THE EARLIER RULERS OF ELAM, THE DYNASTY OF ISIN, AND THE RISE OF BABYLON
The kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, which had been founded by Ur-Engur,
survived the fall of his dynasty, and the centre of authority merely
passed from one city to another. The change of capital did not imply
the existence of any new racial movement, such as that which had led
to the rise of Kish and the Empire of Akkad. The kings of Isin were
probably Sumerians like their immediate predecessors, and they shared
with them the same ideals and culture. No doubt a rivalry existed
between the great Sumerian cities, and any one of them would have
been ready to contest the power of Ur had there been a prospect of
success. At first sight indeed it might appear that Isin now emerged
as the victor from such a struggle for the hegemony. In the dynastic
chronicle from Nippur the close of the Dynasty of Ur and the rise of
Isin is briefly recorded in the words "the rule of Ur was overthrown,
Isin took its kingdom." From this passage alone it might be imagined
that Ishbi-Ura, the founder of the Dynasty of Isin, had headed a revolt
against the rule of Ur, and had been the direct agent in Ibi-Sin's
deposition.
But the fall of the Dynasty of Ur, like that of the First Dynasty of
Babylon, was due to an external cause and not to any movement within
the limits of Babylonia itself. We possess no contemporary record of
the catastrophe which at this time overwhelmed the empire, but an echo
of it has been preserved in an omen-text, inscribed upon an Assyrian
tablet from the Library of Ashur-bani-pal. We have already noted
instances in which genuine historical traditions have been incorporated
in the later augural literature, and we need have no hesitation in
accepting the historical accuracy of this reference to past events.
The text in question enumerates certain omens which it associates with
the fall of "Ibi-Sin, the King of Ur," who, it states, was carried
captive to Anshan.[1] We may thus infer that it was an Elamite invasion
that put an end to the Dynasty of Ur. The foreign provinces, on the
possession of which Dungi had based his claim to the rule of the four
quarters of the world, had finally proved the cause of his empire's
downfall.
We have few data on which to form an estimate of the extent of the
Elamite conquest of Babylonia, or of the period during which the
country or a portion of it was in the hands of the invaders. The
deportation of the king of Ur can hardly have been the result of a
spasmodic raid, following one of the numerous provincial revolts which
had at last proved successful. It is far more likely that the capture
followed the fall of Ur itself, and such an achievement argues the
existence of an organized force in Elam, which it must have required
some years to build up. It is therefore permissible to conjecture
that, in the course of the twenty-five years of his reign, Ibi-Sin had
gradually been losing his hold upon the Elamite portion of his empire,
and that an independent kingdom had been formed in Elam under a native
ruler. For a time Ibi-Sin may have continued to hold certain districts,
but, after the successful invasion of Babylonia, the whole of Elam, and
for a time a part of Babylonia itself, may have fallen to the lot of
the conqueror.
It would be tempting to connect the fall of Ur with the sack of the
neighbouring city of Erech by the Elamite king Kudur-Nankhundi, which
is referred to in an inscription of Ashur-bani-pal. When he captured
Susa in 650 B.C., the Assyrian king relates that he recovered the
image of the goddess Nanâ, which Kudur-Nankhundi had carried off from
Erech sixteen hundred and thirty-five years before.[2] By accepting
these figures Kudur-Nankhundi's invasion has been assigned to an
approximate date of 2285 B.C., and it was formerly supposed that it
was an episode in the Elamite wars of the First Dynasty of Babylon.
But, in consequence of the reduction in dates necessitated by recent
discoveries, it follows that, if Ashur-bani-pal's figures be accepted
as correct, Kudur-Nankhundi's invasion must have taken place before the
rise of Babylon. It cannot have occurred at a time when the kings of Ur
were all-powerful in Babylonia, and still retained an effective hold on
Elam; so that, unless we assign the invasion to some period of unrest
during the Dynasty of Isin, no more probable epoch presents itself than
that of the Elamite invasion which put an end to the Dynasty of Ur, and
allowed Isin to secure the hegemony in Babylonia.
The want of some synchronism, or fixed point of contact, between
the earlier history of Elam and that of Sumer and Akkad renders it
difficult to settle the period of those native Elamite rulers whose
names occur in building-inscriptions, recovered during the French
excavations at Susa. Some of the texts enumerate a succession of
Elamite princes, who had in turn taken part in the reconstruction of
buildings in that city,[3] and, although we are thus enabled to arrange
their names in relative chronological order, it is not until towards
the close of the First Dynasty of Babylon that we can definitely fix
the date of any one of them. Of earlier rulers, the members of the
dynasty of Khutran-tepti probably reigned at a period subsequent to
that of Basha-Shushinak.[4] In addition to Khutran-tepti himself, the
names of three of his descendants have been recovered, Itaddu I.,
and his son Kal-Rukhuratir, and his grandson Itaddu II. Since these
rulers bore the title patesi of Susa, it is possible that, like Urkium,
Zarik and Belia-rik, who are mentioned on tablets from Tello,[5] they
owed allegiance to Babylonia, during the period of the Dynasty of
Ur.[6] A later Elamite dynasty was that which traced its descent from
Ebarti, or from his son Shilkhakha. Two of Shilkhakha's descendants[7]
were Shirukdu' or Shirukdukh, and Simebalar-khuppak, and these were
divided from a later group by Kuk-Kirmesh, the son of Lankuku. The
later group of his descendants, whose names have yet been recovered,
consists of Adda-Pakshu, Temti-khalki and Kuk-Nashur, or Kukka-Nasher,
the descendant of Kal-Uli.[8] What intervals of time separated the
different members of the dynasty from one another is still a matter for
conjecture.
It is noteworthy that the members of Ebarti's dynasty, whose
inscriptions have been recovered, bear different titles to those of the
earlier dynasty of Khutran-tepti. While the latter styled themselves
patesis of Susa and governors (_shakkanakku_) of Elam, their successors
claim the title of _sukkal_ of Elam, of Simash, and of Susa. It has
been suggested that the title of _sukkallu_ may have carried with it an
idea of independence from foreign control, which is absent from that
of patesi, and the alteration of title has been regarded as reflecting
a corresponding change in the political condition of Elam. The view
has been put forward that the rulers of Elam, who styled themselves
_sukkallu_, reigned at a period when Elam was independent and possibly
exercised suzerainty over the neighbouring districts of Babylonia.[9]
The worker of this change was assumed to be Kudur-Nankhundi, and
in support of the suggestion it was pointed out that a certain
Kutir-Nakhkhunte, whose name occurs in a votive inscription of the
period, should possibly be identified with the conqueror of Erech.
He is mentioned on inscribed bricks of Temti-agun, a sukkal of Susa
and a descendant of Shirukdukh, from a temple built by this ruler
with the object of prolonging his own life and those of four other
Elamites, among them Kutir-Nakhkhunte.[10] It was thought possible that
Temti-agun might have been the local ruler of Susa, at a time when
Kutir-Nakhkhunte exercised control over the whole of Elam and a great
part of Babylonia.
The suggested synchronism, if established, would have been of
considerable assistance in arranging the chronology of an obscure
period of history, but it cannot be regarded as probable. Temti-agun
sets no title after Kutir-Nakhkhunte's name, an omission that is
hardly compatible with the theory that he was his superior and
suzerain. Moreover, it is now certain that the title of _sukkallu_, so
far from implying a measure of independence, was a distinctive mark
of subjection to foreign control. For an inscription of the sukkal
Kukka-Nasher has recently been published,[11] which is dated by a
formula of Ammi-zaduga, the last king but one of the first Babylonian
dynasty, proving that he governed Susa in Ammi-zaduga's name. This
synchronism is the only certain one in the early history of the two
countries, for it probably disposes of another recently suggested
between Adda-Pakshu and Sumu-abu, the founder of the Babylonian
monarchy. A contract-tablet of the epoch of Adda-Pakshu is dated
in "the year of Shumu-abi," who has been identified with Sumu-abu,
the Babylonian king.[12] Apart from the fact that no title follows
Shumu-abi's name, it has been pointed out that a far shorter interval
separated Adda-Pakshu from Kuk-Nashur.[13] We are therefore reduced to
the conclusion that at any rate the later members of Ebarti's dynasty
owed allegiance to Babylon, and it is a legitimate assumption that the
earlier rulers, who also bore the title of _sukkallu_, acknowledged
the suzerainty of either Babylon or Isin. The control exercised by the
sovereign state was doubtless often nominal, and it is probable that
border warfare was not of infrequent occurrence. A reflection of such
a state of affairs may probably be seen in the short inscription of
Anu-mutabil, a governor of the city of Der, which he engraved upon an
olive-shaped stone now in the British Museum.[14] This local magnate,
who probably lived at about the period of the Dynasty of Isin, boasts
that he broke the heads of the men of Anshan, Elam and Simash, and
conquered Barakhsu.
We thus obtain from native Elamite sources no evidence that Elam
exercised control over a portion of Babylonia for any considerable
period after the fall of Ur. The invasion of the country, which
resulted in the deportation of Ibi-Sin, no doubt freed Elam for a time
from foreign control, and may well have led to the establishment of a
number of independent states under native Elamite rulers. In addition
to Kudur-Nankhundi we may provisionally assign to this period Kisâri,
king of Gankhar,[15] a district which had previously been held by the
kings of Ur. But it would seem that the Elamite states, after their
long period of subjection, were not sufficiently strong or united to
follow up the success achieved by Anshan. The dynastic chronicle from
Nippur records that Isin took the kingdom of Ur, and we may assume that
Ishbi-Ura was not long in re-establishing the kingdom of Sumer and
Akkad with his own city as its capital. The Elamite invasion may well
have been confined to the south of Sumer, and among the cities that had
been left unaffected the most powerful would naturally assert itself.
Evidence that Ishbi-Ura soon freed himself from Elamite interference
may possibly be seen in a reference to him upon an Assyrian
omen-tablet, which states that "he had no rivals."[16] The phrase is
certainly vague, but it at least bears witness to the reputation which
his achievements secured for him in the traditions of a later age.
We possess few records of the kings of Isin, and the greater part of
our information concerning the dynasty is furnished by the Nippur
dynastic list. From this document we know that it lasted for two
hundred and twenty-five years and six months, and consisted of sixteen
kings. These fall naturally into four groups. The first group comprises
the family of Ishbi-Ura, four of whose direct descendants succeeded
him upon the throne, their reigns together with his occupying a period
of ninety-four years. The second group consists of Ur-Ninib and three
of his descendants, who reigned for sixty-one years. Then followed
a period of thirty-six and a half years, during which no less than
five kings ruled in Isin, and, since none of them were related, it
was clearly a time of great political unrest. A more stable condition
of things appears to have prevailed during the closing period of
thirty-four years, occupied by the reigns of Sin-magir and his son
Damik-ilishu, under whom the dynasty came to an end. A number of
tablets dated during the Dynasty of Isin have been found at Niffer,
and at least one at Abû Habba, while a few short votive inscriptions
of some of the kings themselves have been recovered on these two sites
and also at Ur and Babylon. References to four of the kings of Isin
in later Babylonian traditions complete the material from which a
knowledge of the period can be obtained. The information derived from
these rather scanty sources, combined with the succession of rulers
on the Nippur list, enables us to sketch in outline the progress of
events, but it naturally leaves many problems unsettled, for the
solution of which we must await further discoveries.
The late tradition of Ishbi-Ura's successful reign is supported by
the fact that he ruled for thirty-two years and firmly established
his own family upon the throne of Isin. He was succeeded by his
son Gimil-ilishu, who reigned for ten years. A very fragmentary
inscription of Idin-Dagan, the son of Gimil-ilishu, who reigned for
twenty-one years, has been found at Abû Habba,[17] proving that Sippar
acknowledged his authority. Indeed, it is probable that already in
Ishbi-Ura's reign Akkad as well as Sumer formed part of the kingdom
of Isin, and evidence that this was the normal state of affairs may
be seen in the fact that each king of Isin, of whom we possess a
building-inscription or a votive text, lays claim to the title of
King of Sumer and Akkad. The earliest record of this character is an
inscription upon bricks found at Mukayyar and dating from the reign
of Ishme-Dagan, the son and successor of Idin-Dagan. In addition to
his titles of King of Isin and King of Sumer and Akkad, he styles
himself Lord of Erech and records in various phrases the favour he
has shown to the cities of Nippur, Ur, and Eridu; while his building
activity at Nippur is attested by numerous bricks bearing his name and
titles, which have been found on that site. The same cities are also
mentioned in the titles borne by Libit-Ishtar, Ishme-Dagan's son, who
succeeded to the throne after his father had reigned for twenty years.
Both these rulers appear to have devoted themselves to the cult of
Ninni, the great goddess of Erech, and Ishme-Dagan even styles himself
her "beloved spouse." His claim to be the consort of the goddess was
doubtless based on his assumption of divine rank, a practice which the
kings of Isin inherited from the Dynasty of Ur.[18]
[Illustration: BRICKS OF BUR-SIN, KING OF UR, AND ISHME-DAGAN, KING OF
ISIN.--_From Mukayyar; Brit. Mus., Nos._ 90056 _and_ 90178_; photo, by
Messrs. Mansell & Co._]
Libit-Ishtar was the last member of Ishbi-Ura's family to occupy the
throne of Isin. He reigned for eleven years, and with his successor,
Ur-Ninib, the throne passed to a different family. We may probably
connect this change in the succession with the fact that about this
time an independent kingdom makes its appearance in Larsa and Ur. For
another son of Ishme-Dagan, named Enannatum, who was chief priest in
the temple of the Moon-god at Ur, has left us an inscription upon
clay cones, in which he records that he rebuilt the temple of the
Sun-god at Larsa for the preservation of his own life and that of
Gungunu, the king of Ur.[19] Gungunu himself, upon a brick-inscription
commemorating his building of the great wall of Larsa, claims to be
king of that city and also of the whole of Sumer and Akkad. It would
therefore seem that towards the close of Libit-Ishtar's reign, or
immediately after it, Gungunu established an independent kingdom with
its capital at Larsa. It is strange that in the city of Ur, which
was under his control, a son of Ishme-Dagan should continue to hold,
or should be invested with, the office of chief priest, and there is
something to be said for the suggestion that Libit-Ishtar's fall may
not have been brought about by any active hostility on the part of
Gungunu, but by a foreign invasion from Elam.[20]
According to this view Isin was captured by the invaders,[21] and
in the confusion that followed Larsa secured the hegemony in Sumer.
However this may be, it is probable that Gungunu's authority was of
brief duration; for Ur-Ninib is represented by the dynastic list as
Libit-Ishtar's immediate successor, and in an inscription of his own
upon a brick from Nippur he not only claims the titles of King of Isin
and King of Sumer and Akkad, but, like the earlier king Ishme-Dagan,
styles himself Lord of Erech, and the patron of Nippur, Ur, and
Eridu.[22] We may therefore assume that Ur-Ninib was successful in
re-establishing the power of Isin, and in uniting once more the whole
of Sumer and Akkad under its sway. After a reign of twenty-eight
years he was followed by his son Bûr-Sin II., who bore the same titles
as his father and mentions the same list of cities as having enjoyed
his special favour. His comparatively long reign of twenty-one years
is a further indication that Ur-Ninib's restoration of order had been
effective. The last two descendants of Ur-Ninib to occupy the throne
of Isin were sons of Bûr-Sin. Of Iter-kasha, who reigned for only
five years, we know nothing, but the name of his brother Ura-imitti,
and the strange manner in which he met his death after appointing his
successor, have been preserved in later Babylonian tradition.
In the chronicle concerning Sargon of Akkad and other early Babylonian
kings, to which reference has already been made,[23] a section is
devoted to Ura-imitti, from which we gather that, having no son to
succeed him upon the throne, he named Enlil-bani, his gardener, as
his successor.[24] The text relates that, after placing the crown of
his sovereignty upon Enlil-bani's head, he met his own death within
his palace either through misadventure or by poison.[25] With him,
therefore, Ur-Ninib's family came to an end, and, in view of the
strange manner of his death and the humble rank of the successor he had
appointed, it was but natural that Enlil-bani's claim to the throne
should not have been at once, nor universally, recognized. During the
struggle that followed Ur-imitti's death a certain Sin-ikisha[26]
established himself in Isin, and for six months retained the throne.
But at the end of this time Enlil-bani succeeded in ousting him from
that position, and, having secured the throne himself, he continued
to reign in Isin for twenty-four years. As he had been called to the
throne by Ura-imitti, he cannot be regarded as a usurper, but he
did not succeed in establishing a settled dynasty. Zambia,[27] who
followed him, was a usurper, and after only three years he was in turn
displaced. Two other usurpers held the throne for five and four years
respectively, and only with Sin-magir, the fifteenth king of Isin, was
a settled dynasty once more established.
During this period of confusion it is probable that the internal
troubles of Isin reacted upon her political influence in Babylonia. It
is also possible that the quick changes in the succession may have, in
part, been brought about by events which were happening in other cities
of Sumer and Akkad.[28] It has, indeed, been suggested that the Dynasty
of Isin and the First Dynasty of Babylon overlapped each other,[29]
as is proved to have been the case with the first three dynasties of
the Babylonian List of Kings. If that were so, not only the earlier
kings of Babylon, but also the kings of Larsa and the less powerful
kings of Erech, would all have been reigning contemporaneously with the
later kings of Isin. In fact, we should picture the kingdom of Sumer
and Akkad as divided into a number of smaller principalities, each
vying with the other in a contest for the hegemony, and maintaining
a comparatively independent rule within their own borders. Such a
condition of affairs would amply account for the confusion in the
succession at Isin, and our scanty knowledge of the period could be
supplemented from our sources of information concerning the history of
the earlier kings of Babylon.
The view is certainly attractive, but for that very reason it is
necessary to examine carefully the grounds upon which it is based.
For deciding the inter-relations of the first three dynasties of the
Babylonian King-List, we have certain definite synchronisms established
between members of the different dynasties.[30] But between the kings
of Babylon and Isin no such synchronism has been furnished by the
texts. The theory that the two dynasties were partly contemporaneous
rests upon data which admit of more than one interpretation, while
additional reasons adduced in its support have since been discredited.
The principal fact upon which those who accept the theory rely is that
a capture of the city of Isin is commemorated in the formula for the
seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, the fifth king of the First Dynasty
of Babylon and the father of Hammurabi.[31] Now a capture of the city
of Isin by Rîm-Sin, King of Larsa, is also recorded in formulas upon
contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, and that considerable importance
was attached locally to this event is attested by the fact that it
formed an epoch for dating tablets in that district.[32] The theory
necessitates two assumptions, the first to the effect that the
date-formulæ of Rîm-Sin and Sin-muballit refer to the same capture
of the city; and, secondly, that this event brought the Dynasty of
Isin to an end. Granting these hypotheses, the twenty-third year of
Damik-ilishu would have coincided with the seventeenth year of
Sin-muballit, and the dynasties of Isin and of Babylon would have
overlapped for a period of about ninety-nine years. Thus Sumu-abu,
the founder of the first Babylonian dynasty, would have been the
contemporary of Bûr-Sin II., king of Isin, in the sixth year of whose
reign he would have ascended the throne of Babylon. By the acceptance
of the theory, not only would the relations of the two dynasties be
definitely fixed, but the chronology for the later periods of Sumerian
history would be put on a comparatively settled basis, as far back at
least as the age of Ur-Engur and Gudea.
[Illustration: SPECIMENS OF BABYLONIAN CLAY CONES BEARING VOTIVE
INSCRIPTIONS OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA, OF NUR-ADAD, KING OF LARSA,
OF ENANNATUM, AN OFFICIAL IN UR DURING THE REIGN OF GUNGUNU, AND OF
UR-ENGUR, KING OF UR.--_Brit. Mus., Nos._ 30089, 30070, 30062, _and_
30090_; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co._]
Additional grounds in support of the theory have been deduced from
a tablet in the British Museum, which is dated in "the year in
which the Amurru drove out Libit-Ishtar."[33] We have already seen,
from information supplied by the Nippur dynastic list, that with
Libit-Ishtar, the fifth king of the Dynasty of Isin, the family of
Ishbi-Ura, its founder, came to an end, and that with Ur-Ninib a new
family was established on the throne. By identifying Libit-Ishtar, the
king, with the personage mentioned in the date-formula, it would follow
that he lost his throne in consequence of an invasion of the Amurru,
or Western Semites, who drove him from the city. But presumably they
were at once dislodged by Ur-Ninib, who retook the city and established
his own family upon the throne. According to this view, the supposed
invasion was but an advance wave of the racial movement that was
eventually to overwhelm the whole of Babylonia. Some thirty-three years
later, in the reign of Bûr-Sin, Ur-Ninib's son, the Western Semites are
represented as again invading the country, and, although this time they
do not penetrate to Isin, they succeed in establishing a dynasty of
their own at Babylon.
But there are difficulties in the way of accepting this further
development of the original theory. In the first place, it will have
been noticed that no title follows the name of Libit-Ishtar in the
date-formula already cited, and there is no particular reason why this
not uncommon name should be identified with the king of Isin. It has
further been pointed out that another tablet in the British Museum,[34]
of about the same period, contains a reference to a Libit-Ishtar who
was certainly not the king of Isin, but appears to have occupied the
important post of governor of a provincial city, probably Sippar.[35]
The writer of this tablet recounts how he had been imprisoned and had
appealed to Libit-Ishtar to try his case and set him free; but he was
met with a refusal, and he afterwards made a similar appeal to Amananu,
to whom he ascribes the title of governor. In this passage Libit-Ishtar
has no title, but since appeals in legal cases could be referred to
him, he may very probably have held the same office as Amananu, that of
governor of the city. In certain contract-tablets of Apil-Sin's reign
a Libit-Ishtar is also mentioned in the place of honour at the head of
the lists of witnesses, and he too should probably be identified with
the same official. We may therefore conclude that the Libit-Ishtar in
the date-formula served as the local governor of Sippar in the time of
Apil-Sin, until he was driven out by the Amurru. Whether the Amurru are
here to be regarded as the inhabitants of a neighbouring town,[36] or
as a fresh wave of Western Semites, does not affect the point at issue.
Since the Libit-Ishtar who was driven out was not the king of Isin, the
arguments deduced from the tablet for the overlapping of the dynasties
of Isin and of Babylon no longer apply.
There only remain to be discussed the original grounds for the
suggestion that Damik-ilishu was Sin-muballit's contemporary, and
that the fall of the Dynasty of Isin is to be set in the seventeenth
year of the latter's reign. According to this view the conqueror of
Isin would have been Rîm-Sin, assisted by his vassal, Sin-muballit.
But a recent discovery has shown that Rîm-Sin can hardly have been
a contemporary of Sin-muballit, or, at any rate, old enough in the
seventeenth year of the latter's reign to have captured the city of
Isin. From the chronicle concerning early Babylonian kings we already
knew that he was not finally defeated in Hammurabi's thirty-first year,
but lived on into the reign of Samsu-iluna, by whom he was apparently
defeated or slain.[37] It is true that the passage is broken, and it
has been suggested that the record concerns the son of Rîm-Sin, and not
Rîm-Sin himself.[38] But it has now been pointed out that two of the
contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, which appear to record the same
act of sale, and are inscribed with the names of the same witnesses,
are dated, the one by Rîm-Sin, the other in Samsu-iluna's tenth
year.[39] However we may explain the existence of these two nearly
identical copies of the same document, their dates certainly imply
that Rîm-Sin was in possession of a portion of Babylonia at least as
late as the ninth year of Samsu-iluna's reign.[40] If, therefore, he
captured Isin in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, Samsu-iluna's
grandfather, we must suppose that his military activity in Babylonia
extended over a period of at least fifty-six years, and probably
longer. Such an achievement is within the bounds of possibility, but it
cannot be regarded as probable.
But, quite apart from this objection, there are small grounds for
the belief that Sin-muballit was Rîm-Sin's vassal, or that they
could have taken part in any united action at this period. In fact,
every indication we have points to the conclusion that it was from
a king of Larsa that Sin-muballit captured Isin in the seventeenth
year of his reign.[41] Three years previously the date-formula for
his fourteenth year commemorated his defeat of the army of Ur, and
there are good grounds for believing that Ur was acting at this time
with the army of the king of Larsa. For certain tablets are dated in
the year in which Sin-muballit defeated the army of Larsa, and we
may with some confidence regard this as a variant formula for the
fourteenth year.[42] Thus, three years after his defeat of the king of
Larsa, Sin-muballit followed up his success by capturing the city of
Isin, which he commemorated in the formula for the seventeenth year.
But he cannot have held it for long, for it must have been shortly
retaken by Larsa, before being again recaptured in Hammurabi's seventh
year.[43] Thus, in less than eleven years, from the seventeenth year of
Sin-muballit to the seventh year of Hammurabi, the city of Isin changed
hands three times. We may therefore conclude that the date-formula for
Sin-muballit's seventeenth year, and those found upon the Tell Sifr
tablets,[44] did not commemorate the fall of the Dynasty of Isin in
Damik-ilishu's reign, but were based upon two episodes in the struggle
for that city, which took place at a later date, between the kings of
Larsa and of Babylon.
In view of the importance of the question, we have treated in some
detail the evidence that has been adduced in favour of the theory, that
the later kings of Isin were contemporaneous with the earlier rulers
of Babylon. It will have been seen that the difficulties involved by
the suggested synchronism between Damik-ilishu and Sin-muballit are
too grave to admit of its acceptance, while they entirely disappear
on referring the disputed date-formulæ to their natural place in
the struggle between Babylon and Larsa. This does not preclude the
possibility that the dynasties may have overlapped for a shorter
period than ninety-nine years. But in view of the total absence of any
information on the point, it is preferable to retain the view that
the Babylonian monarchy was not established before the close of the
Dynasty of Isin.[45] Whatever troubles may have befallen Isin after
Ur-Ninib's family had ceased to reign, there is no doubt that under
her last two kings the city's influence was re-established, and that
she exercised control over Babylon itself. In the course of the German
excavations, a clay cone has been found in the temple E-patutila at
Babylon, bearing a votive inscription of Sin-magir, the fifteenth king
of Isin; and this was evidently dedicated by him as a votive offering
in his character of suzerain of the city.[46] Moreover, in this text he
lays claim to the rule of Sumer and Akkad. Akkad, as well as Sumer, was
also held by his son Damik-ilishu, who succeeded him upon the throne.
For a tablet has been found at Abû Habba, dated in the year in which
Damik-ilishu built the wall of Isin,[47] and the date upon a tablet
from Nippur commemorates his building of the temple of Shamash, named
E-ditar-kalama, which was probably in Babylon.[48] Thus both Sippar and
Babylon were subject to the city of Isin under the last of her rulers,
who, like his father before him, maintained an effective hold upon the
kingdom of Sumer and Akkad.
With the rise of Babylon we reach the beginning of a new epoch in the
history of the two countries. The seat of power now passes finally to
the north, and, through the long course of her troubled history, the
city of Babylon was never dislodged from her position as the capital.
Foreign invasions might result in the fall of dynasties, and her kings
might be drawn from other cities and lands, but Babylon continued
to be the centre of their rule. Moreover, after the fresh wave of
immigration which resulted in the establishment of her First Dynasty,
the racial character of Babylonia became dominantly Semitic. Before
the new invaders the Sumerians tended to withdraw southwards into the
coastal districts of the Persian Gulf, and from here, for a time, an
independent dynasty, largely of Sumerian origin, attempted to contest
with Babylon her supremacy. But with the fall of Isin the political
career of the Sumerians as a race may be regarded as closed. Their
cultural influence, however, long survived them. In the spheres of art,
literature, religion, and law they left behind them a legacy, which
was destined to mould the civilization of the later inhabitants of
the country, and through them to exert an influence on other and more
distant races.
[1] See Boissier, "Choix de textes relatifs à la divination," II., p.
64, and Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," March, 1907, col. 114, n. 1.
[2] See "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. III., pl. 38, No. 1, Obv., l. 16.
[3] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Anzan.," II., p. 20; "Textes
Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 29, and IV., p. 15.
[4] See above, p. 289.
[5] See above, p. 291.
[6] The patesis Ur-Ningishzida, Ibalpel, Belaku and [...]mashu,
who ruled in Tupliash, or Ashnunnak, in the neighbourhood of Elam
(cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 174 f.) probably owed
allegiance to the kings of Ur or Isin. Ur-Ningirsu, who was also said
to be a patesi of Tupliash, is merely a misreading of Ur-Ningishzida's
name; cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 161 f.
[7] The phrase "son of the sister of," which occurs in the
inscriptions, is clearly not to be taken literally, but is used in the
sense of a descendant (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 183,
n. 2); it does not necessarily imply that the throne actually passed
through the female branch (as Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd.
I., Hft. II., p. 542, suggests), except possibly in the absence of
direct descendants in the male line.
[8] One of the native texts sets Kuk-Nashur before Temti-khalki, but
this was obviously due to a confusion with Adda-Pakshu; cf. Ungnad,
"Beitr. zur Assyr.," Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 6.
[9] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Anzan.," II., p. x.
[10] Cf. "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 23, pl. 7, Nos. 1-3.
[11] See "Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler," VII., p. 28, No. 67, and
cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur. Assyr.," Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 3 f.
[12] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pp. 18 and 20.
[13] The titles borne by Kuk-Kirmesh, who reigned before Adda-Pakshu,
and those of Temti-khalki and Kuk-Nashur are so similar, that it is
unlikely their periods were separated by the great political upheaval
which took place in Hammurabi's reign; cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur Assyr.,"
Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 6 f.
[14] Cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. XXI., pl. 1 and
"Königsinschriften," p. 176 f.
[15] His name occurs upon a cylinder-seal of Masiam-Ishtar, an official
in his service; see "Collection de Clercq," p. 83, pl. xiv., No. 121,
and "Königsinschriften," p. 174 f.
[16] See Boissier, "Doc. rel. à la div.," I., p. 30, K. 3970, Rev. l.
16, and Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 114, n. 1.
[17] See Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XVI., pp. 187 ff., and Radau,
"Early Bab. Hist.," p. 232 f.
[18] This is proved by the fact that in their own inscriptions that
have been recovered the determinative for divinity precedes their names.
[19] For one of the cones, see the plate opposite p. 314. In a
brick-inscription from Mukayyar, inscribed with Enannatum's name and
title, he calls himself the son of Ishme-Dagan, the King of Sumer and
Akkad; and it is quite possible that he received his appointment as
priest of the Moon-god during his father's lifetime or in the reign of
his brother Libit-Islitar.
[20] Cf. Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 54. For an
alternative suggestion that the invasion was from Amurru, see below, p.
315 f.
[21] Nippur, too, may have shared the like fate, if the breaking and
scattering of votive objects, deposited by earlier kings in the temple
of Enlil, is to be traced to this invasion.
[22] Gungunu's death is recorded in a date-formula upon a tablet from
Senkera (Larsa), which reads "the year in which Gungunu died" (see
Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XXI., p. 125.) Since the death of a king
from natural causes was never commemorated in this fashion, we may
conclude that he was slain in battle, probably by Ur-Ninib.
[23] See above, pp. 220, 225 ff., 282 f.
[24] The story was also told in the history of Agathias (II., 25, ed.
Dindorf, p. 222) of Beleous and Beletaras, who are described by him as
early Assyrian kings (see King, "Chronicles," I., p. 63 f.). But there
is no doubt that Ura-imitti was the ninth king of Isin, since Hilprecht
has since deciphered traces of his name in the Nippur dynastic list and
has also found it in a date-formula on an early contract from Nippur
(see "Zeits. für Assyr.," pp. 20 ff.). Moreover, the name of Enlil-bani
occurs in the Nippur list as that of the eleventh king of Isin.
[25] The meaning of the phrases in the text is exceedingly obscure; cf.
King, "Chronicles," I., p. 64 f., n. 1.
[26] Sin-ikisha's name, which is broken in the Nippur list, has been
restored from a contract-tablet preserved in the Pennsylvania Museum
(see Poebel, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 461 ff.). The contract is
dated in the year in which Sin-ikisha made an image of gold and silver
for the Sun-god.
[27] For the recovery of Zambia's name, by means of a contract-tablet
at Constantinople dated in his accession-year, see Hilprecht, "Orient.
Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 385 ff. Hommel and Hilprecht (cf. "Zeits. für
Assyr.," XXI., p. 29) regard Zambia as an abbreviated form of the name
of Sab-Dagan, which occurs as that of a king on the obverse of the
Neo-Babylonian map of the world preserved in the British Museum ("Cun.
Texts," XXII., pl. 48, Obv., l. 10). But the name of the city or land,
which followed the title of the king, is wanting, and Hilprecht's
suggested reading of the name preceding Sab-Dagan as that of Ura-imitti
is not supported by the traces on the tablet. The god's name is written
clearly as Shamash, not Ura.
[28] It is probable that Sumu-ilu, an early king of Ur, reigned in this
period. His name is known from the steatite figure of a dog, which the
priest Abba-dugga, the son of a certain Urukagina, dedicated on his
behalf to the goddess Nin-Isin, "the Lady of Isin" (cf. Thureau-Dangin,
"Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 69 f.). His date is uncertain, but, like
Gungunu, he may have taken advantage of troubles in Isin to establish
an independent kingdom for a time in Ur.
[29] See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," pp. 43, 49 f.,
n. 5. I also mentioned the possibility in "Chronicles," I., p. 168,
n. 1, and the view has been adopted by Ranke, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.,"
1907, col. 109 ff., and Ungnad, "Zeits. der Deutsch. Morgenländ.
Gesellschaft," Bd. LXI., p. 714, and "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col.
66. Meyer also accepts the hypothesis; see "Geschichte des Altertums,"
Bd. I., Hft. II., pp. 344 f., 504 f.
[30] See above, p. 62.**
[31] See King, "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 228 f.
[32] _Op. cit._, p. 228 f., n. 39. There is no certain indication
of the _provenance_ of the tablet referred to by Scheil in "Rec. de
trav.," XXI., p. 125, though he implies that it was found at Senkera,
from which Tell Sifr is not far distant. The evidence available seems
to show that the Isin-era was confined to Larsa and its neighbourhood.
[33] See Ranke, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 109 ff. The tablet in
question is published in "Cun. Texts," Pt. IV., pl. 22, No. 78,395 (Bu.
88-5-12, 294).
[34] Cf. "Cun. Texts," Pt. VI., pl. 8, No. 80,163 (Bu. 91-5-9, 279).
[35] See Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 113 ff.
[36] So Meissner, _loc. cit._
[37] Cf. "Chronicles," II., p. 18 f.
[38] Cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 585 f., and Hrozný,
"Wiener Zeitschrift," Bd. 21 (1908), p. 382. But Winckler and Hrozný in
their rendering ignore the fact that in these late chronicles "son" is
always expressed by TUR (_mâru_), never by A (_aplu_).
[39] See Ungnad, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXIII., pp. 73 ff.
[40] Confirmation of this view has now been obtained. I learn from M.
Thureau-Dangin that he has found a variant date for the tenth year of
Samsu-iluna, which mentions not only the cities of Erech and Isin but
also the land of Iamutbal (cf. "Journal asiatique," 1909, pp. 335 ff.)
[41] See Delitzsch, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," IV., p. 406 f., and
Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 256 f.
[42] See Thureau-Dangin, _op. cit._, col. 256, and King, "Hammurabi,"
III., p. 229, n. 41. The only other possible year in Sin-muballit's
reign would be the twentieth, the formula for which is broken on the
principal date-list A; I have made a fresh examination of the tablet,
and the slight traces preserved at the beginning of the line do not
suggest this restoration, though it is possible.
[43] See King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 230 f., and "Chronicles," I.,
p. 166. The traces on the date-list D suggest that the formula for
this year records the destruction and not the building of the wall of
Isin. This is now put beyond a doubt by the formula upon a contract of
Hammurabi's reign dated in the year of his capture of Erech and Isin
(see Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 257, n. 2).
[44] It should be added that the local system of dating tablets at Tell
Sifr was not necessarily continuous. If the city ever changed hands,
the conqueror would re-introduce his own date-formulæ, as we have seen
was done by Samsu-iluna.
[45] While the later kings of Isin were suzerains of Babylon, there
is little doubt that the earlier kings of Babylon controlled, not
only their own city, but a considerable part of Akkad. Thus from
the date-formulæ of Sumu-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty, we
gather that his authority was recognized at Dilbat and at Kish, and
that he was strong enough to undertake the conquest of Kazallu in his
thirteenth year; moreover a contract, probably from Sippar, is dated in
his reign (cf. King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 212 f., and Thureau-Dangin,
"Journal des savants," 1908, p. 200).
[46] Cf. Weissbach, "Babylonische Miscellen," p. 1.
[47] Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XXIII., p. 94, and "Une saison de
fouilles à Sippar," p. 140.
[48] See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 49 f., n. 5.