ASSYRIA
AND
BABYLONIA
(6)
Early
traditions.
—
We
may
dismiss
as
mytliical
the
Assyrian
claim
that
Nineveh
was
founded
directly
alter
the
Creation,
but
it
points
to
a
tradition
of
im-memorial
antiquity.
Sargon
claimed
to
have
been
preceded
on
his
throne
by
350
rulers
of
Assyria;
but
even
if
he
counted
ancient
Babylonian
overlords
of
Assyria,
we
have
no
means
of
checking
his
figures.
Sennacherib
professed
to
trace
his
Uneage
back
to
Gilgamesh,
Eabani,
and
Humbaba,
the
heroes
of
the
Babylonian
National
Epic,
through
such
ancient
rulers
as
Egiba,
La'iti-Ashur,
Ashur-gamiUa,
Shamash-sululishu,
etc.,
whose
names
are
not
otherwise
known.
The
reference
made
by
Gudea
to
his
having
built
a
temple
for
Nana
(
=
Ishtar)
in
Nineveh
may
be
meant
for
the
Babylonian
city
of
the
same
name,
and
an
inscription
of
Dungi
found
in
Nineveh
might
have
been
carried
there
by
Assyrian
conquerors.
(c)
Earliest
mention.
—
Hammurabi,
however,
in
one
of
his
letters
refers
to
troops
in
Assyria,
and
in
the
prologue
to
his
celebrated
code
of
laws
states
that
he
'
returned
to
Asshur
its
gracious
protecting
deity
and
made
glorious
the
name
of
Ishtar
in
her
temple
at
Nineveh.'
As
these
benefactions
are
placed
after
the
benefits
conferred
on
the
Babylonian
cities,
we
may
conclude
that
Asshur
and
Nineveh
were
subject
to
him,
and
that
the
deity
referred
to
had
been
carried
off
by
invaders,
perhaps
the
Elamites,
or
Kassites.
A
contemporary
letter
mentions
a
defaulting
debtor
as
having
gone
to
Assyria.
These
are
the
earUest
references
to
the
country.
(d)
Earliest
rulers.
—
The
earhest
rulers
of
Assyria
styled
themselves
'patesi
of
Asshur.'
The
title
was
that
borne
by
the
city
rulers
of
Babylonia.
Its
Assyrian
equivalent
was
ishshakku,
and
it
often
interchanges
with
shangU,
'priest.'
It
was
still
borne
by
the
kings
of
Assyria,
but
while
it
designated
them
then
as
'chief
priest'
of
the
nation,
we
may
conclude
that
when
used
alone
it
implied
that
its
bearer
was
subject
to
some
king.
Hence
it
has
usually
been
supposed
that
the
patesi
of
Asshur
was
subject
to
Babylonia.
In
the
fourth
year
of
Hammurabi
one
Shamshi-Adad
is
named
in
a
way
that
suggests
his
being
the
paiesi
of
Asshur,
subject
to
Hammurabi.
We
know
the
names
of
many
of
these
rulers.
Thus
Ushpia
was
the
founder
of
the
temple
of
Ashur
In
the
city
of
Asshur,
and
may
be
the
earliest
of
all.
Kikia,
who
may
be
the
same
as
Kiki-Bel
otherwise
known,
founded
the
city
wall
of
Asshur,
and
may
be
as
early,
if
not
earlier.
The
title
descended
from
father
to
son
tor
five
genera-tions,
of
whom
we
put
Erishum
as
early
as
B.C.
2000.
Then
we
know
some
pairs,
father
and
son,
of
whom
the
last
Ishme-Dagan
ii.
and
Shamshi-Adad
iv.
are
about
B.C.
1820.
The
order
in
which
these
groups
are
arranged
is
at
present
purely
conjectural,
and
we
know
nothing
of
the
intervals
between
them.
Shamshi-Adad
ii.,
son
of
Bel-kabi,
should
be
some
sixty
years
before
Shamshi-Adad
iv.
(e)
Early
kings.
—
We
do
not
know
the
exact
date
at
which
Assyria
achieved
her
independence
of
Baby-lon,
but
it
may
well
have
synchronized
with
the
Kassite
conquest
of
Babylonia,
or
have
contributed
to
it.
A
possible
reference
to
the
'war
of
independence'
ia
contained
in
a
tablet
which
names
a
great
conflict
between
the
king
of
Babylon
and
the
prince
of
Assyria,
to
whom
the
title
'king'
is
not
conceded,
which
ended
in
the
spoils
of
Babylon
being
carried
to
Assyria;
but
we
are
given
no
names
to
date
events.
Esarhaddon
traced
his
descent
from
Adasi,
father
of
Bel-ibni,
'
who
founded
the
kingdom
of
Assyria.'
If
we
credit
this,
Adasi
or
Bel-ibni
was
the
first
'king.'
Adad-nirari
iir.
states
that
B6l-kapkapi
was
an
early
king
who
Uved
be-fore
Sulilu.
It
is
doubtful
whether
the
group
of
three,
Ashur-rabi,
Ashur-nirariii.,
and
Ashur-rim-nishSshu,
the
last
of
whom
restored
the
city
wall
of
Asshur,
should
not
be
put
before
the
'
kings.'
As
Ashur-bel-nish?shu
restored
the
wall
of
the
'Newtown'
of
Asshur,
which
a
ASSYRIA
AND
BABYLONIA
Puzur-Ashur
had
founded,
we
must
put
a
Puzur-Ashur
I.
before
him.
The
interval
of
time
we
do
not
know,
but
a
city
wall
surely
lasted
years
before
the
reign
of
Ashur-bel-nisheshu's
father,
Ashur-nirari
iii.
(f)
Relations
with
Egypt
and
Babylonia.
—
About
B.C.
1500
an
Assyrian
ruler
sent
gifts
to
Thothmes
rir.,
in
his
24th
and
30th
years;
but
we
are
not
told
which
king.
The
synchronous
history
now
comes
to
our
aid.
Ashur-bel-nisheshu
made
a
treaty
with
Kara-indash
i.
as
to
the
boundaries
of
the
two
countries:
a
few
years
later
Puzur-Ashur
ii.
made
a
fresh
treaty
with
Burna-buriash
i.
Ashur-uballit
names
Erba-Adad
i.
his
father
and
Ashur-nadin-ahi
his
grandfather,
in
the
inscription
on
the
bricks
of
a
well
he
made
in
Asshur.
Adad-nirari
i.
names
Puzur-Ashur,
Ashur-bel-nisheshu,
Erba-Adad
and
Adad
.
.
.
,
in
this
order,
as
builders
at
the
wall
of
'
Newtown.'
But
the
Ashur-uballit
who
wrote
to
Araeno-phis
IV.
in
the
Tell
el-Amarna
tablets
says
that
his
father
Ashur-nadin-ahe
was
in
friendly
relationship
with
Araenophis
in.,
and
he
was
followed
by
his
son
Bel-nirari,
whose
son
was
Arik-den-ilu
and
grandson
Adad-nirari
i.,
who
names
this
Adad.
.
.
.
He
must
therefore
follow
Ashur-uballit
i.
(fir)
Extension
to
the
West.
—
Ashur-uballit
ii.
gave
his
daughter
Muballitat-Shertia
to
Burna-buriash
i.
to
wife.
Her
son
Kadashman-harbe
i.
succeeded
to
the
throne
of
Babylon,
but
the
Kassites
rebelled
against
him,
put
him
to
death
and
set
up
a
Kassite,
Nazi-bugash.
Ashur-uballit
invaded
Babylonia,
deposed
the
pretender,
and
set
Kurigalzu
ii.,
another
son
of
Burna-buriash,
on
the
throne.
With
Asher-ubaUit
also
begins
Assyrian
history
proper
—
the
expansion
to
the
W.,
which
was
so
fateful
for
Palestine.
In
the
time
of
the
Tell
el-Amarna
tablets
Egypt
was
the
overlord
of
Palestine,
but
already
Mitanni,
the
Hittites,
and
further
to
the
east
Assyria
and
Baby-lonia,
were
treating
with
Egypt
on
equal
terms.
Tush-ratta,
king
of
Mitanni,
offered
to
send
Ishtar
of
Nineveh
to
Amenophis
in.
This
has
been
taken
to
mean
that
Mitanni
then
ruled
over
Nineveh;
it
may
mean
only
that
Ishtar
of
Nineveh
was
worshipped
in
Mitanni.
But
Ashur-uballit
wrested
Melitia
from
Mitanni,
and
con-quered
the
Shubari
to
the
N.W.
of
Assyria.
Hence
he
probably
ruled
Nineveh
also.
Bel-nirari
was
attacked
by
Kurigalzu
in.
at
Sugagu
on
the
Zalzallat,
but
defeated
him
and
made
a
fresh
boundary
settlement.
Arik-den-ilu
(often
read
Pudi-ilu)
conquered
N.,
E.,
and
W.,
penetrating
as
far
as
Halah
on
the
Habor,
subduing
Turuku,
Nigimtu,
Gutium,
the
Aramajans,
Ahlami,
and
the
Bedouin
Stlti.
Adad-nirari
i.
was,
early
in
his
reign,
defeated
by
Kurigalzu
in.,
and
lost
the
southern
con-quests
of
his
predecessors,
but
later
conquered
Gutium,
the
Lullumi
and
Shubari,
turned
the
tables
by
defeat-ing
Nazi-maruttash,
and
rectified
his
boundary
to
the
S.
On
the
W.
he
extended
his
conquests
over
Haran
to
the
Euphrates.
Shalmaneser
i.
(Shulmanu-ashared)
crossed
the
upper
waters
of
the
Tigris,
placed
Assyrian
colonies
among
the
tribes
to
the
N.,
subdued
the
Aramaeans
of
Upper
Mesopotamia,
took
Melitia,
the
capital
of
Hani,
defeated
the
Hittites,
Ahlami,
Musri,
and
Suti,
captured
Haran
and
ravaged
up
to
Carchemish.
He
made
Calah
his
capital,
and
restored
the
temple
of
Ishtar
at
Nineveh.
He
first
bore
the
title
shar
kishshUti,
supposed
to
mark
the
conquest
of
Haran.
(ft)
Capture
of
Babylon.
—
Tukulti-Ninlb
i.
conquered
Gutium,
the
Shubari,
40
kings
of
Nairi,
the
Ukumani,
ElhQnia,
Sharnida,
Mehri,
Kurhi,
Kummuh,
the
Push-
she,
MUmme,
Alzi,
Madani,
Nihani,
Alaia,
Arzi,
Puru-kuzzi.
His
chief
triumph,
however,
was
over
Babylon.
He
defeated
and
captured
BitiUashu,
and
took
him
prisoner
to
Assyria,
ruling
Babylonia
seven
years
by
his
nominees.
The
first,
Bel-nadin-shum,
ruled
eighteen
months.
Elam
now
appeared
on
the
scene,
invaded
Babylonia,
and
a
Kassite,
Kadashman-harbe
n.,
was
set
up.
After
eighteen
months
more,
Tukultl-Ninib
i.
took
Babylon,
slew
its
people
with
the
sword
and
set
up
Adad-shum-iddina,
who
ruled
six
years.
Tukulti-Ninlb
