|
The
Sumerian Kinglist
For an understanding of the below content, the reader
is advised to consider the Sumerian Kinglist, as is available at the following
ETCSL url:
ETCSL
t.2.1.1
Mesopotamian
Historiography of the Remote Past
Precursors to the Sumerian King
list
In Mesopotamian, a number of literary genres attest to
a antiquarian concern - initially, and in response to the necessity of
dating administrative documents, the practice of keeping date-lists evolved;
this practice, attested primarily in the Akkadian period and beyond, was
essentially naming each year in recognition of some chief event that had
occurred in the previously year, the year names were then "compiled into
date-lists to enable ancient scribes to ascertain the proper order of
a certain year name." This helped establish the necessary chronology for
the ancient scribes to construct the king lists. (1)
- Click here for more on Date-lists
-
The Sumerian king list:
"To be sure, this unique document is actually a mixture
of fact and fancy, the author seems to work under the delusion that all
dynasties he lists followed each other in strict succession, when in fact
most of them, if not all, were contemporaneous to a greater or lesser
extent." (S.N. The Sumerians,1963, pg 36)
The compilation known in modern times as 'The Sumerian
Kinglist' (henceforth 'SKL') dates in its extent form to early second
millennium sources, yet is often concerned with events and reigns considerably
earlier; it is therefore a historiographic document expressing an understanding
of the remote past, including "the origins of kingship and, therefore,
of the state." A basic motivation for the compilation is sometimes given
as a wish by the author (who had collected the dynastic traditions of
various cities) to "demonstrate that there could be only one true kingship
in Mesopotamia at any one time." There is much more to the picture than
this however. The SKL became a classic of historiography and was continued
for several centuries.(2)
- Click here for Cuneiform
sources for the Sumerian King list -
Which kings were listed, how, and
why? (With thanks to A. Westonholz, JCS 1974 (3))
"The concept of a king of all Babylonia was an ancient
one, based on the role of Enlil as the bestower of kingship. Presumably,
any ruler who aspired to the prestigious title variously known as "king
of Kish" or "king of the Land" had to be officially recognized and enthroned
in Nippur. It would seem, from the phrasing of the transfer of kingship
from one city to another in the King List ("City A was smitten with weapons;
its kingship was carried to City B") as well as from the account of Sargon's
victory over Lugalzagesi, where he brought him captive to the entrance
gate of Ekur, that little more than a military victory of the aspirant
to the title over his predecessor was required as decisive proof that
Enlil had chosen the victor to be "king of the Land." Such kings were
then mentioned in the Nippur year dates, and such kings form the backbone
of the King List. The King List, as we have it now, is a heroic attempt
to reconcile the concept of one king, chosen by Enlil, with the body of
information pertaining to the Early Dynastic period that was available
to the Old Babylonian compilor. Unwilling to discard any of this information,
he had to put all the Early Dynastic kings in successions of each other."
The age of the written sources:
Reviewing the list of cuneiform sources we have given
above will help to establish that the SKL is in fact now extent only in
2nd mil. cuneiform texts. While the list can be understood as a historiographic
document written by 2nd mil. scribes who referred to early date-lists
and other informations, experts have nonetheless been compelled at various
points to speculate on the possibility of a Sumerian original which has
not survived, and various estimates are given as to the date such an original
would have been compiled. Below we refer briefly to these hypothesis,
but it should be mentioned that some experts overturn completely the proposal
of a Sumerian original.
(In the below, I have drawn from Rowton's summarizations
which are present in his JNES 19 "the Date of the Sumerian King List")
Kraus (4)
Rowton mentions Kraus' convictions that the "original" dates to the reign
of UrNinurta - (1900-1800 B.C>) however, he disagrees and attempts
to demonstrate the problem with this conviction using the following deduction
(which I have greatly simplified here:)
1. Kraus draws his argument from the the cuneiform source
LP (L1 + P2)
2. Su and LP share an erroneous variant not found in WB; further there
is evidence that Su and LP share an additional common source different
from the source of WB.
3. since a source for LP is evidenced by Rowtons deductions, this means
that LP drew from something earlier and was not the "original" hence the
conclusion: "[Kraus] dating of the original king list to the reign of
Urninurta is not possible. It has to be dated well before the reign of
that king."
Jacobsen (5)
(Rowten): "Jacobsen proposes the reign of Utuhegal for the following reason.
In WB the last two dynasties, Ur III and Isin, have significant deficiency.
The element - à m is missing in the statement which introduces
the first king of a dynasty: GN.a PN l u g a l .àm mu x ì.
a5. In the antediluvian section this element is also missing in three
out of five dynasties, and that section is secondary. Thus if the original
king-list did not have these last two dynasties, it must have been compiled
under Utuhegal, the king who preceded Ur III." What this means is the
Antediluvian section has elsewhere been determined to be secondary, that
is, added to the original by later scribes. It lacks this feature " .àm"
which in most sections of the king list, is present in the line pertaining
to the first king of a dynasty. Also - Jacobsen observed - the feature
was absent in Ur III and Isin dynasty, making them secondary: this helps
him make his case for the dating of the original writing to the reign
of Utu-hegal.
Rowten
In Rowten's own theory, the author carries the .àm argument even
further, and he explains that there is a difference between PN lugal [Personal
name lugal] which appears for some kings. PN lugal means this - "PN (was)
king." However, PN lugal.àm is part of the formula which marks
the moving of the nam.lugal, from one city to another, and thus its presence
in the lines dealing with the first king of a dynasty (exception being
in the secondary sources.) He does not go into much detail on the dating
for Urnammu but comments "In fact if the king list is to be dated to the
time of Utu?egal, a date very early in the reign of Urnammu would be preferable.
For it would have the substantial advantage of explaining the omission
of Lagaš, since at the very beginning of his reign, Urnammu had
to fight a bitter war against Lagaš."
Additionally there is Michalowski(6):
Michalowski builds ideas earlier developed by J.J. Finkelstien, and before
him T. Jacobsen and F.R. Kraus , in regards to the propagandistic nature
of the SKL. The basic proposal is that the King list is "an expression
of the idea of centralization of power in the hands of one dynasty, ruling
from one city, an idea which found its roots in the period directly following
the "expulsion of the Gutians" and which was ultimately realized as a
legitimation of the Isin dynasty. He firmly links to composition of the
SKL with the Isin dynasty, indicating its purpose was to further the "ideology
of Isin" and provide it with a falsified "genealogical charter". The proposal
the author makes, is that the writing of the SKL was a conscious attempt
to link Isin dynasty with the Ur III kings. The original in this explanation
would be found with this dynasty.
Scope of the SKL and its additions:
As W.G. Lambert (7) describes the scope of the
SKL as "A list of dynasties from earliest times to c. 1800" that is, until
the Isin dynasty. By way of explanation, we may break down this composition
into three key sections:
a) The Antediluvian section (refer to ETCSL
t.2.1.1, lines 1-39)
b) the flood (refer to ETCSL
t.2.1.1, line 40)
c) The post-Diluvian section (refer to ETCSL
t.2.1.1, lines 41-431)
Explanation of a):
W-B 444, and W-B 62 and the text preserving the Sumerian Flood story are
among the early second millennium cuneiform sources preserving the list
of Antediluvian kings, however there is not at present a genuinely Sumerian
text dealing with the Antediluvians or the flood; Lambert considers this
an argument from silence however, adding its not unlikely that the Sumerians
themselves "did have traditions of destructive floods" (despite the lack
of 3rd. mil. attestation.) It's important to note that not all copies
of the SKL include the antediluvian section, some begin with the first
dynasty of Kish (directly after the flood). It's also been observed that
the Antediluvian lists of kings exist independently, and scholars therefore
conclude "these kings were at first an independent tradition quite separate
from the King List." (8) In other words, the antediluvian
section was a later addition to the original kinglist, which consisted
only of c).
Explanation of b)
About line 40, "after the storm had swept over.." M. Civil (9)
says that the oldest datable occurrences of this line occur in a Hymn
to Isme-Dagan (1953-1935 B.C) and in a text which mentions Ur-Ninurta
(1923-1896 B.C). He states the original opening lines of the SKL may or
may not have contained line 40 (adding "it certainly included no antediluvian
kings".)
Explanation of c)
The main section of the kinglist, lines 41-431 consist of the post-diluvian
section, beginning when the kingship is again lowered from heaven, and
'the kingship was in Kish.' It's been proposed that to begin with, the
kinglist consisted only of c), an issue however, is that none of the copies
of the original survive with their first lines intact; a suggestion is
"that it began with what is now column I, line 41, of the longer edition:
'After kingship had come down from heaven, the kingship was in kish..'
This is far from certain, and the importance of this question is that
if this conclusion were accepted the original King List would have contained
no mention of the flood." (10)
In sum, while we may naturally expect that the oldest part of the kinglist
is the antediluvian section, and that subsequently later dynasties were
added as they came, this is not the case here - the SKL is a historiographic
work, written by 2nd millennium scribes who were able to reconstruct the
3rd millennium reigns and dynasties by various means. It is likely that
the original form of the SKL consisted only of the post-diluvian dynasties,
from Kish I onwards, and that the antediluvian section was a secondary
addition to further tradition and antiquity of kingship.
(1) With thanks to John Van Setes, The Historiography
of the Ancient Near East, CANE 4 (pg.2438).
(2) ibid.
(3) In his 1974 JCS "Early Nippur Year Dates and the
Sumerian King List" Westonholz considers some date formulas that precede
Naram-Sin and which usually escape notice.
(4) See F.R. Kraus, ZA 50. 29-60
(5) See T, Jacobsen, AS 11.
(6) P. Michalowski History as charter: Some Observations
on the Sumerian King List, JAOS 81 (1983).
(7) Referring for convenience to Lambert & Millard,
Atrahasis, 1969
(8) ibid.
(9) M. Civil's examination of the Sumerian Flood Story
is available in Lambet & Millad, Atrahasis, 1969
(10) Lambert & Millard, Atrahasis, 1969. p. 16
|
|