and other important places in Babylonia, but “king of Amoria” (if the
coining of a word for the district be allowed) also. Now, as we know from
the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, Amurrū is the name that the Babylonians used
for “the west,” which Assyriologists formerly read (on account of the
polyphony of the Babylonian system of writing) Aḫarrū. In reality,
however, this word, Amurrū, stands for the land of the Amorites, and the
probability is, that the land of the Amorites belonged to the Babylonian
Empire because it formed part of the original domain of the rulers of
Babylonia at this time, who, if not of Amorite descent, may at least have
had Amorite connections.
In any case, there is but little doubt that the population of Babylonia
was very mixed 2000 years before Christ. As we know from the tablets,
Amorites were, during this period, numerous in Babylonia, and the god
whose name is written with the characters MARTU (a common group for
Amurrū)—the fact is revealed by one of the tablets of late date published
by Reisner—are to be read Amurrū, and the best translation is “the Amorite
god,” whose name and worship seem to have been introduced into the
Babylonian Pantheon at a much earlier date, and was known to the Akkadians
under the name of Martu. It is noteworthy that, in the text in question
(_Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen_, Heft. x. pl. 139,
147-81), the Akkadian Martu and Babylonian Amurrū is called “lord of the
mountain,” probably because the country of the Amorites, especially when
compared with Babylonia, is mountainous.
In addition to the god Amurrū, other deities of western origin appear in
the inscriptions (generally in the names) from time to time. Thus we have
Abdu-Ištara, interesting as giving an early form of the name Astarte
(Ashtoreth), before it received the feminine termination; Ụsur-Malik,
probably “protect, O Malik” (Moloch), Nabu-Malik, probably “Nebo is Malik”
(Moloch), or “Nebo is king”; Ibi-Šân, probably “speak, O Shân,” which
reminds the reader of Beth-Shean, the modern Beisan; and there are also,
in all probability, other Amorite deities whom we cannot identify, on
account of their names not occurring in other ancient literatures than the
Babylonian. Ibaru, found in the name Arad-Ibari, “servant of Ibari,” Abâ,
in the name Arad (Abdi)-Abâ, Alla, in the name Ur-Alla, “man of Alla”
(though this is possibly a Babylonian [Akkadian] name), etc., are probably
non-Babylonian, but not Amorite.
Besides the names of west Semitic deities, however, the names of west
Semites themselves occur, and show that there was a considerable
immigration in those ancient days into the country. Thus the word Amurrū,
“the Amorite,” is exceedingly common, and one is not surprised to learn
that, in consequence of the Amorites being so numerous, there was an
Amorite district in the neighbourhood of Sippar. Other names of men which
are apparently from the country spoken of are, Sar-îli, probably “prince
of God,” and the same as Israel; Karanatum (probably for Qaranatum), which
would seem to mean “she of the horned deity” (compare Uttatum, “he of the
sun,” Sinnatum, “he of the moon”), and reminds us of Ashteroth Karnaim,
“Ashteroth of the two horns,” the well-known site in Palestine. Besides
these, we meet more than once with such names as Ya’kub, Jacob, with its
longer form, Ya’kub-îlu, Jacob-el; and in like manner the name of Joseph
and its longer form Joseph-el occur—Yasup and Yasup-îlu. Êsâ, the father
of a man named Siteyatum, reminds us of Esau; Abdi-îli, “servant of God,”
is the same as Abdeel; and Ya’zar-îlu, “God has helped” (compare Azrael),
Yantin-îlu, “God has given” (compare Nethanel), with many others similar,
receive illustration. In all probability, too, many of the bearers of
names compounded with Addu (Hadad), Amurrū, and other names of deities
naturalized in Babylonia, as well as some of the bearers of true
Babylonian names, were, in reality, pure west Semites. Further examples
will be found in the texts translated farther on, and the more noteworthy
will be pointed out when they occur.
It will thus be seen that the population of Babylonia 2000 years before
Christ had a considerable admixture of west Semites, many of whom would
come under the designation of Amorites; besides other nationalities, such
as Armenians or people of Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia)—at least two tablets
refer exclusively to transactions between members of this northern
race—Sutites, and Gutites, who were low-class people seemingly
light-haired, “fair Gutian slaves” being in one place spoken of.
Life in Babylonia at this early period must have been exceedingly
primitive, and differed considerably, as the East does even now, from what
we in Europe are accustomed to. The city of which we can get the best
idea, Sippar, the Sippara of the Greeks, generally regarded (though
probably wrongly) as the Sepharvaim of the Bible, now represented by the
mounds known as Abu-habbah, whence most of the early contract-tablets
revealing to us the daily life of these ancient Babylonians came, was
situated on the Euphrates, “the life of the land.” The name of this river
is written, when phonetically rendered, by the characters Purattu
(probably really pronounced Phuraththu), in Akkadian Pura-nunu, “the great
water-channel,” often expressed (and then, of course, not phonetically)
with characters meaning “the river of Sippar,” showing in what estimation
the ancient Babylonians held both river and city. The mound of Abu-habbah
is four miles from the river Euphrates, and situated, in reality, on the
canal called Nahr-Malka, “the royal river,” which runs through it; but the
tablets of the period of which we are now speaking refer not only to the
city itself, but to the district all round from the Tigris on the east to
the Euphrates on the west.
The following paragraph from Mr. Rassam’s _Asshur and the Land of Nimrod_
will give a fair idea of what this district is like:—
“It is most interesting to examine this canal (the Nahr-Malka) all the way
between the Euphrates and the Tigris, as it shows the magnitude of the
Babylonian agricultural industry in days gone by, when it irrigated
hundreds of miles of rich alluvial soil. The remains of countless large
and small watercourses, which intersect the country watered by those two
branches(23) of Nahr-Malka, are plainly seen even now. Vestiges of
prodigious basins are also visible, wherein a surplus supply must have
been kept for any emergency, especially when the water of the Euphrates
falls low in summer.”
The digging of canals, which was an exceedingly important work in those
days, as indeed it is now, was evidently very systematically done, and the
king often, to all appearance, made a bid for increased popularity by
digging an important new canal for irrigation purposes, to which his name
was attached. Thus we find the work of Sumu-la-ilu, Sin-mubaliṭ,
Ḫammurabi, Samsu-iluna, and other kings recorded and chosen as the event
of the year to date by. This, with the rebuilding or new decoration of the
temples and shrines, endeared the king to the people and the priesthood,
ensuring for him the faithful service of both, and willing submission to
his rule. Indeed, there is but little doubt that the presence of foreign
rulers in the country was often due to their having made friends of the
priestly classes, and afterwards of the people, in this way.
The Religious Element.
As may be judged from the specimens of Babylonian names already given, the
inhabitants of this part of the world were exceedingly religious. In every
city of the land there were great temples, each of which made its claim on
the people who formed the congregation—in other words, the whole
population. In the district of which we are at present treating—the tract
where the majority of early contract-tablets were found, namely,
Sippar—the chief objects of worship were the Sun-god Šamaš; his consort,
the Moon-goddess, Aa; Bunene, a deity of whom but little is known;
Anunitum, a goddess identified with Ištar or Venus; Addu or Rammanu (Hadad
or Rimmon), and, in later times at least, among others, “the divine
Daughters of Ê-babbarra.(24)” All these deities were worshipped in the
temple of the place, called Ê-babbarra, “the (divinely) brilliant house,”
the earthly abode of the god Šamaš and his companions. In addition to this
great and celebrated temple, of such renown in later times that even
Egyptians, sun-devotees in their own country, attended the services and
made gifts, temples were erected to the other gods of Babylon, notably
Sin, the Moon-god; to Merodach, the chief deity of Babylon; and likewise
in all probability to Merodach’s consort, Zer-panitum, who was worshipped
along with him. There was probably hardly a town in ancient Babylonia and
Assyria where one or more of these gods were not honoured—indeed, the sun
had also another centre of worship, namely, Larsa, the Ellasar of Gen.
xiv. 1, as well as less renowned shrines. Ištar was venerated at Erech
along with Anu; Sin, the moon, under the name of Nannar, had a great and
celebrated temple at Ur (generally regarded as Ur of the Chaldees), and
also at Haran, the city of Abraham’s sojourning; Nebo was worshipped at
Borsippa; Nergal at Cuthah; Gula, goddess of healing, at Babylon; Ê-girsu
(“the lord of Girsu”) at the city of Girsu, apparently a part of Lagaš; Êa
and Tammuz at Eridu, etc.
In the province of which Sippar was capital, however, the people were more
than usually religious, or else more records of their piety have come down
to us. Numerous persons, more especially women, are described as devotees,
or perhaps priestesses, of the Sun-god there, and sometimes similar
devotees of Merodach are mentioned. Though we have no certain information,
it is very probable that there were all over the country people dedicated
to the various deities, “the gods of the land,” for what was customary in
the district of Sippar (Sippar-Amnanu and Sippar-Ya’ruru) was in all
probability equally so in the other provinces of the empire. From the
earliest times the temples acquired and held large tracts of land, which
the priests let to various people, agriculturists and others, to
cultivate, a certain proportion of the produce being paid to them, added
to the revenues of the temples, and passed into the treasury of the god.
To this lucrative business of land-letting was added that of
money-lending, and interest in the weaving-industry of the place, both of
which increased enormously in later times. That the temples received from
time to time rich gifts from the king, goes without saying, for the
colophon-dates record many instances of this. Sumu-abu, for instance,
rebuilt or restored the temples of the Lady of Isin, and the temple Ê-maḫ
of Nannar (the Moon-god); Sumu-la-îla made a throne of gold and silver for
the great shrine of Merodach; Abil-Sin seems to have given a similar
object to the temple of the Sun at Babylon; Ḫammurabi restored or gave
thrones to the temples of Zer-panitum, Ištar of Babylon, Nannar (the
moon), and built a great shrine for Bel. Samsu-iluna, likewise, was not
negligent of the gods, for it is related of him that he dedicated a bright
shining mace (?) of gold and silver, the glory of the temple, to Merodach,
and made Ê-sagila (the great temple of Belus at Babylon) to shine like the
stars of heaven. It is needless to say, that the long lists of the pious
works of the rulers of Babylon would be much too long to enumerate here.
All this the kings did from motives of policy, to conciliate the priests,
and, through them, the people. Sometimes, though, they had need of the
priests, who were able to render them service, and then, naturally, they
bought their good-will cheerfully. The service which the priests rendered
in return was to pray to the gods for the king’s health and his success
against his enemies, or in any undertaking in which he might be engaged,
and to inquire of the gods for him whether he would be successful. Many,
too, were the ceremonies and festivals in which king, priests, and people
took part, and the king (who was himself a priest) and the priesthood
thrived exceedingly.
Sometimes, too, it happened that a devotee or servant of another god than
that which was the divinity of the place, struck with the neglect of the
deities whom he worshipped, would decide to remedy that defect, and to
this end he would found a small temple himself, and endow it. The
following will show in what way this took place—
“Nûr-îli-šu has built for his god the temple of Šarru and Šullat. One
_šar_ (is the measure of) the temple of his god—he has dedicated it for
his life. Pî-ša-Šamaš is the priest of the temple. Nûr-îli-šu shall not
make a claim against the priesthood (_i.e._ demand the restitution of the
property he has given). He is an enemy of Šamaš and Suma-îlu who brings an
action.
“Before Bur-nunu, son of Ibubu (?);
before Ibik-ištar, son of Ibubu;
before Sin-rabu, son of Aba-Ellila-kime;
before Idin-Sin, son of Ilu-malik;
before Sin-idinnaššu, son of Lu-Ninsaḫ;
before Aḫum-ḫibum, son of Aḫu-šina;
before Sin-idinnaššu, son of Pi-ša-Nin-Karak,”
“The light of his god,” Nûr-îli-šu apparently wished to justify his name,
and to show what a faithful servant he was, and he therefore dedicated the
temple to the deity mentioned. This, according to the inscriptions, should
be Merodach, one of whose titles was _šarru_, “the king.” It is to be
noted, however, that in the district of Sippar the Sun-god was “king,” and
if this be the case, the pious giver of the temple, instead of wishing to
honour the patron god of another district, merely intended to honour the
patron god of his own in another aspect, namely, as king in the heavens,
along with his consort, here called Šullat, a name which, to all
appearance, simply means “the bride.” That the Sun-god was intended seems
to be indicated by the name of the priest, Pî-ša-Šamaš, “Word of the
Sun-god,” though it was not by any means impossible for a man bearing the
name of another god as part of his own to officiate in this capacity,
especially in the case of Merodach, for the latter was, in many respects,
a sun-god, and therefore identified with Šamaš. In any case, the new
temple was under the protection of the Sun-god, as the statement (“he is
an enemy of Šamaš and Šuma-ilu”) shows. It is noteworthy that, in the
names of the witnesses, Šamaš does not occur as a component part in any
case.
But a small foundation like this must have had but little influence beside
the great temple of the Sun-god at Sippara, with its revenues from lands,
dues on grain, tithes, free-will offerings, and gifts on special
occasions. In addition to all that has been mentioned above, the temple of
the Sun-god was the great court of justice, and the people resorted
thither to settle their disputes, and in all probability gifts were made
to the Sun-god on those occasions. The gates of the city, too, were
favourite places for this, especially that of Šamaš, and there is every
probability that gifts to the god had to be made there also. The power and
influence of the places of worship on account of all these temporal and
sacerdotal duties invested in them can be easily imagined.
The King.
Around the Babylonian king is hedged a certain amount of mystery, for we
see him but dimly. What he did year by year we know, but what his general
way of life was the tablets do not reveal to us. He lived in a “great
house,” _ê-gala_ in Akkadian, _êkallu_ in Semitic Babylonian, and there is
hardly any doubt that the people looked upon him as a great high-priest,
and often as being himself divine. Indeed, some, if not many, of the
Babylonian kings were regarded as gods, and had their worshippers,
apparently whilst they were still inhabitants of this earth. The
deification of the early Babylonian kings is made known to us by the
scribes placing the usual divine prefix before their names, and with
certain rulers this is seldom or never wanting. Thus we know that Dungi
(about 2650 B.C.) was deified, as were also Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and
Ibi-Sin. This custom seems to have been continued until later times, for
Rim-Sin of Larsa, the opponent of Ḫammurabi or Amraphel, was thus
honoured, and even Ḫammurabi himself, who never has this divine prefix
before his name, was sometimes paid this exceptional tribute, as such
names as Ḫammurabi-Šamši, “Hammurabi is my Sun,” or “my Sun-god,” show.
The East was ever the home of flattery, which could hardly reach a higher
point than that of deification.
[Plate VI A.]
The Adoration of a Deified King. Impression of a cylinder inscribed
"Danatum, son of Sin-tâar, servant ( = worshipper) of Rîm-Sin" (see p.
164). Published by permission of the owner, Mr. J. Offord, and the Society
of Biblical Archæology.
[Plate VI B.]
The Adoration of a God. Impression of a cylinder-seal inscribed with the
name of Appâni-îl (see p. 555). (The figure on the left has been added by
a later hand to obliterate part of the inscription.) Published by
permission of the owner, Mr. J. Offord, and the Society of Biblical
Archæology.
Yet the king does sometimes come forth from his shell, and then we see him
in his two aspects—as king, giving his orders to the officials of his
court and army, and as the chief citizen of the country over which he
ruled. The former is illustrated by the despatches and letters in which
his name occurs, and the latter by such references to him as we find in
the contracts—and these are very few, as the colophon-dates and
invocations of his name in the legal oaths do not count.
Many letters of Ḫammurabi have been found, and indicate how active he was
as a ruler. These texts, which, as far as they are published, are
generally in a very incomplete state, nevertheless show that this most
successful king paid every attention to the welfare of his subjects, even
those in distant parts of the country. Thus in one of these communications
he gives instructions to Sin-idinnam (who was apparently military governor
of Larsa or Ellasar) to pronounce judgment against a certain person who
laid claim to a field. Another letter to the same person refers to grain
taken by Awel-îli, concerning which the king says, “I have seen these
reports. The grain of the recorder (?), which Awel-îli has taken, let him
return to the recorder.” In another place he writes to his officer rather
angrily because Inuḫ-samar, apparently Sin-idinnam’s lieutenant, had taken
away from Sin-magir certain documents signed by the king. He asks
Sin-idinnam why he had done this (placing the blame directly upon him),
and concludes, “The documents, the property of Sin-magir ... with the
impress of my seal, which thou hast taken, restore to him.” If Sin-idinnam
had not been a very high-placed official, he would in all probability have
been dismissed.
The following is a letter from king Ammi-ṭitana to his agent—
“To the agent of Sippar-Ya’rurum say thus: ‘It is Ammi-ṭitana. The
wool-merchant has thus informed me: “I keep sending to the purveyor of
Sippar-Ya’rurum concerning the wool ordered from him, to cause (it) to be
sent to Babylon, but he has not caused the wool ordered from him to be
sent.” Thus he informs me. Why hast thou not caused the wool ordered from
thee to be sent to Babylon? As thou hast not feared to do this, when thou
seest this tablet, cause the wool ordered from thee to be brought to
Babylon.’ ”
It will thus be seen that the early kings of Babylonia identified
themselves with the people of the country over which they ruled much more
than the sovereigns of Europe have for many hundreds of years been
accustomed to do. More than this—their families were accustomed to
intermarry with the people, as did Elmešu—“Diamond” or “Crystal,” daughter
of Ammi-ṭitana—
(“Tablet of) Elmešum, daughter of Ammi-ṭit[ana the king], whom Kizirtum,
daughter of Ammi-ṭitana the king, by the consent of Šumum-libšî, her
brother, Šamaš-lipir, son of Riš-Šamaš, and Taram-šullim (?), his wife,
have married to Ibku-Annunitum, their son, as (his) consort. Four shekels
of silver, the wedding-gift of Elmešu, daughter of Ammi-ṭitana, the king,
Šumum-libšî, son of Ammi-ṭitana, the king, and Kizirtum, his sister, have
received. If Ibku-Annunitum, son of Šamaš-lipir, say to Elmešum, his wife,
‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay (1)[½] (?) mana of silver. If Elmešum
say to Ibku-Annunitum, her husband, ‘Thou art not my husband,’ to....
Before Utul- ...; before ... -šemi, son of ... -um; before Ibni-Addu, son
of ... -um; before Šumma-lum- ..., (son of) Ili-bani; before Addu-šarrum,
son of Riš-Šamaš; before Baši-îlu (?), son of ... -mar; before Nabi-îlu
(?), (son of) ... -be (?); before ... -pi- ....
“Month Sebat, day 2nd, year Ammi-ṭitana the king built (?) Kar- ... (and)
the wall of....”
This is not only a curious document—it is also an interesting one, and
shows under what conditions a woman of royal blood and race could in
ancient Babylonia be wedded to a commoner. To all appearance the king
himself, Elmešu’s father, had nothing to do with the transaction—perhaps
he purposely held aloof—and this being the case, it is the bride’s brother
and sister who have charge of the ceremony and contract; and, with the
bridegroom’s father and mother, marry her as consort to Ibku-Annunitum.
The wording differs from that used in ordinary cases, and is more elegant
and select. A wedding-gift of four shekels of silver is hardly, perhaps,
what one would expect to be made to a royal bride, but perhaps it was the
customary amount in such cases. The penalty if the husband afterwards
divorced his wife was, as usual, a money-payment, but the amount is
doubtful, though it seems to be above the average. The penalty if Elmešu
forsook her husband is unfortunately wanting by the mutilation of the
document, but in ordinary cases it was generally death.
Naturally, the members of the king’s family were rich, and had a tendency
to “add field to field,” for their own advantage. Or they would, like
other people of means, hire land adjoining their own, in order to
cultivate them both together, as did Iltani, daughter of king Abēšu’—
“1/3 _gan_, a field in the good tract, beside the field of the king’s
daughter, its first end (_i.e._ front) the river (or canal) Pariktum, from
Melulatum, sun-devotee, daughter of Ibku-ša, owner of the field, Iltani,
the king’s daughter, has hired the field for cultivation, and for profit.
At harvest-time, (upon) every _gan_, she will pay six _gur_ of grain, the
due of the Sun-god, in Kar-Sippar.
“Before Edi- ..., (son of) ...-te (?); before Abil (?)- ... (son of) ...
-aqar; before Šumu-libšî, son of Pî-ša-Sin; before Addu-napišti-iddina,
the scribe.
“Month Nisan, day 2nd, year Abēšu’, the king (made ?) an image (?) of
(gold) and silver.”
Thirty years, or thereabouts later, Iltani (or a younger namesake,
daughter of Ammi-zaduga) is found providing the wherewithal for
agricultural operations—
“One _gur_ of grain, the property of the Sun-god, for the reaper, which
was from Iltani, sun-devotee, daughter of the king, Šeritum, son of
Ibni-Amurrū, has received. At harvest-time, (in) the month Adar, he will
come—(if) he come not, he shall be like a king’s thrall.
“Before Idin-Marduk, the officer, son of Idin-îli-šu; before Ina-lali-šu,
son of Ibni-Marduk.
“Month Adar, day 25th, year Ammi-zaduga the king (made ?) a weapon (?) of
gold.”
This contract is not quite clear without a little explanation. The grain
advanced was, to all appearance, from the storehouse of the temple of the
Sun-god at Sippara, and Iltani, as a sun-devotee, seems to have had it at
her disposal for the benefit of the temple. In any case, the amount came
from her, and was received by Šeritum, who seems to have been the reaper
referred to. He promises to come to do the work in Adar, that very month,
when the grain would have to be reaped, and the penalty for failing to
fulfil his contract was apparently slavery. Evidently the work was urgent.
It is needless to say, that interesting as these texts are, they are very
incomplete, and leave a great deal to the imagination, and still more
altogether unrecorded. Nevertheless, they are very valuable as far as they
go, and show us the royal family of Babylonia at the time working among
the people as members of the community. Each one, however, evidently
worked for his or her own interest, or for the interest of the religious
community to which he or she belonged, and not for the people at large. It
was only the king who worked for his people, and he did it, it is hardly
going too far to say, because it was his interest to do so. Most people,
however, acted for their own interest in those days, as now.
The People.
In all probability the Babylonians consisted of what may be called the
original Semites of that tract, with the Akkadians, also aboriginal, with
whom they lived and had already, at the time of the dynasty of Babylon,
mingled to such an extent that they must have become a homogeneous people,
notwithstanding the racial differences which were probably noticeable at
certain points—for example, a more strongly-marked Semitic type at Sippar
and in that neighbourhood, and a more strongly-marked Akkadian type in the
State to which Lagaš belonged. Other invasions, however, seem to have
taken place, the principal being that of the Amorites, to which allusion
has already been made—an invasion which the tablets of this period
indicate to have been sufficiently numerous, and which must have left its
mark on the population, to all appearance increasing the Semitic
preponderance, and emphasizing the type. The existence of an “Amorite
tract” in the district of Sippar, and the fact that Sin-idinnam,
Ḫammurabi’s general, is designated by the characters GAL-MAR-TU, in
Semitic Babylonian _Rab-Amurrî_, “chief of the Amorite(s),” are in
themselves sufficient testimony to this invasion. It is noteworthy, too,
that the dynasty to which Ḫammurabi belonged is apparently that described
by Berosus as “Arabic,” in which case we should have to recognize yet
another invasion of Semites; but there is just the probability, that
“Arabic” and “Amorite” were interchangeable terms, the Amorites being
regarded as a collection of wandering hordes of whom a portion entered the
country, and took possession of the government. In any case, they shared
the fate of all invaders of the kind referred to, for they were speedily
conquered by the superior civilization of the conquered, and became so
naturalized that notwithstanding their western names, they were called by
the Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon.” This Amorite element was to all
appearance a sufficiently large one, as the more easily recognizable names
show. Thus we have _Amurrū-bani_, _Karasumia_, _Asalia_, _Kuyatum_,
_Bizizana_, _Izi-idrê_, _Sumu-raḳ_, _Betani_, _Sar-ili (Israel)_,
_Awel-Addî_ (“man of Hadad,” described an Amorite,) with many others,
though the different nationalities cannot always be distinguished, as many
Amorites bore Babylonian names, and _vice versâ_.
Naturally other nationalities than the Babylonians, Akkadians, Šumerians,
and Amorites were represented in the country—Elamites from the invasions
of earlier centuries, Kassites and Sutites who came, in all probability,
to trade, Qutites or Gutians brought into the country as slaves, or
possibly living there as freemen—all these and others helped to increase
the confusion of tongues which existed in the land from remote ages, and
reminded people of the legend of the Tower of Babel, when “the Lord did
there confound the language of all the earth.”(25)
Documents of an earlier date than those now under our notice indicate that
Babylonian civilization goes back no less than three thousand years before
the period of the dynasty of Babylon, and this, in consideration of the
date calculated for the foundation of Niffer (another three thousand years
earlier), must be regarded as a moderate estimate. Babylonian civilization
was already, at the time now treated of, exceedingly ancient. The early
village settlement of primitive houses, clustered around an equally
primitively-constructed temple, had grown into a large city, with many
fanes therein. The scattered outlying smaller villages around this
primitive settlement had gradually been incorporated with it, and formed
its suburbs, each retaining its ancient name. Villages of more recent
foundation were scattered all over the land, and the whole country was
instinct with national life, due to the increase of importance which the
comparatively recent union of several small states in a single large and
therefore powerful kingdom had brought into existence.
Thus we find Babylonia at the period of the dynasty of Babylon. It could
even then look back into a past stretching back into a remote and dim
antiquity. Its laws, manners, customs, and religion were already old, and
were our knowledge of this interesting period complete, we should probably
find that there was much that was excellent in their laws, and interesting
and instructive in the administration of those laws, as well as in their
manners and customs with regard to legal matters in general.
Something of what the tablets of the period are able to inform us
concerning the sacred person of the king and the position of his family
has already been treated of, and we have now to turn to the next in the
social scale—the people of the middle class. To this class belonged the
priests, the leaders of the troops, the landowners, the employers of
labour, the scribes, the physicians, the land-hirers, and the small
farmers. In all probability artists and artisans also formed part of it,
though their position may have been sometimes as bad as that of many who
toiled in servitude, for the slaves seem, on the whole, to have been
exceedingly well treated.
With regard to the scribes at least, the head and beard were shaven, they
wore a simple garment like a toga thrown over the left shoulder, leaving
the right arm free, and in all probability had on their feet no shoes, but
sandals, though this point is doubtful.
A member of this upper class was polite in his address. When he wrote to a
friend, whether on business or otherwise, he said, “to so and so, whom
Merodach preserve,” and after saying who it was who was writing, added,
“may the Sun-god and Merodach grant thee to live for length of days—mayest
thou have peace, mayest thou have life, may the god thy protector preserve
thy head (_rêš-ka_) for happiness. I have sent to ask after thy
health,—may thy health before the Sun-god and Merodach be lasting.” Other
forms of address are found, generally shorter, but this may be taken as a
fair specimen of the general style, which, however, seems to have been
regulated by established usage, the form quoted here being that used in
addressing a personage named Epišu, and it is always the same, though the
letters, four or five in number, all come from different persons.
The following letter from a son to his father will show the general style
of these missives—
“Say to my father thus: ‘It is Elmešum.’(26)
“May Šamaš and Merodach cause my father to live enduring days. My father,
mayest thou have health and life. The god protecting my father preserve my
father’s happy head. I have sent (to ask) after my father’s health—may my
father’s health before Šamaš and Merodach be lasting.
“From (the time) Sin and Amurrū recorded thy name, my father, and I humbly
(?) answered, thou, my father, hast said thus: ‘As I am going to
Dûr-Ammi-zaduga on the river Sarqu, one sheep with five mana of silver (?)
I will cause to be brought for the young man (?).’ This, my father, thou
saidst—my ear, my father, I made to attend—and thou hast not caused (these
things) to be brought. And when thou, my father, sentest to the presence
of Taribu, the queen, I caused a tablet to be brought to the presence of
my father. My father, thou didst not (even) ask (concerning) the
information of my tablet, when I caused the tablet of my father to be
brought to the city, and he took it to my father for a shekel of silver.
Like thy brother, thou hast not caused (the things) to be brought. Like
Merodach (?) and Sin Amurrū who are gracious to my father, my ears are
attentive. My father, cause (the things) to be brought, and my heart will
not be downcast—Before Šamaš and Merodach for my father let me plead.”
Such is the way in which a son writes to his father, or to one who, from
his age, might have stood in that relationship. It is one of the less
difficult of a number of exceedingly difficult texts, and the translation
is therefore given with all reserve. As, however, the words and phrases
are for the most part fairly familiar, it is believed that the general
drift of the whole is correctly indicated. Although it is a letter in
which the writer seems to believe that he has just reason to find fault,
the respectful and apparently reverent tone of the whole is very
noteworthy.
In all probability the Babylonian household consisted of the man and his
wife, children if he had any, and as many servants or slaves as he could
afford. A second wife was taken if the man was rich enough to afford such
an addition, though he seems to have sometimes married again for economic
reasons, namely, the acquisition of a suitable attendant for his first
wife without having to pay her wages.
The following is an example of the ordinary wedding contract—
“Ana-Aa-uzni is daughter of Salimatum. As Salimatum has set her free, she
has given her in marriage to Bêl-šunu, son of Nemelum. Ana-Aa-uzni is a
virgin—no one has anything against Ana-Aa-uzni. They have invoked the
spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Šumu-la-îlu (the king). Whoever changes the
words of this tablet (shall pay the penalty).
“Before Libit-Ištar; before Bûr-nunu; before Amurrū-bani; before
Rammānu-rêmeni; before Nida-dum; before Šamaš-êmuki; before Imgurrum;
before Sin-ikišam; before Belizunu; before Aa-šiti; before Lamazi; before
Ḫunabia; before Betani; before Amat-Šamaš; before Nabritum; before
Šad-Aa.”
Sometimes, however, the wedding contract contains severe penalties in case
the newly-wedded wife should prove to be unfaithful, as in the following
text—
“Aḫḫu-ayabi is daughter of Innabatum. Innabatum, her mother, has given her
in marriage to Zukania. Should Zukania forsake her, he shall pay one mana
of silver. Should Aḫḫu-ayabi deny him, he may throw her down from the
tower. As long as Innabatum lives, Aḫḫu-ayabi shall support her, and
Innabatum afterwards (shall have nothing?) against Aḫḫu-ayabi, ... (They
have invoked the spirit of the Sun-god and Zabi)um (the king). Whoever
changes the words of (th)is (tablet) (shall pay the penalty”).
Here follow the names of sixteen witnesses—seven males and nine females,
one of the former being the priest of the devotees of the Sun-god.
When there were two wives, a marriage contract was given to each, and by a
fortunate chance, the British Museum possesses two documents connected in
this way, which have come together, though acquired at different
times.(27) The following is the document drawn up for the principal wife—
“Arad-Šamaš has taken in marriage Taram-Sagila and Iltani, daughter of
Sin-abu-šu. (If) Taram-Sagila and Iltani say to Arad-Šamaš, their husband,
‘Thou art not (our) husband,’ he may throw them down from the tower; and
(if) Arad-Šamaš say to Taram-Sagila or Iltani, his wives, ‘Thou art not my
wife,’ she shall depart from house and goods. And Iltani shall wash the
feet of Taram-Sagila, shall carry her seat to the house of her god; Iltani
shall put on Taram-Sagila’s ornaments, shall be well inclined towards her,
shall not destroy her (marriage) contract, shall grind (?) her meal (?),
and shall obey (?) her.”
Here follow the names of nine witnesses.
The marriage contract drawn up for Iltani, the second wife, is as follows—
“Iltani is sister of Taram-Sagila. Arad-Šamaš, son of Ili-ennam, has taken
them in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Iltani, her sister, shall
prepare her food, shall be well inclined towards her, (and) shall carry
her seat to the temple of Merodach. The children, as many as have been
born, and they shall bear, are their children. (If) Taram-Sagila say to
Iltani, her sister, ‘Thou art not my sister,’ (then) ... (If Iltani say to
Arad-Šamaš, her husband), ‘Thou (art not my husband),’ he may shave (her
head), and sell her for silver. And (if) Arad-Šamaš say to his wives,
‘(Ye) are not my wives,’ he shall pay one mana of silver. And they, (if)
they say to Arad-Šamaš, their husband, ‘Thou art not our husband,’ he may
strangle (?) them, and throw them into the river.”
This document is attested by eleven witnesses.
To all appearance there was a kind of adoption of Iltani as daughter of
Uttatum (she is called daughter of Sin-abu-šu in the first text), and
having thus been raised in position so as to be somewhat the equal of
Taram-Sagila in rank, she could become the second wife of Arad-Šamaš, to
live with and wait upon her adopted sister.
The household itself, however, seldom or never meets our gaze in these
texts, though we get glimpses of it from time to time. One of the best is
in all probability the following for the insight it gives—
“... He has made him his adopted son. The field, plantation, goods, and
furniture of his house, which Êtel-pî-Sin and Sin-nada, his wife,
possess—Êtel-pî-Sin and Sin-nada have five sons—to Bêl-êzzu, their son,
like a son, they will give. If Bêl-êzzu say to Êtel-pî-Sin, his father,
and Sin-nada, his mother, ‘Thou art not my father—thou art not my mother,’
they may sell him for silver. And if Êtel-pî-Sin, and Sin-nada, his wife,
say to Bêl-êzzu, their son, ‘Thou art not my son,’ field, plantation, and
goods, his share, he may take, and may carry away. He (apparently
Êtel-pî-Sin) has invoked the spirit of the king.”
“Before Lugal-gištug, the lord of the oracle; Lu-Dingira, the inspector(?)
of the deep(?); Îlu-dakullu, do.; Nidnat-Sin, do.; Ṣili-Ê-kišnugal, do.;
Mu-batuga, son of Azagga-Innanna; Zarriqu, son of Nannara-manšum; Aappâ,
son of Sin-êribam; Nûr-îli-šu, the ...; Êrib-Sin, the scribe; ... -Ningal,
the sword-bearer; ... -Sin, son of Zazia;”
“(The seal of) the contracting parties (has been impressed).”
(The remainder of the text, containing the date, is lost.)
The above tablet from Tel-Sifr gives a most complete statement of the
circumstances attending the adoption of a son (a very common thing during
this period in Babylonia), omitting only the reason for this step. It is
to be noted, however, that five of the witnesses belong, apparently, to
the priestly class, and this may, perhaps, have been the reason, their
influence being, at this time, to all appearance, very great, and the
necessity for appeasing them proportionately so.
The following is an example under different conditions, and presents other
points of interest—
“Arad-Išḫara is son of Ibni-Šamaš. Ibni-Šamaš has taken him as his son.
The day that Arad-Išḫara says to Ibni-Šamaš his father, ‘Thou art not my
father,’ he may put him into fetters and sell him for silver. And (if)
Ibni-Šamaš say to Arad-Išḫara, his son, ‘Thou art not my son,’ he shall
depart from the house and the goods. And he may have sons, and with his
sons he shall share.” (This last phrase is expressed clearer on the
envelope of the tablet as follows: “And Ibni-Šamaš may beget sons, and
Arad-Išḫara shall share like one.”)
The names of ten witnesses are attached to this document.
In this case the reason for the adoption of Arad-Išḫara probably was, that
Ibni-Šamaš had no sons, though there was a possibility that he would have
some later on.
The following refers to the adoption of a daughter, which was also a
common custom—
“Karanatum is daughter of Nûr-Sin, with his sons and his daughters. No one
has anything against Karanatum, daughter of Nûr-Sin. Damiqtum is sister of
Karanatum. He (Nûr-Sin) will give her to a husband.”
Here follow the names of five witnesses.
Though the inscription is short, it is sufficient to suggest that Nûr-Sin
adopted Karanatum for some special reason, though what that reason may
have been is uncertain. Probably it was in order that she should accompany
Damiqtum as second wife of a man who wished to marry two women, as in the
case of Iltani and Taram-Sagila.
Tablets referring to adoption are, however, very numerous, and do not
furnish much variety. Considerations of space also forbid any great
multiplication of examples, so that it is needful to pass to the next
stage, namely, the inscriptions referring to inheritance, which, though
containing less information, are not without interest.
On the death of the father of the family, his children to all appearance
met and divided his property as agreed upon, or in accordance with the
will of their father. Thus we have the record of the three brothers
Sin-ikišam, Ibni-Šamaš, and Urra-naṣir, who divided their inheritance
after the death of their father—
1.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house (and) domain, beside the house of Ibni-Šamaš, and
beside the house of the street, its exit (being) to the street, is the
share of Sin-ikišam, which he has shared with Ibni-Šamaš and Urra-naṣir.
From the word to the gold the division of the property is completed. They
shall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of
Šamaš, Aa, and Sin-mubaliṭ (the king).
“Before Liširammu; before Sin-puṭram, son of Êa-balaṭi (?); before
Sin-idinnam, son of Mannîa; before Arad-ili-šu, son of Nûr-Sin; before
Ša-Išḫara, son of Ilâ; before Sin-magir, son of Etelum; before
Arad-Amurri, before Sin-îlu, sons of Upîa; before Libur-nadi-šu, son of
Uštašni-ili; before ... ; before ... ; before ... . Year of the river
(canal) Tutu-ḫengal.”
2.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-place (and) domain, beside the house of Sin-ikišam, and
beside the house of Ištar-umma-ša, the second exit to the street, is the
share of Ibni-Šamaš, which he has shared with Sin-ikišam and Urra-naṣir.
From the word to the gold they have shared the (property). They shall not
make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa,
Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.
“Before Sin-puṭram; before Sin-idinnam; before Liširram; before
Arad-ili-šu; before Ša-Išḫara; before Sin-magir; before Arad-Amurri;
before Sin-îlu; before Libur-nadi-šu. Year of the river Tutu-ḫengal.”
3.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house and domain, beside the house of Ubarria, and
beside the house of Puṭur-Sin, the second exit to the street, is the share
of Urra-naṣir, which he has shared with Sin-ikišam and Ibni-Šamaš. From
the word to the gold the division is completed. They shall not make claim
against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and
Sin-mubaliṭ.
“Before Sin-puṭram; before Liširram; before Sin-magir; before Sin-idinnam;
before Arad-ili-šu; before Ša-Išḫara; before Arad-Amurri; before Sin-îlu;
before Libur-nadi-šu. Year of the river Tutu-ḫengal.”
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
That the first tablet translated above was that first written is proved by
the fact that the fathers’ names of several of the witnesses are given,
and by the blank spaces with the word “before,” showing that the scribe
did not know exactly how many witnesses there would be. In the other two
documents he had the right number, and did not therefore write the word in
question too many times. In all probability the three brothers are
mentioned in the first document in the order of their age, and it is
naturally the title-deed of the eldest which is written first. All three
documents are attested by the same witnesses.
The following tablet in the possession of Sir Cuthbert Peek, Bart., shows
a division of property consisting of goods and chattels, as well as land—
“3 GAN, a field by the territory of Kudma-bani, with 1 GAN, a field which
(was) the share of Aḫḫati-šunu, (situated) beside the field of Amat-Samaš,
daughter of Libit-Ištar, and beside the field of Bêl-šunu, its first end
(being) the river Euphrates, (and) its second end the common. 2/3 of a ŠAR
(and) 5 ZU (of ground by) the temple of Sippara, 1-½ ŠAR (by) the temple
of Kudma-bani, 1 ox, 1 young bull, 1 _’ikuše_ stone—all this is the share
of Kubbutu, which, along with Ibku-Annunitum, Bêl-šunu, Bêl-bani,
Il-šu-bani, Rêmum, and Marduk-naṣir, they have divided. The division is
complete. They are satisfied. From the word to the gold they shall not at
any future time bring claims against each other. They have invoked the
spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Samsu-iluna the king.
“Before Dadu-ša, son of Aḫum; before Ṭaridum, the scribe; before
Sin-idinnam, son of Ibku-Šala; before Anatum, son of Sin-âbu-šu; before
Šamaš-naṣir-âbli.
“Month Iyyar, day 18th, second year after the completion (?) of the temple
of Bêl.”
Where the division of the property and the drawing up of the tablets took
place is uncertain, there being in the documents translated above no
indication. In the case of the three brothers Urra-kaminiši, Riš-Urra, and
Buria, the declaration of the division of the property which they
inherited, and possibly the drawing up of their respective tablets as
well, took place in the Beth-el (_bêt îli_) of the city, where legal
matters were often transacted. Whether this Beth-el was the temple of the
Sun and the Moon, where solemn contracts were also made, is uncertain, but
not improbable.
It is noteworthy that there is sometimes a statement indicating that the
inheritors chose their lots—
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house beside the house of Belaqu, and beside
Awel-Nannara, is the share of Erištum, the sodomite, daughter of
Ribam-îli, which she has shared with Amat-Šamaš, the priestess of the sun,
her sister. The division is complete. From the word to the gold they shall
not bring claim against each other. Choice of Amat-Šamaš, her sister. (The
envelope has: Her choice—the place (which seems) good unto her she will
give.) (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, Sin-mubaliṭ (the
king), and the city of Sippar.”
Here follow the names of eighteen witnesses, all of them, apparently, men.
Another tablet, referring to the sharing of property, shows how brothers
sometimes cared for their sister, all the property (at least in this case)
being in their hands—
“Tablet (referring to) 1 GAN, a field in the _karê_, beside (the field of)
Aḫi-daani (?) and Enkim-îlu, Kiš-nunu, Imgurrum, and Ilu-abi, her
brothers, have given to Ḫudultum, daughter of Inib-nunu, as her share.
“Before Mašpirum (var. Mašparum), son of Ušlu-rum; before Bûr-ya, son of
Munawirum; before Ḫayâbum, (before) Kiranum (?), sons of Sin-ennam; before
Sin-naṣir.
“Year Sumulel the king built the wall of Sippar.”
Thus, in varying ways, did the ancient Babylonians live and wed, adopt
children and inherit. Other incidents were there in their lives also, as
when a man divorced his wife—an unpleasant experience for them both, in
all probability—though often enough this must have taken place to the
great joy of one or the other, or possibly of both, for it must have been
a much less solemn thing with them than with us—the marriage tie. It is
gratifying to know that documents referring to divorce are comparatively
rare, though they are to be met with sometimes, as the following text
shows—
“Šamaš-rabi has divorced Naramtum his wife. She has taken away her
property (?) and received her portion (as a woman divorced). (If) Naramtum
wed another, Šamaš-rabi shall not bring action against her. They have
invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.”
(Here follow the names of ten witnesses.)
“Year of Šamaš and Rimmon.”
Sometimes the even tenor of early Babylonian life was interrupted by a
lawsuit on the part of a relative (often one who ought to have known
better), and, though less of a family convulsion than a divorce, it must
have been sufficiently annoying, especially when the plaintiff was one’s
own father. The following gives details of such a case—
“(Tablet concerning) one slave, her maid, whom Ayatia, her mother, left to
Ḫulaltum, her daughter, and Ḫulaltum (on that account) supported Ayatia,
her mother. And Sin-naṣir (was) husband of Ayatia. Ayatia left to her
(Ḫulaltum), in the 20th year, that which was in the city Buzu, but there
was no tablet (?) (documentary evidence) concerning Ayatia’s property.
After Ayatia died, Sin-naṣir brought an action against Ḫulaltum on account
of the maidservant, and Išarlim, scribe of the city of Sippar and the
court (?) of Sippar, caused them to receive judgment. He declared him
(Sin-naṣir) to be in the wrong. He is not again to bring action in the
matter. (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi.
Judgment of Išarlim; Awat-Šamaš, the merchant; Itti-Bêl-kinni; Bûr-Sin;
Gimil-bani. Month Adar, year of the canal Tišida-Ellilla.”
Many documents of this kind exist, though people did not generally bring
actions against their own (step-) daughters, as Sin-naṣir is recorded as
having done. The ancient Babylonians were at all times, however, very keen
in standing up for their own rights, and went to law on the slightest
provocation. The following records a claim upon some property, and its
issue, which was as unsuccessful as that translated above—
“Sin-êribam, son of Upê-rabi, laid claim to the house of Šumu-râḫ, which
is beside the house of Nidnu-ša and beside the house (temple) of Allat;
and they went before the judges, and the judges pronounced judgment. And
as for Sin-êribam, they declared him to be in the wrong, and made him
deliver a document which could not be proceeded against. He shall not
bring action, and Sin-êribam shall not again lay claim to the house of
Šumu-râḫ.
“They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Zabium (the king), and the city of
Sippar.”
It is noteworthy that the name of the first of the twelve witnesses
attached to the document is Ya’kub-ilu, or Jacob-el, which is supposed to
be connected with the name of the patriarch Jacob.
As in these days, many a man in those ancient times, for the better
conducting of his business, would enter into partnership. As usual, all
would go well for a time, but at last, in consequence of disagreements or
disputes or some unpleasantness, they would decide to part. Several texts
of this class exist, of which the following is a typical example—
“Ṣili-Ištar and Iribam-Sin made partnership, and, to dissolve it, they had
a judge, and they went down to the temple of Šamaš, and in the temple of
Šamaš the judge caused them to receive judgment. They give back their
capital, and receive back their shares, 1 male-slave Luštamar-Šamaš, with
a chain (?), and 1 female-slave Lišlimam, the share of Iribam-Sin; 1
male-slave Ibšina-ilu, and 1 female-slave Am-anna-lamazi, the share of
Ṣili-Ištar, they have received as their shares. In the temple of the
Sun-god and the Moon-god they declared that they would treat each other
well. One shall not bring action against the other, nor act hostilely
towards him. There is no cause for action on the part of the one against
the other. They have invoked the spirit of Nannara, Šamaš, Merodach,
Lugal-ki-ušuna, and Ḫammurabi the king.
“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of
Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Ipuš-Êa, the
_du-gab_; before Šamašmubaliṭ, the priest of Gula; before Nabi-Sin, son of
Idin-Sin; before Sin-uzeli, son of Ṣili-Ištar; before Ubar-Sin, son of
Sin-šemi; before Sin-gimlanni, the attendant of the judges.
“He has impressed the seal of the contracting parties.
“Month Adar, year Ḫammurabi the king made (images of) Ištar and
Nanaa.”(28)
Iribam-Sin, however, seems not to have been satisfied that he had been
fairly dealt with, for notwithstanding that they were not to act hostilely
towards each other, he immediately brought an action to get possession of
property belonging to Ṣili-Ištar and his brothers, the result of which was
the following declaration on the part of the latter—
“Concerning 1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house, and 2 ŠAR, a large enclosure, which
Ṣili-Išstar and Awel-ili, his brother, sons of Ili-sukkalu, bought from
Sin-mubaliṭ and his brothers, sons of Pirḫum. In the temple of the Sun-god
Ṣili-Ištar said thus: ‘I verily bought (it) with the money of my mother—it
was not bought with the money that was ours in common. Iribam-Sin, son of
Ubar-Sin, has no share in the house and large enclosure.’(29) He has
invoked the spirit of the king.
“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of
Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Sin-uzelli, son of
Nûr-îli; before Ipuš-Êa, the _du-gab_; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin;
before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-šemi, his father; before Šamaš-mubaliṭ, the
priest of Gula; before Singimlanni, the attendant of the judges. They have
impressed the seal of the parties.
“Month Adar, year of the (images of) Ištar and Nanaa.”
The day of the month is not given, so that we are in doubt as to whether
the second tablet preceded the first or followed it. In all probability
the latter was the case, or else the two actions were simultaneous, and
the fact that the witnesses and officials of the court are the same in
both documents speaks in favour of this.
In Babylonia, as in all the ancient East, there was the great blot upon
their civilization which has not even at the present time, the dawn of the
twentieth century, disappeared from the earth, namely, that of slavery.
Throughout the long ages over which Babylonian domestic literature
extends, the student finds this to be always present, and one of the most
striking examples is contained in the following document, which exhibits
the blot with all its possible horrors—
“(Tablet of) Šamaš-nûri, daughter of Ibi-Šân. Bunini-âbi and Bêlisunu have
bought her from Ibi-Šân, her father—for Bunini-âbi a wife—for Bêlisunu a
servant. The day Šamaš-nûri says to Bêlisunu, her mistress, ‘Thou art not
my mistress,’ they shall shave off her hair, and sell her for silver. As
the complete price he has paid five shekels of silver. He has taken the
key.(30) The affair is concluded. He is content. (At no future time) shall
one bring a claim against the other. They have invoked the spirit of
Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Ḫammurabi.”
(Here follow the names of seven witnesses.)
“Month Iyyar, day 3rd, year of the throne of Zērpanitum” (the 12th year of
Ḫammurabi or Amraphel).
That a father should part with his daughter for money in order that that
daughter should become the wife of a man already married, agreeing at the
same time that the young woman should become the slave of the first wife,
would seem to the ordinary Western mind at the present day most barbarous.
That it was not the lowest depth, however, is implied by the condition
attached to the contract, and containing a kind of penalty, namely, that
if the new wife denied that the first wife was her mistress, she might be
sold as a slave. In what her position differed from that of a thrall,
however, does not appear.
Naturally the case of Hagar, the slave of Sarah, Abraham’s wife, will at
once occur to the reader, though the two differ somewhat. Nevertheless, it
is not improbable that the well-known Bible-story explains that of the
tablet, in giving a reason for the purchase of Šamaš-nûri—namely, in order
to give the purchaser, Bunini-âbi, a chance of having offspring, which, in
all probability, his first wife Bêlisunu had not brought him. It is
difficult to imagine that she would consent to the introduction of a rival
for any other reason. Of course, the new wife may have been well treated,
but a transaction of the kind here recorded naturally gave an opening to
all possible abuses. Another case of the taking of a second wife, with the
proviso that she is to be the servant of the first, is that of Iltani (see
pp. 174-175), who, however, was not a slave, and had a regular
marriage-deed. Moreover, she is described as the sister (_âḫat_), not the
slave (_âmat_) of the first wife.
On the same plate of the British Museum publication from which the
foregoing is taken, there is a more ordinary document referring to
slavery, and in this case it is to all appearance the sale of a real
slave-woman and her child—
“1 slave-woman, Bêlti-magirat by name, and her child, handmaid of
Šarrum-Addu and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, Nabium-malik, son of Addu-naṣir, has
bought from Šarrum-Addu, son of Addu-naṣir, and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, his wife.
As the complete price he has paid 18-½ shekels of silver. At no future
time shall they make claim against each other. They have invoked the
spirit of Marduk and Ḫammurabi.”
(Here follow the names of eight witnesses, including two brothers of the
contracting parties.)
“Month Tebet, day 21st, year Ḫammurabi the king destroyed, by command of
Anu and Bêl, the fortification of Mair, and Malgia.”
Tablets referring to the sale and purchase of slaves are numerous, and do
not present much variety, being nearly all written in accordance with the
usual legal forms. In the _hiring_ of slaves, however, there is a little
more dissimilarity—
“Awel-Addi, son of Sililum, has hired Arad-îli-remeanni from Erišti-Šamaš,
sun-devotee, daughter of Sin-bêl-âbli, for a year. The hire for a year, 5
shekels of silver, he will pay. A first instalment of the sum, 2 shekels
of silver, she has received. He will be clothed by his hirer.
“He entered (upon his duties) on the 16th of Elul.
“Before Šamaš, Aa; before Taribatum; before Nûr-Marduk; before Laḫutum.
“Year Samsu-iluna (made) a throne of gold (shining like the stars, for
Nin-gala”).
The following is a similar text with additional clauses—
“Asir-Addu, son of Libit-Urra, has hired Šamaš-bêl-ili from Aḫatani,
sun-devotee, daughter of Šamaš-ḫazir, for his first year. As hire for his
first year, he shall pay 3-½ shekels of silver. He shall clothe himself.
He entered (on his duties) on the 4th of the month Dûr-Addi, in the month
Mamitu he will complete (his term), and may leave.
“Before Asirum, son of Ea-rabi; before Nin-gira-âbi, son of Eribam; before
Arad-Sin, son of Sin-idinnam.
“The year of Samsu-iluna, the king.”
(The accession-year of Amraphel’s successor.)
In the following the slave is hired for produce—
“Riš-Šamaš, son of Marduk-naṣir, has hired Nawir-nûr-šu from Šubtum for a
year. He will pay 20 _qa_ of oil as his hire for the year. He will clothe
him. He entered in the month Elul, in the month Tirinu he may go forth.
“Before Rišutum; before Êrišti-Aa.
“Year the great fortification....”
When a man had no master—was his own master, in fact—he was hired “from
himself”—
“Idin-Ittum has hired for wages Naram-ili-šu from himself, for six months.
He will receive 2 shekels of silver as wages for the six months.
“Before Êtel-pî-Uraš, before Sin-îlu, before Aḫum, the scribe.
“Month Nisan, day 20th, year the throne ... was....”
Servants were not only hired from their masters and themselves, but also
from their fathers, mothers, brothers, and whoever else might have charge
of them. There are also lists of workmen hired for various purposes in
batches. Those who went about doing reaping seem to have been of various
nationalities, and interesting names are on that account found in the
lists from time to time.
In all probability the towns at that early period resembled closely those
of the Semitic East at the present day, the streets being as a rule narrow
(from the necessity of obtaining protection from the excessive heat of the
sun during the hot season) and exceedingly dirty. This is shown by the
excavations at Niffer, where, at the earliest period, when the street in
question was constructed, the houses were entered by going up a few steps.
Later on, in consequence of the accumulations, the footpath became level
with the floor of the house, and, at a later period still, a little
staircase had to be built leading down into the building. As may easily be
imagined, the conditions in which the ancient Babylonians lived were in
the highest degree insanitary, and such as would probably not be tolerated
for a day in Europe at the present time.
Judging from the remains of private houses which have been found, these
buildings were not by any means large. In fact, they must have contained
only a few small rooms. Where, however, there was space—as, for example,
when the house was built in the middle of a field—the rooms were probably
moderately large, and more numerous. They were of either unburnt or burnt
brick, and the roofs were supported by beams. The floors seem to have been
generally the bare earth.
Many lists of the furniture of these dwelling-places are extant, and allow
us to estimate to a certain extent the amount of comfort which their
inhabitants enjoyed. They reclined upon couches, and sometimes—perhaps
often—it happened that the owner of the house possessed several of these
articles of furniture. Apparently, too, it was their custom to sit upon
chairs, and not upon the ground, as they do in the East at the present
day, and have done for many centuries. Various vessels, of wood,
earthenware, and copper, were also to be found there, together with
measures of different kinds,(31) implements needed in the trade of the
owner, and certain objects of stone. In some cases things of precious
stone are referred to, a circumstance which points to a considerable
amount of prosperity on the part of the owner of the house and its
contents.
As will be seen farther on, when Babylonian life of a later period comes
to be treated of, the leasehold system, with all its disadvantages, was in
full force, and there is just the possibility that it was already in use
during the time of the dynasty of Babylon. Even at this early date the
question of party walls was an important one, as the tablet of
Šamaš-în-mâtim and Êrišti-Aa, daughter of Zililum, shows. They were to set
up the dividing wall (_gušuru_, apparently palings) _aḫum mala aḫim_, lit.
“brother as much as brother,” _i.e._ one as much as the other. They
managed things differently in ancient Babylonia, and if this was the usual
arrangement, it must have given rise to endless disputes.
It is probable that, before the time of Ḫammurabi, the ancient Babylonians
had no code of laws in the true sense of the term. All the legal decisions
known seem to have been decided on their merits by the judges who tried
the cases, and in such actions in which the judges could not come to a
decision, the matter seems to have been referred to the king, whose word
was, to all appearance, final. Naturally an enormous responsibility rested
on the judges on account of this, but they were not entirely without help
in the matter of deciding difficult and unusual questions. Lists of
precedents were kept, and to these, in all probability, they constantly
referred—indeed, the tablets of legal precedents were held in such high
esteem, that copies of them were kept in the libraries of Assyria, and in
Babylonia also, in all probability, until long after the destruction of
the Assyrian power, notwithstanding that legal use and wont had by that
time somewhat changed. One or two examples of these legal precedents may
here be quoted to show their nature:—
“If a son say to his father, ‘Thou art not my father,’ they may shave him,
put him in fetters, and sell him for silver.
“If a son say to his mother, ‘Thou art not my mother,’ they may shave off
his hair, lead him round the city, and drive him forth from the house.
“If a wife hate her husband, and say to him, ‘Thou art not my husband,’
they may throw her into the river.
“If a husband say to his wife, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay her
half a mana of silver.
“If a man hire a slave, and he dies, is lost, runs away, gets locked up,
or falls ill, he shall pay as his hire every day half a measure of grain.”
Thus did the ancient Babylonians punish those who offended against their
laws, and protect property (for the slave-hirer was undoubtedly saddled
with a heavy responsibility). Was it that the death of a hired slave was
regarded as testifying to the severity of his temporary hirer? In all
probability it was so, and in that case, one cannot help regarding the law
as a wise one. To all appearance, also, illness was attributed to his
employer’s cruelty. As to his running away, or falling into the hands of
the police, these things would prove that his employer was not watchful
enough with regard to him. A modern European lawyer would most likely not
regard this particular law as being very exactly worded (there is no limit
of time during which the slave’s wages were payable, and one can only
_guess_ that the term of his service with his hirer was understood), but
there seems to be no doubt as to its intention—to safeguard the slave, and
his owner at the same time, by making his hirer responsible for every
mishap and accident which might happen to him whilst he was with his
temporary master.
CHAPTER VI. ABRAHAM.
A short account of this period, with the story of Chedorlaomer,
Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal.
Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his
nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees, and afterwards Terah took Abram his son,
Lot, his grandson, and Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth
from Ur of the Chaldees to go to Canaan. Arriving at Haran, they dwelt
there until Terah died at an exceedingly advanced age.
There have been many discussions as to the position of Ur of the Chaldees.
Some, on account of the distance from Canaan, apparently, have contended
that Ur of the Chaldees is the same as the site known for many hundreds of
years as Urfa, in Mesopotamia—the district in which the proto-martyr, St.
Stephen (Acts vii. 2, 41), places it. Mesopotamia, however, is an
appellation of wide extent, and altogether insufficiently precise to
enable the exact locality to be determined. To all appearance, though,
Urfa or Orfa, called by the Greeks Edessa, was known as Orrha at the time
of Isidore of Charax (date about 150 B.C.). Pocock, in his Description of
the East, states that it is the universal opinion of the Jews that Orfa or
Edessa was the ancient Ur of the Chaldees, and this is supported by local
tradition, the chief place of worship there being called “the Mosque of
Abraham,” and the pond in which the sacred fish are kept being called
_Bahr Ibrahím el-Halíl_, “the Lake of Abraham the Beloved.” The tradition
in the Talmud and in certain early Arabian writers, that Ur of the
Chaldees is Warka, the Ὀρχόη of the Greeks, and Ὀρέχ of the Septuagint,
need not detain us, as this site is certainly the Erech of Gen. x. 10, and
is excluded by that circumstance.
Two other possibilities remain, the one generally accepted by
Assyriologists, the other tentatively put forward by myself some years
ago. The former has a series of most interesting traditions to support it,
the latter simply a slightly greater probability. The reader may adopt
that which seems to him best to suit the circumstances of the case.
The identification generally accepted is, that Ur of the Chaldees is the
series of mounds now called Mugheir, or, more in accordance with correct
pronunciation, Muqayyar, “the pitchy,” from the noun _qír_, “pitch,” that
material having been largely used in the construction of the buildings
whose ruins occupy the site. The identification of these ruins with those
of Ur-kasdim or Ur of the Chaldees was first proposed by Sir Henry
Rawlinson in 1855, on the ground that the name of the city on the bricks
found there, which he read Hur, resembled that of the name as given in
Gen. xi. 28 and 31. As a matter of fact, the Semitic Babylonian form of
the name approaches even nearer than the celebrated Assyriologist then
thought, for it is given in the bilingual texts as _Uru_. The Akkadian
form (which is most probably the more ancient of the two), on the other
hand, is not so satisfactory, as it contains an additional syllable, the
full form being _Uriwa_ (the vowel before the _w_ only is a little
doubtful). This, with the absence of any addition corresponding to the
Hebrew _Kasdim_, is the principal flaw in what would otherwise be a
perfect philological comparison.
Ur or Uriwa, the modern Mugheir, is situated about 140 miles S.E. of
Babylon, and about 560 miles S.E. of Ḫaran. In ancient days it was a place
of considerable importance, and the site of a celebrated temple-tower
called Ê-šu-gan-dudu, probably the Ê-giš-nu-gala(32) of other texts, the
shrine of the god Nannara, also called Sin, the Moon-god, whose worship
had gained considerable renown.
“Father Nannar, lord of Ur, prince of the gods, in heaven and
earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, lord of Ê-giš-nu-gala, prince of the gods, in
heaven and earth he alone is supreme:
Father Nannar, lord, bright-shining diadem, prince of the gods, in
heaven and earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, whose dominion is greatly perfect, prince of the
gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme;
Father Nannar, who in a princely garment is resplendent, prince of
the gods, in heaven and earth he alone is supreme,” etc.
The above is the beginning of a long hymn written in the Sumerian dialect,
in which an ancient Babylonian poet praises him, and in many another
composition is his glory sung, and in adversity his name invoked—
“The temple of the Life of Heaven is destroyed—who, in the day of
its glory, has cut off its glory?
The everlasting temple, the building of Uriwa,
The everlasting temple, the building of Ê-kiš-nu-gala.
The city Uriwa is a house of darkness in the land—
Ê-kiš-nu-gala (and) Nannara.”
“Let heaven rest with earth, heaven enclosed with earth.
Father Nannar, lord of Uriwa,
To the great lady, the lady of Ê-kiš-nu-gala, give thou rest.
To heaven with earth, heaven and earth, (give thou rest).
To the heaven of Uraš, at _še-gu-nu_,
The god Enki, the goddess Ninki, the god Endu, the goddess Nindu,
The god En-da-u-ma, the goddess Nin-da-u-ma,
The god En-du-azaga, the goddess Nin-du-azaga,
The god En-u-tila, the god En-me-šarra,
The princess of the Life of Heaven, the lady of the mountain.”
“... he will restore the site of Ê-kiš-nu-gala.”(33)
Thus does the poet of ancient days, in a composition in the non-Semitic
idiom of his time, lament the misfortunes which had come over the temple
and city—how, whether by was by famine, or by some other mischance, we
know not. It serves to show, however, not only the poetical spirit which
animated the Akkadians at the time, but also the high esteem in which the
temple and the deities venerated therein were held, and the power
attributed to the Moon-god in the centre of his worship. The fact that Ur
(Mugheir) was an important place for the worship of the Moon-god has been
not seldom quoted in support of the identity of this city with Ur of the
Chaldees, because Haran, the city to which Abram migrated with his father
Terah, was also a centre of the worship of Sin. This, in itself, is not at
all improbable, the Jewish tradition being, that Terah was an
idolater.(34) That Terah should go 560 miles simply for this reason, when
he might have found a suitable settlement nearer, seems to be in the
highest degree unlikely, minor shrines of the Moon-god being, in all
probability, far from rare in Babylonia.(35) He simply sojourned there
because, in his journeyings, it suited him to stay there. If he were a
devotee of the Moon-god, he was in all probability the more pleased to
take up his abode there. But he may not have worshipped that divinity at
all, or if he did do so, may not have honoured him more than the Sun-god,
Anu, the god of the heavens, or the goddess Ištar.
Many legends concerning Abram—legends of sufficiently high
antiquity—exist, but how far they are trustworthy must always be a matter
of opinion. In any case, the writers had the advantage—if advantage it
was—of living 2000 years nearer to Abraham’s time than we have. Thus
Eupolemus (as has already been pointed out on p. 146) states, that in the
tenth generation, in the city of Babylonia called Camarina (which by some
is called Urie, and which signifies a city of the Chaldeans), there lived,
the thirteenth in descent, Abraham, a man of a noble race, and superior to
all others in wisdom. They relate of him that he was the inventor of
astrology and Chaldean magic, and that on account of his eminent piety he
was esteemed by God. It is said, moreover, that under the direction of God
he departed and lived in Phœnicia, and there taught the Phœnicians the
motions of the sun and moon, and all other things, and was on that account
held in great reverence by their king.
All this, naturally, points to Babylonia and the city of Uru or Uriwa as
the original dwelling-place of Abram, Camarina being connected with the
Arabic _qamar_, “the moon,” which, as we have seen, was the deity
worshipped there. It is noteworthy that the transcription of the
Babylonian name of the city, Urie, contains traces of the Akkadian
termination _-iwa_ (_Uriwa_) which is absent in the Hebrew form Ur. This
is important, as it shows that at a comparatively late date (Eupolemus
lived just before the Christian era), the ending in question made itself
felt in the transcription of the word, and that the form in Genesis, Ur,
does not quite agree, as traces of that termination (two syllables in the
Akkadian form) are altogether wanting in it. There can be no doubt,
therefore, that the theory that Abram lived and passed his earlier years
at the Ur which is now represented by the ruins of Mugheir, originated
with the Jews during their captivity at Babylon and in the cities of
Babylonia. Eupolemus, as a student of Jewish history, would naturally get
his information from a Jewish source, and the Jews had, in common with
most of the nations of the earth, a tendency to attribute to their own
forefathers, whom they venerated so highly, the glory of being connected
with any renowned city or great discovery of earlier ages. Thus it arises
that Eupolemus, following his Jewish informant, makes Abraham to be the
inventor of astrology and Chaldean magic; and to have dwelt at Ur. It must
have been the Jewish captives exiled in Babylonia who first identified Ur
with the renowned city Uru or Uriwa, quite forgetting that the form of the
name could not have been Ur in Hebrew, and that there was another Ur, much
more suitable as the dwelling-place of a nomad family like that of Terah
and his sons, namely, the country of Akkad itself, called, in the
non-Semitic idiom, Uri or Ura, a tract which included the whole of
northern Babylonia.
In whatever part of Babylonia, however, the patriarch may have sojourned,
of one thing there is no doubt, and that is, that if he dwelt there, the
life which he saw around him, and in which he must have taken part, was
that depicted by the tablets translated in the foregoing chapter. He saw
the idolatry of the people, and the ceremonies and infamies which
accompanied it; he saw the Babylonians as they were in his day, with all
their faults, and all their virtues—their industry, their love of trade,
their readiness to engage in litigation, and all the other interesting
characteristics which distinguished them. He must have been acquainted
with their legends of the Creation, the Flood, and all their gods and
heroes, and the poetry for which the Hebrew race has always been renowned
must have had its origin in the land of Nimrod, whence Abraham of old went
forth free, and his descendants, a millennium and a half later, returned
as captives.
How it came about (if it be really true) that Terah was an idolater,
whilst his son Abram was a monotheist, will probably never be known. It is
only reasonable to suppose, however, that among a people so intelligent as
the Babylonians, there were at least some who, thinking over the nature of
the world in which they lived and the destiny of mankind, saw that the
different gods whom the people worshipped could not all be governors of
the universe, but, if they existed at all, must be only manifestations of
the Deity who held the supreme power. Indeed, it was, to all appearance,
this doctrine which really prevailed, as is shown by the text translated
on p. 58. Whether taught generally to the learned class (the scribes) or
not, is not known, but it must have been very commonly known to those who
could read, otherwise it is hardly likely that such a tablet would have
been drawn up and written out again at a later date (the text we possess
being but a copy of a lost original). As the divinity with whom the others
are identified is Merodach, it is most likely that this special doctrine
of the unity of the Deity became general some time after the commencement
of the Dynasty of Babylon (that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged),
when the city of Babylon became the capital of the country. Abram’s
monotheism would, therefore, naturally fit in with the new doctrine which
apparently became the general belief of the learned class at this
time.(36)
Concerning the journey of Abraham, there is naturally nothing to be said,
the Bible narrative merely stating that Terah and his family migrated to
Haran. The only thing worth noting is, that the distance they had to
travel was sufficiently great—about 560 miles from Uriwa (Mugheir), and
about 420 miles from Babylon, from the neighbourhood of which the family
must have started if the Ur mentioned in Genesis be the Uri or Ura of the
inscriptions, which was equivalent to the land of Akkad. The whole of this
district was, in all probability, at this time, as later, under Babylonian
rule, a state of things which must have contributed in some measure to the
safe transit of the household to Haran, and also that of Abraham later on
to Canaan, which, as we know from the inscriptions(37) and from Gen. xiv.,
acknowledged Babylonian overlordship.
With regard to Haran, it is very probable that this ancient city was, by
turns, under the rule either of Babylonia or Assyria until the absorption
of the former power into the great Persian Empire, when Haran likewise, in
all probability, shared the same fate. Concerning the early history of the
city very little is known, but it is not improbable that it was an ancient
Babylonian foundation, the name being apparently the Babylonian word
_ḫarranu_, meaning “road.” The name given to this “road-city” is explained
as originating in the fact, that it lay at the junction of several
trade-routes—an explanation which is very probable.
The city itself was, at the time of its greatest prosperity, a
considerable place, as the remains now existing show. There are the ruins
of a castle, with square columns 8 feet thick, supporting a roof of 30
feet high, together with some comparatively modern ruins. The ancient
walls, though in a very dilapidated state, are said to be continuous
throughout. No houses remain, but there are several ruins, one of great
interest, and considerable extent, which Ainsworth considered to be a
temple. A rudely sculptured lion, found outside the walls, is regarded as
giving evidence of Assyrian occupation, which, however, is otherwise known
to have been an historical fact.
In Abraham’s time the place had, in all probability, not attained its
fullest development, and must have been a small city. The plain in which
it is situated is described as very fertile, but not cultivated to its
fullest extent, on account of half the land remaining fallow because not
manured. This, at least, was the state of the tract 72 years ago, but it
is very probable that, in the “changeless East,” the same description
applies at the present day. That it was of old, as now, a fertile spot,
may be gathered from the fact that the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I.
speaks of having taken or killed elephants in that district—
_Ešrit pirê buḫali dannūti_ Ten powerful bull-elephants
_ina mât Ḫarrāni u šidi nâr_ in the land of Haran and on
_Ḫabur_ the banks of the Ḫabour
_lu-adûk; irbit pirê balṭūti_ I killed; four elephants alive
_lu-uṣabita. Maškani-šunu_ I took. Their skins,
_šinni-šunu itti pirê_ their teeth, with the living
_balṭūti, ana âli-ia Aššur elephants, I brought to my
ubla._ city Asshur.
If there were elephants in “the land of Haran” 1100 years before Christ,
it is very probable that they were to be found in the neighbourhood a
thousand years earlier, but notwithstanding any disadvantage which may
have been felt from the presence of these enormous beasts, it was in all
probability a sufficiently safe district for one possessing flocks and
herds. There is no reason to suppose that the presence of elephants around
Haran in any way influenced the patriarch to leave the place, for these
animals were to be found (according to an inscription supposed to have
been written for the same Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser I.) in Lebanon,
and therefore in the country where Abraham settled after quitting Haran.
As has already been noted, this was the centre of the worship of the
Moon-god Sin or Nannaru,(38) and Terah and his family, in settling in this
place, doubtless saw the same ceremonies in connection with the worship of
this deity as they had been accustomed to see in Babylonia, slightly
modified; and this would be the case whether Terah’s family came from
Uriwa or not, the Moon-god being worshipped in more cities than one in
Babylonia. Something of the importance of the shrine of Nannaru at Haran
may be gathered from the fact, that the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (to all
appearance) was crowned there. As the text recording this is very
interesting, and reveals something of the beliefs of the Assyrians and the
natives of Haran, I quote here the passage referring to the ceremony,
restoring the wording where defective. The writer is apparently addressing
Aššur-banî-âpli, “the great and noble Asnapper”—
“When the father of the king my lord went to Egypt, he was crowned (?) in
the _qanni_ of Haran, the temple (lit. ‘Bethel’) of cedar. The god Sin
remained over the (sacred) standard, two crowns upon his head, (and) the
god Nusku stood before him. The father of the king my lord entered, (and)
he(39) placed (the crown?) upon his head, (saying) thus: ‘Thou shalt go
and capture the lands in the midst.’ (He we)nt, he captured the land of
Egypt. The rest of the lands not submitting (?) to Aššur and Sin, the
king, the lord of kings, shall capture (them”).
[Here follow an invocation of the gods, and wishes for a long life for the
king, the stability (?) of his throne, etc.]
In addition to the god Sin, the above extract refers to the deity known as
Nusku, as being venerated there. That this was the case, is confirmed by
several inscriptions of the time of Aššur-banî-âpli, who seems to have
restored his temple. This fane, which the Assyrian king is said to have
made to shine like the day, was called Ê-melam-anna, “the temple of the
glory of heaven,” and the presence of its name in a list of the temples of
Babylonia and Assyria testifies to its importance.
The temple of Sin or Nannaru, as we learn from the inscriptions of
Nabonidus, was called Ê-ḫulḫul, “the temple of (great) joy.” The fane
having been destroyed by the Medes, Nabonidus received, in a dream,
command to rebuild it, and it is interesting to learn that, when the work
was in progress, the records which Aššur-banî-âpli had placed there,
according to custom, when restoring it, came to light. The letter of which
an extract is given above was probably written to the Assyrian king upon
this occasion.
So renowned was the place as a centre of heathen worship, that at a
comparatively late date—running far into the Christian era, namely, the
fifth century A.D.—the worship of heathen deities was still in full
progress there, though the god Sin had fallen, to all appearance, somewhat
into the background, and Bel-shamin, “the lord of the heavens,” _i.e._ the
Sun-god, generally known as Shamash or Samas, and called later on by the
Greek name of Helios, had taken his place. They also worshipped a goddess
called Gadlat, generally identified with the Babylonian goddess Gula, and
Atargatis, the feminine counterpart of Hadad, whose name is often found in
Aramean inscriptions under the form of ’Atar-’ata.(40) This goddess is
called Derketo(41) by Ktesias, and appears as Tar-’ata in Syriac and in
the Talmud. According to Baethgen, Atargatis, or, better, Attargatis, was
a double divinity, composed of Ištar and ’Ata or ’Atta (Attes). In
consequence of the worship of the sun, the moon, and the planet Venus
(’Atar = Ištar), a second centre of the worship denominated Sabean (which
originated in south-west Arabia, the country of the Sabeans) was founded
in Haran, where its devotees are said to have had a chapel dedicated to
Abraham, whose renown had, to all appearance, brought to his memory the
great honour of deification.
It was after a long sojourn at Haran that Abraham set out for his journey
westwards, the patriarch being no less than seventy-five years old when he
left that city. The next episode in his life was his journey, in obedience
to the call which he had received, to Canaan, going first to Shechem,
“unto the oak (terebinth) of Moreh,” afterwards to the mountain on the
east of Bethel, and thence, later, towards the south. A famine caused him
to continue his travels as far as Egypt, where the incident of Sarai being
taken from him, in consequence of the deceit practised by him in
describing her as his sister, took place.
This portion of the patriarch’s history is not one which can be very
easily dealt with, the incident being told very shortly, and no Egyptian
names being given—in fact, it is altogether destitute of “local colouring”
necessarily so, from the brevity of the narrative.
At Haran, the patriarch and the members of his family probably saw people
to a great extent of the type to which they had been accustomed in
Babylonia, but in the land of Canaan they would notice some difference,
though they all spoke a Semitic language, like themselves. Indeed, it is
not at all improbable that wherever the ancestor of the Hebrews went, he
found the Semitic Babylonian language at least understood, for as the
Babylonian king claimed dominion over all this tract as far as the
Mediterranean, the language of his country was fast becoming what it
certainly was a few hundred years later, namely, the _lingua franca_ of
the whole tract as far as Egypt, where also, to all appearance, Abraham
and his wife had no difficulty in making themselves understood.
According to Gen. x. 6, Canaan, into whose country Abraham journeyed with
the object of settling, was the descendant of Cush, and the inhabitants
ought therefore to have spoken a Hamitic language. Historically, however,
this cannot be proved, but it is certain that if the Canaanites spoke a
Hamitic language, they soon changed it for the speech which they seem to
have used as far back as history can go, this speech being closely akin to
Hebrew. In fact, there is very little doubt that Abraham and his
descendants, forsaking their mother-tongue, the language of Babylonia,
adopted the dialect of the Canaanitish language, which they afterwards
spoke, and which is so well known at the present day as Hebrew. To all
appearance Abraham’s relatives, who remained in Mesopotamia, in “the city
of Nahor,” spoke a dialect of Aramaic, a language with which Abraham
himself must have been acquainted, and which may have been spoken in
Babylonia at that early date, as it certainly was, together with Chaldean,
later on.
It is noteworthy, that the country to which Abraham migrated, and which is
called by the Hebrew writers Canaan, is called by the same name in the
Tel-el-Amarna letters, and the fact that the Babylonian king Burra-buriaš
uses the same term shows that it was the usual name in that part of the
world. Among the Babylonians, however, it was called _mât Amurrî_, “the
land of Amoria,” the common expression, among the Babylonians and the
Assyrians, for “the West.” In later times the Assyrians designated this
district _mât Ḫatti_, “the land of Heth,” the home of the Hittites. The
inference from this naturally is, that at the time when the Babylonians
became acquainted with the country, the Amorites were the most powerful
nationality there, whilst the Hittites had the dominion, and were in
greater force later on, when the Assyrians first traded or warred there.
These two linguistic usages show, that the two great races in the country,
both of them Hamitic, according to Gen. x. 15, 16, were the Amorites (who
spread as far as Babylonia, and even had settlements there), and the
Hittites, whose capital was Ḫattu (_Pterium_, now _Boghaz-keui_) in Asia
Minor, and whose rule extended south as far as Carchemish and Hamath.
In addition to the above indications from the historical inscriptions of
Assyria, and the contract-tablets of Babylonia belonging to the first
dynasty of Babylon (a number of which are translated in Chap. V.), we have
also the indications furnished by the bilingual geographical lists.
As these lists are of great importance for the geography of the ancient
Semitic East, with special reference to Western Asia, it may be of
interest, and perhaps also serve a useful purpose, to give, in the form in
which they occur on the tablets, such portions as may bear on the question
of the knowledge of the Babylonians of the countries which lay around
them.
The most important of these geographical documents is that published in
the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, vol. ii. p. 50. This text
begins, as would be expected from the hand of a patriotic scribe, with the
towns and cities of his own land, in two columns, Akkadian, and the
Semitic equivalent. This was followed, in the same way, by the provinces
of his country, ending with the two principal, Kengi-Ura, translated by
Šumer and Akkad. This is followed by the four Akkadian groups for the land
of Subartum and Gutium, probably a part of Media.
To all appearance a new section begins here, the scribe introducing in
this place the four Akkadian words or groups for “mountain.” The text then
proceeds as follows—
KUR MAR-TU šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of Amoria
KI (the Amorite
land).
KUR TI-ID-NU-UM šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of
KI Amoria.
KUR GIR-GIR šad A-mur-ri-e Mountain of
KI Amoria.
KUR SU-RU šad Su-bar-ti Mountain of
KI Subarti.
KUR NUM-MA šad Elamti Mountain of Elam.
KI
KUR Gu-ti-um šad Gu-ti-i Mountain of Gutû
KI or Gutium.
KURZAG Gu-ti-um šad pa-at Gu-ti-i Mountain of the
KI border of Gutium.
KUR ši-rum šad Si-ri-i [?] Mountain of Širû.
KI
KUR [GIŠ] ERI-NA šad E-ri-ni Mountain of Cedar.
KI
KUR MAR-ḪA-ŠI KI šad Pa-ra-ši-i Mountain of
Parašû.
KUR Šir-rum šad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of
KI Bitala. (Kaštala
is possible.)
KUR Ê-AN-NA šad Bi-ta-lal Mountain of
KI Bitala.
KUR ḪE-A-NA šad Ḫa-ni-e Mountain of Ḫanû.
KI
KUR Lu-lu-bi šad Lu-lu-bi-e Mountain of
KI Lulubû.
Here follows a list of adjectives combined with the word for country,
forming descriptions such as “safe country,” “low-lying country,” etc.
In the above list of countries, the land of the Amorites holds the first
place, and is repeated three times, there having, to all appearance, been
three ways of writing its name in Akkadian. Why this was the case—whether
in the older Akkadian literature the scribes distinguished three different
districts or not, is not known, but is not at all improbable. The first of
the three ways of designating the country is the usual one, and apparently
means the land of the Amorites in general, the other two being less used,
and possibly indicating the more mountainous parts. What the mountains of
Suru or Subartu were is uncertain, but it may be supposed that, as this
group is used in the late Babylonian inscriptions (as shown by the text
containing the account of the downfall of Assyria) for the domain over
which the kings of Assyria ruled, there is hardly any doubt that it stands
for the Mesopotamian tract, extending from the boundaries of the Amorites
to the frontiers of Babylonia. This would include not only Assyria, but
also Aram-naharaim, or Syria, and is in all probability the original of
this last word, which has given considerable trouble to students to
explain.
In all probability, Siru, like Gutium and the border of Gutium, was a
tract in the neighbourhood of Elam, which precedes. A comparison has been
made between this Sirum and the Sirrum of the eleventh line of the
extract, but as the spelling, and also, seemingly, the pronunciation, is
different, it is in all likelihood a different place. The mountain of
Cedar, however, is probably Lebanon, celebrated of old, and sufficiently
wooded, in the time of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, to give cover to droves of
elephants, which the Assyrian king hunted there. _Marḫaši_ (Akk.) or
_Parašî_ (Assyr.) seems to have been a country celebrated for its dogs.
Concerning Bitala or Kaštala nothing is known, but Ḫanê is supposed to
have lain near Birejik on the Orontes.(42) Lulumu, which is apparently the
same as Lulubū, was an adjoining state, which the Babylonians claim to
have devastated about the twenty-eighth century before Christ, a fact
which contributes to the confirmation of the antiquity of Babylonian
geographical lore, and its trustworthiness, for the nation which invades
another must be well aware of the position and physical features of
territory invaded.
It is interesting to note, that one of the ordinary bilingual lists
(W.A.I. II. pl. 48) gives what are apparently three mountainous districts,
the first being Amurru, translating the Akkadian GIRGIR, which we are told
to pronounce Tidnu (see above, pp. 122, 206, and below, p. 312), the
second Urṭū (Ararat), which we are told to pronounce in Akkadian Tilla,
and the third Qutû, in Akkadian Gišgala šu anna, “the district with the
high barriers,” likewise a part of the Aramean mountains.
After returning from Egypt, Abraham went and dwelt in the south of Canaan,
between Bethel and Ai, Lot quitting him in consequence of the quarrel
which took place between their respective herdsmen. Concerning the
Canaanite and the Perizzite, who were then in the land, the Babylonian
inscriptions of this period, as far as they are known, say nothing, but
there is hardly any doubt that these nationalities were known to them,
this tract being within the boundaries of the Babylonian dominions. That
these names do not yet occur, is not to be wondered at, for the
Babylonians had been accustomed to call the tract Amurrū, and names which
have been long attached to a country do not change at all easily. The next
resting-place of the patriarch was by the oaks or terebinths of Mamre in
Hebron, where he built an altar to the Lord.
At this point occurs Gen. ch. xiv., which contains the description of the
conflict of the four kings against five—evidently one of the struggles of
the Amorites and their allies to throw off the yoke of the Babylonians,
who were in this case assisted by several confederate states.
Much has been written concerning this interesting chapter of the Bible.
The earlier critics were of opinion that it was impossible that the power
of the Elamites should have extended so far at such an early epoch. Later
on, when it was shown that the Elamites really had power—and that even
earlier than the time of Abraham—the objection of the critics was, that
none of the names mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis really
existed in the inscriptions. The history of Abraham was a romance, and the
names of the Eastern kings with whom he came into contact equally so. It
was true that there were Elamite names commencing with the element Kudur,
the Chedor of the sacred text, but Chedorlaomer did not occur, Amraphel
and Tidal were equally wanting, and that Arioch was the same as Eri-Aku or
Rim-Aku could not be proved.
The first step in solving the riddle was that made by Prof. Eberhard
Schrader, who suggested that Amraphel was none other than the well-known
Babylonian king Ḫammurabi. This, naturally, was a theory which did not
soon find acceptance—at least by all the Assyriologists. There were,
however, two things in its favour—this king ruled sufficiently near to the
time of Abraham, and he overcame a ruler named Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku,
identified by the late George Smith with the Arioch of the chapter we are
now considering. Concerning the latter ruler, Rim-Aku, there is still some
doubt, but the difficulties which attended the identification of Ḫammurabi
with Amraphel have now practically disappeared. The first step was the
discovery of the form Ammurabi in one of the numerous contracts drawn up
during his reign at Sippara, the city of the Sun-god. This form shows that
the guttural was not the hard guttural _kh_, but the softer _h_. Yet
another step nearer the Biblical form is that given by Ašaridu, who, in a
letter to “the great and noble Asnapper,” writes as follows—
Ana šarri bêli-ia To the king, my
lord,
ârad-ka, (A)šaridu. thy servant Ašaridu.
Nabû û Marduk ana Nebo and Merodach to
šar mâtāti the king of the
countries,
bêli-ia likrubu. my lord, be
favourable.
Duppi ša šarru The tablet which the
ippušu king makes
...-ṭu û ul-šalim. is bad(?) and
incomplete.
(A)dū duppi. Now a tablet,
(la)biru ša Ammurapi an old one, of
sarru. Ammurapi the king
(e)pušu-ma alṭaru— I have made and
written out—
(la?) pani Ammurapi it is of the time
šarru. (?) of Ammurapi the
king.
Kî ašpuru As I have sent (to
inform the king),
ultu Bâbîli from Babylon
attašâ I will bring (it).
Šarru nipisu The king (will be
able to do) the work
[ina] pitti at once.
[Here several lines are broken away.]
........................... .............................
ša A-................... which
A-.......................
qat ....................... the hand
of....................
ulla ...................... then (?)
......................
anaku ..................... I
.............................
likîpanni. may he trust me.
As this is a late reference to Ḫammurabi, it is noteworthy not only on
account of the form the name (which agrees excellently with the Biblical
Amraphel) had assumed at the time (the hard breathing or aspirate having
to all appearance completely disappeared), but also as a testimony to the
esteem in which he was held a millennium and a half after his death. How
it is that the Hebrew form has _l_ at the end is not known, but the
presence of this letter has given rise to numerous theories. One of these
is, that Amraphel is for _Ḫammurabi îlu_, “Ḫammurabi the god,” many of the
old Babylonian kings having been deified after their death. Another (and
perhaps more likely) explanation is, that this additional letter is due to
the faulty reading of a variant writing of the name, with a polyphonous
character having the value of _pil_ as well as _bi_,—which form may, in
fact, still be found. However the presence of the final (and apparently
unauthorized) addition to the name be explained, the identification of
Amraphel and Ḫammurabi is held to be beyond dispute.
Thanks to important chronological lists of colophon-dates and to a number
of trade-documents from Tel-Sifr, Sippara, and elsewhere, which are
inscribed with the same dates in a fuller form, the outline of the history
of the reign of Ḫammurabi is fairly well known, though it can hardly be
said that we have what would be at the present time regarded as an
important event for each year, notwithstanding that they may have been to
the ancient Babylonians of all-absorbing interest. The following is a list
of the principal dates of his reign, as far as they can at present be made
out—
1 Year of Ḫammurabi the king.
2 Year he performed justice in the land.
3 Year he constructed the throne of the exalted shrine of Nannar
of Babylon.
4 Year he built the fortification of Malgia.
5 Year he constructed the ... of the god.
6 Year of the fortification of (the goddess) Laz.
7 Year of the fortification of Isinna.
8 Year of the ... of Emutbālum.
9 Year of the canal Ḫammurabi-ḫêgalla.
10 Year of the soldiers and people of Malgia.
11 Year of the cities Rabiqa and Šalibi.
12 Year of the throne of Zēr-panîtum.
13 Year (the city) Umu (?) set up a king in great rejoicing.(43)
14 Year of the throne of Ištar of Babylon.
15 Year of his 7 images.(44)
16 Year of the throne of Nebo.
17 Year of the images of Ištar and Addu (Hadad)....
18 Year of the exalted shrine for Ellila.
19 Year of the fortification Igi-ḫur-sagga.
20 Year of the throne of Merri (Rimmon or Hadad).
21 Year of the fortification of Baṣu.
22 Year of the image of Ḫammurabi king of righteousness.
23 Year of the ... of Sippar.
24 Year of the ... for Ellila.
25 Year of the fortification of Sippar.
26 Year a great flood (?)....
27 Year the supreme (?)....
28 Year of the temple of abundance.(45)
29 Year of the image of Šala (spouse of Rimmon or Hadad).
30 Year the army of Elam....
31 Year of the land Emutbālu.
32 Year the army of....
33 Year of the canal _Ḫammurabi-nuḫuš-niši_.
34 Year of Ištar and Nanaa.
35 Year of the fortification of....
36 Lost.
37 Practically lost.
38 Year the great....
39 Practically lost.
40 Lost.
41 Lost.
42 Practically lost.
43 Year dust (? ruin) overwhelmed Sippar and the city Ul-Šamaš.
In the gaps indicated by the words “lost,” and “practically lost,” the
following entries ought, perhaps, to be inserted, though it is to be noted
that some of them may be merely additions to, or other forms of, dates
preserved by the list—
“Year he (_i.e._ the king) built the supreme shrine of Bêl.” [?
the eighteenth year.]
“Year of the ... of the fortification of Sippar.” [? the 25th
year.]
“Year he made supplication to the goddess Taš-mêtu.”
“Year of the river (canal) Tišida-Ellilla” (p. 182).
“Year the soldiers of Ešnunna were smitten by the sword.”
“Year Ḫammurabi the king, by command of Anu and Bêl, destroyed the
wall of Mair and Malgia” (p. 187).
“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed the temple Ê-me-temena-ursag, and
raised the head of the temple-tower, the supreme seat of Zagaga,
high like heaven.”
“Year Ḫammurabi the king raised the top of the great wall on the
bank of the Tigris high like a mountain, and caused its name to be
called the embankment of the Sun.”
Besides these, there are additions in the entries in the chronological
list, some of which are of sufficiently great importance—
“Year 31: Year Ḫammurabi the king, by the command of Anu and Bêl,
established his advantage (and) captured the land Yamutbālum and
the king Rîm-Sin.”
“Year 34: Year Ḫammurabi the king made [images of] Ištar and
Nanaa.”
Whether the following be another form of this date, or a different one
altogether is uncertain:
“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed E-tur-kalama for Anu, Ištar, and
Nanaa.”
Year 38, which, in the chronological list, is called the year of the great
... is possibly to be completed, in accordance with the indications from
the colophon-dates: “Year of Ḫammurabi the king (when) a great flood
destroyed Ešnunna.”
With regard to the other undecided dates, it is practically certain that
the three long ones—those which record the destruction of the wall of Mair
and Malgia, the restoration of the temple Ê-me-temena-ursag and the temple
tower dedicated to Zagaga, and the construction of the great dam of the
Tigris—come into the gaps after the entry for the thirty-first year. The
reason for this assumption is, that the thirty-first year of Ḫammurabi was
the date of his conquest of Rîm-Sin, in whose dominions the town
represented by the ruins of Tel-Sifr (the place whence the tablets came
which bear these dates) lay. All the tablets from this place, bearing
dates of the reign of Ḫammurabi, therefore belong to the thirty-first year
of his reign and later.
In all probability there is one thing that will be considered as
noteworthy, and that is, that as far as our records go, there is no
reference whatever to any expedition to the West-land, and if that be due
simply to the imperfection of the records which have come down to us, all
that can be said is, that it is a noteworthy coincidence.(46) It must not
be supposed, however, that it in any wise invalidates the trustworthiness
of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis—there is plenty of room in
the mutilated list (of which I have given such a translation as is
possible) for a date referring to this to have been recorded, though we
must keep in mind the possibility, that if the Babylonian king considered
that disaster had in any way overtaken his arms, he may not have recorded
it at all. Then there is the fact, that the expedition was undertaken in
conjunction with allies—Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch—for none of whom,
in all probability, Ḫammurabi had any sympathy. The Elamite was a
conqueror from a land over which the Babylonians of earlier ages had held
sway, and Arioch had dominion over a neighbouring tract, to which
Ḫammurabi himself laid claim, and over which, as the texts above
translated show, he afterwards ruled. Ḫammurabi, moreover, claimed also
the West-land—_mât Amurrī_, the land of Amurrū—as his hereditary
possession, and he found himself obliged to aid Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and
Arioch to subjugate it—indeed, it was Chedorlaomer whom the five kings had
acknowledged for twelve years as their overlord, and against whom, in the
thirteenth, they rebelled. It is, therefore, likely that Ḫammurabi
regarded himself as having been forced by circumstances to aid
Chedorlaomer to reconquer what really belonged to Babylonia, and the
probability that he would cause it to be used as one of the events to date
by, is on that account still less, even if the news of any success which
he might have considered himself entitled to reached his own domain in
time to be utilized for such a purpose.
It has been shown on p. 155 that Ammi-ṭitana, the third in succession from
Ḫammurabi, claimed the sovereignty of the land of Amurrū, and from an
inscription accompanying a portrait of Ḫammurabi discovered by Mr. Rassam,
we learn that he, too, claimed sovereignty over it. Sargon of Agadé held
sway over the tract centuries before, so that he probably reckoned that,
by right of inheritance, it was his. It would therefore be natural that he
should omit to mention as an event to be remembered, an expedition to a
country which ought never to have thrown off his dominion.
Of course, one of the principal things confirming the identification of
Ḫammurabi with Amraphel would naturally be the occurrence of one or more
of the names recorded in Gen. xiv., in conjunction with his, or in such a
way that a connection could be established. This, naturally, is difficult,
principally on account of our having no continuous history of the period
to which these rulers belong. Nevertheless, a close examination of the
inscriptions suggests in what way confirmation of the events narrated with
reference to Amraphel and his allies might be sought.
Reference has already been made to Rîm-Sin, king of Yamutbālu (or
Emutbālu), who appears to have been defeated by Ḫammurabi in the
thirty-first regnal year. From this time the dominions of Rîm-Sin
evidently formed part of the Babylonian Empire, and were never again
separated from it as long as it existed.
Notwithstanding the early identification of Rîm-Sin with Eri-Sin or
Eri-Aku by the late George Smith, considerable doubt has been thrown on
the identity of these two names by the fact, that in inscriptions
containing the name of Kudur-mabuk, the father, the name of his son is
written with _Eri_ as the first element—not _Rîm_. This, it must be
admitted, is a considerable difficulty. Winckler, however, in the
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, Band III., 1 Hälfte, pp. 88-89, publishes
a text given by Lenormant, _Textes Inédits_, No. 70, in which the name of
the son of Kudur-mabuk is written Ri-im-Sin, and if this be correctly
copied, it would seem to settle the matter of their identity. It is to be
noted that they are both called king of Uriwa, king of Larsa, and king of
Šumer and Akkad. In the inscriptions Eri-Aku or Eri-Sin also calls himself
_adda Emutbala_, “father of Yamutbālu,” and, as the colophon-date of the
31st year of Ḫammurabi shows, Rîm-Sin or Rîm-Aku was also king of that
region.
In these circumstances, there is hardly any doubt that they were at least
closely connected, if not (as has been supposed since the time of the
Assyriologist George Smith) actually identical. It is therefore worthy of
mention, that M. F. Thureau-Dangin, the well-known French Assyriologist,
suggests that Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin were brothers, sons of Kudur-mabuk, and
successively kings of Larsa (_Les Inscriptions de Šumer et d’Akkad_, p.
300, n. 3). This would not only account for their having the same
parentage, but also for their claiming the same titles. It can therefore
not be said, that Ḫammurabi became the enemy of his old ally—it was
against his brother that he fought.
The date quoted on p. 214 (year 31) seems to include Rîm-Sin in the
capture of the land of Yamutbālum, but this is not confirmed by the new
Chronicle, which states that Ḫammurabi, king of Babylon, gathered his
soldiers and went against Rîm-Sin, king of Larsa. His hand captured Ur and
Larsa, he carried off their goods to Babylon, and overthrew and carried
away other things—what they were the mutilation of the record does not
allow us even to guess. It is noteworthy also that the mention of Ur as
one of the cities of Rîm-Sin shuts out that state from the tract which,
from the 14th chapter of Genesis, would otherwise be included in Shinar,
and seems also to explain why Ur is designated as being “of the Chaldees.”
If, however, the colophon-date be right, and Rîm-Sin was really made
prisoner, he must either have escaped, or been set at liberty again, for
Samsu-iluna, son of Ḫammurabi, when he became king, had apparently to
resist another attack on the part of that ruler, who seems to have been
captured, and “(? burnt) alive in his palace.”
With regard to the names Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin, one Sumero-Akkadian, and the
other Semitic, the former means, as was thought from the first, “Servant
of the Moon-god,” whilst the sense of the latter, as is made clear by the
variant spelling in the new Babylonian chronicle, is “Sin’s (the
Moon-god’s) wild bull.” A similar name is that of Rîm-Anu, another king of
Larsa—“Anu’s (the Heaven-god’s) wild bull.” These are paralleled by such
names as Bûr-Sin, “Sin’s young steer,” in which the bearer is compared
with a strong and willing animal of service. Possibly the substitution of
the word for “wild bull” in Rîm-Sin and Rîm-Anu is symbolical of reckless
courage.
Very little is known of the state of which Larsa (in Sumero-Akkadian
Ararma) was the capital. It is interesting to note, however, that this
city was a centre of the worship of the Sun-god Šamaš, as was also Sippar
(now Abu-habbah). The temple in both cities bore the same name, Ê-bara
(-para) or Ê-babbara (-barbara), “the house of brilliant light.” With the
exception of Eri-Aku or Arioch, whose name is Sumero-Akkadian, all the
rulers have Semitic names—Rîm-Anu, Nûr-Rammāni or Nûr-Addi, “light of
Rimmon” or “of Hadad,” Sin-idinnam, “Sin has given,” and Rîm-Sin. If
Eri-Aku was called, in the Semitic tongue, Arad-Sin, “Servant of Sin,” as
is possible, this name must be added too, but in that case his
identification with Arioch would be less probable. As he was of Elamite
origin, his bearing a Sumero-Akkadian or a Semitic name was probably due
to motives of policy, and one which, when written, could be read either
way would give pleasure to both sections of the people, Sumero-Akkadian
and Semitic.
The following inscriptions record architectural works of Kudur-mabuk, and
his sons Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin:—
Tablet Of Kudur-Mabuk Mentioning Eri-Aku.
(Dingir) Nannara To Nannara
lugala-ni-r his king,
Kudur-mabuk Kudur-mabuk,
adda kura Martu father of Amoria,
dumu Simti-šilḫak son of Simti-šilḫak.
Ud (dingir) Nannara When Nannara
arazu-ni his prayer
mu-igi-ginnā received,
ne-zila-maḫa ne-zila-maḫa
(dingir) Nannara-kam for Nannara
nam-tila-ni-šu for his life,
u nam-ti and the life
Eri-Aku dumu-ni of Eri-Aku, his son,
lugal Ararma-šu king of Larsa,
munanindu. he made.
“To Nannara, his king, Kudur-mabuk, father of the land of the
Amorites, son of Simti-šilḫak. When Nannara received his prayer he
made for Nannara _ne-zila-maḫa_ for his life and the life of his
son Arioch, king of Larsa.”
Tablet Of Eri-Aku Mentioning Kudur-Mabuk, His Father.
Eri-(dingir) Aku Eri-Aku
uš kalagga powerful hero
siba nig-zi everlasting shepherd
ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa installed by Bêl
(dingir) Ellilli nourisher of Uriwa
garra
lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa
S.)-ma
lugal Kiengi-(D. king of Šumer (and)
S.)-Uragi Akkad
dumu Kudur-mabuk son of Kudur-mabuk
Adda Emutbala-men father of Yamutbālu
am I.
Uriwa (D. S.) In Uriwa broad,
dagal-e-ne
mu maha dudune possessing an
exalted name,
Col. II.
ušu-na-bi to the peerless (?)
ugul-immangaga supplication I have
made.
(dingir) Nannara Nannara my king
lugala-mu
mušinše I have obeyed (?):
bad gala ḫursag A great wall, high
illa-dim šu-nu-tutu like a mountain,
impregnable,
im-bi dul ea inspiring (?) its
fear,
munadu have I made,
uru-ni ḫimmira its city may it
protect.
bada-ba That wall
(dingir) Nannara “Nannara the
suḫuš mada gengen consolidator of the
foundation of the
land” is
mu-bi-im its name.
“Arioch, the powerful hero, the everlasting shepherd installed by
Bêl, the nourisher of Uriwa, the king of Larsa, the king of Šumer
and Akkad, the son of Kudur-mabug, the father of Yamutbālu, am I.
In broad Uriwa, possessing an exalted name, to the peerless one
(?) have I made supplication, Nannara, my king, have I obeyed (?).
The great wall, high like a mountain, impregnable, inspiring (?)
its fear, have I built—may it protect its city. The name of that
wall is ‘Nannara the consolidator of the foundation of the
land.’ ”
[The above inscription is not without its difficulties, some of
them formidable enough, but the general sense of the whole may be
regarded as correctly made out.]
Tablet Of Rim-Sin.
(Dingir) Nin-saḫ To Ninsaḫ
en galla abba age great lord, beloved
father
šaga-gu-sag-gi knowing the
gala-zu supplication of the
heart
sukkala maḫa exalted messenger,
ša-kušša dingira (giving) heart-rest,
galla great god
dugga-ni ši tul-du he who sends forth
his hidden word
lugal-a-ni-ir his king
(dingir) Rim-Sin.
Rim-(dingir) Sin
siba gu kalama Nipri shepherd of all the
(D. S.) people of Nippur
me giškin he who fulfils the
Gurudug-(D. S.)-ga word of the vine of
su-dudu Eridu
ua Uri-(D. S.)-wa nourisher of Uriwa
ê-ud-da-im-te-ga (and) Ê-udda-imtega
lugal Arar-(D. king of Larsa
S.)-ma
Col. II.
lugal Kengi-(D. king of Šumer and
S.)-Ura-gi Akkad.
Ud Ana (dingir) When Anu, Bêl,
Ellila
(dingir) En-ki (and) Ea,
dingir-galgalene the great gods,
Unuga (D. S.) uru du Erech, the ruined
(?) city,
šu-mu-šu into my hands
manin-si-eša delivered
(dingir) Ninsaḫ to Ninsaḫ, my king,
lugala-mu-r
gu-sagsaggi-da-mu-ta after my making
supplication;
ê-da-agga-šummu Ê-dagga-šummu,
ki-dura ki-agga-ni his beloved
resting-place,
nam-ti-mu-šu for my life
munadu. I built.
“To Ninsaḫ, the great lord, the beloved father, he who is aware of
the supplication of the heart; the exalted messenger, (giving)
rest to the heart, the great god who sendeth forth his hidden
word—his king, Rim-Sin, shepherd of all the people of Niffer, who
fulfilleth the word of the vine of Êridu, nourisher of Uriwa (and)
Ê-udda-imtega, king of Larsa, king of Šumer and Akkad. When Anu,
Bêl, and Ea, the great gods, delivered Erech, the ruined (?) city,
into my hands, I built to Ninsaḫ, my king, after making
supplication, Ê-dagga-šummu, his beloved seat, for (the saving of)
my life.”
This last text was found in the mound of Mugheir (Uriwa), and is of great
interest, as it is dedicated to Ninsaḫ, the great messenger of the gods,
and not to the god Sin or Nannara, the chief patron-deity of the city. It
has also an interesting reference to the vine of Êridu (see pp. 71 ff.),
and apparently to his capture of the city of Erech, delivered into his
hands by the gods Anu, Bêl, and Ea. That he should represent himself as
taking possession of the city by the will of Anu, the chief god of the
city, whose name he mentions before the other two divinities, sheds a
certain light upon the character of the man, whilst his military exploits,
both at home and in the west, must have made him, like Chedorlaomer his
fellow-countryman, and Ḫammurabi his rival, one of the heroes of his time.
There now remain to be treated of Chedorlaomer and Tidal, the remaining
two of the four allies who fought in that memorable conflict by the Dead
Sea to bring into subjection their revolted vassals.
From the time of their first discovery it has been felt that the
occurrence of names containing the element Kudur—Kudur-mabuk,
Kudur-Nanḫundi, Kudur-Naḫḫunte, etc.—was, in itself, excellent testimony
to the correctness of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis, where
an Elamite king having _Chedor_ as the first element of his name, attacks
and conquers, in alliance with certain kings of Babylonia, five petty
rulers of a district on the shores of the Dead Sea. It was, however,
naturally a matter of disappointment that the name of Chedorlaomer himself
did not occur, for it was soon recognized that the identification, made by
Sir Henry Rawlinson, of Kudur-mabuk (read Kudur-mapula) with Chedorlaomer
could not be sustained. What was wanted, was some such name as
Kudur-Lagamar or Kudur-Lagamal, the second element having been recognized
in other texts as the name of the Elamite deity Lagamaru. It was to all
appearance thought to be probable that the name of Tidal would be found.
Accordingly, when two tablets were referred to at the Congress of
Orientalists held at Geneva in 1894 as containing the names Tudḫula,
Êri-Eaku (Êri-Ekua), and another name read doubtfully as Kudur-laḫ(gu)mal,
no publicly-expressed objection to their possible identification with
Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer was made. The names were placed before the
Semitic section of the Congress of Orientalists referred to, as recent
discoveries, which were certain as far as they went, their identification
being a matter of opinion.
None of these documents are in a state of completeness, though one of
them, a kind of poem, contains no less than 76 lines, more or less well
preserved. The other two are of the nature, apparently, of historical
legends, though they may be true historical documents, and, though
imperfect, are of great importance. Concerning the names which are
contained in these texts there is but little or no doubt, though there may
be doubt as to the way in which they ought to be read in consequence of
the fanciful way in which they are written.
The first document is Sp. III. 2, and contains all three names—or, rather,
the names Tudḫula (Tidal), Êri-Eaku’s son Durmaḫ-îlāni, and Kudur-laḫmal.
The first portion of this text refers to the gods: “Šamaš, illuminator (of
the earth),” “the lord of lords, Merodach, in the faithfulness of his
heart,” aided (probably) his servant to subdue (?) some region, “all of
it.” Then there is a reference to (soldiers) whom some ruler “caused to be
slain,” and as the name of Durmaḫ-îlāni son of Êri-(E)aku follows, there
is every probability that it was he who is referred to in the preceding
lines. The carrying off of goods (?) is next spoken of, and waters which
to all appearance came over Babylon and the great temple-tower called
Ê-saggil (more usually written in earlier times Ê-sagila). The next line
has an interesting reference to “the son (?)” of some one, who
“slaughtered him like (?) a lamb with the weapon of his hands.” After
this, we are told that “the elder and the child (were killed) with the
sword.” To all appearance, another division of the subject begins with the
next line, though the text goes on recording things of the same
nature—“the child he cut off.” This is immediately followed by the words
“Tudḫula the son of Gazza- ..,” or “Tidal son of Gazzā(ni?),” who, like
Durmaḫ-îlāni (if we may form any opinion from the fact that the wording of
the line following the mention of Tidal is the same as that following the
name of the son of Êri-Eaku), carried off goods (?), and waters (he caused
to flow?) over Babylon and Ê-saggil, the great temple of the city. The
parallel between these two passages is still further emphasized by the
words in the line immediately following, which says that “his son fell
upon him with the weapon of his hand.” The next line is the last of the
obverse, and speaks of (“the proclamation,” perhaps) of “his dominion
before the temple of Annunit,” where we have the interesting archaism,
_An-nu-nit_ for D.P. (_i.e._ the determinative prefix indicating that the
name of a deity follows) _A-nu-nit_.
The reverse begins with a reference to Elam, and some one (perhaps the
king of that country) who “spoiled from the city Aḫḫê (?) to the land of
Rabbātum.” Something was made, apparently by the same personage, into
heaps of ruins, and the fortress of the land of Akkad, and “the whole of
Borsippa(?)” are referred to. At this point comes the line mentioning
Kudur-laḫmal, supposed to be Chedorlaomer. It reads as follows—
“Kudur-laḫmal, his son, pierced his heart with the steel sword of his
girdle.”
After this there is a passage where the various kings mentioned seem to be
referred to, and it is stated that Merodach, the king of the gods, was
angry against them, and they were, to all appearance, made to suffer for
what they had done. The scribe who had composed this record now speaks, in
favourable words, of the king then reigning, and seems to refer to the
restoration of the inscription to its place by the person (prince) who, in
later days, should find it (as was the custom among the Babylonians and
Assyrians). He ends with a pious wish that a sinful man might not exist,
or something to that effect.
The second tablet, though in a more satisfactory state of preservation, is
still sufficiently incomplete, none of the lines being altogether perfect.
After referring to Babylon, and to the property of that city, “small and
great,” it is said that the gods (apparently)
“in their faithful counsel to Kudur-laḫgumal, king of the land of
Elam ... said ‘Descend.’ The thing which unto them was good (he
performed, and) he exercised sovereignty in Babylon, the city of
Kar-Duniaš.”
It would therefore appear that this Elamite ruler, by the will of the gods
(such was the way with conquerors in those days—they annexed other
countries to their dominions by the will of the gods of the lands
annexed), took possession of Babylon, capital (such seems to be the
meaning of the phrase) of Kar-Duniaš. This is followed by a long passage
in which animals and birds, apparently the favourites of the Elamite king,
are referred to, and the idea which one gains by reading it is, that he
attended to these rather than to the welfare of his realm. This being the
case, it is natural that something about the remissness of the king should
follow, and this seems to be, in fact, intended in the next line, where
some one whose name is lost seems to ask: “What king of Elam is there who
has (erected?) the chapel (?) (it was something made of wood, as the
determinative prefix shows) of E-saggil?” It was the Babylonians, the text
seems to say, who had done things of this kind. The speaker then seems to
begin to talk of “their work,” when another gap destroys the remainder of
the phrase. He then speaks about “(a let)ter (?) which thou hast written
thus: ‘I am a king, the son of a king,’ ” but whether it is the same
personage who says that he is “the son of the daughter of a king, who has
sat on the throne of dominion,” is doubtful—it may be a similarly boasting
reply to the statement put into the mouth of the first speaker. The line
which follows has the name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, son of Êri-Ekua (Êri-Eaku of
the other historical text), who seems to have carried away spoil, but
whether it is he who is referred to in the next line as having sat on the
throne of dominion is doubtful. This is followed by the expression of the
wish that the king might come who from eternal days ... was proclaimed
lord of Babylon. The closing lines of the obverse, which is here
described, do not give any clear sense, but there is a reference to the
months Kislev and Tammuz, probably in connection with festivals, also
(apparently) to certain priests, and to the taking of spoil. The remains
of the reverse are too scanty to gather what the text inscribed upon it
really refers to.
It is naturally difficult to judge which of these two inscriptions came
first. Both of them seem to have a kind of peroration at the end
containing similar phrases referring to the city of Babylon and its
well-being, and either might therefore be the last tablet of a series. To
all appearance, the order of the two records turns upon the question
whether Durmaḫ-îlāni is the one who is referred to as having written a
certain communication, or whether it is about him that some one has
written. As he seems to be referred to in the third person, the
probability is that “Durmaḫ-îlāni, son of Êri-Eaku, who (carried away?)
the spoil of ... ,” is not the person speaking, but the person spoken of.
In this case he was not necessarily alive at the time, and the order of
the two tablets as here printed may be the correct one.
How far the record which they contain may be true is with our present
knowledge impossible to find out. The style of the writing with which they
are inscribed is certainly very late—later, in all probability, than the
Persian period, and the possibility that it is a compilation of that
period has been already suggested. That it is altogether a fiction,
however, is in the highest degree improbable. If we have in the three
names which these two tablets contain the Babylonian prototypes of Tidal,
Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, they must refer to the events which passed
between the first and thirty-first years of the reign of Amraphel or
Ḫammurabi, in which it would seem that both Durmaḫ-îlāni and Tudḫula
attacked and spoiled Babylon, cutting the canals so that the town and the
temple were both flooded. Both of these royal personages, who, be it
noted, are not called kings, were apparently killed by their sons, and
Kudur-laḫmal seems to have been a criminal of the same kind, if we may
judge from the words “Kudur-laḫmal, his son, pier(ced?) his heart with the
steel sword of his girdle.” That three royal personages, contemporaries,
should all dispose of their fathers in the same way seems, however, in the
highest degree improbable. It also seems to be in an equal degree
impossible that (as has been suggested) the tablets in question should
refer to Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer, but not the _same_ Tidal,
Arioch, and Chedorlaomer as is spoken of in Genesis, unless it be meant
thereby that the Biblical personages of that name are the historical ones,
whilst those of the two tablets belong to the realm of fiction. The
greater probability is, that they are the same personages, but that the
accounts handed down to us on these two tablets are largely legendary.
And that this is the case is made more probable by the third document,
couched in poetical form, which I have entitled _The Legend of
Chedorlaomer_. The following are extracts from this remarkable piece—
“... and they pressed on to the supreme gate.
He threw down, removed, and cast down the door of Ištar in the
holy places,
He descended also, like Ura the unsparing, to Dû-maḫa;
He stayed also in Dû-maḫa, looking at the temple;
He opened his mouth, and spake with the children (of the place).
To all his warriors (then) he hastened the message:—
‘Carry off the spoil of the temple, take also its goods,
Destroy its barrier, cause its enclosures to be cut through.’
To the channel ... they pressed on....”
(Here comes a mutilated passage apparently referring to the destruction
which he wrought.)