A mixed population

Listen to audio

Uprooted people are a general problem in the history of civilization. But we need to distinguish between different types of population mixing. There are three different categories: immigrants, who come from elsewhere of their own free will, hoping for a better life where they arrive; exiles or refugees, who have had to leave their country because of the problems they encountered there; and finally, deportees, whose case differs from the previous one in that they were uprooted from their country of origin by the reigning power in their host country. But we can see the limits of these categories: slaves bought abroad are not, strictly speaking, deportees.

A numerically significant group in^17th-centuryBabylonia were refugees from the Sumerian South; by this I mean the inhabitants of southern Sumer who had to leave their city in Samsu-iluna years 10 to 12, under conditions studied last year. Some of them are well documented, starting with the descendants of the Uruk inhabitants who took refuge in Kiš. Indeed, in texts from this city dating from Ammi-ditana, Ammi-ṣaduqa and Samsu-ditana, we find individuals devoted to the worship of deities typical of the Uruk pantheon, namely Ištar-d'Uruk(aka Urkitum), Nanaya and Kanisurra ; some bore characteristic titles such as purifiers-išippum and others a theophore onomastic of Urkitum, Nanaya or another Urukean deity, Uṣur-awassu. Lastly, we find names like Uruk-liblut "May the city of Uruk (re)live!" or Eanna-libluṭ "May the temple of Eanna (re)live!", which testify to the nostalgia of exiles for their hometown and the temple their ancestors served.

However, the people of Uruk were not the only southerners to take refuge in northern Babylonia after Samsu-iluna's armies withdrew from their region: R. Pientka has noted traces of the possible presence of former Lagaš inhabitants in Kiš. The presence of Larsa inhabitants in Babylon and Sippar has also been noted. It's impossible to put a figure on the number of people displaced in this way, but we can see that they formed a kind of exiled community, not yet assimilated with the rest of the population, since they had kept their jurisdictional bodies and places of worship. The mention of the kârum of Uruk (in other words, the group of merchants from this city) in a text by Dilbat or Kiš dated Abi-ešuh could be interpreted as meaning that some of the inhabitants had stayed behind and established contacts with Babylonia in the north; we prefer to conclude that the organization of merchants from Uruk moved north, retaining its identity. This second hypothesis seems to me to be supported by the case of the "judges of Larsa" attested in Sippar under Abi-ešuh.

The scale of these population movements was considerable: there are relatively few traces of them under Samsu-iluna, and we know more about the descendants of the refugees. The question arises as to the long-term consequences of this phenomenon, particularly from a cultural point of view. The discovery in a Babylonian house of a royal inscription by Warad-Sin relating to the construction of the Ur wall provides a concrete illustration of the transmission of Sumerian tradition: certain exiled scholars are said to have taken elements of their "library" with them, thus ensuring the survival of the corpus.

The second part of the lecture was devoted to the Nippur clergy, as attested by the Dur-Abi-ešuh texts. The latest tablets seem to have constituted the archives of a priest-nêšakkum named Enlil-mansum, son of Ur-Sadarnunna. He is mentioned in no less than 24 texts, covering a period of 23 years (from year 5 of Ammi-ṣaduqa to year 5 of Samsu-ditana): he is involved in slave or cattle purchases, loans, etc. He is also one of the members of the "priest-nêšakkum". He is also one of the members of the "assembly-puhrum of Nippur" which sat in Dur-Abi-ešuh in Samsu-ditana year 5 and definitively returned Gimil-Marduk his prebend (CUSAS 10 17). Enlil-mansum's brother, Enlil-muballiṭ, was also a priest-nêšakkum and sat next to his brother at this trial; he is known from only two other texts. The lists of witnesses to the contracts, particularly those belonging to Enlil-mansum, provide the names and titles of many of Nippur's exiled clergy. It is possible to show the great continuity in the lives of clergymen between the time when their predecessors lived in Nippur and the period when they themselves had to live in exile in Dur-Abi-ešuh. This can be seen in anthroponymy, titles and worship practices, which we have examined in detail. Despite these elements of continuity with Sumerian Nippur, there are also some Babylonian influences in the Dur-Abi-ešuh documentation. Thus, a priest-pašîšum of Ninlil is named Gimil-Marduk, a theophoric name for the patron god of Babylon; we also note the name Ina-Esagil-zeri borne by a priest-nêšakkum at the end of Ammi-ṣaduqa's reign, a naophorean name referring to the main temple of Babylon. Finally, in the legend of his seal, a certain Nanna-meša defines himself as "he who prays to Marduk". The main change is linguistic and diplomatic. Whereas the legal texts of Nippur up to Samsu-iluna 30 are marked by their fidelity to Sumerian, those of Dur-Abi-ešuh are characterized by the abandonment of this language: the tablets resemble other late Paleo-Babylonian tablets. In this respect, the CUSAS 10 17 trial offers a fascinating blend of Nippur's own legal tradition and modernism: the end of the text describes it with the Sumerian term di-til-la, the case takes place before the city's assembly-puhrum , in the presence of the god Ninurta, but the text is written... in Akkadian. The desire of the exiles from Nippur to return to their hometown is clear. This is reflected first and foremost in the onomastics, with the anthroponyms Nippur-libluṭ "May Nippur (re)live!" and its Sumerian equivalent Duranki-heti: "May Duranki (re)live!" The legend on a seal, the impression of which appears on CUSAS 8 16 and 43, is also revealing of the exiles' state of mind: "May Nanna-meša, he who prays to Marduk, see the renewal of Ekur and Nippur!"

The third part of the lecture focused on the foreign population. The presence of numerous mercenaries was recalled, particularly those described as Kassites. In addition, Hourrite names are found in Dilbat documents from the late Paleo-Babylonian period:investigation shows that they were borne by descendants of Turukkeans or inhabitants of Kakmum and Arrapha deported by Hammu-rabi following his campaign of 36 AD in the densely populated Hourrite regions east of the Tigris. A century later, their descendants were still living in the Dilbat region, but seem to have integrated perfectly into the framework of Babylonian society. Their numerical importance remains difficult to estimate, but must not have been negligible for them to have left so many traces. In any case, their case must be carefully distinguished from that of the "Subarean" slaves imported from Upper Mesopotamia at the same time. Following the reform introduced by Samsu-iluna, contracts for the sale of slaves noted their origin. If they were "home-born"(wilidbîtim) , they could be from a city in the kingdom: we know of slaves from Babylon, Nippur or Damrum, or from the Suhum region. If they had been bought abroad, their town of origin was noted: these are sometimes well-known towns, such as Susa in Elam, or Andarig, where the scribe specifies "from Mesopotamia"(ša mât birîtim), but also Hiplat in Šubartum or Awil-Ila, as well as the land of Gutium.