Eastern Kish lying about a mile from the ziggurat is much more extensive and impressive. It consists of two parts, divided by an old canal. Between this and the river bed there are first a series of three mounds, which were probably forts. The most southerly lies on the other side of the river from the fort which guards the end of the wall of western Kish. Between these forts and the canal there lies a mound about three quarters of a mile long and about 25 ft. high, which contained a large number of tablets and some late graves. The canal which lay east of this mound is marked to-day by a long series of narrow mounds, which stand out and are most impressive, especially when half concealed by the mists at dawn. The canal appears to have been reconstructed at various times, and may even have been in use as late as the Abbasid period. If this was so the water must have been brought, as is the case with the modern canal a little distance away, from the new bed of the river near Hillaa. Im mediately east of the canal are a series of sites. To the north lies a large flat area, not a mound, covered with plano-convex bricks. It appears that this must have formed an important part of Kish in early Sumerian times, and included the palace of the kings. It was entirely abandoned about 300o B.c. Further down the canal and south-east of this area lies the great horse shaped Tal Bandar, "the harbour mound," a very descriptive name. This mound which is about 6o ft. high and 28o f t. in its greatest di mension from east to west, probably dates from the first Baby lonian dynasty. It does not seem to have been a temple, but at present its purpose is quite undetermined. Immediately south of the "harbour mound" is a further mound, about 4o ft. above the plain and about 21 acres in extent. A short distance south of this, and immediately opposite the city ruins on the west bank of the canal, lie the most impressive ruins of eastern Kish. They consist of two great stage towers and a huge temple area, adjoin ing which there are extensive city ruins. The central mounds, known to-day as Inghara, a word of uncertain meaning, include two ziggurats joined together by a mass of ruins, and a mass of temple debris on the slopes of the mounds. The tower is 75 ft. high and the spur to the north is 3 ac. in extent and almost as high as the tower. All around is a large area covered with temples in ancient times. To the east of the old temple area there are extensive city ruins which are protected to the east by two forts. The residential quarter covers nearly sq.m. and is in most places about 3o ft. high. The upper strata at least are Neo Babylonian.
It seems probable that the eastern forts mark the limits of the ancient city of Kish. Two miles, however, to the east, in a region of sand and desolation, lie the great mounds called by the Arabs Abu Sudaira, "the father of the Christ's Thorn," so-called from the single evidence of vegetation, a single shrub of Ziziphus Spina Christi which grows on the top. The mounds are irregular in shape and the lower summit is crowned with the remains of a Parthian tower. The whole surface is strewn with pottery of various dates, including some as late as Arab glazed pottery. There are Nebuchadrezzar bricks, and extensive traces of a ceme tery, probably of no great antiquity. The mounds still await ex cavation. Farther east there is a further series of mounds; indeed the whole region between the Tigris and Kish contains abundant traces of intensive habitation. Some miles away, in 1925, Langdon excavated an early site at Jemdet-Nazr, "the hill of the Saviour." This mound, at present far from water, is probably on the site of some old stream bed, as the vegetation suggests traces of underground water. Langdon found here the remains of an ancient city whose pottery consisted entirely of painted ware. Its name and history are unknown. It certainly is of great an tiquity from the pictographic tablet and the pottery, but nothing more is known. From the enormous numbers of pottery sickles lying on the surface it must once have been the centre of an agricultural district.
The history of Kish is especially interesting from its geograph ical aspect. In early Sumerian times, though the details have yet to be filled in, the whole region was the centre of a great wheat growing district. It was watered by the Euphrates and the water from the river was conducted in all probability across the present desert regions towards the Tigris, although this area has not as yet been fully explored archaeologically. This agricultural pros perity dates from as early in Sumerian times as it is possible at present to identify with any certainty. The city of Kish itself formed the dominating fortified city of the region, just as to-day so many walled cities in China dominate an agricultural area. Sargon, himself a native of Kish, abandoned the city after making war on it and during the dark period which followed little is known of the city, which may have been one of the very earliest sites of Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia. In spite of at tempts to do so, Kish never again regained her supremacy, which passed to Babylon (no doubt owing to the change in the bed of the Euphrates, although we have at present no information when this change took place). Towards the end of the third millennium B.C. Hammurabi and his successor did much work on the rebuild ing of the temples, and Kish remained an important city as one of the most revered religious shrines of Akkad. In Neo-Babylo nian times it again entered into a period of prosperity, forming almost an outer suburb of Babylon. The last actual reference to Kish occurs in the Nabonidos Chronicle, 539 B.C. A Greek tomb was found in the place in eastern Kish, but probably western Kish was abandoned in the Persian period. It is curious that in Kish itself apart from this one tomb nothing later than Nabonidos has been found, whereas all the mounds along the Shatt al Nil, to the east of Kish, are strewn with later pottery. Two different processes have been at work : one, political, that which led to the fall of Kish from its predominance, and the other the reduction of so much of the area to entire desolation.
A study of the canals shows that they gradually silted them selves up, but the more easterly, the Shatt al Nil, still remained as a possible supplier of water. Owing however to the lie of the land this canal runs to the east of Kish, and it is clear that the site has been progressively abandoned from the west, although it is probable that in early Sumerian times, when the river still ran past the city, eastern Kish was the earlier site. In spite of the possibility that the canal in the centre of the city was finally repaired in Abbasid times, it is more probable that the true site of Kish was entirely abandoned in ancient times and the city moved about two miles east, where there are abundant traces of later habitation, but where there was already a city at least as early as Nebuchadrezzar. Finally this site was abandoned also. Langdon is inclined to suggest that this final abandonment of the whole site was due to desiccation. The breaking down of the canal system under the Mongols would equally suffice to produce this result. The modern canal, based no doubt on water levels, runs east of Kish quite close to the sites of Abu Sudaira, and is playing an important part in rapidly converting that desolate region into irrigated land.
In conclusion, it may be said that the city of Kish depended on the river itself and that, except for ancient prestige and religious sanctity, it ceased to be important when the river deserted it. When the town was reduced to a supply of water from the new bed of the river, that canal was dug more to the east and so pro duced the Kish of Parthian, Persian and Arab times. When the canal system failed then those sites too melted into the desert. Meanwhile Babylon on the river usurped the place of Kish, and the site continued to be occupied, even though other later towns for various reasons succeeded to Babylon.