THE DYNASTIES OF BABYLON, THE CASSITES AND ISIN

FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES OF BABYLON

THE origin of the city of Babylon is veiled in impenetrable obscurity. The first city built upon the site must have been founded fully four thousand years before Christ, and it may have been much earlier. The city is named in the Omen tablet of Sargon, and, though this is no proof that the city was actually in existence about 3800 BC, it does prove that a later tradition assigned to it this great antiquity. At this early date, however, it seems not to have been a city of importance. During the long period of the rise of the kingdom of Sumer and Accad no king in the south finds Babylon worthy of mention, though Babylon must have been developing into a city of influence during the later centuries of the dominion of Isin and Larsa. From about 2300 BC the influence of this city extends almost without a break to the period of the Seleucides. No capital in the world has ever been the center of so much power, wealth, and culture for a period so vast. It is in-deed a brilliant cycle of centuries upon which we enter.

The name of the first king of Babylon is given in the Babylonian King Lists as Sumu-abi (about 2454-2440 BC), of whom we know nothing. We have likewise no historical inscriptions of his immediate successors, and our only knowledge of their reigns is to be obtained from the fragmentary notes of contract tablets, which sometimes give indications of the life of the people. From the inscriptions of later kings we also get word of some building operations of two of them. These kings are Sumu-la-ilu (about 2439-2405 BC), who built six strong fortresses in Babylon, and Zabu (about 2404-2391 BC), who erected in Sippar of Anunit the temple of Edubar to the city's deity. After Zabu there was apparently all attempted revolution, for we get hints that a certain Immeru attempted to ascend the throne. His name does not appear on the King List, and it is probable that he was not able to gain a secure position in the kingdom.

The next rulers are Apil-Sin (about 2390-2373 BC) and Sin-muballit (about 2372-2343 BC), whose reigns are likewise unknown to us.

It is a noteworthy fact that in the large numbers of business documents which have come down to us out of the period of this first dynasty of Babylon, none of these rulers down to Apil-Sin is called king and Sin-muballit only in the form of a passing allusion in one single tablet. It is difficult to explain this fact unless we accept the view that the real kingdom of Babylon did not begin until Hammurabi had driven out the Elamites and so won for himself the title borne by the old kings. of Ur, Isin, and Larsa.

The son and successor of Sin-muballit was Hammurabi (about 2342-2288 B. C.), with whom begins a new era. It is the chief glory of his name that he made a united Babylonia, and that the union which he cemented remained until the scepter passed from Semitic hands to another race. In this he far exceeded the success of Sargon and Lugalzaggisi, whose empires were of but short duration. Yet he had even greater difficulties to meet than they. The Elamites were firmly fastened in the country, and would hardly give it up without a struggle. The activity displayed by these Elamite princes in building was an indication of how much they valued their new possessions. We are not yet in possession of facts enough to enable us to follow the movements of Hammurabi in his conquest of the country. The struggle was probably brief and without distinction. The people of the kingdom of Sumer and Accad had no genuine national life, no divine patriotism. When one king passed they cared not, and as willingly paid taxes to another, if only he made them no heavier. The Elamites were soon driven out of Babylonia, and Hammurabi assumed the titles of king of Sumer and Accad, king of the Four Quarters of the World, as well as the old title, king of Babylon. The ready acquiescence of the people in the new rule of Hammurabi and the new leadership of the city of Babylon is shown conclusively by the entire absence of any uprising or of any attempt to throw off the yoke. The time was ripe for the overturning of the old Sumerian state, and in Hammurabi was found the man for the new era. The manner of the con. quest is unknown to us, and in the knowledge of the fact we must rest content.

We know very little about the government of the country which Hammurabi had thus organized into a consolidated kingdom or empire. That he had petty princes or viceroys under him is made clear by sundry letters and dispatches to such officials which have come down to us. But it is still impossible so to order these little fragments. as to gain complete or satisfying pictures of his relation to them. If Hammurabi be the same person as Amraphel, who is mentioned in the Hebrew traditions (Gen. xiv), and many suppose, with considerable reason, that he is, we have there evidence that he was deemed in a later period to have had a considerable body of allies with whom he was associated in campaigns in the west. Of these who are thus mentioned Chedorlaomer has not yet been identified on any Babylonian inscription of an early date, though the name may well correspond with a form Kudur-lagamar, for both parts of which there is ample support. On an inscription of late date (about 300 B. C.) a name has been found which, whether it be read Kudur-nuchgamar, or Kudur-lugkgamar, or what not, almost certainly represents Chedorlaomer. The name of Tidal, king of Goum, has not yet been certainly identified; but in this same inscription a certain "Tudchula, son of Gazza," appears to be mentioned, who possibly represents Tidal. Arioch, king of Ellasar, is certainly to be identified with Eri-Aku, son of Kudur-Mabuk, the well-known king of Larsa. The narrative of their campaigns in the west accords well with what we know of the general situation, but forms only an episode in Babylonian history, and cannot now be satisfactorily related to the general movements of the time.

As soon as the conquest of Sumer and Accad was completed Hammurabi showed himself the statesman even more than the soldier. He displayed extraordinary care in the development of the resources of the land, and in thus increasing the wealth and comfort of the inhabitants. The chiefest of his great works is best described in his own ringing words, the words of a conqueror, a statesman, and a patriot: "Hammurabi, the powerful king, king of Babylon,... when Anu and Bel gave unto me to rule the land of Sumer and Accad, and with their scepter filled my hands, I dug the canal Hammurabi, the Blessing-of-Men, which bringeth the water of the overflow unto the land of Sumer and Accad. Its banks upon both sides I made arable land; much seed I scattered upon it. Lasting water I provided for the land of Sumer and Accad. The land of Sumer and Accad, its separated peoples I united, with blessings and abundance I endowed them, in peaceful dwellings I made them to live." This was no idle promise made to the people before the union of Sumer and Accad under the hegemony of Babylon, but the actual accomplishment of a man who knew how to knit to himself and his royal house the hearts of the people of a conquered land. There is a world of wisdom in the deeds of this old king. No work could possibly have been performed by him which would bring greater blessing than the building of a canal by which a nearly rainless land could be supplied with abundant water. After making the canal, Hammurabi followed the example of his predecessors in Babylonia and carried out extensive building operations in various parts of the land. On all sides we find evidences of his efforts in this work. In Babylon itself he erected a great granary for the storing of wheat against times of famine--a work of mercy as well as of necessity, which would find prompt recognition among oriental peoples then as now. The temples to the sun god in Larsa and in Sippar were rebuilt by him; the walls of the latter city were reconstructed "like a great mountain"-to use his own phrase- and the city was enriched by the construction of a new canal. The great temples of E-sagila in Babylon and E-zida in the neighboring Borsippa showed in increased size and in beauty the influence of his labors. There is evidence, also, that he built for himself a palace at the site now marked by the ruin of Kalwadha, near Baghdad.

But these buildings are only external evidences of the great work wrought in this long reign for civilization. The best of the culture of the ancient Sumerians was brought into Babylon, and there carefully conserved. What this meant to the centuries that came after is shown clearly in the later inscriptions. To Babylon the later kings of Assyria look constantly as to the real center of culture and civilization. No Assyrian king is content with Nineveh and its glories, great though these were in later days; his greatest glory came when he could call himself king of Babylon, and perform the symbolic act of taking hold of the hands of Bel-Marduk. Nineveh was the center of a kingdom of warriors, Babylon the abode of scholars; and the wellspring of all this is to be found in the work of Hammurabi.

But if the kings of Assyria looked to Babylon with longing eyes, yet more did later kings in the city of Babylon itself look back to the days of Hammurabi as the golden age of their history. Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar acknowledged his position in the most flattering way, for they imitated in their inscriptions the very words and phrases in which he had described his building, and, not satisfied with this, even copied the exact form of his tablets and the style of their writing. In building his plans were followed, and in rule and administration his methods were imitated. His works and his words entitle him to rank as the real founder of Babylon. Hammurabi reigned fifty-five years according to the King Lists, but forty-three years according to a native document which comes to us from his own dynasty.

When the long reign was ended the son of Hammurabi entered into his father's labors. Samsu-iluna (about 2287-2253) seems to have followed closely in the footsteps of Hammurabi. He tells us of building in Nippur and in other cities -some of them still unknown to us- of increasing the size of Babylon itself, and of continuing the works upon canals. The profound peace which Hammurabi achieved by arms continues through his reign and into the reigns of his successors. We have no historical inscriptions, for the records which have come down from their reigns are the so-called contract or business tablets, from which no connected story has yet been made out. From them we learn of the high civilization of the country and of its continued prosperity. The names of these kings, with their approximate dates, can only be set down until some future discovery reveals records with a historical meaning.

Abeshu (Ebishum), about 2252-2228 B. C.

Ammisatana, about 2227-2203 B. C.

Ammisadugga, about 2202-2182 B. C.

Samsusatana, about 2181-2115 B. C.

The names of the kings of this dynasty are very peculiar when one thinks that they are set down as native rulers over the city of Babylon. The origin of Zabu and its meaning are very doubtful, Apil-Sin and Sin-muballit are good Babylonian names, but the other eight are most certainly not Babylonian at all. This at once raises the question as to the nationality or race of these kings. The names would seem to suggest that the men who bore them were not Babylonian, but had come from some other branch of the great Semitic family. This seems now to be quite probable. Their names are for the most part to be connected with the Canaanite branch of the Semitic family, and it seems probable that they owe their origin to an invasion of Babylonia by the same race that peopled the highlands of Canaan. How and when they settled in Babylon remains obscure. According to the King Lists this dynasty was followed immediately by the second dynasty, which in all things must have been very like its predecessor. It is called the dynasty of Uru-Azag, and it has been conjectured that this refers to a district of the city of Babylon. This would make this dynasty consist of native princes, who had originated in a separate part of the city, by which they are named. The names of these kings and the length of their reigns are here given:

1. An-ma-an, about 2150-2091 (60)

2. Ki-an-ni-bi 2090-2035 (56)

3. Dam-ki-ilu-shu 2034-2009 (26)

4. Ish-ki-bal 2008-1994 (15)

5. Shu-ush-shi 1993-1970 (24)

6. Gul-ki-shar (? Kur) 1969-1915(55)

7. Kir-gal-dara-bar 1914-1865 (50)

8. A-dara-kalama 1864-1837 (28)

9. A-kur-ul-an-na 1836-1811 (26)

10. Me-lam-kur-kur-ra 1810-1803 (8)

11.Ea-ga-mil 1802-1783(20)

368 years

We owe this list of kings and the length of each reign to the Babylonian historians. It is certainly a surprising list of years of reign. As our confidence in the length of reigns given to kings in the first dynasty has been somewhat shaken by the discovery of the Babylonian Chronicle, in which Hammurabi receives forty-three years instead of fifty-five years, we may feel a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of these long reigns. No inscriptions of any of these kings have yet been found, and no business documents dated in their reigns have come to light. It is not therefore to be argued that the kings had no existence. Inscriptions of theirs may readily be supposed to be still in existence in the vast stores yet unearthed, or reasons may easily be found for supposing that a systematic effort had been made to destroy all their records. It has been supposed that during, perhaps, the latter part of this term the disturbances and movements began which resulted in the removal of all rule from the hands of the Babylonians and the transfer of it to invaders from the Kassite country. However that may be, a long period elapsed from the days of Hammurabi until the passing of power into the hands of foreigners. Hammurabi had indeed builded well. North and south together acknowledged the dominion of his successors. Peace at home and abroad gave leisure for the pursuit of literature, art, and science. This great silent period gives the necessary time for the progress in all these things, which is evidenced by the works no less than the words of the following centuries. From the peace and stability which his genius achieved we must now turn to the turmoil which ensued when his influence was finally overcome. Yet it was overcome in part only; the city of Babylon, which he had made great, so continued. Its supremacy there was none to question. It was only the constant effort of men to possess it and all that its traditions covered and contained.

2 THE KASSITE DYNASTY

AT about the year 1783 ends the long period of stable peace, during which Babylonia was ruled by kings of native blood. This land of great fertility had tempted often enough the hardy mountaineers of Elam, even as in later centuries the fair plains of northern Italy were coveted by the Teutons, who surveyed them from the mountains above. As long as the influence of Hammurabi and the other founders of the united kingdom of Babylonia remained the country was able to defy any invader. But the development of the arts, the progress of civilization, and the increase of trade and commerce had weakened the military arm. Babylon was becoming like Tyre of later days, whose merchants were always willing to pay tribute to a foreign foe rather than run the risk of a war which might injure their trade. At this time, however, Babylon still possessed patriotism and national pride, and there is no reason to believe that the foreigner seated himself upon the proud throne of the Babylonians without difficulty. It is indeed unlikely that the conquest of Babylon was achieved by a definitely organized army, led by a commander who purposed making himself king of Babylon, while still continuing to reign in his own country. It is rather the migration of a strong, fresh people which here con. fronts us. This people is called the Kasshu, and their previous seat was in Elam, but it is difficult to localize them more perfectly. It seems probable that they stood in some relation to the people dwelling along the banks of the Zagros, who became famous in later times under the name of the Kossoeans, and it has even been suggested that they are, in some way, to be connected with another people, the Kissians, who were at one time settled in the country of Susiana, but are also believed to be mentioned in Cappadocia. In the present state of our knowledge we are not justified in identifying them positively with either or both of these peoples. It will be safer simply to call them Kassites, and thus leave their racial affinity an open question. Certain indications there are which seem to show that they did not come direct from their ancient home into Babylonia, but were settled first in the far south, near the Persian Gulf. They entered Babylon probably as roving bands, then in increased numbers overran the land and gained control, so that they set up a foreign dynasty in place of the previous native Babylonian rule.

Concerning this Kassite dynasty our knowledge is very unsatisfactory. The Babylonian historians preserved in their King Lists the names of all these kings, but unhappily this list, in the form in which we possess it, is badly broken and many of the names are lost. The list assigns to this dynasty five hundred and seventy-six years and nine months. On this representation the Kassites must have ruled from about 1782 B. C. to about 1207 B. C. During this long period the Kassites naturally did not remain foreigners, but were rapidly assimilated to Babylonian culture as well as to Babylonian usages. They naturally wrote inscriptions, as their predecessors bad done; they built buildings and worshiped the Babylonian gods. But their rule did not bring forth so rich a fruit as Hammurabi's had done, and the records that have come down to us are much more fragmentary. Of only one king in this dynasty do we possess any long historical inscription, and his name does not appear upon the King List, but stood where the list is broken beyond hope of restoration. The correspondence of some of the kings with kings of Egypt has been preserved, and by it a most welcome light is shed upon the obscure period. We possess only contract tablets of other kings, the number of which will be largely increased by the publication of tablets that have been found at Nippur.

The names of the first kings in the list are:

Length of Reign

1. Gandish, c. 1782-1767 B. C.

2. Agum-shi, c. 1766-1745 B. C

3. Bibeiashi, c. 1744-1723 B. C.

4. Dushi c.1722-1714 B. C.

5. Adumetash, c, 1713-1706

Tashzigurumash

To us these names convey no real meaning. They are only shadows of men. The name of the first king also appears in a votive tablet under the form Gande, and in still another little fragment as Gaddash. He gives honor to the great god Bel, and wrote his name and titles on the door sockets set up by former Babylonian kings. But his name is not written in the same skillful manner as of former worthies. The rude workmanship is eloquent of the change which had come through a. ruder race. The world's progress was put back when the Kassites come to rule in Babylon.

But, though we know so little about this king Gandish, we know even less about his followers for a long time. These six kings fill a blank space in the history which had been all aglow with life and color in the days of the first dynasty.

After the sixth name the Babylonian King List is hopelessly broken, and no names can be read for a considerable space. It seems probable that Tashzi-gurumash may be the same as the king from whom Agum-kakrime claims descent. If this be true, we may have found by this means the name of the next king on the list. There belonged to the library of Asshurbanapal a long inscription in Assyrian characters which purports to be a copy of an inscription of an early king of Babylon. Certain peculiarities of the Assyrian text make it much more probable that it is a translation from Sumerian.The king whose deeds it recounts was Agum-kakrime. In this text he calls himself the son of Tashshigurumash. It is very tempting to connect this Tashshigurumash with the sixth name in the list of kings, and this is now generally done. It is probably right, yet it must be admitted that it is still somewhat doubtful. If Agum-kakrime were really the son of King Tashshigurumash, it is natural to suppose that with his father's name in his inscription would stand the title of king, which is not the case. The entire inscription sounds rather like the text of an usurper who is attempting to bolster up his claims to the throne by sounding titles and genealogical connections, as was done in certain cases in later times.

Whether Agum-kakrime was the next name in the list or not, it seems almost certain that he must have belonged to this same period and his name must have followed very shortly upon the list. In his inscription, after giving all his connections of blood and all his ties to the gods, he sets forth the lands of his rule in these words: "King of Kasshu and Accad; king of the broad land of Babylon; who caused much people to settle in the land of Ashnunnak; king of Padan and Alvan; king of the land Guti, wide extended peoples; a king who rules the Four Quarters of the World am I." This is a remarkable list of titles. It is at once noteworthy that the titles do not follow the usual Babylonian order. Usually a Babylonian king would write the title in this fashion: "King of Babylon, king of the Four Quarters of the World, king of Sumer and Accad, king of Kasshu." The titles "king of Padan and Alvan, king of Guti, etc.," would hardly have been used in this form at all. The Babylonian kings would seem to feel that they could not bear direct rule over a land lying outside of the rule of the Babylonian gods who alone could give the title to a king in Babylon. Rather would such a king have called himself "King of the kings of Padan, Alvan, and Guti," which lands he would thus rule through a deputy appointed by himself. It is to be observed that later Kassite kings conformed very carefully to this custom. That Agum-kakrime violated it is another proof that he belongs to the earlier kings of the dynasty, in a time before the Kassites had accommodated themselves to the customs of their conquered land.

But the titles of Agum-kakrime serve another and larger purpose for us than the furnishing of a confirmation of the position we have assigned him in the dynasty; they furnish us with a view of the extent of territory governed from Babylon during his reign. His kingdom covers all Babylonia, both north and south, which belonged to the ancient empire of Hammurabi; but it far exceeded these bounds. Agum-kakrime still continued to rule the land of Kasshu, and the land of Ashnunnak. Guti also, a land of which we have heard nothing since the days of Lasirab, was also subject to him, as well as Padan, the land of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Balikh, and Alvan (modern Holwan), which was contiguous to Guti and lay in the mountains of Kurdistan. As there is no indication in the inscriptions of the previous dynasties that so large a territory had been added to Babylonia since the days of Hammurabi, we are shut up to the view that the Kassites had themselves achieved it. This would make them greater conquerors than even the mighty founder of Babylon's greatness.

The major part of this inscription of Agum-kakrime deals with the restoration to Babylon of some gods which had been carried away in a previous raid upon the country. Agum-kakrime says that he sent an embassy to the far away land of Khani, which was probably located in the mountain country east of the Tigris, and south of the Lower Zab, to bring back to Babylon the statues of Marduk and Zarpanit. In order to understand this move on his part it must be remembered that, from the Babylonian point of view, there could be no legitimate king in Babylon unless he had been appointed to his rule by Marduk, patron god and real ruler of the city. But Marduk had been carried away by the people of Khani. It was all important, therefore, for the stability of the throne that this god, at least, be immediately restored. If Agum-kakrime had had sufficient troops at his command, he would probably have taken the god by force from this captors; as Nebuchadrezzar I and Asshurbanapal did in later times. He did not do this, but sent an "embassy." In this expression we may see an euphemism for the purchase or ransom of the gods by actual payment of gold or silver. When these gods were taken away we do not know. Perhaps we shall not go far astray if we locate this event in the later reigns of the kings of the second dynasty, at which time we have also placed the beginnings of the Kassite influence. The gods must have been removed by a destructive invasion, for Agum-kakrime follows the story of their restoration with the statement that he placed them in the temple of Shamash, and provided them with all the necessities for their worship, because Marduk's own temple, E-sagila, had to be restored before it was fit for his occupancy. This ruinous state of Babylon's great state temple points backward to a period of great weakness, to the period when Babylon was tottering from the proud position to which Hammurabi had brought it, and was already an easy prey for the foreigner.

The remaining lines of this important inscription deal with temple restorations, and thus add the name of Agum-kakrime to the list of great builders who have already passed in review before us. No other events in his reign are known to us, nor is its length preserved. The indications which remain would seem to show that he must have reigned long and peacefully.

After the reign of Agum-kakrime there is a sharp break in the chain of our information concerning the history of this dynasty. It will be necessary to make clear the reason for this break, and to set forth briefly the means adopted for the partial repair of the breach.

In giving the names of the kings of this dynasty from Gandish to Agum-kakrime we have simply followed the lists made by the Babylonian scholars in ancient times. If the list were perfectly continued, we should have an easy task in following out the kings of the dynasty, and in setting forth something of their activity by means of other historical material. Unhappily the tablet containing the list is broken off just after the name of Tashshigurumash. The list is then resumed after some distance by the name Kudur-Bel, alongside of whose name stands the numeral VI as the number of years of his reign. Following the name Kudur-Bel there are found the names of ten kings of the Kassite dynasty. There are thus preserved the names of sixteen kings, to which we may add that of Agum-kakrime, making seventeen in all. At the bottom of the list it is stated that there were thirty-six kings in the dynasty, and that the sum of the years of their reigns was five hundred and seventy-six years and nine months. For the completion of the. list we therefore need the names of nineteen kings. How many of these names can be obtained? In the present state of investigation it is safe to say that of these nineteen missing names twelve have been secured with reasonable certainty, and for the most part they can be arranged accurately in order in the dynasty. These names have been secured in some instances from contract tablets dated in their reigns; in others from their own inscriptions; in others from the so-called Synchronistic History--an original Assyrian document giving very briefly the early relations between Babylonia and Assyria--in others from letters and dispatches which passed between the courts of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt.

Before proceeding with the history of the remaining kings of this dynasty it will be necessary to say something by way of preface of the conditions of political life prevailing elsewhere, in order to the better understanding of the facts which we possess with reference to these reigns.

More than one hundred years before the beginning of the Kassite dynasty a new state, destined to a splendid career of dominion among men, was showing the beginnings of its life along the eastern bank of the Tigris. The land of Assyria in its original limits was a small land inclosed within the natural boundaries of the Tigris, the Upper and the Lower Zab, and the Median mountain range. Its inhabitants at this time were Semites, and apparently of much purer blood than their relatives the Babylonians, who had intermarried with the Sumerians-a custom afterward continued with the Kassites and with many other peoples. The chief city of this small Assyrian state was Asshur, in which were ruling, at the period of the beginning of the Kassite dynasty, Semitic Ishakkus, who were the beginners of a long and distinguished line. Their land was admirably furnished by nature. In it lived a people who were not enervated by luxury nor prostrated in energy by excessive and long-continued heat, but accustomed to battle with snowdrifts in the mountains and to conserve their physical force by its constant use. It is no wonder that under such favorable conditions this people should have risen rapidly to power. In a short time we shall find them able to negotiate treaties with the kings of Babylonia, and soon thereafter the main stream of history flows through the channels they were now digging. It is for these reasons that we have here touched lightly upon the beginnings of their national life.

Two other lands require brief mention before we can properly understand the movement of races during the period of the Kassite dynasty.

In the northwestern part of the great valley between the Tigris and Euphrates lay a small country whose two chief limits were set by the river Euphrates and its tributary the Balikh. In the Egyptian inscriptions of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties it is called Naharina--that is, the river country--but it was called Mitanni by its own kings. How long a people had lived within its borders with kings of their own and a separate national existence remains an enigma. No inscriptions of the people of Mitanni, save letters written to kings of Egypt, have been found. We should indeed hardly know of the land at all but for the discovery of the royal archives of the kings Amenophis III and Amenophis IV, the kings of Egypt who had diplomatic intercourse with it. From these letters and dispatches we have learned the names of several of the kings of Mitanni, among them Artatama, Artashuma, Sutarna, and Dushratta. Their chief god was Tishup, whose name as well as the names of his worshipers is not Semitic, but what their racial ties may be we do not know. At the time when these kings were writing dispatches to the kings of Egypt their land was in some sort of union with Khanigalbat, a land later known as Melitene and situated much farther north and west in the mountains. Between the kings of Mitanni and the kings of Egypt there were bonds of marriage, the kings of Egypt having married princesses from the far distant "river land." The fact that the proud kings of Egypt were anxious to ally themselves to the kings of Mitanni would seem to indicate that the land was sufficiently wealthy or influential to make it worthy of the attention of Egypt. The letters of Mitanni were written chiefly in the Semitic language of Babylonia, and in the cuneiform characters, with which we are familiar in the native inscriptions. One of these letters, however, preserved in the Royal Museum in Berlin, is written in the language of Mitanni, which has thus far not yielded to the numerous efforts made to decipher it. The kingdom of Mitanni must take its place among the small states which have had their share in influencing the progress of the world, but whose own history we are unable to trace. But, though we cannot do this, we may at least observe that it seems to have been largely under Semitic influences, for its method of writing was borrowed from its powerful neighbors.

The last land to which our attention must be diverted, before proceeding with the main story is the land of Kardunyash. Originally the word Kardunyash seems to be applied to a small territory in southern Babylonia close to the Persian Gulf. The termination, "ash" is Kassite, and it has been supposed, with good reason, that the Kassites first settled in this land by the Persian Gulf, and used it as a base from which to overrun and conquer Babylonia. Whether this be true or not, it is at least certain that the name Kardunyash comes to be used by the Kassite kings as a sort of official name for the land of Babylonia.

We are now able to return to the Kassite dynasty after a long excursus; the better prepared to gather together such little threads of information as link them with their neighbors.

As we have seen above, the Babylonian King List is so broken after the name Tashsbigurumash that some names are lost. Of these missing names we have already secured the name of Agum-kakrime. After him there lived six kings whose names, together with all their words and works, are lost.

The next king of the Kassite dynasty of whom we have knowledge is Karaindash (about 1450 B. C.). Like his predecessors and successors, he was a builder, as his own brief words make plain: "To Nana, the goddess of E-Anna, his mistress, built Karaindash, the powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Accad, king of Kasshu, king of Kardunyash, a temple in E-Anna." In this brief inscription the king places Babylon first in his list of titles, and the two Kassite titles, Kasshu and Kardunyash, at the very last. This can only be due to a following of the immemorial Babylonian usage. The old land soon absorbed the peoples who came to it as conquerors, and by the potency of its own civilization and the power of its religion compelled adherence to ancient law and custom. The Kassites had conquered Babylonia by force of arms; already has Babylonian culture conquered the Kassites and assimilated them to itself.

In the reign of Karaindash we meet for the first time evidence of contact between the still youthful kingdom of Assyria and the empire of Babylonia--even then hoary with age. Our knowledge of these relations between the two kingdoms comes from the Assyrians, who made during the reign of Adad-nirari III (811-783 B. C.) a list of the various friendly and hostile relations between Babylonia and Assyria from the earliest times down to this reign. The original of this precious document has perished, but a copy of it was made for the library of Asshurbanapal by some of his scholars, to whom our knowledge of the ancient Orient owes so much. This copy is now in the British Museum, and, though badly broken, fully half of it may be read. It has been named the Synchronistic History, and, though it is not a history in any strict sense, it is convenient to retain this appellation. The very first words upon it which may be read with certainty relate to Karaindash, and are as follows: "Karaindash, king of Kardunyash and Asshurbelnishishu, king of Assyria, made a treaty with one another, and swore an oath concerning this territory with one another." This first entry evidently refers to some debatable land between the two countries, concerning which there had been previous difficulty. The two kings have now settled the boundary line by treaty. This shows that Assyria was already sufficiently powerful to claim a legitimate title to a portion of the great valley, and it was acknowledged by Babylon as an independent kingdom. It is not long before this small kingdom of Assyria begins to dispute with Babylonia for the control even of the soil of Babylonia itself. With this first notice of relations between the two kingdoms begins the long series of struggles, whether peaceful or warlike, which never cease till the bloodthirsty Assyrian has driven the Babylonian from the seat of power and possessed his inheritance.

We are unhappily not in a position to be very certain as to the order of succession of the followers of Karaindash, but his immediate successor was probably Kadashman-Bel. No historical inscription of this king and no business documents dated in his reign have yet come to light in Babylonia. We should be at a loss to locate him at all were it not for the assistance to be obtained from the archives of the Egyptians. As in the case of the land of Mitanni, so also here are we in possession of some portions of a correspondence with Amenophis III, king of Egypt. The British Museum possesses a letter written in Egypt by Amenophis III to Kadashman-Bet, and the Berlin Museum has three letters from Kadashman-Bet to Amenophis III. The first letter is probably a copy of the original sent to Babylonia. It begins in this stately fashion: "To Kadashman-Bet, king of Kardunyash, my brother; thus saith Amenophis, the great king, the king of Egypt, try brother: with me it is well. May it be well with thee, with try house, with try wives, with try children, with try nobles, with try horses and with try chariots, and with try land may it be well; with me may it be well, with my house, with my wives, with my children, with my nobles, with my horses, with my chariots, with my troops, and with my land, may it be very well." The letter then discusses the proposed matrimonial alliance between Egypt and Babylonia and urges that Kadashman-Bet should give to him his daughter to wife. The letter further announces the sending to Kadashman-Bet of an ambassador to negotiate a commercial treaty between the two states, by which certain imports from Babylonia into Egypt were to pay a customs duty. The letters preserved in Berlin seem to relate to the same correspondence and deal chiefly with the proposed marriage of the daughter of Kadashman-Bel to Amenophis III, to which friendly consent was finally given. Both the daughter and the sister of Kadashman-Bel were thus numbered among the wives of Amenophis III-full proof of the very intimate relation which now subsisted between the two great culture lands of antiquity, Babylonia and Egypt. To find letters passing between Babylon and Egypt about 1400 B. C., and ambassadors endeavoring to negotiate commercial treaties, does, indeed, give us a wonderful view into the light of the distant past. This all witnesses to a high state of civilization; to ready intercourse over good roads; to firmly fixed laws and stable national customs. It gives us, however, no light upon the political history of Babylonia, which is the object of our present search, and we must pass from it. Kadashman-Bel had a long reign and was succeeded by Burnaburiash I.

The Synchronistic History sets down this king as contemporary with Puzur-Asshur, king of Assyria, with whom he seems to have had a hostile demonstration concerning the boundaries between the two lands. As the Assyrian writer alludes only euphemistically to their relation as unfriendly, and says nothing of an Assyrian victory, it is safe perhaps to conclude that Burnaburiash was successful. Little else of his reign is known, though he was also in a measure a builder of temples, for a brick brought from the temple ruins at Larsa shows that he had erected there a temple to the sun god.

Of the next king, Kurigalzu I, about 1410 B. C., son of Burnaburiash I, our knowledge is also very unsatisfactory. It is known from the letters of Burnaburiash II that he stood in friendly relations with Amenophis III, king of Egypt, and it is probable that his relations with the Assyrians were friendly. The few inscriptions of his which remain record simply the usual building operations. The titles which he uses in his texts are "King of Sumer and Accad, king of the Four Quarters of the World," to which in one instance he adds the title "shakkanak (that is, governor) of Bel," and in another case uses this latter title only. The title of king of Babylon, which we might have expected, is not used by him at all. This maybe because he was not officially made king by the use of all the solemn ceremonies which the priesthood had devised. The city of Dur-Kurigalzu (Kurigalauburg) derived its name from him, but it does not appear whether he was its founder or only a benefactor and re. builder. The compiler of the Synchronistic History found no events in his reign in connection with the contemporary Assyrian king, Asshur-nadin-akhe, which were worthy of narration, and he is therefore passed by without a word. His reign was probably short, and at its conclusion, about the year 1400, he was succeeded by his son, Burnaburiash II, whose reign was long and prosperous, though no Babylonian memorials of it have been preserved.

Four letters written by this king to Amenophis IV (Napkhuriya, Akh-en-Aton), king of Egypt, are preserved in the Berlin Museum, and two more are in the British Museum. No historical material of great moment is offered in these letters. They reveal a period of relative peace and prosperity, and deal, in considerable measure, with the little courtesies and amenities of life. It is, for example, curious to find the Babylonian king reproving the king of Egypt for not having sent an ambassador to inquire for him when he was ill. When kings had time for such courtesies, and could only excuse themselves for failing to observe them on the ground of their ignorance of the illness and the great distance to be covered on the journey, there must have been freedom from war and from all distress at home and abroad.

The successor of Burnaburiash II appears to have been Karakhardash (about 1370 B. C.), who had for his chief wife Muballitat-Sherua, daughter of Asshur-uballit, king of Assyria, so that the custom of intermarriage which prevailed between the royal houses of Egypt and Babylon at this period had also its illustration between the houses of Assyria and Babylonia. This alliance made for peace between the two royal houses, but did not establish peace between the peoples of the two countries. When Karakhardash died his son, KadashmanKharbe I, came to the throne. His mother was Muballitat-Sherua, and so it happened that an Assyrian king had his grandson upon the throne of Babylon. This king conducted a campaign against the Sutu, whom he conquered and among whom he settled some of his own loyal subjects. Upon his return from this expedition he found himself confronted by a rebellion of the Kassites, who were probably jealous of the growth of Assyrian influence, and he was killed. The rebels then placed upon the throne Nazibugash (also called Shuzigash, about 1360 B. C.), a man of humble origin and not a descendant of the royal line. As soon as the news of this rebellion reached Assyria Asshuruballit, desiring to avenge his grandson, marched against Babylonia, killed Nazibugash, and placed upon the throne Kurigalzu II, a son of Kadashman-Kharbe. Kurigalzu II (about 1350 B. C.) was probably made king while still young, and his reign was long. We cannot follow its events in detail, but may get a slight view of some of its glories. Many centuries before his day, when Kudur-nakhundi of Elam ravaged in Babylonia, he carried away a small agate tablet, which was carefully preserved in the land of Elam. This happened about 2285 B. C., and now, about 1350 B. C., Kurigalzu II invades Elam and conquers even the city of Susa itself. The little agate tablet is recovered, and the victorious Kurigalzu II places it in the temple of E-kur at Nippur, with his own brief inscription engraved on its back: "Kurigalzu, king of Karadunyash, conquered the palace of Susa in Elam and presented (this tablet) to Belit, his mistress, for his life." It is to this campaign that the Babylonian Chronicle probably refers in its allusion to the campaign of Kurigalzu against Khurbatila, king of Elam, which resulted so victoriously. After the invasion of Elam the victorious Kurigalzu II also fought with Bel-nirari, king of Assyria, and worsted him, as the Babylonian Chronicle narrates the story, though the Assyrian Synchronistic History claims the victory in the same conflict for the Assyrians.

Nazi-Maruttash (about 1340 B. C.), son of Kurigalzu II, the next king, also fought with the Assyrians, led by their king, Adad-nirari I, who defeated him signally, and gained some Babylonian territory by pushing the boundary farther south. This is the Assyrian account; what the Babylonian story may have been we do not know, for the Babylonian Chronicle is broken at this point. Of the son of Nazi-Maruttash who succeeded him under the name of Kadashman-Turgu we know nothing, and of his successor, Kadashman-Buriash (about 1330 B. C.), we only know that he was at war with Shalmaneser I, king of Assyria, without being able to learn the outcome. These constantly recurring wars with Assyria are ominous, and indicate the rapid increase of Assyrian power. They point toward the day of destruction for Babylon, and of glory for the military people who were beginning to press upon the great city.

The following reigns are almost entirely unknown to us. The names of the kings awaken no response in our minds, and we can only set them down as empty words; they are Kudur-Bel (about 1304-1299 B. C.) and Shagarakti-Shuriash (about 1298-1286 B. C.), though in their cases the Babylonian King List has supplied us with the length of their reigns, and we know definitely and certainly their order in the dynasty.

The Babylonian Chronicle now again comes to our aid, and with rather startling intelligence. Tukulti-Ninib, king of Assyria, has invaded Babylon. We do not know what steps led to this attack. Perhaps the old boundary disputes had once more caused difficulty, perhaps it was only the growing Assyrian lust for power and territory. But whatever the cause this was no ordinary invasion intended chiefly as a threat. The Assyrian king enters Babylon, kills some of its inhabitants, destroys the city wall, at least partially, and, last and worst of all, removes the treasures of the temple, and carries away the great god Marduk to Assyria. Here was a sore defeat indeed, and the end, for the time at least, of Babylonian independence. The line of kings is continued during the period of war and invasion with the names of Bibeiashu (about 1285-1278 B. C.), during whose reign the invasion probably occurred; Bel-shumiddin, and Kadashman-Kharbe II, who together reigned but three years (about 1277-1275), and Adad-shum-iddin (about 1274-1269 B. C.). But the last three of these kings must have been only vassals of Tukulti-Ninib, who was the real king of Babylon for seven years, even though he was represented by these as his deputies. Here is the city of Hammurabi, glorious in its history, ancient in its days, ruled by a king of the small and relatively modern state of Assyria. But the old spirit was not quite dead, and after seven years of this domination the Babylonians rose in rebellion, drove the Assyrians from Babylon, and made Adadshum-usur (about 1268-1239 B. C.) king, while Tukulti-Ninib returned to Assyria only to find a rebellion against him beaded by his own son. In this his life was lost, and he went down with the decline of his once brilliant fortunes. On the other hand, the reign of Adad-shum-usur was at once the token and result of better fortunes in Babylonia. In his reign the power of Babylon again began to increase. He attacked Assyria itself, and the Assyrians were scarce able to keep the victorious Babylonians out of their country. Their king, Bel-kudur-usur, was slain in battle, and in the overturning Babylonia made gains of Assyrian territory. The reign of Meli-Shipak (about 1238-1224 B. C.) was also a period of Babylonian aggression against the Assyrian king Ninib-apal-esharra, and to such good purpose that the next Babylonian king, Marduk-apal-iddin (about 12231211 B. C.), saw the Assyrians once more confined to their narrow territory, stripped of all their conquests, and was able to add to his own name the proud titles "king of Kishshati, king of Sumer and Accad," in token of the extension once more of Babylonian dominion over nearly the whole of the valley.

But this change was too great and too sudden to last, and the power of Assyria must soon return and then again continue to develop. When Asshur-dan became king of Assyria, and this was probably while Marduk-apal-iddin was still reigning, there was another reversal of fortunes, though this time the change was neither so sudden nor so great. Asshur-dan fought with the next Babylonian king, Zamamashumiddin (about 1210 B. C.), and succeeded in winning back some of the cities in the ever-debatable land between Assyria and Babylonia, and thus gave proof that the Assyrian power was again waxing strong. The next Kassite king, Bel-chum-iddin (about 1209-1207 B. C.), reigned also but a short time, and the very brevity of these reigns may, perhaps, as often, indicate that the period was filled with strife. Assyria was certainly threatening the Babylonian empire, for the long reign of Asshur-dan gave time for the carrying out of extensive plans, and the power to realize them was plainly not wanting. The failure of the Kassites to hold inviolate the territory of Babylonia resulted in a Semitic revolution in which the dynasty that had ruled so long in the queenly city ended. Its advent was heralded by war and by internal dissensions in the last preceding dynasty; and its approaching end was indicated in like manner.

3 THE DYNASTY OF ISIN

THE Cause Of the downfall of the great Kassite dynasty is unknown to us. It may have been due to an uprising of the Semites against foreign domination, with the war cry of "Babylonia for the Babylonians;" a cry which in various languages has often resounded among men and won many a national triumph.

The Babylonian King List names the new dynasty, the dynasty of Isin, but its origin is still doubtful. It has been suggested that it began in Babylon and is named after a section of the city known as Isin, but it is still possible that it originated in the city of Isin, whose influence had been marked at an earlier period of the history. This dynasty reigned in Babylon a period of one hundred and thirty-two years. The list is so badly broken that but few of the names have been retained, and we are once more forced to seek the means of restoring the names from notices in other documents. There were eleven kings in this dynasty who were regarded by the Babylonian historians as legitimate, and of these four or five are entirely unknown to us.

The names of the first two kings of the dynasty, who reigned eighteen and six years respectively (about 1206-1189 B. C. and 1188-1183 B. C.), are lost and cannot yet be restored; so, also, are the names and the regnal years of the next three kings. The sixth king of the dynasty was Nebuchadrezzar I (about 1135 B. C.). This king exhibits once more the spirit almost of a Halnmurabi. His victories are brilliant, and his defeats only evidence the hopelessness of the cause of Babylonia and the vigor of his efforts to save the state. When he began to reign Mutakkil-Nusku was probably king of Assyria, and in him lived the traditions of the glorious reign of Asshur-dan, who had once more carried the Assyrian arms to victory. Assyria was preparing to contest with Babylonia the possession of the whole of the valley, and the older land had need of a man of force and character. In the reign of the next Assyrian king, by name Asshur-rich-ishi, came the first great contest, the beginning of the struggle for supremacy between the two great nations. Nebuchadrezzar took the initiative and entered Assyria, but was met by Asshur-rish-ishi, defeated and forced to retreat in a veritable rout, having burned even his baggage to lighten his return to Babylonia. Having collected reinforcements, he returned to the contest, but was met by superior forces, again defeated and forced to retreat, having lost forty of his chariots. This terrible reverse found a counterbalancing success elsewhere, for Nebuchadrezzar conquered the Lulubi, punished Elam on the east, and, most important of all, swung fearlessly and successfully his flying columns into the far west, even into Syria, that goal of such mighty endeavor in the distant past. In one of his inscriptions Nebuchadrezzar calls himself "sun of his land, who makes his people prosperous, the protector of boundaries." Well might he make the boast, for, though unsuccessful against the Assyrians, he had maintained a kingdom, which without him had probably fallen before the new and already almost invincible Assyrian power.

Nebuchadrezzar I was succeeded by Bel-nadinapli (about 1125 B. C.), whose reign furnishes no event of importance known to us. In the reign of his successor, Marduk-nadin-akhe (about 1117-1096 BC), the Assyrians displayed in a still clearer light the power which was finally to put the destinies of all western Asia in their hands. The throne of Assyria was now occupied by Tiglathpileser I, one of the greatest warriors of antiquity. Against his kingdom Marduk-nadinakhe at first had some success, for he carried away from Ekallati the images of the gods Adad and Sala. These remained away for centuries, and were only restored to their place by Sennacherib. But such successes only nerved Tiglathpileser to greater efforts. He invaded Babylonia and captured a number of cities in its northern half and even took Babylon itself. Herein is the first great blow against Babylonian independence. The Assyrians did not hold the captured city, but Tiglathpileser I was the grand monarch of western Asia, and the Babylonian king ruled only by sufferance.

The next Babylonian king was probably Mardukakhe-irba, who ruled only one year and six months and then gave place to Marduk-shapik-zer-coati (about 1094-1083 BC), with whom there began again a brief period of stable peace. The Assyrians under king Asshur-bel-kala had given over for the present the policy of crushing Babylonia, and had adopted rather the plan of making an ally and friend of the ancient commonwealth. After the death of Marduk-shapik-zer-coati, a man of unknown origin, Adad-apal-iddin, came to the throne. Usurper though he was, Asshur-bel-kala continued the same friendship to him, and even gave him a daughter in marriage. The last king of this dynasty was Nabu-shum (or -nadin), about 1082-1075 BC) of whose reign no tidings have yet come down to us.

During the latter part of this dynasty the Assyrians were chiefly occupied in the internal strengthening and solidifying of their kingdom, while the Babylonians were unable to undertake any extensive campaigns. After this period our direct Babylonian information becomes more and more fragmentary, and even in some cases of doubtful meaning. The Babylonian state had lost the key to western Asia and the Assyrians had found it. Neither state was for the moment making any great efforts, but the future belonged to Assyria for centuries at least, and the sun of Babylonia had suffered a long eclipse. From now onward we must turn away from Babylon to see the main stream of history flowing through its rival's dominions.

We have followed the fortunes of the Babylonian cities from the gray dawn of antiquity down the centuries, through good report and evil report. We have watched the cities grow into kingdoms and have seen the kingdoms welded into a mighty empire. We have followed its advance to the very zenith and have seen its decline into subjection. It is a noble history, and even in outline has enough of the rich color of the Orient to make a glowing picture for the mind. From its contemplation we must now turn to look upon the development and progress of the kingdom of Assyria.