Introduction

Map of Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BC

From the website of the Lagash Archeological Project: my additions in red 

As Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, at p. 8) observed, the surviving royal inscriptions of the rulers of Mesopotamia in the ED II/ ED III periods usually: 

1. “... tell us all too little about the political history of the period.  The great exception [in this respect] is the corpus of inscriptions of the rulers of Lagash, for the most part excavated by the French at Tello (ancient Girsu) [in the late 19th century] and augmented in recent years by some important finds of the American expedition to Al-Hiba. 
   

2. ✴The state of Lagash itself consisted of three major cities, Girsu (Tello), Lagash (= Al-Hiba) and Nina (= Surghul), as well as many smaller settlements. 
   

3. ✴So, too, the neighbour and antagonist of Lagash, the state of Umma, must be considered not just as the city of Umma itself, but as a broader territory [that included]  at least one other major city, Zabala. 
   

4. We know nothing about the origin of the union of the three cities comprising the state of Lagash; the texts take it for granted, and it goes back at least to the time of Mesalim, King of Kish (ca. 2600 BC)].”  
   

Mesalim, King of Kish 

Mace-head of Mesalim, King of Kish (RIME 1.8.1.1; P462181), from Girsu 

Now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2349), images from the museum website 

Mesalim is a key figure for our understanding (such as it is) of the political situation in Lagash (and in Sumer more generally) at this time.  Three of his royal inscriptions survive:

1. ✴One from Girsu, which was found on a stone mace-head (illustrated above), recorded that:
   

2. “Mesalim, king of Kish, temple builder for the god Ningirsu, set (?) this mace for the god Ningirsu [when the otherwise unknown] Lugal-sha-engur (was) ensi of Lagash”, (RIME 1.8.1.1; P462181).
   

3. The top of the mace-head is carved with a relief of a lion-headed eagle known as Imdugud (= Anzu), who (as we shall see) was closely associated with Ningirsu, the patron god of Lagash, while the inscribed curved surface has a frieze relief of six lions biting each other, which is another example of local iconography.
   

4. ✴The other two inscriptions come from the Esar temple at Adab:
   

5. •one, which was found on fragments of two stone bowls, recorded that: 
   

6. “Mesalim, king of Kish, sent over this bur mu-gi4 (stone bowl, used for the burgi ritual) in the E-SAR [when] Nin-KISAL-si (was) ensi of Adab”, (RIME 1.8.1.2; P462182); and
   

7. •the other, which was found on a fragment of a chlorite vase, recorded that:
   

8. “Mesalim, king of Kish, beloved son of Ninhursag [dedicated this vase ??] ...”, (RIME 1.8.1.3; P431033).
   

Importantly, as Nicholas Postgate (referenced below, 1994, at p. 30) observed, it is clear from these inscriptions that both:

1. ✴Lugalshaengur, ensi of Lagash; and
   

2. ✴Ninkisalsi, ensi of Adab;
   

acknowledged the hegemony of Mesalim, king of Kish.  

Unusually, we also have information about Mesalim from the royal inscriptions of later rulers (in this case, rulers of Lagash).  For example, about a century after his rule, Eanatum, ensi of Lagash (see below), looked back on Mesalim’s role as the original arbitrator of a boundary dispute between Lagash and Umma in:

1. ✴an inscription (RIME 1.9.3.2; P431076) found on three boundary stones;  and
   

2. ✴a very similar inscription (RIME 1.9.3.3; P431077) found on two spheroid jars;
   

all of which came (or probably came) from either Girsu or Lagash.  More specifically, Eanatum recorded that, after his victory in a boundary dispute Umma, he had:

1. ✴restored the boundary stele that Mesalim had erected to mark the boundary between the respective territories, which had originally been defined by the god Enlil (see, for example, RIME 1.9.3.2; P431076, lines 4-7); and 
   

2. ✴stressed that, in deference to the gods, he had not marched beyond the point (see, for example, RIME 1.9.3.2; P431076, lines 55’-60’).
   

Fortunately, we have a more complete account of these events from a royal inscription of a yet-later ensi of Lagash, Enmetena (Eanatum’s nephew; see below): at the start of his account of his own boundary dispute with Umma, he looked back on the precedents set by Mesalim and Eanatum:

1. “Enlil, lugal kur-kur-a (king of all lands), ab-ba dingir-dingir-re2-ne-ke4 (father/elder of all the gods) ... demarcated the border between:
   

2. ✴Ningirsu, [the city god of Lagash and Girsu]; and
   

3. ✴Shara, [the city god of Umma]. 
   

4. Mesalim, king of Kish, at the command of Ishtaran, [originally] demarcated this border and erected a monument there.  Ush, ensi of Umma, acted arrogantly: he smashed that monument and marched on the plain of Lagash.  Ningirsu, warrior of Enlil, by (Enlil's) just command, did battle with Umma. ... Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, demarcated the border with Enakale, the ensi of Umma. ... He inscribed (and erected) monuments at [the god-given border] and restored the monument of Mesalim, but did not cross [the border] into the plain of Umma”, (RIME 1.9.5.1; P431117, lines 1-58).
   

As Aage Westenholz (referenced below, 2020, at p. 696) observed, in this later inscription:

1. “Mesilim is said to have acted in accordance with the [command of] ... Ishtaran, [who] was the divine protector of treaties, as indicated by the spelling of his name dKA.DI (god of just verdict).”
   

It is clear from these later testimonies that Mesalim’s authority as hegemon in the resolution of boundary disputes between Lagash and Umma was long-remembered, at least at Lagash. 

Feathered Figure 

Inscribed stone tablet from Girsu depicting the so-called ‘Figure aux Plumes’ (Figure with Feathers) 

Now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 221), image from the museum website 

Camille Lecompte (referenced below, at p. observed that this important archaic tablet:

1. “... consists of two distinct faces:
   

2. ✴one representing a [a standing figure] equipped with [distinctive] headgear, surrounded by a sort of literary composition is arranged in lines and boxes; and
   

3. ✴the other that contains only text , which is divided in a more usual way, into columns and boxes”, (my translation).
   

[In construction}

Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at pp. 173-81)

Ur-Nanshe

Pierced relief of Ur-Nanshe from Girsu (RIME 1.9.1.2. P431035), now in the Musée due Louvre (AO 2344)

Image from museum website

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2019, pp. 122-3) observed, Ur-Nanse, who names himself in his inscriptions as ‘son of Gunidu, son of Gursar’ is:

1. “... the first ruler of Lagash for whom extensive historical information survives ... He appears to have been a usurper, but the specifics of his rise to power remain uncertain.”
   

He argued (at note 25) that:

1. ✴the conclusion that he was probably a usurper is based on the fact that his father, Gunidu, is never given a title in his (Ur-Nanshe’s )surviving inscriptions; and
   

2. ✴‘Gursar’ was probably the name of his (Ur-Nanshe’s) grandfather/ancestor (rather than the name of a place associated with his family).
   

Steinkeller continued:

1. “What is certain is that Ur-Nanshe had tried to establish a dynastic line, [an endeavour in which he succeeded].  This is indicated by the fact that he assumed the title of lugal, which was characteristically secular, as it emphasised the ruler’s reliance on his retinue of military supporters and his independence from communal institutions.  But Ur-Nanše’s successors, beginning with [his son], Akurgal and ending [six more direct descendants later], with Lugal-anda, had to be content with a much less ambitious title of [ensi], an adjustment that, in my view, had been dictated by the pressures of the traditional ideology of kingship, [in which a ruler acted on the behalf of the gods].”  
   

As Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, at p.  23) he is known from a large number of surviving inscriptions, almost all of which simply contain:

1. “.... a long catalogue of temples built, statues fashioned and canals dug.”
   

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at pp. 81-120) catalogued 136 of them, almost all of which came from Lagash or Girsu.  As Licia Romano (referenced below, at pp. 183-4) pointed out, no fewer that 6 of these:

1. “... are noticeable for the presence of images and captions identifying the people represented.”
   

Two examples of these ‘populated’ reliefs are illustrated here:

1. ✴RIME 1.9.1.2 (illustrated above: her Figure 5, at p. 187); and
   

2. ✴RIME 1.9.1.6a (illustrated below: her Figure 1, at p. 184).
   

The figures named in these sources are predominantly members of Ur-Nashe’s immediate family (which includes at least nine sons (Akurgal, who succeeded him; Addatur; Anikurra; Anita, who was apparently also his cup bearer; Anupa; Gula; Lugalezen; Menu; and Mukurmushta).

Stele of Inanna (?)

Four-sided inscribed stele from Lagash (RIME 1.09.01.06a, P431039)

Now in the Iraq Museum (IM 61404): image from Wikimedia

Left: relief of goddess (Inanna ?)

Right: sketch of reliefs on all four sides by Claudia Suter (referenced below, Figure 1, at p. 346)

As noted above, one of these ‘populated’ reliefs is on the stele illustrated above: Claudia Suter (referenced below, at p. 345) pointed out that the relief:

1. “... shows [Ur-Nanshe] approaching an enthroned goddess, together with an entourage of sons and male officials, while a self-contained sub-scene below the king and his cupbearer [= his son Anita ?] depicts his [named] wife and daughter facing each other in banquet; the women share with the goddess her seated position, cup, and vegetal attribute, [which usually identified as a date palm].” 
   

As we shall see, the identification of this goddess is important for our understanding of the religious sensibilities of the Lagash I kings.  Interestingly:

1. ✴the inscription under Ur-Nanshe; and
   

2. ✴another on this side of the stele that runs horizontally under all four figures;
   

both read:

1. “Ur-Nanshe, son of Gunidu, ensi of Lagas, built the Ibgal [= oval temple of Inanna at Lagash].”
   

Unfortunately, the text under the goddess is now longer legible.  Giovanni Lovisetto (referenced below, at pp. 54-5) observed that she:

1. “... holds a branch of dates and possibly a cup, while her extraordinarily long and voluminous hair falls from a (possibly horned) headdress over her shoulders.  Her lower body is in profile, but her torso and head are shown frontally.  Interestingly, the throne and her feet are placed on a sort of a podium, possibly signalling that this is a depiction of a statue, in front of which the five male figures are performing a libation ritual, perhaps during the inauguration of the Inanna temple itself.  All the members of the royal family are labeled with their names and patronymics, but Ur-Nanshe is also described as ‘the leader of Lagash’ and as the builder of the Ibgal.  Even though the name of the goddess is not preserved in the inscription, the reference to the Ibgal and the fact that the stele was found nearby have led most scholars to identify this figure as Inanna.”
   

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 87) observed that the worn figure of the goddess:

1. “... is strikingly similar in form to a goddess depicted on a large vessel with an inscription of [Ur-Nanshe’ great grandson], En-metena [RIME 1.9.5,25, discussed below, which is now in Berlin].  On the basis of its iconography, the figure on the Berlin piece can be confidently identified with the goddess Inanna.  By extension, the goddess figure appearing on [the stele under discussion here] is almost certainly a representation of Inanna, [and the stele itself] probably came from the area of the Ibgal temple at Lagash.” 
   

More recently, Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, at p. 6) agreed that this seated goddess is ‘probably Inanna;,  It is possible that Ur-Nanshe used the title ‘ensi’ in this inscription (rather than ‘lugal’) in deference to Inanna.

Plaque of the Anzu Bird

Pierced relief of Ur-Nanshe (RIME 1.9.1.26, P431061), now in the Musée due Louvre (AO 2344)

Image from museum website 

The object illustrated above is one of what Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 112) described as:

1. “Three very similar wall plaques of Ur-Nanshe from Girsu, [all of which] depict an Anzu bird standing on two lions.”  
   

The inscription (RIME 1.9.1.26, P431061) on tis example reads:

1. “For Ningirsu: Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash, son of Gunidu, built the E-Tirash.”
   

Frayne (as above) argued that:

1. “While only part of the titulary of Ur-Nanshe is preserved on the other two plaques, they very likely bore the same or a similar inscription.”
   

As discussed above, King Mesalim  of Kishhad used the same iconography on the mace that he had dedicated to Ningirsu at Girsu probably as overlord, in the time of Lugal-sha-engur, ensi of Lagash. 

Did Ur-Nanshe Defeat Ur and Umma ?

Inscriptions on door socket (RIME 1.9.1.6b, P431040) from Lagash,  now in the Iraq Museum

Image from CDLI (P222390)

According to Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 90), the double-sided slab illustrated above was probably a stele that was subsequently repurposed to serve as a door socket, and Francisco Pomponia (referenced below, at p. 7) argued that, after it was broken, it was used for a scribal exercise.  He:

1. ✴observed that the text on each side originally comprised seven columns, each read from left to write, and that the first column on each side is now missing; and
   

2. ✴argued that these two texts were copies of separate originals. 
   

The inscription on what he dubbed the ‘war’ side (Frayne’s ‘reverse’ and lines 62-105 in P431040)  begins:

1. “... Lagash went to war against the Man of Ur and the Man of Gisha [= Umma]”; and
   

the inscription on what he dubbed the ‘peace’ side begins:

1. “... son [= grandson] of Gursar, built the Bagara [= the temple of Ningirsu at Lagash] baked bricks.”
   

Pomponio (as above) observed that the inscription on ‘peace’ side, which clearly relates to Ur-Nanshe:

1. “... would fit the large majority of [his] inscriptions ... [It] commemorates the (re)construction of Bagara and of its ‘oval’ kitchen ... [and, in] the following part of this text, lists [his]:
   

2. ✴(re)construction of twelve other buildings, including the wall of Lagash  ...:
   

3. ✴excavation of two canals;
   

4. ✴fashioning of nine divine statues. 
   

5. Here, [this putative copy of a typical inscription of Ur-Nanshe] ends.”
   

This brings us to the text on the ‘war’ side, which apparently relates to a war between Lagash and the allied armies of Ur and Umma.  Francisco Pomponio (referenced below, at p. 10) argued that, while the ‘peace’ side inscription is:

1. “... similar to many inscriptions of [Ur-Nanshe, the ‘war’ side inscription] belongs to a wholly different category of texts, of which no [examples] ... with Ur-Nanshe as author [are known].  In all probability, the text in question was copied from a stele in which a scene of war or a parade of prisoners was carved, flanking or otherwise accompanying the inscription.  [Furthermore], the fact that the ‘peace’ side inscription is to be assigned to Ur-Nanshe does not necessarily imply that [this was also the case for that on the] ‘war’ side ...”
   

In this context, he pointed to one phrase in particular:

1. “... the man of Lagash defeated the man of Ur”, (P431040 , lines 69-71);
   

and posed a rhetorical question:

1. “[Why], only in this inscription, does a ruler of Lagash/Girsu, of the first or the second [dynasty of Lagash], in a votive inscription or in a military report, define himself ‘man’ (lu2) of Lagash, instead of lugal or ensi2, [thereby putting] himself on the same par with his vanquished enemies? ... But [this] problem [disappears] if we assume that the ‘war’ side is not the work of Ur-Nanshe, (or even of another king of Lagash).  In such a case, the king of Lagash would not be the winner of [victory over Umma and Ur] (as the subject of the sentence), but a defeated ruler (as the object of the sentence), together with [the rulers of Umma and Ur]”. 
   

He therefore concluded (at p. 12) that the original text that was copied on the ‘war’ side of this slab more probably recorded the victory of: 

1. “... an unknown enemy, whose name and title(s) would have been written in the first column of the [copy], against some of the most important Sumerian cities ... , [i.e., Lagash, Umma and Ur].”
   

In other words, we should probably avoid drawing any conclusions about the history of Ur-Nanshe’s reign at Lagash from this inscription. 

Eanatum, son of Akurgal 

Stele of the Vultures

Surviving fragments from the obverse of the  two-sided ‘Stele of the Vultures’  from Girsu, 

now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 50): images from the museum website (my additions in black) 

The important ‘Stele of the Vultures’ (illustrated above) is known from seven fragments (A-G) of what was originally a huge limestone stele (exhibited in the Musée du Louvre as AO 50):

1. ✴fragments A-F were excavated at the site of the Temple of Ningirsu at Girsu; and 
   

2. ✴fragment G, which clearly belonged to this stele, subsequently emerged in London and was re-united with the other fragments in Paris.
   

All of these fragments carry reliefs and inscriptions (RIME 1.9.3.1, P431075) on both sides.  As Renate Marian van Dijk-Coombes (referenced below, at pp. 198-9) observed, when these fragments were laid out in what would have been their respective positions, it became obvious that the stele had what might be dubbed:

1. ✴a historical side that  is divided into four registers, in which the reliefs illustrate a battle between humans and its aftermath; and
   

2. ✴a mythological side (see the illustration above) that is divided into two registers, in which the reliefs depict the imagined actions of the two deities thereafter.
   

The inscription on each of the vertical edges identify:

1. “Eanatum, kur gu2 gar-gar (the subjugator of the lands of Ningirsu)”, (lines  630’-632’ and 633’-635’). 
   

The stele owes its modern name to the relief on the reverse of Fragment A depicts a flock of vultures carrying off the remains of fallen enemy soldiers (which would have represented the final scene in the ‘historical’ sequence).  Its original title is recorded in its closing lines of the inscription:

1. “... its name is not that of a man: rather its name says:
   

2. ‘Ningirsu, the Lord, [is] the crown of Lum-ma [= Eanatum, and] the life of the pirig-edin-na ( Pirigedena Canal)”, (lines 615’-621’).
   

After an initial, now-lacunose passage, we read that, during the (presumably short) reign of Akurgal, Eanatum’s father, the Man of Umma crossed the frontier of Lagash and invaded Ningirsu’s field of the Guedena.  The next coherent passage records that:

1. “... Ningirsu ... implanted the semen for Eanatum in the womb ... [and] rejoiced over him. 
   

2. ✴Inanna took a place at his side  and named him ‘[the one who is] fitting for the Eanna of Inanna of the Ibgal.
   

3. ✴Inanna set him on the  right knee Ninhursag, [who] gave her right breast to him.
   

4. ✴Ningirsu rejoiced over Eanatum,
   

5. ✴Ningirsu, the on who had implanted his semen in the womb, laid his ...  [gigantic hand] upon [Eanatum].
   

6. Ningirsu, with great joy, [granted Eanatum] nam-lugal (the kingship) of Lagash”, (RIME 1.9.3.1, P431075, lines 40’-82’). 
   

In short, ‘cometh the moment, cometh the king’.

We then come to Eanatum’s victory over Umma: after he curses the ruler of Umma, Ningirsu appears to him in a dream:

1. “As Eanatum lay sleeping, his beloved king, Ningirsu, came to stand by his head ... [and told him that]:
   

2. ‘Umma, like Kish, shall ... wander about and, by means of ones seized by anger(?), shall surely be removed. ... I shall smite [the enemy soldiers] and make their myriad corpses stretch to the horizon. ... [The soldiers of Lagash] shall raise a hand against [the ensi of Umma] and, in the heart of Umma, they shall kill him”, (RIME 1.9.3.1, P431075, lines 121’-152’).
   

This suggests that Kish was allied with Umma and that Ningirsu promised that this allied army was doomed to defeat, and that the ensi of Umma would be killed by his own subjects (which is presumably what happened, although the actual account of the battle at lines 153’-168’ is too lacunose for us to be sure).  We then read that, after the promised victory:

1. “Eanatum, a man of just words, marked off the border territory, which [or some of which ??] he left under the control of Umma, [and he] erected a stele in that place”, (lines 169’-176’: see also the translation by Jerrold Cooper, referenced below, at p. 45.]
   

Jerrold Cooper argued (at p.26) that the following passage:

1. “[Eanatum then] defeated the Man of Umma ... and heaped up 20 burial mounds there [on the boundary mound named Namnunda-kigara  ??]”, (lines 177’-181’);
   

indicates that fighting with Umma resumed later in Eanatum’s reign, and that he claimed a second victory.   Finally. in this part of the text, we read that:

1. “Eannatum obliterated many foreign lands for Ningirsu.  He returned to Ningirsu  the Gudena, his beloved field”, (lines 187’-194’).
   

Although most of the surviving text on this stele is devoted to Eanatum’s victory over Umma, it also contains a passage listing some of his other conquests:

1. “Eanatum, king of Lagash”
   

2. ✴given strength/power by Enlil;
   

3. ✴fed wholesome milk by Ninhursag;
   

4. ✴called a good name by Inana;
   

5. ✴given wisdom by Enki;
   

6. ✴chosen by the heart of Nanshe, the powerful mistress;
   

7. ✴kur gu2 gar-gar (the subjugator of the lands of Ningirsu);
   

8. ✴the beloved of Dumu-abzu;
   

9. ✴nominated by Hendursag;
   

10. ✴beloved friend of Lugaluru;
    

11. ✴beloved husband of Inanna;
    

12. defeated:
    

13. ✴Elam and Subartu, the lands of timber and goods;
    

14. ✴... [and ?] Susa;
    

15. ✴Urua, [even though ?] its ruler had set up its standard at the head [of its army ?];
    

16. ✴Arua, which he obliterated; [and ?]
    

17. ✴the [leader of ??] k-ien-gi (= Sumer ?), Ur ...”, (lines 564’-605’).
    

(It is unclear why Eanatum uses the title lugal in this inscription, rather than the usual title ensi.)

Reliefs on the ‘Mythological Side of the Stele

1. ✴in the upper register;
   

2. •the large male figure standing at the centre (who holds a mace in his right hand and holds a battle-net full of naked prisoners of war in his left hand) is almost certainly Ningirsu; and
   

3. •the small head of the figure behind him (and in front of a standard discussed below) belonged to a goddess who had weapons (usually identified as maces) ‘emerging from the shoulders’, who is p’ Ninhursag or possibly Inanna’; and
   

4. ✴in the lower register:
   

5. •the chariot was probably driven by Ningirsu (albeit that only part of his skirt now survives); and 
   

6. •the small head to the right probably belonged to the same goddess as the one in the upper register.
   

I discuss this iconography in more detail below. 

Boulder Inscriptions of Eanatum

Eanatum Boulder, from Girsu (now in the Musée  du Louvre: AO 2677)

Image from the museum website)  

This second important inscription of Eanatum (RIME 1.9.3.5, P431079, which is on the boulder illustrated above. and another that is now in the Iraq Museum, gives a more complete account of Eanatum’s victories.  These are described in two lists:

1. ✴In the first
   

2. “Eanatum defeated:
   

3. •Elam, the awesome mountain ...;
   

4. •Arawa, [although] its ruler marched ahed of the [city] standards ...;
   

5. •Umma  ..., [and he] returned to Ningirsu, his beloved field, the Guedena;
   

6. •Uruk; Ur; Kiutu;
   

7. •Urua, and he killed its ruler;
   

8. •Mishime, [which] he destroyed; and
   

9. •Arua, [which] he obliterated.
   

10. All the lands trembled before Eanatum, the one nominated by Ningirsu,.  In the year that the king of Akshak rose up, Eanatum, the one named by Ningirsu, drove Zuzu, the king of Akshak, from the Antasura of Ningirsu to Akshak, which he destroyed”, (RIME 1.9.3.5, P431079, lines 35-83).
    

11. ✴
    

12.  
    

13. Eanatum, who is commissioned by Ningirsu-to Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, Inana, because she loved
    

14. him so, gave him the kingship of Kish in addition to the rulership of Lagash. Elam trembled before
    

15. Eanatum; he drove the Elamite back to his own land. Kish trembled before Eanatum; he drove the
    

16. king of Akshak back to his own land. Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, who subjugates the foreign lands
    

17. for Ningirsu, defeated Elam, Subartu and Urua at the Sukur-canal. He defeated Kish, Akshak and
    

18. Mari at the Antasura of Ningirsu
    

As Jerrold Cooper, referenced below, at p 25) pointed out, each of these inscriptions is known from two examples, and all four of these examples begin with essentially the same text: after a long list of Eanatum’s gods and a short list of his construction projects, we read that:

Jerrold Cooper, referenced below, at p 25 and notes 6-8) reasonably assumed that the overlapping text of RIME 1.9.3.5  and 1.9.3.6 constituted a basic account of Eanatum’s many victories, which was used (in part or in whole) in a number of his other inscriptions.  

Eanatum Boulder 

The evidence for this ‘dual use’ of royal titles is from an inscription on the so-called ‘Eanatum Boulder’ (illustrated above):

“Because Inanna so loved Eanatum, ensi (ruler) of Lagash, she gave him nam-luga[ (the kingship) of Kish, together with nam-ensi2 (the rulership) of Lagash”, (RIME 1.9.3.5, P431079, lines 98-106). 

1. ✴≈
   

Interestingly, Kish is also referred to on one of the surviving fragments of this stele: we read that, as Eanatum lay sleeping, ‘his beloved king, Ningirsu’ appeared to him in a dream to reassure him that:

1. “Umma, like Kish, shall therefore wander about, and by means of ones seized by anger(?), shall surely be removed”, (obverse, lines 124’-136’).
   

This seems to suggest that Kish was allied with Umma at this time, which might explain why (according to the Eanatum Boulder):

1. ✴Kish subsequently ‘trembled before’ Eanatum; and
   

2. ✴Inanna, who loved him, ‘gave him the kingship of Kish’.  
   

In this context, we should also consider another inscription of Eanatum (RIME 1.9.3.10, P431085), which is on a fragmentary vase from Lagash  that is now apparently in the Iraq Museum) records Eanatum’s construction of a structure for Ningirsu that he dubbed the E-za (Stone House):

1. “For the god Ningirsu, warrior of the god Enlil: Eanatum, ensi of Lagash: 
   

2. ✴á-sum-ma (granted power by) Ningirsu;
   

3. ✴[the one] who restored to Ningirsu his beloved Gu’edena;
   

4. ✴[the one] who subjugates the lands for Ningirsu; 
   

5. ... built the E-za (Stone House) for the god Ningirsu out of silver and lapis lazuli.  He [also] built for him a storehouse, a building of alabaster stone, and amassed piles of grain for him (there).  Eanatum:
   

6. ✴[the one to whom] Ningirsu granted the gidru (sceptre).
   

His personal god is Sul-MUSHxPA.” 

1. 
   

Eanatum and Inanna 

Details of fragments B and C of the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ (illustrated above) showing the head of a goddess

Now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 50): images from the museum website  

Images of goddess with similar iconography to the goddess on the ‘Stele of the Vultiures’ (above)

Left:

Right: Fragment now in the Staatliche Museen, Berlin (VA 7248): image from website of the Morgan Library

As we have seen, Renate Marian van Dijk-Coombes (referenced below, at p. 201) argued that the goddess depicted in both of the registers on the obverse of the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ (fragments B and C, illustrated above) is probably Ninhursag or possibly Inanna (and she pointed out, at note 8, that she is sometimes identified as Nisaba).  The relevant iconographic evidence for this identification is provided by the two other reliefs that are illustrated above:

1. ✴that on one side of an inscribed limestone stele from Lagash that is now in the Iraq Museum (IM 61404), which dates to the reign of Ur-Nanshe, Eanatum’s grandfather; and
   

2. ✴that on a fragment of an inscribed stone vessel that is now in the Staatliche Museen, Berlin (VA 7248), which almost certainly came from Lagash or Girsu and dates to the reign of Enmetena, Eanatum’s nephew.
   

Ur-Nanshe is depicted on the other side of the first stele. identified by inscription (RIME 1.9.1. 6a, P431039) as:

1. “Ur-Nanshe, son of Gu-NI.DU), ensi of Lagash, [the one who] built the Ibgal (= great oval temple of Inanna at Girsu).”
   

He is accompanied on this face of the by a cup=bearer and, below them, his wife and daughter, all identified by inscription.  Most of the other inscriptions on both sides of the stele are now lacunose and largely illegible, although the first line duplicates the inscription identifying Ur-Nanshe as the builder of the Ibgal, which suggests that the enthroned goddess depicted on the opposite side in Inanna.  Giovanni Lovisetto (referenced below, at p. 55) observed that she:

1. “... holds a branch of dates [in her right hand] and possibly a cup, while her extraordinarily long and voluminous hair falls from a (possibly horned) headdress over her shoulders.”
   

The inscription (RIME 1.9.5. 25, P431142) on the Enmetena vase reads:

1. “... he [= Enmetena] built E-engur of Zulum for [the goddess Nanshe: he built Abzu-pasira for the god Enki, king of Eridu; [he built the giguna [for] goddess Ninhur[sag]; ... when ... had been granted [presumably by a goddess], he, [Enmetana] set up (this)  bur-sag vessel for her.”
   

2. 
   

Inanna is mentioned in some of the surviving fragments of the inscribed text:

1. ✴as Pirjo Lapinkivi (referenced below, at p. 20) pointed out, Eanatum is referred to as the dam kiag2 (beloved spouse) of Inanna (at reverse, lines 586’-587’); and
   

2. ✴she is also referred to (at obverse, lines 56’-60’) as:
   

3. “Inanna, [who] ... named -Eanatum] as:
   

4. ‘[the one who is] fitting for the E-anna of Inanna of the Ib-gal (‘great oval’ [temple])”.
   

5. This is a reference to a temple excavated at at Lagash that had an outer oval-shaped walled court, which is known from inscribed foundation figurines as the Ibgal of Inanna (see, for example, Paul Collins, referenced below, at p. 105). 
   

It is difficult to know what Eanatum gained from these many and widespread victories recorded in these inscriptions: while we can imagine that they brought him both booty and prestige (and perhaps the right to tribute and military conscripts on an on-going basis), the extent of his political influence over the conquered cities is unclear.  As noted above, Aage Westenholz (referenced below, 2020, at pp. 697-8) argued that Eanatum’s victories over cities that were far from Lagash does not prove that he established anything approaching a Sumerian state, centred on Lagash.  While this is certainly true, it does seem to me that Eanatum’s claim that:

1. ✴Inanna had given him the kingship of Kish; and
   

2. ✴Kish had ‘trembled before him’;
   

does suggest that he had established hegemony over Kish for a period after his victory.  Indeed, it is tempting to suggest that sought to present himself as a ‘new Mesalim’.  Nevertheless, it seems that any such eminence was short-lived, since nothing in the surviving evidence suggests that any subsequent ruler of Lagash claimed the title ‘king of Kish. 

As we saw above, the text on a number of Eanatum’s other inscriptions (including the ‘Eanatum Boulder’) also recorded that Eanatum had repelled at least one incursion from Umma in order to return to Ningursu his ‘beloved field’, the Gu'edena.  However, the surviving text on the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ adds to our understanding of these events (at least as interpreted by Eanatum).  As Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, at p.26) observed, although much of the original text on the stele is now lost, the surviving account of the events leading up to the battle in which Eanatum ‘liberated’ the Gu'edena is:

“...  well preserved and rather remarkable”.

En-anatum I and Enmetena of Lagash 

Inscribed statue of Enmetena from Ur (probably not its  original location)

Now in the Iraq Museum (exhibit IM 5): image from Wikipedia

Eanatum was succeeded at Lagash by his brother, En-anatum I, followed (probably quite quickly) by his nephew, Enmetena (En-anatum’s son).  In an early royal inscription (RIME 1.9.5.1; P431117) of Enmetena, we read that he had repelled successive incursions from Umma.  The first was led by Urlumma, ensi of Umma, who:

1. “... recruited foreigners and transgressed the boundary-channel of Ningirsu:
   

2. ✴En-anatum, ruler of Lagash, fought with him in the Ugiga-field, the field of Ningirsu; and
   

3. ✴Enmetena, beloved son of En-anatum, defeated him. 
   

4. Urlumma retreated to Umma, where he was killed”, (lines 91-108).
   

However, Umma clearly remained independent, since we read the Il, Urlumma’s successor, asserted that:

1. “The boundary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe are mine!  I will shift the earth from the boundary moat from Antasura to Edimgalabzu.  However, Enlil and Ninhursag did not allow him (to do) this”, (lines 152-64).
   

While the significance of this last remark is unclear, it seems that the boundary dispute soon resurfaced, albeit that, on this occasion, it was settled without any actual fighting.

Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, at p. 31) observed that:

1. “Large numbers of clay nails, some foundation tablets, a brick, and a copper peg figurine commemorate Enmetena's building of the [E-mush temple at Badtibira, between Lagash and  Uruk].  Of the three different inscriptions represented by these objects, two contain important historical information.”
   

The first of these historically-important inscriptions (RIME 1.9.5.3, P431119), which has been found on numerous foundation cones from the site of ancient Badtibira, records that:

1. “For the goddess Inanna and the god Lugal-emush [= Dumuzi]:  En-metena, ensi of Lagash, built the E-mush, their beloved temple and ordered (these) clay nails(?) for them. ...  At that time, En-metena, ensi of Lagash, and Lugal-kigine-dudu, ensi of Uruk, established a brotherhood (between themselves).”
   

I will return to the ‘brotherhood’ of Enmetena and Lugal-kigine-dudu below: for the moment, we should merely note that. as Paul Collins (referenced below, at p. 110) observed, while:

1. “.... Dumuzi was certainly associated with Inanna [at this time] and it is possible that sacred marriage rites between [these two deities, recorded in later sources] developed from a cult at this city. ... there appears to be no evidence ... for the existence of a sacred marriage ritual involving [them] at this time.”
   

The second of these inscriptions (RIME 1.9.5.4, P431120), which is found, for example, on a tablet that probably came from Girsu (now exhibit AO 24414 in the Musée du Louvre), records Enmetena’s foundation or restoration of a number of religious buildings, including the E-mush temple at Badtibira.  Importantly, after this record, we read that:

1. “He (Enmetena) cancelled obligations for the citizens of Uruk, Larsa and Badtibira. He restored:
   

2. ✴[the citizens of Uruk] to Inanna's control at Uruk;
   

3. ✴[the citizens of Larsa] to Utu's control at Larsa; and
   

4. ✴[the citizens of Badtibira] to Lugal-emush’s control at the Emush (in Badtibira)", (lines 42-55).
   

As Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, at p. 31) observed:

1. “This can only mean that Enmetena had [been able to conscript] labourers for his construction of the Emush from Uruk and Larsa (just southwest of Badtibira) as well as from Badtibira itself.” 
   

In other words, the likelihood is that, at least at at the time of his work on the E-mush temple at Badtibira, Enmetena had exercised hegemony over Uruk, Larsa and Badibira (although the circumstances in which he had achieved this status are now unknown).

We should also consider the relationship between Enmetena and Enlil, the main god of Nippur.  As we have seen, in the inscription that marked his successes in the ‘traditional’ border dispute with Umma (RIME 1.9.5.1; P431117), he:

1. ✴asserted that the border in question had been demarcated by Enlil, lugal kur-kur-a (king of all lands), ab-ba dingir-dingir-re2-ne-ke4 (father/elder of all the gods) - see lines 1-7; and
   

2. ✴recorded that, after Eanatum had repelled an incursion across the border by Enakale, ensi of Umma, he had built a shrine to Enlil (and others to Ninhursag, Ningirsu and Utu) on the boundary mound named Namnunda-kigara- see lines 32-66. 
   

Furthermore, as Xianhua Wang (referenced below, at p. 136) pointed out Enmetena repeatedly records in his surviving royal inscriptions that he had built the temple of Eadda (= Temple of the Father), and  and, in at least one of them (Ent 1 = RIME 1.9.5.17; P431134), which is on a diorite statue (see below), the link between the Eadda temple and Enlil is explicit:

1. ✴on the right shoulder of the (now head-less) figure, we read that:
   

2. “Enmetena, ruler of Lagaš, parcelled out:
   

3. •25 bur of land, (a field called) En-ana-tum-sur-Nanshe-etaed;
   

4. •11 bur of land, (a field called) Nizuh-shub, in the Abbarnigenak area, next to the Holy Ditch; and
   

5. •60 bur of land, (a field called) Enlil in the Gu-edena area;
   

6. for Enlil of the Eadda”; and 
   

7. ✴on the back of the figure (col.iii, line 5 - col. iv, line 10), we read that:
   

8. “[Enmetena] built é-ad-da im-sag-gá (the Eadda of Imsag) for the god Enlil.  At that time, Enmetena created an image of himself, named it ‘Enmetena is the Beloved of Enlil’ and brought it here, int the temple.  May Sul-MUSHxPA, the personal god of Enmetena, the builder of the Eadda, forever pray to Enlil for the life of Enmetena.” 
   

This statue was discovered in Ur (which is unlikely to have been its original location) and was exhibited in the Iraq Museum (exhibit IM 5, illustrated above.)  The translations above are based on those of  Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2011, Catalogue 9, at pp, 176-9).  As far as we know, Enmetena was the founder of this temple, which was rebuilt four generations later by Urukagina, the last of the ‘Lagash  I rulers).

Note Eanatum received the sceptre from Ningirsu

Furthermore, as far as we know, Enmetena was the only ruler of Lagash who made a dedication to Enlil at the Ekur (see, for example, Xianhua Wang (referenced below, Table 3.2.2, at p. 137).  This dedicatory inscription (RIME 1.9.5.18; P431135), which is known from surviving fragments of a vase from the site of the Ekur (pace P43135,which gives the find spot as Girsu), records that:

1. “[When Ningirsu ...] selected (En-metena) from among 36,000 people [usually translated as ‘a myriad/multitude of people’], Enlil granted to En-metena gidri-mah nam-tar-ra (a great sceptre of destiny) from Nippur”, (lines 10’-16’).
   

This translation is taken from Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2023, note 34, at p. 13): as he set out in this note, the completion of the second word as ‘Ningirsu’ is based on similar passages in the royal inscriptions of other rulers of Lagash, including Urukagina (see below).  Unfortunately, almost all of the opening dedicatory text on this vase is now lost:

1. ✴The vase must have been dedicated to Enlil, and we might have expected that Enlil would have been given the epithet ‘king of all lands here (as he was in the inscription above). 
   

2. ✴However, Xianhua Wang (referenced below, at pp. 136-7, who labelled this inscription Ent 32) argued that the most likely completion of the surviving text is dEnlil, é-ad-da-ka-ra (Enlil of the Eadda): see also Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 222). 
   

It is therefore hard to escape the conclusion that Enmetena’s dedication at the Ekur at Nippur was in some way related to his foundation of the Eadda at Lagash. 

More importantly for our current analysis, in a single inscription in Wang’s Table 3.1.1 (Ent 28-9 = RIME 1.9.5.1; P431117), Enmetena is described as: 

1. “... gidru-sum-ma-dEnlil ([the one who was] granted the sceptre by the god Enlil )... “, (lines 183-7).
   

Wang argued (at pp. 131-2) that: 

1. “The Sumerian word gidru in [this epithet] ... must symbolically fall into the semantic field of ‘á’ in the epithet ‘á-sum-ma-dEnlil‘, which must [therefore] mean generally the ‘ruling power’.”
   

However, he also argued that these epithets must be differentiated, because:

1. ✴both Ningirsu and Enlil could grant this ‘ruling power’; but
   

2. ✴only Enlil could grant the gidru (sceptre) of Nippur.
   

3. [the territories of the] gods:
   

4. ✴Ningirsu, [patron of Lagash]; and
   

5. ✴Shara, [patron of Umma”, (lines 1-7). 
   

In other words, it is possible that Enmetena claimed that Enlil had granted him the sceptre of Nippur in recognition of his success in redressing the sacrilege committed by the ensi of Umma. 

We might also reasonably assume that Enmetena made the dedication at Nippur in person.  Indeed, as Xianhua Wang ( referenced below, at p. 132) suggested:

1. “The use of gidru in the title only of Entemena was probably the result of the expansion of [his] power to Nippur, where he might have had participated in some rite metaphorically receiving the gidru of Enlil.”
   

What is less clear is the precise significance of Enmetena’s receipt of the sceptre of Nippur.    It seems to me to be significant that, although Enmetena  credited Enlil, lugal kur-kur-a (king of all lands), ab-ba dingir-dingir-re2-ne-ke4 (father/elder of all the gods) with the demarcation of the boundary between Lagash and Umma, he apparently made his dedication at the Ekur to  dEnlil, é-ad-da-ka-ra (Enlil of the Eadda)