A History of Sumer and Akkad. L. W. King
Figs. 3–7.
[44] The fact that on seals of this later period the Moon-god is represented in the Sumerian mantle and headdress may well have been a result of the Sumerian reaction, which took place under the kings of Ur (see below, p. 283 f.).
[45] See below, p. 131, Fig. 46.
[46] See p. 49. In Fig. 14 the hair and beard of the god who leads the worshipper into the presence of the goddess is clearer on the original stone. In Fig. 15 the locks of hair and long beards of the seated gods are more sharply outlined; they form a striking contrast to the figures of Sumerians, who are represented as pouring out libations and bringing offerings to the shrine.
[48] Cf. Langdon, "Babyloniaca," II., p. 142; this explanation is preferable to treating the crowns as a feathered form of headdress. The changes in the dress of the Sumerian gods, and in the treatment of their beards, appear to have taken place in the age of the later Semitic kings of Kish and the kings of Akkad, and may well have been due to their influence. The use of sandals was certainly introduced by the Semites of this period.
[49] See Clay, "The Amer. Journ. of Semit. Lang, and Lit.," XXIII., pp. 269 ff. In later periods the name was pronounced as Ellil.
[50] Cf. "Nachträge zur aegyptischen Chronologie," p. 44 f., and "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 407.
[51] See Thureau-Dangin, "Sum. und Akkad. Königsinschriften," p. 38, Col. I., l. 26; the word is dam-kha-ra, which he rightly takes as the equivalent of the Semitic tamkhara, "battle" (cf. also Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 63 f.).
[52] In this respect the early Sumerian texts are in striking contrast to those of the later periods; the evidence of strong Semitic influence in the latter formed the main argument on which M. Halévy and his followers relied to disprove the existence of the Sumerians.
[53] See Messerschmidt, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1905, col. 268 ff.; and cf. King, "Chronicles," I., p. 180, n. 3.
[54] See Ungnad, op. cit., 1908, col. 62 ff.
[55] See below, Chap. VII. f.
[56] See below, p. 141, Fig. 48.
[57] See above, p. 14, n. 1.¨¨
[58] See further, Appendix I.
[59] Cf. Langdon, "Babyloniaca," I., pp. 225 f., 230, 284 ff., II., p. 99 f. The grounds, upon which the suggestion has been put forward, consist of a comparison between the verb "to go" in Sumerian, Greek, and Latin, an apparent resemblance in a few other roots, the existence of compound verbs in Sumerian, and the like; but quite apart from questions of general probability, the "parallelisms" noted are scarcely numerous enough, or sufficiently close, to justify the inference drawn from them.
CHAPTER III
THE AGE AND PRINCIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF SUMERIAN CIVILIZATION
Considerable changes have recently taken place in our estimate of the age of Sumerian civilization, and the length of time which elapsed between the earliest remains that have been recovered and the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy. It was formerly the custom to assign very remote dates to the earlier rulers of Sumer and Akkad, and although the chronological systems in vogue necessitated enormous gaps in our knowledge of history, it was confidently assumed that these would be filled as a result of future excavation. Blank periods of a thousand years or more were treated as of little account by many writers. The hoary antiquity ascribed to the earliest rulers had in itself an attraction which outweighed the inconvenience of spreading the historical material to cover so immense a space in time. But excavation, so far from filling the gaps, has tended distinctly to reduce them, and the chronological systems of the later Assyrian and Babylonian scribes, which were formerly regarded as of primary importance, have been brought into discredit by the scribes themselves. From their own discrepancies it has been shown that the native chronologists could make mistakes in their reckoning, and a possible source of error has been disclosed in the fact that some of the early dynasties, which were formerly regarded as consecutive, were, actually, contemporaneous. Recent research on this subject has thus resulted in a considerable reduction of the early dates, and the different epochs in the history of Sumer and Akkad, which were at one time treated as isolated phenomena, have been articulated to form a consistent whole. But the tendency now is to carry the reaction rather too far, and to compress certain periods beyond the limits of the evidence. It will be well to summarize the problems at issue, and to indicate the point at which evidence gives place to conjecture.
In attempting to set limits to the earlier periods of Sumerian history, it is still impossible to do more than form a rough and approximate estimate of their duration. For in dealing with the chronology of the remoter ages, we are, to a great extent, groping in the dark. The material that has been employed for settling the order of the early kings, and for determining their periods, falls naturally into three main classes. The most important of our sources of information consists of the contemporary inscriptions of the early kings themselves, which have been recovered upon the sites of the ancient cities in Babylonia.[1] The inscriptions frequently give genealogies of the rulers whose achievements they record, and they thus enable us to ascertain the sequence of the kings and the relative dates at which they reigned. This class of evidence also makes it possible to fix certain points of contact between the separate lines of rulers who maintained an independent authority within the borders of their city-states.
A second class of material, which is of even greater importance for settling the chronology of the later Sumerian epoch, comprises the chronological documents drawn up by early scribes, who incorporated in the form of lists and tables the history of their own time and that of their predecessors. The system of dating documents which was in vogue was not a very convenient one from the point of view of those who used it, but it has furnished us with an invaluable summary of the principal events which took place for long periods at a time. The early dwellers in Babylonia did not reckon dates by the years of the reigning king, as did the later Babylonians, but they cited each year by the event of greatest importance which took place in it. Such events consisted in the main of the building of temples, the performance of religious ceremonies, and the conquest of neighbouring cities and states. Thus the dates upon private and official documents often furnish us with historical information of considerable importance.
But the disadvantages of the system are obvious, for an event might appear of great importance in one city and might be of no interest to another situated at some distance from it. Thus it happened that the same event was not