REPRESENTATION IN DIORITE OF A WOMAN'S HAIR, DEDICATED TO A GODDESS ON BEHALF OF DUNGI, KING OF UR; AND MACE-HEAD DEDICATED TO THE GODDESS NINA BY MANISHTUSU, KING OF KISH.—Brit. Mus., Nos. 91075 and 91018.
We may note the fact that Manishtusu did not confiscate the land, but acquired it legally by purchase, as though he were merely a private citizen or large land-owner. The exact area of each estate was first accurately ascertained by measurement, and its value was then reckoned in grain and afterwards in silver, one bur of land being regarded as worth sixty gur of grain, or one mana of silver. An additional sum, consisting of one-tenth or three-twentieths of the purchase-price, was also paid to the owners of each estate, who received besides from the king presents of animals, garments, vessels, etc., which varied in value according to the recipient's rank or his former share in the property. Not only are the owners' names and parentage duly recorded on the stone, but also those of certain associates who had an interest in the land; most of these appear to have been relatives of the owners, who had contributed capital for the cultivation or improvement of the estates. Their names were doubtless included in order to prevent any subsequent claim being raised by them against the king. The same reason appears to have dictated the enumeration by name of the former managers or overseers of each estate, who by its purchase were deprived of their occupation. The cultivation of the large tracts of land, which passed into the king's possession, had given employment to no less than fifteen hundred and sixty-four labourers, who had been in the charge of eighty-seven overseers. It is worthy of note that Manishtusu undertook to find fresh occupation and means of support for both these classes in other places, which were probably situated at no great distance from their homes.
The reason for this extensive purchase of landed property by Manishtusu may possibly have been given at the beginning of the text inscribed upon the obelisk, but unfortunately very little of the first column of the inscription has been preserved. The main body of the text affords little material on which to base a conjecture. One point, however, may be regarded as certain: the reason for the purchase appears to have had some close connection with the forty-nine new managers and overseers, to whom Manishtusu entrusted the administration of his newly acquired property. The mere fact that their names and descriptions should have been repeated on each side of the obelisk is probably significant. Moreover, they are all described in the text as citizens[30] of Akkad, and the prominence given to them in each section suggests that the king purchased the land with the express object of handing it over to their charge. It may also be noted that Manishtusu removed, not only the former managers, but also every labourer who had been employed on the estates, so that we may assume that the new managers brought their own labourers with them, who would continue the cultivation of the land under their direction. If the king's object in purchasing the land had been merely to make a profitable investment, he would not have removed the former labourers, for whose maintenance he undertook to provide elsewhere. Manishtusu's action can only be explained on the supposition that he was anxious to acquire land on which he might settle the men from Akkad and their adherents. The purchase appears therefore to have been dictated by the necessity of removing certain citizens from Akkad to other sites in Northern Babylonia. We do not know the cause which gave rise to this transference of population, but we shall presently see that, in view of the high social standing of several of the immigrants, Manishtusu's action may perhaps be connected with certain traditions concerning this period which were current in later times.[31]
At the head of the inhabitants from Akkad, to whom the king handed over his new estates, stands Aliakhu, his nephew, and among them we also find sons and dependants of the rulers of important cities, who appear to have acknowledged the suzerainty of Kish. Thus two of the men are described as from the household of Kur-shesh, patesi of Umma;[32] another was Ibalum, the son of Ilsu-rabi, patesi of Basime; and a third was Urukagina, son of Engilsa, patesi of Lagash. The reference to the last of these four personages has been employed in an attempt to fix the period of Manishtusu's reign. On the discovery of the obelisk Père Scheil proposed that we should identify Urukagina, the son of Engilsa, with the king of Lagash of that name, suggesting that he occupied the position assigned him in the text during his father's lifetime and before he himself succeeded to the throne.[33] At this time it was still the fashion to set Urukagina at the head of the patesis of Tello, and to regard him as the oldest of all the rulers of that city whose names had yet been recovered. Now, on the obelisk mention is also made of a certain "Me-sa-lim, the son of the king,"[34] i.e. a son of Manishtusu. Support for the proposed identification was therefore found in the further suggestion that Mesalim, the son of Manishtusu, was no other than Mesilim, the early king of Kish, who was the contemporary of Lugal-shag-engur of Lagash, and, in his character of suzerain, had interposed in the territorial dispute between that city and Umma.[35] According to this view, Lagash, under Engilsa and Urukagina, owed allegiance to Kish during the reign of Manishtusu, a state of things which continued into the reign of Mesilim, who, on this theory, was Manishtusu's son and successor.
But the recognition of Urukagina's true place in the line of the rulers of Lagash has rendered the theory untenable; and the suggested identification of Mesalim, the son of Manishtusu, with Mesilim, the early king of Kish, so far from giving support to the other proposal, is quite incompatible with it. In fact, both the proposed identifications cannot be right, and it remains to be seen whether either of them can be accepted. Of the two, the proposal to identify Mesalim with Lugal-shag-engur's contemporary may be dismissed at once, since both the internal and the external evidence furnished by the obelisk are against assigning Manishtusu's reign to so early a period. Although these objections do not apply so strongly to the other proposal, its acceptance is negatived on other grounds. From Urukagina's own inscriptions we have seen reason to believe that he did not obtain the throne by right of succession, but by force; he never refers to his own father, and the antagonism to the patesiate, which characterizes his texts, suggests that his reign marks a complete break in the succession.[36] We may therefore conclude that Urukagina of the obelisk is a different personage to Urukagina, the king, and the former's father, Engilsa, would in that case have ruled as a patesi of Lagash at a period subsequent to the sack of that city by Lugal-zaggisi.[37]
We are therefore reduced to more general considerations in attempting to fix the date of Manishtusu. That his reign is to be assigned to about the same period as that of Urumush there can be little doubt, for, in contrast to those of the earlier kings of Kish, the inscriptions of both are written in Semitic Babylonian, and the forms of the characters they employ are very similar. Evidence has already been cited which proves that Urumush was anterior to Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin. In Manishtusu, therefore, we have another Semitic king under whom the city of Kish enjoyed the hegemony in Babylonia, which afterwards passed to Akkad. That the kingdom of Kish, under these two rulers, was not separated by a long interval from the empire of Akkad would seem to follow from the references to the latter city on Manishtusu's obelisk.[38] We have already noted that the forty-nine overseers, who were entrusted with the administration of the lands purchased by the king, are described in the text as citizens of Akkad, and that among their number are members of powerful ruling families from other cities of Babylonia. It would thus appear that Akkad was already of sufficient importance to attract princes from such distant cities as Umma and Lagash. This fact, indeed, has been employed as an argument in favour of the view that Manishtusu and Urumush must have ruled after, and not before, Shar-Gani-sharri and Narâm-Sin,[39] under whom Akkad was made the capital of the whole country. Although this inference does not necessarily follow, and, in point of fact, is contradicted by the evidence already cited with regard to Urumush, it is clear that, even in the time of Manishtusu, the city of Akkad enjoyed a position of considerable importance; and it is improbable that any long period elapsed before it replaced Kish as the capital.