THE GOLDEN AGE OF BABYLONIA
Rise of the Sun God--Amorites and Elamites struggle for
Ascendancy--The Conquering Ancestors of Hammurabi--Sumerian Cities
Destroyed--Widespread Race Movements--Phoenician Migration from
Persian Gulf--Wanderings of Abraham and Lot--Biblical References to
Hittites and Amorites--Battles of Four Kings with Five--Amraphel,
Arioch, and Tidal--Hammurabi's Brilliant Reign--Elamite Power
Stamped Out--Babylon's Great General and Statesman--The Growth of
Commerce, Agriculture, and Education--An Ancient School--Business
and Private Correspondence--A Love Letter--Postal
System--Hammurabi's Successors--The Earliest Kassites--The Sealand
Dynasty--Hittite Raid on Babylon and Hyksos Invasion of Egypt.
Sun worship came into prominence in its most fully developed form
during the obscure period which followed the decline of the Dynasty of
Isin. This was probably due to the changed political conditions which
brought about the ascendancy for a time of Larsa, the seat of the
Sumerian sun cult, and of Sippar, the seat of the Akkadian sun cult.
Larsa was selected as the capital of the Elamite conquerors, while
their rivals, the Amorites, appear to have first established their
power at Sippar.
Babbar, the sun god of Sippar, whose Semitic name was Shamash, must
have been credited with the early successes of the Amorites, who
became domiciled under his care, and it was possibly on that account
that the ruling family subsequently devoted so much attention to his
worship in Merodach's city of Babylon, where a sun temple was erected,
and Shamash received devout recognition as an abstract deity of
righteousness and law, who reflected the ideals of well organized and
firmly governed communities.
The first Amoritic king was Sumu-abum, but little is known regarding
him except that he reigned at Sippar. He was succeeded by Sumu-la-ilu,
a deified monarch, who moved from Sippar to Babylon, the great wall of
which he either repaired or entirely reconstructed in his fifth year.
With these two monarchs began the brilliant Hammurabi, or First
Dynasty of Babylonia, which endured for three centuries. Except
Sumu-abum, who seems to stand alone, all its kings belonged to the
same family, and son succeeded father in unbroken succession.
Sumu-la-ilu was evidently a great general and conqueror of the type of
Thothmes III of Egypt. His empire, it is believed, included the rising
city states of Assyria, and extended southward as far as ancient
Lagash.
Of special interest on religious as well as political grounds was his
association with Kish. That city had become the stronghold of a rival
family of Amoritic kings, some of whom were powerful enough to assert
their independence. They formed the Third Dynasty of Kish. The local
god was Zamama, the Tammuz-like deity, who, like Nin-Girsu of Lagash,
was subsequently identified with Merodach of Babylon. But prominence
was also given to the moon god Nannar, to whom a temple had been
erected, a fact which suggests that sun worship was not more
pronounced among the Semites than the Arabians, and may not, indeed,
have been of Semitic origin at all. Perhaps the lunar temple was a
relic of the influential Dynasty of Ur.
Sumu-la-ilu attacked and captured Kish, but did not slay
Bunutakhtunila, its king, who became his vassal. Under the
overlordship of Sumu-la-ilu, the next ruler of Kish, whose name was
Immerum, gave prominence to the public worship of Shamash. Politics
and religion went evidently hand in hand.
Sumu-la-ilu strengthened the defences of Sippar, restored the wall and
temple of Cuthah, and promoted the worship of Merodach and his consort
Zerpanituᵐ at Babylon. He was undoubtedly one of the forceful
personalities of his dynasty. His son, Zabium, had a short but
successful reign, and appears to have continued the policy of his
father in consolidating the power of Babylon and securing the
allegiance of subject cities. He enlarged Merodach's temple, E-sagila,
restored the Kish temple of Zamama, and placed a golden image of
himself in the temple of the sun god at Sippar. Apil-Sin, his son,
surrounded Babylon with a new wall, erected a temple to Ishtar, and
presented a throne of gold and silver to Shamash in that city, while
he also strengthened Borsippa, renewed Nergal's temple at Cuthah, and
dug canals.
The next monarch was Sin-muballit, son of Apil-Sin and father of
Hammurabi. He engaged himself in extending and strengthening the area
controlled by Babylon by building city fortifications and improving
the irrigation system. It is recorded that he honoured Shamash with
the gift of a shrine and a golden altar adorned with jewels. Like
Sumu-la-ilu, he was a great battle lord, and was specially concerned
in challenging the supremacy of Elam in Sumeria and in the western
land of the Amorites.
For a brief period a great conqueror, named Rim-Anum, had established
an empire which extended from Kish to Larsa, but little is known
regarding him. Then several kings flourished at Larsa who claimed to
have ruled over Ur. The first monarch with an Elamite name who became
connected with Larsa was Kudur-Mabug, son of Shimti-Shilkhak, the
father of Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin.
It was from one of these Elamite monarchs that Sin-muballit captured
Isin, and probably the Elamites were also the leaders of the army of
Ur which he had routed before that event took place. He was not
successful, however, in driving the Elamites from the land, and
possibly he arranged with them a treaty of peace or perhaps of
alliance.
Much controversy has been waged over the historical problems connected
with this disturbed age. The records are exceedingly scanty, because
the kings were not in the habit of commemorating battles which proved
disastrous to them, and their fragmentary references to successes are
not sufficient to indicate what permanent results accrued from their
various campaigns. All we know for certain is that for a considerable
period, extending perhaps over a century, a tremendous and disastrous
struggle was waged at intervals, which desolated middle Babylonia. At
least five great cities were destroyed by fire, as is testified by the
evidence accumulated by excavators. These were Lagash, Umma,
Shurruppak, Kisurra, and Adab. The ancient metropolis of Lagash, whose
glory had been revived by Gudea and his kinsmen, fell soon after the
rise of Larsa, and lay in ruins until the second century B.C., when,
during the Seleucid Period, it was again occupied for a time. From its
mound at Tello, and the buried ruins of the other cities, most of the
relics of ancient Sumerian civilization have been recovered.
It was probably during one of the intervals of this stormy period that
the rival kings in Babylonia joined forces against a common enemy and
invaded the Western Land. Probably there was much unrest there. Great
ethnic disturbances were in progress which were changing the political
complexion of Western Asia. In addition to the outpourings of Arabian
peoples into Palestine and Syria, which propelled other tribes to
invade Mesopotamia, northern Babylonia, and Assyria, there was also
much unrest all over the wide area to north and west of Elam. Indeed,
the Elamite migration into southern Babylonia may not have been
unconnected with the southward drift of roving bands from Media and
the Iranian plateau.
It is believed that these migrations were primarily due to changing
climatic conditions, a prolonged "Dry Cycle" having caused a shortage
of herbage, with the result that pastoral peoples were compelled to go
farther and farther afield in quest of "fresh woods and pastures new".
Innumerable currents and cross currents were set in motion once these
race movements swept towards settled districts either to flood them
with human waves, or surround them like islands in the midst of
tempest-lashed seas, fretting the frontiers with restless fury, and
ever groping for an inlet through which to flow with irresistible
force.
The Elamite occupation of Southern Babylonia appears to have propelled
migrations of not inconsiderable numbers of its inhabitants. No doubt
the various sections moved towards districts which were suitable for
their habits of life. Agriculturists, for instance, must have shown
preference for those areas which were capable of agricultural
development, while pastoral folks sought grassy steppes and valleys,
and seafarers the shores of alien seas.
Northern Babylonia and Assyria probably attracted the tillers of the
soil. But the movements of seafarers must have followed a different
route. It is possible that about this time the Phoenicians began to
migrate towards the "Upper Sea". According to their own traditions
their racial cradle was on the northern shore of the Persian Gulf. So
far as we know, they first made their appearance on the Mediterranean
coast about 2000 B.C., where they subsequently entered into
competition as sea traders with the mariners of ancient Crete.
Apparently the pastoral nomads pressed northward through Mesopotamia
and towards Canaan. As much is suggested by the Biblical narrative
which deals with the wanderings of Terah, Abraham, and Lot. Taking
with them their "flocks and herds and tents ", and accompanied by
wives, and families, and servants, they migrated, it is stated, from
the Sumerian city of Ur northwards to Haran "and dwelt there". After
Terah's death the tribe wandered through Canaan and kept moving
southward, unable, it would seem, to settle permanently in any
particular district. At length "there was a famine in the land"--an
interesting reference to the "Dry Cycle"--and the wanderers found it
necessary to take refuge for a time in Egypt. There they appear to
have prospered. Indeed, so greatly did their flocks and herds increase
that when they returned to Canaan they found that "the land was not
able to bear them", although the conditions had improved somewhat
during the interval. "There was", as a result, "strife between the
herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle."
It is evident that the area which these pastoral flocks were allowed
to occupy must have been strictly circumscribed, for more than once it
is stated significantly that "the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled
in the land". The two kinsmen found it necessary, therefore, to part
company. Lot elected to go towards Sodom in the plain of Jordan, and
Abraham then moved towards the plain of Mamre, the Amorite, in the
Hebron district.[272] With Mamre, and his brothers, Eshcol and Aner,
the Hebrew patriarch formed a confederacy for mutual protection.[273]
Other tribes which were in Palestine at this period included the
Horites, the Rephaims, the Zuzims, the Zamzummims, and the Emims.
These were probably representatives of the older stocks. Like the
Amorites, the Hittites or "children of Heth" were evidently "late
comers", and conquerors. When Abraham purchased the burial cave at
Hebron, the landowner with whom he had to deal was one Ephron, son of
Zohar, the Hittite.[274] This illuminating statement agrees with what
we know regarding Hittite expansion about 2000 B.C. The "Hatti" or
"Khatti" had constituted military aristocracies throughout Syria and
extended their influence by forming alliances. Many of their settlers
were owners of estates, and traders who intermarried with the
indigenous peoples and the Arabian invaders. As has been indicated
(Chapter I), the large-nosed Armenoid section of the Hittite
confederacy appear to have contributed to the racial blend known
vaguely as the Semitic. Probably the particular group of Amorites with
whom Abraham became associated had those pronounced Armenoid traits
which can still be traced in representatives of the Hebrew people. Of
special interest in this connection is Ezekiel's declaration regarding
the ethnics of Jerusalem: "Thy birth and thy nativity", he said, "is
of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an
Hittite."[275]
It was during Abraham's residence in Hebron that the Western Land was
raided by a confederacy of Babylonian and Elamite battle lords. The
Biblical narrative which deals with this episode is of particular
interest and has long engaged the attention of European scholars:
"And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel (Hammurabi) king of
Shinar (Sumer), Arioch (Eri-aku or Warad-Sin) king of Ellasar (Larsa),
Chedor-laomer (Kudur-Mabug) king of Elam, and Tidal (Tudhula) king of
nations; that these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha
king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim,
and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. All these joined together in the
vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea. Twelve years they served
Chedor-laomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled."[276]
Apparently the Elamites had conquered part of Syria after entering
southern Babylonia.
Chedor-laomer and his allies routed the Rephaims, the Zuzims, the
Emims, the Horites and others, and having sacked Sodom and Gomorrah,
carried away Lot and "his goods". On hearing of this disaster, Abraham
collected a force of three hundred and eighteen men, all of whom were
no doubt accustomed to guerrilla warfare, and delivered a night attack
on the tail of the victorious army which was withdrawing through the
area afterwards allotted to the Hebrew tribe of Dan. The surprise was
complete; Abraham "smote" the enemy and "pursued them unto Hobah,
which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the
goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the
women also, and the people."[277]
The identification of Hammurabi with Amraphel is now generally
accepted. At first the guttural "h", which gives the English rendering
"Khammurabi", presented a serious difficulty, but in time the form
"Ammurapi" which appears on a tablet became known, and the conclusion
was reached that the softer "h" sound was used and not the guttural.
The "l" in the Biblical Amraphel has suggested "Ammurapi-ilu",
"Hammurabi, the god", but it has been argued, on the other hand, that
the change may have been due to western habitual phonetic conditions,
or perhaps the slight alteration of an alphabetical sign.
Chedor-laomer, identified with Kudur-Mabug, may have had several local
names. One of his sons, either Warad-Sin or Rim-Sin, but probably the
former, had his name Semitized as Eri-Aku, and this variant appears in
inscriptions. "Tidal, king of nations", has not been identified. The
suggestion that he was "King of the Gutium" remains in the realm of
suggestion. Two late tablets have fragmentary inscriptions which read
like legends with some historical basis. One mentions Kudur-lahmal
(?Chedor-laomer) and the other gives the form "Kudur-lahgumal", and
calls him "King of the land of Elam". Eri-Eaku (?Eri-aku) and Tudhula
(?Tidal) are also mentioned. Attacks had been delivered on Babylon,
and the city and its great temple E-sagila were flooded. It is
asserted that the Elamites "exercised sovereignty in Babylon" for a
period. These interesting tablets have been published by Professor
Pinches.
The fact that the four leaders of the expedition to Canaan are all
referred to as "kings" in the Biblical narrative need not present any
difficulty. Princes and other subject rulers who governed under an
overlord might be and, as a matter of fact, were referred to as kings.
"I am a king, son of a king", an unidentified monarch recorded on one
of the two tablets just referred to. Kudur-Mabug, King of Elam, during
his lifetime called his son Warad-Sin (Eri-Aku = Arioch) "King of
Larsa". It is of interest to note, too, in connection with the
Biblical narrative regarding the invasion of Syria and Palestine, that
he styled himself "overseer of the Amurru (Amorites)".
No traces have yet been found in Palestine of its conquest by the
Elamites, nor have the excavators been able to substantiate the claim
of Lugal-zaggizi of a previous age to have extended his empire to the
shores of the Mediterranean. Any relics which these and other eastern
conquerors may have left were possibly destroyed by the Egyptians and
Hittites.
When Hammurabi came to the throne he had apparently to recognize the
overlordship of the Elamite king or his royal son at Larsa. Although
Sin-muballit had captured Isin, it was retaken, probably after the
death of the Babylonian war-lord, by Rim-Sin, who succeeded his
brother Warad-Sin, and for a time held sway in Lagash, Nippur, and
Erech, as well as Larsa.
It was not until the thirty-first year of his reign that Hammurabi
achieved ascendancy over his powerful rival. Having repulsed an
Elamite raid, which was probably intended to destroy the growing power
of Babylon, he "smote down Rim-Sin", whose power he reduced almost to
vanishing point. For about twenty years afterwards that subdued
monarch lived in comparative obscurity; then he led a force of allies
against Hammurabi's son and successor, Samsu-iluna, who defeated him
and put him to death, capturing, in the course of his campaign, the
revolting cities of Emutbalum, Erech, and Isin. So was the last
smouldering ember of Elamite power stamped out in Babylonia.
Hammurabi, statesman and general, is one of the great personalities of
the ancient world. No more celebrated monarch ever held sway in
Western Asia. He was proud of his military achievements, but preferred
to be remembered as a servant of the gods, a just ruler, a father of
his people, and "the shepherd that gives peace". In the epilogue to
his code of laws he refers to "the burden of royalty", and declares
that he "cut off the enemy" and "lorded it over the conquered" so that
his subjects might have security. Indeed, his anxiety for their
welfare was the most pronounced feature of his character. "I carried
all the people of Sumer and Akkad in my bosom", he declared in his
epilogue. "By my protection, I guided in peace its brothers. By my
wisdom I provided for them." He set up his stele, on which the legal
code was inscribed, so "that the great should not oppress the weak"
and "to counsel the widow and orphan", and "to succour the injured....
The king that is gentle, king of the city, exalted am I."[278]
Hammurabi was no mere framer of laws but a practical administrator as
well. He acted as supreme judge, and his subjects could appeal to him
as the Romans could to Caesar. Nor was any case too trivial for his
attention. The humblest man was assured that justice would be done if
his grievance were laid before the king. Hammurabi was no respecter of
persons, and treated alike all his subjects high and low. He punished
corrupt judges, protected citizens against unjust governors, reviewed
the transactions of moneylenders with determination to curb
extortionate demands, and kept a watchful eye on the operations of
taxgatherers.
There can be little doubt but that he won the hearts of his subjects,
who enjoyed the blessings of just administration under a well-ordained
political system. He must also have endeared himself to them as an
exemplary exponent of religious tolerance. He respected the various
deities in whom the various groups of people reposed their faith,
restored despoiled temples, and re-endowed them with characteristic
generosity. By so doing he not only afforded the pious full freedom
and opportunity to perform their religious ordinances, but also
promoted the material welfare of his subjects, for the temples were
centres of culture and the priests were the teachers of the young.
Excavators have discovered at Sippar traces of a school which dates
from the Hammurabi Dynasty. Pupils learned to read and write, and
received instruction in arithmetic and mensuration. They copied
historical tablets, practised the art of composition, and studied
geography.
Although there were many professional scribes, a not inconsiderable
proportion of the people of both sexes were able to write private and
business letters. Sons wrote from a distance to their fathers when in
need of money then as now, and with the same air of undeserved
martyrdom and subdued but confident appeal. One son indited a long
complaint regarding the quality of the food he was given in his
lodgings. Lovers appealed to forgetful ladies, showing great concern
regarding their health. "Inform me how it fares with thee," one wrote
four thousand years ago. "I went up to Babylon so that I might meet
thee, but did not, and was much depressed. Let me know why thou didst
go away so that I may be made glad. And do come hither. Ever have care
of thy health, remembering me." Even begging-letter writers were not
unknown. An ancient representative of this class once wrote to his
employer from prison. He expressed astonishment that he had been
arrested, and, having protested his innocence, he made touching appeal
for little luxuries which were denied to him, adding that the last
consignment which had been forwarded had never reached him.
Letters were often sent by messengers who were named, but there also
appears to have been some sort of postal system. Letter carriers,
however, could not have performed their duties without the assistance
of beasts of burden. Papyri were not used as in Egypt. Nor was ink
required. Babylonian letters were shapely little bricks resembling
cushions. The angular alphabetical characters, bristling with
thorn-like projections, were impressed with a wedge-shaped stylus on
tablets of soft clay which were afterwards carefully baked in an oven.
Then the letters were placed in baked clay envelopes, sealed and
addressed, or wrapped in pieces of sacking transfixed by seals. If the
ancient people had a festive season which was regarded, like the
European Yuletide or the Indian Durga fortnight, as an occasion
suitable for the general exchange of expressions of goodwill, the
Babylonian streets and highways must have been greatly congested by
the postal traffic, while muscular postmen worked overtime
distributing the contents of heavy and bulky letter sacks. Door to
door deliveries would certainly have presented difficulties. Wood
being dear, everyone could not afford doors, and some houses were
entered by stairways leading to the flat and partly open roofs.
King Hammurabi had to deal daily with a voluminous correspondence. He
received reports from governors in all parts of his realm, legal
documents containing appeals, and private communications from
relatives and others. He paid minute attention to details, and was
probably one of the busiest men in Babylonia. Every day while at home,
after worshipping Merodach at E-sagila, he dictated letters to his
scribes, gave audiences to officials, heard legal appeals and issued
interlocutors, and dealt with the reports regarding his private
estates. He looks a typical man of affairs in sculptured
representations--shrewd, resolute, and unassuming, feeling "the
burden of royalty", but ever ready and well qualified to discharge his
duties with thoroughness and insight. His grasp of detail was equalled
only by his power to conceive of great enterprises which appealed to
his imagination. It was a work of genius on his part to weld together
that great empire of miscellaneous states extending from southern
Babylonia to Assyria, and from the borders of Elam to the
Mediterranean coast, by a universal legal Code which secured
tranquillity and equal rights to all, promoted business, and set
before his subjects the ideals of right thinking and right living.
Hammurabi recognized that conquest was of little avail unless followed
by the establishment of a just and well-arranged political system, and
the inauguration of practical measures to secure the domestic,
industrial, and commercial welfare of the people as a whole. He
engaged himself greatly, therefore, in developing the natural
resources of each particular district. The network of irrigating
canals was extended in the homeland so that agriculture might prosper:
these canals also promoted trade, for they were utilized for
travelling by boat and for the distribution of commodities. As a
result of his activities Babylon became not only the administrative,
but also the commercial centre of his Empire--the London of Western
Asia--and it enjoyed a spell of prosperity which was never surpassed
in subsequent times. Yet it never lost its pre-eminent position
despite the attempts of rival states, jealous of its glory and
influence, to suspend its activities. It had been too firmly
established during the Hammurabi Age, which was the Golden Age of
Babylonia, as the heartlike distributor and controller of business
life through a vast network of veins and arteries, to be displaced by
any other Mesopotamian city to pleasure even a mighty monarch. For two
thousand years, from the time of Hammurabi until the dawn of the
Christian era, the city of Babylon remained amidst many political
changes the metropolis of Western Asiatic commerce and culture, and
none was more eloquent in its praises than the scholarly pilgrim from
Greece who wondered at its magnificence and reverenced its
antiquities.
Hammurabi's reign was long as it was prosperous. There is no general
agreement as to when he ascended the throne--some say in 2123 B.C.,
others hold that it was after 2000 B.C.--but it is certain that he
presided over the destinies of Babylon for the long period of
forty-three years.
There are interesting references to the military successes of his
reign in the prologue to the legal Code. It is related that when he
"avenged Larsa", the seat of Rim-Sin, he restored there the temple of
the sun god. Other temples were built up at various ancient centres,
so that these cultural organizations might contribute to the welfare
of the localities over which they held sway. At Nippur he thus
honoured Enlil, at Eridu the god Ea, at Ur the god Sin, at Erech the
god Anu and the goddess Nana (Ishtar), at Kish the god Zamama and the
goddess Ma-ma, at Cuthah the god Nergal, at Lagash the god Nin-Girsu,
while at Adab and Akkad, "celebrated for its wide squares", and other
centres he carried out religious and public works. In Assyria he
restored the colossus of Ashur, which had evidently been carried away
by a conqueror, and he developed the canal system of Nineveh.
Apparently Lagash and Adab had not been completely deserted during his
reign, although their ruins have not yielded evidence that they
flourished after their fall during the long struggle with the
aggressive and plundering Elamites.
Hammurabi referred to himself in the Prologue as "a king who commanded
obedience in all the four quarters". He was the sort of benevolent
despot whom Carlyle on one occasion clamoured vainly for--not an
Oriental despot in the commonly accepted sense of the term. As a
German writer puts it, his despotism was a form of Patriarchal
Absolutism. "When Marduk (Merodach)", as the great king recorded,
"brought me to direct all people, and commissioned me to give
judgment, I laid down justice and right in the provinces, I made all
flesh to prosper."[279] That was the keynote of his long life; he
regarded himself as the earthly representative of the Ruler of
all--Merodach, "the lord god of right", who carried out the decrees of
Anu, the sky god of Destiny.
The next king, Samsu-iluna, reigned nearly as long as his illustrious
father, and similarly lived a strenuous and pious life. Soon after he
came to the throne the forces of disorder were let loose, but, as has
been stated, he crushed and slew his most formidable opponent,
Rim-Sin, the Elamite king, who had gathered together an army of
allies. During his reign a Kassite invasion was repulsed. The earliest
Kassites, a people of uncertain racial affinities, began to settle in
the land during Hammurabi's lifetime. Some writers connect them with
the Hittites, and others with the Iranians, vaguely termed as
Indo-European or Indo-Germanic folk. Ethnologists as a rule regard
them as identical with the Cossaei, whom the Greeks found settled
between Babylon and Media, east of the Tigris and north of Elam. The
Hittites came south as raiders about a century later. It is possible
that the invading Kassites had overrun Elam and composed part of
Rim-Sin's army. After settled conditions were secured many of them
remained in Babylonia, where they engaged like their pioneers in
agricultural pursuits. No doubt they were welcomed in that capacity,
for owing to the continuous spread of culture and the development of
commerce, rural labour had become scarce and dear. Farmers had a
long-standing complaint, "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the
labourers are few".[280] "Despite the existence of slaves, who were
for the most part domestic servants, there was", writes Mr. Johns,
"considerable demand for free labour in ancient Babylonia. This is
clear from the large number of contracts relating to hire which have
come down to us.... As a rule, the man was hired for the harvest and
was free directly after. But there are many examples in which the term
of service was different--one month, half a year, or a whole year....
Harvest labour was probably far dearer than any other, because of its
importance, the skill and exertion demanded, and the fact that so many
were seeking for it at once." When a farm worker was engaged he
received a shekel for "earnest money" or arles, and was penalized for
non-appearance or late arrival.[281]
So great was the political upheaval caused by Rim-Sin and his allies
and imitators in southern Babylonia, that it was not until the
seventeenth year of his reign that Samsu-iluna had recaptured Erech
and Ur and restored their walls. Among other cities which had to be
chastised was ancient Akkad, where a rival monarch endeavoured to
establish himself. Several years were afterwards spent in building new
fortifications, setting up memorials in temples, and cutting and
clearing canals. On more than one occasion during the latter part of
his reign he had to deal with aggressive bands of Amorites.
The greatest danger to the Empire, however, was threatened by a new
kingdom which had been formed in Bit-Jakin, a part of Sealand which
was afterwards controlled by the mysterious Chaldeans. Here may have
collected evicted and rebel bands of Elamites and Sumerians and
various "gentlemen of fortune" who were opposed to the Hammurabi
regime. After the fall of Rim-Sin it became powerful under a king
called Ilu-ma-ilu. Samsu-iluna conducted at least two campaigns
against his rival, but without much success. Indeed, he was in the end
compelled to retreat with considerable loss owing to the difficult
character of that marshy country.
Abeshu, the next Babylonian king, endeavoured to shatter the cause of
the Sealanders, and made it possible for himself to strike at them by
damming up the Tigris canal. He achieved a victory, but the wily
Ilu-ma-ilu eluded him, and after a reign of sixty years was succeeded
by his son, Kiannib. The Sealand Dynasty, of which little is known,
lasted for over three and a half centuries, and certain of its later
monarchs were able to extend their sway over part of Babylonia, but
its power was strictly circumscribed so long as Hammurabi's
descendants held sway.
During Abeshu's reign of twenty-eight years, of which but scanty
records survive, he appears to have proved an able statesman and
general. He founded a new city called Lukhaia, and appears to have
repulsed a Kassite raid.
His son, Ammiditana, who succeeded him, apparently inherited a
prosperous and well-organized Empire, for during the first fifteen
years of his reign he attended chiefly to the adornment of temples and
other pious undertakings. He was a patron of the arts with
archaeological leanings, and displayed traits which suggest that he
inclined, like Sumu-la-ilu, to ancestor worship. Entemena, the pious
patesi of Lagash, whose memory is associated with the famous silver
vase decorated with the lion-headed eagle form of Nin-Girsu, had been
raised to the dignity of a god, and Ammiditana caused his statue to be
erected so that offerings might be made to it. He set up several
images of himself also, and celebrated the centenary of the accession
to the throne of his grandfather, Samsu-iluna, "the warrior lord", by
unveiling his statue with much ceremony at Kish. About the middle of
his reign he put down a Sumerian rising, and towards its close had to
capture a city which is believed to be Isin, but the reference is too
obscure to indicate what political significance attached to this
incident. His son, Ammizaduga, reigned for over twenty years quite
peacefully so far as is known, and was succeeded by Samsuditana, whose
rule extended over a quarter of a century. Like Ammiditana, these two
monarchs set up images of themselves as well as of the gods, so that
they might be worshipped, no doubt. They also promoted the interests
of agriculture and commerce, and incidentally increased the revenue
from taxation by paying much attention to the canals and extending the
cultivatable areas.
But the days of the brilliant Hammurabi Dynasty were drawing to a
close. It endured for about a century longer than the Twelfth Dynasty
of Egypt, which came to an end, according to the Berlin calculations,
in 1788 B.C. Apparently some of the Hammurabi and Amenemhet kings were
contemporaries, but there is no evidence that they came into direct
touch with one another. It was not until at about two centuries after
Hammurabi's day that Egypt first invaded Syria, with which, however,
it had for a long period previously conducted a brisk trade. Evidently
the influence of the Hittites and their Amoritic allies predominated
between Mesopotamia and the Delta frontier of Egypt, and it is
significant to find in this connection that the "Khatti" or "Hatti"
were referred to for the first time in Egypt during the Twelfth
Dynasty, and in Babylonia during the Hammurabi Dynasty, sometime
shortly before or after 2000 B.C. About 1800 B.C. a Hittite raid
resulted in the overthrow of the last king of the Hammurabi family at
Babylon. The Hyksos invasion of Egypt took place after 1788 B.C.