Department of Oriental Studies, University of Vienna

The Sin of Lugalzagesi

Author(s): Marvin A. Powell
Source: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. 86, Festschrift für Hans
Hirsch zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (1996),
pp. 307-314
Published by: Department of Oriental Studies, University of Vienna
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23864744
Accessed: 06-01-2019 04:43 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Department of Oriental Studies, University of Vienna is collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Sin of Lugalzagesi
By Marvin Α. Powell (DeKalb)

About three decades ago, our Jubilar published his essay in

honor of Wilhelm Eilers titled "Die 'Sünde' Lugalzagesis",1 in
which he discussed the interesting but ambiguous text variously
referred to as the "Lagash Lament" or "Urukagina Lament" or "Ukg
16", the siglum used by E. Sollberger in his édition of the "royal
inscriptions" of Lagas.2 I off er this essay in honor of Hans HIRSCH as
confirmation of his judgment that this particular text is "von einzig
artiger Bedeutung".
What really is Ukg 16? H. Hirsch perceptively remarked that
the list of misdeeds ("Frevel-Katalog") that occupies the bulk of the
text does not sound like a "litany" or a "lamentation" but rather like
a "Bestandsaufnahme" of the sins committed by Lugalzagesi.3
Indeed, certain features of the text are curiously reminiscent of an
account document. Were it not for its content and the fact that it is
pierced through its horizontal plane by a hole, and that it is lacking
a subscript and date, it would be indistinguishable from other ten
column tablets from the era of Lugalanda and Irikagina ( = Urukagi
na). The structure of the text also bears a faint resemblance to an
account. The key entry "Man of Umma" stands in the first line
followed by a list of entries with verbal forms. Then comes the key
phrase of the summation: nam-dag dnin-gir2-su-da e-da-ak-ka-am6,
which perhaps implies that Lugalzagesi had acquired sins entered
against him in Ningirsu's account tablet. Then, at the very end,
comes the phrase dnisaba-ke4 nam-dag-bi gu2-na he2-IL2-IL2. Leaving

1 Fs. Eilers (1967) 99-106.

2 CIRPL Ukg 16. Other interprétations and literature: H. Steible + H.
Behrens, FAOS 5/1 (1982) 334-337; W.H.Ph. Römer, TU AT 1/4 (1984) 313-315;
J.S. Cooper, SARI (1986) 78f.
3 Fs. Eilers (1967) lOlf. For interprétation as "lamentation", see J.S. COOPER,
SANE 2/1 (1983) 16 + n. 23; S.N. Kramer, Sumerians (1963) 38; E.
Sollberger, Proceed.in.gs of the Twenty-second Congress of Orientalists II
(1957) 33.

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 308 M.A. Powell

aside for the moment the

that this closely parallels t
"(to) place on his/their ne
charge against one's account in documents from the time of
Lugalanda and Irikagina.4 On the other hand, the insistence that
"there is/was no sin of Irikagina the lugal of Girsu" (nam-dag iri-ka
gi-na lugal gir2-suki-ka nu-gal2) sounds more like an apologia than a
lamentation, a point that has not escaped the attention of others.5
Rather than translate, which would require commentary, I offer
a close paraphrase-summary: The Man of Umma laid fire to place
so-and-so, "stretched out hand" in place so-and-so, seized (or
something on this order) its precious metals and stones, destroyed its
statues, tore out/down (?) ail the reed mat structures (?),6 etc., (and
as a resuit) he got sins on Ningirsu's account book (and) the hands
brought against Ningirsu have ail been eut off (and) there was no
sin of Irikagina the lugal of Girsu (and) verily upon Lugalzagesi,
upon his own neck, his own goddess Nisaba has laid these sins.
This interprétation differs significantly from previous transla
tions only in the temporal reference of the verbs written KUD-KUD
and IL2-IL2. Others have interpreted them as referring to the future,
but it seems more likely that these reduplicated forms have the
same plural character and past reference that ail the other re
duplicated forms have: KUD-KUD refers to the multiple hands that
committed the sins and IL2-IL2 to the multiple sins laid by Nisaba on
the neck of Lugalzagesi.7

4 E.g., DP 249, 278, 280, 281, 282, 422, 495, 539, 556, 557, 565; Nik 1 99, 175,
192, 232, 260, 261,262,279,296; Selz, AWAS 45, 85; VS 14 121,125.
5 E.g., A. Westenholz, Iraq 39 (1977) 20.
6 Interpretation of MUNSUB i3-BAL-BAL assumes the identification of
MUNSUB with probable reading /zur/ or /sur/ (< *suwur) as a type of reed
mat (established by M. Civil, RA 61 [1967] 63-68). The verb is apparently bal =
napälu. It cannot, in any case, be identical with the verb bala also written with
this sign, because the latter is an "e-prefix" verb, as A. POEBEL already saw (AS
2 [1931] 28).
^ H. Hirsch, Fs. Eilers (1967) 103-105, has rightly objected on cultural
grounds to the idea that Nisaba is carrying the sins for Lugalzagesi. It is also
grammatically unlikely that Nisaba is carrying the sins on her own neck,
because Nisaba is the agent of action and in such idioms the suffixed pronoun
-ani does not refer "reflexively" to the agent of action but to some third person.

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Sin of Lugalzagesi 309

Therefore, rather than a "lamentation", perha

the oldest prototype of the "letter to a god". E. So
that the transverse hole through the horizontal axi
for a mounting rod to enable the tablet to be turne
reading.8 This is an interesting idea, but human
have managed quite well with much larger tablets
berger's idea would, however, make good sense i
the hole was to enable it to be mounted before som
But why the apologia pro vit a suai Any answer
be surmise, but I venture the following hypothèses
encroachment of Lugalzagesi, Irikagina allied hims
and was instrumental in bringing the Akkadians in
This happened late in the reign of Sargon (about
reign we have no reliable evidence).9 3. Lugalzagesi
Sargon's old âge by his younger, warrior son Rimu
enabled Rimus to become king, perhaps with his f
Rimus had a short reign füll of wars, died rather
known causes, and was succeeded by his older brot
In any case, there was lots of trouble in the sout
death, as we know from the surviving inscripti
lonian copies of inscriptions.10 How long Irikagina
of Girsu" we do not know, but his attachment to th
ing house was apparently enduring, because an "Iri

Thus, gu2-na, "his own neck", has the same personal

Lugalzagesi) as does dingir-ra-ni, "his own goddess". For
illustrating this principle, see note 4 above.
8 Sollberger 1957 (cited n. 4) p. 32.
9 Perhaps it is not superfluous to affirm — even after
Michalowski, JAOS 103 (1983) 237-248; C. Wilcke, in Coll. Rauricum 1
(1988) 113-114, in Fs. Sjöberg (1989) 556-571; and D.W. Young, JNES 47
(1988) 123-129 — that the Sumerian King List can be used as historical
evidence only with caution. This especially applies to numbers. C. WlLCKE has
shown (pp. 89-93 in B. Hrouda, Isin III [BAW phil.-hist. Kl. NF 94, 1987) that
56 [i.e., the cube of 2, times 7!] years for Sargon was probably the original MS
reading.
Ό H. HiRSCH's standard édition of these texts in AfO 20 (1963) 1-82 has been
expanded and updated in the new édition by B. KlENAST using much material
supplied by the late I.J. Gelb, (Gelb + Kienast, FAOS 7, 1990), but, in spite of
this, one still has to use both éditions and the cuneiform copies.

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 310 Μ.Α. Powell

Engilsa ensi of Lagas" tur

istusu as one of 49 witnesses to the four land transactions recorded
there, and these witnesses are collectively called dumu dumu a-ga
de3ki, " 'sons' of Akkade".11
There are two questions of historical interest here. First, is the
Irikagina in the Manistusu Obelisk identical with the Irikagina who
was successively ensi and lugal of Lagas and lugal of Girsu? This
has been repeatedly discussed with opposing conclusions, but pré
occupation with this question has diverted attention from the more
serious historical question: why is any "Irikagina son of Engilsa ensi
of Lagas" in the entourage of Manistusu in northern Babylonia and,
moreover, why is he called one of the "sons of Akkade"?
E. SOLLBERGER argued that nothing in the Manistusu Obelisk per
mitted making the Irikagina mentioned there into an ensi or
identifying him with the well known ensi of Lagas.12 Sollberger's
position was accepted by J.S. Cooper, who referred to the Irikagina
in the Manistusu Obelisk as "a namesake" of Irikagina ensi of La
gas.13 Howe ver, not all have shared E. Sollberger's confidence that
the Irikagina in the Manistusu Obelisk has to be a différent person.
In fact, SOLLBERGER noted that, whereas B. Hrozny had
categorically denied the identity, E. DHORME, H. de Genouillac, and
F.-M. ALLOTTE de LA Fuye had held the contrary opinion.14 Α.
Deimel was also inclined to believe that the two were identical,15
and, following Deimel, Th. Jacobsen assumed the identity of the
two, arguing that Irikagina's presence in the Manistusu Obelisk was
evidence for "holding members of local ruling families as hostages
in Akkade".16 W.W. Hallo17 also thought the identity conceivable,

11 Recently re-edited in I.J. Gelb, P. Steinkeller, R. Whitino, Earliest Land

Tenure Systems (ΟΙΡ 104, 1991) p. 116ff. P. STEINKELLER hypothesizes in his
article on Manistusu, RIA 7 (1987-90) 335, that these "witnesses" were destined
to receive the lands purchased by Manistusu.
12 AfO 17 (1954-56) 29.
13 Reconstructing history from ancient inscriptions: the lagash- umma border
conflict, SANE 2/1 (1983) 36.
14 AfO 17 (1954-56) 29 n. 110.
15 Orientalin 3 (1920) 3.
16 ZA 52 (1957) 137f. + n. 107.
In W.W. Hallo + W.K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East (1971) 56f.

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Sin of Lugalzagesi 311

and, more recently, A. Westenholz18 has categoric

identity of the two Irikaginas.
When I worked through this problem some year
to argue the case on the grounds of insufficient evi
evidence has not changed much in the meantime, b
worthwhile pointing out the possibility of alter
tions. While the individuals named Irikagina and M
pear in the inscriptions of Manistusu and Rimu
remain somewhat enigmatic, most who have discus
seem to assume that the Meskigala ensi of Adab
BIN 8 26 together with Lugalzagesi lugal is the
ensi of Adab who appears in the OB copy of Rim
describing the war with Adab and Zabala.21 D.O
article "Mes-kigala",22 has adopted a cautious appro
that if the Meskigala who appears in BIN 8 26 is id
Meskigala who was defeated by Rimus, then he mu
for "mehrere Jahrzehnte". However, even this is n
because we do not know the absolute dates for BIN 8 26, for Sar
gon's defeat of Lugalzagesi, nor for Rimus's defeat of Meskigala,
and, moreover, we have no independent evidence to substantiate the
number of years assigned to Lugalzagesi and Sargon by the Sumer
ian King List.
Obviously, if the two Meskigalas are identical, then there is no
chronological reason why Irikagina, the ensi and lugal of Lagas,
cannot be identical with Irikagina in the Manistusu Obelisk. E. Soll
berger (cited n. 12) rejected their identity on the grounds that the
Irikagina in the Manistusu Obelisk is not said to be an ensi of Lagas
but rather son of Engilsa ensi of Lagas. This, however, may only
imply that the Irikagina in the Manistusu Obelisk is no longer an
ensi of Lagas and certainly does not preclude identity of the two.
Moreover, SOLLBERGER overlooked a piece of evidence already

18 AfO 31 (1984) 76f.

19 HUCA 49 (1978) 27-29.
20 HUCA 49 (1978) 27.
21 E.g., W.B. Rowton, CAH 1/1 (1970) p. 220; W.W. Hallo (1971: 57, cited
above n. 17), B.R. FOSTER, Umma in the Sargonic Period (1982) p. 153, and A.
Westenholz (1984:76f„ cited n. 18).
22 RIA 8,1-2 (1993) 93.

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 312 M.A. Powell

noted by H. DE Genouillac.
votive offerings made by
Ninmar on behalf of her
occurrences of the name
anda and Irikagina seem to
to escape the impression th
kagina.
I therefore propose the following hypothèses. 1. Engilsa had in
deed been ensi of Lagas, probably just prior to Enentarzi. 2. He and
his son Irikagina belonged to a parallel branch of the same family
that had ruled Lagas since the time of Ur-Nanse. 3. Irikagina is in
the entourage of Manistusu, not as a hostage (as Th. Jacobsen sug
gested), but for his own protection or for some similar reason.
Lagas seems to have lined up traditionally with Adab (Mesilim,
lugal kise, "big-man of many" or something on that order but
certainly not "King of Kis", may even have been from Adab) and to
have had a tradition of semi-hostile relations with Ur and Uruk in
the southwest, in addition to the more overtly hostile relations with
Umma, their near neighbor to the northwest. This paradigm of en
mity with near neighbors and alliance with more distant ones so
well-known from Greek history seems to have changed temporarily
in the time of Entemena, who made the famous "brotherhood" pact
with Lugalkinesdudu and commemorated it by building or restoring
the temple of Inana and Dumuzi at Badtibira.24
But something happened after Entemena, and what I suspect hap
pened was this. In northern Babylonia, perhaps in the Diyala région,
Sargon succeeded in founding a powerful State,25 which may have
been the stimulus for the coalition of states reflected in the famous
"vase inscriptions" in the name of Lugalzagesi that were discovered
at Nippur. In the concluding remarks of my study of the administra
tive texts dating to the time of Lugalzagesi, I called attention to the

23 TS A (1909) p. XIV + η. 7.
24 H. Steible + H. Behrens, FAOS 5/1 (1982) p. 260ff. nos. 45-73.
23 In this easterly direction points the probable identity of Warium = Uri =
Akkad, first remarked by Th. Jacobsen in OIC 13 (1932) 44. C. Wall
Romana, JNES 49 (1990) 205-245, has recently proposed an identification with
Tell Muhammad, one of the southeast suburbs of Baghdad.

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Sin of Lugalzagesi 313

significance of the large number of différent vase

tenholz has recently posited that the vases were of
in conjunction with the "coronation" of Lugalzages
Land".27 In any case, nothing in Lugalzagesi's inscr
evidence as a whole suggests that his "empire" w
conquest. The rather ambiguous Claim to have dom
the Lower Sea to the Upper Sea28 may be hyperbol
only a loose dominance over the Euphrates in B
contrary, the "vase inscriptions" suggest the imag
was a skilled diplomat rather than a conqueror.
did use force: the Presargonic "royal" inscriptions
the text Ukg 16 leave no doubt about that; neve
zagesi's "conquests" and his "empire" that one re
modern literature rest upon very little evidence an
But let us return to Irikagina.
Let us be candid about our friend Irikagina: in
attempts, his so-called "Reforms" have not been dat
nor has anyone established their motivation.29 One
is clear: the assumption that he was an "usurper" re
evidence than the "empire" of Lugalzagesi. Tha
related to the family of Enentarzi and Lugalanda is
ly from the fact that the ancestor cult is conti
break.30 Moreover, the transfer of power from Lu
gina as ensi can be dated rather precisely to some
first month of Lugalanda's 7th year (or perhaps to
the 2nd month), and dating by Irikagina lugal begi
month of what would have been the 8th year of L

26 HUCA 49 (1978) 29.

27 "Lugalzagesi", Ä/A 7 (1987-90) 155-157.
28 H. Steible + H. Behrens, FAOS 5/II (1982) p. 317.
29 Basic bibliography in H. Steible + H. Behrens, FAOS 5/
J.S. Cooper, SANE 2/1 (1983) 33-36; and see especially the
Edzard in J. Harmatta + G. Komorocy, Wirtschaft un
alten Vorderasien (1976) 145-149.
30 A. Deimel, Orientalia 2 (1920) 32-51, had already collect
to point in this direction.
31 For the transition from Lugalanda to Irikagina, see P
well, BSAgr 5 (1990)79. ST H 1 30, explicitly dated to Luga

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 314 Μ.Α. Powell

of this sounds like usurp

dence to elucidate the caus
tion that Irikagina was an
face of all the evidence, no
of power" would have been
late Presargonic period. On
polization of religious and
political power, and this cl
— Ur III period as well.
To sum up: the text Ukg 1
Irikagina, who allied him
vengeance upon the enemie
domination of the south b
of Rimus making it unsafe
gina to remain anywhere in
ed among the "sons of Akk
he is called "Irikagina son o
ferring to him suggests th
gas, perhaps just prior to E
— and polite — identificat
successively the ensi and lugal of Lagas and the lugal of Girsu but
now was only an aged "guest" at the court of Akkad.

collated and edited by G. SELZ, FAOS 15,2 (1993) no. 29. For the transition
Irikagina ensi to lugal, see the data collected by G. SELZ, FAOS 15,1 (1989) p. 38
and FAOS 15,2 (1993) p. 59; J. Bauer, AWL (1967 = StPohl 9, 1972) p. 669; and
A. Deimel, Orientalia 32 (1928) p. 17f. = J. Marzahn, VS 25 (1991) no. 66,
dated to the first month of Irikagina lugal.

This content downloaded from 12.26.17.26 on Sun, 06 Jan 2019 04:43:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms