luiiiiiiimiiiimiiiimiiiiM^M^—mmii miimiiiiiiiiiiniiiiH

lllllllllllllllill

\iimmim\m\\mmmmm mmMW \L
\

<

THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES

CpLaJ^a,

o4~W OuvMJls

.

. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS.: Stubies In Eastern Ibigtorg. ii. I. CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS VOL.

of the early history of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea. Vol. Intro- ductory chapters. Vol. Vol. i. edited from a memorial tablet in the British Museum. ii. [Other volumes are in preparation. — Records of the I. III. I. Vol.STUDIES IN EASTERN HISTORY. II. . reign of Tukultiking of Assyria.— Chronicles concerning including early records Babylonian kings.] LUZAC AND CO. Texts and Translations. including — early records of the early history of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea. Ninib Vol. Chronicles concerning Babylonian kings.

.

kings of Agade.] .472. 26. [No. Obverse. and other early rulers.A Chronicle concerning Sargon and Naram-Sin.

LONDON 1907. EDITED BY L. INCLUDING RECORDS OF THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE KASSITES AND THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA. IN KING. VOL..Stufricg In gagtern totgtorg. : LUZAC AND [All Rights Reserved. F. \V. ASSISTANT IN THE DEPARTMENT OK EGYPTIAN AND ASSYRIAN ANTIQUITIES THE BRITISH MUSEUM.] Co. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS.A. M.S. I. . CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS.A..

.

The of present volume is concerned with the discussion information supplied the new historical by the chronicles which are published and translated in the second volume of this work. The texts here published and discussed for the first time include two Chronicles . but they incorporate traditions referring to some of the earliest kings of Babylonia and Assyria. and we may here briefly refer to some of the more important In the present the lines ^ 1847664 .C. concerning early Babylonian kings a new Babylonian Chronicle of events ranging from the eleventh to the seventh century B. to the eleventh century a new Date-List . a Religious Chronicle referring B. and revise names are found oblige in these will us to some of our conceptions of early Babylonian and Assyrian chronology. in which well-known unfamiliar combinations. . of the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon and part of a tablets Neo-Babylonian version of the Naram-Sin. of Much the new information is afforded by the Chronicles concerning early kings given in the form of syn- chronisms." " Omens of Sargon and With one exception. .3837 T8K58 PREFACE. the from which the texts are taken date from the late Babylonian period.C. indicate work an attempt has been made to on which a reconstruction of the history of these early periods can be made.

the founder of the First Dynasty.. general result of our One new information is a considerable reduction in the dates usually assigned to the earlier periods of Babylonian history. and carried on a kings of wars against the of this Babylon. conclusions deduced from a study of the texts. Confirmation afforded of the correctness in of this view is by a new synchronism history. name has This early point of contact between the history of the two countries not only supports our conclusions with regard to reducing . and for Hammurabi. by three hundred and sixty-eight earlier We thus obtain for Su-abu. We learn that Su-abu. but established themselves only in the the Persian Gulf. We now know that the kings of the Second Dynasty of the Kings' List never occupied the throne of Babylon. The total elimination dynasty from the scheme of Babylonian chronology at once has the to effect of reducing the date usually of Babylon assigned the First Dynasty years. a date not than the twenty-first century B. the founder of the First Dynasty. a date of not earlier than the twentieth century B." on the shores of Here they ruled over an independent series of kingdom. "Country of the Sea. early Babylonian and Assyrian which occurs on one of the Chronicles here published. an early Assyrian ruler whose recently been recovered at Sherghat.C.C.Vlll PREFACE. was the contemporary of Ilu-shuma. the most powerful and famous king the dynasty.

is seen to agree more closely research with the results of archaeological hitherto appeared to be the case. It is there shown . The revised scheme of Babylonian and Assyrian chronology may be seen at a glance by referring to the table of contemporaneous of this volume. king of Babylon . than has The problem at of reconciling the Babylonian dynasties is with the chronological system of Berossus discussed some length in the fourth chapter. On the other hand. Eduard of Meyer for the earlier periods Egyptian chronology. So considerable to a reduction in the date usually is assigned the its First Dynasty of Babylon in the first far- reaching in effects. early Babylonian dates. 1 36 the history f. is and chapter of this it volume a sketch Babylonian of given of the manner in which bears upon certain problems connected with the age of civilization. and that such a reduction harmonizes with that suggested by Prof. of the Pentateuch. with regard to the period separating Abraham and the Exodus. It is there pointed out that we must reduce considerably the dates usually assigned to the beginnings of Sumerian and Babylonian history . we may now accept without reserve the identification of Amraphel of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis with and the chronology Hammurabi. rulers printed on p. and with the early chronology Egypt and of the Bible.PREFACE. but it IX enables us to trace back of Assyria beyond the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon.

is the first historical dynasty of Berossus to be synchronized with some earlier dynasty than that founded by Su-abu a dynasty which did not necessarily occupy the throne of Babylon. and clears up several difficulties in For instance. The copy of the original Chronicle from which these extracts were taken supplies us with additional information of considerable interest. In fact. in the original composition it was not recorded that i. . A point of literary rather than of historical interest the first concerns Chronicles here published. of a In the Omen-text certain appearances observed in the and particularly and it sacrificial victim are associated with . of Sargon and Naram-Sin" were in the liver. the early kings of Agade famous derived. incorrect. principal support Thus the . we gather from it that the augural text. which recounts the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin. that the assumption which underlies the majority of the schemes of reconciliation suggested. the Mediterranean.e.X PREFACE. for it supplies us with a copy of the original chronicle from which the historical portions of the " Omens entrails. episodes in the history of these two early kings has long been recognized that the historical references contained in this augural text are of great value. but probably had its — capital in one of the other great of the cities of Mesopotamia. that the beginning of the historical period of Berossus is to be set within is the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon.. but merely the Persian Gulf. Sargon crossed the Western Sea.

Apart from the chronological data to which reference has already been made. . and how he It has eventually succeeded him upon the throne. One the of the period new which we may attained refer concerns before Babylon the cities a position It of is pre-eminence among of Mesopotamia. although a gardener by adopted by the other as his successor. which. how was one of them. The story relates profession. the new texts supply us with historical information of a very varied character. But we have now recovered the original Babylonian form of the story. but may select a few of the new facts which are of special We interest. history his in hitherto been supposed that Agathias merely reproduced a form of the legend of Sargon. XI of the theory that Sargon crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus falls to the ground. with the exception of certain differences in the names. who was brought up as a gardener before he became king of Agade. extending through widely different periods of history.PREFACE. need not here enumerate points of detail. Another point of some literary interest attaches to a later section of the Chronicle. tallies exactly with that given in Agathias. and illustrate the composite ancient facts to character of the population of the country. inasmuch as in they throw light upon racial movements Babylonia. which has come down to us in the history of Agathias. concerning the story of two early Assyrian kings.

under the early kings of Sumer and Akkad. . Kassite king. Northern Syria. to which we have already referred. king of Ur. that the statues were carried off in Samsu-ditana's reign. probable that. one of the oldest religious centres of the Sumerians. This passage of suggests that. In view of the elimination of the Second Dynasty from the throne of Babylon. and we now have evidence that the reaction took a religious as well as a political form. splendours of one of the earliest and most sacred of the Sumerians.Xli PREFACE. of the Dynasty of in Ur marked movement Southern Babylonia. Babylon and her temple had begun to rival the older and we may see in Dungi's action shrine of Nippur an attempt to destroy her influence by restoring the . to which attention cities Another record may be called is that of an early invasion of the Hittites. We may. we may connect First this invasion with the recovery of the statues of in Marduk conclude and Sarpanitum from Khani. it the great temple of Marduk in that city and further records the fact that he particularly favoured Eridu. which took place in the reign of Samsu-ditana. in fact. the tradition that Dungi. rise a Sumer Ian reaction took place against the 'The the success of this rule of the Semitic kings of Northern Babylonia. sacked Babylon and carried off of Esagila. already under the kings Agade. the last king of the Dynasty of Babylon. by the Agum II. For one of the Chronicles embodies the treasures .

and sacked the temple of Esagila. We also learn of another great invasion of Babylonia . the Hittites on this occasion captured Babylon. at of the powerful dynasty of Hammurabi may probably be traced. xiii consequently. At the present moment we cannot determine time which separated these accurately the length of two Kassite conquests. and that. The end invasion. the record of this early capital of the activity of interest. undertaken by Ea-gamil. directly or indirectly. and that their conquest of Southern Babylonia was provoked by an invasion of Elam. of the Sea. We now learn that the Kassites did not conquer the whole of Babylonia at one time. Hittite tribes in Babylonia is of peculiar Hitherto no record has been published of the conquest of Babylonia by the Kassites. to the Hittite In view of the recent discovery of tablets in Boghaz Koi. though the existence of the Kassite to Dynasty upon such a conquest the as throne of Babylon pointed having taken place.PREFACE. and bore the name of Khatti." lonia The Kassite conquest of Northern Baby- and of Babylon had already taken probably soon after the sack of Babylon by the Hittites at the end of the First Dynasty of Babylon. which prove that the ancient Hittites stood upon that site. king of the itself " Countrv place. for the figures assigned by the larger List of Kings to its Second Dynasty cannot be accepted unconditionally. Cappadocia.

and returned to their own district with much spoil. within the eight troubled years following the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib in 689 On this occasion the Aramaeans seized property in the immediate neigh- bourhood of Babylon and Borsippa. upon which light is thrown by the new texts.C. also A still later raid of Aramaean set recorded. by a which took place at a far later period. is that of We learn that in the reign the Aramaeans themselves." The last incursion of hostile tribes into Babylonia. One of the results of this invasion may be traced in the destruction of the great is temple of the Sippar. which the famous " referred to Sun-god at by Nabu-aplu-iddina upon Sun-god Tablet. of Nabu-mukin-apli. perhaps of Aramaean origin. relates how in his reign the Sutii. king of Assyria. after recording the in friendly relations existing between these phrases very similar to those employed in the Syn- chronous History" of Babylonia and Assyria. The new Babylonian two kings " Chronicle which is here published. an early king. ravaged the whole of Babylonia. who in consequence claimed the Babylonian throne. the Aramaean tribes is tribes along the Euphrates made a successful war upon Babylon. which must probably be B. hostile race. the contemporary of Ashur-bel-kala. of the Eighth Dynasty of the Kings' List. a nomad race. but they were defeated and driven off by a certain Erba-Marduk. . in the reign of Adad-aplu-iddina. and probably the founder.XIV PREFACE.

instance of such confirmation In the may here be referred autumn of last year I informed Prof. they are found to be correct. whenever their statements can be controlled by early inscriptions. its in the eleventh point in if century value as affording a fixed Babylonian chronology will be considerable we eventually recover the name of the Babylonian king in whose seventh year In the first it is recorded to have taken place. while the a series of portents which are of interest It is for the study of Babylonian religion. Since this event took place B. is pointed out that. Hilprecht of the facts supplied by the new Chronicles with regard .. A fresh to. and was recognised as king of Babylon by the priesthood. XV official We need not here discuss the further points of detail the on which the Chronicles add to our knowledge of Babylonian history. when they refer to events which happened in the earliest periods of Babylonian history. in Among the reasons there adduced it favour of accepting their evidence. that both new Babylonian Chronicle and the Religious Chronicle afford additional information with regard to the celebration of the Feast of the latter contains New Year. We may note. is chapter of this volume the question discussed as to what amount of credibility is to be accorded to these late Babylonian chronicles.PREFACE. unfortunate that we can only determine by conjecture the date of the portent which was probably derived from a solar eclipse.C. however.

E." in which in the he points out that a contract-tablet in contracts of the is museum of the University of Pennsylvania. . P. A. . of the work. London. to the overlapping of the First of the Kings' List. We are thus furnished with a fresh late instance in chronicles is which a statement of one of these found to be in accord with data furnished by an early text. March 30///. of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. for information with regard to solar eclipses of the eleventh century B. KING. Wallis progress Budge for friendly suggestions made during the L. But one his of the carried new Chronicles records the fact that Iluma-ilu on successful wars against Samsu-iluna and son Abeshu'. E. to make copy of the Constantinople Date-List during at my work Museum in the winter of 1902 to Mr. H. and Second Dynasties his pupil. A. Cowell. containing names found time of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna. 1907. I have now received from Dr. YV. Poebel.C. an advance copy of a " paper.xvi PREFACE. to be assigned to the reign of Iluma-ilu. My the thanks are due to H. and to Dr. Hamdy Bey. to be published in the Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie. Director of Imperial a Ottoman Museum. the for allowing me .

... .. 212 241 Index a* . . Elam.. .... .. to : 115 Appendix Chapter V. .C. the seventh century B. Table of contemporaneous rulers Babylon... .. A Babylonian Religious Chronicle and Register of Portents and a .... ...... .. its .. A new effects synchronism in early Babylonian and Assyrian history. . "Omens" .. .. .. the Hittite Invasion..... inter-relations of the First. .. 136 Chapter The VI...... 76 Chapter V. A new Babylonian Chronicle relating to events from the eleventh to .. . ..... .C. ... their effects upon early . . in Assyria. . .... The historical value n[ the new chronicles. .. the Beleius and .. 27 Chapter III. . the Kassites... . 157 Chapter VIII....N CO TENTS Chaptkr I. ... 56 Chapter The IV. i Chapter The Chronicle of II.. and the Country of the Sea . Saigon and Naram-Sin and two versions of the . Babylonian dates. early history of Babylon and her foreign relations... and the Country of the Sea .... and the Chronological System of Berossus .. .... 186 Chapter IX. Traditions concerning Dungi and other early rulers Beletaras of Agathias . 139 Chapter VII. and Third Dynasties of the List of Kings. .. .. . Second.... and upon Babylonian and Assyrian chronology ...... A new Date-List of the Kings of the First Dynasty and the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle ... and upon certain problems of Egyptian and Biblical chronology . possible record of a solar eclipse of the eleventh century B... ....... . .

.

CHAPTER I. and proof of this fact may be seen in the . a characteristic which they had inherited It is from their Sumerian predecessors. of the The scribes who compiled these documents traditions. One of the most striking characteristics of the Babylonians was their love of exactness in dating historical events. . which recount in brief outline the most striking rulers achievements of the earlier kings and country. had not to depend for for their material on vague they had at their disposal a large body of historical and chronological records which they had inherited from earlier times. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE NEW CHRONICLES THEIR EFFECTS UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN DATES AND UPON CERTAIN PROBLEMS OF EGYPTIAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY.CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS. certain that from the piled earliest periods historical records were com- and carefully preserved in the principal cities of Mesopotamia. NOT the least valuable of our sources for the history of later Babylonia are the chronicles. written during the periods.

2 BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES. were compiled upon Sumerian true that this cumbrous method of dating by events was afterwards simplified in the Kassite period. earlier The similar chronicle. but this document from the others that have been mentioned in that it is concerned with events which happened nearer its to the time of compilation. one of the class of documents upon which the Ptolemaic was based. and to influence we may also probably trace the annalistic spirit of the Assyrian kings. To a scribe of the reign of Darius we owe Canon history. date-lists Sumerian without which have already been recovered. the native scribes devoted themselves to the study and preservation of the ancient records. the famous copy of the Babylonian Chronicle. Towards the close of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. . chronicle of the reign of Nabonidus also dates from the Persian differs occupation of Babylon. and in kings the First alteration Sumerian Dynasty adopted method of timedate-lists their own date-formulae were written their It is the Sumerian language and lines. are also to The well-known be assigned to this late period. and after the Persian conquest of Babylon. seeking a solace for contemporary disasters in a knowledge of the earlier greatness of their country. of the The Semitic reckoning. referring to rather periods of Babylonian and Assyrian and both the Babylonian Lists of Kings. but the Sumerian love of exact chronology was its never abandoned by the Babylonians.

be cited The new character. The existence of such documents is indicated by the chronological references and calculations which are frequently met with in the historical and building inscriptions of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings. although we do not possess any chronological document which was actually written in the period between the First Dynasty of Babylon later and the Assyrian Empire. That the scribes of the 3 Neo-Babylonian period did attested not invent the method of epitomizing history by means of chronicles and lists is amply in by documents royal which library have at been found Ashur-bani-pal's Nineveh. there is no doubt that the systematic study of chronology was always pursued by the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes. The present work is concerned with the publication and discussion of some fresh chronological material.THE NEW TEXTS. of the The "Synchronous History. And. same class and and three of them do not call for any special texts are not all of the . the of Eponyms. But before we undertake an examination of the new it may be well to ascertain the credibility of the their claim to more important documents and as evidence. already an the seventh century the collection and of historical materials classification was advanced science. which data will be treated in detail in the following chapters. and prove that in the explanatory List of Royal Names." lists the tablet Babylonian Dynasties.

See Chap. date-lists of this period which are already known. evidence thus falls into a well-defined and recognized category. which may possibly refer to a solar B.C. Thus the chronicle relating to events B. 1 from the eleventh to the seventh century it although gives much of its information in the form of extracts text. 2 4 See Chap. in it that it was actually written during Like the other it the period of which treats.4 which may perhaps 1 See Chap. true that special interest attaches to one of the portents recorded.4 scrutiny apart HISTORICAL VALUE from that attempt" in the chapters devoted to them. and the value of statements requires no demonstration. II ff. since its document has yet been published. eclipse of the eleventh century but the interpretation best be discussed date-list of and credibility of the statement its may in connection with context. VIII.. IX.. its and the value of may be conceded. The new the First Dynasty of Babylon3 differs from the two texts already referred to. 2 similar No other precisely but. See Chap. is information character. carries the its weight of a contemporary witness. But two of the new chronicles.C. To a rather different category must be assigned the religious chronicle and register of portents. belongs to the and summaries from a longer class as the same It Babylonian chronicles already known. It is its mainly of a is religious and augural historical value of secondary importance. 3 . VII.

and Agum. whose name has only recently been recovered at Sherghat of that country. the founder the First Dynasty of Babylon. d> al than those referred to recovered. the . which. do call for special treatment from the nature of the information they supply. the other Babylonian chronicles. and Ilu-shuma. traditions concerning late Babylonian period.separated the events recorded from the period at which the actual records were inscribed. . Dungi. date from the Babylonian and Assyrian history. . texts are The actual like tablets upon which the written. Su-abu. kings of same dynasty Iluma-ilu. and Ea-gamil with whose reign that dynasty came to an end Ulam-Buriash. Bitiliash. not . the founder of the Second Dynasty of the List of Kings. king of Ur . probably two very early kings of Assyria. Abeshu'. all Samsu-iluna. A brief examination of the new texts will suffice to show that they are to be classified as chronicles. and Samsu-ditana. early Kassite rulers Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni. renders an inquiry necessary with regard to the credibility of the traditions they incorporate. 5 be regarded as the most important of the texts here published. that the tablets among those of the earliest rulers From this list of names it will be seen with periods of history far in earlier.OF THE NEW CHRONICLES. and Hammurabi. but their contents refer to the earliest periods of In them we his find Sargon of Agade and son Naram-Sin of . any of the chronicles as yet The Teat lapse of time.

2 II. XIII. The poetical nature of the legends is well represented in the two longest of the texts recovered. pp. 1627). 87 ft*. 140 ff. Another legend of 1. which The negative evidence of this native begins Sarru-ukin sar Agade. are couched in the language of the historical chronicles.6 legends. 1 While the former are of the nature of poetical compositions... which was at Kuyunjik (R.. HISTORICAL VALUE The tablets from with Ashur-bani-pal's library early- which are inscribed legends concerning Babylonian kings. Catalogue. IV. but no mention is made of the chronicle of Sargon here published. p. Vol. beginning Sarru-ukin sufii (Obv. Creation. with the exception of some lines describing Sargon's exploits. 618. for a translation of the former see Vol. the new texts describe wars and conquests. Moreover. in the British Museum. and for the latter see The Seven Tablets of pp. 1. 5). Sargon is also catalogued. we may class the new documents itself. Vol. . catalogue may therefore be cited in support of the view that the new text is to be regarded as a chronicle. form a striking the two documents under discussion. found In the tablet inscribed with a list or catalogue of legends. pll. and their never interrupted by the speeches and mythological episodes so characteristic of the legendary texts. the capture and sack of cities and the narrative is like. the latter. both in their contents and their style contrast to of composition. cf. the is legend of Sargon duly mentioned (Rev. those concerning Sargon of Agade and an early king of Erech . 2 In fact. etc. in the It is same category true as the Babylonian Chronicle that the latter gives a rather fuller it and more refers. Bezold. detailed treatment of the periods to which but 'See Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets. Pt. 39 ff. I.. 9).

The is principal information supplied contained in a series of synchronisms between conrulers. 7 was doubtless due to the greater wealth of historical The material which its compiler had at his disposal. new texts treat of kings and rulers who lived at very much earlier periods. From their style of composition and the nature of their contents. it When due allowance has been made compilers of the in precisely the for the restricted character will of their sources of information. But we have not to depend entirely upon internal . not list of kings. the new texts are therefore such as to inspire confidence in the accuracy of the statements they contain. temporaneous entitles a characteristic them to a special claim of credibility.OF THE this NEW CHRONICLES. but on definite traditions concerning wars and conquests. and to considerable changes in the course of transmission. which are essentially are liable artificial. are liable to no such risks of alteration. A broken original or a sleepy scribe ma> cause alteration of figures or transposition of names in a But synchronisms which are based. be seen that the new texts have treated their material same manner as the chroniclers who by the new texts which in itself deal with later kings. and the records concerning them which had survived naturally in the later Babylonian periods were more fragmentary and incomplete. In this lists particular they present a strong contrast to the of kings and dynasties. on any mechanical order of names in a list.

Naram-Sin is there recorded to have conquered Magan. Chaps. whose name is given as Mannuapplied records which have may be dannu. . . A far more convincing by means of the contemporary come down to us from the earlier periods of Babylonian history. which was found recently by de Morgan at Susa the " : lord " of 1 .8 HISTORICAL *V T ALUE evidence to prove the credibility of The traditions which the test new chronicles incorporate. who styles himself " king of the Country of the Sea. Chap. see below. is confirmed by an inscription upon a statue of Naram-Sin. IV and VI. Thus the statement of the first of the new chronicles. the inscription on the knob stating that it was the property of Ula-Burariash. that Naram-Sin conquered the king of Magan. the second of the chronicles states that the Kassite ruler Ulam-Bur(i)ash defeated This statement Ea-gamil (the last king of the Second Dynasty) and is conquered the Country of the Sea. Mani[ Again. strikingly confirmed by an inscribed knob found recently by Koldewey at Babylon." 2 it On this the discovery of the inscription seemed strange that the a king with an obviously Kassite title. whose name is stated to have been J. See below. but the explanation is name should bear now furnished by chronicle. 2 II. Such are the two most striking instances in which 1 The last syllable of the name is wanting in the text .

9 new chronicles find confirmation in the early Babylonian texts. But several other instances of late agreement between the early records and these Babylonian chronicles maybe cited. where they startling mention well-known names bination.OF THE statements of the NEW CHRONICLES. fact. The statements that Naram-Sin was the son of Sargon. Thus Hammurabi's defeat of Rim-Sin is amply confirmed by his own dateformulae. it is found and in no instance does it that the statement is correct happen that an assertion of the chronicles is at variance . and. External evidence thus leads to the same conclusion at which arrived from a consideration of the character of the we and style new documents. their contents are of the greatest historical value in . their evidence is new and com- not to be lightly dismissed as . are in accordance with the evidence of these kings themselves. The writing of the name of the founder of the First Dynasty as Su-abu agrees with the form of his name upon the principal date-list of the First Dynasty. In spite of the late date at which the actual tablets were inscribed. while the is assertion that Abeshu' was the son of Samsu-iluna In amply attested it is by independent evidence. The existence of the early Assyrian ruler Ilu-shuma is vouched for by recent discoveries at Sherghat. with the records of the earl)- kings themselves. and that Samsuiluna was the son of Hammurabi. that Dungi was the son of Ur-Engur. wherever chronicles possible to test any statement of the new by means of the early inscriptions.

but must be regarded as having in fact. while the most probable interpretation of other passages in the chronicles would that the First make First. that But. reduced. The new synchron- isms upon the scheme of Babylonian chronology will be discussed in detail in the following chapters. and did not occupy the Babylonian throne between the First Dynasty and the Kassites as might be imagined from the larger List of Kings. based upon the figures the Babylonian List of Kings. foundation Now isms that we have examined the value of the new chronicles as evidence. and have seen that the synchron- they furnish may be accepted as historically correct. if it was possible for the compiler of error.10 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA its legendary. of must be considerably In fact our new information definitely proves and Second Dynasties of the Kings' List were partly contemporaneous. " the Kassite Dynasty follow immediately after the We may " therefore infer that the so-called Second Dynasty only ruled in the country of the Sea (on the shores of the Persian Gulf). but we may here anticipate the results to be obtained from an examination of the texts themselves by stating that the date of the First Dynasty. we may enquire briefly to what extent our new information may modify for the the very high dates that are usually assigned beginnings of Sumerian and effects of the Babylonian history. the document to have fallen into such an suspicion at once arises that the later Assyrian and Neo- .

it would follow that Sargon's date should be reduced considerably. 1).C. Babylonian scribes II have been similarly misled in their calculation of the dates of early Babylonian kings. ruled at about 3800 B. "somewhere between 6000 and Old Babylonian Inscriptions. Col. II.3 Other 1 Hilprecht has dated the founding of the temple of Bel and the in first settlements Nippur. possibly even earlier" (see " Pt. 54-65) . dates for the beginnings of Babylonian I history (see above. 7000 B. Sargon of Agade. According to Nabonidus 3200 years elapsed between the burial of Naram-Sin's foundation-inscription in the temple of Shamash at Sippar.C. to such a reduction it And as a corollary might be urged that the very early dates for the beginning of Sumerian civilization in Babylonia should also be considerably lowered. 24. V. communicating to him some of the conclusions at which I had arrived In With regard to the overlapping of the early Babylonian dynasties. and 3800 B.C. Asia (Vol. Cun. 11.C. 3 Professor Hilprecht has been one of the staunchest upholders of the earliest n. In the autumn of this year (1906) discussed the question with him.C. on this figure the date of 3750 B. and his own finding of the inscription (see Rawlinson. 64. has been assigned to Naram-Sin. p.UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY. to which the may earliest 1 remains of the Sumerians are usually assigned... Jnscr. Now the date of 5000 or 6000 B. which were in reality partly or wholly contemporaneous. II. pi. arrived at their high figures by treating certain dynasties as successive. to his father Sargon. But Sargon's date depends in turn upon a reference to and if the scribes of Nabonidus his son by Nabonidus 2 . support of retaining early dates he informs me that he will shortly publish part of an early dynastic tablet (in his forthcoming work on " Mathematical . West. to a certain extent depends upon the belief that the early Semitic king.

are those assigned to Hammurabi Nabonidus. But trary. Vol. 1 and to Kudur-nankhundi's on the invasion of Babylonia on the figures of Ashur-bani-pal.. I. Inscr. . 1. the original size of the tablet proves the existence of 1 many earlier dynasties. it is not contended that we must forthwith reject these dates without further examination. it be seen that they do not that. and. as the record dates from the end of the twelfth century B. This would assign to Kudur-nankhundi's invasion the approximate date of 2285 B. The date assigned to Gulkishar on the "boundary-stone" of the reign of Belnadin-apli need not here be referred to.C. Ashur-bani-pal relates that he recovered the image of the goddess Nana which the Elamite Kudur- nankhundi had carried West. and that is although the portion of the text preserved refers to the Dynasties of Ur and Isin... Ill. 38. Obv. see Chap. Asia. fall EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA which according to the same hypothesis would figures of under suspicion. 2 and not from the Neo-Babylonian period . When he captured Susa in about 650 B.e. 16). off from Erech 1635 years before (see Cun. the statement of Nabonidus that at Hammurabi rebuilt the temple of Shamash Sippar seven hundred years before Burna-Buriash.. No. On the con- each of the three dates referred to above must be its examined on will own merits. all stand in the same and Chronological Tablets"). pi. IV. while at the same time plausible explanation of the error gives a by which it is assumed they were obtained.C. when this is done. 2 Such a method of reducing early dates has far more to recommend it than any ingenious textual emendation.C.12 dates. I. For the hypothesis accepts the figures given in the texts as representing the firm belief of the scribes by whom it they were drawn up.

first it not at all certain that even the compiler all his of the larger Kings' List imagined that dynasties were consecutive. 1 regarding the date assigned murabi as place Thus a good case may be made out for by Nabonidus to Hambased upon accurate information with regard In the is to the early dynasties of the List of Kings. with the attempt of an figures two rows of marching in Through he would his first inability to set out draw them per- one row of figures and would then arrange the other row beneath it. spective. No one would imagine that he intended to represent the first row as walking upon the heads of the second. but arrangement upon the tablet not conclusive proof that he regarded them as consecutive. total it thus obtained for the length of their duration. category. it is possible to compare list his arrangement of the early dynasties in the early sculptor to represent abreast.3 UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN CIIRONOLOCY. If at the end of the list he had added up the years during which the separate dynasties lasted and had given the belief. and But the end of the Kings' List of evidence in it in the absence may be urged that we are not justified assuming he was he writes one that is unaware that with his first his second dynasty was contemporaneous third. would have followed that is such was his wanting. In fact. And it is we must extend a similar indulgence to . for the convention he employed possible that is recognized. It is true that and after the other and gives the this total number of years each endured.

evolved the modern system represent contemporary events. does exist that the compiler of the larger Kings' List was himself in error with regard to the period of the Second Dynasty. though given in round numbers and exaggerated. with the new information supplied by the chronicle. Such is a plausible explanation of the arrangement it of the Kings' List. run considerable its of being mis- understood even at the time of employment. that this was the case. it But. 1 In these circumstances we may accept his estimate of the date of Hammurabi. though must be admitted that the risk method would possibility. and the writing of one dynasty beneath another does not necessarily imply a consecutive order in point of time. . The however. as given rough estimate of Hammurabi's by Nabonidus. even admitting does not follow that his error was generally prevalent existence of the among his contemporaries. V.14 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA He had not of parallel columns to the compiler of the larger List of Kings. The new chronicles in the late Baby- lonian period is proof that the tradition of the real order of these early rulers and of their relations to one another had never died out. it is possible harmonize approximately the period. ±o Moreover. Chap. as based upon a correct conception of the relation of the first three dynasties to one another. felt in The same degree 1 of confidence cannot be the See below.

But. n. much 1 See above. scribes That Assyrian reckoning is could make mistakes in their proved by the variant accounts of the history of the temple of Ashur upon the texts of Shalmaneser Sherghat.UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY. n.C.. the date suggested by Ashur-bani-pal for Kudur-nankhundi's invasion should receive confirmation from will some independent source. p. 1 has up to the present harmonized well enough with the majority of chronological schemes which have been propounded. 2. therefore. 3 * See below. it might felt in supposed that similar confidence should be estimate of the date lived at a very of Naram-Sin. Chap. is The last of the three early dates to be considered that assigned to Naram-Sin by Nabonidus. which have recently been discovered at Unless. the First Dynasty was not founded before the tury B. 2 I and Esarhaddon. V. according to our new information. 11. 2. 12. earlier period But Naram-Sin than Hammurabi. 2 twenty-first cen- so that Ashur-bani-pal's figures can only be if accepted we assume that Kudur-nankhundi's invasion took place at a considerably earlier period than the Elamite wars of the First Dynasty. . p.C. 1$ date assigned by Ashur-bani-pal to Kudur-nankhundi'> invasion of Babylonia. The date 2285 B. it be wiser to regard his figures with suspicion.3 it As we be his have shown that accuracy of his is possible to accept the general for date Hammurabi. See above.

the fact that the that section in the chronicle No. Chap.6 1 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA that and. years separated the period that of of Sargon from Dungi and his father Ur-Engur. we have no such assurance earlier city-states. that their to knowledge was equally accurate with regard sequence of the the The possibility therefore exists that the scribes of their high figure for Nabonidus obtained Naram-Sin by regarding as conrise secutive certain dynasties. the chronicler misht well have included in his text sections recording the deeds of the most famous kings who ruled in this long interval. . concerning Dungi is immediately possibly concerning Naram-Sin. III. 1 Such evidence is purely negative. but it may be cited as an additional argument in favour of a tablet of 1 See below. 96. as was possibly the case with No.1 5 2. which as a matter of fact were contemporaneous. or fifteen hundred. 26. while our new chronicle proves the true position of Iluma-ilu's dynasty later was well known to the Babylonians. That such sections were not included in the original text of the composition may be inferred from the fact that its series. during the period preceding the of Babylon to the position of the principal city in Babylonia. 26. Had so long an interval as fourteen hundred.472 follows significant. Moreover. No.472 is labelled as the second and was not merely inscribed with a selection of extracts.

pp. 1). also Mitteil. In support of such a view we may were cite the very large number of early dynasties which were known to the later Assyrians and Babylonians and classified by them. this date. which has hitherto been generally accepted. Gcsell- 1906. VII. . 12.UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY. 3800 1 Though we may B. I. n. for thus have to reduce the date of Sargon of Agade.). . and Vol. mid das Alte Testament (3rd ed. Zwei Haupt- probleme. Chap III. Si/ta/t. Ex- cavations have as yet revealed the names of merely a and the fragmentary inscrip- tions that have been recovered are but an earnest of what we may expect when other sites in Babylonia are 1 See further. p. see Lehmann-IIaupt. 46 ff. der Vorderas. while considerably more than three columns were devoted to the period before the First Dynasty. From the missing portion of the text we may thus infer the existence of a rise very large number of dynasties before the few of these early rulers. in Schrader's Keilinsehriften (cf.C. pp. p.C. 2 the earliest Sumerian remains that have been recovered may probably be assigned to the fourth millennium B. of Babylon. period In the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle3 the from the First Dynasty of Babylon to the reign of Ashur-bani-pal did not occupy more than two columns of the text. 17 f. - For other criticisms of ff. 3 See Chap. 172 and Winckler I. II. reduction in \J the dates assigned to the early kings of Agade.

with regard to At the however. 1 may be conjectured that some of the dynasties included in the Dynastic Chronicle were con- temporaneous with one another. It is true that during the earlier periods of Egyptian and Babyit lonian history no point of direct contact has been established between the until the two countries.. Babylonia and Assyria. with the names of contem- poraneous rulers in Egypt. . 3) affords an additional and striking proof of the existence of early dynasties of which we as yet know little or nothing. the new chronicles do enable us to the lessen a difficulty date of Babylonian ruler who was the contemporary of Araenhetep IV. Another subject which may here be briefly referred to is the effect which our new information may have upon certain problems of Egyptian chronology. There evidence that there were two kings of the Kassite Buriash. p. n. and 1 Dynasty who bore the name of Burnait is certain that the second of these rulers list Hilprecht's new dynastic (see above. but even so we are justified in assigning a comparatively early date for the origin of Babylonian civilization. states named Burna-Buriash occupied and Nabonidus separated a that only seven hundred years king named Burna-Buriash from is Ham- murabi. I if. that at We the know from the Tell el-Amarna letters time of Amenhetep IV a Kassite king the Babylonian throne.8 1 EFFECTS OF THE It NEW DATA opened up. and is not time of the XVIIIth Dynasty that the Tell letters furnish us el-Amarna this point.

C. there has been a tendency to raise rather than to lower the date of the Kassite period. was based obtain for It will in the main upon correct information. so far from this date being too late that it for Hammurabi.-ign 1 This is the approximate date which to Amenin hetep IV's accession. see his monograph Aegyptische Chronologic the Abhandlitugen der Koniglich Preussischen 1904. assuming that Nabonidus referred I. by adding seven hundred years we should Hammurabi a date not earlier than 2080 be seen that. our new . and that their estimate of the period separated in which Burna-Buriash from Hammurabi. chronicles show is too early for. while at the same time they enable us to use the statement of Nabonidus in confirmation of the \ iew which would assign to the accession of Amenhetep IV a date not earlier than 1380 It B.C.C. according to the information they supply.. it [9 But. - A kademit der Wissensehaften^ See above. he Meyer would as. and.UPON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 1 is has been already noted that there good reason for believing that the scribes of Nabonidus were aware of the true relations of the early Babylonian dynasties to one another. B. though given round numbers and rather exaggerated. was the contemporary of Amcnhetep IV. Now. 14. 2 to 1380 B. This tendency the new chronicles remove. C 2 . In to reduce the discrepancy as much as possible. even to by Burnaorder Buriash has been impossible to reconcile his statefigures of the List of ment with the Kings . p.

Chap. the new chronicles supply data which may be regarded as affecting indirectly the problems of Egyptian chronology for the earlier periods. 1 In addition to the above evidence which has a bearing upon the period of the XVIIIth Dynasty. may support of the view which would regard some of the earlier dynasties of Manetho elements as partly it contemporaneous with one another. Dynasties many to that of the 1 Sumerians and early Babylonians the See below. VIII th to the . 2 generally recognized that certain civilization Moreover.. in The Semitic element not point to the Egyptian language does any other distinctly Babylonian influence. did not reign before the twentieth century this result is And reached.e. I. not only through a true conception of the inter-relations of the early Babylonian dynasties. which have hitherto been regarded as consecutive.20 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA B. V. some Xth and from 2 of the dynasties in the two groups from the the XHIth to the XVIIth Dynasties.C. but there ultimately to are indications of a strain in early Egyptian culture which may perhaps be traced a Babylonian source. but by means of a new synchronism between two early Assyrian and Babylonian kings. is now of Egyptian during the early dynastic period resemble well-known elements in the early civilization of Babylonia. Thus in the art of the 1st and Ilnd Egyptian respects bears a curious resemblance . Thus the overlapping of the be cited in earlier Babylonian dynasties.

reduction in 1 The suggested conflict Sumerian and early Babylonian dates would not with Meyer's chronological scheme for the early dynastic period in Egypt. . It may be noted is that his approximate date for the 1st and his Ilnd Egyptian Dynasties logic. . this question. p. and ultimately Babylonian. whether by el-Mandeb and along the way of the Straits of Bab Red Sea littoral into the Wadi Hamamat. though indirect. have been compared to the early Sumcrian and Babylonian palaces and temples . Sumciicr und Semi/en in Babylonien (1906). connection between 1 the civilizations of Babylonia and Egypt. 3315 — 2S95 H. early use of the cylinder-seal in 2 1 Egypt was probably derived from Babylonia . based upon a study of the Egyptian calendar and the Sothic periods. may well set our estimate of the period which we are to this earl)-. massive crenellated buildings of king of brick. influence reached Egypt. It has already been pointed out that we must probably lower civilization it the very high dates which have usually been assigned for the origins of Sumerian and Babylonian in . such as the tomb Aha at Xakada. or across the Isthmus of Suez to the The point which concerns us is the period at Delta. and it has been suggested that burial in the horizontal position and certain elements in the Egyptian religion the may also have been derived from same quarter. see Aegyptiscit Chrono- For Meyer's own view upon pp.c. affect if this should prove to be the case. ca. which such an influence may have been felt. 174 ff. and. this We early need not here discuss the theories as to how Semitic. see now 75.UPON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY.

The in earliest point of contact recorded in the book of Genesis between Hebrew and Babylonian history occurs the fourteenth chapter. This discrepancy has caused many to suspend their judgment of Biblical upon with the proposed identification . others conflict have accepted the identification. Schrader's suggestion that Amraphel is a corruption of the name in of Hammurabi way of its has been regarded. but a difficulty which has stood writers on the unqualified acceptance has been that the majority of Babylonian history have assigned dates to Hammurabi some centuries earlier than the date 1 of Abraham according to the Biblical chronology. have been content to regard the latter as the more trustworthy of the two. and. Our new information enables us to accept unconditionally the identification of Amraphel with Hammurabi. . article " Amraphel " in Hastings' Did. linguistically. was calculated from data more accurate than at has hitherto been supposed. Ryle. in the Babylonian chronology. king of Shinar. p. as extremely probable. of the I. which would make Abraham the contemporary of Amraphel.22 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA The only mation other subject is present chapter the we need touch upon in the manner in which our new infor- will affect the problems of Biblical chronology for the earlier periods. 88. and at the same time it shows that the Writer. date. however chronological system of the Priestly artificial. Cf. There are two ways of arriving 1 Abraham's Bible.

ff.. date of 1 92 1 B. pp. which would roughly harmonize with that obtained for Hammurabi Hebrew between by means of the new history. 1906). is foundation. chronicles. for Abraham's call. on this method of fixing the date of the Exodus. we should obtain for the latter event But the new chronicles prove that the date 2136 B. the figures of the Hebrew text would be at least one hundred and fifty years too high. Hammurabi did not reign at an earlier period than the twentieth century B." In 1 figures given in the text. xxv. according to the Hebrew text. The Book of Genesis (Fifth Edition. according to the Samaritan version and the Septuagint.C. in preference to those of the historical books of the Old Testament exhibit the lengths of separate many 1 inconsistencies both in Kings VI. Thus. . 645 years separated the Exodus from the call of Abraham.C.UPON BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. by retaining the conservative chronology for the later periods of we could accept the figures of the Samaritan version and the Septuagint. depending on the manner in 23 which the date of the Exodus is fixed.C. the year of the Temple's recorded to have been " the four hundred and eightieth year For the after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt. On the other hand. the we accept Archbishop Ussher's Exodus would have taken place in 149 1 B. so that. 1. But the the Exodus. 1 And since. If date for the reign of Solomon.C. see the valuable discussion on the chronology ol Genesis in Driver. for the interval Abraham and Hebrew text. the fourth year of Solomon. the interval between Abraham and this would yield the the Exodus was only 430 years .

399 ff. therefore. or fifty while Usshur's date for Solomon.3 early a period as for during the fifteenth province century Palestine was an Egyptian It is under Egyptian administration. 68.24 reigns EFFECTS OF THE and in the 1 NEW DATA the synchronisms between kings of Israel if is and Judah. p. years too early.. xxvii.. Bibl. p. 1. Merneptah. The Store-city of Pithom. 1 1. See Marti's article " Chronology" in Encycl. it is extremely place at so unlikely that the Exodus could have taken 1491 B. 3 For the artificial origin op.. probability the identified Pharaoh of the oppression has been with Ramses Pithom. p. 5 See Aegyptische Chronologie. would place him rather earlier in the But our new estimate of Hammurabi's date would separate him from 1 Curtis. Israelites in is Egypt was named Raamses. 777. reign. cit. 4 of the number 480 in 1 Kings and Driver. xxix. chronology be corrected from Assyrian sources. I.4 since one of the store-cities built by the other. - pp.C. Genesis. vi. 778 ff. and " Chronology of the Old Testament" in Hastings' Diet. To Mer- neptah's accession Meyer would same assign the approximate date of 1234 B. of the I. Genesis. cols. the to have been Pharaoh of the Exodus. col.C. 5 while other historians century. Cf.. p. . Exodus by means of general of external evidence. 2 forty Moreover. and the is proved to have been founded during his thus generally held His successor. See Naville. Upon grounds II. Bible. 775. see Marti. to fix the period of the preferable. Driver.

UPON BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. And we may conclude that the chronology of the Pentateuch. It will be noted that there is no great discrepancy between this period and the 645 years. with regard to the length of time separating Abraham from Moses. first problems of Egyptian and effects of The of our revised conception of the three Baby- lonian dynasties upon the still earlier periods also Sumerian referred to. and Babylonian history have been But the new texts have no direct bearings upon the problems of Sumerian chronology. In the present chapter we have anticipated some of the results to be obtained from a study of the new chronicles. The Thus of the following chapters will deal in chronological order with the kings who are mentioned in the of the first new texts. Merneptah by little 25 more than seven hundred years. in order to estimate their influence upon Biblical chronology. after the traditions concerning earlier have been examined. the ferred figures of the Hebrew text are to be preversion to those of Samaritan and the Septuagint. According to this method of the fixing the elate of the Exodus. The earliest kings men- . the inter-relations three dynasties Babylonian List of Kings fourth rulers will be discussed in the chapter. separated the Exodus from the call of Abraham. in the Hebrew text. which. exhibits far greater accuracy than we have hitherto had reason to believe. and the date for which they supply positive evidence is earliest that of the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon.

26 THE CHRONICLE OF SARGON. and will chapter a " comparison be made between the famous Omens Naram-Sin and the new chronicle of their achievements. of Sargon and . from which the historical portion of the " Omens " was derived. new chronicles are Sargon of in the following tioned upon the Agade " and his son Naram-Sin.

was found commemorated in his own dateformulae. as being outside the sphere of history." is one of the best known and most discussed compositions from the royal library of Ashur-bani-pal at Although the suggested interpretations of the Omens themselves vary considerably. The majority ." THE Assyrian tablet. at first only references to tablet Sargon and Naram-Sin upon the omenhistorical were drawn from some composition . of writers have always recognized the value of the historical traditions which are incorporated in the text and an attempt to throw discredit upon them. was not renewed when Sargon's conquest of known from a single section of the Omens. it was seen from the first that certain historical achievements of Sargon Nineveh.CHAPTER THE CHRONICLE OF II. which " is usually referred to under some such title as the Omens of Sargon and Naram- Sin. and Naram-Sin are therein augural associated with special phenomena. SARGON AND " NARAM-SIN AND TWO VERSIONS OF THE OMENS. The suggestion has been made that the Elam.

the new texts published in the second volume include a fragment of a Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens. The first of the this new 1 chronicles published in the second volume of work contains a record of the deeds of Sargon. 2 As in the Assyrian version of this is composition.28 THE CHRONICLE OF SARGON achievements of these recording the ancient kings. and runs on consecutively without a break for twenty-three lines. each section of the text divided from the . . king of Agade. 3 ." We have already discussed it and tested in the general credibility of statements contained in the new texts. respectively give of the In addition to the chronicle of the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin. others by a line ruled horizontally across the tablet No. and contains a similar record of the expeditions of Naram-Sin. 2 26. That a some day be discovered has always been among the a narrative or chronicle possibilities of copy of such would cuneiform research. pp. see Vol.472 . the son of Sargon. II. narratives will suffice to A glance at these show that we have here a copy chronicle " of part of the original from which were derived the historical portions of the Omens of Sargon and Naram-Sin. and now remains same to examine some detail the accounts which the chronicle and the Omens events. II. 40 ff. No.404 see Vol. ff. 67. The account occupies the whole of the obverse of the tablet. first The section on the reverse of the tablet consists of four lines. pp.

and with the points of it similarity and difference which presents on comparison with the text of the new chronicle. of the totally different origin of the were such two strands of which the Omens are composed. In the Neo-Babylonian version the lines arc numbered across the table! and not by columns. In the Assyrian version the historical facts are incorporated in with the augural phenomena. 3 „ 11. = Obv. But we may note the same historical same phenomena are associated with the In fact in the new version we meet with a form events. 4-7 1—5 8-10 >> " L 35 1. J'er. 1—3 (left compartment) „ Rev. . 1 It is true that The augural parts of the texts. but in 2<j another respect the arrangement of the newoffers a version remarkable contrast to the old. and each section of the text the one follows on after the other without any break or mark of division between them... 30 f. in passing that in both versions of the Omens of the same augural composition which version is found in the Assyrian 1 of the work. In the present work we are only concerned with the historical strand of the Omens. .— AND THE OMENS. a line ruled down the centre of the We could not have a more striking proof.. Ver. 11. 11. . that correspond to one another in the : two versions... 1- 10 f. Neo-Bab. version the augural are In the new and historical portions of the text arranged in separate compartments and divided from each other by tablet... 1. = Rev. Obv. are indicated in the following table Assyr. ff- . if needed. 11.

and particularly with the sacrificial victim. A further study of these "liver-tablets" has recently been undertaken by Prof. does not in the least affect our understanding In fact. liver. in the latter has been to cast the direct statements of the chronicle into a series 25. with early period were associated the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin. Jastrow. which at some tation of the omens themselves. while casts of the sections form. of a and they belong to a compositions. and therefore does not fall within the scope of the present They were formerly regarded as astrological forecasts. change they have produced of relative clauses. analysis of the texts has supplemented his by an examination of the livers and entrails of newlyAs a result. though extremely important for the study of Babylonian augury. is of no historical interest. the only of the historical portions of the text. (Nos. p. he has been enabled to suggest slain sheep. and Assyrian however. identifications for most of the ideograms occurring in this class of augural His results will be published in the forthcoming parts composition. 1 class of literature represented by a considerable number Their of Babylonian interpretation.qo the THE CHRONICLE OF SARGON new version presents additional it many variant it readings and the third contains phrases. preserves into an is entirely different But there no doubt that we have in the two documents different versions of a composition The interprefrom which they are both descended. 10 and 11) of his Religion Babyloniens who und Assyriens. II. with the entrails. he informs me. 'See Vol. . but it has now been recognized that they deal work.

lb — 6 : His crossing of the Sea in the East . 11. — 3 : Naram-Sin's expedition against Apirak. : His troubles through famine and his enemies. from which it be possible to gather their general contents at a glance. 11. 4 : Naram-Sin's expedition against Magan. it give an analysis of the two docuwill ments. .— — AND NARAM-SIN. . his complete subjugacountry of the tion of the West. 11. his „ 11. „ 11.. 11. 11. i 2> : a ' Sargon's power through Ishtar's help. 9 ii : His expedition against Kasalla. 3 I Before undertaking a detailed comparison of the chronicle with the historical portions of the will be advisable to Omens. of the headings The the following early is a list under which part of the chronicle relating to Sargon and Xaram-Sin may be conveniently arranged Obv. and the setting up of images there followed by .. 7 —8 — io : the settlement of palace. His work on Babylon and Agade. — 13: : : The revolt against Sargon and its suppression. „ „ „ 11. — 17 — 19 20— 23 14 18 1 His expedition against Subartu. 11. Rev.." " the sons of his „ „ 11.

11. some enter- 19—21. 11.. Obv. . THE OMENS OF SARGON. Obv. [Assyr. 13—14-] V: His conquest of the Country of the West. and the setting his up of his images there .. 11.] in VI : His support by Ishtar prise. 16—18. Vers...— 32 . 1—3. 11. Obv.] „ II: His conquest of the Country of the West. Vers. Obv. Vers.. Obv. [Assyr...] VII : His power through Ishtar's help his complete subjugation of the Country of the West.. [Assyr. [Assyr. and the building of a city like Agade. which were current Assyrian and the late Babylonian periods respecThe contents of the various sections may be : briefly indicated as follows Section I : Sargon's conquest of Elam. 11. [Assyr. [Assyr. upon both of the versions.. Vers. Obv. 8— 11. The historical portions of the Omens are divided into sections in the tively..] the Sea. 11. Vers..] Ill: His work at Babylon. Vers.] IV : His conquest of the Country of the West.. Obv.. 11. Vers.. despoiling of the Country of 22—26. 5-6. [Assyr.

] against XII Naram-Sin's Apirak. Neo. its suppression. 5 —9 1 . Rev. are not represented in the chronicle. [Assyr. 5— 11. Vers. of his palace.. S— 11. 11. Vers. is the last on the tablet containing the Assyrian subject with which it version. Vers.. XIII Naram-Sin's expedition 16 11. [Assyr. 11. Vers.] XI His expedition against Subartu. 2 .-Bab. Rev. 11 11.. — 7. Vers.. [Assyr. Obv. Rev... Obv. Vers... Obv. — 18 12 .. Sections in the chronicle in the VII XI and XII XIII occur same order as in the Omens .AND N ARAM-SIN. 11..] against Neo-Bab. Vers.. Vers. 28—29. 1. expedition [Assyr... Vers. Neo-Bab. Vers. 31—34.... Obv. Rev. 11. Rev. — — while one or possibly two portions of the chronicle find 1 So little is preserved of Section it XIV. D ... 11.. [Assyr.. Rev. 1 ff. Magan. Section VIII 33 The enlargement [Assyr. — 14. Neo-Bab. 1—4. Vers.] IX His expedition against Kasalla.. 11. that impossible to recognize the dealt. 1. with one possible exception.. 11. Neo-Bab. Obv.] X The revolt against Sargon and 36 -Rev. 11. ] A comparison of the two tables which have just been first given will show that the six sections of the Omens..

3 ff... and deter- mine how the far the historical statements of the It will Omens are supported by the us chronicle. „ . „ 11. 11. 40 ft. 7. Omens. 1— 4 3 1- XII XIII the In the second half of the volume. x XI Sec. and proves phrases which occur the text. 11.. but we may 1 here ascertain the extent to which the texts of the three documents correspond. translations are given of the chronicle and of both versions of Omens. Sections I —VI i— 6 Section „ 11.8 9— io ii— 13 VII VIII . 25 ff. „ „ 11.. The to : following table indicates the sections of the Omens which the subject matter of the chronicle corresponds Chronicle. II. pp. chronicle that in some of the more difficult them are due to corruptions of 11. . Ill] U11.— 34 COMPARISON OF THE CHRONICLE in the no similar sections Omens.IX „ „ „ [cf. [wanting] Obv. to be seen that latter enables restore several gaps in the Omens. Where it has been 1 See Vol. 1 For purposes of comparison —6 of the and the seventh section of the Omens are printed below in parallel columns.. [wanting] Section Rev. H—I7 18—19 20—23 „ „ 11.

Sarru-ukin Slri an-n\i-i\ pall il "IStar i-lam-ma i-Si Sa ina (23) [i-na (2) Sa-ni-na u ma-hi-ri ul eli pall i! "I$tar\ i-Ia-am-ma Sa-niiSi(Si) Sa-lum-mat-su it-bu-uk matatit 1 (3) na gab-ri id su eli Sa-lum-mat(24) [. His glory over [the world] (24) [he ]• The Sea crossed. the royal exalted.AND THE OMENS. of Ishtar] was foe possessed no foe nor and possessed no His glory over the world (3) he poured out. (\)>"Sarru-ukin$ar Agade Kl ina Omens (22) (Assyr. (2) and he rival. king of Agade. such restorations have been made. Chronicle. tdmta ina sit SamSi i-bi-ir- tdmta Sa ereb SamSi i-bi-ru- ma (4) Satin AVKAN mat ereb ma sattu ///KAN [ ina ereb SamSi a-di (5) ki-ti-Su kdt-su SamSi (25) u-ki-nu ereb k]at-sit iktud(ud) iS-tin pi-i-Su a-na ikSudn{du) pi-Su a-Sar iStenien) u-kin salmdni&Su ina uS-zi-iz (6) Sal-lat- salmdni^-Su [ ina ]-zu ereb SamSi SamSi (26) su-nu ina a-ma-a-ti u-Se-bi-ra Sal-la-su-nu ina ma-a-ti tdmti u-Se-bi-ra (1) Sargon. 35 possible to restore with practical certainty the gaps in the Omens from the corresponding passages in the chronicle. . this who through the royal of under omen (23)[through gift Ishtar was exalted. gift (22) Sargon. Ver.). (4) in the East he the The Sea crossed. . [matatitt] ] . of the in West he the third 2 and in and D . nor equal.

hand subdued. up his images in booty he word. to which Sargon attained through fitting introduction to the chronicle.36 SARGON OF AGADE year in the West (25) . The Oldest Civilization of Greece. this The power forms a first paragraph of section. in the 'course of his subjugation of the West. interesting variants. if has been pointed out that the phrase. 315. which gives an account of subjugation of the Country of the West. which practically the same as that of the chronicle only presents two variant readings. for itbuk. 38. . R. From it we it are able to restore the broken text of the is Omens. his images in the West he set . Hall. 1. The See H. control. p. ." crossed. 2 See below. describing the Ishtar's help. .] his hand subdued. eleventh year the Country of the [. West in its full extent his . . gabri for u mahiri. n. and a variant verb Sargon's final In the second paragraph. (5) He He (26) their united them under one united them under one control . crossing from point to point. should more probably be taken to mean that Sargon. we is find some The most important that " the statement of the chronicle " the Sea this in the East he crossed." in place of the Sea of the West he crossed Mainly on the strength of it passage in the the Omens has been asserted that Sargon It Mediterranean to Cyprus. recording a fact. the West (6) their at (his) booty in the Country of 1 brought over the Sea he brought over. p. [he ] . coasted along the Palestinian littoral.

however. in The phrase reproduces a situated "the Sea Persian the East" without doubt indicates the of Sargon 1 Gulf. For we know. as 1 See the Appendix to the Texts and Translations. throws considerable discredit upon the statement of the Omens. Vol. and we have contemporary proof that he included in his empire the districts bordering upon it. rather than Persian Gulf. not only from the statement of the Omens.AND THE PERSIAN GULF. Thus the crossing of the in Sea in the East (the Persian Gulf) was balanced by his conquest of the West (the Mediterranean coast). 37 reading of the chronicle. to indicate who wished expeditions after having stated that he poured out his glory over the whole world. The Legend tradition that he conquered in the Dilmun which was Persian Gulf. p. like Sennacherib at a later date. but also from date-formulae upon docu- ments contemporary with Sargon. ma to the crossing of the Sea may legitimately be taken as the extreme limits of Sargon's intentional on the part of the compiler of the chronicle. the The conquest but this of the Country of the West coupled by the copula in East . 92. but that very fact should lead us to suspect the reading of the is Omens. he may well have crossed the Persian Gulf in the course of his expeditions thither. in connection with an expedition to the Syrian coast. that he conquered Elam . It is true that we should expect of the a mention of the Mediterranean. . II. and.

The text thus consisted of two well-balanced antithesis the clauses. 1 him more suitable to the context of the The only definite support of the theory that falls Sargon crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus thus to the ground. and it would be natural for a copyist to amend the text and to substitute the reading which to would seem passage. but possibly regarded them as meaning " by land (and) sea. Another the interesting variant to which this portion section of chronicle supplies the seventh of the Omens concerns the year of Sargon's complete subjugation of the Country of the West. state that this event took place in The Omens state- the third year.38 SARGON OF AGADE the following lines in the Omens. might well appear out of place. The statement by the that Sargon crossed the Sea in the East. But when the chronicle was cut up into sections and applied piecemeal to separate augural phenomena. the setting up of his images in the West (the Mediterranean coast) is balanced by the conquest of the Country of the Sea (the shores of the Persian Gulf). and the chronicle in the eleventh year. each of which presented in extreme limits of Sargon's empire. The former ment probably means 1 that it took three years to subdue That the copyist retained the phrase ina ma-a-ti idmti may be explained on the supposition that he did not take the words as a geographical expression for the Country of the Sea. coupled copula to his conquest of the West." . the original intention of the writer was obscured.

not be impossible. Omens They obviously corre- sponds to passages 7 f. it and in the West. the latter that the conquest was achieved in the eleventh year of Sargon's reign. : Chronicle.Sum-ma iii-lik ik-bu-Su ." would. of the chronicle. but the sense of the two is entirely different. as we have of already seen. and. ina amdtisu. as a lasting memorial of his conquest of the country. or in the Lebanon. 39 the country. however.). " at A reading. (7) Omens a-na (28) [ mare* 1 - ekal/i-ht ] Sarru-ukin V TA A AS u-$e-$ib-ma l-as-l>ii (8) U ekalla-hi pa-ti FTAA AN - bat] um-mat i-be-el mdtdti^ 1 mit-ha-ri$ hu u-rap-pi-Sii-ma (29) e-ki-a-am i [ damu'itit' 1 i-zi-zu-ni. The latter certainly gives the better sense of the two. his word.— AND CYPRUS. tell It is impossible to which of the readings is to be preferred. and the phrase would then have a general application to all Sargon's conquests. the second phrases describing the limits it of as Sargon's conquests we may therefore regard representing the original reading of the text. both in the East Finally. that that he carved his image upon rocks near the Mediterranean coast. may be noted that the chronicle supports the statement of the in Omens is. The variant readings ina amdti <md ina mdti t&tnti are also interesting. The eighth section of the 1. Ver. read as follows (Assyr. supplies the antithesis in the . that Sargon set up his images the West.

The Omens on the other hand make an entirely new it section out of this portion of the text. by the nobles to the king. In the Omens represents the . as having nobles. In answer to their appeal Sargon may have settled dwellings in those whom he is had dispossessed of their It will a wider circle around his palace. and extent of five hosts of the world he reigned and [ [ ] ] the mighty supreme. stood around him. The sons of his palace (28) [ ] Sargon. By combining the two versions we may complete the narrative of the which leaves off abruptly with the question put Omens. said and they unto him. Moreover. who the (29) for five kasbu (8) (around) over he the enlarged his palace settled. consequence of in made to the royal palace and the last line of the section they appeal to Sargon to tell them where they shall go. It certainly looks as if both the chronicle and the Omens omit portions of the original narrative from which they were derived. to . the sons of his palace.40 (7) sargon's household. the latter version seems to represent certain of the king. not connecting with the expedition described in the preceding section. or powerful adherents been dispossessed of additions their dwellings in . be obvious that the figure 'five" in the taken in different it senses two versions." that his relatives and personal adherents. "Where shall we go?" The " chronicle seems to imply that Sargon caused is. to settle in the Country of the West.

Ver. (9) a-na ""'lt Omens il-liktili (Assyr. against (9) whom Kashtubila of Against Kasalla he Kasalla revolted.e.). as : be seen from the following extracts Chronicle. referring was enlarged . [ ] "Ka-saI-Ia (31) do. (33) their . Sarru- ma m. palace its 41 in extent to which the chronicle. the by context to a settlement of the has king's adherents in a foreign country. and marched. (i. and against Kasalla (32) he marched.— HIS CONQUEST OF KASALLA. The eighth line of the chronicle was probably it afterwards inserted as rounds off the account of the conquest and settlement of the Country of the West and serves to introduce the expedition against Kasalla. and he turned Kasalla into mounds and heaps he smote them grievously and defeated of ruins .u " Ka-sal-la ana u ukin Sa) sal-la m KaUu-bi-la »" u "Ka- kar-tne u-tir (10) ina lib-bi-tu ibbalkitu-$u-ma ana man-za-az is-sur u-hal-lik m&t*Ka-sal-la($2)iUiku(ku)-ma dapdd-Su-fiu itn-ha-su ka-mar- Su-nu tS-ku-nu (33) um-ma- an-Su-nu rabita{ta) u-Sam-ki-tu »" Uu Ka-sal-Ia ana ip-ri u kartne u-tir-ru 1 (34) ma-an-za-az issuret u-hal-lik (3 [ 1 Sargon. (10) he destroyed (the them. The account will of this expedition is far fuller in the Assyrian version of the Omens than in the Chronicle. the figure been retained but the measure itself has been changed to kasbu.

: The two forms of the narrative run as follows Chronicle. lonian version is The tablet. . The chronicle it has evidently cut down the original account. (11) ar-ka-nis ina Si-bu-ii-su Omens (36) . Ver. is is clear from the size of the gaps at the ends of the lines that its text must be restored in accordance with the shorter account of the campaign. ii — 13 chronicle. he turned Kasalla into dust and a bird to rest thereon. on which the Neo-Babyvery broken. but it preserved. (Assyr. Sarru-ukin Sa (37) Si-bu-ii matatiP 1 ka-li-Si-na ib-ba-al-kita-Si-ma (12) ina A-ga-de*1 ina Siri ari-ni-i il- mati ka/iSu ibbaikiiu-Su-ma mu-Su-ma kakki "'Sarru-ukin a-na ina A-ga-de KI ilmil-Su-ma (38) fisi-ma abikfa-Su-nu im- Sarru-ukin usi-ma dapda-Su iS- has (13) ka-mar-Su-nu iS-kun nu im-ha-su ka-mar-Su-nu . corresponding to records the of revolt it. . (34)he destroyed (the land and left not) enough for birds to rest thereon. note that the text of the Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens does not correspond to the Assyrian version but agrees with that of the chronicle. . tenth section of the of the Omens. The 11. his made against Sargon and suppression and the chronicle gives some important variant readings. heaps of ruins .).— 42 land and left THE REVOLT AGAINST SARGON not) enough for mighty host he overthrew. for makes no mention of the name of KashIt is interesting to tubila of Kasalla.

the revolt place in Sargon's " is described as having taken old age. differences in Aided of the the structure sentence. ku-nu (Rev. the other hand. after the suppression of the revolt their household goods and took In the chronicle.. and they besieged Sargon went forth to battle him in Agade. to the place of Ishtar they appealed.. under of Sargon. revolted. mighty host they bound their goods upon them. (38) and Sargon and defeated them.. (13) he accomplished their overthrow. . the to difference this in word " meaning assigned by the entirely alters the meaning In the " and scope of the passage as a whole.) IN HIS OLD AGE.. elders land . and the episode treated as a purely domestic occurrence the rebels collected . and their wide-spreading host their he destroyed. 1) 43 umman-Su-nu makkur- um-man-Su-nu rapaltim{tim u-$am-ki-it rabita(ta) u-iam-ki-tu Su-nu eU-Su-nu ik-su-u (2) ku- um (n) Afterwards age all ilu Iltar il-su-u in his old (36) . The most important by very chronicle slight of the variant readings lies in the sense assigned to the substantive si-bu-ti. went forth and smote them grievously (Rev. against this all the lands revolted whom the omen the (37) against (12) and they him in Agade and besieged him. 1) and defeated them he overthrew ." and the rebels do not form . is Omens it stated that the elders of all is the land revolted against Sargon.. on sanctuary in the temple of Ishtar.

1 44 a single lands " THE REVOLT AGAINST SARGON class of his own subjects. certainly to be preferred. in the event of meeting with success. that it clear the earlier ones are to be restored in accordance with the text of the chronicle. and." is old age and the Moreover. that found upon the chronicle. would at last besiege the the city to which he . the 1 but the reading of mdtu in proves that the episode in the Neo-Babylonian version was of an international and not of a domestic character. and. and " his clearly " reading of the two phrases lands. supports the chronicle's account. but consist of " all the of which his empire was composed. although the ends of the lines are missing. The phrase is " the elders of a conflate " all all the land " is awkward. in The Neoit Babylonian version of the Omens. for sents the revolt as having taken place in Sargon's old age is . the siege of Sargon in his own capital far more suitable to an external than to an internal revolt. In the case of a revolution headed by the ruling class in the centre of the empire first we should expect the act of the rebels to be the seizure of the capital. Of the two accounts of the revolt. In the last two lines of the section the Neo-Babylonian version amplifies the chronicle's text by additional phrases in 1. On the other in were revolt hand a confederation of subject races who would naturally advance from the outking in lying provinces. corresponding to the elders' appeal to Ishtar Assyrian version . is and the Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens. as the previous repre- section.

Ver.— IN HIS OLD AGE. from the finds of documents and Susa of the extent of the Semitic Empire founded by Sargon and inherited by Naram-Sin and possibly by other early Semitic rulers of Babylonia. Niffer. Chaps. Sarru-uki/i [" l<i hi ina gi-ib-Hi-ht itbi-ma 1 ana kakki ina Siri an-ni-i (6) \ I. Another of the early chronicles here published proves that the effect of Hammurabi's discussion victories over Elam was not fact still so enduring as has been supposed.u " Subartu Kl (14) arki ana Omens (5) (Assyr. illustrates the insecure foundations on which these early empires were based. of the land of Subartu. m. Evidence early gradually at accumulating Tello. Such clearly the sense of the in the version original narrative.). 1 Similarly the chronicle under the that establishes Sargon's empire tottered while he himself was upon the throne. is described 14 — 17 of to : the chronicle. The following extracts differ will show what extent the two accounts from one another Chronicle. Ill and . The conquest in 11. 'u S]u- See below. is 45 had retired for refuge. which has been mangled this of the Omens current in Assyria. But the fact that towards the end of his reign Sargon should have been driven into his federation own capital by a con- of the races he had himself brought to subjection. The historical importance of is new and more correct is version of the revolt considerable. which forms the subject of the eleventh section of the Omens.

this whom at- the land of Subartu in his under of omen in (6) the land might. while the Omens state that the land of Subartu attacked Sargon. does not is suit the context. and 7 of settled their habitations. n.seen that. It will be. and his forces he . (7) and Sargon settled their habitations. (17) and he brought their possessions into mighty host [ ] his Agade. it will be noticed that the II." which occurs the Assyrian version of the Omens. its might arms.46 SARGON'S CONQUEST OF SUBARTU. the chronicle describes Sargon Sargon himself as the invader. their wide-spreading host smote them grievously and them. p. The phrase in " 1. and the ideogram for subtu probably due to a copyist's misreading of the Babylonian form of the sign for dalahu. (9) [ defeated and their ] destroyed. and they submitted to his Subartu . 7. 2. that (15) and Sargon tacked they submitted to his settled revolt. (15) ik-mi-is-su-ma Sarru- bartu Kl ina gi-tb-Si-Su ztbu^-Su ukin dalahu Su-a-tu u-Se-Stb-ma abikta-su-nu im-has (16) ana kakki ik-mi-su-ma (7) ka- \Sarr~\ii-ukin hibati&Su-nu mar-su-nu is-kun um-man-Su- u-se-'Si-bu-ma (8) [daj>]dd-$u-nu nu rapastim(tim) u-sam-ki-it im-ha-su ka-mar-Su-nu zS-ku-nu (17) makkur-Hu-nu a-na A-ga- umma-an-Su-nu [ rabita{ta) (9) deKl u-se-ri-ba ]-$u u UldtiP l-su u-kau-'Se-ri-bu i-la ana A-ga-de Kl (14) Afterwards he attacked (5) Sargon. (and) he brought into Agade. (16) he accomand he and he plished their overthrow.'1 1 Again See Vol. (8) feated them. . and de- arms.

but at the beginning probably supports the reading of the the Assyrian version of the Omens. its Thus it reads daldhu in place of account of the conquest and sack of Subartu clearly agrees with that of the chronicle of the section it . is for with the twelfth section the central that changed to the of Naram-Sin. which ascribes attack to Subartu. describing improvements Sargon carried out befel at Babylon and Agade.). In the chronicle on the other hand we find six additional lines.— SARGON'S CONQUEST OF SUBARTU. the possibility should be noted that the third section of the Omens It is may have been true that the derived from a parallel account. but that they exhibit certain points of similarity will be obvious on comparison. The conquest of the figure of Subartu forms the last episode in the is career of Sargon which recorded upon both versions Omens. With regard to the two lines recording his repair of the trenches of Babylon and his work on the boundaries of Agade. Sarrit-ukin fa $a Bdbili*- (S) . Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens agrees with the chronicle. two texts are not so alike as in the sections we have already examined. so far as recovered. Yer. The two extracts are therefore printed below columns : in parallel Chronicle. (18) e-pi-ir e-si-e Omens 1 (Assyr. its 47 the in main and text has been subtii. and the troubles which in the closing him years of his reign.

(xO [ there]in he caused to dwell. this who ] trenches Babylon he under omen soil [ [ the moved. (19) and the boundaries of migh[t of Babjylon. for the Neobeen Babylonian preserved.48 is-suh-ma (19) Kl AGADE AND BABYLON. the the general nature of their contents same. version of this section has not A comparison of the Assyrian version with the text of the chronicle will show is that. and and built a city [like unto] its Agade. but the . of of Babylon. and called [ name ]. Agade he made like those removed the gate (10) . i-te-e A-ga-de K1 ina Siri an-ni-i kiS-Su-\ti Sa gab-ri £dbili i-pu-uS Bab~\ili™ *-[ ].Sum-ma l (9) \ep\iret Sa Sal-la bab gin-na ls-su-/iu-ma[ \ma Kl (10) \ki-ma\ A-ga-de ala i-puKI Su-m\a im-[b]u-[u] (11) [ ] Sum-Su ina (18) lib-b\i u-Se-Si-bu The of soil from the re- (8) Sargon. (9) and the ]. from some other portion of the The passage in the Omens is probably corrupt. It should be remarked that the restorations in the text of the Omens are purely conjectural. although the former is the longer and the fuller of the two. The soil chronicle describes Sargon as having removed the from the trenches of Babylon he removed the soil : the Omens record that city.

. but he evidently did not suppress it effectually . and the city itself may well have been capital. the passage took (or. the former has retained certain details. We may increased possibly take to mean In that Sargon parallel the boundaries the of Agade. mention of a gate 49 may serve to connect the locality with the outskirts of the city. near) naming it. The inhabitants doubtless came from Agade. and his troubles were to the increased by the distress of his scarcity of food. which had taken place in his old age. revolt of all the lands. the chronicle. . see the form this increase for he is there recorded to have built a city like after possibly. some of which in the course of transmission have become corrupted. The mention its of Agade in the chronicle occurs in connection with boundaries which are recorded to have been made this like those of Babylon. in the may be observed manner 1. to the The which last four lines on the obverse of the chronicle give a picture of the closing years of Sargon's reign. We The here see his land smitten with famine. and. to have settled inhabitants therein. While the latter has been reduced to a short summary. It own people due that.sargon's closing YEARS. while his enemies from east to west rise in continuous rebellion. in Omens we may Agade. and 11. It is reckoned within the boundary of the therefore not improbable that section of the we may trace the third Omens. 18 and 19 of the reverse of same source. is not found in the Omens nor upon contemporarv documents. he had checked.

(2) and he it).ilu Ad\ad~\ (3) sar ip-lu-su m Ri-i$(14) nl «A-pi-ra/c Kl u amHu snkkal U»Adad Sar [u * alu A-pi-rak A-pi-rak Kl kdt-su t'k[$ud(ud)] amC lu sakka~\t alu A-pi-rak kat-sn (1) tksudu(dn) Naram-Sin.ilu Sin ana (13) "'Sarru-ukin a-na [k> il-lik-ma\ alu A-pi-rak- (12) [Sa ina\ Siri an-ni-i alu A-pi-rak illikii{kii)-ma [pil-il-s]u (2) pi-il-su ip-hi- uS-ma >"Ri-i$. troubles upon him of as a The first four lines of the reverse the chronicle deal with the conquests of Naram-Sin. and they correspond to the twelfth and thirteenth sections of the Omens. the gaps in the text of the Omens ditions have been filled : in from the corresponding phrases in the chronicle Chronicle.). Ver. in consequence of which his god Marduk of the compiler of the was angry and sent these punishment. (13) and con- . mNa-ra-am.— EXPEDITIONS OF NARAM-SIN. 5<D Hebrew Books of Chronicles. and there are gaps in the account of Naram-Sin's expewhich we have hitherto been unable to fill up. (i) Omens mar (n) (Assyr. [marched] against the city [who under] against omen city of Apirak. In the These the chronicle enables us to restore. marched of the constructed mines (against Apirak. the writer of this document ascribes Sargon's misfortunes to his evil deeds. describe Naram-Sin's expediwhich extracts. The text of these sections is broken.ilu Sin Na-ram. this Sargon. the son of (11) (12) Naram-Sin. following tion against Apirak.

(17) He marched and against marched Magjan. Ver ). It capturing by means also enables us to restore the sentence in recording the capture of the chief minister of Apirak addition to that of Rish-Adad.the king of Apirak. which he only succeeded of mines.!Ar gan-na is-ba-tu-m [a] ] (18) [ m&tuMa-gan-na Sar kat-su ikSudu ( k>) this who under (4) Naram omen captured 1 -Sin. From the text of the chronicle we gather in that Naram- Sin had to undertake a regular siege of the city of Apirak. ana Ma-gan-na* il-lik- (16) Sa \a-ram- !lu Sin ma mMan-nu-da-an-nu Sar Ma-gan Kl [kdt-su ikSud{ud)~\ ina Stri an-ni-i (17) \_ana m&tuMa-g\an-na illiku(ku)-ma "•'"•'• . the king.— HIS CONQUEST OF APIRAK. (3) the king of Apirak. Mannu-dannu. (4) Omens 1 (Assyr. which read as follows : Chronicle. the governor] of Apirak his hand subdued. against the land of Magan. structed [mines (against 5 I and Rish-Ad[ad]. (14) [and hand sub[dued]. and the governor of Apirak his it)] . Rish-Adad. interesting addition to Naram-Sin's is A still more made by the chronicle with regard peninsula. and the 2 . expedition to the Sinaitic is This achievement of the king line described in the fourth on the reverse of the chronicle and in the thirteenth section of the Omens.

on which occasion transported it is stated that he cut the diorite for the statue in the mountains of it Magan and 1. 21). tome VI (1905). and it is probable that dannn. the king of the land of Magan. 5. ].'2 name is 4 of the broken but . land [ the king of Magan. and the conquest of that country by Naram-Sin. Scheil (op. corresponds to the contemporary form of the name of the sign Of the name of the king of . 11. See Delegation en Perse. (18) and subdued]." was a later addition. and the inn. . in the Memoires. Memoires. 2ff. cit. thence to Agade. pi. 11. 1 The inscription upon the statue records the defeat of Mani[um]. his hand subdued. Txts. Pt.. whose Mani[um]. 5) also cites the name as found upon the Oldpi.52 EXPEDITIONS OF NARAM-SIN. The name inscription. " mighty. Scheil gives a translation of the text. incorporated as part of the 1 name after having where VI.. of Maniu[m] occurs in Col. t. published in Cun. p. the lord of Magan. last sign of the II. identified with as {belli) name occurs as that of the lord of Magan in an inscription upon the base of a diorite statue recently discovered by de Morgan at Susa. [his hand of Magan. It will be seen that the chronicle gives the name of the king of is Magan be clearly to This ruler Mannu-dannu. Mannu. Babylonian contract-tablet. 10 (Bu. the traces that remain on the stone suggest the reading Magan in the Neo-Babylonian chronicle only the first half. 2 See the photographic reproduction of the text 1. pp.. 88-5-12. IV.

HIS

CONQUEST OF MAGAN.
title. 1

53

served merely as a descriptive
version of the

In the Assyrian
last sign
in

Omens

only part of the

the

name has been
is

preserved,

and

this trace

does not agree
chronicle.
It

with the end of the

name

as given

by the
its

possible that in the Assyrian version of the

Omens

the

name

of the king was preserved in
the
points

original form. 2

Such are

of

similarity

and difference

between the accounts

of

the

deeds of Sargon and

Naram-Sin, as supplied by the chronicle No. 26,472, and by the Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian versions of the

Omens.

From

the detailed comparison that has been

made

in

the preceding paragraphs, the following pro-

positions

may

be regarded as proved

:

(1)

The

portion

of the chronicle referring to the deeds of

Sargon and
original

Naram-Sin, and the
of the

historical portions of

both versions

Omens, are descended from the same
;

composition

(2)

the

Neo-Babylonian version of the
points of resemblance to the text

Omens
the

presents

more

of the chronicle than to that of the Assyrian version of

Omens

;

and

(3) the

Assyrian version of the Omens,

though often

fuller

and more detailed than that of the
in

Neo-Babylonian version and the chronicle, has under-

gone greater corruption
1

the course of transmission.

the

The possibility also exists, and should not be ignored, that the end of name in Naram-Sin's inscription is perhaps not to be restored as /////, but as a syllable that has given rise to the termination dannu of the late
Babylonian
2

text.
II, p. 39, n. 1.

See Vol.

54

ASSOCIATION OF OMENS

At

the head of this chapter

we

have, for the sake of

convenience, referred to the chronicle No. 26,472 as the

Chronicle of Sargon and Naram-Sin, but only a portion
of
its

text

refers

to these

two kings, and the com-

position

may be more
early
it is

correctly described as a chronicle

concerning
Further,

Babylonian

and

Assyrian

rulers.

not improbable that the original document,

from which our chronicle and the two versions of the Omens are alike descended, also took this form. We

may

suppose

it

to

have incorporated a considerable body

of traditions concerning the deeds of a

number

of early

Babylonian and Assyrian kings.
catch-line

The occurrence

of a

upon No. 26,472 proves that at any rate in the Neo-Babylonian period its text was written upon more
tablet, while the chronicle

than one

No. 96,152, though

omitting at least one section, presents us with a continuation of the text. 1

Moreover, the tablet No. 26,472 was probably not the first of the series, for Sargon's conquest
early expeditions to
in the first

of Elam, and his

the west,

etc.,

which are recorded

six sections of the

Omens,

must have had
It

their equivalent account in a preceding

section of the chronicle. 2

must have been
Ill, pp.

at

a very early period that the
ff.

1

See below, Chap.

56

Beneath the catch-line upon No. 26,472 are two signs, which evidently form the title of the work and give the series to which the tablet belongs. It is probable that the second of these signs indicates that No. 26,472 was
2

the second tablet of the series

;

see further, the note to the translation in

Vol. II, p. 14.

WITH THE CHRONICLE.
sections dealing with

55

Sargon and Xaram-Sin were taken

from their context and cut up into episodes to illustrate This is obvious from the the augural phenomena.
variants

and corruptions that have crept into the Assyrian version of the historical portion of the text, no less than from the variants presented by the two versions of the
Moreover,
it is

augural portions of the Omens. 1

certain

that Sargon and Xaram-Sin were not the only early rulers whose deeds were associated in this way with

The Assyrian copy and Naram-Sin, made for the
omens. 2

of the

Omens

of Sargon

library of Ashur-bani-pal,

contains a catch-line proving that the tablet in question

was not a complete composition in itself, but was followed by at least one other tablet, and may well have been
only one of a
series.

In the tablets of this series that
it is

have not been recovered

probable that a similar use
rulers.

was made of traditions concerning other early

And we may

further surmise, that

the source of the

traditions so incorporated

was the

original series of texts

of which the chronicle of Sargon and Naram-Sin formed
a part.
1

See above,

p.

29

f.

names of Sargon and Naram-Sin were employed in other compositions of this nature from which the names of other rulers are That their names should have been selected more frequently than absent.
-

It is true that the

those of other kings

is

natural in view of the magnitude of the empire they

founded, while their early date invested them with a half legendary and But that the names of other early rulers were mythical character. associated in the same way with, miens, is definitely proved by the occurrence

upon omen-tablets of the name of Ibi-Sin, the early king of Ur Cun. T.xts., I't. XX, pi. 13, Rev., 1. 12 f.).

{c(. e g.

CHAPTER

III.

TRADITIONS CONCERNING DUNGI AND OTHER

EARLY KINGS

;

THE BELEOUS AND BELETARAS OF AGATHIAS.

IN the preceding chapter it was remarked that the chronicle, on which the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin
are recorded,
is

only part of a composition concerning

most famous of the early kings and rulers of The tablet No. 26,472 Babylonia and Assyria. and the tablet composition, this of portion represents a
the

No. 96,152/ after the omission of at least one section, On both tablets furnishes a continuation of its text.
the reigns of different kings are treated
sections divided from one another
in

separate

by

lines ruled across

the tablet, and on

both the order

in

which they are

arranged

is

chronological.

In addition to the records

concerning Sargon and

Naram-Sin, kings of Agade,

the text of No. 26,472 includes sections dealing with Dungi, king of Ur, and with two other early rulers

named

Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni.
1

Then
15
ff.

follows a catch-

See Vol.

II, pp.

TRADITIONS OF EARLY KINGS.
line referring to the early

S7

Assyrian king Ilu-shuma and

the contemporary ruler Su-abu.
is

The
its
is

tablet Xo. 96,152
is

not completely preserved for
so that nearly half
it

lower half
wanting.

broken
its first

off,

its

text

In

section

repeats the story of Ura-imitti
series of traditions

and

Bel-ibni,

and then follows a
of the First

concerning kings

Dynasty of Babylon, kings of the Country of the Sea, and certain Kassite rulers, beginning with Hammurabi and ending with Agum.
It

will

thus

be seen that the section referring to
is

Ilu-shuma and Su-abu
chronicle,

not found upon the second
that

and

it

is

possible

the

original

text

contained traditions of a number of early kings between
Bel-ibni

and Hammurabi, which

for

some reason have
In that case

been omitted by the scribe of Xo. 96,152.

the latter tablet would present an abbreviated version of
the text.

On

the other hand, there

is

evidence that the
for

scribe of Xo. 96,152

was a careless copyist,
Hittites,

on the

reverse of his tablet he omitted the section referring to

Shamash-ditana and the

and afterwards, on
to squeeze in the
its

finding out his mistake, he
first line

managed

of the section in order to indicate

existence

upon the tablet he was copying. The same thing may have happened with regard to the section concerning Ilu-shuma and Su-abu, though in that instance he does In any case, not appear to have detected his omission.
whether one or more sections of the text have been
omitted, there
is

no doubt that No. 96,152 gives a con-

——
58
tinuation of the


TWO CHRONICLES
same composition of which No. 26,472
In
the
following
table

formed a
indicated

part.

1

the
is

subject
briefly

of each section upon
:

the

two

chronicles

A.
I.

The Chronicle
11.

No. 26,472.
reign of Sargon, king

Obv.,

1

— 23 —
4
:

:

The

of Agade.
II.

Rev.,

11.

1

The expeditions

of

Naram-

Sin, the son of Sargon.
III.

11.

5

—7

:

The The

reign of Dungi, king

of Ur.

IV.

11.

8

13:

story

of

Ura-imitti

and
V.

1.

Bel-ibni.

14

:

Catch-line,

referring

to
ot

Ilu-shuma,

king

Assyria, and Su-abu.
B.
I.

The Chronicle
11. 1

No. 96,152.
story

Obv.,

—7

:

The

of

Ura-imitti

and
II.

11.

Bel-ibni.

8

12:

The war between Hammurabi and Rim-Sin.

1

While No. 26,472

is

labelled as the second tablet of this composition
;

no colophon or title of any sort would therefore seem to have been an extract from the history, made for some special purpose, and not a regular tablet of the series. This would account for its beginning with a section of the second tablet of the compo(see above, p. 54, n. 2), No. 96,152 has
it

sition,

although the greater part of

its

text

would belong

to the third tablet.

— —
CONCERNING EARLY KINGS.
III. Obv.,
11.

59

13

20:

The war between Samsuiluna

and Rim-Sin.

[The end of the obverse and the beginning of
the reverse are wanting.]

IV.

Rev.,

11.

1

—6

:

The war between Samsuiluna

and Iluma-ilu.
Abishi,

V.

11.

7

9

:

The war between
the

son

of

Samsuthe

iluna,

and Iluma-ilu.

VI.

1.

10

:

Shamash-ditana and
Hittite invasion.

VII.

11.

11

— 13:

The war between Ea-gamil,
king of the Country
of the Sea, and

Ulamthe

Bur(i)ash, the brother

of

Bitiliash,

Kassite.

VIII.

11.

14

17:

Agum, the son
and
the
Sea.
his

of Bitiliash,
in

conquests

Country of the

glance at this table of contents will show that in the second of the two chronicles we have a number of
familiar

A

some
fact,

names of early Babylonian kings, but that names occur in unfamiliar combination. In the tablet throws an entirely new light on the
of the

relations

of the

early dynasties

to

one another, and

furnishes

us

with valuable material for settling more

from taking care for the city of Babylon. But before discussing the chronological problems which are raised by the second of the chronicles. accurately the chronology of this period. omitting those on Sargon and Naram-Sin which have already been discussed in or solved the preceding chapter. 8708. Texts. pp. It is. K. 1 From the short section of the chronicle which deals with this monarch we gather three new facts concerning him. and lastly. the king appears to have related in the his exploits. were not recorded upon K. pi. and his sacking of the temple (see Pt. Nippur. This building inscriptions Ur-Engur the famous king from whose we already know that he restored and erected temples and other buildings in the cities of Ur. the son of is Naram-Sin is devoted and king of Ur.. Cun. part of first which has been recovered.60 DUNGI'S CARE FOR ERIDU. Shirpurla. Erech. II). person the story of and is possible that the text referred to Dungi's defeat of the king of Babylon. Obv. XIII. et cPA/ckad. however. For we learn that he " cared greatly for the city of Eridu which was on the shore of the sea " that so far . 45. Cf. Col. but upon the next . On the tablet No. that this conduct raised the wrath of Marduk and brought about 1 own destruction. it will be well to examine the sections separately in the order in which they occur upon the tablets. 8708. Les inscriptions de Sumer 268 ff. also possible that Dungi's deeds tablet of the series. 26. 2 In the tablet known it as the legend of Dungi.472 the section following that of to Dungi. Thureau-Dangin. he plundered it and laid hands upon the treasures of Esagila 2 his . Cuthah and Susa.

as exhibited in the later art unci Semiten in Babylonien. which separated the early kings of Agade from those of Ur. and we may conjecture that these rulers did not relinquish without a struggle the empire which they had inherited. 1 kings is not improbable. which had been founded by Sargon and consolidated by his son NaramThat Naram-Sin was succeeded by other Semitic Sin.HIS SACK OF BABYLON. was not so long as has generally been supposed . the seat of Enlil or Bel. 6l In Dungi's care for Ericlu to the detriment of Babylon we may see evidence of a consistent policy. we may regard the principal successor to the Semitic empire founded by Sargon in the north. Ur. as the most sacred temple rulers in Babylonia. 34 ff. For the results of this of Tello. For the Semitic have lavished of Sargon's dynasty offerings may well their ' on the temple of Marduk. see now Meyer. pp. and Dungi's sack of Babylon and of Esagila be held to represent a striking and perhaps a decisive episode in the conflict which took may place at this time between the Sumerian and the Semitic elements in the population of the country. It is probable that under the kings of Agade the temple of Esagila had already begun to rival the more ancient shrine of Nippur. Sumerier . founded But the Dynasty of as by Ur-Engur. it In the first chapter of this volume was suggested that the period. and it is probable that the rise of the Dynasty of Ur marked a reaction in Southern Babylonia against the Semitic supremacy of the North. the god of Sumerian reaction.

where is told in the same words.472 is concerned the story of two early kings. By reviving the splendours of this ancient sanctuary on the shore of the Persian Gulf. In intro- ducing the subject of Dungi's treatment of Esagila and Babylon. 26. was probably one of the centre of oldest. the style of the chronicler bears a striking resemblance to that of the compiler of the Hebrew Books " of Chronicles. carry off DUNGl'S EVIL FATE. The story also occurs in the it first section of the tablet No. 26. This comment it manner of the Jewish writer. which has been preserved is the history of Agathias. and in support of this view we may the note that Eridu. as in the account of the end of Sargon's reign. which had been so largely increased under his Semitic predecessors. oldest. he states that he sought after evil " and is brought upon himself his quite in the evil fate. That Dungi should sack the temple and its treasures indicates a religious as well as a political revolution. but here found in a cuneiform inscription for the first time. he undoubtedly hoped to form a counterweight to the influence of Babylon and of Esagila. and we are thus enabled to restore the gap at the end of the fourth line of the section in No.472. . 96.62 Babylon. We may note that. the city which he selected for special veneration. comes priest in The with last section of the tablet No. and from one who was not improbably a naturally the temple of Esagila.152. if not religious the Sumerians. Ura-imitti in and Bel-ibni.

p. 25 (ed. ipVTOvpybs koI tuiv iv tois /Sao-iAeiot? fiaaiXtiav tuj /cat /ueAeo'ioi'bs xoi t7ucrTdT7)S. . - See Vol. BeAijrdpas tis ovop\a. 2 Now Beletaras is described by Agathias as while Sargon was pursuing this having been a gardener before he secured the throne . 87 IT. 1. p. II.t. 222). This idea has recently been developed with much elaboration by Lehmann-IIaupt in the . king of Agade. — . Agathias. Sayce.g. e(cap7rwo"aTO TrapaAdyios T7)i' tu> oikcko k. cVfc/>vTevo*e ytvei. Dindorf. Appendix. 63 The who story in Agathias runs that a king after named Beleous. and trained by him in his own profession and that of the . it Hitherto has been supposed that the legend. the irrigator or gardener. Hist. n. to succeed had no descendant him upon the throne. and Beletaras. was brought up by Akki. 3 Cf. e. that his gardener. Hibbert Lectures (1S87). on the authority : of Bion and Alexander Polyhistor. mc'xp' Ka '<- BeAeovy t'ou AepKeraSov.A. gained the in kingdom an unexpected manner. II. an interval had followed Xinus and Semiramis.. e's toutoi' yap 6rj Toy BeAeovi' ai-rjp nrjs tou ^. Sargon.A STORY IN AGATHIAS. a certain man named who his was in charge of the gardens of his palace. Lib. and established 1 own race upon the throne. . who gave him the kingdom. and reads as follows £<. . after having been set adrift upon the Euphrates by his mother. humble occupation he was loved by the goddess Ishtar. us tov Buoi'i ytYpOTTTot koi 'AAefdpSpu IIoAvio"Topi . 26. pp. which Agathias connected with Beletaras.tfiipafieiov cpvAou 6 iaoox>)s ktjitiou n-auo-afie'i'7)?. what more natural than to suppose that the Sargon ? 3 legend had been appropriated and applied to Beletaras 1 The story is given in the second book of Agathias. was derived from boyhood of Sargon.

and Bel-ibni. But we have now recovered from our new chronicles a story of two early kings which is totally distinct from the legend of Sargon. Ura-imitti's death then took who was seated upon the throne. prove that the story reproduced by Agathias is entirely distinct from that of Sargon. Ura-imitti's reason for doing this was that he dreaded his dynasty coming to an end. Beletaras. whose tomb. obscure. is entirely distinct from the Belitanas (B>jAiT<u<as). the king. identifies with Sargon the First. became king. he would derive from Bel-etir. Beletaras. Ura-imitti. according to Ktesias. and he hoped to prevent this in some measure by adopting his gardener as his successor and crowning him during his own lifetime. n. II. and he would connect Etana with the Adonis-Tammuz cult in Babylon. own hand. and placed his royal crown upon his my interpretation of the phrase at the beginning is of the second line correct.472 and 96. Xerxes saw in Babylon. und Beletaras (1906). The name Belitanas he would derive from Bcl-Elana. Vol. 2. 1 Cf. he holds.64 A STORY IN AGATHIAS. 13.1 52." under the Belitanas title. the gardener. whom he Our new chronicles. The meaning of the words describing the manner of Ura-imitti's death is place within his palace. According to the story on the two tablets Nos.set Bel-ibni. 1 but the similarity of the stories in the chronicles and in the history of Agathias is so great that there is paper contributed by him to the "Noldeke Festschrift. of Agade. and presents the closest parallel to that referred to in Agathias. Zimmern to have since received the effect that he may . p. 26. his throne If upon head. however. A rendering is there suggested from which I it would follow that Ura-imitti died by his some interesting suggestions from Prof. on the other hand.

This may possibly be partly due to corruption of the name in the course of transmission. 3. 9. 516). Belit. or possibly by poison.-Bab. qui in corruption : . would be a probable equivalent tt. or Bil-bani. adverb napaKoyus. to represent In any case Agathias was 1 justified in his use of the The form BeA^T-apa? . to Medizin.e. the king may have incautiously wounded himself to to death. Dindorf. It [i.BELEOUS AND BELETARAS. with reference to which he says Agathias. that and taking m alias n in a pregnant sense. The similarity in the forms of the names is not so striking. Diodorus. Vol. according to Diodorus. cf. illud dubio caret Quidquid Canone Eusebii apud F . and one of the meanings of mahusu that is possible. Ill. p. p. we may suppose the king died from drinking a mess of pottage which had been poisoned. cf. as "pulp. XVII. lap" (from the Syriac). for we get the equations Ura-imitti'= Beleous. 65 no doubt they were derived ultimately from the same source and represent two forms of the same tradition. by the chief of the embassy sent by the Chaldeans to Alexander. and BU-ibni'= Beletaras. Or. occurs with A is word pappasu thresh corn. while the pappasu was being prepared threshed or beaten) in the palace (possibly as a religious ceremony). to a difference of tradition rather than to a corruption of the 2 Greek The name has undoubtedly undergone some eundem esse. by assigning to sampii the meaning "to suck. pap" (cf. n. 1 but the names Ura-imitti and Beleous have nothing in common. und Sonderabdruck. ed. some such sense therefore. 2). Kiichler. (cf. would naturally be taken some such BeAe'tfmi r>js name as BH-etir whereas for Bil-ibni. 112. 2 have met his death by accident. the name (borne. y Lehmann-Haupt. 128). Assyr. We may thus ascribe the difference in this pair of names text. p. Niebuhr's scripserit et note to the name. In the second equation the first component of the name is reproduced in the Greek form.

" and is not stated in the text whether he was king of Babylonia or of Assyria . secundum Syncellum S. Niebuhr. which would point to the existence of a variant tradition with regard to the name.) is obviously Bel. An early is Assyrian who bore in the Bel-ibni. " forced service") [from Assyria. Balaeus dictus p. the first p.). 208. Early Babylonian Personal Names. the son of Adasi. however. ilu ] AssurKl ina im-has- Samas iU Nabi1 u ilu Marduk ilani*> x rabutP 1 beleP l -su am-ma Taf. Col. It Agathias. or during the Neo-Babylonian period there existed variant traditions with regard to Bel-ibni's patron may have the name of name of and predecessor. XI. other hand. qui ed. XIX Assyriorum : rex." 1 In " the two chronicles it referred to merely as the king.66 BELEOUS AND BELETARAS. may be noted that the reading of the name of the Plague-god as Ura is not certain (see. . Vol. Mittheilnngen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen. Nabu. 1 The text runs: z£r sarru-u-ti da-ru-u sa miH Bel-ib-ni mar m A -da-si [ mu-kin sarru-u-ti >n&tuAssurKl kudurru[ru) p\j\ iU Assur (see 11. etc. . n. apud Hieronymum (see Bellepares Eusebio. 1905. 13835. Hft. LXXXVIII. 119. as Beleous and Beletaras were Syncellum Belochm vocatur cui successerit Balatorus. V.). and Migne's Patrol: curs. on the component of the name Beleous also that of Belochus. the founder of the kingdom of who at the [word] of Ashur. upon] the Ura-imitti is city of Ashur. king. Shamash. 4) (as . complet. the additional support for this reading cited by Ranke. but. and Marduk smote the yoke (lit. mentioned by Esarhaddon Senjirli. is " the text of the monolith that was found at claims that he himself Esarhaddon there of the ancient royal seed of Bel-ibni. 17 ff. cuncta fraudibus turbavit..

with the early Assyrian ruler. Asia. successor of Ura-imitti. may infer that Moreover the catch-line of the chronicle No. that the we may identify Bel-ibni. List vouched for who was probably a Babylonian by the occurrence of the name upon the explanatory is of Kings. 1 to secure his country's The the story of Bel-ibni's accession to the throne forms subject of the last section upon the chronicle 1 The is existence of another Bel-ibni. so that the mention of two early Assyrian kings in the preceding section upon the tablet would not be out of place. 67 Assyrian kings according to Agathias. he is not or described in the story as having founded a kingdom secured its is and that in the chronicle termed sarru. king. pi. the son of Adasi. 26. therefore. "viceroy or priest-king.472 deals with the war between another early Assyrian ruler. while the former may have founded independence . 44 : F 2 . the gardener. not improbable.u si-RU = The name m ^Bcl-ib-ni there written . a point of relatively small importance. according to the tradition preserved first by Esarhaddon. a dynasty. Inset: West. and Su-abu. and the former only . V. m i. see and explained as follows Cun. we the latter was the case. Ilu-shuma. Vol. who. dealt with in the chronicle was.URA-IMITTI AND BEL-IBM." But the tradition of Bel-ibni's origin Ura-imitti and accession to the throne relations with is distinct from that of his is Babylon. with Bel-ibni. was the independence. " king." not issakku. Against the identification of Bel-ibni. in It is thus the title borne by Ura-imitti its context. it might be urged that.

see Les Inscrip2 tions de Sumer et d'Akkad. 11. and the king himself identified with the early Babylonian ruler of this name. had established his (K. Hilprecht that in his new dynastic list (see above. 382. 3) the name of Bel-bani's predecessor was not Ura-imitti according to the traces on the tablet. The first of the events that recorded of this period the successful war waged by Hammurabi against the Elamite king Rim-Sin. Ill. 2 on the throne of Larsa. I learn from Prof. The only " other portion of this chronicle is remains to be discussed the catch-line. king of Assyria." in conflict identify with the founder of with Su-abu. 3. 96.152 opens with the section about Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni. separate chapter. n. p. that line ILU-SHUMA AND SU-ABU. 617). whom we may the First Dynasty of Babylon. . 2). 4426 + R. which has just been discussed.. 1 See Chapter V. Arad-Sin. Col. It may be noted that there is no indication that the name of Ura-imitti's successor should be read as Bel-bani. 1 is treated below a The and chronicle No. This mentions Ilu-shuma. Rev. 26. but were two different personages. and. who. this is followed by a to series of records referring to periods subsequent the increase of the power of is Babylon under the earlier kings of is the First Dynasty. n. Thureau-Dangin is certainly right in his suggestion that Arad-Sin and Rim-Sin are not to be identified. Explorations in Bible Lands. who was of the dynasty of Isin (cf. p. on succeeding his brother. n. 1. discussion of the points it raises in would necessarily be long.68 No.472. Hilprecht. in This new synchronism is early Assyrian and Babylonian history as the of great it interest. and successively kings of Larsa . 2. both sons of Kudur-Mabuk. 300. p.

Rim- Sin had again succeeded in establishing himself in a Babylonian 3 It is possible that Rim-Sin's closing years of Hammurabi's reign. pp. the son Hamof the that murabi. VII. and from that his victories over in the thirtieth the date -lists we know 1 Rim-Sin thirty- and the Elamites took place first and years of his reign.SAMSU-ILUNA AND RIM-SIN. 2 That of the two combatants it was Rim-Sin and not Samsu-iluna who to in met the text is fate referred the seventeenth line of the clear from the mention of the latter in a subsequent section of the chronicle. or burnt him alive in his palace. renewed activity is to be assigned to the and his final defeat 10 Samsu-iluna's second year . he had rallied his forces and was again making war on Babylon. Hammurabi succeeded in capturing Rimand from the following section we learn that in the and successor of of this it reign of Samsu-iluna. . Chap. 236 2 The mention of a palace may possibly be taken to indicate that city. Vol. Hammurabi is referred to in date-formulae upon tablets of his reign that have been recovered. after capturing the Hammurabi cities of Ur This success and Larsa. and possibly captured him. The chronicle attacked Rim-Sin. but would appear Samsu-iluna defeated Rim-Sin.3 1 See f. my Letters and Inscription: of Hammurabi. authority 6g of over a considerable tells portion us that Southern Babylonia. see below. lxviii. and. carried of their spoil to Babylon. It will be noted that the text of the chronicle does not state that Sin. Ill. chronicle is The text portion very broken.

and has been . of the Sea. 33. written ses-ku in the larger List (No. Dynasty It was the contemporary of Samsu-iluna. That is it was a critical period in the history of Babylon sufficiently proved by the mere name the of Samsu-iluna's adversary. first From this passage we learn for time that Iluma-ilu.70 SAMSU-ILUNA AND ILUMA-ILU. and recorded his doings or those of contemporary rulers. would be difficult to over-estimate the importance of these few lines in their effects upon early Babylonian chronology and history. fact that the first section preserved reverse of the tablet refers to other campaigns of upon the Samsu- may reasonably be taken to indicate that the whole of the missing portion of the text related to the period of his reign. The iluna.332) 38. and that he waged a bitter war with him. and that the last five kings of the latter were obliged to defend their empire against a strongly organized state within the borders of Babylonia Iluma-ilu's title is itself. like Ea-gamil in the line. but it is practically certain that. not preserved upon the chronicle. which occurs upon the reverse of the tablet. eleventh he was described as king of the Country In fact. is The addition of the it determinative ki shows that the word a place-name. and ses-ku-k[i] in the smaller List (No.122). 1 we may conclude that he founded 1 The name is assigned in the Lists of Kings to the dynasty founded by Iluma-ilu that of ses-ku. the founder of the Second in the List of Kings. for they prove that the Second Dynasty was partly contemporaneous with the first.

though we may legitimately hold that ses-ku. of Sin-gamil. certain. 91. 316. or sEs-Ku(ki). 17. as ses has the value uru. the dead bodies of the Babylonian soldiers were washed away by the sea. where a battle took place. as the name of Erech is not written elsewhere the contemporary. 14). 26. or Erech (see name should be read as Hommel.082. king of Cun. king of the Country of the Sea.CAMPAIGNS ON THE PERSIAN GULF. p. Old Bab. suggested that. 345). it XVI. p. it is preferable to regard the proposed identifications as unproved. his state in the trict 71 extreme south of Babylonia the in the dis- bordering on that Persian Gulf. who was and probably the successor. who is now proved by the new chronicle to have been the contemporary of Samsu-iluna and Abeshu'. Were this identification would follow that the Country of the Sea included Erech within its borders. 34 f. and further. and Thureau-Dangin. No.. that this city was Iluma-ilu's capital and that of his successors . . represents the name of the district in Southern Babylonia whence Iluma-ilu sprang. Dynasty (see which was his capital. Pt. identified with Uruk. Les inscriptions de Sumer et dAkkad. Soc. as inferred may be from the fourth line of the section. we might accept Kings' Lists Hommel's proposed identification of Iluma-ilu of the with An-am.. Hilprecht. No. XXI. the son of Bel(?)-shemea. Altbabylonisches Rechtsnrkunden. the Uku-ku and Bibl. (see Erech as Ses-ku. Arch. pi. and. Texts. I. Proc. or Iluma. is to be identified with Iluma-ilu. but advanced to meet him and succeeded in From the next section of securing a second victory. both of which were unsuccessful. first of these he penetrated to the very shore of the Persian Gulf. We may 3lso note the probability whose name occurs on contracts apparently of the First Daiches. The chronicle relates Samsu-iluna undertook two expeditions In the aeainst him. Pt. In the second campaign Iluma-ilu did not await his attack. pp. ). or that of the city that Iluma-ila. Inscr. But.

a form which in my opinion disproves Ranke's suggestion that the contemporary form of the name should be earlier read as Abi-esith. in order to and successor. 1). his cutting probable that all similar attempts on the part of the later kings of the First Dynasty to crush or restrain the growing power of the Country of the useless. . to hasten the fall of Babylon. but in the third section preserved by the upon which the reverse of the tablet. we find a fact recorded must have contributed and end. 2 the last king of the dynasty. 1 The lines recording the result of the invasion In the chronicle the name is written as Abisi. ceived the plan of capturing Iluma-ilu by stratagem and with Iluma-ilu It is this object in view he in dammed attempt the Tigris. we gather that during the reign of Abeshu'.72 the chronicle ADESHU' AND ILUMA-ILU. lonian Personal Names. 1 Samsu-iluna's son to be a source of trouble to Babylon. n. the men of the land of Khatti marched against him and invaded the land of Akkad. Iluma-ilu continued It was doubtless check his encroachments that Abeshu' con. may indeed have brought the First Dynasty to an are there told that in the reign of We Samsu- ditana. 36. The form Abisi is is far closer to the form of the name than Ebihim (which found in the smaller List as the breathing. Sea were Further details of the struggle are not given chronicle. instead of Abi-esu' (see his Early Babyp. scribes at - and any its occurrence definitely proves that the Neo-Babylonian rate read the last sign of the name The name is written Shamash-ditana upon the chionicle. of Kings). at but he was not successful off. the more familiar form Shamash being substituted for its dialectic equivalent Samsu as the first component of the name.

. there and. the last 1 See further. but that success is it 73 met with considerable records that he brought certain. for Agum 1 1 back the images of Marduk and Sarpanitum from the land of Khani in northern Syria. or Gaddash. VI. have been omitted. was proking of bably in self-defence that Ea-gamil. power of does not resisting any additional relate it The First chronicle actually how the Dynasty came king to an end. who if followed Samsu-ditana upon the throne ditana's reign invasion. even Samsu- was brought to an end by the Hittite was probably no long interval between the close of the First Dynasty of Babylon and the Kassite occupation of the city. From the the next section of the chronicle of we It learn in how their kings the Country of the Sea fell turn before an invasion of the Kassites. the kings of the Country of the Sea never succeeded in absorbing Babylon within their Empire. 1 The invasion of the the Hittites divided Babylonian must have weakened and forces and reduced their foe. and might perhaps be urged that the the Babylonian throne who next occupied came from the Country of the Sea. Chap. according to the most probable explanation of other passages in the new texts. But. . We may the first therefore hold that it was Gandash. and it we may infer that was on this occasion they were carried off.THE HITTITE INVASION. of the Kassite kings of Babylon.

or was merely anxious by taking the are told initiative to prevent the invasion of his own country. the brother of Bitiliash.152 supplies on the early history of Babylonia. . he did not achieve his purpose. and. For we that Ulam- Bur(i)ash. the Country made further conquests in the Such in brief outline are the new facts which the chronicle No. and the history of in each reign terse summarized by the chronicler but the facts a few far- sentences themselves are reaching in their influence oblige us to upon current theories. after pursuing him across the border. They remodel our conceptions of the early history of Babylonia. conquered the Country of the Sea and exercised dominion over the on the reverse of the chronicle son of Bitiliash. relates The last section how Agum.74 Iluma-ilu's THE KASSITE CONQUEST dynasty. conquest. drove him from Elamite territory. 96. The is . text itself is short. 1 land. The chronicler 1 The discussion of the possibility of identifying Bitiliash and Agum with Kassite kings of Babylon may be postponed to the following chapter. the Kassite. In the made to indicate two following chapters an attempt will be how far such systems must be modified to suit the new facts at our disposal. and at one blow they demolish most of the systems of early Babylonian chronology that have been propounded. set out to conquer the land of But whether he was actuated by desire of Elam. of the Sea.

and her afterwards to to revise make use of the conclusions so obtained of Babylon the early history and of foreign relations. there . Moreover. while removes to the Country of the Sea certain unsettled problems. 75 has eschewed dates and has throughout confined himself to left broad statements . are limits to the possible margin of error and these very it we shall attempt to define. the solution of which may be left to future excavations will in that region of southern Babylonia. first It be advisable to deal with the chronology. But the facts once established. the most prosettles within bable explanation of the new data definite limits the early chronology of Babylon. . thus it happens that he has us a certain margin wherein to manipulate the facts he has supplied.OF THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA.

when complete. FIRST. gave a list of the kings from the First Dynasty of Babylon down to the Neo-Babylonian The names of the kings are written in columns. At the end of each dynasty lines are ruled across the column. All the systems of Babylonian chronology propounded last during the twenty years have great is in the main been in based upon the dynasties. This invaluable document.332 the British Museum. which in List of Kings. and a note gives the total number of years occupied by the dynasty. the number of kings of which the -dynasty was composed. and the name by which the .CHAPTER THE INTER-RELATIONS OF THE IV. arranged inscribed upon the tablet No. period. 33. AND THIRD DYNASTIES OF THE LIST OF KINGS. one name to each line. AND THE CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF BEROSSUS. and before the name of each king are added figures representing the length of time he occupied in years or months the throne. SECOND.

p. No. is The fact that the whole of the First Dynasty is wanting from the great List of Kings 1 of no importance. 240 ff. 193 Rost. after to each in the Neo-Babylonian working out the dates to be assigned it king according to the system. If the JJ tablet were complete we should be in possession of the system of Babylonian chronology which was current period. Zwei Hauptprobltme der altorientalischen Chronolog . Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Geselhchaft. 60. 1S97. the latter omitting the text from the end of the principal List Eighth Dynasty onwards as having no reference to the problems discussed by him. Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott (1893). Untersuckungen zur altoricntalischen Geschichte (1SS9). far the results would only remain to examine how were corroborated by the other chronological data available. It will be possible in a few words to in- dicate the position of the principal gaps. tablet The (1884). pp. and various problems remain unsolved as to the length of some of the dynasties and the order in which certain kings are to be arranged. pp.. Bd. Bibl. Ill For subsequent publications of the lists. Soc.. Knudtzon and Lehmann-IIaupt give publications of the only. Knudtzon. pp. .THE dynasty was known. Proc. VI ff. and by the contemporary documents which have come down to us from the earlier periods. Vol. Unfortunately both the top and bottom of the tablet are wanting. (1880).122. 21 f. with the result that gaps occur in the sequence of the kings. I. and to ascertain how far they affect the problems of Babylonian chronology and the solutions which have been suggested for them. and Lehmann-IIaupt. the contents of which had been made known in Vol. Arch. see Winckler. was published by Pinches. 145 SI. 38. and. and its text restored from the smaller List of Kings. 1 LIST OF KINGS. p.

212 3 The figure giving the " number of years was at first read as " 72 " . and in the given by this main corroborate. See below.122 *. for is the summary at the close of this its dynasty omits to give a note as to the length of 1 duration. so that the existence of the 3 total length of their reigns. but it seems to have been probed and its original reading may well instrument. we know from the Lists the length of each of the it first seven dynasties. was . we are able to restore the text from the smaller Kings' List. nately the is summary recording the length of the dynasty gap does not offer any difficulties with regard to the general scheme of Babylonian chronology as set forth upon the tablet. pp. VII. 4 2 See above.78 for DYNASTIES OF THE KINGS' LIST. and Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi. smaller 38. 2 A large gap occurs in the Third Dynasty. Chap. in which we must place the kings known from can control." The reading is of the figure It dynasty also uncertain. No. n. 1. Similarly the gap in the Fourth Dynasty is discounted by the summary giving the number of its kings and the preserved. but the reading " 132 * appears more probable. Vol. 77. p. which gives the number of kings in this at first read as "31. the Tell el-Amarna letters to have been contemporaries But fortuof Amenhetep III and Amenhetep IV. the figures list we by means of the contemporary Date-lists of the First Dynasty of Babylon. sharp some or with a pen have been "21. and only in the Eighth Dynasty that a gap in the principal List brings in an element of uncertainty. Ill. ff." and its present " appearance suggests the reading " 12 . In fact.

THE The dates KINGS' LIST AND BEROSSUS. are fixed. But a fresh series of problems is introduced when an attempt is made to reconcile those figures that have been preserved with the chronological system of Berossus. Dynasty came to an end.C. in order to approximately the dates of the earlier dynasties.. on the rock at Bavian Sennacherib tells years elapsed between the defeat of Tiglath-pileser by in Marduk-nadin-akhe and 689 1 his own conquest I of Babylon in B. and to rely upon some of the chronological notices which fix occur in the later historical inscriptions. In his inscription us that 418 I or Kassite. my f. Therefore Tiglath-pileser was reigning 107 and we know from his Cylinder-inscription first five that this year was not among the of his reign . on 1 this See evidence the beginning of his reign has been Records of the reign of Tukulti-Ninib I (supplementary texts). 1 B. Some historians have sought to fix the date of the First Dynasty in accordance with Berossus by ingenious emendations of the chronological data. Others have been content to ignore Berossus. 118 . p. beginning with Xabonassar. in Two " such chronological notices and a reference " the Synchronous History have been employed to ascer- tain within certain limits the date at which the Third.C. 79 of the kings from the latter part of the Eighth Dynasty onwards. and had it we known the length of this dynasty would have been possible to recover completely the main lines of the system of chronology as represented by the List of Kings.

V). but it will be seen that Sennacherib's figure in the Bavian inscription need not be rejected." Gesellschaft (1897)..C. The contradictory statements of Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon.. Chap. Op.80 CHRONOLOGICAL NOTICES 1 1 approximately assigned to 20 B.C." increasing the figure by sixty years . II.C. . states that if he the I attained to grey hairs and a ripe old age. From the Cylinder- inscription of Tiglath-pileser years separated the pulling I we down also learn that sixty of the temple of its Anu by has and Adad at Ashur by Ashur-dan and I restoration 1 Tiglath-pileser at the beginning of his reign. 16. p. cit." 2 Thus. is probable that Ashur-dan's reign was a long one. see Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Lehmann-Haupt would read " 318. who ascended the therefore been concluded that Ashur-dan throne of Babylon four years before the end of the It Third Dynasty. Instead of "418" Rost suggested reading "478. I. with regard to the intervals of time separating Ilu-shuma. Shamshi-Adad (the son of Bel-kabi). figures given by Sennacherib and by Tiglath-pileser it be accepted. Tiglath-pileser " I. p. Another means of roughly ascertaining the date to be 1 See Annals of the Kings of Assyria. It was reigning History" "Synchronous the from and about 1 1 80 B.3 years of follows that the date to be assigned to fell the end of the Third Dynasty 1 within some fifty 180 B. was a contemporary of Ashur-dan. show that the Assyrian scribes could make mistakes in their reckoning . talischen Chronologie. 95 f. reducing it by one hundred years see Zivei Hauptprobleme der altorien. we know that Zamama-shum-iddina. 3 Emendations of Sennacherib's figure have been suggested by both Rost and Lehmann-Haupt. and Shalmaneser I respectively (see further. Vol. p. p. for his great-grandson. 2 94. 98.

Vol.. List of years. the end of the dynasty. ATE HISTORICAL TEXTS. 8l assigned to the end of the Third Dynasty has been obtained from a chronological notice on a cylinder of Nabonidus. Bel. who.IV I. Inscr. it is not surprising that the estimates of the date at which the Third Dynasty came to an end should vary considerably.C. Cun. the son of Kudur-Bel. the principal For the sake of comparing Babylonian chronology the pi. . 11. Asia. Kings Shagarakti-Shuriash reigned for thirteen and ascended the throne ninety-two years before and 1247 B. 27 ff. a king of the Third Dynast}-. West. With such rather vague and contradictory indications of date. But this date end of the Third Dynasty cannot be regarded as B. was the son and successor of Kudur- Now B. which would thus have closed between the years 1260 for tlie accurately fixed on such evidence. built a temple in Sippar eight hundred years before Nabonidus came across tion-inscription recording the event. for the eight hundred years of Nabonidus is obviously a round number. fell within the reign of Shagarakti-Shuriash. systems of Rawlinson. This king tells us that Shagarakti-Buriash. according to the List of Kings. 64.C.C. and with a disputed figure for the length of the Fourth Dynasty. V. According to the figures of the and. by the addition of eight hundred years. the reign of Nabonidus came to an end in it 539 might be inferred that 1339 B. Col.C. 1 It is his founda- probable that Shagarakti-Buriash is to be identified with Shagarakti- Shuriash. III.

Babyloniens und Assyriens. tively. 264 ff. 131.. Marquart. on his date for the beginning of the Dynasty to 2296 B.. 73 f. table printed on the opposite page has been compiled. Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens. Zwci Hauptprobleme. tome II.-Zeit. Preuss. Ak. in his Babylonische Herrscherlisten (1905). 125. . . Zeits. Histoire ancienne des peuples de F Orient 1 classique. 22 f. No. 446. and Bab. the 601) attempted to settle the chronology accurately. pp. Babylonia and Assyria. deslnscr. II-V (the dates being given as possibly four years out from the beginning of the First Dynasty to the fourth king of the Eighth Dynasty). Tab. fur Assyr. Philologus. II. Bd. I. and Or. der Wissens.82 SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY. . History of p. p. p.. {Sitzwigsberichte der Konigl. Geschichte Babyloniens . Tradition. while in the main eschewing early dates. icnd Assyriens. pp. dyj ff. der f. 79. . f. and Altorientalische Forschungen. Early Israel and the surrounding nations. col. Chronologic. pp. 14 (1900). the other hand. pp. Vol XXVI. and Orient. 6. . Niebuhr.. 45 Winckler. ff. pp. p.C. (the date here given for the beginning of the Third Dynasty is stated to be probably from fifteen to twenty years too high). pp. 113. Ill and Hommel. p. Vorderas. 12). Ubersicht (p. . 218 ff. 27. pp. 163. Lit. Mitteil.. (see Beitrdge zur alten Geschichte. 92 I. Comptes rendu's de VAcad. 135 ff.. 66. Bee. the first in and Third Dynasties respec- systems with the highest dates being placed the List. and Beitriige zur alten Geschichte. Geschichte pp. the beginning of the First Dynasty at about 2500 B. pp. and Hastings' Dictionary of I. 418. Sayce. 19. 58.. and first volume of Meyer's Geschichte des Alterthums appeared just before the publication of the larger List of Kings. Brit. 1 Hebrew 226 f.. Rost. 68.. et Belles-lettres (1888). Bd.Vo\. Ill . and Encycl. VI. Supplementband VII (1899). 134 . II. Neither Tiele (Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte. 352 f. 2 1 SeeOppert. has recently reduced First und Assyrische now sets Lehmann-Haupt. Second. 28 1 f. Peiser. p. Gesellschaft (1897). 216. Ancient the Bible. nor Schrader 1887. Heft 1. 338 Rogers. 265) Lehmann-Haupt. pp.C. XVI. pp. 2 It should be noted that Delitzsch. 107 ff. Maspero. giving in columns the periods assigned by different writers 1 to the First. Delitzsch and Miirdter. p. Ill (1903)..

_ Q a as < z > I I I ci O O oo DO CO 00 Tf O O "} « oo cn On inininininOOO cm cm CM CM (^ *vO 00 O c-> On in wn O MO n in o * u-n u-> co ~ O ui "•. — «. in in tn ci O O oooooo •* co O ON" * O O O M O w-iroi-i moo 0\.g^ K vn iNtNrNtNiNOON? CM -<i- vo O ia ia HO N t n O CM z > I I ^ 8 i— i in o M I— . O — 00 _ x) * cm ci ?i r^ ovm -to in "im o _-.i SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY N m cm Ov cm cm N O m O cm ts r-» cm - In O rn ro wi _ ">. y.

and Rost. but this is due Zabum. p. 3) 2 Hommel assign 305. p. he considers too high (see further. to the scribe existence of a second upright figure 21 over the line due having written the which he had previously ruled down the right-hand edge of the tablet. n. In I. one after the other. It may be noted that Delitzsch. . Winckler. 84 It SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY. to his giving dates to four of the kings (Sumu-abu. this result he has in the main arrived at by reducing the figures of the List of Kings for the Second Dynasty. p. in order to get the total duration of the dynasties Heft 1. will be seen that in the table the majority of the writers enumerated on the preceding page accept 1 the figures of the Kings' Lists. Chap. 80.. in respects his low dates are obtained by his emendation of the Bavian inscription (see above. V). Sumula-ilu. Winckler. n. Sayce. Delitzsch. see below. Peiser by question in called been has figure who have both suggested emendations of the text. and This instead of 304. 2 and. 3.e. years to the First Dynasty of the List of Kings. according to the principal List. which (1903). The apparent figure. the Second Dynasty for 368 years. 146) . and Ammi-zaduga) for which there is no authority either in the List of Kings or in the contemporary date-lists. but he has since called in question the other figures for the Second Dynasty (see above. According to the smaller List of Kings the First Dynasty endured for 304 years. of Ammi-zaduga's reign upon is due to their reading the number of years " 22. Oppert. The former. Maspero assigns 334 years to the dynasty. and make the three dynasties follow on consecutively. and Rogers. 1898 Lehmann-Haupt did so too.. and The last-named the Third Dynasty for 576I years." the smaller List of Kings as and there is I no doubt that "21" wedge is is the correct have examined the passage anew. preceding note). 95. On a recent suggestion of Lehmann-Haupt to reduce the length of the First Dynasty to 289 years. 1 Maspero.

there to the (see further. not in 2506 B. " following up Peiser's suggestion.. Sayce. mainly with the object of reducing the date of Hammurabi.). p. Lehmann-Haupt. but they were based on a fanciful interpretation of the figures of Berossus that does not need to be discussed in detail. reduced the figure further. Briefly. Winckler. see above. 91 f. S3 for the sake of comparison.C. Marquart. Hommel the First in his history. as of also those Oppert. and. 82. Maspero. according most probable interpretation of the system of Berossus. and Rogers. but he afterwards and adopted a suggestion of abandoned this position Halevy. that the Third Dynasty followed immediately 1 A difficulty in all the systems which accept the figures of the List of Kings. and he Rost. see below. 3 The very high dates suggested by Oppert are included on p.. 399 years). are based on the assumption that the first three dynasties were consecutive. 2 still But the systems of both Rost and Peiser.C. thus reduced the Third Dynasty by 177 years. p.3 Delitzsch. to 85 agree with the chronological system of Berossus and with the statement of Nabonidus concerning Hammurabi. assumed that the reading " 9 soss and 3G 1 years" (which give the total 576 years) was a scribal error for 6 soss and 39 years " {i. is no evidence for his cyclic date of 2517 B. and at the same time assume the consecutive order of the dynasties. is given him by Nabonidus.e. reversed the order of and Second Dynasties. p. . n.C. earlier 2 than that which references 1. but in 2232 B. is that they are obliged to assign to Hammurabi a date considerably f. the beginning of his Dyn. II is to be set.SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY. S7 Rost's For to and Peiser*s publications.

No. The dates assigned to Hammurabi the .86 after the SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY. But before we turn it to the new information furnished by the chronicle. the period Hammurabi's and to ignore The majority of writers have been content to accept the figures of the List of Kings. he reduced years by making years. the Second having synchronized with is them. for instead of entirely ignoring the Second Dynasty. Niebuhr's theory a modification of Halevy's suggestion. First. chronological notice referring to for this is a point on which the List of Kings offers a serious discrepancy with a in an inscription of of Nabonidus rule. it its independent existence to 143 overlap the First Dynasty by 225 chronicle. their incon- sistency with the statement of Nabonidus. We may for the also examine the date which has been deduced beginning of the historical period of the Babylonian dynasties from a study of the chronological system of Berossus. shows that Halevy's acute suggestion was nearer the truth than has Our new hitherto been supposed. One of the greatest bones of contention among students of Babylonian chronology has been the date to be assigned to Hammurabi. 96.152. Others have attempted to get over the difficulty by emendations of in the figures in the List and by other ingenious suggestions. will be well to consider the two chronological notices in Babylonian literature which have a bearing upon the dates to be assigned to the First and Second Dynasties.

— DATE OF HAMMURABI. principal 87 pro- chronological 1 systems that have been : pounded are classified in the following table Date 01 Hammurabi. .

3 Finally Peiser and Rost secured complete agreement with Nabonidus by their suggested emendations of the figure given by the List of Kings for the duration of the Third Dynasty. 2 and he has recently reduced this still discrepancy further by emending the figures assigned by the List of Kings to the Second Dynasty. in may in be noted that the reference text of Nabonidus would assign an approximate date to Hammurabi the twenty-first century B. Sayce. rather than to diminish. the context of the passage in the text of Nabonidus suggests would be inclined to exaggerate. p. On Hommel's two systems and Niebuhr's modifi84 f. discrepancy with the dates suggested by Oppert. 79 f. See above. See above. whose results are based on the figures of the List of Kings In his first without alteration. 4 But the solution of the problem of for in Hammurabi's date we may look Meanwhile the the fact our new concep- tion of the relations of the early dynasties to one another. see further. see above. Chap. Another reference to a king of this early period which is found upon a later Babylonian monument furnishes 1 an independent estimate of the date to be that his scribes Moreover. . its round number. and date Maspero. Delitzsch. p. Winckler. n. p. V. - p.C. 2. the antiquity of 3 4 Hammurabi's building.88 DATE OF HAMMURABI. See above. but such a plea can hardly explain Rogers. 82. cation of the second of them. 1 Lehmann-Haupt got to within one hundred years of the estimate of rock at Nabonidus by emending Sennacherib's figure on the Bavian. 85 f.

We " that Nebuchadand we have already cited of which set was the contemporary of Ashur-resh-ishi. 10 Assyriologie.. 1 text engraved the upon the stone Gulkishar I.DATE OF GULKISHAR. See above.. Nebuchadnezzar who was the immediate predecessor of Bel-nadin-apli know from nezzar I the " Synchronous History upon the throne of Babylon. 3 Nebuchadnezzar 1 may thus have been reigning at about 125 — 1 135 B. 2 3 and Jensen. from Nippur.C. fur Obv. No. . Bd. assigned to the Second Dynasty. VIII.e. - it is stated that 696 i. The passage question occurs upon a boundary-stone preserved in the Philadelphia Museum. was probably derived from a round number .. chiefly Pt. Zeits. 6-8. by adding 696 years to this date. and. But it should be noted that the period oi 696 years upon the boundary-stone. for the stone refers to events which took place in the fourth year of Bel-nadin-apli. p. 79 f. and Assyriaca. S3. . Old Babylonian Inscriptions 30 f.C. years separated and Nebuchadnezzar.C. though it has an appearance of great accuracy. pp. pi. referring to events which took In place in the fourth year of Bel-nadin-apli. we 1 obtain for Gulkishar an approximate date of 1821 or 83 1 B. 220 ff.. 11. ff. and its 89 evidence also in may here be taken into account. father of Tiglath-pileser evidence on the strength the accession of 11 Tiglath-pileser has I been at about 20 B. pp. and the number 696 may have been based upon the 1 See Hilprecht. I. the I.

34 . III 311. ed. III. 133. ed. 25) the 33. likings.e.080 lib. 147) .080 years) it is probable that the units are intentionally ignored. years] Ill. . I. Schoene. for the We may ascertain now turn to the dynasties of Berossus and what date has been deduced from them in beginning of the historical period chronology. Chron. In Eusebius (Citron. Moreover. /.C. . 9 sars. this figure at any rate confirms the reading of ninety (against eighty) in Syncellus. p.090 lowing the years J first dynasty of 86 kings who ruled Deluge. his system of The the historical dynasties of Berossus. 2 and Dyn. 224 years [in margin of MSS. howwithin the reference as a rough indication of the belief that a portion of Gulkishar's reign period between 1850 and 1800 B. which added {i. 2 p.. the date assigned to Nebuchadnezzar ever. II. Such are the two chronological later historical notices. 25 (1).. take the I is only approximate. col. [in wanting margin of MSS. are after preserved only in the Armenian version of are as follows : the Chronicles of Eusebius. figure is though some would regard 34. see also Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa.091 (probably a mistake for 34. occurring in inscriptions first which have a bearing upon the dates of the two dynasties of the List of Kings. 2 ners. 8 Median usurpers. and 8 soss = 34. Dindorf. etc.. We fell may. lib. Beitrage ztir alien Geschichte. estimate that 700 years separated Bel-nadin-apli's reign from that of Gulkishar. in the equivalent in sars. . as the correct figure. Dyn. Schoene. col. 48 years] 1 So Syncellus is (ed.. cf.— 90 THE DYNASTIES OF BEROSSUS. folfor 34. Meyer. col. Eusebius.091) . Real-Encydopcidie.

. according to Berossus. See above. we add 1910 years to 322 1 B. which Dyn. ed.e.000 years). 3 has led to the suggestion that the period of 1910 years was intended to include B. 49 Chaldean kings. Schoene. furnished the key that has been used for the solution of the problem. 3. 53 : Hoc facto Khaldaei sitae regionis reges ab Aloro usque ad Alexandrum recensent. 45 It is kings.. . after the A. 2 the length of the historical attributed that dynasties was 19 10 years. we obtain 2232 as the Differences of opinion have also existed with regard to the point at . Thus if we take the length of For. ..e.. p. n. 91 458 years. 9 Arab kings. . Now the statement the effect Abydenus by Eusebius.000 years (as those before the Deluge are for have endured 120 sars. Dyn. . if Dyn. the remaining the historical Dyn. i. von Gutschmid's suggestion that the kings Deluge were grouped by Berossus i. total. to I as 34. 245 years. Chrou. I. col. 90. 1 but we are not solely dependent on the figures total in detail for ascertaining the length. 92. 3 Eusebius. Ill of Berossus.090 years. in a cycle of ten sars. VI. 526 years. said to 36.C. is unfortunate that the figure wanting for the duration of Dyn. IV. V. . 432. the reign of Alexander the Great (331 — 323 If therefore B. to their the to Chaldeans reckoned kings from Alorus Alexander.THE DYNASTIES OF BEROSSUS.). p. I be subtracted from this number of years gives the length of dynasties.C. Dyn. lib. VI ended 2 but see further. of the historical period. .C. Dyn.

Lehmann-Haupt. 210. The Greek text reads 31. p. length of Dyn. and this probably represents the original reading . 1 Confirmation of this date for the beginning of the historical period in Berossus has been found in a state- ment. 131. Zwei Hatiptproblemc. (cf. (see above. Beitrage zur alien Geschichte. this Meyer explains as indicating that Dyn. Heiberg.e.. at the point marked by the group XiVfijp «ai nwpos in the Ptolemaic . But Meyer has pointed out that. n.. p. 3 1 The same result has also I been arrived p. Polyhistor). which occurs in the Aristotle's commentary of Simplicius upon De Caelo. i. A very probable explanation of other points in connection with the It chronological scheme of Berossus has recently been put forward. i.000 years figure 1903 occurs in a Latin translation by Moerbeka. to the effect that. at 1). with the reign of Nabu-shum-ishkun..e. inquit (sc. 506).C. 2233.080 years as the and extending the historical ed.C. cut nomen Phulns est . down to the time of Alexander of Assuming that the reading 1903 is correct..92 THE HISTORICAL PERIOD II of beginning of the historical period with which Dyn. and that the following dynasty (VII) began in 747 B. Thus Dyn. rex Chaldaeorum extitit. the Babylonian records of astronomical observations extended over a period of 1903 years 2 Macedon. III. VII would begin with the — : reign of the usurper Ukin-zer (also the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser). Berossus opened. the beginning of the Seleucid Era. Eusebius goes on to say post quos. 109 3 f. cf. the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser. and Meyer. after enumerating the Dynasties II VI. a date differing the beginning of the historical period in Berossus.C. derived from Porphyrius. by only one year from that obtained for the observations would have extended back to B. but the period of 1920 years - down to 312 B. by taking 34. 90. 731). usually been held that has Dyn. according to Callisthenes. VI of Berossus ended with the predecessor of Nabonassar. VI of Berossus ended at the same point as the Eighth Babylonian Dynasty (in B. pp.C.

and the following paragraph of and successor of which occurs in the On this supposition the figure 48. the text relates that Abeshu'.exhibit with the figures of Xabonidus and with the date which Berossus appears to have assigned for the beginning of his historical dynasties. number of years assigned by Berossus to Dynasty III. we may consider anew the possibility reconciling the Kings' List with Berossus. ' and. 90). ff. p. that the majority of writers it was noted upon the figures of the List of Kings. Armenian is version of Eusebius on the margin of certain to be retained for the MSS. 96.OF BEROSSUS. See Meyer. The means which other writers have employed also for reconciling the conflicting data to. (see above. 131 1 See Vol. pp. and we have also summarized the evidence obtained from a first study of the dynasties of Berossus for fixing the beginning of his historical period. have the been referred We may now of return to chronicle No. . Bci/ni^c zur alien Geschichte. III. the son Canon. 93 We of the have now examined the information furnished by the later historical inscriptions with regard to the dates two dynasties of the List of Kings. and have relied have ignored the discrepancies which the}. 15 ff. II.1 52. From the reverse of first the chronicle we know that Iluma-ilu (the king of the Second Dynasty) waged a successful war against Samsu-iluna (the seventh king of the First Dynasty) . pp. In the sketch that has been given of the principal schemes of Babylonian chronology. after ascertaining what light it throws on the inter-relations the first three of dynasties.

p. 2 See above. 72. attempted to capture Iluma-ilu. As. 2 Although the its date-lists differ from the smaller List of Kings in details. Thus it may be conjectured that the two sections of the chronicle describe Iluma-ilu's relations to Babylon during the reigns of two successive kings of Babylon. but. as each of the other sections of the chronicle deals with a his new king. to the first nine kings is The number of years assigned in both authorities. be followed in 1 all cases of disagreement. however. As the date-lists are contemporary documents. and not during the reign of Samsu-iluna only. Samsu-iluna. it is more probable that accession to the campaign took place after his own throne. the Dynasty First the kings of of the table following First lengths of their reigns are given according to the smaller List of Kings and also according to the date-lists of the First Dynasty. Before discussing the limits of the overlapping of the and Second Dynasties it will be as well to give In the lists of the kings of which they were composed.94 NEW SYNCHRONISMS. while the List of Kings was inscribed in the Neo-Babylonian period. it will be taken into account in estimating the possible effects of our new information. Iluma-ilu in against campaign his conducted Abeshu' the life-time of his father and while he himself was still in cutting 1 crown-prince . of course. the other possibility exists. they attest total general accuracy with regard to the First Dynasty. the former must. but did not succeed It is possible that him off. very nearly the same .

KINGS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. . TABLE OF THE KINGS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. 95 N \MK.

For the reigns of the kings of the Second Dynasty we have no contemporary document such as the date-lists of the First Dynasty.96 KINGS OF THE SECOND DVNASTV. entirely The following table is based on the two Lists of Kings. . Name. The any smaller List gives the royal names only. without figures for the lengths of their reigns. 1 TABLE OF THE KINGS OF THE SECOND DYNASTY. The figures occur only on the larger List of Kings. from which they are here taken.

whether the phrase l. in The [op. First Thus to assign dates to the kings of the their reigns to the accession-year of the Dynasty they have merely added the years of Second Dynasty.e.). and we have no indication from the chronicle as to the periods of his reign during which he was at war with Babylon. VIII). know from the new chronicle. termed "the year which the land had 244 f." But.). Ill.ILUMA-ILU'S CONTEMPORARIES.152. is that it is not a geographical explain it. Moreover. Now. i. may possibly have been the year of Samsu-iluna's defeat. Southern Babylonia). p. A its component parts. 248 ff. Samsu-ditana. probable explanation of the ideogram im-gi (var. 1 is The portion of the date-lists which refers to the reign of Abeshu' almost completely wanting (see pp.m-gi-da)." "usurper " as Winckler and Homme! would but that signifies (see below.. that Iluma-ilu was not the successor of Samsu-ditana. . according to the larger List of Kings. and the twentieth year of his reign. and n may be translated ' II . . years of Samsu-iluna are better preserved." the formula may be interpreted as referring to a king of the Country of the Sea. A more probable year would be the fourteenth of his misfortune" cit. Iluma-ilu reigned for no less than sixty years. The formula for the fourteenth year may - thus "the year in which the usurping king [ ]. which bore the formula MU lugal im-gi kak-[ ]-ra (foe. . 96. name it for "ChaULva. cit. Chap. Vol. Xo. though the phrase might equally well refer to a drought or famine.. but the contemporary of Samsu-iluna and Abeshu'. my Letters of Hammurabi.DGAL im-gi be rendered as "usurping king or "king of Chaldcea [i. based both upon the context of the passages in which it occurs and on an analysis of reign.). the date-lists of the First Dynasty do not offer much assistance in fixing the years in the reigns of Samsu-iluna and Abcshu' when 1 the campaigns against Iluma-ilu took place. which had previously been ascertained by adding its But we duration to the accession-year of the Third.

On after the supposition that Abeshu's campaign took place he had ascended the throne we obtain the following extreme limits between which the actual figure must first lie.. and the reigns of Samsu-iluna's four successors. years of + 2 + 31 = 118 years. 93 f. if THE OVERLAPPING we accept the statement of the List of Kings that Iluma-ilu reigned for sixty years. XXIII. Beitriige zur alten . 1 year of Iluma-ilu). p. be noted that a contract-tablet found at Sippar is dated mu-us-sa \_Dd\mi-ik-ili-su lugal [bad] i-si-IN mu-ku-a. 1 This number made up first of the last year of the reign of Samsu-iluna (corresponding to the successors. 2 recorded Iluma-ilu's declaration of independence or his not actually given on defeat of Samsu-iluna. It may i. Lehmann-Haupt. This number is made up of the last twenty-one 28 + 37 + 21 Hammurabi's reign and the reign of Samsu-iluna (these together corresponding to the first fifty-nine years of Iluma-ilu's reign).. But as Iluma-ilu's name to is the tablet. it would be rash is make use of the date at present for settling the chronology. 1 last On : the other hand we may suppose that the corresponded to the first year of Iluma-ilu in that case year of Abeshu' the dynasties would possibly have have overlapped for 176 years.e. Abeshu'. the third king of the Second Dynasty (see Scheil. Receuil de travaux. we are left a con- siderable degree of latitude in determining the number of years during which the First and Second Dynasties were contemporaneous. 21 + 38 + 28 + 37 + 21 + 31 = 176 years. and Samsu-ditana. Ammi-zaduga.98 Thus. Ammi-ditana. and the reigns of his four i." and this ruler has been identified with Damki-ilishu. "The year after that in which Damik-ilishu restored the wall of Isin.e. On : the one hand we may assume that the last year of Iluma-ilu corresponded to the in year of Samsu-iluna overlapped that case the two dynasties would have for a period of 118 years..

Ill. if we assume took place campaign against Iluma-ilu the life-time of his father.). Lands. earlier than the nineteenth year of Sin-muballit. correct. It in his has already been stated that Abeshu's campaign probably took place own reign rather than in that of his father. Ililprecht that in the new which he will shortly publish (see above. and (2) the Second Dynasty must have occupied Northern Babylonia. It should be noted that these calculations depend upon the statement of the larger List of Kings with regard to the length of Iluma-ilu's reign. I learn from Prof. The Damik-ilishu of the Sippar tablet. p. On this supposition Iluma-ilu did not establish his dynasty earlier than the twenty-third year of Hammurabi. Heft I. and it is unlikely that his son would have been old enough to be entrusted with the conduct of a campaign before Samsu-iluna himself had been at least fourteen years upon the throne. Iluma-ilu established his dynasty in the Country of the Sea not Geschichte. 3) Damik-ilishu's name 1 occurs as that of the last king of the Dynasty of Isin. 1 Bd. tablet is not the same personage as Damki-ilishu (cf. but one of the kings of Isin p. Had this identification been two important consequences would have followed: (1) The Second Dynasty could not have overlapped the First for more than 150 years .). however. p.OF THE DYNASTIES. for more which Such are the possible limits of the period within the First and Second Dynasties were contemporaneous. 142. and not a Kassite. etc. it 2 . Explorations in Bible 381 f. n. it As Samsuprobable that iluna reigned for thirty-eight years is he ascended the throne when a comparatively young man. 11. But it 99 still is possible that the period was that Abeshu's in longer. of the Second dynastic Dynasty. fore the On this last supposition there- two dynasties cannot have overlapped than 200 years. and therefore the First Dynasty must have fallen before a king of the Country of the Sea. Ililprecht.

It has been seen that the Second Dynasty overif lapped the First by a considerable period. The Second Dynasty would in that case be entirely ignored in the general scheme of Babylonian chronology. of writers to all the kings of the First Dynasty. This all indeed is the conclusion to which a consideration of the available evidence would seem to lead. 136-7. and. it might be concluded the once that the remaining portion of Second Dynasty was contemporaneous with the Third. according to which the Kassite Dynasty was 1 not partly contemporaneous See the table printed on pp. there was no at further evidence available. ascertain It is obvious that we must how far this new other infor- mation substantiates or before contradicts the data available for settling the chronology of the period. But to undertaking this enquiry it will be well examine the relations of the Second and Third Dynasties to one another. with the .100 THE SECOND DYNASTY later and not than the last year of Samsu-iluna. and it Neither at of these extreme dates is is some we must set the rise of the Whatever point may be selected this new information by itself results in a considerable reduction of the dates hitherto assigned by the majority point between the two that Second Dynasty. and lines. 1 in the following chapter a reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been attempted along these the data supplied by the But new chronicle is capable of another interpretation. probable.

. and. 1 1 ff. p. the son of Bitiliash. Ulam-Bur(i)ash. " he conquered the Country of the Sea and exercised dominion over the land " . summoned while the last section of the chronicle records that Agum. we are told that Ea-gamil. the brother of Bitiliash. In these sections. according to the chronicle. for merely repelling content with not was he carried the war into the enemy's country. might be urged that the Kassite conquest of the Country of the Sea took place at about the same period as their conquest of Babylon.. it. before dismissing to in examine favour of carefully the reasons its which might be urged 1 adoption. the invasion. On the reverse of the chronicle. in Southern Now if it is assumed that the at later it kings of the Country of the Sea ruled Babylon. In that case ' we should be able II. 22 f. 11. the chronicle records the end of the Second Dynasty and the establishment of Kassite authority Babylonia. therefore. possibility that such an interpretation of the text it may be put forward. will be necessary. made an and that expedition to conquer the land at Elam . the Kassite. his forces. king of the Country of the Sea. to identify the See Vol.AND THE later KASSITES. IOI portion of the Second Dynasty but In view of the was its immediate successor. made further conquests in the Country of the Sea. and after defeating Ea-gamil drove But Ulam-Buriash him across the Elamite frontier.

in place of Aguiashi. 2 his son . the the younger (cf. Asia. Agum of the chronicle. . Cun. I.. and not u No. . 7315). is certain. 2 The reading Dushi is possible. . column of the List are wanting. We may father of Agum. 1 Gandash 6 years „ „ Agum. regard to them as preserved upon this document of years in the reigns of the : Name. 2). 33. Kassite rulers mentioned on the chronicle with kings of the Third Dynasty mentioned by the List of Kings. The traces 4 The reading of the last sign but one in (Br. . . probably identify Ur-zi-gur-mash with Ur-shi-gu-ru-mash. . 3 are very uncertain. . West. In that case Agum II was the seventh king of the Third Dynasty. who succeeded his uncle Ulam-Buriash and continued the subjugation of the Country of the Sea. the former. Col. . „ A-du-me-tash 3 . . which also first four number The following table contains the facts with of them. . . — 102 THE THIRD OR KASSITE DYNASTY. his son 1 . Inscr. . 8199). Vol. 8645). • • [wanting] [wanting] Ur-zi-gur-mash 4 [The names in the rest of this . No. 22 22 8 Bitiliashi • . the name is certainly gur (Brunnow. The first three characters in the name may possibly be read as Lalbirattash. The names gives the of the first six kings of the Third Dynasty are preserved by the larger List of Kings. pi. . Length of Reign. 1 The reading Bitiliashi. No. 1.] in is The second king mentioned and it the List the might be held that he is Agum I. not guru (Br. V. Ushshi.

king of Babylon" (cf. Marduk). the evidence would seem to show that Ulam- Buriash and Gaddash were separate personages. who . so that we have here a discrepancy. Untersuchungen. of one of his kib-ra-a-tu He there terms himself "tGa-ad-da ar-ba-a sar m&tuSu-me-ri u Akkadi^(i) sar Ba-ba-lam. of the chronicle with 1 we Agum Agum I. But the difference name can hardly be explained by supposing that Ulam-Buriash assumed a second name in his own life-time. king of Sumer and Akkad. Winckler.e. 6). From what is left of the inscription it may be inferred that it recorded the to restoration of the temple of Bel (i. it would be reasonable name Gandash has been identified with Gaddash. see further. of In fact. and. or in 1 Ulam-Buriash should be Gaddash. the name Kings as that of identify the third king of the dynasty. "in the conquest of Babylon " . who an inscription refers identified with to the conquest of Babylon which has been recovered. . Bitiliashi occurs in the List of if Moreover. VI. "Gaddash. whereas the List of Kings described as the son of Gandash. Chap.. From this 103 identification it might be expected that Gandash. 156. is A he is second discrepancy that Agum in of the chronicle was the son of Bitiliash. which seems have been destroyed or damaged ina ka-sad Ba-ba-lam. king of the four quarters (of the world). Xo. made independent conquests and to in the Babylonian plain harmonize the chronicle with the Kings' List we must assume that Ulam-Buriash reigned only in the Country of the Sea while Gandash ruled in Babylon as the first king of the Third Dynasty.GANDASH AND ULAM-BURIASH. a king of Babylon whose is found upon a Neo-Babylonian tablet purporting to contain a copy inscriptions. p.

Kassite king to brought into harmony with one another. . . According to the List of Kings. the Kassite. Meanwhile Gandash had for sixteen years. . therefore. conquered Babylon where he reigned being confined to northern Babylonia. his son . to identify Bitiliash with Bitiliashi. . 1 so that a copyist might possibly have confused the order of the names. 102. .— 104 . which both a possible but hardly a probable sequence. . 16 years . AGUM AND BITILIASH. . . of the first : On this supposition the order three kings of the dynasty would have run as follows Gandash Bitiliashi . 1 See the list . the former. and the order of events could be explained as follows : having defeated Ea-gamil. 22 22 „ „ Agum. was the rule in first Babylonia. on the death of his After reigning for twenty on p. brother Ulam-Buriash. . Agum would is have been succeeded by his own father. his brother Bitiliash. in remaining behind his authority Elam. . Bitiliash. might have absorbed the Country of the Sea in his dominions. It lines in the List of will removed by Kings had been be noticed that both Agum and have reigned for Bitiliashi are recorded to twenty-two years. He was succeeded by who. difficulty This difficulty and the be of parentage would supposing that two transposed. By this emendation the two documents would be Ulam-Buriash.

A consideration. two years by Agum. is And this we have already of seen. in 105 turn succeeded Babylon. a safe rule to if avoid emendations of chronological material. identify we it Agum of the chronicle with Agum I. it. Bitiliash was in his son. the one suggested above has much to recommend of the For of does not involve any consists in alteration of figures. and only the the transposition two lines Kings' List which both this theory it end in would follow that the On same way. that by its adoption we should be in reconcile the figures of the List of Kings with the Berossus. the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon. but was immediate favour of able to total successor. Moreover. we could easily obtain from the Kings the date 2232 date. Third Dynasty its did not overlap the Second.C. but. 91 f. of Berossus. which might be urged is in this view. could also be explained by the overlapping of the First and Second 1 See above. the inclusion by Berossus of only eight "Median usurpers" in his second dynasty. as B. II that obtained 1 for the beginning Dyn. who had to undertake the It is recon- quest of the Country of the Sea. p. duration of the historical period By assuming that only the figures of the List of First and Second Dynasties overlapped each other. . for the accession of Su-abu.A POSSIBLE THEORY.

But we know from the new tradition of this success. is 3 A weak point in the scheme that the inclusion of Abeshu's reign in Dyn. 1 THE THEORY AND BEROSSUS. might have led him to be regarded by Berossus as the last king of the First Dynasty.106 Dynasties. Hammurabi of and Gulkishar agreeing well enough with those obtained for them from the inscription 1 Those who have equated Dyn. and the war against which sur- vived into Neo-Babylonian times. VII). From the fact that Iluma-ilu was known to have been the contemporary of Abeshu'. 2 The contemporary date-lists assign 221 years to these eight kings. Chronologische Untersuchnngen (Philologus. 157. p. have generally suggested that Berossus omitted the kings of the dynasty from his accession of Apil-Sin. Supplbd. and cf. II of Berossus might have affected the general accuracy of his estimate of the total length of the historical period. the fourth king of the First Dynasty see three beginning his historical period with the . 646. Beitrage zur alten Geschickte. 2 dence of these two sets of figures might be cited in support of the equation. to To his eight "Median usurpers" Berossus First assigns 224 years. Marquart. p. II of Berossus with the First Dynasty of first Babylon. chronicle that he carried on a comparatively successful Iluma-ilu.3 A in further consideration which might be brought forward is support of the theory to that it would enable us to assign dates independently. of Samsu-iluna as well as that Abeshu' his we might indeed have expected would have been omitted by Berossus along with three successors. 1889. . and the smaller Kings' List assigns the first eight rulers of the Dynasty (from The close corresponSu-abu to Abeshu') 227 years. III. Lehmann- Haupt. list.

S7 ft". and. by the adoption of at last arrangement we should the have succeeded in retain- ing the figures of the Kings' List unaltered. - As to whether this would be altogether an advantage with regard to the Second Dynasty. same time reconciling them with the duration of the But the suggested theory rests entirely upon the assumption that the later kings of the Second Dynasty ruled at Babylon. if assumption should prove to be unfounded. Moreover. Thus is Ea-gamil. 1 Thus could be it will have been seen that a plausible case out for regarding the Third Dynasty as made it having followed the Second. the king of the " Second the " . in By transposing two lines the List has been shown to be possible to identify Bitiliash of the chronicle with Bitiliashi of the List of Kings. the this proposed method of reconciling the dynasties of Berossus with the Kings' List would of course fall to the ground.WEAKNESS OF THE THEORY. in addition to identifying Agum of the chronicle this with Agum I. Now such indications as are furnished by the chronicle certainly do not favour the assumption that the last later kings of the Second Dynasty ruled at Babylon. pp. 2 while at historical period of Berossus. Dynast}-. 107 Nabonidus and the boundary-stone of Bel-nadin-apli's reign. . III. p. see below. termed the by the chronicle not " king of Country of and Sea/' king of Babylon Ulam- 1 See above.

early Kassite late copies. which we possess inscriptions of in the form of may thus be harmonized with the chronicle's narrative. according to the boundary- stone inscribed in Bel-nadin-apli's reign. But. p. Further. Further. Agum's conquest was if in the Country of the Sea. and again Babylon not referred to. the sixth king of the dynasty. The chronicle's evidence in this respect is also con- firmed by the total absence of inscriptions of the Second Dynasty from early Babylonian 1 sites on which excava- See further. at the later kings of the surely Second Dynasty had ruled have been referred to as of such a description he of the Sea. 1 and though Gaddash appears from the the term the late copy of his inscription to have styled himself king of Sumer as well as of Akkad. we should have expected Ea-gamil. 1. related to have conis quered the Country of the Sea. on defeating Ea-gamil." termed " king of the Country which was also borne by Gulkishar. The phrase- ology of the chronicle is thus strongly in favour of confining the later kings of the Second Dynasty to the Country of the Sea. 103. Southern Babylonia does not appear to have been cluded within the dominions of in- Agum II.108 THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA is Buriash. the " is last of their number. p. to judge from his titles. 2 See above. The two historical kings." the title Babylon. n. 2 of Sumer did not necessarily include the littoral Persian Gulf. 112. . to In place king of Babylon.

. 1. is to be assigned. ilishu. 1 the time of the First - See now Ranke. We may now for date we should obtain the accession of Su-abu. which has been supposed to date from the reign of Damki-ilishu. p. n. We may therefore conclude that the later kings of in the Country of the Sea did not rule that consequently the whole of the Babylon. S. as last the we have seen. Babylonian Legal and Business Documents /'row Dynasty (1906). 11. to Damikking of the Dynasty of Isin. For the tablet found at Sippar. If we set the Third. based on the absence of inscriptions from excavated necessarily carries little weight when unsupported. 2. and Second Dynasty the may be eliminated from the scheme of Babylonian calculate chronology.AND BABYLON. See above. Dynasty at 1160 B. figure of the Kings' List for its and accept the duration. on the assumption that the Kassite Dynasty followed immediately after the First the end of Dynasty of Babylon. p. the third king of the Second Dynasty. tions have as IOQ 1 vet been undertaken. excluding the whole of the Second Dynasty from the throne of Babylon in is furnished by the new synchronism is early Assyrian and Babylonian history which discussed in the following chapter. or Kassite. 2 Such sites. . 9Sf. negative evidence..C. but its significance is considerably increased when it accords with positive and documentary A further proof that we should be right in evidence.

use this method of identifying Dyn. by reducing the independent duration of the Second Dynasty of the Kings' List to forty-eight years. . have separated event from the Kassite conthese at quest of Babylon. been assigned by Berossus Dyn. p. But is the date 1160 B. of We cannot.. and rather earlier. for. although we exclude the whole of it the Second Dynasty from the throne of last first Babylon. brought to For Samsu-ditana's reign a close by the invasion of the and a short interregnum or period of disorder this may exist.IIO THE DATE OF SU-ABU.C. however. year of may have been Hittites. 1 it As points of uncertainty would be rash the present suggest a definite year for Su-abu's accession moment to we may. for the end of the Third Dynasty it not definitely fixed. Chapter VI.C. does not necessarily follow that the year of Samsu-ditana coincided with the the Kassite king Gandash.C. have n. beginning. 3). however. or have been the only organized government in Babylonia. II of Berossus with the First Dynasty of Babylon would be rendered impossible. . alien dynasty might conceivably be explained as representing such a period. which appear above. Ill (see 92 f. for B. to The his forty-eight years. the equation of Dyn. its we obtain the date 1736 B. is unlikely that we can to 1 See further. may possibly have ended Moreover.C. place century B. Ill Berossus with the eleven kings of the Country of the Sea. when an may have either occupied the throne of Babylon for a time. it approximately in the twenty-first According to this theory of the inter-relations of the it early Babylonian dynasties. and the date 2036 for the accession-year of Su-abu.

Dynasty. it is preferable to avoid such a wholesale reduction of figures given in the List of Kings. ruling for sixty years. retain the suggested identifications of Ill Bitiliash Agum and of the chronicle with of Kings . according to the Kings' List. Agum of the chronicle Agum the who was probably the seventh king Third 1 In this short dynasty of eleven kings the founder is represented as . the average for the reigns of the thirty-six is kings of the Third. giving an average of to the separate reigns. and his successor for fifty-five years is another king fifty who ruled for fifty-five years succeeded by one who ruled for is years . while the average duration of the reigns in the dynasty three years. 1 but. only sixteen years. or Kassite. true that the figures assigned to the Second Dynasty upon the List of Kings are unusually high. more than twenty-seven years were exceptional : Hut such long reigns for instance. more than thirty- These very high It is figures can scarcely be regarded as probable in themselves. . Agum I and Bitiliashi of the List for such a plan would necessitate reducing the total duration of Iluma-ilu's dynasty in the it Country of the Sea to the period during which was contemIt is poraneous with the First Dynasty of Babylon. which also consisted of eleven kings. true that the First Dynasty. unless we obtain evidence that the conquest of the Country of the Sea by the Kassites took place at about the same period as their capture of Babylon. A far smaller reduction in the length of the Second Dynasty of the Kings' List would identifying be with of entailed by II. lasted for some three hundred years.LENGTH OF THE SECOND DYNASTY.

n. It is noticeable that Sumer.e. 102. 1 But against must be set the fact that Bitiliash. If Agum of the chronicle was Agum II." (see Cun. who hath settled the wide-spreading people in the land of Ashnunnak. n. But it is probable that this estimate of their as of secondary importance to the land of their origin. Agum suggest that his rule was confined It is 2 to Northern Babylonia. A-du-me-tash (the length of whose reign is Ur-zi-gur-mash. of course possible that in he may have undertaken conquests the Country of the Sea towards the end of his reign. Southern Babylonia. 2 i. 1). p. Agum I (22 years). 1. in view of the discrepancy in the matter of parentage. or dominions. Vol. 11. king of the broad land of Babylon. 33. pi. Ushshi (8 years). 4. the conquest of Babylon distinctly referred (see above.. West. was not confined to the conqueror of Babylon. it had but just might conceivably be argued that the conquest of Babylon taken place. styled In the section of his inscription which enumerates his titles. was apparently not included is in his From the fact that Kashshu here set before Akkad and Babylon.112 AGUM II AND THE CHRONICLE. but. in addition to overlapping the First Dynasty. Asia. 103. and one reign. clear that they were not quickly assimilated by the subject to race. Inscr. etc. . 31 ff. king of the land of Padan and Alman. and probably a portion of the reign of for 68 years. Col. new territory. would have been contemporaneous with the Third during the reigns of Gandash (16 years). but was shared by all the early kings From the retention of their Kassite names it is of the Third Dynasty. and part of a reign. Bitiliashi (22 years). king of the land of Guti. unknown). the Second Dynasty. we may regard his identification with Agum of the chronicle as 1 See above. this identification Dynasty.). Morecopy of to over in addition to the titles ascribed Gaddash is in the late his inscription. ru-mash borne by Ur-zi-gur-mash). p. V. and we accept the figures of the Kings' List. whereas (or Agum of Agum II the chronicle II was the son of the titles was the son of Ur-shi-guMoreover. Agum II is "king of Kashshu and Akkad.

p. the king. 100 ft". 3 See above. may possibly have king of Babylon while his son was a prince Elam Burna- and afterwards Burariash ruler of the Country of the Sea. the B.. hypothesis is The new system shows If." the 1 father of Ulam-Buriash. contemporary of Amenhetep IV. VI. pp. reigns of Ur-zi-gur-mash and this Agum According to been a in interpretation Burna-Burariash. 91 See above. may thus have been Burna-Buriash I. and cf. 113 place in We may of the thus provisionally the Kassite conquest period marked Country of the Sea in the the by the gap " Kings' List after the II. improbable. as appears most likely. p.BURNA-BURARIASII. I . The chapter last is point we need consider in the present the effect which the total elimination of the will Second Dynasty ciling the Kings' It is have upon the problem of recon- List with the dynasties of Berossus. f. 3 historical period of Berossus began in the year 2232 we must synchronize 1 this date with the beginning of - See above. new system forces us to abandon the method of harmonizing the Babylonian dynasties with true that the the historical period of Berossus. in that it lines of would make that this the historical period of Berossus begin with the First Dynasty of Babylon. 8. Chap. He the can scarcely have lived as late as Burna-Buriash II. incorrect. which was discussed as a possible solution of the problem earlier in this chapter.C. 2 But the method there put forward followed the other attempts of a like nature.

as is more probable. We may now consider the new synchronism between early Assyrian and Babylonian history. affords striking confirmation of the view that the whole of the Second Dynasty of the Kings' List ruled only in the Country of the Sea. probably along these solved of reconciling that the problem will be of the chronological system Berossus with the historical dynasties of Babylonia. as has already been remarked. have had lines capital in It one of the other great cities of Mesopotamia.a 114 THE SYSTEM OF BEROSSUS. earlier some dynasty dynasty which Babylon. which. As the synchronism necessarily introduces the subject of early Assyrian chronology it will be best treated in a separate chapter. . than that founded by Su-abu — is may either have occupied the throne of its or.

it has been the custom to arrange and date the earlier rulers of Assyria without reference to the contemporary kings of Babylon. 1 is we are furnished with a new synchronism which been recovered. But in the catch-line " inscribed end of the chronicle line of the No.C. occurs well on in the Kassite Dynasty and does not date from a period earlier " than the fifteenth at century the B. The earliest certain synchronism between Babylonian and Assyrian kings. I 2 . 26. HITHERTO. far earlier than any that has yet The "catch-line" consists of no more in itself than six words. NEW SYNCHRONISM ITS IN EARLY BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN HISTORY AND EFFECTS UPON BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN CHRONOLOGY. 54. p.472. which gives the opening tablet in next the series. which the inscriptions have previously supplied. and does not even contain a 1 See above.CHAPTER A V. in the absence of definite information.

pi. that Su-abu. king of m&tuAssur a-na tar-si mSn-a-bu. very dawn of Assyrian and affects the arrange- Babylonian history. but merits discussion in a chapter infor- by itself from the value and importance of the supplies. n. Now there be little doubt line. cf. Obv.752. 15. the form Su-abu upon a tablet of the 1 late Babylonian Vol. Altbab. etc. 214. II. marched. 4)..). it mation it For this occurring as does at the new point of contact.Il6 A NEW SYNCHRONISM it complete sentence. 5. the variant form of the name '"I-zi-Sa-mup. Ill. 80. V. written Sa-mu-la-ihc [ibid. The form Samu rarely for Sumu also name of Sumu-la-ilu. 2 1. fundamentally ment of the kings and the chronology of both countries. No. whose name occurs the end of the was name His upon contracts of the First Dynasty as Su-mu-a-bu-um 1 and Su-mu-a-bi-im? and as ^Su-muBut in the Datea-bi in the smaller List of Kings. 3 See Letters of Hammurabi. 915..640. . Assyria. A. 80.. Th. Cf. The line in question reads: " mIlu-su\m\-ma sar Ilu-shuma. where the form occurs as a component part of the proper name L-zi. see Letters of Hammurabi." having occurred in the following line of the composition. List A of the kings of the First Dynasty his name is founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon. 217. 92. Vol.Su-mu-a-bu-um . against " Su-abu " — some can at the such word as illik. Rev. a-bu-um (No. 101. Privatrecht. No. 916 (Meissner. occurs in the 1. written does occur under the form Su-a-bu. 12.338 (Bu.475). 1. Col. No. 7). p.3 It has hitherto appeared possible that the writer of the Date-List had omitted the sign mu by mistake but the finding of . 91-5-9. I.

Su-ad-da-nu. his title far Bdbilfa "king of Babylon. the name proper names as Su-da-nim." the For other proper names in which Sumu occurs name of a king of Ur. of the proved contraction of Sumu to Su. it legitimately conclude that the catch-line also deals with kings of the period of the First Dynasty. be noted that the "catch-line" follows the section referring to Bel-imitti and Bel-ibni upon the Now in the parallel chronicle No. 166. lit. relations of Hammurabi with Rim-Sin and in as the sections on both documents are arranged chronological order. a question expecting the affirmative answer. etc. " Is not is a father" . we may now trace the name of this deity in such " Sumu. .152 the sequence has omitted the section of the composition referring to Ilu-shuma and Su-abu." tablet. the The "catch-line" ends with we may regard it as certain began with It will name of Su-abu. cf. but following line that the 1 . whose place in was between the Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni section and 1 The meaning of the name is of Su-abu's successor. 1 worthy that both these forms were employed at the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon and during the late Babylonian period. 96. " we may In fact. " Sumu is a god. or Su. Personal Names of the Hammurabi Dynasty. is I 1 Su-abu a contracted form of the name. and Sumu-ilu. p.7" BETWEEN EARLY period definitely proves that KINGS. merely happens that the chronicle No. which was read indiscriminately as It is noteSumu-abu (or Suwu-abu) and Su-abu. Sumu a god ? ". 96. In view see Ranke.152 the section following that of Bel-imitti and Bel-ibni records the . Sumu-la-ilu.

1903. p. of Irishum has been preserved for many years in the British the signs giving the Museum. and among them one named Ilu-shuma. proves that the signs are Ilu-su-ma.. An examination of the however. who describes himself upon them as " the son of Ilu-shuma. Andrae held in the Sherghat have resulted recovery of the names of a considerable rulers is number of early Assyrian kings and which were hitherto unknown. No. op. but text. name of Irishum's father are much defaced. 2 A brick See the Mitteihingen der Detitschen Orient. 20. On the publication of Hammurabi's letters. and had hitherto been read as Khalhi. 56 ff. 28. cit. whose name occurs " catch-line." 2 1 See above." the beginning of the in and the little synchronism would interest conseit quence have had supplied the tradition beyond the fact that name to of the ruler in Assyria whom later Su-abu. the possibility was noted that Irishum . note). p. Three years ago suggest an it would have been impossible for identification the at Assyrian king Ilu- shuma. an early Assyrian viceroy. in 1 We need have no hesitation therefore the " identifying Su-abu of catch-line " with the founder of the First Dynasty to of Babylon. having been found upon inscriptions of Irishum. as on the inscriptions recently found at Sherghat (cf.Gesellschaft. viceroy of Ashir. in known The name was first made December. of Irishum 28. at have been the contemporary of But the excavations conducted by Dr. that referring to Hammurabi and Rim-Sin. pp.I IS ILU-SHUMA OF ASSYRIA.

Ishme-Dagan and Shamshi-Adad p. . 3S. inscribed in duplicate his upon four stone of E-kharsag- In recording rebuilding kurkura. in The temple was burned recording this fact and Shalmaneser's time. 119 Moreover. 859 and duplicates Nos. and Records of the Reipi of Tukulli-Ninib 1 Tablet No. 1904 Orient-Gesellschaft. 48. pp. 55. p. Erishu. should be placed in the earliest period of Assyrian history at a considerably earlier — that is to say. 21. Ill. The earlier of the two chronological passages to be discovered was that occurring in a building-inscription of Shalmaneser tablets. 30. the temple of the god Ashur in the city of Ashur. found by Dr. 5. its Vol. Andrae in January. date than see Letters of Hammurabi. Before discussing possibility new synchronism it further and the of identifying the Ilu-shuma of the chronicle with the will father of Irishum. two of the newly found texts of Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon contain chronological passages it from which is possible to fix within certain limits I the dates at which the scribes of Shalmaneser and or Esarhaddon the respectively believed that Irishum. Shalmaneser I gives a brief summary of the temple's history with details as to the length of time which elapsed between the different periods at which it had been in previously restored.THE FATHER OF ILU-SHUMA. and. . 7S3 and S90. be well to cite the passages in question and note the dates to be obtained from the figures they supply. 34. the son of Ilu-shuma reigned. see Mittciliuigcn der Deutschen No. which were . I. 1 I. 860.

. 112. 1 He The text of the passage quoted (Col. rebuilt (during) 580 years that temple which priest built.na e-na-ah-ma (36) "'E-ri-su a-bi sangu As-sur epus(us) sandti is-tu pali (38) "'E-ri-se il-li-ka-ma (39) bitu (37) II su-si XXXIX su-u e-na-ah-7tia (40) »' i?uSamsi{si)-HvAdad sangu As-sur-ma (41) epus(us) 1. IX (2) su-si XL sandti (Col." 1 it In the above extract supplies us with ruler. I. '"A-us-pi-a) sangu As-sur a-bi i-na pa-na (35) e-pu-us-. fell Ushpia (variant forefather. . rebuilt 159 years passed by after the reign of Erishu. fire broke out I in the midst . and Shamshi-Adad. Heft 1. 32 — Col. Shamshi-Adad. II. grew — (when) . who his belief was the founder of the great temple of the god Ashur. the of Ashur had priest of Ashur. 1. it . 1) bitu (3) su-u sa ™ 'l"Samsi(si)-HuAdad ana (9) si-hir- sangu Assur e-pu-su-ma se-bu-ta (8) i-na . n. I. will be seen that Shalmaneser I the name • of a very early Assyrian in Ushpia or Aushpia. . 3. : " When which my lord. p. — and it into decay and Erishu. the temple of Ashur. u li-be-ru-ta il-li-ku (4) isdtu kir-bi-su im-kut ti-su u-me-su-ma bitu sa-a-tu a-na ztir a/ten u-mi-ki-ir see Lehmann-Haupt. the priest of Ashur. the priest of Ashur. as will be seen from the following translation of the extract E-kharsag-kurkura. Beitrage Ceschickte. . at that time drenched that temple (with water) in (all) its circuit. temple fell my forefather. 9) reads as follows: — (Col. my it had built aforetime. 32) e-nn-ma E-har-sag-kur-kur-ra (34) (33) bit As-sur beli-ia sa '"C/s-pi-a (var. 120 HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE OF ASHUR fire. the putting out of the the king summarizes the temple's history in a long parenthesis. 1. II. and that into decay. : Aushpia). Bd. 1. IV. the hoary and old thereof .

by identifying this king with the Erishu mentioned by Shalmaneser I. 12 1 159 years separated the reign of Erishu from the rebuilding of the temple by ShamshiAdad. the text of which gave a history of the same temple but ascribed totally Shalmaneser I different figures for the periods separating the restora- tions of its fabric in the reigns of Erishu and Shamshi-Adad. We have already seen that the name Ilu-shuma has been recovered as that of the father of Irishum. the son of Ilu-shum-ma. inasmuch as it furnished information for assigning But a few definite dates to the earlier Assyrian rulers.BY SHALMANESER also tells I AND ESARHADDON. months afterwards confidence in the figures supplied by was to some extent shaken by the discovery of a prism of Esarhaddon. own reign. and that 580 years separated that rebuilding us that from the his fire which broke out in the temple during According to these figures 739 years separated the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Erishu from its destruction in the reign of Shalmaneser I. and. and the destruction of the temple by Esarhaddon agrees with Shalmaneser in ascribing fire. we obtain from the figures what appears to be a comparatively accurate date for the period of Ilu-shuma's reign. The discovery of this inscription of Shalmaneser I was regarded by historians with considerable satisfaction. the founding of the temple to Ushpia. but he states that only 126 years (instead of 159 years) separated the rebuilding by " Irishu." .

and he states that (instead of 580 years) elapsed between Shamshi-Adad's restoration of the 1 Thus temple and the time when it was burned down. The prism is registered as No. we may : summarize as follows for the purpose of comparison I. footnote. it in the reign 434 years then passed and was burned down. The temple built after of Ashur was The temple built of Ashur was after by Ushpia(var. But the between figures and those of Shal22. according to Esarhaddon 560 years. — Shalmaneser Esarhaddon. with regard to the history of the temple of Ashur. by Ushpia. who rebuilt the father's temple was the Irishum whose his name had dis- already been recovered as crepancies 1 Ilu-shuma. or Irishu. 122 HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE OF ASHUR " from that by Shamshi-Adad. No..783. the son of Bel-ka-bi 434 years " . the son of Ilu-shuma.. given respectively by Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon. instead of 739 The facts years. p. being rebuilt by Erishu. 126 years passed and rebuilt it was by Shamshi-Adad by Shamshi-Adad.Geselhchaft. after Ushpia. . it We may note that Esarhaddon's inscription definitely proves that Erishu. 159 years passed and rebuilt it was . the son of Bel-kabi 580 years then passed and was burned down of Shalmaneser I. separated Irishu from Shalmaneser I. 1. being rebuilt by Irishu.Aushpia). 74 f. See Mitteihmgen der Dentschen Orient.

set is the more be prism. see Peiser.-Zeit. op. Bd. a't. 5. Orient. It will be obvious that while both sets of figures right. included the previous period of 159 years. discussions of the figures. lift. . Col. IV. 114. No. 2 may be admitted that Lehmann-Haupt's ingenious suggestion does to a great extent reconcile the two sets 1 See Beitrage zur alien Geschichte. Lit. 149 2 f. I I AND ESARHADDON.. Even Lehmann-Haupt stated before the finding of the Esarhaddon that Shalmaneser's figures could not be right inasmuch as they did not support his correction of the date at Bavian mentioned by Shalmaneser I and the 580 years he held must really have . 1 His argu- ment was based mainly upon Shamshi-Adad mentioned by Shalmaneser I with Shamshi-Adad. . p. and Rost. 179 ff. VII (1904). Op. Col. 1... This identification the prism of Esarhaddon disproved. cannot be one of the which sets probably represents the other. I 23 are disconcerting for they in prove that Assyrian scribes could make mistakes their reckon- and they can thus be used to cast discredit on the in late accuracy of other chronological notices occurring Assyrian inscriptions. at.. No. p. the son of Ishme-Dagan.BY SHALMANESER maneser ing. actual facts more nearly than the is and the question likely to to be decided correct. but the by given by Esarhaddon were accepted figures Lehmann-Haupt as a direct confirmation of his method the identification of the of reducing the figures given by Shalmaneser It I. For other 4. 260 f.

Esarhaddon. in which the statements depend on the correct copying or calculation of an individual scribe.124 of figures. one of the two sets of figures is to be accepted as the more correct. but we need not press this point and may give that text also the benefit of representing the chronological beliefs which were current at the time it was The enquiry whether the scribes who lived under Shalmaneser I were more likely to be right than those at the court of inscribed. To this question there can be only one answer. If. but figures is VALUE OF THE FIGURES it ignores the question as to which set of the more likely. and any error would repre- sent an error in the historical traditions of the period. therefore. Only one example of Esarhaddon's prism has yet been found. it must on grounds of general . In the case of the inscription of Shalmaneser I we are not dealing with a single document. I The scribes of Shalmaneser years earlier more than six hundred and they were Esarhaddon. to be correct. historians of the time of in the text Its statements. no less than four of which have been recovered. hastily drawn up. therefore. resolves itself into the question. than those of lived thus in a far better position to ascertain with accuracy the periods at which the events recorded took place. represent entertained by the Assyrian Shalmaneser I. fully On the contrary. on the ground of general probability. the text was care- engraved in duplicate upon a number of stone the actual beliefs tablets.

pp. 1 1 See Records of the Reign of Tukulti-Ninib f. According to him. should have been firmly believed six centuries earlier and afterwards corrected. 107 ff. than that the miscalculation. as we have already seen.OF SHALMANESER I. 60 ft'.C. is possible to modify Lehmann- Haupt's suggestion so as to explain to some extent the discrepancy between them. explanation But whatever we adopt in order to explain the discrepancy. Now the date of Shalmaneser I may be approximately fixed by means of Sennacherib's I. . if we must have some theory it to reconcile the two sets of figures. reference to his son.C.).. 739 years separated the rebuilding of the temple of Ashur by Irishu (the son of Ilu-shuma) fire in and the temple's destruction by his own reign. figures given It is not unlikely that the by the scribes of Esarhaddon were based on the belief that the longer period mentioned on the texts of Shalmaneser should have included the shorter period separating the reigns of Irishu and Shamshilikely that Adad. probability be that given in the text of Shalmaneser Moreover. and 689 B. Tukulti-Ninib According to Sennacherib some six hundred years separated TukultiNinib's date from one of Sennacherib's conquests of Babylon (which took place in 702 B. since he is recording events far nearer his own time. 125 I.C. results It is far more some such confusion as took place in the seventh century B. such of a Lehmann-Haupt suggests. there can be little doubt that Shalmaneser's figures are the more worthy of credence.

inferred that Shamshi-Adad was king.C. the founder of Ilu-shuma.C. In a contract-tablet of Hammurabi. was reigning to in 1302 B. or in On this evidence we may we assign a I.C. the father of Irishum. On these figures we should assign to Ilu-shuma'a date at the end of the twentieth or the beginning of the nineteenth century B. On these figures we can. with the Ilu-shuma who was the First Dynasty. it will be the necessary to enquire whether we reign of may identify Shamshi-Adad.C. preserved in the PennMuseum. or. I Thus Tukulti-Ninib 1289 of B. Dr. as falling within the of Irishu. with any of the mentioned upon inscriptions from Sherghat.126 DATE OF ILU-SHUMA.C. B. however. as within Irishu's reign. Shalmaneser By addition of 739 years to this date obtain in round numbers the date 2040 or 2060 reign Irishu. Hermann Ranke found the name Shamshi-Adad associated with that of Hammurabi in of the reign sylvania the oath-formula. date the 1300 or 1320 B. at 1 Esarhaddon's figures give the very much later date of i860 or 1880 B.C.C. and in as only gods and the period. first assign to Ilu-shuma a date in the first half of the twenty- century B. . kings are it invoked oath-formulae of may be any rate. In connection with the suggested identification of the contemporary of Su-abu. 1 Now Ilu-shuma was the father of of and we have no means of telling how long either them reigned. who rulers appears to have been an Assyrian ruler during the Hammurabi.

. the son of Ishme-Dagan.C. Neither of these formulae correspond that it published by Dr. p. Another Shamshi-Adad. 2) but it is not improbable that Igur-kapkapu is the same personage as Bcl-kabi (cf. pp. 39th. Tiglath-pileser I Assyria. p. in the formulae for the fourth and tenth years of Hammurabi's reign. Ranke. p. ff. No. be the son of Igur-kapkapu (see Annals of the Kings of Assyria. is known from the newly found inscrip1820 B. ). and 41st years). 120 The Samsi-Adad whose name Ashur occurs on bricks is in the British Museum as a restorer of the temple of there stated to . x. 1 Now from other sources we know of at of is two Shamshi-Adads who were early rulers Shamshi-Adad. Hammurabi's date-lists {e. See above. 55 f. 37th. 40th. According Ranke. - we must assign the tablet in question to the end of where some of the formulae are missing from the those for the 36th. II. the first of these years being dated by the building of its wall. the tablet is dated MU ma(?)-ki-ia(?)-nin-bi mai. the son of Bel-kabi. viceroy of Assyria at I 2J some time during the period of least Hammurabi's rule in Babylon. p. before and cannot be identified with Hammurabi's contemporary. said by to have restored the temple of Ann and Adad 641 years before it was pulled down by He must therefore have ruled a little Ashur-dan. the second by 1 See to Dr. of the temple from that of while my Records of the Reign of Tukulti-Ninib I. Delitzsch. . the carrying off of its inhabitants and cattle (see below. 75. so is possible that reign. . MUteilungen der Dcutschen Orient-Gcscllschaft. 98 to that f.g.HAMMURABI AND SHAMSHI-ADAD. p. Vol.-ge-a(ki) Now Malgia is mentioned see his Early Babylonian Personal Nanus. 22. note). tions at Sherghat to have been one of the early Assyrian rulers who restored the temple of Ashur. 2 his According rebuilding to Esarhaddon 126 years separated Irishu.

2 upon Thus identify be seen that. the identification of Shamshi-Adad. with the father of Erishu. 159 years separated these two events. p. our new synchronism and this additional point of contact between early Assyrian and Babylonian history must not be ignored as a possible of the problem. n. and he may have rebuilt the temple of Ashur towards the end of his reign. If therefore we identify Ilu-shuma. evidence is But until ruler. 1 Now Su-abu's accession was separated by 102 years from Hammurabi's accession. 1). the contemporary of Su-abu. See above. the son of Bel-kabi. Shamshi-Adad may have survived Hammurabi for some years. the inference that an Assyrian ruler of the contemporary of name of Shamsi-Adad was the Hammurabi gains fresh support from . I's according to Shalmaneser seen are more figures (which we have those of worthy of credence than Esarhaddon). with Hammurabi's contemporary the Assyrian figures. inscribed at the end of Hammurabi's reign (see above. forthcoming of the existence of such a we may 1 accept the identification of the Ilu-shuma of p. It is factor in the solution of course possible that an earlier Assyrian ruler of the name of Ilu-shuma occupied the Assyrian throne before the father of Irishu.128 HAMMURABI AND SHAMSHI-ADAD. while we cannot definitely mentioned upon the early Shamshi-Adad the it will Babylonian contract-tablet. If the 2 contract-tablet on which Shamshi-Adad's name occurs was 127. 122. . is just possible. and by 145 years from Hammurabi's death.

C. to be assigned to llu-shuma. some four centuries earlier than 2100 first while Delitzsch. 'The fact founder. and to its Su-abu. or Sumu-abu. whereas Ilu-shuma. a date in the twenty-first tury B. the founder of the Dynasty of Babylon. the father of Irishu. The majority has been the of writers have set Su-abu B. have been lost sight of in the course of many centuries of as his tradition unless. Such a distinction in titles may well . merely an issakku (PATESI). 83 will show the dates which have hitherto been assigned to the in the principal beginning of the First Dynasty of Babylonian schemes three or chronology that have been published. indeed. a " priest-king" or " viceroy. " king.SU-ABU AND ILU-SIIUMA. Ilu-shuma did claim the title of to suggest." does not in the least tell against the possibility of the identification. the founder of the Dynasty of Babylon. chronicle is If therefore Ilu-shuma of the 1 to be identified with the father of Irishu. who writer to assign a place in history to Ilu-shuma." war with Su-abu would seem K . the father of Irishu was. ditana.C. king of Assyria. The new synchronism makes First Ilu-shuma. he assigns a date of terms Ilu-shuma that the chronicler "king" of Assyria.. First cen- Now a glance at the table printed on p." the contemporary of Su-abu. so far as we know. I's is We have already seen that first on Shalmancser figures a date in the half of the twenty-first century B. the chronicle I 29 with the only known " ruler of that name. we obtain for Su-abu. makes him the contemporary of Samsulast the king of the First Dynasty.C.

2 these limits. See above. 1 I about 2500 From these figures it might appear that the Ilu-shuma of the chronicle could not possibly be the same ruler as the father of Irishu.C. p. II. and Gulkishar from the later chronological On the other hand it was pointed out that the evidence furnished by the chronicle suggests the inference that the kings of the Country of the Sea never ruled at Babylon at all. twenty-first century B. was to be assigned for the accession of Su-abu. it has been shown that it is possible to assign dates to the First Dynasty historical period which would harmonize with the of Berossus. The overlapping of the First and Second Dynasties alone proves that these dates must be reduced by a number of years not less than 118 By a reduction within and not greater than 200. Our new synchronism 1 between early Assyrian and See his Babylonische und Assyrische Herrscherlisten. and that consequently the Third . 2 98 f. and with the dates obtained for Hammurabi notices. the founder of the First Dynasty. and. In the last chapter we have seen that the dates assigned to the kings of the First Dynasty by means of the figures given in the Lists of Kings must be considerably reduced.13© THE FIGURES OF SHALMANESER B.C. . and by assuming that the Third Dynasty began when the Second ended. Dynasty followed immediately after the First date within the a according to this alternative scheme.

as evidence points to a date in the twenty-first . we obtain an additional reason for accepting correct.. century B. The close agreement of these figures is remarkas falling within the reign of Ilu-shuma able. our one chain of Su-abu.C. and our other approximate an date of points to evidence chain of 2040 or 2060 BJC. I 3 I Babylonian history strikingly supports the conclusion that the later as well as the earlier kings of the Country of the Sea are to be eliminated from the scheme of Babylonian chronology. the son of Ilu-shuma. Shalmaneser Fs figures as approximately and on the other hand our supposition is con- firmed that the Kassite Dynasty followed immediately after the First note that this result Dynasty of Babylon. with the only Assyrian ruler who is known to have borne this name. According to the figures of Shalmaneser fell I the approximate date of 2040 or 2c6o B. The other advantages attaching to this chronological will arrangement be obvious after a moment's reflection k 2 . the contemporary of Su-abu. Thus.C. if we eliminate the whole of the Second Dynasty from the throne of Babylon. within the But our new- synchronism makes Ilu-shuma contemporaneous with we have seen.AND THE NEW SYNCHRONISM. Finally. and to the latter's accession we may. reign of Irishu. assign a date in the twenty-first century B.C. we may by identifying Iluis obtained shuma. and each chain of evidence strengthens the other. as within the reign of Uu-shuma's son. on the one hand. That is to say.

In the first place the scheme does not necessitate tampering with the chronological material or amending it in any way. p. 1 See above. But an advantage. the Hammurabi and Burna-Buriash.132 NEW CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME and they may here be briefly enumerated.C. The figures assigned by the larger Kings' List to its second dynasty may be accepted or rejected without affecting Babylonian chronology. Similarly we need not alter the order of the early kings of the Kassite Dynasty as given by the Kings' List. out that Nabonidus is speaking in round numbers. would have come to the whereas on the figures of when he asserts that seven hundred years separated Moreover. is that the scheme is in harmony with to every indication afforded by the new chronicle itself. which is even greater than the two just mentioned. Hammurabi. system of chronology. We may thus await the discovery of contemporary documents to clear up the history and chronology of the Country of the Sea without attempting to anticipate their verdict. in order harmonize that document with our new information. throne we have after 2000 B.. According to the suggested seen. Nabonidus we should probably assign him a date at 1 But it must again be pointed least a century earlier. . is The only apparent disadvantage that it of this scheme does necessitate a slight reduction of the estimate given by Nabonidus as for the date of Hammurabi.

S6 I. in which excava- the course of his : tions. 14. p. I beheld in the midst thereof and relate I was afraid " — and the text goes on to how the king prayed to the Sun-god. therefore. the ancient king who is there seven for hundred years before Burna-Buriash had built Shamash the temple of Shamash and the templetower upon the old foundation.AND scribes ITS EFFECTS. so far from introducing a fresh difficulty into the chronology. considerably lessens an old one. f. That we should assign to Hammurabi a date which within a century or so of this rough estimate is all is that need be demanded in the way of harmonizing it with other It and more definitely chronological documents. 87. on the figures of Bel-nadin-apli's boundary-stone . n. 1 The context obviously does not suggest any special chronological accuracy. may further be pointed out that the majority of writers have been content to assign to Hammurabi dates from one to two and a-half centuries Nabonidus. 3 See also Chap. 3 1 See above. pp. The king name-inscription of " The made to say Hammurabi. 18 ff. 2 earlier than the estimate of The suggested system. The date assigned to Gulkishar. I 33 who to drew increase up the inscription would be the inclined rather than to diminish age Hammurabi's Nabonidus had found of foundation-inscription. king of the Country of the Sea. p. - Sej above. 2. the date being simply inserted tc heighten the impression of Hammurabi's great antiquity.

and these 1 we have f. See above. 113 . was further suggested that the date 2232 B. pointed out that the existing schemes for reconciling the conflicting data were based upon the incorrect hypothesis that the beginning of the historical period of Berossus was to be set at the beginning or during the It period of the First Dynasty of the List of Kings.C. We may conclude that the Kassite conquest of Babylon would also be too high. and that such a dynasty may not necessarily have had its capital at Babylon but in one of the other large cities of Mesopo- problem of reconciling the separate dynasties of Berossus with those upon the larger List of Kings is one that has never yet been satistamia. does not involve the sacrifice of any scheme which has been generally accepted or should be retained at any We may therefore accept the suggested scheme of Babylonian chronology as being the arrangement which harmonizes best with all the data at present available. Here again we have to deal with an estimate in Moreover the discrepancy rests to round numbers (see above. p. larger Kings' List for the Second of the figures the upon extent some Dynasty. already seen are probably too high. In any case. 89 f. so that the adoption of the new system cost. is probably earlier to be synchronized with the beginning of some dynasty than that founded by Su-abu. the factorily solved.).134 NEW CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME effect of The our new scheme of chronology upon the problem of harmonizing the Babylonian dynasties with the chronological system of Berossus has been already 1 It was there referred to in the preceding chapter. p.

and may have given in trouble the itself Kassites. arranged in parallel columns. . fourth. to reappear as an independent dynasty in the Country of the Sea on the shores of the Persian Gulf." 1 A further point of interest which follows from the of the chronology is new arrangement of the First that we may now rise trace the early history of Assyria back beyond the the earl)- Dynasty of Babylon. dynasties of the List of Kings. " First It is possible Dynasty of Babylon " to retain its name. never succeeded capturing Babylon throne.WD ITS EFFECTS. In following history chapter a sketch will be attempted of the of Babylon and of her foreign relations in the light of Meanwhile we give on the our new information. 135 took place at the end of the First Dynasty.of to Babylon. Babylon may fifth. etc. and of the Country of the Sea. and that the kings of the Country of the Sea. though they certainly harassed the Semitic kings also of the First Dynast}. Elam. for the but the Kassite kings of Babylon can never again be referred to without qualification as forming the " Third Babylonian Dynasty. showing the suggested arrangement of the early kings of Babylon with the contemporary rulers of Assyria. 1 The dynasties which followed the First Dynasty upon the throne of still. its or in occupying the Babylonian loses Thus the and dis- so-called "Second Dynasty" title appears from the scheme of Babylonian chronology. be referred to as the third. for convenience. following pages a table..

u O C3 s Q rn .136 TABLE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS KULEKS o « < CO . ?\ -•' .

CO c-i 157 o X! If) be 4* (/> X C/3 o ID P-. . o BABYLONIA AND ELAM.IN ASSYRIA.

Note to the Table of Contemporaneous Rulers on the two preceding pages. has already been pointed out that these high figures can scarcely be regarded as probable (see above. in) ." date-lists. The names of kings whom we now know in to have been contemporaneous are printed heavier type. will be noted that the figures assigned by the List of Kings to the "Second Dynasty" have been retained the table for the kings of in the fifth column It of the Country of the Sea. . the figures for kings of the " First Dynasty. are which are attested by the contemporary in heavier type to distinguish them from such figures as It only on the authority of the Lists of Kings. p. The figures within parentheses opposite a king's name indicate the number printed rest of years he ruled . but they are here provisionally retained in default of definite information to the contrary. A reduction of the figures would have the advantage of lessening the interval between the occupation of Babylon by the Kassites and their conquest of the Country of the Sea. is Throughout the table a comma set after a king's name when he was succeeded by his son.

BABYLON AND HER FOREIGN I RELATIONS. led We may Kassite thru trace which to the conquest of . AND HI COUNTRY OF THE SEA. We will first revise our con- ception of the position occupied by Babylon at the time of the First Dynasty.CHAPTER THE EARLY HISTORY OF VI. THE KASSITES. and we have reconcile discussed the best the which we may now new data with in We may sketch in outline the historical relations of the early dynasties to one another the light of the information which the new chronicles afford. rulers of Assyria. and sketch her relations with the contemporary the causes. in We have dealt mainly have upon the an attempt to estimate the will our series of new synchronisms manner the old. THE HITTITE INVASION. IN the two preceding chapters we have treated our new information concerning the early Babylonian dynasties from the chronological with figures and dates effect side. in general scheme of Babylonian chronology.

Ilu-shuma. pp.. maneser these rulers are those mentioned in the texts of ShalI and Esarhaddon. 1 Ushpia. tioned Others are menat on a single small cone or cylinder. p.. 3 2 Ashir is the archaic form of the name Ashur. found in the Sherghat autumn of 1904. 2 which. we may examine briefly the evidence for determining the race to which these early rulers are to be assigned. . though it bears only a short inscription. Irishu. the national god of the Assyrians. after Ashir-nirari by the orders of Ashirstating that he was the son of of Ashir-rabi. 1904). sively with Elam and by the Hittite invasion of Northern Babylonia. In the table of contemporaneous kings. to which reference has viz. The form was already found upon the Cappadocian tablets. See Mitteilungen der Deutsche)! Orient-Gesellschaft. after dealing with the fall of the early kings of the Country of the Sea before the second Kassite invasion. printed p. 66 f. it will be seen that a number of early Assyrian rulers are set in the period before the accession of Su-abu Five of and during the First Dynasty of Babylon. restores the names of several early Assyrian rulers whose existence was not previously known. The text was inscribed rim-nisheshu. exhausting wars she carried on succesthe Country of the Sea. on 136 f.140 EARLY ASSYRIAN RULERS in the Babylon. followed Finally."3 records his rebuilding of the wall 1 See above. already been made. 25 (Nov. No. 119 ff. and the grandson both " viceroys of Ashir. Bel-kabi and his son Shamshi-Adad. who.

" and not inferred that they sharru. of the city of Ashur in the following' words wall " : 141 city- The which Kikia. but we know from the new chronicle No. If. rebuilt As Shar-kenkate-Ashir and probable that some reigns. is imitti and Bel-ibni The exact period of Urauncertain. I was fallen. the son of it Ishme-Dagan. therefore. pp. king. and view is probably correct. it. Thus from the new chronicle we know that Ilu-shuma waged war on p. See above. my forefathers. Ikunum. they attempted to cast off the the catch-line in Babylonian yoke. is considerable interval separated their we are right in making Shamshi- Adad (the son of Bel-kabi) the 1 contemporary of his Ham- murabi. Shar-kenkate-Ashir and Ashir-nirari..AND THEIR RELATIONS TO BABYLON. each restored the wall of Ashur. . the son of Ishme-Dagan." and for the preservation of my life . Ashir-nirari. we may conjecturally set Shar-kenkate-Ashir son Ashir- before Bel-kabi." it has been owed this allegiance to the reigning king at Babylon. 66 f.. 2 From title the fact that in their own inscriptions that have rulers been recovered these early Assyrian of ishshakku. 26. On the other hand we may legitimately surmise that whenever a favourable oppor- tunity presented itself. had built. and nirari after Ishme-Dagan and Shamshi-Adad. • See above.472 that they reigned before Ilu- shuma. 126 ft". " bear the " viceroy " or " priest-king.

See above. " smote the infer that yoke from upon the in his reign there city of Ashur. p. 1 Again. and not before. at some period in Hammurabi's reign at any rate. he seized the occasion Su-abu. - raid. That neither attempt met with permanent success is from the title borne by later Assyrian rulers while. an Assyrian ruler seems to have been associated in oath-formulae with the Babylonian king. 3 126 f. according to Esarhaddon. the son of Adasi. . There is evidence that even Hammurabi was obliged to station troops in Assyria^ and he may have had a Babylonian garrison in each of First the principal Assyrian cities. we may identify Bel-ibni of the chronicle with Bel-ibni.. who. 66. Even if he headed an invasion of the Western Semites. his line of advance would probably have been along the Euphrates his first object of attack. When under the later kings of the First Dynasty Babylon's enemies closed ' It is probable that Su-abu came info conflict with Assyria after. he secured the throne of Babylon. p. Ixviii. thus Babylon. and not Ashur. I42 ASSYRIA AND BABYLON." 2 we may earlier took place a still attempt on the part of Assyria to cut herself adrift from Babylon. Vol. 4 See Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi. and we may infer that of a change of dynasty at Babylon to for his make a struggle if country's independence. pp. .3 But there is little doubt that as a tributary state Assyria must have clear given considerable trouble to the earlier kings of the Dynasty of Babylon. would have been It is also possible that his accession to the throne was not secured by a sudden of immigration. but was the result of a gradual process See above. Ill. 3 ff.

had overthrown Rim-Sin. but. 143 and she had to fight with Elamites. It is Hammurabi suc- ceeded welding together a mighty empire with its capital at Babylon. relations which the new chronicle affords true that us. period after the We may fall assume that was some of the First Dynast). carried By thus ridding Babylon for a time of her most powerful enemy. from the glimpse into her foreign First Dynasty. after Elam had ceased to be a menace. Kassites. as the leading city of Mesopotamia. was not disputed when once the separate cities and states of Babylonia had been consolidated into a single empire under the more powerful of the Semitic kings of the But. It has hitherto been supposed that the supremacy of Babylon. his successors on the throne experienced trouble in from other quarters. the people of the Country of the Sea. and the new of chronicle furnishes the information that the cities Ur and Larsa were their spoil conto quered on this occasion and Babylon.ELAM AND BABYLON. we see that is her position was not so well defined nor so assured as generally imagined. and had added the land of Emutbal to his dominions .that Assyria permanently acquired her independence. In his thirtieth and thirty-first years Hammurabi had signally defeated the Elamite army. she can have Hittite tribes from the exercised but it little control at over Assyria. around her. he established a more extended . and north-west.

But we learn from the new chronicle that Rim-Sin. admit of our following the operations in is but enough preserved to show that the forces of Elam. their inscriptions as The kings of Elam such of have been recovered appear to be that the final defeat of 1 See above. more to active. in after these unsuccessful attempts to regain her lost position. VII. and it has hitherto appeared probable that from that moment he freed his country from the fear of Elamite aggression. Samsu-iluna's would seem to indicate that great-grandson. xiii. It is possible . p. Memoires. 69. probably met his death at Samsu-iluna's hands. Rim-Sin was once enemy. p. as far as our information at present goes.144 ELAM AND BABYLON. Rim-Sin took place in Samsu-iluna's second year 2 see Chap. V. 86. his empire than any of immediate predecessors . Histoire et travaux de and Scheil. reign were marred At any rate. and . was defeated by Ammi-zaduga. was by not finally subdued. . and is possible that the closing years of fresh conflicts with Hammurabi's his old iluna. ceased to contest with Babylon her supremacy any portion in of the Babylonian plain. 2 but. See de Morgan. 1 is 1'here said to be evidence that an Elamite king named Sadi or Taki. la Delegation p. under Rim-Sin's leadership. it Elam. en Perse (1905). although defeated it by Hammurabi. in the reign of SamsuHammurabi's son and successor. The chronicle at this point is too broken detail. were once more engaged in and it may active warfare against the Babylonian state further be inferred that Rim-Sin was defeated.

. and we hostilities with Babylon war he waged with Samsu-iluna cannot tell from the chronicler's narrative how long he the had been upon the throne before broke out. it 1 Jluma-ilu. 145 When danger once more threatened the empire of the Semitic kings of Babylon. it came not from the mountains of Elam. as indicated is not possible to deduce from our present information. only a his short interval may have separated assumption of . him the opportunity of establishing himself Sea without the danger of On the other hand. from the low-lying lands on the shore of the Persian Gulf. but occupied only with the arts of peace. the founder of an declared himself ruler of the Country of the Sea one. Sec above. authority and the outbreak of hostilities with Babylon and Iluma-ilu may have declared himself independent of Babylonian control at 1 the very p.'1 [IE COUNTRY OF THE SEA. His reign may have been a long by the larger List of Kings. moment when Samsu97 f. If occurred in the latter part of his reign that he had been engaged for we may conclude in many years organizing the forces of the littoral new state. before he attempted to make In encroachments on his powerful northern neighbour. At what period exactly independent dynasty. that case the incessant murabi afforded campaigns carried on by Hamand Samsu-iluna against Elam would have firmly in the Country of the interference from Babylon. which he had founded on the of the Persian Gulf.

for he found in Iluma-ilu an adversary who could do more than hold his own.146 iluna THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA was devoting was so. But his hope of a speedy victory must have soon vanished. first It is true that in his in expedition Samsu-iluna succeeded in overrunning the country and . obvious that from this moment Iluma-ilu held undisputed sway in the districts bordering on the Persian Gulf. but the southern portion of the country . Northern and central Babylonia might still be controlled from Babylon by the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty. all his energies to crush Rim-Sin. He may have been induced to lead out a hattily equipped force by the news of some daring act of aggression on the part of this small state. Samsu-iluna. would have hurried to the coast in the hope of defeating Iluma-ilu before he had If that time to organize his forces and strengthen his defence. and the bodies of soldiers many of the Babylonian who had been sea. reaching the Persian Gulf but in the battle which ensued he was signally defeated. slain in the battle were washed away by the It is In the second campaign Iluma-ilu again inflicted a defeat upon the Babylonian army. From the chronicler's description initiative in it would seem that Samsu-iluna took the Babylon's struggle with the Country of the Sea. on the successful conclusion of his Elamite campaign. which had hitherto appeared too insignificant to cause Babylon any serious trouble. and hoped by a prompt attack to overcome resistance and put an end to trouble from that quarter.

2 . and.AND BABYLON. p. this 147 into time forward have passed the undisputed possession of the kings of the Country of But we may imagine that Iluma-ilu did not long rest content with the territory he had wrested from Babylonian control. they may have checking the more daring of the raids into their but it territory. Samsu- son and successor. where of he the awaited a more favourable opportunity for the conflict. as the kings of the Country of the Sea established south. more securely in the the authority and influence of Babylon declined. was probably during one of his raids into Babylonian territory that Abeshu' sought to check the growing power of the Country himself. he seems to have undertaken an attempt to extend his It fresh acts of aggression in boundaries still farther to the north. evil new state Dynasty upon their in which the}- were powerless succeeded Like Abeshu'. renewing The in further stages struggle between Babvlon and the the Country of the Sea are not recorded chronicle. would from the Sea. in iluna's the reign of Abeshu'. 72. is certain that. but First we may conclude that the later kings of the accepted the independence of the southern border as an to prevent. themselves rulers of the 1 The independent Country of the Sea L See above. and reached doubtless his own territory safety. 1 of the Sea by the did capture not in fall of into Iluma-ilu But Iluma-ilu the trap.

Dec. the later kings of the First were not the only foes whom Dynasty had capture and descending in to fear. Sonderabzug. p.148 THE KASSITES. if Dynasty to an end.. we ma)' certainly connect is it with the fact that the to The capital of the Hittite empire now proved have been . at Boghaz Koi. and to have borne the name of Khatti (?l"Ha-at-ti) see Winckler. Thus the date-formula for the ninth year of Samsu-iluna took of the its title from such an invasion event was com- Kassite tribes. " it did The chronicler states that during the reign of Samsu-ditana. as the memorated in this manner by the Babylonians. Li'. the Hittites to from northern Syria marched down the Euphrates and invaded Babylonia from the north-west. 1906. The but 1 chronicle does not record the result of the invasion." that say. Similar invasions may have continued to take place under the for a later kings of the First Dynasty. although time they were probably unsuccessful. we may assume that the invaders were successfully repulsed. From the new chronicle we to learn of another invasion which undoubtedly tended not actually bring the First weaken Babylon. the men 1 of the land of is Khatti marched against the land of Akkad. and. Less than ten years after Hammurabi's death Kassite incursions into Babylonia were taking place. for the tribes that were soon to were already sack the capital itself small bands from the mountains of Elam upon the Babylonian plain. the last king of the dynasty.-Zeit. . The Hittite invasion may therefore have taken place from Cappadocia. 15. we fell know that the city at last before the Kassite onslaught. Orient. and..

Asia. . 1 comparatively speaking. and Samsu-ditana himself may have own But there is no reason for supposing that the Hittites occupied Babylon for long. IVesi. laden with heavy An interregnum or period of disorder their may indeed have of separated from but it the is occupation Babylon by the Kassites the city. returned to their own country departure .. Bd. may possibly have been its conquest by the Hittites. Thus the First Dynasty may have been fallen in defence of his brought to an end by these Hittite conquerors. n. Inscr.BABYLON AND THE HITTITES. 1 We may legitimately conclude the their images were carried off by the Hittitcs during invasion of Babylonia in Samsu-ditana's reign. 2 and they for may even have occupied some time. V. Ill. in See the Assyrian copy of Agum's inscription pp. and even if they capital. Kassite king Agum II brought back from Khani in northern Syria the images of the god wife Sarpanitum. Esagila) was damaged. 134 Rawlinsou. 33. in c 'mi. were completely successful. 2 The conquest of Babylon referred to in the inscription of Gaddash (see above. 103. p. Schroder's Ketiinschriflliche Bibliothek. 1). it is clear that they must have it raided the city. they would soon have spoil. tt.e. and Jensen's translation I. at their mercy. Since the Hittites succeeded in despoiling Babylon of her most sacred deities. it unlikely that the Kassites would have long delayed their descent upon when once its defences had been reduced. pi. and lay. during which the temple of Bel [i. and installed Marduk and the his them once more with in great pomp within their shrines temple of that Esagila. Vol.

150
It
is

RESULTS OF THE HITTITE INVASION.
also possible that

Samsu-ditana succeeded
the

in

driving the Hittites from Babylon after they had sacked
Esagila.

But,

even

so,

invasion

must

have

materially lessened

the declining power of
his

Babylon.

In order to cope with
west, Samsu-ditana

new

foe

from the north-

upon
thus

his eastern frontier.

must have weakened the garrisons The Babylonian forces would

have

been divided, and incapable of resisting

pressure

from a second quarter.

So favourable

an

opportunity for invasion would not have been missed by
the Kassite leaders, and

tage

we ma)' assume that full advanwould have been taken of it. Thus the fact that
last

Samsu-ditana was the
in

king of the First Dynasty

may

any case be traced to the Hittite invasion. In her weakened state Babylon fell an easy prey to the Kassite
hordes,

who from

that time were

destined to be her

ruling race for so long a period.

After the reign of Iluma-ilu
history of the Country of the

we know
Sea,

little

of the

though the new
fell in

chronicle does relate
its

how

the dynasty he founded

turn before a fresh incursion of the Kassite tribes

from Elam.

As Babylon had

previously been harassed

by Kassite raids from time

to time, so the kings of the

Country of the Sea probably suffered encroachments
from the same quarter, and experienced on their eastern
borders a constant sense of insecurity.
that
it

We may conclude

was with the object of putting an end to such

incursions that Ea-gamil, the last king of the dynasty

1

KASSITES IN SOUTHERN BABYLONIA.

I

5

founded by Iluma-ilu, determined to carry the war into
the enemy's country.
tribes

He evidently hoped
their

to cripple the
t<
1

by destroying

mountain strongholds and

secure his frontier by reducing
a tributary state.
result

Elam

to the condition of

The new

chronicle briefly records the

of Ea-gamil's Elamite campaign.

So

far

from

conquering the Kassites, Ea-gamil was defeated
driven back.
Kassite, pursued

and

Ulam-Buriash, the brother of Bitiliash the

him across the border and succeeded

in

conquering the Country of the Sea and
his

in establishing

own authority in that region. The Kassites were now masters
Babylon
itself

of the whole of Babyfallen

lonia.

had already

and

was

in

the hands of Kassite kings, and the

new

chronicle

tells

us that Ulam-Buriash succeeded Ea-gamil in ruling the

That he established friendly Country of the Sea. relations with the Babylonian Kassites is not improbable,
and an indication that
be seen
Babylon.
knob, and
Burariash,
in

this

was the case may perhaps
inscriptions at

the

finding of one of his
inscription
is

The

engraved upon a stone

states

that

it

who

styles himself

was the property of Ula"king of the Country of

the Sea," and "the son of Burna-Burariash, the kin:;
The inscription reads as follows :— " Knob of diorite, the property of Ula-Burariash, the sun of king Burna-Burariash, the king of the Country of
1

the Sea.

Whosoever
(Col.
I,

shall destroy this

place

thereof),

may Ann,
(1)

Bel,

Ka,

name and shall write Marduk and Ninmakh
(2)
'

his

own

(in

destroy his

name!"
(3)

hi-in-gi fa abnttht-u
(4)

&

U-la-Bu-ra-ri-ia-al

m&r

Bur-na-Bu-ra-ri-ia-as sarri

&>" " l

,t

t&mti (koh A-AB-BA)

152
It is

EXTENT OF KASSITE AUTHORITY
obvious that Ula-Burariash
is

a form of the
is

name

Ulam-Buriash, as Burna-Burariash
Burna-Buriash.
Buriash's

the equivalent of

Ulamfather, but merely states that he was the brother of Bitiliash, the Kassite. There can be little
chronicle does not mention

The

doubt, however, that

we may

identify Ula-Burariash, the

son of Burna-Burariash, with the conquerer of Ea-gamil.

We
of

need not here discuss the question of the identity
rulers,

these

as

this

has

already been done

in

Chapter
narrative
Bitiliash

IV.

The explanation of the chronicle's which we have adopted would not identify
his son

and

Agum

with the early kings of the

Kassite dynasty

names, unless

who are known to have borne these we completely reject the figures of the
its

Kings' List for the duration of

second dynasty. 1

Burna-Burariash, the

father

of

Ulam-Buriash,
;

may
king,"

possibly have been a Babylonian king 2
fact that his

but from the
title

son ascribes him simply the
rule,

of

"

without stating the country of his
well have been nothing

he

may

equally
chief in

more than a Kassite

Elam.
of the

A
new

point that
chronicle

is
is

not very clear from the narrative
the reason for

Agum's conquests.
it

From
Col.
II,
(4)

the chronicler's bald
(1)

summary

would appear
su-um-su
(5)

sa su-tna an-na-a

(2)

i-pa-as-H-tu-ma

(3)

i-sa-at-

a-ru
(6)
taf.
1

An-nu
3.

'^<5,7(ab) ih<Ea{SA'R-SAR)
;

HuMarduk

u i^Nin-mah
p. 7,

su-um-su li-ip-H-tu)
1,

see Weissbach,

Babyloniscke Miscellen,

No.

See above, pp.

1

10

ff.

2

See above,

p. 113.

IX

SOUTHERN BABYLONIA.

I

53

that

Agum

invaded the Country of the Sea and con-

quered the city of Dur-Ea.
this

How
?

are

we

to reconcile

statement with the previous conquest of the Country

of the Sea by Ulam-Buriash

There are several ways

in

which we might explain the circumstances, but we may
probably assume that Ulam-Buriash did not succeed
in

permanently subduing the Country of the Sea, and that

Agum
It is

found

it

necessary to undertake
little

its

reconquest.

unlikely that this sturdy
to the Kassite invaders.
it

tamely
off the

kingdom submitted The subsequent history
read)- to cast

of the country proves that

was always
its

yoke of Babylon.

We may

therefore conclude

that for a considerable period after

conquest the

Kassites had trouble with this portion of their empire.

In the reign of Meli-shikhu

II,

towards the close of the
probable
of

Kassite Dynasty, the border of the Country of the Sea

was ruled by

a Kassite governor, 1 but

it

is

that the country itself continued to enjoy a state

semi-independence.

With regard to the early kings of the Country of the Sea, who waged war with the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty, and, like them, were displaced by the Kassite tribes, the last question that we need touch on
'

On

the "boundary-stone," No. 90,829, in the British
in

Museum, which
is

was drawn up
certain
[.
. .

the reign of Meli-shikhu II, one of the witnesses

a

.]-Marduk,
([
.

who
.

is

described as governor of the border of the

Country of the Sea
cf.

.

.-*&»]

Marduk NER-ARAD ZAG
Bd.
II, p.

[.

.

.]

Belser,

Beitr^e

zw Assyriologie,

165

f.,

Col. II,

m(U t&mti) 2f., and 1.
;

Weissbach, Babylonische Miscdlat.

p. 8.

154
is

RACIAL ELEMENTS

that of race.

To which
rulers

of the early races of Western

Asia

are

these

to

be

assigned
all

?

Sumerians,

from time to time exercised dominion in the plains of the Tigris and Euphrates, and to one of these races it is probable that
Semites, Elamites, and Kassites,

we may

trace the early rulers of the

Country of the Sea.

That they did not represent an advance guard of the Kassite tribes is indicated by the distinction which the new chronicle draws between the Country of the Sea
and
the
it

nationality

of
as

its

conqueror
brother

Ulam-Buriash,
"

whom

describes

the

of Bitiliash,

the

Kassite."

Nor

is

there anything to show that they were

Elamites who, when driven out of

Ur and

Larsa,

may

have retreated southwards and maintained their independence on the shores of the Persian Gulf. There is more
to be said for the view that they represented a fresh

wave of Semitic immigration
resulted
in

similar

to

the foundation
it

of

the

First

that which Dynasty of

Babylon, though

is

difficult to reconcile

such a view

In with the names borne by several of their kings. points distinctly names royal the of examination fact, an
to a considerable

Sumerian

influence,

and may possibly

be held to indicate Sumerian origin.

Such names

as Ishkibal, Gulkishar, Peshgal-daramash,
all

A-dara-kalama, Akur-ul-ana, and Melam-kurkura are

Sumerian names, 1 and Shushshi, the name of Ishkibal's
1

The

fact that four of the

names

are assigned Semitic equivalents in the

explanatory List of

Kings (Cun. Inset:

West.

Asia, Vol. V,

pi.

4

Beitrdge zur alien Gesckichte. that the Sumerian element preponderated. and the Kassite kings. see above. proposed identification of Iluma-ilu with p. p. names. Indeed. it is bear Semitic names. . An am (Sem Ill. Heft 1. Goltingischt gelehrte Anzeigen. 142. Iluma). On Hommel's Cf. geographical position physical features of the country presented few difficulties to its Col. 1. p. of the ' names of For the contrary view. 1 would be tempting therefore to see in the Dynasty of the Country of the Sea the last successful struggle of the ancient Sumerians to regain possession of a portion of Babylonia. since it would and explain the constant striving of the Country of the Sea independence. s 70 f. the renderings. . and the original impulse to revolt from Babylonian control jealousy. . Ea-gamil. the inference List. the son of Bel(?)-shemea. 1900. permanent absorption by the ruling power I. in the is the other way Hammurabi. the population however. is SOUTHERN BABYLONIA.3 It is in not improbable. It not Semitic.IX brother. n. at 14 ff. I. may have had recommend The its origin in racial There for is much to this view. Bd. cf. Lehmann-Haupt. Ammi-zaduga. Jensen. Itti-ili- and Damki-ilishu. necessarily 15. 2 The most is probable explanation of this mixture of names that it accurately reflects the mixture of races in the Country of the Sea at this early period. as well as the last king. But the nibi all first three kings of the dynasty. - S61. Iluma-ilu. and unlikely that they are translations of original Sumerian forms.) does not prove that they were originally read as Semitic cf.

.156 SUMERIAN SURVIVALS. from the Country of the the But in this region on the coast the Sumerians survived. The the shores of the Persian centre from Gulf may well have been which Sumerian civilization spread over Mesopotamia. may have not long and at time of the independent dynasty founded by Iluma-ilu they were improbably the predominating element in the population. That they fact is suffered constant admixture from the ruling race at Babylon was but to be expected. when Semitic such centres influence in gained the predominance at Northern Babylonia as Agade and Babylon. That the Sumerians were possessed of the and persistence is amply attested by the wars of their early city-states. and. no less than by the qualities of courage extent of their distribution. the Sumerians would naturally gravitate southwards. and to this to be traced later rulers the Semitic and Kassite names borne by Sea. Babylon in its but the survival of a strong Sumerian strain population would account for the tendency to disruption. .

C.. No. 97 11. which is included in the Appendix to the This document is marked out from second volume. . THROUGHOUT the preceding discussion of the earlier periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history. NEW DATE-LIST OF THE KINGS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY AND THE BABYLONIAN DYNASTIC CHRONICLE. which do not B. . pp. but 1 earlier is contemporary with the period of .with information derived tablets of the late in the main from Babylonian period. 80. 1S1 If. compiled during the period of the 1 the others here published and discussed by the fact that it is not a late text embodying traditions concerning times.CHAPTER A VII.037 see Vol. it refer to periods earlier than the eleventh century will be convenient to examine briefly the new First date-li Dynasty of Babylon. we have been dealing. II. Before we pass to the consideration of two new chronicles.

97. For references to their publications. No. see Vol. and they are our principal source of information conNo apology cerning the detailed history of that time. through the kindness of Hamdi Bey. But these titles occurrences in the religious and secular of the nation. to make an and Pere Scheil. . Moreover. is therefore needed for including a new Babylonian in a date-list of the kings of the First Dynasty work in the concerned with documents which are chronicles stricter sense of the term.158 A NEW DATE-LIST it which treats. I was enabled." that to say. a of the given to a series of successive years under the kings of the were taken from great life First Dynasty.702 (Bu. preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. p. 92. n. Lindl been found by the latter conducting excavations for the Turkish when scholar While staying at ConGovernment at Abu Habba. in the British Museum collections. In the third volume of of my " Letters and Inscriptions Hammurabi " official date-lists (1900) was included an edition of the of the First Dynasty. Some column time afterwards a fragment of a small singledate-list.924. 91-5-9. 16. 1 having examination of the collection of tablets from Abu Habba 1 in the Imperial Ottoman Museum. stantinople in the autumn of 1902. is it is strictly list not a chronicle titles but a " date-list. based upon the large tablet No. 284) with restorations and a continuation of the text taken from a new duplicate. was translated by Dr. and among 1. II.

"I BABYLON. it will be advisable to give a short description of the separate of the periods covered lists and a comparison by those portions of them which have been preserved. 16. a valuable supplement to the two larger and date-lists more are important previously published.OF THE FIRST DYNASTY those of which list. p.924. portions of only four of We are thus in possession of four tablets inscribed with date-lists of the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Unfortunately. In form and contents it is very similar to six No. pp. I made copies was the As my copy differs in several points from is the published transliterations of the text the second volume. which is published for time in the present work. small date- S. 97 ff. six columns have been preserved. II. before discussing the historical information which the new tablet supplies. which preserved in the British Museum. and covered the period from the reign of it Hammurabi its to that of Ammi-zaduga. 1S1 ff. under whom was compiled. 80. 2 adds a further instalment to our knowledge of the period of the First Dynast\ r . and. 193. . for the periods covered it is by text. and. No. 1 to restore it included it in This little fragment made possible at the one or two of the broken formulae beginning of the reigns of Hammurabi and of his son its Samsu-iluna.037. 1 See Vol. II. 1 6.. but these enable us to complete and restore many of the missing formulae. ' See Vol. inasmuch as its text was arranged in columns. The new the first date-list.

2 7 B (No. II. the founder of the First Dynasty. the two which are both in the British Museum.037) in is so similar 16. No. As to No. and For Col. Col. with the date-formulae inscribed upon in four columns. retained. It covers the period from the reign of Su-abu. 92. pis. and about 6 or 6\ length.— l6o In DESCRIPTION OF DATE-LISTS my published edition of the date-lists. Nos. see ff. the new duplicate (No.924) is the lower part of a tablet. to that of Samsu-iluna.702 and 16. II. it will be here referred to under the symbol C. two on either side. the sixth king of the First Dynasty. Ill. The following is a short description of the four documents : A (No. the remaining years of Samsu-iluna's reign. I. IV." Vol.702) in. three on either side. Apil-Sin. 80. 92. in complete. it. the formulae for the separate reigns being arranged upon it in the following order . measured 4! width. its seventh king. 101. The small fragment of the single-column date-list in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople will be referred to as D. the reign of Hammurabi and the text. the reigns of Su-abu and Sumu-la-ilu Col. to the tenth . : Col. in when in. in. "Letters of Hammurabi. It covered the period from the reign of Hammurabi.924. the date-formulae being inscribed upon it in six columns. which. and Sin-muballit the first . in width it by 8f length. and these symbols will be here chief tablets. in is a large tablet measuring 5! in. and. 1 six years of Samsu-iluna. are referred to by the symbols A and B respectively. 16. the reigns of Zabum. like is the British Museum.924.

and the greater part of the reign of Abeshu' . II. VI. the remainder of . reign and about the first twenty years of Samsu-iluna Col. of Hammurabi. the last king but one of the dynasty. pis. Col. and the date-formulae were inscribed upon it in six columns. and the summaries. in. V. fifteen the remainder of Samsu-iluna's reign and about the first years of Abeshu'. the new date-list. the second half of the reign of Samsu-iluna. was very similar tablet. in. III. Col. IV. in The when complete. For the ff. the first in the following order : Col. and about 5. II. Col. text. thirty-two or thirty-three years of Hammurabi's . Col. Hammurabi's and half the reign of Samsu-iluna Col." Vol. three on either side. to B both length. several of the separate formulae having taken up two lines of a column. to the contents and arrangement. the remainder of Abeshu's reign and about twenty of years of Ammi-ditana's reign .037). IV. : it in I. Col. see " Letters 228 C in its (No. the remainder of Ammi-ditana's reign and about the first six years Ammi-zaduga . the first remainder of Ammi-ditana's reign and about the twelve M .OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. Ill. II. V. the formulae for the separate reigns having been arranged upon the following order Col. 161 year of Ammi-zaduga. It may be noted that reigns of many of the formulae for the missing portions of the Abeshu' and Ammi-ditana were probably given under each their fuller forms. in measured about 4I It width. reign I. Col. the remainder of Hammurabi's . or 6 covered the period from the reign of Hammurabi seventeenth year of Ammi-zaduga. the first thirty-two or thirty-three years of Hammurabi's reign reign . the remainder of Abeshu's reign and about the first eighteen years of Ammi-ditana . the continuation of Ammi-zaduga's reign down to his tenth year. Col. 80.

part of a small tablet. . in breadth. 1 6. VI. Ammi-zadnga's reign down to and the summaries and colophon. present length P. from Su-abu to Ammi-zaduga. When complete. reign it was inscribed with date-formulae for eight years for Hammurabi's and of the reign of Samsu-iluna. will be well to give a list of the kings of the First Dynasty. In order to enable the reader to verify the authorities for any particular date-formula with it as little delay as possible. 181 ff. in the Imperial lists Ottoman Museum) is not a large date-list like is the three preserved in the British Museum. text. and Col. For the see the second volume. the date-lists are referred B. in the shape of a contract or letter- tablet.J 93- The is tablet in. pp. under which they have been already described KING. now available for study. by the symbols A. measures 2 \ in.— COMPARATIVE TABLE of 1 62 years Ammi-zaduga . see the second volume. or table. C and : D. and its i\ For the text. noting the years of their reigns covered by the separate portions of the four date-lists which are In the following to list. D but (S. the continuation of his seventeenth year.

OF THE DATE-LISTS. Sin-mi l6 3 .

Vol. wanting on the for these years see Letters of Hammurabi. as the text of D was not available for study at the time my edition of the date-lists was published. B and As the text of C. The formulae for the first five years of Hammurabi are new text (C). only began with the reign of Hammurabi. duplicate C.V) (Col. given in Cols. have not been reprinted. I and II of A. V). C(Col. as the top of the first column is broken away. (Col. 1 Similarly the gaps which occur in sixth to C from the twenty- the thirty-ninth year of Hammurabi's reign and from the thirteenth year of Samsu-iluna to the thirtieth year of Ammi-ditana have not been filled in from A at and B as the new duplicate throws no additional light I upon the formulae future for these periods. with restorations and variant readings from when complete. — 9)— 10 V) VI) 8 (or II — end [wanting] In the second part of the appendix to Vol. hope some time to publish a complete edition of the date-lists with restorations and variant readings drawn from 1 all the dated documents available For the formulae 212-229. .7 1 64 THE NEW DATE-LIST 6 early years Ammi-ditana B B C B (Col. Ill. pp. which are A. the formulae for the reigns of his predecessors upon the throne. but in the text printed in the second volume they have been restored from the principal tablet (A) and from the small list (D) in the Imperial Ottoman Museum. II a transliteration and translation are published of the newD. IV) 22—30 31-37 Ammi-zaduga „ 1 V) B(Col. (Col.

should be restored in accordance with the parallel date-formulae already been found upon contract-tablets. which the found upon new date-list C. 1 A A more valuable piece of is information is contained in the variant formula for the eighth year of Hammurabi's reign. but "The year which the . and we may new here note briefly the more important points on which the tablet and the small duplicate D afford us information. so that to restore the line as not possible in mu [ma-da] .AND for study. n. 44. preserved. C gives a variant formula for the year which is taken from the relations of Babylon district 229 f. TIG (lD)Nu-Au-us-ni-si. 3 The line reads >iu[ The it traces of the is sign preceding E are probably not those of DA. The duplicate D does not add to our knowledge of the political history of Babylonia during the opening years of Hammurabi's reign. the western 1 of Elam. with Emutbal." . ITS FORMULAE. while proves that the formula for the second year. " the year which the land of Emutbal (was . for first it gives the it title of his year under its shorter form. as has suggested. In the formula for this year reads in MU ma-[d]a 2 district . III.)" . .). : - The reading of the two signs following the whole of the sign ma mu upon A is fairly certain and the end of DA are clearly written and ~]E-mu-ut-ba-/um(Ki). . pp. which probably refers to the internal reforms inaugurated by the king in Babylonia. . 1 65 is Meanwhile the text of the new tablet only edited and translated in the second volume. £-mu-ut-ba-/um(Ki). on the banks of the Nukhush-nishi Canal (was .3 This See Letters of Hammurabi. .

as critical shows that period a situation existed in the relations of Babylon with Elam. their system of dating at once. which Sifr tablets. It is also possible to connect this piece of information In the title with the formula for the preceding year. for the seventh year of Hammurabi's reign." In that case the line should read " previously captured muballit. would not if have been dated 1 for thirty years by that event is the city had The capture of Isin by Rim-Sin. the verb omitted from the formula in C. but was probably given upon end of the written. referred to in the datefor dating formulae upon the Tell must have formed an epoch only so long as the tablets in that part of Babylonia Elamite power retained its hold upon the country. as tablets have been found the its dated it up to the thirtieth year of the taking of the city. 1 might be urged that the year or formula not for seventh capture of Hammurabi since could tablets refer to destruction. but carelessly IN-NA(KI) [ba-HU]l. in the seventeenth year of Sin- and. would have been changed and the regular system of Babylon introduced. they might be the end of the sign NA HUL or KI.l66 reference to THE CAPTURE OF Emutbal ISIN in the early part of it Hammurabi's at this reign is of considerable interest. . the traces preceding the of name is of Isin upon A are probably those BAD . line in A and D. So soon as the Babylonians succeeded in dislodging the Elamites. Isin MU BAD I-SIThe year in which the wall of The city of Isin had been was [destroyed]. The traces at the D are not those of IN.

rather than its under Sin-muballit. 3 For on this supposition the period of Rim-Sin's activity in Babylonia would have lasted for thirty-eight years . 4. The Elamite was finally power iluna. as we have already at the seen. according to the earlier date no less than forty-eight years would have separated Rim-Sin's death from his capture of the But the longer period is by no means impossible. Mem. pi. 16. . 2 in Babylonia. KING OF LARSA. the temple of Isin (see Scheil. Since Ur and Larsa are also mentioned p. p. Delig en Perse. city. II.sin in the seventh year of Hammurabi would fit in with the suggestion in made below. again been l6? destroyed within that period. in this introduction. See below. the passage probably refers to events which took place after Hammurabi's defeat of Rim-Sin in his thirty-first year collected of Isin 2 3 See above. 11. Hammurabi states that and bestowed abundance upon E-gal-makh. IV. 170. it On 1 the other hand. that Rim-Sin's death took place the second year of Samsu-iluna's reign. we might perhaps identify with earlier capture with that referred to in the formula for the seventh year of Hammurabi. 144. Col. 49-54). and the expression employed the in the date-formula for is seventeenth year of Sin-muballit fall in favour of assigning the of Isin to that year. 1 But if is a to reference to the capture of the city by Rim-Sin be traced at all in the official date-lists it of Babylon. broken on the defeat of Rim-Sin hands of Samsu- and the placing of Rim-Sin's capture of I.BY KIM-SIX. p. is possible that an Elamite he In the introduction to his the scattered people Code of Laws.

p. If the Dynasty of Isin came to an end either in the seventh year of Hammurabi or in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit. 3). eleventh and thirteenth years of his reign. are to be referred to his fourth year. Ur-Engur's accession would have been separated from that of Su-abu by 233^ or 243! years. on which the additional information. 2 The new This point becomes of some importance I in view of the chronological data furnished by lilprecht's dynastic tablet (see above.C. and we must conclude that the capture and dismantling of the city in the reigns of Sin-muballit and of Hammurabi followed temporary victories of the Babylonians in their efforts to impose the authority of Babylon upon the other Babylonian great cities of the land. 1 Echoes of other conflicts in which Babylon was engaged during the reign of Hammurabi may be seen in the formulae for the tenth. p. we now know that the city was and sacked in his tenth year. 231. n. success would not have been referred to in a date- formula employed at Babylon. we should on these figures assign to the beginning of the Dynasty of 2 Ur a date not earlier than 2320 or 2330 B. to In that case the attempt date Rim-Sin's capture of Isin by means of the date-lists must be abandoned. It may be noted that a king of Malgi (Jar Ma-al-gi-im) named Ibik-Ishtar has been found by Scheil (or earlier part of the note as dated by the capture of to Malga) are upon a tablet of the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon (see Orient. 46. the two last contracts mentioned in Letters of Hammicrabi. In accordance with our reduction in the dale of the First Dynasty of Babylon (see above. n.1 68 DATE OF THE FALL OF ISIN. The others mentioned in the Thus Maer and Malgia be referred to his tenth year. new it is duplicate C affords While certain from D that the wall of Malgia was built in the fourth year of taken 1 Hammurabi's reign. . n. p. no).

cit. which to be referred to ether years of are quoted in the same note.. 1. p. true that in the formula for the eighth year of Samsu-iluna upon B. n. But the reading of A for this year shews that in all cases UM should probably be read see Vol. C. if the reading of Ishtar (u -f- dar) not quite clear in the name upon (?). Col. Lit.-Zeit. VIII. 2). and with this formula may compare The reading year is that for the eighth year of Samsu-iluna. and sign of the D name as ab .3 of Balum. II. . 239. first It is thus possible to assign to this year the two tablets cited in Letters of 2 Hammttrabi. in place of Basu. 1 p. similarly.. 1 C also enables us in to read the name Rabiku " the formula for the eleventh and if the formula MU in Ra-dz-ku(Kl) »>I-bi-ik-H"AJ(ul BA-DIB. the conqueror of Rabiku. No.). and the sign first certainly not su. p. 24 f. p. it would be possible upon the new date-list C the might be read as AB in the formula for the thirteenth year of Hammurabi. are probably Hammurabi's 3 reign. or princes. is scribe. p. n. The year is which Ibik-Adad captured the city of Rabiku. 512. 72. 1. 100. The name may be is read as Umu-ki. been found by Scheil in dates upon contract-tablets (see Reeueil de travaux. Op. 101. 72. and Orient." 2 to be referred to this year. III. n. XXIV. n. or AB. 4 See Vol. II. The other formulae mentioning Rabiku. he may ha%-e prove to be Ibik-Adad. duplicate city of 169 of the year. fuller form commemorated the capture of the The city mentioned in the title for the thirteenth year may be we of read provisionally as Umu-ki. in the date-list we may its conclude that the title under city. since the It is first sign appears to be um. 512 f.. .-Zeit. 11.. Col. Other small kings. of the period are Sin-iribam and GIR-NE-NE whose names n. as the name the city mentioned in the formula for the twenty-first probably due to a mistake of the VIII (1905).-* Lit.ECHOES OF OTHER CONFLICTS. 239. the tablet.

and. which records his recovery of the independence of Sumer and Of the buildings erected by for the first Hammurabi of which list. which is commemorated in the formula for the sixth year. last year of Hammurabi's reign Sippar again seems to in trouble. crowned by Rim-Sin's defeat and death. due to the recovery of Rim-Sin first from his defeat in Hammurabi's success thirtieth and the thirty-first years. in the formula for his second year. may have taken place in the beginning of his reign. it is not improbable that in Hammurabi's In the twenty-third year the city suffered a reverse. and was perhaps commemorated Akkad. Samsu-iluna's against Elamites.170 CLOSE OF HAMMURABI'S REIGN. have been and it is permissible to trace some connection between the closing formula of Hammurabi's reign and those for the two years of Samsu-iluna. The new list also formula the nineteenth year of . as the formula for the twenty-fifth year records the rebuilding of the wall of Sippar. It is possible that the end of Hammurabi's reign was clouded by disaster. we the have knowledge time from the new most interesting is the fortress or wall dedicated to the goddess Laz. for it proves that her worship under the name for of Laz was cultivated by the kings of the proves that the First Dynasty. In the formula for the twenty-third year of Ham- murabi's reign the new date-list enables us to restore the name of the city as Sippar. the god Nergal This early reference to the consort of is of considerable value.

p. 1 deities. called Hammurabi. formula for the we can now in restore from the new list and we know that in that year Hammurabi made images list their honour. and supplies the information that in his twenty-second year the royal image. and we may probably assign the cutting of the Hammurabiof Igi-kharsagga. which the throne of Nannar was D gives the fuller formula in accordance with one already found upon a contract-tablet. may be noted that D possibly 1 See Letters of Hammurabi. and Adad . fourteenth. 230. nukhush-nishi reign. in which thrones were made for Sarpanitum.BUILDINGS AND CANALS. sixteenth. while for the built. third year. The new it also confirms the fact that seven images of the king himself were made " in his fifteenth year. years it the king of righteousness. . Of which take from religious ceremonies. and twentieth years. Canal to the thirty-third year of his Not much new information is to be obtained from formulae commemorating acts of a religious character." their titles was made. Ishtar The names of the two and Adad. III. \J\ Hammurabi was taken from the building of the fortress Of the canals cut by Hammurabi we now know for the first time that the Hammurabikhegallu Canal was cut in his ninth year. 45. C. in Ishtar. n. which were missing from the seventeenth year. Nabu. Thus the new date-list C only confirms the readings of A and B for Hammurabi's twelfth.

p. s See above. pp. 103 ff. p. 98. who would reduce his on the ground that ten years are assigned to him summary given in the sixth column of the date-list B. . n. the recorded to have reigned for twenty- one years. 84. 95. 2 The date-list C also affords to the new information on certain points with regard formulae for the early years of Samsu-iluna and for the later years of Ammi-ditana. 5 this But on the publication of that only ten years were assigned to 1 document I pointed out him because the ] [ It is unlikely that D's reading [ be combined with 2 mu e[n] k[a]-as-bar-ra m[u]-un-[n]a-AN-dim should ]. 3 is Of fact. II. The new list C also proves that the suggested reading of Bel's name . II.. reading of the traces upon A . in the formula for the twenty-fourth year of Hammurabi is correct the building of " the exalted shrine of Bel " 3 4 may possibly be f. and the first it supplies traces of the formulae for seven years of Ammi-zaduga's reign. inscribed in that the sixth column of the for at least is new AmmiIn zaduga reigned List of Kings he seventeen years." or the perform- goddess Beltis. See Vol. 107 See above. new list C proves that the formula for his eighteenth year commemorated some action of the lady of Bel.172 LENGTH OF AMMI-ZADUGA'S REIGN. 106 f. 4 but this statement has been rejected by reign to ten years in the Lehmann-Haupt. n. 3. " the great ance of some unusual religious ceremony connected with her worship. referred to this year. p. n. for gave a variant formula while the Hammurabi's fifth year 1 . which is a possible 5.. 2. see Vol. greater interest than these points of detail the which is recorded in the summary date-list.

The new years. therefore. five In the List of Kings twenty- years are assigned to him. the wedges the beginning of the being broken. this con- temporary document proves that Ammi-zaduga reigned for at least seventeen years. III. date-list is assigns him. . 1 while the figure should probably be restored as [XXJVIII. lxxi and 253. By proving that Abeshu' reigned for twenty-eight and not for thirty-eight years 1 See Letters of Hammurabi. 1 73 was drawn up and this in the tenth year of Ammi-zaduga's is reign. date-list At the time of the publication of the that.LENGTH OF list ABESIIU'S REIGN. was drawn up in Ammi-zaduga's was compiled. statement now proved it. the error of three of Kings would years trifling in . the reading [XXXJVIII was restorations If the first of these proved to be correct. reign. the List be comparatively on the other alternative the error would be considerably increased. name in the summary on at the date-list B reads line ]VI 1 1. Another point of some importance which the is settled is by the summary at the end of the new date-list length of Abeshu's reign. it affords additional con- firmation of the general accuracy of the figures given in the smaller List of Kings. and naturally included the at the time titles it of those years only which were past As. to be correct. B it was pointed out also possible. but seventeen and there no doubt that like the list B. while the figure opposite his . pp. . not ten.

Later in this chapter certain figures given we by the of will make a comparison of larger List of Kings and the First the Dynastic Chronicle. named And. But certain difficulties must have existed for those who employed this system of dating. so long as the formulae inscribed upon them correspond to those given in the lists. until ? means was the new year distinguished from it ? what period was the year the year was named. For instance. but before we turn from the date-lists contemporary Dynasty. which are not apparent on the surface. A certain for time must always have been allowed to elapse to some event happen of sufficient importance to . it is a comparatively simple matter to legal commercial and tablets been recovered. it the kings of will be convenient to enquire into the general date-lists before us workings of the system of time-reckoning which they represent. it is obvious that there can have been no special first time at the beginning of the year. by what at that which preceded As the date-formulae were taken from great events. the restoration or decoration of temples.174 DATING BY EVENTS. and the like. the date-list again confirms the information given by the smaller List of Kings. the performance of unusual religious ceremonies. cities. With the and the formulae which have arranged date the in order. such as the day of the first month. such as the capture or rebuilding of the cutting of canals. on which the year was named.

- The tablet referred to in Letters of Hammurabi. give the year its title. how was the new little year named ? There can be its doubt that it until the new year title received own name it. also." After the year had received being its name. note {Joe.PROVISIONAL DATE-FORMULAE. But documents drawn up in the preceding months. n. Col. was entitled Hammurabi's his twentieth for the reign The method may be The nineteenth year of " The year in which the In the course of fortress of Igi-kharsagga (was built). known as " The year in which the throne of the god Adad (was made). 1.-Zeil. Lit. 5.. 54. was inscribed in the month EIuI. In such a case there was No." 2 The only exception the 1 to the use of a provisional title taken from the preceding year must have occurred first in year of a new reign.. when year built a this sumptuous throne work of piety was completed. and. remainder of the year would bear and the title duly appears opposite the twentieth year in the official date-lists. but only by the year. 1 75 Meanwhile. 1905. . Peiser. all contracts inscribed and dated during the this official formula. and may thus have been drawn up in Hammurabi's twentieth year before The tablet mentioned in the following the year's name had been decided. Cf. the year was officially named from the event. as dated mu uS-sa E Igi-khar-sag-ga. Orient." Hammurabi god Adad. III. as dated by the making of the throne of Adad. eit. 55). is not dated by the month. p. n. 1 took a provisional from that which preceded best illustrated by an example. must have been dated in "the year after that which the fortress of Igi-kharsagga (was built). before the year's name had been in decided. 234.

2 the fuller formula reference The new for the date-list C shows that in first year of Samsu-iluna a was made to the establishment of the first new king's authority. Another point which the system may have pre- sented some chance 1 of confusion would be at the death manner see Letters of Hammurabi. in this 75. n. Apil-Sin.176 ACCESSION-FORMULAE.919 (dated MU Ha-a»i-mu-ra-bi ix gal-e) and No. 80. while the years of Sumu-la-ilu." 1 the form under which the years of the reigns Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna are found upon the date-lists D and if A respectively . and at the same time at remove all chance of confusion. p. the king. the additional phrase was added after the royal name. 78. n. . (king's The reason of this is that the words MU could precede the formula for LUGAL-E name) in that king's reign. have been amplified in the course of the year. This of is The year of so and first so. and Sin-muballit are distinguished by additional phrases referring to the cutting of a canal and the building of city-walls. PS is 2 That the shorter formula could be employed throughout the whole year t proved by the tablets No. was sufficient for the moment to distinguish Thus " tablets dated in the early part of such a year would merely bear the formula MU [king's name] LUGAL-E. 43. to refer to the preceding formula.313 (dated mu Sa-am-m-i-lu-na lugal-e). 241. not always. in order to assimilate first any year the form of the year's title to those that followed to it. and. For tablets dated and p. but this bare formula must generally. which were drawn up on the fourteenth day of Sebat and the sixth day of Adar respectively. for the no need king's new the name new year. 229. III.

before he could inaugurate his official own was meanwhile permissible.UNOFFICIAL DATE-FORMULAE. The formula employed i-nt-bu . during the year of accession. the by a fixed religious have been repealed year. the ceremony could not the appointed time came round in the following below. 179). N . and referring to the new king's advent. reads satin [king's name] a-na bi-it (var. 24. that to say. while the feelings of the new king himself would tend in in the direction of recognizing in the date-formula in use his own accession to the throne. 220. and 222. p. see Letters of Hammurabi. 1 It was thus necessary is for the king to wait for the new year. To have officially renamed the year would have thrown out the system by making it necessary to incorporate a tinuing to title too many in the lists. written in Semitic is it formulae. Moreover. 17. But it is obvious that the accession of a new king would outweigh importance any other event of the year. a-bi-hi p. to make use of an unofficial formula. Two such and refer formulae occur on tablets of the First Dynast}-. if. 177 of a king. But there evidence that Babylonian. the first year of his reign. to the years in " which Zabum and house. bit) n. On the accession of a new king it would have been possible to retain the formula of the current year by merely changing the name of the reigning monarch. n. III. as is possible." 2 in Apil-Sin respectively entered his father's These but from formulae were not incorporated 1 the lists. - festival (see until naming of the year was accompanied p. refer to rather than of con- some act of his predecessor.

1 But is had not more probable that We might perhaps explain . the nature of the case there was no chance of confusion arising as to the actual dates of any tablets on which they had been used. It might be urged time the that. and while the provisional title taken from the preceding year was still in use. 104. II.178 RETENTION OF PROVISIONAL TITLES.. it A glance at the date-lists makes appear that the practice of dating two or more years by the same event was more prevalent under the earlier than under the but this impreslater kings of the First Dynasty . At any rate titles taken from preceding years have been incorporated in the official lists as the formulae for the last years of Su-abu. and Apil-Sin. n. MU US- MU US-SA-US-SA-BI. In the case of a monarch ascending the throne before the last year of his predecessor had been named. p. . sion may be partly due to the fact that so many formulae are wanting in the reigns of the later kings. Zabum. it is probable that the provisional title was adopted as the official formula for that year. But it may be seen from the date-lists that on many other occasions in the course of a reign the provisional title for a year was retained as its permanent formula. D for the ninth year of Samsu-iluna see Vol. lists a convenient method of their researches it bridging gaps in the which enabled them to 1 fill up. in this way the reading of 5. may have found the use of the formulae etc. the the actual date-tablets scribes SA. Sumu-la-ilu. if the lists were compiled at were written.

and definite proof of this may be seen years in the great number of dated documents. the date-lists which have 179 come down lists to us are inscribed with the formulae which had actually been employed. I. Winckler. the seventh month. 7. Such lists must have been carefully preserved. inauguration".35°- N 2 .-Zcit. of 1 title among making known the It is year's title method was by means of further in. see Peiser. therefore. and cf. Orient. 1905. but it is not improbable that the naming of the year was celebrated by the holding of a religious festival.it. the point at issue might be decided by reference to the central by responsible officials.)j E P. 271. There can be kept from the little first doubt that of the years were who added to them the name of each year as soon as it was fixed. n. or at A possible that the year may have been named the beginning of. lists We may conclude. No.. date-lists.THE NAMING OF THE YEAR. that the date- we have recovered incorporate the names which were actually given to the years by the central authority in Babylon. the of which may be accurately fixed by comparison with the formulae upon the It cannot be decided at present whether there was any fixed period in the year at which the year was named. in the case of any legal or commercial dispute arising with regard to the date of any particular year. so that. The solemn publication of the year's name in Babylon 1 would thus have insured the adoption of the the priests and scribes of the capital. Tafrttu. means "beginning. authority. Col. 1. in Schroder's fCeilinschriften und das Altc Testament (3rd ed. since the Babylonian name fur the month.

Exploration Fund. followed by a translation into Akkadian i. VIII (1905)..Th. an abbreviated Sumerian might be written. Orient. employed 1 to is publish the year's name." Then the full title of the year is given in Sumerian.. and and a year give the titles in Sumerian. also Peiser. for the twenty-ninth year of ditana.A.-Zeit. with Semitic translations. {Ak-ka-du-sa). Col. Peiser's suggested No. Quarterly Statement. 3 tablet The Sumerian formula is inscribed on one side of the Col. cf. No. 1 Berlin Two others are the Museum. and the Semitic translation on the other.-Zeit. is of the seventh year of Samsu- said to have come from Mount Lebanon. 1200. VIII (1905). Col. 1900. in particular. No.Th. Lit... which were evidently employed been for promulgating the year's title after it had in officially named. April. etc. . 268 ff. Palatine p. 1 ff. title form is given under which the Finally. 670. on the first day of the month Nisan (is) the year. = 123 and plate f.. Lit. etc. A photograph of the tablet published by Porter. or body.3 These tablets are merely inscribed with the year's and are not addressed to any person. published by Messerschmidt. 1. they do not The tablet preserved in the Museum is of the Syrian Protestant College at Beirut. (1905). Orient.. VIII is 1 to be preferred. though they were evidentlyof the year is given. Lit. restoration of 1. V.-Zeit. Peiser. l8o tablets.A. 3 V. in but it was probably found Babylonia and carried preserved in thence to Syria. the text beginning: (1) \sa-at-hi\m es-se-tum sa i-ru-ba " The new [year] which began (2) [arhu]Ni5ailllu umn /kam (3) mu. inscribed with the names of single years. inscribed Sumerian with the iluna's reign. THE PUBLICATION specimens of which have been found.e. 7. Semitic Babylonian. title One of them. Orient. published by 1. 2 in Ammititle the reign of Samsu-ditana. nor do they state by whose authority the title Thus.

some surprise that such a cumbrous system of time-reckoning should have lasted for so long a period. this fact the reluctance of the Babylonians to tolerate any change or innovation. Lastly. and the name of each year may well have been conveyed in like manner to the principal cities within 1 orders the insertion the Babylonian empire. while the varying importance of events for different cities tended to the adoption of country remote from the local systems in parts of the capital.of the year's in represent the original i. . knowledge of the order of the events referred the separate formulae contained in themselves no indication of date. in may consequence acquired the sanctity of long account in some degree for its continued if Moreover. The fact that it was inherited by the Semitic It is a matter of kings of Babylonia from their Sumerian predecessors. 12 f. took the form of cials letters written in the king's name to the chief offi- and provincial governors. In one of Hammurabi's letters to Sin-idinnam. the king in the calendar of an intercalarymonth. use. the governor of Larsa. the actual wording of the formulae was to e Letters a great extent a matter of Hammurabiy III. and had tradition. These. doubtless. p. 1S1 documents of authorization for adopting the new title. are But the inconveniences of the system obvious. the naming of the year was associated would have increased with a religious festival. Without a previous to.i .

was. or rather distinguished. 4 which is published in the accompanying 1 It is interesting to note that even in the Pre-Sargonic period Sumerian scribes appear to have dated. Thureau-Dangin. there is much to be said for upon the " patesi-tablets. the more especially as the previous separation of two of fragments from the main body of the tablets rendered a new edition of the text desirable. is a document of the late Assyrian incorporating traditions with regard to earlier Its inclusion in a work containing chronicles is concerning early Babylonian kings quite appropriate.839. when once it had been adopted. The fragment its K. introduced by the Kassites. 2 While the former are to all intents and purposes contemporary records of the events to which they refer. this explanation of the single figures inscribed 2 See Vol. II. 46.1 82 THE DYNASTIC CHRONICLE left to of taste. See Vol. its inherent merits prevented any 1 likelihood of a return to the older system. 1. and Urukagina. Les inscriptions de Sumer et cTAkkad. years of the reigning king. and was scribes. the Dynastic Chronicle period times. pp. a edition of which is published in the second volume. n. p. n. 46 ff.. the discretion of the individual The later system of reckoning time by the and. tablets of accounts by the years of the reigning king. simplicity itself. At least. 320. 3 II." See dating from the time of Lugalanda. On new a very different plane to the date-lists of the First Dynasty stands the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle. ff. I4. in comparison. . is 4 The small fragment one of the previously unnumbered fragments of the Kuyunjik collection. Enlitarzi. 143 1. p.

839]. we may those which throw some light upon itself of a briefly here the points of la: disagreement between the chronicle and the Babylonian List of Kings. and seventh dynasties of the List of Kings — . etc. is LIST OF KINGS. 1S1 a small portion of a similar chronicle of the It Babylonian dynasties.• AND THE block. 8532. : sixth. these These will be best seen in the following table which gives the figures from both documents for the fifth. 14. used to restore the first column on the reverse of the result Dynastic Chronicle. It has not therefore been Fragment of a Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle from a library of Ashur-bani-pal at tablet made for the Nineveh [1-:. Of careful the refer to new readings obtained as a examination of the text. but from their arrangement upon the tablet we may infer that the text of the chronicle was not identical with that of K. will be noted that it gives the names of four of the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon.

i DYN..1 84 THE DYNASTIC CHRONICLE Fifth dynasty of Kings' List... 3 20 mths. Eulbar-shakin-shum Ninib-kudurri-usur 17 years 3 years . read as 18 in place of for the fifth is But even then the summary 3 dynasty would be also no doubt that the figures months out. and that referring to Eulbar-shakin-shum has been 15. and there on the tablet are to be read as 3 and 15 respectively. . LIST OF KINGS.. 15 years 2 years Shilanum-Shukamuna Length of dynasty 3 months yrs. [ Ae-aplu-usur (?)] 6 years in 6 years It will be seen that for the Dynastic Chronicle the summaries reigns both the fifth and the sixth dynasties do dynasty 2f years years too closely not tally with the figures giving the lengths of the separate : the summary for the fifth is too much. the figure giving the length of Kashshu-nadin-akhi's reign has been read as 6 in place of 3. 17 years 3 Simmash-shikhu Ea-mukin-zer . 3 3 months yrs. 5 mths. 8 years 5 months months Kashshu-nadin-akhi 3 years 3 years Length of dynasty 2i yrs. 23 years Sixth dynasty of Kings' List. 20 mths. and that for the sixth dynasty is 3 much. In order to make the figures agree more with the summaries. Seventh dynasty of Kings' List. CHRON.

The Dynastic Chronicle and the List of Kings agree the reign of the king in assigning six years to who by himself forms the seventh this king. Xo. that. his total is is the same as that given in the List of Kings simple probably a coincidence. in adding up the figures for the length of the fifth dynasty. discussed in some detail . which in the following chapter. in there is no doubt view of the inconsistencies of the Dynastic Chronicle. of the discrepancies is 1S5 My own explanation that the compiler of the chronicle. in has been provisionally restored as Ae-aplu-usur table tion the upon the preceding page. made a mistake in counting the three months of Ea-mukin-zeVs reign as three years.AND THE LIST OF KINGS.859. Similarly it is possible that he reckoned the months of Shilanum-Shukamuna's reiem twice over as months and as years and the fact that . preference should be given to the figures in the List of Kings. 27. same time exactly explains the differences But whatever explanation be adopted. at the This explanation is and in the figures. It will be noted that the name of which is missing from both the documents in question. dynasty. This conjectural restorais based upon a passage in the new Babylonian is Chronicle.

each divided from the one that follows it by a line ruled across the tablet. and in the other between the last line of the obverse and the first line of the edge. the portion of the chronicle preserved consists of twenty-four sections. but in two instances where we should expect a line In the one case this occurs ruled across the tablet it has been omitted. All the signs which originally stood in these sections are broken away. but these are divided into no less than twenty-two separate sections. NEW BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE. the portion preserved relating 1 to historical 57 ff. RELATING TO EVENTS FROM THE ELEVENTH TO THE SEVENTH CENTURY B. . 2 In fact. the tablet is not a complete copy of a chronicle.C. true that it relates to historical events and episodes arranged in chronological order. II. which range from the See Vol. but contains a collection of extracts from a longer text. events ff. all but the events themselves are not recorded with the portion of the same amount of fulness and detail. 1 is here published for first is not a regular chronicle in the ordinary It is sense of the word. THE the chronicle No.859. The text that has been preserved consists of forty lines. 27. pp. 147 2 Strictly speaking. but their existence may be inferred from the context.. which time. between the first and second line on the edge of the tablet.CHAPTER A VIII.

that A is brief examination show the text not an original composition by the writer of the tablet. 14-18. 11. 11. are copied out in others are summarized. or only quoted ? extracts. document. as the line did not sufficiently indicate its subject matter.. 12 and 13). and 15-19). . while their first lines An itself answer to these questions that might suggest is that the tablet may have been one that is. 1 Before examining the historical this tablet affords. three lines (Obv. one of at one of two lines (Obv. of the sections of the original chronicle from which the tablet of extracts was made. 6. 11. 1-3). and Edge. lines (Rev. 4-7 and S-11). 4 and 5) .." a learner's copy full) Of the first of these classes of extracts : (i. first Finally. of nine sections of the original chronicle. of the class of so-called 1 " practice-tablets. eight of them in single lines (Obv. it information which will be as well to state briefly the appears to have suffices to principle on which the series of extracts been compiled.. S-14). 11. 7). we two have six instances the longest consists of seven lines (Rev. 1-3). Why upon another then should that document not have It is clearly based been copied out in full in accordance with the usual period ? practice of scribes of this Why should this have been done in the case of some summaries of others are given.A eleventh to NEW BABYLONIAN the CHRONICLE. 11.C Some full. [east 11. and first line in the case is of several others only the of each section quoted..... and one of a single line (Rev. Nine summaries are given. 1-3.e. only lines are quoted (Rev. it is probable that the scribe quoted the first two the lines of this section. 1 87 seventh century B. sections quoted in 11. 11. 1.. and one in a section of two sections consist of four lines each (Obv..

or he would merely quote the opening line in order to give the sequence of the whole composition. the explanation which appears to facts is that the scribe me best suited to the who wrote the tablet had before him not one but two documents. and many sections in them were We may suppose that the scribe was not a identical. But a glance at the tablet will show that it has none of the characteristics of a and that it was not the work of any novice. After a careful examination of other possibilities. Both were chronicles dealing with the same periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history. the work of a skilled scribe. 1 well formed. see Vol. while the already he would summarize. it was probably not more than 3 long . and we must seek some " practice-tablet. and made of fine clay. mere copyist. in. in breadth. p. the writing is minute. n. It is a small tablet. II. Moreover. and even when complete 1. Such a theory different would afford a plausible explanation of the treatment of the sections of the work. for we might fix imagine that the points which the learner wished to in his contents memory he would copy out of those which he knew historical in full.1 88 THE CHARACTERISTICS in writing. or to assist his intended to give him practice memory in his studies of ancient history. 57. and the characters are In fact it was evidently carefully and accurately written. but was engaged on a study of historical 1 The tablet measures if in. ." other reason for the peculiar nature of its contents.

1 out that section from the second chronicle identical Where the two sections were first line he merely was the case. and as the the chronicle relates It is. An enquiry into the class and character of to quoted the show that this the original chronicles. chronicle was entirely absent from the fuller or different version or gave a of the same event. and on the tablet that has come down to us he noted the differences in the two documents. 1-3. in NEW CHRONICLE. 2 evidently one of those which all Almost of of its text is wanting.OF THE materials. The first section of which traces are preserved is upon the obverse of the tablet are quoted in full. and briefly noted the historical information they contain. or differed from text. Where a section on the second first. so far as they can be ascertained from the extracts that have come down to us. or gave a brief summary which answered the same purpose. possible lhat some of these sections he condor. describing the king after a successful spoil. campaign during which he had gathered heavy As 1 mainly to the relations of Babylonian and Assyrian kings to one another. of course. Taking one of them as his principal he compared them section by section.. . will best be attempted after we have examined the extracts themselves. he copied in full. 11. but the last two words of the return a last line are preserved. 2 0bv. 1S9 and wished to note down exactly the points which one of his chronicles supplemented the other it.

probably by conquest. but of the it wanting. 4. and that the result of his suzerainty was beneficial to the countries and districts over which his authority extended. but also most of the text broken. it is probable that this section recorded the I.190 MARDUK-SHAPIK-ZER-MATI following section deals with the reign of Marduk-shapikzer-mati. 4-7. . This would seem to imply that Mardukconfederation of a large shapik-zer-mati number of petty kings and rulers. The passage does not imply more than in the course that Marduk- shapik-zer-mati extended the borders of Babylonia." and the statement that they beheld formed a abundance. the Babylonian king of the fourth dynasty of the Kings' List. 11. and of his campaigns enforced his authority rulers upon a large number of petty princes and x who had Obv. it will be apparent such a number would not be inconsistent with statements in records of that period. The next line is contains a reference to "forty-four kings lands. and it is break at the beginning of the line " 100. The reading is of the figure giving the in number of the kings the not absolutely certain.. victory of Marduk-nadin-akhe over Tiglath-pileser The second section of the chronicle 1 briefly records four events in the reign of Marduk-shapik-zer-mati. The first of these events was related in is 1." possible that we should add " When we consider I the number of kings " whom Tiglath-pileser alleges in his annals that he conquered within the that first five years of his reign.

" As the chronicle a Babylonian and not an Assyrian one. This change of residence political motives . "the king" is obviously Marduk-shapik-zcr-mati. and this we may infer from passage that he personally went to Assyria in order to ratify the treaty with Ashur-bel-kala. and by enlarging the area of their land a great measure under cultivation." after his return from in place of Assyria. king of Assyria.." in He probably achieved this result by regulating and improving their water-supply. 191 He does not seem have merely exacted tribute from them. 11.AND ASHUR-BEL-KALA. The phrase that " he went unto Sippar. . The third section of the text' deals with the reign of 1 Obv. but it may have been dictated by may also have been due to the at king's preference for some palace Sippar which he- had either built or enlarged for himself.'' same event upon the " Synchronous " at The is last line of the section adds that that time the king went from Assyria unto Sippar. The next relations line of the section records the friendly which Marduk-shapik-zcr-mati established with Ashur-bel-kala. and it is interesting to in note that the phrases employed the chronicle are in almost identical with those occurring of the the description History. up to that time been independent. 8-1 1. probably implies that from that time he took Sippar as his principal residence Babylon. for the chronicler adds as a comment on his policy that " they to beheld abundance.

. 241 ff. Untersuchungen.. his origin. Winckler. Asia. 33). an analysis of its component parts. 4. the meaning "self-appointed" i. 47. and cf. p. i. Col. certain o. 1 1 The current explanation it is of the word IM-GI is that suggested by Winckler.f operations in connection with the city defeat at the hands of the Sutu. thus we may assign to the compound ideogram LUGAL IM-GI = " self-appointed king. and "usurper" admirably fits the context of the passages in which the phrase Moreover it is possible to assign this meaning to the ideogram by occurs. Dur-ilu. 1. 50) . Geschichte. 4. n. " Chaldaea " (see Unter- suchungen znr altorient. pp. facts main with regard to this ruler. Hist. viz.m-gi-da (see Rawlinson. History" with regard to the name of Adad-aplu-iddina's While the " Synchronous History " states he was "the son of Esagil-shaduni. a different tradition to that given in the " Synchronous father. West. while Hommel would further explain it as merely a dialectic variant of Ingi which occurs in the phrase Ki-in-gi. Ill. Syn. and his completion of certain The chronicle embodies shrines in honour of Marduk. Nos. Vol.. to the effect that the equivalent of Kaldn. = Sumer (see Grundriss der Geographic und Geschichte But in the phrase lugal IM-GI the word des alten Orients. pi. and states that he was an Aramaean and a usurper. p. Since \u = ra>?iann and Gl=kunnu (cf.). Brtinnow. 2390). the son of a that nobody. No." the chronicle gives the name of his father as Itti-Marduk-balatu. 1. his who succeeded in ravaging both Sumer and Akkad. 4. the final syllable may probably be regarded as a suffix or phonetic complement according to the alternative explanation ( da can be taken as a postposition = ina)." In the fuller form of the phrase.. Ill. Cun. 192 ADAD-APLU-IDDINA Adad-aplu-iddina. Inscr. or Ki-In-gi. . who succeeded Marduk-shapik-zerIt records four mati upon the throne of Babylon. . 8367. I.e. 50. usurper. would seem to have a descriptive rather than a geographical significance .

Alio. the temple of the Sun-god recorded 1 by Xabu-aplu-iddina upon the "Sun-god Tablet. Inscr. pi. Nabit-aplu-iddina relates that. as a rich spoil to their this occasion that the in Sutu wrecked Ebabbara. and the chronicle throws light on one of the reasons which may have led Adad-aplu-iddina to to secure the alliance. pp. It must have been on the city of Sippar. an additional reason for his action may perhaps be seen with which Babylonia was faced. obliged to purchase Ashur-bcl- been on friendly terms with and he may have been by kala's goodwill offering him his daughter in marriage. V. Heft 2 (1906). VI. The new chronicle does not enable us to 1 See Cun. 60 f. Asia. see Streck. I3d. Vol. after ranging through in the external troubles Sumer and Akkad." The three successors of Adad-aplu-iddina upon the in throne of Babylon are enumerated but the ends of all the List of Kin the names are broken in that document. returned with own land. [93 relates that Ashur-bcl- kala married the daughter of Adad-aplu-iddina. and. For we gather from the chronicle that during his reign the Sutu invaded his territory. O .AND THE INVASION OF THE The "Synchronous History" SUIT. offer a rich down- in order We know that Ashur-bcl-kala had Marduk-shapik-zer-mati. 209 flf. West. to its it a period of further misfortune in Kashshu-nadinuntil his was not own reign that the temple was resl former splendour. in spite of the efforts of Simmash-shikhu and those of Eulbar-shakin- shum (which followed akhi's reign). On the nationality of the Sutu and theii connection with the Aramaeans.

Asia. omits any mention of these three and in its fourth section 1 deals with fifth Simmashthe Kings' shikhu. for rulers.). p. the great god-list K. Vol. 'Obv. II. West. where V»B$l sa nap-ha-ri is given as the equivalent of (dingir)gu and (dingir) diri (see Cun.!. description of his origin.194 THE REIGN 0F SIMMASH-SHIKHU. II. and it is possible that the broken title which follows maybe restored in accordance with his title and description upon that document. 1. the Dynastic Chronicle merely records the length of his reign and the fact that he died by the sword. 11.. 2 it states that he was the son of Erba-Sin. 51. a fact recorded in the name given In addition to the to the short dynasty he founded. This information the new chronicle supplements with the statement that he constructed a throne for Bel napkari. " the Lord of All/'3 in the temple of Ekurigigal. Simmash-shikhu came from the Country of the Sea. upon the chronicle are f. 12 2 See Vol. In that case the new chronicle supports the tradition given in the both in the List of Kings and according to which Dynastic Chronicle. 54. Bel naphari. pi. 1. characteristic The inclusion of such religious information along with records which are purely historical is of all the Babylonian chronicles that have come down to practice that section us. and it is in accordance with this the eight lines which follow the fourth to be explained. . Inscr. Col.). 3 For the title 8 and 9. dynasty in Like the Dynastic Chronicle. the founder of the List. it restore them. 4349. No. cf. X (Rev. 8f.

the statue of Nabu was during the carried from Borsippa to Babylon. at any rate Neo-Babylonian period. year] year] . 11. New Year of was not celebrated. read as follows fifth :— Within the shrine the year of Eulbar-shakin-shum. 14-1S.THE FEAST OF THE NEW VEAR. year] • the . makes special mention of the years in which the reign of Festival of the The chronicle.. Festival in ceremony of the from his shrine But the principal was the going forth of Marduk the temple of Esagila. ihe king the fourteenth year the fourth year of Ae-aplu-tsur the hi st year of Xabu-mukin-ap[li. it in company the statues of the other gods made obeisance before Marduk in the temple of Esagila. which seems . These lines. 11. . of his allegiance to the god of Babylon. No. . From the time when Babylon cities attained a prominent position this festival among the Chaldea had been In token peculiarly associated with the god Marduk. and Edge. 35. and on with the eighth and eleventh days of the month. 1 most of which are divided from the others by lines ruled across the tablet. the ki]ng [ [ [ the the the . 1-3.382. • year of -akh]r-iddina which records events in the Nabonidus and the capture of Babylon by Cyrus.

and afterwards of Marduk. 11. political The festival had a the as well as a religious significance. Winckler.. Zeits. he grasped the hands of their statues. the (i. pp. On this occasion the statue of the god was carried forth along the sacred road termed A-ibur-shabu. It is not surprising. for Babylonian king. and see below. Chap. temple of Esagil and to god Nabu. holding his position in token of his will. on the 4th of Nisan of the new year Cambyses. but Cambyses proceeded to take the hands of Bel. sumukin. 303.. Jastrow. and on entering in the presence of Nabu. fiir As<yr. - probably described how Cf. while others brought He is then stated to have entered have made offerings of lambs before Bel it Marduk). p. .. that the Babylonian scribe. 1 accordance with their At the beginning of a reign this act was equivalent to a coronation-ceremony. to whose labours we owe the chronicle concerning the 1 A broken passage in the Nabonidus Chronicle (Col. therefore. for it legalized the claim of the new king to the throne of Babylon. II. made a point of coming to Babylon for its celebration. and representative of Cyrus. Lehmann-Haupt. Samasp. and. which led from Esagila to the palace of the king. he was received by offerings. IX. 2 and the renewal of the ceremony every year was symbolical of the king's continued enjoyment of Marduk's confidence and favour.196 to THE CELEBRATION have taken place on New Year's Day. entered the temple of E-shapa-kalama-shuinu where priests of the he took the hands of Nabu. after the official entrance of Cyrus into Babylon on the 3rd of as the son Marcheswan. Here the text breaks off. IV. 680 . whenever possible. 24-28) records how.e. Religion of Bahylonia aid Assyria. 44 ft".

has been suggested above. and the king whose name third line is partly preserved in the upon the edge of the tablet. Xabu-makin-apli. See It is p."3 1 panied the Festival of the - For a further discussion of the ceremonies and offerings which accomNew Year. in historical chronicles of this On the still supposition that the signs should be so rendered. To show the points of difference at a glance. Ae-aplu-usur. 3 not likely that the two signs should be rendered as ina Nisanni. .OF THE FEAST OF THE NEW YEAR. see below. the summary could In that case we be explained as referring to the Festival of the New Year. By means of the words ina pamkki. he summarized the . ." for the months for the determinative is not omitted before the period. iSSf. " in (the ideograms month) Nisan. sequence of years from the second chronicle in the manner we find it in the text as reproduced on p. Chap. "within the shrine. 1 97 reign of Nabonidus. IX. may take the lines as implying that " in the month Xisan. as If the scribe had two chronicles before him. 1 My explanation of a of the eight lines of the is new chronicle that are under discussion that they contain a summary number of years in ceremonies of the Festival of the celebrated. should have recorded the years in which the ceremony did not take place. was identical in but that some of the years were the two documents which it was stated that the statue of on same the not Marduk did not go forth from his shrine. . 2 may be conjectured that the historical information for the reigns of Eulbar-shakin-shum. in the year . 195. in that the statue of forth which one of the principal New Year was not Marduk was not it carried from Esagila.

the Festival of the New Year was not (or possibly was) fully celebrated. which records that during the reign of Nabu- mukin-apli. Neither of these objections applies to the rendering ina parakki and to the explanation suggested in the text. . view A confirmation of may be Marduk seen in the religious chronicle No.968. and once in the reign of the king the end of [ whose name is preserved as -akh]e-iddina. in the same way is left as the name line of the king is supposed to be repeated from the line above wherever the end of the If this blank. rendering has the further objection of ambiguity. 35. implies that the records concerning the celebration of the Festival of the New Year this during the earlier historical periods were not always consistent with one another. which differed in the sequence of years they gave. He intended that the phrase should be understood as repeated at the beginning of each of the following seven lines. The suggestion that the writer of our tablet had two chronicles before him." this In addition to the absence of the determinative. he noted the fact Marduk remained within his shrine in Esagila and did not go forth. explanation of the lines be corrective may confifth clude that according to the second chronicle the Festival of the New Year was not fully celebrated in the and the fourteenth years of Eulbar-shakin-shum.198 THE CELEBRATION his which he prefixed to that summary. in the fourth year of Ae-aplu-usur. in the first year and in three other years of the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli. did not go forth from Esagila in the of such and such a king.

including of his first reign. in each of the years from the nineteenth to the twenty-ninth. It is true that on the tablet the title Sarru. according to which it would appear Possibly the that Marduk did not go forth from Esagila in only four the first years. p. p. 199 eighth year. but the sequence of years that given for the intermediate portion does not agree with that upon our tablet. " king. names of title Eulbar-shakin-shum and Nabu-mukin-apli "See below.968. p. corresponded to that given in the chronicle No. The these information lines which we indirectly obtain from to with regard the names of the kings by other documents mentioned and the length of concerning them.968 in Vol. 54. and according to the latter for fifteen years.OF THE FEAST OF THE NEW YEAR. II." is not written after his name as it is after the . 2 but the II. 35. and the translation of No. for according to the former he reigned for seventeen years. 228. and Vol. for this name has not hitherto been found as that of a Babylonian king. 1 of the reign is The record for the beginning and the end is wanting. See above. 2 But the greatest interest attaches to the name Ae-aplu-usur. 1S4. sequence of years upon the it of the chronicles. . and also probably in the seventh year of his reign. which has been suggested the writer of our tablet had before him. 35. their reigns either supports or supplements the facts supplied The mention is of the fourteenth vear of Eulbar-shakin-shum not inconsistent with the List of Kings or the Dynastic Chronicle.

But this an examination of the traces of the name upon these two documents reveals evidence identification. he was not a king.3 It is 'Cf. 2 there only one place for Ae-aplu-usur. We may therefore conclude that he was a Babylonian king. and the traces fit in with name upon both documents as therefore extremely probable that Ae-aplu-usur. the if name of Ae-aplu-usur it occurs in a sequence. see below. would be hard to explain the mention of his fourth year. is he was the first is king of the dynasty. who reigned after Eulbar-shakin-shum and before Nabumukin-apli. 2 l. p. as On the Dynastic Chronicle. f. Rev.. Now If Nabu-mukin-apli was one of the earlier kings its of the eighth dynasty. and was reckoned by the native historians as forming by himself the seventh dynasty. on the . 2. and. name is preserved as m is »V*[ proving that its first the case with the name Ae-aplu-usur. it His name has not hitherto been recovered. component was the name of a god.200 is AE-APLU-USUR omitted elsewhere upon the tablet 1 after the last name of Nabu-shum-ukin. as is broken upon both the List of Kings and the Dynastic Chronicle. For fresh evidence in support of this suggestion. the the Kings' List. king of the eighth dynasty of Moreover. 222 3 On the List of Kings the beginning of the ]. and may have been founder. as very probable. He must have been the Elamite who reigned in for six years Babylon. in support of For the beginning and the end of the name are preserved the restoration of the by them.

The sequence of years in the four reigns that have tablet. and it has already been suggested that of duplicate sections in the these formed the first lines two chronicles which the writer may have had before other hand. possible that he assumed the name Ae-aplu-usur when in is he ascended the Babylonian throne.. who reigned in the early part of the eighth dynasty of the Kings' List. That he has is Babylonian and not an Elamite name the proposed identification. the 201 identify Ae-aplu-usur with king of the a seventh dynasty of the Kings' List. is name are preserved the last two wedges of the concluding portion of Ae-aplu-usur's name : n. II." upon the i) tablet reading " [ From 1. and whose names have not hitherto been recovered. the traces akh]e-iddina. each of which gives the beginning of a sentence . 2. which see Vol.AND we may HIS DATE. name is that of one of may bo inferred that the the kings of Babylon. the fact that the next section of the chronicle (Rev. p. for no objection to It is also Babylonian influence was strong in Elam from the earliest period. The first three sections on the reverse consist of single lines. The of the last name the lines referring to the Festival New Year broken. at the end of the the sign iisur. of probably dealt with the reign it Shamash-mudammik. and only the end of it is - preserved. 55. . been discussed ends upon the edge of the and we now its pass to a consideration of the text inscribed upon reverse.

No. in the first line may probably be restored from the traces upon the tablet as those of Adad-nirari king of Assyria. and he was the father of Ashur-dan II . . 1 TIGLATII-riLESER IV. attested by both the Kings' List and the Babylonian it Chronicle. and the son of ishi II. The now Tiglath-pileser was the grandson of Ashur-rabi II. that in Tiglath-pileser had some hand Babylonian politics during the troubled years that followed the death of Nabonassar. The names III. and Shamash- mudammik. Orient-Gesellschaft. r88 l". ' See above. 1906). which dealt with the relations of Tiglath-pileser l\\.202 him. see Andrae." Shamash-mudamrnik it is was defeated by Adad-nirari III. Accord- ing to the "Synchronous History. with ukin. The second line of the reverse gives the opening words of another section. the last king List. p.king of Assyria. - This king has hitherto been known as Tiglath-pileser III. and he influence after may have attempted to assert his in Nabu-shum-ukin had succeeded placing himself upon the throne. renders unlikely that the section recorded any extensive campaigns conducted by Tiglath-pileser IV against Babylonia. 32 (Nov. o[~ Nabu-shumwhich is the eighth dynasty in the Kings' The brief duration of the hitter's reign. the contemporary king of Babylon. 10 if. but he now in becomes Tiglath-pileser IV inscriptions at Sherghat consequence of the recent discovery of brick- referring to another king who bore this name.. and probable that the section in the original chronicles recorded this event. probable. It is. Ashur-resh Mitteilungtn der Deutscken p. however.

Asia. in Book sen oJ Kings and Isaiah. gave the opening line of a section. stated to have been Merodach-baladan given. Asia. pi. may therefore be identified III. . 12 . \\. 1. to 1 of the dynasty father is of Erba-Marduk. 26) does not to his actual parentage but to his nationality.THE FATHER The third line <>F MERODACH-BALADAN. as also to In the other sections. The only is point of interest resulting from this identification gives the that the second half of the line name ]. No. district of II. the equivalent 1 See Cun. The we have here only king with whom he i. like the 203 upon the two preceding it ones. Vol. Vol. xxxix.C. a ' Southern Babylonia. do with a Babylonian king.e. and merely implies that he was a native of Btt-Iakin. linn: West. and in that case the context shows that he must have reigned between Nabu-shum-ukin and Marduk-zakir-shum." but the name in of his not In the account of Merodach-baladan's embassy the Second " Hezekiah. first Merodach-baladan whose occupation of the throne of Babylon lasted from to 72 1 710 B. tmh'"•' Ia-kt-ni refei Cun.6. I>. 1. of Merodach-baladan's father as Nabua fact shum-[ ascertained." 3 which does not agree with the statement of the chronicle. >>i W II. that has not been " previously In his Is brick-inscriptions found at W'arka. 5.. is Marduk-aplu-iddina. Hut the name Baladan. s Ll II Kings. king of Judah. he is described as the oi Baladan.. Inscr. noted that Tiglath-pileser (see 1. West. and traces of the contains -ap]lu- end of a name which read "[ is iddina. pi." It probable that. reverse. It maj also lie IVs description Merodach-baladan as I. 67.

in order to indicate the nature of its contents and distinguish it from the paragraph that followed. referred to the reign of this line the writer added the second of the first section. . not stated that he was in opposition to Marduk-zakir- shum. .« and. . The 1 figure giving the number of years during which the Rev. and so gave no hint But. The preceding section conname Marduk-bel-ushe[. 11. he may the throne. which Kings lasted . 4-6. ushe[zib~\. 2 The end of the name should possibly be restored as ushe[bi]. possibly have been another pretender to That the writer of the tablet quoted more is than one line of this section fact that the to be explained by the end of the first line only gave the names of Marduk-zakir-shum and sections of the chronicle king. his father. The seventh line of the reverse records during which no king occupied the Babylonian throne. an interregnum. although it . . only for one month. may well be a corruption of Merodach-baladan's own name. sections. we know from the The name second of the The next two List of sections of the chronicle 1 deal with the reign of Marduk-zakir-shum. or ushe[st\. which occurs in the may probably be restored as Marduk-balatsu- and we may conjecture with some confidence that he was a pretender whom Marduk-zakir-shum defeated tains the is during his brief reign. Marduk-balatsu-[.]..].204 in TH E INTERREGNUM Babylonian of Aplu-iddina. [ikbi]. as two of the subject with which the section dealt.

of the reverse. interregnum lasted is 205 is not preserved. but there no doubt that we should identify this period with at least a portion of the interregnum recorded by the Babylonian Chronicle as having followed the capture and deportation to Assyria of Mushezib-Marduk. and possibly others. the Babylonian Chronicle the interregnum lasted years. the country was in an unsettled state and a prey to internal dissensions. when possible. Erba-Marduk which is described in 8 fif. after the of the capital. It has already been noted ceremony of grasping the hands of Marduk and Nabu at the Festival of the New Year was carried out ever). we must assume that number of years than eight was assigned to the interregnum on our tablet.AND THE REIGN OF ERBA-MARDUK.C. There the is thus a conflict condition of of evidence with regard to political Babylonia at this time. and the destruction According assigns to for of Babylon by Sennacherib in 689 u. by the reigning Babylonian king and that the first occasion on which a new king . grasped the hands of Bel and of the son of Bel that the in the second year. . 1 On the supposition that Erba-Marduk.year. It is probably within this period of eight years that we must place the reign of 11. The chronicle records that Erba-Marduk. the son of Marduk-shakin-shum. 1 eight while the List of Kings these eight years to Sennacherib. but there can be no reasonable destruction doubt that. occupied is the throne in the latter part of the period which styled an interregnum by the Babylonian Chronicle a smaller (as is suggested below).

. and seized and occupied the cultivated lands and gardens which surrounded the cities settled in Shigiltu of Babylon and Borsippa. Erba-Marduk's success against the Aramaear. From his statement that Erba-Marduk performed this ceremony. and substantiated his claim to the throne. in the words of the chronicle. Erba-Marduk "smote them with the sword 1 See above. and we may suppose that he did not at first succeed in obtaining recognition of his claims at Babylon. His eventual success he doubtless owed to the benefits which he conferred upon in the capital during the troubled period ruled. Heft see Streck. But they were not left long in undisturbed possession. 196.s is recorded in the text statement that he grasped the hands of Bel and of the son of Bel. p. believed it is clear that the compiler of the chronicle that he was actually recognized as king " in Babylon. who and Subartu. Uber die iilteste Geschichte der Aramcier. and not to the second year of the interregnum. VI. For the most complete account of the small states or settlements formed from time to time in Mesopotamia and Chaldaea by Aramaean immigrants. The phrase to the the second year " probably refers second year of Erba-Marduk's reign. The two events were 2 after the by the writer 3 in the order of the relative importance he attached to thtm. 2 which he The chronicle relates that certain Aramaeans.206 ERBA-MARDUK performed the right was the equivalent of a coronation1 ceremony. 2 (1906). for. related but it probably preceded it in order of time. in Klio. 3 made a raid upon were the district of Babylon. Bd.

but not enough of the to line is preserved foes. that Erba-Marduk made good. by re-establishing Nabii. He had already secured the . by the recovery of their lands his revival of the national religion. he strengthened his the worship of Marduk and own claim to the throne. Moreover. and his grasping of the hands of Bel. and he took the fields and the gardens from them and he gave them unto the men of Babylon and Borsippa. show whether it was directed against external to is or was undertaken throne. and implies that he rebuilt that temple and the It is clear. therefore. and enjoyed the official full confidence of the priesthood. the sixteenth which gave the opening words of the . crush another aspirant to the not improbable. but from the fourteenth line of the reverse that from the time of his defeat of the we may infer Aramaeans he not have line of dwelt in Babylon. far But his influence may extended beyond Borsippa. Babylon by fire in some measure." the The chronicle adds that in in same year he it set up the throne of Marduk Esagila. for The latter supposition line. temple of Ezida in Borsippa. It is not clear from the text where first Erba-Marduk exercised authority during the year of his leadership. 20J and defeated them.AND THE ARAMAEANS. raised him from the position of a gratitude of the citizens popular leader to the rank of an established king. the havoc wrought by Sennacherib when he attempted to blot out and water. The fifteenth the text probably recorded a further expedition which he undertook.

208 LAST SECTIONS OF THE CHRONICLE.. 1 ruled both in Babylon possible that other kings and Assyria during the closing it is years of the Assyrian Empire. Kandalanu (Ashur-bani-pal). but the tablet retains no legible traces of their names. IX. but [ unlikely that -n]asir should be assigned to this late period. the first of these being at the same time king of Assyria. so far as we know. or may at least have gained recognition of his claims in some other part of the country. fiir Assyr. pp. see my paper in the Zeits. ShamashIt is shum-ukin. contains the end of a proper that cannot be assigned to name any known the rise ruler. and Sin-shar-ishkun. Esarhaddon. following section. during the eight troubled years from 689 to 681 He may possibly have succeeded Erba-Marduk in Babylon. . Bd. 396 ff. of a third aspirant to Of the remaining two lines upon the tablet section. each gave the opening line of a recorded the accession of a and each king to the throne of Babylon. After the interregnum only occupants of the of the Neo-Babylonian Babylonian throne before the Empire were. The section which the seventeenth tinued line introduced may have conor the account of the same rise pretender. We may that with greater probability regard the name as of another pretender to the throne of Babylon B. may possibly have recorded the the throne. is Such 1 the historical information which it has been On the question of Sin-shar-ishkun's rule in Babylonia.C. Ashur-etil-ilani.

We may now consider briefly the character document from which the text upon the was derived.. Wehavealready p noted that its complete sections bear a strong resemblance . On this theory it will be seen that the tablet represents original the text of a single document. It was further surmised that. and ended under the Neo-Babylonian empire. although some of sections are not copied out in full. or possibly in the Persian period. where the sections were practically identical. in spite of the abbreviation of many of the sections.C. wishing to note in full their points of difference. possible to 209 gain from a detailed examination of the it contents of the tablet.CHARACTER OF THE CHRONICLE. but when complete its text must have com- prised a period which began considerably earlier than the eleventh century. but differing class of and tablet in others. alike in many sections. portions of which justified have in been abbreviated. At the beginning of the chapter it was suggested that the writer of our tablet had before him two chronicles. he merely quoted their opening lines or summarized them. he copied out only those sections which were absent from the one copy or were accorded a different treatment upon it. they facts of considerable have furnished us with some new interest. We have seen that thedocument in its present condition records events ranging from the eleventh to the seventh century B. and will have been seen that. its We as are therefore treating text its that of a single chronicle. and that.

1.. Another document to which it presents some striking parallels is the " Synchronous History" of Babylonia and For instance. in the description of the friendly Marduk-shapik-zer-mati established with which relations Ashur-bel-kala the phraseology of the two accounts is Assyria. to the same class of literature as the Babylonian chronicles that have been recovered. Rev. Col. that the text of our tablet was not derived from that of the chronicle on which the compiler of the "Synchronous History" relied. "Synchronous History" (k. therefore. in representing Adad-aplu-iddina as a man of humble father's his they differ with regard to origin. It is clear. sar\ matuAssur is-kun of our chronicle (Obv. Cf. very similar 1 . regard to the theory which is here put text. It belongs. it forward to should be explain the abbreviations in the 1 Compare the the phrase tubtu{tii) u su-lum-mu itti^UuAs\ur\bel-k\a-la 1. 1-3. 1..). for. in one instance " at least the chronicle and the Synchronous History although they agree " preserve variant traditions. and the corresponding sections in the Synchronous History." .. which reads tu-ub-ta su-lu-iim-ma-a ga-am\ra~\ 2 •' it-li is-ku-\_nu~\. 1. and its With statements are equally worthy of acceptance. name.210 THE SYNCHRONOUS HISTORY and the general nature of their contents in their style to the Babylonian chronicles that are already known. in 6) with the parallel passage II. 4401a. 2 On the other hand. 11. a-ha-mcs 27 f. however. and it is probable that the contents of other sections were alike.. Obv.. Obv.

remarked that it 211 does not in any way concern the itself. credibility of the statements of the document The not theory has a purely literary and not a practical interest. conclusions it does affect historical which may be drawn from a study of the actual contents of the tablet. whether the it be right or wrong.AND THE CHRONICLE. I* 2 . and.

1 See Vol. and. THE yet tablet No. no precisely similar document has been published. 35.96s 1 I is of a peculiar character. pp.C. AND A POSSIBLE RECORD OF A SOLAR ECLIPSE OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY B. 70 ff. II. 157 ff- . though an Assyrian copy of a tablet is known which contains extracts from one or more texts of the same class. that it does refer to some secular events.. so far as am aware. series fc> A taken up by a of portents consisting of the appearance and slaughter of various wild beasts in the city of Babylon The facts are set or in its immediate neighbourhood. but solely in relation recorded. but these are merits.CHAPTER A IX. the facts it records are of a It is true and not of a historical character. While its language and style of composition bear a general resemblance to those of historical religious chronicles. BABYLONIAN RELIGIOUS CHRONICLE AND REGISTER OF PORTENTS. not on their to their effects own upon the performance of great part of the text certain religious is ceremonies.

and had no practical interest for the compiler of the record. but the events recorded B.C. an exceptionally severe thunderstorm and possibly a solar eclipse. no inference is drawn from them. No. No.A RELIGIOUS CHRONICLE. Doubtless any expert augur would have had little trouble in recognizing their if favourable or unfavourable character. forth in considerable detail with date. 213 regard to locality and and there from is no doubt that their importance for the This occurrence beside chronicler consisted in their religious significance. compiled the Seleucid era. to the thirty-eighth year of the Seleucid era 274 — 273). took place in the eleventh and tenth centuries texts The first published which are this chronicle may at sight call to in mind two astronomical chronicles. therefore. and portended good But in the chronicle itself or evil fortune for the state. facts before him. It will be obvious that all these remarkable happenings were regarded as signs from heaven. refers (B. 33. connected with the appearance of supernatural beings. and containing certain astronomical observations together with notes on current events of interest. and with natural phenomena. They took place in a bygone age. is clear the them of other such as portents. first like the other chronicles here published for the time. 92.C. One of these chronicles.837. It is he had the to the facts. in the late The text itself was written Babylonian period. and the other. that the chronicler confines himself. to the seventy- .688.

« Cf. and of governors and high officials (1. the prevalent winds. 38. 92. and the presentation of special offerings to that temple by the governor for Cf. In their colophons the tablets are given the for the Feasts (of the 1.. Borsippa.688 includes notes on military expeditions in Northern Babylonia (1. 11). . concerning public official undertakings of a military or nature. For 1 The chronicles have been published. . 32) . and etc. title massattu sa gi-ni-e. and Cuthah.. 11. 52.. VI.). IV. and that the latter religious chronicle belongs to a totally different class of document. 35. 226 ff. and the state of the country. 92.e. etc. H. 233 ninth year of the — 232). and the revolt of an Egyptian garrison (1. pp.21. No. Zeits. on journeys of the king and his court (1. 25. 38 f. 92. 28 f. 35). 23. 40). dates. 33 f.. 41) ." i. 35. wool..837. the arrival of twenty elephants as tribute from Bactria the prevalence of sickness (1. 11. 33. 17 and Rm. the current of grain. lunar observations. 236 and VII. II. No. s Thus the text of No. The first of the two tablets also gives information affairs. 3 to time as to the height of water in the Euphrates. 33.837.968 will suffice to show that their resemblance is but superficial. fiir Assy/:.214 COMPARISON OF THE CHRONICLE same era (B. l Both the which it tablets.4 the state of the weather.688. 5 But the briefest comparison of these tablets with the No. and No. pp. the collection of brick and asphalt for the repair of Esagila (1. under their earlier registration numbers (827-4. 397) by Epping and Strassmaier. the issue of rations of grain in Babylon. and No. and the collection of flocks and herds. 36 f. in addition to the lunar observations was their main object prices to record. 11. ) . 36. 137 + 8S-4-19.68s. and the occurrence of famine in (1. " Observations 3 New Moon). 11 f. ). 31).C. 42. 61 f. 236 2 ff. 33) Northern Babylonia so that people sold their children into slavery (1. 2 add notes from time sesame-seed. the Feast of the New Moon (1. 234. for the sustenance of the royal household (1.

968. little recorded and set out with as a paragraph in meaning as religious modern newspaper. phrases are in several passages identical with those employed in the It may be noted that similar (see below. in the Babylonian to and Col. are compiled in an astronomical and scientific to and the secular matters occult which the texts a refer are current events of interest. . 155. 1 rather than with the astronomical records of the Seleucid era. 9 f. an Assyrian tablet from Kuyunjik is inscribed with a number of extracts which were undoubtedly derived from one or more texts of this class. 1. 267 ft'.WITH OTHER TEXTS. is -The relatifs tablet aux presages. 11. 28 f. 253 It. divination Assyro-Babyloniennc. Ill. records with regard to 1. in 21 5 the former the observations spirit. 228). for the most part. 2 The Assyrian tablet is a copy of an older original. numbered R. see Boissier. 35. IV. 44-46. Documents Assyrieni Cho x de te.xtes relatifs a la I. connect Moreover. pp. p. and . refers to events which took place at periods remote from the time at which the tablet was compiled. the references in the text to the celebration of the Feast of the it New Year serve to with the historical chronicles of Babylonia. on the other hand. and gives a list of forty-seven evil 1 Its Nabonidus Chronicle Chronicle Col. and its contents. Although we do not possess another chronicle of precisely the same character as No.. addition notes concerning the journeys of other deities (Col.of signs and portents. in 11. and 3436). The chronicle. IV.and the stud}. Shamash and Ebabbara occur 41. (Col.. pp. II. belong to the world of augur).). I.

2l6

COMPARISON OF THE CHRONICLE
"

portents which preceded
It is

the casting

down
is

of Akkad." 1
is

not clear what conquest of the country
the reading of the king's

referred

to, for

name

uncertain in

whose time the portents are

said to have taken place. 2

The

text

is

not in

itself

a chronicle, since the writer
fore-

merely enumerates the particular portents which
told the
fall

of Akkad.
in

In three instances he mentions

the

month

which a particular event occurred, 3 but
In fact his

elsewhere no references to dates are given.
sole object

was

to

enumerate within as small a space as

possible the evil portents, which, in his opinion, foretold
or were connected with certain misfortunes of

Akkad.

These he undoubtedly obtained from a study of one or

more

chronicles, very similar to No. 35,968,
all

and when
extraneous

running through the texts he omitted
matters and merely jotted
struck

down

the portents which

him

as significant.

The Assyrian
historical

text

is

of considerable value for the

study of Babylonian
interest,

beliefs,
it

but

it

has

little

or no

and

is

merely mentioned here
existence
of
religious

as

affording

evidence

of the

1

The

first

line of the

XLVII ittdtipl a-ha-a-ti sa
probable that

colophon describes the contents of the tablet as a-na nadc(e) m^tuAkkadt^ izziziipl-ni. It is

Akkad

is

here employed for Northern Babylonia, and not in

the vague augural sense of the regions which
north.
-

bounded Babylonia on the

It

may be noted
is

that the single
1.

wedge

(the determinative of a proper

name)
3

quite clear in
11.

I

after the phrase \itt\itipl sa

ina

tar-si.

Cf.

Obv.,

10, 17,

and 22.

;

WITH A LIST OF PORTENTS.
chronicles

2\J

and

registers of portents, very similar to the
in

one discussed
a

the present chapter.
it

We may

note,

however, that the portents
far

enumerates are drawn from

wider range of phenomena than those of the They include an instance of chronicle Xo. 35,968.
utterance after death
1 ;

the occurrence of monstrosities,
cases
of
incest

human and animal 2
matings of animals 3
;

;

and unnatural
;

fruitfulness of the

male 4 unnatural
;

growths and appearances of date-palms 5
binations of inanimate nature 6
the outbreak of
-

strange com-

;

the

fall

of buildings and

fire. 7
i-si-ik,

'

Obv.,

].

1,

kakkadu ttak-su

" a decapitated head cried out

"

;

the

verb
-

is i-si-ih,

not i-ra-ah (Boissier).

Three of the portents consist of a bearded woman with a deformed 1. 4), a mare with a horn growing from the left side of the head (Obv., 1. 3), and a four-horned sheep (Obv., I. 4) for other strange or monstrous births, cf. Obv., 1. 6 (read sE-KUL, Br. No. 7443 f., for sE-MU),
underlip (Obv.,
;

and Rev.,
3

11.

1-4.
sister,

Cases of incest with a mother,
1.

daughter, and mother-in-law are
bull with

mentioned (Obv.,
4 Cf. Obv., 1. and Obv., I. S,

14),

and unnatural matings of a
1.

an

ass,

a fox

with a dog, and a dog with a wild-pig (Obv.,
19,

15).

"

in

Kaldu

(S.

Babylonia) a male dog brought forth,"
fruit."

"a male palm

in

Babylon bore

5

The

portents of this class include the appearance of two trees of totally

different species

growing from a date-palm {ina
sa

libbi gisimmari:
:

Rev. ,1.8);
1.

a date-palm which bore a horn (gisiiiimant kar-nu sa-kin

Rev..
1.

10)

;

another with six heads

(g.

VI kak^kadcpl

.

.

.]:

Obv.,

S)
9)

;

and an
;

unusual appearance of the heads of young date-palms (Obv.,

1.

cf.

also,

Obv.,
6

1.

10,

and Rev.,

1.

7.

E.g., the appearance of
. . .

Ni/fitn'K-i dis[pu
cf.
i

]

:

Obv.,

honey on the soil of Nippur [irsilim{tim) 1. 12), and of salt in Babylon (Obv., 1. 20)

also Obv.,

1.

7.

The

destruction of beams in the houses of

Daban was regarded

as a

2l8

COMPARISON OF THE CHRONICLE
portents

No

drawn from such phenomena occur upon

the tablet No. 35,968, but portents of other classes are

represented upon both documents.

Thus the appearance
in the

of wild creatures in Babylon, which forms so large a
subject in No. 35,968,
list 1
;

may

be paralleled

Assyrian

and both documents

refer to floods, 2 astronomical

phenomena, 3 and the appearance
portents, in sacred places.4
portent (Obv.,
1.

of

evil

spirits,

or

Another point of difference
ti-

5), as

also outbreaks of fire in the temple-bakery (bit
(cf.

nu-ri) and elsewhere in Esagila

Obv.,

11.

17

and

22),

and

in the

Gate

ofNinib(Ob\\,
1

1.

18).

Mention is made of the appearance in the city of a lion, a jackal, a wild pig from the cane-brake (Obv., 1. 11), and two classes of white birds (Obv., Cf. also Obv., 1. 12, where the text reads ur-ki, not ur-ku 1. 16). (kalbu) ; the appearance of a dog among the houses (ina bitati) could never have been regarded as a portent.
=

The
1.

flood at Borsippa,
5),

when

the water

came within the

walls of Ezida

(Rev.,

may

be compared with the flood at Babylon recorded by the
1.

chronicle (Col. Ill,
3

15).

The

flight

of
\

meteors

or
19)

falling

stars

(kakkabanit>l istu

same(e)

imtanakkutupl-ni

Obv.,

1.

may be compared

with the chronicle's

possible record of a solar eclipse (see below, pp. 232
4

ff. ).

A

mukil

res limutti

is

recorded in the Assyrian
:

list

to

have appeared

"within the shrine" (ina pa-pa-hi Obv., 1. 18), at the feast of all the gods at Dur-ilu (Rev., 1. 9), and also in the Bab kuzbu, " the Gate of Pomp," in Esagila (Rev., 1. 11). These appearances maybe compared with that of an ilu mukil res limutti in the sleeping-chamber of Nabu,

which

is

recorded by the chronicle (Col. Ill,
is

1.

17

f.).

It

is

of course

possible that the sign ilu in the chronicle

the reference to
line (Col. Ill,
1.

merely a determinative, but the ilu ka-ri-bu, or "favourable deity," in the preceding

16)

seems

to indicate that the (ilu)
is

mukil

res limutti in

the chronicle at any rate
personality,

to

be regarded as a malignant presence or
for

and not simply as a phrase

an unfavourable portent

;

the

WITH A LIST OF PORTENTS.
consists
in

219

the

fact

that

while

the chronicle, in the

main, confines

its

records to portents which occurred in
list

Babylon, the Assyrian

ranges over a far wider area,
in several

and includes occurrences
true that
in

other

cities. 1

It

is

the majority of cases, where no city
it

is

mentioned by name,
place in Babylon
tracts

is

implied that the event took
it is

itself, 2

and

obvious that these ex-

were drawn from chronicles which dealt principally

But the compiler of the fortyseven portents must have consulted other documents, and he probably owed his information to an exhaustive
with Babylonian events.

acquaintance with the augural literature of the period.

His text, preserved for us

in a late

Assyrian copy, thus

proves the existence of a large class of religious and augural records, of which the tablet No. 35,968 is the
first

example that has yet been recovered.

We may
the

now

pass on to a detailed examination of
itself.

new

chronicle

The whole

of

the tablet

portion. 3
latter

No. 35,968 has not been preserved, but only its upper It is inscribed with two columns of writing
meaning would
certainly
fit

the two passages in the List of portents
in

which mention the appeaiances
mystic vase or vessel.
E.g.,

connection with the kankannu, the

Daban (Obv.,

1.

5),

Dilbat (Rev.,

1.

7), Dur-ilu (Rev.,
1.

1.

9),

Nippur (Obv., 1. 12), Kaldu, or Southern Babylonia (Obv., 1. 10), and Bit-Albada (Obv., 1. 7).
2 3

19, Rev.,

£.£., Obv.,

11.

11, 12(a), 16, IS, 2o(/i).
in. in

The

part

preserved measures 4

breadth by 3J

in.

in length.
5 in.,

The breadth
its

of the tablet

when complete must have been about
in.

and

length probably not less than 6

220

COLLECTION OF THE DATES
side,

on each

and

is

probably one of a series of

tablets,

since the remains of a catch-line exist at the

end of the
surface

fourth column.

It is clearly written,

and the characters
its

are carefully formed, but

in

several places

has suffered considerably.

Of

the

first

column only the

ends of some twenty-five lines are preserved, but from
the words that remain
it is

possible to conclude that this

column resembled the two that follow it, and contained Of the fourth records of the same religious character. column
also very little
it

is

preserved, but the remains of
its

two dates upon

show that

records were in direct

continuation of those in the third column of the text.

Before classifying and discussing the contents of the
chronicle,
it

will

be well to

collect the dates

which

it

contains, in order to determine as far as possible the
limits of the period with

which

it

deals.

In the

first

column the remains of a date are possibly preserved in but, as only the end of a king's name is given, 1 6
I.
;

the question of his the dates

identity

may

be postponed until
king's

upon the
In

rest of the

document have been

enumerated.
occurs,
II.

the second

column no

name
In

but we

find the

following series of dates.

i, 6, 7,

and io we have a number of dates consisting
of Iyyar, the
;

of the

nth

month Tammuz,

the

month

Ab, and the 25th of Tisri all these dates belong to the same year, which was mentioned at the end of the first column and is not afterwards repeated. In 11. 12 and
14

we

find

the

16th of

Ab

and the 26th of Sivan

II. and fourteenth years 1 . and its it is not clear why year is mentioned out of proper order. fail All the dates recorded in the third column within the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli. and . and in 19 and 20 portents are recorded on the 15th of Iyyar In and the 15th of Sivan of the seventeenth year. mentioned. 230. 26 the fourteenth year is mentioned . years. same subject ff. . is In 1. 1. but unfortunately the name not repeated in any of the dates preserved the 15 in second column. 2. one of the early kings of the eighth dynasty of the Kings' List. six years of Nabu-mukin-aplfs reign is and the . first column. fifteenth years are mentioned. 2 and 3 portents are recorded to have taken place first the month Iyyar. 1 See below. both of the seventh year. the two that preceded it. is I. 4. and very probably its founder. n. 11 month year Tammuz of the sixteenth year mentioned as this occurs out of order because the record for the nineteenth year referred to the 11. and 10 the month Nisan and nineteenth referred to in his seventh. fourteenth. In 13 the twentieth and the nine p. Similarly the event recorded in dated in the month Elul of the eleventh year 16 the thirteenth. that is 221 to say the seventh year of some Babylonian king. but the text this broken. probably in one of the . in 11. whose given in the is name was in 1. eighth. which are probably a mistake of the scribe for the twelfth. 6.UPON THE CHRONICLE. this probably refers to the same reign is as the dates in the rest of the column. thirteenth. In in 11.

1. No.222 LENGTH OF THE REIGN following years are mentioned in connection with the same religious observances. Finally. . 15 and 19 refer to the twenty-fourth year and to the 21st of Sebat in the twenty-sixth year of his reign. the twenty-sixth year 1 Of the Brit. Mus. 11 f. and probably longer.. The fourth column is very broken.835. The List of Kings assigns is years to the founder of the dynasty. dates that are preserved. Col. IV. The above apli is series of dates in the reign of for Nabu-mukin- important determining the length of his reign and his probable place dynasty to thirty-six among the early kings of the which he belongs. Now. from which we may conclude that Nabu-mukin-apli reigned for at least twenty-nine be said for years. much to This view finds additional support in the dates upon our chronicle. the gap at the beginning of the eighth dynasty of the Kings' List is probably not large enough to have his contained two long reigns so that the identification of Nabu-mukin-apli with the founder of the dynasty. 11. to . whom tradition assigned thirty-six years. but it is certain that it continued the record of events in Nabu-mukin-apli's reign. has it. 4 and both still preserve the end 5 both contained dates. for 11. and of this king's name. since 1 in the British Museum Nabu- twenty-second year is referred to on that monument. but of the king " the " name wanting. 90. We know from that a boundary-stone mukin-apli reigned for at least twenty-two years.

. is he reigned for more than twenty-nine years that. probably See above.OF NABU-MUKIN-APLI. but other later dates has been noted that in that 1. and is little doubt that these years fell within his reign. the Feast of the New Year was not fully celebrated. probable from the fact in while his twenty-sixth year mentioned the last line of the third column of the chronicle. and." that is to say. by inference. was the practice of the Babylonian chroniclers to separate the events of each reign from one another. there for it when dealing with one which it king. not to refer to events fell within the reign of his successor. the whole of the text in the fourth column was also devoted to his reign. and. the chronicle thus reign approximate The data furnished by length of his make still the probable more nearly oi' to that assigned by the List of Kings to the founder the dynasty. But this ceremony was performed by each Babylonian king as early as possible in his reign. all The series of dates in the 1 second column p. Moreover. 1 We may That is therefore legitimately conclude that during these nine years Nabu-mukin-apli was still upon the throne. is stated that during these nine years " Bel went not forth and Nabu went not (to Babylon). the king did not grasp the hands of Bel. 14 the nine years are mentioned followed Nabu-mukin-apli's twentieth year. 196. since it was the equivalent of a coronation-ceremony. may be inferred. of Nabu-mukin-apli's reign is 223 is the latest that actually It mentioned.

26 is more probable. and Vol. and Vol. II. 184. p. 2 Were the interest attaching to the it chronicle entirely of a religious character. 19 and 20. 184. 3 If the fourteenth year mentioned in Col. who reigned for seventeen years according to the List of Kin^s. fourteenth year. - The Dynastic Chronicle II. to is Eulbar-shakin-shum. p. p. would be with the unnecessary to concern missing ourselves king. Now the only two kings of the fifth. who reigned for eighteen years according to the same authority. sixth and seventh dynasties of the Kings' List to whom this description can apply are Eulbar-shakin-shum. But if the merely mentioned out of order and belongs to the same sequence as the seventeenth year. the founder of the fifth dynasty. 1. 11. 54. one king. as and the fourteenth year in 1. we may refer all the dates preserved in the second column to the same king.224 refer to PERIOD COVERED BY THE CHRONICLE. it is certain that the king of the second column reigned before and not after mukin-apli. 26. we may refer the dates in the upper part of the column to Simmash-shikhu. . see above. 19 and 20 reigned for at least seventeen years and. since the third and fourth columns of the chronicle are devoted to the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli. in view of the possible reference to a solar eclipse in the fourteenth 1 According to the Dynastic Chronicle he reigned only fifteen years . who we know from . 52. If. see above. Nabu- missing apli's it is Moreover. of the chronicle does not belong to the same reign as the seventeenth year in 11. 1 and Simmash-shikhu. 3 further identity of the But. from the amount of text that is probable that he was among Nabu-raukin- more immediate predecessors. p. assigns him seventeen years . the founder of the sixth dynasty.

1. and the making of in and the other temples. 1. Col. I. naturally centre in the capital. See below. Thus we find references to the Gate of Traffic or Commerce. is impossible.ITS ['LACK line of the OF ORIGIN. 5 and the Gate of show : ' 1 The traces before the sign Ml" upon the . and we will return to it The only other possibly contains on in the present chapter. II. 13.. so that. The place at which the chronicle was compiled is clearly Babylon. tablet that the restora- tion ['« it" - . . . 228. "[. . 13." 1 No king's if name with this ending has yet been recovered. 2 city is The in the mentioned by name specified. II. 1. the signs in question place we must him in the gap at the beginning of the fourth dynasty of the Kings' List. a date 16 of the first column. for most of the religious observances city. -il]ia-libur. 7. with the coming offerings in Esagila forth of Bel from Esagila. 3 but case of most of the portents a particular place in the city is such as one of its gates or a gate of a temple. 3 * 8. -i/i]-fa-/i-/>ur. and Col.-* the Gate of Ninib. preserved by the tablet which is 1. This line appears to give the end of a king's " [ name as Jmu-libur. 5 Col. the bringing of Nabii from Borsippa. two passages. 19. the point later line of some importance. and portents that are mentioned concern that references to the Feast of the The New Year. p. are really part of a king's name.. II. n.. I. 3. Col. is 225 column.

11 Col. This point is also of importance in connection with the possible reference to a solar eclipse. I. 12. No. Hommel.1. 1. Grundriss der Geographie I. bSlia. Babylonische Hymnen. see Reisner. 3. II. (1904). 6 Col. Anhang.4 and once Bit-Ursag is and described as situated in the district of Nippur. V (V.. Col. Col. . ft". Th. of the doors. A. 5 but the passages are broken and it is not possible to tell in what connection their names occur upon the is tablet. therefore conclude that the chronicle is We may peculiarly a Babylonian one. 7. References to places other than Babylon are few. 6. of Esagila . Col. 1. II.226 COMPILATION OF THE CHRONICLE. 1 All these were in " Babylon. Ill. 1. 21. Ill. Sumerisch1. 10. 1. it As 1 the chronicle I. Ill. 14.. and cf. shrines. and that that the events recorded it was in the city of Babylon upon it were observed and noted down. 8. was near the in other is Ishtar which river. may lists possibly have formed a part of the temple of Esagila. itnd Gesehiclite des alien Orients. 2 and passages where the river " is mentioned 3 the reference the Tigris to clearly to the Euphrates. 323 3 < 5 Col. which will be discussed later on in is this chapter. 11. or 2 The bub is "Gate in the of my Lord." mentioned in Col. 1. II. which includes etc. 6 and capture by the Aramaeans only recorded because prevented the king from coming to Babylon. pp. is Once referred mentioned. The " Gate of Ishtar " mentioned Berlin topographical tablet. The only its it other city mentioned is Kar-bel-matati. 554). a religious one is natural that Col.

Col. 15. Q 2 .. 2 E. Col. was obviously recorded historical events and possible references to of the in first in the broken text and fourth columns 2 records preserved must have been made religious festivals. . it New Year. 1. 10 includes more than in the king's absence from Babylon and modifications the the Feast of the also in New Year. we may conclude Aramaeans made war Xabu-makin-apli's nineteenth year.£. but few historical events should be recorded in it. No. IV. II. 8. 11. 4. In the careful record which the chronicle gives of the New Year In this was not bears a striking resemblance to the Nabonidus Chronicle. if ilie " ditto" sign that in 1. not as of as interest in themselves. The great flood on the Euphrates. But these campaigns are recorded. 3 and in the second of their campaigns against Babylon succeeded in capturing the Ferry-Gate of the city of Kar-bel- matati. Ill. the sea] " in Col. 2. but a prominent place J in the narrative is given to notices of Col. but the cause of the king's absence from Babylon at the Festival of the years in which the Festival of the fully celebrated. also the reference lo Col. 20. 6ff.HISTORICAL REFERENCES. 7 . 27.382. 11. II. l. 6. where related that the Aramaeans made war in the seventh and eighth years of Nabu-mukin-apli's reign. 35. as a portent. 1 when the waters rose to a high point within the city. "men[of 3 I. cf. intact it is connection with portents or The only historical upon the tablet occur in the third column. 11. 227 and those that are referred to are mentioned incidentally. the document greater part of the records are historical.

11.. that the god Nabu did not go forth. i6f. No. political In the preceding chapter significance we have noted to the which attached the king's participation in the festival. Sac /is. 677 (German edition. Col. Neujahrsfest 314 f. der Konigl. 9. 196. 11. disproves Hagen's suggested reading of ittasa (Beitr. thither. and read arbuNisannu ana (var. Die Keilinschriften und Testament. Lit. and history. 1 ourselves to an examination of the formulae and we may here confine employed in the new religious chronicle with a view to ascertaining it what fresh information supplies. p. For a discussion of the in festival ft".. 126 ft- and Streck. see Col. 228 the THE CHRONICLE manner in which the New Year's Festival was observed. Ill. pp.. - See above. These occur in the sections dealing with the seventh. Col. Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. 375 3 4 Cf. . 19-21. Col.. p. tenth sarrn ana and eleventh years of the reign of Nabonidus. pp. 23 ft. 3 several merely note that the king did not go up to Babylon in Nisan. a-na) Bobili^ id illikit[kii) H"Nab& ana Babili Kl id ill:ku[ku) HuBel ul usd[a) i-sin-nu (var. zur Assyr. . 13 f. pp. Vol. 6-9. II in progress) Zimmern. 4 Some its of the passages. 4-6. 1-5. . 220).. II. sap)*i ki 1 sal-mu ?iadna[na) uri-gallu is-ruk-ma bita ip-kid. isinini) a-ki-tu da-til nikepl ina E-sag-gil u E-zi-da il&nipl su-ut Bubili^ u Bar-sip{xar. : ninth. and his paper Zum babylonischen in the Bericht. ft. and that Bel went not and the phrases employed are very similar to those used in the Nabonidus Chronicle to indicate the non-observance of the 1 festival. 218.. 11. 5-8. iof. The reading of u-sa-a by the new chronicle definitely 10-12. der U'issen. LVIII. Orient. 2 Of the eight passages in the chronicle which refer to the Feast of the New Year. iS. see Jastrow. Gesell.-Zeit.. II. Bd. 1905. 141". II. das Alte the third edition of Schrader's II..

and he at once proceeded to slaughter the young beasts which had been Bel. we learn that certain offerings were made on the Eve of the Festival. . that to say during the king's absence. however. 2 This would seem to mark some departure from the general form of procedure. From another passage in in the chronicle.AND THE FEAST OF NEW YEAR. On this occasion the king on the nth day of Iyyar. The words of the chronicle are nikA \kln\u ibH see Col. first five lines of the 22Q second column give us Thus the in some festival detail the procedure which took place when the in had not been celebrated arrived consequence of the king's absence from the capital. "the appointed offering" 3 was made. for the following lines record that. n. 1. 1. urigallu-priest poured 1 out the libation administered the temple. which records the non-celebration of the Festival of the New Year the eighth year of Xabu-mukin-apli. The the chronicle also notes the fact that until the is day of and the offerings. 1 employed 2 3 compare the last phrase of the fo mulae Nabonidus Chronicle see the preceding note. 9. set apart for the ceremony of the going in forth of The king thus offered Iyyar the sacrifices at which he should have offered preceding month. . the private offerings which for the had been received New Year's Feast were now offered during four days in Esagil and the other temples. Ill. the festival in the Similarly. With . afford us additional information. The phrase employed is simetan sa a-ki-ti. when the same thing occurred this note of the chronicler in the in Nabii-mukin-apli's nineteenth year. see Col. Ill.

18.230 THE FEAST OF THE NEW YEAR. or remained within his shrine while his chariot only was led out. implies that in other years he did go forth. The 1 majority are portents derived from the slaughter 1. the statue of Bel was actually drawn forth and carried in procession during these preliminary rites. the remainder of the text will be seen to be entirely confined to the record of portents. that Bel went not forth in the fifteenth year. not all three. Col. and it will suffice here to classify them briefly. the preceding paragraphs it From will have been seen that one of the principal subjects dealt with on the chronicle was the 'manner in which the Feast of the New Year was observed. so that we must Whether here have a reference to some preliminary ceremonies held during the last month of the old year. it is not possible to determine from the text. thirteenth and fourteenth and fifteenth years. some interest occurs in the second it is A third passage of column of the chronicle. " where stated that for three consecutive years Adar until not forth. fourteenth ." 1 day of the month the month Nisan the chariot of Bel went The context of the passage seems to imply from the third if that on two. in 1. they have small value from a historical point of view. II. of these years Bel did 2 go forth during the New Year's Festival. years. not the thirteenth. If the sentences having reference to this event be omitted. floods'' 16) should properly The "three years after the be the twelfth. 17. - The statement (1. for the Though these are of considerable interest study of religious beliefs of the Babylonians.

3 * s 11. Sin in Col. . Cf. f.e. 11. CoL 1. 22 and 23 . 19-23. other deities may have been I. 1. 4.1. III. 7S. at the right side of the The "favourable deity " door of a shrine. 3 we may conjecture who guarded the entrance One of the portents seems II. n. Other portents were taken from the appearance of certain deities. the 1. such as the malignant being who was seen in the sleeping-chamber of Nabu. TashmeUun 1 in Col. 6. 11. 11. 3 1. also Col. 7. 19.SIGNS AND PORTENTS. 1. from whom another of the portents was derived. 1 jackals. (i. Col. 1. II. may perhaps have been mentioned Col III. Similar appearances of 15. chronicled in Col. Col. I. It is scarcely possible that the god Ninib. 6. p. II. f. Ill. Col. . ff. I. 1. and possibly Col. and in the translation of that passage in Vol. Lady 21. also Col. II. 20. A portent of a very similar class consisted of the capture 5 of a dog in what was probably a very sacred area. 11 1. he couched. I. 1. Col. II. 7 f Col. 17 see above. Ill. 2. 218. to say that. 12 7 1. Ill. and Col. II. to which the suffix of i-bar-ru-hi also refers.. while I. they captured him. The passage appears . 1. including lions. 6 probably one of the inner chambers of Ezida. whose name occurs at the end of 1. f. 2 a leopard. 9.. in connection with portents derived from them. and the goddess in Col. II. Col. 4 the It will be seen city that is in majority of cases the part of the in carefully stated which the beast was slain. 1. was one of the stone colossi 7 to the temple in question. Ishtar) in Col. the name of which has been omitted by mistake. and Col. 9-1 1. Cf. 1. the verb employed being the same as that used for the The same phrases are employed in capture of the dog in Col. 3 and three deer. as 15 ff. 17. 1. it is suggested that the subject of the verb i-dn-lu. f. of Nineveh I. p. 11. 23 I of wild beasts in various parts of Babylon. is] the subject of i-dii-lu (and it may be . I. f. 19 6 Col. 1. was probably some beast. II. 2.

23. 1. II. 18). 25. But in the other we may perhaps see a reference to an eclipse of the sun.li H'<Ninib occurs also in Col. 4 and in itself presents no point of interest. give better sense to take i-bar-ru in all three passages (Col. Ill. Ill. portent. 19. and Col. would will have for Babylonian chronology. see above. 11. 14. "to behold. and in view of the importance which such a record. 22. 17) as But elsewhere in the tablet am6. 7) . is employed for "to (cf. " omen. 11. II. midst of heaven II. One derived from an exceptional thunderstorm.232 to PORTENTS FROM NATURAL PHENOMENA. It is probable that the sign uzu should be here taken as sen/. 1. 76. Col. might 8. 227." Col." behold " hat 1 1. if it substantiated. p. 2. be necessary to length. 2 " flesh. from ban). 18. discuss the passage in question at some " The the portent is recorded in the second column of the : chronicle 5 in the following words On the 26th day of month Sivan and fire in the in the seventh year the day was turned to night. II. 1. . 12. p. 1 while another fall may possibly have been taken from the of a building. [ ]. See Vol. 15 . and Col. Col." rather than from bdru. otherwise it 11. " to capture. 15. Ill. 2 Among we may reference the portents derived from natural class phenomena the great flood in Babylon to which has already been made. II. 3 Only two other of these is portents of this class are found upon the portion of the text that has been preserved. Ill. 13. so it is preferable to render i-bar-ru as suggested in the translation. 1. II. Col. 1. 4. Col. 3 * s Col. have been connected with an unusual appearance flesh of a in the victim.ru I." rather than as sini. 3." noted that abn. 20. 1.

interpretation of this passage. on the his reign may probably be dated. which contained the verb of the is second sentence. 1. but they group themselves under three heads.ponyni words i-na arhuSim&nu &*Sama§ ataM{XN. usually expressed by the composite ideogram AN-MI. and the following line begins with an entirely different portent for the eleventh There are several difficulties attaching to the year. broken. " heaven-darkness. 52. West. 763 B.C." might therefore be urged that the cause of the solar eclipse of June 15th. the sun was eclipsed (see Can. The List in the Vol.e. is 1 and only the effect of " an eclipse of the sun recorded in the words It 1 the day was turned to night.. atald. be noted that the word for an eclipse. will then be necessary.A POSSIBLE SOLAR ECLIPSE. pi. eclipse is it question does refer to if will be necessary to enquire any fit known to have taken place which would its in with the data already obtained from an independent study of the chronicle and It will contents. after considering the identity of the king in to whose seventh year the portent is recorded have taken place. literally. "In the month Sivan Shamash (or the Sun) made a heavendarkness. and it we must determine at the is probable that the passage does or It does not have reference to an eclipse of the sun. outset whether The first point to consider is the meaning of the words. . 7)." i. in supposition that the passage a solar eclipse.." is not employed in the passage in question. 233 The end of the line. Asia. Inscr. is recorded in the F. to ascertain the limits within which Finally.Ml) istakan{an). II.

19. " Of course the absence of the actual word for in the chronicle renders the objection. p. and to an inhabitant of the country even a severe dust-storm would have little of novelty about it.234 A POSSIBLE SOLAR ECLIPSE. and in another of the portents. II. the chronicler ascribes the Adad. 2 1 We can well See Vol. there is small probability that so common an occurrence would have been regarded as a special sign from heaven. using the language is employed in the chronicle but the document not a poetical composition. the Storm-god. Col. In fact. Ill. that the turning an eclipse from the passage of day into night must have been due to other than astronomical conditions. portent should be traced to atmospheric rather than to astronomical conditions. incapable of . 1. But anyone acquainted with Mesopotamia have vivid recollections of the frequent occasions on which he has experienced the discomfort arising from storms of this nature. 1 phenomenon to the agency of The only other possibility would will be to trace the cause of the portent to a dust-storm. which was undoubtedly caused by a thunderstorm. 85. and incorporated in a register of portents alongside of such wonderful happenings as the visible appearance of divine beings and the slaughter of wild beasts in the streets of Babylon. It is true that an exceptionally severe thunderstorm might have darkened the heavens sufficiently to justify a poet in . We are thus forced to accept the occurrence of a solar eclipse as the most probable explanation of the phrase that the day was turned to night.

be stated that the end of the second column and . Simmash-shikhu and fifth and sixth dynasties of Eulbar-shakin- The question is one of greater or less probability. as referring to solar eclipses during the seventh and later centuries. - should. imagine the terror with which a total eclipse of the 235 sun would have been regarded by the ancient Babylonians. that he was probably one of Nabu-mukin-apli's more immediate predecessors. Bd. or lunar in some cases on rather slender grounds. We have already seen that this king reigned before Nabu-mukiir apli. Chronologic.k DATE OF THE PORTENT. and there would be nothing more likely than to find a record of such an event in a chronicle devoted entirely to religious matters nature. and portents of an unusual could be shown that an eclipse which with regard to date and risk in line of totality satisfies the conditions attaching to the record. however. B. I (1906). Handbuc der mathematischen 1 und tecknischen 223 f.. stated upon the tablet to have occurred in the seventh year of a Babylonian king whose part of the first name was given in a missing column of the chronicle. For a list of other passages in the cuneiform inscriptions which have been interpreted.2 the founders of the disproof. pp. there would be little accepting the astronomical interpretation of the phrase. The next the portent question that arises is the date at which It is is recorded to have taken place.C. 1 that his reign lasted It has also been pointed satisfy out that the only two kings conditions are who the above shum. and for at least seventeen years. It p. If therefore it did actually take place. 13411. See above. see Ginzel.

p.. . See Rost. and Sayce. it is possible to fix the period which it is separated the reigns of these two kings. and the summary at the end of this group omits to give the It number of years able for its total duration. who came to the throne within little 1 more than twenty or twenty-one years of one another. p. with the help of the List of Kings and the Dynastic Chronicle. in favour of his identification with a 1 whom whom unknown king of the But.. Lit. as already stated. In that case there are two reigned for seventeen and the kings in the preceding dynasty. . may possibly have covered a longer period than that separating the reigns of Simmash-shikhu and Nabu-mukin-apli.-Zeit. But while. may be seen from the following which gives the seventh year in the reigns of Simmash-shikhu and of Eulbar-shakin-shum according the principal to schemes of Babylonian chronology published during the last few years. impossible to fix their dates with absolute accuracy in the Baby- lonian chronological scheme. which are missing from the chronicle. in the portion of the text occupied by the rulers of the eighth dynasty or group of kings. Ill. See the table printed on p. Geselhchaft (1897) II. the Kings' List. No. Mitteil. one of the other for twenty-two years. . also p. Early Israel. dates for the dynasties before the gap in the To what extent this uncertainty affects the date to be assigned to the portent under discussion table.236 DATE OF THE PORTENT. Col. . 26 f. A large gap occurs in the List of Kings. thus happens that the available chronological data allow of consider- play in the arrangement of the list. 216 f. 184 cf. 185. with chronicle might be identified. 2 the beginning of the third column. 2 . 282 Orient. der Vorderasiat. 6. the probabilities are king not earlier than Simmash-shikhu.

37 .DATE OK THE PORTENT.

has very kindly interested himself in the passage under discussion. The It is eclipse which Mr. but the corrections to the secular variations of the Moon's mean motion and node. 225. No. previously deduced by Mr. 1063 B. pp also in Monthly Notices of R. LXV and The Observatory. 2 making the is The would obvious objection to the acceptance of this identification the equation Sivan 26th 1 = July 31st. Vol. therefore. is little He is of opinion that there doubt that the words of the text describe the effects of a total eclipse of the sun. 2 See Mr. Cowell would identify with the July 31st. have the effect of eclipse of 1063 B. the city of Babylon itself. LXXIV (May.C.S. p.. 11 ft". p. For it See above.. 454. 1906).. 363 f. Cowell from the records of four other ancient eclipses. passage in the chronicle is that of true that the present tables of the this eclipse total at Moon do not make Babylon. Vol. pp. Nature.. and not a in partial and that the totality. 420 ff. Cowell's papers 861 ft". (1905).238 ASTRONOMICAL INTERPRETATION with his attempt to ascertain the secular acceleration of the earth's orbital motion. which was total at Babylon.A. total at Babylon. it was peculiarly a Babylonian in in and there 1 is evidence that the events recorded were observed and noted down It is clear. .C. that eclipse within the period we must seek for an indicated by the chronicle. " fire the midst of heaven " refers to the appearance of the sun's corona during the period of We have already seen that the religious chronicle one. cf.

A.S. 1070 B. Cowell's paper.C. and May 1 8th. n 24 B. Yul.well the indications of date presented by the is chronicle. occurred about April begin that year till yet the Babylonians did not about May 4th.C. are rather earlier than the period to which. S65. follow 239 from this equation that.. 1070 could not have been total at Babylon. and the year 1070 would suit equal 1). calary into in months were only inserted to bring the calendar harmony with the seasons. system of observation the existence of of intercalary or some custom with regard to the insertion months at this period of which we have would admirably suit the require- no other evidence or indication. that the eclipse of June 20th.C. Another eclipse that ments of the chronicle with regard to both vear and month is that of June 20th.C. 867. . 1 1 The eclipses of May 28th. 1 See Mr. The only conceivable But inter- explanation of this would be that the month beginning about April 4th was an intercalary month. Monthly Notice* of R. as we have already seen. In this case the equation Sivan 26th difficulty. = June 20th presents no point of B. pp. it is probable that we must assign the portent under discussion. The only objection to this identification B.. although the equinox 1st.. and the insertion of one in the above circumstances would imply a very inaccurate the eleventh century B.C. LXY (1905).OF THE PORTENT. 17 B.C.. 1 and a partial eclipse could hardly have justified the chronicler's phraseology.

no certain voice with regard to the eclipse from which the portent may have been derived. whose in In these circumstances we cannot at present make any largely use of the record If.240 CONCLUSION. should happen in the future recovered. the element of uncertainty being due to the fact that the king's name is missing seventh year it is recorded to have taken place. or by duplicate inscription. either that the king's name should be it upon a the missing portion of the chronicle. means of might be possible with the aid of the astronomers to use his seventh year as a fixed point in the Babylonian chronological scheme. therefore. speaks with Astronomy. for the it purposes of Babylonian chronology. however. .

15S f. father of Bel-ibni. portent from. 192 his completion of shrines in honour of Marduk. king of Assyria his defeat byShamash-nnulammik 202. king of the Country of the Sea reading of the name of. 102 in table of con. 80 . ADAD-APr. Ion . 72. 154 f. 193 his operations at Dur-ilu. 184 f. 47 ft". 195. 200 f. . invasion of the Sutu during his reign. . . Sargon besieged in. 5. 66. 22 . 1 in table of contemporaneous rulers. date-formulae of.9. Abeshu'. 96. . see Adonis. contemporary of Amraphel. 62 ft". at Babylon. . 161. spoil of Subartu brought into. 93 f. king of babyvariant 192 with regard to his parentage.U-IDDINA. his traditions origin. 192 . 72. 171 his temple . A 11 Adasi. . 193 his relations with . . and . 64. interval between his call and the Exodus. 193. 197 f. reading of the name of. forms of the name of. Adad. Magan to. referred to. 52 . sm.3. methods of deducing date of. 23 f. his throne and image made by Hammurabi. 17 . see also Sargon. . improvements carried out by Sargon at. 59 . ABYDENUS. ADUMETASH. 95. Agade. . 102. his period. INDEX ABESHU'. transport of diorite from . 91. 1 of the name of. Abraham. Kassite king of Babylon .. ADAD-NIRARI III. AGATHIAS. 97 f. 173 . traces of his name in 199 f the Kings' List and the Dynastic Chronicle. . temporaneous rulers. 94. his name. Ashur-bel-kala. possibly at Ashur. . 2 length of his reign in Kings' List. 210. 136. 192 his successors on the throne. . note. . . 163 length of the reign of. 234. n. the king of the Seventh Dynasty of the Kings' List. n. . in chronicle of early kings. tablets from. R . 137. 137 f. 23 IT.KALAMA. : reduction in the dates of the early kings of. variant form . 193 his policy affected by the invasion of the Sutu. cult of. 43 ft". . 96 in table of contemporaneous rulers. 46 .. 201 record concerning his celebration of the Feast of the New Year. king his of Babylon. length of his reign in Kings' List. . . A-DARA war with Iluma-ilu. the Sun-temple at Sippar wrecked during his reign. Ae-APLU-usur. traditions in chronicle concerning. ABl HaBBA. Babylonian original of his story concerning Beleous Beletaras. n. . 147 period of the war.

Kassite ruler. 91. . 21. extent of dominion of. 50 f. Aramaeans. Alorus. his identification with origin of name . Amraphel. in titles of early Assyrian upon the Capparulers. their raid on district of Babylon and . 136. king of Larsa contemporaneous of Berossus. 63. I So. Agum I. discussion of identification with Agum I. Assyrian king . 154 f. king of the Country reading of the name of the Sea variant form of name of. Ashir. discussion of identification with Agum of the chronicle. 151. 22 22. name for the Semitic Babylonian language. 144 . Ammi-ditana. reason for his conquests. 95 in table of 160. ApiRAK. contemporaries of. II. in table of contemporaneous Agum rulers. inf. n. Ashir-nirari docian tablets. contemporaneous rulers. . 102 .. titles of. Ula-Burariash. king of Babylon . priestI. 95 formulae of. 242 Agum. 136. 172 f. Arab Dynasty. capture of its governor. 78. 136. 136. 5 Amenhetep III. . 96. n. 92. cluded in system of Berossus. temporaneous rulers. of Rim-Sin. in titles of Agum H.. 180 .n. 71. contemporaneous rulers. the sacred road Babylon. 193. n. Kassite of Babylon . the irrigator. in table of contemporaneous Bitiliash ruled by Agum II. 162. Arad-Sin. Borsippa after of. 112 . 92.. 68. invoked by . 74. Akur-ul-axa. 196. Akkad. 227 . tablet of portents preceding the fall of. ioi. A-ibur-shabC. 63. 91 astronomical observations to the time of. 1 12. length of his reign in Kings' List. contemporaries Amenhetep IV. traditions in Eusebius. hi s conquests in the 5> 57> 59 Country of the Sea. 137. 65. I. 226 f. n. 14 1. 1 his reign in. . 136. 1 1 1 f. 177 f. 149 108. An -am. 3 . 152 f. 164.. 1 6 1 f 164. 172. of reign of. . 1 histempleat Ashur. tomb of. . 10S . 1 18 . . 137 f. of. . 161. of table in rulers. quoted by Agathias. Hammurabi. recovered images from the Hittites. the son of concerning.C. contemporaneous Ammi-zaduga. rebuilt city-wall of Ashur. 51. . 104 f. in table of rulers. 78. in table of contemporaneous rulers. 2. 112. 73. king of Babylon datelength of reign of. in. rulers. 215 ff. discussion of identification with Agum II. king in . ravaged by the Sutu in Adad-aplu-iddina's reign. defeated length of reign of. date of. their wars with Nabu- Akki. note. . in table of con. 172: in table of contem. 2 . 84. date-formulae of. length of his reign 96 . Akkadian. king of Babylon length date-formulae of. 95. 91. . Anu.. 2. n. Chaldean embassy to. mukin-apli. 137 f. n. discussion of identification with Agum of the chronicle. Aha. in table of their expulsion 689 B. I I2. . Alexander. n. . Kassite king of Babylon . 141 . Alexander Polyhistor. 206 f. in Kings' List. . Aristotle. their capture of Kar-bel-matati. 104 f. 3. 206 by Erba-Marduk. 18 f. Alman. Elamite king. Apil-Sin. 80. INDEX. in king of Erech. 2. 178 . the Great . of. n. 137.its conquest by Naram-Sin.. brother . 140. poraneous rulers.

BEL. n. I. date for . 3. S9. contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar I. 193- ASHUR-DAN date of. relations with the Country of the the Ilittite capture Sea. 214. 208. 202. date of. . 21. Sennacherib's destruction of. ASSYRIA. her early relations with f. AsHNUNNAK. 2. possible origin of name. Ashur. 203 . new chronicles to be classed 2 with. . BEL-BANI. Ushpia l. 120. inscription of Sennacherib at.5. people by settlement . 135 syria . Babylonian Chronicle. . ft". new Tiglath- BASU. 225 f. . 8. 151. 79. 195 f. ?43 II. note. . 27. library of. 191 in comparison with account " Synchronous History. BAVIAN. II. ibni. 66 his temple at Ashur. nisheshu. 172. Manluk-shapik-zer-mati. king of Isin. 119 the i'(. his story preserved in the history of Agatbias. ASHUR-RESH-ISHI king of Assyria. n. 60 . elephants from. shrine of. . 194. 119 ft'. 1. 68. Ashur. 47 (\. n. 64. her early relaAssyria. . 169. 225 f. of. n. king of Assyria new account of his relations with . 3. of its EL-MANDEB. king of L'r. lady of. ASHUR-RESH-ISHI II. BEL-IBNI. rulers 141 of. his relations with Adad-aplu-iddina. history of god. 2. variant form of the name ASHIR-RABI. king of Assyria grandfather of the pileser. 2. 1 5 1 table of early kings of. 172. 214. ASHIR-NIRARI king . his plundered by Dungi. n. and Is.. 112. in Seleucid era. traditions in chronicles concern5 6f-> 5 s . . Tiglath-pileser. . her history before the rise her early of Babylon. father of Merodachbaladan III in II Kgs. n. Ashur-1'A\ son of the 202. priest-king . 136 . Kudur-nankhundi's invasion.ADAN. freed by Belthe temple of Ashur at. journey of Marduk shapik-zermati to. R 2 . *37 f-. M9 f-. Asiiur-rap. 203 f. king of Assyria. by Ula-Burariash.. cone of. 147 f. . n.. Bl NAPKHARI. successor of Ura-imitti ing! 5> relations to Babylon. AuSHPIA. of.1 II. AsHUR-BEL-KALA.. table of early 136. BABYLON. improvements carried out by Sargon of Agade at. 66 the city. king (if AsI. 1 father of the new Tiglathpileser. 215. 12 discussion of the accuracy of his figures. 206. . invoked 1 . . . 143 f. 205 raided by Aramaeans after 6S9 B. 15.C. city of. n. 191. 6. (q. . king of Assyria. 73. his rule in new ASHUR-ETIL-ILANI. father Assyrian priestAshir-rimof . 141 her tions with Elam. in.v. 217 celebration of Feast . note.ii. "210. chronicle compiled at. records of a religious nature in. Straits of. 6. of the New Year at. throne dedicated to. 80. Assyrian priest-king 140. 194. see also Kandai. 202. !i. Agum II. Assyrian 140 f. see also Eni. the title. 148 ft.an'J. . ASHUR-BANI-PAL. ASHlR-RiM-NISH£sHU. grandfather of Ashir-rim-nish<_shu. B v TRIA. 2.INDEX. n.). 140. 2. the Kassite occupation ft". BAI. portents 11. 55 . gates in. 5.'\i. 122. Babylon. . tomb of Beiitanas at. knob of Ula-Burariash found at.

Bel-ibni. the name of. 22 ff. 64. 152 possibly a Kassite chief in Elam. . information upon date of. king of Babylon boundary-stone dated 89. 79. probable solution of the problem. 64 f. n. 113 . r9. 114. 74. 101 . son of Adasi. 121 tion n. 218. 134.. his tomb at Babylon. . . 5 . and seventh dynasties. Babylonian n. father of An-AM. length of his reign in Kings' . . identified discussion of name. 90 f. 1. Beltis. note. traditions Bel-kabi. no. 66 f. his relations to Babylon. flood at. Burna-Burariash. discussion of name. 65 f. length of his third period. Alexander. 87 effects of new . the lady of Bel. INDEX. 214. . . note. .. cerning. dynasties. Biblical chronology. story in Agathias con. Belitanas. the dynasties length of his historical of. 1. n. 63 . 102 Bel(?)-shemea. 65 . 12. rulers. n. the Kassite. Bitiliash. to be identified with Beleprobably an early taras. original Babylonian tradiconcerning.C. Bel-nadin-apli. Kassite king of Babylon List. portent Bit-Iakin.eous. in table of contemporaneous rulers. effects of data upon. Bel-ibni. in reign of. tion . 63 fusion with ff. Assyrian king. its part in the celebration of the Feast of the New Year. . 91 dynasty. 64 f. Bit-Albada. 85. Bion. brother of Ulam- f. . 1. 113 f. 59. Beletaras. story in Agathias conoriginal Babycerning. possible identificawith Igur-kapkapu.. 1. 142. note .. 172. in table of contemporaneous rulers. 1. 141. 15 1 f. 1. 1 1 1 . contemporary of Amenhetep IV. 101. 152. 203. I33> n. Hittite Boghaz Kol. quoted by Agathias. 63 f. system of chronology. . n. Burna-Buriash. n. 65 f. 206. 136. to be identified with Ura-imitti. 195 . father of UlaBurariash. 127. 65. 136. in table of contem. . 219. 148. discussion of identification with " Bitiliash. . 2 . in table of Berossus. 2 its district raided by Aramaeans after 6S9 B. 92. Bitiliashi. son of Adasi. discussion of identification with Bel-ibni. father of Shamshi-Adad. new n. 140. 18. 1 8 f. in . 67.. 137. dates of his . 226. in the Seleucid era. supposed conSaigon of Agade. 63. poraneous Bit-Ursag. of the Belephantes. 66 f. . possibly Burna-Buriash I. 74. 59." 104 f.. embassy to capital. lonian tradition concerning. 66 f. Kassile ruler concerning. chief of n. in district of Nippur. in in. 152. discussion of identification with Bitiliashiof the Kings' List. . problems concerning . to be 65 . sixth n. method of harmonizing his system with the Babylonian . 3 Babylonian form of the story. 151 f. note. with Bel-ibni. 105 f.'. n. 104 f. 93. king. in table of contemporaneous rulers. his contemporaneous rulers. variant form of name. Borsippa. 244 6t. Southern Babylonia. 137 f. father of Agum. 93. interval between him and Hammurabi. 71. 3- Bur(i)ash. Bei. 68. reading of 64 f. 65 fif. 5. site I.

shikhu from. Chaldean dynasty. Dll MUN. 136 f. 1 historical value of the new chronicles. 1. : 10 18 22 ff.." 54 f. confirmation of their statements. ff Date-lists. 159. 1. Chronicles. character of. Country of the Ska. n. 8. concerning other early kings. . . 214. 155 f . building-operations of 60. his participation in the Feast of the 196. . 7. 175. his entrance into Babylon. 219. 91- of Berossus. 56 ff. Si ff. n. . association of its texts with " Omens. note. 37 f. Dungi at.. new Babylonian." ^^ era. the comparison. rulers.. 178. 153. 220 50. 140. Simmash156 . kings after DlLBAT. . invasion pos. . 145 ff. 54 ff. 36 new information on the subject. shores of the Persian Gulf. . accession-formulae. . Ilittite 1 sibly from. DAMIK-ILISHU. 10. 213 ff. contemporaneous tablet of. 5 ff. n. CAPPADOCIA. as sources of Babylonian history.ate of. 150 conquest by the Kassites. (". comparative table of. Damki-ilishu. Chronology. provisional formulae. Sin. 177 f inconveniences of the system of. Sumerian survivals in. 3. 99. 27 ff. new dates upon. 194. : CYPRUS. . . 219. name 109 : of. 176 unofficial formulae. traditions concerning early kings of. 73 . CAMBYSES. system of time 1 reckoning represented by. . 37. 9S. ?45 from the Kassites upon. the. abandon. its f. Date-formulae. 4 ff. n. of the Nile. 74 rT. bility of those concerning early kings. relations of its kings to Babylon. stored the wall of Isin. 109. 54 . table of early kings of. 21. INDEX. ff. 136. 153 characteristics of. religious. of the First Dynasty of Babylon. 217. referred to. n. . compared to " Synchronous History. 2. ." 210. 182. re. 70 ff. in the Persian Gulf. lists previously known. 1. upon Egyptian chronology. 196. portent in. . Naramcom31 . n. continuation of. n.. i62ff. 53 . 155. 37. . effects of new data upon early Babylonian chronology. DABAN. DELUGE. . its relations with the later Kassites. 92. upon Biblical chronology. 225. : systems of Baby- lonian. tablets from 101 ff. . Commerce. Chronicle. 209. portent in. one tablet of a -cries. 10. ment of. 138. 181 f. 5.. DlODORUS. 212 ff. 96 discussion of . . Chronicle. nationality of the early kings of. ruled by the second 57 dynasty of the Kings' List. 62. i6off 161 f. referred to. tablet from Sippar dated in his reign. king of Isin 186 ff. credi. compared with other ff. pared with the results of "Omens. assigned to reign in table of wrongly 98 f. alleged occupation by Sargon of Agade. CALLISTHENES. texts. 158 f. ff. New Year at Babylon. . conquered by Sargon of Agade. of Sargon and analysis cf. encroachments . n. . 90 f. . 2 Chronicle. . . 65. Delta. 135. 148. of. in the Seleucid n. Hebrew Books Chronicles. king of the Country of the Sea length of his reign in Kings' List. 153 ff. CUTHAH. Cyrus. on the new date-list. 7 f.

king of Babylon.. E-kharsag-kurkura. 155 of contemporaneous table in . new n. his defeat by Ulam-Bur(i)ash. E-gal-makh. 60 f. 4. recognition of his claims 207 in Babylon.itarzi. 96. its invasion by Ea-gamil. his temple at Nippur. rulers. . 218. 137. 74. Semitic elements of. compared with . . operations of Adad-apluin the Egypt. . . terval between him and Sargon his period. its restoration chronicle 58. extent of his possible sucauthority. king of Babylon length of reign of. Ekur-ui. . discussion of name of. see Abf.. 21 . . 135. in culture Di'r-Ea. period of reign of. worship of Marduk at Babylon. 1 . . n. - > Ea-gamil. of Agade. 60 ff. . his buildhis care for ing-operations. n. . of Berossus. Ea-mukin-zer. Epoxym Lists. 5. n. 150 f. Dynastic Chronicle. 16. 90 ff. 136 f. records concerning in Babylonian Chronicle. 1 . . of Manetho. fragment of f. . 36 ff. inBabylon and Esagila. of the Kings' List. the Persian Gulf. the Sea in the. n. Enlil. the temple of the Sungod at Sippar. of Simmash- Dynasties. 232 167. 60. 76ff. 18 ff. Emutbal. 193. Ea. 35 . 137 f. 194. new data upon chronology of.. the early restoration of n. his plundering of by Nabu-aplu- concerning. . 1.246 Duxgi.. 101. iddina at. 1198". 206 f. crossed by Sargon of Agade. 61 n. n. 151. 107 his invasion of Elam. the temple of Isin. cerning. Ashur. 203. its conquest by Agum. patesi of Shirpurla . I5° f in table of early rulers. against the Arahis success the restored maeans. . Eni. 206 . the Sutu in Adad-aplu-iddina's work of Simmashreign. Ebishum. with. name for East. . father of shikhu. 165 f. . 27. 20. 219. 20 f. traditions in INDEX. 37 . 208. 70. SimmashErba-Sin. ff. 2. 3. relations of Hammurabi 165 ff. . 168. 73 f. . see Akur-ul-axa. fragments of. 151 length of his reign in Kings' List. 60 Eridu. dynasties of. 192 . 1. 35. 193 shikhu and Eulbar-shakin-shum misfortunes its at. n. 136 f. . 205 . its conquest by Sargon. its conquest by Hammunew mention of in rabi. 194. king of the Country of traditions conthe Sea. 61. 143. Erba-Marduk. ancestor of Mero- dach-Baladan III. 214. 137. 1S3 .C. 184 f. its early history according to Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon. 182. 8. 193 wrecked by . legend of. 215. possible record of. 56. 60 ff. period of early Semitic effects of influence upon. date-list. temple Ashur at o( 17 . 9. iddina. . 153Dur-ILU. tablets from the time of. of the sun in the eleventh century B. 119.-ana. 101. ff. portent in.. 101. . Ebabbara. 233. work shikhu in. 207 cessor of. 193. similar dynastic chronicle. 1. invoked by Ula-Burariash. n. . I. II. n. 1 under Kashshu-nadin-akhi. 37 . Country of the Sea. 182 Ekurigigal. 205 f. 1 his policy. 5. 59 73 f. Elam. Eclipse. 193. . Erba-Marduk. in Seleucid era. 182 Kings' List.shu'.

1. sack by the Ilittites. " on the shore of the sea. : 208 First Dynasty. 230 the Eve of the Festival. Kassite king of Babylon followed Samsu-ditana upon the throne.C. 236!. 95. 67. 195 h'. his titles. . of royal names. 1S4. 2. find of a prism of. n. 102. records concerning. in table of contempora98 If. reign of. of Kings' List. chronological notices concerning. 196 ceremonies preliminary to. . I celebration of the Feast of the length New Vear. 23 3. 80. . Gaddash. 229. 113. 195 f. 123 U. . 214. 2. 6. 1 : 137- . n. 122 di>cussion of his figures. descendant ibni. of. to be identified with Gandash.. Dungi building at. records concerning his n. a Kassite king ol Baby- . ETANA. n. Explanatory List. of the New Moon. 63 . EZIDA. rebuilt by Erba-Marduk after 689 B. . his accounl compared to 121 ff. ERECH.operations of 60: Kudur-nankhundi's : 247 its relation to sack of. its period of overlapping with second dynasty of Kings' List. Chronicles m . 149. 23 f. kings of. his reference to the conquest of Babylon. after in. to in references chronicle. referred to. 224 eclipse possibly recorded in the . 3 his history of the temple of Ashur. 10 followed by Kassite Dynasty. 12. . Nabfi's flood EsAGILA. its . n. one of the oldest religious centres of the Sumerians. n. n. records possibly consolar cerning the reign of. n. 231 . 61 its treasures de. 195. 103. note. 1. EULBAR-SHAKIN-SHUM. 193. note . see also IRISHU. [NDEX. rebuilt by 1. 196. in table of contemporaneous rulers. 154. 10 . flood religious on. 1 10 . lon. date of the reign of. date of the. 226 . . Exodus. : . 60 II. 2 the Country of the Sea. 66 . date considerably reduced. rebuilt the temple ol Ashur. 103 108 . 207 repaired in the Seleucid era. Erba-Marduk 207. 136 f. possibly refers to the Hittite capture of Babylon. 64. in the chronological system of Berossus. Assyrian priest-king . n. 121 ff. 227 . sleeping-chamber 218. I spoiled 60 f. that of Shalmaneser I. . 215. in. 199 of. Eusebius. \n DASH. 2. . . under the Semitic kings of Agade. of. Armenian version of the in. 218 . 62 Dungi's care for. 120 ft". chronological notices of. 65. participation of the king in. . neous rulers." 60.C. 1S4 f. Fifth Dynasty. king of Babylon his efforts to revive the Sun-worship at Sippar. 1. n. 149. 197 f. and the of Abraham. 90. of t'. of Eel- Feasts. 1. .ie New Year. 73. 93. of Babylon its . ESARHADDON. 121 . 227 ti. Babylonian hero. n. n. by Dungi. temple. : EAST. in legend of Sargon. . Euphrates. . 71. intercall Eridu. 103. 91. 214 outbreak of fire in.. 689 B.. legend concerning an early king notes concerning height of water 214. length of. his rule in Babylon. E-SHAPA-KALAMA-SHUMU.. 229 manner of celebration when postponed. val between it ff. Erisiii'. New Year rites . length of his reign in Kings' List. in.. king of Ur. ( . 235 ff.

9. king of the Country of the Sea . . 171 . of. 57. 71. 168. reforms of. Hezekiah. . buildings of. note. . . Ilu-shCma. stationed troops in Assyria. 19 f. king of Judah emof Merodach-baladan to. 72. Assyrian priest-king. 171 f . Hebrew bassy 203. 116 ff. n. . Igur-katkapu. 88.. titles of. . Samsu-iluna. 170.. 132 f. . 181 images of. n. 57 f. 131 in table of contemporaneous . 121 f. 86 f. 1 . . his early relations to 165 . 73. 59. . king of Ur . n. in table of contemporahistory . king of Babylon. . effect of his victories over Elam. the city-wall of Ashur. 1. 118. 147 war with Abeshu'. history. 112. . 5> 9» 57 > 58. canals cut by. 171. captured Rabiku. 45 . • nukhush nishi of. see Ii. 89 f. 136. 2. their invasion of northern Babylonia in the reign of Samsuditana. n. 155.. 68 f. 9. reading of name of. 59 . n. 129. 140. Ibik-Ishtar. HiTTiTES. 171 . his in his Code of Laws. 93 f. 67?. 131 . 141. Canal. his relations to rulers. 96 f. 22. his war with . length of reign in Kings' List. his identification with Ilu-shuma of the chronicle.. Gulkishar. war with Su-abu. 94 147 dates of his campaigns. n. 72 f. Sippar in his reign.. . Igi-kharsagga. his regulation of the calendar.. 137 f. 154 f. 137. Ibi-Sin. 169.. 170 f. . association of his exploits with omens. 95 references to cities . 1. 132. 160 ff. 2 : the father of Irishu. 165 ff. in table of contemporaneous Emutbal. 165. contemporary of Su-abu. 108 . 171. discussion of name of. 165 Isin. 12. 96 .. king of Babylon traditions in chronicle concerning. their capture of Babylon possibly referred to by Gaddash. 22. land name possibly to be read as Ibik-Adad. . 2. . 141 f.. Hammurabi. his war with RimSin. priest Assyrian -king.. 166 f. n. . his date according to boundary-stone of Bel-nadin-apli's reign. 248 Genesis. in inscriptions from Shergat. king of the Country of the Sea. 55. to be identified with Iluma-ila. Iluma-ilu. 149. Ibik-Adad. of. 1 .. 2. its earliest con- tact with Babylonia. 70 f. his capture of Ur and Larsa. former misreading of the name of. - his Hammurabi 171 . in table of contemporaneous rulers. date-formulae of. Ikcjntjm. 118. 12. 126. Iluma-ila. 148 eftects of the invasion. note. 93 f". 2. 169. 143 . rulers. 5. rebuilt fortress of. 142 . 149 f. 136. 5.uma-ilu. . period of reign of. . length of his reign in Kings' List. . 2 Guti. 127. date of construction of. 97 ff. .. of 170. king of Malgi. fourteenth chapter INDEX. 136. date of construction in date-formula. . his works of a religious character. n. J 33 f-j "• 3. new information concerning date of. . Hammurabi -khegallu Canal. 70 traditions in chronicle concerning. 167. 128 f. 118 ff. title borne by. in published chronological schemes. 85. Nabonidus' estimate of date of. date of. 138. n. n. in table of contemporaneous rulers. his closing years. 136. 69 . neous rulers. length of reign of. traditions in chronicle concerning. 126.

217. 24. 121 logical notices concerning. 33. 137. 121 f. Agum II. . 2. father of ShagaraktiShuriash. kings of. king 141 . 141 . 136. 131 140. 137 f. 19. ISHTAR.. 1S2 . Irishum. Kassite Dynasty. name of. in table of contemporaneous rulers.. Irisiu Assyrian priest-king son rebuilt the of Ilu-shfima. ISHME-DAGAN. n. 16S. 184 . king of the Country of the Sea length of his reign in discussion of Kings' List. sons of. 203. n.v. 152 f. 116. 141. 203. the city-wall of Ashur. KALDU. 1 date of its capture by RimSin. 136. rule in Babylon. Kuyunjik. 136. 73 f. Kar-BEL-MATATI. n. Assyrian priestking father of Shamshi-Adad. his invasion of Babylonia. . It". of contemporaneous rulers. 227. 148 . 138. Izi-Samu-abum. 22. KASAIXA. Ashur-bani-pal.of Kasalla. Boghaz Koi. her throne and image made by > ! : KHAN?. KHATTI. n. of king length of reign of. n. 43 f. 79 KASSITES. 96 . chronotemple of Ashur. in table of contemporaneous rulers. Isaiah. 2. captured by Aramaeans. 192. 231. . ru- KandALANU. date of. 151 . KUDUR-NANKHUNDI. ISHKIBAL. : poraneous . in table 126. second Book of. its conquest by Sargon f- : of Agade. 136. . 6. 154 f. misfortunes of the Sun-temple at Sippar during the reign of. king of the Country of the Sea length of his reign in Kings' List. . 96 reading of name of. 10 date of. dynasty of. conquest of the Country of the ft". his . table of early rulers of. Hammurabi. JUDAH. 2 in table of con. 166 ff. 149 f. . . in northern Syria. n. Israelites. n. . . KashshT -nadix-akiii. 41 f. 136. IZI-SUMU-ABUM. n. aided Sargon of Agade. rulers. . 1. 225 f. . 72. extent of their authority in southern Babylonia. Ilittite capital at 1. . followed the First Dynasty of Babylon. portent in. early invasion of Babyname of the lonia from. 155 . 15. their incursion in Samsutheir conquest iluna's reign. I. 137. 219 possible geographical term for. 20S. ITTI-ILI-NIBI. n. in table of con- temporaneous Ktesias. 41 Kashshu. n. Assyrian priest- father of Ashir-nirari I. Elamite ler . II f. in title of 112. n. temporaneous . 12 discussion of Ashur-bani-pal's date for. 1. 31. 1 249 the . KlKIA. 73. appealed to by rebels 3*> 3 2 35 against Sargon of Agade. INDEX. . Si. in table of contemporaneous 127 rulers. 24. Kings. variant form of the name of Irishu (q. 121 ft".). n. 193. 136 f. . 4. note. Gate of. Assyrian priest-king rebuilt . in Egypt. IvAS?rruKiLA. Il6. KUDUR-BEL. 148. conquered by Sargon of Agade. 171 : portent from. Sea. kings of. rulers. 64. ISHME-DAGAN. in table of contem. 101. referred to. 113. 137. Elamite ruler. 226. 24. 6 Israel. Babylon . Kudur-Mabuk. 1. 3.. rulers. 14S their of Babylon. 68. ISIN. their system of time-reckoning. book of.

dynasties lord of of. 153. his his relations to the Babylon Country of the Sea. 149 invoked by Ula-Burariash. be identified with lord of Magan. king of. 10. by Naram-Sin. his worship revived at Babylon by Erba-Marduk after 689 at the Feast of the rs. Mediterranean. . Manetho. . 90. description of. . see Malgia. 203 f. 8. Malgia. 24. . to . .]. analysis of Marduk. cultivation of her worship. 8. in date-formulae of Hammurabi. 182. Adad-aplu-iddina's shrines dedicated to. I. INDEX. possible opponents of. his confederation of his relations petty kings. 1 . Lists of Kings. Year. see Malgia. ]. arrangements of 151. 250 Larsa. 52 f- . 60 his favour to Bel-ibni. his defeat of Tiglath79 . III. Babylon pileser . 13 f. 24 his date. name of. 1. 52 anger with Sargon of early importance of his temple at Babylon.. of Babylon . Moses. early . Kassile king of Country of the Sea . n..c. 192 . name of. capture by 69. Mei.am-kurkura. . 98 f. n. king of Babylon . pos- lengths of dynasties upon. capture o f 168. Malgi. 36 ff. 191. Code of Laws. 92. an opponent of Mardukrestoration of zakir-shum. . ]. . date of. 25. 191. 204. 8. 52 be identified with Mannu-dannu. 20. Lebanon. 52. king of the . sack of. his image carried cff in the of. sibly . 51 f. 1. its . their temporaneous. 96 in table of of name of. 2. 72> I 49 image recovered by Agum II. 210 . 127 building of ihe wall of. 107 ff. 84 f. 39. Laz. Moerbeka. MAGAN. name . New 207 . . 204 the . 180. 66. Mani[. Lunar observations. .. Marduk -zakir-shum. Mani[ . its conquest byNaram-Sin. n. 61 of his temple by destruction Dungi. 154 f contemporaneous rulers. 191 his residence at Sippar. section in new f. king of Magan. n. 143 referred to in Hammurabi. Sargon of Agade Magan . their first early dynasties of. 168 . length of his reading reign in Kings' List.. . . 52 . 73. referred to. restoration of the name of. 52 Mannu-dannu. an opponent of Marduk-zakirrestoration of the shum. king of 214 f. 76 ff.. and second dynasties partly con. 193.. conquered 51 f . 170. of Berossus. . . n. 2 variant forms of the 8. the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Agade. 190 f. possibly 131- Lugalanda. with Ashur-bel-kala. 189 Marduk-shaitk-zer-mati. 204 tablets from the time of. f. Mernei'TAH.]. 168. Malga. 2. his journey to Assyria. 2. n. 50 Merodach-baladan the father of. 168 f. 137 f. length of the interval between him and Abraham. 168 . . . Meli-shikhu II. 10. Marduk-bel-ushe[ . > . name of . : 195 f- Marduk-balatsu-[ . 170 his Hittite invasion. to quered by Naram-Sin. chronicle referring to. . 167. and the. Maer. second dynasty ruled only in the Country of the Sea. con. tables of. patesi of Shirpurla . name of. 204. n. 2. king transport of diorite to Agade from. . Marduk-nadin-akhe. Median Dynasty. 204. consort of Nergal. 8.

. NaRU-MUKiN-APM. his deportation to Assyria. cerning. his position in . ]. of Babylon . NlNIB-KUDURRI-USUR. Naram-Sin. Neo. Buriash. kishar. king of Babylon. Gate Babylon . . 205. Kings' List. of Saigon and Naram-Sin. . Omens. Ham- Nineveh.operations of . 21.C. Lady NlNlB. 12 ft". 195 f. 1. n. 112. 170. NABONASSAR. reduction in the date 15 ff. PADAN. 4. 196 f. 215. 171. early worship of his New consort. . of. 1 in history of first Agathias.INDEX. Naih". 79. of.. his war with the Aramaeans.. his favour to Belmurabi. his conquest Pentateuch. 27 ft. 66 Borsippa by Erba-Marduk after 689 H. king of BabyIon . . conchronicle 81 .c/207. in. 27. n. Dungi at. in title of Agum II. expeditions 58. finding of his statue at 202 . 222 f. 222 f. : settlements in. the district of. temple rivalled Bit-Ursag within 226 portent in. Ula-Burari- NABl . of the. 197 lon if. ft'. 1. portent in sleepingchamber of. 171 his worship revived at ibni. of. 8. of. invoked by ash. 2. Year. . . Nannak. 33 . 50 f. 61 its . n. of. 33. his date ft". 231 . 151. king of. his record of the invasion of his revival of the the Sutu. of Berossus. his conquest of Apirak. 203 f. n. NiPi'UR. 202. in the fifteenth century B. building . 31. date according to Nabonidus. 251 his his II. Sargon of Agade 36 24. . 54 f. 193 Sun-worship at Sippnr. date of. n. 1. 195. n. 227. find of early docu.Babylonian version of the " Omens. his date for Ham- I. NabO-shum-ukin.. n. NABONIDUS. ft'. : .. of Agade. tions in chronicle concerning. 60 by Fsagila. S9 between him and Gul. 2. 1 records concerning his celebration of the Feast of the New Year. liis date for Shagarakti132 f. Nakada. 45. n. tradi- PALESTINE. probably Merodach-baladan their association with the deeds of early kings.APLU-IDDINA. scheme Susa. 221 ft. n. see Feast. . of. 6. 85. death 31. 218. . murabi. Nana. Sin.15 . 33. chronology 23 ft'. 219 . 2.. 218. 54 f. . n. length of reign of." 28 augural parts analysis of the historical of. . ments at. results of the comparison. king . NERGAL. his position in the 3. 225. 5. association of exploits with omens. n. his throne made by . 193. (late of. n. of 184. . NlNUS. Nippur. 89. ft'. 32 f. at the Feast of the New Year. 6. 87 f. . of Babydates in his reign upon religious chronicle.king . 51 f. NABf -SHUM-[ the father of III. comparison of the "Omens" with the chronicle. . 231. king f. 227 f. Mushezib-M vrduk. 217. . 63. 11. of Magrm. 29 f. parts of. see Niefer. 2.. image of. for Naram- Nebuchadnezzar interval 11. his relations to Tiglath- pdeser IY. throne 8 2S 56 12. length of reign NlNMAKH. 92.

SamsU-DITANA. in table of conhis temporaneous rulers. . defeat of Rim-Sin.. . ." 31. . his war with Iluma70 f. 148 length of reign of. 31 f. relation to the Country of the Sea. king of Larsa . 143 f. his images on the Mediterranean coast. his conquest of the Country 37 of the West. chronicle. 31. his expedition against Kasalla. Samaritan version. 2 . 170 . 68 f. of Genesis. see Sumu-la-ilu. 5 f. PlTHOM. 63 . 148 f. 51. 15 f. 17. 69. 73. 68.. Sarpanitum. 24. . period of his activity in Babylonia. no. 24. 56. 6.. 10 . invasion of the Hittites in 5. 72 f. 95 dateformulae. 32.. see Sumu. in table of f. 31. 170. 147 Kassite incursion during the reign of. Rabiku. of Agade traditions concerning. . his name . 3. 9. 1 So. Portents. her throne made by Hammurabi. 58 f. 170 contemporaneous rulers. the oppression. Raamses. Samu. city of.. city of. 58 . . . Ramses II. 37 . reduction in date of. 31. Subartu. 230 ff. 136. contemporaneous rulers. 172. 252 Persian Gulf. . in table of . y^. insecurity conquest by Naram-Sin. 31 f. Pharaoh of the Sea. result of the invasion.. . 31 f. . 59 the reign of. 35. no: 149 f. 36. . 43 ff. dateformulae of. crossed by Sargon of Agade. his defeat by Hammurabi. succeeded Arad-Sin. tions in chronicle . 49 f. n. of. 5' 9> ilu. supposed reference to his 54 f. chronology of. 144 Elamite . . 31 . 57. against. story in Agathias. new chronicle concerning the deeds of. II. 36 ff. Samu-la-ilu. 137. 167 . 215 ffin religious . 160 ft". 31. 71. king possibly Taki. 40 troubles of his closing years. 38 f. referred to.. 154 f. revolt . 21. . 136. ft'. 166 ff. . king of Babylon tradition in chronicle concerning. of the oppression. 96 reading . Rish-Adad. of name of. 69. 95 . : palace. Peshgal-daramash. . date of his death. 171 . 47 his enlargement of his palace. in chronicle . . his despoiling of the Country of the Sea.. Ammi-zaduga. 144. n. 31 f. defeated by his work on Babylon and Agade. 36.. Sadi. king of the Country of the Sea length of his reign in Kings' List. 45 ff. his conquest of Elam. 32 . Sargon. 63 crossed the Sea in the East. 24. Priestly Writer. . . . 59 '- ms . 22. 9. . preceding the fall of Akkad. his conquest of Dilmun. Rim-Sin. king of Apirak . . favoured by Ishtar. capture of. 37 f. 93 f 97 f. 23 f. in table of contemporaneous rulers. 2 omens o f 27 ff. 38 f. . her image . legends of. 92. 45 . 144. Samsu-iluna. . 180 variant form of the name of. in INDEX. 24 of the Exodus. 2. king of Babylon traditions in chronicle concerning. . 137 Pharaoh. Samsuiluna's campaigns on. king Ptolemaic Canon. Red tradi- concerning. . 33. . of the Pentateuch. . . his final defeat by Samsuiluna. date of his capture of Isin. . . 28 ff. 144 .. 72. 92 f. Porphyrius. littoral of the. association of his exploits with omens. 33 his settlement of " the sons of his of his empire. 169. n. . his successor. 24. his date on figures of Nabonidus. his expedition against 33. his supposed crossing to Cyprus. length of the reign of. 33. 41 f.

rebuilding of his temple his . . records in Babylonian 2 . 125 f.11. 81 to be identified with ShagaraktiShuriash. favour to Bel-ibni. 66 Ebabbara by Hammurabi. 135. 9. comparison of his account with that of Esarhaddon. <>f Kings' List name of king of. : crossed the Persian Gulf. table of contemporaneous priest. 126 in ft". in table of f. SlMPLICIUS. date of. rebuilt city-wall of Ashir. 206. Si. carried off during invasion. 141 in table of contemporaneous rulers. . 121 f. SJ nr eclipse possibly recorded in the . 120 ff.. a. SHAMASH-SHUM-UKlN.7i. 23 Seven! 11 Dyn vsi v. Babylon. son of Erba-Sin. 96. . l reign of. Septuagin r. 137 f. . 154 f. 136. SlMMASH-SHiKHU. 205. n. SHAMSHI-ADAD. chronological notes concerning. Sennacherib. SELEUCID ERA. 3 his history of the temple of Ashur. Shamash-ditana.. 202. . SlN-IRlBAM. 11S. 1. . Babylon . Shilanum-Shukamuna. king of Babylon. see Country of the. possibly Ham- . 11. rebuilt the temple of Ashur. 70 (. SHUSHSHI. 3.. Chronicle concerning. Shirpurla. finding of building-inscriptions of. commentary Six. contemporaneous chronicles of the. rebuilt the temple of Ashur. reading of 'name of. SHALMANESER I. Shagarakti-Buriash. . his date according to Nabonidus. 194 from the Country of the Sea. 194. 79 emendations of his figures. III. king. 120. 37 his conquests of Babylon. . 107 ft'. 224 . n 1 events in religious chronicle possibly in reign of. of Kings' List its period of overlapping with relation to First Dynasty. 213 63ff. . 1 19 ft". 1. king. see Samsu- SlN-GAMIL. son of Bel-kabi. . 80. notices of. Shamshi-Adad. Assyrian . SHAMASH. 131 logical . 131 13S: title of. portent from. 215. 136. . the Hitlite her image SHAMASH MUDAMMIK. 127 date of. 208. son of Ishme-Dagan. 112 ff. king of Babylon length of reign of. note. 136. SHAR-KENKATE-ASHIR. 136 rulers. 73. discussion of length of. 60.. Assyrian temporaneous SEMIRAMIS. history of his temple. DITANA. 5. . did not rule at Babylon. note. 193. . 149 ?53 king of by Adadhis rule in priest- . 235 ft'. 2. f. in history of Agathias. 133 later n. 149. 1S4 f. 127. 169. 123 ff. 92. 202. n. rulers. 194. Aramaeans in. So. chrono. 6. : nirari III. Sea. murabi's contemporary. length of reign of. his estimate of date of Tiglath-pileser I. .. his defeat recovered by Agum II. 122 discussion of figures of. 9S ff. Second Dynasty. . death of. of. n. early Babylonian prince or king. 125. the Country of length of his reign in Kings' List. . 194 constructed throne in Ekurigigal.. S1iK. 140 . 231. INDEX. Assyrian priest-king. 236 f. 1S4. n. 141. . his efforts to revive the Sunworship at Sippar. 1S4 date of.rr. . king of the Sea . 121 ft". 73. Kassite Dynasty. kingof Erech. n. 100 ft". 119. in table of contemporaneous rulers. in table of conrulers. Shergat.

Tammuz. n. . Sumu-abu. their wrecking of the Sun-temple at Sippar. year. Tashritu.. in table of contemporaneous . Solar eclipse. 81. 2IO. 60. tradition in chronicle concerning. 152 Su. 178. reign. of the of. Aramaeans in. Southern Babylonia. 129. meaning 17. I. 136. . 166 ff. 162. Tashmetum. 57. date . 66. . of Kings' List. 193. . 184. murabi's reign.zer . Taki. the Sea. reign of.iddina's reign and its effects. n. 155 . Suez. of Baby89. 9. . rulers. 12. king variant 116. their system of time reckonings. 109 f. the taking of Isin in his seventeenth length of reign of. n. . n. date of. 5. 181 their exact chronology inherited by the Baby. god 116 f. racial ele- Sun-god Tablet. 160. date 1 54 of. Mardukshapik . name 1 of.254 SlNJIRLI. 17 f. lonians. 2 . names. . Naram-Sin of building-operations in Hamat. forms of 1 . Isthmus of. cult of. Sumu. 163 . date-formulae of the length of. forms of the name in of. Sumerians. 95 . referred to. . . contraction from Sumu. building-operations of 191 . Babylon . note. of their earliest remains. king of Assyria his rule in Babylon. 193 their connection with the Aramaeans. 117. Sumu-la-ilu. king of Babylon . Sin shar-ishkun. 66. 90. Sumer. 193. Sumu-abi. lonia and Assyria. 112 ravaged by the Sutu in Adad-aplu-iddina's . their invasion of in Sumer and . 67 f. 58. king of Ur. 95 in table of contemporaneous rulers. n. . 142. 79 f. 162. 1 . see Sadi. of. S. . Sin-MUBALLIT. 193. 21. 179. 117. 45. 136. 231.mati's residence at. 160. 23 date-formulae of. rulers. at Babylon. Agade. proper Sippar. 73. 1. II. n. month. refers to the extent of Kassite ff. 45 ff. f. note. possible record of 232 ff. 3. 61 their survival in the Country of . length of his reign. 95 Assyria. meaning of name of. . period of his conflict with aplu . Solomon. 116 f. as component in proper 116 f. Sixth Dynasty. in table of contemporaneous Syria. 1. 116 ff. portent from. n. forms of the name of. 206. authority in. . 52. 1. Synchronous History. god. n. see Su-abu. as component n. 192 f. a. invasion of the Sutu. 1 . ff. 64. INDEX. 20S. Adad Syncellus. Sumerian reaction 1 under the Dynasty of Ur. 131 .. his war with Ilu-shuma. its conquest by Sargon of . names. Nabonidus length at. Sutu. ments in. 6. 178. n. SuBARTU. 136. 117. 11. 170 . 160. Akkad Su-abu. 2. f. Susa. see Su-abu. Sumu-ilu. not included in the dominions of Agum II. king of Babylon date-formulae of.

in table of contem152 8. I. 136. Ura-imitti. his relations to . priest -king. Kassite king of length of his reign in List. . 2 . 151 f.. LJSHSHI. n. 3 building-operation. 1. from. king of Assyria. Tell el-Amarna.v. formerly known as Tiglath-pileser III. . 6S. father of Agum 112 . 141. I. Tukulti-Ninib date of. 226. II. S. Assyrian founded the temple of Ashur. 203. tablets from. UMU-KI. Kassite king of the Country of the Sea . . city of. 21. 66. 102. 151. 137. Wad! Hamamat. 74. 100 (T. of Dungi at. probably an early Assyrian king. 18. 102 . . URSHIGURUMASH. 60. 151 in the Country of the Sea. . traditions in chronicle concerning. . 202. USHPIA. tablets king of Shirpurla from the time of.. 2. 102. 79. 151 . 102 in table of . of Agade. 125 f. 135 .. Ulam-Bur(i)ash. Tell Sikr. . 79letters ^55 . note. 4. to be identified with Beleous. 45- n. in Hammurabi's Code of 69. section in new chronicle referring to. IOI. 140 in table of contemporaneous rulers. n. n. 9. Kassite king of Babylon. Laws. 63 the story. 166. n. of Ur. of. founder of the Dynasty father of Dungi. 56 f. Tello. . identified with . in table of contemporaneous rulers. Ur-Enour. n. new Assyrian king of this name. n. 5. 189 f. WARKA. 137. 1. Urzigurmash. 11 f. date of the Dynasty 61. ULAM-BUR(l)ASH. title of. 4. Babylon Kings' contemporaneous 152- rulers. n. 16 16S. date TlGLATH-PILESER (II or III). Ur. length of his reign in Kings' List. 143 16S. 60. 137. to . Kassite king of his knob the Country of the Sea to be from Babylon. dynastic tablet referring 1 the Dynasty of. 102. . brick-inscriptions 203. 101. from. poraneous rulers. to be identified with Ula-Burariash. its relation to the second dynasty. 61 interval . Third DYNASTY. reading of the name of. 58 his story history of in the preserved Babylonian form of Agathias. 107 f. 136.). his relations to . 64. the l'lague-god.. note. 202. Tigris. traditions in chronicles concerning. 65 . in table of contem- Ura. 74.. 137. . INDEX. to be identified with Urzigurmash(q. 59 . 1. 5. Babylon. 120 ft". TlGLATH-PILESER IV. Nabu- between him and Sargon date of his accession. 66 f. n. 1 5 1 his conquest of the Country of the ruled Sea. list of early kings of. TlGLATH-PILESER of. poraneous rulers. . . defeated Ka-gamil. n. 202 of Merodach-baladan III. n. of Kings' List. 102 . 169.. Urukagina. 1. Ula-Burariash. in table of contem- poraneous rulers. 2. 182. his genealogy. its capture by Hammurabi. 167. his description shum-ukin.

not crossed by ft". Country INDEX. of the. [ -akh]e-iddina. possibly a pretender to the Babylonian throne. the naming of the. the. 95 in table of . dateformulae of. contemporaneous rulers. 160. S~ . 201 . . Zamama-shum-iddina. Sargon of Agade. 198. 31. king of Babylon . Babylon. publication of the title i8of. 64.256 West. record concerning his celebration of the Feast of the New Year. 177 f . 162. 195. 179 of ft". note. 80. 36 of the (the Mediter35 . 136. Zabum. kincr of West. ]-na. length of reign of. 208. Xerxes. Year. [ . [ name possibly the ]mu-libur. of a Babylonian king. 32.sir. 225. 36. Sea ranean). probably a king of Babylon.

.

usl MAY 20 1974 JUN161975 4WKMAR2 zim "Hie* RECD LOURL' JAN 1 £ mi Form L9-Series 4939 .UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles rj. p This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

II I 3 1158 00871 0864 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 721 845 6 .

'Willi Ml \\lmui .