* Hilpreoht calls attention on this point to the fact that
no one has yet discovered at Nippur a single ex-voto
consecrated by any king of the two first Babylonian
dynasties.

The Cossæan rule over the countries of the Euphrates was doubtless similar in its beginnings to that which the Hyksôs exercised at first over the nomes of Egypt. The Cossæan kings did not merely bring with them an army to protect their persons, or to occupy a small number of important posts; they were followed by the whole nation, and spread themselves over the entire country. The bulk of the invaders instinctively betook themselves to districts where, if they could not resume the kind of life to which they were accustomed in their own land, they could, at least give full rein to their love of a free and wild existence. As there were no mountains in the country, they turned to the marshes, and, like the Hyksôs in Egypt, made themselves at home about the mouths of the rivers, on the half-submerged low lands, and on the sandy islets of the lagoons which formed an undefined borderland between the alluvial region and the Persian Gulf. The covert afforded, by the thickets furnished scope for the chase which these hunters had been accustomed to pursue in the depths of their native forests, while fishing, on the other hand, supplied them with an additional element of food. When their depredations drew down upon them reprisals from their neighbours, the mounds occupied, by their fortresses, and surrounded by muddy swamps, offered them almost as secure retreats as their former strongholds on the lofty sides of the Zagros. They made alliances with the native Aramæans—with those Kashdi, properly called Chaldæans, whose name we have imposed upon all the nations who, from a very early date, bore rule on the banks of the Lower Euphrates. Here they formed themselves into a State—Karduniash—whose princes at times rebelled, against all external authority, and at other times acknowledged the sovereignty of the Babylonian monarchs.*

* The state of Karduniash, whose name appears for the first
time on the monuments of the Cossæan period, has been
localised in a somewhat vague manner, in the south of
Babylonia, in the country of the Kashdi, and afterwards
formally identified with the Countries of the Sea, and
with the principality which was called Bît-Yâkin in the
Assyrian period. In the Tel-el-Amarna tablets the name is
already applied to the entire country occupied by the
Cossæan kings or their descendants, that is to say, to the
whole of Babylonia. Sargon II. at that time distinguishes
between an Upper and a Lower Karduniash; and in consequence
the earliest Assyriologists considered it as an Assyrian
designation of Babylon, or of the district surrounding it,
an opinion which was opposed by Delitzsch, as he believed it
to be an indigenous term which at first indicated the
district round Babylon, and afterwards the whole of
Babylonia. From one frequent spelling of the name, the
meaning appears to have been Fortress of Duniash; to this
Delitzsch preferred the translation Garden of Duniash,
from an erroneous different reading—Ganduniash: Duniash, at
first derived from a Chaldæan God Dun, whose name may
exist in Dunghi, is a Cossæan name, which the Assyrians
translated, as they did Buriash, Belmatâti, lord of the
country. Winckler rejects the ancient etymology, and
proposes to divide the word as Kardu-niash and to see in it
a Cossæan translation of the expression mât-kaldi, country
of the Caldæans: Hommel on his side, as well as Delitzsch,
had thought of seeking in the Chaldæans proper—Kaldi for
Kashdi, or Kash-da, “domain of the Cossæans “—the
descendants of the Cossæans of Karduniash, at least as far
as race is concerned. In the cuneiform texts the name is
written Kara—D. P. Duniyas, “the Wall of the god
Duniyas” (cf. the Median Wall or Wall of Semiramis which
defended Babylonia on the north).

The people of Sumir and Akkad, already a composite of many different races, absorbed thus another foreign element, which, while modifying its homogeneity, did not destroy its natural character. Those Cossæan tribes who had not quitted their own country retained their original barbarism, but the hope of plunder constantly drew them from their haunts, and they attacked and devastated the cities of the plain unhindered by the thought that they were now inhabited by their fellow-countrymen. The raid once over, many of them did not return home, but took service under some distant foreign ruler—the Syrian princes attracting many, who subsequently became the backbone of their armies,* while others remained at Babylon and enrolled themselves in the body-guard of the kings.

* Halévy has at least proved that the Khabiri mentioned in.
the Tel el-Amarna tablets were Cossæans, contrary to the
opinion of Sayce, who makes them tribes grouped round
Hebron, which W. Max Müller seems to accept; Winckler,
returning to an old opinion, believes them to have been
Hebrews.

To the last they were an undisciplined militia, dangerous, and difficult to please: one day they would hail their chiefs with acclamations, to kill them the next in one of those sudden outbreaks in which they were accustomed to make and unmake their kings.* The first invaders were not long in acquiring, by means of daily intercourse with the old inhabitants, the new civilization: sooner or later they became blended with the natives, losing all their own peculiarities, with the exception of their outlandish names, a few heroic legends,** and the worship of two or three gods—Shûmalia, Shugab, and Shukamuna.

* This is the opinion of Hommel, supported by the testimony
of the Synchronous Hist.: in this latter document the
Cossæans are found revolting against King Kadashmankharbé,
and replacing him on the throne by a certain Nazibugash, who
was of obscure origin.
** Pr. Delitzsch and Schrader compare their name with that
of Kush, who appears in the Bible as the father of Nimrod
(Gen. x. 8-12); Hommel and Sayce think that the history of
Nimrod is a reminiscence of the Cossæan rule. Jensen is
alone in his attempt to attribute to the Cossæans the first
idea of the epic of Gilgames.

As in the case of the Hyksôs in Africa, the barbarian conquerors thus became merged in the more civilized people which they had subdued. This work of assimilation seems at first to have occupied the whole attention of both races, for the immediate successors of Gandish were unable to retain under their rule all the provinces of which the empire was formerly composed. They continued to possess the territory situated on the middle course of the Euphrates as far as the mouth of the Balikh, but they lost the region extending to the east of the Khabur, at the foot of the Masios, and in the upper basin of the Tigris: the vicegerents of Assur also withdrew from them, and, declaring that they owed no obedience excepting to the god of their city, assumed the royal dignity. The first four of these kings whose names have come down to us, Sulili, Belkapkapu, Adasi, and Belbâni,* appear to have been but indifferent rulers, but they knew bow to hold their own against the attacks of their neighbours, and when, after a century of weakness and inactivity, Babylon reasserted herself, and endeavoured to recover her lost territory, they had so completely established their independence that every attack on it was unsuccessful. The Cossæan king at that time—an active and enterprising prince, whose name was held in honour up to the days of the Ninevite supremacy—was Agumkakrimê, the son of Tassigurumash.**

* These four names do not so much represent four consecutive
reigns as two separate traditions which were current
respecting the beginnings of Assyrian royalty. The most
ancient of them gives the chief place to two personages
named Belkapkapu and Sulili; this tradition has been
transmitted to us by Rammânnirâri III., because it connected
the origin of his race with these kings. The second
tradition placed a certain Belbâni, the son of Adasi, in the
room of Belkapkapu and Sulili: Esarhaddon made use of it in
order to ascribe to his own family an antiquity at least
equal to that of the family to which Rammânnirâri III.
belonged. Each king appropriated from the ancient popular
traditions those names which seemed to him best calculated
to enhance the prestige of his dynasty, but we cannot tell
how far the personages selected enjoyed an authentic
historical existence: it is best to admit them at least
provisionally into the royal series, without trusting too
much to what is related of them.
** The tablet discovered by Pinches is broken after the
fifth king of the dynasty. The inscription of Agumkakrimê,
containing a genealogy of this prince which goes back as far
as the fifth generation, has led to the restoration of the
earlier part of the list as follows:
Gandish, Gaddash, Adumitasii .... 1655-? B.C.
Gandê ........................... 1714-1707 B.C.
Tassigurumash.................... ?
Agumrabi, his son................ 1707-1685
Agumkakrimê ..................... ?
[A]guyashi ...................... 1685-1663
Ushshi, his son.................. 1663-1655

This “brilliant scion of Shukamuna” entitled himself lord of the Kashshu and of Akkad, of Babylon the widespread, of Padan, of Alman, and of the swarthy Guti.* Ashnunak had been devastated; he repeopled it, and the four “houses of the world” rendered him obedience; on the other hand, Elam revolted from its allegiance, Assur resisted him, and if he still exercised some semblance of authority over Northern Syria, it was owing to a traditional respect which the towns of that country voluntarily rendered to him, but which did not involve either subjection or control. The people of Khâni still retained possession of the statues of Merodach and of his consort Zarpanit, which had been stolen, we know not how, some time previously from Chaldæa.** Agumkakrimê recovered them and replaced them in their proper temple. This was an important event, and earned him the good will of the priests.