READING HALLTHE DOORS OF WISDOM |
 |
 |
ANCIENT HISTORY The adventure of the cuneiform writing decipherment
4THE CHRONOLOGY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA
Unlike the Egyptians, both the Assyrians and Babylonians, but especially the latter, gave much attention to chronology, seeking in a number of different ways to preserve the order of events and to construct a backbone for their historical recollections. The chronological material thus produced must have been very extensive, for the portions which have come down to us are silent witnesses of the yet unrecovered or totally destroyed materials of which they were but fragments. Our chronology of the history of these people must be based primarily upon their own chronological materials, but from certain of the Greek writers useful material is secured. All this material may here be grouped in order, accompanied by notes upon its value and use, as sources for chronology. A. — Babylonian and Assyrian Monuments. I. Babylonian Chronological Materials. The Babylonian priests, historiographers and chronographers have left us an enormous mass of chronological materials, all now in a fragmentary state, but showing clearly how much importance was attached by them to the arrangement of historical facts in due order of time. These original sources may thus be arranged : 1. The Babylonian King List A. A brief list of the names of the kings of several Babylonian dynasties, now badly broken, with many names missing. By the side of each king's name is given the number of years of his reign, and at the end of each dynasty also a summation of the years of reign of all the kings of that dynasty. 2. The Babylonian King List B. A list of Babylonian kings, containing the names and years of reign of the kings of the first and second dynasties, with the years of reign of each one, and also the summation as before. 3. A Babylonian Chronological Tablet of Dynasty I (cited here as C). There has recently been discovered in the collections of the British Museum an extremely valuable chronological tablet, dated in the reign of Ammi-sadugga, giving lists of important events in the years of reign of all the kings of the first dynasty down to Ammi-sadugga. At the end of each list of events is given the number of years that each king reigned. The disturbing fact about this list is that the figures given in it do not tally with those given in tablets A and B. For example, in A and B, Sumuabi reigns 15 years, but here 14, so also for Sumu-la-ilu is here given 36 years instead of 35, for Sin-muballit 20 instead of 30, for Hammurabi 43 instead of 55, and for Samsu-iluna 38 instead 35 years. Previous to the discovery of this tablet lists A and B had been followed as closely as possible by all chronologists. This procedure must now be changed and the new tablet considered, for it was written while this dynasty was still on the throne, and the summaries agree exactly with the yearly lists of principal events. 4. Fragments of a Babylonian Chronicle (A, cited by some as S). A badly broken tablet, containing originally six columns, of which only column V nearly complete, and parts of columns II and IV now remain. It contains in brief chronicle fashion mention of certain important events in the reigns of Babylonian kings of the dynasties of the Sea Lands and of Bazi. 5. The Babylonian Chronicle (B). A large tablet containing one hundred and seventy-six lines of writing, dated in the twenty-second year of Darius I, and containing brief chronicles of the chief events in the reigns of Babylonian kings from Nabonassar to Saosduchinos, and of Assyrian kings from Tiglathpileser III to Asshurbanapal. 6. Fragments of a Babylonian Chronicle of Nahonidus (Nab. Chron). A small broken tablet containing a chronicle of events of the last years of the reign of Nabonidus and the taking of Babylon by Cyrus. 7. Fragments of a Babylonian Chronicle (cited as P). An unbaked tablet, originally about eight inches square, containing accounts of expeditions made by some of the early Babylonian kings against external enemies. Less than one third of the tablet is preserved. That which remains begins in the reign of Kadashman-Kharbe, son of Karakhardash. The style of this chronicle is so similar to that of one of the Assyrian lists that it is probable the latter was copied from this. Besides these direct statements made in inscriptions for purely chronological purposes the Babylonian texts of other kinds, both historical and contract, contain numerous allusions to dates, synchronisms, and the like. The more important of these may here be grouped together with the necessary comments upon their meaning or bearing. 8. A Boundary Stone Dated the Fourth Year of King Bel-nadin-a'pli. In this text it is stated that from Girkishar, king of the Sea Lands, to Nebuchadrezzar I there were six hundred and ninety-six years. This does not seem like a round number, and if we could bring it to bear upon some fact already known to us, it would be extremely valuable. But the only king known to us (who is known as king of the Sea Lands) is Gul-ki-shar (or kur?) the sixth king of the second dynasty. The names are not identical, though they are judged to mean the same person by several scholars. Where so great doubt exists it is hardly safe to lay much stress upon the chronological statement here made. Future investigation will probably clear the matter of all doubt. 9. In an inscription of Nabonidus occurs this statement with reference to one of the early kings : "The name of Hammurabi, one of the old kings, who seven hundred years before Burnaburiash had built E-barra and the temple pyramids on the old foundations, I saw therein and read". Like the preceding notice, this, also, is of doubtful application and therefore of doubtful weight. Two kings by the name of Burnaburiash are known to us, but as they reigned very close together, the choice between them makes little difference. They were contemporaries of Amenophis III, king of Egypt, and are to be located about 1400 BC. If we reckon seven hundred years backward from this date, we get 2100 BC as the period of Hammurabi. This date is, however, irreconcilable with the Babylonian King Lists, according to which Hammurabi must be placed about 2300 BC. No solution which meets the situation is yet proposed for this difficulty. The most tempting way out would be to change the length of dynasty III, given as five hundred and seventy-six years and nine months, for which Rost would suggest three hundred and ninety-six, but if this be done, we have simply altered our sources, and are reduced to conjecture. It seems wiser for the present to abide by the King Lists, and permit this round number of seven hundred years to stand as unexplained. 10. In another text of Nabonidus there occurs again a chronological hint : "E-DU-BAR, his temple in Sippar-Anunit, which no king had built for eight hundred years, since Shagarakti-Buriash, king of Babylon, son of Kudur-Bel. His foundation inscription I sought, found, and read". Nabonidus reigned 555-539 BC, if we count backward eight hundred years, we reach for Shagarakti-Buriash the period about 1355 BC. The difficulty now appears of deciding who this king is. He must clearly belong to the Kassite dynasty (dynasty III), and since the name of Ku-dur Bel has been identified as No. 26 on the King List there seems little doubt that the king here meant is Shagarakti-Shuriash, some of whose inscriptions have come down to us. In the tentative chronology here given this king is located 1298-1286, which approximates with sufficient closeness to the date given by Nabonidus. 11. In the same inscription of Nabonidus there is given still further a chronological note which carries us far back into the past : " ... the foundation stone of Naram-Sin, which no king before me had found for 3,200 years — [this] Shamash the great Lord of E-barra ... showed to me." If we accept this, we are carried back to 3750 BC for the date of Naram-Sin, and therefore to about 3800 BC for his father, Sargon I. Over this date there rages a ceaseless controversy. It was at first generally accepted, for example, by Oppert, Tiele, Hommel, and Delitzsch. Of these Hommel afterward became persuaded that the date was too high and proposed to reduce it to 3400 BC. Lehmann has argued learnedly for a reduction of Naram-Sin to 2750 BC, and Winckler has expressed doubt about the matter. Positive proof on either one side or the other has not yet come to light, and for the present it seems best to hold the date 3800 BC tentatively, pending further light on the subject. It is indeed hardly probable that the historiographers of Nabonidus had before them lists which carried the dates backward to the exact number 3,200. It looks like a round number and was probably intended to be so taken. To cast it away altogether is, however, to leave us in the dark without a single definite point for reckoning. 12. Asshurbanapal in his narratives of victorious campaigns in Elam has also provided us with a chronological note. He brought back to its place of origin a statue of a goddess carried away to Elam by Kudur-nankhundi 1,635 years before — that is, about 2285 BC. This appears to be a valuable indication of time, for the numeral does not look like a round number, and there is no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy. Neither is there any special difficulty in attaching it to the other historical and chronological facts. 13. Sennacherib also has left a very definite date in one of his inscriptions. He says : "Adad and Shala, the gods of Ekallate, whom Marduk-nadin-akhe, king of Accad, in the time of Tiglathpileser, king of Asshur, had taken away and brought to Babylon, after a lapse of four hundred and eighteen years, I have taken out of Babylon and restored to Ekallate their place." This, also, like the preceding, appears to be not a round number, but the result of some careful calculation or to rest directly upon early documents. It has, nevertheless, been much doubted in quite recent times. Host proposes to read 478 in order to bring it better into relation with what seems to him to be the order of events demanded by other chronological facts. On the other hand, Lehmann proposes to read 318 instead of 418, because that figure appears better to fit the situation as demanded by the other facts. Neither of these attempts seems to be well founded. It is better to accept a number like this as final, even though it appears to be in conflict with the other facts in our very limited knowledge of ancient Babylonia. It appears on the face of the matter to be more worthy of credence than such round numbers as 600,700, 800, and 3,200. If we accept it tentatively, it brings out our reckoning in this way : Sennacherib has dated the four hundred and eighteen years from the destruction of Babylon by himself. This took place in 689, and we should therefore be carried back to 1107 as a date during the reign of Marduk-nadin-akhe. To this date may be added another fact of im- portance for this reign. On a boundary stone of Marduk-nadin-akhe there is mention of a victory over Assyria in the tenth year of his reign. It is most natural to connect this victory with the removal of the statues to which Sennacherib refers. This would make 1107 the tenth year of the reign, and therefore 1117 or 1116 the first year of his reign. This is a date that ought not lightly to be set aside, and the arguments brought against it by Host and Lehmann do not seem to be decisive. These are all the notices in Babylonian historical inscriptions which may be made directly applicable to the question of chronology. It has appeared in each case that they are not always to be reconciled with each other without some sort of forcing. Every chronological scheme that has been proposed has in some way made accommodations, either by altering the figures or by rejecting some of them altogether. In addition to these King Lists, chronicles, and references in historical inscriptions the chronologist secures some aid from genealogical details. Thus a king often gives his father's name, and upon his father's inscription is found the name of the grandfather. By such simple means a whole dynasty may be arranged in correct order. Even more important than this are external indications of age, and these may be divided into two parts: (1) The approximate date of an inscription, and hence of a king in whose reign it was written, may sometimes be obtained from palaeographical indications. A study of the forms of characters and the manner of their writing gives at times an indication of the period. Likewise, also, (2) the position in which an inscription is found within a mound is at times an approximate indication of age. Sometimes the finding of a text beneath the pavement of known age may be conclusive, but in general this kind of evidence, as also that drawn from palaeography, is rather precarious, being subject to too many possible interpretations in the hands of different persons. The greatest value of palaeography and of archaeology is found when they lend additional weight to direct statements in lists or in chronological texts. If now we turn from Babylonia to Assyria, we shall find that this people, also, gave great attention to chronological details, and partly because we are nearer to them and partly because their monumental remains have readied us in a rather better condition we are able to come to conclusions rather more satisfactory than in the case of Babylonia. II. Assyrian Chronological Material. 1. The Assyrians early constructed an Eponym Canon, in which were set down the names of the chief officers of the state in regular yearly succession. In this list the name of a new king was always entered in the year of his accession. There was thus provided an admirable method of preserving order in references to the past, and historical inscriptions, especially in a colophon at their conclusion, often mention the limmu or eponym of a certain year, just as they give the name of the king who was reigning. These eponyms were used therefore for dating, exactly as in later times the Greeks used archons and the Romans, consuls. A number of copies of the eponym canons must have existed, for numerous fragments have come down to us. These it has been possible to piece together in the correct order largely by means of the Canon of Ptolemy, to be mentioned below. When so arranged the parts which have come down to us extend from B. C. 902, when the eponym was Asshurdan, to B. C. 667, when the eponym was Gabbaru. 2. The Assyrian Expedition Lists. In addition to the Eponym Canon, which is characterized by lists of names only, the Assyrians drew up supplementary lists in which the names of eponyms were also given, and by the side of each name were added short notices of important events that fell in his year, such as expeditions to certain countries for the purpose of conquest. The fragments of this list which have come down to us begin during the reign of Shamshi-Adad IV (BC 824-812), and brief though they are, have proved of immense importance. On one of these fragments, by the side of the Eponym Pur(ilu) Sa-gal-e, there is mentioned an eclipse of the sun under these words, "In the month of Sivan there was an eclipse of the sun". Astro- nomical investigations have shown that a total eclipse of the sun occurred at Nineveh June 15, 763 BC, lasting two hours and forty-three minutes, with the middle of the eclipse at 10:05 a. m. This astronomical calculation gave a fixed date for the year of that eponym and thereby fixed every year in the entire canon. 3. Synchronistic History. In addition to these important lists we have also lists of the synchronisms between Babylonia and Assyria, beginning with the peace treaties between Karaindash, king of Babylon, and Asshur-bel-nisheshu, king of Assyria. This synchronistic history is written in the style of brief chronicles, and is, also, unhappily fragmentary. Besides these lists and chronicles which were made for chronological purposes, there have also come down to us in historical inscriptions certain references which are valuable for chronological purposes. These may be conveniently enumerated as follows : 4. The statement made by Sennacherib, from which we recovered the date 1107 in the reign of Marduk-nadin-akhe, is useful, also, for the chronology of Assyria, for from it we obtain the date 1107 as falling in the reign of Tiglathpileser I. 5. From the inscriptions of Sennacherib, and from the same period of his reign, there has come to us a note that assists in locating an early Assyrian king. At Babylon Sennacherib found a seal of Tukulti-Ninib with a brief inscription, to which he added an inscription of his own, so that the whole stood as follows : "Tukulti-Ninib, king of the world, son of Shalmaneser, king of Asshur, conqueror of the land of Kardu. Whoever alters my writing and my name, may Asshur and Adad destroy his name and land. This seal is presented, given, from Asshur to Accad". "Sennacherib, king of Asshur, after six hundred years conquered Babylon and brought it away from the possessions of Babylon". If we add to 689, the date of the destruction of Babylon, this six hundred years, we get the date of 1289 as falling somewhere within the reign of Tukulti-Ninib. 6. In the inscriptions of Tiglathpileser I appears this note concerning two of the early Assyrian rulers : "At that time the temple of Anu and Adad, the great gods my lords, which in former times Shamshi-Adad, isshakku of Asshur, son of Ishme-Dagan, isshakku of Asshur, had built, for six-hundred and forty-one years had been falling down. Asshurdan, king of Assyria, son of Ninib-apal-esharra, king of Assyria, had torn down that temple, but had not rebuilt it; for sixty years its foundations had not been laid". If now the date of Tiglathpileser is correctly determined above under No. 4, the addition of sixty years to it will give the date 1167 as falling within the reign of Asshurdan and 1808 as falling in the reign of Shamshi-Adad. As the date from which Tiglathpileser reckoned back- ward is not certainly known, these dates may vary a few years in either direction, but will probably be a little higher. With these dates the special allusions in Assyrian historical inscriptions, which are important for our purpose, come to an end. It remains now only that we turn to those sources outside of the Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions, which contain chronological material, which may be of importance in its bearing upon the native sources. Of these the first in impor- tance which comes to us from the Greeks is in reality simply Babylonian, for it is based upon Babylonian documents originally. B. — Greek Writers. I. Berossos. We have given attention above to the use of Berossos as a source for the his- tory, and we must now turn to his chronological tables. In this is found one of the most diffi- cult problems with which the chronologist has to deal. As has already been shown, the Babyloniaca of Berossos was divided into three books. The first book described the origin of the world and of man and continued down to the deluge. The second described the deluge and perhaps came down into the historical period; and the third book was devoted to the historical period. The manner in which Berossos has come down to us has been already described, and that mistakes could easily creep in during such a process may easily be seen. In no particular would mistakes be more likely to appear than in the lists of figures in his chronological lists, and as a matter of fact the mistakes are indeed very evident. If we take up these books in order, we shall speedily see what material, if any, of value may be found in them. According to Berossos there reigned before the flood ten kings during a period of one hundred and twenty sars. The sar is 3,600 years; that is, these kings reigned 432,000 years. As these statements have come down to us both in Eusebius and in the Syncellus, they may be regarded as certainly coming from Berossos. Book I. 10 kings =120 sars = 432,000 years. If we turn to Book II, we find that there is a difference between the sources in which Berossos has been preserved for us. According to the Syncellus there were 86 kings who ruled 34,080 years, to which is added also the explanation 9 sars at 3,600, 2 ners at 600, and 8 sos at 60 = 34,080. On the other hand, Eusebius says that these 86 kings ruled 33,091 years, which is, in all probability, simply a mistake for 34,091. There is therefore exactly eleven years difference between the Syncellus and Eusebius in this report, which would correspond to the difference between the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC) and the beginning of the Seleucid era (312). How are these figures to be interpreted? The most probable explanation is that first suggested, and later amplified and corrected by Alfred von Gutschmid, that the Babylonians had grouped their kings of the post deluge period in a cycle of 36,000 years. If now we take from this number the number 34,080 preserved by the Syncellus, we have left exactly 1,920 years for the historical list of kings. If we could find the point at which these 1,920 years terminated, we shall arrive at the point at which Babylonian history begins. Many have been the views on this subject, but a concensus of opinion is now gradually forming as the result of a suggestion first offered by Peiser. There is preserved in Abydenus, according to Eusebius, this sentence, "In this manner the Chaldeans reckon the kings of their land from Aloros to Alexander". By the word Chaldaei is here meant doubtless Berossos, and from this we learn that Berossos had continued his history to Alexander, and the king here meant is certainly Alexander, son of Alexander the Great. Do the 1,920 years end here? It is probable that they do. It is indeed most probable that they extended down to the Seleucid era in 312, for Berossos would surely be glad to pay such a compliment to these rulers, to one of whom he had dedicated his book. If now we date backward from 312 (or 311, the date of Alexander's death), we arrive at 2232 or 2231 as the year of the beginning of Babylonian history according to Berossos. But immediately that we attempt to determine where to place this date in our Babylonian chronology difficulties begin. Lehmann would locate it during the reign of Hammurabi as the year when all Babylonia was united under one scepter and Bel-Marduk became the national deity. On the other hand, Host would accept it as the date of the beginning of the first dynasty. There is no decisive argument in favor of either view, and it is easy to imagine that it may refer to some other event of consequence. It were folly to accept it to the exclusion of the dates which have come down to us from original Babylonian sources. It is believed by some scholars (Lehmann, Host, Marquart) that the date 2232-2231 is confirmed from another Greek source, and this must be considered. Simplicius in his commentary upon Aristotle's treatise says that Callisthenes had been asked by Aristotle to send to Greece any records of astronomical observations which he might find in Babylon. This Callisthenes did, after entering Babylon with Alexander the Great in the autumn of 331 BC. Upon the authority of Porphyrias, Simplicius avers that Callisthenes found such observations extending back for 31,000 years. There is, however, grave doubt about this figure. A Latin translation by Moerbeka (about 1271 AD) reads 1903, which is in itself more reasonable. Furthermore, the reading 31,000, assuming it to be an error, can readily be explained on palaeographical grounds. Lehmann therefore insists that the reading 1903 is original, and proposes to use it as dating backward from 331 BC, which would yield 2233 BC as the date of the beginning of the observations. This would agree remarkably well with Berossos, and so confirm it from the astronomical side. But the difficulty about the text is fatal to confidence in it. The figure 31,000 is actually in our only original witness to the text, and it can- not be proved that 1903 was actually in the codex which Moerbeka used. The numeral 31,000 indeed is just such a number as is afforded by other of the Greek writers. Pliny states that the number of years given by Berossos was 490,000, and Diodorus makes it 473,000. The numerals in all these copyists of Berossos seem in a hopeless tangle, and it is useless to attempt to build any solid chronological structure upon them. Having failed in this search for a starting point of Babylonian chronology by means of Berossos and Simplicius, we must search still further to see if there be left anywhere else in Berossos even one single point that might be useful in connection with the native sources. Schwartz has lately subjected the whole of the fragments of Berossos to a searching examination and arrives at the conclusion that the following scheme may be regarded as certain : I. 10 Kings before the flood 120Sars= 432,000 II. 86 Kings after the flood. 34,090 8 Median Usurpers 224 [2448-7 B.C—2224-3] 11 Kings 248 [2224-3 —1976-5] 49 Chaldean Kings 468 [1976-5 — 1518-7] 9 Arabian Kings 245 [1518-7 -1278-2] 46 Kings 626 [1273-2 -747-6] III. From Nabonassar to Cyrus 206 [ 747-6 -538-7] Total 468,000= 130 Sars From Cyrus to Alexander's Death 215 [ 538-7 -323-2] Grand Total 468,215 It is utterly impossible to reconcile this scheme with that which has been preserved for us by the Babylonian King Lists and Chronicles. We do not find the same divisions of dynasties in the latter, nor do we understand who are meant by the Median, Chaldean, and Arabian usurpers and kings. The learned and ingenious efforts made by Hommel to reconcile them are not generally regarded as at all successful, nor have later attempts been any more fruitful. Like a number of other problems, this must be left unsolved, at least for the present. II. The Canon of Ptolemy. Among the works left by Claudius Ptolemaeus, an eminent Egyptian astronomer, mathematician, and geographer who lived in the second century AD, is a Canon of Kings, a catalogue of Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman kings. It is impossible now to determine the origin of this remarkable list. When tested by the native monuments it has in every case stood the test, and was extremely valuable in the early work of the decipherment, for by its use the order of the kings was first established. It begins with Nabonassar and extends to Alexander the Great. It was plainly made for astronomical and not for historical purposes, and therefore only contains the names of those kings who began to reign with the beginning of a year and continued to its end. Kings who came to the throne after the beginning of the year and reigned but a few months are not named at all. For purposes of comparison the Canon of Ptolemy, with the Babylonian names, may here be set down. The Babylonian Canon of Rulers in Claudius Ptolemaeus.
This single brief list far exceeds in value all that remains of Berossos, and indeed all the chronological material in all the other Greek sources. C. — Egyptian Inscriptions. From the Egyptian inscriptions scarcely anything of value may be obtained for chronological purposes. The light which the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions has brought to the Egyptian texts is indeed far more useful than the converse. D. — The Old Testament. Practically the same statement is true with reference to the Old Testament, the chronological materials of which were first set in their proper light through Assyrian and Babylonian discoveries. If now from all these sources we essay the making of a chronological table for Babylonia and Assyria, it must be admitted that with respect to the former, at least, the result is not encouraging. Every effort to make all the facts which have come down to us dovetail accurately together has failed. These facts can only be reconciled by supposing error somewhere. Every investigator differs from every other as to the place in which he finds the errors, yet each feels confident that he has found the correct solution. For the present it seems unwise to attempt to draw up a hard and fast list of kings in the early centuries by means of a system which rests on the acceptance of figures from some ancient documents and the rejection of figures from others. The only scientific course would seem to be to decline to force these figures into agreement, but simply to put down those which seem reasonably well attested, and to indicate those places in which they are in conflict with other figures. This we proceed to do, accompanying the dates in some cases with references to the sources enumerated above, and with explanations of the discrepancies. We begin here with the earliest known period.
Kingdom of Babylon.
The order of these names is taken from Babylonian King Lists A and B. The years of reign are those given in the King List. It is possible that some of the differences between these and the numbers given in Chronological Tablet C may be explained on the basis suggested by Sayce, that in A and B allowance is made for rival princes who were deemed illegitimate and hence not mentioned by name, while in C we have naturally only the names and the years of legitimate rulers. For confirmation of this theory we shall have to await the discovery of new material.
These names with the numerals attached are found in Lists A and B. The length of several of the reigns seem exceedingly high, and there is reason to doubt whether they are correct. It is also impossible to reconcile the total period of three hundred and sixty-eight with the facts learned from other sources, respecting the period which has elapsed between certain kings of dynasty I and dynasty II; as, for example, between Hammurabi and Burnaburiash. Many efforts have been made to relieve these difficulties. Hommel at one time attempted to prove that this second dynasty really preceded dynasty I; he then later took the view that the second dynasty and the first were contemporaneous, and that the second dynasty, so called, was really "entirely apocryphal". He has since come to the conclusion that "the first six and possibly, also, the last king (Ea-gamil, twenty years) should be retained, and the seventh to the tenth wholly rejected". It does not appear that there is any good reason for rejecting all or any part of these names as apocryphal, but the figures which are attached to them may easily be wrong in whole or in part, just as the discovery of List C has shown that there are errors or, at least, irregularities in the Lists A and B respecting dynasty I. For the present the only safe position is one of doubt and uncertainty. We may now turn with rather more confidence to the next dynasty. In it we come, for the first time, to a period in which native documents have preserved for us fractions of years. For this and other reasons the chances of error are reduced and a higher degree of probability in the result may be expected.
The names in this list still offer many difficulties to the historian and chronologist. The names from No. 1 to No. 6 are drawn from the Babylonian King List A, as are also the years of reign assigned to the first four. The provisional date for Gandish (1782 BC) is also assigned on the basis of the same list, which assigns five hundred and seventy-six years and nine months as the length of this dynasty. If now the date of the end of the dynasty be set at 1207 BC, on a reck- oning of the following dynasty, and this year 1207 be the five hundred and seventy-sixth year, it follows that the dynasty must have begun in 1782 (1207 + 575 = 1782). The dates of the first four kings of the dynasty are computed on the basis of the length of their reigns given in the same list. The kings from No. 26 to 36 are also put down as they are found in the same list, together with the years of reign computed in the same manner. The arrangement of the kings from No. 7 to No. 25, inclusive, is in several cases extremely doubtful. They rest largely upon inscriptions belonging to several of the kings found chiefly at Nippur, and the reasons for the order here adopted are given for the most part in the history proper which follows, and usually in the footnotes or in the references contained in them. At the best the order, and in some instances the names themselves, must remain doubtful until cleared up by monumental evidence. Fourth Dynaaty. Dynasty of Isin.
For the arrangement of the fourth dynasty our materials are exceedingly scanty. The King List A is badly broken and but little can be made out of it. The first name is almost entirely destroyed, but the number of years is certainly fixed at 18. The numeral 6 attached to the second king appears also to be certain. From a monument of his own Nebuchadrezzar I is known, and Bel-nadin-apli from a boundary stone. Marduk-nadin-akhe is known from Assyrian synchronisms, and the years of reign, 22, appear upon the King List A. The location of Marduk-akhe-irba is exceedingly doubtful, but the numeral 1 year and 6 months is on the King List, as are also the numerals 12 and 8 which follow. The reasons for the location of the remaining kings are given below in the history. The length of this dynasty has usually been given, on the basis of the King List, as 72 years and 6 months, but by a simple calculation Peiser proved that this was impossible, and suggested that it must be 132 years. After an examination of the passage he became convinced that it must be 132, and with this Knudtzon agrees, as does also Lehmann, though the latter thinks that 133 is possible. The date of Marduk-nadin-akhe is made clear by the allusion of Sennacherib, and from that date it is possible to reckon downward to the end of the dynasty at 1075 and forward to its beginning (1075 + 131=1206 B. C), though the latter figure is to be regarded only as tentative.
The length of reign is given in King List A, but the name is broken off, and has not yet been recovered from any other source. From this point onward there is a considerable gap in our knowledge of the Babylonian kings, and even the length of the gap cannot be definitely ascertained.
Our knowledge of the chronological order of the kings of this dynasty is exceedingly slight. The Babylonian King List A gives the length of reigns in a few instances, and these are set down. The position of the kings from Shamash-mudammik to Bau-akh-iddin is determined by the Assyrian synchronisms. When Nabu-nasir is reached we come to the exact chronological material of the Ptolemaic Canon, which gives us the definite dates 747 and 733.
For this period the chronological material is abundant and extraordinarily accurate. The dates may be regarded as fixed with as much definiteness as may be expected in the history of the ancient Orient. The Chronology of Assyria.
5THE HISTORY OF BABYLONIA TO THE FALL OF LARSA.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
