‘On that day the (good) storm was carried off from the city, that city into ruins;
O father Nanna, that city into ruins was made — the people groan.
In its lofty gates, where they were wont to promenade, dead bodies were lying about;
In its boulevards, where the feasts were celebrated, they were violently attacked.
Who was stationed near the weapons, by the weapons was killed — the people groan.
Who escaped them by the storm was prostrated — the people groan.
Ur — its weak and its strong perished through hunger;
Mothers and fathers who did not leave (their) houses were overcome by fire;
The young lying on their mothers’ bosoms like fish were carried off by the waters;
The nursing mothers’ bosoms — pried open were their breasts.
The judgement of the land perished — the people groan.
The counsel of the land was dissipated — the people groan.
The mother left her daughter — the people groan.
The father turned away from his son — the people groan.
In the city the wife was abandoned, the child was abandoned, the possessions were scattered about. Its lady (of Ur) like a flying bird departed from her city;
Ningal, like a flying bird departed from her city.
On all its possessions, which had been accumulated in the land, a defiling hand was placed.
In all its storehouses which abounded in the land fires were kindled.
At its rivers, the god Gibil, the purified, relentlessly did (his) work.
The lofty, unapproachable mountain, Eresh-shir-gal,
Its righteous house by large axes is devoured.
The Sutians and Elamites, the destroyers,
The righteous house they break up with the pickaxe — the people groan.
Its lady cries: “Alas for my city!”, she cries “Alas for my house!
As for me, the lady, my city has been destroyed, my house too has been destroyed!”
— The sixth song —
In her stable, in her sheepfold, the lady utters bitter words:
“The city is being destroyed by the storm”
— Its antiphon —’
This theological interpretation explains the collapse of Ur as a decision taken by the assembly of gods. Despite the reiterative and heartfelt plea of the Moon-god Nanna-Sin for his city, once the decision was taken, it could not be changed until it was carried out in full. Only afterwards was a new propitious phase allowed to begin. Comparing this explanation of Ur’s fall with the (almost contemporary) one pertaining to the fall of Akkad (‘The Curse of Akkad’), it is possible to see that the latter blamed the catastrophe on the sins of Naram-Sin. Among his many offences, there were his disregard for cultic responsibilities (such as the restoration of the Ekur), behavioural aspects (such as his disregard for omens) and administrative mistakes (such as his abuse of taxation). Both texts share a similar notion of the fluctuation of political entities between a period of growth and a period of collapse. However, the reasons provided to explain the fall are different. One text blamed the Akkadian kings, while the other emphasised the inevitability of Ur’s fate. This important difference indicates that, in the eyes of the priestly and scribal classes of Lower Mesopotamia, the dynasty of Ur had managed to achieve a much higher quality ofjustice and administration in the land than the dynasty of Akkad. In this way, the dynasty of Ur avoided those negative connotations that would have been bestowed upon it otherwise.
World History
