Part V

Had Lugalzaggisi succeeded in maintaining the extensive kingdom organized by him, the entire course of Babylonian history might have been changed. The factor that blocked his path was the advance of the power of the Semites in the land. It is significant that in the long inscription on the votive vase from which we have quoted and in which he sums up his achievements there is no mention of Kish.

We have already encountered the influence of this centre in the conflicts between Lagash and Umma, ^[1] and although Mesilim, the king of Kish, who intervenes to fix the boundary between these two rival states is not a Semite, there is every reason to believe that as early as his day, c. 3100 B.C., Kish contained a considerable Semitic population, serving perhaps as mercenaries in the army which three centuries later had obtained the upper hand. In an inscription ^[2] which belongs to a period not far removed from the time of Lugalzaggisi, we encounter a ruler of Kish whose name, Enbi-Ishtar, leaves no doubt of his being a Semite.

We must assume that Kish had recovered its position, for it is through a ruler of this centre, Sargon I, that, according to a definite statement, ^[3] Lugalzaggisi is overthrown after a reign of twenty-five years, that is about 2675 B.C. With Sargon we reach the period of a definite advance of the Semites. The dynasty founded by him is Semitic in character, as is shown by the official language of the royal inscriptions, which is Akkadian. Sargon, to be sure, comes to Kish as a conqueror.

His starting-point is Agade or Akkad, somewhat to the north, but the independence of Kish is maintained, so that he calls himself interchangeably King of Kish and King of Akkad. A list recently discovered ^[4] assigns no less than twelve rulers to this dynasty of Akkad, but owing to the defective character of the tablet at this point, only the last six names and the beginning of the first are clearly preserved so that we are left in doubt as to the balance. Through other sources the gap can be partially filled out, with the result that by the side of Sargon, the founder, we must recognize another bearing a somewhat similar name, Sharganisharri, who in tradition became confused with Shargani or Sargon. ^[5]

Both must have been active conquerors, extending their dominions beyond the Euphrates Valley, but it looks as though the older were the more aggressive of the two. He passes to the east and brings Elam under subjection. In the north he conquers Subartu, an extensive district later known from its capital Ashur as the land of Ashur or Assyria, and which at this time was the seat of a mixed population of Semitic tribes and of Hittite groups. Pushing on to the northwest, he checks the growing power of the Amorites "the land of sunset in its totality" which indicates that he reached the shores of the Mediterranean.

A rebellion breaks out towards the close of Sargon's reign which, according to an official chronicle, he suppresses, but in which it is more likely to assume he must have perished, for his son tells us, at the beginning of a long inscription, of a general uprising of all lands conquered by Sargon. The name of the son is broken out, but we can definitely say that it was a ruler whose name can be read Urumush or Rimush, with a preference in favor of the latter. ^[6] Rimush claims to have been successful in overcoming his enemies who were led by an Elamite, Abalgamash.

There is no reason to question the substantial accuracy of his narrative, but it is significant that he calls himself King of Kish and not of Akkad. The conclusion to be drawn is that Kish became the capital and remained so in the days of his son Manishtusu, who also boasts of his conquests. It must have been difficult, however, for Rimush and Manishtusu to maintain their position.

The fonner we know, from other sources, was put to death by a conspiracy hatched among the members of his court, while Manishtusu tells us of a confederation of thirty-two cities formed against him. Such facts point to disturbed internal conditions and to frequent combinations on the part of the conquered districts of the Euphrates Valley with the help of Elam to throw off the yoke of the Semitic rulers, abetted probably by a rivalry between Akkad and Kish for the privilege of being the capital of the new kingdom.

An interesting trace of this rivalry is to be found in a most remarkable monument of the days of Manishtusu, a large obelisk of diorite, describing in detail the purchase of enormous tracts of lands in Kish and its environment on which to settle citizens of Akkad. ^[7] The names of eighty-seven overseers of certain tracts acquired by the ruler are given ; they are removed by Manishtusu to other places, while in their place he appoints forty-nine new officials whom he calls "citizens of Akkad".

Fig. 1 (left), Obelisk of Manishtusu, King of Kish (c. 2600 B.C.)
Fig. 2 (right), Bust of Manishtusu

Their followers take the place of the 1564 laborers employed by the older overseers and who are likewise sent elsewhere. Evidently Manishtusu was engaged in a deliberate policy of sending from Akkad as a disturbing centre portions of the population through offering them attractive posts in Kish and surrounding sites, where they could be kept under surveillance. We are reminded of the similar policy of deportation practised by Assyrian and Babylonian kings many centuries later, and which led to the transfer of large numbers of Hebrews, after the fall of Samaria and Jerusalem, to various sites on the Euphrates and Tigris. ^[8]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

See above, p. 127.

[2]:

Thureau-Dangin, I.e., p. 152.

[3]:

See Poebel, in Orientalist. Litteraturzeitung, XV, Sp. 481, seq.

[4]:

Published by Scheil, Comptes Rendus de 1 'Acad. des Inscriptions, 1911, p. 606, seq., and Revue d'Assyriologie, IX, p. 69. See Meyer, Geschichte, 1,2 (3d ed.), pp. 343-347, and the same author's paper, Zur JEltesten Geschichte Babyloniens (Abhandl. d. Kgl. Preus. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1912, p. 1062, seq.).

[5]:

The confusion was facilitated by the fact that the last element of the longer name, sharri, means "king", so that Shargani-sharri, meaning "Sargon is king", could easily come to be looked upon as embodying a statement of the sovereignty of the older Sargon.

[6]:

First suggested by Hrozny (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Tol. xxiii, pp. 192, seq. and xxvi, pp. 152).

[7]:

Published by Scheil, Delegation en Perse, Memoires, II, pp. 1- 52. The monument is 4 1/2 feet high and is closely inscribed on four sides.

[8]:

II Kings 17, 6 ; 24, 12-16.