The last of these monarchs, Ishmi-Dagan, was followed by the so-called younger kings of Ur. The first of these was one Gungunu. probably, as his name suggests, a usurper. Besides him we know of three successive kings, Ini-Sin, Bur-Sin (written differently from the king of Xisin of the same name), and Gimil-Sin. In addition to Ur, they held in Babylonia certainly Xippur and Eridu, and styled themselves not ' king of Ki- Ingi and Akkad,' but uniformly ' king of the four quarters of the world.' Numerous contracts of sale, dating from this period, te.stify not only to the flourishing condition of trade, cattle-breeding, and agriculture, but also to the political import- ance of the kingdom. These kings of Ur waged successful wars against Zapshali (on the borders of Cilicia and Syria), Elam (Anshan), Lnlub (in X.E. of Babylonia), Sabu, and Ki-mash (in N. Arabia), and other territories. Several of these countries became Babylonian va.ssal-kingdoins, whose princes married Babylonian princesses. This was the case, e.g., with Zapshali, Anshan, and Markhasi.
Nevertheless, these kings of Ur do not appear to have had posse.ssion of the whole of Babylonia ; for the great a.strological work, 'Illumination of Bel,' which originated at this epoch, and which once names even king Ini-Sin, makes it plain that be- sides the kings of Ur there were kings of Kisharra (Sumer. ki-sharra, synonym, with kish, 'world') and Akkad. These are mentioned even as rivals of the Ur monarchs. We hear also of kings of Imgi (cf. Ingi in the name Ki-Ingi). Since Imgi became afterwards the ideogram for Kaldu, ' Chaldees,' this will, at the time of the kings of Ur, have been the designation of the extreme south of Babylonia, the .so-called 'sea-land.' The a.stro- logical work mentions also foreign enemies, such as Elam and Anshan, Guti, the Sut;ean nomads, Ishnunna, the island of Bahrein, Xituk or Dilniun, the land of Khatlu. and very frequently the land of Martu. If this first mention of the Hittites is highly interesting, still more worthy of our atten- tion is the connexion in which Martu (the west land) is introduced. This implies that at that period Ur exercised supremacy over the whole of Palestine (including the eastern Jordanic teiTitory and Ccele-Syria). For, when the king of Ki- sharra (N. Babylonia) in passing snatches the sceptre of Ur, Martu at the same time falls into his hands. The name Sab Manda (or Umraan Manda, a designation at a later period of the Scy- thians and Medes) also occurs in the astrological work, where it is applied to the Elamite mountain- eers, who carried off the image of Bel (the god of Nippur).
To the same period (c. bc. 2100-I90O at the
latest) ought to be assigned, in all probability, certain kings of Erech, who have left us inscrip- tions, viz. Sin-f/ashit (who, like Gisdubar, styles himself son of the moon-goddess Nin-sun, and whose possessions, besides Erech, included the Elamite border-land of Amnanu) and Sin-gamil, A vassal of the latter, named Ilu-ma-ilu (properly Ilii-ma-Gisdubba, but generally called simply Ilu-ma), the sou of Nab-shimia, was the founder of the so-called 2nd dynasty in the Bab. list of kings (B.C. 1948-1580). Within the last decades of the yoimger kings of Ur falls also the attack upon Erech by the lilamite monarch Kudur- naukhutidi (see above, p. 22-1'').
The younger kings of Ur were followed by the kings of Larsa (c". B.C. 1900-1750 at the latest). One of the first of these was y^ur-Bamman, who takes the title 'shepherd of Ur, king of Earsa.' His son iSin-idiiina first arrogated to himself the additional title, 'king of Ki-Ingi and Ki-bur-bur (Sumer and Akkad),' which implies that he must have extended his sway from the region of Ur and Earsa as far as N. Babylonia. His successors bore the same title ; we know two of them — one whose name also begati with Sin, and another tlie Elamite king's son Ira-Aku, who as king of Earsa took the names also of Rim-Sin and Arad-Sin. (All three forms of the name mean ' servant of the moon-god.')
About the same time as Sin-idinna assumed the title 'king of Sumer and Akkad.' an Arabian dynasty established itself in Babylon, which now for the first time becomes of political importance. This is dynasty A of the Bab. list of kings. Ace. to the most probable reckoning, it lasted from 1884- 1580 B.C.,* and its kings were the following : —
years Sumu-abi . . 15 Siiinu-ia-ilu 85 Zabi'ii . . . 14(sonoffonner) Apil-Sin . . 13 „
Sin-nuiballit SO „
Kbammu-rabi 55 „
As we mentioned already, Iri-Aku, the contem- porary of Khammurabi, was of Elamite origin. His father Kudur-Mabuk was king of the border- land of lamutbal (see above, p. 225''). It was the latter who, under the protection of the Elamite king Kudur-Lagamar (see above, p. 222'), dethroned the Semite kings of Larsa, and installed his son Iriaku in their place. In an inscription Kudur- Mabuk even calls himself adda (i.e. in W. Semit. mnlik, 'king') of Martu. This renders perfectly intelligible the account given in Gn 14 of Kndur- Lagamar's (Chedorlaomer's) attack upon the terri- tory extending from Sodom to Elath. King Tud- ghiil (Tidal) "of Guti (Goiim), and Khammu-rabi (semitici.sed Kimtu-rapaltu, hence Amarpal, the Amraphel of Gn 14') of Babylon, were vassals of the Elamites. As early as the reign of Sin- nmballit, Iriaku had captured the city of Nisin, as we learn from dates in contract-tablets. An in- scription of Iriaku's further mentions the capture of Erech. The later Bab. legend (.see above, p. 222>>) could even tell of a plundering of Babylon by Kudur-Lagamar. The energetic Ivhammnrabi (prob. K.v. 1772-1717) succeeded, however, in shaking off the Elamite yoke, and in driving not only Iriaku of Larsa, but also his father Kudur-Mabuk, out of Babylonia. In this way the supremacy over the west land (Martu) came into Khammurabi's hands, as is i>erfectly established by recently discovered inscriptions, in which not only Khammurabi, but his third successor Animi-satana, take the title ' king of Martu,' in .addition to such Bab. titles as ' king of Babel,' or ' king of Sumer and Akkad.'