Innkeeper

Hittite relief of the Goddess KuBuba

Sometimes history throws you a loop that is tantalizing but also annoying in its brevity and lack of detail such is the story or should I say lack of Story concerning Kug-Bau (alternative spelling Ku-baba), queen of Kish c. 2400 B.C.E. She is the only Queen mentioned in the Sumerian King List and has such she stands out very much in the list.1

Kish was one of the most important city states of ancient Babylonia / Sumer. In fact the first non-legendary dynasty to be listed in the Sumerian King list is in fact the first dynasty of Kish. In fact when a ruler of one of the many city states of Babylonia / Sumer was claiming some sort of domination over all of Babylonia / Sumer he would frequently title himself “King of Kish“ and try to be crowned there. If the Sumerian King List is anything to go by the rulers of Kish were very frequently the most powerful city state in Babylonia / Sumer, through out this time period.2

Map of Ancient Sumer

One of the most consistent aspects about Kingship in the Mesopotamian world is that it was a very masculine activity. Queens could of course weld considerable power but Queen’s regnant seem to have been very rare indeed.

So just how did this even happen? We do not know! However we do have two sources. The first is the Sumerian King List, which exists in c. 17 versions and in very fragmentary condition,3 which says:

Then Mari was {defeated} {(ms. TL has instead:) destroyed} and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Kug-Bau, the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kiš, became king; she ruled for 100 years. 1 king; she ruled for 100 years. Then Kiš was {defeated} {(ms. TL has instead:) destroyed} and the kingship was taken to Akšak.

…

{Then Akšak was defeated} {(ms. S has instead:) Then the reign of Akšak was abolished} and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Puzur-Suen, the son of Kug-Bau, became king; he ruled for 25 years.4

Another translation of the above passages is:

Then Mari was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Ku-Baba, the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kiš, became king; she ruled for 100 years. One queen ruled for 100 years.

…
Then Akšak was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Puzur-Sin, son of Ku-Baba, became king; he ruled for 25 years.5

First is must be mentioned that the Sumerian King List is a very problematic document. Only a few of the Kings mentioned in the list have yielded contemporary documents indicating that they existed and some of them like Dumuzi a fertility god seem to be clearly mythological.6

Then it must be realized that the Kings listed are in a chronological order. The first author of the King list who was copied by his successors seems to have assumed that each dynasties in the list ruled over the whole land of Sumer and Akkad. This is almost certainly wrong. It appears that the dynasties recorded were in many respects contemporary with each other. The phrasing that such and such a city was defeated / destroyed and Kingship carried off seems to be nothing more than a stock phrase meaning very little in real terms.7

We have for example in the Sumerian King List itself the following absurdity. We have listed as the son and successor of Puzur-Sin a man named Ur-Zababa, followed by 5 more kings reigning a total of 66 years. Following that Kingship is taken to Uruk whose King reigns for 25 years before Sargon the great takes Kingship to Akkade. Thus a total of 91 years separates Ur-Zababa from the Kingship of Sargon the Great who reigned, supposedly for 56 years.8 The problem is that Sargon the great is describe in the Sumerian King List as “the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa”!9 Also stories describe Ur-Zababa and Sargon as contemporaries.10

Finally the length’s given to the reigns of the Kings in the list are frequently absurd. For example 28,800 years, 1,200 years, and 900 years, and Kug-Bau is given a reign of 100 years and her grandson Ur-Zababa a reign of 400 years.11 Despite the above the Sumerian King List is considered to be fairly accurate as a list of Kings in various city states and their order.12

The first rendition of the Sumerian King List may have been during the reign of Narum-Sin, grandson of Sargon the Great and subsequently rewritten and added to until the end of the dynasty of Isin in the 18th century C.E.13

The other document is the so called Chronicle of the Esaglia (also called the Weidler Chronicle). It purports to list lessons learned by Kings in the past and especially warn of dire consequences for ignoring the cult of Marduk. It dates sometime after 1100 B.C.E.14

The passage goes follows:

38' In the reign of Puzur-Nirah, king of Akšak, the freshwater fishermen of Esagila
39' were catching fish for the meal of the great lord Marduk;
40' the officers of the king took away the fish.
41' The fisherman was fishing when 7 (or 8) days had passed [...]
42' in the house of Kubaba,[3] the tavern-keeper [...] they brought to Esagila.
42a' At that time BROKEN[4] anew for Esagila [...]
43' Kubaba gave bread to the fisherman and gave water, she made him offer the fish to Esagila.
44' Marduk, the king, the prince of the Apsû,[5] favored her and said: "Let it be so!"
45' He entrusted to Kubaba, the tavern-keeper, sovereignty over the whole world.15

Another translation of the same passage goes as follows:

During the reign of King Puzur-Nirah of Aksak, fishermen from the Esaglia caught fish on the banks of […] they caught fish for the meal of the great lord Marduk, but the king’s officers seized them. The fishermen […] Seven days having gone by, the fishermen (again) caught fish, […it] into the home of Ku-Baba, the innkeeper, […] for the large beer vat. They carried […] to the Esaglia as an offering. At this time its foun,dation. (?) BREAK, newly, for the Esaglia, […] Ku-Baba offered bread to the fishermen and offered wine to them, (but) she hurried to [deliver] the fish to the Esaglia. Marduk, the king, the ,son. Of the prince of Apsu, looked benevolently upon her and she said “Let it be so!” Ku-Baba was entrusted with the whole kingship over all the lands.16

Not is this passage late it is obviously a propaganda piece designed to help discourage Kings and that agents from taking goods and merchandise from the Temple of Marduk by claiming that those who do will be punished and those who give the temple what it is entitled to will prosper.

That being the case it does seem to be an interesting indication that even more than 1000 years after Kug-Bau’s reign she was still remembered, with a reputation for piety, and those legends about her were positive.

So what do those the above, very laconic, documents tell us about Kug-Bau? They tell us that she started out in what we call a fairly “middle class” situation. Occupations were usually hereditary among the peoples of ancient Babylonia / Sumer so her parents were probably also Innkeepers also. Since women could own and run businesses in ancient Babylonia / Sumer and Inn keeping seems to have been one of the ones with a fair number of female practitioners.17

This was certainly not the sort of occupation that would lead to becoming ruler; usually. So just what did Kug-Bau do that got her to power? The answer is we do not know. The Esaglia Chronicle would appear to indicate that perhaps Kug-Bau was helped to power in alliance with the local Priesthood, although it would not have been the Priesthood of Marduk but possibly the Priesthood of the Sumerian supreme God An / Anu, or perhaps Enlil.18

Now we know from the Sumerian King list that Kug-Bau was the founder of a dynasty, in this case the third dynasty of Kish. This would seem to indicate that Kug-Bau took power after some sort of calamity or coup seemed to necessitate the replacement of the ruling dynasty. Perhaps some sort of defeat in war? The very fact that Kug-Bau was able to take, hold on to power and establish a dynasty would seem to indicate a very high level of political skill on her part. Certainly given that in ancient Babylonia and Sumer Kingship was regarded as almost entirely outside of a women’s role; we can be assured that Kug-Bau was quite a politician.

The statement Kug-Bau, “who made firm the foundations of Kiš (Kish)”, would appear to indicate that Kug-Bau re-established Kish’s power and greatly strengthened the state, and perhaps also greatly extended Kish’s power and influence throughout Babylonia / Sumer.

The closing section is a bit bizarre. Kish is said to have been defeated and Kingship taken to Aksak for 93 years and then Kingship is restored to Kish and in the hands of Puzur-Sin the son of Kug-Bau who reigned for 25 years. Obviously that is false. Further Kug-Bau is supposed to have reigned after carrying off Kingship from Mari yet according to the Esaglia Chronicle Puzur-Nirah who according to the Sumerian King List was the third King of the dynasty of Aksak that succeeded Kug-Bau!19

It seems to be obvious that the break that the author of the Sumerian King List introduces is an error. Although rather amazingly some people call the list of names staring with Kug-Bau’s son Puzur-Sin as the fourth dynasty of Kish. This is almost certainly a mistake and what as in fact happened is that the author has broken the third dynasty of Kish into two parts.20

So it appears that in fact Kug-Bau’s reign ended simply with her death and the passing of the throne to her son.

Kug-Bau had a curious sort of afterlife, aside from showing up in legends, in that she seems to have become assimilated with a goddess Kubaba / Kububa known later on in Greco-Roman times as Cybebe or Kybebe, a Mother Earth Goddess. As Kubaba this cult spread throughout Mesopotamia, Palestine and Asia Minor; later on under the name Cybebe, / Kybebe this cult spread throughout the Roman Empire.21

It is more likely that Kug-Bau was named after a Goddess than that she inspired the cult by being deified; still it is likely that she had some influence on the cult and was to a degree assimilated to the Goddess. It is also possible that this is another example of a mythological figure, in this case a Goddess, getting into the Sumerian King List. This is rather doubtful given the circumstantial detail of her being an Innkeeper and the rather earthy statement she built up the power of Kish. It appears that Kug-Bau was indeed a real person.22

Certainly there is massive room for speculation and perhaps a few historical novels to put some flesh on the very bare bones facts we have about Kug-Bau.

Did Kug-Bau when she was Queen of Kish sometimes wistfully recall those times when she was a Innkeeper serving her customers another tall cold one? We will likely never know. But the story of the Innkeeper who became a Queen and founded a dynasty will continue to fascinate.

Map of Kish

1. Roux, Ancient Iraq, 3rd Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1992, After p. 498, in the Chronological table the fifth page, Bertman, Stephen, Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, p. 91.

2. Bertman, p. 24, . Saggs, H. W. F., The Greatness that was Babylonia, Mentor Books, New York, 1962, pp. 60-61, Roux, pp. 138-139.

3. Glasser, Jean-Jacques, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2004, pp. 117-118.

4. From The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL), Sumerian King List, (SKL) Here, Glasser, pp. 118-127, includes translation and transliteration of original Sumerian.

5. From Livius, Sumerian King List, (SKL) Here.

6. Saggs, pp. 55-56, Bertman, p. 50, Khurt, Amelie, The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 B.C., v. 1, Routledge, New York, 1995, pp. 29-31, Roux, pp. 107-108, 123-125.

7. IBID, Roux, pp. 138-145.

8. ETSCL, SKL, Livius, SKL, Glasser, p. 123.

9. IBID, Glasser.

10. IBID, p. 267. See also story Sargon and Ur-Zababa, ETSCL Here.

11. IBID, pp. 121-123, see also Livius, SKL, and ETSCL, SKL.

12. Roux, pp. 123-124.

13.Glasser, p. 118.

14. IBID, pp. 263-264.

15. Livius, The Weilder Chronicle, (WC) Here.

16. Glasser, p. 267.

17. Hawkes, Jacquetta, The First Great Civilizations, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1973, pp. 104, 114-115.

18. For more about those Gods see Bertman, pp. 116, 118.

19. Glasser, pp. 123, 267, Livius, SKL, WC.

20. For an example of this see Wikipedia, Sumerian King List Here.

21. Wikipedia, Kubaba Here.

22. See Footnotes 6 & 7.

Pierre Cloutier

Pornography Ancient and Modern

The following Post

contains some sexually explicit images

If you might be offended

Please do not read!!

An issue guaranteed to get people’s blood boiling is the issue of pornography. This is one of those heat and little light issues. Unlike the case of a writer like the Marquis de Sade whose writings, who I have previously written a blog on, are indeed truly disturbing in that they do combine sex with horrific sadistic violence and therefore legitimately call for consideration and concern. Although not in my opinion banning. It is interesting that so called “ordinary porn”; just seems to bring out the holier than thou in people.

Of course a ‘hot button” issue like this one is exceptionally useful in keeping peoples mind off real issues and have them getting obsessed with what their neighbours are doing.

Pornography is one of those issues and it has been and is exceptionally useful in getting people’s minds off the important stuff.

Of course porn has been around a very long time and has not always caused the same level of hysteria and sheer mockish stupidity.

For example lets us look at such things as this rather interesting Herm from ancient Greece with their very erect penises and stood on street corners in many Greek cities.

A Herm
Or how about this much larger than life size penises from Delos.

Phalli at Delos
There is also this painting from Pompeii which is shall we say explicit.

Mural from Pompeii

And for you fans of the truly kinky how about a little bestiality.

The god Pan making it with a goat
The above is not my cup of tea or dare I say of much interest to any but a small minority of humans.

What is of interest is how such images did not disturb the equilibrium of Greco-Roman society. It simply never occurred to anyone that such images were problematic and disturbing. They might be refined, well done or crude and tasteless but they would not have been considered some sort existential threat to that society.

The result when these items were rediscovered was some of the most absurd stupidities by the modern guardians of morality. There is in Naples a collection of art and artefacts collected from Pompeii called The Secret Collection, which until very recently was kept locked away from regular museum goers least its pornographic and erotic images, confuse and scandalize the poor simple minded average museum visitor.1

I would think that the ancient Romans and Greeks would have laughed quite loudly at such no-nothing brainless idiocy.

Considering that Greeks and Romans considered public displays of phallic imagery as a good luck charm they would have been quite non-plussed by so many moderns getting hysterical about it.

So what really bothers moderns about porn?

The answer is quite simple. Porn shows sex. Now if it was really about issues that you would think are legitimate problems and concerns you would not see the level of hysteria over it that is indeed there.

This level has its roots in the idea that sex is dangerous and needs to be controlled and regulated and that it is a dark and mysterious force that is tainted with diabolical and evil qualities.2

I remember a series of programs called A Third Testament, (1976) narrated by Malcolm Muggeridge from the mid 70’s. In an episode about the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy Malcolm refers to “CCC-ARNALL – PP-LEASURES!!. While saying that Malcolm squints, furrows his forehead and looks like he is having a severe migraine combined with a coronary. Like a vast number of older people Malcolm, who when he was younger indulged deeply in “carnal pleasures”, now that he was older and past all that, he thought it would be a good idea to deny other people “carnal pleasures”. No doubt having both satiated himself and gotten too old to indulge in “carnal pleasures”, it would be most satisfying for him to deny others “carnal pleasures”. The look of satisfaction that crossed his face as he talked about denying others “carnal pleasures” indicated that despite his supposed wish to help others escape being enslaved to “carnal pleasures”, that he was just has enslaved to them as ever. Only in this case being unable to enjoy them himself he would get perverted pleasure from denying others similar “pleasures”.3

It is indeed remarkable how obsessed so many of those who complain about other people being obsessed with sex are with sex. Instead they think constantly about how wicked it is for other people to have sex and how they have to be brought under control and how wicked them having sex is. Like the most sex obsessed orgiest these people never stop thinking about sex, only in this case how wicked and evil it is and how other people are having it and how they have to be stopped. Thus like Malcolm Muggeridge they writhe in prurient ecstasy at the thought of “CCC-ARNALL - PP-LEASURES!!” and think constantly and obsessively about sex.

One could go into the roots of this obsessive prurience but it is not necessary except to note that it seems to be at least partially related to a certain style of Christian values.

This notion of sex has dangerous, disgusting and prurient and this obsession with what other people are doing is behind most of the anti-pornography hysteria that exists in our society. This hysteria has lead to a seeming inability to discuss pornography in any sort of rational manner.4

Now it can easily be argued, and in my opinion obviously true, that pornography has problematic aspects.

For example. It is true that much pornography is in fact involves the use and rather unpleasant exploitation of the women, and yes sometimes at least men involved in producing it.

There is of course the issue of child porn and bestiality, which involves issues of consent and exploitation.

There is also the problem of extremely violent pornography that sexualizes, rape, sadistic, brutal degradation and humiliation, especially of women.5

Those are genuine issues of concern and certainly subject to analysis and critique. What are not reasonable are the following pieces of nonsense.

The idea that pornography is responsible for the subordination of women. A position advanced by the late Andrea Dworkin and by Catherine McKinnon. Are they seriously advancing the position that the existence of pornography is the main reason why women are oppressed? A position whose light headedness should cause it to float away and disperse.

Lets see most Muslim states especially the more religious ones prohibit most pornography and Scandinavian countries have lots of available porn. Guess which countries women have a better, socio-economic and political position in? Would it be sensible to argue that pornography caused women to have a better position in Scandinavia? Of course not but that is where this sort of logic leads us.6

Another popular idea, adopted for example by Courts in various places is the idea that pornography causes “harm”. In Canada this idea largely via Catherine A. MacKinnon, has caught on with the courts basically as a way of avoiding the old “community standards” rule which was pretty useless and the old “artistic merit” debate.7

It is ironic that the so-called anti-pornography Feminists who use this argument allow themselves to be allied to anti-pornographic so-called “Christian” groups who are quite convinced of the harm done by Feminist speech and the need to curtail, if not eliminate that form of speech.

The problem is the “harm” described is pretty nebulous and lacks concrete specifics. Finally even if it causes “harm” is that a reason to ban it? Well it can be easily shown that Hitler’s Mein Kampf caused and causes real harm. Yet it is available. So are the works of Karl Marx and of countless thinkers whose ideas were used as an excuse by some to cause mayhem.

One could of course easily list all sorts of works that incited people to resist or rebel violently; say the works of Thomas Paine? So the “harm” idea in my opinion is nothing more than the old disgust, prurient argument. I.E., “this is revolting and disgusting so of course it causes harm”. Even assuming pornography causes “harm” is that a reason to ban it, after all lots of speech causes harm and is not banned.8

It is routine among anti-pornography crusaders to demonize the makers of pornography. A favourite story is the infamous snuff film story. What is fascinating is that despite decades of efforts to track down this elusive film we have yet to find a real snuff film. I.E., a film of an actual person being killed as the “climax” of a sadistic sex scene in a porn movie. It appears that certain films have had simulated death, although even those are very hard to find, but that a bona-fide for real snuff film seems to be nonexistent. Frankly that surprises me given just how perverse and vicious humans can be. The language of disgust is generally in full flower when anti-pornographers describe the makers of pornography. It seems to do so because anti-pornographers conceive of the world in manichean terms of the sons of light against the sons of darkness. They also seem to have no desire to find out in any depth or detail how the pornography industry actually works.9

Another argument, very frequently used, is that pornography is not “speech” and hence not eligible for being protected by freedom of speech guarantees, like the Canadian Charter of Rights or the American Constitution. The argument is that the guarantees only protect “political” speech. This is an interesting argument although in the end it amounts to the usual disgust argument. I.E., “pornography disgusts me so it isn’t legitimate speech”. Well lots of speech disgusts me such as Holocaust denial bilge and Racist vomit and Stalinist excrement but I would never dream of banning it because I find it disgusting. Of course there is Gore Vidal’s answer to this point of view “Sex is politics”. In fact his point is that sex is deeply political given that it is about on the most intimate level about how we relate to each other.10

By giving pornography deep existential importance and allying it to fundamental forces of society the anti-pornographers have elevate pornography from a diversion to a fundamental cosmic principle. It is not and never was.

Perhaps the most significant development in the pornographic industry lately has been the development of cams and other recording devices that make it very easy for people to make their own pornography. Thus escaping the censor and the prurient prude. Just how are the anti-pornographers going to control and regulate that?

The Greco-Romans had it right Pornography is nothing to get your knickers in a knot about.

1. Mulas, Antonia, Eros in Antiquity, The Erotic Art Book Society, New York, 1978., pp. 9-13.

2. See Richards, Jeffrey, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, Routledge, London, 1991, pp. 22-41, Moore, R. I., The Formation of a Persecuting Society, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Pub., London, 2007, pp. 94-116.

3. For more information on A Third Testament, see Here

4. See Footnote 2.

5. For a overview of these issues see Diamond, Sara, Pornography: Image and Reality, in Women Against Censorship, Edited by Burstyn, Varda, Douglas & McIntyre, Toronto, 1985, pp. 40-57.

6. See Dworkin, Andrea, Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Plume, New York, 1991, MacKinnon, Catherine A., Are Women Human?: And Other International Dialogues, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.

7. The main case in question as been R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452, which uses this frame work and adopted largely from Catherine A. MacKinnon’s ideas.

8. See the essays in Burstyn, Varda.

9. For more about the apparent non-existence of snuff films see Stine, Scott Aaron, The Snuff Film: The Making of an Urban Legend, Here.

10. For the view that pornography is not real speech see McKinnon, Catriona, Toleration: A Critical Introduction, Routledge, London, 2006, pp. 137-152. For the view of sex as politics see Vidal, Gore, Sex is Politics, in The Second American Revolution and other Essays 1976-1982, Random house, New York, 1982.

Pierre Cloutier