Sumerian History in Chaos

by Damien F. Mackey It surely follows from my latest article (20th April, 2023): Sumerian Geography in Chaos (6) Sumerian Geography in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu that historians will not be able to give a definitive account of who the Sumerians were, from whence they originated, and what was the basis of their language. Nita Gleimius will introduce the enigmatic Sumerians with the phrase commonly used for them, “The Sumerian Problem” (2022): https://www.thecollector.com/sumerian-problem/ The Sumerian Problem(s): Did the Sumerians Exist? Did the Sumerian civilization really exist? Were they immigrants? And why is their language so unique? Oct 22, 2022 • By Nita Gleimius, BA Ancient Near Eastern Cultures & Biblical Archaeology Controversies regarding the Sumerian people — generally called “The Sumerian Problem” — started almost as soon as their civilization was rediscovered. After almost two centuries of discoveries and interpretations, and the deciphering of ancient cuneiform texts from various ancient Near Eastern sources, the very existence of the Sumerians as a distinct nation is still questioned today by some learned scholars. Add to this the various theories about ancient aliens and mysterious teachers, and we have a veritable melting pot of beliefs, myths, and interpretations that defy logic. Many Assyriologists and Sumerologists, like Thorkild Jacobsen and Samuel Noah Kramer, have contributed immensely to the unraveling and interpretation of facts from conjecture. They started to create a semblance of order using the conglomeration of information from archaeology, cuneiform texts, guesswork, and unsubstantiated theories. But even they had to guess and make assumptions. What Is the Sumerian Problem? Discovering our ancient roots is enlightening and wonderfully exciting, one clue leads to a discovery, which leads to another clue, which leads to another discovery, and so on — almost like a top-selling mystery novel. But imagine that your favorite mystery or crime novelist suddenly ends a book without tying up the pieces — and with some crucial pieces of the mystery still missing. Without crucial evidence, without enough hints to lead you further, you may check and recheck if you were right in your analysis and tentative conclusions. Sometimes archaeologists end up with just such a mystery. In the case of the Sumerians, the problems started from the very beginning; their very existence, their identity, their origin, their language, and their demise have all been questioned. Once most of the archaeological and linguistic fraternities agreed that a previously unknown group of people had in fact settled in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) before 4000 BCE, theories abounded. Scholars theorized, reasoned, and debated. Instead of arriving at a reasonable potential geographic location, questions and mysteries multiplied. The issue became several issues. The Sumerian Problem became so emotional for some scholars that they attacked each other openly and personally. The media had a field day, and the scholarly war became in itself part of the problem. The truth is that a civilization that lasted for more than 3,000 years [sic] would inevitably have gone through deep changes — in social, political, cultural, and economic terms. It will have been affected by outside factors such as the physical environment, contact with and incursions from outsiders, and pestilence. It would also have been impacted by population growth patterns, cultural changes, habits, the natural diffusion of immigrant cultures, as well as thought patterns, religious influences, internal strife, and wars among city-states. Mackey’s comment: Problems, questions, are arising due to a greatly over-expanded chronology and to an uncertain geography, making it impossible to be really definite about the situation. Hence the question below: Why Is There a Problem? How then can we define such a multiplex of societal epochs as one single civilization? Were the Sumerians rough and robust outsiders that took over an already refined and more advanced southern Mesopotamian society? Background: Why Is There a Problem? After thousands of years of nomadic and semi-nomadic seasonal settlements created by hunter-gatherers, some settlements in southern Mesopotamia were settled all year round. From around 4000 BCE there appears to have been a relatively rapid development in agriculture, culture, and technology. Mackey’s comment: The Great Agricultural Leap had begun before this, at Karaca Dağ. See e.g. my article: Great Leap to Agriculture made by Noah’s family in mountains of SE Turkey (9) Great Leap to Agriculture made by Noah’s family in mountains of SE Turkey | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Low-lying Sumer was still, at that stage, under the influence of the vestiges of the Flood. Far from being the Cradle of Civilisation, its settlement was relatively later. Nita Gleimius continues: Crops were planted using irrigation: canals diverted rivers, channels ran from rivers to crop fields, and furrows led water into the fields. A simple plow was converted into a seeder plow which could do both jobs at once — and could be pulled by draught animals. By 3500 BCE agriculture was no longer so labor-intensive, and people could direct their attention to other occupations. Urbanization and specialization in the manufacturing of goods such as ceramics, farm implements, boat building, and other crafts led to cities being built around large religious centers by 3000 BCE. Why and where did this burst of innovation come from? Various Biblical scholars and treasure hunters have actively searched the ancient Near East for proof of Biblical stories and to find legendary riches from ancient civilizations. Scholars and historians from as far back as Herodotus knew well enough about the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Nobody, though, knew that these civilizations inherited their advanced cultures from a still older civilization. Mackey’s comment: Assyrian Nineveh was surely settled before Sumer (which is not the biblical “Shinar”) was (Genesis 10:10, 11). Assyria was called “the land of Nimrod” (Micah 5:6). Nita Gleimius continues: Though the Sumerians were gone and forgotten, their legacy was very much alive. It had passed down through other geographic locations … Mackey’s comment: Even its own supposed geographic locations belonged far away elsewhere. … and through social, political, and economic developments as empires came and went through the ages that followed. …. The Sumerian Language Quest The discovery of Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh and the subsequent translation of its texts revealed three distinct languages written in similar cuneiform script. Assyrian and Babylonian were distinctly Semitic, but a third Semitic script contained words and syllables that just did not fit into the rest of its Semitic vocabulary. This language was Akkadian with non-Semitic Sumerian phraseology interlaced. Excavations at Lagash and Nippur provided plenty of cuneiform tablets, and these were entirely in this non-Semitic language. Researchers noted that the Babylonian kings called themselves the kings of Sumer and Akkad. Akkadian was accounted for, so they named the new script Sumerian. Then they found tablets with bilingual texts, believed to be from school exercises. Although these tablets were dated to the first millennium BCE, long after Sumerian as a spoken language had ceased to exist, it continued as a written language similar to the use of Latin today. Identifying and deciphering Sumerian did not solve the problem of their origins. The language is what is known as a language isolate — it fits into no other known language group. Instead of clarifying the origins of the Sumerians, it added to the confusion. Scholars have identified many Semitic names among the place names used by the Sumerians for some of their greatest cities. Ur, Uruk, Eridu, and Kish are but a few of these. This could mean that they moved into places that were already settled — or it could mean that they kept the place names given to these cities by their conquerors — the Akkadians and the Elamites — after regaining their independence. The Elamites, though, were also a non-Semitic speaking people, and the identified names are Semitic. Another scholarly argument is that some of the earliest words from the Sumerian language are from the most primitive phase of their agricultural development. Many words are names for local southern Mesopotamian animals and plants. This may mean that the Sumerians were primitive immigrants settling into a more advanced culture (the Ubaid culture). They then later adopted the culture of their host country and developed it further with more innovations. Another argument in favor of this hypothesis is that the Sumerian words for these above objects are mostly one syllable, whereas the words for more sophisticated objects have more than one syllable, indicating the more advanced culture of another group. Samuel Noah Kramer has argued that the Ubaid culture in the region was already advanced when the Sumerians arrived. The Ubaid culture, he posited, came from the Zagros mountains, and amalgamated over time with several Semitic groups from Arabia and elsewhere. After the Sumerians conquered this more advanced Ubaid culture, they and the Sumerians together achieved the heights that we now assign to the Sumerian civilization. More Sumerian Origin Hypotheses Archaeological finds from the earliest levels of Sumerian civilization, such as the oldest Eridu temple structures, confirms that southern Mesopotamian culture is similar from at least the Ubaid Period right through the giant leaps towards urbanized civilization. There is no sign of any outside material in these earliest levels, and a lack of foreign pottery clinches it. On the other hand, some theorists maintain that religious structures like ziggurats appear in Sumer only in the late Uruk period. The time selected by the immigrant theorists for the Sumerian arrival in the already flourishing Ubaid Period of southern Mesopotamia. …. The hypothesis that the Sumerians came from a homeland beyond the Persian Gulf towards the East has been floated on and off since their identification. This theory is popular with those who do not believe that the Sumerians would have traveled across the hinterland of Mesopotamia all the way to the tip of the land where resources are more limited. Another southern origin idea posits that the Sumerians were Arabs who lived on the east coast of the Persian Gulf before their home was flooded after the last ice age. Other scholars theorize that their skills with metalwork — for which there were zero resources in Sumer — and the building of high places (ziggurats), indicate that their homeland must have been in the mountains. The most popular theory here points to the foothills and plains of the Zagros mountains — today’s Iranian plateau. Others suggest that they may be related to the original peoples of ancient India. They find similarities between the Sumerian language and the Dravidian group of languages from this region. Mackey’s comment: Very much needing to be factored in here as well is the noticeable similarity between Sumerian and Chinese: Ancient Chinese History and the Book of Genesis. Part Four: Chinese and Sumerian (9) Ancient Chinese History and the Book of Genesis. Part Four: Chinese and Sumerian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu To the north, we have several areas that could be likely candidates if the Sumerians were immigrants to southern Mesopotamia. The areas around the Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, Anatolia, the Taurus mountains, Northern Iran, Kramer’s trans-Caucasian area, Northern Syria, and more. Mackey’s comment: So much guesswork here. Might I suggest trying “Northern Syria” (above)/ southern Turkey? Kings David and Solomon With the geography of Sumer (supposedly) unscrambled, we are surprised to find deeds pertaining to the Israelite kings, David and Solomon, in the Eshnunna and Lagash tales of the c. C18th BC, with Solomon appearing even well before that, in the c. C22nd BC. But, given the apparently long history of this region - artificial though it all may be - we would expect to find other Israelite/Judean history there as well. And that we surely do. But I shall need an article supplementary to this one to cover it. This is what I have previously written on David, Solomon and Eshnunna, Lagash. ***** One of the most important contributions to the revision of ancient history, with a keen reference to the Bible, has been Dean Hickman’s re-location of King Hammurabi of Babylon from, originally, c. 2400, now c. 1800 BC (conventional dating) - with some revisionists opting for c. 1450 BC, the time of Joshua - to the era of kings David and King Solomon (c. 1000 BC, standard dating). Dean Hickman most helpfully identified the powerful Assyrian ruler of the time, Shamsi-Adad I, as the biblical (Syrian) king, Hadadezer, against whom King David successfully campaigned (2 Samuel 8:3). And Hickman skilfully identified Hadadezer’s father, Rekhob (or Rehob), as Shamsi-Adad’s father, Uru-kabkabu (Urukab = Rekhob). Surely, so I then thought, kings David and Solomon must also be historically identifiable amongst these supposed C18th BC kings and their wars. A tentative thought of mine was that King Solomon may have been King Jabin of Hazor (Mari Letters) at this time, seeing that Solomon had control of that city (I Kings 9:15). Unfortunately, several good revisionist historians, ignoring Dean Hickman’s work, have identified this Jabin with the one at the time of Joshua (11:1), thereby throwing their revisions right out of kilter, by about half a millennium. Jabin was a generic name for rulers of Hazor, and there was another such Canaanite king at the time of Deborah (Judges 4). King Solomon may have taken the name as well when he gained control of Hazor. Or, this Jabin may have been another Canaanite king under that name whom Solomon conquered. The Mari Letters do not name places further south than this, so any reference to Solomon may have associated him with one of his northern cities (closer to Mari), rather than to Jerusalem much further to the south. Of more pressing interest to me, though, was that there was a king with a David-like name, who was, again like King David, an opponent of Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer). The name David means “Beloved”: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/David.html I refer to a King of Eshnunna, Naram-Sin (“Beloved of” the Lord) – the Syrians interchanged Sin and El. Even closer to David’s name was Dadusha of Eshnunna of the same approximate era. Hence, I badly wanted Eshnunna re-situated from Sumer to the region of Jerusalem. The trouble was that Eshnunna seemed firmly situated in Central Mesopotamia, to the north of Sumer. But that was not to be the end of the story. I had, in my university thesis (2007) distinguished between two forts named Ashdod, the well-known coastal one belonging to the Philistines, known in Sargon II’s Annals as Ashdudimmu, “Ashdod-by-the-Sea”, and another Ashdod that Sargon II’s General (Turtan) captured (Isaiah 20:1), which I determined to have been the famous Lachish. It needs to be noted that Lachish was second in importance to Jerusalem itself: https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/31/4/8 “Among cities in ancient Judah, Lachish was second only to Jerusalem in importance. A principal Canaanite and, later, Israelite site, Lachish occupied a major tell (mound) 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem, nestled in the foothills of Judah (the region known as the Shephelah)”. Eventually it struck me that my combination, Ashdod-Lachish, had to be the supposed Sumerian combination of Eshnunna-Lagash. (Friend Robert R. Salverda, at the same time, had come to the conclusion that Lagash was Lachish). Now, with Eshnunna as Ashdudda (merely requiring an n and d interchange), or Ashdod (Lachish), then Dadusha king of Eshnunna could certainly be King David. Thanks to Dean Hickman’s revision, Dadusha was now an approximate contemporary of King David. But why Lachish and not Jerusalem for David (Dadusha)? Well, it is an indication of the importance of Lachish. However, some Sumeriologists think that Lagash was not the capital, but that Girsu, the religious centre, actually was. The religious centre, Girsu, therefore, with Lagash secondary to it, must be Jerusalem. This has since led me to the realisation that the land of Sumer needs to be de-nuded of some of its most famous names. Places that seemingly just drop out of history. That is because they did not belong there in the first place. Seth Richardson, refers to them as ‘falling off the political map’. Thus I wrote on this: Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances - Lagash and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’, according to Seth Richardson (and that is because they do not belong on this map): Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8. Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year. …. Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. …. Considering that Puzrish-Dagan and Umma likewise fall off the map, we may need now to begin critically examining these two places as well. Happily, for Sumeriologists and the like, Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, seem to be firmly established in Sumer. Though I would distinguish between the well-known Sumerian Uruk and the Urukku seemingly associated with Girsu (my Jerusalem) as its sanctuary. (Ur, Uruk, appear to have been very common ancient names, widely distributed). Also to be distinguished, in this context, are the Sumerian Ur and the home of Abram, “Ur of the Chaldees”, which is Urfa (Şanliurfa) in SE Turkey, far from Sumer. Finally, given my view (and that of others) that Jerusalem was the same site as the antediluvian Garden of Eden, then the Gu-Edin (Guedena) over which the king of Lagash, Eannatum (yet to be identified), and the king of Umma, fought, could perhaps be a reference to the region of Jerusalem (or some place closely associated with it). [End of quotes] When the Jews were exiled to Sumer, their history must have become known, but re-cast in Sumerian fashion, with Sumerian pronunciations replacing Hebrew ones. King Dadusha’s famous stele, honouring the god, Adad, might lead one to think that David (if Dadusha) was an idolater. But some think that this stele would have been set up, instead, by Dadusha’s son, Ibal-pi-el, who must then be King Solomon himself, who did apostatise, and who did build polytheistic and idolatrous shrines (I Kings 11:1-13). Or, it might simply be that the god, Adad, was the best name representation for the God of Israel in that SE part of the ancient world. Some commentators suggest that King David, rather than Hadadezer, set up his boundary stele, at the Euphrates (2 Samuel 8:3): “Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah, when he [meaning David] went to restore his monument at the Euphrates River”. King Solomon I have most tentatively identified King Solomon above with Jabin king of Hazor (the Mari Letters). And, somewhat more confidently, with Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna. Most confidently, I have identified King Solomon, in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt, as Senenmut, adviser (consort?) to the female pharaoh, Hatshepsut. See e.g. my article: Solomon and Sheba (3) Solomon and Sheba | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I also suggested in this article that the sage king Solomon has been appropriated by the Greeks as the Athenian statesman (using Hebrew laws, no less), Solomon. Senenmut is often considered by historians to have been ‘the real power behind the throne’ of Egypt. Conventional historians, however, have no hope whatsoever of identifying any of the above characters (presuming any of them be legitimate) with King Solomon. To do so, they would need to cross geographical boundaries and timelines. Thus: C18th BC Syro-Palestine, as Jabin of Hazor and/or Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna. C15th BC Egypt, as Senenmut during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Not to mention C11th BC Jerusalem, as the biblical King Solomon. Naturally, this throws into absolute chaos the conventional archaeology. And so we get puerile statements by the likes of Israeli professor Israel Finkelstein: “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” (Draper, R., “Kings of Controversy”, National Geographic, December 2010, p. 85). Doubtlessly, there will be other intriguing manifestations of the great king as well, including possibly in a pseudo AD ‘history’ (Charlemagne?, Suleiman?). Now, with Lagash re-identified as the Judean Lachish, then a supposedly much earlier character of note emerges as a prime candidate for King Solomon the Temple builder. I refer to: Gudea ensi of Lagash We now have to locate ourselves back in c. 2100 BC, although the dating of Gudea is almost as liquid as has been that of Hammurabi of Babylon. Gudea is variously dated to c. 2144-2124 BC (middle chronology), or c. 2080–2060 BC (short chronology). I am going to date him closer to c. 950 BC – about 1200 years lower than the earliest conventional estimate for him. “Parallels between Gudea’s and Solomon’s account include … taxing the people; costly imports; divine word requiring obedience; detailed description of opulent furnishings; consecration; installation of divine majesty into temple; speech by ruler at consecration imploring divine bounty; specification of ruler’s offering …”. Diane M. Sharon Having the ancient city of Lagash rudely transferred from deep in Sumer, to be re-located 1300-plus km (as I estimate it) westwards, as the fort of Lachish, as I have proposed to be necessary in articles such as: As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash (7) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then it comes as no surprise - in fact, I would have expected it - to learn that Gudea’s Temple hymn has Jewish resonances. It just remains to be determined with which prominent Jewish builder, Gudea – {a name that looks like Judea, but supposedly means: “the messenger or the one called by the god, or “the receiver of revelation”, meaning “the prophet”} – may have been. Diane M. Sharon, who has dated the era of Gudea about a millennium too early, has nevertheless written most interestingly at the beginning of her 1996 article, “A Biblical Parallel to a Sumerian Temple Hymn? Ezekiel 40–48 and Gudea”: Ezekiel’s remarkably detailed vision of the future temple as described in chapters 40–48 is unique in Biblical literature. …. However, it bears undeniable resemblance to the ancient Near Eastern genre of Sumerian temple hymns, and to one example in particular. …. This example, commonly referred to as the Gudea Cylinders, was written at about 2125 B.C.E. to commemorate the building of a temple to the god Ningirsu by Gudea, king of Lagash. …. It recounts a vision received by Gudea in a dream, in which he is shown the plan and dimensions of the temple he is to build. While in fundamental ways these texts are quite different, this paper will focus on the common features of theme, structure, and detail shared by these two documents. We will focus first on the major themes which are common to Ezekiel and Gudea, addressing especially the association of the temple with abundance, and particularly with water as a symbol of fertility associated with the temple. We will also address a second theme in common, the concern with gradations of purification and consecration. Ezekiel’s vision of the restored temple is the culmination of his prophetic mission, which spanned more than twenty years during the sixth century B.C.E. …. The burden of his message in most of his book is the inevitability of the destruction of Jerusalem, the death of most of Judah’s inhabitants, and the scattering of the pitiful remainder. …. But from the time God tells Ezekiel to watch for a refugee bearing the news of Jerusalem’s downfall, Ezekiel begins to prophesy against Israel’s enemies. …. While his message can never be described as comforting, Ezekiel does convey hope as he begins at this point to sketch the outlines of an Israel restored to her land with a new heart and a new spirit for the honor of her God (37:22, 26–28, 32). Ezekiel’s final chapters, dazzling in their graphic description of the divine majesty re-establishing residence in the magnificent re-sanctified precincts of a rebuilt temple, conclude with an unmistakable allusion to fertility and abundance (47:9–12). In notably parallel circumstances [sic], Gudea’s temple-building occurs toward the end of the seventy- or eighty-year domination of Sumer by a people known as the Gutians. …. The Gutian invasion, described in the Sumerian lament, “The Curse of Agade,” … resulted in dire famine for Sumer, with “misery, want, death and desolation thus threatening to overwhelm practically all ‘mankind fashioned by Enlil’.” …. After these decades of oppression, the Sumerian people experience a renewal. Gudea builds a temple at the direction of the storm god Ningirsu. …. The temple’s construction and consecration represent the presence of the god’s blessings of abundance among the people … and may indeed have the same “redemptive” implications as Ezekiel’s visionary temple, that of a people rebuilt at long last after devastation by an invader and many years of foreign oppression. …. For Gudea, the temple is a sign of the divine presence, bringing with it abundance. …. Ningirsu promises: …. …. When to my house, the house honored in all lands, the right arm of Lagash, the thunderbird roaring on the horizon— Eninnu, my kingly house, O able shepherd Gudea, you put effectively the hand for me, I shall call up a rain … that from above it bring for you abundance; and the people may spread hands with you on the abundance. May with the laying of the foundations of my house abundance come! …. It is interesting that in both texts at least part of the promised abundance takes the metaphoric form of being showered from above. In fact, an important parallel between the two works is the repetition of all types of water images, many associated with fertility, and some—notably thunderstorms and water flowing from the earth— also associated with the appearance of the divinity. In the Sumerian hymn, water images abound. The overflow of the river signals to Gudea that the god wants something of him. …. Gudea floats down the river in a barge, seeking the clarifying oracle and stopping at different stages on the way to appease the tutelary gods with bread and libations of clear water. …. The clan (area) of the goddess Nanshe, another divinity invoked in Gudea’s dream, is described as “superabundant waters spreading abundance,” i7-mah a-diri hé-gál-bi pàr-pàr. …. Repeatedly, the heart of a god is referred to as a flood, or as a river overflowing. …. And the god Ningirsu, himself the personification of the thundercloud and the overflowing river, is invoked with unmistakable references to waters of fertility. …. In the final chapters of Ezekiel, YHWH, too, partakes of this image of divine abundance associated with water, though to be sure the associations are attenuated and not always clear-cut. For example, in Ezekiel’s second vision of theophany, the sound of God’s voice is compared to the sound of “the voice of mighty waters,” … (43:2). Ezekiel compares this theophany to his first experience many years before, both specifically located by the river Chebar. …. But by far the most dramatic water image in the book of Ezekiel is manifestly associated with fertility and abundance: that of the river issuing from beneath the visionary temple in 47:1–12. Moshe Greenberg remarks that Ezekiel’s celestial architect leads Ezekiel from the modest origin of the spring and measures its growth into “an unfordable river after a 4,000-cubit flow through a desert!” …. Greenberg is impressed with the connection between this flow of water and miraculous abundance, and notes: This vision specifically connects Temple and fertility and singles out for transformation the most barren tract of land—the wilderness of Judah—and the body of water most inhospitable to life, the Dead Sea, a dramatic exhibition of God’s beneficent presence in the temple. …. Raphael Patai is also impressed by this association between the temple and fertility, and he was the first to make this particular connection between Ezekiel’s vision and Gudea’s temple. …. Both Gudea and Ezekiel are deeply concerned with purification. …. All those who are “impure” … are banished from Gudea’s city, and the king consecrates the city and the ground on which he will build his temple with fire and with incense. …. In a sense, for Ezekiel, the people will have already been purified by an ordeal by fire in the destruction and exile. Nevertheless, purification and gradations of holiness are still a major concern of Ezekiel’s, never more apparent than in this vision of the Temple rebuilt. According to Greenberg, the very design of Ezekiel’s visionary Temple reflects the prophet’s focus upon sanctity. Greenberg comments that: …. The Temple proper expresses gradation of holiness by the successively narrowing entrances to its inner parts. Along the border between the two courts rooms and zones are appointed for activities which if not properly contained might violate the grades of holiness. God’s blessing follows closely upon the consecration of the temple. Once the temple is completed and the degrees of holiness are appropriately defined and contained in their designated locations within the visionary edifice, the full abundance which seems contingent on proper sanctification bursts forth in the form of the spring of water emerging from the south side of the altar. …. Gudea’s god also makes abundance contingent upon the completion of the temple, and the Sumerians enjoy gradually increasing abundance as the temple construction progresses. For Gudea’s people, abundance begins from the moment the foundation of the temple is laid; … and, of course, when the temple is completed, abundance rains down and is also raised from the earth in the form of grain. …. It is possible to view the gradually increasing abundance which follows the progress of building Gudea’s temple as an expression of the same idea in a different metaphor as the abundance which follows the carefully designated degrees of holiness embodied in the design of Ezekiel’s visionary temple. The divine command in both instances is for an edifice which expresses in its design (in Ezekiel’s case) or in its process of construction (in Gudea’s case) the idea of progressive sanctification. Upon the achievement of the final sanctification in both cases, the divine blessing of abundance pours forth in the form of fertilizing water. In addition to these two major themes of, first, associating temple with both water and abundance, and, second, preoccupation with degrees of sanctity, the structural pattern of the temple vision in Ezekiel shares much in common with the structure of the Gudea hymn. …. Let us first summarize the common structural pattern, and then we will examine specific details. The common structural pattern consists of seven points: 1) annunciation to the seer in a vision or a dream of the divine desire to have a temple built; …. 2) a precise blueprint received in an altered state of consciousness at the hand of a divine “architectural assistant”; 3) concern throughout with purification, consecration, and ritual/ cultic renewal; 4) installation of the divine majesty into the completed edifice; 5) assignment of specific duties to designated temple personnel; 6) ultimate consecration of the temple for service to the divinity; followed, finally, by 7) the divine blessing in the form of abundance expressed in water imagery. The idea of a cosmogonic pattern for temple archetypes is recurrent in the critical literature of comparative mythology … and has been seen in biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature as well. …. Several of the points outlined in the scholarly literature as they relate to food narratives or to edifice construction in Mesopotamian and Biblical literature apply as well to the accounts we have been considering in Ezekiel and Gudea, specifically, the associations among temple, water, and abundance; the divine request for a temple as conveyed to a king or priest; the requirement for cultic purification; and the celebration of a recurring annual ritual of re-consecration. …. Taken together with other scholarly studies on temple models of the ancient Near East reflected in Hebrew scripture … the correspondences among so many sacred constructions from so many different, though related, cultures in the ancient Near East suggest an implicit, if not explicit, paradigm for the structure and function of “Temple” that was operative over a long period and at many levels. The several biblical accounts that correspond to this hypothetical model may be adduced as evidence that Hebrew scribes and prophets were familiar with this genre and incorporated it into their writings. Before proceeding to consideration of our third task, the examination of parallels in the details of the two texts, it is worthwhile noting that the structure and details of Gudea’s building program also bear great resemblance to other temple construction accounts in the Bible, specifically Solomon’s activity described in 1 Kgs. 5:1–9:9 and Hezekiah’s reconstruction and repair of the temple outlined in 2 Chronicles 29–31. While a deeper analysis must wait, a summary of the parallels might be illuminating for the reader of the present paper. Parallels between Gudea’s and Solomon’s account include: … taxing the people; costly imports; divine word requiring obedience; detailed description of opulent furnishings; consecration; installation of divine majesty into temple; speech by ruler at consecration imploring divine bounty; specification of ruler’s offering; feast of seven days; and divine exhortation to moral and ethical behavior by ruler and subjects. …. Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? by Damien F. Mackey Sorting amongst the: Sumerian Geography in Chaos (6) Sumerian Geography in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu we needed to go as far back as c. 2100 BC to find King Solomon in the: Sumerian History in Chaos (5) Sumerian History in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu as Gudea, the famous ensi (governor) of Lagash, or Lakish (= Lachish). Then we needed to slide down the artificial timeline by a further three centuries, approximately, to find King Solomon now at c. 1780 BC, as Ibal-pi-el (so-called) II, the son of Dadusha (King David), and supposed nephew of Naram-Sin (also King David). These were kings of Eshnunna, which, again, is (another name for) Lagash (Lachish). As I have explained before, ASHDOD (ASHDUDDA)/LACHISH - is - ESHNUNNA/LAGASH. Another most notable historical occupant of Lagash was one URUKAGINA. To find him in the text books, we need to go all the way back to the virtual beginnings of recorded history, to c. 2400 BC, approximating to the time of King Sargon of Akkad. However, if Urukagina was in control of Lachish in SW Judah (Shephelah) - which location I believe that Lagash was - then there is every good chance, indeed, that Urukagina (just like Gudea) will have a biblical identity. Who, then, was this Urukagina? To find him, things now become really radical and somewhat complicated. An Explanatory Note: My earlier effort to write this article, with Urukagina of Lagash there identified as the chief official of King Hezekiah of Judah, namely, Eliakim son of Hilkiah - whom I had further identified as the Akhimiti of Sargon II of Assyria’s Annals, to whom the Assyrians gave rulership over “Ashdod”, my Lachish (= Lagash) - began to come unstuck when I realised that Urukagina, formerly an ensi (governor), was later being referred to as Lugal, meaning “King” (literally “Big Man”). This term was most unlikely applicable to Eliakim/Akhimiti, despite his apparent prominence. Part One: Urukagina identified Previously I had written: To find Urukagina, we need to scroll down a massive (2400 – 700 =) 1700 years, approximately, to the era of Sargon II, whose era was far distant from Sargon of Akkad. For Urukagina was, as we shall determine, a High Priest official of King Hezekiah of Judah, at the time of Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria (c. 700 BC, standard dating). I propose to match Urukagina with Eliakim son of Hilkiah, generally thought to have been King Hezekiah’s Major Domo, but who was actually the High Priest. For more on this, see e.g. my article: Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest (5) Hezekiah's Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Before we can proceed any further, though, I need to add a further crucial dimension to Eliakim son of Hilkiah from the contemporary Assyrian records. In my university thesis (2007), I tentatively identified Eliakim with Akhimiti, whom Sargon II established at “Ashdod” (Lachish) after he had deposed the rebellious Azuri. Akhimiti (Mitinti) of Ashdod Here follows the dramatic sequence of events at Lachish as we learn about them in the records of the Assyrian king, Sargon II/Sennacherib, following Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah, Chapters I-XXXIX, in Light of the Assyrian Monuments, London, Soc. for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1930). I wrote this in my thesis (Volume One, pp. 156-158): Was it that Sargon II - hence, that Sennacherib - had instead referred to Lachish by the descriptive title of ‘Ashdod’, whose capture Sargon covers in detail? Let us now follow Boutflower in his reconstruction of this somewhat complex campaign, referring to the fragment Sm. 2022 of Sargon’s Annals, which he calls “one particularly precious morsel”: The longer face [of this fragment] ... has a dividing line drawn across it near the bottom. Immediately below this line, and somewhat to the left, there can be seen with the help of a magnifying-glass a group of nine cuneiform indentations arranged in three parallel horizontal rows. Even the uninitiated will easily understand that we have here a representation of the number “9”. It is this figure, then, which gives to the fragment its special interest, for it tells us, as I am about to show, “the year that the Tartan came unto Ashdod”. Boutflower now moves on to the focal point of Assyria’s concerns: mighty ‘Ashdod’: The second difficulty in Sm. 2022 is connected with the mention of Ashdod in the part below the dividing line. According to the reckoning of time adopted on this fragment something must have happened at Ashdod at the beginning of Sargon’s ninth year, i.e. at the beginning of the tenth year, the year 712 BC, according to the better-known reckoning of the Annals. Now, when we turn to the Annals and examine the record of this tenth year, we find no mention whatever of Ashdod. Not till we come to the second and closing portion of the record for the eleventh year do we meet with the account of the famous campaign against that city. What, then, is the solution to this second difficulty Boutflower asks? And he answers this as follows: Simply this: that the mention of Ashdod on the fragment Sm. 2022 does not refer to the siege of that town, which, as just stated, forms the second and closing event in the record of the following year, but in all probability does refer to the first of those political events which led up to the siege, viz. the coming of the Tartan to Ashdod. To make this plain, I will now give the different accounts of the Ashdod imbroglio found in the inscriptions of Sargon, beginning with the one in the Annals (lines 215-228) already referred to, which runs thus: “Azuri king of Ashdod, not to bring tribute his heart was set, and to the kings in his neighbourhood proposals of rebellion against Assyria he sent. Because of the evil he did, over the men of his land I changed his lordship. Akhimiti his own brother, to sovereignty over them I appointed. The Khatte [Hittites], plotting rebellion, hated his lordship; and Yatna, who had no title to the throne, who, like themselves, the reverence due to my lordship did not acknowledge, they set up over them. In the wrath of my heart, riding in my war-chariot, with my cavalry, who do not retreat from the place whither I turn my hands, to Ashdod, his royal city, I marched in haste. Ashdod, Gimtu [Gath?], Ashdudimmu … I besieged and captured. …”. Typical Assyrian war records! Boutflower shows how they connect right through to Sargon’s Year 11, which both he and Tadmor date to 711 BC: The above extract forms ... the second and closing portion of the record given in the Annals under Sargon’s 11th year, 711 BC., the earlier portion of the record for that year being occupied with the account of the expedition against Mutallu of Gurgum. In the Grand Inscription of Khorsabad we meet with a very similar account, containing a few fresh particulars. The usurper Yatna, i.e. “the Cypriot”, is there styled Yamani, “the Ionian”, thus showing that he was a Greek. We are also told that he fled away to Melukhkha on the border of Egypt, but was thrown into chains by the Ethiopian king and despatched to Assyria. .... In order to effect the deposition of the rebellious Azuri, and set his brother Akhimiti on the throne, Sargon sent forth an armed force to Ashdod. It is in all probablity the despatch of such a force, and the successful achievement of the end in view, which were recorded in the fragment Sm. 2022 below the dividing line. As Isa xx.1 informs us - and the statement, as we shall presently see, can be verified from contemporary sources - this first expedition was led by the Tartan. Possibly this may be the reason why it was not thought worthy to be recorded in the Annals under Sargon’s tenth year, 712 BC. But when we come to the eleventh year, 711 BC, and the annalist very properly and suitably records the whole series of events leading up to the siege, two things at once strike us: first, that all these events could not possibly have happened in the single year 711 BC; and secondly, as stated above, that a force must have previously been despatched at the beginning of the troubles to accomplish the deposition of Azuri and the placing of Akhimiti on the throne. On the retirement of this force sedition must again have broken out in Ashdod, for it appears that the anti-Assyrian party were able, after a longer or shorter interval, once more to get the upper hand, to expel Akhimiti, and to set up in his stead a Greek adventurer, Yatna-Yamani. The town was then strongly fortified, and surrounded by a moat. It is at about this stage, Year 11, that Sargon was stirred into action: Meanwhile, the news of what was going on at Ashdod appears to have reached the Great King at the beginning of his eleventh year, according to the reckoning of the annalist .... So enraged was Sargon that, without waiting to collect a large force, he started off at once with a picked body of cavalry, crossed those rivers in flood, and marched with all speed to the disaffected province. Such at least is his own account; but I shall presently adduce reasons which lead one to think that he did not reach Ashdod as speedily as we might expect from the description of his march, but stopped on his way to put down a revolt in the country of Gurgum. In thus hastening to the West Sargon tells us that he was urged on by intelligence that the whole of Southern Syria, including Judah, Edom, and Moab, as well as Philistia, was ripe for revolt, relying on ample promises of support from Pharaoh king of Egypt. We find, as we switch to what I believe to be Sennacherib’s corresponding campaign (his Third Campaign) to discover how Assyria dealt with the Egyptian factor, that a ringleader in this sedition was king Hezekiah himself: The officials, nobles and people of Ekron, who had thrown Padi, their king, bound by (treaty to) Assyria, into fetters of iron and had given him over to Hezekiah, the Jew (Iaudai), - he kept him in confinement like an enemy, - they (lit., their heart) became afraid and called upon the Egyptian kings, the bowmen, chariots and horse of the king of Meluh-ha (Ethiopia), a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighborhood of the city of Altakû (Eltekeh), their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered battle. (Trusting) in the aid of Assur, my lord, I fought with them and brought about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the charioteers of the Ethiopian king, my hands took alive in the midst of the battle. Charles Boutflower was able to deduce from the record of Sargon’s Year 10 what he considered to have been the reason why the first expedition against ‘Ashdod’ was led, not by Sargon in person, but by his ‘Turtan’. This was because “Sargon was busy over his darling scheme, the decoration of the new palace at Dur-Sargon. … It was with this object in view that Sargon remained “in the land”, i.e. at home, during the year 712, entrusting the first expedition to Ashdod to his Tartan, as stated in Isa xx.1”. Boutflower’s detailed chronological reconstruction of the events associated with the siege of ‘Ashdod’ seems to be right in line with Tadmor’s more recent, and more clipped, reconstruction of the same events. …. [End of quotes] This series of dramatic incidents will be what I think are right at the forefront of what we read about Urukagina and the invasions of his time (see Part Two). Next, I attempted to identify the succession of officials at Ashdod, as named in the Annals of Sargon II, with leading figures during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah (thesis, pp. 161-162): Now if Sargon’s ‘Ashdod’ really were Lachish as I am proposing here, and his war were therefore being brought right into king Hezekiah’s Judaean territory, then we might even hold out some hope of being able to identify, with Hezekian officials, the succession of rulers of ‘Ashdod’ whom Sargon names. I refer to Azuri, Yatna-Yamani and Akhimiti. The first and the last of these names are Hebrew. The middle ones, Yatna-Yamani, are generally thought to be Greek-related, as we saw above; but Tadmor supports the view of Winckler and others that Yamani at least “was of local Palestinian origin”; being likely the equivalent of either Imnâ or Imna‛. …. Hezekiah had, much to Assyria’s fury, enlarged the territory of his kingdom by absorbing Philistia, and had placed captains over key cities. This would no doubt have included those governors with Jewish names in the Philistine cities. Thus Sennacherib, as we saw, refers to a Padi (Pedaiah) in Ekron and a Tsidqa (Zedekiah) in Ashkelon. As for Lachish, we could expect that the king of Jerusalem might have entrusted to only a very high official the responsibility of so important a fort. I propose to identify Sargon’s: • AzURI with the high priest URIah … most notably in the time of Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz (2 Kings 16:10-11; cf. Isaiah 8:1-4); • YatNA with the ill-fated ShebNA … of Hezekiah’s time; and • AKHI-Miti (Azuri’s brother) with Hezekiah’s chief official, EliAKIM …. Akhi-miti correspondingly appears as Mitinti (thought to be Hebrew, Mattaniah … as the ruler of ‘Ashdod’ in Sennacherib’s Third Campaign account. [End of quote] Here I am primarily interested in Eliakim as Akhimiti (Mitinti), and, potentially, now, as Urukagina. The prophet Jeremiah The final piece to be fitted into the jigsaw will be to recall my further identification of Eliakim son of Hilkiah with the great prophet Jeremiah son of Hilkiah (of numerous other alter egos as well), the latter being so vital - as I hope to show - towards the proper understanding of Urukagina of Lagash and his great teachings of reform. For the Eliakim/Jeremiah connection, see e.g. my article: Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest (5) Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This fusion, Eliakim/Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, can be achieved only with my radical identification of the reforming King Hezekiah of Judah with the reforming King Josiah of Judah. This connection is perhaps best explained in my article: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (5) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I hope to be able to show that Jeremiah (also Eliakim) son of Hilkiah matches very well with Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu (my Jerusalem), whose famous laws and reforms (inspiring, along with Isaiah, the great Reformation of King Hezekiah/Josiah) will be found to have been later Judean, rather than most ancient Sumerian. While a lot of the above still holds good - for example the revised era and geography, the great Reform of the time - it now seems that Urukagina himself, though, as Lugal, “King”, is far more likely to have been the reforming King of Jerusalem at the time, rather than his reform-urging prophet and potential governor of Lachish. Let us reconsider our main character, Urukagina, now as Lugal. Taking the following account of Urukagina from the Sumerian Shakespeare: http://sumerianshakespeare.com/70701/77001.html I shall be adding some pertinent comments to test whether Urukagina can make an adequate reforming King of Judah. A Sumerian king. There are no known images of Urukagina. This terra cotta figure is from the city of Ur and is dated in a later period. The king carries a shepherd's flail, a symbol of authority, and he stands before an offering table. He wears a shepherd's hat, the crown of a Sumerian king. Mackey’s (previous) comment: Urukagina is also called ensi (governor) of the city of Lagash. Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, is wrongly thought to have been Major Domo when, in fact, he was the High Priest. This office may possibly be indicated by the symbols above, “shepherd's flail … and he stands before an offering table”. Urukagina reigned for seven years in the city of Lagash, sometime around 2375 B.C. (Sumerian dates are never very certain). The pronunciation of his name is Uru-ka-gina, though he is also known as Iri-ka-gina and Uru-inim-gina. His signature is shown at the bottom of the page [at the end of this article]. Mackey’s comment: “… 2375 B.C.” The era c. 2400 BC (as a round number) is more befitting of the time of the Great Genesis (Noachic) Flood. As the ensi (ruler, governor) of the city of Lagash, he followed a long line of powerful monarchs that began with Ur-Nanshe and continued for several generations with Eannatum and Enmetena. During recent years, however, the power and prestige of Lagash seemed to be on the decline. Mackey’s comment: The correct order, and identifications, of these governors of Lagash (if that is what they all were), Ur-Nanshe, Eannatum and Enmetana, may need now seriously to be re-assessed. Urukagina may not have been of royal descent, since he did not assume the rulership by the normal means of royal succession and he never signed himself as dumu, "son of," which seems to indicate his father was not a high-ranking nobleman with a title worth mentioning. …. Mackey’s (previous) comment: If Urukagina was a High Priest, then he - while not being of the royal line - would, nonetheless, have been a man of the greatest distinction. Urukagina’s immediate predecessor was ensi Lugalanda, who had a reputation for greed and corruption. Lugalanda seized control of the most important temples, those of the gods Ningirsu and Shulshagana and the goddess Bau. He placed them under the administration of an official that he appointed who was not, as formerly the case, a priest. Lugalanda also appointed himself, his wife Baranamtarra, and other family members, as administrators of the temples. He referred to the temples as the private property of the ensi. He no longer mentioned the names of deities in temple documents and he levied taxes on the priesthood. Lugalanda and his wife became the largest landholders in the region. His wife shared in the ensi’s power, managing her own private estates and those of the Bau temple. She sent diplomatic missions to neighboring states and she bought and sold slaves. (source: "The Creation of Patriarchy," by Gerda Lerner) Mackey’s (previous) comment: Lugalanda would presumably be the rebellious Azuri of the Assyrian records, who may also have been the corrupt priest, Uriah, at the time of King Ahaz of Judah. Nepotism appears to have been rife. Mackey’s (revised) comment: Lugalanda would likely have been the corrupt and idolatrous king, Ahaz of Judah. Tensions between the ensi and the community increased. On his foundation cones (below) Urukagina describes the prevailing conditions for the common people. Their boats were seized by the chief of the boatmen. Their sheep were appropriated by the head herdsman, and their fish stores were confiscated by the fisheries inspector. The “men of the ensi” cut down the orchards of the poor and they conscripted workers to labor in their fields. Court officials were “everywhere.” The ensi took the best land for himself and used the sacred oxen from the temples to plow his fields. The temple officials were also greedy and corrupt. They charged excessive fees to perform their religious rituals and to bury the dead. They took bribes, levied onerous taxes which they shared with the ensi, and they likewise used the temple oxen to plow their fields. Although these conditions had existed to some degree since time immemorial (“from distant days”) they seemed to become much worse during the reign of Lugalanda. Mackey’s (previous) comment: This is pure Jeremiah, and examples could be greatly multiplied. Here is just one relevant comment: https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-16-2/commentary-on-jeremiah-231-6-7 Jeremiah’s critique of leaders is born from his compassion for the people. “Woe!” This passage begins with the cry that marks an oracle of destruction. It is a hook that the audience can’t ignore. Corrupt leadership Jeremiah has his eye fixed in particular on the leaders: “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” (Jeremiah 23:1). The shepherd is a common ancient metaphor for leaders, and for kings in particular. That leaders bear more responsibility than their people for social fate and for social injustice is a view shared by the prophet Ezekiel, who employs this same metaphor to speak of the exile of Judah in Babylon (Ezekiel 34). There is a persistent ethical thread throughout the Hebrew Bible: God requires the community to be ruled with justice and righteousness, which is manifested in the treatment of the alien, the orphan, and the widow (Jeremiah 22:3-4). But rulers who seek their own fortune, who expand their houses and enrich their coffers at the expense of the poor are in egregious violation of God’s covenant, and will be held accountable (Jeremiah 22:13-17). In the contemporary context, political and religious leaders give us ample opportunity to consider how corruption at the highest levels leads to the increasing devastation of the poor and the marginalized. Recent White House policies aimed at deterring immigration are separating immigrant families at the United States borders. The trauma this poses for children and their families is an example of a breach of care for the alien and the poor. In this passage, the social disintegration of the exile at the hands of the Babylonian empire is the responsibility of rulers: “It is you [shepherds] who have scattered my flock, and have driven them away, and have not attended to them” (Jeremiah 23:2). The prophet wrestles with the question of who is to blame for suffering and political trauma, and offers two answers: It is you [shepherds] who have driven them into exile (Jeremiah 23:2) and it is I [God] who have driven them into exile (Jeremiah 23:3). There is a poetic cadence to this repetition that on the one hand holds corrupt leadership accountable for their oppression of the poor, but also insists that it is God who is ultimately powerful. This is a tension that Jeremiah carefully holds. …. Mackey’s (revised) comment: Urukagina would be King Hezekiah (Josiah) of Judah, whose extensive reforms were inspired by the prophets, Micah (= Zephaniah); Isaiah; and Eliakim/Jeremiah. …. Urukagina claimed he was acting on behalf of boatmen, shepherds, fisherman and farmers, and he implied he was aided by the priests. The priesthood of Lagash had always been very influential, but if the temple officials thought they were playing the role of “king maker” by bringing Urukagina to power, they would later have cause to regret it. Urukagina, ensi of Lagash. The examples of cuneiform writing on this page are from tablets and from clay "tags" that were used to identify various statues. The statues themselves were destroyed long ago in the many wars that occurred in the region. … Urukagina soon set about making some changes. He dismissed many corrupt officials, the chief boatmen, head herdsmen and fishery inspectors who had seized private property. He confiscated the estates of the ensi and placed them under the jurisdiction of the gods (i.e., the temples). Urukagina removed many court officials, including supervisors who controlled the grain tax. He dismissed the priests who had taken bribes and the temple administrators who had shared tax revenues with the ensi. Mackey’s comment: Ultimately, it would be the Lord himself who would set about the removal of the corrupt and the sinful ones (e.g., Jeremiah 8:1-15): ‘At that time, declares the LORD, the bones of the kings and officials of Judah, the bones of the priests and prophets, and the bones of the people of Jerusalem will be removed from their graves. They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshiped. They will not be gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground. Wherever I banish them, all the survivors of this evil nation will prefer death to life, declares the LORD Almighty.’ Sin and Punishment Say to them, ‘This is what the LORD says: “ ‘When people fall down, do they not get up? When someone turns away, do they not return? Why then have these people turned away? Why does Jerusalem always turn away? They cling to deceit; they refuse to return. I have listened attentively, but they do not say what is right. None of them repent of their wickedness, saying, “What have I done?” Each pursues their own course like a horse charging into battle. Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD. ‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have? Therefore I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners. From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. “Peace, peace,” they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when they are punished, says the LORD. ‘I will take away their harvest, declares the LORD. There will be no grapes on the vine. There will be no figs on the tree, and their leaves will wither. What I have given them will be taken from them’. Why are we sitting here? Gather together! Let us flee to the fortified cities and perish there! For the LORD our God has doomed us to perish and given us poisoned water to drink, because we have sinned against him. We hoped for peace but no good has come, for a time of healing but there is only terror. Then Urukagina set limits on the amount that the priests could collect for their religious rituals and their fees for burying the dead. He cancelled debt slavery and declared a general amnesty for the citizens of Lagash, even for criminals, even for thieves and murderers (“their prison he cleared out”). Last but not least, he provided charity for the poor and the elderly. In all of these actions Urukagina claimed he was directed by the gods. Mackey’s comment: “… directed by the gods”. Originally, by God. Comparative examples of Jeremiah’s concern for the poor could be multiplied. E.g. Jeremiah 2:26, 34-35; 5:26-31: As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the people of Israel are disgraced— they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets. …. On your clothes is found the lifeblood of the innocent poor, though you did not catch them breaking in. Yet in spite of all this you say, ‘I am innocent; he is not angry with me.’ Among my people are the wicked who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch people. Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not seek justice. They do not promote the case of the fatherless; they do not defend the just cause of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?” declares the LORD. “Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this? A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end? Mackey’s comment: This also wonderfully reflects the sweeping religious and socio-political/economic reform of Judah’s greatest king after David, Hezekiah/Josiah: https://loandbeholdbible.com/2021/11/08/king-josiah-the-religious-reformer/ “A son will be born to the house of David by the name of Josiah.” (1 Kings 13:2) Josiah may not be that widely known, but along with Hezekiah, he was one of Judah’s most saintly kings. Like Christ, his birth was prophesied hundreds of years beforehand (1 Kings 13:1-2). He brought religious reform to his kingdom, restored worship at the Temple of Jerusalem, publicly read the Scriptures and defended the poor and needy (2 Chronicles 34:1-3,8, 29-33; Jeremiah 22:16). The Second Book of Kings says: “There had never before been any king like him nor will there ever be one after him who turned to the Lord with all his heart and all his soul and all his might according to the law of Moses.” (2 Kings 23:25) He was one of the last kings to reign before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and the people were driven into exile. Josiah not only served God from the heart, but he also led his nation to conversion. As Scripture later says: “He followed the right course by reforming the people and eliminating loathsome and abominable practices. He kept his heart fixed on God, and in lawless times he made godliness prevail.” (Sirach 49:2-3) All of these reforms were carefully recorded on Urukagina’s cones and tablets to ensure that “the orphan or widow to the powerful will not be subjugated.” Urukagina's “Liberty Cones” are the world’s first documented effort to establish the basic legal rights of citizens. Mackey’s comment: This last comment, I would suggest, is quite false. Urukagina’s reform was simply a renewed implementation of the Mosaïc charter written almost a millennium earlier. Some of the credit must go to Enmetena’s earlier efforts at reform (see Enmetena Translation), but Urukagina’s reforms are far more comprehensive. There's nothing else like them in the annals of ancient history. Unfortunately, they don’t get the credit they truly deserve, even though in the evolution of human society they are just as important as the legal codes of Ur-Namma or Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, or the American Bill of Rights. (See a complete translation of the Liberty Cones, along with some explanatory comments.) As noted earlier: The correct order, and identifications, of these governors of Lagash (if that is what they all were), Ur-Nanshe, Eannatum and Enmetana, may need now seriously to be re-assessed. Conclusion: Urukagina was the reforming King Hezekiah/Josiah, inspired by those long-lived prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Part Two: Lugalzagesi identified As noted in my article: King Lugalzagesi joins the list of ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates (3) King Lugalzagesi joins the list of 'camera-shy' ancient potentates | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu the lack of any portraiture of Lugalzagesi: “A Sumerian king. There are no known images of Lugalzagesi”. Sumerian Shakespeare would suggest to me that this great ruler must have had one or more other substantial alter egos. From what we have read in Part One, it becomes fairly apparent as to who Lugalzagesi, in a revised context, must actually have been: namely, Sargon II of Assyria (who is also Sennacherib). Once again, taking the following account from the Sumerian Shakespeare: http://sumerianshakespeare.com/70701/77001.html I shall be adding some pertinent comments to test whether Lugalzagesi can make an adequate invading foreign ruler at the time of King Hezekiah of Judah. One of Urukagina’s “Liberty Cones.” The cone was covered with inscriptions written to the gods, then buried near the foundations of a new temple. Some historians like to portray Urukagina as a leader of a populist revolution in which freemen battled against the aristocracy and wealthy landowners. But Urukagina’s reforms went only so far; he was merely trying to correct the worst abuses of power, he wasn’t trying to overturn the basic structures of society. Mackey’s comment: This last comment would basically sum up the situation. Other historians like to emphasize his role in transitioning the Sumerians from a “temple economy,” where the temples were the administrative centers of government, to a modern secular society based on royal power. In this regard he would be like an ancestor of Henry the VIII, in the age old struggle between church and state … Mackey’s comment: Regarding Henry the so-called VIIIth, see e.g. my recent article. Chewing over the House of Tudor (8) Chewing over the House of Tudor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu … but Urukagina wasn’t an anti-religious revolutionary or an iconoclast. The estates that he confiscated from the ensis he gave to the temples. Still other historians point to his claim of working on behalf of the gods to right the wrongs of society as a self-justifying assertion of the divine right of kings, but this ground had already been covered by his predecessors, Eannatum and Enmetena, for instance. Although there's no reason to doubt the sincerity of his efforts, the simple result of his reformations was more power for himself. Evidence for this is found in the second year of his reign, when Urukagina changed his title from ensi (“ruler or governor,” which the monarchs of Lagash usually called themselves) to the loftier title of lugal, meaning “king.” Mackey’s comment: Mention here of “king” stopped me right in my tracks with regard to my former effort to associate Urukagina with Eliakim/Akhimiti/ Jeremiah. A possibility is that Hezekiah was co-regent at Lachish for King Ahaz of Judah, before becoming the sole king in Jerusalem. Mackey’s further comment: Having said that about Lugal, “King”, it is most interesting to learn that: https://www.joshobrouwers.com/articles/evolution-sumerian-kingship/ “Lugal-Zagesi is said to have had no less than fifty LUGALs beneath him”. Cf. Isaiah 10:8: “Assyria [Sargon II] says, ‘Aren’t my commanders all kings? Can’t they do whatever they like?’” There has been some speculation on whether or not Urukagina enacted his reforms into law or if he was just paying lip service to social reform as a way to increase his popularity with his subjects (many kings announce high-minded reforms at the beginning of their reigns, only to proceed with “business as usual”). With Urukagina there can be little doubt as to his intentions. He repeated his reforms on other foundation cones. The reforms were the central event of his reign, and they would end up costing him dearly, as will later be shown. As for whether or not he enacted the reforms into law: Urukagina was the king, his word was law. This alone was enough to guarantee that the reforms were enacted. …. These social reforms weren't his only concern. He ruled during a period of political instability and civil war between the Sumerian city-states [sic]. His main antagonist was Lugalzagesi, the king of Umma who was making a bid to conquer all of Sumer and Akkad (and beyond). Mackey’s comment: The name Lugalzagesi (with various alternative spellings, such as Lugalzaggessi and Lugalzagissi), just like the name Sargon, which means “True King”, shares at least the King element. Umma is problematical. It is yet another of those supposedly Sumerian places that drops off the political map, as we read in e.g.: Prince of Lagash (8) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Umma may either be a well-known place in Sumer under a different name (below), or it may be the name for a place not in Sumer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umma Umma (Sumerian: 𒄑𒆵𒆠 ummaKI;[1] in modern Dhi Qar Province in Iraq, formerly also called Gishban) was an ancient city in Sumer. There is some scholarly debate about the Sumerian and Akkadian names for this site.[2] Lugalzagesi made several attacks on the kingdom of Lagash. One administrative tablet from this period is dated “the month that the man of Uruk came a third time.” It seems like Lagash was under repeated attacks from two different cities, Umma and Uruk, but in this case they are essentially the same. Mackey’s comment: “… came a third time”. Sargon II had sent his Turtan against Lachish/Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1), then the Assyrian army came again, after Iatna-Iamani had revolted. Then, as Sennacherib, Sargon II famously laid siege to the mighty fort-city, Lachish. And, as we read above, “Uruk and Umma … [may] essentially [be] the same”. Though, as we read on, the two names will now be distinguished. Although Lugalzagesi was originally the king of Umma, he had recently moved his capital to Uruk, so “the man of Umma,” as he’s called on another tablet, and “the man of Uruk,” both refer to Lugalzagesi. Umma and Uruk would be allies in the war against Urukagina, since both cities were ruled by Lugalzagesi. Three (or more) attacks on Urukagina within the span of seven years is a bit much, even by the Sumerian standards of internecine warfare. The reason for this was the long standing animosity between Umma and Lagash. They were at war for more than a century, battling for control of the Guedena, the fertile land between the two cities. Mackey’s comment: Guedena, Gu-Edin, I have identified, basically, as the ancient Eden, which became Jerusalem. Although Lugalzagesi was currently 'the Man of Uruk', he was born and raised as a royal prince of Umma. As such, he would have grown up hating Lagash and dreaming of the day when he could defeat it. The Sumerian Hundred Years War was about to culminate into its final battle. Urukagina was focused on his social reformations. He wasn't interested in foreign wars abroad or Sumerian civil wars at home. Nonetheless, although social reforms were Urukagina's primary concern, he spent most of his time defending his kingdom. Mackey’s comment: This description fits very well with phases during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah. …. The gloominess of Urukagina’s situation can be sensed in a fragment from a heavily damaged foundation cone (CDLI P222617): n lines missing “For my part, what did I have of it?” I said to him: “I did not do any violent act, but the dogs {the enemy} today are ... my city(?)” n lines missing Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army}, and Urukagina exchanged blows with it with weapons. A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there, and dogs he made live there. He went away to his city, but a second time he came ... rest of column missing The “wall” is probably the enemy army surrounding the city, or it may be a siege wall constructed by the invaders to trap the civilians and defenders inside the city, cut off from outside food supplies, in order to starve them into submission. The prolonged siege of the city caused the enemy “dogs” (soldiers) to live there for a while. Mackey’s comment: This would be the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. 2 Kings 18:13-17: In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me’. The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the Temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace. At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the Temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria. Sennacherib Threatens Jerusalem The king of Assyria sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander with a large army, from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They came up to Jerusalem and stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field. …. Urukagina’s social reforms now came back to haunt him. He had thoroughly alienated the aristocracy, who highly resented any reduction of their royal prerogatives, even in the slightest degree. Throughout the ages, the aristocracy has always been the military class. They justified their privileged lifestyle by bringing their armies of peasants to the battlefield when summoned by the king, by being recklessly brave in combat, and by dying heroically in defense of the realm. Many a king in history has suffered tragedy and downfall after alienating his aristocracy. Urukagina was no exception. Now, when he needed them most, he could not rely on his lords and noblemen. Their defense of his kingdom would be lukewarm at best. They may have even refused to defend him, or with a few bribes and blandishments they could easily be persuaded to switch sides. It didn't help matters much that Urukagina had also alienated the clergy. Mackey’s comment: “Their defense of his kingdom would be lukewarm at best. They may have even refused to defend him …”. Indeed, there was a deep division between the reform-inspired King of Judah and his aristocracy, including certain leading priests. Thus Isaiah 30:1-5 ‘Woe to the obstinate children’, declares the LORD, ‘to those who carry out plans that are not mine, forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit, heaping sin upon sin; who go down to Egypt without consulting me; who look for help to Pharaoh’s protection, to Egypt’s shade for refuge. But Pharaoh’s protection will be to your shame, Egypt’s shade will bring you disgrace. Though they have officials in Zoan and their envoys have arrived in Hanes, everyone will be put to shame because of a people useless to them, who bring neither help nor advantage, but only shame and disgrace’. And Isaiah 30:7-17: Therefore I call her [Egypt] Rahab the Do-Nothing. Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness. For these are rebellious people, deceitful children, children unwilling to listen to the LORD’s instruction. They say to the seers, ‘See no more visions!’ and to the prophets, ‘Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!’ Therefore this is what the Holy One of Israel says: ‘Because you have rejected this message, relied on oppression and depended on deceit, this sin will become for you like a high wall, cracked and bulging, that collapses suddenly, in an instant. It will break in pieces like pottery, shattered so mercilessly that among its pieces not a fragment will be found for taking coals from a hearth or scooping water out of a cistern’. This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: ‘In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it. You said, ‘No, we will flee on horses.’ Therefore you will flee! You said, ‘We will ride off on swift horses.’ Therefore your pursuers will be swift! A thousand will flee at the threat of one; at the threat of five you will all flee away, till you are left like a flagstaff on a mountaintop, like a banner on a hill’. All this is proven by the fact that Lagash eventually lost the war with Umma. This had seldom happened. Mackey’s comment: True. King Hezekiah and his kingdom of Judah suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of King Sennacherib of Assyria during the latter’s Third Campaign. But, as Isaiah had divined, the blasphemous King of Assyria would eventually get his come-uppance big time (Isaiah 37:21-36). For, about a decade later, Sennacherib’s massive Assyrian army of 185,000 would be completely routed near Shechem (“Bethulia”), thanks to the courageous intervention of the Simeonite heroine, Judith. Through generations of conflict, under the leadership of Ur-Nanshe, Eannatum, and Enmetena, Lagash had always been the victor and Umma the vanquished. Now, under the leadership of Urukagina, bereft of effective military support from his disgruntled nobility because of his social reforms, the roles had been reversed. Lugalzagesi, “the Man of Umma,” thoroughly sacked the city of Lagash, as if to avenge a century of humiliating defeats. The savagery of the attack, especially the looting of the temples, shocked the Sumerians [sic]. Sumerian civil wars were usually a lot more “civilized.” (See “The Man of Umma” for a translation of a tablet detailing Lugalzagesi’s plundering of Lagash.) A letter from the high priest Lu-enna addressed to the king of Lagash, believed to be Urukagina, informing him that his son had been killed in combat. Urukagina survived the sacking of Lagash and moved his capital to the smaller neighboring city of Girsu. He was still a king, but his kingdom was considerably reduced. Lugalzagesi followed him to Girsu and twice besieged the city. Soon afterward, Urukagina disappears from the historic record. Mackey’s comment: King Hezekiah was always located at Girsu, my Jerusalem. The invading king did indeed proceed from Lachish (Lagash) to Jerusalem (Girsu). The kingdom of Judah, indeed, was “considerably reduced” by the Assyrians. And little is told of Hezekiah/Josiah, even in the Scriptures, after approximately the mid-point of his reign. It’s not known for certain how he died, but the possibilities are endless. Perhaps he died of natural causes. Maybe he was captured and executed, or he killed himself rather than being taken alive. Perhaps he was murdered by an unseen assassin in a palace coup by someone trying to curry favor from Lugalzagesi. Hopefully he died in combat, in one last heroic battle, in defense of his kingdom and his vision of a better world. Mackey’s comment: Sumerian Shakespeare gets this last wish. For it may now be “known for certain how [the king] died …”. King Hezekiah/Josiah did die “in combat, in one last heroic battle, in defense of his kingdom and his vision of a better world”. Thus 2 Chronicles 35:20-27: The Death of Josiah After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, Necho king of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah marched out to meet him in battle. But Necho sent messengers to him, saying, ‘What quarrel is there, king of Judah, between you and me? It is not you I am attacking at this time, but the house with which I am at war. God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me, or he will destroy you’. Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised himself to engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Necho had said at God’s command but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo. Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, ‘Take me away; I am badly wounded’. So they took him out of his chariot, put him in his other chariot and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs of his ancestors, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him. Jeremiah composed laments for Josiah, and to this day all the male and female singers commemorate Josiah in the laments. These became a tradition in Israel and are written in the Laments. The other events of Josiah’s reign and his acts of devotion in accordance with what is written in the Law of the LORD— all the events, from beginning to end, are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.