by
Damien F. Mackey
Introductory
Having Lagash-Eshnunna (var. Ashnunna) re-identified now - so that instead of being places in Mesopotamia, as is generally believed, they (now it) belong(s) to Judea, as, Lachish-Ashdod (var. Ashduddu) - has necessitated that the Sumerian history that has been written around the location has since needed to be re-written, as Judean history.
And I have already made a positive start on this. See e.g. my article:
Called Sumerian History, but isn’t
(3) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
From this research it has been learned that certain places thought to have been situated in Sumer, such as Lagash, Girsu, Puzrish-Dagān, and Umma, eventually fall off the political map. I attributed this to the fact that they (or some of them, at least) never actually belonged on the political map of Sumer, that Lagash (or Lakish) and Girsu, for instance, were, respectively, Lachish and Jerusalem, in Judea.
The obscure Umma will become a focal point in this article.
The Judean history that was being re-written in relation to Lagash and Girsu (supposedly in Sumer) and Eshnunna (supposedly in central Mesopotamia) seemed to revolve entirely around kings David and Solomon and the later Hezekiah of Judah.
See, for example, my articles:
Prince of Lagash
(8) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem?
(8) Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Thus David and Solomon were, respectively, Dadusha (Naram-Sîn) and Ibāl pî-el of Eshnunna; Solomon was also Gudea of Lagash; and Hezekiah was Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina
“Uru-ka-gina, Uru-inim-gina, or Iri-ka-gina was King of the city-states of Lagash and Girsu in Mesopotamia [sic]”.
While Girsu (my Jerusalem) is considered to have been the actual capital of Lagash, the region is generally designated by the name of Lagash, rather than of Girsu.
According to the Wikipedia explanation, article “E-ninnu”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ninnu
“Girsu was the religious centre of a state that was named Lagash after its most populous city…”.
In the biblical narrative, however, it is Jerusalem that always takes centre stage.
With nearly all of the main players (Dadusha/Naram-Sîn, Ibāl pî-el, Gudea and Urukagina) now having been dealt with, the only one left to be considered, I think, would be Eannatum (var. Eanatum) of Lagash.
Odds are, I thought, that Eannatum would be either David or Solomon, or Hezekiah.
I quickly ruled out King Solomon, considering that Eannatum was no Gudea (Solomon) type, but was a ruler whose land, Lagash, was under severe invasive threat.
Nor did that particular scenario appear to fit King David’s era either, despite the fact that David was a warrior who fought many battles.
No, this war was on a far more vast scale, reaching even as far, supposedly, as Mesopotamia and Elam.
The era of King Hezekiah of Judah came closer to it, and I had already identified the reforming king Hezekiah with the reforming king Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu, whose land of Lagash (Lachish) had been invaded and overcome by one Lugalzagesi of Umma.
In this context - a reforming king of the Lachish region (Judea), overcome by an invader - it became fairly apparent who Lugalzagesi must have been, though Umma itself continued to remain obscure, or imprecise.
Lugalzagesi must be Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria.
Here is some of what I wrote on the matter in the Urukagina article:
Mackey’s further comment: Having said that about Lugal, “King”, it is most interesting to learn that:
https://www.joshobrouwers.com/articles/evolution-sumerian-kingship/
“Lugal-Zagesi is said to have had no less than fifty LUGALs beneath him”.
Cf. Isaiah 10:8: “Assyria [Sargon II] says, ‘Aren’t my commanders all kings? Can’t they do whatever they like?’”
There has been some speculation on whether or not Urukagina enacted his reforms into law or if he was just paying lip service to social reform as a way to increase his popularity with his subjects (many kings announce high-minded reforms at the beginning of their reigns, only to proceed with “business as usual”). With Urukagina there can be little doubt as to his intentions. He repeated his reforms on other foundation cones. The reforms were the central event of his reign, and they would end up costing him dearly, as will later be shown. As for whether or not he enacted the reforms into law: Urukagina was the king, his word was law. This alone was enough to guarantee that the reforms were enacted.
….
These social reforms weren't his only concern. He ruled during a period of political instability and civil war between the Sumerian city-states [sic]. His main antagonist was Lugalzagesi,
the king of Umma who was making a bid to conquer all of Sumer and Akkad (and beyond).
Mackey’s comment: The name Lugalzagesi (with various alternative spellings, such as Lugalzaggessi and Lugalzagissi), just like the name Sargon, which means “True King”, shares at least the King element.
Umma is problematical. It is yet another of those supposedly Sumerian places that drops off the political map ….
Umma may either be a well-known place … under a different name (below), or it may be the name for a place not in Sumer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umma
Umma (Sumerian: 𒄑𒆵𒆠 ummaKI;[1] in modern Dhi Qar Province in Iraq, formerly also called Gishban) was an ancient city in Sumer. There is some scholarly debate about the Sumerian and Akkadian names for this site.[2]
Lugalzagesi made several attacks on the kingdom of Lagash. One administrative tablet from this period is dated “the month that the man of Uruk came a third time.” It seems like Lagash was under repeated attacks from two different cities, Umma and Uruk, but in this case they are essentially the same.
Mackey’s comment: “… came a third time”. Sargon II had sent his Turtan against Lachish/Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1), then the Assyrian army came again, after Iatna-Iamani had revolted.
Then, as Sennacherib, Sargon II famously laid siege to the mighty fort-city, Lachish.
And, as we read above, “Uruk and Umma … [may] essentially [be] the same”.
Though, as we read on, the two names will now be distinguished.
Although Lugalzagesi was originally the king of Umma, he had recently moved his capital to Uruk, so “the man of Umma,” as he’s called on another tablet, and “the man of Uruk,” both refer to Lugalzagesi.
Umma and Uruk would be allies in the war against Urukagina, since both cities were ruled by Lugalzagesi. Three (or more) attacks on Urukagina within the span of seven years is a bit much, even by the Sumerian standards of internecine warfare. The reason for this was the long standing animosity between Umma and Lagash. They were at war for more than a century, battling for control of the Guedena, the fertile land between the two cities.
Mackey’s comment: Guedena, Gu-Edin, I have identified, basically, as the ancient Eden, which became Jerusalem.
Although Lugalzagesi was currently 'the Man of Uruk', he was born and raised as a royal prince of Umma. As such, he would have grown up hating Lagash and dreaming of the day when he could defeat it.
The Sumerian Hundred Years War was about to culminate into its final battle.
Urukagina was focused on his social reformations. He wasn't interested in foreign wars abroad or Sumerian civil wars at home. Nonetheless, although social reforms were Urukagina's primary concern, he spent most of his time defending his kingdom.
Mackey’s comment: This description fits very well with phases during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah.
….
The gloominess of Urukagina’s situation can be sensed in a fragment from a heavily damaged foundation cone (CDLI P222617):
n lines missing
“For my part, what did I have of it?” I said to him:
“I did not do any violent act, but the dogs {the enemy} today are ... my city(?)”
n lines missing
Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army},
and Urukagina
exchanged blows with it with weapons.
A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there,
and dogs he made live there.
He went away to his city,
but a second time
he came ...
rest of column missing
The “wall” is probably the enemy army surrounding the city, or it may be a siege wall constructed by the invaders to trap the civilians and defenders inside the city, cut off from outside food supplies, in order to starve them into submission. The prolonged siege of
the city caused the enemy “dogs” (soldiers) to live there for a while.
Mackey’s comment: This would be the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib.
2 Kings 18:13-17:
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me’. The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the Temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace.
At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the Temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
Sennacherib Threatens Jerusalem
The king of Assyria sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander with a large army, from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They came up to Jerusalem and stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field.
Urukagina – Hezekiah during siege of Jerusalem
Eannatum – Hezekiah victorious over Assyria
This is how I am beginning to see it.
Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu belongs to the successful invasion of Sennacherib during the latter’s Third Campaign, when everything went right for the Assyrians.
Lachish (Lagash/Lakish) was taken and the capital city of Jerusalem (Girsu) was successfully besieged:
Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army},
and Urukagina
exchanged blows with it with weapons.
A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there,
and dogs he made live there.
Eannatum of Lagash was, on the other hand, the victorious King Hezekiah.
His other name, Lumma, may clinch it.
For I have identified King Hezekiah as the Lemuel (Lumma-el?) of Proverbs 31: 1, 4:
“Lemuel” of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon
(11) "Lemuel" of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon by | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
https://dbpedia.org/page/Eannatum
“One inscription found on a boulder states that Eannatum was his Sumerian name, while his “Tidnu” (Amorite) name was Lumma”.
So we have, rhymingly, Lumma opposed to Umma.
The conventional history, which had wildly assigned Urukagina to the c. C24th BC, instead of to the c. C8th BC where he truly belongs (my view), and had made of him the world’s first reformer, goes similarly beserk with who I believe to be his alter ego, Eannatum: https://dbpedia.org/page/Eannatum
“Eannatum (Sumerian: … É.AN.NA-tum2) was a Sumerian Ensi (ruler or king) of Lagash circa 2500–2400 BCE. He established one of the first verifiable empires in history: he subdued Elam and destroyed the city of Susa as well as several other Iranian cities, and extended his domain to Sumer and Akkad”.
Did King Hezekiah do any of this?
While I am not quite sure how some of this Sumerian-ised Judean history came about – maybe by the later Ptolemies and Seleucids, who glamourised early history and individuals - the whole thing has been grossly mis-dated by modern historians and archaeologists.
Let us reconsider some of this, following the Sumerian Shakespeare, writing on whom he calls, “Eannatum, the King of Kish”:
https://sumerianshakespeare.com/37601.html
Eanatum … the most militarily successful ruler of the first dynasty of Lagash. He conducted many campaigns abroad, including ones against the southern cities of Ur, Uruk, and Kiutu, as well as states further afield such as Kish, Mari, Akshak, and Susa. He even reached northeastern Subartu and the eastern regions of Elam, destroying a city called Mishime. His military campaigns were so widespread that he was able to claim the title "King of Kish," a title associated with if not always actually indicating, the unity of the Mesopotamian city-states and their submission to a single ruler.
Mackey’s comment: Obviously no king of Judah ever achieved such far distant conquests as these. It is probably a garbled history that drags in some of the far-reaching conquests of the neo-Assyrian kings.
However, the 185,000-strong Assyrian army of Sennacherib that Israel conquered at this time, thanks to the heroic intervention of Judith, consisted of soldiery from many of these named parts. Achior, the nephew of Tobit, for instance, had commanded the Elamite (not Ammonite as in the Book of Judith) contingent.
Like other Lagash rulers, Eanatum had to deal with Umma and the unsettled struggle over the Guedena. From the Enmetena cone we know he was in a strong position to dictate terms of an agreement. He divided the land with his rival Enakale and established a no-man's land along the agreed border, marking it with his own boundary stele and restoring the previously ruined stele of Mesalim, in addition to building shrines to Enlil, Ningirsu, and Ninhursag near the division. He also imposed a tax on Umma for the use of its share of the Guedena, which grew to huge proportions and in the time of his descendants resulted in another invasion by Umma into Lagash's side. To enforce the agreement he made the ruler of Umma swear an oath to the gods not to violate the borders.
Mackey’s comment: Guedena is another of those geographical names that, I think, belongs to Judah, rather than to Sumer. The site of Jerusalem was originally the Garden of Eden (Guedena? Land of Eden).
Though polytheistic elements (not suitable to the rule of King Hezekiah) seem to enter in here, the god Ningirsu, for instance, was simply (so I think) another name for Yahweh – Ningirsu, “Lord of Girsu” (that is, Jerusalem).
King Hezekiah, after the victory that must have shaken the entire ancient world, may have been in a position to impose certain terms upon the Assyrians.
Much information about Eanatum's deeds comes from the famous Stele of the Vultures, a fragmentary inscription that depicts in both verbally and graphically powerful ways the military exploits of the king of Lagash. One fragment shows the god Ningirsu holding a mace in his right hand while his left holds a net that has bagged a number of helpless enemy soldiers. Another section shows Eanatum leading a heavily armed phalanx of soldiers trampling slain enemy underneath. Yet another shows men piling up corpses into a giant heap, an image which is reflected in the text.
The stele also gives testament to developments in the ideology of kingship which are promoted by later Lagash rulers. Eanatum is the first Lagash king to explicitly claim divine birth by a god, in this case Ningirsu. Inheritors of the throne would go on to do likewise, as when Eanatum's son Enanatum I [sic]¬¬¬ named the god Lugal-URU11 his father, and when Enmetena names Gatumdug his divine mother (Bauer pg. 462). Along with the divine progenitor comes a divine wet-nurse, that is, a female goddess who suckles the king to make him strong. For Eanatum this figure is the ancient goddess Ninhursag (Ean 01, IV). Other kings, down to the Neo-Assyrian period, would also make use of this motif. The stele also describes how Ningirsu visited Eanatum in a dream where he instructed him to make war on Umma. This motif surfaces again in the cylinder inscriptions of the later king Gudea, where he narrates how Ningirsu explained the plan for the (re)building of his E-ninnu temple.
Mackey’s comment: The first paragraph here could well be describing the victorious Judean king, Hezekiah (Eannatum), led by Yahweh (Ningirsu), joining the rout against the Assyrian foe as begun in the north (around Shechem).
Judith 15:5-7:
When the Israelites heard it, with one accord they fell upon the enemy and cut them down as far as Choba. Those in Jerusalem and all the hill country also came, for they were told what had happened in the camp of the enemy. The men in Gilead and in Galilee outflanked them with great slaughter, even beyond Damascus and its borders. The rest of the people of Bethulia [Shechem] fell upon the Assyrian camp and plundered it, acquiring great riches. And the Israelites, when they returned from the slaughter, took possession of what remained. Even the villages and towns in the hill country and in the plain got a great amount of plunder, since there was a vast quantity of it.
This celebrated incident is what I believe that the Stele of the Vultures may be depicting, whether the stele had been created closely contemporaneously to the event itself, or, more likely, at some later stage (and perhaps far away from Judah) given the polytheistic elements to be found in it.
As for the second paragraph, the Davidide kings did regard themselves as sons of God.
The “wet nurse” theme for great men is a constant throughout biblical history (Moses) and pagan legend, e.g., Hathor suckling Hatshepsut; Cyrus the Great suckled by a female dog; Romulus and Remus suckled by a she-wolf, etc.
Gudea, as King Solomon, certainly did receive a dream from Ningirsu, Yahweh, regarding the building of the temple (Temple).
King Hezekiah’s oracles on behalf of Yahweh were Isaiah and, as King Josiah, Huldah, who is Judith.
The conflict between Eannatum (Lumma) and Umma over water is probably a vague recollection of the fact that King Hezekiah famously secured the water of Jerusalem, so that the looming Assyrians would not benefit from it. 2 Chronicles 32:1-4:
After all that Hezekiah had so faithfully done, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. He laid siege to the fortified cities, thinking to conquer them for himself. When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. They gathered a large group of people who blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. ‘Why should the kings of Assyria come and find plenty of water?’ they said.
Compare this with the following: https://classicalwisdom.com/politics/wars/a-war-for-water-the-tale-of-two-city-states/
Eannatum was the King of Lagash, a fertile town nestled between the Tigris and the Euphrates [sic]. While his domain was prosperous, Eannatum wanted more.
This ambitious king, upon receiving his power, understood that Lagash’s security relied on its water supply from the Shatt al-Gharraf [sic]. Unfortunately his neighbor, the city-state of Umma, also bordered this very important channel on the western bank [sic]. The chief cause of hostility between these important cities is unknown according to some historians, and while we can never be certain, it seems obvious to us that the conflict was over water. ….
Umma held this one strategic advantage over Lagash. Cutting the water supply to the city would hinder its domestic produce and trade via waterway, effectively crippling commerce in Lagash and sending prices upward on all commodities. ….
Good try!
