The duration and intensity of this resettlement process remain to be determined,
but its consequences for the Mesopotamian demography and political landscape are
evident from a variety of evidence. There were, on the whole, two options for recent
immigrants in Mesopotamian alluvium. Ethnic groups could organize themselves into
new political entities in the peripheral areas out of reach of the established kingdoms,
with the influential, but presumably short-lived, Turukkean kingdom in the east-
Tigris country during the second half of the reign of Hammurabi as the best-known
example (Eidem and Læssøe 2001 : 55 – 58 ). Alternatively, they could subject themselves
to the authority of the Mesopotamian states and seek a livelihood as labourers and,
especially, mercenaries. This strategy is again attested for the Turukkeans, when we
read how groups of them were resettled under Samsi-Addu in the core of his king-
dom and admitted into his army (Charpin 2004 : 177 ). These well-documented cases
can serve as a paradigm to explain the appearance of other ethnic groups on the
Mesopotamian scene.
The Kassites were the most famous and influential of these groups. This ethnic
label was of Babylonian coinage but derives probably from a Zagros toponym (Eidem
and Læssøe 2001 : 28 ), and there is more evidence to support the idea that at least
some of them indeed came from the highlands. They appear for the first time in the
ninth year-name of Samsuiluna, where it is said that the king ‘tore out the roots of
the Kassite army [at] Kikalla’. There is no further information about this event, but
since Kikalla, a town in the vicinity of Kish, is known for its military field holders,
it is possible that the year-name refers to the suppression of an uprising of mercenary
forces who had been settled in the area – an interpretation for which the rebellion
of the Turukkean army under Samsi-Addu offers a direct parallel. Yet again in
subsequent generations, one hears repeatedly of incidents with hostile Kassite forces,
but whatever impact these events may have had, it is clear that a Kassite participation
in the Babylonian army had become an established phenomenon already at the time
of Samsuiluna, and is well attested until the end of the Old Babylonian period
(Sassmannshausen 2004 a). In fact, the marked military character of the Kassites
throughout the period leads us to believe that the term may have been used in a
fairly broad sense for warriors of highland extraction, rather than for people of a
specific ethno-linguistic background. A similar degree of ambiguity concerns other
foreigners in Babylonian service: Gutean and Elamite troops are also well attested,
but since these people had long been highly regarded as professional soldiers, it is
quite impossible to decide whether these labels refer to individuals of a specific ethnic
background, or to professionals with particular skills (Eidem and Læssøe 2001 : 31 f.).
Other ethnic labels occur more sporadically, such as the Hurrian-speaking troops
from Hanigalbat and those from faraway Tukris beyond the Zagros mountains who
are mentioned under the last kings of Babylon, but in these cases there is no reason
to doubt that these bands were really of foreign descent.
All this indicates that the proportion of foreigners in the Babylonian army increased
radically ever since the reign of Samsuiluna. Their recruitment not only neutralized
what would otherwise be a potentially destabilizing element in society, but, more
importantly, these mercenaries were undoubtedly better warriors than the conventional
forces of conscripted non-professionals that had constituted the main part of the army
under Hammurabi. Also, the development of new military techniques, above all the
effective implementation of the light horse-drawn battle chariot under Hammurabi’s
— Frans van Koppen —