Rim Sin of Larsa apparently influenced by Davidic culture

by Damien F. Mackey Where are all the depictions of the long-reigning Rim Sin so-called I? Amongst the kings of Larsa the most important would be considered to be Rim Sin, of which name there were supposedly two (I and II). Rim Sin so-called I is listed amongst the most powerful kings of his time: https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/01/mari-taste-diplomacy/ In Zimri-Lim’s days, one governor estimated that, “No king is truly powerful just on his own: 10 to 15 kings follow Hammurabi of Babylon, as many follow Rim- Sin of Larsa, as many follows Ibal-pi-El of Eshnunna, and as many follows Amut-pi-El of Qatna; but 20 kings follow Yarim-Lim of Yamḫad.” [FMA 82] (The writer took it for granted that Zimri-Lim belonged in that group.) Despite his obvious significance, though, and despite the fact that Rim Sin I of Larsa is considered to have reigned longer than any other king of his region, some 60 years, c. 1822 to 1763 BC (conventional dating), he receives relatively little attention, as we shall shortly learn. Nor have I, so far, written much at all about him. But, in this context, the question needs to be asked, as it needed to be asked about each of Cheops (only one little statue), and Djedkare (only one image), and Ashurnasirpal so-called II (only one known statue), and Nebuchednezzar (only at Wadi Brissa): Considering such a long reign length, why are there virtually no statuary or bas-relief depictions in the case of this particular potentate? Pharaoh Ramses II (66-67 years) had reigned for a few years more than Rim Sin I is supposed to have done, yet his statuary, as we well know, is everywhere, and it is huge. Where are all the depictions of the long-reigning Rim Sin so-called I? As with Cheops and company, I had determined that these names had all required supplementation with an alter ego of one (or more) for whom there were plenty of depictions of one type or another. Cheops, for example, whom I identified with Djedkare, would now become amalgamated with the well-publicised dynastic founder, Amenemhet (so-called) I; while Ashurnasirpal, to be identified with Nebuchednezzar, would now become amalgamated with the extremely well-publicised king, Ashurbanipal (of the same reign length as Nebuchednezzar: 43 years). But statuary is not all that is strangely missing from the long reign of Rim Sin I. His biography seems to be one of continuous enigma and confusion. Despite Marc Van de Mieroop writing of Rim Sin, as we shall read further on, that he was “… more important than his challenger Hammurabi …”, that same writer will actually tell of the records of the last half of Rim-Sin’s reign being virtually non-existent. Consequently, many historians must fall back on the ridiculous notion that Rim Sin, having overcome, but then ‘rested on his laurels’, doing not much for the remaining 30 years of his reign. “…. there is no consensus as to what happened after that event in 1794 …”. That suggestion becomes even more incredible when one considers the supposed geography of Rim Sin’s kingdom, hemmed in, as is thought, by other warring states. “The kingdom was surrounded by several independent and competing states”. A more satisfactory chronology-geography With the benefit now of a far superior (to the conventional) chronology and geography - {with “Hammurabi of Babylon” (above) set at the time of kings David and Solomon of Israel, with “Ibal-pi-El of Eshnunna” (above) as King Solomon himself, governing Ashdod (Eshnunna), which is Lachish, and with “Yarim-Lim of Yamkhad” (above) as the biblical King Hiram} - then we can most confidently anchor a part of the long reign of Rim Sin I of Larsa to the time when David and Hiram were partners, and when the young Solomon had begun to emerge onto the international scene. So far I have identified David, in connection with Eshnunna (Ashdod-Lachish), as Dadusha/Naram-Sin, whose sometime foe was David’s enemy, Hadadezer, or Shamsi-Adad I (c. 1800 BC, conventional dating). Could Larsa - like the so-called Sumerian cities referred to above, some of which just drop off the map (such as Eshnunna) - be likewise located somewhere outside of Sumer? Berossus referred to Larsa as Larancha/Laranchon. A Shepherd King As I have previously noted, Rim Sin I was, like David, a shepherd king to his people, and a man after his god’s own heart. There I wrote: … compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). Rim-Sin is thought to have been a ruler of Larsa in Sumer (southern Mesopotamia) during the reign of Hammurabi of Babylon (slightly later than King David). Rim-sin’s prayerful sentiments can be very David-like – even quasi-monotheistic: Provenience of texts, in the case of Larsa, is a major problem as we shall read below. For example: “Unfortunately, many texts of this period were excavated illegally, and their discoverers often gave unreliable information about the place of origin”]. “-7......, who is fitted for holy lustration rites, Rim-Sîn, purification priest of An, who is fitted for pure prayers rites, whom you summoned from the holy womb ......, has been elevated to lordship over the Land; he has been installed as shepherd over the black-headed. The staff which strengthens the Land has been placed in his hand. The shepherd's crook which guides the living people has been attached at his side. As he steps forward before you, he is lavishly supplied with everything that he offers with his pure hands. 8-20Your attentive youth, your beloved king, the good shepherd Rìm-Sîn, who determines what should be brought as offerings for his life, joyfully pours out offerings for you in the holy royal cultic locations which are perfect for the cultic vessels: sweet-smelling milk and grain, rich produce of the Land, riches of the meadows, unending abundance, alcoholic drink, glistening wine, very sweet emmer beer fermented with pure substances, pure ...... powerful beer made doubly strong with wine, a drink for your lordship; double-strength beer, superior beer, befitting your holy hands, pale honey exported from the mountains, which you have specifically requested, butter from holy cows, ghee as is proper for you as prince; pressed oil, best oil of the first pressing, and yellow cream, the pride of the cow-pen, for the holy abode of your godhead. 21-26Accept from him with your joyful heart pure food to eat as food, and pure water to drink as water: offerings made for you. Grant his prayer: you are indeed respected. When he humbly speaks fair words to you, speak so that he may live. Guide him correctly at the holy lordly cultic locations, at the august lordly cultic locations. Greet him as he comes to perform his cultic functions. 27-37May his kingship exist forever in your presence. May he be the first of the Land, called (?) lord and prince. Following your commands he shall be as unshakeable as heaven and earth; may he be ...... over the numerous people. May the mother goddesses among the gods attend to his utterances; may they sit in silence before that which he says, and bring restorative life. May he create heart's joy for the population, and be the good provider for their days. May the terrifying splendour that he wears cover like a heavy raincloud the king who is hated by him. May all the best what he has be brought here as their offerings. 38-52The good shepherd Rim-Sîn looks to you as to his personal god. Grant him ...... a life that he loves, and bestow joy on him. May you renew it like the daylight. As he prays to you, attend to his ....... When he speaks most fair words to you, sustain his life power for him. May he be respected ......, and have no rivals. As he makes supplication to you, make his days long. In the ...... of life, ...... the power of kingship. May his correct words be ever ....... May he create heart's joy in his ....... ...... make the restorative ...... rest upon him, the lion of lordship. When he beseeches you, let his exterior (?) ...... shine. Give him ...... life ....... May you bring ...... for his life with your holy words. Hear him favourably as he lifts his hands in prayer, and decide a good destiny for him. 53-69As his life ......, so may it delight his land. Cast the four quarters at his feet, and let him be their ruler. Reclining in meadows in his own land, may he pass his days joyously with you ....... In the palace, lengthen the days and reign of Rim-Sîn, your compliant king who is there for you; whose name you, Acimbabbar, have named, ...... life. ...... the august good headdress. ...... due praise for his life. ...... the throne, and may the land be safe. May satisfaction and joy fill his heart. May ...... be good for his ....... Place in his hand the sceptre of justice; may the numerous people be bound (?) to it. Shining brightly, the constant ...... in his ....... Confer on him the benefit of months of delight and joy, and bestow on him numerous years as infinite in number as the stars in the lapis-lazuli coloured heavens. In his kingship may he enjoy a happy reign forever. 70-85May you preserve the king, the good provider. May you preserve Rim-Sîn, the good provider. May his reign be a source of delight to you. Lengthen the days of his life, and give him kingship over the restored land. For him gladden the heart of the land, for him make the roads of the land passable. For him make the Land speak with a single voice. May you preserve alive Rim-Sîn, your shepherd with the compliant heart. May his canals bring water for him, and may barley grow for him in the fields. May the orchards and gardens bring forth syrup and wine for him, and may the marshes deliver fish and fowl for him in abundance. May the cattle-pens and sheepfolds teem with animals, and may rain from the heavens, whose waters are sporadic, be regular for him. May the palace be filled with long life. O Rim-Sîn, you are my king!” Compare, for example, King David’s Psalm 60 (Douay), otherwise Psalm 61:6-7: ‘Increase the days of the king’s life, his years for many generations. May he be enthroned in God’s presence forever; appoint your love and faithfulness to protect him’. The geography and dimensions of Rim Sin’s kingdom are hugely problematical. Let us read a bit more about this Rim Sin I, as provided by Marc Van de Mieroop in 1993, in his article: 1993 “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87 (1993): 47-69. (4) 1993 “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87 (1993): 47-69. | Marc Van De Mieroop - Academia.edu “Many texts are published as deriving from Larsa, a site that was indeed heavily looted before scientific excavations took place; yet it is often unclear as to whether they are from the site itself or from a neighboring tell”. INTRODUCTION Rim-Sin of Larsa had the longest recorded rule in ancient Mesopotamian history with sixty years from 1822 to 1763 … but modern-day historians have not paid much attention to him. He is usually regarded as the last ruler of the independent Larsa dynasty, who had the bad luck to be defeated by the famous and glorious Hammurabi of Babylon. When his reign is discussed, great, emphasis is placed upon his conquest of the rival city of Isin in his thirtieth year, and his unification of Southern and Middle Babylonia. …. This event had a profound impact on Rim-Sin's contemporaries and it gave rise to a chronological era. Consequently modern historians also deem this event very significant; however, there is no consensus as to what happened after that event in 1794, or at least it is not much discussed. Hammurabi's ascension to the throne of Babylon the next year usually causes historians' attention to shift to him, and Rim-Sin is only depicted as the victim of Babylonian expansion. This lack of interest is partly due to the fact that all the year names after Rim-Sin's conquest of Isin refer only to that victory, thus depriving us of historical information about other events. But the absence of new year names also has been interpreted as the result of the lethargy of the Rim-Sin who "rested complacently on his laurels". …. Leemans, however, credited Rim-Sin with important reforms in the second half of his reign, reforms that were adopted by Hammurabi. …. According to Leemans these reforms resulted from Rim-Sin's strength after the conquest of his most powerful rival, Isin. In this article I will re-examine Rim-Sin's career. I will attempt to show that he was a key figure in the history of Mesopotamia for introducing changes in the administration of the south of Babylonia, which arose not out of strength but rather from his weakness in the second half of his reign. I will argue thus a totally new evaluation of this man's reign: his administrative reforms made him more important than his challenger Hammurabi …. SOURCES There is an abundance of material available from the reign of Rim-Sin, but it is not evenly divided over its sixty years. These sources include the following seven groups: l) So-called "royal inscriptions": these texts usually commemorate the building or the restoration of a temple or a cult object and often include some statements about military successes by the king. They have recently been collected, arranged in a chronological order, and translated by Frayne. …. Of the nineteen inscriptions, only two refer to Rim-Sin's conquest of Isin and are thus to be dated after that event. All others date before Rim-Sin's twenty-ninth year. 2) Year names: the sequence of names assigned to the regnal years of Rim-Sin is well known. The names provide information on military or cultic events, and on public works, and they are very important for historical reconstructions. …. The thirtieth year commemorates the defeat of the city of Isin which took place in year 29. Following this event, Rim-Sin's administration measured the passage of time with respect to it: first year after the defeat, second, third year …., etc. until the thirty-first year. This sequence deprives us of an important source of information, since no other events are recorded. 3) Mari letters: the king of Mari, Zimri-Lim, was informed of the events of the time through extensive correspondence with a number of colleagues and envoys. Fortunately, some of these letters survived the looting and destruction of his palace on the Middle Euphrates in Syria by Hammurabi's troops in 1759. The letters provide important and vivid information on Rim-Sin's last years and his defeat. 4) Literary letters: two letters to Rim-Sin entered the literary corpus of Babylonia, and were later copied out by scribes. One of the letters alludes to the capture of Uruk. …. 5) Letters written to or by Rim-Sin: among the many letters preserved from the Old Babylonian period there are a few that involve Rim-Sin. They contain very little historical information. 6) Administrative and legal documents: these texts are informative in several ways. First of all, the appearance in a particular town of a text dated with a year name of Rim-Sin shows us that the place was politically dependent upon that ruler. Of course, the absence of such texts does not necessarily imply that the city was independent from Rim-Sin. Unfortunately, many texts of this period were excavated illegally, and their discoverers often gave unreliable information about the place of origin. Many texts are published as deriving from Larsa, a site that was indeed heavily looted before scientific excavations took place; yet it is often unclear as to whether they are from the site itself or from a neighboring tell. At the moment, we may say with certainty that texts dated in the reign of Rim-Sin were found at Girsu, Kisurra, Kutalla, Larsa, Nippur, and Ur, because they were scientifically excavated there or can be associated with such texts. Illicitly excavated texts seem also to derive from Isin, Umma, Uruk, and perhaps Zabalam, but their provenance is not always certain. These documents are also important for their content since they document historical events and the administration of the kingdom of Rim-Sin. Obviously, this information is extremely partial and often difficult to extract from the texts, which were not written to inform a later historian of what went on, but to put down in writing contractual agreements. 7) The later "historical" text, the Chronicle of Early Kings, mentions Rim-Sin's defeat … As far as I can see this is the only later reference to this king. THE EARLY YEARS …. When Rim-Sin succeeded his brother Warad-Sin to the throne of Larsa in 1822, he must have been quite young since he would live at least another sixty years. We have no information about his earlier life except that he made an offering of silver hoes late in his brother's reign. …. We can reconstruct with some certainty the size of the kingdom that he inherited from Warad-Sin …. It stretched from the sea border and Ur in the south along the Euphrates to just west of Larsa where it bordered on independent Uruk. The kingdom extended further north and east, including the cities Kutalla, Bad-tibira, and eastward at least as far as Girsu, if not actually reaching the sea. At Girsu it stretched to the north-west to include Zabalam, Adab, and finally Maškan šāpir. …. To the south of Maškan šāpir it included Nippur, on an eastern branch of the Euphrates. The border with Babylon lay probably just to the west of Maškan šāpir. The kingdom was thus a long, and at some places very narrow, strip extending for at least 230 kilometers along the Iturungal canal from Maškan šāpir to the sea. Communication between the different regions was not always easy, especially in the south where extensive marshes surrounded the areas of Ur and Girsu. The eastern border of the kingdom was probably very unstable because of the marshes at the head of the Persian Gulf. The kingdom was surrounded by several independent and competing states. Just to the north of Larsa lay Uruk, which was a close ally of Babylon. …. Further north and to the west of the central part of the state lay the kingdom of Isin, a long time rival. To the west of Maškan šāpir was the kingdom of Babylon, at that time still focused on its domestic affairs. To the north of that city along the Tigris was the state of Malgium, about which we know almost nothing. To the east across the Tigris lay the state of Elam, with which Kudur-Mabuk may have had a special affiliation, since his father and Kudur-Mabuk himself had Elamite names. Rim-Sin's kingdom was a union of two states: in the south the kingdom of Larsa with its capital city at Larsa, and in the north the state of Emutbalum, with its capital city at Maškan šāpir. …. The year names of the first thirteen years of Rim-Sin's rule emphasize his attention to the cults of various deities in the state: Adad, Enki, Inanna, and Nanna in Larsa, Baraulegarra in Zarbilum, a town to the north-east or north of Larsa, Ninkimar in Ašdubba near Larsa, Baraulegarra in Adab, Enki in Ur, Ninenimma in Enimma near Ur, and Adad in Karkar. …. These are all cities in the southern part of the state. He also undertook public works in the eastern part by digging a canal from Girsu to the sea. Year 7 commemorates fortification and canalization work in Maškan šāpir, located outside his usual area of interest … and he also fortified two unidentified cities: Iškun-Šamaš and Iškun-Nergal. There is no reported military activity, but Nippur was lost to Isin late in Rim-Sin's ninth year. The contest between Isin and Larsa seems not to have been a violent affair, however … and kings did not boast about it. There are a few points at this stage that I can glean from the above: • Rim Sin’s kingdom supposedly extended to the Girsu that I have re-located as Jerusalem itself. • The conquest of Isin, seemingly so pivotal, was ‘not to be boasted about’. • Amazingly, no mention of Lagash, Eshnunna, or Umma, places that may have fallen off the map. • Two more unidentified place names, “Iškun-Šamaš and Iškun-Nergal”. Moreover, Rapiqum (below) also has not been identified. • “Ninkimar in Ašdubba near Larsa” is most interesting. The name Ašdubba is almost identical to the neo-Assyrian name, Ashduddu (Ashdod), that I have identified with the Judean fort of Lachish (Lagash). Much of the above would simply be estimations of where Rim Sin’s kingdom ought to have extended, rather than being hard proof that this is where it did actually extend. Recall: Many texts are published as deriving from Larsa, a site that was indeed heavily looted before scientific excavations took place; yet it is often unclear as to whether they are from the site itself or from a neighboring tell. At the moment, we may say with certainty that texts dated in the reign of Rim-Sin were found at Girsu, Kisurra, Kutalla, Larsa, Nippur, and Ur, because they were scientifically excavated there or can be associated with such texts. Illicitly excavated texts seem also to derive from Isin, Umma, Uruk, and perhaps Zabalam, but their provenance is not always certain. …. Marc Van de Mieroop continues with Rim Sin’s military beginnings: THE FIRST PERIOD OF EXPANSION In his thirteenth year Rim-Sin defeated a large coalition of enemy forces: Uruk, Isin, and Babylon. These cities were assisted by Rapiqum, a city probably located on the Euphrates north of Babylon, and the Suteans, nomads from the Syrian desert who had penetrated further south. The king of Uruk, Irdanene … may have been the leader of the coalition as he is singled out for special scorn, being compared to a snake trod upon by the victorious Rim-Sin. …. Although various settlements around Uruk were reportedly captured … the, city itself remained independent. Our knowledge is too limited to determine whether Irdanene lost his throne, and if so, who succeeded him. Rim-Sin continued to report the capture of a number of cities with unknown locations, as well as irrigation works in the next five years. In his nineteenth year he captured Durum, a city near Uruk, and Kisurra, a city some twenty kilometers east of Isin. Possibly at the same time he regained control over Nippur, where texts dated with his year names re-appear in his twenty-first year. Thus he started to infringe upon the territory of two of his rival states. The next year he captured Uruk, but spared the city, which was incorporated into his state. This defeat of a close ally of Babylon may, however, have caused the northern state to react, thus initiating a period of retreat by Larsa. PERIOD OF RETREAT In the six years after the capture of Uruk Rim-Sin seems to have been mainly interested in irrigation works, if we can believe, his year names. Only in his twenty-fourth year he claims to have captured Al-Damiq-ilišu, a city belonging to the state of Isin. But the situation was probably not rosy. Sin-muballit of Babylon mentions already in 1802 that he fortified the city of Karkar, which had been in Larsa's control previously. …. If this city is indeed located between Adab and Umma, its domination by Sin-muballit would indicate that Babylon had a foothold in the center of Rim-Sin's state, thereby endangering communication between the north and the south. The following year Sin-muballit fortified Marad, a city on the border between the states of Isin and Babylon. Renger has suggested that Rim-Sin's earlier incursions into the north were a reaction to Sin-muballit's deeds, but the reverse may have been true, namely Sin-muballit reacted to Larsa's defeat of Uruk. Rim-Sin was active elsewhere in the very north of his state. A text from 1801 …. states that troops from Emutbalum were gathered in Maškan šāpir for an expedition to Ešnunna, yet it is unclear whether this was an act of aggression or a gesture of help to the king of Ešnunna. …. Sin-muballit claims to have defeated the army of Larsa in 1800, and to have captured Isin in 1797. Not, surprisingly, neither of these events is reported by Rim-Sin, and the gains of Babylon were ephemeral since the king of Isin, Damiq-ilišu, remained on the throne. Eshnunna (Ešnunna) finally emerges. Though I wonder if it had already appeared under its variant of Ashduddu (Ašdubba). Rim-Sin seems to be frequently here in Syro-Palestinian, and not Babylonian, territory, with Eshnunna/Lachish, Karkar, and with Al-Damiq-ilišu looking rather suspiciously like the Syrian capital city of Damascus (Dimašqu). SECOND PERIOD OF EXPANSION The weakening of his rival Isin may have enticed Rim-Sin into returning to the area. In 1795 he captured Dunnum, one of the main cities in the Isin state, and the next year Isin, the capital city itself, fell. The following year Sin-muballit of Babylon died and was succeeded by his son Hammurabi, who did not react to Larsa's aggression. The state of Rim-Sin was now encompassed a much larger area than it had thirty years earlier …. In the south the borders had probably remained the same, but in the north-west the kingdom had expanded into Middle Babylonia, incorporating the ancient areas of Uruk and Isin. There was now a long border between the states of Larsa and Babylon, running north-east to south-west from Maškan šāpir to the Euphrates south of Dilbat. There are too many uncertainties to determine where the borders ran in the west and in the east. …. THE SECOND HALF OF RIM-SIN'S REIGN With the defeat of Isin, Rim-Sin's power seems to have reached its apogee. The royal chancellery decided not to follow the tradition of naming each year after an important event of the previous one, but instead to continue to commemorate the fall of Isin, a practice which lasted for the next thirty-one years. This decision turned out to be disastrous for the historian trying to reconstruct what happened in those years, as the list of yearly achievements disappeared. Whenever this period is discussed by modern historians, Rim-Sin is depicted as a mighty king resting on his laurels and enjoying the disappearance of his closest rival. Only after thirty years did the Babylonian ruler Hammurabi turn against the south to overthrow the aged king. But is this depiction accurate? Although our evidence is extremely limited, it suggests the opposite scenario. Rim-Sin ruled over a shaky state, constantly faced with Babylonian expansionism, and he, did not accomplish anything worth celebrating in his year names. Indicative of such a state of affairs is the lack of any building inscriptions from the, second half of his reign. As stated above, of the nineteen preserved inscriptions only two are to be dated after Rim-Sin's twenty-ninth year, and they seem to have been written soon after the defeat of Isin. A city such as Ur which had been constantly embellished by the king in his early reign, yields no evidence of royal activity in the entire second half of Rim-Sin's reign. Meanwhile Hammurabi reports in his seventh year name, which correspond to Rim-Sin's thirty-seventh, that he conquered Isin … and Uruk, the latter city being located less than twenty kilometers from the capital city Larsa. This conquest was clearly short-lived, since there is a small group of tablets from Isin dated in the years Rim-Sin 45-47, but the conquest shows that the king of Babylon was able to penetrate deeply into the state of Larsa. …. In addition to the disappearance of year names and of royal inscriptions after the middle of Rim-Sin's reign, the number of towns where, a substantial amount of legal and administrative documents are found declines as well at this time. It seems that most cities remained under Rim-Sin's control, but only at Larsa itself and at Nippur do we see a constant stream of documents …. I do not want to suggest that Rim-Sin was totally powerless at this time. The often quoted passage from a Mari letter shows that he was an important player on the international scene: "There is no king who is (all-)powerful by himself: ten or fifteen kings follow in the train of Hammurabi of Babylon, as many follow Rim-Sin of Larsa, as many follow Ibal-pi-el of Ešnunna, as many follow Amut-pi-el of Qatna, and twenty follow in the train of Yarim-Lim of Yamhad." …. There are several indications that his relations with Ešnunna were very close, and that he had considerable influence there. A small group of texts dealing with trade … is dated both with the names of years Rim- Sin 39 through 42, and with names of the rulers of Ešnunna. These texts were not written in Larsa, as Leemans suggests, but must have been written somewhere in the vicinity of Ešnunna … far to the north [sic] of Maškan šāpir. The close connections between these two states is also clear from other letters that cannot be dated exactly. Interestingly, they show that Rim-Sin needed to import grain from Ešnunna, and that transport was difficult. …. Perhaps there was a famine in Larsa, requiring imports of food. THE END OF RIM-SIN The last years of Rim-Sin's rule are depicted in vivid detail in the Mari letters, where envoys of king Zimri-Lim residing in Babylon inform their master of current affairs. Important are letters of Yarim-Addu, Šarrum-andulli, Yasim-Addu, Yeškit-El, Ibal-El, and Zimri-Addu. …. We can follow events starting in 1765, i.e. just after the ruler of Elam conquered Ešnunna. …. Hammurabi of Babylon and Rim-Sin had plans to enter into a defensive alliance, after they had both been invited by the ruler of Elam to assist him in an attack against each other (ARM 26: 362). Hammurabi was in a difficult position because a crucial city on his eastern border, Upi, was under attack by an unnamed enemy, probably Elam. After a general mobilization of his country, he sent messengers to Rim-Sin to request help (ARM 26:363-364, 366-367), but the latter delayed his response. Ultimately he refused to send his troops under the pretense that the enemy was now free to attack his own country, probably indicating that the siege of Upi had been a success and that the attacker could now turn either against Babylon or against Larsa; however Rim-Sin reiterated that he was still willing to create a defensive alliance (ARM 26: 368). At that moment, Rim-Sin's position deteriorated. Hammurabi patched up his relations with Ešnunna, now ruled by a new king, Silli-Sin. At the same time, he complained that troops of Rim-Sin had raided Babylonian territory and had stolen people and property (ARM 26: 385). In retaliation, the envoys of Rim-Sin in Babylon were detained, and diplomatic exchanges between the two countries ceased (ARM 26: 372). Finally, Hammurabi decided to attack Larsa, and he requested, and obtained, the support from Mari. …. He then laid siege to Maškan šāpir, where the brother of Rim-Sin, Sin-muballit, three generals, and several thousand men were caught (ARM 26: 383). The siege was seemingly a short affair, and possibly the people gave up without, a fight (ARM 26: 383). Thus Hammurabi was free to pursue, Rim-Sin and his capital city, Larsa. ….. The siege of Larsa started at the very end of the year 1764 …. and lasted six months according to the Mari letters. The duration of the siege is corroborated by texts found in Larsa itself, although the situation is not entirely clear. …. The last text dated with a Rim-Sin year name is Riftin 121 of the last day of month VI, Rim-Sin 60, i.e. 1763. The text records the distribution of a large quantity of barley over a period of more than one year. The last entry reports that the barley was collected in the neighborhood of the town … indicating that the citizens could still leave the city walls. The first Larsa text dated in the reign of Hammurabi is from the twenty-eighth day of the twelfth month of Hammurabi 30, i.e. 1763. 42 If the new administration continued to use the calendar utilized under the previous ruler, rather than switching to the Babylonian one, this would indicate a break of six months; however this text is rather difficult since it lists distributions of grain for six months up until month VI of that year. If these distributions were in Larsa itself, this would indicate that the city was in Hammurabi's hands for the entire year, which is impossible. Thus it is likely that the, text was brought to Larsa from another place. …. …. The questions remains, then: what happened to Rim-Sin? No texts describe his exile in Babylon. Given his advanced age, it seems unlikely that he survived for long. Twenty-two years later a man named Rim-Sin claimed kingship over Larsa in a rebellion against Hammurabi's successor Samsuiluna. It seems extremely unlikely to me that this man was the former ruler, since he would have been more than eighty-two years old at that time. …. I wrote previously: Another point perhaps needing to be made is that the references to Ur-Nammu as being the father of Shulgi tend to occur in notoriously inaccurate, and very late documents, such as The Mesopotamian Chronicles (also known as the Babylonian Chronicles). How much dynasty are we really talking about? I have suggested for the Akkadians that Sargon, Naram-Sin and Shar-kali-sharri, be merged, and, for Ur III, that Ur-Nammu and Shulgi perhaps be merged Can Hammurabi, too, of the Old Babylonian Dynasty, be merged with his own supposed son, Samsuiluna? The reason why I wonder this is that Hammurabi apparently defeated his long-time foe, Rim-Sin I of Larsa, of whom we read in the Mari archive: “Ten to fifteen kings follow … Rim-Sin, the man of Larsa …”, and Samsuiluna also defeated a Rim-Sim (so-called II) of Larsa. Marc Van de Mieroop writes of these two, separate, presumably, Rim-Sin encounters (A History of the Ancient Near East Ca. 3000 - 323 BC, Blackwell, 2007): P. 88: “Hammurabi waited until Rim-Sin was an old man to initiate his swift conquest of all his neighbours, including Larsa, which he conquered in 1763 [sic].” P. 108: “Only ten years after [Hammurabi’s] death, his son, Samsuiluna, faced a major rebellion in the south led by a man calling himself Rim-Sin after Larsa’s last ruler”. In each case, the defeated Rim-Sin soon apparently died: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim-Sin_I In 1764 BC, Hammurabi turned against Rim-Sin, who had refused to support Hammurabi in his war against Elam despite pledging his troops. Hammurabi, with troops from Mari, first attacked Mashkan-shapir on the northern edge of Rim-Sin's realm. Hammurabi's forces quickly reached Larsa, and after a six-month siege the city fell. Rim-Sin escaped the city but was soon found and taken prisoner and died thereafter.[5] https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsMiddEast/MesopotamiaLarsa.htm Along with many others at the time of Hammurabi's death, Rim-Sin II sees an opportunity to lead a revolt against the rule of Samsu-iluna's Babylonian empire. The two fight for five years, with Rim-Sin allied to Eshnunna, and most battles taking place on the Elam/Sumer border before Rim-Sin is captured and executed. Much more still needs to be said, I think, about Rim-Sin (I-II) of Larsa - Rim-Sin, so-called I, thought to have recorded ‘the longest rule in ancient Mesopotamia (60-70 years), somewhat like pharaoh Ramses II of Egypt (66-67 years).