Anna's Archive

The Assumed Conflict between Sumerians and Semites in Early Mesopotamian History
Author(s): Thorkild Jacobsen

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Dec., 1939), pp. 485-495
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/594482
Accessed: 23-02-2016 17:34 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American
Oriental Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:34:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ASSUMED CONFLICT BETWEEN SUMERIANS AND
SEMITES IN EARLY MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY
THORKILD JACOBSEN
UNMERSITYOF CHICAGO
ACCORDINGto accepted views the early history of Mesopotamia

is essentially the history of a racial conflict; its events represent
stages in a deadly struggle between two inimical racial groups,
Sumerians and Semites. In that struggle the Semites, who could
draw on racial reserves in Syria and Arabia, came out victorious.
After a long-drawn and bitter fight lasting through generations
they defeated, under their gifted leader Sargon, the Sumerians,
who were forced thenceforth farther and farther south. Except for
a short-lived Sumerian " come-back" under the Third Dynasty of
Ur, that victory made the Semites masters of Babylonia forever
after.
How thoroughly this view dominates at present accounts of
Mesopotamian history may be seen from headings in Breasted's
Ancient Times of 1935; 1 they are:
The Lands and Races of Western Asia
Rise of Sumerian Civilisation in the Age of the City-kingdoms
and the Early Struggle of Sumerian and Semite
The First Semitic Triumph: the Age of Sargon
Union of Sumerians and Semites: the Revival of Ur and the
Kings of Sumer and Akkad
The Second Semitic Triumph: the Age of Hammurapi and After
Every phase is here presented in terms of racial conflict, the fight
for supremacy between Sumerians and Semites constitutes the main
theme.
Now it must always be the fate of historical theories, however
widely accepted, to be tested and retested as new material widens
the horizon of the historian; so inasmuch as a considerable amount
of new material has come to light since the theory stated above was
1 Breasted, Ancient Times. A History of the Early World (2d ed., 1935),
chap. v, secs. 13-17. Practically all the more recent histories share this
view; compare Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, Vol. I, 2 (3d ed.;
1913); King, A History of Sumer and Akkad (1916); Hall, The Ancient
History of the Near East (7th ed.; 1927); etc.
485
486 Thorkild Jacobsen
first formulated it seems indeed timely to test whether older Meso-

potamian history actually centers around a racial conflict. Such a
test will naturally have to concentrate on the period now called
"The First Semitic Triumph," the age of Sargon of Akkad; for
here, where according to; present opinion the two races after long
preliminary struggles clash in a decisive battle, we should, if any-
where, find clear lines. The fundamental theme Sumerian versus
Semite-must stand out supreme.
Stripped of all incidentals, the events of this period may be sum-
marized as follows: Lugalzagesi, ruler of Umma, a small Sumerian
city-state in the south, began his spectacular career by attacking
and practically destroying the neighboring city-state of Lagash,
burning and plundering its temples.2 Next, possibly through other
similar victories, we find Lugalzagesi as king of the important
center Uruk.3 The complete defeat and destruction of the city
Kish in northern Babylonia should in all probability also be ascribed
to him.4 His position as undisputed master of the country was
officially recognized by the Enlil temple in Nippur.5 Lugalzagesi's
downfall was wrought by a former cupbearer of the king of Kish,
Sargon, who had founded a new city, Agade.6 In a series of battles
Sargon succeeded in defeating first Lugalzagesi and afterwards
other important city-rulers, such as the rulers of Ur, E-Ninmar,
and Umma.7 He thus took over the dominating position which
2SAK 56 k.
Ibid. 152 vi 2; the Sumerian King List (Langdon, OECT II, PI. III)
vi 24 f.
4 The fall of Kish is mentioned before that of Uruk and the rise of Sargon
in the legendary text edited by GUterbock in ZA, N. F. VIII (1934) 25,
1. 2. It is also vouched for by the fact that Sargon rebuilt and resettled
this city after he had defeated Lugalzagesi. Poebel, HGT, No. 34 iii 34'-38',
iv 33'-37'.
6 Shown by his title e n s i g a l dE n-il 1, " grand ishakku of Enlil " (SAX
154 i 15f.) and by the statement, ibid., 11. 36-41: U4 dEn-lil lugal kur-
kur-ra-ke4 Lugal-zh-ge-si nam-lugal kalam-ma e-na-sl-ma-a, "When
Enlil, king of all lands, had given Lugalzagesi the kingship of the country."
a The Sumerian King List (Langdon, OECT II, PI. III) vi 31-36:
A-ga-de?ki? Aar-ru-ki-in .... -ba-ni nu-giril2 qa-su-du8 Ur-dza-ba4-ba4
lugal A-<ga>-deki it A-ga-deki mu-un-dii-a lugal-hm, "In Agade
Sargon (Sharru (im) kin )-his . . .. was a date-grower-cupbearer of Urza-
baba, king of Agade, the one who built Agade, became king."
7 Poebel, HGT, No. 34 i 12-61, ii 12-61, vii 26'-35', viii 1'-25', and see
Poebel's discussion, HT, pp. 217-22.
Sumerians and Semites 487
Lugalzagesi had held, and was likewise recognized by Enlil in

Nippur.8
The question which we have to decide is this: Does this series
of events, notably the war between Lugalzagesi and Sargon, repre-
sent a long-brewing decisive clash between the two races which
formed the population of Babylonia, Sumerians and Semites, or is
it merely a fight between purely political units, two city-states
vying with each other for power and influence? In trying to answer
this question let us consider first the authority of the two leaders,
Lugalzagesi and Sargon, as they themselves express it in their titles.
That should give us an indication concerning the nature of the
groups they were leading-whether racial or political.
We find that Lugalzagesi designates himself first as king of a city,
Uruk, then, in a second title, as " king of the land." He H has no
titles indicating leadership of a racial group such as " leader of the
Sumerians." Similarly, Sargon designates himself first as a city
king, king of Agade, king of Kish, and secondly also as " king of
the land." 10 There is no title such as "leader of the Semites."
The groups which our two dominant figures are leading are thus,
according to their titles, purely political: first a city-state, then a
political-geographical entity, the land."
8 Shown by his title ensi gal dEn-lil (HGT, No. 34 i 10-11) and by
the statement, ibid. iii 7'-12': [Aar-um-ki] rlugall kalam-ma-ra dEn-
lil-le lt-ga[b]-bl-ru nu-na-sl a-[ab-ba] igi-nim-ma-ta a-ab-ba sig-
sig-se dEn-lll-rlel [mu-na-si], "To Sargon, king of the land, Enlil gave
no opponent, from the upper sea to the lower sea Enlil gave unto him."
See also Poebel, HT, p. 219.
9SAK, p. 152, No. VI 2 i 3-5: Lugal-za-ge-si lugal Unuki-kh lugal
kalam-ma. In the inscription HGT, No. 34 x 3'-8', he uses only titles
denoting rulership of cities: be' qaqqar Unuki air qaqqar Uriki, "lord of
the territory of Uruk, king of the territory of Ur."
10Poebel, HGT, No. 34 vii 15'-23': rFar-ru-kil air Agadki .ar
Kikiki ... . r KALAM-MAki. As king of Agade only: HGT, No. 34 i
33-36, ii 30-32, x 35'-37', xv 15-17; PBS XV, No. 41 viii 14-16. As king
of Kish only: HGT, No. 34 vi 31'-33', xi 11'-13'; PBS XV, No. 41 vi 1-3,
xiii 15-17. As "king of the land" only: HGT, No. 34 iii 1-3 and 31'-33',
iv 1-3, 30'-32', and 50'-51', viii 26'-28'; PBS XV, No. 41 ix 9-11 and 13-15,
x 22-24.
11 Since the title "king of the land (kal ama)" is used-exclusively-
by the Semite Sargon, it is clear that it cannot designate leadership of the
Sumerian race as opposed to the Semitic. It is obviously a title with essen-
tially political and geographical connotations. This agrees with what we
know of the history of this term, for lugal kal ama, " king of the land,"
The absence of any racial grouping shown by these titles becomes

still more noticeable when we turn to the inscriptions of Lugalzagesi
which we possess. Among them is one that had once been carved
meant originally merely "king of the Nippur region." As Poebel has
shown, k al a m a, " the land," is a variant form of E me-sAL k a n a g a, " the
land," and of Eme-Kur kingi (r), "southern Babylonia, Sumer" (HT, p.
152; cf. GSG, p. 2, n. 2). The latter form, kingir, must go back to older
*kinigir (the 1 is preserved as a in kanaga, kalama) and is to be
analyzed ki-Nigir, " territory Nigir," " the Nigi r region." Inasmuch as
-
the Ni i r which occurs here can develop into a later form Ni pp u r, and
inasmuch as we have the direct statement of ancient commentators that
ki-Nigir (written k e-en-gi = ki-N (1) Ai (r) ), " territory Nigir," is Nippur
(King, Seven Tablets of Creation I 217, No. 32, 574 rev., 1. 5), there can
be little doubt that Nigir actually represents an older form of that name.
The history of the word Nigir and the terms in which it occurs may
be outlined as follows:
1) In Nippur itself the ancient form of the city name, Nigir, would
seem to have developed into *Nibir > *Nibur > Nip pur. On A > b see
Poebel, GSG ? 79. This development is, it should be noted, as yet known
only from Em e-SAL. However, it may well have occurred also in the
Nippur dialect, which had leanings toward Eme-SAL (see Poebel, Alt-
orientalische Studien Bruno Meissner zum sechzigsten Geburtstag ....
gewidmet . . . . II 167). Perhaps the occurrence of the Akkadian word
bukannu (loan-word from Sumerian giA-gan, presupposing a pronunciation
bu(?)gan in ana ittiu, which represents the legal language in Nippur,
might be quoted; i > u by assimilation to the preceding labial b. The
Sumerian b was, as so often, heard by the Akkadians as p (cf. bal a : pal,
Buranun : Purattu, etc.). It is reduplicated since it follows a short
stressed vowel.
2) Outside Nippur, in regions speaking Eme-SAL, the name Nigir had
a slightly different development: *Nigir > *Ai gir > * Aimir > Aumi r,
the latter being the well-known term Shumer by which southern Babylonia
was designated by the Akkadians. On Eme-Ku n = Eme-sAL 9 see Poebel,
GSG ? 83 and ZA N. F. IV (1929) 84-87. On Eme-Ku = Eme-SALm see
Poebel, GSG ? 76. On i > u by assimilation to following m cf. sim : sum,
nim: num, etc. The change may well have taken place after the word
was borrowed by Akkadian, since there i > u between sibilant and labial
as in gimu > gumu; cf. Speiser, Mesopotamian Origins, pp. 55 f.; the usual
derivation of gumir from kingi r by palatalization of k is rightly criticized
by Speiser (loc. cit.) on the grounds that we have no evidence that pala-
talization occurred in that language. (His deduction that gumir accord-
ingly must be an Elamite word is hardly probable now when it can be shown
to be a normal development of *Nigir.)
3) In Eme-SAL regions, possibly different from those where Nigir be-
came gumir, the term ki Nigir, "the Nippur region," was pronounced
ka Naga (r) (on the preference for the vowel a in southern Eme-sAL
on a statue of Lugalzagesi himself which stood in the temple of the

chief Sumerian deity, Enlil, in the thoroughly Sumerian city of
[dialect from Lagash] see Poebel in ZA, N. F. III [1927] 259), which
developed regularly into k a n a m a > k a I a m a. On a > m in E m e-SAL see
Poebel, GSG ? 76; on n > 1 before a labial see ibid. ? 64.
For the understanding of the semasiological development which changed
Au m i r, K i n k i r, and k a 1a m from their original meanings " Nippur " and
" Nippur region " into geographical terms for southern Babylonia as a whole
the parallel development of the city name Kish into a term meaning " world "
or the like (Ki s = kigatu, Deimel, AL, No. 425. 2. On kiggatu, "world,"
see Delitzsch, 1W, pp. 360 f. and the equations sa&r,"horizon," ul-ga'r-ra,
" firmament circle," " horizon " = kisgatu there quoted) is very instructive.
We have indications that the kings of Kish at a very early date succeeded
in gaining supremacy over most of the rival city rulers in Babylonia
(according to the text edited by Witzel, Orientalia V [nova series; 1936]
pp. 331-46 their rule extended to Uruk in southern Babylonia) so their
title would naturally become imbued with a meaning beyond what it actu-
ally said, king of the city-state Kish, and imply also the supremacy over
other city-states which the kings of Kish held. For that reason we find
that other kings, as e.g. Mesanepada of Ur, prefer it to their own title
(in Mesanepada's case, king of Ur) when they can claim fairly universal
dominion, because it already expressed that idea. Through such usage the
original title " king of Kish " lived on (in the old orthography of the time
of the kingdom of Kish, before determinative for place was used) down to
Assyrian times as a title implying worldwide dominion. The same develop-
ment must be behind the later usage of Aumir, Kinkir, and kalam. At
a very early time the kings of Nippur must have dominated the other cities
in southern Babylonia so that their title " king of Nippur " came to imply
supremacy of all southern Babylonia. To that period dates naturally also
the supremacy of the god of Nippur, Enlil, over other Sumerian gods.
Because of these implications of the title lugal kingira(k), "king of
Nippur," other kings would adopt it-as was the case with the title lugal
Ki si (k) -when they had, widened their influence to correspond to that of
the old Nippur kings; so ki Nigir>kinai(r), used mainly to express
this secondary implication, i. e., supremacy over southern Babylonia, became
divorced from the city to which it really referred and came to mean south-
ern Babylonia. The same development may be assumed for the dialectal
form lugal kalama(k) (or better umun kalama(k) !). Since this title
seems to be closely connected with Uruk (see Poebel, HT, p. 153) it repre-
sents in all probability the pronunciation of lugal ki Nigir-ak in the
dialect of that city. Used by the Uruk kings to designate authority over
southern Babylonia as a whole, k a lam a took on that shade of meaning:
"southern Babylonia," "the (whole) land," and as such it was borrowed
back into the main dialect, Em e-Ku, where we find it as the term for "the
land." The Akkadians, finally, borrowed the third form, iumir, also origi-
nally meaning just Nippur, to designate the same geographical conception,
southern Babylonia.
5
Nippur.12 That inscription is written in Semitic! Would the

leader in a bitter racial fight, writing on a statue of his own in the
temple of his own god in his own city, use the language of his hated
racial enemies? Is it not more natural to assume that no racial
conflict existed and that Akkadian accordingly was considered as
good a medium for expressing one's thoughts as Sumerian ?
To the same conclusion leads the evidence from the northern part of
the country, the names of the rulers of Kish in the period with which
we are dealing. We find here a Sumerian queen, Ku(g)-dBaba,l3
who gives her son a Semitic name, Puzur-dSin. Puzur-dS~n in turn
gives his son a Sumerian name,, Ur-dZababa(k), and this Sumerian
U r-dZababa(k) employs a Semitic vizier, Sarrum-kin.'4 Such in-
terchange of Sumerian and Semitic names within the same family 15
can only mean that racial differences were of little importance to
the people and that Sumerian and Semitic names were considered
of equal standing.
Turning now to the war itself between Lugalzagesi and Sargon
we again find evidence which proves incompatible with the idea of
a racial struggle. The pantheon of the Semites in Mesopotamia
can be pieced together from Old Akkadian proper names without
difficulty. Sin, Shamash, Eshtar, Ea, and a few others were the
gods whom the Semites worshiped. If Sargon fought his battles
as leader of the Semitic race, these gods should therefore be the
ones who led him and his Semites on to victory and supported his
cause. Actually, however, not a single one of them seems to have
taken any interest in his fight. More puzzling still, the deities who
did help him and indeed all those who appear in closer relation
with him were Sumerian. We find in his inscriptions Inanna, An,
Enlil, and Sargon's personal god, dA-MAL.16 It was Enlil who
12 Poebel, HGT, No. 34 x 3'-32'. See also 11. 33'-34'.
13 [For this reading, i. e., Kii-dB a-b a,, see Thureau-Dangin, Les homo-
phones sum6riens, p. 40. E. A. S.]
14The Sumerian King List (Langdon, OECT II, PI. III) v 36-41 and vi
9-14, and cf. vi 31-33.
16 [An analogous situation may be observed in the Hurro-Semitic group
of Nuzi. E. A. S.]
16 The complete list of the deities mentioned by Sargon is: An, E nl il,
Inanna, dA-MAL, Utu, and Dagdn. The last two are of no interest to us
here since their mention has no bearing on the Babylonian conflict with
which we are concerned. Ut u appears exclusively in the curses against
those who would destroy the inscriptions, and his occurrence there is natur-
" judged " Sargon's " case" and made him undisputed master of
the country, it was to him that Sargon presented the captured
Lugalzagesi as trophy, and it is as his chief representative on earth,
as ensi-gal dEn-lil, that Sargon appears in the inscriptions.'7
ally dictated by the fact that he was god of justice (the passages are:
Utu alone, IGT, No. 34 iii 42' and iv 41'. With Enlil, HGT, No. 34 ix
3'-5'; PBS XV, No. 41 xi 8'-10'. With Enlil and Inanna, HGT, No.-
xi 21'-24'). Dagqn, god of the country on the Middle Euphrates, is men-
tioned only in connection with Sargon's later campaigns which took him to
that region (PBS XV, No. 41 v 13' ff. + HGT, No. 34 v 1'-3'; PBS XV, No.
41 vi 19'ff. + HGT, No. 34 vi 1'-4') and has nothing to do with the early
wars that made Sargon master of Babylonia. As for the other gods, little
need be said about the Sumerian character of An and Enlil. Inanna,
written dINNIN, can only be the Sumerian goddess; for in this period the
sign was not used for the Semitic Eshtar, who was consistently written
Es&-tdr, as may be seen from proper names. That the last, dA-MAL, was a
Sumerian deity is indicated by the more explicit form dA-MAL-gig-duU-ga,
" disease-decreeing dA-MAL," which is found in CT XXIV, PI. 13, 1. 49 (cf.
ibid., PI. 25, 1. 100). The identification with the Akkadian dBennu, god of
epilepsy (?), given there, throws light on dA-MAL'S character and gives point
to the mention of his battle-mace in Sargon's inscription (HGT, No. 34 vii
26'-32').
17 The roles which according to the inscriptions the various gods played
are:
Enl i I " judged " Sargon's " case," i. e., the dispute with Lugalzagesi (dEnn-
Ult dmn-su i-di-nu-ma), PBS XV, No. 41 x 2'-5'. The captured Lugalzagesi
Sargon "brought in fetters (cf. Landsberger, ZA, N. F. I (1924) 2162 and
" Fauna " p. 87) to the gate of Enlil " (g~isi-gar-ta k6k dEn-lil-l a-se [e]-tfim
/ in gi-ga4-rim3 a-na. bab dEn-litl u-ru-uf), HGT, No. 34 i 23-31 and ii 22-29;
PBS XV, No. 47 viii 4'- 13'. Enlil " gave Sargon no opponent " (9 a r-u m-k i
.... -ra dEn-lil-le Ii'-ga[b]-bf-ru [var. hfi-gab-ru] n u-n a-sl, Akkadian
Rar-ru-kt .... dEn-ltl ma-hi-ra la i-di-gum), i. e., he made him undisputed
master of the country (HGT, No. 34 iii 1-6, iv 1-6, v 13'-15', vi 18'-20', viii
29'-31'; PBS XV, No. 41 x 25'-28'). He " gave him (the territory) from the
upper sea to the lower sea" (HGT, No. 34 iii 7'-12'if. and vii 32'-37'ff.;
PBS XV, No. 41 iv 1'-3' and xiii 9'-13'). Sargon puts up statues in front of
Enlil (HGT, No. 34 ix 22' and xi 8') and consecrates booty (?) to him (PBS
XV, No. 41 x 20'). In unclear context Enlil is mentioned (PBS XV, No. 41
xiii 3'; cf. xv 1'). Active help Sargon received also from his personal god,
dA-MAL. It was with the battle-mace of dA-MAL that he won his decisive
victory over Lugalzagesi and the ensi(k)'s following him (HGT, No. 34
vii 26'-32' + PBS XV, No. 41 vii 1-6; Lugalzagesi is here referred to only
as " the king " but comparison with HGT, No. 34 i 12-32 and ii 12-29 shows
clearly that the same battle is meant). Sargon has dedicated an inscrip-
tion to dA-MAL in which he designates him as "his (personal) god" (HGT,
No. 34 vi 29-30). Sargon's religious titles show that he had special rela-
tions with Inanna, An, and Enlil; he' was MAAKIM-GI4 of Inanna, pa4-?i? of
Can we believe that the gods of the Semites would play no part
whatever in this all-important struggle of their people against the
Sumerians? Can we believe that the Sumerian gods should have
actively supported their deadly enemies, the Semites, and helped
them to defeat and subdue their own worshipers, the Sumerians?
Is it not perfectly clear that what the sources show is not a racial
grouping: Semites with Semitic gods against Sumerians with
Sumerian gods, but a purely political fight: two city-states, Agade
and Uruk, bidding for hegemony in Babylonia? It is those purely
political entities, Agade, Uruk, Babylonia, which are reflected in
the deities involved.18
We may now leave the strictly contemporaneous sources to con-
sider the impression which our events left upon the immediately
following generations. How did this fight go down in history and
literature? Do we find Semitic compositions glorifying the triumph
of their race amidst Sumerian works lamenting Sumerian defeat
and cursing the hated enemies?
We are fortunate in that we possess a Sumerian literary composi-
tion which has for its subject the rise and downfall of Sargon and
his dynasty.19 Nothing could be more fitting to show how the
An, and ensi(k)-gal of Enlil (see HGT, No. 34 vii 18'-25'). The same
titles appeared apparently in the damaged passages HGT, No. 34 i 1-11
and ii 1-11. HGT, No. 34 ix 30' ff. leaves out pa,-?ig Anim, perhaps through
a copyist's error.
18 The deities involved are, as shown in n. 16, dA-MAL, Inanna, An, and
Enlil. Of these dA-MAL was Sargon's personal god; Inanna was the city
";god " of Agade, Sargon's own city; An was the city god of Uruk, the city
of Sargon's opponent, Lugalzagesi; and Enlil, who had authority over all
of Babylonia, represents that political unit. It is not strange to find the
city god of Uruk in close connection with Sargon, who had defeated his
city; for the very fact that Sargon had been able to defeat Lugalzagesi
showed that An favored him and preferred Uruk to be ruled by him. That
the gods actually appear in Sargon's inscriptions as representatives of
political entities is also indicated by the order in which they appear in
Sargon's titles: Inanna, An, Enlil; for this is the historical order in which
Sargon gained authority over the political entities for which they stand:
first Agade, then Uruk by the victory over Lugalzagesi, and lastly all of
Babylonia. In the curses, on the other hand, where their political signifi-
cance is not important, they are listed in the order of the accepted pantheon:
An, Enlil, Inanna (see HGT, No. 34 v 22'-30').
19 H. de Genouillac, T.S', Nos. 64 and 66; Legrain, PBS XIII, Nos. 15,
43, and 47. The text has been well edited in transliteration and translation
by GUterbock in ZA, N. F. VIII (1934) 25-33. A few points where we differ
from his interpretation will be discussed in the following notes.
Sumerians felt about those rulers, no theme would more naturally

serve as a vehicle for the hate which the Sumerian author should
harbor against the oppressors of his race and for the " Schaden-
freude " which should fill him when that dynasty was overthrown.
Yet the text has no vestige of such feelings. On the contrary,
we find sympathy where we should have animosity. The text begins
with a historical expose: " When the displeasure of Enlil like the
Bull of Heaven had killed Kish, when like a great ox it had
trampled .... Uruk in the dust, and then and there ( ?)20 Enlil
had given to Sargon, king of Agade, lordship and kingship from
the south to the north " (1-6) and goes on to tell how Inanna, the
goddess of Agade, strove to make her city prosperous (7-24). She
filled Agade with gold, silver, and precious stones (25-27), to its
people she gave wisdom, gladness, and military prowess (29-37).
All lands had peace and security (38 f.). The king shone like the
sun on the throne dais in Agade (40 f.). The city wall of Agade
towered like a mountain range up toward heaven (42). Inanna
threw open the city gate,2' comparable-from the traffic flowing
through it-to the Tigris where it flows into the sea, and precious
wares poured into Agade from all the world (43-50). The depen-
dent city rulers and administrators sent the tribute straight in,22
monthly and yearly, and it grew in the palace of Agade like rising
waters23 (50-54). Inanna,however,for unknownreasons24 decided
20
KI-UD-BA. Guterbock (op. cit., p. 28, n. 7) refers to TRS, No. 16: 10a,
and OECT I 8: 27 and points out that in none of these passages can
KI-UD-BA have the usual reading k i s 1a b-b a, " on its uncultivated ground."
He proposes " in diesem Zeitpunkt," which must be approximately what is
meant. We have tentatively read k i -u-ba, i. e., ki-u4-b (i) -a, "in that
place and day " = " then and there " ( ?) .
21We read ku(g) dInanna-ke4 ka-bi IG bi-in-kid(!), "that gate holy
Inanna threw open."
22 TRS, No. 66 seems to have the better
text: si a-an-sa-e-ne, "they
make straight," i. e., "they send straight in," or with Gilterbock, "they
deliver correctly."
28A-gal A-ga-deki-ka a-gim sag mi-ni-ib-[il] must mean "in(!) the
palace of Agade it rose like waters."
24 These reasons may have been stated in the
obscure 11. 55-59. It is diffi-
cult, however, to divine the exact meaning of the passage. The two first
lines should perhaps be rendered pAD (! ) AdINANNA-b i k u (g) dI n a n n a-k e4
ru-te-ga nu-zu I-Tt(-gim A ki-gar silim-dam la-la-bi nu-um-gi, "This
tribute holy Inanna did not know how to receive, like a .... she did not
tire of the pleasure of completing (var. di-Ai-d6, " of building ") the house
which had been founded " (on I a-l a-b i . . -g i cf. IV R 9: 22). Gilterbock
to abandon the city. Agade was attacked, and before a fortnight

had passed, the kingship had been given elsewhere (55 fF.).
There is clearly no racial feud in this text. Right from the
beginning, where the rise of Agade is mentioned as the last link in
the series Kish-Uruk-Agade, i. e., as one of three city-states which
gained supremacy in Babylonia, it is clear that the author is de-
scribing a city-state at the height of its power, not one race triumph-
ing over another. There can be no doubt that he is in full sympathy
with Agade, with the riches which came to it, with its wise, joyous,
militant inhabitants, and with the peace and security which then
reigned. He is certainly not describing the rise and downfall of a
hereditary, hated racial enemy.
Written when the Agade kings were no longer in power as a treat-
ment of the rise and fall of these Semitic conquerors by one of the
conquered Sumerians, the text which we have here quoted can be
counted on to give a true picture of Sumerian feelings. As we have
seen, it shows only friendly feelings. There is no animosity, not
even indications that the Agade kings were considered strangers,
their hegemony different from the previous hegemonies of Kish and
Uruk. And indeed, this total lack of hatred or even animosity is
shared by all other Sumerian texts known to us and is obviously
incompatible with the idea of a racial struggle. The struggle sup-
posed to form the keynote to Mesopotamian history would, if the
accepted view were true, be at once a racial and a civil war. Yet
we can comb the entire Sumero-Akkadianliterature without finding
a single expression of animosity, no "evil Semite," no "wicked
Sumerian."
Consider for a moment this absence of animosity, the Sumerian
writer's wise and peaceful Agade, and compare then the outburst
after a " racial war " of much smaller proportions, but one which
at least was real, the war against the Gutian conquerors: 25
" Gutium, a stinging viper of the mountains, an enemy of
the gods,.. who filled Sumer with evil, took the wife from
him who had a wife, the child from him who had a child, who
established iniquity and wickedness in the land."
Here is all the hate and all the bitterness for which we looked in
vain in the presumed racial conflict between Sumerians and Semites.
translates the first line, " Diese Speiseopfer konnte die heilige Inanna nicht
annehmen," and leaves the second untranslated.
25Thureau-Dangin in RA IX (1912) 112 i 1-14.
Reviewing the evidence, we can thus state that in this allegedly

racial conflict the leaders represent themselves in their inscriptions
as leaders of political units, not as leaders of racial groups. The
Sumerian leader, Lugalzagesi, writes in Semitic in the Sumerian
temple of the chief Sumerian god, Enlil, in the Sumerian city of
Nippur. Sumerian and Semitic names are given indiscriminately
within the same royal family. The Semitic gods stand by passively
and take no part in the decisive struggle of their race. The
Sumerian gods actively support their racial foes and lead the
Semites on to victory over their own worshipers. No single trace
of animosity between Sumerians and Semites can be found any-
where in the texts; on the contrary, Sumerian writers describe the
rise of their supposed oppressors with sympathy as a golden age.
We must accordingly abandon the idea of a racial war. The
Semitic population was very likely to a large extent formed through
constant filtering in of single families from the desert. It is obvious
that such single families, settling and adapting themselves to life
in the city or on the farm, would very soon feel as citizens of the
city-state to which they had happened to immigrate and where they
had become established. They would not constitute a common group,
united across existing political boundaries. Semites and Sumerians
lived thus, according to all the texts teach us, peacefully side by side
in Mesopotamia. The wars which shook that country and the aims
for which its rulers fought had nothing to do with differences of
race; the issues were purely political and were determined solely
by social and economic forces.26
26 Since the assumed racial conflict between Sumerians and Semites has
long been considered the fundamental issue in older Mesopotamian history,
one around which the known historical facts were grouped in presentations
of that history, a few words should perhaps be said as to what ought to
take its place. As I hope to show elsewhere, the basic factor is purely
political, a continual struggle between unifying and disuniting forces in
the country itself. The earliest phase of this struggle brought the rise of
the city-states with their thorough concentration of power in the hands of
the ens i (k) internally; externally merely short-lived, loosely knit, larger
states of feudal character: one city-state dominating, not ruling, the others.
A second important phase was introduced with Naramsin, who endeavored to
give the larger state endurance by administrative measures, to create a true
central administration. These efforts culminated under the Third Dynasty
of Ur but failed in their purpose of creating a nation with deep-rooted feel-
ing of unity. The following period of Isin and Larsa constituted politically
a relapse to the period of city-states, until Hammurabi's short-lived empire
succeeded in laying the foundations of a smaller but more lasting, chiefly
north Babylonian, state.

Anna's Archive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Anna's Archive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anna's Archive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Assumed Conflict between Sumerians and Semites in Early Mesopotamian History

Author(s): Thorkild Jacobsen

ACCORDINGto accepted views the early history of Mesopotamia

first formulated it seems indeed timely to test whether older Meso-

Lugalzagesi had held, and was likewise recognized by Enlil in

The absence of any racial grouping shown by these titles becomes

on a statue of Lugalzagesi himself which stood in the temple of the

Nippur.12 That inscription is written in Semitic! Would the

Sumerians felt about those rulers, no theme would more naturally

to abandon the city. Agade was attacked, and before a fortnight

Reviewing the evidence, we can thus state that in this allegedly

You might also like