influence of these different groups. From the Old Akkadian period onwards, land in
the open country was given as fief in return for ‘feudal’ duties and military service.
In doing so, the state attempted to generate loyalties and to create strongholds outside
the main cities with their discontented and rebellious populace. Their resistance was
often led by religious or administrative personnel contesting the king’s central power.
It was not until the beginning of the second millennium that the city of Babylon
slowly started to play a role in greater Mesopotamian politics. The end of the third
millennium was marked by the destruction of the royal capital of Ur. The victor
Ishbi-Erra and the kings of the subsequent competing dynasties from Isin and Larsa
all came from an Amorite (and Elamite) background – as did Hammurabi of Babylon,
roughly 200 years later. It is probably due to this Amorite influence that we can
detect several changes within these societies: the role of private property increased,
the ‘palace’ became the undisputed seat of governance. An important factor in the
Babylonian economy, down to the Neo-Babylonian period, was patrimonial estates.
Tribes and families, organised along a patrilinear descent, gained considerable influence
in all social organisations (for a more detailed account of this process, see Goddeeris
in this volume). This coincides with the observation that commemorative inscriptions
from the Larsa dynasty show greater interest in filiation and family ties (Frayne 1990 :
107 – 322 ). Judging from the extant sources, the concept of inheritable rulership began
to play a major role, beginning with the Larsa dynasty. In the inscriptions from
Babylon the situation was similar, but it was by no means compulsory for a ruler to
mention his patronymics since the concept of divine son-ship was still maintained.
Generally speaking, all rulers saw themselves as heirs of the old Mesopotamian
traditions, and their native Amorite idiom was nearly abandoned. The kings usually
just kept their Amorite names. In the religious sphere there was one especially
remarkable change: whereas the kings of Isin followed the custom of the kings of
Ur III to add to their names the cuneiform sign AN, marking them as living deities,
the kings of Larsa (as other Old Babylonian rulers) broke with this tradition (cf.
Frayne 1990 : 5 – 106 (Isin) and 107 – 322 (Larsa) ). However, the concept of the ruler’s
responsibility for welfare and economic equilibrium remained important. In the
tradition of his forerunners, Ishme-Dagan proclaimed:
(Ishme-Dagan) relieved the citizens of (the city of) Nippur from military service,
removed (obligations) from the temples of the gods Enlil, Ninlil, and Ninurta,
[ca]nce[lled] the tithe of the land of Sumer (and) [Akkad, (and) made the nation
content].
(Frayne 1990 : 33 )Several copies of the laws of his successor Lipit-Eshtar come from this city, Nippur:
they clearly follow the laws of Ur-Nammu in structure if not in size and, although
written in Sumerian, they are a predecessor of the laws of Hammurabi. Of special
interest here are the regulations Lipit-Eshtar made concerning family matters, especially
inheritance, and concerning the obligations of households to perform public service:
I imposed service (equally) on the household of a living father and on the undivided
household [of brothers]. I, Lipit-Eshtar, son of the god Enlil, obligated those in
a household of a living father and in an undivided household of brothers to service— Gebhard J. Selz —