Chapter 19

SPECIMENS OF BABYLONIAN CLAY CONES BEARING VOTIVE INSCRIPTIONS OF GUDEA, PATESI OF SHIRPURLA, OF NUR-ADAD, KING OF LARSA, OF ENANNATUM, AN OFFICIAL IN UR DURING THE REIGN OF GUNGUNU, AND OF UR-ENGUR, KING OF UR.—Brit. Mus., Nos.30089, 30070, 30062,and30090;photo, by Messrs. Mansell & Co.

The principal fact upon which those who accept the theory rely is that a capture of the city of Isin is commemorated in the formula for the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, the fifth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon and the father of Hammurabi.[31]Now a capture of the city of Isin by Rîm-Sin, King of Larsa, is also recorded in formulas upon contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, and that considerable importance was attached locally to this event is attested by the fact that it formed an epoch for dating tablets in that district.[32]The theory necessitates two assumptions, the first to the effect that the date-formulæ of Rîm-Sin and Sin-muballit refer to the same capture of the city; and, secondly, that this event brought the Dynasty of Isin to an end. Granting these hypotheses, the twenty-third year of Damik-ilishu would have coincided withthe seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, and the dynasties of Isin and of Babylon would have overlapped for a period of about ninety-nine years. Thus Sumu-abu, the founder of the first Babylonian dynasty, would have been the contemporary of Bûr-Sin II., king of Isin, in the sixth year of whose reign he would have ascended the throne of Babylon. By the acceptance of the theory, not only would the relations of the two dynasties be definitely fixed, but the chronology for the later periods of Sumerian history would be put on a comparatively settled basis, as far back at least as the age of Ur-Engur and Gudea.

Additional grounds in support of the theory have been deduced from a tablet in the British Museum, which is dated in "the year in which the Amurru drove out Libit-Ishtar."[33]We have already seen, from information supplied by the Nippur dynastic list, that with Libit-Ishtar, the fifth king of the Dynasty of Isin, the family of Ishbi-Ura, its founder, came to an end, and that with Ur-Ninib a new family was established on the throne. By identifying Libit-Ishtar, the king, with the personage mentioned in the date-formula, it would follow that he lost his throne in consequence of an invasion of the Amurru, or Western Semites, who drove him from the city. But presumably they were at once dislodged by Ur-Ninib, who retook the city and established his own family upon the throne. According to this view, the supposed invasion was but an advance wave of the racial movement that was eventually to overwhelm the whole of Babylonia. Some thirty-three years later, in the reign of Bûr-Sin, Ur-Ninib's son, the Western Semites are represented as again invading the country, and, although this time they do not penetrate to Isin, they succeed in establishing a dynasty of their own at Babylon.

But there are difficulties in the way of accepting this further development of the original theory. In the first place, it will have been noticed that no title follows the name of Libit-Ishtar in the date-formulaalready cited, and there is no particular reason why this not uncommon name should be identified with the king of Isin. It has further been pointed out that another tablet in the British Museum,[34]of about the same period, contains a reference to a Libit-Ishtar who was certainly not the king of Isin, but appears to have occupied the important post of governor of a provincial city, probably Sippar.[35]The writer of this tablet recounts how he had been imprisoned and had appealed to Libit-Ishtar to try his case and set him free; but he was met with a refusal, and he afterwards made a similar appeal to Amananu, to whom he ascribes the title of governor. In this passage Libit-Ishtar has no title, but since appeals in legal cases could be referred to him, he may very probably have held the same office as Amananu, that of governor of the city. In certain contract-tablets of Apil-Sin's reign a Libit-Ishtar is also mentioned in the place of honour at the head of the lists of witnesses, and he too should probably be identified with the same official. We may therefore conclude that the Libit-Ishtar in the date-formula served as the local governor of Sippar in the time of Apil-Sin, until he was driven out by the Amurru. Whether the Amurru are here to be regarded as the inhabitants of a neighbouring town,[36]or as a fresh wave of Western Semites, does not affect the point at issue. Since the Libit-Ishtar who was driven out was not the king of Isin, the arguments deduced from the tablet for the overlapping of the dynasties of Isin and of Babylon no longer apply.

There only remain to be discussed the original grounds for the suggestion that Damik-ilishu was Sin-muballit's contemporary, and that the fall of the Dynasty of Isin is to be set in the seventeenth year of the latter's reign. According to this view the conqueror of Isin would have been Rîm-Sin, assisted by his vassal, Sin-muballit. But a recent discovery has shown that Rîm-Sin can hardly have been a contemporary of Sin-muballit, or, at any rate, old enough in theseventeenth year of the latter's reign to have captured the city of Isin. From the chronicle concerning early Babylonian kings we already knew that he was not finally defeated in Hammurabi's thirty-first year, but lived on into the reign of Samsu-iluna, by whom he was apparently defeated or slain.[37]It is true that the passage is broken, and it has been suggested that the record concerns the son of Rîm-Sin, and not Rîm-Sin himself.[38]But it has now been pointed out that two of the contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, which appear to record the same act of sale, and are inscribed with the names of the same witnesses, are dated, the one by Rîm-Sin, the other in Samsu-iluna's tenth year.[39]However we may explain the existence of these two nearly identical copies of the same document, their dates certainly imply that Rîm-Sin was in possession of a portion of Babylonia at least as late as the ninth year of Samsu-iluna's reign.[40]If, therefore, he captured Isin in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, Samsu-iluna's grandfather, we must suppose that his military activity in Babylonia extended over a period of at least fifty-six years, and probably longer. Such an achievement is within the bounds of possibility, but it cannot be regarded as probable.

But, quite apart from this objection, there are small grounds for the belief that Sin-muballit was Rîm-Sin's vassal, or that they could have taken part in any united action at this period. In fact, every indication we have points to the conclusion that it was from a king of Larsa that Sin-muballit captured Isin in the seventeenth year of his reign.[41]Three years previously the date-formula for his fourteenth year commemorated his defeat of the army of Ur, and there are goodgrounds for believing that Ur was acting at this time with the army of the king of Larsa. For certain tablets are dated in the year in which Sin-muballit defeated the army of Larsa, and we may with some confidence regard this as a variant formula for the fourteenth year.[42]Thus, three years after his defeat of the king of Larsa, Sin-muballit followed up his success by capturing the city of Isin, which he commemorated in the formula for the seventeenth year. But he cannot have held it for long, for it must have been shortly retaken by Larsa, before being again recaptured in Hammurabi's seventh year.[43]Thus, in less than eleven years, from the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit to the seventh year of Hammurabi, the city of Isin changed hands three times. We may therefore conclude that the date-formula for Sin-muballit's seventeenth year, and those found upon the Tell Sifr tablets,[44]did not commemorate the fall of the Dynasty of Isin in Damik-ilishu's reign, but were based upon two episodes in the struggle for that city, which took place at a later date, between the kings of Larsa and of Babylon.

In view of the importance of the question, we have treated in some detail the evidence that has been adduced in favour of the theory, that the later kings of Isin were contemporaneous with the earlier rulers of Babylon. It will have been seen that the difficulties involved by the suggested synchronism between Damik-ilishu and Sin-muballit are too grave to admit of its acceptance, while they entirely disappear on referring the disputed date-formulæ to their natural place in thestruggle between Babylon and Larsa. This does not preclude the possibility that the dynasties may have overlapped for a shorter period than ninety-nine years. But in view of the total absence of any information on the point, it is preferable to retain the view that the Babylonian monarchy was not established before the close of the Dynasty of Isin.[45]Whatever troubles may have befallen Isin after Ur-Ninib's family had ceased to reign, there is no doubt that under her last two kings the city's influence was re-established, and that she exercised control over Babylon itself. In the course of the German excavations, a clay cone has been found in the temple E-patutila at Babylon, bearing a votive inscription of Sin-magir, the fifteenth king of Isin; and this was evidently dedicated by him as a votive offering in his character of suzerain of the city.[46]Moreover, in this text he lays claim to the rule of Sumer and Akkad. Akkad, as well as Sumer, was also held by his son Damik-ilishu, who succeeded him upon the throne. For a tablet has been found at Abû Habba, dated in the year in which Damik-ilishu built the wall of Isin,[47]and the date upon a tablet from Nippur commemorates his building of the temple of Shamash, named E-ditar-kalama, which was probably in Babylon.[48]Thus both Sippar and Babylon were subject to the city of Isin under the last of her rulers, who, like his father before him, maintained an effective hold upon the kingdom of Sumer and Akkad.

With the rise of Babylon we reach the beginning of a new epoch in the history of the two countries. The seat of power now passes finally to the north, and, through the long course of her troubled history,the city of Babylon was never dislodged from her position as the capital. Foreign invasions might result in the fall of dynasties, and her kings might be drawn from other cities and lands, but Babylon continued to be the centre of their rule. Moreover, after the fresh wave of immigration which resulted in the establishment of her First Dynasty, the racial character of Babylonia became dominantly Semitic. Before the new invaders the Sumerians tended to withdraw southwards into the coastal districts of the Persian Gulf, and from here, for a time, an independent dynasty, largely of Sumerian origin, attempted to contest with Babylon her supremacy. But with the fall of Isin the political career of the Sumerians as a race may be regarded as closed. Their cultural influence, however, long survived them. In the spheres of art, literature, religion, and law they left behind them a legacy, which was destined to mould the civilization of the later inhabitants of the country, and through them to exert an influence on other and more distant races.

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

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

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

[4]See above, p.289.

[5]See above, p.291.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[30]See above,p. 62.

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

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

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

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

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

[36]So Meissner,loc. cit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the preceding pages we have followed the history of the Sumerian race from the period of its earliest settlement in Babylonia until the time when its political power was drawing to a close. The gradual growth of the state has been described, from the first rude settlements around a series of ancient cult-centres, through the phase of highly developed but still independent city-states, to a united kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, based on ideals inherited from the Semitic North. We have traced the inter-relations of North and South, of Sumerians and Semites, and have watched their varying fortunes in the racial conflict which bulks so largely in the history of the two countries. Points have also been noted at which contact with other lands can be historically proved, and it has thus been found possible to estimate the limits of the kingdoms which were established in Sumer or Akkad during the later periods. Of foreign lands which came into direct relationship with Babylonia, Elam plays by far the most conspicuous part. In the time of the city-states she invades the land of Sumer, and later on is in her turn conquered by Akkadian and Sumerian kings. The question naturally arises, how far this close political contact affected the cultural development of the two countries, and suggests the further query as to what extent their civilizations were of common origin.

Another region which figures in the list of conquered countries is Amurru, or the "Western Land," and an attempt must be made to trace the paths ofBabylonian influence beyond the limits of Syria, and to ascertain its effects within the area of Aegean culture. The later trade routes were doubtless already in existence, and archaeological research can often detect evidence of cultural connection, at a time when there is no question of any political contact. Moreover, in spite of the absence of Neolithic settlements in Babylonia, and the comparatively advanced state of culture which characterizes the earliest of Sumerian sites, it is possible that contact with other and distant races had already taken place in prehistoric times. One of the most fascinating problems connected with the early history of Sumer concerns the relationship which her culture bore to that of Egypt. On this point recent excavations have thrown considerable light; and, as the suggested connection, whether direct or indirect, must admittedly have taken place in a remote age, it will be well to attack this problem before discussing the relationship of Sumer to the other great centres of ancient civilization.

Although no direct contact between Babylonia and Egypt has been proved during the earlier historical periods, the opinion has been very generally held that the Egyptian civilization was largely influenced in its first stages by that of Babylonia. The use of the stone cylinder-seal by the Egyptians certainly furnished a very cogent argument in favour of the view that some early cultural connection must have taken place; and, as the cylinder-seal was peculiarly characteristic of Babylonia during all periods, whereas its use was gradually discontinued in Egypt, the inference seemed obvious that it was an original product of Babylonia, whence it had reached Egypt in late predynastic or early dynastic times. This view appeared to find support in other points of resemblance which were noted between the early art and culture of the two countries. Mace-heads of bulbous or "egg-shaped" form were employed by the early inhabitants of both lands. The Egyptian slate carvings of the First Dynasty were compared with the early bas-reliefs and engraved seals of the Sumerians, and resemblances were pointed out both in subject-matter and in the symmetrical arrangement of the designs. The employmentof brick, in place of stone, as a building material, was regarded as due to Babylonian influence; and the crenelated walls of Early Egyptian buildings, the existence of which was proved not only by pictured representations on the slate carvings, but also by the remains of actual buildings such as the mastaba-tomb of King Aha at Nakâda, and the ancient fortress of Abydos, known as the Shunet ez-Zebîb, were treated as borrowed from Sumerian originals. That irrigation was practised on the banks of the Nile as well as in the Euphrates valley, and that wheat was grown in both countries, were cited as additional proofs that Babylonia must have exercised a marked influence on Egyptian culture during the early stages of its development.

In order to explain such resemblances between the early cultures of Sumer and Egypt, it was necessary to seek some channel by which the influence of the former country could have reached the valley of the Nile; and a solution of the problem was found in the theory of a Semitic invasion of Upper Egypt towards the end of the predynastic period. That a Semitic element existed in the composition of the ancient Egyptian language is established beyond dispute; and this fact was combined with the Egyptian legends of their origin on the Red Sea coast, and with the situation of the predynastic and early dynastic cemeteries in Upper Egypt, in support of the theory that Semitic tribes, already imbued with Sumerian culture, had reached the Nile from the shore of the Red Sea by way of the Wâdi Hammamât. According to this view the Neolithic and predynastic population of Egypt was of a different race to the early dynastic Egyptians. The former were regarded as indigenous to the country, speaking a language possibly akin to the Berber dialects of North Africa. With little or no knowledge of metal, they were pictured as offering a stubborn but unsuccessful resistance to their Semitic conquerors. The latter were assumed to have brought with them a copper age culture, ultimately derived from the Sumerians of Babylonia. Crossing from southern Arabia by the Straits of Bab el-Mandeb, and making their way northward along the western shore of the Red Sea, they would have reached the Nile in theneighbourhood of Koptos. Here they would have formed their first settlements, and, after subduing the older inhabitants of Upper Egypt, they would have pushed their way northwards along the valley of the Nile.[1]

There is no doubt that the union of Upper and Lower Egypt into a single monarchy, traditionally ascribed to Mena, the legendary founder of the first Egyptian dynasty, did result from a conquest of the North by the South. Mena himself was regarded as sprung from a line of local rulers established at This, or Thinis, in the neighbourhood of Abydos, and also as the founder of Memphis at the head of the Delta, whither he transferred his throne. Further traces of the conquest of the North by the South have been preserved in the legends concerning the followers of Horus, the patron deity of the first kings of Upper Egypt. The advance of the Sky-god of Edfu with his Mesniu or "Smiths,"[2]who are related to have won battle after battle as they pressed northwards, is amply confirmed by the early dynastic monuments that have been recovered by excavation. The slate carving of Narmer, on which is portrayed the victory of Horus over the kingdom of the Harpoon near the Canopic branch of the Nile, may well represent one of the last decisive victories of the Horus-worshippers, as they extended their authority northwards to the sea.[3]Of the historicalcharacter of this conquest of Lower Egypt by the kings of the South, which resulted in the union of the whole country under a single monarchy, there are now no two opinions. The point, about which some uncertainty still exists, concerns the racial character of the conquerors and the origin of their higher culture, by virtue of which their victories were obtained.

On the hypothesis of a Semitic invasion, the higher elements in the early culture of Egypt are, as we have seen, to be traced to a non-Egyptian source. The Semitic immigrants are assumed to have introduced, not only the use of metal, but also a knowledge of letters. The Sumerian system of writing has been regarded as the parent of the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters; and comparisons have been made between the names of Sumerian and Egyptian gods.[4]The suggestion has also been put forward that the fashion of extended burial, which in Egypt gradually displaced the contracted position of the corpse, was also to be traced to Babylonian influence.

It must be admitted that, until quite recently, this view furnished a very plausible explanation of the various points of resemblance noted between the civilizations of the two countries. Moreover, the evidence obtained by excavation on early sites certainly appeared to show a distinct break between the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt. To account for what seemed so sudden a change in the character of Egyptian civilization, the theory of a foreign invasion seemed almost inevitable. But the publication of the results of Dr. Reisner's excavations at Naga-ed-Dêr and other early cemeteries in Upper Egypt,[5]has rendered itnecessary to revise the theory; while the still more recent diggings of M. Naville at Abydos prove that the changes, in certain districts, were even more gradual than had been supposed.

Put briefly, Dr. Reisner's conclusion is that there was no sudden break of continuity between the Neolithic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt. His extensive and laborious comparison of the predynastic burials with those of the First and Second Dynasties, has shown that no essential change took place in the Egyptian conception of the life after death, or in the rites and practices which accompanied the interment of the body. In early dynastic as in Neolithic times the body of the dead man was placed in a contracted position on its left side and with the head to the south, and the grave was still furnished with food, arms, tools, and ornaments. Moreover, the changes observable in the construction of the grave itself, and in the character of the objects within it, were not due to the sudden influence of any alien race, but may well have been the result of a gradual process of improvement in the technical skill of the Egyptians themselves.

The three most striking points of difference beween the products of the predynastic and dynastic periods centre round the character of the pottery and vessels for household use, the material employed for tools and weapons, and the invention of writing. It would now appear that the various changes were all gradually introduced, and one period fades into another without any strongly marked line of division between them. A knowledge of copper has always been credited to the later predynastic Egyptians, and it is now possible to trace the gradual steps by which the invention of a practical method of working it was attained. Copper ornaments and objects found in graves earlier than the middle predynastic period are small and of little practical utility, as compared with the beautifully flaked flint knives, daggers, and lances, which still retained the importance they enjoyed in purely Neolithic times. At a rather later stage in the predynastic period copper dagger-blades and adzes were produced in imitation of flint and stone forms, and these mark the transition tothe heavy weapons and tools of copper, which in the early dynastic period largely ousted flint and stone implements for practical use.

The gradual attainment of skill in the working of copper ore on the part of the early Egyptians had a marked effect on the whole status of their culture. Their improved weapons enabled them by conquest to draw their raw materials from a far more extended area; and the adaptation of copper tools for quarrying blocks of stone undoubtedly led to its increased employment as a stronger and more permanent substitute for clay. The use of the copper chisel also explains the elaborate carvings upon the early dynastic slates, and the invention of the stone borer brought about the gradual displacement of pottery in favour of stone vessels for household purposes. Thus, while metal-casting and stone-working improved, they did so at the expense of the older arts of flint-knapping and the manufacture of pottery by hand, both of which tended to degenerate and die out. Dr. Reisner had already inferred that for ceremonial purposes, as distinct from the needs of everyday life, both flint implements and certain earlier types of pottery continued to be employed. And M. Naville's diggings at Abydos, during the season of 1909-10, seem to prove that the process was even slower and less uniform than had been thought possible. In fact, according to the excavators, it would appear that in certain districts in Egypt a modified form of the predynastic culture, using the characteristic red and black pottery, survived as late as the Sixth Dynasty; while it is known that in Nubia a type of pottery, closely akin to the same prehistoric ware, continued in use as late as the Eighteenth Dynasty.[6]However such survivals are to be explained, the beginning of the dynastic period in Egypt does not appear to present a break in either racial or cultural continuity. Indeed, a precisely parallel development may be traced between the early dynastic period, and that represented by the Third and Fourth Dynasties, when there is no question of any such break. As the stone vessels of thefirst two dynasties had proved themselves superior to hand-made pottery for practical purposes, so they in turn were displaced by wheel-made pottery.[7]These changes may be traced to gradual improvements in manufacture; arts such as mat-weaving and bead-making, which were unaffected by the new inventions, continued to be practised without change in the early dynastic as in the predynastic periods.

Recent archaeological research thus leaves small room for the theory that Egyptian culture was subjected to any strong foreign influence in early dynastic times, and its conclusions on this point are confirmed by anatomical evidence. The systematic measurement and comparison of skulls from predynastic and dynastic burials, which have been conducted by Dr. Elliot Smith of the Khedivial School of Medicine in collaboration with the Hearst Expedition, has demonstrated the lineal descent of the dynastic from the predynastic Egyptians. The two groups to all intents and purposes represent the same people, and in the later period there is no trace of any new racial element, or of the admixture of any foreign strain. Thus the theory of an invasion of Egypt by Semitic tribes towards the close of the predynastic period must be given up, and, although this does not in itself negative the possibility of Sumerian influence having reached Egypt through channels of commercial intercourse, it necessitates a more careful scrutiny of the different points of resemblance between the cultures of the two countries on which the original theory was founded.

One of the subjects on which the extreme upholders of the theory have insisted concerns the invention of the Egyptian system of writing, which is alleged by them to have been borrowed from Babylonia. But it must be noted that those signs which correspond to one another in the two systems are such as would naturally be identical in any two systems of pictorial writing, developed independently but under similar conditions. The sun all the world over would be represented by a circle, a mountain by a rough outline of a mountain peak, an ox by a horned head, and so on. To proveany connection between the two systems a resemblance should be established between the more conventionalized signs, and here the comparison breaks down completely. It should further be noted that the Egyptian system has reached us in a far more primitive state than that of Babylonia. While the hieroglyphic signs are actual pictures of the objects represented, even the earliest line-characters of Sumer are so conventionalized that their original form would scarcely have been recognized, had not their meaning been already known. In fact, no example of Sumerian writing has yet been recovered which could have furnished a pattern for the Egyptian scribe.

Moreover, the appearance of writing in Egypt was not so sudden an event as it is often represented. The buff-coloured pottery of predynastic times, with its red line decoration, proves that the Eygptian had a natural faculty for drawing men, animals, plants, boats and conventional designs. In these picture-drawings of the predynastic period we may see the basis of the hieroglyphic system of writing, for in them the use of symbolism is already developed. The employment of fetish emblems, or symbols, to represent the different gods,[8]is in itself a rough form of ideographic expression, and, if developed along its own lines, would naturally lead to the invention of a regular ideographic form of writing. There is little doubt that this process is what actually took place. The first impetus may have been given by the necessity for marks of private ownership, and by the need for conveying authority from the chief to his subordinates at a distance. Symbols for the names of rulers and of places would thus soon be added to those for the gods, and when a need was felt to commemorate some victory or great achievement of the king, such symbols would naturally be used in combination. This process may be traced on the earlier monuments of the First Dynasty, the records on which are still practically ideographic in character. A verysimilar process doubtless led to the invention of the cuneiform system, and there is no need to assume that either Egypt or Babylonia was indebted to the other country for her knowledge of writing.

We obtain a very similar result in the case of other points of resemblance which have been cited to prove a close connection between the early cultures of the two countries. Considerable stress has been laid on a certain similarity, which the Egyptian slate carvings of the dynastic period bear to examples of early Sumerian sculpture and engraving. It is true that composite creatures are characteristic of the art of both countries, and that their arrangement on the stone is often "heraldic" and symmetrical. But the human-headed bull, the favourite monster of Sumerian art, is never found upon the Egyptian monuments, on which not only the natural beasts but also the composite creatures are invariably of an Egyptian or African character. The general resemblance in style has also been exaggerated. To take a single instance, a comparison has frequently been made between the Stele of the Vultures and the broken slate carving in the British Museum, No. 20791.[9]On the former vultures are depicted carrying off the limbs of the slain, and on the latter captives are represented as cast out into the desert to be devoured by birds and beasts of prey. But the style of the two monuments is very different, and the Egyptian is far more varied in character. In addition to a single vulture, we see a number of ravens, a hawk, an eagle, and a lion, all attracted by the dead; and the arrangement of the composition and the techniqueitself are quite unlike Sumerian work. There is also no need to trace the symmetrical arrangement of other of the Egyptian compositions to Babylonian influence, for, given an oval plaque to decorate while leaving a circular space in the centre, a symmetrical arrangement would naturally arise.[10]

Another Egyptian characteristic, also ascribed to Babylonian influence, is the custom of extended burial with mummification, which only begins to be met with during the Third and Fourth Dynasties. Since the dead are portrayed on the Stele of the Vultures as arranged in the extended position beneath the burial-mound,[11]it was formerly assumed that this was the regular Sumerian practice; and the contracted forms of burial, which had been found at Warka, Mukayyar, Surghul, Niffer and other Babylonian sites, were usually assigned to very late periods. The excavations at Fâra and Abû Hatab have corrected this assumption, and have proved that the Sumerian corpse was regularly arranged for burial in the contracted position, lying on its side.[12]The apparent exception to this rule upon the Stele of the Vultures may probably be regarded as characteristic only of burial upon the field of battle. There it must often have been impossible to furnish each corpse with a grave to itself, or to procure the regular offerings and furniture which accompanied individual interment. The bodies were therefore arranged side by side in a common grave, and covered with a tumulus of earth to ensure their entrance into the under world. But this was clearly a makeshift form of burial, necessitated by exceptional circumstances, and was not the regular Sumerian practice of the period.[13]Whatever may have given rise to theEgyptian change in burial customs, the cause is not to be sought in Babylonian influence.

A further point, which has been cleared up by recent excavation on early Babylonian sites, concerns the crenelated form of building, which was formerly regarded as peculiarly characteristic of Sumerian architecture of the early period and as having influenced that of Egypt. It is now known that this form of external decoration is not met with in Babylonia before the period of Gudea and the kings of Ur. Thus, if any borrowing took place, it must have been on the Babylonian side. The employment of brick as a building material may also have been evolved in Egypt without any prompting from Babylonia, for the forms of brick employed are quite distinct in both countries. The peculiar plano-convex brick, which is characteristic of early Sumerian buildings, is never found in Egypt, where the rectangular oblong form was employed from the earliest period.[14]Thus many points of resemblance, which were formerly regarded as indicating a close cultural connection between the two countries, now appear to be far less striking than was formerly the case.[15]Others, again, may be explained as due to Egyptian influence on Babylonian culture rather than as the result of the reverse process. For example, theresemblance that has been pointed out between Gudea's sculpture in the round and that of the Fourth Dynasty in Egypt may not be fortuitous. For Gudea maintained close commercial relations with the Syrian coast, where Egyptian influence at that time had long been effective.

There remains to be considered the use of the bulbous mace-head and of the stone cylindrical seal, both of which are striking characteristics of the early Egyptian and Sumerian cultures. It is difficult to regard these classes of objects, and particularly the latter, as having been evolved independently in Egypt and by the Sumerians. In Babylonia the cylinder-seal is already highly developed when found on the earliest Sumerian sites, and it would appear that the Sumerian immigrants brought it with them into the country, along with their system of writing and the other elements of their comparatively advanced state of civilization. Whether they themselves had evolved it in their original home, or had obtained it from some other race with whom they came into contact before reaching the valley of the Euphrates, it is still impossible to say. The evidence from Susa has not yet thrown much light upon this point. While some stone seals and clay sealings have been found in the lowest stratum of the mound, they are not cylindrical but in the form of flat stamps. The cylindrical seal appears, however, to have been introduced at Susa at a comparatively early period, for examples are said to have been found in the group of strata representing the "Second Period," at a depth of from fifteen to twenty metres below the surface. The published material does not yet admit of any certain pronouncement with regard to the earliest history of the cylinder-seal and its migrations. In favour of the view that would regard it as an independent product of the early Egyptians, it may be noted that wood and not stone was the commonest material for cylinders in the earliest period.[16]But ifthe predynastic cylinder of Egypt is to be regarded as ultimately derived from Asia, the connection is to be set at a period anterior to the earliest Sumerian settlements that have yet been identified.

Thus the results of recent excavation and research, both in Egypt and Babylonia, have tended to diminish rather than to increase the evidence of any close connection between the early cultures of the two countries. Apart from any Babylonian influence, there is, however, ample proof of a Semitic element, not only in the language, but also in the religion of ancient Egypt. The Egyptian sun-worship, which forms so striking a contrast to the indigenous animal-cults and worship of the dead, was probably of Semitic origin, and may either have reached Upper Egypt from Southern Arabia,[17]or have entered Lower Egypt by the eastern Delta. The latter region has always formed an open door to Egypt, and the invasion of the Hyksos may well have had its prototype in predynastic times. The enemies, whose conquest is commemorated on several of the early dynastic slate-carvings, are of non-Egyptian type; they may possibly have been descendants of such Semitic immigrants, unless they were Libyan settlers from the west. In the historic period we have evidence of direct contact between Syria and Egypt at the time of the Third Dynasty, for the Palermo Stele records the arrival in Egypt of forty ships laden with cedar-wood in Sneferu's reign. These evidently formed an expedition sent by sea to the Lebanon, and we may assume that Sneferu's predecessors had already extended their influence along the Syrian coast.[18]It is in Syria that we may also set the first contact between thecivilizations of Egypt and Babylonia in historic times. The early Sumerian ruler Lugal-zaggisi boasts that he reached the Mediterranean coast, and his expedition merely formed the prelude to the conquest of Syria by Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad.[19]It has indeed been suggested that evidence of Egyptian influence, following on the latter's Syrian campaign, is to be seen in the deification of early Babylonian kings.[20]And although this practice may now be traced with greater probability to a Sumerian source,[21]there can be little doubt that from Shar-Gani-sharri's reign onwards Syria formed a connecting-link between the two great civilizations on the Euphrates and the Nile.

Far closer than her relations with Egypt were the ties which connected Babylonia with the great centre of civilization which lay upon her eastern frontier. In the course of this history reference has frequently been made to the contact which was continually taking place from the earliest historical period between Elam and the Sumerian and Semitic rulers of Sumer and Akkad. Such political relationships were naturally accompanied by close commercial intercourse, and the effects of Sumerian influence upon the native culture of Elam have been fully illustrated by the excavations conducted at Susa by the "Délégation en Perse."[22]Situated on the river Kerkha, Susa occupied an important strategic position at the head of the caravan routes which connected the Iranian plateau with the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates and the shores of the Persian Gulf. The river washed the foot of the low hills on which the town was built, and formed a natural defence against attack from the west. The situation of the city on the left bank of the stream is an indication that even in the earliest period its founders sought to protect themselves from the danger of sudden raids from the direction of Sumer and Akkad. The earliest Sumerian records also reflect the feelings of hostility to Elam which animated their writers. But from these scatteredreferences it would appear that the Elamites at this time were generally the aggressors, and that they succeeded in keeping their country free from any political interference on the part of the more powerful among the Sumerian city-states. It was not until the period of Semitic expansion, under the later kingdom of Kish and the empire of Akkad, that the country became dominated by Babylonian influence.

We could not have more striking evidence of the extent to which Elam at this time became subject to Semitic culture than in the adoption of the Babylonian character and language by the native rulers of the country. We are met with the strange picture of native patesis of Susa and governors of Elam recording their votive offerings in a foreign script and language, and making invocations to purely Babylonian deities.[23]The Babylonian script was also adopted for writing inscriptions in the native Elamite tongue, and had we no other evidence available, it might be urged that the use of the Semitic language for the votive texts was dictated by purely temporary considerations of a political character. There is no doubt, however, that the Semitic conquest of Elam was accompanied, and probably preceded, by extensive Semitic immigration. Even at the time of the Dynasty of Ur, when Elam was subject to direct Sumerian control, the Semitic influence of Akkad had become too firmly rooted to be displaced, and it received a fresh impetus under the later rulers of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The clay tablets of a commercial and agricultural character, dating from the period of Adda-Pakshu,[24]are written in the Babylonian character and language,[25]like those found at Mal-Amîr to the east of Susa.[26]Thelatter do not date from a period earlier than about 1000 B.C., and they throw an interesting light on the permanent character of Babylonian influence in the country. The modified forms of the Babylonian characters, which were employed by the Achaemenian kings for the Elamite column of their trilingual inscriptions, are to be traced to a comparatively late origin. The development of the writing exhibited by the Neo-Anzanite texts may be connected with the national revival which characterized the later Elamite monarchy.

The evidence furnished by the inscriptions found at Susa and other sites in Elam is supported by the archaeological discoveries in proving that, from the time of the Semitic kings of Kish and Akkad, the cultural development of Elam was to a great extent moulded by Babylonia. But the later products of native Elamite workmanship that have been recovered are no slavish copies of Babylonian originals, and the earlier examples of sculpture and engraving are of a character quite distinct from anything found on Babylonian soil.[27]Moreover, in the casting of metal and in the jewellers' art Elam certainly in time excelled her neighbour,[28]and, even in the later periods, her art presents itself as of vigorous growth, influenced it is true by that of Babylonia, but deriving its impetus and inspiration from purely native sources. It is also significant that the earlier the remains that have been recovered the less do they betray any trace of foreign influence.

A very striking proof of the independent development of Elamite culture prior to the Semitic conquest is now furnished by the texts inscribed in the so-called "proto-Elamite" system of writing.[29]The majority consist of small roughly-formed tablets of clay, and the signs upon them are either figures or ideographs for various objects. Though they have not been fully deciphered, it is clear that they are tablets of accounts and inventories. A very few of the signs, such as those for "tablet" and "total," resemble the corresponding Babylonian characters, but the great majority are entirely different and have been evolved on a system of their own. Lapidary forms of the characters have been found in inscriptions accompanying Semitic texts of Basha-Shushinak;[30]and, from the position of each upon the stone, it was inferred that the Semitic text was engraved first and the proto-Elamite section added to it. That they were contemporary additions seemed probable, and this has now been put beyond a doubt by the discovery at Susa of a stone statuette seated upon a throne, which was dedicated to a goddess by Basha-Shushinak.[31]On the front of the throne at each side of the seated figure is an inscription; that on the left side is in Semitic, and that on the right in proto-Elamite characters. The one is obviously a translation of the other, and their symmetrical arrangement leaves no doubt that they were inscribed at the same time.

It is therefore clear that at the time of Basha-Shushinak the two languages and scripts were sometimes employed side by side for votive inscriptions, while the clay tablets prove that the native script had not yet been superseded for the purposes of everyday life. The "proto-Elamite" characters present very few parallelisms to Babylonian signs, and those that do occur are clearly later accretions. Thus it would be natural enough to borrow the Babylonian sign for "tablet," at a time when the clay tablet itself found its way acrossthe border; and, though the signs for "total" correspond, the Elamite figures differ and are based on a decimal, not on a sexigesimal system of numeration. It may therefore be inferred that the writing had no connection in its origin with that of the Sumerians, and was invented independently of the system employed during the earliest periods in Babylonia. It may have been merely a local form of writing and not in general use throughout the whole of Elam, but its existence makes it probable that the district in which Susa was situated was not subject to any strong influence from Babylonia in the age preceding the Semitic expansion. This inference is strengthened by a study of the seal-impressions upon many of the tablets;[32]the designs consist of figured representations of animals and composite monsters, and their treatment is totally different to that found on early Sumerian cylinders. In the total disappearance of its local script Cappadocia offers an interesting parallel to Elam. The Hittite hieroglyphs were obviously of purely native origin, but they did not survive the introduction of the clay tablet and of cuneiform characters.

The earlier strata of the mounds at Susa, which date from the prehistoric periods in the city's history, have proved to be in some confusion as revealed by the French excavations; but an explanation has recently been forthcoming of many of the discrepancies in level that have previously been noted.[33]It would seem that the northern and southern extremities of the Citadel Tell were the most ancient sites of habitation, and that from this cause two small hills were formed which persisted during the earlier periods of the city's history. In course of time the ground between them was occupied and was gradually filled in so that the earlier contour of the mound was lost. It thus happens that while remains of the Kassite period are found in the centre of the tell at a depth of from fifteen to twenty metres, they occur at the two extremities in strata not more than ten metres below the surface. Even so, the later of the two prehistoric strata at the extremities ofthe mound, representing an epoch anterior to that of the "proto-Elamite" inscriptions, contains only scattered objects, and it is still difficult to trace the gradual evolution of culture which took place in this and in the still earlier period. It should also be noted that the presence of a single stratum, enclosing remains of a purely Neolithic period, has not yet been established at Susa. There is little doubt, however, that such a stratum at one time existed, for stone axes, arrow-heads, knives and scrapers, representing a period of Neolithic culture, are found scattered at every level in the mound. It is thus possible that, in spite of the presence of metal in the same stratum, much of the earlier remains discovered at Susa, and particularly the earlier forms of painted pottery,[34]are to be assigned to a Neolithic settlement upon the site.

Back to Index Next