Gudea

Gudea was a ruler (ensi) of the city of Lagash in Southern Mesopotamia who ruled ca. 2144 - 2124 BC. He probably did not come from the city, but had married Ninalla, daughter of the ruler Urbaba (2164 - 2144 BC) of Lagash, thus gaining entrance to the royal house of Lagash. He was succeeded by his son Ur-Ningirsu.

Inscriptions

Inscriptions mention temples built by Gudea in Ur, Nippur, Adab, Uruk and Bad-Tibira. This indicates the growing influence of Gudea in Sumer. His predecessor Urbaba had already made his daughter Enanepada high priestess of Nanna at Ur, which indicates a great deal of political power as well.

Title

Gudea chose the title of ensi (town-king or governor), not the more exalted lugal (Akkadian sharrum); though he did style himself "god of Lagash". Gudea claimed to have conquered Elam and Anshan, but his inscriptions emphasize the building of irrigation channels and temples, and the creation of precious gifts to the gods. Materials for his buildings and statues were brought from all parts of western Asia: cedar wood from the Amanus mountains, quarried stones from Lebanon, copper from northern Arabia, gold and precious stones from the desert between Canaan and Egypt, dolerite from Magan (Oman), and timber from Dilmun (Bahrain).

As the power of the Akkadian empire waned, Lagaš again declared independence, this time under Puzer-Mama, who declared himself lugul, or king, of Lagaš. Thereafter, this title would not be associated with Lagaš, at least until the end of the Gudean period. Lagašite rulers, including Ur-Ningirsu and Ur-Bau, whose reigns predated Gudea, referred to themselves as ensi, or governor, of Lagaš, and reserved the term lugul only for their gods or as a matter of rank in a relationship, but never as a political device. The continued use ‘lugul’ in reference to deities seems to indicate a conscious attempt on the parts of the rulers to assume a position of humility in relation to the world--whether this was honest humility or a political ploy is unknown.

Statues of Gudea

Main article: Statues of Gudea

Diorite statue, Louvre

Twenty-six statues of Gudea have been found so far during excavations of Adad-nadin-ahhe and Telloh with most of the rest coming from the art trade (These having unknown provenances and sometimes doubtful authenticity). The early statues were made of limestone, steatite and alabaster); later, when wide-ranging trade-connections had been established, the more costly exotic diorite was used. Diorite had already been used by old Sumerian rulers (Statue of Entemena). These statues include inscriptions describing trade, rulership and religion.

Religion

The pleas to the gods under Gudea and his successors appear more creative and honest: Whereas the Akkadian kings followed a rote pattern of cursing the progeny and tearing out the foundations of those that vandalize a stele, the Lagašite kings send various messages. Times were violent after the Akkadian empire lost power over southern Mesopotamia, and the god receiving the most attention from Gudea was Ningirsu--a god of battle. Though there is only one mention of martial success on the part of Gudea, the many trappings of war which he builds for Ningirsu indicate a violent era. Southern Mesopotamian cities defined themselves through their worship, and the decision on Gudea’s part for Lagaš to fashion regalia of war for its gods is indicative of the temperament of the times.

Though obviously the foundation and progeny curse was not the only religious invocation by the political powers during the Akkadian empire, but it demonstrates a certain standardization, and with it, stagnation, of the position of the gods that likely didn’t sit well with the people of Lagaš. Ur-Ningirsu I, with whom the Gudean dynasty of Lagaš begins, leaves little in the way of inscriptions, and though some mention of various gods seems to indicate a more central role, it isn’t until Gudea that there can be a side by side comparison with the old curse of Sargon. The inscription on a statue of Gudea as architect of the House of Ningirsu (Dietz Otto Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, pp. 31 – 38), warns the reader of doom if the words are altered, but there is a startling difference between the warnings of Sargon or his line and the warnings of Gudea. The one is length, Gudea’s curse lasts nearly a quarter of the inscription’s considerable length (pp. 36 – 38), and another is creativity. The gods will not merely reduce the offender’s progeny to ash and destroy his foundations, no, they will, “let him sit down in the dust instead of on the seat they set up for him”. He will be, “slaughtered like a bull… seized like an aurochs by his fierce horn”. (p. 38)

But these differences, though demonstrating a Lagašite respect of religious figures simply in the amount of time and energy they required, isn’t as telling as the language Gudea uses to justify any punishment. Whereas Sargon or Naram-Sin simply demand punishment to any who change their words, based on their power, Gudea defends his words through tradition, “since the earliest days, since the seed sprouted forth, no one was (ever) supposed to alter the utterance of a ruler of Lagaš who, after building the Eninnu for my lord Ningirsu, made things function as they should”. (p. 37) Changing the words of Naram-Sin, the living god, is treason, because he is the king. But changing the words of Gudea, simple governor of Lagaš, is unjust, because he made things work right.

Reforms

The social reforms instituted during Gudea’s rulership, which included the cancellation of debts and allowing women to own family land, may be honest reform or may be a return to old Lagašite custom. It is Ningirsu who receives the majority of Gudea’s attention. Ningirsu the war god, for whom Gudea builds maces, spears, axes, all appropriately named for the destructive power of Ningirsu--enormous and gilt. The common intimation that Gudea was a peaceful ruler (As made by Edzard), who funded his projects through trade ignores the attention paid to Ningirsu, as well as the martial nature of Southern Mesopotamia.

Cylinder A, written after the life of Gudea, paints a more attractive picture of southern Mesopotamia during the Lagaš supremacy. In it, “The Elamites came to him from Elam… loaded with wood on their shoulders… in order to build Ningirsu’s House” (p. 78), the general tone being one of brotherly love in an area that has known only regional conflict and rebellion. While Gudea was not likely an autocrat who ruled over all of Southern Mesopotamia, was of religious fervor and universal conflict. Gudea built more than the House of Ningirsu, he restored tradition to Lagaš. His use of the title ‘ensi’, when he obviously held enough political influence, both in Lagaš and in the region, to justify ‘lugal’, demonstrates the same political tact as his emphasis on the power of the divine.

And it worked. Ur-Ningirsu II, the next ruler of Lagaš, takes as his title, “Ur-Ningirsu, ruler of Lagaš, son of Gudea, ruler of Lagaš, who had built Ningirsu’s house.” (p. 183) More telling is the deification of Gudea, placing him, if not into the Pantheon, closer than your average man. Gudea is a hard act to follow, however, and the influence of Lagaš declines, until they suffer the fate that defined Southern Mesopotamia, military defeat, this time to Ur-Nammu, whose Third Dynasty of Ur then becomes the reigning power in Southern Mesopotamia.

The resurgence of the importance of gods in the script of Lagaš may be more a result of the cultural character of Southern Mesopotamia reasserting itself than it is a response to the chaotic nature of a post-Akkadian world. Sargon wasn’t much of a stabilizing influence to the South so much as he was a new target for their previously local martial aggression. Instead of warring with each other constantly, Lagaš, Ur, Elam and their counterparts rebel sporadically from Akkad, the conflicts more costly and therefore less constant. As such, when they finally throw of the yoke of imperial control, they return to the old tradition of local conflict, Lagaš conquering neighboring city-states, including its old enemy Elam, and using the spoils to fund the creation of monuments to the gods.

References

• ^ Edzard, Dietz Otto. (1997). Gudea and His Dynasty. University of Toronto Press Incorporated. Toronto, Buffalo, London.
• ^ Frayne, Douglas R. (1993). Sargonic and Gutian Periods. University of Toronto Press Incorporated. Toronto, Buffalo, London.
• ^ Black, J.A. (1998-). "The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature". Oxford. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |accessyear= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• F. Johansen, "Statues of Gudea, ancient and modern". Mesopotamia 6, 1978.
• A. Parrot, Tello, vingt campagnes des fouilles (1877-1933). (Paris 1948).
• H. Steible, "Versuch einer Chronologie der Statuen des Gudea von Lagas". Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 126 (1994), 81-104.