Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-5vn5w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-01T17:34:38.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lagash

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Vaughn E. Crawford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Each season of excavations at Tell al-Hiba confirms Jacobsen's proposed identification first made in 1953 that Tell al-Hiba rather than Telloh, as formerly believed, is the site of ancient Lagash.

During the first two seasons of the excavations in 1968–69 and in 1970–71, no less than fourteen foundation stones identifying the temple oval in which they were found as the Ibgal of Inann a were unearthed. Nine of the stones were accompanied by inscribed copper foundation figurines,figurines which represented Šulutula, the personal deity of Enannatum I, the builder of at least Level I of the Ibgal. As Hansen has indicated, however, in a wadi a mile to the north of the Ibgal fragmentary cones stating that Enannatu m was the builder of the Ibgal have been recovered. In addition it may be well to say that no such cones have been found within the extensive area of the Ibgal which has been excavated. Why this is the case is not yet known. The foundation stones and the companion figurines found in situ are, however, solid evidence that the physical location of one of the temples mentioned in the texts as being located in Lagash has been ascertained.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 36 , Issue 1-2 , October 1974 , pp. 29 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1974

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Although none of the figurines has been cleaned, it is assumed that the inscriptions on the stones and the figurines are the same.

2 Cf. Hansen, Donald P., “Al-Hiba, 1968–69, A Preliminary Report,” Artibus Asiae 32 (1970), 243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Figs. 1–18. In this particular instance, cf. p. 248.

3 Falkenstein, A., Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagoš (An Or 30; Rome, 1966), 160–161Google Scholar.

4 Thorkild Jacobsen, Archaeological Newsletter 6 (1953–54), The American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem and Baghdad, datelined Nippur, November 25, 1953, pp. 1–5. The letter is reprinted in RA 52 (1958), 127–129Google Scholar.

5 Cf. below, p. 32 and Fig. 5.

6 Kramer, S. N., Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur (AS 12, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago), 19, l. 22 ffGoogle Scholar.

7 The text is said by Dougherty to be that of SAK, p. 140q which is based on an unpublished brick inscription in the Louvre. Unfortunately the reproduction of Dougherty's photograph on p. 87, Fig. 44, AASOR 7 (1927), is virtually illegible.

8 Falkenstein, op. cit., 17–20.

9 VS I, 18. Cf. catalogue on no. 18.

10 This text was never published.

11 During the course of a survey conducted in 1956–57 by Robert McC. Adams with the assistance of the writer, a survey reported in Sumer 14 (1958), 101–103Google Scholar, and Figs. 1–6, bricks of Nebuchadnezzar bearing the standard inscription for Babylon were found as far as thirty miles from Babylon on a number of smaller mounds. It seems likely that these bricks were stamped where they were made, probably on each site, with the stamp commonly employed in Nebuchadnezzar's capital. For further comment on “Brick Inscriptions” from surface collections, cf. Adams, Robert McC. and Hans Nissen, J., The Uruk Countryside (The University of Chicago Press, 1972), 217Google Scholar.

12 3H refers to the third season (1972–73) of excavations at Al-Hiba. T1 indicates the first text of a particular season. The number 39 after 3H indicates the number of that piece in the expedition's object catalogue. The copies are reduced to half size.

13 So far the Al-Hiba Expedition has dug in Area A, the Ibgal of Inanna; Area B, the Bagara of Ningirsu; Area C, an Early Dynastic administrative building; and Area G where a brief test was made in the 1972–73 season. Areas A, B, and C are widely separated. Since these areas have already been referred to in publications, Artibus Asiae 32 (1970), 243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Expedition 14 (Winter, 1972), 12–20, the same letter designations have been used on the new contour map of the site to locate these areas.

14 Although only a part of the nin sign remains, the restoration is almost certainly correct.

15 When the blade was excavated, no writing at all was visible. It is due to the skill of our conservator, Miss Ann Searight, that as much is visible as appears in the copy. It may be that special photography or the use of X-ray will bring out more signs, such as the anticipated dingir sign before Ningirsu, and may perhaps make clearer those marked by x which cannot now be identified by me. Perhaps such treatment would even reveal signs where I can now see nothing but where I have put question marks.

16 Since VS I, 18 was incomplete and since the brick from Jacobsen's survey was never published, a copy of the Bagara brick from the third season at Al-Hiba is included. While I know that the gár/gará sign should have horizontal as well as vertical strokes in the fore portion of the sign, I did not put them in because I could not see them on this particular example of the inscription.

17 Since the inscriptions from the third season (1972–73) at Tell al-Hiba were only fifteen in number, it may be well to give the remainder of the lot with a minimum of comment. In this manner all of the inscriptions for the third season will appear in one single location.

3H T3, Fig. 8.

Fragment of rectangular stone, Area B.

This is a stray piece dedicated to Inanna. Note, however, in footnote 2 the remark about cones concerning the Ibgal of Inanna being found in a wadi near Area B while Area A itself is at least a mile away.

3H T4 (3H 69), Fig. 9.

Stone macehead with a small lower part missing, Area B.

The only signs preserved, and almost certainly the only signs there were, are the three shown in the copy.

Dudu is a very common name appearing both much earlier and much later than the time of Eannatum, Enannatum or Entemena when this macehead was probably made. SoUberger has given a selected list of men bearing the name Dudu in Sumer 13 (1957), 62–64Google Scholar. To Du-du-a, however, there is no satisfactory explanation, that is, if one takes -a as a grammatical element.

I was so engrossed with the name Du-du that I had so far overlooked another more satisfactory possibility suggested to me by R. D. Biggs, namely, that A-du is a name in his Abu Salabikh texts, e.g.,JCS 20 (1966) 86Google Scholar, Fig. 4B. Why not A-du-du? Indeed, there are a number of references to A-du-du, e.g., BRM III 94:7 , YBT IV 20: 6 and seal; 208:95, 232:71, 264: 63; BIN V 8: 6, 277: 133. These references are from Ur III texts.

3H T5 , Fig. 10.

Fragment of stone macehead, Area B surface.

3H T8, Fig. 11.

Clay tablet inscribed on the obverse only, Area B.

3H T9, Fig. 12.

Clay tablet with obverse almost completely destroyed and the reverse almost completely blank, Area B.

3H T10, Fig. 13.

Clay tablet, badly vitrified, from Area C surface. Portions of an administrative building dug in this area in 1970–71 were badly burned. The name of Eannatum and his title as ensi of Lagash are clear in the left hand column of the obverse. Traces of the names and same titles of Enannatum I and Entemena appear in the right hand column. The reverse is a complete loss unless one knows what it is supposed to say.

3H T13, Fig. 14.

Fragment of baked brick, Area B surface. So far this is the only definite sign of the governor, Akurgal.

3H T14, Fig. 15.

Fragment of baked clay cylinder, Area B surface. The complete name of the wife of Enannatum I, a-ŠU.ME.EREN, has been supplied to me by the kindness of E. Sollberger. Cf. Sumer 14 (1958), 109–112Google Scholar.