Modern historiography sees the transition from the Third Dynasty of Ur to the Isin—Larsa period as a moment of change in the history of the Near East. However, the people of the time saw it (or tried to see it) as a time of continuity. At first, the elements of a visible ‘break’ from the past appear prominently: from the breakdown of political unity into a fragmentation that has been defined (following the Egyptological terminology) as the ‘Second Intermediate period of Babylonia’; to linguistic changes, with Akkadian taking over the role of Sumerian; and changes in the ethnical composition of the population, thanks to the rise of the Amorites.
All these elements, some of which appeared in a very dramatic way (such as the destruction of Ur), had a traumatic effect. In order to overcome the shock, a concrete attempt was made to exorcise it, with a conscious effort to provide a sense of ideological continuity with the past. This effort was pursued especially by the kings of Isin, who presented themselves as the heirs of the kings of Ur. These kings took over the deification, titulature and ambitions of the kings of Ur and created a king list promoting a direct succession from the dynasty of Ur to that of Isin.
Apart from this sense of continuity, which was promulgated for political reasons, the two periods were actually linked by a profound structural continuity in terms of demography, technology and economy. Due to the radical changes taking place in the surrounding regions in this phase, this continuity was even more significant. Statistical evaluations of the evidence gathered through surveys in the settlements of the time show a marked demographic continuity. However, this continuity might be deceptive. This is due to the technical difficulty in separating the ceramic index fossils of the Neo-Sumerian and early Old Babylonian period.
Changes in each individual sub-system are attested both in the archaeological evidence and in the historical and epigraphic documentation (Figure 11.1). The south experienced the rise of Larsa and the decline of Umma and Lagash. The north experienced the rise of Babylon and the decline of Kish. In the Diyala Valley, Eshnunna became a hegemonic power over the surrounding cities. Despite these changes, the total number of inhabitants and the relations between cities and villages remained roughly the same. A similar continuity can be found in the kings’ efforts to build fortification walls, palaces, temples and canals. Unlike the relatively marginal interventions of the Ur kings in provincial centres, there was now an increase in the direct involvement of local kings in these kinds of undertakings. There was also a marked continuity in the architectural styles and plans of cities, visible in the temples and royal palaces of the period, as well as in private households.
Figure 11.1 Map of Lower Mesopotamia in the Isin—Larsa period (the borders shown are purely indicative).
On a political level, this essentially stable system was structured in a significantly different way. During Ibbi-Sin’s reign, imperial control over the surrounding regions broke down. As a result, an increasing number of autonomous centres began to appear. This facilitated the rise of about a dozen of independent States competing with each other. While Isin took over a large portion of the inheritance of the Third Dynasty of Ur, further south Larsa and Uruk remained independent. In the north, Babylon also became an independent centre, eventually conquering other autonomous centres, most importantly Kish. In the Diyala region, Eshnunna was independent, as was Der, located close to the Elam border. Moreover, in this period, the cities that used to be close to the border in the Ur III period became important states gravitating towards Lower Mesopotamia, such as Susa in the east, Ashur in the north and Mari in the north-west.
This was the political framework that developed in the intermediate phase between the Third Dynasty of Ur and the reign of Hammurabi of Babylon. However, the interpretation of this political fragmentation as an intermediate phase between periods of political unification (thus considered to be ‘normal’) is misleading. In fact, city-states were at the heart of the Mesopotamian political organisation. Consequently, unifications on an imperial level were destined to encounter difficulties within this system, and collapsed after three generations (such as in the case of Akkad and Ur) or fewer (as in the case of Babylonia). In other words, empires could only gradually reach a type of political expansion able to resist even in periods of political fragmentation. By this period, cities were centred on the palace. However, temples continued to maintain their size and role as de-centralised administrative centres. Similarly, kings continued to pride themselves for the restoration and expansion of the most prestigious city-temples. Being by now free from their subordination to the kings of Ur, the temples and sacred areas of the principal Mesopotamian cities began to play an increasingly important role in the formation of a state’s identity.
Large sacred areas such as the ones of Ur or Nippur continued to be imposing complexes, despite the fact that the two cities struggled to maintain their pre-eminence. The political role of Ur was by now lost forever. Likewise, the religious role of Nippur lost the support of previous kings (as in the Akkadian period) and also lost its ‘amphictyonic’ role in relation to the administration of Mesopotamia as a whole (as in the Ur III period). As a result, the temple complexes of other emerging centres began to acquire considerable prestige, from the Ebabbar of Larsa to the ‘cloister’ of the naditu of Sippar and the Esagila of Babylon. Because of the rivalry among political centres aspiring to supremacy, the former religious and ceremonial role of the centre was taken over by those cities that were temporarily pre-eminent. Ultimately, however, Babylon prevailed.
Less celebrated in propagandistic inscriptions, but far more important and innovative, was the construction and enlargement of the royal palaces (Figure 11.2). In this regard, the Old Babylonian levels of Babylon have not yet been excavated and our knowledge of Isin is still inadequate. Therefore, the best attested palaces of the Isin—Larsa period are the ones of Eshnunna (Tell Asmar), of king Sin-kashid in Uruk and of king Nur-Adad in Larsa. The monumental complex of Eshnunna was made of a southern, a northern and
Figure 11.2 City planning in the Isin—Larsa period. Above: The residential district of Ur; Below: The administrative district of Eshnunna.
A central palace (Figure 11.3). The latter was probably a continuation of the palace of the ensi of the Ur III period, along with the nearby temple of the deified king Shu-Sin. Finally, there was an audience room and other buildings left unfinished or only partially excavated. Even though not all of these constructions were in use at the same time, the dramatic expansion of the palace area in the city compared to the area for temples and private households remains evident.
Figure 11.3 Public architecture in the Isin—Larsa period. Above: The palace of Ilishu-iliya in Eshnunna; Centre: The audience hah of Naram-Sin in Eshnunna; Below: Temple of Teh Harmal.
In the countryside, innovations were mainly of a legal nature. On a technological level, there was a marked continuity, with fields, agricultural cycles and equipment staying essentially the same. However, the sources attest to some changes, such as the increasing salinisation of the soil. This seriously affected the southern areas, which were characterised by a longer history of agricultural activities. Similarly, there was a visible decrease in yields. This led to the elaboration of more complex rotations with the introduction of summer cultivations alongside the winter grain cultivations. As a result of the legal changes, the rise of opportunities for private enterprises and the employment of paid workers, this period experienced an increase in the cultivation of plants requiring more care and expertise. For instance, there was the date-palm, which was cultivated alongside vegetables (such as onion, garlic and legumes) in order to make better use the land and water available. This development contributed to the formation of a new agricultural environment along the canals, which was more intensely cultivated throughout the year and therefore more densely inhabited.
The administration of state property developed along the same lines as in the Ur III period. The system still experienced some changes, which were particularly due to the presence of a variety of administrative centres (whose administrative texts differed between the north and the south in terms of writing styles, types and structure), the increasing use of Akkadian (partly disguised under ideographic formulas) and a certain decline compared to the accuracy and consistency of the Ur III scribes. Alongside the administrative documentation of the ‘great organisations’, there was a consistent rise of texts concerning the private agricultural sector. However, these sources are predominantly legal, rather than administrative. Therefore, due to their inherently different nature, they are difficult to compare with the texts of the state administration.
Trade also experienced a new phase in the private sector. The crucial aim of this new type of trade was to combine aspects of the state administration and its relation with merchants, with a more independent type of trade. In the latter, then, merchants actively oversaw commercial exchanges. This development can be clearly seen in the Isin—Larsa period, which provides important attestations on the maritime trade between Ur and Dilmun. As a southern city easily connected to the Persian Gulf, Ur appears to have been involved in maritime commercial activities organised by its main sanctuary, the temple of Nanna (and his divine consort Ningal). There, dedicatory silver statues in the shape of ships constituted the typical offerings of merchants who had returned alive (and wealthier) from a dangerous journey. Trade between Ur and Dilmun consisted in exporting textiles (as well as silver and other products, like sesame oil or leather) and returning with ingots of copper from Magan. The latter were brought to Dilmun by merchants from the east. Considering the rise of commercial activities in the private sector, the Ur-Dilmun trade indicates a visible development of the roles of the temple and the merchants from the end of the Ur III period (with the texts of Lu-Enlil, a merchant living at the time of Ibbi-Sin), to the time of the dynasty of Larsa (with the letters of Ea-nasir from the reign of Rim-Sin).
Initially, commercial activities were organised just like in the Ur III period, with the temple providing the merchant with a quantity of textiles to be exchanged for copper. By the beginning of the Larsa dynasty, the role of the temple was still visible, but much more marginal. Merchants began to travel to Dilmun independently and to return to Ur to dedicate a tenth of their precious goods (copper, stones, coral and ivory) to the goddess Ningal. Subsequently, trade became an entirely private activity, with contracts and disputes between lenders and travelling merchants, and the temple and palace playing a minimal role.
Therefore, trade evolved from an activity controlled by the state to an independent enterprise that had a purely fiscal relation with the state. Moreover, attestations on the contemporary Old Assyrian commercial activities in Anatolia prove that this evolution was a general trend of the period. With the breakdown of the Neo-Sumerian state, the procurement of raw materials and the income of trade were directly managed by the descendants of those merchants formerly working for the state. The system consequently became decentralised. Due to its strategic location, the old imperial centre of Ur managed to maintain its important role in the trade with Dilmun, Ashur monopolised commercial activities with Anatolia, and Mari remained the central commercial hub for trade with Syria. Finally, Ehnunna and Der, as well as Susa, monopolised the management and control of the exchange of semiprecious stones and tin from Iran.
World History
