Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE: New Insights on the Transitions from Old Babylonian to Kassite and Isin II Periods

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510298-006 Katja Sternitzke Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE: New Insights on the Transitions from Old Babylonian to Kassite and Isin II Periods This paper presents some results from my completed Ph.D. project on Babylon at the University of Bern (Switzerland). The research was undertaken with the kind permission of the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin – SMB and the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft.1 It deals with the settlement history of Babylon in the second millennium BCE as it is revealed by the archaeological and stratigraphic evidence– both of which I reviewed. Introductory Remarks The ruins of Babylon are located in present-day Iraq, about 85 kilometers south of Baghdad and close to the Euphrates-Hillah-branch. At one point the Arahturiver, an ancient branch of the Euphrates, flowed through the ancient city (Fig.1). Due to extensive modern agricultural activity in the area, west Babylon has been barely investigated. However, the eastern sector has over the past 120 years been intensively explored by various Iraqi, Italian and German excavation teams.2 We should also note that our modern impression of the ancient city of Babylon is heavily focused on the massive superstructures built by the NeoBabylonian kings in the first millennium BCE which hindered larger investigations of the earlier settlement phases of Babylon. In fact, the second-millennium levels were only reached by the German Koldewey-Expedition in the early 20th century 1 I would like to thank all three institutions for the great opportunity and their support. The full thesis “Babylon im 2. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Die archäologischen Befunde der altbabylonischen und kassitischen Zeit aus den Deutschen Grabungen von 1899–1917” is going to be published online Sternitzke forthcoming. A note on the matter of chronology: Based on the archaeological data a relative sequence but no absolute chronology can be established. The author uses the Middle Chronology out of convenience and in accordance with other papers in this volume. 2 A good overview with further reading references is given i.e. in Salvini 2008 by the colleagues Bergamini, Cavigneaux and Marzahn. Katja Sternitzke, Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin 126 Katja Sternitzke (1899–1917) and in the three excavation areas Sahn, Ishin Aswad and Merkes (Fig.2). While this is commonly known for the Merkes area, it is less well known for the other two. Due to the high groundwater table, excavations have failed to uncover any structures dated earlier that to the reign of Samsu-iluna (1749–1712 BCE). This limits our understanding of the remains of the Old Babylonian period in Babylon to its Late Old Babylonian phase. The Kassite Period levels constitute the majority of the second millennium material from the site. These can be divided into an Early Kassite phase (15th/14th century BCE) followed by a Late Kassite phase (13th up to the 12th century BCE). Fig. 1:The city of Babylon in the 1st millennium BCE (after Marzahn and Schauerte 2008: Appendix). Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE 127 Fig. 2: The inner city of Babylon. Excavation areas which yielded second millennium material are Merkes, Sahn and Ishin Aswad (after Koldewey ed. by Hrouda 1990, suppl. fig. 256, “Die innere Stadt von Babylon”). 128 Katja Sternitzke Please note that I use the three terms – “Late Old Babylonian,” “Early Kassite” and “Late Kassite” as a means of pottery dating criteria (Tab. 1, right column). In revising the archaeological evidence in my PhD research, it became apparent that dating criteria based on dynasties and historical periods (Tab. 1, left and middle columns) was of little relevance, since developments of the common artifact and pottery assemblages do not necessarily concur with reigns of kings or historical milestones. Instead, it proved best to apply the dating criteria established and elaborated on by James Armstrong and Hermann Gasche through their examination of the Babylonian Pottery in Mesopotamia (2014:98–102).3 In this work Armstrong and Gasche also defined the existence of a more general 12th century pottery assemblage which – without any gap – covers the transition from the (historical) late Kassite to the following Isin II periods (Armstrong and Gasche 2014: 101). Consequently material of this period was included in my study.4 Table 1: The pottery dating criteria follows that established by Armstrong and Gasche (2014), and in historical terms uses the dates for the Kassite period as defined by Brinkman (2017). Dynasty Historical period Pottery chronology 1st Dynasty of Babylon (latest phase) Late Old Babylonian (post-Samsu-iluna 1712 BCE to Samsu-ditāna 1595 BCE) Late Old Babylonian Kassite Dynasty Early Kassite (before Kara-indaš, ~1415 BCE) Early Kassite (15th / 14th cent.) Middle Kassite (from Kara-indaš, ~1415 BCE to Tukultī-Ninurta I, 1225 BCE) Late Kassite Late Kassite (from Tukultī-Ninurta I, 1225 to Enlil-nādin-aḫi, 1155 BCE) (13th cent. with the transition to the early 12th cent. BCE) 12th century 2nd Dynasty of Isin Isin II (from 1155 BCE) (new vessels appear) 3 On Kassite Period forms, see also Armstrong 2017: 422–28. 4 The subsequent material, which covers the time span until the turn of the millennium was excluded because of the sheer amount of data. Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE 129 Material, Method, and Approach The backbone of this study was a revision of the archaeological data from the three excavation areas of Merkes, Sahn and Ishin Aswad. This was based on three premises: – It was essential for me to distinguish between recorded excavation data and the excavator’s views and interpretations. The information in the publications (and sometimes even the excavation records) were enriched with the underlying opinion of the excavators; it was necessary to filter the facts and check them for validity. – It was my ambition to go beyond the compressed representation of building histories as published by the excavators and to present a complete stratigraphic sequence including the random deposits of debris accumulated in times of abandonment. – In order to enable a reproducible path of interpretation and to facilitate future research projects, I wanted to ensure transparency of data and documentation of the various steps. The practical work sequence involved several steps. First, all available data from artifacts, publications, and excavation records were collected, for example, excavation dates, loci, measurements, photographs, and excavation numbers. Second, the data collected from the publications and excavation records (including previously unpublished material) needed filtering as stated above. It was de-contextualized, discussed and revised if necessary. After this critical examination I re-contextualized the pieces of the puzzle and reassembled them to data sets, and in doing so, a new interpretation of the material became possible. In a third step, the compiled data set of the archaeological strata was disconnected from the associated artifacts (including the associated pottery), and both analyzed separately.5 This allowed me to establish a relative stratigraphic sequence of the deposits. Only afterwards the associated pottery and all artifacts 5 The pottery was imperative for the relative dating of the strata. However, as the full potential of analyzing significant sherds of rims and bases was not known in the early 20th century, preferably (nearly) complete vessels and glazed or decorated pottery was collected by the German expedition. This means that a vast number of sherds must have been abandoned during the course of the excavations. Thus the pottery typology of the Babylon second millennium assemblage is based on circa 300 mostly complete vessels that have survived and/or were documented by picture. Due to conservatory reasons an examination of composites and colors of the ceramics was virtually impossible, so the typology was developed on an analysis of shapes and profiles. The Babylon-typology works as a stand-alone typology for this site and will be published completely in Sternitzke forthcoming, including cross references to other sites. 130 Katja Sternitzke plus the dated cuneiform texts were integrated into the revised stratigraphy. Through this fourth step of consolidation, a dated (by texts and artifacts) stratigraphic sequence was achieved. The sequence was assembled from the micro to the macro level – individual rooms to houses; houses to settlement phases in each trench; to settlement phases in each area and finally to settlement phases in Babylon.6 In some instances, the excavator’s original interpretations proved to be valid; in other cases they were even exceeded, sometimes a new interpretation emerged. The results are discussed area by area below. In each case a comparison is made between the excavator’s results with the results of my study. I will present the consolidated results from the three excavation areas with observations on the diachronological developing urban layout of Babylon in the following overview. Merkes Area The chain of hills in Merkes (excavated between 1912 and 1917) has yielded a large residential area east of the precinct with a sequence of settlement phases from the Late Old Babylonian Period up to the Parthian period. Extensive excavations were conducted in northern Merkes (Fig. 3), while in its southern part the expedition concentrated on the exploration of the Neo-Babylonian road network. Oscar Reuther (1926) presented the architecture, houses, and graves from Merkes area in an excellent publication, although he gave almost no information on the associated artifacts and a somehow vague, in some cases even misleading, dating of the structures. Reuther labeled the Old Babylonian levels as “Chammurabi” level (“Ch” in Fig. 4), even though the excavators were already very well aware that not one of the associated cuneiform texts was dated earlier than To sum up: The second millennium pottery assemblage from Babylon is purely Babylonian in technique and mostly in form, too and fits perfectly into the relative pottery sequence developed by Armstrong and Gasche (2014). As in other sites (Nippur and Tell ed-Dēr, see Armstrong and Gasche 2014: 2) we see due to a lack of early 15th century examples a discontinuance between the Old Babylonian and Early Kassite ceramic shapes (for a good recapitulation of the situation see Calderbank in this volume). This gap is somewhat smaller in the Babylon material although the adding-up pieces are often singular in number and difficult to determine due to a lack of comparisons from other sites. A few forms show a remarkable resemblance of northern Mesopotamian pottery types – especially when associated with burials – a connection, which seems to be notably strong within the Early Kassite material (Sternitzke forthcoming). 6 These steps were conducted for 54 trenches in Merkes area alone with approximately 1000 stratigraphic units and some thousand artifacts and represent about 80% of the presented study. The applied method is based on a work by Novák (2008). Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE 131 Fig. 3:Detail of the Merkes and Sahn areas with excavation trenches (marked as solid black bars) which produced second millennium material, projected onto the first millennium map of Babylon (after Reuther 1926: pl. 2). 132 Katja Sternitzke the Late Old Babylonian kings. They divided the Kassite remains in Merkes area into a relatively elder Kassite phase, so-called “ältere kassitische Schicht” (“ÄK” in Fig.4) and a relatively younger Kassite phase, so-called “jüngerkassitische Schicht” (“JK” in Fig. 4). The original publication (Reuther 1926) lacks an exact date or time span for the two defined Kassite phases. Further the excavators were unable to distinguish Isin II remains from those of the Kassite Period. In fact the German expedition had by then already excavated, deciphered and dated most of the present-day known cuneiform texts from Babylon. Pedersén (2005) provided us for the first time with an accurate material overview in his publication Archive und Bibliotheken von Babylon. It became obvious that the chronological distribution of the Babylon texts shows three major gaps for the second millennium BCE (Tab. 2). The first break marks the transition from the traditional Old Babylonian to the Kassite Period – supporting the idea of a hiatus in the settlement which coincides with the suggested Fall of Babylon (1595 MC), followed by its resettlement and covering the reign of the early Kassite kings. The second, smaller gap, coincides with the time of the so-called Assyrian interregnum within the Kassite Period. Lastly we do not know of a single text from Babylon dated to the Isin II period. According to the associated cuneiform texts, both Kassite phases “ÄK – älterkassitisch” and “JK – jüngerkassitisch” are to be dated historically to the 13th/12th century, suggesting a complete absence of a Kassite Babylon occupation during the 15th and 14th century in the excavated eastern parts of the city. With nearly 100 years of assembled knowledge and modern methods at hand, the combined analysis of stratigraphy, associated ceramics, artifacts, and texts leads to a number of conclusions. Firstly, it is apparent that the excavator’s labels are in many cases misleading or were even sometimes falsely applied. Once this has been established it is clear that the original term – “Ch – Chammurabi Fig. 4: Section drawing from the excavations north of Ishtar Temple in Merkes area with the dating labels for the second millennium structures as proposed by the excavators (after Reuther 1926: Tafel 4). Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE 133 level” – subsumes not only archaeologically the ‘Late Old Babylonian,’ but also ‘Early Kassite’ and even ‘Late Kassite’ structures (i.e. 16th to 12th centuries BCE). What the excavators termed the “ÄK – älterkassitisch” levels, subsumed in fact structures which date from the ‘Early’ to ‘Late Kassite’ Periods (i.e., 15th up to 12th century). Most confusingly the label “JK – jüngerkassitisch” not only marks findings of the ‘Late Kassite’ and Isin II period but sometimes even later structures (i.e. circa 13th to 11th centuries BCE). The most important change occurs in the three southernmost rows of excavation trenches in the Merkes area where according to the pottery and associated small finds the lowest-lying and thus oldest layers are not Old Babylonian as proposed by Reuther, but date to the Kassite Period instead. All settlement phases follow an attested slope to the south which existed in antiquity, so the corresponding structures and dwellings lie much deeper in this part of Merkes which leaves the Old Babylonian remains simply unexcavated. The existence of the slope and the implications for any underlying archaeological strata was recognized by the excavators, although they failed to draw the conclusions for a correct dating. Besides the necessary modifications of the dates, the assumed three settlement phases defined by Reuther need a refinement (Tab. 3) which, to some extent, causes a further reduction of the already limited evidence of secondmillennium BCE remains. Moreover, the second millennium remains are unequally distributed over the various periods, with better preserved younger levels and only scarce evidence of the oldest levels. Table 2: Presumed dating of the three building levels proposed by Reuther (1926) according to the associated archives with dated cuneiform texts (based on Pedersén 2005 with his numbering of the archives). Dynasties Dating Labels Time spans with dated cuneiform texts from Babylon 1st Dyn. of Babylon “Ch” Sîn-muballiṭ 1 (~1811 BCE) or Samsu-iluna 8 (~1741 BCE) to Samsu-ditāna 26/27 (~1600/1599 BCE) (Babylon archives A1, A2, A3, A5) Kassite Dynasty Hiatus “ÄK” Kurigalzu II, year 9 (~1323 BCE ) to Šagarakti-Šuriaš 5 (~1240 BCE). (Babylon archives M1 and M2) Hiatus “JK” Adad-šuma-uṣur 10 (~1206 BCE) to Enlil-nādin-aḫi 1 (~1157 BCE). (Babylon archives M5, M7, M8) 2nd Dynasty of Isin Hiatus 140 Katja Sternitzke doorway was found. This indicates that only the foundation walls of the building had survived, although one could argue, that the amount and good preservation of the recovered artifacts and the above-mentioned single doorway suggest a still existing – but by the excavators undetected – floor level at least in some parts of the building. Several goblets of proper Late Old Babylonian shape were found in the “Älteres Gebäude.”9 The goblets bear small variations, especially low pedestal feet as a common feature – rather rarely attested at other sites (Armstrong and Gasche 2014: 40, Group 95 A2) – which is sometimes even minimized to a small button-like base. They might either present local Babylon characteristics in the Late Old Babylonian Period or might mirror a small step forward on the evolution line, representing examples form the very latest Late Old Babylonian Period or even the earliest Early Kassite forms (see also Calderbank’s discussion of goblets with button bases in this volume). Since we know virtually nothing about the pottery shapes from the first half of the 15th century BCE in Northern Babylonia (see footnote 5 above), one could fairly argue for any of the alternatives. In addition, a collection of undated cuneiform tablets was recovered and later identified as part of a library by Pedersén (2005: A7, p. 63–65), for which he took a (Late) Old Babylonian, probably (Early) Kassite date into consideration. The objects give no indication of the building’s use, but the “Älteres Gebäude” is – although not fully excavated – fairly large in comparison to any of the Merkes private houses with walls up to twice as broad (Fig. 5). The dimensions, as well as the schematic layout with the two chains of rooms, indicate a secular, probably administrative function. It is comparable in size and layout to the complex of Dūr-Samsu-iluna at Hafadji Mound B, which is interpreted as a residence of the governor or a fort (Delougaz 1990: 210)10 bringing a similar interpretation for the “Älteres Gebäude” into mind.11 9 Objects other than pottery were only recovered from an annex room which likely functioned as a later waste deposit place for the building. Among the objects was a handful of terracotta figurines which are Old Babylonian in date, but some of the forms are known still to be in use in Kassite Period (Klengel-Brandt et al. 2006: 12). 10 While the function of the building is undebated, the date of the Dur Samsuiluna-complex is as a matter of fact still not satisfyingly solved. The proposed time spans reach from Late Old Babylonian up to Mittanian / Early Kassite Period. See i.g. Holland (1990: 213), who noted – and rightly so – that some of the pottery from Hafadgi Mound C presented by Delougaz (1952: pl. 132ac) seems rather Early Kassite than Old Babylonian in shape, a remark, which I would like to add, also applies to the alongside presented pots from Hafadgji Mound B (Delougaz 1952: pl. 132d, e). This at least opens up the possibility that the building was to some extent still in use in the Early Kassite Period. In her follow-up review Seidl (1991: 318) noted, that some of the recovered artifacts date rather Mittanian and Miglus (1999: 79) commented on the unusual layout of the building, and considered Seidl’s comparisons to Nuzi architecture as a possibility. 11 See also van Koppen (2017: 51) on textual sources which attest the existence of a garrison in Babylon in Late Old Babylonian Period. Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE 141 There are no signs of fire or any other indication as to when or why the building was abandoned. It was later used as a burial place, and the grave which was cut into the remaining walls dates according to a goblet found as a grave good to the mid-15th century BCE at the latest. All in all, the pottery as well as the texts and the later burial allow us to assume a time span of use of the “Älteres Gebäude” from the Late Old BabyloFig. 10:Sahn southeast after revision: “Älteres Gebäude”, Sahn phase S-I. 142 Katja Sternitzke nian Period up to the first half of the 15th century BCE and the hitherto archaeologically unattested Earliest Kassite Period in Northern Babylonia.12 In any case: given the dimensions and layout, the “Älteres Gebäude” under the “Processional Way” is the first and only archaeologically attested monumental building in Babylon dated to the second millennium BCE. Ishin Aswad – The Black Hills The ridges of Ishin Aswad (Fig. 3) were explored in a short excavation in 1901 with the intention of returning later to the area. This plan was unfortunately prevented due to the further development of excavations (Pedersén 2005: 227). A number of soundings were conducted in a regular layout, reaching as deep as the ground water table as it was at that time (Fig. 11). The results of the limited excavations were not published, and the existing documentation is scarce. At least it allowed the remains to be interpreted as dwellings, identifying it as a second residential area besides the Merkes area. The excavators proposed a date not earlier than Neo-Assyrian based on some associated small finds at the bottom of some soundings. My review of the evidence for the excavations in this area brought to light hitherto unrecognized Kassite pottery, with some shapes dating back to about 1400 BCE and thus the Early Kassite Period. As a result the early occupation of Ishin Aswad is at least to be dated to the mid-second millennium BCE. Although it is impossible to establish any stratigraphic sequence, various associated small finds like one terracotta figurine (Klengel-Brandt et al. 2006, 74, no. 142, dated Old Babylonian / Kassite) and glyptic objects of Kassite date support strongly an occupation of the Ishin Aswad area in this period, an occupation which then seems to have extended to the first millennium BCE. 12 This situation perfectly coincides with the one of Dur Samsuiluna (see n. 10) and will hopefully get clearer in future, when recently explored sites add to our knowledge and the material corpus, like i.e. Tell Khaiber (see Calderbank in this volume). Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE 143 Fig. 11:Soundings in the Ishin Aswad area showing excavated areas in solid black (after Wetzel 1930, Tafel 10). Trenches 23, 24, 36 and 41 revealed objects of Kassite date. 144 Katja Sternitzke Summary of Babylon’s Settlement History in the Second Millennium BCE Although Babylon’s settlement history reaches back into the third millennium BCE and it became the Babylonian capital during the reign of Ḫammu-rabi, the archaeological sources are silent on this and only begin in the Late Old Babylonian Period.13 We now know of the existence of a fairly large non-domestic building (“Älteres Gebäude unter der Prozessionsstraße”) in the vicinity of the later Marduk sanctuary, and thus most likely in the historic core of the city. There are some reasons to assume it functioned as a residence for a local governor or fort. At the same time half a kilometer in the northeast, an apparently deliberately planned and densely occupied residential quarter is attested in the northern Merkes area. This dwelling area is characterized by small, though well-built private houses, set wall to wall and all strictly orientated to the north. The archaeological data strongly indicate a desertion phase in the area beginning during the Late Old Babylonian Period and continuing into the beginning of the Kassite Period (15th century BCE), reflected by numerous ash debris layers, destroyed and afterwards abandoned houses. This indicates a shrinking density of occupation towards or after the end of Late Old Babylonian Period. Nevertheless, we see an attested continuity between the Old Babylonian and Kassite Period in Merkes area, and there is archaeologically no definite proof that the city was abandoned at all between the two periods. This continuity might also apply to the situation of the monumental building mentioned above, which might have been in use until Early Kassite times in the early 15th century BCE. The situation seems to have settled in the 14th century BCE. Not only did the overall development of the Merkes area continue with slightly larger dwellings and an increasing road network, but we also have evidence for a second dwelling area in Ishin Aswad one kilometer to the south. Thus, in the 14th century BCE Babylon stretched much further to the south than expected; the outer edge of the settlement lay supposedly quite close to the later rectangular city wall, which is best known to us in its Neo-Babylonian form. At the beginning of the LateKassite Period (13th century BCE) the Merkes residential area experienced a controlled development; the general layout of the quarter and its road system was now fully established and lasted in this form into the Neo-Babylonian period, with only 13 The specific textual evidence on the topography of Babylon (in particular information from the series tintir, elaborately presented and discussed in George 1992: 1–72) and the challenge to match it with the archaeological evidence is another topic, which is dealt with at length in my PhD-Thesis (Sternitzke forthcoming). Babylon in the Second Millennium BCE 145 minor additions and an overall enlargement. The second residential area in Ishin Aswad stayed in use up to the first millennium BCE as well, although no further details are available on its development at the moment. We see a strong continuity from the 13th to the 12th century BCE in the Merkes residential area and a seamless transition from the Kassite to the following Isin II period. There is no archaeological evidence that would reflect the beginning of a new historical period in the mid-12th century BCE Babylon, confirming the general observations on pottery from this period by Armstrong and Gasche (see introductory remarks). Towards the end of Isin II period in the 11th century BCE, the settlement density in Merkes seems to decrease again, but the archaeological evidence remains to be studied in full detail. Concluding Remarks on Babylon and Babylonian Studies In recent decades the Babylon material as a whole was left out of most research on second millennium BCE Babylonia since the published material did not include the associated objects, or worse, the material seemed to be inconsistent or unreliable. This exclusion is unfortunate given that Babylon was the long time capital city of the kingdom with the supposedly least incomplete chain of archaeological data due to an enduring and long-lasting occupation history. Fortunately, the rich and, for its time, quite accurate documentation of the German Koldewey expedition facilitated a detailed revision of the archaeological evidence and lifted the veil of obscurity that lay on the material. It adds indeed to our small corpus of Late Old Babylonian archaeological material (architecture, burials, objects, ceramic shapes) as well as to the even more rarely attested material from the Early Kassite Period. Furthermore Babylon provides a few new pieces to fill the gap which originated in an attested break in the stratigraphic sequences at all of the alluvial plain sites in the mid-second millennium contemporaneous with the transition between Late Old Babylonian and Kassite Period (Armstrong and Gasche 2014: tbl. 9, i.e. cited by Calderbank in this volume, Fig.3). At the same time, the Babylon corpus opens up a great many new questions, hopefully leading to plenty of new research in the next years.