Introduction

Map of Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BC 

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

If we look at the contents page of the book by Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008) on the Mesopotamian royal inscriptions from this period, we find that Chapter 9, on Lagash, contains about the same number of pages as all of the other 14  chapters put together.  Of course, this apparent preponderance will be distorted to some extent by the uneven pattern of the excavation across the region: as Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, at p. 8) observed, the surviving corpus: 

1. “... [tells] us all too little about the political history of the period.  The great exception [in this respect] is [that] 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. [Having said that], 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).”  
   

As Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 81) pointed out:

1. “The first king of Lagash for whom we have a substantial number of royal inscriptions [was called] Ur-Nanshe. ...  Although he mentions his father Gu-NI.DU in many of his inscriptions, he does not name him as being king of Lagash.”
   

In other words, we might reasonably assume that Ur-Nanshe was the founder of what we know as the ‘first dynasty’ of Lagash.  Thereafter, the richness of the pre-Sargonic Lagash corpus allows us to name the 8 men who followed him in what seems to have been an unbroken line of succession, at least 5 and possibly 7 of whom were his direct descendants.  Furthermore, the inscriptions of the most important of them provide the starting point for any attempt to write ‘the history of Sumer’ in this period (see, for example, Gianni Marchesi, referenced below, 2015, Table 1.2, at pp, 141-2).  

Lagash before Ur-Nanshe

Beginnings

Image from Reed Goodman (referenced below, at p. 32); my additions in red 

According to Reed Goodman (referenced below, at p. 32), recent studies of the hydrography on the site of ancient Lagash (as part of the program of excavations by a team from Penn Museum) have revealed that:

1. “The place where Lagash was first inhabited was underwater in the 4th millennium BCE, indicating that people could not have settled there until long after the establishment of western cities on the Euphrates, like Ur and Uruk. By the time Lagash emerged from the water, around 3200 BC, it benefited from hundreds of years of cultural development in the western cities, such as the invention of the wheel, the cuneiform writing system and the institutions of formalised religion.”  
   

Mesalim, King of Kish 

Inscribed mace-head of Mesalim, King of Kish (RIME 1.8.1.1; P462181),

from the site of the Temple of Ningirsu at Girsu, now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2349)

Images from the museum website  

Mesalim, king of Kish, is a key figure for our understanding (such as it is) of the political situation in Lagash (and in Sumer more generally) prior to the emergence of Ur-Nanshe as lugal (king) of Lagash.   One of his three known royal inscriptions (RIME 1.8.1.1; P462181) is on an over-sized  stone ceremonial mace-head illustrated above, which, as Sébastien Rey, referenced below, 2024, at p. 209) had been ritually buried on the site of Ningirsu’s temple at Girsu: 

1. “... in the mud-brick foundation that surrounded and lay between:
   

2. ✴the closed Lower Construction [= the earliest Ningirsu temple on the site, in which it would originally have been dedicated]; and
   

3. ✴the Ur-Nanshe Building [= the temple built by Ur-Nanshe, who would have arranged the deconsecration of the ‘Lower Construction’ and the ritual burial of this and other sacred objects]”.  
   

The top of the mace-head is carved with a relief of a lion-headed eagle known as the Anzu (see below), while the inscribed curved surface has a frieze relief of six lions chasing and grasping each other.  The inscription, which is carved on the bodies of two of these lions, reads:

1. “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).
   

This inscription should be considered alongside Mesalim’s other two surviving inscriptions, both of which come from the Esar temple at Adab:

1. ✴One, which was found on fragments of two stone bowls, recorded that: 
   

2. “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).
   

3. ✴The other, which was found on the inside of the upper part of a decorated steatite vessel, recorded that:
   

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

Although some scholars (see, for example, Douglas Frayne, referenced below, 2008, at p. 20) suggest that this temple was dedicated to Inanna, Karen Wilson  (referenced below: see, for example, Table 9.1, at p. 100) has shown that the archeological evidence (which includes that from Mesalim’s steatite vessel) indicates that it was dedicated to Ninhursag (who is sometimes named as Dingirmah).  Taken together, these inscriptions and that from Lagash show that, as Nicholas Postgate (referenced below, at p. 30) observed:

1. ✴both:
   

2. •Lugal-sha-engur, ensi of Lagash; and
   

3. •Nin-kisal-si, ensi of Adab;
   

4. acknowledged the hegemony of Mesalim, king of Kish; and
   

5. ✴he made a point of honouring the deities who ‘owned’  their respective city-temples.  
   

Unusually, we also have further 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 looked back on Mesalim’s role in the establishment of the border between Lagash and Umma (see below).  His surviving references are fragmentary, but  we have a more complete account of these events from a royal inscription of Enmetena (Eanatum’s nephew; see below):

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 [the god] Ishtaran Ishtaran, demarcated this border and erected a stele there””, (RIME 1.9.5.1; P431117, lines 1-12).
   

It is clear from these later testimonies that Mesalim’s authority as hegemon extended to Umma, and that his role in the establishment of the boundary between Lagash and Umma was long-remembered, at least at Lagash.  Interestingly, Enmetena (and hence, presumably, Mesalim) believed that:

1. ✴Enlil, ‘father/elder of all the gods’, exercised divine authority over the lesser gods  Ningirsu and Shara in the matter of the location of the border between their respective territories; and
   

2. ✴he delegated the matter of the execution  of his commands to Ishtaran. 
   

As Aage Westenholz (referenced below, 2020, at p. 696) observed:

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).”
   

Kiengi League

[More]

Ur-Nanshe

Pierced relief of Ur-Nanshe from the temple on Ningirsu that he built at Girsu (RIME 1.9.1.2. P431035)

Now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2344); image from museum website

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2019, pp. 122-3) observed, Ur-Nanshe, 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-Nanshe’s successors, beginning with [his son], Akurgal and ending [six reigns 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) observed, Ur-Nanshe 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 36 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. 

In this context, it is interesting to note that:

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 no 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, 2025, 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.

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) 

Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, 2025, at p. 3), in the opening ‘abstract’ of a paper devoted exclusively to the object illustrated above, described it as a slab that is:

1. “... inscribed on both faces [with text that] seems to be [have been copied from] two distinct royal inscriptions:
   

2. ✴its obverse (?) lists a series of architectural and hydrological feats of Ur-Nanshe, ... all of them known from other inscriptions; while
   

3. ✴the reverse (?) describes a defeat of the kings of Gisha [= Umma] and of Ur ...”
   

These two copies are inscribed on the sides labelled ‘Peace’ side and ‘War’ side (respectively) in the illustration above.  According to Vaughan Crawford (referenced below):

1. ✴this [slab] was one of the few inscribed objects that were found at Tell al-Hiba in 1975-6 (see p. 189); and
   

2. ✴it represented:
   

3. “A portion of what was originally a larger inscription of Ur-Nanshe [sic], presumably a stele, was reused as a door socket in [what the archeologists had identified as] a later Early Dynastic level.”
   

Francesco Pomponia (referenced below, 2025, at p. 7) observed that:

1. “... being broken, [the slab] was re-used [yet again] for a scribal exercise on stone.”
   

Since the find-spot tells us nothing about the historical context in which the original inscriptions were written, we are reliant on the internal evidence of what survives of the later copies.  Francesco Pomponia (referenced below, at p. 7) observed that:

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

2. ✴since the first line of the second column [on the ‘Peace’ side] reads dumu-gur-sar (son of Gursar)
   

3. “... we must conclude that the first column, now lost, in all probability, [identified the person named at the start of this inscription as Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash, son of Gunidu, [son of Gursar].”
   

He then noted that the ‘Peace’ side text:

1. “... commemorates the (re)construction of Bagara and of its ‘oval’ kitchen ... [after which], Ur-Nanshe lists:
   

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

3. ✴the excavation of two canals; and
   

4. ✴the fashioning of nine divine statues. 
   

5. Here, the [first ?] inscription copied on the slab ends.”
   

As he observed (at p. 10) there is nothing remarkable about this text: it was simply:

1. “... a copy of a plaque of Ur-Nanše, similar to many inscriptions of this king.
   

This brings us to the text on the t’War’ side.  The first readable lines (P431040, lines 64-8) tell us that three prominent men were involved in a war:

1. ✴... Lagash;
   

2. ✴the man of Ur; and
   

3. ✴the man of Umma.
   

Thus, as Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, at p. 10) pointed out:

1. ✴unlike the text on the ‘Peace’ side, this text:
   

2. “... belongs to a wholly different category of texts, of which no specimen ... has [yet] been discovered with Ur-Nanshe as its author.  In all probability, it was copied from a stele in which a scene of war or a parade of prisoners was carved, flanking or otherwise accompanying the inscription”; and
   

3. ✴more importantly:
   

4. “... [although] the ‘Peace’ side ,,, [can] be assigned to Ur-Nanshe, [this] does not necessarily imply that the ‘War’ side’ [was copied from] an inscription of the same king: of course, the [putative] young scribe was not obliged to copy texts of the same author.”
   

In other words, any discussion of the text that was copied on the ‘War’ side has to be based on the evidence of that copied text alone. 

The next point to make is that the word ‘Lagash’ appears only twice in the surviving ‘War’ side text:

1. ✴as the first surviving word (at line 64, discussed above); and
   

2. ✴in the phrase lu2-lagash (man of Lagash), which comes at the start of a passage that relates to a battle that seems to have been fought in the first phase of this wider war: the relevant passage is usually translated as:
   

3. “The man of Lagash defeated the man of Ur.  He captured [5 senior officers, 3 of whom are named] and buried [them ?] in tumuli”, (lines 69-85).
   

However, Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, 2025, at p. 11) posed an important rhetorical question:

1. “[Why], only in this inscription, does ... [this ruler of Lagash] define himself  as ‘man’ (lu2) of Lagash, instead of lugal or ensi2, [thereby putting] himself on the same par with his [putative] vanquished enemies?.
   

He pointed out that this problem goes away if we assume that, in this sentence, the ‘man of Lagash’ (like the man of Ur) is an object (rather than the subject), so that the passage would read:

1. “(He) defeated the man of Lagash (and) the man of Ur”.
   

In other words, the likelihood is that the original text described a war in which a now-unknown ruler defeated three allied armies led by three commanding officers, who are referred to as;

1. ✴the man of Lagash;
   

2. ✴the man of Ur; and
   

3. ✴the man of Umma.
   

Pomponio reasonably assumed (at p. 12) that:

1. “... [the] name and title(s) [of this now unknown enemy] would have been written in the first column of the ... inscription.” 
   

The final part of this inscription, which relates to the defeat of the man of Umma, has been  translated as follows:

1. “He defeated the man of Umma. 
   

2. He seized [two named senior officers].
   

3. He seized Pabilgaltuku, ensi of Umma.
   

4. He seized [two more named senior officers].
   

5. He made tumuli [for them ?]”, (lines 86-104).
   

It is usually assumed that Pabilgaltuku, ensi of Umma, was captured by Ur-Nanshe (see, for example, Gianni Marchesi, referenced below, 2015, at p. 149, entry Umma 4).  However, even if this was one of Ur-Nanshe’s  royal inscriptions, this text would be still strange, because:

1. ✴Pabilgaltuku seems to be a subordinate of the man of Umma; and
   

2. ✴his capture is included without comment after that of two senior officers.
   

In other words, as Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, 2025, at p. 10) observed, when we address the matter of Pabilgaltuku’s title (ensi of Umma):

1. “... the possibility of a mistake by our untrained scribe ... cannot be excluded.”
   

To sum up, as Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, 2025) reasonably argued that the text on the ‘War’ side of the slab illustrated above is a copy of an original inscription (probably on a ‘victory stele) that described a war in which a now unknown (presumably Mesopotamian) ruler defeated the allied armies of Lagash, Ur and Umma in two consecutive battles:

1. ✴he began by defeating the man of Lagash and the man or Ur; and
   

2. ✴immediately thereafter, he defeated their ally, the man of Umma. 
   

Franceso Pomponio (referenced below, 2025, at p. 11 and note 15, citing one of his earlier papers, referenced below, 2012, see p. 102) pointed out that the same military strategy:

1. “... seems to have been adopted, a few centuries later, by [King Rimush of Akkad], who;
   

2. ✴[first attacked] the rebel Ur and Lagash from the sea; [and]
   

3. ✴[then] went upstream and confronted first [Umma] and then Adab (and Zabala);
   

4. in his ruthless suppression of the Sumerian revolt ...”, (my slightly changed word order).
   

He assumed (at pp. 11-12) that the copy of the inscription on the putative victory stele was made at Lagash, meaning that the original was either erected at Lagash or brought there as booty at a later date.

1. 
   

This line of argument does not allow us to draw a certain conclusion, particularly since, in this scenario, the original version of the ‘War side’ inscription would have been produced in the city of the putative now-unnamed victor.   However, it does suggest that we should probably avoid drawing any conclusions about the history of Ur-Nanshe’s reign at Lagash from the ‘War side’ inscription alone. 

Eanatum, son of Akurgal 

Border Dispute with Umma 

Jerrold Cooper (referenced below, at p. 23-4) observed that: 

1. “When we pass from Ur-Nanshe to the inscriptions of Eanatum and his successors, we enter a different world.  ... [Ur-Nanshe] never talks about the border [with Umma] as an object of contention.  The Gu'edena [field], boundary-channels and smashed monuments, all of which figure prominently in subsequent accounts of hostilities with Umma, do not occur in Ur-Nanashe's account.  Present evidence, including the general ‘otherness’ of Ur-Nanshe's inscriptional style ... , leads me to believe that the border conflict as a leitmotif in the historical records of Lagash, and the various topoi that accompany it, have their origin in the inscriptions of Eanatum.”
   

By far the most important of these is the so-called ‘Stele of the Vultures’.

‘Stele of the Vultures’ 

Surviving fragments from the obverse of the  two-sided ‘Stele of the Vultures’ from  the Temple of Ningirsu at 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, exhibited in the Musée du Louvre as AO 50) of what was originally a huge limestone stele:

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 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 and its aftermath; and
   

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

The inscription on each of the vertical edges identifies:

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, which depicts a flock of vultures carrying off the remains of fallen enemy soldiers (which would have represented the final scene in the ‘historical’ sequence).   

1. “... he reduced its subsistence rations, he reduced its grain rent”, (lines 1’-4’).
   

As we shall see from what follows, we might reasonably assume that ‘he’ was the ‘Man of Umma’, and that he was deemed to have broken the terms of a commercial undertaking between Umma and Lagash.  This is followed by a broken but reasonably coherent passage:

1. “The king of Lagash ...  the Man of Umma committed an aggressive act ... and [approached ?] the frontier of Lagash.  Akurgal, king of Lagash, the son of Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash ...’’, (lines 5’-20’).
   

Thus, it seems that, after a period of increasing tension, Akurgal led the army of Lagash against the invading army of Umma (apparently while his father was still alive).  The following text is again broken, but it seems that Akurgal succeeded in bringing the situation under control.

The next episode begins (at line 21’) when the Man of Umma re-opens hostilities, causing Ningirsu to exclaim into the wind that this sacrilegious mortal is threatening:

1. “... my own possessions in the field of the Gu'edena”, (lines 32’-37’).
   

Faced with this defiance:

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

2. ✴Inanna stood beside him and named him ‘[the one who is] fitting for the Eanna of Inanna of the Ibgal’.
   

3. ✴Inanna set him on the  right knee of Ninhursag, [who] suckled him.
   

4. ✴Ningirsu rejoiced over Eanatum.
   

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

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

In short, in order to deal with the latest outrage from Umma, Ningirsu miraculously:

1. ✴ensured the birth of a hero who is:
   

2. •named (as Eanatum) by Inanna; and
   

3. •suckled by Ninhursag; and
   

4. ✴grants him the kingship of Lagash. 
   

After much repetition of Eanatum’s divine credentials and his cursing of the sacrilegious ensi 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 people of Umma] shall raise a hand against [their leader] and, in the heart of Umma, they shall kill him. Ush/Ushurdu] by name ...”, (lines 121’-152’).
   

This suggests that Kish was allied with Umma and that Ningirsu promised Eanatum 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.]
   

We then read that::

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’);
   

Jerrold Cooper argued (referenced below, at p.26) argued that this probably 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. “Eanatum obliterated many foreign lands for Ningirsu.  He returned to Ningirsu  the Gu’edena, his beloved field”, (lines 187’-194’).
   

In the rest of the text on the obverse and at the start of the text on the reverse, Eanatum forces the Man Umma to swear on the battle nets of a series of deities that he would respect the terms of an agreement as to the location of the border and the use of the border territories, after which he sent messenger doves to relate the agreed term to:

1. ✴Enlil, king of heaven and earth, at the Ekur in Nippur (lines 263’-267’);
   

2. ✴‘my mother’, Ninhursag at Kesh, (lines 315’-318’);
   

3. ✴Enki, king of the Abzu, (lines 368’-372’);
   

4. ✴Sin, ‘my king’, the impetuous calf of Enlil, lines 428’-438’); and
   

5. ✴Utu, king of vegetation, at the Ebabbar at Larsa, (lines 488’-490’).
   

This is followed by another ‘divine pedigree’, followed by a list of other military successes:

1. “Eanatum, king of Lagash:
   

2. ✴given strength/power by Enlil;
   

3. ✴fed wholesome milk by Ninhursag;
   

4. ✴given 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 Dumuzi-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. ✴now-unknown locality;
    

15. ✴Susa;
    

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

17. ✴ [several lines missing];
    

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

19. ✴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.)

Sébastien Rey (referenced below, 2024, at p. 255) observed that the final passage on the ‘historical’ side:

1. “... seems  to provide a record of the words inscribed on the border stele that Eanatum erected in Ningirsu’s honour on the Gu’edena frontier.  After introducing the king of Kish, [which might mean Mesalim or Eanatum himself], it reads:
   

2. ‘The name of the monument is not that of a man.  He proclaimed its name:
   

3. ‘Ningirsu, the lord, crown of LUM/ma [= battle name of Eanatum] is the life of the Pirig-Edena Canal’.
   

4. He erected for Ningirsu the monument of the Gu'edena, the beloved field of the god Ningirsu, which Eanatum restored to the god Ningirsi’s control’, [(P431075, lines 615’-629’)]”.
   

Interestingly, Stefano Seminara (referenced below, at. p/162) translated the name of the stele as:

1. ‘Lord Ningirsu: the crown of LUM/ma [= battle name of Eanatum] is the life [= creator and defender] of the Pirig-Edena Canal’.
   

Other inscriptions Relevant to the Border Dispute with Umma

As far as we know, Mesalim, who (as we have seen) established the original border between Lagash and Umma, in not mentioned in the ‘Stele of the Vultures’.  However, he is mentioned in two other inscriptions of Eanatum:

1. ✴in an inscription (RIME 1.9.3.2; P431076) that is found on three boundary stones (at least one of which came from Girsu)
   

2. [When the god E]nl[il] demarcated (the boundary between the gods Ningirsu and Sharara), Mesalim having erected a (boundary) monument there, ... [the leader of Ummaripped out that monument and proceeded to the plain of Lagash. ...  Eanatum, [having driven the enemy from Lagash], did not pass beyond the point where Me-silim had erected the (boundary) monument: he (even) restored [it].”
   

3. ✴a very similar inscription (RIME 1.9.3.3; P431077) found on two spheroid jars (one from Lagash and one from Girsu):
   

4. •referred to ‘the place at which Mesalim had erected a stele’ (at lines 9’-10’); and
   

5. •probably referred to in the following broken passage to the named stele that Eanatum established in this location (see line 14’).
   

Fortunately, we have a more complete account of these events from a royal inscription of a 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 both Mesalim (as mentioned above) and Eanatum: in the latter passage, we read that:

1. “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). 
   

Eanatum’s Other Victories 

See Stefano Seminara (referenced below) and Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 180)

for the relevant geographical locations 

The table above summarises the victories that Eanatum claimed in his surviving royal inscriptions, allocated into geographical regions largely on the basis of the analyses of Stefano Seminara (referenced below) and of Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 180).  Note that:

1. ✴the list from the inscription on the reverse of the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ (RIME 1.9.3.1, discussed above) is inevitably incomplete; and
   

2. ✴the list from the inscription on the so-called  ‘Eanatum Boulder’ (RIME 1.9.3.5.discussed below) is split into three consecutive parts, since, some defeated enemies appear in this inscription more than once. 
   

Mesopotamia and its neighbours in the 3rd millennium BC

Adapted from Sébastien Rey (referenced below, 2019, at p. 31): my additions in red 

The map above illustrates the geographical extent of Eanatum’s claimed victories, which encompasses:

1. ✴the Mesopotamian valley, from Subartu and Mari to Uruk and Ur; and
   

2. ✴the lowland plain east of the Tigris, between what was then the ‘Lower Sea’ and the Zagros mountains.
   

‘Eanatum Boulder’ 

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

Image from the museum website 

The inscription on the so-called ‘Eanatum Boulder’ (RIME 1.9.3.5, P431079), which is known from two examples (one on the boulder from Girsu illustrated above and another from Lagash, which is now in the Iraq Museum) contains the most comprehensive list of Eanatuum’s known victories (see the table above).  More specifically:

lines 34-83 (see column RIME 1.9.3.5a) contains an essentially complete list of Eanatum’s victories in:

Sumer;  and

Elam; and

lines 107-126 (see columns RIME 1.9.3.5, b and c) contains the fullest of the surviving accounts of his victories in the Northwest.

Victories in Sumer

The list of victories in the ‘boulder inscriptions’ begins with Eanatum’s defeats of Elam and Arawa/ Urua (discussed below).  The inscription the records that:

1. “Eanatim defeated Umma and made 20 burial mounds.
   

2. He returned to Ningirsu his beloved field, the Gu'edena.
   

3. He defeated Uruk.
   

4. He defeated Ur.
   

5. He defeated Kiutu” (lines 45-58).
   

Although the location of Kiutu is uncertain. it is usually assumed to have been in Sumer (see, for example, Stefano Seminara (referenced below, at p. 160).  As we have seen, Eanatum’s defeat of Ur is recorded in a now-lacunose passage of the ‘Stele of the Vultures’:

1. “... defeated [GN], and destroyed Arua. 
   

2. ... Kiengi (the land of Sumer). 
   

3. He defeated U[r]. 
   

4. [Lacuna of about 19 lines]”,  (lines 599’-605’).
   

None of our surviving sources provides the context for Eanatum’s victories over any of Uruk, Ur and Kiutu, but it is reasonable to assume that they were all  allies of Umma during its territorial dispute with Lagash.  In other words, it is likely that all of these ‘victories’ in Sumer were purely defensive.

Victories over Elam 

As set out in the table above, Eanatum recorded a victory over ‘Elam’ on 7 occasions in his surviving royal inscriptions:

1. ✴in the inscription (RIME 1.9.3.5, P431079) on the ‘Eanatum Boulder’:
   

2. •he defeated “Elam, the lofty mountain, and heaped up tumuli”, (lines 34-8);
   

3. •“Elam trembled before [him] (and) he drove the Elamite back to his own land”, (lines 107-9); and
   

4. •he defeated “Elam, Subartu and Arawa/ Urua at the Asuhur”, (lines 118-21); and
   

5. ✴in other inscriptions, he defeated/subjugated:
   

6. •“Elam and Subartu, mountainous lands of timber and treasure”, (RIME 1.9.3.1, P431075, lines 588’-590’);
   

7. •“Elam, the lofty mountain and heaped up tumuli”, (RIME 1.9.3.6, P431080, lines 37-41; and RIME 1.9.3.8, P431083, at lines 24-8);
   

8. •“[Elam] and Subartu”, (RIME 1.9.3.7a, P431081), lines 7-8; and
   

9. •the mountain land of Elam (RIME 1.9.3.9, P431084, lines 15-6).
   

In these inscriptions, the locality translated as ‘Elam’ is indicated by the sign ‘NIM’: according to François Dessset (referenced below, at p. 1):

1. “The sign NIM, used with a topographic value [rather than applied to a person or an object] is first attested without any doubt, [in] Eanatum inscriptions.”
   

He expanded on this (at p. 4) as follows:

1. “A new function appeared [for the sign NIM] in the archives of Lagash, first of all in the inscriptions of Eanatum, [and, explicitly, in RIME 1.9.3.9, in which] the sign NIM [was combined] with a territory, KUR (country / mountain) [in the phrase] KUR NIMki (the mountain land of Elam). ... NIM seemed to be linked to a topographical reality, [created by the] Mesopotamians, ... by qualifying [a previously unnamed KUR (country/ mountain)] with a sign traditionally associated with persons.  The territory thus defined probably corresponded to a general concept: the eastern highlands.”
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2018) similarly observed that:

1. “As employed in 3rd millennium sources, the designation [NIM = Elam] generally excludes Khuzestan ... where the [lowland] cities of Susa, Arawa (Uru’a), Uru’az, AdamDUN, Awan and Mishime (Pashime) were located. However, already in the Early Dynastic IIIb sources from Lagash, Elam  is occasionally used as a broad description of the entire eastern lank of southern [Mesopotamia].  Since [this] period, if not earlier, Elam also served as a general and convenient label for the dwellers of the Iranian highlands, meaning ‘highlander’ or the like.”
   

Piotr Steinlkeller (referenced below, 2018, at p. 180) interpreted the surviving evidence for Eanatum’s victories in this region as follows: 

“... [E-anatum conducted] military operations against Susa and a number of other cities located in Khuzestan, among them: Arawa/ Uru’a; Uru’az; and Pashime/ Mishime.  Since [he] claims to have sacked and destroyed the latter cities, it appears certain that he actually campaigned in the Susiana.  In the same inscriptions, [he] also repeatedly boasts of having defeated ‘the land of Elam’ and to have subjugated it ... to the god Ningirsu”.

Apparently, this engagement was part of a larger war, which was

waged against the city- state of Lagash by a coalition consisting of Akshak, Kish, Mari,

Elam, Shubur and Arawa (Frayne 2008: 145–152, E-anatum 5 and 6). This coalition

invaded Lagash’s territory, with one of the battles, specifically involving Elam, Shubur

and Arawa, having been fought at a Lagash location called Asuhur. The defensive

nature of this engagement is revealed by E-anatum’s own testimony, according to

which “he sent the Elamite back to his land” (Frayne 2008: 145–149, E-anatum 5 vi

8).11  It is possible that this conlict with Elam was causally connected with the aforementioned

campaign in Khuzestan, with the latter event having been a consequence

of E-anatum’s successful repulsion of the foreign armies from the city- state of Lagash.

Eanatum’s defeats of Elam and Arawa/ Urua

Urua, and he killed its ruler;

Mishime, [which] he destroyed; and

Arua, [which] he obliterated.

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 [temple] of Ningirsu to Akshak, which he destroyed”, (RIME 1.9.3.5, P431079, lines 35-83).

The second list began with the information (known from no other source) that:

“Because Inanna so loved Eanatum, ... [she] gave him the nam-lugal (kingship) of Kish in addition to the nam-ensi2 (rulership) of Lagash”, (lines 98-107).

It is then recorded that:

“Elam trembled before Eanatum; he drove the Elamite back to his own land.

Kish trembled before Eanatum.

He drove the king of Akshak back to his own land”, (lines 107-112).

The third list immediately followed:

“For Ningirsu: Eanatum, ensi of Lagash, who subjugates kur-kur (the foreign lands) for Ningirsu, defeated:

Elam, Subartu and Urua at the Asuhur [canal]; and

Kish, Akshak and Mari at the Antasura [temple] of Ningirsu”, (lines 113-126).

Eanatum’s Victories

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. 
   

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”.

This figure takes its name from an Akkadian legend in which Ningirsu killed the Anzu bird.   However, since this legend is known from only two texts from Susa that date to the Old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000 BC), we cannot simply assume that the this text corresponds directly to the oral tradition that must have been reflected in the iconography some 5-7 centuries earlier.  For example, Chikako Watanabe (referenced below, at p. 32) has recently analysed the evolution of the iconography of the lion-headed eagle in early Mesopotamia:

“The lion-headed eagle, which comprises a bird of prey with the head of a lion, appears in the earliest pictorial representations shown in seal impressions which date back to the Uruk period.  In this early period, the creature is represented in profile flying over captured enemies with wings stretched upright and head lowered; ... During the Early Dynastic period the lion-headed eagle was depicted in frontal view with wings and legs spread wide to stand over a pair of animals, such as

ibexes;

stags; or

lions.

[Frans Wiggermann (referenced below, at pp. 161-2)] identified the lion-headed eagle as Anzu and, when the creature is combined with the pairs of animals, they were thought to be associated with:

the god Enki in the case of the ibex [source ??]’

the goddess Ninhursag, in the case of the stag [see the relief BM 114308 at the Britiosh Museum, from the Temple of Ninhursag at Ur]; and

the god Ningirsu in the case of the lion.

The creature is also depicted on the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ together with a pair of lions’ heads, which are represented below the lion-headed eagle, on top of a net.  The net contains naked enemies of Girsu; a large male figure grasps the tail feathers of the lion-headed eagle.

She also noted (at p.34) that:

“From the beginning of the 2nd millennium, the storm

god is shown more closely associated with another

of his animal attributes, the bull. The lion dragon

represents Anzû independently, and was at first

depicted as a faithful divine servant, as described in

the epic of Lugalbanda, in which Anzû makes the clouds

dense and roars at the rising sun; the creature blocks

enemy forces at the command of Enlil.30  In Gudea

Cylinder A, Anzû is still described as a divine emblem

in close association with the god Ningirsu,31  who is a

local form of the divine hero Ninurta in the City State

of Lagash. However, some time during the Ur III period,

the role of Anzû changed, and the creature is suddenly

counted among the slain enemies of the god Ninurta

En-anatum I 

Eanatum was succeeded at Lagash by his brother, En-anatum I

Macehead Anzu BM 23287 

Enmetena 

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

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

En-anatum I was followed (probably quite quickly) by his sonEnmetena (Eanatum’s nephew).  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)