<論説>ケンギル都市同盟について : 初期メソポタミア史の一問題

Abstract

シカゴ大学の T.Jacobsen 教授は数年前に Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, N.F.18 (1957) 誌上に「メソポタミアにおける初期の政治的発展」と題する五〇頁におよぶ大論文を発表された。同教授は当該論文のうちに Fara 出土の粘土板文書のうち行政致文書を資料として初期王朝II～IIIの過渡期にシュメールにはウルク、アダブ、ニップール、ラガシュ、シュルッパーク、ウンマの六都市長家によって軍事的都市同盟が締結されていたことを提唱された。同教授はこれを Kengir Leagir と呼称された。またこのような都市同盟の存在は初期王朝I期の文献とされているウル出土の古拙文書にすでに見出されることを指摘された。 ヤコブセン教授のケンギル同盟説を同教授が使用されなかったファラおよびウルの行政文書をも加えて検討吟味したのが本論考である。ヤコブセン教授がファラ文書の EN. GI. KI を Ki－en－gi＝Kengi(r)＝kalam(＝Sumer) すなわちシュメール全士的意味に解釈されたのに対して筆者はこれを同盟本部所在地であり、この本部所在地が全土的意味に使用されるようになるのは初期王朝III期の中頃であることを推論した。

Professor T. Jacobsen proposed the existence of the "Kengir League", a league of major cities in Sumer in the period of the E. D. I and in the transitional period of the E. D. II~III in his elaborative work of "Early Political Development in Mesopotamia" in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, N. F. 18, 1957. He drew the idea of the Kengir League from administrative documents of Ur archaic texts and jar sealings impressed with collective seals unearthed at Ur, and from similar documents of Fara texts, especially WF 92 and 94. Administrative and economic documents of these texts are, I believe, important sources for the study of political as well as socio-economic history of Ancient Sumer. It is certain that the appreciation of these documents is a very difficult and quite painstaking task for scholars. It is due to the character of these texts, i. e. the archaic writings, the ambiguities of the orthography and the simplicity of expression. I agree with the assumption proposed by Prof. Jacobsen that a league of some major city states in Sumer for the purpose of defending the civilized land of Sumer from attacks of desert nomads or mountain barbarians. In TSŠ 648 we can find a mention of mar-tu people who received foods.--45 guruš, 1 ninda šu ti, 28 mí, 1 ninda šu ti, mar-tu, "45 men who received one (piece of) bread each. 28 women who received one (piece of) bread each. (They were) mar-tu (people)" (I 4-II 1-4). mar-tu people here mentioned were no doubt enslaved captives of wars. Prof. Jacobsen appreciated the word EN. GI. KI in WF 92 and 94 as the word applied to the country of Sumer as a whole. According to my investigation, however, of some documents of Ur archaic texts, Fara texts and others, EN. GI. KI mentioned in WF 92 and 94 does not seem to indicate the country of Sumer as a whole. The reason why I should think so depends on the sequent evidences of the documents. a, (1) 4 (bùr)-iku (2) EN. GI. KI (3) 2 (bùr) 6 (iku) A. A. KI "72 iku (of) EN. GI. KI, 42 iku (of) A. A. KI." (TSŠ 758, ob. I 1-3). b, (7) X níg-ensí (8) EN. GI. KI "X ensí of EN. GI. KI" (ibid. 627, ob. V 7-8). X indicates an unknown numeral sign. c, ......(1) A-ru-aki (2) mu-ha-lam (3) Šu-è (4) KI. EN. GI " ......He destroyed Arua and 〔fought with?〕 Shue (probably personal name) of KI. EN. GI ......" (SAK p. 18, VIII 1-4). d, (1) Ša6-ša6 (2) dam Uru-ka-gi-na (3) lugal (4) Lagaski-ka-ke4 (5) dNin-a-su (6) KI. EN. GI4 (7) šu e-na-tag4 "Shasha, wife of Uru-kagina, King of Lagash, for dNin-asu in KI. EN. GI4. offered (these offerings) (DP 51, col. 8). e, KI. EN. GI4. KI (DP 46, col. 8, 5) f, A document (UET II, 366) in which〔G〕I. EN. KI is mentioned is a broken fragment and it seems to be a list describing a sort of land allotment to many persons. (1) 2 (bùr)......(2) 1/3 (bùr)...... (3) 1 2/3(bùr) Lu-lu-ti (4) 1 (bùr) Amar-amar GA. KI (col. I 1-4)......〔G〕I. EN. KI (col. II 4). All these documental evidences show that the word GI. EN. KI, EN. GI. KI, KI. EN. GI, KI. EN. GI4, KI. EN. GI4. KI must be appreciated as a local place name. Therefore EN. GI. KI in WF 92 and 94 must be also appreciated as a local place name. I intend to give a tentative translation of WF 92, col. II 3-rev. I 1-3, thus : lú tukul (-e)-dab5-ba, EN. GI. KI, Du-du, šu sum (-ma), šu-nigín 670 guruš, lú tukul (-e)-dab5-ba "men who took weapons. (They were) given to Dudu (the commander) in Kengi. Total : 670 men who took weapons". That I read LÚ. KU. KU. BA as. lú tukul (-e)-dab5-ba depends on the following evidences. In a text of the time of Ur III (Hussey STH part II no. 14, rev. I, 4) GIŠ. KU. E. KU. BA. ME which I read (lú)giš tukul-e-dab5-ba-me "(men) who took weapons". In documents of the time of Uru-kagina (STH, part I nos. 6-13) lú kur6 (-e)-dab5-ba "men who took kur6-corvée". In Nik. 13, rev. VII, 3, lú ninda (-e)-dab5-ba "men who took foods". If GI. EN. KI or EN. GI. KI is a local place name as I indicate, it may be assumed as the headquater of the Kengir League where stationed the soldiers despatched by the members of the League. In this case, Ur and Shuruppak may be assumed as cities of the supply base for the Kengir troops. In a royal inscription of Enshakushanna, King of Uruk in the middle period of the E. D. III, Kengi was used as the designation of the country of Sumer as a whole. He took the title of en kengi lugal kalam-ma "Lord of Kengi and King of the Land". The location of Kengi is unfortunately unknown at present just as many important places of Sumer are unknown.