The first kings of the new dynasty of Isin had to face the Elamite pressures of Kutir-Nahhunte and Shilhak-Inshushinak. They were also affected by some incursion west of the Tigris. However, they managed to establish their authority, moving the capital to Babylon and acquiring control over the entire area west of the Tigris. The definitive removal of the Elamite threat from the Mesopotamian territories happened during the reign of the most important king of the dynasty, Nebuchadnezzar I. The account of the final battle has survived on a kudurru. On this kudurru, the victorious king allotted lands and important political roles to one of his ‘vassals’, Lakti-Shihu (or Lakti-Shipak; in the old reading: Ritti-Marduk), head of the house of Bit-Karziabku. This vassal played a crucial role in leading the chariots in the right wing of the Babylonian army. In the text, it appears that Nabuchadnezzar had prepared for the conflict through a political and diplomatic move. He therefore sealed alliances with the local leaders of the area between the Tigris and the Elamite border. This was a composite area both from a political and ethno-linguistic point of view, with Kassites (like Lakti-Shihu), Elamites, Arameans, and Babylonians living alongside each other. Nebuchadnezzar’s victory led him to Susa, where he achieved a brief victory and managed to return the statue of Marduk to Babylon. Nonetheless, all his military victories and political moves also led to the Babylonian conquest of the region between the Tigris and the Zagros.
Having removed the Elamites, the area between the Diyala and the Lower Zab saw the convergence of the ambitions of both Assyria and Babylonia. In this case, however, Nebuchadnezzar was less fortunate. The Assyrian sources record his defeats near the Tigris, at Zanqu and Idu, where the border was established. Meanwhile, the Middle Euphrates region saw the rise of a series of Aramean states (the main one being Suhu). Theoretically, these states were dependent on Babylonia, but in actual fact they were independent. Even in the west, then, Nebuchadnezzar re-established the old Babylonian border. Further wars are implied from his epithets, such as ‘conqueror ofAmurru’ and ‘plunderer of the Kassites’. These epithets allude to his victories on the Aramean invaders and the people from the Zagros.
The grand titles held by Nebuchadnezzar and the other (far less successful) kings of the dynasty of Isin are in marked contrast with the reduced involvement of Babylonia in international affairs in comparison to the Kassite period. These titles varied from the obvious ‘king of Babylon’, ‘king of Karduniash’, or ‘king of Sumer and Akkad’ to ‘king of kings’, ‘king of totality’, ‘king of the four quarters’. The political situation of the time had drastically changed, since some powers had disappeared (Hatti) or were now inaccessible (Egypt). In addition to that, the Babylonian kingdom itself had changed, and internal difficulties precluded an involvement in foreign affairs. With the disappearance of Elam from the international scene, Babylonia’s foreign relations were focused on the consuming fight with Assyria between the Adhaim and the Zab. Moreover, the movement of nomadic groups precluded access to the network of interregional commercial routes. In particular, the two traditional commercial routes of Babylonia, that of the Middle Euphrates leading to Syria, and that of the Persian Gulf towards Dilmun, were difficult to access. It therefore appears that for many centuries there were no consistent commercial activities with these regions.
The only commercial activity for Babylonia in this period had to cross the Zagros. In Luristan, apart from the traditional local ‘bronze’ objects (which have a substantial diachronic history), several swords, arrowheads, and spears bearing inscriptions of Babylonian kings have been found. These objects began to appear around the late Kassite period, peaked during the dynasty of Isin, and continued in the following dynasties. A century after Nebuchadnezzar I’s reign, the Babylonian king Simba-Shihu was able to intervene in the valley of Zamua, close to Assyria. The reasons for the fierce conflicts between Assyrians and Babylonians in the Zagros foothills are understandable. The issue at stake was not just the control of these territories, but also the control of the Iranian commercial routes, their outlets in the alluvial plain, and the relations with the mountain tribes.
Within the land of Sumer and Akkad, the administration of the dynasty of Isin continued along the same lines as in the Kassite period. We know of around twenty provinces ruled by a governor (sakin mdti, then sakin temi). Some of these provinces were named after their main city (Nippur, Isin, Dur-Kurigalzu, and so on). There were also other territorial entities and tribal ‘houses’ (defined with the term Bit plus the name of the ancestor). The ‘urban’ provinces were mainly in the north (in the former land of Akkad), and less in the south, where Ur seems to have been the most vital city. ‘Tribal’ provinces were mainly located in the area east of the Tigris. It is possible that, within the land, the traditional duties of the ‘governors’ were taking care of irrigation systems and temple architecture. In the provinces along the borders, these tasks were more military and governors had a more personal, rather than administrative, relationship with the king.
After Nebuchadnezzar I, the dynasty of Isin continued to survive for a couple of decennia. A series of kings managed its legacy and continued the fight with Assyria in the Zagros foothills though an alternation of wars and truces, and the capture and release of several cultic statues. At the same time, however, the progressive and unstoppable Aramean infiltrations were eroding part of the countryside away from Babylonian control.
The reign of Nebuchadnezzar I is particularly important for its theological aspects. These are closely linked to the return of the cultic statue of Marduk from its Elamite ‘exile’. The Babylonian interpretation of this deportation of the god was seen in a positive light, namely, as a voluntary peregrination of the statue. The latter had been taken by the Hittite king Mursili I, then by the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I, and then by the Elamites. The purpose of this alleged ‘peregrination’ was the spread of the god’s prestige and his power throughout the world. The full affirmation of Marduk as chief deity of Babylonia, a process that had begun with Hammurabi, was consecrated in the final edition of the ‘Epic of Creation’ (EnUma elis, a title taken from the first line of the text). In the poem, Marduk defeated the primordial chaos, embodied by Tiamat, thus becoming the god responsible for the order of the universe. After his victory, he gained the respect of the other gods, who were forced to bow in front of Marduk’s superiority, proven in the battlefield.
Taking over the place of Enlil on a cosmological level, Marduk became the most important deity on a ceremonial level. The poem had a fundamental role in the grand festival of the ‘New Year’ (Akitu). During this festivity, the statue of Marduk was moved in procession from the Esagila to the Bit Akiti, located outside the city (where Marduk would meet his son Nabu from Borsippa). The Akitu festival would remain the most important festivity in Babylonian history, constituting a moment bringing crowds of worshippers together, and exorcising the concern for the correct progress of the seasons, of harvests, and of the survival of order over chaos.
World History
