Babylonian domination and its end

Listen to audio

Most authors believe that Ur reached its peak in the Paleo-Babylonian period during the forty years between the advent of Warad-Sin and the middle of Rim-Sin's reign (1834-1793), before Hammu-rabi annexed the kingdom of Larsa and Ur became part of the Babylonian kingdom. But it would be wrong to regard the quarter-century of domination by Hammu-rabi (1763-1750), then Samsu-iluna (1749-1738), as a period of decline. During these twenty-five years, there is a contrast between a turbulent political-military history and, on the other hand, numerous elements of continuity revealed by the archives.

The period begins with Hammu-rabi's conquest of the kingdom of Larsa: there is no precise information on the fall of Ur. In the prologue to the Code of Hammu-rabi, the place given to Ur, its god Nanna and its sanctuary, the Ekišnugal, just after Babylon, Marduk and Esagil, is remarkable; it contrasts with the scant traces left on site by the Babylonian conqueror. After thirteen years, Hammu-rabi died and was succeeded by his son Samsu-iluna. He left no inscriptions in Ur, but we now know that he did not neglect the city: a text discovered in 2017 in the house of Abisum shows that the king came in person to Ur to offer the throne to the god Nanna mentioned in the name of year 5. We note that no text exists in Ur between the middle of the eleventh month of Samsu-iluna's year 8 and the middle of the eighth month of year 10, i.e. for one year and nine months: it was during this period that the inhabitants of Ur recognized the rebel Rim-Sin II; contrary to what has often been written, however, he did not take the title of "king of Ur". Samsu-iluna succeeded in retaking the entire south during his tenth year of reign. The walls of Ur were destroyed, as was that of Uruk, where the usurper Rim-Anum had reigned.

Despite this turbulent political history, the historian notes many elements of continuity: for the most part, the same families continued to exercise their responsibilities, from the reign of Rim-Sin I to the end of the city's Paleo-Babylonian occupation. Emphasis has been placed on the ongoing reconstruction of a number of archives. Some come from regular excavations, notably those of the chief mason Ibbi-Ilabrat (found in a tomb at site EH), the head of the temple stores(kišibgallum) Šamaš-naṣir (EM, "^no 5 Quiet Street"), Ili-ippalsam (AH, "^no 1 Store Street"). We also have archives from ancient clandestine excavations.

The lecture ended with the question of the end of the occupation of Ur. A historiographical approach revealed a large number of errors. The most serious was made by Woolley himself: because of the year name mentioning the walls of Ur, the excavator was obsessed with finding traces of the destruction by Samsu-iluna. But this year name is that of year 11, which commemorates an event of the previous year. And in the buildings we find texts dated to Samsu-iluna year 11: proof that, despite the destruction of the wall the year before, life had resumed. Year 11 of Samsu-iluna is attested in Ur by 14 tablets, dated from 1/i to 30/xii, and they show nothing unusual. After that, there's silence... In two cases, tablets were found in tombs, where they must have slipped when the tombs were opened: it is therefore clear that looting immediately followed the abandonment of the houses by their inhabitants, who left their archives there, at least in part. The 2017 excavation, with the Abisum archives found around and inside the tomb, confirmed this interpretation: the houses were looted immediately after their inhabitants left them, just after the end of Samsu-iluna year 11. A text - exceptional for its date - proves that a group of priests remained to watch over the sanctuaries (UET 5 868, edition in HEO 22, p. 209). This document, dated month viii of Samsu-iluna year 12, shows three figures charged with ensuring the proper performance of porter and sweeper duties in the temple of Ningal for the next six months. The guarding of the temple of the goddess Ningal was then reorganized: the obvious aim was to prevent the looters on the prowl from seizing the treasures that still lay there... And that's what happened in the end: the temple of Ningal was found very ruined by Woolley. The multiple traces of destruction he spotted - and attributed to Samsu-iluna - were in fact caused by looters. It's no coincidence that they are particularly clear in the area of the tombs: this is where the thieves hoped to find the most precious objects. We now know what happened next: the region came under the control of a new dynasty, that of the "Land of the Sea". But urban life did not resume until after the reconquest of the Kassite kings of Babylon, in the course of the ^14th century BC.