THE KASSITE DYNASTY AND ITS RELATIONS WITH EGYPT AND THE HITTITE EMPIRE
The Kassite conquest of Babylonia, though it met with immediate success
in a great part of the country, was a gradual process in the south,
being carried out by independent Kassite chieftains. The Sea-Country
kings continued for a time their independent existence; and even after
that dynasty was brought to an end, the struggle for the south went on.
It was after a further period of conflict that the Kassite domination
was completed, and the administration of the whole country centred
once more in Babylon. It is fortunate for Babylonia that the new
invaders did not appear in such numbers as to over-whelm the existing
population. The probability has long been recognized that they were
Aryan by race, and we may with some confidence regard them as akin to
the later rulers of Mitanni, who imposed themselves upon the earlier
non-Iranian population of Subartu, or Northern Mesopotamia. Like the
Mitannian kings, the Kassites of Babylonia were a ruling caste or
aristocracy, and, though they doubtless brought with them numbers of
humbler followers, their domination did not affect the linguistic nor
the racial character of the country in any marked degree. In some of
its aspects we may compare their rule to that of Turkey in the Tigris
and Euphrates valley. They give no evidence of having possessed a high
degree of culture, and though they gradually adopted the civilization
of Babylon, they tended for long to keep themselves aloof, retaining
their native names along with their separate nationality. They were
essentially a practical people and produced successful administrators.
The chief gain they brought to Babylon was an improved method of
time-reckoning. In place of the unwieldy system of date-formulæ,
inherited by the Semites from the Sumerians, under which each year
was known by an elaborate title taken from some great event or
cult-observance, the Kassites introduced the simpler plan of dating by
the years of the king's reign. And we shall see that it was directly
owing to the political circumstances of their occupation that the old
system of land tenure, already to a great extent undermined by the
Western Semites, was still further modified.
But, on the material side, the greatest change they effected in the
life of Babylonia was due to their introduction of the horse. There
can be little doubt that they were a horse-keeping race,[1] and
the success of their invasion may in large part be traced to their
greater mobility. Hitherto asses and cattle had been employed for all
purposes of draught and carriage, but, with the appearance of the
Kassites, the horse suddenly becomes the beast of burden throughout
Western Asia. Before their time "the ass of the mountain," as it was
designated in Babylonia, was a great rarity, the earliest reference
to it occurring in the age of Hammurabi.[2] In that period we have
evidence that Kassite tribes were already forming settlements in the
western districts of Elam, and when from time to time small parties
of them made their way into the Babylonian plain to be employed as
harvesters,[3] they doubtless carried their goods with them in the
usual way. The usefulness of horses imported in this manner would have
ensured their ready sale to the Babylonians, who probably retained the
services of their owners to tend the strange animals. But the early
Kassite immigrants must have been men of a simple and unprogressive
type, for in all the contract-literature of the period we find no trace
of their acquiring wealth, or engaging in the commercial activities of
their adopted country. The only evidence of their employment in other
than a menial capacity is supplied by a contract of Ammi-ditana's
reign, which records a two-years' lease of an uncultivated field taken
by a Kassite for farming.[4]
The Kassite raid into Babylonian territory in Samsu-iluna's reign[5]
may have been followed by others of a like character, but it was
only at the time of the later kings of the Sea-Country that the
invaders succeeded in effecting a permanent foothold in Northern
Babylonia. According to the Kings' List the founder of the Third
Dynasty was Gandash, and we have obtained confirmation of the record
in a Neo-Babylonian tablet purporting to contain a copy of one of his
inscriptions.[6] The Babylonian king, whose text the copy reproduces,
there bears the name Gaddash, evidently a contracted form of Gandash
as written in the Kings' List; and the record contains an unmistakable
reference to the Kassite conquest. From what is left of the inscription
it may be inferred that it commemorated the restoration of the temple
of Bêl, that is, of Marduk, which seems to have been damaged "in the
conquest of Babylon." It is clear, therefore, that Babylon must have
offered a strenuous opposition to the invaders, and that the city held
out until captured by assault. It would seem, too, that this success
was followed up by further conquests of Babylonian territory, for in
his text, in addition to styling himself King of Babylon, Gaddash
adopts the other time-honoured titles of King of the four quarters (of
the world), and King of Sinner and Akkad. We may see evidence in this
that the kingdom of the Sea-Country was now restricted within its
original limits, though some attempts may have been made to stem the
tide of invasion. Ea-gamil, at any rate, the last king of the Second
Dynasty, was not content to defend his home-territory, for we know that
he assumed the offensive and invaded Elam. But he appears to have met
with no success, and after his death a Kassite chieftain, Ula-Burariash
or Ulam-Buriash, conquered the Sea-Country and established his dominion
there.[7]
The late chronicler, who records these events, tells us that
Ulam-Buriash was the brother of Kashtiliash, the Kassite, whom we
may probably identify with the third ruler of the Kassite Dynasty of
Babylon. There Gandash, the founder of the dynasty, had been succeeded
by his son Agum, but after the hitter's reign of twenty-two years
Kashtiliash, a rival Kassite, had secured the throne.[8] He evidently
came of a powerful Kassite tribe, for it was his brother, Ulam-Buriash,
who conquered the Country of the Sea. We have recovered a memorial
of the latter's reign in a knob or mace-head of diorite. which was
found during the excavations at Babylon.[9] On it he terms himself
King of the Sea-Country, and we learn from it, too, that he and his
brother were the sons of Burna-Burariash, or Burna-Buriash, who may
have remained behind as a local Kassite chieftain in Elam, while his
sons between them secured the control of Babylonia. After a certain
interval the Sea-Country must have revolted from Ulam-Buriash, for
its reconquest was undertaken by Agum, a younger son of Kashtiliash,
who is recorded to have captured the city of Dûr-Enlil and to have
destroyed E-malga-uruna, the local temple of Enlil.[10] The eldest
son of Kashtiliash had meanwhile succeeded his father on the throne of
Babylon, and, if Agum established his rule in the Sea-Country, we again
have the spectacle of two brothers, in the next generation of this
Kassite family, dividing the control of Babylonia between them. But as
the chronicler does not record that Agum, like his uncle Ulam-Buriash,
exercised dominion over the Sea-Country as a whole, he may have secured
little more than a local success. The throne of Babylon then passed
to the second son of Kashtiliash, Abi-rattash, and it was possibly by
him, or by one of his successors, that the whole country was once more
united under Babylon's rule.
We know of two more members of the family of Kashtiliash, who carried
on his line at Babylon. For Abi-rattash was succeeded by his son and
grandson, Tashshi-gurumash and Agum-kakrime, of whom the latter has
left us the record already referred to, commemorating his recovery
of the statues of Marduk and Sarpanitum from the land of Khanî.[11]
And then there occurs a great break in our knowledge of the history
of Babylon. For a period extending over some thirteen reigns, from
about the middle of the seventeenth to the close of the fifteenth
century B.C., our native evidence is confined to a couple of brief
records, dating from the latter half of the interval, and to one or two
historical references in later texts. By their help we have recovered
the names of a few of the missing kings, though their relative order,
and in one or two cases even their existence, are still matters
of controversy. In fact, were we dependent solely upon Babylonian
sources, our knowledge of the country's history, even when we can
again establish the succession, would have been practically a blank.
But, thanks in great part to the commercial relations established
with Syria since the age of the West-Semitic kings, the influence of
Babylonian culture had travelled far afield. Her method of writing on
the convenient and imperishable clay tablet had been adopted by other
nations of Western Asia, and her language had become the _lingua
franca_ of the ancient world. After her conquest of Canaan, Egypt
had become an Asiatic power, and had adopted the current method of
international intercourse for communication with other great states and
with her own provinces in Canaan. And thus it has come about that some
of our most striking information on the period has come to us, not from
Babylon itself, but from Egypt.
The mounds known as Tell el-Amarna in Upper Egypt mark the site of
a city which had a brief but brilliant existence under Amen-hetep
IV., or Akhenaten, one of the later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty.
He was the famous "heretic" king, who attempted to suppress the
established religion of Egypt and to substitute for it a pantheistic
monotheism associated with the worship of the solar disk. In pursuance
of his religious ideas he deserted Thebes, the ancient capital of
the country, and built a new capital further to the north, which he
called Akhetaten,[12] the modern Tell el-Amarna. Here he transferred
the official records of his own government and those of his father,
Amenhetep III., including the despatches from Egypt's Asiatic provinces
and the diplomatic correspondence with kings of Mesopotamia, Assyria
and Babylon. Some twenty-seven years ago a large number of these were
discovered in the ruins of the royal palace, and they form one of the
most valuable sources of information on the early relations of Egypt
and Western Asia.[13] More recently they have been supplemented by a
still larger find of similar documents at Boghaz Keui in Cappadocia,
a village built beside the site of Khatti, the ancient capital of the
Hittite empire. The royal and official archives had been stored for
safety on the ancient citadel, and the few extracts that have as yet
been published, from the many thousands of documents recovered on the
site, have furnished further information of the greatest value from the
Hittite standpoint.[14]
From these documents we have recovered a very full picture of
international politics in Western Asia during two centuries, from the
close of the fifteenth to the later years of the thirteenth century
B.C. We can trace in some measure the dynastic relations established
by Egypt with the other great Asiatic states, and the manner in which
the balance of power was maintained, largely by diplomatic methods.
During the earlier part of this period Egyptian power is dominant in
Palestine and Syria, while the kingdom of Mitanni, under its Aryan
dynasty, is a check upon Assyrian expansion. But Egypt was losing her
hold upon her Asiatic provinces, and the rise of the Hittite empire
coincided with her decline in power. Mitanni soon fell before the
Hittites, to the material advantage of Assyria, which began to be a
menace to her neighbours upon the west and south. After a change of
dynasty, Egypt had meanwhile in part recovered her lost territory in
Palestine, and once more took her place among the great nations of
Western Asia. And it is only with the fall of the Hittite empire that
the international situation is completely altered. Throughout Babylon
stands, so far as she may, aloof, preoccupied with commerce rather than
with conquest;[15] but in the latter half of the period her eyes are
always fixed upon her Assyrian frontier.
[Illustration: HEAD OF A COLOSSAL STATUE OF AMEN-HETEP III]
From the Tell el-Amarna correspondence we see how the kings of
Mitanni, Assyria and Babylon gave their daughters to the Egyptian
king in marriage and sought to secure his friendship and alliance.
Apparently Egypt considered it beneath her dignity to bestow her
princesses in return, for in one of his letters to Amen-hetep III.
Kadashman-Enlil remonstrates with the King of Egypt for refusing him
one of his daughters and threatens to withhold his own daughter in
retaliation.[16] Another of the letters illustrates in a still more
striking manner the intimate international intercourse of the period.
At the height of its power the kingdom of Mitanni appears to have
annexed the southern districts of Assyria, and for a time to have
exercised control over Nineveh, as Hammurabi of Babylon had done in an
earlier age. It was in his character of suzerain that Dushratta sent
the holy statue of Ishtar of Nineveh to Egypt, as a mark of his esteem
for Amen-hetep III. We have recovered the letter he sent with the
goddess, in which he writes concerning her:[17] " Indeed in the time of
my father the lady Ishtar went into that land; and, just as she dwelt
there formerly and they honoured her, so now may my brother honour her
ten times more than before. May my brother honour her and may he allow
her to return with joy." We thus gather that this was not the first
time Ishtar had visited Egypt, and we may infer from such a custom the
belief that a deity, when stopping in a foreign country with his or her
own consent, would, if properly treated, confer favour and prosperity
upon that land. We shall see later on that Rameses II. sent his own god
Khonsu on a similar mission to Khatti, in order to cure the epileptic
daughter of the Hittite king, who was believed to be possessed by a
devil.[18] We could not have more striking proofs of international
intercourse. Not only did the rulers of the great states exchange their
daughters but even their gods.
But the letters also exhibit the jealousy which existed between the
rival states of Asia. By skilful diplomacy, and, particularly in
the reign of Akhenaten, by presents and heavy bribes, the Egyptian
king and his advisers succeeded in playing off one power against the
other, and in retaining some hold upon their troublesome provinces of
Syria and Palestine. In paying liberal bounties and rewards to his
own followers and party in Egypt itself, Akhenaten was only carrying
out the traditional policy of the Egyptian crown;[19] and he extended
the principle still more in his dealings with foreign states. But
peculation on the part of the ambassadors was only equalled by the
greed of the monarchs to whom they were accredited, and whose appetite
for Egyptian gold grew with their consumption of it. Much space in the
letters is given up to the constant request for more presents, and to
complaints that promised gifts have not arrived. In one letter, for
example, Ashur-uballit of Assyria writes to Akhenaten that formerly the
king of Khanirabbat had received a present of twenty manehs of gold
from Egypt, and he proceeds to demand a like sum.[20] Burna-Buriash
of Babylon, his contemporary, writes in the same strain to Egypt,[21]
reminding Akhenaten that Amenophis III. had been far more generous to
his father. "Since the time my father and thine established friendly
relations with one another, they sent rich presents to one another, and
they did not refuse to one another any desired object. Now my brother
has sent me as a present two manehs of gold. Send now much gold, as
much as thy father; and if it is less, send but half that of thy
father. Why hast thou sent only two manehs of gold? For the work in the
temple is great, and I have undertaken it and am carrying it out with
vigour; therefore send much gold. And do thou send for whatsoever thou
desirest in my land, that they may take it thee."
[Illustration: FIG. 46.
AKHENATEN, WITH HIS QUEEN AND INFANT DAUGHTERS, ON THE BALCONY OF THEIR
PALACE.
The king and his family are hero represented throwing down collars
and ornaments of gold to A , the Priest of Aten and Master of the
Horse, who has called at the palace with his wife, attended by a largo
retinue. The Aten, or Solar Disk, the object of the royal worship, is
caressing the king with its rays and giving him life.
(After N. de G. Davies.)]
Though a great part of the royal letters from Tell el-Amarna is
taken up with such rather wearisome requests for gold, they also
give valuable glimpses into the political movements of the time. We
gather, for instance, that Egypt succeeds in preventing Babylon from
giving support to the revolts in Canaan, but she does not hesitate
to encourage Assyria, which is now beginning to display her power as
Babylon's rival. Burna-Buriash makes this clear when he complains
that Akhenaten has received an embassy from the Assyrians, whom he
boastfully refers to as his subjects; and he contrasts Babylon's own
reception of Canaanite proposals of alliance against Egypt in the time
of his father Kurigalzu. "In the time of Kurigalzu, my father," he
writes, "the Canaanites sent to him with one accord, saying, 'Let us
go down against the border of the land and invade it, and let us form
an alliance with thee.' But my father replied to them, saying, 'Desist
from seeking to form an alliance with me. If ye are hostile to the
king of Egypt, my brother, and ally yourselves with one another, shall
I not come and plunder you? For with me is he allied.' My father for
thy father's sake did not hearken to them."[22] But Burna-Buriash does
not trust entirely to the Egyptian's sense of gratitude for Babylon's
support in the past. He reinforces his argument by a present of three
manehs of lapis-lazuli, five yoke of horses and five wooden chariots.
Lapis-lazuli and horses were the two most valuable exports from Babylon
during the Kassite period, and they counterbalanced to some extent
Egypt's almost inexhaustible supply of Nubian gold.
Babylon at this time had no territorial ambitions outside the limit of
her own frontiers. She was never menaced by Mitanni, and it was only
after the fall of the latter kingdom that she began to be uneasy at the
increase of Assyrian power.[23] Apart from the defence of her frontier,
her chief preoccupation was to keep the trade-routes open, especially
the Euphrates route to Syria and the north. Thus we find Burna-Buriash
remonstrating with Egypt when the caravans of one of his messengers,
named Salmu, had been plundered by two Canaanite chiefs, and demanding
compensation.[24] On another occasion he writes that Babylonian
merchants had been robbed and slain at Khinnatuni in Canaan,[25] and
he again holds Akhenaten responsible. "Canaan is thy land," he says,
"and its kings are thy servants;" and he demands that the losses should
be made good and the murderers slain.[26] But Egypt was at this period
so busy with her own affairs that she had not the time, nor even the
power, to protect the commercial interests of her neighbours. For in
the majority of the Tell el-Amarna letters we see her Asiatic empire
falling to pieces.[27] From Northern Syria to Southern Palestine the
Egyptian governors and vassal rulers vainly attempt to quell rebellion
and to hold back invading tribes.
The source of a good deal of the trouble was the great Hittite power,
away to the north in the mountains of Anatolia. The Hittite kings
had formed a confederation of their own peoples north of the Taurus,
and they were now pressing southwards into Phœnicia and the Lebanon.
They coveted the fertile plains of Northern Syria, and Egypt was the
power that blocked their path. They were not at first strong enough to
challenge Egypt by direct invasion of her provinces, so they confined
themselves to stirring up rebellion among the native princes of
Canaan. These they encouraged to throw off the Egyptian yoke, and to
attack those cities which refused to join them. The loyal chiefs and
governors appealed for help to Egypt, and their letters show that they
generally appealed in vain. For Akhenaten was a weak monarch, and was
far more interested in his heretic worship of the Solar Disk than in
retaining the foreign empire he had inherited. It was in his reign that
the Anatolian Hittites began to take an active part in the politics of
Western Asia.
[Illustration: FIGS. 47 AND 48. REPRESENTATIONS OF HITTITES IN EGYPTIAN
SCULPTURE.
The two Figures are parts of the same scene from a relief found at
Karnak, representing the introduction of Asiatic ambassadors by an
Egyptian prince to Rameses II. The bearded Semites are readily to be
distinguished from their Hittite colleagues, clean-shaven and with
their long plaits of hair, or pig-tails, hanging down the back.
(After Meyer.)]
Until the discovery of the documents at Boghaz Keui, it had only been
possible to deduce the existence of the Hittites from the mark they had
left in the records of Egypt and Assyria; and at that time it was not
even certain whether we might regard as their work the hieroglyphic
rock-inscriptions, which are scattered over a great part of Asia Minor.
But it is now possible to supplement our material from native sources,
and to trace the gradual extension of their power by both conquest and
diplomacy. They were a virile race, and their strongly marked features
may be still seen, not only on their own rock-sculptures, but also
in Egyptian reliefs beside those of other Asiatics.[28] In facial
type, too, they are quite distinct, for the nose, though prominent and
slightly curved, is not very fleshy, mouth and chin are small, and the
forehead recedes abruptly, with the hair drawn back from it and falling
in one, or possibly in two plaits, or pig-tails, on the shoulders.[29]
It is still not certain to which of the great families of nations they
belonged. The suggestion has been made that their language has certain
Indo-European characteristics, but for the present it is safer to
regard them as an indigenous race of Asia Minor.[30] Their facial type
in any case suggests comparison as little with Aryan as with Semitic
stock.
[Illustration: FIG. 49. HITTITE FOOT-SOLDIERS AT THE BATTLE OF KADESH.
The figure illustrates the facial type of the Hittite, with his
prominent and slightly curved nose and strongly receding brow.
(After Meyer.)]
Their civilization was strongly influenced by that of Babylonia,
perhaps through the medium of Assyrian trading settlements, which were
already established in Cappadocia in the second half of the third
millennium. From these early Semitic immigrants, or their successors,
they borrowed the clay tablet and the cuneiform system of writing.
But they continued to use their own picture-characters for monumental
records; and even in the later period, when they came into direct
contact with the Assyrian empire, their art never lost its individual
character. Some of the most elaborate of their rock-sculptures still
survive in the holy sanctuary at Yasili Kaya, not far from Boghaz Keui.
Here on the rock-face, in a natural fissure of the mountain, are carved
the figures of their deities, chief among them the great Mother-goddess
of the Hittites.
[Illustration: FIG. 50.
HITTITE CHIEFTAIN, A CAPTIVE OF RAMESES III.
A relief of the twelfth century, perhaps the finest representation
of a Hittite on the Egyptian monuments; it is evidently a portrait
sculpture, so far as the head is concerned. It illustrates, too, the
manner in which the heavy plait of hair ends in a curled tail.
(After Meyer.)]
She and Teshub, the principal male deity, are here represented meeting,
with their processions of deities and attendants. Whether it was
from precisely this area that the Hittite tribes descended on their
raid down the Euphrates, which hastened the fall of Babylon's First
Dynasty and perhaps brought it to an end, we have as yet no means of
judging.[31] But during the subsequent centuries we may certainly
picture a slow but uninterrupted expansion of the area under Hittite
control; and it is probable that authority was divided among the
various local kingdoms and chieftainships, which occupied the valleys
and upland stretches to the north of the Taurus.
[Illustration: FIG. 51.
FIGURE, PROBABLY OF A HITTITE KING, FROM THE ROYAL GATE AT KHATTI.
The pose of the figure, slightly leaning to the right, is due to the
sloping side of the gateway, beside which it is sculptured in relief.
(After a photo by Puchstein.]
At the time of their empire, their capital and central fortress was
Khatti, which lay to the east of the Halys, on the Anatolian plateau
some three thousand feet above sea-level. It occupied a strong position
near the crossing of the great lines of traffic through Asia Minor;
and expansion from this area must have begun to take place at an
early period beyond the west bank of the river, where the country
offered greater facilities for pasturage. Another line of advance was
southward to the coast-plains beneath the Taurus, and it is certain
that Cilicia was occupied by Hittite tribes before any attempt was made
on Northern Syria. That at first the Hittites were scattered, without
any central organization, among a number of independent city-states,
may be inferred from their later records. For when a land is referred
to in their official documents, it is designated "the country of the
city of so and so," suggesting that each important township had been
the centre of an independent district to which it gave its name. Some
of the Hittite states attained in time to a considerable degree of
importance. Thus we find Tarkundaraba of Arzawa sufficiently eminent
to marry a daughter of Amen-hetep III. of Egypt.[32] Another city
was Kussar, one of whose kings, Khattusil I., was the father of
Shubbiluliuma, under whom the Hittites were organized into a strong
confederacy which endured for nearly two hundred years. It must have
been owing to its strategic importance that Shubbiluliuma selected
Khatti as his capital in place of his ancestral city.
Quite apart from its name, and from the traditions attaching to it,
there can be no question but that from this time forward Khatti was
the centre of Hittite power and civilization; for it is by far the
most extensive Hittite site in existence. It covers the high ground,
including the hill-top, above Boghaz Keui, which lies in the valley
below; and it is fortunate that the greater part of the modern village
was built clear of the outer boundaries of the ancient city, as the
ruins have in consequence run far less risk of destruction.[33] It was
placed high for purely strategic purposes, commanding as it does the
Royal Road from the west and the great trunk-road from the south as
they approach the city-walls. The citadel was formed by a flat-topped
hill,[34] which dominates the walled city to the north, west, and
south of it. Its precipitous slopes descend on the north-east side
to a mountain stream outside the walls; and a similar stream, fed by
shallow gullies, flows north-westward through the city-area. From the
point where they rise in the south, to their junction below the city,
the ground falls no less than a thousand feet, and the uneven surface
has been fully utilized for its defence. The wall which surrounded
the southern and higher half of the city is still comparatively well
preserved, and forms three sides of a rough hexagon, but the falling
and broken ground to the north prevented a symmetrical completion of
the circuit. A series of interior fortification-walls, following the
slope of the ground, enclosed a number of irregular areas, subsidiary
forts being constructed on four smaller hills along the most southerly
cross-wall, which shut in the highest part of the city.
[Illustration: FIG. 52.
THE ROYAL GATE OF KHATTI, THE CAPITAL OF THE HITTITES, VIEWED FROM THE
OUTSIDE.
The massive walls are preserved in their lower courses, but in the
sketch the upper portions are restored in outline. The arched gateway
with its sloping sides is characteristic of Hittite work.
(After Puchstein.)]
The city's greatest length from north to south was about a mile and a
quarter, and its greatest width some three-quarters of a mile, the
whole circuit of the existing defences, including the lower-lying area,
extending to some three and a half miles. This is a remarkable size for
a mountain city, and although some portions of the area cannot have
been occupied by buildings, the fortification of so extensive a site is
an indication of the power of the Hittite empire and its capital. About
fourteen feet in thickness, the wall is preserved in many places to a
hight of more than twelve feet. It consists of an inner and an outer
wall, filled in with a stone packing. The outer face was naturally the
stronger of the two, and huge stones, sometimes five feet in length,
have been employed in its construction. The wall was strengthened
by towers, set at more or less regular intervals along it, their
position being sometimes dictated by the contour of the ground. Round
a great part of the circuit there are traces of an outer defensive
wall of lighter construction and with smaller towers, but this was not
continuous, being omitted wherever the natural fall of the ground was a
sufficient protection to the main wall.
[Illustration: FIG. 53.
CONJECTURAL RESTORATION OF A HITTITE GATEWAY VIEWED FROM INSIDE.
It is possible that brick was employed for the upper structure of the
city-wall and its towers, as suggested in the restoration. In such a
case it is not unlikely that the stepped battlements of Mesopotamia
were also adopted.
(After Puchstein.)]
Projecting towers also flanked the main gateways, which exhibit a
characteristic feature of Hittite architecture. This is the peculiar
form of the gateway, consisting of a pointed arch with gently sloping
sides, the latter formed by huge monoliths bonded into the structure of
the wall.[35] It would seem that brick was probably employed for the
upper structure of both wall and towers; and in other buildings of the
city, such as the great temple to the north-west of the citadel, brick
was used for the upper structure of the walls upon a stone foundation.
Whenever the use of brick was adopted in one of the northern lands of
Mesopotamia, where stone is plentiful, the latter was always used in
the foundations. It is not improbable, therefore, that the stepped
battlements of Assyria and Babylon were also borrowed, as that was the
most convenient and decorative way of finishing off the upper courses
of a fortification-wall built of that material.
In the earlier years of Shubbiluliuma the city was doubtless very
much smaller than it subsequently became. But he used it effectively
as a base, and, as much by diplomatic means as by actual conquest,
he succeeded in making the power of the Hittites felt beyond their
own borders. The Syrian revolts in the reign of Amen-hetep III., by
which the authority of Egypt was weakened in her Asiatic provinces,
undoubtedly received Hittite encouragement. Shubbiluliuma also crossed
the Euphrates and ravaged the northern territory of Mitanni, the
principal rival of the Hittites up to that time. Later he invaded
Syria in force and returned to his mountain fastness of Khatti, laden
with spoil and leading two Mitannian princes as captives in his train.
On the accession of Akhenaten, Shubbiluliuma wrote him a letter of
congratulation; but, when the Syrian prince Aziru acknowledged the
suzerainty of Egypt, Shubbiluliuma defeated him and laid the whole of
Northern Syria under tribute, subsequently confirming his possession of
the country by treaty with Egypt. The state of Mitanni, too, submitted
to Shubbiluliuma's dictation, for, on the murder of its powerful king
Dushratta, he espoused the cause of Mattiuaza, whom he restored to his
father's throne after marrying him to his daughter. We have recovered
the text of his treaty with Mitanni, and it reflects the despotic power
of the Hittite king at this time. Referring to himself in the third
person he says, "The great king, for the sake of his daughter, gave the
country of Mitanni a new life."[36]
[Illustration: FIG. 54.
LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF THE LOWER WESTERN GATEWAY AT KHATTI.
The diagram, based on the conjectural restoration, indicates the
massive construction of the gate-house, and the manner in which both it
and the wall were adapted to the rising ground. The passage-way along
the battlements must have passed through the towers.
(After Puchstein.)]
It was not until the reign of Mursil, a younger son of Shubbiluliuma,
that the Hittite empire came into armed conflict with Egypt. A change
of dynasty in the latter country, and the restoration of her old
religion, had strengthened the government, and now led to renewed
attempts on her part at recovering her lost territory. On the first
occasion the Hittites were defeated by Seti I. in the north of Syria,
and Egypt reoccupied Phoenicia and Canaan. Later on, probably in the
reign of Mutallu, Mursil's son, Rameses II. attempted to recover
Northern Syria. At the battle of Kadesh, on the Orontes, he succeeded
in defeating the Hittite army, though both sides lost heavily and at
an early stage of the fight Rameses himself was in imminent danger of
capture. Episodes in the battle may still be seen pictured in relief on
the temple-walls at Luxor, Karnak and Abydos.[37]
[Illustration: FIG. 55.
TRANSVERSE SECTION OF THE LOWER WESTERN GATEWAY AT KHATTI. The exterior
projection of each flanking tower beyond the wall is indicated in the
diagram. (After Puchstein.)]
The Egyptian war was continued with varying success, though it is
certain that the Hittites were eventually successful in the north.
But in the reign of Khattusil, the brother of Mutallu, both sides were
weary of the conflict, and an elaborate treaty of peace and alliance
was drawn up. This, when engraved upon a silver tablet, was carried
to Egypt by an ambassador and presented to Rameses. The contents of
the treaty have long been known from the Egyptian text, engraved on
the walls of the temple at Karnak; and among the tablets found at
Boghaz Keui was a broken copy of the original Hittite version,[38]
drawn up in cuneiform characters and in Babylonian, the language of
diplomacy at the period. Khattusil also maintained friendly relations
with the Babylonian court, and he informed the king of Babylon of his
treaty with the king of Egypt. It is clear from a copy of the letter,
recovered at Boghaz Keui, that the Babylonian king had heard about the
treaty and had written to enquire concerning it. Khattusil replies that
the king of Egypt and he had formed a friendship and had concluded an
alliance: "We are brothers, and against a foe will we fight together,
and with a friend will we together maintain friendship."[39] And his
next remark enables us to identify his Kassite correspondent; for
he adds, "and when the king of Egypt [formerly] attacked [Khatti],
then did I write to inform thy father Kadashman-turgu." Khattusil
was thus the contemporary of two Kassite kings, Kadashman-turgu and
Kadashman-Enlil II., the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth rulers of the
dynasty.
Another section of this letter is of considerable interest, as it shows
that an attempt by Khattusil to intervene in Babylonian politics had
been resented, and had led to a temporary estrangement between the two
countries. Khattusil is at pains to reassure Kadashman-Enlil as to the
unselfishness of his motives, explaining that the action he had taken
had been dictated entirely by the Kassite king's own interests. The
episode had occurred on the death of Kadashman-turgu, and, according
to Khattusil's account, he had at once written to Babylon to say that,
unless the succession of Kadashman-Enlil, who was then a boy, was
recognized, he would break off the alliance he had concluded with the
late king, Kadasman-Enlil's father. The Babylonian chief minister,
Itti-Marduk-balâtu, had taken offence at the tone of the letter, and
had replied that the Hittite king had not written in the tone of
brotherhood, but had issued his commands as though the Babylonians were
his vassals. As a result, diplomatic negotiations had been broken off
during the young king's minority; but he had now attained his majority,
and had taken the direction of affairs from his minister's hands into
his own. The long communication from Khattusil must have been written
shortly after the resumption of diplomatic intercourse.
After giving these explanations of his present relations with Egypt,
and of his former discontinuance of negotiations with Babylon,
Khattusil passes on to matters which doubtless had furnished the
occasion for his letter. Certain Babylonian merchants, when journeying
by caravan to Amurru and Ugarit, a town in Northern Phœnicia, had been
murdered; and, as the responsibility lay on the Hittite empire in its
character of suzerain, Kudashman-Enlil had apparently addressed to
Khattusil the demand that the guilty parties should be handed over to
the relatives of the murdered men. The reference is of interest, as it
gives further proof of Babylon's commercial activities in the West,
and shows how, after Egypt had lost her control of Northern Syria,
the Kassite rulers addressed themselves to its new suzerain to secure
protection for their caravans.
We have evidence that such diplomatic action was thoroughly effective,
for not only had Babylon's language and system of writing penetrated
Western Asia, but her respect for law and her legislative methods
had accompanied them, at any rate within the Hittite area. The point
is well illustrated by one of the last sections in this remarkable
letter, which deals with a complaint by the Babylonian king concerning
some action of the Amorite prince, Banti-shinni. The Amorite, when
accused by Khattusil of having "troubled the land" of Kadashman-Enlil,
had replied by advancing a counterclaim for thirty talents of silver
against the inhabitants of Akkad. After stating this fact, Khattusil
continues in his letter: "Now, since Banti-Shinni has become my vassal,
let my brother prosecute the claim against him; and, concerning the
troubling of my brother's land, he shall make his defence before the
god[40] in the presence of thy ambassador, Adad-shar-ilâni. And if my
brother will not conduct the action (himself), then shall thy servant
come who has heard that Banti-Shinni harassed my brother's land, and he
shall conduct the action. Then will I summon Banti-Shinni to answer the
charge. He is (my) vassal. If he harasses my brother, does he not then
harass me?"[41]
[Illustration: FIG. 56.
ONE OF THE TWO SACRED BOATS OF KHONSU, THE EGYPTIAN MOON-GOD, WHO
JOURNEYED INTO CAPPADOCIA TO CAST OUT A DEVIL FROM A HITTITE PRINCESS.
A priest is offering incense before the shrine and sacred boat, which
is being carried on the shoulders of other priests. In the accompanying
inscription on the original stele, the god is referred to in his
character as "Plan-Maker in Thebes" and "Smiter of Evil Spirits."
(After Rosellini.)]
It may be that Hittite diplomacy is here making use of the Babylonian
respect for law, to find a way out of a difficult situation; but the
mere proposal of such a trial as that suggested proves that the usual
method of settling international disputes of a minor character was
modelled on Babylon's internal legislative system. It is clear that the
Hittite was anxious to prevent strained relations with Babylon, for he
goes on to urge Kadashman-Enlil to attack a common enemy, whom he does
not name. This must have been Assyria, whose growing power had become a
menace to both states, and had caused them to draw together for mutual
support.
[Illustration: FIG. 57.
RAMESES II. OFFERING INCENSE TO ONE OF THE BOATS OF KHONSU BEFORE HE
STARTED ON HIS JOURNEY.
The sacred boat of Khonsu is here being borne by a larger retinue of
priests into the presence of the king, who did not accompany the god on
his journey.
(After Rosellini.)]
The account that has been given of this lengthy document will have
indicated the character of the royal correspondence discovered at
Boghaz Keui. In some respects it closely resembles that from Tell
el-Amarna, but it exhibits a pleasing contrast by the complete absence
of those whining petitions for gold and presents, which bulk so largely
in the earlier documents. The Egyptian policy of doles and bribery had
brought out the worst side of the Oriental character. The Hittite did
not believe in doles, and in any case he had not them to give; as a
consequence, his correspondence confines itself in great measure to
matters of state and high policy, and exhibits far greater dignity
and self-respect. And this applies equally, so far as we can see, to
the communications with Egypt, who had recovered from her temporary
decadence. There can be little doubt that the royal Hittite letters,
when published, will enable us to follow the political movements of the
period in even greater detail.
One other act of Khattusil may be referred to, as it illustrates in the
religious sphere the breaking down of international barriers which took
place. A few years after the completion of his great treaty, Khattusil
brought his daughter to Egypt, where she was married to Rameses with
great pomp and circumstance. An intimate friendship continued to exist
between the two royal families, and when Bentresh, his sister-in-law,
fell ill in Khatti and was believed to be incurably possessed by a
devil, Rameses hastened to send his physician to cure her.[42] But his
efforts proving fruitless, the Pharaoh despatched the holy image of
Khonsu, the Egyptian Moon-god, to Cappadocia, in order to cure her. The
god duly arrived at the distant capital, and, while he wrought with the
evil spirit, it is said that the Hittite king "stood with his soldiers
and feared very greatly."[43] But Khonsu was victorious, and the
spirit having departed in peace to the place whence he came, there was
great rejoicing. The episode forms an interesting parallel to Ishtar's
journey into Egypt in the reign of Amenhetep III.
There is no doubt that the son and grandson of Khattusil, Dudkhalia
and Arnuanta, carried on their father's policy of friendliness towards
Babylon, who had no reason politically to resent the intrusion of
Egyptian influence at Khatti.[44] But Arnuanta is the last king
of Khatti whose name has been recovered, and it is certain that in
the following century the invasion of Anatolia by the Phrygians and
the Muski put an end to Hittite power in Cappadocia. The Hittites
were pressed southward through the passes, and they continued to
wield a diminished political influence in Northern Syria. Meanwhile
Assyria profited by their downfall and disappearance in the north.
She had already expanded at the expense of Mitanni, and now that this
second check upon her was removed, the balance of power ceased to be
maintained in Western Asia. Babylon's history from this time forward
is in great part moulded by her relations with the northern kingdom.
Even at the time of the later Hittite kings she failed to maintain her
frontier from Assyrian encroachment, and the capital itself was soon to
fall. We are able to follow the course of these events in some detail,
as, with the reign of Kara-indash I., the earliest of Amen-hetep III.'s
correspondents,[45] our sources of information are increased by the
so-called "Synchronistic History" of Assyria and Babylonia,[46] which
furnishes a series of brief notices concerning the relations maintained
between the two countries.
[Illustration: HITTITE HIËROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTION After Hogarth,
Carchemish, pl. B, 6.]
In the long period between Agum-kakrime[47] and Kara-indash, the names
of three Kassite rulers only have recovered. From a kudurru,[48] or
legal document, of the reign of Kadashman-Enlil I. we learn of two
earlier Kassite kings, Kadashman-Kharbe and his son Kurigalzu,[49]
and it is possible that a son of the latter, Meli-Shipak, succeeded
his father on the throne.[50] We know nothing of Babylon's relations
to Assyria at this time, and our first glimpse of their long struggle
for supremacy is in the reign of Kara-indash, who is recorded to have
made a friendly agreement with Ashur-rim-nishêshu with regard to
their common boundary.[51] That such an agreement should have been
drawn up is in itself evidence of friction, and it is not surprising
that a generation or so later Burna-Buriash, the correspondent of
Amen-hetep III., should have found it necessary to conclude a similar
treaty with Puzur-Ashur, the contemporary Assyrian king.[52] We may
regard these agreements as marking the beginning of the first phase in
Babylon's subsequent dealings with Assyria, which closes with friendly
agreements of a like character at the time of the Fourth Babylonian
dynasty. During the intervening period of some three centuries friendly
relations were constantly interrupted by armed conflicts, which
generally resulted in a rectification of the frontier to Babylon's
disadvantage. On only one occasion was she victorious in battle, and
twice during the period the capital itself was taken. But Assyria was
not yet strong enough to dominate the southern kingdom for any length
of time, and at the close of the period Babylon may still be regarded
as in occupation of a great part of her former territory, but with
sorely diminished prestige.
To appreciate the motives which impelled Assyria from time to time
to intervene in Babylonian politics, and to attempt spasmodically
a southward expansion, it would be necessary to trace out her own
history, and note the manner in which her ambition in other quarters
reacted upon her policy in the south. As that would be out of place
in the present volume, it will suffice here to summarize events so
far as Babylon was affected. The friendly attitude of Puzur-Ashur
to Burna-Buriash was maintained by the more powerful Assyrian king
Ashur-uballit, who cemented an alliance between the two countries
by giving Burna-Buriash his daughter Muballitat-Sherûa in marriage.
On the death of Burna-Buriash, his son Kara-indash II., who was
Ashur-uballit's grandson, ascended the throne, and it was probably
due to his Assyrian sympathies that the Kassite party in Babylon
revolted, slew him and set Nazi-bugash in his place. Ashur-uballit
invaded Babylonia, and having taken vengeance on Nazi-bugash, put
Kurigalzu III., another son of Burna-Buriash, upon the throne.[53] But
the young Kurigalzu did not fulfil the expectations of his Assyrian
relatives, for after Ashur-uballit's death he took the initiative
against Assyria,[54] and was defeated at Sugagi on the Zabzallat by
Enlil-nirari, to whom he was obliged to cede territory. A further
extension of Assyrian territory was secured by Adad-nirari I., when he
defeated Kurigalzu's son and successor, Nazi-maruttash, at Kâr-Ishtar
in the frontier district of Akarsallu.[55] We have already seen from
the Boghaz Keui correspondence how the Hittite Empire and Babylon were
drawn together at this time by dread of their common foe, doubtless
in consequence of the aggressive policy of Shalmaneser I. We do not
know whether Kadashman-Enlil II. followed the promptings of Khattusil,
and it is not until the reign of Kashtiliash II.[56] that we have
record of fresh conflicts. Then it was that Babylon suffered her first
serious disaster at Assyrian hands. Up to this time we have seen that
two Assyrian kings had defeated Babylonian armies, and had exacted
cessions of territory as the result of their victories. Tukulti-Ninib
I. was only following in their steps when he in turn defeated
Kashtiliash. But his achievement differed from theirs in degree, for
he succeeded in capturing Babylon itself, deported the Babylonian
king, and, instead of merely acquiring a fresh strip of territory, he
subdued Karduniash[57] and administered it as a province of his kingdom
till his death.[58] The revolts which closed Tukulti-Ninib's reign
and life[59] were soon followed by Babylon's only successful campaign
against Assyria.
Adad-shum-usur, who owed his throne to a revolt of the Kassite
nobles against the Assyrian domination, restored the fortunes of his
country for a time. He defeated and slew Enlil-kudur-usur in battle,
and, when the Assyrians retreated, he followed them up and fought
a battle before Ashur. This successful reassertion of Babylon's
initiative was maintained by his direct descendants Meli-Shipak II. and
Marduk-aplu-iddina, or Merodach-baladan I.; and the kudurru-records of
their reigns, which have been recovered, have thrown an interesting
light on the internal conditions of the country during the later
Kassite period. But Assyria once again asserted herself under Ashur-dân
I., who defeated Zamama-shum-iddin and succeeded in recovering her
lost frontier provinces.[60] The Kassite dynasty did not long survive
this defeat, although it received its death-blow from another quarter.
Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, the Elamite king, invaded Babylonia, defeated
and slew Zamama-shum-iddin, and, aided by son Kutir-Nakhkhunte, he
sacked Sippar and carried away much spoil to Elam. The name of the
last Kassite ruler, who reigned for only three years, is broken
in the Kings' List, but it is possible that we may restore it as
Bêlnadin-akhi,[61] whom Nebuchadnezzar I. mentions after referring to
the invasion which cost Zamama-shum-iddin his life. Whether we accept
the identification or not, we may certainly connect the fall of the
Kassite Dynasty with aggression on the part of Elam, such as so often
before had changed the course of Babylonian politics.
Apart from the tablets of the Kassite period discovered at Nippur,[62]
our principal source of information on economic conditions in
Babylonia at this time is to be found in the kudurru-inscriptions, or
boundary-stones, to which reference has already been made.[63] The
word _kudurru_ may be rendered accurately enough as "boundary-stone,"
for the texts are engraved on conical blocks or boulders of stone; and
there is little doubt that many of the earlier stones must have been
set up on landed estates, whose limits and ownership they were intended
to define and commemorate. Even at a time when the stone itself had
ceased to be employed to mark the boundary and was preserved in the
owner's house, or in the temple of his god, as a charter or title-deed
to which he could appeal in case of need, the text preserved its old
formulas setting out the limits and orientation of the plot of land to
which it referred. The importance of these records is considerable,
not only in their legal and religious aspects, but also from a
historical point of view. Apart from the references to Babylonian
kings and to historical events, which they contain, they form in many
cases the only documents of their period which have come down to us.
They thus serve to bridge the gap in our knowledge of Euphratean
civilization between the Kassite epoch and that of the Neo-Babylonian
kings; and, while they illustrate the development which gradually
took place in Babylonian law and custom, they prove the continuity of
culture during times of great political change.[64]
The kudurru or boundary-stone had its origin under the Kassite kings,
and, while at first recording, or confirming, a royal grant of land to
an important official or servant of the king, its aim was undoubtedly
to place the newly acquired rights of the owner under the protection of
the gods. A series of curses, regularly appended to the legal record,
was directed against any interference with the owner's rights, which
were also placed under the protection of a number of deities whose
symbols were engraved upon the blank spaces of the stone. It has been
suggested that the idea of placing property under divine protection
was not entirely an innovation of the Kassites. It is true that the
foundation-cones of the early Sumerian patesi Entemena may well have
ended with elaborate curses intended to preserve a frontier-ditch from
violation.[65] But the cones themselves, and the stele from which they
were copied, were intended to protect a national frontier, not the
boundaries of private property. Gate-sockets, too, have been treated as
closely related to boundary-stones, on the ground that the threshold
of a temple might be regarded as its boundary.[66] But the main object
of the gate-socket was to support the temple-gate, and its prominent
position and the durable nature of its material no doubt suggested its
employment as a suitable place for a commemorative inscription. The
peculiarity of the boundary-stone is that, by both curse and sculptured
emblem, it invokes divine protection upon private property and the
rights of private individuals.
In the age of Hammurabi we have no evidence of such a practice, and
the Obelisk of Manishtusu,[67] the far earlier Semitic king of Akkad,
which records his extensive purchases of land in Northern Babylonia, is
without the protection of imprecatory clauses or symbols of the gods.
The suggestion is thus extremely probable that the custom of protecting
private property in this way arose at a time when the authority of the
law was not sufficiently powerful to guarantee respect for the property
of private individuals.[68] This would specially apply to grants
of land to favoured officials settled among a hostile population,
especially if no adequate payment for the property had been made by the
Kassite king. The disorder and confusion which followed the fall of the
First Dynasty must have been renewed during the Kassite conquest of
the country, and the absence of any feeling of public security would
account for the general adoption of such a practice as placing land in
private possession under the protection of the gods.
The use of stone stelæ for this purpose may well have been suggested by
a Kassite custom; for in the mountains of Western Persia, the recent
home of the Kassite tribes before their conquest of the river-plain,
stones had probably been used to mark the limits of their fields, and
these may well have borne short inscriptions giving the owner's name
and title.[69] The employment of curses to secure divine protection
was undoubtedly of Babylonian, and ultimately of Sumerian origin, but
the idea of placing symbols of the gods upon the stone was probably
Kassite.[70] Moreover, the kudurru was not the original title-deed
recording the acquisition of the land to which it refers. As in the
earlier Babylonian periods, clay tablets continued to be employed for
this purpose, and they received the impression of the royal seal as
evidence of the king's sanction and authority. The text of the tablet,
generally with the list of witnesses, was later on recopied by the
engraver upon the stone, and the curses and symbols were added.[71]
A boundary-stone was sometimes employed to commemorate a confirmation
of title, and, like many modern legal documents, it recited the
previous history of the property during a long period extending over
several reigns. But the majority of the stones recovered commemorate
original grants of land made by the king to a relative, or to one of
his adherents in return for some special service. Perhaps the finest of
this class of charters is that in which Meli-Shipak makes a grant of
certain property in Bît-Pir-Shadû-rabû, near the old city of Akkad or
Agade and the Kassite town Dûr-Kurigalzu, to his son Merodach-baladan
I., who afterwards succeeded him upon the throne.[72] After giving the
size and situation of the estates, and the names of the high officials
who had been entrusted with the duty of drawing up the survey, the text
defines the privileges granted to Merodach-baladan along with the land.
As some of these throw considerable light on the system of land tenure
during the Kassite period, they may be briefly summarized.
[KASSITE BOUNDARY STONES SET UP IN THE REIGNS OF MELI-SHIPAK AND
NAZI-MARUTTASH. After Délég. en Perse, Mém. I, pl. XVI et XIV]
The king, in conferring the ownership of the land upon his son,
freed it from all taxes and tithes, and forbade the displacement of
its ditches, limits, and boundaries. He freed it also from the
_corvée,_ and enacted that none of the people of the estate were to be
requisitioned among the gangs levied in its district for public works,
for the prevention of flood, or for the repair of the royal canal, a
section of which was maintained in working order by the neighbouring
villages of Bît-Sikkamidu and Damiḳ-Adad. They were not liable to
forced labour on the canal-sluices, nor for building dams, nor for
digging out the canal-bed. No cultivator on the property, whether
hired or belonging to the estate, was to be requisitioned by the local
governor even under royal authority. No levy was to be made on wood,
grass, straw, corn, or any sort of crop, on the carts and yokes, on
asses or man-servants. No one was to use his son's irrigation-ditch,
and no levy was to be made on his water-supply even during times of
drought. No one was to mow his grass-land without his permission, and
no beasts belonging to the king or governor, which might be assigned to
the district, were to be driven over or pastured on the estate. And,
finally, he was freed from all liability to build a road or a bridge
for the public convenience, even though the king or the governor should
give the order.
From these regulations it will be seen that the owner of land in
Babylonia under the later Kassite kings, unless granted special
exemption, was liable to furnish forced labour for public works both
to the state and to his local district; he had to supply grazing and
pasture for the flocks and herds of the king and the governor, and to
pay various taxes and tithes on land, irrigation-water, and crops. We
have already noted the prevalence of similar customs under the First
Dynasty,[73] and it is clear that the successive conquests to which
the country had been subjected, and its domination by a foreign race,
had not to any appreciable extent affected the life and customs of the
people nor even the general character of the administrative system.
On one subject the boundary-stones throw additional light, which
is lacking at the period of the First Dynasty, and that is the old
Babylonian system of land tenure. They suggest that the lands, which
formed the subject of royal grants during the Kassite period, were
generally the property of the local _bîtu,_ or tribe.[74] In certain
cases the king actually purchased the land from the _bîtu_ in whose
district it was situated, and, when no consideration was given, we
need merely assume that it was requisitioned by royal authority. The
primitive system of tribal or collective proprietorship, which is
attested by the Obelisk of Manishtusu,[75] undoubtedly survived into
the Kassite period, when it co-existed with the system of private
ownership, as it had doubtless done at the time of the West-Semitic
kings. The _bîtu_ must often have occupied an extensive area, split up
into separate districts or groups of villages. It had its own head, the
_bêl bîti,_ and its own body of local functionaries, who were quite
distinct from the official and military servants of the state. In
fact, agricultural life in Babylonia during the earlier periods must
have presented many points of analogy to such examples of collective
proprietorship as may be seen in the village communities of India
at the present day. As the latter system has survived the political
changes and revolutions of many centuries, so it is probable that the
tribal proprietorship in Babylonia was slow to decay.
The principal factor in its disintegration was undoubtedly the policy,
pursued by the West-Semitic and Kassite conquerors, of settling their
own officers and more powerful adherents on estates throughout the
country. Both these periods thus represent a time of transition, during
which the older system of land tenure gradually gave way in face of the
policy of private ownership, which for purely political reasons was so
strongly encouraged by the crown. There can be no doubt that under the
West-Semitic kings, at any rate from the time of Hammurabi onwards, the
policy of confiscation was rarely resorted to. And even the earlier
rulers of that dynasty, since they were of the same racial stock as
a large proportion of their new subjects, would have been the more
inclined to respect tribal institutions which may have found a parallel
in their land of origin. The Kassites, on the other hand, had no such
racial associations to restrain them, and it is significant that the
kudurrus were now for the first time introduced, with their threatening
emblems of divinity and their imprecatory clauses. At first employed
to guard the rights of private ownership, often based on high-handed
requisition by the king, they were afterwards retained for transfers
of landed property by purchase. In the Neo-Babylonian period, when the
boundary-stones recorded long series of purchases by means of which the
larger landed estates were built up, the imprecations and symbols had
become to a great extent conventional survivals.
But that period was still far distant, and the vicissitudes the country
was to pass through were not conducive to security of tenure, whether
the property were held under private or collective ownership. We have
seen that Assyria, as early as the thirteenth century, had succeeded
in capturing and sacking Babylon, and, according to one tradition, had
ruled the city for seven years. She was shortly to renew her attempts
to subjugate the southern kingdom; but it was Elam, Babylon's still
older foe, that brought the long and undistinguished Kassite Dynasty to
an end.
[Footnote 1: Proof that the Aryans were horse-keepers may be seen
in the numerous Iranian proper names which include _asva_ (_aspa_),
"horse," as a component; see Justi, "Iran. Namenbuch," p. 486, and cf.
Meyer, "Geschichte," I., ii., p. 579.]
[Footnote 2: It is on a text of that period that we find the first
mention of the horse in antiquity; cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.,"
1907, col. 638 f., and King, "Journ. of Hellenic Studies," XXXIII., p.
359. A reference to one also occurs in a letter of the early Babylonian
period (cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," IV., pl. 1), but, to
judge from the writing, this is probably rather later than the time
of Hammurabi. It is immediately after the Kassite period that we have
evidence of the adoption of the horse as a divine symbol, doubtless
that of a deity introduced by the Kassites; see Plate XXII., opposite
p. 254.]
[Footnote 3: Some First Dynasty tablets record the issue of rations to
certain Kassites, who were obviously employed as labourers, probably
for getting in the harvest (cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," VI., No.
5. p. 22); and in a list of proper names of the same period (cf. "Cun.
Texts," VI., pl. 23) a Kassite man, (_awîl_) ṣâbum Kashshû, bears the
name Warad-Ibari, perhaps a Semitic rendering of an original Kassite
name.]
[Footnote 4: Cf. Ingnad, "Vorderas. Schriftdenkmäler," VII., pl. 27,
No. 64.]
[Footnote 5: See above, p. 195 f.]
[Footnote 6: Cf. Winckler, "Untersuchungen," p. 156, No. 6.]
[Footnote 7: Cf. "Chronicles," II., p. 22 f. For discussions of the
manner in which we may reconcile the chronicler's account of the
Kassite conquest of the Sea-Country with the known succession of the
early Kassite kings of Babylon, see _op. cit.,_ I., pp. 101 ff., and
cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Journal des Savants." Nouv. Sér., VI., No. 4, pp.
100 ff., and "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 170 ff. The established
genealogy of Agum-kakrime renders it impossible to identify the Agum of
the chronicle, who was a son of Kashtiliash the Kassite, with either
of the Kassite kings of Babylon who bore that name. He can only have
raided or ruled in the Sea-Country, probably at the time his eldest
brother Ushshi (or perhaps his other brother, Abi-rattash) was king in
Babylon.]
[Footnote 8: Agum-kakrime describes Kashtiliash as _aplu,_ probably
"the inheritor." not _mâru,_ "the son," of Agum I. (cf. Thureau-Dangin,
"Journ. Asiat.," XI., 1908, p. 133 f.).]
[Footnote 9: See Weissbach, "Babylonische Miscellen," p. 7, pl. 1, No.
3.]
[Footnote 10: Cf. "Chronicles," II., p. 24.]
[Footnote 11: See above, p. 210. From his titles we gather that he
ruled Padan, Alman, Gutium and Ashnunnak as subject provinces; cf.
Jensen in Schrader's "Keilins. Bibl.," III., i., p. 130 f.]
[Footnote 12: That is, "The Glory of the Disk," in honour of his new
cult. For detailed histories of the period, see Budge, "History of
Egypt." Vol. V., pp. 90 ff.; Breasted, "History of Egypt," pp. 322 ff,
and Hall, "Ancient History of the Near East," pp. 297 ff.]
[Footnote 13: For the texts, see Budge and Bezold, "The Tell el-Amarna
Tablets in the British Museum" (1892), and Winckler, "Der Thontafelfund
von El Amarna" (1889-90); and for translations, see Winckler. "Die
Thontafeln von Tell el-Amarna" in Schrader's "Keilins. Bibl.," Bd.
V.. Engl. ed. 1890, and Knudtzon's "Die El-Amarna Tafeln" in the
"Vorderasiatische Bibliothek," 1907-12, with an appendix by Weber,
annotating and discussing the contents of the letters.]
[Footnote 14: Winckler's preliminary account of the documents in the
"Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 35, Dec. 1907, is still
the only publication on the linguistic material that has appeared. The
topographical and part of the archæological results of the excavations
have now been published; see Puchstein, "Boghasköi," 1912.]
[Footnote 15: Among the royal letters from Tell el-Amarna are eleven
which directly concern Babylon. Two of these are drafts, or copies, of
letters which Amenhetep III. despatched to Kadashman-Enlil of Babylon
(cf. Kundtzon, _op. cit.,_ pp. 60 ff., 74 ff.); three are letters
received by Amen-hetep III. from the same correspondent (_op. cit.,_
pp. 66 ff., 68 ff., 72 ff.); five are letters written by Burna-Buriash
of Babylon to Amen-hetep IV. or Akhenaten (_op. cit.,_ pp. 78 ff.); and
one is a letter from Burna-Buriash, which may have been addressed to
Amen-hetep III. (_op. cit.,_ 78 f.). We also possess a letter, from a
princess in Babylon to her lord in Egypt, on a purely domestic matter
(_op. cit.,_ pp. 118 ff.), as well as long lists of presents which
passed between Akhenaten and Burna-Buriash (_op. cit.,_ pp. 100 ff.);
one of the letters also appears to be a Babylonian passport for use in
Canaan (see below, p. 225, n. 3). The letters thus fall in the reigns
of two Kassite rulers, Kadashman-Enlil I. and Burna-Buriash, but from
one of Burna-Buriash's letters to Akhenaten we gather that Amen-hetep
III. had corresponded with a still earlier king in Babylon, Kara-indash
I.; for the letter begins by assuring the Pharaoh that "since the
time of Kara-indash, when their fathers had begun to correspond with
one another, they had always been good friends" (cf. Knudtzon, _op.
cit.,_ pp. 90 ff.). We have recovered no letters of Kurigalzu, the
father of Burna-Buriash, though Amen-hetep III. maintained friendly
relations with him (see below, p. 224). In a letter of Amen-hetep III.
to Kadashman-Enlil reference is also made to correspondence between the
two countries in the time of Amen-hetep III.'s father, Thothmes IV.
(_op. cit.,_ p. 64 f.).]
[Footnote 16: The Babylonian king expresses his willingness to receive
any beautiful Egyptian woman, as no one would know she was not a king's
daughter (_op. cit.,_ p. 72 f.). Amen-hetep III. married a sister of
Kadashman-Enlil, though the Babylonian court was not satisfied with the
lady's treatment in Egypt (_op. cit.,_ p. 60 f.).]
[Footnote 17: _Op. cit.,_ pp. 178 ff.]
[Footnote 18: See below, p. 240.]
[Footnote 19: Cf. Breasted, "Hist. of Egypt," p. 367 f.]
[Footnote 20: See Knudtzon, _op. cit.,_ p. 128 f.]
[Footnote 21: _Op. cit.,_ p. 88 f.]
[Footnote 22: Knudtzon, _op. cit.,_ pp. 88 ff.]
[Footnote 23: See below, p. 241.]
[Footnote 24: Cf. Knudtzon, _op. cit.,_ p. 84 f.]
[Footnote 25: This was a Canaanite city built by Akhenaten, and named
by him Akhetaten, in honour of the Solar Disk.]
[Footnote 26: _Op. cit.,_ p. 86 f. An interesting little letter
addressed "to the kings of Canaan, the servants of my brother,"
was apparently a passport carried by Akia, an ambassador, whom the
Babylonian king had sent to condole with the king of Egypt, probably
on the death of his father Amen-hetep III. In it the king writes, "let
none detain him; speedily may they cause him to arrive in Egypt" (cf.
_op. cit.,_ pp. 268 ff.)]
[Footnote 27: We are not here concerned with this aspect of the
letters, as Babylon had but a remote interest in the internal
politics of Canaan. Her activities in the west at this time were
mainly commercial; and the resulting influence of her civilization in
Palestine is discussed in a later chapter (see below, pp. 289 ff.). The
letters will be treated more fully in the third volume of this history,
when tracing the gradual expansion of Assyria in the west, and the
forces which delayed her inevitable conflict with Egypt.]
[Footnote 28: See Figs. 47 and 48. The relief was found by M. Legrain
at Karnak; cf. Meyer, "Reich und Kultur der Chetiter," pl. i. The
inscription in Fig. 47 labels the ambassadors as "_mariana_ of Naharain
(_i.e._ Northern Syria)." the term _mariana_ being the Aryan word for
"young men, warriors," doubtless borrowed from the ruling dynasty
of Mitanni (see below, n. 2). That in Fig. 48 contains the end of a
list of Hittite cities, including [Car]chemish and Aruna, the latter
probably in Asia Minor.]
[Footnote 29: See Figs. 49 and 50.]
[Footnote 30: The Mitannian people were probably akin to them,
though in the fifteenth century they were dominated by a dynasty
of Indo-European extraction, bearing Aryan names and worshipping
the Aryan gods Mitra and Varuna, Indra and the Nâsatya-twins (cf.
Winckler, "Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 35, p. 51,
and Meyer, _op. cit.,_ p. 57 f.). In spite of Scheftelowitz's attempt
to prove the Mitannian speech Aryan (cf. "Zeits. f. vergl. Sprachf.,"
xxxviii., pp. 260 ff.), it has been shown by Bloomfield to be totally
non-Indo-European in character; see "Amer. Journ. of Philol.," xxv.,
pp. 4 ff., and cf. Meyer, "Zeits. f. vergl. Sprachf.," xlii., 21, and
King, "Journ. for Hellen. Stud.," xxxiii., p. 359.]
[Footnote 31: Khatti may well have been an important centre from a
very early period, and the use of the name "Hittites" by the late
chronicler, in describing the conflicts of the First Babylonian
Dynasty, is in favour of this view: see above, p. 210, n. 2.]
[Footnote 32: This we gather from a letter Amen-hetep wrote to him in
the Arzawa language, which was found at Tell el-Amarna; cf. Knudtzon,
"Die el-Amarna Tafeln," pp. 270 ff., No. 31.]
[Footnote 33: A portion of the village is built over an extension of
the outer fortification-walls on the north-west.]
[Footnote 34: Now known as Beuyuk Kale. For an account of the
excavations, see Puchstein, "Boghasköi: die Bauwerke" (1912); and for
the best earlier description of the site, see Garstang, "Land of the
Hittites," pp. 196 ff.]
[Footnote 35: In the Lion-Gateway at Khatti the face of each monolith
is carved to represent a lion, facing any one approaching the entrance
from without (cf. Puchstein, "Boghasköi," pi. 23 f.). The figure
sculptured in relief on the inner side of the Royal Gateway (see p.
229, Fig. 51) preserves an interesting feature of the best Hittite
work,--an unusual combination of minute surface-adornment with great
boldness of design. The hatching and scroll-work on the garment are
only roughly indicated in the small drawing, and other detail is
omitted. Hair on the breast of the figure, for example, doubtless
regarded as a sign of strength and virility, is conventionally rendered
by series of minute overlapping curls, which form a diapered pattern
traced with the point. This can only be detected on the original stone,
or in a large-size photograph, such as that reproduced by Puchstein,
_op. cit.,_ pl. 19. The Royal Gateway is in the S.E. corner of the
city, near the palace and the smaller temples. The great temple, by
far the largest building on the site, lies on the lower ground to the
north.]
[Footnote 36: Cf. Winckler, "Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft,"
No. 35, p. 36.]
[Footnote 37: The disastrous opening of the battle was largely due to
the over-confidence of Rameses and his complete miscalculation of the
enemy's strength and resources; for the Egyptians had never yet met
so powerful an enemy as the Hittites proved themselves to be. With
the help of the reliefs it is possible to follow the tactics of the
opposing armies in some detail. The accompanying inscriptions are very
fragmentary, but they are supplemented by a historical account of the
battle, introducing a poem in celebration of the valour of Rameses,
preserved on a papyrus in the British Museum. For a detailed account
of the battle, illustrated by plans and accompanied by translations of
the texts, see Breasted, "Ancient Records of Egypt," Vol. 111., pp. 123
ff.; cp. also Budge, "History," Vol. V., pp. 20 ff., and Hall, "Near
East," p. 360 f.]
[Footnote 38: Cf. Winckler, _op. cit.,_ p. 20 f.]
[Footnote 39: _Op. cit.,_ p. 23 f.]
[Footnote 40: That is, under oath, according to the regular Babylonian
practice.]
[Footnote 41: Winckler, _op. cit.,_ p. 24.]
[Footnote 42: This is not the only occasion on which we hear of the
despatch of physicians from one foreign country to another at this
period. Naturally they were supplied by Egypt and Babylon, as the two
great centres of science and learning. Thus Khattusil refers to a
physician _(asû)_ and an exorcist _(ashipu),_ who had formerly been
sent from Babylon to the Hittite king Mutallu but had not returned.
Kadashman-Enlil had evidently written to enquire about them, and
Khattusil replies that the exorcist is dead, but that the physician
will be sent back; cf. Winckler, _op. cit.,_ p. 26. Medicine at
this time was, of course, merely a branch of magic, and the _asû_ a
practising magician; see above, p. 194.]
[Footnote 43: We possess no contemporary reference to Khonsu's journey.
The tale is recorded on a stele, now in the Bibliothèque Nationale,
which was engraved and set up in the Persian or Hellenic period by the
priests of Khonsu at Thebes (cf. Breasted, "Ancient Records," III., pp.
188 ff.). At the head of the stele is a relief showing the two sacred
boats of Khonsu borne on the shoulders of priests (see p. 238 f., Figs.
56 f.).]
[Footnote 44: Evidence of increased Egyptian influence may be seen in
the fact that, to judge from the seals upon a Hittite document (cf.
Winckler, _op. cit.,_ p. 29), Arnuanta appears to have adopted the
Egyptian custom of marrying his sister.]
[Footnote 45: See above, p. 221.]
[Footnote 46: Cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. XXXIV. (1914),
pl. 38 ff., and Schrader, "Keilins. Bibl.," I., pp. 194 ff.; and cp.
Budge and King, "Annals of the Kings of Assyria," pp. xxii. ff.]
[Footnote 47: See above, p. 218.]
[Footnote 48: See below, p. 245 f.]
[Footnote 49: Kurigalzu I. is recorded to have made a grant of certain
land, in the possession of which Kadashman-Enlil I. confirmed a
descendant of the former owner; see King, "Babylonian Boundary Stones
and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum," p. 3 f. The document is
of considerable importance, as the reading of Kadashman-Enlil's name
upon it has cleared up several points of uncertainty connected with the
vexed subject of the Kassite succession.]
[Footnote 50: A red marble mace-head, discovered at Babylon (cf.
Weissbach, "Bab. Miscellen," pp. 2 ff.), is inscribed with his name
and that of his father. Neither bears a royal title in the text,
but, as this is sometimes omitted in the Kassite period, Meli-Shipak
may be provisionally regarded as the successor of Kurigalzu I.; cf.
Thureau-Dangin, "Journ. Asiat.," XI. (1908), p. 119 f.]
[Footnote 51: Cf. "Annals," p. xxii.]
[Footnote 52: _Op. cit.,_ p. xxiii. In the interval between Kara-indash
I. and Burna-Buriash are to be set Kadashman-Enlil I. and his son,
[....Bu]riash (see Hilprecht, "Old Bab. Inscr.," I., i., pl. 25, No.
68, and cp. Thureau-Dangin, _op. cit.,_ pp. 122 ff.), as well as
Kurgalzu II. the father of Burna-Buriash (see above, pp. 221, 224).]
[Footnote 53: Cf. "Annals," p. xxvii. The account given by the
Synchronistic History is certainly to be preferred to that of the
Chronicle 82-7-4, 38. The discrepancies are best explained on the
assumption that the latter's editor has confused Kurigalzu, the young
son of Hurna-Buriash, with Kurigalzu I., the son of Kadashman-Kharbe
I., to whom the chronicler's ascription of success against the Sutû
should be transferred (see Thureau-Dangin, "Journ. Asiat.," XI., 1908,
pp. 125 if., and cp. Knudtzon, "Die El-Amarna-Tafeln," p. 34, n. 2).]
[Footnote 54: He was no doubt elated by his successful war with Elam,
in the course of which he captured Khurpatila, the Elamite king; cf.
Delitzsch, "Das Bab. Chron.," p. 45.]
[Footnote 55: "Annals," pp. xxviii., xxxii.]
[Footnote 56: The successor of his father and grandfather,
Shagarakti-Shuriash and Kudur-Enlil upon the Babylonian throne.]
[Footnote 57: The unification of Babylonia under the Kassites was
symbolized by the name Karduniash, which they bestowed on the country
as a whole. But the older territorial divisions of Sumer and Akkad
still survived as geographical terms and in the royal titles.]
[Footnote 58: Cf. King, "Records of Tukulti-Ninib I.," pp. 96 ff.]
[Footnote 59: The short reigns of Enlil-nadin-shum, Kadashman-Khabe
II. and Adad-shum-iddin must be regarded as falling partly within the
period of Tukulti-Ninib's troubled years of suzerainty, partly in the
reign of Tukulti-Ashur, when the statue of Marduk, carried off by
Tukulti-Ninib, was restored to Babylon. The reign of Enlil-nadin-shum
was cut short by Kidin-Khutrutash of Elam, who sacked Nippur and Dêr,
while a few years later the same Elamite monarch penetrated still
further into Babylonia after defeating Adad-shum-iddin; cf. Delitzsch,
"Das Bab. Chron.," p. 46.]
[Footnote 60: "Annals," p. xli.]
[Footnote 61: The name in the Kings' List reads _Bêl-nadin-_(....);
and in the fragmentary inscription in which Nebuchadnezzar records
how he turned the tables upon Elam, he refers to a ruler, between
(Zamama)-shum-iddin and himself, as _(ilu)BE-nadin-akhi_ (see
Rawlinson, "Cun. Inscr. West Asia," III., pl. 38, No. 2, and cf.
Winckler, "Altorientalische Forschungen," I., pp. 534 ff.). The divine
ideogram _(ilu)BE_ was read as Ea by the Babylonians and as Enlil by
the Assyrians. And the identification of the two royal names has been
called in question on the grounds that the Assyrian copy, in which
Nebuchadnezzar's text has come down to us, would have reproduced the
Babylonian orthography of its original, and that in any case it is
doubtful whether Enlil, like Marduk, ever bore the synonymous title
of Bêl (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Journ. Asiat.," XI., p. 132 f.). If we
reject the identification, we should read the name of the last king of
the Kassite Dynasty as Ea-nadin-[....], and regard Bêl-nadin-akhi as
probably the second or third ruler of the Fourth Dynasty.]
[Footnote 62: The contracts and letters of this period closely resemble
those of the time of the First Dynasty. The dated documents have
furnished a means of controlling the figures assigned in the Kings'
List to the later Kassite rulers; see Clay, "Documents from the Temple
Archives of Nippur," in the "Bab. Exped." Series, Vol. XIV. f., and for
a number of contemporary letters, see Radau, _ibid.,_ Vol. XVII., i.]
[Footnote 63: See above, pp. 241, 244.]
[Footnote 64: For the kudurru-inscriptions in the British Museum, see
"Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial Tablets in the Brit. Mus."
(1912); and for references to and discussions of other texts, cf.
Hincke, "A New Boundary-Stone of Nebuchadnezzar I." (1907), pp. xvi.
ff., 10 ff.]
[Footnote 65: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 105.]
[Footnote 66: See Hincke, _op. cit.,_ p. 4.]
[Footnote 67: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," pp. 206 ff.]
[Footnote 68: Cf. Cuq, "Nouvelle Revue Historique," 1907, p. 707 f.,
1908, p. 476 f.]
[Footnote 69: Resemblances have been pointed out between the
boundary-records of ancient Egypt and those of Babylonia; but of
course no inference of borrowing need be inferred from them. The
method of marking out the limits of a field or estate by means of
boundary-stones, or boundary-tablets, is common among peoples who
have abandoned nomad life for agriculture; and the further idea of
inscribing the owner's name and title to the land is one that would
naturally suggest itself.]
[Footnote 70: This is suggested by the fact that the symbols and curses
so often do not correspond; had they both been bound up in a like
origin, we should have expected the one to illustrate the other more
closely.]
[Footnote 71: It was quite optional on the part of a Kassite landowner
to engrave a boundary-stone, and, if he did so, it was simply to secure
additional protection for his title. This is well illustrated by a
kudurru of the reign of Nazi-maruttash (see Plate XXI.), which was only
engraved after the original clay title-deed had been destroyed by the
fall of the building in which it had been preserved.]
[Footnote 72: See Plate XXI., opposite; and cp. Scheil, "Textes
Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 99 ff., pl. 21 ff.]
[Footnote 73: See above, pp. 167 ff.]
[Footnote 74: Cf. Cuq, "Nouv. Rev. Hist.," 1906, pp. 720 ff., 1908, p.
474 f. This view appears preferable to the theory that the land granted
by the Kassite kings was taken from communal or public laud of a city,
or district, of which the king had the right to dispose (cf. Hincke,
"Boundary Stone of Nebuchadnezzar I.," p. 16).]
[Footnote 75: See above, p. 247.]