Chapter 15

FIG. 52.THE ROYAL GATE OF KHATTI, THE CAPITAL OF THE HITTITES, VIEWED FROM THE OUTSIDE.The massive walls are preserved in their lower courses, but in the sketch the upper portions are restored in outline. The arched gateway with its sloping sides is characteristic of Hittite work.(After Puchstein.)

FIG. 52.

THE ROYAL GATE OF KHATTI, THE CAPITAL OF THE HITTITES, VIEWED FROM THE OUTSIDE.

The massive walls are preserved in their lower courses, but in the sketch the upper portions are restored in outline. The arched gateway with its sloping sides is characteristic of Hittite work.

(After Puchstein.)

The city's greatest length from north to south was about a mile and a quarter, and its greatest width somethree-quarters of a mile, the whole circuit of the existing defences, including the lower-lying area, extending to some three and a half miles. This is a remarkable size for a mountain city, and although some portions of the area cannot have been occupied by buildings, the fortification of so extensive a site is an indication of the power of the Hittite empire and its capital. About fourteen feet in thickness, the wall is preserved in many places to a hight of more than twelve feet. It consists of an inner and an outer wall, filled in with a stone packing. The outer face was naturally the stronger of the two, and huge stones, sometimes five feet in length, have been employed in its construction. The wall was strengthened by towers, set at more or less regular intervals along it, their position being sometimes dictated by the contour of the ground. Round a great part of the circuit there are traces of an outer defensive wall of lighter construction and with smaller towers, but this was not continuous, being omitted wherever the natural fall of the ground was a sufficient protection to the main wall.

FIG. 53.CONJECTURAL RESTORATION OF A HITTITE GATEWAY VIEWED FROM INSIDE.It is possible that brick was employed for the upper structure of the city-wall and its towers, as suggested in the restoration. In such a case it is not unlikely that the stepped battlements of Mesopotamia were also adopted.(After Puchstein.)

FIG. 53.

CONJECTURAL RESTORATION OF A HITTITE GATEWAY VIEWED FROM INSIDE.

It is possible that brick was employed for the upper structure of the city-wall and its towers, as suggested in the restoration. In such a case it is not unlikely that the stepped battlements of Mesopotamia were also adopted.

(After Puchstein.)

Projecting towers also flanked the main gateways, which exhibit a characteristic feature of Hittite architecture. This is the peculiar form of the gateway, consisting of a pointed arch with gently sloping sides, the latter formed by huge monoliths bonded into the structure of the wall.[35]It would seem that brick was probably employed for the upper structure of both wall and towers; and in other buildings of the city, such as the great temple to the north-west of the citadel, brick was used for the upper structure of the walls upon a stone foundation. Whenever the use of brick was adopted in one of the northern lands of Mesopotamia, where stone is plentiful, the latter was always used in the foundations. It is not improbable, therefore, that the stepped battlements of Assyria and Babylon were also borrowed, as that was the most convenient and decorative way of finishing off the upper courses of a fortification-wall built of that material.

In the earlier years of Shubbiluliuma the city was doubtless very much smaller than it subsequently became. But he used it effectively as a base, and, as much by diplomatic means as by actual conquest, he succeeded in making the power of the Hittites felt beyond their own borders. The Syrian revolts in the reign of Amen-hetep III., by which the authority of Egypt was weakened in her Asiatic provinces, undoubtedly received Hittite encouragement. Shubbiluliuma also crossed the Euphrates and ravaged the northern territory of Mitanni, the principal rival of the Hittites up to that time. Later he invaded Syria inforce and returned to his mountain fastness of Khatti, laden with spoil and leading two Mitannian princes as captives in his train. On the accession of Akhenaten, Shubbiluliuma wrote him a letter of congratulation; but, when the Syrian prince Aziru acknowledged the suzerainty of Egypt, Shubbiluliuma defeated him and laid the whole of Northern Syria under tribute, subsequently confirming his possession of the country by treaty with Egypt. The state of Mitanni, too, submitted to Shubbiluliuma's dictation, for, on the murder of its powerful king Dushratta, he espoused the cause of Mattiuaza, whom he restored to his father's throne after marrying him to his daughter. We have recovered the text of his treaty with Mitanni, and it reflects the despotic power of the Hittite king at this time. Referring to himself in the third person he says, "The great king, for the sake of his daughter, gave the country of Mitanni a new life."[36]

FIG. 54.LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF THE LOWER WESTERN GATEWAY AT KHATTI.The diagram, based on the conjectural restoration, indicates the massive construction of the gate-house, and the manner in which both it and the wall were adapted to the rising ground. The passage-way along the battlements must have passed through the towers.(After Puchstein.)

FIG. 54.

LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF THE LOWER WESTERN GATEWAY AT KHATTI.

The diagram, based on the conjectural restoration, indicates the massive construction of the gate-house, and the manner in which both it and the wall were adapted to the rising ground. The passage-way along the battlements must have passed through the towers.

(After Puchstein.)

It was not until the reign of Mursil, a younger son of Shubbiluliuma, that the Hittite empire came into armed conflict with Egypt. A change of dynasty inthe latter country, and the restoration of her old religion, had strengthened the government, and now led to renewed attempts on her part at recovering her lost territory. On the first occasion the Hittites were defeated by Seti I. in the north of Syria, and Egypt reoccupied Phoenicia and Canaan. Later on, probably in the reign of Mutallu, Mursil's son, Rameses II. attempted to recover Northern Syria. At the battle of Kadesh, on the Orontes, he succeeded in defeating the Hittite army, though both sides lost heavily and at an early stage of the fight Rameses himself was in imminent danger of capture. Episodes in the battle may still be seen pictured in relief on the temple-walls at Luxor, Karnak and Abydos.[37]

FIG. 55.TRANSVERSE SECTION OF THE LOWER WESTERN GATEWAY AT KHATTI.The exterior projection of each flanking tower beyond the wall is indicated in the diagram.(After Puchstein.)

FIG. 55.

TRANSVERSE SECTION OF THE LOWER WESTERN GATEWAY AT KHATTI.

The exterior projection of each flanking tower beyond the wall is indicated in the diagram.

(After Puchstein.)

The Egyptian war was continued with varying success, though it is certain that the Hittites wereeventually successful in the north. But in the reign of Khattusil, the brother of Mutallu, both sides were weary of the conflict, and an elaborate treaty of peace and alliance was drawn up. This, when engraved upon a silver tablet, was carried to Egypt by an ambassador and presented to Rameses. The contents of the treaty have long been known from the Egyptian text, engraved on the walls of the temple at Karnak; and among the tablets found at Boghaz Keui was a broken copy of the original Hittite version,[38]drawn up in cuneiform characters and in Babylonian, the language of diplomacy at the period. Khattusil also maintained friendly relations with the Babylonian court, and he informed the king of Babylon of his treaty with the king of Egypt. It is clear from a copy of the letter, recovered at Boghaz Keui, that the Babylonian king had heard about the treaty and had written to enquire concerning it. Khattusil replies that the king of Egypt and he had formed a friendship and had concluded an alliance: "We are brothers, and against a foe will we fight together, and with a friend will we together maintain friendship."[39]And his next remark enables us to identify his Kassite correspondent; for he adds, "and when the king of Egypt [formerly] attacked [Khatti], then did I write to inform thy father Kadashman-turgu." Khattusil was thus the contemporary of two Kassite kings, Kadashman-turgu and Kadashman-Enlil II., the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth rulers of the dynasty.

Another section of this letter is of considerable interest, as it shows that an attempt by Khattusil to intervene in Babylonian politics had been resented, and had led to a temporary estrangement between the two countries. Khattusil is at pains to reassure Kadashman-Enlil as to the unselfishness of his motives, explaining that the action he had taken had been dictated entirely by the Kassite king's own interests. The episode had occurred on the death of Kadashman-turgu, and, according to Khattusil's account, he had at once written to Babylon to say that, unless the succession of Kadashman-Enlil, who was then a boy, wasrecognized, he would break off the alliance he had concluded with the late king, Kadasman-Enlil's father. The Babylonian chief minister, Itti-Marduk-balâtu, had taken offence at the tone of the letter, and had replied that the Hittite king had not written in the tone of brotherhood, but had issued his commands as though the Babylonians were his vassals. As a result, diplomatic negotiations had been broken off during the young king's minority; but he had now attained his majority, and had taken the direction of affairs from his minister's hands into his own. The long communication from Khattusil must have been written shortly after the resumption of diplomatic intercourse.

After giving these explanations of his present relations with Egypt, and of his former discontinuance of negotiations with Babylon, Khattusil passes on to matters which doubtless had furnished the occasion for his letter. Certain Babylonian merchants, when journeying by caravan to Amurru and Ugarit, a town in Northern Phœnicia, had been murdered; and, as the responsibility lay on the Hittite empire in its character of suzerain, Kudashman-Enlil had apparently addressed to Khattusil the demand that the guilty parties should be handed over to the relatives of the murdered men. The reference is of interest, as it gives further proof of Babylon's commercial activities in the West, and shows how, after Egypt had lost her control of Northern Syria, the Kassite rulers addressed themselves to its new suzerain to secure protection for their caravans.

We have evidence that such diplomatic action was thoroughly effective, for not only had Babylon's language and system of writing penetrated Western Asia, but her respect for law and her legislative methods had accompanied them, at any rate within the Hittite area. The point is well illustrated by one of the last sections in this remarkable letter, which deals with a complaint by the Babylonian king concerning some action of the Amorite prince, Banti-shinni. The Amorite, when accused by Khattusil of having "troubled the land" of Kadashman-Enlil, had replied by advancing a counterclaim for thirty talents of silver against the inhabitants of Akkad. After stating this fact, Khattusilcontinues in his letter: "Now, since Banti-Shinni has become my vassal, let my brother prosecute the claim against him; and, concerning the troubling of my brother's land, he shall make his defence before the god[40]in the presence of thy ambassador, Adad-shar-ilâni. And if my brother will not conduct the action (himself), then shall thy servant come who has heard that Banti-Shinni harassed my brother's land, and he shall conduct the action. Then will I summon Banti-Shinni to answer the charge. He is (my) vassal. If he harasses my brother, does he not then harass me?"[41]

FIG. 56.ONE OF THE TWO SACRED BOATS OF KHONSU, THE EGYPTIAN MOON-GOD, WHO JOURNEYED INTO CAPPADOCIA TO CAST OUT A DEVIL FROM A HITTITE PRINCESS.A priest is offering incense before the shrine and sacred boat, which is being carried on the shoulders of other priests. In the accompanying inscription on the original stele, the god is referred to in his character as "Plan-Maker in Thebes" and "Smiter of Evil Spirits."(After Rosellini.)

FIG. 56.

ONE OF THE TWO SACRED BOATS OF KHONSU, THE EGYPTIAN MOON-GOD, WHO JOURNEYED INTO CAPPADOCIA TO CAST OUT A DEVIL FROM A HITTITE PRINCESS.

A priest is offering incense before the shrine and sacred boat, which is being carried on the shoulders of other priests. In the accompanying inscription on the original stele, the god is referred to in his character as "Plan-Maker in Thebes" and "Smiter of Evil Spirits."

(After Rosellini.)

It may be that Hittite diplomacy is here making use of the Babylonian respect for law, to find a way out of a difficult situation; but the mere proposal of such a trial as that suggested proves that the usual method of settling international disputes of a minor characterwas modelled on Babylon's internal legislative system. It is clear that the Hittite was anxious to prevent strained relations with Babylon, for he goes on to urge Kadashman-Enlil to attack a common enemy, whom he does not name. This must have been Assyria, whose growing power had become a menace to both states, and had caused them to draw together for mutual support.

FIG. 57.RAMESES II. OFFERING INCENSE TO ONE OF THE BOATS OF KHONSU BEFORE HE STARTED ON HIS JOURNEY.The sacred boat of Khonsu is here being borne by a larger retinue of priests into the presence of the king, who did not accompany the god on his journey.(After Rosellini.)

FIG. 57.

RAMESES II. OFFERING INCENSE TO ONE OF THE BOATS OF KHONSU BEFORE HE STARTED ON HIS JOURNEY.

The sacred boat of Khonsu is here being borne by a larger retinue of priests into the presence of the king, who did not accompany the god on his journey.

(After Rosellini.)

The account that has been given of this lengthy document will have indicated the character of the royal correspondence discovered at Boghaz Keui. In some respects it closely resembles that from Tell el-Amarna, but it exhibits a pleasing contrast by the complete absence of those whining petitions for gold and presents, which bulk so largely in the earlier documents. The Egyptian policy of doles and bribery had brought out the worst side of the Oriental character. The Hittite did not believe in doles, and in any case he had not them to give; as a consequence, his correspondence confines itself in great measure to matters of state and high policy, and exhibits far greater dignity and self-respect. And this applies equally, so far as we cansee, to the communications with Egypt, who had recovered from her temporary decadence. There can be little doubt that the royal Hittite letters, when published, will enable us to follow the political movements of the period in even greater detail.

One other act of Khattusil may be referred to, as it illustrates in the religious sphere the breaking down of international barriers which took place. A few years after the completion of his great treaty, Khattusil brought his daughter to Egypt, where she was married to Rameses with great pomp and circumstance. An intimate friendship continued to exist between the two royal families, and when Bentresh, his sister-in-law, fell ill in Khatti and was believed to be incurably possessed by a devil, Rameses hastened to send his physician to cure her.[42]But his efforts proving fruitless, the Pharaoh despatched the holy image of Khonsu, the Egyptian Moon-god, to Cappadocia, in order to cure her. The god duly arrived at the distant capital, and, while he wrought with the evil spirit, it is said that the Hittite king "stood with his soldiers and feared very greatly."[43]But Khonsu was victorious, and the spirit having departed in peace to the place whence he came, there was great rejoicing. The episode forms an interesting parallel to Ishtar's journey into Egypt in the reign of Amenhetep III.

There is no doubt that the son and grandson of Khattusil, Dudkhalia and Arnuanta, carried on their father's policy of friendliness towards Babylon, who had no reason politically to resent the intrusion of Egyptianinfluence at Khatti.[44]But Arnuanta is the last king of Khatti whose name has been recovered, and it is certain that in the following century the invasion of Anatolia by the Phrygians and the Muski put an end to Hittite power in Cappadocia. The Hittites were pressed southward through the passes, and they continued to wield a diminished political influence in Northern Syria. Meanwhile Assyria profited by their downfall and disappearance in the north. She had already expanded at the expense of Mitanni, and now that this second check upon her was removed, the balance of power ceased to be maintained in Western Asia. Babylon's history from this time forward is in great part moulded by her relations with the northern kingdom. Even at the time of the later Hittite kings she failed to maintain her frontier from Assyrian encroachment, and the capital itself was soon to fall. We are able to follow the course of these events in some detail, as, with the reign of Kara-indash I., the earliest of Amen-hetep III.'s correspondents,[45]our sources of information are increased by the so-called "Synchronistic History" of Assyria and Babylonia,[46]which furnishes a series of brief notices concerning the relations maintained between the two countries.

HITTITE HIËROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONAfter Hogarth, Carchemish, pl. B, 6.

HITTITE HIËROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTION

After Hogarth, Carchemish, pl. B, 6.

In the long period between Agum-kakrime[47]and Kara-indash, the names of three Kassite rulers only have recovered. From a kudurru,[48]or legal document, of the reign of Kadashman-Enlil I. we learn of two earlier Kassite kings, Kadashman-Kharbe and his son Kurigalzu,[49]and it is possible that a son of the latter,Meli-Shipak, succeeded his father on the throne.[50]We know nothing of Babylon's relations to Assyria at this time, and our first glimpse of their long struggle for supremacy is in the reign of Kara-indash, who is recorded to have made a friendly agreement with Ashur-rim-nishêshu with regard to their common boundary.[51]That such an agreement should have been drawn up is in itself evidence of friction, and it is not surprising that a generation or so later Burna-Buriash, the correspondent of Amen-hetep III., should have found it necessary to conclude a similar treaty with Puzur-Ashur, the contemporary Assyrian king.[52]We may regard these agreements as marking the beginning of the first phase in Babylon's subsequent dealings with Assyria, which closes with friendly agreements of a like character at the time of the Fourth Babylonian dynasty. During the intervening period of some three centuries friendly relations were constantly interrupted by armed conflicts, which generally resulted in a rectification of the frontier to Babylon's disadvantage. On only one occasion was she victorious in battle, and twice during the period the capital itself was taken. But Assyria was not yet strong enough to dominate the southern kingdom for any length of time, and at the close of the period Babylon may still be regarded as in occupation of a great part of her former territory, but with sorely diminished prestige.

To appreciate the motives which impelled Assyria from time to time to intervene in Babylonian politics, and to attempt spasmodically a southward expansion, it would be necessary to trace out her own history, and note the manner in which her ambition in other quarters reacted upon her policy in the south. As that would be out of place in the present volume, it will sufficehere to summarize events so far as Babylon was affected. The friendly attitude of Puzur-Ashur to Burna-Buriash was maintained by the more powerful Assyrian king Ashur-uballit, who cemented an alliance between the two countries by giving Burna-Buriash his daughter Muballitat-Sherûa in marriage. On the death of Burna-Buriash, his son Kara-indash II., who was Ashur-uballit's grandson, ascended the throne, and it was probably due to his Assyrian sympathies that the Kassite party in Babylon revolted, slew him and set Nazi-bugash in his place. Ashur-uballit invaded Babylonia, and having taken vengeance on Nazi-bugash, put Kurigalzu III., another son of Burna-Buriash, upon the throne.[53]But the young Kurigalzu did not fulfil the expectations of his Assyrian relatives, for after Ashur-uballit's death he took the initiative against Assyria,[54]and was defeated at Sugagi on the Zabzallat by Enlil-nirari, to whom he was obliged to cede territory. A further extension of Assyrian territory was secured by Adad-nirari I., when he defeated Kurigalzu's son and successor, Nazi-maruttash, at Kâr-Ishtar in the frontier district of Akarsallu.[55]We have already seen from the Boghaz Keui correspondence how the Hittite Empire and Babylon were drawn together at this time by dread of their common foe, doubtless in consequence of the aggressive policy of Shalmaneser I. We do not know whether Kadashman-Enlil II. followed the promptings of Khattusil, and it is not until the reign of Kashtiliash II.[56]that we have record of fresh conflicts. Then it was that Babylon suffered her first serious disaster at Assyrian hands. Up to this time we have seen that two Assyrian kings haddefeated Babylonian armies, and had exacted cessions of territory as the result of their victories. Tukulti-Ninib I. was only following in their steps when he in turn defeated Kashtiliash. But his achievement differed from theirs in degree, for he succeeded in capturing Babylon itself, deported the Babylonian king, and, instead of merely acquiring a fresh strip of territory, he subdued Karduniash[57]and administered it as a province of his kingdom till his death.[58]The revolts which closed Tukulti-Ninib's reign and life[59]were soon followed by Babylon's only successful campaign against Assyria.

Adad-shum-usur, who owed his throne to a revolt of the Kassite nobles against the Assyrian domination, restored the fortunes of his country for a time. He defeated and slew Enlil-kudur-usur in battle, and, when the Assyrians retreated, he followed them up and fought a battle before Ashur. This successful reassertion of Babylon's initiative was maintained by his direct descendants Meli-Shipak II. and Marduk-aplu-iddina, or Merodach-baladan I.; and the kudurru-records of their reigns, which have been recovered, have thrown an interesting light on the internal conditions of the country during the later Kassite period. But Assyria once again asserted herself under Ashur-dân I., who defeated Zamama-shum-iddin and succeeded in recovering her lost frontier provinces.[60]The Kassite dynasty did not long survive this defeat, although it received its death-blow from another quarter. Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, the Elamite king, invaded Babylonia, defeated and slew Zamama-shum-iddin, and, aided by son Kutir-Nakhkhunte, he sacked Sippar and carried away muchspoil to Elam. The name of the last Kassite ruler, who reigned for only three years, is broken in the Kings' List, but it is possible that we may restore it as Bêlnadin-akhi,[61]whom Nebuchadnezzar I. mentions after referring to the invasion which cost Zamama-shum-iddin his life. Whether we accept the identification or not, we may certainly connect the fall of the Kassite Dynasty with aggression on the part of Elam, such as so often before had changed the course of Babylonian politics.

Apart from the tablets of the Kassite period discovered at Nippur,[62]our principal source of information on economic conditions in Babylonia at this time is to be found in the kudurru-inscriptions, or boundary-stones, to which reference has already been made.[63]The wordkudurrumay be rendered accurately enough as "boundary-stone," for the texts are engraved on conical blocks or boulders of stone; and there is little doubt that many of the earlier stones must have been set up on landed estates, whose limits and ownership they were intended to define and commemorate. Even at a time when the stone itself had ceased to be employed to mark the boundary and was preserved in the owner's house, or in the temple of his god, as a charter or title-deed to which he could appeal in case of need, the text preserved its old formulas setting out the limits and orientation of the plot of land to which it referred.The importance of these records is considerable, not only in their legal and religious aspects, but also from a historical point of view. Apart from the references to Babylonian kings and to historical events, which they contain, they form in many cases the only documents of their period which have come down to us. They thus serve to bridge the gap in our knowledge of Euphratean civilization between the Kassite epoch and that of the Neo-Babylonian kings; and, while they illustrate the development which gradually took place in Babylonian law and custom, they prove the continuity of culture during times of great political change.[64]

The kudurru or boundary-stone had its origin under the Kassite kings, and, while at first recording, or confirming, a royal grant of land to an important official or servant of the king, its aim was undoubtedly to place the newly acquired rights of the owner under the protection of the gods. A series of curses, regularly appended to the legal record, was directed against any interference with the owner's rights, which were also placed under the protection of a number of deities whose symbols were engraved upon the blank spaces of the stone. It has been suggested that the idea of placing property under divine protection was not entirely an innovation of the Kassites. It is true that the foundation-cones of the early Sumerian patesi Entemena may well have ended with elaborate curses intended to preserve a frontier-ditch from violation.[65]But the cones themselves, and the stele from which they were copied, were intended to protect a national frontier, not the boundaries of private property. Gate-sockets, too, have been treated as closely related to boundary-stones, on the ground that the threshold of a temple might be regarded as its boundary.[66]But the main object of the gate-socket was to support the temple-gate, and its prominent position and the durable nature of its materialno doubt suggested its employment as a suitable place for a commemorative inscription. The peculiarity of the boundary-stone is that, by both curse and sculptured emblem, it invokes divine protection upon private property and the rights of private individuals.

In the age of Hammurabi we have no evidence of such a practice, and the Obelisk of Manishtusu,[67]the far earlier Semitic king of Akkad, which records his extensive purchases of land in Northern Babylonia, is without the protection of imprecatory clauses or symbols of the gods. The suggestion is thus extremely probable that the custom of protecting private property in this way arose at a time when the authority of the law was not sufficiently powerful to guarantee respect for the property of private individuals.[68]This would specially apply to grants of land to favoured officials settled among a hostile population, especially if no adequate payment for the property had been made by the Kassite king. The disorder and confusion which followed the fall of the First Dynasty must have been renewed during the Kassite conquest of the country, and the absence of any feeling of public security would account for the general adoption of such a practice as placing land in private possession under the protection of the gods.

The use of stone stelæ for this purpose may well have been suggested by a Kassite custom; for in the mountains of Western Persia, the recent home of the Kassite tribes before their conquest of the river-plain, stones had probably been used to mark the limits of their fields, and these may well have borne short inscriptions giving the owner's name and title.[69]The employment of curses to secure divine protection was undoubtedly of Babylonian, and ultimately of Sumerian origin, but the idea of placing symbols of the godsupon the stone was probably Kassite.[70]Moreover, the kudurru was not the original title-deed recording the acquisition of the land to which it refers. As in the earlier Babylonian periods, clay tablets continued to be employed for this purpose, and they received the impression of the royal seal as evidence of the king's sanction and authority. The text of the tablet, generally with the list of witnesses, was later on recopied by the engraver upon the stone, and the curses and symbols were added.[71]

A boundary-stone was sometimes employed to commemorate a confirmation of title, and, like many modern legal documents, it recited the previous history of the property during a long period extending over several reigns. But the majority of the stones recovered commemorate original grants of land made by the king to a relative, or to one of his adherents in return for some special service. Perhaps the finest of this class of charters is that in which Meli-Shipak makes a grant of certain property in Bît-Pir-Shadû-rabû, near the old city of Akkad or Agade and the Kassite town Dûr-Kurigalzu, to his son Merodach-baladan I., who afterwards succeeded him upon the throne.[72]After giving the size and situation of the estates, and the names of the high officials who had been entrusted with the duty of drawing up the survey, the text defines the privileges granted to Merodach-baladan along with the land. As some of these throw considerable light on the system of land tenure during the Kassite period, they may be briefly summarized.

KASSITE BOUNDARY STONES SET UP IN THE REIGNS OF MELI-SHIPAK AND NAZI-MARUTTASH.After Délég. en Perse, Mém. I, pl. XVI et XIV

The king, in conferring the ownership of the land upon his son, freed it from all taxes and tithes, and forbade the displacement of its ditches, limits, and boundaries.He freed it also from thecorvée,and enacted that none of the people of the estate were to be requisitioned among the gangs levied in its district for public works, for the prevention of flood, or for the repair of the royal canal, a section of which was maintained in working order by the neighbouring villages of Bît-Sikkamidu and Damiḳ-Adad. They were not liable to forced labour on the canal-sluices, nor for building dams, nor for digging out the canal-bed. No cultivator on the property, whether hired or belonging to the estate, was to be requisitioned by the local governor even under royal authority. No levy was to be made on wood, grass, straw, corn, or any sort of crop, on the carts and yokes, on asses or man-servants. No one was to use his son's irrigation-ditch, and no levy was to be made on his water-supply even during times of drought. No one was to mow his grass-land without his permission, and no beasts belonging to the king or governor, which might be assigned to the district, were to be driven over or pastured on the estate. And, finally, he was freed from all liability to build a road or a bridge for the public convenience, even though the king or the governor should give the order.

From these regulations it will be seen that the owner of land in Babylonia under the later Kassite kings, unless granted special exemption, was liable to furnish forced labour for public works both to the state and to his local district; he had to supply grazing and pasture for the flocks and herds of the king and the governor, and to pay various taxes and tithes on land, irrigation-water, and crops. We have already noted the prevalence of similar customs under the First Dynasty,[73]and it is clear that the successive conquests to which the country had been subjected, and its domination by a foreign race, had not to any appreciable extent affected the life and customs of the people nor even the general character of the administrative system.

On one subject the boundary-stones throw additional light, which is lacking at the period of the First Dynasty, and that is the old Babylonian system of land tenure. They suggest that the lands, which formedthe subject of royal grants during the Kassite period, were generally the property of the localbîtu,or tribe.[74]In certain cases the king actually purchased the land from thebîtuin whose district it was situated, and, when no consideration was given, we need merely assume that it was requisitioned by royal authority. The primitive system of tribal or collective proprietorship, which is attested by the Obelisk of Manishtusu,[75]undoubtedly survived into the Kassite period, when it co-existed with the system of private ownership, as it had doubtless done at the time of the West-Semitic kings. Thebîtumust often have occupied an extensive area, split up into separate districts or groups of villages. It had its own head, thebêl bîti,and its own body of local functionaries, who were quite distinct from the official and military servants of the state. In fact, agricultural life in Babylonia during the earlier periods must have presented many points of analogy to such examples of collective proprietorship as may be seen in the village communities of India at the present day. As the latter system has survived the political changes and revolutions of many centuries, so it is probable that the tribal proprietorship in Babylonia was slow to decay.

The principal factor in its disintegration was undoubtedly the policy, pursued by the West-Semitic and Kassite conquerors, of settling their own officers and more powerful adherents on estates throughout the country. Both these periods thus represent a time of transition, during which the older system of land tenure gradually gave way in face of the policy of private ownership, which for purely political reasons was so strongly encouraged by the crown. There can be no doubt that under the West-Semitic kings, at any rate from the time of Hammurabi onwards, the policy of confiscation was rarely resorted to. And even the earlier rulers of that dynasty, since they were of the same racial stock as a large proportion of their new subjects, would havebeen the more inclined to respect tribal institutions which may have found a parallel in their land of origin. The Kassites, on the other hand, had no such racial associations to restrain them, and it is significant that the kudurrus were now for the first time introduced, with their threatening emblems of divinity and their imprecatory clauses. At first employed to guard the rights of private ownership, often based on high-handed requisition by the king, they were afterwards retained for transfers of landed property by purchase. In the Neo-Babylonian period, when the boundary-stones recorded long series of purchases by means of which the larger landed estates were built up, the imprecations and symbols had become to a great extent conventional survivals.

But that period was still far distant, and the vicissitudes the country was to pass through were not conducive to security of tenure, whether the property were held under private or collective ownership. We have seen that Assyria, as early as the thirteenth century, had succeeded in capturing and sacking Babylon, and, according to one tradition, had ruled the city for seven years. She was shortly to renew her attempts to subjugate the southern kingdom; but it was Elam, Babylon's still older foe, that brought the long and undistinguished Kassite Dynasty to an end.

[1]Proof that the Aryans were horse-keepers may be seen in the numerous Iranian proper names which includeasva(aspa), "horse," as a component; see Justi, "Iran. Namenbuch," p. 486, and cf. Meyer, "Geschichte," I., ii., p. 579.

[2]It is on a text of that period that we find the first mention of the horse in antiquity; cf. Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 638 f., and King, "Journ. of Hellenic Studies," XXXIII., p. 359. A reference to one also occurs in a letter of the early Babylonian period (cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," IV., pl. 1), but, to judge from the writing, this is probably rather later than the time of Hammurabi. It is immediately after the Kassite period that we have evidence of the adoption of the horse as a divine symbol, doubtless that of a deity introduced by the Kassites; see Plate XXII., opposite p. 254.

[3]Some First Dynasty tablets record the issue of rations to certain Kassites, who were obviously employed as labourers, probably for getting in the harvest (cf. Ungnad, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," VI., No. 5. p. 22); and in a list of proper names of the same period (cf. "Cun. Texts," VI., pl. 23) a Kassite man, (awîl)ṣâbum Kashshû,bears the name Warad-Ibari, perhaps a Semitic rendering of an original Kassite name.

[4]Cf. Ingnad, "Vorderas. Schriftdenkmäler," VII., pl. 27, No. 64.

[5]See above, p. 195 f.

[6]Cf. Winckler, "Untersuchungen," p. 156, No. 6.

[7]Cf. "Chronicles," II., p. 22 f. For discussions of the manner in which we may reconcile the chronicler's account of the Kassite conquest of the Sea-Country with the known succession of the early Kassite kings of Babylon, seeop. cit.,I., pp. 101 ff., and cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Journal des Savants." Nouv. Sér., VI., No. 4, pp. 100 ff., and "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 170 ff. The established genealogy of Agum-kakrime renders it impossible to identify the Agum of the chronicle, who was a son of Kashtiliash the Kassite, with either of the Kassite kings of Babylon who bore that name. He can only have raided or ruled in the Sea-Country, probably at the time his eldest brother Ushshi (or perhaps his other brother, Abi-rattash) was king in Babylon.

[8]Agum-kakrime describes Kashtiliash asaplu,probably "the inheritor." notmâru,"the son," of Agum I. (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Journ. Asiat.," XI., 1908, p. 133 f.).

[9]See Weissbach, "Babylonische Miscellen," p. 7, pl. 1, No. 3.

[10]Cf. "Chronicles," II., p. 24.

[11]See above, p. 210. From his titles we gather that he ruled Padan, Alman, Gutium and Ashnunnak as subject provinces; cf. Jensen in Schrader's "Keilins. Bibl.," III., i., p. 130 f.

[12]That is, "The Glory of the Disk," in honour of his new cult. For detailed histories of the period, see Budge, "History of Egypt." Vol. V., pp. 90 ff.; Breasted, "History of Egypt," pp. 322 ff, and Hall, "Ancient History of the Near East," pp. 297 ff.

Back to Index Next