Shulgi and the USKL 

text

Isin Kings  and the SKL

As we have seen, the recensions of the SKL, which were produced for the kings of Isin, essentially  involved the extension (albeit with significant elaboration) of the USKL. which had been produced for the Ur III king Shulgi:

1. ✴the USKL ended with the reign of Ur-Namma, Shulgi’s father and the founder of their dynasty; and
   

2. ✴the SKL recorded that, after 108 years (the period of the reigns of Ur-Namma, Shulgi and 3 more Ur III kings, the last of whom was Ibbi-Sin):
   

3. “Ur was struck with weapons [and] its kingship was taken to Isin, [where] Ishbi-Erra was king”.
   

The latest SKL recensions then contained the names of a succession of kings of Isin from Ishbi-Erra to  Damiq-ilishu, the 15th and last of member of this dynasty.  Thus, it seems that all of the SKL recensions were compiled for kings of Isin during the 200 years between: 

1. ✴ca. 1987 BC, when Ishbi-Erra expelled the Ealmites from Ur and presumably began to represent himself as the heir of the Ur III kings; and
   

2. ✴ca. 1786 BC, when Damiq-ilishu was defeated by King Rim-Sin of Larsa, bringing this dynasty to an end. 
   

Although the SKL evolved to some extent during the Isin period, these changes were quite insubstantial when seen alongside the huge changes that were made to the USKL in the 100 years or so between Shulgi and the early Isin kings.  These earlier changes clearly reflected the huge difference in status and repute between Shulgi on the one hamd and Ishbi-Erra and his successors on the other.  One is reminded here of the remark made by Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic candidate for vice president of the USA in the 1988 elections, when his opponent, Dan Quayle, compared himself to ex-President Kennedy:

1. “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy  I knew Jack Kennedy.  Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.  Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.”
   

This probably captures the scale of the political problems that faced the early Isin kings when they attempted to rule what was left of the Ur III empire under the political shadow of its greatest rulers, Shulgi and his grandson, Naram-Sin.   To put this remark in perspective, we should start with the tragic story of the fall of Ur.

Ishbi-Erra and the Fall of Ur 

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 196) observed:

1. “... at the very beginning of the reign of Ibbi-Sin, the last king of the [Ur III] dynasty, ... [Ur] lost control of most of [its] foreign possessions ... [and] the empire effectively ceased to exist.” 
   

One early sign of this collapse is provided by Ishbi-Erra, who started his career as an officer under Ibbi-Sin before rebelling, capturing Isin, and founding his own ‘Isin dynasty’.  At this point, he naturally established his own series of year names (see ‘year names of Ishbi-Erra’), most of which overlapped with those of Ibbi-Sin (see ‘year names of Ibbi-Sin’), so that, according to Marcel Sigrist (referenced below, at p. 4), Ibbi-Sin 24 (the last year of Ibbi-Sin) = Ishbi-Erra 18.  On this basis, Ishbi-Erra declared his independence from Ibbi-Sin in Ibbi-Sin’s 7th year, and Ibbi-Sin’s weakness at this time is evidenced by the fact that he was forced to accept this situation for the rest of his reign.

There is an important overlap in the names chosen by the respective kings for the year Ibbi-Sin 22 = Ishbi-Erra 16:

1. ✴Ibbi-Sin, the king of Ur, secured Ur and [Uruk ??, which had both been] stricken by a flood [that had been] ordered by the gods, [that had] shaken the whole world; while
   

2. ✴Ishbi-Erra, the king, smote the armies of Shimashki and Elam. 
   

Ibbi-Sin’s failure to mention the invasion of ‘the armies of Shimashki and Elam’ is eloquent in its demonstration of Ibbi-Sin’s impotence, particular since these armies posed an existential treat to his kingship, as we learn from two separate sections of a panegyric to Ishbi-Erra known as ‘Hymn B: Ishbi-Erra and Kindattu’:

1. ✴In the first of these, which is extremely lacunose, we read that: 
   

2. “From Bashimi by the edge of the sea ...... to the edge of Zabshali ......, and from Uru’a (Arawa), the bolt of Elam ...... to the edge of Marhashi .......Kindattu, the man of Elam, ....... ...... Isin, the great spindle of heaven and earth.  The king's battle did not ....... The battle of Elam ...... Sumer. ...... by the edge of the sea. ...... the land of Huhnuri. ...... the wild animals and four-footed ....... The king ...... in the battle”, (segment C).
   

3. ✴In the second of these, we read that:
   

4. “... the news was carried to Kindattu, the man of Elam; the Anshanites and Shimashki gave a battle cry; he (Kindattu) approaches the mountains; he addresses his assembled army”, (segment E, see also the translation by Piotr Steinkeller, referenced below, 2007,  at p. 224, note 34). 
   

As Katrien de Graef (referenced below, at p. 446) observed, it seems that Ibbi-Sin had faced an Elamite attack on Ur, only to be saved by Ishbi-Erra.  Both passages identify the leader of the invasion as ‘Kindattu, the man of Elam’, who is named as the 6th king in the so-called only Shimashki King List.  The second passage establishes that Kindattu commanded ‘the armies of Shimashki and Elam’ in an alliance that included Anshan. 

It seems that Ur’s salvation was only temporary, since Ibbi-Sin’s 23rd year was recorded as the year in which:

1. “... the stupid monkey in the foreign land struck against [him]”, (‘year names’ of Ibbi-Sin’, 23). 
   

Later literary sources indicate that this belligerent name referred to another invasion of Ur by Kindattu.  This time, there was to be no salvation for Ibbi-Sin:

1. ✴The ‘Lament for Ur’ recorded that: 
   

2. “The good house of the lofty untouchable mountain, E-kish-nu-gal, [the residence of the moon god Nanna and his wife Ningal], was entirely devoured by large axes.  The people of Shimashki and Elam, the destroyers, counted its worth as only 30 shekels.  They broke up the good house with pickaxes.  They reduced the city to [ruins].  ... Ningal cried, ‘alas, my city,’ and ‘alas, my house‘ .... O Nanna, the shrine of Ur has been destroyed and its people have been killed”, (lines 241-9).
   

3. ✴The roughly contemporary ‘Lament for Sumer and Ur’ similarly recorded that the gods had decided that Ibbi-Sin’s subjects:
   

4. “... should no longer dwell in their quarters [but] ... should be given over to live in an inimical place; that Shimashki and Elam, the enemy, should dwell in their place; that their shepherd, [Ibbi-Sin hmself], should be captured by the enemy in his own palace and like a swallow that has flown from its house, should [be taken] from Mount Zabu on the edge of the [Babylonian marshes] to the borders of Anshan, never to return to his city”, (lines 33-7, my changed word order). 
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2007, at p. 224, note 35) reproduced another text fragment (ACh Ishtar LXVII rev. ii 11–12, which I have not been able to identify), which he translated as follows:

1. “... the reign of destruction of Ibbi-Sin, king of Ur, who, in tears, went as captive to Anshan”. 
   

However, Ishbi-Erra lived to fight another day: the ‘year name of Ishbi-Erra’, 26 records that:

1. “Ishbi-Erra, the king, [drove] out of Ur with his strong weapon the Elamite who was dwelling in its midst.”  
   

Thus, it seems that the transfer of kingship formula in the SKL is somewhat disingenuous, since:

1. ✴it was Kindattu who ‘struck Ur with weapons’ and drove out Ibbi-Sin; and
   

2. ✴the kingship of Ur only reached Ishbi-Erra eight years later, when he drove Ibbi-Sin out of the city.
   

The other important point here is that, although Ishbi-Erra added Ur to his kingdom, Ur itself was totally eclipsed and he and his successors never controlled an empire on the scale of that of the Ur III kings. 

Chronology of the Evolution from USKL to SKL

USKL

After the completion of the USKL text with the record of

scribe’s dedication of his handiwork to:

“... [the divine] Shulgi, my king: may he live until distant days”, (translation based on that by Piotr Steinkeller, referenced below, 2003, at p. 269). 

This indicates that the USKL was compiled during the life of Shulgo, Ur Namma’s son and successor.  In fact, we can be more precise: Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2003, at p. 269) argued that, since Shulgi was given a divine determinative in this dedication, this recension  must have been compiled at some time between:

his 20th regnal year (the approximate date of his deification); and

his 48th regnal year (the approximate date of his death).  

, which Nathan Wasserman and Yigal Bloch (referenced below, at p. 128) dated to 1916–1889 BC:

some 150 years after the likely period  in which the USKL was compiled; and

some 100 years before the death of Damiq-ilishu (in 1786 BC, according to Wasserman and Bloch). 

Shulgi’s Ur III dynasty came to an end when Ur itself fell, first to the Elamites and then to King Ishbi-Erra of Isin.  As we shall see, even the earliest of the subsequent surviving recensions were almost certainly compiled after this seismic event. 

The absolute dating of the events in this period is fraught with uncertainties.  However, according to the chronology of Nathan Wasserman and Yigal Bloch (referenced below):

1. ✴the Elamites defeated Ibbi-Sin (the last of the Ur III kings) and captured Ur in ca. 1995 BC (see  p. 129); and
   

2. ✴Ishbi-Erra captured Ur from the Elamites in his 25th regnal year, ca. 1987 BC (see p. 131). 
   

Thus, all the known recensions except the USKL were compiled during the 200 years between: 

1. ✴ca. 1987 BC, when Ishbi-Erra presumably began to represent himself as the heir of the Ur III kings; and
   

2. ✴ca. 1786 BC, when Damiq-ilishu, the 15th Isin king, was defeated by King Rim-Sin of Larsa, bringing this dynasty to an end (see the Isin king list at p. 128). 
   

If we count back from the death of Ibbi-Sin in ca. 1995 BC, using the Ur III reign lengths recorded in the SKL, then the USKL was compiled in the period 2065-2037 BC, meaning that there would have been a minimum of 50-80 years between:

1. ✴the compilation of the USKL; and
   

2. ✴the earliest possible compilation of the SKL at Isin.  
   

In an ideal world, our analysis of the corpus would start with the USKL and then move on to look at the way in which the text was adapted to meet the needs of the kings of Isin.  However, this approach is impractical, since:

1. ✴the only known USKL tablet contains only about half of the original text; and
   

2. ✴the SKL is the only surviving source for the completion of the text that has been lost.
   

Thus, any analysis of the USKL (which is actually my main objective) has to start with  a preliminary analysis of the 24 Old Babylonian SKL recensions, in order to facilitate the completion of the USKL text.

As noted above, Nathan Wasserman and Yigal Bloch (referenced below) for the Isin kings, there would have been a minimum of 50-80 years between:

the compilation of the USKL during the reign of Shulgi (probably in the period 2065-2037 BC on the chronology adopted by Nathan Wasse; and

the earliest possible compilation of the SKL at Isin in ca. 1987 BC, when Ishbi-Erra presumably began to represent himself as the heir of the Ur III kings.

There is no obvious way of assessing the gap between Ishbi-Erra’s ‘liberation’ of Ur and the compilation of the first of the surviving recension of the SKL.  However, we can probably roughly estimate the date of the ‘middle’ SKL recensions, since two of them (numbers 7 and 9) end with King Ur-Ninurta, the 6th of the 15 Isin kings, who is described here (but in no other surviving recensions) as: 

“... the son of [the weather god] Ishkur: may he have years of abundance, a good reign and a sweet life”, see line 365 in this composite translation by ETCSL). 

This suggests that both of these recensions were compiled in the reign of Ur-Ninurta, which Nathan Wasserman and Yigal Bloch (referenced below, at p. 128) dated to 1916–1889 BC:

some 150 years after the likely period  in which the USKL was compiled; and

some 100 years before the death of Damiq-ilishu (in 1786 BC, according to Wasserman and Bloch), who was both the last king of Isin and the last king to be named in any of the surviving SKL recensions. 

The USKL [Uruk  A*] Problem

The case of Uruk is more problematic, since all of the names of the early kings in the USKL are now lost, albeit that it seems certain that Lugalzagesi was the last of them.  The problem is that: 

from Stage 1 onwards, the SKL recensions record the names of 16 Uruk kings before Lugalzagesi; while

even if we assume that this lost USKL text recorded only kings of Uruk, there would have been room for only about 9 of them.

Furthermore, the SKL does not name a number of important kings of Uruk who are known from their surviving royal inscriptions, all of which would have been available to Shulgi’s scribe.  Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2003, at pp. 274-5) observed that:

“It is here that the reconstruction of the [lost USKL text] is at its most problematic. ... Unfortunately, there seems to be no possibility of resolving [this problem] at this time.”

Gösta Gabriel (forthcoming) resolved this problem by assuming that the first seven kings in the Uruk I dynasty of the SKL were added during Stage 1.  However, as Piotr Steinkeller (referenced belom 2019, at p. 141) observed:

“... the Ur III kings traced their descent primarily to the mythical, semi-divine kings of Uruk, such as Lugalbanda and Gilgamesh, [two of the first seven Uruk I kings in the SKL].  Although [this development] may have already begun under Ur-Namma, it was only during the reign of Shulgi that [it] acquired its full formulation.”

It seems to me that Gilgamesh, at least, must have featured in the USKL, which suggests that the changes made to the early Uruk king list in Stage 1 might have been even more radical than Gösta Gabriel suggested (a point to which I will return).

1. 
   

The earliest surviving reference to the concept of the reign of a city (rather than of its ruler) comes in the first line of the USKL, which Dr Gabriel translated (at p. 246) as follows:

“After kingship (nam-lugal) was brought down from heaven, Kish has been king (kisheki lugal-am3).”

In his paper of 2021 (referenced below, at p. 348), he argued that:

“Since only one kingship is brought down from heaven [in this passage], there is ... only this one kingship, ...  [which] extends to the whole country (ganze Land), ... [which] is finally united”, (my translation).

Thus, he assumed that all of the SKL recensions (including the USKL), 

In his paper of 2023 (referenced below, at p. 247), Gabriel pointed out that, in a putative ‘Old Akkadian recension’ that incorporated and extended an earlier putative ‘Kishte recension’:

“The [Akkadian] rulers added the concept of a change of hegemony to the [putative ‘Kish recension’].  In this version of events, the gods had not bequeathed kingship to Kish forever.  [Instead, they subsequently] passed it on to other worthy cities.  This change results in the altered semantics of the identical initial copular phrase (‘kisheki lugal-am3’) from an eternal truth ... to a delimited segment of history [during which] ‘Kish was king’.”

He  assumed that, in the putative ‘Old Akkadian recension’, hegemony over ‘the whole land’ passed:

from Kish to Uruk; and then

from Uruk to Akkad. 

The problems here are that  there is no surviving evidence relating to the these events prior to the royal inscriptions of Sargon that commemorate his defeat of Lugalzagesi of Uruk at a time when he might already have been king of both Akkad and Kish.  Thus,

all of the relevant lines in the USKL are lost.

Wasserman N. and Bloch., “The Amorites: A Political History of Mesopotamia in the Early Second Millennium BCE”, (2023) Leiden and Boston

De Graef K., “The Middle East after the Fall of Ur: From Ešnunna and the Zagros to Susa”, in:

1. Radner K. et al. (editors), “The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: Vol. II: From the End of the Third Millennium BC to the Fall of Babylon”, (2022) New York, at pp. 407-95
   

de Boer R., “Studies on the Old Babylonian Kings of Isin and Their Dynasties with an Updated List of Isin Year Names”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 111:1 (2021) 5–27 

Gabriel, G. I.,"Von Adlerflügen und Numinosen Insignien: Eine Analyse von Mythen zum Himmlischen Ursprung Politischer Herrschaft nach Sumerischen und Akkadischen Quellen aus drei Jahrtausenden", in: 

1. Gabriel, G. I. et al., (editors), ”Was vom Himmel kommt: Stoffanalytische Zugänge zu Antiken Mythen aus Mesopotamien, Ägypten, Griechenland und Rom”, (2021) Berlin, Munich and Boston, at pp. 309-407  
   

Steinkeller P.., “The Birth of Elam in History”, in: 

1. Álvarez-Mon J. et al. (editors), “The Elamite World”, (2018) Oxford and New York, at pp. 177-202 
   

Cooper J. S., “Sumerian Literature and Sumerian Identity”, in:

1. Ryholt K. and Baarjamovic G. (editors), “Problems of Canonicity and Identity Formation in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia”, (2016) Chicago, at pp. 1-18 
   

Mittermayer C., “Die Uruk I-Dynastie: ein Konstrukt der Isin-Zeit?”, in: 

1. Wilhelm G. (editor), “Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg 20–25 July 2008”, (2012), Winona Lake IN, at pp. 323-26
   

George A. R., “Sumero-Babylonian King Lists and Date Lists”, in:

1. George, A.R. (editor), “Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection”, (2011) Bethesda , at pp. 199-209 
   

2. 
   

Veldhuis N., “Guardians of Tradition: Early Dynastic Lexical Texts in Old Babylonian Copies”, in:

1. Black H. et al., “Your Praise Is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues and Friends”, (2010) L0ndon, at pp. 379-400
   

Frayne D. R. (2008a), “The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Vol. 1: Presargonic Period (2700-2350 BC)”, (2008) Toronto  

Steinkeller P., “New Light on  Šimaški and Its Rulers”, Zeitschrift für Assyrologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, 97:2 (2007) 215-32 

Sigrist M., “Isin Year Names’, (1988) Berrien Springs MI