Here My Preliminary and Sometimes Isin-Larsa Wars Is Explored
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
241 NEW INSIGHTS FROM THE EARLY OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD 242 NEW INSIGHTS useful that high-quality photos of all texts are available FROM THE EARLY OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD, through CDLI at https://cdli.ucla.edu/. ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE ISIN-LARSA As the author himself writes (p. xi-xii), the letters have WARS BETWEEN ERRA-IMITTĪ AND SUMU-EL archival connections with groups of texts kept at the Banca (CA. 1870-1865 BCE), d’Italia (published by Pomponio, Stol, Westenholz et alii A REVIEW ARTICLE OF CUSAS 36 2006); the Cotsen collection (partly published by Wilson 2008), and the Cornell/Rosen collection (OB texts will be Rients DE BOER published by Miller and others). This makes it currently chal- lenging to put the material into perspective. We also have to keep in mind that letters such as these must have originally Abstract been kept together with economic and administrative texts in an archival context. Future publications will no doubt enrich In this review article, the 221 Old Babylonian letters published our knowledge of the letters in this volume. Nevertheless, it by Andrew George (2018) in CUSAS 36 are discussed. They stem is safe to say that almost all of the letters come from the mostly from southern Iraq covering a period of time between ca. 1880 and 1712 BCE. The most interesting group is the Sumu- south, especially from the area of the Larsa kingdom before El correspondence dated between ca. 1870 and 1865 BCE of and after its conquest in 1762 BCE by Hammurabi of Baby- which the historical and broader geo-political context during the lon. The reader will find here my preliminary and sometimes Isin-Larsa wars is explored. As the provenance of these letters tentative remarks on the letters. Raḫābum is proposed, an as of yet still not located town in the Larsa kingdom. For the other letters, not belonging to the Sumu- El group, efforts are made to group them together and link them The Sumu-El correspondence (nos. 1-32) to other text groups such as the Ipqu-Sîn dossier. In addition, it Certainly the most interesting group of letters constitutes is proposed that a group of letters form a coherent dossier revolv- nos. 1-32 (perhaps also nos. 39, 64, 81 and 82), the corre- ing around the Rīm-Sîn (1822-1773 BCE) era military officer Lipit-Ištar. The article ends with additional comments on selected spondence of Larsa kings Sumu-El (1894-1866 BCE), Nūr- letters, proposing different readings, notes, and additional biblio- Adad (1865-1850 BCE), and their officials. The first letter graphical references. from this correspondence was published by Chambon 2015 and in the same article he also provides the status quaestionis concerning the reign of Sumu-El and the conflict that Larsa had with Isin. Introduction In the letters we read that Isin’s Erra-imittī (ca. 1870-1863 This article is an extended review of Andrew George’s BCE) was on the move against Larsa’s Sumu-El. Chambon edition of Old Babylonian letters from the Schøyen collec- (2015: 36) already stated that Erra-imittī probably wanted to tion in Oslo.1) The book offers much that is exciting. To reconquer important cities in Isin’s direct vicinity such as mention –for example– just one element: the important Old Kisurra and Nippur and to stop Larsa’s hydraulic works that Babylonian Larsa king Sumu-El (1894-1866 BCE) is among were threatening Isin’s water supply. The letters must have its correspondents in nos. 1-28. The contents of this volume been written somewhere between ca. 1870 and 1865 BCE. will prove to be an important addition towards reconstructing This was an eventful time full of war, not only involving Isin early Old Babylonian history. The author is primarily known and Larsa, but also other southern Mesopotamian city-states for his expertise in literary texts (such as his superb edition such as Uruk (under Narām-Sîn and/or Sîn-kāšid), Malgium of the Gilgamesh epic, George 2003), but in the past he (king unknown), Kazallu (under Yaḫzir-El?, probably an ally already showed that he could handle Old Babylonian letters of Isin), Kiš (under Yawium, perhaps an ally of Larsa), Dam- as well. Here, he fully unfolds his expertise by presenting us rum (under Mananâ, an ally of Babylon and Sumu-abum), with a reliable edition of 221 Old Babylonian letters. Marad (under Yamsi-El?, probably an ally of Isin, cf. De Of the letters in this book, some 217 are part of the in total Boer 2013), Babylon’s Sumu-la-El (1880-1845 BCE), and 474 Old Babylonian letters kept in the Schøyen collection. importantly, the Amorite sheikh Sumu-abum (active from Four of the 221 letters (nos. 14-17, and 28) are not part of ca. 1885?-1862?). Sumu-abum was a key player during this the Schøyen collection, but belong to an anonymous private time, being a pan-tribal leader who presided over a group of collector. The rest of the Old Babylonian Schøyen material, Amorite chieftains that took over power in a number of cities among which there are also royal letters of a later Larsa king, in southern Mesopotamia from ca. 1885 BCE onwards (cf. Rīm-Sîn, will be published in the near future. De Boer 2018). After a brief introduction, we find a catalogue and con- Eventually, Erra-imittī was able to gain the upper hand in cordance of the tablets, followed by the text publications the Isin-Larsa conflict by reconquering Kisurra and Nippur themselves, providing us with transliterations, translations, (Charpin 2004a: 103), whereas Kazallu, Marad, and Kiš fell and some incidental philological comments. After this, there to Babylon’s Sumu-la-El. We know for Larsa that Sumu-El’s are indices for personal names, toponyms, and deities. The reign ended in a catastrophe around 1866 BCE, probably author has chosen not to copy most of the letters and instead worsened by the military setbacks in the north (Charpin there are black and white photos at the end of the book. For 2004a: 78). However, Erra-imittī also died around 1863 BCE those wishing to do some “arm-chair collating”, it is very under seemingly strange circumstances (De Boer 2018: 64-66). In the wake of the death of Erra-imittī we see that Sumu-abum might have ruled the kingdom of Isin for eight 1) GEORGE, A.R. – Old Babylonian Texts in the Schøyen Collection. months, which was suspected in De Boer 2018: 65, but is Part One: Selected Letters. (CUSAS Vol. 36). CDL Press, Bethesda, 2018. perhaps corroborated by a text dated to Sumu-abum from (28,5 cm, XIV, 192, CCLXIII). ISBN 978-1-934309-75-9. Nippur published by Farber and Wilent 2018. Furthermore, 243 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXVI N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2019 244 the untimely death of Sumu-abum around 1863/1862 BCE and Damiq-ilīšu of Isin (1816-1794 BCE) both dedicated heralded the ascent to Isin’s throne of newcomer Enlil-bānî buildings to Nergal of Uzarpara. This town was eventually (1862-1839 BCE); the string of annexations of minor polities reconquered by Rīm-Sîn of Larsa (1822-1763 BCE) in his such as Damrum by Babylon’s Sumu-la-El; and a period of 17th year, ca. 1805 BCE. None of the cities mentioned above non-aggression by a new dynasty in Larsa under Nūr-Adad seem to have been part of the “traditional core” of the Larsa (1865-1850 BCE), who distanced himself explicitly from kingdom (cf. the list in Richardson 2015: 284-285). We can Sumu-El (Fitzgerald 2002: 78-82). The hostilities between speculate that these towns were originally part of the Isin the players left on the battlefield, i.e. Isin, Larsa, Malgium, kingdom and had been conquered by Sumu-El during the Uruk, Babylon, and now also the Diyala polities of Ešnunna first 25 years of his reign. Eventually they were retaken dur- and Nērebtum, would flare up again in full force when the ing the campaigns of Isin’s Erra-imittī narrated in the Sumu- son of Nūr-Adad, Sîn-iddinam (1849-1841 BCE), ascended El correspondence. to the throne (Charpin 2004a: 104-106 and Guichard 2014). There are also a number of cities that are mentioned in the However, these events are not chronicled in the Sumu-El correspondence, but not threatened by Isin’s armies, such as correspondence here under review. Adab (it was correctly seen by George that its OB reading Awaiting the publication of the rest of the Sumu-El cor- should be Usab) and Raḫābum. Ancient Raḫābum (Stol respondence by Miller and others, what do these letters 2006-2008) could very well be the town where the Sumu-El already tell us about the Isin-Larsa wars? First of all, Sumu- correspondence was found. In CUSAS 36 9 a group of El’s name carried the divine determinative in some of his “Amorites” must stay with the letter’s addressees in royal inscriptions (Frayne 1990: 130-137), but we find this Raḫābum, lines 21-22 read: i-na URUki ra-ḫa-bi-im-ma, nowhere in his letters. We also do not find any explicit indi- maḫ-ri-ku-nu li-ši-ib “(the group of Amorites) should stay cation of his status as king in the letters. In later royal Larsa with you in Raḫābum (RdB: emphasis added by -ma)”. This letters, for example written under Rīm-Sîn (1822-1763 BCE), makes it clear that Raḫabum was at least one of the towns we always have umma Rīm-Sîn bēlka/bēlkunu “thus (says) where the addressees (i.e.