| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| early_dynastic_iiib [2010/01/09 03:03] – ong | early_dynastic_iiib [2015/01/27 17:02] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| ===== Defining the ED IIIb period ===== | ===== Defining the ED IIIb period ===== |
| |
| The traditional schema outlined for the Early Dynastic period is based, above all, on a somewhat problematic assignment of major archaeological sites and text-artifactual corpora to ... Bauer (1998, 431) refers to two distinct models (?) / definitions (?) of the beginning of the ED IIIb period: the theory that . . . proposed by [[Falkenstein]] and his students and the alternative model suggested by [[Hallo]]. These efforts to define the start of the period in political rather than archaeological terms may well be misguided and Van De Mieroop has recently argued that the entire Early Dynastic Period should be treated as a single organic whole from a historical perspective.\\ | The traditional schema outlined for the Early Dynastic period is based, above all, on a somewhat problematic assignment of major archaeological sites and text-artifactual corpora to ... Bauer (1998, 431) refers to two distinct models (?) / definitions (?) of the beginning of the ED IIIb period: the theory that . . . proposed by [[falkenstein_adam|Falkenstein]] and his students and the alternative model suggested by Hallo. These efforts to define the start of the period in political rather than archaeological terms may well be misguided and Van De Mieroop has recently argued that the entire Early Dynastic Period should be treated as a single organic whole from a historical perspective.\\ |
| |
| This period is often subdivided into Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900-2750), II (ca. 2750-2600), IIIa (2600-2450), and IIIb (ca. 2450-2350), but these are archaeological distinctions based on stylistic changes in the material remains that have little historical value. The period should be regarded as a unit in political terms, displaying the same basic characteristics for its entire duration (Van De Mieroop 2004, 39-40).\\ | This period is often subdivided into Early Dynastic I (ca. 2900-2750), II (ca. 2750-2600), IIIa (2600-2450), and IIIb (ca. 2450-2350), but these are archaeological distinctions based on stylistic changes in the material remains that have little historical value. The period should be regarded as a unit in political terms, displaying the same basic characteristics for its entire duration (Van De Mieroop 2004, 39-40).\\ |
| ==== Enhegal ==== | ==== Enhegal ==== |
| |
| The status of this first figure as ruler of Lagash is disputed, as it is inferred from an economic text recording a sale of land by two men designated as Sidu and Lugalshagengur (ELTS no. 20). In their treatment of the text, Gelb, Steinkeller and Whiting date the document to the Fara Period (ELTS pg. 70) However M.A. Powell (JCS 46, ppg. 99-104) disagrees over Enhegal’s status as ruler of the city, and further dates the text to the time of Ur-Nanshe. | The status of this first figure as the earliest known ruler of Lagash is disputed, as it is inferred from an economic text recording a sale of land by two men designated as Sidu and 'Enhegal lugal Lagash' (ELTS no. 20). In their treatment of the text, Gelb, Steinkeller and Whiting date the document to the Fara Period (ELTS pg. 70) However M.A. Powell (JCS 46, ppg. 99-104) disagrees over Enhegal’s status as ruler of the city, and further dates the text to the time of Ur-Nanshe. |
| |
| ==== Lugalshagengur ==== | ==== Lugalshagengur ==== |
| In contrary to the long and relatively well-documented reign of Ur-Nanshe, that of his son Akurgal was short and poorly known. Only six gypssum inscriptions of his have survived. One of them ([[http://cdli.ucla.edu/P222392|FAOS 05/1, Akg 1]]) states that he build the Antasura of Ningirsu, while the text of the others has been destroyed. On the basis of inscriptions from his son Eanatum, however, we know that during his reign Lagash some of the Guedina to Umma. | In contrary to the long and relatively well-documented reign of Ur-Nanshe, that of his son Akurgal was short and poorly known. Only six gypssum inscriptions of his have survived. One of them ([[http://cdli.ucla.edu/P222392|FAOS 05/1, Akg 1]]) states that he build the Antasura of Ningirsu, while the text of the others has been destroyed. On the basis of inscriptions from his son Eanatum, however, we know that during his reign Lagash some of the Guedina to Umma. |
| |
| ==== Eannatum ==== | ==== Eanatum ==== |
| |
| Eannatum was the son of Akurgal, and reknown as the greatest ruler of Lagash. He defeated the rival powers, Elam and destroyed its capital at Susa, Uruk, Ur, and Akshak, and made an enemy out of Mari. His military campaigns were so widespread that he was able to claim the title "King of Kish", which during ED I, especially had been a title denoting the unity of the Mesopotamian city-states and their submission (although they retained much autonomy) to a single ruler. During his reign, however, the border conflict with Lagash's neighbor Umma also came to a climax. Because the cities had historically shared the same resources, including the fertile land of Edin and the Adab Canal, they had been historic rival; Eannatum going so far as to say that the border (which was different from the border Umma claimed) was marked by the gods and reiterated by Mesilim (Mesalim), legendary king of Kish. According to the Stele of Vultures, through his use of the military technique, the battle-phalanx, Lagash was able to retain the upper hand on the Umma king, Enakalle. (Hallo 51-52) | Eanatum was the son of Akurgal, and the most militarily successful ruler of the first dynasty of Lagash. He conducted many campaigns abroad, including ones against the southern cities of Ur, Uruk, and Kiutu, as well as states further afield such as Kish, Mari, Akshak, and Susa. He even reached northeastern Subartu and the eastern regions of Elam, destroying a city called Mishime. His military campaigns were so widespread that he was able to claim the title "King of Kish", a title associated with if not always actually indicating, the unity of the Mesopotamian city-states and their submission to a single ruler. |
| | |
| | Much information about Eanatum's deeds comes from the famous Stele of the Vultures ([[http://cdli.ucla.edu/P222399|FAOS 05/1, Ean 01]]), a now fragmentary inscription that depicts in both verbally and graphically powerful ways the military exploits of the king of Lagash. One fragment shows the god Ningirsu holding a mace in his right hand while his left holds a net that has bagged a number of helpless enemy soldiers (picture?). Another section shows Eanatum leading a heavily armed phalanx of soldiers trampling slain enemy underneath. Yet another shows men piling up corpses into a giant heap, an image which is reflected in the text. |
| | |
| | The stele also gives testament to developments in the ideology of kingship which are promoted by later Lagash rulers. Eanatum is the first Lagash king to explicitly claim divine birth by a god, in this case Ningirsu. Inheritors of the throne would go on to do likewise, as when Eanatum's son Enanatum I named the god Lugal-URU11 his father, and when Enmetena names Gatumdug his divine mother (Bauer pg. 462). Along with the divine progenitor comes a divine wet-nurse, that is, a female goddess who suckles the king to make him strong. For Eanatum this figure is the ancient goddess Ninhursag (Ean 01, IV). Other kings, down to the Neo-Assyrian period, would also make use of this motif. The stele also describes how Ningirsu visited Eanatum in a dream where he instructed him to make war on Umma. This motif surfaces again in the cylinder inscriptions of the later king Gudea, where he narrates how Ningirsu explained the plan for the (re)building of his E-ninnu temple. |
| |
| ==== Enannatum I ==== | ==== Enannatum I ==== |
| |
| Enannatum I was the brother of Eannatum and another son of Akurgal. During his reign, Lagash was plagued by war with Umma, under the leadership of Ur-Lumma. | Enanatum I was the brother of Eanatum and another son of Akurgal. Like his predecessors he faced conflict with Umma over control of the Guedina, and like his brother, he defeated the rival state, imposing heavy fiscal penalties on it and forcing its king Enakale to swear an oath to the gods that he would respect the established boundaries. However as the Enmetena cone goes on to describe |
| |
| ==== Entemena ==== | ==== Entemena ==== |
