|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 23, 2009 2:47:07 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: On this thread I a reviewing pieces from Glassner's book "Mesopotamian Chronicles"
Mesopotamian Chronicles
This week I have returned from the library with many interesting books, one of which is Glassner's 2004 "Mesopotamian Chronicles". This 350+ book contains perhaps a few Sumerian chronicles, and maybe 2 dozen or so Assyrian and Babylonian chonicles - chronicles here referring, roughly, to quasi-historic documents: text compiled by the intellectual of old who were concerned with the history of their people (albeit in a manner not quite scientific.) Excamples include lists of kings, or lists of temples reconstructions (as in fascinating Sumerian Tummal inscription). Because the book contains a fair amount of information about a genre I am relatively unfamiliar with, I will divide this sample into three sections: 1. The Future of the Past: I intend to take notes and sum the authors background perspective on Mesopotamian concepts of the past and of history.
2. Definition: Sum of the Authors definitions of Mesopotamian chronicles (important for understanding of the material itself.
3. Choice texts: I will try and quote or sum material from the main part of the book itself, likely I will focus on Sumerian items particularly the Tummal inscription which has been discussed elsewhere on the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 23, 2009 4:06:07 GMT -5
1. The Future of the Past The first 30 some pages of Glassners specialized focus on Mesopotamian chronicles is dedicated to a consideration of the term historiography, and how the term can be applied to the Mesopotamians quasi-historical texts. I have summed some of his discussion in the following:
Factual aptitude in Mesopotamia/ A separation between myth, history and legend never fully occurred, the author explains, in the minds of Mesopotamian intellectuals, with even the historiographer Berossus (Hellenistic era) including mythological traditions in his history of Babylonia. The learned writer in the ancient world "made selections, manipulated facts, and constructed narratives" and the Assyrian annals are alluded to as examples of historiographic material that was rewords and the events within were reemphasized in such different ways that there now exist numerous different versions of the Annals.
Backward to the future/ As some of you may have already noted from considering S. Maul's article "Ancient Middle Eastern Capitals: reflection and navel of the World" (available at Gateways to Babylon), the Mesopotamians hard quite "surprising" notions of time. Glassner that time was considered "a powerful force, governing all things, that could be propitious for some activities but dangerous for others; it was even sometimes considered as a demiurge." But here is the surprising part, which Maul also observed: the future to Mesopotamians, was behind them. The past was described in words meaning "formerly", easy enough, yet the future was Akk. warkātu meaning "that which is behind" or in Sumerian egir (meaning not only behind, but future as well.) This is interpreted by experts as a sign Mesopotamians advanced forward while looking back, looking back to tradition. Glassner cites an episode in Gilgamesh when he is blocked and can go no further, yet is not his way forward he cannot see: "When he had gone seven double leagues, dense was the darkness, it would not let him see what lay behind him." Mesopotamian historians did not know linear time, but tended to think in terms of duration (a king reigned this long after the former king as with chronology) or in terms of cyclical time (as in the changing of seasons, of generations, calenders etc).
Assyrians cyclic view of Sargon/ The Assyrians in Assurbanipal's time, Glassner writes, considered that every historical cycle was a self contained unit and that their own historical cycle was in effect a repetition of that of Sargon the Great, who conquered all of Mesopotamia. They say him as conquerer and founder of empire as the founder of order in that cycle and the invasion of foreigners (Gutians) in the reign of his Grandson the completion of that cycle. The Babylonians, on the other hand, differed and considered Sargon a fatherless child or a non royal - a usurper. They manipulated his title LUGAL.GI "rightful king" to LUGAL.IM.GI "Rebel king."
The Antiquarian interest of the Late Assyrians themselves/ Glassner: "On the fringe of historical interests, there developed during the first millennium a certain antiquarianism. We know of the taste of the Chaldean kings of the sixth century for historical research and of the religious motives and genuine historical interest that inspired them, of their attempts to reforge some of the broken links with the past to strengthen their own claims to legitimacy. Veritable museums were established in which original pieces sat side by side with copies. There as perhaps a museum in the palace in Babylon from which possibly some thirty objects have been found, among which several statues from Mari, an inscription of Shulgi, and a stela of Darius I. The Egipar at Ur, the residence of the high priestess, also house a museum where one could admire, among other items, a foundation cone of Kudur-mabug, an inscription of Amar-Su'en of Ur, as well as a copy of it made in the seventh centure "for display " (?) by the lament singer Nabû-shuma-iddina, son of Iddin-Ilabrat, when it was rediscovered by the Governor of the city Sin-balāssu-iqbi. Finally, at Nippur a jar has been found in the Neo-Babylonian level containing a score of objects from all periods, notably a map of the city and its environs; these may well have been items in a collection of antiquities."
Copies and Compilations
[/color] Mesopotamian historiographers would make copies and draw from various different sorts of inscriptions in order to make their own works such as the chronicles, which were therefore compiled with historical interest although often with little scientific method overall. Glassner has made a short note on each category of inscription that may have been utilized, and I sum this information below: [/color]] Copies of Royal Inscriptions[/center] Copies of Royal inscriptions (for possible historiographic purposes) pressure known as early as the end of the 3rd mill. and were particular esteemed in the OB school of Nippur - reproductions are generally loyal to the original. [*]Collections of Royal Letters The royal correspondence of Ur was partially preserved when copying these letters became part of school practice for students in the OB period: Correspondence dealing with the Amorites was selected in particular [perhaps as the Babylonians were Amorite?] as well as scraps from Isin and Larsa dealing with irrigation. [*]Lists of Year Names Mesopotamian historiographer could also refer to the Lists of Year names, which began in Nippur and Ur and Uruk in about 2400 - these listed each succeeding year by referencing to some noteworthy event from the preceding year, thus preserving historical information. In the 13th century year began to be marked by the reigns of kings instead. [*]Eponym Lists Similar to the idea of Year names above, the Assyrians created their own dating system in which years were named after high ranking officials of the state. Names were selected at first by lot, and later by a strict hierarchical order. [*]King Lists Another source for the Ancient (as well as modern) Historiographer is the kinglists, which listed the names of the kings and lengths of their reigns together with occasional historical information. We have discussed these at length elsewhere on the board. [*]Historical Predictions and Diaries Glassner in addition mentions Historical Predications given by the diviner, the nature of which still seem unclear to me, and Diaries which feature from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II and are records of astronomical observations accompanied by notes which concern fluctuations of prices, bad weather, rises in water levels of rivers, and occasional historical events - though these are rare of questionable value. Literary Compositions Referring now to the actual fruits of the Mesopotamian Historiographers, Glassner refer to 5 categories of literature, which may have taken advantage of the sort of text above in order to produce historically inclined material but which, Glassner takes pain to point out, was nonetheless not always (or perhaps even often) historically sound. [*]Historical Narratives These compositions were written in narrative style such as myths and epics - they has a "pronounced taste for narrative situation, debates between protagonists, divine assembles, divine assistance to heroes, the leadership qualities of the victors, the villainy of the vanquished. This writing of history relied on a theology of sin and punishment, the impious king being punished by defeat." The oldest historical narrative (including the one featuring Sargon of Akkade, the only to be composed in Sumerian) dates from the OB period. [*]Annals Glassner: "Written in the first-person singular, as if the kings themselves, always victorious, were their authors, recounting their own exploits, annals were situated on the frontier where memory was transformed into history." The first annals appear under Tilgrath-pileser I, and were used only by the Assyrians (not the Babylonians.) Often eloquently written, they constitute the best developed genre of historical narrative and the walls of Assyrian palaces were covered in scenes which 'illustrated and complimented' the annals and exploits of the sovereign. [*]Pseudoautobiographies The purpose of this genre was to treat a person, his life or some episode in it, without treating him as one of the many actors in a historical event - the genre seems to have been inspired by a inscription Naram-sin had commissioned for his grandfather Sargon the great and there are late Assyrian copies of this that survive; however, it most be born in mind that this genre are not true autobiographies but pseudoautobiographies, with potential to mislead (especially if the author was in fact quite distant in time from the supposed autobiographer). [*]Prophecies or Apocalyptic Writing In characterizing the mindset that lead the Mesopotamians to write Prophecies and Apocalyptic sort of writing, Glassner remarks that the Mesopotamians, as we see, had considerable interest in the past, and the interest was a historical interest of a sort - most certainly not sort we have, which takes a critical and discerning view of sources, yet to them the primary task was "to choose, according to a definite focus of interest, among the carefully collected data from the past, certain facts that, from that point of view, had acquired universal relevance and significance." Thus history became and educational tool for elites and for governments, and so history takes on distinctly political overtones. And so Glassner explains: "Kings themselves were credited with the desire to bequeath to posterity, in the form of inscribed stelae, naru, the fruit of their experiences. Naram-Sin of Akkade left such a stela, on which he recored the distress from which he was able to escape only in the last extremity. The elderly monarch complains bitterly in it that he had not been informed of the best way to act by King Enmerker, who had once faced a similar situation; he reproaches him for having left no stela for the edification of future kings." Returning to the subject of Prophecies and Apocalyptic Writings, this genre of literature actually refers to writings that occur *after the fact* and are a sort of theological apology for disasters such as the destruction of a city. The first example Glassner gives is that of the destruction of the city of Babylon by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 689. He destroys invades Babylon and destroys the city entirely according to his writings, attempting even to pull up foundations and float them down the rivers to the see so even the Dilmunites might it drifting by and 'filled with fear and awe for Assur." While Sennacerib says nothing of the the cities god Marduk, quite conspicuously as his intention was to raise Assur, his son and successor Esarhaddon changed the tone completely; he commissioned a report to be written that was on of these "Pseudo-Prophecies" of historical nature, and the report basically fabricated a story that the Babylonians had sold the gold and gems of their god to Elam, and thus their destruction was really just a matter of mass divine punishment by an angry Marduk. A further example is the Curse of Akkad, a popular Sumerian composition that was featured in every major library from the OB period. This pseudo-prophecy explains the destruction of Akkad as a result of Naram-Sin's sin against Enlil (who was angered when the former destroyed on of his temples.) [/ul] |
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 29, 2009 11:08:14 GMT -5
2. Definitions Glassner treats some 48 historical texts which date from a span of approx. 2000 years (while scholars originally thought chronicles date from no earlier than the Neo-Babylonian period, finds such as the Tummal text have push that date back). The texts which survive to the present day are copies, more or less distant from the original source. Mesopotamian histories are generally termed by scholars today as either "lists" or "chronicles" sometimes with out much discrimination between the two, which can be cause for confusion. Its true, Glassner relays, that the ancients would sometimes mix the characteristics of the two sorts of texts, however, the author is able to give these lose descriptions: - Lists, as in the Sumerian King list, were "one dimensional." That is, there were "generally dry enumerations of signs or words classified according to graphic, semantic, or thematic criteria." Unlike chronicles, lists are distinguished by an absence of prose. - Chronicles were a) written in prose (in the 3rd person), b) priority was given to the noting of time (every year was marked) c) brief - chronicles were "a kind of handbook that reduced history to a series of facts."
Authorship/ Some of the chronicles or their copies, through colophons, allow for some information on their authors to be mentioned: Some examples are Lu-Inanna who copied the Tummal Chronicle. He was the chief saddler of Enlil and thus a craftsman by trade and held an official post at the temple of his god. Nur-Ninshubar is the author of the "Single Monarchy" chronicle [another way of referring to the Sumerian king list] - Glassner notes his work was "full of errors." Another author mentioned was Anu-balassu-iqbi who wrote made a copy of the the Uruk chronicle for the "favorable outcome of his studies". It is known that he belonged to a large family of scholars which descended from Ekur-zakir who was an exorcist, a sheshgallu priest, an astrologer and an astronomer. Coming from scribal and educated families, the authors of the chronicles were often exorcists, diviners or theologians.
Success or fame of the Chronicles/ Success of a chronicle tends toward those that lay in a gray area where "history, literature and politics mingle." Of all the chronicles, the first Glassner treats has the most success (which here implies a large number of copies found.) This work, which he calls the "Single Monarchy" Chronicle (read Sumerian King list) was written early; its fame is demonstrated in that there are 16 copies found coming from different cities and date to the Ur III and OB periods. The distribution of the SKL is impressive with copies found in Susa, from Subat-Enlil in the north of Syria, Nippur, Isin, Kish, and probably Larsa. It inspired other royal chronicles which enjoy a lesser degree of fame such as the Babylonian Royal Chronicle. The Tummal inscription was similarly famous although its use as a school text did not continue beyond the OB period. Some of the Neo-Assyrian, Persian and Seleucid chronicle had "mediocre" success ranging down to little success (meaning a single copy found to date.)
Classification/ Above we summed some of Glassner's comments which defined different sources for historiographic material that ancient scribes may have used in putting together their chronicles; below I have summed the author's classifications of those chronicles themselves: Royal Chronicles: "These are not ordinary works dealing with a political history but rather works intended to provide the basis for ideological theory." Assyrian Chronicles: "These are official documents for royal consultation...a sort of narrative metaphorization of political strategies." Local Chronicles: The Sumerian Tummal Chronicles appears to be the sole surviving example, whether there were other concerned with purely local data is unknown. Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Selucid Chronicles: These were preoccupied with the recent path, erudite in their composition, circulated among the aristocracy.Neo-Babylonian Chronicles concerning Ancient Kings: "In the first millennium, Mesopotamian society had a justifiable sense of a tradition of creativity and sought to recall forgotten fragments of its heritage." They there fore basically "made up" chronicles of the earliest times to provide "food for thought."
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jun 4, 2009 12:18:55 GMT -5
3. Choice Texts - More on the Tummal Inscription - To begin with consideration of some of Glassner's presentation of the material itself, I'm first interested in the Tummal Inscription (or Tummal Chronicle) which features in its own category in this study - Glassner sees this text as the sole extent example of a "local chronicle", that is a history not of the kingship of multiple cities as in the King list (aka "The Single Monarchy chronicle"), but a history of particular city, even one particle building in that city (the Tummal, residence of Ninlil). The text is thus exception in several regards. First of all, I should explain there is no real need to provide Glassner's a translation of this text, as an acceptable translation is found at the ETCSL here. I should mention here that we have discussed the Tummal to some effect elsewhere on the board- following that I have added Glassners comments: [/color]On the Sumerian King List Thread (Reply # 6) we see some of Hallo's discussion on the Tummal inscription - his comments explain how the Tummal documents the building of the sanctuary at a critical time in Mesopotamian prehistory, at the very juncture when Political hegemony shifted from Kish where it sat in the early days, to Nippur - the very act of the Building and rebuilding of the Tummal (in addition to the Temple of Enlil) seems to correspond to the establishing and maintaining of the Nippurian national cult - begining with Enmebaragesi. As Hallo states: [/li][/ul]
Hallo on the Tummal
"These three city states - Kish, Uruk, and Ur - were preeminent in Mesopotamia throughout this period, as attested not only by the King List but also by the Tummal Inscription, a brief historiographic essay on the sanctuaries of Nippur. it credits Enmebaragesi with first building the temple of Enlil at Nippur. There is no reason to doubt that this indeed took place in ED II times .Although the city of Nippur had a long prior existence, and its Inanna temple can be traced back almost to the beginning of Uruk time (about 3400), there is no prior evidence of an Enlil sanctuary. Its foundations may well mark or symbolize the shift from Kish as a political capital to Nippur as religious center of the rival city-states. If so, it is significant that this foundation is attributed to a king of Kish, for Enmebaragesi is known as King of Kish not only from the King List but also from two contemporary inscriptions, one found as far away as Tutub (modern Khafahe) in the Diyala region."
For more on the formation of the Nippurian Hegemony see Kings of Kish at enenuru.net[/color] A second thread which is of interest here is one which has numerous wonderful contributions by our own Sara, a scholar from Italy with nice interest in Sumer. The Du-ku thread explores numerous cultic and festive insights about the Tummal complex and about the Du-ku which was part of the building. One of Sara's comments which was particularly important explains that the Tummal complex was not in Nippur itself, but was a cultic center located a small distance away:
Sara about Tummal location:
"Yoshikawa 1989 stresses the fact that Tummal was considered a separate place having the Ki determination and being only connected to Ninlil and to he Ki′ur. The Neo-Sumerian texts mention the presence of the divine couple together in Tummal during the 7° month (after year 46 of Šulgi is attested instead the 8° month). On the basis of the sequence in the cultic journeys Yoshikawa hypothesizes that Tummal was middle-way between Šuruppak and Nippur suggesting a possible identification with the site of Tell Dlihim. According to this identification Drehem would be significantly located middle-way beyween Nippur and Tummal. A confirmation of the fact Tummal was no inside Nippur is in the cultic journey of the god Nanna to Nippur (Ferrara 1973). The god, before reaching Nippur stops in many cities along the channel and welcomed by the goddesses of those cities. The last of them is Tummal called the èš/shrine of the “sweet” (ša6-ga) Nippur but nonetheless not related to Nippur bank."
[/li][/ul] "These three city states - Kish, Uruk, and Ur - were preeminent in Mesopotamia throughout this period, as attested not only by the King List but also by the Tummal Inscription, a brief historiographic essay on the sanctuaries of Nippur. it credits Enmebaragesi with first building the temple of Enlil at Nippur. There is no reason to doubt that this indeed took place in ED II times .Although the city of Nippur had a long prior existence, and its Inanna temple can be traced back almost to the beginning of Uruk time (about 3400), there is no prior evidence of an Enlil sanctuary. Its foundations may well mark or symbolize the shift from Kish as a political capital to Nippur as religious center of the rival city-states. If so, it is significant that tis foundation is attributed to a king of Kish, for Enmebaragesi is know as King of Kish not only from the King List but also from two contemporary inscriptions, one found as far away as Tutub (modern Khafahe) in the Diyala region. - Glassner's commentary on the Tummal Chronicle -
Glassner discusses the text itself:
"The Tummal was a little-known sanctuary of the goddess Ninlil, the consort of Enlil, the cheif-god of the Sumerian pantheon. It was situated, it seems, halfway between Nippur and Shuruppak. The goddess, along with other deities including Enlil, rcieved there at certain times of the year offerings and sacrifices. This little document, then, has all the features of a "local, unambitious legend."
Local chronicles, by definition, stress the particularities of local communities, their most obvious purpose being to pay homage to the community and venerability of a sanctuary. This was certainly the intention of the chronicle of the Tummal, and a similar purpose is apparent in a [late] chronicle from Uruk. ..
However, neither of these two chronicles was motivated by a single-minded purpose to restrict itself to events local interest. It is undeniable, as the choice of royal names alone already shows, that they were attempts, separated by an interval of fifteen hundred years, to integrate local facts into general course of history. The chronicle of Uruk recalled the figures of Ur-Nammu and Shulgi, which it took care, admittedly, to link with the former king of Uruk, Utu-hegal. As for the chronicle of the Tummal, with the names Enme(n)-baragesi and his son Aka, Mes-ana-pada and his son Mes-ki'ag-nuna, Gilgamesh and his son Ur-lugal, Nanne and his son Mes-ki'ag-Nanna, Ur-Namma and his son Shulgi, it referred to the royal dynasties celebrated by the Chronicle of the Single Monarchy [Sumerian King list], especially those of Kish 1, Uruk 1, and Ur 1 to 3. The order of succession of these dynasties was the same according to all [Tummal] manuscripts except one: Kish 1, Ur 1, Uruk 1, Ur 2, and Ur 3. The last manuscript is different. It has the sequence Kish 1, Uruk 1, Ur 1 to 3. As we shall see, it is remarkable that this order and the change of order proposed were an exact reflection of the manuscript tradition of the Royal Chronicle [King list]. Seeking to insert local events into the fabric of general history, it is clear that the authors of these chronicles hoped to achieve a better understanding of it."
So what these observations may tell us is that the authors of the Tummal chronicle, writing some time after Shulgi, refered very closely to the Sumerian king list for their information about the kings and the dynasties - just as some versions of the King list invert the order of some of the king dynasties, the corresponding manuscipt of the Tummal chronicle reflect the same inversion, suggesting the very close reliance of the latter of the former. So, we may conclude that the Tummal chronicle still may help in the understanding of how early kings came to establish hegemony in Nippur - although it is certainly no new insight on the names or rule of those kings themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jul 1, 2009 3:34:22 GMT -5
3b: The Lagash Royal Chronicle
Glassner presents us with an interesting if misleading text in the form of the Royal Chronicle of Lagash - this text dates from the middle of the Old Babylonian period appears to be an attempt by Semitic scholars from Lagash to account for the absence of the Sumerian Dynasties of Lagash in the Sumerian King list, a chronicle which was of central importance to scholars of the time; however, as it will become clear, their attempt seems not to be entirely serious. As for the reason why the Dynasty of Lagash is so conspicuously absent in the SKL, earlier on the numerology thread at enenuru, we took note of Michalowski's speculation that this was a politically motivate ommission, possibly on the part of scribes of Isin, a city which at the time may have had some hostility toward Lagash and it's kings, an intrigueing proposal - in any case the Semitic scholars of Lagash had a gap in royal chronicles, which was addressed with the peculiar text in question here. In the below I have quoted Glassner's comment on the piece which contains valuable insight into the phrasing and tone of our text including the important understanding that the mythic elements in the chronicle are an intentional parody by the composer to parody traditional Mesopotamian mythic themes; to follow that, I will include Glassner's translation itself. The author has been careful to stress the text appears intriguing but possess little historiographic value.
Glassner comments on the LRC:
"In this Chronicle [the Royal Chronicle of Lagash], the flood was parodied. One will recall that in the Myth of Atrahasis, humanity, created for the service of the gods, was laden with the heavy task of agricultural labor and multiplied ceaselessly; its "clamour" increased to the point of preventing the gods from enjoying their rest, and the flood was decided upon to reduce it to silence. The author from Lagash choose to travesty these facts. The events that he described occurred, first, after the flood and not before it, and the flood was mentioned only with the laconic formula used by the author of the [Sumerian King List]. Kingship not yet having been lowered from heaven, only "govenership" existed, an obvious satire by the author against the titulary of the kings of Lagash who, in the mid-third millennium, has used the title "governor," ensi, in preference to the more royal title lugal, no doubt to show their devotion to the gods. Furthermore, human beings, contrary to the flood myth, kept silent, for, without the right tools, they did not work but relied on rain for sustenance. In this manner, they saw their numbers diminish, the livestock waste away, their land fall into disuse; in short, faminine arrived. Worse, they did not give the gods their due respect. The gods finally decided to give them the necessary tools to allow them to begin tilling the fields. The end of the satire is unfortunatly lost in a long lacuna.
In the sequel, in which the text gave details of the imaginary scheme of kings of Lagash, no alteration between royal dynasties is to be seen. The biographic notices told of the excavation of irrigation canals, the construction of temples, palaces, cities and fortifications, and occasionally of the literary skills of certain rulers. These were so many allusions to the routine activities of a Mesopotamian ruler. Two notices alone strayed from this entirely normal patter: one mentioned an as yet uncivilized humanity, while the other announced that Gudea was the son of neither his father nor his mother, obviously a reference to an inscription of this king, as well as an adriot reapplication of an insignificant statement to give Gudea the appearance of a founding hero, like Gilgamesh or Sargon. Its genealogies, of course, are fictitious."
The Lagash Royal Chronicle:
Glassner's Lagash Royal Chronicle
After the flood had swept over and caused the destruction of the earth, when the permanence of humanity had been assured and its descendants preserved, when the black-headed people had risen up again from their city, and when, humanity's name having been given for government having been established, An and Enlil had not yet caused kingship, crown of the cities, to come down from heaven, (and) by (?) Ningirsu, they had not yet put in place the spade, the hoe, the basket, nor the plow that turns the soil, for the countless throng of silent people, at that time the human race in its carefree infancy had a hundred years. (But) without the ability to carry out the required work, its number decreased, decreased greatly. In the sheepfolds, its sheep and goats died out. At this time, water was short in Lagaš, there was famine at Girsu. Canals were not dug, irrigation ditches were not dredged, vast lands were not irrigated by a shadoof, abundant water was not used to dampen meadows and fields, (because) humanity counted on rainwater. Ashnan did not bring forth dappled barley, no furrow was plowed nor bore fruit! No land was worked nor bore fruit! No country or people made libations of beer or wine, [...] sweet wine [...], to the gods. No one used the plow to work the vast lands.
(...)
[...] The canals [...]. In order to dig the canals, in order to dredge the irrigation ditches, in order to irrigate the vast lands by a shadoof, in order to utilize abundant water so that the meadows and fields were moistened, (An and Enlil)- [put] a spade, a hoe, a basket, a plow, the life of the l[and], at the disposal of the people. After this time the Young Lady, in front of her they stood upright (ready to work). Day and night, whenever necessary, they were attentive. They bowed down before Ashnan who produces the barley seed and began to work. Before Ashnan who produces the late barley, they [...]
(...)
[....reigned...] years. Igi-ḫuš[...] dug the canal ["..."]; he [reigned] 2,760 years. En-a-kigala-guba, whose god was [...], dug the canal "He [bends] an ear to Sirira"; he reigned 1,200 years. At that time there was still no writing [...], no canals were dug, no baskets were carried. At that time, in the manner of a royal [...], humanity presented offerings of polished gold, red... The faithful shepherd brought forth [...] to the ... people, the steward offered him fish... En-Ningirsu-ki'ag, reigned 1,800 years. Ur-Baba, son of En-Enlile-ki'ag, son of En-Ningisu-ki'ag, reigned 1,800 years. Ur-Baba, son of En-Enlile-ki'ag, reigned 900 years. Agal, whose god was Igalim, reigned 600 years. KUe, son of Agal, reigned 1,200 years. Ama-alim son of KUe, [reigned] 600 years. Dan[...] reigned [...] years. [... reigned ...] years. A[... reigned ...] years. A[...,son of, reigned ... years. ... dug] canal ["..."; he reigned ...] years. [..., son of (?) ...] dug the "Eminent" canal, [the "..." canal], canal "which moves like a lion," ["..." canal], the "Lion" canal at the mouth of canal "Royal," the canal "Field, heaven's delight," the ["..."] canal, canal "Choice of Nanše." To take care, alone, of the vast watered areas, he [dug] irrigation ditches ... [...]; he reigned 2,220 years. Ur-Nanše, son of [...]ma, who built E-sirara, the residence that was his heart's joy, (and) Sirara, his beloved city, reigned 1,080 years. Ane-tum, son of Ur-Nanše, on the ... on which the gods stood upright, the ... of Enlil [...], whose god was Šulatula, reigned 690 years. [...gi]bil, son of Ane-tum, reigned [...] + 360 years. [En]-entar-zu, whose god was MES-an-DU, seed of days of old who grew up in the city, reigned 990 years. [...]endi-insi, son of EN-entar-zi, [dug] the "Ferocious lion" canal and canal "... is canal inspector"; his god was Mes-an-DU. [His king] Ningirsu enjoined [him to build his temple]; he reigned 960 years. En-[Enlil]e-su reigned 600 years. [...d]u reigned 1,100 years. [Puzur-Ninl]il reigned [...] x 60 + 1 years. [En-Mes-an-DU, son of Puz]ur-Ninlil, [whose god was ...], reigned 120 [years]. Dādu, son of En-Mes-an-DU, reigned 160 years. LAM-KU-nigina, Puzur-Mama's administrator, the one who constructed the wall of Girsu, his residence, (and) the Traš palace at Lagaš, reigned 280 years. [Hen]gal, son of LAM-KU-nigina, whose god was ... (?)-bilsag, <reigned> 140 years. [...], son of Hengal, reigned 144 years. [Ur]-Nin-MAR.KI, scribe and expert, [...] ... , whose gods were Haya and Nisaba, reigned [...] x 60 years. [Ur]-Baba, scrib of Ur-[Ningirsu], the one who [...] in the assembly, <reigned> [...] + 30 years. Gudea, younger brother of Ur-Baba, [...], who was not the son of either his mother or father, [reigned ... years].
Written in the Academy. Pr[aise] to Nisaba.
[/color]
|
|
