Steinkeller and the Earliest Historical Document
Jul 23, 2014 8:13:28 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jul 23, 2014 8:13:28 GMT -5
Steinkeller and the Earliest Historical Document
A newly deciphered text which appears on the back of one of the most important artifacts to surface in decades has been generating alot of buzz in the Assyriological community over the last year - the object, designated "the Prisoner Plaque" has just recently been published by Prof. Steinkeller. His article, entitled "An Archaic Prisoner Plaque from Kiš," is now available in RA 107 2013 (see here ). The plaque is described as consisted of two joined pieces of translucent green alabaster approx. 12 inches by 12 inches, on the "front" of the plaque is carved relief depicting prisoners; on the "back" is an inscription. As indicated by the CDLI entry etc. this piece is currently held by a private "anonymous" collector, and access is very limited. This post mainly deals with the textual evidence, although a later post may discuss the important iconography of the front in more detail.
In the below I aim to sum parts of Steinkeller's article and introduce this piece to discussions at enenuru as it is of high importance both in terms of the early kingship in Mesopotamia and in terms of art history.
Dating and provenance:
Steinkeller dates the piece to the ED II period (2750-2600) but leaves the possibility open that it could be dated even earlier to the ED I period (2900-2750). The uncertainly is largely due to the paleography of the texts: while some signs seem close to Archaic texts from Ur (ED II), others resemble sign forms found as early as the Uruk period.
As for the provenance, the author firmly establishes this as the area of archaic Kiš on the basis of god names and place names given in the text and also on how the places mentioned compare with another list of ED geographic names (which the author has argues correspond to the archaic kingdom of Kiš), and finally, on the resemblance of the art on the front to inlaid frieze dating from ED II Kiš.
A Description of the Text:
As the modern name for the piece implies, the text deals with prisoners, specifically the transfer of 28,970 prisoners (it is estimated 36,000 would have been accounted for if the text was complete.) Steinkeller's synapsis of the texts is as follows:
The main body of the inscription (cols. i 1’ – vi 3’) is a list of prisoners of war and the places of their
origin. Individual entries show the following pattern: Geographical Name (= GN) x šaga, “x captives
(from) GN.” Following one or more entries, one finds the phrase: giškiri6 gišimmar Personal Name (=
PN), “the date-palm orchard of PN.” This information is likely to be understood that the preceding
group(s) of captives were assigned to work in the orchard in question. There are four mentions of
orchards named in the inscription (i 3’, v 3’, v 6’, vi 3’).
origin. Individual entries show the following pattern: Geographical Name (= GN) x šaga, “x captives
(from) GN.” Following one or more entries, one finds the phrase: giškiri6 gišimmar Personal Name (=
PN), “the date-palm orchard of PN.” This information is likely to be understood that the preceding
group(s) of captives were assigned to work in the orchard in question. There are four mentions of
orchards named in the inscription (i 3’, v 3’, v 6’, vi 3’).
The Significance and import of the Prisoner Plaque text:
Steinkeller introduces the paper by stating that it is rare to get an opportunity "to publish the earliest known example of an important textual genre." So what makes this text special? Again it is best to refer to the author's own words here:
To begin with, it is the earliest truly historical source that survives from ancient Mesopotamia. No less important,
it provides priceless information about the formation and the territorial conquests of the state of Kiš during the early
phases of the ED period. In this connection, particularly eloquent is the mention of 6,300 captives acquired in the land
of Šubur (Assyria). Here one witnesses not only the oldest occurrence of Assyria’s name, but also a palpable proof of
Kiš’s foreign expansion. The plaque also confirms what had been suspected by some scholars (this one among them) about
the early Kišite state, in particular, its hegemonic and militaristic character
it provides priceless information about the formation and the territorial conquests of the state of Kiš during the early
phases of the ED period. In this connection, particularly eloquent is the mention of 6,300 captives acquired in the land
of Šubur (Assyria). Here one witnesses not only the oldest occurrence of Assyria’s name, but also a palpable proof of
Kiš’s foreign expansion. The plaque also confirms what had been suspected by some scholars (this one among them) about
the early Kišite state, in particular, its hegemonic and militaristic character
So some people may be thinking that the texts from the Uruk period are surely older - and certainly that is true. But that doesn't make them "historic texts" in the sense that they convey historica information. Most Uruk period texts are simply lists of things (like lexical lists) or economic texts and so on. The text on the Prisoner Plaque, however, conveys something from the domain of history: at a point (corresponding roughly to the reign of so and so) this and this transpired. Although there is no king mentioned, a person Mes-nun, who Steinkeller takes to be a prince of Kiš, is mentioned in col. iv. l. 3: "here note that the Ur III version of the “Sumerian King List” includes a king of Kiš named Mes-nun. See Steinkeller 2003b: 271 iii 14."
The History of the Hegemony of Kiš:
As the author relates, it has long been recognized that there is something special about the kings of Kiš in Mesopotamian history, as observed already in 1939 by T. Jacobsen (who produced an authoritative treatment of the Sumerian King List at that time), they seem to have had an early Hegemony over other kingdoms from a very early time; thus the often noted power of one king of Kiš, Mes-silim, over the ED kings of Lagash. In fact, enenuru has taken a look at the significance of the kings of Kis before here).
Steinkeller states that the ideas of I.J. Gelb (Thoughts about Ibla (=Ebla) 1977) represents another watershed moment in the treatment of the Kišites. Gelb saw them as the "Kišite tradition" or "the Kiš Civilization":
In all these considerations, the role of the kings of Kish and of the Kishite Tradition looms
paramount. The title “King of Kish” is not on a par with the titles King of Akkad, Ur, Uruk, Lagash, or of
any other state of Babylonia. It is the only title among them so full of prestige as to acquire, in the course
of time, the meaning of ‘King of Universe.” We know very little about the political extensions of the
kings of Kish eastwards, towards the rest of Babylonia; and we know nothing about their political
conquests westwards, towards the Mediterranean. Both Lugalzagesi and Sargon claim to have conquered
all the lands up to the Upper Sea (= the Mediterranean); there is no reason why the kings of Kish could
not have done the same.
paramount. The title “King of Kish” is not on a par with the titles King of Akkad, Ur, Uruk, Lagash, or of
any other state of Babylonia. It is the only title among them so full of prestige as to acquire, in the course
of time, the meaning of ‘King of Universe.” We know very little about the political extensions of the
kings of Kish eastwards, towards the rest of Babylonia; and we know nothing about their political
conquests westwards, towards the Mediterranean. Both Lugalzagesi and Sargon claim to have conquered
all the lands up to the Upper Sea (= the Mediterranean); there is no reason why the kings of Kish could
not have done the same.
What the text under discussion does, and clearly this evidence was lacking in Gelb's time, is to provide some clear textual evidence for the conquests of the Kišite kings as the text lists groups of prisoners taken from the places that were subdued by the military force of Kiš. All of this only compliments Steinkeller/Gelb's long held claims that the kingdom of Kiš had formed a large territorial state in the North of Mesopotamia, one characterized by a militaristic and authoritative rule. Based on years of research into the nature of this Northern Kingdom, Steinkeller posits that the Kišite kingdom in the first parts of the ED period was composed of a minority Sumerian population (a carry over from the days of the Uruk expansion) and a majority Semitic "proto-Akkadian" population, which became increasing dominant. His character sketches of these populations are insightful and revealing:
Since the Sumerians were in minority to begin with, with their numbers further declining as the
time went on, the Proto-Akkadian institutions came to be dominant. As I argued in detail elsewhere,58
this Proto-Akkadian imprint is detectable in the economy of northern Babylonia, which was dominated
by the palace and private households, in sharp contrast to southern Babylonia, where communal temple households
were the norm.
Because of their semi-nomadic, pastoral background, the Proto-Akkadians had a markedly
different society, characterized by the strong presence of tribal organization and the importance of
lineages. In accordance with that, the northern kingship was based on descent, unlike that of southern
Babylonia, which was (at least in theory) elective, with the ruler being an earthly representative (vicar) of
the deity, who was the real owner and master of the city-state. Not surprisingly, the northern kingship
was more authoritarian and stronger than the southern one.
Since the early religion of northern Babylonia resulted from a fusion of the Sumerian and Proto-
Akkadian beliefs, the northern pantheon comprised both Sumerian and Semitic deities. Those among
them with solid pedigrees, either Sumerian or Semitic, can be identified without any difficulty. The
background of some of them, however, is uncertain. Here one can list Nergal, Marduk, and Zababa.
While the first two can, because of the possible etymologies of their names, be theoretically interpreted as
Sumerian in origin, the name of Zababa defies such an explanation. Chances are, therefore, that Zababa
was a Proto-Akkadian deity.
time went on, the Proto-Akkadian institutions came to be dominant. As I argued in detail elsewhere,58
this Proto-Akkadian imprint is detectable in the economy of northern Babylonia, which was dominated
by the palace and private households, in sharp contrast to southern Babylonia, where communal temple households
were the norm.
Because of their semi-nomadic, pastoral background, the Proto-Akkadians had a markedly
different society, characterized by the strong presence of tribal organization and the importance of
lineages. In accordance with that, the northern kingship was based on descent, unlike that of southern
Babylonia, which was (at least in theory) elective, with the ruler being an earthly representative (vicar) of
the deity, who was the real owner and master of the city-state. Not surprisingly, the northern kingship
was more authoritarian and stronger than the southern one.
Since the early religion of northern Babylonia resulted from a fusion of the Sumerian and Proto-
Akkadian beliefs, the northern pantheon comprised both Sumerian and Semitic deities. Those among
them with solid pedigrees, either Sumerian or Semitic, can be identified without any difficulty. The
background of some of them, however, is uncertain. Here one can list Nergal, Marduk, and Zababa.
While the first two can, because of the possible etymologies of their names, be theoretically interpreted as
Sumerian in origin, the name of Zababa defies such an explanation. Chances are, therefore, that Zababa
was a Proto-Akkadian deity.
Among the many interesting inferences and suggestions that Steinkeller makes is the suggestion that if the Kišite kingdom can, in fact, be seen as something like an early territorial state, than this becomes the "authentic precursor" to the Sargonic state; after all, Sargon and the Akkadian empire as we know it did not just come out of nothing. Sargon is known to have been a Kišite, the former cup-bearer of a Kišite king, in fact.
About prisoners in Ancient Mesopotamia:
I have found the topic of prisoners and the treatment of prisoners in ancient Mesopotamia interesting from a sociological standpoint (or the history of society). It seems society has always preferred to re-classify prisoners as a sub-human species whether they are prisoners of war or prisoners of a legal system. We have discussed Nungal the goddess of prisons (here), and noted the cruelty of Mesopotamian prisons which were basically just a hole in the ground with a reed mesh cover (here, June 29 2011, and just recently, we have noted the practice of tattooing or branding slaves or prisoners in Mesopotamia (here). However, to all this Steinkeller has more to add. While the inscription does deal with large numbers of prisoners of war to be transported to this or that orchard (for work), it does not describe their treatment - Steinkeller is able to glean this information from other sources to produce a chilling discussion of the treatment of prisoners in early antiquity:
The use of foreign captives as orchard labor is well documented in the later history of
Babylonia. Due to the absence in early states of security mechanisms allowing the utilization of large
numbers of male slaves in productive labor, male prisoners of war were rarely turned into outright
slaves.36 Unless they escaped slaughter37 — which was their usual fate — they were routinely blinded,38
and only then put to work, at certain specialized tasks. In Babylonia, such blinded captives usually
worked in orchards as gardeners’ helpers, drawing water from wells and irrigating fruit trees and
vegetable plots.39 Particularly informative for our purposes is an inscription of the Ur III king Šu-Suen
which describes how, following the pacification of the Iranian lands of Šimaški, the captured Šimaškian
males were blinded, and subsequently put to work in the orchards of the main temple households of the
realm. In contrast, the female Šimaškians were donated to the weaving houses of the same institutions:
“He blinded the males of the conquered cities, and he assigned them to the personnel of the orchards of Enlil and
Ninlil, and those of other great gods. And he donated the women of the conquered cities to the weaving houses of
Enlil and Ninlil, and those of other great gods.”
Babylonia. Due to the absence in early states of security mechanisms allowing the utilization of large
numbers of male slaves in productive labor, male prisoners of war were rarely turned into outright
slaves.36 Unless they escaped slaughter37 — which was their usual fate — they were routinely blinded,38
and only then put to work, at certain specialized tasks. In Babylonia, such blinded captives usually
worked in orchards as gardeners’ helpers, drawing water from wells and irrigating fruit trees and
vegetable plots.39 Particularly informative for our purposes is an inscription of the Ur III king Šu-Suen
which describes how, following the pacification of the Iranian lands of Šimaški, the captured Šimaškian
males were blinded, and subsequently put to work in the orchards of the main temple households of the
realm. In contrast, the female Šimaškians were donated to the weaving houses of the same institutions:
“He blinded the males of the conquered cities, and he assigned them to the personnel of the orchards of Enlil and
Ninlil, and those of other great gods. And he donated the women of the conquered cities to the weaving houses of
Enlil and Ninlil, and those of other great gods.”
