The great grand-daddy of all god games, Hamurabi puts the player in the shoes (well, sandals) of Hammurabi the Wise, ruler of ancient Sumeria. One generation of game designers after its source code hit the mainstream in David H. Ahl's 1978 book BASIC Computer Games (aka 101 BASIC Computer Games), published. ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA. UNIT OVERVIEW. Donn, Corkran Middle School, Maryland, USA This unit was created during my first year as a teacher many years ago!

Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Waters subject to regulation [ ] Water is ubiquitous and does not respect political boundaries. Water resources laws may apply to any portion of the over which claims may be made to appropriate or maintain the water to serve some purpose. Such waters include, but are not limited to: • - lakes, rivers, streams, oceans, and wetlands; • —generally water that flows across the land from,, and before those waters reach watercourses, lakes, wetlands, or oceans; •, particularly water present in. History [ ] The history of people's relation to water illustrates varied approaches to the management of water resources.

'Lipit Ishtar and Ur Nammu both contain water provisions, pre-date Hammurabi by at least 250 years, and clearly provide the normative underpinnings on which the Hammurabi Code was constructed.' [ ] The was one of the earliest written laws to deal with water issues, and this Code included the administration of water use. The Code was developed about 3,800 years ago by King Hammurabi of Babylonia. Difficulties of water rights [ ] Water has unique features that make it difficult to regulate using laws designed mainly for land. Water is mobile, its supply varies by year and season as well as location, and it can be used simultaneously by many users. As with property (land) law, water rights can be described as a 'bundle of sticks' containing multiple, separable activities that can have varying levels of regulation. For instance, some uses of water divert it from its natural course but return most or all of it (e.g.

), while others consume much of what they take (ice, ), and still others use water without diverting it at all (e. Rock Of Ages Original Broadway Cast RARE. g. Each type of activity has its own needs and can in theory be regulated separately. There are several types of conflict likely to arise: absolute shortages; shortages in a particular time or place; diversions of water that reduce the flow available to others; pollutants or other changes (such as temperature or ) that render water unfit for others' use; and the need to maintain 'in-stream flows' of water to protect the natural. One theory of history, put forward in the influential book Oriental Despotism, holds that many empires were organized around a central authority that controlled a population through monopolizing the water supply.

Such a creates the potential for, and serves as a cautionary tale for designing water regulations. Water law involves controversy in some parts of the world where a growing population faces increasing competition over a limited natural supply. Disputes over, and underground cross national borders. Although water law is still regulated mainly by individual countries, there are international sets of proposed rules such as the and the.

Long-term issues in water law include the possible effects of on rainfall patterns and evaporation; the availability and cost of technology; the control of, and the growth of. Legal models [ ] The legal right to use a designated water supply is known as a. There are two major models used for water rights. The first is, where the owner of the adjacent land has the right to the water in the stream. The other major model is the, the first party to make use of a water supply has the first rights to it, regardless of whether the property is near the water source. Riparian systems are generally more common in areas where water is plentiful, while appropriations systems are more common in dry climates.

As water resource law is complex, many areas have some combination of the two approaches. Water law by country [ ] International law [ ]. Main article: The right to water to satisfy basic human needs for personal and domestic uses has been protected under international.

When incorporated in national legal frameworks, this right is articulated to other water rights within the broader body of water law. The human right to water has been recognized in international law through a wide range of international documents, including international human rights treaties, declarations and other standards. The human right to water places the main responsibilities upon governments to ensure that people can enjoy 'sufficient, safe, accessible and affordable water, without discrimination'. Most especially, governments are expected to take reasonable steps to avoid a and to ensure there are no water access distinctions amongst citizens.

Today all States have at least ratified one human rights convention which explicitly or implicitly recognizes the right, and they all have signed at least one political declaration recognizing this right. Canada [ ] Under the, jurisdiction over waterways is divided between the federal and provincial governments. Federal jurisdiction is derived from the powers to regulate navigation and shipping, fisheries, and the governing of the northern territories, which has resulted in the passage of: • the, • the, • the, and • the. Provincial jurisdiction is derived from the powers over, matters of a local and private nature, and management of. In, and other provinces, the of all are vested in the Crown, in contrast to. All provincial governments also govern through laws on and, such as the in Ontario.

Australia [ ] Water law in Australia varies with each state. Tasmania [ ] A newly formed Tasmanian Water Corporation has compulsorily acquired all drinking water supply infrastructure without payment and does not have direct accountability Water law in the United States [ ].

Main article: In the there are complex legal systems for allocating that vary by region. These varying systems exist for both historical and geographic reasons.

Water law encompasses a broad array of subjects or categories designed to provide a framework to resolve disputes and policy issues relating to water: • Public waters, including tidal waters and navigable waterways. • Other surface waters—generally water that flows across non-public land from rain, floodwaters, and snowmelt before those waters reach public watercourses. Andrew, and Cech, Tom.

Colorado Water Law for Non-Lawyers. Boulder, CO, USA: University Press of Colorado, 2009.

• Thompson, Olivia N., 'Binational Water Management: Perspectives of Local Texas Officials in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region' (2009). Applied Research Projects. • See in Ontario and, s. 919, in Quebec • Flora Fox Regional News, Kingborough, Hobart Southern Tasmania • • Hildering, A. (2004),, Eburon Academic Publishers, Delft, The Netherlands, 2004 • International Law Association Water Resources Committee (2004), Final Report presented at the Association's 2004 Conference in Berlin • UNEP (2002), Vital Water Graphics — An Overview of the State of the World's Fresh and Marine Waters. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Legal Control of Water Resources: Cases and Materials (4th edition).

Thomson/West (2006),. Further reading [ ] • Ute Mager, International Water Law. Global Developments and Regional Examples. Jedermann-Verlag, Heidelberg 2015,. • George Vranesh, Colorado Water Law. Revised Edition, University Press of Colorado (2000),, 2003 supplement (March, 2004), • Washington Office of Attorney General.

•,, External links [ ].

History of Mesopotamia, history of the region in southwestern where the world’s earliest civilization developed. The name comes from a Greek word meaning “between rivers,” referring to the land between the, but the region can be broadly defined to include the area that is now eastern, southeastern, and most of. The region was the centre of a whose influence extended throughout the and as far as the Indus valley,, and the Mediterranean. This article covers the history of Mesopotamia from the prehistoric period up to the Arab conquest in the 7th century ce. For the history of the region in the succeeding periods, see.

For a discussion of the religions of ancient Mesopotamia, see. Ziggurat at Ur (modern Tall al-Muqayyar, Iraq). Spectrum Colour Library/Heritage-Images/Imagestate Writing pervaded all aspects of life and gave rise to a highly developed —one of the most of the.

Remarkable organizing ability was required to administer huge estates, in which, under the 3rd of Ur, for example, it was not unusual to prepare accounts for thousands of cattle or tens of thousands of bundles of reeds. Similar figures are attested at Ebla, three centuries earlier. Above all, the is one of its finest cultural achievements.

Though there are many modern anthologies and chrestomathies (compilations of useful learning), with translations and paraphrases of Mesopotamian literature, as well as attempts to write its history, it cannot truly be said that “cuneiform literature” has been resurrected to the extent that it deserves. There are partly material reasons for this: many clay tablets survive only in a fragmentary condition, and duplicates that would restore the texts have not yet been discovered, so that there are still large gaps. A further reason is the inadequate knowledge of the languages: insufficient acquaintance with the vocabulary and, in Sumerian, difficulties with the grammar.

Consequently, another generation of Assyriologists will pass before the great, epics, lamentations, hymns, “law codes,” wisdom literature, and can be presented in such a way that modern readers can fully appreciate the high level of literary creativity of those times. The and medieval views of Mesopotamia; its rediscovery in modern times Before the first excavations in Mesopotamia, about 1840, nearly 2,000 years had passed during which knowledge of the ancient Middle East was derived from three sources only: the, Greek and Roman authors, and the excerpts from the writings of, a Babylonian who wrote in Greek.

In 1800 very little more was known than in 800 ce, although these sources had served to stir the imagination of poets and artists, down to Sardanapalus (1821) by the 19th-century English poet. Apart from the building of the, the Hebrew Bible mentions Mesopotamia only in those historical in which the kings of and Babylonia affected the course of events in Israel and Judah: in particular,, and, with their policy of deportation, and the introduced. Of the, (5th century bce, a contemporary of and ) was the first to report on “Babylon and the rest of Assyria”; at that date the Assyrian empire had been overthrown for more than 100 years.

The Athenian took part in an expedition (during 401–399 bce) of Greek mercenaries who crossed, made their way down the Euphrates as far as the vicinity of Baghdad, and returned up the Tigris after the famous. In his Xenophon describes the final struggle between and the Neo-Babylonian empire. Later, the Greeks adopted all kinds of fabulous tales about,, and. These stories are described mainly in the historical work of (1st century bce), who based them on the reports of a Greek physician, Ctesias (405–359 bce).

Herodotus saw with his own eyes, and Xenophon gave an account of travels and battles. All later historians, however, wrote at second or third hand, with one exception, (born c. 340 bce), who emigrated at an advanced age to the Aegean island of Cos, where he is said to have composed the three books of the.

Unfortunately, only extracts from them survive, prepared by one (1st century bce), who, in his turn, served as a source for the (died 342 ce). Berosus derided the “Greek historians” who had so distorted the history of his country. He knew, for example, that it was not Semiramis who founded the city of Babylon, but he was himself the prisoner of his own and cannot have known more about the history of his land than was known in Babylonia itself in the 4th century bce. Berosus’ first book dealt with the and with a of a composite being,, half fish, half man, who came ashore in Babylonia at a time when men still lived like the wild beasts. Oannes taught them the essentials of civilization: writing, the arts, law, agriculture, surveying, and architecture.

The name Oannes must have been derived from the cuneiform U’anna (Sumerian) or Umanna (Akkadian), a second name of the mythical figure, the bringer of civilization. The second book of Berosus contained the Babylonian from the beginning to (Nabu-naṣir, 747–734 bce), a contemporary of Tiglath-pileser III. Berosus’ tradition, beginning with a list of primeval kings before the Flood, is a reliable one; it agrees with the tradition of the Sumerian king list, and even individual names can be traced back exactly to their Sumerian originals. Even the immensely long reigns of the primeval kings, which lasted as long as “18 sars” (= 18 × 3,600 = 64,800) of years, are found in Berosus. Furthermore, he was acquainted with the, with Cronus as its instigator and Xisuthros (or Ziusudra) as its hero, and with the building of an ark.

The third book is presumed to have dealt with the history of Babylonia from Nabonassar to the time of Berosus himself. Diodorus made the mistake of locating on the Euphrates, and Xenophon gave an account of two cities, Larissa (probably modern [ancient Kalakh], 20 miles southeast of modern Mosul) and Mespila (ancient Nineveh, just north of Mosul). The name Mespila probably was nothing more than the word of the local Aramaeans for ruins; there can be no clearer instance of the rift that had opened between the ancient and the classical West. In sharp contrast, the East had a tradition that the ruins opposite Mosul (in north Iraq) concealed ancient Nineveh.

When a Spanish rabbi from Navarre,, was traveling in the Middle East between 1160 and 1173, Jews and Muslims alike knew the position of the grave of the prophet Jonah. The credit for the rediscovery of the ruins of Babylon goes to an Italian,, who correctly identified the vast ruins north of modern Al-Ḥillah, Iraq (60 miles south of ); he must have seen there the large rectangular tower that represented the ancient ziggurat. Previously, other travelers had sought the in two other monumental ruins: Birs Nimrūd, the massive brick structure of the ziggurat of ancient (modern Birs, near Al-Ḥillah), vitrified by lightning, and the ziggurat of the Kassite capital,, at Burj, 22 miles west of Baghdad. Pietro della Valle brought back to Europe the first specimens of cuneiform writing, stamped brick, of which highly impressionistic reproductions were made. Thereafter, European travelers visited Mesopotamia with increasing frequency, among them (an 18th-century German traveler), (a 19th-century Orientalist and traveler), and Ker Porter (a 19th-century traveler). In modern times a third Middle Eastern ruin drew visitors from Europe—, in the land of Persia east of Susiana, near modern, Iran.

In 1602, reports had filtered back to Europe of inscriptions that were not in Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Georgian, or Greek. In 1700 an Englishman, Thomas Hyde, coined the term for these inscriptions, and by the middle of the 18th century it was known that the Persepolis inscriptions were related to those of Babylon. Niebuhr distinguished three separate (Babylonian, Elamite, and Old Persian cuneiform). The first promising attempt at decipherment was made by the German philologist Georg in 1802, by use of the kings’ names in the Old Persian versions of the trilingual inscriptions, although his later efforts led him up a blind alley. Thereafter, the efforts to decipher cuneiform gradually developed in the second half of the 19th century into a of ancient Oriental philology, which was based on results established through the pioneering work of Emile Burnouf, Edward Hincks,, and many others.

Today this subject is still known as Assyriology, because at the end of the 19th century the great majority of cuneiform texts came from the Assyrian city of Nineveh, in particular from the library of King Ashurbanipal in the mound of Kuyunjik at Nineveh. More than 150 years separate the first excavations in Mesopotamia—adventurous expeditions involving great personal risks, far from the protection of helpful authorities—from those of the present day with their specialist staffs, modern technical equipment, and objectives wider than the mere search for valuable antiquities. The progress of six generations of excavators has led to a situation in which less is recovered more accurately; in other words, the finds are observed, measured, and photographed as precisely as possible. At first digging was unsystematic, with the consequence that, although huge quantities of clay tablets and large and small antiquities were brought to light, the locations of the finds were rarely described with any accuracy.

Not until the beginning of the 20th century did excavators learn to isolate the individual bricks in the walls that had previously been erroneously thought to be nothing more than packed clay; the result was that various characteristic brick types could be distinguished and successive architectural levels established. Increased care in excavation does, of course, carry with it the risk that the pace of discovery will slow down. Moreover, the eyes of the local inhabitants are now sharpened and their appetite for finds is whetted, so that diggers have established themselves as the unwelcome colleagues of the archaeologists. A result of the technique of building with mud brick (mass production of baked bricks was impossible because of the shortage of fuel) was that the buildings were highly to the weather and needed constant renewal; layers of settlement rapidly built up, creating a (Arabic: tall), a mound of occupation debris that is the characteristic ruin form of Mesopotamia. The word itself appears among the most original vocabulary of the Semitic languages and is attested as early as the end of the 3rd millennium bce. Excavation is made more difficult by this mound formation, since both horizontal and vertical axes have to be taken into account.

Moreover, the depth of each level is not necessarily constant, and foundation trenches may be dug down into earlier levels. A further problem is that finds may have been removed from their original in antiquity. Short-lived settlements that did not develop into mounds mostly escape observation, but can now pick out ground discolorations that betray the existence of settlements. Districts with a high water level today, such as the reed marshes ( s), or ruins that are covered by modern settlements, such as (ancient Arbela), some 200 miles north of Baghdad, or sites that are surmounted by shrines and tombs of holy men are closed to archaeological research. Excavations in Mesopotamia have mostly been national undertakings (France, England, the United States, Germany, Iraq, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Japan, and the former Soviet Union), but joint expeditions like the one sent to Ur (190 miles south-southeast of Baghdad) in the 1920s have become more frequent since the 1970s.

The history of archaeological research in Mesopotamia falls into four categories, represented by phases of differing lengths: the first, and by far the longest, begins with the French expedition to Nineveh (1842) and (the ancient Dur Sharrukin, 20 miles northeast of modern Mosul; 1843–55) and that of the English to Nineveh (1846–55) and Nimrūd (ancient Kalakh, biblical Calah; 1845, with interruptions until 1880). This marked the beginning of the “classic” excavations in the important ancient capitals, where spectacular finds might be anticipated. The principal gains were the Assyrian bull colossi and wall reliefs and the library of Ashurbanipal from Nineveh, although the ground plans of temples and palaces were quite as valuable.

While these undertakings had restored the remains of the of the 1st millennium bce, from 1877 onward new French in (Arabic: Tall Lōḥā, 155 miles southeast of Baghdad, reached almost 2,000 years further back into the past. There they rediscovered a people whose language had already been encountered in bilingual texts from Nineveh—the Sumerians. Telloh (ancient Girsu) yielded not only inscribed material that, quite apart from its historical interest, was critical for the establishment of the chronology of the second half of the 3rd millennium bce but also many artistic masterpieces. Thereafter excavations in important cities spread to form a network including Susa, 150 miles west of Eṣfahān in Iran (France; 1884 onward); Nippur, 90 miles southeast of Baghdad (the United States; 1889 onward); Babylon, 55 miles south of Baghdad (Germany; 1899–1917 and again from 1957 onward); Ashur, modern Ash-Sharqāṭ, 55 miles south of Mosul (; 1903–14); Uruk (Germany; 1912–13 and from 1928 onward); and Ur ( and the; 1918–34). Mention also should be made of the German excavations at in central, the ancient Hattusa, capital of the Hittite empire, which have been carried on, with interruptions, since 1906.

Tomtom Chinese Voice Download Rankings. The second phase began in 1925 with the commencement of American excavations at (ancient Nuzi), 140 miles north of Baghdad, a provincial centre with Old Akkadian, Old Assyrian, and Middle Assyrian/Hurrian levels. There followed, among others, French excavations at Arslan Tash (ancient Hadatu; 1928), at Tall al-Aḥmar (ancient Til Barsib; 1929–31), and above all at Tall Ḥarīrī (ancient Mari; 1933 onward) and American excavations in the Diyālā region (east of Baghdad), at Tall al-Asmar (ancient Eshnunna), at Khafājī, and at other sites. Thus, excavation in Mesopotamia had moved away from the capital cities to include the “provinces.” Simultaneously, it expanded beyond the limits of Mesopotamia and Susiana and revealed outliers of “cuneiform civilization” on the Syrian coast at (ancient Ugarit; France, 1929 onward) and on the Orontes of northern Syria at Al-ʿAṭshānah (ancient Alalakh; England, 1937–39 and 1947–49), while, since 1954, Danish excavations on the islands of and, off the Tigris-Euphrates delta, have disclosed staging posts between Mesopotamia and the. Short-lived salvage operations have been undertaken at the site of the Assad Dam on the middle Euphrates (e.g., German excavations at Ḥabūba al-Kabīra, 1971–76).

Italian excavations at Tall Mardīkh (ancient Ebla; 1967 onward) have yielded spectacular results, including several thousand cuneiform tablets dating from the 24th century bce. In its third phase, archaeological research in Mesopotamia and its neighbouring lands has probed back into prehistory and protohistory. The objective of these investigations, initiated by American archaeologists, was to trace as closely as possible the successive chronological stages in the progress of man from hunter-gatherer to settled farmer and, finally, to city dweller. These excavations are strongly influenced by the methods of the prehistorian, and the principal objective is no longer the search for texts and monuments. Apart from the American investigations, Iraq itself has taken part in this phase of the history of investigation, as has Japan since 1956 and the former from 1969 until the early 1990s.

Finally, the fourth category, which runs parallel with the first three phases, is represented by “surveys,” which do not concentrate on individual sites but attempt to define the relations between single settlements, their positioning along canals or rivers, or the distribution of central settlements and their satellites. Since shortages of time, money, and an adequate task force preclude the thorough investigation of large numbers of individual sites, the method employed is that of observing and collecting finds from the surface. Of these finds, the latest in date will give a rough termination date for the duration of the settlement, but, since objects from earlier, if not the earliest, levels work their way to the surface with a predictable degree of certainty or are exposed in rain gullies, an intensive search of the surface of the mound allows conclusions as to the total period of occupation with some degree of probability. If the individual periods of settlement are marked on superimposed maps, a very clear picture is obtained of the fluctuations in settlement patterns, of the changing proportions between large and small settlements, and of the equally changeable systems of riverbeds and irrigation canals—for, when points on the map lie in line, it is a assumption that they were once connected by watercourses. During the four phases outlined, the objectives and methods of excavation have broadened and shifted.

At first the chief aim was the recovery of valuable finds suitable for museums, but at the same time there was, from early on, considerable interest in the architecture of Mesopotamia, which has won for it the place it deserves in architectural history. Alongside philology, has also made great strides, building up a chronological framework by the combination of evidence from stratigraphic and stylistic, particularly in pottery and cylinder seals. The discovery of graves and a variety of burial customs has thrown new light on the history of religion, stimulated by the interest of biblical studies. While pottery was previously collected for purely aesthetic motives or from the point of view of art history, attention has come to be paid increasingly to everyday wares, and greater insight into social and economic history is based on knowledge of the distribution and frequency of shapes and materials.

The observation and investigation of animal bones and plant remains (pollen and seed analysis) have supplied invaluable information on the process of domestication, the conditions of, and the advances in agriculture. Such studies demand the cooperation of both zoologists and paleobotanists.

In addition, microscopic analysis of the floors of excavated buildings may help to identify the functions of individual rooms. The emergence of Mesopotamian civilization The Late and the. Babylonian seal Impression from a cylinder seal from Babylonia, 8th century bce; in the Morgan Library & Museum, New York City. Courtesy of the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York City In general, the prehistory of Mesopotamia can only be described by listing and comparing human achievements, not by recounting the interaction of individuals or peoples.

There is no basis for reconstructing the movements and migrations of peoples unless one is prepared to equate the spread of particular archaeological types with the extent of a particular population, the change of types with a change of population, or the appearance of new types with an immigration. The only certain evidence for the movement of peoples beyond their own territorial limits is provided at first by material finds that are not. The discovery of obsidian and at sites in Mesopotamia or in its neighbouring lands is evidence for the existence of trade, whether consisting of direct caravan trade or of a succession of intermediate stages. Just as no ethnic identity is recognizable, so nothing is known of the social organization of prehistoric settlements. It is not possible to deduce anything of the “government” in a village nor of any supraregional connections that may have existed under the domination of one centre.

Constructions that could only have been accomplished by the organization of workers in large numbers are first found in Uruk Levels VI to IV: the dimensions of these buildings suggest that they were intended for gatherings of hundreds of people. As for artificial, which was indispensable for agriculture in south Mesopotamia, the earliest form was probably not the irrigation canal. It is assumed that at first floodwater was dammed up to collect in basins, near which the fields were located. Canals, which led the water farther from the river, would have become necessary when the land in the vicinity of the river could no longer supply the needs of the population. Mesopotamian protohistory Attempts have been made by philologists to reach conclusions about the origin of the flowering of civilization in southern Mesopotamia by the analysis of words. It has been thought possible to isolate an earlier, non-Sumerian substratum from the Sumerian vocabulary by assigning certain words on the basis of their endings to either a Neolithic or a Chalcolithic language stratum.

These attempts are based on the phonetic character of Sumerian at the beginning of the 2nd millennium bce, which is at least 1,000 years later than the invention of writing. Quite apart, therefore, from the fact that the structure of Sumerian words themselves is far from adequately investigated, the enormous gap in time casts grave doubt on the criteria used to distinguish between Sumerian and “pre-Sumerian” vocabulary. The earliest peoples of Mesopotamia who can be identified from inscribed monuments and written tradition—people in the sense of speakers of a common language—are, apart from the Sumerians, (Akkadians or pre-Akkadians) and (identical with, or near relatives of, the Hurrians, who appear in northern Mesopotamia around the end of the 3rd millennium bce). Their presence is known, but no definite statements about their past or possible routes of immigration are possible. At the turn of the 4th to 3rd millennium bce, the long span of prehistory is over, and the of the historical era is gained, captured by the existence of writing. Names, speech, and actions are fixed in a system that is composed of signs representing complete words or syllables. The signs may consist of realistic pictures, abbreviated representations, and perhaps symbols selected at random.

Since clay is not well suited to the drawing of curved lines, a tendency to use straight lines rapidly gained ground. When the writer pressed the reed in harder at the beginning of a stroke, it made a triangular “head,” and thus “wedges” were impressed into the clay. It is the Sumerians who are usually given the credit for the invention of this, the first system of writing in the Middle East. As far as they can be assigned to any language, the inscribed documents from before the dynasty of Akkad ( c.

2154 bce) are almost exclusively in Sumerian. Moreover, the extension of the writing system to include the creation of syllabograms by the use of the sound of a logogram (sign representing a word), such as gi, “a reed stem,” used to render the verb gi, “to return,” can only be explained in terms of the. It is most probable, however, that Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium bce, just as in later times, was composed of many races. This makes it likely that, apart from the Sumerians, the interests and even initiatives of may have played their part in the formation of the writing system. Many scholars believe that certain clay objects or tokens that are found in prehistoric strata may have been used for some kind of primitive accounting. These tokens, some of which are incised and which have various forms, may thus be three-dimensional predecessors of writing.

Sumerian is an agglutinative language: prefixes and suffixes, which express various grammatical functions and relationships, are attached to a noun or verb root in a “chain.” Attempts to identify Sumerian more closely by comparative methods have as yet been unsuccessful and will very probably remain so, as languages of a comparable type are known only from 500 ce (Georgian) or 1000 ce (Basque)—that is, 3,000 years later. Over so long a time, the rate of change in a language, particularly one that is not fixed in a written norm, is so great that one can no longer determine whether apparent similarity between words goes back to an original relationship or is merely. Consequently, it is impossible to obtain any more accurate information as to the language group to which Sumerian may once have belonged. The most important development in the course of the 4th millennium bce was the birth of the. There were, such as the unwalled prepottery settlement at Jericho of about 7000 bce, but the with a more permanent character came only later. There is no generally accepted definition of a city.

In this context, it means a settlement that serves as a centre for smaller settlements, one that possesses one or more shrines of one or more major deities, has extensive granaries, and, finally, displays an advanced stage of specialization in the crafts. The earliest cities of southern Mesopotamia, as far as their names are known, are,,,, and (35 miles south-southeast of Baghdad). The surveys of the American archaeologist and the German archaeologist Hans Nissen have shown how the relative size and number of the settlements gradually shifted: the number of small or very small settlements was reduced overall, whereas the number of larger places grew.

The clearest sign of can be seen at Uruk, with the almost explosive increase in the size of the. Uruk Levels VI to IV had rectangular buildings covering areas as large as 275 by 175 feet. These buildings are described as temples, since the ground plans are comparable to those of later buildings whose sacred character is beyond doubt, but other functions, such as assembly halls for noncultic purposes, cannot be excluded. The major accomplishments of the period Uruk VI to IV, apart from the first inscribed tablets (Level IV B), are masterpieces of sculpture and of seal engraving and also of the form of wall decoration known as cone mosaics. Together with the everyday pottery of gray or red burnished ware, there is a very coarse type known as the beveled-rim bowl. These are vessels of standard size whose shape served as the original for the sign sila, meaning “litre.” It is not too rash to deduce from the of such standard vessels that they served for the issue of rations.

This would have been the earliest instance of a system that remained typical of the southern Mesopotamian city for centuries: the maintenance of part of the population by allocations of food from the state. Historians usually date the beginning of history, as opposed to prehistory and protohistory, from the first appearance of usable written sources. If this is taken to be the transition from the 4th to the 3rd millennium bce, it must be remembered that this applies only to part of Mesopotamia: the south, the Diyālā region, Susiana (with a later script of its own invented locally), and the district of the middle Euphrates, as well as Iran. The Sumerians to the end of the Early Dynastic period Despite the Sumerians’ leading role, the historical role of other races should not be underestimated. While with prehistory only approximate dates can be offered, historical periods require a firm framework, which, unfortunately, has not yet been established for the first half of the 3rd millennium bce.

The basis for the chronology after about 1450 bce is provided by the data in the Assyrian and Babylonian king lists, which can often be checked by dated tablets and the Assyrian lists of (annual officials whose names served to identify each year). It is, however, still uncertain how much time separated the middle of the 15th century bce from the end of the 1st dynasty of Babylon, which is therefore variously dated to 1594 bce (“middle”), 1530 bce (“short”), or 1730 bce (“long” chronology). As a compromise, the middle chronology is used here. From 1594 bce several chronologically overlapping reach back to the beginning of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, about 2112 bce. From this point to the beginning of the dynasty of Akkad ( c. 2334 bce) the interval can only be calculated to within 40 to 50 years, via the ruling houses of and the rather uncertain traditions regarding the succession of Gutian viceroys. 2520 bce), the first king of the 1st dynasty of Lagash, there is a possible variation of 70 to 80 years, and earlier dates are a matter of mere guesswork: they depend upon factors of only limited relevance, such as the computation of occupation or destruction levels, the degree of development in the script (paleography), the character of the sculpture, pottery, and cylinder seals, and their correlation at different sites.

In short, the chronology of the first half of the 3rd millennium is largely a matter for the of the individual author. Carbon-14 dates are at present too few and far between to be given undue weight.

Consequently, the turn of the 4th to 3rd millennium is to be accepted, with due caution and reservations, as the date of the flourishing of the civilization of Uruk and of the invention of writing. In and probably also in other cities of comparable size, the Sumerians led a that can be more or less reconstructed as follows: temples and residential districts;, stock breeding, fishing, and date palm cultivation forming the four mainstays of the economy; and highly specialized industries carried on by sculptors, seal engravers, smiths, carpenters, shipbuilders, potters, and workers of reeds and. Part of the population was supported with rations from a central point of distribution, which relieved people of the necessity of providing their basic food themselves, in return for their work all day and every day, at least for most of the year. The cities kept up active trade with foreign lands. That organized city life existed is demonstrated chiefly by the existence of inscribed tablets.

The earliest tablets contain figures with the items they enumerate and measures with the items they measure, as well as personal names and, occasionally, probably professions. This shows the purely practical origins of writing in Mesopotamia: it began not as a means of magic or as a way for the ruler to record his achievements, for example, but as an aid to memory for an administration that was ever expanding its area of operations. The earliest examples of writing are very difficult to penetrate because of their extremely formulation, which presupposes a knowledge of the context, and because of the still very imperfect rendering of the spoken word. Moreover, many of the archaic signs were pruned away after a short period of use and cannot be traced in the paleography of later periods, so that they cannot be identified. One of the most important questions that has to be met when dealing with “organization” and “city life” is that of social structure and the form of government; however, it can be answered only with difficulty, and the use of evidence from later periods carries with it the danger of.

The Sumerian word for ruler par excellence is, which etymologically means “big person.” The first occurrence comes from about 2700 bce, since an earlier instance from Uruk is uncertain because it could simply be intended as a personal name: “Monsieur Legrand.” In Uruk the ruler’s special title was. In later periods this word (etymology unknown), which is also found in divine names such as and Enki, has a predominantly religious that is translated, for want of a better, as “en-priest, en-priestess.” En, as the ruler’s title, is encountered in the traditional epics of the Sumerians ( is the “ en of Kullab,” a district of Uruk) and particularly in personal names, such as “The- en-has-abundance,” “The- en-occupies-the-throne,” and many others. It has often been asked if the ruler of Uruk is to be recognized in artistic representations. A man feeding sheep with flowering branches, a prominent personality in seal designs, might thus represent the ruler or a priest in his capacity as administrator and protector of flocks. The same question may be posed in the case of a man who is depicted on a stela aiming an arrow at a lion.

These questions are purely speculative, however: even if the “protector of flocks” were identical with the en, there is no ground for seeing in the ruler a person with a predominantly religious function. And other historical sources The picture offered by the literary tradition of Mesopotamia is clearer but not necessarily historically relevant.

The Sumerian has long been the greatest focus of interest. This is a literary, dating from Old Babylonian times, that describes ( nam-lugal in Sumerian) in Mesopotamia from primeval times to the end of the 1st dynasty of Isin.

According to the theory—or rather the ideology—of this work, there was officially only one kingship in Mesopotamia, which was vested in one particular city at any one time; hence the change in dynasties brought with it the change of the seat of kingship: Kish–Uruk–Ur–Awan–Kish–Hamazi–Uruk–Ur– Adab–Mari–Kish–Akshak–Kish–Uruk–Akkad– Uruk–Gutians–Uruk–Ur–Isin. The king list gives as coming in succession several dynasties that now are known to have ruled simultaneously. It is a welcome aid to chronology and history, but, so far as the regnal years are concerned, it loses its value for the time before the dynasty of Akkad, for here the lengths of reign of single rulers are given as more than 100 and sometimes even several hundred years. One group of versions of the king list has adopted the tradition of the Sumerian, according to which Kish was the first seat of kingship after the Flood, whereas five dynasties of primeval kings ruled before the Flood in Eridu, Bad-tibira, Larak, Sippar, and Shuruppak.

These kings all allegedly ruled for multiples of 3,600 years (the maximum being 64,800 or, according to one variant, 72,000 years). The tradition of the Sumerian king list is still echoed in Berosus. It is also instructive to observe what the Sumerian king list does not mention.

The list lacks all mention of a dynasty as important as the 1st dynasty of Lagash (from King Ur-Nanshe to UruKAgina) and appears to retain no memory of the archaic florescence of Uruk at the beginning of the 3rd millennium bce. Besides the peaceful pursuits reflected in art and writing, the art also provides the first information about: cylinder seals of the Uruk Level IV depict fettered men lying or squatting on the ground, being beaten with sticks or otherwise maltreated by standing figures. They may represent the execution of prisoners of war. It is not known from where these captives came or what form “war” would have taken or how early organized battles were fought. Nevertheless, this does give the first, indirect, evidence for the wars that are henceforth one of the most characteristic phenomena in the history of Mesopotamia. Just as with the rule of man over man, with the rule of higher powers over man it is difficult to make any statements about the earliest attested forms of or about the deities and their names without running the risk of. Excluding prehistoric figurines, which provide no evidence for determining whether men or gods are represented, the earliest testimony is supplied by certain symbols that later became the cuneiform signs for gods’ names: the “gatepost with streamers” for, goddess of love and war, and the “ringed post” for the.

A scene on a cylinder seal—a shrine with an Inanna symbol and a “man” in a boat—could be an abbreviated illustration of a procession of gods or of a cultic journey by ship. The constant association of the “gatepost with streamers” with sheep and of the “ringed post” with cattle may possibly reflect the area of responsibility of each deity.

The Sumerologist Thorkild Jacobsen sees in the pantheon a reflex of the various economies and modes of life in ancient Mesopotamia: fishermen and marsh dwellers, date palm cultivators, cowherds, shepherds, and farmers all have their special groups of gods. Both Sumerian and non-Sumerian can be detected in the divine names and place-names. Since the pronunciation of the names is known only from 2000 bce or later, conclusions about their linguistic are not without problems. Several names, for example, have been reinterpreted in Sumerian by popular. It would be particularly important to isolate the components (related to Hurrian), whose significance was probably greater than has hitherto been assumed. For the south Mesopotamian city HA.A (the noncommittal transliteration of the signs) there is a pronunciation gloss “shubari,” and non-Sumerian incantations are known in the language of HA.A that have turned out to be “Subarian.” There have always been in Mesopotamia speakers of (which belong to the Afro-Asiatic group and also include ancient Egyptian, Berber, and various African languages).

This element is easier to detect in ancient Mesopotamia, but whether people began to participate in city civilization in the 4th millennium bce or only during the 3rd is unknown. Over the last 4,000 years, (Amorites, Canaanites, Aramaeans, and Arabs) have been partly nomadic, ranging the Arabian fringes of the, and partly settled; and the transition to settled life can be observed in a constant, though uneven, rhythm. There are, therefore, good grounds for assuming that the Akkadians (and other pre-Akkadian Semitic tribes not known by name) also originally led a nomadic life to a greater or lesser degree. Nevertheless, they can only have been herders of domesticated sheep and goats, which require changes of pasturage according to the time of year and can never stray more than a day’s march from the watering places. The traditional nomadic life of the Bedouin makes its appearance only with the domestication of the camel at the turn of the 2nd to 1st millennium bce. The question arises as to how quickly writing spread and by whom it was adopted in about 3000 bce or shortly thereafter.

At, in northern Babylonia, almost 120 miles northwest of Uruk, a stone tablet has been found with the same of archaic signs as those found at Uruk itself. This fact demonstrates that intellectual contacts existed between northern and southern.

The dispersion of writing in an unaltered form presupposes the existence of schools in various cities that worked according to the same principles and adhered to one and the same repertoire of signs. It would be wrong to assume that Sumerian was spoken throughout the area in which had been adopted. Moreover, the use of cuneiform for a non-Sumerian language can be demonstrated with certainty from the 27th century bce. First historical personalities The specifically political events in Mesopotamia after the flourishing of the archaic culture of Uruk cannot be pinpointed. Not until about 2700 bce does the first historical personality appear—historical because his name, (Me-baragesi), was preserved in later tradition. It has been assumed, although the exact circumstances cannot be reconstructed, that there was a rather abrupt end to the high culture of Uruk Level IV.

The reason for the assumption is a marked break in both artistic and architectural traditions: entirely new styles of cylinder seals were introduced; the great temples (if in fact they were temples) were abandoned, flouting the rule of a continuous tradition on religious sites, and on a new site a shrine was built on a terrace, which was to constitute the lowest stage of the later Eanna ziggurat. On the other hand, since the writing system developed organically and was continually refined by and progressive reforms, it would be overhasty to assume a revolutionary change in the population. In the quarter or third of a millennium between Uruk Level IV and Enmebaragesi, southern Mesopotamia became studded with a complex pattern of cities, many of which were the centres of small independent city-states, to judge from the situation in about the middle of the millennium. In these cities, the central point was the temple, sometimes encircled by an oval boundary wall (hence the term temple oval); but nonreligious buildings, such as palaces serving as the residences of the rulers, could also function as centres.

Enmebaragesi, king of Kish, is the oldest Mesopotamian ruler from whom there are authentic inscriptions. These are vase fragments, one of them found in the temple oval of Khafajah (Khafājī). In the Sumerian king list, Enmebaragesi is listed as the king of the 1st dynasty of Kish; a Sumerian poem, “,” describes the siege of Uruk by Agga, son of Enmebaragesi. The discovery of the original vase inscriptions was of great significance because it enabled scholars to ask with somewhat more justification whether, the heroic figure of Mesopotamia who has entered world literature, was actually a historical personage. The indirect synchronism notwithstanding, the possibility exists that even remote antiquity knew its “Ninus” and its “Semiramis,” figures onto which a rapidly fading historical memory projected all manner of deeds and adventures.

Thus, though the historical tradition of the early 2nd millennium believes Gilgamesh to have been the builder of the oldest city wall of Uruk, such may not have been the case. The palace archives of (modern Tall Faʾrah, 125 miles southeast of ), dating presumably from shortly after 2600, contain a long list of divinities, including and his father. More recent tradition, on the other hand, knows Gilgamesh as judge of the nether world. However that may be, an armed conflict between two Mesopotamian cities such as Uruk and Kish would hardly have been unusual in a country whose energies were consumed, almost without interruption from 2500 to 1500 bce, by clashes between various separatist forces. The great “empires,” after all, formed the exception, not the rule. Emergent city-states Kish must have played a major role almost from the beginning.

After 2500, southern Babylonian rulers, such as Mesannepada of Ur and of Lagash, frequently called themselves king of Kish when laying claim to over northern Babylonia. This does not agree with some recent histories in which Kish is represented as an archaic “empire.” It is more likely to have figured as representative of the north, calling forth perhaps the same geographic connotation later evoked by “the land of Akkad.” Although the corpus of inscriptions grows richer both in geographic distribution and in point of chronology in the 27th and increasingly so in the 26th century, it is still impossible to find the key to a plausible historical account, and history cannot be written solely on the basis of archaeological findings. Unless clarified by written documents, such findings contain as many riddles as they seem to offer solutions.

This applies even to as spectacular a discovery as that of the royal of with their hecatombs (large-scale sacrifices) of retainers who followed their king and queen to the grave, not to mention the elaborate funerary appointments with their inventory of tombs. It is only from about 2520 to the beginnings of the dynasty of Akkad that history can be written within a framework, with the aid of reports about the city-state of and its capital of Girsu and its relations with its neighbour and rival,. Sources for this are, on the one hand, an extensive corpus of inscriptions relating to nine rulers, telling of the buildings they constructed, of their institutions and wars, and, in the case of UruKAgina, of their “social” measures.

On the other hand, there is the archive of some 1,200 tablets—insofar as these have been published—from the temple of Baba, the city goddess of Girsu, from the period of Lugalanda and UruKAgina (first half of the 24th century). For generations, Lagash and Umma contested the possession and agricultural usufruct of the fertile region of Gu’edena. To begin with, some two generations before Ur-Nanshe, (another “king of Kish”) had intervened as arbiter and possibly overlord in dictating to both states the course of the boundary between them, but this was not effective for long. After a prolonged struggle, Eannatum forced the ruler of Umma, by having him take an involved oath to six divinities, to desist from crossing the old border, a dike. The text that relates this event, with considerable literary elaboration, is found on the. These battles, favouring now one side, now the other, continued under Eannatum’s successors, in particular, until, under UruKAgina, great damage was done to the land of Lagash and to its holy places. The enemy,, was vanquished in turn by of Akkad.

The rivalry between Lagash and Umma, however, must not be considered in isolation. Other cities, too, are occasionally named as enemies, and the whole situation resembles the pattern of changing coalitions and short-lived alliances between cities of more recent times. Kish, Umma, and distant on the middle Euphrates are listed together on one occasion as early as the time of Eannatum.

For the most part, these battles were fought by infantry, although mention is also made of war chariots drawn by onagers (wild asses). The lords of Lagash rarely fail to call themselves by the title of, of as yet undetermined derivation; “city ruler,” or “prince,” are only approximate translations. Only seldom do they call themselves, or “king,” the title given the rulers of Umma in their own inscriptions.

In all likelihood, these were local titles that were eventually converted, beginning perhaps with the kings of Akkad, into a in which the lugal took over the ensi. Territorial states More difficult than describing its external relations is the task of shedding light on the internal structure of a state like Lagash. For the first time, a state consisting of more than a city with its surrounding territory came into being, because aggressively minded rulers had managed to extend that territory until it not only Girsu, the capital, and the cities of Lagash and Nina (Zurghul) but also many smaller localities and even a seaport, Guabba.

Yet it is not clear to what extent the conquered regions were also administratively. On one occasion UruKAgina used the formula “from the limits of Ningirsu [that is, the city god of Girsu] to the sea,” having in mind a distance of up to 125 miles. It would be unwise to harbour any exaggerated notion of well-organized states exceeding that size. For many years, scholarly views were conditioned by the concept of the Sumerian temple city, which was used to convey the idea of an organism whose ruler, as representative of his god, theoretically owned all land, privately held agricultural land being a rare exception. The concept of the temple city had its origin partly in the overinterpretation of a passage in the so-called reform texts of UruKAgina, that states “on the field of the ensi [or his wife and the crown prince], the city god Ningirsu [or the city goddess Baba and the divine couple’s son]” had been “reinstated as owners.” On the other hand, the statements in the archives of the temple of Baba in Girsu, dating from Lugalanda and UruKAgina, were held to be altogether representative. Here is a system of administration, directed by the ensi’s spouse or by a sangu (head of a temple), in which every economic process, including commerce, stands in a direct relationship to the temple: agriculture, vegetable gardening, tree farming, cattle raising and the processing of animal products, fishing, and the payment in merchandise of workers and employees. The conclusion from this analogy proved to be dangerous because the archives of the temple of Baba provide information about only a portion of the total temple administration and that portion, furthermore, is limited in time.

Understandably enough, the private sector, which of course was not controlled by the temple, is scarcely mentioned at all in these archives. The existence of such a sector is nevertheless documented by bills of sale for land purchases of the pre-Sargonic period and from various localities. Written in Sumerian as well as in Akkadian, they prove the existence of or, in the opinion of some scholars, of lands predominantly held as undivided family property. Although a substantial part of the population was forced to work for the temple and drew its pay and board from it, it is not yet known whether it was year-round work. It is probable, if unfortunate, that there will never exist a detailed and numerically accurate picture of the structure of a Sumerian city. It is assumed that in the oldest cities the government was in a position to summon sections of the populace for the performance of.

The construction of monumental buildings or the excavation of long and deep canals could be carried out only by means of such a levy. The large-scale employment of indentured persons and of is of no concern in this context. Evidence of male slavery is fairly rare before Ur III, and even in Ur III and in the Old Babylonian period was never an economically relevant factor. It was different with female slaves.

According to one document, the temple of Baba employed 188 such women; the temple of the goddess employed 180, chiefly in grinding flour and in the textile industry, and this continued to be the case in later times. For accuracy’s sake it should be added that the terms male slave and female slave are used here in the significance they possessed about 2000 bce and later, designating persons in bondage who were bought and sold and who could not acquire personal property through their labour. A distinction is made between captured slaves (prisoners of war and kidnapped persons) and others who had been sold. In one inscription, Entemena of Lagash boasts of having “allowed the sons of Uruk, Larsa, and Bad-tibira to return to their mothers” and of having “restored them into the hands” of the respective city god or goddess.

Read in the light of similar but more explicit statements of later date, this laconic formula represents the oldest known evidence of the fact that the ruler occasionally endeavoured to social injustices by means of a decree. Such decrees might refer to the suspension or complete cancellation of debts or to exemption from public works.

Whereas a set of inscriptions of the last ruler from the 1st dynasty of Lagash, UruKAgina, has long been considered a prime document of social reform in the 3rd millennium, the designation “reform texts” is only partly justified. Reading between the lines, it is possible to discern that tensions had arisen between the “palace”—the ruler’s residence with its annex, administrative staff, and landed properties—and the “clergy”—that is, the and priests of the temples. In seeming defiance of his own interests, UruKAgina, who in contrast to practically all of his predecessors lists no genealogy and has therefore been suspected of having been a usurper, defends the clergy, whose plight he describes somewhat tearfully. If the foregoing passage about restoring the ensi’s fields to the divinity is interpreted carefully, it would follow that the situation of the temple was and that palace lands were assigned to the priests.

Along with these measures, which resemble the policies of a newcomer forced to lean on a specific party, are found others that do merit the designation of “measures taken toward the alleviation of social injustices”—for instance, the granting of delays in the payment of debts or their outright cancellation and the setting up of prohibitions to keep the economically or socially more powerful from forcing his inferior to sell his house, his ass’s foal, and the like. Besides this, there were tariff regulations, such as newly established fees for weddings and burials, as well as the precise regulation of the food rations of garden workers. These conditions, described on the basis of source materials from Girsu, may well have been paralleled elsewhere, but it is equally possible that other archives, yet to be found in other cities of pre-Sargonic southern Mesopotamia, may furnish entirely new historical aspects. At any rate, it is wiser to proceed cautiously, keeping to analysis and evaluation of the available material rather than making generalizations. This, then, is the horizon of Mesopotamia shortly before the rise of the Akkadian empire. In Mari, writing was introduced at the latest about the mid-26th century bce, and from that time this city, situated on the middle Euphrates, forms an important centre of cuneiform civilization, especially in regard to its Semitic component.

Ebla (and probably many other sites in ancient Syria) profited from the influence of Mari scribal schools. Reaching out across the Diyālā region and the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamian influences extended to Iran, where Susa is mentioned along with Elam and other, not yet localized, towns. In the west the Amanus Mountains were known, and under Lugalzagesi the “upper sea”—in other words, the Mediterranean—is mentioned for the first time. To the east the inscriptions of of Lagash name the isle of Dilmun (modern Bahrain), which may have been even then a transshipment point for trade with the Oman coast and the Indus region, the Magan and Meluhha of more recent texts.

Trade with Anatolia and Afghanistan was nothing new in the 3rd millennium, even if these regions are not yet listed by their names. It was the task of the Akkadian dynasty to unite within these boundaries a territory that the dimensions of a state of the type represented by Lagash. Ur-Nanshe of Lagash Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash, detail of a limestone relief, c. 2500 bce; in the Louvre, Paris. © Photos.com/Jupiterimages Sumer and Akkad from 2350 to 2000 bce There are several reasons for taking the year 2350 as a turning point in the history of Mesopotamia. For the first time, an empire arose on Mesopotamian soil.

The driving force of that empire was the, so called after the city of Akkad, which Sargon chose for his capital (it has not yet been identified but was presumably located on the between Sippar and Kish). The name Akkad became synonymous with a population group that stood side by side with the Sumerians.

Southern Mesopotamia became known as the “land of Sumer and Akkad”; Akkadian became the name of a language; and the arts rose to new heights. However, even this turning point was not the first time the Akkadians had emerged in history. Semites—whether Akkadians or a Semitic language group that had settled before them—may have had a part in the urbanization that took place at the end of the 4th millennium. The earliest Akkadian names and words occur in written sources of the 27th century. The names of several Akkadian scribes are found in the archives of Tall Abū Ṣalābīkh, near Nippur in central Babylonia, synchronous with those of Shuruppak (shortly after 2600).

The Sumerian places the 1st dynasty of Kish, together with a series of kings bearing Akkadian names, immediately after the Flood. In Mari the Akkadian language was probably written from the very beginning. Thus, the founders of the dynasty of Akkad were presumably members of a people who had been familiar for centuries with Mesopotamian culture in all its forms.

Bronze head of a king Bronze head of a king, perhaps Sargon of Akkad, from Nineveh (now in Iraq), Akkadian period, c. 2300 bce; in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad.

Interfoto Scans/age fotostock ’s reign According to the Sumerian king list, the first five rulers of Akkad (Sargon, Rimush, Manishtusu, Naram-Sin, and Shar-kali-sharri) ruled for a total of 142 years; Sargon alone ruled for 56. Although these figures cannot be checked, they are probably trustworthy, because the king list for Ur III, even if 250 years later, did transmit dates that proved to be accurate.

Diorite stela inscribed with the Code of Hammurabi, 18th century bce. Art Media/Heritage-Images/age fotostock A similar if much shorter compendium of judgments, probably antedating that of Hammurabi by a generation or two, has been discovered in Eshnunna. Hammurabi, who called his own work dīnāt mīŷarim, or “verdicts of the just order,” states in the epilogue that it was intended as for persons in search of advice. Whether these judgments were meant to have binding force in the sense of modern statutes, however, is a matter of controversy. The Code of Hammurabi differs in many respects from the Code of Lipit-Ishtar, which was written in Sumerian. Its most striking feature lies in the extraordinary severity of its penalties and in the principle of the.

The same attitude is reflected in various Old Babylonian contracts in which defaulters are threatened with bodily punishment. It is often said, and perhaps rightly so, that this severity, which so contrasts with Sumerian judicial tradition, can be traced back to the Amorite influence. There is yet another way in which the Code of Hammurabi has given rise to much discussion. Many of its “paragraphs” vary according to whether the case concerns an awīlum, a muškēnum, or a wardum. A threefold division of the populace had been postulated on the basis of these distinctions.

The wardum is the least problematic: he is the —that is, a person in bondage who could be bought and sold, unless he was able to regain his freedom under certain conditions as a debtor-slave. The muškēnum were, under King Hammurabi at least, persons employed by the palace who could be given land in usufruct without receiving it as property. Awīlum were the citizens who owned land in their own right and depended neither on the palace nor on the temple. As the Soviet scholar Igor M.

Diakonov has pointed out, the distinction cannot have been very sharply drawn, because the classes awīlum and muškēnum are not mutually exclusive: a man in high palace office could fairly easily purchase land as private property, whereas the free citizen who got into debt as a result of a bad harvest or some other misfortune had one foot in the slave class. Still unanswered is the question as to which segment of the population could be conscripted to do public works, a term that included the levy in case of war.

Ammiṣaduqa ( c. 1626 bce) comes a century and a half after Hammurabi.