The grouping of the peoples of Mesopotamia depends largely on geographical surroundings, and in the towns also on religion. There is a marked distinction between the Arab of the desert, the Functionally, Mesopotamia is the domain that lies between Babylonia and the related trans-Tigris districts on the one hand and the west Asian districts of Maritime Syria and Asia Minor on the other. Its position has given it a long, complicated and exciting history. The great rivers, in later times theoretically re garded as its boundaries, have never really been barriers (cf. e.g. Winckler, Altorient. Forschungen, iii. 348), whence the vagueness of the geographical terminology in all times. Its position, along with its character, has prevented it often or long, if ever, playing a really independent part.
The earliest inhabitants of Mesopotamia in times approaching the historical period are known as the Sumerians. The earliest Sumerian monarch who exercised dominion as far as the Mediter ranean is Lugalraggizi, king of Erech, 2775-275o B.C. His empire was before long eclipsed by the rising power of the Semites. Sumerian traditions and dynastic lists give a complete reconstruc tion of early history, beginning with ten mythical kings who lived before the Flood, for nearly a half million years, and after the Flood the first capital was Kish, followed by the dynasties of Erech, Ur, Awan, Kish II., Hamasi, Erech II., Ur II., Adab, Maer, Kish III., Akshak and Kish IV., when we reach the king dom of Lugalraggizi of Erech.' According to the actual figures of the records, the first capital was founded, at Kish, 3768 B.C., which is clearly a mythical date. Early inscriptions of the city Lagash in the extreme south, and from Ur, Nippur, Adab, Erech and Kish, and especially from the earliest known sites, Shunuar (ki) near Kish, and Shuruppak in the south, indicate an advanced Sumerian civilization, before 4000 B.C. With the founding of the empire of Agade by the Semites under Sargon of Kish, begins the definite consecutive history of Babylonia and Assyria. That Sargon was or became supreme in Mesopotamia cannot be doubted, since there is contemporary evidence that he conquered Amurru. The three versions of the proceedings of Sargon in Subartu leave us in doubt what really happened. As he must have asserted himself in Mesopotamia before he advanced into the maritime district (and perhaps beyond: see SARGON), what is 'S. Langdon, Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts, vol. II.
referred to in the Omens and the Chronicle 26,472 may be an im migration of new elements into Subartu—in that case perhaps one of the early representatives of the "Hittite" group. According to
the Omens text Sargon seems to have settled colonies in Subartu, and suggestions of an anticipation of the later Assyrian policy of transportation have been found by L. W. King (History of Sumer and Akkad) under the rulers of this time, and there are evidences of lively intercommunication. Mesopotamia certainly felt the Sumero-Babylonian civilization early. It was from the special type of cuneiform developed there, apparently, that the later Assyrian forms were derived. Mesopotamia would nat urally share in the wide trade relations of the time, probably reaching as far as Egypt. The importance of Harran was doubt less due not only to its fame as a seat of the Moon-god Sin, hon oured also west of the Euphrates, and to its political position, but also to its trade relations. Contemporary records of sales of slaves from Amurra are known.
When the Semitic settlers living in the age of Sargon, i.e., the Akkadians, had become thoroughly amalgamated with the pop ulation, there appeared a new immigrant element, the Amurru, whose advance as far as Babylonia is to be traced in the troubled history of the post-Gudean period, out of the confusion of which there ultimately emerged the Khammurabi dynasty. That the Amurra passed through Mesopotamia, and that some remained, seems most probable. Their god Dagan had a temple at Tirqa (near 'Ishara, a little below Circesium), the capital of Khana (several kings of which we now know by name), probably taking the place of an earlier deity. At Tirqa they had month names of a peculiar type. It is not improbable that the incorporation of this Mesopotamian kingdom with Babylon was the work of Khammurabi himself.
Not quite so successful eventually was the similar enterprise farther north at Asshur (or Assur [q.v.]) on the east margin of Mesopotamia, although we do not know the immediate outcome of the struggle between Asshur and the first Babylonian king, Sumu-abi. Possibly the rulers of Babylon had a freer hand in a city that they apparently raised to a dominant position than the Semitic rulers of Asshur, who seem to have succeeded to men of the stock which we have hitherto called Mitanni, if we may judge from the names of Ushpia who, according to Shalmaneser I. and Esarhaddon, built the temple, and Kilda who, according to Ashur-rem-nisheshu, built the city wall'. The considerable num ber of such names already found in records of the Sumerian king dom Ur III. (27o9-23c)i) and of First Dynasty records seems to show that the people of this race were to be found at home as far south as Babylonia.