ures due to political and local associations. We are in a
position now to institute this comparison for a period which is
certainly some centuries earlier than Gudea. The date of the reign of
Lugal-zaggisi, king of Uruk, who has been several times referred to in a
previous chapter, is fixed by Hilprecht at _c._ 4500 B.C., but it is
doubtful whether so high an age will be accepted by scholars. The
chronology for the period beyond Gudea is still in a very uncertain
condition. Lugal-zaggisi, in a long list of deities at the beginning of
an important inscription, enumerates in succession Anu, the goddess
Nisaba, the gods En-lil (or Bel), En-ki (=Ea), En-zu (Sin), Utu (the
sun-god), the goddess Ninni (or Nana(?)), Nin-khar-sag, Umu, and
Nin-akha-kuddu. As for Anu, the king introduces the name, as Ur-Ningirsu
of Lagash does (see above, p. 90), in calling himself 'priest of Anu,'
and which, according to the explanation suggested, means simply 'divine
priest.'

Bel, Ea, Sin, and Shamash (or Utu) are common to Gudea and
Lugal-zaggisi. These constitute, then, the great gods whose worship is
no longer limited to any particular district. They have become common
property, in part through the sanctity attached to the places where the
gods were worshipped, in part through the antiquity of these places, and
in part, no doubt, as the result of a political development lying behind
the period under consideration. The prominence given by Lugal-zaggisi to
Nisaba is rather surprising. He calls himself and also his father,
'hero' of Nisaba. If, however, it be borne in mind that of the goddesses
at least two, Umu and Nin-akha-kuddu, are of a local character, the
conclusion appears justified that Nisaba was a goddess associated more
particularly with the district in which Uruk lay. The goddess Ninni
(written simply as 'the goddess') is no doubt identical with the great
Nana of Uruk, and Nin-khar-sag is introduced as the consort of En-lil.

As a result of this comparison, we may note the tendency towards a
general recognition of certain great gods, which is more fully developed
in the period of Hammurabi. At the same time, the loyalty of the rulers
to the gods, peculiar to their own district, is manifested by the
prominent place assigned in the several cases to gods who otherwise play
an insignificant role, and who eventually are absorbed by others; and
lastly, as between Lugal-zaggisi and Gudea, the observation may be made
of the disposition t