The Near East in the Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 Bce)

CHAPTER THREE THE NEAR EAST IN THE OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD (2003–1595 BCE) 1. The Political and Cultural Scene The collapse of the Sumerian Ur III kingdom in 2004 ushered in the so- called Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595) in Mesopotamia.1 The period took its name from the earliest known stage of the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian that developed in southern Mesopotamia. It replaced there the Old Akkadian and the Sumerian spoken languages, but left Sumerian to flourish as a written language for royal, ritual, and scholarly texts. The Babylonian dialect, which dominated the available documentation of this period, was, in turn, influenced by the so-called West-Semitic Amorite dialect of the semi-nomad tribes that toward the end of the third millennium flowed into Babylonia from the Syrian Desert. Apart from their linguis- tic contribution, these tribes contributed also their own political, social, legal, and religious traditions to the Mesopotamian cultural melting pot. Another branch of these semi-nomads, which settled along the Middle Tigris in the region known later as Assyria, brought about the develop- ment of the Assyrian dialect of Akkadian, the earliest stage of which is called “Old Assyrian”. This period is one of the richest periods of the Ancient Near East in an ever-growing documentation.2 Of this documentation, most important for us here is the very extensive epistolary material,3 which includes diplomatic correspondence that sheds light on the diplomatic relations and practices,4 as well as a number of treaties. Of no less importance is the fact 1 The most recent and detailed survey of the period is that of Charpin, Edzard and Stol 2004. For the political history, see there pp. 25–480 (by D. Charpin). For a summary of international law of the period see: J. Eidem, 2003. The dates given here are according to the so-called “Middle Chronology”. 2 For a detailed bibliography, see Charpin, Edzard and Stol 2004: pp. 403–480 (political history), 616–640 (literature and religion), and in the footnotes accompanying the text of Stol 2004. 3 See particularly the following collections: AbB; ARMT, Vols. I–VI, X, XIII–XIV, XX, XXVI/1–2, XXVII–XXVIII (for new translations and notes see: Durand 1997–2000); Eidem and Læssøe 2001; Michel 2001. 4 For a detailed discussion, see Lafont 2001a; see further LAPO 16, pp. 383–639. It should be noted, that while royal inscriptions of this period are much more numerous than those 50 chapter three that this rich documentation came from numerous and culturally diverg- ing sites, stretching over a much wider arena than ever before. The cultural makeup of this arena was composed of both indigenous cultures and the cultures and practices that accompanied the influx of new peoples. In addition to the immigrating West-Semitic Amorites, some other major ethnic groups entered Mesopotamia, northern Syria and Ana- tolia. One such major group were the Hurrians who descended from the north or the east into northern Mesopotamia toward the end of the third millennium. By the 18th century they were already settled there and in northern Syria, and a century later they reached the Mediterranean lit- toral. The Kassites, another ethnic group, migrated apparently from Iran over the Zagros Mountains into southern Mesopotamia no later than 1740. In the early 16th century, a Kassite dynasty gained control of northern Babylonia and around 1475 conquered southern Babylonia. In Anato- lia, special attention must be accorded to the Hittites, whose language is related to the Indo-European group of languages, and who about 1650 founded a kingdom with Ḫattuša (modern Boğazköy) as its capital within the great loop of the Kizil Irmak River. Nevertheless, despite this wide cultural diversity, these various ethnic groups, both the indigenous and the immigrated populations, came to accept certain rules of coexistence and to share some basic concepts related to interstate relations and law.5 The empire system of the latter part of the third millennium was replaced in this period by a multi-pole system, headed by some half dozen relatively powerful kings, each controlled a cluster of small satellite city- states ruled by petty kings or tribal chiefs who were bound to him by a loyalty oath. The subservient kings had some defined obligations toward their overlord. The more significant of these were the military obligation to provide him with troops upon request, to render yearly tribute, pay yearly homage, and to subordinate their foreign policy to that of their overlord. The overlord on his part had the obligation to protect them.6 of the earlier periods, still their contribution to the issues under consideration here is relatively meager, since most of them deal with local achievements, and the few that do refer to foreign affairs do it mostly only in very general terms. For the royal inscriptions, see Frayne 1990 (=RIME 4). 5 For the Amorites, see Whiting 1995. For the Hurrians, see Wilhelm 1989 and 1995. For the Kassites, see Sommerfeld 1995. For the Hittites, see Bryce 1998; Klengel 1999. 6 The best recent discussion of this system is by B. Lafont 2001a: pp. 232–261. .

Load more