“Any attempt to define civilization will at some stage include writing

Royal Inscriptions

“Any attempt to define civilization will at some stage include writing. Obviously the ability to convey information through time and space is a major enabling factor in the organization of a society, and writing, which was probably invented in Mesopotamia, therefore deserves to be studied in its own right.”[1] Many different forms of writing were committed to clay in the ancient history of Mesopotamia, each providing their own insight into cultures long since dead, allowing modern scholars to begin to form a clearer picture of the lives of these ancient peoples. Royal inscriptions, intended for the glorification of rulers and the empires they created, can provide such insights, in addition to offering a chronology of major events throughout their reigns. It is the responsibility of modern scholars to examine the evidence to determine to what degree might described events represent historically accurate facts versus to what degree might they have been composed as propaganda, all while attempting to arrange a clearer picture of the lives and events which shaped these ancient societies.

Though records of written language in the form of administrative and lexical texts date back an additional half millennia, the first royal inscriptions recovered have been dated to approximately 2600 B.C. These Presargonic inscriptions, which we shall group as having been composed approximately between 2600-2350 B.C., have a tendency to follow predictable, simple patterns. On a whole, the majority of these inscriptions commemorate the building of a structure or object or the digging of a canal by dedicating it from the ruler to a god. Generally only a few lines long, many inscriptions begin by stating a deity’s name plus epithets, the ruler’s name plus epithets, followed by a description of affiliation of the ruler and deity, and the item or act being commemorated. There are exceptions, however, which as Cooper states, “demonstrate compositional and ideological sophistication that amply foreshadow the development of royal inscriptions in succeeding periods.”[2] A major problem with analyzing royal inscriptions from this period is that in general there are very few inscriptions from any one city and for any one ruler. The exception to this rule is the city of Lagash, the most thoroughly excavated site from this period, for which a definite chronology of rulers has been established. Numerous royal inscriptions exist for each of the rulers, which allows for a more concrete survey of changes in style over an approximately 150 year period.[1]

The first recorded ruler of Lagash in Cooper’s anthology of Presargonic royal inscriptions, Urnanshe, has inscriptions which nearly all begin by stating “Urnanshe, king of Lagash” followed by epithets describing his hegemony and refer to him as the “son” of Gursar, which has been estimated to refer to his hometown, in which case “son” should be understood as meaning “citizen.”[3] This is important as it shows that even very early on, rulers were concerned about their genealogy. By establishing in the literature their legitimacy through genealogy, rulers attempted to lay to rest any doubts that might be had regarding their rights to the throne, and this theme of genealogy shall be ever present from Presargonic times down through the Ur III period and beyond.

One interesting thing mentioned in multiple inscriptions is that Urnanshe “had ships of Dilmun transport timber from foreign lands (to Lagash).”[4] That this item is worth note in many different sources can imply its relative importance, and it may be that this feature corresponds to the ascent of Lagash under Urnanshe’s reign. During the Uruk period (3800-3100 B.C.), there exists evidence of substantial expansion, as the peoples first began to tap the Taurus and Zagros mountains for natural resources such as lumber, metals, and stone building materials. It could then be inferred that a ruler’s ability to gain control and establish trade routes for his domain in order to secure these important materials was seen as a major accomplishment. People may have been cognizant of the fact that a good ruler, one who promotes the growth and prosperity of his people, does so in part by showing his command over peoples both near and distant. Such a claim made in the royal inscriptions could be seen as boasting, as the inscriptions were intended to do, about the ruler’s strength and influence, attested to in this case by Urnanshe’s ability to secure lumber from “foreign lands.”

Of all of Urnanshe’s royal inscriptions that have been found, only one contains an account of war, which can be seen as important distinction between himself and his successors. One might conclude that his exploits, including his ascent and consolidation of power and expansionary building of a trade system, were done peacefully, or that perhaps they simply chose not to emphasize war when recounting his achievements. In an inscription found on a stone slab, it states that, “[Urnanshe, king] of Lagash, went to war against the leader of Ur and the leader of Umma:” and then goes on to list those captured and declare that “he made a burial mound (for them).”[5] (pg. 25) This can be seen as the first introduction to the idea of burial mounds being “built” for those defeated in battle as seen in the royal inscriptions, although the practice may certainly have originated long before. This section of the passage falls somewhat randomly at the end of an inscription otherwise dedicated to the building of temples, walls, statues, and canals in the name of different gods, and it raises the question of whether or not this killing and burying of the defeated might be meant as an offering to the gods. This position does not seem supported, however, by the way in which the inscription only states the fact that the mounds were “built,” whereas with other physical structures, the building is followed by the god’s name in whose honor it had been constructed. One could also propose that the “building of burial mounds” was not meant as a gesture to the divine but rather as towards other mortals, perhaps as a warning that they too will be subject to the same fate if they do not submit to the obviously powerful and great ruler.

After the reign of the less than extraordinary Akurgal, Eanatum rose to the throne as perhaps the most notable ruler of the Lagash dynasty. As one of the most remarkable royal inscriptions, Eanatum’s Stele of the Vultures represents a great departure in style from the drier works celebrating Urnanshe. This monument, regarding a border dispute between Lagash and Umma, displays many interesting developments in the style of royal inscriptions. Firstly, it makes a point of establishing Eanatum’s divine right to rule, saying, “…Ni]n[gir]su [imp]lanted the [semen] for E[a]natum in the [wom]b [(2 cases broken) and . . .] rejoiced over [Eanatum]. Inana accompanied him, named him Eana-Inana-Ibgalakakatum, and set him on the special lap of Ninhursag.”[6] After detailing the divine nature of his birth and right to the throne, the stele details the battle between Lagash and Umma, and the divine intervention that permitted his victory. Eanatum is then described as giving “the great battle net” of multiple gods to the leader of Umma, in order for him to swear by them to the conditions set forth by Eanatum. All of this is important as it asserts the large role gods were thought to have in the affairs of men, which will be contrasted by the more secular accomplishments of men in Sargonic inscriptions.

After five more successive leaders, we reach the final ruler of Lagash detailed in these royal inscriptions: Uru^Éinimgina (whom was most likely a contemporary of both Lugalzagesi of Umma and Sargon of Agade). Many of his inscriptions are referred to as “the reform-texts,” and they follow a strikingly different pattern than those composed preceding his reign. While they contain details of pious acts, a majority of the texts are dedicated to revealing past abuses and then detailing the corrections he made. The reason for this change is difficult to determine, though one might speculate that his rule may have been crumbling around him as Lugalzagesi presided over the powerful Umma city-state, followed by Sargon usurping power from all of the Mesopotamian rulers. In such hard times, Uru^Éinimgina may have been trying to hang onto what rule he had left by reforming the “problems” of society in order to gain the support of the people. This is additionally supported in another inscription which details Lugalzagesi’s sacking of Lagash. It describes all of the horrible acts “the leader of Umma” committed against Lagash, and concludes by saying “The leader of Umma, hav[ing] sacked L[ag]ash, has committed a sin against Ningirsu. The hand which he has raised against him will be cut off! It is not a sin of Uru^Éinimgina, king of Girsu! May Nisaba, the god of Lugalzagesi, ruler of Umma, make him (Lugalzagesi) bear the sin!”[7] This comes off as almost a plea to the gods by a king whose rule is floundering. We can also infer that as he is now referred to as “king of Girsu” as opposed to “king of Lagash,” that after Lugalzagesi’s raid, he may have been solely restricted to the area surrounding Girsu.[8] From the rise of Urnanshe of Lagash to the fall of Uru^Éinimgina, we can begin to form a good idea of the progression of events over the dynasty’s course through a careful inspection of royal inscriptions. The development of themes and literary conventions is evident when looking at the progression of inscriptions, as the royal inscriptions of Presargonic times set the stage for styles in Sargonic times and beyond.

The rise to power of Sargon of Agade marked a major shift in power throughout ancient Mesopotamia. From what we know, Sargon declared his independence from Ur-Zababa, the king of Kish, for whom he had served as cupbearer, and founded his capital at Agade.[9] He then proceeded to lead successful campaigns against all the other major powers and established an empire comprising a great deal of Mesopotamia. These campaigns are a major theme of his royal inscriptions, marking a distinct departure from the style of the more pious, building driven inscriptions of Presargonic Mesopotamia. Sabina Franke comments on this change as she says,

“Replacing these notions are celebrations of the ruler’s glory and expressions of pride in his own deeds– primarily military successes. The epithet commonly used by Sargon, “(the king) to whom Enlil has given no rival,” distills his own perspective on power and its sources: the incontestable position he achieved by force of arms gave him leave to act without further divine license.”[10]

This marked change in style may reflect a change in belief regarding the role gods play in earthly affairs. As can be seen in other civilizations such as the Greeks, as the civilization becomes more advanced, gods are seen as having less direct intervention in the lives of men and become more peripheral and heavenly. In Sargon’s inscriptions, he dispenses with the more priestly titles held by previous leaders in lieu of more secular titles, but it is important to note he still attributes his success to divine support, namely the will of Enlil.

There are many conventions that first seem to appear in Sargon’s royal inscriptions, but that are continued thereafter. In general, there appear different images of destruction of cities and the defeat of his enemies. In one inscription, it is said, “…conquered [Lugal-z]age-si, king of [Ur]uk, in battle and led him off to the gate of the god Enlil in a neck stock.”[11] In many texts, the victorious Sargon is said to have led his defeated enemies off in a “neck stock” to the god Enlil, presumably implying that they were humiliated and then killed. This description, as implemented in Sargon’s inscriptions, appears to be novel, while similar descriptions will be found when examining successive Akkadian rulers. Another reference continually repeated follows a form similar to, “was victorious over Ur in battle, conquered the city and destroyed its wall.”[12] Again, the inscriptions of Sargon establish this convention of destroying the conquered cities wall. Sargon’s success could probably be attributed to this more warlike attitude; the content of these inscriptions glorifying the destruction of opponents and the power of Agade may provide ample proof for its importance regarding his domination of previously independent states.

Another feature of Sargon’s rule that can be established from his royal inscriptions is his new style of leadership and the practices that he adopted in order to maintain power. One inscription states, “so that from the Lower Sea <to the Upper Sea>, citizens of Agade [h]eld the governorships (of the land),”[13] which can be interpreted to mean Sargon put loyal supporters into power in conquered cities. This would be effective military strategy for a number of reasons, such as that it would allow for those loyal to him to maintain order in subjugated cities, and also to ensure the loyalty of those people, as they would be indebted to him for the power allotted to them. Though it may not be the first time such a system was put into place, Sargon’s rule represents a grand turning point, as he an his grandson Naram-Sin were remembered in literary tradition for hundreds of years after their respective reigns, allowing for their practices to be observed and instituted by future generations.

Another factor some attribute to Sargon’s success is derived from a comment repeated in multiple inscriptions, which reads, “5,400 men daily eat in the presence of Sargon, king of the world, to whom the god Enlil gave no rival.”[14] (or some variant of this). This is taken by some, including Franke, to show Sargon maintained a standing army, whose loyalty would help him secure and hold his empire. Franke postulates that this was “possibly financed through booty from campaigns” and that “The army apparently depended directly on the king and was largely fed by him… In this way, Sargon was guaranteed the loyalty of the troops, so important to the success of a usurper.”[15] So again, though not explicitly stated, the implications of what is written in the royal inscriptions can offer an important look into how a state was governed and people lived in ancient Mesopotamia.

A final development in the content of inscriptions that can be seen beginning in the Sargonic period is the curse. One inscription states, “As for the one who removes this inscription, may the gods Enlil, Šamaš, and Aštar tear out his foundations and destroy his progeny,”[16] while another states, “As for anyone who sets aside this statute, may the god Enlil set his name aside (and) smash his weapon. May he not walk before the god Enlil.”[17] These curses seem to be meant as a way of protecting the buildings and statues commemorated by the inscriptions for the purpose of forever keeping alive the deeds done by the great rulers. It is important to look at what might instill the need to “protect” their works from others, as such curses were quite rare in Presargonic inscriptions. In fact, the only curses in those texts are found in inscriptions concerning the Lagash-Umma border disputes. In one of Eanatum of Lagash’s inscriptions, it states that, “If [a leader of] Um[ma] [cros]ses the water/canal in order to take away the fields, may Ningirsu be a (hostile) dragon to him! May Enlil make salt surface in his furrows!”[18] This could imply that the need to protect the inscriptions may be motivated out of fear of other cities or peoples invading and destroying that which current residents had worked so hard to create. If this holds true, it would imply that after Sargon took over power, there may have been a feeling of unrest, a fear that military power may now be the governing force in the land. Protecting the achievements of himself and his successors may then have been an important priority for Sargon, and the most obvious way to do this was to appeal to deities’ protection by cursing those that would tamper with their works.

Another important aspect of Sargon’s rule that this might help to establish is his transforming the way in which a ruler acts from priestly to secular. As Cooper states, “In the Presargonic period, an inscription is more likely to end with a prayer on the ruler’s behalf. Most simply ask for the personal god of a ruler to intercede on his behalf before a greater deity.”[19] This differs from the inscriptions during Sargon’s rule in which the curses are meant to protect against physical destruction by another power as opposed to ruin at the hands of a god. This again reflects a changing belief in the way in which gods interact in the lives of men, having transitioned from being more active players to being more celestial or on the periphery. The concern of Sargon is not that he will be forsaken by Enlil, but rather that another king will simply invade and defeat him, and this alteration in style of inscription helps support such a thesis.

After Sargon’s two sons Rimuš and Man-ištušu had continued to expand and solidify the power of the Akkadian empire, Sargon’s grandson, Naram-Sin, ascended to the throne. He continued to push the boundaries of the empire in all directions, which Franke hypothesizes may have led to the opposing coalition of city states that revolted during his reign.[20] The events of the “Great Revolt” are detailed in multiple royal inscriptions, which tend to follow a chronological order of the kings of Kish and Uruk being elevated to kingship, Naram-Sin’s forces engaging the rebellious and putting them down, and then listing important figures captured and quantities of men killed. It is important to note that the victories are attributed to the “verdict” of various gods and goddesses, implying a degree of piousness regarding his ability to win.

An important consequence of Naram-Sin’s putting down this rebellion was that it led to his deification during his lifetime. One inscription goes as follows,

“Naram-Sin, the mighty, king of Agade, when the four quarters together revolted against him, through the love which the goddess Aštar showed him, he was victorious in nine battles in one year, and the kings whom they (the rebels[?]) had raised (against him), he captured. In view of the fact that he protected the foundations of his city from danger, (the citizens of) his city requested from Aštar in Eanna, Enlil in Nippur, Dagan in Tuttul, Ninhursag in Keš, Ea in Eridu, Sîn in Ur, Šamaš in Sippar, (and) Nergal in Kutha, that (Naram-Sin) be (made) the god of their city, and they built within Agade a temple (dedicated) to him.”[21]

This deification presents a completely new role for the king in society. No longer viewed as simply a servant of the gods, but rather as a god himself, Naram-Sin assumed a new role as the “owner” of the city, as its protective deity. With this view in the minds of the people, he gained increased authority and control over his territory. The establishment of the king as a deity would stay with the Akkadian rulers, and Sargon (who was posthumously deified) and Naram-Sin would occupy a unique position in history as their exploits would be retold for centuries after their passing. The institution of deified rulers would re-appear in the Ur III period under Shulgi and his successors, who continued to bring offerings to the statues of the deified Akkadian kings.[22]

Following a trend seen throughout history, when an extremely competent ruler such as Naram-Sin concentrates a large enough empire, the weaker successors are unable to maintain its grandeur, and following this pattern, piece by piece, the Akkadian empire was allowed to collapse. By around 2192 B.C., the invasion of Gutian tribes had overtaken the once grand empire, leading to the historical belief that Naram-Sin contributed to its downfall, while in reality, his successor, Shar-kali-sharri ruled successfully for nearly 25 years before it was completely dismantled.[23]^,[24] The Gutian interregnum can be seen as a “dark-age” in Mesopotamian civilization, as very little development took place, and there exist only very brief inscriptions from both Gutian rulers and the rulers of the now independent cities. However, the literary traditions established during the reigns of Sargon and Naram-Sin would be resurrected after the eventual expulsion of the Gutian tribes by Utukhegal of Uruk just prior to the rise of the Ur III dynasty.

After Utukhegal’s death, his brother Ur-Nammu asserted his independence and established a kingship in Ur and its surroundings, establishing the Ur III dynasty (2112 B.C.)[25] There are only minimal royal inscriptions of Ur-Nammu, a majority of which have little more to say than describing temples and canals he had build or restored, which can be seen as an attempt to restore stability to the land that had seen so much turmoil in recent centuries. There are parallels to the Presargonic inscriptions’ simplicity, in which inscriptions follow a simple form, often beginning with the deity’s name, followed by the ruler’s name and then the building or object being commemorated. This could be interpreted as an attempt to return to the less tumultuous times prior to Sargon’s assent to power. It is interesting to note the subtle additions of epithets as time progresses, going from “mighty man, king of Ur” to “king of the lands of Sumer and Akkad” and finally to “king of the four-corners.” As he adopts these titles, the echoes back to previous mighty rulers are apparent, as was very likely the intent of the inscriptions’ authors. In a later inscription, it is stated, “I did not impose toil there. I banished there evil, violence, and (any cause for) complaint. I established justice in the land.”[26] This continues to support Ur-Nammu’s intent to appear a reformer, likely meant to re-instill people with a sense of stability and confidence, embodied in him, their new leader.

Ur-Nammu’s successor, Shulgi of Ur, however, would go on to enact an entire “Sumerian renaissance.” There are very few royal inscriptions of any note from Shulgi’s reign, however. Frayne states that, “Perhaps it is only through the accident of discovery that we have no yet found more of Shulgi’s stele and statue inscriptions.”[27] We do know, however, that after fending off the Gutians, he was able to assert his authority more fully. In order to unite the formally independent states, he appealed to the traditions of Naram-Sin of Agade, and assumed divinity. This allowed him to both create a sense of unity for the citizens of his empire and to usurp much of the economic power previously held by temples.[28] During Shulgi’s reign, there was a shift in literary tradition, as royal inscriptions seem to play a lesser roll in recording history and acted more as simple dedications to what he had built. Royal hymns and epics which related himself to the deified rulers of the First Dynasty of Uruk became the primary methods for spreading the propaganda of his empire, in the interests of uniting a Mesopotamia which had previously only been united under the Assyrian kings. As Klein says, “As befitted his greatness and fame, Shulgi was perhaps the most celebrated Mesopotamian king in hymns and prayers of all kinds.”[29]

After an amazingly long forty-eight year reign, Shulgi finally died, and though two of his sons and a grandson would see the throne, the empire quickly crumbled away without his charismatic leadership at the head. Klein summarizes the short-lived Sumerian renaissance quite well as he says, “just as the rise of the empire of Ur’s Third Dynasty was quick and phenomenal, so was its fall sudden and complete. In less than a century no trace of its former power and glory remained, except in its rich literary heritage…”[30] Much of this heritage, however, is embodied in the form of epic poetry and hymns, but there is hope that additional royal inscriptions may come to light that could add further detail to the picture of Shulgi’s reign.

The tradition of royal inscriptions, spanning from the 2600 B.C. beginnings in the Presargonic era through the 2004 B.C. inscriptions ending the Third Dynasty of Ur, provides for a relatively comprehensive view of the changing political and ideological climate in ancient Mesopotamia. It is possible to see the transition from city-states such as Lagash, which were attempting to increase their foreign influence, to an overarching empire constructed by Sargon at the advent of the Akkadian dynasty. Changing ideas about warfare, the roles of deities in the affairs of mankind, and the manipulation of public perception through a rulers’ personal deification all undergo dynamic shifts that help to characterize the way in which societies lived. These clues, however, only comprise a piece of the whole. Work done with philology, studies of architecture, art, and of material culture, ranging from pottery to a clothing styles, and in additional realms as well, can all be incorporated into the knowledge base in order to more fully understand both how it was that people of ancient Mesopotamia lived and how it was that they viewed themselves and others.

[1] Even at Lagash, analysis is limited to a degree by the number of existing texts. The issue of what has been discovered versus what may have been written is one that any perceptive analysis should take into account. On the surface, one might claim that during a specific time period, there are no documents relating to war, for example, but such a claim can only go so far as to say we have not found any documents relating to war. It does not necessarily imply that no such documents were ever composed, it may simply be an issue of having found certain documents in one place and not in another, or from one time period and not from another. Still, in some cases such as Lagash where it is felt a more whole picture of society can be described from a more numerous set of discovered inscriptions, certain assertions will be made about the nature of what is included in inscriptions; but it is important to keep in mind this limitation whenever analyzing an ancient society solely through written record, as this paper intends to do.