(Mebaragesi), whom the SKL identifies as the penultimate king of the first dynasty of
Kish. In the SKL of the Old Babylonian period, the first dynasty of Kish is listed as
the first dynasty after the ‘Flood’, whereas the Ur III version does not mention any
floods and instead begins with the first dynasty of Kish. However, it is virtually
impossible to place this king within the Early Dynastic period.
Some rulers of the Early Dynastic period claim a title lugal kisˇ‘king of Kish’ even
though their geographical affiliation is unknown otherwise (Frayne 2008 : 67 ). It has
been frequently suggested that this indicated that the city of Kish exercised some kind
of hegemony over large parts of southern Mesopotamia. However, there no substantial
evidence for this and it is possible that the title was just an honorific (ibid.: 67 ; Rubio
2007 : 15 – 6 and n. 10 ).
The famous Royal Cemetery of Ur, which has yielded some of the most important
archaeological finds of the Early Dynastic period (Vogel this volume), is also dated into
ED IIIa, because the seals of Meskalamdug and Akalamdug were considered to be
stylistically earlier than those of Mesanepada and his wife (Porada et al. 1992 : 111 ).
However, if one considers the ED IIIb period to have begun with Ur-Nanshe and
Meskalamdug (see Table 6. 3 ), it would lead to a dating of the Royal Cemetery of Ur
to ED IIIb. For calibrated radiocarbon dates from the Royal Cemetery see Thomas
( 1992 : 147 ), who points out general problems with dating the ‘Old Kingdom and Early
Dynastic III horizon’.
The Early Dynastic IIIb period offers marginally more historical clarity. Most of the
sources for ED IIIb come from the city-state of Lagash, whose capital was at first the city
of Lagash (modern name: al-Hiba) and then moved to the city of Girsu (modern name:
Tello). For the first time there is more extensive evidence in the texts that point to political
and military conflicts, indicating a wish to expand the political territory of individual
city-states and numerous conflicts between the city-states. The best known of such
conflicts, which may have begun in the ED IIIa period already, was the border conflict
between the city-states of Umma and Lagash, for which Mesalim had to be called in as
a mediator (Cooper 1983 a). Because our main sources for the conflict come from Lagash
and are therefore biased in favour of Lagash’s rightful claims, it is difficult to find reliable
information on the causes of the conflict. Yet the very fact of its existence and the fact that
the conflict was recorded in writing show that a new era is slowly emerging.
Our main written source for the socio-economic history of this period is an
important archive of ca. 1700 tablets from Lagash, which details the administrative
procedures in the queen’s household (é-munus). The study of this archive had in the
1920 s led to the assumption that temples dominated the economy. More recent studies
show that the picture is much more complex and that the idea of the ‘Sumerian temple
economy’ can no longer be upheld (Beld 2002 ).
In addition to military conflicts, the royal inscriptions of the ED III period often
mention the building of temples in various cities. The first king in Mesopotamian
history to institute reforms and release his citizens from work obligation, including
debt, was Emetena (Entemena) (Bauer 1998 : 471 ). This already points to internal
economic and social problems that kings needed to address by occasionally instituting
reforms, a phenomenon that is well known from later periods of Mesopotamian
history. The best-known reform text is known from UruKAgina (IriKAgina), the last
independent ruler of Lagash (Beld 2002 : 79 – 84 ). Scholars have offered different
opinions on this text. It appears clear that the UruKAgina sought to regulate central
–– History and chronology ––