Known members of the so-called Kiengi League 

Adapted from Jasmina Osterman (referenced below, Map 1, at p. 58): my additions in bold (red, black and blue)

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013,  at p. 150) pointed out, a group of administrative documents from Shuruppak (modern Fara) that date to the ED IIIa [= Fara] period: 

1. “... attest to the existence at that time of some form or organised political and military co-operation between the city states of Uruk/Kulaba, Lagash, Adab, Umma, Nippur, and Shuruppak, which may even have taken the form of a league.”
   

He added (at note 81) that the possibility that this ‘league was a military alliance is suggested by a particular group of these sources and, in a more recent paper (referenced below, 2024, Appendix I, at pp. 15-19) he transliterated and translated the eight ‘Fara texts’ that belong to this group and used these as the basis for a detailed analysis on the characteristics of what I refer to in this page as the ‘Kiengi League’.  In what follows, all references to Steinkeller’s work relate to this 2024 paper unless otherwise stated. 

Characteristics of the Kiengi League

Two of the texts in Steinkeller’s Appendix I are of central importance for this analysis.  He translated them (as his Text 1 and Text 2) as follows:

1. ✴WF 92 (P011049):
   

2. •182 gurush (men) of Uruk
   

3. •192 (men) of Adab
   

4. •94 (men) of Nippur
   

5. •60 (men) of Lagash
   

6. •56 (men) of Shuruppak 86 (men) of Umma
   

7. •The ones stationed (here): they came (from) Kiengi (=Sumer)
   

8. •Entrusted (to the military command): a total of 670 men, the ones stationed (here)
   

9. ✴WF 94 (P011051:
   

10. •140 gurush (men), lu2-tush (residents) of Uruk
    

11. •215 (men, residents of) Adab
    

12. •74 (men, residents) of Nippur
    

13. •110 (men, residents of) Lagash
    

14. •66 (men, residents of) Shuruppak
    

15. •128 (men, residents of) Umma
    

16. •A total of 650 [actually 733] men, residents of Kiengi: note that the reason for the arithmetic discrepancy is unclear.
    

As he argued (at p. 4):

1. “All these individuals, who without any doubt were soldiers, [were] apparently brought to Shuruppak and entrusted there to some military agency.”
   

In other words, these texts arguably indicate that:

1. ✴at some time in the ED IIIa period, six city states of Kiengi (Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma) belonged to a military alliance; and
   

2. ✴on at least two occasion, they all dispatched men to Shuruppak, where they seem to have been placed under a single overall commander.  
   

Two other texts from this group are of also of importance for the present analysis:

1. ✴WF 101 (P011059: Steinkeller’s Text 3):
   

2. •670 men who went to battle, they ate food
   

3. •1,612 men (stationed) ki-unkin (= in the camp), they ate food (and) anointed themselves with oil. 
   

4. ✴WF 93 (P011050: Steinkeller’s Text 4):
   

5. •1,532 men, 39 junior masons, 41 female workers;
   

6. •a total of 1612 people who ate food 47 men who went to Kish
   

He argued (at p. 4) that:

1. ✴the 670 men from Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma in WF 92  were probably the same 670 men who ‘went into battle’ in WF 101 (proving, if proof were needed, that they were clearly soldiers); and
   

2. ✴the 1612 men who apparently stayed in the camp in WF 101 ‘represented reserve or support forces’, as did the 1612 people who ate food in WF 93. 
   

He therefore suggested that, since:

1. ✴WF 101 and WF 93 seem to parallel each other very closely; and
   

2. ✴WF 93 names 47 men who went to Kish;
   

it is reasonable to conclude that the destination of the 670 warriors listed in WF 101 (and also in WF 92) was also the city of Kish. 

This analysis would probably be accepted by most scholars.  However, nothing in these texts allows us to determine:

1. ✴whether Kish:
   

2. •exercised overall command of the Kiengi League; or
   

3. •its target;
   

4. ✴if Kish was the target of the Kiengi League, then which city exercised its overall command.
   

Conventional View on the Leader of the Alliance and its Target 

The ‘conventional view’ here was articulated (for example) by Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, at pp. 62-3):

1. “Some early [Mesopotamian] rulers are dated to the Fara period on palaeographic grounds, most importantly Mesalim of Kish, ...  [Also in  this period], Fara/Shuruppak was a member of a supra-regional organisation ...
   

2. ✴This league may have been subject to the authority of Kish, where probably Mesalim or one of his predecessors held power. ... Besides economic interest, the organisation also had a defensive function: administrative texts attest that contingents of some hundred men, levied by the members of the organisation, were rallied at Fara/Shuruppuk in order to confront an enemy that is, unfortunately, never named. 
   

3. ✴Since the city of Ur was not a member of the city league and was practically never mentioned in the Fara documents, it may be identified as one adversary of the  ... league led by Kish.  The competition between Ur and the city league may constitute the political background for the outstanding feature of the Royal Graves at Early Dynastic Ur. 
   

4. ✴That the supra-regional organisation was led by Kish is also suggested by an allotment of land by Menunsi, king of Kish [NTSSh 154, P010498, from Shuruppak], which demonstrates that the ruler could dispose of land in other cities, [in this case, presumably in Shuruppak].”
   

This view was also expressed more recently (and more concisely) by Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 151), who referred to Fara texts that:

1. “... record that [a] federation referred to as ki.en,gi jointly conscripted a body of corvée troops to fight an adversary whose identity is unknown, though it could have been Ur, a city-state that is hardly mentioned in the [Fara texts].  It seems that Kish might well have been the hegemonic guardian of this new world order, and the possibility of some kind of overlordship is intimated by the fact that Mesalim of Kish acted as the arbitrator in resolving the boundary dispute between Lagash and neighbouring Umma.”
   

Thus, in the received wisdom:

1. ✴since Kish:
   

2. •exercised hegemony over Lagash, Umma and Adab in the reign of King Mesalim;
   

3. •possibly exercised hegemony over Shuruppak in the reign of King Menunsi; and
   

4. •is frequently mentioned in the Fara texts, albeit not in the context of the Kiengi League;
   

5. it is likely that it also held overall command of the armies of the six cities of the Kiengi League and was possibly recognised by all of them as their overlord; and
   

6. ✴since Ur is barely mentioned in the Fara texts, it was probably the target of the campaign of this alliance. 
   

Steinkeller, who (as we shall see, placed the reigns of both Mesalim and Menunsi before the Fara/ED IIIa  period) countered that:

1. ✴nothing in the surviving Fara sources indicates that Kish led a military alliance of Sumerian cities against anyone (see note 9, at p. 7); and
   

2. ✴the absence of Ur from the Kiengi League (and its almost total absence from the ‘Fara texts’) might simply indicate that it was directly subject to Uruk at this time, which would mean that:
   

3. “... its status would have been not unlike that [which] it enjoyed later in the ED IIIb period, when ... it was a dependency of Uruk, with Uruk’s ruler exercising a dual kingship over these two city-states”, (see p. 11).  
   

Alternative Hypotheses for the Leader of the Alliance and its Target  

Hypothesis of Xianhua Wang 

Xianhua Wang (referenced below, at p. 236), in his thesis on the emergence of Enlil as the chief god of Sumer and the related matter of the role of the city of Nippur,  argued that: 

1. ✴Enlil was already associated in some way with the region named Kiengi for a period before the latter term came to refer to the whole of Sumer (see p. 234); and
   

2. ✴the collective activities involving the cities of Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak, and Umma in the Fara period:
   

3. “... must have helped [to] perpetuate the close association of nam-lugal [= kingship] with Enlil in the subsequent Pre-Sargonic Period”, (see p. 236).
   

If I have understood him correctly, he is suggesting that:

1. ✴in the Fara period, the term Kiengi referred only to the territories of Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak; and Umma; and
   

2. ✴(for whatever reason) these cities recognised Enlil as:
   

3. •the ‘overlord’ of their respective city gods (including the city god of Nippur, Ninurta); and
   

4. •responsible (by virtue of his ‘seniority’) for awarding nam lugal to the man whom he deemed to be most worthy of exercising hegemony over them.
   

It was in this context that Wang made the following observation (again at p. 236): 

1. “The difficulty historians have in elucidating the history of southern Mesopotamia during the transition from the ED Period to the Sargonic Period [is mostly] due to the complexity of the process of the reshuffling of regional powers [at this time].  The regional power that began the process after the Hexapolis [= Kiengi League] was likely Ur from the south, excluded from the [League], when the Royal Cemetery [at Ur] evidenced the growth of royal power in the city.  The disbanding of the [Kiengi League] may be the achievement of Meskalamdu or Mesanepada ... ” 
   

I think that the point here is that we know:

1. ✴from one of Mesanepada’s own royal inscriptions (RIME 1.13.5.1; CDLI, P431203) that he held the title ‘king of Ur’ while his father, Meskalamdu was ‘king of Kish’;
   

2. ✴from the inscription (RIME 1.13.5.2; CDLI, P431204) carried by the seal one of Mesanepada’s wives) that he inherited the title ‘king of Kish’ (presumably on his father’s death); and
   

3. ✴from an inscription (RIME 1:13:6:3; CDLI, P431208) of his son and successor, A’anepada, that he was once more ‘king if Ur’ at the time of his death and A’anepada’s accession.
   

Thus, in this scenario (as I understand it): 

1. ✴Ur began the process of the ‘reshuffling of regional powers’ in southern Mesopotamia by taking Kish, which :
   

2. •would explain its sudden prosperity; and
   

3. •might have precipitated the formation of the Kiengi League, from which it was obviously excluded; and
   

4. ✴the ‘disbanding’ of the League might have resulted from the [putative] military success of Meskalamdu or Mesanepada, as hegemon of Kish, Ur, Eridu and Larsa (see note 642).
   

I am not sure that this analysis captures all the possibilities: for example, the military success of the Kiengi League could have precipitated the end of Mesanepada’s apparent hegemony over Kish.  However, I think that the important thing to take from Wang’s analysis is that Ur’s apparent exclusion from the Kiengi League might be related to the fact that, at about the same time, Meskalamdu and then Mesanepada assumed the title ‘king of Kish’.  

Hypothesis of Piotr Steinkeller 

In the abstract of his paper, Steinkeller summarised its purpose as follows:

1. “A group of [Fara texts] describes a mobilisation of troops from Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Umma and Shuruppak, clearly in anticipation of a major military operation.  It is argued [here] that the target of that campaign, which was led by Uruk, was the city-state of Kish.”
   

He began by acknowledging (at p. 5) that:

1. “... the hypothesis that the [Fara texts] relate to a military campaign against Kish rests on highly circumstantial evidence.” 
   

However, he went on to consider the evidence from another broadly contemporary administrative tablet from Shuruppak (TSSh 242, P010783), arguing (at p. 7) that it should be split into four sections that can probably be translated as follows:

1. ✴[from Shuruppak, the find-spot of the inscription, to] ki-unkin (the camp), [the distance is] 2,360 ‘ropes’ (= 140.1 km.)
   

2. ✴from Adab and Umma to the camp, [the distance is] 3,110 ‘ropes’ (= 184.7 km.)
   

3. ✴from Lagash to the camp, the distance is] 3,980 ‘ropes’ (= 236.4 km.)
   

4. ✴from Lagash, [the distance to the camp is] 3,980 ‘ropes’
   

He observed (at p. 4 and note 2) that:

1. “As far as I know, the term ki-unkin, [which is translated above as ‘camp’], is documented only in ... two Fara tablets, [WF 101 (above) and TSSh 242 (under discussion here)].”
   

He then argued (at p. 7) that, in relation TSSh 242:

1. “... if one follows the waterways:
   

2. ✴the distance between Lagash (Al-Hiba) and Kish is 236 km; [and]
   

3. ✴[that] between Shuruppak and Kish is 140 km.”
   

He also pointed out that, while the case of the distance between Adab and Umma is less straightforward, it might be significant that:

1. ✴the distance between Umma and Kish is 151 km; and
   

2. ✴that between Umma and Adab is 36 km.; making a total of 187 km. 
   

He then observed that:

1. “Be that as it may, one can make a pretty good case ... that the present tablet is an estimate of the distances between:
   

2. ✴various southern cities; and
   

3. ✴a spot [described as ki-unkin = camp] situated in the immediate vicinity of Kish. 
   

4. If this tablet can be linked with the sources I discussed earlier (which is very plausible), in my view, we would find here additional evidence that the target of [this military campaign] ... was the city of Kish.” 
   

Steinkeller then discussed other ‘Fara texts’ that offered further support for his argument, summing up (at p. 8) as follows:

1. “To be sure, none of these data conclusively prove the correctness of my hypothesis.  But there is one more important argument: it is beyond doubt that the troops mentioned in [the eight Fara text collected in his Appendix 1] were mobilised for a huge military operation, which must have been directed against a specific opponent.  If that opponent was not Kish, it is difficult to think of any other alternative target.”  
   

Steinkeller then turned (at p. 5) his hypothesis that the agency behind the mustering of the troops of the Kiengi League at Shuruppak was:

1. “... without any doubt was the city of Uruk, which supplied the largest number of soldiers.  Here it is important to note that Uruk and [the adjacent centre of] Kulaba are highly visible in the surviving Fara sources, suggesting that, at that time, Uruk exercised hegemony over significant portions of the south.”
   

He subsequently observed (at p. 10) that:

1. “Whether or not the sources I surveyed earlier offer evidence of a military campaign that a coalition of southern city-states conducted against Kish, it is certain that, at that time, the dominant political power in the south was Uruk.  In fact, there is convincing evidence that, sometime in the ED IIIa period, Uruk was able to bring under its control significant portions of southern Babylonia.”
   

In this context, he highlighted the particular importance a broadly contemporary administrative document from Abu Salabikh (TSSh 302; P010800):

1. “... which appears to be a gazetteer of the places remaining under the hegemony of Uruk.  According to its colophon (col. 6, lines 1-4), this text lists:
   

2. ‘103 territories of Uruk (under) the ensik Lumma’.”
   

Although many of these toponyms are obscure, his list of those that can be identified includes:

1. ✴Ur (col. ii, line 8);
   

2. ✴Kesh (col. ii, line 9);
   

3. ✴Umma (col. iv, line 2);
   

4. ✴Kulaba (col. vii, line 3);
   

5. ✴Nippur  (col. ix, line 1); and
   

6. ✴Larsa  (col. xi, line 6).
   

He suggested (at p. 12, following Gianni Marchesi, referenced below, 2006, at p. 62, whom he quoted at note 30) that:

1. “It appears quite likely that it was this Lumma (about whom nothing else is known) who commanded the troops participating in the postulated campaign against Kish.”
   

As he observed (at pp. 11-2) the absence of Lagash and Adab from this list might suggest that they participated in the alliance as independent cities, and that the fact that the text was written at Shuruppak might have rendered the inclusion of this city superfluous. 

In further support of this hypothesis, Steinkeller cited (at p. 12) an administrative document from Abu Salabikh that was published by Robert Biggs and Nicholas Postgate (referenced below, at pp. 108-9) and is now in the Iraq Museum (IM 081445; P010458).  The opening lines of this text record:

1. “... a field area assigned to an ensik of Uruk.  If an ensik of Uruk indeed held agricultural land at Abu Salabikh, we would find here an incontrovertible proof that this city had been a dependency of Uruk or, at the very least, that it recognised Uruk’s overlordship [in the ED IIIa period].”
   

He then summed up (at p. 12) as follows:

1. “All these data demonstrate (beyond any doubt, in my view) the paramount position of Uruk within the political picture of southern [Mesopotamia] during the  ED IIIa period.  And, should my hypothesis about the campaign against Kish be correct, this would mean that Uruk had succeeded at that time in putting an end to the interference of Kish in the affairs of southern [Mesopotamia].” 
   

Kiengi League: Preliminary Conclusions  

Few scholars would disagree with the first line of the abstract of Steinkeller’s paper:

1. “A group of [Fara texts] describes a mobilisation of troops from Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Umma and Shuruppak, clearly in anticipation of a major military operation.”
   

It seems to me that the lack of consensus on the questions of both the agency behind the organisation of this military operation and its target arises because of fundamentally different views on the vital matter of chronology:

1. ✴the conventional view, in which Kish was the agency behind this mobilisation, seems to be based on the proposition that it took place in or shortly after the reign of king Mesalim of Kish, who had certainly exercised hegemony over Adab, Lagash and Umma; 
   

2. ✴Wang’s hypothesis is based on the proposition that the mobilisation took place in a later period, when Meskalamdu and Mesanepada of Ur exercised hegemony over Kish, Eridu and Larsa; and
   

3. ✴Steinkeller’s hypothesis is based on his view that:
   

4. •Mesalim ‘unquestionably belonged to [or pre-dated] the ED II period’, (see p. 13);
   

5. •another king of Kish named Menunsi, who had controlled Shuruppak (at least), probably post-dated Mesalim and belonged to the ED II or the early ED IIIa period (see p. 14); and
   

6. •the Kiengi League was formed in a yet later period;
   

7. -after Shuruppak [at least, had] ‘passed from the hands of Kish to those of Uruk’, (see p. 14); and
   

8. -during or shortly before the reign of Ur-Nanshe, the earliest-known independent king of Lagash. 
   

Thus, before proceeding with the analysis of the Kiengi League, we must grapple with the thorny problem of synchronisms in the ED IIIa Period. 

Synchronisms in the ED IIIa Period 

Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp (referenced below, at p. 62) argued that:

1. “The texts from Fara and Abu Salabikh do not provide any reliable synchronisms. ... [However, some] early rulers are dated to the Fara period on palaeographic grounds, most importantly Mesalim of Kish ...”
   

They also cited (at note 93) a synchonism proposed by Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at p. 144): he argued that:

1. “According to the colophon of [TSSh 302; P010800 from Abu Salabikh , discussed above], Lumma, [who] was the ruler of Uruk [in the Fara period], was probably a contemporary of Menunsi of Kish [since] they both are attested [in the Fara texts], which probably cover a very short period of time.”
   

Thus, in this scenario:

1. ✴Lumma of Uruk; and
   

2. ✴both Mesalim and Menunsi of Kish;
   

ruled in the relatively short Fara Period, which also saw the military campaign of the Kiengi League, made up of Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma.

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, Appendix 3, at p, 23), who (as we have seen) did not accept this ‘late’ dating for Mesalim and Menunsi, began his chronological analysis with the inscriptions of Ur-Nanshe, who was (as far as we know) the first independent king of Lagash.  More specifically, he argued that these inscriptions display various ‘peculiarities typical of Fara texts’, which strongly suggests that his reign roughly coincided with the Fara period.  However, he added that:

1. “... our best evidence in support of this [synchronism] is provided by CUSAS 26, 69 [= CDLI, P427630)], a legal text from Adab that mentions Akurgal, the son of Ur-Nanshe and his successor to the throne of Lagash [see Akurgal, ensi of Lagash, at 5:5- 6:1].”
   

He argued that this inscription:

1. “... constitutes a transitional phase between the orthography of:
   

2. ✴the Fara tablets and Ur-Nanshe’s inscriptions; and
   

3. ✴the inscriptions of Eanatum (the son and successor of Akurgal). “
   

He followed this by arguing that:

1. “This evidence forces us to conclude that the reign of Ur-Nanshe was contemporaneous with the Fara tablets.  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. ... As for Mesalim, whose reign has traditionally been dated to ED II, this ruler must have been a predecessor of Menunsi.  This dating finds support in [Mesalim’s] inscriptions, whose paleography is strikingly archaic, being comparable to those of Enmebaragesi of Kish.”
   

If this is accepted, then it is reasonable to consider the Kishite kings:

1. ✴Enmerbaragesi (and his son Akka, if he actually was a historical figure); and
   

2. ✴Mesalim and Lugalnamnirshum, both of whom pre-dated Ur-Nanshe (as discussed below);
   

as all belonging to a relatively short period of time before Kish ceased to exercise hegemony over Adab, Lagash and Umma.  More importantly for our current analysis, he pointed out (see note 33, at p. 12):

1. “... it is conceivable that Ur-Nanshe himself, or alternatively his son Akurgal, participated in the postulated campaign [of the Kiengi League] against Kish.” 
   

It will be useful in taking this further to concentrate on the significant body of evidence that survives for the relative chronology of events that involved Lagash.

Evidence from Lagash for the Period before Ur-Nanshe

Mace-head of Mesalim, King of Kish (RIME 1.8.1.1; P462181), from the original Ningirsu temple at Girsu 

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

The mace-head illustrated above was dedicated to Ningirsu (the city god of Lagash/Girsu) by King Mesalim of Kish, in his capacity as hegemon of Lagash.  As Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 61 and at pp. 209-10) observed:

1. ✴it was almost certainly originally dedicated and housed in  the original temple of Ningirsu, which was excavated at ‘Tell K’ at Girsu; and
   

2. ✴its find-spot suggests that it was subsequently ritually buried in the foundations of the temple that Ur-Nanshe built on the same site to replace it.
   

In other words, Mesalim’s reign clearly pre-dated that of Ur-Nanshe .

Large copper spearhead inscribed with the name of Lugalnamnirshum, king of Kish (RIME 1.8.2.1: P462183)

From the original Ningirsu temple at Girsu, now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2675: image from museum website)

Fortunately, there is further evidence in the form of the copper spearhead, which:

1. ✴was also discovered on Tell K; and
   

2. ✴carries an inscription on its neck that was only partially legible until 1994, when it was rescued from a layer of corrosion, revealing that it had been dedicated (presumably to Ningirsu) by Lugalnamnirshum, king of Kish (see, for example, Douglas Frayne, referenced below, 2008, at p. 73). 
   

Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 209) pointed out that a number of scholars have been misled by an early, flawed description of the find-spot of this important object, which had placed it in Ur-Nanshe’s temple: thus. for example, Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at pp. 144-5, Uruk entry 4 and Table 1.2, at p. 142) argued that it had been dedicated by a king of Uruk who:

1. ✴used the title ‘king of Kish’; and
   

2. ✴exercised hegemony over Lagash towards the end of Ur-Nanshe’s reign and into that of his son, Akurgal. 
   

In fact, as Sébastien Rey (as above) pointed out, this spearhead (like the mace-head  of Mesalim) had almost certainly been dedicated in the original Ningirsu temple and then ritually buried in the foundations of Ur-Nanshe’s new temple.  He therefore reasonably argued (at p. 210) that Lugalnamnirshum: 

“... was doubtless one of Mesalim of Kish’s successors, and, therefore, in all likelihood, another foreign overlord of Girsu [and Lagash] in the period before Ur-Nanshe ascended to power.”  

Thus, we can at least be confident that  the reign of Ur-Nanshe, the first independent ruler of Lagash, post-dated the reigns of at least two Kishite kings who had exercised hegemony over the city:

1. ✴Mesalim; and
   

2. ✴Lugalnamnirshum. 
   

This is at least a sueful starting point.  However, in order to take things further, we need to look in some detail at the evidence from Lagash in the reign of Ur-Nanshe. 

Evidence from Lagash in the Reign of Ur-Nanshe 

As Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2019, p. 122) observed, Ur-Nanshe 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.”  
   

Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, 2025, at pp. 3-4) observed that, in his 40 or so surviving inscriptions, Ur-Nanshe claims to have:

1. ✴rebuilt the walls of Lagash;
   

2. ✴built or rebuilt 19 buildings, almost all of them of a religious character (notably including the rebuilding of the temple of  Ningirsu at Girsu and the building of the Ibgal temple of Inanna in Lagash);
   

3. ✴commissioned 12 statues of deities;
   

4. ✴excavated 10 canals; and
   

5. ✴organised the arrival of ships from Dilmum carrying timber as tribute.
   

He argued (at p. 4) that this suggests that Ur-Nanshe rose to power after a period of crisis in which the state of Lagash had been devastated, and that his subsequent reign was both long and peaceful.

As we have seen, Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, p. 11, note 33) noted that: 

1. “Given the fact that the reign of Ur-Nanshe of Lagash was roughly contemporaneous with the Fara sources, it is conceivable that Ur-Nanshe himself (or alternatively his son Akurgal) participated in the postulated campaign [of the Kiengi League] against Kish.” 
   

This would arguably explain how Ur-Nanshe had managed to take power in Lagash.  However, he then addressed a potential problem for his hypothesis, since he believed that:

1. “... Ur-Nanshe was [subsequently] involved in military conflicts with Umma and Ur [see below].  If Umma and Ur indeed were subjects of Uruk at that time, this would have made Lagash an enemy of Uruk.”
   

He brushed aside this potential problem, since he was willing to countenance a war between Lagash and the combined forces of Ur and Umma at the time that all three cities belonged to the putative Urukean-led Kiengi League.  However, Francesco Pomponio’s slightly later paper (mentioned above) was entitled  “Did Ur-Nanshe defeat Ur ?”  As it happens, his analysis of the evidence for Ur-Nanshe’s putative victory over Ur and Umma potentially offers a more convincing answer to Steinkeller’s conundrum. 

Did Ur-Nanshe defeat Ur ? 

Inscriptions on door socket (RIME 1.9.1.6b, P431040) from ‘the area of the Bagara temple’ in Lagash,

now in the Iraq Museum: image from CDLI (P222390)  

As Francesco Pomponio (referenced below, 2025, at pp. 6-7) observed, the inscription  (RIME 1.9.1.6b, CDLI, P431040), which provides the only surviving evidence for Ur-Nanshe’s putative victory over Ur and Umma, is on a a limestone slab (illustrated above), which was excavated at Tell al-Hiba in 1975-6, together with a few inscriptions of two later rulers of Lagash (Eanatum, Ur-Nansh’e grandson, and the much later Gudea).  Pomponio described it as: 

1. “... a copy of one or two royal inscriptions [that] is written on both faces of a broken slab, which must have served as a door socket and, being broken, was re-used for a scribal exercise on stone.” 
   

He pointed out (at p. 7) that, since the time of this discovery, it has been recognised that the texts on the two sides of the slab are very different: as he observed (at p. 10):

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

2. “... a copy of a plaque of Ur-Nanshe, similar to many inscriptions of this king”; but
   

3. ✴the text on the ‘war side’ (lines 62-105): 
   

4. “... 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.  

The most important point to make here is that, while the ‘peace side’ is unambiguously devoted to the achievements of ‘Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash’, he is not named at any point in the surviving text on the ‘war side’: for example, the first readable lines of this text (lines 64-8) tell us that three prominent men were involved in a war:

1. ✴... of Lagash;
   

2. ✴the man of Ur; and
   

3. ✴the man of Umma.
   

The usual completion/ translation of the following text can be summarised as follows:

1. ✴A commander now named as the ‘man of Lagash’:
   

2. •defeated the man of Ur;
   

3. •captured 5 senior officers, 3 of whom are named; and
   

4. •heaped up burial mounds (lines 69-86); and
   

5. ✴then:
   

6. •defeated the man of Umma;
   

7. •captured 5 named senior officers as well as Pabilgaltuku, the ensi of Umma; and
   

8. •heaped up burial mounds for the man of Umma (lines 87-105).
   

As Pomponio pointed out (at p. 11), this account raises another problem with the ‘accepted wisdom’ that this text describes a victory of Lagash: he asked rhetorically (at p. 11):

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 [a] par with his [putative] vanquished enemies?”
   

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

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

In other words, in Pomponio’s opinion, 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 implication is clear: it is at least possible that this text described the events that led to the devastation of Lagash and the subsequent emergence of Ur-Nanshe onto the world stage.  It seems to me that this insight allows us to resolve Steinkeller’s conundrum, since it is at least possible that:

1. ✴the ‘war side’ of this inscription described the invasion of Lagash, Ur and Umma by Uruk, after which all three cities (like Shuruppak, mentioned above) passed into ‘the hands of Uruk’; and
   

2. ✴on this occasion, Ur-Nanshe fought on the side of Uruk, a decision that earned him the kingship of Lagash. 
   

Did Ur-Nanshe Help Uruk to Defeat Lagash, Ur and Umma ?  

Inscribed Bull’s Head from the Temple of Ningirsu at Girsu

Inscribed copper bull’s head from the site of the Temple of Ningirsu at Girsu, 

now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 2676): image from Wikipedia   

As it happens, there is surviving evidence from Lagash that Ur-Nanshe did enjoy good relations with Uruk:  somewhat surprisingly, the beautiful bull’s head illustrated above carries an inscription on its forehead recording its dedication to Ningirsu by: 

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

As Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 279) observed, this was one of a pair of almost identical heads: the other one, which is not inscribed, is now in the archeological museum of Istanbul.  He suggested (at p. 280) that these heads had probably served as ornaments on instruments (probably lyres) played on liturgical occasions, and (at p. 281) that:

1. “... they were [dedicated] by Lugalsi to form part of the ... cultic apparatus [of Ur-Nanshe’s new temple].”
   

He added (at p. 280) that they were subsequently ritually buried in the SE side of the temple and noted (at p. 284) that they belonged to a:

1. “... systematic  deposition [of sacred objects] in and around the Ur-Nanshe building ...”; 
   

which had taken place when Enmetana (Ur-Nanshe’s great grandson) had undertaken the first major restoration of the temple since its original construction (over the archaic temple) by Ur-Nanshe. 

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at pp. 144-5, Uruk entry 4) wrongly assumed that these two bulls head had been found in the ‘same archaeological context’ as the spear-head of Lugalnamnirsumma (see above).  He therefore argued that:

1. “[Since]:
   

2. ✴it is very unusual to find objects dedicated by ‘foreigners’ in Lagash (the only other known example is the mace of Mesalim, king of Kish) ... ; and 
   

3. ✴the ED  IIIb kings of Uruk, used to style themselves ‘king of Kish’;
   

4. it is likely that Lugalnamnirsumma, like [Lugalsi], the lamentation priest..., was also from Uruk. 
   

In fact, as we have seen, both Mesalim and Lugalnamnirsumma were ‘actual’ kings of Kish who had made their dedications to Ningirsu as overlords of Lagash/ Girsu in the original Ningirsu temple, long before the reign Ur-Nanshe.  In view of this, the fact that these bulls’ heads were dedicated by a ‘foreigner’ (Lugalsi, chief lamentation-priest of Uruk) is even more ‘unusual’ than Marchesi thought.  He suggested that their presence at Girsu:

1. “... may reflect a period of political weakness at Lagash, during which the city-state fell under the hegemony of Uruk”. 
   

However, I suggest that the fact that they were also sufficiently important to merit ritual burial by Enmetana suggests that they were profoundly important objects that had been dedicated in Ur-Nanshe’s temple in a period in which Uruk and Lagash were allies.   

Stele of Inanna from Lagash  

Four-sided inscribed stele from Lagash (RIME 1.09.01.06a, P431039), now in the Iraq Museum (IM 61404):

Left: relief of goddess (Inanna ?): image from Wikimedia 

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

My additions in red: figure identifications from Licia  Romano (referenced below, Figure 1, at p. 184)  

Another piece of evidence of relevance here relates to Ur-Nanshe’s building of the Ibgal temple of Inanna (the city-goddess of Uruk) in Lagash.  As we have seen, almost all of Ur-Nanshe’s inscriptions focus on his temple building and other religious and civic projects.  However, although a number of these record his building of the Ibgal temple of Inanna at Lagash, the inscription on the stele illustrated above is the only one in which (as far as we can tell) he mentions only his building of the Ibgal temple.  Furthermore, this information is repeated: 

1. ✴the caption under Ur-Nanshe (surface a; lines 1-5) records that:
   

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

3. ✴this information is presented again  t the start of the main text on this side, which runs from right to left between the four royal figures (surface e; lines 1-7). 
   

Interestingly, this is also the only one of the many surviving inscriptions of Ur-Nanshe in which he used the title ensi: in all of the others, he is described as lugal (king) of Lagash. 

Unfortunately, the caption under the seated goddess on the obverse is now illegible.  Giovanni Lovisetto (referenced below, at pp. 54-5) described the iconography of this image as follows: 

1. “The enthroned divine figure is larger than the others: she 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.  ... 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 [on the reverse and the two sides] are performing a libation ritual, perhaps during the inauguration of the Inanna temple itself. ...  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.”
   

The inscription under the man who approaches Inanna from her left  is also now illegible, although he was probably an important official:

1. ✴Licia Romano (referenced below, at p. 185) suggested that:
   

2. “... his dress is an attribute typical of high-rank military officials or of the king himself as chief of the army; while
   

3. ✴Giovanni Lovisetto  (referenced below, at p. 54) characterised him as ‘a high priest’, presumably because he assumed that all of the male figures depicted on the stele were ‘performing a libation ritual’.
   

If we assume that Lovisetto is correct, then we could go further and identify this man as Lugalsi, the chief lamentation-priest of Uruk (= the man who had dedicated a pair of bulls’ heads to Ningirsu at Ur-Nanshe’s new temple to this god at Girsu), whose full title would have been chief lamentation-priest of the goddess Inanna.

Interestingly, Francesco Pomponi (referenced below, 2025, at p. 6) observed that. if we put the ‘war side’ of RIME 1.9.1.6b to one side, the only surviving mention of a military project of Ur-Nanshe comes in the inscription under discussion here, which:

1. “... in the space of not more than seven lines [see surface 2, lines 11’-17’], recorded that Ur-Nanshe captured one or more enemies (kings or states), whose names [are no longer legible].”
   

At the risk of piling one unproven hypothesis on another, I wonder whether Ur-Nanshe:

1. ✴achieved these military successes at the time of his putative alliance with Uruk; and
   

2. ✴built the Ibgal at Lagash soon after the city fell to Uruk, at which time, he might have served as the city’s governor (ensi). 
   

Lagash and Ur in the Reign of Ur-Nanshe 

A Plethora of Lions’ Heads  

In this section, I discuss the evidence from a group of stylistically-similar lions’ heads from: 

1. ✴Girsu, in the reigns of Ur-Nanshe and his son and successor, Akurgal; and 
   

2. ✴the temple of of Ninhursag in Tell-Ubaid, which was rebuilt) by King A’anepada of Ur. 
   

Lions’ Heads of Ur-Nanshe and Akurgal from Girsu  

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 

Sketches of a pair of  lions’ heads from 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)   

Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at pp. 281) recorded that five small lions’ heads were found together at the Ur-Nanshe level in the SE side of the Ningirsu temple at Girsu:

1. ✴three that are now in the Musée du Louvre:
   

2. •two made from limestone;
   

3. -AO 231; and
   

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

5. •one, AO 232 (which is now fragmentary) is made from alabaster; and
   

6. ✴two (a matching pair) that are now in the archeological museum of Istanbul:
   

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 his son, Akurgal;
   

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

As Rey pointed out (at p. 279), their good physical condition and the location of their  burial indicates that they belonged to a ‘coherent assembly’ of sacred objects (which  included the bulls’ heads discussed above) that had been displayed in Ur-Nanshe’s temple and then give ritual burial when this temple was deconsecrated.   He also suggested  (at p. 283) that, given their small size (they are all only around 10 cm high) 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.”
   

Lion’s head of Akurgal from Tell V at Girsu on an inscribed lion’s head (RIME 1.9.2.1: CDLI, P431071);

now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 3295) 

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 122) recorded the inscription on an alabaster = lion’s head from Tell V (‘Tell des Tablettes’) at Girsu as follows:

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). 
   

It is similar to the heads discussed above (and comparable in height) but it is cylindrical (measuring some 16 cm from front to back). 

Lions’ Heads from the Ninhursag Temple at Tell Ubaid

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 

Christina Tsouparopoulou (referenced below, at p. 204-6) observed that the lions’ heads illustrated above, which were found on the site of the Ninhursag temple at Tell-Ubaid (some 6 km west of Ur), are stylistically similar to those from Girsu discussed above, albeit that they are considerably larger (around 20 cm in height) and cast in bronze.  This observation is important because a foundation tablet excavated on the site of the temple (see below) records its construction by King A’anepada of Ur, which means that:

1. •the reigns of Ur-Nanshe and Akurgal at Lagash might be broadly synchronised with the reign of A’anepada at Ur; and
   

2. •the presence of stylistically-similar loins’ heads in temples at both Girsu and Tell Ubaid might be of political importance.
   

However, before considering these possibilities in more detail, we should first look in more detail at the archeological evidence from Tell Ubaid.

Relief from the Temple of Ninhursag at Tell Ubaid 

Copper relief of a lion-headed eagle grasping two stags, from the temple of Ninhursag at Tell Ubaid 

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

The relief illustrated above, which apparently originally decorated the facade of the temple, depicted an upright lion-headed eagle (known as the Anzu bird) with outspread wings, grasping a pair of stags.  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).  

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.” 
   

Kings of Kish after Mesalim

Menunsi 

Piotr Steinkeller, having discussed Enmebaragesi and Mesalim (both of whom he dated to ED I-II)  observed (at pp. 13-4) that:

1. “There was yet another early ruler of Kish who likely exercised hegemony over sections of southern [Mesopotamia]: his name was Menunsi, ... [and he is known only from] the Fara text NTSSh 154 (CDLI, P010498).”
   

He translated the opening lines of this text as follows:

1. “15 bur2 of land had been granted/assigned to A-kigal by Menunsi, king of Kish”, (lines i: 1-2). 
   

He then noted that these lines are followed by:

1. ✴a list of goods (at lines i:3 - ii:4); and
   

2. ✴a list of three officials:
   

3. •[PN], the mashkim-gi4 (envoy?), (line iii: 1);
   

4. •Ageshtin, the field registrar of Uruk, (line iii: 2); and
   

5. •Enkishe, the farmer, (line iii: 3). 
   

Hypothesis Proposed by Piotr Steinkeller in 2024

In the earlier paper (Piotr Steinkeller, referenced below, 2013, note 81, at p. 150) in which he had first suggested that the Kiengi League had been established in order to oppose the Kishite dominance in southern Mesopotamia, he observed that:

1. “My interpretation is seemingly contradicted by the text NTSSh 154, i 1-2, which records a donation, apparently in Shuruppak, of [15 bur2] of land by a king of Kish to a certain individual ... It is possible, however, that the text refers to an earlier donation, which preceded the creation of the [Kiengi League].  Be that as it may, the testimony of NTSSh 154 is very important, since it demonstrates the domination of Shuruppag by Kish at some point in time.” 
   

However, he had hardened his view by the time of his paper 0f 2024, in which he argued (at p. 14) that:

1. “In my view, the most likely interpretation of this text is that it records a reconfirmation of a land grant that, sometime earlier, had been made by Menunsi, king of Kish to a certain A-kigal of Shuruppak. Given the very large area of agricultural land involved, Akigal must have been an important person.
   

2. ✴The goods enumerated in this text appear to have been gifts presented by Akigal (or, more likely, his heirs) to the officials who authorised the transaction.
   

3. ✴Significantly, [these officials] included:
   

4. •a field registrar from Uruk; and
   

5. •the local Shuruppak official in charge of agricultural land.
   

6. ✴The role of the mashkim-gi4 is less clear: most likely, he was an envoy from Uruk, who represented the ruler of Uruk on that occasion.  It would be fair to speculate that the ruler of Uruk in question was none other than the ensik Lum-ma of TSSh 302 [see above].
   

7. It appears that this transaction had been occasioned by a change in the political status of Shuruppak, namely, its having passed from the hands of Kish to those of Uruk.  As the king of Uruk has now become the owner of Shuruppak’s land holdings, the legal validity of the grant needed to be recognised by him. The large size of the original donation would certainly have called for the crown’s direct involvement in this matter.”
   

He then argued that:

1. “If this analysis of NTSSh 154 is correct, this would mean that Menunsi was in possession of Shuruppak some years before the [Fara period].  Although we lack any means to determine when exactly it was, the most likely guess appears to be that Menunsi lived either sometime toward the end of [ED I=II] or at the very beginning of ED IIIa.  In either case, however, his reign was probably later than that of  Mesalim.”
   

Hypothesis of Gianni Marchesi 

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at p. 140 and note 14), who assumed that Menunsi ruled at Kish at the time of this land grant at Shuruppak, argued that, at this time:

1. ✴he exercised hegemony over almost all of the main Sumerian cities, including both Shuruppak and Uruk; and
   

2. ✴a field registrar from Uruk was involved in the land grant because the land in question was in Uruk.
   

In support of this hypothesis, he pointed out that a roughly contemporaneous text from Abu Salabikh, (published by Robert Biggs and Nicholas Postgate, referenced below, at pp. 108-9: now in the Iraq Museum: IM 081445; P010458) records that a ruler of Uruk had been assigned land, presumably at Abu Salabikh.  He concluded from this evidence that:

1. “It appears then that the very same authority [= Kish] had the power to dispose of land in both [Uruk and Abu Salabikh].”  
   

Interestingly, as we have seen, Piotr Steinkeller argued (at p. 12), in relation to the same inscription, that:

1. “If an ensik of Uruk indeed held agricultural land at Abu Salabikh, we would find here an incontrovertible proof that this city had been a dependency of Uruk or, at the very least, that it recognised Uruk’s overlordship [in the Fara period].” 
   

In other words:

1. ✴Marchesi argued that Kish exercised hegemony over all of Uruk, Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh in the Fara Period, which explains why: 
   

2. •Menunsi was able to grant land in Uruk to Akigal of Shuruppak (as recorded in the inscription from Shuruppak); and
   

3. •Menunsi (or another king of Kish in this period) was (or was also) able to grant land in Abu Salabikh to a now-unnamed ensi of Uruk (as recorded in the inscription from Abu Salabikh); while
   

4. ✴Steinkeller argued that:
   

5. •Menunsi had indeed granted land in Shuruppak to Akigal, but that he had done so prior to the Fara Period; and
   

6. •in the Fara Period, by which time both Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh had ‘passed from the hands of Kish to those of Uruk’:
   

7. -the inscription from Shuruppak recorded the confirmation by a ruler of Uruk that the land in Shuruppak, which Menunsi had previously granted to Akigal, still belonged to either Akigal or his heirs; and
   

8. -the inscription from Abu Salabikh recorded the assignation of agricultural land there to the city’s Urukean overlord.
   

It seems to me that the land that Menunsi assigned to Akigal probably was in Shuruppak (rather than in Uruk), since this would explain why:

1. ✴his title to the land in question was ‘registered’ in Shuruppak; and
   

2. ✴Ageshtin, the field registrar who was  involved in the transaction, was specifically recorded as an official from outside Shuruppak (unlike Enkishe, the official in charge of agricultural land, who did not need to be given a place of origin, presumably because he was local). 
   

If this is correct, then the fact that Ageshtin came from Uruk (rather than Kish) might indicate that the transaction was, as Steinkeller suggested, a reconfirmation of land grant after Uruk replaced Kish as overlord of Shuruppak .  However, I am not sure that this takes us very far: after all, Menunsi could have assigned land at Shuruppak to Akigal shortly before:

1. ✴the formation of the Kiengi League; and
   

2. ✴the putative passage of both Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh from ‘the hands of Kish to those of Uruk’.
   

In my view, all we can really say is that Menunsi probably ruled at Kish in or shortly before the Fara period.  

Enna-il, King of Kish 

Sketch of the Akkadian inscription (RIME 1.8.3.2, P462185) on a fragments of a statue of Enna-il from Nippur:

Now in the Iraq Museum (IM 61325): image adapted from Ignace Gelb et al. (referenced below, Plate 50) 

Enna-il is known from two royal inscriptions from Nippur: 

1. ✴One (RIME 1.8.3.1, P462184), which was given the excavation number 6 NT 100) seems to be an Ur III period copy of the original, records that Enna-il, son of A’anzu, defeated Elam ‘for the goddess Inanna’.
   

2. ✴The other (RIME 1.8.3.2, P462185), which was given the excavation number 6 N 271) is on a surviving fragment of a limestone statue (illustrated above) that was apparently found on the site of the temple of Inanna at Nippur.  It was inscribed in two lines on what was originally the right shoulder of a statue of Enna-il: according to Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2011, at pp. 179-80), who transliterated and translated the inscription: 
   

3. •the first line records the purchase by Enna-il of a number of plots of land; and
   

4. •the second line records that:
   

5. “Enna-il, king of Kish, [made] an [image of himself] ... and set it up before Ishtar (= Inanna)”, (see lines 14’-20’). 
   

It therefore seems likely that Enna-il set up his statue at the temple of Inanna at Nippur in commemoration of his victory in Elam, although we do not know whether he actually invaded Elam or simply expelled Elamite raiders from land that was subject to Kish.   According to Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at pp. 75-6), the first of these inscriptions was ‘almost certainly’ and the second was certainly written in Akkadian. 

At least two other texts link Enna-il to Nippur: 

1. ✴Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2011, at p. 180) referred to an unpublished ED literary text from Nippur (6 NT 104) in which, Enna-il is given the titles king of Kish and ensí-gal denlil (chief steward of Enlil); and 
   

2. ✴Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, note 67, at p. 148) observed that: 
   

3. “[Enna-il’s] presence at Nippur is further demonstrated by an ED literary text from Nippur (preserved in a later, possibly Ur III, copy), which describes his involvement in the delivery of Ur’s ‘first offering’ for Enlil from Ur to Nippur”. 
   

4. He translated the relevant lines as follows: 
   

5. “... the licorice, which sprouted in a desolate place for the table of Enlil; the fat of the cow (and) the pure milk, the 'first offering' of Ur for the table of Enlil; ... Enna-il, the king, hailed Enlil (and) Ninlil there”, (ECTJ 219, lines iii’:1 - iv’: for ‘ECTJ 219’, see Aage Westenholz, referenced below, 1975). 
   

6. Xianhua Wang (referenced below, at p. 83 and note 237) commented that, if:
   

7. •the Ur III copy (ECTJ 219) is faithful to the original; and 
   

8. •‘Enna-il, the king’ who ‘hailed Enlil’ in this copy is the king of Kish named in the royal inscriptions above; 
   

9. then: 
   

10. “... [Enna-il] would be the earliest historical [Mesopotamian ruler who] ...  is known to have collected ‘first fruit offerings’ for Enlil and Ninlil, [and, in doing so, he may have been] acting as the ruler [= hegemon ?] of Ur”.
    

In fact, he is also the first king of Kish who can be securely linked to Nippur in any capacity: while it is true that Eanatum and Enmetana of Lagash both cited Mesalim as the ruler responsible for the establishment of the border between Lagash and Umma as mandated by Enlil (the city god of Nippur), this tradition might well reflect the interpretation of these later rulers of Lagash rather than that of Mesalim himself. 

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2011, at p. 180 and note 108) published and translated the text  on a statue that he dated on stylistic grounds to the ED IIIb period as follows: 

1. “To Shara: [when] Enna-il was king of Kish: Uriri, the chief cook, presented (this statue).”  
   

He suggested that:

1. ✴the statue possibly came from Umma (where Shara was the chief deity); and
   

2. ✴this might suggest that Enna-il was an ‘overlord’ there. 
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2013, note 67, at p. 148) similarly argued that the inscription on this statue:

1. “... probably [indicates that] Enna-il exercised some form of suzerainty [hegemony ?] over Umma.”
   

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at pp. 153-4 and note 161) again argued that this statue: 

1. “... which dates to [Enna-il’s] reign, ... is clearly ED IIIb in style.” 
   

He also argued (in note 19, at p. 140) argued that Enna-il:

1. “... was probably the last great king of Kish proper.  In this connection, note that ... [the title] ‘chief steward of Enlil’, [which he was given literary text 6 NT 104 from Nippur - see above], ...was later borne by the overlords Lugalzagesi [of Umma and Uruk] and Sargon [of Akkad].”  
   

Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at p. 14) argued that:

1. “Enna-il:
   

2. ✴could have been the ruler of Kish whom the southern coalition faced at the time of the Fara archive [and the Kiengi League]; [or]
   

3. ✴ if he lived later (that is, in ED IIIb), he might alternatively have been ... the unidentified king of Kish, who (together with Mari and Akšak) invaded the territories of Lagash during the reign of Eanatum, [the grandson of Ur-Nanshe].”  
   

Kings of Kish from Enmebaragesi to Enna-il 

Obviously, the history of this period is plagued by uncertainties in relation to both the absolute and the relative chronologies of the Kishite kings listed above.  However, scholars generally agree that the earliest king of Kish known from our surviving sources is Mebaragesi, who became known in Sumerian legend as Enmebaragesi, the father and predecessor of Akka.   The find-spot of one of his two surviving royal inscriptions suggests that he ruled at a time when the hegemony of Kish extended into the Diyala region, and there might also have been a historical basis to:

1. ✴the surviving Ur III texts in which he appears as the overlord of Uruk at the time of Gilgamesh; and 
   

2. ✴the claim in the later SKL recensions that he defeated ‘the land of Elam’ (since, for example,  raiders from ‘Elam’ might have threatened the security of his hold on the Diyala valley). 
   

If ‘Akka, son of Enmebaragesi’ was actually a historical figure, then his reign would have followed that of his father. 

The next two Kishite kings discussed above were:

1. ✴Mesalim, who certainly exercised hegemony over Adab, Umma and Lagash; and
   

2. ✴Lugalnamnirshum, who almost certainly exercised hegemony over Lagash. 
   

Since:

1. ✴each of these kings dedicated an oversized weapon (the mace of Mesalim and the spear-head of Lugalnamnirshum) in the original Ningirsu temple at Girsu; and
   

2. ✴both of these votive objects were ritually buried in the foundations of the later temple of Ur-Nanshe;
   

we can at least assume that both Mesalim and Lugalnamnirshum reigned before Ur-Nanshe. 

This brings us to Menunsi.  As we have seen: 

1. ✴Gianni Marchesi, who:
   

2. •assumed an unusually late date for Mesalim; and
   

3. •argued (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lugalnamnirshum was a king of Uruk; 
   

4. placed the reign of Menunsi in the Fara Period, between those of Enmebaragesi and Mesalim; while
   

5. ✴Piotr Steinkeller placed:
   

6. •the reign of Mesalim shorty after that of Enmebaragesi; and
   

7. •the reign of Menunsi between the reign of Mesalim and the Fara Period. 
   

Finally, we come to Enna-il, who certainly controlled Nippur and possibly exercised hegemony over Ur and/or Umma.  Piotr Steinkeller argued that:

1. ✴he might have ruled at Kish in the Fara Period, at the time of the so-called ‘Kiengi League’ ; or
   

2. ✴(if he ruled thereafter) he might have been:
   

3. “... the unidentified king of Kish, who ... invaded the territories of Lagash during the reign of Eanatum, [the  grandson of Ur-Nanshe]”, Gianni Marchesi reasonably characterised him as ‘probably the last great king of Kish proper’.