Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 3 Mäetagused

Authors help

  1. 2 Sazonov V.

  2. 1 Vladimir S.

Years help

  1. 1 2020

  2. 1 2014

  3. 1 2013

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Sumer
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Moningad markused nelja ilmakaare kuninga ja jumal-kuninga kontseptsiooni kohta Sumeris ja Akkadis 3. at eKr

100%
Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2020
|
vol. 78
173-184
EN
This article is dedicated to the issues related to the King of the Four Corners and the God-King in ancient Sumer and Akkad in the 3rd millennium BCE. The author shows that the title King of the Four Corners has always deified the ruler, but the ruler who used the title King of the Universe never claimed divinity. What conclusions can we draw? Except in two cases – the case of Erri-dupizir and the case of Utu-ḫeĝal – all kings who used the title king of the four corners were deified. Erri-dupizir was a foreigner, more a warlord or tribal chief of the Gutians than a king, but he tried to legitimate his power by using Akkadian-Sumerian formulas, among them royal titles. Utu-ḫeĝal freed Sumer from the Gutians’ yoke and re-introduced old Sumero-Akkadian ideological elements, among them the king of the four corners, because he wanted to be as powerful and strong as the Akkadian king Narām-Su’en, who was an example for Utu-ḫeĝal. We do not have any proof regarding the deification of Utu-ḫeĝal, as he ruled only 6–7 years, and we have only a few texts from the time of his reign. More interesting is the fact that none of the Sumerian or Akkadian kings who used the title king of the universe in the 3rd millennium and even in the early 2nd millennium BCE (Isin-Larsa period) were deified (at least we do not have a firm proof). How to explain this phenomenon? Firstly, I think the title king of the four corners had a slightly different meaning than king of the universe; however, both are universalistic titles. The title king of the four corners was probably seen as a wider and more important universalistic title in the sense not only of universal rule, but also of ruling the divine universe and divine spheres (heaven, sun, stars, etc.). It seems that it included some kind of divine aspect, while at least the Sumerian version of the title lugal an-ubda-limmuba means “king of the heaven’s four corners”. The title king of the four corners was related to the universe order, to the sun and the cosmos, and to cosmic divine powers, and they were connected to the universal order. We can see that sometimes the title king of the four corners was used to refer to gods in Ancient Mesopotamia – for example in the case of the god Tišpak in Ešnunna – but never king of the universe. Secondly, early dynastic rulers (e.g. Lagash or Uruk), who never used universalistic titles for themselves, addressed universalistic expressions and epithets to the main gods – e.g., Enlil, Ningirsu, etc. For example, Lugal-kiğine-dudu of Uruk claimed: “Enlil, king of all lands, for Lugal-kiğine-dudu – when the god Enlil truly summoned him, and (Enlil) combined (both) lordship and kingship for him”. Thirdly, ruling over all the lands from east to west or over the corners of the universe – these epithets may be used for gods. LUGAL KIŠ (later Akkadian šar kiššati(m)) in its early original meaning was seen only as “ruler over Kiš (or ruler over (the northern part of) Sumer)”; it was an important though more regional and geographic title. Fourthly, only much later did it acquire the meaning king of the universe but I am not sure about that meaning at all. In that case, king of the four corners had a different meaning; the title designated not only ruling over the world but it probably included some kind of divine aspect as well (Michalowski 2010). In that case the title šar kibrāt arbaˀi(m) – king of the four corners could be seen as more universal than LUGAL KIŠ (šar kiššati(m)). There still remain several questions which need to be solved: Was LUGAL KIŠ in its Akkadian form šar kiššati(m) a universalistic title at all? Or was LUGAL KIŠ a hegemonic title showing certain hegemonic rule or lordship over (all) Sumer (and Akkad?) but not including the whole world (here: Mesopotamia)? Could it be for this reason that the king who used the title king of the four corners had to be deified but the king who was LUGAL KIŠ had not?
2

“Lahesojad” 3. eelkristlikul aastatuhandel. Sumeri ja Akkadi kuningate sojaretked Parsia lahe kanti 2700–2150 eKr

84%
Vladimir S.
Mäetagused
|
2014
|
vol. 58
147-180
EN
War has always constituted an important part of politics in the Middle East. Evidences of wars in southern Mesopotamia (Sumer and Akkad) and in the region of the Persian Gulf can be found in written sources that date back to the Early Dynastic Period (in Sumer), approximately since 2700 or 2600 BCE. This region around the Persian Gulf (modern southern Iraq, south-western Iran, Oman, Bahrain, etc.) has always been a very important territory, both strategically and geopolitically, and a crossing point of different cultures, religions and ethnic groups since very early times. This region of the Middle East (Persian Gulf) has always been rich in different resources. In ancient times it was an economically important region because of its frankincense, woods, stones (diorite), and metals (especially copper); today it is known for oil and gas. The Persian Gulf is the territory where the first wars for economic reasons took place already 5000–4500 years ago. Many Sumerian and Akkadian rulers tried to conquer this region, since Magan (modern Oman) and Dilmun (modern Bahrain) had deposits of copper, diorite, etc. Elam, which was located in south-western Iran, was a very important area quite rich in resources, and kings of Elam were often rivals of Sumerian and Akkadian kings in their ambitions to control the region of the Persian Gulf and the Zagros Mountains. This was the reason why in this region many military conflicts and wars between the Elamites, Sumerians and Akkadians took place.
3

Tummali ajalugu. Moningaid markusi muistsete Sumeri kuningate ja nende kuningavoimu ideoloogia kohta

84%
Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2013
|
vol. 54
169-184
EN
The current short but very important Sumerian literary text, which was written in the Sumerian language at the end of the reign of Ur III (2112–2004 BCE) or at the beginning of the Isin-Larsa epoch (ca 21st or 20th century BCE), consists of only 33 lines. The temple of Tummal is dedicated to the goddess Ninlil, spouse of the god Enlil, who was the main god of Mesopotamia, the protector of kingship, and the king of all deities. Tummal was a very significant sanctuary for Sumerians and played an important role not only in religion, but also in royal ideology. The texts of Tummal Inscription known as “The History of Tummal” mention the rulers of Sumer, who had done building and renovating works in this temple complex. Yet, the kings-builders are not listed chronologically and these texts are quite tendentious and propagandistic, as some important kings are not even mentioned because of ideological reasons; for example, Akkadian kings (2334–2154 BCE) or rulers of Lagash. The reason why Akkadian kings were not mentioned as builders in Tummal, might probably be that some Akkadian kings like Naram-Su´en became prototypes of evil and cursed kings. They were believed to rebel against divine norms and rules and were later cursed and punished by all the great gods of Sumer and Akkad. The kings of Lagash were not mentioned for a different reason: Gudea, who belonged to the 2nd dynasty of Lagash, had probably very good relations with Gutian tribes, who destroyed the Akkadian Empire in ca 2200–2154 BCE, conquered Akkad and Sumer and controlled these territories for 60–70 years. Sumerians and Akkadians hated Gutians and after Sumer and Akkad became free from the Gutian invaders, kings of the 3rd dynasty of Ur decided that for political and ideological reasons the kings of Lagash would not be mentioned at all.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.