Amnon Altman 153

Journal of the History of International Law 6: 153172, 2004.

2004 Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in the Netherlands.
Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts of
International Law. The Early Dynastic Period in
Southern Mesopotamia
Amnon Altman
We do not know, and will probably never know, when and under what circumstances
the rst rules of behaviour, designated to regulate the relations between two or more
human groups, were created. Lying deep in the mists of the very long prehistoric era,
they are far beyond our reach. We may speculate about the circumstances of their rst
appearance, but it is only with the invention of writing, and when these early rules were
put in writing, that we may speak more condently about this issue.
Writing appeared for the rst time in the Near East, during the late fourth millennium,
and the earliest written documents we have are from the site of Warka, ancient Uruk
(biblical Erech), in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia (ca. 3100 BCE). Yet, for the
next six hundred years or so the employment of writing was restricted to economic and
administrative records, and to sign-lists for the use of the scribal schools.
1
It is only
around 2500 BCE that we have the rst royal inscriptions reporting political events.
2

From around 2900 BCE on, the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia the focus
of our discussion here, which much later became to be known by the name Babylonia
seems to have been populated by two distinct ethnic groups who divided it into roughly
two equal halves. Its southern part was occupied by the Sumerians, while the Semitic
Akkadians occupied its northern part. Recent studies have suggested that there was a
1
See for these R. K. Englund, Texts from the Late Uruk Period, in J. Bauer, R.K. Englund,
and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit, Freiburg (Switzer-
land) and Gttingen, 1998, pp. 15-233. Toward the end of this stage, ca. 2600-2500, also literary
compositions started to be written. For these, see in the same book, pp. 237-427, M. Krebernik,
Die Texte aus Fra und Tell Ab S
.
albh

(for the literary texts: pp. 317-335).

2
For a recent detailed survey of the documents of the so-called Pre-Sargonic Period (2500-
2350 BCE), and the information they provide about the history of southern Mesopotamia at this
period, as well as about religion, military aspects, economy and administration, and private life,
followed by a quite detailed bibliography, see Josef Bauer, Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der
mesopotamischen Geschichte, in J. Bauer, R.K. Englund, and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien
Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit, pp. 431-585. For more concise surveys, see D.O.
Edzard, Sumerian Civilization: The Sumerians to the end of the Early Dynastic period, The
New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, Chicago, 2002, Vol. 23, pp. 866-869; P. Steinkeller,
Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C. in D.N. Freedman et al. (eds.) The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, Vol. 4, New York, 1992, pp. 724-732 (for the Early Dynastic period: pp. 724-726).
Department of History,
Bar-Ilan University, Israel
154 Journal of the History of International Law
striking difference between the political organizations of these two groups. While the
Sumerians developed a system of independent city-states, the Akkadians seem never
to have developed such a system, and there are strong reasons to believe that during
most of the 27th-24th centuries BCE the northern part had the form of a single politi-
cal conguration. The paramount position in it was held by the city of Kish, while two
other secondary power-centers, Akshak and Mari, seem to have competed with Kish
for the control of that conguration.
3
The much later Sumerian King List,
4
and some
Sumerian literary works commemorating the struggles of the southern city of Uruk
with the Kishite kings Enmebaragesi and Akka,
5
suggest that Kish exercised consid-
erable inuence in the south sometime during the 28th-27th centuries, and may even
have succeeded in gaining some kind of suzerainty over it.
6
From around 2500 BCE,
we have documents found at the site of Fra, ancient Shuruppak, hinting of some kind
of military cooperation between six Sumerian city-states in the southern part of the
alluvial plain. The evidence we have suggests that that organization was created as a
response to a threat posed by the northern power of Akkadian Kish.
7
Further echoes of
military struggles from this remote past are found in some later literary works, which
are connected with the names of some early kings of Uruk and Kish.
8

More reliable and dateable information starts to become available, however, only
from when the written word was adopted by the scribes for royal inscriptions,
9
with
3
See more recently P. Steinkeller, Early Political Development in Mesopotamia and the Ori-
gins of the Sargonic Empire, in M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad The First World Empire: Structure,
Ideology, Traditions, Padova, 1993, pp. 107-129 (esp. 116ff.).
4
For which see Th. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Assyriological Studies 11), Chicago,
1939, and pp. 77-85 for the role of Kish in this list.
5
See particularly the literary composition Gilgamesh and Akka; recent edition: Dina Katz,
Gilgamesh and Akka, Broomall, Pennsylvania, 1993.
6
Cf. Th. Jacobsen, Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, Toward the Image of
Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, edited by William L. Moran,
Cambridge, Maryland, 1970, pp. 132-156, and notes on pp. 366-396 (rst published in Zeitschrift
fr Assyriologie, 52 (1957), pp. 91-140), and see there p. 145f. and notes 55-56 on pp. 381-383;
P. Steinkeller, Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, pp. 118-119, 128.
7
Francesco Pomponio, The Hexapolis of uruppak , in Francesco Pomponio Giuseppe
Visicato, Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of uruppak, Instituto Universitario Orientale di
Napoli, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Maior VI, Napoli 1994, pp. 10-20. The Sumerian
cities are: Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma.
8
For these echoes, see Th. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz pp. 143-147, and the notes
on pp. 378-383.
9
For a more recent edition of these inscriptions, including both transliteration and translation of
both royal and private inscriptions, see H. Steible, Die Altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften,
I-II, Wiesbaden 1982. For a recent English translation of only royal inscriptions, which will
be used here, see J.S. Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. I: Presargonic
Amnon Altman 155
which we also have our earliest records of concepts of interstate law. Unfortunately,
however, the great majority of these early royal inscriptions, and particularly those
reporting political events, came from one state, that of Lagash (from the sites of Girsu
[Tello] and Lagash [al-Hib]). Only very few inscriptions found in other cities, such
as Nippur, Uruk and Ur, contribute any signicant information beyond the names of
the rulers in whose names they were written. What we have from some other sites are
only very short votive inscriptions that do not contribute anything of signicance to
the issue under consideration here. The information we have is, therefore, very partial
and one-sided.
There is yet another fact pertaining to the nature of these inscriptions called in
the jargon of Assyriology Early Dynastic IIIb Inscriptions or Pre-Sargonic Inscrip-
tions that should be noted. Save for some seals and seal impressions, as well as
some practice pieces, the vast majority of these early royal inscriptions are essentially
dedicatory inscriptions that commemorate the dedication of a structure or object by
the ruler to a specic god. With the possible exception of a few free-standing sculpted
and inscribed steles, inscriptions that commemorate the building of a structure were
usually inserted into the walls of that structure, impressed on its bricks, or ceremoni-
ally buried in its foundations or under oors, while dedicated objects were put inside
the temple.
10
To most if not all of these inscriptions, common people had no access.
The accounts of political and military affairs described in these inscriptions should,
therefore, be taken as reports addressed not to the people but rather to the gods, relating
to them the achievements of the king, their delegated ofcial, or most rarely about
affairs that affected their property.
11
When, around 2500 BCE, the curtain is fully raised above the historical stage of
southern Mesopotamia, we encounter a scene of military struggles between half a dozen
city-states. These armed struggles were fought both locally and countrywide. On the
local plane, they were between neighboring cities over water and sown lands that could
be irrigated. The documents attesting to these struggles also refer to arbitration awards
made by a third party and non-aggression agreements concluded between two rival
Inscriptions, New Haven, Connecticut, 1986 (henceforth: Cooper, followed by page number and
the number of the inscription. References to lines will follow the numeration of Steibles edi-
tion. Note that Coopers translation provides cross-references to the corresponding inscriptions
in Steible edition as well as to other earlier translations). A new edition of these inscriptions
which, when published, is likely to become the standard reference edition was announced, but
up to the submission of the present article for publication has not yet appeared: Frayne Douglas,
Pre-Sargonic Period 2700-2350 BC (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods,
Vol. 1), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.
10
For the nature, materials, shape, structure and content of these inscriptions, see Cooper,
Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, pp. 4-13.
11
Such is the inscription of Uruinimgina (a name previously read Urukagina), which laments
the destruction of temples in Lagash made by the ruler of Umma: Cooper, p. 78f., La. 9.5.
156 Journal of the History of International Law
city-states, as well as to repeated violations of these agreements.
12
In the countrywide
conicts, some of the prominent city-states in southern Mesopotamia took part, as well
as some other city-states such as Elam on the East, and Mari, on the Middle Euphrates,
to the north-west.
13
The main object of these latter struggles was to gain control over
other city-states, and we may see in them the earliest historical sprouts of imperialism.
These struggles brought about the temporary supremacy of one city-state king over the
others, which gave rise to what we may call the hegemonic king.
14
The full extent
of powers such a king had is still unknown. What we do know is that he was able to
mobilize the troops of the city-states under his authority against an enemy foreigner;
15

12
See particularly the cone inscription of Enmetena (a name previously read Entemena), ruler
of Lagash (Cooper pp. 54ff., La 5.1), which reviews the dispute between the neighboring cit-
ies of Lagash and Umma, the previous agreements reached, and their violations by the rulers
of Umma (written from the viewpoint of Lagash). For another inscription from Lagash, which
records the oath and ritual by which the ruler of Lagash swore in the ruler of Umma, see the
inscription of the Vultures Stele of Eanatum: Cooper, pp. 34ff., La 3.1. For a more recent
discussion of the documents related to the conict between these two city-states, see Jerrold S.
Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash-Umma Border Conict,
Malibu, California, 1983.
13
We have clear echoes of those struggles in the inscriptions of Ennail (of Kish?; Cooper, p.
21, Ki 7), Enshakushana of Uruk (Cooper, p. 105, Uk 4.1 and 4.2), and of the Lagashite kings
Urnansh (Cooper, p. 24f., La. 1.6), Eanatum (Cooper, pp. 41ff., La 3.5-6, 8-10), Enanatum I
(Cooper, pp. 49ff., La 4.4 and 4.9), and of unknown king from Lagash (Cooper, p. 85, La 10.2).
Note particularly the involvement of Mari in these struggles as echoes in the inscription of Eana-
tum La 3.5, and of Elam in the inscriptions of Ennail Ki 7, and Eanatum La 3.1 and 3.5-9.
14
On this term and its institution see Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, pp. 151-154, 389-
394. According to Jacobsen the title King of Kish claimed by some southern kings (Mesanepada
of Ur, Lugalkiginedudu of Uruk, Eanatum of Lagash, and Lugaltarsi whose city is not certain)
actually implied hegemony over both southern and northern Babylonia (p. 151f.). This view was
challenged by T. Maeda, King of Kish in Pre-Sargonic Sumer, Orient (Tokyo) 17 (1981), pp.
1-17, who believes that when the title was used by Sumerian rulers it denoted the rule over only
the city of Kish. S. Cooper (Reconstructing History, p. 25, and Sumerian and Akkadian Royal
Inscriptions, pp. 18 and 42, note 3) argued that it denoted hegemony over northern Babylonia.
While P. Steinkeller (Early Political Development, p. 120) suggested that in its southern ap-
plication, the title was a generic term that described a particular form of kingship, namely, an
autocratic and hegemonic type that was associated with the Kishite kingdom.
15
This may be inferred from two of the inscriptions of Sargon, King of Agade (Akkad), which
refers to the fact that Lugalzagesi, on his march to battle with Sargon, was followed by 50 city
rulers. For these inscriptions, see Douglas Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC)
(The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Period, Vol. 2), Toronto Buffalo London,
1993, pp. 13-17, inscriptions E2.1.1.2-3.
Amnon Altman 157
that he was entitled to conscript their laborers;
16
and that he had the authority to inter-
vene and act as arbitrator in border-disputes between city-states.
17
In all probability, he
also had to assume responsibility for the welfare of the local major gods in the cities
under his hegemony.
18
The authority of such a king, which was backed by the military
power under his control, did not remain, however, long in the hands of one city-state
ruler, but rather passed from one city-state to another, reecting thereby the struggles
conducted by these city-states to achieve hegemony.
19
16
See Cooper, p. 58, inscription La 5.4 of Enmetena, which declares that Enmetena cancelled
obligations for the citizen of Uruk, Larsa and Patibira; he restored (the rst) to (the goddess)
Inanas control at Uruk, he restored (the second) to (the god) Utus control at Larsa, he restored
(the third) to (the god) Lugalemushs control at the Emush (= the temple of Lugalemush in
Patibira). These laborers, who were conscripted by Enmetena of Lagash from these three cities
subordinated to him were apparently released following a weakening of Lagashs military power
in favor of Uruk, a weakening which brought about the concluding of a brotherhood agreement
between Lagash and Uruk. For the inscription that refers to this agreement, see Cooper, p. 58,
inscription La 5.3, and the discussion in Cooper, Reconstructing History, p. 31f.
17
Cf. the role of Mesalim (also read Mesilim) as arbitrator in the border dispute between Lagash
and Umma in the inscriptions of Eanatum and Enmetena kings of Lagash: Cooper, p. 39f.: La
3.2-3; p. 54: La 5.1 (see below for the quotation of the latter inscription). We, however, do not
have any clear evidence that such an arbitrator ever exercised his power and authority to punish
any violator of an arbitration award made by either him or any previous arbitrator. It may, how-
ever, be that the violations of such awards occurred particularly when the power and authority
of such a hegemonic king were in decline, while no other king replaced him yet in the ofce.
See, however, in the Stele of Vulture of Eanatum (Cooper, pp. 34ff.: La 3.1), where the god
Ningirsu declared angrily that Kish itself must abandon
?
Umma!, which refers to a military help
expected by Umma from Kish. It may also be that the wide attack against Eanatum and Lagash
referred to by Eanatum (Cooper, pp. 41ff.: La 3.5-6), which included Kish, Akshak, Mari and
Elam, with some other city-states in the south such as Ur, Uruk and Umma, was connected with
the border dispute he had with Umma. If this is indeed the case, then we may see in this attack
a reaction of a hegemonic king to punish Eanatum for transgressing the border of Umma.
18
This may be inferred from the three inscriptions of Mesalim King of Kish found in Girsu
(Lagash) and Adab (Cooper, p. 19, Ki 3.1-3). These inscriptions record him as building a temple
for Ningirsu (Girsu) and performing some rite in the temple Esar in Adab and dedicating there
something (the inscription is damaged), probably to the goddess Ninhursag. See also Enmetenas
inscription found in Patibira (Cooper, p. 58: La 5.3), recording his building of the Emush, the
temple of the gods Inana and Lugalemush in that city (cf. also his inscription La 5.4 [Cooper,
p. 58], recording the building of that temple). Although Enmetena did not have the standing of
hegemonic king, he still had at that time hegemony over some Sumerian cities: see the discussion
by Cooper, Reconstructing History, pp. 30ff.
19
The rulers who seem to have achieved some degree of hegemony over other city-states, whether
or not it included the hegemony of both the southern and the northern parts of Babylonia, are as
follows: (1) Mesalim (of Kish?), whose hegemonic rule is attested in his own three inscriptions
found in Girsu (Lagash) and Adab (Cooper, p. 19: Ki 3.1-3), and by the testimonies of Eanatum
158 Journal of the History of International Law
These documents indicate that already at this early documented period, interstate
relations were conceived by the people of the Ancient Near East to be under the super-
vision and sanction of the gods. Accordingly, the hegemonic king was presented as
acting under the authorization given to him by the gods,
20
and his success in gaining
the hegemonic ofce and status was presented as deriving from his having been
elected to this ofce by the gods.
21
These early royal inscriptions also reveal something about the religious concepts of
the people of southern Mesopotamia at that time regarding their gods concepts that
should have largely dominated and regulated interstate relations. The scanty informa-
tion provided by these inscriptions is supplemented by literary compositions such as
myths, hymns, and epics. These literary works, which have come down to us in later
copies, in all probability originated in much earlier periods,
22
since they reect a type
of political organization which should have predated the monarchic regimes of the
so-called Early Dynastic IIIb period (ca. 2500-2335) with their well established institu-
tion of kingship.
23
Now, according to the ofcial ideology, the city-state a territorial
entity, comprising a major city and the surrounding countryside, with its towns and
and Enmetena of Lagash (Cooper, p. 39f.: La 3.2-3; p. 54: La 5.1); (2) Mesanepada of Ur (Cooper,
p. 98: Ur 5.2); (3) Eanatum and Enanatum I of Lagash (Cooper, p. 41f.: La 3.5; p. 50f.: La 4.9);
(4) The kings of Uruk Lugalkiginedudu and Urzage who are both titled King of Kish (Cooper,
p. 102f.: Uk 1.2, 1.6; p. 104: Uk 3), Enshakushana who is titled lord of Sumer and king of the
nation (Cooper, p. 105: Uk 4.1; 4.3), and perhaps also Lugalkisalsi whose inscription was found
in Nippur (Cooper, p. 103: Uk 2.1); (5) Lugalzagesi of Umma and Uruk (Cooper, p. 94: Um
7.1). To this list we may perhaps add also Ennail whose city is not known but whose inscription
was found in Nippur (Cooper, p. 21: Ki 7). For the political importance of Nippur for claiming
hegemonic rule over the country, see Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, p. 139f.
20
See the inscriptions of Eanatum (Cooper, La 3.2 [p. 39]) and Enmetena (La 5.1; quoted below),
which open with a reference to the authorization Mesalim got from the god Enlil to demarcate
the border between Lagash and Umma. In reality, such an authorization was obtained most likely
through omens following a deliberate ritual in the course of which the god was invoked to give
his answer in the entrails of an animal. The use of divination to obtain the approval of the gods
for a certain intended act is attested for that period in an inscription of Urnanshe, ruler of Lagash:
Cooper, p. 28, La 1.17, with note 1.
21
See the inscriptions La 3.5 of Eanatum, La 4.9 of Enanatum I, and Um 7.1 of Lugalzagesi
(Cooper, pp. 41f., 50f., and 91f. respectively), which declare that the victory on the foreign lands
was granted to these rulers by some deity. See also the inscription Uk 4.1 of Enshakushana, which
declares that his attack on Kish was according to the command he got from the gods (Cooper,
p. 105).
22
Duplicate manuscripts of some Sumerian myths and hymns have been found in Fra and Ab
S
.
albikh, dated to ca. 2600-2500 BCE: see note 1 above. But their (oral) origin should have been
still much earlier.
23
For these see Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, pp. 137-147, and notes on pp. 370-383.
It should be taken into account that religious concepts are usually much more conservative and
not easily given to rapid changes, and once put in writing they tend to become fossil.
Amnon Altman 159
villages was the property of an extended divine family. The chief god, as the head of
that family, was regarded as the owner of the whole state, who, at the same time, held
together with his spouse and children the major city as his private domain. Junior
deities belonging to his household owned smaller domains, comprising towns and vil-
lages. The king of the city-state was regarded as having been elected by the city-god
to serve as his earthly representative to take care of his estate. The divine families of
all the city-states were united into one super-extended family, with Enlil, the chief god
of Nippur, occupying the position of the paterfamilias.
24

It may be noted, however, that in the early royal inscriptions under consideration
here, while Enlil bears the title father of all the gods,
25
which alludes to a patriarchal-
tribal organization, he is more often referred to as the king of all lands,
26
or as king
of heaven and earth.
27
These latter titles reect the accommodation of the image of the
divine world organization to the more recent political development of human society
and the emergence of kingship.
28
Accordingly, Enlil is presented as the one who xed
the boundaries of the lands, namely the terrestrial estate of each of the more prominent
gods, and his decisions are presented as having been reached without having been rst
consulted and reviewed by any divine assembly, and without its consent.
One of the best expressions of this concept is found in the opening lines of one of
the inscriptions of Enmetena, the king of Lagash (ca. 2450 BCE). Since this inscription
will dominate much of the discussion in this article, the quotation extends beyond the
opening lines of the inscription (Cooper, pp. 54ff., La 5.1: cols. i-iv):
(The god) Enlil, king of all lands, father of all the gods, by his authoritative com-
mand, demarcated the border between (the gods) Ningirsu and Shara. Mesalim,
24
See Steinkeller, Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, 116f. It may be noted,
however, that in the myths, which seem to represent an older tradition, the god An, the god of
Heaven, is usually presented as the one who preceded the divine assembly, while Enlil occupied
a somewhat secondary position. Note also, that in one inscription of Lugalzagesi of Umma and
Uruk (Um 7.1), while Enlil is again and again referred to as the king of all lands, the god An
is also referred to as king of all lands, and Enlil is invoked to supplicate An (who is presented
as his father) on Lugalzagesis behalf. For further occurrences of An as king of all lands see
note 26 below.
25
In an Inscription of Enmetena: Cooper, p. 54, La 5.1.
26
See Cooper, p. 54, La 5.1 (Enmetena); p. 94, Um 7.1 (Lugalzagesi); p. 101, Uk 1.1 (Lugalkigi-
nedudu); p. 103, Uk 2.1 (Lugalkisalsi); p. 104, Uk 3 (Urzage); p. 105, Uk 4.1 (Enshakushana).
Note, that in some royal inscriptions of the kings of Uruk, Ur, and Umma, and once in that of a
king of Kish also the god An is titled as king of all land: Cooper, p. 21f., Ki 8 (Lugalsilasi);
p. 94, Um 7.1 (Lugalzagesi); p. 101, Ur 8 (Elili); p. 102, Uk 1.2 (Lugalkiginedudu, dedicated in
Nippur, the cultic center of Enlil; but see his inscription Uk 1.1 dedicated to Enlil, king of all
lands). In one Lagashite inscription (La 4.5 of Enanatum I) the goddess Inana of Uruk is titled
as queen of all the lands.
27
Stele of the Vultures: xvii (Cooper, p. 35: La 3.1).
28
Cf. Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, p. 43f., and notes 18-23 on pages 327-331.
160 Journal of the History of International Law
king of Kish, at the command of (the god) Ishtaran, measured it off and erected a
monument there.
Ush, ruler of Umma, acted arrogantly: he smashed that monument and marched
on the plain of Lagash. Ningirsu, warrior of Enlil, at his (Enlils) just command, did
battle with Umma. At Enlils command, he cast the great battle-net upon it, and set
up burial mound for it on the plain.
Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, uncle of Enmetena ruler of Lagash, demarcated the
border with Enakale, ruler of Umma. He extended the (boundary-) channel from the
Nun-canal to the Guedena, leaving (a) 215 nindan (1290 m.) (strip) of Ningirsus
land under Ummas control and establishing a no-mans land there. He inscribed
(and erected) monuments at that (boundary-)channel and restored the monument
of Mesalim, but did not cross into the plain of Umma. On the boundary-levee of
Ningirsu, (called) Namnundakigara, he built a chapel of Enlil, a chapel of Ninhursag,
a chapel of Ningirsu, and a chapel of Utu.
The leader of Umma could exploit 1 guru (5184 hl.) of the barley of Nanse and
the barley of Ningirsu as a(n interest-bearing) loan. It bore interest, and 8,640,000
guru (44,789,760,000 hl.) accrued. Since he was unable to repay
?
that barley,
Urluma, ruler of Umma, diverted water into the boundary-channel of Ningirsu and
the boundary-channel of Nanshe. He set re to their monuments and smashed them,
and destroyed the established chapels of the gods that were built on the (bound-
ary-levee called) Namnunda-kigara. He recruited foreigners, and transgressed the
boundary-ditch of Ningirsu.
Enanatum, ruler of Lagash, fought with him in the Ugiga-eld, the eld of
Ningirsu. Enmetena, beloved son of Enanatum, defeated him. Urluma escaped, but
was killed in Umma itself.
At that time Il took the rulership of Umma for himself. He diverted water
into the boundary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe He
repaid
?
(only) 3600 guru (18,662,400 hl.) of Lagashs barley.
When, because of those (boundary-) channels, Enmetena, ruler of Lagash, sent
envoys to Il, Il, ruler of Umma, the eld thief, speaking hostilely, said: The bound-
ary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe are mine! I will shift
the boundary-levee from Antasura to Edimgalabzu, he said. But Enlil and Ninhursag
did not allow him (to do) this.
The historical review of the relations between the two states opens with an ancient
arbitration award made by Mesalim, King of Kish, in the dispute between these two
city-states. Mesalim either actually ruling that northern city-state or only bearing
that title as an hegemonic title
29
in his capacity of hegemonic king demarcated and
xed the borders between the two states. We are not told what the situation was before
29
For this title as hegemonic title, see note 14 above. Mesalim is not known from any other
source to have belonged to Kish, and not even one inscription of his has been found in Kish. The
title King of Kish alone cannot bear on it. Cf. the inscription of Mesanepada Ur 5.2 where this
king is only titled as King of Kish. Had we not other documents that proved him as the king
of Ur, we could have been mistaken in taking him as belonging to the city of Kish.
Amnon Altman 161
Mesalim interfered in this border dispute, nor whether Mesalim was indeed the rst
to demarcate the border between them. Mesalims act is presented here as the actual
rendering by a mortal of the decision made by the god Enlil, the king of all lands, in
the border dispute between Ningirsu, the titular god of Lagash, and Shara, the titular
god of Umma, over the extent of their terrestrial estates.
30
Yet, Enlil, as betting a
king, did not himself demarcate the (new) boundary, but rather entrusted that to the
god Ishtaran,
31
who in turn entrusted it to the mortal Mesalim.
Such a concept, quite obviously, should have sanctied the demarcation of the
borders of the city-states as being a part of the divine world order, and in turn, made
their violator not only a transgressor against human order but also a sinner in the eyes
of the gods. Particularly, such a violator was conceived to offend the titular god of the
city he attacked and turn him into his enemy.
32

It is in this light that we have to see the emphasis repeatedly put by Enmetena on
the fact that each time that the border was violated, it was rather the ruler of Umma
who trespassed it, violating the extant agreements. Note also the assertion made by
Enmetena to the effect that his uncle Eanatum, despite his victory over Umma, did not
enter its territory. The same assertion is found also at the end of one of Eanatums own
inscriptions, La 3.2 (Cooper, p. 39f.):
Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, restored to Ningirsus control his beloved elds.
Eanatum did not cross beyond the place where Mesalim had erected the monument,
and (moreover) he restored that monument.
While these assertions reect the concept that the borders of the city-states were sac-
rosanct and should not be violated, in two of Eanatum inscriptions we nd a statement
that appears to be a justication for the very act of waging a war against another city-
state (Cooper, pp. 41ff.La 3.5: iv, 25-v, 8; La 3.6: v, 10-vi, 5):
30
Note, however, that the inscription does not mention any dispute between these two gods over
the extent of their estates, and the impression the reader get is that this was the original border
between these two estates.
31
The status and role of this god here is not entirely clear. His cult center was in the city of Dr
(see W.G. Lambert, Itarn in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, 5 [1976-80], p. 211), but it is not
clear if this city was also Mesalims city, and whether his involvement in the border dispute be-
tween Lagash and Umma was made in capacity of his being the god of the hegemonic city, or in
another capacity. Note that the reference in Lugalzagesis inscription Um 7.2 to the involvement
of this god in this dispute for the second time, as he who gave the command to Lugalzagesi to
erect a (new) monument, does not prove or disprove anything. The appealing of Lugalzagesi to
this god to give his approval to this act could have simply stemmed from the fact that the original
monument, set by Mesalim, was set by the command of that god.
32
See the accusation raised by Uruinimgina against Lugalzagesi: The leader of Umma, hav[ing]
sacked L[ag]ash, has committed a sin against Ningirsu (Cooper, p. 78f., La 9.5: vii, 10-ix, 3).
162 Journal of the History of International Law
Because
33
the king of Akshak attacked, Eanatum, nominated by Ningirsu, beat back
Zuzu, king of Akshak, from the Antasura of Ningirsu to Akshak, and destroyed it
(Akshak).
This justication reects the concept that waging a war against another city was forbid-
den, unless it was an act of defense. In the same light, we have to see Eanatums concern
to clarify that the war was fought in his own territory, the territory of Lagash:
Elam trembled before Eanatum; he drove the Elamite back to his own land. Kish
trembled before Eanatum; he drove the king of Akshak back to his own land. Eana-
tum, ruler of Lagash who subjugates the foreign lands for Ningirsu, defeated Elam,
Subartu and Urua at the Asuh

ur(-canal). He defeated Kish, Akshak and Mari at the

Antasura of Ningirsu. (La 3.5: vi, 6-vii, 2)
We may, however, wonder, if this war was really only one of defense as these inscriptions
attempt to show, or that this wording was dictated by a concept that attacking without
having been attacked is a transgression or even a sin, and should not be admitted.
34
Another justication for an aggressive act of war, which recurs in later periods
in many royal inscriptions, particularly in Assyrian ones,
35
is to ascribe it to a divine
33
See Cooper, p. 42, note 1. Yet, even if we follow the translation In the year when, still the
sentence asserts that the king of Akshak initiated the ght.
34
Cf. H. Vanstiphout, Political Ideology in Early Sumer, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
1 (1970), pp. 7-38, and there p. 27f. for a similar opinion. However, Vanstipout ascribed to that
idea what he nds to be a lack of aggressive policy, this aversion to the idea of conquest, this
restriction of war to raids with purely temporary aims. I would ascribe to this idea only the
limiting of the boasting and admitting openly the committing of such actions in the statements
made in these inscriptions addressed to the gods. I doubt, therefore, whether Steinkeller is right
in the assertion he made in his Early Political Development (see note 3 above), note 20 on p.
118, that the fact that, by Eanatums own admission, the war was fought in the territory of La-
gash assures that Eanatums success did not amount to much more than repulsing the enemy
and saving his kingdom. Cf. Coopers doubts regarding the veracity of Eanatums declaration
that he only restored Ningirsus Guedena to Lagash: Cooper, Reconstructing History, p. 28.
See further the interesting observation of A. Westenoltz, The World View of Sargonic Ofcials.
Differences in Mentality between Sumerians and Akkadians, in Mario Liverani (ed.), Akkad
The First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions, Padova 1993, pp. 157-169, and there
p. 160 where he regards the Sumerians as a people of law and order. Yet, admittedly, there are
statements, like the one made by Urnanshe, Eanatums grandfather, that he went to war against
the leader of Ur and the leader of Umma and defeated them (Cooper, p. 24f., La 1.6: rev. i, 1
ii, 2), without preceding it with a declaration that these two kings initiated the war. If my above
interpretation is correct, then I would take this statement of Urnanshe, made three generations
earlier, as indicating that the reservation from declaring openly an aggressive act was a recent
development that only gradually became accepted norm.
35
See e.g. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (To 1115 BC)
(The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods Vol. 1), Toronto-Buffalo-London,
Amnon Altman 163
command.
36
Thus we nd in an inscription of Enshakushana, ruler of Uruk (Cooper,
p. 105, Uk 4.1), that:
When the gods commanded him, he sacked Kish and captured Enbiishtar, the
king of Kish.
Still connected with the question of waging war, attention should be paid to a much
damaged inscription found in Girsu, most probably of a Lagashite ruler whose name
was not preserved, La 10.1 (Cooper, p. 84f.). In what has been preserved in it, we read
as follows:
[He s]ent [envoys to ]: Be it known that your city will be completely destroyed!
Surrender! Be it kno[wn] that Umma will be completely destroyed! Surre[nder!
].
What makes this inscription so interesting is not its reference to diplomatic messengers
and messages. They are mentioned also in the above-quoted long inscription of Enme-
tena (Cooper, p. 54f., La 5.1), referring to the envoys he sent to Il, ruler of Umma, and
in an inscription of Uruinimgina (Cooper, p. 76f., La 9.3: iv), referring to the envoys
sent by Enanatum I to (Urluma) the ruler of Umma. The dispatch of messengers is also
a well-known topos in Sumerian literary texts, as was noted by Cooper.
37
It is rather the
content of the message that makes this inscription so important. For here we have the
earliest example of a declaration of war sent in advance to the opponent, a well-known
practice from later periods.
Let us now move on to the question of who was supposed to punish the offender in
case of a violation of an agreement or arbitration award. According to the above quoted
inscription of Enmetena, when Ush, the king of Umma, infringed the arbitration award
of Enlil, made through Mesalim, it was neither the god Enlil nor the god Ishtaran who
acted to redress the wrong and to punish the offender. It was rather the wronged god
and his human delegate, the king of Lagash, who had to redress it by their own force.
The role of Enlil in the punishment of the offender was mentioned only in granting
the wronged god the authorization to punish him.
38
Yet, it is also important to note the
reected concept, that even where the wronged king had the right to redress the wrong,
he was still required to rst obtain authorization from the supreme god.
1987, in the inscriptions A.0.39.1: 5-10 (ami-Adad I); A.0.76.3: 4-10 (Adad-Nrri I); A.0.77.1:
56-59 (Shalmaneser I).
36
Or, as Cooper phrased it (Reconstructing History, p. 11): This theological rationale of all
Mesopotamian imperialism making war in the name of a god for territory claimed by a god or
given to the warring ruler by a god was thus present at the beginning of recorded Babylonian
history. Such a command was gained no doubt through divination; see note 20 above.
37
J.S. Cooper, Reconstructing History, p. 40 with note 9.
38
An authorization gained very likely through divination; see note 20 above.
164 Journal of the History of International Law
The concept reected here is no doubt quite old, and very likely goes back to the
time when human society only started to expand beyond the boundaries within which
order was secured merely through the power of public opinion and religious taboos.
39

At this stage of social development, when new institutions suitable to cope with the
expanding society had not yet evolved, and society still lacked the tools to impose its
law on its members, the burden to redress a wrong should have been left to the wronged
party. Under such circumstances, the only gesture to rule of law was the need for the
wronged person to get an authorization in advance to act against the offender.
40
As a matter of fact, such a procedure may not have accorded any longer with the
political reality of the city-states of southern Mesopotamia in the 25th-24th centuries
BCE, when their kings were able to muster troops in order to act against external and
internal offenders. It is, therefore, very likely an ancient practice that was projected
on the divine world, and as any other conservative religious concept, continued to
prevail long after the social human conditions that brought it about had changed. Yet,
it is still remarkable that also the hegemonic king is not mentioned here as having
been involved in redressing the wrong and punishing the offender; nor even as one who
authorized the kings of Lagash to act against the offenders. This fact may be taken as
an indication that not always was the status and power of the hegemonic king suf-
cient to intervene successfully in the dispute between two city-states, and not always
could the wronged party rely on him.
41
Under such circumstances, where there was no
stable human supreme authority to impose order in interstate relations, there was also
no inducement for that conservative religious concept to be changed.
In accordance with this limitation of the power of the hegemonic king to maintain
order in the land, we nd that the above-quoted inscription of Enmetena ended with
a curse formulated as a prayer address to the god Enlil to punish any future ruler of
Umma who would trespass the border (La 5.1: vi, 21-29):
If the leader of Umma transgresses the boundary-channel of Ningirsu and the bound-
ary-channel of Nanshe, to take away elds by force whether he be the leader of
Umma or an(y) other leader may Enlil destroy him! May Ningirsu, after casting his
great battle-net upon him, bring down upon him his giant hands and feet! May the
people of his own city, after rising up against him, kill him there within his city!
A similar curse-prayer is found in the (damaged) concluding passage of an inscription
of Eanatum (Cooper, p. 40, La 3.3):
39
For a society whose order is secured by these means see e.g. the classic book of B. Malinowski,
Crime and Custom in Savage Society, London 1926.
40
Cf. in general Max Rheinstein, Process and Change in the Cultural Spectrum Coincident
with Expansion: Government and Law, in Carl H. Krealing and Robert M. Adams (eds.), City
Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development held at the Oriental Insti-
tute of the University of Chicago, December 4-7, 1958, Chicago 1960, pp. 405-418 (particularly
407-412).
41
See note 17 above.
Amnon Altman 165
If [a leader of] Um[ma cros]ses the water/canal in order to take away the elds, may
Ningirsu be a (hostile) dragon to him! May Enlil make salt surface in his furrows!
[May] Shu May there be an uprising against him in his own city!
Still, a third occurrence of the employment of a curse concerning the Lagash-Umma border
appears at the end of an inscription of Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk and a son of the ruler of
Umma, which denes the course of that border (Cooper, p. 95f., Um 7.2: 81-91):
If another leader destroys
?
it (the new boundary monument) there, or takes it away
and makes off (with it), may [his] city, like a place (infested) with harmful snakes,
not allow him to hold his head erect! May poisonous fangs bite that ruler in his
ruined palace!
The above examples present the curse as having been employed without the other party
to the dispute having been directly involved in the curse making. Yet we have from this
period, one unique monumental inscription that records the oath coupled with a curse
and a certain magic ritual with which Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, swore in the defeated
ruler of Umma (Cooper, pp. 33-39: La 3.1). It is the earliest example we have of the
employment of an oath and a curse in an interstate agreement. Following is an excerpt
taken from that inscription (xvi, 12-40):
Eanatum gave the great battle net of Enlil to the leader of Umma, and made him
swear to him by it. The leader of Umma swore to Eanatum: By the life of Enlil,
king of heaven and earth! I may exploit the eld of Ningirsu as a(n interest-bearing)
loan. I shall not the irrigation channel! F[orever and evermore, I shall not shift
(the course of) its irrigation channels! I shall not smash its monument! Whenever I
do transgress, may the great battle net of Enlil, king of heaven and earth
?
, by which
I have sworn, descend upon Umma!]
These oath and curse were repeated six times, each time by evoking a different great
god. Yet, Eanatum, not content with this repeated self-cursing, added the following
complementary curse, made in the third person and attached to each self-cursing made
by the ruler of Umma (xvi, 41-xvii, 20):
Eanatum was very clever indeed! He made the eyes of two doves with kohl, and
anointed their heads with cedar (resin). He released them to Enlil, king of heaven
and earth,
?
to the ekur
?
in Nippur: After what he has declared and has reiterated to
my [master Enlil], if any leader in Umma reneges against the agreement, when he
opposes or contests the agreement, whenever he violates this agreement, may the
great battle net of Enlil, by which he has sworn, descend upon Umma!
42
This inscription appears on a stele so-called Stele of the Vultures because of the
scene that accompanied the text: vultures hovering over assumably the corpses of the
42
In the following curses, the names of Enlil and the Ekur, his temple in Nippur, were replaced
with the names Ninhursag (in Kesh), Enki (temple: the Abzu in Eridu), Suen (temple: the Ek-
ishnugal
?
in Ur), Utu (temple: the Ebabbar in Larsa), and Ninki.
166 Journal of the History of International Law
dead Ummaite soldiers (not preserved) and carrying away in their beaks and claws
the heads and an arm of the slain. The main scene on the obverse shows the god Nin-
girsu holding a large net lled with enemy soldiers, illustrating the battle-net of this
god that gures in the above-quoted curses. The main scenes preserved on the reverse
show Eanatum leading a Lagashite phalanx, and Eanatum in a chariot at the head of a
detachment of spear-bearers. At the lower left, there is a scene of the construction of
two burial mounds, which illustrates a phrase repeated in the Lagash inscriptions that
the victorious ruler made burial mounds of the enemy soldiers.
43
Before leaving these interesting scenes, two points may be noted here. The rst
pertains to the scene of the construction of the burial mounds of the enemy soldiers.
The scene clearly show two piles of corpses, and two men with baskets for carrying
earth on their heads making their way up the second pile, intending very likely to cover
the corpses with earth. This reinforces the interpretation of the expression he made a
burial mound for them not as just heaping the corpses in a mound without covering
them, but rather as constructing for them some kind of tumulus. This, in turn, suggests
that we have here an early attestation of an obligation put on the victor to bury the dead
soldiers of the defeated enemy.
The second point to be noted is the function of the scenes. While all the scenes may
have been intended to serve only as a memorial to commemorate Eanatums victory,
still the scene on the obverse, presenting the god Ningirsu holding a large net lled
with enemy soldiers, may have been intended to illustrate the curses, and to function
as some kind of magic means to realize them.
Whether or not also the scenes on that stele were intended to realize the curses, the
curse-prayers referred above indicate that the people of southern Mesopotamia dur-
ing that period did not rely only on their own power to punish the transgressor, but
resorted to the curses as a complementary means to guarantee that the offender would
be punished. This means, which no doubt was adopted into the interstate relations at a
much earlier time, coupled with an oath, continued to play a role in interstate relations
down to at least the seventh century BCE,
44
and for sure much later.
43
For pictures of the stele, see J. B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, Princeton 1954,
p. 94f., gs. 298-301; E. Strommenger, 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia, New York, NY 1964,
pp. 66-69; A. Moortgat, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia, London-New York 1969, pp. 118-121.
For the Lagashite inscriptions referring to the construction of burial mounds, see e.g. Copper, p.
24f.: La 1.6 (Urnanshe); p. 41f.: La 3.5; p. 42f.: La 3.6; p. 43f.: La 3.8 (Eanatum); p. 54f.: La 5.1
(Enmetena). For a more recent discussion of the stele and its scenes see Irene J. Winter, After
the Battle Is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art
of the Ancient Near East, in Herbert L. Kessler and Marianna Shreve Simpson (eds.), Pictorial
Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Studies in the History of Art, 16), Washington D.C.:
National Gallery of Art, 1985, pp. 11-32. The issue of burial of dead enemies has been dealt with
by Aage Westenholz, bertum, damtum, and the Old Akkadian Kl.GAL: Burial of Dead enemies
in Ancient Mesopotamia, Archiv fr Orientforschung 23 (1970), pp. 27-31.
44
See the treaty drawn up by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon in 672 BCE for certain eastern vassal
rulers: D.J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, London 1958 (=Iraq 20).
Amnon Altman 167
Returning to the question of the punishment of the transgressor, we may note that
while the supreme god Enlil would quite naturally have the ultimate responsibility to
punish him, still, in the curses quoted above from the inscription of Enmetena, Ningirsu,
the wronged god of Lagash, is also invoked to take part in it. This, however, raises a
question: Why did Ningirsu, the one who under such circumstances would have been
the rst to be injured, need to be invoked to punish the transgressor? Was it not self-
evident that this god would participate in any event? The available royal inscriptions
of this period do not bear on this question. Yet, from later documents we know that
the titular god was conceived as one who is likely to abandon his city to its fate if he
is enraged against the ruler of that city or its people. An alternative answer, or rather
a complementary one, is to take into account that at this period and stage of cultural
development the gods were still conceived as capable of acting unpredictably and
capriciously. It was only later, in the second millennium BCE, that the gods became to
be conceived as acting more carefully and predictably according to rules of justice.
45

In any event, the above invocation of Enmetena to Ningirsu indicates that a ruler by
no means could take for granted the help of the titular god of his city.
This last-quoted passage of Enmetena inscription raises yet another question, which
pertains to the titular god of the offending city. We may note that while Enmetena
invoked the gods Enlil and Ningirsu to punish any future ruler of Umma who would
transgress the border of Lagash, he said nothing about any sanction against Shara, the
titular god of Umma. This becomes more apparent in an inscription of a later ruler
of Lagash, Uruinimgina, which laments the destruction brought upon Lagash and its
temples by Lugalzagesi, the ruler of Umma (Cooper, p. 78f.: La 9.5). The inscription
ended with the following words (vii, 10-ix, 3):
The leader of Umma, hav[ing] sacked L[ag]ash, has committed a sin against
Ningirsu. The hand which he raised against him will be cut off! It is not a sin of
Uruinimgina, king of Girsu! May Nisaba, the god of Lugalzagesi, ruler of Umma,
make him (Lugalzagesi) bear the sin!
46
Uruinimgina is careful to declare himself as innocent, namely that he did not provoke
the ruler of Umma and did not cause the attack. But again, Shara, the god of Umma, is
not accused of having any role in this offense. This, despite the fact that the titular god
45
See Th. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, New Haven 1976, pp. 147-164.
46
The interpretation of the last sentence as demanding the goddess Nisaba to punish Lugalzagesi
was argued by S.N. Kramer, The Sumerians, Chicago 1963, p. 323; H. Hirsch, Festschrift fr
Wilhelm Eilers, Wiesbaden 1967, pp. 101-106; H. Vanstiphout, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
1 (1970), p. 28, note 93; and was adopted by Steible (see note 9 above) and Cooper in their
translations of these royal inscriptions. A deferent interpretation of this sentence, as demanding
Nisaba to carry the sin on her own shoulders, was argued by F. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen
und akkadischen Knigsinschriften, Leipzig 1907, p. 59; G.A. Barton, The Royal Inscriptions of
Sumer and Akkad, New Haven 1929, p. 91; E. Sollberger and J.R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales
sumriennes et akkadiennes, Paris 1971, p. 81f., No. IC11m; and more recently by Th. Jacobsen,
The Treasures of Darkness, p. 157.
168 Journal of the History of International Law
was supposed to gain, if not from the booty taken in a plunder raid,
47
at least when the
victor annexed conquered territory,
48
or even only subordinated other city-states to his
suzerainty.
49
It is also not certain that Uruinimgina accuse the personal god of Lugal-
zagesi of this offense,
50
a god, who, according to the belief known from later periods,
was conceived as the one responsible for the success or failure of his protg.
51
It would seem, therefore, that a concept which would have ascribed to the titular god
of one city-state the encroachment on territory belonging to another god contradicted
the concepts of the Sumerians about their pantheon. They obviously could not tolerate
the idea that in such a closed family, to which their gods were thought to belong, one of
its members would try to take property belonging to another member of the extended
family. As long as that view dominated, the only way left to the Sumerians to understand
such an encroachment was to ascribe it to the human ruler of the offending city alone,
who in such a case, acted sinfully not only against the titular god of the attacked city
but also against the god of his own city.
This leads us to another question: How did the Sumerians at that period namely, the
people on whose concepts the inscriptions under discussion throw some light
52
explain
47
The only instance of an explicit dedication to a god of the booty taken in the course of an
attack is in two inscriptions of Enshakushana of Uruk, but in these cases the dedication was
made not to the titular god of Uruk but to Enlil, king of all lands: Cooper, p. 105: Uk 4.1-2.
It is remarkable that in the inscriptions which contain a detailed battle narrative, such as that of
Urnansh (Cooper, La 1.6), some of Eanatums inscriptions (Cooper, La 3.1-6, 8), and of Enana-
tum I (Cooper, La 4.2, 9), no mention is made of such a dedication. This is the more apparent
in inscriptions which ascribe the victory to either the help or the decision made by some god:
Cooper, La 3.5 (Inana gave Eanatum the kingship of Kish); La 4.2 ([Enlil
?
] turned over control
of Umma to [Nin]g[ir]s[u] who, in turn, put it in Eanatum Is control); La 4.10 ([Lu]galurub
put all foreign lands in Eanatum Is control, and [set
?
] the rebellious lands at his feet); Um 7.1
(Enlil, king of all lands, gave to Lugalzagesi the kingship of the nation). While we may assume
that at least part of the booty taken in such battle was dedicated to the gods, it is remarkable
that no mention is made of it, and one is left to wonder whether references to such a deed were
tactfully omitted.
48
See the inscriptions of Eanatum of Lagash, which present him as who subjugates foreign
lands for Ningirsu (Cooper, pp. 37ff.: La 3.1-2, 4-5, 10), or, more specically, as [Eanatu]m,
ruler of Lagash, who sub[jugates foreign lands] for Ningirsu, subjugated [Elam] and Subartu to
him. (p. 43, La 3.7).
49
For the right of the subduer to conscript laborers from the subordinate lands see note 16
above.
50
See note 46 above for a different translation, according to which the goddess Nisaba is required
to be responsible for the offense.
51
See Th. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, pp. 155-160.
52
While we also have royal inscriptions from cities such as Mari and Kish, which in all prob-
ability were populated at that period by a Semitic population, these inscription are very few and
too short to teach us much about the ideas of their authors.
Amnon Altman 169
the fact that one city succeeded to subordinate another city? The above-mentioned la-
ment inscription of Uruinimgina (Cooper, p. 78f.: La 9.5), is the only one we have
from that period that represents the offended party, and it offers nothing to bear upon
this question. Yet, we have some inscriptions that present the views of the victors. Here
we have two kinds of explanations. On the one hand, we nd declarations that ascribe
the victory of the ruler to the strength of his city-god. Thus we nd that
Eanatum, who is commissioned by Ningirsu, because of Ningirsus strength, has
no rival in all the foreign lands (Cooper, p. 43, La 3.7).
On the other hand, we nd in one of the inscriptions of Eanatum, the ruler of Lagash,
that
To Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, (the goddess) Inana, because she love him so, gave
him the kingship of Kish in addition to the rulership
53
of Lagash (Cooper, La 3.5:
v, 23-vi, 5).
And in one inscription of his son, Enanatum I, we nd that
[Lu]galurub granted the kingship of Lagash to Enanatum, put all foreign lands in his
control, and [set
?
] the rebellious lands at his feet (Cooper, La 4.9: ii, 13-iii, 7).
Then, in one of the inscriptions of Lugalzagesi, the king of Uruk and Umma, there is
the statement that
Enlil, king of all lands, gave to Lugalzagesi the kingship of the nation, directed all
the eyes of the land (obediently) toward him, put all the lands at his feet, and from
east to west made them subject to him (Cooper, p. 94f., Um 7.1: i, 36-ii, 2).
These and similar statements
54
allude to a concept that continued to prevail throughout
the history of the Ancient Near East, according to which no battle can be won without
the support of the gods. Yet, while the above-quoted inscriptions ascribe the victory to
different divinities, only the ascription of it to the god Enlil, king of all lands, is more
readily understandable. In the cases of Inana and Lugalurub, we are left wondering in
what capacity did they grant the kingship of Kish (Inana) or the control of all foreign
lands (Lugalurub) to Eanatum and Enanatum I respectively.
53
Note that the term rulership by itself does not necessarily designate any inferior status or
position to kingship. During this early period the terms used to designate the king varied from
one city to another. The term ruler became to be used by modern scholars as a translation of
the term ensik used in Lagash, while the term king is used for the term lugal (literally
Great Man), that was practiced in cities like Kish and Ur. A third term en, employed in Uruk,
is translated by the term lord, while occasionally we nd the designation l man in the
sense of king, translated as leader.
54
See e.g. Cooper p. 47, La 4.2, an inscription of Enanatum I, which states [Enlil
?
] turned over
control of Umma to [Nin]g[I]rs[u], and he then put it in Enanatums control.
170 Journal of the History of International Law
Much more remarkable is the fact that in the two last-quoted statements no reason
is attached to the decision of the divinity to grant the rule of the entire land to a cer-
tain king. Such a seemingly arbitrary decision accords, in fact, with what we nd in
some later literary works. Thus, the Sumerian king list portrays the transfer of the
hegemonic kingship from one city-state to another as the result of divine arbitrary
decision.
55
From about the same period, the beginning of the second millennium BCE,
we have a lament of the destruction of Sumer and the city of Ur,
56
the capital of the
so-called Ur III dynasty that ruled over the lands of Sumer and Akkad and beyond in
the last century of the third millennium. In lines 363-370 we nd the following answer
of the god Enlil to the pleading of Nanna-Sin, the titular god of Ur, that his city would
not be destroyed:
Oh Nanna, the Noble Son , why do you concern yourself with crying?
The judgment of the assembly cannot be turned back,
The word of Anu and Enlil knows no overturning,
Ur was indeed given kingship (but) it was not given an eternal reign.
From time immemorial, since the land was founded, until the population
multiplied,
Who has ever seen a reign of kingship that would take precedence (for ever)?
The reign of its kingship had be long indeed but had not to exhaust itself.
Oh my Nanna, do not exert yourself (in vain), leave your city!
57
No legal or ethical reasoning is provided by Enlil to cut off the reign of Ur. The decision
is presented as an arbitrary one whose only justication is that it follows a very old
practice. The presentation of the gods decision as arbitrary is found also in other later
literary works, which nevertheless reect an early stage in the evolution of concepts of
interstate law.
58
In order to nd another kind of reasoning, one which refers to justice and
legal judgment, we have to wait for the second stage of the development of interstate
law concepts, that of the Sargonic and Ur III periods. It may be noted, however, that
the above-quoted statement made by Eanatum to the effect that Inana, because she
loves him so, gave him the kingship of Kish (La 3.5: v, 23-vi, 5), presents a reasoning
alluding to divine reward for devoutness to the deity. Such reasoning prevailed indeed
55
For this composition, see note 4 above.
56
P. Michalowski, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, Winona Lake, In.
1989.
57
Ibid. p. 59.
58
See e.g. the Lamentation over the destruction of Ur, lines 155-164 (translated by S.N.
Kramer, in J. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Text, Princeton 1950, pp. 455-463), and the
Sumerian version of the Deluge (Translated by S.N. Kramer, op. cit. pp. 42-44), as well as its
Babylonian version attached as Tablet XI to the Epic of Gilgamesh(translated E.A. Speiser,
op. cit. pp. 93-97). In the latter two versions of the Flood story, no justication is provided to
the decision of the gods to destroy humankind.
Amnon Altman 171
throughout all the periods of the Ancient Near East, side by side with that referring to
divine justice and legal judgment.
As for agreements between two city-states, apart from the above-mentioned Stele
of the Vultures, commemorating both the victory Eanatum of Lagash had over Umma,
and the oath by which he swore in the ruler of Lagash, we have only references to the
conclusion of agreements. We do not have any document that records in full such an
agreement. Nevertheless, one reference to such an agreement, which appears in one of
Enmetenas inscriptions, La 5.3 (Cooper, p. 58), is worth special attention (ii, 4-10):
At that time Enmetena ruler of Lagash, and Lugalkiginedudu, ruler of Uruk, es-
tablished brotherhood (between themselves).
59

Apart from the fact that in the diplomatic parlance known from the second millennium
BCE, such a brotherhood denotes the conclusion of a parity treaty, it also signied a
higher degree of diplomatic relations, such that required a special agreement between
the would-be brothers to such a promotion of their relations.
60
From slightly later than
the conclusion of the above brotherhood between Enmetena and Lugalkiginedudu,
we have from Ebla in northern Syria a letter sent by its ruler to the ruler of Hamazi,
which includes a reference to such a brotherhood and gives us some further idea
what it actually meant:
61
I am (your) brother and you are (my) brother. What is (appropriate) to brother(s):
whatever desire you express, I shall grant and you, (whatever) desire (I express),
you shall grant.
Finally, attention should be given to two additional points. First, to the kind of arrange-
ment that had been reached between Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, and Enakale, ruler of
Umma, described in the above, rst quoted inscription of Enmetena (La 5.1). According
to that inscription, Eanatum, despite his victory over Umma, left a strip of land over
one km. deep along the border under Ummas control. This was land, which, according
to Enmetena, belonged to Lagash. According to Eanatums inscription on his Stele
of the Vultures (La 3.1), the ruler of Umma was obligated under oath to exploit the
eld of Ningirsu as a(n interest-bearing) loan. According to Enmetenas inscription,
the amount of land Umma could use was stipulated as the acreage needed to produce
1 guru (5184 hl.) of grain, at the current annual rate of 33
1
3%.
62
59
For the reconstruction of the background for the conclusion of that brotherhood, see Cooper,
Reconstructing History, p. 31f.
60
For the most recent discussion of such a brotherhood, as pertaining to the rst half of the
second millennium BCE, see B. Lafont, Relations internationales, alliances et diplomatie au
temps des royaumes Amorrites. Essai de synthse, Amurru 2, Paris, 2001, pp. 232-238.
61
P. Michalowski, Letters from Early Mesopotamia, Atlanta, Georgia, 1993, pp. 13-14, No. 2.
62
Or 50%. See the discussion of Cooper, Reconstructing History, p. 28f., whose interpretation
is followed here.
172 Journal of the History of International Law
The second point is connected with that arrangement. According to the interpretation
of the above Enmetenas inscription by G. Steiner, the renewal of the conict between
Lagash and Umma in the days of Enanatum was because Enanatum, the ruler of La-
gash, refused to continue the above arrangement reached in the previous generation.
According to Steiner, Enanatum did not want it to last more than 40 years, lest it would
constitute a basis for an Ummaite claim to the right of possession over the territory
considered.
63
If Steiner is correct, we have here the earliest indication of a claim to
the right of possession in the realm of interstate relations, a claim attested later in the
Hittite documents and in the Bible.
64

At the conclusion of this paper let me return and note, that meager and partial as the
information gleaned from these early royal inscriptions is, it is yet the oldest written
information available on the earliest traceable concepts of interstate law.
63
G. Steiner, Der Grenzvertrag zwischen Laga und Umma, Acta Sumerologica, Japan 8
(1986), pp. 219-300. For the cause of the conicts renewal, see there pp. 239-246.
64
See A. Altman, Claim of possession over occupied or conquered territory in the Bible and in
the Ancient Near East, Zeitschrift fr Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7 (2001),
pp. 332-352.