Where the gods stay

A Mesopotamian definition of the city

2

Contents

Introduction p. 3

Chapter I: A modern definition of the city p. 6

Chapter II: Mesopotamian descriptions of the city p. 9

The city versus the country side p. 9

Religion in the city p. 12

Walls p. 14

Agriculture and the city p. 16

Living and working in the city p. 17

Chapter III: Eridug p. 21

Introduction to Eridug p. 21

Eridug and its surroundings p. 22

The temple of Eridug p. 24

Eridug’s walls p. 24

Agriculture in Eridug p. 25

Living and working in Eridug p. 26

Chapter IV: A Mesopotamian definition of the city p. 27

Permanence p. 27

How Eridug fits the definition p. 28

How the Mesopotamian definition compares to a modern definition p. 29

The implications on research on the Mesopotamian urban experience p. 30

Conclusion p. 31

Bibliography p. 32

3

Introduction

“After kingship had descended from heaven, after the exalted crown and throne of

kingship had descended from heaven, the divine rites and the exalted powers were

perfected, the bricks of the cities were laid in holy places, their names were

announced […]. The first of the cities, Eridug, was given to Nudimmud the

leader.”1

According to the Sumerians this is how cities were born and civilisation began. Eridug was

the first city according to Sumerian mythology. It was an important religious site and during

its almost five-thousand-year history it was continuously inhabited and it received a steady

flow of pilgrims to its temple to the god Enki. These is no doubt that Mesopotamians

considered Eridug a city. However, it is a strange case when it comes to the categorisation of

Mesopotamian settlements by modern scholars.

These categorisations are most often based on modern definitions of cities which base the

difference between a city and a town or a village on area and population size. One example of

this is the study of settlements in the Umma province by Steinkeller. He defines a settlement

as:

“A locus of continued human habitation characterized by the presence of more

than one permanent dwelling”.2

He then acknowledges that he bases the difference between village and cities on population

size.3 However, when looking at how these categories differ he himself acknowledges that

both cities and villages could have storehouses, palaces, sheepfolds, artisans, temples.4 This

blurs the line between villages and cities. If villages and cities are essentially the same, but

one is simply bigger, then what is the purpose in differentiating? Size does not determine

power and influence. Lagash was the largest city in the Early Dynastic Period by size, but Ur

had far more influence and wealth even though it was on tenth the size of Lagash.5

Elisabeth Stone seems to acknowledge that a modern definition of city is not very useful

when looking at ancient Mesopotamian cities. However, she too categorises by size. For

example, she mentions the site of Ḫarâdum and calls it a “village-size site”.6 However, in an

article by Christine Kepinski-Lecomte it is mentioned that in texts recovered from the site the

settlement is referred to as a city “URU ḫa-ra-di”.7 Stone herself acknowledges that there are

mostly similarities between this ‘village’ and Mashkan-Shapir, which she does classify as a

city. The only things that Ḫarâdum lacks are the already rare large houses and royal

buildings.8

1 Black et al., “The flood story,” fragment B lines 6-11. 2 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 189. 3 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 194. 4 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 193. 5 Ur, “Patterns of Settlement,” 141. 6 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 229. 7 Kepinski-Lecomte, “Organization of Harrâdum,” 146. 8 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 229.

4

Steinkeller and Stone are far from the only scholars that use modern categorisations for

settlements. The use of modern definitions and categorisations are not only useless but also

harmful. They can create a warped image of Mesopotamian cities that does not reflect the

experience of the Mesopotamians themselves. For example, Jason Ur states that the highest

peak of urbanism in Mesopotamian was during the early dynastic period and that urbanism

later declined. In his analysis he uses a modern categorisation of settlements based on

hectares.9 It could be that Mesopotamians did not experience a decline in urbanism, because

the categorisation Jason Ur uses does not apply to Mesopotamian cities. There is more to the

urban experience than living in high density in a relatively large area. That was true back then

and it is true today.

Furthermore, modern categorisations create a strict divide between rural and urban areas.

Stone makes the conclusion that rural areas were very urban, based on the similarities

between the urban and non-urban settlements.10 However, without taking size of settlements

into considerations, can you still speak of a difference between rural and urban in the

Mesopotamian landscape? When examining the textual and archaeological sources we find

that in the minds of Mesopotamians there was no such divide and that rural and urban areas

as we understand them did not exist. There were cultural differences between those that lived

in cities and those that lived outside them, but these difference were not based on the size of

the settlement one lived in. In his study Steinkeller explicitly excludes temporary

encampments belonging to shepherds and other groups.11 When to the Mesopotamians, this

was a type of settlement that had a much larger cultural divide with city dwellers and is thus

more telling about the urban and non-urban experience of Mesopotamians.

Eridug is a settlement that shows that these modern categorisations are not useful when

looking at Mesopotamian sites, because as Leick shows Eridug was never a city by modern

definitions. Its main parts were a temple complex and a cemetery. It was an important

religious site, but it did not have the political power, nor was it the size of Uruk or nearby

Ur.12 It would this not fit the modern definition of a city because it was too small. However, it

is consistently called a city by modern scholars simply because it was called a city by the

Mesopotamians. This is contradictory when in all other cases modern definitions are applied.

Steven Garfinkle comes closer to a Mesopotamian definition:

“The city-states in Mesopotamia were defined by their urban space, enclosed by

city walls, and surrounded by the network of fields, canals, and villages that

provided the subsistence of the population. The dominant feature of the urban

landscape was the main temple that rose in the middle of the city and was

dedicated to the city god.”13

Garfinkle touches on a few key features of Mesopotamian cities. In this thesis I will argue

that by examine these features a definition will emerge that will not only better describe

Mesopotamian cities and the Mesopotamian urban experience than any modern definition,

but it will also be closer to how Mesopotamians themselves would have defined their cities. I

9 Ur, “Patterns of Settlement,” 149-150. This information is taken form the graphs on these pages. 10 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 231 11 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 189. 12 Leick, Mesopotamia, chapter: Eridu, subchapter: Eridu in the historical periods. 13 Garfinkle, “Public versus Private,” 391-392.

5

propose that modern scholars should use this definition when describing the Mesopotamian

urban experience and re-examine the use of categorisations of settlements based on modern

definitions. I will substantiate this argument by analysing different textual sources and

archaeological records that describe the Mesopotamian city in order to formulate a

Mesopotamian definition of the city as a concept. I will use Eridug as a case study to test this

definition, since it is a clear example of the difference between the modern and

Mesopotamian definition. Finally, I will show that ultimately the urban experience of

Mesopotamians was not entirely different from today’s experience.

6

Chapter I: A modern definition of the city

The problem with defining the concept of a city is that cities derive their meaning from

comparison. There are no hard criteria for a city. Perhaps one outlier is that sometimes Dutch

definitions include that a place needs to have obtained ‘city rights’ during medieval times.

This of course is no longer a relevant definition and many Dutch cities do not have city rights

simply because they were founded after the practice had ended. dictionaries defines a city as:

“a large town” and as “a place where many people live, with many houses, stores,

businesses, etc., and which is bigger than a town.”14

“an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or

village.”15

Thus, to know the meaning of a city one has to know the meaning of a town:

“a place where there are a lot of houses, stores, and other buildings which is

smaller than a city”16

“a compactly settled area usually larger than a village but smaller than a city.”17

Now we have landed ourselves in a loop. Seemingly, a city or a town is a place where people

live and work, where a city is larger in all aspects than a town and a town is smaller in all

aspects than a city. This is a very broad and vague definition and it needs to be refined. Steve

Pile, John Allen, and Doreen Massey see a shortcoming in these dictionary definitions. They

argue that a city is more than the sum of its buildings and roads.

Massey sees the city as a space with a high density of buildings, people, and interactions. It is

the space where people intersect, meet, and form relationships.18 There are a few factors that

cause these interactions, apart from high density. One of these factors is the power cities gain

from the relationships they have with wider areas. In today’s world that often means that a

city needs to be powerful within the economic, financial, and service sectors.19 There are of

course exceptions to this. Cities can be religious centres, such as Vatican City. Cities can also

be a cultural power, which may shift between cities depending on the specific cultural

element.20 Sometimes cities can be powerful in multiple ways. For example, Tokyo and New

York are both financial and cultural powers. This power or reach a city has is not necessarily

related to the population size nor the size of the geographical area.21 The most extreme

example being Vatican City. However, when cities are political powers their reach often does

not go further than a national or regional scope. When narrowing the scope of power a city

has within a small region, then the size of a city usually matters more. This relates back to a

14 Cambridge Dictionary, “City”. 15 Merriam-Webster, “Definition Of CITY.” 16 Cambridge Dictionary, “Town.” 17 Merriam-Webster, “Definition Of TOWN.” 18 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 157 & 161. 19 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 111. 20 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 112. 21 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 110.

7

city being a place of interactions because when a city is the only major hub of interactions in

its wider surrounding, its power will increase.

Pile finds that Cities are networks. Cities are all kinds of different networks: social,

economic, physical, and abstract networks. All these different types of networks are

intertwined and make the city a combination of physical features and human experiences.22

The networks involve buildings, such as homes, shops, and offices. They also involve people

who work in the city, live in the city, and those who pass through the city. Furthermore,

institutions play a key role. This is what sets apart city networks from smaller living spaces

where there are often less institutions.23 The networks are another cause for interactions

within a city, but as a city’s size increases networks can also decrease interactions. When

cities become mega cities, such as many cities in today’s world with millions of inhabitants,

they offer anonymity to the people in the cities. This anonymity makes interactions less

productive.24 Social traditions are distorted out of necessity. At a certain point there are too

many people and relationships become more superficial.25

Another cause for interactions in explained by Allen. He notices that a city is full of

juxtapositions. A city contains rich and poor places, different types of architecture, and old

and new buildings.26 Cities expand over time and this causes these juxtapositions to exist side

by side throughout the city. That does not mean that these juxtapositions melt together. Often

groups of people and functions of buildings are segregated.27 Neighbourhood are often

divided by culture, class, and wealth. Buildings are often spread out over zones. Cities have

shopping centres, financial districts, and cultural centres that for example contain museums.

These segregations can change over time and especially in older cities it is evident that the

boarders of the zones that designate a building’s functions are much less clear than in newer

cities. Allen also notes that cities contain spaces of authority that are inhabited by public

monumental buildings.28 These type of buildings can carry symbolic meaning next to

practical meaning and are therefore made highly visible.29 This is evident to both the

inhabitants of the city and to those who pass through.

In summary, the definition of a city by Pile, Allen, and Massey is as follows: Geographical

networks of social relations.30 The most important characteristic of a city are: high density,

monumental buildings, juxtapositions, power, and interactions. Although all these

characteristic of a city are present in most cities of today’s world, there are always exceptions

to the rules These characteristics have been defined based on studying cities. They do not

indicate when places becomes cities, only that cities have these characteristics. Thus, when

we want to know when a place becomes a city we are forced to return to the dictionary

definitions and those tell us that the defining characteristic remains size. These characteristics

set cities apart from smaller living spaces, but places can only be called cities when they

reach a high enough population. The exact number of people or buildings a place needs to

22 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 16 & 47. 23 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 18. 24 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 17. This is an observation by Lewis Mumford. 25 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 43. This is a conclusion by Louis Wirth. 26 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 71. 27 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 82. 28 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 74. 29 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 73. 30 Massey, Allen and Pile, City Worlds, 110.

8

have to be a city cannot be determined, but places with small populations are definitely not

cities and places with a very large population definitely are. In this thesis I will show why this

definition, which serves its modern function well, falls short when looking at ancient

Mesopotamian conceptions of a city.

9

Chapter II: Mesopotamian descriptions of the city

When analysing the textual sources, like the Sumerian city laments, two things stand out.

Firstly, the concepts that are associated with the city are peace, permanence, and history. In

the Lament for Unug the word silim is used to describe the city as being “built upon peace”.31

In the Lament for Urim the brickwork or šeb of multiple cities, like Ur, Isin, Uruk, and

Eridug, are mentioned as being synonymous with the city itself.32 The brick refers to the

strength and the wealth of the city. Mudbrick is more durable and permanent than the sheep

or goat skins that are used to make tents.33 In the Lament for Nibru in lines 100 and 164 the

‘ancient things’ of the city are mentioned with the words aĝ2 ul-bi, meaning ‘the property of

the distant days’.34 The temples and foundations of the city were destroyed and these parts of

the city are regarded as ancient. However, these parts are not irreplaceable. Later in the

lament Išme-Dagan is ordered by Enlil to restore the temple and the foundations. The city is

built upon a shared history tied to its geographical location that is kept alive by its current

residents.

Secondly, cities are often described by their function and by the type of buildings it contains.

Take again for example the Sumerian lamentation songs about Ur, Nippur, Uruk, and Eridug.

When we count the physical elements of the city mentioned in these texts, they can be

divided into five aspects of the city. The first is the religious aspect encompassing the sacred

precinct, with the temple and dining hall, and the religious festivals and rituals associated

with the city. The second aspect is the walls. The third is the agricultural spaces belonging to

the city such as the storeroom, the cattle pens and sheepfolds, and the agricultural fields and

orchards. The fourth aspect is the living and work spaces of the city such as residential areas,

workshops, and stores. Fifth and finally, the difference between the city and the open country

is emphasised. This chapter will examine how each of these aspects is described in textual

sources and what can be inferred from archaeological evidence.

The city versus the country side

There are some words within the languages that can shed a light on the differences between

types of settlements and their function. The most well known is iri in Sumerian or ālum in

Akkadian. These words are mostly translated with ‘city’ or ‘town’.35 Then there is the

Sumerian word e2-duru5 to refer to a grain storeroom outside the city walls that most likely

was accompanied by a settlement.36 The logogram for this is URU.ŠE, or ‘city’ and ‘barley’.

This does not mean that it is a synonym for the city, but I will argue that the use of iri

indicates that this is a permanent settlement.

31 Black et al., “The lament for Unug,” lines D 27, E 30 & E 36. 32 Black et al., “The lament for Urim,” lines 47, 58, 60, 61, & 317. 33 Cribb, Nomads, 84-88. & Faegre, Tents, 23. 34 Black et al., “The lament for Nibru,” lines 95-100 & 164. 35 ePSD entry for iri. 36 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 190.

10

Then there is the word a2-dam which also refers to a type of settlement that is not equal to a

iri. In Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta iri and a2-dam are used in the same sentence as

examples of two different types of settlements.37 The same happens in the text An adab to

Nergal for Šu-ilīšu where iri-bad3 is mentioned in the same line as a2-dam as a different type

of settlement.38 The word bad3 means ‘wall’, but after iri it means ‘city’ or ‘high-city’. High

city could refer the mounds around which walls were placed. Furthermore, there is another

possible way in which Mesopotamians referred to cities in writing. The word ki is also used

as a determinative after place names. The presence of ki could indicate whether a place was

deemed a city.39

When looking at what defined living in a city, we need to look at what made it different from

living outside of the city. There existed a cultural divide between those that lived in the city

and those who lived outside it. This divide seems to have existed since the beginning of

urbanism in Mesopotamia. Outside of cities there were small towns, settlements with farmers,

and nomadic encampments.40 In Mesopotamian literature there is a clear difference between

inhabitants of cities and rural areas. For example, the tale of The Marriage of Martu displays

the cultural stereotypes associated with these different types of inhabitants. Martu does not

live in the city, but rather in the mountains. He visits the city often and notices how all his

friends already have wives. He then competes in a wrestling match that takes place during a

religious festival. The god Numušda is present at the festival and he sees Martu win. He then

offers Martu silver, but Martu wishes to marry the daughter of Numušda, Adjar-kidug.

Numušda gives his blessing. In the preparation of the wedding, Adjar-kidug speaks to her

friends. They tell her that Martu is not suitable. They compare him to a monkey, criticise his

clothes and housing, and say he cannot properly worship the gods. They accuse him of

“ignoring the places of the gods”, because “he lives in the mountains.”41 This line gives a

glimpse of a belief that cities are places of the gods and those outside it are inferior. The end

of the story of Martu and Adjar-kidug has not been preserved, so it is unknown whether

Martu was able to become urbanised. Outside the story the term Martu refers to the Amorites.

They were mostly associated with the area west of Mesopotamia from Syria to the Arabian

Peninsula.42 Beaulieu makes the connection between the two with the help of The Marriage

of Martu:

“It is evident that the god was also a divine personification of the Amorites. The

myth of the “Marriage of Martu,” in which Amurru is portrayed with all the

stereotypes commonly associated with the Amorites in Sumerian literature, leaves

no doubt that embodying that ethno-linguistic and cultural identity was his

primary function already in Ur III period.”43

37 Black et al., “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta,” lines 118-119 & 190-191. 38 Black et al., “An adab to Nergal for Šu-ilīšu, line 48. 39 To my knowledge no large study on the use function and meaning of ki as a determinative has been done. My

own initial look at this word seems to confirm my argument. But a larger study that looks at many different

types of primary texts over all periods of Mesopotamian history is needed to say anything conclusive. 40 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” 153. 41 Black et al., “The marriage of Martu.” 42 Beaulieu, “The God Amurru,” 32. 43 Beaulieu, “The God Amurru,” 33-34.

11

Nomadic tribes such as the Martu people were seen as uncivilised. In Lugalbanda and the

Anzud Bird the Martu people are described as those “who know no agriculture.”44 The

connection between agriculture and civilisation will be discussed later.

The connection between urbanism and civilisation is also depicted in the beginning of the

Epic of Gilgamesh when the wild man Enkidu is created. At first Enkidu knows no

civilisation. He lives with the wild animals. Then the lady Shamḫat gives him ‘reason’ by

means of copulation, after which Shamḫat takes Enkidu to the city of Uruk. On their journey

they stay at a shepherd camp where Enkidu learn the ways of civilisation. He learns to eat

bread, when he previously grazed grass, to drink from a cup instead of a pond, and his hair is

cut to make him look like a man. 45 This is Enkidu’s stop between the uncivilised world and

the civilised world. Enkidu was only taken to the city once he had completely learned the

ways of civilisation. This implies that the city does not civilise its inhabitants, but rather that

civilised people live in cities.

The land outside of cities was called edin in Sumerian and ṣērum in Akkadian. The word set

the city apart from the open country where the wild and dangerous animals lurked, nomadic

tribes and shepherd lived, and demons and spirits of restless souls roamed. The open country

had its own gods. One of them was the aforementioned Martu. In the first millenium Bēlet-

ṣēri was closely associated with the open country, demons, the netherworld and its spirits,

and healing.46 These opposite places, the city and the open country, retained their meaning

throughout Mesopotamian history. In an inscription by Tiglath-pileser III the warning for

disturbing the tomb of queen Yabâ is:

“may her ghost roam the open country thirsty.”47

At the end of the third millenium the word edin was used in the cylinder texts of Gudea, ruler

of Lagash, to refer to the steppe where the wild animals live. Gudea is then described as

spreading peace in this region that is usually characterised by chaos and disorder.48

“The wild animals, creatures of the steppe, all had crouched together. The lions

and the dragons of the steppe were lying asleep.”49

Gudea is portrayed as a peaceful ruler throughout the story.50 This corresponds to the idea

that the civilised cities are places of peace and violence occurs in the open country. However,

this does not mean that Gudea did not use violence. Pontgratz-Leisten quoters lines 330 to

335 where Gudea prohibited shouting or corporal punishment for children and slaves.51 In the

next lines, which Ponggratz-Leisten omits, Gudea expels the “ritually unclean” who are

“unpleasant to look at” from the city, which is not necessarily a peaceful process. The act of

expelling certain groups of people who are seen as dangerous or inferior from the city is not

unheard of by any means. In Mesopotamian texts certain groups such as criminals were

44 Black et al., “Lugalbanda and the Anzud bird,” lines 304 & 370. 45 George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 5-15. 46 Krul, “Prayers,” 51-58. 47 RINAP “Tiglath-pileser III” ( 2003), lines 13-14. The word used is kawû. In this context is has the same

meaning as ṣērum, or ‘outside the city gate’. 48 Pongratz-Leisten, “Gudea,” 47-48. q 49 Black et al., “The building of Ninĝirsu's temple,” lines 903-906. 50 Pongratz-Leisten, “Gudea,” 46. 51 Pongratz-Leisten, “Gudea,” 46.

12

compared to the wild animals of the uncivilised open country and were expelled from cities.

Homeless people did stay inside city walls, but were compared to stray dogs.52 Those

suffering from leprosy were also forced to live in the open country. An Akkadian royal text

by the Kassite king Meli-Šipak II from the twelfth century found in Susa gives a list of

curses, one of which wishes the sufferer leprosy and that he may roam the steppe, the ṣērum.

“May he clothe his body with leprosy like a garment and until the day that he is

alive may he be deprived of his house and may he roam the steppe like a wild

beast. May he not tread the square of his city.”53

It is difficult to study the differences between cities and other settlements in the

Mesopotamian landscape. Traces of temporary settlements such as the tents of nomadic tribes

or shepherds will never be found and there are no large-scale excavations of permanent small

settlements that could help determine whether they functioned as a city or not.

These settlements are called villages in today’s literature because they had a population fewer

than five hundred. For example, Steinkeller makes a categorisation of the settlement in the

province of Umma during the Old Babylonian Period based on the number of buildings. He

distinguished four types of settlements: hamlets, larger villages, towns, and cities.54 He

identifies fourteen towns, eleven larger villages, and one city by name.55 However, when

looking at Steinkeller’s own source material we find that larger villages and towns are written

with ki in the same manner that well known cities such as Mari, Uruk, and Girsu are

written.56 The hamlet Eduru-ašag-Lamah however, is written without ki and with the word

guru7, meaning grain storehouse. Additionally, it has e2-duru5 in its name.57 When we look at

all the identified settlements given by Steinkeller the categorisation changes drastically when

we base the categorisation on the presence of the determinative ki after the name. Even

without the use of the determinative ki it can be said that the categorisation of Steinkeller

does not correspond with Mesopotamian terminology. Case in point, the settlement of Al-šu-

Suen is identified as a larger village by Steinkeller, but is referred to with iri in textual

sources.58

Religion in the city

Cities were the habitats of the gods. The gods were similar to humans in that they lived in

houses. The temples were the houses of the gods. Temples were not only of religious

significance. They sustained a large-scale economic system that made the density of city

living possible. During the third millennium temples were the largest landowner in a city.

They managed this land through offices and labourers who worked the land for a salary.59

The temple was an important institution in all aspects of life for Mesopotamian city dwellers.

52 Steinert, “City Streets,” 147. 53 Scheil, “MDP 02, 099-111 & pl. 21-24 (CDLI: P498859),” column 6 line 48 to column 7 line 4. 54 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 189. 55 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 194. 56 Steinkeller, “Corvée Labor,” 388. Lines ii 7 (larger village of Kamari) ii 12 (city of Uruk) & iii 10 (city of

Girsu). p. 414, lines 11 (town of GARshana ) 24 (city of Girsu) & 37 (city of Mari). 57 Steinkeller, “Corvée Labor,” 415. SAT 2 601 line 12. 58 Steinkeller, “Corvée Labor,” 353. 59 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” 150.

13

In the lamentation songs this idea is reinforced. The main emphasis in these songs is on the

destruction of the temple and its shrines. In the Lamentation for Nibru the temple is described

as a place of intelligence, a place where judgements are made:

“the city's heart no longer revealed any sign of intelligence -- there where the

Anuna used to give advice! In Ubšu-unkena, the place for making great

judgments, they no longer impart decisions or justice!”60

Most importantly, the temple is described as a crowded place that under usual circumstances

is bustling with noise. The lines mention how the temple fell silent during the siege and how

there are normally many people and music playing.

“Why did he transform the appearance of the temple which knew voices, where

they used to while away the days in sweet playing of tigi drums in the brick

buildings? The temple, once a place to offer salutations in humility, is now as

deathly silent as a temple which no one reveres!”61

Temples were also social institutions that organised festivals. Martu travelled to a city to

attend a festival. City gates often bore the names of gods and were a starting point for

religious festivals, where gods travelled from the city’s temple to other temples to visit the

gods living there.62 In the lamentation song city festivals are also mentioned multiple times:

“On its boulevards where festivals had been held, heads lay scattered”63

“The aua priests do not celebrate the festivals in your house of festivals.”64

“How were the city's festivals neglected?”65

In the fourth millennium the main temple was separated from the centre and residential areas.

In the third millennium this tradition continued and the temple was placed at the edge of the

city.66 Gudea considered the temple to have the most importance in his ideal city. The peace

that embodies the city is spread from the core of the city, from the temple.67 temples not only

played an essential role in the religious activities of the city. As mentioned, temples were the

largest landowners and employed farmers to work the fields. They oversaw the

administration. This is not necessarily indicative of a power hierarchy based on exploitations,

but rather an economic model that fits better within the Mesopotamian environment and

which promotes prosperity.68 The rivers of Mesopotamian were prone to irregular flooding. A

flood would mean bankruptcy for small farm owners, but not for large scale landowner such

as temples. The same counts for a failed harvest due to wild animals, storms, or an abnormal

climate. The Mesopotamian environment contributed to the power the temple had as an

economic institution/69 The upkeep of temples were often managed by a single family over

60 Black et al., “The lament for Nibru,” lines 18-21. 61 Black et al., “The lament for Nibru,” lines 83-85. 62 May, “Gates,” 80. & Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 206. 63 Black et al., “The lament for Urim,” line 213. 64 Black et al., “The lament for Urim,” line 355. 65 Black et al., “The lament for Nibru,” line 14. 66 Stone, “The Organisation,” 174. 67 Pongratz-Leisten, “Gudea,” 51. 68 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 224-225. 69 Garfinkle, “Public versus Private ,” 391.

14

generations who held offices in the temple. This family probably had a residence in or near

the temple. As was the case at the temple of Inanna in Nippur.70

A network of interconnected settlements had a main temple with smaller temples and shrines

connected to it. In Steinkellers categorisation of settlements he mentions how larger hamlets

and villages could have a small temple, shrine, or chapel. These were small-scale one-

chamber shrines with mostly low-ranking priests. The high-ranking priests and priestesses

were reserved for towns and cities. All these smaller temples linked the settlements with the

larger temple in the city through the pantheon of the city in a hierarchical structure.71 Due to

this the settlements, regardless of categorisation, around the highest temple were more

prosperous and thus attracted more people.

The temple was not the only place where people came to practice their religion. Religious

activities were spread throughout the city. Larger houses had a separate room for a house

shrine.72 This does not mean that the less well off only had the main temple to their disposal.

Smaller temples and shrines have been found within residential areas.73 These outdoor

shrines were accessible to and used by the general public.74 City gates were also a place for

religious practices such as sacrifices.75 However, the temple was still the centre of religious

activity. It represented the entire city. They were the largest buildings and they were elevated

as to be highly visible, also to those outside the city. 76

Walls

When many people live close together they can gather the labour and resources needed to

build a wall around their homes. Mesopotamian cities did not have a single wall encircling

the entire city. Fortification walls in the Early Dynastic Period were placed around the

separate mounds that make up the city.77 Then a city also had inner walls. Together with

canals these inner walls divided the city into sectors.78 These sectors were not a strict border.

Neither was the outer wall. For example, squares near gates extended outside the walls.79

In Mesopotamia walls were part of the urban identity. In the Epic of Gilgamesh walls

symbolise the visibility and permanence of the city of Uruk. At the end of the story

Gilgamesh urges Ur-shanabi the ferryman to climb Uruk’s wall and to look at the foundations

and brickwork.80 The common interpretation of this scene is that the walls symbolise the

immortality Gilgamesh himself was denied.81 The baked bricks make the wall strong and

permanent. Furthermore, a wall makes a city visible from far away. In the Gudea cylinders

70 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 223. 71 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 192-184, 202, & 206. 72 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 217. 73 Stone, “The Organisation,” 168. & Stone. 2017. p. 217. 74 Steinert, “City Streets,” 132. 75 May, “Gates,” 81. 76 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” p. 151. 77 Stone, “The Organisation.” 167 & 168. 78 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 225. 79 May, “Gates,” 109. 80 George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 99, lines XI 323-324. 81 George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 88.

15

Gudea himself climbs on the wall of the Eninnu.82 This makes him visible to all the people of

Lagash who then look at him in admiration. Walls are usually cited for the protection they

offer during conflicts. Collins thinks that “in times of war and uncertainty, rural populations

might seek security behind city walls, while periods of peace and plenty may have

encouraged settlement in the suburbs or even the countryside.”83 The opposite can also be

true. Sieges make walls a weakness. On the other hand, walls set a clear border which makes

social and economic organisation easier. This aids trade and income security. This all would

make the city more attractable in peace time and more dangerous in wartime. Furthermore, in

Gilgamesh walls are never mentioned in their capacity as strategic defence mechanism during

wartime. Rather, the walls are described as a sign of prosperity for the city.84

The symbolism associated with walls continued well into the first millennium. The Assyrian

king Sennacherib destroyed Babylon to “its foundations” in 689.85 His successors Esarhaddon

and grandson Ashurbanipal rebuilt Babylon. The inscriptions detailing the rebuilding process

focus on two major elements. One, the rebuilding and completion of the temple and returning

the statue of Marduk. Two, the rebuilding of the walls of Babylon. 86 Ashurbanipal was not

the first Assyrian king to rebuild the walls of Babylon. His great-grandfather king Sargon II

also left inscriptions on bricks that mention how he rebuilt some of Babylon’s walls.87 The

idea is that with the rebuilding of the wall and the completion of the temple, the city is

returned to glory. Those two elements are thus closely associated with the city as a concept.

The building of city walls was also a memorable event. It was an achievement of the city and

the ruler that oversaw the project. For example, in a Sumerian contract for the sale of slaves

in Nippur during the reign of Ibbi-Suen at the end of the third millennium, the building of the

great city wall of Nippur is used as a date reference at the end of the contract.88 This is by no

means a singular occurrence. Many year names referenced the building and rebuilding of city

walls. For example, both Ur-Namma of Ur around 2100 and later Warad-Sîn of Larsa in the

eighteenth century mention the building of the wall of Ur in one of their year names.89

This corresponds to the idea of permanence. A fitting analogy is that of the Ship of Theseus.

Monumental buildings such as walls and temples were under continues repair. Over time the

original building would have mostly been replaced. Still, it was considered the same building

because it was not the physical materials that embodied it, but it was the idea of the building

in that specific geographical location. The walls and temple were permanent no matter which

bricks made up the building.

Lastly, an argument for how walls were seen as essential parts of any city is the cuneiform

signs that were used to write down the word city. The logographic sign representing iri looks

like the following in protocuneiform: .90 This form eventually developed in the more

82 Black et al., “The building of Ninĝirsu's temple,” lines 1244-1247. The word used is zag-e3-a which literal

meaning is ‘on the outer corner’, but in this instance is can be assumed that it refers to the corner of the temple

wall 83 Collins, “Everyday Life,” 348. 84 Dunham, “Ancient Near Eastern Architecture”, 267. She comments something similar. 85 Grayson and Novotny, “Sennacherib 223.” 86 Frame, Rulers of Babylonia, 196-198. Akkadian clay cylinder inscription found in Babylon. 87 Frame, Rulers of Babylonia, 143-1462. Inscriptions on brick. One in Sumerian. One in Akkadian. 88 Edward, “PBS 08/2, 157.” 89 CDLI, “Year Names.” “e.” in the entry for Ur-Namma and “10.” in the entry for Warad-Sîn. 90 CDLI, “Full list of proto-cuneiform signs”.

16

well-known: .91 It can be said that this sign looks like a portion of a wall.92 More

conclusively is the homonym for city in Sumerian iri-bad3. In spoken language the word iri-

bad3 could have reinforced the idea that cities have walls.

Agriculture and the city

In literature there are frequent references to the agricultural sector when mentioning the city.

In the minds of the Mesopotamians agriculture was tied to civilisation. For example, in the

prologue of the debate between Ewe and Grain the time before civilisation is described. The

people were naked, had no food, and lived like wild animals on the steppe.93 In the story,

agriculture gave the people clothes and wool from the ewe and food from grain which meant

that the people could live in a civilised way. In essence, agriculture in combination with

urbanism is portrayed as the distinction between the civilised and the uncivilised.94

The majority of people were farmers and they lived inside the city, while the field laid

outside city walls.95 As mentioned the distinction between city and farming village is difficult

to make, but it is certain that there were small storage facilities outside the city walls;

according to the terms guru7 and i3-dub in written records. These small settlements were

denoted with the term e2-duru5.96 These facilities stored grain from surrounding fields but

were owned by and under the control of a temple in a nearby city.97 This eased the harvesting

process, because the grain could be stored close by before it was transported to the city.

Artificial waterways created a network between cities and smaller settlements that facilitated

this trade and kept the grain storerooms in small settlements connected to nearby cities.98

These storerooms outside city walls are also mentioned in the literature. For example, in the

Lament for Urim the storehouses of the land are set ablaze.99 In the Lament for Sumer and

Urim Nintur closes the storerooms.100 In the Debate between Ewe and Grain, ewe and grain

are described as filling “the storerooms of the land.”101 The fields and the storerooms within

them were considered part of the city. In the Lament for Urim “the fields of the city” are

mentioned.102

Aside from the fields the lamentation also frequently mentions housing for domesticated

animals, especially cattle pens and sheepfolds. They were also a way to refer to a city. In the

Lament for Urim ‘sheepfold’ has a divine connotation that refers to the city. For example, in

line 376 the following is said about the goddess Ningal:

91 ePSD, The first sign in the entry for iri. 92 To my knowledge no study has been published with the commonly accepted representations of pictographic

protocuneiform signs. The observation that the sign for iri looks like a city wall is my own. 93 Black et al., “The debate between Sheep and Grain,” lines 12-25. 94 Wiggerman, “Agriculture as Civilization,” 669-672. 95 Wiggerman, “Agriculture as Civilization,” 676. 96 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 190. 97 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 191-192. 98 Steinkeller, “City and Countryside,” 205. 99 Black et al., “The lament for Urim,” line 239. 100 Black et al., “The lament for Sumer and Urim,” line 60. 101 Black et al., “The debate between Sheep and Grain,” line 58. 102 Black et al., “The lament for Urim,” line 271.

17

“Although you are a queen who loves her city, you abandoned your sheepfold.”103

This is also done in the story of Gilgamesh.104 The same counts for the cattle-pen in the

Lament for Nibru. The city is seen as a cattle-pen and when the city is destroyed the people

are like “a scattered herd of cattle”.105 In Inana and the God of Wisdom Inana receives the

divine powers of civilisation from Enki. In this list of divine powers are the cattle pen and the

sheepfold. 106 These two aspects of agriculture were important symbols for the city and for

civilisation, regardless of whether actual sheep or cattle were present in the city.

Domesticated farm animals were not housed in residential houses in the city due to lack of

space.107 They were also incorporated into the public agricultural sector and thus were used to

provide for the entire city and not just the individual owner. Domesticated animals were a

frequent sight in the streets.108 Most Mesopotamian city dwellers spend their days working in

the agricultural sector and lived surrounded by all elements of agriculture.

Living and working in the city

In the ancient literature it is acknowledged that cities are places where people live but it is not

the most important aspect of the city. In the Lament for Nibru it is mentioned twice that the

city offers people a safe and comfortable place to live:

“Nibru, the city where the black-headed people used to cool themselves in its

spreading shade”109 “He promised him that he shall have the people inhabit safe

dwelling.”110

The residential areas themselves are well documented in the archaeological record. Houses in

all different sizes have been found during excavations. The larger houses belonging to the

more wealthy inhabitant have been found much less frequently.111 This is in line with the

wealth distribution of a city where the most valuable property is publicly owned. These larger

homes had separate rooms for the kitchen and bathroom.112 Almost all buildings and houses

had shared walls.113 This can be explained by the high density of buildings. Residents owned

their own homes while working in the public sector.114 These homes would be inherited by

the children of the owners and this accounts for high social mobility over generations. There

are two reasons for this. On the one hand, some would be adopted in well standing families

and this increased the generational wealth of their own family. On the other hand, dividing

the property in the inheritance between multiple children decreased the wealth of well

103 Black et al., “The lament for Urim,” line 376. 104 George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 1-100. In the standard version the city of Uruk is consistently referred to as

“Uruk-the-Sheepfold.” 105 Black et al., “The lament for Nibru,” Line 29. 106 Wolkstein and Kramer, Inanna, 18. 107 Stone, “The Organisation,” 161 & 173. 108 Steinert, “City Streets,” 126. 109 Black et al., “The lament for Nibru.” lines 26-27. 110 Black et al., “The lament for Nibru.” line 317. 111 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” p. 146. 112 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 217. 113 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” 147. 114 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” 147.

18

standing families over generations.115 In the city itself there was no physical separation

between the richer families and the poorer families. Their larger and smaller houses have

been found in the same streets and neighbourhoods.116

Genealogical texts do reveal some kind of segregation. This was not based on wealth but on

professions. In Ur one area was almost completely occupied by clergy members. In Nippur

one area had many small farm owners and another area housed mostly those connected to

state institutions and other administrative buildings.117 In Old Babylonian Sippar merchants

from other cities lived together on a separate street.118 The different kind of buildings within a

city were not segregated either, apart from the main temple complex. Workshops, schools,

shops, and chapels all existed within residential areas.119 Stone suggests that there is little

evidence for extreme poverty in the archaeological evidence or the written record.120 She

finds that all citizens of a city were wealthy enough to own metal objects.121 However, there

is evidence in the textual record for homeless people.122 Moreover, those too poor to own a

house and relying on charity would not show up in the archaeological record or

administrative texts. The buildings in which they lived would belong to someone else, or they

simply might have lived in the streets which leaves little to no short-term trace, let alone on

the long-term millennia scale. The lack of evidence for the extreme poor does not suggest

their absence. We simply cannot know if and how many people in a city lived in extreme

poverty or how possible charitable institutions cared for them.

Cities offered a living space and market for artisans. Artisans were held in high regard. The

Sumerian word for artisan is gašam, which has the same meaning as being knowledgeable or

wise. In Lugalbanda and the Anzud Bird Lugalbanda rebuilds the city of Aratta. This includes

metal workers and stonemasons.123 In the Laws of Ur-namma a set wage is set for artisans

that are hired by the inhabitants of the city. A variety of artisans is mentioned such as

carpenters, textile workers, smiths, and leatherworkers.124 In the archaeological record

workshops and stores are sometimes found attached to residential homes. They differ from

regular homes by having a large additional room. Other times they are a small separate

building. Some activities such as pottery making could be done in any room from a regular

residential home.125 There is also archaeological evidence for display windows or counters in

Ur during the Isin-Larsa period.126 Although, they do not often appear often in written

sources, artisans were a significant group in cities.127 Opposed to field workers, artisans

worked in the private sector.128 They earned their money by selling their goods and services

to the other city folk and travellers that passed through.

115 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” 147. 116 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” 166-167. 117 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 219-221. 118 Steinert, “City Streets,” 132. 119 Collins, “Everyday Life,” 348. 120 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 228. 121 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities,” 151. 122 Steinert, “City Streets.” 143 & 147. 123 Black et al., “Lugalbanda and the Anzud bird,” lines 409-410. 124 Roth, Hoffner, Jr., and Michalowski. Law Collections, 131, law 274. 125 Collins, “Everyday Life,” 349 & 353. 126 Steinert, “City Streets,” 131. 127 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 227. 128 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities.” 151.

19

All this commercial activity sheds light another problem that occurs in cities, that of

trustworthiness. It is caused by the anonymity that living in high density with large groups

offers. In the large enough settlements people will live and work side by side people they do

not know and might never meet. This also means that in general people do not know each

other well enough to decide if the other person is trustworthy. Mesopotamians were no

strangers to this problem and they invented rules and customs to combat this issue. One of the

best examples s of such rules and customs is the use of witnesses and contracts with large

purchases, so that any disputes could be resolved in a more objective manner. This was

common enough that it was included in law codes. For example, the Hammurabi law code

goes as far as saying that a purchase is invalid if no witnesses are present:

“If a man should purchase silver, gold, a slave, a slave woman, an ox, a sheep, a

donkey, or anything else whatsoever, from a son of a man or from a slave of a

man without witnesses or a contract—or if he accepts the goods for safekeeping—

that man is a thief, he shall be killed.”129

In the city there were designated streets and squares for markets.130 This does not mean that

these were the only places for commercial activity. There is evidence of food peddlers.131

Official markets were most often near city gates.132 At these gates the standards for prices and

measurements were set.133 Foreign merchants were also a frequent sight in cities. They were

organised in guilds and lived in cities between their travels.134 As for workshops, they too had

a designated area in the city. In Old Babylonian Mashkan-shapir the workshops for the

production of ceramics and metals and other activities requiring heat sources were

concentrated at the edge of the city near a canal. These workshops were also absent from the

centre of the city.135 This concentration can be explained by the threat of fire these activities

posed to the city. By situating these workshops near a water source and close to the edge of

the city a potential fire could be contained and extinguished before it spread to other parts of

the city. A further designation for artisans was in a street leading to the city centre from the

main gate. This is also the case in Mashkan-shapir. Different kinds of artisans were

neighbours and thus created a ‘main street’.136 These designations were deliberate, either for

safety concerns or for convenience. Additionally, in other excavations of cities it was found

that the organisation of houses differs per site. Some use straight streets and alleys. This all

implies urban planning.137

Aside from farmer and artisans the city offered employment for those with an above average

level of education such as scribes, scholars, officials, and teachers. Although, as mentioned

earlier, the people with these professions lived in the same neighbourhood, they were not part

of an exclusive class. Administration, performed by the temple, involved all the people in the

129 Roth, Hoffner, and Michalowski, Law Collections, 82. Codex Hammurabi law 7. Laws 122, 123, and 124

deal with this same issue. Whether or not this law was actually enforced the idea of the need for witnesses and

contracts is what is important in this context. 130 Steinert, “City Streets,” 129. 131 Steinert, “City Streets,” 130. 132 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities.” 151. 133 May, “Gates,” 106. 134 Stone, “Mesopotamian Cities.” 151-152. 135 Stone and Zimansky, The Anatomy, 12 & 340-341. 136 Stone, “The Mesopotamian Urban Experience,” 227. 137 Collins, “Everyday Life,” 348.

20

city and political events were open to the public. Most political activities involved either the

king, in the case that a city housed a king, or an assembly which was present in all cities. The

presence of the assembly as an institution has been indicated by written sources but these

have not been found in archaeological finds.138 One explanation for this is that assemblies did

not have a specialised building. Rather they took place in the open-air near city gates as

written sources indicate. The gate was also the place where the mayor of the city performed

his duties.139

The institutions that employed these people also created employment for other people in the

city. This employment was beneficial to these institutions, the people they employed, and the

organisation of the city as a whole. Records show that temples gave land to individuals in

return for military service, corvée, or participation in public projects. This land could then be

sold by the individual or given in an inheritance.140 An example of public projects are the

irrigation projects. Not only were they essential to the agricultural activities because of the

landscape, they also employed a large group of people. Furthermore, according to Garfinkle,

they are the prime example of the efficiency of the public sector in ancient Mesopotamia.141

138 Stone, “The Organisation,” 173. 139 Steinert, “City Streets,” 129. 140 Garfinkle, “Public versus Private,” 386. 141 Garfinkle, “Public versus Private,” 386.

21

Chapter III: Eridug

Introduction to Eridug

Eridug was first settled during the Ubaid period. It had its population peak during the Early

Dynastic period.142 The population had decreased significantly by the Old Babylonian

period.143 It has been theorised that the city was kept as a pilgrim site and that only a few

priests permanently lived there. The city had some form of permanent population up until the

seventh century when it was abandoned.144 This was before the city had fallen into ruin.145 It

is unknown why the city was abandoned, but it could be related either to climate change or

war.

When we look at to which extent Eridug was considered a city a few things can be taken into

consideration. Firstly, Eridug is always referred to as iri. Even in later periods the word iri is

used instead of e2 for shrine or temple, which we might expects since Eridug was most

famous for its temple. Eridug was the home of the god Enki. His temple was called the Abzu.

This is why Eridug was often written as NUNki in cuneiform signs. The NUN refers to Enki

and the determinative ki designates it as a place rather than a deity. The word iri is part of its

name, which is spelled phonetically in cuneiform sources as iri-dug3ki, meaning ‘good

city’.146 This does not mean that people would have understood the name literally, it is a

name after all. However, it does add to the idea that Eridug was considered a city from its

conception. Secondly, Eridug contained all aspects that were associated with a city. This will

be elaborated upon further. Finally, and most importantly, Eridug was considered the first

city in Mesopotamian mythology. There are multiple cuneiform sources that implicitly or

explicitly state that Eridug was the first city. These sources range from the Early Dynastic

period to the Late Babylonian period. The most important texts that affirm this belief are two

Old Babylonian texts called the Sumerian King List and the Eridug Genesis, or the Sumerian

Flood Story.147

In describing the creation of the first city, often the creation of kingship is mentioned

simultaneously. Eridug was the first seat of kingship. Kingship and city are inseparable in

Mesopotamian mythology. In the Old Babylonian text Inana and the god of wisdom there is a

list of eighty divine powers, or me, which Inana takes from Enki in Eridug and brings with

her to Uruk. It signifies the transfer of kingship from Eridug to Uruk. The list includes all

elements that were considered essential to civilisation and urban living: from objects

associated with kingship, such as the crown and throne, different types of priests, different

kinds of clothing, objects related to standard measurements, travelling, different non-

agricultural trades, musical instruments, family and procreation, and abstract concepts, such

as truth, justice, kindness, treachery, and power.148 Within the list are elements that can be

142 Leick, Mesopotamia, chapter: Eridu. 143 Thompson, “The British Museum Excavations,” 109. 144 Leick, Mesopotamia, chapter: Eridu. 145 Taylor, “Notes.” 111. 146 Jacobsen, “Some Sumerian city names,” 102. 147 Hallo, The World's Oldest Literature, 548-550. 148 Wolkstein and Kramer, Inanna, 11-27. & Black et al, “Inana and Enki”. Even though Sumerians were

generally very positive about civilisation., the list not only includes things that can be considered good or

prosperous to society. It also includes more negative things like, “treachery” nam-niŋ2-ne-ru, “slanderous

22

grouped with aspects of the city. The clothing and permanent dwelling place (gen6) make the

city different from the open country. The priests and purification rites belong to religion in

the city. Walls are not explicitly mentioned in the list. As mentioned earlier, the feeding pen

(e2-DAG.KISIM5xX) and sheepfold (ŋa2 udu) are related to agriculture. Finally, the trades,

such as builder, smith, and scribe belong with living and working in the city. As do the

assembled family (im-ri-a gu2 ŋar) and the art of prostitution. Everything that was

considered civilised belonged to the city. The city provided the space for all these things to be

developed by the people living in it. Cities could now set themselves apart from the

countryside and this became considered civilised. Eridug was special because it was the first

city and thus the first place of civilisation.

Eridug’s significance did not decrease with time. During the Neo-Assyrian period the city

was mentioned in astrological omens that predicted a massacre of the city and its people.149

The Neo-Assyrian kings also reaffirmed Eridug’s status. Sargon II re-established the special

privileges Eridug and other cities enjoyed. Sargon also abolished corvee duty and other

obligations for Eridug.150 Sennacherib records Eridug as taking part in a revolt against the

Neo-Assyrian state under the leadership of Marduk-apla-iddina II in 703 BC.151 Ashurbanipal

believed that the care for Eridug and its temple the Abzu was related to his own health and

prosperity.152 Evidently, Eridug was still as much an important religious city during the

seventh century as it was during the Old Babylonian period during which most texts on

Eridug’s importance were written.

Eridug and its surroundings

Eridug was thought to border water. Mainly because of the many references to water in

textual sources. However, excavations discovered that Eridug did not lie on the banks of a

river. Not did it border the Persian Gulf. It did however lie within the swamps of the

Euphrates river.153 Hall, the archaeologist of the 1919 expedition to Eridug’s excavation site

Abu Shahrain, has also theorised that Eridug was situated near a fresh water lake that in

mythological records was called the Abzu.154 The Abzu was believed to be the home of Enki

and the centre of creation.155 This idea is closely related to the belief that Eridug was the first

city and the belief that fresh water was the basis of not only life but also civilisation. This is

clearly visible in the iconography of the Uruk Vase, an artifact from the late fourth

millennium which shows the hierarchy of the world. The vase should be read as a pyramid

where the lower layers allow for the existence of the upper layers. The bottom layer on the

vase is water. Water is necessary for agriculture and thus for food and clothing.156 A fresh

water lake that was the home of an important god would fit the existing idea in the mythology

that Eridug was the origin of creation, the first city and thus the origin of civilisation. This is

speech” nam-eme-sig, “deceit” lul, “rebellious land” kur ki-bal, and “plundering of cities” iri laḫ5.Perhaps this

relates to the age-old idea that society is a combination of good and bad things. 149 SAA 10 104 & SAA 18 135. 150 RINAP, “Sargon II”. 151 RINAP, “Sennacherib”. 152 RINAP. “Ashurbanipal Babylonian”. 153 Thompson, “The British Museum Excavations,” 110. 154 Hall, “Ur and Eridu,” 192-193. 155 Black, Richards, and Green, “Gods, Demons, and Symbols,” 27, 75, & 77. 156 Wiggermann, “Agriculture as Civilization,” 663-664.

23

also how mythological texts approach Eridug. In the aforementioned text Inana and the god

of Wisdom Inana travels to the Abzu to meet Enki who had created the divine powers of

civilisation and has taken them to his home in Eridug. Civilisation thus came from the Abzu

through Enki, which made Eridug the origin of civilisation.

The transition from pastoralism to a sedentary lifestyle, which was made possible by

irrigation, is also the focus of many cosmological texts. The Eridug Genesis is one example.

The beginning of this text, which presumably talks about the time before civilisation, has not

survived. However, the image of this time can be extrapolated from the next lines that

describe the creations of the gods An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursaga. They created the people

of Sumer, the wild and domestic animals, and divine rites. They then gifted kingship to the

people and the people in turn built cities.157 Civilisation is presented as obviously superior to

the culture of pastoralism that preceded urban living and coexisted with it.158

Eridug also has an interesting relation to the use of the determinative ki. Jacobsen theorised

that it was used to distinguish the sign NUN for the god Enki from the same sign for the city

of Eridug.159 The use of the same sign is not surprising since Eridug was the home of Enki.

This also happened with other cities that were homes to important gods. For example, the city

of Nippur was home to the god Enlil and was often written as EN.LIL2.KI.160 However, this

is only the case for the regular dialect of Sumerian. There was another dialect that was used

in literature called Emesal. In Emesal Eridug does not have the same spelling as the god Enki.

Jacobsen himself notes the spelling of Eridug in Emesal as Eri4-ze-ebki and URU2XUD-ze2-

ebki. He however only comments that this spelling can be used to derive the pronunciation

because the direct Emesal equivalent of dug3 is zeb, so translating the Emesal Erizeb into

Sumerian gives Eridug.161 What he fails to mention is that the determinative ki is also used

when there is no doubt over what is being referred to, i.e. the city and not the deity. Two

prayers demonstrate this even better. In the prayers the Emesal spelling of Enki is dam-ma-

an-ki.162 These same prayers write Eridug as dam-uru2-ze-ba, uru2-ze-ba, and uru2-ze-

ebki.163 The presence of ki in at least one of the spellings, while the name of Enki is spelled

entirely differently means that ki has an additional meaning than to simply refer to a place

instead of a god. In one instance the determinative dingir is used, which could be a scribal

mistake, because in this instance am is also used, when two lines later neither are. It looks

like the scribe started to write the name of Enki referring to the god, but corrected himself

and wrote the city name associated with Enki instead. In any case the spellings leave no

doubt whether Eridug was considered a city in the Emesal dialect since in all three instances

the word iri is used.

157 Black et al, “The Flood story,” Segment A line 1 to Segment B line 10. 158 Jacobsen, “The Eridu genesis,” 526. 159 Jacobsen, “Some Sumerian city-names,” 102. 160 Jacobsen, “Some Sumerian city-names,” 102. 161 Jacobsen, “Some Sumerian city-names,” 102. 162 Gabbay, Mirelman, and Reid, “A Literary Topos,” 29 line 2, 32 lines 2a & 24. The first prayer is Old

Babylonian and fragments were found in Nippur and Nineveh. The second prayer is Neo-Babylonian and was

found in Babylon. 163 Gabbay, Mirelman, and Reid, “A Literary Topos,” 1st spelling: 29 line 3. 2nd spelling: 29 line 5. 3rd spelling:

33 line 1.

24

The temple of Eridug

Enki was one of the three main gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon together with An and

Enlil. They are believed to have created the world an everything in it. The temple of Eridug is

also described in Enki’s journey to Nibru. The first paragraphs are on the beauty of the

temple, how it is decorated with silver, gold, and lapis lazuli, and how the foundations reach

into the waters of the Abzu.164 The temple is also described as a noisy and lively place where

different kinds of musical instruments played at the temple.165 The temple is also described as

highly visible and standing on a mount.166 This is confirmed by the archaeological evidence.

As mentioned, Enki was mainly associated with the underground freshwater lake called the

Abzu. He was also associated with magic and the attributed of civilisation. Enki became

known by the name Ea in later periods.167 Eridug’s main temple, the house of the Abzu, was

the first thing anyone would see when approaching the city. The ziggurat was the first thing

visible when Taylor started the first excavation of Abu Shahrain around 1850 AD.168 The

ziggurat he observed was built mainly during the Ur III period.169 The first fully intact temple

or shrine found in Eridug was built during the fifth millennium in the Ubaid period, but older

temples did exist.170 No new temples were built after the third millennium, but repairs

continued into the first millennium. 171 These repairs were made during each historical period

after the original construction.172 Repairs were frequent because the temple needed to be in

the best shape for Enki so that he would stay in Eridug. In the Lament for Eridug a

devastating storm destroyed the city and caused the king of Eridug and Enki to leave the city:

“Its king stayed outside his city as if it were an alien city. He wept bitter tears.

Father Enki stayed outside his city as if it were an alien city. He wept bitter

tears.”173

However, Enki returned when the city was rebuilt and a new temple because it was still his

home even if the original temple was destroyed.

Eridug’s walls

The main temple complex was surrounded by walls higher than a person or a house.174 These

walls were highly visible to anyone in the vicinity of Eridug. This was also the observed by

Taylor when he first approached the temple mount.175 The walls made sure that only the walls

themselves and the temple, that stood on a mount and towered above the walls, would be

visible.

164 Black et al, “Enki’s journey to Nibru,” lines 1-22. 165 Black et al, “Enki’s journey to Nibru,” lines 62-67. 166 Black et al, “Enki’s journey to Nibru,” line 56. 167 Black, Richards, and Green, “Gods, Demons, and Symbols,” 75. 168 Taylor, “Notes,” 404. 169 Van Buren, “Excavations at Eridu,” 115. 170 Van Buren, “Excavations at Eridu,” 116. 171 Safar, Mustafa, and Lloyd, Eridu. 48. 172 Van Buren, “Excavations at Eridu,” 116. 173 Black et al, “The Lament for Eridug,” Version I Segment A lines 11-12. 174 Taylor, “Notes,” p. 409. 175 Taylor, “Notes,” p. 404.

25

The Walls observed by Taylor were built during the Ur III period.176 They assisted with

protecting the city. Walls not only protected against invaders. They served a protective role

against all evil outside the city, such as spirits and wild animals from the open country. This

is also symbolised in the gates of Eridug. A basalt lion statue was found by Taylor just

outside the city and other one buried beneath sand. Taylor suggested that it originally stood

near the temple.177 Safar and Lloyd think that it may have also stood at the city gate.178

Regardless, the statues probably served a protective role and were meant to scare off any

demons. The statues are also mentioned in the Lament for Eridug where a lion-faced gate is

the entrance to the place where the fates are determined.179 In the version from Ur the gate

was set afire.180 This might have some truth to it because there is evidence that Eridug was

rebuilt during the Ur III period.181

Agriculture in Eridug

Agriculture was part of Eridug’s culture since its beginnings. Innovative agricultural practices

are evident from before the third millennium. In excavations clay sickles and stone hoes have

been found. There was also equipment for weaving found, so domesticated animals kept in

Eridug or its vicinity.182 Since agriculture was the backbone of Mesopotamian civilisation,

permanent residence will always yield evidence of agriculture. Eridug has evidence of

continued residence for as least four thousand years. The Ubaid people left evidence of

agriculture around the temple. Uruk period pottery has been found in a private residence.183

The third millennium offers the most evidence for residence in Eridu. Settlement continued

into the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods.184 Eridug was not isolated during these

times. People moved to and through Eridug either as pilgrims or merchants. It was also in

contact with powerful leaders from the kings of the third millennium to the ruler of empires

in the first millennium. It is therefore not surprising that other settlements were found close

by Eridug. Far past its prime, there was extensive settlement about two kilometres south in

the Late Babylonian period.185

This type of residence would have been impossible without continued agricultural practices.

Agriculture was then also praised in the literature of Eridug. In Ninurta’s journey to Eridug

the warrior Ninurta travels to Eridug to “determine a destiny of abundance.”186 The next lines

reveal what is meant with ‘abundance’. Ninurta is meant to improve the yield of the fields

and increase the dairy products from the cattle pens and the sheepfolds. This would benefit

the farmers, shepherds, and anyone else living in Eridug.187 This is not the extent of

176 Van Buren, “Excavations at Eridu,” 115. 177 Taylor, “Notes,” 404-405. 178 Safar, Mustafa, and Llyod, Eridu, 242. 179 Black et al, “The Lament for Eridug,” Version 1 Segment A line 51 & Ur version Segment A line 8. 180 Black et al, “The Lament for Eridug,” Ur version Segment A line 8. 181 Ur, “Patterns of Settlement,” 143. 182 Thompson, “The British Museum Excavations,” 109-110. 183 Van Buren, “Excavations at Eridu,” 119. 184 Safar, Mustafa, and Llyod, Eridu, 32 & 66. 185 Safar, Mustafa, and Llyod, Eridu, 42. 186 Black et al, “Ninurta’s journey to Eridug,” line 8. 187 Black et al, “Ninurta’s journey to Eridug,” lines 9-13.

26

agriculture in Eridug. In Enki’s journey to Nibru the fruit orchards of Eridug, as created by

Enki, are praised.188

Living and working in Eridug

Eridug had a large public sector. Most permanent residents will have been farmers. Like in

other cities, the temple owned most of the land outside of Eridug. Everyone working as a

farmer or in or with the temple will have belonged to this group. Since Eridug was an

important religious site, a lot of attention was paid to the upkeep of the temple and the

performance of rites and offerings. This not only requires priests and other clergy, but also

craftspeople, administrative staff, and domestic staff.

As for life outside of work, there were different sectors of the city. Private homes have been

found adjacent to streets, which means that there was an element of urban planning. 189 Sadly,

there are no inscriptions found in Eridug that provide administrative information. Without

these little is known about the economic records of Eridug. The four inscriptions that were

found, of which three are on brick, are from kings who expanded the temple during the late

third millennium. However, the material finds of Eridug are similar to other settlements in the

region, so we can assume that daily life was also similar. The city gate for example probably

housed a market. The pilgrims and merchants travelling to and through Eridug provided a

steady flow of buyers for the farmers and craftsmen of Eridug.

The presence of kings in Eridug did not make it a large political power. This was not

considered negative. Far-spread political power was not considered one of the most important

functions of a city. In the Eridug Genesis the cities listed as being created after Eridug,

Badtibira, Larak, Sippar, and Shuruppak, were not the largest or the most powerful

politically. Rather they were known for having divine rulers: Nudimmud, Dumuzi, Pabilsag,

Utu, and Sud, which made the cities important and powerful in a religious sense. This also

relates back to how size does not equal power. Smaller cities could have greater influence of

the region and Eridug’s influence came from the importance of its temple not the kings that

lived there, ruled from there, or visited there.

The most important conclusion is that status of Eridug as an iri, did not change when

population decreased. In the royal inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian kings the city is referred

with iri in the same manner it was in the mythological texts of the Third Millennium and Old

Babylonian period. Rather, its status was derived from the importance of the god that lived in

Eridug. Enki or in later periods Ea remained one of the most importance gods in

Mesopotamian religion. Therefore, Eridug remained an important city. It was not only a cult

place or a temple. It was considered a fully realised city that contained all the essential

aspects of a city. The question of whether Eridug was the first city ever built is impossible to

answer and can change depending on the definition of city that is used, but this is not the

relevant question to ask. The question is whether Eridug was a city in the first place and to

what extent? To that question Mesopotamians will undoubtably have said that Eridug is the

prime example of what a city looks like.

188 Black et al, “Enki’s journey to Nibru,” line 76. 189 Hall, The excavations of 1919, 2 & 7.

27

Chapter IV: The Mesopotamian city as defined by Mesopotamians

Permanence

Mesopotamians defined cities by their function. In a single sentence, iri, or ālum, can be

defined as: a permanent living space that houses one or multiple gods. The focus word here is

permanent because this concept defines urban living in ancient Mesopotamia. The belief in

civilisation and urban society begins with permanent living and permanent living is

associated with each aspect of this belief. The five elements of the city all relate back to

permanence. First and foremost, the main difference with the open country is that people is

cities provide a permanent residence. The open country is the terrain of pastoralism. This

lifestyle has many uncertainties. Cities could resolve some of these uncertainties because the

inhabitants could design their environment for optimalisation and progress, which created

order. The open country could not and therefore it was seen as chaotic and insecure. Out there

the food and safety were insecure, whereas they are less so in a city.

Secondly, religion is connected to permanence. The gods live in a permanent place and their

temple is connected to the grounds on which is stands. These temples were built at the site of

the homes of gods. Cities were built around these temples and the people living in these cities

were there to perform the divine rites and rituals. A city could not be packed up and moved

into a new location because it would be separated from its gods. This is a feature that is more

exclusive to Mesopotamia than to other regions and to the modern world. A Greek polis

could be abandoned or relocated en masse and its people would still identify themselves with

the abandoned polis and as long as they would the polis would keep on existing. The belief

was that the people made the polis and not vice versa, as was more the case in

Mesopotamia.190 Today if a city or village were depopulated or destroyed and a new city or

village was founded on the same ground it would be considered a new city or village, a place

with its own name and history that is separate from what came before.

Thirdly, Walls relate to permanence because in Mesopotamian symbolism walls are

associated invincibility, protection, and immortality. Walls were perceived to be invincible

because they kept the city together and gave a clear border between the city and the open

country. Walls made cities a safe space. They protected the inhabitants against wild animals,

demons, and invaders. Walls were a symbol of immortality because with their protection the

city kept existing when people died. Walls were the edges of the city and everything a wall

surrounds can be replaced. The people, the buildings, and even the bricks of the walls itself.

The essence of the city remained intact.

Fourthly, agriculture is the precursor for permanent living. Without the invention of

agriculture permanent living was impossible. Agriculture provided a permanent food source.

At the same time agriculture requires permanent living. Fields need year-round care while

shepherds can take their food source with them. In Mesopotamia there was no divide between

the urban centres and the agricultural sectors. The majority of city dwellers were farmers and

the city’s economic system relied largely on agriculture.

190 Garland, Wandering Greeks, 57-78. & Mackil, Wandering cities, 493-516.

28

Finally, cities were also the ideal place for non-farmers such as craftsmen. Permanent living

allowed them to create workshop, to invent new techniques, and improve their craft.

Monumental architecture also requires regular upkeep. The temple required round the clock

staff to keep up with administration and divine rituals. This variety of employment

opportunities attracted more people to the city who in turn could expand the capabilities of

the city’s institutions. This allowed certain cities to gain power. Most often this power would

either be militarised or religious. Religious power was valued more and thus often important

religious cities had significant power that did not diminish over time. Even when cities with

militarised political power controlled large regions, to the temples of cities with high

religious value generally retained their power. Cities also provided a permanent place for

trade. Large scale trade networks can only be built when markets are in a consistent and

permanent place. The communication tools of the time did not allow for people from all

directions to gather in continuously changing market places.

Most importantly to emphasise in the definition of iri is that size does not play a role. Any

permanent settlement could get the title of iri or ālum, even settlements which according to

archaeological finds are too small to be considered cities in modern definitions. What was

important was that a city had all five elements, which even small settlement could have. Only

walls are difficult to conclusively ascribe to all permanent settlements. This is also because

there is a lack of excavations of small settlements. Walls could also be expensive to build and

maintain. However, the symbolism associated with walls was still present. The myths and

literature talked about the importance of the walls and the mount structure of Mesopotamian

cities still allowed for a clear border between the city and the open country. Mesopotamians

did not experience a cultural divide between city dwellers and village dwellers. The divide

was between those that had no permanent living place and those who did. This defined the

Mesopotamian urban experience.

How Eridug fits the definition

This search for a Mesopotamian definition of the city started with Eridug not conforming

with the common modern definition of a city found in most dictionaries. Archaeology shows

that for the majority of its existence it had a small population size. Nevertheless, it was

considered a city by Mesopotamians, as evident from textual sources. Moreover, it was

considered a very influential city and it was thought to have been the first city ever created.

Eridug was the example of what a city is or should be. Every aspect of civilisation was

connected to cities. Eridug was thus not only believed to have been the first city but also the

first place with civilisation. Cities functioned as the home of the gods. Eridug was the home

of one of the most important gods in the Mesopotamian pantheon. The city also functioned as

a collective agricultural project. The Mesopotamian landscape called for a public sector with

a single landowner as it was a more sustainable economic system. Eridug was no different in

this regard. Furthermore, cities functioned as a place of safety from chaos and spirits which

belonged to the open country outside of cities, from invaders, and from extreme weather

events. Finally, cities functioned as a gathering place. Cities were places for festivals and

markets, which attracted people from all directions for religious and economic reasons.

Eridug attracted pilgrims due to its temple. Eridug might have been smaller than other cities

in Mesopotamia of the greater Near East, its influence lasted for thousand of years. Other

29

cities in Sumer also show that size does not equal power. More powerful cities such as Ur

were significantly smaller in size than surrounding cities.

How the Mesopotamian definition compares to a modern definition

The main difference between the two definitions is the role size plays in establishing which

settlements can be considered cities. In the modern definition it is the deciding factor. The

number of people or buildings above which a settlement is a city is not strict and can changes

depending on its surroundings. In the Mesopotamian definition the deciding factor is whether

a settlement is permanent or temporary. That does not mean that the two definitions have no

overlapping elements.

One similarity is the presence of monumental buildings. In Mesopotamia the temple was the

most important building and it was made highly visible. It was tall and placed on a mound.

Walls were also a form of monumental architecture. They carried an important symbolic

meaning. Walls were also the first thing anyone approaching a city would see. Another

similarity is that cities were part of networks and contained networks themselves. The two

most important networks were the temple and agricultural networks. The temples in and

around the city were connected and formed a hierarchical network. Agricultural fields around

a city were part of a network of storage facilities. Both these networks were also part of a

inner-city network that was run by the public sector. A third similarity is the high density of

people, buildings, and interactions. Fields were located outside city walls and all buildings of

the city, apart from the occasional storehouse, was located inside the city walls. This saved

space. Cities had walls and they were expensive to built and maintain. It was better to keep

the length of the city wall as small as possible. That meant that parts of the city or the entire

city needed to have a high density of buildings to keep the circumference small. In turn

people lived in high densities. Interactions were also high in number since cities were places

for work and trade.

A fourth similarity are the juxtapositions that are present in a city. In Mesopotamian cities the

rich and poor lived on the same streets. The city also contained a mixture of old and new

buildings. Constant repairs changed the look of the city’s buildings without damaging their

symbolic meaning. At the same time Mesopotamian cities had a form of segregation in their

neighbourhoods and overall design. This segregation between neighbourhoods was not based

on class or culture, as is the case in many modern cities, but rather on profession. In the

overall design Mesopotamian cities had, to an extent, different sectors for living spaces,

working spaces, and a sector for the temple. A final similarity is how cities were power

centres. This is not a complete similarity. Both modern and ancient cities were power centres.

However, today cities are more cultural or financial powers, while Mesopotamian cities

frequently assumed their power from their religious significance. This type of power still

exists today but it is far less common. Another difference is how Mesopotamian cities were

tied to a geographical location.

All these similarities are why iri and ālum can still be translated as ‘city’. Mesopotamian

cities were more than permanent settlements. They possessed different aspects that were tied

to permanence but also carried their own symbolic meanings. Many of these aspects are

30

similar to elements in today’s cities that are considered unique to cities. The Mesopotamian

urban experience is therefore not entirely different from today’s urban experience.

The implications on research on the Mesopotamian urban experience

Mesopotamians will not have experienced a cultural divide between city people and villagers

nor between farmers and those employed in crafts, trade, and service work. All these people

were neighbours who shared the same beliefs and cultural identity. City life and permanent

living were both integrated into the identity of third millennium Mesopotamians if not later

Mesopotamians as well. The belief in the importance of permanent living and the urban

cultural identity are often missing from studies on urban life. There is a however a large focus

on the categorisation of settlements based on size. Either the size of a settlement in square

kilometres or the size of a settlement in terms of estimated population. This leads to the strict

division of settlements in villages, towns, and cities. Mesopotamians themselves did not have

such a strict categorisation. It is a more modern invention created when agriculture became

separate from city life.

This does not mean that population size does not play any role in the experience of city life in

Mesopotamia. Enough people needed to live in a city that at least a portion of the population

were either absolute strangers or no more than acquaintances to each other. The witnesses

and social rules replaced the trust that is sparse when people are strangers. Perhaps in a

contradictory sense, cities allow for large groups of people living in high densities to still

have anonymity. Cities also have a constant flow of people. This unfamiliarity with the

people around you is a feature unique to cities.

We as scholars should be aware of assumptions caused by the use of modern definitions,

especially the definitions of more abstract concepts. This may mean that some theories or

ideas need to be adapted to include the Mesopotamian viewpoints. That is not to say that

every settlement in Mesopotamian history should be approached as a city nor that established

theories, such as the power dynamics between cities or when the first settlement grew into a

city, should be abandoned. I am however arguing that the urban experience should be

described from the viewpoint of Mesopotamians themselves.

31

Conclusion

The definition Garfinkle gave came close. All the elements he mentioned: the temple, the

walls, and agriculture, are important to Mesopotamian cities. They are what completed a city.

Garfinkle did miss some elements. He mentions villages, while textual sources show that

there was minimal distinction between what Mesopotamians thought were cities and what

were villages. The difference between permanent habitation as it existed in small and large

settlements and the nomadic tribes and shepherds that inhabitant the countryside played a

much bigger role than population size in defining what constituted a city. Garfinkle also

missed the importance that permanence played in how Mesopotamians defined cities. The

definition I have provided in this thesis: “a permanent living space that houses one or

multiple gods,” highlights this importance. Without temples, walls, agriculture, and living

and working spaces a settlement cannot become a fully realised city. However, they were not

the defining element of the city, that is permanence.

The temple was not only the most important religious, economic, and social institution of the

city, it was a requirement. Cities were built around the temple and the importance of the city

was derived from the importance of the god that lived in the city. After the temple,

agriculture is the next important element. Especially in earlier periods agriculture was the

main employment field for those living in the city.191 Agriculture was believed to be the

foundation of civilisation. In the minds of Mesopotamians civilisation was linked to the

ability to perform divine rites and honour the gods. Agriculture provided the means for a

permanent settlement and in turn people could perform their religious duties. After

Agriculture, walls were important to the city. They carried great symbolism, mainly they

were the border between the order in the city and the chaos in the countryside. It is difficult to

ascertain whether all cities had walls because not many smaller settlements have been

excavated. Regardless, any city that was wealthy enough would have built a wall. Lastly,

cities were a place where people lived and worked. Although this element was the most

familiar to people, it is the element with which they interacted the most in their daily lives, it

was not the most important element in how cities were perceived. Cities were meant to

worship the gods, the living spaces for people came second to that.

Mesopotamians had their shining cities on a hill and it did not matter how big that city was or

how many people lived in it. As long as it could stay in one place an iri or ālum was a city

and their experience as city dwellers was not too dissimilar to those living in today’s cities.

After all, our definitions may have changed, but people have not changed all that much in the

past four-thousand years.

191 Wiggerman’s article elaborates on how these perceptions of agriculture changed throughout the course of

Mesopotamian history.

32

Bibliography

Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. "The God Amurru as Emblem of Ethnic and Cultural Identity," In

Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the 48th Recontre Assyriologique

Internationale Leiden, 1-4 July 2002, edited by W.H. van Soldt, 31-46. Nederlands Instituut

voor het Nabije Oosten, 2005.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "An adab to

Nergal for Šu-ilīšu (Šu-ilīšu A)". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature,

1998-. transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.2.5.2.1&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc# and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.5.2.1#.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "Enki's

journey to Nibru". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-.

transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/c174.htm and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/c114.htm#line71.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "Enmerkar

and the lord of Aratta". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-.

transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.1.8.2.3&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc# and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.2.2#.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "Inana and

Enki”. Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-. transliteration:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/c131.htm and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr131.htm.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi.

"Lugalbanda and the Anzud bird". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian

Literature, 1998-. transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.1.8.2.2&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc# and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.2.3#.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "Ninurta's

journey to Eridug: a shirgida to Ninurta (Ninurta B)". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of

Sumerian Literature, 1998-. transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/c42702.htm

and translation: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/tr42702.htm.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The

building of Ninĝirsu's temple (Gudea, cylinders A and B)". Oxford: The Electronic Text

Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-. transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.2.1.7&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc# and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.1.7#.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The debate

between Sheep and Grain". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature,

33

1998-. transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section5/c532.htm and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section5/tr532.htm.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The flood

story". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-. transliteration:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr114.htm and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr174.htm.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The lament

for Eridug". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-.

transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/c226.htm and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr226.htm.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The lament

for Nibru". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-.

transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.2.2.4&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc# and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.2.4#.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The lament

for Sumer and Urim". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-.

transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.2.2.3&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc# and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.2.3#.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The lament

for Unug". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-.

transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.2.2.5&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc# and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.2.5#.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The lament

for Urim". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-.

transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.2.2.2&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc# and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.2.2#.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, E. Fluckiger-Hawker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. "The

marriage of Martu". Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, 1998-.

transliteration: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/c171.htm and translation:

https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr171.htm.

Black, Jeremy A, Tessa Rickards, and Anthony Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of

Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. London: British Museum Press, 1992.

Cambridge Dictionary editors. "City." Cambridge Dictionary. Accessed March 10, 2021.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/city.

Cambridge Dictionary editors. "Town." Cambridge Dictionary. Accessed March 10, 2021.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/town.

34

Collins, Paul. "Everyday Life in Sumer". In The Sumerian World, edited by Harriet

Crawford, 345-358. London and New York: Routledge, 2013.

Cribb, Roger. Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, and

Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Dunham, Sally. "Ancient Near Eastern Architecture". In A Companion to the Ancient Near

East, 1st ed., edited by Daniel Snell, 266-280. Blackwell, 2005.

Edward, Chiera. "PBS 08/2, 157 (CDLI P125408)." CDLI, 1922.

https://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P125408.

The Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (ePSD). “iri.” Accessed April 7, 2021.

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/nepsd-frame.html.

Faegre, Torvald. Tents: Architecture of the Nomads. New York: Anchor Press, 1978.

Frame, Grant. Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of the Assyrian

Domination (1157-612 BC). Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press,

2002.

Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). "full list of proto-cuneiform signs". Accessed

April 7, 2021. https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html.

Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). "Year Names". Accessed May 24, 2021.

https://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=year_names.

Gabbay, Uri, Sam Mirelman, and Nicholas Reid. "A Literary Topos of Abundance: Two

Emesal Prayers to Enki." Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 110,

no. 1 (2020): 25-36.

Garfinkle, Steven J. "Public versus Private in the Ancient Near East." In A Companion to the

Ancient Near East, 1st ed., edited by Daniel Snell, 384-396. Blackwell, 2005.

Garland, Robert. Wandering Greeks: The Ancient Greek Diaspora from the Age of Homer to

the Death of Alexander the Great. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Grayson, A. Kirk, and Jamie. Novotny. "Sennacherib 223". The Royal Inscriptions of the

Neo-Assyrian Period (RINAP) Project, 2014. http://oracc.org/rinap/Q004028.

George, Andrew. The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in

Akkadian And Sumerian. Penguin Books, 2000.

Hall, H. R. "1. The Excavations of 1919 at Ur, El-'Obeid, and Eridu, and the History of Early

Babylonia (Brussels Conference, 1923)." Man 25 (1925): 1-7.

Hall, H. R. "Ur and Eridu: The British Museum Excavations Of 1919". The Journal of

Egyptian Archaeology 9, no. 34 (1923): 177-195.

Hallo, William W. The World's Oldest Literature: Studies in Sumerian Belles-Lettres. Leiden

and Boston: Brill, 2010.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. "Some Sumerian City-Names." Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21, no. 1

(1967): 100-103.

35

Jacobsen, Thorkild. "The Eridu Genesis." Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 4 (1981):

513-529.

Kepinski-Lecomte, Christine. "Organization of Harrâdum, Suhum, 18Th–17Th Centuries

B.C., Iraqi Middle Euphrates". In Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the

Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54Th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at

Würzburg 20–25 July 2008, Edited by Gernot Wilhelm, 143-154. Winona Lake, Indiana:

Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Krul, Julia, "“Prayers from Him Who Is Unable to Make Offerings”: The Cult of Bēlet-ṣēri at

Late Babylonian Uruk." Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 18 (2018): 48-85.

Leick, Gwendolyn. Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City. New York: Penguin, 2002.

Mackil, Emily. "Wandering Cities: Alternatives to Catastrophe in the Greek Polis". American

Journal of Archaeology 108, no 4 (2004): 493-516.

Massey, Doreen, John Allen, and Steve Pile. City Worlds. London and New York: Routledge,

1999.

May, Natalie N. "Gates and their Functions in Mesopotamia and Ancient Israel". In The

Fabric of Cities: Aspects of Urbanism, Urban Topography And Society In Mesopotamia,

Greece And Rome, edited by Natalie N. May and Ulrike Steinert, 77-122. Leiden and

Boston: Brill, 2014.

Merriam-Webster editors. "Definition Of CITY." Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 10,

2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/city.

Merriam-Webster editors. "Definition Of TOWN." Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 10,

2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/town.

Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. "Gudea and his Model of an Urban Utopia". Baghdader

Mitteilungen 37 (2006): 45-59.

Roth, Martha Tobi, Harry A Hoffner, Jr., and Piotr Michalowski. Law Collections from

Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd ed. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.

Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period (RINAP) Project. 2019. “Ashurbanipal

Babylonian.” (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, & 2015).

Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period (RINAP) Project, 2019. “Sargon II.” (002,

007, 008, 009, 013, 014, 064, 074, 086, 087, 088, 103, 113, & 114).

Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period (RINAP) Project, 2019. “Sennacherib.” (001

& 213).

Safar, Fuʼad, Muhammad ʻAli Mustafa, and Seton Lloyd. Eridu. Baghdad: Republic of Iraq,

Ministry of Culture and Information, State Organization of Antiquites and Heritage, 1981.

Scheil, Vincent. "MDP 02, 099-111 & pl. 21-24 (CDLI: P498859). " CDLI, 1900.

https://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P498859.

Steinert, Ulrike. "City Streets: Reflections on Urban Society in the Cuneiform Sources of the

Second and First Millennium bce". In The Fabric of Cities: Aspects of Urbanism, Urban

36

Topography and Society in Mesopotamia, Greece And Rome, edited by Natalie N. May and

Ulrike Steinert, 123-170. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014.

Steinkeller, Piotr. "Corvée Labor In Ur III Times". In From the 21St Century B.C. to the 21St

Century A.D.: Proceedings of the International Conference on Sumerian Studies Held in

Madrid 22–24 July 2010, edited by Steven Garfinkle and Manuel Molina, 347-424. Winona

Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

Steinkeller, Piotr. "City and Countryside in Third-Millennium Southern Babylonia". In

Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert Mccormick Adams, edited by Elizabeth

C. Stone, 185-212. Los Angeles and Chicago: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology of the

University of California and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2017.

Stone, Elizabeth C. and Paul Zimansky. The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: Survey and

Soundings at Mashkan-Shapir. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

Stone, Elizabeth C. "Mesopotamian Cities and Countryside". In A Companion to the Ancient

Near East, 1st ed., edited by Daniel Snell, 141-154. Blackwell, 2005.

Stone, Elizabeth C. "The Organisation of a Sumerian Town: The Physical Remains of

Ancient Social Systems". In The Sumerian World, edited by Harriet Crawford, 156-178.

London and New York: Routledge, 2013.

Stone, Elizabeth C. "The Mesopotamian Urban Experience". In Settlement and Society:

Essays Dedicated to Robert Mccormick Adams, edited by Elizabeth C. Stone, 213-234. Los

Angeles and Chicago: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology of the University of California and the

Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2017.

Taylor, J. E. "Art VII.—Notes on Abu Shahrein and Tel El Lahm.". Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 15 (1855): 404-415.

Thompson, R. Campbell. "IV.—The British Museum Excavations at Abu Shahrain in

Mesopotamia In 1918". Archaeologia 70 (1920): 101-144.

Ur, Jason. "Patterns of Settlement in Sumer and Akkad". In The Sumerian World, edited by

Harriet Crawford, 131-155. London and New York: Routledge, 2013.

Van Buren, E. Douglas. "Excavations at Eridu". Orientalia 17, no. 1 (1948): 115-119.

Wiggermann, F. A. M. "Agriculture as Civilization: Sages, Farmers, And Barbarians". In The

Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, 1st ed., edited by Karen Radner and Eleanor

Robson, 663-689. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Wolkstein, Diane, and Samuel Noah Kramer. Inanna Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her

Stories and Hymns from Sumer. 1st ed. New York, Cambridge, Philadelphia, San Francisco,

London, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Sydney: Harper & Row, 1983.