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.[1] 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 B.C., the Assyrian king relates that he recovered the image of the goddess Nanâ, which Kudur-Nankhundi had carried off from Erech sixteen hundred and thirty-five years before.[2] By accepting these figures Kudur-Nankhundi's invasion has been assigned to an approximate date of 2285 B.C., 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,[3] 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 Khutran-tepti probably reigned at a period subsequent to that of Basha-Shushinak.[4] In addition to Khutran-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 Belia-rik, who are mentioned on tablets from Tello,[5] they owed allegiance to Babylonia, during the period of the Dynasty of Ur.[6] A later Elamite dynasty was that which traced its descent from Ebarti, or from his son Shilkhakha. Two of Shilkhakha's descendants[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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,[11] 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 Sumu-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.[12] 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.[13] We are therefore reduced to the conclusion that at any rate the later members of Ebarti's 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.[14] 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 Kisâri, king of Gankhar,[15] 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 re-establishing 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."[16] 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 Abû 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 Abû Habba,[17] 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.[18]

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.[19] 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.[20]

According to this view Isin was captured by the invaders,[21] 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.[22] 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 Bûr-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 Bûr-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,[23] 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.[24] 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.[25] 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[26] 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,[27] 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.[28] It has, indeed, been suggested that the Dynasty of Isin and the First Dynasty of Babylon overlapped each other,[29] 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.[30] 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.[31] Now a capture of the city of Isin by Rîm-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.[32] The theory necessitates two assumptions, the first to the effect that the date-formulæ of Rîm-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 Bûr-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."[33] 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 Bûr-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,[34] 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.[35] 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,[36] 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 Rîm-Sin, assisted by his vassal, Sin-muballit. But a recent discovery has shown that Rîm-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.[37] It is true that the passage is broken, and it has been suggested that the record concerns the son of Rîm-Sin, and not Rîm-Sin himself.[38] 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 Rîm-Sin, the other in Samsu-iluna's tenth year.[39] However we may explain the existence of these two nearly identical copies of the same document, their dates certainly imply that Rîm-Sin was in possession of a portion of Babylonia at least as late as the ninth year of Samsu-iluna's reign.[40] 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 Rîm-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.[41] 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.[42] 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.[43] 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,[44] 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-formulæ 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.[45] 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.[46] 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 Abû Habba, dated in the year in which Damik-ilishu built the wall of Isin,[47] 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.[48] 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.

[1] See Boissier, "Choix de textes relatifs à la divination," II., p. 64, and Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," March, 1907, col. 114, n. 1.

[2] See "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. III., pl. 38, No. 1, Obv., l. 16.

[3] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Anzan.," II., p. 20; "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 29, and IV., p. 15.

[4] See above, p. 289.

[5] See above, p. 291.

[6] The patesis Ur-Ningishzida, Ibalpel, Belaku and [...]mashu, who ruled in Tupliash, or Ashnunnak, in the neighbourhood of Elam (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 174 f.) probably owed allegiance to the kings of Ur or Isin. Ur-Ningirsu, who was also said to be a patesi of Tupliash, is merely a misreading of Ur-Ningishzida's name; cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1909, col. 161 f.

[7] The phrase "son of the sister of," which occurs in the inscriptions, is clearly not to be taken literally, but is used in the sense of a descendant (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 183, n. 2); it does not necessarily imply that the throne actually passed through the female branch (as Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 542, suggests), except possibly in the absence of direct descendants in the male line.

[8] One of the native texts sets Kuk-Nashur before Temti-khalki, but this was obviously due to a confusion with Adda-Pakshu; cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 6.

[9] Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Anzan.," II., p. x.

[10] Cf. "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 23, pl. 7, Nos. 1-3.

[11] See "Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler," VII., p. 28, No. 67, and cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur. Assyr.," Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 3 f.

[12] See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., pp. 18 and 20.

[13] The titles borne by Kuk-Kirmesh, who reigned before Adda-Pakshu, and those of Temti-khalki and Kuk-Nashur are so similar, that it is unlikely their periods were separated by the great political upheaval which took place in Hammurabi's reign; cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," Bd. VI., No. 5, p. 6 f.

[14] Cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," Pt. XXI., pl. 1 and "Königsinschriften," p. 176 f.

[15] His name occurs upon a cylinder-seal of Masiam-Ishtar, an official in his service; see "Collection de Clercq," p. 83, pl. xiv., No. 121, and "Königsinschriften," p. 174 f.

[16] See Boissier, "Doc. rel. à la div.," I., p. 30, K. 3970, Rev. l. 16, and Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 114, n. 1.

[17] See Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XVI., pp. 187 ff., and Radau, "Early Bab. Hist.," p. 232 f.

[18] This is proved by the fact that in their own inscriptions that have been recovered the determinative for divinity precedes their names.

[19] For one of the cones, see the plate opposite p. 314. In a brick-inscription from Mukayyar, inscribed with Enannatum's name and title, he calls himself the son of Ishme-Dagan, the King of Sumer and Akkad; and it is quite possible that he received his appointment as priest of the Moon-god during his father's lifetime or in the reign of his brother Libit-Islitar.

[20] Cf. Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 54. For an alternative suggestion that the invasion was from Amurru, see below, p. 315 f.

[21] Nippur, too, may have shared the like fate, if the breaking and scattering of votive objects, deposited by earlier kings in the temple of Enlil, is to be traced to this invasion.

[22] Gungunu's death is recorded in a date-formula upon a tablet from Senkera (Larsa), which reads "the year in which Gungunu died" (see Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XXI., p. 125.) Since the death of a king from natural causes was never commemorated in this fashion, we may conclude that he was slain in battle, probably by Ur-Ninib.

[23] See above, pp. 220, 225 ff., 282 f.

[24] The story was also told in the history of Agathias (II., 25, ed. Dindorf, p. 222) of Beleous and Beletaras, who are described by him as early Assyrian kings (see King, "Chronicles," I., p. 63 f.). But there is no doubt that Ura-imitti was the ninth king of Isin, since Hilprecht has since deciphered traces of his name in the Nippur dynastic list and has also found it in a date-formula on an early contract from Nippur (see "Zeits. für Assyr.," pp. 20 ff.). Moreover, the name of Enlil-bani occurs in the Nippur list as that of the eleventh king of Isin.

[25] The meaning of the phrases in the text is exceedingly obscure; cf. King, "Chronicles," I., p. 64 f., n. 1.

[26] Sin-ikisha's name, which is broken in the Nippur list, has been restored from a contract-tablet preserved in the Pennsylvania Museum (see Poebel, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 461 ff.). The contract is dated in the year in which Sin-ikisha made an image of gold and silver for the Sun-god.

[27] For the recovery of Zambia's name, by means of a contract-tablet at Constantinople dated in his accession-year, see Hilprecht, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 385 ff. Hommel and Hilprecht (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., p. 29) regard Zambia as an abbreviated form of the name of Sab-Dagan, which occurs as that of a king on the obverse of the Neo-Babylonian map of the world preserved in the British Museum ("Cun. Texts," XXII., pl. 48, Obv., l. 10). But the name of the city or land, which followed the title of the king, is wanting, and Hilprecht's suggested reading of the name preceding Sab-Dagan as that of Ura-imitti is not supported by the traces on the tablet. The god's name is written clearly as Shamash, not Ura.

[28] It is probable that Sumu-ilu, an early king of Ur, reigned in this period. His name is known from the steatite figure of a dog, which the priest Abba-dugga, the son of a certain Urukagina, dedicated on his behalf to the goddess Nin-Isin, "the Lady of Isin" (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," VI., p. 69 f.). His date is uncertain, but, like Gungunu, he may have taken advantage of troubles in Isin to establish an independent kingdom for a time in Ur.

[29] See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," pp. 43, 49 f., n. 5. I also mentioned the possibility in "Chronicles," I., p. 168, n. 1, and the view has been adopted by Ranke, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 109 ff., and Ungnad, "Zeits. der Deutsch. Morgenländ. Gesellschaft," Bd. LXI., p. 714, and "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, col. 66. Meyer also accepts the hypothesis; see "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., pp. 344 f., 504 f.

[30] See above, p. 62.**

[31] See King, "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 228 f.

[32] _Op. cit._, p. 228 f., n. 39. There is no certain indication of the _provenance_ of the tablet referred to by Scheil in "Rec. de trav.," XXI., p. 125, though he implies that it was found at Senkera, from which Tell Sifr is not far distant. The evidence available seems to show that the Isin-era was confined to Larsa and its neighbourhood.

[33] See Ranke, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 109 ff. The tablet in question is published in "Cun. Texts," Pt. IV., pl. 22, No. 78,395 (Bu. 88-5-12, 294).

[34] Cf. "Cun. Texts," Pt. VI., pl. 8, No. 80,163 (Bu. 91-5-9, 279).

[35] See Meissner, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 113 ff.

[36] So Meissner, _loc. cit._

[37] Cf. "Chronicles," II., p. 18 f.

[38] Cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 585 f., and Hrozný, "Wiener Zeitschrift," Bd. 21 (1908), p. 382. But Winckler and Hrozný in their rendering ignore the fact that in these late chronicles "son" is always expressed by TUR (_mâru_), never by A (_aplu_).

[39] See Ungnad, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXIII., pp. 73 ff.

[40] Confirmation of this view has now been obtained. I learn from M. Thureau-Dangin that he has found a variant date for the tenth year of Samsu-iluna, which mentions not only the cities of Erech and Isin but also the land of Iamutbal (cf. "Journal asiatique," 1909, pp. 335 ff.)

[41] See Delitzsch, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," IV., p. 406 f., and Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 256 f.

[42] See Thureau-Dangin, _op. cit._, col. 256, and King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 229, n. 41. The only other possible year in Sin-muballit's reign would be the twentieth, the formula for which is broken on the principal date-list A; I have made a fresh examination of the tablet, and the slight traces preserved at the beginning of the line do not suggest this restoration, though it is possible.

[43] See King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 230 f., and "Chronicles," I., p. 166. The traces on the date-list D suggest that the formula for this year records the destruction and not the building of the wall of Isin. This is now put beyond a doubt by the formula upon a contract of Hammurabi's reign dated in the year of his capture of Erech and Isin (see Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 257, n. 2).

[44] It should be added that the local system of dating tablets at Tell Sifr was not necessarily continuous. If the city ever changed hands, the conqueror would re-introduce his own date-formulæ, as we have seen was done by Samsu-iluna.

[45] While the later kings of Isin were suzerains of Babylon, there is little doubt that the earlier kings of Babylon controlled, not only their own city, but a considerable part of Akkad. Thus from the date-formulæ of Sumu-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty, we gather that his authority was recognized at Dilbat and at Kish, and that he was strong enough to undertake the conquest of Kazallu in his thirteenth year; moreover a contract, probably from Sippar, is dated in his reign (cf. King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 212 f., and Thureau-Dangin, "Journal des savants," 1908, p. 200).

[46] Cf. Weissbach, "Babylonische Miscellen," p. 1.

[47] Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XXIII., p. 94, and "Une saison de fouilles à Sippar," p. 140.

[48] See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 49 f., n. 5.