Near East Ancient Babylonian Kassites

A review of the various strands of evidence (stamped bricks and inscriptions) for the building activities of Kurigalzu I. In doing so it becomes apparent that after the turmoil at the end of the Old Babylonian period and the period of loose central control, Kurigalzu I made the first significant and widespread rebuilding programmes in Babylonia. He also founded Dur-Kurigalzu.

“The Babylonian Kudurru-inscriptions – treated with special regard to legal and social historical implications.” In Karduniash. Babylonien zur Kassitenzeit. Babylonia under the Kassites. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie K. Sternitzke, A. Bartelmus, M. Roaf eds; 229–244.  München: De Gruyter.

ABSTRACT: This lecture (no. 11.a) looks at four eastern regions of the Near East during the Late Bronze Age, namely (1) the Kingdom of Mittani/Maitani (also termed Nahrin, Naharin, the “Land of the Hurrians,” and Hanigalbat), (2) the Kingdom of Assyria, (3) the Kingdom of Kassite Babylonia (Third Dynasty of Babylon …), and (4) Elam and the Elamites (Susa and Anshan …). The "Sea Peoples" movements, raids, and settlement (see last lecture: no.13) do not really affect these regions directly --(other than the ripple effect via changing polities, new hybrid societies, some changing trade networks and commodities)--  and the kingdom of Assyria survives, albeit entering into a "Dark Age" of sorts (see next lecture: no. 12). In future course offerings, this lecture will be augmented significantly, but the current materials offer a basic look at the Late Bronze Age within Mesopotamia and related regions. UPDATED: 2022 Spring offering.

A study of glass axes made of blue glass (using cobalt from a non-Egyptian source) found at Nippur. The axes bear dedications of Kurigalzu II and Nazi-maruttash; dedications by Shagarakti-shuriash and Kashtiliashu may also be present. The axes have no known parallels and are the earliest examples of engraved Mesopotamian glass.

This paper deals with the Kassite presence in the area of Kirkuk and Garmian district between the Lower Zab and the Sirwan/Diyala rivers, from the first mention of the Kassites in the 18th century B.C. to the last mention of them by Strabo in the 1st century B.C. In this paper we deal with both historical and archaeological records and the new discoveries in the region. In the light of these historical records and the historical evidence we conclude that the part of the Kassite homeland is in the Garmian district, especially in the mountainous area east of Kirkuk from Chemchemal citadel to the mountainous areas east of Garmian in the Qaradagh and Bamo ranges to the banks of the Sirwan/Diyala river. Previously scholars only thought about the Kassite presence in the Luristani mountains in the Iranian side of the border or in the plains along the Khorasan Road, but the archaeological discoveries in Kani Masi at the bank of the Sirwan river proved the Kassite Presence there. Also the important discovery of the public building in the citadel of Chamchamal that was full with the Kassite ceramic and the inscription of the Kassite King Kurigalzu on an eye-stone proves the Kassite presence there, moreover, the Kassite cultural influence on the Lullubies and the discoveries of the Kassite ceramic gobblers in Sharezur plain, in Sulaimani at Dekon at the bank of the Serchinar river, and in Satu Qala(ancient Idu).The historical records before the Kassite state in Babylon proves the Kassite presence in Garmian and Diyala region, also during the Kassite State in Babylon, the Kassite culturally and militarily were actively having their presence in the region. During the Post-Kassite period, in the early first millennium, Shalmaneser III invaded the Kassite cities in the land of Namri between the Qaradagh ranges and the banks of the Sirwan river, he destroyed their cities at the foot of the mountain ranges, and plundered their palaces, at that time the rulers of Namri and their people were the Kassite. Sennacherib invaded the area east of Arrapha(Kirkuk), he attacked on the Kassite cities at the foot of the mountains and at the top of the mountain ranges, he destroyed and burned the tents and the pavilions of Kassite pastorals and their chieftains there, and plundered their horses, mules, donkeys, bulls, sheep and goats, and deported the people of their city and the inhabitants of the villages and tents to the other Kassite cities at the foot of the mountain, and he annexed their land and their cities to the governorate of Arrapha(Kirkuk), this means that the Kassites in 702 BC were pastorals in the mountains east of Kirkuk in Garmian. This was not changed a lot when Strabo in 1st century B.C. referred to the Kossaeans, who were mountain dwellers, and brave warrior bowmen, they had more than 13000 fighters, at that time according to Strabo they were dragging and also did not like agriculture. I have to mention that the previous studies mainly were eager to push the Kassite presence to the far east to the Iranian border, but the historical and the recently discovered archaeological discoveries in the area of Garmian and Kirkuk prove that the Kassite presence in this region was lasted for 18th centuries from their rise in history to their last mention by Strabo.

The question of Kassite chronology was greatly complicated when, in 1982, Veysel Donbaz published a clay tablet (A. 1998 = Bab 39031) from the Istanbul Museum, which refers to business matters “from the accession year of Kadashman-Enlil to the twelfth year of Kadashman-Turgu, king”. The order of the two kings seems to flatly contradict that of the
pair Kadašman-Turgu and Kadašman-Enlil, known from a letter of Hattusili III of Hatti (13th century BC).

A review of the dating of the housing at Ur in areas EM, YC, XNCF, AH and KPS. The paper demonstrates through examination of the stratigraphy and of the objects found in the ruins or in associated burials (pottery, faience items, scaraboids, glass objects etc) that only the remains EM may be dated to the Kassite period. The remaining areas are all 8th/7th century in date. The paper also presents a summary review of key events at Ur.

"The second half of the second millennium BC is a poorly understood period in the history of Mesopotamia, the Persian/Arabian Gulf and adjacent areas. Soon after unifying southern Mesopotamia, by conquering the Sealand, the Kassite rulers of Babylonia became involved in the diplomatic relations between the major courts in the Near East, including Egypt. The correspondence between the 'great kings', part of which was found at Amarna in Egypt, was primarily concerned with arranging political marriages and exchanging valuable gifts. Babylonia sent lapis lazuli, horses and chariots to Egypt in exchange for large amounts of raw gold. This gold was used by the Kassite kings to finance large-scale building programmes and revitalise the Babylonian economy. Acquisition of Egyptian gold was essential for establishing important Babylonian political goals: the close incorporation of the former Sealand and the legitimization and consolidation of Kassite rule, which was based on divine legitimation supported by a sound economic policy.

In contemporary sources, Babylonia is identified as the centre of the lapis trade. Being one of the few Babylonian exchange items it is quite likely that a steady supply of this semi-precious stone was one of the most important topics on the political agenda. The small amount of lapis items from Mitanni and Assyria mentioned in the Amarna texts implies that it is unlikely that lapis entered Babylonia via a northern land route. A southern land route, controlled by Elam, is possible but was wrought with problems for most of this period. Given its extreme importance it does not seem plausible that the Kassite kings depended on lapis lazuli brought to Babylonia via land routes, especially since they were all too well aware of the danger of long-distance overland routes, even in a favourable political situation. A sea route seems more plausible and preferable.

It is generally accepted that during the late third and early second millennium most of the lapis lazuli made its way to Mesopotamia through the Gulf, but that this trade network — dominated by Dilmun — collapsed during the Old Babylonian period. The second half of the second millennium is represented in Dilmun (Bahrain, the adjacent Saudi Arabian coast and the island of Failaka) by the City III period, during which it was governed by a high Babylonian official. Items from this period made of materials alien to Dilmun (copper, gold, alabaster, lapis lazuli, carnelian, agate, ivory, ochre) indicate that mercantile relations were still maintained with its former partners Magan (Oman Peninsula) and Meluhha (Indus Civilisation).

The fields of economy, politics and religion are intertwined in the ideological concepts involved in Babylonian kingship. Against the background of establishing interregional relationships and upholding internal Babylonian power relations, the incorporation of Dilmun may be seen as an attempt by the Kassite kings to secure the supply of lapis lazuli. A maritime route through the Gulf should be seen as a successful effort not to become dependent upon other (competing) powers for obtaining this precious stone, and also to circumvent any difficulties that might arise between Babylonia and the source area(s) east of the Zagros Mountains. The extreme importance of lapis lazuli for the Kassite kings might not only explain the incorporation of Dilmun in Kassite Babylonia but also justify the important position of Dilmun in its political constellation."

The main aim of this paper is to show what ancient Babylonians and Egyptians thought about the boundaries of their known territory. Their respectives rulers needed to protect and expand these boundaries to be respected by their inhabitants and to keep their empire up. Just their desire to extend their empire provoked that the rulers of the bordering territories had to protect the boundaries of their countries with “boundary” monuments like Egyptian boundary stelae and Babylonian kudurrus. These monuments had a very strong magic halo because of the divine curses and the iconography that distiguish it.

An analysis of the Caucasus and Middle Eastern mythologies allows to consider of the
possibility of revealing historical realities in them: events, characters, and ethnic environment. Despite the fact that, epics and legends have been preserved in the form of compilations and later historicisations, they may contain some hints on sociocultural realities of hoary past. This article is an attempt to interpret such mytho-epical creatures as Kaji and Centaurs as a reflection of a real ethnopolitical force²the Kassites who captured Babylon and controlled trade relations of the Middle East and Transcaucasia.

Records concerning the campaign of a Babylonian king named Kurigalzu in Elam are incomplete. There are even different opinions on which Kurigalzu-I or II-was involved. In Part I of our research1 we showed that according to the available evidence, this campaign was most likely carried out by Kurigalzu II. Here, we use this conclusion as one of the restrictions in building a model for Elamite-Babylonian synchronisms during the Middle Elamite period. The other restrictions are a requirement of model consistency and model parsimony. We formulate the restrictions for the model and then analyze the available data sources. We pay special attention to the building inscriptions and stele of Šilhak-Inšušinak and offer a new analysis of the stele inscription. Based on the totality of sources, we propose a reconstructed sequence of synchronisms between Elam and Kassite Babylonia that complies with all restrictions. We make an exception, however, for the so-called Berlin Letter, and analyze it separately, against the already built model. We show that the synchronism between the king Burna-Buriaš (II) and Untaš-Napiriša is highly unlikely and cannot be reconciled with the rest of our data. Thus, we claim that at the current level of knowledge it should not be used in the reconstruction. The built model complies with our restrictions. The reconstructed sequence of events puts Kurigalzu II's invasion before the reign of Pahir-iššan. It does not require the introduction of another Kidin-Hutran, leaving just one king with this name. The model implies a shorter time span for the Igihalkid dynasty, moving the date for the famous ziggurat in Choga Zanbil almost a century later, and simplifies the succession of Elamite kings.

Contact me via e-mail at mcb170@gmail.com for the full PDF. ABSTRACT: The paper presents the different phases of construction of the Kassite dynasty Ekur (Nippur). The discussion is focused on the northeastern part of the ziggurat courtyard. In an appendix current research on some documented objects from the Ekur of the Kassite period is presented.

Note concerning L-29-449 found 1895 in the courtyard of the Ekur of Nippur. It includes a transliteration, transcription and translation of L-29-449 with unpublished rubbing and description from the archive of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (NABU 2015-4/99, 166-167).

Die 18 Jahre währenden archäologischen Ausgrabungen unter der Leitung des Bauforschers Robert Koldewey in Babylon (1899–1917) erbrachten erstmals ein umfassendes Bild der berühmten Stadtanlage (Abb. 1). Im Laufe der Grabungen stieß man auf vielfältige Funde, darunter auch tausende Texte auf Tontafeln. Diese Textfunde legte Olof Pedersén in 2005 erstmals systematisch zusammengefasst nach Archiven und Bibliotheken vor, versehen mit detaillierten Katalogen und ausführlichen Kommentaren. Mangels jüngerer Publikationen stützte er sich für seine Arbeit vornehmlich auf die fast einhundert Jahre alten Befundinterpretationen der Ausgräber; inzwischen fand eine Aufarbeitung der Babylon-Schichten des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. statt, so dass zu den Kontexten der Archive nun detailliertere, vielfach neue Informationen vorliegen.

An unpublished brick stamp of the Kassite king Šagarakti-Šuriaš coming from the excavations 1900 led by H. V. Hilprecht, including a squeeze of the inscription produced by himself, can be published for the first time. NABU 2020/1, 41-43 (No. 18).

In this talk I will explore the possibilities of profiling the Kassite period officials attested in the Kassite period letters. More than 12000 Kassite period texts were found in Nippur, including ca. 700 letters. The personal names which appear in the Kassite period letters are also partially attested in the administrative documents from Nippur.

While administrative documents and seals occasionally inform us about the filiation and the occupation of certain individuals, most Kassite period letters lack any prosopographical information about the sender, recipient and third parties.

I will evaluate whether and how the information in administrative documents other than letters (and other text artefacts) may help us to improve our knowledge about Kassite period officials. I will also address the issues, which arise when linking various types of textual sources in order to profile certain officials, and I will present a few examples to show the difficulties which we face when attempting to do so.

Three cuneiform letters (BE XVII 88, Ni. 615 and Ni. 641) written by Ilī-ippašra, governor in Dilmun, and addressed to his 'brother’ Enlil-kidinnī, governor of Nippur, have been found at Nippur (Iraq). They were part of a diplomatic correspondence archived at the regional palace in Nippur and deal with the political situation in Dilmun during the reign of king Burna-Buriaš II (1359-1333 BC).

A number of new readings and reconstructions based on Goetze's copy are proposed resulting in a fresh understanding of the content of these letters, which if anything make an even stronger case for Dilmun’s politico-administrative incorporation into Kassite Babylonia.

These letters present a lively and fascinating insight into the duties and responsibilities of a high Kassite official during an otherwise little-known yet extraordinary period in the history of this region. From the letters it is eminently clear that Dilmun was beset by internal problems caused by Aḫlamû. It is suggested that it was not a dispute with disgruntled (nomadic) agricultural laborers as has been maintained up till now, but a full-blown rebellion by mutinous soldiers/mercenaries, i.e. Ilī-ippašra's power-base.


===========================================================================

N.B.: Volume U/W of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (page 45, uḫinnu 1c) offers the following improved reading for lines 20-22 in Ni. 641: bēlū uḫinne kî ērišušunūti ul iddinuni; when I asked the owners of the unripened dates (for some of their produce) they did not give me any.