THE study of the origins of states is fraught with no less difficulty than the investigation of the origins of animate nature. The great wall before every investigator of the beginnings of things, with its inscription, "Thus far shalt thou come and no farther," stands also before the student of the origins of the various early kingdoms of Babylonia. It may always be impossible to achieve any picture of the beginnings of civilization in Babylonia which will satisfy the desire for a clear and vivid portrayal. Whatever may be achieved by future investigators it is now impossible to do more than give outlines of events in the dim past of early Babylonia.

If we call up before us the land of Babylonia, and transport ourselves backward until we reach the period of more than four thousand five hundred years before Christ, we shall be able to discern here and there signs of life, society, and government in certain cities. Civilization has already reached a high point, the arts of life are well advanced, and men are able to write down their thoughts and deeds in intelligible language and in permanent form. All these presuppose a long period of development running back through millenniums of unrecorded time. At this period there are no great kingdoms, comprising many cities, with their laws and customs, with subject territory and tribute-paying states. Over the entire land there are only visible, as we look back upon it, cities dissevered in government, and perhaps in intercourse, but yet the promise of kingdoms still un born. In Babylonia we know of the existence of the cities Agade, Babylon, Kutha, Kish, Gishban, Shirpurla (afterward called Lagasb), Guti, and yet others less famous. In each of these cities worship is paid to some local god who is considered by his faithful followers to be a Baal or Lord, the strongest god, whose right it is to demand worship, also, from dwellers in other cities. This belief becomes an impulse by which the inhabitants of a city are driven out to conquer other cities and so extend the dominion of their god. If the inhabitants of Babylon could conquer the people of Kutha, was it hot proof that the stronger god was behind their armies, and should not other peoples also worship him? But there were other motives for conquest. There was the crying need for bread-the most pressing need of all the ages. It was natural that they who had the poorer parts of the country should seek to acquire the better portions either to dwell in or to exact tribute from. The desire for power, a thoroughly human impulse, was also joined to the other two influences at a very early date. The ruler in Babylon must needs conquer his nearest neighbor that he may get himself power over men and a name among them. Impelled by religion, by hunger, and by ambition, the peoples of Babylonia, who have dwelt apart in separate cities, begin to add city to city, concentrating power in the hands of kings. Herein lies the origin of the great empire which must later dominate the whole earth, for these little kingdoms thus formed later unite under the headship of one kingdom and the empire is founded.

At the very earliest period whose written records have come down to us the name of Babylonia was Kengi--that is, "land of canals and reeds." Even then the waters of the river were conveyed to the fields and the cities in artificially constructed canals, while the most characteristic form of vegetable life was the reed, growing in masses along the water courses. More than four thousand five hundred years before Christ there lived in this land of Kengi a man who writes his name En-shag-kush ana,who calls himself lord of Kengi. We know very little indeed of him, but it seems probable that his small dominion contained several cities, of which Erech was probably the capital, and Nippur was certainly its chief religious center. Even at this early time there was a temple at Nippur dedicated to the great god Enlil, over which there was set a chief servant of the god, who controlled the temple worship, protected its sanctity if necessary, and was accounted its ruler. The title of this ruler of the temple, this chief priest, was patesi. Naturally enough the man who held such an important religious post often gained political power. If the god whom he represented was a god whose power had been shown in the prosperity of his worshipers in war or in trade, it was natural enough that neighboring cities should come under his glorious protection, and that his patesi should stand in the relation of governor to them. Now En-shag-kush-ana was the patesi of Enlil, and the honor of that god was in his keeping. We do not know of what race he was. He may have been Sumerian, he may have been a Semite, or he may have been of mixed race, for that mixture of blood had already begun is shown clearly enough by contemporary monuments. But whatever his own blood was his people were Sumerians and the civilization over which he ruled was likewise Sumerian. But even at this early time the Sumerian vitality was dying out, and the day was threatening when a new and more virile people would drive the Sumerians out of their heritage and possess it in their room. Some individuals of this race were already settled in the Sumerian territory in the south, and others of them already possessed the great northern domain, which once had belonged to the Sumerians. Out of this period to which En-shag-kush-ana belongs we hear several echoes of the conflict that was already begun for the possession of all Babylonia. To about this period there belongs a little broken inscription written by another lord of Kengi, who has been trying to reconquer part of northern Babylonia which was already in the possession of these new invaders. These invaders were Semites, whose original home was probably Arabia, but who were now for some time settled northwest of Babylonia and probably in Mesopotamia. They coveted the rich alluvial soil on which the Babylonians were living as well as the fine cities which already dotted it here and there. The Sumerians had probably once possessed this very land in which they were now dwelling, but had been driven from it by their resistless advance. It seems probable that the city of Gishban was one of their earliest possessions, and that to it they later added Kish, which became the chief city of their growing kingdom. While En-shag-kush-ana was lord over the Sumerian kingdom in the south the kingdom of Kish was threatening to overwhelm the whole of Babylonia. It was a successor of his, or perhaps a predecessor, who attacked Enne-Ugun, the king of Kish. Victory came to the Sumerians, and the king, whose name is yet unknown, came home, bearing with him the spoil of the conquered Semite--"his statue, his shining silver, the utensils, his property"--and set them up as an offering in the sanctuary of the great god Enlil, who bad given him the victory. Well might the king of Kengi boast of a victory which must for a time at least stay the progress of the invading Semite.

It was, however, only a temporary reverse for this people. The Semites had the fresh power of a new race, and soon produced a leader able to strike the one blow needed to destroy forever the Sumerian commonwealth. There was a patesi of Gisbban, called Ukush, and it was his son Lugalzaggisi who, when he had come to the rule over Kish and Gishban, went down into southern Babylonia and overwhelmed it. It was probably easily accomplished, for the work of the Sumerians was done. Yet theirs had been a noble career, and the people who had invented a system of writing that served their conquerors for thousands of years were a people who had left a deep impress on the world's history. About 4000 B. C. Lugalzaggisi made Erech the capital of the now united Babylonia, and Nippur readily became the chief center of its religious life. The language of the Sumerians was used by their conqueror in which to celebrate his conquest, and to their gods did he give thanks for his victories. It was they who had called him to the rule over Kengi and appointed unto him a still greater dominion. His words glow with feeling as he says: "When Enlil, lord of the lands, invested Lugalzaggisi with the kingdom of the world, and granted him success before the world, when he filled the land with his power, (and) subdued the country from the rise of the sun to the setting of the sun - at that time he straightened his path from the lower sea of the Tigris and Euphrates to the upper sea, and granted him the dominion of everything(?) from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun, and caused the countries to dwell in peace." Lugalzaggisi made a small empire at one stroke, and his boastful inscription begins with a long list of titles "Lugalzaggisi, king of Erech, king of the world, priest of Ana, hero of Nidaba, son of Ukush, patesi of Gishban, hero of Nidaba, he who was favorably looked upon by the faithful eye of Lugalkurkura (that is, Enlil), great patesi of Enlil." The power of his name extended even to the shores of the Mediterranean, though, of course, he did not attempt to rule over so vast a territory.

Lugalzaggisi was succeeded on the throne by his son, Lugal-kisalsi, and it appeared for a time as though the Sumerian kingdom was blotted out forever, and that no more than peaceful absorption into the Semitic life could await it. But a kingdom slowly built up during the ages often makes more than one effort to retain its life, and this was to be the case with the Sumerian kingdom.

Perhaps while Lugal-kisalsi was still alive a reaction began. The nucleus for it was found in an ancient kingdom, the kingdom of Shirpurla, whose chief city was Sungir, in southern Babylonia. Who had laid the foundations of either city or kingdom is unknown to us. We come upon them both in full power and dignity, about 4500 B. C. Urukagina then is king of Shirpurla, and he is engaged in the building and restoration of temples and the construction of a canal to supply his city with water. But it is only a glimpse that we catch of his operations in the far distant past, and then he disappears and for some time, perhaps a generation or more, we hear nothing of his city or kingdom. Then there appears a new king in Sungir, Ur-Nina. Like Urukagina, he also was a builder of temples, for which he brought timber all the way from Magan-the Sinaitic peninsula. There is no mention in any of his little inscriptions of war, and in his time uninterrupted peace seems to have prevailed. He was succeeded by his son, Akurgal, none of whose inscriptions have come down to us. After him came his son, Eannatum, who felt sorely the increasing pressure of the Semitic hordes, and determined to strike a blow against Gishban and its domination of Babylonia. The Sumerians won, and the bloody battle remained long famous in the annals of a dying people. Upon his return, covered with honor, Eannatum set up in the temple of his god Niu-Sungir a splendid stele in commemoration of his victory. Upon one of its white limestone faces stand two goddesses, before whom lies a great heap of weapons and of booty taken from the Semites. Above them is the totem, or coat of arms of the city--a double-headed eagle above two demi-lions placed back to back. On the other side of the stele is Eannatum standing upright in his war chariot, with a great spear in his hand, followed by his troops and charging upon the enemy. The plain is covered with the bodies of his enemies, and vultures fight with each other and devour the mangled heads, legs, and arms of the defeated enemy. Rude though it undoubtedly is, yet the execution bears witness to high civilization, for such execution could only be the result of long practice in the plastic art. By this one stroke Eannatum had freed Ur and Uruk from the Semitic invader and had imparted a fresh lease of life to the almost expiring Sumerian commonwealth. The new energy of victory was shown at once. Elam was invaded and Sumerian supremacy almost entirely reestablished over the whole of Babylonia and its tributary lands. The simple records of his deeds makes Eannatum one of the greatest conquerors of the far distant past. He was succeeded by his brother, En-anna-tuma I, and he by his son, Entemena, who has left us a beautiful silver vase with a brief inscription as well as fragments of vases which he presented to the great god Enlil at Nippur. After him came his son, En-anna-tuma II, who remains up to this time but a shadowy personality before us. With him we lose sight of the little kingdom of Shirpurla for a considerable period, and all our interest is transferred again to Semitic kingdoms in the north.

At about 3800 B. C. we catch a glimpse of another conqueror in Babylonia. At Nippur there have been found sixty-one fragments of vases bearing the name of the king Alusharshid. From the fragments of these vases a complete inscription has been made out, which reads: "Alusharshid, king of the world, presented (it) to Bel from the spoil of Elam when he had subjugated Elam and Barase." This inscription makes known the important fact that a king, living probably at Kish, had conquered part of the land of Elam and the unknown land of Barase (or Parase), from which he brought back fine marble vases and dedicated them to the gods of Babylonia. It is significant that these vases are dedicated to gods at Nippur and Sippar, for in this we find indications of a kingdom which included northern Babylonia, Nippur, Sippar, and extended its influence even over the land of Elam. And with these few faint rays of light from the north and its kingdom darkness again closes in upon early Babylonia.

Once more, at about the same period, do we get sight of a bright light in the gray dawn of history, and this time it is, not from Babylonia, but from Guti, the mountain country of Kurdistan, from which the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers came down to Assyria and Babylonia. Here reigned a king whose words are thus read: "Lasirab (?) the mighty king of Guti,... has made and presented (it.) Whoever removes this inscribed stone and writes (the mention of) his name thereupon his foundation may Guti, Ninna, and Sin tear up, and exterminate his seed, and may whatsoever he undertakes not prosper." In itself brief and unimportant, this little text introduces us to another land under Semitic influences at a very early period.

Manishtusu, another king of the same period, has left us a mace head and a stele as memorials of his sovereignty, yet we have few clews to his personality.

Far away also from northern Babylonia, in the mountain country of the northeast, there existed at about this same period another Semitic kingdom, of which Anu-banini was king. His was the kingdom of Lulubi, and he a Semitic ruler. At Ser-i-Pul, on the borderland between Kurdistan and Turkey, his carved image has been found with an inscription calling down curses on whom-so-ever should disturb "these images and this inscribed stone."

Here, then, are several signs of Semitic power and culture in northern Babylonia and its neighboring lands. Some one of these centers of influence might become the center of a great kingdom that should again attack the Sumerians in the south. But this was reserved for a city which had up to this time produced no great conqueror. Out of the city of Agade came a man of Semitic stock great enough to essay and accomplish the task of ending finally the political influence of the Sumerians. His name is Shargani-shar-ali, but he is also called Shargina, and is best known to us as Sargon I. Most of that which is told of him comes to us in a legendary text-hardly the place to which one would commonly go for sober history. But a little sifting of this source speedily reveals its historic basis. The text, two mutilated copies of which are in existence, belongs to a much later date than that of the king himself. It was probably written in the eighth century B. C., and purports to be a copy of an inscription which was found upon a statue of the great king. The story begins in this way: "Shargina, the powerful king, the king of Agade am I. My mother was poor, my father I knew not; the brother of my father lived in the mountains. My town was Asupirani, which is situated on the bank of the Euphrates. My mother, who was poor, conceived me and secretly gave birth to me; she placed me in a basket of reeds, she shut up the mouth of it with bitumen, she abandoned me to the river, which did not over-whelm me. The river bore me away and brought me to Akki, the irrigator. Akki, the irrigator, received me in the goodness of his heart. Akki, the irrigator, reared me to boyhood. Akki, the irrigator made me a gardener. My service as a gardener was pleasing unto Ishtar and I became king, and during...four years held royal sway. I commanded the black-headed people and ruled them". In the fragmentary lines which follow the king mentions some of the important places conquered in his reign, and among them names Duril and Dilmun, the latter an island in the Persian Gulf. Unhappily this account does not enable us to construct a very clear idea of his campaigns, and we are forced to fall back upon a source which at first sight seems even less likely to contain veritable historical material than the legendary tab let which we have just cited. This is an astrological tablet in which the writer tries to prove by historical examples that portents are valuable as indicating the issue of some campaign. Each campaign was preceded by some portent, and after it is told the writer explains that Sargon invaded Elam and conquered the Elamites, or that he marched into the west and mastered the four quarters of the world; or that he overcame an uprising of his own subjects in Agade. The fact that these details occur in an astrological text makes one wary of placing much reliance upon them. On the other hand, they are perfectly reasonable in themselves, and we should accept them at once from any other inscription.

It has been maintained by some that Shargina, or Sargon, and his great deeds are purely legendary, and by others that his deeds have been simply projected backward from some later king, and have therefore no historical value. There is, however, no valid reason for doubting the main facts concerning the king's achievements. That he actually existed is placed beyond all doubt by the discovery of several of his own inscriptions. One of these reads thus: "Shargani-char-ali, son of Itti-Bel, the mighty king of Agade and of Bel, builder of Ekur, temple of Bel in Nippur," and so bears witness not only to his historical existence, but also to his work as a builder. Of that tangible evidence has been found at Nippur. Far down in the mound is found the remains of a "pavement consisting of two courses of burned bricks of uniform size and mold. Each brick measures about fifty centimeters square and is eight centimeters thick." Most of the bricks in this pavement are stamped, and a number of them contain the inscription of Shargani-shar-ali, who is thus shown to have laid down this massive construction, in which later his son also participated. No good reason for doubting that he was a great conqueror, east, south, and west, has been brought forward. On the other hand, when these same omen tablets refer to his son and successor they can be tested by texts of the king referred to, and prove to be worthy of credence. The allusions to these expeditions show that they were raids intended to gain plunder with which to increase the wealth and beauty of his home cities. It is not to be supposed that he succeeded in extending his dominion over lands so distant as northern Syria, but that the securing of great cedar beams from the Lebanon was the chief object of that expedition. A use for these cedar beams was soon found in buildings, 'The great temple of Ekur to the god Bel in Nippur and the temple of Eulbar to the goddess Anunit in Agade were built by him. Other allusions to buildings erected by him are also to be found in later inscriptions. In warlike prowess he was the model for an Assyrian king who bore his name centuries later; in building skill he was emulated by a long line of Babylonian kings even unto Nabonidus, who sought diligently to find the foundation stones which he had laid. In the omen tablet there is evidence of credulous faith in the signs of heaven, but that is surely no reason for doubting all that is told therein of Sargon. A lonesome figure he is, in the dull gray dawn of human history, stalking across the scene, bringing other men to reverence the name of Ishtar, and making his own personality dreaded.

Sargon was succeeded by his son, Naram-Sin (about B. C. 3750), who seems to have maintained in large degree the glory of his father's reign. The records of his reign are fragmentary, but every little piece bears witness to its importance. He is asserted to have invaded the city of Apirak, and to have carried the people into slavery after he had killed their king, Rish-Adad. His chief warlike expedition known to us was into the land of Magan, which appears to lie in Arabia, near the Peninsula of Sinai. But he was still more famous as a builder, for he rebuilt temples in Nippur and in Agade, and erected at his own cost the temple to the sun god in Sippar. Besides these temples this great king laid the foundations and erected the enormous outer wall of Nippur - the great wall Nimit-Marduk. He first dug for his foundations about five meters below the level of the ground down to the solid clay. Upon this he "built of worked clay mixed with cut straw and laid up en masse with roughly sloping or battered sides to a total height of about 5.5 meters. Upon the top of this large base, which is about 13.75 meters wide, a wall of the same enormous width was raised. The bricks were "dark gray in color, firm in texture, and of regular form. In quality they are unsurpassed by the work of any later king." Each of these bricks bore the stamped name and titles of the king. A king who could and did construct such massive fortifications must have possessed a kingdom of great political importance, of whose extent, however, it is now impossible to form a very clear idea. His chief city, or at least his original home city, was Agade, but he calls himself King of the Four Quarters of the World, in token of the world-wide dominion which he deemed himself to have attained. It is small wonder that a king who had thus won honor among men as a builder of mighty works and an organizer of a great kingdom should be deified by his followers and worshiped as a creator. Nothing is known of the successors of Naram-Sin except of his son, Bingani-shar-ali. The kingdom of Sargon and his son vanishes from our view as rapidly as it came, leaving not even a trace of its effects.

Sargon I had had as one of his vassals Lugal-ushumgal, patesi of Shirpurla, and it seems quite probable that after the end of the dynasty of Sargon and Naram-Sin the hegemony returned to the famous old city which had once stood at the head in the earlier day of the entire Sumerian domination. Whether that be the case or not, when we next get a clear view of Babylonia, long after the days of the kings of Agade, it is Shir-purla that we find in the chief place. Of the patesis of Shirpurla at this early date two are known to us as men of power and distinction, Ur-Bau (about 3200 B. C.) and Gudea (about 3000 B. C.). We possess a long inscription of the former, containing six columns, engraved upon the back of a small statue of the king, which has been wrought with considerable skill out of dark green diorite. Like other inscriptions of the same period, it contains but little material for historical purposes. There is no word of battle and war; all is peace serene in these ancient texts. It is not, however, to be supposed that the lot of these kingdoms was thus happy. It must always be remembered that even unto the end the kings of Babylonia did not write accounts of their wars. From other sources we know well that Nebuchadrezzar was a great soldier, but in only a single one of his own inscriptions does he speak of aught else but building of palaces and temples and dedications to the gods. Ur-Bau had, doubtless, his fair share of the tumults of a very disturbed age.

The inscriptions of Gudea are similar to those of Ur-Bau in their subjects, but they give us incidentally a glimpse into a wider field. Ur-Bau was succeeded on the throne by Nammaghani, his son-in-law, who was, perhaps, followed by Ur-nin-gal, and then comes a break in the list to be filled by one or more kings yet unknown to us. After this lacuna comes the mighty Gudea, a king great enough to prove that even yet the Sumerian factor could not be eliminated from the world's history. Like Ur-Bau, he was a great builder, and of his wonderful work his inscriptions are full. In the building of his temples Gudea was directed by a divine vision. The goddess Nina appeared to him in a dream and showed him the complete model of a building which he should erect in her honor. In the execution of this plan he brought from Magan (northeastern Arabia) the beautiful hard dolerite out of which his statues were carved. From the land of Melukhkha (northwestern Arabia and the Peninsula of Sinai) were brought gold and precious stones. These lands were not far from his own, but it is more surprising to read that he brought from Mount Amanus, in northwestern Syria, great beams of cedar, and in other neighboring mountains quarried massive stones for his temples. All these facts throw a bright light upon the civilization of his day. That was no ordinary civilization which could achieve work requiring such skill and power as the quarrying or the cutting of these materials and the transportation of them over such distances. A long period for its development must be assumed. Centuries only and not merely decades would suffice as the period of preparation for such accomplishments. But it is also to be observed that the securing of these materials must have involved the use of armed force. The sturdy inhabitants of the Amanus would not probably yield up their timber without a struggle. One little indication there is of Gudea's prowess in arms, for he conquered the district of Anshan, in Elam. This single allusion to conquest is instructive, for it was probably only representative of other conquests by the same builder and warrior. But in spite of this inference the general impression made by his reign is one of peace, of progress in civilization, of splendid ceremonial in the worship of the gods, and of the progress of the art of writing. As a warrior he is not to be compared with Sargon of Agade; as an exponent of civilization he far surpasses him. The successor of Gudea was Urningirsu, himself followed after an interval by Akurgal II, Lukani, and Ghalalama. But these later patesis were no longer free to do their own will as Gudea had been. With him had again passed away the independence of the ancient kingdom of Shirpurla.

The civilization of Shirpurla was, as we have seen, a high one. From the indications which we possess at present it would seem a far higher civilization than that of Agade, which had overcome it for a time. But it was not a Semitic civilization. All these inscriptions of the kings and of the patesas of Shirpurla are written in the Sumerian and not in a Semitic language. This also would seem to point to the conclusion that the Semites entered Babylonia from the north and not from the south.

From Shirpurla the power passed to Ur, a city admirably situated to achieve commercial and historical importance. The river Euphrates flowed just past its gates, affording easy transportation for stone and wood from its upper waters, to which the Lebanon, rich in cedars, and the Amanus were readily accessible. The wady Rummein came close to the city and linked it with central and southern Arabia, and along that road came gold and precious stones, and gums and perfumes to be converted into incense for temple worship. Another road went across the very desert itself, and, provided with wells of water, conducted trade to southern Syria, the Peninsula of Sinai, and across into Africa. This was the shortest road to Africa, and commerce between Ur and Egypt passed over its more difficult but much shorter route than the one by way of Haran and Palestine. Nearly opposite the city the Shatt-el-Hai emptied into the Euphrates, and so afforded a passage for boats into the Tigris, thus opening to the commerce of Ur the vast country tributary to that river. Here, then, were roads and rivers leading to the north, east, and west, but there was also a great outlet to the southward. The Euphrates made access to the Persian Gulf easy. No city lay south of Ur on that river except Eridu, and Eridu was no competitor in the world of commerce, for it was devoted only to temples and gods - a city given up to religion.

In a city so favorably located as Ur the development of political as well as commercial superiority seems perfectly natural. Even before the days of Sargon the city of Ur had an existence and a government of its own. To that early period belong the rudely written vases of serpentine and of stalagmite which bear the name and titles of Lugal-kigub-nidudn (about 3900 B. C.), king of Erech, king of Ur. We know nothing of his work in the upbuilding of the city, nor of that of his son and successor, Lugal-kisalsi. They are but empty names until further discovery shall add to the store of their inscribed remains. After their work was done the city of Ur was absorbed now into one and now into another of the kingdoms, both small and great, which held sway over southern Babylonia.

About a thousand years after this period the city of Ur again seized a commanding position through the efforts especially of two kings, Ur-Gur and Dungi. The former has left many evidences of his power as well in inscriptions as in buildings. Most probably by conquest Ur-Gur welded into one political whole the entire land of northern and southern Babylonia, and assumed a title never borne before his day. He calls himself king of Sumer and Accad. In that title he joined together two words each of which contained a history extending far back into the past. The word Sumer, derived from Sungir, as we have already seen, stood for the ancient Sumerian civilization, while Accad had come from Agade, the city that was once the leader in the new Semitic movement which was, to supersede it. In this new kingdom we may see the first clear move made toward the formation of the great empire that was to come later.

All over this kingdom which he had thus formed did Ur-Gur build great structures for protection, for civil use, or for the worship of the gods. In his own chief city of Ur he built the great temple to the moon god; in the city of Erech he erected a temple to the goddess Nina. At Larsa also there are found unmistakable evidences that it was he who built there the shrine of the sun god. When these cities are dug up in a systematic fashion we shall be able to obtain some conception of his activity in this matter. At present we are able to form a more complete picture of his works in Nippur than in Ur. In Nippur he built a great ziggurat, or pyramidal tower, whose base was a right-angled parallelogram nearly fifty-nine meters, long and thirty-nine meters wide. Its two longest sides faced northwest and southeast respectively, and the four corners pointed approximately to the four cardinal points. Three of these stages have been traced and exposed. It is scarcely possible that formerly other stages existed above. The lowest story was about six and a third meters high, while the second (receding a little over four meters from the edge of the former) and the third are so utterly ruined that the original dimensions can no more be given. The whole ziggurat appears like an immense altar." The defensive walls of Ur were also built by Ur-Gur, who seemed to be building for all time. Of his wars and conquests we hear no word, but, as has been said before in a similar instance, it is not probable that his reign was thus peaceful. It was probably built by the sword, and to the sword must be the appeal perhaps in frequent instances.

Ur-Gur was succeeded by his son, Dungi, who was also indefatigable in building operations. He completed the temple of the moon god in Ur, and built, also, in Erech, Shirpurla, and Kutha. These two names of Ur-Gur and Dungi are all that remain of what was perhaps a considerable dynasty in Ur. Their buildings and their titles would seem to indicate that they held at least nominal sway over a considerable part of Babylonia. It is probable, however, that they were contented with the regular receipt of tribute, and did not attempt to control all the life of the cities subject to them. Each of these cities had its own local ruler, who submitted to the superior force of a great king, who was to him a sort of suzerain, but on the least show of weakness any one of these rulers was ready to set up his own independence, and, if be were strong enough compel also his neighbors to accept him as suzerain. When the dynasty of Ur-Gur and Dungi was no longer able to maintain its position in Babylonia there were not wanting men strong enough to seize it.

After some time, when we again are able, by the means of monumental material, to see the political life of Babylonia we find that the supremacy has passed into the hands of the city of Isin. The kings of Isin whose names have comedown to us are Ishbigarra, Ur-Ninib, Libit Ishtar, Bur Sin I, and Ishme-Dagan, who ruled about 2500 B. C. The chief title used by them is king of Isin, but some of them use the greater title, king of Sumer and Accad. All of them use the names of other cities in addition to that of Isin, such as Nippur, Ur, Eridu, and Erech. Their inscriptions give no hint of the life of these cities or of the neverending struggles for supremacy that must have been going on. To their titles they add only an occasional allusion to building or to restoration. Ishme-Dagan is the last man of this dynasty to bear the title of king of Sumer and Accad; his son, En-annatuma, acknowledges his dependence upon a king of Ur who begins a new dynasty in that famous old city.

The third dynasty of Ur consists of Dungi II, Gungunu, Bur Sin II, Gamil Sin, and Ine-Sin. They began to reign about 2400 B. C. as kings of Ur, and to that add the curious title "King of the Four Quarters (of the world)." Where was the Kingdom of the Four Quarters of the World, and why do the kings use such a title? It appears much earlier in an inscription of Naram-Sin, and is applied also to Sargon after his three campaigns in the west, while an inscription of Dungi bears the same curious legend. Again and again in later centuries is the title borne by kings of Babylonia and Assyria. It has been thought to be the name of some kingdom with a definite geo-graphical location and a capital city. It has been located at several places in northern Babylonia, but without satisfactory reason. The title is rather the claim to a sort of world-wide dominion. Well indeed might Sargon use it after he had made expeditions into the west and laid the whole civilized world tributary at his feet. The use of the title by these kings may also imply some successful raids in the far west. If there were any such, no account of them has come down to us. Besides the usual records of their building we have from this dynasty only hundreds of contract tablets, now scattered in museums nearly all over the world. These tablets, uninteresting in themselves, are yet the witnesses of an extraordinary development in commercial lines. The land of Babylonia was waxing rich and laying the foundations for great power in the world of trade when its political supremacy was ended. The end of the dynasty, and with it the end of the dominion of Ur, is clouded in the mists of the past.

At about this same period there was also in existence a small kingdom called the kingdom of Amnanu, with its chief city Erech. The names of three of its sovereigns have come down to us upon brief inscriptions, the chiefest of them being apparently Sin-gashid. Unlike the kingdoms founded in Ur and in other cities, this kingdom of Amnanu seems to have exerted but small influence upon the historical development of the country. The name of the kingdom disappears, and is attached to no later king until it is suddenly used again by Shamashshumukin (667-647 B. C.), but apparently without any special significance, and rather as a reminiscence of ancient days.

After Ur, in the progress of the development of empire in Babylonia, came the dominion unto Larsa, the modern Senkereh, on the bank of the canal Shatt-en-Nil. The names of two of the chief kings of this dynasty are Nur-Adad and his son, Sin-iddin, but the order in which they stand is still uncertain. Both of these kings built in Ur, and Sin-iddin also founded a temple to the sun god in Larsa, and dug a new canal between the Tigris and the Shatt-en-Nil. This work of canal building, which became so important and so highly prized in the later history, begins there-fore at this early period. The king who built canals saved the land from flood in the spring and from drought in the summer and was a real public benefactor. The names of the other kings who ruled in Larsa and had dominion in Babylonia at this time are either wholly unknown to us or are exceedingly difficult to place in correct order.

The times were sorely disturbed and it is easy to understand why the Babylonian records are in such disorder as to make it difficult to understand the exact order of events. At this time a new factor in Babylonian history was making itself felt. Babylonia had long been the battle ground between the ancient Sumerians and the Semites. The day had now come when a new people the Elamites must enter the lists for the possession of the deeply coveted valley. The rulers of Elam appear to have made many attempts to get a hold upon parts of Babylonia. One of them was Rim-Anum, who actually did get control at about this time of some parts of the country, and was referred to in business documents as Rim-Anum the king. As no historical texts have come down to us from his reign, it is impossible to say how long he ruled or what influence he had upon the country.

To this same period of Elamite invasions belongs Kudur-Nankhundi, who made a raid into Babylonia 2285 B. C., reached Erech and plundered its temples, carrying away into captivity a statue of the goddess Nana. His influence upon the land was apparently very slight, for apparently no documents exist which are dated in his period. It is probable that he was not successful in establishing any dominion over the country at all. But his failure would not daunt other princes; the prize was great and men would not fail in its winning for want of a trial.

Probably soon after Kudur-Nankhundi the successful raid was made. The Babylonian inscriptions have preserved for us no mention of the king's name who swept down into the valley and carried all before him. The Hebrews among their traditions preserved the name of Chedor-laomer (Kudur-Lagamar) as the Elamite who invaded the far west. To him or to other Elamite invaders the weak kingdom of Sumer and Accad was able to offer no effectual resistance, and the kings of Larsa were quickly dispossessed. The Elamites in a few short years had swept from east to west, destroying kingdoms whose foundations extended into the distant past. Their success reminds one of the career of the Persians in a later day.

Under the rule of these Elamite conquerors Kudur-Mabuk was prince of E-mutbal, in western Elam. His authority and influence were extended into Babylonia, and perhaps even farther west. He built in Ur a temple to the moon god as a thank offering for his success.

He was succeeded by his son, Eri-Aku, who was still more Babylonian than his father. He extended the city of Ur, rebuilding its great city walls "like unto a mountain," restored its temples, and apparently became a patron of that city rather than of Larsa, though he still calls himself king of Larsa. The Elamite people were now become in the fullest sense masters of all southern Babylonia. Eri-Aku calls himself "exalter of Ur, king of Larsa, king of Sumer and Accad," and so claims all the honors which had belonged to the kings of native stock who had preceded him. This invasion and occupation of southern Babylonia by the Elamites prepared the way for the conquest of southern Babylonia by the north and the establishment of a permanent order of things in the land so long disturbed.

With Larsa ends the series of small states, of whose existence we have caught mere glimpses, during a period of more than two thousand years. As Maspero has well said: "We have here the mere dust of history rather than history itself; here an isolated individual makes his appearance in the record of his name, to vanish when we attempt to lay hold of him; there the stem of a dynasty which breaks abruptly off, pompous preambles, devout formulas, dedications of objects or buildings, here or there the account of some battle or the indication of some foreign country with which relations of friendship or commerce were maintained-these are the scanty materials out of which to construct a connected narrative." But, though we have only names of kings of various cities and faint indications of their deeds, we are able, nevertheless, out of these materials to secure in some measure an idea of the development of political life and of civilization in the land.

As has been already said, the civilization of southern Babylonia, in the period 4000-2300 B. C., was at the foundation Sumerian. But during a large part of this time it was Sumerian influenced by Semitic civilization. The northern kingdom even about 3800 B. C. was Semitic. Intercourse was free and widely extended, as the inscriptions of Sargon and Naram-Sin and the operations of Gudea have conclusively shown. The Sumerian civilization was old, and the seeds of death were in it; the Semitic civilization, on the other hand, was instinct with life and vigor. The Semite had come out of the free airs of the desert of Arabia and had in his veins a bounding life. It was natural that his vigorous civilization should permeate at first slowly and then rapidly into the senile culture of the Sumerians. The Sumerian inscriptions early begin to give evidence of Semitic influence. Here it is a word borrowed from the Semitic neighbors, there it is a name of man or god. This influence increased. Toward the end of the period the Semitic words are frequent, the Semitic idiom is in a fair way to a complete peaceful conquest, and political contest would bring about the final triumph of Semitism, though not the extermination of Sumerian influence. It remained until the very end of Babylon itself, and the rise of the Indo-European world powers. The conservatism of religious customs gave to the old language and the old literature, now become sacred, a new life. The temples still bore Sumerian names when Babylon's last conqueror entered the magnificent gates.

Concerning the political development we know altogether too little for dogmatic conclusions. The whole may be summed up in the following manner: The earliest indications show us the city as the center of government. The chief man in the city is its king, or, if there be no title of king, he is called patesi. When the surrounding country is annexed his title remains the same; he is still king of the city. But after a time a new custom comes into vogue. Ur-Ba'u is king of Ur, but he is more, he is also king of Sumer and Accad. By that expression we are introduced to the conception of a government which controlled not only segregated cities, but a united country, northern and southern Babylonia. The position of the capital was indeed fluctuating. The capital depends altogether on the king and his place of origin. The kingdom has its governmental center in Ur, but Ur is not its permanent capital. The capital is later found in Isin, and the kings of Isin are then kings of Sumer and Accad when they have conquered and bear rule in the north and south. This old title lives on through the centuries, and later kings in other cities are proud to carry it on their inscriptions.

This union of all Babylonia under one king was not the means of creating a national unity strong enough to resist the outside invader. Sumerian civilization seemed to have reached the end of its development as a political factor. The raids of the Elamites scattered and broke its power, and the time was ready for a man strong enough to conquer the petty kings of Larsa, take the title of king of Sumer and Accad and make a strong kingdom.

 

THE FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES OF BABYLON

 

THE origin of the city of Babylon is veiled in impenetrable obscurity. The first city built upon the site must have been founded fully four thousand years before Christ, and it may have been much earlier. The city is named in the Omen tablet of Sargon, and, though this is no proof that the city was actually in existence about 3800 B. C., it does prove that a later tradition assigned to it this great antiquity. At this early date, however, it seems not to have been a city of importance. During the long period of the rise of the kingdom of Sumer and Accad no king in the south finds Babylon worthy of mention, though Babylon must have been developing into a city of influence during the later centuries of the dominion of Isin and Larsa. From about 2300 B. C. the influence of this city extends almost without a break to the period of the Seleucides. No capital in the world has ever been the center of so much power, wealth, and culture for a period so vast. It is in-deed a brilliant cycle of centuries upon which we enter.

The name of the first king of Babylon is given in the Babylonian King Lists as Sumu-abi (about 2454-2440 B. C.), of whom we know nothing. We have likewise no historical inscriptions of his immediate successors, and our only knowledge of their reigns is to be obtained from the fragmentary notes of contract tablets, which sometimes give indications of the life of the people. From the inscriptions of later kings we also get word of some building operations of two of them. These kings are Sumu-la-ilu (about 2439-2405 B. C.), who built six strong fortresses in Babylon, and Zabu (about 2404-2391 B. C.), who erected in Sippar of Anunit the temple of Edubar to the city's deity. After Zabu there was apparently all attempted revolution, for we get hints that a certain Immeru attempted to ascend the throne. His name does not appear on the King List, and it is probable that he was not able to gain a secure position in the kingdom.

The next rulers are Apil-Sin (about 2390-2373 B. C.) and Sin-muballit (about 2372-2343 B. C.), whose reigns are likewise unknown to us.

It is a noteworthy fact that in the large numbers of business documents which have come down to us out of the period of this first dynasty of Babylon, none of these rulers down to Apil-Sin is called king and Sin-muballit only in the form of a passing allusion in one single tablet. It is difficult to explain this fact unless we accept the view that the real kingdom of Babylon did not begin until Hammurabi had driven out the Elamites and so won for himself the title borne by the old kings. of Ur, Isin, and Larsa.

The son and successor of Sin-muballit was Hammurabi (about 2342-2288 B. C.), with whom begins a new era. It is the chief glory of his name that he made a united Babylonia, and that the union which he cemented remained until the scepter passed from Semitic hands to another race. In this he far exceeded the success of Sargon and Lugalzaggisi, whose empires were of but short duration. Yet he had even greater difficulties to meet than they. The Elamites were firmly fastened in the country, and would hardly give it up without a struggle. The activity displayed by these Elamite princes in building was an indication of how much they valued their new possessions. We are not yet in possession of facts enough to enable us to follow the movements of Hammurabi in his conquest of the country. The struggle was probably brief and without distinction. The people of the kingdom of Sumer and Accad had no genuine national life, no divine patriotism. When one king passed they cared not, and as willingly paid taxes to another, if only he made them no heavier. The Elamites were soon driven out of Babylonia, and Hammurabi assumed the titles of king of Sumer and Accad, king of the Four Quarters of the World, as well as the old title, king of Babylon. The ready acquiescence of the people in the new rule of Hammurabi and the new leadership of the city of Babylon is shown conclusively by the entire absence of any uprising or of any attempt to throw off the yoke. The time was ripe for the overturning of the old Sumerian state, and in Hammurabi was found the man for the new era. The manner of the con. quest is unknown to us, and in the knowledge of the fact we must rest content.

We know very little about the government of the country which Hammurabi had thus organized into a consolidated kingdom or empire. That he had petty princes or viceroys under him is made clear by sundry letters and dispatches to such officials which have come down to us. But it is still impossible so to order these little fragments. as to gain complete or satisfying pictures of his relation to them. If Hammurabi be the same person as Amraphel, who is mentioned in the Hebrew traditions (Gen. xiv), and many suppose, with considerable reason, that he is, we have there evidence that he was deemed in a later period to have had a considerable body of allies with whom he was associated in campaigns in the west. Of these who are thus mentioned Chedorlaomer has not yet been identified on any Babylonian inscription of an early date, though the name may well correspond with a form Kudur-lagamar, for both parts of which there is ample support. On an inscription of late date (about 300 B. C.) a name has been found which, whether it be read Kudur-nuchgamar, or Kudur-lugkgamar, or what not, almost certainly represents Chedorlaomer. The name of Tidal, king of Goum, has not yet been certainly identified; but in this same inscription a certain "Tudchula, son of Gazza," appears to be mentioned, who possibly represents Tidal. Arioch, king of Ellasar, is certainly to be identified with Eri-Aku, son of Kudur-Mabuk, the well-known king of Larsa. The narrative of their campaigns in the west accords well with what we know of the general situation, but forms only an episode in Babylonian history, and cannot now be satisfactorily related to the general movements of the time.

As soon as the conquest of Sumer and Accad was completed Hammurabi showed himself the statesman even more than the soldier. He displayed extraordinary care in the development of the resources of the land, and in thus increasing the wealth and comfort of the inhabitants. The chiefest of his great works is best described in his own ringing words, the words of a conqueror, a statesman, and a patriot: "Hammurabi, the powerful king, king of Babylon,... when Anu and Bel gave unto me to rule the land of Sumer and Accad, and with their scepter filled my hands, I dug the canal Hammurabi, the Blessing-of-Men, which bringeth the water of the overflow unto the land of Sumer and Accad. Its banks upon both sides I made arable land; much seed I scattered upon it. Lasting water I provided for the land of Sumer and Accad. The land of Sumer and Accad, its separated peoples I united, with blessings and abundance I endowed them, in peaceful dwellings I made them to live." This was no idle promise made to the people before the union of Sumer and Accad under the hegemony of Babylon, but the actual accomplishment of a man who knew how to knit to himself and his royal house the hearts of the people of a conquered land. There is a world of wisdom in the deeds of this old king. No work could possibly have been performed by him which would bring greater blessing than the building of a canal by which a nearly rainless land could be supplied with abundant water. After making the canal, Hammurabi followed the example of his predecessors in Babylonia and carried out extensive building operations in various parts of the land. On all sides we find evidences of his efforts in this work. In Babylon itself he erected a great granary for the storing of wheat against times of famine--a work of mercy as well as of necessity, which would find prompt recognition among oriental peoples then as now. The temples to the sun god in Larsa and in Sippar were rebuilt by him; the walls of the latter city were reconstructed "like a great mountain"-to use his own phrase- and the city was enriched by the construction of a new canal. The great temples of E-sagila in Babylon and E-zida in the neighboring Borsippa showed in increased size and in beauty the influence of his labors. There is evidence, also, that he built for himself a palace at the site now marked by the ruin of Kalwadha, near Baghdad.

But these buildings are only external evidences of the great work wrought in this long reign for civilization. The best of the culture of the ancient Sumerians was brought into Babylon, and there carefully conserved. What this meant to the centuries that came after is shown clearly in the later inscriptions. To Babylon the later kings of Assyria look constantly as to the real center of culture and civilization. No Assyrian king is content with Nineveh and its glories, great though these were in later days; his greatest glory came when he could call himself king of Babylon, and perform the symbolic act of taking hold of the hands of Bel-Marduk. Nineveh was the center of a kingdom of warriors, Babylon the abode of scholars; and the wellspring of all this is to be found in the work of Hammurabi.

But if the kings of Assyria looked to Babylon with longing eyes, yet more did later kings in the city of Babylon itself look back to the days of Hammurabi as the golden age of their history. Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar acknowledged his position in the most flattering way, for they imitated in their inscriptions the very words and phrases in which he had described his building, and, not satisfied with this, even copied the exact form of his tablets and the style of their writing. In building his plans were followed, and in rule and administration his methods were imitated. His works and his words entitle him to rank as the real founder of Babylon. Hammurabi reigned fifty-five years according to the King Lists, but forty-three years according to a native document which comes to us from his own dynasty.

When the long reign was ended the son of Hammurabi entered into his father's labors. Samsu-iluna (about 2287-2253) seems to have followed closely in the footsteps of Hammurabi. He tells us of building in Nippur and in other cities -some of them still unknown to us- of increasing the size of Babylon itself, and of continuing the works upon canals. The profound peace which Hammurabi achieved by arms continues through his reign and into the reigns of his successors. We have no historical inscriptions, for the records which have come down from their reigns are the so-called contract or business tablets, from which no connected story has yet been made out. From them we learn of the high civilization of the country and of its continued prosperity. The names of these kings, with their approximate dates, can only be set down until some future discovery reveals records with a historical meaning.

Abeshu (Ebishum), about 2252-2228 B. C.

Ammisatana, about 2227-2203 B. C.

Ammisadugga, about 2202-2182 B. C.

Samsusatana, about 2181-2115 B. C.

The names of the kings of this dynasty are very peculiar when one thinks that they are set down as native rulers over the city of Babylon. The origin of Zabu and its meaning are very doubtful, Apil-Sin and Sin-muballit are good Babylonian names, but the other eight are most certainly not Babylonian at all. This at once raises the question as to the nationality or race of these kings. The names would seem to suggest that the men who bore them were not Babylonian, but had come from some other branch of the great Semitic family. This seems now to be quite probable. Their names are for the most part to be connected with the Canaanite branch of the Semitic family, and it seems probable that they owe their origin to an invasion of Babylonia by the same race that peopled the highlands of Canaan. How and when they settled in Babylon remains obscure. According to the King Lists this dynasty was followed immediately by the second dynasty, which in all things must have been very like its predecessor. It is called the dynasty of Uru-Azag, and it has been conjectured that this refers to a district of the city of Babylon. This would make this dynasty consist of native princes, who had originated in a separate part of the city, by which they are named. The names of these kings and the length of their reigns are here given:

 

1	An-ma-an, about	2150-2091	(60)
2	Ki-an-ni-bi	2090-2035	(56)
3	Dam-ki-ilu-shu	2034-2009	(26)
4	Ish-ki-bal	2008-1994	(15)
5	Shu-ush-shi	1993-1970	(24)
6	Gul-ki-shar (? Kur)	1969-1915	(55)
7	Kir-gal-dara-bar	1914-1865	(50)
8	A-dara-kalama	1864-1837	(28)
9	A-kur-ul-an-na	1836-1811	(26)
10	Me-lam-kur-kur-ra	1810-1803	(8)
11	Ea-ga-mil	1802-1783(20)
			368 years

 

 

We owe this list of kings and the length of each reign to the Babylonian historians. It is certainly a surprising list of years of reign. As our confidence in the length of reigns given to kings in the first dynasty has been somewhat shaken by the discovery of the Babylonian Chronicle, in which Hammurabi receives forty-three years instead of fifty-five years, we may feel a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of these long reigns. No inscriptions of any of these kings have yet been found, and no business documents dated in their reigns have come to light. It is not therefore to be argued that the kings had no existence. Inscriptions of theirs may readily be supposed to be still in existence in the vast stores yet unearthed, or reasons may easily be found for supposing that a systematic effort had been made to destroy all their records. It has been supposed that during, perhaps, the latter part of this term the disturbances and movements began which resulted in the removal of all rule from the hands of the Babylonians and the transfer of it to invaders from the Kassite country. However that may be, a long period elapsed from the days of Hammurabi until the passing of power into the hands of foreigners. Hammurabi had indeed builded well. North and south together acknowledged the dominion of his successors. Peace at home and abroad gave leisure for the pursuit of literature, art, and science. This great silent period gives the necessary time for the progress in all these things, which is evidenced by the works no less than the words of the following centuries. From the peace and stability which his genius achieved we must now turn to the turmoil which ensued when his influence was finally overcome. Yet it was overcome in part only; the city of Babylon, which he had made great, so continued. Its supremacy there was none to question. It was only the constant effort of men to possess it and all that its traditions covered and contained.

 

 

THE KASSITE DYNASTY

 

AT about the year 1783 ends the long period of stable peace, during which Babylonia was ruled by kings of native blood. This land of great fertility had tempted often enough the hardy mountaineers of Elam, even as in later centuries the fair plains of northern Italy were coveted by the Teutons, who surveyed them from the mountains above. As long as the influence of Hammurabi and the other founders of the united kingdom of Babylonia remained the country was able to defy any invader. But the development of the arts, the progress of civilization, and the increase of trade and commerce had weakened the military arm. Babylon was becoming like Tyre of later days, whose merchants were always willing to pay tribute to a foreign foe rather than run the risk of a war which might injure their trade. At this time, however, Babylon still possessed patriotism and national pride, and there is no reason to believe that the foreigner seated himself upon the proud throne of the Babylonians without difficulty. It is indeed unlikely that the conquest of Babylon was achieved by a definitely organized army, led by a commander who purposed making himself king of Babylon, while still continuing to reign in his own country. It is rather the migration of a strong, fresh people which here con. fronts us. This people is called the Kasshu, and their previous seat was in Elam, but it is difficult to localize them more perfectly. It seems probable that they stood in some relation to the people dwelling along the banks of the Zagros, who became famous in later times under the name of the Kossoeans, and it has even been suggested that they are, in some way, to be connected with another people, the Kissians, who were at one time settled in the country of Susiana,but are also believed to be mentioned in Cappadocia.In the present state of our knowledge we are not justified in identifying them positively with either or both of these peoples. It will be safer simply to call them Kassites, and thus leave their racial affinity an open question. Certain indications there are which seem to show that they did not come direct from their ancient home into Babylonia, but were settled first in the far south, near the Persian Gulf. They entered Babylon probably as roving bands, then in increased numbers overran the land and gained control, so that they set up a foreign dynasty in place of the previous native Babylonian rule.

Concerning this Kassite dynasty our knowledge is very unsatisfactory. The Babylonian historians preserved in their King Lists the names of all these kings, but unhappily this list, in the form in which we possess it, is badly broken and many of the names are lost. The list assigns to this dynasty five hundred and seventy-six years and nine months.On this representation the Kassites must have ruled from about 1782 B. C. to about 1207 B. C. During this long period the Kassites naturally did not remain foreigners, but were rapidly assimilated to Babylonian culture as well as to Babylonian usages. They naturally wrote inscriptions, as their predecessors bad done; they built buildings and worshiped the Babylonian gods. But their rule did not bring forth so rich a fruit as Hammurabi's had done, and the records that have come down to us are much more fragmentary. Of only one king in this dynasty do we possess any long historical inscription, and his name does not appear upon the King List, but stood where the list is broken beyond hope of restoration. The correspondence of some of the kings with kings of Egypt has been preserved, and by it a most welcome light is shed upon the obscure period. We possess only contract tablets of other kings, the number of which will be largely increased by the publication of tablets that have been found at Nippur.

The names of the first kings in the list are:

 

				Length of Reign
1	Gandish	Perhaps about	1782-1767 B. C.	16
2	Agum-shi	Perhaps about	1766-1745 B. C	22
3	Bibeiashi	Perhaps about	1744-1723 B. C.	22
4	Dushi	Perhaps about	1722-1714 B. C.	(9) (19?)
5	Adumetash	Perhaps about	1713
6	Tashzigurumash

 

 

To us these names convey no real meaning. They are only shadows of men. The name of the first king also appears in a votive tablet under the form Gande, and in still another little fragment as Gaddash. He gives honor to the great god Bel, and wrote his name and titles on the door sockets set up by former Babylonian kings. But his name is not written in the same skillful manner as of former worthies. The rude workmanship is eloquent of the change which had come through a. ruder race. The world's progress was put back when the Kassites come to rule in Babylon.

But, though we know so little about this king Gandish, we know even less about his followers for a long time. These six kings fill a blank space in the history which had been all aglow with life and color in the days of the first dynasty.

After the sixth name the Babylonian King List is hopelessly broken, and no names can be read for a considerable space. It seems probable that Tashzi-gurumash may be the same as the king from whom Agum-kakrime claims descent. If this be true, we may have found by this means the name of the next king on the list. There belonged to the library of Asshurbanapal a long inscription in Assyrian characters which purports to be a copy of an inscription of an early king of Babylon. Certain peculiarities of the Assyrian text make it much more probable that it is a translation from Sumerian.The king whose deeds it recounts was Agum-kakrime. In this text he calls himself the son of Tashshigurumash. It is very tempting to connect this Tashshigurumash with the sixth name in the list of kings, and this is now generally done. It is probably right, yet it must be admitted that it is still somewhat doubtful. If Agum-kakrime were really the son of King Tashshigurumash, it is natural to suppose that with his father's name in his inscription would stand the title of king, which is not the case. The entire inscription sounds rather like the text of an usurper who is attempting to bolster up his claims to the throne by sounding titles and genealogical connections, as was done in certain cases in later times.

Whether Agum-kakrime was the next name in the list or not, it seems almost certain that he must have belonged to this same period and his name must have followed very shortly upon the list. In his inscription, after giving all his connections of blood and all his ties to the gods, he sets forth the lands of his rule in these words: "King of Kasshu and Accad; king of the broad land of Babylon; who caused much people to settle in the land of Ashnunnak; king of Padan and Alvan; king of the land Guti, wide extended peoples; a king who rules the Four Quarters of the World am I." This is a remarkable list of titles. It is at once noteworthy that the titles do not follow the usual Babylonian order. Usually a Babylonian king would write the title in this fashion: "King of Babylon, king of the Four Quarters of the World, king of Sumer and Accad, king of Kasshu." The titles "king of Padan and Alvan, king of Guti, etc.," would hardly have been used in this form at all. The Babylonian kings would seem to feel that they could not bear direct rule over a land lying outside of the rule of the Babylonian gods who alone could give the title to a king in Babylon. Rather would such a king have called himself "King of the kings of Padan, Alvan, and Guti," which lands he would thus rule through a deputy appointed by himself. It is to be observed that later Kassite kings conformed very carefully to this custom. That Agum-kakrime violated it is another proof that he belongs to the earlier kings of the dynasty, in a time before the Kassites had accommodated themselves to the customs of their conquered land.

But the titles of Agum-kakrime serve another and larger purpose for us than the furnishing of a confirmation of the position we have assigned him in the dynasty; they furnish us with a view of the extent of territory governed from Babylon during his reign. His kingdom covers all Babylonia, both north and south, which belonged to the ancient empire of Hammurabi; but it far exceeded these bounds. Agum-kakrime still continued to rule the land of Kasshu, and the land of Ashnunnak. Guti also, a land of which we have heard nothing since the days of Lasirab, was also subject to him, as well as Padan, the land of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Balikh, and Alvan (modern Holwan), which was contiguous to Guti and lay in the mountains of Kurdistan. As there is no indication in the inscriptions of the previous dynasties that so large a territory had been added to Babylonia since the days of Hammurabi, we are shut up to the view that the Kassites had themselves achieved it. This would make them greater conquerors than even the mighty founder of Babylon's greatness.

The major part of this inscription of Agum-kakrime deals with the restoration to Babylon of some gods which had been carried away in a previous raid upon the country. Agum-kakrime says that he sent an embassy to the far away land of Khani, which was probably located in the mountain country east of the Tigris, and south of the Lower Zab, to bring back to Babylon the statues of Marduk and Zarpanit. In order to understand this move on his part it must be remembered that, from the Babylonian point of view, there could be no legitimate king in Babylon unless he had been appointed to his rule by Marduk, patron god and real ruler of the city. But Marduk had been carried away by the people of Khani. It was all important, therefore, for the stability of the throne that this god, at least, be immediately restored. If Agum-kakrime had had sufficient troops at his command, he would probably have taken the god by force from this captors; as Nebuchadrezzar I and Asshurbanapal did in later times. He did not do this, but sent an "embassy." In this expression we may see an euphemism for the purchase or ransom of the gods by actual payment of gold or silver. When these gods were taken away we do not know. Perhaps we shall not go far astray if we locate this event in the later reigns of the kings of the second dynasty, at which time we have also placed the beginnings of the Kassite influence. The gods must have been removed by a destructive invasion, for Agum-kakrime follows the story of their restoration with the statement that he placed them in the temple of Shamash, and provided them with all the necessities for their worship, because Marduk's own temple, E-sagila, had to be restored before it was fit for his occupancy. This ruinous state of Babylon's great state temple points backward to a period of great weakness, to the period when Babylon was tottering from the proud position to which Hammurabi had brought it, and was already an easy prey for the foreigner.

The remaining lines of this important inscription deal with temple restorations, and thus add the name of Agum-kakrime to the list of great builders who have already passed in review before us. No other events in his reign are known to us, nor is its length preserved. The indications which remain would seem to show that he must have reigned long and peacefully.

After the reign of Agum-kakrime there is a sharp break in the chain of our information concerning the history of this dynasty. It will be necessary to make clear the reason for this break, and to set forth briefly the means adopted for the partial repair of the breach.

In giving the names of the kings of this dynasty from Gandish to Agum-kakrime we have simply followed the lists made by the Babylonian scholars in ancient times. If the list were perfectly continued, we should have an easy task in following out the kings of the dynasty, and in setting forth something of their activity by means of other historical material. Unhappily the tablet containing the list is broken off just after the name of Tashshigurumash. The list is then resumed after some distance by the name Kudur-Bel, alongside of whose name stands the numeral VI as the number of years of his reign. Following the name Kudur-Bel there are found the names of ten kings of the Kassite dynasty. There are thus preserved the names of sixteen kings, to which we may add that of Agum-kakrime, making seventeen in all. At the bottom of the list it is stated that there were thirty-six kings in the dynasty, and that the sum of the years of their reigns was five hundred and seventy-six years and nine months. For the completion of the. list we therefore need the names of nineteen kings. How many of these names can be obtained? In the present state of investigation it is safe to say that of these nineteen missing names twelve have been secured with reasonable certainty, and for the most part they can be arranged accurately in order in the dynasty. These names have been secured in some instances from contract tablets dated in their reigns; in others from their own inscriptions; in others from the so-called Synchronistic History--an original Assyrian document giving very briefly the early relations between Babylonia and Assyria--in others from letters and dispatches which passed between the courts of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt.

Before proceeding with the history of the remaining kings of this dynasty it will be necessary to say something by way of preface of the conditions of political life prevailing elsewhere, in order to the better understanding of the facts which we possess with reference to these reigns.

More than one hundred years before the beginning of the Kassite dynasty a new state, destined to a splendid career of dominion among men, was showing the beginnings of its life along the eastern bank of the Tigris. The land of Assyria in its original limits was a small land inclosed within the natural boundaries of the Tigris, the Upper and the Lower Zab, and the Median mountain range. Its inhabitants at this time were Semites, and apparently of much purer blood than their relatives the Babylonians, who had intermarried with the Sumerians-a custom afterward continued with the Kassites and with many other peoples. The chief city of this small Assyrian state was Asshur, in which were ruling, at the period of the beginning of the Kassite dynasty, Semitic Ishakkus, who were the beginners of a long and distinguished line. Their land was admirably furnished by nature. In it lived a people who were not enervated by luxury nor prostrated in energy by excessive and long-continued heat, but accustomed to battle with snowdrifts in the mountains and to conserve their physical force by its constant use. It is no wonder that under such favorable conditions this people should have risen rapidly to power. In a short time we shall find them able to negotiate treaties with the kings of Babylonia, and soon thereafter the main stream of history flows through the channels they were now digging. It is for these reasons that we have here touched lightly upon the beginnings of their national life.

Two other lands require brief mention before we can properly understand the movement of races during the period of the Kassite dynasty.

In the northwestern part of the great valley between the Tigris and Euphrates lay a small country whose two chief limits were set by the river Euphrates and its tributary the Balikh. In the Egyptian inscriptions of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties it is called Naharina--that is, the river country--but it was called Mitanni by its own kings. How long a people had lived within its borders with kings of their own and a separate national existence remains an enigma. No inscriptions of the people of Mitanni, save letters written to kings of Egypt, have been found. We should indeed hardly know of the land at all but for the discovery of the royal archives of the kings Amenophis III and Amenophis IV, the kings of Egypt who had diplomatic intercourse with it. From these letters and dispatches we have learned the names of several of the kings of Mitanni, among them Artatama, Artashuma, Sutarna, and Dushratta. Their chief god was Tishup, whose name as well as the names of his worshipers is not Semitic, but what their racial ties may be we do not know. At the time when these kings were writing dispatches to the kings of Egypt their land was in some sort of union with Khanigalbat, a land later known as Melitene and situated much farther north and west in the mountains. Between the kings of Mitanni and the kings of Egypt there were bonds of marriage, the kings of Egypt having married princesses from the far distant "river land." The fact that the proud kings of Egypt were anxious to ally themselves to the kings of Mitanni would seem to indicate that the land was sufficiently wealthy or influential to make it worthy of the attention of Egypt. The letters of Mitanni were written chiefly in the Semitic language of Babylonia, and in the cuneiform characters, with which we are familiar in the native inscriptions. One of these letters, however, preserved in the Royal Museum in Berlin, is written in the language of Mitanni, which has thus far not yielded to the numerous efforts made to decipher it. The kingdom of Mitanni must take its place among the small states which have had their share in influencing the progress of the world, but whose own history we are unable to trace. But, though we cannot do this, we may at least observe that it seems to have been largely under Semitic influences, for its method of writing was borrowed from its powerful neighbors.

The last land to which our attention must be diverted, before proceeding with the main story is the land of Kardunyash. Originally the word Kardunyash seems to be applied to a small territory in southern Babylonia close to the Persian Gulf. The termination, "ash" is Kassite, and it has been supposed, with good reason, that the Kassites first settled in this land by the Persian Gulf, and used it as a base from which to overrun and conquer Babylonia. Whether this be true or not, it is at least certain that the name Kardunyash comes to be used by the Kassite kings as a sort of official name for the land of Babylonia.

We are now able to return to the Kassite dynasty after a long excursus; the better prepared to gather together such little threads of information as link them with their neighbors.

As we have seen above, the Babylonian King List is so broken after the name Tashsbigurumash that some names are lost. Of these missing names we have already secured the name of Agum-kakrime. After him there lived six kings whose names, together with all their words and works, are lost.

The next king of the Kassite dynasty of whom we have knowledge is Karaindash (about 1450 B. C.). Like his predecessors and successors, he was a builder, as his own brief words make plain: "To Nana, the goddess of E-Anna, his mistress, built Karaindash, the powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Accad, king of Kasshu, king of Kardunyash, a temple in E-Anna." In this brief inscription the king places Babylon first in his list of titles, and the two Kassite titles, Kasshu and Kardunyash, at the very last. This can only be due to a following of the immemorial Babylonian usage. The old land soon absorbed the peoples who came to it as conquerors, and by the potency of its own civilization and the power of its religion compelled adherence to ancient law and custom. The Kassites had conquered Babylonia by force of arms; already has Babylonian culture conquered the Kassites and assimilated them to itself.

In the reign of Karaindash we meet for the first time evidence of contact between the still youthful kingdom of Assyria and the empire of Babylonia--even then hoary with age. Our knowledge of these relations between the two kingdoms comes from the Assyrians, who made during the reign of Adad-nirari III (811-783 B. C.) a list of the various friendly and hostile relations between Babylonia and Assyria from the earliest times down to this reign. The original of this precious document has perished, but a copy of it was made for the library of Asshurbanapal by some of his scholars, to whom our knowledge of the ancient Orient owes so much. This copy is now in the British Museum, and, though badly broken, fully half of it may be read. It has been named the Synchronistic History, and, though it is not a history in any strict sense, it is convenient to retain this appellation. The very first words upon it which may be read with certainty relate to Karaindash, and are as follows: "Karaindash, king of Kardunyash and Asshurbelnishishu, king of Assyria, made a treaty with one another, and swore an oath concerning this territory with one another." This first entry evidently refers to some debatable land between the two countries, concerning which there had been previous difficulty. The two kings have now settled the boundary line by treaty. This shows that Assyria was already sufficiently powerful to claim a legitimate title to a portion of the great valley, and it was acknowledged by Babylon as an independent kingdom. It is not long before this small kingdom of Assyria begins to dispute with Babylonia for the control even of the soil of Babylonia itself. With this first notice of relations between the two kingdoms begins the long series of struggles, whether peaceful or warlike, which never cease till the bloodthirsty Assyrian has driven the Babylonian from the seat of power and possessed his inheritance.

We are unhappily not in a position to be very certain as to the order of succession of the followers of Karaindash, but his immediate successor was probably Kadashman-Bel. No historical inscription of this king and no business documents dated in his reign have yet come to light in Babylonia. We should be at a loss to locate him at all were it not for the assistance to be obtained from the archives of the Egyptians. As in the case of the land of Mitanni, so also here are we in possession of some portions of a correspondence with Amenophis III, king of Egypt. The British Museum possesses a letter written in Egypt by Amenophis III to Kadashman-Bet, and the Berlin Museum has three letters from Kadashman-Bet to Amenophis III. The first letter is probably a copy of the original sent to Babylonia. It begins in this stately fashion: "To Kadashman-Bet, king of Kardunyash, my brother; thus saith Amenophis, the great king, the king of Egypt, try brother: with me it is well. May it be well with thee, with try house, with try wives, with try children, with try nobles, with try horses and with try chariots, and with try land may it be well; with me may it be well, with my house, with my wives, with my children, with my nobles, with my horses, with my chariots, with my troops, and with my land, may it be very well." The letter then discusses the proposed matrimonial alliance between Egypt and Babylonia and urges that Kadashman-Bet should give to him his daughter to wife. The letter further announces the sending to Kadashman-Bet of an ambassador to negotiate a commercial treaty between the two states, by which certain imports from Babylonia into Egypt were to pay a customs duty. The letters preserved in Berlin seem to relate to the same correspondence and deal chiefly with the proposed marriage of the daughter of Kadashman-Bel to Amenophis III, to which friendly consent was finally given. Both the daughter and the sister of Kadashman-Bel were thus numbered among the wives of Amenophis III-full proof of the very intimate relation which now subsisted between the two great culture lands of antiquity, Babylonia and Egypt. To find letters passing between Babylon and Egypt about 1400 B. C., and ambassadors endeavoring to negotiate commercial treaties, does, indeed, give us a wonderful view into the light of the distant past. This all witnesses to a high state of civilization; to ready intercourse over good roads; to firmly fixed laws and stable national customs. It gives us, however, no light upon the political history of Babylonia, which is the object of our present search, and we must pass from it. Kadashman-Bel had a long reign and was succeeded by Burnaburiash I.