ISSN 2518-1521 (Online), ISSN 2226-2830 (Print) ВІСНИК МАРІУПОЛЬСЬКОГО ДЕРЖАВНОГО УНІВЕРСИТЕТУ СЕРІЯ: ІСТОРІЯ. ПОЛІТОЛОГІЯ, 2017, ВИП. 18 The historiographic review of M. Hrushevsky’s sociological researches emphasized the many-sided nature of the prominent historian’s scientific heritage. Especially it concerns the representatives of the emigrant and contemporary Ukrainian historical science. The historians of diaspora (L.Vynar, S. Zabrovarny, O. Pritsak) proved that the sociological-comparative method used by M. Hrushevsky in the historical research as social, economic and cultural synthesis of the nation’s history enhanced the capabilities to study it more systematically. It was stated that the outstanding scientist popularized the social history of Ukraine in the West-European scientific community with the help of his public lectures on historic and sociological topics. The contemporary Ukrainian historians (V. Bilodid, O. Kopylenko, V. Telvak, L. Chugaevska, I. Shostak, O. Yas and others) analysed the historian’s sociological works and stated world outlook evolution of Mykhailo Hrushevsky from the romantic narodnik movement to the critical rethinking of sociology. The analysis of M. Hrushevsky’s sociological heritage defined the interrelation of “public and national” and the state system as well as the main issues of sociology as a science and sociological ideas in Ukrainian national studies. The contemporary historians traced rethinking the historian’s research strategies. Key words: sociological works, emigrant period, historiographic analysis, Ukrainian historians, historians of diaspora, contemporary scientists. УДК 355.48(358) V. Sazonov SOME REMARKS ON THE ORIGIN OF IDEOLOGY OF DIVINE WARFARE IN EARLY DYNASTIC LAGAŠ Current article discusses the problem of origin of ideology of divine warfare and theology of war of Ancient Mesopotamian rulers in the Early Dynastic Lagaš (26-24th centuries BCE). Author suggests that ideology of divine warfare emergences first time in Sumerian city-state Lagaš, ca 2400 BC. Rulers in Ancient Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad) often used ideological and theological justification for their military campaigns and the aggression against other countries. In written sources and iconography we can find evidence for the theology of war in Mesopotamia from as far back as Early Dynastic Sumer (2800-2335 BC). The ideology of war in Ancient Near East was a very old and very traditional phenomenon, which was continually changing, developing, transforming with each new epoch or new term of rule and even yet still ideology of war in the modern Middle East retaining some similarities with its earlier manifestations. Key words: divine, warfare, war, Ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, Lagaš, ruler, theology, ideology, justification, Ur-Nanše, E-anatum, Stele of Vultures. Introduction3 As we know ideology, religion and politics in Ancient Near East have always been very closely connected. According to Espak [7, p. 127]: “It can be stated that in Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament and later Christian understanding, religious warfare or the theology of war was mostly in service to a desired political goal. When there was a political need to attack someone, theological reasoning was used to justify, explain or motivate the war.” 3 This article was written with the financial support of the grant of Estonian Research Council (PUT500). 129 ISSN 2518-1521 (Online), ISSN 2226-2830 (Print) ВІСНИК МАРІУПОЛЬСЬКОГО ДЕРЖАВНОГО УНІВЕРСИТЕТУ СЕРІЯ: ІСТОРІЯ. ПОЛІТОЛОГІЯ, 2017, ВИП. 18 The ideology of divine warfare4 very often served political goals not only in Ancient Near Eastern but in Old Testament and Christian ideologies too [16]. This remains the case even today in the post-modern and high-tech world of the Middle Eastern region at the beginning of the 21st century where the influence of radical political-religious movements and organizations – especially within radical Islam – has become significantly influential and religion is still very closely related to politics, to such an extent that politics and theology often cannot be separated. Ideology and theology are used even now by religious fundamentalists and extremists for their political goals and for the justification of wars, terror, genocide, etc. — for example, the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq [28]. In this short article I would like to provide an overview of the emergence of the concept of the ideology of divine warfare in Early Dynastic Lagaš. Many ideas from the Early Dynastic Lagaš were adapted later by Akkadian kings (2334- 2154 BC) such as Sargon of Akkad or Narām-Sîn (2254-2218 BC), or Neo-Sumerian kings (2012- 2004 BC) like Šulgi (2093-2046 BC) who tried to implement the Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian kings in their aggressive politics as a tool for justifying war; theology even helped them to create a first centralized despotic states like Akkadian ‘empire’ or Neo-Sumerian kingdom. Ur-Nanše In Sumerian royal inscriptions and iconography (see Fig. 1. Stele of Vultures) we can find evidence for the ideology of war in Ancient Sumer from as far back as Early Dynastic Period5 IIIb (2500-2335 BCE). The one the earliest evidence for war6 comes from Early Dynastic Lagaš (End of ED IIIa7 a or ED IIIb8), the ancient city-state Lagaš from which we have managed to gather the largest number of Early Dynastic Sumerian royal inscriptions, including over 50 from the reign of Ur-Nanše and numerous royal inscriptions from other rulers – e.g., E-anatum, En-anatum, Uru- kagina and others. Almost all of these inscriptions from ED III (a-b) Lagaš describe building or rebuilding temples for important gods [concerning gods in Lagaš see 29] of Lagaš such as Ningirsu, Nanše, Bau (Baba) or Ninhursag. And there is only one fragment among the inscriptions of Ur-Nanše (reigned ca 2500 BCE) (Ur-Nanše E1.9.6b) in which war of Lagaš with Umma and Ur are mentioned. This text comes from a destroyed stele fragment which had been repurposed as a door socket in one house in Lagaš [5]. The first section of the text Obverse describes the construction of temples in Lagaš, walls and canal digging by Ur-Nanše. The second part of the text Reverse, mentioning a battle with the city-states of Umma and Ur, and it is more interesting: Reverse, Col. i-1 – v-5: [Ur-Nanše, king] of Lagaš went to war against the leader of Ur and the leader of Ğiša (Umma). The leader of Lagaš defeated and [captured] the leader of Ur. He captured admir[al]. He captured Ama-barasi and Kišibgal, lieutenants. [He captured] Papursag, son of U’u’u. He captured [PN, the lieut]enant (and) buried (his own casualties with honour) in tumuli. He defeated the leader of Ğiša (Umma). He captured Pabilgatuk, the [ru]ler of Ğiša (Umma). He captured Ur- pusag, the lieutenant. He captured Hursağšemah, the chief of the merchants (and) buried (his own causalities with honour) in tumuli. [20, Ur-Nanše E1.9.1.6b.] 4 Different aspects of the ideology of war, divine warfare and justification of war in Ancient Near East have been discussed by many scholars [34; 12; 8; 15; 11; 1; 6, 7; 27; 23]. 5 The Early Dynastic period (2800-2335 BC). All dates here are used in Middle Chronology. 6 2013 P. Steinkeller published an article “An archaic “prisoner plaque” from Kiš” – this is an edition of one archaic stele from city of Kiš (dated Ealy Dynastic II or Ealy Dynastic I period, ca. 2700-2600 BC) and this inscription is a list of prisoner of war. It is the earliest known historical document from Sumer and it gives some very limited information about wars between Kiš and other cities [32]. 7 ED IIIa – 2600–2500 BCE. 8 ED IIIb – ca. 2500–2335 BCE. 130 ISSN 2518-1521 (Online), ISSN 2226-2830 (Print) ВІСНИК МАРІУПОЛЬСЬКОГО ДЕРЖАВНОГО УНІВЕРСИТЕТУ СЕРІЯ: ІСТОРІЯ. ПОЛІТОЛОГІЯ, 2017, ВИП. 18 As my colleague Peeter Espak points out, this inscription is probably the earliest known longer description of an historical event in Mesopotamian history (war between Lagaš, Umma and Ur) and presents the first written records of warfare [7, p. 118, 120]. All the previous texts from Early Dynastic Sumer were only very short statements about building temples or sometimes digging canals, or simply named the ruler at the time, or sometimes with his titular [20, EN.ME- barage-si E1.7.22.1; Mes-Ane-pada E1.13.5.1]. In this Ur-Nanše inscription the city-ruler of Umma, named Pabilgatuk, was killed or captured. In addition, there is also a list of enemy officers from Ur and Umma (Ama-barasi, Kišibgal, Lupa, Bilala, Ur-pusag) and officials (chief of the merchants Hursağšemah in Umma) who were taken as prisoners by Ur-Nanše [20, Ur-Nanše E1.9.1.6b, reverse, i 8-iv 5]. Ur-Nanše also mentions the construction of burial mounds [20, Ur-Nanše E1.9.1.6b, reverse, iii 8-9, v 4-5.]. In Espak’s opinion these burials were meant for fallen soldiers (and they could also be enemy soldiers). The interesting fact is that no gods are mentioned in the text, no divine force at all. Actually, we have no evidence from the inscriptions of Ur-Nanše or any earlier king for any divine warfare. According to P. Espak [7, p. 120]: „Maybe this indicates that the concept of “holy war” or “theology of war” was not fully developed in the minds of the ancient Mesopotamians and warfare was seen as a fight between human forces. Since the early city deities were mostly gods of fertility and “benevolence”, and not mighty war lords, this idea seems plausible. Although divine advice and approval was most certainly requested of the gods by priests in various ceremonies and rituals before and during the war, the direct involvement of gods in violence between human armies might have been unusual thinking.” E-anatum Actually, the ideology of divine warfare was developing all the time and, as early as c.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages11 Page
-
File Size-