{"id":4877,"date":"2026-04-10T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-10T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/?p=4877"},"modified":"2026-04-11T22:08:02","modified_gmt":"2026-04-11T22:08:02","slug":"mesopotamian-empire-and-sargon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/2026\/04\/10\/mesopotamian-empire-and-sargon\/","title":{"rendered":"Mesopotamian Empire and Sargon"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span><\/p>\n

To briefly recap the history of Sumer so far, it\u2019s something like this; remember, these earliest dates are not locked in stone, and could easily be moved decades in either direction. I list them only to show that the events fit the time the Bible allows for them to have happened in.<\/p>\n

Enmerkar builds Babel approximately ‑2196; he, as the priest-king of Uruk, presides over the \u201cUruk Expansion\u201d with varying degrees of control over colonies from Syria to Egypt as the family of Man disperses to the corners of the globe.<\/p>\n

Around ‑2140 or so, he began trying to get Aratta to submit; the various adventures of the Enmerkar-Aratta cycle probably took around a decade or two, and Enmerkar most likely died in the Indus Valley around ‑2126, leaving Lugalbanda in charge of Uruk.<\/p>\n

While Enmerkar was gone, Dumuzi ruled Uruk as governor in his absence for 20 years or so; either he or Lugalbanda was the father of Gilgamesh. Both seemed very friendly with the high priestess of Inanna in the last book of Lugalbanda, so it\u2019s possible no one was sure even then who his father was.<\/p>\n

Gilgamesh grew up, had the adventures we\u2019ve already recounted, warred with Kish and conquered it, then eventually died after a reign of 21 years around ‑2085; after his death, Aratta saw an opportunity and sent Eber as ambassador to Ur; eventually convincing\/bribing them to conquer Uruk once and for all around ‑2040.<\/p>\n

This worked, and for a few generations Ur ruled in Sumer. This was the time when Abraham was born (‑2022), grew up, and served in Ur as a priest of Sin, the God of Aratta. Eventually he realized that the worship of idols was foolish and found himself unwelcome in Ur.<\/p>\n

Terah and family went west to the newly opened frontier in Canaan, pausing in Haran due to news from Canaan that seemed unfavorable for Sumerians to live there – this around ‑1960. Meanwhile, shortly after they left, Chedorlaomer invaded Sumer and took over the empire that dated back to the time of Enmerkar himself.<\/p>\n

And it is the story of that empire, of its rise and fall, that we are now prepared to tell. But we have to begin at the end, with the rise of Sargon the Great.<\/p>\n

LATER SKL<\/h3>\n

Moving forward from ‑1937 and the destructive aftermath of the Elamite and Hittite invasions, the SKL continues to list a dozen more \u201cconsecutive\u201d (but not really consecutive) dynasties; Kish II, Hamazi, Uruk II, Ur II, Adab, Mari, Kish III, Akshak, Kish IV and Uruk III.<\/p>\n

We know for certain that kings of these last two entries – Ur-Zababa of Kish IV and Lugal-Zagesi of Uruk III – were contemporary with Sargon; he served as cupbearer to the former, and conquered the latter. This strongly implies that the SKL\u2019s dynasties 4-14 all fall before Sargon, who began to rule in ‑1897.<\/p>\n

Many of these dynasties were very short (three dynasties only have a single ruler). So it seems the author tried to break up the dynasties in such a way as to have the ones that everyone knew interacted fall at roughly the right time – yet maintain his pretense of consecutive dynasties.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also generally agreed that the dynasty breaks probably were not totally arbitrary, and that the final ruler tends to represent the time when power was lost to another dynasty, usually through conquest. So we can take the death of the final ruler as a chronological anchor point to a nearby dynasty, as a rule.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, there are more foreign dynasties in this section of the SKL than in any other part; Mari is far NW of Sumer, half-way to the Mediterranean. Awan (Elam) is of course far to the East. Akshak is central, Hamazi is on the north-eastern edge of central Sumer; Adab is south-central.<\/p>\n

Which means there is plenty of room for these dynasties to exist in parallel for generations, with from time to time a single king from one dynasty or another managing to exercise significant power in Sumer, even if the other kings were never truly deposed but merely gave tribute.<\/p>\n

Now we can test some parts of this theory; Kubaba is the only queen in the SKL, and the only ruler of Kish III. And she is said to have begun her life as a tavernkeeper and yet \u201cstrengthened the foundations of Kish.\u201d<\/p>\n

A millennium after these events, the Weidner Chronicle states that Puzur-Nirah, king of Akshak, awarded Kubaba her kingship for a pious deed. This puts Akshak contemporary with Kish III, thus approximately ‑1925.<\/p>\n

Awan I we\u2019ve already established as contemporary with Abraham, thus ending in ‑1937. Hamazi had a single king, which the SKL said ruled for 360 years. Most likely, that means 6 years using our divide-by-60 trick.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, we cannot connect any of the kings of Mari to any contemporary kings of the SKL, but we do know that some kings in this area claimed to conquer Mari and extract tribute; which explains why the SKL brings them into the story.<\/p>\n

The conclusion to all of this is that these foreign dynasties are often brought into the story just to show a connection to the kings who conquered them – so the kings of Mari are listed not because they \u201cheld rule over all Sumer,\u201d but because their final king was conquered by a native Sumerian hero like Sargon.<\/p>\n

SARGON OF AKKAD<\/h3>\n

Sargon was the founder of an immensely powerful dynasty that ruled all of Sumer for about a century. He is credited with building Akkad, but we know that was one of the first cities which had been built by Nimrod in Genesis 10:10<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

That tells us that Sargon did not build<\/em> Akkad, he rebuilt it<\/em> after it was destroyed. Interestingly, there is a king who claimed to conquer Akkad named Enshakushanna, but who, according to the king list, must have lived a generation before Sargon.<\/p>\n

This causes historians fits, since they are certain Sargon was the first to build Babel. So they have to distort the timeline, without any other evidence, to make Enshakushanna contemporary even though all other evidence puts him at least 20 years before Sargon.<\/p>\n

But it causes no contradictions with the Biblical<\/em> narrative at all. Nimrod built Akkad, three centuries passed, then Enshakushanna destroyed it; a few decades later, Sargon needed a new place to settle away from the powers-that-were, and rebuilt it. Easy.<\/p>\n

Sargon is a key figure in history because we can connect him securely to contemporary rulers of many city states, including many of the members of dynasties 4-14, which will allow us to place some of them in relationship to one another on the timeline.<\/p>\n

Sargon is mentioned [in the SKL] as the son of a gardener, former cup-bearer of Ur-Zababa of Kish. He usurped the kingship from Lugal-zage-si of Uruk<\/strong> and took it to his own city of Akkad. The later (early 2nd millennium BC) Weidner chronicle has Sargon ruling directly after Ur-Zababa and does not mention Lugal-zage-si. Various copies of the king list give the duration of his reign as either 40 or 54\u201356 years<\/strong>. (Wiki, Sargon of Akkad)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sargon, king of Akkad, overseer of Inanna, king of Kish<\/strong>, anointed of Anu, king of the land, governor of Enlil: he defeated the city of Uruk and tore down its walls, in the battle of Uruk he won, took Lugalzagesi king of Uruk<\/strong> in the course of the battle, and led him in a collar to the gate of Enlil<\/strong>. \u2014\u200aInscription of Sargon. (Old Babylonian copy from Nippur)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Between these two, we can see that young Sargon was a cupbearer of Ur-Zababa of Kish IV – a much more important role than it sounds like, cup-bearer being a role somewhat analogous to America\u2019s White House Chief of Staff.<\/p>\n

A cup-bearer<\/strong> was historically an officer of high rank in royal courts, whose duty was to pour and serve the drinks at the royal table. On account of the constant fear of plots and intrigues (such as poisoning), a person had to be regarded as thoroughly trustworthy to hold the position. He would guard against poison in the king\u2019s cup, and was sometimes required to swallow some of the drink before serving it. His confidential relations with the king often gave him a position of great influence<\/strong>. (Wiki, Cupbearer)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So much later Nehemiah, \u201ccupbearer to Artaxerxes,\u201d was actually a very powerful and trusted man, not the menial palace slave we might have envisioned without knowing this. Regardless, young Sargon the cupbearer had to be at least<\/em> twenty, more likely far older in his 30\u2019s, to be in a position of such trust in Ur-Zababa\u2019s court.<\/p>\n

If we take these reigns as being sequential then we would have 6 years of Ur-Zababa, then 25 years of Lugal-zagesi\u2019s rule and then<\/em> Sargon would have had to rule 56 years after that, making him over 100 years old<\/em> – possible, but improbable.<\/p>\n

This gives us reason to believe that their reigns were not end-to-end. In fact, we have every reason to believe a significant overlap existed between their reigns. Lugal-zagesi didn\u2019t even conquer Uruk until his 7th year, with Kish conquered at some point after that.<\/p>\n

SARGON\u2019S EARLY CAREER<\/h3>\n

As we saw above, Sargon humiliated Lugal-zagesi upon his capture by putting a collar on him like an animal and leading him to the temple of Enlil – what happened next is unknown, but I wouldn\u2019t have wanted to be Lugal-zagesi that day.<\/p>\n

This treatment is a departure from the more chivalrous attitude of earlier kings, such as Aga who was allowed to keep ruling Kish after his defeat by Gilgamesh. Hence, it suggests a deep animosity, and we find the reason in the fact that Lugal-zagesi had, some time earlier, conquered Ur-zababa of Kish, Sargon\u2019s patron.<\/p>\n

Lugal-Zage-Si pursued an expansionist foreign policy. He began his career as \u00e9nsi of Umma, from where he conquered several of the Sumerian city-states. In the seventh year of his reign, Uruk fell under the leadership of Lugal-Zage-Si, \u00e9nsi of Umma<\/strong>, who ultimately annexed most of the territory of Lagash under king Urukagina, and established the first reliably documented kingdom to encompass all of Sumer<\/strong>. \u2026 Later, Lugal-Zage-Si invaded Kish, where he overthrew Ur-Zababa<\/strong>, Ur, Nippur, and Larsa; as well as Uruk, where he established his new capital. He ruled for 25 (or 34) years according to the Sumerian King List. (Wiki, Lugalzagesi)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

After the fall of Kish, Sargon escaped with the survivors of the armies, and probably quite a few court officials, and went far to the north and settled in the abandoned city of Akkad and began building his strength.<\/p>\n

Sargon would have considered himself king since his predecessor died; yet he would have avoided challenging Lugal-zagesi until he had rebuilt his power. Thus all of the early years of Sargon and the later years of Lugal-zagesi overlapped.<\/p>\n

According to the SKL, Lugal-zagesi ruled 25 years, and Sargon 40 or 56, depending on the source. but rather than put these sequentially, they almost certainly overlapped. Rebuilding Sargon\u2019s power sufficiently to challenge Lugal-zagesi could easily have taken a decade or more, during which time he may even have paid tribute like the other cities of Sumer.<\/p>\n

Thus, to try and work with our SKL sources as much as possible, let\u2019s assume that he did in fact reign for 56 years from his start in Akkad but<\/em> only reigned over all of Sumer for 40 years after conquering Lugal-zagesi<\/em>.<\/p>\n

That would mean that Lugal-zagesi conquered Kish 16 years before the end of his reign, or in his 9th year; which is precisely what we would expect for a king with \u201can expansionist foreign policy,\u201d having conquered Uruk, then Lagash, to move on to Kish within a year or two afterwards.<\/p>\n

Our conclusion then is that knowing that Sargon\u2019s reign began in Akkad<\/em> ‑1897, but his rule of the empire<\/em> began when he conquered Lugal-zagesi in ‑1881, whose own rule in Umma<\/em> had begun 25 years earlier in ‑1906.<\/p>\n

THE RISE OF LUGAL-ZAGESI<\/h3>\n

Everyone believes Sargon was the first emperor of Sumer, but it is beyond all argument that Sargon did not build the empire, he inherited it from Lugal-zagesi. Lugal-zagesi dedicated a vase to Enlil, speaking of his accomplishments as follows:<\/p>\n

When Enlil, king of all the lands, had given to Lugal-zagesi the kingship of the nation, and had let the eyes of the nation be directed toward him, and had placed all the lands at his feet, and had made lands from east to west subject to him, then, from the sea, the lower one, along the Tigris and the Euphrates to the sea the upper one,<\/strong> he put their roads in proper order for him. From east to west Enlil let him have no rival. All the lands in riverine meadows rested (contentedly) under him, and the nation was happily making merry under him. All those on thrones in Sumer and the rulers of foreign lands,<\/strong> they determine (?) for him the divine power of princeship unto the land of Uruk. In those days, Uruk spent its days under him in rejoicing. (The Nippur Vase of Lugal-zagesi)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>Despite the above claim, historians almost all dismiss the above claims as boasting; see the attached map of Wikipedia that ascribes to him perhaps half the land he claims; their view on his claims is summed up as follows:<\/p>\n

Although his incursion to the Mediterranean was, in the eyes of some modern scholars, not much more than \u201ca successful raiding party,\u201d the inscription \u201cmarks the first time that a Sumerian prince claimed to have reached what was, for them, the western edge of the world.\u201d (Wiki, Lugal-zagesi)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus casually are dismissed the claims of Lugal-zagesi. You begin to see, now, why I say historians ignore their own sources. They don\u2019t have any way to prove he didn\u2019t<\/em> rule that territory; but because they can\u2019t prove he did,<\/em> therefore he didn\u2019t. That\u2019s not science, it\u2019s faith. And as we\u2019ve already seen in the case of Aratta, Mt. Mashu, Dilmun and \u201cSephar, a mount of the east\u201d\u2026 the faith of historians really can<\/em> move mountains (but not in a good way).<\/p>\n

But think about it rationally for a minute. This was not massive carving in a hillside to boast to travelers of his greatness, like the Persians did; it was not an arch inscribed with your exploits in your capital city, like the Romans did. This was a deeply heartfelt prayer to his God for his kingship and continued prosperity; the inscription continues, after listing how happy the Sumerian cities were under his rule:<\/p>\n

Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk and king of the nation, solicitously (?) serves very large food offerings to Enlil his master in Nippur, and he pours out sweet water for him. If Enlil, king of all the lands, should say to An, his beloved father, a prayer on my behalf, may he add to my life (additional) life! \u2026 May the favorable destiny, which they (An and Enlil) have determined, never alter for me! May I be forever a proud shepherd! He dedicated it (this vessel) to Enlil, his beloved master, for his life. (The Nippur Vase of Lugalzagesi)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now let me ask you this; at what point in history has it ever been considered wise to lie to God?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This was not a public monument, it was a private vessel placed in the holy place in the temple of Enlil, where none but priests and the God himself could read it. Why on Earth would you pray in secret and thank God for lands he had not, in fact, given you?<\/strong><\/p>\n

How can historians claim propaganda and boasting in a context where there could be no possible purpose for it?<\/em><\/p>\n

We will, therefore, take his claims at face value; at the very least, he<\/em> believed them to be true.<\/p>\n

LUGAL-ZAGESI IN LEBANON<\/h3>\n

Besides, we can corroborate his claims. According to ARCANE, \u201cLugalzagesi is known to have exercised overlordship over Adab at the time of Meskigalla,\u201d this is based on an inscription which says \u201cMeskigalla being the ruler of Adab and Lugalzagesi being the king (of the country).\u201d This relationship between ruler and king suggests that Meskigalla was subservient to Lugal-zagesi.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s important to our point, because Meskigalla, at some point in his career claimed to have visited Lebanon! How could he have done that\u2026 if Lugal-zagesi didn\u2019t control the area exactly as he claimed to have done?<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cIn a fragmentary inscription, he claimed to have been on an expedition to the \u201cMountain of the Cedar forests\u201d \u2026 perhaps<\/u><\/strong> together with Sargon I:\u201d (ARCANE)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note I have underlined the word \u201cperhaps,\u201d in the context of \u201ctogether with Sargon,\u201d because there is no evidence for this whatsoever; there is nothing to suggest that he went there with Sargon, and every reason to believe he went there with Lugal-zagesi. The inscription in question reads\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cFor Nin\u0161ubur, the minister of An, for the life of Meskigal, ruler of Adab, (\u2026) from the cedar mountains<\/strong>. (\u2026) For the life of his wife and children to Nin\u0161ubur his goddess he dedicated it (this statue). Though (my) \u2026 Prayer Have Compassion!\u201d \u2014\u200aInscription of Meskigal<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is the full text, so now you know as much about the subject as any scholar does. They claim as always \u201cthere is no corroboration of Lugal-zagesi\u2019s controlling areas as far as the Mediterranean,\u201d \u201cat most it was a raiding party\u201d\u2026 and yet here there is<\/em> corroboration!<\/p>\n

Corroboration from Lugal-zagesi\u2019s own governor of Adab, which is then promptly dismissed and implausibly reassigned to Sargon, a generation later.<\/p>\n

THE EMPIRE OF LUGAL-ZAGESI<\/h3>\n

Lugal-zagesi explicitly claimed before his God to rule – not just visit but rule – as far as the Mediterranean. I think we should take that seriously, and there are one or two scholars who actually do believe him.<\/p>\n

\u2018Indeed a great conqueror [Lugal-zagesi] must have been, one of the mightiest monarchs of the ancient East this far known, a king who could boast of an empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea\u2019 \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u2026Historians are by no means unanimous on the details of Lugalzagesi\u2019s rise to power in Mesopotamia. A strikingly different interpretation is provided by Diakonoff, who relates that Lugalzagesi in fact \u2018had inherited\u2019 his hegemony over the majority of Sumer from a previous potentate based at Uruk<\/strong> perhaps related to the dynasty of Enshakushana.<\/em> (Lugalzagesi: the first emperor of Mesopotamia? By Kesecker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now this is quite interesting; Sargon inherited a well developed empire from Lugal-zagesi; and it seems he, in turn, may have inherited it from a predecessor. An interesting feature of Lugal-zagesi\u2019s career is that after his initial warring with Lagash and Kish, his reign is presented as a peaceful golden age.<\/p>\n

Note the language he used in his boasting – Enlil made the lands throw themselves at Lugal-zagesi\u2019s feet.<\/em> This could, technically, be a euphemism for conquest – but it doesn\u2019t sound that way. Certainly there is no Sennacherib-like boasting of making the natives submit to his shining glory and the power of his mighty armies in any of Lugal-zagesi\u2019s inscriptions.<\/p>\n

Powell also agrees with this assessment based on his analysis of Lugalzagesi\u2019s inscriptions, which omit any possible military campaigns from the description of Lugalzagesi\u2019s domination over Mesopotamia. (Lugalzagesi: the first emperor of Mesopotamia? By Kesecker)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which means, if these distant lands did submit, they did so because it was continuing an existing and accepted arrangement<\/em> established, by force or treaty, by earlier kings. Once those kings were conquered, all of the foreign lands would have submitted as well. So who was that prior king?<\/p>\n

Lugalzagesi is known to have exercised overlordship over Adab<\/strong> at the time of Meskigalla. \u2026 the seizure of Adab must have taken place before the seventh year of Lugalzagesi\u2019s reign<\/strong>, since a few texts from Zabala (m) dating to that year record the allocation of lands to the rulers of Adab and Nippur, as well as to a high priest of Uruk. (Toward a chronology of early Mesopotamia, ARCANE)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This means that the first target of Lugalzagesi\u2019s ambitions was not Uruk, Kish, nor Lagash, but Adab! And that is significant because Adab\u2019s sole ruler in the SKL was Lugal-Anne-Mundu who likewise claimed an empire reaching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf!<\/em><\/p>\n

The conquest of Adab must have been an outstanding royal deed, since a Presargonic or Early Sargonic year name from Nippur refers to the destruction of Adab. (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Outstanding indeed; for it meant the toppling of the previous emperor, Lugal-anne-mundu of Adab!<\/strong> Surely any conquest of Sumer would have to begin there.<\/em><\/p>\n

LUGAL-ANNE-MUNDU<\/h3>\n

This name appears in the SKL as the sole king of the Adab I dynasty, where he is said to have ruled 90 years (dividing by six yields a plausible 15 years). Once again, scholars generally claim he did not exist and that if he did, he was wildly inflating his claims. But as usual, we are going to hear him out before we pass judgment.<\/p>\n

The chief ministers of the Cedar Mountain, Elam, Marhashi, Gutium, Subartu, Amurru, Sutium and [the Mountain of Eanna *came]. It was 60 men \u2026 [I sent] 60 fattened bulls, 420 [rams to them]. \u2026 [They came] into the middle of the temple of E-nam-zu [in Adab]<\/em>\u2026 with divine encouragement \u2026 for four days\u2026 I am [Lugal-an-na]-mu-[un-du], \u2026 the king of Adab\u2026, \u2026 who exercises the kingship. (Lugal-Anne-Mundu inscription, as translated in \u201cThe Names of the Leaders and Diplomats of Marhashi; Yanli, Wuhong)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These ministers represented, in order, regions now known as Lebanon, southern Iran, central Iran, northern Iran, eastern Turkey\/southern Armenia, Syria, northern Iraq, and finally Uruk (the mountain of Eanna is the name of the ziggurat of Inanna in Uruk).<\/p>\n

This means Lugal-anne-mundu dominated Uruk, which would have been ruled by Lugal-kinishe-dudu at this time<\/strong> (we\u2019ll come back to him in a minute). The point is, literally every political power center in the region sent delegations for a feast in Adab.<\/p>\n

\u2026 the luxuriant grasses \u2026 For the [governors] of the [the regions listed above], in their [arrivals, I made] them sit on golden thrones, I placed the golden [gifts] in their hands, and I placed golden [objects] in their laps. Their [messengers came] in Adab into my [palace], I have made them come, and \u2026 I have made them come before me, \u2026 much shade I indeed \u2026 there. When \u2026 have passed, the \u2026 go for all future days. The many [statues] of Enlil I have raised up, their \u2026, how is it that I am a just king? \u2026, I returned them to everywhere and their countries<\/strong>. \u2026 of Adab and its land to his city, \u2026 I had carried in. May \u2026 he not reduce them there! May \u2026 he not destroy them! [After] wards, may Dingir-ma\u00cc, the mistress of the Enamzu temple, grant life to all the ruler of the Cedar Mountains, Elam, Marhashi, Gutium, Subartu, Amurru, Sutium, and the Eanna Mountain who does not cut off the established cattle and sheep offerings, and who does not cut off those regular provisions from her mouth! (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So this king, too, is not boasting of conquest, but of his abilities to throw a good party. After the party, he blesses the kings of all these lands who visited him and paid tribute, asking Enlil to grant them long life if<\/em> they do not stop sending offerings to the temple (and, presumably, tribute to him as well).<\/p>\n

This speaks of a strong diplomatic relationship – which doesn\u2019t preclude the threat of force, of course, but it shows less of a Nazi and more of a British commonwealth approach to power. Which is why he boasts he \u201cmade the people of all the lands live in peace as in a meadow.\u201d<\/p>\n

That being said, the inscription began by mentioning putting down an uprising consisting of 13 rebel chiefs, some of them from these very same countries. So as I said, the threat of force wasn\u2019t ruled out. Again, the British commonwealth is an excellent example of this sort of empire.<\/p>\n

And yet to be rebelling, they must first have been subdued and brought into the empire. Who did that? There is nothing in his inscriptions to suggest that Lugal-anne-mundu had conquered them. The simplest interpretation is that he, too, inherited this empire from his predecessor.<\/p>\n

Like most new rulers, he had to begin his reign by demonstrating to the restless outlanders that they still served Sumer. Of course, I mean inherited in the loosest possible sense – that he stepped into a power vacuum and profited by someone\u2019s demise.<\/p>\n

But whose?<\/p>\n

ADAB IN LEBANON<\/h3>\n

Generally, if a king is only found in the SKL, historians tend to believe he didn\u2019t exist by default. The above tablet attests his existence, but we have another source as well. In Sumerian, Lugal meant \u201cking,\u201d so it was not really a proper name element in the way we are using it here. So really, his name was Anne-Mundu.<\/p>\n

And it turns out there is<\/em> an archeologically-attested person who ruled Adab at precisely this point in history, whose name is plausibly similar to Anne-mundu – Enme\u2019annu!<\/strong> And according to the report in the ARCANE project, the definitive modern work on early Sumerian kings\u2026<\/p>\n

Both spellings presumably stand for Enme\u2019annu, \u201cThe Eminent One Lies among the Divine Powers.\u201d The ruler Enme\u2019annu of Adab was a contemporary of Lugalki\u0161are\u0161dud\u00fbd of Uruk\u2026<\/strong> (ARCANE)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lugal-kinishe-dudu was a predecessor of Lugal-zagesi in the SKL, with one king ruling between them briefly. This puts Enme\u2019annu in the right time to be conquered by Lugal-zagesi when he conquered Adab, as apparently his very first act of business!<\/p>\n

Now since historians accept that Sargon\u2019s empire reached the Mediterranean, there is no good reason to believe that Lugal-zagesi\u2019s didn\u2019t, particularly when he said it did.<\/em> And if we accept that he<\/em> did, then it\u2019s completely believable that his predecessor Lugal-Anne-Mundu of Adab also<\/em> ruled as far as Lebanon, precisely as he said he did.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

One king of Adab, Lugal-Anne-Mundu, appearing in the Sumerian King List, is mentioned in few contemporary inscriptions; some that are much later copies claim that he established a vast, but brief empire stretching from Elam all the way to Lebanon and the Amorite territories along the Jordan<\/em><\/strong>. (Wikipedia, Adab)<\/p>\n

We now have not a single king\u2019s boast of this territory, but three consecutive kings all saying the same things; why not believe them?<\/p>\n

Besides there are more.<\/p>\n

ENTEMENA OF LAGASH<\/h3>\n

The city of Lagash isn\u2019t on the SKL, which is odd considering it was a powerful force at the time; we can only surmise that the author of the SKL, for political reasons, didn\u2019t want to give Lagash credit for having been, at one time, \u201cruler over all Sumer.\u201d<\/p>\n

Entemena was a son of Enannatum I who re-established Lagash<\/strong> as a power in Sumer. He defeated Il in a territorial conflict through an alliance with Lugal-kinishe-dudu<\/strong> of Uruk, successor to Enshakushanna, who is in the king list. The tutelary deity Shul-utula was his personal deity. His reign lasted at least 19 years. (Wikipedia, Entemena)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note Entemena\u2019s connection to Lugal-kinishe-dudu, who was a minor king during the hegemony of Lugal-anne-mundu before the time of Lugal-zagesi. This places him in the right place in time to have contributed at least somewhat to the establishment of the empire.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt that time, Entemena built and reconstructed<\/strong> the E-mush, his beloved temple, in Badtibira, for the god Lugalemush, (and) he set free the citizens of Uruk, Larsa, and Badtibira.<\/em>\u201d – Inscriptions of Entemena<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I call your attention to the use of \u201cre,\u201d as in \u201cre-constructed\u201d connected to this person\u2019s name. Also that the citizens of Uruk and Larsa and Badtibara had been captives who were \u201cfreed.\u201d This suggests that Entemena came on the scene in a time of disaster and picked up the pieces.<\/p>\n

The idea of captives makes no sense in the context of a native ruler; Sumerian city states had been dominating one another since the time of Enmerkar\/Nimrod, and \u201cfreeing\u201d the citizens of another city was never used as a euphemism for \u201cconquering\u201d a city.<\/p>\n

No, this had to have meant he was freeing them from a foreign occupation;<\/em> but which? Consider the timeline we have; Sargon began to rule the empire (not just Akkad) in ‑1881; Lugal-zagesi began to rule the empire (not just Umma) in ‑1906 when he conquered Adab and presumably killed Lugal-Anne-Mundu.<\/p>\n

He in turn had begun to rule the empire 15 years earlier in ‑1921. If we take Entemena of Lagash as his imperial predecessor, then we run smack into the aftermath of the death of Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal in ‑1937! Thus, it can only be the Elamite invaders from whose oppression Entemena freed the cities of Sumer!<\/strong><\/p>\n

The rebuilding and reestablishing now makes perfect sense; Entemena was repairing the damage done by Tidal of nations and his mercenaries after the death of Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal! Precisely as the Spartoli tablets suggested would need to be done, for it told us the temples were destroyed.<\/em><\/p>\n

For Inanna and Lugal-emush Enmetena ruler of Lagash built the Emush their beloved temple and ordered these clay nails for them. Enmetena who built the Emush, His personal god is Shul-utul. At that time Enmetena ruler of Lagash and Lugal-kinesh-dudu ruler of Uruk established brotherhood<\/strong>. (Alliance treaty between Entemena and Lugal-kinishe-dudu)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Given that he claims to have \u201cfreed\u201d the citizens of Uruk, then made a treaty of brotherhood with Lugal-kinishe-dudu king of Uruk, it stands to reason that Entemena must have placed him on the throne of Uruk after driving out the previous (foreign) occupier. And who might that be?<\/p>\n

Obviously, the beleaguered successor of Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal, the \u201cvile elamite\u201d of the Spartoli tablets whom we now know was killed by Entemena,<\/em> liberating the Sumerians from bondage to Awan.<\/p>\n

EANNATUM<\/h3>\n

We have exposed a direct link between the empires of Sargon, Lugal-zagesi, Lugal-anne-mundu, and Entemena and Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal. But to get the whole story of this empire we have to go back one more generation before Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal to \u201cEannatum, ruler of Lagash, uncle of Entemena, ruler of Lagash.\u201d<\/p>\n

Eannatum was a Sumerian Ensi (ruler or king) of Lagash. He established one of the first verifiable empires in history, subduing Elam and destroying the city of Susa<\/strong>, and extending his domain over the rest of Sumer and Akkad. One inscription found on a boulder states that Eannatum was his Sumerian name, while his \u201cTidnu\u201d (Amorite) name was Lumma. (Wiki, Eannatum)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s very odd, and no one can really explain, why a Sumerian king who was not<\/em> Amorite would go out of his way to mention his Amorite name. We know precisely where the Amorites dwelt at this time in history, for we are dealing with the precise time that Abraham entered Canaan and dwelt among them.<\/p>\n

So what is a ruler of Lagash, in southern Sumer, doing proudly announcing his Amorite<\/em> name to his Sumerian subjects?<\/strong> Unless he had\u2026 you know\u2026 been there?<\/em><\/strong> Been to the lands near Sodom and Gomorrah, established treaties, made friends, established trade networks and perhaps even extracted tribute? He certainly did in Mari, which was already half-way there<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Eannatum expanded his influence beyond the boundaries of Sumer. He conquered parts of Elam,<\/strong> including the city Az off the coast of the modern Persian Gulf, allegedly smote Shubur, and, having repulsed Akshak<\/strong>, he claimed the title of \u201cKing of Kish\u201d (which regained its independence after his death) and demanded tribute as far as Mari.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He (Eannatum) defeated Zuzu, the king of Akshak, from the Antasurra of Ningirsu up to Akshak and destroyed him. The king of Akshak<\/strong> ran back to his land. He defeated Kish, Akshak, and Mari<\/strong> from the Antasurra of Ningirsu. To Eannatum, the ruler of Lagash, Inanna gave the kingship of Kish in addition to ensi-ship of Lagash, because she loved him. – Inscription of Eannatum. (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note also the presence of Akshak in his list of conquered cities – now we know why the SKL lists them at this point in the story, because before Eannatum they must have held sway over a substantial part of northern Sumer – as confirmed by historians.<\/p>\n

Zuzu. King of Ak\u0161ak who led a coalition of northern Babylonian cities (which included Ki\u0161 and Mari)<\/strong> against Laga\u0161 and was defeated and killed by E\u2019annabtum. According to Cooper (1983b: 26), Ki\u0161 and northern Babylonia were under the hegemony of Ak\u0161ak at that time<\/strong>. (ARCANE)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cEannatum, the ensi of Lagash, who was granted might by Enlil, who constantly is nourished by Ninhursag with her milk, whose name Ningirsu had pronounced, who was chosen by Nanshe in her heart, the son of Akurgal, the ensi of Lagash, conquered the land of Elam, conquered Urua, conquered Umma, conquered Ur<\/strong>. At that time, he built a well made of baked bricks for Ningirsu, in his wide temple courtyard. Eananatum\u2019s god is Shulutula. Then did Ningirsu love Eannatum\u201d \u2014\u200aBrick of Eannatum-AO 351, Louvre Museum (Wiki, Eannatum)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, before Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal invaded Sumer, Eannatum had subdued Elam by invading them and destroying the city of Susa!<\/strong> And it was, not surprisingly, his nephew who much later would drive the Elamite out.<\/p>\n

But it was uncle Eannatum\u2019s invasion of Elam, probably in the time of Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal\u2019s father, which set the stage for an Elamite revolt that turned the tables completely, whereby the Elamites absorbed the entire empire of Eannatum and more.<\/p>\n

At that time in the ‑1980\u2019s or ‑1970\u2019s, when Abraham was in his 40\u2019s or 50\u2019s, Eannatum built an empire from Elam to Mari, the same empire his nephew Entemana would rebuild later – but not right after his death. There was another much weaker ruler between them, his brother Enannatum I.<\/p>\n

We have a king list for Lagash, but no reign lengths so we don\u2019t know how long he reigned; at least 4 years, for certain. Historians think not much longer, mostly because he didn\u2019t leave behind a lot of accomplishments\u2026 but that\u2019s to be expected since he was a vassal of Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal!<\/p>\n

Hence, I expect his reign to have been at least 10 years, probably more, beginning with KL\u2019s reign in Sumer. Because Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal couldn\u2019t rule over Sumer until the existing emperor, Eannatum, was dead!<\/em><\/p>\n

Then his brother (not his son) ruled in his place. This is not a typical succession; it suggests either foreign meddling (<\/span>2 Kings 24:17<\/span>)<\/span><\/strong>, or a child too young to rule. Perhaps both, in this case. After Enannatum I\u2019s death, his son Entemena inherited the vassalage, and seems to have reigned for a long time, at least 19 years, possibly 27+.<\/p>\n

However, during the early part of his reign he was powerless to do anything until the death of Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal after which he promptly set about RE-establishing<\/em> Lagash\u2019s power and rebuilding the temples sacked by the Elamites and Hittites!<\/p>\n

AKSHAK AND MARI<\/h3>\n

Going back to the final two unexplained entries on the king list, we can now see why the SKL felt it necessary to mention these two otherwise unconnected kingdoms; because at the period in history it was addressing, ‑2000 to ‑1900, Mari and Akshak and Elam (under the first king of Awan I, probably) had each controlled a sizeable portion of Sumer.<\/p>\n

This is why the SKL wanted us to know of these nations, so we would have the background to understand that they were conquered (albeit by Lagash, to whom the scribe did not want to give the credit), and that their defeat gave rise to the first great empire to which Sargon would become heir.<\/p>\n

Which is why, where Lagash should<\/em> be on the SKL, we find Awan; the first of the powerful dynasties after<\/em> Lagash to have hegemony over Sumer. And now with that, we can finally move forward and tell the entire story in context.<\/p>\n

Knowing this story – all of the pieces of which scholars are well aware, but which they never connect into a narrative, not having the Bible to provide a backbone to the story – we can now see that each of these six generations ruled over a recognizably similar area of territory, demonstrably successive in time, spanning the course of less than a century.<\/p>\n

The consistent thread between these rulers – Eannatum, Kudur-lagamal, Entemena, Lugal-anne-mundu, Lugal-zagesi, and Sargon – is that they all ruled over an empire that they claimed reached to Lebanon if not further.<\/p>\n

We could reject the claims of a single king on the grounds of boasting, as all historians do; but each of these kings, in succession, boasting of the same exact thing, seems strongly to indicate that all of them are telling the truth<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Therefore this is not really six empires; it is a single empire ruled over by six dynasties across a century or less. These men may not have ruled over all of these lands in the strictest sense, but they had power over these regions and received tribute from them – just as Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal did in Sodom in Genesis 14<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

ENSHAKUSHANNA<\/h3>\n

Historians at this point will object violently to the possibility of Lugal-anne-mundu exercising dominion over Sumer, given the powerful king Enshakushanna who ruled over it prior to the time of Lugal-zagesi.<\/p>\n

But they shouldn\u2019t worry – he\u2019s part of the story too. In fact, he\u2019s the last missing piece! Before Sargon, Lugal-zagesi ruled in Uruk, and over the domains of Sumer as far as the Mediterranean. Before him, Lugal-anne-mundu ruled from Adab, likewise as far as the Mediterranean.<\/p>\n

At that point the king of Uruk was Lugal-kinishe-dudu. He had been installed in Uruk by Entemana of Lagash after he \u201cfreed\u201d the citizens of Uruk from some foreign occupier; it does not seem that Entemena lived long afterwards.<\/p>\n

According to the SKL, the prior ruler of Uruk before Lugal-kinishe-dudu was named Enshakushanna. And he\u2026 doesn\u2019t fit.<\/p>\n

En-\u0161aku\u0161uana was a king of Uruk around the mid-3rd millennium BC who is named on the Sumerian King List, which states his reign to have been 60 years. He conquered Hamazi, Akkad, Kish, and Nippur, claiming hegemony over all of Sumer<\/strong>. (Wiki, Enshakushanna)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He is a very interesting character; his destruction of Kish was extreme, like nothing that had been done before. Half the kings on the SKL claimed to be \u201cking of Kish,\u201d but that simply meant they showed up with an army, Kish agreed to send tribute, and that was that. Only this<\/em> king felt it was necessarily to burn Kish to the ground:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 [his] reign is largely characterized by his military campaigns, the most prominent of which was against Kish and Akshak. His attack on these two cities is attested from a stone bowl at Nippur and reads as follows:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For Enlil, king of all lands, Enshakushanna, lord of the land of Sumer and king of the nation when the gods commanded him, he sacked Kish (and) captured Enbi-Ishtar, the king of Kish<\/strong>. The leader of Kish and the leader of Akshak, (when) both their cities were destroyed<\/strong> \u2026 (Lacuna) in (?) [..] he returned to them, but [he] dedicated their statues, their precious metals and lapis lazuli, their timber and treasure, to the god Enlil at [N]ippur.\u201d (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Archeologists have associated the attack of Enshakushanna with a heavy layer of ash and destruction at that layer of the site, thus confirming it really happened and was really a severe destruction:<\/p>\n

Many scholars have attributed the ED IIIb destruction layers at the Palace A and Plano-Convex Building in Kish to Enshakushanna. Federico Zaina notes the archaeological evidence at Kish attests to a \u201cpervasive violent destruction of the city of Kish<\/strong> at the end of the ED IIIb.\u201d (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Scholars uniformly assume this man to have been a native Sumerian, but in the historical context we are constructing, it makes much more sense to see him as an Elamite because it\u2019s hard to imagine any Babylonian burning the holiest and most ancient city of Sumer,<\/em> \u201cwhere the gods first placed kingship!\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s like imagining a Catholic burning the Vatican or a Jew burning Jerusalem. But Enshakushanna believed he was doing the right thing. Indeed, he said he did it because \u201cthe gods commanded him.\u201d What Sumerian gods would have commanded the burning of one of their holiest cities?<\/p>\n

What\u2019s also weird is that he identifies himself as \u201cking of all lands\u2026 lord<\/em> of the land of Sumer and<\/em> king of the nation.<\/em>\u201d This is an unusual title, unique as far as I can tell, and suggests to me that he was king of other<\/em> lands, not just Sumer where he was merely a lord, a governor<\/em> for someone else.<\/p>\n

Yet what his home nation might be is not clearly stated. But we get a clue from the fact that Enshakushanna\u2026 is an Elamite name!<\/p>\n

No one has ever considered this before, to my knowledge, and I don\u2019t speak Elamite, but I recognized the sounds shakush<\/em> as being more Elamite than Sumerian (compare the Elamite god \u201cInshushinak\u201d for example). So I asked AI; pending confirmation, it says\u2026<\/p>\n

Inshakush<\/strong> (𒅴𒋾𒀭) is a known Elamite name or title. The element shakush<\/strong> in Elamite could be associated with concepts of strength, power<\/strong>, or might<\/strong>. In Elamite, Anna<\/strong> (𒀭𒀜) is similar to the Sumerian form An<\/strong> (the god of the heavens). Anna<\/strong> might refer to a divine or celestial connection, in this case perhaps linking the individual to the heavens<\/strong> or a divine authority<\/strong>. \u2026 Thus, Inshakush-anna<\/strong> could be interpreted as \u201cMighty (or Powerful) One of the Heavens\u201d<\/strong> or \u201cStrong One of the Divine.\u201d<\/strong> (ChatGPT)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a very king-like name, and with its abundant sh and k sounds, is very unlike all contemporary kings on the king list – but right at home in Elamite names. To support his foreign identity, consider Enshakushanna\u2019s excuse for destroying Kish: \u201cThe gods made me do it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Which gods? Obviously not Enlil,<\/em> who would not need to be told this on an offering plate. If it had been in response to Enlil\u2019s will, Enshakushanna would have simply said \u201cI destroyed Kish at thy command, O Enlil!\u201d<\/p>\n

Besides, Enlil would certainly not ask for his own holy city of Nippur to be conquered; so which gods would have counselled this? Foreign ones!<\/em> It\u2019s difficult to imagine any Sumerian deity declaring war on the city of Kish or Nippur.<\/p>\n

But it is quite like the nature of the Elamite deity Lagamar,<\/em> a god of death whose name literally means \u201cmerciless!\u201d And who was, by the way<\/strong>, Chedorlaomer\u2019s patron saint, whose name literally means \u201cservant of Lagamal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lagamal was associated with the underworld. Wouter Henkelman describes him as fulfilling the role of advocatus diaboli in the beliefs pertaining to judgment of souls in the afterlife documented in texts from Susa. The possibility that Lagamal served as an accuser in the judgment of the dead<\/strong> is also accepted by Manfred Krebernik. (Wiki, Lagamal)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

THE LATE BABYLONIAN SPIN<\/h3>\n

As I said, Enlil would not have commanded the destruction of his city nor the utter destruction of the oldest and holiest city in Sumer. So it makes no sense to tell Enlil that you committed sacrilege against him because Enlil told you to do it.<\/p>\n

However, from the perspective of the worshippers of Enlil, he was nearly all-powerful, second only to An, his father. They believed there was nothing that happens that Enlil doesn\u2019t command; thus, if the temple was<\/em> sacked it automatically means Enlil must have commanded it.<\/p>\n

And that belief of theirs finally allows us to explain that part of the Spartoli tablet that we referred to earlier\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Elamite hastened to evil deeds, for the Lord devised evil for Babylon. When the protective genius of justice stood aside, the protective spirit of Esharra, temple of all the gods<\/strong>, was frightened away. The Elamite enemy took away his possessions, Enlil, who dwelt therein<\/strong>, became furious.\u201d (Spartoli Tablet)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note that this king – associated with, but not identified as Kudur-Lagamal – took possessions away from Enlil, where he dwelt<\/strong>.<\/em> And the temple of Enlil was in Nippur!<\/p>\n

That in turn means the vile Elamite must have conquered Nippur violently.<\/em> Something we know that Enshakushanna did!<\/strong><\/p>\n

[Enlil had] become furious: he commanded for Sumer the smashing of En[lil]\u2019s land<\/strong>. Which one is Kudur – KUKU[mal], the evil doer? He called therefore the Umman-man (da<\/strong> he level) led the land of Enlil, he laid waste (?) [-] at their side<\/strong>. (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, it was Enlil who called for this destruction<\/em> after the robbing of his temple by Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal prior to leaving for Canaan – money Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal desperately needed to bribe the Hittite mercenaries of Tidal.<\/p>\n

And after the death of Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal, Enshakushanna, governor of Sumer but now the king of Elam<\/em>, turned on his Sumerian allies and proceeded to plunder what was left.<\/p>\n

The Elamite [enemy] sent forth his chariotry, he headed downstream toward Borsippa. He came down the dark way, he entered Borsippa. The vile Elamite toppled its sanctuary, he slew the nobles of \u2026 with weapons, he plundered all the temples. He took their possessions and carried them off to Elam<\/strong>. He destroyed its wall, he filled the land [with weeping \u2026] (\u2026) an improvident sovereign<\/strong> [-]he felled with weapons Dur-\u1e63il-ilani son of Eri-[e]Aku, he plundered [-] water over Babylon and Esagila, he slaughtered its [-] with his own weapon like sheep, [-] he burned with fire, old and young, [-] with weapons, [-] he cut down young and old. (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note that the Elamite was an \u201cimprovident (unwise) sovereign.\u201d He warred with the son of Arioch, and killed him; presumably without Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal, Arioch\u2019s Sumerian son thought he could drive the Elamite out and was cruelly surprised. And then Tidal arrived to finish the slaughter.<\/p>\n

Tud\u1e2bula son of Gazza[-], plundered the [-] water over Babylon and Esagila, [-] his son smote his pate with his own weapon. [-] his lordship to the [rites] of Annunit[um] [king of] Elam [-] plundered the great<\/u> \u2026, [-] he sent like the deluge, all the cult centers of Akkad and their sanctuaries he burned [with fi]re\u2026<\/strong> (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s difficult to understand what the underlined section there means, but clearly the king of Elam – not Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal – was involved, either allied with or against Tudhula, in plundering the great temples of Sumer, all the \u201ccult centers of Akkad\u201d; which is something we know, by his own admission, was done by Enshakushanna!<\/p>\n

Hence why, after Tidal went back home with his plunder, Enshakushanna felt a need to placate Enlil with the offering plate inscribed above. But the Babylonians saw that as far too little, far too late.<\/p>\n

The SKL gives him 60 years of rule – dividing by six yields a more plausible 10 years. But we are only certain he reigned 2 years, based on year names that have been found. Most likely he was a governor in Sumer under Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal for several years until his master\u2019s death.<\/p>\n

That means he may only have had a few years of sole rule in Sumer before being either chased out or killed by Entemena of Lagash, who finally freed the cities of Sumer from the \u201cvile Elamite\u201d and rebuilt the the destroyed temples<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

ONE LAST TIME<\/h3>\n

So the sequence of events is as follows; Abraham was born in Ur, in the midst of a golden age for Ur which had subdued Uruk, and was allies with the far more righteous and long-lived Hebrews, descendants of Arphaxad who still lived in Aratta in the Indus Valley.<\/p>\n

Nearby cities Lagash and Umma are in the midst of a centuries-long border dispute which doesn\u2019t really concern Ur. Somewhere in the ‑1980\u2019s or ‑1970\u2019s or so Eannatum of Lagash finally conquered Umma, and kept going to conquer all of Sumer – including Ur.<\/p>\n

This would have altered the balance of power in the region, particularly in regards to the Hebrew presence there. Perhaps the ethnic Hebrews were tolerated, but their foreign meddling was not. Regardless, it changed things and could be one factor that made Terah feel unwelcome.<\/p>\n

Simultaneously Abraham was realizing, in the course of his astronomical observations at the temple of Sin in Ur, that God was not the moon, nor any visible thing that could represented as an idol. This would certainly have been unpopular in the birthplace of idolatry.<\/p>\n

Still, whether it was the religious persecution or the ethnic persecution, or both, that led them to leave, at some point Terah packed up and left Mesopotamia; I can\u2019t confidently place their departure closer than the window ‑1990‑1950, but I favor a later date closer to the Elamite invation.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile Eannatum had pushed far beyond the city-states of Sumer and reached to recreate the original empire of Enmerkar, pushing back the encroaching powers of Mari, Akshak, and Elam, and opening new frontiers in Canaan among his Amorite friends.<\/p>\n

Hearing of these new frontiers Terah packed up the wagons and headed west. Around that same time, Eannatum decides to attack and burn Susa. This creates a rallying cry in Elam, so they gather their forces and strike back eventually killing Eannatum in battle and installing his weak brother as puppet king – probably in the late ‑1960\u2019s or early ‑1950\u2019s, early in KL\u2019s reign in Elam.<\/p>\n

This causes the Sumerian forces holding the frontier in the west to be called back home for defense, leaving no protection in Canaan for Terah, who balks at continuing into Canaan and stays in the safer, more stable lands in Haran. Now we finally know for sure why he stopped there<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

ELAMITE RULE<\/h3>\n

Meanwhile the Elamite king, now Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal, conquers not just all of Sumer but the lands as far as Canaan by the year ‑1951, absorbing and probably expanding upon the territory of Eannatum by making treaties with the enemies of the Sumerians in these lands, Hittites chief among them.<\/p>\n

It can\u2019t be an accident that Eannatum was proud of his Amorite name, while the Elamites allied themselves with the Hittites who, over the lifetime of Abraham, largely displaced them; \u201cthe enemy of my enemy is my friend\u201d has always<\/em> been a thing.<\/p>\n

Back in Sumer Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal plays his cards well, offers to the gods, and is considered a legitimate ruler by the Sumerians. Over time however this foreign king becomes unpopular and requires mercenaries – probably the Gutians, certainly the Hittites – to keep down civil unrest.<\/p>\n

Paying these mercenaries requires gold, for which he raids the temples of Sumer, causing even greater civil unrest and requiring even more gold. In ‑1938 the kings of the Transjordan hear of these problems and believe now would be a good time to stop paying tribute – the king is too distracted at home to do anything about us distant border regions, right?<\/p>\n

But that backfires, and Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal reinvades Canaan, leaving behind Arioch\u2019s Sumerian son Dur-sil-ilani and a trusted Elamite general or noble called Enshakushanna to keep the peace. And it would have worked, had not Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal made a fatal mistake while in Canaan and kidnapped the nephew of the friend of God, who then killed him.<\/p>\n

When the news reaches home, civil war breaks out between Arioch\u2019s son and Enshakushanna \u201cthe vile Elamite,\u201d who in the end wins out and kills Dur-sil-ilani and further plunders temples and burns cities like Kish.<\/p>\n

Just then Tidal, his Hittite mercenary ally, arrives in Sumer to collect what he is owed. Remember, he lost all the booty he was promised in the Jordanian campaign, Abraham having confiscated it and given a tenth of it to Melchizedek. So Tidal wants his, with a vengeance.<\/p>\n

Whether he is defeated by Enshakushanna or simply gets what he came for – gold – he leaves eventually. Enshakushanna then tries to hold down a devastated and increasingly unhappy populous with increasingly fewer resources.<\/p>\n

He makes very public sacrifices to the gods to try and keep the peace, apologizing for his earlier sacking under Kudur-La\u1e2bgumal and for whatever part he played with Tidal, but it\u2019s no use – he can\u2019t live down the \u201cvile Elamite\u201d name.<\/p>\n

In the end Entemena, his former vassal, defeats him and liberates all the remaining Sumerian cities from Elamite control, installing trusted ally Lugal-kinishe-dudu as king of Ur and Uruk. Entemena dies not long after, having had a long reign first as vassal and finally as savior of Sumer (the Hebrews may have remembered him differently).<\/p>\n

Lugal-Kinishi-Dudu was not a strong king (hence the name dudu), and seems to have fallen under the suzerainty of Lugal-anne-mundu of Adab, who restored the empire to its former glory – mostly peacefully, since the foreign territories had already been subjugated by his predecessors.<\/p>\n

Lugal-anne-mundu in his turn dies after 15 years, whereupon Lugal-zagesi is emboldened to attack the now-leaderless Adab in his 6th year or so and claim the empire for himself for the next 19 years.<\/p>\n

Lugal-kinishi-dudu remained in power for 20 years in Uruk and Ur during the reign of Lugal-anne-mundu; when Lugal-zagesi took over it seems he placed Lugal-kinishe-dudu\u2019s son Lugal-kisalsi on the throne of Ur and Uruk, presumably as vassal. At least, the timeline lines up.<\/p>\n

He then attacks Lagash and in his 9th year Kish as well, killing Ur-zababa and freeing Sargon to flee far afield and begin his own empire in a new city – who never forgot Lugal-zagesi\u2019s offence nor stopped plotting revenge.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Having nursed his grievance (and built his power) for 16 years, Sargon finally attacks Lugal-zagesi, captures him, and brings him to Nippur with his neck in the stocks, humiliating him as vengeance for his murder of Ur-Zababa. We actually have a \u201cpicture\u201d of this event (above<\/span>right<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Wikipedia says of this picture: \u201cPrisoner in a cage, probably King Lugalzagesi of Uruk, being hit on the head with a mace by Sargon of Akkad. Akkadian Empire victory stele circa 2300 BC [~1900, my dating]. Louvre Museum.\u201d (Wiki, Sargon)<\/p>\n

Sargon proceeds to consolidate his power and put down the challengers of every single city-state, and making it, like his predecessors, as far afield as Canaan, Elam, and the Persian Gulf. He continued to reign for 40 years after the death of Lugal-zagesi, dying an old man at roughly the same time as Abraham died (‑1847) having dealt with rebellions regularly in his life, he nonetheless left to his sons a stable empire.<\/p>\n

Which, as so often happens, all promptly went to pieces when the barbarians invaded.<\/p>\n

SUMMARY<\/h3>\n

Much of this is wrong; the dates of some events may be off by 10, 20, maybe even 50 years. But it\u2019s a story without contradictions in the historical or archeological record that I know of, and that\u2019s a rare thing indeed.<\/p>\n

Most importantly the sequence of events, and the background of them, rests on firm footing. All of these things – the destruction of Kish, the empire of Lugal-zagesi, etc. – are well known to archaeologists and historians as fact.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s new is simply the stringing of them into a story, revolving around the events of Genesis 14<\/span><\/strong>, which they are unable to do precisely because they reject Genesis 14<\/span><\/strong> and are prejudiced against any evidence that might support or corroborate it.<\/p>\n

We are not; and that\u2019s how we can understand the life and times of Abraham. He was born into a golden age of empire – but there were barbarians without, civil war within, and the golden fabric of society soon tore to shreds.<\/p>\n

It was not unlike Europe in the 19th century, where various imperial states fought for dominance, and within that century every single nation in Europe (except England) experienced a revolution of some kind, and they all were involved in wars most of the time.<\/p>\n

It was a bad time to be a peasant in Europe. And the 20th century BC was likewise a bad time to be a peasant in Sumer, and for all the same reasons. The wilderness didn\u2019t seem quite so bad by comparison.<\/p>\n

And so, just as happened in 19th century Europe, Mesopotamian settlers like Terah emigrated to the world\u2019s frontiers, seeking religious freedom, political freedom, and the right not<\/em> to be conscripted into endless petty wars between fiefdoms.<\/p>\n

Abraham in particular needed religious freedom – for had he stayed in the plains of Shinar, where the deception of Nimrod was built, he might never have found the truth which you can only find when you \u201ccome out of her, my people.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Jeremiah 50:6-9<\/span><\/strong> My people have been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray;<\/strong> they have turned them away on the mountains; they have gone from mountain to hill; they have forgotten their resting place<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

All who found them have devoured them; and their adversaries said, we are not guilty, because they have sinned against Yahweh, the habitation of righteousness, even Yahweh, the hope of their fathers. Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and go forth out of the land of the Chaldeans<\/strong>, and be as the male goats before the flocks.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

For, behold, I will stir up and cause to come up against Babylon a company of great nations from the north country<\/strong>; and they shall set themselves in array against her; from there she shall be taken: their arrows shall be as of an expert mighty man; none shall return in vain.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This was written 1300 years after Abraham obeyed these exact words, for these exact reasons. For the people of Chaldea had forgotten their resting place, where the ark settled on Mt. Ararat and God spoke to them.<\/p>\n

They had ceased worshipping at that mountain, and been worshipping instead at a man-made hill, a ziggurat. Why? Because their shepherd-kings had led them astray; remember the strong shepherd imagery Nimrod used as the priest-king of Uruk?<\/p>\n

When Enmeanna conquered Ur and Kish, he broke the power of Aratta in Sumer, and lost the last contact the Sumerians had with the legacy of Noah, and the righteous sons of Arphaxad. And so God called Abraham to \u201cflee out of the midst of Babylon,\u201d for he was about to stir up \u201ca company of great nations from the north country\u201d against her.<\/p>\n

The Spartoli tablets record this destruction by Tidal of nations, the Elamites from the east and probably Gutians from the north as well; brought by the Lord – known to the Sumerians as Enlil – because they had listened to a literal hunter in shepherd\u2019s clothing.<\/p>\n

Just as the people of Jeremiah\u2019s time had done, just as the Jews of Jesus\u2019 time had done, and just as so many Christians have done since. Hence why God inspired John to say, at the very end of the Bible, speaking again of the very same Babylon\u2026<\/p>\n

\n

Revelation 18:2-4<\/span><\/strong> He cried with a mighty voice, saying, \u201cFallen, fallen is Babylon the great,<\/strong> and she has become a habitation of demons, a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird! For all the nations have drunk of the wine<\/strong> of the wrath of her sexual immorality, the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from the abundance of her luxury.\u201d<\/strong> I heard another voice from heaven, saying, \u201cCome out of her, my people, that you have no participation in her sins, and that you don\u2019t receive of her plagues,\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

By going to Canaan, Abraham set an example for all of us to do exactly that.<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To briefly recap the history of Sumer so far, it\u2019s something like this; remember, these earliest dates are not locked in stone, and could easily be moved decades in either direction. I list them…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4908,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[23,30],"class_list":["post-4877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-coolest","tag-history","tag-people"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4877"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4877\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4948,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4877\/revisions\/4948"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4908"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}