Vorderasiati e

BegrOndet von E. Ebeling und B. Meissner fortgefOhrt von E. Weidner, W. von Soden und D. O. Edzard herausgegeben von M. P. Streck unter Mitwirkung von G. Frantz-Szab6 . M. Krebernik . D. Morandi Bonacossi J. N. Postgate . U. Seidl· M. Stol . G. Wilhelm Redaktion S. Ecklin . S. Pfaffinger Band 13 . 3./4. Lieferung Steuer. E - . B 2012

Sonderdruck

~ ______D_e __ G_ru_y_te_r ______! , GESCHICHTE 297

Soldt 2005, 316-332. - Sallaberger W. 1997: southern Babylonia was excavated at Tall Nippur als religioses Zentrum Mesopotamiens h im historischen Wandel, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Die al-'UwailI" and was dated to the i milL orientalische Stadt: Kontinuitat, Wandel, Bruch in its lowest levels. Older settled life in this (= CDOG 1),147-168. - van Soldt W. H. (ed.) part of Mesopotamia could have been cov­ 20°5: Ethnicity in ancient Mesopotamia (= ered by alluvium, or was perhaps almost CRRAI 48 = PIHANS 102). - Steiner G. 2005: Gibt es ein vor-sumerisches Substrat im sudlichen nonexistent due to difficult environmental Mesopotamien?, in: van Soldt 20°5, 340-355.­ conditions. Tall al-'UwaiII belonged to the Streck M. P. 1998: The tense systems in the so-called ' (ih to 4th mill.), Sumerian-Akkadian linguistic area, AS] 20, 181- also attested, e. g., at Tall al-'Ubaid *, " 199. - Tuna O. N. :1990: Sumer ve Turk dilleri­ nin tarihi ilgisi ile Turk dili'nin ya§l meselesi (= and Eridu". Urbanization and agriculture Turk Dil Kurumu Yaymlan 56:1). - Whittaker significantly developed during its second G. 2005: The Sumerian Question: reviewing the phase, when an expansion - perhaps of issues, in: van Soldt 2005, 409-429. - Wilcke commercial nature - to other areas of the C. 1974: Zum Konigtum in der Ur III-Zeit, in: P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royaute (= CRRAI Middle East preceded the period. 19), :177-232; id 2005: ED Lil A und die Sprache(n) der archaischen Texte, in: van Soldt § 3. The Uruk and Gamdat Na~r 200 0 5,43 -445. period. The Uruk (or Proto-urban) period, ]. S. Cooper named after the city of Uruk*, lasted for about 1000 years (ca. 4100-3100). It wit­ Sumer, Geschichte. nessed important changes in southern Mesopotamia: cities increased in number § :1. The concept of Sumer. - § :lv. The 'Ubaid period. - § 3. The Uruk and Gamdat Na~r and size, being particularly remarkable the period. - § 4. The Early Dynastic period and growth of Uruk and its surrounding region First Dynasty of Lagas. - § 5. The Sargonic during the Late (ca. 3500- period. - § 6. The Gutian period. - § 7. The Sec­ ond Dynasty of Lagas. - § 8. The Third Dynasty 3100); the economic, social, and political of Ur. structure of the city grew in complexity, leading to a deeper integration with the § 1. The concept of Sumer as an ob­ surrounding secondary settlements; and ac­ ject of historical research depends on dif­ counting techniques developed into the cu­ ferent linguistic, political or cultural ap­ neiform writing system (Keilschrift"), first proaches, which have changed through the attested around 3200-3100 on the day last decades. On the other hand, the associ­ tablets found in the level IVa of the Eanna ation of Sumerians with Sum. speakers, sequence at Uruk. People from this city, in the identification of the Sum. language in ventures of probably commercial purposes, proto-cuneiform texts, and the problem of established deep cultural contacts with ter­ "whence and when did the Sumerians ar­ ritories of southern Mesopotamia, Susiana, rive in Babylonia" are also issues contem­ and Upper Mesopotamia, reached eastern plated in discussions (see Sumer*, Sume­ Anatolia, northern and western Syria, and risch § 6). All these matters are relevant to possibly Egypt, and even colonized the re­ define the chronological and geographical gion of the Middle Euphrates (Babuba *; frame where the history of S. developed. S. Iran", Vorgeschichte § 4; Tiirkei Vorge­ will be here identified with southern Baby­ *, lonia (Babylonien"), in a similar sense as schichte). This so-called "Uruk expansion", the term ki-en-gi(r) (Akk. sumerum) was which stimulated the urbanization process used in cuneiform texts (Sumer*, Sume­ in the Middle East, extended from 3 800 to risch § 3), and its history will be considered 3100, when it collapsed (d. Stadt* §§ 3.3, as the result of an evolution which began 3.6). During the Gamdat Na~r period (ca. by the middle of the i h mill. and ended 3100-2900), Uruk (layer III) and other cit­ with the fall of the . ies of southern Mesopotamia reorganized and developed a different kind of political § 2. The 'Ubaid period ('Ubaid(-Kul­ equilibrium. The city-state (for a definition turen)"). The earliest known settlement of see Stadt" § 6.5) thus became the basic SUMER, GESCHICHTE political organization in the land of S. feated Iri'inimgina of Lagas, and finally throughout the following Early Dynastic ruled over the whole S. (ED) period (ca. 2900-2300). § 5. The Sargonic period. The pro­ § 4. The Early Dynastic period and cess of political centralization in southern First Dynasty of Lagas". This period Babylonia continued with the rise of Sar­ has been subdivided into ED I (ca. 2900- gon" of , first king of the Sargonic 2750), ED II (ca. 2750-2600), ED IlIa dynasty, around 2300; this date (given ac­ (ca. 2600-2450), and ED IIIb (ca. 2450- cording to the Middle Chronology) could 2300). ED I and II are still essentially ar­ be moved backward in time depending on chaeological periods, being the archaic tab­ the duration assigned to the Gutian period lets from Ur the most relevant source of (see below). On the other hand, the length written documentation. The quality of the of the reigns of Sargon and his successors information provided by cuneiform texts is still conjectural and is mainly based on significantly changes for ED III: the 'tdmin­ the information provided by the different istrative tablets from Fara (ancient Surup­ versions of the (SKL; pag") and Tall ~bu-Salabrh for the ED IIIa, Ur III version: USKL). and those from Girsu*, Ur, Nippur\ " From his position as cup-bearer at Kis, or Zabala(m)'· for the ED nIb, allow the Sargon (ruled for 56/55/54 [SKL] or 40 reconstruction of the social and economic [USKL] years) gained control over northern life of S. during this period. It is also pos­ Babylonia, moved to Akkad '., and defeated sible to sketch now the political frame of a Sum. coalition led by Lugalzagesi. Inde­ some of the most important city-states of pendent city-states of the south were thus southern Babylonia (a complete relative integrated in the Akk. state as provinces chronology and synchronisms of Sum. rul­ (Provinz* A), and their rulers became gov­ ers from the Early Dynastic period can be ernors politically subordinated to the Akk. found in Marchesi/Marchetti 2011, 118- king. Apparently, Sargon and his two sons, 128; see also Sallaberger 2004, 17-27). Manist11su* (ruled for 15/7 [SKL] or 15 Thus, administrative tablets and royal inscrip­ [USKL] years) and Rlmus* (ruled for 15/7/ tions documenting the Lagas- border conflict 9 [SKL] or 8 [USKL] years), who succeeded have preserved the history of the First Dynasty of him in a sequence now suggested by USKL, Lagas. It extended for ca. 1.10/120 years, with Ur­ Nanse*, ", E'annatum*, Enanatum I (Enan­ concentrated their efforts in the territorial nadu* I), Enmetena (*), Enanatum II (En­ expansion of the empire, reaching western annadu * II), Enentarzi *, *, and Iri'inim­ and southeastern Iran, northern Mesopota­ gina (Uru-inimgina*). Its contemporane~us rulers of mia, northern Syria, and even perhaps Tur­ Umma'} were PA:BIL(GA)-gal-tuku", US*, Enakale (Enakalli*), Ur-Lumma", II*, Gissakidu*, Me'ane­ key and Oman. Naram-Sin * (ruled for 56 dug, U'u, and Lugalzagesi *. On the other hand, the [SKL] or 54 1/2 [USKL] years), the son of rulers from Ur (Ur-Pabilsag*, Meski'ag-Nunna", Manist11su, faced a general rebellion in Akalamdug, *, Mesannepadda *, A'ane­ which cities from northern and southern pada [Aannipadda"], Lugal-kinis(e)-dudu*, Lugal­ gipare-si*, and Elili*) are mainly known through Babylonia took part. He defeated the coali­ votive inscriptions (some of them from the Royal tion and then devoted his efforts to rein­ Tombs of Ur), like those from Uruk and Adab (rul­ forcing the structure and the organization ers from this city are also attested on recently exca­ of the empire. His deification deeply im­ vated administrative tablets). pacted on the southern population, and his Perhaps under the influence of northern military, administrative and economic re­ Babylonia, and particularly of Kis*, the forms had lasting effects in the life of S. tendency to form broader and stronger po­ During SarkalisarrI*'s reign (ruled for 25/ litical entities in S. began to crystallize with 24 [SKL] or 21+[X] [USKL] years), the em­ Ensakusana * of Uruk, and culminated with pire declined and finally collapsed, pressed Lugalzagesi (ruled for 25 years, according by Elamites, and Gutians (Gu­ to SKL). This ruler, probably native of tium*). After a short period of anarchy (3 Umma, took control over Uruk and Ur, de- years [SKL]), Sargonic kingship ended with SUMER, GESCHICHTE 299

Dudu" (ruled for 21 [SKL] years) and Su­ Suen* (2°35-2027), the Sum. state enjoyed Turul* (ruled for 18115 [SKL] years). a period of stability, only disturbed by the Amorites' incursions and the Simaskian § 6. The Gutian period. In the span threat (Simaski*). Under the rule of Ibbi­ of time between SarkalisarrI's reign and the Suen* (2026-2003), these problems in­ Third Dynasty of Ur, commonly estimated creased to such an extent that the contribu­ in 40 years (although Steinkeller [in press] tions from the peripheral areas ceased, pro­ assigns 100 years to this period), the politi­ voking the collapse of the system. The core cal status of the Sum. city-states changed: provinces abandoned Ibbi-Suen successively, Dudu and Su-Turul, even if under Gutian and ISbi-Erra * (2019-1987) challenged his pressure, managed to control southern authority from Isin", extending his influ­ Babylonia, but Gutian rulers finally formed ence over the neighbouring provinces. In a dynasty and achieved hegemony over the the end itv was *, the king of An­ region (Gutium" §§ 5-7). Nevertheless, san" and Sima ski, who defeated Ibbi-Suen, city-states such as Lagas and Uruk soon re­ sacked Ur, and put an end to its Third Dy­ gained independence. nasty. Attinger P.lWiifler M. (ed.) 1998: Anniihe­ § 7. The Second Dynasty of Lagas, rungen 1; idd. (ed.) 1999: Annaherungen 3. - well-known thanks to the archaeological Butterlin P. 2003: Les temps proto-urbains de and textual evidence, witnessed the defeat Mesopotamie: contacts et acculturation a l'epo­ que d'Uruk au Moyen-Orient. - Charvat P. of the Gutians and coexisted with the ruler­ 1993: Ancient Mesopotamia: mankind's long ship of Ur-Namma. The rulers of the dy­ journey into civilisation. - Cooper J. S. 1983: nasty were: Ur-Ningirsu * I, Pirigme", Ur­ Reconstructing history from ancient inscriptions: Bau"", *, Ur-Ningirsu" II, Urgar*, the -Umma border conflict (= SANE 21 i). - Cooper J. S. et al. 1999-2002: Sumer, Urabba*, Ur-Mama"", and NammalJani". in:}. Briend/M. Quesnel (ed.), SDB 13, 77-359.­ Edzard D. O. 1997: RIME 311. - Frayne D. § 8. The Third Dynasty of Ur. It was R. 1997a: RIME 1; id. 1997b: RIME 312; id. a king from Uruk, UtulJegal *, who de­ 1999: RIME 2. - Gelb 1. J. 1988: and the civilization, in: L. Cagni (ed.), La lingua di feated the Gutian king Tir(i)gan *, put an Ebla: Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli, end to the Gutian power, and gained some 21-23 Aprile 1980) (= rno 14), 9-73. - kind of supremacy over the land of S. This Glassner J. J. 1993: La chute d' Akkade: l'eve­ task was continued by Ur-Namma" (2110- nement et sa memoire (= BBVO 5). - Hallo W. W. 2005: New light on the Gutians, in: W. van 2°93), his governor in Ur and founder of Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in ancient Mesopotamia (= the Third Dynasty of Ur (2110-2003) (d. CRRAI 48 =PIHANS 102), 147-161. - Huber P. Gutium" § 8). J. 1999-2000: Astronomical dating of Ur III and Sulgi* (2°92-2°45), the son of Ur­ Akkad, AfO 46-47,50-79. - Huot J.-L. 2004: Une archeologie des peuples du Proche-Orient 1: Namma, was the real architect of the Neo­ des premiers villageois aux peuples des cites-hats Sum. state. He first secured the control (xe_IIIe millenaire avo }.-c.). - Kramer S. N. over southern and northern Babylonia, and 1963: The Sumerians: their history, culture and then launched military campaigns towards character. - Liverani M. 1988: Antico Oriente: storia, societa, economia; id. (ed.) 1993: Akkad: east and northeast. On the other hand, he the first world empire (= HANES 5). completely transformed the administration Marchesi G.!Marchetti N. 2011: Royal statu­ of the state, now organized in core and pe­ ary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia (= MesCiv. ripheral provinces (Provinz* A. § 4), and 14). - Michalowski P. 2006: The lives of the set up a redistributive system in which cer­ Sumerian language, in: S. L. Sanders (ed.), Mar­ tain establishments, such as Puzris-Dagan" gins of writing, origins of cultures (= OIS 2), 159-184. - Nissen H. J. 1988: The early history played a central role. This activity gave rise of the : 9000-2000 B. C. - to an efficient bureaucracy, which led to Nissen H. J.lDamerow P.lEnglund R. K. the writing of thousands of administrative 1993: Archaic bookkeeping: writing and tech­ documents. niques of economic administration in the Ancient Near East. - Postgate J. N. 1992: Early Meso­ During the reigns of Sulgi's sons, Amvar­ potamia: society and economy at the dawn of Suen (Amar-Sin") (2044-2036) and Su- history. - Rothman M. S. (ed.) 2001: Uruk 300 SUMI-RAPA - SUMU-ABUM

Mesopotamia & its neighbors: cross-cultural in­ Konig Ijuzzija III. (13071z, Vs. ii? 9 [ ], KUB teractions in the era of state formation. - Sal­ laberger W. 2004: Relative Chronologie von 11, 8+9 Vs. ii 13) und einmal alleine er­ der frtihdynastischen bis zur altbabylonischen wiihnt wird (KUB 36, 124 Vs. i 2'). Zeit, CDOG 3, 15-43; id. 2007: From urban cul­ Ferner wird sie in dem Fragment KUB 58,105+ ture to nomadism: a history of upper Mesopota­ KUB 59, 41 Vs. ii? 11' (CTH 626) tiber das nuntarri­ mia in the late third millennium, in: e. Kuzucu­ aslJas-Fest erwahnt; aber hier ist der Kontext so be­ oglu et al. (ed.), Societes humaines et changement schadigt, dass man nicht sicher sein kann, ob es sich climatique a la fin du troisieme millenaire: une urn diese Konigin oder urn eine andere, gleichna­ crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mesopotamie? (= mige Frau handelt. Varia Anatolica 19), 417-456. - Steinkeller P. 1987: The administrative and economic organi­ Car rub a O. 2008: Analisi delle liste reali etee, zation of the Ur III state: the core and the periph­ in: K. Strobel (ed.), New perspectives on the his­ ery, in: MeG. Gibson/R. D. Biggs (ed.), The or­ torical geography and topography of Anatolia in ganization of power: aspects of bureaucracy in the II and I millennium B. e. (= Eothen 16), 71f. - the Ancient Near East (= SAOC 46), 15-33; id. Freu J. 1995: De l'ancien royaume au nouvel 1988: The date of Gudea and his dynasty, JCS empire: les temps obscurs de la monarchie hittite, 40, 47-53; id. 1992: Mesopotamia in the third in: O. Carruba/M. Giorgierile. Mora (ed.), Atti millennium B. e., AncB 4, 724-732; id. 1993: del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia (= Early political development in Mesopotamia and StMed. 9), 136-139; id. 1996: La "revolution dy­ the origins of the Sargonic Empire, in: Liverani nastique" du grand roi de Hatti Tuthaliya I, He­ 1993, 107-129; id. 2003: An Ur III manuscript thitica 13, 17-38; id. 2004: Le grand roi Tutl}a­ of the Sumerian King List, Fs. e. Wilcke 267- liya, fils de Kantuzzili, Fs. R. Lebrun 1, 271-304, 292; id. in press: The Gutian Period period in bes. 275-296. - Freu J .IMazoyer M. 2007: Chronological chronological Perspective per­ Des origines a la fin de l'ancien royaume hittite spective (Paper presented at the ARCANE meet­ (= Les et leur histoire 1 = Shie ing,Mtinchen 2006). - Van De Mieroop M. Antiquite 7) :171-184. 2004: A history of the Ancient Near East, ca. F. Fuscagni 3000-323 Be. M. Molina Sumpf s. Schilf. § 1.

Sumi-rapa. Old Bab. period king of the city of Tuba", son of a certain Yarlm-Lim, Sumu-abum. Early OB ruler in northern known only from the plaster impression of Babylonia. a seal of the king in the . Tuba is On the basis of the OB list of year names conventionally identified with modern Tall and a late OB king list (J. J. Finkelstein, Umm* ai-Mara in the al-Gabbfil plain of The genealogy of the Hammurapi dynasty, Syria. JCS 20 [1966] 95-118; Konigslisten" und Chroniken. B. § 3.7), he has for a long time Collon D. 1987: FI 127f. no. 543. - Frayne been considered to be the founder of the D. R. 1990: RIME 4, 804· - Nougayrol J.I st Amiet P. 1962: Le sceau de Sumirapa, roi de 1 dynasty of Babylon. However, letters ex­ Tuba, RA 56, 169-174. - Schwartz G. M.I cavated at Tall ad-Der (Kh. A. al-Ndami, Curvers H. H.lStuart B. 2000: A third mil­ Old Babylonian letters from ed-Der, Sumer lennium B. e. elite tomb from Tell Umm el­ 23 [1967] 151-165) reveal that S. and Marra, Syria, Antiquity 74, 771f. Sumu-Ia-el" of Babylon are contemporar­ D. R. Frayne ies. Moreover, S. is never associated with Marduk, but he is rather accompanied by the local god when he is mentioned in an Summiri (Su-um-melmi-riIISum-mi-ri). oath. Also, the rulers of the OB dynasty re­ Heth. Konigin aus dem Mittleren Hethiti­ fer to Sumu-Ia-el instead of S. as their an­ schen Reich (1. Hiilfte 15. Jh.), wohl Gattin cestor. Finally, there are some remarkable von Ijuzzija" III. Nach Freu 1996, 23-37 parallels between the year names of S. and und id. 2004, 278 ist sie die Mutter von Sumu-Ia-el (Goddeeris 2005, 140f.). Thus, Ijim(m)uili ,:. und Kantuzzili", Mordern the inclusion of S. in the list of year names vol} Muwatalli" I. (KUB 34, 40+ 41: 8'-10'). appears to be a late OB construct to add S. ist in den sog. Konigslisten ,. (C) be­ prestige to the dynasty. Contemporary legt, wo sie zweimal zusammen mit dem early OB sources illustrate that S. was