Samsuiluna emerges somewhat like Hammurabi all over again

Pp. 669-692 in G. Chambon, M. Guichard & A.-I. Langlois (eds), De l’argile au numérique. Mélanges assyriologiques en l’honneur de Dominique Charpin, ISBN 978-90-429-3872-4., 2019

Less than a decade after the death of Hammurabi, the Babylonian state faced its most significant crisis: a set of insurgencies against the regime of his son Samsu-iluna that threatened the very foundations of the realm. Rebel leaders took power in the major cities of southern Babylonia and among them the most prominent was someone named Rim-Sin, who probably took on the name of the old monarch of Larsa. For reasons that are difficult to recover, but perhaps indicating allegiance or synergy with Rim-Sin, some of the other rebel kings also acquired names that began with the element rīmum, "wild bull," as in Rim-Anum, the leader of the uprising in Uruk or Rim-Šara in Umma. But the "false" Rim-Sin, a pretender or samozvanets/samozwaniec, "self-named," as the Russians or Poles would say, may not have been from Larsa, and although we know very little about him, there are some signs that the conflict between him, his fellow insurgents in other cities and the Babylonian Crown had elements that went beyond economic and military action. The available information on the rebellion is hardly abundant (although unpublished materials will eventually make up for this): some economic documents dated to Rim-Sin II and Iluni, the insurgent leader in Ešnunna, a somewhat larger number from the time of Rim-Anum of Uruk, several year names, some letters, including the correspondence of Iluni, as well as information embedded in a few inscriptions of the beleaguered Babylonian monarch. The revolt seems to rise from nowhere, and within months most the bigger cities of the realm

Iraq , 2021

This short letter of Samsu-iluna (1749-1712 B.C), king of Babylon, is preserved in the Slemani Museum, along with a number of other Old Babylonian documents. The article gives a brief overview of the letters of Samsuiluna. The short letter appears to be addressed to one Ipqu-Gula, who may be a šassukkum-official (the head of the cadastre-office) from Isin. The article presents a copy, transliteration, translation of and commentary on this cuneiform document, which adds to the small number of letters sent directly by Samsu-iluna that are currently available.

Biblica 93/1 (2012): 98-106.

Most scholars accept the two-conquest model according to which Shalmaneser V conquered Samaria in 723/722 BCE but died shortly thereafter, and that Sargon II then suppressed the ancient city again in his second regnal year (720 BCE) after resolving the internal conflict in Assyria. This paper critically examines this model, discusses some problems regarding chronological order, and proposes a new historical reconstruction in support of one conquest. The probability of there having been propagandistic considerations motivating Sargon II’s scribes is also discussed.

The Last Days of the Kingdom of Israel, ed. Shuichi Hasegawa, Christoph Levin and Karen Radner (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft; Berlin: de Gruyter), 229–250., 2018

Idedicatethischapter to the memoryofmybeloved son, Gilead Kahn z"l,who passed awayon 1M arch 2018.

A new reading of an Old Babylonian seal from Tell Rimah (ancient Qaṭṭarā) shows that Ilī-Samas was a servant of Pithana. The latter was certainly the Anatolian king of Kuššara, who had taken the city of Kaniš (Kültepe) and is one of the founders of the Hittite empire. The fact that one tablet sealed by Ilī-Samas (OBTR 317) is dated by the eponym Uṣur-ša-Aššur (KEL G 131) allows us to determine that Pithana was contemporaneous with the years 22/23 of Samsuiluna (1728/1727 B.C. in the “higher Middle Chronology”). We now have a new synchronism between the Anatolian and the Babylonian chronology that makes it possible to see this obscure period in a new light. ---------- Une nouvelle lecture d’un sceau paléo-babylonien de Tell Rimah (l’ancienne Qaṭṭarā) permet de déterminer qu’Ilī-Samas était un serviteur de Pithana. Il s’agit certainement du roi anatolien de Kuššara, qui s’est emparé de Kaniš (Kültepe) et qui est une des figures fondatrices de l’Empire hittite. Le fait qu’une tablette scellée par Ilī-Samas (OBTR 317) soit datée par l’éponyme Uṣur-ša-Aššur (KEL G 131) permet de constater que Pithana est contemporain des années 22/23 de Samsu-iluna (soit 1728/1727 av. J.-C. selon la « chronologie moyenne haute »). Nous avons désormais un nouveau synchronisme entre la chronologie anatolienne et la chronologie babylonienne qui nous permet d’éclairer d’un jour nouveau cette période jusqu’ici obscure.

“However, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a particular accomplishment was actually Sargon's work; in some cases the textual and material evidence suggests that some of the accomplishments of Sargon actually belong to Naram-Sin”. Caleb Chow

1995

OANNES - Uluslararası Eskiçağ Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2024

The Ancient Mesopotamian societies showcased their culture through a structural amalgamation of politics, economy, and particularly religion. Within this framework, they fulfilled religious obligations under the worship of numerous gods and goddesses throughout various stages of life, seeking to sustain earthly existence and attain peace in the afterlife. In this context, the cult of the god Šamaš held significant importance among the Ancient Mesopotamian societies. It is recognized, however, that Utu, the Sumerian sun god, formed the foundation of the Šamaš cult. Utu held a revered status within Sumerian society, symbolizing the sun and justice, which governed people’s lives and was deemed essential for a fair societal order. Following the Sumerian era, Utu was referenced as the god Šamaš in Semitic societies. Consequently, Utu was mostly associated with justice, whereas Šamaš was renowned for upholding and enforcing laws to ensure justice. Revered by many societies, Šamaš was consistently viewed as integral to power and authority in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian rulers had to justify their power and endorse every action they took in the eyes of their people, portraying themselves as deputies and shepherds of the gods. In doing so, rulers relied on the support of specific gods to establish their authority on religious grounds. This study seeks to explore the influence of the god Šamaš on Ancient Mesopotamian societies across various facets. It aims to delve into what Šamaš signified in the daily lives of people and what expectations they held regarding their beliefs. Additionally, the research will investigate Šamaš’s roles in Ancient Mesopotamian politics, intra-state dynamics, and inter-state relations.

Iraq, 2019

Šamaš-šuma-ukīn is a unique case in the Neo-Assyrian Empire: he was a member of the Assyrian royal family who was installed as king of Babylonia but never of Assyria. Previous Assyrian rulers who had control over Babylonia were recognized as kings of both polities, but Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's father, Esarhaddon, had decided to split the empire between two of his sons, giving Ashurbanipal kingship over Assyria and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn the throne of Babylonia. As a result, Šamaš-šuma-ukīn is an intriguing case-study for how political, familial, and cultural identities were constructed in texts and interacted with each other as part of royal self-presentation. This paper shows that, despite Šamaš-šuma-ukīn's familial and cultural identity as an Assyrian, he presents himself as a quintessentially Babylonian king to a greater extent than any of his predecessors. To do so successfully, Šamaš-šuma-ukīn uses Babylonian motifs and titles while ignoring the Assyrian tropes his brother Ashurbanipal retains even in his Babylonian royal inscriptions.