 |
CHAPTER XI
THE EARLIER RULERS OF ELAM, THE DYNASTY OF ISIN, AND THE RISE OF BABYLON
THE
kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, which had been founded by Ur-Engur, survived the
fall of his dynasty, and the centre of authority merely passed from one city to
another. The change of capital did not imply the existence of any new racial
movement, such as that which had led to the rise of Kish and the Empire of
Akkad. The kings of Isin were probably Sumerians like their immediate
predecessors, and they shared with them the same ideals and culture.
No doubt a
rivalry existed between the great Sumerian cities, and any one of them would
have been ready to contest the power of Ur had there been a prospect of
success. At first sight indeed it might appear that Isin now emerged as the
victor from such a struggle for the hegemony. In the dynastic chronicle from Nippur
the close of the Dynasty of Ur and the rise of Isin is briefly recorded in the
words "the rule of Ur was overthrown, Isin took its kingdom". From
this passage alone it might be imagined that Ishbi-Ura, the founder of the
Dynasty of Isin, had headed a revolt against the rule of Ur, and had been the
direct agent in Ibi-Sin's deposition.
But the
fall of the Dynasty of Ur, like that of the First Dynasty of Babylon, was due
to an external cause and not to any movement within the limits of Babylonia
itself. We possess no contemporary record of the catastrophe which at this time
overwhelmed the empire, but an echo of it has been preserved in an omen-text,
inscribed upon an Assyrian tablet from the Library of
Ashur-bani-pal.
We have already noted instances in which genuine historical traditions have
been incorporated in the later augural literature, and we need have no
hesitation in accepting the historical accuracy of this reference to past
events. The text in question enumerates certain omens which it associates with
the fall of "Ibi-Sin, the King of Ur", who, it states, was carried
captive to Anshan. We may thus infer that it was an Elamite invasion that
put an end to the Dynasty of Ur. The foreign provinces, on the possession of
which Dungi had based his claim to the rule of the four quarters of the world,
had finally proved the cause of his empire's downfall.
We have
few data on which to form an estimate of the extent of the Elamite conquest of
Babylonia, or of the period during which the country or a portion of it was in
the hands of the invaders. The deportation of the king of Ur can hardly have
been the result of a spasmodic raid, following one of the numerous provincial
revolts which had at last proved successful. It is far more likely that the
capture followed the fall of Ur itself, and such an achievement argues the
existence of an organized force in Elam, which it must have required some years
to build up. It is therefore permissible to conjecture that, in the course of
the twenty-five years of his reign, Ibi-Sin had gradually been losing his hold
upon the Elamite portion of his empire, and that an independent kingdom had
been formed in Elam under a native ruler. For a time Ibi-Sin may have continued
to hold certain districts, but, after the successful invasion of Babylonia,
the whole of Elam, and for a time a part of Babylonia itself, may have fallen
to the lot of the conqueror.
It
would
be tempting to connect the fall of Ur with the sack of the
neighbouring city of
Erech by the Elamite king Kudur-Nankhundi, which is referred to
in an
inscription of Ashur-bani-pal. When he captured Susa in 650 BC,
the Assyrian
king relates that he recovered the image of the goddess Nana,
which Kudur-Nankhundi had carried off from Erech sixteen hundred and
thirty-five years
before. By accepting these figures Kudur-Nankhundi's invasion
has been
assigned to an approximate date of 2285 BC, and it was formerly
supposed that
it was an episode in the Elamite wars of the First Dynasty of
Babylon. But, in
consequence of the reduction in dates necessitated by recent
discoveries, it
follows that, if Ashur-bani-pal's figures be accepted as
correct,
Kudur-Nankhundi's invasion must have taken place before the rise
of Babylon. It
cannot have occurred at a time when the kings of Ur were
all-powerful in
Babylonia, and still retained an effective hold on Elam; so
that, unless we
assign the invasion to some period of unrest during the Dynasty
of Isin, no
more probable epoch presents itself than that of the Elamite
invasion which put
an end to the Dynasty of Ur, and allowed Isin to secure the
hegemony in
Babylonia.
The want
of some synchronism, or fixed point of contact, between the earlier history of
Elam and that of Sumer and Akkad renders it difficult to settle the period of
those native Elamite rulers whose names occur in building-inscriptions,
recovered during the French excavations at Susa. Some of the texts enumerate a
succession of Elamite princes, who had in turn taken part in the reconstruction
of buildings in that city, and, although we are thus enabled to arrange
their names in relative chronological order, it is not until towards the close
of the First Dynasty of Babylon that we can definitely fix the date of any one
of them. Of earlier rulers, the members of the dynasty of Ivhutran-tepti
probably reigned at a period subsequent to that of Basha-Shushinak. In
addition to Ivhutran-tepti himself, the names of three of his descendants have
been recovered, Itaddu I, and his son Kal-Rukhuratir, and his grandson Itaddu
II. Since these rulers bore the title patesi of Susa, it is possible that, like
Urkium, Zarik and Beli-arik, who are mentioned on tablets from Tello, they
owed allegiance to Babylonia, during the period of the
Dynasty
of Ur. A later Elamite dynasty was that which traced its descent from
Ebarti, or from his son Shilkhakha. Two of Shilkhakha's descendants were
Shirukdu' or Shirukdukh, and Simebalar-khuppak, and these were divided from a
later group by Kuk-Kirmesh, the son of Lankuku. The later group of his
descendants, whose names have yet been recovered, consists of Adda-Pakshu,
Temti-khalki and Kuk-Nashur, or Kukka-Nasher, the descendant of Kal-Uli.
What intervals of time separated the different members of the dynasty from one
another is still a matter for conjecture.
It
is
noteworthy that the members of Ebarti's dynasty, whose
inscriptions have been
recovered, bear different titles to those of the earlier dynasty
of Khutran-tepti. While the latter styled themselves patesis of Susa
and governors
(shakkanakku) of Elam, their successors claim the title of
sukkal of Elam, of
Simash, and of Susa. It has been suggested that the title of
sukkallu may have
carried with it an idea of independence from foreign control,
which is absent
from that of patesi, and the alteration of title has been
regarded as
reflecting a corresponding change in the political condition of
Elam. The view
has been put forward that the rulers of Elam, who styled
themselves sukkallu,
reigned at a period when Elam was independent and possibly
exercised suzerainty
over the neighbouring districts of Babylonia. The worker of this
change was
assumed to be Kudur-Nankhundi, and in support of the suggestion
it was pointed
out that a certain Kutir-Nakhkhunte, whose name occurs in a
votive inscription
of the period, should possibly be identified with the conqueror
of Erech. He is
mentioned on inscribed bricks of Temti-agun, a sukkal of Susa
and a descendant
of Shirukdukh, from a temple built by this ruler with the object
of prolonging
his own life and those of four other Elamites, among them
Kutir-Nakhkhunte.
It was thought possible that Temti-agun might have been the
local ruler of
Susa, at a time when Kutir-Nakhkhunte exercised control over the
whole of Elam
and a great part of Babylonia.
The
suggested synchronism, if established, would have been of considerable
assistance in arranging the chronology of an obscure period of history, but it
cannot be regarded as probable. Temti-agun sets no title after Kutir-Nakhkhunte's
name, an omission that is hardly compatible with the theory that he was his
superior and suzerain. Moreover, it is now certain that the title of sukkallu,
so far from implying a measure of independence, was a distinctive mark of
subjection to foreign control. For an inscription of the sukkal Kukka-Nasher
has recently been published, which is dated by a formula of Ammi-zaduga,
the last king but one of the first Babylonian dynasty, proving that he governed
Susa in Ammi-zaduga's name. This synchronism is the only certain one in the
early history of the two countries, for it probably disposes of another
recently suggested between Adda-Pakshu and Suniu-abu, the founder of the
Babylonian monarchy. A contract-tablet of the epoch of Adda-Pakshu is dated in
"the year of Shumu-abi", who has been identified with Sumu-abu, the
Babylonian king. Apart from the fact that no title follows Shumu-abi's
name, it has been pointed out that a far shorter interval separated Adda-Pakshu
from Kuk-Nashur. We are therefore reduced to the conclusion that at any
rate the later members of
Ebartis
dynasty owed allegiance to Babylon, and it is a legitimate assumption that the
earlier rulers, who also bore the title of sukkallu, acknowledged the
suzerainty of either Babylon or Isin. The control exercised by the sovereign
state was doubtless often nominal, and it is probable that border warfare was
not of infrequent occurrence. A reflection of such a state of affairs may
probably be seen in the short inscription of Anu-mutabil, a governor of the
city of Der, which he engraved upon an olive-shaped stone now in the British
Museum. This local magnate, who probably lived at about the period of the
Dynasty of Isin, boasts that he broke the heads of the men of Anshan, Elam and
Simash, and conquered Barakhsu.
We thus
obtain from native Elamite sources no evidence that Elam exercised control over
a portion of Babylonia for any considerable period after the fall of Ur. The
invasion of the country, which resulted in the deportation of Ibi-Sin, no doubt
freed Elam for a time from foreign control, and may well have led to the
establishment of a number of independent states under native Elamite rulers. In
addition to Kudur-Nankhundi we may provisionally assign to this period Kisari,
king of Gankhar, a district which had previously been held by the kings of
Ur. But it would seem that the Elamite states, after their long period of
subjection, were not sufficiently strong or united to follow up the success
achieved by Anshan. The dynastic chronicle from Nippur records that Isin took
the kingdom of Ur, and we may assume that Ishbi-Ura was not long in
reestablishing the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad with his own city as its
capital. The Elamite invasion may well have been confined to the south of
Sumer, and among the cities that had been left unaffected the most powerful
would naturally assert itself. Evidence that Ishbi-Ura soon freed himself from
Elamite interference may possibly be seen in a reference to him upon an
Assyrian omen-tablet, which states that "he had no rivals". The phrase
is certainly vague, but it at least bears witness to the reputation which his
achievements secured for him in the traditions of a later age.
We
possess few records of the kings of Isin, and the greater part of our
information concerning the dynasty is furnished by the Nippur dynastic list.
From this document we know that it lasted for two hundred and twenty-five years
and six months, and consisted of sixteen kings. These fall naturally into four groups.
The first group comprises the family of Ishbi-Ura, four of whose direct
descendants succeeded him upon the throne, their reigns together with his
occupying a period of ninety-four years. The second group consists of Ur-Ninib
and three of his descendants, who reigned for sixty-one years. Then followed a
period of thirty-six and a half years, during which no less than five kings
ruled in Isin, and, since none of them were related, it was clearly a time of
great political unrest. A more stable condition of things appears to have
prevailed during the closing period of thirty-four years, occupied by the
reigns of Sin-magir and his son Damik-ilishu, under whom the dynasty came to an
end. A number of tablets dated during the Dynasty of Isin have been found at
Niffer, and at least one at Abu Habba, while a few short votive inscriptions of
some of the kings themselves have been recovered on these two sites and also at
Ur and Babylon. References to four of the kings of Isin in later Babylonian
traditions complete the material from which a knowledge of the period can be
obtained. The information derived from these rather scanty sources, combined
with the succession of rulers on the Nippur list, enables us to sketch in
outline the progress of events, but it naturally leaves many problems
unsettled, for the solution of which we must await further discoveries.
The late
tradition of Ishbi-Ura's successful reign is supported by the fact that he
ruled for thirty-two years and firmly established his own family upon the
throne of Isin. He was succeeded by his son Gimil-ilishu,
who reigned for ten years. A very fragmentary inscription of Idin-Dagan, the
son of Gimil-ilishu, who reigned for twenty-one years, has been found at Abu
Habba, proving that Sippar acknowledged his authority. Indeed, it is probable
that already in Ishbi-Ura's reign Akkad as well as Sumer formed part of the
kingdom of Isin, and evidence that this was the normal state of affairs may be
seen in the fact that each king of Isin, of whom we possess a
building-inscription or a votive text, lays claim to the title of King of Sumer
and Akkad. The earliest record of this character is an inscription upon bricks
found at Mukayyar and dating from the reign of Ishme-Dagan, the son and
successor of Idin-Dagan. In addition to his titles of King of Isin and King of Sumer
and Akkad, he styles himself Lord of Erech and records in various phrases the
favour he has shown to the cities of Nippur, Ur, and Eridu; while his building
activity at Nippur is attested by numerous bricks bearing his name and titles,
which have been found on that site. The same cities are also mentioned in the
titles borne by Libit-Ishtar, Ishme-Dagan's son, who succeeded to the throne
after his father had reigned for twenty years. Both these rulers appear to have
devoted themselves to the cult of Ninni, the great goddess of Erech, and
Ishme-Dagan even styles himself her "beloved spouse." His claim to be
the consort of the goddess was doubtless based on his assumption of divine
rank, a practice which the kings of Isin inherited from the Dynasty of Ur.
Libit-Ishtar
was the last member of Ishbi-Ura's family to occupy the throne of Isin. He
reigned for eleven years, and with his successor, Ur-Ninib, the throne passed
to a different family. We may probably connect this change in the succession
with the fact that about this time an independent kingdom makes its appearance
in Larsa and Ur. For another son of Ishme-Dagan, named Enannatum, who was
chief priest in the temple of the Moon-god at Ur, has left us an
inscription
upon clay cones, in which he records that he rebuilt the temple of the Sun-god
at Larsa for the preservation of his own life and that of Gungunu, the king of
Ur. Gungunu himself, upon a brick-inscription commemorating his building of
the great wall of Larsa, claims to be king of that city and also of the whole
of Sumer and Akkad. It would therefore seem that towards the close of
Libit-Ishtar's reign, or immediately after it, Gungunu established an
independent kingdom with its capital at Larsa. It is strange that in the city
of Ur, which was under his control, a son of Ishme-Dagan should continue to
hold, or should be invested with, the office of chief priest, and there is
something to be said for the suggestion that Libit-Ishtar's fall may not have
been brought about by any active hostility on the part of Gungunu, but by a
foreign invasion from Elam.
According
to this view Isin was captured by the invaders, and in the confusion that
followed Larsa secured the hegemony in Sumer. However this may be, it is
probable that Gungunu's authority was of brief duration; for Ur-Ninib is
represented by the dynastic list as Libit-Ishtar's immediate successor, and in
an inscription of his own upon a brick from Nippur he not only claims the
titles of King of Isin and King of Sumer and Akkad, but, like the earlier king
Ishme-Dagan, styles himself Lord of Erech, and the patron of Nippur, Ur, and
Eridu. We may therefore assume that Ur-Ninib was successful in
re-establishing the power of Isin, and in uniting once more the whole of
Sumer and
Akkad under its sway. After a reign of twenty-eight years he was followed by
his son Bur-Sin II., who bore the same titles as his father and mentions the
same list of cities as having enjoyed his special favour. His comparatively
long reign of twenty-one years is a further indication that Ur-Ninib's
restoration of order had been effective. The last two descendants of Ur-Ninib
to occupy the throne of Isin were sons of Bur-Sin. Of Iter-kasha, who reigned
for only five years, we know nothing, but the name of his brother Ura-imitti,
and the strange manner in which he met his death after appointing his
successor, have been preserved in later Babylonian tradition.
In the
chronicle concerning Sargon of Akkad and other early Babylonian kings, to which
reference has already been made, a section is devoted to Ura-imitti, from
which we gather that, having no son to succeed him upon the throne, he named
Enlil-bani, his gardener, as his successor. The text relates that, after
placing the crown of his sovereignty upon Enlil-bani's head, he met his own
death within his palace either through misadventure or by poison. With
him, therefore, Ur-Ninib's family came to an end, and, in view of the strange
manner of his death and the humble rank of the successor he had appointed, it
was but natural that Enlil-bani's claim to the throne should not have been at
once, nor universally, recognized. During the struggle that followed
Ur-imitti's death a certain Sin-ikisha established himself in Isin, and for
six months retained the throne. But at the end of this time Enlil-bani
succeeded in ousting him from that position, and, having secured the throne
himself, he continued to reign in Isin for twenty-four years. As he had been
called to the throne by Ura-imitti, he cannot be regarded as a usurper, but he
did not succeed in establishing a settled dynasty. Zambia, who followed
him, was a usurper, and after only three years he was in turn displaced. Two
other usurpers held the throne for five and four years respectively, and only
with Sin-magir, the fifteenth king of Isin, was a settled dynasty once more
established.
During
this period of confusion it is probable that the internal troubles of Isin
reacted upon her political influence in Babylonia. It is also possible that the
quick changes in the succession may have, in part, been brought about by events
which were happening in other cities of Sumer and Akkad. It has, indeed,
been suggested that the Dynasty of Isin and the First Dynasty of Babylon
overlapped each other, as is proved to have been the case with the first
three dynasties of the Babylonian List of Kings. If that were so, not only the
earlier kings of Babylon, but also the kings of Larsa and the less powerful
kings of Erech, would all have been reigning contemporaneously with the later
kings of Isin. In fact, we should picture the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad as
divided into a number of smaller principalities, each vying with the other in a
contest for the hegemony, and maintaining a comparatively independent rule
within their own borders. Such a condition of affairs would amply account for
the confusion in the succession at Isin, and our scanty knowledge of the
period could be supplemented from our sources of information concerning the
history of the earlier kings of Babylon.
The view
is certainly attractive, but for that very reason it is necessary to examine
carefully the grounds upon which it is based. For deciding the inter-relations
of the first three dynasties of the Babylonian King-List, we have certain
definite synchronisms established between members of the different dynasties.
But between the kings of Babylon and Isin no such synchronism has been
furnished by the texts. The theory that the two dynasties were partly
contemporaneous rests upon data which admit of more than one interpretation,
while additional reasons adduced in its support have since been discredited.
The
principal fact upon which those who accept the theory rely is that a capture of
the city of Isin is commemorated in the formula for the seventeenth year of
Sin-muballit, the fifth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon and the father of
Hammurabi. Now a capture of the city of Isin by Rim-Sin, King of Larsa, is
also recorded in formulas upon contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, and that
considerable importance was attached locally to this event is attested by the
fact that it formed an epoch for dating tablets in that district. The theory
necessitates two assumptions, the first to the effect that the date-formulas of
Rim-Sin and Sin-muballit refer to the same capture of the city; and, secondly,
that this event brought the Dynasty of Isin to an end. Granting these
hypotheses, the twenty-third year of Damik-ilishu would have coincided with
the
seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, and the dynasties of Isin and of Babylon
would have overlapped for a period of about ninety-nine years. Thus Sumu-abu,
the founder of the first Babylonian dynasty, would have been the contemporary
of Bur-Sin II., king of Isin, in the sixth year of whose reign he would have
ascended the throne of Babylon. By the acceptance of the theory, not only would
the relations of the two dynasties be definitely fixed, but the chronology for
the later periods of Sumerian history would be put on a comparatively settled
basis, as far back at least as the age of Ur-Engur and Gudea.
Additional
grounds in support of the theory have been deduced from a tablet in the British
Museum, which is dated in "the year in which the Amurru drove out
Libit-Ishtar". We have already seen, from information supplied by the
Nippur dynastic list, that with Libit-Ishtar, the fifth king of the Dynasty of
Isin, the family of Ishbi-Ura, its founder, came to an end, and that with
Ur-Ninib a new family was established on the throne. By identifying
Libit-Ishtar, the king, with the personage mentioned in the date-formula, it
would follow that he lost his throne in consequence of an invasion of the
Amurru, or Western Semites, who drove him from the city. But presumably they
were at once dislodged by Ur-Ninib, who retook the city and established his own
family upon the throne. According to this view, the supposed invasion was but
an advance wave of the racial movement that was eventually to overwhelm the
whole of Babylonia. Some thirty-three years later, in the reign of Bur-Sin, Ur-
Ninib's son, the Western Semites are represented as again invading the country,
and, although this time they do not penetrate to Isin, they succeed in
establishing a dynasty of their own at Babylon.
But there
are difficulties in the way of accepting this further development of the original
theory. In the first place, it will have been noticed that no title follows the
name of Libit-Ishtar in the date-formula
already
cited, and there is no particular reason why this not uncommon name should be
identified with the king of Isin. It has further been pointed out that another
tablet in the British Museum, of about the same period, contains a
reference to a Libit-Ishtar who was certainly not the king of Isin, but appears
to have occupied the important post of governor of a provincial city, probably
Sippar. The writer of this tablet recounts how he had been imprisoned and
had appealed to Libit-Ishtar to try his case and set him free; but he was met
with a refusal, and he afterwards made a similar appeal to Amananu, to whom he ascribes
the title of governor. In this passage Libit-Ishtar has no title, but since
appeals in legal cases could be referred to him, he may very probably have held
the same office as Amananu, that of governor of the city. In certain
contract-tablets of Apil-Sin's reign a Libit-Ishtar is also mentioned in the
place of honour at the head of the lists of witnesses, and he too should
probably be identified with the same official. We may therefore conclude that
the Libit-Ishtar in the date-formula served as the local governor of Sippar in
the time of Apil-Sin, until he was driven out by the Amurru. Whether the Amurru
are here to be regarded as the inhabitants of a neighbouring town, or as a
fresh wave of Western Semites, does not affect the point at issue. Since the
Libit-Ishtar who was driven out was not the king of Isin, the arguments deduced
from the tablet for the overlapping of the dynasties of Isin and of Babylon no
longer apply.
There
only remain to be discussed the original grounds for the suggestion that
Damik-ilishu was Sin-muballit's contemporary, and that the fall of the Dynasty
of Isin is to be set in the seventeenth year of the latter's reign. According
to this view the conqueror of Isin would have been Rim-Sin, assisted by his
vassal, Sin-muballit. But a recent discovery has shown that Rim-Sin can hardly
have been a contemporary of Sin-muballit, or, at any rate, old enough in the
seventeenth year of the latter's reign to have.captured the city of Isin. From
the chronicle concerning early Babylonian kings we already knew that he was not
finally defeated in Hammurabi's thirty-first year, but lived on into the reign
of Samsu-iluna, by whom he was apparently defeated or slain. It is true that
the passage is broken, and it has been suggested that the record concerns the
son of Rim-Sin, and not Rim-Sin himself. But it has now been pointed out that
two of the contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, which appear to record the same
act of sale, and are inscribed with the names of the same witnesses, are dated,
the one by Rim-Sin, the other in Samsu-iluna's tenth year. However we may
explain the existence of these two nearly identical copies of the same
document, their dates certainly imply that Rim-Sin was in possession of a
portion of Babylonia at least as late as the ninth year of Samsu-iluna's
reign. If, therefore, he captured Isin in the seventeenth year of
Sin-muballit, Samsu-iluna's grandfather, we must suppose that his military
activity in Babylonia extended over a period of at least fifty-six years, and
probably longer. Such an achievement is within the bounds of possibility, but
it cannot be regarded as probable.
But,
quite apart from this objection, there are small grounds for the belief that
Sin-muballit was Rim-Sin's vassal, or that they could have taken part in any
united action at this period. In fact, every indication we have points to the
conclusion that it was from a king of Larsa that Sin-muballit captured Isin in
the seventeenth year of his reign. Three years previously the date-formula
for his fourteenth year commemorated his defeat of the army of Ur, and there
are good
grounds
for believing that Ur was acting at this time with the army of the king of
Larsa. For certain tablets are dated in the year in which Sin-muballit defeated
the army of Larsa, and we may with some confidence regard this as a variant
formula for the fourteenth year. Thus, three years after his defeat of the
king of Larsa, Sin-muballit followed up his success by capturing the city of
Isin, which he commemorated in the formula for the seventeenth year. But he
cannot have held it for long, for it must have been shortly retaken by Larsa,
before being again recaptured in Hammurabi's seventh year. Thus, in less
than eleven years, from the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit to the seventh
year of Hammurabi, the city of Isin changed hands three times. We may therefore
conclude that the date-formula for Sin-muballit's seventeenth year, and those
found upon the Tell Sifr tablets, did not commemorate the fall of the
Dynasty of Isin in Damik-ilishu's reign, but were based upon two episodes in
the struggle for that city, which took place at a later date, between the kings
of Larsa and of Babylon.
In
view
of the importance of the question, we have treated in some
detail the evidence
that has been adduced in favour of the theory, that the later
kings of Isin
were contemporaneous with the earlier rulers of Babylon. It will
have been seen
that the difficulties involved by the suggested synchronism
between Damik-ilishu and Sin-muballit are too grave to admit of its
acceptance, while they
entirely disappear on referring the disputed date-formulas to
their natural
place in the struggle between Babylon and Larsa. This does not
preclude the
possibility that the dynasties may have overlapped for a shorter
period than
ninety-nine years. But in view of the total absence of any
information on the
point, it is preferable to retain the view that the Babylonian
monarchy was not
established before the close of the Dynasty of Isin. Whatever
troubles may
have befallen Isin after Ur-Ninib's family had ceased to reign,
there is no
doubt that under her last two kings the city's influence was
re-established,
and that she exercised control over Babylon itself. In the
course of the
German excavations, a clay cone has been found in the temple
E-patutila at
Babylon, bearing a votive inscription of Sin-magir, the
fifteenth king of Isin;
and this was evidently dedicated by him as a votive offering in
his character
of suzerain of the city. Moreover, in this text he lays claim to
the rule
of Sumer and Akkad. Akkad, as well as Sumer, was also held by
his son
Damik-ilishu, who succeeded him upon the throne. For a tablet
has been found at
Abu Habba, dated in the year in which Damik-ilishu built the
wall of Isin,
and the date upon a tablet from Nippur commemorates his building
of the temple
of Shamash, named E-ditar-kalama, which was probably in Babylon.
Thus both
Sippar and Babylon were subject to the city of Isin under the
last of her
rulers, who, like his father before him, maintained an effective
hold upon the
kingdom of Sumer and Akkad.
With the
rise of Babylon we reach the beginning of a new epoch in the history of the two
countries. The seat of power now passes finally to the north, and, through the
long course of her troubled history,
the city
of Babylon was never dislodged from her position as the capital. Foreign
invasions might result in the fall of dynasties, and her kings might be drawn
from other cities and lands, but Babylon continued to be the centre of their
rule. Moreover, after the fresh wave of immigration which resulted in the
establishment of her First Dynasty, the racial character of Babylonia became
dominantly Semitic. Before the new invaders the Sumerians tended to withdraw
southwards into the coastal districts of the Persian Gulf, and from here, for
a time, an independent dynasty, largely of Sumerian origin, attempted to
contest with Babylon her supremacy. But with the fall of Isin the political
career of the Sumerians as a race may be regarded as closed. Their cultural
influence, however, long survived them. In the spheres of art, literature,
religion, and law they left behind them a legacy, which was destined to mould
the civilization of the later inhabitants of the country, and through them to
exert an influence on other and more distant races.
CHAPTER
XII
|
