-
4. Relations and Attitudes
- State University of New York Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
68 Enemies In the records of the ancient civilizations, foreigners and foreign countries were very often considered as sources of hostility. A foreigner can be defined as someone who is from a place outside of the political and cultural spheres of a certain community. This concept of “foreigness,” therefore, could represent what is unfamiliar, hostile, and exotic to the usually ethnocentric natives. The fact that the Sumerian word for foreigner (kur) was also used to designate “enemy” indicates that there was a tendency to identify foreigners with enemies in early Mesopotamia. The earliest Egyptian historical evidence, the Narmer palette, is usually assumed to be a commemoration of Egyptian victory against foreign enemies. In Shang China, many of the foreign tribes mentioned in the oracle bone inscriptions are regarded as enemies by the Shang. Archaeological discussions of the cultural characteristics of the peoples of the Zagros mountains to the north and east of Mesopotamia have established a clear differentiation between the material culture of northern Mesopotamia and the Zagros group.¹ It has been suggested that because of this difference in lifestyles there existed a constant animosity between the Mesopotamians and the people of 4 Relations and Attitudes Enlil brought down the Elamites, the enemy, from the highlands. Nanshe, the Noble one, was settled outside the city. Fire approached Ninmar in the shrine Guabba, Large boats were carrying off its precious metals and stones. . . . The province of Lagas was handed over to Elam. —The Destruction of Sumer and Ur, Sumerian Text, c. eighteenth century BCE Relations and Attitudes 69 the Zagros mountains, notably Elam and the surrounding countries.² Textual evidence examined in the last chapter seems to support such an argument, although it is clear that texts could at best be seen as skewed representations of the reality, thus the expression “constant animosity” must be qualified by a consideration that peaceful coexistence might in fact have been the norm. The first memorable event after the legendary flood in Mesopotamia was the war against the Elamite by King Enmenbaragesi of Kish, as the Sumerian King List states: “Enmenbaragesi, he who carried away as spoil the ‘weapon’ of Elam, became king and ruled 900 years.”³ Regardless of its legendary nature,⁴ the story reveals the underlying mentality that the Elamites were the arch enemy of the Mesopotamians throughout the third millennium BCE.⁵ As the Sumerian King List admits, after Enmenbaragesi, “Ur was smitten with arms, its kingship taken to Awan.”⁶ Although Sargon of Akkad (c. 2340–2284 BCE) conquered Elam, it was the Elamite invasion during the reign of Sharkalisharri (c. 2222–298 BCE) that finally caused the collapse of the Akkadian empire and the Gutian takeover. In the “Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur,” a Sumerian text dated to the early second millennium BCE, the Elamites are described as the enemy sent by Enlil to destroy Mesopotamia: Enlil brought down the Elamites, the enemy, from the highlands. Enlil brought down the Elamites, the enemy, from the highlands. Nanshe, the Noble one, was settled outside the city. Fire approached Ninmar in the shrine Guabba, Large boats were carrying off its precious metals and stones. . . . The province of Lagas was handed over to Elam.⁷ A similar text, the “Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur,” again mentions Elamites and Subarians as destroyers of Ur.⁸ The Gutians are also seen as the tool of Enlil to destroy Sumer: “On that day Enlil brought down the Guti from the mountain-land, whose coming is the Flood of Enlil, that none can withstand.”⁹ The agonizing memory that the Elamites and the Gutians were “god sent” destroyers, and a deep feeling of an almost innate conflict between “our country” and “enemy country” could also be seen in other Sumerian epics from the Ur III period. These include “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta,” “Enmerkar and Ensuhkeshanna,” “The Lugalbanda Epic,” and “Lugalbanda-Hurrum.”¹⁰ In these epics, as is common to [52.90.211.141] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 15:19 GMT) 70 Enemies of Civilization many epic traditions that promote national identity,¹¹ the city of Uruk served as a symbol for “Mesopotamia” as opposed to the “enemy country.” This is probably due to the historical position of Uruk in the effort to overthrow the Gutians and to reestablish Sumerian cultural and political hegemony. The reason for the promotion and continuous preservation thereafter of the epics by the Ur III kings, moreover, was presumably that these epics served to express national aspirations, or...