Identification Two A: Uruk Period

Where did the Uruk period go?

Nov 20, 2024

One of the problems with the Sumerian Kings List is the fact it lacks historical verification for many of the early leaders calling into question its veracity. For example the list excludes entire cities' kingships such as the important Lagash and Larsa - most probably for propagandistic purposes.1 Furthermore, a critical lack in the list is the sequential ordering which fails to describe the complex competing kingships that often overlapped and coincided with one another, really calling into question the dating of the list.2 Effectively, the further back you go the less the list seems to make sense, with anything beyond the Akkadian empire having no archeological record other than inscriptions, and anything prior to Gilgamesh effectively having absolutely no evidence what-so-ever, making all of these figures impossible to date.

After the Flood of Shuruppak and Utnapishtim, it appears as if the kingship shifts north to the city Kish. Interestingly, this name does line up with Ham’s eldest son Cush, who effectively founded the first empire out of all of Noah’s grandchildren, which would have theoretically been called “Cush/Kish”. Given that Nimrod is a “son” of Cush, it seems highly probable the Torah is intending there to be some sort of kingdom prior to Nimrod’s ascension to kingship over the other brothers, but still after the Flood with the name of “Cush” or “Kish”.

All of this coincides with the Uruk period of Kish, and the First Dynasty of Kish, however the exact timeframe for this appears to end sometime around 2900 BCE during the Jemdet Nasr. Really, it's impossible to make heads or tails of the entire kingship at Kish, with none of the figures having a single archeological record, and almost all of their names appearing in Akkadian forms - calling into question the actual memory of the list which was probably recorded later from oral history. Importantly, given the list's provenance in the Akkadian empire, it appears like the entire document was created to give legitimacy to Sargon’s dynasty.

Akkad is not far from Kish, representing the “second” cultural hub of the area more northern than the primary cities of Southern Mesopotamia such as Uruk, Lagash, or Eridu. In contrast, Kish, Akkad, and the later Babylon are all roughly located in similar areas, with many more “Semitic” language speakers than the Sumerian south. Sargon himself was reportedly born in a region called “Azupiranu” located within the boundaries of the Kish dynasty's rule.3 He reportedly floated down Euphrates in a basket of rushes where he was adopted by Aqqi the gardener of Kish. He works his way up becoming the cup-bearer to Urzababa, King of Kish.

Even further, Sargon’s original title was actually “King of Kish” or “šar-kiššati” before moving his capital to the new city he founded “Akkad” and taking the title “King of Sumer and Akkad”. This would all provide strong context for their inclusion, rather their insertion, on the Sumerian Kings List. In some sense, this title “King of Kish” is one of the universal titles, like Nimrod, that is passed down cyclically through Mesopotamian kingship; Nimrod was a “King of Kish”, like Sargon.

However, at the end of the First Dynasty of Kish we do have two rulers with scant archeological records named Enmebaragasi and Aga of Kish. Rather than using an Akkadian Semitic name like all the other kings, this pair actually appears with a Sumerian name making them seem like a stronger recollection of the past.4 While still maintaining the impossibly long lifespans of their progenitors, this father and son duo have more information about their kingship as a result of coinciding with the important Gilgamesh; featuring prominently within the legend.

The most important piece of evidence is probably the Stele of Ushumgal from around 2900 BCE depicting an “Ak-gal-ukkin” official who is likely King Aga of Kish.5 However, most records are still simple names lacking verified proof of an era in which they existed. Even stranger, is in one of the texts where Gilgamesh actually sacrifices his sister, named Enmebaragasi, to the monster Humbaba making it seem like this figure didn’t really exist and was more of a literary invention.

The dating on the Stele comes at earliest to 2900 BCE coinciding with the Jemdet nasr periods closure, making Aga and his father at best rulers during the very final years of the Uruk, when it was transitioning out of the “Final Uruk”, often separated into the Jemdet Nasr period. Thus, it appears like much of the Uruk period is completely lost when it comes to Mesopotamian records, but not archeological records of the period.

There was a sort of “Ziggurat” constructed at Uruk in this era, but this is only if we fudge the definition of Ziggurat. Technically, a Ziggurat is a raised mastaba platform, but pretty much anyone reading this without a scholarly background is going to assume a multi-leveled structure. The so-called Ziggurat of Uruk only contains a single raised platform terrace with a temple on the summit. The terrace was constructed at the onset of Uruk around 4000 BCE, but the temple existed over five hundred years later in 3500 BCE making this very different from the continually built up tower to the heavens described in the bible.6 The Anu Ziggurat with its White Temple at the top do not fit the description, and neither does the city of Uruk since the bible would have explicitly stated the “Tower of Babel” was at Uruk since it knew of the city's important existence.

If we were to spend time looking at the architectural dimensions of the complex, and ritual sacrifices, we would actually find quite a lot of similarities to the Jerusalem Temple. This structure is in some sense the earliest “Temple Mound” and in many ways served the exact same function at Uruk as the Temple in Jerusalem. It was only when the successive layers of building, and continually centralization around these structures as full “Ziggurats” that the Torah begins to find problem in the lofty ego driven goals of the rulers who fund their constructions.

What is interesting about the Uruk period is how the earlier site of Eridu, inhabited during the Ubaid period as a central ‘capital’ location, appears to be abandoned and mostly uninhabited during the Uruk period - despite some Uruk pottery being found at the site. Specifically it is the “Sacred Quarter of Eridu”, site of the main monumental structures such as the Temple of Eridu, which are completely abandoned, showing a shift in ritual life and the city's prime importance. If a ziggurat was constructed at Eridu, it was not during the Uruk period.7

Identification Two A: Uruk Period

Where did the Uruk period go?

Discussion about this post