Introduction

Map 1: Extent of the Akkadian and ‘Ur III[ Empires 

Image adapted from Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2021, Map 2.1, at p. 69) 

My additions: text in red and blue    

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2021, at p. 43) observed, as far as we know: 

1. “... the two earliest examples of imperial experiments on record [are]:
   

2. ✴the empire of Sargon of Akkad (2300-2200 BC); and
   

3. ✴the [empire of the so-called Ur III dynasty] (2100-2000 BC).  
   

He pointed out (at p. 44) that, in the 4th millennium BC, Uruk had apparently played a leading role in a commercial and trading network that involved other city-states across much of the territory that later belonged to Sargon’s empire, but observed that this so-called ‘Uruk Expansion’ was:

1. “... emphatically not an empire, ... [albeit that it] was responsible for the establishment of the trading patterns and commercial routes existing later in the very same region.” 
   

He then suggested out that: 

1. “A more direct antecedent of the Sargonic Empire, in both time and space, was [probably] the kingdom of Kish.  
   

This is therefore where we should start our analysis of the empires of Mesopotamia.

Archeological Evidence for Ancient Kish

Map 2: Site of Ancient Kish  

Image from Karen Wilson and Deborah Bekken (referenced below, Map 1, p. xviii): my additions in red

As Karen Wilson and Deborah Bekken (referenced below, at p. xix) pointed out, Kish was located on the floodplain of the Euphrates, some 12 km to the east of the later site of Babylon (80 km south of modern Baghdad).  Excavations here have uncovered ancient remains under some 40 mounds that are scattered over an area of 2.4 km2.  As Peter Moorey (referenced below, at p. xx) observed:

1. “Archaeologists and ancient historians now refer to [the totality of these mounds] as ‘Kish’, the ancient name of the city whose primary shrines lay about the standing ruin of an eroded ziggurat known locally as 'Tell Uhaimir’.  Until the ancient topography of the whole area is much better known from documentary sources, ‘Kish’ suffices as a short-hand description for many closely related settlements:
   

2. ✴extending back in time long before the use of writing; and
   

3. ✴running down to the Mongol invasion, long after the name of Kish had passed from record.”
   

Karen Wilson and Deborah Bekken (referenced below, at p. xix) asserted that the Euphrates originally divided the urban area of Kish into:

1. ✴a western area, which was dominated by [the] ziggurat found at Tell Uhaimir (probably the site of the temple of Zababa, the city-god of Kish); and
   

2. ✴an eastern complex at Tell Ingharra that the ancients knew as as Hursagkalama, which was the location of an important temple of Inanna.
   

However, Federico Zaina (referenced below, at p. 443), in a paper reporting on his recent review of the archeological evidence from Tell Ingharra (the most extensively explored area of ancient Kish) concluded that:

1. ”... the hypothesis that views Tell Ingharra and Tell Uhaimir as independent villages [in the 3rd millennium BC] does not seem entirely convincing.”
   

Having said that, there is surviving epigraphic evidence that Kish was indeed divided in some way into two urban areas in the pre-Sargonic period: in two of the inscriptions in which Sargon commemorated his victory over Lugalzagesi of Uruk (RIME 2:1:1, inscriptions 1 and 2), we read that he also:

1. “... altered the two sites of Kish [and] made [them] occupy (one) city”, (see, for example, RIME 2:1:1:2, CDLI P461927, lines 100-8).
   

Furthermore, as Stephanie Dalley (referenced below, at p. 92) pointed out, while Inanna/Ishtar eventually had temples in both locations, at least by the Old Babylonian period:

1. “Kish-Uhaimir and Hursagkalama-Ingharra were regarded as two separate cities as far as cults were concerned ... Zababa , [unlike Inanna/Ishtar], is never referred to as a god of Hursagkalama ... [and ancient] lists of temples also name the two cities separately.”  
   

According to Francesco del Bravo (referenced below, at p. 303) archeological evidence (primarily from Tell Ingharra and Tell Uhaimir) indicates that:

1. “... between the Late Uruk and Early Dynastic IIIa-b periods, Kish underwent three stages [of urban development], each representing a significant expansion ... :
   

2. ✴Late Uruk = 10.1 ha;
   

3. ✴ED I = 137.2 ha;
   

4. ✴ED III = 230.9 ha.
   

5. These data clearly show how, ... in the span of a few centuries, [Kish] not only [reached] an urban status but was [also] by far the largest occupied settlement in northern Babylonia, [at least as far as we know].”
   

During this period, the use of the Sumerian language in northern Mesopotamia increasingly gave way to a Semitic language dubbed ‘Akkadian’ (presumably reflecting a period of migration from the north).  Aage Westenholz (referenced below, 2020, at pp. 690-1) observed that, although the textual evidence from Kish is not as extensive as one would like:

1. “There is sufficient textual material from ED IIIa ... to allow an assessment of the [Kishite] population around 2600 BC.  The language of record of these texts is difficult to define ... [However], there are:
   

2. ✴26 Sumerian names;
   

3. ✴6 Akkadian; and
   

4. ✴13 names of uncertain linguistic affiliation (though most of them may turn out to be Sumerian). 
   

5. Bearers of Akkadian names thus made up 13.3% of the inhabitants of Kish [at this time], while well over a half were [still] Sumerians. ... During ED IIIb ..., the percentage of Akkadian names increases steadily, although the process is difficult to monitor, due to the scarcity of material.”
   

According to Federico Zaina (referenced below, at p. 444) the surviving archeological evidence suggests that the period of Kishite expansion:

1. “... ends abruptly at the end of the ED IIIb, with a violent destruction attested in several areas ... During the Akkadian period, Kish seems to be mostly occupied by graveyards and small squatter buildings.  Its partial regeneration as a smaller centre [only begins] at the very end of the 3rd millennium BC, with the erection of a massive building ... close to the ziggurats of Ingharra.”  
   

Early History of Kish

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2017, at p. 121) argued that the northern part of Mesopotamia (roughly, the Mesopotamian region north of Nippur, which included Kish): 

1. “... formed a single territorial state, which was governed by the city of Kish, [albeit that] it appears that, on some occasions, its centre of power moved to Mari in the middle Euphrates valley and Akshak in the Diyala Region.  The magnitude of the political power wielded by Kish (especially during the ED I and ED II periods) is reflected in the fact that the title of the ‘king of Kish’ eventually became a generic designation for the authoritarian and hegemonic form of kingship.”
   

This paragraph contains three hypotheses that are important for  present analysis:

1. ✴first, that, in the ED I and II periods, the rulers of the city of Kish also exercised an ‘authoritarian and hegemonic form of kingship’ over ‘a single territorial state’ in northern Mesopotamia;
   

2. ✴secondly, that this precocious example of hegemonic rule was remembered throughout Mesopotamia long after the political fortunes of Kish had declined; and
   

3. ✴this was the reason why later rulers who exercised (or aspired to exercise) hegemony in Mesopotamia adopted the title ‘lugal kish(ki)’ in order to underscore their own political legitimacy. 
   

I shall discuss the evidence for these separate hypotheses below.

Kishite Hegemony in Northern Mesopotamia (3rd Millennium BC) ? 

Evidence of the ‘Prisoner Plaque’ 

So-called ‘Prisoner Plaque; image from CDLI, P453401

In support of the first of these hypotheses, Piotr Steinkeller referred back to one of his earlier papers (referenced below, 2013) on the alabaster plaque illustrated above, which he characterised (at pp. 144-5) as: 

1. “... the earliest truly historical source that survives from ancient Mesopotamia.” 
   

The provenience of the plaque is unknown: it was apparently in a private collection when Steinkeller published his paper, although he was able to examine high quality photographs and to access information about its material and measurements.  He argued (at p. 132) that:

1. “On the basis of its script, the plaque may tentatively be dated to the ED II period or (although less likely) to the ED I period.”
   

More recently, Camille Lecompte (referenced below, at pp. 440-3) dated it to the later part of the ED II period.  

The shallow relief on the front of this plaque, which depicts two standing male figures facing left, carrying bows and other objects, is relatively uninformative.  However, the main body of the six-column text, which is written in Sumerian cuneiform, is made up of a list of captives from at least 25 different locations (listed at p. 133) and the number of captives from each.  Steinkeller offered the following tentative translation of these final lines of the surviving text (at p. 133):

1. “36,000 captives
   

2. (They were assigned) to the filling of threshing floors (with grain) and the making of grain stacks
   

3. The stone (monument) fashioned in Kish
   

4. Zababa is the god of manhood”, (col. vi, lines 3’-7’).
   

It ends on the lower right edge with the name of the scribe, Amar-SHID.  Since the surviving( [incomplete) text records 28,970 captives (see p. 133), and assuming that the figure 36,000 represents the actual total, it seems that about 20% of the original text has been lost. 

Steinkeller argued (at p. 132) that:

1. “The plaque almost certainly stems from Kish (or one of its [putative] dependencies, [as] is assured by the following data: 
   

2. ✴the plaque mentions Zababa, the patron god of Kish (vi 7');
   

3. ✴the city of Kish is likely named in it as well (vi 6');
   

4. ✴the signs, sign-values and other paleographic features of the inscription show strong connections to the early written materials from Kish and from northern Babylonia more generally ... ;
   

5. ✴the [25] toponyms named in the [surviving part of the] inscription include [at least 8] that also appear in the Early Dynastic ‘List of Geographical Names’ ...  [see the discussion below]; and
   

6. ✴the scene depicted on the [obverse] shows similarities to an ED II inlaid frieze excavated at Kish [see his Figure 5, at p. 153].
   

He argued (at p. 142) that:

1. “As best as it can be ascertained, the plaque is a record of the prisoners of war who were acquired as booty by the state of Kish in the course of its territorial conquests.  The preserved sections of the plaque name 25 conquered places, with one of them (Asha) appearing twice (i 10', ii 7').  The numbers of prisoners per toponym vary from 50 (i 15') to 6,300 (v 5').  Given the wide variation among the numbers, there is every reason to think that these are real, and not inflated, figures.  Since the numbers, as preserved, add up to 28,970 captives, with a significant number of entries presently missing, it is likely that the figure of the total (36,000) likewise is a real one, though probably slightly rounded up”; and
   

suggested (see p. 143) that:

1. “Both the large number of localities conquered and the huge figures of captives so obtained speak against the possibility that the plaque describes the outcome of a single military campaign.  Much more likely, in my view, [is the hypothesis that] we find here a cumulative record of the conquests carried out by Kish over a period of time.
   

He concluded (at p. 145) that the ‘Prisoner Plaque’:

1. “... provides priceless information about the formation and the territorial conquests of the state of Kish during the phases of the ED period.  In this connection, particularly eloquent is the mention of 6,300 captives acquired in the land of Shubur (Assyria).  Here, one witnesses not only the oldest occurrence of Assyria's name, but also a palpable proof of Kish’s foreign expansion.  The plaque also confirms what had been suspected by some scholars (this one among them) about the early Kishite state, [particularly in relation to its putative] hegemonic and militaristic character.  The figure of 36,000 prisoners of war ... recorded in the plaque is astonishing, since it was not until the advent of Sargon of Akkad and his [successors] that rulers again were able to aspire to similar military feats.  Because of this, the state of Kish is considered [by these scholars to be] a forerunner of the Sargonic empire.”
   

Steinkeller acknowledged (at p. 144) that: 

1. “... the plaque does not name the ruler (or rulers) responsible for these conquests and the bringing of the captives to Kish (although it is possible that his name appeared at the very beginning of the inscription, now missing).  Instead, its concluding lines praise Zababa, the divine master of Kish and (fittingly) a god of war."
   

It seems to me that, if this ‘document’ originated in Kish (as was probably the case), then it is very likely that (for reasons discussed below) this ruler was named as the king of Kish, who (in local tradition) had been given this hallowed, god-given kingship by (or at least with the help of) Zababa.

Note, however, that nothing in the surviving text indicates the circumstances in which any or all of the 36,000 captives were taken.  Steinkeller assumes that they had been captured during successive campaigns of conquest that had culminated in the hegemony of Kish over a huge part of northern Mesopotamia that extended at least as far north as Assyria (on the upper reaches of the Tigris).  However, it is equally possible that some or all of these captives were taken in raids that were aimed primarily at the acquisition of slaves rather than territory.  Furthermore, as Aage Westenholz (referenced below, 2020, at p. 697) pointed out, even if some or all of them had been taken in battle from localities that Kish had defeated, the surviving text:

1. “... scarcely proves the existence of a territorial state in the north, [centred on Kish], any more than [the evidence for] Eanatum’s campaigns  ... [against enemies from distant cities in the ED IIIb period - see below] prove the existence of a territorial state in the south, centred on Lagash.”  
   

In other words, while the ‘Prisoner Plaque’ arguably confirms the ‘militaristic character’ of Kish in the ED II period, it does not offer any evidence that the Kishites either claimed or achieved hegemony over dozens of cities, including some as far away as Assyria to the north and/or the Diyala valley to the northeast.

Evidence of the Early Dynastic ‘List of Geographical Names’ (LGN) 

Map 3:  Kish and the LGN  

Image from Karen Wilson and Deborah Bekken (referenced below, Map 1, p. xviii): my additions in red

Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, at p. 65) observed , the list of localities known from a number of fragments from Abu Salabikh [= Eresh] that:

1. “... can be reconstructed on the basis of a completely preserved duplicate from Ebla [in modern Syria] and other recently published duplicates of unknown provenance.  Only a tiny fraction of the 289 toponyms [in the list] can be identified and related to places attested in administrative texts from other archives.  [According to Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 1992) they] belong to two groups;
   

2. ✴[the toponyms of the first group were] located in the north of Babylonia; and
   

3. ✴[those] in second group [were located] in the Transtigridian region (between the Tigris and the Zagros mountains to the east), the Zagros [themselves] and Khuzistan.
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, p. 148) argued that:

1. “Since the LGN was known already in the ED IIIa period, [the  likely date of the Abu Salabikh text], it must reflect a considerably earlier situation.” 
   

He also argued (at p. 147) that:

1. “... Kishite scribes were apparently the first to use cuneiform to record historical inscriptions (as demonstrated by the ‘Prisoner Plaque’) ... They also compiled new lexical texts, ... [including the LGN].”
   

In other words, he argued that:

1. ✴the list of captives in the ‘Prisoner Plaque’; and
   

2. ✴the list of localities in the LGN;
   

were both compiled at Kish in the ED II period.

Locations mentioned in both the ‘Prisoner Plaque’ and the ED ‘List of Geographical Names’ 

See Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, at p. 142) 

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, p. 148) further argued that, although the putative Kishite ‘territorial state’:

1. “... probably  came into being during the ED I period, its greatest territorial expansion and political power belonged to ED II.  While the [‘Prisoner Plaque’] offers the strongest and most persuasive evidence here, there are other important indications as well, ... [one of which is] the testimony of the LGN] ...”
   

This body of evidence from the LGN (which Steinkeller established at p. 142) is summarised in the table above: in short:

1. ✴8 of the 25 localities mentioned in the surviving text of the ‘Prisoner Plaque’ can (or can probably) also be found among the 289 localities in the LGN; and
   

2. ✴3 of these 8 localities can (or can probably) be identified at known ‘modern’ locations.
   

Importantly, the list of captives in the ‘Prisoner Plaque’ included:

1. ✴6,300 from Shubur/Assyria (LGN 233), on the upper reaches of the Tigris; and
   

2. ✴1,340 from Uri, the region of the Diyala river.
   

Steinkeller argued (at p. 132, citing one of his earlier papers) that the LGN:

1. “... represents a gazetteer of the archaic territorial state of Kish.”
   

Furthermore, on the basis of this hypothesis, he argued (at p. 148) that, by the time that the now-unknown king of Kish  ommissioned the  ‘Prisoner Plaque’, he exercised hegemony over:

1. “... the entire territory of northern Babylonia, most northern section of southern Babylonia (Nippur, Isin and Eresh) and large portions of of the Diyala Region. The Kishite expansion also affected Assyria, on the upper reaches of the Tigris ...” 
   

I assume that the point here is that:

1. ✴Nippur (LGN 177)  and Isin (LGN 70), along with Sharrakum (LGN 167, which was probably close to Adab) seem to have marked the southern boundary of the territory covered by the LGN;
   

2. ✴Eresh (Abu Salabikh), which was only 20 km northwest of Nippur, was the find spot of surviving fragments of the LGN; and
   

3. ✴two location at the periphery of the territory covered by the LGN:
   

4. •Uri (the Diyala region), which lay to the east; and
   

5. • Shubur (Assyria), which to the north:
   

6. were actually named in the ‘Prisoner Plaque’. 
   

Aage Westenholz (referenced below, 2020, at pp. 697-8) pointed out that the logic underlying Steinkeller’s conclusion:

1. “... [that] ‘the state of Kish embraced the entire territory [covered by the LGN] is really a bit of circular reasoning:
   

2. ✴because the LGN enumerates cities in those regions, it is assumed to be a gazetteer of the Kishite state; and
   

3. ✴on the strength of that assumption, it proves the extent of that state!”
   

He also pointed out (at pp. 691-2) that:

1. ✴only six relevant administrative documents from Kish (all of which date to the ED IIIa period) survive and, of these: 
   

2. •one (Ashmolean 1928-435, P222333) names Asha (LGN 41), which (as we have seen) also appears twice in the Prisoner Plaque (as the source of 1500+489 captives); but
   

3. •none of the other 5 names a single locality that appears in either of the ‘Prisoner Plaque’ or the LGN; and
   

4. ✴the only fragment of a lexical list of geographical names from Kish itself (Ashmolean 1931-145, P451600), which dates to the of ED IIIa period:
   

5. “... appears to belong to a series hitherto unknown.”
   

He concluded (at p. 692) that:

1. “... there is only slight support from Kish for the idea that the LGN is a gazetteer of the Kishite kingdom.  In fact, the very idea that [the LGN] is a ‘gazetteer’ of anything is problematic: where do we find parallels to that?  Furthermore, a good number of the place names in the LGN are also mentioned in the administrative documents from Fara.”
   

In other words, the evidence from the LGN does not provide significant support for the hypothesis that an ‘archaic territorial state of  Kish ... embraced of northern Babylonia, the most northern section of southern  Babylonia (Nippur, Isin, and Eresh), and large portions of the Diyala Region’. 

Kishite Hegemony in Northern Mesopotamia (3rd Millennium BC): Conclusions 

It seems to me that, while the ‘Prisoner Plaque’:

1. ✴almost certainly originated in Kish in the ED II period, at a time when immigrants who used a Semitic language were arguably beginning to influence the ‘native’ Sumerian culture; and
   

2. ✴indicates that Kish was a militarily aggressive polity whose ruler (almost certainly a king - see below) had what seems to have been a precocious understanding of the part that ‘royal’ inscriptions could play in advertising military success and associating it with god-given ‘legitimate kingship’;
   

it does not, in itself, indicate that the listed captives came from localities that formed part of a Kishite ‘territorial state’.  Indeed, Piotr Steinkeller did not claim that it did: he argued (at p. 148) that, while, in his view, the ‘Prisoner Plaque’:

1. “... offers the strongest and most persuasive evidence [for this hypothesis], there are other important indications as well.”
   

One of these was the LGN but, it seems to me (as noted above) that, while this ‘document’ can be said to belong to the same linguistic culture as the ‘Prisoner Plaque’, it does not allow us to hypothesise that the captives listed in the ‘Prisoner Plaque’ came from territory that formed part of a Kishite ‘territorial state’. 

However, Steinkeller’s other supporting evidence must also be considered.  I discuss this important body of evidence in two parts:

1. ✴in the rest of this page, I deal with the individual kings of Kish in the Early Dynastic Period and the the emergence of the so-called ‘Kengi League’, both of which provide information on the evolution of the Kishite kingdom itself; and
   

2. ✴in the following page [link], I deal with the prestige that still attached to the title ‘King of Kish in Mesopotamia in the Pre-Sargonic Period.
   

Kings of Kish from Enmebaragesi to Enna-il

Map of Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BC

From the website of the Lagash Archeological Project: my additions in red  

As Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 5) observed, one of the things:

1. “... complicating the historical picture in ED times is the fact that the title ‘lugal kish’ of ED royal inscriptions, while clearly referring in some cases to actual kings of Kish (such as Enmebaragesi), seems, at other times, to be an honorific epithet meaning something like ‘king of the world’.”
   

He therefore assigned two of the kings of Kish discussed below (Mesalim  and Enna-il) to his Chapter 8: ‘Rulers with the Title ‘King of Kish’ whose Dynastic Affiliations are Unknown’.  However, in what follows, I have followed other scholars (for example, Gianni Marchesi and Piotr Steinkeller) who, as we shall see,  regard all of Enmebaragesi, Mesalim and Enna-il as ‘actual kings of  Kish’. 

Enmebaragesi, King of Kish 

Map of the Diyala Basin: image from the website pf the ‘Diyala Project’’ (University of Chicago) 

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 55) observed that:

1. “The first king of Kish for whom we have any inscriptions is Enmebaragesi.” 
   

More specifically, Frayne identified this first king of Kish as: 

1. ✴the ‘Mebaragesi’ whose name appears on a fragment of a stone bowl from Khafayah (ancient Tutub) in the Diyala valley (RIME 1:7: 22:1; CDLI. P431026), although only this single word survives; and
   

2. ✴the ‘Mebaragesi, king of Kish’, whose name appears on a fragment of a large alabaster bowl of unknown provenience (RIME 1:7:22:2; CDLI, P431027).
   

Both of these fragments are (or were) in the Iraq Museum, and the second of them:

1. “... [was apparently] ‘confiscated at Kut,’ and bears the museum number IM 30590.” 
   

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at p. 152) started his list of kings of Kish with Enmebaragesi on the basis of the second of these inscriptions, which he dated to ED I (albeit that he assigned the first to another now-unknown individual and dated it to ED III). 

However, Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, at p. 149 and note 70):

1. ✴rejected Marchesi’s late dating for insciption of ‘Mebaragesi’ from Khafayah in the Diyala region; and
   

2. ✴observed that a third early inscription (RIME 1:7:40:1; CDLI, P431028), which is on a fragment of a stone vessel from Tell Agrab that records t a now unknown king of Kish, provides further evidence for the Kishites’ connections with the Diyala region at this time.  
   

He therefore argued that:

1. “... the discoveries of the inscriptions of:
   

2. ✴Enmebaragesi [at Khafajah]; and
   

3. ✴an unidentified king of Kish [at] Tell Agrab ... ;
   

4. are convincing indicators of the Kishite presence in the Diyala region.
   

He offered these observations in support of his hypothesis (put forward at p. 148) that the testimony of  the ‘List of Geographical Names’ (discussed above in the context of the ‘Prisoner Plaque’) indicates that, at this time, the putative :

1. “... state of Kish embraced [a large tract of Mesopotamia as far south as Nippur] and large portions of the Diyala Region.
   

At least by the time of the Ur III king Shulgi (who died in ca. 2050 BC), King Enmebaragesi of Kish was well-established in Sumerian tradition.  For example, we read in the surviving part of the earliest-known recension of the Sumerian King List (the USKL), which was commissioned by Shulgi [link to page), that he ruled at Kish for 600 years.  Furthermore, in a praise poem of Shulgi known as ‘Hymn O’, we read that:

1. “Shulgi, the good shepherd of Sumer, praised his brother and friend, [the Urukean, probably mythical, hero] lord Gilgamesh ... :
   

2. ‘Mighty in battle, destroyer of cities, smiting them in combat.
   

3. You drew your weapons against the house of Kish. 
   

4. You captured [the bodies of ?] its seven heroes. 
   

5. You trampled underfoot the head of the king of Kish, Enmebaragesi.
   

6. You brought the kingship from Kish to Uruk’", (lines 49-60).
   

Ludek Vacin (referenced below. at p. 244) pointed out that:

1. “The structure of this section [of the hymn] coincides with the mythical dimension of Shulgi’s royal ideology, [which permeates] his hymnal compositions with their intricate semi-mythological literary fabric and [constitutes] the basis of his royal as well as divine authority.” 
   

Importantly, he pointed out that the phraseology of this passage from ‘Hymn O’ is redolent of that used in the ‘transfer of kingship’ formulae in the surviving part of the USKL, suggesting that the two sources draw on a single ‘official’ tradition at Shulgi’s court.  More specifically, it seems to me that Shulgi’s scribes probably drew on:

1. ✴royal inscriptions of a historical king of Kish named Mebaragesi (including some that no longer survive); and
   

2. ✴a Kishite and/or Akkadian king list in which Enmebaragesi ruled at Kish for 600 years;
   

in order to elaborate an existing Sumerian literary tradition in which Gilgamesh, the probably mythical hero of Uruk, liberated that city from the hegemony of Kish.

In the later recensions of the Sumerian King List (P479895), we read that:

1. “[At Kish], Enmebaragesi, who defeated the land of Elam, was king: he ruled for 900 years.” (lines 83-6)
   

2. Akka, Son of Enmebaragesi, King of Kish 
   

Akka is also named in the surviving part of the USKL (see above), as one of only 2 of the 19 Kishite kings listed therein who is given a patronymic: in this case, Akka, son of Enmebaragesi. [Link to page].  He is also known from the Sumerian legend ‘Gilgamesh and Akka’ (see the translation by Andrew George, referenced below, at p.104), which probably dates to the Ur III period, we read that:

1. ✴when envoys of Akka, the son of Enmebarage-si, came from Kish to Gilgamesh in Unuk, he (Gilgamesh) persuaded the Urukeans to fight rather than to submit (lines 1-47);
   

2. ✴Akka laid siege to Uruk (49-82); and
   

3. ✴Gilgamesh appeared on the walls of Uruk in all his glory, at which point:
   

4. •the army of Uruk emerged from the city and defeated the terrified Kishites; and
   

5. •Gilgamesh took Akka prisoner (lines 83-99).
   

So far, so predictable,  However, the ending to the story is rather unexpected:

1. ✴Gilgamesh explicitly recognised the captive Akka as his overlord and acknowledged an earlier occasion on which Akka had saved his life by helping him to flee from an unidentified danger (see lines 100-6);
   

2. ✴Akka explicitly transferred Uruk to the charge of Gilgamesh, but asked him to repay his debt of honour (lines 107-10); and
   

3. ✴Gilgamesh duly  redeemed this ‘debt’ by freeing Akka and allowing him to return to Kish (line 1113).
   

This is consistent with the USKL, in which list of Kishite kings continues without a break from:

1. ✴the 1,500 year reign of Akka, son of Enmebaragesi; to
   

2. ✴the 420 year reign of the otherwise-unknown Kish-ishqu-shu. [Link to page]
   

As Dina Katz (referenced below, at p. 14) observed, the existence of two traditions relating to a war between Kish and Uruk at the time of Gilgames (“Gilgamesh and Akka’ and the war between Gilgamesh and Enmebaragesi in Shulgi’s ‘Hymn O’:

1. “... raises the question of whether:
   

2. ✴[there was a single Sumerian tradition in which] Gilgamesh fought [two wars against Kish, one against Enmebaragesi and the other against Akka]: or
   

3. ✴we are dealing with two different traditions about one and the same war.”
   

She discounted the first of these propositions, primarily because the internal evidence from the legend implies that, prior to Gilgamesh’s victory over Akka, Uruk was subject to Kish.  Furthermore, she found direct support for the second proposition from the fact that ‘Hymn O’ reflects both;

1. ✴the ‘Legend of Gilgamesh and Akka’; and
   

2. ✴the ‘Legend of Gilgamesh and Huwawa’ (see the fragmentary line 95):
   

as she pointed out (at p. 15), the appearance of at least two independent Sumerian traditions relating to Gilgamesh in ‘Hymn O’:

1. “... indicates that these tales ... were already in existence in Shulgi's time, although perhaps only as an oral traditions.” 
   

In other words, the surviving evidence arguably suggests that:

1. ✴in early Sumerian tradition, Gilgamesh rescued Uruk from the hegemony of Kish by defeating Akka’; and
   

2. ✴the author of ‘Hymn O’decided to elaborate this tradition by replacing Akka by the epigraphically-attested Enmebaragesi.
   

This allows us to assume that Akka, like Gilgamesh, was a figure taken from Sumerian myth and that the compiler of the USKL simply ‘nodded’ to the early tradition by both including him and identifying him as Enmebaragesi’s son.  However, we cannot discount the alternative possibility that this compiler had access to now-lost epigraphic evidence that Akka, the son of Enmebaragesi, had indeed succeeded his father as king of Kish. 

Mesalim, King of Kish 

As we shall see, Mesalim is a key figure for our understanding (such as it is) of the political situation in Sumer in the early part of the ED period, not least because, as we shall see, three of his royal inscriptions survive and he is documented in inscriptions from other, later, Mesopotamian rulers.  However, none of this body of epigraphic evidence comes from Kish and (more surprisingly) it seems unlikely that he was among the 30 or so kings of Kish that were listed in the USKL: 

1. ✴he is certainly not among the 19 names that survive in this recension; and
   

2. ✴nor is he listed in any of the later recensions of the SKL.
   

Mesalim’s Hegemony at Lagash 

Mace-head of Mesalim, King of Kish (RIME 1.8.1.1; P462181), from the original Ningirsu temple at Girsu

Now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2349), images from the museum website 

The most famous of Mesalim’s surviving royal inscriptions is on a stone mace-head (illustrated above) that had been dedicated to Ningirsu, the main god of Lagash, in his original temple at Girsu (the ‘religious capital’ of a political entity that already embraced both ‘Lagash proper’ and Girsu):

1. ✴the top of the mace-head is carved with a relief of a lion-headed eagle (usually known as the Anzu bird), which, as Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 176) pointed out, was already established by this period as the emblem of Ningirsu; and
   

2. ✴the curved surface below it is carved with a frieze relief of six lions biting each other, which is another example of local iconography.
   

The inscription, which extends across two of the lions, records that:

1. “Mesalim, king of Kish, temple builder for the god Ningirsu, set up (?) this mace for the god Ningirsu [when] Lugal-sha-engur (was) ensi of Lagash”, (RIME 1.8.1.1; P462181).
   

As discussed further below:

1. ✴Mesalim clearly exercised hegemony over Lagash and Girsu; and
   

2. ✴Lugal-sha-engur, the ensi of Lagash, who is the earliest-known ensi of Lagash, was presumably either:
   

3. •a governor appointed by Mesalim; or
   

4. •a local ruler who acknowledged his hegemony. 
   

The earliest Ningirsu temple on this site (known to archeologists as the ‘Lower Construction’) almost certainly pre-dated Mesalim, although the inscription suggests that he was responsible for a significant restoration of it.  Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 61 and at pp. 209-10) observed that:

1. ✴the mace was almost certainly originally housed within this archaic building; and
   

2. ✴its find-spot suggests that it was subsequently ritually buried in the foundations of the temple that Ur-Nanshe (the first independent ruler of Lagash/Girsu that we know of) built above it. 
   

In other words, it is clear that Mesalim exercised hegemony over Lagash/Girsu at some time prior to the reign of Ur-Nanshe, the founder of what we know as the first dynasty of Lagash. 

Meslim’s Hegemony over Umma  

Unusually, we know more about Mesalim from the royal inscriptions of later rulers (in this case, rulers of Lagash).  For example, about a century after Mesalim’s rule, Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, looked back on his role in the establishment of the border between between Lagash and Umma in:

1. ✴an inscription (RIME 1.9.3.2; P431076) found on three boundary stones;  and
   

2. ✴a very similar inscription (RIME 1.9.3.3; P431077) found on two spheroid jars;
   

all of which came (or probably came) from either Girsu or Lagash.  More specifically, Eanatum recorded that, after his victory in a boundary dispute Umma, he had:

1. ✴restored the boundary stele that Mesalim had erected to mark the boundary between the respective territories, which had originally been defined by the god Enlil (see, for example, RIME 1.9.3.2; P431076, lines 4-7); and 
   

2. ✴in deference to the gods, he had not marched beyond the point (see, for example, RIME 1.9.3.2; P431076, lines 55’-60’).
   

Fortunately, we have a more complete account of these events from a royal inscription of a yet-later ensi of Lagash, Enmetena (Eanatum’s nephew): at the start of his account of his own boundary dispute with Umma, he looked back on the precedents set by Mesalim and Eanatum:

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 Ishtaran, demarcated this border and erected a stele there.  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. ... 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; P431117, lines 1-58).
   

It is clear from these later testimonies that Mesalim’s authority as hegemon extended to Umma, and that his role in the establishment of the boundary between Lagash and Umma was long-remembered, at least at Lagash.  

Mesalim’s Hegemony at Adab   

Two inscriptions of Mesalim, King of Kish, from the Esar Temple at Adab, both now in the now in the

Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures at Chicago 

Right: fragment of a stone bowl  (A211: inscription RIME 1.8.1.2; P462182) 

Left: three fragments from the rim of a steatite vessel (A192 a-c: inscription RIME 1.8.1.3; P431033)

Images from Karen Wilson (referenced below): A221 from Plate 106a; A912 a-c from Plate 51

The other two surviving royal inscriptions of Mesalim come from the Esar temple at Adab:

1. ✴one, which was found on fragments of two stone bowls, recorded that: 
   

2. “Mesalim, king of Kish, sent over this bur mu-gi4 (stone bowl, used for the burgi ritual) in the Esar temple [when] Ninkisalsi (was) ensi of Adab”, (RIME 1.8.1.2; P462182); and
   

3. ✴the other, which was found on three fragment of a steatite vessel, recorded that:
   

4. “Mesalim, king of Kish, beloved son of Ninhursag [dedicated this vessel] ...”, (RIME 1.8.1.3; P431033).
   

Although some scholars (see, for example, Douglas Frayne, referenced below, 2008, at p. 20) suggest that the Esar temple was dedicated to Inanna (= Ishtar), Karen Wilson  (referenced below, at pp. 73-4 and in Table 9.1, at p. 100) has shown that the archeological evidence (which includes that from Mesalim’s steatite vessel) indicates that this temple was dedicated to Ninhursag (who is sometimes named as Dingirmah).   It is also evident from her Table 9:1 that the Esar probably pre-dated the reign of Mesalim.  However, the most important point to make here is that:

1. ✴Mesalim clearly exercised hegemony over Adab (as well as Lagash and Umma); and
   

2. ✴Ninkisalsi the ensi of Adab (like Lugal-sha-engur, the ensi of Lagash) was presumably either a governor appointed by Mesalim or a local ruler who acknowledged his hegemony. 
   

Date of Mesalim’s Reign

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at p. 13) observed, the royal inscriptions of Mesalim offer:

1. “...certain proof of the involvement of Kish in the early politics of southern [Mesopotamia, since they reveal that he] held overlordship over Lagash, Umma, and Adab.”
   

He also pointed out (at p. 22) that his reign:

1. “... is nearly universally dated to ED II, ... [although, occasionally, some scholars (see. for example,  Gianni Marchesi referenced below, 2015: Table 1.1, 141) date it to the later part of ED 111a, which], if correct, would mean that Mesalim’s reign was apparently later than the Fara materials [see below].”
   

He also argued (at p. 23) that Mesalim:

1. “... whose reign has traditionally been dated to ED II,  ... must have been a predecessor of Menunsi [see below].  This dating finds support in Mesalim’s inscriptions, whose paleography is strikingly archaic, being comparable to those of Enmebaragesi  ...”
   

In the ordering of the kings in the present section, I have followed the Steinkeller’s relative chronology, in which Mesalim reigned at some time between Enmebaragesi and Menunsi. 

Lugalnamnirshum, King of Kish 

Large copper spearhead inscribed with the name of Lugalnamnirshum, king of Kish (RIME 1.8.2.1: P462183) 

From the original Ningirsu temple at Girsu, now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2675: image from museum website) 

This copper spearhead, which is some 85 cm long, was found at the temple of Ningirsu at Girsu.  As Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 210) observed, it would originally have been fitted with an imposing shaft and displayed pointing downwards, as suggested by the relief of a standing lion on one of its surfaces.  The inscription on the neck of the spearhead (above the head of the lion) was only partially legible until 1994, when it was rescued from a layer of corrosion, revealing that it had been dedicated (presumably to Ningirsu) by Lugalnamnirshum, king of Kish (see, for example, Douglas Frayne, referenced below, 2008, at p. 73). 

Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 209) also pointed out that a number of scholars have been misled by an early, flawed description of the find-spot of this important object, which placed it in Ur-Nanshe’s temple here: thus. for example, Gianni Marchesi (referenced below: 2011, note 244, at p. 124; and 2015, at pp. 144-5, Uruk entry 4 and Table 1.2, at p. 142) argued that it had been dedicated by a king of Uruk who:

1. ✴used the title ‘king of Kish’; and
   

2. ✴exercised hegemony over Lagash towards the end of Ur-Nanshe’s reign and into that of his son, A-kurgal. 
   

In fact, as Sébastien Rey (as above) pointed out, this spearhead (like the mace of Mesalim discussed above) had been dedicated in Ningirsu’s original temple at Girsu and then ritually buried in the foundations of that of Ur-Nanshe.  He therefore argued (at p. 210) that Lugalnamnirshum:

1. “... was doubtless one of Mesalim of Kish’s successors, and, therefore, in all likelihood, another foreign overlord of Girsu [and Lagash] in the period before Ur-Nanshe ascended to power.  
   

Menunsi, King of Kish 

As Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, at p. 63) pointed out, this king of Kish is known from an administrative document (NTSSh 154, P010498) from Shuruppak (modern Fara), which begins:

1. “Menunsi, king of Kish, allotted 15 bur [almost 100 hectares] of land to Akigal”, (lines i: 1-2).
   

This document belongs to a large group of texts from both Fara and Abu Salabikh (some 70 km northwest of Fara) that all apparently date to the same, relatively short, period of time that is:

1. ✴known as the ‘Fara Period’; and
   

2. ✴judged to be roughly equivalent to ED IIIa (see, for example, Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp, referenced below, Table 1, at p. 5 and also p. 61). 
   

Thus, on a minimalist reading of this text, Menunsi, who reigned at Kish at some time before or in the Fara Period, granted a large tract of land to Akigal and his grant was recorded at Shuruppak.  This document does not tell us know whether or not:

1. ✴Akigal came from/ lived in Shuruppak; and/or
   

2. ✴the land that Menunsi granted to him was in/near Shuruppak.
   

However, in my view, we may reasonably assume from the information in the inscription that Menunsi exercised hegemony over Shuruppak.

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at pp. 13-4) pointed out, the lines quoted above are followed by: 

1. ✴a list of goods (at lines i:3 - ii:4); and
   

2. ✴a list of three officials:
   

3. •[PN], the mashkim-gi4 (envoy?), (line iii: 1);
   

4. •Ageshtin, the field registrar of Uruk, (line iii: 2); ; and
   

5. •Enkishe, the farmer, (line iii: 3). 
   

He argued (at p. 14) that:

1. “The goods enumerated in this text appear to have been gifts presented ... to the officials who authorised the transaction.  Significantly, the latter included:
   

2. ✴a field registrar from Uruk; and
   

3. ✴the local Shuruppak official in charge of agricultural land.
   

This raises the question of why an official from Uruk was involved in this transaction.  

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at p. 140 and note 14), who assumed that Menunsi ruled at Kish at the time of this land grant (= in the Fara Period), argued that, at this time:

1. ✴he exercised hegemony over almost all of the main Sumerian cities, including both Shuruppak and Uruk; and
   

2. ✴a field registrar from Uruk was involved in the land grant to Akigal because the land in question was in Uruk.
   

In support of this hypothesis, he pointed out that: 

1. “... [a now-unnamed ensi] of Uruk occurs as a recipient of land in a roughly contemporaneous document from Abu Salabikh, [published by Robert Biggs and Nicholas Postgate, referenced below, at pp. 108-9: now in the Iraq Museum (IM 081445; P010458)].  It appears then that the very same authority had the power to dispose of land in both [Uruk and Abu Salabikh].”
   

In other words, Marchesi argued that Kish exercised hegemony over all of Uruk, Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh in the Fara Period, which explains why: 

1. ✴Menunsi was able to grant land in Uruk to Akigal of Shuruppak; and
   

2. ✴Menunsi (or another king of Kish in this period) was (or was also) able land in Abu Salabikh to a now-unnamed ensi of Uruk.
   

However, for a number of reasons discussed in the following section, Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024) believed that a field registrar from Uruk was named in this document because, by the time it was written (= the Fara Period), Shuruppak had:

1. “... passed from the hands of Kish to those of Uruk”, (see p. 14).
   

He therefore argued that:

1. “... the most likely interpretation of this text is that it records a re-confirmation of a land grant that, sometime earlier, had been made by Menunsi, king of Kish, to a certain Akigal of Shuruppak. ... The goods enumerated in this text appear to have been gifts presented by Akigal (or, more likely, his heirs) to the officials who authorised the transaction. ... As the king of Uruk had now become the owner of Shuruppak’s land holdings, the legal validity of the grant needed to be recognised by him.  The large size of the original donation would certainly have called for the crown’s direct involvement in this matter.”
   

He therefore speculated that, although:

1. “... [the] role of the mashkim-gi4 official [named in line iii:1 is unclear, he was probably] ... an envoy from Uruk, who represented the ruler of Uruk on that occasion.”
   

In short, Steinkeller argued that a field registrar from Uruk was involved in the transaction documented in NTSSh 154 because:

1. ✴it represented the confirmation of an earlier grant of land at Shuruppak that Menunsi king of Kish, had made to Akigal when Shuruppak had been subject to Kish; and
   

2. ✴by the time of this document (i.e., the Fara Period), hegemony over Shuruppak had passed from Kish to Uruk.
   

In his view, this explains why the three officials who ratified the earlier land grant (and thus confirmed the Akigal himself or of his heirs still owned the land in question) included:

1. ✴a senior envoy and a field registrar from Uruk; and
   

2. ✴a local Shuruppak official in charge of agricultural land. 
   

The fundamental difference between these two hypotheses is part of a wider debate about the role of the s0-called ‘Kiengi League’ in the Fara Period, which is discussed in the following section.  For the moment,  we should simply note that:

1. ✴Gianni Marchesi argued that Menunsi ruled at Kish in the Fara Period and, at this time, Kish exercised hegemony over almost all of the main Sumerian cities, including both Shuruppak and Uruk; while
   

2. ✴Piotr Steinkeller argued that:
   

3. •Menunsi ruled at Kish before the Fara Period, when Kish had exercised hegemony over (at least) Shuruppak; but
   

4. •by the Fara Period, Shuruppak (at least) had: 
   

5. “... passed from the hands of Kish to those of Uruk.”
   

Enna-il, King of Kish 

Sketch of the Akkadian inscription (RIME 1.8.3.2, P462185) on a fragments of a statue of Enna-il from Nippur:

Now in the Iraq Museum (IM 61325): image adapted from Ignace Gelb et al. (referenced below, Plate 50)

King Enna-il of Kish is known from two royal inscriptions from Nippur:

1. ✴One (RIME 1.8.3.1, P462184), which seems to be an Ur III period copy of the original, records that Enna-il, son of A-anzu, defeated Elam ‘for the goddess Inanna’.
   

2. ✴The other (RIME 1.8.3.2, P462185), which is written in Akkadian, is on a surviving fragment of a limestone statue (illustrated above) that was apparently found on the site of the temple to Innna at Nippur: more specifically, it was inscribed in two lines on what was originally the right shoulder of a statue of Enna-il himself.  According to Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2011, at pp. 179-80), who transliterated and translated the inscription:
   

3. •the first line records the purchase by Enna-il of a number of plots of land; and
   

4. •the second line records that:
   

5. “Enna-il, king of Kish, [made] an i[mage of himself] ... and set it up before  Ishtar (= Inanna)”, (see lines 14’-20’).
   

It therefore seems likely that Enna-il set up his statue at the temple of Inanna at Nippur in commemoration of his victory in Elam, although we do not know whether he actually invaded Eam or simply expelled Elamite raiders from land that was subject to Kish.

At least two other texts link Enna-il to Nippur: 

1. ✴Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2011, at p. 180) referred to an unpublished ED literary text from Nippur (6 NT 104) in which, Enna-il is given the titles king of Kish and ensí-gal denlil’ (chief steward of Enlil); and 
   

2. ✴Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, note 67, at p. 148) observed that:
   

3. “[Enna-il’s] presence at Nippur is further demonstrated by an ED literary text from Nippur (preserved in a later, possibly Ur III, copy), which describes his involvement in the delivery of Ur’s ‘first offering’ for Enlil from Ur to Nippur”.
   

4. He translated the relevant lines as follows:
   

5. “... the licorice, which sprouted in a desolate place for the table of Enlil; the fat of the cow (and) the pure milk, the 'first offering' of Ur for the table of Enlil; ... Enna-il, the king, hailed Enlil (and) Ninlil there”, (ECTJ 219, lines iii’:1 - iv’: for ‘ECTJ 219’, see Aage Westenholz, referenced below, 1975).
   

6. Xianhua Wang (referenced below, at p, 83 and note 237) commented that, if:
   

7. ✴this Ur III copy is faithful to the original; and
   

8. ✴‘Enna-il, the king’ is the king of Kish named in the other inscriptions above;
   

9. then:
   

10. “... [he] would be the earliest historical [Mesopotamian ruler who] ...  is known to have collected ‘first fruit offerings’ for Enlil and Ninlil, [and, in doing so, he may have been] acting as the ruler [= hegemon ?] of Ur”.
    

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2011, at p. 180 and note 108) published and translated the text  on a statue that he dated on stylisyic grounds to the ED IIIb period as follows:

1. “To Shara: [when] Enna-il was king of Kish: Uriri, the chief cook, presented (this statue).” 
   

He suggested that:

1. ✴the statue possibly came from Umma (where Shara was the chief deity); and
   

2. ✴this might suggest that Enna-il was an ‘overlord’ there. 
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, note 67, at p. 148) similarly argued that the inscription on this statue:

1. “... probably [indicates that] Enna-il exercised some form of suzerainty [hegemony ?] over Umma.”
   

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at pp. 153-4 and note 161) again argued that this statue:

1. “... which dates to [Enna-il’s] reign, ... is clearly ED IIIb in style.”
   

He also argued (in note 19, at p. 140) argued that Enna-il:

1. “... was probably the last great king of Kish proper.  In this connection, note that ... [the title] ‘chief steward of Enlil’, [which he was given literary text 6 NT 104 from Nippur - see above], ...was later borne by the overlords Lugalzagesi [of Umma and Uruk] and Sargon [of Akkad].”  
   

Finally Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at p. 14) argued that:

1. “Enna-il could have been the ruler of Kish whom the southern coalition faced at the time of the Fara archive. [see below].  However, if he lived later (that is, in ED IIIb), he might alternatively have been ... the unidentified king of Kish, who (together with Mari and Akšak) invaded the territories of Lagash during the reign of Eanatum, [the grandson of Ur-Nanshe].”
   

In including Enna-il in this page, I have assumed that the earlier of these possibilities is the more likely.

Kings of Kish from Enmebaragesi to Enna-il: Conclusions

Obviously, the history of this period is plagued by uncertainties in relation to both the absolute and the relative chronologies of the Kishite kings listed above.  However, scholars generally agree that the earliest king of Kish named in our surviving sources is Mebaragesi, who became known in Sumerian legend as Enmebaragesi, the father and predecessor of Akka.   The find-spot of one of his two surviving royal inscriptions suggests that he ruled at a time when the hegemony of Kish extended into the Diyala region, and there might have been a historical basis to:

1. ✴the surviving Ur III texts in which he appears as the overlord of Uruk at the time of Gilgamesh; and
   

2. ✴the claim in the later recensions of the SKL that he had defeated ‘the land of Elam’, since raiders from ‘Elam’ might have threatened the security of his hold on the Diyala valley. 
   

If Akka, son of Enmebaragesi,  was actually a historical figure, then his reign would have followed that of his father.

The next two Kishite kings discussed above were:

1. ✴Mesalim, who certainly exercised hegemony over Adab, Umma and Lagash; and
   

2. ✴Lugalnamnirshum, who almost certainly exercised hegemony over Lagash.
   

Since:

1. ✴each of them dedicated an oversized weapon (the mace of Mesalim and the spear-head of Lugalnamnirshum) in the original Ningirsu temple at Girsu; and
   

2. ✴these were both ritually buried in the foundations of the later temple of Ur-Nanshe;
   

we can at least assume that both Mesalim and Lugalnamnirshum reigned before Ur-Nanshe.

As we have seen, King Menunsi of Kish is named in an administrative document from Shuruppak (modern Fara), which means that he must reigned either shortly before or during the so-called Fara Period.  As I summarised above, there  are at least two views on this matter:

1. ✴Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024) argued that Menunsi reigned at Kish prior to the Fara period, when he exercised hegemony over (at least) Shuruppak; and
   

2. ✴Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015) argued that Menunsi reigned at Kish in the Fara Period, when he exercised hegemony over at least Uruk, Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh. 
   

Finally, we come to Enna-il, who controlled Nippur and possibly exercised hegemony over Ur and Umma:

1. ✴Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, note 19, at p. 140) argued that he:
   

2. “... was probably the last great king of Kish proper”; and
   

3. ✴Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024 at p. 14) argued that he ruled either:
   

4. •at some time during or after the Fara Period; or
   

5. •at some time thereafter, perhaps in the reign of Eanatum, ensi of Lagash.
   

Fortunately this ‘outline chronology’ can be tightened up to some extent when we examine the evidence from the Fara Period that relates to a military alliance of Sumerian states that is sometimes referred to as the ‘Kiengi League’.

So-called ‘Kiengi League’ 

The so-called ‘Kiengi League’, which is mentioned in two administrative documents from Shuruppak (modern Fara) which Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, Appendix 1. at pp. 15-9) translated as follows:

1. ✴WF 92 (P011049: Steinkeller’s Text 1)
   

2. 182 men of Uruk
   

3. 192 (men) of Adab
   

4. 94 (men) of Nippur
   

5. 60 (men) of Lagash
   

6. 56 (men) of Shuruppak
   

7. 86 (men) of Umma
   

8. the ones stationed (here)
   

9. They came (from) Kiengi (= Sumer).
   

10. Entrusted (to the military command), a total of 670 men, the ones stationed (here).
    

11. ✴WF 94 (P011051: Steinkeller’s Text 2)
    

12. 140 men, residents of Uruk
    

13. 215 (men, residents of) Adab
    

14. 74 (men, residents) of Nippur
    

15. 110 (men, residents of) Lagash
    

16. 66 (men, residents of) Shuruppak
    

17. 128 (men, residents of) Umma;
    

18. A total of 650 [actually 733] men, residents of Kiengi (= Sumer).
    

As he pointed out (at p. 4), at least two other ‘Fara texts’ are almost certainly relevant here:

1. ✴WF 101 (P011059: Steinkeller’s Text 3) referred to:
   

2. 670 men who went to battle, they ate food;
   

3. 1,612 men (stationed) ki-unkin (= in the camp), they ate food (and) anointed themselves with oil.
   

4. ✴WF 93 (P011050: Steinkeller’s Text 4) referred to:
   

5. 1,532 men, 39 junior masons, 41 female workers;
   

6. a total of 1612 people who ate food
   

7. 47 men who went to Kish
   

He argued (at p. 4) that

1. ✴the 670/650 men from Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma in WF 92 and WE 94 were probably the same 670 men who ‘went into battle’ in WF 101, in which case they are clearly soldiers; and
   

2. “.. they apparently were brought to Shuruppak and entrusted there to some military agency [= overall commander]”; and
   

3. ✴the 1612 men who apparently stayed in the camp in WF 101 ‘represented reserve or support forces’, as did the 1612 people who ate food in WF 93.
   

He therefore suggested that:

1. “Since [WF 101 and WF 93] seem to parallel each other very closely, it will not be unreasonable to conclude that, since [WF 93 also] names 47 men who went to Kish, the ... 670 warriors listed in [WF 92 and WF 101 and probably the 65o in WF 94] likewise ... [went to] Kish.”
   

He added further evidence for this scenario from the another four documents that were also translated in his Appendix 1.

On the basis of this analysis of the evidence from these 8 documents from Shuruppak, Steinkeller put forward the following hypothesis (at p. 5):

1. ✴at some point in the ED IIIa period (the generally accepted date of the ‘Fara texts’), a major military mobilisation took place in southern Mesopotamia;
   

2. ✴the ‘agency’ behind this mobilisation was the city of Uruk;
   

3. ✴the other cities that provided soldiers for what was, essentially, an allied army included Adab, Lagash, Umma, Nippur and Shuruppak;
   

4. ✴the mobilisation of some or all of these men took place at Shuruppak;
   

5. ✴the entire allied force (including support personnel) was then moved to a camp or place of assembly (ki-unkin);
   

6. ✴a contingent of ‘shock troops’ marched out of this camp to confront the intended target of the campaign, while the other soldiers and support personnel, remained behind in the camp; and
   

7. ✴this military target was the city of Kish.
   

Until this point, the scholarly consensus had been that:

1. ✴Kish was the ‘agency’ behind the mobilisation; and
   

2. ✴Ur (which is barely mentioned in the ‘Fara  texts’) was the military target.
   

However, Steinkeller countered  that:

1. ✴none in the surviving Fara sources indicates that Kish led this military operation (see note 9, at p. 7); 
   

2. ✴the absence of Ur from the list of members of the alliance (and its almost total absence from the ‘Fara texts’ in general) might simply indicate that Ur was directly subject to Uruk at this time, in which case:
   

3. “... its status would have been not unlike that [which] it enjoyed later in the ED IIIb period, when ... it was a dependency of Uruk, with Uruk’s ruler exercising a dual kingship over these two city-states”, (see p. 11); and
   

4. ✴Uruk and Kulaba (unlike Ur) are ‘highly visible’ in the surviving Fara sources:
   

5. “... suggesting that Uruk exercised hegemony over significant portions of the south (see p. 5).
   

Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, at p. 63 and note 99) put forward the more conventional argument that this league:

1. “...  may have been subject to the authority of Kish, where probably Mesilim, or one of his predecessors, held power.  Mesilim’s role as sovereign of Kiengi explains why he arbitrated a border dispute between Lagash and Umma.”
   

In fact, the surviving evidence suggests only that Mesalim:

1. ✴exercised hegemony over Adab, Lagash and Umma; and
   

2. ✴established the border between Lagash and Umma (possibly but not certainly in the context of a ‘border dispute’).
   

Furthermore, this hypothesis assumes a relatively late date for Mesalim’s reign.  On the other hand, while Piotr Steinkeller agreed (at p. 13) that Mesalim:

1. “... probably [exercised hegemony] other southern city-states as well [as Adab, Lagash and Umma]”;
   

he placed the reigns of both Enmebaragesi and Mesalim in ED I-II (and thus prior to the ‘Fara texts’): as he elaborated (at p. 23):

1. “As for [Mesalim], whose reign has traditionally been dated to ED II, this ruler must have been a predecessor of Menunsi.  This dating finds support in [Mesalim’s] inscriptions, whose paleography is strikingly archaic, being comparable to those of [Enmebaragesi] ...”
   

As we have seen, he also argued that:

1. ✴Menunsi also reigned at Kish prior to the Fara period, when he  exercised hegemony over (at least) Uruk, Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh;
   

2. ✴the hegemony of at least Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh subsequently passed from Kish to Uruk; and
   

3. ✴Lumma, ensi of Uruk then led this cities of the ‘Kiengi League’ (including Shuruppak) against Kish.  
   

That brings us to Enna-il, whom (as he noted at p. 14) appears to have controlled Nippur and possibly Umma.  He therefore suggested that:

1. “.. Enna-il could have been the ruler of Kish whom the southern coalition faced at the time of the Fara archive.  However, if [he] lived later (that is, in ED IIIb), he might alternatively have been identical with the unidentified king of Kish who, together with Mari and Akshak, invaded the territories of Lagash during the reign of Eanatum [see below].”
   

Thus, Steinkeller’s hypothesis can be amplified as follows:

1. ✴at some point in the ED IIIa period, a ruler of Uruk (quite possibly Lumma, the ‘ensi of Uruk’ mentioned in TSSh 302; P010800) mobilised an allied force that included Adab, Lagash, Umma, Nippur and Shuruppak;
   

2. ✴the mobilisation of some or all of this force took place in Shuruppak;
   

3. ✴the entire allied force (including support personnel) was then mustered in a camp or place of assembly (ki-unkin); and
   

4. ✴a contingent of ‘shock troops’ marched out of this camp to confront the army of either:
   

5. •King Enna-il of Kish; or
   

6. •an earlier king who had ruled at Kish at some time between Menunsi and Enna-il.
   

He recognised that the arguments set out above fall some way short of eliminating the possibility of a military target other than Kish, but he went on to consider the evidence from another administrative tablet from Shuruppak (TSSh 242, P010783), which he transliterated (at p. 6), arguing (at p. 7) that it should be split into four sections that can probably be translated as follows:

1. [from Shuruppak, the find-spot of the inscription, to] the camp, (the distance is) 2,360 ‘ropes’ (= 140.1 km.)
   

2. from Adab and Umma to the camp, (the distance is) 3,110 ‘ropes’ (= 184.7 km.)
   

3. from Lagash to the camp, (the distance is) 3,980 ‘ropes’ (= 236.4 km.)
   

4. from Lagash, (the distance is) a total of 3,980 ‘ropes’
   

As he pointed out (at p. 4 and note 2):

1. “As far as I know, the term ki-unkin, [which is translated above as ‘camp’], is documented only in ... two Fara tablets, [WF 101 (above) and TSSh 242 (under discussion here)],”
   

He then argued (at p. 7) that, in relation TSSh 242:

1. “... if one follows the waterways:
   

2. ✴the distance between Lagash (Al-Hiba) and Kish is 236 km; [and]
   

3. ✴[that] between Shuruppak and Kish is 140 km.”
   

He also pointed out that, while the case of Adab and Umma is less straightforward, although it might be significant that:

1. ✴the distance between Umma and Kish is 151 km; and
   

2. ✴that between Umma and Adab is 36 km.;
   

making a total of 187 km.  He then observed that:

1. “Be that as it may, one can make a pretty good case ... that the present tablet is an estimate of the distances between various southern cities and a spot [described as ki-unkin = camp] situated in the immediate vicinity of Kish.  If this tablet can be linked with the sources I discussed earlier (which is very plausible), in my view, we would find here additional evidence that the target of [this military campaign] ... was the city of Kish.”
   

He offered details from other ‘Fara texts’ that offered some support, summing up (at p. 8) as follows:

1. “To be sure, none of these data conclusively prove the correctness of my hypothesis.  But there is one more important argument. 
   

2. It is beyond doubt that the troops mentioned in [the Fara text collected in his Appendix 1] were mobilised for a huge military operation, which must have been directed against a specific opponent. 
   

3. If that opponent was not Kish, it is difficult to think of any other alternative target.” 
   

Gianni Marchesi further argued (at p. 153, entry 6 for Menunsi; and at p. 144, entry 2 for Lumma) that Menunsi was probably a contemporary of Lumma, the ruler of Uruk, who is also named in an administrative document from Abu Salabikh (TSSh 302; P010800, reverse, line v 4).  He had established in an earlier paper (referenced below, 2006, at p. 63) that this document appears to contain:

“... a list of the districts of Uruk, subdivided into subgroups.  Each subgroup is associated with the name of an official:

at the end of the text (reverse, line  v: 10), it is specified that the above-mentioned districts belong to Uruk; [and]

...  the colophon (reverse, lines vi: 1-4) can be translated as ...: 

‘total: 22+x districts [of] Uruk: LUM-ma being the city-ruler (ensix)’.

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at p. 12) agreed that the evidence of TSSh 302 placed Lumma, the ensi of Uruk, in the Fara period, but he argued that:

“If an ensi of Uruk indeed held agricultural land at Abu Salabikh, we would find here incontrovertible proof that [Abu Salabikh] had been a dependency of Uruk or, at the very least, that it recognised Uruk’s overlordship [at that time].”

In other words, for Steinkeller, this evidence confirmed that the grant of land that Menunsi, king of Kish made to Akigal of Shuruppak must have taken place before Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh passed from the hegemony of Kish to that of Uruk.  He also observed (in note 30, at p. 11) that Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2006, at p. 62) had himself argued that: 

“A closer analysis of TSSh 302 suggests that [Lumma, the ensi of Uruk , who was recorded in its colophon] was actually a ruler of Uruk, which, in turn, was probably the leading centre of that union  and/or alliance of the Sumerian cities that is known as [the ‘Kieng League’ in the Fara Period - see below]. 

He suggested (at note 294) that Lumma might have been given the title ensi in TSSh 302, rather than:

“... en or lugal (as one would expect to be the case with a ruler of Uruk) ... [because] the tablet in question was written, not in Uruk, but in some other place, where the term used for ruler was ensi.”

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at p. 11) pointed out:

“It appears quite likely that it was [Lumma, the ensi of Uruk who is recorded in the colophon of TSSh 302] ... who commanded the troops participating in the postulated campaign [of the members the ‘Kiengi League’] against Kish [in the Fara Period].”

In short, there are at least two possible scenarios for Menunsi’s reign:

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024), supported in part by Gianni Marcesi (referenced below, 2006), argued that:

Menunsi reigned at Kish prior to the Fara period, when he exercised hegemony over (at least) Shuruppak;

the hegemony of Shuruppak subsequently passed from Kish to Uruk; and

Lumma, ensi of Uruk then led this cities of the ‘Kiengi League’ (including Shuruppak) against Kish; while

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015) argued that

Menunsi reigned at Kish in the Fara Period, at which time Kish exercised hegemony over at least Uruk, Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh; and

Lumma, the ensi of Uruk who is recorded in the colophon of TSSh 302, held this office at this period (presumably under the hegemony of Menunsi).

Interestingly:

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024):

argued (at p. 23) that the reign of Ur-Nanshe (the first independent ruler of Lagash) was roughly contemporaneous with the Fara tablets, (and hence with the ‘Kiengi League’); and

suggested (at p. 14) that Enna-il could have ruled at Kish either:

at the time of the ‘Kiengi League’; or.

during the reign of Eanatum (the grandson of Ur-Nanshe, wh is known to have used the title ‘king of Kish - see the following page); and

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015):

argued that Enna-il:

“... was probably the last great king of Kish proper”, (see note 19, at p. 140); and

reigned at Kish in the latter part of the reign of of Ur-Nanshe at Lagash and continued into the reign of his son, Akurgal (see Table 1.2, at p. 142).

Thus, it is at least possible that: 

Enna-il ruled at Kish at the time of the formation of the ‘Kiengi League’;

he was defeated in or after the engagement recorded in the Fara texts discussed above; and

this explains why (for example) Ur-Nanshe was able to establish his independent rule at Lagash.

Foundational plaque from the original Ningirsu temple at Girsu,

depicting the so-called ‘Figure aux Plumes’ (Figure with Feathers)

Now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 221); image from the museum website  

In my view, evidence for part of this hypothesis (that Ur-Nanshe ruled at about the time of the campaign of the ‘Kiengi League’ discussed above) can be found in the history of the original temple at Girsu, in which the mace-head of Mesalim and the spear-head of Lugalnamnirshum (both discussed above) were almost certainly housed.  As mentioned above, Ur-Nanshe was able to deconsecrate this temple and encase it in a clay structure on which he built its replacement.  Importantly:

1. ✴as we have seen, he ritually buried the mace-head of Mesalim and the spear-head of Lugalnamnirshum in the foundations of his new temple; but
   

2. ✴he apparently transferred the foundational plaque illustrated above to the new temple, since it was finally ritually buried at the time of this temple’s rebuilding by Enmetana, Ur-Nanshe’s great-grandson (see Sébastien Rey, referenced below, at p. 286). 
   

Dynastic plaque of Ur-Nanshe from the temple on Ningirsu that he built at Girsu (RIME 1.9.1.2. P431035)   

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

Also among the objects that Enmetana ritually buried were four ‘dynastic plaques’ of Ur-Nanshe, one of which is illustrated above (see Sébastien Rey, referenced below, at pp. 230-6).  The political message communicated in the new temple would have been easily understood:

1. ✴As Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 286) observed:
   

2. “The prime importance of the [plaque depicting Ningirsu], with its foundational imagery and texts, is clear, and it might well have been considered to be the primordial token of the covenant between the people and [Ningirsu] that sanctioned the inauguration of the [new] temple ... .”
   

3. ✴Furthermore, Ur-Nanshe himself was depicted twice in the dynastic plaque illustrated above:
   

4. •once carrying bricks (almost certainly for the construction of new temple); and
   

5. •once enthroned (quite possibly at its inauguration). 
   

6. These images demonstrated his general piety as well as his particular devotion to Ningirsu, who would surely smile on his kingship. Beyond that, Ur-Nanshe’s new subjects would have been comforted by the impressive number of his sons (identified by inscription), who would be available to defend the new kingdom and ensure the continuation of the new ruling dynasty.
   

This brings us to Ur-Nanshe’s  ritual burial of the objects that had been dedicated to Ningirsu by Mesalim and by Lugalnamnirshum: it seems to me that, by this action, he  respectfully but definitively consigned the erstwhile hegemony of Kish to history.

Inscribed copper bull’s head from the Ur-Nanshe’s Ningirsu temple at Girsu,

now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2676). image from Wikipedia

As Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at pp. 279-81) observed, Enmetana also ritually buried a pair of copper bull’s heads that presumably came from Ur-Nanshe’s temple, one of which (illustrated above) carries an inscription on its forehead that reveals that it had been dedicated to Ningirsu by:

1. “Lugalsi, gala-mah (the chief lamentation-priest) of Uruk”, (see Gianni Marchesi, referenced below, 2011, note 244, at  p. 124).
   

Rey (as above)

suggested (at p. 280) that these heads probably served as ornaments on instruments (probably lyres) played on liturgical occasions, and (at p. 281) that:

1. “... they were [dedicated] by Lugalsi to form part of the temple’s cultic apparatus.”
   

Gianni Marchesis (as above) wrongly assumed that these  two bulls head had been found ‘same archaeological context’ as the spear-head of Lugalnamnirsumma (see above).  He therefore argued that:

1. “[Since]:
   

2. ✴it is very unusual to find objects dedicated by ‘foreigners’ in Lagash (the only other known example is the mace of Mesalim, king of Kish ) ...; and 
   

3. ✴the ED  IIIb kings of Uruk, used to style themselves ‘king of Kish’;
   

4. it is likely that Lugalnamnirsumma, like [Lugalsi],, the lamentation priest..., was also from Uruk.  The presence of these officials’ inscriptions in the temple of Ningirsu  may reflect a period of political weakness at Lagash, during which the city-state fell under the hegemony of Uruk.”
   

In fact, as we have seen, both Mesalim and Lugalnamnirsumma were (or were almost certainly) ‘actual’ kings of Kish who had made their dedications to Ningirsu as the overlords of Lagash/ Girsu.  In view of this, the fact that at these bulls’ heads (which were sufficiently important to merit ritual burial at the tome of Enmetana’s restoration of the temple) were dedicated to Ningirsu by  the chief lamentation priest of Uruk is even more ‘unusual’ than Marchesi thought, and we cannot rule out his suggestion that the Lugal-si’ dedication the bulls’ heads to Ningirsu, at least, reflected the fact that Lagash had ‘fallen under the hegemony’ of Uruk.

Four-sided inscribed stele from Lagash (RIME 1.09.01.06a, P431039)

Now in the Iraq Museum (IM 61404): image from Wikimedia)

Left: relief of goddess (Inanna ?)

Right: sketch of reliefs on all four sides by Claudia Suter (referenced below, Figure 1, at p. 346)

In this context, we should look in more detail at Marchesi’s final remark in this note:

1. “In this connection, note that Ur-Nanshe changed his title from lugal (king) to [ensi] toward the end of his reign [sic], as is witnessed by the inscription, [RIME 1.09.01.06a, P431039], on his stele [(illustrated above]”
   

Claudia Suter (referenced below, at p. 345) pointed out that the relief:

1. “... shows [Ur-Nanshe] approaching an enthroned goddess, together with an entourage of sons and male officials, while a self-contained sub-scene below the king and his cupbearer [= his son Anita ?] depicts his [named] wife and daughter facing each other in banquet.  The women share with the goddess her seated position, cup, and vegetal attribute, [which usually identified as a date palm].” 
   

Importantly, both:

1. ✴the inscription under Ur-Nanshe (surface a; lines 1-5); and
   

2. ✴another on this side of the stele that runs horizontally under all four figures (surface e; lines 1-5);
   

both read:

1. “Ur-Nanshe, son of Gunidu, ensi of Lagash, built the Ibgal [= oval temple of Inanna at Lagash].”
   

Unfortunately, the text under the goddess is no longer legible and her identity is still debated.  However, Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 87), for example, argued strongly (and, in my view, reasonably) that she:

1. “... is almost certainly a representation of Inanna, [and the stele itself] probably came from the area of the Ibgal temple at Lagash.” 
   

This is, of course, relevant to the present discussion because Innana was the chief deity at Uruk and Lugalsi’s full title was probably ‘chief lamentation-priest of Inanna’.

More recently, Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, at p. 6) observed that, while we have numerous royal inscriptions of Ur-Nanshe that record his religious and civic construction projects., and:

1. “... despite the probably long duration of his reign, we do not have many mentions of military operations of this king.  The very worn inscription of a limestone stele from [Lagash (illustrated above)] commemorates, in the space of not more than seven lines [see surface e, lines 10’- 13’ , that Ur-Nanše captured one or more [now-unknown] enemies (kings or states) ... “
   

As he pointed out in the rest of his paper, the only other potential reference to the military activity of Ur-Nanshe comes on the ‘war side’ of a scribal copy (RIME 1.9.1.6b, P431040, lines 62-105) found at Lagash: which

1. ✴mentions:
   

2. • ‘... Lagash’, (lines 62-4); and
   

3. •‘the man of Lagash’, (line 69); but
   

4. ✴does not record whether Lagash:
   

5. •defeated Ur and Umma (as most scholars assume); or
   

6. •was defeated by another ruler who also defeated Ur and Umma; and
   

7. ✴does not actually mention Ur-Nanshe at all (a point that is usually ignored since the ‘peace side’ (lines 1-61) is a copy of completely conventional (= non-militaristic) inscription of Ur-Nanshe).
   

Thus, as far as we know, the only surviving royal inscription of Urnanshe that securely mentions any military victories:

1. ✴names him as Ur-Nanshe, son of Gunidu, ensi of Lagash; and
   

2. ✴celebrates his devotion to Innana, the chief deity of Uruk.