Excavation at Tell Ubaid (1919 and 1923-4)

Plan of the mud brick platform and walls of the temple dedicated to Ninhursag at Tell Ubaid 

From Hall and Woolley (referenced below, detail of Plate II)  

Harry Hall, an archeologist working in Mesopotamia for the British Museum, recorded (in Hall and Woolley, referenced below, at p. 5) that: 

1. “ While exploring the desert near Ur one Sunday at the beginning of April [1919], I discovered a new prehistoric and early Sumerian site ... about 4 miles due west of Ur.   This is a small tell, about 30 ft. high and 150 ft. long, called locally ‘Tell al-'Ubaid’.”
   

Although Hall was only able to devote a few weeks to the excavation of this mound, he discovered a number of important objects that had clearly belonged to a Sumerian temple.  The mound was then left untouched until Leonard Woolley returned to it as the head of a joint expedition of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania in 1923-4.  As he recorded (in Hall and Woolley, referenced below, at pp. 59-60), by the end of his work:

1. “The [roughly rectangular] plan of the building had been established so far as the state of its ruins permit.  ... [In particular], ...  the south-east side had amply repaid us:
   

2. ✴not only had we got from it (as Dr. Hall had from its eastern corner) a collection of objects of art unrivalled from any early Babylonian site; but
   

3. ✴amongst these [objects] was the foundation-tablet of the temple, which fixed the date and authorship of the building and brought into Mesopotamian history a period which, heretofore, had been generally regarded as mythical.” 
   

The quotes above are from the joint report of these successive campaigns, and the crucial inscription to which Woolley referred (which is discussed in context below) reads as follows: 

1. “For the goddess Ninhursag: A’anepada, king of Ur, son of Mesanepada, king of Ur, for the goddess Ninhursag, he built (her) temple”, (RIME 1:13:6:3; CDLI, P431208).  
   

Woolley’s Reconstruction of the Temple 

Leonard Woolley’s theoretical reconstruction 0f the putative facade of the temple 

From Harry Hall and Leonard Woolley (referenced below, Plate XXXVIII)  

As Leonard Woolley pointed out (in Hall and Woolley, referenced below, at p. 105), although the objects found on the site of the temple were of great significance:

1. “... it must be emphasised that the ground-plan that we possess is that of the substructure only; of the temple that stood upon it there is not a single brick left in situ: nothing remains to fix even its outline, and any idea that we may form of its original appearance must needs be largely theoretical.”
   

Thus, the famous illustration above is the product of a theoretical construction, based on:

1. ✴the known (roughly rectangular) plan of what the excavators dubbed the ‘second period’ temple (see below) and the existence of stone stairs on its southern side; and
   

2. ✴the fact that the great majority of objects recovered from the temple were found in front of this wall (on one or other side of the stairs), which led to the reasonable conjecture that:
   

3. •this wall was the facade of the temple; and
   

4. •the stairs led up to its main entrance. 
   

Ömür Harmanşah (referenced below, at p. 383) argued that:

1. “The building, [as Woolley reconstructed it], presents us [with] a rich assemblage of architectural technologies of cladding and decoration at the time, [exemplified by]: 
   

2. ✴two beautifully constructed columns that flanked the entrance, [which] were built from palm logs covered with a coating of bitumen and inlaid with mother of pearl, pink limestone and black shal;
   

3. ✴the copper alloy high relief figure of the famous lion-headed [Anzu] bird clasping two stags [that] topped the entrance to the temple; and
   

4. ✴the facade, [which] was decorated with a row of copper bulls, shell-inlaid narrative friezes, and elaborate multi-coloured clay nails. 
   

5. This iridescent and luminous quality of the materials used on the building (mother of pearl, shell, copper alloy, black shale, limestone, among other materials) perhaps speaks to the notion of ‘me’, ... [which he defined as] divine power made visible through the tantalising exotic materials of faraway lands ...”. 
   

Archeological  History

According to Leonard Woolley (in Hall and Woolley, referenced below, at p 61):

1. “The ruins of the temple mound belonged to three distinct periods.  The lowest down and the earliest of these was that identified by the foundation tablet [of A’anepada].”
   

In other words, Woolley argued that A’anepada’s temple belonged to a ‘first period’, which had ended when it had been: 

1. “... violently destroyed, [as] was evident from the condition of the ruins:
   

2. ✴the objects found lowest down on the floor level at the foot of the platform were just those which could have been removed and flung there (and could not have fallen there of themselves); and
   

3. ✴on the top of these [objects] lay whole sections of the actual walls of the shrine, undermined and overthrown before the delicate ornament attached to the wall face had had time to fall off or decay. 
   

4. It was also evident that the ruins had been long neglected and exposed to the weather ...”
   

He also pointed out that the discovery of bricks on the site carrying inscriptions of the Ur III king Shulgi (his ‘King Dungi’) apparently marked the start of the final ‘third period’ of the temple’s history.   He therefore argued (at p. 64) that there had been three successive temples on this site:

1. ✴the temple of A’anepada, which suffered a violent destruction (perhaps at the hands of  Eanatum, ensi of Lagash - see p. 64);
   

2. ✴a second temple, which was built after a significant interval (as evidenced by the state of the ruins of its predecessor) and remained in use until some point before the Ur III period (when it was possibly destroyed by Sargon of Akkad - see p. 65); and
   

3. ✴a third temple, which was built by Shulgi, whom Woolley designated (at p. 65) the ‘last man’ to build at [Tell Ubaid]’.
   

I will return to the likely circumstances in which A’anepada’s temple was destroyed below.  First, however, we should look at the potential evidence from the object that survived its destruction.

Surviving Objects from the ‘First Period’ Temple  

Plan of the excavated area in front of the putative southern facade 

Detail from Harry Hall and Leonard Woolley (referenced below, Plate II) 

Inscriptions from the Site 

As noted above, the most informative (and thus the most important) inscription found on the site (RIME 1:13:6:3; CDLI, P431208) is on a stone foundation tablet that is now in the British Museum (BM 116982), which records that: 

1. “For the goddess Ninhursag: A’anepada, king of Ur, son of Mesanepada, king of Ur, for the goddess Ninhursag, he built (her) temple”.  
   

The find spot is marked (as number 40) on the plan above.  Three other inscriptions of A’anepada were found nearby:

1. ✴the inscription (RIME 1:13:6:1; CDLI, P431206), on a hollow gold bead that was found closer to the facade (at location number 39) reads simply: 
   

2. “A’anepada, king of Ur”: and
   

3. ✴two fragmentary inscriptions (RIME 1.13.06.04; CDLI, P431209; and RIME 1.13.06.05; CDLI, P431210) on bowl fragments (from locations 41-2), each of which probably recorded the dedication to Ninhursag (by Inimzi and Nanna-ursag) for the life of A’anepada, the builder of the temple.    
   

Copper Lions’ Heads

Three lions’ heads from the Ninhursag temple at Tell Ubaid 

Now in the British Museum (BM 114315, 117918 and 114312 respectively); images from the museum website  

Harry Hall (in Hall and Woolley, referenced below, at p. 18) recorded that, beneath: 

1. “... a mass of twisted, crushed and contorted copper [objects] ... and luckily preserved by it from great damage, were found four copper heads, [one of which no longer survives] and two foreparts of life-size lions, each head filled with bitumen, ... so that the [copper] formed a mask ... Each of these heads had large eyes ... [and] was also furnished with teeth of white shell ... In the mouth of each was a red jasper tongue (missing in one case).  The lion was thus represented grinning ferociously, with wide open eyes, ...” 
   

The find spots of these heads are marked (as P-S) on the plan above.  Hall (as above) argued that: 

1. “... it  is evident that these four lions performed some architectural function, jutting forth from the wall from which they had fallen.  They must have fallen at one blow, as they were found in a line, side by side.” 
   

These finds were the basis for the presence of the two lions ‘guarding’ the putative main entrance to the temple in Woolley’s reconstruction.    

Left: Two limestone lions’ heads  from Ur-Nanshe’s Ningirsu temple at Girsu,

both now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 231 and AO 233); images from the museum website  

Right: Sketches of a pair of identical lions’ heads from Ur-Nanshe’s Ningirsu temple at Girsu, attributed to Akurgal: 

from André Parrot (referenced below, Figure 21): 

the originals are now in the archeological museum of Istanbul (ESH 46 and Esh 48)  

Christina Tsouparopoulou (referenced below, at p. 204-6) pointed out that the three lions’ heads from Tell Ubaid are stylistically similar to a number from Girsu (the most important of which are illustrated above), albeit that the Girsu lions are:

1. ✴considerably smaller (around 10 cm in height, while those from Tell Ubaid roughly life-sized); and
   

2. ✴made of limestone or gypsum rather than copper on bitumen. 
   

Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at pp. 279-81) recorded that these heads were found together at the ‘Ur-Nanshe level’ in the SE side of the Ningirsu temple at Girsu and that they fall into two groups:

1. ✴the two that are now in the Musée du Louvre, which are made of limestone: 
   

2. •AO 231; and
   

3. •AO 233, which is inscribed with the name of Ur-Nanshe (RIME 1.9.1.24b; CDLI, P431059);
   

4. are of almost exactly the same size and might have been made as a pair (AO 231 male and AO 233 female); and  
   

5. ✴the two (a matching pair) that are now in the archeological museum of Istanbul, which are very similar to AO 231, although they are made of gypsum:
   

6. ✴ESH 456, which carries what is now a fragmentary inscription of Ur-Nanshe (RIME 1.9.1.25; CDLI, P431060); and 
   

7. ✴ESH 458, which carries an inscription (RIME 1.9.2.2a; CDLI, P432072) that Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 122) attributed to Ur-Nanshe’s son, Akurgal. 
   

Interestingly, Rey pointed out (at p.283) that all of these lions were depicted with protruding tongues (albeit that he acknowledged (at p. 279) that the significance of this unusual characteristic is unclear).   As to the function of these objects, Rey argued (at p. 279) that their good physical condition and the location of their burial indicates that they belonged to a ‘coherent assembly’ of sacred objects that had been displayed in Ur-Nanshe’s temple and then give ritual burial when this temple had been deconsecrated.   He also suggested  (at p. 283) that, given their small size and the fact that at least some of them were inscribed, they may well have been:  

1. “... ornamental elements that were fixed to pieces of temple furniture ... Indeed, they could have been designed to adorn a range of sacred appurtenances inside the sanctum sanctorum. [of Ur-Nanshe’s temple],” 
   

2. 

               

   

   
   

Two views of a lion’s head from Tell V at Girsu that carries an inscription (RIME 1.9.2.1: CDLI, P431071); 

now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 3295) , images from the museum website  

The basic design of the lions’ heads from the Ur-Nanshe temple was also later used in other contexts at Girsu: for example, Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 122) recorded that an alabaster lion’s head from Tell V (‘Tell des Tablettes’) there (which was comparable in height but cylindrical, measuring some 16 cm from front to back) carried the following inscription:

1. “For the god Ningirsu: Akurgal, ensi of Lagash, son of Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash, built the Antasur”,  (RIME 1.9.2.1: CDLI, P431071). 
   

This brings us to the question as to whether the stylistic similarities between the lions’ heads from:

1. ✴A’anepada’s Ninghursag temple Tell Ubaid on the one hand;  and
   

2. ✴Ur-Nanshe’s Ningirsu temple Girsu on the other;
   

are close enough to suggest that they belonged to a single stylistic culture: after all, the difference in size and material between them might simply reflect that the fact that they had different functions.  In my opinion, the fact that they all share the unusual ‘protruding tongue’ motif strongly suggests that this was the case (as discussed further below).   

Copper Relief  

Copper relief of  the lower part of an eagle grasping two stags in the location of its discovery ( location Z)  

From  Hall and Woolley (referenced below, Plate V, image 8)

Copper relief illustrated above, after its restoration/reconstruction 

Exhibited in the British Museum (BM 114308); image from Wikimedia  

Drawing of the relief on a silver vase of Enmetena, ensi of Lagash, from the temple of Ningirsu at Girsu  

The vase is now in the Musée du Louvre (exhibit AO 2674) and this sketch from the website of ‘Old European Culture’ 

As Harry Hall (in Hall and Woolley, referenced below, at p. 22-3) remembered, when packing had already  begun at the end of his campaign at Tell Ubaid: 

1. “... the most remarkable object of all was discovered.  This is a great relief of copper within a copper frame, measuring ... 2·375 x 1·07  meters, on a wood backing.  It represents the lion-headed eagle,  ... the mythical bird of the god Ningirsu, holding two stags by their tails.”
   

Actually, as is evident in the photograph reproduced above, although enough of the stags survived to ensure their accurate reconstruction, only the lower part of the putative ‘lion-headed eagle’ survived in a reasonable state.  As he recorded (at p. ix, in the note on Plate VI): 

1. “The body, wings and tail of the bird were in less good preservation when found, and suffered on the voyage [to London]; they have been reconstituted from the original material with slight necessary restoration here and there. The completely new portions [included] the head of [the bird], which had entirely disappeared ... [and] has been restored in Sumerian style, based on the treatment of the leopard heads found at al-'Ubaid. ... The clumsy treatment of the legs and talons of [the bird] is apparently original.” 
   

As Harry Hall explained (at p. 22-3), his assumption that this bird had been a lion-headed eagle (which he characterised as the ‘mythical bird of the god Ningirsu’, the city god of Lagash) was based on depictions of ‘antithetical groups’ involving this mythical bird grasping a pair of four-legged animals, which he considered to be:

1. “.... well known in Sumerian art.  Good examples of it [from Girsu] may be seen on:
   

2. ✴two tablets of [Ur-Nanshe’s] time;
   

3. ✴the silver vase of Entemena, [Ur-Nanshe’s great grandson - see the sketch above];  and
   

4. ✴a mace-head of Enannatum [Ur-Nanshe’s grandson] in the British Museum (No. 23287).
   

5. The lion-eagle occurs alone on the ‘Stele of the Vultures’ [of Eanatum, Ur-Nanshe’s grandson, the brother of Enannatum. ... The mythical bird] sometimes holds lions, sometimes ibexes, sometimes stags in his talons.  In the case of our relief stags have been chosen.”
   

The restoration of this bird as a lion-headed eagle (which both Hall and Wooley tend to refer to as the Im-dugud, but which is now more usually dubbed the Anzu or Anzu bird) is (as far as I know, universally accepted.

Finally, Harry Hall recorded (at p. 24) that:

1. “ When found, the group stood within a foot of the ziggurrat-wall [location Z on the plan above],  parallel to [the wall] and on the same level.  Whether this was its original position or not, or whether it was originally a decoration of the wall, placed on a bracket or corbels a few feet above the ground, and had slipped down to the position in which it was found, it is difficult to say.  Mr. Woolley considers that it was probably placed above the doorway of the building, at the head of the ramp.”
   

Leonard Woolley himself observed (at p. 116) that, when found, the copper relief:

1. “... stood on edge, right way up, facing outwards and almost vertical, leaning back slightly towards the wall but separated from it by some 20 cm, the left hand end of it only some [60 cm] from the side of the ramp;  it rested on the mixed rubble, and the brickwork masses must have fallen later than it, though owing to its position close to the wall face they did not exactly cover it.  The [four lion’s heads discussed above] lay in front of it, roughly in a row, facing outwards.  If  the enemy who destroyed the temple first pulled out and toppled ... the two copper columns supporting the pent-house roof [at the top of the ramp], this would have collapsed on to  the top of the ramp and, in order to clear the ground for their further work, they would naturally have tumbled its loosened timbers to this side and that off the ramp, where in fact we found them.   If  the mosaic columns were next wrenched from their places ... and the one on the right of the door came away first, then the [copper relief] could very easily have slipped and fallen into just the spot where Dr. Hall discovered it, falling sideways and so coming to ground vertically; the wooden frame would be leaning against the wall ...  The [four] lions must have been thrown down one by one, and their rough alignment in the rubbish is perhaps accidental ...”
   

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2019a, at p. 996) pointed out, this image belongs to a group: 

1. “... of Pre-Sargonic images in which deer (or, alternatively, gazelles and ibexes) are juxtaposed with the lion-headed eagle, who was the alter-ego of Ningirsu/Ninurta.  Since [Ningirsu/ Ninurta] counted as Ninhursag’s son, one may be confident that, in these representations, the deer/gazelles/ibexes signify the goddess.  ... Since [the relief above] was a centrepiece of Ninhursag’s own temple [at Tell Ubaid], its pairing of [the Anzu bird] with the stags  ... (rather than with the usual lions, which reference Ningirsu/Ninurta’s martial aspect) must be intentional, with the stags standing for the goddess.” 
   

In fact, we cannot assume that, at the time of the installation of this relief, Ninhursag was regarded as the mother of Ningirsu: as Steinkeller himself noted (at p. 988), our earliest source for this relationship is from the Sumerian literary tradition of the Old Babylonian period, when Ningirsu/ Ninurta was indeed characterised a son of Enlil and Ninhursag.  However:

1. ✴there is no reason to doubt that the Anzu bird was regarded as a representation of Ningirsu at this time (see below); and
   

2. ✴it remains likely that the stags that this ‘alter-ego’ of Ningirsu grasps do indeed represent either Ninhursag herself or (more probably) her temple at Tell Ubaid. 
   

Example of This Iconography from Girsu

Carved pierced plaque of Ur-Nanshe (RIME 1.9.1.26; CDLI, P431061), now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2783)   

Image from museum website 

Interestingly, the relief on the plaque illustrated above, which carries a royal inscription of Ur-Nanshe,  depicts the Anzu bird in the same way, but, in this case, it is grasping the ‘usual’ lions.  As Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 112) observed, this is one of:

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; CDLI, P431061) on this example reads:

1. “For Ningirsu: Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash, son of Gunidu, built the E-Tirash [a shrine dedicated to Ningirsu at the now-unknown Tirash]”. 
   

Frayne (as above) argued that:

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

As we have seen above, Piotr Steinkeller characterised the Anzu bird as the ‘alter-ego’ of Ningirsu, the city god of Lagash/Girsu (whose name means ‘Lord of Girsu’).  Sébastien Rey (referenced below):

1. ✴similarly referred to the Anzu Bird as the ‘chief emblem’ and the ‘avatar’ of Ningirsu (see p. 176); and
   

2. ✴observed (at p. 8) that:
   

3. “... Ningirsu is very often pictured with an [Anzu bird], or even symbolised by an image of this supernatural creature, who appears as a representative aspect of his divinity.  Invoking the myth that unites the god and the fabulous bird, [its] outstretched wings and irresistible talons, which are capable of seizing the fiercest predators, act in large part as a metaphor for the god’s taming of the Mesopotamian wilderness.” 
   

Again, I think that it is probably misleading to interpret this relief in the light of much later literary traditions: in this case, the myth that united Ningirsu with the Anzu bird dates to the Old Babylonian period (see, for example Stephanie Dalley (referenced below, at p. 203 and pp. 222-7).  It was presumably inspired (at least in part) by images and perhaps local legends from Lagash/Girsu:

1. ✴the earliest surviving image of the lion-headed eagle is on a mace-head that King Mesalim of Kish (the overlord of Lagash at some time before the reign of Ur-Nanshe) dedicated to Ningirsu at his ‘original’ temple at Girsu, in which the Anzu bird is associated with a frieze of six lions; and
   

2. ✴the relief under discussion here is the first of a series of objects associated with later independent rulers of Lagash that feature the iconography of the upright Anzu bird grasping a pair of lions.
   

I think that Ur-Nanshe’s plaques at Girsu celebrated Ningirsu’s patronage of and support for Ur-Nanshe and his authority over Ur-Nanshe’s new city-state of Lagash, Girsu and Nigin (symbolised by the pair of lions).  

Nicolò Marchetti (referenced below, at p. 66) observed that:

1. “At the foot of [the staircase that led up to the facade] were an altar and a floor of pressed crushed limestone.  Numerous objects were found piled at the sides of [the] staircase, near the temple.  ... The similarities between [these objects and] the finds from Phase 5 of the temple of Ningirsu on Tell K at Girsu are remarkable, especially since all of the stylistic and epigraphic data concords in indicating that the two complexes were roughly contemporary, [with] the one at [Ubaid] probably running parallel also to Phase 6 at [Girsu].”
   

It is clear from Marchetti’s description (at pp. 43-4) of the phases of the construction at Girsu, as he understood them, that he was broadly synchronising Ur-Nanshe’s temple of Ningirsu at Girsu with A’anepada’s temple of Ninhursag at Tell Ubaid. 

1. The oldest temple was built by the second king of the First Dynasty of Ur and may be assumed to have existed throughout that dynasty ... Its violent destruction, of which we have ample proof, can hardly have taken place during the time of [that] dynasty which [A’anepada’s [grandfather had] established; it is the work of an enemy who emphasises his triumph by overthrowing the shrines of the vanquished gods ...: [Cyril Gadd (in Hall and Woolley, referenced below, at p. 138)] argues that the destruction was, in all probability, due to Eanatum of Lagash.”
   

Cyril Gadd (in Hall and Woolley, referenced below, at p 138) argued that: 

1. “The condition of the ruins of the first temple ... proves that it was a violent destruction that put an end to the glories of A’anepada's work.  Down to and including the reign of Sargon of Akkad, two destructions of Ur are recorded by the inscriptions of the respective conquerors, Eanatum of Lagash and Sargon himself.  The latter is not in question as a possible destroyer of the first temple [on chronological grounds] ...  On the other hand, the age of Eanatum has been strongly suggested by the foregoing material investigation of the inscriptions, no less than by the archaeological features of the monuments which were found with them.”
   

Nicolò Marchetti (referenced below, at p. 66) observed that:

1. “At the foot of [the staircase that led up to the facade] were an altar and a a floor of pressed crushed limestone.  Numerous objects were found piled at the sides of [this] staircase, near the temple.  ..The similarities between [these objects and] the finds from Phase 5 of the temple of Ningirsu on Tell K at Girsu are remarkable, especially since all of the stylistic and epigraphic data concords in indicating that the two complexes were roughly contemporary, [with] the one at [Ubaid] probably running parallel also to Phase 6 at [Girsu].”
   

It is clear from Marchetti’s description (at pp. 43-4) of the phases of the construction at Girsu, as he understood them, that he was broadly synchronising Ur-Nanshe’s temple of Ningirsu at Girsu with A’anepada’s temple of Ninhursag at Tell Ubaid. 

Christina Tsouparopoulou (referenced below, at pp. 204-6) drew attention to the resemblance between:  

1. ✴seven mostly limestone lion heads that had probably come from Ur-Nanshe’s Ningirsu temple at Tell K, Girsu, some of which (including AO 233, illustrated above) carry inscriptions of Ur-Nanshe; and
   

2. ✴the three lion heads from the Ninhursag temple at Tell Ubaid (BM 114315, 117918 and 114312, illustrated above), albeit  that these are about twice the size of those from Girsu and cast in bronze (which suggests that the two groups of objects had different functions.  
   

The comparison between AO 233 from Girsu and BM 114315 from Tell Ubaid is striking; each of these lions is depicted with a protruding tongue.  This arguably reinforces the hypothesis of Nicolò Marchetti (above) that the two temples were broadly contemporary. 

Likely Date of the Reign of A’anepada: Analysis and Conclusions  

The similarities between:

1. ✴objects discovered at Ur-Nanshe’s new Ningirsu temple at Girsu; and
   

2. ✴those discovered on the site of  A’anepada’s Ninhursag temple at Tell Ubaid;
   

could have been the result of cultural interaction between two broadly contemporary rulers, in which case (given the importance of the temple at Girsu), it would be reasonable to assume that A’anepada had followed Ur-Nanshe’s lead when ‘furnishing’ his temple at Tell Ubaid.  However, given:

1. ✴the strong tradition of the ‘Anzu-bird iconography’ at Girsu/Lagash; and
   

2. ✴its use there as an emblem of Ningirsu, the Lord of Girsu;
   

I find it hard to believe that A’anepada commissioned the relief of this bird grasping a pair of stags for his ‘new’ temple at Tell Ubaid.  In other words, it is arguably more likely Ur-Nanshe or a later ruler of Lagash gained control of A’anepada’s temple, an event that was commemorated in the iconography of the relief on its facade. 

We might be able to take this idea further by considering the possibility (suggested by Petr Charvat - see above) that Ur was ‘reduced to ashes by enemy action’ after the reign of Mesanepada, as evidenced by an inscription (RIME 1.9.1.6b; CDLI, P431040) on two sides of a broken slab from Lagash.  Francesco Pomponio (referenced below):

1. ✴observed that this slab had probably served as a door socket before it was re-used for ‘a scribal exercise on stone’ (see p. 7); and
   

2. ✴established that it carried copies of two separate inscriptions: as he observed (at p. 10):
   

3. •the text on the so-called ‘peace side’ (lines 1-61) is:
   

4. “... a copy of a plaque of Ur-Nanshe, [the first independent king of Lagash as far as we know], similar to many inscriptions of this king”; but
   

5. •the text on the ‘war side’ (lines 62-105): 
   

6. “... 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.”
   

It is this ‘war side’ text that is of interest for our present analysis.  Pomponio pointed out (at pp. 8-9) that, if we take only the internal evidence from this inscription (in which Ur-Nanshe is not actually mentioned), then all we can sat is that:

1. ✴it describes a war that involved three armies led (respectively) by men named as:
   

2. •the man of Lagash;
   

3. •the man of Ur; and
   

4. •the man of Umma; and
   

5. ✴the fate of Lagash is unspecified but the armies from Ur and Umma were defeated in turn. 
   

It is usually assumed that Lagash defeated Ur and then Umma.  However, as Pomponio argued (at p. 11) that, if this were the case, then it is difficult to find:

1. “An explanation of the use  of the [title ‘man of Lagash’] by a [victorious] king of Lagash ... But the problem [disappears] if we assume that the ‘war side’ is not the work of Ur-Nanshe, or even of another [ruler] of Lagash.” 
   

However, it seems to me that this problem can also be solved if we consider that Ur-Nanshe could well have been involved in the defeat of ‘the man of Lagash’ before he became king of that city: after all, as Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2019b, 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.” 
   

Perhaps his rise to power was the direct result of the part he played in the defeat of the man of Lagash, the man of Ur and the man of Umma suggested by RIME 1.9.1.6b.  If so, it is also at least possible that this victory also brought him control (however temporary) of the Ninhursag temple that A’anepada had built or rebuilt at Tell Ubaid. 

I accept that:

1. ✴it is most unlikely that the famously unwarlike Ur-Nanshe played the leading role in this putative victory; and
   

2. ✴there is no surviving evidence that he ever exercised any control over either Ur or Umma. 
   

However, as Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at pp. 279-81) observed:

1. ✴Enmetana (Ur-Nanshe’s grandson) ritually buried a pair of copper bull’s heads that came from Ur-Nanshe’s  temple of Ningirsu at Girsu; and 
   

2. ✴one of them carries an inscription on its forehead that reveals that it had been dedicated to Ningirsu by:
   

3. “Lugalsi, gala-mah (the chief lamentation-priest) of Uruk”, (see Gianni Marchesi, referenced below, 2011, note 244, at  p. 124 for the translation).
   

Perhaps Ur-Nanshe played a significant part in a successful Uruk-led campaign against Lagash, Ur and Umma, after which he was able to claim the kingship of Lagash and also acquire territory at Tell Ubaid (although control over Ur itself would presumably have fallen to Uruk).  If so, then we could reasonably assume that this campaign was fought during the reign of A’anepada and probably marked the end to the dynasty that had been founded by his grandfather Meskalmadu. 

This brings us back to the likely date of A’anepada’s reign, which arguably was broadly contemporary  with that of Ur-Nanshe.  Recently, Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at pp. 22-3) presented an analysis of the:

1. “... evidence available to us in that respect is the orthography/paleography of Ur-Nanshe’s texts as  compared with those of his successors at Lagash and that of the Fara [texts].  ... This evidence forces us to conclude that the reign of Ur-Nanshe was contemporaneous with the Fara [texts].  Even if this reign was slightly later than those materials (a possibility that cannot be excluded), it still firmly belonged to the ED IIIa period, as it is usually defined by the archaeologists and philologists alike.”