History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria in the Light of Recent Discovery Part 10

* 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-s.h.i.+nak, 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 furnis.h.i.+ngs in honour of the G.o.d Shu-s.h.i.+nak.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 233.jpg BLOCK OF LIMESTONE, FOUND AT SUSA, BEARING INSCRIPTIONS OF KARIBU-SHA-SHUs.h.i.+NAK.]

The photograph is taken from M. de Morgan's _Delegation en Perse_, Mem., 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-Shus.h.i.+nak decreed should be made for the future in honour of the G.o.d.* 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 a.s.sumed that both inscriptions were the work of Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak. 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-Shus.h.i.+nak's inscription in Semitic Babylonian. See the photographic reproduction.

Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak, 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 Shus.h.i.+nak at Susa and the cutting of a ca.n.a.l; it also recounts the offerings which Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak dedicated on the completion of the work. It may here be quoted as an example of the cla.s.s of votive inscriptions from which the names of these early Elamite rulers have been recovered. The inscription runs as follows: "For the G.o.d Shus.h.i.+nak, his lord, Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak, the son of s.h.i.+mbi-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 G.o.d Shus.h.i.+nak, his lord, and when he had opened the ca.n.a.l 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 G.o.d Shus.h.i.+nak. 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 G.o.ds Shus.h.i.+nak and Shamash, Bel and Ea, Ninni and Sin, Mnkharsag and Nati--may all the G.o.ds uproot his foundation, and his seed may they destroy!"

It will be seen that Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak takes a delight in enumerating the details of the offerings he has ordained in honour of his city-G.o.d Shus.h.i.+nak, 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 Shus.h.i.+nak, his own G.o.d, and puts his name at the head of the list of deities whose vengeance he implores upon the impious, he also calls upon the G.o.ds 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-Shus.h.i.+nak 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-Shus.h.i.+nak, 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 t.i.tles which they bear upon their inscriptions recently found at Susa. These t.i.tles 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 t.i.tle is applied. Instead of referring to themselves as viceroys of Susa and governors of Elam, they bear the t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle _sukkalu_, "ruler," probably carries with it an idea of independence of foreign control which is absent from the t.i.tle of _patesi_. It is therefore legitimate to trace this change of t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle 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 a.s.syrian records, where he is termed Kudur-Nankhundi and Kudur-Nakhundu.* This ruler, according to the a.s.syrian 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 princ.i.p.al cities. This successful Elamite campaign took place, according to the computation of the later a.s.syrian 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 t.i.tle of "king."

* For references to the pa.s.sages 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 cla.s.s of votive inscriptions from which it is possible to recover the names of Elamite rulers of this period, and it ill.u.s.trates 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 ill.u.s.trated by a remarkable find of foundation deposits made last year by M. de Morgan in the temple of Shus.h.i.+nak 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 pa.s.s 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 G.o.d," 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-G.o.d would be _Shamash_ or _Shamshu_, not _Samsu_; in the second half of the name, while _ilu_ ("G.o.d") is good Babylonian, the ending _na_, which is the p.r.o.nominal 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 a.s.sign 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 240.jpg BRICK STAMPED WITH AN INSCRIPTION OF KUDUR-MABURG]

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 establis.h.i.+ng 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 Naram-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 doc.u.ments of the period, we have recovered no strictly historical inscriptions. Our main source of information is the dates upon these doc.u.ments, 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 doc.u.ment 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 ca.n.a.l, when the year in which this took place might be referred to as "the year in which the ca.n.a.l 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-G.o.d 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 doc.u.ment by its mention of one of them. In order to a.s.sist themselves in their task of fixing dates in this manner, the scribes of the First Dynasty of Babylon drew up lists of the t.i.tles 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 a.s.sistance 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-formulae, 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-G.o.d, 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 doc.u.ments 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 princ.i.p.al 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-formulae 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 crus.h.i.+ng as has. .h.i.therto 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 Rim-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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 245.jpg SEMITIC BABYLONIAN CONTRACT-TABLET]

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 Rim-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 Rim-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 succ.u.mbed. 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 doc.u.ment 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 doc.u.ment 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 establis.h.i.+ng 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 sh.o.r.es 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 Abeshu', 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 Abeshu' 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, Abeshu' 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 Hitt.i.tes 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 Hitt.i.tes 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 Ka.s.site tribes, who eventually succeeded in establis.h.i.+ng 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 sh.o.r.es of the Persian Gulf? Or did they represent some fresh wave of Semitic immigration'? That they were not Ka.s.sites is proved by the new chronicle which relates how the Country of the Sea was conquered by the Ka.s.sites, 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 Ka.s.sites. 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 Shushs.h.i.+, 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 succ.u.mbed in its turn before the incursions of the Ka.s.sites. We know that already under the First Dynasty the Ka.s.site tribes had begun to make incursions into Babylonia, for the ninth year of Samsu-iluna was named in the date-formulae after a Ka.s.site 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 Ka.s.site 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 Ka.s.site. 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 establis.h.i.+ng there his own administration. The gradual conquest of the whole of Babylonia by the Ka.s.sites 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 fas.h.i.+on 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 Ka.s.site 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 doc.u.ment the first king of the dynasty is named Gandash, with whom we may probably identify Ulam-Buriash, the Ka.s.site conqueror of the Country of the Sea; the second king is Agum, and the third is Bitilias.h.i.+. According to the new chronicle Agum was the son of Bitilias.h.i.+, 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 a.s.signed to the founder of the Ka.s.site dynasty may be due to the existence of variant traditions, or Ulam-Buriash may have a.s.sumed another name on his conquest of Babylonia, a practice which was usual with the later kings of a.s.syria 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. .h.i.therto 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 succ.u.mbed 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 succ.u.mbed before the invasion of the Ka.s.sites 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 Ka.s.site 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 Ka.s.site kings of Babylonia have been found by M. de Morgan at Susa. These inscriptions consist of grants of land written on roughly shaped stone stelae, a cla.s.s 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 t.i.tle-deed, in the house of the owner of the estate or possibly in the temple of his G.o.d, and formed his charter or t.i.tle-deed to which he could appeal in case of any dispute arising as to his right of owners.h.i.+p. One of the kudurrus found by M. de Morgan records the grant of a number of estates near Babylon by n.a.z.imaruttash, a king of the Third or Ka.s.site Dynasty, to the G.o.d Marduk, that is to say they were a.s.signed by the king to the service of E-sagila, the great temple of Marduk at Babylon.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 256.jpg A KUDURRU OR "BOUNDARY-STONE."]

Inscribed with a text of n.a.z.imaruttash, a king of the Third or Ka.s.site Dynasty, conferring certain estates near Babylon on the temple of Marduk and on a certain man named Kashakti- Shugab. The photograph is reproduced from M. de Morgan's Delegation en Perse, Mem., t. ii, pi, 18.

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 doc.u.ment 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 t.i.the or tax upon them, may all the great G.o.ds 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 ill.u.s.trates one of the most striking characteristics of the kudurrus, or "boundary-stones," viz. the carved figures of G.o.ds 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 doc.u.ment was drawn up. But this text of n.a.z.imaruttash and other similar doc.u.ments that have recently been discovered prove that the presence of the figures and emblems of the G.o.ds 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 doc.u.ment to commemorate and preserve. A photographic reproduction of one side of the kudurru of n.a.z.i-maruttash is shown in the accompanying ill.u.s.tration. There will be seen a representation of Gula or Bau, the mother of the G.o.ds, 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-G.o.d, the Moon-G.o.d, 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 doc.u.ment 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 G.o.ds upon the other side. This note relates the history of the doc.u.ment in the following words: "In those days Kashakti-Shugab, the son of Nusku-na'id, inscribed (this doc.u.ment) upon a memorial of clay, and he set it before his G.o.d. But in the reign of Marduk-aplu-iddina, king of hosts, the son of Melis.h.i.+khu, King of Babylon, the wall fell upon this memorial and crushed it.

Shu-khuli-Shugab, the son of Nibis.h.i.+ku, wrote a copy of the ancient text upon a new stone stele, and he set it (before the G.o.d)." It will be seen, therefore, that this actual stone that has been recovered was not the doc.u.ment drawn up in the reign of n.a.z.imaruttash, 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 a.s.syria. One of the finest specimens of this cla.s.s of charters or t.i.tle-deeds has been found at Susa, dating from the reign of Melis.h.i.+khu, a king of the Third Dynasty.

The doc.u.ment in question records a grant of certain property in the district of Bit-Pir-Shad-rab, near the cities Agade and Dr-Kurigalzu, made by Melis.h.i.+khu 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 t.i.thes 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 ca.n.a.l under the protection of the towns of Bit-Sikkamidu and Damik-Adad, among the gangs levied in the towns of the district of Nina-Agade, they shall not call out the people of his estate; they are not liable to forced labour on the sluices of the royal ca.n.a.l, nor are they liable for building dams, nor for closing the ca.n.a.l, nor for digging out the bed thereof."

[Ill.u.s.tration: 260.jpg KUOTTRRU, OR "BOUNDARY-STONE."]

Inscribed with a text of Melis.h.i.+khu, one of the kings of the Third or Ka.s.site Dynasty of Babylon, recording a grant of certain property to Marduk-aplu-iddina, his son The photograph is reproduced from M. de Morgan's Delegation en Perse, Mem., t. ii, pi. 24.