altman international law in mesopotamia

8/12/2019 ALTMAN International Law in Mesopotamia

1/21

Amnon Altman 153

Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts of

International Law. The Early Dynastic Period in

Southern Mesopotamia

Amnon Altman

We do not know, and will probably never know, when and under what circumstancesthe first rules of behaviour, designated to regulate the relations between two or morehuman groups, were created. Lying deep in the mists of the very long prehistoric era,

they are far beyond our reach. We may speculate about the circumstances of their firstappearance, but it is only with the invention of writing, and when these early rules wereput in writing, that we may speak more confidently about this issue.

Writing appeared for the first time in the Near East, during the late fourth millennium,and the earliest written documents we have are from the site of Warka, ancient Uruk(biblical Erech), in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia (ca. 3100 BCE). Yet, for thenext six hundred years or so the employment of writing was restricted to economic andadministrative records, and to sign-lists for the use of the scribal schools.1It is onlyaround 2500 BCE that we have the first royal inscriptions reporting political events.2

From around 2900 BCE on, the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia the focusof our discussion here, which much later became to be known by the name Babylonia seems to have been populated by two distinct ethnic groups who divided it into roughlytwo equal halves. Its southern part was occupied by the Sumerians, while the SemiticAkkadians occupied its northern part. Recent studies have suggested that there was a

1 See for these R. K. Englund, Texts from the Late Uruk Period, in J. Bauer, R.K. Englund,

and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit, Freiburg (Switzer-land) and Gttingen, 1998, pp. 15-233. Toward the end of this stage, ca. 2600-2500, also literarycompositions started to be written. For these, see in the same book, pp. 237-427, M. Krebernik,Die Texte aus Fra und Tell Ab S.albh

(for the literary texts: pp. 317-335).2 For a recent detailed survey of the documents of the so-called Pre-Sargonic Period (2500-2350 BCE), and the information they provide about the history of southern Mesopotamia at thisperiod, as well as about religion, military aspects, economy and administration, and private life,followed by a quite detailed bibliography, see Josef Bauer, Der vorsargonische Abschnitt dermesopotamischen Geschichte, in J. Bauer, R.K. Englund, and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien

Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit, pp. 431-585. For more concise surveys, see D.O.Edzard, Sumerian Civilization: The Sumerians to the end of the Early Dynastic period, TheNew Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th edition Chicago 2002 Vol 23 pp 866 869; P Steinkeller

Department of History,Bar-Ilan University, Israel


2/21

154 Journal of the History of International Law

striking difference between the political organizations of these two groups. While theSumerians developed a system of independent city-states, the Akkadians seem neverto have developed such a system, and there are strong reasons to believe that duringmost of the 27th-24th centuries BCE the northern part had the form of a single politi-cal configuration. The paramount position in it was held by the city of Kish, while two

other secondary power-centers, Akshak and Mari, seem to have competed with Kishfor the control of that configuration.3The much later Sumerian King List,4and someSumerian literary works commemorating the struggles of the southern city of Urukwith the Kishite kings Enmebaragesi and Akka,5suggest that Kish exercised consid-erable influence in the south sometime during the 28th-27th centuries, and may evenhave succeeded in gaining some kind of suzerainty over it.6From around 2500 BCE,we have documents found at the site of Fra, ancient Shuruppak, hinting of some kindof military cooperation between six Sumerian city-states in the southern part of thealluvial plain. The evidence we have suggests that that organization was created as a

response to a threat posed by the northern power of Akkadian Kish.7

Further echoes ofmilitary struggles from this remote past are found in some later literary works, whichare connected with the names of some early kings of Uruk and Kish.8

More reliable and dateable information starts to become available, however, onlyfrom when the written word was adopted by the scribes for royal inscriptions,9with

3 See more recently P. Steinkeller, Early Political Development in Mesopotamia and the Ori-

gins of the Sargonic Empire, in M. Liverani (ed.),Akkad The First World Empire: Structure,Ideology, Traditions, Padova, 1993, pp. 107-129 (esp. 116ff.).4 For which see Th. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Assyriological Studies 11), Chicago,1939, and pp. 77-85 for the role of Kish in this list.5 See particularly the literary composition Gilgamesh and Akka; recent edition: Dina Katz,Gilgamesh and Akka, Broomall, Pennsylvania, 1993.6 Cf. Th. Jacobsen, Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, Toward the Image ofTammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, edited by William L. Moran,

Cambridge, Maryland, 1970, pp. 132-156, and notes on pp. 366-396 (first published inZeitschriftfr Assyriologie, 52 (1957), pp. 91-140), and see there p. 145f. and notes 55-56 on pp. 381-383;P. Steinkeller, Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, pp. 118-119, 128.7 Francesco Pomponio, The Hexapolis of uruppak , in Francesco Pomponio GiuseppeVisicato,Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of uruppak, Instituto Universitario Orientale diNapoli, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Maior VI, Napoli 1994, pp. 10-20. The Sumeriancities are: Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma.8 For these echoes, see Th. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuzpp. 143-147, and the noteson pp. 378-383.9 For a more recent edition of these inscriptions, including both transliteration and translation ofboth royal and private inscriptions, see H. Steible, Die Altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften,


3/21

Amnon Altman 155

which we also have our earliest records of concepts of interstate law. Unfortunately,however, the great majority of these early royal inscriptions, and particularly thosereporting political events, came from one state, that of Lagash (from the sites of Girsu[Tello] and Lagash [al-Hib]). Only very few inscriptions found in other cities, suchas Nippur, Uruk and Ur, contribute any significant information beyond the names of

the rulers in whose names they were written. What we have from some other sites areonly very short votive inscriptions that do not contribute anything of significance tothe issue under consideration here. The information we have is, therefore, very partialand one-sided.

There is yet another fact pertaining to the nature of these inscriptions called inthe jargon of Assyriology Early Dynastic IIIb Inscriptions or Pre-Sargonic Inscrip-tions that should be noted. Save for some seals and seal impressions, as well assome practice pieces, the vast majority of these early royal inscriptions are essentiallydedicatory inscriptions that commemorate the dedication of a structure or object by

the ruler to a specific god. With the possible exception of a few free-standing sculptedand inscribed steles, inscriptions that commemorate the building of a structure wereusually inserted into the walls of that structure, impressed on its bricks, or ceremoni-ally buried in its foundations or under floors, while dedicated objects were put insidethe temple.10To most if not all of these inscriptions, common people had no access.The accounts of political and military affairs described in these inscriptions should,therefore, be taken as reports addressed not to the people but rather to the gods, relatingto them the achievements of the king, their delegated official, or most rarely aboutaffairs that affected their property.11

When, around 2500 BCE, the curtain is fully raised above the historical stage ofsouthern Mesopotamia, we encounter a scene of military struggles between half a dozencity-states. These armed struggles were fought both locally and countrywide. On thelocal plane, they were between neighboring cities over water and sown lands that couldbe irrigated. The documents attesting to these struggles also refer to arbitration awardsmade by a third party and non-aggression agreements concluded between two rival

Inscriptions, New Haven, Connecticut, 1986 (henceforth: Cooper, followed by page number andthe number of the inscription. References to lines will follow the numeration of Steibles edi-tion. Note that Coopers translation provides cross-references to the corresponding inscriptionsin Steible edition as well as to other earlier translations). A new edition of these inscriptions which, when published, is likely to become the standard reference edition was announced, butup to the submission of the present article for publication has not yet appeared: Frayne Douglas,Pre-Sargonic Period 2700-2350 BC (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods,Vol. 1), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.

10 For the nature, materials, shape, structure and content of these inscriptions, see Cooper,Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions,pp. 4-13.


4/21


city-states, as well as to repeated violations of these agreements.12In the countrywideconflicts, some of the prominent city-states in southern Mesopotamia took part, as wellas some other city-states such as Elam on the East, and Mari, on the Middle Euphrates,to the north-west.13The main object of these latter struggles was to gain control overother city-states, and we may see in them the earliest historical sprouts of imperialism.

These struggles brought about the temporary supremacy of one city-state king over theothers, which gave rise to what we may call the hegemonic king.14The full extentof powers such a king had is still unknown. What we do know is that he was able tomobilize the troops of the city-states under his authority against an enemy foreigner;15

12

See particularly the cone inscription of Enmetena (a name previously read Entemena), rulerof Lagash (Cooper pp. 54ff., La 5.1), which reviews the dispute between the neighboring cit-ies of Lagash and Umma, the previous agreements reached, and their violations by the rulersof Umma (written from the viewpoint of Lagash). For another inscription from Lagash, whichrecords the oath and ritual by which the ruler of Lagash swore in the ruler of Umma, see theinscription of the Vultures Stele of Eanatum: Cooper, pp. 34ff., La 3.1. For a more recentdiscussion of the documents related to the conflict between these two city-states, see Jerrold S.Cooper,Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict,Malibu, California, 1983.13

We have clear echoes of those struggles in the inscriptions of Ennail (of Kish?; Cooper, p.21, Ki 7), Enshakushana of Uruk (Cooper, p. 105, Uk 4.1 and 4.2), and of the Lagashite kingsUrnansh (Cooper, p. 24f., La. 1.6), Eanatum (Cooper, pp. 41ff., La 3.5-6, 8-10), Enanatum I(Cooper, pp. 49ff., La 4.4 and 4.9), and of unknown king from Lagash (Cooper, p. 85, La 10.2).Note particularly the involvement of Mari in these struggles as echoes in the inscription of Eana-tum La 3.5, and of Elam in the inscriptions of Ennail Ki 7, and Eanatum La 3.1 and 3.5-9.14 On this term and its institution see Jacobsen,Toward the Image of Tammuz, pp. 151-154, 389-394. According to Jacobsen the title King of Kish claimed by some southern kings (Mesanepadaof Ur, Lugalkiginedudu of Uruk, Eanatum of Lagash, and Lugaltarsi whose city is not certain)

actually implied hegemony over both southern and northern Babylonia (p. 151f.). This view waschallenged by T. Maeda, King of Kish in Pre-Sargonic Sumer, Orient (Tokyo) 17 (1981), pp.1-17, who believes that when the title was used by Sumerian rulers it denoted the rule over onlythe city of Kish. S. Cooper (Reconstructing History, p. 25, and Sumerian and Akkadian RoyalInscriptions, pp. 18 and 42, note 3) argued that it denoted hegemony over northern Babylonia.While P. Steinkeller (Early Political Development, p. 120) suggested that in its southern ap-plication, the title was a generic term that described a particular form of kingship, namely, anautocratic and hegemonic type that was associated with the Kishite kingdom.15 This may be inferred from two of the inscriptions of Sargon, King of Agade (Akkad), which

refers to the fact that Lugalzagesi, on his march to battle with Sargon, was followed by 50 cityrulers. For these inscriptions, see Douglas Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC)(Th R l I i i f M i E l P i d V l 2) T B ff l L d


5/21

Amnon Altman 157

that he was entitled to conscript their laborers;16and that he had the authority to inter-vene and act as arbitrator in border-disputes between city-states.17In all probability, healso had to assume responsibility for the welfare of the local major gods in the citiesunder his hegemony.18The authority of such a king, which was backed by the militarypower under his control, did not remain, however, long in the hands of one city-state

ruler, but rather passed from one city-state to another, reflecting thereby the strugglesconducted by these city-states to achieve hegemony.19

16 See Cooper, p. 58, inscription La 5.4 of Enmetena, which declares that Enmetena cancelledobligations for the citizen of Uruk, Larsa and Patibira; he restored (the first) to (the goddess)Inana s control at Uruk, he restored (the second) to (the god) Utus control at Larsa, he restored(the third) to (the god) Lugalemushs control at the Emush (= the temple of Lugalemush inPatibira). These laborers, who were conscripted by Enmetena of Lagash from these three cities

subordinated to him were apparently released following a weakening of Lagash s military powerin favor of Uruk, a weakening which brought about the concluding of a brotherhood agreementbetween Lagash and Uruk. For the inscription that refers to this agreement, see Cooper, p. 58,inscription La 5.3, and the discussion in Cooper,Reconstructing History, p. 31f.17 Cf. the role of Mesalim (also read Mesilim) as arbitrator in the border dispute between Lagashand Umma in the inscriptions of Eanatum and Enmetena kings of Lagash: Cooper, p. 39f.: La3.2-3; p. 54: La 5.1 (see below for the quotation of the latter inscription). We, however, do nothave any clear evidence that such an arbitrator ever exercised his power and authority to punishany violator of an arbitration award made by either him or any previous arbitrator. It may, how-

ever, be that the violations of such awards occurred particularly when the power and authorityof such a hegemonic king were in decline, while no other king replaced him yet in the office.See, however, in the Stele of Vulture of Eanatum (Cooper, pp. 34ff.: La 3.1), where the godNingirsu declared angrily that Kish itself must abandon?Umma!, which refers to a military helpexpected by Umma from Kish. It may also be that the wide attack against Eanatum and Lagashreferred to by Eanatum (Cooper, pp. 41ff.: La 3.5-6), which included Kish, Akshak, Mari andElam, with some other city-states in the south such as Ur, Uruk and Umma, was connected withthe border dispute he had with Umma. If this is indeed the case, then we may see in this attacka reaction of a hegemonic king to punish Eanatum for transgressing the border of Umma.

18 This may be inferred from the three inscriptions of Mesalim King of Kish found in Girsu(Lagash) and Adab (Cooper, p. 19, Ki 3.1-3). These inscriptions record him as building a templefor Ningirsu (Girsu) and performing some rite in the temple Esar in Adab and dedicating theresomething (the inscription is damaged), probably to the goddess Ninhursag. See also Enmetenasinscription found in Patibira (Cooper, p. 58: La 5.3), recording his building of the Emush, thetemple of the gods Inana and Lugalemush in that city (cf. also his inscription La 5.4 [Cooper,p. 58], recording the building of that temple). Although Enmetena did not have the standing ofhegemonic king, he still had at that time hegemony over some Sumerian cities: see the discussionby Cooper,Reconstructing History, pp. 30ff.

19 The rulers who seem to have achieved some degree of hegemony over other city-states, whetheror not it included the hegemony of both the southern and the northern parts of Babylonia, are as


6/21


These documents indicate that already at this early documented period, interstaterelations were conceived by the people of the Ancient Near East to be under the super-vision and sanction of the gods. Accordingly, the hegemonic king was presented asacting under the authorization given to him by the gods,20and his success in gainingthe hegemonic office and status was presented as deriving from his having been

elected to this office by the gods.21

These early royal inscriptions also reveal something about the religious concepts ofthe people of southern Mesopotamia at that time regarding their gods concepts thatshould have largely dominated and regulated interstate relations. The scanty informa-tion provided by these inscriptions is supplemented by literary compositions such asmyths, hymns, and epics. These literary works, which have come down to us in latercopies, in all probability originated in much earlier periods,22since they reflect a typeof political organization which should have predated the monarchic regimes of theso-called Early Dynastic IIIb period (ca. 2500-2335) with their well established institu-

tion of kingship.23

Now, according to the official ideology, the city-state a territorialentity, comprising a major city and the surrounding countryside, with its towns and

and Enmetena of Lagash (Cooper, p. 39f.: La 3.2-3; p. 54: La 5.1); (2) Mesanepada of Ur (Cooper,p. 98: Ur 5.2); (3) Eanatum and Enanatum I of Lagash (Cooper, p. 41f.: La 3.5; p. 50f.: La 4.9);(4) The kings of Uruk Lugalkiginedudu and Urzage who are both titled King of Kish (Cooper,p. 102f.: Uk 1.2, 1.6; p. 104: Uk 3), Enshakushana who is titled lord of Sumer and king of thenation (Cooper, p. 105: Uk 4.1; 4.3), and perhaps also Lugalkisalsi whose inscription was found

in Nippur (Cooper, p. 103: Uk 2.1); (5) Lugalzagesi of Umma and Uruk (Cooper, p. 94: Um7.1). To this list we may perhaps add also Ennail whose city is not known but whose inscriptionwas found in Nippur (Cooper, p. 21: Ki 7). For the political importance of Nippur for claiminghegemonic rule over the country, see Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, p. 139f.20 See the inscriptions of Eanatum (Cooper, La 3.2 [p. 39]) and Enmetena (La 5.1; quoted below),which open with a reference to the authorization Mesalim got from the god Enlil to demarcatethe border between Lagash and Umma. In reality, such an authorization was obtained most likelythrough omens following a deliberate ritual in the course of which the god was invoked to givehis answer in the entrails of an animal. The use of divination to obtain the approval of the gods

for a certain intended act is attested for that period in an inscription of Urnanshe, ruler of Lagash:Cooper, p. 28, La 1.17, with note 1.21 See the inscriptions La 3.5 of Eanatum, La 4.9 of Enanatum I, and Um 7.1 of Lugalzagesi(Cooper, pp. 41f., 50f., and 91f. respectively), which declare that the victory on the foreign landswas granted to these rulers by some deity. See also the inscription Uk 4.1 of Enshakushana, whichdeclares that his attack on Kish was according to the command he got from the gods (Cooper,p. 105).22 Duplicate manuscripts of some Sumerian myths and hymns have been found in Fra and AbS.albikh, dated to ca. 2600-2500 BCE: see note 1 above. But their (oral) origin should have been

still much earlier.23 For these see Jacobsen Toward the Image of Tammuz pp 137 147 and notes on pp 370 383


7/21

Amnon Altman 159

villages was the property of an extended divine family. The chief god, as the head ofthat family, was regarded as the owner of the whole state, who, at the same time, held together with his spouse and children the major city as his private domain. Juniordeities belonging to his household owned smaller domains, comprising towns and vil-lages. The king of the city-state was regarded as having been elected by the city-god

to serve as his earthly representative to take care of his estate. The divine families ofall the city-states were united into one super-extended family, with Enlil, the chief godof Nippur, occupying the position of thepaterfamilias.24

It may be noted,however,that in the early royal inscriptions under considerationhere, while Enlil bears the title father of all the gods,25which alludes to a patriarchal-tribal organization, he is more often referred to as the king of all lands,26or as kingof heaven and earth.27These latter titles reflect the accommodation of the image of thedivine world organization to the more recent political development of human societyand the emergence of kingship.28Accordingly, Enlil is presented as the one who fixed

the boundaries of the lands, namely the terrestrial estate of each of the more prominentgods, and his decisions are presented as having been reached without having been firstconsulted and reviewed by any divine assembly, and without its consent.

One of the best expressions of this concept is found in the opening lines of one ofthe inscriptions of Enmetena, the king of Lagash (ca. 2450 BCE). Since this inscriptionwill dominate much of the discussion in this article, the quotation extends beyond theopening lines of the inscription (Cooper, pp. 54ff., La 5.1: cols. i-iv):

(The god) Enlil, king of all lands, father of all the gods, by his authoritative com-mand, demarcated the border between (the gods) Ningirsu and Shara. Mesalim,

24 See Steinkeller, Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, 116f. It may be noted,however, that in the myths, which seem to represent an older tradition, the god An, the god ofHeaven, is usually presented as the one who preceded the divine assembly, while Enlil occupieda somewhat secondary position. Note also, that in one inscription of Lugalzagesi of Umma andUruk (Um 7.1), while Enlil is again and again referred to as the king of all lands, the god Anis also referred to as king of all lands, and Enlil is invoked to supplicate An (who is presentedas his father) on Lugalzagesi s behalf. For further occurrences of An as king of all lands seenote 26 below.25 In an Inscription of Enmetena: Cooper, p. 54, La 5.1.26 See Cooper, p. 54, La 5.1 (Enmetena); p. 94, Um 7.1 (Lugalzagesi); p. 101, Uk 1.1 (Lugalkigi-nedudu); p. 103, Uk 2.1 (Lugalkisalsi); p. 104, Uk 3 (Urzage); p. 105, Uk 4.1 (Enshakushana).Note, that in some royal inscriptions of the kings of Uruk, Ur, and Umma, and once in that of aking of Kish also the god An is titled as king of all land: Cooper, p. 21f., Ki 8 (Lugalsilasi);p. 94, Um 7.1 (Lugalzagesi); p. 101, Ur 8 (Elili); p. 102, Uk 1.2 (Lugalkiginedudu, dedicated inNippur, the cultic center of Enlil; but see his inscription Uk 1.1 dedicated to Enlil, king of all

lands). In one Lagashite inscription (La 4.5 of Enanatum I) the goddess Inana of Uruk is titledas queen of all the lands.


8/21


king of Kish, at the command of (the god) Ishtaran, measured it off and erected amonument there. Ush, ruler of Umma, acted arrogantly: he smashed that monument and marchedon the plain of Lagash. Ningirsu, warrior of Enlil, at his (Enlils) just command, didbattle with Umma. At Enlil s command, he cast the great battle-net upon it, and set

up burial mound for it on the plain.Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, uncle of Enmetena ruler of Lagash, demarcated theborder with Enakale, ruler of Umma. He extended the (boundary-) channel from theNun-canal to the Guedena, leaving (a) 215 nindan (1290 m.) (strip) of Ningirsusland under Ummas control and establishing a no-mans land there. He inscribed(and erected) monuments at that (boundary-)channel and restored the monumentof Mesalim, but did not cross into the plain of Umma. On the boundary-levee ofNingirsu, (called) Namnundakigara, he built a chapel of Enlil, a chapel of Ninhursag,a chapel of Ningirsu, and a chapel of Utu.

The leader of Umma could exploit 1 guru (5184 hl.) of the barley of Nanse andthe barley of Ningirsu as a(n interest-bearing) loan. It bore interest, and 8,640,000guru (44,789,760,000 hl.) accrued. Since he was unable to repay? that barley,Urluma, ruler of Umma, diverted water into the boundary-channel of Ningirsu andthe boundary-channel of Nanshe. He set fire to their monuments and smashed them,and destroyed the established chapels of the gods that were built on the (bound-ary-levee called) Namnunda-kigara. He recruited foreigners, and transgressed theboundary-ditch of Ningirsu. Enanatum, ruler of Lagash, fought with him in the Ugiga-field, the field of

Ningirsu. Enmetena, beloved son of Enanatum, defeated him. Urluma escaped, butwas killed in Umma itself. At that time Il took the rulership of Umma for himself. He diverted waterinto the boundary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe Herepaid?(only) 3600 guru(18,662,400 hl.) of Lagash s barley. When, because of those (boundary-) channels, Enmetena, ruler of Lagash, sentenvoys to Il, Il, ruler of Umma, the field thief, speaking hostilely, said: The bound-ary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe are mine! I will shiftthe boundary-levee from Antasura to Edimgalabzu, he said. But Enlil and Ninhursagdid not allow him (to do) this.

The historical review of the relations between the two states opens with an ancientarbitration award made by Mesalim, King of Kish, in the dispute between these twocity-states. Mesalim either actually ruling that northern city-state or only bearingthat title as an hegemonic title29 in his capacity of hegemonic king demarcated andfixed the borders between the two states. We are not told what the situation was before

29

For this title as hegemonic title, see note 14 above. Mesalim is not known from any othersource to have belonged to Kish, and not even one inscription of his has been found in Kish. Thetitl Ki f Ki h l t b it Cf th i i ti f M d U 5 2 h thi


9/21

Amnon Altman 161

Mesalim interfered in this border dispute, nor whether Mesalim was indeed the firstto demarcate the border between them. Mesalims act is presented here as the actualrendering by a mortal of the decision made by the god Enlil, the king of all lands, inthe border dispute between Ningirsu, the titular god of Lagash, and Shara, the titulargod of Umma, over the extent of their terrestrial estates.30Yet, Enlil, as befitting a

king, did not himself demarcate the (new) boundary, but rather entrusted that to thegod Ishtaran,31who in turn entrusted it to the mortal Mesalim.Such a concept, quite obviously, should have sanctified the demarcation of the

borders of the city-states as being a part of the divine world order, and in turn, madetheir violator not only a transgressor against human order but also a sinner in the eyesof the gods. Particularly, such a violator was conceived to offend the titular god of thecity he attacked and turn him into his enemy.32

It is in this light that we have to see the emphasis repeatedly put by Enmetena onthe fact that each time that the border was violated, it was rather the ruler of Umma

who trespassed it, violating the extant agreements. Note also the assertion made byEnmetena to the effect that his uncle Eanatum, despite his victory over Umma, did notenter its territory. The same assertion is found also at the end of one of Eanatums owninscriptions, La 3.2 (Cooper, p. 39f.):

Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, restored to Ningirsus control his beloved fields.Eanatum did not cross beyond the place where Mesalim had erected the monument,and (moreover) he restored that monument.

While these assertions reflect the concept that the borders of the city-states were sac-

rosanct and should not be violated, in two of Eanatum inscriptions we find a statementthat appears to be a justification for the very act of waging a war against another city-state (Cooper, pp. 41ff.La 3.5: iv, 25-v, 8; La 3.6: v, 10-vi, 5):

30 Note, however, that the inscription does not mention any dispute between these two gods over

the extent of their estates, and the impression the reader get is that this was the original borderbetween these two estates.31 The status and role of this god here is not entirely clear. His cult center was in the city of Dr(see W.G. Lambert, Itarn inReallexikon der Assyriologie, 5 [1976-80], p. 211), but it is notclear if this city was also Mesalims city, and whether his involvement in the border dispute be-tween Lagash and Umma was made in capacity of his being the god of the hegemonic city, or inanother capacity. Note that the reference in Lugalzagesis inscription Um 7.2 to the involvementof this god in this dispute for the second time, as he who gave the command to Lugalzagesi toerect a (new) monument, does not prove or disprove anything. The appealing of Lugalzagesi to

this god to give his approval to this act could have simply stemmed from the fact that the originalmonument, set by Mesalim, was set by the command of that god.


10/21


Because33the king of Akshak attacked, Eanatum, nominated by Ningirsu, beat backZuzu, king of Akshak, from the Antasura of Ningirsu to Akshak, and destroyed it(Akshak).

This justification reflects the concept that waging a war against another city was forbid-

den, unless it was an act of defense. In the same light, we have to see Eanatums concernto clarify that the war was fought in his own territory, the territory of Lagash:

Elam trembled before Eanatum; he drove the Elamite back to his own land. Kishtrembled before Eanatum; he drove the king of Akshak back to his own land. Eana-tum, ruler of Lagash who subjugates the foreign lands for Ningirsu, defeated Elam,Subartu and Urua at the Asuh

ur(-canal). He defeated Kish, Akshak and Mari at the

Antasura of Ningirsu. (La 3.5: vi, 6-vii, 2)

We may, however, wonder, if this war was really only one of defense as these inscriptionsattempt to show, or that this wording was dictated by a concept that attacking withouthaving been attacked is a transgression or even a sin, and should not be admitted.34

Another justification for an aggressive act of war, which recurs in later periodsin many royal inscriptions, particularly in Assyrian ones,35is to ascribe it to a divine

33 See Cooper, p. 42, note 1. Yet, even if we follow the translation In the year when, still thesentence asserts that the king of Akshak initiated the fight.

34 Cf. H. Vanstiphout, Political Ideology in Early Sumer, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica1 (1970), pp. 7-38, and there p. 27f. for a similar opinion. However, Vanstipout ascribed to thatidea what he finds to be a lack of aggressive policy, this aversion to the idea of conquest, thisrestriction of war to raids with purely temporary aims. I would ascribe to this idea only thelimiting of the boastingand admitting openly the committing of such actions in the statementsmade in these inscriptions addressed to the gods. I doubt, therefore, whether Steinkeller is rightin the assertion he made in his Early Political Development (see note 3 above), note 20 on p.118, that the fact that, by Eanatums own admission, the war was fought in the territory of La-gash assures that Eanatum s success did not amount to much more than repulsing the enemy

and saving his kingdom. Cf. Coopers doubts regarding the veracity of Eanatums declarationthat he only restored Ningirsus Guedena to Lagash: Cooper,Reconstructing History, p. 28.See further the interesting observation of A. Westenoltz, The World View of Sargonic Officials.Differences in Mentality between Sumerians and Akkadians, in Mario Liverani (ed.),Akkad The First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions, Padova 1993, pp. 157-169, and therep. 160 where he regards the Sumerians as a people of law and order. Yet, admittedly, there arestatements, like the one made by Urnanshe, Eanatum s grandfather, that he went to war againstthe leader of Ur and the leader of Umma and defeated them (Cooper, p. 24f., La 1.6: rev. i, 1 ii, 2), without preceding it with a declaration that these two kings initiated the war. If my above

interpretation is correct, then I would take this statement of Urnanshe, made three generationsearlier, as indicating that the reservation from declaring openly an aggressive act was a recentdevelopment that only gradually became accepted norm


11/21

Amnon Altman 163

command.36Thus we find in an inscription of Enshakushana, ruler of Uruk (Cooper,p. 105, Uk 4.1), that:

When the gods commanded him, he sacked Kish and captured Enbiishtar, theking of Kish.

Still connected with the question of waging war, attention should be paid to a muchdamaged inscription found in Girsu, most probably of a Lagashite ruler whose namewas not preserved, La 10.1 (Cooper, p. 84f.). In what has been preserved in it, we readas follows:

[He s]ent [envoys to ]: Be it known that your city will be completely destroyed!Surrender! Be it kno[wn] that Umma will be completely destroyed! Surre[nder!].

What makes this inscription so interesting is not its reference to diplomatic messengersand messages. They are mentioned also in the above-quoted long inscription of Enme-tena (Cooper, p. 54f., La 5.1), referring to the envoys he sent to Il, ruler of Umma, andin an inscription of Uruinimgina (Cooper, p. 76f., La 9.3: iv), referring to the envoyssent by Enanatum I to (Urluma) the ruler of Umma. The dispatch of messengers is alsoa well-known topos in Sumerian literary texts, as was noted by Cooper.37It is rather thecontent of the message that makes this inscription so important. For here we have theearliest example of a declaration of war sent in advance to the opponent, a well-knownpractice from later periods.

Let us now move on to the question of who was supposed to punish the offender incase of a violation of an agreement or arbitration award. According to the above quotedinscription of Enmetena, when Ush, the king of Umma, infringed the arbitration awardof Enlil, made through Mesalim, it was neither the god Enlil nor the god Ishtaran whoacted to redress the wrong and to punish the offender. It was rather the wronged godand his human delegate, the king of Lagash, who had to redress it by their own force.The role of Enlil in the punishment of the offender was mentioned only in grantingthe wronged god the authorization to punish him.38Yet, it is also important to note thereflected concept, that even where the wronged king had the right to redress the wrong,

he was still required to first obtain authorization from the supreme god.

1987, in the inscriptions A.0.39.1: 5-10 (ami-Adad I); A.0.76.3: 4-10 (Adad-Nrri I); A.0.77.1:56-59 (Shalmaneser I).36Or, as Cooper phrased it (Reconstructing History, p. 11): This theological rationale of allMesopotamian imperialism making war in the name of a god for territory claimed by a god or

given to the warring ruler by a god was thus present at the beginning of recorded Babylonianhistory. Such a command was gained no doubt through divination; see note 20 above.


12/21


13/21

Amnon Altman 165

If [a leader of] Um[ma cros]ses the water/canal in order to take away the fields, mayNingirsu be a (hostile) dragon to him! May Enlil make salt surface in his furrows![May] Shu May there be an uprising against him in his own city!

Still, a third occurrence of the employment of a curse concerning the Lagash-Umma border

appears at the end of an inscription of Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk and a son of the ruler ofUmma, which defines the course of that border (Cooper, p. 95f., Um 7.2: 81-91):

If another leader destroys?it (the new boundary monument) there, or takes it awayand makes off (with it), may [his] city, like a place (infested) with harmful snakes,not allow him to hold his head erect! May poisonous fangs bite that ruler in hisruined palace!

The above examples present the curse as having been employed without the other partyto the dispute having been directly involved in the curse making. Yet we have from this

period, one unique monumental inscription that records the oath coupled with a curseand a certain magic ritual with which Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, swore in the defeatedruler of Umma (Cooper, pp. 33-39: La 3.1). It is the earliest example we have of theemployment of an oath and a curse in an interstate agreement. Following is an excerpttaken from that inscription (xvi, 12-40):

Eanatum gave the great battle net of Enlil to the leader of Umma, and made himswear to him by it. The leader of Umma swore to Eanatum: By the life of Enlil,king of heaven and earth! I may exploit the field of Ningirsu as a(n interest-bearing)

loan. I shall not the irrigation channel! F[orever and evermore, I shall not shift(the course of) its irrigation channels! I shall not smash its monument! Whenever Ido transgress, may the great battle net of Enlil, king of heaven and earth?, by whichI have sworn, descend upon Umma!]

These oath and curse were repeated six times, each time by evoking a different greatgod. Yet, Eanatum, not content with this repeated self-cursing, added the followingcomplementary curse, made in the third person and attached to each self-cursing madeby the ruler of Umma (xvi, 41-xvii, 20):

Eanatum was very clever indeed! He made the eyes of two doves with kohl, andanointed their heads with cedar (resin). He released them to Enlil, king of heavenand earth, ?to the ekur?in Nippur: After what he has declared and has reiterated tomy [master Enlil], if any leader in Umma reneges against the agreement, when heopposes or contests the agreement, whenever he violates this agreement, may thegreat battle net of Enlil, by which he has sworn, descend upon Umma!42

This inscription appears on a stele so-called Stele of the Vultures because of thescene that accompanied the text: vultures hovering over assumably the corpses of the

42


14/21


dead Ummaite soldiers (not preserved) and carrying away in their beaks and clawsthe heads and an arm of the slain. The main scene on the obverse shows the god Nin-girsu holding a large net filled with enemy soldiers, illustrating the battle-net of thisgod that figures in the above-quoted curses. The main scenes preserved on the reverseshow Eanatum leading a Lagashite phalanx, and Eanatum in a chariot at the head of a

detachment of spear-bearers. At the lower left, there is a scene of the construction oftwo burial mounds, which illustrates a phrase repeated in the Lagash inscriptions thatthe victorious ruler made burial mounds of the enemy soldiers.43

Before leaving these interesting scenes, two points may be noted here. The firstpertains to the scene of the construction of the burial mounds of the enemy soldiers.The scene clearly show two piles of corpses, and two men with baskets for carryingearth on their heads making their way up the second pile, intending very likely to coverthe corpses with earth. This reinforces the interpretation of the expression he made aburial mound for them not as just heaping the corpses in a mound without covering

them, but rather as constructing for them some kind of tumulus. This, in turn, suggeststhat we have here an early attestation of an obligation put on the victor to bury the deadsoldiers of the defeated enemy.

The second point to be noted is the function of the scenes. While all the scenes mayhave been intended to serve only as a memorial to commemorate Eanatums victory,still the scene on the obverse, presenting the god Ningirsu holding a large net filledwith enemy soldiers, may have been intended to illustrate the curses, and to functionas some kind of magic means to realize them.

Whether or not also the scenes on that stele were intended to realize the curses, the

curse-prayers referred above indicate that the people of southern Mesopotamia dur-ing that period did not rely only on their own power to punish the transgressor, butresorted to the curses as a complementary means to guarantee that the offender wouldbe punished. This means, which no doubt was adopted into the interstate relations at amuch earlier time, coupled with an oath, continued to play a role in interstate relationsdown to at least the seventh century BCE,44and for sure much later.

43

For pictures of the stele, see J. B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, Princeton 1954,p. 94f., figs. 298-301; E. Strommenger, 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia,New York, NY 1964,pp. 66-69; A. Moortgat, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia,London-New York 1969, pp. 118-121.For the Lagashite inscriptions referring to the construction of burial mounds, see e.g. Copper, p.24f.: La 1.6 (Urnanshe); p. 41f.: La 3.5; p. 42f.: La 3.6; p. 43f.: La 3.8 (Eanatum); p. 54f.: La 5.1(Enmetena). For a more recent discussion of the stele and its scenes see Irene J. Winter, Afterthe Battle Is Over: The Stele of the Vulturesand the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Artof the Ancient Near East, in Herbert L. Kessler and Marianna Shreve Simpson (eds.), PictorialNarrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Studies in the History of Art, 16), Washington D.C.:National Gallery of Art, 1985, pp. 11-32. The issue of burial of dead enemies has been dealt withby Aage Westenholz, bertum, damtum, and the Old Akkadian Kl.GAL: Burial of Dead enemiesin Ancient Mesopotamia, Archiv fr Orientforschung 23 (1970), pp. 27-31.


15/21

Amnon Altman 167

Returning to the question of the punishment of the transgressor, we may note thatwhile the supreme god Enlil would quite naturally have the ultimate responsibility topunish him, still, in the curses quoted above from the inscription of Enmetena, Ningirsu,the wronged god of Lagash, is also invoked to take part in it. This, however, raises aquestion: Why did Ningirsu, the one who under such circumstances would have been

the first to be injured, need to be invoked to punish the transgressor? Was it not self-evident that this god would participate in any event? The available royal inscriptionsof this period do not bear on this question. Yet, from later documents we know thatthe titular god was conceived as one who is likely to abandon his city to its fate if heis enraged against the ruler of that city or its people. An alternative answer, or rathera complementary one, is to take into account that at this period and stage of culturaldevelopment the gods were still conceived as capable of acting unpredictably andcapriciously. It was only later, in the second millennium BCE, that the gods became tobe conceived as acting more carefully and predictably according to rules of justice.45

In any event, the above invocation of Enmetena to Ningirsu indicates that a ruler byno means could take for granted the help of the titular god of his city.This last-quoted passage of Enmetena inscription raises yet another question, which

pertains to the titular god of the offending city. We may note that while Enmetenainvoked the gods Enlil and Ningirsu to punish any future ruler of Umma who wouldtransgress the border of Lagash, he said nothing about any sanction against Shara, thetitular god of Umma. This becomes more apparent in an inscription of a later rulerof Lagash, Uruinimgina, which laments the destruction brought upon Lagash and itstemples by Lugalzagesi, the ruler of Umma (Cooper, p. 78f.: La 9.5). The inscription

ended with the following words (vii, 10-ix, 3):The leader of Umma, hav[ing] sacked L[ag]ash, has committed a sin againstNingirsu. The hand which he raised against him will be cut off! It is not a sin ofUruinimgina, king of Girsu! May Nisaba, the god of Lugalzagesi, ruler of Umma,make him (Lugalzagesi) bear the sin!46

Uruinimgina is careful to declare himself as innocent, namely that he did not provokethe ruler of Umma and did not cause the attack. But again, Shara, the god of Umma, isnot accused of having any role in this offense. This, despite the fact that the titular god

45 See Th. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, New Haven 1976, pp. 147-164.46 The interpretation of the last sentence as demanding the goddess Nisaba to punish Lugalzagesiwas argued by S.N. Kramer, The Sumerians, Chicago 1963, p. 323; H. Hirsch, Festschrift frWilhelm Eilers, Wiesbaden 1967, pp. 101-106; H. Vanstiphout, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica1 (1970), p. 28, note 93; and was adopted by Steible (see note 9 above) and Cooper in theirtranslations of these royal inscriptions. A deferent interpretation of this sentence, as demanding

Nisaba to carry the sin on her own shoulders, was argued by F. Thureau-Dangin,Die sumerischenund akkadischenKnigsinschriften, Leipzig 1907, p. 59; G.A. Barton, The Royal Inscriptions ofS d Akk d 1929 91 S llb d l


16/21


was supposed to gain, if not from the booty taken in a plunder raid,47at least when thevictor annexed conquered territory,48or even only subordinated other city-states to hissuzerainty.49It is also not certain that Uruinimgina accuse the personal god of Lugal-zagesi of this offense,50a god, who, according to the belief known from later periods,was conceived as the one responsible for the success or failure of his protg.51

It would seem, therefore, that a concept which would have ascribed to the titular godof one city-state the encroachment on territory belonging to another godcontradictedthe concepts of the Sumerians about their pantheon. They obviously could not toleratethe idea that in such a closed family, to which their gods were thought to belong, one ofits members would try to take property belonging to another member of the extendedfamily. As long as that view dominated, the only way left to the Sumerians to understandsuch an encroachment was to ascribe it to the human ruler of the offending city alone,who in such a case, acted sinfully not only against the titular god of the attacked citybut also against the god of his own city.

This leads us to another question: How did the Sumerians at that period namely, thepeople on whose concepts the inscriptions under discussion throw some light52 explain

47The only instance of an explicit dedication to a god of the booty taken in the course of anattack is in two inscriptions of Enshakushana of Uruk, but in these cases the dedication wasmade not to the titular god of Uruk but to Enlil, king of all lands: Cooper, p. 105: Uk 4.1-2.It is remarkable that in the inscriptions which contain a detailed battle narrative, such as that ofUrnansh (Cooper, La 1.6), some of Eanatums inscriptions (Cooper, La 3.1-6, 8), and of Enana-tum I (Cooper, La 4.2, 9), no mention is made of such a dedication. This is the more apparentin inscriptions which ascribe the victory to either the help or the decision made by some god:Cooper, La 3.5 (Inana gave Eanatum the kingship of Kish); La 4.2 ([Enlil?] turned over controlof Umma to [Nin]g[ir]s[u] who, in turn, put it in Eanatum Is control); La 4.10 ([Lu]galurubput all foreign lands in Eanatum Is control, and [set?] the rebellious lands at his feet); Um 7.1(Enlil, king of all lands, gave to Lugalzagesi the kingship of the nation). While we may assumethat at least part of the booty taken in such battle was dedicated to the gods, it is remarkablethat no mention is made of it, and one is left to wonder whether references to such a deed weretactfully omitted.48See the inscriptions of Eanatum of Lagash, which present him as who subjugates foreignlands for Ningirsu (Cooper, pp. 37ff.: La 3.1-2, 4-5, 10), or, more specifically, as [Eanatu]m,ruler of Lagash, who sub[jugates foreign lands] for Ningirsu, subjugated [Elam] and Subartu tohim. (p. 43, La 3.7).49For the right of the subduer to conscript laborers from the subordinate lands see note 16above.50 See note 46 above for a different translation, according to which the goddess Nisaba is requiredto be responsible for the offense.

51 See Th. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, pp.155-160.52 While we also have royal inscriptions from cities such as Mari and Kish which in all prob


17/21

Amnon Altman 169

the fact that one city succeeded to subordinate another city? The above-mentioned la-ment inscription of Uruinimgina (Cooper, p. 78f.: La 9.5), is the only one we havefrom that period that represents the offended party, and it offers nothing to bear uponthis question. Yet, we have some inscriptions that present the views of the victors. Herewe have two kinds of explanations. On the one hand, we find declarations that ascribe

the victory of the ruler to the strength of his city-god. Thus we find thatEanatum, who is commissioned by Ningirsu, because of Ningirsus strength, hasno rival in all the foreign lands (Cooper, p. 43, La 3.7).

On the other hand, we find in one of the inscriptions of Eanatum, the ruler of Lagash,that

To Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, (the goddess) Inana, because she love him so, gavehim the kingship of Kish in addition to the rulership53of Lagash (Cooper, La 3.5:

v, 23-vi, 5).

And in one inscription of his son, Enanatum I, we find that

[Lu]galurub granted the kingship of Lagash to Enanatum, put all foreign lands in hiscontrol, and [set?] the rebellious lands at his feet (Cooper, La 4.9: ii, 13-iii, 7).

Then, in one of the inscriptions of Lugalzagesi, the king of Uruk and Umma, there isthe statement that

Enlil, king of all lands, gave to Lugalzagesi the kingship of the nation, directed allthe eyes of the land (obediently) toward him, put all the lands at his feet, and fromeast to west made them subject to him (Cooper, p. 94f., Um 7.1: i, 36-ii, 2).

These and similar statements54allude to a concept that continued to prevail throughoutthe history of the Ancient Near East, according to which no battle can be won withoutthe support of the gods. Yet, while the above-quoted inscriptions ascribe the victory todifferent divinities, only the ascription of it to the god Enlil, king of all lands, is morereadily understandable. In the cases of Inana and Lugalurub, we are left wondering in

what capacity did they grant the kingship of Kish (Inana) or the control of all foreignlands (Lugalurub) to Eanatum and Enanatum I respectively.

53 Note that the term rulership by itself does not necessarily designate any inferior status orposition to kingship. During this early period the terms used to designate the king varied fromone city to another. The term ruler became to be used by modern scholars as a translation ofthe term ensik used in Lagash, while the term king is used for the term lugal (literallyGreat Man), that was practiced in cities like Kish and Ur. A third term en, employed in Uruk,is translated by the term lord, while occasionally we find the designation l man in thesense of king, translated as leader.


18/21


Much more remarkable is the fact that in the two last-quoted statements no reasonis attached to the decision of the divinity to grant the rule of the entire land to a cer-tain king. Such a seemingly arbitrary decision accords, in fact, with what we find insome later literary works. Thus, the Sumerian king list portrays the transfer of thehegemonic kingship from one city-state to another as the result of divine arbitrary

decision.55

From about the same period, the beginning of the second millennium BCE,we have a lament of the destruction of Sumer and the city of Ur,56the capital of theso-called Ur III dynasty that ruled over the lands of Sumer and Akkad and beyond inthe last century of the third millennium. In lines 363-370 we find the following answerof the god Enlil to the pleading of Nanna-Sin, the titular god of Ur, that his city wouldnot be destroyed:

Oh Nanna, the Noble Son , why do you concern yourself with crying?The judgment of the assembly cannot be turned back,The word of Anu and Enlil knows no overturning,Ur was indeed given kingship (but) it was not given an eternal reign.From time immemorial, since the land was founded, until the population

multiplied,Who has ever seen a reign of kingship that would take precedence (for ever)?The reign of its kingship had be long indeed but had not to exhaust itself.Oh my Nanna, do not exert yourself (in vain), leave your city!57

No legal or ethical reasoning is provided by Enlil to cut off the reign of Ur. The decisionis presented as an arbitrary one whose only justification is that it follows a very old

practice. The presentation of the gods decision as arbitrary is found also in other laterliterary works, which nevertheless reflect an early stage in the evolution of concepts ofinterstate law.58In order to find another kind of reasoning, one which refers to justice andlegal judgment, we have to wait for the second stage of the development of interstatelaw concepts, that of the Sargonic and Ur III periods. It may be noted, however, thatthe above-quoted statement made by Eanatum to the effect that Inana, because sheloves him so, gave him the kingship of Kish (La 3.5: v, 23-vi, 5), presents a reasoningalluding to divine reward for devoutness to the deity. Such reasoning prevailed indeed

55 For this composition, see note 4 above.56P. Michalowski, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, Winona Lake, In.1989.57Ibid. p. 59.58See e.g. the Lamentation over the destruction of Ur, lines 155-164 (translated by S.N.

Kramer, in J. Pritchard (ed.),Ancient Near Eastern Text, Princeton 1950, pp. 455-463), and theSumerian version of the Deluge (Translated by S.N. Kramer, op. cit. pp. 42-44), as well as itsB b l i i tt h d T bl t XI t th E i f Gil h(t l t d E A S i


19/21

Amnon Altman 171

throughout all the periods of the Ancient Near East, side by side with that referring todivine justice and legal judgment.

As for agreements between two city-states, apart from the above-mentioned Steleof the Vultures, commemorating both the victory Eanatum of Lagash had over Umma,and the oath by which he swore in the ruler of Lagash, we have only references to the

conclusion of agreements. We do not have any document that records in full such anagreement. Nevertheless, one reference to such an agreement, which appears in one ofEnmetena s inscriptions, La 5.3 (Cooper, p. 58), is worth special attention (ii, 4-10):

At that time Enmetena ruler of Lagash, and Lugalkiginedudu, ruler of Uruk, es-tablished brotherhood (between themselves).59

Apart from the fact that in the diplomatic parlance known from the second millenniumBCE, such a brotherhood denotes the conclusion of a parity treaty, it also signified ahigher degree of diplomatic relations, such that required a special agreement betweenthe would-be brothers to such a promotion of their relations.60From slightly later thanthe conclusion of the above brotherhood between Enmetena and Lugalkiginedudu,we have from Ebla in northern Syria a letter sent by its ruler to the ruler of Hamazi,which includes a reference to such a brotherhood and gives us some further ideawhat it actually meant:61

I am (your) brother and you are (my) brother. What is (appropriate) to brother(s):whatever desire you express, I shall grant and you, (whatever) desire (I express),you shall grant.

Finally, attention should be given to two additional points. First, to the kind of arrange-ment that had been reached between Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, and Enakale, ruler ofUmma, described in the above, first quoted inscription of Enmetena (La 5.1). Accordingto that inscription, Eanatum, despite his victory over Umma, left a strip of land overone km. deep along the border under Ummas control. This was land, which, accordingto Enmetena, belonged to Lagash. According to Eanatums inscription on his Steleof the Vultures (La 3.1), the ruler of Umma was obligated under oath to exploit the

field of Ningirsu as a(n interest-bearing) loan. According to Enmetenas inscription,the amount of land Umma could use was stipulated as the acreage needed to produce1 guru(5184 hl.) of grain, at the current annual rate of 3313%.62

59 For the reconstruction of the background for the conclusion of that brotherhood, see Cooper,Reconstructing History, p. 31f.60 For the most recent discussion of such a brotherhood, as pertaining to the first half of thesecond millennium BCE, see B. Lafont, Relations internationales, alliances et diplomatie au

temps des royaumes Amorrites. Essai de synthse,Amurru2, Paris, 2001, pp. 232-238.61 P. Michalowski, Letters from Early Mesopotamia, Atlanta, Georgia, 1993, pp. 13-14, No. 2.


20/21


The second point is connected with that arrangement. According to the interpretationof the above Enmetena s inscription by G. Steiner, the renewal of the conflict betweenLagash and Umma in the days of Enanatum was because Enanatum, the ruler of La-gash, refused to continue the above arrangement reached in the previous generation.According to Steiner, Enanatum did not want it to last more than 40 years, lest it would

constitute a basis for an Ummaite claim to the right of possession over the territoryconsidered.63If Steiner is correct, we have here the earliest indication of a claim tothe right of possession in the realm of interstate relations, a claim attested later in theHittite documents and in the Bible.64

At the conclusion of this paper let me return and note, that meager and partial as theinformation gleaned from these early royal inscriptions is, it is yet the oldest writteninformation available on the earliest traceable concepts of interstate law.

63G. Steiner, Der Grenzvertrag zwischen Laga und Umma, Acta Sumerologica, Japan 8

(1986), pp. 219-300. For the cause of the conflict s renewal, see there pp. 239-246.64 See A Altman Claim of possession over occupied or conquered territory in the Bible and in


21/21

altman international law in mesopotamia

Documents