Beginnings of Old Babylonian Babylon Sum

BEGINNINGS OF OLD BABYLONIAN
BABYLON: SUMU-ABUM AND

SUMU-LA-EL
Rients de Boer (Free University of Amsterdam)
Abstract
This article studies the lives of two men pivotal in the history of (Old Babylonian) Babylon: Sumu-abum and Sumu-
la-El. Sumu-abum was an Amorite tribal and military leader who led groups of Amorite warriors between ca. 1890
and 1860 BCE. He managed to conquer large swaths of northern Babylonian and the Lower Diyala region. In the
wake of these conquests, numerous small Amorite kingdoms were set up by his subordinates. The most important
one was Sumu-la-El (1880–1845 BCE), who founded the First Dynasty of Babylon. After Sumu-abum’s death, Sumu-
la-El subjugated several other petty kings in Babylon’s vicinity and built a string of fortresses around his territory.
Through his actions he formed the core of the Babylonian kingdom.
The kingdom of Babylon in the early Old Babylonian (OB) period is still poorly understood.1 From the fall of the
Ur III empire until the advent of Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El (ca.1880 BCE) there are no certain attestations to
the city. Sumu-abum is still largely a mystery to scholars of the early OB period.2 However, based on texts from the
Ikūn-pîša letter archive and the letter YBC 9955 it is proposed that Sumu-abum was a pan-tribal Amorite leader
who led a number of armies across southern Mesopotamia in the period between roughly 1890 and 1860 BCE. In
the wake of the conquests, several Amorite rulers took power in Babylonian cities. After these events, Sumu-la-El
from Babylon rose to prominence. This idea was already coined in an earlier article and my doctoral thesis,3 but I
would like to develop it further in this article.4
First, I will survey what is known about Babylon before the OB period, then the figure of Sumu-abum is studied:
his name, origins, year names, associated deities, military deeds, and his kingship at Kisurra. After this, I shall con-
1. I thank the Yale Babylonian Collection and its curators B. R. Foster and A. Wisti Lassen for permission to publish YBC 9955. Thanks
are also due to M. Stol, D. Charpin, and S. A. Moore for commenting on earlier drafts. Abbreviations follow those of the CAD. But note: IPLA
= De Boer forthcoming; RSM = Dalley 1979; Santag 9 = Goddeeris 2009.
2. See, for example, Goddeeris 2012a; Charpin 2004: 80–86; and Sommerfeld 1983.
3. De Boer 2013b: 279–81 and 2014a: 248–60. Charpin (2004: 80) also suspects a “nouvelle vague amorrite” around 1900 BCE.
4. In my thesis (De Boer 2014a: 251–52, 462–63), I also discussed and published the text BM 23751 (dated to Sumu-la-El year 3). The text
contains disbursements of flour to several men. The person responsible (GÌR) for the transactions is one Sumu-abum. I am now convinced that
this text is not connected to Sumu-abum the Amorite leader because I hold the likelihood of a ruler like Sumu-abum designated as GÌR respon-
sible for a banquet to be very unlikely. Such a role was always reserved for officials and never, to my knowledge, for rulers. The Sumu-abum of
BM 23751 must therefore be a homonym. Homonyms of Sumu-abum are more common than one might think: in Isin we find the name three
times: su-mu-a-bi-im, IB 1829: 6 (Krebernik 1992: 116), su-mu-�a�-[bi-x (x)?]-�ba?�; IB 1293 iii 9 (Wilcke 1994: 306), �su�-mu-a-bi?-i-[x]-ba?; IB
1304 r 10′ (Wilcke 1994: 312), and once in the Kiš/Damrum area: su-mu-a-bu DUB.SAR, YOS 14: 103 22. In Larsa one Ilī-iddinam is the son
of Sumu-abum, BM 14096: 12’ (time of Rīm-Sîn, RA 85, p. 16).
53 JCS 70 (2018)
This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/jcunestud.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
54 RIENTS DE BOER
sider Sumu-la-El, his association with Sumu-abum, the relation with Uruk, his year names, Sumu-la-El’s conquest
of northern Babylonia, and the end of Sumu-la-El’s reign. After a final conclusion concerning Sumu-abum and
Sumu-la-El, the reader finds in table 8 below an overview of all attested year names for the reign of Sumu-la-El.
Babylon in the Third Millennium
Perhaps the earliest attestation of Babylon stems from an Early Dynastic list of geographical names found at Abu
Salabikh and Ebla. Steinkeller (1986: 36, no. 244 with n. 46), cautiously suggests reading the name of Babylon
among one of its entries. Another dubious occurrence, with the town written as “BAR.KI.BAR,” is from an Early
Dynastic fragment now kept at Yale, published as YOS 9: 2. 5 In this text, an unnamed ensi writes that he had built
a temple of Marduk. The first unambiguous mention of Babylon is in a year name of the Old Akkadian king Šar-
kali-šarrī. The year name mentions construction work on the temple of Annunītum and Il-Aba.6 Under the Ur III
kings, Babylon was ruled by a governor (ensi) and paid taxes to the state under the b a l a-system. The names of the
Babylonian ensi’s known to me are Abba, Arši-aḫ, Itūr-ilum, Murteli, Unabatal, and Puzur-Tutu.7
It must be stressed that right after the fall of the Ur III state in 2004 BCE no kingdoms with rulers having clear
Amorite names or connections were constituted, this only happened several decades later.8 The first “Amorite”
kingdoms seem to have been established in the south in Larsa and Uruk after ca. 1950 BCE. Nothing is known
about Babylon between the fall of the Ur III empire and the advent of its first king Sumu-la-El around 1880 BCE.
The Name Sumu-abum
The name Sumu-abum must mean something like “descendant of the father” and is rendered in a number of dif-
ferent ways in writing: sa-mu-a-bi-im, sa-mu-a-bi, su-mu-a-bi-im, su-mu-a-bu-um, and dsu-mu-a-bu-um.9 The
element “sumu-abum” was used in the names Yapaḫ-sumu-abum,10 Isi-sumu-abum,11 and Ḫ aya-sumu-abum.12
However, these names have, in my opinion, nothing to do with the historical figure Sumu-abum: the name Ḫ aya-
sumu-abum already occurred for a scribe in Damrum during Sumu-abum’s lifetime.13 Consequently, a name such
as Isi-sumu-abum should be translated as “the descendant of the father has come out,” and has no link to the his-
torical figure of Sumu-abum.
5. RIME 1 E1.15.4.1, Sommerfeld 1982: 20, and Lambert 2011.

6. RIME 2 E2.1.5 (p. 183 iii k) and Lambert 2011.
7. Sollberger 1979–1981 and Rép. géogr. 2: 21–22 with Owen 1981: 248. Puzur-Tutu is found in MVN 8: 199 iv 9, Unabatal (ú - na - b a - t a l)
in Sigrist Princeton 2: 35: 9; MVN 13: 874 iii 10; and Ashm. 1/1, pl. 57, 1924-0516 ii 8.
8. Michalowski 2011: 118–21 and De Boer 2013c.
9. Respectively: IPLA 18: 5; Gautier Dilbat 1: 15; TIM 7: 22 12’; OIP 42 Date Formula no. 113: 191. The divine determinative was only added
in the texts from Kisurra. In lexical texts, a canal was called Sumu-abum: Ura XXII: MSL 11: 30 14’ (E su-mu-a-bu) and the Ugarit version of
Ura XXII MSL 11: 48 iv 1a (I7 su-mu-a-bi).
10. The likely name of a Ḫ ana king; Podany 2002: 32.
11. Also the name of a Ḫ ana king; additional references in Podany 2002: 35–37.
12. See also the remarks by Durand 1984: 132 on this name.
13. ḫa-a-su-mu-a-bu-um, du mu e-eq-ni-d ing ir, OECT 15: 377 24–25, ‘Yawium c’/X; ḫa-su-mu-a-bu-um, du mu e-eq-ni-d i ng i r , RSM
29: 24–25, “Yawium c”/XI. It is not a basilophoric name (Beamtenname), which were—as far I know—always rendered in Akkadian or Sume-
rian.
BEGINNINGS OF OLD BABYLONIAN BABYLON 55
Where Did Sumu-abum Come From?
Sumu-abum’s father or ancestors are unknown,14 but he did have at least one son Ḫ anbatīya, whose death was com-
memorated in a year name from Sippar.15 A strong candidate for Sumu-abum’s origins is the Diyala region. There
is no hard evidence to substantiate this claim, but this region was already home to a number of Amorite groups
almost a century before Sumu-abum. The names of important chieftains from that time are Abda-El and Usû,16 but
unfortunately we cannot link these names to later Amorite groups. In addition, a number of the Amorite rulers
like Sumun-abi-yarim and Mašparum, with whom Sumu-abum was associated, had their power base in the Diyala.
The south of Mesopotamia is also a distinct possibility for the origin of Sumu-abum. The contemporary kings of
Larsa (Abī-sarê, Sumu-El) and Uruk (Sîn-kāšid) had clear Amorite affiliations. On top of this, Sumu-abum is actu-
ally attested as king in the southern town of Kisurra.17
The Year Names of Sumu-abum
In earlier scholarship Sumu-abum was considered as the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon. This was mainly
based on the fact that he is mentioned in Babylonian king lists and a list of year names from later periods.18
Charpin and Goddeeris have made a convincing case establishing that Sumu-la-El was actually the first king of
Babylon.19 Their combined arguments are:
• Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El were contemporary, as evidenced by the Ikūn-pīša Letter Archive (De Boer
forthcoming).
• Later Old Babylonian kings refer to Sumu-la-El as their ancestor.20
• The Synchronistic History mentions Babylonian kings from Sumu-la-El up to Kandalanu (Grayson 1980–
1983: 120 iv 20).
• The year names attributed to Sumu-abum in the OB date list BM 92702 look like plagiarized versions of
those of Sumu-la-El or other contemporary kings and many of them are of the MU.ÚS.SA type, repeating
events from previous years.
I agree with the conclusions of Goddeeris and Charpin that Sumu-la-El was the founder of the First Dynasty of
Babylon, but I do not completely discount all of Sumu-abum’s year names found in the OB date list BM 92792 as
14. Disregarding the information from the “Hammurabi Genealogy” (Finkelstein 1966: 96) where one Ida-�ad?�-x[x x?] is mentioned
before Sumu-abum (Isu-m[u-a-bu-um]). Probably unrelated, but interesting to point out is the year name on the unpublished text NBC 6493:
MU da-ad-ba-na-a-/a LUGAL BA.UG7 “Year: Dadbanâ the king died.” Charpin 2004: 69 n. 207 has pointed towards a certain Abī-Ditān, also
known from the genealogy, as occurring in an Ur III text.
15. TIM 7: 22 11’–13’, mu ha-an-ba-ti-ia du mu su-mu-a-bi-im i-mu-tu. “Year: Ḫ anbatiya, the son of Sumu-abum died.”
16. Overview in De Boer 2014a: 175–78.
17. I assume that this is the same Sumu-abum as the one associated with Babylon, but I cannot rule out a case of homonymy.
18. Sumu-abum features as the first Babylonian king in the OB list of year names BM 92702 (Horsnell 1999, 1: 234); in the so-called “Ge-
nealogy of Hammurabi” (Finkelstein 1966); in a Babylonian Royal Chronicle (Glassner 2004: 130–31); and in the Babylonian Kinglist B, BM
38122 (Grayson 1980–1983: 100). In the latter kinglist Sumu-abum is attributed fifteen years, whereas the list of year names BM 92702 gives
him fourteen years. This comes as no surprise, because BM 38122 is probably a first-millennium BCE copy containing other mistakes concern-
ing the number of regnal years of other Babylonian kings. Note also the mentioning of “su-a-bu” in a “Chronicle of Ancient Kings” (Glassner
2004: 270–71), it is said there that Ilušu-ma was king of Assyria ana tarsi Su-Abu (see Edzard 1957: 92).
19. Charpin 2004: 80–86; 2012: 29–30; Goddeeris 2002a: 318–24; 2005: 139–40. Ranke already noted something similar in BE 6/1 as early
as 1906 (p. 7 n. 2): “when referring to their royal predecessors they [i.e., the OB kings] mention not his [Sumu-abum’s] but Sumu-la-il’s name in
a fashion which would lead us to regard Sumu-la-il as the founder of the dynasty, did we not know differently from the chronicles.”
20. Like Hammurabi in the prologue of the “Laws,” and Abī-ešuḫ and Ammi-ditāna in their royal inscriptions (RIME 4 E4.3.8 and E4.3.9).
Hammurabi recalls Sumu-la-El in a Mari letter (Guichard 2004: 25, line 76) and the palace in Babylon is seen as being built by Sumu-la-El in
AbB 1: 61.
56 RIENTS DE BOER
later fabrications. I suspect that there is a kernel of truth to at least a number of these year names. Hereunder is a
table giving the Sumu-abum “year names” from the date list BM 92702.21
Table 1. The year names of Sumu-abum222324
Year Year name in BM 92702, column I Translation

1 […]22 […]
2 […] […]
3 �MU BÀD KI.BAL.MAŠ.DÀ B[A.DAB5] ki
Year: he captured Kibalmašda
4 MU É dNIN.SI.IN.NA BA.[DÙ] Year: the temple of Ninsinna was built23
5 MU É MAH ŠEŠ.KI BA.DÙ
d
Year: the magnificent temple of Nanna was built
6 MU.ÚS.SA É MAH ŠEŠ.KI BA.�DÙ�
d
Year after the year: the magnificent temple of
Nanna was built
7 MU.ÚS.SA.ÚS.SA.BI É MAH dŠEŠ.KI BA.DÙ Second year after the year: the magnificent
temple of Nanna was built
8 MU gišIG EREN GU.LA É dŠEŠ.KI.RA MU.UN.NA.�DÍM.MA� Year: he made a great cedar door for the temple
of Nanna
9 MU BÀD dil-batki BA.[D]Ù Year: the wall of Dilbat was built
10 MA AGA24 AN.NÉ KIŠki MU.UN.NA.DÍM.[M]A Year: he made the sublime crown of Kiš
11 MU.ÚS.SA AGA AN.NÉ KIŠ MU.UN.NA.DÍM.MA
ki
Year after the year: he made the sublime crown
of Kiš
12 MU gišBANŠUR DINGIR.RE.E.NE.KE4 MU.UN.NA.DÍM.MA Year: he made an offering table of the gods
13 MU ka-zal-lu BA.HUL
ki
Year: Kazallu was destroyed
14 MU.ÚS.SA ka-zal-lu BA.HUL
ki
Year after the year: Kazallu was destroyed
14 MU su-a-bu LUGAL.E Fourteen years, Su(mu)-abu(m), the king
The thirteenth year name, the capture of Kazallu (note: not the destruction) is attested in contemporary documents
from Damrum (De Boer 2014a: 137–51 and 238–43). At least two of them mention that the capture was done by
Sumu-abum.25 The year names were probably written under the rule of king Mananâ. In addition, all but one of them
(Rutten 1959: no. 11) stem from one archive: that of Šumšunu-watar and they are all dated to the same month.26
The connection between the so-called Mananâ dynasty from Damrum and Sumu-abum is interesting. The
moon-god Nanna/Sîn was the city god of Damrum27 and several of the “Mananâ-dynasty” kings had dedicated
21. The reading of the signs is based on the collations by Horsnell 1999.
22. The first two year names are broken in BM 92702. They have often been reconstructed as year names commemorating the building of
the walls of Babylon. This is based on a Dilbat document containing an oath by Sumu-abum and a year name commemorating the building of
Babylon: Gautier Dilbat 1; see also Goddeeris 2005: 140.
23. The reading of the divine name is problematic (Nin-Isin or Ninsianna?); see Horsnell 1999, 2: 45 n. 12.
24. Perhaps we should read here and in year 11 not AGA but BÀD!: Year: he made the wall of Kiš reaching the heavens,” this provides a
parallel with Sumu-la-El year 20 (see table 8 below).
25. Goddeeris 2005: 140 asserts that the year name originally belonged to Sumu-abum. However, she adds that Sumu-la-El never occurs on
texts with this year name but note the text Speleers Recueil 232 containing the Kazallu year name with an oath by Sumu-la-El and Lugal-Marad.
26. De Boer 2014a: 142–44. The Šumšunu-watar texts with the year name mentioning the capture of Kazallu are almost all dated to month
V: Rutten 1960: no. 11; Thureau-Dangin 1911: no. 1; RSM 34; YOS 14: 114; RSM 44; OECT 13: 280; YOS 14: 108; RSM 48; OECT 13: 282;
Thureau-Dangin 1911: no. 2 (MU ka-zal-luki sa-mu-a-bi-im IN.DAB5); RSM 35; RSM 53; RSM 52; RSM 54; BM 103175 ([MU k]a-zal-luki [sa-
mu-a]-bi-im IN.DAB5); BM 103196.
27. See most recently Barberon 2012: 46–47.
year names for the embellishment of Nanna’s temple.28 We can speculate that Sumu-abum also commissioned
work on the Damrum Nanna/Sîn temple, this would fit the Sumu-abum year names.
Only three of the above “Sumu-abum year names” have been found in contemporary texts. The one on Ka-
zallu, the building of the walls of Dilbat (MHET II/1: 21, although the text explicitly mentions Sumu-la-El as the
builder), and the capture of Kibalmašda. Interestingly, we can connect the capture of Kibalmašda again with the
Damrum king Mananâ.29
The Kibalmašda year name of Sumu-abum has often been (correctly?) connected to a year name found on a
tablet (and its case) carrying an oath by Sumu-abum and Šamaš:
MU e-li-ip is-sa-�ab�-[tu]. “Year: (in which) Elip was taken” (VAS 8, 1)

MU e-li-ip is-sa-ab-t[u]. (VAS 8, 2, case of VAS 8, 1)
The equation Kibalmašda = Elip was first proposed by Reiner in 1961 and has been generally accepted.30 How-
ever, we cannot unite the two different etymologies of Sumerian k i.b a l.maš.d à and Akkadian Ilip/Elip (Edzard
1976–1980: 587). Kibalmašda is glossed as [n]é-bir sa-bi-i (MSL 11: 14 33),31 which is a literal translation of the
Sumerian, meaning: “The place of crossing of the gazelle.” The Akkadian word elip means “boat.” Both etymologies
nonetheless suggest a river or canal side location. Another obscure year name, seems to refer to the destruction of
Marad and Kibalmašda.32
To conclude: Sumu-abum was indeed not the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon, but at least some of the
BM 92702 year names reflect actual events during his lifetime. Two and perhaps more of these events are seem-
ingly connected to year names from the Damrum king Mananâ.33
Sumu-abum the Military Leader
The letter YBC 9955 provides tantalizing evidence for the rule of Sumu-abum as a military leader.34 The prov-
enance of the letter or how it ended up in the Yale collections are unknown, it does not seem to be connected to
other texts. We can even doubt whether it was an actual letter sent to Sumu-abum, there remains a possibility that
it was a (fictitious) school letter.
1 a-na sú-mu-a-bu-u[m] ù a-na-ku

qí-bí-ma la-la-a-tum
um-ma sà-sà-na-tum-ma L.E. ù a-a-la-tu[m]
28. For all Mananâ-dynasty year names, see De Boer 2014a: 408–13.
29. Also indicated by Simmons 1960: 75–77. The year name is MU KI.BAL.MAŠ.DÀki (BA.DAB5) and can be found on YOS 14: 101; TIM
5: 38 (oath by Nanna and Ma[nana?]; YOS 14: 100; YOS 14: 99; BM 103184; Kutscher 1971: no. 1 (Kutscher only published a faulty translation
and one photo of the obverse, making it necessary for me to make some guesses about the tablet’s contents. He writes about the month on p.
43: “Additional (i.e.) intercalary month of the Harvest of Barley.”), and OECT 15: 376 (MU BÀD KI.BAL.MAŠ.DÀki BA.DÙ, the text belongs to
the Šumšunu-watar archive. Charpin 2012: 30 n. 48 interprets the year name as evidence that Sumu-abum year names were plagiarized from
those of other kings).
30. Reiner 1961: 123 n. 7 and p. 124. her argument is twofold: she equates the Sumerian version MU BÀD KI.BAL.MAŠ.DÀki BA.DAB5
with the Akkadian one found on VAS 8: 1 and 2 (MU e-li-ip is-sa-ab-t[u]). Her second argument is of a lexical nature, she reads the town
(formerly read as ì.lu l) as ì.lip. Charpin 1978a: 17 has added the equation Elip = Urum, proposing that Urum was an older name of Elip.
31. Kibalmašda is also found in MSL 11: 60 52; MSL 11: 13 21; SLT 213 viii 15; RA 32, p. 170 iii 49 ([KI.BAL].MAŠ.DÀk i ).
32. UET 5 274: 37, MU �ma�-ra-adki BA.AN.DÍB and TIM 5: 58 22–23, MU ma!-ra-adki, ù �URU KI.BAL�. Another year name with appar-
ently the town Kibalmašda is found on BDHP 28:32, MU! KI.BAL.MAŠ!.DA!ki! (see also Stol 2002: 735–36).
33. This idea is not entirely new: Edzard 1957: 123 n. 644 was the first to notice this, other references in Sommerfeld 1982: 25 n. 9.
34. A first edition was published in De Boer 2014a: 460–61.
Copy and photo of YBC 9955. Dimensions (cm): 8.5 × 4.3 × 1.8
d
EN.LÍL a-na be-lí R.15 a-na pa-n[i…]
5 um-ma-na-ti-im na x[…]
iš-ta-kà-an-kà
šum-ma a-bu-um (Rest of reverse broken and fragmentary)
ù be-lum at-ta
la-la-a-tum Le.E 1’ ša i-in-ka ma-aḫ-ru
10 a-na DUMU a-mu-ri-im e-pu-uš
ši-i-ma i-di-in
1–3
Speak to Sumu-abum, thus (says) Sassanātum.
4–6
Enlil has appointed you to rule over the armies! 7–8 If you are a father and a lord, 9–11 give Lalâtum, she is (in-
tended) for an Amorite! 12–16 As for me, Lalâtum and Ayalātum, to … [. . . .]
1’–2’
Do whatever pleases you!
Comments:
3. The female name Sassanātum resembles common early OB names like Sassiya (sà-sí-ia, RSM 42: 8, from Kiš/
Damrum), Sassānum (sà-sà-nu-um, RSM 31: 9; Santag 9: 22 3; 49 4; 139 9; 239 15; AbB 2: 121 5; all from Kisurra),
and Sassātum (sà-sà-tum DUMU.MUNUS sà-am-súm, CT 4: 47b 20 (Sippar), etc.). This Sassanātum is otherwise
unknown.
4. I interpret be-lí as a status constructus of the verb bêlum “to rule over, be in authority of ” (CAD B: 199–
200; AHw: 120–21), the expected form is be-lí-im. The verb bêlum in the status constructus is often attested with
nadānum in OB royal inscriptions (usually with the gods as subject and “the people” or land as object): Ham-
murabi, RIME 4 E4.3.6.2: 14–15 ša a-na be-li-im id-dí-na-am; RIME 4 E4.3.6.7: 13 a-na be-li-im id-di-nu-nim;
Samsu-iluna, RIME 4 E4.3.7.2: 7–8 a-na be-li-im id-di-nu-šum). Another possibility is to understand bēli as a status
constructus of the noun bēlum (lord). However, one would expect bēl, see GAG § 64a–c. The translation would be
something like: “Enlil has appointed you as lord of the armies.” Note that the usage of the pronoun ana would also
be problematic in this case.
6. Note the early OB usage of /ga/ with the reading /kà/ in line 6 versus the normal /ka/ used on the left edge.
The usage of the perfect is also noteworthy: it probably underlines the importance of the statement.
7–8. This stock phrase is usually found slightly different as: “If you are my father and lord” (šumma bēlī ū abī
atta).
9. The usage of the pronoun šī-ma in line 11 suggests that Lalâtum is a feminine name. Another Lalâtum is
found as the owner of a field in MHET II/5: 666 3 (Sippar). In later dated Uruk texts (Rīm-Anum, prisoner of war
archive), Lalâtum is the name of a royal woman: Rositani (2003: 138 no. II, 30: 3).
10. The phrase DUMU a-mu-ri-im is interpreted as “an Amorite” instead of “son of an Amorite” or “son of
Amurrum.” Amurrum was also a personal name in both Ur III (Michalowski 2011: 106–7) and early OB texts, for
example: a-mu-ru-um, DUMU da-ma-aq-ti, MHET II/1 5: 19–20, (time of Immerum, from Sippar).
11. There is a possibility to read ši-i as še20-i, an imperative of še’ûm (CAD Š/2: 355–63; AHw: 1222–24) “to look
for, search.” However, the object of the verb še’ûm is usually in the accusative and only rarely with the pronoun ana.
We could translate the sentence alternatively as: “(As for) Lalâtum, seek out an Amorite and give (her).”
14. The female name a-a-la-tum occurs in other contemporary texts: YOS 14: 351 3 (Kisurra, dated to Sumu-
abum 1); CUNES 51-03-025: 6; and CUNES 51-03-026: 5 (Kingdom of Larsa; Mayr 2010). Interestingly, a daugh-
ter of Sumu-la-El is also called Ayalātum (spelled as a-ia-la-tum), see n. 106 below.
The above letter deals with a woman called Lalâtum, the writer Sassanātum wants Sumu-abum to give her to an
unspecified person because she is intended “for an Amorite.” Amorite is written as mār amurrim: “son of Amur-
rum,” which designates either an ethnicity or perhaps a class. The reverse is largely broken, but the writer seems to
60 RIENTS DE BOER
tell about his plans with Lalâtum and a certain Ayalātum. In the broken part, the writer is probably asking Sumu-
abum for a favor or advice because the letter ends on the left edge with the message “do whatever pleases you.”
Is the Sumu-abum in YBC 9955 the same man as the Amorite leader? There is no way to be certain, but there
are two main arguments in support of this proposal. First, the signs and their usage clearly point towards an early
OB date. Second, Sumu-abum is introduced as a military leader of more than one army, the plural ummānātim is
significant. Also interesting is the fact that it was Enlil who appointed Sumu-abum to rule over the armies. Enlil
is not an “Amorite” deity but the main deity of the Mesopotamian pantheon at the time. Enlil could point towards
Nippur, Sumu-abum’s “personal deity,” or, more likely, it indicates some kind of universality to Sumu-abum’s role
as military leader.
The preeminent role of Sumu-abum among early OB Amorite leaders was already known from the Ikūn-pîša
Letter Archive (IPLA).35 Parts of this archive were published by Al-‘Adhami (1967, 1971, 1978). The published let-
ters relating to Sumu-abum were studied by Wu (1994) and Charpin (2004), as well as Goddeeris (2002, 2005).36
The most interesting letter of the whole archive is without a doubt IPLA 14.37 It was sent by Ikūn-pîša himself
to two (unknown) addressees. He tells how he went to the “Amorite assembly” and convened with Sumu-abum,
Mašparum, and Sumun-abi-yarim (both rulers in the lower Diyala region). Ikūn-pîša stresses that they are united
and that Mašparum will go and talk to Ḫ alun-pi-umu (king of Marad) about his intentions concerning war or
peace. Ikūn-pîša motivates the addressees to also take action. IPLA 14 teaches us that Sumu-abum led the “Amorite
assembly” and that he had an important role amongst the Amorite rulers during his lifetime. In the other letters
from the archive he is portrayed as excercising substantial power: he has an important, but mostly unspecified, role
in the Ilum-ma letters, a small group of texts written by an agent of Ikūn-pîša’s trading firm: IPLA 3,38 5,39 7,40 and
9.41 IPLA 7 and 1842 are both concerned with audience gifts (tāmartum) for Sumu-abum. From IPLA 1043 we learn
that Sumu-la-El was subordinate to him and that Sumu-la-El feared him. When we combine the information from
YBC 9955 and the Ikūn-pîša letter archive we can state that Sumu-abum was the military leader of a pan-tribal
assembly that must have been responsible for the conquest of a number of cities in the Diyala region and northern
Babylonia. In the wake of these conquests we see evidence for the following rulers and dynasties in these areas:
Northern Babylonia:
• Sumu-la-El, king of Babylon (1880–1845 BCE).
• Ḫ alun-pi-umu, Sumu-ditān, Sumu-atar, Sumu-numḫim, and Yamsi-El, rulers of Marad (ca. 1880–1860
BCE).44
• Ilum-ma-Ila, Immerum, Ammi-sura, Buntaḫtun-Ila, and Altinû kings of (parts of) Sippar (ca. 1885–
1860 BCE).45
• Yawium and Agānuḫi/Agāniḫi, rulers of Kiš (ca. 1885–1870 BCE).46
35. De Boer 2013b: 279–80 and De Boer forthcoming. Baqir and Mustafa (1945) mention that the letter archive also contains a letter send by
Sumu-abum to Ikūn-pîša (IM 49271), unfortunately, this could not be found in the Iraq Museum when I visited it in August 2017.
36. A summary of the discussion can be found in Charpin 2004: 78–86.
37. IM 49341: Al-‘Adami 1967: pls. 1 & 2 and pp. 152–56; Kraus 1984: 10; Wu 1994: 28; Goddeeris 2002a: 172.
38. IM 49238+IM 49543, unpublished.
39. IM 49240, Al-‘Adami 1967, pls. 9 & 10; Al-Adhami 1978; Wu 1994: 29–30; and Goddeeris 2002a: 173.
40. IM 49222: Al-‘Adami 1967, pls. 11 & 12 and pp. 161–65; Wu 1994: 30–31; and Goddeeris 2002a: 173.
41. IM 49534, unpublished.
42. IM 49537: Al-‘Adami 1967, pl. 17; Goddeeris 2002a: 173.
43. IM 50425, unpublished, quoted by Al-‘Adhami 1978: 5.
44. De Boer 2013a.
45. De Boer 2014a: 115–37, 244–47. Altinû is later succeeded by a certain Lipit-Ištar, De Boer 2014a: 135–36.
46. De Boer 2014a: 146–53, perhaps we also need to add Ašduni-yarim to this list, De Boer 2014a: 237 (in my thesis I read a-bi-x-x-x for
this king’s name.
• Naqimum, Abdi-Eraḫ, Aḫi-maras, Mananâ, Ḫ aliyum, Sumu-yamutbal, and Manium were rulers in the
area of Damrum (ca. 1885–1845 BCE).47
• Yaḫzir-El, ruler of Kazallu (ca. 1865–1860 BCE).48
• Mutumme-El, ruler of Lagaba (date uncertain).49
• Ilum-nāsir ruler(?) of Kutha (date uncertain).50
Lower Diyala region:

• Mašparum, Abdi-Eraḫ, and Šiqlānum, rulers of unknown towns (ca. 1900–1880 BCE).51
• Itūr-šarrum, ruler of Diniktum (ca. 1900 BCE).52
• Išmeḫ-bala, Sumun-abi-yarim, Ḫ ammi-dušur, Sîn-abušu, and Ikūn-pī-Sîn of Nērebtum, Šaduppûm, and
Uzarlulu (ca. 1900–1830 BCE).53
• Abi-madar, perhaps of Šaduppûm (ca. 1890 BCE?).54
• Yadkur-El, perhaps of Uzarlulu (ca. 1890 BCE?).55
• Sumu-Amnānum, Sumu-numḫim and Sumu-Šamaš, rulers of Šadlaš (ca. 1885–1840 BCE).56
In addition to the above rulers and cities, there are numerous references in early OB year names to supposed rulers
either through year names of the type: “Year: PN died” or through other obscure year names, an overview is given
in De Boer 2014a: 136–37, 214–15, 423. They contain the names of another approximately thirty men. Combined
with the rulers above and the kings of the other polities at the time (Ešnunna, Isin, Larsa, Assur, Kisurra, Uruk,
Elam etc.), we arrive at almost one hundred names of kings, rulers, chiefs, pretenders etc. for the period be-
tween ca. 1900 and 1840 BCE! This testifies to the incredibly complex political situation in southern Mesopotamia
around this time. Such complexity is no historical fluke: the Mari archives document a similar fragmented political
landscape for the Habur region under the reign of Zimri-Lim. Sumu-abum’s political and military role among all
of the above-mentioned men between ca. 1890 and 1860 BCE was considerable.
The Deities Connected to Sumu-abum
There are a number of deities that are mentioned with Sumu-abum in contemporary texts, these are first of all city
gods evoked with him in oaths: Uraš (Dilbat),57 Ninurta (Kisurra),58 and Šamaš (Sippar).59 In addition, the “year
names” of Sumu-abum found on the date list BM 92702 mention works on a temple of Nanna. In YBC 9955 we
saw that Sumu-abum was appointed by Enlil “to rule the armies.”
47. De Boer 2014a: 137–51, 238–43

48. As is known from Sumu-la-El’s year names, De Boer 2013a: 88.
49. TIM 5: 22 16–17.
50. Hussein 2008: 81, MU ša DINGIR-na-sir-ir GÚ.DU8.Aki BA.UG7.
51. De Boer 2014a: 202–3.
52. RIME 4 E4.13.1.
53. De Boer 2014a: 207–10, 217–28. The fact that Ikūn-pī-Sîn of Nērebtum was contemporary with Sabium of Babylon, Ibal-pi-El I of
Ešnunna, Sîn-iddinam of Larsa and Sîn-kašid of Uruk is now known thanks to a treaty published by Guichard 2014.
54. De Boer 2014a: 206.
55. De Boer 2014a: 207.
56. De Boer 2014a: 212, 218.
57. YOS 14: 131; Gautier Dilbat 1.
58. YOS 14: 128 and 351; TIM 5: 13; FAOS 2: 93
59. VAS 8 1 (tablet) and 2 (case).
62 RIENTS DE BOER
It has been justly remarked that Sumu-abum was never associated with Marduk,60 however in a special letter,
IPLA 42,61 he is mentioned in connection to Annunītum. The beginning of the letter is damaged, but it appears that
Sumu-abum had to give his consent before Annunītum could travel to Babylon to Marduk’s temple:
1–3
[Speak to NP thus says NP].
4–7
[…] 8–9 … that they may enter into Marduk’s temple. 10–12 Maybe Marduk will accept her petitions. 13–14 I must not
go there because 15 I do not want to be restless.
16–19
I am obligated to (her/him) to conduct Annunītum to Babylon 20–21 I asked Sumu-abum and 22 he released (her)
but 23–25 he did not consent to escort (her) to Babylon. 26–29 If he gives me permission to escort Annunītum to Babylon,
30–31
I would escort her today! 32 Please, 33–34 If it would [be so], I will be ha[ppy]!
35
[No]w, 36–37 I want to escort her to Marduk’s temple, 38–40 perhaps she will be upset about not entering Marduk’s
temple.
This letter seems to refer to a divine journey of Annunītum’s statue to Marduk’s temple in Babylon. The purpose
of the trip is perhaps that Annunītum could intercede with Marduk on behalf of a person who is mentioned in the
broken beginning of the letter, or for a festival. The writer mentions that he is responsible for taking Annunītum to
Babylon, but that he needs Sumu-abum’s permission. As soon as he will get this permission he will set off. The let-
ter ends with the writer’s concern for Annunītum’s temper. In addition to the information about Sumu-abum and
Annunītum, the letter also gives us the earliest attestation of Marduk’s temple Esagil in the OB period and perhaps
even one of the earliest OB attestations of Marduk himself.
Because the Annunītum from IPLA 44 has to go to Babylon,62 we can assume that we are dealing here with
Annunītum of Sippar. On what authority did Sumu-abum have the power to decide about Annunītum’s statue?
I do not believe that he was “king” of Sippar-Amnānum, but I cannot exclude this either. It would also go too
far to say that Sippar-Amnānum was Sumu-abum’s “capital.” Perhaps Sumu-abum had a special connection to
Annunītum, we can speculate that she was his personal or family deity. In any case, if the equation Annunītum =
Ninsianna holds, then we might have a solution for one of Sumu-abum’s “year names” in the date list BM 92702.
The fourth year name reads as MU É dNIN.SI.IN.NA BA.[DÙ] “Year: the temple of Ninsinna was built.” The read-
ing of the divine name is problematic: should we understand Nin-Isin or Ninsianna?63 The letter IPLA 44 would
plead for Ninsianna.
To conclude: in addition to Sumu-abum’s connection to Nanna and the local city gods of towns where texts in his
name were found, the new material shows a connection between him and the gods Enlil and Annunītum.
60. Sommerfeld 1982: 25; Wu and Dalley 1990: 163; Charpin 2004: 82.
62. The temple of Annunītum is one of the oldest in Babylon, as a year name of Šar-kali-šarrī shows (Lambert 2011: 71). Annunītum is a
manifestation of Ištar and her name is perhaps an expanded form of Anūna (Lambert 1989: 325 suggests that her name might have a connec-
tion with the word anuntu/anantu “battle”). Annunītum had two main temples: one in Babylon, the Eturkalamma (George 1993: 151 no. 1117)
and one in Sippar, the main temple of Sippar-Amnānum, the Eulmaš (George 1993: 155 no. 1169). Lambert has remarked that Annunītum
of Babylon originally had both of the main attributes of Ištar, love, and war, but that after the fall of the First Dynasty of Babylon, the martial
aspect was concentrated into Annunītum of Sippar and that Annunītum of Babylon remained as a concubine of Marduk, changing her name
into “Ištar-of-Babylon” (Lambert 1989: 324–25). Annunītum’s worship in Sippar probably also goes back to the Akkadian kings (Meyers 2002:
33–34, the earliest reference is actually a text datable to Sabium: CT 48: 25). Meyers equates Ninsianna with Annunītum. Ninsianna is a male
astral deity, to be identified with Venus (Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001). According to her, the two gods are two forms of the same deity,
Ninsianna the male form (Venus as morning star) and Annunītum the female form (Venus as evening star; Myers 2002: 96). Ninsianna had a
shrine and cultic personnel of his/her own; perhaps this was part of the bigger Eulmaš temple complex dedicated to Annunītum (Myers 2002:
97 and Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998–2001).
63. For a discussion, see Horsnell 1999, 2: 45 n. 12.
The Fall of Kazallu to Isin, Babylon, and Sumu-abum around 1864 BCE
Above we saw that Sumu-abum was an important military leader, however, the texts only rarely give us infor-
mation about his actual military accomplishments. We have some references to the capture of minor towns like
Kibalmašda and Elip (see above), but not to Sumu-abum conquering a larger city like Kiš or Sippar. The exception
to this is Kazallu.
Kazallu was probably pronounced as “Kasalluk” in OB times,64 even though other spellings are also attested.65
Its city god was Numušda who is considered as a son of the moon-god Nanna/Sîn in some traditions.66 The city
and its surroundings were also home to the Mutiabal tribe (De Boer 2013b: 272). Throughout the early OB period
(De Boer 2013a: 73–74) until the reign of Samsu-iluna67 Kazallu appears as a belligerent city rebelling often68 and
being attacked often.
Around 1864 BCE Kazallu had to endure an attack for the third (and not last) time in forty years. As usual, we
do not know what provoked this attack on Kazallu, but it seems to have been a coordinated attack by three rulers:
Sumu-la-El of Babylon, Erra-imittī of Isin, and Sumu-abum.69 All these rulers have a year name commemorating
an attack on Kazallu, my hypothesis is that these year names all refer to the same event:
• Erra-imittī e: MU dèr.ra-i-mi-ti, BÀD ka-zal-luki, BA.HUL (YOS 14: 319 24–26)
• Sumu-abum “13”: see table above.
• Sumu-la-El: MU ka-zal-luki BA.HUL (MAOG 4 MD 6: 17)
MU ka-zal-luki, gišTUKUL BA.SÌG (Archi, Pomponio, and Stol 1999: no. 748)
MU ka-zal-luki BA.H[UL] (Speleers Recueil 232:25)
The Sumu-la-El year names give us the best chronological hold: the event can be dated to ca. 1864, 1862, or 1857
because there are three official Sumu-la-El year names connected to Kazallu (according to the much later written
list of year names BM 92702):
• Sumu-la-El 18: MU ia-aḫ-zi-ir-DINGIR ŠÀ ka-zal-lu.TA BA.RA.È
“Year: Yaḫzir-El was driven from Kazallu.”
• Sumu-la-El 20: MU BÀD ka-zal-luki BA.HUL Ù ERIN2.BI gišTUKUL BA.SÌG
“Year: the wall of Kazallu was destroyed and its army was defeated by weapons.”
• Sumu-la-El 25: MU ia-aḫ-zi-ir-DINGIR gišTUKUL BA.SÌG “Year: Yaḫzir-El was defeated by weapons.”
Actual cuneiform texts dated with Sumu-la-El year names show another picture: there are only two variants, “Year:
Kazallu was destroyed” (MU ka-zal-luki BA.HUL) and “Year: Yaḫzir-El was defeated by weapons” (MU ia-aḫ-zi-ir-
DINGIR gišTUKUL BA.SÌG). We can safely equate Sumu-la-El 25 (1857 BCE) with this latter actually attested year
name. But what about Sumu-la-El 18 (1864 BCE) and 20 (1862 BCE) from the list? Which of these represent the
actually attested year name “The year: Kazallu was destroyed”? Erra-imittī’s rule lasted from ca. 1870 to 1863 BCE,
64. Most notably: ARMT 26/2: 365 (ka-sa-al-lu-ukki), 366 and OECT 13: 282 (kà-sà-lu-ukki), with Charpin 2001a: 91; Heimpel 1996 (who
translates Kasalluk from Sumerian as “Mouth-of-the-Narrows); Charpin 2001b; Charpin 2003 and Charpin and Ziegler 2003: 220 n. 460. See
also the new examples from Charpin and Durand 2004: 101 (A.1215:50) and Abraham 2008: 30.
65. Kasalluh (ka-zal-luḫ-ḫi) in a first millenium tamîtu text (Lambert 2007: 141), lexical Ura = ḫubullu: MSL 11: 45 51’ (KA.ZAL.LUḪ ki =
ka-za-al) and p. 131 iv 21 (KA.ZALki) but also Kazallum (ka-zal-lumki) in another lexical text; Iraq 6, p. 179 no. 87: 9.
66. For the complete bibliography: Richter 2004: 445.
67. It participated in the wars during Samsu-iluna 8–13, Seri 2013: 48–49.
68. It revolted under Hammurabi: Charpin 2004: 215 and 334.
69. Charpin 2004: 86 already suspected that the attack on Kazallu was done by Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El in 1862 (Sumu-la-El’s 19th
year).
64 RIENTS DE BOER
making it likely that we have to go with Sumu-la-El 18, which dates Kazallu’s defeat to 1864 BCE. In a recently
published letter, we read that Erra-imittī was also at war with Larsa’s Sumu-El.70
As for the year name commemorating Sumu-abum’s attack on Kazallu, this is actually a year name from the
Damrum king Mananâ (see above). In my thesis, I proposed a new chronology for the Damrum kings and placed
Mananâ’s rule between ca. 1876 and 1860 BCE, making it possible for Kazallu’s defeat to have taken place in 1864
BCE from this point of view (De Boer 2014a: 150–56).
It seems likely that Yahzir-El was ruling Kazallu at the time of the three-pronged attack in 1864 BCE. Perhaps
Marad was also captured in the wake of Kazallu’s defeat because Sumu-la-El’s year names turn up at Marad starting
with “Year: Kazallu was destroyed.” Marad stayed under Babylon’s sway for at least a few more years.71
Sumu-abum Becomes King of Kisurra
My hypothesis is that Sumu-abum participated in the defeat of Kazallu, just as Sumu-la-El of Babylon and Erra-
imittī of Isin did. The only attestation of Erra-imittī’s year name alluding to Kazallu’s defeat comes from a Kisurra
text. This Kisurra text belongs to the archive of a man called “Ur-zi.edin.na.” Five texts known to me belong to this
archive with the following dates:
• YOS 14: 344: MU BÀD É.HÚB.BAki ib-ni-ša-du-um BA.AN.DÍB/MU.NI.NIM (Ibni-šadûm e/X)
• YOS 14: 319: MU dèr.ra-i-mi-ti BÀD ka-zal-luki, BA.HUL (Erra-imittī e)
• YOS 14: 128: MU dsú-mu-a-bu-um LUGAL (“Year: Sumu-abum is king’/XI)
• TIM 5: 13: [MU dsú-m]u-�a-bu�-[um] �LUGAL� (“Year: Sumu-abum is king”)
• NBC 6318: MU dsú-mu-a-bu-um /LUGAL (“Year: Sumu-abum is king/XI”)
If the above reconstruction of events is correct, Kazallu’s defeat happened in 1864 BCE. This coincides with the
supposed penultimate year of Erra-imittī, year e. According to the Kisurra chronology established by Sommerfeld,
Ibni-šadûm’s reign is to be situated earlier in time, around 1880–1885 BCE.72 So, somewhere around the period
1885–1862 BCE we would also have to place Sumu-abum’s ephemeral reign over Kisurra.73 However, the current
consensus is that Kisurra lost its independence to Larsa after Ibni-šadûm’s reign around 1885.74
There are reasons to question both the accepted Sommerfeld and the newer Kisurra chronology proposed by
Tyborowski (2012). Both chronologies are firmly based on the principle “foreign year name = foreign rule.” This
way of reconstructing OB history is useful and necessary, but in my opinion not tenable in all cases because real-
ity was much more complicated. Just one example is provided by Van Koppen and Lacambre (2008–2009) who
showed that Ešnunna year names could easily turn up in Sippar as a result of trade or family relations: there is no
need to state that Ešnunna ever ruled Sippar. Tyborowski (2012) uses the principle “foreign year name = foreign
70. Chambon 2015. Other unpublished letters from Sumu-El also mentions Erra-imittī: MS 2776/1: 10 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/
P251796.jpg) and MS 2776/21: 9 (http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P251816.jpg)
71. At least until the reign of Sabium; De Boer 2013a: 88–89.
72. Sommerfeld 1983: 229. A completely different chronology for the rulers of Kisurra is proposed by Tyborowski 2012. He also places
Ibni-šadûm’s reign later, albeit even later than here: he proposes (p. 259): 1862?–1856? (the question marks are his). Tyborowski also places
Sumu-abum’s reign over Kisurra after Ibni-šadûm (p. 258).
73. Tyborowski 2012: 248 proposes Sumu-abum as the ruler of Uruk, following Sommerfeld 1983: 28. However, there is no solid evidence
for Sumu-abum ruling Uruk.
74. Sommerfeld 1983: 229; Charpin 2004: 75; and implicitly Goddeeris 2009: 71–72. The basis for this conclusion consists of the “foreign”
year names found in the Kisurra texts. The principle is simple: a nonindigenous year name (e.g., Larsa or Isin) equals foreign domination. Som-
merfeld found a period of twenty-two years without foreign year names in Kisurra, from 1920/1915 BCE to ca. 1885 BCE and he placed the
Kisurra kings in this period of independence. The new Kisurra texts published by Goddeeris 2009 have already invalidated this period as “fully
independent”: we have at least two new year names from the beginning of Būr-Sîn’s reign (ca. 1897): Santag 9 101 (MU dbur-dEN.ZU LUGAL),
202 (M[U bur?]-dEN.ZU LUGAL is-ba-tu and 199 (MU dbur-dEN.ZU LUGAL MU.2.KAM).
rule” in his reconstruction of Kisurra chronology: every year name belonging to an Isin, Larsa, Babylon, or Uruk
king is interpreted as a change in Kisurra’s leadership. The reigns of the indigenous Kisurra kings are fitted in be-
tween these episodes of “foreign rule.” This results in a chronology in which Kisurra changes hands almost every
five years over a period of more than sixty years (Tyborowski 2012: 260–62). That the OB political situation could
be very volatile is shown clearly in the Mari archives where for example cities in the Habur region could have
several kings over the course of just a few years. However, I think that in the case of Kisurra something else might
have been the case. In fact, the Ur-zi.edin.na archive mentioned above could point us towards a totally different
chronology.75
The only chronological certainty we have for Ur-zi.edin.na’s archive is the date of Erra-imittī e found in YOS 14:
319. I suspect that the other texts are in fact close in time to this date: this means that we should place Sumu-abum’s
and Ibni-šadûm’s reigns in Kisurra also around 1865 BCE. How can we do this? Another year name of Erra-imittī’s
short eight-year reign, “Erra-imittī d” states that Kisurra was destroyed.76 This must have happened before YOS
14: 319 (with date “Erra-imittī e”), which was written in Kisurra. Erra-imittī of Isin must have defeated either
Sumu-abum or Ibni-šadûm. According to the above hypothesis concerning Kazallu’s defeat, Erra-imittī was in a
coalition with Sumu-abum around 1864 BCE, so Ibni-šadûm is the more likely candidate to have been defeated by
Erra-imittī somewhere between ca. 1870 and 1865 BCE. This would place Sumu-abum in charge of Kisurra either
after Kazallu’s defeat or after Erra-imittī’s death, somewhere between ca. 1865 and 1860.
We can only speculate on the exact details: Erra-imittī could have “rewarded” Sumu-abum with Kisurra’s king-
ship. Or, Sumu-abum could have turned against Erra-imittī after Kazallu’s fall and have been instrumental in his
death. Mesopotamian tradition recounts an unlikely story about Erra-imittī’s death: he had put the “gardener”
Enlil-bāni on the throne as substitute king in order to thwart bad omens, but Erra-imittī died nonetheless (“whilst
drinking small sips of a hot brew”) and Enlil-bāni stayed on the throne.77 We do not know the father of Enlil-bāni.
This is not all: there is an obscure royal chronicle from OB Nippur,78 mentioning Sumu-abum as having ruled
eight months after a man who ruled eight years called (lines 2’–4’): dÌ[R…] /U[R…], DUMU NU MU […].79
Unfortunately, we do not know have the full name of the man who ruled eight years before Sumu-abum’s eight
months rule, but it is tempting to reconstruct dè[r-ra-i-mi-ti]: Erra-imittī ruled for eight years according to the
Sumerian King List (Glassner 2004: 124–25). However, such a reconstruction would mean that Sumu-abum ruled
Isin, for which there is no other evidence.
The current consensus about Kisurra chronology states that Ibni-šadûm was “defeated” around 1885.80 This
is hard to link with the diplomatic ties he concluded by marrying the daughter of Sumu-El, king of Larsa.81 Why
would Larsa conquer Kisurra (or let it be conquered), if the daughter of Larsa’s king was married to the ruler of
Kisurra’s?82 It is much more likely that Ibni-šadûm was a vassal of Larsa between ca. 1885–1865, and that he was
75. This hypothesis revolving around Kisurra’s chronology only concerns the rulers from Ibni-šadûm onwards (ca. 1885–1860 BCE).
76. MU dèr.ra-i-mi-ti KI.SUR.RAki BA.HUL, found on Çiğ-Kizilyay-Kraus Nippur 6, 4 NT 82, PBS 8/2, 103 and a MU.ÚS.SA variant “year
after” is on Santag 9: 216: MU.ÚS.SA KI.SUR.RAki dèr.ra-i-mi-ti BA.AN.DÍB. Previous literature: Sommerfeld 1983: 226–27 and Charpin
1979b: 191.
77. See the commentary by Glassner 1999: 162–63.
78. Glassner 2004: 126–27; JCS 15, p. 79 (N.1610); and PBS IV/1 p. 81. A photo can be found on CDLI: http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archi-
val_view.php?ObjectID=P276734.
79. Translated by Glassner 2004: 127 as: I[r-. . . .]; Ur-[…], son of: his name is not [known], reigned 8 years; Sumu-abu[m] reigned 8
months. The sign /ur/ is indented and is probably part of the previous line and does not constitute a new name. I propose to read: dè[r-ra-i-mi-
ti]/UR-[…], DUMU NU.MU.[UN.TUKU], 8 MU Ì.[AK], su-mu-a-bu-[um], ITI 8 Ì.AK. “Erra-imittī […], he had no son, reigned eight years,
Sumu-abum reigned eight months.”
80. For more on Ibni-šadûm and his palace, see Goddeeris 2007.
81. This information was not known to Sommerfeld in 1983; see Charpin 2002.
82. These things nonetheless happened: Ibal-Addu, king of Ašlakkâ was married to a daughter of Zimri-Lim. He rebelled against his
father-in-law after years of vassalage (Charpin and Ziegler 2003: 239–40).
66 RIENTS DE BOER
eventually defeated by Erra-imittī of nearby Isin.83 This would also explain the many Sumu-El year names found
in the Kisurra texts: a vassal state should have little problems in occasionally using the year names of its overlord.84
Back to Sumu-abum: his rule in Kisurra seems very short-lived:85 the only Sumu-abum year name found here
is an accession-year name (“year 1”).86 Sumu-abum’s name carries a divine determinative, which is no surprise: it
fits in the southern (Isin) traditions of deifying the king, however this was not a tradition for the Kisurra kings.
The fact that we have no other “official” Sumu-abum year names could mean that we have simply not found any
other ones yet, or that Sumu-abum died or was chased away from Kisurra in his first regnal year.87 The most likely
further scenario for Kisurra seems to be that Isin was in control, even though we have no dated texts from the
reigns of the Isin kings after Erra-imittī. Almost sixty years later we learn that Rīm-Sîn of Larsa conquered and
annexed Kisurra (Rīm-Sîn year 20).88
To conclude, Sumu-abum helped in the capture of Kazallu in 1864 BCE and in the aftermath of these events he
was king of Kisurra for a short time.89 However, after ca. 1863/1862 BCE the sources are mute about Sumu-abum. I
assume that he had died around this time, given his importance it is strange that we have no year names mention-
ing his death.90
Sumu-la-El, King of Babylon and Lieutenant of Sumu-abum
After having discussed Sumu-abum, it is time to focus on that other large political figure from early OB Northern
Babylonia: Sumu-la-El, the first king of Babylon.91 He ruled from ca. 1880 to 1845 BCE. The “roots” of Sumu-la-El
are also unknown. He was considered by the other kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon as the founder of their
dynasty (see above).
There is an early but puzzling reference to “an emblem” (gišŠU.NIR) of Sumu-la-El and an offering (SISKUR2) by
Sumu-la-El found in a text from Ur, dated to the year Gungunum 7 (= ca. 1926 BCE).92 This Sumu-la-El must have
been an earlier homonym of Babylon’s king.
83. Who must have seen his chance to retake Kisurra after Sumu-El’s problems in the latter part of his reign (Charpin 2004: 78) and eventu-
al death around 1866. Charpin (2004: 101, following Van Dijk 1965: 15) suspects that Sumu-El’s successor on Larsa’s throne (Nūr-Adad) might
have been a usurper. The struggle between Erra-imittī and Sumu-El of Larsa is now documented through a text published by Chambon (2015).
84. In fact Tyborowski (2012: 259) writes something similar: “One can propose that the lack of a direct indication of the capture of Kisurra
may have been caused by the fact that the city most often became the vassal of the most powerful state and was not captured in the proper
sense.”
85. The letter AbB 2: 122 contains another reference to Sumu-abum’s time in Kisurra, or at least the south of Mesopotamia. AbB 2: 122
belongs to a group of letters (AbB 2: 117–131 and AbB 13: 54–59) addressed to (mostly) two men called Lu-Bau and Lipit-Ištar (occasionally
also other men) by Aḫum-ma. Van Soldt (1994: ix) thinks of Umma as the most likely point of origin. See also the remarks by Sommerfeld
1983: 220 n. 51. However, Goddeeris 2009: 13 points to Kisurra as the source of these letters.
86. The Kisurra text YOS 14: 351 and the one published by Goddeeris 2002b carry the same year name “Sumu-abum 1,” but they seem
unconnected to Ur-zi.edin.na’s archive. An unpublished adoption in Chicago (A 5643, courtesy M. Stol) also has the year name “MU su-mu-
a-bu-um.”
87. For the latter possibility there is actually some proof: Santag 9: 21 carries the year name: “Year that Sumu-abum returned to his city”
(MU ša su-mu-a-bu-um a-na a-li-šu i-tu-ru). The same remark was made by Goddeeris 2009: 16 n. 5. This year name is found in Sîn-bāni’s
archive, which has mostly undated texts, texts with unattributable year names, and one dated to Kisurra king Ubāya year c.
88. A text from Rīm-Sîn 22 is from Kisurra: Kienast Kisurra 2, 67.
89. Again, I would like to point to the possibility that the Sumu-abum from the Kisurra texts might be a homonym of the Sumu-abum
under discussion in this article.
90. A possible exception is Kienast Kisurra 2, 51, the broken year name is read by Kienast as �MU� AN �x MU� x x x x BA.UG7.
91. Previous literature: Goddeeris 2012b, Charpin 2004: 94–95, and earlier Edzard 1957: 124–26.
92. U 2588, published by Loding 1976: 240 as no. 7.
In the Ikūn-pîša letter archive there are a number of new references to Sumu-la-El allowing for a fresh view. He
travels together with Sumu-abum in IPLA 18,93 moreover in IPLA 794 and IPLA 1095 he is clearly subordinate to
Sumu-abum and even fearful of him. Sumu-la-El wrote two letters to Ikūn-pîša (IPLA 10: to both Ikūn-pîša’s, and
IPLA 11). From IPLA 10 we learn that king Ḫ alun-pi-umu and Sumu-la-El actually worked together: the same
king of Marad that he defeated in his second regnal year. IPLA 1196 concerns the dispatch of a messenger called
Erībam and Sumu-la-El’s problems about not having any silver at hand. In IPLA 32 there is talk about a rābisum
in the service of Sumu-la-El.97 In IPLA 38 there is mention of a field belonging to Sumu-la-El that was reassigned
to Ikūn-pîša, son of Arwium.98
It must be stressed that nothing in the Ikūn-pîša Letter Archive hints at Sumu-la-El’s royal position. This is
perhaps due to the early date of the archive: it is either from the beginning of Sumu-la-El’s reign, or it predates his
time as king of Babylon. Another explanation is that Sumu-la-El wrote the letters to Ikūn-pîša, not as a ruler, but
as a private person.99
Uruk: Babylon’s Ally?

Sumu-la-El seemed to have had an important ally in the kingdom of Uruk. The first known OB rulers of Uruk had
Amorite names: Sumu-binasa100 and Alila-hadum.101 Their year names are only known from Kisurra, they perhaps
ruled Uruk around ca. 1900 BCE.102 The next ruler known to us is Narām-Sîn, who must have ruled shortly before
Sîn-kāšid of Uruk.103
Only with Sîn-kāšid are we sure about good initial relations with Babylon:104 one of Sumu-la-El’s daughters,
Šallurtum, was married to Sîn-kāšid105 (another daughter of Sumu-la-El, Ayalātum, was a nadītum in Sippar’s
cloister).106 Falkenstein dates the beginning of the Sîn-kāšid dynasty to about 1865–1860 (Falkenstein 1963: 7).
Whether or not this is true, due to a recently published treaty we now know that he ruled Uruk at least until
1843–1842 BCE.107 Despite the fact that hundreds of illicitly acquired inscriptions of Sîn-kāšid are preserved in
collections around the world, we know very little about him because these texts all give us more or less the same
information. They stem from a palace that was built by Sîn-kāšid, which was excavated by a German expedition.
In the 1960s the German excavators found hundreds of texts in his palace (Falkenstein 1963; Mauer 1987). How-
ever, none of these texts are dated by Sîn-kāšid year names, instead, they stem from the reigns of his successors:108
Sîn-irībam, Sîn-gāmil, Ilum-gāmil, Anam, Irdanene, Nabi-ilīšu, and the much later Samsu-iluna-era rebel king
93. IM 49537, Al-‘Adhami 1967: pl. 17; Goddeeris 2002a: 173.

94. IM 49222, Al-‘Adhami 1967: pl. 11–12 and pp. 161–65; Wu 1994: 30–31; Goddeeris 2002a: 173. Ilum-ma wants to give a shekel of gold
to Sumu-abum and a jar of wine to both Sumu-la-El and Immerum,
95. IM 50425, unpublished. Sumu-la-El fears repercussions if the two Ikūn-pîša’s do not deliver a large amount of gold.
98. IM 49226, Al-Adhami 1967 pl. 16 and Goddeeris 2002a:174. See also AbB 6 177: 23–25, where the writer warns the addressee that an
amount of barley belongs to Sumu-la-El.
99. Something similar can be seen with the Old Assyrian rulers writing to merchants in Kaneš; see Michel 2001: 61–76 and Kryszat 2004.
100. Goddeeris 2012c and Sommerfeld 1983b: 221–25. For the year names see Goddeeris 2009: 16. Note that the name su-mu-bi-na-šu is
mentioned together with the names Sumu-la-El-dūrī and Sumu-abum in a school text (list of names) from Nērebtum: Greengus Ishchali 281: 2.
101. Following Sommerfeld 1983b: 221–25; for the year names see Goddeeris 2009: 16.
102. In any case before Sumu-El 5 (Year: he defeated Uruk) in 1890 BCE.
103. Three inscriptions of Narām-Sîn are known; see Von Dassow 2009 and Sanati-Müller 2011.
104. Charpin 2004: 108–9; 2009–2011.
105. The fact is known through a seal impression found at Uruk: RIME 4 E4.4.1.16.
106. a-ia-la-tum, CT 47, 11: 24, Sîn-muballit, a-ia-la-tum DUMU.MUNUS [su-m]u-la-[DINGIR], Al-‘Adhami 1997: 73–75 (envelope): 33,
Apil-Sîn 2, da-a-la-tum DUMU.MUNUS su-mu-la-d ing i r , CT 8: 29b 22, Apil-Sîn.
107. Guichard 2014. We do not know when exactly Sîn-kāšid’s successor Sîn-irībam came to the throne, but the text YOS 5: 124 gives us a
synchronism between Warad-Sîn of Larsa’s 6th year name (1829 BCE) and Sîn-irībam.
108. Etēya (RIME 4 E4.4.5 and Sanati-Müller 1989: 276) is in fact not a king of Uruk, see Anbar and Stol 1991: 28 sub L.3.
68 RIENTS DE BOER
Rīm-Anum.109 The Sîn-kāšid inscriptions deal mostly with the construction of his palace and several temples, most
prominently Inanna’s Eanna temple. An interesting fact is his claim that he was the son of the goddess Ninsun and
that Lugalbanda was his god.110 This reminds us of Gilgamesh’ ancestry and Sîn-kāšid must have connected himself
to the traditions of the Ur III kings by these claims.111 In addition, Sîn-kāšid calls himself “king of the Amnānum,”
an Amorite tribe (De Boer 2013b).
This brings us to the most famous evidence for cordial Uruk-Babylon relations: the “Anam letter” written by
the Uruk king Anam to Sîn-muballit of Babylon.112 The letter was found in the Sîn-kāšid palace, together with
the remnants of other diplomatic letters and a treaty.113 The Anam letter was either never sent or it was a copy
kept by Uruk’s chancellery for future reference. The Urukean king Anam addresses the grievances of Sîn-muballit
who complains that Babylonian troops were not allowed to enter Uruk or to parade in front of Uruk’s noblemen.
Babylon had manifestly sent troops to the south to help Uruk. The letter calls the Babylonian troops “of Amnān-
Yahrūr”114 and states that Uruk and Babylon “are indeed (like) one house.”115 These are certainly references to a
common tribal ancestry.116 The letter also mentions that Babylonian troops had helped Uruk two or three times be-
fore117 and that the Babylonian king Sabium came to Uruk with one thousand soldiers.118 The administrative texts
(even though most are dated after 1830 BCE) from the Sîn-kāšid palace provide more tantalizing clues about the
close connections between the royal houses of Uruk and Babylon.119 Some examples: a man from Babylon receives
a silver ax (Sanati-Müller 1990: no. 106) Babylonian troops receive ceremonial weapons (Sanati-Müller 1990: no.
108), a large amount of copper is received from Babylon (Sanati-Müller 1990: no. 140), there is perhaps even an allu-
sion to direct relations between Sabium of Babylon and Uruk,120 etc.
The above indications are however at odds with the treaty published by Guichard 2014 that pits Sîn-kāšid
of Uruk with Sîn-iddinam of Larsa and Ibal-pi-El of Ešnunna121 against Sabium of Babylon and Ikūn-pî-Sîn of
Nērebtum around 1843–1842 BCE.122 We can imagine that the relatively small state of Uruk was struggling to
keep its independence from the more powerful Larsa and that it initially looked to Babylon for help. For reasons
unknown, Uruk’s Sîn-kāšid was later in Larsa’s camp (as a vassal?) at the beginning of Sabium’s reign.
Sumu-la-El’s Year Names
The main source for Sumu-la-El’s reign has always been his year names. The only extant copy of a list of his year
names is the same document that we mentioned above for Sumu-abum, BM 92702. For Sumu-abum’s year names
this has proven to be a problematic text, but for Sumu-la-El the list has been generally accepted and serves as a
109. Seri 2013 and Charpin 2014.

110. RIME 4 E4.4.1.8.
111. On the ancestry of Gilgamesh, see George 2003: 106–8.
112. The excavation number of the Anam-letter is W. 20473. Editio princeps by Falkenstein 1963: 56–71, a recent English translation is
by Van Koppen 2006: 127–30. For the problems surrounding the date of the letter (Sîn-muballit supposedly ruled Babylon after Anam ruled
Uruk), see Charpin 2004: 111 n. 460.
113. Mauer 1987 no. 6–17. Unfortunately, most of these letters are merely fragments, except for the Anam letter to Sîn-muballit.
114. W. 20473 i 2, 29; ii 27; iii 30, 39. Several Uruk kings claim to have an Amnānum ancestry: Sîn-kāšid in numerous inscriptions (see
RIME 4 E4.4.1f , pp. 440–64) and Sîn-gāmil (RIME 4 E4.4.3).
115. W. 20473 ii 1–2 an-na UNUGki ù K[Á.DINGIR.R]A�ki�, bi-tum iš-te-en-ma.
116. Even though it is still not certain to what branch (Amnānum or Yaḫrūrum) the Babylonian kings belonged.
117. W. 20473 iii 30–32.
118. W. 20473 iii 36–37.
119. The texts were published over many years by Sanati-Müller 1988–2000; see also the comments by Charpin and Durand 1993. For
other OB text groups from Uruk see Mauer 1987; Cavigneaux 1996; Reiter and Waetzoldt 1996.
120. Sanati-Müller 1990: no. 100, with the proposed new reading by Charpin and Durand 1993: 369–70.
121. Note that troops from Ešnunna are also found in Uruk in Sanati-Müller 1994 no. 206 r iv 7’–8’.
122. See Guichard’s excellent edition with the additional comments by De Boer 2014b.
framework for his reign.123 However, when one takes a closer look at the list and compares it with the actually
historically attested year names of Sumu-la-El, there are some issues that catch the eye (see table 8 below for an
overview of the year names with all their attestations in cuneiform texts).
Not all year names found in BM 92702 have been attested historically; we still lack evidence for no less than
ten year names: Sumu-la-El 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 24. For most year names this is probably due to the
chance of discovery, but it is interesting to note that most lacunae are from the beginning of Sumu-la-El’s reign,
with a sequence of four unattested formulae for years 9–12. Following, I discuss some problematic cases of unat-
tested year names.
• Sumu-la-El 10 (MU aš-du-um-ma-[ri-im BA.UG7 / gišTUKUL BA.SÌG], or: aš-du-um-la!-[bu-um BA.UG7

or: gišTUKUL BA.SÌG]). Horsnell (1999: 235) has read MU nu-du-um-mak[i] following earlier readings
(Ungnad 1938: 165). However the place name “Nudumma” is nowhere else known. This is why I propose
to read here a personal name. There are at least two rulers who could be contemporary with Sumu-la-El’s
early years that might fit the traces: Ašdu-marim or Ašdum-labum. The two copies that we have for BM
92702 (by Pinches 1898 in CT 6 pl. 9–10 and King 1900 [LIH 2] 101) are however inconclusive about
the first sign: Pinches copied an /aš/ and King copied a slightly damaged /nu/. A man called aš-du-ma-
ri-im (Ašdu-marim) is mentioned in the letter Whiting 1987, AS 22: 40 6. This letter provides several
synchronisms between Diyala rulers, it was sent to Ipiq-Adad I who ruled Ešnunna around 1900–1890
BCE. The death of one aš-du-um-la-bu-um (Ašdum-labum) is commemorated in a year name known
from Uzarlulu: Baqir 1949b and De Boer 2014a: 427–28. The group of texts mentioning Ašdum-labum’s
death has also a year name commemorating the death of Ešnunna ruler Bēlakum, who ruled Ešnunna
somewhere between 1880 and 1870 BCE.
• Sumu-la-El 11 (MU su-m[u-la]-�DINGIR� x NAM x� […]), Horsnell 1999: 235 reads at the end �É.NAM.
HÉ� […BA.DÙ], according to him the copy of Pinches is faithful to the tablet. The Enamḫe is a temple of
Adad in Babylon (George 1993: 129–30). However, the construction of a temple of Adad, presumably the
one in Babylon, is already commemorated in years 7–9. No contemporary year names are known with
the temple Enamḫe for Sumu-la-El.
• Sumu-la-El 12 ([M]U I7su-mu-la-DINGIR M[U.UN.BA.AL]), according to the date list BM 92702 the
digging of the canal “Sumu-la-El” is also commemorated in Sumu-la-El 32.124 The only text where we
might find an allusion to Sumu-la-El’s canal in a year name was published by Al-Hussainy (2015). In
this text from Marad he reads the year name as “MU.ÚS.SA I7su-mu-la-DINGIR” and identifies it with
Sumu-la-El’s thirteenth year. The photo in Al-Hussainy’s article does not allow for a clear reading of i7
after mu.ús.s a, so I am hesitant to follow his reading, also because it would have serious chronological
complications for the kings of Marad.
• Sumu-la-El 17 (MU.5.KAM.MA KIŠki BA.HUL), the fifth year commemorating the destruction of Kiš is
not yet attested, the fact that the same event is remembered for five years in a row is extremely rare for OB
year names, the defeat of Kiš was also remembered in the year names of Larsa’s Sumu-El for four consecu-
tive years (Sumu-El 11–14), another example is when Rīm-Sîn of Larsa conquered Isin in his 29th year,
an event that was repeated in all of his subsequent year names.
• Sumu-la-El 18 (MU ia-aḫ-zi-ir-DINGIR ŠÀ ka-zal-lu.TA BA.RA.È). Much has been written on the four
“Kazallu” year names (Sumu-la-El 18, 20, 21, and 25) found in the Sumu-la-El date list (see above sub.
The Fall of Kazallu). The most unusual one is Sumu-la-El 18, I know of no other year name that com-
123. Lastly reedited by Horsnell 1999, 1: 234–46.

124. Such canals are also found in lexical lists: e su-mu-la-DINGIR in Ura XXII: MSL 11: 30 15’ and I7su-mu-la-DINGIR in an Ugarit ver-
sion of Ura XX-XXII: MSL 11: 48 iv 1b.
70 RIENTS DE BOER
memorates the event that someone was “chased from a city.” What could be the actual historical events
behind this year name?
• For a discussion and reconstruction of Sumu-la-El’s last regnal years, see below.
It is unfortunate that we only have one date list giving us Sumu-la-El’s year names. In addition, this date list,
BM 92702 is dated to Ammi-saduqa 16 (ca. 1632 BCE): more than two centuries after Sumu-la-El’s death around
1845 BCE. I suspect that the list we have now is not completely trustworthy. Whenever we have different date lists
for the same king we see discrepancies arise, this was already seen for the year names of two other Babylonian
kings, Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballit (Al-Rawi 1993 with Horsnell 1999, 1: 281–86). However, for now, BM 92702 is all
we have to reconstruct the major events of Sumu-la-El’s reign.
Sumu-la-El Unifying Northern Babylonia
As the king of Babylon, Sumu-la-El managed to unite northern Babylonia into a state to rival other kingdoms such
as Ešnunna or Larsa. He took power in seemingly all major northern Babylonian cities, replacing their local rulers.
The reconstruction that follows leans heavily on the sequence of Sumu-la-El’s year names from date list BM 92702.
The first known military act of Sumu-la-El was during his second year (1879 BCE). Ḫ alun-pi-umu of Marad
had taken Dilbat from Babylon in that year and Sumu-la-El acted swiftly by taking it back the same year. Ḫ alun-
pi-umu lost his throne and probably his life in the process (De Boer 2013a: 86). The attack by Ḫ alun-pi-umu must
have caught Sumu-la-El off guard and in his fourth year (1877 BCE) he (re)built the walls of Babylon.
The next military encounter was probably with Yawium of Kiš in 1869 BCE (De Boer 2014a: 237–38). The de-
feat and annexation of nearby Kiš was apparently a huge event because it was commemorated in five Babylonian
year names in a row: Sumu-la-El 13 to 17. Kiš’s defensive walls were eventually destroyed seven years later.
In 1864 BCE, Sumu-la-El joined Sumu-abum and Erra-imittī of Isin to defeat Yaḫzir-El from Kazallu (see
above). Two years later Kazallu’s walls were torn down and apparently, its army was again defeated. The main cul-
prit Yaḫzir-El was eventually defeated in 1857 BCE. Somewhere around this time, Sumu-abum must have passed
away.
The year 1857 was a special year for Sumu-la-El for another reason: he proclaimed a mīšarum edict conjointly
with Sumu-Yamutbal of Damrum. We know of this mīšarum because it was mentioned specifically in texts from
Sippar and Damrum.125
Sumu-la-El’s 27th year name commemorates the building of the wall of Kutha and the (building) of the AN.ZA.
GÀR (= dimtum, tower or stronghold) of “ur.g i 7 ” in 1855 BCE.126 There are some indications that Kutha was an
independent city before Sumu-la-El took over: a year name from Šaduppûm mentions that a certain Ilum-nāsir of
Kutha died;127 another year name from the same site states that ‘[PN] … a son of Kutha died.128 A similar situation
might have been the case with Borsippa: there is some evidence for Borsippa’s independence after the fall of the
Ur III Empire (De Boer 2014a: 182). The year after the building of Kutha’s walls, Sumu-la-El brought a bursallû
bowl into Borsippa. The significance of this event eludes us.
The Northern Babylonian city Lagaba, mostly known because of its extensive archives from the reigns of Ham-
murabi and Samsu-iluna,129 appeared to have had an independent ruler as well. In TIM 5: 22 16–17 we see that an
125. Sometimes it is called a simdatum, but simdatum and mīšarum were used interchangeably in this period (Goddeeris 2002a: 326). This
mīšarum/simdatum was studied in detail by Kraus 1984: 51–54; Goddeeris 2002a: 332–33; with a supplement by De Boer 2012.
126. On the toponym ur.ku or u r.g i 7, see Horsnell 1999, 2: 57 n. 33. The reading ur.g i 7 is preferable because such a town also occurs in
lexical lists: Ura XXI: MSL 11: 21.
127. Hussein 2008: 81: MU ša DINGIR-na-si-ir GÚ.DU8.Aki BA.UG7.
128. Ahmad 1964: A.43: M[U…] DUMU GÚ.DU8.Aki BA.UG7.
129. See Barberon 2012: 58–60 for a recent overview and bibliography.
oath is sworn by the local deity Ištar of Lagaba and one Mutum-me-El.130 This otherwise undated sale contract has
many archaic features and must be early Old Babylonian. It is not known when Lagaba came under Babylonian rule.
Sumu-la-El’s 29th year name commemorates the building of Sippar’s city walls (in 1853 BCE). This year also
marks the date when Sippar had definitely lost its independence to Babylon. Two years later, the city walls of Ḫ abus
(probably a fortress) near Kiš were built. A year name of Sumu-la-El, not found in the canonical list of year names,
states that he had also built Dilbat’s walls.
It is clear that in the latter part of his reign, Sumu-la-El sought to consolidate his kingdom by building fortifica-
tions. One such fortress was named after himself: Dūr-Sumu-la-El.131 In a much later royal inscription, Samsu-
iluna writes that he had restored six fortresses originally built by Sumu-la-El.132 This inscription seems to be paral-
leled by Samsu-iluna’s 27th year name “The year: Samsu-iluna, the king, (restored and rebuilt) the great fortresses
of Emutbalum which had been destroyed.”133 Each fortress was dedicated to a god:
• Dimat-Enlil to Ninmah. The location of this strategically important town was recently studied by Stein-
keller who concluded that it was located halfway between Sippar and Babylon, serving as a fortress for
Babylonia’s northern borders.134
• Pada to Adad. Pada was somewhere in north or central Babylonia, perhaps between Dilbat and Kiš.135
• Lagaba to Sîn. This town was located on a canal linking Babylon to Kutha (Tammuz 1996).
• Yabušum to Lugal-asal.136 Another locality with a similar name is found in the “Sargon Geography”, here
we see that Yabušê belonged to the land of Rapiqum.137 This would make Yabušum a fortress at Babylon’s
northern borders.138
• Gulaba to Nergal. A fortress located in northern Babylonia.139
• Usi-ana-Erra to Nergal. This fortress is the only one in the list that is not known from other cuneiform
sources. Frayne (1992: 95) has the interesting idea that Usi-ana-Erra might have been the name of the
wall of Kutha, but this cannot be proven.
Whatever the exact location of these fortresses, they probably lay around the city of Babylon as a protective ring.140
These and other fortifications must have been intended by Sumu-la-El to protect the core of his freshly conquered
kingdom from Ešnunna and Rāpiqum in the north, Larsa and Isin to the south, and Malgium to the east. Some-
thing that would be needed because Larsa’s Sîn-iddinam recounts in his fourth year name that he had beaten a
Babylonian army in 1847 BCE, Sumu-la-El’s 34th year.
130. I thank prof. M. Stol for pointing this out to me. Edzard (1969: 45) was the first to have read the deity’s name correctly (MU iš8-tár!-
la-ga-b[aki]), but he read the name of the ruler as mu-tu-we-di. Such a name makes no sense; it is better to read: mu-tu-me!-�el�.
131. Only known from texts of a much later date (Charpin 2004: 95, Leemans 1960: 105), TLB 1: 180 13 (from Lagaba); AbB 14: 5 14; AbB
14: 6 8 (both letters from the Yaḫrūrum šaplûm archives). Other references are from the Kassite period (Gurney 1949: 142), or the even later
Second Dynasty of Isin (Böhl 1924–1925: 56). The town also occurs in a lexical list (Ura XX–XXII) from Ugarit: MSL 11: 51 20. Interestingly,
this list enumerates fortresses named after all First Dynasty of Babylon kings (except Abi-ešuḫ): from Sumu-abum down to Samsu-ditana. We
can wonder whether this is not an attempt by later scribes at completeness.
132. RIME 4 E4.3.7.5, Frayne (1992: 93–95) discusses the toponyms separately.
133. Given the location of the fortresses in northern and central Babylonia, it is doubtful whether year name Si.17 refers to the same
reconstructions as in RIME 4 E4.3.7.5. Charpin (2004: 347 n. 1801) interprets the region Emutbalum from the year name as the area around
Maškan-šāpir.
134. Steinkeller 2010: 373–77, followed by Veenhof 2012: 631.
135. Streck 2003–2005. Frayne (1992: 93) locates it near Ilip to the north of Babylon.
136. “Lord of the Euphrates poplar” (bēl sarbim), a netherworld god associated with Nergal: Krebernik 1987–1990.
137. [ultu…ad]i ia-bu-še-e kurra-pi-quki, Weidner 1952–1953 and Grayson 1974: 60, Grayson translates “[From…] to the Yabusheans: the
land Rapiqu.”
138. Frayne 1992: 93 suggested that Yabušum was a renaming of Sarbatum located to the south of Babylon.
139. Written as b à d u r u gu-la-b à d ki, according to Steinkeller this was originally a satellite city of Babylon and later one of its districts;
Steinkeller 1986: 40 n. 64; Steinkeller and Postgate 1992: 105 no. 68: ; Steinkeller 2010: 374 n. 23. Frayne (1992: 93) locates it on the Kiškattûm
canal to the east of Kutha.
140. Noted by Frayne (1992: 95); Steinkeller (2010: 374) agrees.
72 RIENTS DE BOER
The End of Sumu-la-El’s Reign
The last year names of Sumu-la-El are poorly understood, mainly because the only extant date list, BM 92702 is
damaged towards the end, leaving uncertainty about Sumu-la-El 34, 35, and 36. However, from the files of Ibbi-
Ilabrat and Ea-dāpin we can get an idea of some of the later Sumu-la-El year names. Both of these text groups be-
long to the so-called Mananâ-dynasty texts from Damrum.141 The texts from both archives with their year names
can be found in De Boer 2017: 27 and 45. A number of the year names are known Sumu-la-El year names from
the date list BM 92702. There are, however, six year names that we cannot place directly. Are they all attributable
to Sumu-la-El, or do some of them belong to Mananâ-dynasty kings? Below some of these problematic year names
will be discussed individually.
1) MU BÀD GAL KA I7.MAHki BA.DÙ
Table 2. “Year: the great wall/fortress of “The mouth of the (great) river” was built”
Rutten 1960: no. 32 MU BÀD GAL KA I7.MAHki

YOS 14: 334 MU BÀD KA I7.�DA�.HI.A /�ki� BA.�DÙ�
YOS 14: 335 MU BÀD GAL ka-x-xki
RSM 30 MU BÀD.GAL x[…] BA.DÙ
Charpin (2005: 172) equates all these year names and attributes them to a Mananâ-dynasty king. The reading of
the place name is problematic: Ka-Idda/Ka-Imaḫ or Akkadian Pī-nārim, in any case we should translate some-
thing like “mouth of the river.” I like to propose an equation of this year name with Sumu-la-El 31: “Year the great
wall of Ḫ abus was built.” Very little is known about Ḫ abus, but it must have been a fortress in the environs of Kiš
near at least three canals and the Euphrates.142 Fortresses were often built at the mouth of rivers or canals. There is
a version of Sumu-la-El’s Ḫ abus year name on Rutten 1959: no. 20 that shows “MU BÀD GAL ḫa-bu-u[s] BA.DÙ”,
the GAL sign is normally absent from other version of this year name. The above indications are admittedly not
solid evidence for an equation with Sumu-la-El 31.
2) MU.ÚS.SA.(A.BI) PA5 PIRIG.SAG.GÁ BA.DÙ
Table 3. “Year: after year (after) the irrigation ditch PIRIG.SAG.GÁ was built”143
Rutten 1960: no. 25 MU.ÚS.SA PA5 PIRIG.SAG.GÁ BA.[DÙ]143

De Boer 2017: no. 12 MU.ÚS.SA.A.BI PA5 PIRIG.SAG.GÁ BA.DÙ
This year name is not attested in its original form (e.g., MU PA5 PIRIG.SAG.GÁ BA.DÙ). The fact that a ditch
(PA5) was built (BA.DÙ) is unusual, one would expect the Sumerian verb to dig (BAL). Here too, I would like to
propose a possible equation with a Sumu-la-El year name: Sumu-la-El 32, which is often abbreviated as “MU E
IGI.HUR.SAG.GÁ”: “year the irrigation ditch IGI.HUR.SAG.GÁ (was dug)”. The terms e and p a 5 for ditch are
141. Charpin 1978a; Goddeeris 2002a: 273, 282; De Boer 2014a: 95–106, 137–55.
142. Pientka 1998: 367. That Ḫ abus was on the Euphrates can be deduced from TJAUB H 41 + YOS 13: 91 (Wilcke 1982)
143. On Rutten 1960: no. 25 the end of the verb is lost, from its parallel YBC 8375 we can reconstruct dù, Charpin 1978a: 32 already men-
tioned that there was not enough space on Rutten 1960: no. 25 to reconstruct BA.[BA.AL].
often interchangeable in OB texts. However, we would also have to accept an equation PIRIG = IGI.HUR for this
to be true.144
3) MU UM.GAR.(RA)ki KI BA.GI4.A
Table 4. “Year: Umgar was restored”
Rutten 1960: no. 26 MU UM.GAR.RAki KI.BA.GI.A

De Boer 2017: no. 1 MU UM.GARki KI BI.GI4.A.A
This year name mirrors two year names known from Mananâ-dynasty rulers: Nāqimum c (MU na-qí-mu-um
KI.BI.ŠÈ BA.GI4) and Ḫ aliyum f (MU a-li-i-ú-um KI.BI.ŠÈ BA.GI4.A).145 In my opinion, the year name should
be close in time to the end of Sumu-la-El’s reign and must indicate the rehabilitation of a town that had been
destroyed or had lost its inhabitants. However, none of the late Sumu-la-El year names seems to fit here. Charpin
(1978a: 32) suspected that the place name um.gar.ra ki should be understood as belonging to the type Iškun-DN,
but that it is impossible to see a divine name in the sign UM.146 Indeed, the main problem is the reading of “um.
gar.ra.” The sign /um/ could equally well be interpreted as k išib, dub, or ur udu.
4) MU su-mu-la-DINGIR ALAN GAL.GAL BA.DÙ
Table 5. “Year: Sumu-la-El, large statues were built”147
De Boer 2017: no. 5 MU ALAN sú-mu-la-DINGIR

Rutten 1960: no. 34 MU su-mu-la-di ng i r ALAN GAL.GAL BA.DÙ
YOS 14: 144 147
MU ALAN su-mu-la-DINGIR
This is a clear Sumu-la-El year name that was already identified by earlier authors148 as the most probable candidate
for Sumu-la-El 35.
5) MU.ÚS.SA ALAN su-mu-la-DINGIR
Table 6. “Year: after the statue of Sumu-la-El”
YOS 14: 132 (tablet and case) MU.ÚS.SA ALAN su-mu-la-DINGIR
Following the same arguments for the previous year name, this must be the only known occurrence of Sumu-la-El
36: his last year.
144. The sign pi r i g could also be read as g ìr (Charpin 1978a: 32), but the problem remains.
145. For all different attestations, see De Boer 2014: 418.
146. See the different possibilities in Rép. géogr. 3: 114–15.
147. Note that this text does not belong to the archive of Ea-dāpin or Ibbi-Ilabrat.
148. Horsnell 1999, 2: 61 n. 49; Reiner (1961) hesitated earlier between Sumu-la-El 24, 26 or 35. Charpin (1978a: 33) is more careful: “an-
née non placée.”
74 RIENTS DE BOER
6) MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL.GI4 gišTUKUL BA.SÌG and MU ma-al-gi4 is-bat
Table 7. “Year: the army of Malgium was defeated with weapons”/“Year: he took Malgium”149
De Boer 2017: no. 4 MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL.GI5 gišTUKUL BA.SÌG

De Boer 2017: no. 14 MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL.�GI4.A�[ki?] gišTUKUL BA.SÌG
De Boer 2017: no. 16 [MU] � ERIN2 MÀ.AL�.[GI4ki] gi[šTUKUL BA.SÌ]G
De Boer 2017: no. 2 �MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL/GI4ki ?� [(gišTUKUL?) BA.SÌG?]
Rutten 1959: no. 23 MU ma-al-gi4 is-bat149
De Boer 2017: no. 13 MU ma-al-gi is-bat
The date list BM 92702 recounts for Sumu-la-El 34 how the king defeated somebody in 1848 BCE. The date list
does not preserve the name of the defeated city, but the above cited texts do. In my opinion this makes Malgium
the city that was conquered by Sumu-la-El.
Sigrist and Damerow, in their online list of Mesopotamian year names, were the first ones to read mà.a l.g i 5
for Malgium (for De Boer 2017: no. 4), but they arranged it under Sîn-iddinam of Larsa as a variation of his fifth
year name,150 which also mentions the capture of Malgium. As a consequence, this has led to the interpretation that
Larsa dominated Damrum.151 A Larsa domination over the Damrum and Kiš area in Sîn-iddinam year 5 (= 1845
BCE) cannot be discounted completely, but note that a Kiš text carries Sabium’s first year name (= 1844 BCE).152
All things considered, it seems more likely to me now, following Horsnell and Charpin, to understand all the above
year names as variations of Sumu-la-El 34.153 This means that Malgium had endured an attack from Babylon in
1848 BCE and again by Larsa in 1846 BCE.
To conclude: I deem it likely that most, if not all year names from the files of Ea-dāpin and Ibbi-Ilabrat are
actually attributable to Sumu-la-El. Sumu-la-El was succeeded on the Babylonian throne by Sabium in 1844 BCE,
seemingly without problems: Sabium and Sumu-la-El are mentioned together in at least two texts.154
Conclusion and Summary
Sumu-abum was an Amorite tribal and military leader who led troops and a number of other Amorite rulers
across the Lower Diyala region and Northern Babylonia in a number of military conquests. He led the Amorite
rulers by means of the “Amorite assembly” where they were subordinate to him. One of his main subordinates
was Sumu-la-El, who became king of Babylon around 1880 BCE. Other subordinates became kings of other cities.
How exactly these conquests took place and what the situation in these cities was before the takeover is largely
unknown. Sumu-abum himself did not become king of a city until the end of his life when we find him as king of
Kisurra after 1864 BCE. This happened in the aftermath of the defeat of Kazallu in the same year, which was a joint
effort of Sumu-abum, Sumu-la-El of Babylon and Erra-imittī of Isin. Perhaps Sumu-abum even became king of
Isin for a short period of time, but the evidence for this is slim.
149. The year name “MU ma-al-gi4 is-bat” is unusual because Malgium does not have the determinative /k i/ and the verb is written in
Akkadian (the usage of the sign /bat/ is also remarkable) Babylonian year names were usually rendered in Sumerian.
150. http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/HTML/T10K5.htm.
151. Goddeeris 2002a: 273; I was of the same opinion in my thesis: De Boer 2014a: 242.
152. RSM 31, the text belongs to the file of Sissu-nawrat from Kiš; Goddeeris 2002a: 284–86; De Boer 2014a: 446–48.
153. Horsnell 1999, 2: 61 n. 46 and Charpin 2004: 95. This only leaves us with the problem of the writing MÀ.AL.GI5 in De Boer 2017: no.
4; I do not know of any other example for writing Malgium.
154. From Sippar: BM 17514 (unpublished) and BE 6/1: 9. It has not yet been established with certainty whether Sabium was also Sumu-
la-El’s son.
Table 8. The year names of Sumu-la-El according to BM 92702, with all known actual attestations of the year names
Year
Year name in BM 92702, column I Year name in contemporary texts Reference Placea
BCE
1 MU su-mu-la-DINGIR LUGAL.E I7 dUTU-HÉ.GÁL
1880 MU.UN.BA.AL
Year: Sumu-la-El the king, dug the canal “Utu-
hegal”
2 MU.ÚS.SA I7 dUTU-HÉ.GÁL MU.UN.BA.AL MU.ÚS.SA [I7] dUTU.HÉ.GÁL [BA.BA].AL VAS 7: 1 25–27 Dilbat
1879 Year: after the year he dug the canal “Utu-hegal” MU.ÚS.SA UTU.HÉ.GÁL BA.BA.AL
i7 d !
VAS 7: 2 26–27 Dilbat
BEGINNINGS OF OLD BABYLONIAN BABYLON

3 MU ḫa-lam-pu-ú TUKUL B[A].SÌG
giš
MU a-lum-pu-ú TUKUL BA.SÌG
giš
BM 23751: 14’–15’ (De Boer 2014a: 462) ?
1878 Year: Ḫ alun-pi-umu was defeated by weapons MU a-lum-pu-um gišTUKUL BA.SÌG BM 28449 (Goddeeris 2009: 16) Kisurra
MU a-lum-pí-ú-mu BM 88637 (Goddeeris 2009: 16) Kisurra
4 MU.ÚS.SA ḫa-lam-pu-ú [ TUKUL B]A.SÌG
giš
1877 Year: after the year Ḫ alun-pi-umu was defeated by

weapons
5 MU BÀD GAL KÁ.DINGIR.RAk[i B]A.DÙ MU BÀD KÁ.DINGIR.RAki Ki 789 (BiMes 17): 2 Kiš
1876 Year: the great wall of Babylon was built MU BÀD{ki} KÁ.DINGIR.RA<ki> BA.DÙ BM 108918: 19–20 (De Boer 2014a: 452) Kiš
MU �BÀD?� [KÁ.DINGIR.RAki?] BA.DÙ BM 108928: 12’–13’ Kiš
6 MU.ÚS.SA BÀD GAL K[Á.DINGIR.RA B]A.DÙ ki
MU.ÚS.SA BÀD GAL KÁ.DINGIR.RA ki
Gautier Dilbat 1: 27–28 Dilbat
1875 Year: after the year the great wall of Babylon was BA.DÙ (oath by sa-mu-a-bi)
built MU.ÚS.SA BÀD TIN.TIRki BA.DÙ Ball PSBA 29: 28–29 Dilbat
MU.ÚS.SA BÀD KÁ.DINGIR.R[A ki
YOS 14: 347 30 Dilbat
BA.DÙ]
MU.ÚS.SA BÀD KÁ.DINGIR.RAki RSM 45: 30 Kiš
MU.ÚS.SA BÀD KÁ.DINGIR.RA ki
Thureau-Dangin 1911: no. 4: 30 Kiš
7 MU É dIŠKUR.RE [BA.D]Ù MU É dIŠKUR BA.DÙ Gautier Dilbat 2: 27 Dilbat
1874 Year: the temple of Adad was built MU É IŠKUR BA.DÙ
d
Gautier Dilbat 40: r.7’ Dilbat
MU É IŠKUR BA.DÙ
d
VAS 9: 34 16 (tablet) Sippar
VAS 9: 35 3’ (case)
8 MU.ÚS.SA É dI[ŠKUR.RE BA.DÙ] [MU].ÚS.SA É <d>IŠKUR.RA BA.DÙ Gautier Dilbat 3: 40 Dilbat
1873 Year: after the year the temple of Adad was built
9 MU.ÚS.SA.ÚS.SA.BI [É dIŠKUR BA.DÙ]
1872 Year: second year after the year the temple of Adad
75
was built
76
Year
Year name in BM 92702, column I Year name in contemporary texts Reference Place7
BCE
10 MU aš-du-um-ma-[ri-im BA.UG7 or: gišTUKUL
1871 BA.SÌG]
or: aš-du-um-la!-[bu-um BA.UG7 or: gišTUKUL
BA.SÌG]
Year: Ašdum-marim/labum had died/was defeated
by weapons
11 MU su-m[u-la]-DINGIR �x x NAM x� […]
1870 Year: Sumu-la-El…
12 [M]U I7su-mu-la-DINGIR M[U.UN.BA.AL]
1869 Year: he dug the canal “Sumu-la-El”
13 MU KIŠki [BA.HUL] MU KIŠki BA.H[UL] Gautier Dilbat 4: 36 Dilbat
1868 Year: Kiš was destroyed MU su-mu-la-/DINGIR KIŠ BA.HUL
ki
MHET II/1: 19 38–39 Sippar
14 MU.ÚS.SA KIŠki [BA.HUL] MU.ÚS.SA KIŠki BA.HUL Gautier Dilbat 5 7’ Dilbat
RIENTS DE BOER
1867 Year: after the year Kiš was destroyed MU.ÚS.SA x x KIŠ BA.HUL
ki
YBC 8046: 18–19 ?
15 MU.ÚS.SA.ÚS.SA.BI KIŠki BA.[H]UL MU.ÚS.SA.ÚS.SA KIŠki BA.�HUL� Gautier Dilbat 6 37’ Dilbat
1866 Year: year after the year Kiš was destroyed
16 MU.4.KAM.MA KIŠki BA.HUL MU.4.KAM.MA KIŠki [BA.HUL]b BM 103190: 19 Kiš
1865 Year: fourth year after Kiš was destroyed
17 MU.5.KAM.MA KIŠki BA.HUL
1864 Year: fifth year after Kiš was destroyed
18 MU ia-aḫ-zi-ir-DINGIR ŠÀ ka-zal-lu.TA BA.RA.È
1863 Year: Yaḫzir-El was driven from Kazallu
19 MU BÀD AN.NÉ KIŠki BA.GUL MU BÀD KI[Ški BA.GUL/HUL?] YBC 12011: 17c ?
1862 Year: the city wall, reaching the heavens, of Kiš was
destroyed
20 MU BÀD ka-zal-luki BA.GUL Ù ERIN2.BI gišTUKUL MU ka-zal-luki BA.HUL MAOG 4, 5 (= MD 6): 17 Marad
1861 BA.SÌG MU ka-zal-luki gišTUKUL BA.SÌG Archi et al. 1999: no. 748: 15–16 Marad
Year: the walls of Kazallu were destroyed and its
army was defeated by weapons MU ka-zal-luki BA.H[UL] Speleers Recueil 232 25 Marad
21 MU.ÚS.SA BÀD ka-zal-luki BA.GUL Ù ERIN2.BI

1860 TUKUL �BA.SÌG�
giš
Year: after the year the walls of Kazallu were

destroyed and its army was defeated by weapons
Year
BCE
22 MU gišGU.ZA BARA2 MAH KÙ.GI KÙ.BABBAR.TA MU gišG[U].ZA BARA2 MAH [dAMAR]. Speleers Recueil 227: 19–20 Marad?
1859 ŠU.DU7.A dAMAR.UTU.RA/ MU.UN.NA.DÍM.MA UTU.RA! MU.UN.DÍM!
Year: he fashioned a magnificent throne dais MU GU.ZA su-mu-la-<DINGIR> OECT 13: 82 15 Kiš?
perfected with gold and silver for Marduk
MU GU.ZA dAMAR.UTU VAS 18: 26 3 ?
MU gišGU.ZA dAMAR.UTU MU.NA.DÍM Rutten 1960: no. 30 14–15 Mananâ-d
MU GU.Z[A AMAR.UT]U
d d
Mayer 2003: 368–89 (IB 225): 13 unknown
MU gišGU.ZA GAL! MAH! dAMAR!.[UTU] Gautier Dilbat 36: 16’–17’ Dilbat

MU gišGU.Z[A] GAL dAMAR.[UTU MU]. YBC 11047: 24–25 ?
22b ? NA.DÍM
[M]U.ÚS.S[A].A.BI ka-zal-luki BA.HUL YOS 14: 130 19–20 Mananâ-d.
23 MU.ÚS.SA GU.ZA BARA2 MAH KÙ.GI
giš
MU.ÚS.SA GU.ZA GAL MAH É
giš
Rutten 1960: no. 38 (case) 23–26 Mananâ-d
1858 KÙ.BABBAR.TA ŠU.DU7 dAMAR.UTU.RA/ d
AMAR.UT[U] MU.NA.[DÍM] Rutten 1960: no. 38 (tablet) 22–24
MU.UN.NA.DÍM.MA MU.ÚS.<SA> gišGU.ZA dUTU.AMAR(sic) YBC 6177: 19–21 ?
Year: after the year he fashioned a magnificent su-mu-le-<el> BA.DÙ
throne dais perfected with gold and silver for
Marduk
24 MU ALAN dsar-pa-ni-tum MU.UN.NA.DÍM.MA
1857 Year: he fashioned a statue of Sarpanitum
25 MU ia-�aḫ�-zi-ir-DINGIR gišTUKUL BA.SÌG MU ia-�ah-zi�-ir-ì!- DINGIR gišTUKUL YOS 14: 134 13–14 Mananâ-d
1856 Year: Yaḫzir-El was defeated by weapons BA.SÌG
MU ia-ah-zi-ir- DINGIR gišTUKUL OECT 13: 138 6–7 Kiš
BA.SÌG
MU ia-ah-zi-ir-ì-/ DINGIR gišTUKUL RSM 33: 21–22 Mananâ-d.
BA.SÌG
MU ia-ah-zi-ir-ì-il YOS 14: 138 10–11 Mananâ-d
25b? MU ia-ah-zi-ir-ì-DINGIR YOS 14: 135 (tablet) 19 Mananâ-d
MU ia-ah-zi-ir-ì- DINGIR gišTUKUL YOS 14: 135 (case) 19–20
BA.SÌG
MU ia-ah-zi-ir-ì-DINGIR YOS 14: 133 25 Babylon?
MU.ÚS.SA DÙL.A sà-ar-pa-n[i]-tum Charpin 1980: no. 62 15–17 Mananâ-d
BA.DÙ, (EGIR si-im-da-tim, line 14)
77
78
Year
BCE
26 MU ALAN dINANNA Ù dna-na-a MU.UN.DÍM. MU dINANNA JCS 4, p. 70 (YBC 4375): 25 Mananâ-d
1855 MA [MU].ÚS.SA i[a?-a]h-za-er-el sú-mu-la- YOS 14: 136 15–18 ?
26b? Year: he fashioned a statue of Inanna and Nanāya DINGIR BA.SÌG
MU.ÚS.SA ia-ah-zi-ir-ì-DINGIR YOS 14: 137 19–20 ?
giš
TUKUL BA.SÌG
MU dINANNA Ù dna-na-a-a YBC 8004 13–14 ?
27 [MU BÀD GÚ.D]U8.A Ù AN.ZA.GÀR-UR.GI7
ki
MU BÀD GÚ.DU8.A ki
BM 18051 9 ?
1854 BA.DÙ MU BÀD GÚ.DU8.<A > BA.DÙ ki
Speleers Recueil 257 8’ Marad?
Year: the walls of Kutha and Anzagar/Dimat-Urgi
were built MU BÀD GÚ.DU8.Aki OECT 13: 285 30’ Kiš
[MU BÀD G]Ú.DU8.A x x �x x� OECT 13: 197 4’ Kiš
[MU] �BÀD� GÚ.DU8.Aki Genouillac Kich 2, C 76 r:2’ Kiš
28 [MU su-mu-l]a-DINGIR ŠÀ BAR.SÍ I.NI.IN.KU4.
ki
MU bar-sí-pa ki
Speleers Recueil 256 14 Marad?
RIENTS DE BOER
1853 RA MU �BÀD � bar-sí-pa x[…] (perhaps AS. 1)
? ki
Arnaud Louvre 1 73 19 ?
Year: Sumu-la-El brought (a bursallû bowl) into
Borsippa MU ŠÀ bar-si-paki su-mu-la-DINGIR YOS 14: 139:15–16 ?
BA.AN.KU4
MU bar-sí-paki Isu-mu-la-DINGIR BUR. Charpin 1978b: no. 47 (tablet) 20–22 Mananâ-d
SAL.LA KU Charpin 1978b: no. 47a (case) 21–23
MU bar-sí-paki I su-mu-la-DINGIR
BA.AN.kuKU4
MU bar-sí-paki BA.AN.KU4 NBC 5066: 19 ?
29 [MU BÀD Z]IMBIRki BA.DÙ MU BÀD ZIMBIRki su-mu-le-DINGIR! MHET II/1: 20 17–18 (case of CT 6: 49b) Sippar
1852 Year: the walls of Sippar were built LUGAL i-pu-šu MHET II/1: 20: 16–18 (= CT 6: 49b, tablet)
<<I>> MU BÀD ZIMBIRki sú-mu-la-el,
LUGAL i-pu-�šu�
MU BÀD ZI[MBIRk]i BA.DÙ AJSL 33, p. 10: 20 (Meek RFH) ?
30 [MU É.ME.T]E.UR.SAG BA.DÙ MU É.ME.TE.UR.SAG YOS 14: 140 (tablet): 13 Mananâ-d
1851 Year: the temple Emeteursag was built YOS 14: 140 (case): 15
MU É.ME.TE.UR.SAG MU.NA.AN.DÍM YOS 14: 141 14–15 Mananâ-d
MU É.ME.TE.UR.SAG Pomponio, Stol, and Westenholz 2006: no. ?
30b? III–37 (E 11): 9
MU É dza-ba4-ba4 Isu-mu-la-DINGIR YOS 14: 123 19–20 Kiš
BA.DÙ
Year
BCE
31 [MU BÀD ḫa-b]u-uski BA.DÙ MU BÀD ḫa-bu-uski TIM 5: 33 28 Dilbat
1850 Year: the walls of Ḫ abus were built MU BÀD ḫa-bu-us ki
Arnaud Louvre 1: 62 17 Mananâ-d
MU BÀD ḫa-bu-[us ] ki
Arnaud Louvre 1: 63 18 Mananâ-d
MU BÀD GAL ḫa-bu-u[s] BA.DÙ Rutten 1959: no. 20 21–22 Mananâ-d
MU BÀD ḫa-bu-us YOS 14: 142 14 ?
MU BÀD ḫa-�bu�-us/ki BIN 2: 74 16 Kiš
� MU BÀD � ḫa-bu-us ki
De Boer 2017: no. 8 16 Kiš

32 [MU E IGI.HUR.SA]G.GÁ MU.UN.S[I.I]G Ù su- I7
MU E IGI.HUR.SAG.GÁ YOS 14: 119 26 Mananâ-d
1849 mu-la- DINGIR MU.BA.AL (oath by Sumu-la-El and Manium)
Year: he cleared the canal “Igihursag” and dug the MU E IGI.HUR.SAG.GÁ ù I7su-mu-la- Ki 808 (BiMes 17) r:3–4 Kiš
canal “Sumu-la-El-ḫegal” DINGIR-HÉ.GÁL
�MU E� [IG]I.�HUR�.SAG.GÁ [M]U.UN. De Boer 2017: no. 15 14–15 Mananâ-d
BA.AL
MU E IGI.HUR.SAG.GÁ �Isu�-mu-la- De Boer 2017: no. 9 12–14 Mananâ-d
DINGIR LUGAL �iš�-pu-ku
33 [MU.ÚS.SA E IGI.HUR.SAG.G]Á �MU.UN�.SI.IG MU.ÚS.SA E IGI.HUR.SAG.GÁ Charpin 1978b: no. 46 22 Mananâ-d
1848 Ù I7su-mu-la DINGIR MU.BA.AL MU.ÚS.SA E <IGI>.HUR.SAG.GÁ YOS 14: 143 6’–7’ Mananâ-d
Year: after the year he cleared the canal “Igihursag”
and dug the canal “Sumu-la-El-(ḫegal)” MU.ÚS.SA E IGI.HUR.SAG.GÁ Ki 845 (BiMes 17) r:7’ Kiš
MU.ÚS.SA E IGI.HUR.SAG.GÁ CT 6: 22a 28–29 Sippar
MU.ÚS.SA E <IGI>.HUR.SAG.GÁ JCS 15, p. 58: no. 135 ?
34 [MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL.GI4ki gišTUKU]L BA.SÌG MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL.GI5 gišTUKUL BA.SÌG De Boer 2017: no. 4 17–18 Mananâ-d
1847 Year: the army of Malgium was defeated by weapons �MU ERIN MÀ.AL/GI ki ?� [(gišTUKUL?) De Boer 2017: no. 2 (tablet) 13–14 Mananâ-d
2 4
BA.SÌG?]
�MU� [ERIN2 MÀ.AL/GI4ki ] �giš�T[UKUL De Boer 2017: no. 2 (case) 7’–8’
BA.SÌG]
MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL.�GI4.A�[ki?] gišTUKUL De Boer 2017: no. 14 14–15 Mananâ-d
BA.SÌG
[MU] �ERIN2 MÀ.AL�.[GI4ki] gi[šTUKUL De Boer 2017: no. 16 14–15 Mananâ-d
BA.SÌ]G
MU ma-al-gi4 is-bat Rutten 1959: no. 23 14–15 Mananâ-d
MU ma-al-gi is-bat De Boer 2017: no. 13 5’–6’ Mananâ-d
79
80
Year
BCE
35 [MU ALAN GAL su-mu-la- DINGIR É] �x x x�.RA MU su-mu-la- DINGIR ALAN GAL.GAL Rutten 1960: no. 34 13–15e Mananâ-d
1846 KU4.RA BA.DÙ
Year: a large statue of Sumu-la-El was brought into MU ALAN su-mu-la-DINGIR YOS 14: 144 13 ?
the temple of DN/was made
MU ALAN sú-mu-la-DINGIR De Boer 2017: no. 5 (tablet) 13 Kiš
MU ALAN sú-mu-�la�/-DINGIR De Boer 2017: no. 5 (case) 16
36 [MU.ÚS.SA ALAN GAL su-mu-la-DINGIR É DN]. MU.ÚS.SA ALAN sú-mu-la-DINGIR YOS 14: 132 (tablet) 15–16 Kiš
1845 RA KU4.RA [M]U.US.SA ALAN su!-�mu-la�- YOS 14: 132 (case) 15
Year: after the year a large statue of Sumu-la-El was <DINGIR>
brought into the temple of DN/was made
[36 MU su-mu-la-DINGIR LUGAL].�E�
Thirty-six years: Sumu-la-El the king
Other year names that cannot be placed in the list above:
RIENTS DE BOER
• MU I7.DA LUGAL A.ŠÀ BU UK BA.BA.[AL]f1 Gautier Dilbat 7: 23–24
• MU BALAG LI.LI.ÌS 2.A.BI dUTU.RA MU.NA.AN.DÍM CT 4: 50a 32–33 (oath by Immerum and Sumu-la-El)
• MU.ÚS.SA.ÚS.SA.A BÀD URU ZA.GÌN KÙ.GI OECT 13: 273:21–22 (possibly Sumu-la-El, Goddeeris 2002: 234 n. 232)
• MU BÀD dal-batki su-mu-la-DINGIR BA.DÙ.UN MHET II/1: 21 1’ (case)
• & MU BÀD dal-batki, sú-mu-la-DINGIR BA.DÙ MHET II/1: 21 30–31 (tablet)(= CT 8 44b)
• MU su-mu-la-DINGIR mi-ša-ra-[am iš-ku-nu] MHET II/1: 22 13’ (= Sumu-la-El 24)
• wa-ar-ki sú-�mu�-[la-DINGIR], mi-ša!-ra-[am iš-ku-nu] MHET II/1: 23 17–19 (case of CT 6 42a) (= Sumu-la-El 25)
• & wa-ar-ki sa-mu-la-DINGIR, mi-ša-ra-am iš-ku-nu MHET II/1: 23 16–17 (tablet: CT 6 42a)
• wa-ar-ki šar-ru-um mi-šar-ra-am �iš�-ku-nu JCS 30, p. 244–45 (= Sumu-la-El 25)
• MU.Ú.SA �x x� su-mu-la-DINGIR Al-Hussainy 2015: 47 (M2, 138)g2
a. Note that by Mananâ-d, the so-called “Mananâ-dynasty” from Damrum and surroundings is meant.
b. There is the possibility that this tablet has the year name Sumu-El 14 instead of Sumu-la-El 16.
c. Beckman (2000) read /g ibi l/ instead of /b à d/, collation of the text shows a clear b à d.
d. Given the few traces, another early OB year name is equally possible: AS.3, 10, 16; Sm. 15.
e. Horsnell 1999, 2: 57 assigned this year name to Sle 26.
f. Horsnell 1999/2: 52 n. 13 and Edzard 1957: 115 n. 581 assign this year name to Sle 12.
g. Al-Hussainy (2015) reads this year name as “MU.ÚS.SA I7su-mu-la-DINGIR” and identifies it with Sumu-la-El’s thirteenth year. The photo in Al-Hussainy’s interesting article does not
allow for a clear reading of i 7 after mu.ús.s a . The year name could equally be a variant of year 33.
The establishment of the First Dynasty of Babylon was possible due to the leadership of Sumu-abum, but it was
Sumu-la-El who was credited by later Babylonian kings as its founder, no doubt because of the bloodlines between
him and subsequent rulers. He started to expand his realm already during the lifetime of Sumu-abum. After the
defeat of Kazallu in 1864 BCE and Sumu-abum’s death shortly thereafter, Sumu-la-El continued his efforts in
subduing cities around Babylon. Perhaps the death of Sumu-abum gave him this opportunity. In the second half
of Sumu-la-El’s reign, we see that he built a network of fortifications around the core of the Babylonian kingdom
to protect his newly-founded realm against the other major players of the time, most notably Larsa and Ešnunna.
The end of Sumu-la-El’s reign is again hallmarked by military encounters with Larsa and Malgium. Nevertheless,
the kingdom of Babylon endured and Sabium succeeded Sumu-la-El in 1844 BCE on the throne of Babylon. He
inherited a kingdom comprising of the core cities Babylon, Sippar, Kiš, Borsippa, Dilbat, Lagaba, Kutha, Damrum,
Kazallu, and Marad.
Throughout Old Babylonian history, the kings of Babylon would never lose control over this core, which en-
abled Babylon to impose its administrative structures over this area for hundreds of years, ensuring its longevity
and coherence. This core remained part of the Babylonian kingdom for more than 1200 years and remains unified
until this day.
References
Abraham, K.
2008 New Evidence for Warad-Sîn’s Mu-Malgium-Basig (“The Destruction of Malgium”) Year Name. RA 102: 27–38.
Ahmad, A. K.
1964 Old Babylonian Loan Contracts in the Iraq Museum from Tell al-Dhiba’i and Tell Harmal. MA thesis, University
of Baghdad.
Al-‘Adhami, K.A.
1967 Old Babylonian Letters from ed-Der. Sumer 23: 151–65.
1971 Some Old Babylonian Letters in the Iraq Museum. PhD diss., University of Birmingham.
1978 A New Old Babylonian Letter from ed-Der. Bulletin of the College of Arts, University of Baghdad 23.2: 3–14.
1997 King Apil-Sîn Confirms the Judgment of SumulaEl. Iraq 59: 73–75.
Al-Hussainy, A.
2015 The Date Formulae of the Tablets Excavated at Tell as-Sadoum (Season 2005) and the Chronology of the Old
Babylonian Kings of Marad. Ocnus 23: 45–48.
Al-Rawi, F. N. H.
1993 A New Old Babylonian Date List from Sippir with Year Names of Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballit. ZA 83: 22–30.
Anbar, M., and Stol, M.
1991 Textes de l’époque babylonienne ancienne III. RA 85: 13–48.
Archi, A., Pomponio, F., and Stol, M.
1999 Testi cuneiformi di vario contenuto: nn. 0724-0793. Catalogo del museo egizio di Torino, Serie 2, Volume. 9. Turin:
Ministerio per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali.
Baqir, T.
1949 Supplement to the Date-Formula from Harmal. Sumer 5: 136–43.
Baqir, T., and Mustafa, M. A.
1945 Iraq Government Sounding at Dēr. Sumer 1: 37–56.
Barberon, L.
2012 Les religieuses et le culte de Marduk dans le royaume de Babylone. ARCHIBAB 1. Paris: Sepoa.
Beckman, G.
2000 Old Babylonian Archival Texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection, ed. U. Kasten. Catalogue of the Babylonian Col-
lections at Yale 4. Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Boer, R., de
2012 Une mîšarum du roi Sumu-Yamutbal? NABU 2012/10.
2013a Marad in the Early Old Babylonian Period: Its Kings, Chronology, and Isin’s Influence. JCS 65: 73–90.
2013b Early Old Babylonian Tribes and Gatherings and the Role of Sumu-abum. Aram 26: 269–84.
82 RIENTS DE BOER
2013c An Early Old Babylonian Archive from the Kingdom of Malgium? JA 301: 19–25.
2014a Amorites in the Early Old Babylonian Period. PhD diss., Leiden University.
2014b Notes on an Early Old Babylonian Treaty. NABU 2014/76.
2017 Two Early Old Babylonian “Mananâ” Archives Dated to the Last Years of Sumu-la-El. RA 111: 25–64.
forthcoming The Ikūn-pîša Letter Archive.
Böhl, F. M. Th.
1924–25 Fünf Urkunden aus der Zeit des Königs Itti-Marduk-balâtu. AfO 2: 49–64.
Cavigneaux, A.
1996 Uruk. Altbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat Pe XVI-4/5. Nach Kopien von Adam Falkenstein. Mit einem
Beitrag von Reiner Michael Boehmer. AUWE 23. Mainz: von Zabern.
Cavigneaux, A., and Krebernik, M.
1998–2001 Ninsiana. RlA 9: 487–88.
Chambon, G.
2015 “Il faut que vos gardes soient fortes!” Une lettre de Sūmu-El sur la guerre entre Isin et Larsa. Semitica 57: 33–42.
Charpin, D.
1978a Recherches sur la “dynastie de Mananâ”: Essai de localisation et de chronologie. RA 72: 13–40.
1978b Nouveaux textes de la “dynastie de Mananâ” (I). RA 72: 139–50.
1979a Nouveaux textes de la “dynastie de Mananâ” (II). RA 73: 121–33.
1979b Review of S. D. Simmons, Early Old Babylonian Documents. BiOr 36: 188–200.
1980 Nouveaux textes de la “dynastie de Mananâ” (III). RA 74: 111–28.
2001a Review of M. J. A. Horsnell, The Yearnames of the First Dynasty of Babylon. RA 93: 89–92.
2001b La rébellion du Mutiabal contre Samsu-iluna. NABU 2001/52.
2002 Ibni-šadûm, roi de Kisurra, fils de Manna-balti-El et gendre de Sûmû-El de Larsa. NABU 2002/39.
2003 L’Édit d’Ammi-saduqa: nouvelle lecture (§ 10, B iii 25). NABU 2003/79.
2004 Histoire politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002–1595). Pp. 25–480 in D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard, and M. Stol,
Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit. OBO 160/4. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht.
2005 Chroniques bibliographiques 5. Économie et société à Sippar et en Babylonie du nord à l’époque paléo-babyloni-
enne. RA 99: 133–76.
2009–11 Sîn-kāšid. RlA 12: 519–20.
2012 L’exercice du pouvoir par les rois de la Ière Dynastie de Babylone: problèmes de méthode. Pp. 21–32 in Organiza-
tion, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyri-
ologique Internationale, Würzburg 20–25 July 2008, ed. G. Wilhelm. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2014 Chroniques bibliographiques 15. Le royaume d’Uruk et le pays d’Apum, deux voisins de Babylone vaincus par
Samsu-iluna. RA 108: 121–60.
Charpin, D., and Durand, J.-M.
1993 Notes de lecture: Texte aus dem Sîn-Kāšid Palast. MARI 7: 367–75.
2004 Prétendants au trône dans le Proche Orient amorrite. Pp. 99–115 in Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to
Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen. PIHANS 100. Leiden: NINO.
Charpin, D. and Ziegler, N.
2003 Mari et le Proche Orient à l’époque amorrite, essai d’histoire politique. Florilegium Marianum 5. Paris: SEPOA.
Dalley, S.
1979 A Catalogue of the Akkadian Cuneiform Tablets in the Collections of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, with
Copies of the Texts. Edinburgh: Royal Scottish Museum.
Dijk, J. J., van
1965 Une insurrection générale au pays de Larsa avant l’avènement de Nūradad. JCS 19: 1–25.
Durand, J.-M.
1984 Trois études sur Mari. MARI 3: 127–180.
Edzard, D. O.
1957 Die zweite Zwischenzeit Babyloniens. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1969 Die bukānum-Formel der altbabylonischen Kaufverträge und ihre sumerische Entsprechung. ZA 60: 8–53.
1976–80 Kibalmašda. RlA 5: 586–87.
Falkenstein, A.
1963 Inschriftenfunde der Grabung in Uruk/Warka 1960–1961. BaM 2: 1–82.
Finkelstein, J. J.
1966 The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty. JCS 20: 95–118.
Frayne, D. R.
1992 The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names. AOS 74. New Haven: AOS.
George, A. R.
1993 House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. MC 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Glassner, J.-J.
1999 Histoire babylonienne et sa réflexion dans les chroniques de l’époque babylonienne récente. Pp. 157–67 in Baby-
lon: Focus Mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne, ed. J. Renger. CDOG
2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2004 Mesopotamian Chronicles. WAW 19. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Goddeeris, A.
2002a Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period ca. (2000–1800 BC). OLA 109.
Leuven: Peeters.
2002b An Adoption Document from the Kisurra Collection in the British Museum. Pp. 93–98 in Mining the Archives:
Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occassion of His 60th Birthday, ed. C. Wunsch. Dresden: ISLET.
2005 The Emergence of Amorite Dynasties in Northern Babylonia during the Early Old Babylonian Period. Pp. 138–46
in Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1–4
July 2002, ed. W. H van Soldt, R. Kalvelagen and D. Katz. PIHANS 52. Leiden: NINO.
2007 The Economic Basis of the Local Palace of Kisurra. ZA 97: 47–85.
2009 Tablets from Kisurra in the Collections of the British Museum. Santag 9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2012a Sumu-abum. RlA 13: 300–301.
2012b Sumu-la-El. RlA 13: 304–305.
2012c Sumu-binasa. RlA 13: 301–302.
Grayson, A. K.
1974–77 The Empire of Sargon of Akkad. AfO 25: 56–64.
1980–83 Königslisten und Chroniken B. Akkadisch. RlA 6: 86–135.
Guichard, M.
2004 “La malédiction de cette tablette est très dure!” Sur l’ambassade d’Itûr-asdû à Babylone en l’an 4 de Zimrî-Lim. RA
98: 13–32.
2014 Un traité d’alliance entre Larsa, Uruk et Ešnunna contre Sabium de Babylone. Semitica 56: 9–34.
Gurney, O. R.
1949 Texts from Dur-Kurigalzu. Iraq 11: 131–49.
Heimpel, W.
1996 Uhul and Unine. NABU 1996/27.
Horsnell, M .J. A.
1999 The Year Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Vol. 1: Chronological Matters: The Year-Name System and the
Date-Lists. Vol. 2: The Year Names Reconstructed and Critically Annotated in Light of their Exemplars. Hamilton:
McMaster University Press.
Hussein, L. M.
2008 Tell Harmal. Die Texte aus dem Hauptverwaltungsgebäude ‘Serai.’ PhD diss, Philipps-Universität Marburg.
King, L. W.
1900 The Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫ ammurabi, King of Babylon, About B.C. 2200, vol. 2. London: Luzac.
Koppen, F. van
2006 Old Babylonian Period Inscriptions. Pp. 88–133 in Historical Sources in Translation: The Ancient Near East, ed. M.
Chavalas. Oxford: Blackwell.
Koppen, F. van, and Lacambre, D.
2008–9 Sippar and the Frontier between Ešnunna and Babylon. JEOL 41: 151–77.
Kraus, F. R.
1984 Königliche Verfügungen in altbabylonischer Zeit. SDIOA 11. Leiden: Brill.
Krebernik, M.
1987–90 Lugal-asal. RlA 7: 115–16.
1992 Die Textfunde der 9. Kampagne (1986). Pp. 103–44 in Isin-Išān Bahrīyāt IV. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen
1986–1989, ed. B. Hrouda. Munich: Verlag der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
84 RIENTS DE BOER
Kryszat, G.
2004 Wer schrieb die Waklum-Briefe? Pp. 353–58 in Assyria and Beyond, Studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed.
J. G. Dercksen. PIHANS 100. Leiden: NINO.
Kutscher, R.
1971 Babylonian Tablets from the Wadsworth Atheneum Collection. Bulletin Wadsworth Atheneum, Spring and Fall
1971: 42–49.
Lambert, W. G.
1989 A Babylonian Prayer to Anūna. Pp. 321–35 in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA, Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed.
H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania.
2007 Babylonian Oracle Questions. MC 13. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2011 Babylon: Origins. Pp. 71–76 in Babylon, Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident, ed. E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, M. van
Ess and J. Marzahn. Boston & Berlin: de Gruyter.
Leemans, W. F.
1960 Legal and Administrative Docuents of the Time of Ḫ ammurabi and Samsu-iluna (Mainly from Lagaba). SLB I/3.
Leiden: Brill.
Loding, D.
1976 Old Babylonian Texts from Ur, 1. JCS 28: 233–40.
Mauer, G.
1987 Ein Tontafelarchiv aus dem Palast des Sîn-kāšid in Uruk, W 20 038, 1-59. BaM 18: 133–98.
Mayer, W. R.
2003 Waffen und Stricke in einer altbabylonischen Urkunde. Orientalia 72: 368–89.
Mayr, R.
2010 The Seal of Ayalatum and the Dynasty of Larsa. Pp. 189–93 in Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Con-
ceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Kleinerman and J. M. Sasson.
Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Meyers, J.
2002 The Sippar Pantheon: A Diachronic Study. PhD diss., Harvard University.
Michalowski, P.
2011 The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom. MC 15.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Michel, C.
2001 Correspondance des marchands de Kanish. LAPO 19. Paris: Éditions du CERF.
Owen, D. I.
1981 Review of D. O. Edzard and G. Farber, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur. JCS 33:
244–69.
Pinches, Th. G.
1898 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets &c., in the British Museum. Part VI. CT 6. London: Harrison & Sons.
Podany, A. H.
2002 The Land of Hana, Kings, Chronology, and Scribal Tradition. Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Pomponio, F.; Stol, M.; and Westenholz, A.
2006 Tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienza delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia, vol. 2. Rome: Banca d’Italia.
Ranke, H.
1906 The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Philadelphia, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, vol. VI.1. BE 6/1. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania.
Reiner, E.
1961 The Year Dates of Sumu-Jamūtbāl. JCS 15: 121–24.
Reiter, K., and Waetzoldt, H.
1996 Neue Lesevorschlage und Kollationen zu den Altbabylonischen Texten aus Uruk. BaM 27: 401–9.
Richter, T.
2004 Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit. 2nd ed. AOAT 257.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Rositani, A.
2003 Rīm-Anum Texts in the British Museum. NISABA 4. Messina: Dipartimento di scienze dell’antichità dell’università
degli studi di Messina.
Rutten, M.
1958 Un lot de tablettes de Mananâ. RA 52: 208–25.
1959 Un lot de tablettes de Mananâ (suite). RA 53: 77–96.
1960 Uun lot de tablettes de Mananâ(suite). RA 54: 19–40.
Sanati-Müller, S.
1988 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Erster Teil. Gerstenwerkverträge und Mehllieferungsurkunden. BaM 19: 471–538.
1989 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Zweiter Teil. Fischtexte und Bürgschaftsurkunden. BaM 20: 225–313.
1990 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Dritter Teil. Metalltexte. BaM 21: 131–213.
1991 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Vierter Teil. Texte verschiedener Inhalts I. BaM 22: 313–30.
1992 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Fünfter Teil. Texte verschiedener Inhalts II. BaM 23: 119–61.
1993 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Sechster Teil. Texte verschiedener Inhalts III. BaM 24: 137–84.
1994 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Siebenter Teil. Texte verschiedener Inhalts IV. BaM 25: 309–40.
1995 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Achter Teil, Texte in Zusammenhang mit Skeletresten. BaM 26: 65–84.
1996 Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Neunter Teil. Rohrtexte. BaM 27: 365–39.
2000a Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Zehnter Teil. Holztexte-Elfter Teil: Fragmentarisch erhaltenen Texte. BaM 31:
93–175.
2000b Kollationen zu „Ein Tontafelarchiv aus dem Palast des Sîn-kāšid in Uruk“ von Gerlinde Mauer. BaM 31: 181–93.
2000c Ein zweites Nabi-ilīšu -Jahresdatum. BaM 31: 87–91.
2011 Zwei altbabylonische Tonkegelfragmente aus der Heidelberger Uruk-Warka-Tontafelsammlung. ZOrA 4: 82–91.
Seri, A.
2013 The House of Prisoners: Slavery and State in Uruk During the Revolt against Samsu-iluna. SANER 2. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Simmons, S. D.
1960 Early Old Babylonian Tablets from Harmal and Elsewhere, Second Part. JCS 14: 75–87, 117–25.
Soldt, W. H. van
1994 Letters in the British Museum Part 2. AbB 13. Leiden: Brill.
Sollberger, E.
1979–81 Babylon’s Beginnings. Sumer 41: 10–14.
Sommerfeld, W.
1982 Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. AOAT
213. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.
1983 Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Kisurra. ZA 73: 204–31.
Steinkeller, P.
1986 Seal of Išma-Ilum, son of the Governor of Matar. VicOr 6: 27–40.
2010 On the Location of the Towns of Ur-Zababa and Dimat-Enlil and on the course of the Arahtum. Pp. 369–82 in
Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 28. Januar 2010, ed. J. Fincke. Dresden: ISLET.
Steinkeller, P., and Postgate, J. N.
1992 Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. MC 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns.
Stol, M.
1991 Old Babylonian Personal Names. SeL 8: 191–212.
2002 Personen um den König in altbabylonischer Zeit. Pp. 735–58 in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux, Festschrift für Man-
fred Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. O. Loretz, K. A. Metzler and H. Schaudig. AOAT 281. Münster: Ugarit
Verlag.
Streck, M. P.
2003–5 Padda. RlA 10: 186.
Tammuz, O.
1996 The Location of Lagaba. RA 90: 19–25.
Thureau-Dangin, F.
1911 Ašduni-erim roi de Kish. RA 8: 65–79.
Tyborowski, W.
2012 New Tablets from Kisurra and the Chronology of Central Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period. ZA 102:
245–69.
Ungnad, A.
1938 Datenlisten. RlA 2: 131–94.
86 RIENTS DE BOER
Veenhof, K. R.
2012 An Old Babylonian Lawsuit on the Property of a Priestess. Pp. 627–44 in The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift
Karel Van Lerberghe, ed. T. Boiy, J. Bretschneider, A. Goddeeris, H. Hameeuw, G. Jans, and J. Tavernier. OLA 220.
Leuven: Peeters.
Von Dassow, E.
2009 Narām-Sîn of Uruk: A New King in an Old Shoebox. JCS 61: 63–91.
Weidner, E.
1952–53 Das Reich Sargons von Akkad. AfO 16: 1–24.
Wilcke, C.
1982 Zwei spät-altbabylonischen Kaufverträge aus Kiš. Pp. 426–83 in Zikir šumim, Assyriological Studies presented to
F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. van Driel, Th. J. H Krispijn, M. Stol, and K. R. Veen-
hof. Leiden: Brill.
1994 Personal eines Enlil-bāni-Palastes in Isin. Pp. 303–14 in Beiträge zur Altorientalischen Archäologie und Altertums-
kunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. P. Calmeyer, K. Hecker, L. Jakob-Rost, and C. B.
Walker. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Wu, Y.
1994 A Political History of Eshnunna, Mari and Assyria, during the Early Old Babylonian Period (from the End of Ur III
to the Death of Šamši-Adad). Periodic Publications on Ancient Civilizations 2. Changchun: Institute for the His-
tory of Ancient Civilizations.
Wu, Y., and Dalley, S.
1990 The Origins of the Mananâ Dynasty at Kish and the Assyrian King List. Iraq 52: 159–65.

Beginnings of Old Babylonian Babylon Sum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Beginnings of Old Babylonian Babylon Sum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beginnings of Old Babylonian Babylon Sum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEGINNINGS OF OLD BABYLONIAN

BABYLON: SUMU-ABUM AND

Rients de Boer (Free University of Amsterdam)

Babylon in the Third Millennium

The Name Sumu-abum

5. RIME 1 E1.15.4.1, Sommerfeld 1982: 20, and Lambert 2011.

Where Did Sumu-abum Come From?

The Year Names of Sumu-abum

Table 1. The year names of Sumu-abum222324

Year Year name in BM 92702, column I Translation

MU e-li-ip is-sa-�ab�-[tu]. “Year: (in which) Elip was taken” (VAS 8, 1)

Sumu-abum the Military Leader

1 a-na sú-mu-a-bu-u[m] ù a-na-ku

Lower Diyala region:

The Deities Connected to Sumu-abum

47. De Boer 2014a: 137–51, 238–43

Sumu-abum Becomes King of Kisurra

Sumu-la-El, King of Babylon and Lieutenant of Sumu-abum

Uruk: Babylon’s Ally?

93. IM 49537, Al-‘Adhami 1967: pl. 17; Goddeeris 2002a: 173.

Sumu-la-El’s Year Names

109. Seri 2013 and Charpin 2014.

• Sumu-la-El 10 (MU aš-du-um-ma-[ri-im BA.UG7 / gišTUKUL BA.SÌG], or: aš-du-um-la!-[bu-um BA.UG7

123. Lastly reedited by Horsnell 1999, 1: 234–46.

Sumu-la-El Unifying Northern Babylonia

The End of Sumu-la-El’s Reign

1) MU BÀD GAL KA I7.MAHki BA.DÙ

Rutten 1960: no. 32 MU BÀD GAL KA I7.MAHki

2) MU.ÚS.SA.(A.BI) PA5 PIRIG.SAG.GÁ BA.DÙ

Rutten 1960: no. 25 MU.ÚS.SA PA5 PIRIG.SAG.GÁ BA.[DÙ]143

Table 4. “Year: Umgar was restored”

Rutten 1960: no. 26 MU UM.GAR.RAki KI.BA.GI.A

4) MU su-mu-la-DINGIR ALAN GAL.GAL BA.DÙ

Table 5. “Year: Sumu-la-El, large statues were built”147

De Boer 2017: no. 5 MU ALAN sú-mu-la-DINGIR

5) MU.ÚS.SA ALAN su-mu-la-DINGIR

Table 6. “Year: after the statue of Sumu-la-El”

YOS 14: 132 (tablet and case) MU.ÚS.SA ALAN su-mu-la-DINGIR

6) MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL.GI4 gišTUKUL BA.SÌG and MU ma-al-gi4 is-bat

De Boer 2017: no. 4 MU ERIN2 MÀ.AL.GI5 gišTUKUL BA.SÌG

Conclusion and Summary

BEGINNINGS OF OLD BABYLONIAN BABYLON

1877 Year: after the year Ḫ alun-pi-umu was defeated by

21 MU.ÚS.SA BÀD ka-zal-luki BA.GUL Ù ERIN2.BI

Year: after the year the walls of Kazallu were

BEGINNINGS OF OLD BABYLONIAN BABYLON

BEGINNINGS OF OLD BABYLONIAN BABYLON

Other year names that cannot be placed in the list above:

You might also like