Akurgal, Son of Ur-Nanshe 

Pierced relief of Ur-Nanshe from his Ningirsu temple at Girsu (RIME 1.9.1.2; CDLI, P431035)  

Now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2344); image from museum website  

As Douglas Frayne (referenced below, at p. 121) pointed out:

1. “One of Ur-Nanshe’s sons, Akurgal, is mentioned in all four [of Ur-Nanshe’s genealogical plaques, one of which is illustrated above].  He apparently followed his father as city ruler of Lagash.  The scarcity of inscriptions from his reign suggests that he ruled for a short time.  [His] name likely means ‘The father (is) the great mountain’.”  
   

Xianhua Wang (referenced below, at p. 50) suggested that, since the god Enlil was given the epithet ‘kur-gal’ (Great Mountain) in the ‘Zame Hymns’ (in which he was recognised as the leading deity in the Sumerian pantheon) and ‘a’ indicates ‘father’, Akurgal’s name probably means son of Enlil.  

Lions’ Heads  of Ur-Nanshe and Akurgal 

Two pairs of lions’ heads  from Ur-Nanshe’s Ningirsu temple at Girsu

Left: One pair is now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 231 and AO 233); images from the museum website  

Right: Sketches of the other pair, from André Parrot (referenced below, Figure 21): 

the originals are now in the archeological museum of Istanbul (ESH 46 and Esh 48)  

Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at pp. 279-81) recorded that these four lions’ heads heads were found together at the ‘Ur-Nanshe level’ in the SE side of the Ningirsu temple at Girsu and that they fall into two groups:

1. ✴the two that are now in the Musée du Louvre, which are made of limestone: 
   

2. •AO 231; and
   

3. •AO 233, which is inscribed with the name of Ur-Nanshe (RIME 1.9.1.24b; CDLI, P431059);
   

4. are of almost exactly the same size and might have been made as a pair (AO 231 male and AO 233 female); and  
   

5. ✴the two (a matching pair) that are now in the archeological museum of Istanbul, which are very similar to AO 231, although they are made of gypsum:
   

6. ✴ESH 456, which carries what is now a fragmentary inscription of Ur-Nanshe (RIME 1.9.1.25; CDLI, P431060); and 
   

7. ✴ESH 458, which carries an inscription (RIME 1.9.2.2a; CDLI, P432072) that Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 122) attributed to Akurgal. 
   

Interestingly, Rey pointed out (at p.283) that all of these lions were depicted with protruding tongues (albeit that he acknowledged (at p. 279) that the significance of this unusual characteristic is unclear).   As to the function of these objects, Rey argued (at p. 279) that their good physical condition and the location of their burial indicates that they belonged to a ‘coherent assembly’ of sacred objects that had been displayed in Ur-Nanshe’s temple and then give ritual burial when this temple had been deconsecrated.   He also suggested  (at p. 283) that, given their small size and the fact that at least some of them were inscribed, they may well have been:  

1. “... ornamental elements that were fixed to pieces of temple furniture ... Indeed, they could have been designed to adorn a range of sacred appurtenances inside the sanctum sanctorum. [of Ur-Nanshe’s temple].”  
   

Akurgal and the Antasura Shrine  

Two views of a lion’s head from Tell V at Girsu that carries an inscription (RIME 1.9.2.1: CDLI, P431071); 

now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 3295) , images from the museum website 

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 122) recorded that this alabaster lion’s head from Tell V (‘Tell des Tablettes’) carries the following inscription:

1. “For the god Ningirsu: Akurgal, ensi of Lagash, son of Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash, built the Antasura”,  (RIME 1.9.2.1: CDLI, P431071). 
   

As Filip Vukosavovic  (referenced below, at pp. 127-8) observed, Akurgal is the earliest known ruler of Lagash who claimed to have built (or rebuilt) this extra-urban temple (or shrine) of Ningirsu.  According to Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 237) it was in the Gu’edena, a stretch of fertile land on the border between Lagash and Umma (see below).  

Akurgal and the Border Dispute between Lagash and Umma

Border between Lagash and Umma in the ED period, (with the land along the Gu’edena canal, marked in green)  

Map from Reed Goodman et al. (referenced below, Figure 1, at p. 2)  

As we have seen above, Akurgal is known to have built or rebuilt the Antasura temple (or shrine) of Ningirsu in the Gu’edena, a fertile strip of land on the border between Lagash and Umma.  As we shall see, this took place at a time at which the ownership of this land was about to become a bone of contention between Lagash and Umma.  However, as Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, 1983, at pp. 23-4) observed, we do not hear of hostilities with Umma in this border region during the reign of Ur-Nanshe.  He therefor argued that:

1. “Present evidence (including the general otherness of Ur-Nanshe's inscriptional style) ... leads me to believe that the border conflict as a leitmotif in the historical records of Lagash and the various topoi that accompany it have their origin in the inscriptions of Eanatum, [Akuragal’s son and successor].”
   

The earliest surviving account of these recurring border disputes does indeed belong to Eanatum’s reign and, in particular, to his so-called ‘Stele of the Vultures’, which I discuss at length below.  However, as Cooper observed, Akurgal is named in the (now very lacunose) opening lines of its inscription.  The relevant passage now reads as follows::

1. “... its subsistence rations he [the king of Umma] reduced, its grain rent he took away.  The king of Lagash ... the ensi of Umma committed an aggressive act against it, and pressed into Lagash, up to its frontier.  Akurgal, king of Lagash, son of Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash ...”, (RIME 1.9.3.1; CDLI, P431075, lines 1’-20’).
   

Cooper suggested (at p. 24) that:

1. ✴the first mention of a ‘king of Lagash’ (at lines 5’-6’) might well have been part of an episode involving Ur-Nanshe;  
   

2. ✴when the text begins again, Umma is defying Lagash and Akurgal is introduced (lines 8’-20’); and
   

3. ✴when it begins yet again, Umma is still trespassing in the Gu'edena (lines 21’-.28’). 
   

Cooper therefore reasonably argued that:

1. “The implication is that the occupation of the Gu'edena that occurred under Akurgal remained for Eanatum to resolve [after his father’s death].” 
   

Eanatum 

Eanatum and the Border Dispute between Lagash and Umma 

Demarcation of the Border between Lagash and Umma 

Left: Boundary stone of unknown provenance carrying inscription RIME 1.9.3.2 (ex. 02: CDLI, P222407),

now in the Harvard University Museum; image from the CDLI website 

Right: Spheroid jar from Girsu carrying inscription RIME 1.9.3.3; CDLI, P431077,

now in the  the Musée du Louvre (AO 4442+4597), image from museum website 

Two surviving inscriptions of Eanatum refer to the original demarcation of the border between Lagash and Umma by King Mesalim of Kish, who had apparently exercised hegemony over both cities at some time before the reign of Ur-Nanshe: 

1. ✴RIME 1.9.3.2; CDLI, P431076, which is found on three surviving boundary stones (one of which apparently came from Girsu); and
   

2. ✴RIME 1.9.3.3; CDLI, P431077, which is known from  two spheroid jars , one from Girsu and the other from Lagash. 
   

In the first of these (which is more complete that the other), we read that:

1. ✴Mesalim had erected a stele on a particular spot on the border that Enlil had demarcated (lines 4-8); and
   

2. ✴when a now-unnamed ‘man of Umma’ smashed this stele and occupied the surrounding fields: 
   

3. “Eanatum, ensi of Lagash:
   

4. •given strength by Enlil;
   

5. •fed rich milk by Ninhursag;
   

6. •given a fine name by Nanshe, who subjugates foreign lands for Ningirsu;
   

7. restored to Ningirsu his beloved field(s).  Eanatum did not pass beyond the point where Mesalim had erected the (boundary) monument and (moreover, he) restored it”, (lines 41’-60’).
   

Interestingly, Enmetena (Eanatum’s nephew) gave a more complete account of these events at the start of his account of his own boundary dispute with Umma:

1. “Enlil, lugal kur-kur-a (king of all lands), ab-ba dingir-dingir-re2-ne-ke4 (father/elder of all the gods) ... demarcated the border between:
   

2. ✴Ningirsu, [the city god of Lagash and Girsu]; and
   

3. ✴Shara, [the city god of Umma].
   

4. Mesalim, king of Kish, at the command of [the god] Ishtaran, measured it out and erected a stele there.
   

5. ✴Ush, ensi of Umma, acted arrogantly: he smashed that monument and marched on the plain of Lagash.  Ningirsu, warrior of Enlil, at his (Enlil's) just command, did battle with Umma. ...
   

6. ✴Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, demarcated the border with Enakale, the ensi of Umma.  ... He inscribed (and erected) monuments at [the god-given border] and restored the monument of Mesalim, but did not cross [the border] into the plain of Umma”, (RIME 1.9.5.1; CDLI, P431117, lines 1-58).
   

Furthermore, when a later ruler of Umma, Gishakidu, (who was probably a contemporary of Enmetana - see Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp, referenced below, at p. 78) restored this boundary, he described himself (inter alia) as the beloved friend of Ishtaran (RIME 1.12.6.2; CDLI, P431197, lines 13-4), which implies that he also accepted the boundary as it had been demarcated by Mesalim. 

In short, while it is often claimed that Mesalim had intervened as arbitrator in a boundary dispute between Lagash and Umma, it is more likely that:

1. ✴both sides accepted the legitimacy of Kishite hegemony in the earlier period and thus of Mesalim’s god-given mandate to establish the line of the border between them; and 
   

2. ✴later disputes centred on related issues, including the original location of this border and practical matters relating to the use by both parties of the wide and potentially fertile plain through which it ran.  
   

‘Stele of the Vultures’ 

Surviving fragments from the obverse of the  two-sided ‘Stele of the Vultures’ from  the Temple of Ningirsu at Girsu,

now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 50): image from the museum website (my additions in black)  

As mentioned above, our most important source for the history of the border wars between Lagash and Umma during Eanatum’s reign is the magnificent ‘Stele of the Vultures’.  This originally huge limestone stele is known from seven surviving fragments (A-G, exhibited in the Musée du Louvre as AO 50):

1. ✴fragments A-F were excavated at the site of the Temple of Ningirsu at Girsu; and
   

2. ✴fragment G, which clearly belonged to this stele, subsequently emerged in London and was re-united with the other fragments in Paris. 
   

All of these fragments carry reliefs and inscriptions on both sides.  As Renate van Dijk-Coombes (referenced below, at pp. 198-9) observed, as soon as these fragments were laid out in what would have been their respective positions, it became obvious that the stele had what might be dubbed:

1. ✴a historical side, on which the reliefs depict a battle and its immediate aftermath (in four registers, ‘read’ from bottom to top); and
   

2. ✴a mythological side, in which the reliefs (in two registers) depict the imagined actions of two deities thereafter.
   

Detail: Relief of the vultures, on the reverse of fragment A 

The stele owes its modern name to the relief (illustrated above) on the top register of the reverse of fragment A, which depicts a flock of vultures carrying off the remains of fallen enemy soldiers (the final scene in the ‘historical’ sequence).  The inscription (RIME 1.9.3.1; CDLI, P431075) on each of the edges identifies:

1. “Eanatum, kur gu2 gar-gar (the subjugator of the lands of Ningirsu)”, (lines 630’-632’ and 633’-635’).
   

Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 285) argued that this stele must have been given a place of honour in Ur-Nanshe’s Ningirsu temple at Girsu and then displayed equally prominently in its successor, which was built by Eanatum’s nephew, Enmetena, where it remained until this temple felt the fury of Lugalzagesi (erstwhile ensi of Umma, before he became king of Uruk).  As Rey pointed out (at p. 301), it was surely at this point (or soon thereafter) that:

1. “The sacred complex was plundered and razed to the ground, creating a destruction horizon across Tell K that contained some of the defaced and shattered fragments of objects that were formerly the supreme emblems of Girsu’s power and prestige.  Of paramount importance were the artefacts that celebrated historically important victories that had been inflicted by the rulers of Lagash on the state of Umma, and chief among them was the ‘Stele of the Vultures’.”
   

Eanatum’s Campaign(s) against Umma

Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, 1983, at pp. 25-6) argued that Eanatum’s account of this war in the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ suggests that it involved at least two discrete episodes:

1. ✴At the start of the account, we read that:
   

2. “They fought each other, and a man shot an arrow towards Eanatum.  He was penetrated by the arrow, but he broke it off(?). In front of them he made noises with ... A man of the wind ... Eanatum, in Umma, like a destructive storm of rain, he left behind a deluge.  […] Eanatum, a man of just words, had a border territory from Umma marked off, and he left it under the control of Umma.  He erected a stele in that place.  He defeated the ruler of Umma […] and he heaped up twenty tumuli”, (RIME 1.9.3.1; CDLI, P431075, lines 153’-181’). 
   

3. Cooper argued that this demarcation of the border and attention to the burial of the dead signified the end of the putative first episode.
   

4. ✴Then, in a putative second episode, we read that:
   

5. “... Eanatum obliterated many foreign lands for Ningirsu.  Eanatum returned to Ningirsu his beloved field, the Gu'edena.  The fields by his side, the interest-bearing places of Ningirsu,  ... [Long, now-fragmentary list of fields that Eanatum returned to Ningirsu] ... Eanatum, the one nominated by Ningirsu, he (Eanatum) returned it to him”, (RIME 1.9.3.1; CDLI, P431075, lines 187’-228’). 
   

In support of this hypothesis of two separate episodes, Cooper pointed out (at p, 26) that:

1. ✴nearly all of Eanatum’s surviving ‘victory’ inscriptions (see the table below) refer to a victory over Umma, suggesting that [at least one such] victory occurred early [in his reign]; but
   

2. ✴the inscription on the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ also has a long list of Eanatum's ‘foreign’ campaigns  which must have been compiled towards the end of his reign.  
   

Moving the putative second episode to a relatively late date in Eanatum’s reign would solve this chronological conundrum.  He added (again at p. 26) that: 

1. “The lateness of the [‘Stele of the Vultures’] is also suggested by the fact that only there (and in a tiny fragment of another inscription) is Eanatum called ‘king’ (lugal); in all his other inscriptions his title is ‘ruler’ (ensi). 
   

It seems to me that since, as we have seen, Enmetena mentions Eanatum’s interactions with two rulers of Umma (the first with Ush and the second with Enakale), we might reasonably associate Ush with the first of these episodes and Enakale  with the second. 

Causes of Eanatum’s War with Enakale

We read in the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ that, after Eanatum’s putative second victory over Umma, he forced its ensi (presumably Enakale) to swear that he would desist from his earlier offences (thus allowing us to form an impression of what these offences had entailed):

1. “Eanatum gave the great casting-net of Enlil to the ensi of Umma and had him swear by it [in the following terms]: the ensi of Umma to Eanatum does swear:
   

2. ‘By the life of Enlil, king of heaven and earth, I shall exploit the fields of Ningirsu as an interest-bearing loan.  I shall operate the levees up to the spring, and forever and ever(?. )  I shall not cross over the boundary territory of Ningirsu.  I shall not make changes to its levees and irrigation ditches.  I shall not smash its steles to bits.  [If I ever violate this agreement, on that day, may] the great casting-net of Enlil, king of heaven and earth, on which I have sworn, fall on Umma from the sky!’”, (RIME 1.9.3.1; CDLI, P431075, lines 235’-282’). 
   

This oath is repeated for the other gods following deities: Ninhursag; Enki; Sin; Utu; and Ninki (as discussed further below). 

We can take this analysis further by look again at Enmetena’s account of the agreement that ended Eanatum’s war with  Enakale:   I reproduced part of the relevant passage above, but the complete passage reads: 

1. “Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, uncle of Enmetena, ensi of Lagash, [together] with Enakale, ensi of Umma, demarcated the (border) ground and extended its levee from the Princely Canal to the Gu'edena.  He left 215 nindan of Ningirsu's field under the control of Umma and made it into ‘a field with no owner’ [= no-man’s land]. 
   

2. [This was followed by an account of the physical structures that Eanatum erected on the newly- secured border - see the description below].
   

3. The man of Umma consumed (?) one guru of the barley of Nanshe and the barley of Ningirsu as an interest-bearing loan”, (RIME 1.9.5.1; CDLI, P431117, lines 32-69).
   

This presumably means that, under the terms agreed between Eanatum and Enakale, Umma could use the designated ‘no-man’s land’ to grow and harvest an agreed amount of barley each year and pay for it later at an agreed basic price plus interest. 

Taking these two sources together, it seems that the Eanatum resumed war with Umma because Enakale had allegedly:

1. ✴failed to pay  his debts to Lagash arising from his exploitation of the ‘no-mans land’ on the border;
   

2. ✴failed to operate the levees there for the agreed period of time;
   

3. ✴diverted water from the levees and its irrigation ditches, presumably to the detriment of Lagash; and
   

4. ✴‘smashed to pieces’ a number of border stele that had presumably marked the border, at least as it was defined by Lagash. 
   

Eanatum’s Monuments on the Newly-Secured Border

As note above, Enmetena described a number of monuments that Eanatum erected on the newly-secured border after his victory over Enakale:

1. “Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, uncle of Enmetena, ensi of Lagash, demarcated the border with Enakale, ensi of Umma.  He extended the (boundary-) channel from the Nun-canal to the Gu'edena, leaving  ... [a large  strip] of Ningirsu's land under Umma's control and establishing a no-man's land there. 
   

2. ✴He inscribed (and erected) monuments at that (boundary-) channel and restored the monument of Mesalim, but did not cross into the plain of Umma.  
   

3. ✴On the boundary mound [= dyke] of Ningirsu (named) Namnunda-kigara, he constructed:
   

4. •a dais (shrine) of Enlil;
   

5. •a dais (shrine) of Ninhursag;
   

6. •a dais (shrine) of Ningirsu; and
   

7. •a dais (shrine) of Utu”, (RIME 1.9.5.1; CDLI, P431117, lines 32-67).  
   

These boundary shrines were presumably intended to leave the lasting impression that the leading members of Mesopotamian pantheon guaranteed the inviolability of the border, which was marked by the ‘dyke of Ningirsu’, which was named Namnunda-kigara. 

Record of Eanatum’s ‘Foreign’ Victories in the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ 

Although most of the inscription on the stele deals with Eanatum’s victories over Umma, we read thereafter that:

1. “Eanatum, lugal (king) of Lagash [long list of divine patrons], defeated:
   

2. ✴Elam and Shubur/Subartu, the lands of timber and goods;
   

3. ✴a now-unknown locality;
   

4. ✴Susa; 
   

5. ✴Arawa/Urua, [even though ?] its ruler had set up its standard at the head [of its army ?];
   

6. ✴[several lines (and therefore several locations ?) missing];
   

7. ✴Arua, which he obliterated;  
   

8. ✴the [leader of ??] shue3 Kiengi (the land of Sumer). 
   

9. He defeated Ur ...”, (RIME 1.9.3.1; CDLI, P431075, lines 564’-605’).  
   

I will return to these ‘foreign’ victories after discussing the fuller account of them from the inscription on the so-called ‘Eanatum Boulder’

‘Eanatum Boulder’ 

‘Eanatum Boulder’, from Girsu (now in the Musée  du Louvre: AO 2677); image from the museum website  

(See also the image and translation by Reed Enger, "The Eanatum Boulder", 

in Obelisk Art History, Published May 18, 2015; last modified May 26, 2021) 

The inscription on the so-called ‘Eanatum Boulder’ (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079) which is known from two examples (one on the boulder from Girsu illustrated above and another on a boulder from Lagash, which is now in the Iraq Museum) contains the most comprehensive list of Eanatuum’s victories.  The inscription begins at home: 

1. “Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, [long list of divine patrons], son of Akurgal, ensi of Lagash, restored Girsu for Ningirsu (and) built the wall of the holy precinct for him.  For Nanshe, he built (the city of) Nigin”, (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079, lines 1-33).
   

We then read that, before his defeat of Umma:

1. “Eanatum defeated:
   

2. ✴Elam, the amazing mountain, and made burial mounds for it; [and]
   

3. ✴the [army of the] ruler of Arawa/Urua, who stood with the (city's) emblem in the vanguard, and made burial mounds for it (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079, lines 39-44).
   

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 177 - see also Figure 10,1, at p. 178) observed, at this time, the location ‘Elam’ in Mesopotamian sources is usually: 

1. “... a designation of the Iranian highlands and of the various ethnic groups living there.  As employed in 3rd millennium sources, this designation generally excludes Khuzestan (the Susiana and Deh Luran plains), where the cities of Susa, Arawa/Urua, Uru’az, AdamDUN, Awan and Pashime/Mishime were located.  However, already in the ED IIIb sources from Lagash, ‘Elam’ is occasionally used as a broad description of the entire eastern flank of southern Babylonia.”
   

Clearly, in this passage, Eanatum is aware of the ethnic difference between lowland Arawa/Urua (near Susa) and the warrior tribes of the Elamite highlands. 

The narrative then turns to Sumer, where: 

1. “[Eanatum] defeated:
   

2. ✴Umma, made 20 burial mounds for it [and] returned to Ningirsu his beloved field, the Gu'edena;
   

3. ✴Uruk;
   

4. ✴Ur; [and]
   

5. ✴Kiutu” (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079, lines 45-58).
   

Although the location of Kiutu is uncertain, it is usually assumed to have been in Sumer (see, for example, Stefano Seminara, referenced below, at p. 160).  We then read that, again in the plains around Susa:

1. “[Eanatum] defeated:
   

2. ✴Uruaz. and he killed its ruler;
   

3. ✴Pashime/Mishime [which] he destroyed; and
   

4. ✴Arua, [which] he obliterated.
   

5. All the lands trembled before Eanatum, the one nominated by Ningirsu”, (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079,  lines 59-71). 
   

We now come to what seems to have been a moment of great potential danger for Lagash, albeit that Eanatum came to the rescue: 

1. “In the year that the king of Akshak rose up, Eanatum, the one named by Ningirsu, drove Zuzu, the king of Akshak, from the Antasura [shrine] of Ningirsu to Akshak, which he destroyed.  At that time, Eanatum (Eanatum being his own name, while his ‘Tidnum name’ is Lumma) dug a new canal for Ningirsu and named it ‘lumma gimdu’ (Good/Sweet as/like Lumma)”, (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079,  lines 72-107). 
   

I will discus the events recorded in the first sentence along with those recorded subsequently below.  For the moment, we should note that the second sentence of this passage, we learn that, at the time of Eanatum’s victory over King Zuzu of Akshak, he also dug a new canal for Ningirsu.  Since this is the only civic project mentioned in this long inscription (apart from his building of a palace for Ningirsu at Tirash, mentioned at lines 143-4), Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, 1983, at p. 25) reasonably suggested that the inscription itself had been commissioned in order to commemorate the completion of this work.  Note, in passing, that this passage is not without its problems: for example, Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2006) argued that:

1. ✴the ‘Tidnum name’ of Eanatum ‘still awaits a convincing explanation’ (see p. 26) and, although Marchesi made this assertion some 20 years ago, it remains valid; and
   

2. ✴in any case:
   

3. •the name ‘Lumma’ is probably that of a deity (see p. 113);
   

4. •the word itself is probably an epithet meaning ‘the Lusty One’ (see p. 113); and
   

5. •the deity in question is probably Ningirsu (see p. 114).
   

His translation of this passage (see pp. 125-6) is therefore:

1. “At that time, when Eanatum’s own name ... and fame ... flourished/grew, he (Eanatum) dug a new canal for Ningirsu and named it Lummagendu (‘As Sweet as the Lusty One’) for him (= Ningirsu).” 
   

This project is recorded again later in the inscription, in slightly more detail:

1. “For Ningirsu, [Eanatum built] the Lummagimdu/Lummagendu (canal) for Ningirsu: Eanatum, given strength by Ningirsu, [also built] the reservoir of the Lummagimdu/Lummagendu (canal) with 3600 gur of bitumen”, (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079,  lines 127-137). 
   

Eanatum’s Victories 

Map of Mesopotamia and its eastern periphery 

Adapted from Willian Hamblin (referenced below, Map 2, at p. 43)   

Chronology  

Eanatum’s  victories, in the order in which they are recorded in his royal inscriptions  

See the discussion above for the victories recorded in the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ and in RIME 1.9.3: numbers 2 and 3

‘Phase I’ and ‘Phase II’ victory lists adapted from the table in Stefano Seminara (referenced below, at p. 151)   

As Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, 1983, at pp. 24-5) observed:

1. “The relative chronology of Eanatum's reign (which is of unknown length) cannot be disentangled, despite repeated scholarly efforts to do so.  His wide-ranging military activities are most fully recorded in [two] passages from [the ‘Eanatum Boulder (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079), discussed above].”  
   

The list of victories recorded in this inscription is set out in the central column on the table above (although, unlike Frayne, I have broken it immediately before rather than immediately after the first mention of Anshak.  In the sections below, I use this list as the basis for ordering my discussion of of the other 6 inscriptions that are relevant to the present discussion.  On this basis, the inscriptions fall into two groups:

1. ✴those beginning (or probably beginning) with victories over Elam, Arawa/Urua, Umma and places in Sumer (in the upper part of the table); and
   

2. ✴those that include Elam and Shubur/Subartu (in that order) and/or Akshak. 
   

I discuss these victories below, in two (probably successive) phases.

Eanatum’s Victories: Phase I

RIME 1.9.3.9: Brick Inscriptions from Girsu 

Inscribed fired brick from Tell L at Girsu

Now in the British Museum (BM 85977): image from the museum website 

The first inscription in the table (RIME 1.9.3.9; CDLI, P431084) is known from some 40 surviving bricks (one of which is illustrated above) from Tell K at Girsu, the site of the Ningirsu temple that had been rebuilt by Ur-Nanshe, Eanatum’s grandfather: after recording that Eanatum had defeated:

1. ✴KUR NIMki (the country/mountain of Elam);
   

2. ✴Arawa/Urua;
   

3. ✴Umma; and
   

4. ✴Ur;
   

it ends as follows:

1. “At that time, [Eanatum] built a well of fired bricks for the god Ningirsu in his (Ningirsu’s) broad courtyard. ... At that time, Eanatum was loved by Ningirsu”, (lines 30-33). 
   

As Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 238) observe, this:

1. “... large well [in the courtyard outside the Ningirsu temple] became a tremendously significant and extremely long-lasting feature of the sacred complex on Tell K.”
   

As noted above, the term used for Elam in this inscription is KUR NIMki.  As François Dessset (referenced below, at pp. 3-4) pointed out, the sign NIM in association with the topographic determinative KI is known to have been in use before the time of Eanatum as a (probably geographic) qualifier of individuals (both divine and mortal).  However, he argued (at p. 4 and note 16) that: 

1. “A new function appeared [for the sign NIM] in the archives of Lagash, first of all in the [inscription RIME 1.9.13.9, in which] the sign NIM [is combined] with a territory, KUR (country/mountain) [in the phrase] KUR NIMki (the mountain land of Elam). ... NIM seemed to be linked to a topographical reality, which [the] Mesopotamians created [for] a previously undesignated territory]...  by qualifying it with [NIM], a sign traditionally associated with persons.  The territory thus defined probably corresponded to a general concept: the eastern highlands.”  
   

Interestingly, in Eanatum’s other inscriptions, ‘Elam’ is written:

1. ✴NIM hursag (the qualifier meaning ‘mountain’); or
   

2. ✴NIMki (in the phrase Elam and Shubur/Subartu - see below). 
   

Since Arawa/Urua is described in later sources as ‘the bolt of Elam’, we can reasonably assume that  the first victory of Eanatum recorded in this inscription was against armies from Arawa/Urua and the Elamite highlands.

The victory against Umma that is the next in the list was presumably a reference to Eanatum’s  victory over Ush, ensi of Umma, in the putative first episode in the hostilities described in the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ (see above).  Hostility between Ur and Lagash might well have been fuelled by competition for the control of maritime trade via the Lower Sea (as discussed below), and it is possible that these two references refer to a single campaign in which Umma and Ur were allies. 

RIME 1.9.3.11:  Inscription on a Diorite Mortar of Unknown Provenience 

Fragment of a black diorite mortar carrying an inscription of Eanatum (provenience unknown) 

Now in the British Museum (BM 90832), image from the museum website  

The next inscription in the table above (RIME 1.9.311; CDLI, P431086), which is on a black diorite mortar of unknown provenience, is now in the British Museum (BM 90832).  It was originally published by Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, 1984, at pp. 87-92).  The surviving text is on two sides of the mortar (usually referred to as ‘Side 1’ and ‘Side 4’). 

The first part of the text on ‘Side 1’ is now illegible: the surviving text here records that:

1. “... He defeated [Ur]uk.  [He defeated] Ur. … Eanatum, the one who built the temple of Gatumdug.  His personal god is Shulutul.  Eanatum fashioned (a statue of) Nanshe ... He established regular offerings [for]:
   

2. ✴Na[nshe], for (her) giguna-mah (temple);  
   

3. ✴Ningirsu, for (his) ... temple; and
   

4. ✴Enlil at Nippur (…). 
   

It seems likely that:

1. ✴this mortar (like the bricks carrying RIME 1.9.3. 9 discussed above) was commissioned at the time of Eanatum’s victory over Ush, ensi of Umma; and
   

2. ✴this victory over Umma was recorded in the now-illegible initial part of the text. 
   

The other inscription (on ‘Side 4’) begins with a warning that no-one should confiscate the mortar that Eanatum had fashioned for Nanshe, the mistress of the pure mountain in the Emah.  Although there is no surviving external evidence for the original location(s) of the mortar of Eanatum  and the statue of Nanshe that is recorded in its inscription, the internal evidence from the inscription suggests that both objects were dedicated in a temple of Nanshe named the giguna-mah (Great Temple Terrace) and/or the Emah.

The remained of the text on ‘Side 4’ articulates a series of curses on anyone who destroys or burns the mortar itself or effaces its inscriptions.  One particular element of this text is both important and obscure, so I offer four translations (in reverse date order and with the sentence order changed where necessary to facilitate comparison):

1. ✴“... (this) great mortar of Nanshe, while it is left on its pedestal: may the ensi of Lagash ...  In the event that it has been completely smashed  by a dog(?) or, during the rubbing of its inscription ... : 
   

2. may he not pass by (Nanshe): may that king of Kish not pass by (Nanshe)”,  CDLI, P431086, lines 39’-45’).
   

3. ✴“... if the ensi of Lagash removes the large mortar of Nanshe from its pedestal,  ... If a stranger smashes it to bits or effaces its inscription, ... : 
   

4. may he never pass (before Nanshe): may he, even if he is a king of Kish, never pass (before Nanshe)”, (Christopher Woods, referenced below, at p. 40).
   

5. ✴“... as for the large mortar of Nanshe, preserve it on its pedestal.  The ensi of Lagash ... Since he incited a stranger to smash [the mortar] completely and to erase its inscription:
   

6. may (that man) never pass (before Nanshe): may that king of Kish never pass (before Nanshe)”, (Douglas Frayne, referenced below, 2008, RIME 1.9.3.11, at p. 161).
   

7. ✴“If the large mortar of Nanshe is removed from its pedestal, [may] the ensi of Lagash [three lines missing]: 
   

8. may [     ] never pass [before Nanshe]: may that king of Kish never pass (before Nanshe)”, (Jerrold Cooper, referenced below, 1984, at p. 90). 
   

Although this is all extremely confusing, it seems to me that we are grappling here with two events:

1. ✴an earlier violation of the sacred mortar carried out by a now unnamed king of Kish, which led to the curse ensuring that he would never ‘pass before Nanshe’; and
   

2. ✴the restoration of the mortar and its return to its pedestal by Eanatum, who also commissioned its inscriptions, which include curses on anyone responsible for future violations.
   

I wonder (and this is pure speculation) whether this earlier king of Kish was Mesanepada, who had also had the title king of Ur. 

RIME 1.9.3: numbers 5 (upper part); 6 and 8   

As we have seen, the inscription (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079) on ‘Eanatum Boulder’ begins as follows:

1. “Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, [long list of divine patrons], son of Akurgal, ensi of Lagash:
   

2. ✴restored Girsu for Ningirsu (and) built the wall of the holy precinct for him; and 
   

3. ✴built (the city of) Nigin for Nanshe,”
   

It then recorded that:

1. “Eanatim defeated: 
   

2. ✴Elam, the lofty mountain (land) and heaped up tumuli;
   

3. ✴the ensi of Arawa/Urua, [although he] marched ahead of Arawa’s standards [see Gàbor Zólyomi, referenced below, for this translation] and heaped up tumuli;
   

4. ✴Umma, heaped up 20 tumuli and restored to Ningirsu control his beloved the Gu’edena;
   

5. ✴Uruk; Ur; [and] Kiutu [(which, as noted above, is usually assumed to have been in Sumer)];
   

6. ✴Uruaz, which he sacked, [having killed] its ruler;
   

7. ✴Pashime/Mishime, which he sacked, [having killed] its ruler; and
   

8. ✴Arua.
   

9. All the foreign lands trembled before Eanatum, the nominee of the god Ningirsu.”
   

This list of victories seems to have become a canonical list of those that Eanatum secured in a specific period of his reign, since it is reproduced:

1. ✴in an inscription (RIME 1.9.3.6; CDLI, P431080) that is found on two surviving boulders from unknown locations in Girsu; and
   

2. ✴with only Ur and Kiutu missing, in an inscription (RIME 1.9.3.8; CDLI, P431083) found on 11 from an unknown location in Girsu. 
   

Eanatum’s Victories (‘Phase I’): Analysis and Conclusions

These victories in what I have called ‘Phase I’ clearly fall int two geographical subgroups:

1. ✴Umma, Uruk, Ur and (probably) Kiutu in Sumer; and
   

2. ✴a number of locations to the east:
   

3. •Elam and Arawa/Urua (the ‘bolt of Elam’); and
   

4. •a group of locations (Uruaz, Pashime/Mishime and Arua) that, according to Stefano Seminara (referenced below, at p. 160) are likely to be located to the north of what is now the Persian Gulf.
   

In relation to Eanatum’s victories in Sumer, the most obvious point to make is that none of them appears in the ‘Phase II. victory lists.  In the table above, I have assumed that of victories against Umma recorded in:

1. ✴RIME 1.9.3: numbers 2 and 3: and
   

2. ✴the ‘Phase I’ inscriptions;
   

were secured by Eanatum against Ush, ensi of Umma.  It is, of course, possible that Uruk, Ur and Kiutu went to war against Eanatum as allies of Umma.

This brings us to Eanatum’s ‘Phase I’ engagement with armies from the east: in the most detailed inscriptions (RIME 1.9.3: numbers 5, 6 and 8), Eanatim defeated: 

1. ✴NIM hur-sag-u6-ga (Elam, the lofty mountain), and heaped up tumuli;
   

2. ✴the ensi of Arawa/Urua (despite the fact that he marched ahead of his city’s standards)  and heaped up tumuli;
   

3. ✴Uruaz, which he sacked, having killed its ensi;
   

4. ✴Pashime/Mishime, which he also sacked, having killed its ensi; and
   

5. ✴Arua.
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 180) argued that:

1. “Since Eanatum claims to have sacked and destroyed [Uruaz and Pashime/Mishime]. it appears certain that he actually campaigned in the [lowland plain around Susa]. ... [However, it] is unlikely that [he] campaigned in the highlands: his conflict with ‘Elam’ probably having been of a purely defensive nature.”
   

I wonder whether the unrest in Sumer at this time attracted the attention of raiders from the east, and that, having ended his dispute wit Umma, Eanatum was able to drive the back towards the Zagros and attack their lowland settlements.  There is certainly no indication that he had territorial aspirations in the east. 

Eanatum’s Victories: Phase II   

Political map of Mesopotamia in ca. 2400 BC

Adapted from Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 1998, Figure 1, at p. 86) 

In the  lower part of the inscription (RIME 1.9.3.5; CDLI, P431079) on the ‘Eanatum Boulder’, we read that: 

1. “In the year that the king of Akshak rose up, Eanatum, the one named by Ningirsu, drove Zuzu, the king of Akshak, from the Antasura [shrine] of Ningirsu to Akshak, which he destroyed”, (lines 72-83).  
   

We find essentially the same account in the inscription (RIME 1.9.3.6; CDLI, P431080, mentioned above, lines 74-83), except that the king of Akshak is not named here.  Both accounts record that, at this time, Eanatum also built a new canal, albeit that the lines in RIME 1.9.3.6 that presumably named it (as the Lummagimdu/Lummagendu canal, discussed above) are no longer legible. 

Thereafter, we read in RIME 1,9.3.5 that: 

1. “... because Inanna so loved Eanatum, ... [she] gave him the nam-lugal (kingship) of Kish in addition to the nam-ensi2 (rulership) of Lagash.
   

2. ✴Elam trembled before Eanatum and he sent the Elamite back to his land.
   

3. ✴Kish trembled before him.
   

4. ✴He sent the king of Akshak back to his land. 
   

5. Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, the subjugator of the many foreign lands of Ningirsu, defeated:
   

6. ✴Elam, Shubur/Subartu and Arawa/Urua at the Asuhur (canal); and
   

7. ✴Kish, Akshak and Mari at the Antasura of Ningirsu. 
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 180) suggested that we are dealing here with a major war that was waged against Lagash by what might well a coalition consisting of: Akshak, Kish, Mari, Elam, Shubur/Subartu and Arawa/Urua. 

Two inscribed fragments from a bowl from Nippur, now in the British Museum ((BM 129401/2) 

Images from the museum website

Although our sources for this putative war are few, there is evidence that it took place in a period during which the political situation to the north and to the east of Lagash was very fluid.  For example, Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, at p. 149) argued that: 

1. “There are strong reasons to think that the power and influence of Kish began to wane in the ED IIIa period.  This development appears to have been due primarily to the rise of Mari and Akshak as major political powers at about that time.” 
   

The power of Kish had been paramount in the ED II period, as evidenced, for example, by the so-called ‘Prisoner Plaque’, which was published by Piotr Steunkeller in the paper cited above.  This plaque, which probably came from Kish, carried an inscription which suggests that:

1. ✴it had been commissioned by the now-unknown ruler (probably a king) of that city at some time in the ED II period; and
   

2. ✴it recorded the capture of some 36,000 slaves from at least 25 locations. 
   

Steinkeller (as above) cited potential evidence for the his hypothesis that the power of Kish waned in the ED IIIa period from the inscriptions on two very similar stone vessel fragments from Nippur (illustrated above, both of which are now in the British Museum):

1. ✴RIME 1.7.42.1; CDLI, P431031 (BM 129401), which records that Utuk/Uhub, ensi of Kish, dedicated something to Zababa; and
   

2. ✴RIME 1.15.1; CDLI, P432235 (BM 129402), which records that Puzuzu (or, perhaps, a now-unnamed ruler who was the son of Puzuzu), the conquerer Hamazi, dedicated something to a now-unnamed deity.
   

He argued that:

1. ✴the fact that Utuk/Uhub used the title ensi of Kish (rather than the expected lugal (king)) in the inscription on the vessel BM 129401: 
   

2. “... strongly suggests that [he] was a vassal, [probably of the ruler of either] Mari or Akshak”, (see p. 149); and
   

3. ✴the fact that Puzuzu dedicated the vessel BM 129402 at Nippur suggests that he exercised hegemony over much of northern Mesopotamia. 
   

He further argued that:

1. “Unless [Puzuzu] was yet another ruler of Kish, ... the chances are that he was a king of Akshak.  Conceivably, he was identical with Zuzu, the ruler of Akshak [who is recorded in RIME 1.9.3.5 as] an adversary of Eanatum ... ”, (see p. 150 and note 79). 
   

Before discussing these two inscriptions further, it is necessary to look at the history of the  fragments that carry them.  As Julian Reade (referenced below) observed, they:

1. ✴had originally been housed in the University Museum, Philadelphia (CBS 9571+9577 and CBS 9572) and published by Herman Hilprecht (referenced below, Plate. 46, numbers 108-9) as two parts of a single vessel;
   

2. ✴were purchased in the early 20th century by an amateur historian, Laurence Waddell, who was convinced that they had been part of the Holy Grail (which, in his view, had originated in Sumer); and  
   

3. ✴were finally purchased by the British Museum in 1939.  
   

Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, 1984, Plate V, at pp. 92-3), who published the inscriptions, argued that these fragments:

1. “... are not part of the same vase at all, despite a similar colour and fabric … The fragments are of different thickness and curvature.” 
   

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 47 and p. 63) explicitly accepted Cooper’s argument and Piotr Steinkeller (as above) discussed the inscriptions as if they were carried by two separate objects.  However, this leaves open the question of why Utuk/Uhub, ensi of Kish, would have made a dedication to Zabala, the city god of Kish, at Nippur

In any case, Julian Reade (as above) argued that Cooper’s argument:

1. “...is not correct.  The two fragments are as similar as one can expect such things to be.  They are both rim fragments, sharing an original diameter of ca. 40-44 cm and a maximum thickness of ca. 1.6 cm, and their overall resemblance to one another strongly suggests that they derive from a single deep open bowl.  They do have two obviously distinct inscriptions, presumably made at different times:
   

2. ✴one (BM 129401) is a dedication to Zababa by Utuk/Uhub, an ensi of Kish, and
   

3. ✴the other (BM 129402) is a dedication by someone who conquered Hamazi.
   

4. ... The former inscription is the more clear-cut, which may be due to differential weathering of the stone.” 
   

I have to say that I find this convincing, I would argue that the most likely sequence of events would be that:

1. ✴Utuk/Uhub, ensi of Kish, originally dedicated the vessel to Zababa at Kish; and
   

2. ✴Puzuzu (or his son), who probably exercised hegemony over Kish and clearly controlled Nippur:
   

3. •added a second inscription to it after his conquest of Hamazi (and perhaps other cities); and
   

4. •re-dedicated it at Nippur (presumably to Enlil).
   

Eanatum’s Victory over Akshak, Kish and Mari

Steinkeller (as above) then addressed (at p. 150) the further decline of Kish in the context of:

1. “... the actions of  ... Eanatum, who extensively campaigned in the Susiana and possibly even as far [Shubur/Subartu], taking the title of the ‘King of Kish’ [see below].  Eanatum also claimed to have defeated Kish, Mari, and Akshak.  However, since the ... battles in question [were] fought within Lagash’s territory, it would appear that ... Lagash was on defensive, with the conflict’s probable cause having been:
   

2. ✴Eanatum’s military accomplishments in the east; and
   

3. ✴his possible attempts to extend his power into northern [Mesopotamia]. 
   

4. There are certainly no indications that Eanatum succeeded in sacking Kish itself.”
   

However, Aage Westenholz (referenced below, at p. 688) responded with a more nuanced view of these events: 

1. “Steinkeller argues convincingly that Eanatum’s was a defensive victory; but Eanatum surely did more than merely seeing his enemies off. 
   

2. ✴Zuzu of Akshak was pursued all the way to the safety of his own city, soundly beaten; [and]
   

3. ✴Eanatum ... claimed to be ‘king of Kish’ and a fragment of an inscription of his  [CDLI, P221781 - see Westenholz’s note 4 for his completion] has actually been excavated there, as if to prove the veracity of that claim. 
   

4. Even so, his dominion over the North was probably quite short-lived.”
   

It seems to me that it is entirely possible that:

1. ✴King Zuzu of Akshak exercised hegemony over Kish and Mari at the time of his attack on Lagash; and
   

2. ✴after Eanatum had repelled this attack and pursued Zuzu towards Akshak, he was able to assume hegemony over Kish, albeit that this situation might not have endured for very long.  (I will return to Eanatum’s claim to the kingship of Kish below).
   

Eanatum’s Victory over Elam, Shubur/Subartu and Arawa/Urua

The first thing to say here is that he presence of Shubur/Subartu in this group of Eanatum’s victories is somewhat unexpected.  As Vitali Bartash (referenced below, at p. 266) observed, this locality had been recorded in our surviving sources of only two previous occasions:

1. ✴as kur Shubur in the ‘Prisoner Plaque’, where it is recorded as the source of 6,300 prisoners that had been enslaved by a ruler of Kish in the ED II period; and
   

2. ✴Shuburki in the ED ‘List of Geographic Names’ (see his note 17), which generally deals with localities in northern Mesopotamia and its eastern periphery; 
   

He then observed that:

1. “... Shuburki appears side by side with Elam in a lengthy inscription [i.e., RIME 1,9.3.5] commemorating the military exploits of Eanatum ...” 
   

In other words, as far as we know, Shubur/Subartu made its first appearance in the recorded history of Sumer in Eanatum’s royal inscriptions (including RIME 1,9.3.5, under discussion here).

Any analysis of the significance of Eanatum’s claimed victory obver Shubur/Subartu should obviously start with the question of its geographical location: as Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 1998, at p. 77) pointed out, this is complicated by the fact that:

1. “... it is quite certain that, already in the 3rd millennium BC, Subartu had two separate meanings:
   

2. ✴a narrow sense, [‘Subartu Proper’]; and
   

3. ✴a broad sense, [‘Greater Subartu’] ... . 
   

4. In its narrow (and therefore, almost certainly, its original) sense, ... Subartu denoted an area extending north of the Diyala region and east of the Tigris as far as the Zagros mountains.”
   

He further observed (at p. 79) that, since Shubur/Subartu is closely linked to Elam and Arawa/Urua in Eanatum’s inscriptions:

1. “... it is absolutely certain ... that [this location] must have been ‘Subartu Proper’, the area to the east of the Tigris ... [Furthermore], in my opinion, the most likely candidate for [its  unknown] capital ... is Hamazi, [which was] a very important (though rather mysterious) ... urban centre [at this time]: although its precise location [is also] unknown, it is generally agreed that Hamazi was [also] situated to the east of the Tigris and to the north of the Diyala Region.”
   

Some 20 years later, Steve Renette (referenced below, at p. 77) observed that:

1. “There is general agreement that ... [Hamazi] is to be found between the Tigris and the Diyala or Lower Zab [rivers], based on its close association with Shubur/Subartu.” 
   

Given this background and the inscriptions on the vessel fragments BM 129401/2 discussed above, we might reasonably place both Shubur/Subartu and its putative capital Hamazi within the political sphere of Akshak, Kish and Mari (see the map above).

In construction from here.

1. 
   

2. 
   

3. presumably after these victories:
   

“... because Inanna so loved Eanatum, ... [she] gave him the nam-lugal (kingship) of Kish in addition to the nam-ensi2 (rulership) of Lagash”, (lines 102-106). 

It seems to me that, in these passages, Eanatum was drawing a parallel between his own exploits and those of king Mesalim of Kish, who:

had exercised hegemony over Lagash in the ED II period (as we shall see); and

was recorded with great reverence as the protector of the border between lagash and Umma in Eanatum’s royal inscriptions (see, for example, RIME 1.9.3.2; CDLI, P431076., see lines 4-8 and line 55’-60’). 

An inscription (RIME 1.9.3.7a, CDLI, P431081) found on two boulders from Girsu. one apparently now in the Musée du Louvre and the other now in the Istanbul Musem (ESh 1632), reads as follows:

“For Ningirsu, Eannatum, ensi of Lagash, the subjugator of many foreign lands of Ningirsu, subjugated Elam and Shubur/Subartu [for him].  He built the temple Tirash for him and made resplendent for him.  Eannatum, the one who is subject to the word of Ningirsu:  by the power of Ningirsu, no-one could rival him throughout all lands.”

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 180 and p. 194) pointed out, at least by the time of Enentarzi (Eanatum’s successor by two generations), the port of Guabba on the Lower Sea (which belonged to Lagash and was linked to it by a canal): 

“...  was the starting point of a sea route that ran eastward along the coast to the mouth of the Karun river.  From there, it followed over the Karun deep into Khuzestan and the neighbouring areas, where the cities of Susa, Arawa/Urua, Pashime, AdamDUN and Sabum were situated, and the overland- routes leading into [what is now] southeastern Iran could be accessed.” 

This route was presumably used for trade, but it could also facilitate military aggression in either direction.  [Note that the Karun river mentioned here and the Karkeh river to the west of it (marked of the map above) both now join the Tigris shortly before it reaches the Persian Gulf].

Jasmina Osterman (referenced below, at p. 53) suggested that, since:

“The inscription is about [Eanatum’s] victory over the city of Umma ... the emphasis on [his] victory over Ur [after his more general victory over shue3 Kiengi] indicates that, [at the time of his victories over shue3 Kiengi]  and Ur], there was an alliance between those two cities (Umma and Ur) that had something to do with Kiengi.” 

Interestingly, Kish is also referred to on one of the surviving fragments of this stele: we read that, as Eanatum lay sleeping, ‘his beloved king, Ningirsu’ appeared to him in a dream to reassure him that:

“Umma, like Kish, shall therefore wander about, and by means of ones seized by anger(?), shall surely be removed”, (obverse, lines 124’-136’).

This seems to suggest that Kish was allied with Umma at this time, which might explain why (according to the Eanatum Boulder):

Kish subsequently ‘trembled before’ Eanatum; and

Inanna, who loved him, ‘gave him the kingship of Kish’.  

Enanatum I

Text