A History of Babylon, from the Foundation of the Monarchy to the Persian Conquest

by L. W. King

During this period of comparative tranquillity Samsu-iluna devoted himself once more to rebuilding and beautifying E-sagila and the temples of Kish and Sippar; but in his twenty-eighth year Babylon suffered a fresh shock, which appears to have resulted in still further loss of territory. In that year he claims to have slain Iadi-khabum and Muti-khurshana, two leaders of an invasion, or a revolt, of which we have no details. But it is clear that the victory, if such it was, resulted in further trouble, for in the following two years no fresh date-formulæ were promulgated, and it is probable that the king himself was absent from the capital. It is significant that no document has been recovered at Nippur which is dated after Samsu-iluna's twenty-ninth year, although in the preceding period, from the thirty-first year of Hammurabi onward, when the city first passed into Babylon's possession, nearly every year is well represented in the dated series.[9] It is difficult not to conclude that Samsu-iluna now lost the control of that city, and, since one of the documents from Nippur is dated in Iluma-ilum's reign, it can only have passed into the latter's possession. Further evidence of the diminishing territory of Babylon may be seen in the fact that Samsu-iluna should have rebuilt the old line of fortresses, founded by his ancestor Suma-la-ilum at a time when the kingdom was in its infancy.[10] This work was doubtless undertaken when he foresaw the necessity of defending the Akkadian border, and he must have lost one at least of the fortresses, Dûr-Zakar, when Nippur was taken. His activities during his closing years were confined to the north and west, and to the task of keeping open the Euphrates route. For he cut a canal beside Kâr-Sippar, recovered possession of Saggaratum, and probably destroyed the cities of Arkum and Amal. His defeat of an Amorite force some two years before his death is of interest as proving that the Western Semites of Akkad, nearly two centuries after their settlement in the country, were experiencing the same treatment from their own stock that they themselves had caused to the land of their adoption.

Samsu-iluna, with the possible exception of Ammi-ditana, was the last great king of the West-Semitic dynasty. It is true that his son Abi-eshu' made a fresh attempt to dislodge Iluma-ilum from his hold upon Central and Southern Babylonia. A late chronicle records that he took the offensive and marched against Iluma-ilum.[11] It would seem that his attack was in the nature of a surprise, and that he succeeded in cutting off the king and part of his forces, possibly on their return from some other expedition. It is clear that he came into touch with him in the neighbourhood of the Tigris, and probably forced him to take refuge in a fortress, since he attempted to cut off his retreat by damming the river. He is said to have succeeded in damming the stream, but he failed to catch Iluma-ilum. The chronicle records no further conflict between the two, and we may assume that he then adopted his father's later policy of leaving the Sea-Country in possession of its conquered territory. In some of his broken date-formulæ we have echoes of a few further campaigns, and we know that he cut the Abi-eshu' Canal, and built a fortress at the gate of the Tigris, which he also named after himself, Dûr-Abi-eshu'. This was probably a frontier fortification, erected for the defence of the river at the point where it passed from Babylon's area of control to that of the Sea-Country. He also built the town of Lukhaia on the Arakhtu Canal in the immediate neighbourhood of Babylon. But both Abi-eshu' and his successors on the throne give evidence of having become more and more engrossed in cult-observances. The supply of temple-furniture begins to have for them the importance that military success had for their fathers. And it is a symptom of decadence that, even in the religious sphere, they are as much concerned with their own worship as with that of the gods.

It is significant that Abi-eshu' should have named one of his years of rule by his decoration of a statue of Entemena, the early patesi of Lagash, who had been accorded divine honours, and, at some period after Hammurabi's occupation of that city, had received a cult-centre of his own in Babylon. For the act indicates an increased interest, on Abi-eshu's part, in the deification of royalty. This honour was peculiarly associated with the possession of Nippur, the central city and shrine of the country, and Babylon had adopted the practice of deification for her kings after Nippur had been annexed by Hammurabi. Though the city had now passed from Babylon's control, Abi-eshu' did not relinquish the privilege his father and grandfather had legitimately enjoyed. Since Babylon no longer possessed the central shrine of Enlil, in which his own divine statue should have been set up, he dedicated one in Enlil's local temple at Babylon. But not content with that he fashioned no less than five other statues of himself, which he set up in the temples of other gods, at Babylon, Sippar and elsewhere.[12]

His three successors followed the same practice, and Ammi-ditana and Ammi-zaduga, his son and grandson, have left descriptions of some of these cult-images of themselves.[13] A favourite character, in which the king was often represented, was holding a lamb for divination, and another was in the attitude of prayer. The later kings of the First Dynasty love, too, to dwell on their sumptuous votive offerings. Marduk is supplied with innumerable weapons of red gold, and the Sun-god's shrine at Sippar is decorated with solar disks of precious dushû-stone, inlaid with red gold, lapis-lazuli, and silver. Great reliefs, with representations of rivers and mountains, were cast in bronze and set up in the temples; and Samsu-ditana, the last of his line, records among his offerings to the gods the dedication to Sarpanitum of a rich silver casket for perfumes.

Incidentally, these references afford striking proof of the wealth Babylon had now acquired, due no doubt to her increased commercial activities. Elam on the one side and Syria on the other[14] had furnished her with imports of precious stone, metal, and wood; and her craftsmen had learnt much from foreign teachers. In spite of the contraction of Hammurabi's empire, the life of the people in both the town and country districts of Akkad was not materially altered. The organized supervision of all departments of national activity, pastoral, agricultural and commercial, which the nation owed in great measure to Hammurabi, was continued under these later kings; and some of the royal letters that have been recovered show that orders on comparatively unimportant matters continued to be issued in the king's name. We know, too, of a good many public works carried out by Ammi-ditana, Abi-eshu's son. He cut only one canal, and he built fortresses for the protection of others, and named them alter himself. Thus, in addition to the Ammi-ditana Canal, we learn of a Dûr-Ammi-ditana, which he erected on the Zilakum Canal, and another fortress of the same name on the Mê-Enlil Canal. He strengthened the wall of Ishkun-Marduk, which was also on the Zilakum, and built Mashkan-Ammi-ditana and the wall of Kâr-Shamash, both on the bank of the Euphrates.[15]

The systematic fortification of the rivers and canals may perhaps be interpreted as marking an advance of the frontier southward, in consequence of which it was advisable to protect the crops and the water-supply of the districts thus recovered from the danger of sudden raids. On two occasions Ammi-ditana claims, in rather vague terms, to have freed his land from danger, once by restoring the might of Marduk, and later on by loosing the pressure from his land; and that, in his seventeenth year, he should have claimed to have conquered Arakhab, perhaps referred to as "the Sumerian,"[16] is an indication that the Sea-Country kings found ready assistance from the older population of the South. Moreover, of the later West-Semitic kings, Ammi-ditana alone appears to have made headway against the encroachments of the Sea-Country. The most conclusive proof of his advance is to be seen in the date-formula for his thirty-seventh year, which records that he destroyed the wall of Nîsin,[17] proving that he had penetrated to the south of Nippur. That Nippur itself was held by him for a time is more than probable, especially as one of his building-inscriptions, still unpublished, is said to have been found there[18]; and we know also, from a Neo-Babylonian copy of a similar text, that he claimed the title "King of Sumer and Akkad."[19] Under him, then, Babylon recovered a semblance of her former strength, but we may conjecture that the Sea-Country retained its hold on Larsa and the southern group of cities.

We are furnished with a third valuable synchronism between the dynasties of Babylon and of the south by the reference to Ammi-ditana's destruction of the wall of Nîsin, for the date-formula adds that this had been erected by the people of Damiḳ-ilishu. The ruler referred to is obviously the third king in the dynasty of the Sea-Country, who succeeded Itti-ili-nibi upon the throne.[20] We may conclude that it was in his reign, or shortly after it, that Ammi-ditana succeeded in recovering Nîsin, after having already annexed Nippur on his southward advance. In his thirty-fourth year, two years before the capture of Nîsin, he had dedicated an image of Samsu-iluna in the temple E-namtila, and we may perhaps connect this tribute to his grandfather with the fact that in his reign Babylon had last enjoyed the distinction conferred by the suzerainty of Nippur.

In the year following the recovery of Nîsin Ammi-zaduga succeeded his father on the throne, and since he ascribes the greatness of his kingdom to Enlil, and not to Marduk or any other god, we may see in this a further indication that Babylon continued to control his ancient shrine. But the remaining date-formulæ for Ammi-zaduga's reign do not suggest that Ammi-ditana's conquests were held permanently. A succession of religious dedications is followed in his tenth year by the conventional record that he loosed the pressure of his land, suggesting that his country had been through a period of conflict; and, though in the following year he built a fortress, Dûr-Ammi-zaduga "at the mouth of the Euphrates," the nearly unbroken succession of votive acts, commemorated during his remaining years and in the reign of his son Samsu-ditana, makes it probable that the kings of Sea-Country were gradually regaining some of the territory they had temporarily lost.[21]