgi A (repairing the roads and the king’s round-trip between Nippur and Ur; years Š 6/7) and R (caulking the barge of Ninlil; year Š 8). Hymn Šulgi R is a building hymn containing apart from residues of Ur III orthography a borrowing from the Gudea cylinders (Šulgi R, l. 6; Gudea Cyl. A, col. vi l. 11).16 It describes Šulgi´s commission of a cultic vessel for the Tumal festival which was later replaced by another vessel commissioned by Š¥suõen (RIME 3/2 1.4.9, col. xi l. 4–col. xiv l. 14).17 If this text was composed in Old Babylonian times, the scribes must have studied the inscriptions of Gudea (if available to them) and then insert material from those in their text of Šulgi R created so as to correlate with the plain information of the date formula for year Š8 known to them either from Ur III administrative texts (if available to them), or from the Old Babylonian list of the Šulgi year names (BE 1/2 125). As for historical 13

See e.g. Vanstiphout (2003), p. 1; Mittermayer (2009), pp. 38, 90–5. See the image of a cast of the tablet at http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P101741. 15 See Michalowski (2003), pp. 198–9. 16 See Klein (1989a), pp. 26–36; (1989b), pp. 289–94, for a detailed discussion of the hymn´s dependence on Gudea´s cylinders. 17 See the year name of ŠS8 (‘Year in which Šūsu’en, king of Ur, made a magnificent boat for Enlil and Ninlil’) e.g. in ITT 2 776. 14

17

correlations in hymn Šulgi A, it has been shown above (points 1. and 2.) that this hymn was composed during the Ur III period. 8. Considering the hypothesis of historical allusions as recontructions of events described in original royal inscriptions available to Old Babylonian scribes composing hymns in praise of Ur III kings (see above), this hypothesis seems supported by the fact that Old Babylonian scribes frequently copied inscriptions of Old Akkadian and Ur III rulers found on monuments still in place. A closer look at available evidence is therefore necessary. As for Urnamma, there are Old Babylonian copies of Urnamma´s cadastre text (RIME 3/2 1.1.21), his law code (RIME 3/2 1.1.20; preserved in an Ur III manuscript as well), a copy of an inscription recording a campaign against Elam (RIME 3/2 1.1.29), and a fragmentary copy of a monumental inscription (RIME 3/2 1.1.1). All other known inscriptions of Urnamma are short building and votive inscriptions. In case of Šulgi, the situation is very similar. There are a few copies of Šulgi´s inscriptions about military campaings (RIME 3/2 1.2.35–37), a ‘copy’ of a bogus Šulgi stele inscription in syllabic Sumerian and Akkadian (RIME 3/2 1.2.38),18 and a copy of a likely statue inscription, conventionally categorized as hymn Šulgi V (RIME 3/2 1.2.54; SRT 13), whose subject matter is basically the same as of Šulgi A, composed in the Ur III period. Apart from that, there is again a number of short building and votive inscriptions (also of members of Šulgi´s family) preserved either in Ur III originals or in Old Babylonian copies (e.g. RIME 3/2 1.2.81, 1.2.84, 1.2.2049–2059). These texts are hardly suitable for use as sources of hymnal narratives. If all the above texts are compared with extant copies of hymns to both kings there is no indication that the latter were built on information gathered from the former. Significantly, the situation is quite different in case of Old Akkadian rulers and Ur III king Š¥suõen. There is a wealth of Old Babylonian copies of inscriptions commissioned particularly by Sargon and Narªmsuõen (see texts in sections 1.1 and 1.4 of RIME 2). But there are no hymns to Old Akkadian kings. Even more importantly, Old Babylonian copies of monumental inscriptions of Šulgi´s second successor Š¥suõen (RIME 3/2 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.7, 1.4.8, 1.4.9) are very informative concerning Š¥suõen´s military exploits and cultic deeds. But extant poems in praise of Š¥suõen do not contain any of that. They are either short liturgical 18

See Schaudig (2003), p. 481, n. 189.

18

hymns or love songs.19 Thus, the evidence shows a remarkable pattern: Urnamma and Šulgi – a few Old Babylonian copies of not very informative royal inscriptions vs. a vast body of royal hymns with extensive narrative sections; Old Akkadian kings and Š¥suõen – a number of Old Babylonian copies of extensive and informative royal inscriptions vs. either no or a few short royal hymns. This means: a) that Old Babylonian scribes did not have the sources from which they could reconstruct details of historical events alluded to in extant copies of the hymns to Urnamma and Šulgi (for details of royal ideology see points 4. and 5. above); b) that while they had plenty of such sources for Sargonic kings and Š¥suõen, they used that data neither to compose any hymns in praise of the famous Sargonic kings, nor to incorporate historical allusions into their hymns in praise of Š¥suõen. This speaks in favour of the Ur III dating of composition of royal hymns glorifying Ur III kings. The above points show that the present author regards the Šulgi hymns as products of the Ur III period. Moreover, it seems possible to argue for their origin in Šulgi´s time proper. It is unlikely that they were composed during the rather short reign of Amarsuõena, for this would mean that while not commissioning a single hymn in praise of himself, Amarsuõena commissioned dozens of elaborate pieces concerned with the legitimacy, royal ideology, divine kingship, etc., of his predecessor.20 It is likewise unlikely that they were composed in the reign of Š¥suõen, for this king´s ideology and politics aimed at promoting his and only his divine persona, as confirmed both by Ur III sources and Old Babylonian copies of his hymns and inscriptions. An idea that Š¥suõen had the scribes create much more and much longer hymns – in addition containing a different ideological outlook – in praise of Šulgi than in praise of himself simply does not correspond to what is currently known about this king. Finally, it is also unlikely that the Šulgi hymns originated in the reign of Ibb‰suõen who shortly after his accession faced a grave crisis of the Ur III economy and subsequently witnessed a gradual shrinkage of his kingdom until the end of his reign which at the same time meant the end of the dynasty. It does not seem possible to me that Ibb‰suõen could have become a

19 Belonging to the latter category, Š¥suõen A, for example, contains the names of the king´s mother and wife, otherwise known only from Ur III administrative sources. 20 There is only one Sumerian narrative mentioning Amarsuõena (Amarsuõena A) which, however, must have been composed after the king´s death (perhaps by order of Š¥suõen), because it does not praise Amarsuõena but denigrates him.

19

patron of grandiose literature in praise of Šulgi in such circumstances. He merely managed to commission a few hymns in praise of himself. Following the discussion of the date of composition of the Šulgi hymns, a few words must be said about my understanding of their Sitz im Leben in the Ur III period. It is based on what the hymns themselves have to say. Šulgi B relates that the king founded two scribal schools in Ur and Nippur where scribes should have copied the hymns while singers should have performed them (ll. 308–14; Šulgi E, ll. 249–51). Actually, the singers should have performed them not in the schools but rather in temples, particularly of Enlil and Nanna, as hymn Šulgi E tells us (ll. 57–62, 252–7). While this no doubt applies to hymns containing liturgical rubrics and subscripts, large narrative compositions like Šulgi D+X are more likely to have been employed in the cult of the king himself and in the course of court ceremonies and major festivities. However, this is a tentative suggestion, for very little is known about Ur III cult of a living king and court ceremonial. In any case, the hymns were composed by royal scholars primarily to praise the king (Šulgi E, ll. 15–22), and thereby to disseminate his propaganda. Their place was in the school and in the temple, institutions of paramount importance. Temples were pillars of social and economic order and it does not surprise that the king had texts about his care for the welfare of the temples sung in them, apparently to constantly remind the priests of his untiring efforts to maintain that order, and thereby the social and economic status of clergy. The state-sponsored academies were places where Ur III scholars and administrators received their education and by having these people study, copy and memorize his hymns (and likely also other ideological pieces such as the Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš tales) Šulgi molded the minds of the educated élite right from the start of their career. Hymnal passages about the transmission of the Šulgi hymns in schools seem to show that the king generally preferred elaborate hymns inscribed on clay tablets to large royal inscriptions inscribed on stone and other monuments as the medium of his royal propaganda.21 This idea seems supported by the scarcity of Old Babylonian copies of his inscriptions on monuments compared to the abundance of copies of Š¥suõen´s monumental inscriptions. Further, the Šulgi hymns do not seem to have ever been inscribed on monuments (Šulgi V is rather a copy of a royal inscription and while its topic is essentially the same as that of Šulgi A, the text is different). If they were, the Old 21

Of course, this is not to say that Šulgi did not commission any statues of himself, for example. Their existence is well attested (BWAth 6 p. 45 6 [Š40-08-05], rev. l. 4; TCL 2 5501 [Š47-02-22], obv. ii ll. 9, 24; Suter 1991–1993).

20

Babylonian copies would contain colophones indicating the original source (e.g. statue, stele), as they nearly always do in case of inscriptions of Old Akkadian rulers and king Š¥suõen. Thus, Šulgi seems to have introduced a cheap, fast and efficient alternative of traditional self-representation (abandoned by the time of Š¥suõen at the latest, however). By having ‘the scribe step to the singer and let him look at it (i.e. the hymn), … let him sing it like from a lapis-lazuli tablet’ (Šulgi E, ll. 249–51), his royal ideology could be spread from the Nippur and Ur academies to cultic institutions, and perhaps even élite residences,22 throughout the land without much effort. I.2.3) Preliminaries on Identifying Historical Allusions in the Šulgi Hymns The corpus of royal praise poetry pertaining to Šulgi was in the past decades indiscriminately used as a source of information about the history of his reign, due to an overly optimistic understanding of the correlations of some hymnal statements with Ur III sources. More recently, a cautious stand to historical allusions in royal hymns has been taken. It has been shown that the number of undisputed correlations is quite small and that attempts to find other historical correlations or even allusions without a correlation in Ur III sources were often arbitrary. Indeed, the search for historical data in royal praise poetry is a difficult task and two full chapters of this thesis are devoted to both a theoretical analysis of the problems involved in this undertaking and a practical demonstration of historical information which can actually be elicited from the Šulgi praise poetry. As will be shown in detail later in the thesis, attempts to find historical allusions in every piece of Sumerian myth and epic on the assumption that those compositions are allegories hiding historical events behind the deeds of gods, legendary figures and the like are unproductive. The basic assumption does not have support in the texts which actually often prove its invalitidy. Therefore, it currently seems possible to understand myths and epics only as pieces of religious and ideological literature which may have originated as tools for justification of an ideological scheme (e.g. the Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš poems). If those texts do contain allusions to specific historical events, theoretical tools for decoding them are currently lacking.

22 Note that statues, and thus also some form of the cult, of the deified Ur III king are known to have been installed in private residences of notable officials (like the sukkal-ma‹). Yet, available evidence comes only from the reign of Š¥suõen (MVN 5 123 [ŠS01-09-22], obv. l. 15–rev. l. 8; SACT 1 172 [ŠS01], obv. l. 12). As for Šulgi, there is to date only a single piece of evidence of his worship in private, an Old Babylonian copy of a statue inscription commissioned by his wife Eaniša (RIME 3/2 1.2.81).

21

However, the situation with royal praise poetry is different. Royal hymns refer to well-known historical rulers and at times to events confirmed in contemporary historical texts. Historical events alluded to in the hymns are usually covered in some detail and with context. Nevertheless, the literary features of the hymns, such as the use of ideal kingship topoi, call for due caution in distinguishing what is a historical allusion and what is a literary device. In the case of the Šulgi hymns the task of isolating literary topoi is facilitated by the fact that the hymns´ authors invariably chose topoi from a traditional reservoir of these devices, even though slightly modified to fit the ideological outlook of the Šulgi era. It must be emphasized here, however, that while isolating the topoi of ideal kingship is imperative in the search for historical allusions, these topoi, their particular combinations and their traceable changes in texts commissioned by various kings are invaluable in themselves as sources of information on the royal ideology of different rulers, as will also be shown later in this dissertation. Still, the search for historical allusions in Sumerian royal praise poetry clearly needs a methodological basis which would diminish the apparent arbitrariness in stating what is a historical allusion and what is not. Simple isolation of literary topoi and subsequent guessing at historical allusions is clearly not enough. A method will be suggested later in the thesis and only briefly summarized here. It is based on the premise that the Šulgi hymns constitute a corpus of propagandistic literature. As such, they by definition contain stock-phrases (the topoi of ideal kingship) and historical allusions, similarly to other propagandistic texts, ancient and modern. Specifically the propaganda of deified (or nearly so) rulers makes frequent use of both categories to create an image of the superhuman hero on the one hand, and on the other hand to connect the god-king to the mundane reality known by the audience; in other words, to praise the real results of his superhuman (i.e. unreal) abilities. The Šulgi hymns as literary propaganda of a god-king can thus be compared with a literary propaganda of another ‘divine’ ruler who must have reigned in a period replete with correlating historical sources, so that the findings would be fruitful. A juxtaposition of statements from literature and contemporary historical sources from the time of the latter ruler will reveal patterns of incorporating historical allusions into propagandistic texts. The results can subsequently be applied to the Šulgi hymns to allow a more secure differentiation of history from propaganda. Following the methodological considerations touched upon above it will be attempted to analyse the historical background and allusions in those pieces of the Šulgi

22

hymnal repertoire which are informative enough to allow the conjecture of the presence of references to historical events or a contextual relationship to them. Also those texts which were said to contain historical data in previous studies of historical allusions in Sumerian royal hymns will be included. All this will bring the discussion of the search for history in the praise poems of Šulgi up-to-date. I.3) Conventions of Referring to Primary Sources Quoted All primary sources are referred to by their commonly accepted ID. References are included in the main text immediately following the quotation or discussion. The date of quoted administrative texts is given in the format [yy-mm-dd]. If a text is not dated/the date destroyed, no information concerning date is given. If month or day part of the date is not preserved/not written that part has been left out. If the year info is missing, the date is not given. I adopted these conventions because text references in this thesis generally serve as examples and complete information on every slot of the date and/or the state of its preservation on the tablet is not of crucial importance here. This applies especially to primary sources referred to in the discussion of year names, in which case the date of quoted texts is usually not given at all because the year is selfevident and at the same time represents the only part of the date relevant to the discussion. I have included all attestations of a year name I was able to find for the early years of Šulgi, while for later years – with hundreds to thousands of attestations – I opted for quotation of three representative examples typically from major provinces – Ëirsu, Umma, Ur; if unattested or not usable for the discussion, Drēhim texts are referred to instead – depending on the form of the year name discussed (full or abbreviated). As for the literary texts quoted, the dating of their respective copies is a complicated issue. Almost all of them originated in Old Babylonian school milieu. While it would be quite helpful to know the date of origin of those copies to establish which one is the oldest, and thereby perhaps the closest to the version of the given text current in the Ur III period, the exercise tablets bearing the texts in question are not dated. Even though some of those tablets can be dated on the basis of archaeological context in which they were found – e.g. 17 duplicates of hymn Šulgi A and 17 duplicates of hymn Šulgi B from ‘House F’ in Nippur come from the 1740s, i.e. from early in the reign of

23

Samsuiluna23 – these represent a minority. Many tablets are of unknown provenance, and attempts at dating them would be pure guesswork, even if one tries to employ paleographic and/or orthographic criteria. While paleographic criteria may be useful for dating texts from certain text groups and periods, I do not believe that Sumerian literary texts pertaining to Šulgi can be dated more precisely on paleographic grounds within the relatively short time span of the Old Babylonian period. The origin of the tablets these texts are written on must be taken into account here. Those tablets were written by schoolboys of varying level of proficiency in cuneiform writing. Therefore, individual manuscripts exhibit a wide range of variants in sign forms apparently caused by factors such as the level of advancement of the writer in his schooling, memory errors (e.g. omission of a wedge or addition thereof in some complex signs), etc., making a paleographic evaluation of the manuscripts virtually impossible. Similar reservations also apply when it comes to the usage of old orthography in the case of several Šulgi hymns (most prominently D+X). While I believe that this usage indicates attempts of Old Babylonian scribes to transmit the compositions in their (more or less) original form, this tells nothing about the time of origin of individual duplicates, for old orthography could have been used equally well by scribes working under Išmedagªn or Samsuiluna if it was an integral part of the given text´s traditional way of transmission. Thus I did not attempt to date individual manuscripts of the Šulgi hymns (and other relevant literature), for I feel that the limits imposed by the material itself and the circumstances of its discovery are at present impossible to overcome.

23

See Robson (2001), pp. 40, 53–4.

24

Chapter II: Šulgi´s Background and Family II.1) Urnamma: The Father II.1.1) An Outline of Urnamma´s Origin and Rise to Power Šulgi´s father Urnamma (2112–2095) belongs among the most important figures of early Mesopotamian history, since with him began an epoch of prosperity, welfare and order embedded in a firm frame of a new territorial state uniting Babylonia for the last time in the third millennium. This era lasted almost a hundred years and was terminated by protracted internal problems as well as by sustained pressure from various neighbouring peoples. What will concern me here, however, is Urnamma´s role in its creation, formation and maintenance. Urnamma founded the last great Mesopotamian dynasty of the third millennium which is generally called, according to its placement in the Sumerian King List,24 the Third Dynasty of Ur (or in a more abbreviated form Ur III, 2112–2004).25 Unfortunately, scholarship has at its disposal piteously little information on his rise to power, deeds and death. The crucial events of his life and reign are covered with a dense fog from which only a faint image of the founder of the new royal house can emerge. His relationship to the Urukean royal family and more specifically to its head Utu‹eëal (the only member of the Fifth Dynasty of Uruk, 2119–2113), who had delivered a fateful blow at the Gutian hordes in southern Babylonia and afterwards claimed hegemony over substantial part of Mesopotamia, is indeed very likely. However, the precise nature of this relationship can hardly be established. Claus Wilcke is convinced that Urnamma was Utu‹eëal´s brother26 and that following the death of the latter he seized power on the basis of their kinship. There are also rather obscure

24

Editio princeps Jacobsen (1939). The most recent edition based on manuscript G of the list and a complex study of the composition can be found in Glassner (2004). 25 For a general survey of history and organization of the Ur III state see in particular Sallaberger (1999). Cf. Edzard (1965); Gadd (1965); Hallo (1998b); Postgate (1992), pp. 41–3; Steinkeller (1992b); Kuhrt (1995/1), pp. 56–73; Edzard (2004), pp. 96–106; Van De Mieroop (2004), pp. 69–79. 26 Wilcke (1974), p. 180 and n. 67. It should be noted here that his view is in spite of occassional challenges taken as valid by the majority of scholars and although based on somewhat precarious evidence it looks very plausible indeed. The most recent edition of the inscription seemingly testifying to this relationship is RIME 2 13.6.2001. However, a remark by Becker (1985), p. 302, n. 286, is very interesting in this context: ‘Aber dürften wir – bei der häufigen Erwähnung Uruks in zeitgenössischen Quellen – nicht irgendeinen Hinweis auf die Verwandschaft erwarten, falls es sie gäbe?’ See further the discussion below, p. 28. Wilcke consequently reiterated the assumption of brotherhood between the two kings several times (1988a, p. 119; 1989, p. 566; 1993, p. 32). Cf. also J. Cooper (1993a), p. 20, n. 43.

25

indications that Urnamma could have been Utu‹eëal´s son, and late tradition mentions him also as a son-in-law of the Urukean ruler (SpTU 1 2).27 At any rate Urnamma´s career began at Ur where Utu‹eëal had appointed him a šagina (general) responsible for military affairs in the city and its vicinity. Considering the records reporting quarrels between Ur and Lagaš about the border region separating these two ‘former’ city-states (RIME 2 13.6.1, 13.6.3), one may presume that Urnamma did not pursue his master´s policy but tried to create his own power base. This he apparently did at the expense of the most prosperous and influential city-state of Sumer which in the preceding period of disintegration after the fall of Akkad exercised control over the southeastern part of Sumer and was among the candidates to attain hegemony over the whole of Babylonia. The conflict between the ‘man of Ur’ (RIME 2 13.6.1, 13.6.3, l. 7)28 and the Lagašite representation had to be settled by Utu‹eëal himself in the role of an overlord ‘arbiter’. He decided in favour of Lagaš, which may indicate his attempts to pacify his aggressive general of Ur. Yet despite Utu‹eëal´s efforts to gain a prominent position in southern Babylonia, e.g. by adopting the ambitious royal title introduced by Narªmsuõen (2254–2218): ‘king of the four quarters (of the world)’,29 his reign was short lived30 allowing his relative from Ur to continue his quest for hegemony unhindered by interventions from an overlord. However, to become the undisputed ruler of Babylonia, Urnamma must have gained the consent of other city-states to become parts of his kingdom. Unfortunately, it is presently impossible to trace in the available sources the measures he adopted to achieve this. Nevertheless, it is at least possible to say that the struggle for hegemony seems to have taken a long time, for the latter part of the reign of the Lagašite ruler Gudea and the reigns of his successors probably overlapped with the early years of the Ur III dynasty well into the years 10/11 of Šulgi´s reign. This seems to be indicated not only 27 For Urnamma as a son of Utu‹eëal see Sigrist (1992), p. 4. For an account of the late tradition see Wilcke (1982), p. 143–4. Wilcke tried to amend Hunger´s (1976, p. 19) reading of the crucial line (no. 10) as follows: [I]ƒŠul-gi mªr(DUMU) mªrti(DUMU.MÍ) šá IƒUtu-‹é-en-ëál šàr Uruk[†], ‘Šulgi, son of a daughter of Utu‹eëal, king of Uruk’. Hunger read: [x] ƒŠul-gi mªra mªrta(DUMU.MÍ) šá mƒUtu-‹é-en-ëál šàr Uru[k†]…, ‘Šulgi, … a son and a daughter of Utu‹eëal, king of Uruk’. Although both readings are possible with respect to the logographic writing of the words for son and daughter, Wilcke has shown that the context and grammar of the following lines necessitate the first possibility. Hence, it can be taken as certain that this late chronicle contains a tradition that Urnamma was Utu‹eëal´s son-in-law. See also Glassner (2004), pp. 288–9 with n. 22. Assuming that Urnamma was also Utu‹eëal´s brother, this would imply that he married his niece Watartum (see section II.2). For another late chronicle fragment partly duplicating ll. 3–4 and 6–7 of the text edited by Hunger see Leichty and Walker (2004), pp. 203–5. 28 It is generally assumed that this designation stands for Urnamma. 29 lugal-an-ub-da-limmu -ba/šar kibrªtim arbaõim. See, for instance, Hallo (1957), pp. 52 and 152. 2 30 According to the Sumerian King List Utu‹eëal ruled only seven years, six months and fifteen days. See Jacobsen (1939), pp. 12, 120–1 and 202.

26

by col. ii ll. 75–8 of the Urnamma law code now interpreted as ‘I promoted [-íl] Nam‹ani (to be) the governor of Lagaš’ (meaning that the last documented ruler of the Lagaš II dynasty should have been established as a provinicial governor by Urnamma),31 but significantly also by a group of administrative texts showing that at least three officials were involved in the Lagaš administration from the latter part of Gudea´s reign until the years Š10/11, as has been demonstrated by Piotr Steinkeller.32 The three officials were Bazige (ITT 4 7560 [GU16?-01], obv. l. 3; ITT 4 7627 [Š10-10], obv. l. 5), Urëa (ITT 4 7533 [GU16?-04], obv. l. 7; ITT 4 8093 [Š11], rev. l. 1) and Lugalegide (RTC 199 [GU16?], rev. l. 4´; ITT 5 6738 [Š10-11], rev. l. 5). This means that if the Lagaš II dynasty disappeared with the rise of Urnamma, there must have been a gap of roughly 13 years between the first appearance of the three administrators and the beginning of Urnamma´s reign. If his eighteen years long reign is added plus the ten/eleven years of Šulgi (up to the last attestation of Bazige, Urëa and Lugalegide, respectively), one would note that the careers of Bazige, Urëa and Lugalegide must have spanned about forty years, which is extremely unlikely. Thus, the above evidence seems to strongly support the hypothesis of an overlap between the two dynasties. Yet, the internal chronology of the Lagaš II dynasty, including such essentials like the exact number of rulers, the length of their reigns, the precise attribution and ordering of year names thought to belong to that dynasty´s monarchs, etc., is still uncertain,33 which makes attempts to establish a relative chronology between the Lagaš II and Ur III dynasties difficult. However, one thing is regarding early Ur III history is certain. If Urnamma wanted to claim broader hegemony, he had to somehow legitimize his position, which is to be discussed in the next section. II.1.2) An Outline of Urnamma´s Ideological Concepts and Policy Urnamma´s way of legitimizing his power was essentially of three kinds. First, he adopted a policy emphasizing that his rule had come from Uruk (i.e. from the seat of Utu‹eëal, the deceased victor over the Gutians), which remained a policy of his immediate successor. He adorned himself with the ancient title en-unu†-ga, ‘lord of Uruk’ (Urnamma 10, l. 7; Urnamma 34, l. 5). Whereas his Urukean predecessor never used this designation, to Urnamma it guaranteed at least the highest cultic post in the

See Frayne (1997b), p. 47. These lines were previously interpreted as ‘I defeated [-ug5] Nam‹ani, the governor of Lagaš’. See Edzard (1997), p. 194. 32 Steinkeller (1988), especially pp. 48–50. 33 See the discussion in Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 2–5 with references. Cf. also Frayne (1997b), p. 9. 31

27

city and consequently also divine confirmation as the legitimate successor of Utu‹eëal. Further, Urnamma followed the strategy of Old Sumerian rulers Enšakušana, Lugalkiginedudu, Lugalkisalsi and also of the well-known adversaries Lugalzagesi of Umma (2340–2316) and Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279) by simultaneously assuming the title lugal-uri2/5†-ma, ‘king of Ur’. As a result, the dynastic and administrative union of these two city-states under the rule of one sovereign was revived. This pattern served perfectly Urnamma´s purpose of legitimation because a direct link to the Fifth Dynasty of Uruk was of concern here,34 for Urnamma´s claims could have hardly been acknowledged by the Nippur clergy without it.35 The Urukean origin of dynastic legitimacy was additionally transferred to the divine sphere by claiming that the legendary deified king of that city Lugalbanda was Urnamma´s father and the goddess Ninsun (or Ninsumun), Lugalbanda´s consort, his mother, whereas the natural parents of Urnamma were never mentioned. Thus, Urnamma came to indisputable power over Uruk and embodied all outstanding features of a Sumerian monarch just like Gilgameš, the fabulous son of the above-mentioned deities, now believed to be his brother. This ideological image no doubt strengthened Urnamma´s position and on that basis he could afterwards claim to govern the whole of Babylonia. Second, the way to the recognition of his legitimacy in Nippur, i.e. to the official and divinely ordained justification of his right to rule Babylonia, led through a theological speculation, the result of which was the perception of the city god of Ur, Nanna/Suõen, as dumu-saë-ƒen-líl-lá, ‘the first-born son of Enlil’. Although the moon-god was a son of Enlil and Ninlil already according to the Ab¥ &alªb‰kh tradition (IAS 114 i, ll. 14–16), the view of Nanna´s status as their first-born son is attested for the first time in Urnamma´s texts and its purpose is quite obvious (Urnamma 10, ll. 2–3, etc.).36 It showed that the deity of Ur was a legitimate heir of Enlil, the head of Sumerian divine executive seated in the national sanctuary at Nippur, and thereby secured Enlil´s (or in 34 Becker (1985), p. 302: ‘Es ist aber ebenso gut möglich, daß Urnammu seine Legitimation im Anschluß an Utu‹egals Regierung suchte, und daß alle Uruk-Anspielungen nicht Ausdruck der Familienehre sind, sondern Ausdruck eines Legitimationsversuches auf breiter Ebene.’ 35 Ibid.: ‘Urnammu konnte – als Usurpator – seine Anerkennung nicht gleich zu Anfang in der Kultmetropole Nippur erhalten, sondern mußte sie zunächst im Anschluß an die vorausgegangene Dynastie in Uruk suchen.’ The extraordinary importance which Urnamma attributed to the accentuation of his ties with Uruk, whatever they might have been, is eloquently reflected by the fact that he retained the title en-unu†-ga, although one of his sons had become the en of the goddess Inana in that city. Cf. for instance Sollberger (1954–1956), p. 11: mu en ƒinana unug†-a dumu ur-ƒnamma lugal-a maš-e ba-pàd-da (RTC 264, rev. ii l. 2´). Becker (1985), p. 302, n. 285: ‘Es ist bemerkenswert, daß der König den Titel “en von Uruk” trägt, während zur gleichen Zeit sein Sohn der en der Inanna in Uruk ist.’ 36 For the Ab¥ &alªb‰kh tradition see also Krebernik (1993–1997), p. 364. For editions of the Urnamma inscriptions see Frayne (1997b), pp. 34–5, 39–43 and 63–4.

28

mundane terms, of Enlil´s priesthood) selection, designation and blessings to govern the whole territory of Sumer and Akkad for the earthly representative of Nanna, Urnamma of Ur.37 The vital significance of this concept for the Third Dynasty of Ur is apparent and it is hardly surprising that it was developed not only in the texts of Urnamma himself but also of his successor Šulgi, who consolidated this paradigm with an overall reorganization and solidification of theological patterns in favour of the dynasty. The chronological limitation of this concept is evidenced by the fact that the notion gradually lost favour after the fall of the Ur III state and the epithet ‘Enlil´s first-born son’ was henceforth reserved for the Nippurian god Ninurta.38 Finally, the third way of legitimizing his claims for hegemony was Urnamma´s practical policy fitting the image of an ideal ruler. Fortunately, there are some historical sources in this case. These are in particular royal inscriptions, date formulae of the king´s eighteen years long reign, the precise sequence of which is however still uncertain and which moreover are known only partially, and texts usually labeled as Urnamma´s cadastre and Urnamma´s law-code.39 Since some of the activities mentioned in the hymns praising this monarch correlate with pertinent royal inscriptions and other above-mentioned sources, it is possible to consider a few of them a relatively trustworthy source of information, at least as regards the most important deeds.40 It is sometimes also possible to employ certain archaelogical data in the historical narrative. Urnamma was on the mundane level particularly interested in the restoration of the sources of Sumer´s wealth, i.e. all types of agricultural production, which had apparently been neglected during the preceding period of disorder. To reassure a new growth of productivity and thus also the welfare of the temples and people, he cared right from the outset for the proper layout and functioning of the irrigation system. This can be seen as a trigger of his real surge to power. Although the construction of new irrigation canals, dikes or basins and the drying-out of marshes was limited above all to the city of Ur and its surroundings, it was so broad and intense that no other Ur III king had to take such measures. The monarch paid considerable attention also to trade and leastwise 37

See Klein (2001), pp. 279–301. Annus (2002), pp. 17–18. 39 For royal inscriptions, Urnamma´s cadastre and law-code see most recently RIME 3/2 1.1; 1.1.21, 1.1.20, without edition of individual laws, and passim. For the most up-to-date English translation of the law-code see Roth (1995), pp. 13–22. Cf. Finkelstein (1969). There is an Ur III manuscript of the lawcode in the Schøyen collection proving that the code was promulgated during Urnamma´s reign. For the latest discussion and an attempt at a reconstruction of this text see Wilcke (2002). For Urnamma´s cadastre see also Kraus (1955). For the date formulae see Sigrist and Gomi (1991), pp. 319–20. Cf. again Frayne (1997b), pp. 10–20, and Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, sub Urnamma. 40 For the time being see Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 29–40, with previous literature. A detailed discussion of the correlation issue is to be found in chapters IV and V. 38

29

riverine traffic because Ur was at that time the most important port of Sumer. Further, Urnamma purportedly secured the development of distance trade by setting right and safeguarding of the roads as attested in one of the date formulae.41 However, Gudea of Lagaš claimed to have done the same at the same time – if one adopts the hypothesis of the Lagaš II–Ur III overlap – (St. B v ll. 21–7).42 Unfortunately, the lack of additional evidence makes it impossible to decide whether these statements are to be taken only as stock phrases used to claim control of vast areas within the Mesopotamian heartland for the respective ruler, or if they indicate an actual building and administrative activity of both monarchs, either as rivals or as collaborators, as some scholars have suggested.43 As for similar statements in the Šulgi material (see below), there is more evidence suggesting that in his case the ‘putting of the roads in order’ was not just a cliché (year names of Š6/7; the detailed description of Šulgi´s activity and additional infrastructure along the new roads; hymn Šulgi V, likely a copy of a statue inscription covering the same topic). Urnamma´s care for justice and law is documented by the already mentioned lawcode. In this oldest Ancient Near Eastern collection of legal articles Urnamma relates his deeds in favour of the population, his care for the weak, widows and orphans, but also his appointment of overseers keeping an eye on boatsmen and shepherds, as well as his assignment of firm values to some measures and weights. This image is supplemented by Urnamma´s cadastre which reflects at least partial imposition of administrative order in the division of the country. As regards the rich building activities of this ruler, they were of course centered exclusively on restoration and construction of temples or their ramparts (apart from digging of irrigation canals etc., discussed above). This had given him the favour of deities and thus he became the legitimate ruler in the eyes of clergy as well as the people because the maintenance of the gods´ welfare in return for bestowing the power on him was by far the most important duty of a rightful king.44 Also the planting of orchards (attested in the building inscriptions) and closely associated deliveries of various kinds of offerings about which the monarch was very particular (leastwise according to the hymns) can be added.45 mu ur-ƒnamma lugal-e sig-ta igi-nim-šè ëiri3 si bí-sá-a (RTC 261–3; ITT 4 7983, rev. l. 9): ‘The year (when) king Urnamma put in order the roads from below to above.’ 42 u é ƒnin-ëír-su-ka/mu-dù-a/ƒnin-ëír-su/lugal ki-áë-ga-ni-e/a-ab-ba igi-nim-ta/a-ab-ba sig-ga-šè/ëiri -bi 4 3 ëál mu-na-tag4. See Edzard (1997), p. 33. 43 See e.g. Steinkeller (1988), p. 53 with n. 22, for the hypothesis that the ‘opening of roads’ for trade could have been a common undertaking of Gudea and Urnamma. 44 For a complete survey of Urnamma´s building activity see Sallaberger (1999), pp. 137–9. 45 Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 30–1. 41

30

Military actions led by Urnamma against neighbouring areas were of crucial importance not only for him and the consolidation of his legitimacy but also for the future of the Ur III state as such. Royal hymns tell about his role as a military leader in general terms (hymns A and C), about his gathering the troops in defence of the country (hymn C), about victories of the Ur army over the foreign ranks (hymns B and F) and also about concrete actions against the embodiment of all evil, the Gutians (hymn C), the complete destruction of whom Urnamma proudly declares.46 This certainly served even more strongly the purpose of justification of his claims for hegemony over Babylonia. It is noteworthy that the fight against the Gutians linked Urnamma once again with the legacy of the Urukean royal lineage because by further making war on this people he followed his predecessor Utu‹eëal most clearly.47 Other military encounters took place in the area along the Diyala river in north-eastern Babylonia where Urnamma defeated the Elamites with their leader Puzur(Kutik)-Inšušinak. Moreover, he also claimed to have liberated numerous places suffering under the yoke of the eastern principality of Anšan.48 Hence foundations were laid for a lasting control of the northeastern border of the state and for control of the trade routes leading through that area as well as of the vital water-courses. It may be assumed that Urnamma´s military achievements are to a certain degree reflected in his cadastre text. Following all the above-mentioned deeds, the ruler of Ur and its vicinity assumed some time towards the end of his reign a brand new, special royal title lugal ki-en-gi kiuri, ‘king of Sumer and Akkad’49 apparently testifying to the extent of his domain which at that time must have been undisputed. However, Urnamma never used the proud designation (i.e. ‘king of the four quarters’) of his predecessors.50 46

Civil (1985), pp. 27–32. Hallo (1957–1971), p. 715. Although the exact extent and intensity of the king´s struggle with the Gutians is unknown, it is most probable that he really found himself in some skirmishes with them prior to his coronation as ‘king of Sumer and Akkad’. There is no reason to assume that relevant statements of the hymns are fictitious altogether, though it has to be kept in mind that they are certainly exaggerated. 48 These two events might in fact have been one and the same. They are documented in the ‘historical’ section of the prologue to Urnamma´s law-code (RIME 3/2 1.1.20). The domiciles liberated by the king are the following: u4-ba/ummaki/már-daki ËÍR-kalki/ka-za-luki/ù maš-kán-bi/ú-%a-ru-umki/níë an-š[a]-ankia nam-ìr ‹é-eb-ak-e/á-ƒnanna/lugal-ëá-ta/ama-ar-gi4-bi/‹u-mu-ëar/: ‘Then I liberated by force of my king Nanna Umma, Marad, ËIRkal, Kazallu with its hamlets and U%arum, subjugated by Anšan.’ It is supposed that Akšak should stand for Umma. The battle against the Elamites seems to be evidenced further by an incomplete Old Babylonian text from Isin enumerating towns and areas of Awal, Kismar, Maškanšarrum, Ešnuna, Tutub, Zimudar and Akkad that have thus probably fallen within the sphere of Urnamma´s influence (RIME 3/2 1.1.29). 49 Hallo (1957), pp. 77–88. Cf. Sallaberger (1999), p. 134; Becker (1985), p. 301. 50 The only exception to the rule is found in Urnamma´s hymn D (the ‘coronation’ hymn). See Hallo (1966), pp. 33–41, and Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 228–59. But cf. an important analysis of individual versions of this hymn by Tinney (1999b), pp. 31–54, showing that the coronation rhetoric, including this title, was added to the composition by Old Babylonian scribes for educational purposes. 47

31

Generally, the available evidence suggests that Urnamma´s reign was a rather peaceful period of formation of a strong state able to persist and resist possible attacks on the part of aggressive neighbours.51 Urnamma arrived at his state-constructive success in particular because of immense focus on the restoration of Sumer´s religious institutions, the flawless function of which was always a necessary precondition for the blossoming of any other area of public life. The monarch cared for the cult places of all significant deities of the national as well as local pantheons. Most important in this regard was his reconstruction of the Ekur, the main temple of the god Enlil at Nippur, which helped him gain an unshakeable power status.52 He even enriched the sacred achitecture with the ‘classical’ form of the threestage ziggurrat (though the original model of stepped temple dates back to the Ubaid period). The remains of such a building are still visible only in the capital of the state. Perhaps I shall note here that this concept of monumental temple building need not have had religious purpose only, because such a conspicuous structure reminded anyone of the significance of the city in which it stood. Typically, the ziggurrats were built in Urnamma´s times at key cities of the state connected both with the roots of the dynasty and its aspirations (Uruk, Ur, Nippur).53 As regards the king´s activities in the economic sphere, the already mentioned construction of the irrigation apparatus was of crucial importance. Thus, Urnamma laid solid foundations for the future development of state economy besides other precautions like a certain standardization of measures and weights. There are also indications that he initiated a ‘scribal reform’ meant to unify the procedures of state administration and the layout of archival texts, although the early administrative practice of the Ur III period is still poorly understood.54 The ruler´s care for infrastructure is evidenced by his maintenance of well-functioning riverine and maritime navigation along with appropriate upkeep of the most important quays. It follows from the above that the founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur prepared for his successor an excellent basis for his own royal achievements and that Urnamma´s significance for the 51

To this end Urnamma led rather consolidating than expansive military campaigns. Hallo (1966), pp. 138–9: ‘… Ur-Nammu launched two great building programs, the irrigation projects around Ur and the reconstruction of the temples of Nippur. In consequence he was crowned “king of Sumer and Akkad” in a ceremony which symbolized and constituted the definitive transfer of national allegiance to the new dynasty.’ 53 This idea was expressed by Hans J. Nissen during his lecture ‘The Ziqqurrat as Architecture of Power’, held on 7th April 2003 in the Main Office Building of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague. 54 Waetzoldt (1991), p. 638: ‘Der Ausbau der Bürokratie begann m.E. bereits unter Urnammu, denn die “Schrift-reform” fand bereits unter Urnammu statt, nicht erst unter Šulgi, wie ich bei paläographischen Untersuchungen anhand von Lagaš-Texten der Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul feststellen konnte.’ 52

32

prosperity of the state must not be underestimated. Many of his policies were adopted and developed by Šulgi. II.1.3) Death of Urnamma The circumstances of Urnamma´s death as well as the accession of Šulgi himself are still very obscure. In this regard one is unfortunately dependent on the statements of hymnal literary texts pertaining to both kings. Although these compositions do contain historical allusions, the mining of them for historically reliable information is a complicated task. This is due to the very nature of these hymns of mythical-narrative type which reduced the king´s deeds to a set of standard patterns corresponding with an ideal or models according to which a situation was converted into a literary stereotype. Therefore, any historical interpretation of certain passages in these texts is to be done very carefully.55 The only source of information on Urnamma´s death known as yet is a composition labeled as Urnamma A but generally referred to as ‘Death of Urnamma’56 which is barely classifiable in the usual generic terms applied somewhat arbitrarily to various compositions of Mesopotamian literature. One cannot say it is a hymn, myth or lament in strict sense, though the text contains elements of all these genres. In the opinion of Samuel N. Kramer it is even possible to assign this composition to wisdom literature because of the ‘Job motif’ of human effort to explain an unjust injury at the hands of inscrutable deities.57 This interpretation is to a certain degree valid because Urnamma´s death was according to the text caused by a sudden change of fate which befell him in spite of his flawless conduct as to the provision of the gods as well as the people. However, the primary intention of the author58 seems to be purely the lamentation over the untimely death of Urnamma, an account of the role assigned to him in the 55 The most important incentives for understanding of royal hymns as possible sources of historical information sui generis with the assumption of their desired correlations with other extant textual material can be found in Hallo (1970), pp. 116–34, here pp. 118–9; Hallo (1966), p. 139; Hallo (1990), pp. 187–99, and Frayne (1981) discussing previous approaches and literature. 56 More recent editions of the composition are Castellino (1957) and (1959), pp. 131–2; Kramer (1967). A significant contribution to the reconstruction of the text is Wilcke (1970). Wilcke has devoted to this topic also his unpublished Habilitationsschrift (1972). Kramer turned to this piece once more with a revised edition (1991). The last and most complete edition so far has been offered by Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 93–182. 57 Kramer (1967), p. 104. 58 The authorship of this composition is sometimes ascribed to Urnamma´s widow. See particularly Wilcke (1970), p. 86: ‘Einen indirekten Hinweis auf den Verfasser dieses Textes finden wir am ehesten in der Klage Urnammu´s in der Unterwelt (Z. 155–196). Denn es ist zu erwarten, dass der Dichter Urnammu in diesem Abschnitt auf sein, des Dichters, Schicksal Bezug nehmen lässt. Die einzige Person, auf die Urnammu dort ausführlich zu sprechen kommt, ist aber seine Frau, deren trauriges Schicksal er beklagt. Ich nehme daher an, dass ÚT´ die Klage der verwitweten Königin um ihren Gemahl ist.’

33

netherworld, and a description of the impact of his demise on Sumer and its population.59 But what or who actually caused Urnamma´s death? The answer to this question is not an easy one, though the significance of such an answer for the right understanding of the accession and initial years of rule of Urnamma´s son Šulgi is obvious enough. According to an influential view Urnamma died on the battlefield60 but the sole source of information does not give the cause of his death explicitly because of damage and unintelligibility of crucial lines. The event has to be laboriously extracted from individual passages: 31

sipa kù-zu […] x A […] x á? n[u?-mu]-da-an-áë-e

32

mè š[en-šen-na?…] A SI. °A ba¿-da-°ab-TAB?-e?¿

33

lugal ka mud-ëál °ki¿-[e]n-gi-r[a me-te? unken-na]

34

ur-ƒnamma ka °mud-ëál¿ ki-en-[gi-ra me-t]e? unken-na

35

mas-su °ki-en-gi-ra-ke4?¿ [(…) ì/in]-nú dur11-ra-àm

36

šu-ni dab5-ba nu-mu-°un-dab5?¿ in-nú °dur11¿-ra-àm

37

°ëiri3¿-ni díb-ba nu-mu-un-da-°dib?¿ ì-nú °dur11¿-ra-àm

38

[…] °x x¿ IM °x¿ […SA]Ë?.ME ba-BU

39

sipa zi lug[al] UL4-gal ki-en-gi-ra-ke4

40

ur-ƒnamma lugal kalam-ma-ke4 é-sumur-ra ba-an-te

41

uri2†-ma im-te ur-ƒnamma é-zú-ra-a‹-°a x¿-ku4

42

saë(-)kù(-)ëál é-gal-a-na ì-nú

43

ur-ƒnamma lú eren2-e ki-áë-ëá gú nu-mu-un-da-zi-ge

44

igi(-)ëál kur-kur-ra ì-nú ëiš-lá-bi im-DU

… 47

ëiš

48

ëiš

49

ki-nú nitadam-a-°ni? ba?¿-[x (x)] °x x¿ u18-lu-da ba-da-dul

50

še[š]-°a¿-ni-da dam-a-ni-°gin7¿ gú-d[a?] àm-mi-ib-lá

taškarin-gin7 ki-tuš gir17-zal-°la¿-na GIN2 mu-ni-in-ëar-re-eš °eren¿ duru5-gin7 °é-gal¿-[(l)a n]ú-a mu-ni-in-bala-bala-e-ne

59

For a brief literary analysis and parallels in other compositions see Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 16–7. For a structural analysis and thematic division of the poem see ibid., pp. 93–7. An interesting comparison with ‘The Death of Gilgameš’ has been offered by Wilcke (1970), pp. 82 and 84. Indeed, ‘The Death of Gilgameš’ is so far the only other Sumerian composition relating the circumstances of death and burial of an important ruler. However, in the case of Urnamma the text deals with the demise of a certainly historical monarch, which is highly unusual, for the death of kings is in the realm of literature otherwise alluded to only in Akkadian omen texts. 60 See fn. 56 above for references and Wilcke (1974), p. 181. The demise of Mesopotamian rulers in general is the topic of Hallo (1991), here p. 157.

34

51

u4 °du11¿-ga-ni sá mu-ni-°ib?¿-du11 a-la-na ba-ra-è Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, pp. 106–9).61

31

The wise shepherd … does not give instructions?,

32

in? battle and fight… …

33

The king, advocate of Sumer, ornament of the assembly,

34

Urnamma, advocate of Sumer, ornament of the assembly,

35

the leader of Sumer (…) is lying and suffering.

36

With his hands which grasped, he did not grasp? (anything more). He is lying and suffering.

37

On his feet, which marched, he did not march (any more). He is lying and suffering.

38

… … was pulled out.

39

The righteous shepherd, king, … of Sumer,

40

Urnamma, king of the land, approached the ‘House of Fury’,

41

Urnamma approached Ur, he entered the ‘House of Teeth-grinding’.

42

The proud one is lying in his palace.

43

Urnamma, the beloved one of the troops, will not raise his neck again.

44

The one overseeing all the foreign countries is lying, the (deadly) silence fluttered down.

… 47

They attacked his splendid dwelling with axes like a box-tree.

48

They walk around him in? the palace where he has been lain like around a sappy cedar.

49

The couch; his consort… is covered with a storm.

50

It (i.e. the storm) embraced (the couch) like the spouse (embraces) her darling.

51

The days decreed for him expired, his exuberance vanished.

This extract directly relating the circumstances of Urnamma´s death represents the most important source for interpretation of this event in the whole text. Its fragmentary state

61 On p. 166 the author surmises that the expressions ‘House of Fury’ and ‘House of Teeth-grinding’ denote ‘rooms in the palace complex (line 42) where the residents were brought to die or to be laid out (in state)’. But it is also possible that these epithets are metaphors for the royal tomb (private communication Professor Andrew R. George), as well as the expression ‘his palace’ in l. 42. This seems supported by the reference to Urnamma´s grave as é-gal gibil, ‘The New Palace’, in an economic text (UET 3 76 i, l. 6´). See Michalowski (1977c), p. 221, n. 10.

35

and consequently the difficulty of its exegesis is obvious at first sight. Nevertheless, the expression for battle in the otherwise markedly damaged and unintelligible line 32 is clear. Although the context strongly suggests that Urnamma suffered a serious wound in the battle, it also suggests that he was subsequently transported to the capital and did not die on the battlefield itself. The other possibility is that lines 31 and 32 contain only a literary topos presenting the ruler as a resolute commander and master of warfare without any closer relationship to historical reality and that Urnamma may have died in consequence of a severe disease. But this is unlikely because of the rather unusual epithet used in line 43, which supports the idea of a military defeat, and above all by the fact that the enemy chased the king according to the text all the way to Ur. In favour of the theory of Urnamma´s military failure and his lethal injury testifies most significantly the role assigned to him in the netherworld:

136 ur-ƒnamma para10 gal kur-ra-ke4 mu-ni-ib-tuš-ù-ne 137 kur-ra ki-t[uš (…)] mu-na-ëá-ëá-ne 138 enim du11-ga ([…]) °ƒ¿ereš-ki-gal-la-ka-ta 139 eren2 ëištukul(-)°x¿ ([…]) en-na ba-ug5-ga 140 lu nam-da6-ga en-na ba-°zu?-x¿-a 141 lugal-la šu-ni-šè °im¿-ma-ab-sum-mu-ne Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, pp. 125–6). 136 They settle Urnamma down on the great seat of the netherworld, 137 they put in place the underworld dwelling (…) for him; 138 by the order (…) of Ereškigala 139 the troops, so far as they have been killed in arms (…) 140 and deliquents, so far as they have been recognized?, 141 they hand over into the hands of the king. Crucial lines 139 and 140 are damaged and their interpretation is therefore uncertain, nevertheless it is possible to rely on a shortened version of the text stemming from Susa:

111’ 139

lú ëištukul-la in-na ba-°šub¿-e

112’ 140

lú nam-da6-ga in-na ba-mud-e

36

Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, pp. 160–1). 111’ The armed men, so far as they have fallen, 112’ and deliquents, so far as they have been engendered. The fact that according to the composition Urnamma became after his descent to the netherworld the judge of soldiers killed in action is certainly an important indication of the cause of his death. The visible correspondence of both extant redactions of the passage excludes any accidentality of his supposed role in the underworld. The second group of the deceased that should have been handed over to him is with respect to Urnamma´s royal deeds equally interesting. The monarch should have judged criminals and sinners most likely because of his care for justice when still alive which is most eloquently documented by his law-code. Furthermore, Urnamma is in the hymns of his son Šulgi always referred to as a *lú-zi.d (or lú-si-sá), ‘The righteous; faithful; rightful; just one’. Maybe one encounters here an example of appreciation of the king´s earthly merits in a literary text thus further supporting the link of the preceding line to historical reality. Moreover, there is still another locus in ‘Urnamma´s Death’ seemingly referring to the ruler´s tragical fate:

58

a-[gin7 k]i-°lul¿-la ur-ƒnamma dug gaz-gin7 a-ba-ni-in-taka4-aš Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 111).

58

Thus they left Urnamma in the ‘Place of Treachery’ like a broken pot.

This verse was with certain reservations treated as an indication of betrayal in the ranks of the king´s army.62 However, its contemporary interpretation proceeds in a different direction.63 Clearly, the ki-lul-la was associated with judgement and the netherworld. The

62 Kramer (1967), p. 104 with n. 6 and p. 121. In his later article (1991), p. 195, Kramer modified this interpretation: ‘… and there were even those who came up arrogantly to Ur-Nammu as he lay abandoned on the battlefield and said unfeelingly that the death and mourning of Ur-Nammu was no concern of theirs.’ And on p. 212: ‘The difficult and rather fragmentary lines 55–61 all seem to depict the disloyalty of former friends and followers who have arrogantly turned away from him now that he is dead…’ 63 Flückiger-Hawker (1999), p. 169: ‘Incantation to Utu 117–119 seems to suggest that ki-lul-la “Place of Treachery” could be the dwelling place of a g e d i m “spirit” (of a dead person) associated with evil (also Incantation to Utu 161) and whose case has not yet been decided by Utu…’ According to Alster (1991), pp. 55–6, ll. 117–20 read: ‘The person, the son of his (personal) god/whose judgement has not been passed, whose case has not been decided/is a spirit frightening men … in dreams/a spirit working evil against men from the place of murder …/turning the living man into the ghost of a dead man.’

37

dying/dead king was necessarily abandoned by the living and began his journey to the netherworld with all its implications described in the following lines. Generally, it is possible to state on the basis of the above discussion that the founder of the Ur III dynasty had suffered a military defeat in consequence of which he died shortly afterwards. His untimely death apparently entailed a shocking disaster to his land and was followed by further hostile actions of the enemy which must have considerably affected Sumer and perhaps also shaken the very stability of the state. These matters were subsequently reflected in a unique literary composition evoking in its content as well as form the litanies mirroring later disasters. Whether this defeat arose from any internal discords within the state itself, can be neither refuted nor proven and a discussion of this affair would be purely speculative. But who caused Urnamma´s death? The identity of the enemy, which is only indirectly alluded to in the text Urnamma A by a standard formula, is an important matter for a reconstruction of the king´s son´s accession to the throne and his activity during the early years of rule.

6

°uri5†¿-ma ‹ul-ëál im-ši-DU sipa zi ba-ra-ab-è Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 101).

6

Evil came to Ur and expelled the righteous shepherd from it.

This metaphor of the cause of the monarch´s death does not tell anything about the origin and character of those whom the king encountered. The composite ‹ul-ëál (literally: ‘evil-to be’) is a literary cliché frequently used to describe calamities of any kind, be they brought about by inhabitants of sacred or profane sphere. Thus, the identity of Urnamma´s enemy cannot be inferred from this text. However, a somewhat different image can be found in a composition designated as Šulgi D and dubbed ‘Šulgi the Avenger of Sumer’.64 I shall say much more about this text later. Here I will mention only its possible correlations with the situation following Urnamma´s defeat and the solution which Šulgi might have consequently reached. Almost the entire latter half of this hymn is devoted to detailed description of preparations and realisation of a military campaign against hordes which had invaded Sumer before (temporal specification is lacking) and distorted the life of the land. The purpose of the king´s merciless campaign 64

Klein (1981b), pp. 50–123.

38

is to avenge the disasters perpetrated by the foreigners. These foreigners are no other than the Gutians who controlled part of Babylonia prior to Utu‹eëal´s victory and Urnamma´s rise to power. They are mentioned twice in parallel lines: 230 numun-gu-ti-ma še-s[a‹ar-ra-gin7 mu-bi-bi-re-a-ta] 346 numun-gu-ti-um-ma še-sa‹ar-ra-gin7 mu-bi-bi-re-a-ta Šulgi D (Klein 1981b, pp. 80, 84; cf. Wilcke 1974, p. 194, n. 75). 230, 346

‘He scattered the seed of the Gutians like specks of dust’, and moreover

334 [ur]-saë-e šu-iri-na mu-gi4 335 níë-ki-en-gi-ra ba-a-gu-ul-la kur-ra ì-mi-in-gu-ul Šulgi D (Klein 1981b, p. 84). 334 The hero avenged his city, 335 whatever had been ravaged in Sumer, he ravaged in the foreign land. If one assumes that the events referred to in this hymn fall within the early years of Šulgi´s reign (see below), then a conjecture that Urnamma died from a wound caused by the feared ‘mountain dragons’ presents itself. The Gutians furthermore turned out to be a serious threat to the new state within the territory of Sumer and Akkad, and thus also to the maintenance of the new dynasty´s position. Šulgi was forced to take responsibility for the future of the land as a youngster, obliged to safeguard his state, its integrity and smooth functioning of its cultic life. This turn of events seems to be inherent in relevant passages of the texts discussed but other possibilities should be kept in mind. Although it is hardly conceivable that these compositions are without any relationship to historical reality, it is possible that the mention of the Gutians in Šulgi D is a mere literary stereotype65 and that the historical passages relate to a completely different campaign carried out at entirely different time against a different enemy. In any case, the discussion of Urnamma´s death comes to an end here because there is simply no more reliable information. The precise circumstances of the end of the first king of the Third Dynasty of Ur elude us and are likely to remain in darkness forever.

65

The role of the Gutians as personification of all evil in Sumerian literature is notorious and could have served well the Ur III dynasty as a further expression of legitimate dynastic sequence. See p. 31 above.

39

II.2) Watartum: The Mother Current knowledge about the woman who gave birth to Šulgi is scanty even compared to what is known about Urnamma.66 Essentially, only her name is known and even in this case the reading of cuneiform signs with which it was written is uncertain. Nevertheless, it is now generally agreed that it belonged to Urnamma´s (principal) wife and most probably also to Šulgi´s mother. Unfortunately, she is explicitly mentioned only in a few brief texts. The first one is an impression of a seal belonging to a certain Lugalkuzu: i 1 SI.A-tum

ii 4 lugal-kù-zu

2 dam ur-ƒnamma

5 nu-banda3

3 lugal uri2†-ma

6 ir11-zu

RA 61 p. 69 (cf. RIME 3/2 1.1.51). i 1 SI.A-tum,

ii 4 Lugalkuzu,

2 spouse of Urnamma,

5 the overseer (‘captain’),

3 the king of Ur;

6 (is) your servant.

What one learns from this text, an impression of a seal belonging to a certain Lugalkuzu, is the name of Urnamma´s consort written with the signs SI.A.TUM. The last component in this sign group testifies to the Akkadian origin of her name as it contains the Semitic feminine element -t- and ends in the mimation. The preceding logogram SI.A = diri corresponds to Akkadian watrum, i.e. ‘full; filled; overflowing; exceeding; complete; sated’. The feminine form would read watartum. Edmond Sollberger preferred that reading67 which was, however, never fully accepted by other scholars and many use the transliteration SI.A-tum when mentioning this lady.68 The name of Urnamma´s spouse is further preserved on a votive object made of stone and dedicated by her to the goddess Inana for the life of Šulgi. Sadly, the name is followed only by illegible traces of two additional lines, which means that the precise

66

See now the handy overview in Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 25–8. Sollberger (1967), p. 69: ‘The PN SI.A-tum, most likely to be read Watartum,…’ 68 The reading watartum has been adopted by Steinkeller in his prominent article (1981), p. 77, and conventionally also in the present study. The reservations of Piotr Michalowski will be discussed shortly below. 67

40

relationship of this woman to Šulgi, undoubtedly referred to in one of those lines, cannot be inferred from this text.

1

ƒinana

1

(To) Inana,

2

nin-a-ni

2

her lady,

3

nam-ti-

3

for the life

4

šul-gi

4

of Šulgi,

5

nita-kala-ga

5

mighty man,

ki 5

6

lugal-uri -ma-ka-šè

6

king of Ur,

7

SI.A-tum

7

SI.A-tum

8

°x x (x)¿

8

…

Lacuna

Lacuna

RIME 3/2 1.2.66. Sollberger reconstructed the missing lines as follows: a[ma] t[u-d]a-ni [a mu-na-ru]:69 ‘His [ow]n mo[ther] [dedicated (this) to her].’ This reading of the lines can be neither verified nor refuted due to the present state of the text but seems probable indeed, especially in light of other evidence which is rather indirect but still quite convincing. This evidence has been collected and analysed by Piotr Steinkeller.70 The most important source concerned is an undated administrative record from Umma which, as Steinkeller has shown, most likely comes from Šulgi´s era. Here ƒëeštin-an-na ama lugal, ‘The goddess Ëeštinana, mother of the king’, is encountered (SACT 2 258, rev. l. 5). There is also a royal inscription supporting the dating of the above record to the reign of Šulgi, and thus also the line of Steinkeller´s argument. It reads:

1

ƒëeštin-an-na

1

(To) the goddess Ëeštinana,

2

dumu-ni

2

her son

3

šul-gi

3

Šulgi,

4

nita-kala-ga

4

mighty man,

5

lugal-uri5ki-ma

5

king of Ur,

6

lugal-ki-en-gi-ki-uri-ke4

6

king of Sumer and Akkad,

7

nam-ti-la-ni-šè

7

for the sake of his (own) life,

69

Sollberger (1967), p. 69. Steinkeller (1981), p. 78. The complete information concerning the edition of relevant texts is to be found there, hence I refrain from including it. 70

41

8

a mu-na-ru

8

dedicated (this).

RIME 3/2 1.2.62. Steinkeller interestingly and convincingly concludes that Watartum was posthumously (but maybe already before) deified and venerated as one of the personifications of Ëeštinana.71 Hence, the ruler may have dedicated the votive gold earring with the above

inscription to his deceased natural mother who may have also received the offering of two sheep, the disbursement of which had been the subject of the administrative text referred to above. Steinkeller´s argument is supported by three other administrative records mentioning offerings for ƒëeštin-an-na SI.A-tum, ‘(The goddess) Ëeštinana Watartum’ (TCL 2 5514 [IS02-10-03], obv. l. 4; OrSP 18 pl. 7 24 [Š47-02-00], obv. ii, l. 8; AUCT 2 97, rev. i l. 13).72 Most important of these are the first two since the former´s record of the offering for the discussed deity precedes a record of an offering at the libation place of Urnamma while the latter is dated to the reign of Šulgi. All in all, as these sources text provide evidence of the posthumous identification of Watartum with Ëeštinana, whom Šulgi claimed to be his mother, it seems reasonable enough to assume that this lady was indeed Šulgi´s mother. I shall conclude my discussion of Watartum´s relationship to Šulgi with a brief account of a significant contribution made to this topic by Piotr Michalowski73 who has published two other texts generally supporting the theory of Watartum´s deification and identification with Ëeštinana. The date of the first is not preserved, the second comes from the era of king Š¥suõen (2037–2029). They are again lists of disbursed sacrificial animals (ASJ 4 p. 140 1, obv. ll. 2´, 6´, 9´; ASJ 4 p. 140 2 [ŠS08-05-19], obv. l. 6). The first gives the name of the goddess Ëeštinana with an extremely unusual attribute in line 9´:

9´

1 udu niga ƒëeštin-an-na zi-ib-na-tum ƒëeštin-an-na lugal ASJ 4 p. 140 1.

9´

1 fattened sheep (for) Ëeštinana zibnatum/zibnªtum, Ëeštinana lugal.

71

Steinkeller (1981), pp. 78 and 82, n. 15 and 16. Ibid., p. 78. 73 Michalowski (1982). He has briefly mentioned Watartum already in his earlier article (1976a) with a reference to two archival texts containing her name (to my knowledge there is only one: SA 1 [Š42-12-30], obv. l. 2). 72

42

One would expect the sign complex SI.A-tum after the name of the goddess as it is the only expression that is both connected with Ëeštinana and ending with the sign TUM and which occurs in any other (the above-mentioned) Ur III records. The syllabically written word following here the name of the deity is by contrast unattested in any Ur III text except this one. Furthermore, its precise meaning is unknown and Michalowski considers its connection with a local name and an Old Babylonian month-name. It may be that Zibnatum (or Zibnªtum?) is the right reading of the name of Šulgi´s mother.74 This hypothesis can be further sustained by the fact that the attribute Ëeštinana lugal (present also in the second relevant text published by Michalowski) occurs here, which would not be surprising if it was preceded by the name of the deceased queen. But it has also been suggested that the words zibnatum/zibnªtum are likely to refer to a ritual context,75 which is equally possible in a text enumerating disbursed offerings. However, the uniqueness of this record as well as its origin in the reign of Šulgi´s second successor when a completely different lady could have been venerated in connection with Ëeštinana thwarts reaching a definitive conclusion. Michalowski himself admits the high

probability of Steinkeller´s hypothesis of the deification of the queen and her subsequent identification with the goddess which seems to be plausible despite the obvious difficulties with reading of the name.76 It is necessary to add to the summary of current extent of knowledge regarding Šulgi´s mother a not insignificant note that she outlived her husband Urnamma and therefore was for some time a member of Šulgi´s palace household.77 This is most eloquently testified to by the literary composition ‘Death of Urnamma’ described above and generally believed to be reliable on this point. The most obvious evidence is found in lines 166–7 and 174–86 where the loneliness of the helpless widow abandoned by protective spirits and gods is described in wonderful similes. Moreover, lines 193–4 tell about people lamenting in front of the mourning widow and Urnamma´s children. 166 °á?¿-še nitadam-ëu10 -mu-un-°KUŠ¿-àm 167 [i-l]u a-nir níë gig-ga-a u4 mi-ni-°ib¿-zal-zal-e Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 130). 74

For a succinct summary of the scholarly opinions Steible (1991), pp. 195–6. Cavigneaux (1996), pp. 37–8, here especially n. 19 on p. 38. 76 Michalowski (1982), pp. 132–3. 77 The period which she spent in Šulgi´s royal quarters and the role she played there cannot be ascertained. An archival text dated to year Š 42 and mentioning her is too late to be taken as an indication of Watartum still living at the time of its issue (SA 1 [Š42-12-30], obv. l. 2). See also Weiershäuser (2008), p. 27. 75

43

166 Is <not> my spouse a widow now? 167 She spends her days in bitter wailing and lamentation. 182

ëiš

má-gin7 tumu sumurx-ra ba-ra-ab-diri ëišdimgul nu-mu-na-kalag

186 ƒutu DI °x(-)x¿ ëiš nu-um-mi-in-lá / a °lú¿/[lu]gal-ëu10 mu-un-si Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, pp. 132–3). 182 She has been cast adrift like a boat in grim squalls, the mooring pole was not strong (enough) for her. 186 Utu… did not pay attention, she was filled with (groan): ‘O my man/my lord.’ 193 me-li-e-a dam-ëu10 ír-ra dumu-ëu10 a-nir-ra 194 lú níë du11-ga-ëá i-lu balaë-di-gin7 ‹é-na-du12-uš Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 134). 193 Alas, (in front of) my weeping consort, (in front of) my sighing children, 194 they chanted like dirge musicians what I had said. Furthermore, it is possible to discern some other information from the ‘Death of Urnamma’ which agrees with the previously discussed texts and also the compositions lamenting the disappearance of vegetation deities.78 It is well-known that Ëeštinana was a sister of Dumuzi, the divine shepherd and dying god of vegetation and fertility. She had liberated her brother, the husband of the Urukean goddess Inana, as a composition labeled ‘Inana´s Descent to the Netherworld’ relates, and subsequently functioned as a substitute of Dumuzi in the realm of the dead for a half of every year (etiology of cyclical sprouting and dying of the plants). It is also very well known that the ruler of the Ur III state assumed the role of Dumuzi in a ritual conventionally called the ‘sacred marriage’ (ἱερός γάμος) when an en-priestess may have been identified with Inana.79 If the king represented Dumuzi and an en-priestess represented Inana, what about Ëeštinana? A woman most closely related to the king might have assumed the role of

Dumuzi´s sister and it is very likely that this lady would have been either his real sister

78 A concise but very informative summary of the previous discussion is found in Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 86–7, whose analysis also represents a basis for the following. 79 See Renger (1972–1975), pp. 251–9, J. Cooper (1972–1975), pp. 259–69. This ritual and its possible meanings along with its implications for the royal ideology will be analysed later.

44

or his consort or even his mother. The divine and mundane spheres were intertwined here, so that the real roles of the participants could have changed in the ritual context. The notion of Ëeštinana as the sister of the monarch is clearly witnessed by the following lines from the ‘Death of Urnamma’: 127a [ƒëe]štin-an-na nin9 lugal-la-°ra?¿ 128 [s]ipa ur-ƒnamma(-ke4) é-gal-(l)a-na ëiš im-ma-ab-tag-ge Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 123). 127a For Ëeštinana, the king´s sister, 128 the shepherd Urnamma makes an offering in her palace. Presumably, the wailing Watartum is encountered in this text also in her possible sacred role as Dumuzi´s sister Ëeštinana. This view seems supported by the role of Inana in this text.80 Šulgi takes up this mythical pattern and designates Ëeštinana as his sister, for instance in the hymn Šulgi P b:

43 BCD

ƒëeštin-an-na nin9 lugal-la-ke4

44 BCD

ka-làl diëir-re-ne-ke4

Šulgi P (Klein 1981a, p. 36). 43 BCD

Ëeštinana, the king´s sister,

44 BCD

mellifluous mouth of the gods.

Thus, the available scarce evidence taken together seems to show that queen Watartum was not only Šulgi´s mother but also an important member of the court apparently playing a significant role in the system of dynastic ideology.

80

Wilcke (1970), p. 89: ‘Inanna beklagt Urnammu hier als ihren Partner bei der Heiligen Hochzeit, das heißt doch in seiner Rolle als Dumuzi.’

45

II.3) Grandparents and Siblings The following brief account of Šulgi´s grandparents and siblings is added here for the sake of completeness only, for there is too little information on them and their significance for the ruler´s life is negligible. A reference to Šulgi´s grandparents probably can be found in an archival text dated to his 37th regnal year and recording issues of reed bundles as offerings for the deceased members of the royal family (I 870 [Š37-05]).81 It mentions besides Urnamma also a person called Damiqtum (‘The good one; Good Fortune; Goodness; Goodwill’) who from the context can be considered Urnamma´s mother and Šulgi´s grandmother (obv. l. 4). She is mentioned once again in an archival text (MVN 15 162 [Š33-06]) along with not only Urnamma (obv. l. 3) but also ƒëeštin-an-na SI.A-tum (obv. l. 6, rev. l. 7) as his wife and Šulgi´s mother was (posthumously) designated.82 As to the king´s grandfather, the only reference known so far comes from the first text discussed. He is alluded to anonymously as ab-ba ur-ƒnamma, ‘Father of Urnamma’ (obv. l. 8). As regards the brothers and sisters of the king, the available evidence for their very existence are as yet only one date formula from the reign of Urnamma, which records the selection by extispicy of an en-priest of Inana in Uruk, and a votive inscription of an en-priestess of Nanna in Ur (Urnamma 35).83 It is explicitly stated in the date formula that the en of Inana was a son of the king. However, his name remains unknown. But in the daughter´s case her own inscription gives not only her relationship to the king but also her name and status. The woman in question was called Ennirëalana and, as I have already noted, she occupied an immensely important cultic post. The incumbents of this office were invariably women of royal blood since at least the era of Sargon of Akkad.84 It is possible that another date formula, analogous to that testifying the selection of Urnamma´s son, bears witness to another daughter of Urnamma: mu ereš-diëir ƒiškur maš-e ba-pàd-da (RTC 257, rev. l. 2; ITT 4 7771, rev. l. 1; AOAT 25 p. 81 10, rev. l.

81

H. Neumann and Hruška (1994), pp. 240–1. See discussion in Boese and Sallaberger (1996), p. 29 with n. 22, and in Frayne (1997b), p. 169. MVN 15 162 also lists offerings for ƒëeštin-an-na lugal (obv. l. 9, rev. l. 9) but the nature of this expression cannot be ascertained. See Steinkeller (1981), p. 82, n. 15. See now also Weiershäuser (2008), p. 26. 83 For the date formula testifying to the selection of Urnamma´s son see fn. 35 above. For the votive inscription see RIME 3/2 1.1.54. 84 As the selection and inthronization of Nanna´s en-priestesses was always reflected in a date formula, and the Ur III kings never failed to observe this tradition, Frayne (1997b), p. 10, has proposed such a formula commemorating this event but as yet unattested in any Ur III text. 82

46

4´).85 However, the fact that the storm-god Iškur did not belong to the most important deities in the ideological view of the Ur III court and that nothing is known about the status of the incumbent of this priestly office prevents one from reaching any satisfactory conclusion. II.4) Wives II.4.1) Tarªmuram The lady of this name came from the powerful city-state of Mari on middle Euphrates which was independent of the will of the strengthening Ur III king Urnamma. She was a daughter of the Mari ruler (šakkanakku) Apilk‰n and moved to Ur at some time during Urnamma´s reign in order to guarantee the lasting alliance of both states. She was to become the wife of prince Šulgi, whose father thereby introduced into the foreign policy of the state the model of dynastic marriages thereafter exercised throughout the Ur III era.86 However, the name by which she is known is by no means the original one because it means simply ‘She loves Ur’. Therefore one can suppose that she assumed it by the time of her engagement to or wedding with Šulgi as an expression of honour toward the ally from Ur. By all account it seems that she became the first ruling queen of her husband´s reign following his accession to the throne. She was most likely also the mother of his successor Amarsuõena (2046–2038), because it was Amarsuõena who introduced offerings for the deceased Apilk‰n into Ur along with the maintenance of the funerary cult of his patrilinear ancestors. Thus he cared also for the funerary cult of his matrilinear grandfather (BCT 2 151 [AS06], obv. l. 5).87

85

See ibid., p. 18, where this date formula is attributed to Urnamma and discussed, with previous literature. Note, however, that Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 319, attribute this formula to an unkown ruler of the Lagaš II dynasty. 86 Textual evidence (Urnamma 38) witnessing the exact relationship of the lady to her father-in-law has been published by Civil (1962), p. 213. Tarªmuram is designated there (l. 6´) as é-gi4-a (kallªtum), ‘daughter-in-law’ of the Ur monarch (RIME 3/2 1.1.52). For a survey of Ur III marriage policy see Sallaberger (1999), pp. 159–161. For a discussion of the relationships of Mari to Ur see Michalowski (1995); Boese and Sallaberger (1996), pp. 24–39; Sharlach (2001), pp. 59–70; Michalowski (2004), here especially pp. 225–35. See also Michalowski (2005a), (2005b), pp. 204–5. On Tarªmuram in general see now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 29–30. 87 Boese and Sallaberger (1996), pp. 34–5. Note also n. 51 on the same page of that article referring to another possible piece of evidence for the mother-son relationship between Amarsuõena and Tarªmuram, namely a royal inscription mentioning the name of a statue of the king: ‘Amarsuõena, the beloved of Ur’. The authors suggest that this otherwise unattested epithet represents a wordplay on the name of the king´s mother. For Apilk‰n as Amarsuõena´s grandfather cf. Sharlach (2001), p. 62.

47

Yet Tarªmuram is, outside the text proving her relationship to her father-in-law, attested so far only in a seal impression of one of her servants and in none of the archival texts of the Ur III period. A possible explanation of this has been offered by Piotr Michalowski: The primary sources for the royal family come from Puzriš-Dagan, modern Drehem, which was established in the thirty-eighth year of Šulgi, although precursors of this archive, dealing with the activities of the queen Šulgi-simti, begin earlier in Šulgi 26. Thus the records begin thirty or so years after the marriage, and anything could have happened during that time: Taram-Uram could have died, left Sumer, or even changed her name.88 It shall be pointed out in this respect that Tarªmuram never features in the relevant lists either from the time of Šulgi or his successors as a recipient of funerary offerings along with other deceased male and female members of the royal family. Unfortunately, the reasons for her absence from the royal funerary cult elude us at present.89 II.4.2) Gemesuõena The name Gemesuõena means ‘Slave-girl of Suõen’.90 According to extant sources she was honoured with the title dam lugal, ‘The king´s spouse’, as the only wife of an Ur III king except Watartum. The available evidence of her marital relationship to Šulgi is sparse indeed and it is in fact limited to two certain and one possible attestation. The certain ones are two tablets complete with a seal impression which reads:

1

geme2-ƒEN.ZU

1

Gemesuõena,

2

dam šul-gi

2

spouse of Šulgi,

3

lugal uri2ki-ma

3

the king of Ur,

4

šu-ku-bu-[um]

4

Š¥-K¥bum,

5

rá-gaba

5

the messenger,

6

ir11-z[u]

6

is your servant.

88

Michalowski (1995), p. 188. Cf. Boese and Sallaberger (1996), p. 35. Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 29–30, is convinced of the first possibility and notes that it is hardly conceivable that the queen would have changed her name yet again after the first change which occurred around the time of her wedding. 89 It may be that a wife of the king was entitled to her own libation place only when she died later than her husband so that she could have joined his funerary cult. Because this was not the case of Tarªmuram, who seems to have died earlier than Šulgi, her libation place was not established at all. 90 See now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 30–1.

48

JCS 28 p. 170 (cf. RIME 3/2 1.2.67). It can be inferred from this seal impression that the marriage of Šulgi and Gemesuõena took place some time before his deification (most likely before his 21st regnal year) because of the omission of the divine determinative in front of the king´s name.91 The possible attestation is again found in a seal impression. Šulgi´s name is this time preceded by the divine determinative. While the lady is designated here as his dam again, the first half of her name is damaged and transliterated by Frayne as °a-ma-at¿ (RIME 3/2 1.2.68). However, the restoration is problematical because names of royal consorts with the element ‘slave-girl’ were always written using the Sumerian expression, not the Akkadian.92 II.4.3) Šulgisimt‰ This spouse of Šulgi is considerably better known than the previous two because of the frequent mentions in archival texts. Her name is attested in two forms (Šulgisimt‰, Šulgisimtum) and she adopted it undoubtedly after her betrothal to the sovereign of Ur because it means ‘Šulgi (is) my befitting ornament’.93 The king´s name fulfills here the function of a theophoric element and its invariable connection with the divine determinative proves that Šulgisimt‰ became his wife certainly after his deification. It is possible to regard her as a particularly high-ranking of the king´s wives from 28th–30th year of his rule at the latest.94 She is attested in three impressions of seals of her servants (RIME 3/2 1.2.69–71) and a group of archival records concerning the administration of slaughterhouses and stores which were subjected directly to her.95 The status of this lady at the Ur court was apparently the highest possible, and although she is called a lukur96 91 Ibid., p. 169; Steinkeller (1981), p. 81 and n. 45–6. The dating of the first tablet is uncertain (Š26?), while the second tablet, referred to by Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 18 and n. 59, is dated Š28. This does not make a difference as to the dating of the king´s deification because the messenger could have used this seal for years before these texts were written. Thus, it is known at least that Gemesuõena was the wife and queen of Šulgi from Š21 at the latest until some time around Š28–Š29. Cf. the passage on Šulgisimt‰ below. 92 Weiershäuser (2008), p. 31, n. 61. 93 Cf. for instance Sigrist (1992), p. 222; Sallaberger (1999), p. 154. For a detailed account of all aspects of Šulgisimt‰´s life and official activity see now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 31–105. 94 Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 18 and n. 59. Cf. Dahl (2007), pp. 17–18 with further references. 95 T. Jones and Snyder (1961), pp. 203–8, described it for the first time as ‘An Early Drehem (?) Series’. The earliest texts in this archive come from the year Š26/27. See Sallaberger (1999), p. 383; Sigrist (1992), pp. 16–17 and n. 22. 96 The meaning of this title in the Ur III era is faint. Steinkeller (1981), p. 81, has attempted to make it more transparent: ‘… sometime around the middle of Šulgi´s reign, lukur replaced dam as the term for “king´s wife.” It is not entirely impossible that this change in titulary was connected with the deification of Šulgi… Such a connection is suggested by the fact that the cultic relationship which existed between a

49

in the seal impressions (once also a lukur-kaskal, literally: ‘travel companion’, a title otherwise held among the wives of Šulgi only by Eaniša, see below), one can say with some degree of certainty that she was also the ruling queen at least from the 32nd year of Šulgi´s reign as testified by a tablet containing the following expression: ëiri3 nin ƒŠul-gisí-im-ti (MVN 8 97 [Š32-05], rev. l. 2), ‘via the queen Šulgisimt‰’.97 The title nin, ‘lady’,

was usually restricted to only one of the monarch´s wives, namely the actual queen (here even called by name), whereas the designation lukur applied to all of them.98 Šulgisimt‰ apparently replaced Gemesuõena, whose tasks she took over along with some officials working for the latter lady. This is witnessed by the fact that the abovementioned Š¥-K¥bum acted for his new mistress as the head of her archive and the ‘cattle administrator’ during the years Š29–Š32.99 Šulgisimt‰ thus had control not only over a weaving mill in Ur but also over her own bulky administrative unit initially located at Esaëdana100 near Nippur and already operating before the establishment of the main royal administrative centre at Puzrišdagªn (now Dr®him). In the relevant texts the queen occupies the same position which is reserved for the king in later records from Puzrišdagªn. This means that the respective transactions (particularly receipts, she is mentioned only a few times as a mere ‘conveyor’ in case of expenditures) were accounted directly to her name. Her administration dealt with deliveries, transfers and disbursements primarily of fattened sheep, goats, geese, pigeons and pigs, which it received chiefly from wives and sisters of high-ranking men but also from these officials themselves, royal descendants etc. These animals were then disbursed to certain individuals and the palace but above all to the temples of the major (and some minor) deities in crucial centres of the state (this applies only to cattle and small stock). Hence, the administration of the queen contributed to the material provision of sacrificial ceremonies which took place during the regular monthly and annual festivals. This was by far the most significant function of the whole establishment.

lukur-priestess (Akk. nad‰tum) and the god she was consecrated to appears to have been closely parallel to that between a junior wife and her husband. Thus, if the lukur-priestess was the god´s junior wife, then it would be only natural for the wives of Šulgi to have become his lukurs upon his deification.’ On the term lukur see now Sharlach (2008), here pp. 178–80, who agrees with Steinkeller´s convincing idea. Cf. Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 234–40, analysing in some detail all three titles held by Ur III royal wives (dam, nin, lukur). 97 Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 18 and n. 59; Sigrist (1992), p. 222. 98 Steinkeller (1981), p. 79; Sallaberger (1999), p. 183. But cf. Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 235–7, for a discussion of available evidence for occasional simultaneous use of the title nin by more than one royal lady. 99 Sallaberger (1999), p. 255. Cf. Sigrist (1992), pp. 225–6. 100 Sallaberger (1999), p. 253; Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 20–1; Wilcke (1992), pp. 323–4.

50

The most important divine recipients of offerings from the queen´s slaughterhouses were the patron deity of Ur, moon-god Nanna (in this case apparently due to his connection with the female monthly cycle), the Urukean goddesses Ninsun (the divine mother of the king) and Inana (the partner of Dumuzi/the king), as well as the Nippurian divine couple Enlil and Ninlil. As to the latter great gods, Ninlil usually stands before Enlil in the records and receives more offerings than her spouse. The situation in the texts from Puzrišdagªn is exactly the opposite and the queen´s enterprise seems to have been a ‘feminine’ branch of the ‘masculine’ administrative giant at Puzrišdagªn. This is reflected in the composition of the group of suppliers and particularly recipients (here the relationship between the king and queen is alluded to; Dumuzi and Inana, Enlil and Ninlil) and in the very division of the executive authority exercised over both administrative units from which all other organizational aspects unfolded.101 By virtue of her public function Šulgisimt‰ helped sustain a substantial part of the redistribution network along with its administrative apparatus and contributed to the general welfare of the land through her care for the cultic places of important, particularly female, deities. However, the complex which she directed provided her also with plentiful opportunities to provision her own (personal) deities. These were goddesses of no significance in Sumer prior to the queen becoming Šulgi´s wife. The administrative records from the queen´s archive mention them most frequently,102 often even in connection with disbursements for the celebration of festivals of other gods. The goddesses in question are B®lat-Šu‹nir (‘The Lady of Šu‹nir’) and B®lat-Teraban (‘The Lady of Teraban’). In view of the fact that they occur only sporadically in numerous parallel texts from Puzrišdagªn and that they gradually disappear from the religious scene of the Ur III state following the death of Šulgisimt‰, it is quite obvious that the future queen took them along to Ur from her distant homeland. This led to the conclusion that Šulgisimt‰ came most likely from Ešnuna on the Diyala river where these deities were venerated, which further suggests a politically motivated marriage of Šulgi and this woman that may at least temporarily have helped consolidate the king´s influence in the territory around the upper course of the Diyala river after his conquest of local principalities of Kara‹ar and Simurrum.103 It is noteworthy too that the cult of 101

Sallaberger (1999), pp. 253–60; Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 18–25; Sigrist (1992), pp. 222–46. The texts from years Š29–Š30 do not even allude to supplies for any other god. Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 19. 103 The king´s first campaigns against these states are commemorated in date formulae for his 24th and 25th regnal years. See Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 322. See also Frayne (1997b), p. 170. 102

51

the above goddesses was associated with certain festivals, especially el¥num and nabrium, which likewise gradually disappeared from the preserved records after the queen´s death and during the Old Babylonian period were celebrated only in northern Babylonia and the Diyala region. Thus it is clear that Šulgisimt‰ had brought to her new homeland the cult of her deities, which she subsequently nurtured in the capital and also in Uruk along with the cult of other frequently mentioned northern goddesses Allatum, Anun‰tum (the warlike deity of Old Akkadian kings) and Ulmaš‰tum.104 There is relatively enough evidence regarding the death of queen Šulgisimt‰ although its temporal assessment brings about other not insignificant problems. The last textual record of her name stemming from Šulgi´s era is dated 3. xi. of his 48th and last regnal year (MVN 8 113 [Š48-11-03], obv. l. 5). However, a disbursement of a funerary offering on her behalf is attested already on 28. iii. of the 1st year of the king´s son Amarsuõena (ZVO 25 p. 134 2 [AS01-03-28], rev. l. 2). This implies that she must have died during the interval of approximately four months between these two dates but a more exact statement of the time of her death is impossible at present.105 Now, considering that the hitherto first-preserved record of offerings supplied to the funerary cultic place of her husband comes from 2. xi. of his 48th regnal year (OrNS 46 p. 225, rev. l. 1), one can assume that she was buried alongside him. This is supported by the coincidence with the last textual attestation of his other wife (lukur) Gemeninlila (see below) and of offerings disbursed on her behalf along with offerings for the king himself. Moreover, there is no additional evidence of supplies to the ki-a-naë of Šulgisimt‰. Therefore, it is possibe to deduce that the offerings were supplied for her burial some time between the aforesaid dates or at least shortly afterwards on the occasion of funeral rites.106

104

Ulmaš‰tum is identical with Anun‰tum of Akkad and the Ešnuna area was the ‘land of Akkad’ (ki-uri =

wariõum). On the origin of Šulgisimt‰ and on the respective goddesses see Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 19–20,

with references. Cf. Sallaberger (1999), pp. 258–60. Cf. further Sigrist (1992), pp. 243–4 and 246. For an account of the festivals see Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 42–4 and passim. Cf. M. Cohen (1993), pp. 136 and n. 4, 137 and n. 3 and 5, 138–40, 145, 151, 154, 210–1, 214–5, 217–8, 229–30, 252–3, 394–5, 397–9, 472–6. Cf. now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 81–3. 105 Even though Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 18, n. 60, argues for a shift of the last mention of the queen to 12. xii. Š48. Cf. an earlier discussion of this problem in Gomi (1976), pp. 1–14. 106 See Michalowski (1977c), pp. 220–5, for an edition of the text recording the offerings for Šulgisimt‰ and Gemeninlila, as well as possible ways of interpretation of this problem, which will be discussed later in the passage on the king´s death. See also Horowitz and Watson (1991), pp. 411–3 and n. 15. See further especially Sallaberger (1999), p. 162; Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 18, n. 60. Gomi (1976), p. 9 and n. 44, refers to some evidence seemingly pointing out that Šulgisimt‰ was still alive during the reigns of Šulgi´s successors. She is mentioned twice as the recipient of offerings (not connected with her ki-a-naë) and once as the ‘conveyor’ on the occasion of the ‘beer-libation’ (kaš-dé-a) ritual for the goddess Anun‰tum. He tries to explain the presence of the queen´s name in later texts by stating that Šulgisimt‰ might have withdrawn from public life after her husband´s death and thus symbolically died. Therefore, a symbolic

52

After Šulgisimt‰´s demise the organization which she had led closed down. In the fourth month of the first year of Amarsuõena´s reign the cattle remaining in her slaughterhouses were transferred by her last ‘chief administrator’ Šulgiil‰ to the royal redistribution centre at Puzrišdagªn, whereby the queen´s branch of the administration was entirely incorporated into the central establishment.107 II.4.4) Gemeninlila The name of this lady can be translated as ‘Slave-girl of Ninlil’.108 Her origin as well as the circumstances which accompanied her entry into Šulgi´s palace household are unknown. However, it is at least probable that she was one of the monarch´s ‘junior wives’, although there is not a single mention about such a status of this woman in the available texts. She played an important role in the court administration. This role involved the economic provision of the cult, as otherwise certainly attested only in case of queen Šulgisimt‰. The sole record referring to her immediate relationship to the ruler is the inscription of a seal presented to Gemeninlila by the king himself in his 46th regnal year:

1

ƒšul-gi

1

Šulgi,

2

nita-kala-ga

2

mighty man,

3

lugal-uri5ki-ma

3

king of Ur,

4

lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba-ke4

4

king of the four quarters,

5

geme2-ƒnin-líl-lá

7

presented

6

ki-áë-ëá-ni-ir

5

Gemeninlila,

7

in-na-ba

6

his beloved (with this).

Erm 14933 [Š46-06] (seal; RIME 3/2 1.2.82).

ki-a-naë might have been established for her. But this explanation makes little sense in view of what is known about libation places of other royal family members. It seems more likely that Šulgisimt‰ really died shortly after her husband (nowadays a common view among scholars) and that the offerings she supposedly received were symbolic (after all Gomi himself admits this possibility in n. 44). Also her function as ‘conveyor’ in a transaction regarding a ritual for Anun‰tum can be considered a purely symbolic resemblance of the former close cultic ties of the deceased queen to this and other northern goddesses. 107 See Sallaberger (1999), p. 162; Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 18, n. 61; Sigrist (1992), p. 246. However, this by no means marks the end of the queen´s administrative and cultic duties, which were subsequently assumed in full by Ab‰simt‰. 108 For a detailed discussion of Gemeninlila see Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 202–6.

53

Although this text does not give any title, the fact that Gemeninlila is designated as the king´s beloved suggests the significance of their relationship, which is supported by the evidence of her public duties recorded in administrative texts. The first source of this kind comes from xi. month of the year Š37 and names Gemeninlila along with other noble ladies related to the royal family (RA 17 p. 212 4 [Š37-11], obv. l. 8). This wife of Šulgi features here only as a recipient of precious metals and stones. Therefore, it does not testify to her position within the state administrative system but nevertheless points again to her elevated status at the court of Ur. The economic power of Gemeninlila is explicitly documented in texts from the years Š38, 41, 45 and 48 (AUCT 1 65 [Š38], rev. l. 2´; AUCT 1 431 [Š41-02], rev. l. 2; TRU 278 [Š45-01], obv. l. 2; JCS 31 p. 172 C [Š48-03], obv. l. 3). They bear witness to disbursement of wool from a flock owned by her and to a delivery of birds on her behalf. Among the suppliers one also finds the wife of an official. Moreover, the formulation used agrees with the model utilized when the king and the queen Šulgisimt‰ were concerned. Texts from the last two of these years document disbursement of one sheep per day as a regular tithe. The remaining tablets from the years Š40, 41, 43, 46 and 48 record supplies of flocks on her behalf for sacrificial rites, further of two head of cattle for a festival, a shipment of one lamb to the ‘Gemeninlila´s kitchen’, a transfer of two oxen for agricultural use, disbursements of animals as offerings for important deities to which a supply for Gemeninlila was added and a disbursement of three more oxen for this lady among other transactions (BIN 3 484 [Š40-03], rev. l. 4; YOS 4 240 [Š41-02-17], obv. l. 2; BCT 1 34 [Š41-07], obv. l. 4; RA 49 p. 88 12 [Š43-01-17], rev. l. 1; JCS 31 p. 175 G [Š43-03], l. 2; JCS 31 p. 174 F [Š43-06], l. 8; OIP 115 6 [Š46-07], rev. l. 1; PDT 2 1068 [Š46-09], rev. l. 2; PDT 2 1113 [Š46-11], rev. l. 2; BIN 3 516 [Š48-06], obv. l. 5; TRU 298 [Š48-09-23], rev. l. 2; BCT 1 39 [Š48-11], obv. ii l. 5). Considering that among the participants in these transactions was twice the same official and once even a man called Irëu, whose name occurs only in texts concerning the affairs of persons of the highest rank, one can deduce that Gemeninlila was significantly involved in economic matters of the state and that she may even have had at her disposal a limited staff of officials, although their activities and importance were certainly more constrained than in case of the queen Šulgisimt‰. The above-mentioned texts deal only with items which Gemeninlila received or which were disbursed on her behalf. They nevertheless testify that she was a significant member of the court élite with her own economic means which met her material needs

54

including those of a cultic nature. They present her as a privileged person participating not only in economic matters but also in some ceremonial and ritual events. But her status was not confined to this, as proved by the following text presenting her as the provider of materials necessary for an important cultic event: 1 kuš gu4 niga

One skin of a fattened ox,

5 kuš udu niga

five skins of fattened sheep,

1 kuš máš

one goat skin (and)

1 kuš sila4

one lamb skin

5 ki nu-‹i-lum-ta

received Dadaõa, the flayer, from Nu‹ilum.

da-da-a su-si-ig šu ba-ti kuš gu4 udu má an-na geme2-ƒnin-líl-lá-ka

(These are) skins of cattle and flocks (for) the ‘heavenly boat’ of Gemeninlila.

ëiri3 nu-úr-ƒiškur

Conveyor: N¥radad.

10 šà unuki-ga

In Uruk.

iti á-ki-ti

The sixth month

mu en-ubur-zi-an-na en ƒnanna máš-e ì-pàd

of the 43rd year of Šulgi´s reign.

JCS 31 p. 174 F. It is obvious at a glance that this seemingly arid accounting record draws one significantly nearer to Gemeninlila´s role in the religious life of the state. The construction and embellishment of a ritual vessel could hardly have been carried out by a person without due influence within the power hierarchy. This is especially true if one takes into account that such an artifact was undoubtedly intended for celebrations of the ‘Heavenly boat festival’ (ezen má an-na) in which the royal women were involved109 and which is also mentioned in the literary composition ‘Inana and Enki’. This text with its explicit accentuating of Uruk´s superiority among Sumerian cities may have formed the

109 Sallaberger (1999), p. 185: ‘Ein Frauenfest mit Teilnahme der Frauen des königlichen Hofes bis hin zur Königin ist das ma2-an-na-Fest in Uruk. Hierin zeigt sich die Verbindung der Königin mit Inanna, die wohl das Gegenstück zu der literarisch bezeugten Verkörperung des Inanna-Gemahls Dumuzi durch den König darstellt.’

55

festival´s background.110 Gemeninlila´s cultic activities are further witnessed by a slightly earlier record. The official Dadaõa again participated in the transaction: 3 kuš udu niga

Three skins of fattened sheep

sizkur2 geme2-ƒnin-líl-lá

(for) Gemeninlila´s offering;

[k]i ur-ƒli9-si4-ta

Dadaõa

[da]-da-a

received

5 [šu] ba-ti

from Urlisi.

iti u5-bí-gu7

The third month

mu en ƒnanna máš-e ì-pàd

of the 43rd year of Šulgi´s reign.

JCS 31 p. 175 G. Also an apparently not insignificant fact that Gemeninlila received a part of booty brought to Sumer after her husband´s successful campaign against Šimaški shall be mentioned here (ZVO 25 p. 134 1 [Š47-02], obv. l. 4).111 Furthermore, her name appears in lengthy lists of supplies for various persons related to the king, among others for some women that are known to have born the title lukur (ASJ 4 p. 133 3 [Š43-09], obv. l. 16; RA 74 p. 47 116, rev. l. 1). This provides further evidence for Gemeninlila´s high status. The conclusion of what is known about this lady shall deal with her death. Available information is essentially very similar as in the case of Šulgisimt‰´s death. The last textual evidence for Gemeninlila stems from 23. ix. of the king´s 48th regnal year (TRU 298 [Š48-09-23], rev. l. 2), but already on 28. iii. of the 1st year of Amarsuõena one fattened sheep was disbursed for her ki-a-naë, as testified by the text mentioned above in connection with the supply on behalf of Šulgisimt‰ (ZVO 25 p. 134 2 [AS01-03-28], rev. l. 1), where the record concerning Gemeninlila immediately precedes the transaction pertaining to the queen. Thus the conclusion that Gemeninlila was buried together with

110 The circumstances of this festive event and its reflexion in literature may well have served as another device for strengthening the legitimacy and proclaiming the continuity of the Ur III dynasty. For a detailed discussion of the festival including the relevant passage from ‘Inana and Enki’ see M. Cohen (1993), pp. 215–20. 111 Michalowski (1979), p. 175, surmises that this booty came from Kimaš. See discussion in the relevant passage of chapter III.14) below.

56

the king and queen presents itself and is supported by the evidence of her paramount status and influence at the royal court.112 II.4.5) Eaniša, Ninkala, Simatea, Š¥qurtum This section deals collectively with four ladies whose exact position at the court is difficult to infer from available textual evidence. One can be certain only of their membership of Šulgi´s palace household. The archival records from the reign of Šulgi pertaining to them come from the years Š29–Š48. Eaniša is attested in a few impressions of seals of her servants, her own votive inscription for the goddess Inana, the impression of a seal dedicated to her by the ruler, and finally by the following Old Babylonian copy of a statue inscription: Lacuna

Lacuna

1´

[nam-ti]

1´

For the life

2´

°ƒšul¿-

2´

of Šulgi,

3´

nita-

3´

mighty man,

4´

lugal-ki-<ma>

4´

king of Ur,

5´

lugal--da-limmu2-ba-ka-šè

5´

king of the four quarters;

6´

é-a-ni-ša

6´

Eaniša,

7´

lukur-kaskal-la

7´

(his) ‘travel companion’,

8´

lukur-ki-áë-ëá-ni-e

8´

his beloved lukur,

9´

lugal-a-ni

10´

fashioned

10´

mu-tu

9´

(a statue) of her lord

11´

mu-ud-na-ni

11´

(and this statue of) her spouse

12´

igi-ni-šè in-gu[b]

12´

set up in front of her.

Lacuna N 2230+4006 (RIME 3/2 1.2.81).113 Interestingly, this text documents a ritual practice naturally consequent on Šulgi´s deification, i.e. the creation and worship of a statue of the divine king. It was apparently a matter of course at least in the highest echelons of the Ur III state and is hardly surprising in case of the king´s lukur wife. But even more significantly, this inscription 112

Michalowski (1979), pp. 171, 177. For editions of all the texts referred to see RIME 3/2 1.2.72–81. On Eaniša see further Sigrist (1992), pp. 361–2. 113

57

gives the precise relationship of Eaniša to Šulgi (mu-ud-na, ‘spouse’), which seems to help clarify the meaning of the title lukur after the deification of the king.114 The title lukur-kaskal, held only by the queen Šulgisimt‰ and Eaniša among the wives of Šulgi, apparently denotes a lady-companion who accompanied the king on his frequent trips to various temples throughout the realm and fulfilled ceremonial and social duties if the ruling queen was too busy with performing her cultic role.115 Eaniša is also encountered in archival records, which however do not bear witness to her active engagement in the cult or in economic activities connected with its material provision. In contrast to Šulgisimt‰ and Gemeninlila, Eaniša features in the texts as a recipient of items like animals, different sorts of flour and textiles from various sources (including booty ewes from Šimaški: JCS 31 p. 175 H [Š47-02], l. 5) meant to cover her material needs but also to provision her for ceremonial duties which she apparently fulfilled at the court (OIP 115 47 [Š38-08], obv. l. 2; OIP 115 58 [Š40-03-15], obv. l. 9; NISABA 8 71 [Š40-05], obv. l. 11; NISABA 8 386 [Š41-08], obv. l. 17; CT 7 pl. 19 [Š42], rev. l. 13). Accordingly, she occurs along with other members of the royal family in the lists of supplies and gifts of precious items disbursed to these people from public as well as private sources (ASJ 4 p. 133 3 [Š43-09], rev. l. 4; Phillips 13, rev. i l. 5). It can be concluded that she played an important role in the social life of the court but not in the cultic life.116 Ninkala is attested in archival texts from several locations (Puzrišdagªn, Nippur, Umma, Ëirsu: earliest attestation HLC 1 17 [Š35], rev. ii l. 13). She is often mentioned among women certainly married to the king (RA 17 p. 212 4 [Š37-11], rev. l. 5; PDT 1 434 [Š41-08], l. 2; ASJ 4 p. 133 3 [Š43-09], rev. l. 1; Phillips 13, rev. i l. 3). Therefore, she is considered to have been one of Šulgi´s ‘junior wives’ as well. Yet, because the texts are silent about this,117 other possibilities cannot be excluded. In this respect one must note the evidence of two administrative texts according to which Ninkala appears to have personally controlled the city of Urua (MVN 17 8 [Š42], rev. l. 9; CT 7 27 [Š42], rev. l. 16; this text honours her with the title nin, ‘queen’).118 Her two extant votive inscriptions call her simply dumu-nibru† (RIME 3/2 1.2.83, l. 6; RIME 3/2 1.2.84, l. 2´), ‘The Nippurian One’, but it is impossible to say anything more about this attribute

114

See fn. 96 above. Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 238–40. 116 See Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 206–11. 117 Michalowski (1982), pp. 133–5; Michalowski (1979), p. 172, n. 8. 118 She is called nin also in ASJ 11 p. 129 59 [Š48], rev. l. 10. See Dahl (2007), p. 18, n. 63, for a brief discussion. 115

58

beyond the self-evident fact that she came from Nippur. Besides, she is also called ki-áëëá-ni (RIME 3/2 1.2.83, l. 7; RIME 3/2 1.2.84, l. 3´), ‘his (i.e. Šulgi´s) beloved’. Archival

records testify to her activity as a host on the occasion of royal banquets (BIN 5 4 [Š42], obv. i l. 23; MVN 15 91 [Š44], obv. l. 14). She was also the recipient of valuable gifts (RA 17 p. 212 4 [Š37-11], rev. l. 5; PDT 1 434 [Š41-08], l. 2; Phillips 13, rev. i l. 3). Apparently, she was an important participant in the social life of the court like Eaniša. Even more so if she really held the title ‘queen’. Yet similarly to Eaniša, Ninkala does not seem to have actively participated in cultic events,119 which is quite unusual for a queen. There is very little information about the woman called Simatea (ME-Ea) (attested already in year Š29: OIP 115 16 [Š29-11], obv. l. 6), who is found only in an archival list of supplies for some of the king´s wives – and a daughter of Amarsuõena, Taddineštar (ASJ 4 p. 133 3 [Š43-09], rev. 2) – and in other administrative texts (Phillips 13, rev. i l. 4; TSU 27 [Š34-11], obv. l. 2; MVN 18 2 [Š36-09], obv. l. 5; SET 42 [Š37-05], rev. l. 5; PDT 1 593 [Š37-08], l. 3).120 This led to the assumption that she may have belonged among royal consorts. However, this is by no means certain.121 As regards Š¥qurtum, it is certain that she was one of the monarch´s lukur wives, as an interesting text preserved on a limestone vase confirms: 1

šul-g[i]

1

Šulgi,

2

nita-kala-g[a]

2

mighty man,

3

lugal-ur[i5]ki-m[a]

3

king of Ur,

4

lugal-ki-e[n]-gi-ki-uri-[(x)]

4

king of Sumer and Akkad;

5

šu-qur-[tum]

5

Š¥qurtum

6

lukur-ki-áë-ëá-ni

6

(is) his beloved lukur.

7

lú mu-sar-ra-ba

10

May Ninsun,

8

šu bí-íb-uru12-a

11

my goddess,

9

mu-ni bí-íb-sar-a

12

(and) Lugalbanda,

10

ƒnin-sún

13

my lord,

11

diëir-ëu10

14

curse

12

ƒlugal-banda3da

7–8

the one who erases this inscription

119

Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 211–26, here especially p. 225. Note Weiershäuser´s suggestion that Ninkala may have been a foster-sister of Šulgi, i.e. the daughter of his wet-nurse. 120 See Michalowski (1982), pp. 133–5. 121 See now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 229–30.

59

13

lugal-ëu10

14

nam ‹a-ba-da-kuru5-ne

9

and writes his name (instead of it).

RIME 3/2 1.2.85.122 This object and its text originated some time during the first part of Šulgi´s reign because the titulary of the king lacks the title lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba, ‘king of the four quarters’, used in its Sumerian form exclusively after his 26th year on the throne. Even more significantly, Šulgi´s name is not preceded by the divine determinative, which is attested for the first time in his 21st regnal year.123 As it seems unlikely indeed that these omissions are just mistakes which occurred during the process of carving the inscription, one has to note that this text casts doubt on Steinkeller´s proposal that lukur replaced dam upon the deification of Šulgi (see fn. 96 above). Š¥qurtum is here clearly called a lukur prior to that event. But with respect to the unique nature of this evidence and to lack of more detailed information, Steinkeller´s proposal still seems very plausible, at least his point that the title dam for Šulgi´s wife was gradually pushed back by the designation lukur with the onset of the process of the monarch´s deification. The inscription is remarkable too because of the appeal of Š¥qurtum to the deities Ninsun and Lugalbanda. The perpetrator of an abject act of destruction and appropriation of her monument should be cursed by these gods, interestingly called by Š¥qurtum ‘my goddess’ and ‘my lord’. This undoubtedly means that she worshipped the divine parents of the king (generally being the patron deities of his dynasty)124 as her personal gods, which further supports the impression of her prominent status at Šulgi´s court. In conclusion of my brief discussion of Šulgi´s wives I have to point out the simple fact that even though some of them actively participated in cultic and economic life of the state, their primary and indeed state-constructive task was to bear children and thus secure dynastic continuity. As the reader will see below, Šulgi did not need to worry at all about the future of his dynasty in this respect.125

122

See also Steinkeller (1981), p. 84, n. 44, l. 5. See the table of royal titles in Sallaberger (1999), p. 180. On Š¥qurtum cf. now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 228–9. 124 On the importance of this gods for the Third Dynasty of Ur see already the section about Urnamma above, p. 28. A detailed discussion of this issue is found in chapter VI below. 125 The burden of responsibility lay particularly on the ruling queen, as proved by the text SRT 23 dealing with king Š¥suõen and his spouse Kubªtum. See for instance Alster (1985), pp. 138–42. However, the number of Šulgi´s children makes clear that they must have been borne by different mothers. Cf. Gelb (1979), p. 66. 123

60

II.5) Šulgi´s Offspring II.5.1) Sons and Their Roles within the State Administration According to current knowledge, king Šulgi sired altogether thirty-one children, seventeen sons and fourteen daughters. His most well-known male descendant is, of course, his successor Amarsuõena, whose mother was most likely Tarªmuram.126 While the exact identification of other sons of Šulgi is much more complicated, it is assumed that men designated in relevant texts as dumu-lugal, ‘the king´s son’, or dumu-ni, ‘his (i.e. Šulgi´s) son’, were indeed his descendants.127 They are attested particularly in archival records from Puzrišdagªn, occasionally accompanied by appropriate seal impressions which refer to their status and sometimes also to their function within the state structures. Princes were usually appointed to the posts of ‘generals’ (šagina) in strategically significant centres of the realm, apparently in order to provide the king with full control over military affairs throughout the state and to enable quick mobilization of troops and smooth communication with the ruler if any hostilities were at hand. Above all the post of šagina of Uruk seems to have been very important since this city was closely connected with the history and ideology of the dynasty, leaving aside its enormous cultic purport. Therefore, the administration of Uruk lay quite naturally in hands of the royal family, the office of the ‘general’ representing its military branch.128 According to the dates of archival texts the first son of Šulgi to occupy this position was Urniginëar (BIN 5 11 [Š32], obv. l. 5), followed by Š¥enlil (Hirose 24 [Š44-02-15], obv. l. 3), who held the same office also in a town called D¥rum.129 I shall pay more attention to Š¥enlil in my survey of Šulgi´s sons because his name is also attested in a seal impression important for an understanding of Ur III royal family. 126

Note that Amarsuõena is conspicuously missing from the textual evidence coming from his father´s reign and is attested only after his accession. Several explanations of this have been offered. See the summary in Sallaberger (1999), p. 163. 127 See the views of Gelb (1979), pp. 66–8. Sollberger (1954–1956), p. 21–2, offers an incomplete list of Šulgi´s offspring. See also Sigrist (1992), p. 361, n. 41. Cf. Hallo (1976b), p. 39. Cf. further Frayne (1997b), pp. 167–9, with extensive bibliography. For the most recent chart of Ur III royal family see Dahl (2007), p. 31. Sallaberger (1999), pp. 185–6, with bibliography in n. 216, offers a concise evaluation of the role of royal children in Ur III administration. 128 Michalowski (1991), p. 48; Michalowski (1977b), pp. 90–1. 129 Written BÀD†, BÀD.A†, BÀD.AN†. Although both the second and third sequences of signs more commonly refer to D®r, a city located on the Elamite border, it is quite clear that it must also have designated D¥rum, obviously another strategic point close to Uruk, for otherwise the coupling of these posts would make little sense. The full study of this issue has been offered by Michalowski (1977b). The special military character of D¥rum is clear already from its Sumerian and Akkadian names meaning ‘wall, rampart; fortress’. The evidence of its military importance during the Ur III period makes it possible to regard this place as a garrison town (private communication Professor Andrew R. George). Cf. Michalowski (1977b), p. 91, where he quotes Jacobsen´s suggestion that the town could have been the headquarters of cavalry.

61

This simple text refers to him as the son of Šulgi but the problem is that the name is damaged, which led to the attribution of this inscription to the ruler´s second successor, Š¥suõen, and thus further served the widespread scholarly opinion (contradictory to the evidence of the Sumerian King List) that Š¥suõen was Šulgi´s son and not grandson:

1

ƒšul-gi

2

nita-kala-ga ki 5

1

Šulgi,

2

mighty man,

3

lugal-uri -ma

3

king of Ur,

4

lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba

4


5

šu-ƒen-[líl]

5

Š¥enlil,

6

šagina

6

‘general’ (šagina)

7

unuki-[ga]

7

of Uruk,

8

dumu-ni-[im]

8

is his son.

RIME 3/2 1.2.94. The last sign in l. 5 has often been restored as ZU resulting in the reading Š¥suõen,130 so producing the only record stemming from Šulgi´s era that refers to Š¥suõen as the son of the ruling monarch.131 However, Walther Sallaberger has proposed the reading LÍL instead of ZU, which attributes the seal impression to the son and ‘general’ of Šulgi, well-known from other contemporary sources, and supports the now accepted view that Š¥suõen was in fact Šulgi´s grandson and a son of Amarsuõena, not his brother.132 It shall be noted, however, that Š¥suõen is called the ‘son of Šulgi’ in the text SRT 23 (A balbale to Baba for Š¥suõen),133 but one can assume that this epithet emphasizes Š¥suõen´s respect for his grandfather in literary and ritual context.134 130

See for instance Sollberger (1954–1956), p. 20–1; Goetze (1963), p. 15; Michalowski (1977b), p. 83. Š¥suõen is otherwise called the ‘king´s son’ only in archival records from the time of Amarsuõena. 132 For the arguments in favour of this reading and an account of previous treatment of the text see Boese and Sallaberger (1996), pp. 36–8. See also Sallaberger (1999), p. 168. 133 Lines 8) °du ¿-mu ƒšul-gi-ra-ëu , ‘my son of Šulgi’, 18) ur-°nim¿-gin ëiri -zu-šè ‹é-ná du -mu ƒšul-gi5 10 7 3 5 ra-kam: ‘May (they) lie at your feet like a lion-cub, O son of Šulgi.’ Alster (1985), pp. 140–1. Cf. the most recent edition in Sefati (1998), pp. 344–52. 134 Steinkeller (1981), p. 83, n. 33: ‘In order to defend Amar-Sin´s paternity of Šu-Sin, we would have to assume that, in BRM 3 52 (seal) and SRT 23:8, 19 (sic!), where Šu-Sin is described as the dumu of Šulgi, dumu means “grandson” or, more generally, “descendant.” … The use of the same description in SRT 23 could be explained by Šu-Sin´s preference to trace his descent to his famous grandfather, rather than to his undistinguished parent.’ The seal cited in the quotation has been dealt with above. Another kinship term of this kind is attested in an archival text recently published by Owen (2000), p. 90, no. 82. ƒŠ¥ƒSuõen-walid-ƒŠulgi, ‘Š¥suõen, “born” of Šulgi’. Although the editor considers it to be the full name of Š¥suõen as Šulgi´s son, it is equally possible that yet another and unique form of epithet relating Š¥suõen to Šulgi is presented here. On the genealogy of Š¥suõen cf. now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 105–6, here especially n. 393. Cf. further Mayr and Owen (2004), p. 155, n. 53: ‘… seals of three servants of Simat131

62

Š¥enlil, šagina in Uruk and D¥rum, undoubtedly led or at least participated in military campaigns conducted in late years of his father´s reign and was rewarded for his services with a share in the spoils of war from the campaign against Šimaški (MVN 13 672 [Š47-01], obv. l. 5).135 The duty to command the royal ranks in battle resulted of course from the very nature of the position of the king´s ‘military governor’. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that these ‘generals’ occur in archival texts stemming roughly from the last third of the king´s reign as suppliers of booty to central stores. This implies that they certainly represented the elderly monarch in combat, although the texts intended to consolidate the image of the ideal ruler always feature the king alone as the valiant warrior.136 Š¥enlil was superseded in both of his functions by another prince, Ursuõena (Š48). This son of the king is attested in several archival records from the years Š 34–Š47 and in three impressions of seals of his servants which, in contrast to the administrative text, reveal only his position and not his filiation.137 The evidence for the remaining sons of Šulgi, namely Amardamu (MVN 15 180 [Š46], obv. l. 7), DagªnDUni (BIN 3 491 [Š43-05], obv. ii l. 3), Eštarilšu (MVN 5 101 [Š46-04-15], obv. l. 3), Etelp‰dagªn (MVN 11 110, rev. l. 10), Luduga (MVN 15 162 [Š33-06], rev. l. 18´), Lugalazida (BIN 3 418 [Š46-02], obv. l. 9), Lunanna (TRU 24 [Š44], obv. l. 2), Lusunzida (ITT 4 8048 [Š43-05], rev. l. 1?), Nabienlil (MVN 2 238, obv. l. 3), Nabiõum (SET 5 [Š44-12-09], obv. l. 2), NaDI (TSU 93 [Š45-05-25], obv. l. 10), Puzureštar (DAS 180, rev. l. 4), and Š¥eštar (RO 11 p. 96 1 [Š43-11-30], rev. l. 6), is also found in archival texts from the last third of their father´s reign. Although there are

Ištaran … indicate that she was the sister (nin9, if we understand this kinship term literally) of both ŠuSuen and Ibbi-Suen. Together, this new data seems to imply that all Šulgi´s successors were his sons, albeit probably from two different mothers, i.e. Amar-Suena from one queen and Šu-Suen and Ibbi-Suen, together with their sister, Simat-Ištaran, children of another queen.’ Simatištarªn is considered to be Amarsuõena´s daughter, whereby she could well have been the sister of both other kings, assuming that they were his sons. This seems almost certain in the case of Š¥suõen, and as for Ibb‰suõen (2028–2004), such a possibility cannot be excluded because his parentage is utterly uncertain. In any case, there is not a single record of any ‘son of the king’ from the time of Š¥suõen, which may support the view that both kings were together with their sister the children of Amarsuõena. On Simatištarªn see now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 161 with n. 675, 182–3 with n. 768. For the hypothesis that all Šulgi´s successors were his sons see Dahl (2007), pp. 13–29. 135 Š¥enlil as a supplier of booty goods features in Princeton 1 130 [Š46-05], rev. l. 2; MVN 10 139 [Š47-0603], obv. l. 3. 136 See Sallaberger (1999), p. 158. 137 The administrative texts are: TLB 3 146 [Š34-08], obv. ii l. 3, rev. i l. 13; MVN 10 149 [Š35-02], rev. i l. 12; SEL 3 27 [Š43], obv. ii l. 21, iii l. 25, rev. iii l. 1; MVN 13 706 [Š44-09-29], obv. l. 6; MVN 13 121 [Š44-10-15], obv. l. 4; EBKT 1 [Š44-10-23], obv. l. 2; Trouvaille 81 [Š45-05-25], rev. l. 22; MVN 13 513 [Š46-05], rev. l. 10; MVN 5 105 [Š47-02-07], obv. l. 8. For the seal impressions see RIME 3/2 1.2.95–7.

63

indications that some of them could have been ‘generals’ as well,138 one cannot be absolutely certain of it. Moreover, no votive inscriptions or impressions of seals of their servants mentioning their names have been preserved. II.5.2) Daughters and Their Roles within the Cult and Diplomacy Fourteen Šulgi´s daughters are currently known, among which two are considered to have been his children only because of their priestly office (en) in the temple complex of Nanna at Ur. But this assumption is well anchored in the famous practice, beginning in the time of Sargon of Akkad at the latest, that the post of Nanna´s en-priestess was regularly staffed by princesses coming from royal families which thereby sought to deepen their influence in southern Sumer (e.g. a daughter of the Lagašite ruler Urbaba). Needless to say, the monarchs of Ur proper did not want to interrupt such a tradition because its political significance for their dynasty was self-evident. If a royal daughter was in charge of cultic affairs of the tutelary deity of the capital, the royal family controlled one of the key vehicles of power in Babylonia, i.e. organized religion, while the princes controlled the other, i.e. the military affairs of crucial centres of the realm. Thus, the king secured for himself by means of family ties the loyalty of the armed forces as well as of a substantial group of clergy. As I have already noted above, the first princess from the House of Ur appointed to the post of Nanna´s en-priestess was Urnamma´s daughter Ennirëalana, as testified by her votive inscription. The relevant date formula is not yet attested. Ennirëalana was replaced by her niece Ennirziana in the year Š15, as the relevant year name relates: ennir-zi-an-na en ƒnanna máš-e ì-pàd (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 11´): ‘Ennirziana was chosen as Nanna´s en-priestess by means of extispicy.’ She exercised the religiously and politically significant function from the 17th year of her father´s reign139 until the 43rd, when she was superseded by her sister Enuburziana.140 Enuburziana held the office until the 4th 138 Lunanna (in Zimudar and Nagsu), Puzureštar (unspecified) and Š¥eštar (in the city of Gudua; Kutha, K¥t¥). See Sigrist (1992), p. 361, n. 41. 139 The name of year Š17 reads: en-nir-zi-an-na en ƒnanna ba-‹uë-ëá (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 13´): ‘Ennirziana was installed as Nanna´s en-priestess.’ 140 The date formula of the year Š43 reads: mu en-ubur-zi-an-na en ƒnanna maš/máš-e ì-pàd (RA 75 p. 86 5 [Š43-08], rev. l. 9; JCS 31 p. 174 F [Š43-06], l. 12): ‘Year in which Enuburziana was chosen as Nanna´s en-priestess by means of extispicy.’ See Sollberger (1954–1956), pp. 23–9; Sallaberger (1999), pp. 138, 150, 185–6. A complex analysis of the title en can be found along with a treatment of related topics in Steinkeller (1999). In additon, the date formula of Š28 commemorates in numerous variants the installation of an en-priestess at Eridu: mu en eridu†-ga ba-‹uë-ëá/mu en-nam-šita-ƒšul-gi-ra-ke4 ba-gub ba-‹uë/mu ƒšul-gi nita-kala-ga lugal-uri5†-ma lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba-ke4 en-nam-šita4-ƒšul-gi-ra-ke4 šùd-saë en ƒen-ki eridu†-ga ba-a-‹uë/mu ƒšul-gi lugal-uri2†-ma-ke4 en-nam-šita4-ƒšul-gi-ra-ke4 ba-gub-bašè šùd-saë en ƒen-ki eridu†-šè in-‹uë-ëá (e.g. BE 1/2 125, rev. 7; UET 3 0289 [Š28-02], rev. ll. 3–5;

64

year of Šulgi´s successor Amarsuõena, eventually leaving it to his daughter Enma‹galana (e.g. CT 7 7 [AS04-04], rev. ii l. 5).141 Besides filling distinctive cultic posts, the princesses fulfilled yet another strategic task as they were objects of Šulgi´s marriage policy, again initiated by Urnamma. This political ‘tool’ was used to establish closer ties between the king and the provincial governors or ‘generals’ on the one hand,142 and on the other to secure good relationships with vassal or fully independent states in neighbouring areas rich in raw materials. Thus the king gained at least temporary access to sources of materials lacking in Babylonia which he otherwise would have had to seek by force of arms. Hence, this policy towards the surrounding areas was motivated by the economic requisites and interests of the state (raw materials, particularly various kinds of stone and metal; profit of long-distance trade) but significantly also by the need to protect the homeland, to gain allies and to expand the influence of the Ur III kingdom far beyond its boundaries. The importance of the marriage of a princess to a foreign ruler is eloquently testified by the fact that such events were frequently commemorated in date formulae. According to them, Šulgi married off two of his daughters. The first international wedding took place in his 18th regnal year, mu lí-wir-mi-#a-šu dumu-munus lugal nam-nin mar-‹a-ši†-šè ba-íl (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 14´): ‘Year in which the princess Liwwirmi##ašu was married off to (literally: ‘elevated to queenship’) Mar‹aši.’ The alliance with this state, east of the Persian Gulf in present south-western Iran, abounding in precious metals proved to be a firm one, for no date formula or another source from the reign of any Ur III ruler records a campaign against this state. Instead, there is a handful of archival tablets bearing witness to vivid diplomatic contacts, especially the presence of envoys from Mar‹aši at the court of Ur (e.g. TCL 2 5508 [AS04-01-06], obv. i l. 19;

NATN 235 [Š28-04], rev. l. 3; CST 739 [Š28-05], rev. ll. 4–5; Iraq 22 pl. 18 6N-T147 [Š28-06], rev. ll. 4–8; AAICAB 1/1 pls. 38–9 1911-229 [Š28-08], rev. iv ll. 10–15; NATN 242 [Š28-09], rev. l. 2). The recording of this event in the date formula and the long variants point to its significance. It is now assumed that Ennamšitašulgirakebagub is a personal name possibly belonging to still another of Šulgi´s daughters. The name is also attested in two administrative texts which, however, do not give her filiation. Therefore, this person is for the time being not listed among Šulgi´s children. See Frayne (1997b), p. 104. However, as the year names of the eleventh regnal year of Ibb‰suõen are almost identical, the main difference being the royal name, it is equally possible to regard the supposed personal name as a title. See Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 322. 141 For a discussion of all these ladies see now Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 241–3. 142 According to an administrative record from the year Š47 (TRU 110 [Š47-12-04], obv. l. 7) a lady called Nin‹edu married the ‘general’ ›ašibatal. She is called a ‘daughter of the king’ in another record, this time from the year AS4 (CTMMA 1 17 [AS04-07], obv. l. 28). Thus, she could have been a daughter either of Šulgi or Amarsuõena. See Michalowski (1991), p. 48 with n. 16. Cf. Weiershäuser (2008), pp. 223, 265 with n. 1224, who regards Nin‹edu first as Amarsuõena´s daughter, then as Šulgi´s.

65

AUCT 2 154 [ŠS03-10-01], obv. l. 2; UET 9 204 [IS03-08], ii l. 4).143 The occurrence of the expression nam-nin, ‘queenship’, in the date formula is of some interest. It implies that the monarch of Mar‹aši was understood as a lugal, ‘king’, who was thus equal to the king of Ur, although in later times foreign rulers were regularly called ensi2, ‘governor’, and seen as ‘subjects’ of the Ur sovereign, the sole person to bear the title lugal.144 Another political marriage occurred in Š30 but the name of the princess in question remains unknown: mu dumu-munus lugal ensi2 an-ša-an†-ke4 ba-tuku (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 9): ‘Year in which the “governor” of Anšan married a princess.’ Here the view of the neighbouring rulers referred to above is found for the first time but it has to be admitted that this date formula has a variant containing the word nin (UET 3 300 [Š3006], rev. l. 4),145 so that it seems that the formal ideological perspective of absolute superiority of the Ur kingdom to the surrounding areas was only gradually emerging in the last third of Šulgi´s reign. As is known from Urnamma´s law code, Anšan, a state close to Mar‹aši, still controlled at the beginning of Ur III history vast areas along the course of the Tigris river, and managed to retain its independence despite the defeat by the founder of the Ur III kingdom. Therefore, Šulgi seems to have achieved considerable diplomatic success through his marriage policy, though he was subsequently forced to ravage Anšan already in his 34th regnal year.146 Finally, an archival text dated to the year Š48 and featuring among others Tarªmšulgi interestingly relates that she was the wife of certain Šuddabªni, a ruler of the state called Pašime on the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf.147 Unfortunately, it cannot be inferred from this text when the marriage took place. Neither is known why this event was not commemorated in a date formula. Apparently, another event was considered more important that year.

143

See also Steinkeller (1982), pp. 260–1 with note 95. For instance in the date formula of the 5th year of Ibb‰suõen which reads: mu tu-ki-in-‹a##i-mi-ig-rí-ša dumu-munus lugal ensi2-za-ab-ša-li†-ke4 ba-an-tuku (SAT 3 2009 [IS05], rev. l. 3): ‘Year in which the “governor” of Zabšali married princess Tuk‰n‹a##imigr‰ša.’ 145 Steinkeller (1982), p. 260, n. 92: ‘A variant of this year-formula reads: mu dumu lugal nin An-ša-an-našè ba-ëen, “the year the king´s daughter went away (to assume) the queenship of Anšan” (UET 3 300).’ Cf. Wilcke (1974), p. 178 and n. 23. 146 For a discussion of this event see chapter III.12) below. 147 Steinkeller (1982), p. 241, n. 16, l. 14: ‘é Tá-ra-am-ƒŠul-gi dumu-munus lugal dam Šu-da-ba-ni lú Ba-šime†-ka-šè: “for the house of Tarªm-Šulgi, the king´s daughter, the wife of Šudda-bªni, the man (i.e., the ruler) of Pašime.”’ (Private collection [Š48-08].) 144

66

As regards other Šulgi´s daughters, Namnine‹edu (Kyoto 18 [AS04-05], seal l. 1; NISABA 8 104 [AS05], seal l. 1), Dadagu (MVN 2 207 [ŠS03], obv. l. 5?), PešTUR.TUR (MVN 13 657 [Š46-02], obv. l. 5), Simateštar (ME-Eštar) (CST 470 [Š42-05-24], obv. l. 4), and Šªtšulgi (MVN 5 95 [Š43/AS07-01-09], obv. l. 9) are attested particularly in archival texts from Š30 to IS3.148 NinTUR.TURëu, Simatenlil (ME-Enlil) and Šªtsuõen are additionally referred to in a votive inscription and several seal impressions (Šulgi 46, 66; NRVN 1 157 [IS03-12], seal l. 1; MVN 11 204 [IS02-12], obv. l. 1, seal l. 1). Baqartum is mentioned only on a tiny seal of her servant (RIME 3/2 1.2.86).149 More administrative texts refer to Šªtsuõen (since Š37 until IS3) but they do not reveal her title (e.g. PDT 1 593 [Š37-08], obv. l. 8; UET 3 1647 [ŠS09-08], obv. l. 4). It is found in four archival records, dated between Š42 and ŠS7 (BPOA 7 2668 [Š42-08-16], obv. l. 2; TSU 37 [Š47-02], obv. l. 3; SAT 2 995 [AS06-01-06], obv. l. 2; ASJ 14 p. 236 85 [ŠS07], obv. l. 12, rev. l. 11). TSU 37 ([Š47-02], obv. l. 3) even mentions her wet-nurse, a certain Tar‰šmªtum, but it cannot be determined whether this woman suckled the princess herself years ago or rather her children. In conclusion I shall mention the interesting and certainly not accidental fact that the Sumerian names of Šulgi´s daughters installed in the most senior priestly office at Ur contain a designation of their status, en, and phrases with clearly religious content: ‘En, the True Princess of Heaven’ and ‘En, the True Breast of Heaven’. On the other hand, the Akkadian name of the princess married off to Mar‹aši means ‘May His Mace Shine’, and thus conveys a purely political message of Šulgi´s aspirations and steadily increasing influence. It is almost certain that the women in question adopted such names at the time of the respective events. It is also noteworthy that out of thirty-one Šulgi´s children fifteen bore Sumerian and fifteen Akkadian names (one name is unknown). Thus, the distribution of their names in both languages is obviously well balanced.150

148 Royal descendants continued to be called ‘prince’ or ‘princess’ after the death of their father. For Namnine‹edu, unknown until recently, see Tsouparopoulou (2008). Note that there is a possibility that this lady was not Šulgi´s daughter but his sister. See ibid., p. 12. 149 Frayne (1997b), pp. 167–8 with references. 150 The problem of languages written and spoken in the time of Šulgi will be touched upon in chapter VII.2). For an influential view see J. Cooper (1973). Cf. Heimpel (1974–1977); Michalowski (1991), pp. 49–51. For the latest discussion see Sallaberger (2004); Michalowski (2006c); Woods (2006).

67

Chapter III: Chronological Account of Šulgi´s Reign Based on Historical Sources III.1) Introductory Remarks Having examined the family of king Šulgi, let us move on now to a discussion of his rule. Šulgi of Ur (2094–2047) reigned nearly half a century. According to several duplicates of the Sumerian King List151 his reign spanned either 46, 48 or 58 years.152 Although the exact figure is difficult to establish, scholars generally agree that Šulgi governed his land for forty-eight years, as evidenced by three manuscripts of the King List and corroborated by a sequence of date formulae reconstructed from ancient lists and numerous dated archival records.153 Since the chronology of Šulgi´s reign is relatively well documented by these sources, his era can be followed year by year.154 The date formulae themselves present by their very nature a major, and often also the only, source of data on crucial events of Šulgi´s reign.155 Although there is no doubt that the year names are historical sources, it nevertheless must be kept in mind that the selection of a single event – out of all those which had taken place in a particular year – for commemoration in such a way was subject to a decision made probably by the king himself and/or his closest courtiers. Of course, it is not known who exactly determined the year names and how but the involvement of the ruler seems indisputable. They were certainly promulgated post factum, perhaps at the very beginning of the new year which was named at the beginning of the next year, etc. It is true that there is a number of variants and inconsistencies. Still, the sequence shows coherence which would hardly have been present if the date formulae had been allowed to be selected randomly, perhaps by the administrative units themselves. This would 151

Jacobsen (1939). See now Glassner (2004), pp. 117–27. Cf. ETCSL, 2.1.1, ‘The Sumerian king list’. For the manuscript containing the lower figure (WB 444) see Glassner (2004), p. 124. For the manuscript containing the higher figure (PBS 5 5) see Jacobsen (1939), p. 122 and n. 321. Cf. ETCSL, 2.1.1, ll. 343–4. 153 For the first manuscript (MDP 28 pp. 26–7) see Jacobsen, ibid. Jacobsen also convincingly argues that the manuscript relating the figure 46 may have been copied from an earlier version of the text containing the figure 48, which would mean that there are three manuscripts of the King List attributing 48 regnal years to Šulgi. For the second manuscript (Tell Leilªn L87 520a+520b+641+769+770) unequivocally giving the year count 48 see Sollberger (1954). Cf. Vincente (1995), pp. 234–70. 154 There are two incomplete lists of Šulgi´s date formulae. The first one comes from Nippur and was published by Hilprecht (BE 1/2 125). The second one comes from Isin and was edited by Wilcke (1985), pp. 299–303 (IB 542a+b+). Both are of likely Old Babylonian date. 155 The most important studies on Šulgi´s date formulae and chronology of his reign in general have been offered by Schneider (1936); Kraus (1951); Sollberger (1954–1956); Goetze (1960), pp. 151–6 and pl. XVIII–XX. 152

68

have led to chaos, resulting in dozens of year names for each year. Therefore, I believe that the date formulae represent a survey of events which the king wanted most to be remembered. This makes them an indirect part of his self-representation policy. They yield historical information but were selected on the basis of political and ideological considerations. Thus, the current picture of Šulgi´s reign remains inaccurate mainly due to total lack of historically significant sources independent of governmental control.156 Information related in the date formulae is sometimes corroborated by other historical sources, such as royal inscriptions and administrative documents. These occasionally add important details to the data given in the formulae. Two late chronicles may perhaps be counted among such sources too, for these pseudohistorical works contain remarks on events of Šulgi´s life and reign supported by other sources. In this chapter I will offer a narrative based solely on historical sources and using only such texts. The possibilities and difficulties of mining literary texts for historical data and interpreting such data will be treated separately in detail in the next two chapters. Thus, what follows is a chronologically organized overview based on the sequence of Šulgi´s date formulae.157 The discussion is sometimes arranged in groups dealing with several years in one subsection because of scarcity of data and thematic similarity of events described. III.2) Accession to the Throne (Year Š1) The first date formula of Šulgi´s reign states: mu šul-gi lugal: ‘Year, Šulgi (became) king’ (RTC 273, rev. l. 5), and employs the standard expression for commemorating the accession of a new king.158 It is attested in a single administrative text (RTC 273), for the time being the only historical source relating Šulgi´s new status. Thus, if one wants to draw a more detailed picture of events and circumstances surrounding the king´s coronation and earliest phase of his rule, one has to resort to historical allusions in literary texts. I have already done this in brief above (pp. 38–9) and will do so fully in chapter V.

156

The need for caution when dealing with year names was discussed in detail by Widell (2002). The reconstructed sequence can be found in Sigrist and Gomi (1991), pp. 320–5. Basically, this sequence is followed here. Different scholarly opinions will also be discussed and references to primary sources given. See further Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, sub Shulgi, with references. Cf. Sallaberger (1999), pp. 141–3. See further an extensive overview and discussion of Šulgi´s date formulae in Frayne (1997b), pp. 91–110. 158 The earliest date formula of this kind attested so far concerns the accession of king Šarkališarr‰ of Akkad. 157

69

A discussion of the king´s first regnal year provides a good opportunity to look into the meaning of his name and the development of its understanding among scholars. In older literature the given cuneiform signs were transcribed DUN-gi. Gradually, the reading ŠUL instead of DUN became established with its suitable meaning ‘young man; warrior, invader’.159 Finally, it is now generally accepted that the sign GI stands here for gir15/gi7, ‘domestic, civilized; belonging to the native in-group; noble’.160 The final consonant was regularly dropped if not followed by a suffix with initial vocal (e.g. *šulgi.ra[k]). Thus, the resulting composite means ‘Noble Youth’ or the like.161 As can be seen, it is a programmatic name conveying an idea of grandeur, vigour and strength. Scholars have often surmised that ‘Šulgi’ might have been an abbreviated form of intricate ‘throne-names’ given to the king by the gods, according to the ‘coronation’ hymns F and P.162 On the other hand it is likewise possible that those epithets are elaborate forms of the king´s original, proper name.163 The latter possibility seems more likely considering that all Šulgi hymns have been composed after his coronation and that such epithets are not attested outside hymnal context. Finally, it should be noted that the sign ŠUL was most probably pronounced su (or even zu), indicating a word-play in the epithets. This means that one should transcribe Sugi or Sugir instead of Šulgi.164 However, as this reading has not been fully established among scholars yet, I decided to retain the conventional transcription throughout.

Halloran (2006), p. 271. Cf. CAD E, p. 407, sub e#lu. Ibid., p. 83. Cf. CAD R, p. 396, sub rubû A. 161 On transliteration and etymology of the king´s name see Sollberger (1954–1956), p. 14, n. 14. Cf. Sollberger (1966), pp. 122, 176–7. Cf. further Krecher (1966), p. 108, and Limet (1968), pp. 355–6, with previous literature. 162 Šulgi F, ll. 168–70: ƒnin-sún-na-ke mu-tud-e-èn/ƒnin-‹ur-saë-ëá-ke (!) šul-gi šu[l (?)-x]/šul-an-né(!) zu 4 4 mu-šè mu-sa4: ‘I have been born by Ninsun; Nin‹ursag gave me as (my) name: “The-Noble-Lad-the-…Lad-Whom-An-(Personally)-Knows”.’ Klein (1981a), p. 26 and n. 137. Šulgi P b, ll. 38–9: a-a-ugu4-zu kùƒlugal-bàn-da-a/šul-an-né-zu-diëir-re-ne mu-šè [m]u-rí-in-sa4: ‘Your father who begot you, holy Lugalbanda, called your name: “Valiant-Whom-An-Knows(-Well)-Among-the-Gods”.’ Ibid., pp. 36, 38. Cf. further Klein´s comments on these lines ibid., p. 41. For the ‘throne-name’ idea see Limet (1968), p. 356: ‘Nous inclinerions à supposer que le nom du roi serait un nom abrégé qui náurait conservé que deux syllabes accentuées de la phrase entière : šul (An-né-zu din)gir-re-ne.’ Sjöberg [1972 (1973)], p. 112. Sallaberger (1999), p. 163, n. 140: ‘P. Attinger merkt an, daß Šul-gi.r wohl ebenfalls ein Thronname sei, und fügt hinzu: “Halbspaßend schlug ich Andrea [Becker] vor langer Zeit ´der Neosumerer´ als Übersetzung vor”.’ However, Becker (1985), p. 299, has proposed a translation ‘Kronprinz’ (crownprince). 163 Klein (1981a), p. 26, n. 136. 164 See the evidence presented ibid., p. 42 (su /zu ), with references. ABZL, no. 438, has su /sul. Note 17 7 17 also the most recent discussion in Keetman (2010), p. 26, n. 50, who argues for a reading Sulge. 159 160

70

III.3) Early Deeds of Religious Nature (Years Š2–4) Extant date formulae of the first three years of Šulgi´s reign make clear that at that time the king devoted himself to fulfilling cultic duties or that his religious activities were at least seen as the most important and thus commemorated in the year names.165 According to the reconstructed sequence his efforts concentrated particularly on prominent Nippurian deities. This is not surprising because the king had just been crowned and certainly sought the blessings of major gods of the land´s religious centre. Such activity surely secured him also the favour of clergy, thereby underpinning his newly acquired royal majesty. The date formula of Šulgi´s second year reads: mu šul-gi lugal uri2†-ma-ke4 ºguza za-gìn ƒen-líl-ra ì-na-ku4-ra: ‘Year in which Šulgi, the king of Ur, brought a shining throne for Enlil (into his temple)’ (Iraq 22 pl. 20 [6N-T382]).166 Although any details of the king´s undertaking are not known, it can be reasonably assumed that the precious cultic object made for the head of Sumerian divine executive was placed within his main sanctuary Ekur in Nippur.167 Thus, it drew attention of the god and his clergy to the royal heir of Ur who wanted to confirm and strengthen the recently won position of the dynasty to which he belonged. However, it is assumed that the second year of Šulgi´s reign has a variant date formula, namely: mu é-mu‹aldim ƒnin-šubur ba-dù-a: ‘Year in which Ninšubur´s kitchen was built’ (AOAT 25 p. 82 11, rev. l. 5; RT 19 p. 55 6).168 It refers to the construction of a cultic facility meant for preparation of sacrificial meals for a relatively important Urukean goddess, Inana´s aide. A damaged royal inscription of Šulgi mentioning Ninšubur may be related to the event commemorated by the formula but could have been commissioned for another purpose just as well (RIME 3/2 1.2.8). The king obviously launched an intensive cultic policy within the Sumerian heartland right from the beginning. 165

Although the main source for the sequence of Šulgi´s date formulae, the Nippur list (BE 1/2 125), is destroyed up to the formula of year Š5, the assignment of the following year names in that order to initial four years of Šulgi´s reign is accepted by the majority of scholars. Exceptions will be dealt with in footnotes. 166 Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, assign this formula to year Š3. They prefer to put in its place the following year name: mu uš é-ƒnin-gublaga ki ba-a-ëar: ‘Year in which the foundations of Ningublaga´s temple were laid,’ with references to several archival texts inconclusive as to the attribution of this formula (RTC 271, rev. l. 3; ITT 5 6737, rev. l. 3; ITT 4 7628, rev. l. 2; ITT 4 7665, rev. l. 3; ITT 4 7662, l. 5). Further, this very year name is usually attributed to Urnamma (UN17). See Sollberger (1954– 1956), p. 12; Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 320; and particularly a detailed discussion in Frayne (1997b), pp. 18–19, with references. See also a votive inscription which may have been dedicated to Ningublaga by Urnamma (RIME 3/2 1.1.46). But cf. Kraus (1951), p. 392. 167 Label containing this year name was discovered in Nippur. 168 Note that Frayne (1997b), p. 94, assigns it to the year Š3 as the main formula.

71

The care for the Nippurian cult remained the focus of Šulgi´s activity in the next two years. The date formula of his third year reads: mu ºgigir ƒnin-líl ba-dím-ma: ‘Year in which Ninlil´s chariot was made’ (RTC 266, rev. l. 10).169 This deed seems to be a logical continuation of Šulgi´s previous dedication of a splendid cultic artifact to Enlil, Ninlil´s consort. Thus, the king could have lavishly provisioned the rites of the most important divine couple. However, one has to bear in mind that the attribution of this date formula to Šulgi is disputed and that the construction of Ninlil´s chariot could well have been commissioned already by his father Urnamma. As for the next year of Šulgi´s reign there is a consensus that the date formula mu uš é ƒnin-urta ki ba-a-ëar: ‘Year in which the foundations of Ninurta´s temple were laid’ (RTC 274, rev. l. 5; cf. RTC 276, obv. i l. 18), belongs to the sequence of Šulgi´s date formulae as the name of year Š4.170 Although this formula does not mention the name and location of Ninurta´s temple, one can assume that it was built in Nippur. Perhaps, the laying of foundations meant the beginning of a wholesale restoration of Ninurta´s main sanctuary Ešumeša.171 Unfortunately, there is no other reliable historical source pertaining to this deed.172 III.4) Restoration of D®r (Year Š5) The date formula of Šulgi´s fifth regnal year is thought to commemorate a restoration of the city of D®r: mu bàd-gal-an† ki-bé gi4-a: ‘Year in which D®r was restored’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 1´; UET 3 292, rev. l. 4; ).173 Although the name of this city was usually

169

This date formula is a more contested one. See Sollberger (1954–1956), p. 15; Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 320, for attribution to Šulgi. Kraus (1951), p. 395, and Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, assign this date formula to Urnamma (UN15). They have the year name given above for the year Š2 instead. See fn. 166. Cf. Frayne (1997b), p. 17, for yet another attribution to Urnamma and a short discussion. 170 Only Frayne (1997b), p. 94, assigns it to year Š5. 171 See an analysis of this year name in Radau (1911), pp. 41–2. 172 Cf. an inscription quoted by Frayne (1997b), p. 94. 173 Thus Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 320. However, Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, assign to this year the following formula: mu bàd gal é-an-na ba-dù-a (unattested): ‘Year in which the great wall of the Eana was built.’ This new date formula has to my knowledge never been attributed to any of the Ur III kings before. It is true that Šulgi built the ‘great wall of the Eana’ according to the relevant royal inscription (RIME 3/2 1.2.6). However, the text speaks mainly of a restoration of the temple and this is what one would expect to have been commemorated in a date formula. Moreover, the traces in the Nippur list of Šulgi´s date formulae (completely destroyed up to this point) seem to support the present reading. Hilprecht´s copy shows fairly clear traces of MU, BÀD and GAL followed by two vertical strokes with a gap in between. Kraus (1951), p. 390, who has established the present reading, thought that these two lines represented traces of AN and KI. According to Sigrist and Damerow they must represent a trace of É, which is unlikely if compared to other instances of that sign as used by the scribe who wrote this list.

72

written BÀD.AN†, the scribe of the Nippur list of Šulgi´s year names used regularly this unique sequence of signs.174 The normal writing is also attested in a damaged building inscription lacking the donor´s name but dealing with the restoration of the city. Therefore, it has been tentatively attributed to Šulgi (RIME 3/2 1.2.63). It must be noted here that in case of this year´s date formula a mu ús-sa variant repeating the commemoration of Šulgi´s laying the foundations of Ninurta´s temple is encountered for the first time.175 Such year names were used if no event of sufficient importance had occurred during the previous year. The matter is even more complicated by the fact that the mu ús-sa formula could have been replaced in the course of the new year by a name referring to a significant event which had just taken place.176 D®r, modern Tell ÕAqr situated approximately one kilometre to the west of modern Badraya in central-eastern Iraq, was a strategic centre at the north-eastern fringe of the state´s core territory securing control of an important route to Elam. D®r is not listed in Urnamma´s cadastre enumerating places in the north over which Šulgi´s father held sway. It is also missing from the list of cities liberated by Urnamma according to the prologue of his law-code. It does not occur in an Old Babylonian text again enumerating towns and places under Urnamma´s influence either, though the majority of them lay in the north-eastern border zone of Babylonia as well as D®r.177 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Šulgi´s father did not control this area and might have been injured while attempting to expel the Gutians or Elamites from the area around D®r and to incorporate it into his kingdom. Thus, Šulgi himself could have destroyed D®r in the course of his subsequent retaliatory campaign meant to avenge his father´s death. This idea will be discussed at length in chapter V, since the only source of information on that military campaign seems to be the hymn Šulgi D+X.

174

Cf. the date formula of year Š11 below. For a discussion of this issue see Frayne (1997b), p. 95, with numerous references. See further Edzard and G. Farber (1974), pp. 22–3, for BÀD.GAL.AN† as a variant of BÀD.AN†. For a detailed discussion of reading the names D®r and D¥rum see Michalowski (1977b). 175 Wilcke (1985), p. 301: mu-ús-s[a uš-]/é-ƒNi[n-urta]/ki-a b[í-ëar]: ‘Year after the year in which the foundations of Ninurta´s temple were laid’ (IB 542a+b+). RTC 275, rev. l. 2: mu uš é ƒnin-urta ús-sa. Cf. e.g. RTC 276, obv. i l. 19; ITT 4 8121, rev. l. 3. 176 See Sallaberger (1999), p. 140 and n. 70, with references. Cf. Klein (1989a), pp. 59–60, n. 35. This custom would account for occasional dating discrepancies between archival records, some of which employed the mu ús-sa formula while the others used the new year name. 177 See chapter II.1.2), p. 31 and fn. 48.

73

III.5) Care for Road-Traffic Infrastructure and the Ruler´s Legendary Long-Distance Race (Years Š6–Š7) According to the date formula of his sixth regnal year Šulgi made straight the road to Nippur: mu ëiri3 nibru† si bí-sá: ‘Year in which the Nippur road was put in order’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 2´).178 It is generally assumed that this deed concerned the construction of smooth, comfortable and safe highway between the capital of the kingdom and its religious centre. Although this date formula deals only with the most important road in Ur III Sumer, it seems certain that the king paid considerable attention to the traffic infrastructure throughout his realm as witnessed by his hymn A. Generally speaking, making the roads safe for travellers belonged to the duties of ancient Near Eastern rulers throughout history. Various kings pursued to achieve the ideal state of ways free of bandits and wild animals. Even more strongly, they took care of immortalizing the notion that they had indeed achieved this in literary and historical texts commissioned by them.179 This was also the case with the Lagašite ruler Gudea and Šulgi´s fater Urnamma. Obviously, Šulgi was no exception. His seventh regnal year was named: mu lugal-e uri5†-ta nibru†-šè ì-niëin2: ‘Year in which the king made a round trip between Ur and Nippur’ (RTC 277, rev. l. 4´).180 This event is closely associated with that of the previous year. It further testifies to Šulgi´s apparently deep concern for safeguarding the roads of Sumer. But what does this year name mean? Hymn Šulgi A suggests that the king opened the new highway for public use by ‘testing’ it in a supposedly one-day race from Nippur to Ur and back.181 Similarly, the so-called hymn V (SRT 13, obv. l. 1–rev. l. 2), now thought to have originally been inscribed on a statue erected probably in Enlil´s Nippurian temple Ekur and depicting Šulgi perhaps in the guise of a runner, undoubtedly added to his 178

Although the latter part of this year name is destroyed in the Nippur list of Šulgi´s date formulae, the restoration is fairly certain. Compare Urnamma´s date formula of similar content, p. 30, fn. 41, above. Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, give the following: mu lugal-e ëiri3 nibru† si bí-sá-a: ‘Year in which the king put in order the ways of Nippur.’ 179 See numerous examples from various periods and areas in Frayne (1983b), pp. 740–3. 180 Variants are e.g. RTC 276, obv. i l. 20: mu lugal-e šu in-niëin -šè; RTC 279, rev. l. 3: mu lugal-e šu ì2 niëin2. BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 3´, gives a similarly abbreviated form: mu lugal-e uri2†-°ta¿ (cf. RTC 280, rev. l. 5´). Klein (1981b), p. 181, translates: ‘Year: when the king marched from Ur to Nippur.’ Thus, he understands this formula as evidence for a one-way trip from Ur to Nippur. He points out that in such a case the hymn Šulgi A does not agree with the date formula, and gives several solutions of the problem. On the contrary, Frayne (1983b), p. 739, stresses that the round character of the trip is fully reflected in the date formula, which he supports with a brief analysis of the verb niëin2 and its Akkadian equivalents: sa‹ªru, %âdu, lamû and târu. Furthermore, he argues that the abbreviated form of the date refers to Šulgi´s return to Nippur, i.e. to the second part of his trip described in the hymn Šulgi A. I regard Frayne´s interpretation as more plausible. 181 See Frayne (1983b), p. 744.

74

reputation as a brilliant athlete. Unfortunately, no such statue has been preserved. The Old Babylonian copy of the assumed statue inscription decribes the king´s run in a way very similar to that of the hymn A but some of its features strongly indicate that it was indeed a royal inscription.182 Moreover, the remainder of the tablet is inscribed with a comparable text featuring the Isin dynasty king Išmedagªn, a great admirer of Šulgi, who explicitly states that he has had a statue made representing himself as a runner.183 Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the Šulgi text preserved in this copy was a historical inscription relating in exaggerated terms what the king had really done on that day. I shall write more about it in chapter V when dealing with hymn A and other literary references to this deed. III.6) Caulking the Barge of Ninlil (Year Š8) The date formula of Šulgi´s eighth regnal year commemorates the caulking of Ninlil´s barge: mu má ƒnin-líl-lá ba-du8: ‘Year in which Ninlil´s barge was caulked’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 4´; ITT 4 7991, rev. l. 3; ITT 5 6703, rev. l. 2; ITT 5 6711, rev. l. 4; ITT 5 6713, rev. l. 10; ITT 5 6725, rev. l. 2; ITT 5 6819, rev. l. 3; RA 65 p. 20 7, rev. l. 3; RA 65 p. 20 8, l. 3).184 There is an important source of information on this event and accompanying religious procession and feast, namely the hymn Šulgi R. Furthermore, it is known from historical sources that this deed was followed by an annual religious festival and that the voyage of Ninlil´s barge to her sacrosanct cultic district Tumal represented a part of local annual ritual cycle.185 In addition, it is attested that Šulgi´s grandson Š¥suõen ordered the construction of a similar cultic vessel for Enlil and Ninlil (commemorated in the date formula of his eighth regnal year),186 thus ensuring the continuity of the rite established by his grandfather. As for Šulgi himself, this royal deed is another example of his careful 182

See Klein (1981b), p. 42 and n. 81, but cf. already ibid., pp. 239–40. For an editio princeps of Išmedagªn´s inscription see Römer (1965), pp. 18–21, 62–4, n. 133–76. Both texts have been treated by Klein (1985). Cf. further Klein (1990), pp. 77–9. A detailed discussion along with an edition of the texts has been offered by Ludwig (1990), pp. 75–91. See also Frayne (1983b), pp. 744–8, but cf. a critique of his conclusions in Ludwig (1990), pp. 79–84. Frayne offered an edition of the Šulgi text too but with a rather problematic translation (RIME 3/2 1.2.54). A succinct discussion of this inscription is to be found also in Klein (1981a), p. 17, n. 68. These works provide all available information on the mutual relationship of both texts and various reasons for their difficult interpretation. 184 For slightly different variants see RTC 281, rev. l. 7; ASJ 2 p. 16 44, rev. l. 2; ITT 4 8118, rev. l. 5; JAOS 98 p. 252 C, rev. l. 10. 185 See Oh’e (1986), pp. 121–32. Cf. Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 131–3, 141–2. See further Sallaberger (1999), p. 150. 186 This event is described in detail in an Old Babylonian copy of an inscription of Š¥suõen (RIME 3/2 1.4.9, col. xi l. 4–col. xiv l. 14). 183

75

provision for the Nippurian cult which he maintained until his death, a sign of piety and dutiful fulfilling of the legitimate king´s religious tasks but also a sign of political wit and progressive pursuit of centralization. III.7) Cultic and Mundane Activities in the Years Š9–Š14 The year formula of the ninth year of Šulgi´s reign commemorates for the first time an event concerning the main deity of Ur, Nanna, and his cult: mu ƒnanna kar-zi-da é-a ba-ku4: ‘Year in which Nanna of Karzida was brought into (his) temple’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 5´).187 Although this expression is somewhat unclear, it may be assumed that it refers to completion and consecration of a new sanctuary followed by the ritual entry of the god´s statue into it. Whether this action involved also a reorganization of the cult and temple estates in question is unknown but such a possibility cannot be excluded.188 As for Nanna´s ‘Temple, True Quay’ ([E]karzida, also called Enuna: ‘Princely House’), it is known that it stood in the town of Gaõeš not far from Ur. In Šulgi´s time it was the second most important sanctuary of Nanna and Šulgi was the first Ur III king to pay great attention to it. It is also known that cultic processions headed to Ur from this temple during the akiti festivals on the occasion of harvest and sowing time in the first and seventh month of the year and also when Nanna´s main festival was celebrated in the tenth month.189 There is relatively sound evidence of the many details of these festivities in archival records coming particularly from the capital.190 Those texts deal mainly with provision and deliveries of offerings but as a whole they make it possible to establish the course of events. As for the role of the king, they tell that he probably made a pilgrimage to Gaõeš and had a share in certain ceremonies there. Hence he stayed at a royal residence at Karzida and gave a banquet either at Gaõeš or at Ur in the course of the festivities.191 But what is the most essential feature of this royal deed as far as Šulgi´s overall policy is concerned? It is the very fact that the king paid considerable attention to the rural 187 Currently available administrative texts (from Ëirsu) contain only a mu ús-sa variant referring to the event related in the preceding year´s formula (e.g. ITT 4 7997, rev. l. 8; RTC 282, rev. l. 4). 188 Sallaberger (1999), p. 150. 189 Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 170–1. A detailed discussion of these events has been offered by M. Cohen (1993), pp. 406–7 and passim. On p. 407 he concludes: ‘The building of the Karzida temple may have been completed by the ninth regnal year of Šulgi (or at least a major restoration having then occurred), the year being named after the installation of Nanna in the Karzida…’ 190 See M. Cohen (1993), pp. 140–4, 150–3, 408–13. Unfortunately, there are only a few texts dated to Šulgi´s reign. The majority of them stems from the times of his successors but there is no reason to believe that the nature of events in question changed dramatically during the Ur III era. 191 This applies to the akiti of the seventh month. See ibid., p. 412.

76

sanctuary of the capital´s patron deity. It means that Nanna´s cult at Ur itself had been sufficiently cared for by Urnamma, which allowed his son to turn to other cult places of this god. As I will show below, this activity was by no means limited to the temple at Gaõeš, nor to the god Nanna. However, this is the first instance of a main (not variant) date formula signalling Šulgi´s early policy of provisioning shrines of major and minor deities at the local level thoughout his realm. He launched this policy after having commissioned work on a temple and several important cultic objects on behalf of major Nippurian deities. These are significant indications of Šulgi´s increasing skill in the art of winning continuous loyalty and support not only from the priesthood of Sumer´s religious centre but also from local clerical circles. The date formula of Šulgi´s tenth regnal year documents the building of his royal palace at Ur: mu é-‹ur-saë lugal ba-dù: ‘Year in which the “House, Mountain Range” of the king was built’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 6´; without lugal in RTC 284, rev. l. 6; ITT 5 6702, rev. l. 3; ITT 5 6716, rev. l. 5; ITT 5 6738, rev. l. 4; ITT 5 6809, rev. l. 5; ITT 5 6813, rev. l. 4; ITT 5 6825, rev. l. 4; ITT 5 6827, rev. l. 4; Babyloniaca 8 HG 01, rev. l. 5; MVN 6 348, rev. l. 17; MVN 7 27, rev. l. 2; MVN 7 456, rev. l. 5; AAICAB 1/3 pl. 183 Bod. A 20). This evidence is corroborated by the following building inscription: 1

šul-gi

1

Šulgi,

2

nita-kala-ga

2

mighty man,

3

lugal-uri5ki-ma

3

king of Ur,

4

lugal-ki-en-gi-ki-uri-ke4

4

king of Sumer and Akkad,

5

é-‹ur-saë

7

built

6

é-ki-áë-ëá-ni

5

E‹ursaë,

7

mu-dù

6

his beloved palace.

RIME 3/2 1.2.3.192 The name of this structure also occurs in archival records referring to its maintenance during the reigns of Šulgi´s successors Amarsuõena and Ibb‰suõen (UET 3 915 [AS0107], obv. l. 4; UET 3 861 [IS16-09], l. 2). Allusions to Šulgi´s royal palace are also present in several literary compositions, including a hymn to the god Nanna, a temple hymn, and the ‘Disputation between Tree and Reed’. In addition, the building is quite

The E‹ursaë has been briefly discussed also in Moorey (1984), p. 18. For a bibliography on this structure see A.R. George (1993), p. 100, no. 474. 192

77

naturally referred to in a Šulgi hymn, known as the hymn B. For an analysis of these allusions with references see chapter V.4. The most important event of the eleventh year of Šulgi´s reign was according to the year name the bringing of the god Ištarªn into his temple at D®r: mu ƒištaran bàd-galan† é-a ba-ku4: ‘Year in which Ištarªn of D®r was brought into (his) temple’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 7´; RTC 285, rev. l. 5; RTC 286, rev. l. 3; MVN 6 503, rev. l. 10; ITT 5 6744, rev. l. 4; ITT 5 6803, rev. l. 4; ITT 5 6810, rev. l. 5; ITT 5 6812, rev. l. 4; MVN 4 260, rev. ll. 5–6).193 Ištarªn, divine judge and later also healer, patron god of D®r was venerated in this city in his temple Edimgalkalama, ‘House, the Great Bond of the Land’, from the 26th century down to the Seleucid era. This deed was quite obviously a logical next step of Šulgi´s early policy. The date formulae clearly relate his political programme during those years. First, he provisioned the temples of major Nippurian gods, which was of paramount importance to him being recognized as a legitimate ruler. Second, he took care of the cult of the capital´s patron deity. Third, he provisioned the shrines of provincial deities in unstable regions. Thus, Šulgi tried to pacify these areas by winning the support of their clergy. This is evident particularly in case of the present year name. Šulgi cared for the cult of a city which he himself had restored a few years ago. These deeds combined show his efforts at incorporating the politically problematic border zone firmly into his kingdom. This policy went on also in Šulgi´s twelfth regnal year: mu ƒnu-umušmuš-da ka-zallu† é-a ba-ku4: ‘Year in which Numušda of Kazallu was brought into (his) temple’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 8´; Berens 19, rev. l. 7; CBT 2, rev. l. 4).194 The central Babylonian town of Kazallu is listed in Urnamma´s law code as one of the places liberated from the domination of Anšan. Thus, Šulgi may again have intended to strengthen the loyalty of local clergy as well as the economic and political background of the surrounding previously unstable area. Furthermore, the king´s building inscriptions testify that he paid attention to sanctuaries in more remote provincial centres, from Gudua (K¥t¥) to Ešnuna and Susa (RIME 3/2 1.2.23–5, 1.2.27–8, 1.2.30–2). Of course, he did not neglect major local temples within the heartland. Building inscriptions relate that he erected sanctuaries in Lagaš-Ëirsu (RIME 3/2 1.2.9–15). What follows from the evidence of year names and royal inscriptions is that Šulgi steadfastly worked on the 193 The Nippur list of Šulgi´s date formulae has the unusual writing of the city´s name. See pp. 72–3 with fn. 174 above. The normal writing is attested in administrative documents from Ëirsu referred to above. See also Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 99. 194 The unnamed sanctuary is to be identified with Numušda´s Ekunsatu, ‘House, Threshold of the Mountain’ in Kazallu. See A.R. George (1993), p. 116, no. 675.

78

consolidation of mutual relations between the court and the priesthood of national and local gods in economically and politically crucial areas of his realm. This policy was definitely meant to strengthen the integrity of the new kingdom and basically followed the example of Urnamma, who was unable to carry out the policy in full because of his untimely death. Finally, I should mention the variant date formula stating that the Lord of Bagara was brought into his temple: mu ƒnin-ëír-su é ba-gár ku4-ra (ZA 90 p. 168 (AO 29700), rev. l. 1; variants MVN 15 125, rev. l. 3´; ZA 90 p. 168 (AO 7872), rev. l. 5; ASJ 2 p. 7 10, rev. l. 3; BM Messenger 206, rev. l. 5).195 It implies a new consecration of ancient Bagara temple situated in the city of Lagaš proper, where the god Ninëirsu was venerated under his local epithet Lord of Bagara. Although this year name used to be assigned to the Lagašite ruler Gudea, it is now believed to be a local variant of the date formula of Šulgi´s twelfth regnal year. Indeed, it is in accord with the wording of similar year names discussed before. Moreover, it fits in well with Šulgi´s early policy described above and is corroborated by a building inscription (RIME 3/2 1.2.15).196 The date formula of Šulgi´s thirteenth year reads: mu é-‹al-bi lugal ba-dù: ‘Year in which the royal “Ice-house” was built’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 9´). The meaning of this structure´s name is unclear. I follow the suggestion that the expression ‹al-bi is a phonetic writing of ‹alba, ‘frost’, and that one is dealing here with a royal ‘Ice-house’.197 If that is the case, the date formula would uniquely commemorate the building of a utility structure which should have kept fresh foodstuffs intended most probably for the palace kitchens. However, the date formula does not specify the location of this structure and evidence of archival records is ambiguous at this point. Some locate an ‘Ice-house’ and even a royal one at Lagaš but they are not dated to Šulgi´s reign. On the other hand, there is a document accounting for material and labour concerning the repair of the roof of an ‘Ice-house’ at Ur which is dated to year Š42 (UET 3 845 [Š4208], l. 13). Therefore, this ‘Ice-house’ at Ur seems to be the one whose construction is commemorated in the present date formula.198 195

See the discussion in Carroué (2000). On pp. 191–2 Carroué gives a sequence of year names for the first half of Šulgi´s reign as reconstructed from Ëirsu sources. 196 It must be noted here that this inscription has the king´s name with the divine determinative, which is generally taken as a clear indication of Šulgi´s deification. Thus, when combined with the year name, it would mean that the deification process has already been completed by Šulgi´s twelfth regnal year. This is certainly not impossible but more evidence is needed. 197 See Frayne (1997b), p. 100, with references. Note the epithet of the healing goddess Gula: ƒama-šu-‹albi, ‘Mother with hands of ice’. 198 Sallaberger (1999), p. 146, also places it to Ur and designates it simply as ‘Kühlhaus’ (‘Ice-house’), perhaps adjacent to the E‹ursaë palace. See further ibid., p. 154, n. 108: ‘… das e2-‹ur-saë, den Palast

79

The variant year name for this year is a mu ús-sa formula commemorating once again the bringing of the Lord of Bagara/Ninëirsu into his temple. Significantly, this date formula is so far attested only in an administrative text from Ur (UET 3 291, rev. ll. 5– 6).199 In the fourteenth year of his reign king Šulgi returned to his religious policy: mu ƒnanna nibru† é-a ba-ku4: ‘Year in which Nanna of Nippur was brought into (his) temple’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 10´).200 Since Nanna was the patron god of Ur, his Nippurian cult was apparently not very important prior to the Ur III period but Šulgi wanted to change it. Thus, he introduced or at least consolidated Nanna´s cult in the religious centre of the state. Such a deed was quite logical given that according to the theology revived and elaborated on during Urnamma´s reign, Nanna was the ‘first-born son of Enlil’. III.8) Events of the Years Š15–Š20 Šulgi focused on Nanna´s cult also in the following year: mu en-nir-zi-an-na en ƒnanna máš-e ì-pàd: ‘Year in which Ennirziana was chosen as Nanna´s enpriestess by means of extispicy’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 11´). Since this event and its political purport has already been discussed above, I will refrain from repeating that discussion here and refer the reader to chapter II.5.2). The sixteenth year of Šulgi´s reign was called: mu ná ƒnin-líl-lá ba-dím: ‘Year in which Ninlil´s bed was made’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 12´; ASJ 18 p. 87 23, rev. l. 8; variants TUT 256, rev. l. 3; UNT 102, rev. l. 2; ASJ 2 p. 16 43, rev. l. 2; SAT 1 385, rev. l. 4). This event is comparable to the construction of Ninlil´s chariot in the year Š3 and her ceremonial barge in the year Š8, also important cultic artifacts. Ninlil´s bed was undoubtedly made for her and her husband´s temple complex at Nippur and symbolically served the relaxation of the goddess as well as her ritual encounter and Šulgis, und das wohl in Ur (!) zu suchende e2-‹al-bi, “Kühlhaus”, möchte ich nicht zu den Kultbauten zählen.’ However, Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 321, designate it: ‘(the temple) Ehalbi’. Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, translate: ‘Year the Ehalbi, (the palace) of the king, was built (in Girsu).’ As can be inferred from the above, I agree with Sallaberger because there is no reason to regard this building as a temple or palace and the evidence for its location at Lagaš/Ëirsu is inconclusive (STA 30, rev. l. 7; TUT 173, obv. l. 11). 199 As the formula now assigned to the year Š12 was previously thought to belong among Gudea´s year names, this mu ús-sa variant was taken as likely proof of Lagašite dominance over Ur prior to the rise of the Ur III dynasty. This assumption is now rejected. See Frayne (1997b), p. 100, with references, and Carroué (2000). 200 The unnamed sanctuary can perhaps be identified with Sîn´s Ekišnuëal at B‰t-Suenna near Nippur. See A.R. George (1993), p. 114, no. 655.

80

intercourse with Enlil during the main festival celebrated annually in the Tumal sanctuary in October/November.201 The date formula of Šulgi´s seventeenth regnal year commemorated the installation of Ennirziana in her priestly office: mu en-nir-zi-an-na en ƒnanna ba-huë-ëá: ‘Year in which Ennirziana was installed as Nanna´s en-priestess’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 13´). For details concerning this year name see chapter II.5.2). There is also a mu ús-sa variant reminding one again of the construction of Ninlil´s bed as the most important event of the preceding year (TUT 257, rev. l. 2; Amherst 16, rev. l. 5). Šulgi´s eighteenth year was named after apparently his first deed of major significance for the foreign policy of his kingdom: mu lí-wir-mi-#a-šu dumu-munus lugal nam-nin mar-‹a-ši†-šè ba-íl: ‘Year in which the princess Liwwirmi##ašu was married off to (literally: ‘elevated to queenship’) Mar‹aši’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 14´).202 The date formula of Šulgi´s nineteenth year is unclear and difficult to reconstruct. It undoubtedly refers to the restoration of a city but the reading of that city´s name is uncertain. Available lists of date formulae provide essentially two possibilities: 1) mu EZENxKASKAL(?)† ki-bé ba-ab-gi4: ‘Year in which EZENxKASKAL was restored’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 15´),203 and 2) mu bàd† ki-bé gi4-a: ‘Year in which D®r was restored’ (IB 542a+b+).204 The latter form is also attested in an administrative text from Ur which Albrecht Goetze tried to assign to Šulgi´s fifth regnal year (UET 3 292, rev. l. 4).205 However, due to the scarcity of such texts at Ur during the king´s early years, it is now assumed that the text comes from the year Š19.206 Therefore, if this is the right wording of the formula, it can be assumed that Šulgi´s policy regarding D®r was not successful enough and he might have had to destroy and subsequently restore it, 201

Sallaberger (1999), pp. 150, 155 and n. 116. For a discussion of this year name, its purport and circumstances see chapter II.5.2) with references. 203 This reading corresponds best to what is visible in Hilprecht´s copy. However, Wilcke (1985), p. 301, reads Kissik (EZENxKÙ)†, and Sigrist (1992), p. 8 and n. 42, reads Udinim (EZENxSIG7)†. ABZL, no. 156, has kisiga for EZENxKÙ, no. 157, UBARA or un4, respectively, for EZENxKASKAL, and no. 158, asila for EZENxLÁL, a composite sign which would upon closer inspection of Hilprecht´s copy come into question too. But only the first of them is known to designate a toponym. Note that Edzard and G. Farber (1974), p. 36, discuss the readings EZENxKÙ and EZENxSIG7 under D¥rum (BÀD†). 204 See Wilcke (1985), pp. 301–2. See also Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 321, and the variant (unattested) reading in Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names. Frayne (1997b), p. 101, seems to prefer the reading D¥rum for BÀD†, which is questionable, however, because this garrison town near Uruk was controlled by a prince/‘general’. Although the first ‘general’ is attested there as late as Š44 (see p. 61 above with references), I would suggest that this is more due to lack of evidence than to lack of a ‘general’ at D¥rum. After all, that office was well established at the time. Note that Šulgi´s father himself was a ‘general’ at Ur prior to his rise to kingship. 205 Goetze (1960), p. 156, n. 31. 206 Thus already Sollberger (1954–1956), p. 19. 202

81

commemorating only the restoration in a date formula. After all, notwithstanding his constant pacification efforts within the D®r area, the king was to face difficulties there again in his twenty-first regnal year, which will be discussed later. The date formula of the king´s twentieth year signals a fundamental change of his policy. It reads: mu dumu uri2†-ma lú ºgíd-šè ka ba-ab-keše2: ‘Year in which the inhabitants of Ur were enlisted as spearmen’ (BE 1/2 125, obv. l. 16´). This expression is generally thought to prove the preparations of the kingdom for military campaigns after which was named the majority of years until the king´s death.207 Considering the singularity of this year name and the predominance of warlike policy in subsequent years, this assumption seems likely indeed. However, there are difficulties concerning the appropriate interpretation of that formula. Some scholars understand the conscription as the formation of a standing army.208 But Hartmut Waetzoldt disputes this theory and claims that the citizens of Ur were called to arms only in case of necessary defense against an external enemy.209 He adds that textual sources regarding supplies of weapons speak only of archers and swordsmen, not of lancers, but he does not offer any possible explanation.210 Yet, it remains arguable whether the statement of the year name should be taken literally and one should adopt the idea that only inhabitants of the capital were conscripted and only as spearmen. Rather, it seems that the king made this political move to hold all male inhabitants of the heartland in constant preparedness for a military campaign. Thus he imposed universal conscription on them, which however does not mean that they themselves represented any sort of regular army.211 They could have been subjugated to the palace in military terms and bound to loyalty if any campaigns were at hand. In my opinion the royal decree did not order instant mobilization or a call-up of reserves but safeguarding the rear if the standing army would have had to go into battle. After all, the economy of the heartland had to be maintained in time of war and it is barely conceivable that all the men of fighting age would have left it in order to go on campaign. This would have plunged Sumer into economic and social disorder. Therefore, one can understand the actual event behind this date formula above all as a means of control of the population and a 207

Ibid., p. 18. Steinkeller (1991), p. 16 and n. 5. Cf. Michalowski (1991), p. 53. 209 Waetzoldt (1991), p. 638. 210 Sallaberger (1999), p. 146, raises the following question: ‘Bedeutet das Verpflichten der Truppen (Š 20) die Einrichtung eines Berufsheeres – oder das Einberufen des letzten Aufgebotes?’ However, one can hardly speak about call-up of last reserves because such proposal seems to imply that Šulgi prepared his state for defense. Yet, events of the next years clearly show that his situation was quite the opposite. 211 Ultimately, such an army must have existed long before because otherwise the ‘generals’ would have had no one to command. 208

82

promulgation of something similar to modern martial law, which placed Ur on a warfooting. Admittedly, the above interpretation is a tentative one, but it seems plausible to me. Of course, more evidence is needed to shed light on the precise nature and scope of that royal deed.212 But what is generally taken for granted is the fact that this unusual date formula marks the beginning of Šulgi´s reforms which are thought to have affected virtually all areas of life in his kingdom. There is a variant date formula of Šulgi´s twentieth regnal year preserved in the fragmentary list from Isin: mu ƒnin-‹ur-saë-ëá nu-tur é-a-na ba-an-ku4: ‘Year in which Nin‹ursaë of Nutur was brought into her temple’ (IB 542a+b+).213 Although the toponym is not followed by the determinative (perhaps it was considered a part of the goddess´s name in this context), it is known that Nutur lay close to the capital and is likely to be identical with an ancient settlement known today as Tell alÕUbaid.

Moreover, a standard Šulgi inscription found in local temple complex proves

the king´s building activity there and could be related to the deed referred to in the date formula (RIME 3/2 1.2.45).214 It is obvious that this year name contrasts with the preceding one in conforming to the king´s early policy of consecrating and provisioning sanctuaries (years Š9, 11, 12, 14 above). However, as has already been shown, the use of local variants of Šulgi´s date formulae was not unusual during his reign. Therefore, it is possible to assume that such a discrepancy results simply from an inconsistency of dating in local centres. This has much to do with the question of who promulgated the date formulae, how and when. Unfortunately, this problem has not yet been systematically dealt with, and goes beyond the scope of the present thesis. However, one can safely say that there is no reason to see the variants as evidence for several clashing policies. Contrariwise, they should be understood as valuable complements providing insight into Šulgi´s manifold political aims pursued at the same time. III.9) The Last Prewar Years (Š21–Š23) According to the date formulae of the final three years before the onset of military campaigns the king of Ur reorganized the temple administration and secured his 212

For a detailed discussion of the elusive evidence of Ur III military affairs see now Lafont (2009). See Wilcke (1985), p. 302. 214 Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, offer an alternative (unattested) reading: mu ƒnin-‹ursaë é-nu-tur é-a-na ba-an-ku4: ‘Year Nin-‹ursaë was brought into the E’nutur, her temple.’ On the other hand, Wilcke (1985), p. 302, prefers the toponym of Nin‹ursaë´s oldest cult centre: ‘Die beiden Zeichen nach dem Gottesnamen in der Isin-Liste sind vielleicht zu Kèš†! zu emendieren.’ 213

83

absolute power. Therefore, these years can be seen as a turning point. Following the stabilization of the heartland´s religious institutions, Šulgi apparently decided to emulate the example of Old Akkadian kings, i.e. to create a vast empire, as centralized as possible, and governed by a sole sovereign recognized as universal authority throughout Mesopotamia. The date formula of Šulgi´s twenty-first regnal year reads: mu ƒnin-urta ensi2-gal ƒen-líl-lá-ke4 é ƒen-líl ƒnin-líl-lá-ke4 eš-bar kin ba-an-du11-ga ƒšul-gi lugal uri5†ma-ke4 gán nì-ka9 šà é ƒen-líl ƒnin-líl-lá-ke4 si bí-sá-a: ‘Year in which Ninurta, Enlil´s great governor, pronounced a decision in the temple of Enlil and Ninlil, and Šulgi, king of Ur, put in order the field accounts in the midst of the temple of Enlil and Ninlil’ (Iraq 22 pl. 18 [5N-T490], rev. ll. 4–12).215 This date formula seems to refer to a reform of temple estates. However, the nature and course of such a reform can be only guessed at. Since the year name concerns only the estate(s) of the most senior Nippurian deities (Ninurta acts here beyond doubt in his important capacity of a ‘good farmer’), one can assume that Šulgi wanted to show his authority over economic matters of temples including the most important ones. The king could have gained – or at least attempted to gain – more control over economic affairs of the kingdom´s religious centre by that time, tying its clergy to the court as closely as possible. Such purportedly divinely sanctioned action would have further supported his sovereign status before the initiation of his warlike policy. The variant form of that year´s name reads: mu bàd-an† ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which D®r was destroyed’ (IB 542a+b+).216 On the location of this city, its strategic importance and the king´s previous actions concerning it, see pp. 72–3, 78 and 81 above. Douglas Frayne suggested that the king´s campaign in the Diyala and £aban regions described in an Akkadian royal inscription attributed to Šulgi could have comprised an attack on D®r too. The relevant passage reads:

215 For a slightly different variant of this long formula confer the Isin list (IB 542a+b+), Wilcke (1985), p. 302. The Nippur list (BE 1/2 125, obv. ll. 17´–19´) has an abbreviated form leaving out the second part of the year name except the verb which is, however, damaged. Additionally, there is an abbreviation used in archival texts: mu nì-kas7-ak al-la-ta: ‘From the year of the accounting of the “hoe” land…’ (Nebraska 62, rev. l. 1; MVN 21 270, rev. ll. 3–4; SANTAG 6 1, l. 3; BPOA 6 983, l.e.; BPOA 7 1745, rev. ll. 4–5; JAC 24 p. 62 12, l.e.; BCT 2 3, rev. l. 4). See Frayne (1997b), p. 102–3. For a possible correlation of this year name with a fragmentary statue inscription (RIME 3/2 1.2.57) see ibid., pp. 159–60. Cf. Sallaberger (1999), p. 142. However, Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 321, read: nì-ka9-ak al-la-du11: ‘(When) he settled the accounts.’ 216 See Wilcke (1985), p. 302.

84

Obv. col. ii´

Obv. col. ii´

Lacuna

Lacuna

1´

[GU7 i7tur-ùl]

2

Obv. col. iii´

He smashed

Obv. col. iii´

1

ù i7#a-ba-an

1´

the banks of Diyala

2

iš-bi-ir-ma!

1

and £aban

3

ù in-pá-ri-im

5

and defeated

4

kà-ma-ra-ma

4

(the enemy)

5

í¸-ku-un

3

by means of the marsh.

6

ma-ta-a-am

6

The land

7

ú(text: i)-#e4te-eb--ma

7

he ‘submerged’;

8

ù ëišTUKUL-¸u

9

he broke

9

iš-bi-ir

8

his (i.e. the enemy´s) weapon.

ki

ki

10

IRI .IRI

11

He smote

11

en--ra-am (text: A›)

10

(their) cities

12

i-be-el

12

(and) ruled (them).

CT 44 pl. 1 2 (RIME 3/2 1.2.35).217 Yet, the correlation of this text with the presently discussed date formula is very uncertain, especially because the Diyala and £aban regions are not really in the vicinity of D®r. The twenty-second regnal year of Šulgi is documented so far only by mu ús-sa formulae for both variant year names of the preceding year (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 1; BIN 5 89, rev. ll. 2–3; MVN 4 68, rev. ll. 4–5; MVN 20 83, rev. ll. 5–6; SAT 2 638, rev. l. 3; SAT 2 639, rev. iii l. 17; BPOA 2 2422, rev. l. 5; BPOA 6 931, rev. ll. 3–4; ASJ 9 p. 274 88, rev. ll. 8–9; NATN 119, rev. l. 1; NATN 351, rev. l. 6´). The most important event of the twenty-third year is recorded in the following date formula: mu ƒšul-gi lugal-e á-ma‹ ƒen-líl sum-ma-ni …: ‘Year in which king

217

Frayne (1997b), p. 103, states that Šulgi secured his dominions in this area by building new fortresses called Šulgi-Nanna and Iš‰m-Šulgi there, on the banks of Diyala to the north of Ešnuna. Iš‰m-Šulgi lay specifically between Diyala and Lesser Zab. The attribution of this inscription is based on the fact that it is inscribed in a later Sammeltafel together with other texts related exclusively to Šulgi. Note that Gelb and Kienast (1990), pp. 291–2, do not attempt to restore anything before ù i7#a-ba-an. They amend iš-bi-ir in #e col. iii´ l. 2 to i-bi-ir (‘he crossed’). In col. iii´ l. 7 they read ú(Text: i)-TE -ib-ma (‘he pacified?’). They transliterate col. iii´ l. 11 x-ra-a‹ and do not attempt to translate.

85

Šulgi, having been granted supreme power by Enlil, …’ (IB 542a+b+).218 The exact meaning of this enigmatic fragmentary year name eludes us. One can only regret that the relevant line of the list is incomplete. Nevertheless, the inclusion of that event in the date formula signals its importance. It seems that the only way to understand it is by comparison with the preceding and following year names. According to them the king imposed a sort of universal conscription on inhabitants of his realm and sought to reorganize temple estates, launching a programme of military campaigns after his twenty-third year. Therefore, it is possible to see this formula as a reflection of the climax of Šulgi´s prewar preparations. The king could have been ceremonially commissioned to undertake his planned campaigns by the Nippur clergy which thus conferred upon him Enlil´s authorization to begin the attacks. Additionally, the bestowal of supreme power could have entailed promulgation of an ancient variant of martial law, enabling the whole state to focus on war effort. It also should be kept in mind that Šulgi had pronounced himself god most likely around this time and that Enlil´s ‘authorization’ may have been connected with the king´s deification. III.10) The First Phase of Military Campaigns (Š24–Š27) By the twenty-fourth year of Šulgi´s reign an extensive programme of military campaigns began. This did not mean that the king subdued the territories in question once and for all from the outset but rather that he regularly raided them, depriving them of manpower, livestock, precious materials and political stability. Thus, he plunged those lands into chaos. Therefore, the kingdom of Ur gained double profit from his raids, namely economic and political. Now it was Šulgi who constantly posed a danger to his neighbours, providing the core territory of his realm more security. Such policy further led to difficult but eventually successful subjugation of several border-regions. Yet, Šulgi was cautious and never forgot to strengthen his position by means of dynastic marriage and even by construction of a defensive wall, which will be discussed below. The first area, which Šulgi attacked in his twenty-fourth regnal year, lay around the city-state of Kara‹ar: mu kara2-‹ar† ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which Kara‹ar was destroyed’

See Wilcke (1985), p. 302. BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 2: mu lugal á-ma‹: ‘Year in which the king (assumed) great power.’ See Kraus (1951), p. 387. There is also a mu ús-sa variant referring again to the putting in order of the field accounts in the year Š21 (‘second year after the year in which…’); Princeton 1 562, rev. ll. 6–8.

218

86

(BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 3, and e.g. TUT 278, rev. l. 6; UET 3 293, rev. l. 3; MVN 4 27, rev. l. 4). Thereafter, Šulgi destroyed Simurrum, first in his twenty-fifth regnal year and again in the following year as witnessed by the respective date formulae: mu si-mu-ru-um† ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which Simurrum was destroyed’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 4, and e.g. ITT 5 6910, rev. l. 4; YOS 4 8, rev. l. 4; MVN 16 971, rev. l. 2), and mu si-mu-ru-um† a-rá 2-kam-ma-aš ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which Simurrum was destroyed for the second time’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 5, and e.g. ITT 4 7117, rev. l. 6; UET 3 295, l. 8; MVN 6 116, rev. l. 6).219 These territories lay close to each other to the north-east of Ešnuna between the tributaries of the Diyala river and the Zagros mountains.220 In his twenty-seventh year Šulgi crushed ›arši: mu ‹a-ar-ši† ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which ›arši was destroyed’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 6, and e.g. ITT 4 7604, rev. l. 3; UET 3 296, rev. l. 4; MVN 9 25, rev. l. 3). This year has a mu ús-sa variant to the preceding year too: mu ƒšul-gi nita-kala-ga lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba-ke4 si-mu-ur4-um† ará 2-kam-aš mu-‹ul-a mu ús-sa-bi: ‘Year after the year in which Šulgi, king of the four quarters, destroyed Simurrum for the second time’ (ITT 4 7129, rev. ll. 10–13). ›arši lay further to the north, perhaps near £¥z ›¥rmªt¥ by the ÕAdhaim river in the

area surrounding modern Arbil. It is obvious from the direction of Šulgi´s attacks that the state´s north-eastern border zone lay at the centre of his interests. Apart from his desire to become a ‘king of the four quarters’, Šulgi strived for control of vital trade routes leading to western and south-western Iran. Spoils of war were a welcome contribution to Ur III economy too.221 Yet, multiple campaigns against the same regions indicate that to subdue this area was a long-term and difficult undertaking.

219 There are also mu ús-sa variants referring back to the destruction of Kara‹ar (e.g. MVN 21 278, rev. l. 2) and the first destruction of Simurrum (e.g. RTC 367, rev. l. 4). There is also a mu ús-sa variant referring to the putting in order of the field accounts in the year Š21 (e.g. YOS 4 322, rev. ll. 2–4). See further a list of date formulae beginning with the mu ús-sa variant to the year Š25 and ending with the date formula of Šulgi´s final regnal year (dates of years Š27–Š28 are not present) in Hilgert (1998), pp. 413–27. Each entry is furnished with an index of accordingly dated texts edited in the volume. 220 See the discussion by Hallo (1978), who calls all three phases of campaigns in this area Šulgi´s ‘Hurrian Wars’. Cf. Frayne (1997a); Biggs (1997). On the toponyms encountered in Šulgi´s date formulae which commemorate his ‘Hurrian Wars’ see further the comprehensive study, complete with maps, by Frayne (1999), especially pp. 146–71. 221 Later records enumerating booty items make it possible to assume that spoils of war were regularly brought back to Sumer from the onset of Šulgi´s military actions.

87

III.11) Cultic and Diplomatic Interlude (Years Š28–Š30) The date formula of the year Š28 deals with the inauguration of an en-priestess of Enki at Eridu: mu en eridu†-ga ba-‹uë-ëá: ‘Year in which an en-priestess of Eridu was installed’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 7, and e.g. ITT 4 7674, rev. l. 3; UET 3 785, rev. l. 9; MVN 1 236, rev. l. 8).222 The year Š29 was called by the mu ús-sa name referring to the event of the previous year (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 8, and e.g. Iraq 22 pl. 19 [MLC 42], rev. l. 8; ibid. [Smith Coll. 555], rev. ll. 2–3, for the fuller versions of this year name). The year Š30 was named after the marriage of one of Šulgi´s daughters to the ‘governor’ of Anšan: mu dumu-munus lugal ensi2 an-ša-an†-ke4 ba-tuku: ‘Year in which the “governor” of Anšan married a princess’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 9, and e.g. HSS 4 100, l.e.; AOAT 250 p. 564 5, rev. l. 2; BIN 3 407, rev. l. 6).223 III.12) The Second Phase of Military Campaigns (Years Š31–Š35) The initial years of this new stage of Šulgi´s warlike policy saw attacks on the northeastern principalities Kara‹ar and Simurrum again. Thus, the reflection of these events in the date formulae is of exactly the same kind like in the case of Šulgi´s twenty-sixth regnal year mentioned above, i.e. mu kara2-‹ar† a-rá 2-kam-aš ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which Kara‹ar was destroyed for the second time’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 10, and e.g. TLB 3 109, rev. l. 1; BIN 3 364, rev. l. 3; MVN 3 120, rev. l. 4), and mu si-mu-ru-um† a-rá 3-kam-aš ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which Simurrum was destroyed for the third time’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 11, and e.g. ITT 4 8095, rev. l. 2; PDT 2 1373, rev. l. 3; YOS 4 10, rev. l. 4).224 The most important of these conquests was the repeated sack of Simurrum, for it apparently was indirectly echoed in Mesopotamian literature long after Šulgi´s death. Relevant texts will be presented in chapter V but now it should be pointed out that they tell about the defeat and capture of one Tappadara‹.225 He is also mentioned along with a certain Rabsisi in a fragmentary chronicle from Seleucid Uruk.226 This 222

For a discussion, variants and references see pp. 64–5, fn. 140, above. For a brief discussion of this date formula see chapter II.5.2). 224 There is also a mu ús-sa variant for the thirty-first year repetaing the commemoration of the marriage of a daughter of Šulgi to the “governor” of Anšan (YOS 4 311, l.e. ii l. 1). 225 See Hallo (1978), pp. 74–5; Biggs (1997), pp. 169–73. 226 Hunger (1976), pp. 19–20, SpTU 1 2, handcopy on p. 123. Although the name is written differently and even is not fully preserved, the geographical detail in the relevant line suggests that Tappadara‹ was meant: [x x]ban-ga-ár u mRab-si-si šarr‰ (LUGAL.MEŠ) ša mat Subarti(SU.BIR4.KI) i-be-el: (Šulgi) 223

88

pseudohistorical document contains very little information on actual history, but its author seems to have been well informed at least in this instance, apparently from postUr III literary sources.227 Most significantly, the ‘man of Simurrum’ (i.e. ruler), his wife and a daughter are mentioned in a handful of early Dr®him administrative tablets which testify to the presence of these people in Mesopotamian heartland from the thirty-third year of Šulgi´s reign down to the eighth year of Š¥suõen. During the reign of Šulgi, Tappadara‹ himself is attested in years Š33 and Š34, his wife in years Š35, Š36 and Š38, and his daughter in year Š33 as well as in an undated text.228 This implies that he could have endured a sort of ‘house arrest’ along with his family at the royal court of Ur almost immediately after Šulgi´s victory, while enjoying provisions from the state administration. Moreover, the family of this defeated prince seems to have been responsible for some economic affairs, for his daughter acted as an ‘conveyor’ (ëiri3) in one transaction and is mentioned in another text in connection with the sá-du11 offerings at the ki-a-naë of Šulgi´s deceased father Urnamma. Is this a hint at Šulgi´s ‘hostage king’ policy towards at least this ruler of the north-eastern lands? Did Tappadara‹´s forced exile mean that he was expected to collaborate with Ur III generals and officials in their further efforts to loot and eventually subdue Simurrum, in exchange for a relatively pleasant life at Ur? If so, what could such a collaboration have looked like? Unfortunately, these questions must remain unanswered because available evidence is too scarce. However, it can be safely said that the captivity of the Simurrian ruler at the royal court of Ur must have considerably weakened the principality´s ability to resist Šulgi´s aspirations in that area. The thirty-third year of Šulgi´s reign was called: mu kara3-‹ar† a-rá 3-kam-aš ba‹ul: ‘Year in which Kara‹ar was destroyed for the third time’ (E.g. RTC 359, rev. l.

3; BIN 3 335, l.e.; JCS 52 p. 50 81, rev. l. 4). The Nippur list gives the mu ús-sa formula repeating the commemoration of the third destruction of Simurrum in the preceding

‘subjugated […]-bangar and Rabsisi, kings of Subartu’ (according to Hunger´s edition). Cf. Glassner (2004), pp. 288–9, who transliterates: […] Ban-ga-ár u IRab-si-si lugalmeš šá kurSu.bir† i-be-el, but translates: (Šulgi) ‘commanded […]-bangar and Rabsisi, kings of Subartu.’ 227 For another piece of genuine history in this text see the discussion above, p. 26 and fn. 27. 228 Sources mentioning Tappadara‹ are Princeton 1 93 [Š33-07], obv. l. 7; OIP 115 21 [Š34-02], obv. l. 2; TLB 3 15 [Š34-05], obv. l. 3. Sources mentioning his wife are BPOA 7 3005 [Š35-05], obv. l. 2; OIP 115 24 [Š36-08], obv. l. 3; MVN 18 40 [Š38-11], obv. l. 4. Sources mentioning his daughter are MVN 18 53 [Š3309], rev. l. 6; SACT 1 188, obv. ii l. 6, rev. ii l. 14.

89

year (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 12, and e.g. NFT p. 185, l. 4; PDT 1 498, rev. l. 3; SAT 2 65, rev. l. 2).229 The thirty-fourth year bears the designation: mu an-ša-an† ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which Anšan was destroyed’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 13, and e.g. ITT 4 7074, rev. l. 5; MVN 13 415, rev. l. 3; MVN 13 332, rev. l. 2).230 It is the only clash with this state recorded in a date formula. Although there seemingly is evidence of Šulgi´s early attack on Anšan (NRVN 1 7, rev. ll. 4–5),231 such a campaign against the far off eastern state is highly unlikely before the year Š21 because Šulgi waged war only within the territory of Sumer and Akkad during that part of his reign. Moreover, available evidence shows that he tried to maintain peaceful relationships with the eastern principality, sealed by a diplomatic marriage in his thirtieth regnal year. Since the alliance of both states achieved in that way was very convenient for the king of Ur (security of the eastern border during his campaigns in the north-east and easy trading of raw materials from Anšan seem to be its major outcome), military action against Anšan only four years after the marriage is quite surprising. An utterly unexpected event must have happened to trigger it. There are basically two reasons which could have forced Šulgi to ravage Anšan. Either it could have been improper behaviour of his son-in-law who might have acted contrary to the expectations of his powerful relative (e.g. tried to be more independent) or there could have been a rebellion probably led by local élite which might have deposed the ruler as a collaborationist shortly after his marriage with a princess of Ur. Šulgi thus might have conducted a retaliatory campaign intended to reinstall his son-in-law and daughter.232 Be that as it may, Šulgi´s battle against Anšan achieved final standardization of relationships between both states, for it is the last attested conflict with Anšan until the fall of the Ur III kingdom. 229

Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, place this variant before the formula concerning Kara‹ar; cf. Frayne (1997b), p. 105, who has this variant only. Cf. l. 2 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/ P250601). 230 Cf. l. 4 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/P250601). Two mu ús-sa variants are attested for this year, namely mu ús-sa kara2-‹ar† a-rá 3-kam-aš ba-‹ul (e.g. ITT 4 7471, rev. l. 5), and mu ús-sa a-rá 3-kam simu-ru-um† ba-‹ul mu ús-sa-bi (SAT 2 86, rev. l. 5), plus abbreviated forms thereof. 231 u an-śa-an†/šul-gi mu-‹ul: ‘When Šulgi destroyed Anšan.’ The orthography and absence of divine 4 determinative before the ruler´s name would suggest that the text originated sometime before Šulgi´s twenty-first regnal year, as Frayne (1997b), p. 105, has pointed out. Yet, it seems to be either a scribal error or a miscopy. 232 This possibility seems to be a little more likely, for Šulgi´s grandson Š¥suõen describes in his historical inscription (sources D, E and B) from Collection B exactly such a situation. Civil (1967), pp. 29–30. The author of this text says that Š¥suõen had given ‘his daughter as a bride to Simanum’ but ‘Simanum, ›abura, and the surrounding districts, rebelled against the king: they chased his daughter away from her residence’. Therefore, ‘Š¥-sîn, the mighty king, the king of Ur, … taught their men submission’. ‘He smote the heads of Simanum, ›abura, and the surrounding districts’, and ‘returned his daughter to her residence’. Quotation marks indicate Miguel Civil´s translation.

90

The year name of the thirty-fifth year of Šulgi´s reign is a mu ús-sa formula repeating the commemoration of the destruction of Anšan in the previous year (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 14, and e.g. RTC 331, rev. l. 3; UET 3 304, rev. l. 8; MVN 1 99, rev. l. 8). If there was any variant of this formula, it is not known thus far. Worth mentioning with respect to this year is a lengthy administrative text enumerating vast number of various objects of metals and (semi)-precious stones (TCL 5 6044).233 The final two lines of the text relate that all this wealth are ‘treasures of the Elamite enemy’ (gi16-sa kúr elam) and that the tablet comes from the ‘year after the year in which Anšan was destroyed’ (mu ús-sa anša-an† ba-‹ul). The editor of this tablet sees a clear connection of the Elamite enemy with Anšan and asserts that this list of precious items constitutes a partial record of booty gained from Šulgi´s campaign against Anšan a year earlier.234 I agree with that, given the combined evidence of the last two lines and the fact that all the countries to the east of Mesopotamia were generally understood and referred to simply as Elam.235 This text offers an interesting glimpse at how severe was Šulgi´s retribution for his disappointment with the dynastic policy concerning Anšan. III.13) Events of the Years Š36–Š43 After Šulgi´s second bout of military actions came a period of peaceful activity again, this time much longer than before. Leastwise, that is the image offered by the date formulae. Šulgi´s deeds in the following seven years focused on care for proper maintenance of religious life, on defence of his realm´s peripheral areas with an outlook on future and more decisive campaigns, but most significantly on establishing a firm base for the kingdom´s internal administration. The thirty-sixth year of Šulgi´s era was called: mu ƒnanna kar-zi-da† a-rá 2-kam-aš é-a ba-°ku4¿: ‘Year in which Nanna of Karzida was brought into the temple for the second time’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 15, and e.g. ITT 4 7047, rev. l. 2; UET 3 1323, rev. l. 3; MVN 14 140, obv. l. 5).236 The date presumably refers to dedication of the

233

For instance bronze daggers, various objects inlaid with silver, necklaces of gold and various stones, bronze vessels, seals and many others. 234 Pettinato (1982), pp. 49–72. 235 See now Michalowski (2008a), p. 121. 236 Thus in the Nippur list of Šulgi´s year names and cf. l. 8 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/P250601). Interestingly, there is quite a number of local variants of this date formula: early Dr®him texts - mu ƒnanna kar-zi-da† a-rá 2-kam-aš é-a-na ba-an-ku4: ‘Year in which Nanna of Karzida was brought into his temple for the second time’ (e.g. MVN 18 60, l.e.); Ëirsu: mu ƒnanna kar-zi-da† é-a-na ba-an-ku4: ‘Year in which Nanna of Karzida was brought into his temple’ (e.g. ITT 4 7168, rev. l. 3); Nippur – mu ƒnanna kar-zi-da†

91

god´s new statue. However, the exact meaning of the expression remains uncertain. Strangely, it occurs only in connection with Nanna´s rural cultic place, which thus seems to be of special importance to Šulgi.237 This year also has a variant name using the mu ús-sa formula referring again to the destruction of Anšan two years earlier (e.g. YOS 4 305, rev. l. 18).238 The thirty-seventh year of Šulgi´s reign is documented by the mu ús-sa variant to the previous year as well but more important date formula is found in the Nippur list: mu bàd ma-da† ba-dù: ‘Year in which the Wall of the regions was built’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 16, and e.g. ITT 4 7015, rev. l. 6; UET 3 1471, rev. l. 8; MVN 9 179, rev. l. 2).239 There are more explicit forms of this year name too: mu ƒšul-gi lugal-e bàd ma-da† mu-dù: ‘Year in which king Šulgi built the Wall of the regions’ (e.g. ITT 4 7748, rev. l. 2), and mu ƒnanna ù mu ƒšul-gi bàd mu-dù: ‘Year in which Nanna and Šulgi built the Wall’ (SAT 2 171, rev. l. 6).240 The formula´s wording alone indicates very clearly what the king intended to achieve. He decided to combine a policy of intermittent strikes against the north-eastern lands with defence measures within the heartland´s border zone, thereby attempting to secure it from attacks on the part of the mountain dwellers. Such a policy eventually proved successful because Šulgi´s power expanded even further to the north and east during the following years. Furthermore, his policy was subsequently adopted by his successors. Possibly, the rampart was called bàd igi ‹ur-saë-ëá, ‘Wall in front of the Mountain Range’, and stretched probably from the Abgal canal (western branch of the Euphrates) to Zimudar in the area around the Diyala river.241 The mountain range in question was perhaps Jebel ‡amr‰n below the peaks of the Zagros mountains. However, these tentative conclusions are drawn exclusively from texts because not a single trace of Šulgi´s defence wall remains.242 As

a-rá 2-kam-ma-šè é-a-na ba-an-ku4 (BE 3/1 14, rev. ll. 6´–8´); Umma – mu ƒnanna kar-zi-da† a-rá 2-kam é-a-na ba-an-ku4 (e.g. TCL 5 5665, rev. l. 11). 237 See the discussion above, pp. 76–7, with references. 238 mu ús-sa an-ša-an† ba-‹ul mu ús-sa-bi: ‘Second year after the year: Anšan was destroyed.’ 239 Cf. l. 10 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/P250601). The variant year name reads: mu ús-sa ƒnanna kar-zi-da† a-rá 2-kam é-a-na ba-an-ku4: ‘Year after the year in which Nanna of Karzida was brought into his temple for the second time’ (e.g. BRM 3 97, rev. l. 1). Note that neither Sigrist and Gomi (1991), Sigrist and Damerow, nor Frayne (1997b), p. 106–7, do read in their transliterations of the present formula the KI after ma-da clearly visible on Hilprecht´s copy. Ungnad (1933), p. 137, has the right reading, though with a BÁD instead of bàd. 240 See also Ungnad (1933), p. 137, n. 2; Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 324; Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names. 241 See Edzard and G. Farber (1974), pp. 166–8. This name comes from Old Babylonian literary letters and is not attested in any Ur III sources. The ETCSL translates ‘Fortress Igi-‹ursaëa’, which is likewise possible. 242 See Michalowski (1976b), pp. 101–24, and Gasche (1987–1990), p. 594. Cf. Wilcke (1969), pp. 9–12.

92

for the identity of the feared mountain dwellers the evidence suggests that these were certain Tidnumites, an eastern Amorite tribe, residing in the strategically significant area which the king was interested in during virtually the whole latter half of his reign. Such an assumption is possible on the basis of administrative tablets calling Jebel ‡amr‰n kur mar-dù, ‘The Amorite mountains/land’ (also known as Ebi‹). Moreover, according to the date formula of Š¥suõen´s fourth regnal year, Šulgi´s second successor built a fortification called Mur‰q-Tidnim, ‘Which Keeps the Tidnum Away’ (e.g. CST 426 [ŠS0403-27], rev. l. 2), in the same region. Thus, Š¥suõen did not accomplish anything other than a substantial renovation of his grandfather´s defence project. It is known that those Tidnumite nomads already inhabited the territory in question in Šulgi´s time, and seriously threatened his efforts.243 Šulgi apparently ordered military operations against them shortly after the completion of the fortification. An administrative text dated to xi. Š38 tells about disbursements for aga3-ús lugal-ka-šè … šà kaskal-la, ‘royal troops on campaign’ (Ontario 1 14 [Š38-11], rev. ll. 2, 5).244 Admittedly, this text does not specify where and against whom the campaign was conducted but there are other archival records accounting for nam-ra-ak kur mar-dù, ‘booty from the Amorite land’, dated to the year Š40 and the following (Ontario 1 50 [Š40-05], obv. l. 10; BIN 3 321 [Š44-03], obv. l. 2; SumRecDreh 9 [Š46-12-07], obv. l. 5; JCS 22 p. 57 [Š47-03-20], obv. l. 3; NISABA 8 app. 3 [Š47-03-22], obv. l. 3; PDT 2 802 [Š47-05], obv. iv ll. 8, 41; OIP 115 336 [Š47-05], obv. l. 5; Ontario 1 53 [Š48-00-20], obv. l. 14; OIP 115 287 [Š48-07-19], rev. l. 7).245 With respect to Šulgi´s thirty-seventh regnal year Douglas Frayne has drawn attention to a unique attestation of a previously unknown Ur III year name: mu é ƒnergal ba-dù: ‘Year in which Nergal´s temple was built’ (BM 27564). He insists that since the tablet bearing this formula belongs to a group of texts dating to the years Š30–Š38, it should be taken as a part of the group. He then tries to connect this tablet with other archival texts dealing with disbursements of animals and offerings for god Meslamtaeõa of Gudua (K¥t¥), a form of Nergal. These tablets are dated to ix. Š35 and iv. Š36 (SET 41 [Š35-09]; MVN 18 59 [Š36-04]. Thus, he assumes that offerings referred to in those texts had something to do with construction work on a new temple of Nergal in Gudua. He further quotes a hymn to Nergal supposedly mentioning Šulgi

243

See the argumentation in Michalowski (1976b), pp. 101–24. See discussion in Frayne (1997b), p. 106. 245 See also Maeda (1992), pp. 156–7, n. 21. 244

93

(Šulgi U) in which there is a line dealing with Anšan and Tidªnum.246 Therefore he suggests that the above formula could be assigned to Šulgi as a variant of year names for either Š35, Š36 or more likely Š37.247 Yet, available evidence for an attribution of this year name to Šulgi is scarce and inconclusive. More sources are needed to be able to decide whether this date formula belongs to the reign of Šulgi or a different ruler. The date formula of the thirty-eighth regnal year of king Šulgi reads: mu ús-sa bàd ma-da† ba-dù: ‘Year after the year in which the Wall of the regions was built’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 17, and e.g. ITT 4 7006, rev. l. 6; UET 3 305, rev. ll. 5–6; BPOA 6 1530, rev. l. 3).248 Although a date formula referring back to the event of the year Š37 is attested for the thirty-ninth year of Šulgi´s reign too,249 the main year name is: mu é puzur4-iš-ƒdagan-na ba-dù: ‘Year in which house Puzrišdagªn was built’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 18,

and e.g. ITT 4 7154, rev. l. 3; UET 3 873, rev. l. 3; SAT 2 217, rev. l. 6).250 (É/B‰t) Puzrišdagªn, ‘(House) under Dagªn´s Protection’, was situated at modern Dr®him, approximately 10 km to the south-east of Nippur (Nuffar), 180 km south of Baghdad. It was a place of immense importance for the Ur III economy and administration. Its establishment was a part and a consequence of a large-scale reform of the economic and administrative system of the state which Šulgi carried out apparently because of steadily growing agenda. The system had to deal not only with collection and redistribution of products from the heartland but also with deliveries and taxes from peripheral provinces which continued to flow in despite constant struggle with local petty rulers. The king took this step undoubtedly to enhance effectivity of the state apparatus as well. He had succeeded in achieving that and with the concurrence of

246

Attribution of this text to Šulgi is no longer sustainable. See Zólyomi (2005) and the discussion in chapter V below. 247 Frayne (1997b), pp. 106–7. He also mentions Šulgi´s royal inscriptions testifying to his building activity at the site of Nergal´s temple Emeslam in Gudua. But these texts do not support his view at all, for two of them do not contain the divine determinative, which means that they were written long before Š37, while the third is damaged at that point. 248 Cf. l. 12 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/P250601). Cf. Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 324; Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names; Frayne (1997b), p. 107. Again, none of these sequences gives the KI after ma-da. Frayne puts another MU, which is not present in Hilprecht´s copy, before bàd. Ungnad (1933), p. 137, has the right reading, though with a BÁD instead of bàd. 249 mu ús-sa bàd ma-da ba-dù mu ús-sa-bi: ‘Second year after the year in which the wall of the regions was built’ (MVN 17 137, rev. l. 3). 250 Thus in the Nippur list of Šulgi´s date formulae and cf. l. 14 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/ P250601). Significant variants are mu puzur4-iš-ƒda-gan é-ƒšul-gi ba-dù: ‘Year in which Puzrišdagªn, Šulgi´s house/temple, was built’ (e.g. Amherst 29, rev. l. 5), and mu ƒšul-gi lugal-uri2†-ma-ke4 lugal-an-ub-dalimmu2-ba-ke4 é-puzur4-iš-ƒda-gan† mu-dù: ‘Year in which Šulgi, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, built house Puzrišdagªn’ (ITT 3 6579, rev. l. 2´).

94

other reform efforts had managed to create a model of administration of a territorial empire which was never repeated in form, complexity and success. The actual purpose of Puzrišdagªn was in the first place taking over, accounting for and redistribution of cattle. Thus, it came to be the administrative centre of animal husbandry in Ur III Mesopotamia, where virtually everything in any way connected with various procedures of this agricultural sector was meticulously recorded. Goods collected there subsequently served to meet the needs of local and central institutions (compensations to provincial governors within the bala taxation system, deliveries for the palace, foreign envoys etc.) but above all to supply Nippur (deliveries of cattle from the provinces, earnings from the bala taxation system and subsequent expenditures on behalf of Nippur) or more precisely its temples, of which the complex of sanctuaries of Enlil and Ninlil was the most important. After all, the provision for those shrines represented the major duty as well as privilege of the sovereign who thereby continued to gain and confirm his legitimacy. From Puzrišdagªn stem thousands of archival records illustrating local economic and administrative procedures, and thus providing copious amount of invaluable information on various aspects of life in the Ur III kingdom. As for the fortieth year of Šulgi´s reign, only a mu ús-sa date formula referring back to the building of Puzrišdagªn is attested thus far.251 This is the case also with the fortyfirst year, which demonstrates how important that royal deed was thought to be.252 Although the same applies to the forty-second year as well,253 the Nippur list gives the following year name: mu ša-aš-ru† ba-°‹ul¿: ‘Year in which Šašrum was destroyed’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 21, and e.g. ITT 4 7894, rev. l. 2; UET 3 64, rev. l. 3; MVN 14 450, rev. l. 3).254 According to the sequence of date formulae this is the only military action in the seven years being dealt with here. The significance of this deed consists in its introducing another step forward in the monarch´s warlike policy, which were his strikes against areas located even further to the north and east. The ruler began to conquer

BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 19: mu ús-sa é puzur4-iš-ƒda-gan-na ba-dù: ‘Year after the year in which house Puzrišdagªn was built.’ Cf. l. 16 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/P250601), and e.g. RTC 414, rev. iv l. 5; UET 3 60, rev. l. 5; YOS 4 2, rev. l. 9. 252 BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 20: mu ús-sa é puzur -iš-ƒda-gan-na °mu¿ [ús]-sa-[bi]: ‘Second year after the year: 4 house Puzrišdagªn was built.’ Cf. l. 18 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/P250601), and e.g. ITT 4 7734, rev. l. 7; UET 9 357, rev. ll. 3–4; SACT 2 196, rev. l. 3. 253 Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, mu ús-sa é puzur -ƒda- mu ús-sa-a-ba mu ús-sa-a4 bi: ‘Third year after the year: Puzrišdagªn was built’ (OrSP 47–49 p. 227, rev. l 2). 254 Cf. l. 20 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/P250601). See also Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names. However, Ungnad (1933), p. 137, referred to in Sigrist and Damerow, gives the form attested in the Nippur list. For a different variant see Ungnad (1933), p. 142. 251

95

those territories as a true ‘king of the four quarters’ in his final years, following the subjugation of lands situated more closely to the heartland. Šulgi achieved this by combining attacks with defensive measures, which helped him launch another phase of campaigns. However, the base of his rule over previously conquered territories was always shaky, so that he was forced to conduct campaigns there as well, but these were by that time more forcible and stronger reactions to rebellions than new wholesale conquests necessitated by loss of those lands. As for the town of Šašrum, Old Babylonian Šušarra, modern Shemshara, it lay some 6.5 km to the south-east of modern Raniya on the left bank of the Lesser Zab. For a discussion of the date formula of Šulgi´s forty-third regnal year, namely: mu °en ƒna¿[nna máš-e ì-pà]: ‘Year in which Nanna´s en-priestess was chosen by means of extispicy’ (BE 1/2 125, rev. l. 22, and e.g. YOS 4 110, rev. l. 2–3)255 see pp. 64–5 and fn. 140 above. III.14) The Final Phase of Military Campaigns (Š44–Š48) The forty-fourth year of king Šulgi´s reign marks the beginning of a new series of military campaigns: mu si-mu-ru-um† ù lu-lu-bu† a-rá 10-lá-1-kam-aš ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which Simurrum and Lullubum were destroyed for the ninth time.’256 Although the formula speaks of already ninth destruction of Simurrum, it has been shown above that this principality was destroyed by Šulgi only three times up to this point. Considering that only ten years of peace since Šulgi´s twenty-fourth regnal year are attested in date formulae including mu ús-sa variants, one would expect at least one of those six remaining campaigns to be mentioned as having occurred in those years instead of references to past events. As this is not the case, it becomes clear that the present year name is affected by Šulgi´s royal self-representation. The use of such boastful date formulae throughout the final period of his reign resulted from Šulgi´s 255

Cf. l. 22 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/P250601). See also Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 324; Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names. See further Ungnad (1933), p. 142. Note, however, that the supposed mu ús-sa variant of this year name referred to by Ungnad does not contain ÚS and SA and therefore is simply another piece of evidence for the previous date formula. See CT 10 23767 [Š42], rev. l. 10. For the mu ús-sa variant see e.g. UET 3 313 [Š43-01], rev. l. 5. 256 The Nippur list (BE 1/2 125) breaks off at this point but cf. l. 24 of MS 1939 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/ P250601). Examples of variants are: si-mu-ur4-ru-um† lu-lu-bu-um† a-rá 10-lá-1-kam-aš ba-‹ul in CT 5 [Š45-12] 18358, obv. ii ll. 1–3, and abbreviated mu si-mu-ru† lu-lu-bu† in CT 3 18957 [Š46], obv. ii l. 6. Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 324, and Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, give an eclectic form of this year name with the variants blended together. Frayne (1997b), p. 108, goes the same way. There is also an abbreviated mu ús-sa variant for the year´s Š43 date formula (mu ús-sa en ƒnanna maš/máš-e ìpàd, e.g. YOS 4 1, obv. l. 19; SAT 2 358, rev. l. 3).

96

more firm grasp over territories closer to the heartland and his more or less successful efforts to conquer regions beyond them.257 The king obviously wanted to stress that his power was by that time comparable to that of Narªmsuõen of Akkad, who had according to his Bassetki statue inscription suppressed a wholesale rebellion in nine battles during one year.258 Also the mention of Lullubum, whose destruction is recorded in a Šulgi date formula for the first time, evokes Narªmsuõen´s triumph over the Lullubites as depicted on his famous ‘Victory Stele’. Interestingly, there is an archival record from Ur dealing with geme2 nam-ra-aš-ak/[lu-lu]-bu†-na-ke4-ne, ‘Lullubite slavegirls, (taken) as booty’ (UET 3 1763, ll. 11–12). Although the text is damaged and undated, it has been tentatively assigned to the time of Šulgi because no year name of any other Ur III king commemorates any action against Lullubum. Thus, it can be cautiously taken as a corroboration of the date formula´s report on Šulgi´s military success in the intractable west Iranian mountain region. The forty-fifth regnal year of king Šulgi is known as: mu ƒšul-gi nita-kala-ga lugaluri5†-ma lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba-ke4 ur-bí-lum† si-mu-ru-um† lu-lu-bu† ù kara2-‹ar†-ra dili-eš-šè SAËxDU-bi šu-tibir-ra im-mi-ra: ‘Year in which Šulgi, mighty man, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, smashed the heads of Urbilum, Simurrum, Lullubum and Kara‹ar in a single campaign’ (CT 5 17, rev. v ll. 14–22; TRU 276, rev. ll. 11–15; AOAT 25 p. 435, rev. l. 14–b.e. l. 2; RA 66 p. 21, rev. vi ll. 9–14).259 According to this date formula Šulgi was the undisputable lord of the north-eastern fringe of the Ur III kingdom. Moreover, he attacked again the eastern mountain area, as well as the distant state of Urbilum around modern Arbil in northern Mesopotamia not far from the Greater Zab. The wording of the year name leaves no doubt about his military superiority and overwhelming power during that time. There are also administrative sources testifying to the king´s military achievement in the land of Urbilum (TSU 39 [Š45-07-17], rev. l. 6; MVN 13 423 [Š45-11-15], rev. l. 10; AUCT 2 326+336 [Š45-12-02?], obv. l. 2). Later, in the year Š47, even a delivery of the ‘revenue of the Urbilum region’ (maš-da-ri-a ma-da ur-bí-lum†-ka) is attested (BIN 3 18 [Š47-01], obv. ll. 5–6).

257

See Hallo (1978), p. 77, who states that the figure nine means ‘last’ with respect to Simurrum which was turned into a province some time around Š44, as offerings from Simurrum had been coming to Puzrišdagªn already in Š40 and a governor had been appointed there by Š42 at the latest. 258 al-Fouadi (1976), p. 70. The most recent edition is RIME 2 1.4.10. 259 Examples of abbreviated variants are: NISABA 10 99, rev. l. 2´; SET 50, rev. l. 10; MVN 4 132, rev. l. 2. There is also a mu ús-sa formula repeating the commemoration of the previous year´s major event (e.g. TUT 175, rev. l. 2).

97

The full date formula of the forty-sixth year of Šulgi´s reign reads: mu ƒšul-gi nitakala-ga lugal-uri2†-ma lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba-ke4 ki-maš† ‹u-ur5-ti† ù mada-bi u4 1-a mu-‹ul: ‘Year in which Šulgi, mighty man, king of Ur, king of the four quarters, destroyed Kimaš, ›urti and their districts in a single day’ (HLC 1 80, rev. vi ll. 7–14).260 These principalities lay approximately between modern Arbil and Kirkuk and their defeat meant another consolidation of the king´s hard-fought domination in that area. The result of the campaign is related in the following brick inscription:

1

ƒšul-gi

1

‘Šulgi,

2

DIËIR ma-ti-šu

2

god of his land,

3

da-núm

3

the mighty one,

4

LUGAL URI5ki

4

king of Ur,

5

LUGAL ki-ib-ra-tim

5–6


6

ar-ba-im

7

ì-nu

7, 10

when he destroyed

8

ma-at ki-maš ki

8

the region of Kimaš

9

ù ‹u-ur-tim ki

9

and ›urti,

10

ù-‹a-li-qú-na

11

‹i-ri-tám

12

iš-ku-un

13

ù bí-ru-tám

12, 11 he prepared a trench 13–14 and piled up a heap (of corpses).’

14

ib-ni

RIME 3/2 1.2.33.261 Further, there are altogether nine administrative tablets dealing with some aspects of Šulgi´s campaign against Kimaš and ›urti. The earliest one, dated to Š45, contains a vague mention of Kimaš which Douglas Frayne regards as a reference to the troops of

260 See also Frayne (1997b), p. 108. Examples of the abbreviated form (mu ki-maš† ba-‹ul) are MVN 11 34, rev. l. 4; TCL 2 5612, rev. l. 1; BRM 3 119, rev. l. 2. There is also an abbreviated mu ús-sa formula referring back to the event of the previous year (mu ús-sa ur-bí-lum† ba-‹ul), e.g. TCL 2 5577, rev. l. 4. 261 Note that this inscription is the only doubtless example of a text recounting military achievements preserved from Šulgi´s era. Given the number of the king´s campaigns against various enemies this is certainly odd as pointed out by Hallo (1978), p. 77.

98

that principality (TRU 144 [Š45-04-27], obv. l. 2).262 Other texts dated to Š46–7 record siskur šà-kaskal-la u4 ºtukul ba-sìg-da, ‘campaign offerings on the day of the battle(?)’ (RCU p. 82 [Š46-02]), kaš-dé-a u4 ki-maš† ba-‹ul, ‘banquet when Kimaš was destroyed’ (YOS 4 74 [Š46-02], obv. ll. 3–4), cattle of the troops of Kimaš (eren2 ki-maš†; Hirose 50 [Š46-03-17], obv. l. 2), kaš-dé-a ‹u-ur5-ti† ba-‹ul, ‘banquet when ›urti was destroyed’ (AUCT 1 683 [Š46-03], obv. ll. 3–4), šà nam-ra-ak ‹u-ur5-ti†, ‘part of the booty of ›urti’ (MVN 15 201 [Š48-04-14], rev. l. 3), gizbunx (KI.KAŠ) šà é-ƒen-líl mu ‹u-ur5-ti†

a-rá 2-kam-aš ba-‹ul, ‘banquet in Enlil´s temple when ›urti was destroyed for the second time(?)’ (Ontario 1 44 [Š48-04-24], obv. ll. 4–5), and finally a supply of shoes for certain Bazamu, ruler of ›urti (TCS 363 [Š47-12], obv. ll. 3–4), and capture of the prince of Kimaš (u4 ensi2 ki-maš† in-ma-dab5-°ba¿-a; OIP 115 428 [Š46-05-03], rev. l. 5).263 There is distinct possibility that the captured ruler of Kimaš was identical with certain Rašiši, as an archival text dated to the fifth regnal year of Šulgi´s son Amarsuõena calls him, or Rabsisi according to later literary and historiographic tradition.264 The next year was named with a mu ús-sa formula recalling the large military action of the year Š46, either in the full or abbreviated forms (TSU 86, rev. viii ll. 6–16, and e.g. UNT 26, rev. l. 3; TCL 2 5567, rev. l. 3; MVN 4 120, rev. l. 7). However, it is somewhat surprising that this year name was not replaced by another commemorating an important campaign against a powerful and large west Iranian state of Šimaški, for there are administrative sources clearly pointing out that such an action took place during that year. All of them are dated to Š47 except for one which comes from the year Š48 and they deal with items from nam-ra-ak LÚ.SU, ‘booty of Šimaški’ (ZVO 25 p. 134 1 [Š4702], obv. l. 1; JCS 31 p. 175 H [Š47-02], obv. l. 2; PDT 2 802 [Š47-05], obv. iv l. 37, rev. ii ll. 3, 36, iii l. 38; OIP 115 355, obv. l 4). Among these tablets are also records of disbursements of a few sheep for the king´s wives Gemeninlila and Eaniša (ZVO 25 p. 134 1 [Š47-02], obv. l. 4; JCS 31 p. 175 H [Š47-02], l. 5). However, the most significant in this respect is a statement in one of those texts about bestowal of leather sandals on prince Š¥enlil ‘when he defeated(?) Šimaški’: 262

kuš

e-sír du8-ši-a é-ba-an/šu-ƒen-líl dumu-

Frayne (1997b), p. 109, assumes that the sign U4 in the expression u4 ki-maš† is to be read EREN2. Although these signs are very similar, there is a clear U4 in the published copy, looking exactly like other U4 signs elsewhere in the text. Cf. Maeda (1992), p. 157, n. 21. However, one has to admit that eren2 kimaš† would make better sense especially in the light of another tablet dated to Š46 which undoubtedly deals with cattle of the ‘troops of Kimaš’ (Hirose 50 [Š46-03-17], obv. l. 2). 263 The text also testifies that a banquet took place again in the temples of Enlil and Ninlil to celebrate that event. 264 For a discussion of ‘Rašiši, man of Kimaš’ see Hallo (1978), p. 76. For a discussion of relevant literary texts see chapter V. For the allusion to Rabsisi in a historiographic work see pp. 88–9 with fn. 226 above.

99

lugal/u4 LÚ.SU.A† mu-TAG.TAG-a/in-be6-e-éš (MVN 13 672 [Š47-01], obv. l. 4–rev. l. 2).265 The last year of Šulgi´s reign was named after a repeated crushing attack against northern Mesopotamian states: mu ‹a-ar-ši† ki-maš† ‹u-ur5-ti† ù ma-da-bi u4 1-bi ba-‹ul: ‘Year in which ›arši, Kimaš, ›urti and their districts were destroyed in a single day’ (TCL 2 5485, rev. ll. 2–5, and e.g. MVN 11 112, rev. l. 3; CST 205, rev. l. 4; SAT 2 604, rev. l. 5).266 The campaign against ›arši is also mentioned in several archival records dated with this year name, which makes it possible to assume that this particular region could have been worst damaged by the exploitation of its resources by the Ur III kingdom. The texts speak as usual of deliveries of ‘booty’ (nam-ra-ak; TCL 2 5485 [Š4807], obv. l. 1; Princeton 1 60 [Š48-07], obv. l. 12; SAT 2 611 [Š48-07], obv. l. 2; AUCT 2 364, rev. l. 8) consisting not only of cattle but of captives as well (40 guruš-sig7-a lú-‹aar-ši†: ‘40 young workers from ›arši’; PDT 1 538 [Š48-07], obv. ll. 1–2). Certain head of cattle are also referred to as a ‘part of the revenue brought from the campaign’ (šà mášda-ri-a kaskal-ta ir-ra; JCS 11 p. 77 [Š48-08], obv. l. 3). These are more specified as ‘deliveries of ›ubaõª´s soldiers’ (aga-ús lú-‹u-ba-a mu-túm; JCS 11 p. 77, obv. l. 4). ›ubaõª was during Šulgi´s time and afterwards one of the significant ‘generals’. His

status is further testified to also by his direct relationship to the house of Ur by betrothal of one of his daughters to prince Inimnanna, son of Šulgi´s successor Amarsuõena (níëmí-ús-sá inim-ƒnanna dumu lugal/é ‹u-ba-a-šè; TCL 2 5563 [AS01-01-30], rev. ll. 1–2). III.15) Death of Šulgi The Mesopotamian written tradition generally left the death of kings aside almost as a sort of taboo. If a ruler´s demise was thought to be worth mentioning at all, it was alluded to in omen texts which, however, dealt only with its at times oddly peculiar details without much historical value. But there is a distinct exception to this rule, the hymnic litany ‘Death of Urnamma’ describing the circumstances of the death of Šulgi´s father in semi-mythological terms (see pp. 33–8 above). Unfortunately, no such text concerning Šulgi himself is known so far. Thus, any albeit literary source of interesting information on his departure and funeral is lacking. On the other hand, it is possible to establish the date of Šulgi´s death quite precisely due to some texts issued by the 265

For a discussion of the status of this prince in the state hierarchy see pp. 61–3 above with references. There is also a mu ús-sa variant: mu ús-sa ki-maš† ba-‹ul mu ús-sa-bi: ‘Second year after the year: Kimaš was destroyed’ (e.g. TUT 152, rev. ii l. 16). 266

100

administrative machinery introduced by this king. Regarding other circumstances of his demise one is still dependent on statements of relevant later texts (often omens) and on archaeological evidence which, however, bring into the matter more problems than they solve. The most important source for fixing the date of Šulgi´s demise represents an archival text bearing on animal offerings for his libation place (ki-a-naë). The tablet is dated to the second day of the eleventh month of Šulgi´s last regnal year thereby proving that the king was already dead by that day (OrNS 46 p. 225 [Š48-11-02], rev. l. 1). However, it does not result from that text whether the king had died exactly on that day or any time before, for the supply of offerings for the ki-a-naë usually continued for extended periods of time after the funeral of the person in question. Therefore, it would be possible that Šulgi died much earlier during his last year and the available text is incidentally the first discovered record of the disbursement of offerings for his ki-a-naë. Thus, additional information is needed for a more precise specification of the date. This is preserved in a most remarkable administrative tablet from Dr®him dated to the eleventh month of Šulgi´s final regnal year (BCT 1 132). The text deals with slave-girls and contains the following statement (ll. 5–6): u4 ƒšul-gi an-na ba-a-e11-da-a/ì-du8-àm: ‘(On the day) when Šulgi was sent up to heaven (and) was gatekeeper.’267 The reference to the king´s ascension to heaven is generally understood as a euphemism used instead of less sublime expression ‘when he died’. Although the day of the text´s origin is not specified, it may be assumed that it was written either on the day of Šulgi´s death or on some of the days when funerary ceremonies took place. Since the tablet is dated to the eleventh month of the king´s last year on earth, it corroborates the archival text discussed above. Thus, it is fairly certain that the king died sometime during the very last days of the tenth month or even during the first days of the eleventh. Moreover, there is another piece of evidence supporting such a view. An administrative tablet dated to the 267

This rendering accords with that of Hallo (1991), p. 158. Horowitz and Watson (1991), pp. 410–6, give a transliteration and translation of the whole tablet along with a commentary. They translate the present lines as follows: ‘on the day when Shulgi ascended to heaven and was released.’ Yoshikawa (1987), p. 321, comments on line 6: ‘… “female slaves” who served Shulgi … must have been set free (du8) from the control of Anana after their last service.’ Thus, he suggests that the subject of the verb are the female slaves whose labour is accounted for in the text. Wilcke (1988b), p. 250, holds the same idea: ‘wurden … befreit.’ However, the form of the enclitic copula is singular and the verb would hardly refer back to the female slaves when it immediately follows a clause mentioning Šulgi. Therefore, I agree with Hallo, Horowitz and Watson that the subject is Šulgi. But it is difficult to decide whether the verbal form should be treated as a finite verb with copula or the verbal substantive (ì-du8) plus copula. I opted for the second possibility because it seems more plausible to have a mythological note (see discussion in chapter V) in an administrative text than a mere repetition of the obvious (if someone ascends to heaven, he is of course released), though both are redundant in administrative milieu. Note also that ePSD lists this attestation under the entry ì-du8: ‘doorkeeper’.

101

third day of the eleventh month is the earliest attested record of offerings brought to the throne of the deceased king (ki-ºgu-za; MVN 8 113 [Š48-11-03], obv. l. 2). Apart from its significance for establishing the date of Šulgi´s demise, the second text discussed is important from the theological point of view. The only known parallel is attested in an administrative document as well. It comes from the time of either Išbierra or Š¥il‰šu of Isin. The relevant line reads: [é]r-gu-la u4 lugal an-šè ba-a-da: ‘(There was) a great lament (on the day) when the king was sent up to heaven’ (BIN 10 190, obv. l. 12).268 Unfortunately, there is not a remotest hint at all as for why the demise of one of the Isin kings was referred to using this expression. But given the fact that rulers of the Isin dynasty were avid admirers and imitators of Šulgi and were deified during their lifetime as well, it may be assumed that the notion of the deified sovereign ascending to heaven upon his death has something to do with the ideology of divine kingship promoted by Šulgi.269 Finally, there seems to be an indication in the Late Babylonian ‘Chronicle of Ancient Kings’ that Šulgi´s body may have been burnt after his death, although this indication would be in line with the mostly unfavourable image of Šulgi in post-Ur III times, thus reinterpreting his accession to heaven in a negative light: 30 … ƒb®l ikkelm®(igi.°dúl¿)-šú-ma pagar(adda)-šú u-šá-kil KAK/NI.TAM uqatt‰(til)-šú TCS 5 20A (according to Horowitz and Watson 1991, p. 413). 30 … B®l frowned at him and had his body devoured (by ???), … put an end to him. Horowitz and Watson argue that this unclear line can mean that the king´s corpse was consumed by fire following his demise, which would imply that he went up to heaven not only in a ‘spiritual’ sense but also in the physical one.270 Further, they point out certain resemblance of this line to the fragmentary closing lines of the Šulgi section of the chronicle from Seleucid Uruk that read: 18 [ƒAn]u([GÉ]Š) šarru(LUGAL) šá ši-ma-tu-šú rab-ba-aõ ik-kil-me-šú-ma 19 [x x] a še-ret-su ra-bi-tu4

268

See Horowitz and Watson (1991), p. 412; cf. Frayne (1997b), p. 110; Steinkeller (1992a). Cf. Wilcke (1988b), pp. 252–5. 270 Horowitz and Watson (1991), p. 413. Dr Daniel Schwemer suggested to me that one can consider reading NI.TAM as dik-tú or %al-tú, which would mean that this chronicle has Šulgi dying in a fight. 269

102

20 [x x x g]i zu-mur-šú ú-lab-biš SpTU 1 2 (l. 18 according to Wilcke 1982, p. 143;271 ll. 19–20 according to Hunger 1976, p. 19). 18 Anu, the sovereign whose (decreed) fates are great, frowned at him. 19 … his grave guilt. 20 … wrapped his body … Horowitz and Watson assume that the sign GI, clearly visible in Hunger´s copy, represents the latter part of the composite ƒbil-gi = ƒgirra: ‘Fire(-deity)’, and give another example of Girra acting in such a way as well as tentative readings of the strange sequence KAK/NI.TAM in the former chronicle to support their argument.272 Although this solution seems to be in accord with the above archival text and literary sources, which will be discussed in chapter V, it is based on hopelessly incomplete and unclear passages of late texts whose primary purpose was not the writing of history.273 As such, it illustrates well the currently poor knowledge of circumstances surrounding the death of one of the greatest Mesopotamian kings. Let us look briefly now at the issue of the location of the king´s final resting place. Needless to say, this problem is also a very difficult one and likely to remain unresolved forever. Although Sir Leonard Woolley did discover a massive complex of apparently funerary structures built in the Ur III period at the outskirts of the so-called ‘Royal Cemetery’ at Ur,274 it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions from his findings. He ambitiously called that complex, designed as a large ‘house’ with subterranean vaults, the ‘Mausoleum’ of Ur III kings (Šulgi and Amarsuõena) but in fact there is little evidence regarding the identity of people interred at that place.275 This might have been the reason why Roger Moorey questioned the very notion that the ‘Mausoleum’ was really Šulgi´s and Amarsuõena´s final resting place. He presented evidence that Mesopotamian Horowitz and Watson (1991), p. 415, n. 17, prefer [ƒb®l], which is unlikely because the text originated at Uruk and focused on Šulgi´s supposed malevolent behaviour towards Anu´s cult. 272 Ibid., p. 415–6 , n. 17–8. Cf. fn. 270 above. 273 Glassner (2004), pp. 270–1, transliterates the relevant portion of the ‘Chronicle of Ancient Kings’ simply: ‘… ƒEn … ma ad6-šú u-šá-kil dù ud til-šú,’ and translates it: ‘B®l … and made to consume (?) his corpse, … destroyed him.’ His rendering of lines from the ‘Chronicle from Uruk’ given above is basically the same. 274 Note that building the ‘Mausoleum’ right at that location does not imply at all that the rulers of the Ur III dynasty were aware of its traditional function. See Moorey (1984), p. 2. 275 Frankly, the only extant evidence undoubtedly connecting Šulgi and Amarsuõena with this complex are bricks bearing their inscriptions. However, those inscriptions do not indicate the purpose of the complex. Further, a votive inscription of Urnamma was found there too but it is entirely unrelated to it. 271

103

kings had been usually buried in their palaces. Thus, Šulgi could have been laid to rest in the E‹ursaë but there are also other possibilities: But the balance of available information, archaeological and textual, for the Akkadian period and later, suggests that if the kings (and queen-mothers) of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur were buried in that city it was not in Woolley´s “Mausolea”, but in or adjacent to their main residential palace, yet to be identified, in an area off the Temenos. However, Ur is not the only potential site for these graves, for they might have been in a palace at Uruk, home of the dynasty, or, less probably, even perhaps at Nippur.276 But even if one accepts that the king was actually buried in the ‘Mausoleum’, the situation will not be much better. Four human skulls and a number of bones have been discovered in the tomb chambers attributed to Šulgi. Some of the bones of an adult man were exposed to fire in antiquity.277 Although some scholars see this find as a corroboration of the statements about Šulgi´s ascension to heaven and consumption of his body possibly by fire in the texts discussed above, assuming a secondary burial of the king´s remains after cremation, there are no hard data underpinning such an idea.278 Even though the tomb chambers ascribed to Amarsuõena displayed somewhat similar features (charred bones of five women, no men), the more likely explanation is that the fire, as well as the poor condition of the site in general, had been brought about by the Elamites plundering Ur after the fall of its third dynasty.279 However, the discovery of multiple burials in the ‘Mausoleum’ is puzzling and sometimes understood as an indication of interment of royal family members together with the king. This hypothesis has been instigated especially by the fact that Šulgi´s wives Šulgisimt‰ and Gemeninlila died apparently very soon after their spouse. They are mentioned for the last time on 3. xi. and 23. ix. of the king´s final regnal year (MVN 8 113, obv. l. 5; TRU 298, rev. l. 2).280 Both ladies are afterwards referred to only with respect to the disbursements of offerings for their (and the king´s) ki-a-naë (ZVO 25 p. 276

Moorey (1984), p. 18. Šulgi´s father Urnamma had been buried at an unknown place alluded to in an administrative text from Ur as é-gal gibil: ‘The New Palace’, where his ki-a-naë was set up (UET 3 76 i, l. 6´). See Michalowski (1977c), p. 221, n. 10. 277 Moorey (1984), p. 5. 278 Horowitz and Watson (1991), p. 415, n. 15. 279 Moorey (1984), pp. 3, 6. 280 However, Sallaberger (1993/1), p. 18, n. 60, offers evidence for a shift of the last mention of queen Šulgisimt‰ to 12. xii. Š48 (UDT 116 [Š48-12-12], obv. ll. 6–8, mention of a nin, ‘queen’). See also p. 52 with fn. 105 above.

104

134 2 [AS01-03-28], obv. l. 6, rev. ll. 1–2).281 Therefore, it is possible to surmise that these women either voluntarily accompanied their consort to the grave, that all three of them died of natural causes approximately at the same time or that Šulgi had been murdered and his two wives were murdered too for political reasons.282

281 282

See also p. 52 with fn. 106 and p. 56 above. See Michalowski (1977c), p. 224.

105

Chapter IV: Approaches to Historical Allusions in Sumerian Myths, Epics and Royal Praise Poetry IV.1) The Question of Historical Allusions in Major Sumerian Literary Texts: An Overview Before proceeding to historical allusions in literary works pertaining to Šulgi proper, the difficult issue of using literature as a source of historical information needs to be discussed. The debate on this issue began decades ago when Sumerologists facing a lack of historical sources sieved various literary texts for relevant data. Gradually, two groups of scholars emerged, the former advocating the supposed reflection of politics in literature, the latter denying such a concept and criticizing it as positivist, text-centered, oversimplifying and neglecting the context of texts in question. The debate continues to this day.283 It seems to have been triggered by Adam Falkenstein who established that Sumerian literature as it is known today had been redacted in the Ur III period and thought that it therefore reflected the political reality of the time.284 Falkenstein´s next contribution to the political interpretation of literature was that he rightly recognized a description of an uprising against Old Akkadian monarchy in the lines of En‹eduana´s poem ‘Ninmešara’.285 Further, he saw the composition labeled the ‘Curse of Akkad’ as an expression of resentment against the Sargonic dynasty in Ur III times.286 This influential view of the ‘Curse of Akkad’ as a sort of political pamphlet was taken over, elaborated on and used as an underpinning for a historical and political interpretation of other Sumerian literary pieces, resulting in far-reaching conclusions for – above all – the interaction of the Sumerian south with Akkadian imperial power in Sargonic times.287 Such usage of literary texts was championed especially by Claus Wilcke who gave a historical-political interpretation of a number of Sumerian mythological texts.288 Basing his hypotheses on Thorkild Jacobsen´s idea of ‘primitive democracy’ in Mesopotamia,

283

See the recent discussion in Hallo (1998a), (2001); Beckman (2005). Falkenstein (1951). Cf. J. Cooper (2001), an important article from which the present discussion greatly benefited. Here pp. 131–2. 285 Falkenstein (1958). 286 Falkenstein (1965). 287 See, e.g., van Dijk (1969) who interprets that composition as an allegory of the Nippur priesthood´s struggle against Narªmsuõen´s alleged ambition to make Ištar of Akkad the head of the pantheon instead of Enlil. 288 First in Wilcke (1973), then again in more detail in Wilcke (1993). 284

106

which made a direct link between the actions of a mythological ‘assembly of the gods’ described in texts and earthly events,289 Wilcke argued that respective deities are identified with certain cities in mythological narratives in such a way that the texts can reflect historical-political events connected with that city or region.290 This premise then served as a ground for his historical-political analysis of mythological literature. For instance, he linked the god Enki of Eridu in ‘Enki and the World Order’ and ‘Inana and Enki’ to the political fortunes of the city-state Lagaš-Ëirsu because Eridu never exercised political power but Enki was the father of important Lagašite goddess Nanše.291 He also argued that the goddess Inana is Inana of Uruk in one text and Inana of Akkad in another depending on the ‘political’ orientation of the text in question. Wilcke´s approach is perhaps most clearly manifest in his interpretation of the myth ‘Inana and Šukaletuda’. He argues that the goddess who abandoned Uruk and Zabalam for the mountains in ll. 17–18 of the composition was Inana of Uruk but that she consequently became Inana of Akkad. Therefore, the goddess marching across Elam and Subir in l. 114 was the heroic Inana, thereby reflecting the campaigns of Old Akkadian rulers in those regions.292 Thereafter she grew weary and fell asleep under a tree. Then came the gardener Šukaletuda, embodying the rebel Sumerian south, and raped Inana of the oppressive Akkad whereby he should have humiliated the Sargonic empire (ll. 117–25). Inana wanted to retaliate and brought several disasters to the land, which Wilcke interprets as a reflection of Old Akkadian efforts to uproot Sumerian opposition. But she failed because Šukaletuda hid himself by his fellow countrymen, presumably in the south. Thus, Inana of Akkad visited Enki in Eridu and told him that she would return satisfied to her sanctuary Eana (i.e. Uruk), should Šukaletuda be handed over to her (ll. 245–9). Although in Wilcke´s view Enki protects the Sumerian south and acts as an indirect representative of Lagaš-Ëirsu in other texts, in this myth he

289

See Jacobsen (1943) and (1957). Wilcke (1993), p. 32: ‘Die folgenden Überlegungen gehen davon aus, daß sich die Identifizierung einzelner Gottheiten mit bestimmten Städten in mythischen Erzählungen derart niederschlägt, daß diese historisch-politisches Geschehen spiegeln können.’ His interpretations are thereby an elaboration of van Dijk´s view of the ‘Curse of Akkad’ as political allegory. See fn. 287 above, and the criticism in J. Cooper (2001), p. 133; Veldhuis (2004), p. 40. 291 Wilcke (1993), pp. 44–5; J. Cooper (2001), p. 134. 292 Note that the relevant lines (112–4) seemingly represent a quotation from ‘Inana and Ebe‹’. See Volk (1995), p. 183. But is it really necessary to suppose that the poet used this motif to inform the audience that Inana of Uruk by then became Ištar of Akkad campaigning in the north-east? Is it not possible to understand that quotation, together with the opening section in ll. 1–22 where the purpose of Inana´s trip is explained in vague and general terms, just as an inevitable prelude to the climax of the composition, the rape of the goddess by Šukaletuda, without political overtones? Note also Alster (1999), 687: ‘These lines were not there because they quoted Enheduanna, but rather, because they belonged to a literary tradition in which common themes were replayed, but given entirely new implications.’ 290

107

agreed to extradite Šukaletuda to the powerful Inana of Akkad because she promised to become Inana of Uruk again. Surprisingly, Inana did not punish Šukaletuda thereafter but ordered that his name be perpetuated in songs sung in the palace as well as in the steppe (ll. 296–300). Wilcke suggests that the conclusion may have something to do with the ‘sacred marriage’ rite because the text states that Šukaletuda should be praised by shepherds, and the god Dumuzi, Inana´s husband with whom the king was identified in that context, was indeed a shepherd. Finally, he understands the return of Inana to Uruk as an allegory of Utu‹eëal´s, i.e. Urukean and Sumerian, regaining of political power after the fall of the Sargonic empire and temporary Gutian rule in Babylonia. 293 However, the cities Inana is associated with in the composition are Uruk-Eana and Zabalam only, Akkad is never mentioned. Thus if one presumes that the identification of a deity with a city is an allegory of the city´s or region´s political fortunes, it seems hardly possible to argue at the same time that Inana of Uruk and Zabalam acts here mostly as a representative of a city which is not even alluded to.294 Further, if one adopts the historical-political interpretation one finds the role of Enki in this text rather difficult to explain. Apart from the problematic extradition of the embodiment of Sumerian revolt, Šukaletuda, to Inana of Akkad, Enki plays a decisive role in a difficult episode about a raven performing duties of a gardener in a date-palm grove (ll. 48–88). Moreover, Šukaletuda himself is described as an incompetent gardener (ll. 91–100). Such a figure is unlikely to reflect the efforts of the Sumerians whose survival hinged on the success of their advanced agricultural techniques which they were justly proud of. Not in keeping with his historical-political interpretation of the myth Wilcke understands this section as an excursus in the art of gardening.295 As to his suggestions regarding the concluding part of the text one should note that Šukaletuda has nothing to do with the ‘sacred marriage’ rite, as he is not a shepherd. Attempts to connect Šukaletuda with Dumuzi on the basis of Inana´s promise that the one who raped her should be praised by the king´s singers and ordinary shepherds and that he should live in the steppe seem too far-fetched to me.296 The idea that the return of Inana to Uruk symbolizes the rise of

293

Wilcke (1993), pp. 56–7 with n. 125. Cf. J. Cooper (2001), p. 142. Cf. ibid., p. 143. 295 Wilcke (1993), p. 56. 296 Is it not possible to interpret the relevant lines simply as a metaphor meaning that Šukaletuda ought to be praised notwithstanding any social (king´s singer and shepherds) or topographical (palace and steppe) boundaries, i.e. by everyone and everywhere? Note that l. 301 apparently concludes the first section of Inana´s address to Šukaletuda, starting with the assurance that Šukaletuda would die, by stating that ‘the “palace” of the steppe should have become his house’. However, this does not have to mean that Šukaletuda should have become a shepherd. It could be just a nice image restating his mortality fully in 294

108

Utu‹eëal is sustainable only if one accepts the view of the composition as an allegorical chronicle of the Old Akkadian period, full of resentment against Sargonic monarchs put in by accordingly biased Ur III redactors.297 Much of Wilcke´s argumentation has been adopted by Konrad Volk in the introductory chapters to his edition of ‘Inana and Šukaletuda’. He also thinks that Sumerian mythological narratives are skilfully constructed allegories of historicalpolitical events.298 He further argues that to read this story as a reflection of a conflict between Sumerian south and Sargonic imperial power provides a terminus post quem for the redaction of the whole composition.299 Yet it is unclear how an interpretative scheme of a modern scholar can determine the point of time when a piece of literature was redacted. His overall interpretation is quite detailed in the search for politics in the narrative. For instance, Volk understands the image of Inana relaxing under a tree as an image of an Old Akkadian king taking a rest after a campaign in the mountain regions.300 And although the goddess´ name is always written ƒINANA and never ƒEštar2 (the latter would point to Ištar of Akkad), Volk is convinced that this is the result of the author´s goal not to explicitly reveal the historical-political meaning of the text.301 As for the story of Enki´s raven, Volk regards it as an old, self-contained myth which was inserted later and provided a scenario for the plot of the narrative as a whole.302 However, T. Mařík has observed that this section in its present form is hardly conceivable as an independent story and that it, in fact, constitutes so essential an element of the composition that one cannot be understood without the other.303 In his opinion the

accordance with the preceding lines about his praise in the steppe. For attestations of ‘the “palace” of the steppe’ as a place of obscurity and death (but also simply relaxation) see Volk (1995), pp. 211–2. 297 The purported Ur III resentment is a major component of Wilcke´s approach to Sumerian myths. He argues that all the texts thereby mirror Ur III royal ideology, taken over by subsequent dynasties. This should have led to the widespread copying of those compositions in Old Babylonian schools, whereas literature favourable to Old Akkadian kings was deliberately neglected, except for the Sumerian Sargon Legend and a fictitious letter of Sargon which represent the exception that proves the rule. However, there are copies of En‹eduana´s works, as well as the initial section of the ‘Curse of Akkad’ favourable to Sargonic rule before Narªmsuõen, which were not discussed by Wilcke in this regard. As for the multiple school copies of Sargonic royal inscriptions extolling Old Akkadian rulers, Wilcke understands them as the results of scribal interest in archaic language and sign forms, whereas their content should have been of no significance for Old Babylonian scribes. See Wilcke (1993), pp. 58, 68. Cf. J. Cooper (2001), p. 139. 298 Volk (1995), p. 16: ‘… sind mythische Erzählungen, die an der Oberfläche zeitlos erscheinen wollen, andererseits in ihrer individuellen Konfiguration eine historisch-politische Dimension vermitteln.’ 299 Ibid., p. 23: ‘Sicherlich ist durch den Interpretationsansatz, der hinter der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Šukaletuda und Inanna einen historischen Konflikt zwischen dem sumerischen Süden und einem sargonischen Herrscher, in der Sprache des Mythos, der kriegerischen Inanna(-Ištar), sieht, ein terminus post quem für die Redaktion des Gesamtwerkes gegeben.’ 300 Ibid., p. 31. Cf. Cooper´s criticism of this suggestion (2001), p. 143. 301 Volk (1995), pp. 37–8. 302 Ibid., p. 37. 303 Mařík (2003), pp. 150–1.

109

story reflects employment of sympathetic magic using materials characteristic of Inana´s nuptial preparations (antimony, oil and water), thus aiming at the fertilization of the grove. This aim is then made explicit in Šukaletuda´s intercourse with Inana which was not the incompetent gardener´s whim but rather his duty. Therefore, the goddess does not curse him for a crime in the end but she orders that he be praised.304 Mařík also criticized Volk´s opinion that the historical-political aspect is just one among many others.305 He asked which role could the other aspects play if the fable itself was composed specifically with the historical-political one in mind.306 Furthermore, he remarked that Volk´s reading of the rape of Inana by Šukaletuda as having a single purpose, the humiliation of the goddess,307 which is the cornerstone of the historicalpolitical interpretation of the text,308 cannot be proved. At the same time, he continued, it is questionable to explain a motif of the fable only by its presumed meaning.309 As exemplified by Wilcke´s and Volk´s reading of ‘Inana and Šukaletuda’, a historical-political interpretation of Sumerian mythological literature is rather problematic. The reading itself generally seems to serve as a fixed point of departure, a static framework, by which it is determined whether a myth is a historical-political allegory or not, and which the advocates of this approach at times support by bits of information from entirely different contexts,310 yet not very convincingly. A strong argument against a historical-political interpretation of myths has been put forward by Jerrold Cooper: If we have Sumerian literary texts that are explicitly about the rise and fall of Akkade or the fall of Ur, why should we assume that purely mythological texts are 304

See ibid., pp. 151–7, for a detailed discussion. See also J. Cooper (2001), p. 143–4, for an interpretation of Inana´s march to the mountains and back as a reflection of the planet Venus´ celestial journey. Cf. now Cooley (2008). 305 Volk (1995), p. 27. 306 Mařík (2003) p. 148: ‘Dem Author zufolge soll zwar der “Aspekt der historich-politischen Aussage nur einer von mehreren” sein, welche Stellung können aber die anderen noch einnehmen, wenn schon die Fabel mit Rücksicht auf den historich-politischen komponiert sein soll?’ 307 Volk (1995), p. 26, n. 150. 308 Cf. Wilcke (1993), p. 57, who imagines that the tales of Šukaletuda´s unpunished crime belonged to anti-Akkad propaganda of the revolting south. (‘Man kann sich auch vorstellen, daß Erzählungen von dem frechen Gärtner, der die Göttin ungestraft schändete, zum Propagandamaterial des aufständischen Südens gehörten.’) 309 Mařík (2003), p. 149: ‘Könnte dies bewiesen werden, wäre es ein gutes Argument für den historischpolitischen Sitz-im-Leben. Gleichzeitig darf jedoch als methodisch fragwürdig erachtet werden, wenn ein Motiv der Fabel alleine durch den vorausgesetzten Gehalt erklärt wird.’ 310 See Wilcke (1993), p. 31, for a discussion of measure and livestock terminology (‘Sumerian’ vs. ‘Akkadian’) as a supposed hint at the political conflict between Sumerian south and Sargonic power, and at the anti-Akkadian sentiment, which he perceives in mythological texts. Cf. J. Cooper (2001), pp. 138–9. See also Veldhuis (2004), p. 40.

110

meant to be allegories of political events? If there is no reluctance in some texts of our corpus to name Sargon, Naramsin, Lugalzagesi, Urnammu, or Ibbisin, why should we assume that other texts disguise individual rulers or dynasties as Inana, Enki, or Gilgamesh?311 This is certainly true as far as purely mythological texts are concerned, as Cooper is careful to point out. However, to avoid misunderstanding it must be stressed that there are several clearly political mythological and epic tales, one of which does reflect historical events (‘Ninmešara’) and accordingly mentions the individuals involved (En‹eduana and Lugalane). Nevertheless, the nature of events in question is far from obvious and far-reaching conclusions are to be avoided, unless one wants to indulge in fruitless and easily contestable speculations. The other political but ahistorical texts are either straightforward narratives whose meaning is not concealed in between the lines at all, or elaborate epics whose basic message is likewise clear enough, despite their complicated structure, plot, mythological language and other features, which are unlikely to be ever fully understood. The former includes stories of the moon-god Nanna, either elaborating on the ancient notion of his descent from Enlil (‘Enlil and Ninlil’), which added legitimacy to the Ur III kings residing in Nanna´s city, or depicting him as a dutiful son delivering offerings to his father Enlil in exchange for the well-being of Ur and the palace (‘Nanna-Suõen´s Journey to Nippur’). The latter consists of narratives featuring legendary, even demi-divine, heroes intimately linked to the city of Uruk (tales of Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš), the ancestral home of the Ur III dynasty, whose certain members (most prominently Šulgi) saw some of those heroes as their divine relatives (Lugalbanda as father, Gilgameš as brother). These texts are obviously ideological and even though they draw on older material, they were redacted in the Ur III period to suit the legitimation needs of the dynasty. Their elementary political message is not intricately hidden from the audience which would need to decode it. Wilcke dealt briefly with these texts too and his conclusions in this case are widely accepted because of unequivocal corroborations in other sources, mainly royal hymns.312 Therefore, attempts at a historical-political interpretation of all mythological texts are mere speculations, unless sources emerge that shed light on their alleged historical background (e.g. a text stating that a man called Šukaletuda was among the leaders of a rebellion against Sargonic power). On the other hand, there is a small group of myths 311 312

J. Cooper (2001), p. 135. Wilcke (1993), pp. 36–9.

111

and epics whose ideological background is self-evident, so that they can be safely regarded as political literature. But they are not about history. It would be counterproductive to search for historical data within them because these texts appear to have been conceived or redacted as timeless justifications of the seemingly deeprooted right of the Ur III dynasty to rule Mesopotamia. Inserting allusions to actual events of Ur III history would have contradicted the legendary character of these pieces. Now, let me turn to the royal hymns, which are by their very nature political literature, and ask if they can be used as sources of historical information. First, I have to point out the obvious, i.e. that royal hymns can be considered historical sources simply by virtue of identifying certain individual by name and royal status (e.g. ‘I am Šulgi … king of the four quarters’), thus corroborating evidence of his existence found in historical sources and defining the time span in which the hymnal narrative is set. The problem is if such literary pieces contain more specific information concerning the events of the king´s rule than these generalities and to what degree it is possible to recognize and interpret such information in case of a positive answer to the first question. Further, one must ask which methods are plausible in mining royal hymns for history. Before proposing my own concept of a historical interpretation of royal hymns let me discuss the suggestions offered and objections raised by scholars so far. The first major attempt at reconstructing history from Ur III royal praise poetry was undertaken by William Hallo, who observed that some events described in hymnal compositions correlate with relevant information contained in royal inscriptions and/or date formulae.313 On that basis he argued that cultic or secular events of historical significance were recorded in three ways: a date formula, a royal inscription and a royal hymn promulgated at a ceremony taking place presumably during the New Year festivities.314 The theme of historical correlations has been taken up by Douglas Frayne in his Yale dissertation, enumerating and analysing all known examples of multiple commemoration of an event within relevant periods.315 He succeeded in proving that royal hymns indeed relate bits of historical data often confirmed by other sources, even though in a very limited and formalized manner. He also amended Hallo´s hypothesis of straightforward correspondence between date formulae, royal inscriptions and hymns pointing out that 313

Hallo (1966), pp. 135–9. Hallo (1970), pp. 117–9. 315 Frayne (1981). 314

112

the number of indubitable correlations is comparatively small. Following this observation he concluded that out of the many (cultic) events of a particular year one was singled out for commemoration in a year name while it did not have to be mentioned in a hymn and vice versa.316 This shows how problematic it is to establish correlations between historical and literary sources, let alone to identify the criteria determining the inclusion of an event into the texts from both groups. It seems that the unequivocal correlations are not results of deliberate decision, as Hallo´s theory suggested, but that they are rather accidental. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that such coincidences could have happened at the royal court where a handful of highly educated scribes took care of the king´s self-representation. Unfortunately, this problem is likely to remain unresolved because there are no sources describing such subtle procedures of Ur III policy-making. Notwithstanding all the inherent difficulties the veracity of hymnal statements which can be corroborated by additional evidence is hardly questioned among scholars today. Frayne maintained the ‘correlation approach’ in his historical introductions to his editions of royal inscriptions too.317 Another important attempt to link hymnal statements, which appear to relate history, with information contained in other sources has been made by Esther Flückiger-Hawker in her book on royal hymns of king Urnamma.318 She briefly summarized Hallo´s and Frayne´s theories and elaborated on them by offering a comprehensive list of Urnamma´s deeds as attested in historical sources (inscriptions, date formulae, the cadastre text and the law-code prologue) and hymns in order to show that the account of the king´s activities in the hymns correlates well with the evidence of historical sources.319 However, she pointed out that Urnamma´s hymns are very general on actual events of his reign (temple building, irrigation works, juridical activities, military campaigns), which is not surprising given the literary character of those texts.320 Flückiger-Hawker then dealt with topoi of legitimation and kingship, present in royal inscriptions from Early Dynastic times onwards and worked out in detail in royal hymns. She isolated four typical thematic groups of these traditional ideological-literary devices of royal self-representation and collected the evidence showing remarkable continuity of their usage from pre-Sargonic times. These literary clichés were utilized for centuries to stress the special character of the royal office and its incumbent. Their 316

Ibid., pp. 500–4. For the case of Šulgi see Frayne (1997b), pp. 91–110. 318 Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 28–40. 319 Ibid., pp. 29–35. 320 Ibid., pp. 36–7. 317

113

language varied and their phraseology developed especially from the Ur III period, when the royal hymn genre evolved, onwards, but their ideology remained much the same and Flückiger-Hawker has done a fine job by pointing them out in the Urnamma hymns.321 It will be shown later which of these topoi were included in the Šulgi hymns and how they were treated by the king´s poets. Such a ‘correlation positive’ approach to Sumerian hymnal literature has been criticized by several scholars who regard those texts as works of literature without any trace of specific historical information. An extremely sceptical position has been adopted by Miguel Civil, who has offered a discussion of literature in general, even the cuneiform record as such, as a phenomenon ultimately bound to its own context which can tell nothing about Mesopotamian history.322 William Hallo reacted in an article trying to balance the antagonistic positions and to show that if the textual information is limited, there must be some limits to the scholarly scepticism as well.323 He maintained that even if the limitations of data contained in the texts are rightly acknowledged, this must not prevent one from drawing conclusions which can be either confirmed, amended or rejected by newly discovered evidence and discussed freely within the scholarly community. He insisted that to wait until all the evidence becomes available would be fanciful.324 I would add that this is true with regard to the royal hymns which are at least explicit on their undoubtedly historical main character and basic features of his reign, however paradigmatic they may be. In case of mythological literature the limits are thus far too strong to allow reasonable ‘historical’ interpretation, as demonstrated above. A critical view can be found also in Flückiger-Hawker´s book, although she generally agrees with the ‘historical correlations’ scheme. She opposed Frayne´s idea that the hymn Urnamma C constitutes a chronicle of the king´s reign and has shown that even though the text mentions in general terms a broad range of Urnamma´s deeds, many of which are attested in historical sources, it is unlikely that they are arranged in a chronological order. She did so on the basis of her new edition of the hymn and a fresh interpretation of a fragmentary piece which Frayne had used to support his argument.325 Now an important issue connected with those who produced almost all of the extant exemplars of Ur III royal hymns, namely the Old Babylonian (apprentice) scribes, shall 321

Ibid., pp. 42–58. Civil (1980). 323 Hallo (1990), pp. 187–8, 199. 324 Ibid., p. 192. 325 Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 37–40. 322

114

be discussed. Some scholars rightly ask how one can reconstruct history from texts copied some 300 years after the demise of the kings who commissioned them? Indeed, it is a matter of fact that the wording of the hymns varies from tablet to tablet, either because of scribal errors (or at least in some cases due to a momentary whim or desire to show off) or as a result of a local tradition, and that Old Babylonian teachers in some cases changed the layout of the texts by inserting or omitting whole passages apparently for pedagogical purposes and thus altered the particular hymn´s meaning. The most telling example of such scribal practice is the hymn Urnamma D (the ‘Coronation of Urnamma’). Steve Tinney has analysed the three extant versions of the composition which differ significantly from one another.326 The first one is a short poetic description of canal-digging as an undertaking vital for the land´s well-being.327 It is possible to argue that the composition correlates with the well-documented role of Urnamma as restorer of Babylonia´s irrigation system, particularly because of the usage of i7 … ba-al, ‘to dig a canal’, an expression invariably employed in the king´s relevant royal inscriptions and not present in inscriptions of earlier rulers.328 However, Tinney has observed that one of the sources is inscribed on a collective tablet together with three Dumuzi-Inana compositions.329 This means that Urnamma D ought to be understood in the context of love poetry and that its seemingly straightforward depiction of canal-digging was apparently seen as a metaphor of fertility, sexual intercourse and resulting abundance.330 The second version is longer, more repetitive, focusing on Nanna (but omitting the initial invocation of this god) and accordingly omitting an Enki-section present in the first version. But most significantly, it contains a lengthy ‘coronation’ episode consisting of usual topoi of royal investiture frequently found in royal hymns of all dynasties. Quite surprising is the mention of king Šulgi in l. 11 which can nevertheless be explained as a scribal error (for šul zi… of the other versions) in view of the syllabic writing of the manuscript and the scribe´s generally inadequate knowledge of Sumerian grammar. Finally, the third version of almost the same length as the second one presents the most balanced text containing the invocation of Nanna, the royal rhetoric as well as the Enki-section. This version was edited for the first time by William Hallo who believed that the royal investiture passage

326

Tinney (1999b). But note that the attribution of this text to Urnamma is based on a restoration of his name (l. 4) from the apparently parallel passage in the third (Yale) version. 328 Tinney (1999b), pp. 33–4. 329 Ibid., p. 34. 330 Cf. ibid., pp. 34–7 with numerous examples of such or similar metaphors from other texts. 327

115

constitutes a faithful description of Urnamma´s actual coronation.331 Obviously, this position cannot be upheld any longer. Tinney rightly suggests that royal rhetoric was inserted for the sake of pedagogy in order to teach apprentice scribes new vocabulary and/or compositional conventions and that the text therefore has nothing to do with Urnamma´s accession to the throne.332 But is it justified to assume purely on the basis of this evidence that all royal rhetoric in all other relevant royal hymns was only a later addition without any relation to the specific king´s accession? The answer is no, because to do so would be just as mistaken as to suggest that everything which seems historical in any hymn is actual historical information. Thus it can be at least assumed, with the well-known Mesopotamian sense of tradition in mind, that the decisive elements of the narrative were faithfully transmitted down to the end of the Old Babylonian period. If not, how could scholars have found even the few undisputed correlations between hymnal statements and Ur III historical sources? Further, any unusual, difficult phrases which stick out from the hymnal clichés should be looked for, because such strange textual elements point to something not conventional but actual, behind which a historical event may be hidden. Among important issues concerning the transmission of Ur III royal hymns also belong the orthography and language of the copies. Some of them were written according to Old Babylonian standards, whereas other tablets exhibit efforts to retain old spelling and grammatical forms.333 Apart from that, a number of manuscripts show odd forms which are clearly due to questionable proficiency of the ancient schoolboys. However, these facts are irrelevant here because they concern the form of the text and have nothing to do with its content. Furthermore, nothing can be currently said about the reasons for discarding some hymns in post-Ur III times and including others in the corpus. One simply has to deal with texts at hand.334 It has also been argued that even if there were an Ur III ‘original’, attempts at extracting historical data from the composition would still be highly problematic.335 However, this assertion has not been developed nor explained. The critics of the ‘correlation approach’ to royal hymns often point to the need of a conceptual analysis and an understanding of them in the context of the literary corpus as a whole.336 Particularly Veldhuis insists that ‘correlations’ 331

Hallo (1966). See especially pp. 135–6. Tinney (1999b), p. 43. 333 See, for instance, the discussion in Klein (1981b), pp. 64–70, 131–4. Cf. now Rubio [2000 (2005)]. See further Delnero (2006), especially pp. 677–848 (an analysis of variation in Šulgi A). 334 See Veldhuis (2002), p. 128. 335 Ibid. 336 See Tinney (1999b), p. 45, and Veldhuis (2002), pp. 128, 130. 332

116

between history and literature should not be sought in the content of the compositions alone. Instead, one ought to analyse literature as a whole, examine its various uses, social context, its means of expression, language etc.337 Although he is undoubtedly right when suggesting that literature should be dealt with in its broad context, such an undertaking does not seem possible at present, as Nicole Brisch has recently remarked.338 Veldhuis himself did not offer a clear methodological guideline for such an analysis and his considerations remained vague.339 Moreover, his belief that historical analyses of Old Babylonian literature should follow the fact that the tablets are products of that period and therefore convey historical messages concerning Old Babylonian era is correct only when it comes to Old Babylonian literature proper.340 Ur III royal hymns are not Old Babylonian literature, although almost all extant copies come from that period and the texts undoubtedly had significant meaning for Old Babylonian scribes, otherwise they would not have copied them. Ur III royal hymns are Ur III literature and if they contain specific historical allusions regarding the deeds of Ur III kings, these are surely allusions to events of the Ur III period. Apart from royal praise poetry there are other literary texts stemming either from the Ur III or Old Babylonian period which mention besides the Ur III kings also some other people and places and allude to events that happened apparently during the respective king´s reign. As for Šulgi, there are several literary letters addressed to him by prominent dignitaries of his realm and vice versa which seemingly draw on Ur III ‘originals’. Further, there is the literary ‘Disputation between Tree and Reed’ relating that Šulgi acted as an arbiter in the verbal contest of the two ‘heroes’ taking place in the royal palace at Ur, a temple hymn concerned with Šulgi´s palace and a mention of the palace in a hymn to Nanna. Finally, there are some so-called ‘historical’ omens mentioning Šulgi. These short texts were most likely composed in Old Babylonian scribal schools and show remarkable familiarity of their authors both with the hymnal legacy of this king and with a great military achievement of the latter part of his reign. I do not deem it necessary to deal with approaches to the respective text groups as a 337

Veldhuis (2002), p. 128. Thus, he sees the historical role of Sumerian literature in providing a desired ideal of unity within the scribal milieu while political reality was marked by diversity. 338 Brisch (2007), p. 17. 339 See Veldhuis (2002), pp. 128–9. Cf. Veldhuis (2004), pp. 39–80, where a concept of ‘Old Babylonian Sumerian literature’ is presented and this literature analysed in a ‘social-functional’ and ‘institutional’ context of the Old Babylonian school. The Šulgi hymns and at least the undisputed correlations (Šulgi A with year names for Š6/7 and Šulgi R with year name for Š8) are discussed only in general and vague terms, e.g. p. 59: ‘An Old Babylonian copy of a hymn to Šulgi potentionally tells us more about the Old Babylonian period, about the uses and functions of such compositions, than about the time of king Šulgi, several centuries earlier.’ 340 Veldhuis (2002), p. 129.

117

whole in the framework of this section which has focused on the problem of ‘historical correlations’ in major Ur III literary sources, i.e. myths, epics and above all royal hymns. Rather, I will resort myself to a discussion of specific examples in relevant sections of the next chapter. IV.2) An Outline of Interpretative Possibilities of Comparing the Šulgi Hymns with Modern Propagandistic Literature IV.2.1) Methodological Deliberations on Extracting History from Royal Hymns As has been shown above, the way of searching for and interpreting supposed historical information within Sumerian literary texts, and specifically royal hymns, depended in the past decades largely on the particular scholar´s presuppositions and the measure of scepticism which the author chose to apply to them. No clear cut methodology has yet emerged from the considerations of various scholars, though some of them, especially the sceptics, put forward suggestions concerning the conceptual and contextual level of the texts. However, these have as yet remained mere suggestions. But is it even possible to find any viable and coherent method of mining royal hymns for historical data? Dietz Otto Edzard thought that the only way would be to carefully examine the entire hymnal corpus in order to determine which statement contains authentic historical data and which represents only a literary cliché.341 It does not come as a surprise, of course, that nobody has yet attempted to fulfil this huge, and ultimately perhaps unfeasible, task in full. Yet, there are two studies by Sabina Franke and Esther Flückiger-Hawker,342 who applied this principle to the text corpora which they dealt with, thereby extracting literary patterns of various elements of royal ideology, outlining their tradition, function and variations.343 That undertaking, more specifically that of Flückiger-Hawker, has recently been criticized by Brisch who stated that the choice of thematic groups of topoi has not been explained and therefore must be regarded as arbitrary.344 Her objections will be discussed in more detail later when dealing with literary topoi in the Šulgi hymns but here I have to stress that I deem it unnecessary to give some special explanation of the 341

Edzard (1957), pp. 12–13. Apart from Hallo (1957) devoted to a related topic. See also relevant sections in Ludwig (1990). 343 Franke (1995), passim; Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 42–58. 344 Brisch (2007), p. 28. Flückiger-Hawker (1999), p. 45, grouped the topoi thematically as follows: A) divine parentage and type scenes of birth and divine nurture; B) predestination; C) designation and divine election from the multitudes and endowment with divine favours (wisdom, strength, etc.); D) investiture with symbols of kingship. 342

118

choice of cliché groups, since they become self-evident upon inspection of the texts and are by no means confined to Mesopotamian royal ideology or a specific period of time but rather represent a common pattern of royal ideology, albeit accordingly altered depending on a given tradition and circumstances, throughout the ages and cultures (see section 2.3 of this chapter). Brisch further found fault with the fact that texts serving as the base of the analysis of literary topoi include different ‘genres’, e.g. royal inscriptions and hymns, which according to her had very different functions.345 This brings me to the next point of my discussion. Timothy Potts in his insightful article on the Sargonic ‘historical-literary’ tradition346 voiced several important methodological considerations directly bearing upon the present topic, the ‘ideology’ and ‘history’ in the Šulgi royal hymns. As for the above reservation of Nicole Brisch, I agree with his comments on the marked distinction between ‘historical’ and ‘literary’ sources common among scholars. He states that while typological distinction between literary and historical texts is correct and legitimate, it says nothing about the validity of those texts as sources of historical information and must not prevent scholars from searching for historical data in texts that they classify as literary.347 This is true for ideological patterns and topoi as well, at least in case of the Šulgi texts. However, attempts at isolating clichés, though useful in itself as a basic method for analysing various forms of conveying ideological messages, seem to be fuelled by the notion that if one succeeds in doing so one will strip the text of its ideological sediment and see the naked ‘historical kernel’. This is misleading as Potts has observed.348 According to him the texts should be perceived as ‘multi-dimensional entities’ instead, a stance close to the opinions of the sceptics discussed on the preceding pages. But unlike them, Potts has made his argument quite explicit: Instead of historical kernels, buried within onion-rings of propaganda and literary manipulation, we can approach texts as multi-dimensional entities that have an historical dimension as well as a literary dimension, a sociological, a political, a propagandistic, even an economic dimension, all at the same time.349

345

Brisch (2007), p. 28. T. Potts (2001). 347 Ibid., p. 406. 348 Ibid., p. 405. 349 Ibid. 346

119

Certainly this view raises questions, such as are the six dimensions enough or too much? Should we, perhaps, add another one (and which?) or should we rather drop some? Further, which dimension figures most prominently in the text or are all of them represented equally? But at least it is a sound attempt to find an explicit way of dealing with ‘history’ in ‘literary’ compositions which may be acceptable to everybody and thus help reconcile the extremes in contemporary scholarship concerning this issue.350 In his further considerations on the ‘multi-dimensional’ approach Potts refined it in such a way that is in accord with my own views and seems suitable for an appropriate ‘historical’ analysis of the Šulgi hymns. His reasoning will be taken a concrete step further below and therefore it needs to be quoted here in full: Pushing this alternative metaphor further, it can be emphasized that these dimensions are not ‘parts’ (here the kernel metaphor is especially misleading); we cannot always isolate or individuate the text into historical and literary ‘elements’, for example. Various dimensions can, as it were, suffuse the entire composition. The historical dimension of the composition … may itself be manifested in an entirely literary form, and may indeed be there for a particular propagandistic reason – a reason that may even … underpin the creation of the composition and have a pervasive influence on its character and structure. The recognition of an historical dimension or aspect does not therefore oblige us to affirm the literal historicity of any particular element in the narrative. It means only that to understand the composition – to adequately explain its coming into being and/or the particular form and content that it takes – it is necessary to make reference to historical events.351 IV.2.2) The Šulgi Hymns as Literary Propaganda The view of literary texts put forward by Potts seems correct especially when looking at the Šulgi hymns, replete with royal boasting. These texts were primary vehicles of Šulgi´s royal ideology of the superhuman divine king and they can be called by their proper name, i.e. literary propaganda, no matter if some of them were put to use in the cult of the ruler or other deities, while others may have served as a tool of indoctrination of future administrators during their education, or may have been used to instill the image of an invincible and infallible god-king into the minds of the Ur III 350 351

See ibid., p. 407. Ibid., pp. 405–6.

120

ruling élite and perhaps even foreign envoys during court ceremonies.352 The authors of such compositions consciously created them to communicate and spread the notion of Šulgi´s perfection in every realm of human activity. It is noteworthy in this context that the Šulgi hymns fit even in the framework of some of the broad definitions of 20th century propaganda. Let me quote here only one definition proposed by a specialist on Nazi propadanda Aristotle Kallis: [Propaganda is] a systematic process of information management geared to promoting a particular goal and to guaranteeing a popular response as desired by the propagandist.353 And even today, approximately 4100 years after the king´s death, students of Sumerian literature still read: ‘May my hymns be in all mouths; let the songs about me not pass from memory.’354 These are the opening lines of the well-known summary of the Šulgi hymns´ ‘purposes’ given in the closing section of hymn Šulgi E. Similar sections are found in hymns B and C as well.355 They are strikingly explicit about the propagandistic nature of royal hymnic literature. While it certainly has to be acknowledged that the importance of acquiring eternal fame was firmly embedded in ancient Mesopotamian thought as a tool for overcoming death, it can be safely assumed that such a notion could have been, and obviously was, accordingly exploited for political reasons. Further, the insistence of the authors that everything described in the compositions is pure truth and their considerable effort to convince the audience of that shows that they, well aware of what their creations were really about, needed to present themselves only as narrators of facts. After all, no propagandist would normally admit in all sincerety that he makes propaganda, except several totalitarian politicians in the twentieth century AD. Therefore, the hymns were regarded as the king´s ‘accumulated

352 See Tinney (1996), p. 84; Michalowski (1991), pp. 51–53; (2003), pp. 195–196; (2008), pp. 37–38. Note further that several statements in the hymns suggest their recitation for a broader audience, possibly during major festivals. See Ludwig (1990), pp. 41–65, with examples. See also Reisman (1969), pp. 39–40. 353 Kallis (2005), p. 1. Propagandist = Šulgi and his scholars, particular goal = molding the minds of Ur III educated élite, desired popular response = support and loyalty of the educated élite, respectively. Other definitions of modern propaganda can be found in Jowett and O´Donnell (2006). On Mesopotamian propaganda in general see Taylor (2003), pp. 13–24, 50–52. 354 ETCSL, 2.4.2.05, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi E)’, ll. 240–1: èn-du-ëu ka-ka ‹é-ëál/šìr-ëu ëeštu 10 10 2 ge na-an-dib-bé. Transliteration as well as translation slightly modified. 355 See ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’, especially ll. 1–10; ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’, especially the three-line stanza, ll. 18–20, repeated seven times in the text.

121

knowledge’356 but their real character emerges here and there even in the defence of their ‘veracity’. This is perhaps best illustrated by a couplet from the hymn Šulgi B which reads: ‘An eminent example deserves eternal fame. What is the use of writing lies without truth?’357 These words, intended to bolster the credibility of Šulgi´s hymns, convey a basic rule of every (literary) propaganda, namely that if one works with ideological patterns and literary clichés, topoi and images only, one creates just a fairy-tale or myth, detached from reality, hardly credible and thus useless for a living ruler´s self-representation. On the other hand, if one works only with truth, one creates a chronicle, a work of historiography, informative but uninspiring, not stimulating people´s imagination and therefore equally useless for a living ruler´s self-representation. Literary propaganda is always a mixture of ideological schemes and historical information, each element complementing the other. Ideological statements affect the need for and stimulate the universal sense of something or someone transcendental, that goes beyond the limits of this world, that is perfect, ideal, just, assuring, protecting order against chaos. Allusions to historical events, that the reader or listener is familiar with, serve to connect the transcendental with the mundane, to unite these opposites in the image of the glorified one, to show that the holder of transcendental qualities acts in this world and thus also to draw the audience into the course of history created by him, to make the hero human and divine at the same time. Of course, the measure of veracity of historical information contained in such creations is difficult, if not impossible, to establish in such circumstances. Any historical data communicated in a propagandistic text must be presented as simply as possible, often in a literary form (see the last quotation from Potts above), and above all always in accord with the overall positive image of the glorified one whatever the reality might have been. But despite this major difficulty the grounds for mining the Šulgi royal hymns for history set out on previous pages seem to be more secure than in case of similar efforts concerning mythological narratives. A significant precondition of such an undertaking seems to be the existence of comparative material, i.e. relevant historical evidence.358 However, comparative evidence is often scarce and not historical in the strict sense of that word. For instance, the date

356

In the section of Šulgi B dealing with his founding of the scribal academies at Ur and Nippur. ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’, l. 316: ëeštu2 dab5-ba-ëu10. For a hymn extremely concerned with the veracity of Šulgi´s poems see ETCSL, 2.4.2.05, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi E)’. 357 ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’, ll. 326–7: níë-umun -a saë-kal mu da-rí-kam/níë2 lul níë-gen6-na nu-me-a sar-re-bi a-na-gin7-nam. 358 See T. Potts (2001), pp. 406–7.

122

formulae and royal inscriptions are rightly understood as historical sources yet it must be acknowledged that they were not created with historiography in mind. However explicit they are on some events of the king´s reign, they are above all expressions of his might and care for the gods and people. The obvious predominance of religious and military achievements in such texts was certainly deliberate. Moreover, texts of this kind from the reign of Šulgi describe historical events so succinctly that their informative value is very limited. Of course, there are other historical sources, such as administrative texts, that often add important information regarding the circumstances and context of some events dealt with in the formulae or royal inscriptions, but this still does not allow one to simply dismiss the historical dimension of relevant literary texts if they seem to bear on the event in question. However, as explained above, literary texts use historical events as a tool for underpinning royal self-representation. Therefore, history is accordingly distorted and although it is occasionally described in some detail, one can hardly be certain that the context of a particular event given in the literary text is to be trusted. Thus, the search for history in these texts may still seem hopeless in such circumstances. Yet despite all the problems faced when examining and evaluating the historical sources alone and when comparing them with supposed historical allusions in relevant royal literature one has to acknowledge the simple fact that they often match in crucial points, as will be shown in the next chapter. Therefore, it is impossible to deny the very presence of historical data in texts from either of these text groups. Further, if both the ‘historical’ and ‘literary’ texts contain history, it is certainly reasonable to assume that when a ‘literary’ text seemingly alludes to a historical event only faintly or not at all reflected in the ‘historical’ sources, it does not mean that the allusion is invented or that the event did not really happen. As Timothy Potts has rightly put it: Certainly, we need other kinds of historical data to be able to see the historical relevance of a composition … but once we have this or any other window into the historical dimension of the text, that vista must be acknowledged, and indeed exploited for whatever extra information can be elicited from it.359

359

Ibid., p. 407.

123

But the problem is that some statement unmatched in other souces can hardly be identified as a historical allusion unless one´s approach is duly underpinned. Therefore, one needs to find a method of reading history, no matter how condensed or distorted, within literary texts, or royal hymnic compositions respectively. IV.2.3) On the Possibility of Comparing the Šulgi Hymns with Stalinist Propaganda I have outlined above the lines along which political propaganda works and I think that basic propagandistic techniques as well as their purpose are the same throughout human history right from the dawn of organized government, no matter how big the cultural, social or economic differences may be.360 On this premise a propagandistic text stemming from an exceedingly well-documented period of history can be taken, statements that seem to be historically valid picked out and confronted with relevant historical sources. This simple undertaking will show how propagandists deal with historical data, how they mix history with ideology to give the reader or listener a point of reference adding credibility to the whole and simultaneously arousing his sense for higher meaning represented by the person or idea extolled in the text. Interestingly, such analysis will also show that ideological topoi and clichés used by the authors are strikingly similar throughout the ages, thus fostering the basic premise. The results can then be used for a comparison of the given text with the Šulgi hymns to make clear that their historical dimension can be seen and exploited even if the contemporary comparative material is not very helpful or does not exist at all.361 Having said that, one may still wonder how it is possible to compare the seemingly incomparable, i.e. the Šulgi and Stalinist literary propaganda. The manifold problems of comparative approach to all kinds of phenomena in different cultures have been subject to a myriad of methodological studies, and comparing the various aspects of ancient and modern rulership is no exception. A study of the ‘Sacred Ruler as a Historical and Phenomenological Problem’ by Rolf Gundlach offers a particularly relevant methodological discussion which will be used here to illustrate the theoretical basis of the subsequent comparisons.362

360

A general discussion of Mesopotamian propaganda can be found in Taylor (2003), pp. 13–24, 50–52. On the theory of modern propaganda see the classic works by Bernays (1928) and Ellul (1965). 361 On the viability and even necessity of comparing ancient and modern propaganda see the thoughtprovoking essay by Liverani (1996). The complex methodology, worked out by A.L. George (1959), of inferring the ‘intentions and calculations of the communicator’ as well as the ‘events and conditions in his environment’ from propagandistic statements only may be of use in this respect. 362 Gundlach (1992). I am grateful to Gebhard J. Selz for alerting me to this study.

124

In the study the author observes that ‘sakrale Königtum ist die typische Staatsform der menschlichen Geschichte zwischen dem 4. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend und der Industriellen Revolution des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts’.363 Indeed, while specific configurations of kingship in various cultures across the globe and throughout history were different, the underlying principle of the rule of an individual sanctioned by the transcendental was remarkably enduring, as were its basic features. For instance, one only needs to watch the 1953 recording of the coronation of queen Elizabeth II and then read accounts of royal coronations back to those found in ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources to appreciate that this constituent rite of kingship, together with its accompanying paraphernalia, is essentially the same throughout recorded history. Gundlach continues by pointing out that monarchies started to die out in Europe only towards the end of WW I leaving behind a gaping hole in social organization which needed to be filled.364 In some cases the substitutes for monarchy were dictatorships, on the surface detaching themselves from religion, yet actually built upon modified religious foundations of sacred kingship. Thus Hitler legitimized his status by presenting himself as the one chosen by ‘Providence’ to save Germany and Europe while Stalin and others used the abstract ‘Will of the Proletariate’ to legitimize their rule of the people.365 This change of divinely sanctioned kingship provided for a continuation of sacred absolute monarchy in the person of the modern dictator. As ever before, the ruler was the pillar of the state and the ultimate decision maker, subject only to the rather ephemeral authority of the ‘Providence’ or the Marxist-Leninist ‘sacred scriptures’ of which he was the only legitimate exegete. The accompanying adapted or newly created pseudo-religious rituals,366 centering on the ruler and in total constituting the leader cult by which popular opinion was carefully manipulated, enabled the dictator to quickly acquire god-like status. It is exactly the perceived divine component in both Šulgi´s and Stalin´s rulership that makes these two figures comparable in the first place. Even more so if one looks at the respective bodies of propagandistic literature pertaining to both rulers. Indeed, it seems that the supposed divinity of both rulers actually may have been the driving force behind the creation of Šulgi´s and Stalin´s laudatory literature. Note that the genre of royal hymn faded away by the end of the Old Babylonian period when any signs of royal divinity were finally dropped. Similarly, Stalinist praise poetry ceased to be 363

Gundlach (1992), p. 6. Ibid., p. 8. 365 See ibid. 366 On Stalinist public celebrations and rituals in general see the recent monograph by Petrone (2000). 364

125

written after Stalin´s death and especially following the exposure of his ‘personality cult’ at the XX. Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in 1956.367 Yet the comparison seems possible also on the premise that Ur III kingdom and Stalinist Russia (together with its satellites) are similar in the most basic traits of political culture, although they are considerably different in other respects. The general features are that both states were autocratic, empire-like entities run by a number of administrators with the ruler being worshipped like a god. The similarities of the central link, i.e. Šulgi´s and Stalin´s divine status, become even more apparent if one looks at the consequences resulting from it. For instance, the naming of toponyms after the king or leader (‘Ford of Šulgi’, ‘Cattle-pen of Šulgi’, ‘Šulgi Is Abundance’, etc.; Stalingrad, Stalinabad, Stalinsk, etc.),368 the naming of people after him, (‘Who Is Like Šulgi?’, ‘Šulgi Is My Father’, ‘Šulgi Is the God of the Land’; the Tajik actress Stalina A. Azamatova, etc.),369 the establishment of temples for Šulgi and the socalled ‘museums’ for Stalin, etc.370 It is no surprise, therefore, that ideologically charged literature pertaining to the two rulers is similar too.371 This methodological standpoint, drawing upon the approach of phenomenology of religion and focusing specifically on the phenomenon of sacred/divine kingship, shows that a comparison of Šulgi´s and Stalin´s rulership may be feasible.372 Even more so if one keeps in mind that only particular points in particular text corpora from either period will be dealt with to achieve a particular goal, i.e. to show that it seems possible to unfold some historical data in the Šulgi hymns. Therefore, this specific comparative approach enables one to avoid the trap in which comparative religion often falls by comparing diverse phenomena in various cultures at

367 On Šulgi´s divinity see e.g. Michalowski (2008b) with references. From the voluminous literature on Stalin´s cult see e.g. Davies (1997), pp. 147–82; Groys (1988); Heizer (1977); Lane (1981); Löhmann (1990). 368 né-be-er-dšul-giki, a-%a-ar-dšul-gi, dšul-gi-‹é-ëál†. See Edzard and Farber (1974), pp. 86, 17, 139. For a list of Soviet toponyms named after Stalin see Heizer (1977), p. 205. 369 a-ba-ƒšul-gi-gin , ƒšul-gi-a-a-ëu , ƒšul-gi-diëir-kalam-ma. See Schneider (1949/2), pp. 351–4; Limet 7 10 (1968), pp. 175–7, and passim plus catalogue; Di Vito (1993), pp. 49–50 (catalogue). On the naming of people after the divine king see also Michalowski (1991), p. 55. 370 Temples of Šulgi are attested at Ëirsu, Guába, KI.AN, and Umma. See most recently Reichel (2008), pp. 133–4, 145, fig. 7.2. Cf. Michalowski (2008), p. 38. A Stalin museum is still in operation in the dictator´s birthplace Gori, Georgia. 371 A comparison of the Šulgi literature with that glorifying other totalitarian leaders whose states share(d) the basic features outlined above as far as their political culture is concerned – e.g. Saddam who even ruled the same land as Šulgi did, or Kim Il-sung, and now also his son and successor Kim Jong-il, whose cult is arguably the most developed (see, for instance, Lankov 2007, pp. 7–32) – would be desirable. 372 Note the following statement by Gundlach (1992), pp. 8–9: ‘So kann man m.E., …, von marxistischen Sakralherrschern sprechen, d.h. der Typus des religiös oder quasi religiös legitimierten Herrschers ist nicht mit dem Ende der Monarchie ausgestorben.’

126

the cost of detail.373 Only certain texts will be compared to show that the notion of Šulgi´s ‘divine’ kingship and Stalin´s ‘charismatic’ leadership shared the basic formal points as well as ways of their representation in literature and that these points may be isolated, which will also reveal that specific pieces of information, not belonging among those formal points or topoi, may be useful for a reconstruction of history. The Stalinist corpus is very suitable for such an undertaking because both the propagandistic texts and historical documents are nowadays readily available and can be easily juxtaposed, which all too often cannot be done in the case of the Šulgi material. As the phenomenon of divine kingship in both cultures is compared here only from the viewpoint of its literary-propagandistic representation with the specific aim to uncover historical data in that representation, the approach adopted is a combination of phenomenology and a historical approach, as Gundlach calls it.374 The historical approach is based on choosing specific aspects of the phenomenon to be compared on condition of the awareness of differences between the cultures compared, the necessity to acknowledge the historical uniqueness of the selected examples and to grasp them in their own context before comparing them.375 The formal comparable points of propaganda recognizeable in both Šulgi´s and Stalin´s laudatory literature will be discussed in detail in the next section presenting specific text examples but they can generally be classified as topoi of ideal kingship defined and described further below with extensive examples from the Šulgi hymns (chapter VI.1.1). These are statements meant to justify the ruler´s claim to reign on the one hand, and on the other hand to show his efficiency in performing the tasks of rulership and thereby to confirm the necessity of his rule.376 This is also in accord with Gundlach´s approach focusing on the legitimation and function of the ruler (i.e., the ideological basis of his rule and his tasks).377 Moreover, since rulers regarded as divine beings are dealt with here, statements of infallibility, great achievements in various kinds 373

As Gundlach (1992), p. 15, states: ‘Das spezifische Problem der (vergleichenden) Religionswissenschaft besteht in der Notwendigkeit der „Breite“, die leicht auf Kosten der „Tiefe“ gehen kann.’ 374 Gundlach (1992), pp. 19–21. 375 Ibid., p. 21: ‘Denn nur wenn jedes Beispiel in seiner historischen Einmaligkeit erkannt wird, besteht die Chance, sinnvoll Vergleiche durchführen zu können…’ 376 As a successor of Lenin, the ultimate authority of the Soviet cause, Stalin was often legitimized in texts by his unique ability to protect, correctly explain and develop Lenin´s legacy. This is perhaps best illustrated by the slogan first used by the French writer Henri Barbusse: ‘Stalin is the Lenin of today.’ See Heizer (1977), p. 211; Oberländer (1992), p. 345. According to the laudatory literature his indispensability for the country consisted mainly in his unique ability to protect it against all enemies, build up the industry in five-year plans and successfully reform Soviet agriculture. See, for instance, Oberländer (1992), pp. 344–51, and the relevant examples below. For topoi of ideal kingship used by Šulgi´s poets to legitimize his rule and highlight its supposed benefits for the land see chapter VI.1.1. 377 Gundlach (1992), p. 13.

127

of human activity,378 invincibility in battle and the literary technique of comparing the ruler to powerful animals and natural phenomena are present in great measure in both text corpora.379 The reach of Šulgi´s and Stalin´s propaganda was, of course, very different in scores of details, yet similar again in its most basic traits. Twentieth century technology allowed Stalin´s propagandists to drill their messages into the minds of the public by means of newspaper columns, books, radio broadcasts, theater shows and film projections, to name only the most obvious and important methods. However, only literary propaganda is discussed here and the medium of literary propaganda is writing. Written propaganda got to a vast audience of those Soviet citizens either able to read it themselves or at least to listen to it at Party rallys, public celebrations, etc. Apart from the general audience of workers and peasants there was a specialized one, the apparatchiks, i.e. the ideologically educated élite of the Stalinist state, who received complex instruction in the principles of Stalinist ideology through a ‘catechism-like method’ in Party schools.380 In Šulgi´s time literacy was much more restricted and the technology of writing limited. Therefore, if the broad public ever experienced a direct impact of Šulgi´s propaganda, it was most likely by listening to the recitation of his hymns during religious festivals and ceremonies – provided that the general audience was still able to understand Sumerian – and by seeing royal monuments set up in public spaces to evoke in the minds of the passers-by the sense of the divine ruler´s power, irrespective of their inability to appreciate the accompanying text´s contents.381 Significantly, the Šulgi hymns had a specialized audience too. Presumably they were composed in the school where they were surely read and copied. The ability to read and write was regarded as highly exclusive throughout Mesopotamian history and those who passed through the Edubba, administrators, priests, scholars, as well as ordinary scribes and clerks, were well aware

378 On Stalin´s ‘genius’ see e.g. Heizer (1977), p. 202: ‘The acceptance of Stalin´s unique genius enabled him to pontificate in matters beyond the area of politics. He established himself as an authority in literature and linguistics, became the patron of such quack scientists as Trofim Lysenko and Olga Lepeshinskaya, and in many other ways dominated Soviet culture until he died.’ As for Šulgi, his hymn B – see ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’ – is a text most preoccupied with the king´s supposed perfection in scribal art, warfare, hunting, running, omen interpretation, music, polyglot conversation, administration of justice, and provision for the gods. 379 For the latter two points see the extensive comparative examples in the next section. 380 See Petrone (2000), pp. 1–9, for discussion and references. 381 See e.g. Ludwig (1990), pp. 41–65; Reisman (1969), pp. 39–40. Note, however, that only one Šulgi´s hymnic text (Šulgi V) seems to have been originally written on a statue of the king. See Klein (1985).

128

of that.382 These people seem to have been the primary audience of the Šulgi hymns, for their knowledge of the exclusive technology of writing made them on the one hand indispensable for the functioning of the state, and on the other hand broadened their perspective and turned them into a guild of specialists potentially capable of exerting formidable influence on politics and possibly even of challenging royal power.383 In short, the control of written discourse and the people taking care of it seems to have been of as paramount an importance in the time of Šulgi as it surely was in the time of Stalin and propaganda represented a powerful way to achieve it in either case. IV.2.4) A Selection of Illustrative Examples There is an immense amount of texts to choose from when it comes to Stalinist propaganda. I have selected one major and some minor works of Czech and Russian propagandistic literature as particularly illustrative examples. The Czech one is a large poem, truly a ‘royal hymn’ in its own right, with the paradigmatic title Song of Stalin, written in 1949 to celebrate the dictator´s 70th birthday.384 The Russian ones are lyrics of propagandistic songs Addressing J.V. Stalin, Two Falcons, Many Stars Shine in the Sky, A Festive Song, and The Capital of Peace/World, the Homeland´s Capital.385 First, I would like to demonstrate the enormous similarity of literary topoi used by the modern as well as ancient authors independently of each other. It clearly shows that basic propagandistic tools remain the same and indeed it could hardly be otherwise. If the hero was to be presented as superhuman, mighty and infallible, the author must have employed animal imagery, compared the hero with mountains, rivers, atmospherical phenomena etc.: Hero of heroes, one of fabulous warriors, while striding he shakes Mother Earth with his tread. In his words there is thunder. He is born of lightning. 382

A passage from hymn Šulgi B (ll. 13–20) eloquently testifies to the importance of being literate, or at least being regarded as literate. ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’: ‘When I was small, I was at the academy, where I learned the scribal art from the tablets of Sumer and Akkad. None of the nobles could write on clay as I could. There where people regularly went for tutelage in the scribal art, I qualified fully in subtraction, addition, reckoning and accounting. The fair Nanibgal, Nisaba, provided me amply with knowledge and comprehension. I am an experienced scribe who does not neglect a thing.’ 383 The example of the politically very influential Old Akkadian high-priestess of the moon-god in Ur, En‹eduana, comes to mind in this respect. 384 St. Neumann (1949). 385 Величальная И. В. Сталину, lyrics by М. Исаковский, 1944; Два сокола, lyrics by М. Исаковский, 1937; Много звезд на небе светит, author unknown, 1948; Праздничная песня, lyrics by В. Лебедев-Кумач, 1950; Столица мира, Родины столица, author unknown, 1939. Full texts of all songs as well as the music are available at www.sovmusic.ru.

129

His heart is like mountains and soul like a river. Píseň o Stalinu (Song of Stalin) (St. Neumann 1949, p. 12). I am a warrior whose might is enormous might. I am Šulgi, whose shadow lies over the mountain lands. Šulgi B, ll. 354–5 (ETCSL 2.4.2.02). When you (i.e. Šulgi) howled like the storm. Šulgi X, l. 114 (Klein 1981b, p. 142). I am a great storm let loose from heaven, sending its splendour far and wide. Šulgi C, l. 4 (ETCSL, 2.4.2.03). We address the falcon,

I am a fierce-eyed lion sired by a dragon. Šulgi A, l. 3 (Klein 1981b, p. 188).

flying higher than the others,

Strength of lions, hero of battle – I have no rivals. Šulgi C, l. 10 (ETCSL, 2.4.2.03).

whose mighty power

I am Šulgi, the mighty king. I am superior

defeats all enemies.

to all. Šulgi A, l. 26 (Klein 1981b, p. 190).

We address the falcon,

I am the king, a wild bull of acknowledged strength, a lion with wide-open jaws. Šulgi C, l. 1 (ETCSL, 2.4.2.03).

our best friend,

Hero, lord, … the right side of Sumer. Šulgi X, l. 134 (Klein 1981b, p. 142).

we address Stalin –

May your name be pleasant in the mouths

marshal of the people.

of Sumer and all the foreign lands like Ašnan.

Addressing J.V. Stalin, 1944.386

Šulgi X, l. 138 (Klein 1981b, p. 144).

Interestingly, modern propagandists sought to persuade their readers of the ‘fact’ that they were telling the truth too, precisely as their ancient counterparts did. Their method was not so straightforward but their message was basically the same: 386

Величальная И. В. Сталину, lyrics by М. Исаковский.

130

… and elders were telling sagas about him; not laudatory verses, a piece of someone´s epic,387 which will be written out of a mountain of five-year plans. Píseň o Stalinu (Song of Stalin) (St. Neumann 1949, p. 12). Let them tell in song a perfect recital of all my praiseworthy deeds. Šulgi C, l. 20 (ETCSL, 2.4.2.03). No one has embellished my prayers with achievements that I have not matched. Šulgi E, l. 45 (ETCSL, 2.4.2.05). Let me turn to historical information contained in propagandistic literature now. I shall begin with an example showing extreme use of complex poetic devices employed to give a mythical sense to a banal, not very telling, yet historical event. This will demonstrate how banalities can be turned into events of major significance by propagandists: The Russian land rumbled and seethed and boiled. Two glittering stars flew together in the sky. Such a glow emanated from them that the clouds turned pink. Two mountain eagles, two shiny warriors met in the clouds and joining forces they geared up for new objectives. Two sisterly rivers ran into one another and wiped obstacles off the way with their mighty current. Píseň o Stalinu (Song of Stalin) (St. Neumann 1949, p. 13). The poem then proceeds to a description of Stalin´s first meeting with Lenin. But already this part of the narrative has its historical dimension. Although it does not say what actually happened, it is clear that it was something really important for the poem´s metaphorically described hero. Admittedly, informative value of such a section alone is very low but it does not allow one to dismiss it. In such cases the context of what precedes and what follows as well as of relevant historical sources must be considered. 387

Italics added by the present author.

131

The Šulgi texts contain many passages of similar nature and they need to be dealt with not only from the literary point of view but also from the historical one. Another example of such a text is a metaphorical narrative of succession of power from Lenin to Stalin: As the first falcon bade farewell to the second one, he turned to his companion with his last words. O my blue-grey falcon, time has come to say goodbye, all work and care is now up to you. And the second one replied: Forget your concerns, we bow low to you – we will not go astray! Two Falcons, 1937.388 Lenin and Stalin are called by name earlier in the song and although it does not convey any details of their relationship it is nevertheless a complementary source of basic historical information, namely that Stalin succeeded Lenin. The song as a whole is a short literary work built upon this simple fact which is in any case historical and has to be recognized as such. Similarly, the Šulgi hymns contain such banal yet historical information such as the king´s name and royal title, which by itself means that the hymns are historical sources, as already noted above, and which makes the possibility of incorporation of other historical data into the narrative more than likely. Let us now have a look at the way of distorting historical information in modern propaganda. A particularly apt example offers the propagandistic song Many Stars Shine in the Sky: If we could meet Stalin, 388

Два сокола, lyrics by М. Исаковский.

132

if we could talk to him, if we could say how life has become happy for us in the collective farm. Ah, my orchards, little orchards in the spring are in blossom all around. Ah, we live a happy and comfortable life in the collective farm. Many Stars Shine in the Sky, 1948.389 This passage provides evidence of the existence of collective farms in the Soviet Union. However, that is the only correct historical information it conveys. Everything else is pure propaganda, for it is known from independent historical sources that forced collectivization of Russian agriculture in early 1930s caused famine on a massive scale which cost millions of lives. But if this and similar texts were the only source of information at hand one would end up saying that Stalin successfully reformed Russian agriculture for the well-being of the people. That is precisely how he himself understood the collectivization and how he wanted it to appear to the public.390 Distortion of historical truth belongs to the basic rules of any propaganda-making and on the premise of essential invariability of propagandistic techniques and purposes throughout the ages one must be aware of the fact that Šulgi´s hymnic literature is no exception in this respect. It must be acknowledged that it will never be possible to see plain ‘historical truth’ in case of the Šulgi texts regardless of the amount of comparative evidence, because the ruling élite which produced them was not interested in it. The method suggested here can at best lead to methodologically clear acquiring of some historical data whose content and meaning was nevertheless dictated by the king. Therefore, it is possible to uncover only his version of history and this has to be kept in mind at all times. This is the main hindrance in any attempt at establishing secure and detailed history of his reign, which has to be repeated time and again. But at least, propaganda seems to be a good channel linking ancient and modern political thought, thus facilitating the quest for history in Šulgi´s literature, placing its results on more secure ground and making them more persuasive.

389 390

Много звезд на небе светит, author unknown. On Soviet collectivization see especially Fitzpatrick (1994) with references. Cf. Conquest (1986).

133

Another problem concerning historical data in propagandistic texts is that the authors could have given just an allusion to a significant event without any context or explanation, because the audience knew that event´s nature and accompanying circumstances either from their own experience or from other sources. If one comes across such information in the Šulgi texts, it is of course useless unless there are some more detailed sources. A good example from the modern comparative material offers A Festive Song which deals with an unidentified festivity taking place in Moscow and apparently celebrating a military victory and the bright future resulting from it. The only specific historical information is found in the following couplet: We remember the fiery years, we remember year forty-one, our people were heroic during the days of great trials. A Festive Song, 1950.391 It is known from other sources that the song refers to the annual ‘Victory Day’ festival taking place on 9 May in Moscow and that the lines quoted refer to the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 and the consequent suffering of the people. But without them the only thing one would be able to say is that these lines and the song as a whole deal with remembrance of a victory in a major military conflict that probably started in the year 1941. Now, it is important to stress that the other sources do not have to be ‘historical’ but they can be ‘literary’ just as well. In this particular case another propagandistic song adds information on the identity of the enemies who are mocked as slimy and backward creatures, which is very similar to the way of mocking enemies in ancient Mesopotamia: Fascist snakes, samurai bands, we will vanquish them on their own lands. The Capital of Peace/World, the Homeland´s Capital, 1939.392 Combined evidence of all the four lines implies that the Soviet Union faced an attack led by ‘fascist snakes’ (from other ‘historical’ as well as ‘literary’ sources known as the 391

Праздничная песня, lyrics by В. Лебедев-Кумач. Столица мира, Родины столица, author unknown. The fact that this song originated prior to the invasion and that the Red Army had to struggle hard before ‘vanquishing the fascist snakes on their own lands’ (as well known, it was quite a different story with the ‘samurai bands’) is essentially of no importance for the interpretation of the lines quoted.

392

134

Germans) and ‘samurai bands’ (known as the Japanese) in the year 1941. Further, the context of both songs makes it clear that these enemies were regarded as a threat some time before 1941 and after a war of unknown duration, during which the Soviet people suffered a lot, both enemies were successfully ‘vanquished on their own lands’. However inaccurate and condensed the historical information conveyed in these two songs may be, it is nevertheless partially true. Indeed, it is interesting how much historical data one can get from two propagandistic texts only, assuming that other sources are very scarce and basically of the same nature, if taken seriously. Now, let us have a look at a comparative example from a Šulgi hymn: The hero avenged his city, whatever has been destroyed in Sumer, he destroyed in the foreign land. The king, after he destroyed the city, ruined the city walls. Dispersed the seed of the Gutians like seed-grain. Šulgi D, ll. 334–5, 344, 346 (Klein 1981b, p. 84). These famous lines from Šulgi´s hymn D+X relate that the king avenged a fierce attack on his homeland led by the Gutians, i.e. inhabitants of Babylonia´s north-eastern fringe and the mountain regions to the east, destroyed one or more cities and inflicted a heavy blow on the enemy populace. Another ‘literary’ source (Urnamma A) makes it clear that Šulgi´s father Urnamma suffered a defeat at the hands of an unnamed enemy (the ‘Gutians’) and died in or shortly after a lost battle, which resulted in an advance of enemy troops on the heartland and a severe crisis for the recently established Ur III kingdom. Evil came upon Ur and made the faithful shepherd leave it. … The wise shepherd … ceases to give instructions. (In) battle and (combat) … … The leader of Sumer lies suffering. … Urnamma, king of the land, approached the ‘House of Fury’, Urnamma approached Ur, entered the ‘House of Teeth Grinding’.

135

The proud one is lying in his palace. Urnamma, the beloved one of the troops, will not raise his neck again. The one overseeing all the foreign lands is lying, the (deadly) silence fluttered down. … They uproot him like a sappy cedar (in) the palace (where he is) lying. Urnamma A, ll. 6, 31–2, 35, 40–4, 48 (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, pp. 101, 106–10). The combined evidence of these two ‘literary’ sources gives an inaccurate and condensed, yet quite important glimpse of early Ur III history. I believe that the above analysis of examples from modern propaganda shows that it would be mistaken to think that Sumerian royal literature does not reflect real historical events or that their reflections are too formalized to be used in a historical reconstruction. For if modern ideologically charged literature contains at least partially accurate historical allusions, why should it be assumed that ancient literature does not, especially if both text groups are otherwise quite similar in their usage of metaphors and literary clichés? Consequently, I am convinced that the perception of ancient royal literature as a propagandistic one and the method of comparing it with its modern counterparts are viable in the search for historical data in such texts, and can yield important results after a full consideration of all their possibilities and pitfalls.

136

Chapter V: Historical Allusions in Ur III and Old Babylonian Literary Texts Pertaining to Šulgi V.1) ‘Coronation Hymns’, Hymn Šulgi D+X, and Their Historical Setting Despite all the references to Šulgi´s royal status in numerous ‘historical’ as well as ‘literary’ sources the only explicit statement concerning his accession to the throne of Ur is the formulaic year name discussed in chapter III above. Since there are no other historical sources as yet, it is necessary to resort to relevant literary texts in the search for more details regarding this significant event of Mesopotamian history and its circumstances. As I have noted several times, Šulgi ascended the throne after his father lost a battle with the ‘Gutian’ enemy and died shortly afterwards. In the opinion of some scholars the details of his coronation are conveyed in the so-called ‘Coronation Hymns’ Šulgi G, P and F, featuring important deities of Nippur, Uruk and Ur, and accordingly thought to reflect the king´s consecutive coronation in the religious, ancestral and residential centre of the dynasty.393 The idea of a group of hymns pertaining to Šulgi´s triple coronation is based on a well documented analogy of king Ibb‰suõen assuming royal insignia in the three cities.394 There is no reason to doubt that such a custom existed already in Šulgi´s times, because it clearly constituted a vital component of Ur III royal ideology. According to hymn Šulgi E the king was coronated in Eridu too.395 Yet, there is no other piece of evidence to support this. The content of Šulgi G, P and F is extremely focused on the king´s predestination, future and well-being and packed with investiture rhetoric, which explains why scholars singled these compositions out as referring to the ruler´s actual coronations. Apparently, the possibility that the investiture rhetoric was added by Old Babylonian scribes for educational or other purposes, as in the case of hymn Urnamma D discussed above, is unlikely, because royal investiture constitutes the very topic of these texts.

393

See especially Frayne (1981), pp. 153–63 with references; Frayne (1997b), p. 92; Wilcke (1974), p. 181; Klein (1981a), p. 25. 394 JCS 7 p. 48 MAH 19352 [ŠS09-10-01], rev. ll. 6–8; UDT 100 [ŠS09-10-03], rev. ll. 6–8. See Jacobsen (1953), p. 36, n. 2; Sollberger (1953). See further Sjöberg [1972 (1973)], p. 109 with n. 1. Cf. Sigrist (1989). 395 ETCSL, 2.4.2.05, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi E)’, l. 9: sig eridu†-ga-ta aga zi ak-me-en. 4

137

V.1.1) Hymns Šulgi G, P and F The hymn Šulgi G, edited by Jacob Klein,396 and labelled ‘Šulgi and the Ekur’, deals exclusively with the birth of Šulgi, his designation as an heir apparent, his royal investiture, and his cultic function as a provider of Enlil´s main sanctuary. It is an exquisite piece of religio-political propaganda apparently composed to underpin Šulgi´s position by depicting in a semi-mythological fashion his intimate relationship with major deities of the state, especially with the gods of Nippur. Scholars who understand this composition as a reflection of Šulgi´s coronation in that city emphasize that its reassuring mood and concern with Šulgi´s legitimacy point to the need of universal recognition of his right to the throne after the kingdom was weakened by Urnamma´s death.397 This view seems to be bolstered by an unusual description of Šulgi´s birth in ll. 13–20, the core of the composition, assuring everybody of Šulgi´s legitimacy. It contains an oracular promise of long and stable rule made by Enlil to the king by virtue of the merits of his father (called lú-zi: ‘the righteous; faithful; rightful; just one’),398 a short passage on Nanna´s intercession in the birth-giving process, and a statement that it was Enlil himself who brought about Šulgi´s birth. Let me quote the passage in full here: 13

é-kur lú-zi-dè ì-dù-e mu-da-rí-kam

14

dumu lú-zi-da-ke4 ëidri mi-íb-sud-re6 ºgu-za-bi nu-kúr

15

nam-bi-šè é-kur-ra sig7 mi-ni-ëar ƒáš-ím-babbar-re

16

a-a-ni ƒen-líl inim-ma bí-sì ama-di-da mi-ni-in-túm

17

é-du10-ga ƒnanna dumu-nun-né níë al ba-ni-du11

18

en-né šà-tur-šè ëál-la-na lú-zi mi-ni-ù-tu399

19

ƒen-líl sipa á-kala-ga-ke4 mes-e pa bí-è400

20

dumu nam-lugal bara2-ge4 ‹é-du7 šul-gi lugal-àm Šulgi G (Klein 1991, p. 302).

396 Klein (1991). Cf. also Klein (1997) for another translation. In a short introduction to it Klein states: ‘The hymn was no doubt composed during Shulgi´s reign, on the occasion of Shulgi´s coronation in Nippur. Subsequently, it may have been put to periodical use in the cult.’ 397 See Klein (1991), pp. 297–9. 398 For a short discussion of this epithet of Urnamma, subsequently used by other kings, see p. 37 above. For later attestations see Klein (1987), p. 102, n. 36. 399 Sallaberger (1997), p. 155, n. 36, suggests that the prefix -ni- in the latter verbal form points to Enlil as the agent. 400 Marchesi (2004), p. 193 and n. 223, rightly argues that ll. 18–19 form a parallelism and therefore en in l. 18 refers to Enlil.

138

13 ‘The righteous one (i.e. Urnamma) will (re-)build the Ekur, (thereby acquiring) a lasting fame, 14 the son of the righteous one shall long hold the staff, their throne shall not be overthrown.’ 15 Therefore Ašimbabbar supplicated in the Ekur, 16 he communicated his wish to his father Enlil, (and) brought the birth-giving mother there, 17 Nanna, the princely son, expressed his desire in the ‘Good House’, 18 (and thus) the lord made the righteous one be born from the womb which he had at hand, 19 Enlil, the shepherd of exceeding power, made the young man emerge, 20 the son fit for kingship and the throne dais, king Šulgi. There has been a number of different and sometimes extremely complex interpretations of this difficult passage based on the assumption that the word en in l. 18 refers to Šulgi´s mother. Thorkild Jacobsen suggested that she may have been an en(-priestess) of Nanna physically celebrating the ‘sacred marriage’ rite with the king, the result of their union being the crownprince Šulgi.401 This view has been adopted and elaborated on by William Hallo, who concluded that engendering an heir seems to have been the allimportant purpose of the rite.402 Finally, Klein has argued without indulging in further speculations in his edition of this text that the mother was simply an en-priestess.403 However, the title en never designates women in Sumerian royal hymnology but only kings or gods. Line 19 makes clear who is the agent hidden behind that title in l. 18 and it is no surprise to find Enlil there. Let us turn to hymn Šulgi P now. Edited by Jacob Klein,404 and labelled ‘Šulgi, Ninsun and An’, it presumably reflects Šulgi´s coronation in Uruk. The reason for such an assumption is the obvious focus on Šulgi´s intimate relationship with his divine parents, Urukean deities Ninsun and Lugalbanda, especially Ninsun who intercedes here on behalf of Šulgi with the most senior Urukean god An. Thus the text communicates that the king´s legitimacy was granted by the gods of Uruk, and then continues with

401

Jacobsen (1957), pp. 126–7, n. 80. Hallo (1987), pp. 48–9. 403 Klein (1991), p. 295. In another article on this topic (1987) Klein analysed all the previous hypotheses and offered his own as to the identity of the supposed en-priestess. Cf. Hallo (1987), p. 50. 404 Klein (1981a) pp. 21–42. Cf. van Dijk (1954), p. 85, for ll. 3–9; van Dijk (1960), p. 80, for ll. 43–8; Falkenstein (1952), pp. 73–5, for ll. 11–25, 38–9. 402

139

Lugalbanda´s naming Šulgi with a ‘throne-name’ after which comes the investiture passage. The ruler´s coronation in the political capital, Ur, is thought to be reflected in hymn F, labelled by Klein ‘Šulgi, King of Abundance’.405 The prologue of this composition is preoccupied with stressing Šulgi´s predestination, and with assurance from mostly Urukean deities (but note the important role of Utu)406 that only he was able to guarantee well-being to Sumer. Thus encouraged, Šulgi met Nanna and promised him that he would defend Sumer and restore all its institutions, should his legitimate claim to kingship be confirmed. Because such a matter could have been settled only by the supreme decision maker in the pantheon, Enlil, Nanna is then said to have travelled to Nippur to make a plea before his father on behalf of Šulgi. His request was granted and he returned to Ur to announce this favourable news to the king. Consequently, a self praise of Šulgi containing an investiture passage ensues.407 V.1.2) Hymn Šulgi D+X The hymn Šulgi D+X was edited by Jacob Klein as two separate hymns, ‘Šulgi, the Avenger of Sumer’ and ‘Šulgi, the Favourite of the Gods’.408 It represents the longest and most brilliant piece of Šulgi´s hymnal legacy.409 The hymn is discussed in this thesis as one whole because of the following: 1) hymn Šulgi X does not begin with a usual prologue but immediately with the narrative section. It clearly is not a self-contained hymn like all the other known pieces of Šulgi´s hymnal repertiore; 2) the narrative section in Šulgi X consists solely of a series of blessings granted to the king by patron deities of cities along his boat-ride downstream which ends at Ur; 3) hymn Šulgi D ends abruptly with Enlil´s blessing after Šulgi moored his boat at Nippur while Šulgi X begins with Inana´s blessing (preceded by a ‘sacred marriage’ episode) after the king moored his boat at Uruk-Kullab; 4) Šulgi X makes clear that the king returns from a military campaign (e.g. ll. 85–90) offering the spoils of war to the gods while preparations for 405

See Klein (1981a), pp. 11–12, 25. A full edition of this lengthy composition is still lacking. See Römer (1969), pp. 133–4; Wilcke (1970), pp. 88–9; (1974), p. 181 with nn. 79–80, p. 184 with n. 131, p. 215; Klein (2001), pp. 285–6; (1981b), p. 47, n. 105. 406 The appearance of Utu looks unusual indeed. Wilcke (1974), p. 181, suggested that Šulgi may have served as a military governor in Uruk at the time of Urnamma´s death, and upon learning the bad news he would have rushed back to Ur via Larsa, Utu´s abode, hence the appearance of Utu before Nanna. However, the context makes it clear that Utu acts here purely as a source of life-giving force causing vegetation to flourish. Hence, there is nothing ‘historical’ about Utu´s appearance in the prologue of this hymn. 407 See Klein (1981a), p. 12 with n. 38. 408 Klein (1981b), pp. 50–166. 409 See Klein (1981a), p. 12 with n. 41.

140

and execution of a military campaign on foreign territory represent the central topic of hymn Šulgi D; after the successful campaign the king loads his booty onto a boat and sails towards Nippur. Thus Šulgi X (with the Uruk–Ur itinerary of the royal boat) seems to be a logical continuation of Šulgi D (with the initial stop at Nippur).410 Further, it has been observed that manuscripts of both hymns contain large number of similar orthographic features (e.g. many phonetic writings, plene writings with -a and -u).411 The prologue of this composition consists of stock phrases stressing Šulgi´s extraordinary nature (D ll. 1–39). Then the hymn relates Šulgi´s divine birth, nurture and naming, after which the assembly of gods comes together to approve Enlil´s proclaiming Šulgi the king (ll. 40–64). Consequently, Šulgi announces in great detail a devastating military campaign to be launched against the ‘Gutians’ to avenge a disaster they had earlier brought upon Sumer (ll. 136–240). The king is accompanied to the battlefield by important deities (or rather their symbols), ravages enemy territories, loads his royal boat full of the spoils of war and sails back to the heartland to present them dutifully to the gods (ll. 241–374). First, he enters Nippur to deliver the spoils to Enlil, who in return blesses Šulgi in a way suggesting an actual coronation ceremony behind this rhetoric (ll. 375–96). Then, the king sails to Uruk with offerings for Inana, who at the sight of the marvellous and exquisitely dressed ruler bursts into a love song recounting the pleasures she took in the king´s (identified with Dumuzi) embrace during the ‘sacred marriage’ (X ll. 1–34). In return, she proclaims a long blessing assuring Šulgi of her support in combat and the stability of his rule, the latter told again in an investiture-like manner (ll. 35–73). Next, the king visits Utu and Ninazu, who bless him as an invincible warrior (ll. 78–126), before he arrives at Ur with choice animal offerings for Nanna (ll. 127–31). After praising the monarch´s accomplishment Nanna promises Šulgi widespread fame (ll. 134–40). The hymn concludes with images of justice and abundance in the land during Šulgi´s reign and with a panegyric to Nanna (ll. 141–60).412 The content and structure of this composition led to the assumption that the hymn reflected a retaliatory campaign avenging the death of Urnamma and resulting in the (triple) coronation of Šulgi in the very first year of his reign.413

410

See Wilcke (1974), pp. 182, 198, n. 87 Klein (1981b), pp. 56–7, with n. 137. 412 See Klein (1981a), pp. 12–14. 413 Wilcke (1974), pp. 181–2, 197, n. 84. Cf. Frayne (1981), pp. 164–77; Frayne (1997b), pp. 93–4. 411

141

V.1.3) Historical Setting of Šulgi G, P and F: ‘Coronation’, ‘Deification’ Hymns or Both? While hymns G, P and F are in their content and structure seemingly true ‘Coronation Hymns’, analogous in the pursuit to legitimize Šulgi, to show that he was duly crowned, as well as in the motif of divine intercession (especially P and F), the possibility that they were composed shortly after his accession is unlikely for two reasons. First, Walther Sallaberger has pointed out that only two Šulgi hymns (A and R, relating events corroborated by date formulae for Š6/7 and Š8) can be placed in time, and therefore the dating of the ‘Coronation Hymns’ is arbitrary, based only on the presence of excessive investiture rhetoric. Such rhetoric was also included in Šulgi R (and A), whose topics were however not related to the king´s actual coronation.414 While one may object that the investiture passages in epilogues of hymns R and A clearly depict a confirmation of divine favours for the legitimate ruler in return for his achievements, whereas the ‘Coronation Hymns’ are preoccupied with Šulgi´s legitimation only, Sallaberger is right to insist that this is not enough to allow an assignment of those compositions to the very beginning of Šulgi´s reign.415 Second, according to Klein ‘it is hardly conceivable that Šulgi, very close to his accession, could have inspired his poets to compose for him hymnal epics of such magnitude, or that his poets could have brought the literary genre of the royal epics to such high level of development’.416 But is there any solid evidence to support this claim? Actually, it is impossible to say exactly at which level the compositional art of court poets was upon the accession of Šulgi but given that they apparently learnt much from the Lagaš II literary legacy, the level is likely to have been high.417 Thus, the possibility that the ‘Coronation Hymns’ were composed at the occasion of Šulgi´s accession cannot be excluded. Still, it is unlikely that such great works of literature could have been created in the initial years of Šulgi´s reign, a time of crisis after the untimely death of his father. It seems much more likely to me that the bulk of the Šulgi hymns were produced in the scribal academies founded by the king in Nippur and Ur according to ll. 308–10 of hymn Šulgi B (apparently written in the fourth decade of his reign, see below) to train scholars but undoubtedly also clerks, and which seem to have been founded in the 414

Sallaberger (1999), pp. 144–5, and nn. 80–1. For Šulgi A see pp. 146, 307. See the epilogue of this text, ll. 84–102, in Klein (1981b), pp. 200–3. 415 On the basis of the cultic context of hymn R he argues that the investiture rhetoric in the Šulgi hymns points to a regular renewal of the king´s power, perhaps during the annual festival in Tumal. However, if the power of an Ur III king had to be often ‘renewed’, one would expect such a ceremony to be somehow reflected above all in administrative texts not only from the last decades of Šulgi´s reign but from the reigns of all his successors as well, which is not the case. For an alternative see the discussion below. 416 Klein (1981a), pp. 25–6, n. 133. Similarly also ibid., p. 13, n. 44. 417 See Klein (1989b) for a study of the dependence of Šulgi hymns on Gudea´s literature.

142

middle of the third decade of Šulgi´s reign judging from the swelling of state administration from that time on. Therefore, I agree with Klein that there could have been less elaborate ‘forerunners’ refined later in Šulgi´s reign.418 Yet, while this makes sense when it comes to hymns praising Šulgi´s past achievements, thus spreading his renown as a competent and caring sovereign, one wonders why the king and his poets deemed it necessary to rewrite texts whose sole purpose was to show him as a legitimate ruler, and to describe his coronations. For, if the ‘Coronation Hymns’ were reworked years or decades after the actual events, when Šulgi´s legitimacy was already widely recognized, as his deeds recorded in year names and inscriptions testify, what was the use of elaborate investiture propaganda? One may assume that these texts could have been put to cultic use upon their rewriting to be recited in temples, thereby reminding the respective deities of their blessings and Šulgi´s legitimacy. However, this is true in the case of Šulgi G (an adab of Enlil) only, because other ‘Coronation Hymns’ do not contain any liturgical rubrics but do contain substantial narrative sections. Thus, cultic use obviously was not the primary purpose of their composition, though they may have been sung in temples afterwards. But after what? The answer could be that there must have been either a crisis, or an occasion comparable only to coronation, or both, later in Šulgi´s reign, which urged the king ideologically to ‘prove’ his legitimacy once again, or even for the first time, if one assumes that the ‘forerunners’ actually did not exist, and the hymns as preserved were composed on the occasion of that later special event. Since available sources do not relate any severe crisis during Šulgi´s long reign, another possibility must be looked for. It is known that Šulgi was deified some time between his tenth and twenty-first regnal year, and scholars generally tend to the view that this happened shortly before the year Š21. If one deems this dating correct, one can safely suppose that at least the ‘Coronation Hymns’, Šulgi D+X and possibly also Šulgi A (see below), were rewritten/composed on the occasion of Šulgi´s deification or shortly afterwards. An event of such significance, at that time unparalleled for any ruler who deemed himself ‘Sumerian’, and effectively changing the very nature of the king´s person, must have been accompanied by spectacular religious rituals, lavish offerings, court ceremonies, and perhaps even public festivities identical or even surpassing past coronation rites, thus marking the change and its divine approval.419 Accordingly, it must 418

Klein (1981a), pp. 25–6, n. 133. Unfortunately, the scarcity of administrative records from the first half of Šulgi´s reign obstructs more secure dating as well as any insight into the circumstances of his deification. 419

143

have been well ideologically underpinned and explained by royal propagandists. The ‘Coronation Hymns’, as well as hymn D+X, would have met the need for justification perfectly. Assuming that Šulgi´s coronation may have been repeated in the three cities on the occasion of his deification,420 let us have a look if the texts themselves support such a hypothesis. First, Enlil´s oracle in Šulgi G is preceded by a sort of introduction, which one is tempted to call ‘mystical’, emphasizing the importance of the upcoming Šulgi´s birth. Thus, the text relates that Enlil came up with a ‘great thing’, that he let ‘his holy thoughts’ be known, that the matter of Šulgi´s birth was a ‘holy matter’, a ‘pure matter’, a ‘true cornerstone (literally: ‘true brick of fate’) at the bottom of the deep, something most precious’ (Šulgi G, ll. 9–12).421 This flood of superlatives implies that Enlil decided that Šulgi was to be born an extraordinary human being, inherently capable of surpassing the limits of humanity. Although Enlil´s oracle as such is neutral and may have referred to a human, or divine king just as well, the following unprecedented birth episode is puzzling. It refers to Šulgi as a son of human parents. His father is identified by merit, lú-zi perhaps implying Urnamma´s reputation as a lawgiver.422 Šulgi´s mother is referred to simply as a birth-giving mother. Yet, the detailed birth episode, describing the special nature of Šulgi´s father, the role of Nanna, the decisive creative act of Enlil as well as the supposed location of Šulgi´s birth (the Ekur), the axis mundi of Sumer, strongly suggests that there was something beyond humanity about Šulgi.423 Next, one should note that the expression dumu in l. 20 after the birth episode does not have to mean expressly ‘child’ but can stand for ‘son’, ‘offspring’, ‘descendant’ (namely of Urnamma) just as well. This means that in terms of time the composition did not have to have anything to do with the ruler´s actual birth and its immediate aftermath. There are also other, though more ambiguous, indications that hymn Šulgi G was reworked or composed on the occasion of Šulgi´s deification. Enlil, while naming the king with a ‘throne- name’ in ll. 21–3, calls him ‘the one providing the “highland” (or Actually, the attestation of Ibb‰suõen´s coronation in Nippur, Uruk and Ur discussed above seems to support this view, because he, as well as all Šulgi´s successors, became god-king right upon accession. Thus, he needed to be crowned just once, whereas Šulgi, not deified from the start, is therefore likely to have needed another coronation as god-king. 421 See Klein (1991), p. 302. 422 Note that Šulgi himself is called lú-zi immediately after his birth. This can be explained as an emphasis on continuity in the style of rulership set by Urnamma. 423 The king´s name is not preceded by the divine determinative in the single manuscript of Šulgi G at hand. But this is of no significance as regards the date of composition of the text, preserved in an Old Babylonian copy only. See Sallaberger (1999), p. 152, n. 99. 420

144

“mountain”, or “foreign land”) generously’, which one would not expect in a text that supposedly originated in the beginning of Šulgi´s reign when the very existence of his kingdom was insecure.424 Likewise, the couplet: ‘At the irresistible foreign land he roars for him (namely for Enlil), he stabilizes the countryside, the people lie (in peace) at his feet,’425 seems to fit better in a time when Šulgi really ‘roared’ at the lands and the countryside was already ‘stabilized’. Finally, the similarly warlike l. 33, ‘the king defeated the rebellious land with Inana´s axe’,426 can point to a campaign against a rebellious region around the year Š21, or even allude to Šulgi´s preparations for his policy of conquest, predominant in the latter part of his reign. However, it is likewise possible to understand it with Klein as an allusion to a punitive expedition meant to revenge the death of Šulgi´s father in the beginning of his reign.427 But as I have argued above, the hymn was rewritten or composed later in Šulgi´s reign, presumably (if not certainly) on the occasion of his deification. Is it not possible then that such general bellicose expressions could well have referred to both the remote and recent military accomplishments, and perhaps even to those which did not take place yet but were at hand? Klein further insists that because Šulgi G uniquely stresses the king´s humanity, it has nothing to do with his divinity,428 with which I cannot agree. For, the human parentage alone does not automatically imply that the text is about Šulgi´s human side only. After all, the basic problem of divine kingship is the king´s humanity and this composition could have been meant to tackle this problem. Indeed, the hymn seems to show that Šulgi was equally at home in both the human and divine spheres, without explicitly mentioning his divinity. Conceivably, such an intriguing elaboration of this theme may even have been necessary considering that this hymn, dedicated to Enlil, was obviously intended for use in the Nippur cult, where an open deification rhetoric of a ‘Sumerian’ ruler could have left an inappropriate impression. This idea seems to be bolstered by l. 40 where the king is called ‘the property of Nanna, the “house-born slave” of the Ekur’. Is it not possible to understand this legal phraseology as inherently pointing to Šulgi´s status of a minor deity? A human born by the most noble humans allegedly in the Ekur

424

Note, however, that the scribe could have omitted the sign é before kur. Even if the present wording of the line is correct, one can always say that the poet could have actually meant the Ekur or even Enlil (with his epithet kur-gal, ‘great mountain’, present in l. 66 of this hymn), or that it is just a hymnal cliché without any relation to historical reality. 425 See Klein (1991), p. 304, ll. 58–9. 426 Ibid.: lu[gal-x](?) aga -kár-ƒinana ki-bal-a bí-sì. 3 427 Ibid., p. 298. 428 Klein (1987), pp. 101–3.

145

itself after Enlil had conceived his birth as ‘something most precious’ and ‘made him emerge’, Šulgi not only became king but also a member of major deities´ households, i.e. a minor god.429 The hymns Šulgi P and F are not bothered with elaborate theological considerations, which may have been influenced by the fact that they were not composed primarily for liturgical purposes. Generally, royal bombast and emphasis on the king´s divinity are pointedly stronger in hymns addressed to the king or self-laudatory hymns than in liturgical divine hymns referring to the king.430 There is nothing human about Šulgi in these two ‘Coronation Hymns’. And there is nothing contrary to my interpretation of them as ‘Deification Hymns’. Apart from the legitimation rhetoric, emphasis on the king´s divine parentage, his role as the channel for fertility and abundance, and his military prowess (hymn F), these hymns contain extremely interesting passages directly bearing on my idea that they came into being to mark Šulgi´s deification.

38

B a-a-ugu4-zu kù-ƒlugal-banda3da-a

39

B šul-an-né-zu-diëir-re-ne mu-šè [m]u-rí-in-sa4

Šulgi P (Klein 1981a, p. 36). 38

Your father, who engendered you, holy Lugalbanda,

39

called you by the name: ‘Youth known to An among the gods.’

168 ƒnin-sún-na-ke4 mu-tud-e-èn 169 ƒnin-‹ur-saë-ëá-ke4 (!) šul-gi šu[l(?)-x] 170 šul an-né(!) zu mu-šè mu-sa4 Šulgi F (Klein 1981a, p. 26). 168 I have been born by Ninsun, 169 Nin‹ursaë called me by the name:

429

Klein (1987), p. 103, emphasized that Šulgi is never explicitly or implicitly called a ‘son’ of either Enlil or Nanna in this hymn, and that divine and human parentage are mutually exclusive in Sumerian royal hymns. Therefore, according to Klein one would not expect to find a description of Šulgi´s birth on both the human and divine levels in this composition. Klein is certainly right in this respect and my interpretation is not at variance with his observations, because Šulgi was surely born a human, in reality as well as in hymn G, but the hymn seems to show that he was predestined to be more than a human, more than a king, more than a priest, namely a being adopted into the divine realm. Note that in l. 376 of Šulgi B, glorifying the ruler as a god-king, Šulgi is called ‘the house-born slave of An’ (emedu2 an-na). 430 See Klein (1981b), pp. 222–4, for a succinct classification of the Šulgi hymns.

146

170 ‘Noble youth, … youth known to An.’ Do these variant ‘throne-names’ not imply that Šulgi must have been deemed a god, so that An could have known him among all the deities?431 nibru†-ta sig4-uri2†-ma-ka

From Nippur he entered

im-ma-da-an-ku4-ku4

the brick-work Ur,

šà-ge-pà-da-ni-ir gù mu-na-dé

(and) called to the one chosen in his heart:

ƒen-líl-le á-ëál-kalam-ma-ka

‘Enlil perfected the power

šu mu-ra-ni-in-du7

of the Land for you,

šà-ge bí-in-pà-dè-en

he chose you in the heart

dumu ƒnin-sún-ka lugal šul-gi

son of Ninsun, king Šulgi,

ëidri?-zu mu-ra!?-an!?-túm

he provided your staff for you.’

[u]r5-gin7 ‹u-mu-na-ab-d[u11]

Thus he spoke to him.

Šulgi F, approx. ll. 91–9 (Römer 1969, p. 134).432 Now, let me quote the following two lines from hymn Šulgi G:

22

é-kur-ta nam-nir-ëál sum-ma lugal-u[ri2†]-ma

42

šul-gi sipa-kalam-ma saë ƒen-líl-le zu

Šulgi G (Klein 1991, pp. 302–5). 22

The one given superiority from the Ekur, the king of Ur.

42

Šulgi, the shepherd of the Land, the servant known to Enlil.

Obviously, the latter line accords well with l. 39 of Šulgi P and l. 170 of Šulgi F, and is preceded by references to Šulgi as a ‘property’ and ‘house-born slave’ of major gods in l. 40, discussed above, which combined with the statements of hymns P and F seem to point to his status of a minor god in the pantheon. However, the former seems to be 431

Klein (1981a), p. 41, i.a. quotes a parallel name given to Gudea in his Cyl. B, and identically structured Ur III personal names, seemingly disproving my assertion. Note, however, that such names could refer to both the human and divine individuals, as Klein (1981a), p. 26, n. 137 (‘a man (sag) or a junior deity (dingir)’), has pointed out. It seems unlikely to me that this topos should have referred to the deified king as a human, especially in hymns whose vocabulary stresses his divinity. 432 Asterisks denoting collations are omitted here. See also Kramer (1974), pp. 167–9.

147

nothing else than a usual royal epithet based on a topos recurring in royal inscriptions and hymns in various modifications from Early Dynastic times onwards. This is certainly true but the context of this epithet in hymn Šulgi G and of its more elaborate variant in hymn F is peculiar. In Šulgi G it constitutes a part of the lengthy ‘thronename’ given to the king by Enlil, in Šulgi F it is included in Nanna´s announcement of Enlil´s decision on Šulgi´s future. Additionally, such topos is attested twice in the hymn D+X (see below), and interestingly also in the self-praising epilogue of Šulgi A, l. 95.433 Significantly, Šulgi is also explicitly called a god in l. 6 of hymn A.434 This statement, together with that in l. 81 of Šulgi B,435 represents the only open admission of the king´s divinity in his entire hymnal corpus.436 The divine banquet described in ll. 76–80 of Šulgi A is also interesting in this respect. The king is said to have drunk beer with Utu in a palace founded by An, and his consort Inana should have joined him there. This shows that Šulgi A must have been at least updated on the occasion of Šulgi´s deification or later to expound his past achievement in the light of his new status.437 Now, as already shown in chapter III above, the preserved part of the fragmentary date formula of the year Š23 reads: mu ƒšul-gi lugal-e á-ma‹ ƒen-líl sum-ma-ni: ‘Year in which king Šulgi, having been granted supreme power by Enlil’ (IB 542a+b+).438 The topos of ‘entrusting (supreme) power to the king by Enlil’, is not attested in other Šulgi hymns or inscriptions except hymns G, F, D+X and A.439 Therefore, one is tempted to suggest that the wording of the year name could have been influenced by the hymnal 433 Line numbering of Šulgi A from l. 30 onwards follows Delnero (2006), pp. 1878–1909. See Klein (1981b), p. 200: á-ma‹-sum-ma-ƒnu-nam-nir-ra, ‘Whom Nunamnir endowes with superior strength’. Note also the specific reference to the ‘lofty royal power’ three lines before (l. 92): á-ma‹-lugal-la-kam mí-du11ga, which could imply that the ‘superior strength’ given to Šulgi by Enlil was something even loftier, i.e. divine. 434 Ibid., p. 188: nir-ëál diëir-kur-kur-ra-me-en, ‘I am the noble one, the god of all the foreign lands’, daringly playing on the abundantly attested epithet of major gods like An, Enlil or Inana. 435 ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’: ƒšul-gi diëir nam-ëuruš-a saë-kal erin -na-me-en, ‘I 2 am Šulgi, god of manliness, the foremost of the troops’. 436 The only attestations of explicit statements concerning Šulgi´s divinity outside the hymns are inscriptions on a cylinder seal (RIME 3/2 1.2.2038) and a steatite plate (RIME 3/2 1.2.2046) dedicated for the king´s life. Šulgi is called the ‘god of his Land’ in them. 437 Actually, a later date is more likely, for the king is called the ‘king of the four quarters’ in l. 4. See Klein (1981b), p. 188. It is assumed that Šulgi adopted this title during his twenty-sixth regnal year. See Sallaberger (1999), pp. 145, 180. 438 Wilcke (1985), p. 302. See discussion on pp. 85–6 above. 439 The reason why such an epithet was not included in Šulgi P could be that the text does not have anything to do with Enlil or Nippur whatsoever. A close parallel featuring the god Nindar and constituting a part of the name of a partly preserved Šulgi statue (RIME 3/2 1.2.2031), dedicated to Nindar by an official most likely for the life of Šulgi, may have been chosen precisely because of the importance of this epithet as an allusion to Šulgi´s deification. Nindar replaced Enlil here because the statue was dedicated to him and the context undoubtedly increased the god´s importance. Needless to say, the choice of titles as well as epithets, which were to be included in inscriptions, very much depended on the current political climate.

148

statements, which is not impossible, because the date formulae were essentially just another vehicle of the king´s self-representation. Further, in the light of my observations it does not seem exaggerated to suggest that this year name could have been meant to commemorate an important event directly resulting from Šulgi´s deification.440 Indeed, it seems to me that the topos of ‘endowment/perfecting with/of (superior) power by Enlil’, attested from the time of Eanatum of Lagaš (2454–2425) on,441 had a special meaning during the reign of Šulgi: not just endowment with kingship and military prowess but the bestowal of divinity as well.442 Accordingly, the ‘throne-names’ conferred upon Šulgi by Enlil, Lugalbanda and Nin‹ursaë in the ‘Coronation Hymns’ G, P and F can be taken as ‘deification names’, i.a. perhaps reflecting the approval of Šulgi´s divine status by the religious institutions, whose economic affairs seem to have been placed under direct control of the Crown just around the time of the king´s deification, as suggested by the date formula of the year Š21.443 Previous hypotheses regarding Šulgi´s ‘throne-names’, put forth by Klein, suggested that they were conferred upon him right after his birth, which effectively meant a designation of little Šulgi as a crownprince.444 This opinion resulted from an understanding of the sequence of events in Šulgi G as a reflection of historical reality. However, the semi-mythological nature of the narrative itself disproves this notion, because the poet speaks of Šulgi´s birth, ‘designation’, coronation and cultic activities as of events happening almost at once. Historically, all of this did not happen at the same time or immediately one after another, of course. Moreover, Åke Sjöberg in his study on the divine parentage of early Mesopotamian rulers quoted a text (PBS 5 76) describing a coronation in Uruk and showing that a ‘throne-name’ (mu nam-en-na, ‘name of lordship’) seems to have been promulgated on the occasion of the king´s coronation to replace his original name (mu nam-tur-ra, ‘name of childhood’).445 Therefore, a designation of a crownprince upon his birth by giving him a ‘throne-name’ seems to be

440

However, in view of the general lack of explicit references to Šulgi´s divinity it is unlikely that the as yet unknown latter part of the year name would contain any information on the king´s deification as such. At least indirect data of that kind could be expected in administrative records from around these years, which are, however, too scarce to permit a reasonable reconstruction of events during that period of Šulgi´s reign. 441 See Hallo (1957), p. 136. 442 Note that this topos recurs in an Old Babylonian copy of statue inscriptions of king Š¥suõen (RIME 1.4.3, col. v ll. 22–3), a ruler very much emphasizing his divine status, whose inscriptions and hymns otherwise differ markedly from those of Šulgi. 443 See p. 84 above. 444 See Klein (1981a), pp. 9 and 26, n. 136; Klein (1987), pp. 100, 103. 445 Sjöberg [1972 (1973)], p. 111.

149

out of question.446 But if Šulgi is a ‘throne-name’ which the king received upon accession, the names given to him by the gods in hymns G, P and F, especially those in Šulgi P and F, clearly playing on the name Šulgi itself, may have been elaborations of the king´s current name meant to mark the shift of Šulgi´s status during his re-coronations as a god-king. Thus, the Šulgi hymns G, P and F, whose ‘forerunners’ (if there were any) could have been created to celebrate the king´s coronations in the three capitals of the kingdom, seem to contain indications that after their reworking (or composition) they could have served as ideological underpinnings and literary celebrations of Šulgi´s elevation to the divine realm. As their content makes clear, that event might have transpired in the form of a re-coronation in each of the capitals. However, the inherent ambiguity of many phrases in those compositions, whose authors, only exceptionally admitting Šulgi´s divinity openly, used traditional literary topoi of kingship, appropriate to a human as well as divine king, thwarts drawing definitive conclusions as does the lack of solid evidence from other sources. V.1.4) Historical Setting of Šulgi D+X The dating and thereby the historical context of the monumental hymn D+X cause much trouble to the modern reader, but here it is even clearer than in case of the ‘Coronation Hymns’ that such a piece of epic literature is unlikely to have been composed in its present form early in Šulgi´s reign. Apart from this, there are other indications that exclude the text´s composition around the time of the king´s accession. Šulgi is addressed as a noble ass and swift runner in both parts of the hymn, which is obviously an allusion to his accomplishment commemorated in date formulae of the

446 Note that the conferral of ‘throne-names’ upon Šulgi in hymns P and F is preceded by simple statements that he was engendered by Lugalbanda and born by Ninsun, which does not mean at all that the naming must have taken place right after his birth. Note further an attempt of Becker (1985), pp. 292– 5, to corroborate the supposed designation of Šulgi as a crownprince in hymn G with a highly speculative interpretation of a gravely damaged scene on the ‘Urnamma Stele’. She argues that the preserved toes of a figure sitting on the lap of a deity (unknown due to damage), in front of which stands the reverent Urnamma, might belong to Šulgi as a child, and that the scene actually might depict the designation of Šulgi as an heir apparent by Enlil. However, the most recent reconstruction of the monument disproves Becker´s considerations. According to it the toes belong definitely to an adult and the scene perhaps depicts Urnamma before Nanna holding his wife Ningal on his knees. See Canby (2001), p. 13 and pl. 10, register I. Another attempt to incorporate Šulgi into the ‘Urnamma Stele’ has been undertaken by BörkerKlähn (1975), who imagined the young prince coming out of bath before Urnamma in the fourth register of the monument´s ‘poor face’. Canby (2001), p. 24 and pl. 11, argues that the figure is actually engaged in a wrestling match in front of a deity. However, in either case one cannot exclude that the figure is Šulgi, but one cannot prove it either.

150

years Š6/7 and in hymns Šulgi A and V.447 Furthermore, other places in the text strongly suggest that it was reworked or composed on the occasion of Šulgi´s deification or shortly afterwads. First of all, the clichés in the prologue may seem a conventionally exaggerating royal rhetoric, but upon a closer look and after an evaluation in the context of the ‘Coronation Hymns’ some of them may reveal what event this composition was actually intended for. Thus, the king is called ‘the joy of the royal tiara, Šulgi, ornament of the legitimate crown, wearing the diadem of divinity, named by An with a good name, righteous shepherd, endowed with strength by Enlil’ (Šulgi D, ll. 8–12).448 Šulgi is indirectly, yet clearly, praised as a god-king here. He is glorified not only as a legitimate ruler but as a deity, for the statement that he wore the diadem of divinity can hardly mean anything else, after which come the topoi of giving a ‘throne-name’ to him (this time by An) and the bestowal of power upon him (invariably by Enlil) known from the ‘Coronation Hymns’. The immediate succession of crucial epithets in this passage suggests that all of them could allude to Šulgi´s deification, thus supporting my previous observations concerning the ‘Coronation Hymns’. Interestingly, the author(s) of Šulgi D+X remind the reader that An gave a good name to Šulgi in the passage dealing with the king´s divine parentage (D, ll. 41–6). They also put the following question in the mouth of the god Ninazu: ‘Who can rival the king to whom Enlil has given strength?’ (Šulgi X, l. 107),449 when he blessed Šulgi returning from the battlefield. Apart from that, there is another epithet of Šulgi in Ninazu´s speech supporting the ‘deification setting’ of the text. In l. 122 the god calls the king ‘a net spread over heaven and earth, a bond laid for Sumer’ (Šulgi X, l. 122),450 a suitable description of an omniscient and all-seeing divine king. However, there are also a couple of images that seem to suggest a later date of redaction or composition than the turn of the second and third decades of Šulgi´s reign. In l. 117 Ninazu says that the ‘people of Tidnum joyfully admired’ Šulgi´s heroic deeds, while in l. 121 he calls him ‘the great wall of the Land’. If taken at face value, such expressions would place the hymn to Šulgi´s thirty-seventh Klein (1981b), p. 72, Šulgi D, l. 31: anšeni-is-ku-gin7 kaš4 ne-ëál-la-zu-ú ƒen-líl ‹úl-le-me-èn, ‘Like a noble ass, by your running, you bring joy to Enlil’. Transliteration modified. Ibid., p. 138, Šulgi X, l. 68: du10-tuku-me-èn ‹ar-ra-an-na kaš4-di-dè ba-ab-du7-ù, ‘You, the swift runner, for racing on the road you are suited’. Cf., for instance, ll. 16–18 of Šulgi A: anše-ëír-nun-na kaskal-e du7-ù-me-en/sisi ‹ar-ra-an-na kun sù-sù-me-en/dùr-ƒšagan2-na ím-e kíë-ëá-me-en, ‘I am a mule fitting to the road/I am a horse wagging the tail on the highway/I am a donkey foal of Šagan seeking out a run’. Ibid., p. 188. 448 ETCSL, 2.4.2.04, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi D)’: lugal saë-men-na ‹i-li-bi/šul-gi aga zi-da ‹é-du 7 bi/su‹-gir11 nam-diëir-ra túm-túm/lú an-né mu dùg-ga sa4-a/sipa zi á sum-ma ƒen-líl-lá. 449 See ETCSL, 2.4.2.24, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi X)’. 450 See Klein (1981b), p. 142; ETCSL, 2.4.2.24, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi X)’, l. 122. 447

151

regnal year, in which the wall of the regions was built (see chapter III.13 above) or later. However, the reading of Tidnum in l. 117 is uncertain,451 the epithet ‘great wall of the land’ is vague and the preceding parallel epithet (‘you are the great door of the city’) has to be taken into account here. Further, the first military campaign after Š37 commemorated in a year name took place in the year Š44, which makes the dating of the hymn to the time around Š37 rather unlikely. Besides the above-mentioned epithets supporting my ‘deification’ hypothesis, there is a passage in the text making it clear that Šulgi acted as a god-king here. The poetic description of Šulgi´s ‘brilliant royal barge’ carrying the spoils of war back to the heartland after victorious battle is quite similar to descriptions of divine processional vessels in other texts and seems to show indirectly that the king´s boat was in fact a divine boat as well (Šulgi D, ll. 355–60).452 The vessel was ‘imbued with terrible splendour on the Exalted River,453 it was adorned with holy horns, and its golden ram symbol (?) gleamed in the open air.454 Its bitumen was the … bitumen of Enki provided generously by the Abzu; its cabin was a palace. It was decorated with stars like the sky’. With the last image the poet makes it clear that Šulgi´s boat is a sacred, heavenly object. Now, let me discuss the previous interpretations of the hymn´s main historical topic, i.e. the avenge on the ‘Gutians’ for the death of Urnamma and the supposed destruction of a part of his realm, and offer my own interpretation based on the above ‘deification setting’ hypothesis. The historical dimension of hymn D+X has been first discussed at length by Jacob Klein in his dissertation on Šulgi D.455 While admitting that the composition recounts Šulgi´s retaliatory campaign whose successful outcome resulted in a firm establishment of his hegemony over Mesopotamia, Klein argued that it is nevertheless unlikely that such a campaign took place during Šulgi´s early years on the throne. Although Klein´s key argument that the date formulae of Šulgi´s first nineteen years are silent about any military action may seem uncovincing, it served him as a springboard to conclusions somewhat similar to my own view of the hymn´s historical setting. Considering Šulgi´s 451

See Klein (1981b), p. 159. Ibid., pp. 84–6. Cf. ETCSL, 2.4.2.04, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi D)’. On the parallels see Klein´s commentary in (1981b), pp. 118–9. 453 With the ‘terrible splendour’ image the poet undoubtedly referred to the perceived awe-inspiring and fascinating divine radiance emanating from sacred spaces, buildings and objects. 454 According to Klein (1981b), p. 119 with references, the ‘horns’ refer to the shape of the boat´s stem and stern. Apart from that, such an image reminds one of the horns as symbols of divinity. The meaning of the ram symbol (?) is unknown. 455 Klein (1968), pp. 43–7, here especially pp. 45 with n. 6, 46–7. Cf. Klein (1981b), pp. 58–60 and n. 144; Klein (1981a), pp. 12–14 with n. 44, 25 with n. 133. 452

152

reform efforts around his twentieth regnal year, which may well be understood as a preparation for his impending warlike policy, Klein concluded that the hymn reflects a military campaign launched after this period. Further, pointing out that the year names never mention the ‘Gutians’ as a target of Šulgi´s attacks, Klein stated that this ethnonym became a general poetic term for any barbarian mountain dwellers fought by the king. In view of these considerations he argued that the war reflected in Šulgi D(+X) can be linked to any campaign undertaken in the latter half of Šulgi´s reign. However, noting that this campaign resulted in the recognition of the king´s legitimacy by Enlil, Klein drew a quite interesting conclusion: Since such a recognition would be more significant for Šulgi in the prime of his life, after one of his first major victories, this campaign probably took place toward the middle, rather than the end of his reign.456 Klein´s view has been questioned by Claus Wilcke who was the first to advance the influential hypothesis that this text narrates events of the earliest stage of Šulgi´s career and even that the successful revenge was a sort of prerequisite for his subsequent triple coronation.457 While a couple of Wilcke´s arguments with regard to Klein´s ideas are problematic, his hypothesis as a whole is quite persuasive. Thus, the fact that Šulgi´s name is written without the divine determinative throughout the hymn has long since been recognized as of no importance when it comes to the dating of the text.458 Similarly, that the king is called here (only) the ‘righteous shepherd of Sumer’ does not mean anything regarding the historical setting of the text.459 This stock phrase cannot mean that Šulgi was a ‘king of Sumer’ and nothing else in the beginning of his reign,460 which Wilcke apparently wanted to imply, but must be seen in the context of the goal of his campaign, which was a retaliation for ‘whatever was destroyed in Sumer’. Thus, it seems clear that this epithet was used to stress the paradigmatic opposition ‘Sumer’ vs. ‘Gutium’ and cannot be taken into account as a historical allusion. These shortcomings notwithstanding, Wilcke rightly emphasized that according to the text Šulgi wanted to 456

Klein (1968), p. 47. See also Klein (1981b), p. 60. Wilcke (1974), pp. 181–2 and especially p. 197, n. 84. 458 See Sallaberger (1999), p. 152, n. 99. 459 Šulgi is called the ‘king’ throughout the composition too, so he certainly was not a mere crownprince during the campaign. Moreover, this epithet is perhaps the most frequent in all extant Sumerian royal hymns. Cf. Sallaberger (1999), p. 145, n. 80. 460 Even if this were the case it is unthinkable that such an admission of a complete reversal of Urnamma´s effort to gain hegemony over the whole of Babylonia would have ever been included in a boastful royal hymn. 457

153

avenge his city and that the motive of revenge fits only in the very first year of his reign because of the tragic end of his father related in hymn Urnamma A. He added that in such a case the campaign logically could not have been commemorated in a year name, because the commemoration of Šulgi´s accession to the throne shortly afterwards was clearly more important. This is the pillar of Wilcke´s interpretation which thus seems to disprove the hypothesis of Klein, who failed to address the crucial point of revenge. He later admitted that Wilcke´s view seems to be as plausible as his own but emphasized that in such a case the hymn as now known is a literary retrospective, for such a brilliant text could not have been composed during Šulgi´s early years.461 But as I have already argued above specifically with the ‘Coronation Hymns’ in mind, the composition or reworking of Šulgi D+X later in the king´s reign, when an elaborate retrospective investiture propaganda was certainly far less needed than a boastful propaganda of Šulgi the superman, or Šulgi the pious king (exemplified by hymns A, B, C, E and some of the divine hymns mentioning Šulgi), would make little sense too. Therefore, at first glance Klein´s and Wilcke´s interpretations seem mutually exclusive.462 Douglas Frayne tried to find evidence for Šulgi´s ‘Gutian’ campaign outside the hymn,463 which would help one decide which hypothesis is closer to the truth. He did not find any evidence in year names, royal inscriptions, or the scanty early administrative texts.464 His attempt to underpin Wilcke´s view with vague mentions of ‘Gutium’ in hymns Šulgi B and E, based on the idea that hymn B was composed during the year Š10 because it mentions the E‹ursaë palace built that year, looks unconvincing upon a close examination of hymn B (see the relevant section below). As for hymn E, consisting of royal boasting only, the mentions of ‘Gutians’ and Elam may be interesting, but without any further details they cannot be taken as a reliable historical allusion. Rather, they are general ‘ethnographical’ or geographical designations of regions against which Šulgi waged war during his career. The date of composition of Šulgi E is, of course, unknown but its preoccupation with Šulgi´s (literary) legacy and its endurance suggests a late date. Turning to royal correspondence, Frayne tried to uncover the story of Urnamma´s defeat and Šulgi´s vengeful reaction in an Old Babylonian literary letter, apparently a scribal excercise, written in Akkadian and preserved in two heavily damaged copies (TIM 2 92 and 97). Concerning the language of the text, which is unusual in case of 461

Klein (1981a), p. 13, n. 44; p. 25, n. 133. The uncertainty about the dating of Šulgi D+X is well expressed in the questions raised by Sallaberger (1999), pp. 144–5 with nn. 80–1. 463 Frayne (1981), pp. 165–77. 464 Ibid., pp. 166–7. 462

154

school tablets from this period inscribed with literary correspondence, Frayne argued that this exercise was translated from a Sumerian ‘original’.465 Thus he seems to have considered the letter a part of the (Ur III) ‘Royal Correspondence’ in the Sumerian language copied in Old Babylonian schools and supposedly alluding to certain events of the respective kings´ careers. Regarding the content, the letter seems to relate a report perhaps of a spy surveying the area around D®r,466 and specifically the trade route to the Elamite capital Susa. He reports that thousands of Elamites and ‘Gutians’ were waiting in the mountain wadis to descend upon him. Later in the text he informs the addressee (called ‘my lord’ only) that a thousand Elamites approached the mountain, seized an unnamed king and marched towards the land of the ‘Gutians’. Further, the Elamites turned their (‘Gutian’?) cities previously controlled by the addressee to Elam. In view of all of this, the sender urges the addressee to send him five thousand soldiers, allowing him to handle the situation to his master´s satisfaction.467 In view of the fragmentary state of the text, the damage or complete absence of names of the key figures and the nature of the story, which can be interpreted in a variety of ways even if it was indeed based on real events, any attempt to link it to a particular historical situation seems futile. Frayne suggests that the king captured not far from D®r could have been Urnamma and thus that the letter could supplement historical information from hymns Urnamma A and Šulgi D+X. According to him, wounded (cf. Urnamma A) and captured (cf. the letter discussed) Urnamma was subsequently rescued by the crownprince Šulgi (the ‘my lord’ of the letter) during a retaliatory campaign (cf. Šulgi D+X) and escorted to Ur where he died (cf. Urnamma A).468 However, apart from the problems stated in the beginning of this paragraph Frayne seems to have overlooked an important detail in the letter which renders his interpretation implausible. For, if the captured king was Urnamma and the addressee (the ‘my lord’) was Šulgi, how would it have been possible for the sender to say that the cities taken by the Elamites were previously controlled by the crownprince and not by the poor king himself?469 465

Frayne (1981), pp. 169–70. The name of the sender is damaged but it seems to be an Akkadian name well attested in the Old Babylonian period. See Frayne (1981), p. 230, n. 87. 467 Ibid., pp. 171–2. 468 Ibid., pp. 172–3. 469 If one wishes to speculate further and say that the cities could have belonged to Šulgi in the capacity of a military governor, it has to be stressed that such a scheme would contradict the general administrative division of power between the king, provincial governors and šagina´s in the Ur III period and violate the king´s ideological and religious role of the sole administrator of the realm on behalf of its owners, the gods. 466

155

While Frayne´s view of the enigmatic letter as further evidence for Urnamma´s end and his son´s reaction is difficult to be upheld, his subsequent considerations regarding the city of D®r, mentioned in the text, are more plausible.470 He observed that the year name of Šulgi´s fifth year probably commemorates the restoration of the city. On that basis he suggested that D®r endured a catastrophe early in Šulgi´s reign, necessitating its subsequent restoration,471 with which I do agree. Although the city could have needed restoration because of its previous abandonment, it is unlikely that such a strategic post on a vital trade route would have been abandoned for other reasons than political instability in the region, caused by the Ur III state and the ‘Gutians’ alternately trying to get hold of it. Needless to say, their battles for the city must have severely damaged it. Urnamma, who was not in control of D®r though he did control numerous towns and settlements in the same region (see chapter III.4 above), may have indeed suffered the fateful defeat while attempting to expel the ‘Gutians’ from this city. Thus, Šulgi´s revenge could well have been directed against D®r and after he prevailed in his first year the city began to recover, its restoration being completed by the beginning of his sixth year. Therefore, with the commemoration of the city´s restoration Šulgi not only showed his care for D®r itself but also the city´s recent incorporation into his kingdom, obvious enough from the date formula. This view is fostered by the fact that out of all the year names for his first ten years, mostly commemorating his care for religious institutions, this is the only one dealing with the king´s deeds outside the Sumerian heartland. Admittedly, the year name is quite fragmentary in the Nippur list of Šulgi´s date formulae, the only textual witness placing it in the reign of Šulgi, and some scholars therefore prefer a completely different reading.472 But even if one disregards this year name, the possibility that Urnamma´s lost battle took place in the vicinity of D®r cannot

470

However, I do not agree with his ‘alternative’ (to the ‘capture’ of Urnamma) interpretation of Šulgi´s possible motive behind his decision to undertake the retaliatory campaign (announced in ll. 218–19 of Šulgi D). Frayne (1981), p. 174, suggested that because the king wanted to ‘avenge my city’, he could have meant D®r, previously destroyed by the ‘Gutians’. But the king stated in the next line that he wanted to avenge ‘whatever was destroyed in Sumer’ and D®r definitely did not lie in Sumer. Although Frayne is right that there is no evidence that Ur itself was attacked (in fact, the return and death of disabled Urnamma in this city seem to prove the contrary), there is also no need to think that these lines refer to any physical damage. I would tentatively suggest that Šulgi logically wanted to avange not only his father but also punish the ‘Gutians’ for their audaciousness with which they dared to question the right of his city, Ur, and his homeland, Sumer, to rule Mesopotamia, conferred upon Urnamma by the gods. In the absence of any evidence for physical destruction in Sumer, it seems reasonable to assume that in this respect Šulgi retaliated for an ideological damage, seeking to remind everyone that only Ur and Sumer were destined to rule. 471 Frayne (1981), p. 175. 472 See pp. 72–3 with fn. 173 above.

156

be excluded and Šulgi´s continuing trouble with D®r also seems to support my argument. As I have already shown, Šulgi cared for the city´s cultic life by ‘bringing Ištarªn of D®r into (his) temple’, as the date formula of the king´s eleventh year conveys (see chapter III.7 above). Yet, he must have lost and regained control of the city some time between the years Š12 and Š19, because the date formula of his nineteenth regnal year seems to commemorate yet another restoration of D®r (see chapter III.8 above). Next, the variant date formula of the year Š21 says that Šulgi destroyed the city (see chapter III.9 above). What can be inferred from the changing allegiance of D®r during the first two decades of Šulgi´s reign? While Frayne recognized this peculiar pattern of Šulgi´s enduring struggle for the control of D®r, he took into account only the date formula of the year Š5 and concluded that it supports Wilcke´s interpretation of hymn D+X as reflecting the king´s immediate retaliation against the ‘Gutians’, according to Frayne in the area of D®r.473 In view of the above analysis this hymn was composed, or accordingly redacted, on the occasion of Šulgi´s deification which quite likely took place by the end of his second decade on the throne. In fact, his deification is usually understood as the first of reforms witnessed by the ‘main’ date formulae of the year Š20 (conscription of spearmen),474 Š21 (reorganization of temple estates?),475 as well as the name of the year Š23 (an unknown event resulting from the bestowal of supreme power by Enlil),476 followed by the first phase of the king´s military campaigns during the years Š24–Š27 (directed against Kara‹ar, Simurrum and ›arši in the north-eastern border zone).477 As such, Šulgi´s deification obviously signalled the decisive change of his policy and is quite likely to have been prompted by his desire to settle the accounts with the ‘Gutians’ in the D®r region once and for all, which he did in his twenty-first regnal year.478

473

Frayne (1981), p. 176. See p. 82 above. 475 See p. 84 above. 476 See pp. 85–6 above. 477 See pp. 86–7 above. 478 Frayne (1981), pp. 210–4, attempted to show that there is a correlation between the relevant date formula and hymn Šulgi C. The fragmentary nature of pertinent passages allows for a variety of readings and interpretations. Frayne argued that the hymn specifically and in great detail described the destruction of D®r, mentioned by name together with the rivers Diyala and £aban, in ll. 30´–43´ (1981, pp. 212–3), or in ll. 27´–34´, respectively (1997b, p. 103). ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’, Segment B, ll. 27–43, offers an entirely different reading. Frayne (1997b), p. 103, l. 27´: gú-i7-dur-ùl-lá gú i7#a-ba-naka/ETCSL, l. 27: gú i7 X KIB lá gú i7-da ba-è?; Frayne (1997b), p. 103, l. 34´: BÀD.ANki gú-erim2-ëál nam-ba-d[a-x]-[t]ag4/ETCSL, l. 34: bàd an ki-šè! gú gùr-ru ëál nam-ba-/da\-[X-X]-tag4. The respective tablet obviously needs collation (CBS 13907). However, the Diyala and £aban rivers did not flow particularly close to D®r. Thus, the grouping of these names is unlikely. Furthermore, one should bear in 474

157

Having vanquished the enemy, and thereby finally concluded the revenge of his father, the victorious god-king triumphantly returned to Sumer to get a confirmation of his recently proclaimed divine prerogatives from the gods, so that he could ensure that the ‘Gutians’ would never question the authority of Ur again and also that he might extend it far beyond Babylonia by virtue of the supreme power (divinity) granted to him by Enlil.479 It seems likely that hymn D+X refers to all the past hardships that the Ur III kingdom had with the ‘Gutians’ in the D®r area and at the same time extols Šulgi´s recent decisive victory, assuring everybody that Šulgi the god finally finished the persistent enemy, thus accomplishing the uncompleted revenge. As the very last argument in favour of this interpretation I would like to emphasize that the king is called the ‘Ištarªn of Sumer’ in l. 142 of Šulgi X,480 opening a passage on his care for justice. He is designated similarly also in his hymns B, C and F while his just verdicts are glorified.481 First of all, one wonders why Šulgi was not called simply by the epithet of the ‘righteous shepherd of Sumer’, very fitting in such a context and especially in hymn D+X where this designation was used so frequently. Why did he need to be mind that enemy territories are always mentioned in general terms in the Šulgi hymns, clearly to inform the audience that the sovereign always attacked whole lands, not only particular cities in particular regions. If that were the case, one would expect such a specific information to appear in hymn Šulgi D+X in the first place. Indeed, only a general praise of the god-king´s martial prowess was clearly the aim of the hymn discussed here. Frayne also suggested that there is an allusion to Šulgi´s conscription of spearmen (Š20) in hymn C, because l. 42´ says ‘my spear went straight’. See Frayne (1981), pp. 202–3, and ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’, Segment B, l. 42: ëiš-gíd-da-ëu10 si ba-ni-sá. He further claimed (1997b, p. 101) that the conscription (Š20) is reflected in ll. 98–9 of hymn Šulgi B which he placed in year Š10. See Frayne (1981), pp. 194–6, 203–4, and (1997b), pp. 98–9. Cf. ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’. The relevant lines belong to a long passage praising Šulgi´s hunting skills. Thus, it is clear that the king emphasized that nobody could have surpassed him in archery (ETCSL) and not that he ordered a conscription of archers (Frayne), which is inconsistent both with the context of the hymn and with the year name. For further discussion of hymn B see below. 479 See p. 151 above. 480 See Klein (1981b), p. 144. 481 According to l. 264 of hymn B, see ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’ his ‘expertise (is) comparable to that of Ištarªn’, while in l. 104 of hymn C, see ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’, ‘his heart enables him to be the Ištarªn of the foreign lands’, and in ll. 25–6 of Šulgi F, see Wilcke (1974), p. 215, he is the ‘king, the Ištarªn of Sumer´s offspring, making judgements for the land, rendering decisions for the land.’ The only other reference to Ištarªn in Šulgi´s hymnal corpus occurs in the last line of the reasonably preserved reconstructed text of hymn Šulgi O. See Klein (1976), p. 282, l. 142. Cf. ETCSL, 2.4.2.15, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi O)’, l. 142. Here, the king seems to address his ‘brother and friend’ Gilgameš as Ištarªn, which, however, does not affect my following argument, because it would simply mean that the identification with Ištarªn was limited to these two minor deities (Šulgi and Gilgameš) of the dynastic Urukean pantheon, Šulgi´s divine family. Therefore, the identification works well ideologically in either case. Note that similar references to Ištarªn in the entire late 3rd millennium Sumerian literature outside the Šulgi hymns appear only in Gudea Cyl. A 10:26, where the god Ninëirsu compares himself to Ištarªn, in Nanše hymn A, l. 237, where the god Ninëišzida seems to be indentified with him, and in Nergal hymn C, l. 41, where Nergal is compared to him. See ETCSL, 2.1.7, ‘The building of Ninëirsu´s temple (Gudea, cylinders A and B)’, l. 273; ETCSL, 4.14.1, ‘A hymn to Nanše (Nanše A)’; ETCSL, 4.15.3, ‘A tigi to Nergal (Nergal C)’. Since all these texts originated at Lagaš, it is likely that the motif of Ištarªn, the judge, was borrowed into the Šulgi hymns from the Lagašite tradition. However, in those three texts only deities are compared to/identified with Ištarªn. Moreover, the rather frequent usage of this motif in the Šulgi hymns strongly suggests that it was not utilized for literary-religious reasons only.

158

identified with Ištarªn? The answer seems obvious, namely that Šulgi apparently wished to show the superiority of his judgement by identifying himself with a god of justice and that he chose Ištarªn (a deity of perhaps Elamite origin) because he did not dare to call himself Utu, one of the major gods in the pantheon. But apart from the literary-religious dimension it is conceivable that his identification with this deity may have also had an important political aspect. Ištarªn was the city god of D®r and by calling himself Ištarªn, the king effectively announced that he was a god equal to that city´s deity. The identification of Šulgi with Ištarªn in the concluding section of hymn D+X is therefore likely to have been meant not only as a glorification of the king´s superhuman juridical abilities but also as an emphasis on his victory over the ‘Gutians’ of D®r and a humiliation of the subjugated city. Further usage of this identification in Šulgi´s hymns B and C shows how important the final defeat of D®r, never mentioned in a date formula again, was for him.482 In view of my analysis of the historical setting of Šulgi D+X the interpretations offered by Klein and Wilcke do not contradict but rather complement each other. V.2) Hymns Šulgi M, T, R and U This section will briefly deal with four hymns concerned with building cultic structures and an object, and thought to correlate with historical sources referring to Šulgi´s building activities. V.2.1) Hymn Šulgi M Hymn Šulgi M has been linked by Douglas Frayne to the variant date formula of the year Š2 (see chapter III.3).483 However, the year name, commemorating the construction of Ninšubur´s kitchen, is a disputed one and it is uncertain not only if it belongs to the year Š2 or Š3,484 but also if it belongs to the reign of Šulgi at all.485 Moreover, the date

482

While it is true that the king is also identified with Nintu in both texts when it comes to his brilliant insight into divination (B, l. 132; C, l. 97), political overtones of this kind are excluded simply by the fact that Nintu was one of the many mother-goddesses venerated in Sumer from time immemorial in various cities, especially in Keš, a city of uncertain location but surely situated within the Sumerian heartland. 483 Frayne (1997b), p. 94; Frayne (1981), pp. 178–83. 484 Frayne (1997b), p. 94, assigns it to the year Š3; Sigrist and Gomi (1991), p. 320, assign it as a variant name to the year Š2. 485 Sigrist and Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names, do not assign it to the reign of any Ur III king.

159

formula is surrounded by year names that are likewise disputed,486 which illustrates the uncertainty about the exact sequence of year names up to Šulgi´s sixth regnal year. Therefore, any attempt to correlate such a year name with hymnal evidence is speculative, unless the latter is explicit enough. The grounds for suggesting a correlation in hymn M are two fragmentary lines (6´– 7´) only, supposedly stating that the goddess ‘refreshes herself in the “House knowing how to soothe/approach the heart” (é šà-te-zu), in the … of Šulgi’.487 Frayne concluded that the Ešatezu could have been the (temple) kitchen mentioned in the date formula. His conclusion is based on the premise that a kitchen is a logical place for refreshment and, by analogy, that Ešatezu may have been a poetic designation of such a structure. He tried to underpin his assertion by pointing out that Šulgi M is the only royal hymn of the entire period referring to Ninšubur. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the name Ešatezu is not attested for any temple of Ninšubur, he suggested that it may have been a designation of the temple kitchen itself, although it is impossible to establish to which temple of Ninšubur in which city (either Enegi, Lagaš or Nippur, where shrines of Ninšubur were located in the Ur III period) this facility would have belonged.488 However, the verbal chain in l. 7´, šà-ta mu-di--ib-kúš-ù, can be translated in a variety of ways. The usual translation of the compound verb šà … kúš with comitative is ‘to take counsel with’.489 And if Ninšubur was worried and needed to take counsel with someone, she surely could do so in the ‘House knowing how to soothe the heart’. Obviously, if one opts for the present interpretation, any possiblity that the poet meant a kitchen seems excluded, for a goddess would hardly have taken counsel with anybody in such a place. After all, if offerings were served in temple kitchens, the kitchens would effectively have been of greater importance than the temples proper. Further, the fact that Šulgi M is the only Ur III hymn mentioning Ninšubur does not mean that the hymn must inevitably correlate with the only Ur III year name referring to Ninšubur. Even though there is a broken royal inscription relating that Šulgi did something for this goddess (RIME 3/2 1.2.8), there is not a single piece of evidence connecting these three textual sources, or even two of them, as referring to the same event. Finally, Ešatezu does not have to be the name of the kitchen (or of a temple of Ninšubur unattested in 486

The main formula of Š2 about the dedication of a throne to Enlil, the name of Š3 dealing with the construction of a chariot for Ninlil and the name of Š4 commemorating the foundation of a temple of Ninurta. See pp. 71–2 above. 487 Frayne (1981), p. 179, p. 234, n. 117. 488 Frayne (1981), p. 181, prefers Nippur because events of the previous and following years related to major gods of this city. But, as mentioned above, the sequence of Šulgi´s earliest year names is disputed. 489 Thomsen (1984), p. 310.

160

other sources), but merely a poetic description of any cultic building, apparently somehow associated with Šulgi, which the goddess may have visited. The lines discussed here simply do not imply that this structure belonged to Ninšubur and not to another deity including the king, whose divine bride, Inana, was Ninšubur´s mistress. Therefore, there seems to be no historical allusion in hymn Šulgi M. V.2.2) Hymn Šulgi T Hymn Šulgi T, a short and poorly preserved tigi hymn for Ninurta with a plea on behalf of Šulgi,490 according to Frayne may have contained a historical allusion to the event commemorated in the date formula for year Š4, i.e. the ‘laying of the foundations of Ninurta´s temple’ (see chapter III.3 above).491 Although the formula does not tell which temple of Ninurta Šulgi began to (re-)build that year, it is likely that it was the god´s main Nippurian sanctuary Ešumeša. However, though this temple is mentioned in hymn T, the text is too fragmentary to allow for any analysis from a historical point of view. There is nothing in the extant text that would indicate that the hymn had anything to do with construction work. Apart from that, it would be quite surprising if such an important event like the commencement of a (re-)building of a temple of such an important deity were celebrated in so short a hymn (31 lines), especially considering that the caulking of Ninlil´s barge was celebrated in a much longer composition (hymn R, 92 lines). Yet Frayne suggested a restoration of ll. 8–9,492 where the Ešumeša temple is mentioned, implying a possible correlation with the year name. But a correlation based on a restoration remains speculative. V.2.3) Hymn Šulgi R In case of the hymn Šulgi R one deals with a completely different situation. Edited by Jacob Klein,493 and labelled ‘Šulgi and Ninlil´s Boat’, this composition provides a detailed description of the construction and dedication of Ninlil´s cultic vessel, its processional voyage from Nippur to Ninlil´s nearby sanctuary Tumal and back, and of the divine blessings earned by Šulgi for his pious deed. The hymn correlates well with

490

Edited by Sjöberg (1976a), especially pp. 416–7, ll. 97–9 (of the Sammeltafel, ll. 7–9 of Šulgi T). Cf. ETCSL, 2.4.2.20, ‘A tigi to Ninurta for Šulgi (Šulgi T)’. Note that Sjöberg regarded the text as a Š¥suõen hymn. On the attribution to Šulgi see Klein (1981b), p. 42 with n. 79. 491 Frayne (1981), pp. 184–5; Frayne (1997b), p. 94. 492 See Frayne (1981), pp. 184–5; (1997b), p. 94: é-šu-me-ša ki šu mu-r[a-ab-ëá-ëá]/en nam-lugal-e šu mu4 ra-ab-du7-[du7-e]. Cf. Sjöberg (1976a), pp. 416–7; see the translation in ETCSL, 2.4.2.20, ‘A tigi to Ninurta for Šulgi (Šulgi T)’. 493 Klein (1990), study and edition pp. 80–136.

161

the date formula of the year Š8, commemorating the ‘caulking of Ninlil´s barge’ (see chapter III.6 above).494 The cultic setting of the composition, suggested by liturgical rubrics in the text itself, is corroborated by archival records, and thus the hymn may have been read during the annual festival in Tumal, the most important Ur III religious festivity, which may have been established by Šulgi exactly in his eighth regnal year in connection with the dedication of Ninlil´s barge.495 Moreover, it has been convincingly demonstrated that this composition was modelled upon Gudea´s description of the restoration of the Eninnu temple in his famous cylinders, which may indicate an earlier date of composition.496 Therefore, the text may have been composed some time around the year Š8.497 V.2.4) Hymn Šulgi U It has been proposed by Douglas Frayne that hymn Šulgi U possibly contains an allusion to the king´s construction work on a temple of Nergal, presumably in Gudua, during his thirty-seventh regnal year.498 However, as demonstrated above,499 the attribution of the date formula mu é ƒnergal ba-dù: ‘Year in which Nergal´s temple was built,’ to Šulgi is uncertain and, most importantly for the present discussion, it has recently been shown by Gábor Zólyomi that the composition hitherto known as hymn Šulgi U does not have anything to do with this king at all.500 After recapitulating van Dijk´s observation that the lower part of the tablet, joined to the upper part containing a hymn to Ninšubur by an antiquity dealer (BL 195a), is a fragment of a hymn to Nergal (BL 195b),501 he showed that van Dijk´s restoration of Šulgi´s name, i.e. the only reason for an attribution of the text to Šulgi, in the hymn to Nergal cannot be upheld. According to Zólyomi, the pertinent line reads: ‘Youthful hero (= Nergal), who …

494

Cf. Frayne (1981), pp. 191–4; Frayne (1997b), pp. 97–8. See pp. 75–6 above with fn. 185–6. See Sallaberger (1999), pp. 144, 150. Note ll. 41–2 of Šulgi R: ezenkù pi-lu5-da-gal-gal/sipa-zi šul-gi-re ki(!)-bi-šè mu-ëá-ar-ëá-ar: ‘The holy festival (and) all the great cultic rites/righteous shepherd Šulgi established.’ Klein (1990), p. 104. 496 For an analysis of the hymn´s dependence on Gudea´s cylinders see Klein (1989a), pp. 26–36. Cf. Klein (1989b), pp. 289–94. Cf. also Klein (1990), pp. 86–8; Hurowitz (1992), pp. 60–1. Note also that this hymn belongs among the shortest in Šulgi´s hymnal corpus, its structure and rhetoric are rather simple and a substantial part of the text is made up of a list of nautical terms, which likewise seems to show an early date of origin. 497 See Klein (1990), pp. 85–6. 498 See Frayne (1981), pp. 214–8; (1997b), pp. 106–7. 499 See pp. 93–4 with fn. 247. 500 Zólyomi (2005). 501 Ibid., p. 396; van Dijk (1960), p. 13, n. 9. 495

162

multitudes,’502 and not ‘May you prolong the life of the hero Šulgi’.503 Therefore, any correlation of this composition with any event in the reign of Šulgi is out of question. V.3) Hymn Šulgi A and Related Literary Sources Hymn Šulgi A, edited by Jacob Klein,504 and labeled ‘Šulgi, the King of the Road’, is currently known from 75 duplicates,505 and was one of the most popular texts of Sumerian literature in Old Babylonian scribal schools, which may be partly explained by the inclusion of this composition in a collection of ten literary texts studied by advanced apprentice scribes and known to modern scholars as the Decad.506 Significantly, the incipit of Šulgi A occurs in the Ur III literary catalogue from the Yale Babylonian Collection.507 The composition correlates well with both the date formulae of Šulgi´s sixth and seventh regnal years commemorating his ‘putting the Nippur road in order’ and his ‘making a round trip between Ur and Nippur (see chapter III.5 above).508 The latter accomplishment is also celebrated in a royal inscription, originally perhaps on the king´s statue, conventionally labeled Šulgi hymn V.509 As I have already demonstrated above (p. 148), there are strong indications that Šulgi A, though celebrating early events of the king´s reign, was most likely rewritten or composed some time around his deification or later. The poetic description of the event commemorated in the year name of the year Š6 consists of a narrative relating that the king inspected the roads of the land, had them divided into the dannas, i.e. segments that a pedestrian covered in two hours (approximately 11 km), had lounges built at the end of each segment, complete with gardens and resting places and staffed with experienced personnel, so that any traveller coming from whatever direction could refresh himself or spend the night there (Šulgi A, ll. 28–34).510 This shows that Šulgi paid attention not only to the highway between Ur Zólyomi (2005), p. 410, sub 12: ur-saë °šul? šár-ra ZI¿ […]. van Dijk (1960), pp. 14–15, l. 37: ur-saë šu[l!?-g]i-ra z[i x x x x x]. See also ETCSL, 2.4.2.21, ‘An adab (?) to Nergal for Šulgi (?) (Šulgi U)’, l. 28. 504 Klein (1981b), pp. 167–217. For the editio princeps see Falkenstein (1952). For another more recent translation of this text see Römer (1989). 505 See the list of duplicates in Delnero (2006), 1858–64, plus the eight tablets edited in the Appendix below. 506 See Tinney (1999a). 507 Hallo (1963), p. 170, l. 30, p. 173. 508 See Frayne (1981), pp. 185–91; (1997b), pp. 96–7. 509 See pp. 74–5 above, with references. 510 Klein (1981b), pp. 190–3. 502 503

163

and Nippur, as suggested by the date formula, but that he strived to maintain all the roads within his realm and make them safe for travellers (above all apparently merchants carrying their goods from one city to another). The formulation of the year name merely reflects which road was considered the most important, as well as Šulgi´s effort to show that he achieved something special with respect to the usual royal duty of constructing, maintaining and safeguarding roads. And there can be no doubt that he achieved something special, at least the author of Šulgi A wants the reader to believe so. Apart from Šulgi´s dutiful care for the roads he should have undertaken a miraculously fast round-trip along the Ur-Nippur highway commemorated in the year name of the year Š7 and eloquently described in hymn A. Especially the vivid depiction of his return to Nippur is characterized by extraordinary literary quality, which may have been one of the reasons why this legendary accomplishment found repercussions in later literature as well, and was generally regarded as virtually the most important deed of Šulgi. The narrative begins in l. 39 and ends in l. 78, thus covering full 39 lines of this rather short (102 ll.) composition. First, Šulgi fiercely ran from Nippur to Ur as if it were a distance of just one danna, making the inhabitants of the cities along the highway stare at him admiringly. Upon arrival he entered Nanna´s temple Ekišnuëal, made offerings there, listened to music and feasted. Then he set out for Nippur in full vigour. Yet, his way back was not so smooth. A thunderstorm broke forth with raging winds, lightning and rumbling thunder so strong that it made the earth quake. Hailstones of all sizes, coming from low-level clouds, beat Šulgi´s back. However, he was not afraid, he galloped joyously until he successfully reached Nippur, thereby managing to celebrate the ešeš festival in both cities in one day.511 Needless to say, Šulgi could have hardly covered the distance between Ur and Nippur (some 160 km in a beeline) twice in a single day even in a donkey-drawn chariot, let alone on foot. Therefore, the real course of the event described in Šulgi A must have been quite different from its literary rendering. According to it the king wanted to ‘try out his strength’ in running (l. 39). In fact, it is possible that Šulgi ‘tried out’ the highway by travelling along it and inspecting if everything was really ‘put in order’ (i.e. levelled and built anew). Thereafter he may have opened it for public use by means of a ritual. The presence of cultic/ceremonial personnel along the highway (the saë-ur-saë in l. 77) seems to speak in favour of such an interpretation. However, in such a case it is difficult 511

See Klein (1981b), pp. 192–9.

164

to explain why Šulgi travelled twice along the same road. One can only speculate that he was visiting Nippur around the time when the highway was just about to be finished and thus he inspected it and opened it on his way back to Ur. Then, of course not on the same day, he went to Nippur encountering a fierce thunderstorm somewhere between the two cities. It could have been one of the storms rarely but undoubtedly occurring in southern Iraq, when a downpour breaks out seemingly out of the blue, just from a few clouds in the sky, and lasts only several minutes. It may have been precisely such an occasion, inexplicable for the ancients, that prompted Šulgi and his poets to merge the past but recent event of the opening of the highway together with his usual cultic journey to Nippur and describe it in propagandistic terms in hymn A. After all, Šulgi ‘put the roads in order’ in his sixth year and his round trip took place during the next year, but the hymn merges these two events together. Besides, the literary coupling of the recent inauguration of the highway with Šulgi´s ordinary journey to Nippur during a storm could have been facilitated if a celebration of the ešeš festival coincidentally awaited the king upon arrival at both cities. Actually, the text seems to indicate exactly that. For, if Šulgi raced between the two cities to celebrate the ešeš, why did not he celebrate it first in Nippur and then in Ur, which would have spared him from running back to Nippur? Further, the text says in l. 78 that Šulgi managed to celebrate their (i.e. the cities´) ešeš in a single day, which seems to imply that the festival in Ur was somewhat different from the ešeš in Nippur. It is worth noting in this context Miguel Civil´s suggestion that the festival could actually have been celebrated by the king in Ur and Nippur on the same day because the two cities used different calendars, making it possible for the king to arrive back at Nippur a month later, yet seemingly on the same day as in Ur a month earlier.512 Alternatively, considering that there were three ešeš festivals each month during the Ur III period,513 Šulgi could well have celebrated one in Ur and another in Nippur in the course of the same month. Strictly speaking, it would not have been on the same day at all but one can take the literary treatment of this situation in hymn A as a hyperbole. Finally, with respect to Šulgi´s legendary athletic achievement it should be noted that there is an Ur III incantation apparently used to treat an illness of the king.514 It provides a glimpse at the reality behind the boastful

512 Civil (1980), pp. 229–30. Note that Civil does not see anything historical in Šulgi A and understands it as a humorous composition meant for entertainment at the royal court. 513 èš-èš-é-u -sakar: the ‘New Moon’ festival (when the Moon was first seen in a new month), èš-èš-é-u -7: 4 4 the ‘Waxing Moon’ festival (on the seventh day), èš-èš-é-u4-15: the ‘Full Moon’ festival (on the fifteenth day). 514 See van Dijk and Geller (2003), pp. 3, 14–18, no. 2.

165

rhetoric of the Šulgi hymns. Even the divine king was a human, of course, and thus while his scholars wrote hymnic propaganda about him, they also had to prepare incantations as remedies for the ailments of Šulgi the mortal. Allusions to the king´s purported extraordinary accomplishment found their way into his other hymnal compositions too, either in a form of a ‘summary’ or of puns on some lines or expressions from Šulgi A. One ‘summary’ is found in a fragment of an unknown Šulgi hymn where the king says that ‘praise be sung for him’ because he ‘traversed to the shrine (of) Nippur, (and) to the road (leading) to Ur’, he ‘marched a distance of thirty “miles”’.515 Another ‘summary’ comes from a fragmentary passage of hymn Šulgi C where the king boasts similarly: ‘(Since) the rise of Utu from his “house” (until his setting), I traversed a road of 30 “miles”.’516 Besides, hymn Šulgi C contains two puns in ll. 136–7: ‘The runners of Sumer, those who repel with hand and breast, who possess “wide open knees”,’517 and in l. 146: ‘I am a runner who is successful in his aspirations.’518 Other puns come from hymn D+X (see pp. 150–1 with fn. 447 above) and B, ll. 123–7: ‘Striding forward like my brother and friend, the youth Utu, as if with the legs of a lion, I am the good groom of my dust-making asses that bray like lions roaring. Like that of a stallion, my strength is unwavering during the running-race; I come first in the race, and my knees do not get tired.’519 Apart from allusions in Šulgi´s hymnal corpus proper, there are other allusions in two pieces of Old Babylonian literature. The first one is a literary letter, edited by Fadhil Ali,520 relating bitter complaints of a certain Abaindasa, who despite being an overseer/captain and a scribe capable of writing stele inscriptions suddenly found himself on the fringe of society and therefore asked the king for help. In the formal opening section Abaindasa calls the king by several epithets including two which unmistakably show familiarity with hymn Šulgi A on the part of this letter´s author (a schoolmaster or advanced pupil). This is hardly surprising, if one recalls that Šulgi A was thoroughly studied by fledgling scholars in Old Babylonian schools. The king is addressed in the letter as ‘a mountain kid, my (i.e. Abaindasa´s) comforting arms, my

Klein (1993), p. 126, col. ii ll. 10´–11´: èš-nibru†-šè ëiri3-uri5†-ma-šè šu-niëin2-niëin2-na-ëá/kaskal-dana 30 ëin-na-ëá ëá-ra mí-zi-bi-im ‹u-mu-d[u11]. 516 Ibid., p. 129: ƒutu é-a-ni-ta UD.[DU-a?-ta? …]/kaskal-da-na 30 ì-ëen-è[n? …]. 517 Ibid., p. 128–9: lú-kar-[ra?]-ki-en-gi-ra-ke -ne/šu gaba ri-x du -bad [tu]ku-ne. 4 10 518 ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’: dùb bad-bad ki ëiri gub sag -me-en. 3 9 519 ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’: šeš ku-li-ëu šul ƒutu-gin /zà-šè pirië-gin súg-súg10 7 7 ge-ëá/anše sa‹ar lá ug-gin7 šeg11 gi4-a-ëá kuš7 sag9-ga-bi-me-en/dùrùr-gin7 kaš4-a nè-ëu10 nu-silig-ge/kaš4-ta è-a-me-en dùb nu-kúš-ù-me-en. 520 Ali (1964), pp. 53–62. Cf. ETCSL, 3.1.2.1, ‘Letter from Aba-indasa to Šulgi about his neglect’. 515

166

horse of the mountains, with an eagle´s talons’.521 The last allusion to Šulgi´s legendary feat comes from the scribal milieu as well. It is an Old Babylonian omen, the work of a diviner who, although no longer a ‘scribe’, undoubtedly went through the study of Šulgi A as a schoolboy. The omen reads: ‘If the misbirth is like a horse, it is the omen of Šulgi, who subdued the four regions’ (YOS 10 56, iii ll. 10–11).522 The horse simile in the protasis agrees with l. 17 of Šulgi A comparing the king to a horse waving its tail on a highway. V.4) Hymn Šulgi B and Related Literary Sources The long (385 ll.) self-laudatory hymn Šulgi B, dubbed ‘Šulgi, the Ideal King’, is an elaborate piece of royal boasting, covering in great detail the king´s scribal abilities, his superb command of military tactics and strategy, his skill in hunting wild animals, his expertise in divination, his incomparable dexterity in playing various musical instruments, his extraordinary linguistic talent, his diplomacy and justice, his piety, his care for the irrigation system, his passion for collecting ancient literature, his founding of the scribal academies in Ur and Nippur for writing his hymns, all of this to make himself famous forever and adored by future kings as an eminent example.523 In conclusion, Šulgi states that he is ‘the right man to step over the threshold’ of his ‘house E‹ursaë, the palace of palaces’. His ‘royal residence is above all praise’, he ‘made it tower up like a lapis-lazuli mountain’ (Šulgi B, ll. 374, 377–9).524 The E‹ursaë, the ‘House, Mountain Range’, is already familiar to the reader from the date formula of year Š10 as well as from the standard building inscription, attested in numerous duplicates, commemorating its construction (see chapter III.7 above). This apparently prompted Douglas Frayne to assume that hymn B was composed to celebrate the building of Šulgi´s palace.525 That has been proposed already in Castellino´s interpretation of the concluding section (ll. 374–85):

Ali (1964), p. 53, ll. 2–3: máš-‹ur-saë-ëá á-ša6-ša6-ëu10/anše-kur-ra-‹ur-saë-ëá umbin-‹u-rí-inmušen-na. This omen from the series Šumma Izbu was first published by Goetze (1947), p. 259: šumma iz-bu-um kima sisîm a-mu-ut ƒŠul-gi ša pa-at erbibi i-bi-lu-ú. 523 For a more detailed summary see Klein (1981a), pp. 14–17. 524 ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’: … lú si sá-bi kun dib-bé-me-en/… é-ëu é-‹ur4 10 saë é-gal é-gal-bi-im/ki-tuš nam-lugal-ëá zà-mí gal-gal-la-kam/‹ur-saë za-gìn-na-gin7 ša-ba-an-galam-en. Cf. the edition by Castellino (1972), pp. 68–9, which is, however, outdated. 525 Frayne (1981), pp. 194–6; (1997b), pp. 98–9. 521 522

167

Such a lifelike portrait, so detailed and developed, cannot have arisen from a casual suggestion, or be simply due to rhetorical exercise. It must have been called for by some special circumstance, some historical happening that brought near king and subjects. What the cause and motive was for the particular celebration, for once we are not left to guess. Šulgi himself tells us in the last section of the composition where he celebrates the completion and dedication of the royal palace, the é-‹ur-sag, connected with the é ƒEn-líl-lá, that we know through Woolley´s excavations. Although, faithful to his lyric style, Šulgi does not state in plain words that he composed the hymn for that occasion, so much can be gleaned with certainty from the text itself.526 Castellino states that the last section celebrates the completion and dedication of the royal palace, yet the composition itself does not contain anything to support this claim, apart from the statement that Šulgi ‘made it tower up like a lapis-lazuli mountain’, which might refer to what he had done twenty or more years ago. Actually, the only line in Šulgi B devoted specifically to construction work deals with building dikes and ditches.527 There is also a passage comparing the king´s steadfastness to a ‘fearsome forehead that establishes palaces, just as a peg and a measuring cord are the builders of cities’ (Šulgi B, ll. 198–9).528 Frayne understood this couplet as a reference to the construction of the E‹ursaë, even though in view of the surrounding lines such a reference seems out of place. He also left unexplained why the palace should not have been called here by its proper name like in the conclusion of the hymn, but rather by an otherwise unattested expression of ‘uncertain translation’.529 Moreover, if one compares Šulgi B with Šulgi R, a much shorter hymn dealing with the construction and dedication of Ninlil´s barge, composed roughly at the same time as Šulgi B, if one adopts Frayne´s dating of the latter, one would ask why Šulgi´s poets did not follow the pattern of celebration of a construction project, established by Gudea, in case of hymn B as well? Why did they describe the ruler´s deed in hymn R so explicitly, while doing the very opposite in hymn B, extolling everything else about the king but only vaguely alluding to

526

Castellino (1972), pp. 9–10. ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’, l. 254: dul saë ég pa5-re á sum-/mu\-[me-en]. 528 Ibid.: ní saë-ki é-gal gen -né-dam/saë-gag gi-ninda iriki dù-dù-ù-dam. Cf. Castellino (1972), pp. 50–1. 6 529 Frayne (1997b), p. 98: IM.SAË.KI é-gal gi-né-dam/saë-dù gi-(diš)-ninda iriki dù-dù-ù-dè: ‘To make firm the IM.SAË, the palace/to plant the wedge and measuring line (in) the city.’ 527

168

its main topic by saying that the king was the most suited person to live in the palace that he had built? Frayne further argues that it is unlikely that the building of the E‹ursaë would have been commemorated in a hymn at a date far removed from Š10, the year of its construction. It would have been unlikely if Šulgi B described the construction of the palace, which does not seem to have been the case. Frayne also claims that the composition does not contain any allusions to events subsequent to year Š10.530 However, in ll. 355–6 the king says that his ‘shadow lies over the mountain lands’, that he is ‘the weapon, the downfall of the rebel lands’.531 Apart from such general statements, the text mentions Elam twice, in ll. 48 and 207, when explaining that the king ‘broke the weapons of the highlands over his knees, and in the south placed a yoke on the neck of Elam’, and that he captured a citadel in Elam.532 Since Elam was a general term for virtually all territories to the east of Mesopotamia,533 it can be reasonably assumed that Šulgi´s campaign against Anšan in his thirty-fourth regnal year could have been meant here.534 Finally, in l. 190 the king speaks of his ‘long life’,535 which does not fit in with the early dating of Šulgi B at all. It seems clear that while hymn B mentions the E‹ursaë, its statements about the palace cannot be taken as an allusion to the construction of that building. Its appearance in this boastful composition seems best explained by the fact that Šulgi´s deification effectively turned the royal residence into a temple, the abode of the god-king. And since there can be little doubt that Šulgi is glorified as a god-king in this text, it is only natural that he is called the right one to enter the palace of palaces, the lapis-lazuli mountain which is above all praise. After all, there is a temple hymn added (da‹-‹u-um) to En‹eduana´s collection of temple hymns and extolling the E‹ursaë, thereby confirming the change of that structure into a sacred place after Šulgi´s deification.536 The building appears in this capacity also in a fragmentary hymn to the god Nanna, among numerous other

530

Frayne (1981), p. 196. ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’: ƒšul-gi ëissu-a-ni kur-ra lá-a-me-en/lugal ëištukul aru-ub ki bal-na ëá-e-me-en. 532 Ibid., ll. 47–8, 207: ëištukul igi-nim-ma du -ëá bí-tar/sig-šè elamki-ma gù-ba ëiš ma-ab-ús/‹i-il-zum† 10 dab5-bé elam um-ši-[X]. 533 See now Michalowski (2008a), p. 121. 534 See chapter III.12), especially p. 90, above. 535 ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’: ƒšul-gi-me-en tìl-la u sù-rá-ka níë mi-ni-ib-gu-ul4 gu-ul-lu-ëá: ‘I, Šulgi, have achieved great things in the long life (of mine).’ 536 Sjöberg and Bergmann (1969), p. 24, no. 9. Cf. Alster and Vanstiphout (1987), p. 41, n. 10. 531

169

sanctuaries.537 The last attestation of the E‹ursaë in a literary text comes from the ‘Disputation between Tree and Reed’.538 The composition, relating a verbal contest of its two ‘heroes’ over their merits, takes place in Šulgi´s palace and begins when the ‘Tree enters the shrine E‹ursaë holding its gift for Šulgi, a goat, to its breast’ and ‘while the Tree is entering the palace, the Reed passes in front of the Tree’ (ll. 29–30 [= 40–1], 42– 3),539 thus prompting the Tree to start the disputation. Among the Tree´s arguments against the Reed is the fact that it were wooden objects, a hoe and a basket, which ‘built the palace for Šulgi, built the storehouse for him’ and that it was the Tree who ‘brought its throne, the ornament of the house, inside’, who ‘delivered its table into the pure house’ (ll. 65–7).540 Indeed, the Tree seems unbeatable throughout the disputation, so that Šulgi, in the capacity of an arbiter, finally announces his verdict apparently during a banquet in the palace: May our lord decide our case, may he render a decision for us; Šulgi replies to them: … ‘In the disputation between Tree and Reed, Tree prevailed over Reed.’ Disputation between Tree and Reed, ll. 245–6, 252–3.541 Apart from the ‘shrine’ E‹ursaë, the disputation also mentions another estate of the divine king, namely the ‘shrine’ Puzrišdagªn. It appears twice in a fragmentary passage close to the end of the composition (ll. 232–3).542 For the present discussion it will suffice to note that the mention of Puzrišdagªn represents the terminus post quem for the date of the disputation´s composition, meaning that it must have been composed after Sjöberg (1977b), pp. 9–11, rev., ll. 18´–19´: é-‹ur-saë é-lugal-la-šè/é-nam-ti-la nun šul-gi-šè in-ëá-ere7-en-dè-en: ‘To the E‹ursaë, the house of the king <we go>/to the “House of life”, to the Prince Šulgi we go.’ 538 See Hallo (1962), p. 29, n. 214; Castellino (1972), p. 240. See also A.R. George (1993), p. 100, no. 474, for references. 539 According to Miguel Civil´s transliteration of the composition whose edition is still lacking. I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Pascal Attinger for sharing that transliteration, along with his own valuable notes and observations on the text, with me; ëiš-e máš kadra-ka-ni gaba-na i-im-tab/èš é-‹ur-saë ƒšul-gi-ra mu-na-niin-ku4-ku4/u4-bi-a ëiš-e é-gal-la ku4-ku4-da-ni/gi ëiš-ra igi-šè ba-na-ab-dib. 540 Transliteration Miguel Civil: ƒšul-gi-ra é-gal ‹u-mu-na-dù ëá-nun ‹u-mu-na-DU/ºgu-za-ëu me-te-é-a10 ka ëá-e ‹u-mu-na-ni-túm/ºbanšur-ëu10 é-da-sikil-la-ka ëá-e ‹u-mu-na-ni-ku4. 541 Transliteration Miguel Civil: lugal-me di-me ‹é-ku -dè ka-aš-me ‹é-bar-re/ƒšul-gi-re mu-un-ne-ni-ib5 gi4-gi4/ëiš-e gi-da a-da-mìn du11-ga/ëiš gi-a diri-ga-ba. 542 Transliteration Miguel Civil: gi-dil-dù-a sa-ta [… è]š puzur -iš-ƒd[a-gan …]/u -ba é-‹ur-saë ezen-m[a 5 4 …] èš puzur5-iš-ƒda-gan-šè […]. See already Wilcke (1974), p. 190, n. 51. 537

170

the year Š39 when the ‘house’ Puzrišdagªn was built (see chapter III.13, pp. 94–5 above). In view of this fact and my observations regarding hymn Šulgi B above, it is conceivable that both compositions originated shortly after the year Š39, the inclusion of a passage on E‹ursaë in Šulgi B perhaps being influenced by the poets´ simultaneous work on the disputation. However, whether these literary pieces came into being to celebrate a particular event (and which one?), or simply to propagate Šulgi´s supposed perfection even more and to entertain him and his courtiers, cannot be ascertained at present. V.5) Old Babylonian Omens Concerning Tappadara‹ There are three Old Babylonian omens mentioning Šulgi´s defeat of Tappadara‹, a king of Simurrum. All of them have been edited by Albrecht Goetze and read: ‘If tissue crosses the “palace gate”, it is an omen of Šulgi who took Tappadara‹ prisoner’ (YOS 10 22, rev. l. 2);543 ‘If the “palace gate” is covered with tissue, it is an omen of Šulgi who took Tappadara‹ prisoner’ (YOS 10 24, rev. l. 15);544 ‘If in the middle of the “palace gate” a heavy mass of tissue is located, it is an omen of Šulgi who took Tappadara‹ prisoner’ (YOS 10 24, rev. l. 20).545 Although the historicity of ‘historical’ omens has been seriously questioned and is still a matter of debate, in case of the above omens of Šulgi it is abundantly clear that the author(s) of their apodoses must have been well informed from some ‘historical’ and/or ‘literary’ sources dating back to the Ur III period.546 As I have shown above (chapter III.12, pp. 88–9), Tappadara‹, the ‘man of Simurrum’, together with his wife and daughter, are well attested in Dr®him administrative texts for several years after Šulgi´s third campaign against Simurrum in the year Š32. However, it is impossible that Ur III administrative texts could have served Old Babylonian scholars as a source for creating Goetze (1947), p. 259: šumma bªb ekallim ši-rum i-bi-ir a-mu-ut ƒŠul-gi ša TAB.BApa-ƒDa-ra-a‹ ik-mu-ú. On the reading of the name see Biggs (1997), pp. 172–3. 544 Goetze (1947), p. 260: šumma bªb ekallim ši-ra-am ú-du-u‹ a-mu-ut ƒŠul-gi ša TAB.BA-ƒDa-ra-a‹ ik-mu-ú. The apodosis has a variant … a-mu-ut IŠul-gi ša A-pa-Da-ra-a‹ i-ni-ru: ‘… it is an omen of Šulgi who smote/defeated Apadara‹ (= Tappadara‹)’ (YOS 10 26, rev. iv l. 10). 545 Ibid., p. 260: šumma i-na libbi bªb ekallim ši-rum ku-bu-ut-ma ša-ki-in a-mu-ut ƒŠul-gi ša TAB.BA-ƒDa-ra-a‹ ik-mu-ú. In this case, there is a variant in the protasis, … i-na pa-ni bªb ekallim … (‘at the front of the “palace gate”’), as well as in the spelling of Tappadara‹´s name: ITAB.BApa-Da-ra-a‹ (YOS 10 26, obv. i ll. 31–2). 546 On the historicity of ‘historical’ omens in general see J. Cooper (1980), pp. 99–105 with references; Starr (1986), especially pp. 628–33 with references and remarks on the relationship between omens and chronicles. Note that J. Cooper (1980), p. 100 and n. 12, no. (4), counts the apodoses of the Šulgi omens among ‘real “historical” apodoses’, though he is otherwise extremely sceptical about any possibility to use such texts as historical sources. 543

171

the omens concerning Tappadara‹, because during the latter period they were lost for some 300 years and they do not contain any other information besides Tappadara‹´s name and status. There must have been another, still uncovered, source influencing the omens which in turn influenced later sources like the chronicle from Uruk and perhaps also the ‘Šulgi Prophecy’.547 But, as already noted, the very existence of economic texts implying that Tappadara‹, and his family, lived in Ur after Š32 correlates well with the statement of the omens that Šulgi captured Tappadara‹.548 Therefore, the ‘historical’ apodoses of these omens can be taken as reliable sources, shedding some light on Šulgi´s third defeat of Simurrum and on his foreign policy in general. V.6) Literary Letters Mentioning Šulgi There is a substantial group of Old Babylonian school tablets inscribed with the socalled ‘Royal Correspondence of Ur’.549 Out of the twenty known letters from this corpus, fourteen feature Šulgi either as the sender or recipient. All manuscripts are Old Babylonian except an early Middle Babylonian copy in syllabic Sumerian with Akkadian translation of a letter from Šulgi to Puzuršulgi concerning the completion of the Igi‹ursaëa wall/fortress.550 The better preserved epistles sent by and addressed to Šulgi deal with two major topics. First, it is the concerns of Ur III official Puzuršulgi stationed at the site of the ‘Wall/Fortification in front of the Mountain Range’ about the threat posed by Amorite troops gathering nearby, hindering the completion of the defense structure and preparing for a breakthrough. Šulgi reacts with an instruction to hold on and continue working on the fortification day and night. He also informs 547

On the Uruk chronicle see pp. 88–9, fn. 226 above. On the influence of ‘historical’ omens on the late chronicle tradition see Starr (1986), pp. 632–3, and chapter VII.3). There is also a Middle Assyrian copy of an omen (CT 51 152) mentioning in rev. l. 14´ [… tab]-ba-gar ù(!) rab-si-si MAN.MEŠ šá x […], ‘[Tab]bagar and Rabsisi, kings of …’. While Šulgi´s name is not preserved, the two rulers mentioned are exactly the same as in the late chronicle, which makes this fragmentary omen a sort of interlink between the chronicle and the Old Babylonian omens. On the possibility that three literary fragments from the temple of Nabû in Kal‹u, apparently mentioning Tappadara‹, ‘the king of Simurrum’, among several people bearing Hurrian names, belong to the ‘Šulgi Prophecy’ see Biggs (1997), pp. 174–6. On the ‘Šulgi Prophecy’ in general see chapter VII.3). 548 It is true that the variant noted in fn. 544 above states that Šulgi ‘smote’ the Simurrian ruler. However, it is clear that the writer of this omen was confused because he even did not write Tappadara‹´s name right. Furthermore, the verb nêru meant ‘to defeat’ (an enemy or a city) in the Old Babylonian period as well. Therefore, even that sloppy variant does not imply that Šulgi killed Tappadara‹, if one translates i-niru as ‘defeated’. See already Biggs (1997), p. 170, n. 5. Moreover, the almost identical wording of the above omen protases indicates that ikmû, attested three times, is the more original and authoritative variant in the apodosis. 549 Edited by Michalowski (1976b). See also Michalowski (1993), pp. 63–6. A new edition and study of all the texts by the same author is forthcoming. Cf. ETCSL, 3.1.01–3.1.13.1, 3.1.15–3.1.21. 550 Edzard (1974), pp. 13–15, 18–21, 25–28. See also ETCSL, 3.1.08, ‘Letter from Šulgi to Puzur-Šulgi about the fortress Igi-‹ursaëa’, version B (from Susa).

172

Puzuršulgi that he sent Lunanna, governor of Zimudar, in his aid.551 The two letters exchanged between the king and Puzuršulgi are thought to provide some insight into the circumstances of the construction of the the ‘Wall of the regions’ in Š36/37. Second, there are six epistles dealing with the situation on the north-eastern fringe of the state, the unstable region of Subir, and mentioning Irëu, the sukkal-ma‹ of the kingdom, well-known from Ur III administrative sources. In the letters Irëu appears as the king´s special envoy in the area, on the one hand providing Šulgi with reports above all on the military situation, on the other fulfilling a given task – securing the tax of the outer regions. But when inspecting the taxes in Subir, Irëu encounters the regional chief Apillaša who treats him without due respect. In fact, Apillaša behaves as if he were not a subject of Šulgi at all. Irëu complains bitterly about this in one of his letters to the king, but Šulgi explains to him in his reply that Apillaša is right because a governor of the king of Ur has to be tough in such an unrelenting, remote highland territory.552 Apillaša also features in a letter from a merchant called UrDUN who was sent to purchase cedar resin perhaps in the Diyala region but was robbed of it by Apillaša´s men after he had concluded the transaction. Although the name of the king to whom this letter was addressed is missing, it is likely that it was Šulgi, given that Apillaša is mentioned only in epistles ascribed to him. Thus, it appears that the Šulgi correspondence conveys interesting details about the relationship of the centre with the periphery and dependent principalities in the latter part of Šulgi´s reign. However, the value of these texts for historical research has been a subject of heated scholarly debate in the past decades. More recently, Fabienne Huber argued that the ‘Royal Correspondence of Ur’ cannot be utilized as a source of historical data for the Ur III period beause the language of the letters is distinctively Old Babylonian Sumerian. Furthermore, she pointed out the textual interdependence of the letters, the frequent variation of personal names mentioned therein as well as the important fact that the name of the fortification as attested in the letters (Badigi‹ursaëa) is otherwise known only from the date formulae of the first dynasty of Babylon.553 Because the royal correspondence consists either of a series of variations on the same theme or of open pastiches of different excerpts, Huber concluded that it was compiled solely for educational purposes and if it had any Ur III precursors, it is impossible to

551

Michalowski (1980–1983), p. 53. Ibid., pp. 52–3. 553 Huber (2001), here p. 193. 552

173

discern any trace of them in the extant texts.554 This position was criticized by William Hallo,555 whose critique was in turn reacted to by Antoine Cavigneaux again stressing the intertextuality within the corpus as well as the development and variation on certain topics as the unmistakable signs of the apocryphal nature of the correspondence. He also remarked that while there can be little doubt that the Ur III kings did exchange letters with their officials in remote areas of the kingdom, it is virtually impossible to say which pieces of information from the authentic epistles finally made it into the extant texts.556 V.7) Old Babylonian Omens and Other Sources Concerning the Death of Šulgi Two Old Babylonian omens dealing with the death of Šulgi are attested so far. Their apodoses read: ‘… it is an omen of Amarsuõena who [besieged] his father in a strong [place]’ (YOS 10 32, obv. ll. 2–3);557 ‘… it is an omen of Šulgi who cast down his crown’ (RA 35 p. 42 5).558 While this either damaged or anecdotal evidence seems of no historical value at all,559 the reliability of omens dealing with the defeat of Tappadara‹ should be kept in mind and one should try to combine their statements with other sources on Šulgi´s death to be able to draw a broader picture of what may actually have happened. First of all, there is another, this time late, omen dealing with the death of a king of Ur at the hands of a son ‘who was not summoned for kingship’ (ZA 49 p. 54).560 Although neither the king nor the son in question is mentioned by name, it is reasonable to assume that the poor king was Šulgi in view of the above Old Babylonian omens. Thus, the combined evidence of these three omen texts suggests that the aging sovereign was assassinated, perhaps by his son and eventual successor Amarsuõena. This would account for the damnatio memoriae of Amarsuõena, as duly noted by William Hallo.561 Furthermore, the late ‘Chronicle of Ancient Kings’, as well as the late chronicle 554

Ibid., p. 206. Hallo (2006). Note especially his trenchant questions on p. 92 ad 6. 556 Cavigneaux (2007). 557 Goetze (1947), p. 261: … a-mu-ut ƒAmar-ƒSuõen ša xx a-ba-a-šu […] da-an-nim-ma […]. Transliteration modernized, translation according to Hallo (1991), p. 157 with references. 558 Preserved on an Old Babylonian liver model from Mari: … a-mu-ut Šul-gi sá a-ga-a-šu in-dì-ì. See discussion in Michalowski (1977c), p. 224, n. 27. Translation according to Hallo (1991), pp. 157–8. 559 See J. Cooper (1980), p. 99, refusing to regard such omens as historical sources precisely because of their usually bizarre and anecdotal nature. 560 See Michalowski (1977c), p. 224; Hallo (1991), p. 157. 561 Hallo (1991), p. 158. However, Hallo´s remark that Amarsuõena may have killed his father to seize the throne at the expense of the rightful heir Š¥suõen is based on the assumption that Š¥suõen was Šulgi´s son. 555

174

from Uruk, possibly relate that the king´s body was consumed by fire.562 These tiny pieces of evidence obviously allow for various speculations. Let me present one. Perhaps Amarsuõena, who could have been in his forties, decided that time had come to finally get rid of his father and set the old king´s private quarters in the palace on fire.563 The possible consumption of Šulgi´s body by fire has been linked to the evidence from the important administrative text discussed above and relating that Šulgi ascended to heaven upon his death and served as doorkeeper there.564 Whatever the cause of the king´s death and the posthumous fate of his body, the statement of the economic text was apparently prompted more by the ideology of the divine king than by the desire to poetically describe the reality behind it, which would be extremely unusual in case of an administrative document. Indeed, the image of the divine king as entering the heavens after his physical demise seems to be confirmed by evidence of a ‘great lamentation when the king ascended to heaven’, from the reign of either Išbierra or Š¥il‰šu of Isin .565 While Claus Wilcke pointed out that (posthumous) accession to heaven was according to mythological texts limited to gods, divine heroes and sages like Etana,566 Adapa and Utu-abzu only,567 William Hallo observed that the gods Dumuzi and Ninëišzida actually served as doorkeepers at the gate of Anu´s palace in the Adapa story.568 He therefore suggested that the dead Šulgi may have been ascending to heaven and serving as gatekeeper there as Dumuzi.569 Indeed, Šulgi as a god-king was certainly identified with Dumuzi, Inana´s husband, already during his lifetime. It would have been only natural for him to ascend to heaven upon his death, thus continuing to play the role of Dumuzi,

Perhaps the heir apparent could have been Š¥enlil, šagina at Uruk and D¥rum, who mysteriously disappeared from the record in Šulgi´s last regnal year and was succeeded in both of his functions by another son of the king, Ursuõena. See pp. 61–3 with fn. 134 above. For a discussion of Amarsuõena as an Unheilsherrscher see Michalowski (1977a). 562 For a discussion of relevant lines see p. 102 above. Horowitz and Watson (1991), p. 412, underpin their interpretation by quoting the Sumerian composition ‘Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld’ where Gilgameš asks Enkidu´s ghost whether he saw a man burned by fire in the netherworld. The dead Enkidu replies that he did not see such a man, that his ghost was not there because his smoke went up to heaven. 563 Note that there is evidence for repairs on the E‹ursaë in Amarsuõena´s first regnal year. See p. 77 above. However, this can very well indicate that the palace simply needed some maintenance after 38 years since its construction. 564 See pp. 101. 565 See p. 102 above. 566 For a discussion of the origin and transmission of the Etana story see Selz (1998a), especially p. 154. He remarks that it is interesting that the supposed author of the epic, Lunanna, the sage of Ur, should have lived during the time of Šulgi, a king who ascended to heaven like Etana, although the king´s accession is functionally quite different, of course. Note that Lunanna, the blind scholar, is also mentioned in the late chronicle from Uruk, l. 11. See Hunger (1976), pp. 19–20. 567 Wilcke (1988b), pp. 250–2. 568 Hallo (1991), pp. 158–9. 569 See Horowitz and Watson (1991), p. 411, for a discussion of the Etana and Adapa epics in connection with Šulgi´s accession.

175

this time as the doorkeeper of Anu´s palace. But this interpretation is based on the Adapa story and therefore a proof that this composition existed already in the Ur III period is needed.570 Although there is as yet no Ur III recension of Adapa, an Old Babylonian version significantly in Sumerian was found at the site of the ancient city of Meturªn. The story is quite similar to the later versions, including the role of Dumuzi and Ninëišzida. This new recension, together with a long known small fragment from Nippur which it helped identify, proves that the Sumerian Adapa story belonged to Old Babylonian scribal curriculum both in the north and in the south, though it apparently was not particularly popular. Therefore, it is likely that the origin of the story could date back to the Ur III period or even earlier.571 Finally, it has to be pointed out that Šulgi is also classified as a heavenly being in the hymn on his palace E‹ursaë572 and that he was the only Mesopotamian ruler who was thought to have become a star (mulƒšul-gi).573 Considering the available evidence as a whole now, it seems that the accession of the god-king to heaven could have been meant to show that although mortal, he was nevertheless indeed a special being because he joined the ranks of heaven, thus avoiding the unhappy fate of others in the netherworld. However, because the ki-a-naë offerings, feeding the ghost of the deceased in the netherworld, are abundantly attested for divine kings as well, whereas evidence for the accession of a god-king to heaven is extremely scanty and uncertain, my suggestion of a parallel and apparently not very successful tradition of the divine king going up to heaven, perhaps originating with either the cremation of Šulgi´s corpse or his violent death in the blaze of his palace, is highly tentative. In conclusion, a few words must be said about the death of Šulgi´s wives Šulgisimt‰ and Gemeninlila conspicuously close to the king´s demise. They are mentioned for the last time on 3. xi. and 23. ix., respectively, of Š48, while both of them received funerary offerings already on 28. iii. of Amarsuõena´s first regnal year.574 Šulgi himself must have died during one of the last days of the tenth or the first days of the eleventh month of Š48.575

570

Until recently the Adapa story was first attested on a tablet from Tell el-Amarna (Kassite period, 14th century). For the most recent treatment of the Akkadian texts see Izreél (2001). 571 An edition of the Sumerian Adapa story is still lacking. See the brief description in Cavigneaux and alRawi (1993), pp. 92–3. 572 Sjöberg and Bergmann (1969), p. 24, no. 9, l. 132: … šul-gi-an-na-ke , ‘Šulgi of heaven/An’. 4 573 OB ›‹ Forerunner MSL 11 133, obv. col. viii l. 41; 138, rev. col. ii l. 2´. See Horowitz and Watson (1991), p. 413. 574 See pp. 52, 56, 104–5 above. 575 Funerary offerings for him are first attested on 2. xi. See p. 101 above.

176

As Piotr Michalowski has pointed out, there are essentially three possible explanations of this phenomenon. Either all three of them died of natural causes approximately at the same time, or both wives of Šulgi were ritually sacrificed, perhaps to follow the deceased ruler to the grave, or Šulgi was assassinated and two of his spouses were murdered as well for political reasons.576 Needless to say, the first possibility is extremely unlikely. The second would be possible only if the supposed ancient tradition, as seemingly proved by Woolley´s excavations at the Early Dynastic royal cemetery at Ur, was revived in Šulgi´s era. However, the precise nature of Woolley´s find is still hotly debated, as is the famous passage from the ‘Death of Gilgameš’, allegedly confirming the practice of ritual suicide/sacrifice of a certain ruler´s entourage at the time of his funeral in early Mesopotamia.577 Therefore, in view of the above discussion I would tentatively suggest that Amarsuõena may have indeed murdered his father along with his economically as well as cultically most influential wives.

576

Michalowski (1977c), p. 224. Marchesi (2004). On the ‘Death of Gilgameš’ see pp. 156–60. Marchesi argues that the majority of translations result more from the traditional perception of Woolley´s find than from the text itself. A particularly strong argument against the understanding of the passage as a ritual suicide/sacrifice is that according to most translations Gilgameš would have been accompanied to his grave by his beloved children. This contradicts both the tradition that Gilgameš´s son, Urlugal, ruled Uruk after his father´s death, and the great importance of progeny in Mesopotamia, clearly exemplified for instance in ‘Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld’.

577

177

Chapter VI: Šulgi´s Royal Ideology and Deification VI.1) Prerequisites of Šulgi´s Ideological Concept The prerequisites for Šulgi´s assumption of divine status derive from two ideological concepts of Mesopotamian monarchy. The first concept was Old Sumerian, later modified by the second, Old Akkadian, concept which significantly shifted the older model, yet preserved some of its basic notions.578 VI.1.1) A Survey of Topoi of Ideal Kingship in Texts Pertaining to Šulgi The basic notions of both ideological concepts derived from the established tradition of royal self-representation, displaying the ruler as an ideal king.579 The textual reflections of those notions are several formulae and terms, relating to rulers from Early Dynastic times onwards, and can be divided into two groups. The first group consists of statements whose purpose is to show the legitimacy of a ruling monarch, i.e. the justification of his and only his claim to the throne, no matter if he was an usurper or a dynastic successor. These are conventionally called here the legitimation topoi. The second group is made up of statements meant to show how the legitimate ruler fulfilled the will of the gods, i.e. which deeds he carried out as the governor of the land to satisfy the claim of the gods to be cared for. The king thus proved that he deserved the confidence he was invested with, so that his status could be cyclically confirmed in further divine blessings. These statements are summarily called here the kingship topoi. Such formulae and terms provide a clear picture of the early Mesopotamian notion of ideal kingship. This notion rested on religious grounds, thus acquiring a semimythological dimension. Yet, it had to be maintained in any case and in all periods relevant here, so that the ruler could be deemed legitimate. The legitimation topoi frequently occur in royal inscriptions on statues, stele and in copies thereof but also on other objects (during the Old Sumerian and Isin-Larsa periods only) and in hymns (from Gudea onwards). It is important to note that in the case of Šulgi statements from both groups occur only in his hymns, not in his extremely terse royal inscriptions. The reasons for that elude us. Perhaps, Šulgi purposefully opted for the royal hymn, that evolved from Old Akkadian monumental inscriptions, as a 578

For a general description of early Mesopotamian royal ideology see Postgate (1995), pp. 396–402. See Franke (1995), pp. 7–20, for definitions of terms used in the present discussion. Cf. FlückigerHawker (1999), pp. 42–5.

579

178

more effective medium of his ideology, more accessible to a broader audience (scribal apprentices, scribes and through them courtiers, provincial élites, perhaps even foreign emissaries at the court of Ur) than the traditional inscriptions, meant to be read by the gods. The group of legitimation topoi consists of the following: 1) topos of a deity as a parent and provider 2) topos of the divine selection of a ruler 3) topos of picking a ruler out of the multitudes, naming him and providing him with divine favour 4) topos of royal investiture580 Each of these ideal types is attested already for Old Sumerian monarchs and even though some of them were used neither in the Old Akkadian period nor in the reign of Utu‹eëal, all of them re-emerged under Gudea of Lagaš at the latest.581 Even though Nicole Brisch has recently questioned the choice of these topoi as arbitrary,582 I still regard them as representative because by their very nature they constitute the cornerstones of royal legitimization. Her objection that the texts containing those topoi come from very different contexts is of limited relevance, because the topoi were used only in texts pertaining to the ruler´s self-representation, and thus their meaning was always the same regardless of typological or generic differences between the texts often set out only by modern scholars.583 1) The topos of a deity as a ruler´s parent and provider is attested already for Eanatum of Lagaš and subsequently for Sargonic kings Maništ¥šu (2269–2255) and Šarkališarr‰ (2217–2192), the Lagašite ruler Gudea and the kings of Ur (but not for Utu‹eëal) as well as of Isin and Larsa. It was expressed by the formula dumu tu-da, ‘one´s own child’ (literally: ‘child born, begotten by’; Akk.: waldum) and its variants. One comes across it relatively often in the Šulgi hymns, e.g. in ll. 4–5 of hymn F: ur-saë amané-e ur5-re ba-an-tu ƒnin-sún-na-ke4/šul-gi ama-né-e ur5-re ba-an-tu ƒnin-sún-na-ke4: ‘To that end his mother Ninsun gave birth to the hero/to that end his mother Ninsun gave 580

Based on the detailed account in Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 42–58. Cf. Sjöberg [1972 (1973)]. Cf. further Hallo (1957), pp. 132–42; Seux (1967), p. 383 and passim. 581 See the chart in Flückiger-Hawker (1999), p. 52 with references to relevant texts. 582 Brisch (2007), p. 28. 583 Cf. Michalowski (1988), p. 23. Brisch tries to underpin her argument by saying that ‘it is unthinkable that a Mesopotamian king would not underline in a royal inscription that he stands in the favor of the gods and that he was predestined to become king. However, royal poetry can have different functions…’. Yet, it must be stressed again that Šulgi had those topics elaborated on only in his hymns, not in his inscriptions.

179

birth to Šulgi’ (see further Šulgi A, l. 7; Šulgi D, ll. 41–2; Šulgi F, l. 168; Šulgi P b, ll. 22– 3 and passim in various Šulgi hymns for the expression *dumu ƒnin-sún-na.k). Apart from assertions about birth, the Šulgi hymns also speak about his either divine or at least divinely assisted conception (Šulgi D, l. 40; Šulgi G, ll. 16–18). Further, the motif of nurture and upbringing by the divine parent (mother), i.e. provision for the ‘child’, occurs already in Eanatum´s texts and then again in more elaborate form in Urnamma´s texts and the Šulgi hymns, e.g. Šulgi F, l. 65: amar-kù áb-zi-dè á-è-a: ‘Pure calf, reared by the right cow’ (see further Šulgi D, l. 43), and Šulgi X, l. 69: amar-za-gìn-na-gin7 du8-kùëá a-ne-di-dè ba-ab-du7-ù: ‘You are suited to relax on my holy knees like a nice calf’ (see

further Šulgi P b, ll. 24, 32).584 2) The calling of a ruler to govern his realm is abundantly documented again from the time of Eanatum of Lagaš until the Isin-Larsa period, except for the kings of the Old Akkadian dynasty. It was expressed by the formula *šà-ge … pà.d, ‘to choose’ (literally: ‘to call in[to] the heart’). The choice was carried out mostly by the most senior deity of the city governed by the particular ruler, which is true even in the texts of Šulgi´s father Urnamma, who was ‘chosen in the heart’ invariably by the city god of Ur Nanna/Suõen. In Šulgi´s case the situation is different. Besides Nanna/Suõen he was also ‘chosen’ by the two most senior gods of the national pantheon, An and Enlil, which can be understood as a sign of a deeper ideological shift, especially considering that at least the crucial pieces of Šulgi´s hymnal literature seem to have originated after the king´s deification. E.g. Šulgi A, l. 8: šà-ge pà-da an kù-ga me-en: ‘I am the one chosen in the heart of holy An;’ Šulgi G, l. 24: šul-gi ƒen-líl-le šà-kù-ge bí-pà ùë šu-né bí-si: ‘Enlil chose Šulgi in (his) holy heart, he handed the people over to him;’ ll. 67–68: a-a ƒen-líl an-na lugal-bé-e ki-a kur-gal-bé-e/gal bí-du11 šul-gi bala zi-da šà-ge ba-ni-pà: ‘Father Enlil, the lord of heaven, the “Great Mountain” of the Earth/pronounced a great thing: “Oh Šulgi, you have been chosen for a steadfast reign.”’ For the evidence in hymn Šulgi F, ll. 93 and 96, see p. 147 above.585 3) The topos of divine selection from the multitudes, of naming the ruler and providing him with various signs of divine favour, i.e. the designation of the ruler on the part of the gods, is present already in texts of the Old Sumerian Lagašite monarchs and was subsequently used by all kings until the end of the Isin-Larsa period. Here the marking out of a particular individual and his designation for kingship was concerned. 584

For textual evidence quoted see Wilcke (1974), p. 201, n. 131; cf. Wilcke (1976b), p. 52. Klein (1981a), p. 26 and n. 135; Klein (1981b), p. 138. 585 For textual evidence quoted see Klein (1981b), p. 188; Klein (1991), pp. 302, 304.

180

This is reflected in the sequence *igi íl (igi bar) … pà.d (su‹), ‘to look at (mostly the people or the land) … to select, choose (from the crowds)’. The deities selecting the ruler could be different from those who ‘chose him in the heart’. This sequence was elaborated on in the more extensive texts of Gudea as well as in the Urnamma and Šulgi hymns but its basic meaning remained the same. One of the modified statements of this kind in the hymn Urnamma C is very interesting from the ideological point of view, and therefore deserves to be quoted here (l. 58): ƒen-líl-le °u4¿ du10-du10-ga-na máš-e °bí-in¿pà-dè-en: ‘Enlil selected me by extispicy on the most favourable day.’ The most senior deity is said to have chosen Urnamma for rule by means of extispicy, which seems to adroitly solve his ideologically problematic accession to the throne after the death of Utu‹eëal. Urnamma´s legitimacy is firmly established because of the indisputability of the oracle supposedly carried out by the most senior god.586 Furthermore, the preceding line alludes to the Sumerian King List, which will be discussed below, and Urnamma´s hymns are replete with mentions of Enlil when it comes to the king´s legitimacy. It does not come as a surprise that those texts refer so often to the divine guarantor of power over the whole of Sumer and Akkad whose confirmation was crucial for every ruler, let alone for an usurper. There are several examples of divine selection in Šulgi´s hymnal compositions, above all in Šulgi E, ll. 5–7: ƒen-líl sipa da-rí kalam-ma-ke4/ƒšul-gi lugal uri2†-ma me-en/igi du8-a bar-ra-na gù zi ma-ni-in-dé: ‘Enlil, the eternal shepherd of the land/looked at me, Šulgi, the king of Ur/with wide-open eyes (and) addressed me sincerely.’ Also in Šulgi P a, ll. 12–14: kalam níë-daëal-ba igi mu-ni-íl/saë-ëi6 u8-gin7 lu-aba/šul-gi gú saë(?)-ba ma-ni-in(?)-x sipa-zi-bi ‹é-àm: ‘I looked upon the numerous people/(and) among the “black-headed ones”, numerous like ewes/I [elevated] Šulgi to myself high above their heads; let him be their righteous shepherd.’ The speaker is the goddess Ninsun. Very similar wording of this motif occurs in hymn F, ll. 80–3: iri-ëá igi mi(-in)-ni-íl uri2†-ma nam mu-ni-tarar/[du]mu(?)-lú-si-sá-a šà-kù-ëu10 bí-ì-pà/lugal sipa šul-gi sipa-zi ‹i-li gùr(-ru)-àm/nam-du10 tar-mu-ni-íb kur ‹a-ma-da-ab-gam-gam-e: ‘In my city I looked around, in Ur I made a firm decision/in my pure heart I chose the son of the “just one”/he is the king, the shepherd Šulgi, the righteous shepherd full of charm/you decree a favourable fate [for him], so that he subdues the foreign lands for me.’ Here Nanna speaks as the intercessor with Enlil and the topos currently dealt with is combined with the preceding one, the divine ‘choice in the heart’. The mingling of 586

It is noteworthy in this connection that selection by extispicy identified new incumbents of significant cultic offices and that Urnamma bore the title en unu†-ga.

181

topoi is relatively frequent in the Šulgi hymns. For the topos of divine selection from the multitudes see further Šulgi V, l. 16. As for the calling by a new name, a ‘thronename’, through which the deities confirmed the authority of the sovereign, it usually appears in the explicit form *mu … pà.d (sa4), ‘to call by name’, and in the Šulgi texts occurs above all in ll. 21–3 of hymn G (cf. p. 147 above), ll. 38–9 of hymn P b (see p. 146 above), ll. 169–70 of hymn F (see p. 146 above) and in a condensed format in ll. 11 and 44 of Šulgi D (see p. 151 with fn. 448 above), as well as in Šulgi G, l. 41. Another guarantee of the chosen ruler´s confirmation was the bestowal of special signs of divine favour upon him. This symbolic act communicated the liking of the gods for the king. Each attribute given to the ruler corresponds with the given deity´s sphere of activity. Šulgi A, l. 12: ëeštu2 šúm-ma ƒen-ki-kam me-en: ‘I am the one given wisdom by Enki.’ Ibid., ll. 96–8: ƒsuen-e é-kiš-nu-ëál-ta/nam-ur-saë nam-kala-ga nam-ti-níë-du10 saë-e-eš rig7-ga/á-ma‹ šúm-ma ƒnu-nam-nir-ra: ‘The one entrusted with heroism, power (and) a good life by Suõen in the Ekišnuëal, the one who was given strength by Nunamnir.’ Šulgi D, l. 5: nita-zi ƒutu-ù níë-si-sá saë-e-éš rig7-ga: ‘The “righteous man” entrusted with justice by Utu.’ Ibid., l. 12: sipa-zi á šúm-ma ƒen-líl-lá: ‘The “righteous shepherd” given strength by Enlil.’ Among expressions of this kind also belongs the declaration of love mostly from the divine parent. Šulgi D, l. 13: šul-gi ƒnin-líl-lá ki-áë šàga-na: ‘Šulgi, the beloved of Ninlil´s heart.’587 4) The topos of royal investiture is attested from Early Dynastic times onwards and appears in ideologically charged texts of all subsequent periods except for the reign of Utu‹eëal. In passages concerned with a ruler´s legitimacy this topos naturally follows the preceding topoi, as it reflects the actual installation of the monarch. It was usually expressed by the verb sum, ‘to give’, ‘entrust’, ‘bestow’, followed by specific royal insignia. However, this sequence differs in various texts, so that sometimes only some of the insignia, which also can be given to the ruler by different deities,588 are listed. To the royal investiture is also related the motif of ‘making firm the foundation of the throne’ (*ºgu-za su‹uš-bi … ge-en) used in literature of Lagaš II, Ur III and Isin I dynasties. Considering the scope, as well as the literary and ideological standard, of the Šulgi hymnal repertoire, it is no surprise that the topos of inauguration is most developed in hymns extolling this king. One comes across it in Šulgi A, ll. 84–6: an-né aga-zi-ma‹ saë587 For textual evidence quoted see Flückiger-Hawker (1999), p. 214; ETCSL, 2.4.2.05, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi E)’; Klein (1981a), pp. 34, 38–9; Klein (1981b), pp. 72, 188, 200. 588 This is true only from Šulgi´s reign onwards. Before Šulgi the prerogative to bestow royal insignia belonged solely to Enlil.

182

ëá ‹é-em-mi-in-gi4/é-kur-za-gìn-na ºëidri ‹a-ba-díb-ba/bara2-babbar-ra ºgu-za su‹uš

gi-na saë an-šè ‹a-ba-íl: ‘An placed the splendid legitimate crown on my head/I took the staff in lapis-lazuli Ekur/I lifted (my) head toward heaven on a shining dais, on a throne of firm foundations.’ Šulgi B, ll. 23–5: šà an-na-ke4 ‹úl-la ma-ab-de6/a-la-ëá ƒen-líl-le gù zi ma-ni-in-dé/nam-si-sá-ëu10-uš ëidri ma-an-šúm-mu-uš: ‘An´s will brought me joy/to my happiness Enlil spoke sincerely to me/(and) they gave me the staff because of my justice.’ Šulgi E, ll. 8–12: en-e šà gú-bi gi4-a-na ëidri ma-ni-in-šúm/sig4 eridu†-ga-ta aga zi ak me-en/unu†-ta su‹ za-gìn KÉŠ-rá me-en/sipa ki-áë ƒnanna me-en bara2-ga túmma me-en/inim ƒen-líl-lá-ke4 níë sa6-ga ki-šár-ra ma-ab-de6: ‘His heart overflowing, the lord (i.e. Enlil) gave me the staff/to me, the one legitimately crowned in the brick-work Eridu/to me, the one clasped with the glittering diadem in Uruk/to me, the beloved shepherd of Nanna, suitable for the dais/Enlil´s word brought pleasure everywhere.’ Šulgi F (see p. 147 above); Šulgi G, ll. 25–7: [e]škiri-šibir2 á-na mu-ni-lá sipa kur-kur-rakam/ëidri ƒnanna šu nu-bal-e šu-ni-šè mu-ëar/dúr-nam-lugal ság nu-di-da gú an-šè mini-zi: ‘The nose rope and the crook he hung up on his arm, (so that) he is the shepherd of all the lands/he placed the immutable staff of Nanna in his hand/he let him raise (his) neck toward heaven upon the seat of kingship which cannot crumble.’ Šulgi P b, l. 37: ëidri di-ku5 an-né ma-ra-an-šú[m] gú an-šè ‹i-ni-zi: ‘An gave you the staff which renders judgements; may you (thus) raise (your) neck toward heaven.’ Ibid., l. 41: aga nam-lugal-lá-ka še-er-ga-an ma-ra-ni-i[n-du11]: ‘(Lugalbanda) adorned you with the royal crown;’ fragmentarily also in ll. 54–5, 64. Further Šulgi R, ll. 85–7: aga-[x]-x-x saë-z[a m]u-ni-in-gi-na ëi6-bi ga-ra-°ab¿-[bad]-bad/ëidri-kù(?) ƒen-líl-le ma-ra-an-šúm-ma-[a(?)] u4-bi ga-ra-ab-sù-sù/ºgu-za ƒen-ki-k[e4] saë ‹a-ba-ra-ri[g7]-ga-°a¿ su‹uš-bi ‹a-ra-ab-gi-giin: ‘I want to extend for you the nights of the crown which [holy An] firmly placed on your head/I want to multiply the days of the holy(?) staff which Enlil bestowed upon you/I will make firm for you the foundation of the throne which Enki entrusted to you.’ It is noticeable in this context that investiture rhetoric was often connected with blessings, or a ‘decree of fate’, respectively. For other attestations see Šulgi D, ll. 387–92; Šulgi X, ll. 57–61, 66–7. The topos of royal investiture is frequently accompanied by the formula *saë (an-šè) … íl, ‘to lift the head (toward heaven)’, or *gú (an-šè) … zi.g/ús, ‘to raise the neck (toward heaven)’, which is a clear indication of supremacy. Such

183

expressions are attested in Šulgi A, l. 84 (see pp. 182–3 above); Šulgi D, l. 388; Šulgi G, l. 27 (see p. 183 above); Šulgi P b, l. 37 (see p. 183 above); Šulgi X, l. 57.589 The kingship topoi group consists of statements highlighting the ruler´s merits in his care for the gods, the land and the people. The sovereign, using various kinds of literary expression, unfolds the ideal of the legitimate monarch´s care for the welfare of the source of his power, the deities, the sphere of his activity, i.e. the realm entrusted to him, and his subjects. It is his all-important duty to fulfil the divine will, i.e. to maintain the cultic as well as mundane order, to ensure justice and to increase the land´s prosperity by virtue of the gifts with which the gods furnished him. All the topoi are attested again from Old Sumerian period, this time from the reigns of Uruinimgina (2351–2342) and Lugalzagesi, onwards and thereafter appear in texts of Gudea of Lagaš, the Ur III dynasty and the Isin-Larsa dynasties. The types of texts in which these topoi occur are the same as in case of the preceding group. The topoi are: 1) topos of abundance and prosperity 2) topos of tireless provision for the gods 3) topos of diligence while fulfilling a divine order 4) topos of justice and righteousness 5) topos of care for the land´s infrastructure 1) Motifs of plenty and prosperity under Šulgi´s benevolent rule are found on the one hand in blessings extolling his suitability for the royal office, and thus fall within the previous group as well, e.g. Šulgi F, l. 64: šul-gi sipa-zi ki-en-gi-ra-ke4 ‹é-ëál na-sù-e: ‘Šulgi, the righteous shepherd of Sumer, will extend abundance.’ On the other hand, such motifs appear in statements expressing the present or past provision of plenty, thereby reflecting the sovereign´s credit of the deities´ and land´s well-being. These formulae are frequently incorporated into whole sequences of legitimation and kingship topoi, usually found either in the prologue or the epilogue of the particular hymn. Šulgi tells about his maintenance and increase of prosperity above all in hymn F, aptly labelled ‘Šulgi, King of Abundance’ because of the text´s strong focus on this motif. The expression ‹é-ëál, ‘abundance’, is constantly repeated in ll. 226–69 of this hymn and the

589 For textual evidence quoted see Klein (1981b), p. 200; ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’; cf. Castellino (1972), p. 32; ETCSL, 2.4.2.05, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi E)’; Klein (1991), p. 302; Klein (1981a), p. 36; Klein (1990), pp. 106–8. For an analysis of the role of investiture and legitimacy rhetoric in the Šulgi hymns thought to contain historical allusions see the previous chapter.

184

whole passage concludes with the following statement: uri2†-e … nam-lugal ‹é-ëál-la ìak-ke4-èn: ‘I exercise kingship of abundance in Ur …’ The topos is further attested in Šulgi G, l. 29: sipa ‹é-ëál-la šul-gi mu-gi16-sa lugal sil5-lí: ‘Shepherd of abundance, Šulgi, he of the lasting name, king of exuberance(?);’ Šulgi X, ll. 148–9: ki-en-gi-re ‹é-ëál muda-ab-si!/uri2†-e giri17-zal mu-da-ab-sù: ‘With him Sumer is filled with abundance/Ur is provided with delight.’590 2) Šulgi´s ceaseless care for the well-being of the gods, i.e. for the sufficiency of regular offerings, is often mentioned in his hymns, which is no surprise considering the utmost importance of such conduct for the stability of cultic institutions and thereby also for the order in the land. Šulgi is referred to as an ideal provider for the gods in hymn A, ll. 49–49a: é ƒsuõen-na tùr ì gal-gal-la ‹é-ëál-la ‹é-bí-du8/gu4 ‹a-ba-ni-gaz udu ‹a-ba-ni-šár: ‘I filled the house of Suõen, a byre yielding a lot of fat, with abundance./I

slaughtered oxen there, I offered numerous sheep there.’ Ibid., l. 52: ƒšul-gi lú níë lu-lu me-en ninda ëiš ‹a-ba-ni-tag: ‘I am Šulgi who provides everything abundantly, (thus) I offered food there.’ Further Šulgi B, ll. 244–5: diëir-re-e-ne gub-bu in-ga-zu/a-nun-nake4-ne šà sed4-dè mu-zu: ‘I also know how to serve the gods/I know how to soothe the heart of the Anuna deities.’ Šulgi G, l. 38: šul-gi é-kur-ra ú-a-bi na-nam: ‘Šulgi is the provider for the Ekur.’ Ibid., ll. 49–53. In hymn P b, ll. 6–8, Šulgi plays the role of an ideal candidate for the maintenance of cultic order and performance of ritual duties: diëir-me-èn pi-lu5-da nam-lugal-lá mu-ëá-ra-a šu ‹u-mu-ra-ab-du7-du7/ëiš-‹ur diëir-rene-ke4 si ‹u-mu-ra-ab-sá-e/níë u4-sakar-ra níë zà-mu-ka-ke4 ëiš ‹u-mu-ra-ab-tag-ge: ‘For you, goddess, let him carry out the regulations set out for kingship/let him properly execute the divine plan for you/let him make offerings on your behalf on the new moon day and at New Year.’ Further evidence of this topos comes from hymn R, l. 47 and, in more detail, ll. 67–8: šul-gi sipa nidba gal-gal-la-ni mu-ne-ši(!)-íb-dib-dib-bé/u4 nam-‹i-a mi-ni-íb-zal-zal-ne ëi6 ì-im-i-i-ne: ‘Shepherd Šulgi takes charge of his enormous food offerings on their behalf/they spend the day in abundance, they praise the night.’ Šulgi X, ll. 5–7: am-gal ‹ur-saë-ëá á íl-íl-la-da/udu en-zi-dè šu-a lá-a-da/máš-si4? máš-za-lá gaba-a tab-ba-da/ƒinana-ra èš é-an-na-ka mu-na-da-an-ku4-ku4-ù: ‘With great mountain bulls carried on (his) arms/with sheep hung up on (his) hands/with speckled(?) kids (and) bearded kids held to (his) chest/the righteous lord enters the shrine Eana for Inana.’ Šulgi Y, ll. 25–30: é-mu‹aldim gal-la-né gu4-udu ba-ni-ëar/é-gir4 ma‹-a-né ‹é590

For textual evidence quoted see Klein (1981a), p. 24, n. 122, p. 12 with n. 39; Klein (1991), p. 304; Klein (1981b), p. 144.

185

ëál-la bí-túm/é-bappir-zabar-re ‹é-du7-na/kaš-kaš-bi-ta NE ki ba-ni-ús-ús/kaš-ëi6 kurun

kaš-si4 á-sikil-ba sur-ra/kíë-sig unu2 gal-la-né ba-ni-ëar: ‘I delivered oxen and sheep to her (i.e. Ninsun´s) great “kitchen”/I brought abundance into her magnificent “bakery”/in her “brewery” (whose products are) suitable for bronze (goblets)/I established … out of its beer/I delivered dark beer, sweet beer, red beer, unique in their pure strength/to her great “dining hall” for the evening meal.’591 3) The topos of perfect execution of divine commands manifests itself in hymn Šulgi R through motifs of wisdom, excellent preparation and enormous effort which certainly came from the statue and cylinder inscriptions of Gudea. After Ninlil ordered the construction of her barge, the sovereign settled down to work, ll. 5–9: ëeštu3 daëal-lakam sá-gal mu-ù-ši-in-p[à]/sipa-dè u4-ëi6-a ù nu-mu-ù-ši-in-ku4-ku4/igi-ëál tuku ëiš-‹urre kíë-ëá kù-zu-nì-nam-ma-k[e4]/ºtir gal-gal-la erin(?)-gal ma-ra-an-ni-[in-ku5(?)]/me-zuù šu bí-d[u7] u6-e ba-°an¿-gub-°bé-èn¿: ‘He, the one of broad wisdom, was very much concerned with you (i.e. the barge)/the shepherd did not sleep day and night because of you/the wise one, industrious in planning, the omniscient one/felled(?) big cedars(?) in huge forests for you/perfected your mes (and) made you wonderful.’592 4) The topos of a rightful and discreet ruler who knows how to maintain the mundane order, takes care of the weak and disadvantaged, and introduces general harmony into the land, could not escape the attention of the authors of the Šulgi hymns. After all, the care for social concord and justice was ideologically among the reasons why the sceptre was entrusted to Šulgi in the first place, as is clear from ll. 25–6 of Šulgi F: lugal ƒištaran-a ki-en-gi-ra-ka/di kalam-ma ku5-dè ga-eš8 kalam-ma bar-re-dè: ‘So that the king, the Ištarªn of Sumer´s offspring/makes judgements for the land, renders decisions for the land;’ ibid., l. 86: inim-du10 níë-si-sá iri-ni-a ‹u-mu-da-an-ëala7: ‘May he introduce good words and justice into his city.’ Another promise of this kind appears in Šulgi P b, l. 33: sipa níë-si-sá-a tu-da-me-èn: ‘You are the shepherd born for justice.’ Šulgi complied with those blessings, as is clear from the boastful ll. 23–5 of hymn A: níë-si-sá-e ki ‹a-ba-áë-ëá-àm/níë-erim2-e ki la-ba-ra-áë-ëá-àm/inim níë-erim2 du11-ga ‹ul ‹a-ba-ra-gig-ga-àm: ‘I love justice/I do not like wickedness/I abhor evil talk.’ In ll. 142–

7, of hymn X the king boasts of the idyllic state of his realm resulting from his experienced law enforcement: ƒištaran ki-en-gi-ra šà-ta níë-nam zu-ù/di kalam-ma ki-bi591 For textual evidence quoted see Klein (1981b), p. 194; ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’; cf. Castellino (1972), p. 56; Klein (1991), p. 304; Klein (1981a), p. 35; Klein (1990), p. 106; Klein (1981b), p. 136; Falkenstein (1960), p. 142; cf. ETCSL, 2.4.2.25, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi Y)’. 592 For textual evidence quoted see Klein (1990), p. 102. Asterisks denoting collations are omitted here.

186

šè ì-ku5-du/ga-rašsar kalam-ma ki-bi-šè ì-ba-re/á-tuku si-ga ša-ëá-aš-šè la-ba-an-gur4e/ama dumu-ni-ir ša6-ga mu-na-ab-bé/dumu a-a-ni-ir níë-gi-na mu-na-ni-íb-gi4-gi4: ‘He, the Ištarªn of Sumer, knowing everything from (his) birth/makes judgements for the land/renders decisions for the land/(so that) the strong does not oppress the weak/the mother speaks nicely to her child/the child answers truthfully to its father.’ Šulgi´s supposed passion for truth is proclaimed in hymn C as well, this time in the context of praise of his knowledge and abilities, ll. 107–9: zi-du mu-zu erim2-du mu-zu/zi-du si sáàm igi-ëu10-šè in-dib-e/erim2-du lú ‹ul-ëál NE-ma-a bí-in-túm-mu: ‘I recognize the honest one, I recognize the deceitful one/the honest one passes rightfully before me/(while) the deceiful one, the wicked man, will be carried away by …’ Similarly, the king is presented as a righteous judge in hymn B, ll. 200, 204–5: ní saë-ki-ëu10 a-ba-daab-ëál-la-àm/…/nam-tag-tag-ga sìg-ge du8-ù-bi mu-zu/inim-ma gal-gal-la silim-zu °ëál¿[la-me-en]: ‘With the awesomeness radiating from my forehead/…/I know how to punish crime, how to absolve it./I can settle complicated matters with just one word.’ Ibid., ll. 218–9: di ki-en-gi†-ke4 si sá-da-ëu10-ne/5-bi eme-bi ba-ni-ib-gi4-gi4-in: ‘While rendering judgements in the cases of Sumer/I reply in all five languages.’ Ibid., ll. 221–2: di-til-la-ëá šà uš im-gu7/gal zu nam-lugal an-ta-ëál-bi-me-en: ‘As for my final verdicts, they are received heartily/(because) I am intelligent (and) superior in kingship.’ Ibid., l. 229: nir-da saë ì-túm-túm-ëá ma-da gal-gal-ëá su‹uš ma-ab-ge-en-ge-en: ‘Because of my constant contempt for misdemeanor, the foundations of my huge dominions are stabilized for me.’593 5) For the topos of care for the land´s infrastructure see chapters III.5) and V.3) above with references. VI.1.2) The Development of Royal Ideology from the Late Uruk Period until Narªmsuõen´s Reign After the above survey of the manifestations of ideal kingship notions as reflected in the Šulgi hymns, it is now possible to proceed to a discussion of the historical and social background which formed those notions, thus also enabling the emergence of the above topoi. Because only a brief overview showing which old traditions Šulgi could have drawn upon when formulating his own royal ideology can be given here, I will centre 593

For textual evidence quoted see Wilcke (1974), p. 215; Römer (1969), p. 134; Klein (1981a), p. 35; Klein (1981b), pp. 190 (transliteration slightly modified), 144; ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’; cf. Castellino (1972), p. 256; ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’; cf. Castellino (1972), pp. 50–4. Cf. also Klein (1993), p. 125, i. 9´–10´: šul-gi sipa-zi-ki-en-gi-ra-me-èn níë-zi ki-bi-šè ‹umu-ëar-ëá-ar/níë-erim2 a-ëi6 a-è-a-gin7 uzug2-ge ‹é-mi-bù: ‘I, Šulgi, the righteous shepherd of Sumer, firmly restored truth/like surging waters of a flood, I uprooted wickedness as impure.’

187

the discussion of the earliest developments around the royal ‘titles’.594 As could be inferred from the discussed ideological statements, the idea of kingship in early Mesopotamian society was inseparably connected with the sacred, or cultic, sphere. At the time of its formation, i.e. in the late Uruk period (3500–3200), the notion of kingship was so closely interrelated with the sacred that the office of a mundane ruler, a ‘king’, did not exist at all because just one dignitary called en (conventionally translated ‘lord’) seems to have borne the responsibility for both the sacred as well as profane matters. His ideologically most important duty seems to have been to ritually secure the fertility of soil, animals and the people because fecundity was the essential precondition of the whole society´s future. This task was accomplished perhaps during the so-called ‘sacred marriage’ rite which is, however, referred to only in much later textual evidence. En performed the ritual most likely with his female counterpart nin (conventionally translated ‘lady’), the result of their union (whatever form this union may have taken) being the activation of the fertile forces in nature, their temporal cultic preservation and thus the possibility of their symbolic handover to other members of the community. In consequence, the ‘high-priestly’ couple was entitled to a part of harvest, in ideological terms yielded because of their successful ritual conduct, which gradually led to an accumulation of economic and social power in the hands of the en and nin. However, due to a change of political and social paradigm in the Djemdet Nasr period (3200– 2900) this model was significantly altered. Instead of a coherent society there emerged a union of city-states with a complex administrative apparatus which was, along with other profane institutions, gradually transferred to the control of a dignitary known as the lugal (literally: ‘great man’, ‘chieftain’). Yet, cultic responsibilities remained in the competence of the en but the nin was from that time on the partner of the lugal as a passive source of his sovereignty, thereby at least partly justifying the lugal´s newly acquired authority.595 After the differentiation of the en´s role from that of the lugal, the latter´s steadily strengthening position of power necessitated the emergence of an ideological basis legitimizing his status, so that the originally perhaps interim office be formally institutionalized and transformed into nam-lugal, ‘kingship’, as a permanent component of social order. In this thesis, I do not deal with the meaning of the title ensi2 before the Sargonic period, because the independent Early Dynastic as well as Lagaš II ensis used the same 594 595

For a different view see Selz (1998b). Cf. Selz (2004); Michalowski (2008b). Cf. Heimpel (1992); Steinkeller (1999) with previous literature; Charvát (1997).

188

ideological rhetoric in their texts as the rulers called lugal (see examples from Lagašite texts in the above survey), and therefore it is unnecessary to analyse the subtle differences between the titles ensi2 and lugal. Piotr Michalowski even suggested that the titles en, lugal and ensi2 were in fact merely different local labels for ‘sovereign’, originally used in Uruk, Ur and Lagaš-Ëirsu.596 Yet, however tempting this straightforward idea may be, it has to be kept in mind that en was not only the title of Urukean rulers but from very early on a priestly title as well, borne by priests and priestesses of various deities in several cities, whereas lugal or ensi2 were titles attributed exclusively to rulers.597 Interestingly, the only Ur III king using the title en in the sense of the ‘sovereign of Uruk’, was the usurper Urnamma, thereby obviously striving to enhance his legitimacy. Šulgi himself used that title only when portrayed as carrying out his cultic duties, including the ‘sacred marriage’. According to the original ideological model it was the en who assumed the right to mediate between the gods and the people. He served the gods and in return received blessings. Then he conferred the divine blessings on the people and awaited appreciation of this divine ‘capital’ through production and delivery of goods necessary for the maintenance of cultic institutions. Thus, the life of the society ran smoothly in cycles based on the do ut des principle. Obviously, had the lugal´s status lacked appropriate justification, its very existence would have severely impaired the described social scheme. In order to avoid any violation of the well-established ideological basis for controlling the society and simultaneously to legitimize the lugal´s status, the lugal, by that time already occupying a politically more prominent position than the en, was simply inserted into the scheme in between the gods and the en followed by the people. The en was hereby pushed aside ideologically, which only reflected the real division of power within the élite. Henceforth it was the lugal who mediated between the deities and the people, supported by the fact that nin became the title of his female counterpart, the ‘queen’. Due to the lugal´s takeover of the essential role in society, the ideology of kingship was naturally subject to the need of his legitimation and incessantly reminded everyone of the sacred origin of the lugal´s authority. The clearest manifestation of that ideology is the topoi analysed above which focus chiefly on the motif of the ruler as the representative of the gods (i.e., the active source of his authority) and the mediator of their blessings, as their faithful servant and performer of 596

Michalowski (2008b), p. 33. His view was readily accepted by J. Cooper (2008), p. 261, n. 1. Even though the title ensi2 originally belonged among priestly titles too, it was no longer used as such after it was appropriated by the rulers. See Selz (1998b), p. 284, n. 8. 597

189

their will. The whole concept at the same time easily avoided inner conflicts which could have resulted from such a change. The sovereignty of the lugal as a deputy of the gods, governing the land because of their will, simply could not have been questioned because in such a case the gods themselves would have been offended, and thus the foundations of the social order would have been threatened. As everyone who could have questioned the divinely sanctioned authority of the lugal, i.e. other dignitaries (above all the en as the most senior cultic official) and the people, was an integral part of the society, such an act would have undermined his own position in the world.598 Now, the topoi of divine parents (first attested in inscriptions of Mesilim of Kiš), nurture and upbringing, selection for the throne, giving a new name, endowment with superior abilities etc., may make the impression that the personality of the ruler was implicitly deified long before the explicit personal deification of a living monarch was introduced into Babylonia, but this was not the case. Of divine origin was not the ruler himself but the office which he held and the motifs discussed served merely to justify the claim of a particular person or dynasty to the immense power contained in the office. Legitimacy must have come from the sacred sphere, for otherwise the ruler could not have explained by any means why he himself and nobody else had the right to that power. Thus, the office of the representative of the gods, the nam-lugal (after all found together with its attributes in the list of the mes), was deified, not the representative himself. In this connection it is clearer why Old Sumerian royal inscriptions contain legitimation topoi along with the respective ruler´s human filiation, or even a sort of dynastic sequence. The former address the ruler as a sovereign, the supreme mediator of divine will, their requests and blessings, while the latter show the monarch as a human being. Indeed, according to this scheme the ruler stood precisely in between the divine and human spheres. Under these circumstances, the deification of a monarch came into question only after his death and there is plenty of evidence regarding the posthumous cult of a ruler, as well as of other royal family members, again from the Early Dynastic times onward (above all from Lagaš-Ëirsu). Naturally, deceased rulers were venerated by their successors, yet it was not simply an ancestor cult, as it is known that the posthumous cult of rulers was also maintained by successors who did not have any family relationships to the venerated predecessors. This shows that the posthumous cult was not meant to revere the personality of the deceased rulers but to worship the ‘official’ 598

See A. Cohen (2001), p. 108.

190

dimension of those individuals, the nam-lugal, through which they used to be the link between the gods and the people. Thus consecrated, those dead humans could have been regarded as able to influence certain processes in nature, e.g. to increase the yield of fields. Consequently, they could have been able to enlarge the power of their successors who interconnected with them through the maintenance of their cult. It is possible to understand this as an interesting modification of the original role played by the en and as another barrier against possible conflicts within the system, for to attack the king would no longer mean ‘just’ to call the divine will into question but also to threaten the economic stability of the realm.599 The ‘functional’ aspect of the ruler is bluntly expressed in the designation of the king as the ƒlamma, ‘protective spirit’, first used in such a connection in the hymn Urnamma C. If one did not know that Šulgi´s father did not consider himself divine, one could notice the ruler´s claim to divinity in this title. Yet, this epithet does not concern the personality of the king but rather the special force that he was endowed with by his exercise of kingship, which made him the ‘guardian’ of the land. Nevertheless, while the title clearly reflects the monarch´s role as the sacred sphere´s representative and the mediator of divine will, it also reflects the notion of the king more and more removed from humanity and close to divinity. Admittedly, the kingship ideology itself allowed for the emergence of such a notion because of the constant tension between the monarch´s humble human nature and his far more important and unique continuous intimate contact with the sacred. In calling the king the ‘guardian spirit’ the ideological scheme reached the point beyond which the king could not go, unless he proclaimed himself god. VI.1.3) Shift of the Pattern: Deification of Narªmsuõen of Akkad and Its Ideological Consequences Now, after a brief overview of the earliest Mesopotamian concept of kingship, let us have a look at the Old Akkadian concept which decisively influenced Šulgi´s own path to deification.600 With the rise of the Sargonic dynasty traditional social structure in Babylonia considerably changed. The change was brought about by the creation of the first territorial state in the region. Traditional urban centres lost their significance in

599

For a detailed discussion see ibid., pp. 103–9. For the posthumous cult of Early Dynastic Lagašite rulers cf. Bauer (1969); Kobayashi (1984), (1985); Maeda (1979); Selz (1992). However, posthumous deification was also granted to the local ‘Neo-Sumerian’ rulers, venerated not only by their successors but also by the people. See Perlov (1980). 600 For the Sargonic royal ideology in general see Franke (1995). For a discussion of Narªmsuõen´s deification see W. Farber (1983).

191

favour of a new centre of political, social and to a certain degree also religious affairs, i.e. the city of Akkad. The loose federation of independent city-states was transformed into a system of provinces, no longer ruled by sovereign monarchs but by governors appointed by the king of Akkad. Furthermore, military garrisons were created in each province to maintain peace and suppress rebellions against the king, for which their members were remunerated with allotments of land, previously expropriated by the crown (the so-called ‘crown land’). The result of such developments was unity under the rule of a single monarch, the introduction of successful Akkadian imperial government and eventually also the first deification of a living king in Mesopotamia. The first godking was Sargon´s grandson Narªmsuõen, the consolidator of the state in both the domestic and foreign policy. Narªmsuõen significantly shifted the ideological paradigm of kingship, for while Sargon used some of the traditional motifs of royal legitimation (topoi from the first group ad 3) and 4), and Sargon´s son and successor Maništ¥šu used almost all of them (the first group ad 1), 3) and 4),601 Narªmsuõen himself was interested only in the topos of royal investiture. Obviously, he did not consider it necessary to justify his claim to power by traditional means. Moreover, he innovated the sequence of royal titles by the introduction of a brand new designation lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba/šar kibrªtim arbaõim, ‘king of the four quarters (of the world)’,602 appearing in monumental

texts (stele and statue inscriptions preserved in later copies) from early in his reign when he had not yet become god. Narªmsuõen dropped this title late in his reign, replacing it with the divine designation. Yet, the innovative title of Narªmsuõen´s endured and was used by the most powerful kings of subsequent dynasties until the Old Babylonian period, even though Narªmsuõen himself perhaps deemed it a purely warlike title, for he used it only in texts recounting his campaigns and conquests. However, its suitability for a ruler claiming hegemony over the whole region is obvious. However, there can be little doubt that the most important change of the religiopolitical paradigm of kingship was Narªmsuõen´s deification, most clearly documented by writing the divine determinative before his name as well as by his titulary. Narªmsuõen decided on this change most likely on the basis of his military successes,

601

Among other examples of adherence to the traditional model under Sargonic kings are the usage of the ancient Sumerian royal title ‘king of Kiš’ (which, however, always reflected a ruler´s aspirations to universal authority and, if read in Akkadian, meant šar kiššatim, ‘king of the world’), the recognition of the pivotal position of Nippur in the land´s cultic life, compliance with local religious traditions in the respective cities and maintenance of ritual order. Apart from the first one, all of them were adopted by Narªmsuõen as well. As for the concept of the king, the ideological change concerned to a large extent only his own personality. 602 For Presargonic royal titles see Hallo (1957), pp. 3–48; for this title see pp. 49–56.

192

because during his reign the Old Akkadian empire reached the zenith of its geographical extent (from Syria to Elam). This giant state had somehow to be shielded religiously, because at that time virtually every territorial entity had its divine patron, or at least a ‘protective spirit’. This is likewise true for the city of Akkad, whose patron deity was Inana, or Ištar, in her warlike aspect. But Narªmsuõen´s empire as a whole lacked such a patron deity, hence the king himself became the patron god of the state.603 Narªmsuõen fully developed this concept as illustrated by his famous ‘Victory Stele’ depicting him with the attribute of divine status, the horned crown, as a triumphant hero taller than all the other figures. The stele does not contain any anthropomorphic depiction of another deity except the god-king. Now, according to traditional ideology only the gods were responsible for the success of a victorious ruler, because they endowed him with the necessary strength, and therefore were frequently depicted as handing the defeated enemies over to the monarch. Yet, in case of this stele it is only Narªmsuõen who triumphs and reverence for other deities is expressed merely symbolically.604 By far the most important evidence regarding Narªmsuõen´s deification is the socalled ‘Bassetki inscription’ which gives the ideological explanation of this act (RIME 2 1.4.10). According to the inscription, ‘the four quarters’ joined forces in a rebellion against the king who managed to prevail in nine battles during a single year and captured the rebellious rulers with the help of Ištar. Thus, he strengthened the ‘foundations’ of his city, and therefore the inhabitants of Akkad supposedly requested his elevation to the divine realm. Their request was directed to all the most senior deities of the south and the north with the notable exception of Ištar of Akkad (only Ištar of Uruk is mentioned, interestingly at the very beginning of the list) where she dwelled in the Eulmaš temple. Perhaps she was omitted so that the deified king avoided direct confrontation with this patron goddess of the capital whom he seems to have replaced. His prominent status of a deity is eloquently reflected in his title diëir a-ga-dè†, ‘god of Akkad’, characteristically replacing the designation ‘king of the four quarters’ in the latter part of his reign. However, it is not clear whether this title meant the replacement of Ištar by the god-king as the local divine patron, or whether it was intended to show that the king was the ‘god of the realm of Akkad’, i.e. the ‘guardian spirit’ of the land. Unfortunately, the actual implications of Narªmsuõen´s deification and its exact theological elaboration are currently impossible to ascertain. It is unknown how was the title ‘god of Akkad’ understood and interpreted in relation to other deities, chiefly 603 604

See Postgate (1995), p. 401. See Becker (1985), pp. 287–90. For a different view see Winter (1996).

193

Ištar.605 Moreover, it is impossible to either confirm or disprove that Narªmsuõen had his own sanctuaries in his lifetime, even though the ‘Bassetki inscription’ in its concluding lines speaks about the construction of his temple in the centre of the empire. All these difficulties notwithstanding, it is certain that in Narªmsuõen´s case the king was no longer superior merely functionally, i.e. on account of his office of the mediator between the spheres, but that he saw himself as a full-fledged member of the divine realm. VI.1.4) Royal Ideology of Šulgi´s Father Urnamma After a brief discussion of the ideological background and prerequisites upon which Šulgi could have developed his own concept of divine kingship, their utilization by Urnamma should be discussed now. Because enough space has already been devoted to the discussion of Urnamma´s origins and reign, I shall deal here only with the constituents of his royal ideology.606 He introduced a designation proclaiming the rise of a new dynasty and its aspirations into the royal titulary (lugal ki-en-gi ki-uri), while he never used Narªmsuõen´s (and Utu‹eëal´s) title lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba obviously because of political precautions. As for the legitimation of his kingship, Urnamma adopted the majority of strategies later exploited by his son. He not only made use of all the topoi discussed above, he furthermore directly incorporated himself, and thereby his stock, into the family of the Urukean goddess Ninsun. This act was in accord with his likely descent from the city´s royal family and his need of continuity which Urnamma as an usurper could not, and obviously even did not want to, declare in ‘mundane’ terms.607 He thereby seemingly avoided the problem of dynastic change which could have harmed his pursuit of legitimacy. Moreover, his restoration of cultic order and care for the land´s welfare were

On Narªmsuõen´s relationship to Ištar see Kienast (1990) who excludes the possibility that the king was seen as Ištar´s consort, perhaps celebrating the ‘sacred marriage’ with the goddess. For a different view see Michalowski (2008b), p. 34. According to him, there was no conflict between Narªmsuõen, the god of Akkad, and the city goddess Ištar but the king simply joined Ištar as divine city ruler, maybe even as her consort. That nature of their relationship is seemingly discernible from the notorious image of the couple (see Hansen 2002) which is, however, not unlikely to be a forgery as Michalowski remarks. 606 For references to the majority of problems discussed here see chapter II.1). 607 While Urnamma could not derive legitimacy from Utu‹eëal, to whose downfall he seems to have actively contributed, he tied his ideology directly to Ninsun, or her husband Lugalbanda. Thus, Urnamma became a brother of Gilgameš who was according to the literary composition describing Utu‹eëal´s struggle against the Gutians appointed the latter´s aide in the battle. ETCSL, 2.1.6, ‘The victory of Utu‹eĝal’, ll. 29–31: gu-ti-um† ƒen-líl-le ma-an-sum nin-ëu10 ƒinana á-ta‹-ëu10-um/ƒdumu-zi-ama-ušumgal-anna-ke4 nam-ëu10 bí-°du11¿/ƒgilgameš3 dumu ƒnin-sún-na-°ke4¿ maškim-šè ma-an-sum: ‘Enlil has given me Gutium/my lady Inana will be my aid/Dumuzi, Amaušumgalana, said: “It is my case.”/He assigned Gilgameš, son of Ninsun, to me as a constable.’ 605

194

ideologically exploited by stressing them through the kingship topoi and additionally also through his assumption of the title en unu†-ga alluding to the ancient roots of the Uruk culture social organization.608 Apart from that, Urnamma was extremely focused on the provision of Nippur and its most important cultic institutions. He restored Enlil´s main temple in that city, the Ekur, and did not forget to emphasize in relevant royal inscriptions and hymns that because of this deed of his Enlil functioned as the source of his legitimacy, conferring royal insignia, and thereby sovereignty, on him. Indeed, according to the Urnamma texts Enlil was the only deity bestowing kingship upon him.609 Obviously, Urnamma´s ideology centred around the urban centres of the state, which is a distinctive feature of his successors´ ideological schemes as well. The Urukean aspect of his royal ideology was characterized by the understanding of the goddess Ninsun as the king´s mother and the hero Gilgameš as his brother. The Nippurian aspect concerned Enlil as the supreme source of royal authority. Finally, there was the Ur aspect focusing on the relationship between the king and the city god of the political capital, Nanna. All these aspects were skilfully intertwined in a coherent royal ideology. For instance, it is noteworthy that according to the hymns Urnamma was chosen without exception by Nanna but only Enlil designated him as a king and bestowed the regalia upon him (see pp. 180–1 above). While such a discrepancy could have freely occurred in Mesopotamian religio-political paradigms in any case, in Urnamma´s case it had its inner logic and thus was not inconsistent at all. For, Urnamma revived Nanna´s old genealogy according to which he was the (first-born) son of Enlil. This theology firmly tied Ur, together with its ruler, up to Nippur, so that Ur became virtually the only legitimate seat of kingship because Enlil, as a generous father, invariably complied with his son´s wishes. This concept was fully developed by Šulgi in his hymn F. As for the Old Akkadian influence on Urnamma´s ideology, it is almost imperceptible. The founder of the Ur III state avoided everything which could have seemed exaggerated to the clergy and local élites both in his titulary and in the texts. He concentrated exclusively on the renewal of traditional Sumerian notions of the ideal king and his role, accordingly adapting them to the interests of his dynasty. His modifications, nevertheless, fitted in well with the older paradigm, even though some 608

This is also related to the obscuration of his natural father´s name. See Wilcke (1988a), p. 118: ‘Urnammu sagt etwas vague, er sei numun-en-na “Same eines en” und greift damit einen alten Priesterund Herrschertitel auf.’ (Urnamma says somewhat vaguely that he was a numun-en-na, ‘an en´s seed’, and thereby refers to an ancient priestly and royal title.) 609 Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 63–4.

195

needed broader support in mythology.610 Thus, the only trace of Old Akkadian influence upon Urnamma´s royal self-representation can be seen in the designation ƒlamma, ‘protective, guardian spirit’ (either of Ur or the land) which, however, shows only a full appreciation of his royal status and does not represent a claim to his personal divinity. VI.2) Royal Ideology and Deification of Šulgi VI.2.1) Textual Reflections, Narªmsuõen´s Influence, Political Motives, Possible Reasons for Success Šulgi built his royal ideology on the basis set up by his father as shown not only by historical data about his practical policy but to a large extent also by his hymns. But he developed it in a different direction. This is best illustrated by Šulgi´s concept of the ‘ideological triumvirate’ of the three capitals and the mutual relationships of their patron deities to each other and the king. Those relationships are well documented in the three ‘Coronation Hymns’ G, P and F. Hymn G expresses the king´s relationship to Enlil who grants him kingship thanks to Nanna´s intercession. Šulgi is entitled to kingship because of the merits of the ‘righteous one’, Urnamma. Hymn Šulgi P deals with the king´s relationship to the Urukean goddess Ninsun and her husband, the legendary ruler Lugalbanda which is described in divine terms. The composition can be regarded as a direct expression of Šulgi´s deification. Šulgi´s poets used the ideology of royal descent from gods, but went beyond the motifs of parentage and nurture. They built an elaborate structure presenting Šulgi in the beginning just as a one of many but in the end as the adopted son of two deities with a new ‘throne-name’ and the crown upon his head. This ideological scheme is fostered in the hymn Šulgi O dealing with Šulgi´s relationship to Ninsun´s and Lugalbanda´s son Gilgameš, naturally considered the king´s brother. Šulgi F deals with Šulgi´s legitimacy as the king of Ur. It conveys two crucial ideological messages, first the confirmation of the ruler´s claims by Enlil and second the role of Nanna in the ideological paradigm of the Ur III dynasty. The significance of the 610

Especially the genealogy of Nanna. Klein (2001), p. 282: ‘… filial epithets, applied to Nanna, clearly indicate that Urnammu and his successors used this literary-mythopoeic motif as a means of legitimating their rule over Mesopotamia. In fact, there are a number of mythological and hymnic-epic compositions that center around this motif and were, no doubt, composed in the Ur III period.’ Chiefly the myth ‘Enlil and Ninlil’ dealing with the rape of the maiden Ninlil by Enlil and the conception of Nanna/Suõen and his younger brothers Nergal, Ninazu and Enbilulu. Ibid., p. 284: ‘We get the impression that the theologians of Urnammu or Šulgi who composed this piquant myth were at utmost pain to prove the firstborn status of Suen, probably to refute a contradicting theological tradition.’

196

transposition of Nanna to the place of Enlil´s first-born son for the legitimacy of the king of Ur is fully reflected here. Another important elaboration of the status of Nanna is found in the doxology of Šulgi D+X, placing him in the company of the most senior gods of the Sumerian pantheon and thus emphasizing his position in the divine hierarchy: 151 lugal-e ur silim-e-éš du11-ga-a nam-kala-ga-ne-e dalla bí-in-è-a 152 °nam¿-ur-saë-ëá-né šu-zi bí-in-ëá-ra 153 ki-bala-e gú ki-šè bí-in-lá-a 154 iri-me uri2†-e ‹é-ëál-la gú-bi mi-ni-íb-zi-ga-a 155 lugal muš-za-gìn-na g[ù]n-a dumu-ƒen-líl-lá 156 men!-daëal-la saë an-šè íl-íl 157 an-da ki-ma‹-‹a-na šà-kúš-ù ur5-ra-aš-da bára-gal-e si-a 158 ì-ti--zal-la kalam-e kur-kur-re a-ne-‹úl-la du11?-du11 159 en-ƒaš-ím-babbar2 zà!-mí Šulgi X (Klein 1981b, p. 144). 151 The lord who greeted the lands, who made their (i.e. of the gods) power resplendent, 152 who rightfully accomplished their heroism, 153 who made the rebellious regions bow down to the ground, 154 who made our city Ur raise its neck in abundance, 155 lord embellished with lustrous halo, son of Enlil, 156 lifting the head toward heaven with broad tiara, 157 taking counsel with An at his ‘lofty place’, occupying the great dais with Uraš, 158 who from nightfall until daybreak lets Sumer and all the foreign lands rejoice, 159 lord Ašimbabbar be praised. This excerpt makes clear that Šulgi developed the ideology presenting Nanna as a member of Enlil´s family. Also of interest is the fact that this doxology follows the praise of the king in terms of the kingship topoi. Further, several of the features applied in this passage to Nanna, chiefly the heroic and warlike ones, were applied to the

197

monarch in other passages of the major Šulgi hymns. Such a practice gives the impression of a close relationship between the king and the city god. Thus, hymns Šulgi G, P and F justify the king´s divine status. This can be seen as a crucial purpose of Šulgi´s royal praise poetry, especially if one notes that the genre gradually faded away during the Old Babylonian period together with the concept of royal divinity. Next, let us have a look at the notion of the king as a person intimately related to nature. According to the hymns, Šulgi was identified with plants, above all with the mestree. Such imagery propounds the cosmic hierarchy: deities – Šulgi – the land in which the king is not only a mediator of divine will, but also the ‘conduit’ of divine blessings which brings abundance. He is separated from the human sphere, he is the sole connection of the two worlds, divine and human, in the position of a minor god, a protective spirit looking after the land. Earlier notions attributed the ability to influence the transmission of divine blessings to deceased rulers only. This function is now ascribed to a living monarch. Such an alteration of the concept of kingship made Šulgi the only person in Babylonia capable of channelling the blessings to the whole land as opposed to the many city-rulers transmitting them to the populace of their city-states before.611 Significantly, the identification of Šulgi with the mes-tree occurs in hymns very important for the king´s self-representation.

32

º

ildag3 ki-en-du-zà-ga dù-a-gin7 usu-a-me-èn

33

mes-zi kurùn-na-gùn-a-gin7 u6-di-du10-ga-me-èn

34

ëišimmar-dilmun-kù-gin7 ƒnin-é-gal-ke4 mí-zi-du11-ga-me-èn

35

º

eren a ‹a-šu-úr-re mú-a-gin7 gissu-du10-ga-me-èn

Šulgi D (Klein 1981b, pp. 72–4). 32

You are strong like a poplar planted by the river bank,

33

you are admirable like a steadfast mes-tree with dappled grapes,

34

you are looked after by Ninegala like a pure Dilmun date palm,

35

you (have) a pleasant shade like a watered cedar, like a tall grown cypress.

The next quotation comes from the ‘Coronation’ hymn Šulgi P a, l. 15: 611

Cf. A. Cohen (2001), pp. 101–2.

198

15

A mes pa-mul-ëu10-um ki ma-an-dar(?)

Šulgi P (Klein 1981a, p. 34). 15

He is my mes-tree with shiny branches, he sprouted from the soil for me.

The most telling example comes from the ‘Coronation’ hymn Šulgi F: u4 nam-lugal-šè íl-la-na º

mes-zi-gin7 dalla mu-è a-zal-le mu-du11

KI.EN.DÙ-kù-ga pa-mul mu-sù-e pa-mul-mul-la-na ƒutu-ù nam bí-in-tarar º

mes-zi-dam gurun7-kù mu-e-íl

šul-gi sipa-zi-ki-en-gi-ra-ke4 ‹é-ëál na-sù-e Šulgi F, approx. ll. 59–64 (Klein 1981a, p. 24, n. 122). When elevated to kingship he shone like a steadfast mes-tree irrigated with flowing water, stretched his shiny branches over the pure river bank, (and) over his radiating branches Utu decreed (his) fate: ‘He is a steadfast mes-tree bearing pure fruit, Šulgi, the righteous shepherd of Sumer, will truly extend abundance.’ Here the king is directly identified with the mes-tree and the wording of Utu´s blessing makes it clear that the person of the divine king was understood as a necessary link between the divine and human spheres. Apart from this mes-tree simile there are several others in Šulgi P (P a ll. 5, 17; P b ll. 1, 10) comparing the king to trees, herbs and plants. Such similes were quite frequent in Mesopotamian royal literature of all periods, and it has to be kept in mind that their meaning seems to have depended on the status of the king. Politically, the notion of the king as the mes-tree was suitable for a ‘Sumerian’ ruler building a territorial state, but the deification of a mortal effectively stressed his human

199

nature and undermined the sacred nature of kingship.612 Šulgi tried to overcome this flaw by presenting himself as the brother of Gilgameš, the mortal divine hero.613 Let us have a look now at the influence of Narªmsuõen´s deification on Šulgi which seems to have been more political than ideological. Ideologically, Šulgi drew on older Sumerian notions and ultimately on his father´s ideology, but politically it was the legacy of Narªmsuõen which seems to have prompted Šulgi to claim divine status. For it was not politically feasible to allow a return to the Old Sumerian independent city-state system of government after Mesopotamia experienced the Old Akkadian imperial organization. Political and social changes of Sargonic times determined the future form of Mesopotamian monarchy, which the Ur III kings sought to emulate. By the time of his twentieth regnal year Šulgi had secured his realm´s cultic order, etc., and strengthened the government apparatus by implementing important reforms, allowing him to prepare for military campaigns. His deification seems to have been an important tool for doing so.614 Though it is still unknown when exactly between the years Š10–Š21 the king was deified, the change of policy toward the middle of his reign speaks in favour of the latter date, close before the onset of military campaigns. The ideological safeguarding of the dynasty, the gradual establishment of imperial administration, the strengthening of the realm´s administrative division into provinces managed by crown-appointed governors, the control of economic affairs of the temples and military activities thus seem to have been the crucial political reasons for Šulgi´s assumption of divine status.615 The king´s divinity undoubtedly facilitated the implementation of political measures of that magnitude in a relatively short time-span. Šulgi was cautious in creating his divine image but compared with Narªmsuõen he had a an advantage. His dynasty came from Uruk and resided at Ur, both ancient urban centres. His relationships with Nippur flourished and his legitimacy was secure at that time. The hymns speak of all of this to justify his new status. They integrate two traditions of royal self-representation. As for their content they conform to the Early

612 Michalowski (2008b), p. 41. For a study of the sacred nature of Mesopotamian kingship see Sallaberger (2002). 613 See Michalowski (1988), (2008b), pp. 36–7. Cf. the next section. 614 See Michalowski (2008b), pp. 36–9. For a discussion of the relationship of Old Akkadian and Ur III royal ideologies see Becker (1985); J. Cooper (1993a); J. Cooper (2001). On the important issue of the memory of Old Akkadian monarchs in Ur III times see now Westenholz (2008). 615 According to Gadd´s (1965), p. 26, plausible opinion the fact of appointment of governors by the king alone was one of crucial causes of the king´s deification: ‘In the Third Dynasty of Ur this assumption of divinity coincided similarly with the great expansion in the middle years of Shulgi. Vainglory and popular superstition supported it, but it may also have been deemed a necessary measure of policy to justify the otherwise inadmissible appointment of an earthly governor by another human.’

200

Dynastic notion of kingship but formally they constitute a continuation of Sargonic monumental inscriptions. It was the fusion and purposeful alteration of the two traditions that provided a secure ideological basis for Šulgi´s deification.616 Restrained adoption of Old Akkadian forms filled with modified and further enriched Old Sumerian contents enabled the success of an ideological model that outlived its creator for several decades. Let me illustrate Šulgi´s cautiousness with just a few telling facts. Šulgi used Narªmsuõen´s title lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba only after his deification and first military campaigns (from Š26 onward).617 Urnamma´s epithet ƒlamma is attested only once for Šulgi (hymn Šulgi G, l. 23) and was replaced diëir, ‘deity’. But unlike Narªmsuõen, Šulgi was never called a city god but always the ‘god of the land’,618 which excluded confrontation with any local theology, above all with that of Ur. With respect to the ƒlamma epithet it must be stressed that the divine king always kept his own ƒlamma, the personal ‘guardian spirit’. Walther Sallaberger thinks that offerings for ƒlamma-ƒšul-gi-ra show that not the king but his ‘force’ (ƒlamma) was deified.619 Accordingly, he understands the deification of Šulgi´s successors only upon their accession as a confirmation of his hypothesis of ƒlamma as the bearer of the king´s power (‘Machtträger’).620 Yet, there can be little doubt that the king´s person became divine after deification because if not, why the divine determinative before Šulgi´s name? What about the divine king´s cult in his own shrines and the worship of his statues?621 And is it possible to explain the personal name ƒšul-gi-ƒlamma-ëu10 in such a case?622 Obviously, if the king was not personally divine one would expect the name to read *ƒlamma-ƒšul-gi-ra-ƒlamma-ëu10. Thus, it seems that the god-king was deemed divine and human at the same time. Only that would account for votive objects 616 Cf. Michalowski (1991), p. 53: ‘It was the Ur III dynasty, however, and more specifically its second king, Šulgi, which was responsible for the most systematic attempt to provide a reform of ideology for the purpose of legitimation of a new form of central power. Many of the elements of this new order had existed previously, but it was the combination and the new perspectives on these matters which distinguished it from the action of earlier kings.’ 617 Sallaberger (1999), p. 180. Notably, Šulgi used the Akkadian form of this title already before his deification, characteristically in inscriptions dealing with his temple building in Babylonia´s northern and north-eastern cities: RIME 3/2 1.2.23, Nergal´s temple in K¥t¥; 1.2.27, Tišpak´s temple in Ešnuna (cf. the parallel Sumerian version 1.2.28 containing the title ‘king of Sumer and Akkad’ instead!); 1.2.29. 618 In votive inscriptions (RIME 3/2 1.2.33, 1.2.58, 1.2.83) and a seal (RIME 3/2 1.2.2038). It also occurs in an Akkadian brick inscription (RIME 3/2 1.2.2046). See further Winter (1991), pp. 76–7 with n. 88, for a scheme reflecting the results of deification for the state´s administration and serving as a basis for an explanation of Narªmsuõen´s conceptual failure (diëir-kalam-ma vs. diëir a-ga-dè†). 619 Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 85–6 with nn. 360–1. 620 Sallaberger (1999), pp. 153–4. 621 Cf. Kutscher (1974), p. 55, n. 2. 622 For the name see Limet (1968), p. 400.

201

dedicated ‘for the life of the god of the land’ and offerings on behalf of the king´s ƒlamma. Šulgi´s deification entailed a split of nature. As a human he had his ‘guardian spirit’ but as a god-king he was the protective ‘deity of the land’. Unfortunately, next to nothing is known about the context of the attestations of Šulgi´s twofold nature but the character of the evidence suggests that offerings for Šulgi´s ƒlamma belonged to private cultic setting at the court, whereas votive objects belonged to the ceremonial (or ‘official’) setting. The same would be true for his postuhmous cult as a human (at the kia-naë) and as a deity (in his temples and shrines in temples of other deities).623 However, the ‘official’ dedications ‘for the life of the god’, for instance, illustrate well the pitfalls of divine kingship. One cannot tell whether the donor understood the epithet as a sign of Šulgi´s divinity or just as a new title replacing ‘king’ in the traditional formula ‘for the life of the king’. VI.2.2) The ‘Sacred Marriage’ as a Component of Šulgi´s Concept of Divine Kingship The ‘sacred marriage’ rite and its implications for the cultic and political life of Sumer and Akkad until the latter part of the second millennium was the topic of inexhaustible number of studies in the past century.624 Opinions differ markedly when it comes to the ritual as a whole and to its respective aspects. Here, I will only briefly evaluate the role of this rite as a part of the dynasty´s ideological scheme culminating in Šulgi´s establishment of divine rule over Babylonia. Although the ‘sacred marriage’ (ἱερός γάμος) could have been a ritual of considerable significance, current knowledge of its possible form and purpose is extremely limited because of the enigmatic nature of the available evidence. Therefore, there is a whole range of hypotheses, each of which seems partly plausible, yet a general consensus could not and cannot be reached, as is all too often the case in Assyriology. Nevertheless, it is generally assumed that a rite at least similar to the ‘sacred marriage’ as it is supposed to be known from later sources was practiced already in archaic communities to ensure a smooth transmission of fertility to nature and the people, even though there is to date no conclusive textual evidence proving such a practice. While there are some images from those times suggesting a ‘sacred marriage’ context, they are Cf. Waetzoldt (1991), p. 640: ‘… daß in den Texten ein sehr genauer Unterschied gemacht wird zwischen dem König als regierendem Herrscher und dem König als göttliches Wesen. … Auch über den Tod hinaus wird unterschieden zwischen dem toten Herrscher, dem man an den Totenopferstätten (ki-anag) Opfer darbrachte, und dem Gott-König, der weiterhin in seinen Tempeln oder in den Tempeln anderer Gottheiten kultisch verehrt wurde.’ 624 See Lapinkivi (2004) for a substantial list of previous studies. Cf. Renger (1972–1975), J. Cooper (1993b). For critical notes to the modern perception of the ritual see Sallaberger (1999), pp. 155–6. 623

202

unreliable because they bear no inscriptions and therefore could have been related to different situations.625 Thus, the first sporadic evidence undoubtedly referring to the closest relationship of the ruler with the goddess Inana, i.e. the relationship of the assumed ritual´s typical protagonists, is preserved in inscriptions of Mesanepada of Ur (2563–2524), Eanatum of Lagaš and Narªmsuõen. Besides, the ‘sacred marriage’ is also alluded to in epic tales featuring the legendary Urukean ruler Enmerkar (around 2700?) but those texts were redacted in the Ur III period, by which time the ‘sacred marriage’ was a firmly established component of royal rhetoric. Therefore, such allusions to the assumed ritual are a proof of Ur III reworking of older literature, focusing on Uruk and its traditions, rather than a proof of ‘sacred marriage’ in the time of Enmerkar.626 Next, there is some evidence of the ‘sacred marriage’ in the texts of the Lagaš II Dynasty, especially of its most illustrious member Gudea. Those are, however, related exclusively to the ‘marriage’ of local patron deities Ninëirsu and Baba during the New Year festivities. The ruler participated only as a ‘supplier’ of ‘wedding gifts’, so perhaps as a sort of divine bridegroom´s best man, and thus was cultically involved, yet did not cross the boundaries between the human and divine spheres.627 Obviously, textual attestations of the ‘sacred marriage’ are scanty and problematic until Ur III times, or Šulgi´s time respectively. By then, the ‘sacred marriage’ took its ‘classical’ form, meaning that the king was identified with the legendary Urukean ruler, a god of vegetation and fertility, shepherd Dumuzi. His partner, the major Urukean deity Inana, a goddess of fertility and sensual love, of course playing herself in the texts, might have been represented in reality by a woman related to the king (and/or the cult of Inana) or by Inana´s cultic statue.628 Scholars advancing the hypothesis that textual evidence with a ‘sacred marriage’ context alludes to an actual cultic custom, moreover performed in natura, suggested that the woman involved could have been the queen or a priestess,629 an ereš-diëir priestess,630 one of the king´s lukur wives,631 a lagar-priestess,632

625

See J. Cooper (1972–1975). The ‘sacred marriage’ in this period is dealt with by Steinkeller (1999). Cf. Lapinkivi (2004), pp. 10–11. 626 Renger (1972–1975), pp. 257–8; J. Cooper (1993b), p. 83; Lapinkivi (2004), pp. 59–60. 627 See M. Lambert and Tournay (1952), pp. 76–83; Greengus (1990), pp. 50–1; Lapinkivi (2004), pp. 62– 3. For indirect evidence of possible celebration of the ‘sacred marriage’ in Early Dynastic Lagaš see Steinkeller (1999), pp. 119–20, 131–2 (a priestly office of ‘Nanše´s spouse’). 628 For a definition, terminology and the forms of ‘sacred marriage’ in various periods see Lapinkivi (2004), p. 1; Renger (1972–1975), pp. 255–8; J. Cooper (1993b), p. 82. 629 Jacobsen (1976), pp. 36–7. 630 Hallo (1987), p. 49. 631 Kramer (1969c), pp. 18, 93.

203

or one of the nu-gig/nu-u8-gig (qadištu/ištar‰tu) or nu-bar/nu-u8-bar (kulmaš‰tu) women, for Inana herself is often so designated in relevant texts.633 However, if the ‘sacred marriage’ was indeed cultically performed it was likely a symbolic act accompanied by recitation of texts and perhaps also by ritual gestures before a statue of Inana.634 For it is hardly conceivable that any human female could have reached such social and religious importance to be able to play the role of a goddess in a rite which in such a case would have been the only one performed in natura. The only possible scenario would be that the king could have acted as an en-priest in accordance with the possible archaic tradition but then his partner must have been the queen (nin). However, there is no evidence for such a scenario and it is true that an actual performance of the ‘sacred marriage’ would have reduced its religious, or mystic, value.635 Moreover, one should bear in mind that all late third and early second millennium ‘sacred marriage’ evidence is embedded in literature, either in epics, love poetry or royal hymns. In view of the lack of hard data proving any (actual or symbolic) performance of the rite it is fairly possible that the ‘sacred marriage’ was not cultically performed at all. Even though the Dumuzi-Inana songs contain liturgical subscripts and rubrics, which speaks for their cultic setting, it is not evidence that their recitation accompanied the performance of the ‘sacred marriage’. It has to be emphasized that extant Sumerian love songs contain no information on the actual nature of the ritual(s) they were written for. One can only speculate that those texts were read during some fertility rites but there is no evidence of the form of the rituals let alone of the king´s personal involvement.636 The image of the king as making love to Inana was of course suitable to the Ur III kings´ self-representation, especially after the deification of Šulgi, as well as to that of the Isin-Larsa period rulers who retained formal attributes of divinity. Nevertheless, it could well have been just propagandistic rhetoric, however subtle and detailed, instilling the notion of the king´s intimate relationship with the goddess into the minds of the 632

Alster (1971). According to Alster, Dumuzi would then have been embodied not by the king but by an en-priest. 633 Sefati (1998), p. 81. 634 See Leick (1994), pp. 97–110; Frymer-Kensky (1992), pp. 51–3. 635 Steinkeller (1999), pp. 133–4. This view, to which I tend too, has recently been supported by the following remark by Lapinkivi (2004), p. 77: ‘Yet this symbolically performed union really took place in the minds of the observers, and hence the king really made love to Inanna. As a parallel, according to Christian Church, the sacramental bread of the Holy Communion is Christ´s body and the sacramental wine his blood, yet the individual believer does not really eat human flesh or drink human blood while partaking of the Eucharist.’ 636 For the latest discussion of this issue see Klein and Sefati (2008), especially pp. 614–8. They insist that the entire corpus of the Dumuzi-Inana songs was embedded in the cult and related to the ‘sacred marriage’.

204

audience but with no reflection in reality.637 Even the difficult Old Babylonian ‘sacred marriage’ literary evidence, such as Iddindagªn A and the ‘Love Poem of R‰m-Sîn and Nanaya’, testifies in my opinion more to the pains taken by Old Babylonian kings to at least formally retain their divine prerogatives, to which the idea of the ‘sacred marriage’ seems to have provided the key, than to relate more specific and lively information on an actual ritual.638 Let us have a close look at the Ur III evidence now. There are two allusions to the ‘sacred marriage’ in the Urnamma hymns. The first comes from hymn Urnamma C. Although there is no reference to Inana, the context is unmistakable: 73 iii 22

ëi6-par4-ra gada nam-mi-lá

74 iii 23

ëiš-nú ge-rin-na ki-nú du10-ba mu-°nú¿

75 iii 24

ùë-e ú nir-ëál bí-íb-°gu7?¿-en ƒen-ki-im-du-bi-me-en

76 iii 25

sipa zi udu?-ni diri ëál-la-me-en

Urnamma C (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 214). 73

In the ëipar I dress (myself) in linen cloth,

74

I lie down on a bed (covered with) flowers, on a sweet bed,

75

I let the people eat tasty food, I am their Enkimdu,

76

I am the righteous shepherd who lets his ‘herds’ proliferate.

This passage makes clear that the ‘sacred marriage’, the king´s lying down on the flowery and sweet bed, was supposedly performed in the temple precinct perhaps of Inana´s Eana temple at Uruk. Further, the purpose of the rite is the increase of fertility. Quite interesting is the indirect identification of the king with Dumuzi as taking over the function of Dumuzi´s rival in love, the ploughman Enkimdu, who failed in wooing Inana according to the ‘Disputation between the Shepherd and the Farmer’. Accordingly, the king is designated as the shepherd of the people and their herds in the concluding line of this passage.

637

For the idea of the ‘sacred marriage’ as a literary construct not reflected in space and time whatsoever see especially Sweet (1994). 638 For the editions of the texts see Reisman (1969); Sigrist and Westenholz (2008). The most recent detailed discussion of Iddindagªn A was offered by P. Jones (2003). For a different view on the meaning of the composition´s ‘sacred marrige’ rhetoric see Michalowski (2008b), pp. 40–1.

205

The second reference to the ‘sacred marriage’ in the Urnamma hymnal corpus occurs in the ‘Death of Urnamma’ when Inana bewails the deceased monarch´s attractiveness as forever lost: 212 ëi6-par4 kù èš é-an-na-ëu10 ‹ur-saë-[gin7?] mu-un-°ge4!?¿-eš 213 sipa-ëu10 ‹i-li-a-ni nu-uš-ma-an-°ku4¿-ku4 / ëá-e ba-ra-ku4-ku4-dè-en 214 kala-ga-ëu10 ú-šem-gin7 edin-na nu-uš-ma-da-mú-àm 215 ºmá i7-da-gin7 kar si-ga-ba nu-uš-ma-da-ge-na Urnamma A (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 138). 212 My shrine Eana, the pure ëipar, towers up(?) like a mountain, 213 if only my shepherd could bring in his charms to me / (otherwise) I will definitely not step in, 214 if only my strong one sprouted for me like steppe greenery, 215 if only he was as steadfast for me as a river boat in its quiet quay. This passage gives the precise location of the ëipar as the sacred precinct of Inana´s temple in Uruk which the attractive king used to enter in order to supposedly perform the ‘sacred marriage’ rite. Inana´s wailing shows motifs common in compositions lamenting the disappearance of vegetation and fertility gods (Dumuzi, Damu, Ninëišzida), especially in l. 214. It also stresses the notion of tranquility and order resulting from Inana´s relationship with the king, disrupted by his death (l. 215). Though embedded in ‘sacred marriage’ context, both passages quoted consist of literary metaphors and neither of them reveals if the ‘sacred marriage’ was actually performed. What they do reveal, however, is the importance of understanding the king as having an intimate relationship to Inana for Ur III royal ideology. Especially the passage from the ‘Death of Urnamma’ shows the perceived significance of that relationship for cosmic order, as suggested by the mourning Inana´s threat. The ‘Death of Urnamma’ also contains an indirect reference to the ‘sacred marriage’ in the designation of the goddess Ëeštinana as the king´s, i.e. Dumuzi´s, sister (ll. 127a–128). This motif, which may have had a real dimension in the identification of Urnamma´s queen Watartum with the goddess, is found in the Šulgi hymns too. Of course, the ‘Death of Urnamma’ was composed during Šulgi´s reign and the most detailed description of the ‘sacred marriage’ from the Ur III period is found in Šulgi D+X. Thus,

206

it seems that the image of the kings of Ur as Inana´s partners developed gradually in Urnamma´s time and culminated in the era of Šulgi. While it is impossible to tell anything about the ‘actual’ nature of the ‘sacred marriage’ from the evidence of the Urnamma texts, it is clear that this metaphor served well the dynastic legitimation deriving to a great degree from the proclaimed kinship of the king with the Urukean gods and legendary rulers based on the real kinship with Utu‹eëal.639 Now, let us have a look at the ‘sacred marriage’ evidence in the Šulgi hymns. The main source is hymn D+X, more specifically ll. 1–38 of the X composition describing the king´s triumphant journey from the battlefield to Uruk where he, laden with lavish offerings, pays a visit to Inana in the Eana. The goddess, marvelling at Šulgi´s fascinating appearance, first recalls her previous nuptial preparations and then the consummation of the ‘sacred marriage’ in an extensive love song composed in the Emesal: 9

sipa-zi šul-gi-re šà-ki-áë túgma6 túg mu-mu4

10

‹i-li men-šè saë-ëá mi-ni-ëál

… 14

lugal!-ra ù-mu-un-ra

15

a mu-na-a-tu5-a-gin7

16

su!-ba du5-mu-zi-ra a mu-na-a-tu5-a-gin7

17

im da-ëu10 šu tag-ge4 du11-ga-gin7

18

ù šembulug-ga ka-ëu10 gun5-gun5-na-gin7

19

šem-zi ì-bí-mà mi-ni-mar-mar-ra-gin7 Šulgi X (Klein 1981b, p. 136).

9

The ‘loving heart’, righteous shepherd Šulgi dressed himself in the ‘royal garment’,

10

(the wig of) charm he placed on the head like a crown.

… 14

Since for the king, for the lord,

15

I bathed,

639 Dumuzi himself was regarded as a legendary ruler according to the Sumerian King List which, however, lists two Dumuzi´s: the shepherd, an antediluvian king of Badtibira, and the fisherman, the successor of Lugalbanda(!!) from the First Dynasty of Uruk. Yet it is impossible to take information from the ideologically charged pseudohistorical king list as evidence for Dumuzi´s historicity.

207

16

since for the shepherd Dumuzi I bathed,

17

since my hips were rubbed with paste

18

and my mouth was dappled with resin,

19

since my eyes were made up with kohl…

The detailed, yet often unclear, description of the love act follows. Let me quote the most telling lines here:

22

ù-mu-un ì-ná kù-ƒinanana-šè

23

su-ba du5-mu-zi-dè

24

úr-ra ga ì-du8-a-na-gin7

… 28

síg-úr-ëu10 mà-an-sù[‹?-sù‹?-a-gin7]

29

síg-pa-ëu10 a-ne in-da-an-du11-ga-gin7

30

gal4-kù-mà šu bí-in-ma-ra-gin7 Šulgi X (Klein 1981b, p. 136).

22

Since the lord lying down by holy Inana,

23

shepherd Dumuzi,

24

spread (me with) milk in (his) lap,

… 28

Since he ruffled the hair of my lap for me,

29

since he played with my … hair,

30

since he touched my pure vulva…

The ‘sacred marriage’ passage shows that Šulgi was regarded as Dumuzi, the goddess´ divine husband. He is also designated as the ‘lord’, although his titulature did not contain the ancient title ‘lord of Uruk’. Šulgi is called the ‘lord’ in his hymn G (l. 50) as well, in a context of offering a sacrificial meal in the Ekur. That would mean that the priestly title was attributed to the king when shown as a pious ruler performing his cultic duties. Yet, it cannot be said if this applies to the ‘sacred marriage’ too, because it is unknown whether it was indeed a ritual or just a literary metaphor showing in quite explicit terms how close the (divine) king was to the divine sphere. Surely, in the designation ‘lord’ for Dumuzi/the king one cannot see evidence for the ritual practice

208

of the ‘sacred marriage’, because it does not have to be the priestly title (en) here but can have the basic meaning ‘lord’, by no means a surprising epithet of a god/king.640 After Inana´s love song there comes a sequence of her blessings for the king (ll. 39– 72), obviously as a reward for the pleasure that her royal ‘husband’ gave her: 34

ki-ná-a mí mà-ni-du11-ga-a-gin7

35

ù-mu-un-ra mí da-an-du11

36

na-ám-zé-éb du10-mu-ni-íb-tarar

… 40

na-ám-sipa-kur-kur-ra

41

na-ám-šè du10-mu-ni-íb-tarar

… 46

ƒinana dumu-ƒsuõen-na-ke4

47

šul-gi dumu-ƒnin-sún-ka-ra

48

nam mu-ni-íb-tar-re

49

mè-a igi-šè du-zu ëá-me-èn

50

šen-šen-na kušx(= SA›AR)-gin7 tukul-lá-zu-me-èn

51

unken-na inim-mud-ëál-zu-me-èn

52

‹ar-ra-an-na zi-šà-ëál-zu ëá-me-èn

Šulgi X (Klein 1981b, p. 138). 34

Since he caressed me in bed,

35

I will speak lovingly to the lord,

36

I will decree a favourable destiny for him.

… 40

The leadership of all the lands,

41

I will decree as (his) destiny.

… 46

Inana, daughter of Suõen,

48

decrees (the following) destiny

47

for Šulgi, son of Ninsun:

640 Nevertheless, scholars often tend to understand the word ‘lord’ only as a priestly title, which would corroborate the notion that the ‘sacred marriage’ was an actual cultic ceremony. E.g. Klein (1991), p. 298, n. 31: ‘In these later periods, while many major deities (including even Inanna of Uruk) had an en-priest or an en-priestess, devoted to their cult, the king could claim the prerogative to function as an en-priest, in the sacred marriage or other relevant cultic activities.’

209

49

‘I am the one who walks in front of you in battle,

50

I am the one who like a squire carries (your) weapon in combat,

51

I am eloquent for you in the assembly,

52

I am your encouragement on campaign.’

There follows the most complete list of regalia so far attested in all royal hymns, assuring the king of his capability to rule (ll. 57–67). The interpretation of the ‘sacred marriage’ passage is entirely dependent on the attitude to the text as a whole. If one chooses to understand Šulgi D+X as a description of the king´s immediate response to the killing of his father by the ‘Gutians’, it is possible to deem the ‘sacred marriage’ an accompanying ritual to Šulgi´s coronation. This seems to be bolstered by the fact that the episode in Šulgi X constitutes merely a part of a continuous sequence of blessings, according to which the king was welcome and legitimized by Inana, Utu, Ninazu and finally Nanna. However, the other interpretation, understanding Šulgi D+X as a composition meant to mark the beginning of Šulgi´s warlike policy, and perhaps celebrating his deification too,641 is likewise justified. Especially if one takes Šulgi D+X as a ‘deification’ hymn, the ‘sacred marriage’ and investiture passages fit very well together, providing a rationale for the complete transposition of Šulgi to the divine realm. After all, one must not forget that all third and early second millennium references to the ‘sacred marriage’ involving a royal figure occur in texts either directly commissioned by or at least mentioning deified kings.642 Even though one can object that there are allusions to the ‘sacred marriage’ in two Urnamma hymns as well, it has been demonstrated above that those allusions are not very explicit and at least in case of hymn Urnamma A occur in a text surely composed after the king´s death. 641

Renger´s (1972–1975), p. 257, objection that a later conferral of regalia upon the king would make little sense is unconvincing. One should bear in mind that the coronation rhetoric could have served the reactualization of the past coronation rites, thus re-confirming the ruler´s legitimacy. See J. Cooper (1993b), pp. 86–7. Alternatively, that rhetoric could have been linked to Šulgi´s deification, likely demanding his second coronation as a god-king. In that case, the investiture passage would constitute a reminder of the king´s past coronation and a celebration of the recent one at the same time. 642 Cf. already Frankfort (1978), p. 297: ‘Perhaps we hold here the clue to the problem of the deification of kings in Mesopotamia. It may well be that only those kings were deified who had been commanded by a goddess to share her couch. In a general way the kings who use the divine determinative before their names belong to the same period as the texts mentioning the marriage of kings and goddesses…’ Although I would rather say that only those kings who were deified saw fit to present themselves as Inana´s lovers, I generally agree with Frankfort´s opinion. A similar view was more recently voiced by Frymer-Kensky (1992), p. 61: ‘The very human god-kings had to find a way to associate the king closely with the gods, ideologically and psychologically, in their own and the public´s eyes. To do this, yet another paradigm of divine human relationships was developed, the metaphor of spouse.’ For a recent discussion of Inana as the source of a ruler´s power see Westenholz (2000), especially pp. 81–3.

210

The purpose of the rite as depicted in Šulgi D+X is Inana´s blessing for the king, her decree of ‘favourable destiny’, never to be altered (X, ll. 71–2). Interestingly, Inana does not feature here in her aspect of a fertility and sensual love goddess but as a warlike deity (ll. 49–52). This role of hers accords with the composition´s central topic and with the blessings of other deities. At the same time it refers to her Akkadian hypostasis Ištar, which seems to have been made clear by the poets in calling her the ‘daughter of Suõen’ (l. 46), while the moon-god is usually called Nanna or Ašimbabbar elsewhere in the text.643 All of this suggests another possible purpose of the ‘sacred marriage’ in Šulgi´s times, namely the transmission of the goddess´ martial prowess to the king, ensuring the victorious outcome of his campaigns. The triumphant hero would then offer the goddess perhaps a portion of the spoils of war (ll. 5–8), whereupon Inana would recall the pleasures of the ‘sacred marriage’ and assure Šulgi of her enduring support in future battles. This idea is tempting, especially considering the influence of Narªmsuõen, yet there is nothing to support it in hymn D where one would expect to find Inana at least among deities symbolically marching to the battlefield by Šulgi´s side (ll. 292–320). Although a gap of about ten lines at the end of that list of supportive gods possibly could explain the absence of Inana, the only explicit underpinning from the D text for the above idea could be l. 249, presumably relating Inana´s hatred for the enemy land: ƒinana nin-mè-ke4 saë-ki i[m?-ma-da-an-gíd?], ‘Inana, the Lady of Battle, frowned upon it’. An indirect support to the idea can also be seen in the triple mention of the goddess Ninegala in Šulgi D+X. She is referred to in the beginning of text D as a deity cherishing Šulgi like a pure Dilmun date-palm (l. 34: ëišimmar-dilmun-kù-gin7 ƒnin-é-galke4 mí-zi-du11-ga-me-èn), then immediately after Inana´s blessing following the ‘sacred marriage’ in text X, l. 74, where the king is called ‘the one who knows her joyful heart’ (šà-‹úl-la-ƒnin-é-gal-ka zu), and finally in the initial line of the concluding praise of Šulgi who ‘took seat on the sacred dais in the palace of Ninegala’ (141. é-gal-ma‹-ƒnin-é-gall[a?]-kam bára-kù-ga-a dúr ba-a-ëar). These three lines show the king´s relationship to that goddess who was, however, identified with Inana from the beginning of the Old Babylonian period at the latest. The mention of Ninegala at the quite important places in the hymn is undoubtedly meaningful.644 The hypothesis also agrees with the understanding of the ruler as Dumuzi in the ‘sacred marriage’, because besides his Apart from l. 46 of Šulgi X, the moon-god is called Suõen only three times in the whole of Šulgi D+X (D, ll. 50, 300; X, l. 140). 644 For a discussion of Ninegala´s identification with Inana see Klein (1981b), commentary to ll. 74–7 of composition X, p. 154; Lapinkivi (2004), p. 48. See also ibid., n. 309. 643

211

fertility aspect even Dumuzi took on features of a warrior if his spouse was described as the ‘Lady of Battle’. Another open statement of the king´s close relationship to Inana, albeit without any mention of the ‘sacred marriage’, is l. 79 of Šulgi A, designating the goddess as the spouse of the monarch who feasts with her at a divine banquet. Other pieces of evidence regarding the king´s identification with Dumuzi occur in hymns P b, ll. 43–4; C, l. 93´; E, l. 21, mentioning the goddess Ëeštinana in the capacity of the king´s, i.e. Dumuzi´s, sister. The last piece of ‘sacred marriage’ evidence pertaining to Šulgi is a Dumuzi-Inana type love song, counted among the king´s hymns as Šulgi Z.645 The diction of this short fragmentary composition is entirely different from the presentation of the ‘sacred marriage’ in Šulgi D+X. Šulgi Z does not describe the rite but alludes to it in agricultural terms, which makes the purpose of the ‘sacred marriage’ as viewed by this text´s authors evident: here is concerned the fertility of the fields whose securing is, however, the task of the ruler, not Inana. Such a reversal of roles is also encountered in other relevant texts, yet the king thus secures only the welfare of the goddess (in this case with offerings as the result of the ‘fertilization’ of soil). Of course, this task goes beyond his function of the mediator of divine blessings.646 Although Inana´s name is missing from the poem, one can be certain that relevant statements were made by the goddess, because the protagonists of the text address each other as ‘brother’ and ‘sister’, which is a usual feature of the Dumuzi-Inana songs. Šulgi appears in his role of Dumuzi, as witnessed by his title ù-mu-un, ‘lord’, in l. 7 (cf. ll. 14–16 and 22–23 of Šulgi X above). The king is also seen as a farmer here, perhaps due to the nature of the text speaking only about grain, grapes, trees, a river bed, fields and a garden. The poem is completely silent as to the temporal setting of the supposed rite. However, this formal characteristic of the Šulgi Z composition is valid only if one assumes that it is really Šulgi who was meant by the name of Šulgi. This is by no means certain, for the royal name could have served as a code for any male. Moreover, there is a duplicate of this poem mentioning

645

Editio princeps Kramer (1969a). Cf. ETCSL, 2.4.2.26, ‘A love song of Šulgi (Šulgi Z)’. Lapinkivi (2004), p. 123: ‘The king is equally described as bringing abundance for his bride, Inanna. However, in these cases it is personal prosperity for Inanna – gifts or well-being for the bride – and cannot be included in the king´s task as a distributing channel.’ 646

212

Š¥suõen.647 Therefore, one can safely take only the lines from Šulgi D+X as unequivocal evidence of the ‘sacred marriage’ in his era. Regarding the ‘sacred marriage’ during Šulgi´s reign it is necessary to mention a theory related to l. 18 of hymn Šulgi G, dealing with the king´s birth. William Hallo, elaborating on Jacobsen´s hypothesis that the birth episode in Šulgi G reflected the ‘sacred marriage’ of the king and Nanna´s en-priestess, suggested that procreation was the crucial purpose of the ‘rite’ resulting in the birth of a simultaneously human and divine heir.648 Yet, this could hardly have been the case, because Hallo´s reading of the birth episode assumes that Urnamma would have impregnated his own daughter.649 Furthermore, if Urnamma engendered children with the en-priestess of Nanna, his daughter, the only duty of the queen in this respect would have been to give birth to that daughter who – after her installation in office – would have celebrated the ‘sacred marriage’ with her father until a son would have been born.650 Actually, there is not a single piece of evidence supporting the notion that the rite was performed in order to beget a child.651 Moreover, if the ‘sacred marriage’ was performed at all, it is quite likely that it took place only symbolically, in which case its ‘procreation purpose’ is excluded. Now, let us deal with the place of the ‘sacred marriage’ in Šulgi´s royal ideology as such. Šulgi is in his royal hymns always described as an ideal king, continually assured of his legitimacy by various deities. He fulfils all his duties and in turn receives divine blessings. Thus, the inclusion of the ‘sacred marriage’ rhetoric in hymn D+X and other allusions to the ‘sacred marriage’ elsewhere in his texts seem to have constituted a mere brick, whatever its importance may have been, in the wall of his royal selfrepresentation. Yet, assuming that the ‘sacred marriage’ represents a clue to Mesopotamian divine kingship, as already touched upon above, and reading the relevant Šulgi texts with that assumption in mind, its eminent importance for the first southern god-king will reveal itself. For the sake of easier orientation the following diagram is presented here:

647

See Klein (1981b), p. 43, n. 84. Besides, there are no liturgical subscripts and rubrics in this text, which makes it different even from the Dumuzi-Inana songs, the majority of which contains them, thereby testifying to some sort of cultic use of those songs. 648 Male en-priest/the king (Dumuzi) + an ereš-diëir priestess/female en-priestess (Inana). See Hallo (1987), pp. 48–9; Hallo (1996), pp. 196–8. See also p. 139 above. 649 Hallo himself admitted that. See the previous footnote for references. For a similarly dubious theory of the ‘sacred marriage’ as a rite accompanying the installation of high-priestesses which exhibits virtually the same problems see Frayne (1985), pp. 12–22. Cf. J. Cooper´s (1993b), pp. 87–8, critical notes. 650 This objection counts among the other raised against Hallo´s theory especially by J. Cooper (1993b), pp. 89–90. 651 See already van Dijk (1954), p. 84, n. 9.

213

214

The above diagram constitutes a summary of Šulgi´s royal ideology, whose respective elements are dispersed in the texts, in its three dimensions: mythical, i.e. idealized and ‘deificatory’, cultic and political, all of which were set within a framework of family, or social, relationships. The biderictionality of arrows in the chart demonstrates the mutuality of relationships between the individuals involved. Now, if read from Šulgi to Enlil in the mythical dimension, the diagram´s interpretation will be the following: the king was adopted, in accord with dynastic ideology, into the family of the Urukean goddess Ninsun and her husband Lugalbanda. As a result, his human filiation was suppressed. By virtue of that adoption he became a brother of Gilgameš, which created a direct link between him and the archaic Urukean heroic past, thereby securing his legitimacy. He also acquired a ‘throne-name’ relating that the patron god of Uruk, An, knew him among the gods. This can be seen as the first step of Šulgi´s elevation to the divine realm. As a member of an Urukean divine family the king, shepherd of the people, was easily identified with Dumuzi, the divine shepherd and legendary ruler, thus becoming not only a brother of the goddess Ëeštinana but above all the husband of the Urukean chief goddess Inana. The ‘sacred marriage’ rhetoric in Šulgi D+X, irrespective of the understanding of the supposed rite behind it, amply testifies to the intimate nature of their relationship, thereby leaving no doubt that it was meant to demonstrate in plain terms that Šulgi was the only one capable of penetrating the divine sphere, and thus that he himself must indeed have been divine. Moreover, Šulgi´s identification with Dumuzi can perhaps explain the unique statement in hymn Šulgi E (l. 9) about the king´s coronation in Eridu, for Dumuzi was a son of Enki, the city god of Eridu. This can be seen as the second step of Šulgi´s elevation to the divine realm. Šulgi´s ‘marriage’ to Inana made him on the one hand the brother-in-law of the sungod Utu, regarded as Nanna´s son in Ur III times, and on the other hand the son-in-law of the goddess´ father Nanna, the city god of the capital. Therefore, the ‘sacred marriage’ helped the king establish kinship relations not only to the patron goddess of the dynastic centre of the state but also to her brother Utu, accordingly seen as the king´s ‘brother and friend’ like Gilgameš (Šulgi A, l. 76; B, ll. 40, 123), and to the city god of the political centre. Furthermore, by virtue of the familial relationship to Nanna Šulgi became a distant relative of the ultimate source of divine blessings and powers, Enlil, whose parentage of Nanna was very much emphasized by the Ur III kings. Thus, the ‘sacred marriage’ provided Šulgi with a distinct opportunity to become not only a

215

god-king but truly an ideal unifying element, for his ‘familial’ royal ideology uniting all the desirable old traditions into one whole with the divine king as its mainstay communicated the notion that without Šulgi the cosmic order would collapse. The diagram, derived from the statements of texts about Šulgi, also works in the opposite direction and is in full accord with the royal ideology revealed in the Šulgi texts. Enlil thought up a great thing, namely the birth of Šulgi. Then he was asked by his son Nanna to let the great thing come true, to allow Šulgi´s birth and confer the rule over Babylonia on him. Thus Urnamma, the king of Nanna´s city and a son of Ninsun and Lugalbanda, engendered Šulgi who thereby became another son of Ninsun and Lugalbanda. As such, he met all the requirements for his identification with Dumuzi and became the husband of Nanna´s daughter Inana. All of that combined made him into a god-king, a ruler of unquestionable legitimacy, a pillar and living image of the divine order. At least that was the way in which Šulgi´s scholars seem to have sought to present their master to the audience of their compositions. The cultic dimension of Šulgi´s royal ideology supplements and encloses the circle of family relationships in an interesting fashion. Since Inana, a daughter of the city god of the metropolis and Urukean patron goddess, was betrothed to Dumuzi, the daughters of that god´s personification in the ‘sacred marriage’ were in return ‘engaged’ to Inana´s father, Nanna, as his en-priestesses, i.e. cultic servants or, symbolically, his ‘consorts’.652 Also the peculiar distribution of cultic roles in Uruk can be explained by the present model of understanding Ur III royal ideology. Urnamma´s use of the title ‘lord (en) of Uruk’ seemingly conflicts with the fact that his son was appointed the en-priest of Inana in that city. Yet if the above model is applied to this problem, it stands to reason that in the mythical dimension it was the king, son of Ninsun and Lugalbanda, husband of Inana celebrating the ‘sacred marriage’ with her, who was seen as the ‘lord of Uruk’. In the cultic dimension, however, it was the king´s son who was seen as Inana´s ‘consort’. Yet, as far as I know he never had anything to do with the ‘sacred marriage’ because he simply was not the ‘lord of Uruk’, i.e. the king (or god-king in case of Šulgi and his successors). His relationship to the goddess was symbolic and so to say liturgical, whereas the king´s relationship to her was deemed ‘real’. It is obvious then that the cultic dimension of Ur III royal ideology lay below the mythical one in accord with the hierarchical family relationships of the House of Ur to the gods.

652

The notion that Nanna´s en-priestesses were his ‘spouses’ again predates Šulgi. It is attested already for En‹eduana. See Westenholz (1989), p. 556.

216

The political dimension of this ideological paradigm constitutes only a mundane variation on the same theme. The diagram contains the two known political marriages of Šulgi´s daughters. By virtue of that marriages Šulgi shackled the two foreign rulers to himself with chains of familial relationships corresponding to his own relationships to the gods in the mythical dimension. Just as he was engendered by Ninsun and Lugalbanda and became Nanna´s son-in-law in consequence of his ‘sacred marriage’ to Inana, Šulgi begot his daughters and the respective foreign rulers became his sons-inlaw, thereby having been charged with the same responsibilities toward Šulgi (and through him toward the major gods of Sumer) as he himself was charged with toward the respective deities. At least, this seems to have been the ideologically desirable scenario which, nevertheless, did not always come true (the case of Anšan). It follows from the above discussion that the aim of Šulgi´s ideological paradigm was to establish as intimate personal relationships with major gods of the dynastic, political and religious centres of the realm as possible. That goal was achieved by skilful use and combination of several ancient traditions, the result of which was almost inevitably the monarch´s deification. Only all the elements combined provided his claim to divinity with a secure basis. The Early Dynastic tradition of the ruler´s divine filiation bound to a certain place (Uruk in Šulgi´s case) was not a sufficient argument for his deification. Nor did the ‘sacred marriage’ tradition surpass local limitations, and thus could not ensure the king´s deification. Even the merging of those two could not justify the deification of the monarch, because the limits of those traditions would have stopped his aspirations to divinity in the suburbs of Ur and his claims would have been seen as unjustified and locally based by, for instance, the Nippur clergy. On the other hand, the revival of the ancient notion of Nanna´s descent from Enlil was likewise useless from the ‘deificatory’ point of view if the previous two preconditions were absent. Only all three components combined enabled the ruler to ideologically establish firm hierarchical relationships to his divine parents, wife, father-in-law and his father. Thus, he became the unifying element in the branched divine family, which, of course, literally necessitated his deification. Obviously, the fact that the dynasty came from Uruk, Inana´s hometown, and resided in Ur, the city of her father, considerably facilitated the establishment of the net of social relationships. The last step needed was the direct link to Enlil which was established by Urnamma. While it was already Urnamma who introduced most of the crucial parts of the above ideological model, the idea of the ‘sacred marriage’ as a useful

217

ideological construct was not yet fully developed during his reign (see above for text quotations and discussion), and thus one of the key ingredients for deification was missing. Similarly, the importance of Nippur, Uruk and Ur for Urnamma´s legitimacy is clearly highlighted in his texts, yet its full ideological potential was revealed only in the praise poetry of deified Šulgi, especially in the unprecedented hymns G, P and F. Furthermore, Urnamma was preoccupied with political consolidation and unification of Babylonia, and therefore his ideology met only the vital need of legitimacy during his reign. Moreover, he spent a rather short time on the throne and did not show much interest in expansive policy. Even Šulgi, who finally achieved the ideological consolidation and unification of Babylonia, did not consider it wise to turn himself into the pillar of the new religio-political order, i.e. into the god-king, until his power was unquestionable and he started to desire control of the territories and possessions of the neighbouring lands.653 VI.2.3) Implications of Šulgi´s Deification Šulgi´s successful concept of the divine king left its mark on a whole era of Mesopotamian history, and its consequences were many. Only a general and brief discussion of the most substantial of them will be offered here. In the first place it was the worship of the king during his lifetime, an unprecendented phenomenon in the Sumerian tradition which the Ur III dynasty espoused.654 It is known that statues of Šulgi found their place in chapels of some temples where they received regular offerings (BWAth 6 p. 45 6 [Š40-08-05], rev. l. 4; TCL 2 5501 [Š47-02-22], obv. ii ll. 9, 24).655 According to the texts the king also had his own temples, namely in Ëirsu, Umma, Puzrišdagªn, Guõaba and KI.AN.656 The situation in the most important cities of the realm was different. Šulgi was worshipped there only as a minor deity without proper temples,657 which was in accord with his hierarchical ideological scheme. Yet, all of this 653

Compare with the previous discussion Michalowski (1991), p. 56: ‘The new concept of divine kingship, which began with Naram-Sin but which acquired new ideological features under Šulgi and his successors, was created to provide a broader vision of societal center, one which overcame localized forms which had been anchored in the city, the temple, and the city ruler. By displacing the ideational core through a variety of symbols centered around the figure of the divine king, the larger states gained access to allegiance and domination which could not have been theirs through force and economic power alone.’ 654 See in general Hallo (1988). 655 See Kutscher (1974); Sallaberger (1999), pp. 153–4. Statues of the monarch were also woshipped in private, i.e. in residences of private persons. This practice is attested especially for king Š¥suõen. See Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 105–6. 656 Römer (1965), pp. 56, 75, nn. 445–8; AAS 18 [Š41-09], obv. l. 3; Wilcke (1974), p. 190, n. 51; Limet (1975), pp. 80–94. Reichel (2008) offers the most recent discussion of the Ur III kings´ temple cult. Here see pp. 133–4, with n. 4, p. 145, fig. 7.2. 657 See Frankfort (1978), p. 301.

218

is uncertain, because it is still unknown what exactly did the expression é-ƒšul-gi(-ra), ‘House of Šulgi’, used in relevant texts, stand for. It could have referred either to a cultic or economic establishment (‘royal estate’). But most likely the word ‘house’ encompassed both meanings, as in the case of temples of other deities. Quite telling in this respect is the case of Puzrišdagªn, called the ‘House of Šulgi’ in the variant date formula for the year Š39. Puzrišdagªn was a major crown estate and redistribution centre but apparently also a cult place of the god-king.658 The appearance of Šulgi´s palace E‹ursaë in the collection of Sumerian temple hymns and in the ‘Disputation between Tree and Reed’ as a shrine (èš é-‹ur-saë) suggests that even this building was linked to his cult. Yet, those references do not mean that the palace was a temple in the proper sense. The E‹ursaë could have been viewed as a sanctuary simply because the deified king dwelt there. Of course, it cannot be excluded that there was a sacral annex with Šulgi´s cella in the palace659 which would have served the enclosed ritual practice of royal family members. To the gradual introduction of Šulgi´s cult also testifies the sparse evidence of his priests (gala, gudu4, muš-la‹4; e.g. HLC 2 2 [AS01], rev. ii ll. 23–5; HSS 4 95, rev. l. 1; BRM 3 135 [Š48], rev. l. 4) as well as records of his ritual singers (nar, nargal, nar-lugal; e.g. CT 7 13 [Š47]; StOr 46 p. 44) and the secular personnel running the economy of his temple estates (e.g. HSS 4 4 [AS02-01], rev. i l. 10).660 Invaluable source of information are records of offerings for the king, delivered on various occasions and festivals e.g. in the Nippur cult, during the festival in the month of sowing, i.e. the fourth month, in Ëirsu, during the new moon and full moon celebrations in the fifth and twelfth month of the Ëirsu calendar, during the amar-a-a-si in the tenth month of the Ëirsu calendar, etc. (e.g. HLC 3 178, obv. l. 7; TEL 123, rev. l. 4; TCTI 1 973, obv. l. 7).661 Another significant consequence of Šulgi´s deification were the celebrations of a festival designated by his name, or the introduction of a new month itiezen-ƒšul-gi, the ‘(month) festival of Šulgi’, during which the celebrations took place, respectively. The 658

Michalowski (1991), p. 54, says the following about the nature of Šulgi´s cult as a consequence of his deification and its political purport: ‘The focus of the organization of charisma was unquestionably the deification of the king. The consequence of this act was to identify the ruler with the central zone of values of the society. A statue of the deified king now had a place in the temples of other gods, most notably in the central shrine of Enlil at Nippur. Actual temples, or more precisely, temple estates of the divine king, were erected anew or were established in older places of worship in the major cities of the realm. This allowed the crown to appropriate older temple estates in the name of the new god, thus scaling down the influence of local traditions and at the same time binding local élites to the new order.’ 659 Limet (1975), p. 81 with n. 8. 660 See further Limet (1975), pp. 84–91, 93–4. 661 See Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 102, 283, 285, 291–2, 296. Similarly in other localities. See ibid., pp. 86, 95.

219

month was inserted into all the key local calendars except the calendar of Nippur. The ‘festival of Šulgi’ month replaced the seventh month itiur in Ëirsu, the tenth month of the same name in Umma and similarly the eighth month in Ur. Finally, it is also attested in early Dr®him texts, using the so-called Reichskalender based on the calendar of Ur, where it occupies the seventh place in the sequence.662 Although it has been suggested by Mark Cohen that the change could have occurred on the occasion of Šulgi´s thirtieth anniversary, a recent paper by Remco de Maaijer presents evidence that the insertion of the new month into the respective calendars occurred over several years.663 The ‘month of Šulgi’ remained a part of those calendars even after his death. As for the celebrations, administrative texts enumerate vast numbers of various kinds of offerings delivered on behalf of the deified king.664 The last of the most important implications of Šulgi´s deification is the use of his name as a theophoric element in place and personal names. This practice was prevalent in the latter case. Toponyms containing the god-king´s name are the following: a-%a-arƒšul-gi (‘Cattle-pen [of] Šulgi’), i-šim-ƒšul-gi† (‘Šulgi Decreed’), ne-bé-er-ƒšul-gi† (‘Ford [of] Šulgi’), ƒšul-gi-‹é-ëál† (‘Šulgi [Is] Abundance’), ƒšul-gi-ƒnanna† (‘Šulgi [of] Nanna’), ƒšul-gi-ƒnin-líl-lá (‘Šulgi of Ninlil’), ƒšul-gi-ƒutu† (‘Šulgi [of] Utu’).665 There are also several names of irrigation canals partly made up by the monarch´s name: gú-i7-ƒšul-gi-ra (‘Bank of the Šulgi Channel’), i7-ƒšul-gi-‹é-ëál (‘Channel: Šulgi [Is] Abundance’), gú-i7ƒšul-gi-‹é-ëál (‘Bank of the Channel Šulgi [Is] Plenty’), i7-ƒšul-gi-ì-lí (‘Channel: Šulgi [Is] My Deity’), i7-ƒšul-gi-pirië (‘Channel: Šulgi [Is] a Lion’).666 As for the personal names, the theophoric element ƒšul-gi was used abundantly in their formation both during the king´s lifetime and after his demise. Motives for adopting this naming pattern are obvious. An individual bearing such a name expressed his loyalty and respect for the reigning deified ruler, or for the deceased member of the dynasty. It is no surprise therefore, that such names were borne by members of the

662 Similarly also in the calendar of Adab and the merchant archives. See Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 7–11; M. Cohen (1993), pp. 68–9, 74, 131–2, 153, 162, 182–3, 207–8, with literature. Cf. Sallaberger (1999), pp. 234–7. 663 de Maaijer (2008) with tab. 3. He also shows that the widely accepted idea of the use of the Ëirsu calendar in the entire administration of the city of Ur up to the year Š30 is completely ungrounded. 664 TCL 5 6040, rev. i ll. 1–14 (Umma); TCTI 1 875 (Ëirsu); see further Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 7–11, 172, 287–8. 665 RA 25 p. 20 AF 1 [AS04-04], obv. iii l. 12, rev. iii l. 4; CT 32 19 [IS02-04-29], obv. i l. 9; BE 3/1 36 [AS03], obv. l. 3; SumRecDreh 22 [ŠS03], obv. l. 3; UET 3 75 [ŠS01-01], rev. l. 2; TRU 288 [AS07-11-23], rev. l. 1; TCL 2 4688 [AS06-05], obv. l. 5. Edzard and G. Farber (1974), pp. 17, 86, 139, 184. 666 OrSP 47–9 511, rev. l. 2; ITT 4 7530 [Š32-07], obv. l. 12; OrSP 47–9 382 [AS08-06], rev. ii l. 9; ITT 3 6431, obv. l. 4´; RTC 412 [AS03], rev. ii l. 13. Ibid., pp. 290–1.

220

lower and middle strata of the state administration and their children.667 The same applies to several royal family members. Personal names with the theophoric ƒšul-gi were formed in a way exactly identical to the formation of other theophoric names. They can be divided into four thematic groups: names (poetically) expressing the king´s superb qualities (e.g. ƒšul-gi-kù-zu, ‘Šulgi [Is] Thoughtful’; ƒšul-gi-‹i-li-an-na, ‘Šulgi [Is] the Charm of Heaven’; a-ba-ƒšul-gi-gin7, ‘Who [Is] Like Šulgi?’), his majesty, both royal and divine, and indispensability for the land (e.g. ƒšul-gi-á-kalam-ma, ‘Šulgi [Is] the Strength of the Land’; ƒšul-gi-diëir-kalam-ma, ‘Šulgi [Is] the God of the Land’; ƒšul-gibàd, ‘Šulgi [Is] the Wall’), his function of a personal deity (e.g. ƒšul-gi-a-a-ëu10, ‘Šulgi [Is] My Father’; ƒšul-gi-á-ëu10, ‘Šulgi [Is] My Strength’), and finally his superiority to his subjects, or ‘devotees’ (ƒšul-gi-ra-kam, ‘The One of Šulgi’; ur-ƒšul-gi[-ra], ‘Šulgi´s Servant’).668 VI.3) Ideological Background of the Sumerian King List The Sumerian King List has always attracted considerable attention among scholars for two reasons: (a) because of its enormous importance for a possible reconstruction of history and (b) because of the political and ideological background which determined the layout of this text and is regarded as the decisive factor in its composition.669 It is this background which is of interest here, and therefore I will not try to evaluate the list´s reliability for a reconstruction of history. I understand the creation of the king list as an ideological necessity, for history was seen as a norm and precondition of contemporary events in Mesopotamia to which one

667 Michalowski (1991), p. 55: ‘The cult of divine kings is also reflected in the naming patterns of the bureaucracy. Following upon a precedent already established under Naram-Sin, members of Ur III officialdom gave their children names which included the name of the king as a divine element. More important, many lower and middle echelon officials changed their own names to include the divine royal element.’ Cf. Sallaberger (1999), p. 154. 668 PDT 1 376 [AS07], l. 4; TCL 2 5496, obv. l. 13; ITT 4 7064 [AS06-03], obv. l. 6; CT 7 13 [Š47], obv. ii l. 10; MVN 15 298 [ŠS04-01], obv. l. 3; CT 7 13 [Š47], obv. ii l. 7; TCL 2 5616 [AS04-09-19], obv. l. 5; HSS 4 47, rev. l. 5; CT 7 13 [Š47], obv. i l. 28; UET 3 1523, obv. l. 3. See Schneider (1949/2), pp. 351–4; Limet (1968), pp. 175–7 and passim plus catalogue; Di Vito (1993), pp. 35–40, 42, 44–5, 47, 49–50 (catalogue). See also the index and translation of the names ibid., pp. 300–5, especially p. 305. Akkadian names were, of course, formed in the same way. See Schneider (1949/2), ibid.; Limet (1968), p. 177, n. 1; Di Vito (1993), pp. 159, 161, 163–4, 166–9, 171–3, 175–80 (catalogue). See also the index and translation of the names ibid., pp. 306–17. 669 See Edzard (1980–1983); Michalowski (1983); Wilcke (1988a), (1989); Steiner (1992); J. Cooper (1993a), pp. 19–23.

221

had to refer if one wished to claim anything, let alone hegemony.670 Furthermore, the importance of lists in Mesopotamian thought has to be emphasized here, because for the Mesopotamians something that was listed also existed, which made the concept of a king list useful for a manipulation of contemporary thinking. On the basis of these assumptions, I will briefly analyse the ideological background and structure of the composition from the final version backwards, given that the final version comes from the time of the Isin I dynasty. Yet, the king list looked different during the Ur III dynasty and there are strong indications that even the Ur III version was not the original one. All Old Babylonian copies of the Sumerian King List end with the names of the Isin I dynasty rulers. The reasons for their inclusion are obvious. The insertion of the dynasty into the list strengthened its legitimacy as the heir of the previous monarchs, i.e. the Ur III kings, who despite their origins and exercise of authority from old centres of power and the seeming perfection of their political, administrative and ideological system failed to maintain their hegemony. Because the Isin kings strived to resume the successes of their predecessors and avoid their failures, they modified the king list to suit their ideological needs. Therefore, the sequence of dynasties, arranged not genealogically but geographically,671 represents a sort of ‘carousel’ indicating that there is no guarantee of permanent rulership. Even though kingship can return to certain cities, it is never for good. This concept of history explained the fall of Ur and enabled the entry of the Isin monarchs into the sequence of dynasties. All dynasties were equal according to this view, because no matter where they came from, they were sooner or later replaced in any case.672

670 With Wilcke (1988a), p. 114: ‘Wollte ein Bürger bestehende Rechte – z.B. Grundeigentum – begründen, so galt es den rechtmäßigen Erwerb – vielleicht vor weit über Hundert Jahren – nachzuweisen. Ebenso mußte sich auf Vergangenes berufen, wer Ansprüche erhob.’ 671 J. Cooper (1993a), p. 19, n. 37: ‘A “dynasty” in early Mesopotamia was not defined by kinship, but by geography. Sumerian b a l a refers to an unbroken succession of rulers exercising sovereignty from one city, who may or may not represent a single kinship line.’ Another important thing is the presumend unity of Babylonia and legitimacy of only one dynasty already from ancient times on, when the political situation was quite the opposite. This shows the ideological charge of the list in favour of dynasties claiming wholesale hegemony which, after all, formed the text. Self-evident is also the meaning of the ‘antediluvian’ section which transposes the whole sequence from primordial times until contemporary rulers to the mythical level. 672 This view accords with that advanced in the ‘Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur’, most recently treated by Römer (2004), and especially in ll. 366–9 of the ‘Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur’, see Michalowski (1989), pp. 58–9: ‘Ur was endowed with kingship, yet it was not endowed with eternal rule! … Who has ever seen a dynasty preeminent (forever)? The term of its kingship lasted long but had to exhaust itself.’ Both compositions were meant to show the inevitability of Ur´s fall, and thereby the legitimacy of Isin´s rise.

222

However, during the rule of the Ur III dynasty, and specifically Šulgi, the structure of the king list was considerably different, as shown by a new manuscript written in the reign of the second Ur III king.673 In this version, the sequence of dynasties is not cyclical but linear and proceeds from KIŠ via URUK(?), Akkad, URUK, the ‘throng’ (ummªnum) without a king, Adab and again URUK to UR. The succession of Kišite rulers is wholly coherent, without insertion of other dynasties, which was most likely the result of later transformation of the text into a cycle of royal houses.674 Characteristic formulations about the ‘turns’ of dynasties, known from the late version, are absent as well as the sums of kings, their years in office and ‘comments’ on some of the monarchs. This seems to show that the Ur III dynasty promoted a linear vision of history culminating in its own rule,675 which is in accord with its ideological selfconscience reflected chiefly in the Šulgi hymns. Yet, despite the essential difference in the view of history it is possible to find common and ideologically very significant elements in both versions of the king list. Above all, it concerns the model of the succession of sovereignty along the line KIŠ– URUK–UR, representing the desired source of legitimacy and constituting a natural geographical and historical framework of the ‘legitimation chart’, which the king list undoubtedly was. Of course, in the later version this model is repeated in cycles before ending up at Isin, whereas in the older vesion it is used only once. Nevertheless, it is a basic source of legitimacy in both cases. In connection with that line of succession it is noteworthy that the so-called ‘Tumal Chronicle’, enumerating the royal providers of Ninlil´s cult at a site close to Nippur and important chiefly in Ur III times, follows the same line.676 However, the Tumal text is not an independent source meant to underpin the Ur III kings´ legitimacy. The sequence was clearly based on the king list and the purpose of the text was pedagogical.

673

Edited and studied by Steinkeller (2003). The origin of the manuscript in Šulgi´s lifetime is eloquently proven by its concluding line 34´) °ƒ¿šul-gi lugal-ëu10 u4 sù-šè °‹a¿-ti-il: ‘Long live Šulgi, my lord.’ Ibid., p. 274. 674 Ibid., p. 285. Steinkeller, however, admits the theoretical possibility that the insertion of ‘peripheral’ dynasties (of Awan, ›amazi and Mari) into the sequence of Kišite monarchs could have occurred in the reign of Šulgi, because it constitutes politically advantageous reflection of the Ur III state´s territorial horizon. This hypothesis was advanced by Wilcke (1988a), p. 117; (1989), pp. 559–62, on the basis of the king list´s final version. 675 Steinkeller (2003) remarks that virtually the same understanding of history (the linear sequence KIŠ– URUK–AKKAD) is found in the initial lines of the Ur III literary composition ‘The Curse of Akkad’, explaining the end of the Old Akkadian empire with Narªmsuõen´s supposed sacrilege. 676 See Glassner (2004), p. 76.

223

It has recently been shown that the Tumal composition was firmly embedded in the scribal milieu, and therefore can no longer be taken as historical whatsoever.677 The importance of the above model for the Ur III kings consists in the crystal clear transfer of hegemony from the north to the south where it stopped ‘forever’ in their city of residence.678 With that simple notion is also connected the role of the Uruk I dynasty in the king list. Although this section is not preserved in the Ur III manuscript, it can be reasonably assumed that it was there,679 because its purport for Ur III ideology was enormous. In the later version one encounters the Uruk I dynasty king Lugalbanda, followed by Dumuzi and Gilgameš. The structure of this section coincides with the mythical dimension of Šulgi´s royal ideology permeating his hymnal compositions with their intricate semi-mythological literary fabric and constituting the basis of his royal as well as divine authority. The king´s relationship to Gilgameš is elaborated on especially in hymn Šulgi O, containing i.a. the following reference to the Sumerian King List in Šulgi´s address to Gilgameš:

56.

é-[ki]š†(!)-šè ºtukul-zu ba-ta-a-è

57.

ur-[s]aë-imin-bi ‹eš5!? (copy LÚxBAD)-a mi-ni-dab5

58.

[lugal-ki]š† en-me-bara2-ge4-e-si

59.

[muš-gin7 sa]ë-ëá-na ëiri3 mu-na-ni-ús

60.

nam-lugal kiš(?)†(?)-ta(?) unug(?)†-šè680 {gú(!)} àm-mi-túm

61.

kul-ab4† x x-x ù-tu-da pa im-ma-ni-è Šulgi O (Klein 1976, p. 278. Line 57 according to A.R. George 2003/1, p. 110).

56.

‘You drew your weapons against the House of Kiš,

57.

you took captive (!) there its seven heroes,

59.

as on a snake you set foot on the head

58.

of Enmebaragesi, king of Kiš,

60.

you brought kingship from Kiš to Uruk.’

61.

(Thus) he extolled the one born in Kullab…

677

See Michalowski (2006d), especially pp. 159–60; 162–3. See Wilcke (1989), p. 559. 679 See Steinkeller (2003), pp. 274–5. 680 Note the variant Ur here, which testifies to the merger of the dynastic and political centres of the realm in Ur III thinking. This is hardly surprising given that the ideological traditions of both cities were perfectly merged in the person of divine Šulgi. Cf. A.R. George (2007), p. 61. For a survey of the ŠulgiGilgameš relationship according to the Šulgi hymns see A.R. George (2003/1), pp. 108–12. 678

224

There seems to be an allusion to the king list also in hymn Urnamma C, specifically to its lines 40–41: eëer a-ma-ru ba-ur3-ra-ta/nam-lugal an-ta ed3-de3-a-ba: ‘After the deluge swept over (the land) and kingship descended from heaven (again).’

57 iii 6

°a?¿-ma-ru [g]i4?-ba i-ti ma-gi4 °x x¿-a-ba?

Urnamma C (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 214). 57 iii 6

When the flood receded, moonlight came back for me.

Even more important is the following passage from the same composition: 111 iv 27 šu-du11-ga-e ƒnanna-a-me-en 112 iv 28 šeš ƒbìl-ga-mes gu-la-me-en 113 iv 29 [dumu-d]ú-da ƒnin-sún-ka-me-en numun nam-en-na-me-en 114 iv 30 [an-t]a nam-lugal ma-ra-e11!(SI DU) 115 iv 31 [sip]a ur-ƒnamma-me-en zà-mí-ëu10 du10-ga-àm Urnamma C (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 218). 111

I am the creation of Nanna.

112 I am the eldest brother of Gilgameš. 113 I am the son born of Ninsun, the offspring of en-ship am I. 114 Kingship descended from heaven for me. 115 I am the shepherd Urnamma (and) it is good to praise me. Obviously, these few lines represent a kind of ‘ideological shortcut’ of the Ur III kings´ self-representation, eventually leading to Šulgi´s deification. The reference to the Sumerian King List constitutes the ‘historical’ legitimation core of the passage, confirming the assumption of the list´s paramount importance for the dynasty. The above hymnal passages were the chief reasons for suggestions that the king list was compiled during either Urnamma´s681 or Šulgi´s682 reign. Clearly, it would have provided them with a welcome ideological safeguard both through its paradigm of the transfer of

681

Flückiger-Hawker (1999), pp. 41–2. Wilcke (1988a), p. 117; (1989), pp. 560–2. See also Wilcke (1993), p. 36 with n. 39; J. Cooper (1993a), pp. 19–22. 682

225

power from the north to the south and its quasi-historical confirmation of their mythical origins at Uruk, thereby presenting their hegemony as a ‘historical necessity’. Yet, in view of the new manuscript this opinion has to be reassessed. Although the KIŠ–URUK–UR pattern is also obvious in the Ur III copy, little attention is paid to Uruk – and the Uruk I dynasty section is only presumed in the relevant broken part of the tablet – while Ur itself emerges only with Urnamma. Such a king list would have hardly been convenient for the Ur III monarchs. As Piotr Steinkeller concludes, virtually the only royal house profiting from the notion that kingship stayed in Kiš for millennia and then passed on over the dubious interlude of Enšakušana and his successors to Lugalzagesi and further to Sargon was the Old Akkadian dynasty.683 As is well known, Sargonic kings often emphasized that they continued the tradition of the Kišite kingdom. This was vital for them politically and ideologically, because it met the dynasty´s need for ‘historically’ based legitimacy in a land with a tradition of political dispersion. Therefore, it is likely that the original of this version was written during the Sargonic era and adapted under Utu‹eëal684 by the insertion of Old Akkadian monarchs as well as the petty members of the Uruk IV dynasty, providing the Urukean king with the desired link to the past, and the Gutian rulers immediately preceding his own reign.685 The Ur III contribution was the necessary inclusion of Utu‹eëal and Urnamma in the list. Thus the Ur III kings took over, not surprisingly, the Old Akkadian model of the ‘legitimation chart’, updated by Utu‹eëal, together with its linear view of history. Thereafter, they apparently accommodated it to their own ideology, which seems to be proven by the references in their hymns and possible allusions to the geographical horizon of their realm in the later version. Yet, it is impossible to determine when exactly the respective changes took place. As shown by the last line of the new manuscript, Šulgi was already deified at the time of its completion, thus it must have been written some time between Š21–Š48. It is certainly possible to assume that the text in its now known Ur III form originated shortly after Šulgi´s deification. Then it was 683

Steinkeller (2003), p. 282. Heretofore, scholars often held him responsible for the original version of the Sumerian King List. See Jacobsen (1939), pp. 138–41; Vincente (1995), p. 267. For weighty arguments in favour of the Old Akkadian origin of the king list see Glassner (2004), pp. 95–6. 685 However, the role of Tirigan, the last Gutian chieftain and Utu‹eëal´s victim, is quite problematic in the Ur III manuscript. He is listed as a member of a hitherto unattested dynasty of Sumerian rulers from Adab. Steinkeller (2003), p. 283, offered the following tentative explanation: ‘Should we assume, therefore, that the section recording the Adab dynasty, with its shocking appropriation of Tirigan, is a post-Utu-‹egal revision, which was perhaps occasioned by the zealotry of a local patriot? This would require us to assume that the tablet here edited comes from Adab, of which, unfortunately, we have no certain proof.’ 684

226

further adapted in accordance with the official doctrine by acknowledging the territorial expansion of the Ur III state and the Urukean and Ur lines of dynastic legitimacy, especially the first dynasties of both cities (present in the final version), serving as prototypes of Šulgi´s claims. However, at present it is impossible to prove that the further update occurred in the reign of Šulgi.

227

Chapter VII: Legacy of Šulgi´s Reign VII.1) Consolidation of the State The crisis of the newly established Ur III kingdom brought about by Urnamma´s sudden death necessitated a firm reaction by his son and successor, Šulgi. As the date formulae for the former half of his reign make clear, he stood up to the challenge, stabilized the state´s cultic institutions and its infrastructure as well as enhanced its security. Thereafter, beginning with the year Š20, he started to fulfil his ambitions through the introduction of decisive domestic policy measures together with a warlike foreign policy, changing the ideological, economic as well as geographical outlook of the Ur III state. His long reign and apparent political acumen enabled him to leave to his successors a prosperous territorial state. VII.1.1) Šulgi´s Reforms: An Overview of Previous Scholarship Much has been written over the past decades about Šulgi´s political steps which not only differed considerably from the actions of his Early Dynastic Sumerian predecessors but also stood out above the other deeds of his, and are conventionally called his reforms.686 Yet, scholarly opinion varies greatly when it comes to questions like: ‘Which measures are to be considered reforms and which not?,’ ‘Did some policies which are called reforms actually change anything?,’ ‘What was the actual meaning of some measures which do look as reform steps but it cannot be ascertained what exactly they entailed?,’ etc. The variety of opinions on the reforms again results from the difficult nature of the historical sources at hand, i.e. the date formulae and administrative texts. The scope of the present thesis does not allow for a full analysis of the purported Šulgi reforms, based on close scrutiny of thousands of administrative texts from his reign. Such an undertaking would require a separate dissertation. Yet it is impossible to leave a discussion of Šulgi´s reforms out of a thesis dealing with this king. Therefore, this section discusses previous scholarly schemes and views of the Šulgi reforms and tries to present tentative conclusions about the reforms gleaned from primary sources and observations made by other scholars.

686

For a general discussion of Šulgi´s reforms see, for instance, Postgate (1995), pp. 401–2; Klein (1995), pp. 844–6.

228

As the broadest scheme of the Šulgi reforms so far was offered by Piotr Steinkeller, it will be used here as a framework for the discussion: a) Deification b) Obligation of the inhabitants of the core provinces to battle preparedness c) Reorganization of the system of temple households d) Unified administration of southern and northern Babylonia e) Introduction of the bala tax system and establishment of redistribution centres responsible for gathering, processing and distributing state revenue f) Creation of an administrative apparatus and a system of scribal schools providing future clerks with standard education g) Scribal reform h) Introduction of new accounting methods and formats of administrative records i) Reorganization of the system of weights and measures j) Introduction of a new calendar, the so-called Reichskalender (‘Imperial Calendar’), which became an official calendar of the central administration until the fall of the Ur III state687 a) The essential religio-political reform – the deification of Šulgi which can be seen as the most important one, for it provided the king with a qualitatively higher authority no doubt facilitating his subsequent moves – was sufficiently discussed above and therefore the reader is referred to the previous chapter and relevant sections in chapter V. b) Also the ‘military’ reform, commemorated in the date formula for the year Š20 and generally understood as the climax of Šulgi´s prewar preparations, was dealt with above, pp. 82–3 with literature. Although some scholars prefer to see it as a defensive rather than offensive measure, in view of what followed in Šulgi´s reign I see it as a distinctively offensive political move. After all, considering that the year names formed a part of the king´s self-representation, to let the scribes throughout the realm use a formula referring to a defensive measure would have been ideologically damaging and dangerous. Therefore, it is quite unlikely. Yet it needs to be emphasized that any interpretation of the date formula for year Š20, and thus of the assumed reform, is only tentative, for the exact nature of the event is currently unknown. 687

After Steinkeller (1991), pp. 16–17. The reforms a), b), i) and j) were pointed out already by Sollberger (1954–1956), pp. 17–18. Sallaberger (1999), p. 148, takes a more restrained stand. He regards only reforms a), e) and j) as indisputable and verifiable, while he puts a question mark to reforms b), c), d), and joins f) and h) with e).

229

c) The reorganization of temple estates within the core provinces of the kingdom was also briefly discussed above when dealing with the meaning of the date formula for the year Š21. Yet, a few more words should be said about this purportedly considerable change of Babylonia´s social and economic organization. According to Steinkeller, the practical implementation of Šulgi´s ‘putting in order the field accounts’ may have consisted in taking the responsibility for temple property away from the temple administrations and giving it to provincial governors (ensi2), appointed – or at least approved in office – by the king and often belonging to the extended royal family. This view of Steinkeller´s voiced in his classic article on the Šulgi reforms was questioned by Hartmut Waetzoldt who stated that one could not conclude from the reform of the fields of only two Nippurian temples (mentioned in the year name) that a general reform took place throughout the realm. Further, he pointed out that in the case of Lagaš-Ëirsu the city ruler was the highest authority of temple administration already in the times of the Lagaš II Dynasty.688 However, it seems reasonable to assume that the temples of Enlil and Ninlil are mentioned in the date formula because they were regarded as the most important shrines of the realm. Therefore, their administration may have been regarded as a blueprint for the administration of other temple estates within the whole land. And while Šulgi may have presented this reform only as a formal establishment of the Nippur cult as a state cult (and the year name does suggest that), he may well have used this move as a pretext for reforming the organization of other temple estates as well. The fact that the system introduced elsewhere by Šulgi was already in place in Lagaš-Ëirsu by the time of the king´s reform merely shows that Šulgi was not the first to strive for control of temple property, which – in fact – could have made his situation easier. The intentions behind this economic reform seem clear. Depriving the temple administrators (saëëa) of their economic – and thereby political – power must have considerably weakened the ever-present desire of the provinces to break off the centre. From that time on the by far most important landholdings in the provinces were administered by governors dependent on the god-king and sometimes even related to him. The direct economic profit from the reform were the surpluses of the temple estates´ produce which remained in the respective province before but from the time of the reform on were handed over to the central government for redistribution. To 688

Waetzoldt (1991), p. 638.

230

illustrate the political profit I quote Joan Goodnick Westenholz who wrote with regard to the situation in Nippur: … the two divisions of Nippur were now organized under one political hierarchy headed by the ensi of Nippur while stripping the sanga of Enlil of his power. It is interesting to note that the ensi-ship of Nippur ended up in the hands of the powerful family of Ur-Meme, related neither to the Ninurta Temple nor to the Enlil Temple, the two main existing power structures, but to the Inanna Temple.689 Interestingly, power in the religious centre was handed over to dignitaries connected with the cult of the Urukean goddess Inana, Šulgi´s divine spouse, whose Nippurian temple was to experience a relative independence within the new system of temple administration. Thus, the situation in Nippur also provides a glimpse at deification as an underpinning of Šulgi´s reform policies.690 Apart from the reform of the temple household administration Šulgi also introduced the special category of the ‘Crown land’, plots owned by the state mostly on the fringes of the realm and distributed among military personnel and other people dependent on the palace in exchange for services and taxes (gú-un ma-da). This was obviously done after the fashion of Sargonic kings who made extensive use of this policy. It must be stressed, however, that the above considerations are only tentative, for the exact meaning of the date formula for year Š21 remains unclear, which renders all discussions about the purported ‘temple estates reform’ speculative, without firm support in primary sources. d) The establishment of a unified administration of southern and northern Babylonia is a presumed reform, for it can only be judged from the vast amount of uniform administrative records produced by various units in both parts of Babylonia from the time of Šulgi onwards. Some scholars believe that it is impossible to ascribe the administrative unification of Babylonia to Šulgi, because it is simply not known – due to the lack of texts – how the administration of the north looked like before Šulgi.691 Even though this reform may not be ascribed to Šulgi, implicit evidence of archival records from different parts of the kingdom shows, however, that its administration was 689

Westenholz (1992), p. 306. Cf. Michalowski (1991), p. 54. 691 Waetzoldt (1991), p. 638. 690

231

successfully unified during the reign of Šulgi at the latest, at least as far as the procedures, format and contents of archival texts are concerned. This is not to say that local deviations from the official custom did not continue to exist. It seems that those differences were not wiped out because it was not politically feasible to do so. Rather, the official system developed to cope with such difficulties which no doubt were seen as considerably smaller than problems which would have arisen from a change of traditional local procedures. Thus, Šulgi managed to establish a relative unity of administrative procedures, an undertaking first attempted by Old Akkadian kings. e) Introduction of a centralized system of gathering and redistributing the agricultural produce was a fundamental precondition for a successful economy of the territorial Ur III state and its formerly independent provinces, as well as for an effective administration of the land´s huge resources. The solution found by Šulgi´s court to achieve this clearly reflects the king´s new position. The ruler, who as a deity became the patron god of the unified state (diëir-kalam-ma), subjugated the hitherto independent major producers of agricultural and artisan products. Thereby he reduced their previous status but at the same time enabled a flourishing of their specialization, and also the overall growth of both the quantity and quality of their products. The redistribution system supplied each province with items which it needed in exchange for those returned to the system by that province, specializing in the production of those items. Thus, the provinces became economically interdependent, which undoubtedly helped sustain the state´s cohesion. An important part of this economic organization was the tax obligation to the temples of Nippur, the religious centre and guarantee of the king´s legitimacy. The provision for Nippurian shrines depended on supplies from the core provinces, i.e. provinces from within Babylonia. The system reflected the extent and economic strength of each province. Therefore, each province payed only such an amount of goods which it could afford to pay. As this duty ‘rotated’ monthly among the provinces and their administrative units, large and rich provinces fulfilled it longer (up to three months in case of Ëirsu), while small and poor provinces could fulfil it jointly so that the overall length of their contributing was one month. The provinces were reciprocally entitled to goods and services of appropriate value from the redistribution centres. Archival texts dealing with goods to be transferred as a part of this duty are easily distinguishable, because most of them contain the term bala, ‘rotation’, aptly reflecting the nature of the redistribution system. The bala system constituted a tool of not only

232

economic development but – perhaps more importantly for the king – also of an unprecedented state control over the land´s economic life.692 The already mentioned redistribution centres represented the backbone of this system. The Puzrišdagªn centre in the vicinity of Nippur, officially founded in the year Š39 (see above), is currently best known.693 Its construction seems to have lasted until 1. i. Š43 when the day-to-day book-keeping of livestock commenced. Yet the central redistribution system existed in a limited form at least fifteen years before the construction of Puzrišdagªn was announced as proved by records from the Esaëdana redistribution centre, a smaller predecessor of Puzrišdagªn built on the same spot.694 Records mentioning Esaëdana date back to as early as Š24 (NATN 385, obv. l. 6, rev. ll. 3, 10; BPOA 7 1662 [Š24-05], rev. l. 1). According to extant series of archival texts the Puzrišdagªn administration dealt with accounting for precious metals and products thereof, beds and weapons (Schatzarchiv); shoes and other leather products (Schuharchiv); livestock, by far the most numerous and important commodity handled at Puzrišdagªn.695 Considerably less is known about the centre Dusabara near Nippur where grain and textiles were gathered and recorded. The agenda of these redistribution centres was superior to provincial matters, covered the entire economy and was under the control of the king himself through his officials. To these places the governors transferred contributions of their provinces according to the kind of goods – although a lot were exchanged directly between provinces provided that they were neighbours. From these places they received required items. The chief suppliers of livestock to Puzrišdagªn were the peripheral regions of the kingdom, its core provided less substantial supplies. Livestock assembled at Puzrišdagªn was then transferred to Nippurian temple households on the one hand, and to provincial governors for rations given to various royal dependants on the other. f), g), h) The three reforms concerning administrative and scribal practice will be discussed together here, because they are closely interconnected. A large and welltrained apparatus of clerks was vital for the administration of the above system. That apparatus obviously had to be composed of people who thought and worked along the

692

The seminal study of the bala is Hallo (1960). For an important discussion see further Steinkeller (1991), pp. 22–4; Sallaberger (1999), pp. 195–6; Sigrist (1992), pp. 339–56. Cf. now Sharlach (2004), pp. 6–21, especially pp. 16–21. Cf. further Dahl (2006). 693 There is a wealth of literature on Puzrišdagªn. Seminal studies are T. Jones and Snyder (1961), especially pp. 212–38 (‘The Basic Organization at Drehem’); Maeda (1989); Sigrist (1992). See also Sallaberger (1999), pp. 238–53. 694 See Wilcke (1992); Sallaberger (1999), pp. 253–8; Sharlach (2004), pp. 12–13. 695 Sallaberger (1999), p. 239. Cf. Sharlach (2004), pp. 13–14.

233

lines set by the king. This was achieved by the establishment of a centralized education system, differing from the previous practice. Earlier in the third millennium scribal apprentices were taught privately by their fathers. Šulgi, in contrast, founded two scribal academies under state control in Nippur and Ur, serving the preservation of his era´s literary heritage for future generations but undoubtedly also the education of Ur III administrators.696 While the lower echelon of clerks seems to have received only basic education necessary for their work, the more senior officials from high-ranking families – perhaps including even the provincial governors697 – were taught Ur III propagandistic literature created or edited by Šulgi´s master scholars, i.e. the Šulgi hymns, myths of Nanna as Enlil´s son, and the ‘Uruk Cycle’ epic compositions, which should have ensured that they thought and acted according to the king´s will.698 This was in accord with Šulgi´s imperial policy and its importance is obvious considering that the scribes, priests and administrators seem to have been the only literate people in an illiterate world. As such, they were part of the ruling élite, they knew it, and were certainly proud of it and grateful for it. At the same time, however, they could pose a threat to the court, because learning meant power in Mesopotamia. Therefore, the king had to devise a way of making those people useful for the state while limiting their potential for independent thinking and action. Thus, the hymns made it clear to every Ur III scribal apprentice who studied them that the divine king himself was a scribe, of course excelling at all relevant disciplines.699 Facing this powerful image, future officials and scholars could identify themselves with the ideal ‘first scribe’ of the state and the values represented by him. While the educational reform seems to have been carried out quickly, the concomitant standardization of the format and contents of administrative texts, as well as the repertoire of signs used therein, was only gradual. However significant the uniformity of the meticulous and, at the same time, brief and clear archival texts was for the efficiency of the state administration, the scribal practice differed considerably from office to office because of local traditions. Therefore, it took a long time to standardize archival records at least in the largest administrative centres. But also this ‘scribal

696

According to hymn Šulgi B, ll. 308–15. See Castellino (1972), pp. 60–3; ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’. See further the discussion in A.R. George (2005), pp. 132–4. 697 Waetzoldt (1991), p. 640, and especially Wu (1995). 698 See Michalowski (1991), pp. 51–3; cf. Michalowski (2008b), pp. 37–8. 699 The most telling passages are Šulgi B, ll. 13–20; C, ll. 35–47. See Castellino (1972), pp. 30–3, 250–3; ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’; ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’.

234

reform’ was finally implemented, resulting in well-oiled administration700 whose records are easily identifiable. i) The so-called reform of weights and measures concerned chiefly one of the volume measures and it is impossible to ascertain when exactly that change occurred. It is conventionally ascribed to Šulgi, although it has to be pointed out that the Urnamma law-code contains evidence of an overall standardization of the metric system already during the reign of his father. Further, it has to be emphasized that any Ur III metric reform was not a reform proper,701 because that was done already by the Sargonic kings who abolished the archaic differentiation between volume measures of liquids and solid substances, as well as between various norms for weighing wool and metals. They also rationalized the ratio between some volume and mass measures, and revaluated the ratio of the gur volume measure in relation to other measures, which seems to have served as a basis for newly established proportions. This was perhaps accompanied by an overall adjustment of measure norms but the evidence is as yet missing. The Ur III kings merely adopted the Old Akkadian system, establishing the new value of the gur (300 litres) as a standard one called the gur lugal (‘royal gur’).702 However, that measure was standard only within the ‘normal’, i.e. Sargonic, system.703 Other measures were still in use too, e.g. the old gur (240 litres), yet they gradually disappeared during the Ur III times.704 Šulgi´s indisputable effort at further standardization of metric values is reflected in weight stones inscribed with the following type of announcement:

1)

ƒnanna

1)

For Nanna,

2)

lugal-a-ni

2)

his lord,

3)

ƒšul-gi

3)

Šulgi,

4)

nita-kala-ga

4)

mighty man,

5)

lugal-uri5†-ma

5)

king of Ur,

6)

lugal-an-ub-da-limmu2-ba-ke4

6)

king of the four quarters,

700 See Sallaberger (1999), p. 147. For the classification of archival records see ibid., p. 213. For the typology and formats of texts according to the respective transactions from representative Puzrišdagªn archives see ibid., pp. 240–73. Cf. a somewhat different approach in Michalowski (1991), pp. 50–1. Waetzoldt (1991), p. 638, thinks that the ‘scribal reform’ took place already during the reign of Urnamma. 701 Sallaberger (1999), p. 147 with n. 89. 702 Powell (1987–1990), p. 493: ‘The importance of this metrological reform is reflected in adoption of the Akkad gur as the “royal” gur of the Ur III period (either under Ur-Nammu or under Šulgi) and in its cannonization as the standard gur in OB mathematical texts.’ 703 Ibid., p. 498: ‘lugal, “king´s (measure),” seems to have been used only for the Akkad system. This usage, abundantly documented in the Ur III period, is not clearly attested before Šar-kali-šarri…’ 704 Ibid.: ‘…the 4-bariga gur that had been standard prior to the Akkad reform gradually disappears, probably dying out in the Ur III period.’

235

7)

5 ma-na

8)

guaranteed (that the weight of this stone is)

8)

mu-na-gi-in

7)

5 mina.705

RIME 3/2 1.2.52. As in the case of his other administrative reforms Šulgi obviously tried to unify various metric customs within his realm. Yet, he seems not to have attempted to directively eliminate those customs and simply replace them with a new ‘standard’ but rather to provide his administration with a fixed framework of ‘royal’ norms. The state offices were then free to move within this framework if they accomplished what was demanded from them. The king thereby achieved a kind of unity within multiplicity, perhaps a paradox to modern understanding, a balance of his innovative centralistic views and traditional local differences. This seems to have been the only possible model – and despite all inherent difficulties an effective one – of a late third millennium ‘Sumerian centralized’ state. j) Šulgi´s calendar reform went along the same lines. The provinces used their local calendars just as they did before as independent city-states. The Ur III rulers including Šulgi did not attempt to wipe out different calendars in favour of a central one, apparently for practical reasons. Thus, the unification of calendars occurred only after the fall of the Ur III state under Išbierra, king of Isin. Šulgi allowed the provinces to keep their own calendars because the administration that he instituted worked, and the king together with his governors seems not to have felt it necessary to risk a possible upheaval in local administrative centres by abolishing such an important part of local tradition as the original calendar. Yet, Šulgi tried to unify the calendar of those administrative units working under the direct control of the Crown, such as the offices at Puzrišdagªn. A new calendar, based on that of Ur, was introduced there, although in practice the calendar was not entirely unified even within the central archives.706 Some offices used their specific sequence of

705

A ma-na, ‘mina’, equaled 500 ± 40 grams. This particular stone weighs 2478 grams. It is worth noting that the Old Akkadian/Ur III/Old Babylonian metric system endured as a basis for later systems until the first millennium. Nebuchadnezzar II even announces in an inscription on a weight that it is a copy of a Šulgi weight, suggesting that Šulgi was seen as a reformer of weights as late as the sixth century. See Powell (1987–1990), p. 510. 706 According to Sollberger (1954–1956), pp. 18–20, and Gomi (1979), p. 7, the Ur sequence was first used in the ‘Early Drehem Series’, i.e. the Esaëdana archives, and then introduced in the capital. However, M. Cohen (1993), pp. 131–2, convincingly argues that it was precisely the other way round. Cf. the discussion of both views in Widell (2004). On the Puzrišdagªn calendar see especially Whiting (1979); M.

236

month names slightly different from the new calendar. The task of synchronizing the sequences of that central offices with the calendar used at Ur was left to Šulgi´s successors Amarsuõena and Š¥suõen. During the latter´s third regnal year it was finally accomplished. It is possible to say that Šulgi´s reform of the calendar reflected the political needs of the day. Obviously, calendars were not vehicles of ideological messages like, e.g., year names, and from the practical point of view it was certainly desirable to keep local calendars in place as long as the system functioned. As for the central administration, it is only logical that it borrowed the calendar of the capital. The initial variability of the Reichskalender, which is the still commonly accepted inaccurate modern name of the sequence used in central establishments, shows how difficult it actually was for the court to establish administrative unity even within the state apparatus. The Reichskalender changed several times during the late years of Šulgi and then again in the reigns of his successors until the beginning of Š¥suõen´s fourth regnal year.707 This is the crucial argument of scholars who question the usual concept of the Ur III kingdom as a strictly centralized state.708 For example, Waetzoldt wrote that a state where the provinces use different calendars and weight systems can hardly be called a centralized one. He also noted that during the disintegration of the kingdom it was no problem for the provinces to break away from it, which means that they must have remained self-contained and intact in all respects including the military one throughout the rule of the dynasty. According to him, the provinces admittedly lost sovereignty and freedom of decision-making, but they could retain the traditional institutions. Therefore, he thinks, the new administration was only a superstructure built upon structures already in place, as indicated by the use of uniform year names or the ‘royal gur’ measure.709 It is possible to agree with some of his suggestions. Certainly, the degree of centralization of the Ur III kingdom seems to have been overstated in the past. Even though the administrative records together with the evidence of reform steps speak for attempts at Cooper (1987). For the sequence of month names at key locations and their changes during the Ur III period see http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/ur3months/month.html. 707 For the names of the respective months and their sequence in this and other important local calendars see the tables in Sallaberger (1999), pp. 234–6. On p. 236 Sallaberger explains that ‘der Terminus “Reichskalender” impliziert nicht, daß er im ganzen Reich gebraucht werde, sondern daß er unabhängig vom jeweiligen Lokalkalender in staatlichen, direkt der Krone unterstellten Betrieben gültig ist und verwendet wird.’ See also Sallaberger (1993/1), pp. 7–10. 708 Among the prominent advocates of the idea of the centralized Ur III state is Piotr Steinkeller (1991), pp. 15–33; (1992), p. 729: ‘Roughly around his seventeenth regnal year, Shulgi launched a massive program of political, administrative, and economic reforms, which transformed Babylonia into a highly centralized bureaucratic state.’ 709 Waetzoldt (1991), pp. 638–9.

237

tough centralization, there seems to be no indication that the Ur III kings were entirely successful. In view of available evidence, Waetzoldt´s suggestion of a superstructure is a plausible one. This superstructure, i.e. the central administration, was controlled by the Crown as tightly as possible at any given stage of Ur III history, but the provincial administrations were centralized only as far as their direct relations with the central one were concerned. It even appears that this state of affairs was purposeful, because such a form of administration was suitable in a territorial state based on Sumerian principles, as it blended Old Sumerian and Sargonic political views together. This is further suggested by the at first sight paradoxical fact that the Ur III kings promoted the institution of the city-state in northern Babylonia,710 while simultaneously providing for local cults in the south. The provinces accepted this model of government as long as it was beneficial for them. It allowed them to specialize in particular segments of the economy without fearing shortage of products they did not manufacture. Security considerations may have played a role too. A region was certainly more secure against attacks from outside of Babylonia if it was a part of a wider geographical entity, the Ur III state which, after all, widely used its military strength throughout northern Mesopotamia and western Elam. Of course, military matters were not controlled by the provinces, as Waetzoldt suggests. Provincial garrisons were under the command of ‘generals’, sometimes princes, subject directly to the Crown. Nevertheless, as soon as the superstructure lost its ability to effectively manage the economy and protect the provinces, they quickly broke off, which happened from early in the reign of Ibb‰suõen onward. The idea of the Ur III kingdom as a tightly centralized state is clearly oversimplified. The ever-present desire of the kings to turn Babylonia into, to put it in modern terms, bureaucratic totalitarian theocracy, was obviously kept in check by economic and political reality in at least the key provinces. Thus, Šulgi´s introduction of charismatic divine kingship and his subsequent reform measures coupled with aggressive military policy seem to have been almost inevitable if the coherence of the kingdom and its economic, social and administrative order should have been retained. At the same time, with Šulgi´s deification and other reforms the Ur III kings seem to have reached the limit of centralization efforts which the religious and local élites were willing to tolerate. None of Šulgi´s successors contributed significantly to his reform measures, they simply lived on the basis established by him until their kingdom gradually dissolved. 710

Steinkeller (1992b), p. 730.

238

VII.2) Cultural Heritage of Šulgi´s Reign The rich cultural heritage of Šulgi´s reign is a source of constant interest, for apart from the vast number of administrative records the educated élite of Šulgi´s kingdom produced a very different kind of writings, an impressive body of highly developed literary works. The Ur III cultural heritage offers almost inexhaustible range of topics to deal with, but only a few selected issues will be discussed because of the inevitably limited scope of this chapter. As for the typological categorization of the hitherto known 26 Šulgi hymns (including Šulgi V, likely a copy of a statue inscription), studies of their structure and poetics, examination of the Ur III orthographic and grammatical residues in Old Babylonian copies especially of hymns D+X, G, O, P, R and V, all these topics were dealt with extensively by other scholars and it would be pointless to repeat here what they had to say.711 VII.2.1) The King´s Care for Education, Literature and Music according to His Hymns Šulgi´s name is often invoked in modern scholarly accounts as that of a great patron of literature, education and the arts.712 This reputation of his is based on hymnal passages about his love for and proficiency in manifold intellectual endeavour. Although these passages are preserved only on tablets inscribed by Old Babylonian student scribes, they were certainly not made up in Old Babylonian schools and inserted into the hymns, because one can hardly think of a reason that those scribes could have to glorify a three hundred years dead king´s education and intellectual abilities (let alone his founding of the scribal academies, see below). Further, the sheer quantity as well as quality of the Ur III written record show that the state was run by a ruler who had at least some idea what writing was about. Thus, the hymns relate that when Šulgi ‘was small’ he ‘was at the academy’ learning ‘the scribal art from the tablets of Sumer and Akkad’ (Šulgi B, ll. 13–14).713 He also 711

For a catalogue of the Šulgi hymns see Klein (1981b), pp. 38–43. Deduct Šulgi U from the 23 compositions listed there and add four new ones edited by Frayne (1983a), Klein (1993), M. Cohen (2005) and Sjöberg (2005). For a general typology of Sumerian hymns see Wilcke (1972–1975), for a categorization of the Šulgi hymns see Klein (1981b), pp. 21–8. For a discussion of the structure, poetics, etc. of Sumerian literary texts in general with numerous examples from the Šulgi hymns see Wilcke (1976a). On the categorization and structure of the Šulgi hymns cf. Klein (1981a), pp. 9–18. On the orthography and grammar of the Šulgi hymns see Klein (1979), p. 151, n. 10 (in general); (1989b), p. 291 (in general); (1981b), pp. 64–70, 131–4 (D+X); (1991), pp. 299–301 (G); (1976) (O); (1981a), pp. 27–32 (P); (1990), pp. 96–100 (R); (1985), pp. *14–*19 (V). For a most recent discussion of the orthography of Ur III literary texts see Rubio [2000 (2005)]. 712 See e.g. Klein (1995), p. 855. 713 ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’.

239

acquired knowledge of mathematics, field surveying and architectural planning (Šulgi B, l. 17; Šulgi C, ll. 48–9).714 His ‘hand guided the holy reed stylus correctly’ and he ‘could make things absolutely clear on tablets’ (Šulgi C, ll. 37, 47). ‘None of the “nobles” could write on clay as he could’ (Šulgi B, l. 15). Although these statements are exaggerated, in line with the usual boastful hymnal rhetoric, the basic information they convey, i.e. that Šulgi received some scribal training as a youngster, seems true beyond any doubt. While nothing is known about education in Urnamma´s time, it fits in very well with the other policies of this careful statesman that he provided his son – and the other “nobles”, perhaps sons of his courtiers – with scribal training, vital for an effective government. Further, Šulgi is said to have been a master of divination (Šulgi B, ll. 131–49; Šulgi C, ll. 102–3).715 Subsequently, his musical talents and abilities are described in considerable detail. The king was able to masterfully tune musical instruments and was an accomplished player on a number of them, in perfect command of all the techniques of playing. He was purportedly so gifted that if confronted with a new musical instrument, he could play it instantly like a virtuoso. As a singer, Šulgi was able to chant various types of vocal compositions like a professional (Šulgi B, ll. 154–74; Šulgi C, Segment B, ll. 75–110; Šulgi E, ll. 34–5, 155).716 The hymns also extol Šulgi´s language skills. He is said to have been fluent in Sumerian, Elamite, Amorite, Subarean (i.e. Hurrian) as well as Melu‹‹an (Šulgi B, ll. 206–19; Šulgi C, ll. 119–24). Hymnal passages about Šulgi´s education, artistic and intellectual abilities show that scribal art, music, and other learned activities stood in the forefront of Ur III élite´s social values. These passages not only betray the importance of schooling in Šulgi´s political programme but also demonstrate that cultural and ceremonial life at Šulgi´s court must have been particularly rich and diversified. Unfortunately, it is difficult to extract information about Ur III ceremonial life and court rituals from the scores of administrative texts, and this topic has not yet been studied systematically.717 It is also important to note that the discussed passages formed an integral part of Šulgi´s propaganda of his personal and his ‘Sumerian’ kingdom´s ‘national’ superiority, for they vividly illustrate the level of cultural development which the ‘bandits of the hills’ (Šulgi E, l. 211) surrounding the Ur III state could never match.718

714

ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’. For a discussion of the sparse non-literary evidence of Ur III mathematics see Høyrup (2002) and Friberg (2009) with literature. 715 For a detailed discussion of this passage see Richardson (2006). Cf. Michalowski (2006a), pp. 247–9. 716 For a detailed discussion of musical terminology in these passages see Krispijn (1990). 717 See Sharlach (2005); Michalowski (2006b). 718 ETCSL, 2.4.2.05, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi E)’.

240

As an educated monarch, Šulgi had first-hand experience of the power which the ability to read and write entailed in a world of restricted literacy. And he exploited this power to the limit. Indeed, his reign and the rest of the Ur III period was a time of feverish state-controlled writing. It was a time of writing and re-writing literature, royal inscriptions and tens of thousands of economic texts. Šulgi´s crucial political steps, most significantly his deification, were well backed by his royal literature elaborately explaining the legitimacy of whatever he did. Culture and politics were intertwined so thoroughly under Šulgi that it seems virtually impossible to trace any signs of different opinion in the flood of self-complacent official texts. If there was something entirely centralized in Šulgi´s kingdom, it was the intellectual culture. It really appears that Šulgi´s care for culture was driven primarily by political motives. This is undoubtedly true when it comes to his founding of the scribal academies in Ur and Nippur (Šulgi B, ll. 308–15, see below). Moreover, such a conclusion seems inevitable considering yet another passage from hymn Šulgi B, according to which the king never declared ancient hymns to be false if he discovered them, he never contradicted their contents. He prevented their falling into oblivion and ensured that they be regularly performed (ll. 272–80). Such a practice would befit a true lover of literature. But available evidence shows that Šulgi did quite the opposite. For third millennium Sumerian literature as presently known from Old Babylonian copies was created and redacted by Šulgi´s scholars. Only a few pieces can be matched with Early Dynastic exemplars. The situation is even worse with Sargonic literature, for except copying royal inscriptions from statues and monuments still on display in temple courtyards Old Babylonian scribes appear to have had no Old Akkadian literary tradition to study. Šulgi´s educational machinery thoroughly discarded old literature, even more so if that literature conflicted with the king´s ideology of a unique divine ruler (which is well conceivable in the case of Sargonic texts), and replaced them with compositions suitable to the needs and goals of the new dynasty.719 VII.2.2) Šulgi´s Royal Hymns of Praise: Their Aim and Impact on Future Generations In this section I would like to offer answers to three questions concerning the creation and endurance of Šulgi´s hymnal corpus: (a) what were these texts composed for, (b) who was the audience, and (c) why were the Šulgi hymns used as a tool for the education of Old Babylonian scribes? 719

Cf. Michalowski (2003), p. 195; (2008b), p. 38.

241

The answer to the first question is implicitly present in the hymns themselves: according to hymn Šulgi B the king founded two scribal academies in Ur and Nippur ‘for the writing of his hymns’, so that ‘the scribe shall be on duty there’ transcribing Šulgi´s ‘prayers’ and the singer may have performed them. Those ‘places of learning’ should have never ceased to exist (ll. 308–15). The topic of the perpetuation of Šulgi´s hymns is worked out in detail in hymn Šulgi E. In this text it is said that royal scholars composed the Šulgi hymns to carry out the king´s intention to be praised in prayers and hymns, writing them down line by line in the academy as great works of scholarship (ll. 15–22, 246).720 Thus, the king wanted his image of the deified ideal ruler to be proclaimed in texts created at the academies and read in the temple and the academies themselves. Both institutions were crucial in the life of his kingdom. Temples constituted the backbone of social and economic order and it was of utmost importance for the king to have texts emphasizing his care for the cult sung in places of worship to make the gods, or the clergy, continually aware of who was their benefactor. Even more so, if he wished to introduce reforms which eventually limited the power of temple administrators. The academies under royal patronage were places where not only scholars but also administrators were trained and the study of the Šulgi hymns and other pieces promoting the right of the Ur III dynasty to rule, such as the Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Gilgameš poems, undoubtedly shaped the ideological outlook of these élite subjects of Šulgi and ensured their loyalty, badly needed for the consolidation of the kingdom. Furthermore, it is likely that the greatest works of the Šulgi propaganda were even performed at the court and during major festivals.721 Thus, the answer to the first question is: education and indoctrination of people in positions of power. The answer to the second question is that priests, scribes/administrators and courtiers, whose belief in Šulgi´s divinity was essential for the state´s stability, seem to have been the primary audience of the hymns.722 One may ask if all the audience were able to understand these Sumerian texts, which is connected with the issue of the death of the language about that time. Priests and scribes surely understood the hymns no matter if Sumerian was their mother tongue or not because they went through Sumerian schooling in the academies. This also applies

720

See also Volk (2000), p. 12 with n. 57. For a discussion of the Sitz im Leben of Sumerian royal hymns in general see Ludwig (1990), pp. 41–65 with further literature. 722 Cf. Michalowski (1991), p. 52; (2003), pp. 195–6; (2008b), p. 38. 721

242

to at least some of the provincial governors and other senior officials.723 As for the courtiers (including perhaps foreign emissaries), the question of their familiarity with Sumerian is largely irrelevant because the court performance of the hymns is likely to have been conducted as a ritual,724 for the king was a divine being, and passive participation in a ritual does not require knowledge of the cultic language. Besides, it seems that the king himself had Sumerian only as a second language and that Sumerian was really on the brink of extinction during his reign.725 But official literature and administrative records were written in Sumerian not because it was the vernacular but because the king of Ur, a member of a dynasty with origins in Uruk, a provider of Nippur simply was ‘Sumerian’, i.e. his ‘Sumerian identity’ formed a part of his ideology and one of the pillars of his legitimacy.726 This ‘Sumerian identity’ was later adopted by the kings of the Isin-Larsa period.727 As long as there were ‘Sumerian’ rulers trying to follow the Ur III political legacy (complete with divine prerogatives), the Šulgi hymns were useful.728 This brings me to my third question. Just like the Isin-Larsa kings emulated Šulgi, the scribes of their time emulated Šulgi´s scholars. And not only his scholars, but also the king himself, for according to his hymns, Šulgi was a master scribe thereby representing a model not only for kings but for intellectuals just as well. Now, the main disadvantage which the Old Babylonian scribes had, compared to their Ur III predecessors, was that schooling was no longer state-sponsored. Therefore, facing a situation in which the care for Nippurian sanctuaries was still a source of the particular (divine) ruler´s legitimacy but royal patronage of education was lacking, an apprentice contemplating on becoming a royal ummia must have mastered all the 723

See Wu (1995). Cf. Reisman (1969), pp. 39–40. 725 Rubio (2006). 726 For the term and a different understanding of ‘Sumerian identity’ see Veldhuis (2004), pp. 66–80, especially pp. 75–80. 727 E.g. ETCSL, 2.5.4.01, ‘A praise poem of Išme-Dagan (Išme-Dagan A+V)’, l. 195: ‘Born in Sumer, I am a citizen of Nippur’. See Tinney (1996), pp. 63–70, here p. 65, for a detailed discussion of Išmedagªn´s royal ideology. See further pp. 74–80 of Tinney´s book for a comparison of the Šulgi and Išmedagªn ideologies as revealed in their royal literature. Tinney notes (p. 76): ‘The image of Šulgi preserved in the Nippur schools no doubt furnished part of the basis for the construction of Išme-Dagan´s own image but this should not be allowed to obscure the differences, some subtle, some obvious, which pervade the texts and contribute to the formation of an overall picture…’ Notably, one of the differences is that ‘Šulgi´s relatives, Lugalbanda, Ninsun, Gilgameš, support his claims to power… Of the Uruk gods, Išme-Dagan, by contrast, deals only with Inanna, his spouse and, apparently, divine equal…’ Tinney (1996), pp. 79–80. This is understandable, for Išmedagªn was not a member of an Urukean royal family like Šulgi. 728 Cf. Tinney (1996), p. 84 on the Nippur Lament and the hymns of Išmedagªn: ‘These works would have become, in effect, a means of engendering in nascent bureaucrats an image of kingship which would at once inform their expectations and condition their use of influence in policy making. The picture of Išme-Dagan would have become a didactic or prescriptive one rather than the descriptive one it purports to be.’ 724

243

vocabulary, compositional techniques and ideological paradigms of the Šulgi hymns to finally find himself in royal service. It is noteworthy in this context that the topics of scribal excellence and competition among apprentices are ubiquitous in the so-called Edubba literature.729 Excellence in Sumerian, and consequently in Sumerian literature including the Šulgi hymns, was essential for a successful career. Significantly, the ‘Tetrad’, a group of four elementary literary texts to which an apprentice scribe was exposed very early on, comprised hymns to kings Iddindagªn, Lipiteštar and Enlilbªni of Isin, and a hymn to Nisaba, the goddess of writing.730 Scholars composing the three didactic royal hymns put passages about the scribes´ role in the preservation and transmission of those texts in each of them,731 thereby informing the apprentice right from the start about the immense importance of royal literature in his professional life. Moreover, the status of an accomplished scribe was sometimes described as connected with the ability to write a stele inscription, which in many cases meant to write a monumental piece of royal propaganda.732 Indeed, it seems that to become a composer of royal literature was regarded as the pinnacle of scribal career in the era of Old Babylonian divine kings, or kings who at least formally cultivated some Ur III traditions, and that all advanced education was meant to prepare the apprentice for that role. Needless to say, this appears to have been the norm in the time of Šulgi. Thus, the Šulgi hymns and other pieces of Ur III literature served as a valuable reservoir of ideal kingship imagery and as such were indispensable for advanced scribal training. Indeed, much of what they had to say was re-used and reshaped by the scholars

729

See A.R. George (2005), pp. 127–9. On p. 135 George argues that the Edubba literature refers to life in Šulgi´s academies. If so, it would only support the view of a strong influence that the image of Šulgi as the patron of education had on Old Babylonian scribes. On the Edubba literature see also the important paper by Volk (2000). 730 See Tinney (1999a), pp. 162–8. 731 ETCSL, 2.5.3.2, ‘A praise poem of Iddin-Dagan (Iddin-Dagan B)’, ll. 64–6: ‘May your exceeding wisdom, given by the tablets of Nisaba, never cease on the clay in the Edubba. In this Edubba, like a shrine fashioning everything, may it never come to an end…’ ETCSL, 2.5.5.2, ‘A praise poem of LipitEštar (Lipit-Eštar B)’, ll. 57–61: ‘Lipiteštar, Enlil´s son, you have made every mouth speak of your righteousness. The clay (tablets) speak in praise of you in the Edubba. May the scribe … praise you greatly. Your glory shall never cease in the Edubba.’ ETCSL, 2.5.8.1, ‘A praise poem of Enlil-bªni (Enlilbªni A)’, ll. 178–84: ‘The learned scribe in the Edubba, the house which advises the Land, shall not allow your praise to cease.’ Translations modified. 732 See Sjöberg (1976b), p. 166 for a passage from a literary letter in which Abaindasa informs Šulgi that he is ‘a scribe able to write a stele’ (l. 14). Cf. ETCSL, 3.1.21, ‘Letter from Aba-indasa to Šulgi about his neglect’. Sjöberg also notes that the Edubba composition ‘“In Praise of the Scribal Art” contains a reference (l. 15) to the writing of a stele’. Cf. Sjöberg (1972). Additionally, the ability to write monumental inscriptions seems to be highlighted also in l. 46 of hymn Šulgi C; ETCSL, 2.4.2.03, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi C)’: maš-dara3 ki-gal-lum-ma saë tag-ga šu gal du7-a-me-èn, ‘(I am greatly expert) in writing cuneiform inscriptions on pedestals’. For the reconstruction of this line see Klein (1986).

244

composing the Isin-Larsa royal hymns in line with the policies of the respective kings.733 But apart from the didactic purpose of the Šulgi hymnal legacy, there seems to have been another motive for the preservation of those texts, i.e. the professional pride of the scribes, resulting from their ‘Sumerian identity’ acquired in the school, combined with certain nostalgia for the era of the great patron of education and literature who founded and sponsored the academies at Ur and Nippur.734 Except for the lasting memory of Nippur as a place of Sumerian learning all this perished with the abandonment of the city in the reign of Samsuiluna of Babylon, after which the bulk of Ur III literature together with the genre of royal hymn was quickly forgotten. VII.2.3) Sculpture and Glyptic during Šulgi´s Era There are not many pieces of sculpture and glyptic from the reign of Šulgi, depicting the king. However, those few preserved exemplars deserve attention, because they bear on his policy of royal self-representation in different phases of his rule and in different contexts. First, there are the figurines put in foundation deposits of temples, and showing the king as the builder carrying a basket filled with bricks upon his head. Some two dozen of these artifacts are known from the reign of Šulgi, most of them bearing his building inscriptions (RIME 3/2 1.2.4, 1.2.6, 1.2.13, 1.2.30, 1.2.32). They were found usually in multiple copies in the foundations of Inana´s Eana temple at Uruk, and the temples of Nimintaba at Ur, Ninmarki at Ëirsu, Nin‹ursaë at Susa, and Inšušinak at Susa. All of them were made of bronze except for the five copper exemplars from Nimintaba´s temple. All the inscribed figurines contain the title ‘king of Sumer and Akkad’, and therefore must have been made before Šulgi´s assumption of the title ‘king of the four quarters’ around the year Š26. Only the pieces from Uruk and Ur do not have the divine determinative before the king´s name. Thus, the rest is likely to have been commissioned some time after the year Š21. Although Šulgi was already deified when most of the extant figurines were cast, the ideological change did not affect the design of those artifacts at all. Their appearance is

The dependence of especially Išmedagªn´s hymnology on that of Šulgi is well known. See Klein (1985), (1990), pp. 65–79. In this context one should note ll. 305–7 of hymn Šulgi B where the monarch stated what a future king ought to have done with his hymns: ‘Because of my extraordinary wisdom and my ancient fame as a master, he should choose my hymns as examples, and himself beget heavenly writings.’ Translation ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’. 734 Cf. A.R. George (2005), p. 135. Cf. the discussion of Sumerian literature in the context of Old Babylonian schools in Veldhuis (2004), pp. 60–80, here p. 79. 733

245

extremely formalized,735 conforming to a tradition promoted by Šulgi´s father whose canephors are notorious. In fact, it would be impossible to tell the difference between Urnamma´s and Šulgi´s figurines if they lacked inscriptions, or if the archaeological context were not known in case of uninscribed pieces. Obviously, there was no need to alter the design of objects which were not to be seen by anybody but the respective deities. Second, there are four fragmentary statues of Šulgi, all inscribed (RIME 3/2 1.2.55– 7, 1.2.2031). All of them are headless, and therefore give no hint of the king´s appearance. Yet, they appear to have portrayed Šulgi in the traditional posture of a supplicant. This is no surprise, as the four exemplars bear votive inscriptions and were destined for temples at Ëirsu and Ur.736 The best preserved statuette shows the king dressed in a long fringed garment and a kilt extending to his knees. Šulgi holds an animal, perhaps a goat, in his hands. This has been explained by Claudia Suter in her detailed study of this piece, its imagery, and various parallels, as a reference to the king´s ability to communicate with the gods. According to Suter, this image communicates not only the notion of the king as a servant offering an animal, but also as a mediator between human and divine spheres, for the sacrificed animal was subsequently used for extispicy.737 Thus, the statuette is traditional both in its form and message. The inscription on the sides and the back communicates that it was dedicated to the Lagaš god Igalim. Šulgi is called the ‘king of Sumer and Akkad’, but his name is preceded by the diëir sign. Thus, Suter´s assumption that the piece was commissioned ‘in a period during which Shulgi concentrated his efforts on the consolidation of his father´s heritage, and was known to have built, restored, and furnished temples throughout the realm’,738 may not be entirely accurate. Nevertheless, she is right in concluding that ‘the dedication to the local god Igalim … pays respect to Lagashite traditions, yet claims supremacy at the same time, a strategy well documented in the inscriptions of the Ur III kings’.739

735

See, for instance, D. Potts (1999), p. 133, pl. 5.1, for an image of a Šulgi figurine from Inšušinak´s temple. 736 The exception is the Šulgi statuette commissioned by an official called Šulgikiursagkalama (Šulgi 26) which bears a long and unusual inscription consisting of a dedication and a list of gifts, tasks, and prebends of the craftsmen at the service of the god Nindar. The statuette seems to have portrayed the king as performing a libation ritual. On the inscription see Civil (1989). On the statuette´s iconography see Zettler (1989), especially pp. 69–77. 737 Suter (1991–1993), pp. 68–9. 738 Ibid., p. 64. 739 Ibid.

246

All in all, the meagre sculptural evidence from Šulgi´s reign gives the impression that the king was careful to observe old traditions in this respect, at least as far as sculpture with a purely religious message is concerned. Conceivably, this could be different as regards depictions of Šulgi in his more mundane roles, e.g. as a runner between Ur and Nippur (see chapter III.5 above). But the evidence is missing at present. Third, there are two unique pieces of glyptic art from the latter part of Šulgi´s reign (AAICAB 1/2 pl. 139 [Ashm 1971-345]; Hermitage 3 143 [Erm 14933]).740 These are the so-called ‘royal gift seals’ or ‘inaba’ seals, which was a type of seal presented by the king to his trusted servants, members of the royal family, provincial governors, etc. The ‘royal gift seal’ most likely originated during Šulgi´s reign,741 and was subsequently used throughout the Ur III period. The actual use of these seals seems to have been restricted to special occasions, and their owners often possessed seals of different type which they used to validate ordinary transactions. The ‘royal gift seal’ therefore appears as a kind of distinction with which the god-king acknowledged the high rank of given individuals in the government hierarchy, or their special merits, and at the same time ensured that the persons presented with such an élite artifact would be even more loyal to him than before. The iconography of these seals became standardized over the time, but the Šulgi seals are unique, apparently because they belong to the earliest ones. They were given to his spouses Eaniša and Gemeninlila. The king is shown bearded on both of them. The image of Eaniša´s seal contains an ax-like object located between her and the seated king. The nature and purpose of this item is difficult to explain. Perhaps, it has something to do with her capacity of the king´s ‘travel companion’. Gemeninlila´s seal depicts herself facing Šulgi, ascending with a sceptre (or a mace) over his shoulder. The king´s posture is strongly reminiscent of Narªmsuõen´s on his ‘Victory Stele’. Behind Šulgi there is a stag leaning on a tree. This motif, unusual on Ur III seals, was quite common on Sargonic ones. Thus, it is obvious where the inspiration for this carving came from. Šulgi is the central figure of the image, considerably taller than Gemeninlila. He is definitely shown here as the victorious god-king. Thus, the visual evidence from Šulgi´s reign makes the same impression as the textual evidence of his reform efforts. There is a marked distinction between the two 740

See Mayr and Owen (2004), especially pp. 152–5, with drawings on p. 167. Ibid., pp. 154–5: ‘… one can point to a number of iconographic innovations … specifically during the reign of Šulgi. These include the depiction of the king as the primary figure on seals, an unprecedented level of individual portraiture, etc… The royal gift seal type was only one of many of these innovations that continued after the demise of the Ur III empire. Other Ur III innovations, such as the iconography of the king and the lama-goddess … became so indispensable to glyptic art in succeeding centuries that they are normally associated with the Old Babylonian period.’ 741

247

levels of the state´s organization and politics. Admittedly, the pieces of sculpture are considerably earlier than the seals, but it seems to me that this did not play such a role as their different context did. While the figurines and statues belong to the ‘local’ milieu, the seals belong to the very ‘central’ realm of Šulgi´s immediate family. Again, a tendency to observe old traditions and customs at the local level and to introduce innovations on the central level is clearly perceptible. VII.3) Post-Ur III Copies of the Šulgi Texts and the Image of Šulgi in the Omen, Chronicle and Prophetic Literature Šulgi was not forgotten after the fall of Ur. He was remembered in two ways. The first one was the copying of literature and inscriptions mentioning him. His hymns and other relevant literary texts, including the dubious letters, were copied widely in Old Babylonian scribal schools and those school tablets represent the bulk of extant text witnesses for the Šulgi literature. Among these manuscripts belongs a tablet copy of a statue inscription bearing the text of the so-called hymn Šulgi V (see chapter III.5 above with references). Of note is also an apparently Old Babylonian enigmatic bilingual schooltext playing on motifs from the Šulgi hymns (PBS 1/1 11).742 Yet, all these texts fell into oblivion after the reign of Samsuiluna of Babylon at the latest. Apart from the Šulgi literature, there is a handful of post-Ur III copies of some of his royal inscriptions and a ‘letter-order’. Copying of inscriptions of noted ancient kings was a common practice especially in the Old Babylonian period. Thus, it is not at all surprising to encounter some copies of Šulgi´s inscriptions. These are: an Old Babylonian Sammeltafel bearing abbreviated copies of several short inscriptions of Šulgi and his consorts Eaniša and Ninkala(?), as well as a fragmentary description of a military campaign in the east (RIME 3/2 1.2.2049–59, 1.2.81, 1.2.84, 1.2.36–7); an Old Babylonian school ‘copy’ of a ‘stele inscription’ in syllabic Sumerian and Akkadian (RIME 3/2 1.2.38; the text appears to be a bogus Šulgi inscription ‘copied’ by the apprentice scribe);743 a Neo-Babylonian copy of a building inscription commemorating the construction of the Emeslam temple in K¥t¥ (RIME 3/2 1.2.24); a Neo(?)Babylonian Sammeltafel of Šulgi inscriptions bearing copies of two Akkadian texts dealing with the construction and equipment of temples in the city of K¥t¥, an account of a military campaign in Akkadian, as well as two Sumerian votive inscriptions (RIME 3/2 742 743

Westenholz (2005). For the opinion that the inscription was faked see for instance Schaudig (2003), p. 481, n. 189.

248

1.2.25–6, 1.2.35, 1.2.64, 1.2.2043). The ‘letter-order’ copy is a late fragmentary tablet inscribed with a Sumerian piece of correspondence in archaizing script (AoF 19 pp. 31– 2 [VAT 13294]). According to the colophon, it should have been copied from an old tablet found in the Ekišnuëal temple, yet its content is quite unusual if compared to the well-known Old Babylonian copies of Šulgi´s royal correspondence. Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of the tablet hinders better understanding of this interesting text. There is also an early Middle Babylonian fictitious letter from Susa written in syllabic Sumerian and accompanied by an Akkadian translation (MDP 57 pl. 1, obv. ii ll. 40– 69).744 This text merges bits of information from other letters, especially those mentioning Š¥suõen and Ibb‰suõen, so that Šulgi appears as a ruler giving orders to Išbierra to purchase a large amount of grain. The second way in which Šulgi was remembered was the use of this historical character in post-Ur III literature. As already shown above (chapter V.3, V.5, V.7), Šulgi joined other notable rulers mentioned in the omen apodoses. The omen tradition, preserving some historical information on Šulgi´s reign, was subsequently used for the portrayal of Šulgi in chronicle and prophecy texts. Among information contained in early omens mentioning Šulgi and later transmitted in slight variations in other literary contexts is that he ‘ruled/subdued the four regions’, and that he ‘captured/smote Tappadara‹’. Thus, the ‘Chronicle of the Esaëila’ (‘Weidner Chronicle’; TCS 5 19, l. 70) says that ‘(Marduk) entrusted the kingship over all the lands to Šulgi’,745 and the late chronicle from Uruk relates that ‘Šulgi … controlled all the lands, (and) subjugated […]bangar and Rabsisi, kings of Subartu’ (SpTU 1 2, ll. 3–5).746 In the ‘Šulgi Prophecy’ the king also says that he ‘ruled the four quarters’ (BiOr 28 p. 14, col. ii l. 2´).747 As for possible allusions to Šulgi´s fight against Tappadara‹ in the prophecy, Robert Biggs thinks that the ruler of Simurrum is mentioned in a fragment from the Nabû temple at Kal‹u and that this fragment belongs to the ‘Šulgi Prophecy’.748 Yet, this attribution is by no means certain. One should note in this respect that Šulgi states in the prophecy that he annihilated a certain Balda‹a. Benjamin Foster points out the similarity of this name to that of the Balda‹da‹ mentioned in the ‘Cuthaean Legend’.749 But it seems to 744

Edzard (1974), pp. 15–17, 20–23, 28–30. See also ETCSL, 3.1.13.2, ‘Letter from Šulgi to Išbi-Erra about the purchase of grain’. 745 See Glassner (2004), pp. 268–9. 746 See ibid., pp. 288–9. Cf. Leichty and Walker (2004), pp. 203–5. 747 See also Foster (2005), p. 357. For an analysis of the composition see Longman (1991), pp. 142–6. 748 Biggs (1997), pp. 170, 174–6. See Wiseman and Black (1996), no. 65. Biggs suggests that nos. 64 and 69 belong to the same text as well. 749 Foster (2005), p. 357, n. 2.

249

me that in view of the several variants of Tappadara‹´s name already in Old Babylonian omens it is not entirely fanciful to suggest that Balda‹a might be a corrupt spelling of that name. In the late literature, there are also other phrases perhaps derived from the omens. For instance, the ‘Chronicle of the Esaëila’ says that Šulgi ‘did not perform his (i.e. Marduk´s) rites in their totality, contaminated his cleansing ceremonies, and his mind was deranged (?)’ (TCS 5 19, l. 71).750 According to the ‘Chronicle of Ancient Kings’, Šulgi ‘abundantly provided food for Eridu that is on the seashore’. But ‘B®l frowned at him and had his body devoured (by ???), … put an end to him’ (TCS 5 20A, ll. 28, 30).751 Although the relevant omen texts are not yet known, my assumption is based on the fact that both chronicles are heavily dependent on well attested omens relating to other kings. Besides the omens, the authors of late texts mentioning Šulgi worked with other sources as well. They utilized the Sumerian King List, as shown by references to Šulgi as the son of Urnamma in the chronicles, which occurs nowhere else in the Ur III or Old Babylonian texts except for the king list, the ‘Tumal Chronicle’ (based on the king list), and the above-mentioned most likely fake copy of a ‘stele inscription’.752 The chronicle from Seleucid Uruk draws upon the king list even more explicitly by concluding each entry with the indication of the number of the respective king´s regnal years.753 Interestingly, Urnamma is otherwise never mentioned in late literature, perhaps because there seem to have been no omens referring to him, a stark contrast to his many predecessors as well as successors. Another source were Šulgi´s royal inscriptions. Some of them were copied in the Old Babylonian, and even as late as the Neo-Babylonian period. Scholars composing some of the later literary texts mentioning Šulgi borrowed his titulature from his inscriptions, perhaps to provide their creations with more credibility. Interestingly, it is his early titulature, as opposed to his title of the ‘king of the four quarters’ used later in his reign and transmitted in the omens. Thus, the Old Babylonian ‘copy’ of a ‘stele inscription’ says that Šulgi was a ‘mighty man, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad’ (RIME 3/2 1.2.38, ll. 5–6). This sequence was also used by the authors of a late pseudepigraphical

750

Glassner (2004), pp. 268–9. Cf. ibid., pp. 270–1. 752 The mention of Urnamma is one of several indications that the text was made up by Old Babylonian scribes. Genuine Šulgi texts, either Ur III or later versions, never contain his filiation. It is likely that the filiation was borrowed into this text from the king list or the ‘Tumal Chronicle’. 753 See Cavigneaux (2005), pp. 66–7. 751

250

text about Šulgi´s victory over Assyria and the Scyths (UET 6/3 919), even though with some additions and modifications never found in original Šulgi inscriptions.754 Apart from literary texts, Šulgi is also mentioned in two inscriptions of later Mesopotamian kings. Nebuchadnezzar II claims in a weight stone inscription that the stone is a copy of a Šulgi weight (see fn. 705 above). However, the prominent appearance of Šulgi in a late royal inscription occurs in a text of king Nabonidus (NBK pp. 250–3 5),755 the ardent restorer of old traditions and cult places of the moon-god. Thus, he says in this inscription that he restored ‘the ziggurrat of Ekišnuëal in Ur, built but not finished by Urnamma, a king of the past. His son Šulgi finished his work’ (ll. 8– 11). Nabonidus claims that he ‘learnt’ this information ‘from the inscriptions of Urnamma and Šulgi, his son’ (ll. 12–18). Yet, this claim cannot be true because the formulaic inscriptions of Ur III kings contained neither their filiation nor any statement of a mere completion of their predecessor´s unfinished work. Moreover, no Šulgi inscriptions relating to the ziggurrat or temple of Nanna at Ur are attested. Thus, the scholars composing the inscription of Nabonidus seem to have utilized some short building inscriptions of Urnamma and Šulgi (or later copies thereof), together with relevant (pseudo-) historiographical texts (the king list, ‘Tumal Chronicle’, even the late chronicles). From the combined ‘evidence’, they were able to ‘learn’ that Šulgi, the king of long reign, ‘finished’ the work begun during the short-lived reign of his father.756 Therefore, information on Šulgi´s work on the ziggurrat in the Nabonidus inscription cannot be taken as historically accurate. In fact, while it seems that Šulgi did not work on the ziggurrat at all, there is an indication that it was finally completed as late as the time of Amarsuõena.757 Interestingly, the ‘fact’ of Šulgi´s completion of the ziggurrat at Ur leaked in a modified form into the late chronicle from Uruk, either from the inscription of Nabonidus or from some other, as yet unknown, source. The chronicle relates that Šulgi ‘built Ekišnuëal, the temple of Sîn at Ur, he made it complete’ (SpTU 1 2, l. 8). The next line says that ‘he built the walls of Ur, (whereby) he strengthened the foundations of Ur’ (l. 9). In reality, the building of the walls of Ur was Urnamma´s work. The text also mentions the ‘blind scholar Lunanna’ (l. 11), the supposed author of the Etana epic,758

754 See Frahm (2006). Note that this text is careful to appear as an authentic one. It contains a colophon according to which it should have been ‘copied’ and ‘checked’ against an ‘original stele inscription’. 755 For the text see Schaudig (2001), pp. 350–3. 756 According to Schaudig (2003), pp. 479–81. 757 Ibid., p. 480. 758 See W. Lambert (1962), p. 66, col. vi l. 11.

251

who occurs in the series B‰t m®seri in connection with an ‘Ištar temple of Šulgi’ (SpTU 2 p. 48, ll. 24–7).759 This concludes the wide range of identifiable sources which appear to have informed that late chronicle. As for the view of Šulgi in late literary texts, it is ambivalent. The chronicles mentioning Šulgi are unanimously critical of him, as they are of all the other early kings, except for Sargon and Narªmsuõen spoken of in good terms in the ‘Chronicle of Ancient Kings’. The unfavourable image of Šulgi in the chronicles reminds one of the omens relating to his death (see chapter V.7), most likely known by the authors of late texts as well, which make the impression that the king met a violent death. This qualified him as an Unheilsherrscher in the eyes of subsequent generations. Thus, the chronicles see him as an utterly impious king, not observing appropriate rituals, sacking Esaëila and Babylon (in favour of Ur), changing the rites of Uruk, etc. On the other hand, the ‘Šulgi Prophecy’ sees the king in a favourable light. It seems to preserve the memory of his provision for Nippur by calling him ‘the beloved of Enlil and Ninlil’ and the founder of Nippur (BiOr 28 p. 14, col. i l. 2, col. ii l. 5´). Further, it plays on the notion of his divinity to show that he was the ideal prophetic character:760 a divine king transmitting the words of Šamaš and Ištar. When he spoke, the gods would listen to him.761 Also the recently published text speaking of Šulgi as a victor over Assyria and the Scyths portrays him as a good and pious character. He is the ‘governor of Babylon … pleasing the heart of Marduk … preparing the regular offerings for the great gods’ (UET 6/3 919, ll. 2– 3),762 etc. The image of Šulgi in a particular text obviously depended on the current political situation at the time of the text´s composition. By ascribing either the favourable or unfavourable actions of their contemporaries to a noted ancient king the authors were able to comment on that situation freely. The selection, or inclusion in case of the chronicles, of Šulgi was apparently dictated by the memory of his wars in the north and his close connection with important southern cities such as Ur, Nippur and Uruk, preserved in sources at hand.

759

See Reiner (1961), p. 3, ll. 24–7, p. 8. Note that Šulgi had a son called Lunanna, perhaps a general in Zimudar and Nagsu. Cf. Cavigneaux (2005), pp. 68–9, here n. 36. 760 See already Longman (1991), p. 143. 761 See Foster (2005), p. 357. 762 See Frahm (2006), pp. 21–2.

252

Chapter VIII: Conclusion This thesis on king Šulgi aimed to give an up-to-date survey of the major aspects of the life and reign of the most important Ur III monarch in a monograph-like format. Its initial chapter addresses relevant sources and methodological questions used in the subsequent discussion of the king´s life, deeds, ideology and legacy. The next chapter, on Šulgi´s family, opens with a historical narrative of decisive political events leading to the establishment of the House of Ur by Šulgi´s father Urnamma and those of Urnamma´s reign itself as documented in both the historical and literary sources currently available. While this narrative is based on primary sources, it also presents and discusses opinions of scholars who dealt with the formation of the Ur III state before, and attempts to offer a fresh look at the crucial moments in Urnamma´s career. This applies especially to the discussion of Urnamma´s violent death and the circumstances in which his son and successor ascended the throne. Even though available sources recounting those events are literary texts only, their analysis given in this section nevertheless seems to show that Urnamma was indeed lethally wounded in a battle against the Gutians (perhaps on the north-eastern border of Babylonia), and brought back to the capital where he subsequently died. Following their victory, enemy troops entered Babylonia and threatened to overthrow the authority of the recently established kingdom of Ur. Hence, Šulgi must have ascended the throne quite hastily as a young man, push the enemy back fast and revive the trust of the local and religious élites in his (and his dynasty´s) legitimacy and ability to rule and protect the land effectively. He succeeded but unfortunately little historical details are known. The section on Urnamma also contains an account of the ideological means and innovations this king used to legitimize his claims to hegemony. Subsequent sections of the second chapter are devoted to the remaining people closest to the king: his mother, grandparents, siblings, his numerous wives and children. Thus, these sections come perhaps the closest to the personal life of the king in showing the relationships within the royal family, yet the nature of available sources does not permit any discussion of Šulgi´s private life proper. Documents dealing with his family are official records created by state administration. They contain only general definitions of his family members´ relationship to him (e.g. ‘son of the king’, ‘daughter of the king’) and information on their public roles in the economic, administrative, religious and military affairs of the kingdom. Any personal details are missing and at times it is

253

difficult to establish even the precise nature of the relationship of a royal family member to Šulgi. This holds true especially for the king´s wives. Their relationship to the ruler was defined by the titles of dam, nin or lukur(-kaskal) whose precise meaning as well as social and political purport in the context of a royal family is still somewhat elusive. Limited by the nature of available evidence, these sections thus attempt to describe and clarify the relationship of Šulgi´s family members to him as far as possible and to delineate their roles and duties in Ur III politics documented in relevant sources. The third chapter of the present thesis gives a chronologically arranged historical account of Šulgi´s reign. It is based on the sequence of year names documented for the reign of Šulgi in two Old Babylonian lists of his date formulae and in scores of administrative texts from his reign dated with the individual year names and their variants. The date formulae represent a historical skeleton informing us about decisive events, policies and developments in the reign of Šulgi from the perspective of the king. Discussion in this chapter is based on the known chronological sequence of the date formulae divided into fifteen sections reflecting the developments of Šulgi´s policy from his accession until his death. The sequence adopted here represents a compromise made in order to offer a coherent historical narrative, not interrupted more often than necessary by discussions of subtle questions of the exact placement of some year names within the king´s reign, problems connected with local variant year names used in some provinces, etc. This applies especially to the early years of Šulgi and also to the numerous examples of mu ús-sa variants for many of his later year names. These problems are not left out, however, but discussed in footnotes with references to texts and detailed studies of the particular cases. The plain information provided by the date formulae is placed in context and analysed using other historical sources (e.g. royal inscriptions and administrative texts), in order to offer as complete a historical overview as available evidence permits. Historical allusions in literary texts are purposefully omitted from the narrative because they represent a special kind of evidence, whose relevance for a reconstruction of history is hotly debated. The use of literary compositions – or, more specifically, some statements contained in relevant literature – as historical sources, as well as the results thereof, is a complex issue which needs to be first addressed as a theoretical and methodological problem before attempts are made to identify statements with possible validity for historical research. Therefore, the historical account in chapter three is

254

separated from the discussion of Sumerian literature, specifically the Šulgi hymns, and its relationship to (Ur III) history found in subsequent two chapters. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, chapter four discusses the theory and method of identifying historical allusions in Sumerian literature, with a particular focus on the Šulgi hymns, and the question of their correlations with data contained in historical sources. The first section presents an overview of hypotheses put forward by scholars advocating the existence of historical allusions in literature and their relevance for historical research as well as of those opposing this view in the past decades. It has been attempted to show that reading history in all Sumerian mythological and epic compositions is a highly precarious undertaking based on the assumption that those texts were meant as allegories presenting political fortunes of distinct parts of Mesopotamia, or even particular cities, under guise of the adventures of various deities, heroes and other figures taking part in the given narrative. It seems impossible to find any support for this assumption, and consequently for the reading of history in Sumerian myth and epic, in the texts themselves. On the contrary, it has been shown that the texts often disagree with such an interpretation. However, it also has been pointed out that some mythological and epic texts apparently do have a historical dimension as they are explicit about the participants of the described event (‘Ninmešara’), and a political – or, more precisely, ideological – dimension in a broad sense (e.g. the myth ‘Enlil and Ninlil’ describing the moon-god´s descent from Enlil, i.e. one of the supports of the legitimacy of Ur III kings). But although the relationship of such texts to a specific period, its politics and ideological outlook seems clear, their historical dimension is very general, lacking both the broader context and details of events alluded to, which makes any reconstruction of history based on those narratives futile. Royal hymns are a different case, though. These texts explicitly refer to historically attested kings and sometimes also to events and other facts of their reign attested in contemporary historical sources. If they refer to historical events they usually present them in some context and detail, which makes them important for historical research. However, given the hymns´ very nature of literary compositions, their frequent use of stock-phrases and many other problems, it is difficult to decide how much the purported historical allusions in royal hymns can be trusted. In the rest of the first section of chapter four I summarized the arguments of both the advocates of the ‘correlation positive’ approach to royal hymns and of the proponents of the ‘correlation

255

negative’ approach to them, showing that while these extreme positions seem to be well founded, both of them are equally problematic and a middle course should be sought so that the discussion of references to historical events in royal hymns be led out of the current methodological treadmill. Thus, the second section of chapter four introduces a new method of looking at historical allusions in Sumerian royal praise poetry, specifically the Šulgi hymns. These compositions are shown to be pieces of literary propaganda meant to indoctrinate the educated élites of the Ur III state, enhance their loyalty and through them promote the desired image of the king throughout his kingdom. As such they included both the ideological stock-phrases and historical allusions, which is a general pattern discernible in literary propaganda of all periods and political regimes. For the Šulgi hymns this premise is confirmed by two undisputed correlations between the literary and historical sources (hymn Šulgi R and date formula for year Š8, but especially hymn Šulgi A and date formulae for years Š6/7). Since the Šulgi literature constitutes a large textual body containing various statements of possible historical significance (e.g. in Šulgi D+X) which currently cannot be confirmed due to a lack of correlating historical sources, it is desirable to develop a method of distinguishing ideology from history in the hymns alone. In the closing two subsections of chapter four a comparative approach is suggested as a viable method of doing so. If one chooses a period in history well covered in both historical documents and propagandistic texts, whose ideological outlook makes them comparable with the Šulgi hymns (the decisive similarity being the deification of the ruler understood here as a phenomenological category of comparative religion), one is able to identify clear correlations between historical documents and propagandistic literature. Historical information thus isolated in literature is usually formalized and distorted due to the use of symbolic language in literary propaganda, yet still at least partly in accord with known historical reality. Significantly, a comparison of propagandistic texts from both the period rich in correlating material and the period poor in correlating historical sources shows striking parallels, for – as already indicated above – this kind of literature works along the same lines throughout documented history. Thus, if observations resulting from the analysis of texts from a period rich in correlating material are subsequently applied to similar texts from a period lacking in such material, attempts at isolating historical allusions in the latter group of texts seem to be set on a more secure footing. In the closing subsections of chapter four this

256

method has been theoretically considered and practically demonstrated using the Šulgi hymns as propagandistic texts from a period poor in correlating historical sources and selected pieces of Stalinist poetry and song lyrics as the comparative material from a period rich in correlating sources. This method further suggests that valid historical information can be found not only by juxtaposing sources which we understand as historical and literary but that historical allusions found in literary texts only can complement and verify each other just as well. All this may give rise to new and methodologically sounder insights into the historical dimension of literary texts from periods which yielded source material whose nature does not allow historical research to dispense with the testimony of literary texts (as is the case of the time of Šulgi). Consequent on the previous methodological discussion chapter five attempts to analyse the historical dimension of and specific allusions in those pieces of the Šulgi royal praise poetry whose content allows the assumption that they either contain references to historical events or are contextually linked to them. The structure of this chapter mirrors the chronological layout of chapter three as far as possible. Thus, discussion commences with an analysis of the historical dimension of the socalled ‘Coronation Hymns’ of Šulgi (G, P and F) regarded by some scholars as literary reflections upon Šulgi´s triple coronation in Nippur, Uruk and Ur. These texts are elaborate pieces of investiture propaganda immensely concerned with Šulgi´s relationship to major gods of the three most important cities of his realm. They may indeed be related to his coronation at the beginning of his era, for administrative texts from the last regnal year of Š¥suõen (JCS 7 p. 48 MAH 19352 [ŠS09-10-01], rev. ll. 6–8; UDT 100 [ŠS09-10-03], rev. ll. 6–8) reveal the practice of crowning the Ur III king (Ibb‰suõen) consecutively in all three cities and it seems reasonable to assume that this practice was introduced either by Urnamma or Šulgi, the founder or the consolidator of the dynasty. However, on the basis of my reading of these texts whose rhetoric effectively transposes Šulgi from the realm of humanity to the divine sphere it has been suggested that the three ideologically crucial hymns may have been composed or at least redacted for the occasion of a re-coronation of the deified Šulgi as god-king later in his reign. The next poem analysed, hymn Šulgi D+X, recounts a military campaign against the ‘Gutians’ undertaken apparently in retaliation for the crisis following the defeat of Urnamma and concluded by Šulgi´s victorious offering of the spoils of war in several cities of Babylonia but most importantly in Nippur, Uruk and Ur (in that order).

257

Scholars usually place this campaign to the beginning of Šulgi´s reign. Yet, the currently available manuscripts of Šulgi D+X contain multiple and subtle references to the king´s divine status as well as to events which took place later in his reign (Š6/7, described in hymn Šulgi A). Moreover, the composition´s historical background, whose new detailed interpretation is offered in the relevant subsection, by itself strongly suggests that the hymn was composed or reworked around the time of Šulgi´s deification in the wake of his final ‘destruction’ of the city of D®r – apparently a key location of continuous skirmishes with the ‘Gutians’ on the north-eastern fringe of Babylonia close to an important trade route to Elam – in the year Š21. Thus, this text seems to offer a ‘myth of origin’ turning the failure of the dynasty´s founder to protect and further develop his kingdom into a celebration of his divine successor´s victory and abilities, effectively displacing the gloomy memories of what followed after the death of Urnamma and any concomitant doubts about the Ur III dynasty from the minds of this text´s audience.763 Note that the deification of Šulgi after a major, and ideologically vital, military victory commemorated in the longest and most elaborate of his hymns would have clearly imitated his model Narªmsuõen who proclaimed himself god after crushing a major rebellion and having an account of his deification recorded in his ‘Bassetki inscription’. Needless to say, this idea is purely hypothetical, for Šulgi was in contrast to Narªmsuõen never explicit about the circumstances of his elevation to the divine realm (perhaps in order to conceal the influence which the Old Akkadian king´s example had on this ‘Sumerian’ ruler). The next section discusses the purported historical allusions in hymns thought to correlate with historical sources informing about Šulgi´s building activities. The analysis of hymns M, T, R and U given in this section shows that only the long known correlation of hymn R and the date formula for year Š8 is certain while the other hymns do not correlate with any historical or literary source from the reign of Šulgi or a later copy thereof. There follows an analysis of the historical allusions in hymn Šulgi A, the well-known narrative of the king´s care for good condition and security of roads in Babylonia and his inauguration of a Nippur – Ur highway by means of a ‘test run’ from Nippur to Ur and back. The former topic of the narrative correlates with the year name of Š6, the latter with the date formula for the year Š7. The discussion focuses on a fresh 763

The hymn Urnamma A (the ‘Death of Urnamma’), lamenting Urnamma´s sad fate and apparently attempting to offer a reconciliation in a time of ideological distress, may be seen as an etiological ‘myth of explication’ complementary to the ‘myth of origin’ supplied by Šulgi D+X.

258

interpretation of how Šulgi´s legendary ‘run’ may have actually looked like and on highlighting the frequent references to it within the Šulgi praise poetry (including Šulgi V, most likely a royal inscription), an Old Babylonian letter and an omen from the same period. These repercussions show that the legend of Šulgi´s superhuman athletic achievement, originally meant perhaps to further support belief in his divinity, became a hallmark of this king´s career for later scribes. No wonder, considering that all advanced scribal apprentices must have memorized Šulgi A, the first composition of the Decad, when they started studying more complex works of Sumerian literature. The following section on the hymn Šulgi B scrutinizes the hypothesis put forward by the composition´s editor, Giorgio Castellino, and elaborated by Douglas Frayne, namely that the mention of Šulgi´s palace E‹ursaë in this boastful text constitutes a historical correlation with the date formula for the year Š10 commemorating the construction of the palace. A detailed analysis of the text´s rhetoric offered in this section along with a discussion of references to the E‹ursaë in other literary texts shows, however, that the palace is mentioned in Šulgi B only because it became a sacred structure after Šulgi´s deification, and not because the hymn was meant to celebrate its construction. Furthermore, one of the few pieces mentioning Šulgi´s palace, the ‘Disputation between Tree and Reed’, also refers to the ‘shrine’ Puzrišdagªn built in the year Š39, which means that this text must have been composed after that year. This fact suggests that hymn Šulgi B, packed with rhetoric clearly glorifying Šulgi as god-king and at the same time mentioning his palace, is more likely to have been composed much later than year Š10. On the whole, the first four sections of chapter five offer a fresh analysis of historical correlations in the royal praise poetry of king Šulgi and allusions to the events of his reign in other literary sources thereby modifying previous interpretations and providing new insights into the texts´ historical background. Section five presents three Old Babylonian ‘historical’ omens mentioning a man called Tappadara‹. While these texts were not created during the Ur III period, they refer to a person – and thereby to a particular event concerning this person – attested in Ur III sources, which separates them from among the other repercussions of Šulgi´s reign in later texts. Therefore, they are discussed in more detail in the chapter on historical allusions than in the chapter on Šulgi´s legacy which closes the thesis. Tappadara‹, the ruler of Simurrum, and some of his family members are attested in administrative texts from Dr®him dated to in total five years after the year Š32 when Šulgi destroyed Simurrum for the third time. This implies that Šulgi captured the

259

Simurrian royal family in the wake of his third campaign against the northern principality and had them transferred to Ur presumably as hostages whose life depended on political loyalty of their land to the Ur III kingdom. The fate of these people after further campaigns against Simurrum in the years Š44–45 is unknown. They are never mentioned again after year Š38. Unfortunately, it is likewise impossible to say how such a concrete piece of information as the name of Tappadara‹ and a note about his defeat and capture made it into Old Babylonian omen apodoses. The question why Old Babylonian scribes regarded precisely this information as worthy of recording in the form of omen apodoses must at present remain unanswered as well. Literary correspondence mentioning Šulgi is discussed in the following section. It summarizes the content of the Old Babylonian and an early Middle Babylonian manuscripts of the extant texts. Next, it highlights the main points of the ongoing scholarly debate about the accuracy of information conveyed in the letters. The current state of this discussion may be summarized as follows: while the Šulgi letters seem to relate some important details about the relationship of the central government to the periphery and northern dominions, the redaction of the correspondence for educational purposes in the Old Babylonian period appears to have been very strong, rendering the apparently historical data anecdotal. Furthermore, in the current absence of correlating historical sources it seems impossible to judge which piece of information goes back to the original Šulgi correspondence with his officials and which piece of information reflects the political situation of the period in which the extant manuscripts were written. Clearly, the case of the letters is different from that of the hymns whose Old Babylonian copies do show correlations with Ur III sources, not only in terms of historical events but also of ideological outlook, orthographic and grammatical conventions, etc. Finally, mirroring the discussion of the circumstances of Šulgi´s death based on historical and archaeological evidence in chapter three, the closing section of chapter five presents the testimony of two Old Babylonian omens thought to bear on the death of Šulgi. Similarly to the Tappadara‹ omens these are unique texts perhaps informed by an Ur III source. Placing the statements of these two omens in context of other pieces of evidence from late historiographic and Ur III administrative texts, this section offers a tentative hypothesis that Šulgi may have died in a fire of his palace which may have been set by his son and successor Amarsuõena.

260

Chapter six of the present thesis attempts to give a comprehensive account of Šulgi´s royal ideology as revealed in the extant corpus of his royal praise poetry. Interestingly, his royal inscriptions are very brief and generally contain no more than a few epithets and royal titles. They represent the very traditional part of Šulgi´s self-representation, while the hymns are an expression of his ideological system mixing tradition with innovation and legitimizing his divine status. The first section devoted to the prerequisites of Šulgi´s ideology opens with a definition, identification and enumeration of topoi of ideal kingship attested in the Šulgi hymns. These topoi are generally understood as traditional building stones of a king´s self-representation in royal inscriptions and literature from Early Dynastic times onwards. Based on the discussion offered by Esther Flückiger-Hawker (1999, pp. 42– 58), the topoi of ideal kingship utilized by Šulgi´s poets are typologically distinguished into two major categories: a) legitimation topoi used to justify his claim on hegemony and thereby to provide him with legitimacy securing the loyalty of the population, especially its most powerful segments capable of challenging his power and presenting a pretender to the throne from among their ranks (i.e. clergy, provincial and military dignitaries), and b) kingship topoi showing how diligently the king fulfilled his tasks and how beneficial his rule was to the land. The subsequent detailed survey of topoi belonging to both of the above groups and their several subgroups clearly shows the use and modifications of these literary devices in the Šulgi hymns, thus betraying the essentials of his self-representation, traditional and innovative at the same time. This survey constitutes a necessary precondition for further study of his royal ideology. To give the reader some idea about the background from which Šulgi´s royal ideology sprang, the following subsections provide a general overview of the development of Mesopotamian royal ideology from the dawn of organized government up to the reign of Šulgi himself. The first two focus on the main points of legitimization of supreme power in the late Uruk period and Early Dynastic times, on the changes of politics in the Sargonic period, which necessitated a further change of royal ideology, and on strategies of royal self-representation of the first divine king in Mesopotamian history, Narªmsuõen. The subsequent part shows how Urnamma adapted the old Sumerian model of royal ideology to legitimize himself as the ruler of a territorial state, introducing most of the elements later developed by his son into a successful ideology of a ‘Sumerian’ divine king. The most obvious and important change in royal self-

261

representation in the reign of Urnamma was his introduction of royal praise poetry, specifically hymns glorifying the king alone, in Sumerian literature, which provided his son with a platform for formulating his refined royal ideology in the first place. The second section of chapter six is devoted to an analysis of Šulgi´s royal ideology and his concept of the divine king proper. The Šulgi hymns reveal an elaborate system of royal ideology, a mix of old, traditional, Sumerian ways of royal self-representation and the recently developed Old Akkadian ideology of a divine king, with Urnamma´s and Šulgi´s own innovative input of elements eventually making the latter´s status of the god-king more stable in the environment of a ‘Sumerian’ kingdom. This blend of royal ideology also appears to have been responsible for the success and endurance of Šulgi´s hereditary divine kingship as opposed to that of his never openly acknowledged model Narªmsuõen. The new elements are never grouped in a single text, listed or explained, for literary propaganda always speaks in symbolic language and prefers to reveal its content by inches. Therefore, the key to unlock Šulgi´s ideological system is to extract decisive ideological elements from the whole corpus of his hymns and analyse them together. The key points of the system are the following: 1. The focus on Nippur, Uruk and Ur as the religious, political and dynastic centres of the Ur III state. 2. The adoption of both Urnamma and Šulgi into the Urukean divine family as sons of Ninsun and Lugalbanda, brothers of Gilgameš (the latter two being legendary Urukean heroes). This seems to have been prompted by the dynasty´s actual origin at Uruk. Apart from the likely kinship between Urnamma and his predecessor Utu‹eëal, note that Uruk was called the ‘place of the queen’ and Ur III queens had their palace at Uruk (UET 3 906, rev. l. 6; UET 3 901; UET 3 929, obv. l. 3; UET 3 96 [IS04-07-30], rev. l. 2; UET 3 99 [IS04-08-07], rev. l. 2; UET 3 100 [IS04-08-12], rev. l. 2), while Nippur was called the ‘place of the king’ according to historical sources (UET 3 864, obv. l. 5; UET 3 96 [IS04-07-30], obv. l. 5; UET 3 99 [IS04-08-07], obv. l. 4; UET 3 100 [IS04-08-12], obv. l. 4). 3. The use of the ‘sacred marriage’ in literature (whatever form it may have taken in reality) as a way of identifying Šulgi with Dumuzi. By virtue of this identification he becomes brother of Ëeštinana and consort of Inana, which

262

makes him a brother-in-law of Utu but most importantly the son-in-law of the moon-god Nanna, Inana´s father and patron deity of Ur. 4. The revival of the ancient genealogy of Nanna as a son of Enlil and its development into a notion of the former as the first-born of the latter. This component of the system makes Šulgi, the son-in-law of Nanna, a relative of Enlil, the most senior deity in Sumerian pantheon at that time. All this turned the king into a unifying element of the extended family of the gods of Nippur, Uruk and Ur. According to this ideology he became a pillar of divine order and thereby also a conditio sine qua non of the transfer of blessings and powers of fertility from the divine to the earthly sphere. This concept makes every endeavour to show that Šulgi´s deification was not only legitimate, but also beneficial and ultimately necessary. A figure effectively bringing local pantheons of Nippur, Uruk and Ur together into a big divine family of Sumer and Akkad simply could not have been human. Given the importance of the family, the clan, and their hierarchic structure, in Mesopotamian society, politics and religion, a divine king´s ideology based on the concept of a family looks like an elegant and rather simple solution to the problems inherently contained in the idea of a divine human. The more so if the king wants to be divine and at the same time maintain that he belongs to and further develops a cultural milieu in which the deification of a living monarch is by no means a norm. Only a combination of all the above elements enabled the ruler to assume divine status. If one or more of them were either missing, or in the making (like points 1. and 3. in the case of Urnamma), the system did not allow for the establishment of the net of intimate family relationships between the king and the respective deities, i.e. the critical precondition of his deification. Yet once the deification of a living monarch was justified by Šulgi´s elaborate ideological system, and his successors were recognized as divine from their accession, modifications of the system were possible. This applies especially to the shift of ideology discernible in the praise poems of Š¥suõen and historical as well as archaeological evidence from his reign. Š¥suõen´s hymns differ markedly from those of Šulgi. They are preoccupied solely with glorifying the supreme power and heroism of the king, promoting his image as god and even highlighting the exceptional nature of his mother and wife. Furthermore, most of his extensive royal inscriptions preserved in Old Babylonian copies (RIME 3/2 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5) portray this king as a warlike

263

hero and show that Š¥suõen´s concept of divine kingship was closer to that of Narªmsuõen than to that of Šulgi.764 Points 1., 2. and 4. are almost entirely missing from texts pertaining to Š¥suõen who obviously preferred to emphasize his own role as divine king alone. The differences are also visible in administrative sources testifying, for instance, that Š¥suõen built a number of temples for himself while construction work on temples of other deities was not that extensive (see Brisch 2006). It is even possible that Š¥suõen´s modifications of ideology may have contributed to the fast decline of royal authority in the last decades of the Ur III era, for once the balance of the respective components within the ideological system was impaired the system became prone to collapse. The reconstruction of Šulgi´s concept of the divine king given in the first two sections of chapter six constitutes a major outcome of the present thesis. As an attempt to read the Šulgi hymns as expressions of a self-contained ideological system, to analyse the constituent elements of that system, to show how they fit in the system, and thereby to uncover the inner logic of both those elements alone and the system as a whole, this reconstruction offers a new perspective of Šulgi´s royal ideology, the references to Urukean deities and heroes in his hymns, the ‘sacred marriage’ and other issues critical for an understanding of early Mesopotamian divine kingship. The rest of the second section of chapter six deals with the implications of the deification of Šulgi in his lifetime, like bringing offerings to his statues, constructing shrines for him, introducing a festival and a month name called after him, as well as using his name as a theophoric element in toponyms and personal names. The final part of chapter six discusses the ideological background of the Sumerian King List and the text´s purport for Šulgi´s ideology. The differences between the oldest known copy from the reign of Šulgi and later copies from the Old Babylonian period are highlighted and tentatively interpreted here. Chapter seven focuses on the legacy of king Šulgi in terms of his politics, cultural developments of his era, and the memories of his deeds as reflected in written sources from subsequent periods of Mesopotamian history. The first section deals with changes in religio-political, economic, administrative, social and military organization of his state,

764 Apart from the differences in the expression of royal ideology note the clear difference in the form of royal self-representation: Šulgi – brief and traditional Sumerian royal inscriptions vs. extensive and innovative royal hymns; Š¥suõen – brief royal hymns not concerned with elaborate justification of his divine kingship vs. extensive royal inscriptions glorifying the king as a merciless warrior. Š¥suõen´s method of self-representation obviously draws upon the Old Akkadian strategy of highlighting the ruler´s heroism in long stele and statue inscriptions.

264

generally labelled as the Šulgi reforms. As it would go far beyond the scope of the section to define and trace signs of the reforms in the more than a dozen thousand administrative documents from the reign of Šulgi, this part of the thesis is intended merely as an overview of current scholarly views of the reforms, taking the broadest scheme – proposed by Piotr Steinkeller – as a theoretical skeleton for the discussion, and subsequently determining on the basis of a summary of primary evidence and observations of other scholars which developments actually may be regarded as reform steps of Šulgi. This discussion results in an observation that similarly to his royal ideology the king apparently combined traditional approaches with innovations also in his practical policies. While he seems to have observed local traditions in order to avoid possible collision with the interests of local élites, he introduced innovations at the central level of state administration (like the ‘bala’ redistribution system) to gain unprecedented control over the land´s economic resources and to enable effective management of his territorial state. The subsequent discussion of the cultural heritage of Šulgi´s reign begins with an analysis of certain passages from his hymns testifying to various kinds of intellectual activities and to the high esteem those activities enjoyed among Ur III royalty and educated élite. The fact that Šulgi refers to himself as to an accomplished scribe, administrator, builder, musician, polyglot, diviner, etc., shows the importance of these professions and qualities for Ur III society and allows a hypothesis of a mutual benefit gained on the one hand by the king through promoting controlled education and cultural life (resulting in ranks of loyal scholars, administrators, priests), and on the other hand gained by those who went through Šulgi´s schooling system and subsequently worked for the state. Indeed, it seems that Šulgi´s care for culture was driven primarily by political motives. This is clear in case of his founding of the state-controlled scribal academies at Nippur and Ur. Also the fact that he allowed only such works of literature which glorified him or other figures fitting in his ideological system to be composed or redacted and transmitted seems eloquent enough in this respect. Accordingly, the next part deals with the Šulgi hymns as major pieces of his cultural legacy. It attempts to provide answers to the questions why the hymns were composed, who was their audience and why they were so readily adopted as educational tools in Old Babylonian schools. The discussion results in a hypothesis that the cultural purpose of those texts was to confirm a largely artificial ‘Sumerian identity’ of their subject (i.e. Šulgi), their creators (i.e. royal scholars) and their copyists (fledgling scribes, priests and

265

officials). The ‘Sumerian identity’ was necessary if Šulgi´s ideology of a divine king coming from Uruk with its (also invented) heroic past, ruling from Ur and caring for Nippur was to be successfully maintained. The ethnic and linguistic reality of the Ur III period may have been different, of course, but that is precisely what the rhetoric of those texts tries to conceal. Needless to say, Šulgi´s ‘Sumerian identity’ promoted in the hymns also conceals the fact that he borrowed the idea of divine kingship from an Old Akkadian ruler. This ‘Sumerian identity’ was then taken over by early Old Babylonian kings, surely not Sumerians, building on Ur III political and ideological heritage. Therefore, the praise poetry of Šulgi was feverishly studied in Old Babylonian schools as a corpus of valuable model texts, a true reservoir of literary and ideological devices used and modified by the Isin-Larsa period scholars to glorify their own masters. This discussion may be useful not only for further study of the Šulgi hymns but also for research into the Isin-Larsa literature, ideology and politics. There follows a section on the sparse sculptural and glyptic evidence depicting Šulgi. The discussion focuses on clues which pieces of visual evidence give regarding Šulgi´s ideology and policy. Again, a tendency to respect traditional ways is observable in pieces meant for the provinces and their cultic places, while innovations building on Old Akkadian heritage are traceable in pieces intended for use among the central élite group of the state (particularly in case of the so-called ‘royal gift seals’ with depictions of Šulgi). Finally, the closing section of chapter seven presents all currently known evidence of memories of Šulgi and his reign in writings from later periods of Mesopotamian history. After a very brief overview of post-Ur III copies of the Šulgi literature (Old Babylonian copies of the Šulgi hymns form the source material for many of the preceding chapters), correspondence and royal inscriptions, it summarizes evidence contained in omen apodoses, chronicles and a prophecy mentioning Šulgi and possible clues which those texts may provide for a reconstruction of some events of the Šulgi era. On the other hand, this section also attempts to identify sources informing the later texts and reasons why later scribes incorporated the specific bits of information into their writings. The appendix provides an edition, complete with a commentary and hand-copies, of eight new manuscripts of hymn Šulgi A housed in the Schøyen Collection, Norway. In conclusion, the main results of this thesis are: a systematic overview of evidence for Šulgi´s family; a new look at the political history of his time; a reassessment of hypotheses for a search of historical allusions in Sumerian myth and epic; a detailed discussion of approaches to historical correlations in the Šulgi hymns; a proposal of a

266

new method for identification of historical allusions in the Šulgi praise poems; a thorough discussion of historical allusions in relevant compositions of the Šulgi hymnal corpus; a comprehensive analysis of Šulgi´s royal ideology and his concept of divine kingship as a self-contained system communicated in the corpus of his praise poems; an overview of recent perceptions of Šulgi´s legacy in the realm of the economy and administration; an interpretation of the broader cultural aim and impact of Šulgi´s praise poetry in the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods; a summary and analysis of the Šulgi era repercussions in post-Ur III literature. Hopefully, all this will be useful for further research into the history, politics, ideology and divine kingship, as well as culture and literature of the Ur III and early Old Babylonian periods.

267

Appendix: New Duplicates of Hymn Šulgi A The Schøyen Collection holds eight tablets inscribed with hymn Šulgi A which are to be added to the sixty-seven hitherto known sources,765 resulting in a total of 75 currently identified duplicates of this composition. All the Schøyen pieces are unprovenanced Old Babylonian single column school tablets. Five are of the imgida type (MS 2182/1, 2182/2, 2182/3, 3382, 3410),766 while the rest are rectangular short excerpt tablets (MS 3304, 3365, 3401). Note, however, that the identification of MS 3365 is not entirely secure because the surface is so damaged that it is possible to read only two signs with certainty. Two tablets were patched with modern clay so as to appear complete. Two flakes of modern clay, ‘inscribed’ with fake wedges, were added to MS 2182/3 with clearly visible patches joining the flakes with the tablet (indicated in the handcopy). The lower part of the obverse and upper part of the reverse of MS 3304 were likewise patched with modern clay. The obverse patch was again ‘inscribed’ with fake wedges. The Schøyen tablets taken together make up more or less complete sixty-seven lines of the hymn. The quality of the script and content vary. MS 2182/1 is written in a ‘monumental’ style with almost each wedge deeply impressed. While MS 2182/2 is written in a competent script, some variants testify to the scribe´s rather poor understanding of the text. The script and content of MS 2182/3 and MS 3304 are rather clumsy. MS 3382 was written by a competent scribe, which is true also for MS 3410 and especially MS 3401. All tablets were collated by the present author. List of Manuscripts:767

Correspondence:

NNN: MS 3382

ll. 1–31

5,4 x 4,9 x 2,8

OOO: MS 2182/1

ll. 1–21

7,5 x 5,7 x 2,5

Measurements (cm): Colophons: til-la ƒ°nisaba¿ im-sar gi-mi-°il-x¿-[x-x]

PPP:

MS 2182/2

ll. 24–47

8,3 x 5,8 x 2,5

765

[til]-°la ƒ¿nisaba

Listed in Delnero (2006), pp. 1858–64. Or Type III tablets. Delnero (2010) offers the latest discussion of school tablet typology and its importance for a reconstruction of Old Babylonian scribal education practices. Here p. 55. He calls the imgidas ‘extract tablets’ (p. 64). 767 Sigla pick up on the list in Klein (1981b), pp. 182–6, which ends with ms. MMM. Additional text witnesses of Šulgi A not included in Klein´s edition are 3N-T916, 328 (SLFN pl. 18), listed as NIII27 in Delnero (2006), p. 1860; N 1387 (NU2 in Delnero 2006, p. 1861); 2N-T113 (NU4 in Delnero, ibid.); VAT 17441 (VAS 24 43), Ba1 in Delnero (2006), ibid.; UET 6/3 *617 (Ur2 in Delnero 2006, p. 1862); YBC 16156 (X16 in Delnero 2006, p. 1863), and N 2478 which joins CBS 10993 (PBS I/1 7), Klein´s (1981b, p. 182) ms. C, Delnero´s (2006, p. 1858) NI2. 766

268

[til]-°la¿ ƒutu768 QQQ: MS 3304

ll. 27–34/62–67

5,5 x 6,2 x 2,7

RRR: MS 3410

ll. 37–67

13,3 x 7 x 2,8

SSS:

ll. 44–52

6,6 x 8,2 x 3

TTT: MS 2182/3

ll. 46–54/60–6

9,5 x 5,4 x 2

UUU: MS 3365

ll. 57?, 61–2?, 65? 5,4 x 6,8 x 2,8

MS 3401

L.e. note not deciphered. Colophon(?): illegible traces

Score Transliteration:769

1) NNN obv. 1 OOO obv. 1







8) NNN obv. 8

lugal m[e-e]n šà!-ta ur-saë me-[en] lugal me-en °šà¿-ta ur-saë me-en ƒšul-gi me-en ba-tu-dè-na-ta nita °kala¿-ga me-en ƒšul-gi me-en ba-tu-dè-na-ta n[ita?-x] °me-en¿ pirië igi-‹uš °ušumgal¿-e [t]u-da me-en pirië igi-‹uš °ušumgal¿-e tu-d[a] m[e]-en lugal an-°ub¿-ta-limmu2-ba me-en lugal an-ub-ta-limmu2-ba me-en na-gada °sipa¿ ùë-saë-°ëi6¿-ga me-en na-gada °sipa¿ saë-ëi6-g[a me]-°en¿ °nir¿-ëál diëir kur-kur-ra me-en nir-°ëál¿ diëir kur-°kur¿-[ra me]-°en¿ [dumu] °ù¿-[tu-da] °ƒ¿nin-sún-kam me-en dumu °ù-tu-da¿ ƒnin-[sún-kam me-en] [šà-ge] °pà¿-da an kù-ga me-en

OOO obv. 8

šà!-ge p[à]-da an °kù¿-[ga me-en]

9) NNN obv. 9

[lú] nam-tar!-re °ƒ¿en-líl-lá me-en

OOO obv. 9

°lú nam¿-tar!-re [ƒen-líl-lá me-en]

10) NNN obv. 10

[ƒšu]l-gi ki-áë ƒnin-líl-lá me-°en¿

768 Cf. the colophons of prism RR (mu-bi-im 99/ti-la ƒnisaba/ù ƒ‹a-ià igi ƒnisaba/ŠA .GA we-du-li-bur) 6 and ms. TT (šu ur-tur-ƒnisaba [bottom], šu-niëin 60+40/ti-la ƒ°nisaba¿/ù ƒ‹a-ià/šu ta-ri-ba […] [col. iv]) in Delnero (2006), pp. 722 and 715. On this type of colophons (til-la ƒnisaba [ù ƒ‹a-ià], i.e. a dedication to the patron[s] of the scribal art) see Hallo (1976), p. 195 with n. 98. Note that the dedication to Utu is unusual. 769 Line numbering follows Delnero (2006), pp. 1865–96. Restorations of missing parts of text observe the amount of space available on individual tablets.

269

OOO obv. 10

ƒšul-°gi¿ ki-°áë¿ °ƒ¿[nin-líl-lá me-en]

11) NNN obv. 11

[mí-z]i °du11¿-ga ƒnin-°tu¿-ra me-en

OOO obv.11

mí-zi [d]u11-°ga¿ °ƒ¿[nin-tu-ra me-en]

12) NNN obv. 12

[ëe]štu2 šúm-ma ƒ°en¿-ki-°kam¿ me-en

OOO obv.12

ëeštu2 šúm-°ma¿ ƒ°en¿-[ki-kam me-en]

13) NNN obv. 13 OOO obv.13



16) NNN obv. 16 OOO rev. 1

lugal kala-ga ƒ[x] me-en lugal kala-ga ƒn[anna me-en] pirië ka du8-a ƒ[utu] me-en [piri]ë ka du8-a ƒu[tu me-en] ƒšul-gi ‹i-°li pà¿-[da ƒinana] me-en ƒ šul-gi ‹i-li pà-°da¿ [ƒinana me-en]

[ ]

anše-ëír-nun-na °kaskal-e¿ du7 me-en a[nše]-ëír-nun-na [kaskal-e du7 me-en] sis[i] °‹ar¿-ra-an-n[a] kun sù-[sù] me-en

17) NNN obv. 17

anše

OOO rev. 2

anše



20) NNN rev. 1 OOO rev. 5

sisi °‹ar-ra-an¿-n[a kun sù-sù me-en]

°dùr¿ ƒšagan2-na ím-°e¿ kíë-ëá me-en dùr-KAŠ4? ša[gan2 ím]-°e¿ [kíë-ëá me-en] [dub-sar gal]-zu ƒ[nisaba]-kam me-en dub-sar gal-°zu ƒnisaba-kam me-en¿ °nam¿-ur-saë-ëu10-gin7 nam-kala-ga-ëu10-gin7 nam-°ur¿-saë nam-kala-ga-°ëu10-gin7¿

21) NNN rev. 2

ëeštu2-g[a] šu ‹u-mu-un-du7-a

OOO rev. 5

ëešt[u2]! °šu ‹u-mu-un¿-ni-du7

22) NNN rev. 3

inim gi-°na¿-bi ‹a-ma-da-si-a

23) NNN rev. 4

níë-si-sá ki ‹a-ba-áë-ëá

24) NNN rev. 5

níë-erim2-me-en ki la-ba-ra-áë-ëá

PPP obv.

1

25) NNN rev. 6 PPP obv.

2


3

[níë-erim2-e] °ki¿ l[a-ba-ra-áë-ëá-àm] inim níë-erim2 du11-ga ‹ul ‹a-ba-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 [inim níë-NE.G]A? du11-g[a ‹ul ‹a-ba-ra-gig-ga-àm] ƒšul-gi me-en lugal [kal]a-ga-a-ni saë-bi-šè è-a me-°en¿ [ƒšul-gi me-en lu]gal x-bi? °saë¿-[bi-šè è-a me-en] 270


4

QQQ obv. 1


5

QQQ obv. 2

29) NNN rev. 10

á-nun-ëál zà-šè-ni-eš ‹úl-°la¿ im-[me]-an-na!-ke4 [á-nun-ëál z]à-šè-ni-éš ‹úl-la [ì-me-en-na-ke4-eš] [á]-°nu¿-[ëál zà-šè-ni ‹úl-la ì-me-na-ke4] ëiri3 ‹u-mu-un-gur kaskal kalam-[m]a-ke4 si ‹é-ni-sá-sá

[ëiri3 ‹u-mu]-un-gin7 kaskal kalam-ma-šè si [‹é-em-sá-sá] °ëiri3¿ ‹u-mu-gi kaskal °kalam¿-ma-[ke4 si ‹é-em]-sá dannana ‹u-mu-un-gi é-gal ‹é-bí-dù

6

[danna ‹u-mu]-un-gin7 é-gal ‹é-bí-dù

QQQ obv. 3

1 dannana ‹u-mu-°gi é-gal¿ ‹[é-bi]-°tu¿

PPP obv.


7

QQQ obv. 4

30a) NNN rev. 12

zà-ba kiri6 ‹é-bí-gub °ki¿-dúb-bu ‹é-bí-ëál [zà-ba kiri6] °‹é-bí¿-gub °ki¿-dub? ‹é-bí-in-tuš °zà¿-b[a] kiri6 ‹é-bi-du11 ki-°dúb?¿ ‹[é-bi]-ëál ki-b[é] °lú¿ zu-a ‹é-em-mi-tuš

QQQ obv. 5

°ki-bé lú zu-a¿ ‹é-mi-t[uš]

31) NNN rev. 13

sig-°ta du¿ igi-nim-šè du-e

PPP obv.

8

QQQ obv. 6

32) PPP obv. 8 QQQ obv. 7



[sig-ta du] °igi-nim-ta¿ du-a °sig10?-ta¿ [du] °igi¿-nim-ta d[u]-a °sed4¿-bí-ib-eš ní ‹é-eb-ši-te-en-te-en [sed4-bi-šè ‹é-eb-ši-te]-°en¿-te-en [nita] °‹ar¿-ra-an °x-e¿ ëi6 °x-x-an¿-sa?-sá [nita ‹ar-ra-an-na du kaskal-e ëi6 ba-an]-da-si-a [ir]iki dù-[a-n]i-gin7 zi-ne-eš ‹a-ba-ši-in-tùm [iri dù-a-gin7 zi-ni ‹a]-pa-°ši-in-tùm¿

35) PPP obv. 11

mu-ëu10 ul-lí °ëá-ëá?¿-dè ka-ta nu-šub-°bu¿-dè

36) PPP obv. 12

ár-ëu10 kalam-°ma¿ ak-ak-dè

36a) PPP

omits

37) PPP obv. 13

du10 tuku-me-en °usu?¿(DA.?)-ë[u10? im]-°zi¿ i?-ím-e KAB?-di-di

RRR obv. 2

[du10 tuku-me-en u]su-°ëu10¿ [i]m-zi-ge-en °ím¿-[e KAx?-di-dè]

38) PPP obv. 14 RRR obv. 3

39) PPP obv. 15

nibruki-°ta¿ s[ig4] uri5ki-šè [nibruki]-°ta¿ sig4 uri2ki-ma-š[è] danna aš-gin7 šu-niëin-ta °šà¿-ë[u10 ‹a]-ma-ab-°du11¿

271

RRR obv. 4





[danna] aš-gin7 °šu¿-niëin-da šà-ëu10 ‹a-ma-ab-°du11¿ pirië nam-šul-bi-ta nu-[k]úš?-ù-šè ù-gub-ba me-en [pirië nam]-šul-bi-ta nu-kúš-ù ne-ba gub-ba m[e]-en túg-níë-lám banda3da-ëu10 [íb]-ëá ba-ab-du11 [túg-níë-lá]m banda3da-ëu10 íb-ëá ba-a-dù tumušen šer7-da súr-dù°mušen-bi dal¿-la-gin7 [á]-ëu10 ‹u-mu-un-°sù-sù¿ [tu]°mušen¿ šer7-da súr-°bi¿ dal-°la¿-gin7 á-ëu10 ‹u-mu-sù-sù ƒanzu2mušen kur-b[i-šè] igi °íl-la¿-kam? du10-ëu10 ‹u-mu-un-bad-bad ƒ °anzu2mušen¿ kur-°bi-šè¿ igi °íl-la¿-gin7 du10-ëu10 ‹u-°mu¿-un-bad-

[ ]

bad

44) PPP obv. 20

°iriki¿ ma-da °ki ëar?¿-[ëar]-x-àm ‹a-ma-°su8-su8¿-ge-eš

RRR obv. 9

[iri ma]-da [ki] ëar-ëar-[ra]-ëu10 ‹a-ma-su8-su8-ge-eš-àm

SSS obv.

1

iri á-dam ki ëar-ëar-°ra¿ ‹a-ma-su8-su8-eš-àm

45) PPP rev.

1

°ùë¿-saë-ëi6-°ga¿ u8-gin7 ‹i-a-ëu10 u6!-gin7 °‹a¿-[ma]-du

RRR obv. 10

[ùë-s]aë-ëi6-[g]a °u8-gin7¿ lu-a °u6-du10¿ ‹u-°mu¿-ub-du11

SSS obv.

2

ùë-saë-ëi6-ga u8-gin7 lu-a-ëu10 u6-du10 ‹u-mu-du11

46) PPP rev.

2

máš ‹ur-saë-ëá ki-ùrki-bi ‹úb °sar¿-sar-[re-gin7]

RRR obv. 11

[máš ‹ur]-°saë-ëá ki-ùr¿-bi-šè °‹úb¿ sar!-sar-re!

SSS obv.

máš ‹ur-saë-ëá ki-°ùr¿-bi-šè ‹úb sar-sar-re-gin7

3

TTT obv. 1

47) PPP rev.

3

máš ‹ur-°saë-ëá¿ ki-ùr-°bi¿-[šè] °‹úb sar¿-[sar-re-gin7] ƒutu á-dam-ma u4 daëal-la-°àm¿

RRR obv. 12

[ƒutu] °á-dam¿-ma u4 daëal-la

SSS obv.

ƒutu á-dam-ma u4 daëal-la

4

TTT obv. 2

48) RRR obv. 13 SSS obv.

5

TTT obv. 3

49) RRR obv. 14 SSS obv.

6

TTT obv. 4

49a) RRR obv. 15

ƒutu á-°dam-ma¿ u4 [daëal-la] [é] °kiš-nu¿-ëál-°la-šè¿ ‹a-ba-°an¿-ku4-re-en °é¿ kiš-nu-ëál-°la¿ ‹a-ba-an-ku4-re-en é! °kiš¿-nu-°ëál¿-[šè ‹a-ba-an-ku4-re-en] [é ƒsuõe]n-na t[ùr] ì gal-gal-la °‹é¿-ëál-la °‹é¿-bí-du8 é ƒsuõen-°na¿ tùr ì gal-gal-la -°‹é¿-ëál-la ‹é-bí-du8 é! °suõen¿-n[a tùr ì gal-gal-la] ‹[é?]-ë[ál-la ‹é-bí-du8] [gu4 ‹a-b]a-ni-[ga]z udu °‹a¿-ba-ni-šum

272

SSS obv.

7

°gu4¿ ‹a-°ba-ni¿-gaz udu ‹a-ba-ni-šum

TTT obv. 5–6 gu4! ‹a-ba-n[i-i]n-[ga]z udu ‹a-ba-[n]i-°šum¿

50) RRR obv. 16

[sem5 kušá-lá-e] °še26 ‹a¿-ba-gi4

8

[sem5] °kušá¿-lá-e še26 ‹a-ba-gi4770

TTT obv. 7

°nim kuš¿á-lá-°e DI?¿ ‹a-°ba¿-b[i?]

51) RRR obv. 17

ti[gi2 níë-du10-ge] °si ‹a-ba¿-ni-sá

SSS obv.

[tigi1/2] níë-du10-ge si ‹a-ba-ni-°sá¿

SSS obv.

9

TTT obv. 8

52) RRR obv. 18

°tigi2? níë?¿-du10-ge °si¿ ‹a-ba-ni-°sá!¿ ƒšul-°gi¿ l[ú ní]ë °lu¿-[lu m]e-°en¿ ninda ëiš [‹a-b]a-ni-tag

SSS bottom

[ƒšul-gi lú] níë lu-lu-a me-en ninda ëiš ‹[a-ba]-°ni¿-tag771

TTT obv. 9

[ƒšul-g]i lú níë lu-°lu¿ me-e[n] ninda ëiš ‹a-°ba¿-ni-°tag¿

53) RRR obv. 19 TTT obv. 10

54) RRR obv. 20 TTT obv. 11

pirië-gin7 °alalx?¿-ta [n]í [íl]-ëu10-°dè¿ [pirië-gin7 K]I.°LUGAL¿-ta °ní il?¿-[la-ëu10]-°dè¿-d[è?] é-gal-°ma‹¿ °ƒ¿n[in]-é-°gal¿-[la-ka-kam] [é-gal-ma‹] ƒ[nin-é-gal-ka-kam]

55) RRR obv. 21

du10 ‹é-ni-dúb a-zal-°le¿ [‹é-ni-tu5]

56) RRR obv. 22

du10 ‹é-ni-gam ninda ‹u-m[u-ni-gu7]

57) RRR obv. 23 UUU obv. 2

° ¿

ƒ nin-šara2!mušen súr-dù°mušen¿-gin7 ‹[a-ba-zi-ge-en]

° ¿772

ƒ

[x x x x x x x x x x x x]

58) RRR obv. 24

ni[bru]ki-šè a-°la¿-ëá °‹a¿-[ba-gur-re-en]

59) RRR obv. 25

u4-bi-a u4-dè g[ù] ‹[é]-eb-bé [mar-uru5 ‹é-niëin2-niëin2]

60) RRR obv. 26

[m]ir-mir-e °im-u18¿-lu ur5-bi ní-b[i-a ‹u-mu-un-ša4]

TTT rev.

[ëír-ëír im-u18-lu ur5-bi ní]-°bi-a¿ ‹[u]-°mu¿-[un-ša4]

3

61) RRR obv. 27 TTT rev.

4

UUU obv. 6


5

[n]im-ëír-ëír im imin-bi-ta an-na t[éš ‹é-ni-gu7] n[im-x]-°x-x¿ ƒIM imin-[bi]-ta °an-na téš? ‹u-mu¿-gù nim-[x x x x x x x x x x x x x x] [u4] °te¿-eš du11-ga ki °‹é-en¿-[tuku4-tuku4] u4 dè-eš du11-ga °ki¿ ‹é-em-°dúb?-ba?¿

Gloss on right edge: ú-uš-ta-aš-gám? a-la, ‘I made the alû drum resound’. Note on bottom edge: …-id iš-ti-a-at-ma erasure. Another note follows on the reverse: ma-šu-šu a-da-lux pu-ti. Translation not attempted. 772 Although this reading is not impossible, the traces also allow for a-[x x x x x x x x x x x x]. 770 771

273

QQQ rev. 1

u4 °téš¿ [du11-ga ki ‹é-em-tuku4-tuku4]

UUU obv. 7

°u4 te-eš¿773 [x x x x x x x]

63) RRR obv. 29

[ƒišk]ur-re an nì-daëal-la-ba gù ‹[u-mu-ni-dúb-dúb]

TTT rev.

ƒiškur-e an! °nì-daëal¿-la-ba °gù ‹u-mu¿-un-ni-d[úb?]

6

QQQ rev. 2


7

QQQ rev. 3


8

° ¿

ƒ iškur-°re an daëal-la¿ [gù ‹u-ni-dúb]

[šeg7 an]-°na¿-ke4-eš a °ki¿-ta °gù¿ [‹é-em-ma-da-ab-lá] im-ma-an!-na-ke4-en a ki-šè gù im-ma-da-bal im-ma-an-na-°ke4¿ a ki-ta gù °ma?¿-si [na4 tu]r-tur-bi na4 g[al-gal-bi] na4 °tur¿-tur-bi na4 gal-°gal¿-b[i]

QQQ rev. 4

na4 tur-tur-bi na4 gal-gal-bi

UUU obv. 10

[x x x x x] °gal?-gal?¿-[x]


9

QQQ rev. 4

67) RRR obv. 33 QQQ rev. 5

[murgu-ëá] dub-dáb °‹é¿-[em-mi-ib-za] °murgu¿-ëá dub-dab4 °‹é¿-em-ma-za murgu-°bi bi-x¿-[x] [lugal me-en n]í ba-ra-ba-da-te-en su ba-[ra-ba-da-zi] lugal me-en ní ba-°da¿-te su bar-ra-ba-d[a]-°zi¿

Translation

1)

I am the king, I am a born warrior,

2)

I am Šulgi, from my birth I am a mighty man,

3)

I am a fierce-eyed lion sired by a dragon,

4)

I am the king of the four quarters,

5)

I am a herdsman, a shepherd of the black-headed people,

6)

I am majestic, the god of all the lands,

7)

I am the child borne by Ninsun,

8)

I am the one chosen in the heart of holy An,

9)

I am the one whose destiny was decided by Enlil,

10) I am Šulgi, Ninlil´s beloved, 11) I am the one duly looked after by Nintu, 773

Upon collation it seems likewise possible to read u4-du10-meš.

274

12) I am the one given wisdom by Enki, 13) I am Nanna´s mighty king, 14) I am Utu´s lion with (wide) open jaws, 15) I am Šulgi, chosen by Inana for (my) charm, 16) I am a mule fitting to the road, 17) I am a horse wagging the tail on the highway, 18) I am a donkey foal of Šagan seeking out a run, 19) I am an expert scribe of Nisaba; 20) like my heroism, like my strength, 21) (my) wisdom was made perfect (too), 22) I do justice to its steadfast words, 23) I love justice, 24) I do not like wickedness, 25) I abhor evil talk. 26) I am Šulgi, the mighty king. I am superior to all. 27) Because I am the strongest one, rejoicing over my endurance, 28) I went around (and) put the roads of the Land in order, 29) I staked out the dannas, built large (lodging) houses, 30) planted gardens at their side, placed rest areas there, 30a) (and) let experienced people settle at those places, 31) (so that) the ones coming from below, coming from above, 32) may refresh themselves in their coolness, 33) (so that) the wayfarer, spending the night on the road, 34) may take refuge there like in his well-built city. 35) So that my name be established forever, so that it never fall into oblivion, 36) so that my praise be accorded in the Land, 36a) … 37) I, the runner, stood up in my strength to try (it) out in running. 38–9) My heart instigated me to proceed from Nippur to brick-work Ur as if it were a single danna(-journey). 275

40) I am a lion standing by himself in his untiring vigour. 41) I endued my waist with my short lama‹uššû garment, 42) I fluttered my arms like a ‘guilty’ dove flying away from a falcon, 43) I stretched my legs forward like the Anzu-bird (when) casting eyes on his mountain.

44) The (people) of the realm´s cities, which I had founded, stepped up to me. 45) My black-headed people, as numerous as ewes, stared at me admiringly. 46) Like a mountain kid galloping to his shelter, 47–8) I entered into the Ekišnuëal as Utu spread sunlight in the settlements. 49) I filled the house of Suõen, a byre yielding a lot of fat, with abundance, 49a) I slaughtered oxen there, I butchered sheep there, 50) I made the šem and ala drums resound, 51) I made the pleasant tigi lyre play properly. 52) I am Šulgi who provides everything abundantly, (thus) I offered food there. 53) In order to raise myself high like a lion at a royal (offering) stand 54) in the magnificent palace of Ninegala, 55) (first) I let my knees rest, I bathed in sparkling water, 56) (then) I knelt down there and feasted. 57) (Thereafter) I arose like a harrier, like a falcon, 58) (and) went back to Nippur in my exuberance. 59) The storm howled on that day, the tempest whirled, 60) northwind and southwind mutually roared at each other, 61) lightning together with the ‘seven winds’ consumed everything in heaven, 62) the rumbling tempest made the earth quake, 63) Iškur roared throughout the vast sky, 64) the rain of the sky joined the waters of the earth, 65) (and) their small hailstones, their large hailstones 66) drummed on my back. 67) (Yet) I am the king, (thus) I was by no means scared, I did not have gooseflesh at all. 276

Philological Commentary774

1) It seems to me that the phrase communicates both the notion of Šulgi´s predestination (‘warrior from birth’) and that of his heroic ‘inner self’ (‘warrior by nature’). Hence the translation.

28) The latter part of this line resembles one of Urnamma´s date formulae: mu urƒnamma lugal-e sig-ta igi-nim-šè ëìr si bí-sá-a (RTC 261–3; ITT 4 7983, rev. l. 9): ‘The year (when) king Urnamma put in order the roads from below to above.’ Therefore, it seems fitting to translate as suggested above, especially in view of the following description of Šulgi´s dividing and securing the newly repaired roads, an elaboration on this line´s simple statement. Cf. already Kramer (1969b), p. 585; Frayne (1981), pp. 185– 7; Frayne (1983b), p. 743, and the ETCSL. See also Frayne (1997b), p. 96. The loc.term. or term. cases in our line, which seems to have prompted Klein (1981b, p. 191) and Römer (1989, p. 676) to translate ‘… I proceeded along the roads of the land’ (a translation following Falkenstein 1952, p. 65), actually support my rendering, for si … sá + loc.-term. means expressly ‘to standardise, to calibrate’ (see Selz 1993, p. 393, administrative context). Further, the compound verb often takes the locative/loc.-term. (-ni-) with the meaning ‘to make straight, to put in order, to prepare’ (see Thomsen 1984, p. 313).

39) ETCSL and Frayne (1981, p. 188) have ‘to make a return journey’ (or ‘a round trip’, respectively) for šu … niëin, which, even though correct, does not fit the context, for this line introduces the description of the first part of Šulgi´s run. Therefore, it seems better to opt for ‘to proceed, to hurry’. See Thomsen (1984), p. 312; Flückiger-Hawker (1999), p. 353, and cf. the other translations.

40) The distribution of nè-ba, ‘in its/his strength’, and ne(-ba) or ní(-ba), ‘by itself/himself, spontaneously’ (see Flückiger-Hawker 1999, p. 341), in manuscripts in which this line is preserved is well balanced (9 vs. 6 with PPP omitting this expression). In view of this fact, my translation, following text RRR, takes ne-ba not as a phonetic writing of nè-ba, but as the expression ‘by himself’ complementing this line´s imagery of Šulgi as an untiring superhuman being never dependent on anybody, who is just commencing the preparations for his upcoming run. Of course, translations based on 774

Sigla in subsequent sections follow Klein (1981b), pp. 182–6, with sigla used by Delnero (2006), pp. 1858–96, in parentheses. The latter helpfully reflect both the provenance and type of all the respective sources (Ba: Babylon; K: Kiš; NI: Nippur Type I, NIII: Nippur Type III, NP: Nippur Prism, NU: Nippur Type uncertain; Su: Susa; Ur: Ur; X: unprovenanced). Sources not utilized by Klein (listed in fn. 767 above) are identified by Delnero´s sigla only.

277

the nè-ba variant (Klein 1981b, p. 193: ‘… standing firm in his strength’; ETCSL; Kramer 1969b, p. 585; Römer 1989, p. 676) are likewise justified.

41) On the meaning of banda3, ‘small, short’, in túg-níë-lám banda3(da) see PSD B, p. 85 (3.2 said of garments). Although translated as ‘short’ already by Falkenstein (1952, p. 67), both Klein (1981b, p. 193) and Römer (1989, p. 676) left the word out in their translations.

42) The combined evidence of our manuscripts speaks in favour of the above translation. The line seems to convey the image of a dove scared away by a falcon while pecking up grain in a field (cf. Nanše and the Birds, D7; Veldhuis 2004, p. 121: ‘The dove [pecks at] the ground in the broad field’), and desperately trying to flee from the chasing bird of prey that suddenly emerged from the sky to punish the dove´s ‘crime’ (šer7-da/nir-da) of damaging the crops. According to Delnero (2006, p. 780), nir-da is perhaps ‘an attempt to replace the otherwise unattested lexeme ńir-DU´ … with another form that might have been a more familiar lexeme’. Falkenstein (1952, p. 83) suggested, and was followed by by Klein (1981b, p. 210), that nir-DU is a phonetic variant of mir-ša4(= DU): ‘(šibbu) snake’. However, only a single extant tablet supports that idea (A [X2]: mir-DU, but note the obviously corrupt and also unique writing tirDA in text OO [X12]). Klein himself points out that it is difficult to reconcile the established reading of mir-DU = mir-ša4 with the variant nir-da present in several exemplars of Šulgi A (to which one has to add PPP and RRR now). Further, the expression súr-bi (ezziš), ‘furiously, fiercely’, which according to Klein (1981b, p. 210) describes the excitement of the dove, seems out of place here. The dove was no doubt excited when flying away, but one surely would not expect such a bird to be furious. The reading súr-bi is attested in nine manuscripts (including RRR), while four manuscripts (including PPP) have súr-dùmušen-bi or a corrupt variant thereof (text EEE [NIII18]), in any case meaning ‘falcon’. Klein suggests that this might be a corrupt writing for súr-bi and quotes a line by which it may have been influenced (Ali 1964, p. 93, l. 13, mušen šu-súr-dùmušen-ta-dal-la-gin7 ub-da-ni-ak-e: ‘I am like a bird fleeing from the claws of a falcon’). According to Delnero (2006, p. 780), ‘´sur2-du3mušen´ … and ´sur2?mušen´ … are probably semantic variants that were either the result of interpretative errors or of intentional simplifications’. Yet súr-dùmušen-bi actually seems to fit the context better, for the idea of a little bird trying to escape a falcon appears closer to the general image of the dove in Sumerian literature than the idea of a ‘furious’ dove fleeing a snake. Veldhuis (2004, p. 289) states: ‘[The dove] is one of the most frequent bird names in

278

Sumerian literature, where it is often associated with mourning and anxiety.’ According to Heimpel (1968, pp. 508–12) there are seven attestations of the (terrible) mir-ša4 snake in Sumerian literature, mostly in connection with a deity but never with a frightened little bird. Certainly, to avoid a falcon must have demanded much more effort than to fly away from a (mythical) serpent crawling on the ground, and the line in question evokes precisely the idea of Šulgi flickering his arms like a dove in the former situation.

43) On the interpretation of this line see PSD B, p. 34. 45) Cf. Kramer (1969b), p. 585. Römer (1989, p. 677), following Falkenstein (1952, p. 67), translates the latter verbal form in this line as ‘(auf das Volk) schaute ich fürwahr gütig’. However, this translation ignores the (grammatical?) variant ‹a-ma-ab-du11/10, attested in mss. S (Ur3) and OO (X12), which clearly gives the 1. sg. dative prefix -ma-. Further, all mss. except V (NIII13), TT (X1) and SSS give the pronominal prefix -b- in the verbal chain. This prefix can be reasonably taken as denoting the collective agent here.

47) All translations – except Falkenstein´s whose reading of this line is incorrect – have ‘broad (sun-)light’ for u4 daëal-la, which forced their authors to make up for the apparent lack of a verbal form by inserting one (Kramer 1969b, p. 585, ‘shed’; Klein 1981b, p. 195, ‘spread’; Römer 1989, p. 677, ‘let shine’; ETCSL basically follows Klein). Yet, this seems unnecessary if one takes daëal-la as a non-finite verbal form.

49) For du8, ‘to fill’, see CAD M, p. 175, malû. Cf. Volk (1995), l. 74; Sjöberg (1973a), p. 112 (su-zi du8-du8); Sjöberg (1977a), p. 190 (‹u-lu‹-‹a du8-du8). Note that du8 is usually reduplicated if meaning ‘to fill’. Both Klein (1981b, p. 195) and Römer (1989, p. 677) translate du8 as ‘to fill’ here. So does the ETCSL. Yet, it is likewise possible to translate: ‘I opened the house of Suõen, a byre yielding a lot of fat, to abundance.’ Falkenstein (1952, p. 69) translates ‘… verlieh ich Überfluß’, which is quite far from the established meanings of du8. Kramer (1969b, p. 585) takes ì as a conjugation prefix to a nominalized verbal form and translates simply: ‘Filled with abundance the great stall, the house of Sin.’

50) See PSD A/2, pp. 80–1 (á-lá: a percussion instrument). 51) On the meaning of si … sá in musical context see for instance Kilmer (1995–1997), pp. 464–5: ‘to set in order, normalize’ (said of strings) = šut®šuru; Kilmer (2004), p. 370: ‘made right’ (i.e. the ‘utterance’ of the lilissu drum) = šut®šuru. Krispijn (1990, p. 3) translates si … sá in this line as ‘korrekt spielen’ and takes níë-du10 as an attribute of the tigi meaning ‘das angenehme Tigi-Instrument’. The dimensional prefix in the verbal

279

chain obviously agrees with the loc.-term. suffix of the ‘pleasant tigi’ (see comments to l. 28 above), not of another, and abstract, indirect object of the compound verb (níë-du10: ‘something good’ rendered as ‘frohe Weisen’ by Falkenstein 1952, p. 69; ‘sweetly’ by Klein 1981b, p. 195; ditto by the ETCSL; ‘süße Melodien’ by Römer 1989, p. 678). Further, the prefix can hardly refer to the Ekišnuëal as assumed by Klein and the ETCSL (‘… play there sweetly’). See Gragg (1973), p. 76. Cf. Thomsen (1984), p. 271. Krispijn (1990, p. 3) also argues that the tigi was a large lyre, not a drum, even though it often appeared in texts together with percussion instruments (Klein, ETCSL, and Römer all have it as a ‘drum’, while Falkenstein gives simply ‘tigi-Instrumente’ and Kramer ‘tigi-music’).

53) Klein (1981b, p. 195) translates this line in accord with Falkenstein (1952, p. 69): ‘On the ´royal stand´, clad in terror like a lion.’ Kramer (1969b, p. 586) has: ‘Have inspired dread from (my) royal seat like a lion.’ Similarly Römer (1989), p. 678. Frayne (1981, p. 457, n. 101) has: ‘In my radiating an aura like a lion at the KI.LUGAL.DU,’ while the ETCSL gives: ‘like a lion, spreading fearsomeness from (?) the royal offeringplace.’ Clearly, lines 53–6 communicate that the king left the Ekišnuëal for the temple of Ninegala to perform his cultic duties there. Cf. Klein (1981b), p. 212. Šulgi prepares for a cultic performance in Ninegala´s shrine according to lines 54–6 but the performance itself apparently is not described any further (but cf. Falkenstein´s ‘ich ließ [the goddess] Brot essen’, so also Römer). In any case, the above translations suggest that the king bathes himself (line 55) while already at the royal offering place, which seems unlikely to me. I understand the ní not as ‘fear, respect, awe’ but as ‘body, self’ and consequently the compound verb ní … íl not as ‘to inspire awe’ but as ‘to raise oneself’. The verb is a non-finite pronominal construction with the suffix -ed(-e), hence the translation.

59) While the latter half of this line is missing from RRR, my translation of that part, as reconstructed by Klein, follows Kramer (1969b), p. 586; cf. Falkenstein (1952), p. 69, for Klein´s (1981b, p. 197) translation is based on the assumption that im, ‘wind’, ought to be reconstructed before mar-uru5, which is by no means necessary. See Römer (1989), p. 678.

60) im is apparently omitted here but should be reflected in translation because of the parallelism (lacking in the preceding line) im-mir(-mir), ‘northwind’, im-u18-lu, ‘southwind’.

61) -bi-ta is apparently a phonetic writing of bi-da (so ms. AA [NI1] in Klein 1981b, p. 197). ETCSL translates téš … gu7 as ‘vied with each other’, which is, however, 280

semantically too removed from the meaning of this verb. ‘To vie with’ is usually expressed with the verb saë … sá (see e.g. Edzard 1997, p. 90; Cyl. B, col. iii, l. 12). The ETCSL translation of the whole ‘thunderstorm passage’ (ll. 59–66) otherwise follows Klein´s rendering.

63) The literal meaning of an níë-daëal-la-ba is ‘in the breadth/vastness of the sky’ (cf. Falkenstein 1952, p. 69; Römer 1989, p. 678; for níë-daëal, ‘vastness’, see now FlückigerHawker 1999, p. 342). Yet the image is that Iškur (= the thunderstorm) raged across the whole expanse of the sky, hence the translation (cf. Kramer 1969b, p. 586).

64) For šeg7 an-na, ‘rain of the sky’, see e.g. Flückiger-Hawker (1999), p. 326. For comments on the meaning of the compound verb see Klein (1981b), pp. 213–4.

65) -bi refers to the rain and waters. 66) The apparently very fitting translation of the onomatopoeic verb dub-dab … za (cf. English rub-a-dub) was taken over from the ETCSL.

67) Nothing seems to hinder my translation of su … zi.g, usually rendered as ‘to be terrified’ (literally ‘flesh’ … ‘to rise/lift’). This compound is one of not so many Sumerian idioms that we can understand without any problem, which is a good reason to translate it as it is. A Survey of Textual Variants775

2) ba-tu-dè-na-ta is similar only to ba-tu-da-na-ta in P (X5) and R (Ur1). 4) -ta- for -da- also occurs in mss. B (X3), RR (X4), P (X5), Ur2, TT (X1). 5) The -ùë- in ms. NNN is a new variant. 7) ù-tu(-) also occurs in A (X2), R (Ur1) and RR (X4); -kam in A (X2), B (X3),QQ (X7), R (Ur1), TT (X1).

9) Mss. R (Ur1), V (NIII13), RR (X4), MM (X8) also have -re- for -ra-. R comes from Ur, V from Nippur, RR and MM are of unknown provenance. Out of the six mss. which have -ra- two are of unknown provenance (A [X2], TT [X1]), the other stem from Nippur (C [NI2], F [NIII2], I [NIII1], U [NIII12]).

12) Out of the four other sources containing -kam-, three are of uknown provenance (A [X2], P [X5], QQ [X7]) and one comes from Ur (R [Ur1]). The Nippurian mss. C (NI2), 775

To avoid numerous recurrent references in this section the reader is generally referred to Delnero´s (2006, pp. 1865–97 [up to l. 68]) score of all the previously known sources. A detailed line-by-line analysis of all the hitherto attested variants can be found in Delnero (2006), pp. 739–813 (up to l. 68).

281

F (NIII2), I (NIII1) and AA (NI1) have -ga- (as does B [X3]), U (NIII12) has -ka- (as does RR [X4]), TT (X1) omits entirely.

13) There is definitely not enough room for nanna (ŠEŠ.KI) in NNN. Thus, there are basically two possibilities. First, the scribe wrote ŠEŠ only. Second, he wrote a different DN in this line (one sign only). Note that RR (X4) has ƒŠEŠ […].

15) The Nippurian mss. F (NIII2) and I (NIII1) add -a after ‹i-li. Out of the mss. which omit -a seven are of uknown provenance (A [X2], B [X3], P [X5], MM [X8], QQ [X7], RR [X4], TT [X1]), three stem from Nippur (C [NI2], L [NIII3], U [NIII12]), and one from Ur (R [Ur1]).

18) The sign after dùr and before the damaged šagan2 in OOO is definitely not a DIËIR sign. Therefore, the only possibility seems to be that the sign is a kind of (phonetic) complement to dùr. It can be either dúr(= KU) if one takes the second vertical as a crack but such a ‘phonetic’ complement is hardly helpful and the second vertical seems to be a stroke, not a crack anyway. Other possibilities are: -ré(= IRI)?, dùr-AŠ?.DU (= akkannu): ‘wild ass’, or dùr-KAŠ4?, which is tentatively suggested in my transliteration as the most likely reading whatever its meaning. ùr after dùr is omitted in source A (X2) too; Šagan occurs without determinative also in source U (NIII12).

19) Only two Nippurian mss. have -kam here (F [NIII2], V [NIII13]). The provenance of other mss. with -kam (A [X2], B [X3], MM [X8], QQ [X7], TT [X1]) is unknown. The majority of texts from Nippur have -ka- instead (C [NI2], L [NIII3], U [NIII12], W [NI5], EE [NIII4]). Cf. comments to l. 12 above.

20) The omission of -ëu10-gin7 after nam-ur-saë in OOO is hitherto unattested. 21) OOO seems to have

ËIŠ.TÚG.TÚG instead of ËIŠ.TÚG.PI. The verbal chain

variants of both NNN and OOO are hitherto unattested.

22) Note the variant in ms. AAA (X9): ‹a-ma-da-si-me […]. All other sources have the -sá- verbal base (except CC [Su1] in which this line is very obscure). The -si- variant appears to have resulted from confusion with the si … sá compound verb, or perhaps even with the níë-si-sá of the next line.

23) -e after níë-si-sá is omitted mostly in sources of unknown provenance. Only one source comes from Nippur (GG1 [NP1]), yet it is unclear whether the -e was really omitted (níë-si-°sá¿ […]). The verbal form without copula is attested in L (NIII3), B (X3) and AAA (X9).

282

24) NNN provides additional (see DD [X10], MM [X8] and perhaps also X [NI6]) indirect evidence for the reading erim2 of NE.RU (cf. Klein´s comments [1981b, p. 206]; he prefers to read ne-ru). For other evidence (indirect as well as direct, i.e. syllabic) see already Sjöberg (1962), p. 6; Sjöberg (1973b), pp. 28, 36. See further Flückiger-Hawker (1999), p. 324. The verbal form certainly without copula is also attested in sources B (X3) and L (NIII3).

25) For the tentative reading of the badly damaged line obv. 2 in PPP see ms. AAA (X9) in Delnero (2006), p. 1876: inim níë-NE.GA? gig!-°ga-me?-en¿?. The form -gi4(-gi4) instead of -gig- in NNN is also attested in mss. DD (X10) (‹a-ba-ra-ab-gi4-gi4) and MM (X8) (‹a-pa-ra-ab/gi4-gi4). It is discussed in Delnero (2006), p. 756. The seven Nippur sources in which this verbal chain is preserved have -gig-.

26) The -ga-a-ni form is hitherto unattested for this line. Note, however, that the Nippurian mss. C (NI2), U (NIII12) and MMM (NI7) write (-)ga-ni. -a after è occurs only in three other sources (B [X3], F [NIII2] and L [NIII3]). The variant in PPP is difficult to decipher. The sign after the incomplete lugal looks like IB. Another possibility is to read perhaps daëal? assuming that the scribe somehow confused it with kalag (on phonetic grounds?). The -bi could be a mistake for -ga, then.

27) The only other attestation of -nu- instead of -nun- occurs in ms. DD (X10). The zàšè-ni-éš in PPP is also found in sources A (X2), B (X3), P (X5) and TT (X1). The closest parallel to the zà-šè-ni-eš of NNN occurs in the Nippurian mss. U (NIII12) and V (NIII13) (zà-še-ni-eš). The verbal chain in NNN is hitherto unattested.

28) RR (X4) is the only ms. which seems to have -un- in the first verbal chain. The forms in PPP and QQQ are new. They may represent phonetic writings of ëen/ëin (‹am#u sg. base of ‘to go’), or simply memory errors resulting from anticipation of the first verb in the next line (gin6/gi-in: ‘to make firm’). The -šè of PPP is otherwise attested only in the Nippurian ms. L (NIII3) and perhaps also in R (Ur1). The second verbal chain in NNN seems comparable only to that of B (X3) (si ‹é-mi-sá-sá). The traces of two vertical strokes on the right edge of PPP perhaps belong to -em-.

29) All our mss. in which this line is preserved add the phonetic complement to danna. The corrupt variant with the numeral in QQQ is as yet unparalleled. Out of the three sources certainly containing the complement one stems from Nippur (V [NIII13]), one from Kiš (K [K1]), and one is of unknown provenance (DD [X10]). Four mss. do not have the complement: A (X2), B (X3), II (NI4), TT (X1). CC (Su1) writes only da-na. The

283

variants of the first verbal chain in NNN and PPP (with -un-) seem to be comparable only to that in ms. RR (X4) which reads: ‹u-mu-un-gi-en. The use of -gin7 is in any case hitherto unattested. The form ‹u-mu-gi is also attested in A (X2) and TT (X1). -la after égal is omitted in L (NIII3), CC (Su1), TT (X1) and RR (X4) too. The ‹[é-bi]-°tu¿ form of QQQ is comparable only to that of ms. DD (X10) which reads: ‹a-bi!-it-tu.

30) PPP: if the present reading of this line is correct, one immediately observes that the scribe was very confused, especially as far as the peculiar partial merger of ll. 30 and 30a is concerned. ‹é-bi-du11 is comparable only to °‹i¿?-bi-du11 of DD (X10). ki-dúb-bu is new as is ki-dub?, while ki-dúb occurs in RR (X4). The -ëál attested in both NNN and QQQ instead of -ëar is found only in ms. CC (Su1).

30a) ‹é-mi-t[uš] is a new variant. 31) If QQQ really has sig10-, then the only parallel writing occurs in source CC (Su1). The -šè of NNN is thus far attested only in mss. D (X6) and RR (X4). The form du-a of PPP and QQQ is hitherto unattested.

32) The writing of sed4(= MÙŠ.DI) only instead of á-sed4/5(= [A.]MÙŠ.DI) is hitherto unattested. Note further the peculiar rendering of the -bi-šè chain in PPP.

33) This line is quite obscure in PPP. Cf. source AAA (X9). The -si- variant in QQQ is otherwise unattested and again seems to be an error resulting from confusion by the si … sá compound verb. Cf. comments to line 22 above.

34) Apart from PPP the determinative after iri is attested only in three other sources: D (X6), CC (Su1), TT (X1). zi-ne-eš is in this form attested only in PPP (CCC [NIII15] and TT [X1] have zi-né-éš and zi-né-eš, respectively). The -pa- for -ba- in QQQ is otherwise unattested.

35) ul-lí is new variant. BBB (NU3) and TT (X1) have ul-lí-a-aš. 36a) This line is attested in three sources only: A (X2), NN (X11), TT (X1). Eleven or twelve mss. omit this line (six or seven are from Nippur).

37) The middle and end of this line are obscure in PPP; usu is reconstructed only on the assumption that the first part of this complex sign is DA (simplified form of Á in usu). The second part remains obscure. The reading of subsequent signs up to ím is tentative. The simplified ím (i.e. DU instead of KAŠ4) found in both PPP and RRR is also attested in two other mss. (D [X6], TT [X1]). It seems possible to read the sign before di-di in PPP as KAB only if one assumes that the initial upright of the first di actually belongs to the previous sign. For kabx (… du11) = latªku, ‘to try out, to test’, see 284

Klein (1981b), pp. 209–10. The verbal form im-zi-ge-en of RRR is attested in R (Ur1), V (NIII13), HHH (NIII16) and perhaps also in W (NI5).

38) The omission of -ma after uri5 in PPP is hitherto unattested. 39) -ta after niëin also occurs in A (X2), D (X6), S (Ur3), NN (X11) and III (NIII17) while da occurs in the other five sources in which this chain is preserved.

40) kúš in PPP is uncertain, kuš seems to be a possibility as well. The omission of nè/ne(-ba) as well as the addition of -šè to nu-kúš-ù in PPP is unique. The variant verbal form with ù- prefix seems to have been present in ms. CCC (NIII15) too. A (X2), TT (X1), CCC (NIII15) have ne instead of nè.

41) The verbal form of PPP exactly corresponds to that found in S (Ur3) and CCC (NIII15). The verbal chain of RRR corresponds to that in III (NIII17). dù occurs in C (NI2) and TT (X1).

42) D (X6), NN (X11), OO (X12) and LLL (NIII20) have šer7-da instead of nir-DU (attested in eleven mss., eight from Nippur). EEE (NIII18) has °súr¿?mušen-bi, NN (X11) has súr-°dù¿? and OO (X12) has súr-dùmušen-bi instead of súr-bi (in nine mss., six from Nippur). The final verbal form of PPP is securely attested in two other mss. (R [Ur1], C [NI2]), the chain of RRR in three (OO [X12], TT [X1], XX [NIII5]).

43) -kam after íl-la in PPP would be a new variant. -un- in the prefix chain is otherwise attested only in mss. S (Ur3) and CC (Su1).

44) The determinative ki after iri also occurs in other nine sources. á-dam of SSS is a new variant (B [X3] has °iri ma¿-dam). The form °ki ëar?¿-[ëar]-x-àm in PPP seems similar only to ki ëar-ëar-ra-°A¿ […] of NN (X11) and ki ëar-ra-àm of OO (X12). The omission of the copula after the finite verbal form in PPP is paralleled in V (NIII13), OO (X12) and MMM (NI7). CC (Su1) adds -šè after -eš-. The omission of -ge- is unique to SSS. -ëu10 is omitted in TT (X1) too.

45) -ëu10 of SSS is also found in mss. A (X2) and S (Ur3). CC (Su1) has la-ëu10. The ‹i-aëu10 variant of PPP is new as is u6-gin7. The -gin7 seems to be a mistake for -du, which

would be a phonetic writing of -du10, or it is simply an error induced by u8-gin7 in the same line. Verbal chain with ‹a- is attested only in S (Ur3) and OO (X12), while the prefix chain ‹u-mu-(ub-) occurs in three Nippurian sources and an unprovenanced one. -du otherwise appears only in sources MMM (NI7) and TT (X1), -du11 in source S (Ur3).

285

46) The additional ki and the omission of -šè after ki-ùr-bi in PPP are new. The variant verbal form (without -gin7) in RRR is perhaps paralleled in XX (NIII5) (°húb¿ sar-sar-re […]).

47) The addition of -àm in PPP would be new. 48) -ëál-la-šè in RRR is hitherto unattested (it may have been written only in S [Ur3]). 49) It is difficult to explain why the scribe wrote the little ‹é- in the beginning of this line in SSS. Perhaps he noted it as an alternative spelling for ‹a- in the next line.

49a) ‹a-ba-ni-in-gaz is otherwise attested only in NN (X11) (OO [X12] has ‹a-pa-ni-ingaz). The verb šum is also attested in B (X3), R (Ur1), S (Ur3) and TT (X1).

50) This line is very obscure in TTT. nim and ‹a-ba-bi would be new variants, if correctly read.

52) -a after lu-lu is also omitted in A (X2), C (NI2), NN (X11), OO (X12), VV (NIII22) and ZZ (X13).

53) The provisional reading alalx? for KI.LUGAL.GUB is taken from ABZL, no. 432. The omission of GUB in TTT is unparalleled. The omission of -la before -ëu10- in RRR is likewise new. If correctly read, the verbal form in TTT would represent a new variant.

57) The ƒnin-šara2!(TÚG)mušen variant in RRR corresponds to that in OO (X12) and TT (X1). See the discussion in Delnero (2006), pp. 797–8.

60) The mir-mir-e variant in RRR corresponds to that in G (NIII7) and perhaps also W (NI5). My reconstruction of ëír-ëír in text TTT follows the variant in OO (X12), a source somewhat similar to TTT.

61) ƒIM-imin- in TTT is a new variant, perhaps a result of the scribe´s confusion with the images of storm in this passage and with the mention of Iškur (i.e. ƒIM) in l. 63. The variant verbal form is likewise new (gù interpretative error/phonetic for gu7).

62) u4 dè-eš in TTT is a new variant. u4 téš of QQQ would be a new variant, if correctly read. The ‹é-en- prefix chain of RRR is attested in sources G (NIII7), E (NIII9), Z (NIII23) and BB (X15). The verbal form in TTT, if correctly read, roughly corresponds to that found in OO (X12) (‹é-em-dúb-dúb-bu).

63) ƒiškur-e occurs in OO (X12), SS (X14), TT (X1) and ZZ (X13). an daëal-la in QQQ is a new variant. The variant verbal form in TTT is hitherto unattested.

64) -eš of RRR is otherwise attested only in OO (X12), which also seems to have the imma- present in TTT and QQQ. The -en of TTT is new, the -šè seems to appear only in

286

H (NP2). The verbal form in TTT is again similar to that of OO (X12) which apparently has gù ‹é-ma-da-°bal¿? […], however the im- of TTT is hitherto unattested. SS (X14) has gù ‹é-em-ma-da-°bal¿ […]. GG1 (NP1) has °da?-bal¿-e. gù occurs in five other sources. The verbal form in QQQ is unique.

66) This line is entirely obscure in QQQ except for murgu. dub-dáb(= TAB) is also attested in B (X3), dub-dab4(= DUB) occurs in SS (X14). The variant prefix chain in TTT is hitherto unattested.

67) The addition of -en to the verbal form in RRR is a new variant. The first variant verbal form in QQQ is new (and corrupt). The writing of bar- in the second one is a new variant. Concluding Remarks The above survey reveals that the Schøyen tablets have apart from quite a few hitherto unattested variants a number of variants in common with duplicates written outside Nippur. However, they share the vast majority of variants with sources whose provenance is unknown, as is the provenance of the Schøyen pieces themselves, and thus it is impossible to tell on the basis of textual variation from which city (cities) the new duplicates may have come. Moreover, even if we knew the provenance of all the other manuscripts, variation in Šulgi A is a complex matter involving a whole range of factors,776 so that the attribution of the Schøyen pieces to a certain city (cities) would still be highly tentative. Therefore, the only conclusion regarding provenance one may currently draw from the above analysis is that these additional manuscripts do not seem to have come from Nippur.

776

On all the subtle issues of variation in the Decad compositions see Delnero (2006), pp. 148–667. See further the detailed source-by-source variant analysis of Šulgi A in Delnero (2006), pp. 678–738, followed by a line-by-line analysis ibid., pp. 739–849.

287

Plates

MS 3382 (NNN) obv.

288

MS 3382 (NNN) rev.

289

MS 2182/1 (OOO) obv.

290

MS 2182/1 (OOO) rev.

291

MS 2182/2 (PPP) obv.

292

MS 2182/2 (PPP) rev.

293

MS 3304 (QQQ) obv.

MS 3304 (QQQ) rev. 294

MS 3410 (RRR) obv.

295

MS 3401 (SSS)

MS 3401 (SSS) obv.

left edge.

MS 3401 (SSS) bottom.

MS 3401 (SSS) rev.

296

MS 2182/3 (TTT) obv.

297

MS 2182/3 (TTT) rev.

298

MS 3365 (UUU)

MS 3365 (UUU) obv.

left edge.

MS 3365 (UUU)

MS 3365 (UUU) rev.

right edge.

299

Bibliographic Abbreviations ABZL

Catherine Mittermayer, Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerischliterarischen Texte, OBO Sonderband, Fribourg: Academic Press and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

ADFU

Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in UrukWarka. Berlin.

AfO

Archiv für Orientforschung. Berlin and Graz and Vienna.

Akkadica

Périodique Bimestriel de la Fondation Assyriologique Georges Dossin. Brussels.

ANET3

Pritchard, James B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edn., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

AnOr

Analecta Orientalia: Commentationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui. Rome.

AOAT (Sond.)

Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Sonderreihe): Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn and Kevelaer and Münster.

AoF

Altorientalische Forschungen: Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients. Berlin.

AOS

American Oriental Series. New Haven.

ArOr

Archiv orientální: Quarterly Journal of African and Asian Studies. Prague.

ARRIM

Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project. Toronto.

AS

Assyriological Studies. Chicago.

ASAW

Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: Phil.-hist. Klasse. Leipzig and Berlin.

ASJ

Acta Sumerologica. Hiroshima.

BaM

Baghdader Mitteilungen. Berlin and Mainz.

BCSMS

Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies. Toronto.

BCT

Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in Birmingham City Museum. Warminster.

300

BE

The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania: Series A: Cuneiform Texts. Philadelphia.

Beer Sheva

Beer Sheva: Published by the Department of the Bible and the Ancient Near East of the Ben Gurion University Negev. Beer Sheva.

BiMes

Bibliotheca Mesopotamica: Primary Sources and Interpretive Analyses for the Study of Mesopotamian Civilization and Its Influences from Late Prehistory to the End of the Cuneiform Tradition. Malibu.

BiOr

Bibliotheca Orientalis. Leiden.

BMECCJ

Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan. Wiesbaden.

CAD

The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago 1956 –.

CAH

Edwards, Iorwerth E. S. et al. (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge.

CANE

Sasson, Jack M. (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 4 vols., New York: Ch. Scribner´s Sons, 1995.

CDLI

Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/.

CDLJ

Cuneiform Digital Library Journal. http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj. html.

CDOG

Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Saarbrücken and Wiesbaden.

CM

Cuneiform Monographs. Groningen and Leiden.

COS

Hallo, William W. and Younger, K. Lawson (eds.), The Context of Scripture, 3 vols., Leiden and New York and Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1997–2002.

CRRAI 2

N.N., Compte Rendu de la seconde Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale organisée à Paris du 2 au 6 juillet 1951 par le Groupe François ThureauDangin, Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1951.

CRRAI 17

Finet, André (ed.), Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 30. juin–4. juillet 1969, Ham-sur-Heure: Comité Belge de Recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970.

301

CRRAI 19

Garelli, Paul (ed.), Le palais et la royauté (archéologie et civilization), Paris: P. Geuthner, 1974.

CRRAI 20

N.N., Le temple et le culte: Compte Rendu de la vingtième Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale organiseé à Leiden du 3 au 7 juillet sous les auspices du Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istambul, 1975.

CRRAI 24

N.N., Actes de la XXIVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 1977: Les Hourrites, RHA 36 (1978).

CRRAI 26

Alster, Bendt (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, MesopotamiaC 8, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980.

CRRAI 33

Durand, Jean-Marie (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique: Compte Rendu de la XXXIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 7–10 juillet 1986), Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987.

CRRAI 35

Ellis, Maria deJ. (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988, OPSNKF 14, Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992.

CRRAI 45/1

Abusch, Tzvi et al. (ed.), Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: Part I (Harvard University), Bethesda: CDL Press, 2001.

CRRAI 45/2

Hallo, William W. and Winter, Irene J. (eds.), Seals and Seal Impressions:

Proceedings

of

the

XLVe

Rencontre

Assyriologique

Internationale: Part II (Yale University), Bethesda: CDL Press, 2001. CTN

Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud. Oxford and London.

ePSD

The Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (http://psd. museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html). Philadelphia.

ETCSL

Black, Jeremy A. (†) and Cunningham, Graham and FlückigerHawker, Esther and Robson, Eleanor and Zólyomi, Gábor, The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://www-etcsl. orient.ox.ac.uk), Oxford 1998 –.

FAOS

Freiburger altorientalische Studien. Wiesbaden and Stuttgart.

302

Fs. Artzi

Klein, Jacob and Skaist, Aaron (eds.), Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pin·as Artzi, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990.

Fs. Astour

Young, Gordon D. and Chavalas, Mark W. and Averbeck, Richard E. (eds.), Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on His 80th Birthday, Bethesda: CDL Press, 1997.

Fs. Grayson

Frame, Grant (ed.), From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A.K. Grayson, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004.

Fs. Hallo

Cohen, Mark E. and Snell, Daniel C. and Weisberg, David B. (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda: CDL Press, 1993.

Fs. Hrozný

Čihař, Václav and Klíma, Josef and Matouš, Lubor (eds.), Symbolae ad Studia Orientis Pertinentes Frederico Hrozný Dedicatae, 5 vols., ArOr 17–18, Prague: The Oriental Institute, 1949–1950.

Fs. Jacobsen

Lieberman, Stephen J. (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday June 7, 1974, AS 20, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Fs. Kienast

Selz, Gebhard J. (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, AOAT 274, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003.

Fs. Klein

Sefati, Yitschak et al. (ed.), An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, Bethesda: CDL Press, 2005.

Fs. Kramer

Eichler, Barry L. and Heimerdinger, Jane W. and Sjöberg Åke W. (eds.), Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, AOAT 25, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag and Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1976.

Fs. Leichty

Guinan, Ann K. et al. (ed.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, CM 31, Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill, 2006.

Fs. Lipiński

Lerberghe, Karel van and Schoors, Antoon (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiński, OLA

303

65, Louvain: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies, 1995. Fs. Mikasa

Mori, Masao and Ogawa, Hideo and Yoshikawa, Mamoru (eds.), Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, BMECCJ 5, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991.

Fs. Oates

al-Gailani Werr, Lamia et al. (ed.), Of Pots and Pans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday, London: NABU, 2002.

Fs. Paul

Cohen, Chaim et al. (ed.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 2 vols., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Fs. Pettinato

Waetzoldt, Hartmut (ed.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück: Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, HSAO 9, Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2004.

Fs. Pope

Marks, John H. and Good, Robert M. (eds.), Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honour of Marvin H. Pope, Guildford: Four Quarters, 1987.

Fs. Römer

Dietrich, Manfried and Loretz, Oswald (eds.), dubsar anta-men: Studien zur Altorientalistik: Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, AOAT 253, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998.

Fs. Sigrist

Michalowski, Piotr (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, JCS/SupplS 1, Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2008.

Fs. Sjöberg

Behrens, Hermann and Loding, Darlene M. and Roth, Martha T. (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, OPSNKF 11, Philadelphia: University Museum, 1989.

Fs. Smith

Robbins, Emmet and Sandahl, Stella (eds.), Corolla Torontonensis: Studies in Honour of Ronald Morton Smith, Toronto: TSAR, 1994.

Fs. Tadmor

Cogan, Mordechai and EphÕal, Israel (eds.), Ah, Assyria…: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to

304

Hayim Tadmor, Scripta Hierosolymitana XXXIII, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991. Fs. Vajda

Müller, Claudius C. and Paproth, Hans-Joachim (reds.), Festschrift László Vajda, Münchner Beiträge zur Völkerkunde 1, Munich: Hirmer, 1988.

Fs. Vanstiphout

Michalowski, Piotr and Veldhuis, Niek (eds.), Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip (H.L.J. Vanstiphout), CM 35, Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill, 2006.

Fs. Wilcke

Sallaberger, Walther and Volk, Konrad and Zgoll, Annette (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, OBC 14, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.

GBAO

Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient. Göttingen.

Gs. Finkelstein

Ellis, Maria de Jong (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts & Sciences XIX, Hamden: Archon Books, 1977.

Gs. Jacobsen

Abusch, Tzvi (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

HANE/S

History of the Ancient Near East/Studies. Padua.

HSAO

Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient. Heidelberg.

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual. Cincinnati.

Iraq

Iraq: Published by the British School of Archaeology in Iraq (Gertrude Bell Memorial). London.

JAC

Journal of Ancient Civilizations. Changchun.

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society. New Haven and Ann Arbor.

JCS

Journal of Cuneiform Studies. New Haven and Baltimore and Cambridge (Mass.).

JCS/SupplS

Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series. Boston.

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago.

JSOT/SupplS

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament/Supplement Series. Sheffield.

KASKAL

Rivista di Storia, Ambiente e Culture del Vicino Oriente Antico. Padua.

305

MC

Mesopotamian Civilizations. Winona Lake.

MDP

Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse. Paris.

MesopotamiaC

Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology. Copenhagen.

MesopotamiaT

Mesopotamia: Rivista di Archeologia, Epigrafia e Storia Orientale Antica a Cura del Centro Ricerche Archeologiche e Scavi di Torino per il Medio Oriente e lÁsia. Turin and Florence.

MFhS

Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft. Bremen.

N.A.B.U.

Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. Paris.

Nin

Nin: Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity. Leiden.

OBC

Orientalia Biblica et Christiana. Wiesbaden.

OBO

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Freiburg (Switzerland) and Göttingen.

OIP

Oriental Institute Publications. Chicago.

OIS

Oriental Institute Seminars. Chicago.

OLA

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Louvain.

OPSNKF

Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. Philadelphia.

OrAnt

Oriens Antiquus: Rivista del Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dellÁrte del Vicino Oriente. Rome.

Orient

Orient: Report of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan. Tokyo.

OrNS

Orientalia: Nova Series: Comentarii Trimestres a Facultate Studiorum Orientis Antiqui Pontificii Instituti Biblici in Lucem Editi in Urbe. Rome.

OrSu

Orientalia Suecana. Uppsala.

PIHANS

Publications de lÍnstitut historique et archeologique neerlandais de Stamboul. Leiden.

PSD

Sjöberg, Åke W. et al. (ed.), The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, vols. A–B, Philadelphia: University Museum, 1984–1998.

RA

Revue dÁssyriologie et dÁrchéologie Orientale. Paris.

RBL

Review of Biblical Literature. Atlanta. (http://www.bookreviews. org/)

306

RGTC

Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes: TAVO Beihefte: Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften), no. 7:1ff. Wiesbaden.

RHA

Revue Hittite et Asianique. Paris.

RIME

The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods. Toronto and Buffalo and London.

RlA

Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin and Leipzig and New York.

SAAS

State Archives of Assyria Studies. Helsinki.

SANTAG

Santag: Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde. Wiesbaden.

SAOC 46

(Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Chicago.) Gibson, McGuire and Biggs, Robert D. (eds.), The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, 2nd edn., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.

SCCNH

Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians. Bethesda.

SHCANE

Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. Leiden.

StPohl (SM)

Studia Pohl (Series Maior): Dissertationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui. Rome.

Sumer

Sumer: Journal of Archaeology and History in Iraq. Baghdad.

TAPS

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia.

TAVO

Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Wiesbaden.

TCS

Texts from Cuneiform Sources. Locust Valley.

Tel Aviv

Journal of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv.

TUAT

Kaiser, Otto (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1982–1997.

UAVA

Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Ergänzungsbände zur ZA. Berlin and New York.

UMM

University Museum Monographs. Philadelphia.

WAW

Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta.

WO

Die Welt des Orients: Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Kunde des Morgenlandes. Wuppertal and Göttingen.

307

WZKM

Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Vienna.

ZA

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie. Berlin and New York.

ZDMG/Suppl.

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft/Supplementa. Wiesbaden and Stuttgart.

308

Bibliography Ali, Fadhil A. (1964), Sumerian Letters: Two Collections from the Old Babylonian Schools, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania. Alster, Bendt (1971), ‘Sum. nam-en, nam-lagar’, JCS 23, pp. 116–7. —― (1985), ‘Sumerian Love Songs’, RA 79, pp. 127–59. —― (1991), ‘Incantation to Utu’, ASJ 13, pp. 27–96. —― (1993), ‘Some Ur III Literary Texts and Other Sumerian Texts in Yale and Philadelphia’, ASJ 15, pp. 1–10. —― (1999), ‘Review of Konrad Volk, Inanna und Šukaletuda: Zur historisch-politischen Deutung eines sumerischen Literaturwerkes, SANTAG 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995’, JAOS 119, pp. 687–8. —― and Vanstiphout, Herman L.J. (1987), ‘Lahar and Ashnan: Presentation and Analysis of a Sumerian Disputation’, ASJ 9, 1–43. Annus, Amar (2002), The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, SAAS 14, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Bauer, Josef (1969), ‘Zum Totenkult im altsumerischen Lagasch’, ZDMG/Suppl. 1:1, pp. 107–14. Becker, Andrea (1985), ‘Neusumerische Renaissance? Wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Philologie und Archäologie’, BaM 16, pp. 229–316. Beckman, Garry (2005), ‘The Limits of Credulity (Presidential Address)’, JAOS 125, pp. 343–52. Bernays, Edward L. (1928), Propaganda, New York: Horace Liveright. Biggs, Robert D. (1997), ‘Šulgi in Simurrum’, Fs. Astour, pp. 169–78. Boese, Johannes and Sallaberger, Walther (1996), ‘Apil-k‰n von Mari und die Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur’, AoF 23, pp. 24–39. Börker-Klähn, Jutta (1975), ‘Šulgi badet’, ZA 64, pp. 235–40. Brisch, Nicole M. (2006), ‘The Priestess and the King: The Divine Kingship of Š¥-Sîn of Ur’, JAOS 126, pp. 161–76. —― (2007), Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literature of the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003–1763 BCE), AOAT 339, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

309

Canby, Jeanny V. (2001), “The Ur-Nammu” Stela, UMM 110, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Carroué, François (2000), ‘Šulgi et le Temple Bagara’, ZA 90, pp. 161–93. Castellino, Giorgio R. (1957), ‘Urnammu Three Religious Texts I’, ZA 52, pp. 1–57. —― (1959), ‘Urnammu Three Religious Texts II’, ZA 53, pp. 106–32. —― (1972), Two Šulgi Hymns (BC), Studi Semitici 42, Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Universita di Roma. Cavigneaux, Antoine (1996), ‘Notes Sumérologiques’, ASJ 18, pp. 31–46. —― (2005), ‘Shulgi, Nabonide, et les Grecs’, Fs. Klein, pp. 63–72. —― (2007), ‘Review of Fs. Vanstiphout’, RBL 7/2007, http://www.bookreviews.org/ pdf/5667_ 5983.pdf. —― and al-Rawi, Farouk N.H. (1993), ‘New Sumerian Literary Texts from Tell Haddad (Ancient Meturan): A First Survey’, Iraq 55, pp. 91–105. Charvát, Petr (1997), On People, Signs and States: Spotlights on Sumerian Society, c. 3500–2500 B.C., Prague: The Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Civil, Miguel (1962), ‘Un nouveau synchronisme Mari - IIIe dynastie dÚr’, RA 56, p. 213. —― (1967), ‘Š¥-Sîn´s Historical Inscriptions: Collection B’, JCS 21, pp. 24–38. —― (1980), ‘Les limites de línformation textuelle’, in Marie-Thérèse Barrelet (ed.), L'Archéologie de l'Iraq du Début de l'Époque Néolithique a 333 avant Notre Ère: Perspectives et Limites de l'Interprétation Anthropologique des Documents, Paris: CNRS, pp. 225–32. —― (1985), ‘On Some Texts Mentioning Ur-Namma’, OrNS 54, pp. 27–45. —― (1989), ‘The Statue of Šulgi-ki-ur5-sag9-kalam-ma Part One: The Inscription’, Fs. Sjöberg, pp. 49–64. Cohen, Andrew C. (2001), ‘Dehistoricizing Strategies in Third-Millennium B.C.E. Royal Inscriptions and Rituals’, CRRAI 45/1, pp. 99–111. Cohen, Mark E. (1993), The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda: CDL Press. —― (2005), ‘A Shulgi Hymn to Enki’, Fs. Klein, pp. 73–83. Conquest, Robert (1986), The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, New York: Oxford University Press.

310

Cooley, Jeffrey L. (2008), ‘Inana and Šukaletuda: A Sumerian Astral Myth’, KASKAL 5, pp. 159–72. Cooper, Jerrold S. (1972–1975), ‘Heilige Hochzeit: B. Archäologisch’, RlA 4, pp. 259– 69. —― (1973), ‘Sumerian and Akkadian in Sumer and Akkad’, OrNS 42, pp. 239–46. —― (1980), ‘Apodotic Death and the Historicity of “Historical Omens”’, CRRAI 26, pp. 99–105. —― (1993a), ‘Paradigm and Propaganda: The Dynasty of Akkade in the 21st Century’, in Mario Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions, HANE/S – 5, Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria, pp. 11–23. —― (1993b), ‘Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia’, in Eiko Matsushima (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East, Heidelberg: Univeritätsverlag C. Winter, pp. 81–96. —― (2001), ‘Literature and History: The Historical and Political Referents of Sumerian Literary Texts’, CRRAI 45/1, pp. 131–47. —― (2008), ‘Divine Kingship in Mesopotamia, a Fleeting Phenomenon’, in Nicole M. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, OIS 4, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 261–5. Cooper, Marc (1987), ‘The Drehem Calendars During the Reign of Šulgi’, ZA 77, pp. 174–91. Dahl, Jacob L. (2006), ‘Revisiting B a l a ’, JAOS 126, pp. 77–88. —― (2007), The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago, PIHANS 108, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Davies, Sarah R. (1997), Popular Opinion in Stalin´s Russia: Terror, Propaganda and Dissent, 1934–1941, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Delnero, Paul A. (2006), Variation in Sumerian Literary Compositions: A Case Study Based on the Decad, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania. —― (2010), ‘Sumerian Extract Tablets and Scribal Education’, JCS 62, pp. 53–69. Dijk, Jan J.A. van (1954), ‘La fête du nouvel an dans un texte de Šulgi’, BiOr 11, pp. 83– 8. —― (1960), Sumerische Götterlieder: Teil II, Heidelberg: Univeritätsverlag C. Winter.

311

—― (1969), ‘Les contacts ethniques dans la Mésopotamie et les syncrétismes de la religion sumérienne’, in Sven S. Hartman (ed.), Syncretism: Based on Papers Read at the Symposium on Cultural Contact, Meeting of Religions, Syncretism Held at Abo on the 8th– 10th of September 1966, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksells, pp. 194–203. —― and Geller, Markham J. (2003), Ur III Incantations from the Frau Professor HilprechtCollection, Jena, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Di Vito, Robert A. (1993), Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: The Designation and Conception of the Personal God, StPohl SM 16, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Edzard, Dietz O. (1957), Die ‘zweite Zwischenzeit’ Babyloniens, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —― (1965), ‘Das Reich der III. Dynastie von Ur und seine Nachfolgestaaten’, in Elena Cassin et al. (ed.), Die altorientalischen Reiche, vol. 1, Fischer Weltgeschichte 2, Frankfurt a.M. and Hamburg: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, pp. 129–64. —― (1974), ‘Deux lettres royales dÚr III en sumérien “syllabique” et pourvu dúne traduction accadienne’, in René Labat and Dietz Otto Edzard (eds.), Textes littéraires de Susa, MDP 57, Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, pp. 9–34. —― (1980–1983), ‘Königslisten und Chroniken: A. Sumerisch’, RlA 6, pp. 77–84. —― (1997), Gudea and His Dynasty, RIME 3/1, Toronto and Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press. —― (2004), Geschichte Mesopotamiens: Von den Sumerern bis zu Alexander dem Großen, Munich: C.H. Beck. —― and Farber, Gertrud (1974), Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur, RGTC 2, Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Ellul, Jacques (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men´s Attitudes, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Falkenstein, Adam (1951), ‘Zur Chronologie der sumerischen Literatur’, CRRAI 2, pp. 13–30. —― (1952), ‘Sumerische religiöse Texte’, ZA 50, pp. 61–91. —― (1958), ‘En‹eduánna, die Tochter Sargons von Akkade’, RA 52, pp. 129–31. —― (1960), ‘Ein Lied auf Šulgi’, Iraq 22, pp. 139–50. —― (1965), ‘Fluch über Akkade’, ZA 57, pp. 43–124. Farber, Walter (1983), ‘Die Vergöttlichung Narªm-Sîns’, OrNS 52, pp. 67–72.

312

Finkelstein, Jacob J. (1969), ‘Collections of Laws from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor’, ANET3, pp. 523–5. Fitzpatrick, Sheila (1994), Stalin´s Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village after Collectivization, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flückiger-Hawker, Esther (1999), Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition, OBO 166, Freiburg (Switzerland): Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Foster, Benjamin R. (2005), Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd edn., Bethesda: CDL Press. Fouadi, Abdul-Hadi al- (1976), ‘Bassetki Statue with an Old Akkadian Royal Inscription of Narªm-Sin of Agade (B.C. 2291–2255)’, Sumer 32, pp. 63–75. Frahm, Eckart (2006), ‘Šulgi Sieger über Assur und die Skythen?’, N.A.B.U. 1/25. Franke, Sabina (1995), Königsinschriften und Königsideologie: Die Könige von Akkade zwischen Tradition und Neuerung, Altorientalistik 1, Münster: Lit. Frankfort, Henri (1978), Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature, 2nd edn., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Frayne, Douglas R. (1981), The Historical Correlations of the Sumerian Royal Hymns (2400– 1900 B.C.), Ph.D. Yale University. —― (1983a), ‘A New Šulgi Text in the Royal Ontario Museum’, ARRIM 1, pp. 6–9. —― (1983b), ‘Šulgi the Runner’, JAOS 103, pp. 739–48. —― (1985), ‘Notes on the Sacred Marriage Rite’, BiOr 42, pp. 5–22. —― (1997a), ‘On the Location of Simurrum’, Fs. Astour, pp. 243–69. —― (1997b), Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC), RIME 3/2, Toronto and Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press. —― (1999), ‘The Zagros Campaigns of Šulgi and Amar-Suena’, in David I. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm (eds.), Nuzi at Seventy-Five, SCCNH 10, Bethesda: CDL Press, pp. 141–201. Friberg, Jöran (2009), ‘A Geometric Algorithm with Solutions to Quadratic Equations in a Sumerian Juridical Document from Ur III Umma’, CDLJ 3/2009, pp. 1–27. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva S. (1992), In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth, New York: The Free Press.

313

Gadd, Cyril J. (1965), Babylonia c. 2120–1800 B.C., CAH I/22, 2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gasche, Hermann (1987–1990), ‘Mauer: B. Archäologisch’, RlA 7, pp. 591–5. Gelb, Ignace J. (1979), ‘Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia’, in Edouard Lipiński (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I, OLA 5, Louvain: Peeters, pp. 1–97. —― and Kienast, Burkhardt (1990), Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr., FAOS 7, Stuttgart: F. Steiner. George, Alexander L. (1959), Propaganda Analysis: A Study of Inferences Made from Nazi Propaganda in World War II, Evanston and White Plains: Row, Peterson & Co. George, Andrew R. (1993), House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, MC 5, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. —― (2003), The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 vols., Oxford: Oxford University Press. —― (2005), ‘In Search of the É.DUB.BA.A: The Ancient Mesopotamian School in Literature and Reality’, Fs. Klein, pp. 127–37. —― (2007), ‘The Civilizing of Ea-Enkidu: An Unusual Tablet of the Babylonian Gilgameš Epic’, RA 101, pp. 59–80. Glassner, Jean-Jacques (2004), Mesopotamian Chronicles, WAW 19, Atlanta: Scholars Press /Society of Biblical Literature. Goetze, Albrecht (1947), ‘Historical Allusions in Old Babylonian Omen Texts’, JCS 1, pp. 253–65. —― (1960), ‘The Chronology of Šulgi again’, Iraq 22, pp. 151–6 and pl. XVIII–XX. —― (1963), ‘Šakkanakkus of the Ur III Empire’, JCS 17, pp. 1–31. Gomi, Tohru (1976), ‘Shulgi-simti and Her Libation Place (KI-A-NAG)’, Orient 12, pp. 1–14. —― (1979), ‘The Calendars of Ur and Puzriš-Dagªn in the Early Ur-III Period’, ASJ 1, pp. 1–11. —― and Sato, Susumu (1990), Selected Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from the British Museum, Soken Kenkyu Shiryo 7, Abiko: Research Institute Chuo-Gakuin University. Gragg, Gene B. (1973), Sumerian Dimensional Infixes, AOAT Sonderreihe 5, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Greengus, Samuel (1990), ‘Bridewealth in Sumerian Sources’, HUCA 61, pp. 25–88.

314

Groys, Boris (1988), Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin: Die gespaltene Kultur in der Sowjetunion, Munich and Vienna: Carl Hanser Verlag. Gundlach, Rolf (1992), ‘Der Sakralherrscher als historisches und phänomenologisches Problem’, in Rolf Gundlach and Hermann Weber (eds.), Legitimation und Funktion des Herrschers: Vom ägyptischen Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator, Schriften der Mainzer Philosophischen Fakultätsgesellschaft 13, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 1–22. Hallo, William W. (1957), Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philologic and Historical Analysis, AOS 43, New Haven: American Oriental Society. —― (1957–1971), ‘Gutium( Qutium)’, RlA 3, pp. 708–20. —― (1960), ‘A Sumerian Amphictyony’, JCS 14, pp. 88–114. —― (1962), ‘The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: A Typology’, HUCA 33, pp. 1–43. —― (1963), ‘On the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature’, JAOS 83, pp. 167–76. —― (1966), ‘The Coronation of Urnammu’, JCS 20, pp. 133–41. —― (1970), ‘The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry’, CRRAI 17, pp. 116–34. —― (1976a), ‘Toward a History of Sumerian Literature’, Fs. Jacobsen, pp. 181–203. —― (1976b), ‘Women of Sumer’, in Denise Schmandt-Besserat (ed.), The Legacy of Sumer, BiMes 4, Malibu: Undena Publications, pp. 23–40. —― (1978), ‘Simurrum and the Hurrian Frontier’, CRRAI 24, pp. 71–83. —― (1987), ‘The Birth of Kings’, Fs. Pope, pp. 45–52. —― (1988), ‘Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King’, in John A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 40, Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, pp. 54–66. —― (1990), ‘The Limits of Skepticism’, JAOS 110, pp. 187–99. —― (1991), ‘The Death of Kings: Traditional Historiography in Contextual Perspective, Fs. Tadmor, pp. 148–65. —― (1996), Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions, SHCANE 6, Leiden and New York and Cologne: E.J. Brill. —― (1998a), ‘New Directions in Historiography (Mesopotamia and Israel)’, Fs. Römer, pp. 109–28. —― (1998b), ‘The Neo-Sumerian Renaissance: Ur III, ca. 2100–2000 B.C.’, in William W. Hallo and William K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History, 2nd edn., New York and London: Harcourt Brace, pp. 77–84. —― (2001), ‘Polymnia and Clio’, CRRAI 45/1, pp. 195–209.

315

—― (2006), ‘A Sumerian Apocryphon? The Royal Correspondence of Ur Reconsidered’, Fs. Vanstiphout, pp. 85–104. Halloran, John A. (2006), Sumerian Lexicon: A Dictionary Guide to the Ancient Sumerian Language, Los Angeles: Logogram. Hansen, Donald (2002), ‘Through the Love of Ishtar’, Fs. Oates, pp. 91–112. Heimpel, Wolfgang (1968), Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur, StPohl SM 2, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. —― (1974–1977), ‘Sumerische und Akkadische Personennamen in Sumer und Akkad’, AfO 25, pp. 171–4. —― (1992), ‘Herrentum und Königtum im vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Alten Orient’, ZA 82, pp. 4–21. Heizer, James L. (1977), The Cult of Stalin, 1929–1939, Ph.D. University of Kentucky. Hilgert, Markus (1998), Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Šulgi, OIP 115, Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Horowitz, Wayne and Watson, Philip J. (1991), ‘Further Notes on Birmingham Cuneiform Tablets 1’, ASJ 13, pp. 409–16. Høyrup, Jens (2002), ‘How to Educate a Kapo or Reflections on the Absence of a Culture of Mathematical Problems in Ur III’, in John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen (eds.), Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, AOAT 297, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 121–45. Huber, Fabienne (2001), ‘La Correspondance Royale dÚr, un corpus apocryphe’, ZA 91, pp. 169–206. Hunger, Hermann (1976), Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk: Teil I, ADFU 9, Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag. Hurowitz, Victor (A.) (1992), I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, JSOT/SupplS 115, Sheffield: JSOT Press. Izreél, Shlomo (2001), Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death, MC 10, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Jacobsen, Thorkild (1939), The Sumerian King List, AS 11, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. —― (1943), ‘Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia’, JNES 2, pp. 159–72.

316

—― (1953), ‘The Reign of Ibb‰-Suen’, JCS 7, pp. 36–47. —― (1957), ‘Early Political Development in Mesopotamia’, ZA 52, pp. 91–140. —― (1976), The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Jones, Philip (2003), ‘Embracing Inana: Legitimation and Mediation in the Ancient Mesopotamian Sacred Marriage Hymn Iddin-Dagan A’, JAOS 123, pp. 291–302. Jones, Tom B. and Snyder, John W. (1961), Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty: A Catalogue and Discussion of Documents from Various Collections, Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press. Jowett, Garth S. and O´Donnell, Victoria (2006), Propaganda and Persuasion, 4th edn., Thousand Oaks and London and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Kallis, Aristotle A. (2005), Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Keetman, Jan (2010), ‘Enmerkar und Sulge als sumerische Muttersprachler nach literarischen Quellen’, ZA 100, pp. 15–31. Kienast, Burkhardt (1990), ‘Narªmsîn mut ƒINANNA’, OrNS 59, pp. 196–202. Kilmer, Anne D. (1995), ‘Musik. A. I. In Mesopotamien’, RlA 8, pp. 463–82. —― (2004), ‘Pauke und Trommel. A. In Mesopotamien’, RlA 10, pp. 367–71. Klein, Jacob (1968), Šulgi D: A Neo-Sumerian Royal Hymn, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania. —― (1976), ‘Šulgi and Gilgameš: Two Brother-Peers (Šulgi O)’, Fs. Kramer, pp. 271–92. —― (1979), ‘The Reading and Pronunciation of the Sumerian Word for “Monkey”’, JCS 31, pp. 149–60. —― (1981a), The Royal Hymns of Shulgi King of Ur: Man´s Quest for Immortal Fame, TAPS 71/7, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. —― (1981b), Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. —― (1985), ‘Šulgi and Išmedagan: Runners in the Service of the Gods (SRT 13)’, Beer Sheva 2, pp. 7*–38*. —― (1986), ‘On Writing Monumental Inscriptions in Ur III Scribal Curriculum’, RA 80, pp. 1–7. —― (1987), ‘The Birth of a Crownprince in the Temple: A Neo-Sumerian Literary Topos’, CRRAI 33, pp. 97–106.

317

—― (1989a), ‘Building and Dedication Hymns in Sumerian Literature’, ASJ 11, pp. 26– 67. —― (1989b), ‘From Gudea to Šulgi: Continuity and Change in Sumerian Literary Tradition’, Fs. Sjöberg, pp. 289–301. —― (1990), ‘Šulgi and Išmedagan: Originality and Dependence in Sumerian Royal Hymnology’, Fs. Artzi, pp. 65–136. —― (1991), ‘The Coronation and Consecration of Šulgi in the Ekur (Šulgi G)’, Fs. Tadmor, pp. 292–313. —― (1993), ‘A Self-Laudatory Šulgi Hymn Fragment from Nippur’, Fs. Hallo, pp. 124– 31. —― (1995), ‘Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian Empire’, CANE 2, pp. 843– 57. —― (1997), ‘The Birth of Shulgi in the Temple of Nippur’, COS 1, pp. 552–3. —― (2001), ‘The Genealogy of Nanna-Suen and Its Historical Background’, CRRAI 45/1, pp. 279–301. —― and Sefati, Yitschak (2008), ‘“Secular” Love Songs in Mesopotamian Literature’, Fs. Paul, pp. 613–26. Kobayashi, Toshiko (1984), ‘On the Meaning of the Offerings for the Statue of Entemena’, Orient 20, pp. 43–65. —― (1985), ‘The KI-A-NAG of Enentarzi’, Orient 21, pp. 10–30. Kramer, Samuel N. (1967), ‘The Death of Ur-Nammu and His Descent to the Netherworld’, JCS 21, pp. 104–22. —― (1969a), ‘Inanna and Šulgi: A Sumerian Fertility Song’, Iraq 31, pp. 18–23. —― (1969b), ‘The King of the Road: A Self-Laudatory Shulgi Hymn’, ANET3, pp. 584–6. —― (1969c), The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth and Ritual in Ancient Sumer, Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. —― (1974), ‘Kingship in Sumer and Akkad: The Ideal King’, CRRAI 19, pp. 163–76. —― (1991), ‘The Death of Ur-Nammu’, Fs. Mikasa, pp. 193–214. Kraus, Fritz R. (1951), ‘Zur Chronologie der Könige Ur-Nammu und Šulgi von Ur’, OrNS 20, pp. 385–98. —― (1955), ‘Provinzen des neusumerischen Reiches von Ur’, ZA 51, pp. 45–75. Krebernik, Manfred (1993–1997), ‘Mondgott: A. I. In Mesopotamien’, RlA 8, pp. 360– 9. Krecher, Joachim (1966), Sumerische Kultlyrik, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

318

Krispijn, Theo J.H. (1990), ‘Beiträge zur altorientalischen Musikforschung: 1. Šulgi und die Musik’, Akkadica 70, pp. 1–27. Kuhrt, Amélie (1995), The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC, 2 vols., London: Routledge. Kutscher, Raphael (1974), ‘An Offering to the Statue of Šulgi’, Tel Aviv 1, pp. 55–9. Lafont, Bertrand (2009), ‘The Army of the Kings of Ur: The Textual Evidence’, CDLJ 5/2009, pp. 1–25. Lambert, Maurice and Tournay, Raymond-Jacques (1952), ‘Les Statues D, G, E et H de Gudéa (texts concernant la déesse Bau)’, RA 46, pp. 75–85. Lambert, Wilfred G. (1962), ‘A Catalogue of Texts and Authors’, JCS 16, pp. 59–77. Lane, Christel (1981), The Rites of Rulers: Ritual in Industrial Society – the Soviet Case, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lankov, Andrei N. (2007), North of the DMZ: Essays on Daily Life in North Korea, Jefferson: McFarland and Company. Lapinkivi, Pirjo (2004), The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in the Light of Comparative Evidence, SAAS 15, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Leichty, Erle V. and Walker, Christopher B.F. (2004), ‘Three Babylonian Chronicle and Scientific Texts’, Fs. Grayson, pp. 203–212. Leick, Gwendolyn (1994), Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature, London: Routledge. Limet, Henri (1968), LÁnthroponymie Sumérienne dans les Documents de la 3e Dynastie dÚr, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. —― (1975), ‘Les Temples des Rois Sumériens Divinisés’, CRRAI 20, pp. 80–94. Liverani, Mario (1996), ‘2084: Ancient Propaganda and Historical Criticism’, in Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 283–9. Longman, Tremper (1991), Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Löhmann, Reinhard (1990), Der Stalinmythos: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des Personenkultes in der Sowjetunion (1929–1935), Politische Soziologie 3, Münster: Lit. Ludwig, Marie-Christine (1990), Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Išme-Dagan von Isin, SANTAG 2, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

319

Maaijer, Remco de (2008), ‘Šulgi´s Jubilee: Where´s the Party?’, Fs. Sigrist, pp. 45–51. Maeda, Tohru (1979), ‘On the Agricultural Festivals in Sumer’, ASJ 1, pp. 19–33. —― (1989), ‘Bringing (mu-túm) Livestock and the Puzurish-Dagan Organization in the Ur III Dynasty’, ASJ 11, pp. 69–111. —― (1992), ‘The Defense Zone During the Rule of the Ur III Dynasty’, ASJ 14, pp. 135–72. Marchesi, Gianni (2004), ‘Who Was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic and Textual Data’, OrNS 73, pp. 153–97. Mařík, Tomáš (2003), ‘Sex, Religion and Antimony: Zu einer apolitischen und ahistorischen Deutung von Inana und Šukaletuda’, WZKM 93, pp. 147–66. Mayr, Rudolf H. and Owen, David I. (2004), ‘The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period’, Fs. Pettinato, pp. 145–74. Michalowski, Piotr (1976a), ‘Royal Women of the Ur III Period: Part I: The Wife of Šulgi’, JCS 28, pp. 169–72. —― (1976b), The Royal Correspondence of Ur, Ph.D. Yale University. —― (1977a), ‘Amar-Suõena and the Historical Tradition’, Gs. Finkelstein, pp. 155–7. —― (1977b), ‘D¥rum and Uruk During the Ur III Period’, MesopotamiaT 12, pp. 83–96. —― (1977c), ‘The Death of Šulgi’, OrNS 46, pp. 220–25. —― (1979), ‘Royal Women of the Ur III Period: Part II: Geme-Ninlila’, JCS 31, pp. 171–76. —― (1980–1983), ‘Königsbriefe’, RlA 6, pp. 51–9. —― (1982), ‘Royal Women of the Ur III Period: Part III’, ASJ 4, pp. 129–42. —― (1983), ‘History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List’, JAOS 103, pp. 237–48. —― (1988), ‘Divine Heroes and Historical Self-Representation: From Gilgamesh to Shulgi’, BCSMS 16, pp. 19–23. —― (1989), The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, MC 1, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. —― (1991), ‘Charisma and Control: On Continuity and Change in Early Mesopotamian Bureaucratic Systems’, SAOC 46, pp. 45–57. —― (1993), Letters from Early Mesopotamia, WAW 3, Atlanta: Scholars Press. —― (1995), ‘The Men from Mari’, Fs. Lipiński, pp. 181–8. —― (2003), ‘A Man Called Enmebaragesi’, Fs. Wilcke, pp. 195–208.

320

—― (2004), ‘The Ideological Foundations of the Ur III State’, in Jan-Waalke Meyer and Walter Sommerfeld (eds.), 2000 v. Chr. – Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende, CDOG 3, Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, pp. 219–35. —― (2005a), ‘Iddin-Dagan and His Family’, ZA 95, pp. 65–76. —― (2005b), ‘Literary Works from the Court of King Ishbi-Erra of Isin’, Fs. Klein, pp. 199–212. —― (2006a), ‘How to Read the Liver – in Sumerian’, Fs. Leichty, pp. 247–57. —― (2006b), ‘Love or Death? Observations on the Role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life’, JCS 58, pp. 49–61. —― (2006c), ‘The Lives of the Sumerian Language’, in Seth L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, OIS 2, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 159–84. —― (2006d), ‘The Strange History of Tumal’, Fs. Vanstiphout, pp. 145–65. —― (2008a), ‘Observations on “Elamites” and “Elam” in Ur III Times’, Fs. Sigrist, pp. 109–23. —― (2008b), ‘The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia’, in Nicole M. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, OIS 4, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 33– 45. Mittermayer, Catherine (2009), Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata: Ein ungleicher Wettstreit, OBO 239, Freiburg (Switzerland): Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Moorey, P. Roger S. (1984), ‘Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?’, Iraq 46, pp. 1–18. Neumann, Hans and Hruška, Blahoslav (1994), ‘Die Ur III-Texte aus der Sammlung des Altorientalischen Seminars der Karlsuniversität Prag’, ArOr 62, pp. 227–49. Neumann, Stanislav (1949), Píseň o Stalinu (Song of Stalin), Prague: Mladá fronta. Oberländer, Erwin (1992), ‘Diktaturen des 20. Jahrhunderts: Stalin’, in Rolf Gundlach and Hermann Weber (eds.), Legitimation und Funktion des Herrschers: Vom ägyptischen Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator, Schriften der Mainzer Philosophischen Fakultätsgesellschaft 13, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 339–53.

321

Oh’e, Setsuko (1986), ‘An Agricultural Festival in Tummal in the Ur III Period’, ASJ 8, pp. 121–32. Owen, David I. (2000), ‘On the Patronymy of Šu-Suen’, N.A.B.U. 4/82. Perlov, Boris (1980), ‘The Families of the Ensí’s Urbau and Gudea and Their Funerary Cult’, CRRAI 26, pp. 77–81. Petrone, Karen (2000), Life Has Become More Joyous, Comrades: Celebrations in the Time of Stalin, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Pettinato, Giovanni (1982), ‘Il Tesoro del Nemico Elamita ovvero il Bottino della Guerra contro Anšan di Šulgi’, OrAnt 21, pp. 49–72. Postgate, Nicholas (1992), Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History, London and New York: Routledge. —― (1995), ‘Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad’, CANE 1, pp. 395–403, 407. Potts, Daniel T. (1999), The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Potts, Timothy (2001), ‘Reading the Sargonic “Historical-Literary” Tradition: Is There a Middle Course? (Thoughts on The Great Revolt against Naram-sin)’, CRRAI 45/1, pp. 391–408. Powell, Marvin A. (1987–1990), ‘Maße und Gewichte’, RlA 7, pp. 457–517. Radau, Hugo (1911), Sumerian Hymns and Prayers to God Nin-Ib from the Temple Library of Nippur, BE 29/1, Philadelphia: MacCalla & Co. Inc. Reichel, Clemens (2008), ‘The King is Dead, Long Live the King: The Last Days of the Šu-Sîn Cult at Ešnunna and Its Aftermath’, in Nicole M. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, OIS 4, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 133–55. Reiner, Erica (1961), ‘The Etiological Myth of the “Seven Sages”’, OrNS 30, pp. 1–11. Reisman, Daniel D. (1969), Two Neo-Sumerian Royal Hymns, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania. Renger, Johannes (1972–1975), ‘Heilige Hochzeit: A. Philologisch’, RlA 4, pp. 251–59. Richardson, Seth F.C. (2006), ‘gir3-gen-na and Šulgi´s “Library”: Liver Omen Texts in the Third Millennium BC (I)’, CDLJ 3/2006, pp. 1–9.

322

Robson, Eleanor (2001), ‘The Tablet House: A Scribal School in Old Babylonian Nippur’, RA 95, pp. 39–66. Römer, Willem H.Ph. (1965), Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit, Leiden: E.J. Brill. —― (1969), ‘“Königshymnen” der Isinzeit und Königsinvestitur’, ZDMG/Suppl. 1:1, pp. 130–47. —― (1989), ‘Ein Lied mit Selbstlob des Königs Schulgi von Ur III (ca. 2093–2046 v.Chr.)’, TUAT 2/5, pp. 673–81. —― (2004), Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur, AOAT 309, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Roth, Martha T. (1995), Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, WAW 6, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rubio, Gonzalo [2000 (2005)], ‘On the Orthography of the Sumerian Literary Texts from the Ur III Period’, ASJ 22, pp. 203–25. —― (2006), ‘Šulgi and the Death of Sumerian’, Fs. Vanstiphout, pp. 167–80. Sallaberger, Walther (1993), Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit, UAVA 7/1–2, Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter. —― (1997), ‘Nippur als religiöses Zentrum Mesopotamiens im historischen Wandel’, in Gernot Wilhelm (ed.), Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch, CDOG 1, Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, pp. 147–68. —― (1999), ‘Ur III-Zeit’, in Walther Sallaberger and Aage Westenholz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, OBO 160/3, Freiburg (Switzerland): Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 121–414. —― (2002), ‘Den Göttern nahe – und fern den Menschen? Formen der Sakralität des altmesopotamischen Herrschers’, in Franz-Reiner Erkens (ed.), Die Sakralität von Herrschaft: Herrschaftslegitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume, Berlin: AkademieVerlag, pp. 85–98. —― (2004), ‘Das Ende des Sumerischen: Tod und Nachleben einer altmesopotamischen Sprache’, in Peter Schrijver and Peter-Arnold Mumm (eds.), Sprachtod und Sprachgeburt, MFhS 2, Bremen: Hempen Verlag, pp. 108–40. Schaudig, Hanspeter (2001), Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros´ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik, AOAT 256, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. —― (2003), ‘Nabonid, der “Archäologe auf dem Königsthron”: Zum Geschichtsbild des ausgehenden neubabylonischen Reiches’, Fs. Kienast, pp. 447–97.

323

Schneider, Nikolaus (1936), Die Zeitbestimmungen der Wirtschaftsurkunden von Ur III, AnOr 13, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. —― (1949/2), ‘Herrschernamen als theophores Element bei Personennamen’, Fs. Hrozný, pp. 351–8. Sefati, Yitschak (1998), Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Edition of the DumuziInanna Songs, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Selz, Gebhard J. (1992), ‘Eine Kultstatue der Herrschergemahlin Šaja: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Vergöttlichung’, ASJ 14, pp. 245–68. —― (1993), Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš, Teil 2: Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen; Abschnitt 2: Texte aus Free Library Philadelphia, Yale University Library, Babylonian Section, FAOS 15/2, Stuttgart: F. Steiner. —― (1998a), ‘Die Etana-Erzählung: Ursprung und Tradition eines der ältesten epischen Texte in einer semitischen Sprache’, ASJ 20, pp. 135–79. —― (1998b), ‘Über mesopotamische Herrschaftskonzepte: Zu den Ursprüngen mesopotamischer Herrscherideologie im 3. Jahrtausend’, Fs. Römer, pp. 281–344. —― (2004), ‘“Wer sah je eine königliche Dynastie (für immer) in Führung!” Thronwechsel und gesellschaftlicher Wandel im frühen Mesopotamien als Nahtstelle von microstoria und longue durée’, in Christian Sigrist (ed.), Macht und Herrschaft: Veröffentlichungen des Arbeitskreises zur Erforschung der Religions- und Kulturgeschichte des Antiken Vorderen Orients und des Sonderforschungsbereichs 493, Band 5, AOAT 316, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 157–214. Seux, Marie-Joseph (1967), Épithètes Royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes, Paris: Letouzey et Ané. Sharlach, Tonia M. (2001), ‘Beyond Chronology: The Šakkanakkus of Mari and the Kings of Ur’, CRRAI 45/2, pp. 59–70. —― (2004), Provincial Taxation and the Ur III State, CM 26, Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill and Styx. —― (2005), ‘Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court’, JCS 57, pp. 17– 29. —― (2008), ‘Priestesses, Concubines, and the Daughters of Men: Disentangling the Meaning of the Word L u k u r in Ur III Times’, Fs. Sigrist, pp. 177–83. Sigrist, Marcel (1989), ‘Le deuil pour Šu-Sin’, Fs. Sjöberg, pp. 499–505. —― (1992), Drehem, Bethesda: CDL Press.

324

—― and Gomi, Tohru (1991), The Comprehensive Catalogue of Published Ur III Tablets, Bethesda: CDL Press. —― and Westenholz, Joan Goodnick (2008), ‘The Love Poem of R‰m-Sîn and Nanaya’, Fs. Paul, pp. 667–704. —― and Damerow, Peter, Mesopotamian Year Names: Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Date Formulae, http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/yn_index.html (http://www. cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/index.php/Shulgi). Sjöberg, Åke W. (1962), ‘Ein syllabisch geschriebener Urnammu-Text’, OrSu 10, pp. 3– 12. —― (1972), ‘In Praise of the Scribal Art’, JCS 24, pp. 126–31. —― [1972 (1973)], ‘Die göttliche Abstammung der sumerisch-babylonischen Herrscher’, OrSu 21, pp. 87–112. —― (1973a), ‘Hymn to Numušda with a Prayer for King Sîniq‰šam of Larsa and a Hymn to Ninurta’, OrSu 22, pp. 107–21. —― (1973b), ‘Nungal in the Ekur’, AfO 24, pp. 19–46. —― (1976a), ‘Hymns to Ninurta with Prayers for Š¥sîn of Ur and B¥rsîn of Isin’, Fs. Kramer, pp. 411–26. —― (1976b), ‘The Old Babylonian Eduba’, Fs. Jacobsen, pp. 159–79. —― (1977a), ‘A Blessing of King Ur-Ninurta’, Gs. Finkelstein, pp. 189–95. —― (1977b), ‘Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts II’, JCS 29, pp. 3–45. —― (2005), ‘A New Shulgi Hymn’, Fs. Klein, pp. 291–300. —― and Bergmann S.J., Eugen (1969), The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns, TCS 3, Locust Valley and New York: J.J. Augustin. Sollberger, Edmond (1953), ‘Remarks on Ibb‰sĩn´s Reign’, JCS 7, pp. 48–50. —― (1954), ‘New Lists of the Kings of Ur and Isin’, JCS 8, pp. 135–6. —― (1954–1956), ‘Sur la Chronologie des Rois dÚr et Quelques Problèmes Connexes’, AfO 17, pp. 10–48. —― (1966), The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur, TCS 1, Locust Valley: J.J. Augustin. —― (1967), ‘Ladies of the Ur-III Empire’, RA 61, pp. 69–70. Starr, Ivan (1986), ‘The Place of the Historical Omens in the System of Apodoses’, BiOr 43, pp. 628–42.

325

Steible, Horst (1991), Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften: Teil 2: Kommentar zu den Gudea-Statuen, Inschriften der III. Dynastie von Ur, Inschriften der IV. und ‘V.’ Dynastie von Uruk, Varia, FAOS 9/2, Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Steiner, Gerd (1992), ‘Nippur und die sumerische Königsliste’, CRRAI 35, pp. 261–79. Steinkeller, Piotr (1981), ‘More on the Ur III Royal Wives’, ASJ 3, pp. 77–92. —― (1982), ‘The Question of Mar‹aši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millennium B.C.’, ZA 72, pp. 237–65. —― (1988), ‘The Date of Gudea and His Dynasty’, JCS 40, pp. 47–53. —― (1991), ‘The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery’, SAOC 46, pp. 15–33. —― (1992a), ‘Išbi-Erra´s Himmelfahrt’, N.A.B.U. 3/4. —― (1992b), ‘Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.’, in David N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, New York: Bantam Doubleday, pp. 724– 32. —― (1999), ‘On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship’, in Kazuko Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, Heidelberg: Univeritätsverlag C. Winter, pp. 103–37. —― (2003), ‘An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List’, Fs. Wilcke, pp. 267–92. Suter, Claudia E. (1991–1993), ‘A Shulgi Statuette from Tello’, JCS 43–5, pp. 63–70. —― (2000), Gudea´s Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in Text and Image, CM 17, Groningen: Styx. Sweet, Ronald F.G. (1994), ‘A New Look at the “Sacred Marriage” in Ancient Mesopotamia’, Fs. Smith, pp. 85–104. Taylor, Philip M. (2003), Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day, 3rd edn., Manchester: Manchester University Press. Thomsen, Marie-Louise (1984), The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure, MesopotamiaC 10, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Tinney, Stephen J. (1996), The Nippur Lament: Royal Rhetoric and Divine Legitimation in the Reign of Išme-Dagan of Isin (1953–1935 B.C.), OPSNKF 16, Philadelphia: University Museum. —― (1999a), ‘On the Curricular Setting of Sumerian Literature’, Iraq 61, pp. 159–72. —― (1999b), ‘Ur-Namma the Canal-Digger: Context, Continuity and Change in Sumerian Literature’, JCS 51, pp. 31–54.

326

Tsouparopoulou, Christina (2008), ‘Namnine-hedu, Yet Another Ur III Princess’, JCS 60, pp. 7–13. Ungnad, Arthur (1933), ‘Datenlisten’, RlA 2, pp. 131–94. Van De Mieroop, Marc (2004), A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000–323 BC, Oxford: Blackwell. Vanstiphout, Herman L.J. (2003), Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta, WAW 20, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Veldhuis, Niek (2002), ‘Review of Esther Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition, OBO 166, Freiburg (Switzerland): Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999’, JAOS 122, pp. 127–30. —― (2004), Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition Nanše and the Birds, CM 32, Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill and Styx. Vincente, Claudine-Adrienne (1995), ‘The Tall Leilªn Recension of the Sumerian King List’, ZA 85, pp. 234–70. Volk, Konrad (1995), Inanna und Šukaletuda: Zur historisch-politischen Deutung eines sumerischen Literaturwerkes, SANTAG 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —― (2000), ‘Edubbaõa und Edubbaõa-Literatur: Rätsel und Lösungen’, ZA 90, pp. 1– 30. Waetzoldt, Hartmut (1991), ‘Review of SAOC 46’, JAOS 111, pp. 637–41. Weiershäuser, Frauke (2008), Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur, GBAO 1, Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick (1989), ‘En‹eduanna, En-Priestess, Hen of Nanna, Spouse of Nanna’, Fs. Sjöberg, pp. 539–56. —― (1992), ‘The Clergy of Nippur: the Priestess of Enlil’, CRRAI 35, pp. 297–310. —― (2000), ‘King by Love of Inanna: An Image of Female Empowerment?’, Nin 1, pp. 75–89. —― (2005), ‘Sing a Song for Šulgi’, Fs. Klein, pp. 343–73. —― (2008), ‘The Memory of Sargonic Kings under the Third Dynasty of Ur’, Fs. Sigrist, pp. 251–60. Whiting, Robert M. (1979), ‘Some Observations on the Drehem Calendar’, ZA 69, pp. 6–33.

327

Widell, Magnus (2002), ‘Reconstructing the Early History of the Ur III State: Some Methodological Considerations of the Use of Year Formulae’, JAC 17, pp. 99– 111. —― (2004), ‘The Calendar of Neo-Sumerian Ur and Its Political Significance’, CDLJ 2/2004, pp. 1–7. Wilcke, Claus (1969), ‘Zur Geschichte der Amurriter in der Ur-III-Zeit’, WO 5, pp. 1– 31. —― (1970), ‘Eine Schicksalsentscheidung für den toten Urnammu’, CRRAI 17, pp. 81–92. —― (1972), Urnammus Tod: Tod und Bestattung eines Königs in neusumerischer Zeit, unpublished Habilitationsschrift. —― (1972–1975), ‘Hymne: A. Nach sumerischen Quellen’, RlA 4, pp. 539–44. —― (1973), ‘Politische Opposition nach sumerischen Quellen: Der Konflikt zwischen Königtum und Ratsversammlung: Literaturwerke als politische Tendenzschriften’, in André Finet (ed.), La Voix de lÓpposition en Mésopotamie: Colloque Organisé par lÍnstitut des Hautes Études de Belgique, 19. et 20. mars 1973, Brussels: Institut des Hautes Études de Belgique, pp. 37–65. —― (1974), ‘Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit’, CRRAI 19, pp. 177–232. —― (1976a), ‘Formale Gesichtspunkte in der sumerischen Literatur’, Fs. Jacobsen, pp. 205–316. —― (1976b), Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur in der HilprechtSammlung Jena, ASAW 65/4, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. —― (1982), ‘Review of Hermann Hunger, Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk: Teil I, Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag, 1976’, BiOr 39, pp. 141–145. —― (1985), ‘Neue Quellen aus Isin zur Geschichte der Ur-III-Zeit und der I. Dynastie von Isin’, OrNS 54, pp. 299–318. —― (1988a), ‘Die Sumerische Königsliste und erzählte Vergangenheit’, in Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg and Hansjörg Reinau (eds.), Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung, Colloquium Rauricum 1, Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, pp. 113–40. —― (1988b), ‘König Šulgis Himmelfahrt’, Fs. Vajda, pp. 245–55. —― (1989), ‘Genealogical and Geographical Thought in the Sumerian King List’, Fs. Sjöberg, pp. 557–71. —― (1992), ‘É-saë-da-na Nibru†: An Early Administrative Center of the Ur III Empire’, CRRAI 35, pp. 311–24.

328

—― (1993), ‘Politik im Spiegel der Literatur: Literatur als Mittel der Politik im älteren Babylonien’, in Kurt Raaflaub (ed.), Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike: Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und die Griechen, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs: Kolloquien 24, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, pp. 29–75. —― (2002), ‘Der Kodex Urnamma (CU): Versuch einer Rekonstruktion’, Gs. Jacobsen, pp. 291–333. Winter, Irene J. (1991), ‘Legitimation of Authority through Image and Legend: Seals Belonging to Officials in the Administrative Bureaucracy of the Ur III State’, SAOC 46, pp. 59–99. —― (1996), ‘Sex, Rhetoric and the Public Monument: The Alluring Body of Naram-Sîn of Agade’, in Natalie Boymel Kampen et al. (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece and Italy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–26. Wiseman, Donald J. and Black, Jeremy A. (1996), Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû, CTN 4, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Woods, Christopher (2006), ‘Bilingualism, Scribal Learning and the Death of Sumerian’, in Seth L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 91–120. Wu, Yuhong (1995), ‘High-Ranking “Scribes” and Intellectual Governors during the Akkadian and Ur III Periods’, JAC 10, pp. 127–45. Yoshikawa, Mamoru (1987), ‘Review of Philip J. Watson, Neo-Sumerian Texts from Drehem, BCT 1, Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1986’, ASJ 9, pp. 320–2. Zettler, Richard L. (1989), ‘(The Statue of Šulgi-ki-ur5-sag9-kalam-ma) Part Two: The Statue’, Fs. Sjöberg, pp. 65–77. Zólyomi, Gábor (2005), ‘A Hymn to Ninšubur’, Fs. Klein, pp. 396–412.

329

Shulgi of Ur: Life, Deeds, Ideology and Legacy of a Mesopotamian Ruler As Reflected Primarily in Literary Texts, PhD diss., SOAS (University of London), 2011

The Life of David as Reflected in His Psalms

Bribery in Classical Athens (PhD diss. Princeton)

Thesauros: A study of the treasury building as found in Greek sanctuaries (PhD diss. John Hopkins University)

Aeginetan trade, 650-457 B.C.: A re-examination (PhD diss. University of Illinois at Chicago)

A Ruler of Men

The Adventures of Eovaii (Broadview Literary Texts) (Broadview Literary Texts)

Ruler of the World

Ruler of the World

Ruler of Naught

The Heart of a Ruler

Ruler of the World

Ruler of the World

Ruler of the World

The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur. An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom

Deeds of the Disturber

The Royal Hymns of Shulgi King of Ur: Man´s Quest for Immortal Fame

Literary Life of Thingum Bob

Requiem for a Ruler of Worlds

Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts

A Tale Of London

A Tale Of London

Ruler of the World

Ruler of the World

Feasting the Ruler of Purgatory

The life and legacy of Annie Oakley

American Buddhism As a Way of Life

Loneliness as a way of life

Loneliness as a Way of Life

Life - As a Matter of Fat

Heart of Darkness (Broadview Literary Texts)

Shulgi of Ur: Life, Deeds, Ideology and Legacy of a Mesopotamian Ruler As Reflected Primarily in Literary Texts, PhD diss., SOAS (University of London), 2011

The Life of David as Reflected in His Psalms

Bribery in Classical Athens (PhD diss. Princeton)

Thesauros: A study of the treasury building as found in Greek sanctuaries (PhD diss. John Hopkins University)

Aeginetan trade, 650-457 B.C.: A re-examination (PhD diss. University of Illinois at Chicago)

A Ruler of Men

The Adventures of Eovaii (Broadview Literary Texts) (Broadview Literary Texts)

Ruler of the World

Ruler of the World

Ruler of Naught

The Heart of a Ruler

Ruler of the World

Ruler of the World

Ruler of the World

The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur. An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom

Deeds of the Disturber

The Royal Hymns of Shulgi King of Ur: Man´s Quest for Immortal Fame

Literary Life of Thingum Bob

Requiem for a Ruler of Worlds

Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts

A Tale Of London

A Tale Of London

Ruler of the World

Ruler of the World

Feasting the Ruler of Purgatory

The life and legacy of Annie Oakley

American Buddhism As a Way of Life

Loneliness as a way of life

Loneliness as a Way of Life

Life - As a Matter of Fat

Heart of Darkness (Broadview Literary Texts)

Recommend Documents