A History of Sumer and Akkad. L. W. King

      Brit. Mus., No. 86261.—Brit. Mus., No. 86260.—THE BLAU MONUMENTS.

      The second important point on which opinion is not agreed, concerns the relation of the First Dynasty of Babylon to that of Isin. From the Nippur dynastic list we know the duration of the dynasties of Ur and Isin, and if we could connect the latter with the First Dynasty of Babylon, we should be able to carry a fixed chronology at least as far back as the age of Gudea. Such a point of connection has been suggested in the date-formula for the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit's reign, which records a capture of Isin; and by identifying this event with the fall of the dynasty, it is assumed that the kings of Isin and of Babylon overlapped for a period of about ninety-nine years. In a later chapter the evidence is discussed on which this theory rests, and it is shown that the capture of Isin in Sin-muballit's seventeenth year had nothing to do with the dynasty of that name, but was an episode in the later struggle between Babylon and Larsa.[14] We thus have no means of deciding what interval, if any, separated the two dynasties from one another, and consequently all the earlier dates remain only approximate.

      The contract-tablets dating from the period of the Dynasty of Isin, which have been found at Nippur, are said to resemble closely those of the First Babylonian Dynasty in form, material, writing, and terminology.[15] It would thus appear that no long interval separated the two dynasties from one another. We have seen that the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy may be set in about the middle of the twenty-first century B.C., and by placing the end of the Dynasty of Isin within the first half of that same century we obtain the approximate dates of 2300 B.C. for the Dynasty of Isin, and 2400 B.C. for the Dynasty of Ur. It is true that we know that the Dynasty of Ur lasted for exactly one hundred and seventeen years, and that of Isin for two hundred and twenty-five years and a half, but until we can definitely connect the Dynasty of Isin with that of Babylon, any attempt to work out the dates in detail would be misleading. We must be content to await the recovery of new material, and meanwhile to think in periods.

      There is evidence that Ur-Engur established his rule in Ur, and founded his dynasty in the time of Ur-Ningirsu, the son of Gudea of Lagash. We may therefore place Gudea's accession at about 2450 B.C. This date is some thirteen hundred years later than that assigned to Narâm-Sin by Nabonidus. But the latter, we have already seen, must be reduced, in accordance with evidence furnished by Tello tablets, which are dated in the reigns of the intermediate patesis of Lagash. If we set this interval at one hundred and fifty years,[16] we obtain for Narâm-Sin a date of 2600 B.C., and for Shar-Gani-Sharri one of 2650 B.C. For the later Semitic kings of Kish, headed by Sharru-Gi, one hundred years is not too much to allow;[17] we thus obtain for Sharru-Gi the approximate date of 2750 B.C. It is possible that Manishtusu, King of Kish, was the contemporary of Urukagina of Lagash, but the evidence in favour of the synchronism is not sufficiently strong to justify its acceptance.[18] By placing Urukagina at 2800 B.C., we obtain for Ur-Ninâ an approximate date of 3000 B.C., and for still earlier rulers such as Mesilim, a date rather earlier than this.[19] It is difficult to estimate the age of the early graves, cylinder-seals and tablets found at Fâra, but they cannot be placed at a much later period than 3400 B.C. Thus the age of Sumerian civilization can be traced in Babylonia back to about the middle of the fourth millennium B.C., but not beyond.

It must be confessed that this is a reduction in the date usually assigned to the earliest relics that have been recovered of the Sumerian civilization, but its achievements are by no means belittled by the compression of its period of development. It is not suggested that this date marks the beginning of Sumerian culture, for, as we have noted, it is probable that the race was already possessed of a high standard of civilization on their arrival in Babylonia. The invention of cuneiform writing, which was one of their most noteworthy achievements, had already taken place, for the characters in the earliest inscriptions recovered have lost their pictorial form. Assuming the genuineness of the "Blau Monuments," it must be admitted that even on them the characters are in a comparatively advanced stage of development.[20] We may thus put back into a more remote age the origin and early growth of Sumerian culture, which took place at a time when it was not Sumerian.

      In the concluding chapter of this volume an estimate is given to the extent to which Sumerian culture influenced, either directly or indirectly, other races in Asia, Egypt, and the West. In such matters the interest attaching to the Sumerian original is largely derived from its effects, and its study may be undertaken mainly with the view of elucidating a later development. But one department of Sumerian activity forms a striking exception to this rule. The arts of sculpture and engraving, as practised by the Sumerians, are well worthy of study on their own account, for while their work in all periods is marked by spirit and originality, that of the later time reaches a remarkable standard of excellence. The improvement in technique observable in the later period may largely be due to the influence of Semitic work, which was derived from Sumer and reacted in its turn on the parent stem. But the original impulse to artistic production was of purely Sumerian origin, and it is possible to trace the gradual development of its products from the rudest reliefs of the archaic period to the finished sculpture of Gudea's reign.[21] The character of the Semitic art of Akkad was secondary and derivative, though the Semites certainly improved on what they borrowed; in that of the Sumerians the seeds of its later excellence may be detected from the beginning. The most ancient of the sculptured reliefs of the Sumerians are very rudely cut, and their age is attested not only by their primitive character, but also by the linear form of the writing which is found upon them. These, owing to their smaller size, are the best preserved, for the later reliefs, which belong to the period when Sumerian art reached its fullest development, are unfortunately represented only by fragments. But they suffice to show the spirit which animated these ancient craftsmen, and enabled them successfully to overcome difficulties of technique which were carefully avoided by the later sculptors of Assyria. To take a single instance, we may note the manner in which they represented the heads of the principal figures of a composition in full-face, and did not seek to avoid the difficulty of foreshortening the features by a monotonous arrangement in profile. A good example of their bolder method of composition is afforded by the relief of a