Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T12:21:52.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Diplomatic and Commercial Aspects of Temple Offerings as Illustrated by a Newly Discovered Text

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Extract

The text which forms the subject of this article is housed in the Free Library of Philadelphia. I found it there last year as a boxful of fragments which had to be put laboriously together, and I groaned when I saw them, thinking “Oh, here's another Lagaš tablet”. Indeed, it is a Lagaš tablet, but it is certainly not of any ordinary kind. I have never seen anything like it. It will be immediately apparent that the text is a list of fish offerings which the wife of Urukagina brought in Nippur to a number of deities. These deities include Inanna, perhaps Ninlil, and Šara.

Šara, the city god of Umma, has for all I know nothing to do in Nippur. He had no sanctuary there. So, even though the offerings were brought in Nippur, at least those in Šara's name must have been meant for Umma.

This is so unusual in a Lagaš text that rather far-reaching explanations may be warranted. I would suggest the following synthesis of the facts:

In his third year in office, Urukagina had sensed the threatening danger, the thunderclouds that were gathering in Umma. He tried to stave off the impending catastrophe by diplomacy. He and his wife embarked on a goodwill mission by donating sacrifices to the principal gods of Umma and Nippur. The offerings were made in Nippur because Enlil, the chief god of that city, held the key to the kingship of all Sumer and had bestowed it on Lugalzagesi, the ambitious ensi of Umma. The offerings may even have been brought on the occasion of Lugalzagesi's coronation in Nippur.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 FLP 1648 see copy, Fig. 1. The tablet was carefully baked in antiquity. The sign gír in col. ix was lightly scratched on the tablet after the baking.

2 Disregarding the apparent innovation dŠára-Nibruki, attested in an Ur III text from Umma, (UCP IX, 265, no. 115:7)Google Scholar.

3 Cf. Westenholz, A., JCS 26 (1974), 154 ff.Google Scholar; see also Lambert, M., “La guerre entre Urukagina et Lugalzaggesi”, RSO 41 (1966), 35 fGoogle Scholar.

4 Lambert, M., “La guerre…”, 29 ff., esp. 35 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 CIRPL, Ukg. 16; cf. Falkenstein, , IGL, 156170Google Scholar. Many of these temples were situated in small settlements in the open country.

6 Falkenstein, , IGL, 17 and 20Google Scholar.

7 CIRPL, Ukg. 16 vii 6–10.

8 Cf. Lambert, M., “La guerre…”, 37 ff.Google Scholar; Rosengarten, , “La civilisation sumérienne de Lagash”, Revue Philosophique 155 (1965), 405 ffGoogle Scholar.

9 BE I, 87Google Scholar.

10 Pettinato, G., “I7-idigna-ta i7-nun-šè”, Mesopotamia 5–6 (19701971), 291 fGoogle Scholar.

11 See Salonen, , Fischerei, 145 ff., nos. 18, 32, 83, 87, 89, 91, 186, 251, 270, 274Google Scholar.

12 See van Buren, E. D., “Fish Offerings in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Iraq 10 (1948), 103 fGoogle Scholar.

13 Lambert, M., “Textes commerciaux de Lagash”, RA 47 (1953), 64 ffGoogle Scholar.