Part 10 (1/2)
* It is, of course, also possible that the system of writing had no connection in its origin with that of the Sumerians, and was invented independently of the system employed in Babylonia. In that case, the signs which resemble certain of the Sumerian characters must have been adopted in a later stage of its development. Though it would be rash to dogmatize on the subject, the view that connects its origin with the Sumerians appears on the whole to fit in best with the evidence at present available.
It was without doubt this proto-Elamite system of writing which the Semites from Babylonia found employed in Elam on their first incursions into that country. They brought with them their own more convenient form of writing, and, when the country had once been finally subdued, the subject Elamite princes adopted the foreign system of writing and language from their conquerors for memorial and monumental inscriptions.
But the ancient native writing was not entirely ousted, and continued to be employed by the common people of Elam for the ordinary purposes of daily life. That this was the case at least until the reign of Karibu-sha-Shu-s.h.i.+nak, one of the early subject native rulers, is clear from one of his inscriptions engraved upon a block of limestone to commemorate the dedication of what were probably some temple furnis.h.i.+ngs in honour of the G.o.d Shu-s.h.i.+nak.
[Ill.u.s.tration: 233.jpg BLOCK OF LIMESTONE, FOUND AT SUSA, BEARING INSCRIPTIONS OF KARIBU-SHA-SHUs.h.i.+NAK.]
The photograph is taken from M. de Morgan's _Delegation en Perse_, Mem., t. vi, pi. 2.
The main part of the inscription is written in Semitic Babylonian, and below there is an addition to the text written in proto-Elamite characters, probably enumerating the offerings which the Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak decreed should be made for the future in honour of the G.o.d.* In course of time this proto-Elamite system of writing by means of ideographs seems to have died out, and a modified form of the Babylonian system was adopted by the Elamites for writing their own language phonetically. It is in this phonetic character that the so-called ”Anzanite” texts of the later Elamite princes were composed.
*We have a.s.sumed that both inscriptions were the work of Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak. But it is also possible that the second one in proto-Elamite characters was added at a later period. From its position on the stone it is clear that it was written after and not before Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak's inscription in Semitic Babylonian. See the photographic reproduction.
Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak, whose recently discovered bilingual inscription has been referred to above, was one of the earlier of the subject princes of Elam, and he probably reigned at Susa not later than B.C.
3000. He styles himself ”patesi of Susa, governor of the land of Elam,”
but we do not know at present to what contemporary king in Babylonia he owed allegiance. The longest of his inscriptions that have been recovered is engraved upon a stele of limestone and records the building of the Gate of Shus.h.i.+nak at Susa and the cutting of a ca.n.a.l; it also recounts the offerings which Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak dedicated on the completion of the work. It may here be quoted as an example of the cla.s.s of votive inscriptions from which the names of these early Elamite rulers have been recovered. The inscription runs as follows: ”For the G.o.d Shus.h.i.+nak, his lord, Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak, the son of s.h.i.+mbi-ish-khuk, patesi of Susa, governor of the land of Elam,--when he set the (door) of his Gate in place,... in the Gate of the G.o.d Shus.h.i.+nak, his lord, and when he had opened the ca.n.a.l of Sidur, he set up in face thereof his canopy, and he set planks of cedar-wood for its gate. A sheep in the interior thereof, and sheep without, he appointed (for sacrifice) to him each day. On days of festival he caused the people to sing songs in the Gate of the G.o.d Shus.h.i.+nak. And twenty measures of fine oil he dedicated to make his gate beautiful. Four _magi_ of silver he dedicated; a censer of silver and gold he dedicated for a sweet odour; a,sword he dedicated; an axe with four blades he dedicated, and he dedicated silver in addition for the mounting thereof.... A righteous judgment he judged in the city! As for the man who shall transgress his judgment or shall remove his gift, may the G.o.ds Shus.h.i.+nak and Shamash, Bel and Ea, Ninni and Sin, Mnkharsag and Nati--may all the G.o.ds uproot his foundation, and his seed may they destroy!”
It will be seen that Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak takes a delight in enumerating the details of the offerings he has ordained in honour of his city-G.o.d Shus.h.i.+nak, and this religious temper is peculiarly characteristic of the princes of Elam throughout the whole course of their history. Another interesting point to notice in the inscription is that, although the writer invokes Shus.h.i.+nak, his own G.o.d, and puts his name at the head of the list of deities whose vengeance he implores upon the impious, he also calls upon the G.o.ds of the Babylonians. As he wrote the inscription itself in Babylonian, in the belief that it might be recovered by some future Semitic inhabitant of his country, so he included in his imprecations those deities whose names he conceived would be most reverenced by such a reader. In addition to Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak the names of a number of other patesis, or viceroys, have recently been recovered, such as Khutran-tepti, and Idadu I and his son Kal-Rukhu-ratir, and his grandson Idadu II. All these probably ruled after Karibu-sha-Shus.h.i.+nak, and may be set in the early period of Babylonian supremacy in Elam.
It has been stated above that the allegiance which these early Elamite princes owed to their overlords in Babylonia was probably reflected in the t.i.tles which they bear upon their inscriptions recently found at Susa. These t.i.tles are ”_patesi_ of Susa, _shakkannak_ of Elam,” which may be rendered as ”viceroy of Susa, governor of Elam.” But inscriptions have been found on the same site belonging to another series of rulers, to whom a different t.i.tle is applied. Instead of referring to themselves as viceroys of Susa and governors of Elam, they bear the t.i.tle of _sukkal_ of Elam, of Siparki, and of Susa. Siparki, or Sipar, was probably the name of an important section of Elamite territory, and the t.i.tle _sukkalu_, ”ruler,” probably carries with it an idea of independence of foreign control which is absent from the t.i.tle of _patesi_. It is therefore legitimate to trace this change of t.i.tle to a corresponding change in the political condition of Elam; and there is much to be said for the view that the rulers of Elam who bore the t.i.tle of _sukkalu_ reigned at a period when Elam herself was independent, and may possibly have exercised a suzerainty over the neighbouring districts of Babylonia.
The worker of this change in the political condition of Elam and the author of her independence was a king named Kutir-Nakhkhunte or Kutir-Na'khunde, whose name and deeds have been preserved in later a.s.syrian records, where he is termed Kudur-Nankhundi and Kudur-Nakhundu.* This ruler, according to the a.s.syrian king Ashur-bani-pal, was not content with throwing off the yoke under which his land had laboured for so long, but carried war into the country of his suzerain and marched through Babylonia devastating and despoiling the princ.i.p.al cities. This successful Elamite campaign took place, according to the computation of the later a.s.syrian scribes, about the year 2280 B. c, and it is probable that for many years afterwards the authority of the King of Elam extended over the plains of Babylonia.
It has been suggested that Kutir-Nakh-khunte, after including Babylonia within his empire, did not remain permanently in Elam, but may have resided for a part of each year, at least, in Lower Mesopotamia.
His object, no doubt, would have been to superintend in person the administration of his empire and to check any growing spirit of independence among his local governors. He may thus have appointed in Susa itself a local governor who would carry on the business of the country during his absence, and, under the king himself, would wield supreme authority. Such governors may have been the sukkali, who, unlike the patesi, were independent of foreign control, but yet did not enjoy the full t.i.tle of ”king.”
* For references to the pa.s.sages where the name occurs, see King, _Letters of Hammurabi_, vol. i, p. Ivy.
It is possible that the sukkalu who ruled in Elam during the reign of Kutir-Nakhkhunte was named Temti-agun, for a short inscription of this ruler has been recovered, in which he records that he built and dedicated a certain temple with the object of ensuring the preservation of the life of Kutir-Na'khundi. If we may identify the Kutir-Va'khundi of this text with the great Elamite conqueror, Kutir-Nakhkhunte, it follows that Temti-agun, the sukkal of Susa, was his subordinate. The inscription mentions other names which are possibly those of rulers of this period, and reads as follows: ”Temti-agun, sukkal of Susa, the son of the sister of Sirukdu', hath built a temple of bricks at Ishme-karab for the preservation of the life of Kutir-Na'khundi, and for the preservation of the life of Lila-irtash, and for the preservation of his own life, and for the preservation of the life of Temti-khisha-khanesh and of Pil-kishamma-khashduk.” As Lila-irtash is mentioned immediately after Kutir-Na'khundi, he was possibly his son, and he may have succeeded him as ruler of the empire of Elam and Babylonia, though no confirmation of this view has yet been discovered. Temti-khisha-khanesh is mentioned immediately after the reference to the preservation of the life of Temti-agun himself, and it may be conjectured that the name was that of Temti-agun's son, or possibly that of his wife, in which event the last two personages mentioned in the text may have been the sons of Temti-agun.
This short text affords a good example of one cla.s.s of votive inscriptions from which it is possible to recover the names of Elamite rulers of this period, and it ill.u.s.trates the uncertainty which at present attaches to the identification of the names themselves and the order in which they are to be arranged. Such uncertainty necessarily exists when only a few texts have been recovered, and it will disappear with the discovery of additional monuments by which the results already arrived at may be checked. We need not here enumerate all the names of the later Elamite rulers which have been found in the numerous votive inscriptions recovered during the recent excavations at Susa. The order in which they should be arranged is still a matter of considerable uncertainty, and the facts recorded by them in such inscriptions as we possess mainly concern the building and restoration of Elamite temples and the decoration of shrines, and they are thus of no great historical interest. These votive texts are well ill.u.s.trated by a remarkable find of foundation deposits made last year by M. de Morgan in the temple of Shus.h.i.+nak at Susa, consisting of figures and jewelry of gold and silver, and objects of lead, bronze, iron, stone, and ivory, cylinder-seals, mace-heads, vases, etc. This is the richest foundation deposit that has been recovered on any ancient site, and its archaeological interest in connection with the development of Elamite art is great. But in no other way does the find affect our conception of the history of the country, and we may therefore pa.s.s on to a consideration of such recent discoveries as throw new light upon the course of history in Western Asia.
With the advent of the First Dynasty in Babylon Elam found herself face to face with a power prepared to dispute her claims to exercise a suzerainty over the plains of Mesopotamia. It is held by many writers that the First Dynasty of Babylon was of Arab origin, and there is much to be said for this view. M. Pognon was the first to start the theory that its kings were not purely Babylonian, but were of either Arab or Aramaean extraction, and he based his theory on a study of the forms of the names which some of them bore. The name of Samsu-imna, for instance, means ”the sun is our G.o.d,” but the form of the words of which the name is composed betray foreign influence. Thus in Babylonian the name for ”sun” or the Sun-G.o.d would be _Shamash_ or _Shamshu_, not _Samsu_; in the second half of the name, while _ilu_ (”G.o.d”) is good Babylonian, the ending _na_, which is the p.r.o.nominal suffix of the first person plural, is not Babylonian, but Arabic. We need not here enter into a long philological discussion, and the instance already cited may suffice to show in what way many of the names met in the Babylonian inscriptions of this period betray a foreign, and possibly an Arabic, origin. But whether we a.s.sign the forms of these names to Arabic influence or not, it may be regarded as certain that, the First Dynasty of Babylon had its origin in the incursion into Babylonia of a new wave of Semitic immigration.
[Ill.u.s.tration: 240.jpg BRICK STAMPED WITH AN INSCRIPTION OF KUDUR-MABURG]
The invading Semites brought with them fresh blood and unexhausted energy, and, finding many of their own race in scattered cities and settlements throughout the country, they succeeded in establis.h.i.+ng a purely Semitic dynasty, with its capital at Babylon, and set about the task of freeing the country from any vestiges of foreign control. Many centuries earlier Semitic kings had ruled in Babylonian cities, and Semitic empires had been formed there. Sargon and Naram-Sin, having their capital at Agade, had established their control over a considerable area of Western Asia and had held Elam as a province. But so far as Elam was concerned Kutir-Nakhkhunte had reversed the balance and had raised Elam to the position of the predominant power.
Of the struggles and campaigns of the earlier kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon we know little, for, although we possess a considerable number of legal and commercial doc.u.ments of the period, we have recovered no strictly historical inscriptions. Our main source of information is the dates upon these doc.u.ments, which are not dated by the years of the reigning king, but on a system adopted by the early Babylonian kings from their Sumerian predecessors. In the later periods of Babylonian history tablets were dated in the year of the king who was reigning at the time the doc.u.ment was drawn up, but this simple system had not been adopted at this early period. In place of this we find that each year was cited by the event of greatest importance which occurred in that year. This event might be the cutting of a ca.n.a.l, when the year in which this took place might be referred to as ”the year in which the ca.n.a.l named Ai-khegallu was cut;” or it might be the building of a temple, as in the date-formula, ”the year in which the great temple of the Moon-G.o.d was built;” or it might be ”the conquest of a city, such as the year in which the city of Kish was destroyed.” Now it will be obvious that this system of dating had many disadvantages. An event might be of great importance for one city, while it might never have been heard of in another district; thus it sometimes happened that the same event was not adopted throughout the whole country for designating a particular year, and the result was that different systems of dating were employed in different parts of Babylonia. Moreover, when a particular system had been in use for a considerable time, it required a very good memory to retain the order and period of the various events referred to in the date-formulae, so as to fix in a moment the date of a doc.u.ment by its mention of one of them. In order to a.s.sist themselves in their task of fixing dates in this manner, the scribes of the First Dynasty of Babylon drew up lists of the t.i.tles of the years, arranged in chronological order under the reigns of the kings to which they referred. Some of these lists have been recovered, and they are of the greatest a.s.sistance in fixing the chronology, while at the same time they furnish us with considerable information concerning the history of the period of which we should otherwise have been in ignorance.
From these lists of date-formulae, and from the dates themselves which are found upon the legal and commercial tablets of the period, we learn that Kish, Ka-sallu, and Isin all gave trouble to the earlier kings of the First Dynasty, and had in turn to be subdued. Elam did not watch the diminution of her influence in Babylonia without a struggle to retain it. Under Kudur-mabug, who was prince or governor of the districts lying along the frontier of Elam, the Elamites struggled hard to maintain their position in Babylonia, making the city of Ur the centre from which they sought to check the growing power of Babylon. From bricks that have been recovered from Mukayyer, the site of the city of Ur, we learn that Kudur-mabug rebuilt the temple in that city dedicated to the Moon-G.o.d, which is an indication of the firm hold he had obtained upon the city.
It was obvious to the new Semitic dynasty in Babylon that, until Ur and the neighbouring city of Larsam had been captured, they could entertain no hope of removing the Elamite yoke from Southern Babylonia. It is probable that the earlier kings of the dynasty made many attempts to capture them, with varying success. An echo of one of their struggles in which they claimed the victory may be seen in the date-formula for the fourteenth year of the reign of Sin-muballit, Hammurabi's father and predecessor on the throne of Babylon. This year was referred to in the doc.u.ments of the period as ”the year in which the people of Ur were slain with the sword.” It will be noted that the capture of the city is not commemorated, so that we may infer that the slaughter of the Elamites which is recorded did not materially reduce their influence, as they were left in possession of their princ.i.p.al stronghold. In fact, Elam was not signally defeated in the reign of Kudur-mabug, but in that of his son Rim-Sin. From the date-formulae of Hammurabi's reign we learn that the struggle between Elam and Babylon was brought to a climax in the thirtieth year of his reign, when it is recorded in the formulas that he defeated the Elamite army and overthrew Rim-Sin, while in the following year we gather that he added the land of E'mutbal, that is, the western district of Elam, to his dominions.
An unpublished chronicle in the British Museum gives us further details of Hammurabi's victory over the Elamites, and at the same time makes it clear that the defeat and overthrow of Rim-Sin was not so crus.h.i.+ng as has. .h.i.therto been supposed. This chronicle relates that Hammurabi attacked Rim-Sin, and, after capturing the cities of Ur and Larsam, carried their spoil to Babylon. Up to the present it has been supposed that Hammurabi's victory marked the end of Elamite influence in Babylonia, and that thenceforward the supremacy of Babylon was established throughout the whole of the country. But from the new chronicle we gather that Hammurabi did not succeed in finally suppressing the attempts of Elam to regain her former position. It is true that the cities of Ur and Larsam were finally incorporated in the Babylonian empire, and the letters of Hammurabi to Sin-idinnam, the governor whom he placed in authority over Larsam, afford abundant evidence of the stringency of the administrative control which he established over Southern Babylonia. But Rim-Sin was only crippled for the time, and, on being driven from Ur and Larsam, he retired beyond the Elamite frontier and devoted his energies to the recuperation of his forces against the time when he should feel himself strong enough again to make a bid for victory in his struggle against the growing power of Babylon. It is probable that he made no further attempt to renew the contest during the life of Hammurabi, but after Samsu-iluna, the son of Hammurabi, had succeeded to the Babylonian throne, he appeared in Babylonia at the head of the forces he had collected, and attempted to regain the cities and territory he had lost.
[Ill.u.s.tration: 245.jpg SEMITIC BABYLONIAN CONTRACT-TABLET]
Inscribed in the reign of Hammurabi with a deed recording the division of property. The actual tablet is on the right; that which appears to be another and larger tablet on the left is the hollow clay case in which the tablet on the right was originally enclosed. Photograph by Messrs. Mansell & Co.
The portion of the text of the chronicle relating to the war between Rim-Sin and Samsu-iluna is broken so that it is not possible to follow the campaign in detail, but it appears that Samsu-iluna defeated Rim-Sin, and possibly captured him or burnt him alive in a palace in which he had taken refuge.
With the final defeat of Rim-Sin by Samsu-iluna it is probable that Elam ceased to be a thorn in the side of the kings of Babylon and that she made no further attempts to extend her authority beyond her own frontiers. But no sooner had Samsu-iluna freed his country from all danger from this quarter than he found himself faced by a new foe, before whom the dynasty eventually succ.u.mbed. This fact we learn from the unpublished chronicle to which reference has already been made, and the name of this new foe, as supplied by the chronicle, will render it necessary to revise all current schemes of Babylonian chronology.