CHAPTER XII

THE CULTURAL INFLUENCE OF SUMER IN EGYPT, ASIA AND THE WEST

In the preceding pages we have followed the history of the Sumerian race from the period of its earliest settlement in Babylonia until the time when its political power was drawing to a close. The gradual growth of the state has been described, from the first rude settlements around a series of ancient cult-centres, through the phase of highly developed but still independent city-states, to a united kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, based on ideals inherited from the Semitic North. We have traced the inter-relations of North and South, of Sumerians and Semites, and have watched their varying fortunes in the racial conflict which bulks so largely in the history of the two countries. Points have also been noted at which contact with other lands can be historically proved, and it has thus been found possible to estimate the limits of the kingdoms which were established in Sumer or Akkad during the later periods. Of foreign lands which came into direct relationship with Babylonia, Elam plays by far the most conspicuous part. In the time of the city-states she invades the land of Sumer, and later on is in her turn conquered by Akkadian and Sumerian kings. The question naturally arises, how far this close political contact affected the cultural development of the two countries, and suggests the further query as to what extent their civilizations were of common origin.

Another region which figures in the list of conquered countries is Amurru, or the "Western Land," and an attempt must be made to trace the paths of Babylonian influence beyond the limits of Syria, and to ascertain its effects within the area of Aegean culture. The later trade routes were doubtless already in existence, and archaeological research can often detect evidence of cultural connection, at a time when there is no question of any political contact. Moreover, in spite of the absence of Neolithic settlements in Babylonia, and the comparatively advanced state of culture which characterizes the earliest of Sumerian sites, it is possible that contact with other and distant races had already taken place in prehistoric times. One of the most fascinating problems connected with the early history of Sumer concerns the relationship which her culture bore to that of Egypt. On this point recent excavations have thrown considerable light; and, as the suggested connection, whether direct or indirect, must admittedly have taken place in a remote age, it will be well to attack this problem before discussing the relationship of Sumer to the other great centres of ancient civilization.

Although no direct contact between Babylonia and Egypt has been proved during the earlier historical periods, the opinion has been very generally held that the Egyptian civilization was largely influenced in its first stages by that of Babylonia. The use of the stone cylinder-seal by the Egyptians certainly furnished a very cogent argument in favour of the view that some early cultural connection must have taken place; and, as the cylinder-seal was peculiarly characteristic of Babylonia during all periods, whereas its use was gradually discontinued in Egypt, the inference seemed obvious that it was an original product of Babylonia, whence it had reached Egypt in late predynastic or early dynastic times. This view appeared to find support in other points of resemblance which were noted between the early art and culture of the two countries. Mace-heads of bulbous or "egg-shaped" form were employed by the early inhabitants of both lands. The Egyptian slate carvings of the First Dynasty were compared with the early bas-reliefs and engraved seals of the Sumerians, and resemblances were pointed out both in subject-matter and in the symmetrical arrangement of the designs. The employment of brick, in place of stone, as a building material, was regarded as due to Babylonian influence; and the crenelated walls of Early Egyptian buildings, the existence of which was proved not only by pictured representations on the slate carvings, but also by the remains of actual buildings such as the mastaba-tomb of King Aha at Nakâda, and the ancient fortress of Abydos, known as the Shunet ez-Zebîb, were treated as borrowed from Sumerian originals. That irrigation was practised on the banks of the Nile as well as in the Euphrates valley, and that wheat was grown in both countries, were cited as additional proofs that Babylonia must have exercised a marked influence on Egyptian culture during the early stages of its development.

In order to explain such resemblances between the early cultures of Sumer and Egypt, it was necessary to seek some channel by which the influence of the former country could have reached the valley of the Nile; and a solution of the problem was found in the theory of a Semitic invasion of Upper Egypt towards the end of the predynastic period. That a Semitic element existed in the composition of the ancient Egyptian language is established beyond dispute; and this fact was combined with the Egyptian legends of their origin on the Red Sea coast, and with the situation of the predynastic and early dynastic cemeteries in Upper Egypt, in support of the theory that Semitic tribes, already imbued with Sumerian culture, had reached the Nile from the shore of the Red Sea by way of the Wâdi Hammamât. According to this view the Neolithic and predynastic population of Egypt was of a different race to the early dynastic Egyptians. The former were regarded as indigenous to the country, speaking a language possibly akin to the Berber dialects of North Africa. With little or no knowledge of metal, they were pictured as offering a stubborn but unsuccessful resistance to their Semitic conquerors. The latter were assumed to have brought with them a copper age culture, ultimately derived from the Sumerians of Babylonia. Crossing from southern Arabia by the Straits of Bab el-Mandeb, and making their way northward along the western shore of the Red Sea, they would have reached the Nile in the neighbourhood of Koptos. Here they would have formed their first settlements, and, after subduing the older inhabitants of Upper Egypt, they would have pushed their way northwards along the valley of the Nile.[1]

There is no doubt that the union of Upper and Lower Egypt into a single monarchy, traditionally ascribed to Mena, the legendary founder of the first Egyptian dynasty, did result from a conquest of the North by the South. Mena himself was regarded as sprung from a line of local rulers established at This, or Thinis, in the neighbourhood of Abydos, and also as the founder of Memphis at the head of the Delta, whither he transferred his throne. Further traces of the conquest of the North by the South have been preserved in the legends concerning the followers of Horus, the patron deity of the first kings of Upper Egypt. The advance of the Sky-god of Edfu with his Mesniu or "Smiths,"[2] who are related to have won battle after battle as they pressed northwards, is amply confirmed by the early dynastic monuments that have been recovered by excavation. The slate carving of Narmer, on which is portrayed the victory of Horus over the kingdom of the Harpoon near the Canopic branch of the Nile, may well represent one of the last decisive victories of the Horus-worshippers, as they extended their authority northwards to the sea.[3] Of the historical character of this conquest of Lower Egypt by the kings of the South, which resulted in the union of the whole country under a single monarchy, there are now no two opinions. The point, about which some uncertainty still exists, concerns the racial character of the conquerors and the origin of their higher culture, by virtue of which their victories were obtained.

On the hypothesis of a Semitic invasion, the higher elements in the early culture of Egypt are, as we have seen, to be traced to a non-Egyptian source. The Semitic immigrants are assumed to have introduced, not only the use of metal, but also a knowledge of letters. The Sumerian system of writing has been regarded as the parent of the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters; and comparisons have been made between the names of Sumerian and Egyptian gods.[4] The suggestion has also been put forward that the fashion of extended burial, which in Egypt gradually displaced the contracted position of the corpse, was also to be traced to Babylonian influence.

It must be admitted that, until quite recently, this view furnished a very plausible explanation of the various points of resemblance noted between the civilizations of the two countries. Moreover, the evidence obtained by excavation on early sites certainly appeared to show a distinct break between the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt. To account for what seemed so sudden a change in the character of Egyptian civilization, the theory of a foreign invasion seemed almost inevitable. But the publication of the results of Dr. Reisner's excavations at Naga-ed-Dêr and other early cemeteries in Upper Egypt,[5] has rendered it necessary to revise the theory; while the still more recent diggings of M. Naville at Abydos prove that the changes, in certain districts, were even more gradual than had been supposed.

Put briefly, Dr. Reisner's conclusion is that there was no sudden break of continuity between the Neolithic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt. His extensive and laborious comparison of the predynastic burials with those of the First and Second Dynasties, has shown that no essential change took place in the Egyptian conception of the life after death, or in the rites and practices which accompanied the interment of the body. In early dynastic as in Neolithic times the body of the dead man was placed in a contracted position on its left side and with the head to the south, and the grave was still furnished with food, arms, tools, and ornaments. Moreover, the changes observable in the construction of the grave itself, and in the character of the objects within it, were not due to the sudden influence of any alien race, but may well have been the result of a gradual process of improvement in the technical skill of the Egyptians themselves.

The three most striking points of difference beween the products of the predynastic and dynastic periods centre round the character of the pottery and vessels for household use, the material employed for tools and weapons, and the invention of writing. It would now appear that the various changes were all gradually introduced, and one period fades into another without any strongly marked line of division between them. A knowledge of copper has always been credited to the later predynastic Egyptians, and it is now possible to trace the gradual steps by which the invention of a practical method of working it was attained. Copper ornaments and objects found in graves earlier than the middle predynastic period are small and of little practical utility, as compared with the beautifully flaked flint knives, daggers, and lances, which still retained the importance they enjoyed in purely Neolithic times. At a rather later stage in the predynastic period copper dagger-blades and adzes were produced in imitation of flint and stone forms, and these mark the transition to the heavy weapons and tools of copper, which in the early dynastic period largely ousted flint and stone implements for practical use.

The gradual attainment of skill in the working of copper ore on the part of the early Egyptians had a marked effect on the whole status of their culture. Their improved weapons enabled them by conquest to draw their raw materials from a far more extended area; and the adaptation of copper tools for quarrying blocks of stone undoubtedly led to its increased employment as a stronger and more permanent substitute for clay. The use of the copper chisel also explains the elaborate carvings upon the early dynastic slates, and the invention of the stone borer brought about the gradual displacement of pottery in favour of stone vessels for household purposes. Thus, while metal-casting and stone-working improved, they did so at the expense of the older arts of flint-knapping and the manufacture of pottery by hand, both of which tended to degenerate and die out. Dr. Reisner had already inferred that for ceremonial purposes, as distinct from the needs of everyday life, both flint implements and certain earlier types of pottery continued to be employed. And M. Naville's diggings at Abydos, during the season of 1909-10, seem to prove that the process was even slower and less uniform than had been thought possible. In fact, according to the excavators, it would appear that in certain districts in Egypt a modified form of the predynastic culture, using the characteristic red and black pottery, survived as late as the Sixth Dynasty; while it is known that in Nubia a type of pottery, closely akin to the same prehistoric ware, continued in use as late as the Eighteenth Dynasty.[6] However such survivals are to be explained, the beginning of the dynastic period in Egypt does not appear to present a break in either racial or cultural continuity. Indeed, a precisely parallel development may be traced between the early dynastic period, and that represented by the Third and Fourth Dynasties, when there is no question of any such break. As the stone vessels of the first two dynasties had proved themselves superior to hand-made pottery for practical purposes, so they in turn were displaced by wheel-made pottery.[7] These changes may be traced to gradual improvements in manufacture; arts such as mat-weaving and bead-making, which were unaffected by the new inventions, continued to be practised without change in the early dynastic as in the predynastic periods.

Recent archaeological research thus leaves small room for the theory that Egyptian culture was subjected to any strong foreign influence in early dynastic times, and its conclusions on this point are confirmed by anatomical evidence. The systematic measurement and comparison of skulls from predynastic and dynastic burials, which have been conducted by Dr. Elliot Smith of the Khedivial School of Medicine in collaboration with the Hearst Expedition, has demonstrated the lineal descent of the dynastic from the predynastic Egyptians. The two groups to all intents and purposes represent the same people, and in the later period there is no trace of any new racial element, or of the admixture of any foreign strain. Thus the theory of an invasion of Egypt by Semitic tribes towards the close of the predynastic period must be given up, and, although this does not in itself negative the possibility of Sumerian influence having reached Egypt through channels of commercial intercourse, it necessitates a more careful scrutiny of the different points of resemblance between the cultures of the two countries on which the original theory was founded.

One of the subjects on which the extreme upholders of the theory have insisted concerns the invention of the Egyptian system of writing, which is alleged by them to have been borrowed from Babylonia. But it must be noted that those signs which correspond to one another in the two systems are such as would naturally be identical in any two systems of pictorial writing, developed independently but under similar conditions. The sun all the world over would be represented by a circle, a mountain by a rough outline of a mountain peak, an ox by a horned head, and so on. To prove any connection between the two systems a resemblance should be established between the more conventionalized signs, and here the comparison breaks down completely. It should further be noted that the Egyptian system has reached us in a far more primitive state than that of Babylonia. While the hieroglyphic signs are actual pictures of the objects represented, even the earliest line-characters of Sumer are so conventionalized that their original form would scarcely have been recognized, had not their meaning been already known. In fact, no example of Sumerian writing has yet been recovered which could have furnished a pattern for the Egyptian scribe.

Moreover, the appearance of writing in Egypt was not so sudden an event as it is often represented. The buff-coloured pottery of predynastic times, with its red line decoration, proves that the Eygptian had a natural faculty for drawing men, animals, plants, boats and conventional designs. In these picture-drawings of the predynastic period we may see the basis of the hieroglyphic system of writing, for in them the use of symbolism is already developed. The employment of fetish emblems, or symbols, to represent the different gods,[8] is in itself a rough form of ideographic expression, and, if developed along its own lines, would naturally lead to the invention of a regular ideographic form of writing. There is little doubt that this process is what actually took place. The first impetus may have been given by the necessity for marks of private ownership, and by the need for conveying authority from the chief to his subordinates at a distance. Symbols for the names of rulers and of places would thus soon be added to those for the gods, and when a need was felt to commemorate some victory or great achievement of the king, such symbols would naturally be used in combination. This process may be traced on the earlier monuments of the First Dynasty, the records on which are still practically ideographic in character. A very similar process doubtless led to the invention of the cuneiform system, and there is no need to assume that either Egypt or Babylonia was indebted to the other country for her knowledge of writing.

We obtain a very similar result in the case of other points of resemblance which have been cited to prove a close connection between the early cultures of the two countries. Considerable stress has been laid on a certain similarity, which the Egyptian slate carvings of the dynastic period bear to examples of early Sumerian sculpture and engraving. It is true that composite creatures are characteristic of the art of both countries, and that their arrangement on the stone is often "heraldic" and symmetrical. But the human-headed bull, the favourite monster of Sumerian art, is never found upon the Egyptian monuments, on which not only the natural beasts but also the composite creatures are invariably of an Egyptian or African character. The general resemblance in style has also been exaggerated. To take a single instance, a comparison has frequently been made between the Stele of the Vultures and the broken slate carving in the British Museum, No. 20791.[9] On the former vultures are depicted carrying off the limbs of the slain, and on the latter captives are represented as cast out into the desert to be devoured by birds and beasts of prey. But the style of the two monuments is very different, and the Egyptian is far more varied in character. In addition to a single vulture, we see a number of ravens, a hawk, an eagle, and a lion, all attracted by the dead; and the arrangement of the composition and the technique itself are quite unlike Sumerian work. There is also no need to trace the symmetrical arrangement of other of the Egyptian compositions to Babylonian influence, for, given an oval plaque to decorate while leaving a circular space in the centre, a symmetrical arrangement would naturally arise.[10]

Another Egyptian characteristic, also ascribed to Babylonian influence, is the custom of extended burial with mummification, which only begins to be met with during the Third and Fourth Dynasties. Since the dead are portrayed on the Stele of the Vultures as arranged in the extended position beneath the burial-mound,[11] it was formerly assumed that this was the regular Sumerian practice; and the contracted forms of burial, which had been found at Warka, Mukayyar, Surghul, Niffer and other Babylonian sites, were usually assigned to very late periods. The excavations at Fâra and Abû Hatab have corrected this assumption, and have proved that the Sumerian corpse was regularly arranged for burial in the contracted position, lying on its side.[12] The apparent exception to this rule upon the Stele of the Vultures may probably be regarded as characteristic only of burial upon the field of battle. There it must often have been impossible to furnish each corpse with a grave to itself, or to procure the regular offerings and furniture which accompanied individual interment. The bodies were therefore arranged side by side in a common grave, and covered with a tumulus of earth to ensure their entrance into the under world. But this was clearly a makeshift form of burial, necessitated by exceptional circumstances, and was not the regular Sumerian practice of the period.[13] Whatever may have given rise to the Egyptian change in burial customs, the cause is not to be sought in Babylonian influence.

A further point, which has been cleared up by recent excavation on early Babylonian sites, concerns the crenelated form of building, which was formerly regarded as peculiarly characteristic of Sumerian architecture of the early period and as having influenced that of Egypt. It is now known that this form of external decoration is not met with in Babylonia before the period of Gudea and the kings of Ur. Thus, if any borrowing took place, it must have been on the Babylonian side. The employment of brick as a building material may also have been evolved in Egypt without any prompting from Babylonia, for the forms of brick employed are quite distinct in both countries. The peculiar plano-convex brick, which is characteristic of early Sumerian buildings, is never found in Egypt, where the rectangular oblong form was employed from the earliest period.[14] Thus many points of resemblance, which were formerly regarded as indicating a close cultural connection between the two countries, now appear to be far less striking than was formerly the case.[15] Others, again, may be explained as due to Egyptian influence on Babylonian culture rather than as the result of the reverse process. For example, the resemblance that has been pointed out between Gudea's sculpture in the round and that of the Fourth Dynasty in Egypt may not be fortuitous. For Gudea maintained close commercial relations with the Syrian coast, where Egyptian influence at that time had long been effective.

There remains to be considered the use of the bulbous mace-head and of the stone cylindrical seal, both of which are striking characteristics of the early Egyptian and Sumerian cultures. It is difficult to regard these classes of objects, and particularly the latter, as having been evolved independently in Egypt and by the Sumerians. In Babylonia the cylinder-seal is already highly developed when found on the earliest Sumerian sites, and it would appear that the Sumerian immigrants brought it with them into the country, along with their system of writing and the other elements of their comparatively advanced state of civilization. Whether they themselves had evolved it in their original home, or had obtained it from some other race with whom they came into contact before reaching the valley of the Euphrates, it is still impossible to say. The evidence from Susa has not yet thrown much light upon this point. While some stone seals and clay sealings have been found in the lowest stratum of the mound, they are not cylindrical but in the form of flat stamps. The cylindrical seal appears, however, to have been introduced at Susa at a comparatively early period, for examples are said to have been found in the group of strata representing the "Second Period," at a depth of from fifteen to twenty metres below the surface. The published material does not yet admit of any certain pronouncement with regard to the earliest history of the cylinder-seal and its migrations. In favour of the view that would regard it as an independent product of the early Egyptians, it may be noted that wood and not stone was the commonest material for cylinders in the earliest period.[16] But if the predynastic cylinder of Egypt is to be regarded as ultimately derived from Asia, the connection is to be set at a period anterior to the earliest Sumerian settlements that have yet been identified.

Thus the results of recent excavation and research, both in Egypt and Babylonia, have tended to diminish rather than to increase the evidence of any close connection between the early cultures of the two countries. Apart from any Babylonian influence, there is, however, ample proof of a Semitic element, not only in the language, but also in the religion of ancient Egypt. The Egyptian sun-worship, which forms so striking a contrast to the indigenous animal-cults and worship of the dead, was probably of Semitic origin, and may either have reached Upper Egypt from Southern Arabia,[17] or have entered Lower Egypt by the eastern Delta. The latter region has always formed an open door to Egypt, and the invasion of the Hyksos may well have had its prototype in predynastic times. The enemies, whose conquest is commemorated on several of the early dynastic slate-carvings, are of non-Egyptian type; they may possibly have been descendants of such Semitic immigrants, unless they were Libyan settlers from the west. In the historic period we have evidence of direct contact between Syria and Egypt at the time of the Third Dynasty, for the Palermo Stele records the arrival in Egypt of forty ships laden with cedar-wood in Sneferu's reign. These evidently formed an expedition sent by sea to the Lebanon, and we may assume that Sneferu's predecessors had already extended their influence along the Syrian coast.[18] It is in Syria that we may also set the first contact between the civilizations of Egypt and Babylonia in historic times. The early Sumerian ruler Lugal-zaggisi boasts that he reached the Mediterranean coast, and his expedition merely formed the prelude to the conquest of Syria by Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad.[19] It has indeed been suggested that evidence of Egyptian influence, following on the latter's Syrian campaign, is to be seen in the deification of early Babylonian kings.[20] And although this practice may now be traced with greater probability to a Sumerian source,[21] there can be little doubt that from Shar-Gani-sharri's reign onwards Syria formed a connecting-link between the two great civilizations on the Euphrates and the Nile.

Far closer than her relations with Egypt were the ties which connected Babylonia with the great centre of civilization which lay upon her eastern frontier. In the course of this history reference has frequently been made to the contact which was continually taking place from the earliest historical period between Elam and the Sumerian and Semitic rulers of Sumer and Akkad. Such political relationships were naturally accompanied by close commercial intercourse, and the effects of Sumerian influence upon the native culture of Elam have been fully illustrated by the excavations conducted at Susa by the "Délégation en Perse."[22] Situated on the river Kerkha, Susa occupied an important strategic position at the head of the caravan routes which connected the Iranian plateau with the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates and the shores of the Persian Gulf. The river washed the foot of the low hills on which the town was built, and formed a natural defence against attack from the west. The situation of the city on the left bank of the stream is an indication that even in the earliest period its founders sought to protect themselves from the danger of sudden raids from the direction of Sumer and Akkad. The earliest Sumerian records also reflect the feelings of hostility to Elam which animated their writers. But from these scattered references it would appear that the Elamites at this time were generally the aggressors, and that they succeeded in keeping their country free from any political interference on the part of the more powerful among the Sumerian city-states. It was not until the period of Semitic expansion, under the later kingdom of Kish and the empire of Akkad, that the country became dominated by Babylonian influence.

We could not have more striking evidence of the extent to which Elam at this time became subject to Semitic culture than in the adoption of the Babylonian character and language by the native rulers of the country. We are met with the strange picture of native patesis of Susa and governors of Elam recording their votive offerings in a foreign script and language, and making invocations to purely Babylonian deities.[23] The Babylonian script was also adopted for writing inscriptions in the native Elamite tongue, and had we no other evidence available, it might be urged that the use of the Semitic language for the votive texts was dictated by purely temporary considerations of a political character. There is no doubt, however, that the Semitic conquest of Elam was accompanied, and probably preceded, by extensive Semitic immigration. Even at the time of the Dynasty of Ur, when Elam was subject to direct Sumerian control, the Semitic influence of Akkad had become too firmly rooted to be displaced, and it received a fresh impetus under the later rulers of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The clay tablets of a commercial and agricultural character, dating from the period of Adda-Pakshu,[24] are written in the Babylonian character and language,[25] like those found at Mal-Amîr to the east of Susa.[26] The latter do not date from a period earlier than about 1000 B.C., and they throw an interesting light on the permanent character of Babylonian influence in the country. The modified forms of the Babylonian characters, which were employed by the Achaemenian kings for the Elamite column of their trilingual inscriptions, are to be traced to a comparatively late origin. The development of the writing exhibited by the Neo-Anzanite texts may be connected with the national revival which characterized the later Elamite monarchy.

The evidence furnished by the inscriptions found at Susa and other sites in Elam is supported by the archaeological discoveries in proving that, from the time of the Semitic kings of Kish and Akkad, the cultural development of Elam was to a great extent moulded by Babylonia. But the later products of native Elamite workmanship that have been recovered are no slavish copies of Babylonian originals, and the earlier examples of sculpture and engraving are of a character quite distinct from anything found on Babylonian soil.[27] Moreover, in the casting of metal and in the jewellers' art Elam certainly in time excelled her neighbour,[28] and, even in the later periods, her art presents itself as of vigorous growth, influenced it is true by that of Babylonia, but deriving its impetus and inspiration from purely native sources. It is also significant that the earlier the remains that have been recovered the less do they betray any trace of foreign influence.

A very striking proof of the independent development of Elamite culture prior to the Semitic conquest is now furnished by the texts inscribed in the so-called "proto-Elamite" system of writing.[29] The majority consist of small roughly-formed tablets of clay, and the signs upon them are either figures or ideographs for various objects. Though they have not been fully deciphered, it is clear that they are tablets of accounts and inventories. A very few of the signs, such as those for "tablet" and "total," resemble the corresponding Babylonian characters, but the great majority are entirely different and have been evolved on a system of their own. Lapidary forms of the characters have been found in inscriptions accompanying Semitic texts of Basha-Shushinak;[30] and, from the position of each upon the stone, it was inferred that the Semitic text was engraved first and the proto-Elamite section added to it. That they were contemporary additions seemed probable, and this has now been put beyond a doubt by the discovery at Susa of a stone statuette seated upon a throne, which was dedicated to a goddess by Basha-Shushinak.[31] On the front of the throne at each side of the seated figure is an inscription; that on the left side is in Semitic, and that on the right in proto-Elamite characters. The one is obviously a translation of the other, and their symmetrical arrangement leaves no doubt that they were inscribed at the same time.

It is therefore clear that at the time of Basha-Shushinak the two languages and scripts were sometimes employed side by side for votive inscriptions, while the clay tablets prove that the native script had not yet been superseded for the purposes of everyday life. The "proto-Elamite" characters present very few parallelisms to Babylonian signs, and those that do occur are clearly later accretions. Thus it would be natural enough to borrow the Babylonian sign for "tablet," at a time when the clay tablet itself found its way across the border; and, though the signs for "total" correspond, the Elamite figures differ and are based on a decimal, not on a sexigesimal system of numeration. It may therefore be inferred that the writing had no connection in its origin with that of the Sumerians, and was invented independently of the system employed during the earliest periods in Babylonia. It may have been merely a local form of writing and not in general use throughout the whole of Elam, but its existence makes it probable that the district in which Susa was situated was not subject to any strong influence from Babylonia in the age preceding the Semitic expansion. This inference is strengthened by a study of the seal-impressions upon many of the tablets;[32] the designs consist of figured representations of animals and composite monsters, and their treatment is totally different to that found on early Sumerian cylinders. In the total disappearance of its local script Cappadocia offers an interesting parallel to Elam. The Hittite hieroglyphs were obviously of purely native origin, but they did not survive the introduction of the clay tablet and of cuneiform characters.

The earlier strata of the mounds at Susa, which date from the prehistoric periods in the city's history, have proved to be in some confusion as revealed by the French excavations; but an explanation has recently been forthcoming of many of the discrepancies in level that have previously been noted.[33] It would seem that the northern and southern extremities of the Citadel Tell were the most ancient sites of habitation, and that from this cause two small hills were formed which persisted during the earlier periods of the city's history. In course of time the ground between them was occupied and was gradually filled in so that the earlier contour of the mound was lost. It thus happens that while remains of the Kassite period are found in the centre of the tell at a depth of from fifteen to twenty metres, they occur at the two extremities in strata not more than ten metres below the surface. Even so, the later of the two prehistoric strata at the extremities of the mound, representing an epoch anterior to that of the "proto-Elamite" inscriptions, contains only scattered objects, and it is still difficult to trace the gradual evolution of culture which took place in this and in the still earlier period. It should also be noted that the presence of a single stratum, enclosing remains of a purely Neolithic period, has not yet been established at Susa. There is little doubt, however, that such a stratum at one time existed, for stone axes, arrow-heads, knives and scrapers, representing a period of Neolithic culture, are found scattered at every level in the mound. It is thus possible that, in spite of the presence of metal in the same stratum, much of the earlier remains discovered at Susa, and particularly the earlier forms of painted pottery,[34] are to be assigned to a Neolithic settlement upon the site.

Fortunately for the study of the early ceramics of Elam, we have not to depend solely on the rather inconclusive data which the excavations at Susa have as yet furnished. Digging has also been carried out at a group of mounds, situated about ninety-three miles to the west of Susa, which form a striking feature on the caravan route to Kermanshah. The central and most important of the mounds is known as the Tepe Mussian, and its name is often employed as a general designation for the group. The excavations conducted there in the winter of 1902-3 have brought to light a series of painted wares, ranging in date from a purely Neolithic period to an age in which metal was already beginning to appear.[35] This wealth of material is valuable for comparison with the very similar pottery from Susa, and has furnished additional data for determining the cultural connections of the earlier inhabitants of the country. The designs upon the finer classes of painted ware, both at Susa and Mussian, are not only geometric in character, but include vegetable and animal forms. Some of the latter have been held to bear a certain likeness to designs which occur upon the later pottery of the predynastic age in Egypt, and it is mainly on the strength of such points of resemblance that M. de Morgan would trace a connection between the early cultures of the two countries.[36]

But quite apart from objections based on the great difference of technique, the absence of any pottery similar to the Egyptian in Babylonia and Northern Syria renders it difficult to accept the suggestion; and it is in other quarters that we may possibly recognize traces of a similar culture to that of the earlier age in Elam. The resemblance between the more geometric designs upon the Elamite pottery and that discovered at Kara-Uyuk in Cappadocia has been pointed out by Professor Sayce;[37] and Mr. Hall has recently compared them in detail with very similar potsherds discovered by the Pumpelly Expedition at Anau in Russian Turkestan,[38] and by Professor Garstang[39] at Sakjegeuzi in Syria.[40] It should be noted that, so far as Elam is concerned, the resemblance applies only to one class of the designs upon the early painted pottery, and does not include the animal and a majority of the vegetable motives. It is sufficiently striking, however, to point the direction in which we may look for further light upon the problem. Future excavations at Susa itself and on sites in Asia Minor will doubtless show how far we may press the suggested theory of an early cultural connection.

While such suggestions are still in a nebulous state, it would be rash to dogmatize on the relation of these prehistoric peoples to the Elamites of history. A study of the designs upon the Elamite potsherds makes it clear, however, that there was no sudden break between the cultures of the two periods. For many of the animal motives of a more conventionalized character are obviously derived from the peculiarly Elamite forms of composite monsters, which are reproduced in the seal-impressions upon "proto-Elamite" tablets.[41] Moreover, it is stated that among the decorative motives on pot-sherds recently discovered in the lowest stratum at Susa are a number of representations of a purely religious character.[42] It is possible that these will prove to be the ancestors of some of the sacred emblems which, after being developed on Elamite soil, reached Babylonia during the Kassite period.[43] How far Babylonia participated in the prehistoric culture of Elam it is difficult to say, since no Neolithic settlement has yet been identified in Sumer or Akkad. Moreover, the early Sumerian pottery discovered at Tello, which dates from an age when a knowledge of metal was already well advanced, does not appear to have resembled the prehistoric wares of Elam, either in composition or in design. It should be noted, however, that terra-cotta female figurines, of the well-known Babylonian type, occur in Elam and at Anau[44]; and it is possible that in Babylonia they were relics of a prehistoric culture. On sites in the alluvial portion of the country it is probable that few Neolithic remains have been preserved.[45] But it should be noted that fragments of painted pottery have been found at Kuyunjik, which bear a striking resemblance to the early Syro-Cappadocian ware;[46] and these may well belong to a Neolithic settlement upon the site of Nineveh.[47] It is thus possible that the prehistoric culture, which had its seat in Elam, will be found to have extended to Southern Assyria also, and to non-alluvial sites on the borders of the Babylonian plain.

It would seem that the influence of Sumerian culture during the historic period first began to be felt beyond the limits of Babylonia at the time of the Semitic expansion. The conquest of Syria by Shar-Gani-sharri undoubtedly had important results upon the spread of Babylonian culture. The record, which has been interpreted to mean that he went still further westward and crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus, is now proved to have been due to the misunderstanding of a later scribe.[48] It is true that some seals have been found in Cyprus, which furnish evidence of Babylonian influence in the island, but they belong to a period considerably later than that of the Akkadian empire. Of these, the one said to have been found in the treasury of the temple at Curium by General di Cesnola refers to the deified Narâm-Sin,[49] but the style of its composition and its technique definitely prove that it is of Syro-Cappadocian workmanship, and does not date from a much earlier period than that of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The most cursory comparison of the seal with the clay-sealings of Narâm-Sin's period, which have been found at Tello,[50] will convince any one of this fact. The other, which was found in an early bronze age deposit at Agia Paraskevi with its original gold mounting, may be definitely dated in the period of the First Babylonian Dynasty,[51] and Nudubtum, its original owner, who styles himself a servant of the god Martu (Amurru), may well have been of Syrian or West Semitic origin. Beyond such isolated cylinders, there is, however, no trace of early Babylonian influence in Cyprus.[52] This is hardly compatible with the suggested Semitic occupation during Shar-Gani-sharri's reign; there may well have been a comparatively early trade connection with the island, but nothing more.

Yet the supposed conquest of Cyprus by Shar-Gani-sharri has led to the wildest comparisons between Aegean and Babylonian art. Not content with leaving him in Cyprus, Professor Winckler has dreamed of still further maritime expeditions on his part to Rhodes, Crete, and even to the mainland of Greece itself.[53] There is no warrant for such imaginings, and the archaeologist must be content to follow and not outrun his evidence. Babylonian influence would naturally be stronger in Cyprus than in Crete, but with neither have we evidence of strong or direct contact. There are, however, certain features of Aegean culture which may be traced to a Babylonian source, though some of the suggested comparisons are hardly convincing. The houses at Fâra, for instance, are supplied with a very elaborate system of drainage, and drains and culverts have been found in the pre-Sargonic stratum at Nippur, at Surghul, and at most early Sumerian sites where excavations have been carried out. These have been compared with the system of drainage and sanitation at Knossos.[54] It is true that no other parallel to the Cretan system can be cited in antiquity, but, as a matter of fact, the two systems are not very like, and in any case it would be difficult to trace a path by which so early a connection could have taken place. It has indeed been suggested that both Babylonia and Crete may have inherited elements of some prehistoric culture common to the eastern world, and that what looks like an instance of influence may really be one of common origin.[55] But, as in the case of a few parallels between early Egyptian and Elamite culture, it is far more probable that such isolated points of resemblance are merely due to coincidence.

A far more probable suggestion is that the clay tablet and stilus reached Crete from Babylonia.[56] Previous to its introduction the Minoan hieroglyphs, or pictographs, had been merely engraved on seal-stones, but with the adoption of the new material for writing they were employed for lists, inventories and the like, and these forms became more linear.[57] The fact that the cuneiform system of writing was not introduced along with the tablet, as happened in Anatolia, is sufficient proof that the connection between Babylonia and Crete was indirect. It was doubtless by way of Anatolia that the clay tablet travelled to Crete,[58] for the discoveries at Kara-Uyuk prove that, before the age of Hammurabi, both tablet and cuneiform writing had penetrated westward beyond the Taurus.[59] Through its introduction into Crete the Babylonian tablet may probably be regarded as the direct ancestor of the wax tablet and stilus of the Greeks and Romans.[60]

Unlike the clay tablet, the cylinder-seal never became a characteristic of the Aegean cultural area, where the seal continued to be of the stamp or button-form. A cylinder-seal has indeed been found in a larnax-burial at Palaikastro, on the east coast of Crete; and it is a true cylinder, perforated from end to end, and was intended to be rolled and not stamped upon the clay.[61] The designs upon it are purely Minoan, but the arrangement of the figures, which is quite un-Egyptian in character, is similar to that of the Mesopotamian cylinder.[62] In spite of the rarity of the type among Cretan seals, this single example from Palaikastro is suggestive of Babylonian influence, through the Syro-Cappadocian channel by which doubtless the clay tablet reached Crete.

Anatolia thus formed a subsidiary centre for the further spread of Babylonian culture, which had reached it by way of Northern Syria before crossing the Taurus. The importance of the latter district in this connection has been already emphasized by Mr. Hogarth.[63] Every traveller from the coast to the region of the Khâbûr will endorse his description of the vast group of mounds, the deserted sites of ancient cities, which mark the surface of the country. With one or two exceptions these still await the spade of the excavator, and, when their lowest strata shall have yielded their secrets, we shall know far more of the early stages in the spread of Babylonian culture westwards. We have already noted the rôle of Syria as a connecting-link between the civilizations of the Euphrates and the Nile,[64] and it plays an equally important part in linking both of them with the centre of early Hittite culture in Asia Minor. It was by the coastal regions of Syria that the first Semitic immigrants from the south reached the Euphrates, and it was to Syria that the stream of Semitic influence, now impregnated with Sumerian culture, returned. The sea formed a barrier to any further advance in that direction, and so the current parted, and passed southwards into the Syro-Palestinian region and northwards through the Cilician Gates, whence by Hittite channels it penetrated to the western districts of Asia Minor. Here, again, the sea was a barrier to further progress westwards, and the Asiatic coast of the Aegean forms the western limit of Asiatic influence. Until the passing of the Hittite power, no attempts were made by Aegean sea-rovers or immigrants from the mainland of Greece to settle on the western coast of Asia Minor,[65] and it is not therefore surprising that Aegean culture should show such scanty traces of Babylonian influence.

Of the part which the Sumerians took in originating and moulding the civilization of Babylonia, it is unnecessary to treat at greater length. Perhaps their most important achievement was the invention of cuneiform writing, for this in time was adopted as a common script throughout the east, and became the parent of other systems of the same character. But scarcely less important were their legacies in other spheres of activity. In the arts of sculpture and seal-engraving their own achievements were notable enough, and they inspired the Semitic work of later times. The great code of Hammurabi's laws, which is claimed to have influenced western codes besides having moulded much of the Mosaic legislation, is now definitely known to be of Sumerian origin, and Urukagina's legislative effort was the direct forerunner of Hammurabi's more successful appeal to past tradition. The literature of Babylon and Assyria is based almost throughout on Sumerian originals, and the ancient ritual of the Sumerian cults survived in the later temples of both countries. Already we see Gudea consulting the omens before proceeding to lay the foundations of E-ninnû, and the practice of hepatoscopy may probably be set back into the period of the earliest Sumerian patesis. Sumer, in fact, was the principal source of Babylonian civilization, and a study of its culture supplies a key to many subsequent developments in Western Asia. The inscriptions have already yielded a fairly complete picture of the political evolution of the people, from the village community and city-state to an empire which included the effective control of foreign provinces. The archaeological record is not so complete, but in this direction we may confidently look for further light from future excavation and research.

[1] For discussions of the merits of the theory, in view of the admitted resemblance of certain features in the civilizations of Babylonia and Egypt, see King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," pp. 32 ff., and Sayce, "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions;" cf. also De Morgan, "Les premières civilisations," pp. 170 ff. The publication of the results obtained by Dr. Reisner's prolonged diggings, supplemented by the more recent work of M. Naville at Abydos, has considerably increased the material on which a more definite decision can be based. I may add that Mr. Hall agrees with me as to the necessity of modifying many points in the theory, in consequence of the additional information that has recently become available for use. It should be noted that in his "Oldest Civilization of Greece," p. 179, n. 1, he had already emphasized the indigenous origin of much of Egyptian culture; cf. also "Egypt and Western Asia," p. 45 f.

[2] As a subsidiary meaning, the word possibly conveys the idea of soldiers armed with dagger and lance; see Maspero, "Bibliothèque Egyptologique," II., pp. 313 ff. On the walls of the temple of Edfu the Mesniu are represented as holding in the left hand a kind of dagger, and in the right a light dart tipped with metal. The important part played by metal in their armament is emphasized by these late representations, as by the name assigned them in the Legend of Edfu. They bore the same relation to their patron deity as the Shemsu-Hor, or "Followers of Horus," bore to him in his other aspect as the son of Isis.

[3] Cf. Newberry, "Annals of Archaeology," pp. 17 ff.

[4] The most striking of these comparisons is that of _Asari_, a Sumerian god who was afterwards identified with Marduk, and _Asar_, the Egyptian god Osiris. For not only is there identity of name-sound, but there is also a resemblance between the Egyptian and Sumerian sign-groups for the names (cf. Sayce, "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 119). The resemblance, however, is not quite so close as it is sometimes represented, for the Sumerian sign _eri_ or _uru_ is invariably employed for "city," a meaning which never attaches to _as_, the character in the corresponding half of the Egyptian group. To regard the resemblance as other than a coincidence, it is necessary to assume a very close relationship between the early religious ideas of Sumer and Egypt, an assumption that would only be justified by the strongest proofs of connection from the archaeological side.

[5] See Reisner, "The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Dêr,"

## Part I., published as Vol. II. of the "University of California

Publications," 1908.

[6] Cf. Maciver and Woolley, "Areika," pp. 14 ff. Mr. Maciver also cites the occurrence of a similar black-topped red-ware on sites in Egypt, dated between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties (_op. cit._, p. 16).

[7] See Reisner, "Naga-ed-Dêr," I., p. 133 f.

[8] For discussions of the identity of the predynastic emblems with gods of the dynastic period, see Budge, "The Gods of the Egyptians," I., p. 30 f., Foucart, "Comptes rendus," 1905, pp. 262 ff., and Reisner, "Naga-ed-Dêr," p. 125; cf. also Legge, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., pp. 205 ff.

[9] For a reproduction and description of the slate carving, see Legge, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. XXII., pl. vi; cf. also Vol. XXXI., p. 204 f. Whatever view be taken of the ceremonial purpose for which these slates were intended, it is clear that the carving of slate was no new departure in Egypt at this period. Many of the practical slate palettes from Nakâda, on some of which traces have been found of the grinding of malachite and haematite for face-paint (cf. Petrie, "Naqadaand Balias," p. 43), are carved in animal forms. It may be added that the colour-dishes for face or body-paint, which have been found at Fâra, are quite distinct both in form and material from the Egyptian slate palettes. They are of alabaster, with divisions for separate paints, and usually stand on four feet (cf. Andræ, "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 17, p. 6); they thus form a closer parallel to the small conical vases of clay or stone, still enclosing paint, which have been found in the lowest stratum of the mound of Susa and belong to the period of its first settlement (cf. De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 5).

[10] Cf. Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 107 f.

[11] See the plate facing p. 138.

[12] See above, pp. 26 ff.

[13] It is also possible that to represent the contracted position of his corpses was beyond the power of Eannatum's sculptor. Moreover, the employment of a common grave beneath a tumulus upon the field of battle may possibly have been a modified survival of an earlier practice, its retention having been dictated by convenience. Although no instance of its occurrence has been noted during excavations in Babylonia, we find a very similar form of burial employed at Susa during the period of its first settlement. It would appear that the dead were there buried outside the earthern rampart which marked the city-wall, without any special order or direction, and not enclosed by matting, pot, or sarcophagus. The bodies were placed in a common ditch and covered with earth, others being added from time to time beside or above them, so that sometimes four or five layers of skeletons are found super-imposed. That the corpses here were separately interred would seem to follow from the fact that each is accompanied by its own funerary offerings and furniture placed around the head; see De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr." Vol. VII., No. 1 (1909), p. 4 f. It may be added that the Sumerians, like the predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians, did not embalm their dead. The use of oil and honey for this purpose (see King, "Babylonian Religion," p. 49 f.), the latter of which is ascribed to the Babylonians by Herodotus (I., 198), would seem to have been of comparatively late introduction, and suggested by the Egyptian processes of mummification. It is interesting to note that, according to the evidence obtained by M. Naville at Abydos during the season of 1909-10, the contracted form of burial survived in Egypt at least as late as the Sixth Dynasty.

[14] The use of a sun-dried brick made of Nile mud and chopped straw may well have been evolved by the Egyptians themselves. As to the original home of wheat there is little evidence, though it may be noted that traces of cultivated wheat and barley were found in the earliest stratum at Anau in Russian Turkestan; see Pumpelly, "Explorations in Turkestan," p. 39 f.

[15] Negative evidence also points in the same direction. For instance, the extensive use of ivory by the predynastic and dynastic Egyptians is in striking contrast to the fact that not a single object of ivory was found by M. de Sarzec at Tello. With the Sumerians its place was taken by shell; see above, p. 78.

[16] Against the view may be cited the gradual discontinuance of the cylinder in Egypt, suggestive of a foreign origin. Comparatively few wooden cylinder-seals have been recovered. The fact that wood and not stone was the favourite material has, however, been deduced from many of the seal-impressions, in which a raised line runs from top to bottom across the signs. This can only have been produced by a split in the wood of which the cylinder was composed; cf. Petrie, "Royal Tombs," I., p. 27, and Newberry, "Scarabs," p. 48. The earliest form of cylinder-seal may well have been a piece of notched reed.

[17] If the land of Punt may be set in Abyssinia and Somaliland, it is possible that it formed a secondary centre of Semitic influence in this region; cf. King and Hall, "Egypt and Western Asia," p. 40.

[18] See Meyer, "Geschichte," Bd. I., Hft. II., pp. 155, 162, 393 f.; and cf. Breasted, "Ancient Records," I., p. 66. According to Schäfer's translation, the forty ships were made of cedar-wood, not loaded with it (see "Ein Bruchstück altägyptischer Annalen," p. 30). But this does not affect the inference drawn from the passage, for the cedar must have been obtained in Lebanon, and the record in any case proves a connection between Egypt and Syria in Sneferu's reign.

[19] See above, pp. 197 f., 233 f.

[20] See Thureau-Dangin, "Recueil de travaux," XIX., p. 187.

[21] See above, p. 273 f.

[22] See De Morgan, "Recherches archéologiques," published as the first, seventh, and eighth volumes of the "Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse."

[23] The manner in which the Semitic culture of Babylonia persisted in influencing that of Elam in the religious sphere is well illustrated by the bronze votive plaque of Shilkhak-In-Shushinak, recently found at Susa; cf. Gautier, "Rec. de trav.," XXXI., pp. 41 ff. It is termed a "Sit-Shamshi," and probably represented a rite of purification which was performed at sunrise. As its title would seem to imply, the rite had been bodily taken over by the Elamites and incorporated along with its Semitic name into the native ritual.

[24] See above, p. 306 f.

[25] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pp. 14 ff.

[26] "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," II., pp. 169 ff.

[27] A good example of Elamite sculpture of the earlier period is furnished by the fragment of a bas-relief, published by De Morgan, "Recherches archéologiques," II., pl. i., A; in the treatment of the mythological being, half-man and half-beast, who is holding a sacred tree, it is quite unlike the early work of Sumer or Akkad. That, in spite of Babylonian and Assyrian influence, the Elamite sculptor continued to retain his individuality is clear from such a work as the well-known "bas-relief of a spinning woman," which probably dates from the time of the Sargonids (_op. cit._, I., pl. ix., p. 159 f.).

[28] The decorated table and bas-relief published in "Recherches," I., pl. xii and xiii are fine examples of casting in bronze. They date from the period of Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, and both in design and technique surpass any bronze casting yet found in Babylonia. The varied ornaments, jewellery, and figurines, fashioned of gold, silver, copper, and precious stones, published in "Rech. arch.," II., pp. 65 ff., pl. xii ff. as "foundation offerings" from the temple of Shushinak at Susa, are beautiful specimens of the finer class of Elamite metalwork; it is difficult to determine their date accurately, but the disorder in which they were found tells against the theory of a single foundation-deposit, and different groups may well belong to different periods.

[29] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., pp. 57 ff.

[30] See above, p. 289. The lapidary forms of the characters are more linear and less ornate than those upon the tablets. But the differences are such as would naturally arise from the use of the harder material, and we may probably assign both classes to about the same period.

[31] See Scheil, "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. VI., p. 48.

[32] Cf. Jéquier, in "Recherches archéologiques," III., pp. 7 ff.

[33] See De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 8.

[34] For coloured reproductions of Susian wares, see De Morgan, "Recherches archéologiques," I., pl xvii-xxii; cf. also pp. 183 ff.

[35] See Gautier and Lampre, "Fouilles de Moussian," in "Recherches archéologiques," III., pp. 59 ff.

[36] See De Morgan, "Revue de l'École d'Anthropologie," 1907, p. 410 f. Still less convincing parallels are drawn between the early cultures of Crete and Elam by Lagrange in "La Crète ancienne," pp. 80 ff.

[37] See "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 47.

[38] See Pumpelly, "Explorations in Turkestan," Vol. II., Schmidt's section on "The Archaeological Excavations," pp. 127 ff.; see further, p. 355.

[39] Cf. "The Annals of Archaeology," I., pp. 97 ff.

[40] See Hall, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., pp. 311 ff. He also cites a general resemblance, which these three classes of pottery bear to the geometric designs on wares of the Neolithic period from Boeotia and Thessaly. On the strength of this resemblance Mr. Hall suggests that in Iran and in Northern Greece there may have been two closely related stone-using cultures, of which the former reached the age of metal at a much earlier period than the latter. He would, however, regard it as possible that the Neolithic art of Northern Greece went back to 3000 B.C. or even earlier. According to this view, the geometric and often polychrome ceramics found on prehistoric sites as widely separated as Elam, Transcaspia, Syria, Cappadocia, Cyprus, and Northern Greece would represent a development quite independent from that of the Aegean area, with which the early art of Egypt may possibly be connected. For a description of the pottery of Northern Greece, with figured examples and references to the recent literature, see the Reports of Wace, Droop, and Thompson in "Annals of Archaeology," I., pp. 118 ff. It must be admitted that the suggested resemblance between the early ceramics of Northern Greece and Western Asia is not so striking as that between the separate members of the latter group.

[41] Compare, for example, the animal motives from Mussian pottery, figured in "Recherches archéologiques," III., p. 134 f., Figs. 262-264, with the half-human bull-monsters from "proto-Elamite" seal-impressions in Figs. 22-26, p. 11 f.

[42] See De Morgan, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 5.

[43] It is noteworthy that the "Greek cross," which is a very characteristic emblem on Kassite cylinder-seals from Babylonia, and also occurs on the "proto-Elamite" seal-impressions, is already met with as a decorative symbol on the early painted pottery of Susa and Mussian. It is also possible that the spear-headed emblem of the god Marduk was ultimately of Elamite origin; it might well have been transferred to Marduk at the time of the Kassite kings of Babylon.

[44] See below, p. 356.

[45] See above, p. 2 f.

[46] See Myres, "The Early Pot-Fabrics of Asia Minor" in "The Journal of the Anthropological Institute," Vol. XXXIII., p. 379. Prof. Myres would regard them as of Sargonid date, and it is true that some fragments of painted pottery of that period have been found at Kuyunjik. But the latter may be distinguished, both by subject and technique, from those which reproduce characteristics of the Cappadocian ware and are probably very much earlier (cf. Hall, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., p. 313 f., n. 137).

[47] In the course of excavations at Kuyunjik, when sinking shafts into the lowest stratum just above the level of the plain, I came across obsidian implements and beds of ashes, indicating the existence of a Neolithic settlement.

[48] See above, p. 234 f.

[49] For a reproduction of the seal, see Sayce, "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," Vol. V., p. 442.

[50] For the sealings, see Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., pp. 3 ff. The points of contrast presented by the Cyprus seal may be summarized: (1)The signs employed in the inscription are not of Narâm-Sin's period, but of the time of the First Dynasty. (2)The presence of the Storm-god, the number and nature of the religious emblems, the arrangement of the design dictated by the horror vacui, and the engraving of the seal itself with its undisguised employment of the drill, are all Syro-Cappadocian in character; they are in striking contrast to the beauty of proportion and restrained design of the figures arranged on a plain field by the early Semitic seal-engravers of Akkad. (3)The deification of Narâm-Sin is of course no proof that he was dead (see above, p. 251). But it should be noted that on seals of Narâm-Sin's period, which mention the reigning king or a member of his family, the royal name is included in order to indicate a delegation of authority. The text is always couched in the second person, in the form of an address, and the royal name is invariably mentioned first. Had Mâr-Ishtar, the owner of the seal, been a contemporary of Narâm-Sin, the inscription on the seal would have run: "O Narâm-Sin, God of Akkad (_or_ King of Akkad), Mâr-Ishtar, the (_here would follow the title of his office_), is thy servant." As a matter of fact, the inscription runs: "Mâr-Ishtar, son of Ilu-bani, servant of the god Narâm-Sin." Here Mâr-Ishtar's name comes first, then that of his father, and lastly that of his patron deity. Narâm-Sin is no longer the living God of Akkad, but is just an ordinary deity, and occupies an ordinary deity's place upon the seal. The survival of his name as that of a god in the period of the Western Semites is paralleled by the occurrence of the name of Bûr-Sin I., King of Ur, as that of a deity in the Moon-god's suite, on a god-list of the seventh century B.C.; see above, p. 299.

[51] For a reproduction of the seal, see Bezold, "Zeits. für Keilschrift.," II., pp. 191 ff.; cf. also Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter, "Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum," pp. 15, 134.

[52] Of the Enkomi cylinder-seals, for example, only two are purely Babylonian (of the First Dynasty), and the others, with the exception of a few rude specimens of native Cypriote workmanship, are Syro-Cappadocian and Hittite importations.

[53] See Winckler, "Die Euphratländer und das Mittelmeer," in "Der Alte Orient," VII., 2 (1905), p. 10.

[54] See Burrows, "The Discoveries in Crete," p. 9.

[55] _Op. cit._, p. 134.

[56] See Sayce, "Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 181, Burrows, "The Discoveries in Crete," p. 139, and Hall, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXI., p. 225.

[57] For the evolution of Minoan writing, see Evans, "Scripta Minoa," I., pp. 19 ff., 28 ff.

[58] The clay disk stamped with hieroglyphic characters, which has been discovered by Prof. Halbherr at Phaestos, may be cited in support of this view. From a scrutiny of the characters upon it, Dr. Evans concludes that the original home of its peculiar non-Cretan form of writing is to be sought in the South-West coast-lands of Asia Minor, or in an island in close contact with the mainland. The disk belongs to a period when the linear form of script had succeeded the hieroglyphic in Crete itself (see "Scripta Minoa," I., pp. 22 ff., 273 ff.).

[59] It is also through a Hittite medium that we may possibly trace a connection between the composite monsters of Babylonian and Minoan art; see Sayce, _op. cit._, p. 180. It should be noted, however, that, although the idea underlying the designs upon the Zakro sealings may be of foreign origin, the development of the variant types of many of the monster forms was purely local and confined to a single period (cf. Hogarth, "Journal of Hellenic Studies," Vol. XXII., p. 91). Moreover, the bull-monsters, or "Minotaurs," of Aegean art were obviously derived from the local cult of Knossos; in the winged and bird-like types Cappadocian influence is more probable.

[60] See Burrows, "Discoveries in Crete," p. 149.

[61] In this respect it forms a striking contrast to the clay cylinder from the sepulchral deposit of Hagios Onuphrios near Phaestos. The latter is unperforated and the designs are cut at each end of the seal; it is thus no true cylinder, but merely a double-button seal (see Evans, "Cretan Pictographs," pp. 105, 107).

[62] The figures engraved upon the seal consist of a lion-headed demon and two female figures, possibly with the heads of animals; they are arranged across the field of the cylinder from edge to edge. The seal is of soft, black stone, much worn (see Bosanquet, "The Annual of the British School at Athens," No. VIII., p. 302).

[63] See "Ionia and the East," p. 96 f.

[64] See above, p. 334 f.

[65] Cf. Hogarth, "Ionia and the East," p. 47 f.

APPENDICES

I.--Recent Explorations in Turkestan in their Relation to the Sumerian Problem.

II.--A Chronological List of the Kings and Rulers of Sumer and Akkad.

APPENDIX I

RECENT EXPLORATIONS IN TURKESTAN IN THEIR RELATION TO THE SUMERIAN PROBLEM.

In the second chapter of this volume the opinion was expressed that, in spite of the unsoundness of certain arguments in favour of the theory, the original home of the Sumerians was to be sought beyond the mountains to the east of the Babylonian plain.[1] The arrival of the Sumerians on the banks of the Euphrates would thus have been a single episode in a series of similar migrations from the east, which, during the historical period, are known to have made their appearance in that quarter of Western Asia. Until recently it was only possible to suggest that such migratory movements were to be traced to racial unrest in more distant regions, and few data were available for supporting any detailed theory as to the causes of this occasional pressure westwards. Important evidence, which has both a direct and an indirect bearing on the problem, has, however, been obtained as a result of recent explorations in Russian and Chinese Turkestan.

The two expeditions conducted by Mr. Raphael Pumpelly, on behalf of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, in 1903 and 1904, the results of which have now been fully published, were occupied mainly with work in the Transcaspian province of Russian Turkestan. The physiographical observations collected by the first Pumpelly Expedition were supplemented during the second of them by archaeological evidence, obtained by excavations at Anau near Askhabad, and in the Merv Oasis, under the direction of Dr. Hubert Schmidt, of Berlin, who joined the staff of the expedition for that purpose. Both classes of evidence have a direct bearing upon the problem under discussion.

Of more remote interest, in the present connection, are the explorations and excavations carried out by Dr. Stein in Chinese Turkestan, on behalf of the Indian Government, during his journeys of 1900-1 and 1906-8. Lying in the Tarim basin to the east of the Pamirs, the principal scene of his labours is far removed from those regions of Western and Central Asia from which direct light may be expected upon the Sumerian problem. But the Khotan oases and the Taklamakan Desert present in many respects an interesting parallel to the conditions prevailing in the southern districts of the Russian province; and they illustrate, during more recent historical periods, a climatic and geological process of which far earlier traces have been noted in the latter region. The investigation of the archaeological remains, till lately buried in Khotan, has also demonstrated the comparatively short period of time required for extensive physical changes to have taken place. Finally, the physiographical researches of Mr. Ellsworth Huntington, who accompanied the first Pumpelly expedition, have been extended during 1905-7 into the region of Dr. Stein's travels, along the southern and eastern borders of the Taklamakan Desert, and have resulted in obtaining corroborative evidence of theories already deduced from observations in Russian Turkestan.

It has already been remarked that the work of the Pumpelly Expeditions was of a twofold character. On the one hand, the majority of the members devoted themselves to the collection of material bearing on the physiography of the Central Asian deserts and oases; and, as a result of their labours, they have produced a valuable series of monographs, illustrating climatic and physical changes which have taken place in that region of the world. On the other hand, the excavations conducted at Anau by Dr. Schmidt have been followed by a careful presentment of the archaeological material, including a very complete ceramic record. The general discussion of the results was undertaken by Mr. Raphael Pumpelly, the leader of the expeditions, who has given an able and suggestive summary of what he conceives to be their general bearing, not only from the geological side, but also in their relation to the early history of Western Asiatic, and even of North African culture.[2] At the outset it should be mentioned that, on the archaeological side, several of Mr. Pumpelly's generalizations appear to be too far reaching, and he seems to push some of his conclusions beyond the limit of his evidence. But this does not detract in any way from the value of the new data, which he has been largely instrumental in acquiring.

[Illustration: I.--THE NORTH KURGAN AT ANAU AND THE CAMP OF THE PUMPELLY EXPEDITION. II.--THE SOUTH KURGAN AT ANAU, SHOWING EXCAVATIONS IN PROGRESS.--_From Pumpelly, Expl. in Turk._ 1, p. 17, Figs. 5 and 6]

[Illustration: TERRA-COTTA FIGURINES FROM THE SOUTH KURGAN AT ANAU. --_From Pumpelly, Expl. in Turk._, 1, pl. 46, Figs. 9--17]

We are not here concerned with details of the earlier geological evidence, except in so far as they illustrate or explain the physical changes in the character of the country during more recent times. It has long been recognized that the deserts of Central Asia owe their existence to a process of desiccation that has taken place since the Glacial epoch,[3] and recent investigations have shown that the contrast to present conditions was even more marked than was previously supposed. The members of the first Pumpelly Expedition have noted that glaciers existed on a greatly extended scale throughout the mountains bordering the great basins of Central Asia on the south and east, and they have proved the existence of several great glacial expansions, each of which naturally reacted on the climate of the central region. During the sub-glacial period there was a general trend towards desolation, and the dried silts of seas and rivers were carried by the wind across the surface of the ground. The lightest material was carried farthest, and, wherever the scanty vegetation could hold it, it was deposited in beds of "loess," the extraordinarily fine and fertile soil which covers a great part of Northern China and Turkestan, and extends in a continuous zone from North of the Caspian to Central Europe.[4] The heavier silts in the shape of sands moved more slowly under the pressure of the wind, and they formed great deserts of sand-dunes, heaped in places more than a hundred feet high. It is to the shifting or formation of such sand-deserts in historic times that we owe the burial of the cities in the Khotan region, which have been so successfully excavated by Dr. Stein for the Indian Government.[5]

Although it is clear that since Glacial times there has been a general trend towards the present arid condition of Central Asia, there is reason to believe that, as in the Glacial epoch, the subsequent climatic changes have not been uniform. Periods of extreme aridity have occurred in which the condition of certain regions may have been more desolate than it is to-day. But these appear to have alternated with more humid periods, when the tracts which were deserted may again have been rendered capable of sustaining life. Already in the prehistoric period, however, the sea of sand-dunes had encroached upon the fertile plains of loess, and it is mainly in the delta-oases, formed by streams emerging from the mountains, or at points where large rivers lose themselves in the plain, as at Merv, that traces of man's handiwork have been discovered.

Throughout the region of the oases in Southern Turkestan, to the north of the Kopet Dagh, the Pumpelly Expedition constantly noted the sites of former habitations in regions which are now desolate. Not only are there traces of occupation where villages exist to-day, but there are also large areas which must once have been densely peopled, although they are now deserted. The present supply of water in the region could support but a small proportion of its former inhabitants, and it is necessary to suppose either that there was a greater rainfall, or that evaporation was less rapid owing to a lower temperature. Similar evidence has been collected with regard to the former condition of Chinese Turkestan,[6] and it is clear that extensive tracts in Central Asia, which are now abandoned to the desert, at one time supported a considerable population. The evidence points to a change in climatic conditions, which has reacted on the character of the country in such a way as to cause racial migrations.[7]

In the hope of throwing light on the character of the former dwellers in the deserted regions of Russian Turkestan, the second Pumpelly Expedition undertook excavations at selected sites. At Ghiaur Kala in the Merv Oasis it was ascertained that the earliest period of occupation was not older than a few centuries B.C., though it is probable that among the great number of mounds in the oasis some are of a considerably earlier date. Far more important were the results obtained by excavations in the region below the northern slopes of the Kopet Dagh. It was at one of the delta-oases, at Anau, near Askhabad, some three hundred miles east of the Caspian, that the Pumpelly Expedition found traces of prehistoric cultures, and obtained its principal material for archaeological study.

Near the middle of the Anau oasis, and about a mile apart, are two hills with rounded contours, rising some forty and fifty feet above the plain, and marking the sites of long-forgotten cities. The structure of the North Kurgan, or tumulus, had already been exposed by a trench cut in it some twenty-five years ago by General Komorof, which showed stratified remains, including bones of animals and potsherds of plain and painted wares. It was this trench that first directed Mr. Pumpelly's attention to the mound during his first expedition, and his subsequent excavations, both here and in the South Kurgan, exposed the same stratified structure.

[Illustration: Fig. 68. Designs on painted potsherds of the Neolithic period (Culture I.) from the North Kurgan at Anau.--From Pumpelly, _Expl. in Turk._, I., p. 128, Nos. 67-73.]

The strata represented successive occupations of the site, and, as its inhabitants lived in houses built of sun-dried bricks, the hills gradually rose in height. Of the two hills, the North Kurgan was of earliest formation, its earlier strata containing the remains of a stone-age culture, and its upper culture representing an aeneolithic stage of civilization. The third culture, that of the lowest strata in the South Kurgan, dates from a copper age. The archaeological part of the work was directed by Dr. Schmidt, and to his admirable method of noting the precise spot and level of every object recovered we owe the possibility of tracing the gradual development of culture during the successive periods of settlement. Moreover, the Transcaspian railway passes little more than half a mile to the north of the northern mound, or Kurgan. Hence there was no difficulty and little risk involved in the conveyance to Europe of all the archaeological material obtained. The collection of animal bones from the North Kurgan weighed nearly half a ton, but they were despatched without difficulty to Dr. Duerst of Zurich, who contributed a report on them to the record of the second expedition.

The cultural progress of the three periods is, however, most clearly revealed by the pottery, which exhibits a gradual evolution in form, technique, and decoration. Although the vessels of the first two cultures are hand-made, and the wheel was not introduced until Culture III., yet the vessels of both earlier epochs are excellent ceramic productions. It has already been noted that many of the geometric designs occurring on pottery of the earlier periods from the North Kurgan bear a certain resemblance to similar pottery found by MM. Gautier and Lampre at Mussian, and by M. de Morgan at Susa. This may well point to some connection between the stone and early metal-using cultures of Transcaspia and Elam; while the baked clay figurines from the copper culture of the South Kurgan may be held to prove some early cultural contact with the Sumerians.[8]

[Illustration: Fig. 69. Designs on painted potsherds of the Aeneolithic period (Culture II.) from the North Kurgan at Anau.--From Pumpelly, _Expl. in Turk._, I., p. 133, Nos. 106-113.]

Mr. Pumpelly himself would regard the Central Asian oases as the fountain-head of Western Asiatic culture. According to his theory, they were isolated from Europe and Africa from the Glacial period onwards, and their cultural requirements were evolved in complete independence. Changes in climatic conditions, however, took place, under which the early civilizations in these regions tended to disappear, and these gave rise to extensive migrations, which reacted in turn on the outside world. In support of his theory he would trace the early appearance of wheat and barley both in Egypt and Babylonia, and the presence of certain breeds of domestic animals, to their first establishment in the Transcaspian oases. But, in addition to differences in their ceramics, the total absence of any form of writing in the mounds at Anau tells against any theory necessitating a very close racial connection between the early inhabitants of the oases and the Sumerians of Babylonia.

The evidence, in fact, does not justify us in placing the original home of the Sumerians at Anau, nor indeed in any particular spot in Central Asia or Iran that has yet been examined. But it serves to indicate the region of the world in which we may expect that future excavations will reveal data of a more conclusive character. It may be that the ruined sites of Seistan and the Kirman province will exhibit closer parallels with the civilizations of Elam and Sumer. Meanwhile it is clear that some contact must have taken place between the early peoples of the latter countries and the settlements to the north of the Kopet Dagh. We may thus picture the Sumerians before their arrival in Babylonia as inhabitants of some district to the east of the Euphrates valley, where they evolved the elements of their culture, which is already found in a comparatively advanced stage of development on the earliest of South Babylonian sites.

A further result of the recent explorations in Turkestan is that an adequate explanation is afforded of the unrest in Central Asia, which gave rise to the Sumerian immigration and to similar racial movements westward. It may now be regarded as established that periods of desiccation and extreme aridity have led to the abandonment of extensive tracts of country, with the result that their former inhabitants have, from time to time, been forced to seek sanctuary in more favoured districts. While nomad tribes in their search for fresh pasturage might drift over the broad steppes to the north and west of Turkestan, the agricultural peoples on its southern border would be forced to turn south of the Caspian. The bleak uplands of the Iranian plateau offer small attractions for permanent settlement, and the routes of the migrant tribes would naturally lead in the direction of Asia Minor and the Mesopotamian plain. Such a condition of unrest in Central Asia would naturally react on peoples at a considerable distance, and this fact explains the periodical invasions to which Babylonia has been subjected from the east. It may be added that the immigration of Semitic tribes into Syria and Northern Babylonia should possibly be traced to physical causes of a like nature. Periods of aridity may have occurred in the central portions of the Arabian continent, and may have given rise to the Semitic invasions of prehistoric and historic times.

Thus it is possible that the two races, which we find in possession of Sumer and Akkad during the earliest historical periods, though they arrived from opposite quarters, were forced into the region of the Euphrates by causes of a precisely similar character. As the Semites, on their way northwards from Arabia, colonized the Syrian coast-lands through which they passed, so the Sumerian race may well have left permanent traces of its presence in the valleys and more fertile oases of Iran. There are already indications that work on Syrian and West Mesopotamian sites will throw a flood of light upon the problems of early Semitic history, and it may perhaps fall to the lot of a fortunate excavator, in some region east of the Euphrates valley, to recover the cult-images of primitive Sumerian gods, and to bring to light examples of the picture-writing from which the early cuneiform characters were derived.

[1] See above, p. 53 f.

[2] Accounts of the first expedition were published under the title "Explorations in Turkestan," as Publication No. 26 of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (1905). The various monographs on the results of the second expedition are published in two volumes, entitled "Explorations in Turkestan; Expedition of 1904," as Publication No. 73 (1908) of the same institution. Both works were edited by Mr. Raphael Pumpelly, who in 1906 had already summarized his conclusions in his Presidential Address before the Geological Society of America (see "Bulletin of the Geol. Soc. of Amer.," Vol. 17, pp. 637 ff.). In a separate volume, entitled "The Pulse of Asia," Mr. Huntington has given an account of his more recent journey.

[3] Cf. Geikie, "The Great Ice Age and its Relation to the Antiquity of Man," 3rd ed., pp. 694, 698. In 1894, Prof. James Geikie had noted the probability that glacial phenomena were more extensively developed in the mountains and tablelands of Asia than he felt justified in representing in his Glacial Map of Asia. In it he incorporated only the results of previous observations, at the same time emphasizing its "necessarily unsatisfactory character" (_op. cit._, p. 831, PI. xiii.). This lack of evidence has now in great measure been remedied.

[4] Loess was formerly regarded as simply a deposit of glacial or fluvial origin, but Richthofen's theory that its subsequent distribution was largely due to wind-transport (cf. "China," Bd. I., pp. 56 ff.) is now generally accepted. The fact that it is found heaped up against the sides of mountains and contains land, and not water, shells, is unanswerable evidence. For its general character and distribution, see Sir Archibald Geikie's "Text-book of Geology," 4th ed., I., pp. 439 f.; II., p. 1351. It may be noted that the formation of loess-beds and sand-deserts is a continuous process at the present day, under the strong winds which prevail in certain seasons in Central Asia; and even when there is little wind the air is often thick with fine dust. The reverse of the process is visible in the effects of wind-erosion, very striking instances of which have been described by Dr. Stein; cp. _e.g._ "Ruins of Khotan," p. 189 f., and "Ancient Khotan." I., p. 107.

[5] It should be noted that the substance of the dunes around Khotan is to be distinguished from the true drifting sand of other Central Asian deserts. For Prof. de Lóczy has shown by analysis that there is almost complete uniformity in composition between the recently formed fertile loess of Yotkan (the site of the ancient capital of Khotan) and the moving "sand" now surrounding and covering the ancient sites in the desert; cf. "Ancient Khotan," I., pp. 127 f., 199, 242. The thickness of pure loess above the culture stratum at Yotkan was no less than from nine to eleven feet, a fact which had led earlier European visitors to suppose that some catastrophe, such as a great flood, had overwhelmed the old town. It is merely a striking example of the manner in which vegetation, under irrigation, catches and retains the floating loess-dust.

[6] After his recent journey Dr. Stein writes of the Khotan region that it appears to him certain that "the water-supply at present available in the Yurung-kash could under no system whatever be made to suffice for the irrigation of the whole of the large tracts now abandoned to the desert, and for this broad fact desiccation alone supplies an adequate explanation"; see the "Geographical Journal," vol. xxxiv. (1909), p. 17.

[7] For a discussion of the modern theories as to the laws governing climatic changes and the possibility of their cyclical recurrence, see Huntington, "The Pulse of Asia," pp. 365 ff. It seems most probable that the changes are of solar origin, the variations being caused by varying forms of heat and other energy received from the sun. Such changes would be more intensely felt in mid-continental areas, where high mountains tend to intercept moisture from the sea, which is precipitated without hindrance in the peripheral or coastal regions.

[8] See above, pp. 340 ff. For photographic reproductions of clay figurines from the South Kurgan, see the plate facing p. 352. It will be noted that the figurines are clearly of the Babylonian type. The resemblance may be emphasized by contrast with the terra-cotta figurines of a very much later date discovered by Dr. Stein at Yotkan; see "Ruins of Khotan," p. 261. Moreover, lapis-lazuli is already found in the second culture of the North Kurgan. This points to commercial intercourse with regions still further east on the part of the Anau settlements; but the employment of lapis-lazuli by the Sumerians may be cited as further evidence in favour of some early cultural connection on their part with Anau.

APPENDIX II

A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE KINGS AND RULERS OF SUMER AND AKKAD

I. THE EARLIEST RULERS OF SUMER AND AKKAD

+---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+ | Approx. | Kish, Opis, and Akkad.| Lagash. | Umma, Erech, and Ur.| | Dates | | | | +---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+ | | | | | | B.C. | | | | | | (Utug p.) | | | | | | | | | | Mesilim k. ...........| Lugal-shag-engur p.| | | | | | | | | (Urzage k.) | (Badu k.) | | | | | | | | | (Lugal-tarsi k.) | (Enkhegal k.) | | | | | | | | 3000 | | Ur-Ninâ k., | | | | | Akurgal p., | | | | | | | | | Al[...] k. of Kish; } | Eannatum p. and k..| {Ush p. | | 2900 | and Zuzu k. of Opis. | | {Enakalli p., | | | | | | | | | Enannatum I. p., ..| {Urlumma | | | | Entemena p., ......| {Ili | | 2850 | | Enannatum II. p. | | | | | Enetarzi p. | | | | | Enlitarzi p., | | | | | Lugal-anda p. | Ukush p., | | 2800 | | Urukagina k. ......| Lugal-zaggisi k. of | | | (Enbi-Ishtar k.) | | Erech and Sumer | | | | | (Lugal-kigub-nidudu | | | | | k. of Erech and Ur)| | | | | (Lugal-kisalsi k. | | | | | of Erech and Ur) | | | _Dynasty of Kish._ | | (Enshagkushanna | | | | | lord of Sumer) | | 2750 | Sharru-Gi k. | | | | 2700 | Manishtusu k. ........| | | | | Urumush [or Rimush] k.| Engilsa p. ........| Kur-shesh p. of Umma| | 2650 | _Dynasty of Akkad_ | | | | | [see Table II.] | | | +---------+-----------------------+--------------------+---------------------+

II. THE DYNASTY OF AKKAD AND ITS SUCCESSORS

+---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+ | Approx. | Akkad. | Lagash. | Umma and Ur. | | Dates | | | | +---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+ | | | | | | B.C. | | | | | | _Dynasty of Akkad._ | _Patesis of Lagash._ | | | | | | | | 2650 | Shar-Gani-sharri,} | | | | | }..| Lugal-ushumgal | | | 2600 | Narâm-Sin } | Ur-Babbar | | | | | (Ur-E) | | | | | (Lugal-bur) | | | | | | | | 2550 | | (Basha-mama) | | | | | (Ur-mama) | | | | | (Ug-me) | | | | | | | | | | Ur-Bau | | | 2500 | | Nammakhui | | | | | Ur-gar | | | | | (Ka-azag) | | | | | (Galu-Bau) | | | | | (Galu-Gula) | | | | | (Ur-Ninsun) |(Galu-Babbar | | | | | p. of Umma) | | 2450 | | Gudea, | | | | | Ur-Ningirsu | | | | | [probably survived | | | | | into Dungi's reign | | | | | see Table III.] ...| _Dynasty of Ur_ | +---------+---------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+

EXPLANATORY NOTE.--p. = patesi; k. = king; a comma after a ruler's name indicates that he was succeeded by his son. A dotted line (......) joins the names of rulers who are proved to have been contemporaries; the position of names within parentheses is conjectural. In Table I., Col. II. the rulers belong to Kish, and in Col. IV. to Umma, unless otherwise stated. In Table III. (see p. 362) the figures which follow the name of a king represent the number of years he ruled.

III. THE KINGDOM OF SUMER AND AKKAD

+---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+ | Approx. | Summer and Akkad | Lagash. | Umma, Larsa, etc. | | Dates | | | | +---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+ | | | | | | | Dynasty of Ur (117 or 119 yrs. | Patesis of Lagash.| | | | | | | | | YEARS. | | | | | Ur-Engur, (18) ...........| {Ur-Ningirsu | | | 2400 | | {Ur-abba | | | | | | | | | | {Galu-kazal | | | | | {Galu-andul | | | | Dungi, (58) ...........| {Ur-Lama I. .....| Ur-nesu p. of Umma | | 2350 | | {Alla | | | | Bûr-Sin I., (9)}.......... | {{Ur-Lama II. | | | | Gimil-Sin, (7 or 9)} | {[......]-kam | | | | Ibi-Sin (25)}...........| Arad-Nannar | | | | | | | | | Dynasty of Isin (225 1/2 yrs.) | | | | | | | | | 2300 | Ishbi-Ura, (32) | | | | | Gimil-ilishu, (10) | | | | 2250 | Idin-Dagan, (21) | | | | | Ishme-Dagan, (20) | | | | | Libit-Ishtar (11) | | | | 2200 | Ur-Ninib, (28) | | Gungunu k. of Larsa| | | Bûr-Sin II., (21) | | | | | Itêr-kasha (5) | | | | 2150 | Ura-imitti (7) | | | | | Sin-ikisha (1/2) | | | | | Enlil-bani (24) | | | | | Zambia (3) | | | | | [...........] (5) | | (Sumu-ilu k. of Ur)| | | Ea-[.....] (4) | | | | 2100 | Sin-magir, (11) | | | | | Damik-ilishu (23) | | | +---------+--------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+

INDEX

Aa, gifts to Abba-dugga Abi-ishar, seal of Abû Habba, site of Sippar excavations at objects and inscriptions from Abû Hatab, site of Kisurra excavations at plan of inscribed brick from contracted burials at Abû Khuwâsîj Abû Shahrain, site of Eridu excavations at; plan of Abydos recent diggings at Abyssinia Abzu-banda Abzu-ega Accounts, tablets of Achaemenian kings Adab, site of excavations at in relation to Euphrates its commercial relations with Lagash destruction of _see also_ Bismâya Adamdun, situation of patesis of Adda-Pakshu, sukkal of Elam tablets from period of Addatur Adhem Aegean, sites Asiatic coast of sea-rovers of Aegean culture, stages of its early connection with Egypt traces of Babylonian influence in wild comparisons between Aegean and Babylonian art Aenragin 'Afej marshes Agade, older name of Akkad site of Sargon of _see_ Akkad Agathias Agia Paraskevi Aha, mastaba-tomb of 'Akarkûf Akhush Akkad, city, site of early centre of Semitic settlement in relation to Kish in relation to Elam "sons," or citizens, of siege of Dynasty of in relation to the Dynasty of Ur kings of Sumer and Akkad, land, limits of name of inhabitants of Semitic immigration into system of land tenure in influence of art of early relations with Elam cultural connections with Elam Akkadian, the Semitic speech of Babylonia Akkadians, the Semitic inhabitants of Northern Babylonia former use of the term Akkadû Akki Akurgal, patesi of Lagash sculptured figures of in chronological table Al[...], king of Kish in chronological table Al-Batîha Al-Gimil-Sin, "the City of Gimil-Sin" Aliakhu Alla, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Alla, resident in Lagash Alloys, evidence as to use of Alluvium, limit of Babylonian Alu-usharshid, a former reading of the name Urumush or Rimush Amageshtin, temple of Amal, temple of Amananu, governor of Sippar Amanus Amat-Bati Amattar-sirsirra Ambar Su Amiaud, Arthur Ammi-zaduga Amorite invasion, disproved in reign of Libit-Ishtar Amurru (Martu), a West Semitic god Amurru, the Western Semites origin of Amurru, the Western Land Sargon's conquest of its king deported slaves from relation of kings of Isin to Babylonian influence in and beyond Ana; _see also_ Anu Anatolia Anau, excavations at potsherds from terra-cotta figurines from wheat and barley found in earliest stratum at Andrae, W. Anikurra Animal cults, Egyptian Animal forms, Sumerian treatment of Animal motives, on Elamite painted pottery on proto-Elamite seal-impressions Anita Anshan, its conquest by Manishtusu its conquest by Gudea alliance of Dungi's daughter with the patesi of its conquest by Dungi officials for a patesi of captivity of Ibi-Sin in its success against Ur its defeat by Anu-mutabil Antasurra Antimony Anu _see also_ Ana Anu-banini, king of Lulubu Anu-mutabil, governor of Dêr Anunitu Anunpad Anzanite inscriptions Apirak Apil-Sin, contracts of reign of Arabesque pattern, on Sumerian sealing Arabia Arabian desert Arad-Nannar, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Archers, in the army of Ur Architect, Gudea as Archive-chambers, at Tello Ark, of bulrushes Armanu Art, comparison of early Sumerian and Akkadian of Kish and Akkad Arua Asar, Osiris Asari, Sumerian god Ashnunnak, or Tupliash under Manishtusu patesis of Ashukhu-wood Ashur Ashur-bani-pal tablets from Library of Asia Minor Central Askhabad Asphalt; _see also_ Bitumen Asses, for chariots House of the Assyria Assyrian kings, their policy of deportation Assyrians, sculpture of omen-literature of Astrological texts Asukhur Canal Axe, Sumerian form of Az Azupirânu

Bab el-Mandeb, Straits of Babbar Babishue Babylon excavations at pot-burials and early remains at Sargon's buildings at Dungi's sack of in relation to the Dynasty of Isin rise of in relation to the Dynasty of the Sea-country her struggle with Larsa her position in later history Babylonia, in the Neolithic period relics of prehistoric culture in her early cultural influence in relation to Egypt in relation to Elam in the West Babylonian Chronicle Babylonian Monarchy, foundation of Bad-mada Badu, king of Lagash in chronological table Baga Baghdad Bahr Nejef Banar Banks, E. J. Barakhsu Baraz-sîrim, Field of Barges, for grain Barkiba Barley in earliest stratum at Anau Barnamtarra, wife of Lugal-anda Barsagannudu Barshib Basalla Basar Basha-mama, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Basha-Shushinak, patesi of Susa period of proto-Elamite inscriptions of Basime Bas-reliefs, Sumerian early Semitic Assyrian Battle-axe, Sumerian use of the of Narâm-Sin Battle-mace Battle-scenes Bau temples of bowls dedicated to representation of Bau-ninam, official of Ur-Ningirsu Bavian Baz, Field of Bazuzu, father of Utug Bead-making, Egyptian art of Bedouin custom Bêl, name of the god Marduk Belaku, patesi of Ashnunnak Beleous Beletaras Beli-arik, patesi of Susa Berber dialects Berossus Dynasties of Berthelot, M. P. E. Bezold, Prof. C. Bi-Gani-sharri Bilâdhuri Bilingual compositions Bin-Gani-sharri, son of Narâm-Sin Bint el-Mderre Birs, site of Borsippa Bismâya, site of Adab excavations at character of buildings uncovered at Bitumen "Black-headed ones" Blau monuments Boat-inspectors Boats, for transport Body-paint Boeotia, Neolithic potsherds from Boissier, A. Borsippa; excavations at Bosanquet, Prof. R. C. Boundary-ditch, between Lagash and Umma of Ur-Engur _see also_ Frontier Boundary-stones Bow, introduced by the Semites of Narâm-Sin adopted by Dungi Breasted, Prof. J. H. Breccia Bricks, of Sumer character of Babylonian plano-convex change in size of manufacture of stamped with figure of Imgig origin of the Egyptian brick Brick-stamps Bronze, evidence with regard to later Elamite work in Budge, Dr. E. A. Wallis Bull-monsters, proto-Elamite Bulls, as offerings copper figures of human-headed Bûr-Sin I., king of Ur, reign of expeditions of buildings of in relation to Enlil statue of his deification and cult his survival as a deity in the Moon-god's suite in chronological table Bûr-Sin II., king of Isin in chronological table Burial, of the dead different forms of after battle Egyptian and Babylonian fashions of earliest Susian form of Burial fees Burial-mounds, after battle Burrows, Prof. R. M. Buwârîya

Canals Canopic branch, of the Nile Cappadocia prehistoric pottery from Caravan-routes, from the Iranian plateau Carnegie Institution, of Washington

Caspian Casting, in metal Cattle, transport of Cedar, remains of pillars of Cedar-groves, sacred Cemeteries, in Upper Egypt Central Arabia Central Asia Cesnola, General di Chamberlain, royal Chariots, of war representation of a Chialy Effendi China Chinese Chinese Turkestan Chronicle, the Babylonian of Sargon and Narâm-Sin concerning early Babylonian kings Dynastic, from Nippur Chronicles, Hebrew Books of Chronological table, of kings and rulers of Sumer and Akkad Chronology, classes of data for determining Babylonian of the later Sumerian period Chicago, Exploration Fund of the University of Chieftains, meeting of Chipiez, Charles Cilician Gates Citadel Tell, at Susa Cities, in Babylonia origin of communication between City-gods, origin and development of description of a position of in relation to the patesi disputes between City-states, development of wars of the weakening and decay of the Clay, Prof. A. T. Clay tablet, borrowed by Elam introduced into Cappadocia reached Crete Climatic changes, a cause of racial migrations Clothing, Sumerian and Semitic Code, of Hammurabi Sumerian origin of of Gudea _see also_ Laws Codes, legal Colour-dishes, for face or body-paint Commercial intercourse, in Babylonia with foreign countries Conch-shells, cylinders and plaques from Cones, votive of copper coloured historical Confiscation, Sumerian laws against Constantinople Contract tablets Contracted burial, Sumerian practice of Convoys, early service of Copper, Babylonian evidence with regard to objects from Fâra from Kimash lance of known to predynastic Egyptians its displacement of flint in Egypt effect of Egyptian skill in working Copper-mines, in Elam Corn, tribute of fees of _see also_ Grain _Corvée_ Couriers Court, expenses of the Crenelated buildings, Egyptian and Sumerian Crenelation, in walls of early Egyptian buildings Crete, traces of Babylonian culture in parallels between cultures of Elam and Cros, Commandant Gaston Cruciform monument, from Sippar Cult-centres Cult-images Cults, survival of Sumerian Cuneiform writing, invention of the Sumerian form the parent of other systems Cupbearers Cuq, Prof. Edouard Curium Cutha centre of Nergal's cult Cylinders, of Gudea Cylinder-seal, early migrations of the introduced into Babylonia by Sumerians possible Egyptian evolution of the earliest form of Cylinder-seals, engraving of composite monsters on official use of Sumerian early Semitic or Akkadian Egyptian Cypriote Cyro-Cappadocian and Hittite Cretan Cyprus, prehistoric pottery of its alleged conquest by Sargon of Agade inadequate evidence for the theory extent of Babylonian influence in

Dada, patesi of Shuruppak Dada, magician Dagan Daggers, Sumerian engraved panels from handles of Damgalnunna, temple of Damik-ilishu, king of Isin in chronological table Date-formulæ Date-lists Dates, trade in Dâti-Enlil, father of Shar-Gani-sharri Dating, methods of De Clercq Collection De la Fuÿe, Col. Allotte De Lancy, Barré De Morgan, J. De Sarzec, E. Dead, treatment of the Egyptian worship of the Decadence, in Sumerian art Deification, of early Babylonian kings effect of origin of Deir Deke Delitzsch, Prof. Friedrich Delta, Egyptian Demonology Deportation, policy of Dêr Dhorme, Père Paul Diarbekr Dilbat Dilmun Diorite from Magan Disk, from Phaestos Divination, by oil Diviners, professional Divorce, fees for abuse of Dîwânîya Diyala Door-sockets Dorians Doves, as offerings Dragons, in Sumerian art Drainage, systems of Dreams, of Eannatum; of Gudea Dress Drill, in engraving Droop, J. P. Dubâ'i Dudu, official at Ur-Ninâ's court Dudu, chief priest of Ningirsu under Entemena perforated block of Duerst, Dr. J. Ulrich Dugru, of Ningirsu Dumuzi-abzu Dun-..., patron deity of Ur-Ninâ's dynasty Dungi, king of Ur, policy of empire of his adoption of the bow Elamite campaigns of provincial administration of buildings of copper cone of deification of cult of in chronological table

Dungi-Babbar, 295 Dunpae, 299 Dunshagga, 109, 181, 267; temples to, 185, 264 Dûr-ilu, former reading of the name of Der, 226 Dûr-Sharrukîn, 217 Dûr-Sin, 206 Dynastic Chronicle, from Nippur, 59, 63, 279 f., 303, 308 f., 311 f., 315 Dynastic Egyptians, 323 Dynastic lists, 59 Dynasties, Babylonian, 62 f.

E-abzu, king of Umma E-anna, in Erech in Lagash E-babbar, in Sippar in Larsa in Lagash E-ditar-kalama E-engur E-khalbi E-kharsag E-kur E-meslam E-meteursagga E-ninnû earliest mention of remains of E-pa E-patutila E-sagila E-salgilsa E-silsirsir E-ulmash Ea; see Enki Ea-[...], king of Isin in chronological table Ea-bani, figures identified with Eagle, as emblem lion-headed Eannatum, patesi of Lagash reign of conquests of character of titles of buildings and canals of well of representations of in chronological table Ebarti, Elamite dynasty of Eclipse Edfu legend of Egypt, Palaeolithic and Neolithic remains in recent excavations on early sites in early cultural connections with Babylonia suggested relations with Elam early influence in Syria connection with Hittite culture with the Aegean hypothetical Semitic invasion of Upper granaries of Egyptian culture legends language religion, Semitic element in writing, origin of Egyptians, Neolithic and predynastic early dynastic Ekikala El-Hibba, excavations at inscriptions from El-Katr El-Ohêmir, site of Kish Elam, prehistoric peoples of prehistoric pottery of early cultural relations with Babylonia suggested cultural parallels with Egypt with Crete frontier of defeated by Eannatum defeated by Lu-enna relations of Manishtusu with conquered by Urumush relations of Sargon and Narâm-Sin with commercial intercourse with early Semitic immigration into Gudea's campaign in Dungi's conquest and administration of under the later kings of Ur defeated by Anu-mutabil Elamite invasions copper mines in craftsmen from patesis of governors of sukkals of sculpture and metal-work of Elamite titles Elamites Embalming, of the dead Emblems, sacred of Ningirsu of a goddess of Lagash of a city Elamite origin of certain Babylonian Enakalli, patesi of Umma successor of in chronological table Enannatum I., patesi of Lagash titles of in chronological table Enannatum II., patesi of Lagash raid of Elamites in reign of in chronological table Enannatum, chief priest of the Moon-god at Ur Enbi-Ishtar, king of Kish racial character of, 53; in chronological table Enbu-ilum Enetarzi, patesi of Lagash letter to in chronological table Engilsa, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Engraving, of stone, shell, etc. of metal Eniggal, royal steward; sealings of Enkhegal, king of Lagash in chronological table Enki his temple in Eridu his temple in Girsu Enkigal Enkomi Enlil his temple at Nippur his temple in Lagash frontier shrine to canal dedicated to name of Enlil-bani, king of Isin in chronological table Enlitarzi, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Enlulim Enshagkushanna, lord of Sumer in chronological table Ensignun Entemena, patesi of Lagash reign of silver vase of cone of in chronological table Enzu Eponym Lists Erech excavations at _see also_ Warka Eridu excavations at see also Abû Shahrain Erinda Erythraean Sea Esar, king of Adab Estates, purchase of Euphrates, names of changes in course of contrasted with Tigris period of high water in at Nippur Evans, Dr. Arthur Excavations, in Sumer and Akkad in Egypt in Persia in Turkestan Eyes, of statues

Face-paint Falûja Fâra, site of Shuruppak excavations at plan of discoveries at objects from Fees, priestly of diviners of the grand vizir and patesi for divorce Fetish emblems Figurines, of terra-cotta in precious metals Fire-necropoles, so-called Fish, as offerings Fisher, C. S. Fishery inspectors Fish-men Fish-ponds sacred Flint-knapping Flints, Egyptian Flute-player, to Ningirsu Forced labour _see also_ Slaves Fossey, Prof. Charles Foucart, G. Foundation-figures Foundation-offerings Fresnel, F. Frontier-ditches Frontier-shrines Funeral rites

Galalim, 185, 264, 267 Galu-andul, patesi of Lagash, 296; in chronological table, 362 Galu-Babbar, patesi of Umma, 23, 258; in chronological table, 361 Galu-Bau, patesi of Lagash, 255, 257; in chronological table, 361 Galu-Gula, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Galu-kazal, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Gankhar Garments, Sumerian and Semitic as fees trade in Garstang, Prof. J. Gatumdug Gautier, J.-E. Geikie, Sir Archibald Geikie, Prof. James Genouillac, H. de Geometric designs, on pottery Geshtin-anna Ghiaur Kala Gifts, accompanying the sale of land Gigunû Gikana, of Ninmakh Gilding, of carved stone objects Gilgamesh, figures identified with epic of Gimdunpae, wife of Gudea Gimil-ilishu, king of Isin in chronological table Gimil-Sin, king of Ur reign of cult of in chronological table Ginarbaniru Girnun Girsu, a division of Lagash temples in House of wall of canal of Gisha Gishkhu, Gishukh, former readings of the name of Umma Gladstone, Dr. J. H. Gods, racial character of Sumerian earliest Babylonian Sumerian and Egyptian symbols for Egyptian Gold, despatch of Gold-dust Grain, as tribute fees of trade in value of land reckoned in Grain-barges Granary-inspectors Grand vizir, seal of Graves, at Fâra at Surgliul and El-Hibba at Abû Hatab at Mukayyar at Warka at Babylon at Susa at Mussian in Egypt _see also_ Burial Greece Greek civilization Greek cross Greeks Grove, sacred Gu-edin, sacred land of Ningirsu its freedom from taxation divisions of Stele of Gubi Gubin Gudea, patesi of Lagash reign of date of buildings of monuments of statutes of seal of cylinders of sculpture of the period of character of deification of cult of in chronological table Gula Gungunu, king of Ur in chronological table Gunidu, father of Ur-Ninâ Gursar, grandfather of Ur-Ninâ Gutebu Gutiu slaves from

Hadadnadinakhe, palace of Haematite, for face-paint Hagios Onuphrios Hair, treatment of the Halbherr, Prof. Halévy, J. Hall, H. R. Hammâm Hammurabi Harp, Sumerian form of Harpoon, Egyptian kingdom of the Harran Head-dresses, forms of divine Hearst Expedition Hebrews Helm, Otto Helmets, Sumerian of Narâm-Sin Hepatoscopy, Sumerian origin of Herodotus Hêtime Heuzey, Léon Hieroglyphs, Egyptian Hittite Minoan on Phaestos disk Hilla Hilprecht, Prof. H. V. Hît Hittite culture cylinder-seals script power Hogarth, D. G. Hommel, Prof. Fritz Honey, for embalming Horse, introduction of the Horus Hoschander, J. Hrozný, F. Huber, E. Hulvan Human-headed bulls Hunger, J. Huntington, Ellsworth Huntsman, in suite of Semitic prince Hyksos

Iamutbal Ibalpel, patesi of Ashnunnak Ibalum Ibi-Sin, king of Ur in chronological table Ibla Ibn Rusta Ibn Serapion Ibni-sharru, seal of Idin-Dagan, king of Isin in chronological table Idin-ilu, patesi of Kisurra Ikhi Ili, patesi of Umma in chronological table Ili-Urumush Ilishma Ilsu-rabi, patesi of Basime Ilu-bani Iluma-ilu Imagery, in Sumerian art Imgig, the lion-headed eagle of Ningirsu Impae Imprecations Indian Ocean Indo-Europeans Inlaying Inspectors, Sumerian Invocations Iran Iranian plateau Iron Irrigation, in Babylonia and Egypt methods of oxen for Ishbi-Ura, king of Isin in chronological table Ishkun-Sin Ishme-Dagan, king of Isin in chronological table Ishnunuk, Anzanite form of the name Ashnunnak Ishtar Isin, in Sumer the Dynasty of racial character of the kings of relation of its dynasty to that of Babylon Isis Itaddu I., patesi of Susa Itaddu II,, patesi of Susa Iter-kasha, king of Isin in chronological table Itûr-Shamash Ivory Izinum, seal of

Jastrow, Prof. Morris Jensen, Prof. P. Jéquier, G. Jewellery, Elamite Jidr Jôkha, site of Umma plan of cones from tablets from

Ka-azag, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ka-azag, father of Ninkagina Kadi, 101; temple of Kagalad Kal-Rukhuratir, patesi of Susa Kal-Uli, ancestor of Kuk-Nashur Kalki, seal of Kanizi, early official of Shuruppak Kara-Uyuk, pottery from tablets from Kardaka Karkar Kashtubila, of Kazallu Kassite Dynasty, of Babylon period Kassites Kazallu Kengi Ker Porter, Sir R. Kerkha Kermanshah Kesh Khâbûr Khakhu Khala-Lama, daughter of Galu-khazal Khaladda, patesi of Shuruppak Khamasi Khamazi Kharakene, kingdom of Kharshi, Kharishi Khashkhamer, patesi of Ishkun-Sin Khegir Khenda Khotan Khukhnuri, Khukhunuri Khuluppu-trees Khummatur, possible reading of the name Lummadur Khumurti Khunnini, patesi of Kimash Khurshitu, site of Khutran-tepti, Elamite dynasty of Ki-babbar Ki-uri Ki-urra Kiab Kianki Kids, fees of Kilulla, seal of Kimash King, early signification of the title Kingi Kings, deification of Babylonian list of Kinunir Kirman Kisâri, king of Gankhar Kish, site of earliest kings of Sumerian victories over later kingdom of deification of kings of purchase of land at commercial relations with Lagash under Sumu-abu Kisurra, site of excavations at destruction of brick from _see also_ Abû Hatab Knives, panels from handles of Knossos Koldewey, Dr. Robert Komorof, Gen. Kopet Dagh Koptos Kubâdh I. Kudur-Nankhundi, king of Elam Kudurru-inscriptions Kûfa Kugler, F. X. Kuk-Kirmesh, sukkal of Elam Kuk-Nashur, or Kukka-Nasher, sukkal of Elam Kur-shesh, patesi of Umma in chronological table Kurdistan Kurgans, at Anau Kurna Kût el-'Amâra Kutir-Nakhkhunte Kutû Kuyunjik painted pottery from Neolithic settlement at

Lagash name and site of excavations at destruction of early history of under Eannatum and his successors sack of under Erech and Ur under Semitic domination later rulers of in the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad under the Dynasty of Ur emblem of _see also_ Tello Lagrange, Père M. J. Lament on the fall of Lagash Lampre, G. Lance, votive Lance-bearers, Sumerian Land, system of tenure purchase of Langdon, S. Lankuku Lapis-lazuli Larsa, site of excavations at as cult-centre history of see also Senkera Lasirab, king of Gutiu Laws, Sumerian of Urukagina of Hammurabi of Ninâ and Ningirsu of the Sun-god _see also_ Code Le Strange, G. Lebanon Legends, Sumerian Semitic Egyptian of Sargon Legge, F. Lehmann-Haupt, Prof. C. F. Letters, royal earliest example of a Libations Libation-vase Libation-water Libit-Ishtar, king of Isin in chronological table Libit-Ishtar, governor of Sippar Libyan settlers, in Egypt Lidda, child of Ur-Ninâ sex of Likhatcheff, M. Limestone, inlaying with Line-characters Lion, in decoration Lion-headed eagle, of Ningirsu Lipum, patesi of Anshan Lipush-Iau Literature, influence of Sumerian Liver-omens Loan-words Loaves, fees of as offerins Lóczy, Prof. de Loess Loftus, W. K. Loin-cloth, Semitic Lower Egypt Lower Sea, the Persian Gulf Lower World; see also Underworld Lu-enna, priest of Ninmar, letter from Lugunutur, wife of Enlitarzi Lugal-anda, patesi of Lagash sealings of full name of in chronological table Lugal-andanushuga; _see_ Lugal-anda Lugal-bur, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Lugal-ezen Lugal-ezendug, patesi of Nippur Lugal-kigub-nidudu, king of Erech and Ur in chronological table Lugal-kisalsi, king of Erech and Ur in chronological table Lugal-kurdub Lugal-magurri, patesi of Ur and commander of the fortress Lugal-me Lugal-shag-engur, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Lugal-sisa Lugal-tarsi, king of Kish in chronological table Lugal-uru temple of Lugal-ushumgal, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech his sack of Lagash reign of his western expedition in chronological table Lulubu Luminadimdug Canal Lummagirnunta Canal Lupad Lyre-player, to the Moon-god

Mace-heads, in Babylonia and Egypt of Mesilim of Shar-Gani-sharri of Lasirab of Gudea supports for ceremonial Maciver, Prof. D. Randall Madga Madka Magan Ma'er, Mari Magician, royal Makhar Makkan Mal-Amîr Malachite, for face-paint Managers, of estates Manishdussu, Manishduzzu, Anzanite forms of the name Manishtusu Manishtusu, king of Kish campaigns of obelisk of statues of cruciform monument probably to be assigned to date of in chronological table Mannu-dannu, prince of Magan Mantle, Sumerian Map, Babylonian, of the world Mâr-Ishtar, seal of Marad Mardin Marduk origin of emblem of Mari; _see_ Ma'er Markharshi Marsh, of Ninkharsag Martu (Amurru), a West Semitic god Masiam-Ishtar Maspero, Prof. G. Mash-Shuruppak, early official of Shuruppak Mastaba-tomb, of Aha Mat-burials Mat-weaving, Egyptian Median Wall Mediterranean, culture Lugal-zaggisi's expedition to Sargon and the Gudea's supplies from Gimil-Sin and the Meissner, Prof. B. Melukhkha Memphis Mena Ménant, J. Menêdir Menua Menudgid Minoan hieroglyphs Merv oasis of Mes Mesalim, son of Manishtusu Mesandu, slaves dedicated to Mesilim, king of Kish in chronological table Meslamtaea temple to Mesniu Mesopotamia Messengers, royal Messerschmidt, L. Metal-casting, Sumerian Egyptian Elamite Metal-work, engraved Meyer, Prof. Edouard Migrations, causes of Minotaurs Mishime Mjelli Mongols Monsters, in Sumerian art Moon-god dress of the _see also_ Enzu, Nannar, Sin Moon-cult Mosaic legislation Mother-of-pearl Moulds, for casting for bricks Mukayyar, site of Ur excavations at plan of contracted burials at inscriptions from Mummification Muninnikurta Murîk-Tidnim, the Wall of the West Musayyib Mussian, excavations at painted pottery from Mycenaean epoch Myres, Prof. J. L. Mythological beings

Nabataeans Nabonidus Naga-ed-Dêr Nagidda, patesi of Adamdun Nahr Hindîya Nakâda Naksu Nalua-stone Namazua Names, symbolical Nammakhni, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Nanâ Nannar, Moon-god of Ur Nannar-gugal Canal Narâm-Sin, king of Akkad, reign of buildings of date of successors of dress of his Stele of Victory the Pir Hussein Stele Omens of titles of deification of in chronological table Narmer Naruti Natik Effendi Naturalistic treatment, in Sumerian design in early Semitic sculpture Naville, Prof. E. Nebuchadnezzar II. Nekhune Neo-Anzanite texts Neolithic period, in Babylonia remains of, at Nineveh at Susa at Mussian at Anau in Egypt in Aegean and Mediterranean areas in Northern Greece wares of the Nergal Nets, of the gods New Moon, Feast of the Newberry, P. E. Nidaba Niebuhr, Carl Niffer, site of Nippur excavations at votive inscriptions from dated tablets from contracted burials at _see also_ Nippur Nin-azag-nun Nin-Isin Ninâ, goddess Ninâ, division of Lagash Ninab, possible reading of the name Ninni-esh Ninabukhadu Ninagal Nindar Nindub Nineveh Neolithic settlement at Ningal Ningandu, wife of Nammakhni Ningirsu temple of laws of emblem of representations of Ningirsu-ushumgal Canal Ningishzida, Gudea's patron deity monsters of temple of representation of Ninib Ninkagina Ninkharsag temple of Marsh of Ninki Ninlil Ninmakh Ninmar Ninni her temple at Erech her temples at Lagash her temple at Ninni-esh representations of Ninni-esh Ninsar Ninshakh, Urukagina's patron deity Nintud Niphates Nippur, site of excavations at early Babylonian plan of plan of the inner city at character and history of buildings at objects and inscriptions from _see also_ Niffer Noeldeke, A. North Africa Northern Babylonia, Semitic immigration into _see also_ Akkad Northern China Northern Greece, prehistoric pottery from Northern Syria Nubia Nudubtum, seal of Nuffar; _see_ Niffer Numeration, systems of Nusku Nutugmushda

Oannes Oaths, ratification of Obelisk, of Manishtusu description of names from Obsidian implements, from Kuyunjik Offerings, votive funerary Officials orders for supplies for Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. H. Oil, divination by for embalming Omen-texts, historical traditions in Omens, of Sargon and Narâm-Sin consultation of the Opis, site of history of Oppert, Jules Overseers, of landed property

Painting, of the body Palace-chamberlain Palace Tell, at Tello Palaeoliths Palaikastro Palermo Stele Palettes, early Egyptian Pamirs Parthian fortress palace Patesi, signification of the title in relation to the city-god decrease in influence of Patron deities on cylinder-seals Perforated plaques Perquisites, of the priesthood Perrot, G. Persia Persian Gulf Petrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders Petticoat, Sumerian Phaestos disk from Pictographs, Minoan Pictorial writing, systems of Picture characters Pilasters Pinches, T. G. Pir Hussein Plaid, Semitic Plans, Babylonian Plane-trees Plano-convex bricks Plaster Plating, with copper Poebel, A. Population, transference of. Post-Sargonic, use of term Pot-burials Pottery, Sumerian Elamite Cappadocian Egyptian Prayer, of dedication Predynastic Egyptians Prehistoric period, in Babylonia in Elam in Egypt Pre-Sargonic, use of term Presents, accompanying a sale of land Price, Prof. Ira M. Prices, regulation of Priesthood, power of the Sumerian exactions of the Proto-Elamite, system of writing Ptolemaic Canon Pukhia, king of Khurshitu Pumpelly, Raphael expeditions of Punt Pûr-Sagale Pûr-Sin; _see_ Bûr-Sin Purification, rites of

Racial types Radau, Hugo Ranke, H. Rassam, H. Rawlinson, Sir H. C. Red Sea Reed, of Enki Reeds, huts of; roofs of Reisner, G. A. Reservoirs Revenue, farming of the Revolts, against Manishtusu against Sargon Rhodes Richthofen, Baron Ferdinand von Rîm-Sin, king of Larsa Rimush, probable reading of the name Urumush Ringed staff, as emblem Rîsh-Adad, king of Apirak Ritual, Sumerian Rogers, Prof. R. W. Romans Rule, architect's Russian Turkestan

Sab-Dagan Sabu, in Elam Sacrifice Sagantug Sa'îd Muhammad Sakjegeuzi, potsherds from Sakli Sale, deeds of Samarra Samâwa Samsu-iluna Samsun Sand-dunes, origin of Sandals, introduction of Sangu-priest Sarcophagus-burials Sargon of Agade historical character of his identification with Shar-Gani-sharri age of Legend of Omens of Chronicle of "sons of the palace" of Sargonids Sassanian period Satuni, king of Lulubu Sayce, Prof. A. H. Schäfer, Heinrich Scheil, Père V. Schmidt, Dr. Hubert Schnabel, P. Schrader, Eberhard Sculpture, Sumerian early Semitic Elamite Egyptian, Sea, of the West Sea-country Seal-cutting Seal-impressions, proto-Elamite Seal-stones, Cretan Sealings Sebene Su Seistan Seleucia Semiramis Semites, racial characteristics of immigrations of cause of Semitic migrations domination of influence of sculpture of hypothetical Egyptian invasion of Semitisms Senkera, site of Larsa excavations at inscriptions from Sennacherib Ser-i-Pul-i-Zohab Serpents, in Sumerian art Shabara Shad-Bitkim, Field of Shagarakti-Buriash Shagpada Shagshag, wife of Urukagina Shakanshabar Shakh, conquest of Shakh, royal steward Shakh-Bau Shamash Shar-Gani-sharri, king of Akkad, reign of his identification with Saigon conquests of in relation to Cyprus administrative system of empire of buildings of mace-head of stele of victory possibly his name of deification of date of in chronological table Sharlak. king of Kutû Sharru-Gi, king of Kish Stele of name of son of date of in chronological table Sharru-Gi-ili Sharru-uktn Shashru Shatra Shatt 'Ateshân Shatt el-'Arab Shatt el-Farakhna Shatt el-Hai Shatt el-Kâr Shatt en-Nîl Shaving, Sumerian practice of Shêkh Bedr Shell, Sumerian use of Shemsu-Hor Shid-tab Shields, Sumerian Shilkhak-In-Shushinak Shilkhakha, sukkal of Elam Shimash Shimbi-ishkhuk Ships Shirpurla, Lagash; see Lagash Shirukdu', Shirukdukh, sukkal of Elam Shrines, local Shumerû Shumu-abi Shunet ez-Zebîb Shurippak Shuruppak, site of excavations at destruction of god of inscriptions from _see also_ Fâra Shushinak Shutruk-Nakhkhunte Sigbirra Sigiresh Silver, engraving upon as standard of exchange from the mountains Simanu Simash Simashgi Simebalar-khuppak, sukkal of Elam Simuru Sin; _see also_ Nannar Sin-idinnam Sin-ikisha, king of Isin in chronological table Sin-magir, king of Isin in chronological table Sin-muballit Sinai Sinaitic peninsula Sippar, site of excavations at history of _see also_ Abû Habba Siri Siu Skins, clothing of Skulls, measurement of Slate-carvings, Egyptian Slavery Slaves, public sacred foreign recruiting of Smith, Dr. Elliot Smith, George Sneferu Somaliland Sorcerers Southern Arabia Spear, or lance, Sumerian use of Spouting vase, symbol of the Stamps, for reliefs Standards, carried in battle of a goddess Statues, Sumerian early Semitic of Manishtusu of Ur-Bau of Gudea symbolical names for offerings to significance of Stein, M. Aurel Stelæ, of delimitation of victory Stewards Stilus Stone, rare in Sumer Egyptian vessels of Storehouses Storm-god, West Semitic Strong drink, fees of Su-people Subartu Sûk el-'Afej Sukkal-makh, title Sukkallu, significance of title Sumer, limits of names for inhabitants of system of land tenure in Sumerian civilization, age of achievements of influence of Sumerian reaction, under the kings of Ur "Sumerian controversy" Sumerians, racial characteristics of racial affinity of female types of position of women among original home of earliest settlements of their weapons and method of fighting close of political career of Sumu-abu Sumu-ilu, king of Ur in chronological table Sun-god, temples of laws of _see also_ Babbar, Shamash Sun-worship, Babylonian centres of Egyptian Sunanam Surghul excavations at Susa, excavations at first settlement at earliest form of burial at "second period" at objects from early patesis of native Elamite rulers of history of Symbolism, in writing Synchronisms Syria coast of Northern Syro-Arabian desert Syro-Cappadocian cylinder-seals pottery

Tablets from Tello Taklamakan Desert Tarim basin Taurus Tax-gatherers Taylor, Col. J. E. Tell, of the Tablets "de la Maison des Fruits" Tell Ibrâhîm, site of Cutha Tell 'Îd Tell Lahm Tell Manjûr Tell Sifr Tello, site of Lagash excavations at plan of remains of buildings at objects from Temple-accounts Temple-towers Temples, early Sumerian buildings attached to enclosure of a Temti-agun, sukkal of Susa Temti-khalki, sukkal of Elam Tepe Mussian; _see_ Mussian Terra-cotta, stamped figures of Testing-house, for weights Theft, laws against Thessaly Thinis This Thompson, R. Campbell Thompson, M. S. Throwing-stick Thumb-marks, on bricks Thureau-Dangin, F., researches of referred to Tidanu Tidnu Tig-abba Tigris changes in channel of contrasted with Euphrates period of high water in upper reaches of Timat-Enlil Time-reckoning _see also_ Dating Tin, as an alloy Tirash Tithes Toscanne, P. Trade-routes Transcaspia Treaties Tribute, in grain Tukîn-khatti-migrisha Tupliash; _see_ Ashnunnak Turkestan Tutu Tuz-Khurmati

Ubara Ubil-Ishtar, an Akkadian prince Ug-edin Canal Ug-me, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ugigga, battle of Ukush, patesi of Umma in chronological table Ullu Umanu Umma, site of, reading of name of, history of destruction of _see also_ Jôkha Underworld, 149 Ungnad, Prof. A. Upper Egypt Upper Sea, the Mediterranean Ur, site of excavations at as cult-centre earlier history of Dynasty of Sumerian reaction under kings of deification of kings of downfall of the Dynasty of later history of _see also_ Mukayyar Ur-abba, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ur-Babbar, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ur-baga Ur-Bau, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ur-Bau, son of Bûr-Sin I. Ur-Dunpae Ur-E, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ur-Engur, king of Ur reign of buildings of architectural development under deification of in chronological table Ur-Enlil, patesi of Nippur Ur-gar, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ur-gigir, patesi of Adamdun Ur-ilim, patesi of Susa Ur-Khumma, possible reading of the name Urlumma Ur-Lama I., patesi of Lagash cult of in chronological table Ur-Lama II., patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ur-mama, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ur-nabbad, patesi of Nippur Ur-nesu, patesi of Umma in chronological table Ur-Ninâ, king of Lagash, reign of date of store-house of bas-reliefs of close of dynasty of offerings to statue of in chronological table Ur-Ningirsu, patesi of Lagash, reign of his relations to the Dynasty of Ur engraved shell of in chronological table Ur-Ningirsu, priest of Ninâ, probably to be identified with the patesi Ur-Ningislizida, patesi of Ashnunnak Ur-Ninib, king of Isin in chronological table Ur-Ninpa Ur-Ninsun, patesi of Lagash in chronological table Ur-Pasag, patesi of Dungi-Babbar Ura-imitti, king of Isin in chronological table Urbillu Uri-zi Urkarinnu-wood Urkium, patesi of Susa Urlumma, patesi of Umma in chronological table Urmi, Lake Urnuntaea Urri Ursu Ur tar Uru, a division of Lagash Uru-azagga, a division of Lagash temples in, 259, 264; fortification of Urukagina, king of Lagash, reign of date of reforms of buildings of family of fate of predecessors of records from inscribed plaque of in chronological table Urukagina, son of Engilsa Urukagina, father of Abba-dugga Urumush, or Rimush, king of Kish, reign of fate of period of in chronological table Urzage, king of Kish in chronological table Ush, patesi of Umma in chronological table Ushu-wood Ut-napishtim Utug, patesi of Kish in chronological table Uzargarshana

Van, Lake Vases, votive for libations for body-paint Vegetable motives, on Elamite painted pottery Visions; _see_ Dreams Vultures, Stele of the, description of referred to origin of popular name of

Wage, A. J. B. Wâdi Hammamât Ward, W. Hayes Warka, site of Erech excavations at plan of bricks from contracted burials at Water, for libation Wax writing-tablet, origin of Weapons Sumerian Semitic Weights Weissbach, Prof. F. H. Well, of Eannatum West, Sea of the Wall of the extent of Babylonian influence in the Western Asia, 3; early ceramics of Western Semites, origin of the their destruction of Sumerian towns invasions of Wheat, cultivation of original home of in earliest stratum at Anau Wigs, Sumerian Wine, fees of Winckler, Prof. Hugo Wind-erosion, effects of Wizards Women, position and rights of clothing of Sumerian statuettes of Woolley, C. L. Worship, scenes of Writing, invention of cuneiform Elamite forms of origin of Egyptian system of Hittite; Minoan Wuswas

Yâkût Yotkan Yurung-kash

Zâb, Lower Zabalu-wood Zabshali Zagros mountains pass Zakhara Zakro, sealings from Zamama temple of Zambia, king of Isin in chronological table Zarik, patesi of Susa Zarzari Zaula Ziggurat, institution of the at Nippur of Gudea Zimanak, Field of Zimmern, Prof. Heinrich Zuzu, king of Opis in chronological table

[Illustration: BABYLONIA Showing the Sites of Ancient Cities.]