THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON AND THE KINGS FROM THE
COUNTRY OF THE SEA
In the closing years of Hammurabi's reign Babylon had reached the
climax of her early power. The proud phraseology of the Prologue to
his Code conveys the impression that the empire was solidly compact,
and its component cities the willing recipients of his royal clemency
and favour. And there can be no doubt that he owed his success in
great measure to the efficient administration he had established under
his personal control. His son, Samsu-iluna, inherited his father's
traditions, and in his letters that have survived we have abundant
evidence that he exercised the same close supervision over the judicial
and administrative officers stationed in cities distant from the
capital. And it would appear that the first eight years of his reign
passed under the same peaceful conditions, that had prevailed at the
time of his accession to the throne. He cut two canals, and the names
he gave them commemorate the wealth and abundance he hoped by their
means to bestow upon the people. It was in his third and fourth years
that the Samsu-iluna-nagab-nukhush-nishi and the Samsu-iluna-khegallum
Canals were completed, and the royal activities were then confined to
the further adornment of the great temples of Babylon and Sippar. His
ninth year marks the crisis, not only in Samsu-iluna's own reign, but
in the early fortunes of the kingdom. It is then that we first hear of
Kassite tribes appearing in force upon Babylon's eastern frontier, and,
though Samsu-iluna doubtless defeated them, as he claims to have done,
it is clear that their emergence from the foothills of Western Elam,
followed speedily by their penetration of Babylonian territory, was the
signal for setting the empire in a blaze.
They must have met with some success before their onslaught was
arrested by the army sent against them,[1] and the renewal of
hostilities in any form must have aroused once more the fighting
instinct of the Elamite border tribes, which had been temporarily laid
to rest by Hammurabi's victories. Hammurabi's old antagonist, Rîm-Sin
himself, had long been living in comparative retirement, and, in spite
of his advanced age, the news fired him to fresh efforts. His name was
still on the lips of those who had fought under him, and since the
death of his conqueror, Hammurabi, his prestige must have tended to
increase. When, therefore, his native land of Emutbal, allying itself
with the neighbouring Elamite district of Idamaraz, followed up the
Kassite onslaught by an organized invasion, Rîm-Sin raised a revolt
in Southern Babylonia, and succeeded in gaining possession of Erech
and Nîsin. It would appear that the Babylonian garrison in Larsa, too,
was overcome, and that the city passed once more under the independent
control of its old ruler.
With the whole south of the country in arms against him, we may
conjecture that Samsu-iluna detailed sufficient forces to contain
Rîm-Sin, while he dealt with the invasion of Babylon's home-territory.
He had little difficulty in disposing of the Elamites, and, marching
southwards, he defeated Rîm-Sin's forces and reoccupied Larsa.[2]
It may be that it was at this time he captured, or burnt, Rîm-Sin
alive,[3] and that the palace where this took place was the
rebel leader's old palace at Larsa, which he had been making his
headquarters. But the revolt was not completely subdued. Ur and
Erech still held out, and it was only after a further campaign that
Samsu-iluna recaptured them and razed their walls. He had thus
succeeded in crushing the first series of organized attacks upon
the empire, but the effort of dealing simultaneously with invasion
and internal revolt had evidently strained the national resources.
Garrisons had probably been reduced in distant provinces, others had
been cut down in order to reinforce his armies in the field, and it is
not surprising that in his twelfth year these outlying districts should
have followed the prevailing lead. In that year it is recorded that all
the lands revolted against him.[4]
[Illustration: IMPRESSIONS OF KASSITE CILINDER SEALS. _Brit. Mus.,
Nos._ 89128, 89001, 28799, 89240, 89258.]
We may with some confidence trace the main source of Samsu-iluna's
fresh troubles to the action of Iluma-ilum, who, probably at this time,
headed a revolt in the Sea-Country on the shore of the Persian Gulf,
and declared his independence of Babylon. Samsu-iluna's answer was to
raise further levies and lead them against his new foe. The subsequent
battle was fiercely contested on the very shore of the Gulf, for a
later chronicler records that the bodies of the slain were carried
off by the sea; yet it was either indecisive, or resulted in the
discomfiture of the Babylonians. We may conjecture that the king was
prevented from employing his full forces to stamp out the rebellion,
in consequence of trouble in other quarters. For in the following
two years we find him destroying the cities Kisurra and Sabum, and
defeating the leader of a rebellion in the home-territory of Babylon
itself.[5]
Iluma-ilum was thus afforded the opportunity of consolidating his
position, and we may perhaps see evidence of his growing influence
in Southern Babylonia in the fact that at Tell Ṣifr not a single
document has been found dated in a later year of Samsu-iluna's reign
than the tenth.[6] In view of the fact that the central city of Nippur
eventually passed under Iluma-ilum's control, we may probably assume
that he was already encroaching northwards, and that territory in
the south of Sumer, perhaps including the city of Larsa, passed now
into his possession. In support of this suggestion it may be noted
that, when Samsu-iluna, after suppressing the Akkadian usurper, began
repairing the damage wrought in six years of continuous fighting, it
is at Nîsin and at Sippar that he rebuilds the ruined walls, and in
Emutbal that he repairs the great garrison-fortresses. Nîsin may well
have marked the most southerly limit of Babylon's control, and we may
picture the gradual expansion of the Sea-Country, as the power of
Babylon declined. The "rebellious land," which Samsu-iluna boasts that
he overthrew in his twentieth year, was perhaps the Sea-Country, for we
know that he conducted a second campaign against Iluma-ilum, who this
time secured a victory. If the Babylonian army succeeded in retreating
in comparatively good order, it would have formed a sufficient
justification for Samsu-iluna's boast that he had given the rebellious
land a lesson.
The fringe of territory in the extreme south-east of Babylonia always
exhibited a tendency to detach itself from the upper riverain districts
of Babylonia proper. Forming the littoral of the Persian Gulf, and
encroaching in its northern area upon Elam, it consisted of great
stretches of rich alluvial soil interspersed with areas of marsh-land
and swamps, which tended to increase where the rivers approached the
coast. The swamps undoubtedly acted as a protection to the country,
for while tracks and fords were known to the inhabitants, a stranger
from the north-west would in many places have been completely baffled
by them. The natives, too, in their light reed-boats could escape from
one district to another, pushing along known passages and eluding their
pursuers, when once the tall reeds had closed behind them. The later
Assyrians at the height of their power succeeded in subduing a series
of revolts in the Sea-Country, but it was only by enlisting the help
of native guides and by commandeering the light canoes of neighbouring
villages. The earlier kings of Babylonia had always been content to
leave the swamp-dwellers to themselves, and at most to exact a nominal
recognition of suzerainty. But it is probable that fresh energy had
been lately introduced into the district, and of this Iluma-ilum
doubtless took advantage when he succeeded, not only in leading a
revolt, but in establishing an independent kingdom.
[Illustration: FIG. 44.
SWAMP IN SOUTHERN BABYLONIA OR THE SEA-COUNTRY.
An Assyrian conquest of the country is here represented, amid all the
difficulties presented by its swamps and reed-beds.
(After a bas-relief at Nineveh.)]
It is clear that the pressure exerted upon Babylonia by the
West-Semitic migration must have tended to displace sections of the
existing population. The direction of advance was always down-stream,
and the pressure continued in force even after the occupation of
the country. Those strains in the population, which differed most
radically from the invaders, would be the more likely to seek sanctuary
elsewhere, and, with the exception of Elam, the Sea-Country offered
the only possible line of retreat. We may assume, therefore, that the
marsh-dwellers of the south had been reinforced for a considerable
period by Sumerian refugees, and, though the first three rulers of the
new kingdom bore Semitic names and were probably Semites, the names
of later rulers of the Sea-Country suggest that the Sumerian element
in the population afterwards secured the control,[7] no doubt with
the assistance of fresh drafts from their own kindred after their
successful occupation of Southern Babylonia. Under the more powerful
kings of the Second Dynasty, the kingdom may have assumed a character
resembling that of its predecessors in Babylonia. The centre of
administration was certainly shifted for a time to Nippur, and possibly
even further north, but the Sea-Country, as the home-land of the
dynasty, must have always been regarded as a dominant province of the
kingdom, and it offered a secure refuge to its rulers in the event of
their being driven again within its borders. In spite of its extensive
marshes, it was capable of sustaining its inhabitants in a considerable
degree of comfort, for the date-palm flourished luxuriantly, and the
areas under cultivation must have been at least as productive as those
further to the north-west. Moreover, the zebu, or humped cattle of
Sumer, thrived in the swamps and water-meadows, and not only formed
an important source of supply, but were used for ploughing in the
agricultural districts.[8]
With such a country as a base of operations, protected in no small
degree by its marshes, it is not surprising that the Sea-Country kings
should have met with considerable success in their efforts at extending
the area of territory under their control.
After his second conflict with Iluma-ilum, Samsu-iluna appears to
have reconciled himself to the loss of his southern province, and to
have made no further effort at reconquest. He could still boast of
successes in other districts, for he destroyed the walls of Shakhnâ
and Zarkhanum, doubtless after the suppression of a revolt, and he
strengthened the fortifications of Kish. He also retained the control
of the Euphrates route to Syria, and he doubtless encouraged the
commercial enterprise of Babylon in that direction as a set-off to his
losses in the south. We possess an interesting illustration of the
close relations he maintained with the west in the date-formula for
the twenty-sixth year of his reign, which tells us that he procured
a monolith from the great mountain of the land of Amurru. This must
have been quarried in the Lebanon, and transported overland to the
Euphrates, and thence conveyed by _kelek_ to the capital. From the
details he gives us of its size, it appears to have measured some
thirty-six feet in length, and it was no small achievement to have
brought it so far to Babylon.
[Illustration: FIG. 45.
THE ZEBU OR HUMPED OXEN OF THE SEA-COUNTRY.
They are here represented as being driven off from the Soa-Country,
along with other booty, under a convoy of Assyrian soldiers.
(After a bas-relief from Nineveh in the British Museum.)]
During this period of comparative tranquillity Samsu-iluna devoted
himself once more to rebuilding and beautifying E-sagila and the
temples of Kish and Sippar; but in his twenty-eighth year Babylon
suffered a fresh shock, which appears to have resulted in still
further loss of territory. In that year he claims to have slain
Iadi-khabum and Muti-khurshana, two leaders of an invasion, or a
revolt, of which we have no details. But it is clear that the victory,
if such it was, resulted in further trouble, for in the following
two years no fresh date-formulæ were promulgated, and it is probable
that the king himself was absent from the capital. It is significant
that no document has been recovered at Nippur which is dated after
Samsu-iluna's twenty-ninth year, although in the preceding period, from
the thirty-first year of Hammurabi onward, when the city first passed
into Babylon's possession, nearly every year is well represented in the
dated series.[9] It is difficult not to conclude that Samsu-iluna now
lost the control of that city, and, since one of the documents from
Nippur is dated in Iluma-ilum's reign, it can only have passed into the
latter's possession. Further evidence of the diminishing territory of
Babylon may be seen in the fact that Samsu-iluna should have rebuilt
the old line of fortresses, founded by his ancestor Suma-la-ilum
at a time when the kingdom was in its infancy.[10] This work was
doubtless undertaken when he foresaw the necessity of defending the
Akkadian border, and he must have lost one at least of the fortresses,
Dûr-Zakar, when Nippur was taken. His activities during his closing
years were confined to the north and west, and to the task of keeping
open the Euphrates route. For he cut a canal beside Kâr-Sippar,
recovered possession of Saggaratum, and probably destroyed the cities
of Arkum and Amal. His defeat of an Amorite force some two years
before his death is of interest as proving that the Western Semites
of Akkad, nearly two centuries after their settlement in the country,
were experiencing the same treatment from their own stock that they
themselves had caused to the land of their adoption.
Samsu-iluna, with the possible exception of Ammi-ditana, was the
last great king of the West-Semitic dynasty. It is true that his son
Abi-eshu' made a fresh attempt to dislodge Iluma-ilum from his hold
upon Central and Southern Babylonia. A late chronicle records that he
took the offensive and marched against Iluma-ilum.[11] It would seem
that his attack was in the nature of a surprise, and that he succeeded
in cutting off the king and part of his forces, possibly on their
return from some other expedition. It is clear that he came into touch
with him in the neighbourhood of the Tigris, and probably forced him to
take refuge in a fortress, since he attempted to cut off his retreat by
damming the river. He is said to have succeeded in damming the stream,
but he failed to catch Iluma-ilum. The chronicle records no further
conflict between the two, and we may assume that he then adopted his
father's later policy of leaving the Sea-Country in possession of its
conquered territory. In some of his broken date-formulæ we have echoes
of a few further campaigns, and we know that he cut the Abi-eshu'
Canal, and built a fortress at the gate of the Tigris, which he also
named after himself, Dûr-Abi-eshu'. This was probably a frontier
fortification, erected for the defence of the river at the point where
it passed from Babylon's area of control to that of the Sea-Country. He
also built the town of Lukhaia on the Arakhtu Canal in the immediate
neighbourhood of Babylon. But both Abi-eshu' and his successors on
the throne give evidence of having become more and more engrossed in
cult-observances. The supply of temple-furniture begins to have for
them the importance that military success had for their fathers. And it
is a symptom of decadence that, even in the religious sphere, they are
as much concerned with their own worship as with that of the gods.
It is significant that Abi-eshu' should have named one of his years
of rule by his decoration of a statue of Entemena, the early patesi
of Lagash, who had been accorded divine honours, and, at some period
after Hammurabi's occupation of that city, had received a cult-centre
of his own in Babylon. For the act indicates an increased interest,
on Abi-eshu's part, in the deification of royalty. This honour was
peculiarly associated with the possession of Nippur, the central city
and shrine of the country, and Babylon had adopted the practice of
deification for her kings after Nippur had been annexed by Hammurabi.
Though the city had now passed from Babylon's control, Abi-eshu'
did not relinquish the privilege his father and grandfather had
legitimately enjoyed. Since Babylon no longer possessed the central
shrine of Enlil, in which his own divine statue should have been set
up, he dedicated one in Enlil's local temple at Babylon. But not
content with that he fashioned no less than five other statues of
himself, which he set up in the temples of other gods, at Babylon,
Sippar and elsewhere.[12]
His three successors followed the same practice, and Ammi-ditana and
Ammi-zaduga, his son and grandson, have left descriptions of some of
these cult-images of themselves.[13] A favourite character, in which
the king was often represented, was holding a lamb for divination, and
another was in the attitude of prayer. The later kings of the First
Dynasty love, too, to dwell on their sumptuous votive offerings.
Marduk is supplied with innumerable weapons of red gold, and the
Sun-god's shrine at Sippar is decorated with solar disks of precious
_dushû_-stone, inlaid with red gold, lapis-lazuli, and silver. Great
reliefs, with representations of rivers and mountains, were cast
in bronze and set up in the temples; and Samsu-ditana, the last of
his line, records among his offerings to the gods the dedication to
Sarpanitum of a rich silver casket for perfumes.
Incidentally, these references afford striking proof of the wealth
Babylon had now acquired, due no doubt to her increased commercial
activities. Elam on the one side and Syria on the other[14] had
furnished her with imports of precious stone, metal, and wood; and
her craftsmen had learnt much from foreign teachers. In spite of the
contraction of Hammurabi's empire, the life of the people in both
the town and country districts of Akkad was not materially altered.
The organized supervision of all departments of national activity,
pastoral, agricultural and commercial, which the nation owed in
great measure to Hammurabi, was continued under these later kings;
and some of the royal letters that have been recovered show that
orders on comparatively unimportant matters continued to be issued in
the king's name. We know, too, of a good many public works carried
out by Ammi-ditana, Abi-eshu's son. He cut only one canal, and he
built fortresses for the protection of others, and named them alter
himself. Thus, in addition to the Ammi-ditana Canal, we learn of a
Dûr-Ammi-ditana, which he erected on the Zilakum Canal, and another
fortress of the same name on the Mê-Enlil Canal. He strengthened
the wall of Ishkun-Marduk, which was also on the Zilakum, and built
Mashkan-Ammi-ditana and the wall of Kâr-Shamash, both on the bank of
the Euphrates.[15]
The systematic fortification of the rivers and canals may perhaps
be interpreted as marking an advance of the frontier southward, in
consequence of which it was advisable to protect the crops and the
water-supply of the districts thus recovered from the danger of sudden
raids. On two occasions Ammi-ditana claims, in rather vague terms, to
have freed his land from danger, once by restoring the might of Marduk,
and later on by loosing the pressure from his land; and that, in his
seventeenth year, he should have claimed to have conquered Arakhab,
perhaps referred to as "the Sumerian,"[16] is an indication that the
Sea-Country kings found ready assistance from the older population
of the South. Moreover, of the later West-Semitic kings, Ammi-ditana
alone appears to have made headway against the encroachments of the
Sea-Country. The most conclusive proof of his advance is to be seen
in the date-formula for his thirty-seventh year, which records that
he destroyed the wall of Nîsin,[17] proving that he had penetrated to
the south of Nippur. That Nippur itself was held by him for a time is
more than probable, especially as one of his building-inscriptions,
still unpublished, is said to have been found there[18]; and we know
also, from a Neo-Babylonian copy of a similar text, that he claimed the
title "King of Sumer and Akkad."[19] Under him, then, Babylon recovered
a semblance of her former strength, but we may conjecture that the
Sea-Country retained its hold on Larsa and the southern group of cities.
We are furnished with a third valuable synchronism between the
dynasties of Babylon and of the south by the reference to Ammi-ditana's
destruction of the wall of Nîsin, for the date-formula adds that this
had been erected by the people of Damiḳ-ilishu. The ruler referred
to is obviously the third king in the dynasty of the Sea-Country,
who succeeded Itti-ili-nibi upon the throne.[20] We may conclude
that it was in his reign, or shortly after it, that Ammi-ditana
succeeded in recovering Nîsin, after having already annexed Nippur on
his southward advance. In his thirty-fourth year, two years before
the capture of Nîsin, he had dedicated an image of Samsu-iluna in
the temple E-namtila, and we may perhaps connect this tribute to his
grandfather with the fact that in his reign Babylon had last enjoyed
the distinction conferred by the suzerainty of Nippur.
In the year following the recovery of Nîsin Ammi-zaduga succeeded
his father on the throne, and since he ascribes the greatness of his
kingdom to Enlil, and not to Marduk or any other god, we may see
in this a further indication that Babylon continued to control his
ancient shrine. But the remaining date-formulæ for Ammi-zaduga's reign
do not suggest that Ammi-ditana's conquests were held permanently.
A succession of religious dedications is followed in his tenth year
by the conventional record that he loosed the pressure of his land,
suggesting that his country had been through a period of conflict; and,
though in the following year he built a fortress, Dûr-Ammi-zaduga "at
the mouth of the Euphrates," the nearly unbroken succession of votive
acts, commemorated during his remaining years and in the reign of his
son Samsu-ditana, makes it probable that the kings of Sea-Country were
gradually regaining some of the territory they had temporarily lost.[21]
But it was not from the Sea-Country that the West-Semitic Dynasty of
Babylon received its death-blow. In the late chronicle, which has
thrown so much light on the earlier conflicts of this troubled period,
we read of another invasion, which not only brought disaster to Babylon
but probably put an end to her first dynasty. The chronicler states
that during the reign of Samsu-ditana, the last king of the dynasty,
"men of the land of Khatti marched against the land of Akkad," in other
words, that Hittites from Anatolia[22] marched down the Euphrates and
invaded Babylonia from the north-west. The chronicle does not record
the result of the invasion,[23] but we may probably connect it with the
fact that the Kassite king Agum-kakrime brought back to Babylon from
Khanî, the old Khana on the middle Euphrates,[24] the cult-images of
Marduk and Sarpanitum and installed them once more with great pomp and
ceremony within their shrines in E-sagila. We may legitimately conclude
that they were carried off by the Hittites during their invasion in
Samsu-ditana's reign.
[Illustration: BRICK OF SIN-GASHID, KING OF ERECH, RECORDING THE
BUILDING OF HIS PALACE IN THAT CITY. _From Warka; Brit. Mus._, No.
90268; _Photo by Messrs. Mansell & Co._]
If the Hittites succeeded in despoiling Babylon of her most sacred
deities, it is clear that they must have raided the city, and they may
even have occupied it for a time. Thus the West-Semitic Dynasty of
Babylon may have been brought to an end by these Hittite conquerors,
and Samsu-ditana himself may have fallen in defence of his own capital.
But there is no reason for supposing that the Hittites occupied
Babylon for long. Even if their success was complete, they would soon
have returned to their own country, laden with heavy spoil; and they
doubtless left some of their number in occupation of Khana on their
withdrawal up the Euphrates. Southern Babylonia may also have suffered
in the raid, but we may assume that its force was felt most in the
north, and that the kings of the Sea-Country profited by the disaster.
We have as yet no direct evidence of their occupation of Babylon, but,
as their kingdom had been Babylon's most powerful rival prior to the
Hittite raid, it may well have increased its borders after her fall.
To this period we may probably assign a local dynasty of Erech,
represented by the names of Sin-gashid, Sin-gamil and An-am. From
bricks and foundation-records recovered at Warka, the site of the
ancient city, we know that the first of these rulers restored the old
temple of E-anna and built himself a new palace.[25] But the most
interesting of Sin-gashid's records is a votive cone, commemorating
the dedication of E-kankal to Lugal-banda and the goddess Ninsun, for,
when concluding his text with a prayer for abundance, he inserts a
list or tariff, stating the maximum-price which he had fixed for the
chief articles of commerce during his reign,[26] Sin-gamil was An-am's
immediate predecessor on the throne of Erech, and during his reign
the latter dedicated on his behalf a temple to Nergal in the town
of Usipara.[27] An-am was the son of a certain Bêl-shemea, and his
principal work was the restoration of the wall of Erech, the foundation
of which he ascribes to the semi-mythical ruler Gilgamesh.[28]
Doubtless other local kingdoms arose during the period following
Babylon's temporary disappearance as a political force, but we have
recovered no traces of them,[29] and the only fact of which we are
certain is the continued succession of the Sea-Country kings. To one
of these rulers, Gulkishar, reference is made upon a boundary stone
of the twelfth century, drawn up in the reign of Enlil-nadin-apli, an
early king of the Fourth Dynasty. On it he is given the title of King
of the Sea-Country, which is also the late chronicler's designation
for E-gamil, the last member of the dynasty, in the account he has
left us of the Kassite invasion. Such evidence seems to show that the
administrative centre of their rule was established at those periods in
the south; but the inclusion of the dynasty in the Kings' List is best
explained on the assumption that at least some of its later members
imposed their suzerainty over a wider area.[30] They were evidently
the only stable line of rulers in a period after the most powerful
administration the country had yet known had been suddenly shattered.
The land had suffered much, not only from the Hittite raid, but also
during the continuous conflicts of more than a century that preceded
the final fall of Babylon. It must have been then that many of the
old Sumerian cities of Southern and Central Babylonia were deserted,
after being burned down and destroyed; and they were never afterwards
re-occupied. Lagash, Umma, Shuruppak, Kisurra and Adab play no part in
the subsequent history of Babylonia.
Of the fortunes of Babylon at this time we know nothing, but the fact
that the Kassites should have made the city their capital shows that
the economic forces, which had originally raised her to that position,
were still in operation. The Sumerian elements in the population of
Southern Babylonia may now have enjoyed a last period of influence,
and their racial survival in the Sea-Country may in part explain its
continual striving for independence. But in Babylonia as a whole the
effects of three centuries of West-Semitic rule were permanent. When,
after the Kassite conquest, Babylon emerges once more into view, it
is apparent that the traditions inherited from her first empire have
undergone small change.
[Footnote 1: We may assume that they owed the partial success of the
raid to their mobility, although on this occasion, their earliest
invasion of Babylonian territory, the horse probably played a still
more useful part in the retreat; see further, p. 215 f.]
[Footnote 2: Such appears to be the most probable explanation of
the duplicate copies of the sale-contract from Tell Ṣifr, in the
neighbourhood of Larsa, with their variant dates by formulæ of Rîm-Sin
and Samsu-iluna; see above, p. 98.]
[Footnote 3: Cf. "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings," II.,
p. 18.]
[Footnote 4: Cf. the date-formula for Samsu-iluna's twelfth year, which
in its full form commemorated some royal act "after all the lands had
revolted." Since the success against Ur and Erech was commemorated in
the preceding year, the revolt in question can hardly refer to the
troubles with Rîm-Sin and the Elamites, but must be taken as implying
that other provinces were now making a bid for independence.]
[Footnote 5: The formula for his fourteenth year commemorates his
overthrow of "the usurping king, whom the Akkadians had caused to lead
a rebellion."]
[Footnote 6: The latest document from Larsa (Senkera) is dated in his
twelfth year; see above, p. 104 f.]
[Footnote 7: Such names as Ishkibal, Gulkishar, Peshgal-daramash,
A-dara-kalama, Akur-ul-ana and Melam-kurkura are all Sumerian. The last
king of the dynasty, Ea-gamil, bears a Semitic name, and Shushshi, the
name of Ishkibal's brother, is probably Semitic.]
[Footnote 8: The zebu, or _Bos indicus,_ is represented on Sumerian
sculpture from Lagash, dating from the middle of the third millennium
B.C. (cf. "Sumer and Akkad, p. 69, Fig. 21); men are represented
ploughing with it in a Kassite seal-impression (see above, p. 175 Fig.
40); and it formed one of the most valued classes of booty from the
Sea-Country at the time of the later Assyrian empire (see Fig. 45).]
[Footnote 9: Cf. Poebel, "Legal and Business Documents," p. 119; and
Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents," p. 25.]
[Footnote 10: See above, p. 148 f.]
[Footnote 11: Cf. "Chronicles concerning Early Kings," II., p. 21.]
[Footnote 12: One of these statues was set up in E-gishshirgal, a name
which corresponds to that of the old Moon-temple at Ur; and on this
evidence Poebel has assumed that Abi-eshu' succeeded in getting control
of Southern Babylonia (cf. "Legal and Business Documents," p. 120). But
a fuller form of the date has since been recovered, showing that this
E-gishshirgal, and doubtless the temple of Enlil coupled with it, were
in Babylon. It would seem therefore that after Samsu-iluna had lost
his hold upon the great centre of the Moon-cult in the south, a local
temple for the Moon-god's worship was established at Babylon, under the
ancient name, in which the old cult-practices were reproduced as far
as possible. Similarly, having lost Nippur, a new shrine to Enlil was
built at Babylon, or an old one enlarged and beautified. By such means
it was doubtless hoped to secure a continuance of the gods' favour, and
an ultimate recovery of their cities; and the continual dedication of
royal images, though doubtless a sign of royal deification, must also
have been intended to bring the king's claims to the divine notice.]
[Footnote 13: As Ammi-ditana appears to have recovered Nippur for
a time towards the end of his reign, and as Ammi-zaduga probably
retained it during his earlier years (see below, p. 208 f.), Babylon
could legitimately claim her former privileges during the period of
occupation.]
[Footnote 14: The bronze-casting may well have been learnt from
Elam; and we have striking evidence of increased relations with
the west in the fact that under Ammi-zaduga a district of Sippar
was known as Amurrî, from its Amorite quarter or settlement; cf.
Meissner, "Altbabylonisches Privatrecht," p. 41 f., No. 42, and Meyer,
"Geschichte," I., ii., p. 467 f.]
[Footnote 15: His other building activities included the founding of a
royal suburb at Babylon, named Shag-dugga, on the bank of the Arakhtu
Canal, where he built himself a palace; while at Sippar he once more
rebuilt the Gagûm, or spacious Cloister attached to the temple of the
Sun-god.]
[Footnote 16: Cf. Poebel, "Legal and Business Documents," p. 121, and
Schorr, "Urkunden," p. 602.]
[Footnote 17: For references, see Schorr, _op. cit.,_ p. 604.]
[Footnote 18: According to a verbal communication made by Prof.
Hilprecht to Dr. Poebel.]
[Footnote 19: Cf. "Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi," III., p. 207
f.; in the same inscription he also lays claim to the rule of Amurru.]
[Footnote 20: It is most improbable that he should be identified
with Damiḳ-ilishu, the last king of the earlier Dynasty of Nîsin,
who perished one hundred and thirty-seven years before this time.
It is true that Nabonidus, to judge from his building-inscriptions,
evinces an interest in the past, but in many ways he was a unique
monarch and he lived in a later age. These early date-formulæ, on the
other hand, always refer to contemporaneous events, not to matters of
archæological interest. We know definitely that Iluma-ilum (the first
Sea-Country king) was the contemporary of Samsu-iluna and Abi-eshu',
and it is not unreasonable to find a reference to Damiḳ-ilishu (the
third Sea-Country king) in the last year of Ammi-ditana, Abi-eshu's
son. Granting this assumption, there follows the important inference
that the exceptionally long period of one hundred and fifteen years,
assigned by the Kings' List to the reigns of the first two kings of
the Sea-Country, is a little exaggerated. The accuracy of some of the
longer figures assigned in the List to kings of this dynasty has long
been called in question (cf. "Chronicles," I., pp. 111 ff., and see
above, p. 106), and the synchronism justifies this doubt. While the
historical character of the Second Dynasty has been amply confirmed, we
must not regard the total duration assigned to it in the Kings' List
as more than approximately correct. Under these circumstances detailed
dates have not been assigned to members of that dynasty in the Dynastic
List of Kings; see Appendix II., p. 320.]
[Footnote 21: Success doubtless fluctuated from one side to the
other, Ammi-zaduga in one of his later years commemorating that he
had brightened his land like the Sun-god, and Samsu-ditana recording
that he had restored his dominion with the weapon of Marduk. How far
these rather vague claims were justified it is impossible to say. Apart
from votive acts, the only definite record of this period is that of
Ammi-zaduga's sixteenth year, in which he celebrates the cutting of the
Ammi-zaduga-nukhush-nishi Canal.]
[Footnote 22: We may confidently regard the phrase as referring to
the Anatolian Hittites, whose capital at Boghaz Keui must have been
founded far earlier than the end of the fifteenth century when we
know that it bore the name of Khatti. It is true that, after the
southern migration of the Hittites in the twelfth century, Northern
Syria was known as "the land of Khatti," but, if the invasion of
Babylonia in Samsu-ditana's reign had been made by Semitic tribes
from Syria, no doubt the chronicler would have employed the correct
designation, Amurru, which is used in an earlier section of the text
for Sargon's invasion of Syria. In the late omen-literature, too, the
use of the early geographical terms is not confused. Both chronicles
and omen-texts are transcripts of early written originals, not late
compilations based on oral tradition.]
[Footnote 23: The reason for the omission is that the whole of this
section of the text had evidently been left out by the scribe in
error, and he afterwards only had room to insert the first line; cf.
"Chronicles," II., p. 22, n. 1.]
[Footnote 24: This district was in the path of the Hittite raid,
and its occupation by a section of the invaders was evidently more
permanent than that of Babylon.]
[Footnote 25: Cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," XXI., pl. 12, and
King, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXVII., p. 22 f.]
[Footnote 26: See "Cun. Texts," XXI., pl. 15 ff., and cf.
Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 222 f. The purchasing power of
one shekel of silver is fixed at three _gur_ of corn, or twelve manehs
of wool, or ten manehs of copper, or thirty _ḳa_ of wood. The chief
interest of the record is its proof that at this period the values of
copper and silver stood in the ratio of 600:1 (cf. Meyer, "Geschichte,"
I., ii., p. 512).]
[Footnote 27: Cf. "Cun. Texts," XXI., pl. 17.]
[Footnote 28: See Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscriptions," I., pl. 15,
No. 26. A tablet has been recovered dated in the reign of An-am, and
another of the same type is dated in the reign of Arad-shasha, whom we
may therefore regard as another king of this local dynasty; cf. Scheil,
"Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1905, col. 351, and Thureau-Dangin, _op. cit.,_
p. 238. The style of writing on these tablets is rather later than that
of the First Dynasty of Babylon.]
[Footnote 29: For Pukhia, son of Asiru and king of the land of
Khurshitu, see "Sum. and Akk.," p. 287. Khurshitu may have been the
name of a district on the Ak-su, a tributary of the Adhem, since a
brick from his palace is said to have been found at Tuz-khurmati on
that stream; cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XVI., p. 186; XIX., p. 64.
The region of King Manabaltel's rule (cf. Pinches, "Proc. Soc. Bibl.
Arch.," XXI., p. 158) is quite uncertain, but the archaic style of
the writing of the tablet, dated in his reign, suggests that he was a
contemporary of one of the earlier West-Semitic kings.]
[Footnote 30: See above, p. 105 f.]