Chapter 18

TWO TABLETS OF BAKED CLAY INSCRIBED WITH DETAILS OF A SURVEY OF CERTAIN PROPERTY DURING THE REIGN OF BUR-SIN, KING OF UR. —Brit. Mus., Nos.18039and19030; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.

Whenever the king rebuilt or added to a temple we may assume that he inaugurated there a new centre of his cult, but it is certain that temples were also erected which were devoted entirely to his worship. Thus Dungi dated a year of his reign by the appointment of a high-priest of his own cult, an act which suggests that on his assumption of divine rank he founded a temple in his own honour. Moreover, under his successorshigh officials sought the royal favour by building and dedicating shrines to the reigning king. This is proved by a votive inscription of Lugal-magurri, the patesi of Ur and commander of the fortress, which records that he founded a temple in honour of Gimil-Sin, "his god." At the king's death his cult did not die with him, but he continued to be worshipped and offerings were made to him at the Feast of the New Moon. Tablets from Tello, dated during the later years of the Dynasty of Ur, record the making of such offerings to Dungi, and it is noteworthy that the patesis Ur-Lama and Gudea were also honoured in the same way. We have seen that Gudea was probably not deified in his own lifetime, but at this period he takes his place beside the god Dunpae in the rites of the New Moon. Offerings in his honour, accompanied by sacrifices, were repeated six times a year, and a special class of priests was attached to his service.[29]An interesting survival, or trace, of this practice occurs in an explanatory list of gods, drawn up for Ashur-bani-pal's Library at Nineveh, where Bûr-Sin's name is explained as that of an attendant deity in the service of the Moon-god.[30]

The later kings of Ur appear to have retained possession of the empire acquired by Dungi, but we may assume that, like him, they were constantly obliged to enforce their authority. Tablets have been found at Susa dated by the official formulæ of Bûr-Sin,[31]proving that the capital of Elam remained under his control, but, before he had been two years upon the throne, he was obliged to undertake the reconquest of Urbillu. Other successful expeditions were made in his sixth and seventh years, which resulted in the subjugation of Shashru and Khukhunuri, or Khukhnuri. The date-formulæ of Gimil-Sin's reign record that he conquered Simanu in his third year, and four years later the land of Zabshali, while the only conquest of Ibi-Sin of which we possess a record is that of Simuru. A date-formula of this period also commemorates the marriage of the patesi of Zabshali to Tukîn-khatti-migrisha, thedaughter of the king, but it is not certain to which reign this event should be assigned. Evidence of the extent of Gimil-Sin's authority in the direction of the Mediterranean may be seen in the date-formula for his fourth year, which commemorates his building of the Wall, or Fortification, of the West, entitled Murîk-Tidnim. Since Tidnu was explained by the Assyrian geographers as another name for Amurru[32]and may be connected with Tidanu, the mountain in Amurru from which Gudea obtained his marble,[33]we may infer that at least a portion of Syria acknowledged the suzerainty of Ur during his reign.

Of the comparatively long reign of Ibi-Sin, and of the events which preceded the downfall of the Dynasty of Ur, we know little, but already during the reigns of his predecessors it is possible to trace some of the causes which led to the decline of the city's power. The wealth obtained from the Elamite provinces and the large increase in the number of public slaves must have introduced an element of luxury into Sumerian life, which would tend to undermine the military qualities of the people and their inclination for foreign service. The incorporation of Sumer and Akkad into a single empire had broken down the last traces of political division between the great cities of the land, and, while it had put an end to local patriotism, it had not encouraged in its place the growth of any feeling of loyalty to the suzerain city. All the great provincial towns were doubtless required to furnish contingents for the numerous military campaigns of the period, and they could have had little satisfaction in seeing the fruits of their conquests diverted to the aggrandizement of a city other than their own. The assumption of divine rank by the later kings of Ur may in itself be regarded as a symptom of the spirit which governed their administration. In the case of Dungi the innovation had followed the sudden expansion of his empire, and its adoption had been based upon political as much as upon personal grounds. But with his descendants the practice had been carried to more extravagant lengths, and it undoubtedly affordedopportunities for royal favourities to obtain by flattery an undue influence in the state.

We have already seen that Lugal-magurri, who combined the civil office of patesi of Ur with the military appointment of commander of the fortress, founded a temple for the worship of Gimil-Sin, and it is clear that such an act would have opened an easier road to the royal favour than the successful prosecution of a campaign. It was probably by such methods that ministers at the court of Ur secured the enjoyment of a plurality of offices, which had previously been administered with far greater efficiency in separate hands. The most striking example is afforded by Arad-Nannar, whose name as that of a patesi of Lagash is frequently mentioned upon dated tablets from Tello. He was "sukkal-makh," or chief minister, under the last three kings of Ur, and appears to have succeeded his father Ur-Dunpae, who had held this post in Dungi's reign. From the Tello tablets we know that he also held the patesiate of Lagash during this period, for he received the appointment towards the end of Bûr-Sin's reign[34]and continued to hold it under Ibi-Sin. But the patesiate of Lagash was only one of many posts which he combined. For two gate-sockets have been found at Tello, which originally formed parts of a temple founded in Girsu by Arad-Nannar for the cult of Gimil-Sin, and in the inscriptions upon them he has left us a list of his appointments.[35]

In addition to holding the posts of chief minister and patesi of Lagash, he was also priest of Enki, governor of Uzargarshana, governor of Babishue, patesi of Sabu and of the land of Gutebu, governor of Timat-Enlil, patesi of Al-Gimil-Sin,[36]governor of Urbillu, patesi of Khamasi and of Gankhar, governor of Ikhi, and governor of the Su-people and of the land of Kardaka. At some time during the reign of Gimil-Sin Arad-Nannar thus combined in his own person twelveimportant appointments, involving the administration of no less than thirteen separate cities and provinces. The position of some of the places enumerated is still uncertain, but it is clear that several were widely separated from one another. While Lagash, for instance, lay in the south of Sumer, Sabu was in Elam and Urbillu and Gankhar more to the north in the region of the Zagros mountains.

This centralization of authority under the later kings of Ur undoubtedly destroyed the power attaching to the patesiate at a time when the separate cities of the land had enjoyed a practical autonomy; and it incidentally explains the survival of the title, under the First Dynasty of Babylon, as that of a comparatively subordinate class of officials. But the policy of centralization must have had a more immediate effect on the general administration of the empire. For it undoubtedly lessened the responsibilities of local governors, and it placed the central authority, which the king himself had previously enjoyed, in the hands of a few officials of the court. The king's deification undoubtedly tended to encourage his withdrawal from the active control of affairs, and, so long as his divine rites were duly celebrated, he was probably content to accept without question the reports his courtiers presented to him. Such a system of government was bound to end in national disaster, and it is not surprising that the dynasty was brought to an end within forty-one years of Dungi's death. We may postpone until the next chapter an account of the manner in which the hegemony in Babylonia passed from the city of Ur to Isin.

[1]See Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets," p. 46 f.

[2]See Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 186 ff.

[3]The rebuilding of the wall of Ur was also commemorated in the date-formula for one of the early years of his reign.

[4]See the plate opposite p.246.

[5]See King, "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings," Vol. I., pp. 60 ff.; Vol. II., p. 11.

[6]The same characteristics were probably presented by the votive texts of local patesis, who were contemporary with the kings of Sumer and Akkad. Thus Khaladda, patesi of Shuruppak, and the son of Dada who was patesi before him, records in Sumerian his building of the great door of the god or goddess of that city; see his cone-inscription found at Fâra and published in the "Mitteil. der Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft," No. 16, 1902-3, p. 13. On the other hand, Semitic influence is visible in the inscription of Itûr-Shamash a high official (rabiânu), who built at Kisurra and on an inscribed brick found at Abû Hatab styles himself the son of Idin-ilu, patesi of Kisurra (op. cit., No. 15, 1902, p. 13).

[7]See Huber, "Die Personennamen ... aus der Zeit der Könige von Ur und Nisin," and Langdon, "Zeits. der Deutsch. Morgenländ. Gesellschaft," Bd. LXII., p. 399.

[8]Or better, "Kilulla, the guzalû"; cf. "Königsinschriften," p. 194 f.

[9]See the plate opposite p.246.

[10]In spite of the use of Sumerian for their inscriptions and the continuance of the traditions of Ur, Meyer suggests that the Dynasty of Isin may have been of Amorite origin (cf. "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 501 f.). But the presence of the name of the god Dagan in two of the royal names is scarcely sufficient to justify this view, especially as the suggested Amorite invasion in Libit-Ishtar's reign has been to all intents and purposes disproved; see below, p.315f.

[11]See Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus," 1902, pp. 77 ff., "Rev. d'Assyr.," Vol. V., pp. 67 ff., and "Königsinschriften," pp. 229 ff.

[12]Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1898, col. 169, n. 2, and "Comptes rendus," 1902, p. 85.

[13]It may perhaps be connected with Khurshitu (cf. Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 498 f.), the site of which is indicated by the brick from the palace of Pukhia, King of Khurshitu, which was found at Tuz-Khurmati on the river Adhem (cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XVI., p. 186; XIX., p. 61). Pukhia was probably contemporary with the earliest rulers of Ashur.

[14]See below, Chap. XII., p.338.

[15]The name has also been read as Karibu-sha-Shushinak. He does not appear to have inherited his patesiate, for in his inscriptions he assigns no title to his father Shimbi-ishkhuk.

[16]See Thureau-Dangin, "Comptes rendus," 1902, p. 88 f.

[17]See Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," III., p. 20 f.

[18]Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," Vol. XXII., p. 153. Khunnini, patesi of Kimash and governor of Madka, whose seal in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg is published by Sayce ("Zeits. für Assyr.," VI., p. 161), is probably also to be set in this period. Madka is to be identified with Madga, whence Gudea obtained bitumen; see above, p.261f.

[19]See the plate opposite p.292.

[20]Cf. Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," III., p. 66.

[21]The reading of the last syllable of the name is uncertain.

[22]Brit. Mus. No 91,005; cf. "Guide," p. 193 f.

[23]Cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., p. 62 f.

[24]See Heuzey, "Rev. d'Assyr.," IV., p. 90.

[25]Cf. "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 21, Fig. 4.

[26]Gimil-Sin possibly reigned for nine years; see Kugler, "Sternkunde," II., p. 151 f. Another son of Bûr-Sin was Ur-Bau, whose name occurs on a seal-impression from Tello (cf. Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., p. 49).

[27]Devotion to the Moon-god is also expressed by their names and that of Ibi-Sin.

[28]Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., pp. 185 ff.

[29]See Scheil, "Rec. de trav.," XVIII., pp. 64 ff.

[30]See "Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum," Pt. XXV., p. 7.

[31]Cf. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," IV., p. 73 f.

[32]Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Rec. de trav.," XIX., p. 185.

[33]See above, p.261.

[34]One other patesi, the reading of whose name is uncertain, appears to have separated Arad-Nannar from Ur-Lama II.

[35]See Thureau-Dangin, "Rev. d'Assyr.," V., pp. 99 ff.; VI., p. 67 f.; and "Königsinschriften," pp. 148 ff.; cf. also "Comptes rendus," 1902, pp. 91 ff.

[36]"The City of Gimil-Sin,"i.e., a town named after the reigning king and probably founded by him.

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 ofAshur-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 hundredand 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 theDynasty 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 ofsukkalof Elam, of Simash, and of Susa. It has been suggested that the title ofsukkallumay 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 themselvessukkallu, 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 inscriptionof 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 ofsukkallu, 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 ofEbarti's dynasty owed allegiance to Babylon, and it is a legitimate assumption that the earlier rulers, who also bore the title ofsukkallu, 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 Assyrianomen-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]

BRICKS OF BUR-SIN, KING OF UR, AND ISHME-DAGAN, KING OF ISIN.—From Mukayyar; Brit. Mus., Nos.90056and90178; photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.

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 aninscription 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 ofSumer 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-banisucceeded 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 kingdomof 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.

Back to Index Next