ELAM AND BABYLON,
THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA AND THE KASSITES
Up to five years ago our knowledge of Elam and of the part she played in
the ancient world was derived, in the main, from a few allusions to the
country to be found in the records of Babylonian and Assyrian kings. It
is true that a few inscriptions of the native rulers had been found in
Persia, but they belonged to the late periods of her history, and the
majority consisted of short dedicatory formulae and did not supply us
with much historical information. But the excavations carried on since
then by M. de Morgan at Susa have revealed an entirely new chapter of
ancient Oriental history, and have thrown a flood of light upon the
position occupied by Elam among the early races of the East.
Lying to the north of the Persian Gulf and to the east of the Tigris,
and rising from the broad plains nearer the coast to the mountainous
districts within its borders on the east and north, Elam was one of the
nearest neighbours of Chaldæa. A few facts concerning her relations with
Babylonia during certain periods of her history have long been known,
and her struggles with the later kings of Assyria are known in some
detail; but for her history during the earliest periods we have had to
trust mainly to conjecture. That in the earlier as in the later periods
she should have been in constant antagonism with Babylonia might
legitimately be suspected, and it is not surprising that we should find
an echo of her early struggles with Chaldæa in the legends which were
current in the later periods of Babylonian history. In the fourth and
fifth tablets, or sections, of the great Babylonian epic which describes
the exploits of the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh, a story is told of an
expedition undertaken by Gilgamesh and his friend Ba-bani against an
Elamite despot named Khum-baba. It is related in the poem that Khumbaba
was feared by all who dwelt near him, for his roaring was like the
storm, and any man perished who was rash enough to enter the cedar-wood
in which he dwelt. But Gilgamesh, encouraged by a dream sent him by
Sha-mash, the Sun-god, pressed on with his friend, and, having entered
the wood, succeeded in slaying Khumbaba and in cutting off his head.
This legend is doubtless based on episodes in early Babylonian and
Elamite history. Khumbaba may not have been an actual historical ruler,
but at least he represents or personifies the power of Elam, and the
success of Gilgamesh no doubt reflects the aspirations with which many a
Babylonian expedition set out for the Elamite frontier.
Incidentally it may be noted that the legend possibly had a still closer
historical parallel, for the name of Khumbaba occurs as a component in
a proper name upon one of the Elamite contracts found recently by M. de
Morgan at Mai-Amir. The name in question is written
Khumbaba-arad-ili,
"Khumbaba, the servant of God," and it proves that at the date at which
the contract was written (about 1300-1000 B.C.) the name of Khumbaba was
still held in remembrance, possibly as that of an early historical ruler
of the country.
In her struggles with Chaldæa, Elam was not successful during the
earliest historical period of which we have obtained information; and,
so far as we can tell at present, her princes long continued to own
allegiance to the Semitic rulers whose influence was predominant from
time to time in the plains of Lower Mesopotamia. Tradition relates that
two of the earliest Semitic rulers whose names are known to us, Sargon
and Narâm-Sin, kings of Agade, held sway in Elam, for in the "Omens"
which were current in a later period concerning them, the former is
credited with the conquest of the whole country, while of the latter it
is related that he conquered Apirak, an Elamite district, and captured
its king. Some doubts were formerly cast upon these traditions inasmuch
as they were found in a text containing omens or forecasts, but these
doubts were removed by the discovery of contemporary documents by which
the later traditions were confirmed. Sargon's conquest of Elam, for
instance, was proved to be historical by a reference to the event in a
date-formula upon tablets belonging to his reign. Moreover, the event
has received further confirmation from an unpublished tablet in the
British Museum, containing a copy of the original chronicle from which
the historical extracts in the "Omens" were derived. The portion of
the composition inscribed upon this tablet does not contain the lines
referring to Sargon's conquest of Elam, for these occurred in an earlier
section of the composition; but the recovery of the tablet puts beyond
a doubt the historical character of the traditions preserved upon the
omen-tablet as a whole, and the conquest of Elam is thus confirmed
by inference. The new text does recount the expedition undertaken by
Narâm-Sin, the son of Sargon, against Apirak, and so furnishes a direct
confirmation of this event.
Another early conqueror of Elam, who was probably of Semitic origin,
was Alu-usharshid, king of the city of Kish, for, from a number of his
inscriptions found near those of Sargon at Nippur in Babylonia, we learn
that he subdued Elam and Para'se, the district in which the city of Susa
was probably situated. From a small mace-head preserved in the British
Museum we know of another conquest of Elam by a Semitic ruler of this
early period. The mace-head was made and engraved by the orders of
Mutabil, an early governor of the city of Dûr-ilu, to commemorate his
own valour as the man "who smote the head of the hosts" of Elam. Mutabil
was not himself an independent ruler, and his conquest of Elam must have
been undertaken on behalf of the suzerain to whom he owed allegiance,
and thus his victory cannot be classed in the same category as those of
his predecessors. A similar remark applies to the success against
the city of Anshan in Elam, achieved by Grudea, the Sumerian ruler
of Shirpurla, inasmuch as he was a patesi, or viceroy, and not an
independent king. Of greater duration was the influence exercised over
Elam by the kings of Ur, for bricks and contract-tablets have been found
at Susa proving that Dungi, one of the most powerful kings of Ur, and
Bur-Sin, Ine-Sin, and Oamil-Sin, kings of the second dynasty in that
city, all in turn included Elam within the limits of their empire.
Such are the main facts which until recently had been ascertained
with regard to the influence of early Babylonian rulers in Elam. The
information is obtained mainly from Babylonian sources, and until
recently we have been unable to fill in any details of the picture
from the Elamite side. But this inability has now been removed by M.
de Morgan's discoveries. From the inscribed bricks, cones, stelæ, and
statues that have been brought to light in the course of his excavations
at Susa, we have recovered the name of a succession of native Elamite
rulers. All those who are to be assigned to this early period, during
which Elam owed allegiance to the kings of Babylonia, ascribe to
themselves the title of
patesi, or viceroy, of Susa, in acknowledgment
of their dependence. Their records consist principally of building
inscriptions and foundation memorials, and they commemorate the
construction or repair of temples, the cutting of canals, and the like.
They do not, therefore, throw much light upon the problems connected
with the external history of Elam during this early period, but we
obtain from them a glimpse of the internal administration of the
country. We see a nation without ambition to extend its boundaries, and
content, at any rate for the time, to owe allegiance to foreign rulers,
while the energies of its native princes are devoted exclusively to the
cultivation of the worship of the gods and to the amelioration of the
conditions of the life of the people in their charge.
A difficult but interesting problem presents itself for solution at the
outset of our inquiry into the history of this people as revealed by
their lately recovered inscriptions,—the problem of their race and
origin. Found at Susa in Elam, and inscribed by princes bearing purely
Elamite names, we should expect these votive and memorial texts to be
written entirely in the Elamite language. But such is not the case,
for many of them are written in good Semitic Babylonian. While some
are entirely composed in the tongue which we term Elamite or Anzanite,
others, so far as their language and style is concerned, might have been
written by any early Semitic king ruling in Babylonia. Why did early
princes of Susa make this use of the Babylonian tongue?
At first sight it might seem possible to trace a parallel in the use of
the Babylonian language by kings and officials in Egypt and Syria
during the fifteenth century B.C., as revealed in the letters from
Tell el-Amarna. But a moment's thought will show that the cases are not
similar. The Egyptian or Syrian scribe employed Babylonian as a medium
for his official foreign correspondence because Babylonian at that
period was the
lingua franca of the East. But the object of the
early Elamite rulers was totally different. Their inscribed bricks and
memorial stelæ were not intended for the eyes of foreigners, but for
those of their own descendants. Built into the structure of a temple,
or buried beneath the edifice, one of their principal objects was to
preserve the name and deeds of the writer from oblivion. Like similar
documents found on the sites of Assyrian and Babylonian cities, they
sometimes include curses upon any impious man, who, on finding the
inscription after the temple shall have fallen into ruins, should in
any way injure the inscription or deface the writer's name. It will be
obvious that the writers of these inscriptions intended that they should
be intelligible to those who might come across them in the future. If,
therefore, they employed the Babylonian as well as the Elamite language,
it is clear that they expected that their future readers might be either
Babylonian or Elamite; and this belief can only be explained on the
supposition that their own subjects were of mixed race.
It is therefore certain that at this early period of Elamite history
Semitic Babylonians and Elamites dwelt side by side in Susa and retained
their separate languages. The problem therefore resolves itself into the
inquiry: which of these two peoples occupied the country first? Were the
Semites at first in sole possession, which was afterwards disputed by
the incursion of Elamite tribes from the north and east? Or were the
Elamites the original inhabitants of the land, into which the Semites
subsequently pressed from Babylonia?
A similar mixture of races is met with in Babylonia itself in the
early period of the history of that country. There the early Sumerian
inhabitants were gradually dispossessed by the invading Semite, who
adopted the civilization of the conquered race, and took over the system
of cuneiform writing, which he modified to suit his own language. In
Babylonia the Semites eventually predominated and the Sumerians as a
race disappeared, but during the process of absorption the two languages
were employed indiscriminately. The kings of the First Babylonian
Dynasty wrote their votive inscriptions sometimes in Sumerian, sometimes
in Semitic Babylonian; at other times they employed both languages
for the same text, writing the record first in Sumerian and afterwards
appending a Semitic translation by the side; and in the legal and
commercial documents of the period the old Sumerian legal forms and
phrases were retained intact. In Elam we may suppose that the use of the
Sumerian and Semitic languages was the same.
It may be surmised, however, that the first Semitic incursions into Elam
took place at a much later period than those into Babylonia, and under
very different conditions. When overrunning the plains and cities of the
Sumerians, the Semites were comparatively uncivilized, and, so far as we
know, without a system of writing of their own. The incursions into
Elam must have taken place under the great Semitic conquerors, such as
Sar-gon and Narâm-Sin and Alu-usharshid. At this period they had fully
adopted and modified the Sumerian characters to express their own
Semitic tongue, and on their invasion of Elam they brought their system
of writing with them. The native princes of Elam, whom they conquered,
adopted it in turn for many of their votive texts and inscribed
monuments when they wished to write them in the Babylonian language.
Such is the most probable explanation of the occurrence in Elam of
inscriptions in the Old Babylonian language, written by native princes
concerning purely domestic matters. But a further question now suggests
itself. Assuming that this was the order in which events took place,
are we to suppose that the first Semitic invaders of Elam found there a
native population in a totally undeveloped stage of civilization? Or did
they find a population enjoying a comparatively high state of culture,
different from their own, which they proceeded to modify and transform!
Luckily, we have not to fall back on conjecture for an answer to these
questions, for a recent discovery at Susa has furnished material from
which it is possible to reconstruct in outline the state of culture of
these early Elamites.
This interesting discovery consists of a number of clay tablets
inscribed in the proto-Elamite system of writing, a system which was
probably the only one in use in the country during the period before the
Semitic invasion. The documents in question are small, roughly formed
tablets of clay very similar to those employed in the early periods of
Babylonian history, but the signs and characters impressed upon them
offer the greatest contrast to the Sumerian and early Babylonian
characters with which we are familiar. Although they cannot be fully
deciphered at present, it is probable that they are tablets of accounts,
the signs upon them consisting of lists of figures and what are
probably ideographs for things. Some of the ideographs, such as that for
"tablet," with which many of the texts begin, are very similar to the
Sumerian or Babylonian signs for the same objects; but the majority are
entirely different and have been formed and developed upon a system of
their own.
The photograph is taken from M. de Morgan's Délégation en
Perse, Mem., t. vi, pi. 23.
On these tablets, in fact, we have a new class of cuneiform writing in
an early stage of its development, when the hieroglyphic or pictorial
character of the ideographs was still prominent.
The photograph is reproduced from M. de Morgan's Délégation
en Perse, Mém., t. vi, pi. 22.
Although the meaning of the majority of these ideographs has not yet
been identified, Père Scheil, who has edited the texts, has succeeded
in making out the system of numeration. He has identified the signs for
unity, 10, 100, and 1,000, and for certain fractions, and the signs for
these figures are quite different from those employed by the Sumerians.
The system, too, is different, for it is a decimal, and not a
sexagesimal, system of numeration.
That in its origin this form of writing had some connection with that
employed and, so far as we know, invented by the ancient Sumerians
is possible.* But it shows small trace of Sumerian influence, and the
disparity in the two systems of numeration is a clear indication that,
at any rate, it broke off and was isolated from the latter at a very
early period. Having once been adopted by the early Elamites, it
continued to be used by them for long periods with but small change or
modification. Employed far from the centre of Sumerian civilization, its
development was slow, and it seems to have remained in its ideographic
state, while the system employed by the Sumerians, and adopted by the
Semitic Babylonians, was developed along syllabic lines.
* It is, of course, also possible that the system of writing
had no connection in its origin with that of the Sumerians,
and was invented independently of the system employed in
Babylonia. In that case, the signs which resemble certain of
the Sumerian characters must have been adopted in a later
stage of its development. Though it would be rash to
dogmatize on the subject, the view that connects its origin
with the Sumerians appears on the whole to fit in best with
the evidence at present available.
It was without doubt this proto-Elamite system of writing which the
Semites from Babylonia found employed in Elam on their first incursions
into that country. They brought with them their own more convenient form
of writing, and, when the country had once been finally subdued, the
subject Elamite princes adopted the foreign system of writing and
language from their conquerors for memorial and monumental inscriptions.
But the ancient native writing was not entirely ousted, and continued
to be employed by the common people of Elam for the ordinary purposes
of daily life. That this was the case at least until the reign of
Karibu-sha-Shu-shinak, one of the early subject native rulers, is clear
from one of his inscriptions engraved upon a block of limestone to
commemorate the dedication of what were probably some temple furnishings
in honour of the god Shu-shinak.
The photograph is taken from M. de Morgan's Délégation en
Perse, Mém., t. vi, pi. 2.
The main part of the inscription is written in Semitic Babylonian,
and below there is an addition to the text written in proto-Elamite
characters, probably enumerating the offerings which the
Karibu-sha-Shushinak decreed should be made for the future in honour
of the god.* In course of time this proto-Elamite system of writing by
means of ideographs seems to have died out, and a modified form of the
Babylonian system was adopted by the Elamites for writing their own
language phonetically. It is in this phonetic character that the
so-called "Anzanite" texts of the later Elamite princes were composed.
*We have assumed that both inscriptions were the work of
Karibu-sha-Shushinak. But it is also possible that the
second one in proto-Elamite characters was added at a later
period. From its position on the stone it is clear that it
was written after and not before Karibu-sha-Shushinak's
inscription in Semitic Babylonian. See the photographic
reproduction.
Karibu-sha-Shushinak, whose recently discovered bilingual inscription
has been referred to above, was one of the earlier of the subject
princes of Elam, and he probably reigned at Susa not later than B.C.
3000. He styles himself "patesi of Susa, governor of the land of Elam,"
but we do not know at present to what contemporary king in Babylonia
he owed allegiance. The longest of his inscriptions that have been
recovered is engraved upon a stele of limestone and records the building
of the Gate of Shushinak at Susa and the cutting of a canal; it also
recounts the offerings which Karibu-sha-Shushinak dedicated on the
completion of the work. It may here be quoted as an example of the
class of votive inscriptions from which the names of these early Elamite
rulers have been recovered. The inscription runs as follows: "For
the god Shushinak, his lord, Karibu-sha-Shushinak, the son of
Shimbi-ish-khuk, patesi of Susa, governor of the land of Elam,—when
he set the (door) of his Gate in place,... in the Gate of the god
Shushinak, his lord, and when he had opened the canal of Sidur, he set
up in face thereof his canopy, and he set planks of cedar-wood for its
gate. A sheep in the interior thereof, and sheep without, he appointed
(for sacrifice) to him each day. On days of festival he caused the
people to sing songs in the Gate of the god Shushinak. And twenty
measures of fine oil he dedicated to make his gate beautiful. Four
magi of silver he dedicated; a censer of silver and gold he dedicated
for a sweet odour; a,sword he dedicated; an axe with four blades
he dedicated, and he dedicated silver in addition for the mounting
thereof.... A righteous judgment he judged in the city! As for the man
who shall transgress his judgment or shall remove his gift, may the
gods Shushinak and Shamash, Bel and Ea, Ninni and Sin, Mnkharsag and
Nati—may all the gods uproot his foundation, and his seed may they
destroy!"
It will be seen that Karibu-sha-Shushinak takes a delight in enumerating
the details of the offerings he has ordained in honour of his city-god
Shushinak, and this religious temper is peculiarly characteristic of the
princes of Elam throughout the whole course of their history. Another
interesting point to notice in the inscription is that, although the
writer invokes Shushinak, his own god, and puts his name at the head
of the list of deities whose vengeance he implores upon the impious, he
also calls upon the gods of the Babylonians. As he wrote the inscription
itself in Babylonian, in the belief that it might be recovered by
some future Semitic inhabitant of his country, so he included in his
imprecations those deities whose names he conceived would be most
reverenced by such a reader. In addition to Karibu-sha-Shushinak the
names of a number of other patesis, or viceroys, have recently
been recovered, such as Khutran-tepti, and Idadu I and his son
Kal-Rukhu-ratir, and his grandson Idadu II. All these probably ruled
after Karibu-sha-Shushinak, and may be set in the early period of
Babylonian supremacy in Elam.
It has been stated above that the allegiance which these early Elamite
princes owed to their overlords in Babylonia was probably reflected in
the titles which they bear upon their inscriptions recently found at
Susa. These titles are "
patesi of Susa,
shakkannak of Elam," which
may be rendered as "viceroy of Susa, governor of Elam." But inscriptions
have been found on the same site belonging to another series of rulers,
to whom a different title is applied. Instead of referring to themselves
as viceroys of Susa and governors of Elam, they bear the title of
sukkal of Elam, of Siparki, and of Susa. Siparki, or Sipar, was
probably the name of an important section of Elamite territory, and
the title
sukkalu, "ruler," probably carries with it an idea of
independence of foreign control which is absent from the title of
patesi. It is therefore legitimate to trace this change of title to
a corresponding change in the political condition of Elam; and there is
much to be said for the view that the rulers of Elam who bore the title
of
sukkalu reigned at a period when Elam herself was independent, and
may possibly have exercised a suzerainty over the neighbouring districts
of Babylonia.
The worker of this change in the political condition of Elam and
the author of her independence was a king named Kutir-Nakhkhunte or
Kutir-Na'khunde, whose name and deeds have been preserved in
later Assyrian records, where he is termed Kudur-Nankhundi and
Kudur-Nakhundu.* This ruler, according to the Assyrian king
Ashur-bani-pal, was not content with throwing off the yoke under which
his land had laboured for so long, but carried war into the country of
his suzerain and marched through Babylonia devastating and despoiling
the principal cities. This successful Elamite campaign took place,
according to the computation of the later Assyrian scribes, about the
year 2280 B. c, and it is probable that for many years afterwards the
authority of the King of Elam extended over the plains of Babylonia.
It has been suggested that Kutir-Nakh-khunte, after including Babylonia
within his empire, did not remain permanently in Elam, but may have
resided for a part of each year, at least, in Lower Mesopotamia.
His object, no doubt, would have been to superintend in person the
administration of his empire and to check any growing spirit of
independence among his local governors. He may thus have appointed in
Susa itself a local governor who would carry on the business of the
country during his absence, and, under the king himself, would wield
supreme authority. Such governors may have been the sukkali, who, unlike
the patesi, were independent of foreign control, but yet did not enjoy
the full title of "king."
* For references to the passages where the name occurs, see
King, Letters of Hammurabi, vol. i, p. Ivy.
It is possible that the sukkalu who ruled in Elam during the reign of
Kutir-Nakhkhunte was named Temti-agun, for a short inscription of
this ruler has been recovered, in which he records that he built and
dedicated a certain temple with the object of ensuring the preservation
of the life of Kutir-Na'khundi. If we may identify the Kutir-Va'khundi
of this text with the great Elamite conqueror, Kutir-Nakhkhunte, it
follows that Temti-agun, the sukkal of Susa, was his subordinate. The
inscription mentions other names which are possibly those of rulers of
this period, and reads as follows: "Temti-agun, sukkal of Susa, the son
of the sister of Sirukdu', hath built a temple of bricks at Ishme-karab
for the preservation of the life of Kutir-Na'khundi, and for the
preservation of the life of Lila-irtash, and for the preservation of his
own life, and for the preservation of the life of Temti-khisha-khanesh
and of Pil-kishamma-khashduk." As Lila-irtash is mentioned immediately
after Kutir-Na'khundi, he was possibly his son, and he may have
succeeded him as ruler of the empire of Elam and Babylonia, though no
confirmation of this view has yet been discovered. Temti-khisha-khanesh
is mentioned immediately after the reference to the preservation of the
life of Temti-agun himself, and it may be conjectured that the name was
that of Temti-agun's son, or possibly that of his wife, in which event
the last two personages mentioned in the text may have been the sons of
Temti-agun.
This short text affords a good example of one class of votive
inscriptions from which it is possible to recover the names of Elamite
rulers of this period, and it illustrates the uncertainty which at
present attaches to the identification of the names themselves and the
order in which they are to be arranged. Such uncertainty necessarily
exists when only a few texts have been recovered, and it will disappear
with the discovery of additional monuments by which the results already
arrived at may be checked. We need not here enumerate all the names of
the later Elamite rulers which have been found in the numerous votive
inscriptions recovered during the recent excavations at Susa. The order
in which they should be arranged is still a matter of considerable
uncertainty, and the facts recorded by them in such inscriptions as we
possess mainly concern the building and restoration of Elamite temples
and the decoration of shrines, and they are thus of no great historical
interest. These votive texts are well illustrated by a remarkable find
of foundation deposits made last year by M. de Morgan in the temple of
Shushinak at Susa, consisting of figures and jewelry of gold and silver,
and objects of lead, bronze, iron, stone, and ivory, cylinder-seals,
mace-heads, vases, etc. This is the richest foundation deposit that has
been recovered on any ancient site, and its archaeological interest in
connection with the development of Elamite art is great. But in no other
way does the find affect our conception of the history of the country,
and we may therefore pass on to a consideration of such recent
discoveries as throw new light upon the course of history in Western
Asia.
With the advent of the First Dynasty in Babylon Elam found herself
face to face with a power prepared to dispute her claims to exercise a
suzerainty over the plains of Mesopotamia. It is held by many writers
that the First Dynasty of Babylon was of Arab origin, and there is much
to be said for this view. M. Pognon was the first to start the theory
that its kings were not purely Babylonian, but were of either Arab or
Aramaean extraction, and he based his theory on a study of the forms of
the names which some of them bore. The name of Samsu-imna, for instance,
means "the sun is our god," but the form of the words of which the name
is composed betray foreign influence. Thus in Babylonian the name for
"sun" or the Sun-god would be
Shamash or
Shamshu, not
Samsu; in
the second half of the name, while
ilu ("god") is good Babylonian, the
ending
na, which is the pronominal suffix of the first person plural,
is not Babylonian, but Arabic. We need not here enter into a long
philological discussion, and the instance already cited may suffice to
show in what way many of the names met in the Babylonian inscriptions
of this period betray a foreign, and possibly an Arabic, origin. But
whether we assign the forms of these names to Arabic influence or not,
it may be regarded as certain that, the First Dynasty of Babylon had
its origin in the incursion into Babylonia of a new wave of Semitic
immigration.
The invading Semites brought with them fresh blood and unexhausted
energy, and, finding many of their own race in scattered cities and
settlements throughout the country, they succeeded in establishing a
purely Semitic dynasty, with its capital at Babylon, and set about the
task of freeing the country from any vestiges of foreign control. Many
centuries earlier Semitic kings had ruled in Babylonian cities, and
Semitic empires had been formed there. Sargon and Narâm-Sin,
having their capital at Agade, had established their control over a
considerable area of Western Asia and had held Elam as a province. But
so far as Elam was concerned Kutir-Nakhkhunte had reversed the balance
and had raised Elam to the position of the predominant power.
Of the struggles and campaigns of the earlier kings of the First Dynasty
of Babylon we know little, for, although we possess a considerable
number of legal and commercial documents of the period, we have
recovered no strictly historical inscriptions. Our main source of
information is the dates upon these documents, which are not dated by
the years of the reigning king, but on a system adopted by the early
Babylonian kings from their Sumerian predecessors. In the later periods
of Babylonian history tablets were dated in the year of the king who was
reigning at the time the document was drawn up, but this simple system
had not been adopted at this early period. In place of this we find that
each year was cited by the event of greatest importance which occurred
in that year. This event might be the cutting of a canal, when the year
in which this took place might be referred to as "the year in which
the canal named Ai-khegallu was cut;" or it might be the building of a
temple, as in the date-formula, "the year in which the great temple of
the Moon-god was built;" or it might be "the conquest of a city, such
as the year in which the city of Kish was destroyed." Now it will be
obvious that this system of dating had many disadvantages. An event
might be of great importance for one city, while it might never have
been heard of in another district; thus it sometimes happened that the
same event was not adopted throughout the whole country for designating
a particular year, and the result was that different systems of
dating were employed in different parts of Babylonia. Moreover, when a
particular system had been in use for a considerable time, it required
a very good memory to retain the order and period of the various events
referred to in the date-formulae, so as to fix in a moment the date of a
document by its mention of one of them. In order to assist themselves
in their task of fixing dates in this manner, the scribes of the First
Dynasty of Babylon drew up lists of the titles of the years, arranged
in chronological order under the reigns of the kings to which they
referred. Some of these lists have been recovered, and they are of the
greatest assistance in fixing the chronology, while at the same time
they furnish us with considerable information concerning the history of
the period of which we should otherwise have been in ignorance.
From these lists of date-formulæ, and from the dates themselves which
are found upon the legal and commercial tablets of the period, we learn
that Kish, Ka-sallu, and Isin all gave trouble to the earlier kings of
the First Dynasty, and had in turn to be subdued. Elam did not watch the
diminution of her influence in Babylonia without a struggle to retain
it. Under Kudur-mabug, who was prince or governor of the districts lying
along the frontier of Elam, the Elamites struggled hard to maintain
their position in Babylonia, making the city of Ur the centre from which
they sought to check the growing power of Babylon. From bricks that have
been recovered from Mukayyer, the site of the city of Ur, we learn that
Kudur-mabug rebuilt the temple in that city dedicated to the Moon-god,
which is an indication of the firm hold he had obtained upon the city.
It was obvious to the new Semitic dynasty in Babylon that, until Ur and
the neighbouring city of Larsam had been captured, they could entertain
no hope of removing the Elamite yoke from Southern Babylonia. It is
probable that the earlier kings of the dynasty made many attempts to
capture them, with varying success. An echo of one of their struggles in
which they claimed the victory may be seen in the date-formula for the
fourteenth year of the reign of Sin-muballit, Hammurabi's father and
predecessor on the throne of Babylon. This year was referred to in the
documents of the period as "the year in which the people of Ur were
slain with the sword." It will be noted that the capture of the city
is not commemorated, so that we may infer that the slaughter of the
Elamites which is recorded did not materially reduce their influence,
as they were left in possession of their principal stronghold. In fact,
Elam was not signally defeated in the reign of Kudur-mabug, but in that
of his son Rim-Sin. From the date-formulæ of Hammurabi's reign we learn
that the struggle between Elam and Babylon was brought to a climax in
the thirtieth year of his reign, when it is recorded in the formulas
that he defeated the Elamite army and overthrew Rim-Sin, while in the
following year we gather that he added the land of E'mutbal, that is,
the western district of Elam, to his dominions.
An unpublished chronicle in the British Museum gives us further details
of Hammurabi's victory over the Elamites, and at the same time makes it
clear that the defeat and overthrow of Rim-Sin was not so crushing
as has hitherto been supposed. This chronicle relates that Hammurabi
attacked Rim-Sin, and, after capturing the cities of Ur and Larsam,
carried their spoil to Babylon. Up to the present it has been supposed
that Hammurabi's victory marked the end of Elamite influence in
Babylonia, and that thenceforward the supremacy of Babylon was
established throughout the whole of the country. But from the
new chronicle we gather that Hammurabi did not succeed in finally
suppressing the attempts of Elam to regain her former position. It is
true that the cities of Ur and Larsam were finally incorporated in the
Babylonian empire, and the letters of Hammurabi to Sin-idinnam, the
governor whom he placed in authority over Larsam, afford abundant
evidence of the stringency of the administrative control which he
established over Southern Babylonia. But Rîm-Sin was only crippled for
the time, and, on being driven from Ur and Larsam, he retired beyond
the Elamite frontier and devoted his energies to the recuperation of his
forces against the time when he should feel himself strong enough again
to make a bid for victory in his struggle against the growing power of
Babylon. It is probable that he made no further attempt to renew the
contest during the life of Hammurabi, but after Samsu-iluna, the son
of Hammurabi, had succeeded to the Babylonian throne, he appeared in
Babylonia at the head of the forces he had collected, and attempted to
regain the cities and territory he had lost.
Inscribed in the reign of Hammurabi with a deed recording
the division of property. The actual tablet is on the right;
that which appears to be another and larger tablet on the
left is the hollow clay case in which the tablet on the
right was originally enclosed. Photograph by Messrs. Mansell
& Co.
The portion of the text of the chronicle relating to the war between
Rîm-Sin and Samsu-iluna is broken so that it is not possible to follow
the campaign in detail, but it appears that Samsu-iluna defeated
Rim-Sin, and possibly captured him or burnt him alive in a palace in
which he had taken refuge.
With the final defeat of Rîm-Sin by Samsu-iluna it is probable that Elam
ceased to be a thorn in the side of the kings of Babylon and that
she made no further attempts to extend her authority beyond her own
frontiers. But no sooner had Samsu-iluna freed his country from all
danger from this quarter than he found himself faced by a new foe,
before whom the dynasty eventually succumbed. This fact we learn from
the unpublished chronicle to which reference has already been made, and
the name of this new foe, as supplied by the chronicle, will render
it necessary to revise all current schemes of Babylonian chronology.
Samsu-iluna's new foe was no other than Iluma-ilu, the first king of the
Second Dynasty, and, so far from having been regarded as Samsu-iluna's
contemporary, hitherto it has been imagined that he ascended the throne
of Babylon one hundred and eighteen years after Samsu-iluna's death.
The new information supplied by the chronicle thus proves two important
facts: first, that the Second Dynasty, instead of immediately succeeding
the First Dynasty, was partly contemporary with it; second, that during
the period in which the two dynasties were contemporary they were at
war with one another, the Second Dynasty gradually encroaching on
the territory of the First Dynasty, until it eventually succeeded in
capturing Babylon and in getting the whole of the country under its
control. We also learn from the new chronicle that this Second Dynasty
at first established itself in "the Country of the Sea," that is to say,
the districts in the extreme south of Babylonia bordering on the Persian
Gulf, and afterwards extended its borders northward until it gradually
absorbed the whole of Babylonia. Before discussing the other facts
supplied by the new chronicle, with regard to the rise and growth of the
Country of the Sea, whose kings formed the so-called "Second Dynasty,"
it will be well to refer briefly to the sources from which the
information on the period to be found in the current histories is
derived.
All the schemes of Babylonian chronology that have been suggested during
the last twenty years have been based mainly on the great list of kings
which is preserved in the British Museum. This document was drawn up in
the Neo-Babylonian or Persian period, and when complete it gave a list
of the names of all the Babylonian kings from the First Dynasty of
Babylon down to the time in which it was written. The names of the kings
are arranged in dynasties, and details are given as to the length of
their reigns and the total number of years each dynasty lasted. The
beginning of the list which gave the names of the First Dynasty is
wanting, but the missing portion has been restored from a smaller
document which gives a list of the kings of the First and Second
Dynasties only. In the great list of kings the dynasties are arranged
one after the other, and it was obvious that its compiler imagined that
they succeeded one another in the order in which he arranged them.
But when the total number of years the dynasties lasted is learned, we
obtain dates for the first dynasties in the list which are too early to
agree with other chronological information supplied by the historical
inscriptions. The majority of writers have accepted the figures of the
list of kings and have been content to ignore the discrepancies; others
have sought to reconcile the available data by ingenious emendations of
the figures given by the list and the historical inscriptions, or have
omitted the Second Dynasty entirely from their calculations. The new
chronicle, by showing that the First and Second Dynasties were partly
contemporaneous, explains the discrepancies that have hitherto proved so
puzzling.
It would be out of place here to enter into a detailed discussion of
Babylonian chronology, and therefore we will confine ourselves to a
brief description of the sequence of events as revealed by the new
chronicle. According to the list of kings, Iluma-ilu's reign was a long
one, lasting for sixty years, and the new chronicle gives no indication
as to the period of his reign at which active hostilities with Babylon
broke out. If the war occurred in the latter portion of his reign, it
would follow that he had been for many years organizing the forces of
the new state he had founded in the south of Babylonia before making
serious encroachments in the north; and in that case the incessant
campaigns carried on by Babylon against Blam in the reigns of Hammurabi
and Samsu-iluna would have afforded him the opportunity of establishing
a firm foothold in the Country of the Sea without the risk of Babylonian
interference. If, on the other hand, it was in the earlier part of his
reign that hostilities with Babylon broke out, we may suppose that,
while Samsu-iluna was devoting all his energies to crush Bim-Sin, the
Country of the Sea declared her independence of Babylonian control. In
this case we may imagine Samsu-iluna hurrying south, on the conclusion
of his Elamite campaign, to crush the newly formed state before it had
had time to organize its forces for prolonged resistance.
Whichever of these alternatives eventually may prove to be correct, it
is certain that Samsu-iluna took the initiative in Babylon's struggle
with the Country of the Sea, and that his action was due either to her
declaration of independence or to some daring act of aggression on the
part of this small state which had hitherto appeared too insignificant
to cause Babylon any serious trouble. The new chronicle tells us that
Samsu-iluna undertook two expeditions against the Country of the Sea,
both of which proved unsuccessful. In the first of these he penetrated
to the very shores of the Persian Gulf, where a battle took place in
which Samsu-iluna was defeated, and the bodies of many of the Babylonian
soldiers were washed away by the sea. In the second campaign Iluma-ilu
did not await Samsu-iluna's attack, but advanced to meet him, and again
defeated the Babylonian army. In the reign of Abêshu', Samsu-iluna's
son and successor, Iluma-ilu appears to have undertaken fresh acts of
aggression against Babylon; and it was probably during one of his raids
in Babylonian territory that Abêshu' attempted to crush the growing power
of the Country of the Sea by the capture of its daring leader, Iluma-ilu
himself. The new chronicle informs us that, with this object in
view, Abêshu' dammed the river Tigris, hoping by this means to cut off
Iluma-ilu and his army, but his stratagem did not succeed, and Iluma-ilu
got back to his own territory in safety.
The new chronicle does not supply us with further details of the
struggle between Babylon and the Country of the Sea, but we may conclude
that all similar attempts on the part of the later kings of the First
Dynasty to crush or restrain the power of the new state were useless. It
is probable that from this time forward the kings of the First Dynasty
accepted the independence of the Country of the Sea upon their southern
border as an evil which they were powerless to prevent. They must have
looked back with regret to the good times the country had enjoyed under
the powerful sway of Hammurabi, whose victorious arms even their ancient
foes, the Blamites, had been unable to withstand. But, although the
chronicle does not recount the further successes achieved by the Country
of the Sea, it records a fact which undoubtedly contributed to hasten
the fall of Babylon and bring the First Dynasty to an end. It tells us
that in the reign of Samsu-ditana, the last king of the First Dynasty,
the men of the land of Khattu (the Hittites from Northern Syria) marched
against him in order to conquer the land of Akkad; in other words, they
marched down the Euphrates and invaded Northern Babylonia. The chronicle
does not state how far the invasion was successful, but the appearance
of a new enemy from the northwest must have divided the Babylonian
forces and thus have reduced their power of resisting pressure from the
Country of the Sea. Samsu-ditana may have succeeded in defeating the
Hittites and in driving them from his country; but the fact that he
was the last king of the First Dynasty proves that in his reign Babylon
itself fell into the hands of the king of the Country of the Sea.
The question now arises, To what race did the people of the Country
of the Sea belong? Did they represent an advance-guard of the Kassite
tribes, who eventually succeeded in establishing themselves as the Third
Dynasty in Babylon? Or were they the Elamites who, when driven from Ur
and Larsam, retreated southwards and maintained their independence on
the shores of the Persian Gulf? Or did they represent some fresh wave of
Semitic immigration'? That they were not Kassites is proved by the new
chronicle which relates how the Country of the Sea was conquered by the
Kassites, and how the dynasty founded by Iluma-ilu thus came to an end.
There is nothing to show that they were Elamites, and if the Country of
the Sea had been colonized by fresh Semitic tribes, so far from opposing
their kindred in Babylon, most probably they would have proved to them
a source of additional strength and support. In fact, there are
indications that the people of the Country of the Sea are to be referred
to an older stock than the Elamites, the Semites, or the Kassites. In
the dynasty of the Country of the Sea there is no doubt that we may
trace the last successful struggle of the ancient Sumerians to retain
possession of the land which they had held for so many centuries before
the invading Semites had disputed its possession with them.
Evidence of the Sumerian origin of the kings of the Country of the
Sea may be traced in the names which several of them bear. Ishkibal,
Grulkishar, Peshgal-daramash, A-dara-kalama, Akur-ul-ana, and
Melam-kur-kura, the names of some of them, are all good Sumerian names,
and Shushshi, the brother of Ishkibal, may also be taken as a Sumerian
name. It is true that the first three kings of the dynasty, Iluma-ilu,
Itti-ili-nibi, and Damki-ilishu, and the last king of the dynasty,
Ea-gamil, bear Semitic Babylonian names, but there is evidence that
at least one of these is merely a Semitic rendering of a Sumerian
equivalent. Iluma-ilu, the founder of the dynasty, has left inscriptions
in which his name is written in its correct Sumerian form as
Dingir-a-an, and the fact that he and some of his successors either bore
Semitic names or appear in the late list of kings with their Sumerian
names translated into Babylonian form may be easily explained by
supposing that the population of the Country of the Sea was mixed and
that the Sumerian and Semitic tongues were to a great extent employed
indiscriminately. This supposition is not inconsistent with the
suggestion that the dynasty of the Country of the Sea was Sumerian, and
that under it the Sumerians once more became the predominant race in
Babylonia.
The new chronicle also relates how the dynasty of the Country of the
Sea succumbed in its turn before the incursions of the Kassites. We know
that already under the First Dynasty the Kassite tribes had begun to
make incursions into Babylonia, for the ninth year of Samsu-iluna was
named in the date-formulae after a Kassite invasion, which, as it
was commemorated in this manner by the Babylonians, was probably
successfully repulsed. Such invasions must have taken place from time to
time during the period of supremacy attained by the Country of the Sea,
and it was undoubtedly with a view to stopping such incursions—for the
future that Ea-gamil—the last king of the Second Dynasty, decided to
invade Elam and conquer the mountainous districts in which the Kassite
tribes had built their strongholds. This Elamite campaign of Ea-gamil
is recorded by the new chronicle, which relates how he was defeated and
driven from the country by Ulam-Buriash, the brother of Bitiliash the
Kassite. Ulam-Buriash did not rest content with repelling Ea-gamil's
invasion of his land, but pursued him across the border and succeeded
in conquering the Country of the Sea and in establishing there his own
administration. The gradual conquest of the whole of Babylonia by the
Kassites no doubt followed the conquest of the Country of the Sea,
for the chronicle relates how the process of subjugation, begun by
Ulam-Buriash, was continued by his nephew Agum, and we know from the
lists of kings that Ea-gamil was the last king of the dynasty founded by
Iluma-ilu. In this fashion the Second Dynasty was brought to an end, and
the Sumerian element in the mixed population of Babylonia did not again
succeed in gaining control of the government of the country.
It will be noticed that the account of the earliest Kassite rulers of
Babylonia which is given by the new chronicle does not exactly tally
with the names of the kings of the Third Dynasty as found upon the
list of kings. On this document the first king of the dynasty is named
Gandash, with whom we may probably identify Ulam-Buriash, the Kassite
conqueror of the Country of the Sea; the second king is Agum, and the
third is Bitiliashi. According to the new chronicle Agum was the son
of Bitiliashi, and it would be improbable that he should have ruled in
Babylonia before his father. But this difficulty is removed by supposing
that the two names were transposed by some copyist. The different
names assigned to the founder of the Kassite dynasty may be due to
the existence of variant traditions, or Ulam-Buriash may have assumed
another name on his conquest of Babylonia, a practice which was usual
with the later kings of Assyria when they occupied the Babylonian
throne.
The information supplied by the new chronicle with regard to the
relations of the first three dynasties to one another is of the greatest
possible interest to the student of early Babylonian history. We see
that the Semitic empire founded at Babylon by Sumu-abu, and consolidated
by Hammurabi, was not established on so firm a basis as has hitherto
been believed. The later kings of the dynasty, after Elam had been
conquered, had to defend their empire from encroachments on the south,
and they eventually succumbed before the onslaught of the Sumerian
element, which still remained in the population of Babylonia and had
rallied in the Country of the Sea. This dynasty in its turn succumbed
before the invasion of the Kassites from the mountains in the western
districts of Elam, and, although the city of Babylon retained her
position as the capital of the country throughout these changes of
government, she was the capital of rulers of different races, who
successively fought for and obtained the control of the fertile plains
of Mesopotamia.
It is probable that the Kassite kings of the Third Dynasty exercised
authority not only over Babylonia but also over the greater part of
Elam, for a number of inscriptions of Kassite kings of Babylonia have
been found by M. de Morgan at Susa. These inscriptions consist of
grants of land written on roughly shaped stone stelæ, a class which the
Babylonians themselves called
kudurru, while they have been frequently
referred to by modern writers as "boundary-stones." This latter term
is not very happily chosen, for it suggests that the actual monuments
themselves were set up on the limits of a field or estate to mark its
boundary. It is true that the inscription on a kudurru enumerates the
exact position and size of the estate with which it is concerned,
but the kudurru was never actually used to mark the boundary. It was
preserved as a title-deed, in the house of the owner of the estate or
possibly in the temple of his god, and formed his charter or title-deed
to which he could appeal in case of any dispute arising as to his right
of ownership. One of the kudurrus found by M. de Morgan records the
grant of a number of estates near Babylon by Nazimaruttash, a king of
the Third or Kassite Dynasty, to the god Marduk, that is to say they
were assigned by the king to the service of E-sagila, the great temple
of Marduk at Babylon.
All the crops and produce from the land were granted for the supply of
the temple, which was to enjoy the property without the payment of any
tax or tribute. The text also records the gift of considerable tracts of
land in the same district to a private individual named Kashakti-Shugab,
who was to enjoy a similar freedom from taxation so far as the lands
bestowed upon him were concerned.
This freedom from taxation is specially enacted by the document in
the words: "Whensoever in the days that are to come the ruler of the
country, or one of the governors, or directors, or wardens of these
districts, shall make any claim with regard to these estates, or shall
attempt to impose the payment of a tithe or tax upon them, may all the
great gods whose names are commemorated, or whose arms are portrayed, or
whose dwelling-places are represented, on this stone, curse him with an
evil curse and blot out his name!"
Incidentally, this curse illustrates one of the most striking
characteristics of the kudurrus, or "boundary-stones," viz. the carved
figures of gods and representations of their emblems, which all of them
bare in addition to the texts inscribed upon them. At one time it was
thought that these symbols were to be connected with the signs of the
zodiac and various constellations and stars, and it was suggested that
they might have been intended to represent the relative positions of the
heavenly bodies at the time the document was drawn up. But this text
of Nazimaruttash and other similar documents that have recently been
discovered prove that the presence of the figures and emblems of the
gods upon the stones is to be explained on another and far more simple
theory. They were placed there as guardians of the property to which the
kudurru referred, and it was believed that the carving of their figures
or emblems upon the stone would ensure their intervention in case of
any attempted infringement of the rights and privileges which it was
the object of the document to commemorate and preserve. A photographic
reproduction of one side of the kudurru of Nazi-maruttash is shown in
the accompanying illustration. There will be seen a representation of
Gula or Bau, the mother of the gods, who is portrayed as seated on
her throne and wearing the four-horned head-dress and a long robe
that reaches to her feet. In the field are emblems of the Sun-god, the
Moon-god, Ishtar, and other deities, and the representation of divine
emblems and dwelling-places is continued on another face of the stone
round the corner towards which Grula is looking. The other two faces of
the document are taken up with the inscription.
An interesting note is appended to the text inscribed upon the stone,
beginning under the throne and feet of Marduk and continuing under the
emblems of the gods upon the other side. This note relates the history
of the document in the following words: "In those days Kashakti-Shugab,
the son of Nusku-na'id, inscribed (this document) upon a memorial
of clay, and he set it before his god. But in the reign of
Marduk-aplu-iddina, king of hosts, the son of Melishikhu, King
of Babylon, the wall fell upon this memorial and crushed it.
Shu-khuli-Shugab, the son of Nibishiku, wrote a copy of the ancient
text upon a new stone stele, and he set it (before the god)." It will be
seen, therefore, that this actual stone that has been recovered was not
the document drawn up in the reign of Nazimaruttash, but a copy made
under Marduk-aplu-iddina, a later king of the Third Dynasty. The
original deed was drawn up to preserve the rights of Kashakti-Shugab,
who shared the grant of land with the temple of Marduk. His share was
less than half that of the temple, but, as both were situated in the
same district, he was careful to enumerate and describe the temple's
share, to prevent any encroachment on his rights by the Babylonian
priests.
It is probable that such grants of land were made to private individuals
in return for special services which they had rendered to the king. Thus
a broken kudurru among M. de Morgan's finds records the confirmation of
a man's claims to certain property by Biti-liash II, the claims being
based on a grant made to the man's ancestor by Kurigalzu for services
rendered to the king during his war with Assyria. One of the finest
specimens of this class of charters or title-deeds has been found at
Susa, dating from the reign of Melishikhu, a king of the Third Dynasty.
The document in question records a grant of certain property in the
district of Bît-Pir-Shadû-rabû, near the cities Agade and Dûr-Kurigalzu,
made by Melishikhu to Marduk-aplu-iddina, his son, who succeeded him
upon the throne of Babylon. The text first gives details with regard to
the size and situation of the estates included in the grant of land, and
it states the names of the high officials who were entrusted with the
duty of measuring them. The remainder of the text defines and secures
the privileges granted to Marduk-aplu-iddina together with the land,
and, as it throws considerable light upon the system of land tenure at
the period, an extract from it may here be translated:
"To prevent the encroachment on his land," the inscription runs, "thus
hath he (i.e. the king) established his (Marduk-aplu-iddina's) charter.
On his land taxes and tithes shall they not impose; ditches, limits, and
boundaries shall they not displace; there shall be no plots, stratagems,
or claims (with regard to his possession); for forced labour or public
work for the prevention of floods, for the maintenance and repair of
the royal canal under the protection of the towns of Bit-Sikkamidu
and Damik-Adad, among the gangs levied in the towns of the district of
Ninâ-Agade, they shall not call out the people of his estate; they are
not liable to forced labour on the sluices of the royal canal, nor
are they liable for building dams, nor for closing the canal, nor for
digging out the bed thereof."
"A cultivator of his lands, whether hired or belonging to the estate,
and the men who receive his instructions (i.e. his overseers) shall no
governor of Bît-Pir-Shadû-rabû cause to leave his lands, whether by the
order of the king, or by the order of the governor, or by the order of
whosoever may be at Bît-Pir-Shadû-rabû. On wood, grass, straw, corn,
and every other sort of crop, on his carts and yoke, on his ass and
man-servant, shall they make no levy. During the scarcity of water in
the canal running between the Bati-Anzanim canal and the canal of the
royal district, on the waters of his ditch for irrigation shall they
make no levy; from the ditch of his reservoir shall they not draw water,
neither shall they divert (his water for) irrigation, and other land
shall they not irrigate nor water therewith. The grass of his lands
shall they not mow; the beasts belonging to the king or to a governor,
which may be assigned to the district of Bît-Pir-Shadû-rabû, shall they
not drive within his boundary, nor shall they pasture them on his grass.
He shall not be forced to build a road or a bridge, whether for the
king, or for the governor who may be appointed in the district of
Bît-Pir-Shadû-rabû, neither shall he be liable for any new form of
forced labour, which in the days that are to come a king, or a governor
appointed in the district of Bît-Pir-Shadû-rabû, shall institute and
exact, nor for forced labour long fallen into disuse which may be
revived anew. To prevent encroachment on his land the king hath fixed
the privileges of his domain, and that which appertaineth unto it, and
all that he hath granted unto him; and in the presence of Shamash, and
Marduk, and Anunitu, and the great gods of heaven and earth, he hath
inscribed them upon a stone, and he hath left it as an everlasting
memorial with regard to his estate."
The whole of the text is too long to quote, and it will suffice to note
here that Melishikhu proceeds to appeal to future kings to respect the
land and privileges which he has granted to his son, Marduk-aplu-iddina,
even as he himself has respected similar grants made by his predecessors
on the throne; and the text ends with some very vivid curses against
any one, whatever his station, who should make any encroachments on the
privileges granted to Marduk-aplu-iddina, or should alter or do any harm
to the memorial-stone itself. The emblems of the gods whom Melishikhu
invokes to avenge any infringement of his grant are sculptured upon one
side of the stone, for, as has already been remarked, it was believed
that by carving them upon the memorial-stone their help in guarding the
stone itself and its enactments was assured.
From the portion of the text inscribed upon the stone which has just
been translated it is seen that the owner of land in Babylonia in the
period of the Kassite kings, unless he was granted special exemption,
was liable to furnish forced labour for public works to the state or to
his district, to furnish grazing and pasture for the flocks and herds of
the king or governor, and to pay various taxes and tithes on his land,
his water for irrigation, and his crops. From the numerous documents
of the First Dynasty of Babylon that have been recovered and published
within the last few years we know that similar customs were prevalent at
that period, so that it is clear that the successive conquests to which
the country was subjected, and the establishment of different dynasties
of foreign kings at Babylon, did not to any appreciable extent affect
the life and customs of the inhabitants of the country or even the
general character of its government and administration. Some documents
of a commercial and legal nature, inscribed upon clay tablets during the
reigns of the Kassite kings of Babylon, have been found at Nippur,
but they have not yet been published, and the information we possess
concerning the life of the people in this period is obtained indirectly
from kudurrus or boundary-stones, such as those of Nazimaruttash and
Melishikhu which have been already described. Of documents relating to
the life of the people under the rule of the kings of the Country of the
Sea we have none, and, with the exception of the unpublished chronicle
which has been described earlier in this chapter, our information for
this period is confined to one or two short votive inscriptions. But the
case is very different with regard to the reigns of the Semitic kings of
the First Dynasty of Babylon. Thousands of tablets relating to legal and
commercial transactions during this period have been recovered, and more
recently a most valuable series of royal letters, written by Hammurabi
and other kings of his dynasty, has been brought to light.
The stele is inscribed with his great code of laws. The Sun-
god is represented as seated on a throne in the form of a
temple façade, and his feet are resting upon the mountains.
Photograph by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
Moreover, the recently discovered code of laws drawn up by Hammurabi
contains information of the greatest interest with regard to the
conditions of life that were prevalent in Babylonia at that period.
From these three sources it is possible to draw up a comparatively full
account of early Babylonian life and customs.
CHAPTER VI—EARLY BABYLONIAN LIFE AND CUSTOMS
In tracing the ancient history of Mesopotamia and the surrounding
countries it is possible to construct a narrative which has the
appearance of being comparatively full and complete. With regard to
Babylonia it may be shown how dynasty succeeded dynasty, and for long
periods together the names of the kings have been recovered and the
order of their succession fixed with certainty. But the number and
importance of the original documents on which this connected narration
is based vary enormously for different periods. Gaps occur in our
knowledge of the sequence of events, which with some ingenuity may be
bridged over by means of the native lists of kings and the genealogies
furnished by the historical inscriptions. On the other hand, as if to
make up for such parsimony, the excavations have yielded a wealth of
material for illustrating the conditions of early Babylonian life which
prevailed in such periods. The most fortunate of these periods, so far
as the recovery of its records is concerned, is undoubtedly the period
of the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and in particular
the reign of its greatest ruler, Hammurabi. When M. Maspero wrote his
history, thousands of clay tablets, inscribed with legal and commercial
documents and dated in the reigns of these early kings, had already been
recovered, and the information they furnished was duly summarized by
him.* But since that time two other sources of information have been
made available which have largely increased our knowledge of
the constitution of the early Babylonian state, its system of
administration, and the conditions of life of the various classes of the
population.
* Most of these tablets are preserved in the British Museum.
The principal?works in which they have been published are
Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum (1896, etc.),
Strassmaier's Altbabylonischen Vertràge aus Warka, and
Meissner's Beitràge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht. A
number of similar tablets of this period, preserved in the
Pennsylvania Museum, will shortly be published by Dr. Ranke.
One of these new sources of information consists of a remarkable series
of royal letters, written by kings of the First Dynasty, which has been
recovered and is now preserved in the British Museum. The letters were
addressed to the governors and high officials of various great cities in
Babylonia, and they contain the king's orders with regard to details of
the administration of the country which had been brought to his notice.
The range of subjects with which they deal is enormous, and there is
scarcely one of them which does not add to our knowledge of the period.*
The other new source of information is the great code of laws, drawn up
by Hammurabi for the guidance of his people and defining the duties and
privileges of all classes of his subjects, the discovery of which at
Susa has been described in a previous chapter. The laws are engraved on
a great stele of diorite in no less than forty-nine columns of writing,
of which forty-four are preserved,* and at the head of the stele is
sculptured a representation of the king receiving them from Shamash, the
Sun-god.
* See King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, 3 vols.
(1898-1900).
This code shows to what an extent the administration of law and justice
had been developed in Babylonia in the time of the First Dynasty. From
the contracts and letters of the period we already knew that regular
judges and duly appointed courts of law were in existence, and the code
itself was evidently intended by the king to give the royal sanction to
a great body of legal decisions and enactments which already possessed
the authority conferred by custom and tradition. The means by which such
a code could have come into existence are illustrated by the system of
procedure adopted in the courts at this period. After a case had been
heard and judgment had been given, a summary of the case and of the
evidence, together with the judgment, was drawn up and written out on
tablets in due legal form and phraseology. A list of the witnesses was
appended, and, after the tablet had been dated and sealed, it was stored
away among the legal archives of the court, where it was ready for
production in the event of any future appeal or case in which the
recorded decision was involved. This procedure represents an advanced
stage in the system of judicial administration, but the care which
was taken for the preservation of the judgments given was evidently
traditional, and would naturally give rise in course of time to the
existence of a recognized code of laws.
Moreover, when once a judgment had been given and had been duly recorded
it was irrevocable, and if any judge attempted to alter such a decision
he was severely punished. For not only was he expelled from his
judgment-seat, and debarred from exercising judicial functions in the
future, but, if his judgment had involved the infliction of a penalty,
he was obliged to pay twelve times the amount to the man he had
condemned. Such an enactment must have occasionally given rise to
hardship or injustice, but at least it must have had the effect
of imbuing the judges with a sense of their responsibility and of
instilling a respect for their decisions in the minds of the people. A
further check upon injustice was provided by the custom of the elders of
the city, who sat with the judge and assisted him in the carrying out
of his duties; and it was always open to a man, if he believed that he
could not get justice enforced, to make an appeal to the king. It is not
our present purpose to give a technical discussion of the legal contents
of the code, but rather to examine it with the object of ascertaining
what light it throws upon ancient Babylonian life and customs, and the
conditions under which the people lived.
The code gives a good deal of information with regard to the family life
of the Babylonians, and, above all, proves the sanctity with which the
marriage-tie was invested. The claims that were involved by marriage
were not lightly undertaken. Any marriage, to be legally binding, had to
be accompanied by a duly executed and attested marriage-contract. If a
man had taken a woman to wife without having carried out this necessary
preliminary, the woman was not regarded as his wife in the legal sense.
On the other hand, when once such a marriage-contract had been drawn up,
its inviolability was stringently secured. A case of proved adultery
on the part of a man's wife was punished by the drowning of the guilty
parties, though the husband of the woman, if he wished to save his wife,
could do so by an appeal to the king. Similarly, death was the penalty
for a man who ravished another man's betrothed wife while she was still
living in her father's house, but in this case the girl's innocence
and inexperience were taken into account, and no penalty was enforced
against her and she was allowed to go free. Where the adultery of a wife
was not proved, and only depended on the accusation of the husband, the
woman could clear herself by swearing her own innocence; if, however,
the accusation was not brought by the husband himself, but by others,
the woman could clear herself by submitting to the ordeal by water; that
is to say, she would plunge into the Euphrates; if the river carried her
away and she were drowned, it was regarded as proof that the accusation
was well founded; if, on the contrary, she survived and got safely
to the bank, she was considered innocent and was forthwith allowed to
return to her household completely vindicated.
It will have been seen that the duty of chastity on the part of a
married woman was strictly enforced, but the husband's responsibility to
properly maintain his wife was also recognized, and in the event of
his desertion she could under certain circumstances become the wife of
another man. Thus, if he left his city and fled from it of his own free
will and deserted his wife, he could not reclaim her on his return,
since he had not been forced to leave the city, but had done so because
he hated it. This rule did not apply to the case of a man who was taken
captive in battle. In such circumstances the wife's action was to be
guided by the condition of her husband's affairs. If the captive husband
possessed sufficient property on which his wife could be maintained
during his captivity in a strange land, she had no reason nor excuse
for seeking another marriage. If under these circumstances she became
another man's wife, she was to be prosecuted at law, and, her action
being the equivalent of adultery, she was to be drowned. But the case
was regarded as altered if the captive husband had not sufficient means
for the maintenance of his wife during his absence. The woman would then
be thrown on her own resources, and if she became the wife of another
man she incurred no blame. On the return of the captive he could reclaim
his wife, but the children of the second marriage would remain with
their own father. These regulations for the conduct of a woman, whose
husband was captured in battle, give an intimate picture of the manner
in which the constant wars of this early period affected the lives of
those who took part in them.
Under the Babylonians at the period of the First Dynasty divorce was
strictly regulated, though it was far easier for the man to obtain one
than for the woman. If we may regard the copies of Sumerian laws, which
have come down to us from the late Assyrian period, as parts of the code
in use under the early Sumerians, we must conclude that at this earlier
period the law was still more in favour of the husband, who could
divorce his wife whenever he so desired, merely paying her half a mana
as compensation. Under the Sumerians the wife could not obtain a
divorce at all, and the penalty for denying her husband was death. These
regulations were modified in favour of the woman in Hammurabi's code;
for under its provisions, if a man divorced his wife or his concubine,
he was obliged to make proper provision for her maintenance. Whether
she were barren or had borne him children, he was obliged to return
her marriage portion; and in the latter case she had the custody of the
children, for whose maintenance and education he was obliged to furnish
the necessary supplies. Moreover, at the man's death she and her
children would inherit a share of his property. When there had been no
marriage portion, a sum was fixed which the husband was obliged to pay
to his divorced wife, according to his status. In cases where the wife
was proved to have wasted her household and to have entirely failed in
her duty, her husband could divorce her without paying any compensation,
or could make her a slave in his house, and the extreme penalty for
this offence was death. On the other hand, a woman could not be divorced
because she had contracted a permanent disease; and, if she desired to
divorce her husband and could prove that her past life had been seemly,
she could do so, returning to her father's house and taking her marriage
portion with her.
It is not necessary here to go very minutely into the regulations given
by the code with regard to marriage portions, the rights of widows,
the laws of inheritance, and the laws regulating the adoption and
maintenance of children. The customs that already have been described
with regard to marriage and divorce may serve to indicate the spirit
in which the code is drawn up and the recognized status occupied by the
wife in the Babylonian household. The extremely independent position
enjoyed by women in the early Babylonian days is illustrated by the
existence of a special class of women, to which constant reference is
made in the contracts and letters of the period. When the existence of
this class of women was first recognized from the references to them in
the contract-tablets inscribed at the time of the First Dynasty, they
were regarded as priestesses, but the regulations concerning them which
occur in the code of Hammurabi prove that their duties were not strictly
sacerdotal, but that they occupied the position of votaries. The
majority of those referred to in the inscriptions of this period
were vowed to the service of E-bab-bara, the temple of the Sun-god at
Sippara, and of E-sagila, the great temple of Marduk at Babylon, but
it is probable that all the great temples in the country had classes of
female votaries attached to them. From the evidence at present
available it may be concluded that the functions of these women bore no
resemblance to that of the sacred prostitutes devoted to the service of
the goddess Ishtar in the city of Erech. They seem to have occupied a
position of great influence and independence in the community, and
their duties and privileges were defined and safeguarded by special
legislation.
Generally they lived together in a special building, or convent,
attached to the temple, but they had considerable freedom and could
leave the convent and also contract marriage. Their vows, however,
while securing them special privileges, entailed corresponding
responsibilities. Even when married a votary was still obliged to remain
a virgin, and, should her husband desire to have children, she could not
bear them herself, but must provide him with a maid or concubine. Also
she had to maintain a high standard of moral conduct, for any breach
of which severe penalties were enforced. Thus, if a votary who was not
living in the convent opened a beer-shop, or should enter one for drink,
she ran the risk of being put to death. But the privileges she enjoyed
were also considerable, for even when unmarried she enjoyed the status
of a married woman, and if any man slandered her he incurred the penalty
of branding on the forehead. Moreover, a married votary, though she
could not bear her husband children, was secured in her position as the
permanent head of his household. The concubine she might give to her
husband was always the wife's inferior, even after bearing him children,
and should the former attempt to put herself on a level of equality with
the votary, the latter might brand her as a slave and put her with the
female slaves. If the concubine proved barren she could be sold. The
votary could also possess property, and on taking her vows was provided
with a portion by her father exactly as though she were being given
in marriage. Her portion was vested in herself and did not become the
property of the order of votaries, nor of the temple to which she
was attached. The proceeds of her property were devoted to her own
maintenance, and on her father's death her brothers looked after
her interests, or she might farm the property out. Under certain
circumstances she could inherit property and was not obliged to pay
taxes on it, and such property she could bequeath at her own death; but
upon her death her portion returned to her own family unless her father
had assigned her the privilege of bequeathing it. That the social
position enjoyed by a votary was considerable is proved by the fact that
many women of good family, and even members of the royal house, took
vows. The existence of the order and its high repute indicate a
very advanced conception of the position of women among the early
Babylonians.
From the code of Hammurabi we also gather considerable information with
regard to the various classes of which the community was composed and
to their relative social positions. For the purposes of legislation
the community was divided into three main classes or sections, which
corresponded to well-defined strata in the social system. The lowest
of these classes consisted of the slaves, who must have formed a
considerable portion of the population. The class next above them
comprised the large body of free men, who were possessed of a certain
amount of property but were poor and humble, as their name,
muslikênu,
implied. These we may refer to as the middle class. The highest, or
upper class, in the Babylonian community embraced all the officers and
ministers attached to the court, the higher officials and servants
of the state, and the owners of considerable lands and estates. The
differences which divided and marked off from one another the two great
classes of free men in the population of Babylonia is well illustrated
by the scale of payments as compensation for injury which they were
obliged to make or were entitled to receive. Thus, if a member of the
upper class were guilty of stealing an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or
a pig, or a boat, from a temple or a private house, he had to pay the
owner thirty times its value as compensation, whereas if the thief were
a member of the middle class he only had to pay ten times its price, but
if he had no property and so could not pay compensation he was put to
death. The penalty for manslaughter was less if the assailant was a man
of the middle class, and such a man could also divorce his wife more
cheaply, and was privileged to pay his doctor or surgeon a smaller fee
for a successful operation.
But the privileges enjoyed by a man of the middle class were
counterbalanced by a corresponding diminution of the value at which
his life and limbs were assessed. Thus, if a doctor by carrying out an
operation unskilfully caused the death of a member of the upper class,
or inflicted a serious injury upon him, such as the loss of an eye, the
punishment was the amputation of both hands, but no such penalty seems
to have been exacted if the patient were a member of the middle class.
If, however, the patient were a slave of a member of the middle class,
in the event of death under the operation, the doctor had to give the
owner another slave, and in the event of the slave losing his eye, he
had to pay the owner half the slave's value. Penalties for assault were
also regulated in accordance with the social position and standing
of the parties to the quarrel. Thus, if one member of the upper class
knocked out the eye or the tooth of one of his equals, his own eye or
his own tooth was knocked out as a punishment, and if he broke the limb
of one of the members of his own class, he had his corresponding limb
broken; but if he knocked out the eye of a member of the middle class,
or broke his limb, he suffered no punishment in his own person, but was
fined one mana of silver, and for knocking out the tooth of such a man
he was fined one-third of a mana. If two members of the same class were
engaged in a quarrel, and one of them made a peculiarly improper assault
upon the other, the assailant was only fined, the fine being larger
if the quarrel was between members of the upper class. But if such an
assault was made by one man upon another who was of higher rank than
himself, the assailant was punished by being publicly beaten in the
presence of the assembly, when he received sixty stripes from a scourge
of ox-hide. These regulations show the privileges and responsibilities
which pertained to the two classes of free men in the Babylonian
community, and they indicate the relative social positions which they
enjoyed.
Both classes of free men could own slaves, though it is obvious that
they were more numerous in the households and on the estates of members
of the upper class. The slave was the absolute property of his master
and could be bought and sold and employed as a deposit for a debt,
but, though slaves as a class had few rights of their own, in certain
circumstances they could acquire them. Thus, if the owner of a female
slave had begotten children by her he could not use her as the payment
for a debt, and in the event of his having done so he was obliged to
ransom her by paying the original amount of the debt in money. It was
also possible for a male slave, whether owned by a member of the upper
or of the middle class, to marry a free woman, and if he did so, his
children were free and did not become the property of his master. Also,
if the free woman whom the slave married brought with her a marriage
portion from her father's house, this remained her own property on the
slave's death, and supposing the couple had acquired other property
during the time they lived together as man and wife, the owner of the
slave could only claim half of such property, the other half being
retained by the free woman for her own use and for that of her children.
Generally speaking, the lot of the slave was not a particularly hard
one, for he was a recognized member of his owner's household, and, as a
valuable piece of property, it was obviously to his owner's interest to
keep him healthy and in good condition. In fact, the value of the slave
is attested by the severity of the penalty imposed for abducting a male
or female slave from the owner's house and removing him or her from
the city; for a man guilty of this offence was put to death. The same
penalty was imposed for harbouring and taking possession of a runaway
slave, whereas a fixed reward was paid by the owner to any one by whom
a runaway slave was captured and brought back. Special legislation was
also devised with the object of rendering the theft of slaves difficult
and their detection easy. Thus, if a brander put a mark upon a slave
without the owner's consent, he was liable to have his hands cut off,
and if he could prove that he did so through being deceived by another
man, that man was put to death. For bad offences slaves were liable to
severe punishments, such as cutting off the ear, which was the penalty
for denying his master, and also for making an aggravated assault on a
member of the upper class of free men. But it is clear that on the whole
the slave was well looked after. He was also not condemned to remain
perpetually a slave, for while still in his master's service it was
possible for him, under certain conditions, to acquire property of his
own, and if he did so he was able with his master's consent to purchase
his freedom. If a slave were captured by the enemy and taken to a
foreign land and sold, and were then brought back by his new owner to
his own country, he could claim his liberty without having to pay any
purchase-money to either of his masters.
The code of Hammurabi also contains detailed regulations concerning the
duties of debtors and creditors, and it throws an interesting light
on the commercial life of the Babylonians at this early period. For
instance, it reveals the method by which a wealthy man, or a merchant,
extended his business and obtained large profits by trading with other
towns. This he did by employing agents who were under certain fixed
obligations to him, but acted independently so far as their trading was
concerned. From the merchant these agents would receive money or grain
or wool or oil or any sort of goods wherewith to trade, and in return
they paid a fixed share of their profits, retaining the remainder as
the recompense for their own services. They were thus the earliest of
commercial travellers. In order to prevent fraud between the merchant
and the agent special regulations were framed for the dealings they had
with one another. Thus, when the agent received from the merchant the
money or goods to trade with, it was enacted that he should at the time
of the transaction give a properly executed receipt for the amount he
had received. Similarly, if the agent gave the merchant money in return
for the goods he had received and in token of his good faith, the
merchant had to give a receipt to the agent, and in reckoning their
accounts after the agent's return from his journey, only such amounts as
were specified in the receipts were to be regarded as legal obligations.
If the agent forgot to obtain his proper receipt he did so at his own
risk.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://gutenberg.org/files/17321/17321-h/v1c.htm
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
