So far, one major problem with many of the identifications is the city of “Babylon” which didn't appear as a regional power until the era of Hammurabi. Shar-Kali-Sharri, the previously mentioned son of Naram-Sin, supposedly recorded the city on a clay tablet around 2200 BCE, but it seems like only a small town rather than any notable polity.1 This means none of the “Pre-Hammurabi” Kings, which likely represent the later Amraphel, actually had their kingdom “at Babylon” as the bible suggests.
We began addressing this by saying Babylon was actually the name given to “Eridu”, thus implying that the original Babylon was at Eridu, like the original Nimrod/Amraphel also having separate identities. Likewise, in the Assyrian period, Babylon was the name given to their capital Nineveh2, or even Borsippa which has the association to Babylon in Jewish literature3, showing how Babylon doesn’t mean “The City Babylon” but like Nimrod is a mere title for a city. Thus, Nimrod-Amraphel reflects the same relationship that Eridu-Babylon represents, and in the period of Nimrod it would be Eridu where he really ascends to power. This obviously is a problem for the Akkadians which is why I personally feel neither Sargon, nor the combination of him and his son Naram-Sin, fit the bill and require previous rulers, as well as later rulers, in order to fit the identification.
One important connection for Eridu is the city of Ur, which is actually located next door. However, what really occurred was that Eridu began drying up as the river shifted out of its path making habitation of a large population essentially impossible, turning Ur into the primary political center. Eridu was the religious core of Ur, but Ur was the center of economic power for Eridu. Supporting this theory was the Temple of Ishtar of Eridu built by Lagash ruler Ur-Baba during the final years of the Akkadian empire. Later on, there was a sanctuary built to Inanna of Eridu, and another rebuilding of the previous Temple of Ishtar.4 The Akkadians didn’t find Eridu/Babylon very important, but earlier and later kings both viewed it as central to their religious theology.
What arose around Ur between 2112-2004 BCE was the notable Third Dynasty of Ur under their first ruler Ur-Nammu. However, there is a dispute about the real ‘founder’ of the dynasty since Sumerian people viewed the dynasty's origins in the King of Uruk named Utu-hengal. On Utu-hengal’s victory stele he took that previous title “King of the Four Quarter of the World” showing how this title began being passed down consistently.5 Ur-Nammu was actually the son-in-law of Utu-hengal, succeeding him at Ur, rather than Uruk, after a tragic accident during a dam inspection that killed Utu-hengal only seven years into his short reign.
Kings during this period frequently claimed that their ‘divine parents’ were Ninsun and Lugalbanda, who were actually the divine parents of Gilgamesh. Another text even contains an underworld scene in which Ur-Nammu states “his brother Gilgamesh” implying relation to his dynasty in some form. Scholars suggest, based on this and other grounds, that the Epic of Gilgamesh was first composed in the Third Ur Dynasty period even if it records accuracies from an ancient past. With the composition of the Epic of Gilgamesh, it’s very clear this period saw a flourishing of culture that overshadowed the cultural traditions of the Akkadians - at least in the eyes of the Sumerians.
Unlike previous rulers who conquered with intense brutality, Ur-Nammu was slightly different and more of a legal conqueror. We know this from the oldest (surviving, this word is very important because the previously mentioned Code of Urukagina is lost to us) legal code in the world, The Code of Ur-Nammu. Despite the name, some attribute it to his son Shulgi6, but in reality it is a composition of oral traditions not all too different from something like the Talmud. Important laws from the code include making robbery, murder, adultery and rape capital offenses not unlike the Noahide laws which would indeed agree with these ‘capital offenses’.
The Talmud connection is actually more interesting than it first appears. One of the punishments for causing bodily damage to another party was the institution of a fine of monetary value. This is contradictory to the later, often more famous, Code of Hammurabi principle of “lex talionis” known as “eye for an eye”. However, the Talmud itself squares both of these interpretations including the lex talionis principle as part of the Jewish legal tradition, but instead interprets that very “eye for an eye” principle to mean the equivalent monetary value of an eye, for an eye. These legal codes are important, with the obvious disputes between them only being solved 2000 years later during the Mishnahs redaction.
Another example of Ur-Nammu’s peaceful reign was his restoration of roads following the Gutian period making travel, and thus trade, possible for the average citizen.7 Perhaps his most important construction was the famed “Great Ziggurat of Ur” known as the Etemenniguru, translated to something like “temple whose foundation creates aura”.8 The height of the Ziggurat measured almost 100 feet, 210 feet in length, and 150 feet in width making it an incredibly massive structure dwarfing any other previous construction. The structure is confirmed to be a core of mud-brick with an outer shell of fired-brick, lining up with the biblical description.9 This structure is depicted below, still (half) standing in the same location.
While Ur-Nammu began the construction, it was actually his son Shulgi who finished this temple to the moon god Nanna10 - patron deity of Ur - proclaiming himself as a deity in connection to the temple making him somewhat of an idolatrous ‘Nimrod’. Funnily enough the story of this Ziggurat persists well into the Neo-Babylonian period (the same time as the prophets) where their final king Nabonidus orders it’s restoration in the 6th century BCE after “finding little left but the last stage and nothing to guide him as to the monument's original appearance”.11
I will outright say that this is the most likely choice for our “Tower of Babel” based on all of the currently completed archeology. It is very possible some other super-structure could be found in Babylon, or the lost city of Akkad will one day peak out from the sands, but for now I would personally center on this identification. This necessitates “Nimrod” - as the builder of Babel - to be a king over Ur during the Third Ur period. However the obvious problem is that these Ur rulers do not fit with every identification helping certify the theory that Nimrod was a regnal title rather than a specific king - unlike Amraphel who is specifically a named king.
Ur-Nammu reigned for a fairly long 18 years before his son Shulgi took the throne for over 48 years either between 2094-2046 (Middle Chronology) or 2030-1982 (Short Chronology).12 Unlike his father, Shulgi doesn’t just take the title “King of Sumer and Akkad”, he additionally takes the title “King of the Four Corners of the World” similar to Utu-hengal. Unlike the previous rulers of the dynasty, Shulgi’s name includes the digir symbol for divinity marking yet another example for deification of near eastern kings following the Akkadian period when Naram-Sin first took the title of ‘god’.13
Shulgi seems even less concerned than his father with conquest having undertaken a complete revision in the education curriculum for the scribal school. It appears he himself was writing praise poems, or at the very least heavily directed their production. Furthermore, some have attributed the title “first long distance running champion” to Shulgi14 based on the claims that Shulgi could maintain high speeds while running long distances. Another claim from his 7th regnal year even purports Shulgi to have run from Nippur to Ur, over 100 miles15 showing him not just as an incredibly physically fit king focused on self development, but also a sort of relatable side that average citizens probably enjoyed.
These 48 years during his rule seem fairly pleasant, and modern by many standards. Shulgi is peacefully succeeded by his son, Amar-Sin, who actually expands the empire's territory to reach the previous borders of the Akkadian empire. Many of his campaigns are to the north, with his 2nd regnal name stating “Amar-Suen, the king, destroyed Urbilum” in reference to Erbil in the north. He undertook additional campaigns to Lullubi, and Hamazi, and even attempted to take control of Elam and Marhashi in the east.
Importantly, Amar-Sin actually began to finish the Ziggurat at Eridu which had remained unfinished until this period.16 Even if we don’t associate the Ziggurat of Ur with Nimrod, certainly either the Ziggurat of the first Babel (Eridu) or the second Babel (Babylon) must have been the proper identification making these Third Ur kings very likely choices since the Ziggurat of Babylon comes much later.
The final years of Amar-Sin’s reign seems to come with internal strife within his court due to his brother Shu-Sin attempting to overthrow him. As a result, Amar-Sin replaces the elite imperial guard called the “agà-ús” with a new unit called “gàr-du” who shortly disappear after his death.17 Provincial governors show signs of unusual transitions in this period with some of them being ousted in the middle of Amar-Sin's reign only to return after his death.18 It seems obvious then that Amar-Sin was facing either an insurrection, or a power struggle with his brother Shu-Sin and certain groups who were loyal to Shu-Sin are rewarded for loyalty and reinstated after his ascendancy.
Following the 9 year reign of Amar-Sin, who appears like quite a successful ruler, he is succeeded by Shu-Sin whose reign marks the beginning of the decline for the empire with an open Amorite revolt. Strangely, Shu-Sin decides to construct a fortified wall between the Euphrates and Tigris, an obviously awful idea that fails to contain the Amorites.
Shu-Sin’s reign is ultimately very uneventful, but sees the pulling back of the administration's control over Mesopotamia to a much more contained regional influence. These successive changes in the border of the Third Ur Empire are depicted on the map. Shortly following Shu-Sin’s similarly short 9 year reign is his son Ibbi-Sin who briefly restores the empire for over 24 years.
Despite his long reign, it was the actions of Ibbi-Sin specifically that led to his downfall. Some context, during the Third Ur period the Amorites were still a backwater nomadic people on the fringes of Sumerian society. We mentioned his father having built a “wall of martu” that fails to keep the Amorites at bay given an inscription from the 17th year of Ibbi-Sin’s reign “Year the Amorites, the powerful south wind who, from the remote past, have not known cities, submitted to Ibbi-Sin the king of Ur.” Even to call it the “year of the amorites” implied Ibbi-Sin couldn’t get away with denying that year was overshadowed by these events. Within the text though we see they “have not known cities” which is a very insulting way to call them nomads.
Ibbi-Sin should have been more careful because the Amorites played a critical role in the rise of a career official named Ishbi-Erra, ‘Man of Mari’.19 The king request Ishbi-Erra to ship him 72,000 GUR of grain worth 20 talents of silver - viewed by Ishbi-Erra as a now exorbitant price showing the shifting value of grain in near eastern economies like a form of inflation - due to the incursions of the Amorites. Ishbi-Erra requests 600 boats for the transport, presumably seeing this as a cheaper and more effective means of transporting the grain, but also requests to be made governor over Isin and Nippur.2021
Ibbi-Sin laughs at this request, but Ishbi-Erra gets his way regardless, eventually taking control over Isin and presenting himself as a king.22 In a scathing reaction, Ibbi-Sin insults Ishbi-Erra for “not of Sumerian seed” and expects the Amorites to take him out swiftly.
The year prior to the collapse of the empire, year 23 of Ibbi-Sin’s reign, was listed as “The stupid monkey in the foreign land struck against Ibbi-Suen, the king of Ur” in reference to the revolt started by the Elamites that eventually led to the empire's downfall. Calling people a monkey, and insulting potential allies only works if they don’t defeat you the following year - albeit with the help of the tribesmen from the region in the Zagros mountains known as Shimashki.23
Ishbi-Erra wins victories over said Amorites shortly after, while the Elamites conquer Ur and take out Ibbi-Sin. This fall was so horrific that the Sumerians could only proscribe divine intervention to the events, describing it in the “Lament for Sumer and Ur” saying “An, Enlil, Enki and Ninmah decided [Ur's] fate”.24 Four other total Laments were produced in the short years following enshrining this catastrophic downfall in textual memory. The Sumerian Kings List event even says “The very foundation of Sumer was torn out.”25 In a twist of fate, Ishbi-Erra returns to conquer the empire from the Elamites, founding what would become the dynasty of Isin.
Beaulieu, Paul-Alain (2017). A History of Babylon, 2200 BC - AD 75. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Wiley. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-119-45907-1. Retrieved 2022-08-27.
Dalley, Stephanie (1994). "Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens: Cuneiform and Classical Sources Reconciled". Iraq. 56: 45–58.
Dalley, Stephanie (18–22 July 2005). Babylon as a name for other cities including Nineveh (PDF). Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. SAOC. Vol. 62. pp. 25–33.
Clayden, Tim, "Kassite housing at Ur: the dates of the EM, YC, XNCF, AH and KPS houses", Iraq, vol. 76, pp. 19–64, 2014
HUREAU-DANGIN, Fr. (1912). "La Fin de la Domination Gutienne". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale. 9 (3): 111–120.
Potts, D. T. (1999). The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge University Press. p. 132.
Hamblin, William J., Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC (New York: Routledge, 2006).
Klein, Jacob (1981). Three Šulgi hymns: Sumerian royal hymns glorifying King Šulgi of Ur. Bar-Ilan University Press. p. 162.
Mattinson, Lindsay (2019). Understanding Architecture A Guide To Architectural Styles. Amber Books. p. 11.
Gardner, Helen; Kleiner, Fred S.; Mamiya, Christin J. (2005). Gardner's Art Through the Ages. Thomson Wadsworth. p. 1150.
Ring, Trudy; Salkin, Rober M.; La Boda, Sharon (1994). International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa. Vol. 4. Taylor & Francis. p. 719.
The Oxford companion to archaeology. 1. Ache-Hoho. Oxford University Press. 2012. p. 458.
Potts, D. T. (1999). The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge University Press. p. 132.
See his History Begins at Sumer, Chapter 31, "Shulgi of Ur: The First Long-Distance Champion".
Hamblin, William J. Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Mallowan, Max, "The Development of Cities from Al-U'baid to the end of Uruk 5" (Cambridge Ancient History)
Rochester 069 artifact entry (2001) Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). Available at: https://cdli.ucla.edu/P128174 (Accessed: February 6, 2024).
Allred, Lance (2013). "The Tenure of Provincial Governors: Some Observations". From the 21st Century B.C. To the 21st Century A.D.: 115.
Tablet UM 7772.
CBS 2272, letter from Išbi-erra to Ibbi-Sin.
Joan Aruz; Ronald Wallenfels, eds. (2003). Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 469.
S. N. Kramer (1963). The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. University of Chicago Press. pp. 93–94.
Stiebing, William H. Jr. (2003). Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture. New York, NY: Pearson Education. p. 79
Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology, By Jeffrey Jay Niehaus, 2008, p. 117
Langdon, Stephen Herbert (1923). Oxford editions of cuneiform texts (PDF). Oxford University Press. pp. 1–27, Plates I-IV.