OSTER REICHISCHE AKADEMIE DE R WISSE CHAFTEN

Contributions to me Chronology

of me Eastern Mediterranean

Edited by Manfred Bietak

and H ermann Hunger

Volume XXII

Verlag der Osterreicl't ischen Akademie

der WlsHnschaften

Wi'n 2009 OAW

OSTE RREICHISCHE AKA D EM I E D ER WISS EN SCHAFTEN DENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKADEMIE, BAND LVI

REGINE P RUZSINSZKY

MESOPOTAMIAN CHRONOLOGY OF THE 2nd MILLENNIUM B.C.

An Introduction to me Textual Evidence

and Related Chronological Issues

Verlag der OSlerreichischen Akademie

der Wissenschaften

Wien 2009 OAW 05 JAN 2012

35·01-

f L{

Vorgdegt ,·on w. ;'\1. X1A:-\FRfO BIHAK in der Sinung am 20. Juni 1008

Spuialfor>chungsbereich SCiEM 2000 ~Dje Synchronisierung dec Hochkulruren im osdichen Minelmeerraulll

im 2. Jahnausend \". Chr." der Chrerreichischen -\kademie der \,\'is.senscholftcn

beim Fonds zur FOrderung der \\~ssensch.aftlichen Forschung

pedal R=rch Programme SelEM 2000 ''The Synchronisation of Civilisatioru in che Eastern Medire:rranean

in the ~nd Millennium B.C." of che Austrian Academy of Sciences

at che Austrian Seiena- Fund

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data. A Caralogue record of chis book is a\'"3..ilabJe from che British Library.

Die 'o'erwe.ndere :apie~rte iSt aus chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff hergenellr. frel von saureblldenden Bestandteilen und alterungsbes"di.ndig.

AJJe Rtchre 'o'orbehalten

ISBN: 978·3·7001.6504-0

Copyrighr ~ 2009 by Osterreichische Akademie der Wis~nschafu:n

Wien

Grafik. San, LayOUt: Angela Schwab Druck: Wograndl Druck GmbH. 72 10 Manersburg

http" Ihw.oea w.ac .• t/6 504.0 h (lp:11 verlag,oeaw.ac.at

Printed and bound in Austria

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Abbrevialions .............................. . . . . . .............. . .......... . ... . ........ .. .

Preface by the EdilOr ..... . ........ . . . .........•........ . . . .. . .............................

foreword ..................................... .. . . ............................ . ..... . ... .

1. GENERAL REMARKS ON MFSOPOTAMIAN C HRONOLOGY ... . . . • . .. . . . •. . . . .••... . ..• . ......•.•.....

1.1. Preface ............................... . . . .. . . . ........... . ............ .. .......... . 1.2. From Relalive lO Absolute Chronology ................. . ............. . .. . .............. . 1.3. Main sources for Me opotamian chronology ............................................. . 1.4. Chronological Systems .. .. ..... . . . . . ........................................ . ... . .... .

1.4.1. General ........... . ... . . . ..... . ......... . ................ . .. . . . . . .. . ... . .. . ... . 1.4.2. Review . ............... . ..... . ............. . .. . .. . _ . .............. . ...........•. 1.4.3. Recent Developments and Preview ........... . .............. . ...................... .

1.5. Basic Synchronisms ........................................ . ........................ . 1.5.1. Comments on absolule dales ciled in various modem tables . ................ . .... . ..... . 1.5.2. Specific studies and comments on chronology ... . . . ..... . .... . ............ . . . . . .. . . . .

1.6. Synchronisms (General) ............. . .... . . . ...... . .. . . . ....... . .... . .... . ........•.. 1.6. I. Synchronisms for the first half of 2nd millennium BC .. . .............................. . 1.6.2. Synchronisms for the second half of 2nd millennium BC ........................ ... .... .

I. 7. l'eriodization . . . . .......................................... . .... . .. . . . ...... .. ..•. . . 1.7. 1. Old Assyrian Period ........................ . .. . ...... . .. . .. . ...... . ............. . I. 7.2. Early Old Babylonian Period: D)l1asly of Larsa, I in I Dynasty, Babylon I Dynasty ........... . 1.7.3. Lale Old Babylonian Peliod/Fall of Babylon: Kassite D}l1asty, Sealand Dynasty ... . ..... . . . . . 1.7.4. Middle Babylon ian Period: Kassile Dynasty, Isin II Dynasty ............. . .. . .... . .. . .. . . . 1.7.5. Middle Ass}Tian Period: including pan of the Kassite and pOSl Kassite Peliod .............. .

I NTRODUCTION TO RELEVANT I SSUES OF M FSOPOTMtL<\N CHRONOLOGY

2. AsSYRIAN KI NG LIST .............................. . . . ........••.....•.....•.... . . . .... • ...

2.1. Gaps and Omissions ................... .. ..... . ....... . ............ .. ................ . 2. 1. 1. KAV H (VAT 9812) ........... . ...... . .............. . ............... .. ... . .... . . . . 2. 1.2. Salma neser 11 (no. 93) ........ . .... . ............. . .. . . . .. . ............. . ... . ..... .

2.2 . Dive rgences ............. . . . . . . . ................ . . . ............•....... .. ............ 2.2. l. Regnal years ... . ......................... .. . . ....... . .... . . . ..... . . . ........ . .. . .

2.2. 1.1. ISme-Dagiin I (no. 40) ......... . ... . ... . . . ..... . ..... . . . ............. . ..... . ... . 2.2. 1.2. Pll /.llN\SSllr III (no. 6] ) ..... . . . .....•......... . .••... . .• . . .. ... . .. . . . . . ...•.... 2.2. 1.3. Tll kul li-Ninuna ( (no. 78) . . ..... . ....... . .. .. .............. . ......... . .. . .... . . 2.2. 1.4 . f\Ssm -nadin-apli (no. 79) ................ . .......... . . . ... .. ......... . ... . ... . . . 2.2. 1.5. linu rw-a pil-Ekur (no. 82) and ASsur-cliin 1 (no. 83) . . . . ... . ..•.......... . . . ...... . ..

2.3. DifTe rel1l genea logies .......... . . . . . .............. . ............... . . . .. . ........ . .. . . . 2A . Varimio ns in roya l names ....... . . . ......... . ................. . .... . .•.... . . . .. . . .. .... 2.5. DUB-pi-slI .................. . ............ . ....... . . .. ... . .......... .. . . . . .......... . 2.6. ~ li ss i ng re ign lenglh : ASsur-mbi I (no. 65) and Assur-niidin-abbc I (no.66) .... .. ....... . . . .. . .

3. AsTRONOMICAL DATA .............. . ............ . . . .......... . ............... . •• .. •• • •..••

3. 1. ":lIIimn til/it Elilil tablels (EAE) ... . ... . .. . ... . ........ . ..•.....•... . .• . ..... . .... . • . .. . . 3.1. 1. Venus Tab let (VT) .. . . . ....... . .. . ....... . . ... ....•..................• . .. ... • . .. . .

3.2. ~ l onlh-le nglhs ...... . ................... . . . ... . .. . .. .. .......... . ....... . .....•..... 3.3. Lunar ec lipses .............. . ........................... . ... . ............. . ... . .. . . . . 3.4. Solar eclipses .... . .. . .. . ............................ . . . ...... . .. . ... . . .. . .. . ... . ... .

9

13

15

17

17 18 22 23 23 24 29 30 31 33 33 34 35 39 39 40 41 42 43

45

53 53 55 55 55 56 57 58 59 60 62 62 62 64

69

69 70 72 73 75

6 Table of COl1lenLS

3.5. Historic.ll Omens and the Historicity of Eclipse Data 3.6. Venus C"cle . . . , ...........•................ . ...... .

; ............................... ..... .. . .......... .. .................... . 78 79

4. BABYLO~'UN KING LIsT 4.0. -Old Babylonian KL ~ . : : : : : : : : : : : : : ............................................... , ..•.

4;':51.: Larsa~~~KLll •• • •• • • • • • • • • • •• • • ••• • ••• • • • :. : • • •• • • ••• • • • • • •• • ••••• • • • ••• • • • • • • •

83

84 84 85 85 85 85 85

.... , .............. . . ~ ....... . 4.6. Dynastic Ci;r~~i~;e : : : : : : : : ............................................... , .......... .

. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . 5. BABYLONIA IN TIlE FiRsT HALF OF THE 2nd MIU.ENNIUM BC ........ ... . .

BABYLON I DYNASTY, THE R~Y K<\ssITE DYNASTY ..... ,,'Il THE SEAlAND DYNASTY 6 f"' •• ~. • •••••••.•••••••.

• '-"UU DAR .......................................... . 6.1. Babvlonian Calendar .................................. . 6.2. Assyrian CaleDdar ........................................................... .

93

103

103 104 104 106 108

6.3 As~onomicaJ Data'~d Ca1~~d;';'('~!~~~~I~~" h',j" ; ............................... . ..... . 6.: .. -\.ssj.nan ,'ersus Babylonian Calendar gt ata ..................•.............. 6.:>. Local Calendars .............................. . ...... ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. CHRONlCLEs ......•.......•......•.....•....•.....• . ....•..

7.1. S}'nChron'~~~ ~i~;~~'· ................................................................ . 7.2. Ring Chronicle ... .-. : : ...................................................... . 7.3. Chronicle P . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . 7.4. Eclectic Chron·,,:cl'e··.·············· .... ....... . .... ......... . ..... .. . . . . ............. . ............. 7.5. Weidner Chronicle. : ' ........•.......................................... 7.6, TummaJ ChronJ'cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . .................. 7.7. Chronicle BM 27796 ....... , . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..... .

... - . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. DElo.'IlROCHRONOLOGY .•....•....•....•.....•....

8.1. Kiirum KanIS" (l?'''te' pe' . )" ................................................ .

.o..w ..•.•...•.•... 8.2. Acem-Hoviik ..................... ................ .

8.3. Porsuk/L~ukl;l~ : : : : : : : : : : : ................................. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : . . . 8.~. Kara-Hiiyiik/Konya ........ ::::..... . .................................... .

8.". Anatolian sites with wood samples ,j;ti~g' 't~' th . 2~~ h' ............. , ............... , ....... . 8.6. Excursus: HC data e alf of the 2 nd mi llennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... .

9. DISTANZANGAIlEN (ABSTANDSDATEN, ABSTAND~~~~~~' ;~ .. ~ . . . . . . . . . ...............•.........

9.1. Rebuilding of the AS" "" ,E PANS) .......••...

9.2. Statement OfTiglath~;i~e:ee~ile by A"ur.resa·iSi I (no 86) ..... , ......... ::::::::: ....... , 9.3. Statement of Esarhaddon .............................. , . . . . . . . . . . . .. , ..... . 9.~. Statement of Sal man eser I : : : ... , ..................................... : : : ............. . 9.". Statement of Tukulti.Ninurta I' ........................................... : ............ . 9.6. Statement of Enlil.niidin.apli (Isj~ '11' 'd' ... ")' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . 9 7 H" "D' yna~ty .............. . '. illite Istanzangabe" ......................... .

9.8. Dates for Hammu.riipi' a~d i~~s;'Ada:d i' ............................. : : : : : : : : : : : : : .... . 10. EpO"''YMS (LiMu) /EPONYM L lSTS/EPONYM C ' ..................................... , ......... .

10.1. KAV 21-24 HRONrCLEs .................. . 10.2. KUB 4 93 ;~d KAV'lg" ...... " .............. '" ................ . 10.3. MEC (Mari Eponym Ch'r~'n'i~;e)' ................... : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ........ , .. , . J 0.4. KEL (Kiiltepe Eponym List) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . J 0.5, Old Assyrian Period '" . . . . . . .. ................... . ............... .

10.6. Eponyms and the rei"'! ~;. ~~~'s;'A' 'd'a','I' '[ .. ' .' .' .' " ..........:::::::::................. .. o~ ...•... , ............ . .................. ....... .

'" ........ , .... .

III

115 Il 6 Il7 121 121 122 122

125

126 127 128 129 129 130

133

]36 138 140 142 145 146 148 148

15 1

J53 154 J 54 156 159 161

Table of Contents

10.7. Eponyms from the Late Old Babylonian Period ...............•.......................... 10.8. Middle Assyrian eponyms ....................................... , ................... .

11. GENEALOGY INCLUDING THE GENEALOGY OF THE lIAMMu·RAPr' DYNAS'IY (GHD) ....••••••• . ••••.....

12. GENERATION .............................................................••.....••.....

13. HISTORICAL EPIC ......••.•....••••.....•.....••.....•......•......•.......•.....••.....

13.1. Kurigalzu Epic .................................................................... . 13.2. Adad'niriiri I Epic .................................................................. . 13.3. Tukulti·Ninurta Epic ... ................... ...... ' ............................. , .... . 13.4. Adad·suma-u~ur Epic ., ............. ' ...... ... ................ ..................... , . 13.5. Chedorlaomer Tablets .............................................................. . 13.6. Elam and the Kassites

14. ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS WlTH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE ACUM·KAKRIME INSCRIPTION ...••...••••...••..

14.1. Agum-kakrime Inscription (V R 33, K. 4149+) ...................... , ................... . 14.2. The return of the Marduk statue ..................................................... .

15. SYNCHRONlSTlC KING LIST. , ............................................................. .

16. YEAR (DATE FORMUlAE/yEAR·NAMES, DATE·I.JsTs/yEAR·LISTS, REGNAL YEAR, AGCFSSION YEAR) .....••..

16.1. Date formulae/Year-names, Date·!ists/Year·lists, Regnal year, Accession year .................. . 16.2. Dr III Period ......... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................ . 16.3. Early Old Babylonian Period: Isin·Larsa Period ............................ , ........ , ... .

16.3.1. lsin I Dynasty ........................................ , ......................... . 16.3.2. Larsa Dynasty ........................................ , ......................... .

16.4. Babylon I Dynasty .......................................................•........... 16.5. Tell MuiJammad ...............................•...........•............•......... ,.

GENERAL INDEX ...........••.....••.....•......•.....•.....••.....•.....•.•...••.....•....

INDEX OF PLACE NAMES .....•......•......•......•.....•............•.. , ..•.....•.....••....

INDEX OF PERsONS ........•......•.............•.....•......•.....•.....•...........•.....

INDEX OF TEXTS .........••......•...•.••.....•......•...........••....••.....•.....•.....

INDEX OF SYNCHRONISMS ...................•.•••.........................•••••••..•••••..

Bibliography

7

163 164

167

171

177

177 177 177 178 178 179

183

184 185

187

191

191 194 195 196 196 197 199

201

205

207

211

213

217

M

AM MAS

AbB

ABC

ABL

Abr·Nahraitt

ACES

..!AT A&L

AEM

AfO AGS

AlON

Akkadica(S)

ALA

AlT

Amurru

N lQdolu

AIISI

AOAT

AOF

ARAB

ARET ARI

ARM ARMT

ArOr AS

ASJ ASOR

Athe"aeum

AuOr(S) 8A

B.Fo BaM

B IBUOGRAPlllCAL ABBREVIATIONS

A.rrhiiologi.~rllf'r AnU1K" (Berlin)

Annals of Arrh(lfology and 4'l/hropologJ (London)

Amwlt.s Arrh;ololflquf\ de Syrid A.A. ArabtJ Syrinml'J (Damac;eus)

F.R. KJ<\l" " al. (cds.), Altbab)lonisrM Brirfe in UT/lSchrijt und ObPr"lxung, Leiden (1964 fT.)

AK. GRA'r'iO:-.i, Anyrian and Babylonilln Chronirles. TCS 5 (1975) R.F. H.\RPER, AHJrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging 10 Ihe K(OU)lIl1jlk) Oillerlion(s) oj 1M

Bnl"h MILSrum (14 vols.). Chicago (1892-1914).

(An tlnnual Publl,htd by 1/" Departm"'t of ,\/iddk Easlem Sludi,-s, L'nivtTlilJ of ..... 1tlhournr [Leiden])

The AW'ilI-alian C..entre fOf EgYPLOlogy: Studies 0\'arminstcr)

.11f5Plro lind Allts 'I'fslament (\\,iesbaden)

Agyplen und Ln.mntt' (Vienna)

Archive.'i ;Pisloia.iYl's M t\lari: in \R.\t 26

Arrhitl fiir Orimlforsrhung (Serlin u. a.)

J.A. KSLDTIO', AU:visrile C,btlt' an (lnJ Sonnm­grJll. Leipzig ( 1893)

Annali dl'll'/filitutn l 'nil'milario Orienlnlt i\ilpoli (Naples)

tlklllldim (Sllpplmmll) (Lem en)

O. PfDl-RSF:\ . . Arrhitlt'.s ami Libraries in the Cit; of Assllr, L'ppsala (19R51985-19c6).

OJ. "'IS["", The ,Il,liakh Tabuts. London (1953)

AmUITlL (Paris)

,\nat/olu. Rn.~t" annurll, dt't ;tudt.~ d'nrrhiologit' tI.

d'hisloul'm rurqu;, (Paris)

Analoliml Stud;t'.~ (London)

Alter Orin/l lind ,\llts Jf)/omnlt (Kewlaer· ;\,cukircht'n-\ lu\'n)

,\ltorimtall.scht rorsdulIIgr" (Bt:rlin)

0. 0 . Lu .... I:'nlll. \ urinlt lu-rorrls of ,\ssJria and Bi,by'loTl;ll, Chicago ( 1927) (2 \ '01,.).

Archki Rt'ali d i Ebla. TC!iili (Rome)

A.I\.. Gltwso, . .tts,lriau Rf'I)al Insmptiotls, \'01. I. \I'ie,baden ( 1972); Yo!. ~, lI'i,>baden (1976)

\ rchi\'es R()~a lc!\ de \tad (Paris)

\ rchi\l'\ Ro\alt-s dt· Mari, Traductions (P~lris)

.hrhnt O,.inllfi/ru ( PragUt~)

'-\ ""'Hiological Silldic.., (Chic~'go) Arto Sumnvlogl((l ljaponim) (1IiroshiOl,\)

\ merlea" School of Orit'lllal Rc-;e,lfeh (!lo..,ton) Stlub Pt>r;(I(I,r; di 1.~·lIrralllm , SImla drll':hllichila

( l\l\ ia)

\u la O riell l,Iti .., (Suppit'mt'nl ,I) (Barc('tona)

Iki tr;.ip;(· lUI i\."''''piu logie ( L.t'ip/i~)

Baghclad('1 Foro;chullgt'll (B('I' lill )

BaKhdlldt',. M iltrilllll[..,rni (Ik diu)

BANEA Neu;s.. Britith Aw'llialilm far Sear E.a.sl.ml ArrluvrJiofo Xtll''i-letter /l'1In- (London)

BAR BARB

BASOR

BATSH

BBSt

BBVO BBVOT

BCSMS

BE

&lIeten

BiMes

BIN

B;Or

BoTU

BPO 1

BP03

BSOAS

CAH

CAJ CANE

CChEM

CDOG

CM C IP

CRRAI

Cf

CfH

DA

British Archaeological ReportS (Oxford)

Bulutm fi, i'Aeadim;, Rnyau M lk/giqu' (elm" t/" IAt"') (Bm"el,)

Bulktin oj II,., Amniran Schools of Orin,lflt Rnrarrh (Cambridge, ~!ass.)

Berichte der Ausgrabung Ten Seb I.lamad Our KatJimmu (Berlin)

L. II. KI,,;. Bab)'lonian Baundary-Sto"" and .IInno­rial·Tahl,ls in 1M British .s\Iusnl.lTl, London (1912).

Berliner Beiu-age lum \'orderen Orielll (Berlin)

Berliner Beiu-age Lum Yorderen Oriem. Texle (Berlin)

Bull,tin oJ th, Canadian SotUty for ,\/"wpolamian Siudin (Quebec)

The Babylonian E.xpedition of the L'niye~il) of Penn )hania (Philadelphia)

TIlrk Tanh Kurumu, lkllrlnl (Ankara)

Bibliotheca ~Ie.~opotamica (~Ialibu)

Babylonian In'Criplions in the Collection of J.B. Nics (Yale Unj\·ersi[~ .. )

Bihliot/u'fQ OrVntalis (Leiden)

BoghaJ..k6i-Texle in L'mschrift (Leipzig)

E. RfI'fR - O. Pl'\GREE. Bobylonian Plan,lal)' OmnlS, Part J: TM lmus Tahln of A11Irni,"llduqa. Bi~les 2 I (1975)

E. REJ'\ER in collaboration \\it11 D.\.\lo PI'{~R£E. lJaJJ)",onian PIOII,lor; Omms Part T},-,". C.\1 II ( 1998)

Bulutln of 1M &hool of on"'tal and Af,;ran Slud .. , (London)

The C.\mbridge- Ancient Hbtor\"3 (C"'unbridge)

(;ambridl!' Arrharologiral Joumal (Cambridge)

J. S,\..,··~()' (ed.), Cit·iliuJlion.s of Ihr Anr;ml ,\"Mr l;:asl. ~e", Vor .... (1995)

Contlibutions 10 the ChmnoIQbn,- of the E..1.5 tem

~Iedilerranean (\ Ienna)

Internationales Colloquium der Dl~Uts("ht'lI Ori­ent..{"';c"el l ... chafl (5..'1arbriicJ...en)

J.:J. CI.\.. ...... "'ER. Chnmiqu,s ,\tisopolamim",s (I>-.tri.,

199:1)

Cuneiform '\Ionographs (Groningen)

Tht' Car'len :'\iebuhr Institute Publication .. (Copt'nh"gen)

Compte Rendu de la Rencolllfe A .... ' riologique In lernation.lle

Cuneiform Texl!- from &lh\'loniall To,bleb in tht~ Brili..,h \lu~eum. (London)

c.u.\togue de.., tC"le.., Il itlite~ ( new and updatcd \,cr ... ion in the illlenH.~I: hup: www. ,I'or.org IIIlT ITE CTIIII P.hllnl)

OOClIUlt'nta ~ia( 1 1i\) (Rolne)

10 Bibliogr<lphic,ll \bbre\i.uion ...

DAFI

DaM

Dating ...

Cahiers de 1<1 Delegation ArchrolOhrlqul' Fr.m­{ai ... e en Iran Pari:.

D""""",," .lItJlnlungm (\lainl) H. (;"<m ,I aL. Daling 1M fall of lIn1»I01I. { Rroppmisal of 'i<con<i·.\filinmium Ch~ n j",nl Gltnll.('.hira!!f"Hammi Projffl/. ~IHE\I 4 (199, )

DictiomUJin ... F. Jo.\...v"b led.). Dirlwnnairr tit /0 Of iH\alutn 1rU'\('/'Olamitn nl'. Pari ... (200 I )

DMOA

EA

EAK

EKI

Ene.Brit.

Em:: lsrcuI

FAOS

FM

GAG

GMTR

HANE~{

HM'E S

HdO

High ...

HKL

HSAO

HSS

HUCA

LA

IAK

IAPAS

IMGUlA

1YCU(

Ist.Mill.

ITN

IlT2

JAC j ACF

Documema t't monumenta Orienti, amiqui (Lelden)

EI Atnama tablets: -> e.g. ~10R.\.' (1992)

R. BoRl;ER. Einll'itulIg ;n dil' OSS)'nsr/vn l\.ii1ll . In­

trhnJlm. Erst". Tnl: Das :'lI.rn/l' jahrlllllSmd 1'. ellr. HdO I 5 I (1961)

E\\'. )';'6'1t •• DV tlami.schrn. KO'u~m\chriftni. ,\fO Bh. 16 (1900).

Encyclopaedia Brilallnical~

Errt:. ISYllI:I (jerusalem)

Freiburger altorientalische tudien j Freiburg­B"!l'.)

Florilegiurn marianum (~Iemoires de :\AB.e.) (Paris)

W. \0' SoDE'. Grundriss tin akJwdurlu-n Gra",· ma/tit. 3. Auflage. AnOr 33 (1995)

Guido to the ~f~potamian Texrual Record (~f iinster)

Histone or the Ancient .\""ear [a.,l, ~fonograph (Padua I

Histon of Lhe Ancient .\""ear WI, tudies (Padual

Handbuch der Oriemali,til 'Brill. MIn-Leiden)

P .. \sTROM (ed.). Hi{(h, .\ftddk or Low, .{cu of an

Inlnnaluma/ Ct>Iloquiu .. Held al Ih, L'lIlWnllJ of Gotltroburg 2(JA-22'"' .1ugwt 1987, Gothenburg (1987-1989)

R. BoR(,ut, Handburh tin' Knlsrhnjllil"alur I. II, Ill. Berlin (19671967-1975)

Heidelberger Studien zum Allen Orient (I-Iei­delberg)

Hamtrd Semitic S,udie, (Cambridge, '1.\)

Hebrew L'nion College Annual (CinCinnati) l ranira Anllqua (Leiden)

E. ESfoU. '(. it al, lJit' Insrhriftl'n dn aWlu,,.ri.srlvn Kiim!(" Leiplig (1926) .

Institule of ArchaeolQg\ Publicalioll\ Ac \\>Ti,,.. logical Series (Benien Sprin!!" '11)

"ICt.:L\ ('Io""er) Iraq (London)

IrlanbuVr .\1lLlIilungm (Tiiblngen. Bc;'rlin)

E.F. WflO. foR, DIt InSf'hrijten Tulm/tl-.\'inllrtas I. und YIn". X.rhfol~fT, AlO Bh. 12 ( 1959)

H. Ul Gr,olIU.AC" Invmtam tb>~ tabulus '" Irlln (onVTt.Jitt au .\luS; ... Impmtll OtltJfntln, 2. 7n:ltS '" l'ipoqu, d'Agod} ... 1 cJ, l'fjJt)quP d'l'r, Pasi!! (I9W-19 11 )

Journal 0/ Anriml Civili%IJtiorts (Ch"lngrhun)

Journal o/tllP Anflmt ChmnoUJKJ Forum ( l llgial ld)

JA

J.''''YES

JAO

jCS

JEA

jEOL

jESflO

piES J OT uppl.

J1l7

KAJ

KAR2

KAV

KBo

KJio

KTU

RUB LA tAPO

MAIBL

MAOG

MARl

MARV

MAs MDAI

MDAR

MDOG

MDP

MesCiv

Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia

MGMG

MHEM

MHEOP

Jmllnill of \m:ient (·hili/i.\lion~ Supplement (~h·\llR(hun)

jlJumal (1/ 1M ~ narlit \tlll 1'(nlnO" .\ont'ty of r.olllm­bia l ;11tY'J"'oil) ( t'" Yor!..)

journal of thl' ,-\Wnl((W Onmlnl \OCll'ty (I\'ew H.\\t'n) J(lII"101 ofClmnJmm \/1lt/1I'\ (C.\l11bridgt', .\1.:l!! ... )

jmuTltl/offi...Y1,/Jwm -\rrhaf%J....."\ ( l .ondon)

jaariJnTCht ta" hl'l \oma;,.i(lti\(h-f,~Ptis(h GmooL­,(hap "f,\ On"," I u\- (Lt.'idt.·n)

JaunlOl of 1M I-,«momrt' a"d\oC"ialllistun' of lht On­mt (Leidt'll)

Journal oJ .\"ml" Em/tTl! \tudin (Ch IGtgo) JOUnl.t1 of tht, Slll(h oj tht, Old Teswll\ent Sup­plenl<'nt ( h<llkld)

Jounurl of It Trumadwm of till' ricloria lnsltlult (London)

L t.SHJ '(" ":nlvhrijtuXlt QlH .hwr jllIulis(hm I"hall' \\,YOO(; ';0 (1927)

E. EBI U'(" KnlvhriJttrdt QlU -\ mr rt'ligiiism Inhalu 2. \\YDOG ~4 (1923)

O. HROf l)f R. }\J'ilsrhri/tln;tt ow -\ \'su,. WTSchitdt­nm f,Ihall', \\'\'00(, 35 (1920)

Keihclll iruexlc aus Soghatkcki (Leipzig)

Khn. iJnl"4?! ~ur {11m ('""hirhl' (LelpLig Berlin) ~L Olt IR.I( H ,t aL. Vit IfI'ilalpllfw~tlsrhm Ti>xle aus (ganl. AO.IT 21 I (1976)

Keilschrifturkunden aus Bogha7k6y (Berlin)

Lihfr .. \"nulLS Uent\alt'm)

[jlteratur~ anriennt'"'.l du Proche-Olien t (PaJis)

~Iemoirec, de I'.\cadcmie des Inscriptions et Belle Leure, (Pam)

~lilteil ungen der \llorit'llIali\chen Gesell ~chafl (leipzIg)

Mari, ,1nnaLo\ tI, IUrJltT(hfj InlrrtlisnplmaiTls (Pari,)

H. FRt.')TI." ~ • . \irl"IaH)nsr/v Ul'drljwwundm ulld \nu,,,U"n~~lndf, 1'5 HI (1970) fl. and \\,\'OOG 92 (199111.)

Mflllchncr '\IDPlOlohri\dll' Swciien (Main/)

\1emoirC"i de I" Ot.~leg-dljOI1 Archcol<>J..,riqllC' en Iran

H. Ht ",~R - R. J'Rl/..," ... /KY (ed"i.). AIt"iQjJolami~ (In lJalk A/(f /lPVIIIII'fI, ('ChFM 6 (200.1)

:\1iueilullgen clt'I' O(;,IIl'f h <"1I OJ i C;'nt~Gesell· I<hah (Bedi n )

\1cmoJre\ dt" hi D('lfgalion ('n Pt~"e/M h,ion archfologlqU(' dc.' 1'('1\(' (P.Hi\)

.\1t'tl)j>(Harnl'ut Ci\ili,.ttioll\ (\Vinoll.l l.ake. IN) \.I /'wj)()lfllnUl. RWHtft r/i fmht'fJ1lJf..'lft. NNwajia t )Ilj­na ffflmltJiJ. fmlufl ( £01(11('11(')

A1tSftj){Jlmnlfl, (;ojmtllfl/{I'I/ .\·trulif\ In • \ \f'jnouJIrY «(,opt.'nhaJ.WIl) ,

,\1i U('ilul1g('11 clt' l Glil/ ('/ MOl I.{('n litlld i'K hen Ce,("(I" haft « ,"It) M~'iOp(j l itmi~1Il J l i\lO l Y an d l ',II\'irollllw l1t , Mt' IIlOI/"\ « ..Iwn l)

Mt'\opo lilmi a/l J Jj ' IOI )' ;,i lld I-:I1\" i 1"( 111 IIW I1 I ,

O(ril, jonal Puhl i(;uio ll \ (1,t' ll\'(' I1 )

MSKH

MVAeG

MVS MVS, NAB.U. OBC

O BO O BOSA O BTCB

O BTR

OECT OlP OlA 012 OPNE

Or Oriellt

OrEx Origins

PAPS

PdP

PHPKB

Phoenix

PIHANS

PNA

PSBA RA

RAJ

RBL

RIMA

RIMB

RIME

RIA

RSO

SAA SiIAB

SAAS SAOC SBL

SCCNII

Bibliographical Abbreviations I 1

JA. BRIS>..\lJ'N. Mall'riais ",,,I Stud",s fur Ka"i/P Histmy

I. A Cillalogue of CUlmfo"n Sourr" PfTtammg 10 S/J«if ic A/rm(lrriL, of 1M Ka5Si/t l>yruLlI), Chicago (1976)

Mitteilungen del' Vordera'i"lti'ich-A.gyptischen Gesellschaf, (Berlin·Leip/ig)

Materiali Vocabulario Sumerico (Rome) Mfmcluu'r VorderdSiathche SlUdien ('\lunich)

NoutJellRJ AssyriologzquP$ Brroes ,I Utilltm"S (Paris) O riclltal ia Biblica ct Christiana (\Viesbaden) Orbi, Biblicus e' Orientali, (Freiburg/ CH)

OBO Series Archaeologic. (Freiburg/ CII) PH. TAI.O~, Old Babylonian 'i,xu Jrom Cltagar Bazar, AkkadicaS 10 (1997)

S r. OALI.EI, Th, Old Babylonian T",15 from Tell al­Rimah, London (1976) Oxford Edi,ions of Cuneiform Texts (Oxford)

Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago) O riental ia Lm'aniensia Analecta (Leuven)

OrinILalistis(M UUTllturuilung (Leipzig) Occasional Publications on the ~ear East (~Ialibu) = PJ. HLBER el al, ASlrrmomicnl Daling oj Bab)km I

"nd L'r 1Il. OP'I'E I ' 4 (1982) 107-199 Orif71lalia (Rome)

Orient, &port 0/ Ih, Soci~ty /ar .\',ar J::astn71. SludU:s ;n

japan (Tokyo) Oriml.Exprrn (Pal;s)

OrigimjoufIl(ll (Loma Linda, CAl Proceedings of tht Ammcall Philo.mphical Socitty (Philadelphia)

L1 Parola del P'lSSa'o ('I'.poli) J.A. BRI~>"\l\". ,\ Polllical Hulory of Post·Kassi!L Baby­lo"ia, 1158-722 B.C.. Rome (1968) Phom;x. Bulutin ,,;tgtgrut'1I docr hit ConloolSdaap .\'td­mand-lran (s'Cra\enhage - Lem'en) Publications de l' Institllt histOlique-archeologique m:erlandais de Stantbolll (I\t;;tnbuJ-Leiden)

K. R\D"R, H.O. B.W'R (eds.). The ProsopogmphJ oj IIIf .\'ro-ASJ)·nan Empi"., Hel,inki (199 fT.)

PtvcmJi/lgs of /'" SQdrl.~ oj BIblIcal Lilmtlll". (London) RntlU' d ~\s.sJllologit' t't tI ~ \ 'rhfologit' Orimtal, (Paris) Renconlre Asl>}rio logiqul' Internationale

[vvit'w of Ribllml litnat"r,. (hnp://www.booJUl'1.f;l'llJS. mg)

The Roral I n scriplion ~ of Mesopotami.\ • .-\.'\Syrian Periods (Toron to) The Royal In .. crip tion ... of Me~opommia. Bab~lon­

ian Perioeh (Toronto) fhl' Ro~al l n,criptio ll ' of ~ I e,opol.\mi.\. Earl) Peri­ods (ToronlO)

RI'(lJ/l'xikoll til''' , \ H)Ti%g"it' uml \ ortll'rllsialisrht'u

An-Iur%gil' (Bt'd in - Lt.'ip/ig. Bt'rlin - New York) Ra.) Shantra O ug;.u il (I\.H+~) Stalt' .\rchi H" of \.~ .. ,ri.\ (1It'hinki)

StiliI' . \ rrhil1t'\ of \ H)"Ilft. Bul"'in (Ilehinki) li t ll~ Archi\t' .... of A"I') d a SUl cliel:'! (Ilcbinki)

Stl1dk~ in ,\Ildell t O ril'IlMI Ci"ilil.lI iOI1 ~ (Chicago) Sociel, 0 1 Biblic;ll l .i t l' I\ IIUrf'

Swdie'i 011 the Ci\'ili/a lio lt alld Cuitll l't.' of Ntll i a nd th t.' I I11rd~ l1l\ (Wino na l.a kt', IN)

SEb Studi Eblaiti, Missione archaeologica italiana in SIria (Rome)

SGKAO Schriflcn llir Ge~chichte und Kultur des Alten Ori­ents (Berlin)

SHCANE Studies in the History and Cuhure of the Ancient 'l'ear Ea" (Leiden)

SMEA

SMS SOBH

StBoT

STf

Studi ,Ilirenei ed Egrodnawlici (Rome)

Syro-~lesopo,amian Studies (Malibu)

~1. STOL, Siudies in Old Bab)'lonian Hislory, Leiden (1976)

Studien zu den Bogazkoy-Texten (Wiesbaden)

O. GLR""~ - J. FI~1<TISr[J", The SultanlefN T(I/;kt' 1111, London, 1957/1964

Stud. Med. S,udi. \1edi'erranea (Pa-ia)

Subartu About Subartu. Studies deyoted to Upper Mesopotamia (Turnhom)

Sumer journal of Arrharology and Hislory i" Iraq, ;\r(l/; \IOrld (Bagdad)

TeL Textes Cuneifonnes du Lou\Te. :\fusee du Lou\TC (Paris)

TCM Texte Cuneifonne!i de ~Iari

TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources (Gluckstadt)

TIM TexIS in the Iraq Museum (\'"3..r.)

TUAT Texlc aus der Urnwelt des Allen Testaments (G'I,e"loh)

UAVA L'llIersuchungen zur Assyriologie und \"orderd..!iia­tischen Archiiologie (Berlin)

UET Ur Excavations Texts (London)

UF L'goril Forschungm (Ke\'elaer }:eukirchen- \ 1uyn. :"Ilmslcr)

UNH AI Uitga"e van hel :":ederlands Historisch-Archeolo­gisch InstiluUl te istanbul eitgm'e: :\'ederlands Instilliul "oor he ~abije Ooslen le Leiden (Lei­den)

VAB \ 'orderasiatische Bibliothek (Leipzig)

VS Yorderasi.tische Schrif,denkmiiler (Berlin)

IVO m'lt dn OrinJu (CO,Lingen)

\VVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungell der Deul­schen Oriem-Gesellschaft (Berlin)

WlKM U inll'r 7.nurhnft fur di, KllnrU des .1I0rgmlnnrUs (Vienna)

Xenia Xenht, Konstanzer AJthistOrische Vortrdge und fon.chungen (Ko nst:Ulz)

yaS Yale Oriental Series (~e\\' Ha,'en - London)

ZA 7Ltt<;chrijl for ASS)-riologil' um/l'ordrrasiatisrM Arrha&­log;, (Berlin )

lAs uiurhnft for iilf)plis<h, SpracM I",d Allmllm.uwnrU (Leipzig - Berli n)

WPY /.nls(hnjl dl'1 l:Nutschnl Paliistillo-\17l'fIlS, ( lliltbrart­

\\,iesbadc-n)

ill R .. . I I.e. R,,, .. ,,.,o, - G. \1m I, 1M CUIII'IJ""" In.scrip­

lio/l.' OJ UNI"m .tiia III , London (I 70)

V R ... T.G. PI'( iitS. 7M Ctmtifot11l Insmptum 0/ \\i'Slt'n1 , ' sin 5. A &>ltclimllrom Ih, .\Iiscrllal~US InscnpliQlrs of .-\~)"ria mil/ Btdl)'lml;a, prrparrd "J' Sir /I.e. Rau'limotl, London (I 0)

FuRTHER ABBREVIATIONS

& -jo "t~t"

A •• Ass. Assur [("'[0., from A~lIr

Akk. \kkadian

AKL . \y,>, nan King Li~l

AO (("xl'. in (h~ Lou\Te

BKI. (A. B, C .... ) Bah,lonian Nng liS! (. \. B. C .... ) B~I

CBS

Chors.

FA

E.-\E

ERA e.g. ELes)

esp. fn.

GHD HC HiKL hiLL

1M

K.

KEL KI.(s)

LBA LC

MBA

BliLi ... h \ltl't'um London

C.ataIogue of lhe Barn Ionian Section. L ni\t·p..j{\ \hl.<ieum in Philadelphia ((("\.l ~

Chor5hlbad King List [J·.-\mama (.eX!)

EntifIJa .-\nu Enlil

Ear" Bronze Age for t"'QITlpJe

epuO\m h ... U s)

~peciaIh

foomOlt"

GeneaJog\ of the Hammurapi O\l1a"l[\

High Chronololl' -Hittite King Li C

Hittite

Iraq \luseum (texl)

Ku}unjiL Collection. Briti ... h \luseum ( leXl)

Kiiltepe Epomm LiCit

Nng Lis.(,)

laLe Bronze Age

Lo ..... ChronolC>g\ 'fiddle Brame Age

MC MEC Sass. ,'C

ob,-.

prob.

RN

RS

SCIE.\1 (2000)

SDAS

SKL

sum.

TIl

L'HC

L'KL L'LC

IJSKL

VAlli

VAT

''S. W.·B.444

VT

YL

\ liddll- (:hlllnolo~

\t4\11 Fp~)ll\m ChlOnic:ie

'\.l".,ouhi "'in~ l.i..,t

"1;'\\ ('hl(moiog" ("t,t'l te) (1)\4,."1"(.'

pl"ohahl,

u·'el .... (" Rm,lll1<lIlW

R.l~ 'hamra (te.;.! )

The S\llchroni"uiolt 01 Ci'·i1i .... niOll\. of the t...blf:m ~lt~diteIT.l1lt"an (in the..' 2nd \i.illel1n i­UIll Be)

SD.\S Nng-Ii't (\en'mh Din \dn'IHist Semi­nal". \\a..,hington I

umerian King- U'l

Sumerian

Tell \lardi~h (It·,,)

l·lt.ra-high Chnmolo}.,,,

l garitic King L.i\t

L'ltrd-!o\\ ChrOlloloA'

umelial1 King l.i\l of the l r JJI period pub­li,hod b, S II ""HJ f R (2003)

\ ·ordera'iiati'iche ... \fu\cum Berlin

\ ·ordera ... iati"("he~ \tu"<'lIll1 teXl ...

\ersm

\Veld-Blundell Pri\m of the.." A,hmo!ean Mu~ um, Oxford (SUInt· nan King:lbt \cl....,lon)

\'enu.~ Tabkt

Ycar-Ii"11

PREFACE BY THE EDITOR

The overall goal of SCIH.l 2000 is to establish an absolute chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean and the acljacel1l regiOns for the second millennium BC. Mesopotamia is of special importance here because it has a tradition of king lists and similar his· tOliographic texts which would provide such a reli· able chronology - were they only completely pre­served. Moreo,er, frequent synchronisms link Mesopotamia to the Levant and Egypt.

It was therefore natural to include a study on Mesopotamian chronology ,,;thin SCIE:'l 2000, and Regine Pruzsinszk} was entrusted with it. From her ill\'estigations it became clear that a solution for Mesopotamian chronology could not yet be achieved, but in the end she had studied all the pertinent texts, and had excerpted and condensed all the secondar;

literature in order to make it easily accessible to the other collaboratOrs of the project. When she had lin­ished all the digests, discussions, tables and oven;ews, it was ob,'ious that it would be a pit)' to let so much work remain known only to a few, and we decided to

publish a handbook of Me opotamian chronology in the second millennium Be.

I am happ' to see the produCl of Regine Pru­zsinszk)"s efforts published, and I hope that it "ill establish itself as a reliable introduction to this fasci­nating topic.

Hermann Hunger

FOREWORD

This "Introduction to Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd MiIlennium BC" covers the most important topics, forming the basis for chronological discus­sions on that period. These include dating methods and the calendar of Mesopotamia, relevant sources for Mesopotamian chronology (king lists, chronicles, year-names, eponyms and other sources containing chronological information) and the natural science data from 14C and dendrochronology. This book presents digests of the most important matters relat­ing to each of these issues including summaries of scholarship and of relevant ancient texts. It is not the aim of this book to come to any conclusions chrono­logically, simply to take a closer look at bases for the different chronologies proposed for 2nd millennium BC Mesopotamia and to determine the limitations and relative reliability of the methods and materials used in the chronological debate. Each chapter cen­ters on one particular topic or type of chronological source. The chapters are arranged in alphabetical order according to the topic or source. Since each chapter is designed to be read eparately, a cenain amount of repetition i ine\;table.

This book does not contain man) chronological charts of rulers and dates and synchronisms because slich charts can be easil consulted in the various introductions to Ancient Near Eastern history and studies (such as by BRl:-:KMAN in OPPE:-:HEIM'S Ancient Meso/lolamia, H.ILI.O - SI~IPSO:'>, VEE:-:HOF, VA:'> DE MIFROOP, KU II RT). in catalogues (e.g. STARKE in Helhiter IIlid ih,. Reith, Bonn 2002) or in the recent­ly published 'upplemelll volume Herrscherrhronollr giel/ of "Dc I' Neue Pau ly" edited by EDER and RE:-:GER (2004). An impOrlant chronological chart contain­ing dates acco rding to the "New Chronology" appears in CASCIIE pi al .. Dating the Fall oj Bab.vloll

(1998), which should be compared with chans show­ing the classical Mesopotamian Middle Chronology.

The chronologies of "peripheral areas" of Mesopotamia (Elam, Syria, the Hittites, etc.) are not discussed in detail because that would have gone beyond the cope of this book. Important contribu­tions are referred to in the introduction and in the "Bibliographischer Wegweiser" published by the pre­sent author in Agyplt!TI und Leuanw 15 (2006) . A confer­ence on the "Dark Age of Mesopotamia" taking place in \"Ienna was organized by H. Hunger and me in 2002. The papers presented at the conference in VIenna 2002, which included studies on the chronologies of Babylonia and of the peripheral areas of Mesopotamia, were published under the title" Mesopolamian Dark Agz> Revillietf' at the beginning of 2004 in CChL\:l 6. This publication may be regarded as one of the replies to the 1998 and 2000 publication by tl,e Ghent-Chicago study group direcled by H. CASCHE, who proposed the so-called "New Chronology", a reduction of ca. 100 years of the Middle Chronology.

I would like to thank Craig Crossen for making the huge effort of conecting my Engli h tllroughollt the whole manuscript and tul11ing it into a readable book. My thanks go to all collaboratOrs of SCIEM lmder the direction of Prof. Dr. Bietak and especially to Prof. Dr. Hemlann Hunger, who read and commented on the maJlltscript. J also wam lO thank Dr. Nele Ziegler for her valuable comments on an earlier draft of this study.

My heartfelt lhanks for tl,eir support are due to m ' parents, my sister Sophie Pruzsinsz.ky, and Michael J. Kaiser.

Regine Pruzsin z.ky Freiburg/ Brsg., Seplember 200

1. GENERAL REMARKS ON MEsOPOTAMIAN CHRONOLOGY

"So wenig absolute Datierung ein Seihstzweck unci elm,. nologie eine autanome Wissenschafl ist, so ist anclrerseits umsichtige uncltencienzjreie chmnologische Gnmcllegung

clas vamehmste Postulat jecler Ceschichtsschreibung. " lAND BERGER (1954) 48

1.1. Preface

Absolute Mesopotamian chronology is securely estal:>­lished for most of 1 Sl millennium BC Babylonia and Assyria. Lengths of reigns, chronologically fixed by astronomical observations, are known from Nabopo­lassar (626--605) onwards. It is probable also that the Ptolemaic canon from ca. 150 AD, which lists the Babylonian kings and their reigns beginning with Nabonassar (747-734) and ending with the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius, was based on Babylonian eclipse records, which augmented the historical dates.' Specific year dates of certain kings can be set because of astronomical observations (such as the three lunar eclipses during the reign of Merodach­baladan) . The reign lengths of the Babylonian kings correspond to those known from Berossus ("Babylo­nian history": Babyloniaca or Chaldaiea) ,' a Babylonian priest during the Seleucid peliod (first half of the 3rd

cent. BC). The Babylonian chronology for the first millennium BC of Ptolemy and Berossus has been confirmed by the Chronicle series and the Babylo­nian King List A (BKL A). Before the 'h century no continuous sequence of Babylonian kings can be secu rely established. Howevel~ Ptolemy lists some Neo-Assyrian kings in paralle l with Babylonian kings, and because the Assyrian King List (AKL) and the Assyrian Eponym List (EL) enable us to set an absolute chronology from 910 to 649 BC, the absolute dates of contemporm Babylonian kings can be fi xed via synchronisms. A solar eclipse mentioned ill the Epon m Chronicle provides a reliable absolute date for the year of eponym BllI'-Saggile:' 763 Be.

, See G"'''~ON (1980- 1983) 101. On Babylonian chronoloh'Y or the I't mill Be see PMl..hJ":.lt - OU\BFRSTEIN ( 1956). For lIewly dis overed chroniclt-s set' http://ww,,,. l ivills.org/cg~

em/ hronicles/ chronOO. html (Oct. 2007).

Prior to 9lO there are some gaps io our knowledge of eponyms. Assyrian royal chronology can go back as far as ca. 1420/ 30, the reign of Enlil-na.ir 11, with an uncertainty of ten years. Beyond this, reign lengths are poorly kno"n, so that dates cannot be as certain. For instance the reign lengths of Enlil-na.ir's prede­cessors ha"e been lost in all "ersions of the AKL. In Babylonia, most kings' reign lengths are known for the second half of the 2nd millennium; howe"er, these data are only sufficient for a relative chro­nology. For absolllle dates one has to rely on syn­chronisms with Assyria.

Around the middle of the 2nd millennium, after the end of the Babylon I dynasty and during the early Kassite period, there is a chronological gap in all of our infomlation from Mesopotamia, the Dark Age, which makes it impossible to establish absolute dlronology of the earlier half of the millennium (and earlier). Since we lack absolute dates, which could be anchored within the first half of the 2nd, or the end of the 3m millennia, we simply do not know the actual length of the Dark Age. Only relative dates can be pro­vided prior to ca. 1430/ 20. Chronological relations and synchronisms are sufficiently knO\\11 for the time before the onset of the Dark Age: Hence one of tile primary tasks is tile coordination of the chronological data of carll' 2nd millenniwn BC Ass)1ia, Babylonia, Egypt and Anatolia (l;Ialti). The central problem of i\ lesopotamian chronology is the dating of the Baby­lon I d nasi)'. Attempts have been made to compute an absolute date for this d)1last)' by means of the 'Venus Tablet" wlitten , it would seem, dllling the reign of tile Old Babylonian king Ammisaduqa. But tile data in tile table is difficult to interpret and has resulted in tllree chronologies, tile high, tile middle and the low. In most publications the middle chronology (MC) i used. But tllis is for reason of "com'cnience", not because the middle ch ronology has been "proven".

~ See for example COR.'1ELltS (1942) 1-16. , 'G'.\I) ( 1938) ·114 and 430, fe,. 7: -In IhnnOtllh of Simanu,

tw look pIau a solar t'fli~." Thi~ eclipse." has been dated to 15 J une 763 Be.

18 :\lesopotami,m (:hronoiDg' of the 2nd \lillenni1.l1ll Be

This -inu'oduction" to the chronolog, of 2nd mil­lennium ~lesopotamia include the topics which fonn the basis for chronological discussions. such as the dating methods and calendars of :'lesopotamia. relevant sources for :'Iesopotamian chronolog-. (king Ii. ts. chronicles. year-names. eponyms and other sources containing chronological infonnation) and narural science infomJation (HC and dendrochrono­logical data).

Each chronological topic is discussed in a separate chapter. The topics - hence chapters - are arranged alphabetically. not in order of importance: the chronological importance of each topic i considered in a suroman at the end of the chapter. Chapter I -the present chapter - is an oveniew of the problems of 2nd millennnium BC ~Ie opotamian chronolog-.·. Throughout the book previous research in the indi­\idual topics "ill be reviewed at some length with constant reference to the releyant publications and related topics.

The sources of chronologicalh' important texts. as well as their editions and general bibliographY and their historical and chronological value "ill be dis­cussed in some detail. Each chapter begins ,,;th a short o\eniew of relevant topics and throughout each chapter is an ongoing re,iew of remarks by var­ious scholars and their arguments for one or a~oth­er chronology. The most important "nchronism between :'lesopotamian d}l1asties and peripheral areas are included in order to refine absolute :'fe opotamian chronology.' Graphs and tables are used to illustrate s}l1chronisms and underscore chronological problems. At the end of each chapter links are pro\ided to related topics treated "ithin this book.

This book is not an argument for any of the cur­rently proposed chronologies, but an extensive and critical review of existing studies. [t is hoped that it

.., On the importance of the com'ergence of data from a\lf()­

nomkal. archaeological, historical and other (scientific) sources and methods "'e ZEES (2001) 71-72. One of lhe aJ~ ofsc.:IE;\1 2000 is to combine Lhe resui1.5 of the natural science ..... 1m those of the humanities.

!> On this basic approach see 8RJ,\KMA.\;. PIiPKB 37. The inter­esting i ue of the concept '"Lime" in the Anciem Near £rut "ill nOl be trealed here: >ee REM,ER (2002) 6-26 or WilLI(} ~1982) 31-52. However, some relevant issues can be found In the chapter Year.

/! On t~e ~le5 fo~. me MBA, which is contemporary with Egypl' Middle Kingdom (MBA If A) and fl yk;os period (M BA If B), ~d i .. ,u"phase, (A and B) in lhe LeYdnl. sec BIE"TA" (ed.). The MuJdk Bronze Age in Ihe Ltv",II, Prormimg'

will oller insights into the current Slate of chronolog­ical research in .-\ncient "'ear Ea>telll studies.

1.2. From Relative to Abso[ute Chronology

Detennining the sequence and reign lengths of rule", is the first step in establishing a period 's rela­tive chronolog-.·. The next step i to fix tllis floating sequence in terms of the Christian era. thus estab­lishing an absolute chronologv.'· This u uall) can be done \\ith astronomica llY" fixed dates and datable his­torical reports, as has been done for the I" millen­nium. ince the sources for the 3rd millennium are lOO unreliable and insufficient to prm'ide an absolute chronolog-., the absolute dates of the 3rd

millennium \\ill ha"e to be based on those of the 2nd

millennium. which is the subject of this book. In his sntdy of 2nd millennium chronology on the

basis of the texts from A1alaQ, ZI:.EB (200 1) 70 point­ed Out that in the stud, of relative chronology and synchroni ms we are dealing ,dth time spans rather than \\;th specific "moments in time". Synchroniza­tion is often obscured by the various modern terms used to label a specific period of time or cu lture. This is especially the case for archaeological sources, which are not directly linked with historical events. A study by EI,\IIAG (1998) dealing with Syri­an pottery from the beginning of the 2nd millenni­um (roughly speaking, the Middle Bronze Age [MBA]) has discussed the origins and use of termi­nologies for Syria-Palestine and Mesopotamia and their value for chronology," Einwag warned that it is no more ,'alid to apply the terminology of Mesopotamian ceramic periods to thal of Syria than it is LO apply the terminology of Syrian ceramic peri­ods to those of Palestine (and he critiled the false synthesis implied by the term" yro-Palestin ia n") . In none of these cases have absolute d a tes been secure­ly fixed to ceramic changes. Moreover, ceramic

of an lntnnatlOnal Conjernlff on MiJ lIA Cnam;c in Vimntl 24"'-2fJh ojjanuary 200J, C('hEM 3 (2()02). Rough ly speak-109, MBA 11 A is be,ween lhe 20'" and IH'" cclll. BC, MBA II B betw~en the 181h and 16th cem. Be, Bit'I'Jk proposed comparduvely low dale, for MBA (11) : 1925/00-1720 and 1710-1680 BC, Ward, O("\'("r and Wein\tein om,'r hight'r dales: Ward and De'er 2000/1950-1775 ,II1d 1775-1750, Wein".in I 900-1740/30 "lid 1740- 1720/10 Be. Further ~I)\c~tion.s 0," strat~g,raph~ and fUllIJ e l1e analysi~ will

opcfully proVIde decl'ilve eVI(\t'nc(' fOI one Wily or another,

~~~~'ever for the ti~ne I~ing lhc'!i(: ''Ie n's\lII.') are "till ca. " 00 years LOO high With lesp{'ct 10 "'C .. dal.l cOllllccwd wllh the eruption of Thera,

L. General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 19

changes do not necessarily run parallel with histori­cal developments.' Einwag pointed OUt that both terminologies (Old Syrian and Early Bronze Age) can be employed as long as their origins are kept in mind. lIe preferred historical designations, espe­cially when a connection to a specific ruler or reign can be shown ( ..... 1.7. Periodization).

Simi larly, in historical and chronological research based on textual material scholars sometimes make incorrect assumptions about parallels and synchro­nisms resulting in incorrect conclusions. Most of the recently published proposed results rely on already established chronological systems. even though this is seldom explained or explicitly stated. Advances in historical research in the middle of the 2nd millenni­um wi ll certainly clarify chronological issues.

Historical srudies require a finn chronological framework. The AKL. EL. YL, BKL and the chronicles are the main sources for such study. One of the major tasks is to integrate the different time frames of these texntal sources into a single independent one." The evidence of archaeology (glyptic, pottery, etc.), orthography, t4C dating, dendrochronology, astrono­my, etc. must also be taken into account. Den­drochronological. radiocarbon and astronomical data are often considered to provide "hard facts" for absolute chronology' Each of these dating technique has methodological difficulties. Although the accura­cy of tile data-evaluation has increased in recent years, we are still confronted ,vith relative dates as a con e­quence of floating dendrochronological results and the fact that t4C dating has an uncertaint), measured in decade. Thus GASCHE (2003) 206-208 labeled t4C, dendrochronology and thenlloluminescence as "pseudo-absolute" methods. (Unfortunately. it is rare to have as direct a correlation between historical and

7 St'e BI1:T\K, lIigh ... 3, 56 on the problem!'; of S) nchroniling Egyptian and Palestinian chronolog),: For recent develop­ments of SCIEl\1 2000 within this field note the studies pub­li"ih{'d in the series CChEM and thejournal.'{&J_ A promis­ing link bel\\(~en Eh1yptian, Palestinian and l\lesopolamian chrolloioh1) ,eems to be tht' sill' orllOllol (l.Ias.,or): for recent 'luciie .. on chronological i'SlIl'''l it'(' Ben-Tor, A&L 14 (200-1) 1!l-()8 (fa\oring the NC b) G'\SUIt- rI (1/. based on the d:'\ling of "Grl..';.11('" lIazor" and iL'\ link vb ~bri to l\tesopotalll ian chronology; tht, archaeological 11lOlLt'riai is compared with tilt· 011(' from It.'11 ed-Dab',l) :l1\d \'\1\ KOPI'VN, CChEM 9 CW07) !i67-37-1 (with hi!'llori al consicieriuiolls which give a tfrmil/us pml fJllt'tII dille ror the constfllnioll or the defence work'S and lht, ri~e of Ua/ol' as a supr~\regional political power ill the ~ I BA II B period). For <llisl ofcl1lleifonn teXIS frolll U;IIor S('t' CII\Kl't~ (200·l) 179-180,

natural science data in an archaeological find as that attested for Samsi-Adad I at Acem-Hoyiik.'O) Theoret­ically all techniques can produce "hard facts": Texts, for example, can potentially provide a date that has the chronological accuracy of one day. Astronomical observations recorded in the texts from the Ancient Near East relating to specific historical events or per­sons have greatly contributed to Mesopotamian chronology and still dominate chronological discus­sions - as in the new date for SamSi-Adad I, the 39th

king of the AKL, based on a solar eclipse mentioned in the MEC.

The basis for chronology after the middle of the 15th cent. i the AKL and BKL in combination with dated tablets and the Assyrian eponym lists (ELs). For the second half of the 2nd millennium an uncertainty of 10 years is to be reckoned with, as has been demon­strated by BoFSE - WILHEL\I in 1979 ("lowered Middle Assyrian chronology"). It is still uncertain how much time separated the middle of the 15th cent. from the end of the Babylon I dynasty (1595 = MC, 1531 = LC, 1651 = HC, 1499 = NC, sometimes also referred to as the "ULC"" ..... Astronomical Data).

All encyclopedias of the recent past, including the CAH (1970), as well as many specific srudies generally adopt the MC as a working basis. However, this is merely a compromise ,vithin the discussion of Mesopotamian chronology. [n fact today the MC is considered the least likely chronology. According to the MC tile well-knowTl Hammu-rapi' of the Babylon I dynasty dates to 1792-1750. READE (200 1) 2, who has de,ived the same low chronology as G.-\SCHE fl aL in Daling ... (i.e. 1499 BC for the end of the Bab}lon I dynasty). pointed out that the MC has been trUSted by mo t scholars "who hG1~ nol rl'aliud tilL P1TroisiOllGl naturt of collventioll". After the disco"ery of the synchronism

$ See Whiting's posting on hups:, listhosl.uchicago,edu pipeml.il ·.ne/2004-Jull'iOI4327.html (Aug. 2007)

• See H USER (1999-2000) 68 and BLOCHER (2003) 0 on lhe distinction bet\,'een "hard" and "soft .. sciences.

10 On the ollliine of lhe projecLS invoked in ClEM 2000 see BlETAK (2000).

II The ULe is aeman,· a reduction of the LC b, another 56 '1)4

rears according to the Venus Tablet data and t.he Itmar cal­endar )...nO"'1 from EAE 63 (=1467 Be): \:\..'-: DER MElR (1955). ALIlRlGIIT. BASOII 139 (1955) 22 and a~soll 144 (1956) 26fT, Unforluni\lel', the terms LC and NC pro-­posed by CAstilE II aL are often confused. but nowadays few schohn refer to the LC as such 311,,11101-e, The LC can now be ddinite1 ' excluded for historical reasons and from generation counting: WILHE:L\I. MDAR 77.

20 \lesopotamian ChronoloS' of the ~l1d \liIknniull1 B(

between Hammu-rapi' and Samsi-Adad I it became ('\;­dent from a historical point of\;e" that the He. which like other chronologies is p,imarily based on the e\<1I­uation of asu'onomical data (the \[ combined with lunar eclipses), cannot be correct. During recent \'eal writers specifically dealing \\;th chronological matter' have prefelTed the LC, "C, or a lowered ~IC,

I n response to the late ' I reasoe' ment of ab.olule chronology of ~lesopotalllia undertaken b\ an inter­disciplinary team under the direction ofC""cHE (Dal­ing ... ), the British ~[useum archaeologist Coua:-, (2000) 6-9 \\Tote a short note on absolute dates. She touched upon the most important i sues and topics crucial for the ab olute chronology of ~lesopotamia and the Eastern ~1editerranean during the past few Years; Specificall!~

• S}nchronisms in the Ancielll :-;ear East and their implication for absolute dating."

• A reassessment of \1esopotamian chronology in \;ew of the C proposed b\ G\SCHE fl aL, Daling ....

• Astronomical data as the basis for the HC as pro­posed bv Ht:BER, High ... 1,5-17.

• Dendrochronological data and the Thera erup­tion. U

• Aegean chronology based on radiocarbon data and the eruption of Thera H

• Conflicts between archaeology and science ";th respect to Egyptian chronology (see B[EHK (2003)

" E.g. HE",,, (1992), CATES, HI"" ... 2, 60-82 13. ".~.

See e.g. KL"aHOL\{ rl aL (1996) 7R0-783 and .\lA.""G" aL (2~1) 2532-2535. See hup:/ \\","w.samorini-eruption.org. uk m DA Sewell and hup:l/ wwKarts.comell.edu/dassia/ Faculty S.\tanning.JiJe~/le~LOftime.pdf by S.A. ~1annin (both OCL 2007). g

H Warren \\;th \M.DUS anicles. and ~1A."I'G, A Test oj Time, O~ford (l999) g.ve the ver. high eruption dale of 1645 Be ± I years (Instead of the more usuaJ 1500--1.?20) linked to the ice core analysis of CreenJand, which impJies a High Aegean ChronoJ0Wo· Man.ning's dating is based mainly on dendrochronology and high-precision 14C-<.latc~. Howevcr. ro far th~ dates are chronologically unsatisfactory. a"i h~ been shown by BU::L\Jo. in his review of ~faJlning in BiOr 61 (2004) 1~222, Mo~e on the difficullie!) in e~tabli~hjng a chronolog) for the U\lenl Mediterranean due LO the dis­~Tepancy between the radiocarbon melhod and Ihe hi~lOl­~caJ chronol~'can be ~ound in BU.f.ui. -I f(JfLMA\1o.R (2007) 3-23. On thl,) mo.,t IInpOfiant issue \(:c I fAM\tf.R ft ilL

(2003) 87-94 and Brelll fR "at (201)3) 11-21. The lIewest dendf{)chro~ologic~ data is ba.\ed on thi\ high dale for lhe ~e~ erupuon, which from the archaeological point of \lC\\ IS \'cry unlikeJ)'.

23-33") The main problem remains the correla­tion of Aegean ,,~th ear Eastern chronologies.

Collon decided to stic~ to the ~IC a lthollgh the archaeological data, slIch as ghptic an, '" sllggestthe LC (a lowering of 6·1 veal's) or e\en the NC (a low­ering of96 ,ears). She stated: "We would be foolish to go ahead with an ultra-low chronolog} hased on ~te,opotamiiln data, central ~lesopoLamian pOller)" and seals alone- (p. 8). Collon correctll pointtd out that am lowering of chronolog), mllst be done in conjunction with Egyptian chronolog), taking into acCOunt geographical, historical, archaeologi­cal, scientific, ,,,,chroni,tic and other considera­tions. ti

In recent studies most scholar. ha\'e opted not to choose between the MC or LC and h3.\ e therefore tuck to both of them or a solution in between." The

CHC, accepted in the beginning of the 20th cent., can be ruled out because of the important s)'nchro­ni. m between Mali and Babllon. The most promi­nent representati\es of the IIC. IJHC in the 1950 were l.A.,osBERGlR (1954) and COHZl (1957). The HC is now accepted onh by Huber and a few philol­ogists such as D . .\LLE\ (1984), FRAY' 1:., Rl~fE 4 (1990) xxxi, HL'GER- P"GREE (1999) and SELZ (2002) 2335,

who mostl) base their arguments on the astronomi­cal calculations of Huber. Howe\er, an even higher ~hronolog) than the HC has been proposed by EOER 111 2003 and 2004 based on the material of Alalab in

15 Tell ed-?abfa hake) \ite linking the Acgean (~linoan fres­coes) with lhe ~ear Eru.t (Hyks()1j) at the beginning of Egypt\ 18lh DrnaS1Y.

16 See for instance etAI \'01 ( 1998) 133-131 or STI1-IIJ.1-R­

AiJ·.('Rl.\ ~ 1999) 9[)-97. A "itudy on the lale Old Bdb) lonian­and KasSlte-\tyl(~ 5oeal" \\'(b publi .. hcd b}· COl 1\0\\ (2002): seC

e,p. PI'· 217-219 and 257-259. G"Wf (20(3) 2 11-212 repeated the I1c'cd for a chronolo~') .. honcr than the Me on the ba.\i\ of archaeological c\ldenn' and lhe filct that tht, Old and Middle Babylonian ("(:ramie ~eqllellce~ ca l'l be ha~dly ~panHed from cach oth('1 by afoi IIII1<:h <L'i two c~n~ tUl'le~, Some uitinl) ft'l11al kli on the ('Iilllination of tht. I (jlh cent. flOm an archa,·( 1",,' . I . f ' } ,.,Ica pOllll () view hmc hecn offe,,'d hy LJ\. I<A~I (2fK'5) 21 1-21'

17 n ' , h ,). llli I~ t e aim of the 'I:>e<:ial re~'a1"("h progTdl1l SCII;:1\1 2000:

Blf1A' (20IJO) \: : f l ' , • "I rtSlIlIlt 0 11, Wanl \ I{',uh ,~ h'L~ b('cil pub-

hlihed by (',\\(".111- (200~~) 2W>-220, who poill\('(1 olitthalllt'w f{'~ull'l from llll' Levant, Egypt, I'Jill11 and Ill(> Indm "{OelH \0 ~uppo!llhe NC dalclI (p. 214), G.l\dw IlICllliOlINI RJ \I)~'" 2001 '[tidy whkh . I, , I I . , III(Ptl1«("llty tJlIl\l'd ," ,l,t· sall1(, chroJ1ologrv a'j lht· [t"'ll\ (,f ( I . I ' .

," ... ..1\( It'lIl )olI1lK .... WltllOlIl COI1\-III IIlClltlllg Oil l{('adt,,!\ new illll"1 pi ('\<llillil of lilt' AKL.

For examp),', COLl.ON (2000), SAl VI" (I ~'9(j), il.Y<'I' (1999), MA~1\'M. pi oL (~OOI) and MILl!JI (2002).

1. Generdi Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 21

combination with Egyptian chronology and the Assyrian and Babylonian Distanzangaben.'" In any case, this varicly of views and opinions indicates that the discussion of the absolute dates of the 2nd mil­lennium BC is still very much alive.

In the past few years the LC has been the most frequently used chronology in the scholarly com­munily.''' lIowever, late ly the very low NC by GA OlE pi al. has provoked renewed debate on chronologies. They based their study on ceramic sequences, which could not be accommodated within the MC, and "demanded" a drastic lowering of the MC by ca. 100 years. The NC was eagerly accepted by archaeolo­gists." However, few historians or philologists have accepted the NC so far: Among them READE (2001)," ZEEB (2001), and LAFO~T, Amurru 2 (2001) 2132. In response to CASCHE ,I al.'s book published in Akkadica 119-120 (2000) an isolated view in favor of the MC or HC was presented by BEGKMAS (2000) 19-32 who strongly rejected the NC on the basis of Hittile sOllfces.23 However, Beckman's main argu­ment, based on the generarion counl, has been cril-

19 A critical re\icw on Eder's vie, ... "S and those of NAGEL in Da.H 6 ( 1992) has been presented bv ZEER (2001) 95-100. who especially criticizes the methodological approach of Nagel and Eder on Syrian-Egyptian (political) relations. EOf.R (2004) 192-193 refused to an}' longer use astronomical data for absolute chronological dates, since all those rete­\'alll for the 2nd and 3rd millennium Be ha\'e prO\"en so unreliable.

.. E.g. M lellll and ROCIlER (1997-2000), who had taken a view between the NC and LC based on the stud, of a solar eclipse ill the ~IEC, switched in a 2002 article b\ ~I!ClIlL

tow .. \rds a sollllion bt'tweell the l\IC and LC due to ne",l~ calibrmed dendrochronological resulLS by M:uming it aL

" Sec e.g. C['"."'" (1998) 133-134 or Pf·.\LI". - Nm.·". JIlDOG 133 (200 1) 16517",\ foHowing C\MJIE ,/ al. (1998«) 1-4 for the IOWl'rt'd dales of Samsi-Adad 1. One cannot pos­sibl), be aware of all the underhing prembes (lunar calendar. ,L'Hronoll1ical dates. CIC.) for {',cry one of thl:' chronologies.. Gene ..... llh !lpcaking, archat.'ologi«ll arguments seem 10 POilll (O\\'ard ... a chronolog; lower than the ~ t C. Nott' hO\\'en~r th.H, as POI) v .. " (2002) .1I Slalt'd in regard to the comparisons betweell the Tt'rqil and Uarildulll material. ceramic compar­i'mlls normallv <mh suppl~ us with very gCIlt.'ral date.;;.

!t~ Readt~ leached Lht' NC as ,I result of his 0\\11 rt'('on~truClion of tht, AKL. FOI ;\ ~hot'l critiquc ~ee S.\""-S\I.\Nl\~ll\L'SE'

(21l06) 159. lt~ Usua l!) th t, LC hilS bc'en Ill\Ored by I liuitologist .. within the

p'1Sl dt'(ac\t's (set' m ~I \IH1~O [1993J 2 1 8-~NO). E::-"ccplions inrlutit' Klin~t'r (I\IC) ;\1\<1 Olh.'11 (I IC). It is qU(:'.!Itiol\i\ble whetht'l' Il iuite chronolog't' ran help in tielt'rmining ab,ollitc ~ 1 (,sOpOI;UHi;u\ ('hronoloh,,), But Kli ll'\''' (1999) 2031, with rd('renn' to G \.. .... C I \I f't (II" /)lJl;'lg .... demanded that Ilil­

lilt, lniltedal be induded in Iht' chrol\()lo~1) diSCllssion.

icized again by W[LHELM in MOAR 77, who stated that not too much weight should be put on Hittite chronology.

Rohl el al. have proposed a radically low chronol­ogy (a shortening of approximately 300 years illus­trated on behalf of tJ,e second half of the 2nd millen­nium"). This chronology is also called the "New Chronology", but is nOt to be confused with the New Chronology of Casche ,I al. Several opinions in favor of this radical revision of chronology were put for­ward." Since this "New Chronology" by Rohl el aL is highl)' incompatible with the known historical fucts of the Ancient Near East, it will not be further discussed in the present study.

The absolute chronology of the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, the Late Bronze Age (LBA) , is dependent on synchronisms among the great powers of the era (Egypt, Assyria, !jatti and its Syrian depen­dencies) and shows an uncertainty of only 5-10 years. As of today, most scholars accept the LC for Egypt (1479 accession ofTutmosis TIl and 1279 accession of Rarnses II),'" the MC for Mesopotamia in tJle Old

2--1 Tllli. sntdv was complemented b)' a re-evaluation of astra-. nomical da", b\ ~lrrCHELL ([ 989/ 90) 7-26, which dated Hammu-rapi) LO 1565-]522 Be.

:5 NoteJA.\IE..\ fl aL ( 1991) for the reduction of Mesopotamian chronology, especiall\' with regards to the Middle Assyrian and Amarna peliods. Further article.') can be found bv the "New Chronology" !,Tf"OUp by Mitchell and NEWGROSH in JACF. See also \AX D>R \ 'n' - Zu<B.'>T (2002). which is a reprint of anicles bv the "New Chronology" group. The) basically 3uempllO shonen Middle As,s,rian chronolog" b)" setting up parallel Middle Assyrian kings and dynasties. For criticism of this approach see POSH:o .. -\TE (199 1) 24+-246 and on -'fiddle .-\s..-,vrian kings and their f.unil~' ties note C.\,,\,CIK-KIRSCHB.\DI ( 1999) 210--222. Further discussion bet\\een Whiting (induding the plinciples of ~Tian chronology and il.!! sources - lhe AKL. epon~l11s, Disl.allz..1.n­gaben. etc.) and "'New Chronologists" concerning the SlIC­

ces.~ion of ~liddle A .. '~sxtian kings i!'t 10 be found on the NE­discussion list compiled on www.caeno,org (Oct. 2007). II\GE~S (200[)) 23-41 also ~umed the co--regency of"ari­aus f\&>yrian rulers in the AKL. and ani\'ed at a loweling of the Ama!"na period of 0-100 years..

:''6 For summarles of studies of Egypli;U1 chronology see ' ·0:--:

BHHIlATH (1997), ZEE" (2001) 113-121. ""RBLRTO,,­

(200-!) 585-5 '8, E. [[OR'L '(. ,/ al. (eds.), ,{nMII £g:iplia1/ CIIIUlloi<>g)', I1dO I < 3 (2006), and \ '. Me LLER (200; ) 203-230. E~lrlier, higher Egyptian date'S had been pre-­ferred: s('(' fot· in~(allce RO\\TO:'>. (1960) 15-22 on the 19th

O\"n~sly. including a C()lI1p~'U;son with B~lbylonian ilnd ..-\ssHian dates, For the rt'con.'truClioll of the Eg)--plian chronolog), on Iht' bash of historical :)Qurces see KrrcIIE:\ (20(10) 39-52.

22 ~te!)opotamian Chronol<>g\ ofthe 2nd \tilknnium BC

Babylonian petiod (Hammu-rlipi" acce 'ion in I i92 BC) and the shortened chronology (tcn years) pro­posed b,' BoESE - WILHEL\l (1979) for the Middle Ass,tian kings which is connected with Hittite chronology based on the drastic shortening of Sup­piluliuma' I reign from 40 to 20 ,ears: 1343-1322 1 (see WILHEL\t - BoESE [19 ill.

1.3. Main sources for Mesopotamian chrODOlogy

This study's aim is to present the textual data upon which we gain our infonnation on Mesopotamian chronology." There is abundant infomlation on how the ~Iesopotamians kept track of time connected ,\ith political history. The) were aware of the \'atious wa, of presening and interpreting the past in lists, chron­ic\e", royal insctiptions. and so forth. TI,eir care gi\'es us the opportunity to reconstruct their past and per­hap even anchor it to an absolllle chronology·.-

~lesopotamian history and chronology has been mainl\' reconstructed on the basis of various king lists (KLs) supplemented by royal inscriptions and chron­icles. The All still remains the "backbone" of ~Iesopotamian chronolOg)~ it represents the onlv sta­ble and relatively fixed scheme "ith which all the'data is to be compared, and thus i the starting point for any chronolOg)'-related i ue. Other historiographical texts, such as BKI., the S)TIchronistic History and other chronicles, are to be included and po ibly hnked to the data of the AKL. A description of the rele\~ttexts is. presented in the follo"ing chapters. In addmon their historical and chronological infor­mation and importance are discussed by a sun'ey of the scholar discussions about them and their mean­ing for ~lesopotamian chronology.'"

• Venus Tablet (\ T, omen tablet based on observa­tions of Venus rising and setting cycles)

• King lists (AKL, BKL, SKL, Synchronistic KLs and other lists mentioning the royal genealogy such as the GHD, the ancestors' lists from Ebla, the HiKL and the UKL) and date-lists (year-names)

• Eponym lists including the Mari Epon)'JO Chronicle (~lEC; possibly mentions a solar ecl ipse)

: Chronicles (with infon~ation ~n synchronisms etc.) Royal Inscnpllons (bUIlding Inscriptions with Dis­tanzangaben, annals, etc.)

r, For an introduction "'. S<If'tlD1l<I' (1952), Ro\HO~ (1970) and Hill" (1983) 1-17.

fa ~ote the chapter '"The Fllt~re ~f the Past" by GIASS~tR ( 004) 3f1. and 15fT. on h",onographical works of the Mesopotamians {roYdl inscriptions, date-Ii u, K1...s, ElA, his--

• Dated documcnts «(<Iknd"r. yt'aHlames): prosopo-graphical material, genealogy

• Historical epics • ynchronbms • ientific data: Illstoticall, linked archaeological,

dendrochronological allel radiocarbon data

The main topics withlll the current ~Iesopotamian chronology'-<iiscussion are:

• The dating of king Samsl-Adad T of \lisur, a con­temporan of Hanll11u-rapi', the most prominent ntler of the Bab,lon I d, nast'

• The chronological problems of the All (first As )1'­

ian Dark Agt' after the reign of ISme-Dagan I; vari­ant reign length; lost reigns; the intcrpretation of D liB-Pi-Iu)

• Distanzangaben referring to Assyrian rulers • Dendrochronological results from Act'l1l-Hovi'lk in

connection with Samsi-Aelad 1 .

• A po ible olar eclip e in connection with SamSi­Adad I

• Epon~ms in conjunction with the AKL and Distanz­angaben

• Calendars in use in Assyria before Tiglalh-pileser I • The chronological 'alue of the \ 'T and other astro­

nomical data (especiall, eclipse data) • Average generation lengths (especiall) in connec­

tion \\ith Hittite chronology and the chronolog)' of other peripheral areas)

A whole range of textual material belonging to dif­ferent text genres and covering a period of ca. 1500 years has helped reconstruct the histor) and chronolOg) of ~Iesopotamia . In order to gain a bet­ter understanding of their chronological infOl'll1a­lion, one has to e\aluate the historiographical value ~nd hlstoncal reliability of each texL J l istOri ograph­Ical conSIderations involvc systematically ordering the ~urces according to their backgroulld alld COII­nectlons WIth other rccords or eVenLs. Important treatments of this subject were published by KRrClIER -MLI.LfR ( 1975),GR,\V'><J. (1980), \\'II .('KI (1 982fl.), VA>; Of. MIFROOI' (1999), (,I.AS.,'fR (200'1) and oth­ers: lIistotiographical texts do not on ly furnis h his­toncal facts, but give us an ielea 0 11 how "civiliwlions render accounl 10 Ihnnlelve.! of Ih, /)(1\('. " Tex t genrcs

torkal eplu and ()l ll"" I,'", " - . . '<Iry H)JnpOSlIl(m~. l'!C ) St'(" pp. 'i'J 87fT. for ~hrollldc\ WiLh 'IWf ifk (h rollologi<"al illtt'l ('S I. ,. See al''' .1 """NSIKY (~O()6a) I H I -~()L

SA.",()~, "" 1'1> Moran ( 1'190) 110.

). General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 23

can be ordered according to their historical reliabil­ity roughly as follows:"

• dated administrative and legal texts" • letlers'3 • historiographic texts (royal inscriptions such as

annals and building inscriptions, king lists, date­lists, etc.)

• literary texts • scholarly texts

A different, more precise, hierarchy of texts accord­ing to their chronological value was presented by Edzard at a conference on chronology held in Chica­go in 1971 (see VEE:-IHOF [1981] for a shon report):

• dated archival texts • date-lists

• KLs • synchron isms • genealogical data • historiography-paleography-stratigraphy

Lit. in order of publication date: OL\fSTEAD, Ass)T­ian Hisloriography, Columbia, Mo. (1916); GOTERBOCK, ZA 42 (1934) 1-91; SPEISER, in: R.C. DE~'fA." et aL (eds.), 17IP Idea of History in Ihe Ancienl Near East, ew Haven (1955) 37ff.; PALLIS (1956) 4631T.; FI:-IKELSTEIN, PAPS 107 (1963) 461-472; OPPE:-IHEIM (1970) 143- 153; MAL~MAT (1968) 163-173; KRECHER -MOLLER (1975) 13-44; TAD~IOR ( 1977) 209- 213; GRA\ ON (1980) 140--194; I-L\LLO (1983) 1-17; \'AN SUERS ( 1995) 243-244; WILCKE (1982) 31-52; id. (1988) 11 3-140; GLASSNER, ChrMes (Engli h transla­tion in 2004); YA\IAD.\ (1994) 11-37; BRINKMAN (1995) 667-670; RENGER (1996) 9-60; VAN DE MIEROOI' (1999); Gu NER (2000) 383-393; papers prescllled at the XLV· RAJ in C-ullbridge, MA in 199 published in Proceedings of Iht XB~ Rmconl)~ IIs.ryri-

~ I For lhe"le text lypes and their attestation through time see \'\N ()t MURO()P (1999) 12. A des ription of their hilracter is ghcn on pp. 13ff. On fundamental approaches within Ancient Nc.lr E.aslt'rn studies see his first chapter. 1 ote also yan de ~I i eroop's useful distinction between "history from abo\'t," .m el "history from below" in chapters 2 and 3. Espe­cially for tilt, D~'rk Age fi Howing the end of the Babylon I d)'nasl),. we know vcry litt le Illaterial of the "history from abO\('" CiH t'gOl)". Sources for " hi ~ t ol) from below" are <lUesl­cd <lbundan tl). but olTer on l) limited infonnation on the ab"iolutt· chronolog" of that li me. ee POD,\'" (2002) 2. On some characteristic"i of hililoriograph)' see Ihe re,iew of Gl. \~"l\Ht C!OO-I) by VAN I)Ht Spt' .... in RB1.. 9 (2005), whne he di\icu"~t'~ hi\lOl'iogr"lphic.1i texlS. For instance. van del' pek dis'-\g:rt:'(·~ with Clas . .'mer's definition of the AKL as a "ruyal chnmkle" (a cording to hb definitions ofa chronicle) and prefel the term "chronographic' texl".

ologique Inlemali01laie, T ABUSCH el ai. (eds.), Hislori­ography in Ihe Cuneiform World (2001).

1.4, Chronological Systems

"Die kuru Chronologie beruhl auf aslronomischm Daten und mil Jahreszahlen ver:sehenm Kmigslislen, die liingere

Chronologie beruhl auf llruicheren Generalionenab­schiilzungen in ebemo unsicherm Chronologien".

CORNELlt.:S (1958) 101-104

In 1987 an international colloquium on absolute chronology took place in Gothenburg. The papers and the discussion protocol of this congress ha\'e been published under the title "High, Middle or Low", indicating that some decision was soughL In fact, a "ote took place at the end of this meeting in which the low chronology (LC) was clearly favored. Papers presented at a subsequent conference on "High, Middle or Low" at Haindorf (1990) were pub­lished in A&L 3 (1992)" Two "EuroConferences" were organized by SCIEM 2000 (Haindorf [2001] and Vienna [2003]") which dealt with more recent smdies and developments in chronological re earch in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Mesopotamian chronology S) terns, particu­larly the HC, MC and LC. solely depend on calcula­tions based upon the astronomical data in the \'T and not on the interpretation of king list data. However, within the past few years more emphasi has been gi,'en to sources other than the \'1' and the eclipse data in the omen tablets of EAE, which naturally has resulted in different chronologies.

1.4,\. General

UHC-HC-MC-LC-NC" -ULC

After Schmidtke's -Der AuJbau der BabJlo1!ischm

" These documents are the mOSt "oluminolls source of the Ancient Near East, shedding light on various commercial, administrative and judicial i ues concerning U1C' main institutions (temple and palace) as well as on ule li'e5 of PI;\'::lte indhiduals. ProsopographicaJ studies are an impor­tant working (001 for sorting undated texts, including let· leI'S, into relative chronological order.

~, Letters nawrall" prO\ide a more pel onal ,-jew on various issues and e'"ellts.

:\ot The thret" different chronologies. high. middle and low, were represented by appropriateh filled glasses of wine. For a hon ,-e,;e" seeJACF3 (19 990) 91.

" BOlh published in the seties CChEM (2003 and 2006). ~ Note that twO dilTerent chronological systems are design,n­

ed ,dth NC: M t ew Chronolog( of Rohl tI aL. and the "Ne" ChronolobF)'" of Casche tl aL

~le,()potamian l'hn.lllOIOg\' of tht· 2nd ~Iilknl\illnl Be

Chron%giF" (1952), which an;\'ed at a chronolog) yen close to the LC b\ neglecting the a,tronomical e\;dence of the \ 'T;'- the Danish Ass\l;ologbt P\LU, (1956) offered an extended n'sume of chronologi­cal studies and de\elopments up to 1955, ' In con­traSt (0 other oven;ew . he discussed the methods and lines of argument which had \;elded such dif­ferent results: Palli began with the liHC,'" which had been the most \I;delv-accepted chronolog) at the beginning of the 20th cenl.. and traced the grad­ual acceptance of the LC. A much shorter ulllman on chronological studies from the beginning of the 20th cent. onwards was presented by T~D\IOR in 1970 in "T'" nm-/d Hislory' oJI"'Jewish Proplf (ed. ~L\l.\R), 6~6: Tadmor tre ed the chronological impor­tance of the Yr, the AKL and the smchronism between Hammu-rapi' and -amsi-Adad I document­ed in the ~lari texts. ince then major improve­ments ha\'e been made in Bab\'lonian hi ton and chronology (most notable are the lUdie b\ Brinkman in ~1 KH and PHPKB). In 19 1 "eenhof \lTote a perceptive article on the methods of the nat­ura! sciences and their relevance (0 the problems of the chronolog\ of the Ancient ~ear East and Eg\pt, re\;e\\;ng a conference on chronolog\' that had taken place in Chicago in 1979 and presenting in condensed fonn the po ition of various ,cholars and their dating-methods .... A more recent rea'sessment and sum man of past studies was provided b\ ZEEB (200 I) 67ff. in his introduction on chronologv: Zeeb opted for the ~C of Gasche rl aL Another recent stud}, PODA." (2002), deals \\;th the texts

.e End of Bam Ion I dmas~ 1499 Reign of Ammi$llduqa 15'>0-1530 Reign of Hammu-rapi) 1696-1654

from Terqa (situated on the F.uphrate~ close (0

~Iari) which coyer most of the 2nd millenniulll, including the crucial Dark ,\~{'.' he carefully used a \ariet\ of approaches including obscnations on form ulan and the pin ,ical atu;hutes of the tablets," and emplmed the ~IC for all absolute dates, though taking into account the LC and NC within her his­(Orical recon m iction (esp. pp. 43ff. on the Kassite ruler K."'tiliasu). Currenth the difference between the chronologies is 230 years. The central que tion of the chronology discussions remains the duration of the Dark Age.

1.4.2. Review

tudies at the end of the 191h cent. used very high chronologies, dating Hammu-riipi to 1923-1868 (Hommel in 1 5) or even 2244-2190 (Lehmann­Haupt in 1 9 ). These dates, in contraSt to the ones propo ed at the beginning of the 201h cent., were not based on the computations from the astronomical obsenations of the Yr, but on the report of Sero sus and Olhersources knm\l1 at that time. KUGLER (1912) was the lirst to employ the chronology the Venus ob enations connected with Ammi>aduqa's 8'h year. He dated Hammu-rapi' to 2123-2081 and these dates were w;dely accepted until Kugler himself in 1922 Im\ered them to 1947-1905 Be. Another change was cau ed b~' the text linds at ~Iari, which shed more light on the hi tory of the beginning of the 2nd mil­lennium and pro\1ded an important synchronism between Assyria and Babylonia. This information was supplemented by texts from Alalab, which date to the

LC MC He 1531 1595 1651

15H2-1562 1646-1626 1702-1682 I 72S-JrJ86 1792-1750 IH4S-1806

Table I showing the commonly ll'>ed dales for the fall of the Babylon I dynalty ("<ack/fall or Ililb}l"n") and the relgn\ of the ruJe~ Amlm aduqa and Hamrnu-rapi' of Lhal dynality

37 11ammu-rapi' \\ob dated to 1730-1688 in\tcad or J 7'28-J686 (L(; <tu",.

sa AJ\O R()uJ(~ in his unpublished IJabilitation\'iChrift Matm­al~ zur ChrOMWgit ~QrderasimJ 1m 2. J(lhrtauwnd v. (:hr., \tunsler (1965) 6ff. presented an over\'iew on \ariou "iew\ slarting with the end of the 19111 ("(:'nt. AD (J lommd, Lehmann-Haupl).

: For example Parrot. Thureau-Dangin and AlbrigllL. A more recent overview, ba\t:d on hi!i, 1981 approa<h i\ \'","", (2001) 3!)..5() and 306-315. '

41 See the gcneral remark., by CII\RPI ..... CANE (1995) 817 r.eferring to our meagre ('vid('l1ce Oil the earl}' Ka~sitc and Sealand dyn .. ues, which dille 10 Ihi' period ( n.byloo J). 'nle ('arly 15th CClltUry wa, marked hy a cOlholidation of Ka.1i~ile power in Babylon. Only the SynChronistic H istory and Chronjcle P provide !tOI11~ additiol1al in fol1l13tion on lhili poorly doCUmrll{NI PCI ioel . '] h4,.' biJ th of the Miual1hlll kingdom in Syria dall's to lhi 't lim'"

~ . ~.

f or another approa<h Cj('C MASI l ·ll-R()UAI ·1,1 (2000).

I . General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronolog)' 25

same period and later." The end result of all these linds was another reduction of about 100 years in the dates of Hammu-rapi', whom Albright (1938) dated to 1875-1833. The discovery of the A.KL from Chorsabad, published by Poebel in the 1940s, rein­vigorated the chronology debate. The Chorsabad AKL was soon supplemented by another version, the so-called SDAS list, which was published by Gelb in the 1950s.

The HC goes back to Thureau-Dangin and, espe­cially, Goetze, who based their work on Sidersky's study of the astronomical data (his results were com­parable to tho e of Huber)."" Hammu-rapi"s year 1 was accordingly dated to 1848 and the fall of the Babylon I dynasty caused by Mursili I to 1651. GoeLLe calculated Hittite chronology by reckoning back the number of generations from 1450, when Hittite power resurged (at the expense of Egypt). He based his argument on average generation intervals: for seven gene .... ations he calculated ca. 200 years, which means that the length of one generation was 28 years" Using this average, Goetze deri\cd dates sim­ilar to Sidersky's. Goetze was the lirst to use the his­torical information from "peripheral areas", ~litlani and lJatti of the 15'h and 141h cent. BC. Sub equent ch ronological discussion centered on the a\'erage generation lengths or intervals, the dating of Tudbalia II and Suppiluliuma I, and the role of Egypt in Syria in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. In 1953 Unger, using the Chors. KL and counting 15-19 years for each of the eight kings whose regnal rears are lost in it, also arri\·ed at the HC (SEE PALLlS, p. 479). His approach is similar to Goetze's, except he did not use average generation length but average th rone tenure. On the basis of the Bavian inscrip­tion " of Sennacherib, Thureau-Dangin dated the beginning of the Kassite dynasty to 1729 (= lirst year of Gandas; see below), which he synchronized with the rule of Abi-esub of the Bab Ion I dynasty. Today

11 The chronolog'o discu,,~ion h~L"i olu:n Ct.~nlt.'lt"d ()Il\lal'lb. which lillk~ the north 5)Ti'\I1 t'nth, L.HHbad to the lIitliu." kinjofi. \ I,tlab VII came LO all l'nd bt>C<tU"'l~ of lbuu;;:i1i. whik Ualab. the ("api till of I.uub.td. "it" dt"tfOH'd tHt'!" b\ ~ I ur<ili

I. Slill. we are confrollll'd with Iltll11t'rOll' difficulties in 11"\­ing to bridgt· Ihese twO {'\Cl1b with th(' ~'tt('r documented period ofth(, 15th ce nt. F()I' rt"Ct'1\t ()\(·l .... it~\\.., ..,l'e \,\~ SOIlH (~O()O) I ()3-110, n'R"OFF" (20()3) ,11\<1 (~()O[,) ;mel "I' o ,~.,o" (2008) in ht'l' introduction.

II Sl'(' Zu .1\ (2001) 75 for til t' mosl t ('celli I"t,\.j('\\,.

" 0 ) istunzangabcn sub 9.7. 11\ ) Oistanzangabco sub 9.1.

the HC seems [0 be the least likely solution from an historical point of view. The A.KL had been unknmm to Thureau-Dangin; but Goetze rejected its chrono­logical ,alue. The HC is still supported as "the most likely solution" by Huber on the basis of his calcula­tions with the astronomical data and month-lengths. The MC and LC are also based on the Venus Tablet, but differ by one Venus periodl cycle of 64 years. Thus according [0 the main chronological systems of the present, the dates of the reign of Hanlmu-rapi' are: 1848--1806 Be (HC), 1792- 1750 Be (MC) or 1728--1686 Be (LC).

In the 1930s the new material from Mari, Alalab, Ugarit and the lJabur region, and the synchronism with Amenemhet III of the 121h Dynasty, caused a shift towards the !'.lC. Major changes for Babylonian chronology were not only due to the archives of ~Iari, but also [0 linds at A1alab. L'gari!, and Platanos in Crete, specilicall)' the "Platanos seal" (see L\.'D5-BERGER [195-1] 117-119"). For the Mari tablets and several rulers important for Mesopotamian chronol­og)" SEE P.-I.LLtS (1956) 463-466, who based hi out­lines on results b)' Parrot and Thureau-Dangin." Sev­eral new s)'nchroni m resulting from these new texts were listed on p. 464 of Pallis' smd)' (a table for the con·elation between ASsur, Bab)'lon and ~lari fol­lowing Parrot's study [still HC] made in 1938 omit­ting the ligures).

Albright was among ule lirst to show the SP'­chronism between • amsi-Adad I and Hammu-rapi' and [0 include the ~1ari texts in his studies. His new dating, based on chronological records of Sa1-maneser I and Tukulti-:-linurta I and the Mari mate­rial, was still quite high: he dated Sam -i-Adad 1 around 1880-1860 and the Babylon I dvnast ' bet1Veen 1970 and 1670 (HC). These ligures were accepted by most scholars then.

In 19·10 Sidersky published a re\;sed chronology based on Albright starting \11th lasmab-Addu, and

ti No firm conclu,ions can be dra\\l) (rom this Old B.1.b\ Ionian ..eal found in the Tholo .. B tomb at Platanos in Crete. mith. w.ing the Me ba~ed on the a..'t.rOllomical caJcul.uions b\

>well, i.llIemptt'd to compute ;\lino...1.ll chronology (Middle Minoan pedocl. which \;\11chroniles \\;th the end of t.he 12th or beginning of the l~\lh O\llilSty of Egypt and the reign of Ilannll11-nlpi') \\ith llw help of t.his seal. ~ fn. 5 i.

~ $t.(. tht' contributions b~ \ilriOU'l ~holar ... in the 2 nd CRRA.1. Pari ... (1951) ~i5-4S (edited b\ TlilREAl"-O\.. ... Gt,). Tht· COIl­

tribulions '\t'f(' gl~nt'ralh 110Stile towards the ~lStrollOmic~11 "appro<lch" lO ab,;;;olule chronolog\ (Goetle: "1M aslrrmomi­ml tmdit;otl lJ dllllgrrtJUS").

26 \k,opotamian Chronolog'o of the- ~nd \Iillenniutn B(

using the 5111chroni,," between Sal11'i-Adad I and Hammu-rapi' and the new calculations of the vr data for Anllni~tduqa (superseding FOlht'ringh,ml's [1928) stud\. which had dated .-\tmni:;aduqa to 1921-1900 BCl. idersb found 1702 1-1682 1 for the reign of -\tlllni>'lduqa. l' -Ic"'-Ic 06 for the reign of Hammu­liipi" and 195~1650 for the Bab\lon 1 dmi1Sl\ as a whole (= HC). He was supported in 1948 and 1951 b\ Thureau-Dangin and Goetze. ubsequent discl ,ion focused on the relation between the Kassite and Baby­lon I dynasties (sa Puns, 476--t79) - still a problem todav. According to idersh. _-\tnmiditana's 11th \ear coincided with 1729 (and the tart of the l'assite dmasl\ based on the Bavian inscription, <;ee below sub L',(;,--\D [1940)). Thureau-Dangin, however, doubted that this date corresponded with the beginning of the Ka! ites. PaIIis described the dispute and discussed fur­ther issues (p. 477) - uch as the difficull\ of making S}l1chronisms between Bab\ Ionian dmasties. the prmi­ional nature of result-'> for the Bab\ Ion I and Kassite

dmasties (the 9th \ ear ofSamsuiluna had been omiued from Thureau-Dangin' argument) and the problem of the date of 1729 itself. Thureau-Dangin considered 1729, the date for the first appearance of the Kassites (corresponding in Smith's work with msuiluna 20th

,ear, in Side",!., with .-\tnmiditana II th \ear)' but Pallis . . ' noted that no evidence for the first appearance of the l'assites in Babylonia, or for their acrual takeover of power, existed. The Kassites are onh mentioned in date formulae of Samsuiluna \'ear 9 and during Abi­eSub's reign. Pallis concluded that the date 1729 based on Ass}'ian tradition (Ba~ian inscription and Chors. KL) could not be relied on as an alholute date linked \\ith a certain event (see Pllib (1956),477-47 ).

. In his 1940 monograph "Alalnkh and Chronology", ,dney S\1JTH seemed to know Albright'S "new"

chronology (<;ee below). Previously Smith had followed the HC-CHC (see PAWS (1956); 466) referring to archaeological material from the lJaoor region, Mati texts, excavation results from Alalab and their relations \\ith Syria and Egypt ( 12th O)l1asty"). His work was pri­marily based on archaeology, namely the pottery sequences" In his monograph he decided for the Me by including the vr data based on the 56/64year Venus cycle, using new calcu lations by Sewell.

• Deci.,h'e textual c\idence: the Bavian inscription by Sen­nacherib (see beJoYoJ and the BKLA

0:.0 For another \iew ~e ZHB (2001) 76-77 and 1I1 2'i3 and ~.lIfR (2003) 227-2B9.

I See ~"fB [2(KJI] 78-79 (or a ~ummary of Smith's work. lantm and ~eferh{Jlt"p J are mentioned tOgether on a

Ammi~.aduqa wclS comequenth dat(,d to 16-15 and the fall of Bab\lonjust after WOO. which agre(,d much bet­tt'r with the ar hacologieal material from J\natolia. The K.1.'sit(' dmasl\. which BKL A states was 576 ,ears long, would then be ben,e('n 1740 and 1165. lIow('ve l; as hillS (1956) -17 point(,d out, the;e figUles are not compatible with the inlolmation of Ule \T.

Albtight (19-10) r('\; ('d his 1938 ,iews, including the indireet synchronism bel\,-een lalllin-'Ammu of BI bIos and , 'eferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty" Albright no\\ dated the Bab\lon I dynasty 10

190~1600 (~IC) and Hammu-rapi"s first year at around I 00. ~Iost of his arguments paralleled those put forward bl mith. Howeyer, the l\\'O scholars dis­agreed about the start of the Kassite dynasty, which Albl;ght dated to ca. 1615-1600. Albright further based his arguments on the archaeological finds by ~Iallowan at Sagar Baz.ar and Tell Brak as well as the stratigraphl of Alala~ reported bl Woolle\,.

In 1940 L'ngnad, who contributed to Babylonian chronology since 1907 and had employed Kugler's astronomical stud ie , published an article that includ­ed all the material mentioned so far. li e began with a revision of the vr and assumed that the first year of the Kassites coincided WiUl Samsuiluna's year 9. As a result he dated the Babylon I dYl1asty to 1893-1594 (~IC), the reign of Hammu-rapi ' to 1791-1749, and the 9 th \ear of Samsuiluna to 1741 Be. Pallis pointed out Ulat Cngnad's dates were identical with those of Smith, generally based on the same arguments. In his 1944 publication U,c-'.'I) maintained his views in spite of the KL of Chorsabad, just communicated by POEBEL (1942 and 1943). However, he refused to

accept the \'T data as conclusive evidence for chronology since too many options existed. His start­ing point was Salmuiluna year 9 (working thesis of Smith - Ungnad, Sidersky's dates being 56 years high­er). The relation between the Kassite dynasty and ule Babylon I dynasty based on Scnnacherib's Bavian inscription was of paramount impol tance to ngnad: This inscription ~tates that there were 418 year­between Sennacherib (689 fall of Babylon) and Tiglath-pileser I /Marduk-niidin-abb~." This 4 I 8 year intcTV<l1 would mean that the first yea r of Mardllk­nadin-abbe was (689 + 4 I 8 ) I I 16 BC. According to

rclier·fragmem hom B)'blo'l. l"min-IAmmu j, nalllt'Ci with Zirnri-Lun in the 1('XI' from Mari. [,hr "'YJl<hronism ~kp('nds on the pO"''''lbl(~ id('ntificatioll of 'alliin Wilh lalllin­Ammu. ~ !)('Iow ,tllcl In. HI.

, On Marduk-II[,dill-aboc ( IO<JD-IOH2 11C) ,,·t· I'NA 2/ 11 (2(X)I) 719.

I. General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 27

the BKL A Mardllk-nadin-abbc ruled 43 years, and the Kassite dynasty, which came to an end at the begin­ning of his rcign, was 576 years long: thus the Kassite dynasty began 1735 Be. According to the Chors. KL this nllmbcr should be reduced by six years to 1729 BC. The year 1729 then would coincide WiUl the raid on Babylon by CandaS, the first Kassite king (see above sub Sidersky and Thureau-Dangin).

Neugebauer (1941) acquainted with Smith's and Albright's revised chronology, proposed 19~Hi~)0 for the Babylon I dynasty. According to the AKL, SamSi­Adad I was to be dated about 1820±40. Based on the Ugatit material and val;ous assumptions about the \T data, I lammu-liipi"s accession-date could be 1856, 1848, 1797 or 1763 with perhaps a few more dates in between. However, Neugebauer had serious doubts about the value of astronomical data, particularly the Venus data for Mesopotamian absolute chronology.

[n the 1940s the publication of the Chors. KL resulted in the Le.'" The tablet with the Chon,. KL had been unearthed during the 1932-1933 archaeo­logical season, but another copy of the AKL found in ASsur had been publi hed in 1927 by NASSOL'HI (ule Nass. KL). At the time of Pallis' oven;ew, the on ly information known about the Chors. KL was in POESEL'S 1942 and 1943 articles, where he had pub­lished its content \vith his comments and conclusions. His paper was later supplemented by WEID"ER (1941-1944) 363-365, who published a u-an cription of the reverse based on a photogt-aph taken from ''The Sphere" (7 April 1934)." Since the Chot . KL was still unpublished, Pall is refl-aincd from comment­ing on the parts of the arguments which seemed dubi­ous. PoebcJ set the accession date of Samsi-Adad 1 in 1726 + x. In order to determine the number x, which corresponds to the number of regnal years of ASsur­rabi I and ASsur-nadin-abbc I, both scholars resorted to the Assyrian chronological traditions of Salmaneser I, Tukulti-Ninurta I and Esarhaddon, namel), the Assyri­an Distanzangaben. Weidner suggested 1729-1697 for the datc of Sam'i-Adad, whereas Poebcl reduced x to 0, with the result 1726/ 25-1694/ 93.

Poebel 's results prompted Albright to revise his chronology lor a third time in 1942. However, where­as Poe bel had considered "x" to be 0 years, Albright used 22 ),ears and thus da ted all preced ing kings 22

'H Fut ('xample Pocbe!, Comt~liWi, ,mel Albright. r.."1 Wdd llC'r rOl\lmentcd on A:s'\yrian chronoioK) from 19 17

ollwal'd'l, proposing at lirSI \t'ry high claws. Lttcr he Ewort'd lilt' Le. Wddner took the Chorlio. KL at face \allle , ,lIlel I'ejt.'ctt'd lhe VT a:l, chronologic"lIy useful.

years earlier than Poebel (i.e. Samsi-Adad I 1748 BC) . Since, according to the AKL Samsi-Adad I had reigned for 33 years and according to the Mari texts had been still alive during Hammu-rapi"s I Oth year, the date of the first year of Hammu-rapi' would havc to be lowered from Albright'S (and Smith's) 1940 guess. In order to achieve lower dates for the \'T data, he lessened each of Fotheringham's five alternative solutions by 275 years (or 64 years after Smith's most recent date). Albright placed Hammu-rapi' between 1728-1686 (LC) and the Babylon I dynasty from 1830 to 1530 without explicitly stating that his dates relied mainly on the Chors. KL.

Cornelius also belonged to the group of scholars now fa\'Oring the Le. Independently, and without the Mari material and the AKL data, in 1942 Cornelius proposed exacuy the same date for the Babylon 1 d),nasty and Hamll1u-rapi' as AlbrighL He based his conclusions on the Berossus tradition supplemented by the Assp;an Distanzangaben and Ungnad's 1940 calculations of the VT data.

In the period from 194+-1948 scholars like B6hl, van der Meer and Schubert proposed other chrono­logical figures for Hamll1u-rapi' basing uleir argu­ments on the Chors. KL and the e,;dence from Mari (specifically, the synchronisms connected w;th tlle conquest of Mari and ~l1chronism between Hammu­rapi' and Sanlsi-Adad I) all arriving at the ULC ,,;Ul slight ,-ariations" (SEE PALLIS (1956),474 for details): Hamll1u-riipi'was dated to 1701-1659 or 170-1-1662.

It was mosuy archaeologists who favored mith's chronology ( ee PALUS (1956),475 for bibliography). The chronologies of Ungnad and Albright - Cornelius have also been ,,;dely accepted. Albright' supporters mainlv relied on the Chors. KL. idersky's results (HC) were ~ccepted by few only" Thureau-Dallgin (1942) and Goetze (19-18) and (1951 ), who were also inclined to follow Smith's ynchronizatioll of the Kassite dynasty \\;th the Babylon I dynasty. Pallis did not accept the arguments by Thureau-Dangin and Goetze for idersky's H (for detail see pp. 476-479) and concluded that only two chronologies remained in Ule running: Albright'S LC and Ulat of Smith' MC based 011 archaeological mate';,,1. He accepted an accession­date of Samsi-Adad 1 in 1726 (+ x) or 1729 BC, and dates for I [amlllu-rJpi' of eiuler 1792-1750 (Smi th ) or

'6 Bohl, for in!ltance. excluded the .lSllonomical ct.ua from hi ...

analp",is.

28 \te,(lJX)l~\lni.\Il ChronoloK\ (')1 the..> ~lld \hllt."llrliulll B{,

li2&-16l'6 (ALBRJ(;HT - COR.'ITlt' [1942]). ROIlTo' (Cill I 1 [19iO] chapter 6) finally opted for the ~1C. mainl\" due to the Distanzangabe of Tiglath-pileser 1. He rejected the HC due to 14C data from :\ippur, the generation counl> of Hittite mlel"'. the Di·t;mzanga­ben. and the lC because of the 5i6 ,em. credited to the K.-.ssite dmas" b\ the BKI. A

GoeLZe sharpl\" criticized the reliance placed on the Chors. KI. (SEE PUlIS, p. 4i ). He did not reckon the figures given as historical U"uth. but onlY a;, the historiography of late .-\SS\Tians. Howe\"er, he did accept Smith's "nchronization of the Kassite dynasty \\ith that of Babylon I (compare \\ith Thureau-Dan­gin abo\·e). In 1951 he made a further effort to solve the ~lesopotamian chronology problem b\ means of Hittite chronology. He rejected the Albright - Cor­nelius and 86hl- hubert chronologies (lC l'lC), prefering Siders\"\' or mith·s (HC ~IC). :\ine Hit­tite kings or ""\'en generations were knmm to have reigned between ~lurSili I (fall of Bab, lon, either in 1650 [Sidersk,] or 1595 [Smith -l'ngnad] ) and Sup­piluliuma's predecessors (1450, i.e. the time when the Hittites regained power), for which GoeLZe allowed 200 \'ears. (Pallis briefl~ discussed the ques­tion of generation length, pointing out that little is knm\l1 about the reign lengths of the<-e kings.) Goet­ze finalh' settled on iders\"''''s chronology (HC), rejecting the others as "barelY' po ible".

On pp. 4 1-482 of his stud, P.u..u-, discusses the weU known I..AXOSBERLFR paper ~ A5s}Tische Kiinigsliste und 'Dunkles Zeitalr.er", published in 1954. He rejects Landsbergers ultra-high dates CHammu-riipi"s first vear in 1900) due to Egyptian chronology as well as the archaeological remains from l'gant and A1alah. He did, however. acknowledge the \"alidil\' of some ~f Landsberger' thoughts on the impossibilit) of arri\"­ing at an incomestable Hammu-rapi chronOlogy. Landsberger used a thorough I) interdisciplinary

., Se.e W""'LR'U" (2f)OO) 67-69 (wnchron i,ing the Eg>l'tian ~hddJe Kingdom .... 11h the l~in-Lana period and the Se('ond Intermediate Period .... ilh the Old Bab}lonian Period) . On ~e et-Tod treru.ure and its possible Cappaoocian ~al with ll\ chronological implicauon\ see WARRlRJO\ (2(X)I) 289 and (2004) 58~89 .... fn. 47.

SIt For a shon reas~''i~mcnt \ee ZH8 (2001) A2-H4.

: For a criticaJ \;ew on :\agel,\ approach St."'e Zf .. .R (200 J ) 9;)-J 00, ~h~, la~er two proJXN:~ 'ilightlv lowered dat('"\ for Jiammu­r pi • 1/30-1688 and 1/24-1782, ignoring tilt" d\tronomiral data (\T) .

6, Cnfortunatch hj~ lIabiJiutlionsschrih on M('\opmamian chronolog}' w~ never pubJi\hed, 1 wou ld like to thank A ~huster.8r'dndi~ for making Rollig's stud} e)f lh(:' ilhlitme< library of \1ull'ilC.'r d\-ailabl(, to mt',

approach. di,n",ing" h.' rian chrol1 01o/-.'' using ' "ari-0'" "nchronisms (including the ,eals from Platano; and t'l-Tod'"). generation lengths, ilnd inrluding the natural sciences. such as 14C-dating (he applied the Libb\ dates for the l r 1Il rulers Su-5il1 and Ibbi-5in, which are obsolete rodal). ~10,t important, as the title of his paper indkatt'<l, was the bridging of the Dark Age witll tile help of the lhen known generations. '" He rejected the AKL in o rder to fit his dates inlO a longer chronolog-irah without citing .. ,act numbers. After Landsberger. "agel and more recentll EOER (200:1) and (200~) ha\<' propo;ed yen high chronologie. (Hamlllu-rapi' dated to Hl62-1820 or even 1930-1 Ri Be.. l ' HC1_,) thtLS necessitating a leI"\" long Dark Age of ca. 160-230 \·ears. (For PALl IS' con­elll ions and a comment on his 0\\11 studies wiLh a time-table based on the \IC 'ee pp. 482-484.)

ext to the :'IC. th .. lC has the mO,l adherents -as was pointed out b\ ROUI(; (1965) 14 (referring to

general ·tudie b, \Ioongat. Schmiikel, \"On Soden. Schmidtke and \-an der Meer")." Riillig was the lasl scholar to attempt a detailed studl on Mesopotamian chronology on the basis of the textual eY"idence (AKL. BKL. fl, Distanzangaben. VT) and the syn­chronisms between varioliS i\:ear Ea,lern rulers and Egyptian pharaohs of the 13th_ 18d ! Dnlasties."' He concluded tI,at the lC was the most 'Iikely option de pite the fact that the Dark Ages (the periods after lIme-Dagan I and aftcr the fal l ofBHbdon) cannot be full) explained (p. 388). At the same tim e he point­ed out thal the le. which is mainly based on the V1' data." causes difficulties for yd mi ll ennium chronol­ogv and its link to 2nd millennium chronology. In his study. which has remained u npublished. he demon­strated that the Old Babylonian sealing; found in Platanos and et-Tod arc chronologically 'he less due to the COntexl in wh ich Ihey were found . Ro ll ig fur­ther pointed out that refinements of Analolian'"

Nt The period bet\\(>('11 PlII1I1-A,;ur III ,mel \..':;\u r-bcJ-ni \du. bctw(:'(>n Buma-l3lllia\ I and K.,d .. l':;lllan-Enli ll and between Mur,ili I and Tuclb'llia II .

I' In fll: I of ('haptt'r \, 11 h(' .,trt· ...... t'd l lw rt' liahility of 111(' a~lr()" '~omlcal data f<)I c'hronoloKic:a l purpo\{'\ ,Iud did 1101 (011-

\Ic!('r them as a "1' . I " '" . ) l<t 0 1/JI'{UUllitlP (11(11(1(11'11'. a [(' 1111 u\cd ~ h~:\H C'''~''ltR, in: Till iU \I-I),,\(,I\ (l'd.) (HEll) 13.

~CH(' for 111\lal1n:: A'IOllt (I9X9). IlH K\I\' (~()OO) 19-32; 13KHI (1999) 410-41 I (1I\<:Iul re\lt'W'\ by \,,\ 111\ 1I0rl, 1I10r57l20()O) (iH-li-1!i .I/tel K"".,. [~I)I)OI 5- 1 ~)' '" MAR­.''''' ~1?9:l). 218-2·j(j; I'KIl (20()2) X7- I07. K" ".f: ( 1992). ,d. (1.!~9) .lH8-390; MOR'. tI,h"''''1'11111 ' IG (I ()XH) 55:\-577; () 1"11' ( 19H7); S II' ", R. O I.A 9f; (I ')!)~I) 42:>-'1 I I; Willi" " - II"", (19R7) 74- 11 7; Willi"" (11)91) 17(~ 176.

I. General Remarks on \1esopotamian Chronology 29

Author(s)

Nagel (Ul IG,)

Eder (UIG\)

Land,berger (UIIC,)

Thureau-Dangin, Siderskj. CoelLe. Huber (HC)

Smilh. Lngnad (MC)

Albright, Corncliu\. Weidner (LC)

Bohl

Gasche et af. (NC)

1930-1887

1862-1820

ca. 1900-1850

1848-1806

1792- 1750

1728-1686

1704-1662

1696-1654

Babylon I dynasty

2032-1733

191H-1665

ca. 2000-1700

1950-1651

1894-1595

1830-1531

J800-1507

1798-1499

Table 2 Summa,,· of dales for Hammu·rapi' since 1940

and Syrian"; chronologies could be expected. More­over, further e\'idence from various sources can be expected that will give greater insight in to the ELs and date-lists. New material has been added from astrochronology (solar and lunar eclipses); and some of tile new archaeological material aims at a lower chronology. Thus the time is ripe for a new and updaled general stud} on the chronologv' of 2nd mil­lennium Mesopotamia ( below sub 1.4.3.).

1.4.3. Recent Developments and Preview

A recent summary of chronological sllldie and their main results was published by ZEEB (2001 ) 75-87. Zeeb discussed GASCHE e/ at.'s ":>lew Chronology'", which had been published in 199 and reil1\'igorated chronological debates. The impellLS for C-\sCHE el aL' revised chronology came from archaeology: a S) tetll­atic study of the pouel . from the 2nd millennium BC of Babylonia and adjacent regions indicated that a drastic reduction of dates by a centulJ was nece ary. Combined with a new studl of textual evidence \\;th special emphasis on the Assyrian chronology., the astronomical data of the \"1" and lunar eclipse, this led to the NC. Accordingl)' the fall of Babylon was dated to 1499, Ham111u-riipi"s reign 1696-1654 and Samsi-Adad I's 1719-1688 Be. The "lunar reduc­tion"'" had already been employed in Dating .... but in Akkllliira 108 (1998) I-I they further reduced the dates of - amsi-Adad 1 to 1710- 1679 because of the

t,~ 1 it'll' litt' main foeti') ha~ bt.·('u 011 AJaI.~b. Ebb, ~lari. l"t·rqil. Q.I\llil, TUllul ,md Ugari t.

til. I.t', lht, prt'mi~e that Lht' lunar calendar \\it:. u"cd until

" rigl,\lh-pik'c..-'r I ( Calendar). C\. ... UII (~OO~~) ~()[)-~~W H'Pt'.H(·d tltt' re,ulb of (:.\~( IU " (II., /)fltiI1K' " lIIi1itHaining tht' NC withollt .ldding fwtllt'r ('\'ickllll' and I dll,ill~ (0 .. ce('p' tht, crilicisnls :-.ince 199B. I l tM('\t'., h{.' ,Igreed with .! O,\J\\:FS (cd,), /);rI101l1wiw .... l~R Ih .tl til t' NC did I1Ul rl''iolvt, tlit' problelll'i of tht· J.\;\!)sitt, (hn'I")" Kevil'w" of G\S( III rl (Ii., Ott/iug ... were publi.,ht'd hI A\l1I1, R I 92 (IH9H) 1I\~1-173. 1I11". (J99!l-2000)

corrected s~"chronism between ti,e Assyrian ruler and Hammu-rapi ' (4 below sub 1.5.1). A reply was published shortly afterwards in Akkadica 119-120 in 2000 (proceedings of a follow-up colloquium orga­nized by GASCHE e/ all. which basically did not con­tradict their results (except for Becknlan on Hittite chronology' and Hunger on the historicil} of the lunar eclipses in EAE)6'

It is important to account for ti,e peliod that is pood) documenled and has therefore been labeled as the Dark Age.'" This period covers ti,e interval between the end of the Babylon I dynasty and tl1e beginning of the Middle Ass~Tian period (the ~1iddle AS\Tian EL starts with ASsur-niriiri II) when textual e\~dence increases again.6'l Few documents are known for the beginning of the Kassite period; only with Kam-inda'. the 15'h king of this d)l1asl}' dated to the late 15th cent. BC. does our knowledge of hi tori­cal e\'ents improve.'" ~Ian)" scholars have attempted to chronologically link tl1e end of the Babylon I dynasty ,,;th the early Kassi te and Sealand I dynasties, most often Witll the help of the correlation of archae­ological finds. Basically. we need to date the Babylon I dl"asty to establish some fixed points of chronolog­ical reference for tile first half of the 2nd millennium Be. In the past tile approach of this problem was through computations based on astronomical texts (lhe \'T", omens, etc.) Those computations resulted in the I IC. ~IC, and Le. The HC is fa\"Ored b, the

287-290. '.\1 (2001) I ti3-173 and Lt\lI.,,, , (2005)

214-215. t'S See III ,mR _ PRl'"bI\':V..!\" (e(k). ~(DAR. Thb Dark Age

li\~tt:'d according to lite :\C 0 'e~u~. lhe LC ca. 20 ,e~lI . the ~IC ca. 85 ,ears i.Uld thf" He ~l, 110 \eal'., According 10 the l ' }-IC lht' D.tfl.. Age ma\ I\(\H~ la:ttl'd ca. 2()(}-230 ,C:.' .. l!'..

\\11ether or nmlhe terlll ~Oark Age" is appropriate will not be dbcu~s('d hl're.

tN An importalH stud, on lhe chrono\ob" oflhe Middle N;."'H· i,tf\ pel iod hil~ been pre:telllcd b\" FIU')1H:-.. .... (1991).

7t1 BRI"'\.\t \..' , ~ISKH 35.

30

,mronomer/ statistician Huber. who has prmided us with the most recent computation. In 199, Gurzadpn in G,\SCHE fl aL. Daling ... offered another set of calculations favoring the c-:e, which has been \\idel~ ignored due to errors in data proce"ing:' He dismi ed the 56 64-~ear YentlS cYcle linked to the lunar calendar and based hi' calculation on the year Yenus cycle of the \ T. ~1ICHEL (2002) took a similar approach and subsequenth opled for a slight reduction of the ~!C due to the astronomical. He and dendrochronological e,idence.'"

The solution to the problem of ~!esopolamian absolute chronolog) during the 2nd millennium Be hinge on the length of the Dark Age which is con­,entionalh set in the 16th cenl BC. :\e\\ e,idence from Terqa ma\ help.~ Also useful ma, be the texts from Tell ~luI)ammad (ancient DinikLU), which date to the time immediateh follO\,ing the full of Bab,lon (--+ Astronomical Data and Year). Future excavation at ligarit rna, unCO"er more texts belonging to the ~IBA relating to kings mentioned in the so<alled egarit King Lisl" Infonnation drawn from these texL, may help to soh'e ome of the questions related to the earlier period of egari!, which chronologicall" corre­lates "ith the ~Iesopotamian Dark Age and the period preceding it.' Cnfortunateh', numerous historical as well as archaeological tudies on the Alalab material have not )ielded any definite dates." Hopefull~ on­going digs. such as the one at Kinet-Hoviik conducted by Gates,-; "ill provide more ceramic material to be correlated \\ith that from AIaIab and Anatolia to achieve more precise dating and pro,ide more e,i­dence for (or against) the shortened ch ronologv pro­posed bv Gasche el aL on the basis of archaeological layers. which. according to them, conforms to the tex­tual e-idence from Tell Mu~ammad, in the AKL, and "ith the eclipses mentioned in the omen tableLs.

As \'a l ~able as data from dendrochro nological or astronomIcal research may be, its direct con nection "ith speCific historical e\'ents is not easy to establish. For the time being, we are still missing this crucial con-

" See He '(". (2002) I il-176 on the historical ,a1ue of the lunar eclj~ mentioned in EA.E.

1't For a critical and ino;ightful fe\iev.: nOle W.-\RBLRTO\: (2002) IO~114.

Ronlll. \!DAR 51-59.

" See YOl','" in: W.\\'. H w.o (ed.), 'flU' (;l)nl'>l oj\m/lIU" I, l..elden - ".,. York - /('-'In (I997) 356-357 and A.'ALII ( 1998) 153-173. A~ of nov. no archir.ecturaJ remain$ (tf('

kno"'n from the fir\l phase of the MBA \t'UlcmclIl , which r?ughly corresponch to the Amorill' period of the UKI.. ~ ~f{)~LUna LcJy there are few independent ~)u rC(''i for Uga­flt \ hl'lwry of the firou haJf of lhe 2nd mill('nnium, sinn' lh('

neClion between thl' ,cit'nces and archaeolOgical-his­torical studies . . \n e"ct'plion mOl, lx' at cem-Hoyiik ( Dendrochronology). Dalil obt..lined from the nat­ural sciences ,hould be included with some resena­tion to the hronological discussion. We must be Opcn to all possibilities in 0111 qut'st for an absolule chronol­oID of 2nd millennium Be Mesopotamia and bear in mind I1,e \\"rning of L\.'OSB'RUR (195,1) 120: ..... Wir er"hiren UIlS amser'tande eine 'Chronologie' zu bieten. Und wer "ermasse sich hellle mit gutem Gewis­sen, dies tun ill Konnen? .. ."

1.5. Basic Synchronisms

Since the exact dates for the 2nd and yd millennium BC ~lesopot..1mia are 'till conjectural , we largely depend on king lists and chronicles as well local chronographers. Especiallv helpful to establish syn­chroni ms between ~Iesopotamia and peripheral region. as well as Egvpt are sYnchronistic accounts (the Svnchronistic History. mchronistic KL, Chron­icle P, etc.), diplomatic correspondences and other documents. Relati,'e and absolute chronology may be established b} interlocking synchronisms (called the "comparative chronology" by Rm'Tol'l in his 1959 and 1966 articles), which aims to collect all known SYl1chronisms in order to p rovide an understanding of studies that ha\'e applied this me thod to gain absolute dates. Babylo nian chronology of the second half of the 2nd millenni um Be is basically tied to Ass)'lian chronology, wh ich in turn is based primarily on the AKL, the eponym list and ecli pse dates fo r the I l millennium Be. Egyptian ch ronology is tied to

Mesopotamian chronology, on both of which a re Hi l­tite and Elamite chronology dependent."

As early as 1957 G<)'TLf . com plained that many schol­ars dealing ',ith Mesopotamian chronology u'eated chronology solely on the basis of the king lists and astrcr nom ical date;, neglecting the full historical an cl archae­ological evidence.'" GA,>(,lIf ,I aL, /)(lling ... igno red information from peripheral areas (specifically Anatolia and the Le'ant) in their r('cent study. But il is danger-

documenlb of the "Amori Lt' Ag('" (tilt' terminology u\cd by 7 .. S"c... .. R [199<J] 61C,-(19) (Ln' \ Lill mi\sing.

Al<~Al'I) (1998) 1 5~173.

-, See ZIfB (2001), EIlI . (2003) and /l'.'.Ofll-' (2003) and (2005).

: See a prelimi nary "'pon by CAlI' (2000) 77- 10 1. BOt l)1- - Wnwl \1 ( J ~J79) 31l-!~7; ror a "l1 nllll ilry on !fiLLite chronology 'tee In M AR'II I\O ( 1993) 2 18-240. For Elalll itc

" chronology "'r VAI IAI (2000) 7- 17. T he archaeological cvi{lc.'nf(' (il/1110l h(' ind uded in lhe prt'­~Ill lj ll ~ dy but will bl' covt.' f('(1 ill O il(.' of lIw n)lllp'.IIl ion pro­Jcr(S of the \pt d al rcc,,(:alch proglam SCIEM 2000.

1. General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 31

ous to neglect any relevant infonnation. As Kul'lGER (1995) 236 stated: " .. . EnLsprechend groB ist die Bedeu­tung von Synchronismen zwischen den hethitischen KiJnigen und denen der benachbarten Staaten, da dies im Moment noch die verliill lichste Methode darstell!, um 1lI einem relativ gesicherten Bild der Ereignisab­folge und damit vie lleicht auch zu den nOLWendigen Angelpunkten fllr eine absolute Chronologie zu kom­men." This plead is still relevant, given that the discus­sions in response to Gasche el aL state that synchronisms with the Western neighbors of Mesopotamia have been simply neglected.1<O However, major improvements have recently been made in the chronology of peripheral areas, and the study of Mesopotamian chronology can benefit from this, especially with respect to the synchro­nisms. }l1chronisms constirute the most secure textual evidence for the dating of most mlers of minor dynas­ties. E,'en indirect synchronisms, when handled with care, have value for absolute ch ronology. In 1976 BRll'I"-'Ifu", MSKH showed uncertainties for seY'erai indi­rect Egypto-Babylonian synchronisms in the Kassite peliod (see p. 7 conceming the often used text KBo I,

10), but it must be kept in mind that in most cases we are dealing with synchronisms that co\'er time spans and are not tied to specific dates (--+ sub 1.2.) .

As ZEES (2001) pointed Ollt, studies in Mesopotami­an and Egyptian chronology have followed different ways and mean . Some scholars ha\'e tried to show vari­ous connections between ch ronological s} terns in Mesopotamia and Egypt. OIl,ers have first focused on the chronologies of peripheral areas, such as 'lia and Anatolia, before auempting to link the two major cul­tures' chronologies. ZEEB stressed (p. 70) "Es darf zu

keinem Zeitpunkt auBer acht gelassen werden, daB die Kul turen in enger Verbindung IlIcinander standen und keine von ihnen abgescho tle t von den ande ren eXlstlerte . Vie lmehr hat del' enge kulture lle, wirtschaftliche unci politische ust..1usch l\\"r S)11chro­nismen LU r Folge, die unsere Arbeit erleichtern und llberhaupt e rst e rmoglichen , andererseits ist zu beclenken, daB j ede Anden mg der Chronologie an cineI' Stelle zwangsliiufig - nderungen an anderen

/III Sel' Iht, !.tl est comme n t b, Ktll'~ ( 1999) ~031. In h i'\ 1982 art icle on po litical relatiol11t in the middlt, of the 2nd mil­lenn ium Be Ki'lhnc opted for tht, l.C; but latcr, in 1999 he c1(·cicl t.'d I ~lr i\ chronology bctwt'cn th t· Me and LC.

1'1 Set' fm il1 r,t al1ce Ro t u(; ( 1965) 267-270 Oil the "')11Chronism bt.' twt't·n 1"l1 ti n~' mmu. rult' l of B)blo ... • Iltl·~ ted in th t' Man archi\,{'" and Nt'ferhotep I. Itt- poinlt' I out th .tt this S)I\­

chroni 'i lll ha'\ bcen often ll"{'cI 10 ' tlpport tlt t" LC: but apart from the dOllbtful i<.lc lllilicalioll of lht' nllt'r lalllill -'AIIlI11U with Ih{' nalHe in lhe inscriplioll .Ilt{":iled on Ihe thl'ct: 'i(,; \ l'~\h, pliblisill'd by Nt\\,IU· ItR\ . J/~\ II ( 19~H) 109 <l lld ~"OR-

Orten lur Folge hat .... Man darf nicht eine \,ider­spmchsfreie Chronologie cines Ortes erheben, ohne die Auswirkungen fi'tr (las gesamtchronologischc Svs­tem zu bedenken."

G ,\TES, High ... 2, 60-61, who dealt "ith the 2nd mil­lennium pottery from A1alab, stated that the chronolo­gies from peripheral areas with fIXed points of intersec­tion with other cultural lones are to be preferred "whenever they appear to conflict with the absolute chronologies recollslmcted from the 'heartland' cul­tures". She therefore belie-'ed that the A1a1ab material must suggest a correct chronology, rather than the inter­nally consistent Mesopotamian one, and consequenIl, chose to work Ollt the details of A1a1ab chronologv firsL

By establishing the absolute chronological dates for Hammu-rapi> of the Babylon r Dyl1asty, one can in tum establish the approximate regnal dates of the contem­porary kings NeferhOlep I of the 13th D)l1asl)' of Egypt, lantin-'Ammll of Byblos" and Zimri-Lim of ~1ari, thus connecting Egypt, the Levant and Syria with Mesopotanlia. The important s)11chronism between Hanunu-rapi> and Samsi-Adad I of ASSur giyen b) VAB 5,284, I I f.,'" which dates Samsi-Adad r to the l Oth year of Hammu-r:ipi', and I1,e Mari correspondence" con-e­lates Babylonian chronologv "ith Assyrian chronologv based 011 the AKL. Since the Hittite ruler ~rurlili I is understood to ha\'e been responsible for Ille fall of Babylon, he must be a contemporary of the last mler of the Bab) Ion 1 O)l1asl)', Samsuditana. '" The preceding ruler Antrni.,.duqa is knmm to have m led at Ille ",me time as Kuk-NaSur II of the Elamite Sukkaimab dmast),. For a later peliod we po another S)l1cilronism between Babylonia and Elam: the Kassite KadaSman­l:Iarbe r and Tepti-ahar of I1,e Kidinuids. From about 1450 BC on""rds the chronolog)' of I1,e Near East is based on inte rlocking infomlation from KLs and syn­chronisms thm pre,'ent the possibi li ty of gross errors.

1.5.1. Comments on absolute dates cited in various modern tables

Various absolu te dates can be fo und in chronological tables. Basicall), the t\ssITian dates rely on the anal\'-

R£R - EIIRLlell. Earl,l I'ollm ojtJlI' }-I>mh &g.on. PhilJddphi.l ( 1939) 120-12 1, little is lnO\\11 aboullhe chronolog) oCthe Syblos rulel .... Ihat could !len;e as a marker for .. bsolmc chronology. According to ,\ Ibligh l and Ilelck (bolh LC). Neferholep I reignt"d from I l IO..'. S-1729, 1727. ( fn.5 1)

" Tm R>Yl·-D. M'''. RA 3~ ( 1937) 13;;" 139, ~" ARM 1. 93: DCR.\ ,n (1997) 50 1. ~ote the S'tllChroni .. m

octwet.' 11 "Ill~i-,\dad\ (it-ath and \('ilf 18 of Il anmltHtipi) (see below sub l.7. 1. and Eponyms).

M For po$..'i ibk addition,ll n',bons -)0 Babylon 1 'iub 5.

32 \ieM)JXltamian ('hront,)lo~" of lhl' 2nd ~lilIl'lHlitlll1 Be

sis of the . .\KL (,\;lh "Illinor" \'arianb: uncertainties due to the difference, in interpretation of the expression DlJB-pi-_Sll, variants in the lllanl1~cripts of the AKL. the ,urnI'd length of fi t -\;; n;an D,lrk Age. etc.) plus the a:,sumption on whether the -\;;S\I'­

ians used the lunar or the 'olar calendar before Tiglath-pile er I. Casche tl al. assumed that a lunar calendar wa in use before Tiglath-pileser l. which re ulted in the ubtraction of one 'ear per 33 'eal" for the preceding period. This means that the absolute dates for Samsi-Adad, who according to their earlier. solar-calendar-based, chronolog) dated to 1737-1705, had to be lowered b, I '-al to 1719-1688 BC. Onh' a hon time later in Akkadica 10 (199 ) 1-4 the, had to further correct this date due to a corrected S\l1chroni m between the 'ear of death ofSamsi-Adad I and 'ear 17 (instead of , ear ,) of Hammu-rlipi' b, lowering the e dale b, anolher nine years 10 1710-1679: The mOSl commonh used charts based on the ~lC and the solar calendar -clas­sically- dale the 391h Assyrian king to I 13-17 I BC (BRl);K.'I\C [1977]. W.-\LK£R [199:W). Depending primarih on the assumed length of the Assn;an Dark Age .succeeding the reign of Hille-Dagan, the dates for Sam5j-Adad 1 are given as 1 07- 1775 in the Dir­litmnairt ... and 1748-1716 BCb) L-\RM (2002) 311. Accordingl\' the regnal rears for the rulers of the Babylon I dmasty are fil into this .cheme depending on the \T (Fall of Bab,lon according 10 the lJHC = ca. 1700 BC, HC = 1651 BC, \1C = 1595 or 1587 Be LC = 1539 or 1531 BC,:-\C = 1499 BC and lJLC 1467 BC). This means that Sam uditana is either -classi­cally- dated 162:;" I 595 (\IC: BRL"-'IA.' [1977]), or 1562- 1531 (LC: ST'll.li [2002)"'), or 152:;"1499 (!'\C: G ... SCH£ PI aL, Daling ... ).

Different versions of the AKL gi,e different lengths of reign for the kings Msur-<ian I and :-\inur­ta-api l-Ekur at the beginning of the 121h cent. Be. Depending on which version is accepted, a ,-ariation of 10 rears in the dating of the \liddle As,yrian kings IS pOSSIble. The lowering of Middle Assyrian chronol­ogy by 10 years by beginning Enlil-na~ir\ reign in 1,420 mSlead of 1430 BC results in an overlap of the Kasslle and Ism II d)l1asties (BRI'K.\L\.', \ 1SKlf 32'9 and BOESE - WILHfI" [1979) 35). BRI,\K\IA,\ (1970) and WALKER (1995) used lhe coMemional "higher"

Since th(.~- depend on the astronomical data of the \'T, elC,

u~n ",h lch the MU~~ of CaM::hc ~t fiL strongly reJies. ttw ,. datt'\ of tI.lt Bai»-'Iolllan king\ 31( .. ' in\-",riam.

Here. an Incorrect 't~nchronism dating Lhe d('~lh of Sam\j. Adad J W }eaf 12 of Ihlmmu.rapi' is lI~d {on Ihis 'iynduo-

datt" (i.e. 1.j:~O BG for the start of Enlil-na~ir II). G ~s( m rI nl. e"pl,litll'd in DalinK '" 62-63 and rlkknd. icn 108 (1998) 1-4 that the, a\Theel <It their dales for the :\Iiddlc .\."\I"ian king, b, the beginning \\;th the I l3O-dall' and sublmrllllg eight sears because of their '-'L\!'tumption lhallht' lunar calendar was in use in .-\.."Hia during that time (i.e. I 122 Be for the begin­ning of Enlil-na,ir', reign). The, rtjected the other­wise w;deh .Kcepted ,iew, of Boese and Wilhelm Oil

the AhL and ,\ss,rian Distal17angaben. BR""-'l''\, \1 ' 1\..11 :-12' pointed out that the dates

for Kassite rulers can be lowered by five years depending on\ss, rian ehronolog\', the length of reign, igned to K.ldaSman-Enlil II, the sequence of rulers aflel K.lstiliaSu I\", etc. This lowering has been done by Bmsf (1982) 1!>-26 ,Ind Gasehe tl aL, Dating

.... The lowering of one year with a margin of ±6 years depend' on how ma", ,ears are calculated for ASSur­nadin-apli (three rather than four). A lowering of len ,ears, ,sith an uncertainty of +5 / -6 years, results if one allow three ralher than 13 years for the reign of :-\inuna-apil-Ekur. If the alternati,e figures for both kings are accepted (four and three years respectively) all dale can be lowered b, ele,en rears (with the same uncertainty). Of course the assumption of a lunar calendar in Assvria lowers all Kassite dales by five years as well: see for instance the lable by BECK­'t'" (2000) 2 apud Kadasman-Turgtt: 1281-1264 Be (Brinkman) or 127&-1259 BC (lowered Brinkman­dates cited by G\SOH ,I aL, Dall11g ... ).

Differences of up to 20 veal's can be found in tables dealing "ith I liltite ruler; of the second half of the 2nd millenn ium Be. The proposal of only 20 years reign for "'uppiluliuma I bv WII IIELM - BmsF (1987) 7-1-1 17 "-as adopted by such scholars as D~ Ma.Rn,o (1993) 233 and BRH.1 (1999), whereas A~TOlR (1989), FREt ( 1997) 0 ' S r \RKF (2002) 314 op ted for a longer reign of up to 40 years. Like Babylonian chronolOg), Il itlile chronology is dependent on Assyrian chronology. Therefore, a variety of absolute date, dependi ng on whic h M sopOlamian chro nolo­g) is adopted can ~ observed in the literature. Because the dates of the 2,,,1 mill ennium rulers of Syria and Elam ul tima le l) depend 0 11 the Assyrian and Babylonian chronolol,'Y, they ("an be oll ly approx­Imate.

ni~m ";c(> WIlII I 'C , 1 1 0~I()J jfi7-2 I H. _-) Calendar alld Eponyms.)

111 But nolC Ih{' in(:orr('u ,yn{ il roni'l l11 ht.'lw('cn Si.tlll ~ I~Adad I .:tlld lIam ll llHfipi' ill lh i" l4lhll' (LC).

I. General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 33

1.5,2. Specific studies and comments on chronology

SflNlrd otrkr /",MUlllion>: EIIRUGII (ed.) (1992, based on older lable'); L'~I)SI\f KCER (19:;4); PAll." (1956) ; POLS" (1912-1943); ROl.lIG (1965); Rowro~ (1970); &.fI>1I0TKI (1952); S"rrll (1940); 'A~ IltR MEER (1955)

MIffI' rrr",1 II1LrJlf~: Akkadica 119-120 (2000)' Ii&L 3 (1992); A"IOlR (1989); BmsE - WllHEI.\! (1979); BRN""" (1976); CAJl (1970); CA'lE (1995); COlLO. (2000) 6-9: High 1-3 .. . (1987-1989); 0' MAR1""O (1993) 218-223; EDlR (2004) 227-289; EOfR - Rl!<'''R (2004); FIU:Y1lA~" (1991); Cw",. ,I

al., Daling ... ; HL~GER - PRlZ;'~SZ""Y (eds.), MDAR; MICHEL

(2002) 1i-18: PRL"ZS'''''"' (2006, a-c); AU"",lR"FR (2004); S"',S""'~NSHALSE~ (2006) 157-1 i7; S"'''R (1999) 606-<i08: TAOMOR ( 1970) 63-101; VEWHOF (1981), (2000), (2001) 35-50, (2003) and (2007); W'lHH.\! - BO[.SE (1987); Z":8

(2001) 67-89

Seifcled use/ullabLRs:

a) Ceneral : BRI'''''tA.' (1977) 335-348; EOER - Rl'(.ER (2004); EHRICH (1992); CW.Hl ,I llL, Daling ... and (1998a) 3-1; H,u () - SI\II'SO' (1998); JOA-"-"Es (ed.), Diclitm,wi" ... ; Nlssl­

"N (2003); ROAr (2000); SHRKI. (2002) 310-315; VA., DE

M'EROOP (2003); VEE'Hor (2001) 306-315; WALMR (1995) 230-238

b) First half of the 2nd mille nnium BC: EOER - RJ'(;ER (2004): EO/_'RD (1957), Anhang A: f'R"'-"E, RIME 4 (1990) xxx-xxxi; SIGRlsr - KRo\1I10U: (1986); S'GRlsr (1988) 8 and (1990),

Wmrr.""R ( 1989)

c) Second half of the 2nd millennium BC: BU"'IA!< (2000) 26-28; Bo',' ( 1982) 23, BOESE - WILHEL" (1979) 38: BRI'"'''''' (1976); DE ~l\RT"O, PdP 55 (2000) 102; EOFR -RO"'''R (2004); Fon1).". (1991); KLgGEl (1992) and (1999) 388-393; LI\'ERANI (1990) 302-303; SASS'''''''SH.'L"SE', MDAR 67 and (2006) 177; ' NGER (1999); TunlOR (1970) 9 99: ,.\., SoWT, AOAT 40 (1991) 4-1-45; WILHrL\I (1982) 14O-HI

1.6. Synchronisms (General)

General: see abO\'e sub selected useful tables.

Me opOlamian dynasties:

• Ur III & Isin I & Larsa: CH\RI'IN (2004) 38!>-387; EO/.\.RD (1957); SALl.\BERCER (1999) 11 9-390 and (2004) 37-4 1; SIGRIST ( 1990); Srol (1976); -"C1».\D (1938) 159

• Babylon I Dynasty & Isin I & brsa: Cit \RPt;o.1 (2004) 38!>-387; Clt ARI% - ZlfGIER (2003) 262; EDZARD (1957); FR,WNF, R1~lE 4 (1990) xxx-xxxi; HALIO­IMPSON ( 1998) 9+-95; SIGRlST ( 1988) 8; STOI

( 1976); Will rrAKER ( 1989) 79

• Babylon I Dynasty & Assyria: FR\\ , 'F, RI~I E 4 (1990) xxx-xxxi; C \scm (200:~ ) 2 I &-2 17; HAll.O­

I ~ II'SON ( 1998) 91-95; KUltR J' ( 1995) 9 1; KL'I'PER ( 1985) 11 7-15 1; L\R,E'" (1976); VFF~ 1I0F (1985) 2 16, ( 1998) 42 1- 450 and (2003) 30&-3 15

• Babylon I Dynasty & Seal and dynasty: BR/;o.1"-\1 \~ ( 1976) and ( 1993-1997) &- 10; VEE '1I0F CWO !) 31 I

• Babylon I Dynasty & Kassite dynasty: BRl:\K.'tA,\ (1976) 28-29; EOER (2004) 214-217; C.'SCHE (2003) 21&-217; GASCHE el aL, Daling ... ; PIE, TM (1998); PODA.W (2002) 43-51; RtUl\RDSO:\ (2002); S.\SS­\l.\:\SSHAL;SE:\, \lOAR 61-70; D,_ S\lET (1990) 1-19; \'1\1>0 KOPPE~, MDAR 9-34; VA.~ U~RBER("IiE (1995) 379-393; VEE,\HOF (2001) 311

• Kassites & Isin II Dynasty & Assyria: BoL,E - WIL­IIEUI (1979) 19-38; BRINK-\IAN (1968), (1970) 30:;"307, (1976) and (1983) 67-74; G,"~CIK­

KIR;<:HBAnt (1996) 11-12 and (1999) 210-222; FR£Y­OA.NK (1991) and (2000) 67- 72; C\.tTER (2000) 32; IlARRAK (1987); JAKOB (2003) 9-10 and 6+-65; LEE­\l\.'S (1955) 202-204; S . .\SS\IA.N'SHAl"SEN, \1OAR 67; WAt.K£R (1982) 398-417; \\'IUt£L\I (1994) 549-552

MesapOlamia and Elam, Egypl, Syria and rI nalolia

• Babylonia (Ur III) & Elam (Awan and SimaSki): G.ASCHE tl al., Daling ... ; POTT'S (1999) 122- 125; SIGRIST (1990); STEISliU£R (1988) 197-202; V.\.t­tAT (1996) 312- 315 and (2000) 7-17; '·.\.N DIJf,. (1978) 193 and 198

• Babylonia (Isin 1) & Elam (SimaSki): G.ASCHE el aL, Daling ... ; POTT (1999) 142-1+1; V .... .Ll..AT (1996a) 77-78, (1996) 312-315 and (2000) 7-17; ,\., DIJK (1978) 189-207

• Babylonia (!sin I and Larsa) & Elam (Sukkalmabs): G\SCHE tl aL, Daling ... ; POTT'S (1999) 162; VALLAT (1990) 119-127, (1996) 312-314,md (1997) 102-103

• Babylonia (ESnunna) & Elam (SimaSki): C>&:HE il

aL, DalinK ... ; VALL ... T (1996) 313

• Babylonia (Esnllnna) & Elam (SukkaImabs): CIIARPIN - ZIEGLER (2003) 21 &-230; VAI_LAT (1990) 11 9-127 and 297- 319

• Babylonia (Babylon 1 dynasty) & Elam (SimaSki): HALLO - Sl\l?SO;o.1 (1998) 80-82; POTTS (1999) 146; V\LL.\T (1996) 312-3 15

• Babylonia (Babylon I dynasty) & Elam (Sukkalmabs): DVRA-"D (19 6) 111-1 2 ; GASCHE el al. , Daling ... (lable): VALtAT (1990) 119-127, ( 1996) 30 1 -:~09 and 3 12-315 and (2000) 7-17

• Babylonia (Babylon I dynasty, Kassites) & Sealand dynasty: BRI;O';"-' l ..... N ( 1993- 1997) &-10; Cadd (197 ) 176-227; C \S<'IIE tl 01 .. Dalillg ... : CRA\>O', ABC: I~\\IBERT (1990) 2c: L \.NDSBFRGER (195-1) 68-70; R (lJl .lG ( 1965) 11:;"119

• Babylonia (Kassites) & Elam (Kidinuids): C()U~ - DF ~lmR (199 ) 4+-45; POTrs (1999) lc9 and 192-193

• Babylonia (Kassites) & Elam (lgihaIkids): TEn­V\lt \T (1989) 223-238; V\l l \T (2000) 7-17; ,~,

DU" ( 196) 159-170

34 \lesopOlamian Chronology of the 2nd ~{iIl('nnilllll Be

• Babylonia (Kassiles and Isin il) & E1anl (Sutrukids): C·\,\IERO:-': (1936): POITS (1999) 233 and 242-247; Sn:I-E - V.ill.AT (19 9) 223--23 : "-ill.AT (1996) 228 and (2000) 7-17

• Assyria & E1am (Sukkalrnabs): C-\RTER - TOLPER (1984) 218--221: Clt-\RPl:-- (1999) 121-130; EIDElI­L£SSOE (2001 ) 32-33; L£SSOE, (1965) 189-196; POITS (1999) 166--171; \~·\llAT (1990) 119-127 and (1996) 312-315

• Mesopotamia & Analolia & Egypt: BECKMA .. , (2000) 19-32; BIERBRIER (1975) 109-111; BRI:-.K.Il ... ' (1976); KITCH£., (2000) 39-52: Ku'GER (2006) 304--324; Y. ~1C1.LER (2005) 193--210: \'0:-': BECKERATH (1997) 59-68; WlLHEL\! - BoESE (19 7) 74--117

• Mesopotamia & Anatolia (ijatti) & Syria the Lev­ant & l\fittani: BH:I>-\l ... ' (2000) 22- 2 ; BOESE - \I'll-

HFL\! (1979) 38; BER<';OFFE"I (2003) 395-410 and (2005) 55-73: BRl:--"-\! ... ' ( 1976) 6 1: CHARPIN _ ZIEGU.R (2003): COHDI - WESTBROOK (2000): DE ~IARTl'O (1993): FREl (2003 ) and (2003a) 101-118: GIORGIERI - ~[ORA (2005): HOl!\\,INK TEN C~TE (1996) 40--75; hlllPl:--,Kl (1983) 197-229' 1'.LE:-':GEl. (1992) and (1999) 388-390; KLl NGE~ (1995) 235-248 and (2006) 204--324; KGll'E (1973), (1982) 203-264 and (1999) 203-221' MAL-I..IlU (1998) 4]]-418 and (I 998a) 51-55; ~loRA' (1992); ROLLlG ( 1965) 295IT.; SAMMAN (1997); ['GER (1999); STARKE (2002) 310--315; TlJ)I!OR (1970) 98--99; VEE"Hor (2001) 313; I'ON DASSOW (2008); \\'.-\R.BlRTOl'i (2000) 33--76; W'l' HEL\! (1991) 469-476; WILHELM - BOESE (19B7) 74--117; WILLIAMS (1985) 3-10; ZEEB (2001) 101-103

1.6.1. Synchronisms for the first half of 2nd millennium Be

Mesopotamia: Babylon I dmast\", Isin and Larsa dmasties (dates according to the MC)"

r

SumULJlJum (J891-1881)fl9 Sumulael (1880-1845)

Siibium (1844-1831)

Apil-Sin (1830-1813)

Sin-muballi\ (18 12-1793) Hammu-rapi' (1792-1750) Samsuiluna (1749-1712)

I.Ibi-Erra (2017-1985) SiHlisu (l984-19i5)

Iddin-Dagan (1974-1954) ISme-Dagan (1953-1935) Lipit-lltar (1934-1924)

l:r·~inurta (1923-1896)

Bur-Sin (189:;"1874) Lipi t-Enlil (1873-1869) Irra-irnitti (1868-1861)

Enlil-lxini (1860-1837)

Zambij-d (1836-1834)

her-pila (1833-1831) L'rdukuga (1830- 1828) Sin-magir (1827-1817)

Damiq-ililu (1816-1794)

Lana

:-<apliinul11 (202:>'2005) Emi,um (2004-1977) SaJniurn (1976-1942)

Zab.va (1941- 1933) Cungunllm (1932-1906)

Abisarc (190:;"1 95) Sumuel ( 1894-1866)

Nur-Adad (186:;"1850)

Sin-iddinam ( 1849-1843) Sin-eribam ( 1842-184 1) Sin-iqi!am (1840-1836)

Si lli-Adad (1835) Warad-Sin (1834- 1823)

Rim-Sin I ( 1822- 1763)

Rim-Sin II

Sources: CHARJ>I~ (2004) 385-387 (with a shift of 2 ,ears fo:'a~~~ ~Ii . 2019-1987 for lSbi-Erra); EoZARJ> (1957); FAA"'., RlME 4 (1990 xxx~" of che ISIn I dymL\ty accordilig to Sigri,!', lesul ts: e.g. 26f .. MAT()e" ArOr20 (1952)' SIGRIST (1988) 8' W ) XXXI, IlAlul - SI"""'N (1998) 94-95' KRAt·S le'" • (1949)

II>

, , Iilrr"KER (1989) 79 ..... Year ' . , ,,, .

In the following table no direct synch . . d' " ron l')lns are marked

or Inh lcared. :or dl~ect synchronisnu and their attccotalion'l see l c chart 10 Datmg ....

HI) For evidence lhat S _I . umUtl )um and SliITIUI;-lC l w('re conlcm-

po'"ne., sec ellA"PIS (2004) 80-86.

1. General Remarks on Mesopolamian Chronology

Northern Mesopotamia (dates according to the MC)

B Ion I

SumuJacl

Sfibium

Apil-Sin

Sin-mubalJit

Samsuiluna

E.munna AS.~ur Mari

Ibiil-pi-EI I (?-ca. 1863) Sargon 1(1919-1880)

Ipiq-Adad II (ca. 1862-ca. 1818) Puzur-Msur II (1879-1872)

Nariim-Sin (1871-?) [aggid-Um

Narum-Sin (ca. 1818-?) labdun-Um (ca.1810-ca. I 794) Dadug (?-ca. 1779) Samsj·Adad I (1807-[775)

lbiil-pi-EI II : 1778-1765 lasmab-Addll (ca. 1792-ca. 1775) ISme-Dagan [(177:;"1761 [?]) Zimn-Um (177:;"1762)

Table 4

35

Sources: CHARPIN (2004) 389-390; CHARPI, - ZIEGLER (2003) 262: FAA""E, RlME 4 (1990) xxx- xxxi, HALLa - SI\IPSO" (1998) 94-95, VElNHOf (1985) 216, (2007) 60 and (2008) 29. For the dates of SamSi-Adad I ..... below sub [,7.[,

The mai n direct synchronisms during Mesopotamia's Dark Age

!!!!»'!!!!! I Samsuiluna

Abi-dub GandaJ AgumI

SeaIand I

Uuma-Ai'\'

Buma-Buria! 1 Ulam-BuriaS ... ~---;.~ Ea-giitnil

Kara-ind<ti

Table 5 Sources: BRINKMAN (1993-1997) 6-8, CASCH!: et aL, Daling ... , \'EL"HOf (2001) 3 11

1.6.2. Synchronisms for the second balf of 2nd millenniwn BC"

Mesopotamia, Ijatti and Egypt91

PUlllr-A~s\lr 111

AMur-bcl-llW5su

AMu r-nfid in-abbc

M!u r-uball il

Burna-Bllria~ I

K.1ra-illda~

Kudgnllll I

Kada~man-£nlill

Blinu-B\l ria~ 11

){.'l.r.lkincl:l§ Nali-Buga~

Kur~gJ.lzu II

uppiluliuma I

Tuunosis TV

Amenhotep III

AmenhOlep 111

Amenhotep III / I\, Tutankhamon

Soun:e(s)

Splchr. Hisl. , Srnchr. KL (?)

S)TIchr. Hist. (?)

EA (= EI-Amarna mblets)

EA

EA. ynehr. Hisl., Chronicle P

Table 6

\'0 A vel)' u'ie ful synoptic table by Starkt .. which includes lhe rulers or Asl'i}'ria , Babylonia, EI:un. Anatolia and Svda/ Upper ~l esop()ta1H ia, can be found in Em'R - RF~GER (2004) 59-75 .

(II The s), lIchronilirtlS bt,twcen the rulers of l\lesopot:ullia, Ualli :lIld E&,)'pt i1l the second half of Ihe 2nd mille nniurn Be on lhe basis of the E.A tab lets, etc. have been Ihorotl~h-

Iy discussed by R6wG ( 1965) 295ff. and K( II~[ (1973). For some chronological considerations see all'O \\'ILHf.l.\1 -

130FSf (19 7) 74-117. Il\lra-~lesopotaJ1)ian S\11chronisllls have been extensi\,eh' studied b~' BR1't-...\t\."i. MSKII .md PHPKB and b) C'lS\IA..""SIL\l'S',x. MDAR 61-70 ( 7_). Direct synchronisms with Hiltite kings ha\'c been treated by KLFM:EL (1999).

36 ~le .. opotami.lI) Chronolo~ of tht~ 2nd Millennium BC

Adad-nirnri i

Salmaneo.er I

Tululti-. "inurta I

A~~ur-nir3ri III

Enlil-lud urri-U)ur

Xinurta-apil-Ekur

:'\azi-.\Ianmas

had<iSman-Turgll

I\.adaSman-Enlil U

l\aStiliaSu f\

~[eli- ipal-

Mrur-din 1 Zababa-Suma-iddina Enlil-nadin-alJi

.-\£Sur-reSet-isi ~Inuna-midin~umi Xebuchadnezzar 1

Enlil-n.idin-apli

Tiglath-pil""'r I \iardul-nadin-abbc

.\farduk-sapik-7~li

MSur-bel-lala

Adad-apla-iddina

\Iursili II (:)

\Iuwatalli II

\ltlrSili III

ljamGili III

T udbalia 1\'

:\muwanda III ~Uppllllliuma II

R.Ullses 11

Sourrl~(S) -----.I

S\lKhl J 1I,t.. Chronidt' P RmJ.J im'trliptinll. \'\1 1~\03b \\S. Chroniclt' h,llot .. l\lkulti-"\jnurt<t epic

Snlriu. I It'll.. Chroniclt, P (u'\IQrl'd). rnk\1lti-~iIHHI.\ l'PI(

\ \ 11520 (''''",,'),I3.111I< of Qaelel, CTl117~

d\lla'lilmarriagl' ( lialli &: Egypt)

\ \1 15120 ("·.111\ ••. IT •. ,.Ihle I ~) .Tn'al~

(l.ialll&E~"p,).(,1I11551T.

kilo I, 10 (CTII172). f.\

CTII209.1:,. kl30 I, I~ (CTH 173), (Til 91.<'111177

B.1tllt' uf ',uri. S\lulll'. Hi ... t..

Chronicle P. \'I1(hl. K1. (n:storcd). Rmal insu. 8\198730, TukulLi­\inunacpic (TH 208

Chronicle P

AI3L 92·1 (ARII, 137)

$\Ilchr. Hi" .. B\I ~ii96 (Chronicle)

Snrciu. HIM., S\luhr. KL (?)

Synchr. KL, Ji\l of ohjeCL\

S'llchr. Hisl. S\llchr. KL

\'\T I02HI •. w Chronicle frag. (\\'1l0,,",IT:-'. 58£.. no. 70), S,nchr. 1\.1.. S",ndlr Ili ... l.

S\llchr . .h..L. S\l1chr. IlisL., Ro,.11 in<er .. \"\T 11).165 (ArO 17, 3811.) • A". Chronicle frag., OIP 2, 83

S"'llchr. lIi\L.. S\llfhr. KL .\.\\. Chronicle i-rag .. Ro\alln\(1.

Synchr. I Ibl.. SYlldll. KL. Eclectic (;llroni(I('

Synchr KL (I('\wn'd), S}llthr. Ili ... t,

Table 6 continued Sources: 13R1. """, \lSKH 21;-29· C.,. lit n al /). . C :-;.F 2 (2(J()5) 42; W>. BfO" RATli (1997) ., all"l( ..... RA"'", ABC, Appendix Band (19HO-I!lH:I) 121;"'1 :1:'; Ill! "'", rVAT

,,, F or an indirect s~nchroJlism of \1eli-Sipak with Ram,,'\ III

no'e YO' IlH.K1 KAlil (1997) fJl!. :--;')l{' al,,, lit"" (19H2) 15-26. .

\t1 On the SytlC/l'" " I ' '.. , . I IIIIlI WIW('('I. Mell ,Slpak alld NUHlIla.apil-I,ku"ec 1'1'""1", M/}Of, I ~ / (1()02) 7:'.

I. Gencral Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology

Egypl-Millani-Ualti (Karkemis)-Assyria (dales according to the MC. Assyrian dates according to the "lowered Assyrian chronology" of ten years"')

~Pt Minani B"atti ":1 .A!..'I}ria Kanem~ AIIH.'nhou:·p II (1425-1400)

fUUllOsi\ IV (I IOO-l39 I)

Amenholep III (1391-1353)

Akhnalon (1353-1336)

Tutankhamon .l,\"

Ramscs 11 ( 1279-1213)

Me-renplab ( 1213-1203)

Ramses J\' (1155-1150)

Sau§tatar

Artatama I

fiuttarna II

Tusmtta (ca. 1360-1330)

Sauiwaza -<:3. 1300

Sauuara 11

Tudbalia I «3.1425-1410)

Amu\\o'3.ndal (ca. 1400-1380)

Tudbalia II (ca. 1380-1360)

5uppiluliuma I (ca. 1350-1324)

Amu"\Io<lnda II

~1urlili II (ca.1321-1298)

~luwataUi IJ

Muriili m lTrbi-Te~up

tlaulliili In (ca. 1266-1240)

Tlidbalia I"\" (ca. 1239-1209)

SuppilulilUna II (ca.1205-1175)

Table 7

.lliur·bCl·ni~i:Su

(1407-1399)

AMur-rim-ngau (1398-1391)

MSur-nadin·abbc (1390-1381)

A!sur-uballit (1353-1318)

Adad-niriri I (1295-12&11

Sallllaneser I (126.~12341

Tukulti-Ninuna I (1233-1197)

-\SSur-beHala ( 1073-1056)

The Chronology on 'he basis of the Amama correspondence'"

USur·IXI·lliSt!S11

AMur-rcIlHli~eSII

AMlir-nadin-abbi!

1393-1384 Erib;h \dad I 13~3-13504

A«UHlballi1 1353-1318

c.lllil-nirJri 1317-1309

\1IIt'nhott:p 11 1125-1100

futmo,is I" 1400-1 391

Amcnhotep ti l 1391-1333

Amenholep IV 1353-1336

Smc.:'llkhk.If(· Tut,lnkhamoll

133+-132·1 \\

II"ft'mh"b 132(1-139:1

Milllllli

Sausr.lt.lf K..lf"".:t-inda~

Kada~man·tlarbe I AnatJllla I

KurigaJllI I . ulun\a II KadaS:man-En1ill

C\. 1365-1350 Tu$raltn

Buma-Buri~ II cu. 1360-1330 ca. 1350-1323

. \rt."'\!.Ul\.\ II Kurigalm II , .luiw<l/:.l

C.I. 1322-1298 _____ -<"<.\. 1300

T.lblt~ 8 'am{>, in bold are the ... enders or recipienh of tht~ \marna lener ...

Sarri-KuSuQ

aburunuwa

Ini·Te~up

Talmi·TeMup

HiUites

TudlJalia I ca. 1425-14.10

A.mll\'\""3.nda ca. 1400-1380

Tudbalia II ca. 1380-1360

Suppilu.liuma I ca. 1350-13204

.un uwa.nda II ~lul1i1i II

ca. 1321_129",91

37

~I~ ) bOI'" - \\'1I1I1l\1 (1979) :IR (1,lhle) . -) AKL. The elMO' for tht, king'i prcct'ding ~ llltakkil-Nu'ikl1 (uo, 85) Mt' tt'll H',H'S

lowl" lhan in \\' \Ilo..l-I{ (1995) 232 or HRI1\)'" \1 \ ~ (1977) 3--15,

thl' chronoloftf) of tht~ Am;lnla l(,lIers see KtH~T (1973). MORA' ( I9'J2). Il<»,f. ( 19S2) 15-26 and Com, - Wrsl­"ROOK (2000).

II~ T hl' Il'i!{11 1('Il!{lh, ()f IIit' llittill' Idnh"rS e,lIl onh be eSlilll<ll­t'd l>i.Kt' tllt'ir t'X<lCl n'gnOl' 't'al' alt' IIU"-l1o\\l1 .

1~1 I"hio; I<lhl(' is bawd 011 Iht' Ollt' b) \ 'H'\1I0t- (2001) 313. For

~7 TIH.'"~t.' dale,. which "c.:'n.' taken from \'ll'IIO.··S table (200 I), are according to the soJar eclipse- of 1312 Be. Boese and Wilhelm, hm\o('\('I'. dated the ecli~e to 1308 Be.

3 .\te\opot.unian Chron()lo~" of the 2nd .\Iillennium Be

Important \nchronisms between the main powel'> in the A.,\E 3.!i 'een from the ilittite perspective"'

t!auusili I ~Iu~ili I. tfamili I

Zidanta I

Ammuna 1

tluzzia I. Telipinu I. Tabun\'3.ili

AlIuwamna

tf antili II

Zidanta [)

tfuzzia [I. '\1uwatalli I

TudfJalia II (I)

Amuwanda

T udfJaJia Ill"

uppiluliuma I

\Iurnli II

.\Iuwatalli ~Iurtili [[)

(=l:riJi-T~up)

tfauulili 1Il

Tudbalia 1\'

Suppiluliuma II

[ putal!lu Ebeja

"'wmillura

Tuuno" .... 1 Tutrno~i. III

Tuuno,i IY Amenhotep III

Amenholep IV menlhl..are

Tutankhamon A,

Ram ... 1I

\Ierenptal!

AMur·bel-ni~u

Enoo-Adad I

.lliur-uba1li,IOO

Enlil-w-nin­J nh-din·1li

Adad-ninin- J

Adad·niriirf I

A.dad-ninl,tJ 5 alma""" I AdJuJ-ni rii rf I

Salmaneser I

Tukulti-;'\'inuna II(M

Ai.rur-nadin-aph ASJ UNU ron III

Sam~U(IilA.\nil

Kara-inda!

Kurigalzu I

Buma-8uri~ 11 11))

Karakindal, '\azi-BligaS

Kurigalzu I I

Ka.~man-Turgu Ilr!

Kada!man-Enlil (I l/lJ

Parattarna I

SauSt..1.tar Artltama I

Slittama 11

ArtaSSumara Tulratta

Suu.a.rna III

attiwaza

The ' ... ". Table 9 names In tluuc;j indicate s\nchronism\ between !jato an .

, d A'is~na that are l10t quile. but almost, certain.

l1li For a Jist of d.ireCl s\nchronism'i see KU'(,H (1999)

~390 .• For a Itsl of~nchronism'i bet""ecn Syrian dvna.\-­lies ~e .Kl..E,( ... f.L (1992). Assrrian-HillilC rdadons (direCl

~d IO~Jrect) from ~e ~eign of SuppiluJiuma I ()n""arcl~ ""ere dl'\CU5sed m' GlOrgleri at the 4'h CDOG· Be r February 2004: ';'e no\\ G'OR<.IIRI - Mo., (200~~ T~ In.

fro~ the reign of Adad~nirari I onwards have I;C~l la:;~ "udled b} FRll , in: " N. Hoffnn (201)3) 101-118 F Y updated cham ( d" . or

." . accor 109 to the LC) ,,"e SnR'" (2002). ~~e ~~I'~~en~e ~fTud~la IJ1 is di~puted; Tudbalia IIJ i'i oftel1 ::.,cn\~ Ie \\"h fudbaha II and Tud~alia IV wi,h rud~al ia III

I'" .,·e "".OF (2001) 314 and WHllfL'1. MOAR 76 .

~..:n the S}TIchmni!'m beC\\'cen A\sur-ubaJlil I and San-i-kur;ub Uml) of Kalkcmi!i ,,·c UC_'MaRl -Ttl .. (J9'J'J) 6(X).

IIJI S ·uppiJuliuma I wa.1Iij married to f'awananna. daughter of

Buma-Buriai; II . She i'\ m('J1llont·d with her hw~band in the COOl ext of th(' lau(·r'lI alli.met' with the Ugarilic king Niqm­addu I I. On the "llr;:III('e during the' fir'il '}'rian war ~t:e BRyn. AnSI 39 (IUH9) 25.

IOn B R"'," .... ~. \.ISKJ 1 38.49 .nel 13,>-1'16. M KBo I, 10,

u.. Il.llle or Nairi' 11"1" (I 'VI" 41 ( . ' ''':7: :/) ) gwt''i Ihe wrong ~yllchro-~l l .,m (not Adad-lIIrJII I bill Tuku lt l-Nillllrw I) . Th i~ bal tl !:' I!S mentioned in 'I t(· tl U' ( ( x rom KillIl: LA( h.1'.N MC ll tK, RA 76 ( 1972) 14 1-15hand n WJ7 ( 100 1) 90-IOO no 46 AKL I)ub 2.2.1.3. I ' •

1. General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 39

I. 7. Periodization

This subchapter discusses the main Mesopotamian historical periods of the 2nd millennium BC. Links and references to issues concerning chronological mallers that will be discussed later in this book are provided within each section.

For an overview on the histOry of Ancient Mesopotamia see CilARPlN in CANE 2 (1995) 8074329. Periods are, of course. abstract and artificial and do not necessarily correspond to major chronological benchmarks nor to the historical reality. In his review or K1.~NGEL'S "Geschichte des hethitischen Reicher (1999) KI.I"CER (2000) 77 poin!ed out that division into peri­ods depends more on the state or research than on actual changes or breaks in historical developmen!. An assortment of terms is used in Ancien! ear East­ern studies to designate periods. NEMET-l EJAT (1998), EINWAC (1998) and SA.\IMA.'1 (1997) supply helpful chronological charts paralleling various terminolo­gies: Einwag's is an especially detailed and insightful analysis of the period designations within the Syrian­Palestinian and Mesopotamian region and the diffi­cul ties with these designations. The periodization here is the "classical" one used by Assyriologists, in wh ich all periods are named after the so-<:alled "Sprachstufen" of the Akkadian language, di ,;ded into Assyrian and Babylonian. I

"

Simplified presentation of periods (according to the MC)

Period Language

2100 Ur 111 period / / EBA IVb Neo-Sumerian

The Mesopotamian periods covered in this book coincide with the ;\1iddle and Late Bronze Age, which can be further divided as shown in table 1 of S .... \f\l .... '"

(1997) 3-4. Sam man also offered a very useful sequence of periods namel)· the preceding ("just before") and succeeding ("just after") time spans of the period between 2000 and 1500 covering Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean. Another useful chan showing the period designation used by various scholars work­ing on Mesopotamia and its neighbors is in EI1>.WAC (1998) 31-33 (Abb. 5 + 6; and see p. 41 [Abb. 7] for the period designations used in Syrian archaeology). However, again it must be emphasized that indi\;dual studies dealing "ith socio-economic, political and geopolitical developments show that the period divi­sions used are often artificial and misleading.

1.7.1. Old Assyrian Period (-+ 2., 3., 8. and 10.5.)

The term "Old Ass)1ian" aplies to the Assyrian dialect of the early second millennium known primarily from texts of entrepreneurs from ASSur who had settled in Anatolia (Kilrum Kanis). The Old Assyrian period starts at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC with EriSum I (ca. 1974-1933 according to the MC) and lasts until ca. Samsi-Adad I. It is normally dhided on the basis or the archaeological strata at Kitltepe into

Historical Developments

Centralized Ur III d~llast.,.. invasion of the Amorites (Semitic oibes)

2000 lsin·Larsa pe riod / / MBA I (Earl,,) Old Babylonian (Ri\'al) city-states

1900 Old Assyrian pe riod / / MBA I Old Assyrian

1800

1700

Old B. bylolti.n pe riod / / ~I SA 11 O ld Bab) Ionian

1600 Seal.nd [ dynasoy MBA II

1500 Kassile period LB:\ 1

1 100 1300

Middle Babylonian period Middle Assyrian period LB.\ II

1200 Post-Kassile Period/ I 100 Isin 11 dynasoy / LIlA II

1000 gOO

Neo-Assyrian period Neo-8abylonjan pe riod

~ I iddle Sa.b) Ionian AssvriaJ)

1 {·tr.·\ssyrian Nt'~Babylonian ---

Table JO

HI"! F . or Ih(' b aS ICS of these "Sprilchsw fen" S('t' YON ()LUN, GAG 2-5.

Assyrian Trade

Man archh'es

Hammu-r:.ipi)

Hilli,e mid (~lu~iJi I)

Fall of B.,b~ Ion

E'pansion of ~tittani, Amama c011'cspondence. independence of Assyria

Sea Peoples First Arameans

Stnlggles belwcen Ass\'ria and Bab\lonia Predominance of Ass\'ria

40

Karwn KaniS levels U and Th (ca. 19~i-1 36 and ca. 1 33 2 - ca. I il9 + " ycars according to the ~IC). Le,d Ib roughly stam \\ith the reign of SamSi-Adad l. • '0 inscription are knmm for the kings preceding - 'unsi-Adad I in the Ahl .. (-+ AKL for the stntcture of its earlier pam). The dating of -amsi-Adad I can pos­siblY be nalTowed dO\\1l by dendrochonological data from excavations at Acemhovilk and b\ a solar eclipse mentioned in the MEC from Mari. The dates of the reigns of -am'i-Adad I and his predeceso. can also be estimated on the basis of the Distanzangaben from building insc.iptions of later Assyrian kings.

Chronological m.dies of the Old Assyrian period were recentl, reimigorated b\ the discovery of the KEL from Kiiltepe. :-':Ol all of its se'en knmm manu­scripts ha"e been published "et. The liL Ii ts eponyms from the reign of Erisum I onwards. elting the chronological background of !\.arum Kanis le,'els 11 and Th. Furthermore. it show that the time span between [.;sum I (no. 33) and San,-i-Adad I (no. 39) was 199 vears, much longer than pre,iouslv thought.

The , ingle mo,t important S\llChroni m between ~na and Babylonia in the first half of tl,e 2nd mil­lennium Be is:

[ Asoyria

Samsl.Adad r

Table II

Babylonia

Hammu·rapi' (year 17 or lS I) (I 792-lt3ll)

LiL: C."'C1K·KI .. '>(HMl\l (2003); G\R£UJ (1963); GC·'Mrr. (2008) 117; KI"'''\T (20041; KlHJIT ( I9'J5) 91 (lable); Klp­

PER (19851; Lut", (1976); L£»<lf (1963); \lacJU. .. , Llj'O 19 (2001); Rnt~; \'Hllor (1998) 421-4';0. (2003), (2007) 58-U2 and 20(8).

1. 7.2. Early Old Bab}ionian Period: Dynasty of l..arsa, Isin r Dynasty, Babylon I Irynasty H 4., II. and 16.)

The term "Old Babylonian period" is c1osel} con­nected \\;th the Babylon I dynasty and its famom

'06 \ ''''''OF (2003) and (2007) 5~2, \\1( HlI, A/051 (2007) 323, GL'",nl (200M) 103--132.

107 CiiARPl' - ZIH,U:..R (2003) 154 and 262 dale Sam~i-Adad\ death ~ }car 18 (!) of lIammu-rapi', ",ho\(" dates of reign accordmg to Lh<- ,",e are 179'1-1750. CHARPI' \:\1) ZWC,IlR

(2003) I 36-1:1Il a'l;U< .ha. the dea.h of <;"m'i-Adad pmba­bly wok plact" in th(" fir tt\",o week.$ of the.' 121h mcmth of the t"pon)m rabiilli-A\;ur. lnh corn.'\pcmd\ to th(" ~(.~r 1775 Be, a.\ .th<.j ;llOW on p. 2627.ffl, and indkatb d lowering of ~e \1C by b ~eaf1) a\ \hO\m by MlclUl. (20(11). Nol.(' that lor 1I1\tanCe V .. f '.'0 .. (2008) 3Ospeak.\ ofa rcduction of the Me by"ca. 16 }ear~/' \in('e he U.~\ the ddt("\ 1 80~J776 Be for Sam~i~Ad.ac1 I. One.' mmt keep in mind that Ul(· Babylonian

nait'r Hanllllu-rapi'. The time 'pan between the end of the L'r 111 period (which is also called the "Nco­Sumerian period" or the" ull1crian Renaissance" berause of the multi tilde of texts in the Sumerian language that I""e sUl'li'cd from it' ''') and the end of the Babvlon I d\ nasl\ is generally tcnned "Old Bab\lonian". the linguistic designation for the Akkadian u 'cd in Babylonia during this time. This period begins wi th the invasion of southern ~lesopotamia b\ Amorite groups and lhe devastat· ing sack of L' r by the Elamite imaski dynast)'. 1L may be ubdi,ided into the earh and late Old Babylo­nian pet;od . The transition from the Ur III period to the [in I d\llaslY has been discussed by van de \Iieroop. OU. 24 (1987) 125-126, who, according 10 a date-list from Ur, synchronized TSbi-Erra year I \\ith Ibbi-Sin year . This period is characterized b) conflicts between rival cin'-states, particularly at fir t between Isin and Lar,a, and later between Mari and Esnunna.

:-':umerollS synchronisms are known for the Old Bab,lonian dynasties ("early Old Babylon ian peri­od"), namelv the links between the Isin and Larsa period (period of Cil)-States, of which some became large entities, uch as Mari, Hnunna, Isin, Larsa and Babylon) and the subsequent Babylon I dynasty ( ___ below: "late Old BablloniaJ1 period" starting ,,;th the reign of Abi-esub). The end of the Larsa dynasty is marked bv the defeat, in his 60th year of rule, of Rim­Sin I b} Hammu-rapi' in his 30th year. Hammu-rapi' subsequently united the whole coulllry, including Larsa, \fari and Hnunna, into one kingdom, which was eventually lost by his successors. The raid on Babvlon b} MurSili I some 168 years later marked the end of the Babylon I dYllasty. Babylon then was occu­pied by the Kassites, causing a political and cu ltu ral change. The fall of Babylon marks th beginning of the Dark Age, a period of uncertain length charac­terized by a paucity of texLs and imcriptions.

Me·date., seJ"\'C as lhe ba'ii" for the syllchr Olli/t'd rule rs. A p~Jrely "A\syria n chronology" based ollly o n til(' AKL. tilt'

DJ'Iuan/..angaben etc may provide .1 diflt'f('Jll 'l't of dates, Note that mo\t o f the tabl<.·~ by 1\1 inkmdll , Walkt.' r, Gasche t'l aL (in J)ating ... ), SWrke.', ('lC. inrol lt'ct ly 'i) l1 chrOlli/e the dt"ath of Sam\i-Adad J with }'f:ar 12 uf J 1 ~lmmH-rtlpi'. (~.t\Che ~i (II. \, tab le in Dallng ... Wil~ (;orrc(I("d 10 IIJll1mll~ rapi' }('ar 17 in Akk(u/tm IOH ( 1998) 1-4, ClIAKI'IN _ Zit-C Ult

(2003) 175 ftYllfhr<mi/('d the )(,111 01 Sal1l ~i-Adad 'ioo r1 e~l lh wi lh lh(~ I Rill ye.~ar of I farnmu-rnpi ' bas('d (HI a cltronologi­'":.1 rea(UUMItI('l1l of C'ale.' IIc1aros (-4 "'lIb 10.6. ).

"11 f ' 0 1 a sho rt \tllnmary M'e.· KllI R"1 ( 1995) 59. On the Ur II I

pe.·riod \-t'e S.4.tIAJUR(,) K (J991)).

1. General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 41

Ur 111 lsin] Lar.a Babylon I

Ibbi-Sin ISbi-Errd I Lipit-Btar Gungunum

Ur-Ninurta

Bur~Sin Sumuel Sumuabum

I Zambiya Sin-iqiSam S3bium

L Damiq~ili~ll Rim-Sin J Hammu-rapi)

I Rim·Sin II SamsuilunalJO

Table 12

The absolme dating of the early Old Babylonian period is mainly based on astronomical events (lunar eclipses in the Akkad and Ur III period) mentioned in EAE combined with the month-length data of the Old Babylonian period and calculations derived from the risings and settings of the Venus recorded in the Venus Tablet (VT) dated to the 8th year of Ammi~duqa of the Babylon I dYllasty. More informa­tion on the early 2nd millennium can be drawn from va.ious KLs (BKL, SKL) , date-lists containing year­names, and cbronicles.

Late 3rd and early 2nd millennium Mesopotamian kings can a l 0 be synchronized with rulers of the Awan , SimaSki and Sukkalmab dy"asties of Elam, as given in Table 13 (also ee the table in GASCHE el aL,

Dating ... with further refcrences).

1.7.3. Late Old Babylonian Period/ Fall of Babylon: Kassite Dynasty, Sealand Dynasty (~3., 4., 5., 7., 14. and 16.)

The late Old Babylonian period starts with the rcign of Abi-esub of the Babylon I d}lla [y. This pe.iod includes the ri e of the Sealand I d}lla I), whose first ruler was lIuma- • a contelTIporary of amsuiluna

UrDI lsin I Lar.a

Urnal1l1l1U I SlI lgi

Amar in

SU-Sin Ibbi in lSbi-Erra

Gungunum

ZOlmbiya

and Abi-esub. Little is knO\\ll about s}llchronisms with Assynan miers, We also lack detailed informa­tion on the early Kassite period and the finl Assyrian Dark Age succeeding the m le of ISme-Dagan I: only witll the Earl)' Kassite mler Buma-BuriaS I can a S}1l­chronization be made with the Assyrian mler Puzur­ASSur 111. The hiatus (sometimes referred to as a "major hiatu ""') of the Dark Age lies between the end of the Old Babylonian period (Babylon I dynast)') and the middle Kassite peliod: more texts begin to appear only "ith Kurigalzu II'" This era also corresponds to the transition from the MBA to the LBA (Table 14).

Apart from the astronomical data, further e\;­dence for the chronology of the late Old Babylonian Period can be draMl from various KLs (SKL, BKL and the Syncbronistic KL) and date-lists (especialh important for reign lenO'ths). Reports of historical events and synchronisms are recorded in chronicles and royal inscriptions. Because the fall of Babylon, which marks ti,e beginning of the Dark Age, is con­nected with ~llI rSi li I, Hit tite chronology as well as the texts from contemporary ruling Slnan d}'nasties (IJalab, Alalab, Terqa) pia)' an important role in the

Babylon I EIam

I PUlur-ln~\I~inak (AW"dn)

Gimame Taziua I labrat I

Kindaull Kuk-:"::t..'ur 1

umuabllm Aua-hu;u SirukHlh

I h HllIlHH .. lpi' Si,,·e-palar-huppak Kudu-lulu\ 1

Table 13 Li t.: CII\."'~ (200'1); [ .>I.\OIl (1957); Frame. RIMI1 2;JlR> \ (200-1); Pun; ( 1999); S \11 \lu.,.,.( 1999) II \1-390 and (2004) 37-41; Sm. (1976); \ '\LL\T (2000) 7-17

lIlI lie was aho contcillporal) with Ihnlli.\-t\ ' 01 the fi rM 5(.'.tland ch lI.ht\.

III Posr(;..\H (1991) xxi . m ee fOI ilht.mce the introduction in Rtlll\RD\O' (2002l.

42 ~Ie"()p<.ltamian Chronolc.~ of the 2nd \lillennium Be

I Babylon I I SeaJand I Ka.~tes As..c."Tia Elam

-\bj-dub Iluma·.-\.'\

8ul1la·B\tri~,' I PUlur-.~~Ul II I

E'..a-g-Jmil l"1<un-Bu':L

1 Ammi~'lduqa ~lI'-1\a\lIl' I I -Tabl.14

Ut: BRI'''''''-'. M KH and (1976-1980) -164-173: eft""" (2003) and (200-1\: G,on. C.\l1 II I (1973); IIn""".L (1999):j<' (2004); PUXThA (199 ): R1~lB: R1lft'RD"" (2002): "-"'L\."'HALSE'. ~ID.\R 61-70 and (2006) 157-177

recon tmction of time spans and for linl.ing e,ellls (genealngy, generation).

h;,lSSite mler Kara-indaS, and beyond on to 1420/30 B . The ~1iddle Bab,lonian period thus comprises the Kassite and the ucceeding Isin II d} nasties. "' For this period numerOll5 Illchronisms between Babyll)­nia, Assyria, 'Tia, Anatolia, Egy'pt and Elam are knm\1l. During Lhe period ca. 1500-1350, the Mittan­iall kingdom cOlllrolled most of nothern ~le opotamia, the area along the upper Tigris and Euphrates. But beginning with the reign of Adad­nirari I and his ucce5'ors, the Assyrians gained inde­pendance in the region of the middle Euphrate and expanded, while the kingdom of Millani declined.

I. 7 .4. Middle Babylonian Period: Kassite Dynasty, Isin II D}nasty (~4., 7., 9., 13., 14., 15. and 16.)

The -~(iddle Babylonian period- follo\\ the onSeL of the Dark Age. which roughh' coincides "ith the Earll Kassite period in the 16th and beginning of the 15th centurie Be. The ~fiddle Bab"lonian can be tied LO Middle Assyrian chronology, ;"hich can be recon­sLruCt<:d \lith an uncertaint)· of ca. ten years up to

the reIgn of .lliur-bel-nisesu, a cOlllemporary of the

Essential sYTlchronisms between Assyrian and Bab~lonian mlers between ca. 1500 and 1133 BC. ill

puzur-.-\SSur III: ca. 1490

MSur-bCl-ni!elu (1407-1399)

MSur-ubalIi! (I35~131 )

Enlil-njr.iri ( 1317-1308)

Adad-nir.iri 1(1295-1264)

Tukulti-1\inurla I (I23~1197)

Mlur-niran III (I39~1188

Enlil-kudurri-u5ur (1187-1183)

=-:inuna-apil-Ekur (1182-1180/ 70)

A\\ur-dan I (1179/69-1134)

Babylonia • Buma·Buria£ I: ca. 1500

J<ara·indal: ca. 1413

BlIma-Buri~ II (ea. 135~133311354-1326) ~ra-lJard~ Karakind~(l333/ 1328) :\3Jj-Buga\ (1333/1328) ~rigal7U II (1332-130811327-1303) Kurigalw 11

1\a7i-\lanllla\ (1307-1282.1302-1277) Kada,man-Turgu (1281-1264/1276-1259)

Sa~rakti-Sllria\ (1245-1233/1240-1228) Kalu\talu IV (1232-1225/ 1227-1220) Adad"uma-u,ur (1216-1187/1211-1182) Adad-\uma-w,ur

Adad~uma·,u}ur

Adad--\ull1a-~ur \leli.Sipak ' '7 (1180-1172/118 1-1167)

Zababa"urna-iddina (J 158/ 1153)

Table 15

II A slight O\erla~ of the two dynaslie1: h 3fCepled nowadays. ~ BKI.. and DJstanzangabe:n

IH B " k reduction of thc'it' dalt'S by five yt'ilPi St'(' SOl'S" ( 1082) 23 (la.l~lc), which Wll" adoplc'd in lil(' l"hle by GASCIIl' pl (11., f)afInK , .... FOI Lll" ca ll'oW of Ihi "! sh ift (till' ru ... yrian cllI'unol-

nn man, MSKJ I 2S-29, Sassrnann,hausen MDAR '7 ll~ Th . .. I) ..

eM! dates are according to the lowered Middle Ass dan chronology. Y

116 Th ese daleS are according to BRJ!\K\tA!, "'SKJ 16-3' F' .... • j~'J . • ' I. or a

JI7 ogy) se(' a l ready BKI'IIKMAN, M~KII 32W'. Se,' ~RAl1"', MOOG 1:\4 (2002) 75.

I. General Remarks on Mesopotamian Chronology 43

Essential synchronisms between Assyrian and Babylonian rulers between 1133 and 1057 BC (Tabelle 16)'IA

~--~~~----~-------------. Babylonia Assyria

NinUrla-niidin-sumi (1131-1126) AI'ur-n;;a-ili I (1132-115)

Nebuehadnellar I ( 1125-1104) Mlur-",!a-i!i I

Mardllk-niidin-abbc (1099-1082) Tiglath-pileser I (1114-1076)

Marduk-\iipik-lcri (1081-1069)

Adad-apla-iddina (1068-1047)

Tiglaw-pi leser I

ASslIr-bel-kala (I 07~ I 056) Msur-bel·kala

Table 16

Transition: Post Kassite Period

The BKL A furnishes most of our chronological infor­mation for the Middle Babylonian period/ Post-Kas ile period. Further infonnation (especially needful for the damaged parts of the BKL A) is provided by chron­icles, the Synchronistic History, and other KLs (BKL C, Synchronistic KLs). The post-Kassite period is divid­ed into vmious BAlA ("dynasties", such as the I in II dynasty, etc.)'''' BRlN"-\l>\N, PHPKB 39-41 (plate no. I) gives a sequence of 38 kings from from Marduk-kabit­abbesu to Salmaneser V (726-722 Be) covering 400 years. This time span was calculaLed with the help of contemporary Asspian rulers, primmily knoml from lhe AKL. Absolute dates for Babylonian m lers can only be esmblished ,vith the help of external sources, such as the -Ass)Tian chronology" based on the AKL and Els. which are finnly ftxed due to the solar eclipse of 15 July 763 BC. A detailed study of individual m lers can be found in BRl:>.K,'l\.,\, PHPKB 40-51, where plate no. 2 give a chronological table of Assrrian and Bab '­Ionian kings with absolute regnal dates.

These synchronism are drawn from various sources, leners, u'eaties. annals, chronicles (especially Lhe Splchronistic History). and the Synchronistic KL. Allhough the synchronism b tween Marduk-nadin­abbe and Tiglath-pilescr I is established b) an epon)1n­date. no absolute dale can be set for i(.''''' The above s),! lchronisms are subject to ten 'ears of uncertainly.

'" 0 It Ihe sources for Ihe .. e ~yllchronism:"l :"Ice BR"K,.\IA:'\ , PIIPKB 691T.

11'1 BKI~ti..M\N, PIIPKB 38. 111. 0111\ for tht· 91h ('COlun and lalt'r can a~ollltt' datt·:) be

C<lkuhHed. For f\larchlk·llldilhlbbc 'Ct' PNA 2 II (2001) 7 19, .lbm t· 'iub 1.4.2 on Ih<..' Bnvinn inscription.

'" 1-'U! a diITt'rt'Ol approach St'e Rm\ IO~ (1970) 76-77. l:l~ I

IHp()n~UH works b} UNt.'HD, Or 13 (19·14) 73-101. POt-BEl.

( 19!l5) and 'I:\OMOR ( 1958) 129- 141 ,1ft' citt.'ci, t~~ S

t'C Um \~ - \"'Ullf! \1 ( 1979) :\5 crt'eli! Nin\lrt~h\pil·EkUl· with it rt'ign of 13 inslt',-ld of3 rears, "hich implit·,\ an 0\'('1'· tiP of thl' Ka'i'\itt' and I~in 1l d)'II.I'Hit'S. C-" AKL ~\I\d Dis-

Brinkman PHKB 75, plate no. 2 marked the dates of the first 20 kings of the first 215 years of the Post-Kas­site period with asterisks to indicate that their dates are uncertain by ±5 years. This uncertainty ends up in tables by scholars, who base their work on Brinkman's PHPKB'21 Problems \lith the proposed chronology concerning a possible Elamite interregnum between the Kassite and Isin II dynasty, and the Distanzanga­ben on BE I, 83, the Bavian inscription and the BKL C, are discussed on pp. 7s-85'!!! (~ the Chedor­laomer tablets sub Historical Epics).

Since we know neither the exact date of the end of Lhe Kassite dplasty nor lhaL of the beginning of the Isin II dynasty. we do not know if these two dynasties ruled con ecuti\'ely. o"erlapped'" or if an Elamite interregnum took place between them. Thus for the 20 kings between ca. 1158 and 943 BC we ha"e only approximate daLes.

Ut.: BoESE (1982) 15-26; BRlXIC'l"-' . PHP~, ( 1976-19 0) -I64-l73. (1983) 67-74 and (l99~1997) 6-1O;jI:RS.' (200-1): ,.\SS\l'-'XSft'l'SEX, MDAR 61-70 and (2006) 157-177; ,,'-, DU'

(196) 159-170: WEIDXE" (1935-1936) 1--1

1.7.5. Middle Assyrian Period: including part of the Kassite and post Kassite Period (~ 2., 7., 10., 13., 15. and 16.)

In the Middle Assyrian (mAss) period Assyria gained independence. Between 1350 and 1300 starting with

truuangaben) . BRI"{K,.\L\.-': at first (PHPKB 2) came to the conclusion that no c\;dence exi"ts fOf either o\'erlap or interregnum; bter (~ I SKJ I 29 and 33 and RiA 5 [19i7] IS-I) he ,leCl'pted a slight o\'crhlp. Boese and Wilhelm stre~~ed that ,lb:)olme S..'lb) Ionian chronology depends on the Ass)rian chronoloID: in thl' case of the recon.stnlction of the reign length of ,lit Assyrian mler Rab),loniall dates must be k('pt OUL of the discu"Sion. Eponyms attested in \,<,fious Middle AS:"I)rian documents seem LO suppOrt the propo:oial of Boe~(' - Wilhelm (personal communication by II. Frerdank, Berlin, Febmar'l' 2004).

44 \lc'opol.ulIi.m Chronolo~ of Ihe 2nd ~li1knlli\l11l B(

Adad-niriiri I. Salmaneser I and Tul-ulti-:\inulla I (using lowered ~riddle .-\SS,lian dates) it rea'St'lled its importance in the international political 'cene (~lillani. Anatolia. Bab"onia and Egypt). Duling the reign of Tuklllti-:\inllrta I the ~liddle "-,,, rian empire reached its climax. It consisted of two palls: the ea;,t w;th the capital .-\SSur: and the west. called tlanigalbal. In Ijanigalbat a member of the \", rian roral fami" mled a;, "grand ,;zier- (aU.. wk,,1111 rabli) and -king of Ijanigalbat" (descendants 01 IbaSsi-ili. a son of Adad-niriiri I [no. i6] and a broth­er of Salmaneser I [no. ii]). Tml11s such as Uarbe. Our Katlimmu and Tell abi Abrad belonged to the western part of the As ,rian empire. C\'ClJ..-

NRSlHB.\t \I (1999) has compiled all the evidence for the genealo~ of tht' \fiddlt' \,." rian kings, stan­ing with A"ur-nll'flli II and toudll'd upon the most important chronological i"ues of that period. From ca. 1100 the first .\ramaic infiltratiolls arc altested. These lead to the struggle 1'01 the hegemon, between "-,,\ria and Bah, Ionia (take-mer b, the Isin II d,na;,t\) which ultimatc" result('d in As",rian political domination. .

Lil.. Btu .... - \rlll-HI\I ( 19;9) 19-3R: C\\(Ih.-KIR."i<lltt\l"\1

(l9!l\l) 2Hl-222 .mel (200~). F.n".,,, (1991) and (2000) 67-72: H\RRU. (19. 7):J\wlI (20()3) 9-10 and 6 1-65: J"'''' (2000) 64-ti.q: RJ\I.\: W",,,,, (\ 911-1911) 362-369 and IT.-;. WUJIli.\I (199-4) 349-:i')2 .•

2. AsSYRIAN KING LIST

Sources and Textual Evidence, including Secondary Literature

Seven manuscripts of the AKL are known 0 far: Three (almost) complete tablets: Nass .• Chors. and SOAS. - Four fra!,'T11ents: KAY 14, KAV 15, KAV 18, and B~1

128059. - Except for KAV 14 and 18 all these texts are copies

01 one canonical AKL, of which the exact date of compilation is unknown. The best summary of all the known exemplars including a transcription of the AKL can be found in GR.W'>O:-: (1980-1983) 101-115,'" wh ich has been generally used by recent authors working with As yrian dynastic chronology (see for instance WALKER [1995] 230-233).

General editions

GH.B ( 1954) 209-230 (= Chors., SOAS) MILLOOl (1970) 174-176 (= BM 128059) N\SSOllll (1927) I- II (= ass.) POIIIH. (1942-1943) 247-306, 460-492 and (1943) 56--90 (= Chors. ) SCIIKOEDtR (1920) (KAV 14, KAV 15, KAV 18) W~II)~~R (1941-1944) 362-369 (Chors., ass.)

Secondary literature on tbe various manuscripts of tbe AKL

II KL I 146 and II 80; GR."SO~ (1969) 105-118 and ( 1980) 140-194; Pm IPO'lIO (1996) 159-165; ROUIG ( 1965). GR.\\w:-:, ABC 269-27 1 and ( 1980-1983) 101 used designations A-E for the various copies of Ihe AKL:

A = Nass.: ~ Iuseum of the Ancien t O rient, Istan­bul : C. 8836, VAT 98 12; p hoto and COPy in ts:.\SSOl·1I1

( 1927); WHD~IR (194 1- 19-11) 3112-369. (PrO\cnance: AN,r.)

B = Chors.: Orienta l Institute nf Chicago: photo: GI-I II ( 195·1) pIs. XIV f. (no cnpy) and ( 1954) 209-2:10; C\\ \1(:'1.\(. (1945- 1916) 17-26 and (1955)

It I . , , FOI .1 I t'(t' l l l ( .t'rI\\; \I \ u"uI':o latiOil ollht' AKL Sl't.' I l t(M'R,

H ' \1' N.F. 2 (2005) 27-:\0.

94-98. BR"K.\I.\:\ - L\R.~o, (1999) 32-33 (last colla­tion from an excavation photograph); SCH\IIDTKE (1952) 81-84 (rev. only). (Provenance: Chorsabad.)

C = SOAS: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Sem­inary, Washington D.C., now in the Iraq ~luseum, Baghdad; photo: GELS (1954) 154, pis. XVIf. (no copy) and (1954) 209-230. (Provenance: unknown. Accord­ing to its colophon and date and location of purchase its pro"enance is ,·ers likelv Assur.)

o = KAV 15: Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin: VAT 11554; no photo; for editions and studies see bibliograph) of AKL fragments belo"'. (Provenance: Assur.)

E = BM 128059: MILLARD (1970) 174-176. (Prove­nance: Nineveh.)

AKL fragments KAV 14. 15 and 18: GR.WW~ (1969) 110-111; lA'DSBERGER (1954) 31,39. no. 4 , p. 108, nos. 198 and 200: J. 1.£\\1" (1929) 95-107; POEBEL (1942-1943) 251; SCHROEDER (1918) 41-43 and l.1 33 (1921) 53--54; U,G:\AD (1921) 15--17; WEID~ER (1917) 1-7, (1917a) 1-4 and (1921) 2-9. (Pro"enance: ,\ssur.)

KA\, 15 is the oldest version. :\'ass., Chors. and SDAS are younger, the oldest of the three being:\'as . and the youngest SDAS. According to ~IILLOOl

(1970) 176, its paleographical features suggest B~ I

128059 is probabl) older than Chors. and OAS. The line numbering gencrall) follows Gelb based on the SOAS list.

ROLLIG (1965) 22 has pointed otltthat the Nass. KL difTers from the SDAS and Chors. KLs in ( I ) ASSuNclll-nisesu is cited as the father of Eriba-Adad I instead of ASSur-b<,l-nisesu; (2) Adad-niriiri I is named .. on" instead of "brother" of Arik-clen-ili; (3) Salma­neser II is omiued; and (4) the regnal years of Puzur­ASsur. Assur-nlidin-apli and :slinllna-apil-ekur difTer from the other exemplars. Thus he as umedthatthe :slass. KL had a slighth difTerent tradition than the younger texls.lt~

I~ ~\ standard \K.L i ... belit:"\'ed to h;w(' exi~(ed from the 13lh

cent.. Ihe rt'ign of Tul..uhi-:'\'inuna I: L"-\I8ERT (1976) 85-9·1. $,,< I""·,, Run, (2001) 3.

46 \(C'~opotamian Chronolog\ of tht' ~nd ~lillt'n l \i\lm ll(.

FIgUre I GU.Jl (I9.'H) pis. XI\', },.'Y (= Chors.)

Chronological order of manuscripts:

KAY 15 (=0): middle of tlle II th cent. or lO,h cenL (0)"

~ass. (=A): Tiglath-pileser II B~1 128059 (=E): ?

Chors. (=B): ASsur-niriiri \' SDAS (=C): SalmaneserV

General Features of the AKL

The shape and form of the AKL is shown best in GElB

(SI9D

54) on plates XIV, XV (Chors.'''), XVI and XVII ( AS), as sho"TI m Flgs.I-2. An image of the " AKL h "ass.

, \\: o~e state of preservation is worse, can be found m Its first publication b) ~ASSOt:HI ( 1927) tables I and 2.

.. Gbors. and SDAS have four columns on each side, whIch are d",ded only by a single thin line. The col­umn-paIrs are separated by a double line. Nass. ~ho", ~nly two column~ on each side seperated by a double Ime. SDAS measure~ 17 x 13.5 x 2.3 cm. Only 5/6 of

I,. C ItA,,,,,, (198(}-1983) 101: "It i. im~sible [0 c., CA [ • abo h . d r .,.~. IX: .. r £tIn

Jt7 _ U[ t t. ale 0 the two fragments 0 and E." flm publIShed in 7 .. S/,""" April 7,h 1934 TI' h gra h of h J '. 1I~ P Ol().. Pte rev . ... as u;ed by WII",> .• (I941-1911)

the tablet is presen·ed . The protu berance at the head of the. tablet is perforated length"ise by holes of 4-5 mm diameter. Significant units "ithin the columns are separated from each other by ho,izontallines. Gbors. has the same size and shape as DAS, but difTers in the number of lines in each column with horilontallines that mark significant un its. RI:JWR (1960) 155 dis­cll'sed the unusual shape of the Chors. and the SDAS lists, which differ from the other known versions with functional devices at the upper end (esp. SDAS with the perforauon) "to be piPrml 50 (IS to be hung Il//'.''' She suggested that tho~e lists had oliginally been used as house amulets. Both \'ersion~ have a colophon at the en~of the te~t stating its date of copying.

ass. , wh'ch consis" of nine fragments, has twO columns on each side and measures 18 x 25 cm. Only four hOrizOlltal I' . d' 'd - 'nes 1\1 e the surviving part of its text. The obverw especially is badly damaged, most of Il~ ICxt being lost. The revcr,c is bcttcr preserved. In COntra~l to the nxclnpl ' I h ' . . I ... ars a )ove, t I ~ verSion, whle 1

362-369 for hi, l I 1'1 ... uc y. I t' pholoKnlph of lil t., obverM' j~ IVI r('pr(~cluccd in IJ)l'u - AU\1\N, OIP 40 ( 1938) )1. 74.

'>t •• (;".11 ( 19.';4) 210. I

2. Assyrian King List 47

Figure 2 GEI.B (1954) pis. },.,\1, X\' II (= SDAS)

dates to the reign of ASsur-dan, docs not have a colophon. BRll'iKMAN (1973) 307 collated the text, suggesling a different line numbering than Nassouhi: he urged a re..,dition based on comparisons \vith the photos of the tablet'''' Since 1954 chronological research has greatly benefited from the 8th century KLs (SDAS and Chon;.) , which are almost complete­ly preserved. Previously only a few re LOrations were possible for the beginning of the AKL on tile b. is of its oldest version KAV 15 (D).

Fragments of the AKL

BM 128059 (= E) duplicates tlle fil tlines ofChors. and DAS and is tllerefore likel) 10 have consisted of four

columns, of which two can be detected on ti,e frag­ment. The upper left corner (se\'en lines) of the ob\·. is presen'cd. n like tlle other two tablcts, Lhe namcs list­ed are paired from the beginning onw:lI'd~ (columns I and II , of which the laller is barely presen·ed).''''

KAV 15 (= D) is the oldest known version of Ihe AKL and consists of two fragments showing 12 lines arranged in two columns on lhe ob\·erse. Only some

"'0 n thl" poor Sl~lte of prt'SerYillion of the N::u.s. KL see LvN'''"fR'''R (IH5<1) 108197.

I'ln k ,, ' ".L\Rn (1970) 175

'" G ,R.\\~." (I (j69) 109-110.

signs of the second column can be read. KAY 15 duplicates pan of the Nass. and SDAS KLs and men­tion Sargon I, Puzur-ASSur II and Nariim-Sin.' ''

KAV 18 (VAT 12058) begins "ith kings whose eponyms were pre\iously unknOlm (~ below) and continues with the Old Assyrian king Erisum I. '" It ends at some unknown point within the canonical ARL. This badly presen'ed tablet, which contain two columns, records only the name of the rulers, omit­ting filiation and reign lengths.

KAV 14 (VAT 9 12), a badly pre en'ed tablet, starts off with one column listing the three kings Puwr-ASsur, :-.Iaram-Sin and Erisum 11 and contin­ue with am ~i~Adad I and his succeSSOl in ovo columns. Two horizontal lines di\'ide the section conUlining king nos. 39-40. Kings are listed up LO ASsur-bel-nisesu, without filiation or reign lengths. Due to its arrangement, which difTers from the other exemplars, this tablet i probably a school tablet originall containing onll' part of the list. ~ below sub 2.1.1. for rulers not contained in any of the other lists.

I:\:! One no(kes that the original Old Assyrian form of the personal name Irislltn was later changed to t' riSUIll. See HEC~'R. Tl.!AT N.E 2 (2005) 299.

~It""opol.lmian Chronolo~- of the 2nd ~lillenniull1 Be

Be,ides the,e lists. some exemplar- of the A,wrian Synchronistic KL mention AssHian and Bab, Ionian rulers.

Historical Rele''aDce

.-\11\ chronological chan of Assn;an king'> i, ultimatt'­" based on the .-\!oJ.. which has been c,llIed the "backbone" of Assnian chronolol('·. The .-ill. con­L.1.ilh infomlation on Assnian rulers going back to the time before 2000 BC. The compiler" of the lists aimed for completeness. The reign lengths of some of the earliest kings seem to ha"e been unknO\\11 at the time of the composition of the .-\!oJ.. as nl<l\ be concluded from the beginning pan. which i, di';ded into three 'ections or group.

The organization of the AKL "' not unifonn: the opening 'ection is incomi tent and lists ome of the kings in re'erse order. This betra, differing and incomplete SOllrce . It ob\ioush· was meant to trace the ancestors of Sam-i-Ad ad I. ' Three groups can be differentiated:

• 17 kings who li,ed in tents ("tent dwellers")

• 10 kings who"e fathers are known (= ance"tors: P:S: I son of P:>12• P:S:2 son of P:'\3' etc.)

• 6 kings who e epon~ms are unknOlm (?)

FRElDAXK (1975) 17~175 discussed the first three sections of the AKL. especially Hnes I 24f./25f. of the third section, which uses the Akkadian tenn Iimiini in connection w;th the AssYrian ruler Emum I (-7 KEL ~ub EpoD}n1S) . If the proposed reading is correct, this IS the first ruler in whose reign limiJ (epomms) are attested, which leads us to the assumption that his six predecessors did not ha'e any limiJ (propo'ed new reading. by Freydank: Iii u-du-m'''). According to another InterpretaUon, the IimiJ of the six king might not ha,e been preser'ed. HE<-KER, TUAT :S:.F. 2

I" On. the anCe<ilOrs C"Ahnenrafel", see HAU..o (1954) t"21", who rC\1ewed the problem of the king order of !.he AKL and 'ium­mariJ.ed the ,lUdi", '" Utnd.sberger and Jacoblen. An imp"r­tanl_ .. ~udj on thLS 1~51Je W3.,i laler published by KR.\(".), (1965). ~d~uonal materia) on the ~anceslOn" appeared Wllh Ute pub­haouonof Ihe GHO '" Finkebtein in I9fJi ( .... Genealogy). For a diff~rent \1t:W on the function of the AKl.. o,e(:' RiJIJ1(,

(J 9(9) 26.-r277. On the beginning of the AKL "ith rcfcrencbi to the "Amori",," lee CIA"F.R (~004) 71-74

1304 • _ •

Slame of O-ste~ of l~'um inslead of the proJX)!<.3) by ~~'I.>\BtR(A; .. R (1904) 108if)l) la-ti·fu-ni from /(ilu: AJJw 540: (dercn Epom-me) tiberdeckt sind (??)"; 'K'e GRA\-..,c"

(1981)...1983) 105. '1& 0 h' n l IS pa\\age of lh~ AKL .. ee VU.!\1I0fo (2003) 21, who

~ugg~~led .two allematJ\"e\ based on the po~!lible rt'adings: not Identified, marked, regi~tered as such" or "not found"

(like FR""A~K (19751) . .... Eponyms

(2005) 28~. "ho read, "ith L\,nSRERGfR (1954) 108~l'l la-li-w-Ili. Iran,l,ne, the passage in question "deren Eponnnate nirht auflindbar sind" (> iiil" instead of idl;m "to \..no,," or ",a/lim "to find" ' '). Com­paring the pamllel .W. fragment V.\T 12085 (= KAV 18; reading of I','t./r-b-/II-III): de';\ed as a S-stem from fbi \\;th the meaning "to enter upon a L.~bleC; Iii is to be restored in the preceding line and Jan'iilll possibly 10 be taken as tht' ,ubject of the rdatin' clause), Frey­dank concluded that EL, were used by the compilers of the AKL. as has been suggested before,' >; which means they did not possess al1\ eponyms for the kings preceding hi"um l. Consequenth the lengths of their reigns "ere unknown to the compiler of the AKL R6w(. (1965) 830. (1969) 275 and :-.IA'A.\tA.' (1984) 115-123 assumed instead that ELs were of no value for the calculation of throne tenure, since no lists of Old .-\;.snian kings were knOlm then. This view is no longer tenable due to the identification of the KEL, listing epon\1T1S for the Old Assyrian period: 40 epom111s are registered lor (risum in agreement "ith the ARL. which assigns him a reign of 40 years.

The second group is marked by the renewal of the hereditan ystem of kingship. The ten kings of this section are listed in genealogical, but in reverse (1) chronological, order'" Two of them, ApiaSal'''' and espia, also appear in the tent dwell ers section: thus, the first two sections of the AKL are linked. Section three begins with fi'e names without genealogical infonnation, though the first person in this section can possibly be connected with section two through the filiation Aminu (sixth name of the third section). TIle grouping of some kings seems to be due to fam­i1v affiliation."· Since no reign lengths are mentioned in the beginning sections of the AKL and no records exist for the mentioned ru lers otherwise, this pan is chronologically irrelevant. ,~,

, .. Sc , . ·c ~'1)!)6"R(~FR (1954) 107 for further liLt'rdlure (Poebel,

Albright and Rowton). 117 n .

. 11\ r~lrograd(' Slnl(:lllr(" can be com 1M red with that of Lhe

kmg II'tt from Ugaril (UKL) ,wd lh(' i.tnCe"llOr,,' li~l known I .. from Ebla:<eec.g.ARUII (19%) II and (200 1) 4.

011 lhe qUC'tUon of ""h(.'lll(:', both <tU(.'''I taliol1\ for Api~a l l!I rder to the \ilrn{' man "It'(, U.\flUI(I (I97fi) H8.

11 '1.11> (1983) I I. ,«.I T~ncfore, and due' to orher UII(t"llaillli(''1, RC)l1 1(; ( 19(j5)

rt'JecWd N"agd's idt'lllificalion in AfiO 18 ( 1957/ 1958) 97 103 f' 1'1' . - ,()")u I I wnh a fu lt" of A§~ur ll"IIIIt.·d Silul u. Sl'e ~11'io VH ..... 1I0 .. (2003) :;9 in ton ll ('("lion with the lime 'ipan 1>eIWCCl1lh(' Ur III p('riod and 111<.' (·;.u ly A~"iydan kings 11m. 30-32 (~f lhcA KL ( Distanzangabe n). Artording to him lh ~ period of Ni\lIr\ indcpende ll ('t· fro lll the Ur III dynas ty (klllgs nos. :~O-32) Wei'; V(.'ry hril'f.

Beginning with its fourth section, the AKL follows a strict chronological order, gi\ing each king's relation­ship with his predecessor and his reign length with the fOl111ula"P I' son of PN" I1.Iled for x years", which is similar to the fonnula of date-lists. This sll1.lcture is kept for the rest of the list. As was mentioned above, the reign lengths were ob\iously extracted from, or based on, the ELs, which - from the chronological point of,iew - are very reliable sources preserved from the early 2nd millennium down to 649 BC (-7 Eponyms). The years that each king ruled according 10

the AKL were detelmined by the number of eponyms during hi reign . Epon}m dating does not differ from the year-name dating used in Babylonia, where year­names were compiled in date-lists and summarized in king lists. Th is means that the regnal years of the AKL are generally based on first-hand sources and therefore can be considered accurate. I ndeed, considering that the AKL coyers a peliod of over 1000 years, relatively few erron, can be detected in it- it gives very few incor­rect reign lengths, filiations and inconect sequences''', anti omilS few kings. The first six kings listed are fol­lowed by a chronicle-like interl1.lption concerning Samsi-Adad I (no. 39) son of lIu-kabkabi (II'''). Chron­icle-like passages appear later in the text in connection with Enlil-na~ir 11 (no. 67), Ninurta-apil-Ekur (no. 82). Mutakkil-Nusku (no. 5) and Samsi-Adad IV (no. 91).

The ropies we have of the AKL are from the Neo­Assyrian period and were most probabl) written to reaffirm the continuity of the Assyrian royal line. to preserve and continue the record of reign lengths, and to sen·e commemoralive rites. The more recent copies have more mi takes - probably the result of

IH For example Y-\\IA(),\ (1994) 3 1; for a li"i.t of dio;;crepancie!> bt'lween lhe AKL and Other hislorical sources !>ce pp. 3~3477.

II'! AnOlhel' Il u·kabkabi ( I ) is mentioned earlier with Sulili and Aminu. For the di'\linction bt'lwcen two persons 'See Al.1/.1-

(199H) 1-27. 1Iowt'H'T, \\:\ • nR~ (1997) 7!\ bclie\cd that \eflioll two h directi) connt'cted with ~Hn;i-.\d;td I. and lhc:.,rt'folt' llit' firstlhrec !>t'Clion~ .Ire pUll' fabri alions.

I~~ Note lht, parallt"! !'It''clion in the G HD ( Genealogy). IH Ihuo (19H3) 11: MOne GHlnot 'imph spc>~'l of twO tr'.l(li­

uon .... 1 Ilonlu:rn emplO\;ng ~p()nYnh I~;lding It) ling li~~ uq.,rani/t'C1 on '\lrinh gCIlt'alogicOlI lint": .uHI a ~ol1lht"rn one:.' t'rnplo, illK di.Ilt. .... formllb!\ (and, blt'l" regll;\1 "t,;\l's) .md le"d· ing lO king li"ll\ organi/t'd on ,tricti, Heoh~ .... ,phic or ethnic lilll'" Ratlwr. Wt' , holllci perll;IP, rt'gard tilt· lI:-l' of epOlwm"l i.L"I;\l hOIl I(' in both north ilnd (;u lea'S I origin.llly) ,otllh. ,md

I he.' pl l'ft>re.' nn' fOl king l i\L'i organi/l'd Oil .1 'geograr hiea!' b,\'\i'\ 'L, iI I('g-an of th(' Stl IHerLIll or ('01 t .... u.\dition "hill' Kl' I \t' <tl()~k.\1 prt'it'rcnce, rt'»It'St' llI C:'d tht· Akk.l(ti~\11 and HlllIt' P,Hlic lllarl) lilt' AlIloritc' t radition \\hich LOok finnt!M hold on th(' pni phcrv of Mt'sopot.llll ian cullllre."

49

scribal errors and politicall} motivated alterations. VA.' SUERS (1997) 72-73 discussed the historiograph­ical principles behind the AKL. In COntrast to the SKL, which traces kingship back to the antedilmian dynas­ties, kingship is traced back to the ance tors, the tent­dwelling kings'" Furthennore, the nst is ASSur-<:en­tered, associated with only one place, the capital of the Assyrian empire - or as Rowe; (1969) 276 point­ed out demonstrating the "ungelmxhme, oder doch nllr

sellen ge/Jrocltl'llf Tradition in der GesrhlechterfoW". It was created specifically to depict the development of the Assyrian kingdom. In contrast to other KLs (such as the BKL and SKL) the Assyrian scribes con lI1.Icted a KL for Assrria itself, suppressing the geographical or ethnic affiliation of cenain kings (-7 below) '" In the past years scholars have debated the authorship of the AKL, which has usually been atuibuted to SamSi-Adad I. This is a crtlcial question for understanrung the

'45 text's function and stage of de\elopment. The second pan of BRI~"'\tA."S 1973 slUdy was

devoted to the AK.L as an historical source (p. 310). Brinkman cited the importam works by WEIDXER (19-15-1951). KRALS (1965), [A'DSBERGER (195-1) and FL~KELSTEIN (1966) ,,;th the publjcation of the GHD, who all greatl), contributed to our understanding of the text's origins and the completeness of itS earljer portions. ROWG (1969) 265-277 also presented an important tudy on the SU1.1Ctllre. the typology and de\'elopment of the AK.L (genealogical traditions, roval inscription, chronicle and ELs) in his Habilita­tionsschrift Ma/erialiert zltr Olronologif I 'orrkmsim.5 il1l 2. jahrtall.5md T'. all: (1965)" The idea that the legit­imization of Sanlsi-Adad I was the original purpose of

In 111is !>ubjeCl has bet'n eXlensively dealt witll b, KRAl'S (1965) 12~142 referring to L""OSB'R(;ER (1951) _ ("ho beliewd it had been composed during the reign of $;:ullsi­Adad I). ROLLI" (1969) 265-2i7. YtHO'G (1990) 25-3i (f"J.\"01ing the dale of compo~ilion in the Middle Mn;an period. que~tioning the theory lhal it wa~ an anempt to It'gllimi/t' &lIllSi-Ad"d I), '\'\\IAD.\ (1994) 11-37 (creation in the ~ I iddl(' , \.·~syrii.ln period from an OIiginal ofLhe time of S.,m»-Adad I) and ALi,e (1998) 1-2i (Middle \5>,1;.1n period. A;;';um~\~irpall).

I ..... The lale,t defin ition of lhe AKL ru. a chronicle \\';b PUl for­ward b,· GI.\ .. '-"I'loR. ChrMb 87-92 ("chroniqtu rt'I)nkl and 146f. (nolt" the OilicilOll1 on the lemlinology b~ BlU' ... \l\..' [19951668 and \ \' OJ.R pt ... in RBI 9 [2005]). On Ihe gen· t'ra l problelll of ddining chroniclt''i and Ibb \\;lh and with· Ollt inform .. llioll Oil chronograph, :.ee pp. 52f. NOle \'\.., m'R SPH:~ re,"ie\\ in UBI 9 (2005), where he prefer~ the lenll "chrom'gmphic 11'.\t" for the AKL. ROWG (19(5) §30 (pp. 86-92) dis('u:o.scd the po~"'ibk source matelial of tl.)(' AKL (chronicles. rO)al ilbcriptiolh) rejening ELs as l[!oj

main source malt~ri'll.

50 \lesopo[,uniall (,hronolo~ ofthe ~nd ~liIkll1\i\l1ll Be

Ihe AKL has been criticized bl H. \U 0 (197 ) J *--7*. who pointed out that" amsi-Adad I did not mle from A.ssur. bUl from Subat-Enlil and did not elen maimain ASSur as the capit'tl cil\.''' Therefore the genealogy in the AKL represents the ancesU) of Hammu-rapi ' rather than that of "amsi-Adad I. 1>' It has aho been suggested that this genealogical pan came from a sep­arate source and was inserted inlO the original yel ion of the AKL.'·· H.Ul.O (foUo-ling L-I..,\DSBERG~R [195~] 35~4) funl1er claimed that the ntler :-':aram-Sin wa, not a son of Puzur-. ""ur II (as might be indicated bl the AKL) but an inlader from ESnunna. Howeler. due 10

infonnation from the KEL it became e,idem that :-':amm-Sin mentioned in the .'\KL cannot be equated "ith his namesake from ESnunna. '

The AKL uppressed all evidence of foreign mle in ASSur b" making a fictional genealog), Political insta­bilil\' of the period after lime-Dagan I is himed at bl unclear passages "ithin the AKL (-t below sub 2.1.1. ) or chronicle-like insertions. In -.. \5s\1ian - tenn the (first) Dark Age tans "ith the period ucceeding ISme-Dagan I. L'nfonunately the KEL G. which has crucial chronological infomlation on the Old Ass\nan period (Karum KaniS lev'els II and Ib). does not pro­lide material for an ab.>olUle ~1esopotamian chronolo­g)' because, although it cOlers pan of the the ambigu-0115 section of the ARL, it does not link its eponpns "ith the kings' reigns. till, the Old ..\ss)nan informa-

Overview or the beginning of the AKL

1-2 Tudia -Adamu

3-4 langi - Sublamu

5-<; ijartJaru - ~Iandaru

7-13 Im\u -ljal1u

9-10 Didiinu -Ijanu

11-12 Zuabu - :\uabu

I3-J4\bazu - Belu

1-'>-16 AzaraJ:J - L"pia

__ 1",,7 __ ,Apia\al

tion can eonuibut .. 10 chronological questions and mal be supplememed bl Ihe el;dencc of Anatolian dendrochronological data."" ( .. Eponyms sub 10.4.).

Sources. uch ,Ls chronicles ,md (rOl,I) inscriptions "ith genealogical information might h,lIe been used for the compilalion nf the .u\.L as well. "., It ('em; thaI we hale here a compilation from man\' sources (as is implied bl the th.t pam of the ,.u\.L) - or l'\'('n a "Prod, urt oj rrsrarr/'-. as described bl \ .\.'\ SUERS (1997) 76, E'ideml) one of the crucial c,ite,ia of the compilation ""IS to demonstrate thaI MS\na had never been under foreign domination. since in seleral cases the AK.L dearh' conceals the foreign origins of an Assl'rian nder (for example of • amSi-Adad I). '" The AKL was designed to demonsU<lle the continuitv of Assy,ian monarch" With the help of the ARL, whose patronage was rOl',ll, the king's legitimacI was shom1 (H.\J..LO [19 3] 11-12) , \\l,ereas KLs were "nnen to serve ide­ological purposes, EL; sen'ed chronological issues. In order to lerif" the data prOl;ded by KLs, one needs LO

check their regnal lears \I;th the numbers recorded in other ",urces, and to look for their completeness and the reliabilitv of filiations'" In contrast to the Syn­chronistic KL, the Synchronistic Histor y and other chronicles, the AKL does not repon ynchronisms with other rulers. For sections ,,;thin the AKL which may mention synchronistic mlers -> below sub 2.1.1. on periods of political instability,

Table 17.

,., See R {)IJJ(, (1~9) 273" rejecting Land,berger', and Krau')' \-iew that Sam~i-Adad I made an effon LO di'tgui\e hi\ origin.

l.,c For hi' Old A: syrian anc~tors \oCC GRA'1',)()'. RIMA), 47f. , .. V,,, S, rrltS (1997) 75, '. See , 'u"f()f (2003) 45, -+ Eponyms .. , F .

or Important remark.\ sec RfAIJF (2001) 10 (rc'[errin~ 10

the date!) by KI'OIHOl.\1 tt aL of 1996).

, See R()w(, (1969) 274-277. ,",,""">RGI" (1951) regarc"'d chrookles as the main source for the compilation of the

AKL. nut the ft'igll length!J \\l'IC.' primarily known fWIl1 til t'

ELf" il\ wo.t\ "ho ..... n abo\-,('" NOH.' the ob!Jerv<l tiolts on the KEL A in ('onneuion with til(' A\~yria ll Distanzangaben: J>"L"'~'/KV (2006) H-79,

I ~ Not(, Ih(~ royal inscription of Puzur-Sin I (UM 11 568H RI'1A I. 77-7H, (,K,"''''. ARRIM !1 11(IH5) (1-11) r('\ealing Sam\I-Adad I to h<.' non-A"y!iilfl" ~ 2. 1. 1. 011 a pm .. ibll" identification of PUII II -Sin wi lh IltTAR-Sil l 'toe RF \1l1' (2001) &-7

'" R()II II. (1965) I H,

2, A>syrian King List

N_

18 I)al<

19 Samani

20 Uaiani

21 lIu-Mer

22 Iakmesi

23 lakmeni

24 lazkur-EI

25 lIu-kabkabi

26 Aminu Ten kin~ who are anct"' .. wfS (nos. 17-26)

27 Sulili

28 Kikia

29 Akia (ca end of the Ur III period)

30 Pu.Wf-A!Suf I

31 Salim-abum

Ilu~uma are not ...

32

33 Erisum I (beginning of the EL)

3~

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42-47

48

Ikunum I

Sargon I

PUlur-Msuf II

Naram-Sin

~risum 11

5am"-Adad I

ISme-Dagfm 1

A~lur-dugul

Six kings/usurpers

Belli-bani

[40 years]

[8 years]

[-14 or 55 years]

[10 or 20 years]

33 \"ears

40 years

6 years

bab "'PPi (" IO ,ear.;

The numbel"'i in brackelS are k.nown from the KEL (--)0 10.4.). See VEP.:HOF (200i) 60 and (2008) 29

Table 17a continued

Reign lengths of Assyrian kings nos. 49-109 according to the AKL

52 Bazaya

53 Lullaia

51 Kidin-Ninl13

55 $anna-Ad.td II

12 69

28 70

6 71

II -0 1-

3 7:1

I -I 67 49 Liba}" 50 Sarma-Adad I 12 68

51 IB,TARoSin

Enlil-nasir II Assllr-niriir1 II Assur-bel-nlSCSu As.;llr-rii)im-n~-sll

.-\SSuf-nfidin-abbc 11 E,iba-Adad 1

ASSur-uballit

f)6 rrisull1 111

57 S~\msi-Adad II

58 lSme-O,lg n II 59 S"I1I'i-.\ d"d III (iQ A.~tlr-nir!\ri 1

(il P Ullll .... , \.~~ur 111 ('9 Enlil-t1fi~ir I )-

6:1 lU .... i1i

6·1 Ass\I I '-~adltni

H5 A.t~U1\. I'1\bi 1

li6 J\.s;ul"· ll llclin .... 'UUc 1

13 H

6 75

16 76

16 77

26 78

14/ 24 79

13 80

12 81

I month 2

[xl 83

[xJ 8·1

Enlil-nirliti Arik.den-ili

Arlad-nirihi 1 almant'ser

Tukulti-Ninllrta 1

A .. ~llNlfi.dilhlpl i

r\..~ur-niriiti 111 En I i I-k ud II rri-l1~u r ~inltrta-api l-Ekur

.\ssu r-dn n 1 7'Jill\llU-lUk\11 1i-.t~llr

Table 171>

6

7

9

10

27

36

10

12

32

30 37

3/ 4 6

5

3/ 13 36/ 46

IUPPiJ11

51

52 \It''opolamian Chrollol()~'" of tht, 2nd ~lillt'nnilllll BC

'5 ~lutakJ,.,il-~u,lu IIiPimu 9$ \."ur·dJn II 2:l 86 .-lliur-n."'S.."l-i'i 1 I~ !l9 \ct,d-nira.-i I I ~I

87 Tiglath-piie><r I J9 lOll Tukulti-~inul t,t II 7 A'an.~-apil-Elur 2 101 :\'::';:'urnil::oirp.tl II 25

'9 A..~lIr-lXH ... lla IS 102 :':tlm,Ult"'el III ~5

90 Eriba-Adad II 2 103 s.un';'l- \d.ld \ 13 91 SamSl-Adad I" 4 10·' \dad-Illral; I II 2H 92 '\"';uma~irpal 1 1\1 105 Sahn,lI\t"e, IV 10 93 $.1.1maneser II I~ I!~i A ... ii..:;'ur-diin 111 IH 94 "\;';ur-nir.iri 1\' 6 107 .\..' .. ;lIJ'-nirnli " 10 95 A..~;;;ur-rdbi II II IO~ Tiglath-pibe, III IH 96 ,-\SSur-resa-i~i II 5 10\1 Salmallt."\t"r , . 5 97 Tiglath-piie>er II 52 3

Table I ib continued

Value for Absolute Chronology

ince the publication of the SDAS and Chor<. KL in 195-1 b~ Gelb. historians ha\'e based their chronologies of Assma dJrecth on the AKL Chronological prob­lems ha\'e centered on conflicts or lacunae \\ithin the Assyrian tradition. Despite some gaps. omission and conflicting numbers, the AKL is general" con idered the -backbone" of Assnian chronolo!:' . TI,e AKL together \\ith the dates for the Babylon I d}na5ty based on the astronomical data of the vr attributed to the reign of Ammi>aduqa, can secureh establish ~lesopotamian chronol"!:" for the 2nd mill'ennium Be. Some problems still remain as to the type of a calendar m use m Assyria during the 2nd millennium.

Assyrian chronolo!:, is also e tablished with the help of eponyms (limii). Each ci\il \ear " ... , named after an official called limu. Epon}ID 'Iists (ELs) seem to have been one of the most important ~ources for the compilation of the AKL. This can be proven for the penod between 911 and 722. where the AKL can

" ~l"JARD (1994) 1-14. for EL, reaching back", the begin. nlOg of th~ 2nd _millennium see now VU'HOf (200'i)' 1 (2007) and G( 'RA'm (2008) on the KEL . anc

I~ The onl}' di\CI'"C::pancy between the EL and \KJ . I' I ' '00· h ' . \\1l ltn l lilt

~n ,1\ l e reIgn length for Tiglath~pilt"\('r II: I he AKI. '1 gl\(''S 32 \ear\ and KA\' 21 and 22 33 YC'dh,

~c~ordi,~g to X,J".\tA.· (1984) 116, K.Lo; contain .,11 chrom ... oglcal data necto;\3'1 for the calculation of lirnt' \Pdll\ of

DP~n (."\Cl1lS. lIe beJie\'es they \\-en' the main ~Ollr('\ fOI 'III lSt.anzan be h' h ' ga " , W Ie means that theM: arc of no \Cpdrdlc

valu,C for ll?c C'JtabJish_ment of an c'xac[ chrolloJogind Khcme or for the confirmation of a give'n chrollolo(1j"'tl s~~lcm. rt ,~

be direcuy checked against the eponym lists"; Before 911 we possess on" fragmentary lists of epomm (KAV 21 and 22) reaching back to ASSur. nirari II. . Other sources that complement the infor. matio~ ~f the AKL are ule BKL. chronicles, the Syn­chrODJSbC KL. Distanzangaben, '" etc. "'" The AKL covers the entire 2nd millennium and conLinues Lo the reign of Salmaneser V (726-722) '59

\\,i~ the help of the sequence of Assyrian kings in the AKL and the epOll)111S one can clearly idelllifv \'e",,:, covering the time span 910-649, A solar eclips~ dunng the reign of ASsur-<lan III in 763 mentioned in the EL pro\ides a reliable ab;olUle date, '00 Prior to

910, there are large gap; in our knowledge of eponym. B) extending the Ii" of kings further back, Assynan ~hronolog} can go as far as the 13th century :namely Salmaneser I,. whose reign began in 1273 or :~3) with an uncertarnty of ten years ( below sub

A,sur-<lan I)'·' and further to 1430/20 and En lil-nasir II. Beyond that the list of reigns b 'comes more unre­liable and the dales Ie" exact, especially because of

'" A meful prc\Cntalioll of the intol matioll of the AKL, Slip-plemefltcd with . I . f' . exu.orn.1 III 01 malton, t;111 b(' found 111 n. W" ... (1995) 2:l1-~~1, Sec (,R",,,\ (' !1M-lUX") I I" 100 .J .~ Mil L\OlJ (19<)1) ~.

1"1 A-d' ((:01, IIlI{ to the l.abh· of UKJ' ..... I\' (1977) 345 Salnta-

IW\t'1 ., I reign lwgall itt I ~7:~, "' hI.' rNllI(C,.od Middl(-, N,')'ri­all lhrolloloC1v I" I,

(')1 ~I'" >(;('n propu\('d by ll()j-~I' _ WUIIH M ( I 979) 19-'18 I ' '. . " • W 10 .tI 11\(' .It the- dalt.' 01 12(:;3 foJ' Salma-I1t:S{.or, A dlfi('reJlI ' I I ' I

C.t (' II ,11 1011 ),1\ I)('('n pi "pml'd by GASCfIIo "al. (1998 .. ) 3: I ~1iY. 'Calendar

2. Assyrian King List 53

the unknown reign lengths of Assur-nadin-abbc I and A,,"r-rabi I and the DUB-Pi-", lengths of the succes­sor, of ISme-Dagan I. Unfortunately, the various ver­sions of the AKL do nOt provide us with the necessary data to fill those gaps.

The information in the opening section of the AKL is chronologically less reliable than the rest of the text. It is divided into three section and contains information on the presumed genealogical line of Samsi-Adad I (the list of ancestors can be compared with the GHD) without mentioning the exact num­ber of years that can be assigned to the persons (rtllers?) cited. [risum 1 (no. 33) is the first king to be assigned a number of years of reign, 40. which agrees \\;th the Old Assyrian version of the EL (KEL). For the period after Samsi-Adad I, further discrepancies appear \\;ulin the various copies of the AKL. The cru­cial poinl is that in these cases we do not have an} other e\;dence that could confirm the reign lengths we recalculate or assume to be correct. Apart from building inscriptions. there is a gap in documenta­tion for Assyria between the end of Samsi-Adad's 1 reign and the beginning of the reign of ASsur-nirari II in last third of the 15lh centUlY'"' (-+ Royal Inscrip­tions)

2. I. Gaps and Omissions

The AKL has some gaps and omissions. These may be explained as a con equence of political confusion during those periods (L\.'DSBERGER [195-1] 31-33 and 36-37).

2.1.1. KAV 14 (VAT 9812) '~'

KAV 14. an important fragmel1l of the KL. lists rulers from Puwr-ASsur II to l\Ssur-bel-nist'su (ca, 1879-1417/ 07), some of whom are otherwise unat­tested in the AKL, On the Other hand it omits some other ru lers in the A.KL. adding up to ca, 91 leal (-+

Ih'! Fot the d('sct'lldant\ of .. \ ;;uHlIti'iri II ,("t' G\'C'lK­K'R'(lI11\l" (1999) 2\(>-222.

I'" Sec,' GR.A''IO' (1969) 110-111 (\\ith earlk·r bibliogl,lph,') ond (1!l8(>-1983) 115 (,lib KI. 10),

.... S (. I 9 . ec' ,KA''''O' (1~6() III, L"O\IHR(;FR (19;"'d) 31-t~ ilnd I)mm·t (19·1~-1913)165. FOI till.' rl"lding IW-mu,"Hl 'l't'

It"", " RIA II (2007) :171, ,., I . I , . . .,

lUlU IS .1 '0 IIllerprNt"d ;t~ ;\ noun, \\hl h I' Ju,t.lpO\t'd to Mut-A\klll' amt Rimu,: Rt- \I)F (2001) G, NOll' L"lhBt:'RCI'R

( 1!l5 I) 3 1. II~, Thl "! pl'rsoll i~ c!ocullll'ntl'd in ~tll-i It'U<.' I1i: ror a 'lumll1an

'l('{' C \S(III- t'l ai" /)n/mg ,., !l2, l ~nw-O.Ig;\I\ 1 i"l l;.nowlI (0

han' bC,'(,' 1I b'L\('d first ;\l Ek~11I5l\lln, Iii, rt'igll lHi\) han,' m'c"r!ttpp('(1 Lhat or hi, r'Hht'1. ~Ial i it'Ut'l"i , 1\0\\ th;lt aht'!"

Table 18 below), Due to the contents of this text. it can be formally separated from the other AKL ver­sions. The first three lines, which are broken, may have furnished more information on the nature of this list. The fragment is divided into different sec­tions by horizontal lines. These dhiding lines have been interpreted as marking a) dynastic changes (Weidner) b) the omission of names (Schroeder) or c) political confusion and a change in the royal line (GRA\"O~).

KAV 14 contains three names not presen'ed in the AKL: Miit-ASkur, Rimu' (Re-mu·[xJ'6<) and possi­bly Asinu (-+ below) '''' These names are found in place of 13 kings of the AKL and the Synchronistic KL (col. I. lines 1-7), Due to many uncertainties concerning ule period succeeding the reigns of Samsi-Adad I and Bme-Dagan, it is also referred to

the first Assyrian Dark Age (in contrast to the Mesopotamian Dark Age proper, which refers to the time after the end of the Babylon I dynasty.). According to the texts from Mari. Miit-Askur was the son of Bme-Dagan (see AR,\,116/1, p. 156). Howev­er, his accession to the throne is unattested. On the other hand KAV 14 omiLS names which are connect­ed with the -Belu-biini dynasty" (YAMADA [1994] 27) . S.\ss~L-\S~SII.\t;SE~ (2006) 164-165 therefore consid­ers Ule text unreliable.

The kings between ISme-Dagan I (no. 40) and ASSm·dugul (no. 41) were omitted in the AKL (Chors, and SDAS), but reported in KA V 14. As stated abo\'e, ulis part coincides \\iUl a troubled period in Assyria following the reign of Sam "i-Adad L According to KA V 14, Miit-Askur.' bO son of ISme-Dagan I, succeeded as king. initiating the line of kings nos. 4Oa-c.''' The other two names omilled in lhe AKL are RimuS (RP-11I11-[.<}) and possibh' [Asillll]. The AKL itself alludes to this as a u'oubled period, stating that the uccessor of ISme-Dagan I. , ASSur-<lugu l (no. -11), \\ a "son of

his falher'~ death he ruled It years ~ an independent king (CiI.\Rp" - Dl R~'". ,IURl 8 [1997] 372-375). There is e\i­dence Lhat he W~l~ succeeded b~ his son ~lUt-ASkur (AR..\I 26 (I!l,'R] pp. 176-177). "hieh is confimJed b, KA\, 11. II ha~ been somelime:-. a.. ... ~llmt·d Ihat the earliest parb of me AU probabh inc0'l)oI~Ut" infonn.uion from both A.t~ur and Ek'lllltttlll (for in:!tlance GL-\~'rR, ChrJlis9L). G_-\''R-m­tI ilL. Dn/iug ... 52, eH~n proposed lhat MUh-\Skur and his Sllccc~or~ ruled at Ela\llUulll 0111\",

1,,7 AccordinR to C.\.'-.( Ht- t'l ill.. /)a/iug ... 52 Lhis line run~ par· alld to Ihe one rt'prt''icntcd b\ "'~lIr,d\lgul ~U1d his SlIC(:es­

SOl'S (no..'I, 41-53), Shoner chronologies are often defend· cd b\ the .Irgument thal CNI~'tl\ dPKlSlic lines in lhe ~ ran concurreml" r .. llher than sequentially,

5-1 \lesopoL.unian Chronolo~" of lht' 2nd ~li11C:"nni\lm B(

Kings SUCCeeding SamSt-Adad accortling to the AKL, KAV 14 aud the Synchronistic KL

"- \\ II ~m\i-Ad'l(l 1 SHl\ hr h..L

1 Phl I 39~ln~i-Adad 133 ~t"aN

40. 1~I11('-Oagan 140 'eaN Hme--O.\g:1n I

L

~lIimui 41. .~ur-dllglll 6,ean, ~AIiDu) = '""'i~, "- .

, .... ....

~: ;~. "" , ..:. Adasi

2ll. B<lu-bani 10 ' "ean I IX lu-oo. n i 49. lJbava 17 \ears

Libaya 50" Sanna-Adad I 12 ,ears

Sanna-Adad I 51. ill.TAR-Sin 12 \ears

IBTAR-Sin 52. Bazaya 28 \"ears I Bat.aya 53" Lullaia 6 ,e:m;

Lullaia 54. Kidin-Xinua 14 years

Kictin-:"inua 1~ Kidin-Ninua

Table I

nobod\', who had no righl lO the throne" (see GR\lSO~ [1980-19 3]106).'69

L'sing KA\, 14, L\XDSBERGER (195-\) 31-33 allempl­ed 10 show that the AKL in its known full \"ersion had alread~' been allered at an earlier stage" XA'"'-'t\X

(1984) 115-123 agreed "ith Landsberger that there was a chronological gap in the AKL tradition follow­ing lSme-Dagan I and doubled that the Assyrian scribe had anv idea as to the length of this period" He concluded thal lhis gap was due to the lack of infor­mation a,o.ilable to the Assyrian compilers for a polit­ically turbulent period" According to him onl) KA\' 14 eems to manifest knowledge of this obscure gap,

though it lacks chronolOgical data concerning lhe length of throne tenures during this period. In his genealogical table of Assyrian rulers, ROLLI(, (1965) 93 shows kings nos" 40 a-c running parallel to M!;ur­dugul and the rulers described as ruling bab /u/)/Jiiu (nos" 42-47), a term which he cautiously translates "EnddJschnitt (einn EjxmY1TlRnperiode)" (p" 87).''''

In his 2001 article Reade presents e,idence identi­fying Puzur-Sin "ith the king wrillen lB.TAR-Sin (no"

• On the reading of hL, name see BRl\"-\t" (19i3) 318-319 (Su-~jnua). On basi'l of a new collation of KAV 14, J I f F\'>f1.,

X"A .RU. 2()()2/ 62, 60-{;1 prol'O'ed th. reading Kidin­Ninua (3: did Gelb and Landsberger previous')').

IIW I.e. usurper (POF.Bt.L r1912-19431460f. Thi\ de"ignalion h also used later in the list for Lullaia (no. 53; last u'mrper). Note 31')0 Lhe Puzur~Sin inscription. ill which Sam~j-Adad J j(j labeled a a non-Assyrian Amorile usurp('!'.

51)"'" According to Reade'~ interpretation the reigns of all the kings between ISme-Dagan I and IBTAR-Sin in the standard AKL are dispensable: bet,,'een lSme­Dagan and Kidin-Ninua one is lhen left with only five reigns, those of Mut-Mkur, Rimu', Puzur-Sin and his son BazaYa. and the usurper Lullaia" Puzur-Sin is known onl) from an inscriplion from ASsur as the son of ASSur-bel-Sam.:: il states lhat Puzur-Sin deposed A-ri­nim (Asinu?), whose "grandfather" (or rather ances­tor) "'as Samsi-Adad L The Puzur-Sin inscription, which Stales that Puzur-Sin, ruler (EN I,) of ASsur. destroyed the e,il offspring of Samsi-Adad I, who was not a nati'e Ass)Tian, might support the theory that the AKL originall) "as compiled to suppOrt Samsi­Adad's I legitimi/alion (AzIIF [1998] 5ff.).'72 So far the identification of the AJ<L's I B.TAR-Sin wilh Puzur­Sin by Reade has not been confirmed nor widely adopted, and must be treated with caution . It was accepted by WIIJlfUI, MDA R 71 1, but it is not clear whether Wilhelm agreed with Reade's further conclu­sions as well. KEL G continuing after Samsi-Adad's reign for ca" 60 yea rs combined with the Distlllllanga-

I~ .sc-e JA~,)'I., (2007) 104-105 (01 a 'illllil;:u view. )0 2.5. 171 I-or n~f('ren(e\ l() lB. IARMSin ~ee.' nfll'h..\f!\ ~ ( 1976-1980)

23-24"

'>1 See 1.A'J)~II'"r. 'R (lW,1) ~Iff. ,111(1 "I>UV('" R()II .1G ( 1965) RO-8 J Lentali\'e ly pJacc.'d him al(" glll('~J}al.(1tn and ~yn. chronou!) wilh A bl-e~ll b (Ir I he.' Ba bylon I d Yllas lY, who Il ad IOSl mO'Sl 011 11 (> nOllh. t!tu" t:nahling Ptl /ll r~Sj ll and A~~lIr Lo rega in power,

2" Assyrian King List 55

t hed more light on this troubled period. ben docs 110 S O " . . h 'delllification of Puwr-SIIl w,th IB.TAR-BCSldes t e , . "

- ' . (2001) 6 identified Re-mu-{xl WIth Aslllu Sill IhAm. . • " d' L lIaia with ASsur-dugul, whosc s,x eponpns"

an U • I dB-I b-DUB-pi-su"') are known" Reade COIlSI( er~ c u- alll ( 18 f I AKL) Libaya (no" 49) and Sarma-Adad (no. ' 0 lle j

I ( 50) whose reigns LOtaled 39 years, to have ruled no. , simultanously with Puzur-Sin and Bazaya.

The following ;honened scheme wa~ proposed by READE (200 I ) 8:

Salll~j-.\di1d I 33 .... Isnw-Dagan I II ). Om,lead of .to ).} \fut· \skul i?J .. m.u-/x} (= A<;inu) 29~. togclher PUllIr-Sin ( II~. r\.R-Sin) 12 ~'.

Batilya 2M , . l.ull.;ia (-'=' ."-"lIr-dug-nl? \'lith IU/IPiiu-r"i/{'H bell1g Undt'Ntood ,.is e.·potl)m ... ) 6 y,

Su<\"illu<l (= l\.idin-~inua) 1--1), ctC.

IH

As RJ.:.\OE (2001) 3 pointed out, the dates of Kidin-N" (0 ~4) in the AKL must remain unclear: lhe lIlua n "~ bO I reign lengths of two of his s_uccessors, ASsur-~ "I and ASsur-nadin-abbe (nos. 6tJ and 6?), ale missing ( below). Their reigns may be bndged wnh the help of the Distanzangaben known from building inscriptions of various Assyrian kings. Some scholars like Gasche el al" reject the Dislanzangaben as useful for ~lesopolamian chronology. On the o ther hand Assyrian DisL.'lnlangaben seem to correlate well \\1th the AKL, as the KEL pro\'es. '" By equaling one ruler with anOlher and thus telescoping regnal lears (of

171 So f<tT, the tenn Ix1b IUPP;,{u is Iwillwl' IIndcl1.looc! nor cl.ea~·~ 1) d<.'lcrlllint'd b\ chronological me~UlS, Riml llllgs ,mig have ('o-c.~xisted low.uds the end of A..'-iul-(llIgul'~ reign as Ih l'\" did near lhe end of the reign ofA~~lIrb;\Ilipal in the fil,t Illiliennium Be. Unfonllnalt~l\' W(' ha\(' no othe.'r I~('c~rds from .\A\UNlugul's reign which could provide.' mort" IIhlghl

inw the political situalion of that tinlt.'. 2.5, . m On the.' genealogy of the SllCCl'~Ol" of Kidin-Nlnua see

PO\II~P'; IO (1996) 160. , .'.. . 17, FntR (200'l) 191-236 propo"l('d on tIlt., bihl:'! of 111", nHe t ·

" " D' b ,1, It tl." 1"N'110d bel\Hx'"n pn.'"t,ltIon oJ (ht' Istanznngu en. r-F;me.'-D.lgan (no, 40) and lht' {,lid of t\.\;ur-<itlgul (no,II),

- " . . d KAV 14 \\hit'h i'\ It'portl'd ill lht' PUZUr-Slll UlSCrtpUon ,\1\ ,

la:-ilt..'d 125 \t\lI', (4 + x lin~~, \dtich are nol to~· uncl~:: 'Itood .I.'! ruin" or EblUitll1H ;h G \'~( In rl ai" /)almg .. , ~l_ propo\e.·d; lISlI,llh Ihi, pt"riod i, pre."lI llll~d 10 haH' I'htt'd ca,

" . ) 19 '-; ~ - ·1'"" 1) '"()I)C,ht'd b<.'l"t't'll Ullt' qu.trtt' l of ,t Ct'lllUry .... l \t,\!' , ..

. I I '( 18 reckon-lilt, tt.·il{m of HIlle--D~\gnli I ,\lld Ik tI-). III no,' " . ing () ycars lor DU B-/Ji-'\u lings 110\, 4 1--17 olthl' AKL), Itl~ 10 bt' lIou.'d lhouvh, th,lI Fdn's tlll(ic.'r\I.llIltillg of lhl' A$:!\ r·

C"' •• , .. • ' I' tht~ Ont.s i'lIl Oisl'lIl /anK'lbell (ltller, III m.lI! ) pOUltS ro m

iSme-Dagan; ~ 2.2.1.1.), Reade achieved as Iowa chronology as Gasche el aL, who based the,r chronology mainly upon archaeological and astro­nomical data.

2.1.2. The Nass. KL omitts Salmaneser n (no. 93)

Lit.: GR\\'SO~ (1969) 110-11/ and (1980-1983) 115.

2.2. Divergences

Minor variants can be detected for the period from Samsi-Adad I onwards, due LO which one cannot be entirely confident of the exact dates of most Middle Assyrian kings" Fortunatel}',. mOSl of th~ data can _be checked by external critena (see BRI~""l",,-" [19/0] 301-314)"

2.2.1. Regnal years

Table 19

For the results of BRI"""t'-"s (1973) collation (reign lengths. names. etc) of the Nass" KL '''th the

ro >osed .so fnr, Furthermore. his \'ery high chronoI~g}' PhIh I II l ie) is lO be cOI1:tidered eXlremel" unhke­( Ig er l Mn le.. _ ,' , . ibl~ reason ly froll) the hi:ttoncal POllll Or\le\\. Fot the poss ed of dmn1wlio mnrwrifU', the omission of some ~ers s~,cce -in lSme-Dagiill I, sec EOFR (200-1:) 211. Eder s ~hef lha.l th~ Assyrian kings \\'ere dependent on the Hlu"",?an .)o\'el-

" " t be Ilisloricalh confinnecl: tlle ext!)tence or elgnt' C.HltlO • . befi re-HUt,."Ul po I I e.. • . . I"" '1 power or e\ ('n of a Human state . 0 the bit or alb, Ion i~ highly displlled and lacks all) e; I '$e- 11"Lllte\l (1982) 2 and IlE ~wm'o, ~mAR ( enet.'"....· f ~T [ nd

for l-Iurrian polilics dUting the- reigns 0 lIauu~1 t a h \.1 ~ ili I .. lIld \.\, KOI'»l.'. ~IDAR 23, \\'ho suggested t e I ' UN. . . hAl ' .M befi re the end of the exis tence of i.\ .. tmifiM fiWllOJI ~ll) 0 Babylon I clrn;:lS1\, . .

l76 EtWR (2004) 207-44 'Hated thai the number 50 "'as a PI1Ill-

ing mist.\ke. ' .. Il chronolDg\ r1i TI ", '16 I'esult .. in the lowered Middle Us\I1J

1I~ • - ""9) propo""cd by B<lFSF - WIUI!'.! 'I 1~191 .

.'" ote \\,"ION' R ( 1945-1951) 88 " 1'7'1 BIU~"'\L~\l ( 1973) 310 and M KH 7 Hwors the lower IlUIll-

ber"

56 \h .. ,opotamian ( hnmoltl~ 01 tht." 21td. \tillennium B(

help of the Chors. and SDA hI.. see pp. :107-310 (col. 1-1\'). The different totals for the reign lengths of kin" no. 3.,~. 79 and 61 are: Chors. K1. 66 or 76 years. DAS 76 'ea' .. and :'\a". KL 77 ,eal.. BR"K.\t\.., (1977) give' 7 'ears. (See C,SCIif fI af .. Daling ... 55.)

The chronological discrepancies among the \ari-0'" ,'ersions of the .w... 010 th concerning the latter half of the 2nd millennium Be. are: • invohing one year: Assur-nadin-apli (no. 79) and

Tiglath-pileser II (no. 7): 12th 13th cent. • in\ohing ten 'ears: ISme-Dagnn I (no. 40): 17th

cent .. puzur-Assur 1lI (no. 61): 15th cent .. :'\inurta­apit-Hur (no. 2) and .lliur-<ian I (no. 3): I ~th cenL :'\ote that the differences in the reign length of Puzur-ASSur 1lI and ~inurta-apil-Ekur between the Chors. SDAS and :'\ass. KLs could cancel each other.

2.2.1.1. Rme-Dagan I (no. 40)

With Samsi-Adad I a new era began in :'\onhern ~lesopotamia. He ruled from -'ubat-Enlil (Tell Leilan) m'er ~onhern S~'ria and its neighboring regions. His son lasmab-Addu and Hme-Dagan reigned in Mari and Ekallarum respecti"el\ ("ISme­Dagan from EkaIlaLUm") . .-\fter Sam"i-Adad's death in Hammu-rapi"s 1 th year the empire disintegrated. An important question for chronological and historical research is how long ISrne-Dagan I ruled after the death of his father Sarnsi-Adad L The reign length discussion of Hrne-Dagan I is also crucial for com pu­tations concerning the chronological gap in the AKL after his reign discussed above sub 2. L1.

According to the AKL Hme-Dagan's reign lasted for either 40 (Chors. KL) or 50 years (SDAS KL) .. , Others like G,SCHF el aL, Daling ... 52-53 propose that Bme-Dagan I in fact reigned only eleven years after the death of his father.'" Thus only II years were counted for his reign (reduction of 29 years for Mut­ASkur and RimuS). L\'\DSBERCER (1954) 36 and also \'U'HOF (1985) 212 had alread\' suggested that the 40 rears included Eme-Dagan's period as ,iceroy in ~kalli!turn, where he had been installed by his father SamSi-Adad I before his conquest of Mari. Thus although in the AKL Erne-Dagan is said to have ruled

PIO B ,.. lit no,t v'AW" (1980-1983) who ;ugge\led that 40

\can be read here al'io; note the comment by Em R (2001) ~07". '

elfARPI' - Dl ... ''', .l1A1U 8 (1997) 172-373 011 gmc­IJagan\ independent reign after Sam;I-AdiHl's death.

,. V'''"0' (1985) 213f. Sec E,,,. (20M) 20<J-211 ror a high-

-10 ,ears, he onlY resided e1e\t~n ycars in Assur. On the other hand the AKI omits the three gme-Dagan sue­ce"o. mentioned in KA\, 14 ( aboye). Unfortu­nateh. we possess onh scanl\ information about Ihe<e events. The normal ". cession of kings seems to I""e been inlerrupled bl Ilammu-rapi''s expansion, a, sugge ted b, the 'equencl' • \.~sUl'-<lugul, "son of nobod,", ~1Ut-'-\skur of 1\..-\\ Hand Ihe ~Iari lexlS."" • .1., was melHioned above, there exists elidence that "me-Dagan I \las succeeded bl his son ~luI-ASkur:

:'\ell material from ~1<U'i indicales that "me-Dagan I was forced to '<lcate the throne of Ekallatum afler the ill\mion of the Turukkeans (dated to Zimri-Um \ear 12 [= Hanlmu-rapi' lear 30]) and to seek as}IU1~ al Hammu-rapi"s court'" According to KAV H his son and successor ~lut-ASkur initiated a new li ne of kings nos. 4Oa-<:, who might have been contemporary I\;th the rulers from .-\Ssur-<iugul to Lullaia (nos. 41-53). KA\' I.J Ii ts o nly lllO kings between ISme-Dagan I and Adasi, whose name. were pre,iouslv unknown (see abme). COR.'H1lS (1954-1956) 298, postu lating lhe Le. suggested that the AKL cannot be regarded as reliable as usualh thought. He belie,'ed that the 40th

lear of ISme-Dagan I is to be understood as the date when Puzur-Sin (on l) named in the Puzur-Sin inscription, 4 above sub 2.1.1. ) was merthrown which coincided with Samsuiluna's year 9 (th is expla­nation is similar to Reade's reconstruction of the beginning of the AKL).

According to L>""DSBFRGI:R (1954) 3&-39, a sup­porter of the UHC, I-me-Dag-dn I ruled 10 years and wa; succeeded by Mut-ASkur, Remu ... and Asinu, who are missing in lhe AKL bm coulllecl as three genera­tions. 11,e next ruler was Plllltr- in (also missing in the AKL), who lias succeeded by two (?) more unknown rulers (son and grant"on?).''' Then finall) (;ee the AKL) ASsur-<iugul reigned six years, after whom five (six arc reponed in the AKL) kings are list­ed (DUB-Pi-J'u-rcigns, see fn. 38 on p. 37). Lands­berger suggested that for the periods of PlIIU1~ in and his successors lillIe chronographic male rial was available to the editor of the AKL, which I('sulled in some inconsistencies. According lO him lhe add ilion to Adasi ("son of nohody") is incorrect: thc reign lengths of those six kings after A"ur-dugu l were

I) 'peculali'r(' /{'tOI1MfUClioll of Ill(" hi .. wri<:OIj ... iltlillion of that lime.

'" ( ' . 1M ~ 1I.\RI'I~ - ZII(,II R (2003) 2~H>-~:n. ~OLt' ,R,>ack'\ (';11 11('" IlH.'l1liulI('d indclllHkati{Jn (11l.TAR­Sill Wllh PllluI ·Sin). Emu. (200 I) 209-~ 1 ) Il'ckoliNI 125 Y('itf'i for 1h(' rt'iKII~ '10m MUI-A,kllr to BellI-h IIi.

2. A ... syrian King List 57

unknown and could not be placed properly. He con­sidered them to be rival rulers during ASsur-<iugul's reign, a ,iew which seems to be generally accepted nOW. On pp. 38-39 Landsberger concluded that the conlemporary rulers of the Babylon 1 dynasty and the known reigns lengths do not help to restore lhis part of Assyrian history, which he allempted to recon­,tntct with the help of generations.

NA'MI\' (1984) 122-23, attempting a solution between the MC and LC based on his evaluation of the Assyrian Distanzangaben, believed that the reign lengths of the successors of lSme-Dagan I were included \Vithin his 40 years, which were marked by polilical turbulence. These rulers are synchronous with the rulers of the Babylon I dynasty (Hammu­rapi' [year II] with ISme-Dagan 1 [year I ]'"') and the early Kassite rulers.'''' 1': I'\\L>..' (1984) 123 reckoned a quarter century for the gap in the AKL between the fall of Samsi-Adad's I dynasty and Belu-hani.

READE (2000) also assigned 40 years to ISme­Dagan 's reign a lone: To 1639 (PuZllr-Sin = IB.TAR­Sin, year I according to the :>lC) he added 40 (= ISme-Dagan I) and I (= year of death) and obtained 1680 for Samsi-Adad's 1 death. Reade believed thaI the kings preceding Puzur-Sin (= TB.TAR-Sin) in the AKL belonged to the same group, which long after­wards were grouped together b} a ~liddle Assyrian scholar. Between Isme-Dagan 1 and Kidin-Ninua (nos. 48-50) there were twO u urpers with six year-reigns. ASsuHlugul and Lullaia: Reade considered them to be the same person. Then there were the six DUB-pi­'It kings who ruled in ASsUI'-<Iugul's la~i, and to whom READf. [200 I] 7 referred to as epon),ns. Ile suggested the kings Belu-bani . Libara and Sarma­Adad I ruled between 1638-1600 (according to the NC). A scheme bl RF,uw (200 1) 8 demon trates a possible reconstruction from which the standard AKL ma I ha\'e bccn derived, amalgamaling \'ariOlls lradi­lions. Reade suggested thaI ISme-Dagnn rcigned onl\' II years indcpendenth (compare \\;lh C \SCHF ,I ai., Ollling ... 60), more than one ruler following him in

11t\ l3a,ed un BE \,1 J. no. 26. in which 5.1111;1-.\d,1(1 j, ;lllt~"tt'd in lht, lOth wal of Il;u1lI11l1-11.1pi 1

, &\ln~i-.\d.\d I is lnown to

11,\\(" died in tht, IRlh n'"r of 1I'\lllllltl-ropi'. (-+ 1.7.1.) SOlnt: bdit.,\'t, thiH S:UI1::i., \d.ld died during Il;tll1lll\l-l'ilpi)

H'ar 12 or I !l, w('l1 befort" lilllri-Um\ conquest of ~Iari . \\hilt' 1 .I~m"b-. \ddli It'taill('d tht' thron(' for some H·,\! .....

.lhlT hi, f.uhn\' dealh -)0 Eponyms ,ub 10.6 .. mel HOll' G"",cm ,., ill. (1998a) I-A cOITt'Cling thdr d.\t(" of J)l1lill~ .. .. Fl"Om till' point 01 \'it·\\' nf chronology tilt" .Wl\chroni~11l l\'iC'd by Na';\U\.ul ,l1ld L \,n\IU R{;rR ( 195- 1) :\9 j, \\'onhle" ,

,., 0" I ' l\t'H1/.lIlJr.1 )('11 'iuh n.h.

the AKL shared in those II years, and a cou pIe of those rulers were the same person'"

EDER (2004) 207 assigned 40 years lO lSme-Dagan, and due to his e,-aluation of the Disranzangaben achieved a very high chronology, dating Samsi-Adad I between 1878-1846. Furthermore, he allowed anoth­er 125 years for the obscure rulers between ISme­Dagan 1 and Belu-bani.

In conclusion: One might carefully assign 40 years to ISme-Dagan's reign given the agreement among the AKL, the EL or Distanzangaben (though in the end they are dependent on each other). None of these "official" sources hint at the lower number of regnal years for Isme-Dagnn although his coregenC) \\;th SamSi-Adad I clearly indicated by the texts from Mari'" Even more uncertain is the poorly documented peri­od, called the 'chronological gap" by Y.-\.\L-\oA (1994) 23. which succeeded ISme-Dagan's reign and has been interpreted in different \I-a}" by ,-anous authorities.

2.2.1.2. Puzur-ASSur ill (no. 61)

Follo\\;ng the SDAS one usually assigns 24 years lO

the reign of Puzur-ASSur Ill '" (BRI:\"K.\l>'" [1977], \\'ALKLR [1995], C.'\scHE tt aL, Daling ... ), but this can­not be con finned due lO difficulties "i!hin the AKL for both its preceding (4 abo,'e) and follo\\;ng ec­tions. t

'" READE (2001) 5 and 8 in his treatment of the Distanzangaben derived onlv 14 years for Puzur­ASsur's reign, as reponed in the Chors. and ass. KL, but still considered the higher number po ible as well (in the light of the lowered ~Iiddle Ass\TIan chronology of Boe e - \\,ilhelm).

The Synchronistic History I, 5'-1', which depicts AssITo-Babylonian relations from a pro-As rrian Yie,~T, prese~LS the earl\' Kassile king Burna-BuriaS I (no. 10) and Puzur-ASSur III as contemporaries (BR"K.\1 \'. M KH 2<. C.-\LTER [2000] 30). Burna­Burias 1 and PUI.tIl-·r\S5Uf Ill. who wan led lO free him­self from Minanian bonds in the immediate after­math of the collapse of the Babylon I dynasty, nego­tiated an Assvro-Babrlonian border'" The instability

I~~ For re-cord~ on l'mt~Da~n offeling ne" details on the end of his fe-ign see CtL\Rl'I' - ZU:.l,I.}R (2003) 23~23i and 2~)6. Iii, reign endNI .H tht' late~t when Ilanllllu-mpi' COI1-<!llt'ITd ~ t,tI-i and Karana, thu~ probabh inte-rTupting the norm,,1 ~llcces:.ion of l>.in~1"!I in . .\;<:'ur.

.,;..,j ell \RPI' - Zn:.GllR (2003) 81-'3. 1!<'l DitTer('IHh before POF8H. (19-13) :\6 and W flD'fR

( 191;>-1951 ) 100. \!II\ llSll,llly the first l>.illg whose a~ohlle regnal dates are pre-­

S('l1lt'<I ill charts j., Enlil-nli~if II (ca. 1430). Iql St't' G \~ III:· (I al.. Oat'''g ... 89 ,tnd K(II' [ (1999) 216.

5 \te-.opot~uni.Ul Chronok1g'l of the 2nd \[lllennittm B(

and dislocation subsequent to the fall of Babylon b believed to ha\e been of hon duration onl,.: the fall of Babylon instead marked the end of a gradual breakdown and the beginning of a '1e1l era.''''' K(W'F (19 2) 209--212 pointed out that the treaty of Burna­Buri..s I and Puzur-Assur III coincides lIith the lIith­drawal of the Hittites from :\onh \lia. which must ha\'e taken place during Ammuna's' rather unsuc­ce ful reign at the beginning of the 15th cent. (according to lhe LC). At thi poim also the conflict over Syria between Hurri-~littani and Eel'Vt began. Thu the alliance between Puzur-. ',ur III and Buma-Buri..s I lIith the \iew of securing borders fits the hi torical selling perfeClh.

Ro\lTos (1970) 203-204. who tre ed the impor­tance of ~nchronjstic chronicles for comparalh"e chronology. staled that from Puzur-Assur III onwards there is a gap of five generations until AS.~ur-uballit I (no. 73, dated by Rowton to 1365, which is not in agreemem lIith the lowered :'.fiddle Assyrian chronol­ogy described below in 2.2.1.5. ). RO\\lon allowed 135 years of throne tenure for the,e five generations and thus dated the death of puzur-.lliur 1lI at about 1500. reckoning kings nos. 65 and 66 (4 below sub 2.6. ) with 20 years of rule each.'~

2.2.1.3. TukuJli-Ninurta I (no. 78)

Two versions of the AKI., the Chors. and DAS KL, gi\'e Tukulti-:\inuna's I reign as 37 ,ears. According to Boese and WILHEL\I (1979), using a ~liddle Assyri­an chronology lowered by ten \ ears,' " this ruler reigned from 1233 to 1197. The AKL col. 1Il, 10 repons that Tukulti-:\inuna I was deposed b) his son

"" See CoR.'f.l'LS (1954-1956) 300 (LC) on .he comempo­rat) rulers of the Bab)lon I and the Kali\ite d}11ast~·. On the fall of Babylon see CHARP'~ (2004) 382-383.

I." Ammuna i~ the eighth king of the Hittite line: \et: the chan in WIUfEL.\I . '\IDAR i6.

IW Summarized by Bor.\[ (J982) 15 with reference to

BRI'..;K..\L\.'\ • .\1SKH 32. For a criticism of WII.IfH.\t - BoBf's (1987) LC <ee HOFF".' (1993) .';(J, "ho rerers 10 Brinkman's statement that \\'ilhelm and B()e~ restored the !':ass. KL so lhal it fits lheir "desired \Cherne",

1'1$ ROWTfY\ (1970) 201 pointed out that "during the intt'rval of fh-e generation, on four ocC3.\ions the royal line "''as Con. unued b\-' a \ounger brother". For dt-tail-.. \eC al~) PO\-1. I"NO (1996) 162-165.

1';16 The bilingual inscription by TukuJti·:-';inurta I publi.\hed by u.."BF.KT (1976) 8:>-94 and discussed by Vtll"", (19!J(») 2R. correctly stales that 77 king1 ruled befor(: r ukult,.Ninurt.'l.

1Y7 AU these calculations are mainly based upon the Distan7..an. gaben and a c("flain inLerpretalion of DUB-j;i·su (-+ 2.5. ).

\":;',ur-nadin-apli (POI Bll [1942-194:1] 4!l2-lS3 and beloll sub 2.2.1.4, ). The relatiye order of eponyms can be established

in on" a few cases, since no compkte EL of the ~liddle AssHian period is ~nown.'''; A funher diffi­cult\ for establishing dates within the reign of TlIkultj-:\inuna I arbe, because onlY two of his roral inscriptions contain d,Hc" which meam that the chronological order of eH'nts has to be reconstruct. I'd from the contents o. on a textual-historical basis (ee BORl;lR, FAK il-97).'"'' The synchronisms. IIhich are crucial for this period, are on ly known from second an (e'ternal) sources. Crucial for the structure of the ruler's reign is the synchronism with Babylonia, i. e. the subjugation of KaStili..su IV (BRI,,,-"A', ~ISK.H I 1): Synchronistic History II, I '-2'. Chronicle PlY, 1_8"'" and the Tukulti-Ninur· ta epic''', in which the battle between the Assyrians and Babvlonians is treated as well. After the defeat of lZastili..su f\'. Tukulti-:\inurta I carried off the statue of :'.lardu\.. (for the duration of the exi le -t Distanzangabe and Chronicle P) and Assyria ruled Babylon for snen or eight years. According to the BKL A, II , 7ff., Mstiliasu IY was succeeded by Enlil­nadin-sumi (I year 6 months),Ni Kadasman-l:iarbe II ( l \'ear 6 months) and Adad-suma-iddina (6 Years). After a reyollllion Adad-suma-u~ur, son of KaStili..su I\' ascended the Babylonian throne. He ntled Bab}lonia for 30 years and was succeeded by ~leli-Sipak. For the successors of Tukultj-Ninurta I

the numbers given can be checked against the syn­chronisms lIith Babvlonia and Ualli (Tudbalia IV and $uppiluliuma 11).

1- With the help of rmal inc,C'ription\, Wllich name liome of Lhe eponym onida Is. cOllnenion') to hi ... torical (:;\'el1ts can be estabIisl1(·d. Frdgm('nt\ of the E1. for lhe Middle IUs)'ri· an period can hrlp to r('con~truct llwi. ')('qut'nce (FRl)'­

.".,. [1991 J 50-"1) See c.~ ""-K •• ,, "'IAL" (1\J96) 9-18 (on texlS frolll Our Katlimmu) . All roy.11 campaign"! of TukuILi·;\'inuna J filII within hi" first JG )ear ... i.lnd tile cfxJIl)m<; aucswd in 1('x LI) do nOl add lip 10 37 )'eap~ ofreigu rt'pcJrtcd fOf him ill til(' AKL. Furlh .. " ('ponYIIl' froJll [hI:' ~ccond part of Ttlkllltl~Nilltlrut\ f(·igll art' flOW all(:\LCd in the t('xl ... from f('11 ( .ilul.!l il (ljarbe): Kl 11'1 ( 1095) 200 and (1996) 3-7: ~nl(, refert'llu' LO Lll(' Habylolliall"l fiL\ tht' hir tori<"al selling, ... inu' it i\ kflown Ih,1I I \lkulll~N inllrl<l I defeated K.;..l\LiJi.L\lI IV in '-I bailie,' (il'rml1l1L) pml fjllt'm).

" FR~Y1),""''\K (I~IJ) :'11

~II,I ~.'e al"j.() ROI ue. (l9b7) IH2-183. Chronicle ,lIh 7.3. ;dJl ~ J li 'torical i-4)ir

." Sl'e SA"'IA~. 'SIIAI'" ~ (2()(JG) J(iS. 'U, If •• I

n..i1( <l\lllan-ljaJ be: III anol'ding 10 SASSM \N!'Ii\IIALlSH', MilAR fil.

2. A'\syrian King List 59

Tuhufli-Nillurla I & KasliliaJu [V and Adad-suma-tt!,ur

The insenion ofTukultj-Ninuna I in the line of Baby­lonian rulers is supported by a text from ippur (see text no. J 3 in MSKH), which is dated to his accession year?" On the other_hand, the BKL A, 11, J 1 ff. and the kudurru of Meli-Sipak BBSt no. 3 recorded the conventional sequence of Babylonian / Kassite. kings (Adad-suma-iddina, Adad-suma-u>ur and Meli-Sipak) without the addilion of Tukulli-Ninurta I.

BRINK.\L\,", MSKH 19 noted that Chronicle P does not arrange every detail in strict chronological order and that cermin events that occurred closely together in time were insened (Assyrian ntle, Elamite inva­sions): after KaStili..su IV (no. 28) was remO\'ed from power, Tukulti-Ninurta I became suzerain of Babylonia for some seven or eight years until a Babylonian revolt tOok place, after which Adad-suma-u~ur (no. 32) ascended the throne (according to Chronicle P; the BKL A gives tile reigns of the three vassal kings as 9 years). While Tukulti-Ninurta I was the overlord of Babylonia, texts were dated, except for Tukulti-:--<inur­m's accession year, in the names of the vassal kings Enlil-nadin-sumi, Kad..sman-Uarbe nand Adad-suma­iddina (nos. 29--31). According to BRlXK.\L\S, MSKH 18-21 and 31, Kastili..su's I\' imp.isonment dates to the lSIh year of Tukulti-t\inurta I (= 1225 or 1215 accord­ing to the generally accepted lowered chronoloel" of BoESE- WILHEL\I [1979), who assumed that tile end of KaStili..su's reign has to be the same as the year of hi imp.isonment by Tukulti-l inurta I). BOESE (19 2) 20-2J reviewed the textual evidence (especially tile Distanzangabe attested in Chronicle P) and concluded that K.,'l.~tiliasu 1\' lost the throne no carlier than 1222. Boese's lowered dates for the K.,"lSSite kings was adopted by G\SCIIE pi al .. Dating ...• whose chan sets the end of KaStiliasu's 1\' reign 1220 (wi til an uncertaint\ of :; ycars [+2/ -3 )ears]).~" In hi$ summary of K.,'lSSitc chronolog), S.\ss~L\NNSIL\L'SF.N, MDAR 6215 pointed olltthat due to the problems of Eel'ptian chronology of the ew Kingdom, the auelllpt of BOESE (19 2) 15-26

~~1-4 Sl't S\.I.; .... "\\1\ ... 1I \l .... l ~ (2006) l~t69, M 110\\(.'\('1, a!ol poinwd o ul b, WUIIH M, ~tI)AR 729, B()c'("~

rC:',ulh W{'!t.' not rt'ft.' rred 10 b, G \S( 1110' ,( a/.. On/iug .... . For anOlhl'1 \'il'" 011 tht· period of the rulers M1CCt't'dillg l\lklllll~Nilllllla\ It'ign ,ee II \c.a , .... (200:l) 37-'1l. who po,,~ lU!;Ut'd fll-ll'gt'ncie", ;md ~\ lowering of the AlIlarn~' period b) H()" IO() > t·"".

:11111 BI- ( 1\\1" (~WOO) ~3-2·1. BRY( to ( 1999) 347-25,1, Ilt ~I \lUL'O (1!)93) 218-2·10. KII 'l" " (1\J9\J) 29+-297, ~to .. \. ;It/II"IIIII''lIIl 16 ( 1988) 553-55 1. S.Ma R ( 1999) U89-ti\JO .

¥t17 For funl".'1 '\\'ncluoni'illl' 'i('t' 6H ''''1 \'1 (2000) 23-~H. 111M l)('pl'lIding ~ltl th l' d.uing of rtll..ul(j·NinUll.l: \\'\1 MR

to arrive at a more precise Middle Babylonian chronol­ogy through links with Egypt is quite problematic. For more details 4 Chronicles (Chronicle P, Chronicle BM 27796) and Historical Epic (Adad-Suma-u~ur Epic).

Tukulti-Ninurla 1& TudiJalia JV'~

Besides that between MUeSili I and the end of the reign of Samsuditana of Babylon I, another synchro­nism between Mesopotamia and !Jatti is between Tudbalia 1\' and Tukulti-Ninurta I (KUB 3, 74 [CTH 177.1) and RlMA I, A.0.78.23+24)."" This Hittite ruler, whose length of reign is unknO\m (probably 15-20 years), is reponed to have fought Tukulti-:'iin­urta in the lauer's first or second yea?" in the battle of the aili lands (= Nibriai, north or nonh-east of Diyarbak.r)."" Tukulti-Ninurta I negotiated with the king of the land to the north, Lr}ing to hasten the downfall of the Hittite empire"· Tudbalia 1\' was defeated by the Assyrians and news of their ,ictory was spread throughout Syria, as is shown by the leller RS 34.165 (= RSO 7, 46 of the Unennu archive) ent to fbitiinu of Ugarit describing the details of the bat­tle. If the sender of this letter was Tukulti-Ninuna I, this would provide an important synchronism between Ugarit. l:iatti and ASsur. The battle mo t like­ly took place in tile first year of Tukulti-Ninurta I, which thus rna} also prO\ide a Imnillus ante qu~m for Ibitiinu's ascent to the throne. No fmther conflicts between lIatti and Assyria are reported.

2.2.1.4. ASSm-nadin-apli (no. 79)

In the AKL III , 10 it is reponed that Tukultj-Ninurta J was deposed by hi son ASSur-nadin-apli. A variation in the spelling of the royal name of king no. i9 is gi\'en in the DAS list, which refers to ASSur-na~ir-apli (= ASSlIrna~irpal). The Nass. KL correctly names ASSur-niidin-apli. The Cho. . KL calls the u LlIver Assur-nadin-apli, but the father of ASSur-njriirj III ASSUI~na.i.~apli. ~Ioreover. this king's length of reign is different in tile Nass., DA and Chon;. KL.

( 1995) alld BR""l'" (19i7): 12·13-1 ~l()7; Bo","- lVIu.U,." ( 1979): 1233-1197 ("Io"ered Middle ,,1ian chrollolo­gy "). alld G.'SOIE ,/ aL (199 ): 124()"1205 (chronol0!l' cor­

recled ror sob. \ears). "" CR\\"". RIMA' I. 272 (I. 46). See also S"',[R. LA 75

(1985) 100-101 alld id. (1999) ~9 (011 RS 3-1.165). Fora genera] description see Blnu:, (1999) 3-l9-354. The .. ide-nli. ticalion of the ;":airi lamb \\;lh Nibria it.; doubted b,' G.u nR. JC' 40 (198R) 232. .

110 01'1'" (1983) 1:l pointed out. lhat dut" to tlw:. .)rnchr~ ni'illl. the o ne ben,t.'en Tudbalia IV and Merenptah cstab­li;;hed by GoetLC is incorrecl.

60 \(e,opotamian Chrono iog" of Ihe 2ml \lilknllil1m Be

The \-arian£s name~ of .-\"~Tian ling no. i9 have been discwsed b\ Y\\L\O.\ (199,) 26-27 and Pf.mR­St" (1999) 369-373. The oldest cOP' of the AKL nOled that .-\;sur-nadin-apli wa;. the SUCCl'"or of Tukulti-:\inurta I and the f.·nher of the follO\,ing king. The twO later Yep,ions seem to ha,e a ' plit tra­dition or a differenl one. Royal insCliplion~ are auested onh for Assllr-niidin-apli. who i, also report­ed to have held an eponml office dUling the rt'ign of Tukulti-:\inurta I ( APOREITl [1979] 116-11 7 and FlU.,u\'", [1991] 121). The name ASSur-nadin-apli is also fotmd in the ynchroni. tic KL. The onh "lIabic writing (for the logogram PAP; lIa-,ir) for the name Assur-na,ir-apli can be found in Chronicle P, where he is said to ha\e killed hi. futher. but not mentioned as uccessor. GRA\;o,. ABC no. 22 nOled some scrib­al errors in Chronicle P. Pedep;"n 'peculated that the confusion might be due to the reading of the logogram PAP. WEID',-R and POFBEL (1943) 56-90" suggested Tukulti-:\inurta [ had two sons: .-\."ur·na,ir­apli the murderer and .-\.S'ur-nadin-apli the uccessor, Pedep;';n discussed the spellings of logograms in :\liddle As",;an personal name, and concluded that confu ion in the histOlical u-adition in :\eo-AsS\"rian times resulted in the differem spellings: he ruled Out the existence of a second son ofTukulti-:\inurta I.

¥\.\l-\IH (199 ) 26-27 poimed out that onl\ later sources name Assur-na"ir-apli (Chronicle P and Chors. as "ell as SDAS from the th cem.) and demonstrated that this name was due to a scribal con­fusion. He concluded that the murderer as well as the son was Assur-nadin-apli, as had been recorded cor­rectly by the scribe of the :\» s. KL (nothing is aid on the number of reigns), which is generall) considered to be the better tradition. This error may have occurred due to confusion "ith king, Tukulti::>:inur­ta II and his son Mur-nii~ir-apli II. The pair of names ma), ha"e inlluenced the di,erging and erroneous entries in the AKL, since it was edited about 100 ,ears <>fter '\'ssur-nii"ir-apli I!. The latest version (SI)AS) e~~n o~its AS.sur-nildin-apli completely, designating ASsur-na"r-aph as Tukulti-:-':inurta's I successor. As Yamada nOled, following BRI'K.\IA' (]973), a number

211 I h l a; often ?<'~n ~umed that the:: revolt lead to til(- parti-

~Jc)~ of A'i'i~·na.II1LQ SC'\el-a1 "mall kingdom,; or pJincipalili(~". an IIlterpretauon adoplc'd byJamcf),t al. in their \llldic\ em chronology. Sct' aiM.> Sc\\gro"h in van der \'H ~ _ 'I. (2002 '. . . . .tRJ\\f

) !8J-UU (table 4a and 4b). ~OIc how{'\er P()~I('AH (1991) 24-4-246. who 'it.ale\ thal no ('\-idem'(' ('xi\L\ fl)r th(. frcl~n.lentali(Jn of the i\s\}Titm empire. 'x'c tht' 1)I)\tin~\ by Whiling \ampl{'d on ~'W.caeno.org with \pc:cial l'lIlpha'ii\

of dose afliniti,', can b,' f'H lnd between Chor8. and O.\S, '"' oppo,,'d to the. a,s. 1\.1. ( below). It Illa\

be p",sible that the e rrol which OCCUI red in the AKl a1,0 infiltrated Babdonian te'(ts (e.g. Chronicle P: other il1(orrecl Inronnation of this text has been pointt'd out before). '"

Thl' :>:"". AKJ not'" that Assur-nadin-apli reigned four \eal , " hifh is considered to be the COr­rect number in ,ie" of the more rl'liable Lradition of this older manuscript (see also G\St III'. ft a~ Dating ... 62-6:1). The oLI1('r two list;" which also confused the names. <i" three 'ears. BRI'K.\I-\'-, :\.ISKH 32M!! and BOI'" (1982) 15-26 both pointed Out the conse­quences for A!s\rian and K"5site chronologv (= low­ered b\ on/.' Year with the \-ariation of +5/ -6 sea,,), if the lower numher of thl ce vears is regarded to be COITect (-> 9,1. ).

2.2.1.5. Ninurta-apil-Ekur (no. 82) and ASSur-diin I (no. 83)-"

-\s Rt \DE (200 I) 3 demonstrated, the discrepancy bel\,een tile 1\,'0 texts. :\a". and Chors./SDAS, can· ceming the regnal length of ASsur-dan [' " (36 or 46 lears) implies that ti,e reign of Salmaneser I could have begvlll either in 1263 or 1273. BOESE - WII .IIEL\I

(1979) 23-24 devoted a paragraph to the reigns of AS-Ul-dan I (no. 83) an d his fatller Ni nurta-apil-Ekur in their important stud) on Middle Assyrian chronol­ogv·. These reigns are ... el) problematic in "ew of ti,e .-\ss\';an chronology for the second half or the 2nd

millennium BC, main" due to the variations in the existing copies of the AKL, since a difference of up to

20 ,ear, of reign is theoretically possible. Chors. and SDA KLs report 46 years for the

reign of ASsur-dan I., the 'ass. KL offers o nly 36 (:-.1assouhi read this number correctly, while W~IIl'ER (1945-1951) 88, no . 16 incorrec tl y read 46). BRI'K.\I" (1973) 309'" rniewed the original photos and read 26[(+ x)] without noting whether the rest is unimcribed or dt"stroycd. SA.,'>'I \~"iSIli\t'SE\ (2006) 165 agrees Ihat only 26 is vis ible but consid­ers 46 the most likely restoration according to the remaining miles. Boese and Wi lhdm adopted 36

on tIl(' [LA: KAV 21-24, whkh do 1101 allow thl' prop(l~ed oV('rlapping of A\'~YI iall killg~.

:tl~ 'fl ·· I 11\ 1"1 allnt1(:r indinuioll IIial ChronidI..' P IIlll 'Sl h.tH' Ix'ell

11) ~·c.'I1lPO"c.'~ at til(- ('IHI ul tlw 91h ('{'nL: YMtAU \ ( 1 ~)~)H) 2H-27. J hl'\(' krng, 'WI'\(' ~I\ it hil\(' Jill(' fOl Middle A",,,,),rian

(hfo'lolof.,ry: \t"(' for exalllp!(' I'IU-l ( l q~)7) 36011 A"'''')Tian, BdhylonhlO and EI01Ui .. HI dal<·,.

,,. S<'(' II"'K\1.'" ( 1!I7:l) 3(1) .

2. ASS)Tian King List 61

years, which has been generally accepted within the past years, on the basis of twO inscription.' and the prism inscription RIMA 2, A.0.S7.!, whIch IIlcludes a Distanzangabe of 60 years by ASsllI'dan's 1 grandson Tiglath-pileser I (-> 9,2.) and was written in the 6lh

year of th e latters reign. If Tiglath'pileser's reign began in 1114, the 60-year span of the O,stanLanga­be implies that A~sur-diin 's reign began, or ended, in 1174 - 01 in 11 69, taking in account that date of the composition of this prism is Tiglath-pileser's 61h )'car. Given ASsur-dan's long reign, it was assumed that the Oistanlangabe referred lO his reign's beginning (see their table on p. 25): Thus the 36 years probably given in the N<tSs. KL for the reign of ASsur-dan must be the correct value.'" This dictates a lowering of ten years in Middle Assyrian ch ronologr (see p. 26 of BOESt - WILl IEL\I).

Another discrepancy can be observed in the KL for Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of lIi-padi,'" who, as reported in a chronicle-l ike secLion of the AKL,'" came lip from Babylon and seized the Assyrian throne. The Nass. KL cites 13 years for this king, whi le Chars. and SOAS both report three years only. So far the higher number has been generally accept­ed due lO the synchroni.ms \\1th Babylonia and Egrpt, which has 'lhen been combined ,;ith the -16

!l!. See FRJ.·YD,\,XI\. (1991) 32-33 for another Di<;tanr..lIlbrabe of Tiglillh-pileser I, wh ich also hilll'i at the lower reign length fOI ,\i,ur-diin I. Fre\dank agreed ,\-;t11 the lowered ~Iiddle Ass\TiiHl rhronologv. sugge!'tli ng :~6 .mel 13 ,cars for A;;ur­dan I "nd ?'-Jinurta-apil-Ekur re .. pecli\t~h.

2Hi For lht' ne\\ ((';'Iding of the father\ !lallle see C\,UK­

KlR.\<III\\l \1 (1 ~)99) 21C)-217 (pre\-iotlsh- read inter alia 111.1-ibadda, now usualh rt'ad IIi-pad,,: "ee BR" .... \I.\.'

[ 1\17(;"'1980] 50-;. I and 1'0\11""0 [ 1996] 161). (:lI1ci,­Kir"ichbau1ll evaluated the rele\iUH Middle Assyrian tc:\.tS publi\hcd b, FRI,.""., M.\R\' 1\'. \\'\'DOG 99 (20(1I), which provided deci .... he information 011 the geoea1ogy or Middk A"~)Tian kill~ sltcCt.'('(ling Tllk.ltlu-~inurl'l I. See abo CR.\\S()~. RI.\ 9 (20(H) ;")3 1. On tilt' reconstruction of Iht' l')On\nH' "ucu'"ion durillg lht, reign orT\1kuhi-~in­una I \Ct.' FRnn\'I ... ( 1991 ) 13-51. On tht' aHe~tation ... for Ih-padi, the ,wkal1u ml1l1oftht, tI"IUW ',hi \b\,i.ld and Mking

of !,Ianig'llbat"' , tht' \\l'ljlNIl pro\'inn" "et.' C"cn .. -KIKS( 1m \l' \I ( 1999) 2~0-2:! I and \\'I(;(.t R't ," (2000) 172. liI-padi\ fatl\('1' Qlhi-'\~~U1 1Il1l'it haH' rukd llanig;llbal dllt'uh ,lltt'l S,ltIuara 11, during thl.' rt'ign nr S.lhH<\Ut' .. CI' l. Ih-p"ldi'~ reign I.p,t('d tHlli! \';'tlr··nirthi III.

~17 rhi .. U'iltlpalioll j, .11"0 ft.'corekd in Iltt.' ynchronislic His­tor)': During tht' ('onlliCl bt"l\wt.'1\ the A.''''' ri.U1 rulel Flllil­klldulri·u ~ l1r ( I\~UIlc..' resLOI'Ni) ,Ind Ihl' Bab~lol\i,\ll \d.\d­sum'HI~IIl" Nil\un'h lpil-E~lII n'wl"1lc..'d to .\~~ll\'. brlow.

~ I /t Row I 0, ( 196()) !HO-2!JM (ompalt'cilht, "'\1111 01 r 'gn"I \t.'.\1~ betwl'('n Ihc..· B.lh,lonhul rulc..' l' Ad~ld-;;lInla·u~lIf ( ..... l~ite

years of reign of ASsur-dan I. This calculation goes back to pm:SFL (1943) 87, whose proposal has been followed by most scholars.' " (-> Distanzangaben sub 9,1.) New evidence for supporting the "'ass. KL's longer reign for Ninurta-apil-Ekur comes from eponyms, of which more than lhree are atlributed to this ruler, as was pointed out by GA.XCIK-KIRSCHMt:\I (1999) 217 (referring to FREYD.-I.'" [1991] (95) , who opted for the dates 1182/ 1-1169 according to lhe shortened chronology of Boese - Wilhelm. Other Middle Assyrian documents from ASsur and Kiir­Tukulti-:'Iinurta containing epOn}IDS studied bl Frey­dank also seem to support the "shortened/ lowered Middle Ass)'ian ch ronologr" proposed by Boese -\\'iIIhelm'" Thus the Nass. KL once again proves more lrtlStworthy than the other AKL texts (FREYDAXK [1991] 34). Howe,er, as BOESf.- \\'ILHEL\t stressed, no conclusive e\idence for either 3 or 13 years yeL exists."" Became a reign length of 36 )C<trs for ASSur­diin I seems correct, Poebel's 46 plus 13 years is too much. The correct sum is 46 + 3 - or just possibl)' 36 + 13; 49 "ears."" Basically the ancient scribes had the sum of the 1\"0 reigns correct, but became confu ed over how the 49 "ears had been distributed bel\<een them. Thus Boes~ and \\"tlhelm's lower chronologv of the peliod seems to be the righl one."'"

d\11ast\') and Marduk-sapik-zt:ri (Isin II d\llasty) and lhe kno" n regnal length!> of the.'" comemporan- Assyrian kings induding lhe repor~ of the S"nchronistic Hislon. For the reign of ~tarduk-sapil-zeri ~ee id. (1939) 6-7. Rowton cor­rectl) st.ned thai EgrpLian chronology depend~ on \\helher the higher or lower number for l'!inurUt-apil-Ekur b cho­sen (p. 25i), ;:llld that the BKL .. hould not be brought imo the di"cu~ion on Egyplian chronolog". l-Iowe\'er. T\O\IOR

(J9;;R) 135 assigned 13 years according to theN'a5.:). KL and rt'ferred to the sHlchroni::-,1Il riglath-pilescr I & ~Iardul­n~din-abb" and \\'Fln"R (1919-1951) and IT:-\ 49-50.

'! I'" Accordingh year 1 of S .... lmane:\cr I (no. 7i) is d,ued to 1263 instead of 127~ (BR"."~' [1977] or\\'w-ER [1995]). For C\S( lit fi nes dme in their tablc in Dnlitlg , .. ~ee the :<tum man b\ Wu tlU \1, MDAR 7~9.

:.>:!\I Accordingl~' BR" .... \l \., (1973) 313 scated that before lhe datc of II I all inaccurar. of te.'"n \·e'l~ mu"t be recloned with. Anothel' point of uncert.,inty. as it had been men· lioned, i ... the meaning of DUB-pi-fu (kings nos. 84 and 8.5). For an l,ntireh different hi~lorical illlerpre.'"t<llion of the .'\1\1. (c ... peciall\ for the pedod after Tukulti-~inurt~l I br sUhrg6ling co-r~.'g('llci("\ ) with ;1 re1>ult~I1H lowedng of the ,\m.mt;l period bv 80-100 \eal' ... ee H.\Gt'C;; (2005) 23-41.

:?:! I Follm\t~d b\ X\)\\t" ( 1984). m The Disranzangaben wel'e rniewed b\ (he authors in order

to fOnnrm the reign of 49 ~e;.l"'" for both king;;. -i' ... ub 9.1.

and 9.2.

62 \tt"opolamian Chronolo~ of tht' 2nd \Iilknnittm B( '

2.3. Different genealogies

For a ummar\" on the conflicting information from the KLs and roral insCliptions starting \\ith ASsur· niraIi II (no. 68) ee BRI'\J;.\l\.' (1973) :~ 12. PO\lI'O"O (1996) 159-165 and Y\.\l·\IH (1994) 33-3·F.

2.4. Variations in royal names

King no. 79, 'uccessor of Tul-ulti-:\inurta I: A;slll~ nadin-apli in :\ass. and ChOl .: and Assur-na.ir-apli in SDAS (~above ub 2.2.1.4.). For details ee BRlX"-\l\" (1973) 311. G.-\SCHE ,I aL. Dalillg ... 55. GELB (1954) 209-230 and READE (2001) 3-4.

2.5. DUB-pi-Iu

The tenn DL·B-pi-';u appears three times in the All. being used in place of the number of regnal years for the predece ors of ASSur-resa-isi I (no. 6) and for the kings succeeding --ur-<iugul (no. 41; ~ 2.1.1.).

• inurta-tukulti-ASSur (no. 4): .... reigned lufrPiil~" • Mutakkil-Nusku (no. 85): -~Iutakkil-:\usku, his

brother, fought \lith him (and) carried him off to KarduniaS. ~1utakkil-:\usku held the throne for tUfrPiiu (and then) passed awa\."-'''

• A similar fonnulation can be found after ASSur­dugul's reign (nameh ilia faT$1 ASSur-dugul, i.e. \lithin his reIgn) for kings nos. 42-47:'" • ... 6 kings, son(s) of nobody, exercised for bab !ufrPiSu kingship.''''

Th.e meaning of DUB-pi-.iu (Akk. lUfrPiiu, "'" 'his tablel ), whIch IS also frequentIy mentioned in docu­menlS, h~ been \lideh' discussed in the past. IlS mealllng IS sull not clear and depends on the overall rehablht)' of the data presented in the All. General­lya difference of from none 1.0 two ,ears is po'sible,

"" ~ gz:and<on Tiglath-pileser I also refe" 10 ,\lutakkil­, .usku S u'iurpauon. but omits ~'inuna-tukulli-A\~ur from h,ts gel~eaJogv .• 'othing is know" of the came., of Mutakkil­

%24 ~usku sdeath mentioned \\ithin this pOl! \age of th(' AKL "" GRA"(" (1980-19831 106 (sub §15).

For another translation "(at the) beginning of his IUPPU" see C,~HE tt aL, Ualing ... 53, where /upplt is reckoned a.s 0 \ean. :-';otc howe\cr that it is not clear to whom the ~;u r~fers .(mo~~ probabl~ their predcce!)sor) since the- group of klOg~ IS de~lgn.ated onlv as DUMU (singular!). A p<>5sible r~lauon to theIr o\\.n IUPPU therefore (an not be excluded. :'\otc that the 8th ccnwl)' inSCription of Ninu,·ta-k d _

(G u urn-u.)ur .\.Sl.JIf f'I. al., ValinK ... 53) also show,> a -;u which does not ha\c an apparent antecedent in til<' text Tho could implv thai /u"'"' . h 1_ . "

, 1'1''' mig t re ate lO the "peaker 01 tJw text and meam that Ihe synthc\i,> by (;,\.~ '" ",/ r I . r· ' ... ' I, 0 0\:(.'1-

n. applllg 0 reJgl~s cannot be baM:d on rhis pa.'>'>age. AH" 13941>: "Ill. (End-)Zeitraurn v, wlihn~nd"; JA!\'S". !\' (2007) 104 (he rn"pelled tuPfJ;'u ,""ead or /ul'/';;u) under stands thiS term - following Ro",:wn ("end-bit") _ as "mild'

a, ha, heen delllonstrated b\ Bm.sf - \1'111 lEI 9~9 ) '3 '> ' \I (1.1': ~I-:" .'" 0,,1\ Rf IDF CWOl) '1-5 suggested

thaI Hi 'ear, ~houl~ be ~':ckoned f'or the kings ' reigns tenned as (bab) DL B-P'-111 ( sub 9.5.), ome schol. ar; belie\'e that Ihi, term simph indicates that the exact reign length is unknown or lost (x 'ca,,), Due to the facl that tIle l-n(}\\1l ELs do nOt C(}\ er the respecti\'e peliod" lie can nOl. reconstruct the nUm. ber of years of the I.in!;' melllioned abo\'e. It has also been suggested that their reign did nOt cover a whole epon\1n \ ear and therefore lias reckoned as O,ears.

An o,'erall u'eatment of DL'B-Pi-.ill was presented b\ Bm:.,~ - \\'11 tUl \1 (1979) 21-23 (including exten­lie blbhographical notes).-''' The foll(}\\ing options

of calculation lIere discussed in the past:""

• Reign of unknolln lenglh (COUIll x years): Cor. nelius. Landsberger and Tadmor. ince It IS now assumed tIlat king lislS sen'ed for the recon truc­tion of time spans (~ Distanzangaben), this opin. Ion IS no longer acceptable. It can be assumed thal uch hi torical material as complete ELs were at the

disposal of the scribes or compilers, which would ha\'e helped reconstruct reign lengths for relativel), late rulers (BOL<;E - \\'IlHFL\f [1979) 22).

• Time span of 12 months, starting in the accession \'ear and lasting to the first regnal year (COUIlI. I year): Weidner

• Time span of less than accession lear and first year): Cavaignac

two years including the regnal lear (COUIll. 0-1

• Unknown time span (usually fess than t\\O rears) at the end of an epon\1ll's period of a king whose suc­cessor does nOt appear in the ELs (no eponym),

(Latin): "Faktictch war mil tUpjJiiu d('llInadl ill der AKL generell die Ztit \Om Beginn de~ letllt'n Jahre'i bis 111

J leInChaft,·ndf: d('"\ ail('fen Ktmig\ gellwim. Dic'teJ' tiber den .Jahres:"(·ch~t"l hinau~gehende Teil del I ferrschaft isl der SchJu')~ab\chnill, der die 11(" r\,hafl (lll><:-r) \-'oll maC'hl." (Com part' Ihe l{'nn\ d{'ri\,ilrion from fllfX1pu "to /mow Jull. "'tnr [CAD T 4R].) "He CAD T 129 ,ub 3'd (sub IU/'pz) "mnl(, tmrn·f" Wllh Tf! 10 Il'rm.s oj office. III ~l'~p{JJhe IQ CAD \(.(. FRfYIJ..\f\f( (2007) 225-2~7. RAnNHt,

SAA:" () (1997) 5:~5'P:!71 ha\ bhown, rllill in NeCrA'i'iyrian \('1""\1(,1;'. COlllntU" the Icrlll /uP/JU dt'IUJI(" " period nOI

m {"~fel'(hng lO nHHHh\.

~ote folJcJwing (OI11I11('n l bv BKJ\L \1.' ,. ( 1'173 0 1'\ ~, . ) .. . : .... ,,,. 'Ire !tilj)) not \lIre of tht, , mcanillg" of lht. phr;t'it.- 'ht' ~lIlt'd/helct Itw throlw IIl/Jp'<,u'," FtUrther JrJ1P(U 1'lI1t \(lIdi(,\: I'IUYIMN" ( 1991) ~J~-3 1 , G,\."o(:lU r al., /)fllmf( ... 5:l-54, NA'AMAN ( 19HI) llr;- 12(i IhAUI

,>. (200 I) ~ and J ",,,.~ (200(;) 6,>--/;7. .. ,

~g~ J ~~;~lC)f(' r('«'1I1 ci(:lailc.'d oVC'l'vi('w ,,('t· .J \~"''''rN (2007)

2. Assyrian King List 63

The lcngth of the reign is added to the last king's years (count 0 years): Rowton, Hornung and van der Meer, This interpretation has been widely acceptcd in general historical works (probably due 1.0 Rowl.On's CAH article), although we do not have any dcfinitile proof as yet.

• The period between tIle death of a king and the end of the calendar year (count 0 years): Poehel

In order to establish a chronology the amhors propose a maximum of 2 years and a minimum of 0 years. The calculation uses the value ± 1 year, which means that both kings can be dated in 1133 (±I year). "Urn den Fehler bei den folgenden Berechnungen so klein wie moglich zu halten , gehen wir von einer Regierungszeit von einemJahr (±l) fUr beide Konige (nos. 84 and 85) zusammen aus. Sie raUt demnach in das Jahr 1133 (±I), d.h. der Tod des ASsur-<iiin I. erfolgte imJahr 1134 (±l)."'~'

The con-ect understanding of DUB-pi-su is neces­sary for reconstructing Assyrian chronology (~ Dis­tanzangaben sub 9.1.) following Samsi-Adad 1 and in the Middle Assyrian period following ASsllr-<ian I. In general, the term is used in association with times of political insu~bilil) (which lherefore are not well doc­mnented. G.\Iu.u I (1985) 92 suspeclS ,iolent take­over is the case for kings who only ruled DUB-pi-su, as is anestcd in the AKL for Mutakkil-Nusku. Due 1.0

minor variants one cannOl be entirely confident of the exact elates of mostl\1iddle Ass)'rian kings' reigns. However, the data can be checked against other sources for most of the period (BRl);J;.\!A:\ [1970) 301-314): Note the discrepancy between twO texlS which repon different reign lengths (36 or 46 rears) for ASsur-diin I, and tIle lowered Middle Assylian chronology proposed b)' BOFS~ - WllH EDt (1979) 19-38 (~ above sub 2.2.1.5 ). J \NSSEN (2006) 6tHi7 proposed counting 2 )'cars for both of tIle turpisl/, based on his evaluation of the Distanzangabe on the

t.1Il BOF,t _ WII ,IIH \1 ( 1979) 23, N\'\\l\' ( 198·1) 117 ~H1d \W\

B~T"Ht\TII ( Iml7) 60 agrt~t.·d wit h IIlt'ir view. and Walker\ 1995 titbit- n 'ckous 0 yeal-.. for fhe DUs..pi-Jtt .. rcigll~ and I t:l3 for ' \."ul"·dl'iIl's last n'"r. -+ below.

~'1 t'C' FIH'IH'~ (2(00) 67-72.

'" ott' fO! ill'(;lIl("(' F'1'\t (195:l) 9~-9~~ (co-Icgenn of A ;;llr-

(Hin I and hi, oldt"U 'ion NilHlI(;Hukulti-. \s.~ur). 2~' c.

"x'C' 0.11'10 FIU"",D"~ (2007) 27: "Wo diese~ /uppu in del" AKL "uhriu, bt"ilRt e, nicht Ilwhr lind nicht wt·niger. ai, d.l.'\".\ inm'lhalh dne, l1;\ch J ahr{'11 g"c.'/ahltcn lind mil dm'm I kn"ch<.'1' \t'd>l llldt:,!lt' ll Ztimh\l'h niu "aul3erdcm" ;ulden.' PI,.'I"iOllt'n di('l\.{mih>'Shl,tT"ch;lfl ill\."'Yl'it'li all~ge\-,bt h"bt'n."

~'" F ' . or ,\ It'lgll 1""lIng m ore thall (111(' H',n .!ICl' DonbM ( 1992) 119-125. Earlil'r, 011(' ~ ear of rl'ig-ll h,L' been propoo;;ed d\1('

clay cone Assur 12572 of ASsur-rcsa-i"i L He allowed 36 years of reign for Tukulti-Ninurta I.

FREYDANK (1991) 32-34 bliefly discussed DUB-pi-.iu in connection with the length of the reign of ASsur-<ilin 1 (no. 83). According to him (p. 33) the chronology of this peliod is far from being determined unless we gain more infonnation on the sequence of eponyms.'lI For a long lime it was assumed that the Assyrian rulers Ninuna-tukulti-ASSur and Mutakkil-NllSku (who was less active) together reigned only one year within the reign of their father ASSur-<ian I (around 1133). Later it was suggested that there might have existed a co­regency, which lasted longer than one )'ear and is to be placed towards the end of ASSur-<ian's reign."" This means that both rulers may have exercised their office during the fonnal reign of ASSur-<ian I (36 years; see FREYDANK [1991) 34) and that their reigns are then to be reckoned at 0 years. '" Lately this view has been fol­lowed b)' GRAYSO:>l in RIA 9 (200 I) 527 in his treatment of Ninurta-tukulti-ASSur.'"

Cole in GASCHE ,I aL, Daling ... 53-54 also calculat­ed IlIppiJu as 0 years, the same as POE.BEL (1942-1943) 289-296 and (1943) 86. He undersl.Ood the tenn (in light of the AKL's descliption of kings nos. 42-47) "to

refer, respectively, 1.0 the last regnal years of kings 4 1 (ASSur-dugul) and 83 (ASSur-<lan I) ." (p. 53). Citing further e,idence for this ternl, he concluded that it was "the portion of a deceased ruler's fmal regnal year that was completed by his successor (in chronological tenns ; 0 years) .". Also JA:>ISSE:>I (2007) understood /ufrPiJu as the end of the previous ruler's kingship, which is identical \\rim the .,ps saniiti of the successor.!!t5

Though the few years' uncertainty caused by tIle DUB-pi-sll-reigns do have an impact on the choice of absolute chronological ) terns for }'lesopotamia, the missing reign lengths in the All for kings nos, 65 and 66 do cause an uncenainl)' in the date of the kings who preceded Enlil-nasir II . ~ below for details. GeneralIl' - as in the charlS of BRlxJ;.\\A.x

to attestations in a ~fidd1e Assyrian archh'e from ~ur (PEO"RS'~, ,\loA I [1985] 5!H)8 [M 6]): see L",'O>B'RGLR

( 195,1) I to-I59 or ROWG ( 1965) -17-49. BUI il has been shown thallhis archive cannOt be direclh linked to Ninurta­tukulti-.lliur -, reign: POEBEL (19·13) 65-U6. ROWG (1965) 49 concluded that this archive does not contain deci~i\e

chl'Onological argumenb, .. ince here the tablets of onh one economic \ear \\ere ('ollected .uld deposited. in a jill'.

~~ Jan ....... ell proJXbes the concept of ~\ tripanion of a k.illg' rule: n.') ,{anti/; - reign - /uPpu and concludes (p. 104): >oDic'll' Erkl,hullg ~teht im Finklall~ "., d~ tuppiSu t'ill Cildlichl'r ZeiU:lUm sein muO. dt~l .lber nicht einfOich mit dl'Jll "nfang, dl'l Mitlt, (xit'r dem Fnde de ... Jahre ... iden­ti .. ch "cin k;ml1,"

\1t""'Opot.UllLm Chrolloluj.." of tht' ~lId \hlknnium B('

(1977) and \I"\L .... R (1995) - DlJB-pi-sIHeigns haw been ,,"sumed to be 0 ,'ears.

For .-lliul'<lugul ,md his uCCe&;Ors note Reade __ com­ment of 2001. -1-5 offeling a radical ne\\ illlerpremtion of the.-\.IU. (-> abole sub 2.1.1.). Here. the question i, how the teml biibis to be lUlderstood: either a" the "um" of (lmknOlIll) regnal lears or as "the bej.,';nning" of" certain peliod.- Reade assigned 96 lea, to these kin~ (6 x 16 Yean" -> just belo\\ and Generation). HOlI'eYer. on p. 7 hemted that the six named king" "look suspi­ciouslv like .-llilU'<lUgul'S epoml1b" adding up to ,Lx lears as stated in the AJ\L (ASiiur-<lugul i:. equated \\ith Lullaia~)_ Reade "shonened" the .-\.IU. bl equating the names Puzur-Sin and m.TAR in and minimizing the nwnber of reigns between Bme-Dagan I and IB.T\R in by setting up parallel and independentll mling goyer­nors at ,-\SSur and Ekallalllm,r It has been assumed before (G-\SCHE (/01. DaJing _ .. 52. GL\! "FR. OIr.l/h. 91) that the early pan of the AJ\L contained infonnation on .-\SSur and Ekallatwn. For one /uppiSu Reade calculated 16 years in accordance \\ith his interpretation of ])is.

1a02angabeo. in which the alerage regnal length of a king adds up to 16 rears. How",'er. it should be noted tl,at in the case of Esarhaddon's Di:.tanzangabe of 580 or 5861'ears (see p. 5). the 32 years (2 x 161ears) for tlle /Uppiiu-kings ~inuna-tukttlti-.~r and ~Iutaill-:\'usku cannot haye been included (the same goes for the earli­er six /uppiSu taTting \\ith .-lliur-<lugul. whidl Rl._\D[

[2001] considers being epomms). JA_,\SSE.X (2007) 105-106 took up Reade's idea that

the six kings nos. 42-47 might ha\"e been ,-\SSur-duguJ's (no. 41) epon)ms, \\ho functioned as co-regents and

Enhl-na,ir I (DO, 62)

I\iir-ili (no, 63)

A~~ur-bdunj (no. 64)

together reigned () leal . lIe concludes "AI; A$ur­dugul ... nach !.ur/cr Rcgiemng s~\lb. blieb demnaeh der Schauenk<inig ,\da,i iiblig. del seinen Sohn Bel­hani als Ikn,chl'l imhronisiert haben diu ftc."

2.6. Missing reign lengths: ASSllr-rabi I (no_ 65) and ASSur-nildin-abbe I (no. 66)

The reign lengtllS of l.ing-. nos. 65 and 66 are Illi ing in all hll0\\11 lel ,iom of tlle ,\J\L. Charts listing \.ss,';an king-. tL'ualh '[;.Ul citing absolute dates "ith tlle sue. ceeding king. Fnlil-Il:l~ir II (no. 67), now usualh dated to H20-HI5 according to tl,e lowered Middle Ass\1ian chronolllg'. '111is peliod, a politicaJh unstable peliod and reigns of tl,C kin~ cannot hal(' been too long (tllOugh propoals range between 0 and ca. 70 yeal~): ,-lliur-rabi I (no. 63: "Iears) deposed his nephew A$1II~ 'adlll1i (no. 64: I momh).'''' son of Niir-ili (no. 63: 12 leal) and grandson of Enlil-na,ir I (no. 62: 13 I ears) and was succeeded b\ his son .-lliur-niidin-abbC: I (no. 66: " I ears). This means that ASSlu~rabi I \\'a'> the brother of . ·ilr-ili. :\otiee tl,at Enlil-na~ir n (no. 67: 6 )ears) was also the brother of Nsur-nadin-abbe I (no. 68: 7 years), a rela­tion recorded incorrectly in the AKL,'·' which states: "Enlil-na,ir. <;on of PUztllc.-lliur reigned 13 years, Niu'-ili son of Enlil-na~iJ reigned 12 lear,. ASSUI~'adfll1i son of ~iJr-ili reigned one month, ASSuHabi 1 son of Enlil-na,ir (remo\ed Assur-'aduni from the throne). he took the tluone (for him;eLfand ruled for x years). ASSur-nadin­abbc: son of ASSuHabi (mled for x rears). Enlil-ni!,ir, his brother, (remOled him) from thc throne (and) niled for six ,ears, ASSur-nll"iiri. son of Enlil-na,ir (I) reigned for 7 years." (GRAI,>()' [198~1983] 108). (Table 20)

1(110

Enlil-na,,, II (no, 67)'" Allur-njrar; II (no, 68)

Tab!. 2/J

lJ6 R()~G (J965) 46. lie could not olf('[ a d('ci<;ivc argument for euher nf the propo~b since too Iittl(' j~ kllown about the ruler~ following bab tuppi.{u.

m p. 6: "Jf PUlur-Sin and IB.TAR-Sin arc inrlc(:d one man tiP . . , r~lg.n~ of all the kinh" between I\mt'-Dagan I and IB.1AR­Sin In the \lan~dard king-li\t are di\pt"n'ktbl('. ikt!o\ccn I~m('­Dagan I and Su-!\inua \I.e are left "'llh a minimum of fivc reigns, tho.,c of \Iut-Mkur, R('-nw-[x), Pll/m-Sin (1639-1628,.111\ 'son' Bu.aya (Ifi27-J(~IO). and" 'murpc, Lullaya (I 599-1 591}." and p, 7: "So we (an be rUlhlc~\: III the period Dctween grne-Dagan I a rid Sth~illua there an' (wo u"urper'l, both with f~year Icigm: A'~ul .... llIgul ha\ d

grand name: .mel Lullaya'l h)'l)(l(ori'ilic 11 ,1111('; pt'rlmp~ the)' arc 11](' sanl(' pt'r"HI. 'Ill(' .,ix lujJJJt{1I kinH~' who rt'igned ow /fJY)1 A\;:;ur-dugul, look \u\piciou\ly tike.' A~~llI-dllg\ll\ ('pon)'Ill!l ... " » .. tbo\{· \lIb 2.1.1.

%lII nKl'K.\f\~ (1977) 315 dnd W.\I KIR ( I ~J~)5) ~~~2: 1 '-13()-IW~. Th('ir \ligllLlv (lilh'I('1l1 11 II III IX'I \ (+2 Y"iU'i ) .tf(' due 10 dif-

It f('[{'nt Inlt'rpre.·I~lIi(H" of IlIjJ/niu-n'igll\. Due to lilt' fanth.1I hi<; 1-lIlomh I(.' igll ill Ii'iwd ill Ihe AKL, tilt· dcpt'nd{'lIcy of Lhe.· AKL 011 lilt' FL W;I~ doubled b~ Rl)lIU; ( l!)(;:) H~'.

~.."

:w F~)J a ~raphi( clt'pinion ,('t' G'\."", III 1'1 flI., /)(llIllK .. ' 55 , I h(, \rllddl(' ""'\}TI<UI H . "I1<lrt~ with Ao;'Llf-lIll'nll 11.

2, Assyrian King Lilj;t 65

Scveral proposals have been made concerning the reign lengths of kings nos. 65 and 66. ROLLIG (1965) 58 suggested that a solution has to come from non­Assyrian sources. However. the proposals mainly depended on the interpretation of the Distanzanga­ben (-> 9.3.) and the estimate of an average genera-

'" B . II . tion interval on throne tenure. aslca y, two opl1ons exist for the Icngth of their reigns: one either calcu­lates 0 years for both reigns assuming that both kings did not reign a complete year. or one proposes a cer­tain number of years to be determined. POEBEL (1942-1943) 289-296 and 479-482 attempted to cal­culate their reign lengths on the basis of Distanzanga­ben mentioned in building inscliptions and deter­mined their reigns had both been zero years. Interest­ingly. no inscliptions are known for both kings. WEtD­NER (1945-1951) 100 suggested one year of reign for both kings together. However, Cavaignac (1955) 97 based on hints concerning the relationships in the royal family, proposed a maximum reign length of 73 years for both kings and a minimum of 0 years (p. 96) . ALBRIGHT, BASOR 88 (1942) 28-33 reckoned 22 years for both kings. ROLLIG (1965) 249. who supported tlle LC, also suggested a length of ca. 22 years for both reigns by attributing a longer reign to ASSur-rabi I since his son was removed from tlle tllrone by his brother. On the basis of his interpretation of tllC Distanzanga­ben N"''''iA.'i (1984) totaled their reigns at 3 L years (145 1-1421 ); while GASCHE fl aL. Daling ... 5-1.. based 011 tlle average reign lengtlls (generation) of kings nos. 55-64 and 67-76, totaled the two reigns to 14 + 15 = 29 years. The Assyrian kings nos, 63-68 accordingly reigned 54 years (25 + x [= 29]).'" On pp. 55-56 Cole in Go\SClIE fl aL, Daling ... illustrated tllat, using tlle

2-42 Rowton proposed 20 )t"ars each for reigns of orderh suc­cession, RUI)~ [2000] 4-5 16 )'t'ars as the 3xer.tgt" lhrone tenure.

21~ The)' pointed Out that the Me would natllmll\" require a longn rt'ign length rOI the twO kings (up to ca, 1000 \e~u"!'\). which till" ronsidered unlikt"h dut· lO Lht" short reigns of the prt>ceding ilnd ~Ilcceeding lings (pp. 5·1 and 56),

tH St.'c Pltll'INSl K\ (2006) 73-79. who lries to shO\\ the (011-Clln ellce or AKl. and Dislalll<lIlgabell data on lht.· b~hi"\ of the prop0"lcd d.He 1792-1760 for Samsi~Adad's reign ( \Ie lowered b) 16 ~ears. ~I I5-H';\I' rt'cluclion ;tccording lO tht.' diltl'''I propo.,t·d b} CHA.RIII' -- ZIF.Ct~R [2003]). Thi ... solution would Il·(IUirt· <I higher 1H1111ber of regnal \ear:, for king'! 1I0S, 65 ~md 66 without prmirling am fulther e\idcllct". IIO\\'{,\ t'l', hy reckoning 40 }car"l for the I't"ign of ISrllt .... O<lg.in I (including wilhin his (host' oj Mflhl\..~kllr and RIIll\I~) ,\I\d o )('ilrs (?) t()I kings II O~. "2-47. a cunsider;.\bl) high 1111111-

bel' 01 ti6 )'('iII~ i~ It'fl for kill~s nos. 6.~ and 66. ,\hose reigll~ 'Ut' ~ilid 10 h,\\(' l .. \len p IOl(t' dur;ng a poliLicallv i""'I"blt'

MC. the reign length of these kings would total from 76 to 97 years (depending on the \',uiants of the AKL manuscripts). READE (2001) 5 proposed 30 years in his re-interpretation of the AKL elates as did EDER (2004) in his table. ROIITO:\ (1970) 33 proposed 20 years for each king's reign, assuming an orderl)' succession (-> Generation for \',uious approaches to define an aver­age throne-tenure). Opting for a high chronology, LA.'iDSBlRGER (1954) 43 suggested 40 years for both kings. VA.\; DER MEER (1955) 35, on the basis of the BKL A, gave 26 years for the two kings: his calculations were said to have been "Tf!Chl gwogf by ROwG (1965) 59.

The total of 29 lears for ASSur-rabi I and ASsur­nadin-abbe J gi\'en by GASCHE tt o~ Dating .. , 54 comes from their calculation that the average throne tenure of kings nos. 55-64 and 67-76 was either 14.4 or 14.9 years, depending on the reign length of Puzur-Assur 111. But this also depends on which of the absolute dates is "selected" for Samsj-Adad I and whether one accepts the validity of the Assytian time pans.'" In their la[est table in Akkadica 108 (1998) -1, the\' reduced the dates for the reigns of kings nos. 66 and 65 by another nine years (18 years were suggested for both reigns) because of the corrected synchronism between Hammu-rnpi' and • amsj-Adad I: in their table in Daling .... the year of death of SaIllSI-Adad J

was assumed to be year 8 of Hammu-rapi\ but it was in fact year 17 of Hammu-rnpi' (or year 18 according to the more recent research of CHARPIX - ZIEGUoR [2003]) . The)' shifted the Ass)'!ian reigns by nine years, which were subsequently subtracted from the unknown regnal veal's of king nos. 65 and 66. ·which are hlpothetical reconstructions an", .. y. and there­fore elaslic" (p. 2). Of course, the more problematic

period. Theoretic..'llh such a high number ror a,emgt." thront" It''llurt'' b possible. btl( according to the A.< ,rian King List data unlikeh (-+ Generation). \\1,3l set'm~ l·\i­

dent. (hough. i ... that according to Assnian tntdition 10 ~ eal"'" are to be rt"ckonl..~ for I;rne--Dagftn e\·en though ht" did nOl aClUi\lh nile th:.u long. Due to further uncenainties concerning rulers nos. 42-17 and the fuet that we do nOl k.now hO\\" thest' reigns '\t'"re under.itood by the s\Tian chronogl<lpher;s, the calculalion i'i ..,till tentative ;lnd \\ill rt"quirt" further modificmion .. (compare Rl.\Dt,: [2001 ]). In summan. then." are twO m~~or uncert..1.intie.;.: lht" rt"ign kngth!> ~f kin~ no... .... 65 and 66 and the actual lenglh of lht" leigHS or king-. nos. 42-1:7. Talen the 1...no\\1\ reiK" length ... bl'tM.'CIl S.unsi-.\dad I (no. 33) and Enlil-n~1I 11 ( 1430- 112~ or 1420-1-11 5) into 'IC(Ollnt, which ~ldd up to 274 ~t~ ,\I'':- , am chronolob~ bt'l\\t.·en Me and lo\\er ,ollllion ... is pG-" ... ibk.WiLhoUl rurther e \;dence tlul is consbte'm with the AKL-data it is ditlicult lO oflt"r new ... olutions.

66 \lesop0L.unian Chrollo1oR' of the 2nd \lillt'llniulll BC

parts in the beginning of the .\KL (e'pecialll con­cerning the first .\ssl'lian Dark Age). which might be interpreted difTerentll add to the uncerrailll\ of the calculation of the reign lengths for these king".

Concluding remarks

The AKL along \lith the ELs and astronomicalll anchored epon)1l1 chronicles prO\ide the onll fiml basi for ~lesopotamian absolute chronolog", as can be demonsLrated especially for the 1" millennium Be: berween 91()...U.t9. The accuracy of the AKL and EL has been confimled by the KEL. Though F)u:m.~"; (1991) 15 wrote. 'Obwohl also der a,s\Tischen Konigsli te zufolge seit Ensum L prinzipicll jede, Regierungsjahr einem Epon\lnat enlSprechen ·ollte und darnit. wenigstens in der Theorie, die Kenntnis der Beamtennamen bzl\'. der Jahre ohne limu zum mindesten die assnlsche ChronolOgie bis ins 19 Jh. Y.u.Z. ichern konnte, bleibt diese ~Ioglichkeit in der Praxis mre"'t ohne Bedeurung.", it eems that we might be approaching a more exact chronolo!:, for the time succeeding Samsi-Adad [ (and especiall; the period after lSme-Dagan [, which is less well docu­~e~:ed in the AKL) thanks to the KEL covering Kams leyels II and [b. The KEL sho\\ that the AKL as well as the Distanzangaben are ultimatel, are based on ELs'" - a dependence especialh ob'i'ous for the period between trisum and Samsi-Aru.d L The first eponpns are knOlm for Ensum, whose regnal length is cited 40 years.

[n trYing to adapt the AKL data to a lower chrono­logical . cheme, G\SCHE et aL used the follo\\ing assumptIons (hsted by Cole in Dating ... 61).

• h,i.gher varianlS for Puzur-ASSur ur, ASsur-nadin.apli, ~murta-apII-Ekur and ASrur-diin I

• lime-Dagan's reign was reckoned at onlv eleven years instead of 40 (AKL) ,

• DUB-pi-j'u-reigns were reckoned at 0 years

• the combined reigns of ASsur-rabi I (no. 65) and

'" Th· d IS was oubted?" Ri)I.UG (1965) §30, who hypmhe\i' ed thal 'iOme kind of Relchschron ik" fonned the basis of the AKL and other chronicles, such as the S}llchroni Lie J'i \w­" (pp. 00-91). On p. 87 of his study he liSled argumell t' that h~d been brought up in fa\or of EL\ Ix~ing the' Wurcc malenal for the AKL However, at that limf" the KU, and the o\erlapping ~1 EC were unknown. The oldel.lt EL known 'hen. W", 'he badly pre\O,,·ed list from Bog,lIk6y Kl,;B 4, 93 (~C fH 817): Of COu rse R611ig was righ' ,hal 1I..\ 1i" lh,' king a!Wd.)i!'J WJ~hO~l filiation, but w me of the fnAgm('nt~ of ~h c AKL ~Iso lin ~~ngs without paren tage. For gC"1('aloKi<'al information add1tlonaJ source material liuch ali ( hronidcli

.\."ur-nadilhl~b" (110. (6) ".IS 29 '2R , 'ears, later reduced b\ al1oth(,1 l1illl' H'ars

• rejection 01 til(' \""riall DisLartzangaben data

• this !xlSe chronolog\ W'LS cOITected agail1st 'IOlar dates ('tarring "ith Tiglath-pilesel I [1111-1076): -18 years until the reign of Samsi-Adad J) Calendar.

The mer-all result "'IS a lowering of ca. 100 veal~ for Samsi-. \ dad T compared to the Me. Also the dates ofEnlil-na,ir II (no. 67) are dropped 8 years from the generalh accepted l·nO-112521" to 1422-1417 (reduction of one yeal t'WI'\ 3~ veal" for a total of 8 years"' ). G~'i( III ft aL. Dating ... 61 also indicate that their so-called ·corrected base chronology" mal' require be further shortening. In order to fit their dates to agree "ith knO\\1l .\.ssvro-Babvlonian s}n. chronism , the date~ of the Babylonian kings as sug. gested b, Brinkman w('le lowered bv fi,·e ,ears.""

G\SC!U. et aL also supported their reduc~d chronol. o!:, by new e\'a1uation~ and computations of astro­nomical data. which allow a solution for the dating of Ammi'i'lduqa e\'e" eight ,ears (instead of 56/ 64 rears) . But the;\lC resullS of the Gasche group may be challenged in mam way>, as has been shOlI1l above (especially bv cross-checks with the DistaJlzangaben and the E1.<;). Further, new dendrochronological data from .-\natolia possiblv connected with Samsi-Adad I may date this ruler to 1792-1760,'" which is consistent "ith a solar eclipse mentioned in the MEC.

The synchronisms bet,,·een the Babylonian and the Assyrian line of rulers show that between Puzur­ASSur rn and Burna-BuriaS four generations (47 + x )ears) had passed berween P'lIur-Assur and ASsur-bel· ni~~su, and lhree or four generations between Burna. BuriaS and Kara-indaS (depending on the placement of KadaSman-lJarbe I) . This means tha t the time span between those ru lers cou ld have been as m uch as 100 years.'''' Unfortuna tely, so fa l no decisive info nnation has come from the ch ro no lo!,'Y o f perip hera l areas (Syria, Anatolia, th e Leva nt, or Elam) or from the

and rord.1 in'Krip liOIl\ m<'l)" \\'('11 h~t\(· bt't'n u";ed _ as Willi tht"

~tfi r~\C for thc' nar raliH,' chronirll'·Jik(' 1>;'111' of tilt." AKL. Compare the Ihl 0 11 p . 62 wilh WAJ 1-.. R\ (han ( 1995) 232 and BRI~K"." ( 1977) ~4 '> :to ~ . Ole lowc"'I'('d \.-fi ddle A\,~)Tian ('h l ()llo l ()g)' propo!)cci b) nOF.~fo - ~1l11l 1 ,M in IH7!), h('(:all t;" il j, b~hNI mainl)' on a rC-<'Yd luauon of t il(" ) i<S lJ ll/fUl gol!>(' Il , it; r ('jc{ Lt'd by Gasche fl III.

HII So 2'1'" e BIU'K.\iA!\;, M~KJ I ~2k'J alld B() I ~ 1 ( I!.lH2) 15-2Ii.

MI(IIf1 (2002) 17- IH, 1'"1 / " " 1" (2(J(J(j) 7:1-79. Dis-tan~.angaben aile! Eponyms

~~ . ROil.!" ( I gr;,,) :1 I!).

2. Assyrian King List 67

generation counts. The lost reigns of kings nos. 65 and 66 can only be bridged by the Distalllangaben, which cerlainly cannot furnish any more information as to the exact length of their reigns .

Dcspite the late dates for the redaction of the var­ious versions of ARL, this Assyrian list remains the most re liable source for chronological issues of the Ancient Near East, as the ELs, Distanzangaben, royal inscriptions, etc. have proven. Whether the tradition an d redaction of the AKL can be traced back to the

Old Babylonian period (note the ancestors' list) is still unknown. Despite its long textual Lradition it has few mistakes. Most of the unsolved problems con­cern the earlier part of the list. As for the period after lSme-Dagan , the "first Assyrian Dark Age", none of the AKlrexemplars provides decisive information. But aJl in all the AKL can be con idered a reliable source and gains even more importance when syn­chronisms are fit into ilS historical and chronological framework.

Parts of the AKL Discussed with Respect to the Absolute Chronology of the 2nd millennium BC

Samsi-Adad I (no. 39) Isme-Dagan (no. 40) Kings succeeding lSme-Dagan: Variation of \KL. KA V 14 and the Synchronistic KL ina la,,; .\ssur-dugul (no. 41): b,jb IlIppi", : nos. 42-47 Identification of l8-T.\R-Sin "ith Pumr-Sin (who is not mentioned in the AKL.",...?<-__ ...J

Belu-bani (no. 48)

Puzur-A5sur III (no. 6 1)

A55ur- aduni (no. 64) Msur-rabi I (no. (5)

A§§ur-niidin-abb~ (no. (6) Enl i l-nii~ ir II (no. 67)

Variation of reign lengths

Lost reign length Lost reigrllengt)]'-___________ --'

Difficulties with the genealogical infonnation provided for kings nos. 68- 74 A son of Assur-nirari II (no. 68), namely Bcr-niidin-abbe, is omitted in the AKL

Adad-niriiri I (no. 78)

AMLlr-niidin-apli (no. 79)

En lil -k Lld Ll rri-u~ur no. 8 1) Nmurta-apil-Ekur (no. 82)

Uur-dan (no. 83)

Slight variation of reign lengths between the Synchronistic KL and the AKL Incorrect genealogy except for the ass. KL Slight variation of reign length and incorrect filiation

Vanalion of reign length Varialion of reign length: difference up to 10 yellS is possible

murta-!Ukulti-A ur (no. 84) fNppt ,,-reign utakkll- usku (no. 85)_~/IIPpi u-reign

Table 21

Links

. . d h ' I D' tanzan<r.lbe n Epon ons Ge nealogy, Genera-A'" ononllca l Dala , Calendar. Chro lllcles. Den roc lono og)'. IS. 0" ,

lion, C II D, Sl nchro nistic KL, Yca r.

3. AsTRONOMICAL D ATA

.. One oj Olll problems, as Assyriologists, is going to be know­ing haw to hrmdlR what is to us entil~ly strange statistical

dala ral her than straight[""vard histmical narralille such as we lull" been prroiausly accustomed to use."

C.B.F. WALKER (1983) 14

Sources, Textual Evidence for the 2nd millennium Be

General edilions

- EAE (tablets which are essential for chronology, including the lunar eclipses of EAE 20 and 21 as well as the Venus cycles recorded in EAE 63; Venus Tablet [\ "T]): REI'ER - PI:\CREF (1975), RonIBERG­HALT01\ (1988)

- Month-lengths: H UBER et al. , OPNE - MEC (-+ Eponyms): EIROT ( 1985) 2 19- 242 - KUB 14,4 (partial solar eclipse)

ANATOUA

EAE 20: ,uk.1I1 eclipses (lunar)

EAE 21 : I r 11\ eclipoes (lunar) linked l<I Sutgi and Ibbi.sio

Ur m montb-leogtbs linked 10 A.mar-Sin

me (".Iar eclip"") linked l<I s.~ I

vr = EAE 6:1 ( \t"IllIS Tablrt ): \;sibilin. pht"nnmrna of \ ('mL~ linkr d l<I Ammi4aduqa

Old Baby100ian montb-leogtbs

TeO M"bommM yeaMWDe: lunar ecUpoe

Fllrlhn ,Iudie.'

KUB 14,4 (J>II:I1IIoI ooIu eeUpee) linl<ed 10 MuriiII U

Gl RI\1J\ \ ', Daling ... 71-76, (2000), 177-186. (20ooa) H~1 5 all d (2003) 13-17: Il U B~R (1987a) 3-13. High .. . I, ,>- 17 and (1999-2000) 50-79. 287-290: lI t ' GFR

(2000) 155-158; KOCH (1998) 126-129; MICHEL -ROCHER (1997-2000) 111-126; MICHEL (2002) 17-18; MITCHELL (1989/ 90) 7-26; Rt:.ADE (2001) 1-26; ROCHBERG-HALm:\ (1995) 1925-1940; SE.-\l. (2001) 163-173; \\'.-\l.RER (1983) 10-26; WARBCRTO:-l (2002) 108-114 and (2004) 583-598; WEIR (1994/ 1995) 70-78.

General

3. 1. Eniima Anu Enlil tablets (EAE)

Enama Anu Enlil (IiL "When (the gods) Anu, Enlil [and Ea established in council the plans of Sky and Earth]") is a manual of celestial omens and consists of ca. 70 tablets comprising ca. 7000 omens and cor­responding predictions. The tablets of the asrrologi­cal omen series EAE were found in the royal archives in Nineveh and date to the 7th cenl. BC. It is assumed that they incorporate much older material, in some cases dating to the beginning of the 2nd millenn ium. TIle first 49 tablets of the EAE deal "ith lunar, solar and meteorological omens, and the last 20 \lith plan­ets and star!" Unfortunately, the information exu-acted for chronological purposes (EAE 20, 21 and 63) derives from corrupted copies referring to astronomical C\'ents which took place ca. 1000 years before. According to Huber orne omens in EAE 20 and 21 , plus the desCliption of a lunar eclip e (-+ below), refer to pecific historical even ts and are lherefore relevant for abso lute dati ng: 1) presumably referring 10 Sargon, king of Akkad

(Akkad ecl ipses); 2) presumabl, referring to the death of 5ulgi and to

the imprisonment of lbbi in, king of r by the Elamites. The e LJr III eclipses took place 4 1-44 years apart. Among the texts in th is corpus one can observe a

collection of Venus .i-ings and settings cove.ing 21 ,ears (EAE 63). \\hich ma\ be connected with

"~I St.'c.' l~.i' I ~FR in (olb boration wilh PI".;(.RtF ( 199H) SPO 3. ec also BPO I on EAE 63. For.\ .!lhon description of the ,\"ell pre-­

' t'n't'd l.thlt.'t-. of F \f \t'e Ih l( ,I 'I ( I D!H) 59, Kc)( I I -\\'t~ I ,,'1I0Ll (1995) 7·1-92 and II I '<AR - Pr\(;RH" ( 1999) 12- 20.

70 ~1e!\opotamian Chronolog-. of the 2nd \iillcllniu1I1 Be

Ammi~duqa' lh "ear. ~e"t to the AKL the \1 ha-. been the m~or source for chronological calculations in the past, and has been especial I\' central to the dis­putes concerning the "High, ~liddle or Low- chronolo­gie.

Lit: BAIGE"'f (1994) 59-77; GLRLillYl"X, Datil1g ... 71-76 and (2000) 177-1 0; Ht'BIR (1987a) 3-13, High ... 1,5-17 and (1999-2000) 50-79 and 2 7-290; KOCH (199 ) 126-129; REt:\ER - P,xCREE (1975); ROCHBERG-H..\,LTOX (19 8); WEIDXER (1941-1944) 172-195, 308-31. (1954-1956) 71 9 and (1968-1969) 65-75. See also ,,,,w.caeno.org.

3, L L Venus Tablet (VT)

The Venus Tablet of Ammi¥3duqa is part of Eniima

Atlll EI1Ii1 (EAE 6:1 ~ K.!(iO [shown ill Fig, 31''' + frag. ments) and con tal'" ,,9 ome", that deal "ith phe­nomena of the planet \ ('11 us and with predictions correspondlllg \\lth tht' ob,,'n ed phenomena, ~!OSt of the ob,ened phenonll'na are pail" of last and fi . 'b' I' , f' lilt

'lSI I lUes 0 \enus and Ino~t oflhe omens' apodoses refer to e,ents of a lUrbuknt period (noods, food supp", acti'ities of kings, and ",,1» .'" Ob,iollsl} the Bab,loman, Itnked these planet,lI'\ 1l10'emellts to the political alld economic "n"irs of their country, The \1 COlllalllS the earlte,t kllown list of codified ?mens referring to p"'netary obsen'ations, The Importance of the \1 for ~Iesopot"mian chronolo­gy' i the possibl, dated \ 'enl" obsen'3tion of omen 10, "hich fonns the basis for dating of the tablet's

Figure 3 LA.\;GDO:\. FO'nIJiRI,\,(.lfAM and Sc II(XII (1928) I. P <il", I and II (K. II;()

'" p ublished by lA,'CI)O F I

'. OTI-IERI\:(iHA\i A.'iU SC'II()(1I (1928) P ate, I and II. •

:/'" RlISfR - PI~(.IU I (1'17' EAF 63. . .J) 13-14 wllh ~l h~t of :lpo(los('s of

3. Asu-onomical Data 71

Venlls cyrle;."'" This omen records the disappearance of Venus on the 25 'h day of the 12'h month (Addam) of the ''Year of the golden throne", which is usually identified as the year-name of the 81h year of Aml1li~aduqa.'" This date fonnula appears in the place of the omen's apodosis. (Ammi~aduqa - as we shall sec below - is dated between 1922 and 1542, depending upon the adopted chronology.)

The text, then known in seven exemplars, was first published by Langdon, Fotheringham and Schoch in the late twenties as "The Tablets of Ammizaduga". They proposed 1920 for year 1 of Ammi,aduqa (UHC), Latcr, due to the newl)-<liscovered synchro­nism between -amsj-Adad 1 and Hammu-riipi', three solutions to the tablet's data, using the 56/ 64-year Venus cycle, were calculated that would conform the Samsj-Adad I/ Hammu-riipi' synchronism: -L701, -1645 and -158L (HC, MC and LC respectively), In 1975 the \1, now known in eleyen exemplars, was re­edited bl Reiner and Pingree, who warned that, due to the long tradition of the text, its data are highly cor­ntpted and therefore highly unreliable for chronolog­ical purposes, According to them, omens 1-10 are related 10 an eight-year cycle of Venus, its first and last evening and morning appearances as it approaches or lea,es inferior and superior conjunction,"" comprising five synodic periods'" or cycles around the sun during the first eight years of Ammi,aduqa, the penuLtimate

~ Since it lack!oo an apodosi'l it is not lechnicall) an omen:

RF"'R- P"GRH (1975) 9. !",\ The relalion between the observations and this yeaH lame

\\.~ lir'il ob"ef\'cd b~' Kugler in 1912. (Note that rhe 21 )cars VI' ObSt'!T:llion COIT£''iponds to lht' ~1 )ears of

Amllli~adllqa's reign according to tht' BKL B. For an aUt"l1lpllO i(it'litify thi" )cru-narne with ont~ of Sam sud it ana (?) '1l't' S\s.."i~1 \N\SII.\LSt"', MOAR 65. lie rejected the high. middle.' or low chronolog) "ichemc and stressed, .1~ did lllO~t oftht, olher author, of ~tO. \R, that tht· VT C;lllnOl be used .1'1 prillury t'vidence for tht., ab~ollltt' rhronolog"\' of the earh' 2"11 millennium For"1 re"iew of ~tD"\R .md the lines of '\I"h'lllllt'nt of it ... contributor, set.' Georg-t', BSO:\S 68 (21l05) I OS-I 07.

I St't' A\I~m ( 1977) I~l on BM 37 151. \\hich leport~ on Ve.'IIlI'" fOI e.·iKht \t.',II~"

~. ,\ <,;w(Klil' pl'dod is "the timt--' it t.lkl's (\\0 cde .. tial bodit'''' to Il'ac-h tht., "'~IIIle.~ relati\'(.' position in relatioll to ,1 third ..... ( !\.O(It-\\'I" "'dH\lIt)ll [199[)] 3 1). FiH.' ,\nodic p{'riod~ of \'elHh tt .. \1 \'ight Yl'ar~ millll,) ~.5 da"" 01 !:)<J Ihbylonian 1I1(II\1h ... lIIillU' ,I (1."''1" "

¥ ~ III<' fir-a ,H!t'IlIPllO nalu;lI<: lht· \'t'l1l1' d"ta chronological­ly W;\\ pt' I ft)nlwd by Kugler in 19 12, who t';,I\O("NI-1976 for Ihe HIli H',,, of 1\ lIl1ni~adl1qa . nut .tl l t·ad) llH.' reliabililY of VT d,u'l 1'01 chronological purpm(.'>; \\,10;;, ,ic\\(.'{1 s\1'Spiriou,­I} (s(.'(,' KlT{~I, I' R [ 1 9 1 ~] 38 of hi" <;wc1v). TIILRF\l"-O\1\G"

mler of the Babylon I dynasty. The rest remains unclear due to comlption of the text, which may imply that several omens listed in this tablet do not date to the time of Ammi¥3duqa at all (-+ below). The original of EAE 63 is generally believed to have been written during the reign of Ammi.aduqa since the end of the first eight-year cycle has the same year-name of the 8 lh

year of Ammi$aduqa. By the time its text had reached the Nineveh library (7lh cent.) the VT must ha\'e undergone considerable expansion and cormption through extensive recopying in addition to any errors made by the original scribe, The main difficulty in the e,-aJuation of the Venus obsen.,.tion is the number of inconsistencies of disappearance and (re)appearance dates, the duration ofimisibility, and the discrepancies within duplicates.

The 8 lh year of Amm;,aduqa was originally dated 2041, 1977 or 1857 (using 6+}'ears Venus cycles) .'" Mari texts exca''3ted in the 1930s then demonstrated that Samsj-Adad 1 of ASSur and Hamrnu-riipi' of Baby­lon were contemporaries, dated roughly to 1800 (1\1C)."'" This new fact forced the calcularuion of a new data-set: 1702 (HC),"" 1646 (MC)261 and 1582 (LC)""' for Ammi,aduqa's first year. The fall of Babylon, which marks the onset of the Dark Age, thus would be 1651 (HC), 1595 or 1587 (MC, two different dates depen­dant on the 56/ 64-year CYcle; .... below sub 3,6,) and 1539 or 1531 (LC).- sing the data of Late Babylo-

(1927) 181-19 , based on calculations by Fotheringham, placed the beginning of the Babylon I d~llasty at 2015.

'" THlREAt;·D""G", RA 34 (1937) 135-139, WEIR (1972). ,"" For instance SIOERS"', RA 37 (1940) 45-54; t.he fall of Babl'

Ion would then have been in 1651 1650. ,.;, E.g, S\lITH (19·10) , "C~'D (1940) and II'EIR (1972). "" POES!L (1942- 1943), Co""ELllS ( 1942) and (1954-1956)

29&-297, and '\" DER W \ERDl.'I (1945-1948), "" CRYER (1995) 656-Q59 staled Ihal no greal failh should be

put in the Venus Thblet for the recollStniction ofche chronol­DID of lhe 2nd millennium beC'dUse of false and misleading dat:l ;md unreliable and unlikel" observations. Note also DF

~L\IIT1'O (1993) 219-221 in connection \\ith ~lursili I and his O\el"\le', 011 Hittite chronologv. For further solutions (l'HC. L'LC and />IC) .... General ' ub 1.6.]'>,,\tES rl aL (1991 ) working with a B~lb~loni:lIl chronology mainh based on the \T. date the fall of B<lb~ Ion in 1466. This l)()llltion has been \,ideh ignored dUt~ 10 its confli t ,\;th hist01;ca1 fdCtS., sllch as the .\mama perioo. For .mother impossibl} low chrono!og\,. giv­ing the accc~ion ve"lr of Ammi~ldllqa as 1419, see ~IITCJIw.. (1989,90) i-26, who tL~ a computer program capable of accommodating \';Irious theories on long lenn decelemtion of the earlh's ratt.' of rotation and based. his work on a 3(ki~1) month at1a.1\"~is and rcvio;;,cd (llnpubli!oihed!) lunar table~ from other asu'onomical record~. A (dtical reply LO his stud) b) " '[lRcm be round inJle),7 ( 199-1 1995) 70-7.

~9 I~ \1e"'OPOl,Ulli.m ChronoloR' of fhe ~lId \1i1lt"nniulll Be

nian source concenling ' ·enus ob~en~ltions.:ffi.I Huber produced new statistics on the first and last ,isibilities of the planet as ,icwed from Bab,lon. These demon­strated that the dating of the Bab,lon I dnl'''t' accord­ing 10 the ~IC is unsatifacto~' in conjunClion "ith the lunar eclipse daL.l frolll EA£ 20 and 21. According 10

Hube,; there is onl, a 3'Y, chance that the dat.'I fits the "ide" used ~IC chronol0f;\. where,,, a 95% chance exists for the HG.""

O"eniew of proposed dates (in chronological order of publication) for Ammi~aduqa 'ear 1 according 10

the \ T"" Kll.l.ER (1912)

m"O''ER (1914)

WEID'ER (19Ii)

FOTIl£RJ\GHA..\1 -

L'-'GDO' (1923) hlGlLR (1924)

S<l"'-UlEL (1925)

L\_'..:coo, - FOTItERI\l.H."'-.\1

- S<;HOCH (192 ) XEC(.EIlSU:R (1929)

EWELl. - S"rrn (1940)

1DfR."" (1940)

UV •. \D (1940)

• '[t<-£liSt'ER (194))

Q) .. .,cue; (1942)

\.\.' OER '\-',URDE\ (1943-196.; ) ,."

WEIR (1972) ....

P"<-RH - Rrl". (1975)

HeBER (1982)'"

GtlU_\J)\''' . DaJi"l{ ...

be[ween -2060 and -},"'OO: -1976 ;5 -2000

-I 0 1807

-1920 1919

-IHOO li99

-1920 1919

-1920 1919

rejected the ll~ of the \ T for dating tho fall of the Bab, Ion I dYI1<b{\

-1&15 1&l4 +-192011919

-I iOI 1700

-1659 165l\

rejected the me of the \ T for daring the fall of the Bab,lon I d\nru.~

-1581/1580

-1581/1580

-1&15 1&14

only 8-\.ear nele can be deLer. mined bao;ed on omens 1-10· Lhe 'I i~ imufficiem to e~tab. Jish dates

-170J/17oo (in combination with aut-sled 30 .. <.Ia\ months and auotcd intercalation",. statistica1 anah-.e\)

-1551115';0 (8-,ear Cjele)

Table 22

... 1l1.!.R (l9'J9-2000) 288--289. ~ Huber's cakulation~ art' hareJl" (~cr take.! L, .!.. 00 • I .

.• • • ,I~ ,.'\;' "~TI() ogt'iLS as a deCISive argument for the He ( f-Il BUt [J9CJ9-2(X)O] 68)

JII6 ,()nJ~' a f("\t,,, .A.'S..~~TioJOgis~ U1!e ule J Ie: -. General \ub 1.3. fhe foIlOl"ng" b .. ",d on ilL. (,f. - P,,,,.,, ( 1999) 37-38. rh.~ pam; of date", are according tC) the: a\lronomicaJ and

Juhan ~aJen(~a" r(·sp<·<:u\"cly, since til<' Bahylonian year ')taned 10 spnng. For dNaih ofbibliog.<tphy, ~·e I It \(.fR­PI (,IU.E.

3.2. Month-lengths

The general mistrust in the Venus Tablet data led to cros"hecks of il with Ihe month-length data in lhe text;. After initial .1u{'mpt; b) l..Ai\(;{)O~ - FOTIlERINCc H~\t-StH()('H (1928) and WEIR (1972). HlBERetaL OPNE attempted to combine a stud, of contempora~ month-lengths (111 order to calculate the lunar cres­cent ,isibility) \\ith other ancient astronomical dala'ro Intercal~' and 3() .. da\ months were sampled from '"r­ious documenL' with the idea of finding which chronololl' best fit the diWibution of 29- and 3<kIay months.'" Checking the Venus chronologies against the month-length data might also help determine whether calculated month-lengths are sufficien~y a~curate to be ll,ed for dating purposes. The Babylo­man da) started at sunset, the Babylon ian month with the fi, t ,isibi lity of the lunar crescent after the new ~noon . l'nder ideal conditions month-lengths '''1)' ,rregularh between 29 and 30 days. "ith an occasion­al 31-<1a, month. According to the textual e,idence. one month was usual I) 30 days. The terms used when the appearance of the moon on the evening of the 29111 day cut shon a 30-day month were full"",u", 'complete" or tunllm "tum back". Day 30 would almost always be followed bv day 1. The Babylonian year stan~d near the spring equinox. From irregular uuercalauons it is e,ident that the beginning of the year must ha,e fluctuated a great deal. Unfortunately no complete list of intercalations exists.

The OP"'E method was:

I) The choices were narrowed down to those com­patible with the Venus data.

2) Then the Venus chronology was checked against the month-length data from Ammijaduqa's reign.

3) Then this was checked against month-lengths from segments of consecll tive years with complete IIltercalations (Ammiditana - Hammu-rfipi').

4) The Ur 111 chronology was fixed with month­lengths with in about 10 years relative to the Baby­lon I dynasty.

5) Finally, the eclipse material was compared.

!t., 1 f' %f"JI I'S .re~ullli were u.)(>d ill Rt)JJig'\ unpublhh{'(1 1965 'iwdy. ,., ReVIewed by 0>1.", •• 01.172 (1977) '177-4HO. ". RCYlt'wed brOIl .s" •• 01.183 (19R8) 551-55H. '" Sec .1101.11'1(;1111.1. ( 1989/90) 7-26.

"~>r de",", 'eo J I lll'O (19!J9-2000) and (20()O). who based h iS rt'\ullli on what i1l known in 1982 (1Iumlt,,1 al., OrNE).

). Calendar ~ub 6.3.

3. A'itronomical Data 73

It must be stressed that the month-length data is the on ly Iruly "contemporary" Babylonian astronom­ical data we have because the astronomical informa­tion on the Ur III and Old Babylonian period came from late texts. HI BER pi aI., OPNE. used eo- and Late Babylonian month-lengths and intercalations served as a control for the computation. since the chronology of the Neo- and Late Babylonian period is securely fixed.'"

According to GURZADYAN (2000) 183-184. Huber et aL's statistical approach concerning month-lengths cannot be used for any far-reaching chronological conclusions. He listed some astronomical observa­tional effects not taken into account by Huber it al.

He pointed out that the month-length data is not sta­tistically sufficient to support Huber's chronological claims ("statistical signijiwnce is not quite reachecf'). TA.\;RET (200'1) claimed that there is no evidence for 29-day months during the Old Babylonian period. that during this period a fixed 3().day month was used independently of the lunar obsen'atiollS. Thus he regarded Huber's computations with the months of the Old Babylonian period as "useless" (p. 11 ). Tan­ret suspected that the same is true for the Ur III peri­od and therefore the issue of the month-lengths should be ignored in chronology. A fixed month­length of 30 davs would result in far fewer intercala­tions than a true lunru' calendar: since only ca. 5 da) are missing from 12 x 30 = 360 from the length of the solar year. it would suffice to intercalate aboUl every 6 years. However. the frequency of attested intercala­tions (see OPNE) is much higber than that. Hl B~R (1999-2000) 53 maintained that month-lengths can sen'e as a useful complementary tool for data sets, and will help prove which of the Venu chronologies

't7:! For more delaib on month·length'i see IttBER ( 1999-2000) 53 and (2000) 16~167 .

:..'7:'1 Criticililll b\ ~ \1 (2001) 171 : "For i\lesopOl,lmia the (mol1lh.lcngth) argument rt.~,ts 011 lht' facl that in ancient Bab)lon Ill'\\ mOlllhs were ckcidcd b\ observalion, leading to an e~~l·nth\ l h ran 10m "il'qllcnCl: of29 and 30 day months which can be compared 10 Iht, calcu lated .!it'qucnce fll ubt'r 1982, 1987bl. Wh ii<- lhi'i l('chniqul' should be imc;aig;lI{'d in more d(' titil lx'fore its accuracy can lx- f'a ir!, judgt'd. il ~holl ld ha\'e bt'('Jl rnenliont'd b~ Gascht· el al."

m See for il\\toHlCt' SAL I 'Rt- R(~t- It (1993) I ~-I·I. t7!'i See Gl Rl,\()\.\N in /)(ltinK ... 7-t-7:"·, and 78-79 (Ihe ec1ip,t',

<tppa~'e l\ll\' lOok pl'lce in Ihe pt.'nultil1\alt, year of Ibbi ' in and Sulgi 'l',;pt'Clin:\v), Tht' lh 111 eclipses weft' discl1~t'd by W('idll('r, Rochberg- Ilalto ll (O il I<'XI.s) ,Hid Schaulllbt·rg. er (011 ilStrollOlllical ili.'i ues) ill tit'tail. For ;:1 SUll\lllan' or 1 1 l'1I~ R r( al.'i> r(',uits in OPNE '\(·t~ I IllIlFR ( 1987) 7-9.

is correct. This technique was not used by GASUIE pt

al .• Dating ... whose calculations emphasized lunar eclipse data (-> below sub 3.3.).'" As was pointed out by SEAL (2001) 171 in her re,iew of GA5<HE et aL. Dat­ing ....• further and more detailed investigation of this subject is possible because of new knowledge about Old Babylonian and 3rd millennium month-lengths a''ailable since the publication of OPI's'E."'·

3.3 .. Lunar eclipses

The two lunar Ur III eclipse deSCriptions in EA£ 20 and 21. frequently used for chronological purposes,'" are described in considerable detail: day. month. direction of the eclipse and description of the "'atch period in which they began. "" Howe"er, it is uncertain how much of the eclipse descliptions in EA£ is based on a single. actually obsen'ed eclipse and how much i schematic composition and leamed speculation. One of these eclip es is said to have taken place on tile 14d! day ofSimiinu. and is usuall" associated "ith the death of Sulgi. the second ruler of the t.:r III d)l1astv. The other imporL.'lnt eclip e is said to hal'e taken place on the 14'h day of Addruu and is connected \\;th ti,e destruction of Ur at the end of reign of Ibbi-Sin . the last ruler of the Ur HI d)1lasty. Based on the knm"l reign length of the kings of the t.:r [)] period the interval between the twO eclipses is assumed to be in the range of 41 to +t years, which are the maximum possible inten'als between the penultimate and final years of the two kings (-> Year).2n

Huber proposed the dates 25 July 2095 and 13 Aplil 2053 BC (HC) for the two eclip e as the most probable; but KOCH (1998) 126-129 demonstrated that neither of Huber's proposed lunar eclipses match­es tile actual description in the om ina. Gl·RZADYAS. Dat-

t'n RO<II8lRG-HuTO:-" ( 19<.: ) 20-21 (time. magnitude. direc­tion and duration) and 36fT. (description of eclipse appear­ance. phenomena associated ,,;Ih eclipses. planets and slars \;sible during eclipsc."S). See also Tt\l"-,\. High ... 3. 198-201 , HUU:-R, High ... 3-7 and a critical revie\\ of GtOL\I}\ \S. Datil/if ... b, KoUl ( 1998) 12f>-I29.

:m Cl:R/. ,1)\ -\..'. Dali'lg ... 7·1'199. Additional assumptions I1Ubt

be made for retro-calculalion (i.\sid~ from the recent advancements in the measuremenl of planeu\1!' mOlion) because dcCt'·lt·ralion of the t'Jnh's nue of rotation. which is cit'pend.uH on tidal friCtion ,1Ild numerous non-lid.lI mechani'Ill' (changes in Iht' moment of inertia of Ihe earth, elt-ctromagnetic coupling OCl\\et"'1l core and manue. "iolar-induc('d dt11lo'pheric pre,slIre \.u;<1110ns). OCCllr-. at an irreg-ul"r r:1Ic. The-St' mechanic, haH' an impact on lhe mOl ion of the I1IOtlll .lnd cOIl'iequelllh for Gllcukuiol1 01 p .. ISl t-~clip~e~. Sloe fOl· in'il:lnCe I l lHI-R rt aL, OP~E on the difficult\ of ~"ecll1ar tenns ...

\Ioopo tamia ll Chrollolo}.-l"\ of Ih(' 2ml \liIknni\111l Be

illg ... on the basi, of 'I new ca.lcutHion {l)und 'n J uh 1954 and IIi ~[arch 1912 BC (:\C) a, the pair which best matfhed the text".. infonnation throughout .1

period of :100 yeal. ).;.0<.11 ( 1998) 1~6- I ~)<J nitirin>d GlRZ.\D\,\.' ·s U'eaUllent of the -FilNerniswrlaur ( /)al­ing ... i9 ) of the second eclip>e.--' ,\ reph ,,-.b pub­lished bl HtBER (l~I-~O(lO) 58 con<Tllling th" inter­pret..·uion of the tellll\ "-I.T.\ (" n/.u.'/,lIld ,\.'.TA rdii/as referring to the leading and Lnliling t>dge of the lunar disk (for details see R(x IlBlCRt~H\lro" [ 1995] 1925(f.) . K<X~H (199,- ) 12 l ctiLici/cd the timing b\ mean~ of night-watche>. which depend on ,ea.,on,. and might hal.., changed throughout the lear. and concluded: -Ob l'r 1II-\[ondelJip,en nlr eine En!>cheidung in der bab\ lonischen Chronologie hilfreich 'ein konnen. sei nach aHem dahingestellt: l-+ bdow ,"b 3.5.\.

The Akkadian ectip"...,. which are both reponed to haye taken place in the month :\isannu. are dont­mented in EA£ 20: the first one. apparenth' presaging the death of a l..ing of.\lJwd. begins in th .. last ,,<Itch in the south and then the moon sel> eclipsed. Further­more an occultation Hurinllu]~ of\Oenu"\. i~ mentioned in this omen in connection \\ith the "'lIcce~ian of the king's ,<>n. L·singS()~ICR(,f.R·S (.'10 Ii [195+-19:>6])

relatiYe dates. HlllFR (19,7a) S-II calculated back­wards and found 15 po"ibilities between 2400-2150 for the Akkarl cctipses (see table I on p. II )."" Thrce tran­sitions of reigns are preceded b~ eclipses matching the description of the omen: :>Olanistusu to ~aram-Sin. :\aram-Sin to Sarkali-'arri. and the acc",",ion of Dudu I. But, Huber was unable to find an) occultation of \ 'enu, \\ithin thc gi\en period for the month :\i!klnnu, but pointed OUl that Venus occurs a~ morning or evening star near the eclip>cs onlarch -2301, -2264 and -2236. For the d na't)' of Akkad "'''en changes of reign ale reponed in an inten<ll of 120 years. among which illere are four father-50n ,ucc~",ions: -2324, -2300, -2263

m Sul"N:qU(omh GlRZ,uJH - Cou. ( I999J 1-3 qucMi(}Jwd the prn. ... ibility of pr("c-i lOll a\ had Ix-t'n ~ugg(~~led by Kc)( II

(on the beginning of Ih(> ('\cning-wal(h) h., qUt:!tl ionilig the accura0 of ec1ip ... t" pr<'dictiom in J,{tntTdl: "Paniru lal­Iy, a glance- al the pcnurbalion thcon. i\ ('Il()1Jgh to rrali/(' ho\o\ naive il i!t to "pc-ak. a.~ Koch dot· .... of tht: account(\' 011

Lhe ordt'r of \e\erdl minute ... when pH-dining ('d iIN:~ for an epoch a'> di.-.tant a\ lhe L.:r III )wriod." (p. 3, . r ht, aULhor~ \trC',c.c<! that Ih(' ,lat i.-.tkal data of Ihe \ T j ... too "noj,\" to ('xtrdCI rt'liabl(~ dir("(1 inflHlllatiOIl on ('hlOnoio-.

gy. l1u1 nmlinue: tf) n'h on th(· inl('rdi~ iplinary approac h for a \oolmioll to Ihe probl('1lJ ol2nd mil1('llIliurn dIlOIl() l f~ ~'). \ \"ARKl RIO. (200-1) .;91-595, ddtlldi llg Gal;C lJ('\ ~c., ~tated, ..... Iluber had 'K'kC'tt'd l WO (·dip .. (· ~ ", hich d id 11(11 maKh tlw rt"f~)rd\ \\hi l(, nc:g-it'cling th(· two \e1t"fU·<t h~ GUlI'.4d)an, w}lJch GurU" c!(,..n to malch ing "·(Orel\,", am i,

.lIld -~:!II Be. But this time span conl<lins numerous edip"il" m;lt(hin~ the description of the ,\isannu

<'dipst'. Ht 'UR (2000) Ij;-Ij/\ pointed out the dif­finthit" in a" igning am of the \ kkad ('dipst" to spe­cific hi,lolical t'lents and re('ol1ll11cndecl to fo rgct about thei r duonologital relncm('c.

T Ill' auillOr' of /)alill[; . allel11pted to see in a lunar edip~l' mentiolled in two year-names of the yet unpuhlished te'ts from TeU MlIl,Janunad suppOrt for the , C, 'I Thc,c \ear-names mention a lunar eclipse

:~~ \Cal' after the n>s"tilement of Bab\lon, which acwrding to ille '( Iell to the lI illites in 1-199 Be. \s,"ming illat the edip"" lIa, c(lllSpicuous ("w, pre­ll/II'" Ihal il ",a.1 loillr) and \I .. " preceded bl a period \I;thout edip'l'S. from the eclipses betlleen -I +12 and -1 -IiO lfoHO\ling the discussion of the oil1e, asU'lr

nomical el'idence flOm ~lesopotamia) Gurzadvan falored the one of-I ,15,' (H59 Be), ,10 I'ears after ille :\C date for the fall of Bab\ Ion. Combining this lunar eclip,e with the resettlement of Babdon memioned in a \l:ar-name and the archaeological evidence from

Tell ~ll1~ammad (compared to tha t from Tell cd-Dor). Gasche el aL concluded that the ci t" was taken over by the Ka.ssites onls three years after the fall of Babylon, in 1 196."" fll BfR (1999-2000) 289 remarked that noth ing specific is known on the nature of the eclipse (which is also true 101 the solar eclipse u'eated below sub 3.4.), and therefore considered it to be chrono­logical Is usele", ,ince lunar eclipse, take place every \ear. He labeled ill<' proposed date "possible", in con­tnm tCJ Gasche f/ aL \ "probablc". \1ore doubts arose on the dating ,,"telll naming th e time span of ille rCs<'uJement of a nc\\ cen tra l au thority within a peri­od of three year, onls. ~o o ther options were dis­cu""d by G,l\che 1'1 iii .. who aimed at keepi ng the gap between Bab) Ion ian and Kassile power as small as pos­sible and therefon' Ihe chrono log) as low as possible,

ill n oh' rcnee tc, til(' '{"("(mel crilir il'('cl lunar cd ip"'(' , "'n [(';'11· ilY, Ill(" oll l) di\( I ("pancy ,\ Li lt" tilll t' o f ('Xi i , and thi ... i\ clear­ly a 'nibal enOl ,inf(' the.' ('(' lI p\(' wOlllcillaH· I; ... ll,d longer than po"~ibl(' .. , it i\ im po rt Jl1i 10 not<.' lh a l this ,niba l

(..-rol ('(Hl("ern .. ol1l~ tI l(" d uration o f l ilt' cdip,t" " Warbur­tt,1I douhl, Ih ,1I th" "OIl(" e1 i",( I (' p i-tll< y" call' ili'l ll' a ll the m hN ("vid (Onn' add ll('('d h\' ( ;a,c/w a lld hi ~ a',lIl! ,

"" ' On I ll(' il b\oltlll· (h, o llo logy of III( ' Akkadi il ll pl'd od ba"cd on .lh\olul(' d;ll<'~ 101 lhe 211d lIlill(' llIIiHIII ""'l' Bo"q (19k2.1) :H-5!>. h u tilt, < h U>I1olog) o f tlw \kk.l(II ~l n P(" iod \(.(. S,\l 1 \ IHI((, I K (2001 , 27-2~j, \\ IW I(' it ' UIIIIII ;U) of l h e

1110 .. 1 IlllpOllall1 i\' lU '" i\ pW\I(kd . ...... ) 11 11~ 1 1I. ( 1 9!~'-20(0) !;O-7!I ,u riw cl ;11111(' <;alll(" I (,\ tlll s.

%»1 f )"" "K ... H(J-~H. 011 Ihl '~(' \I ('U I " n ; lIf H'~ flOU' ,,1 .. 0 J{u I IAKIl">ON

(~(JO~, 9 " lid ") \<""\.\1\"..,1/ \1 ..,1". MJ).'\I{ f), 1.

, ""('" \I (~OOI ) Ili'I.

3. A~tronomical Dala 75

which they considered necessary in the light of the pOllery sequences of the period.

3.4. Solar eclipses

The solar eclipse reponed in the MEC (-+ Eponyms) is associated with the year following the birth of Samsi-Adad I. The badly broken beginning of the MEC tablet can nO\l be restoled with the help of the KEL.'" The MEC starts with the enth ronement of Aminum, son of llu-kabkabi. allcl ends with the death of samsi-Adad t, son of llu-kabkabi. A collation b\ Durand and Guichard in Hi 3 (1997) 42-43 revealed the reference to a solar eclipse (na 'lim "UTU"'), obse rved in the year of Amlllum's death, during the eponym PULllr-!Star:

na'd",.dl.r r U in MEC. 1\.1288 I, 22-25:~ 23 [i-na] r Da

'-di-ia LUGAL dlJTlJ-si.dI~1 ",a-Ii-it!

In (the eponym ) Dad ia King Samsi-Adad was born 24 [i-nn p,,:"t,-/ltar n]a-a!l-t!IH,,.dUTU

In (the epolIsm) PULllr-!Star the solar eclipse 25 [ilrba-§i-ma III] "-,,I A-mi-'1lI1l

took place and Aminum died.

Thus, th is solar eclipse of the MEC can be con­nected with an h isl<.1rical c\"ent.-~;

On the nature of the eclipse, its I·isibilit\·. its appearance sO ln('\l here between <\Ssm and Baghdad (region of Akkad ) , and its possible date see ~ IICH EI -ROCHER ( 1997- 2000) 11 :1-11 7.'" Thes immediatel, eliminated the 1\C.'''' and calculated three possible dates for the eclip,e het\\"een -1850 (~ I C) and - 17·10

:~1 Set' Gl'tt\ITI (200H) 1230. "ith;1 cumpit'tt'!i't 01 q>omlll' fill ing th ... , g-'lp~ 01 the \nT,

1,... In Ih t' Old B,,!)yioni<ln pt.-dod t ilt' lenn s (1IlIlll"im 01 IIIm/-

taU,lm w.lIalh clt''i ij.{n;u("d all I.;·dip .. (~, 2~~ R(> ' torcd fo llowi llg Dl R,,\,.,\1l - GllClt \RIl, F '\1 3 (I n97) 43.

!"I ~Ole \ 'H '110" (2007) 60-fi 1:-\ :,. W \ IU\lR1 0' (2002) 109-110 \\;\rn .. again .. , th t' peri" of .. ub­

jt.'l"ti,·j" in inH'rpH'ting Ihi li .. orl of le,t:" f hi .. ml~"lb th.u ,ub ..

jccti\ (.' . L'~l\I1I Pli (} 1I'I ('),.dudinl( u' rtai n eciip.'tt'S 01 plt~t('ning'l (('rtain lilllI..' I'.Ul j.{(' h t.'C'Hhl' uL\ preferred chronotol-,l\ Mt' not OCM po int ... o f <It-paulil e" (p. 1(9) '1IIe1: "Sllln' Iht· ... t· \~\li;tblt·s (,i .. ihility: tot.ll . pallial alld p.ll h) alc llnkmmn, th,H 'tl .. uth lUI "n edip\(' ht.'(.'olll (,\ , uhjl'('Lin'. ,\1)(1 ('an 0111\ ht, lllodil1t-d b) .. t'('kin~ <tn .l1ll' IIl;\liw IHl',U1'I 01 dH'd,in~," (po 110) .

~ lIowI,\'t' l , 1IH'~ It:lra ill t'd fnHI\ Il lt' nlioning Ih a t tilt.' Me i.. gl'llt'ralh 1I1Hln,IOod ~l" .\ l' hmnolo~" 0 1 rom pml1l i"l' onh .

:"'J Dint' l t' 1I1 , (" t,lt .. \\t'U' propo ..... d b\ tl llH No [pri\. comm·l. who itl\o illcluck d Ihi..' 11( ' ill h i, ca!cul.llion .. , tht>I''''fort' ~(I t'(O ninH 1"01 I ('o,u!t , bt' IWf!(' n - 1 9~)O .11\eI - 1 iOO in V.sur, I I<' cOlldtld('d th.lI Iht' 'ioLII (·di\hi..' in !Ill' ~tFC [.\1\ IH' u .. t:ci HI MlPpOrt ,111\ c11101l01{)~", (';"C('PI litt' II I ,C 0 1 ,·SU pi..· I .... tH)!'t ..

\'t'ntl' ( :hwnnloJ.,~ (, \ltlll li~.tc.1l1« .t I - 1!) l 7). In ~KnH'­d .. u«' " 'ith hi, t" IIIi(' r ( ;Ilnd.llion .. lill l..ill~ ,\ .. tronomiral

(NC): 1833, 1795 and 1743 BC.-· ' However, there wcre a large number of partial ancllOtal eclip,es clur­ing the period in quc,tion (see map in ~II(HII. -

ROCHI-,R p. 126), and the MEC pro\'ides no specific infomlation about the eclipse's nature." Further­more, we have no other cvidence that might corrob­orate any computed date for this eclip e (such as another solar eclipse and the time span bet\,een them). Consequcntly thc MEC eclipse is ignored in discussions on chronology.'~'

~l1CHlI - ROCHER (1997- 2000) 116 checked their three po"ible dates for the ~1£C eclipse and the birth of Sam'i-Adad I, which are 89 rears apart, against the 1996 ("older") dendrochronological dates from Accm­Ho\i:lk, where seal impressions ofSam.si-Adad 1 and his officials have been found .- - The finot one is 13 years lower illan the ~lC; the second one is somewhere bet\I'een the LC and MC, and the third one is 14 years lower than the NC proposed b\ G\b(Jlf fi aL They con­cluded (p. 121) illat the IOtal eclip,e dates of 1795 and I H.J were ille most likeh \lith preference for the fil t date. Shortly after the publication of ~Iichel and Rocher. a rel'ision of the dendrochronological dates was proposed b\ ~l\'''tM; eI al. (200 I) 2532-2535, who concluded that the ~IC LC is il)e most plausible chronologv.'" Their res"lt was based on the asmmp­tion that onlv an 8-\ear CYcle (-+ sub 3.6. ) can be cxu-apolatcd from thc \ T. which allows more possibil­ties than the 56 6-hear C\ele applied bl Huber based on the link with the lunar calendar. B('call~e afme nl'W

dendrochronological resul!>,"" ~lichd reI; ed and

datt.' :<. and lIlt: \ 'T daLllO tht'lunar l'c1ip,e d.lta ohhe 1:..\£,

he I~l\o",,, lilt.' He. Sl't' abo hi" ~hig:h" rt, .. ull fOI the -.ottr t'dip .. t' in "-l·S It,'" bel<)\\. .

:.".I.l Gl RJ,\I)Y''\ (2(){l~) l;i-lti concluded lhat lh t" .. olar echp .. t." \\;thOllltk:,cription .md wilhoUl link. .. II.) an\ Olh,,'r (hrom)­logi('alh andlOrt'd " .. uonomical i..·\('llh (b\ "hich he ll1t';H\, tht.' lunar edip,e ... of £ \ E) can hardh .. ene a. .. good {"\idcnn' for a .. pt'dfic duunol0g\.

11 For t',.\Il\Pit.' EnfR (200·1) 193. ~"'"! lhlt" 'H'lt" (;1\...('11 from Kt '\11101 \{ rl aL (1996) i8~7r. 3. On

lht"ir duollologiral ,alu(' ... c<' (:01.1.0,\ (2000) 7-8. ~ For;\tl .t(bpl.uion to lhl' new dendnx:hronological re .. u ll"i

b\ \l\"l'\", tI aL (20(1) 2532-2333 .. ("'i..' ~ IICHF.I (2002) 1 i-Ht :\ote p. I i : ~l.t', nmn'dk, donnt~e .. dt'n­

d l odll"'ollnlogiqul':'! impl iqut'l1l n<lwfcllertlt'llt une I t'n .. ion cit- (t'" Umm tilt' tll"tifif pllbli..vm[ in 1 ()<Ii- 20()(n conciu,iull'''. nw nt'\\ da((.~ .. \\('1 e .. hiftt~d b\ ca. ~2 \I.'.\! .... upward ...

04 .\ cn)t'Ciin){ to lhi .. nl'\\ 1(,.,IIIt-. ,,;Ih a , hift or ca. 22 \ t.'".u .... up\\.trd. So.utl'l\ 'l p,tbrt.' in \ ccm·l lf)\lll.. \' l~\lld h.'-l\l.· ~t'l1 comlrtll"lt'd in I ii·1 (+ I -i) Be bVIlt"h n )lHl<'S \\1th }\.ulte-­

pt'-h ,tn l' Ib). Th i .. tit'" daH.' h <1.-' be(' 11 lhl~d ~\. ... lU argumen t fO I lht' :"1 (: 01 ~IC LC (p. ~~\':l4 ;lnd 2:U5, fll. 10). and \I \."\.

"'ti rt uf. t',duelt' ,ll1 mhl'l chronologit'''.

76

adapted her conclu,ions in ~oo~, proposinl( Il':tl as the mo,t probable solar eciip"'. This impli'" a ~IC lowered bs 16 sears (according to the a"umption that Sam,j-Adad died during the li'h \ ear of Hammu-rapi').- Different approaches ,,,inl( diner­enl value, resulted in the usual difficultie, in filling the solar eclip,e into an\ of the chronologs " tems,

B\.'lH te (~005) tried to find a solUlion with sta· ti~lical melhod .... using the lunar eclipse~ found in EAE, in a leller from ~(ari, and in the teXl> from Tell ~Iu~ammad. He concluded 15-17 Be to bt, the mOst likeh sear for the end of the Bab\lon I dma,t',

\SS\t.\', H.\l sf' (2006) 160 thouglll the ,<,Iar eclipse of 1795 BC beller fil> the dendrochronologi­cal data."'- A critical re\ie" on methods used when combining asu'onomical data \\;th historical and chronological i"ues "'" published b\ Warbunon in 2002, who . lre"sed "the nece ,its of abandoning the emire foundations of the SYStem upon which both it (.\1(,) and the Low Chronolog> are based."-

EDER (200-1) 193 warned against using am of the exi,ting dendrochronological dates \\ithin the CluTent cli'<Cussion as well, ince according to him "die bislang gewonnenen Wene noch nicht als endgiiltig 7U betra­chten sind". Funhennore, as has been pointed out b~ Collon and others, the link between the wooden beams found at .-\cem-Ho\'llk and the Assyrian king is not as finnly established as one could \\i h: "Die im Zusammenhang mit dem Palast aufgedeckten Ton­bullen ... aus der Zeit der Kiinige Yabdun-Lim son ~1ari. Samsi-Adad I. mn A',)Tien und Aplal)anda mn Karkemi.' gehoren ganl offensichtlich lU einem Hinger gefiihnen Archi" dessen Zusammenhang mit dem um 1774 \. Chr, enichteten Palasttrakt nicht 7U klMen ist.­(EDER, p, 20-1). Eder, whose approach is ba",d on his­torical e,idence only, especialh the AKL, eponyms and Distanzangaben, argued that this and the fan that the archaeological cOntexls hase not yet been published, dOl'" not permit a choice from among the chronologi­cal ""tems. This \iew is cenainh jll~tified, sitlCe the

2'» See PRot I'" v .... ., (2006) 73-79 on th{' J>C"c.ibl<.· compatibili. t~ of th~ ne\\' dalc~ ",ilh the A\\~rian Di\l.i:lnJ'.angalx-ll .

.,. 8\'1'''(, (200'» 189. m We '\till ha\(' to a\\ail

a\tronomer (preft'rahl~ 'lew OJ) (hi ... \ubjt"(t.

another publication ", another fllllwr) to explicith ('xplain hi ...

r ... IkCp. 111)als"criuci/.<d\I"""\([I~~17-2(~~)l 121-122 and [20()2] IH) polilifaJ f('C()fl\lrllnion (wndllOni\1lI of ~.\num-IJirbi & Wariarna & Zimri-l.lIn H'a~ 7). ""hic-h i ... depend(·m upon tlw ,hrooo)o"ry. S(·(O MICIIII (2002) IH ""jlh critical ,(·marl ... on \1I1HR.tO/' 2M (2001) {),·)-101 (Np. pp. 6fHj7 and 9H; '\1C). Warburton 1)(.'li(' .. ,-<I lh(' Y('Hr

dt'ndrochnllloIO!,rical data i, noating. Ilow<"er, mOSI of the propo,ais made during the pa't \Car, per,ist in inw'l)()"uing the,e dendrochronological (and amo­nomica!) dates in their argulllc11 L'i. at lea.,t a"i '\up­porting" <"idence lill the Le or 10w('led ~IC.

1"1'0111 I Iiltite record, (the pr;l\'er CTH 70) W(' hase a It'pon on a (pallial) soiar eclipse during the 10th

year of 'Iut';;ili II. while he wa; at war "ith ALzi-lJaiaia (KLB 1-1, -I, 1\, 2.j'-~5'), Forrcl propo,ed ~larch 1335 for this ('clipst' and Boese - Wilhelm June 1312 Or April 130ll."" Onh lit BIR (~Q()J) 6-l0-64-1, based on a dinerent interpretation of the passage in KUB 14, .j proposed "higher" dates lor it: -1339 Uanual') il) or -1$3-1 (\larch 13). Bm as this solar eclipse is referred to in connection with ~ll11~ili \ cClmpaign against Ani, onh a clue dUling the months April to June (spring) seel11, likeh, 'Ioreo\er, Wilhelm and Boese point out that the earh date of 1335 is not po"ible due to the shone ned Eg>ptian chlOnologs (this astronomical e'elll would fall into" uppiluliul1la's reign). Therefore tiles preler 130 . But whether a solar eclipse is rcaU}' mealll b\ the te't\ pas'<age "the sun gase an omen- is still under di'cussion. R(ll Lie; (1965) 355 referring to COR."-L1t s (195-1--1956) 306f. and ROI'TO' (1970) ("(sini'ter) omen of sun-I, pointed out that "Diese sehr allgemeine Bec\eutung (10 gil" an omm) erlaubt niclu. die in dem zitienen Text erwiihme Erscheinung spc/iell auf eine Sonnenlinsternis ZlI demen ... . ,

The absolute dates of the rulers or the 1" millen· niulll Be are ~ecllred h\ an astronomical date, the solar eclipse of 15.July 763 BC, which is mentioned in the EpoJl\1n Chronicle eh (C,(."'D [1938) 430, rs. 7)."~ This eclipse is belie,cd to hase been total and wa~ ob en'ed in :>:ine\eh during tht, cponymaLe or Btlr·Saggile 'n the 9 lh year of A"ur-diin III. This date is confirmed b, the Ptolemaic Canon, which dates the liN year or Sargon II to 709, The cponym or that war was \lannu-ki-.\.;Sur-lc'i, who, accolding to the eponym canon, was p,ec('dcd by BlIr-Saggile by 5 1 year~. A lunar eclip~e of 714 Be., obseC\ed during thc

J7n4 for til(' '1olar ("dip .. (, of til<' \1E( \\ould he..' the: 1110\1

clJmp,-uibl{' ""jIll the chronoloh'Y of 1-."'1)'1>1 ill H I til(' 1.c."" lIH

("'<~t· W'RBI RIO' I~0011 :;H~~ who gl'lWlitlly L.l\or"i lht' NC I)lOI)(N'd h)' (,J..'cll{' pl fll.)

I ~'(' m \.1\.RII:\O (I~)!J:{) ~ I ~I ami B~( KM\r-.. (~OOO) 221<11'

otlwr irnpOrt;U1l ("\'('l1h (Iuci.t l l() J Iluiu' (hrollOlog) (lIldllcling til(' raiel "gail I" Bah)lol1 h) ~hll,ili I alill tlit'

h.ml(' of Q.ld(·;; III til(' :>111 Will of R..II1N'''' II . WhO\l' .L"iln"

lIomic ,tlly-ht.t\(·c! a« (, .. ,joll (1.IlC' i .. (·itllt" 1 ~7~)t 12~JO, 0 1

1:1()1),

_. \1111 .\It() (1!~J.1) 2; 011 .,0); .. ('dip'('\ III I" 111111('1111/11111 III

A"yna "'0 MAll (2(J()(J) 1- 12.

3. A"lrono mical Data 77

8'h rampaign ofSargon lito Uranu also confirms the date of 763. '" L nforlunatclv we do not hase an)' such comparative astronomical data to help date the solar eclipse mentioned in the MEC as occurnng dunng • I d' I'e ' ,,! Salllsi-A< a 'oj 11('lIme.

Value for Absolute Chronology and

Historical Relevance

Absoillte chronology could not be established with­Ollt knowledge of the calendars in use and astro­nomical events obsersed. Egyptian chronology is based on Sothis date, and several lunar dates, and 1" millennium Be Mesopotamian absolute chronology is firmly established on the basis of the solar eclipse

date of 763 BC. Within the past ft'w veal'S the amount of chrono­

logically-useful astronomical data from Mesop~tamia has not increased substantialh, but the d,scuss,on on lhe known data has not dimini he(1. A focus of the debate is how the astronomical data fiLS together with the historical and archaeological data. It seems that lhere has been and alwavs will be a discrepancv in the rcsuIL"i; but as long as we lack a sufficient number of a~tronomi(a l datc" which can be linked to archaeo-­logical or historical facts, the debate cannot be resol\'ed. As has been mentioned. astronomical data. speci[icall) the 56 6+)ear Yellus C)c1e" fonn the basis of the ~lcsopotamian chronological "stems, the HC, ~IC and the Lc'''' All) reference to one of those chronologies therefore touches on isslIcs connected with astronomical obsenations.

• COR.'HJLS (1958) 101-10-1: "Die ktme Chronolo­gie befuht auf astronomischen Daten und mil JahreSlahlen versehenen Konigslisten, die langere Chrollologie bcruhl auf ullsichcrcll Generationen­absch:lll\'l11gcn in ebenso unsicheren Chronolo­gien."

• GLR1\()YS' (2000) 181: "HlIWR (19992000b) him­self concedes thatth" lligh Chronolog\ is not Slip­

portt'd b, other altcl'llathe data. li e neverthele.s cOlllinllt's to claim that his astronomical argumenL'I

remain \alid .....

• BlIt lIote lIuber in \ \, mR \\'\lRDl" (19l16) ·I~, wh,'l'e he suggeslt'd the sUl(gcslcd the LC ror

'lin OIII'I'\III-I\t . .J.VL,\ 19 ( I ~HlO) 1:\7. ~r! ~t.'(.' .11 .. 0 (;v ... ( 1\1 (!lOO:\) 210.

'\ eOt'L/t' \\" .. tilt, I.,,,, Oil(.' 10 rOlllhiue Iht· LC h;,.,t'd 0 11 ""I ro" Il()mic~\1 (1.11,1 wilh Lh~' hi"w!i(,';ll ~\IId ;\n: hat-'olo~ic~lI ni­tlt'IIlt'lllt III'. I 1 \1\19-~1l1l()12HH),

~!I St't' Iht, ('U Il1l11(.'11I" In \\' \K I\lR I()~ (2002) IOl{-l ll on Illl'

~(esopotamia: "Achtet man auf die Grosse der Dif­ferenlen 'Text minus Rechnung', so crgibt sich , dass die kur/e Chronologie am besten stimmt und die lange am schlechtesten. Achtet man auf die Dif­ferenlen , so zeigt sich , dass die miltlere Chronolo­gie galll ausLuschliessen is!. ~1oglich bleiben die lange und die kurze Chronologie; die kurze passt \;el besser lUlll Text als die lange:

• WARBt.RTO' (2000) 62 t2 stated: "It is e\;dently impossible for non-aslronomers to judge these mat­ters before they have been resolved by recognized autllOrities rea~hing a consensus or declaring the specific character or their disagreement in tenns " 'hicl, are comprehensible and not merel) dismiss­ing the projected data as inaccurate."

Discussion \\;11 certainly continue about the solar eclipse of the MEC and ilS use for ab olute chronolo­gy. '» Though the 763 BC solar eclipse helped to estab­lish the chronologs of the epOn)1nS of tile I" and the laller part of the 2nd millennia, major difficulties are still presem in tile evaluation of the astronomical data for the earh 2nd and later 3"t millennia,

NexL to the latest astronomical computations bv Gurzadyan in Daling ... (:-iC), the statistical approach of Huber and his colleagues (HC) has dominated the chronological disCllssion dUling the past few years, The analysis of Iluber for the period -1362 to -1 976 using the \ T and smtistical methods, and including the lunar eclipse and contemporal')' montll-Ienglh data, re ulted in follO\,;ng date for Anlln;,aduqa, Huber di,ided imo good, median and bad matches

\-ith the data:

\ulIl1h-.l(luq.l \t',n 1 -1701 (:= I i02 Be He). bt--\t til \mmi':'Outuqil \t'.ll" I .;. -Ul-n (= Ih46 B(: Me). POOft"t malt h \mmi ,.\duq.l \t',lr 1 -I~)HI {- I:lS2 BC Lel ,1llt.·dian malth.

bt'I\H'l'n 11(, .U1d 'Ie \mmi,;>.uhlq.l \t.'~\f I -1~)li (=' 1 ~11~ Be: ULC or "'Super­

shon"'). mild .1~rt.·t.'mt'l1l

Gt Rl.\O\ .", DlIlill{( ... 72 criticiled Huber's assumption that one of these thrce (four) chronolo­g-ies has to be correct assuminu t~lat a 21,-yca~ Venus period corresponded Wilh Amml~adl1qa s reign can be t"tractl'd from thl' \ T. As mentioned abosc, according to C'"'ladsan and othe,,, the 8-H'ar qcle

lt~"Ililt b\ ~tl( IIH (2002) 17-I\.. which t''i~enti<llh was an ,\d.lptatinll or the datl" for the solar t~c1ip...e mentiollt.'(i in Ih(' MEC 10 ~1 \''''( ~ rt aC .. l2ool) Ill'W 1t""'Ult~.

WI' St.'t.' HllU R (1999-2000) 6i-{)8 for ;\11 o\N .... it.·\\ ,on hi ... ('\ ~tI~ uation of the ... l· d~lle ... "Ild their fit with the eclip,e data of th(' AJ.J .. ,\d ian and l 'r III pcrio(t....

is \k"opmlllllian Chronolo),." of lilt' 2nd \Iilknnium B(

(= fhe 'modic period,) is the onh reliahle data which can bl' extracted from the \ T and therefore the :;6 / 6-1-,,~ar cvcle upon which the \1(' and He <cheme is b'lsed does not der;- e directh from the textual evidence (see abo GlRZ\0\ " [~OOO) I~~).

He concluded: - ... the sl:.Hi~ti('al anah.,i", doe.;. not indicate am preference for th,' High Chronologv, thu ... demon.;.u-ating that we are dealing with ab~olu(eh nois\" data. from which we can nUl reach all\" reliable conc}u ... ion .... .,J(j6

l·nforlunateh. the historical nidenrc and the dendrochronological results do not a~lee with the HC. ~loreo\er. the archaeolo~ical e\idenre (potten and ~hptic). accordin~ to th .. scholars "olkin~ on the material (CISCHI " 01.. D(lll1l~ .... STIIHI ER-.-\lf­GRt\ [1999)95--97 or GL>.LIXDI [199,')I:tl-1:'-I) is al,o contran to the He. ;'\e\erthel .. " IIl'RFR (1999-2000) 6. qicks to hi ,olution awaitin~ other "hard' evidence (such .... new ~ tronomical data) '.7

Irregularities in observed (\'itronomical data could have been camed b) mleanic cruptions. such as that of Thera saturating the aunophere with ml­canic dust. which would have particularh interfered "ith obsenation near the horiwn and thu, affect­ed the dates of \ 'enu,' fi"t and last visibilit\ .... The date of the Thera eruption is till uncertain. 16-1.'>. 1628 or 1520 Be. .. but perhaps mal e\entllallv be detennined b\ dendrochronological data the ice cores of Greenland. and dated archaeolog-ical ,trata "'th ~ces of ash and pumice deriving from this erupuon.

Despite all the studies of recent )ea". which have tended to"ards a chronologv somewhere betwcen ~e ~Ia"ical ~IC and the ;'\C." lit BfR (1999-2000) ,,3 sull argues contra GUf/.advan \ computation<. On the other hand Kocll (1998) 127 'tatec! that

,. Gl RL',l,n.\:. /Jfllin~ , .. 7·1. for an explanation of "twi~ IUll"i' f:(" C.I'R!.\m" (20()Oa) _I" .~~ t.: •• ( . ,h-'.r--t".:x ,n'''pO'h(' to

Gl RLUJ\\.' (1000) In III BfR ( 1~~:ll.l(W) , .")J-5:l. IIi\ \It"'" ha.\ rt"mam{'~ ,u.ndlarlg(·d "inn." Iii JJf'R f'1 at. OP. 'J '\01('

thai! JunR IIllualh· ar$.,'ll{'d for a I.e in n, IIHt W\f RlH \:

(1966) 42 and 17: -Oit' t"illlige ChrtJllol{~(' die' J'U ",!Icon Daten gm ~a.'i...\l. i.,l di(" ~ur/e. Danaeh nogi('n(o rI'f' J Idmrntl­

~pl-r~n:\u(' \on -1.8~J bi, -1530, IIdlllrnllfapi \011 -1727 Iw)-JC,'banct \lnflll.t.adll"'dwm_I;~J 1,,'< 1",'1" \ I

• • ,.,.., - • .)'1 • , \ 10 1 H: h,\tonc-.d.1 \(Hlf((-.. (or aJ>.,.oJuIC rhu)llolc)j..,}' IIulx" f(o«" !wilO R(,\no_,\ weh: in /SL\ J 7 (195k) 97; for the ar("ha("ologiraJ

~ r~LlJr~ ~e n~I~~(;d (cJ ,\J.8RJ(.lf r, IJAVJI! if) (1912) I H. :~)tt' .~\ "ntl( I.,In of d("Idrt)( Ilron()logjc~1 r('\lll,,,, fUHIl a

'lOgIc' "'11('; ~u, Lh(' dal~t .... (·1(· 'iamplc\ from a largt' ~tI('<I in (~rd(~r lO adll('\(' rnult, for thi ..... iLC": "('e: lal(·I\ '}vr"JO'l.; _ Kt -"IIC)1 \I (2(Mll) 16:>-1 if).

GUl'lady;m" c~klllati()Il' could match the eclipse. HO\I('\t'r ",",' " 'tarlt'd hdo\\' the horilOll. iL' begin. nin~ \\ould nOl hal l' been yisiblt' (St'" Koch's endnote no, 18 t,>r dt'tails). In ~W()O Gur/ad,an also demon. 'lI,lt"d that lIuher's sl'il'ttlon of rall'ndars did nOt c~rrt·s!)ond to the ru." rang-t' of choices (pp, II'O-IHI)' Oh\lOl"" Iht'll approach differs in sl'\eral respecI<. tilt' romplllation prog-rams producing one of the major di,crepancil's (Ill III- R [ l999-2000J 57 and CtlU \0\" (2000) IH:'''' and [2000aJ 10-45).

3.5. Historical Omens and the HistOricity of Eclipse Data

The 100\l'r chronologies gt'nt'ral" are opposed onll b\ those who ,t'l~ on the astronomical data for chronologv. But lit 't,1 R (2000) 155--158 pointed out. that the connection bt'IWt'en eclip es of EAE and historital e\'enls i, not secured at all. ' ' and presented a quite pe"imistic \ie\\ of the chronological useful­ne" of the omens EAE 20 and 21, The apodoses of thme omens alluding to specific historical events may have been alt("t'd, thllS making it "impossible for us to identify their histolical basis" (p, 158),

The problems with the omens are;'"

• '\0 ruler is mentioned b} name in them.

• Tht' ascription of 'petific omens to lbbi-Sin or Sulgi i, a modern leap of faith.

• The destruction of Vr is predicted by an eclipse in two ,hfferelll nl()nth" month XII (EAE 21) and II (EAt 20)

• lA.lnt('rning til(' king of t; r whom a son will "wrong" (i.e, "kill"), no evidence exists that any king of Ur \\,l> m;,treated or killed b} h is son.

• The cll'ath of a king of Akkade is no specific event.

.. \,,," (IU72) . ""J s<

'I' (',g,\I" ''', (1999). \1\",,,, - It""", (2003) '0 1~()-122 and Un LUi (~WO:~) 2~-\-:33 ilnd '('e III. 14 .

10 ("ol!<-o and anal)/t" Ih('''(' tract·s i\ lilt" l:.c~k of OIl(' of Lhe proj('CI.\ of .'-;CI¥.\!I 2000 IInd('l" the dil('("licHl of tv!. mehler: \t'e ill. (·d. HIlIAK (2000) :HHI. S()lfl(' I(' .. ull\ by M. Bichler ~lnd 111 .. (('.11lI (;C11 "(' fOllnd in CChEM~) (2007) -ICIll , Note lei . III Cf( lUx KJ I't fli. own I) 1i7-9:l.

"I " . (}It" that (;, K/.\II\'A' OW()O) IHI It'lIlwd [1)(" NC ;IS Lht' ( I.e (Ill(' law'l ba\('d Oil it :)()Jf).J-),<'<I1 V('IltI\ evcJt».

SIZ \ d. ." f'.. I.. • (:'t(IIj)tHUi () ('III/.ld~;tJl \ \voll ("jill h(' found 111

CI R/AI)Y\, (200(J;1) 1()-1~, 'I' ' .. "'('111 ~("" (2002) 171-17Ii, 0" p, 17,1 he ,ep('H,ed : "!leI' ~llI1l11h' folll\I(',Jli4i .. (· fllit Il>hi·Sill C)<I("I SlI ll{i III V(' l billden ,

Iii I:' itl'lfl IIII,d('lflt· 11I1('rpl('I<eli(III ,"

".(. ahl> SiAl (200 I) 170- 171.

3. Astronomical Data 79

• There are mort· apodoses in EAE with no po,sible hiSlori<"aJ COllllu:'rpart, and which are apodoses repeated (EAE 21 II and VII).

• On days 20 and 21 there were no eclipses according to the Babylonian calendar (EAE 21).

Tn,,'. lIi{;" '" 3. 203 noted many cases of eclip'''s which the omens imply were followed by the death or disappearance of a king; but it is hard to judge how many of these omens derived from spe­cific nents. Thus the historical mlue of these astro­nomical oml'ns is to be qucstioned, especiall} a~ the eVenLIoj described arc unspecific and were som('{imes ob\'iouslv addcd lat ..... But G .\StlH (2003) 213 claimNI that the historical ev-ents do fit the calculat­ed eclipscs. and therefore the identifications of the persons or event\) mUSl be correct: •.... loutes les characteristiques mentionnces dans les textes SOlll

H!rifi<'cs par l'astronomie avec une precision cton­nante .....

The solar eclipse reponed in the MEC and linked to Samsi-Adad I is, howcver. a different matter from the vague (lmen eclipses. Though diff(,rent approach­es b ...... d on different premise, (-4 Eponyms and Den­drochronology) have resulted in a \'a,-iet\ of date, for SamSi-,\dad 1."" ne\ertheless the eclips .. of the \IEC is somelhing directl\' tied to this king and for Ihat rea­son alone would merit the closest stuelv·. But also the MEC, in contrast to EAE. is a contemporan docu­ment, which has not becn subject to repeated copr­ing and editing, Moreo\'er. the possihilit\ of dating a solar eclipse is better than for lunar eclipses. :-\c\ cr­thelcss Ihis solar eclipse is not \en clearl}' desclibed and therefore subject to a \nriel)' of chronologies. depending on which other (,l'idence the date is linked to (so far mainlv th .. dendrochronological date from Acem,116),i-'k). Scholar, working \\ilh this solar ec lipse hal'e nOI accepted the validit\ of attempting- 10 apph the 56, (i·I-\ear \ 'l'IlUS cv'cle to the VT data (~tlt:ml - ROUIfR [199;-2000J. MltllFI [20021 and W \RBt RIO', [2(021),

'" .\ 'IIIIIlIll,U'"\ on ';\I"iOIl' applo~u· h(·' during Lhl' pa;,;t {(ow

)('al" ".t..,. pn'wlHt'd b, W\IWlIUO' in hi ... i1\:oiightlul a1tidt, 01 20112. IOH-I I I.

'110 I ' ' • \\In'''mR(, (·K ('(lfllllll'lIwd in 19:).1, IHllX,l: "Wt'lH1 ilgClld-

t'lIlt' ,.t~t' I'lhl ill Skht i,I, \\ild \it' 'ioloit in dil' 1.\\,'lIIgV J'lfkt· <It'I' , 'C'lIl1'Jl('lio<il'1l H"("It',J...I, dit, l..t'illl'rki \mlt'rung­rut'll! lul,h .. I." lit, Iht,td(Ut, f()(lI~('d on (''-It-m,,1 lil1l..s.

Il l('h illl P;lfl Oll tlH' dll()J1ologiL11 .. t'ttiH~ 01 the D.lrk ,\ gt't and Iht.- iI r(' lillion 10 'ht' n.lh, loti I (h Hil,>(, ;1\ \\t'll :1:'\ to the L.1lCl\\'Il ruk" in til(' 15th n'lI!. l'hi, ,lpplO,lfh i'i in !;an n'r, ,.tllI'lhl(', but hi\ 'Iud, i, h'I\(.'d 011 oUld.lI('d illfl.lllll,Hion.

3.6. Venus Cycle

The VI, which deals with the risings and setting~ of Venus during the reign of Ammisaduqa (probably). is chronological" anchored within the Bab\lon f d}1last). but its date is so vague that it leaves ~s with three possible chronologies (if not more). the HC, '.IC and LC reflected in EAE 63. Studies on absolute chronolOg) try to fit the \T data and all other known data into one of the major chronological schemes"· Howe\n. HI:BER, High ". I. 17 stated; '". It is no longer a question of picking one of se\eral Venus chronolo­gies on the b .... is of historical or other non-astronomi­cal arguments, but a question of either accepting or refuting one single chronologv. ,,:

Omens listed in EAE 63 relate to Venus' s~llodic period. which lasts ca. 584 day' or ca. 20 months'" Babylonian calendar dates of first and la't visibilities of \'enus repeat themseh-es after n\'e ,,"odic peliods or ca. eight solar years - more precisely 99 synodic monthl)~n~ minllsl days.:iJ!J After seven or eight such 8-

,ear periods the 4<la,' deficits accumulate to a full month, which means mal after 56 or 6-1- "ears Venus phenomena are again more or less in step \\;th the lunar calendar. Unfortunate" the Old Babylonian obsenntional data contains man\' erro". It is also dif, ficult to find out according to which com'ention the astronomers would report on lheir obsen'ations (see Hl BER fl al .• OP:S:E 12-13). Despite all this. modem scholar", ha,"e "aimed to squeeze objectjve negative infonnation out of the \ ~e nll' data b~ using stalistical methods to fix the absolute chronologv of the 2nd

millennium BC: (HlRER, lIigh ",1.6). The \T contains information on the first and last

\'isibilit, of Venus during a 21-\'car period assumed to correspond to the reign of Arlllni,aduqa, Its chronological \'a lue for 2nd millennium chronolog) has been widell' discussed in the past; NEL'GEI!'\l ER (1929 and Ialer) and RHXER - PI"l.RFE (19;5) 25 believed that it is hard to (,'Unct re liable data from the latcr portions of Ih .. tahkt (Ihe\ even doubted

For.\11 ulX!;Ut'd SUld, I.In Ihe \1t':,\opotamian Dark .\ge 'iee III '(it R - PKC/'II'V"" (eds.), \I D. \R.

11 On Iht' ,;:,\ibili" and ",riou, f>O,itions of\"cnu," \cc Pingree in Rtl'fR - PI,-(.tUr (1998) j...20 .

1li'o. A !)'Ilndir month ron ... i·\l.!) of ~~ d<l':'\, 12 hom .... H milllllt' .. ,md ~.9 :,\('cond .... Thi, rt'sulh in ,.\11 inegulat ..etit'" of ~~

and 3()"(t." Illonllb. ~lQ St"(" ,\\nOl (1977) 1-1 (on 8M ~iljl from B'lb,loll."hich

repOlh 011 \'('1HI:'\ for t~ight \(.',11-"), IILaH. (I at. OP~l II and III III " (19!l'.l-2()(Xl) 288-2$9.

\te .. oporamian ( 'hronolo!ot' of the :?nd \lillenl1iulH B(~

lhal lhe rest of lhe lext belong> to Ammi~aduqa).

Huber performed <latistieal anah,is combining the \1 with Old Bab\ Ionian month·length, in lhe elTon to prO\e that the reports of the \1 are to be allrib­Uled to the reign of Ammi>aduqa. · In response to Reiner and Pingree" waming HL BfR (2003) 163 '\Tote: -I have made Ill\" career as a statistician b\ dealing with contaminated and othe",i,e corntpted data. and with data analvsis ... Those ,ear\ 1--.. and 9-17 show an exactll parallel statistical behaviour aero s different chronologies. that i. . the, show the behaviour to be expected from cOlhecUlhe data ... ". In Other word. Huber tried to pro,e both ulal the \ T contains "a hard core of genuine, consecuti\-e observations" for the \ears 1- 17 and that the \ears 19-21 are to be attributed to observations during Ammi,aduqa's reign,~l

The reliabilit, of the S66-l-,ear \'enus CYcle pre­en'ed in the \1 w'" discussed b\ GLRLll\.\.' (2000)

I '0 and \\'WlL RTO" (2002) II I and (2004) " 4. Referring to the lale t statements b, HlSER (1999-2000) Gurzad\an remarked that e'en if cer­tain Venus \isibilit) data fil one given 8-year period. one cannot expect that "th",· would ulerefore neces­sarily fit the period of 56 or 64 'ears before/ after with the same a) probability and b) accuracy: '" Thus in Dating .. , a basic 8-vear cvcle \\as applied b, excluding other cycles, such as the 56/ 6-l-\ear \ 'enus o'cles, which generated the 20 possible chronologi~s of HlSER et aL, OP:\E. Gurladyan argued that onl\ ule first ten omens belong to the reign of Ammi~aduqa, whose 8th year is mentioned in the lOth omen, and that too litue e,idence is contained in EA£ 63 to

identify a 56- or 64-,ear Venus cycle."" REISf.R and PI. 'CREE (1975) likewise accepted on I) an 8-year cycle

!Ill For a criticism of Huber's approach ce Gl R/~'\OY~' (2000)183-184, Sf" (2001) 171. in r"pon,e to GLRl.un:.-\." DruUlK .. .• ~lates that the approach to C'hronol. Of!' through Old Bab~lonian mOlllh·length, ,hould be Imesugated In more detail before its accuracy i\ judged. T~,\RFT (2004) postulated thal ~ day months were not LL~d during the Old 8ab}lonian pe~iod , Such month. lengLh discU5sionli are well known from studi(, .. 0 11 Eg}ptian chronology. -+> alx)\(· sub 3.2. '

" IOn difficulties with the \lathtical method -,(.(. (;.t RI_\l)\'A' IJalmg ... 73 and Gl RL\l)V\'\ - Cou_ (l99CJ) 5. '

!1' Within the past few ~e--d"" more sc:holal"\ haH' shown their preference for an s.yt'ar Venus cycle: (,,\\( IH fl al., IJaling

"" Z". (2001) 86, MIf "" (2002) 17- 18 alld WARlllRf<" (2002) J 1 l -l l :~. Apart from such prohlt.'lm~ we an' CO I~. fronted with "intrimic noi \e" (Ct·R/_.\,UY, .. , [2000] 18 1) in the \7: visibility a.~p(,Cb:. potcllIial \cribal (' I mrs and

fOI the \ I . As wa, mentioned abOll' ub 3.1.1 ., others disregard the \ 1 for chronological purposes alto­gether.

Gurzadvan \ 'equcntt' of infelior and superior COn.

junnions i., theret()le ba.'l'd on ule 8-vear Venus cycle, which according to him represents the oni) reliable ncle to extract from the \ 1.'" Onh the relative ,equence ofinferiol and <upetior cOI"UunClions, but no absolute lunar calendar reflected in the vr, form the basi, of Gurzadlan\ approach to ule 8-ycar cycles of \ ·enus. G\'<;('UE rl aL paid more allention to the lunar eclipse ofEAE 20 and 21 in order to nan'ow down the range of possibilities of 8-,ear oeles compatible \\,th Ule \ 1 data. Howeler, \\'IRBLRTO' (2002) 113 pointed out: "It i also remarkable Ulat the on l) means ofavoid, ing a . ubsrantiall-eduction from the '~1iddle Chronol, 0ID' require, ule <actifice of the I'ery 56/ 6+year Venus cycle upon which the whole edifice of the three chronological svstems \las based ...... This ultimatel) mea", that ule concept of High, Middle or Low chronolOID' in ~lesopotamia might hal'e to be gil'en up, since potentialh e"ery e igh t years is a solution for the \1 data. -" It also suggests that we might have to give lip on the \ '1' - as indeed NWCEllAU R (1929 and later) and RE"'ER - Pt'GRH (1975) had warned.

In his response to Gurzadpn in Dating ... , HlBER (1999-2000) 51- 53 stressed that it is not possible to operate only with 8-year periods:'" since there are five synodic periods within an 8-(50Iar) year cycle, there mal be further solutio ns co rresponding to one of the other four synodic periods within those eight years (causi ng U1C 56 and 6-l-year cycles to ol'erlap) -which means that all the Venus phenomena for any particu lar chronolOg) must be ca lculated and checked wheth e r they are reasonably compatible with

uncon\cious rc\toration III antiquity. S(~e Gnti' .. \I)y'\~ (2003) 1 ~17 on til(" role of refr-dclion ill olht'rvillions ncar the horiu)Jl. n: See al\O 111",1 R - " "C.R" ( 1999) 33-31. R{)\fTO' (HJ70) 2~~ 1 -232 Will) in fm'oJ of all s.)'<:"i!r C)'cl t' as well.

)l'. ~e Mlc III-.(. (2002) 17- IR who pmpos('d ~1 "reduced Me" (1.('. a reduClion of If) years) based 011 Iht" MEets /to lar t'cl ip')(' fombil1 t'd with h is l()ri c~tl ~lI1d delldrocillun()logi~ ('al data. .,., . o te al~) LIlt" revi("w by SL\I (200 I ) 1(;9-172. when.' sht." \~;tl(· cI, tl.lalllw ill1;-lly ... io,; of til(' vr by G.'\.~ . 111- "t (I/. i'i rM tOO

~ "npll\tlc With reg<1Ich.1O their a~'i ulIlptiom ;Ibout 111 (' qllal­Ity or the \q daftl ~tl1d til(." links bt' lwt"e ll the \ rf and a'ill'£)­nomi<-alfh('orics of til(' fil\l millenniul11 Be. She al'io st.1tCS thai they mhllnd('r~tood ll lli>(.>r's <1I1aIY'ii'i.

3. Astronomical Data 81

the dat.a or not. Furthermore (and this has a very strong impact on the discussion) Huber criticized Gurzadyan's computer program and his interpreta­tion of the astronomical terms used in the pro rases of

:'11 the omens. Gurzadyan in CASCIIE et aI., Dating ... achieved

the reduction of half a Venus cycle (= 32 years), which resulted in 1550 for year 1 of Ammi,aduqa and 1499 for the fall of Babylon. According to SE,\L (200)) 170-172, this solution still needs to be veri­fied and discussed with respect to J luber's dates and methods. The 8-year cycle has won increasing sup­port but this means the VI data less is specific for absolute Mesopotamian chronology.

Concluding Remarks

Many scholars regard the astronomical data to be of questionable chronological va lue: Indeed, Unger and Neugebauer recommended the VT be disre­garded; CATE , High ... 2, 77 suspicious of the quali­ty of the vr data, hesitated to apply the A1alab mate­rial to an "art ificially correct sche-me" and preferred" a less satisfying series oJ 'rOugh absolute dateS',"· KOU:>iE (1999) 203 based his chronological arguments stricuy on historical considera tions, (He proposed 1550-1540 [between MC and LC] for the end of the Babylon I dynasty.)'''' This approach seems to be the one adopted by most scholars working primarily with relative chro nology-systems. £OER (200-1) 192-l93, likewise put off by the difficulties with th e astronomical informatio n , disregarded it in deriving an UI-I C, slightly longer than the H C dating the fa ll of Babylon to 1665. Starke in EOFR - REt>:GER (200-1) 59 t also dismissed the VT's chronological \1tlue: "Inzwischen wirdjedoch allg. a nerkannt, daB es sich bei die em Text Ulll e ine Fiktion bzw. gelehrte Ko n­strukLion jenseits d e r Realitat hande lt. "

':!7 Craig Cros~en (pri\. CO I'11I1\ .) poims out the problem of wht,tllt'1" 01" nOt Ihe Venus ObSCI ,",niOlH \\'('re m"dt, by tilt?"

'iaml' Ob'il'! \ '('1. "Tht'rc ca n bl' 0.1 gre.n dirTt'renet' in \'i~lIal activit), bl'twt't' n ob~eners. partinllarty with notOriou ... h hard·l(r\~(· I\\ilight pht'nomcna, Plm a uained and t'xP( .... ri~nCl>d Ob't'1\t' l \\ill sight ~t pbnet in the twilight flo\\ much ('arlit'l than an int"perit'll('('d obser\t! r."

,~" She workt.,tJ with ,lrchacological llI.tteri.11 of the ~tB,\ and wi th s)lIehl'oni'ims (EgypL, Lt' \.lIlt ;l1ld SYl'i.\). Set.' TlIllRl> \\ '.1) \N( ,I N (Nl.) ( 19!) 1) 13 (po' 1'1 of the d isc \1~sioll ).

'~I Thl1~ ill rlUVO I ( 1 9H~) 203IT. KClll1lc proposed the dates of 1539 0 1 l !'i~~ l for Iht, fall of Babvloll (Le, 8·ye .... (Yeil') and 'i1'ltNI ill sec 11 10 (1999) 203 t :"1 dispenie wilh Ihe

The HC, MC and LC dates for the fall of Babylon are basing on astronomical data which derives from the \'1' using 56/ 64-year Venus cycles. Now, the \'1' is believed to be closely related to a certain year of Ammi,aduqa's reign mentioned in the 10·h omen instead of an apodo,is: "Year of the golden throne" (= 8th year of Ammi.aduqa: for a discussion of the identification of this year-name -> above). But G. Wilhelm pointed out to me that the apodosis con­taining the year·name is not necessarily to be tied to the time when the obsen'3tion was, but to the dating of the tablet on which the omen "as originally writ­ten dO\\l1. iJll This is another reason we must be cau­tious about using the Venus tablet for chronological purposes.

The lunar eclipses are also questionable for chronological purposes because they cannot be linked to specific historical events, and the prorases of the omens mentioning some of them are ambiguous (nOte especially HLSER [1999-2000] 6 I ff., who shows that some of the proposed dates do not match the omen-<lescription of the eclipse), EI'en the lunar eclipse reported in the Tell Mu~am­mad texts (year-name" ') is insufficienuy clear for dating if nOt combined "ith other data.

The eclipse reported in Hittite sources, com­bined with other important synchronisms with Egypt and Babylonia, )ields one absolute date for the reign of 1>lurSili 11 : his lO·h year can be dated to

130 or 1312 respectil'ely, This could help put other S)'lian dynasties in chronological context. However, it is still debated whether this text really refers to an eclipse or is simph' some solar omen.

The solar eclipse of 763 BC securely fixes absolute chronology of 1" millennium Me opota­mia and (-> General) . We still lack a similar astro­nomical sign-post for the 2nd millennium,

long<heri ... hed idea of obtaining reliable resulb from the evalua tion of the rele\'"ant Bab~lonian date ... "

~:\Il This "';IS the cOl1\ention for dating late Old Babylonian tableh-.. Hld the o ld dale lila, have .. imply been left b\' the cop\i"t. A different \lew W;'lS talel1 b\ R£I'\FR -: ~"GRt:F (1975) 9, ,\ho bt'lined that -omt'O" 10 -was ongHlalh J.

rt.'port of an ob .. enation of the last \i .. ibilit~, ofYen.u:;. fol­lowed b, the datt', as in lhe C~bC of tht, lepor~ 01 hanl'­

pice .... " "1 The ye;l f.ll;lme 11Iel'('l~ rcpol h thaI 8.,b,lon was rest'tlled

afterlht~ raid (RIClI.\Rt)~O:-' {2002] 9): nothing furthel can

be infern~d fl0111 it.

:\1e-o.opotanu.ln Chronolul--l"\ of the ~l1d \li11C'nnium Be

Problems "ith late-3n1 early-ZOd millennia Mesopotamian astronomical data

Lunar echpses oftbe Akkad and Ur m period

:\7 (EAE 63)

Old Babyloruan IDOntb-leogtbs

Solar eclipses during Sanw-Adad I (MEC) and Muriili I (KUB 14 4) Lunar ecl" linked to the Iiill of Bab Ion '

l'alculallon c\ aluatloll ,---------­Hi toneal rel ... b.im '

\car or 5~ 64 \ car \ l'nu ... C\ l'lc') Rehable hnk Ill' the Ilb"'I'I,'II~,"' \\ Jlh \111111' aduqa" Suffic.enth rehable datal

e\\ e\ aJuatlon of C Istmg oatd nCl.:deu! Both ecJtpse arc in~lIml'icnth dcscrih~dl

. to ical.rchabilit ? and too 'man optIons .'---_---J

Babylon I o,nasty. Calendar. Dendroch I· E . .' . . _ rono 01:\. pon\111S, Old • .\s,,·nan Penod, 'ear-names

4. BABYLONIAN KING LIST

Sources, Textual Evidence'"

_ Old Babylonian KI.., generally known as the SKI..: for insLance W.-B. 444: SCII~II()rKF (1952) 70ff. and Lable 1. The SKL also catalogues the rulers of the Vr III and the 1sin I dynasties.

_ BKL A: BM 33332, CT 36, 24 and 25. ScH\IIDTKE (1952) 77ff. and tables 2 and 3; BRJ'o;K.\lA'o;, PHPKB 36-67 and ~lSKH ; GRAYSO'o; (1980-1983) 90-96

- BKL B: BM 38122, PI. 'CHES, PSBA 3 (1881) 21-22. SCH\lIDTKE (1952) 80r. and table 4; RUST, MYAeG 2/11 (1987), 240, table 1; GRAYSO:-'; (1980-1983)

100 - BKL C: POEBEL (1955); BRL'IK.\L\N, PHPKB 83;

GRAYSO' (1980-1983) 96-97 - Ur·Isin KL also referred LO as "Erlenmeyer-list":

SOLLBFRGFR, ]GS 8 (1954) 135-136 (two exemplars: text A+text B); GRAYSO'l (1980-1983) 90

- Larsa KL: YBC 2142, YOS 1, 32. nll'lu.Al-DAsGL", RA 15 (1918) 2-3; GOETlE,]CS 4 (1952) 99--100; Snl\IIlHKF (1952) 77; EDZARD (1957) 22: GRAYSON, ABC 267

- Dynastic Chronicle (ABC no, 18): B1>[ 35572+; pub­lished as a chronicle."" See GRA' 0'1, ABC 40-42 for further details and (1980- 1983) 89; FISKEL,]CS 32 (1980) 65-72 (bilinl:\JaI fragments: BM 35572 and B1> I 40565) (~SKI..)

General Features

Unlike the AKL, which is basically one text preserved in sC\l'ral duplicates, the BKL consists of various non­duplicaLin!{ '·ersions. This means LhaL each BKL text mu!\t be treated indi\'idllallv before it can be com­bined with the others to form a "canonical" BKL. The main vcr' ions of Lhe BKi. are BKL A, Band C.

lU .\ u~rflll bihliogmph) is oITen.·cI b, CR,·,''S()''1,\BC 267-269. \ cOlllpkw II iUl"i<Tiption of thl' \ ,\rious \t'l"Sion'i of the BKL ,an 1)(" 10llnd in RIA 6 (1980-1\183) 80-97 and 100 by the 'ii.tllIt'iluthOl ,

", S . . OIll('IiIllC,.''i 110 clt',ll" di~tinClio li between lU ..... and chroni-(· It·s ("illl be madt', See ROwtON ( 1970) InH: the first pan is 101 lllui.llt·d ('hronick-like and inrludl's the earl iest umer-ii.1II <lyn.I<;tic.'\. Chron.icle.

On the formal stntClllre (categories "A-D") of the various versions of the BKL see GRAVSOS, ABC 5-6'" and ROWG (1969) 265ff. (sub his category "C"). According to Rollig all three recensions, BKL A-C, belong to the same literary genre, listing the number of years (with fractional years), the king's name, and occasional)' the filiation. Due to the lack of pace ancestors seldom found their way into the BKL. This is a major difference between the BKL and the GHD and AKL. According LO GRAYSOS, ABC 193 and (1980-1983) 90, the BKi. is to be considered as a fur­ther stage of the date-lists, which list the year-names of a king's reign in successive order: LO these date-lists a summary of the number of kings and their number of regnal years were added . Such lists of summaries form the earliest KLs in category "A" (for example, the Larsa KL).

Category A is characLerized by the formulae "the year when ... " and "x were/are the years of the king" (GRAVSO'o; [1980] 172-177: the basic scheme is "x years - royal name"; in some versions the word "king" is added). The L.-usa KL and the r-Isin KL belong LO category A.m At the end of the list or the various sec­tions the LOtal number of regnal years of all kings can be found in most cases. BKi. C al 0 belongs to cattgrr ry A, although the pattern in it is simpler due LO the absence of the word "year(s)" from Lhe second for­mulaic phrase. In BKL A this pattern can be found within the d)'nastic summaries, which state the Lotal number of years and kings of each dplasty (see WAt.K­ER [199-] 235ff. for the summarie of regnal rears for each Babylonian dynasty). The categol)'s o.;gin ob"i­ously can be traced back to date-lists. This may be par­alleled with the relationship between the EL and

»4 In category C the rov,,1 name follows a narrative (e,g. Tum­Inal and Weidner chronicle). Calt>gOry D includes S\11(hro­nistie texts (e.g. Synchronistic History),

,,~ This ,iew is o nly partly shared by SR1"\1\,.\t,\.,,\. ~ISKH 42 26, who pointed out that no datl'· .. 1i~l.S were compiled from the 14th celll. onwards. Also chronicles as "'Ollt"ce material have to be ruled out for Ihe period before 626, since none of the chronicles known to liS give such ~, detailed account on

evel)' single year of a king.

4 \tl··~.opotamian (l1.ronvlo~ of lh("?nd lillt>nn;"m 8(

.-\KL The l"mk hl.. which is later than the othe", and taro. where Bhl. A breaks off. is to Ix- added to ra~

grw) ! a, well. The characteristic fonnula of rat~T)' B is "royal

name- number ofrear(s) - a predicate" (sum. AK "to do". i.e. "to relgIl. mle"' "TIle king mll'd for, \ears"). which fiN appe:m in the hl.. Like the hl. and AKL. Bhl.. B and the Dm tic Chronicle belon to this categon. adding a predicate to the fonnula (GR\\'-O. ABC 6).

It is generalh' ""sumed that J.J..s and g-enealogtes were primarih wrinen for ideolo~cal purposes: that is to legitimize the current ruler and to as:.en conti­nuit). H.lli.O (19,,3) II-I ~ showed tllat the hi>torio­graph, of 2nd millennium ~leSOp()t:ullia consisted of cooverting simple Ii,t> of 'ear dates or epomlll into comprehen ive O\'eni",,, "which prr 'm I'" chrrnw;;ra­ph] ;11/0 1M fm.';a of ldeolog)"_ In the Bhl. there seem to be no errors in the sequence of names. but the numbers are of teo unreliable, at le""t in the earh portion of BKL A. In contrast to the "geographical" account of the hl. or Bhl.., the .-\ssnian scribes cre­ated a different hl. for Assnia (Cpper ~Iesopotamia). which suppressed geographical or ethnical affilia­tions of the named kings: consequentl, in the AKL the grouping of kings does nOt depend on famih affiliation (compare the GHD).

In the past much discussion revolved around the historical validit)· or accuracy of the KL While J~mRSE. ' (1939) beli",ed the list to be a valid and useful account of the early kings. FIKHSTFI'

(1979)"" and ~jICIWml'K1.J{OS 103 (1983) 237-248 argued that the SKL sened ideological purposes. In o,T.\lis GLASS. 'LR extensi"eh dealt with this maLLer as well. The SKL tries to shO\,: how hiSton should have ~en, rather than how it reall} was - a fact once again Illustrated III the manuscript L:SKL published by STII.KEU.FR in 2003. On the other hand it lists suc­cessions of rulers that seem to be fairly accurate (for example the Kis I dmasty). As mentioned bv Stein keller (pp. 282 and 284), the main differ('nc~ between the L:SKL and the SKL is the part on the Pre­Sargonic section dealing with the kings of Ki" where the CSKL offers detailed information probably drawn from voti'e inscripLions. The L:SKL further

'" Fl. KfL~nl'. Earl) \1e~l)po(arnia, 2500-1000 B.c.. in: Ii .D. L\.\'"l1 L " aL (ed\.). P,ojxJl!,antUl fwd Communir-4(IlJ1l m n'Orid HisWry, Huuml' J: 1h" Sym/)(J/ir Imin.nrtmt in l'llrl)

S!t7 nrM5, ~niversilY Prc~ of J lawaii. J'onoiu lu ( 1979) :;0-110. ~ALA 1\ a)\() und('r')lood <:I.') "lurn of n{fke, era 01 (),ch'" ImpillOK chanJic" of pO""r (1Ilu,o [19H3[ 10). In II ... ~KL

diller, from the hl.. b, Ii,ting l',ent> and nIle" in lillt'ar lil,hion: this mea", that the kingdom "a'ed in Ki, until argon I after it h.ld de Cl' nded flOm heav. en. Then follolled l ruk. Akkad (romparl' with the "Cul'>e ofAkkade"). lruk, thl' III11I11UIIIIIII, \dab, Unlk .md Cr. The l·Shl. ,uggl'sts that tht' KL with it; dif­ferent troClurl' '"b compo,,'d dUling the hill I d, na,,, after the filII of the l -r III dma.'" due to a nell concept of depicting histon (from linear sequence to nclical p,ltlern).

4.0. ~Old Babylonian KL tl, Or SKL, contains a mnhological inuoduction ("wlll'lI kinf!.Sltip ((I11U' do!!'n from hratom ... ") and rons from Lhe Ix-ginning of mankind to the Isin I dynasty. fhe best kno"" ,er<;ion of tile hl. is the Weld Blundell prism W.-B. 4-1-1 from Lu'. which has tile hape of a cuboid with sides dhid­ed mto two columns each. The prism was published by LA'GDO, • OECf 2, London (1923) pIs. I-I\',

The ''lIriom Old Bab, Ionian tablets from ~jesopotamia, Xorthern yria and Elam (Susa) con· taining the Shl. ha,e been compiled by J lCOB E\

(1939). GR-\YSO\, ABC 268-269, E!l/ARD (1980-1983) 77-78. \'I\usn,. ZA 85 (1995) 23·m., GL-ISS\ER, Chr.l1es 67-,'37,119-133,137-142. STEl"""1I FR (2003) 167-192, and hup: """,-elcsLOIient.ox.ac.uk/section2/ b211. hLm (Oct. 2007).

4. 1. BKL A: BKL A took up where the SKL left off, tile Babylon I dynast~, and continued LhrOllgh sc,en more d)nasties ( lim. BAL"-. Akk. palU) " identified b) city names (Kis, Uruk, etc.). BKL A lists the Baby­lonian kings witll reign lengths from Bab) Ion I lIntil Kandalanu (in 626). TI,e 101h, or so-called "Chaldean" dynast), is nOt preserved in this list, but can be recon­structed from other sources. The beginning of the tablet is badl, broken: in all one third of it seems to be missing, and the 1'(." is sometime, hardly legible due to it; poor state of pres en 'lit ion. "'This means that the kings of the Babylon I and SeaJand I dynasties are missing (for these kings see BKL B) except for the Lotal of regnal years. The redaclion of BKL A, which is of unknown provenance, is as'mmcd to have been done in the 71h or 61h cenl. Be. The tablet measures 8.5 " 7,5 cm and is di"ided into two colulllm on the ob'e,,<' and re,crse. The ""Iiou, dynasti('s arc scpa­rated from cach other by hori/ollta l lines.

klllg\lllp c-ircuJatc:d from toWII to 10WII dfwr it had d(,'<tn'nd· ('(J fUJIlI hean'n. NOh.' Wile h ... (I UH~) 37 and 11. wilh Ihe lramlcuion "AIll IV('ilt'lI " willi n'''J)(:'(l 10 lin' GIlD, wheri.' the Akk. term I,rt/u i\ 11')(>(1. ) GcncaJogy. 011 Lht' prCM:nl 'l.t((' of tlJ(' whlt,( \('(' (;I{/\YSO~ (l9fm- I ~J83) !JO-!I I.

4. Bab, Ionian King List 85

BKL A b considered to be the most important source for thc chronology of the Kassite and Post­KaSSilC peliods, Nthough some parts are difficult to read duc to i" state of preservation and gaps throughout the tcxt, the number of kings can be reconstructed. To the left of the tablet the reign length of the king on the right is usually listed. The number of years of each dynasty's mle is stated before nery change of dynasty: x (years) y kings of the l

dvnast'''. The last legible name is Kandalanu; but the li~tl11av have continued on to the Persian Empire.

4.2. BKL B is a continuation of the SKL. It starts with the Babylon I dynasty and its founder Sumuabum and ends wiLh Ea-gamil of Lhe Sealand I dynasty. The tablet is of unknown provenance. Obvcrse and reverse contain twO independent lists of one column each, The obverse lists the names of dc"en kings of the Babylon I d 'nasty, their filiation and their regnal years''" BKL B's first section follows calegory B, which is first repre ented b) the SKL (although simplified without a predicate: rO)'lI1 name, year, number of years and two drnastic summaries) and represcnls a shortened version of the Dynastic Chronicle. The second parL of BKL B, on its re,'erse, simply lists the Len rulers of the Sealand I d)'last) without further information: in onl), ""0 instances is a filiation recorded. This section is comparable to the earlv-rulers section in the AKL. The table t is well pre­served and insClibed in Neo-Babvlonian script. The figllles noted on the obve"e are often unreliable (in contr,lSt to BKL A), U nforLunatel), the reign lengths and genealogical information of tile rulers of the Sealand I dynast)' a re missing. The sum of kings listed at the end of the tablet is incorrect. It is assumed that BI\.L B. like BI\.L C. was a school tablet.

4.3. BKL C: This list, a small school tablet from Babylon ia (in pri\'ate possession). conrains the names of the firt SC\ en rulers of the Isin II dynasty (1157-1069) '" with the reign lengths to the left (as on BI\.L A). The re' erse seems to have contained a sUll1mary of kings and reign lengths: it is barely legi-

~ , FOI the 1("IOI.llion of ';'Ollle..' of llll~ nurnbt·' ..... see POH~H ( 1917 ) 11(l-1~1.

110 NOll' that tilt, killV;' of' llt(' (,in II (hn~\sl) in thi ... Ihi ;\rc aho mt'llIic.>IIl'd ill BKI \ . \i.lriol1''i chronicles, tilt' Synchronistic History .\lId thl' Synchronistic KL. Sl'e tht, folding table in UIU\)"'\I\\ , "IIPh-H.

111 (;It.\\\O\ (IHXO-It)!'tl) gO, St.'t' Pm·un ( IR~5) 2-3 for it

ropy. '" \ \ Rllll (H)lll;) II .JJ\d (200 I) I. For Ihe UIZL St'C ""'\l D

(I~~)H) 1!):\- 17~l ,111<1 YOl -"':(.rR. ill: \\'.\\'. 11 \1.1 u (cd.). n" (:til/il'.\" (II SU1IJfIHt' I, l.eldt'll ( 1997) 3r)(l-35 7,

ble and therefore offers no useful further infonna­tion. BKL C seems to be a practice piece or rough copy. It has a curious "beetle-like" shape, measures 5.8 x 3.7 x 2.3 em and consists of only nine lines):'" It is presumed to have been compiled during tile reign of Adad-apla-iddina, since his predecessor is the last king listed. Of course, this list could have been an extract from a longer (and older') list.

4.4. Ur-Isin KL contains the rulers of the Ur JJ[

and Isin I dynasties \lith Lheir reign lengtl1s, It ends \lith the fourth year of Damiq-iliSu. The text is knO"" to us in "'0 exemplars (A and B), which most proba­bly derive from lsin. :-'lost of the Ii ted kings are pre­ceded by a divine determinative, as in the UKL and the ancestors' list from Ebla. '"

4.5. Larsa KL: The gaps be",'een \\'.-B. 444 (SKL) and BKL A I BKL B are bridged by the KL of the Larsa dynasty. It starts with the dynast)·'s founder Naplanum and ends with the conquest of Larsa by Babylon and the rule of Hammu-rapi' and Sarnsuilu­na, its last named ruler. Its tructure is the same as BKL A and C, simply listing the kings and their reign lengths. Some of the reign lengths can be re tored with the help of duplicate lists and date-lists. The ob,'erse of thc tablet contained the same infonnaLion as the reverse. It therefore must ha"e been a school tablet which extracted infonnation most probably from tile prism AO 7025 containing all rulers of Larsa'" The L'\fSa KL, which is badly damaged and was found at Larsa, was most probably compiled after tile 12'h vear of Samsuiluna.

4.6, Dynastic Chronicle (ABC no. 18): This "chron­ide" is a nan-ation of events from the antediltl\;an period'" dO\m to tile Ih cent. BC in a mixUtre of

umerian and Akkadian, The tablet, which was found in tile libran of ASSurbanipal in Nineveh, is badly pre­sen'ed (tllree pieces tI,at do not join) and consi ted of three columns on each ide. No king seems to have been omitted from the urvi\ing ection •. but tile order of kings and reigns lengths are often incolTect. The compiler was obvioush' more interested in the

«:\ TltlRI'-\t'-D.\.'\cp .. , RJ 15 (1918) 52-56, :\4 .. The .ll1ledilmial1 tradition, which h found ~lt lhe begin­

ning of the SKL. is known from other lite,:,,:· cotlte~ts ~nd \"l~ added secondarih to the SU, The SKI. 't an~edlll1\"1:..ln cities ,Ut' Fridu, Badtibiri.l. LaraJ... ippir. and uruppak. The pO!ltdilmian d\ll.l.\lie't of the SKL are Ki; I. f.j~,\ll.. .. l~. l" r. ,\wan. Ki" II. I tunMi. l"ml... II, L'r 11. ,\dab. ~Ian. N':) Ill. t\U<ll... Ki~ t\'. Untt... li t . \l..k'ld. L'n,k t\". Guo, L'ml.. V, Cr

III , ~U1d t"in l.

6 Me~opotamian Chronolo~ of the 2nd \Jillenniul11 Be

burial places of the kings of the Bab,-Ion I and Sealand d)11asties. than in chronological i ues. The Dynastic Chronicle is c10seh related to the SKL. but differs b) the additional fonnula -the king W,ll, buried in ... "_ The antedilmian rulers in col. I are listed in a different order than they are in the SJ.;L Two more bilingual fragments of the D)llastic Chronicle from Bab,lon, which date to the Late Bab,ionian period. hm.., been published bv FhKEL (19 0) 65-72. Thev how some dependence on the SKL. Finkel therefore declal-ed them as a -bilingual rofJJ of Ik Summall King Lisr con­taining a description of kingship. These copies are an imponant link to the tradition of Sero us.

Like the AKL. the BKL refers on I) seldom and briefly to historical events (chronicle-like insertions), as they are found in the Babylonian chronicles. In contrast to the ARL, the BKL (esp. BKL A) is dhided into d)llasties (BAL\: Babvion I dmast\', SeaIand dmast\·, lsin d)"ast\·, etc.) and does not focus on one cit} onlv. It is ob'ious that the SKL intended to show a unitary ~1esopotamian empire, a picture which did not conform to realit\·. It seems that during both the Ur III and lsin I d,llasties the rulers were anxious to justify their right to rule.'"

Value for Absolute Chronology

BKL A, which Ii ts the kings and their reign lengths starting with the Bab,lon I d)llast}·, can be supple­mented by BKL B, which gi"es the names of the kings of the Babylon I and Sealand d)llasties (mosul' in abbre,iated form H6), and BKL C, which preserved the names of the kings of me I in II d}llast\·. Howev­er, BKL A and BKL B, though they cOYer 'the Dark Age, ha"e IitUe value for 2nd millennium chronology

.. , Mlot\IOWSKl,jAOS 103 (1983) 237-248, So.z (2002) \5-27. )46 On more abbreliations in SKI.. A see BRJ'K..\.l,,-' MSKH

426-427. ' .

'" B.",,,\fA.,, PHPKB 26-27: "Kinglisl A, on Ihe olher hand thoug~ more removed in Lime from the kin~ ....,ith which i~ deals, IS the only Babylonian document thu~ far unearthed ~at originallv listed all the Babylonian monarchs of thi ~

WI ume and lhe length of Lheir reigns." BR"'l'fA", PHPKB 26: "(BKL C) ... i, undoubtedly the be" seconda~ document avai lable for the period "'hich it treats. bemg aJmo\t a contemporary wurce."

"'/'0 RJ • . ote C~o\RJ)')(),\ s remark on p. 49 JR' on P()cbel's restOra. u?n .of reign lengths in the BKL B, about p01;siblc- breaks within Lhe BKL B which might indicate that the end of Lhe Babylon I dynasty occurred during Amrni')aduqa's rather th~n Sam~uditana's reign. But ~ sub Babylonja for HittiLe raJ? dunng the reign of Salnsuditana. lIow(:\'cr. the lat. tC.r s presence at Tcrqa indicates lhalthc Babylon J dynasty stJII had control of the middle Euphrate during his reign.

inee ulel are either badh presened or COntain unre­liable numbers. ' BKL C is more reliable and Iist.\ the first seven kin!\, of tht' I,in II e1m"'t, (\\ hich. aCCord. ing to BKL A. lasted 132 year., anel 6 months) '" The previous period between the L'r II [ (h nast' (probabh starting \\ith ule acCt'"ion of L'r-. ammu) and the conquesl of Hammu-rJpi' \\as co,ereel b, the 'KL as well as b, the L' r-hin hi. (L' r Ill, Isin I) .

HORS"ELL ([999) 223-224, who studied the year. nantes of the Babvlon 1 dynast\, pointed Out Ulat date­lists are general Iv regarded as chronologicalh more reliable than the BKL. particularly more reliable Ulan BKL B, which is the only hi. to have preserved the reign length for the kings of the Bab,lon I dl1last,:'" -The date-lists taken as a whole and used criti~all) can, therefore, be accepted a reliable evidence [or the calculation of the number of years each king of the d~11asty reigned.- (p. 223) Due to the known sl1lchro­ni m bet\,-een Samsi-Adad I and Hammu-rapi' attested in the ~lari correspondence·' the AKL and Synchro­nistic KL ha,'e to be considered as well when evaluat­ing data from BKL and restoling the gaps in BKL A, since the Babylonian dates are dependent on the Ass · 'IE Inan ones. xcept for the astronomical data, whose chronolOgical llsefulness is disputed, there is no real anchor for the floating dates and }llchro­nisms for the rulers of the first half of2"d millennium Babvlonia.~" FurthemlOre, since the BKL does not show a continuous line of mlers and lists as successi,·e. some d}llasties we know from other sources to have been overlapping, the chronology of the Early Kassite dynast} remains unknOY>1l ( .... Babylonia).

BKI.. A ' lists the kings of Babylonia and their reg· nal years starting with the Bab)lon I d}'nast} and end-

"" ARM 1,93: Dut"" (1997) 'jOI. 361 A synop'li'j of the Bab)lonian dyna,)Lie\ on til(' b"L"ih of BKL

A and B was prmid('d b~ Scll\tllrIKI (19;>2) 17-52. For ::1 now-outdaled 'lUd}' on £:hrolloJogy bi.l\ed on AKL trag· menLS, the Srnchumi\ti( KL and BKL A 'j('C' \\"~ m\tR ( 1917).

'!'t2 Unfonunately th(.~ Babyloniall Distanzangaben do not Iwlp in Ihili respect. bt'low.

..... , B RI'liK.'f,",:'\, MSKJ f 424fr. "r\me'i on KinKli\! A" I;un'('y" lhe

problem in BKL A (onc('lllillg g('I1 t'a loK)'. \('(llIt'I1C(, of rulc-n. regnal length" oml""jull!) ("1(". See c'pc.'daJl)' W9fl. for the Sealand J dyna.'St}'. Lh(' Ka')siw (hna,!). lilt· Isin 11 d)'na\ty, etc. On pp. 134fT. he li\L\ tll(' ("onfl io\ in th(.' LCxt.~ with reign Irngth \. 'Larung with tht" K..t\\ilt' d)'".I..\I)', Omit·

led ruler~ arc fompill'd 011 pp. 4~UH. For 11101 (' illfomMtiOIl

on lhe reign ofTukulu·Nilluna I and iiI(' Fl.ll l1 itl' illl t n cg· num b<'lWC(!n Llw Ka\'iitc.' alld I ~ ill II dyn.t'lic:s !\ee 1l""K."A~, Pll PKl1 7l!-8:1.

4. Babylonian King Li5l 87

ing with the Chaldca~ dynasty. Acco!'din,g to Grayson the text "a' "a baslc referencp work. LIke the SKL (which was called a "cit)' list" by H ALLO [1983] 10'''') it depiCl('d various dynasties (BAl.J\) as consecutive and ignored overlapping or 'ynchronous dynasties. However, we know that the Bab}lon I, Sealand and Kassitc e1yna'ties were partly synchronous. Further­Olore, some of the listed figures have been proven to be incorrect.'" Unfortunately, the beginning and end of the text arc lost, and it has three large internal gaps. This complicates the reconstruction of the early Kassite dplast}. Still, BKL A offers the most complete list of known Babylonian mlers for the time it docu­ments. It especially is a valuable source for the reigns of U1C KR\Site kings from ule 14lh to the 11th cent. The reign lengths for each of the rulers documented in BKL A and in economic texts have been compiled by BRI'K.\1.\', MSKH 21-24 and PHPKB 37-40.'''' In general the data of BKL A and those of the econom­ic texts do agree (in case of differences, Brinkman adopted the higher number - usually that of BKL A)."; \~1lere,er lacunae occur in BKL A, other KLs, chronicles or dated documents are usually able to fill the gdP" For chrono logical purpo es fractions of one year are calculated as 0 years.

Further, Brinkman asserted that the ancient Bab,­Ionian Distanzangaben are limited in their usefulness because (1) we do not know what information was available to the scribes,~'" and how they reckoned Contemporary e1)1lastics (this is to be compared with the Assyrian Distanlangaben, which show a relation to the ARL and El ) and (2) all knOY\1l figures for the Distanzangabcn pertaining to thi era in Babvlonia are multiple, of either six or 100 (~[SKH 85) . \l'e are not sure where these numbers derive from and how uley are to be understood. ' '"

The information of BKL A remains the starting point for the calcu lation of relative chronolog)' of

• It '\' .. 1\ (";ul'iu lly or~al\ i7cd Oil tht' b .. ,j, of citie~: structural ell'mclll'i th;\I mark lhe Ll"all,itiol1 from Ont' d\,nast\ to the next OIH'; l'\n'l'll cities al'(.' li"ll'd <\ .... ha\'ing c:-..crcised hegt."'­mony 0\['1 IV\\to.' l ~k~opOt.llllia,

~ St:(' BKI.\I\\I \\, PIIPKB 27 101 gt'nt'l.lllt'mark..'i on BKL A.

In MSKIIUItI '''-'1 \'\ allemplcd to n'COlhlnlct lht'" whole.- K.\~ \itl' <hn .. t\t\ (,(.ol' t'\p. ppo. 2(}'-2i; o n lht" tl'xtual c\'idt'llct' ,ct" pp. :10--7:\). Fm a mOle It'el'nt .l'l...'l' ... 'menl \t:e S\"\""\lI ... \\~

II \l" '. MlHR ti 1-70. ~1 FOl i .. ,\lc..... 01 .lh,olutc Bah}'lonian chronolob" "'C('

IlIUI\ I-.M\I\ . ~I~hll :i~~\l. I>t\ NUll' t' ,~ tlu' (.hallg-(' in c(HlIllinH" H·;\I· ... (year-mimes \"£.n.\.t~

let-!;Ilal )(.';\1"').

" Set' St, 1 \l 1)Il, (~()O:I) 153-ItH. Hi!! •• wl 191.

the Kassite dynasty. '''' It states that the dynasty had 36 kings and lasted 576 years (9 swi 36 MU) and 9 months (9 ITI). Synchronisms between Assyrian and Kassite rulers in the latter half of the 2nd millennium suggest that the Kassite rule ended in 1 [55. Adding 576 or 575 l'ears to this means that the beginning of the Kassite dynasty would have been in 1729 or 1730 (BRISKMAS, MSKH 25), which clearly implies an overlap of the Kassite and Babylon I dynasties (inde­pendently of the chronology used). BRlSK~fA",

MSKH 25 and (1976-1980) 467 reduced this num­ber to 575 years. S.'\5S~tA.'~SHAUSES, MDAR 64 how­ever, dismissed it. On the other hand EOER (2004) 213-217 accepted BKL's number for the length of me Kassite dynasty. For details .... Distanzangaben sub 9.6. So far, no independent e,;dence exists which could confirm the number recorded in BKL A for the length of Kassite rule.

Unfortunately, BKL A covers only about half the sequence of rulers' nos. 1-6 and 26-36, and the reign lengths only of kings nos. 22- 25 are pre­sen·ed. '" The Synchronistic KI.. contains names of the first 13 mlers of the d)'llasty. The 14 knOY>1l syn­chronisms bet\"een Assyrian and Kassite mier help to fill the large gap of BKL A. Chronicle P, which deals with Assyro-Babylonian-Elamite conflicts start­ing with the reign of A,S-ur-uballil I, also contains Assyro-Babylonian S}llchronisms. It is considered to

be more reliable than the Synchronistic History, its -Assyrian counterpart" ( .... Chronicles). The textual e,;dence from the K.'lS ite period is the great number of administrative documents dating to the time from Burna-BuriaS II to ~ agarakri-Suria.s. mark.ing the start of the reliable part of BKL A (1359-1233, according

to BRINK.'fA..' [ 1977] ) ."" BKL A and the Synchronistic KL inven the order

of kings nos. 4 and 5, Abi-Ratlas and K.'l5ti liaSu; a problem which cannot be re ol\'ed by any other evi-

~ For the otigin of the I\...'lSSileS as a group of nomads in ~he Old Bab\'lonian petiod on the b.uis of Old Bab)loman dOc\lmcl~tS and lelltrS rrom $..1.Il1'iuiluna onwards see \",\..\ L£.RUfReIiE ( 1995) 379-393. For \ear·ni.unes mentioning lhe K..bsite threat et' SroL ( 19i6) 4,l-45 and 54. On the attestations of K.:tsSites as }hlft of the deporte~ from the Zagros mentioned in the texts from ~Iari and Semsata see \'.\'\ Kopp}:\. MOAR 20-21.

~I For lI~eful lis[.:) or regnal 'ears pre')cncd in BKL A com· pared to those auested in other documents see BRl\ ..... 'tA.\.

~JSKII 21-32. ~" 80""" (1982) 23 applied reduced date, 10 the Kassitc kin£,:

1~~1328. On the reasons for reducing Babylonian dale-....ee the useful slImmnn b) BruXK.'L\..-":. i\I K.H 3~ and -t below.

\\t' ... opot.unian Chronology of the 2nd \lillt'llnium BC

dence. The Agum-kakrime inscription doe, not con­tain an\' fUrlher information about these rwo rulers. The first known K.,s.ite ruler wa' Gandas. who mm ha,·e been a contemporary of amsuiluna. ~

King> nos. 7-14 are rather badh pre,en'ed in the Syncbronistic KL. but the King Chronicle and the Agum-kakrime inscription give us additional infor­mation about thi. period. Onh concerning the tenth king, Burna-Burias I. '\ ho reigned after the fall of the Bab, Ion I dmastv. are we rea'onab" well informed. In hi, in cription Agum(-kalrime) placed him .hortl\" after the reign of the last Bab"lonian ruler amuditana ".., (start of the Dark Age). The name of the kings nos. . 9, II. 12. 13. and 14 are broken, \\ith the exception of tlarba-x (no. 7) and Burna-BuriaS (no. 10). Bab,lonian rulers known from the other records mentioned abo,e are Burna­BuriaS I. who is s)llchronous \\ith Puzur-.-\SSur Ill, L'lam-Bur(i)aS, brother of KaStilia-u and on of Buma-BuratiaS, and Agum, on of Ka-tiliaSu (who fought again t the Sealand dynasty king Ea-gamil)."" KaStiliaSu, t.:'lam-BuriaS and Agum (III? = Agum­kakrime?"') are usualh ao;sumed to ha"e followed Buma-BuriaS I.

Kings 1~21 (?) are not preserved in the BKi-."" and it is uncertain whether no. 21 (Xazi-BugaS) was originally included in the 36 kings of BKL A . since BKi- A is broken at this poinL The Synchronistic lfis. tory states Xazi-BugaS was the immediate predecessor of Kurigalzu >~"u (All. for "small"; king no. 22). Buma-BuriaS " was a contemporan of N,ur-uballil, who placed him on the throne, and is known from other sources, such as the Amarna correspon­dence ..... Thus the Bab"lonian rulers can be securel) s).nchroTllzed mth the Ass'TIan, Hittite and Egyptian klllgs. As BRJXK.\L\., .\ISKH 6, affirmed in his outline of the Kao;site d)nam, Bab,lonian absolute chronolo­gy can 0111)' be established b)' Assyrian chronology,

!fa The ~ear·name of SamsuHuna's 9th \ear mentions an arm, "M or Kas.\itc'.i: \'A .. ' Lt Rln R(.Jlf (1995) AAI. ..... Babylonia sub S ..

In the Marduk propbecy (K. 2158+) It is tated that 24 ,ear<, pa: cd bel\o\·een the time the ~1ardul statuc' Voa..\ lak('n to

Ijalti t".· '\1u .. '"'iH r during the raid on Bab}lon, and "'ht'll Agum(-kaknme) rc<onqucred lht' "lallie in the land of tiana (Hani). See SR"""" . ,\ISKJ 197.

,., SRI',,-\l '. \lSKJ I II fT. w, Set: the Agum·kakrime inscription and the Marduk prophe­

cy: SRI "-\lA'. \lSKH 13. -> R oyal Inscriptions for th,' prol,. lem of tht Identification of \gum ..

"7 F( . 1 .

.'f ~ O\.er.I~' \t'C' ~\.~,"'fR (995) 235. ",ho Ihl.') th(' \pt'-

Clnc Ka~ ac' lc.ing\ mentioned in th(' Splchronhlic J l i\tory ( \SC no, 21) and Chronicle P (ABC no. 22).

which is the 'OIl(V sillbl~ and Irk/lively fixed srh,mt 10

lI'hirh il can 1lII'lIllillgfllll\ be IF/alerf'. Hittite and Egypt. ian chronologie, are much too nuid to help establish Babylonian absolute chronology. Onl), the synchro­nislll' in tile Amarna letters (Bab,lonian-Egvptian) and in Hittite sources'''' an help establish a chrono­logical framework for Babylonia in tile second half of the 2nd millennium. -+ General.

According 10 BRJ'''-'''', MSKII 7t the frequentlv discus.ed letter KBo I. 10 which refers to strained relations between K.'ldasman-Turgu and UattuSili 1II (lines 55fT.), does not comain enough evidence to place the reigns of K.ldaSman-Turgu or Kadalman­Enlil 11 relatiye to Ramses (Egyptian-Hittite treaty between Ramses [[ year 21 and lIallusili 1\1 ).

Brinkman recommended abandoning attempts such as tllOse b, T\D~IOR (195 ), ROIITO;\; (1960) or HOR­

XL;\;G (1964) at chronologicalh organizing the texts. On the basi of the Assvrian ( ! ) chronology (-> Dis­

tanzangaben ) BOESF - WILHEDt (1979) 36-37 sug­gested thaI a 10\\ Egyptian chronology seems to be most like"'.

The l1ames of kings 110S. 22-25 are only partly pre­o;erved in BKLA (see GRAYSO:< [1980-1983]91). The reign lengts, which usuall, coincide \\;th d,e infollna­tion dra'\11 from other docwnents, are legible for kings 110 . 23 and 24 and are 26 and 18 years respec­ti,ely: but these ,-aIues are higher than in contempo­rarv documents. Another problem is tllat tile tablet A 1998 inserts another KadaSman-Enlil ( II ) before KadaSman-Turgu (no. 24).'" lothing further is known about this Kadasman-En lil (BRJ'K.'1AN [1983] 74),

BKi- A preserves kings 110S. 26-36, but some of their names are given in abbreviated form. The names of kings nos. 35 and 36 can be restored from the SynchrOnistic History and the literary lext K. 2660 [= rn R 38, 21. which relates to the downfa ll of the dynaSt)' (~ Historical Epic sub 13.6. ). BKL A

~ The- Arnama IClIen OIT(4f \omc more inronnauon on the ~<tuen(e of king~.

369 For Ihe \)·lIchff)ni'tm!'l with Egypt ~ee Kup .. t ( 1982)

20~261 or "" St, '" RAn, ( 19<)7) 65-66. A ",.ful t,lble 570 can be found in V"f.S I IOf (200 1) 3 13. -) General sub 1.6.2.

KJ. '(,> .. (109'J) 270-272, WII ,It'" _ 11<"" (1987) 74-1 17, '" WIIJIt.J \1(19'11) 470-476, [)I M,\,,,,,, (1993) 2 1 !\-~40.

BRI\;JiJ.fi\, (1983) 67-74 ha'i l WO pmposal'i concern ing t l li~ 'new' K"'."i,e king. A-I998 was p"bli,lwel by Do""" ( 1982) 207-2 12.

4. Bahylonian King U'it 89

cites toO few years for king no. 26, Kudur-Enlil: instead of only 6 years Kudur-Enlil reigned 9 years'" According to BKL A kings nos. 24-28 ruled for four gencrations. but a IOlal of only 39 years (BRINK.'tAN, ~ISKH 203-204): Brinkman suspected that eIther the rcign lengths or genealogies might be faulty. NOlhing further is known that might clarify this (sec the paragraph above for a previously unknown KadaSman-Enlil as king no. 23, which demonstrates the uncermimies in this part of the BKL). Problems also arise for the kings no. 28-32 (from KaStiliaSu IV to Adad-suma-lI~ur): in contradiction to BKL A and other Babylonian sources, Chronicle P'" credits Tuklllti-Ninllrta I as ruler of Babylon with se,'en years after Kastiliaiiu IV.'" A text from Nippur (see text no, 13 in MSKH) is dated to Tukulti-Ninurta's accession

) 1-' year (-> AKL), bllt the klLdlLn-lL (boundary slOne ' of Meli-Sipak (see King, BBSt no. 3) omits him from the conyentiOl1al sequence of kings'" Brinkman assumed that Chronicle P did not arrange every detail in strict chronological order and that certain e\ents that occurred dosely together in time were inserted (A~syrian domination, Elamite invasions under Kidin-Hulral1 Ill): His tentative reconstmc­tion of these events is that after KastiliaSu TV was removed from power, TlIku lli- inurta I became suzerain over Babylonia for se,'en or eight years ulllil a Babylonian revolt took place which ended with the accession of Adad-vuma-u,ur (Chronicle P) '" (RO\\­TO' [1970] 205 proposed here the insertion of a questionable Elamite rulership/ interregnum). '" -> Chronicles Sll b 7.3. and 7.7.

The surviving economic texts indicate that Kadas­man-lIat'be II (no. 30) reigned 2 yeal instead of the

'" B.""-",,. MSKJ I I~O. '" [\0\100 (1958) 136-137. \1-1 Chronid(' P further one" ~ynchroni .. m .. with [Iamite

kings: Enlil·nIidin·stlmi &: Kidil~-ll lltr.lI1 I I I (wrillen Kidin­Ijudrudi;) and J\d.\d·~u llla-idc1ina & Kidin·l lulran I l l.

m According to SI \~S"I (20(0) 9!")-97 tht'\C .. 1ft' lIan; "(SlOne)

monullwnt. ..... .. ROIITO' ( 1970) 199.

m While Tukul u.Ninurt.1 I \V ii!' tht, oH'dord of Hab, Ionia. doC'­ument ~ \H're onh d,l ted in his ~\(ft·,~ion·\t."lr; Ihe n.·~1 of Iht' tn.l\ of hi ... 13ah) loniall I dgn "l're dated in the 1"\.\lllt·~

Ol llw \ a,s,\1 king' 110\. 29-5\1 . AKL "'lIh 2.2.1.3 "., Bltl""'I\\, \ISKlt pn'o;t'lib the BKL A's ff'ign-le llgth\ for

till' K.\\\i lt' mlt' l"' on pp. 2 1-22 (SCt' ,\Iso GR.\\"O', RL\ 6 [1980- 19H!\1 9 1-93) ami c() tn pan's the:.e \~\ hu.'~ "ith rco­nomic a'XI' on pp. 22-23. Tht, reign·te ngtl" of ling" 1I0~. I ~I .. md 22-28 ;U t.' li,ted on p. 2:\ ,\lid di"cu.."ed on pp. ~·l-25; On pp. 2f>-27 ,I ( han of lhe I"t'h'tht· d u onolog\ of

BKL A's I year.'" But such variants are too small to affect the general chronological scheme for the Babylonian dynasties listed in Ihe BKi-.

In MSKH the dates for the earliest kings were computed by means of the total dynasty lenglh cited ill BKL A. The uncertainty of ±5 years cited for the reigns of kings nos. 22-36 is a minimum value because it assumes that all other factors of the recon­struction are accurate (AKL, regnal length of Kada,­man-En IiI II and the sequence of rulers after KaStili­aSu IV). However, there are still some open questions (such as the reign length of ASsur-nadin-apli [3 or 4 years], :-linurta-apil-Ekur [3 or 13 years]) tI,at could affect all specific dates. For the moment, the Syn­chronistic History's synchronism of Ninurta-apil­Ekur & Adad-suma-u,ur is taken as authorative . ..., The Isin II dynasty is understood to begin in 1157 BC (± 5 years); and the last year of the Kassite d)nasl) I

was set al 1155 BC (± 5 years) b. BRJ!SK.\L\;\;, ~ISKH 33. These dates take into accouJ1l contemporary eco­nomic texts, the BKL A and the kno,m Babylol1ian­As )TIan },l1chronism> (-+ below). BOESE (1982) 1~26, however, lowered Brinkman's dates bl five years, gi'ing .-aIues accepted by G\scHE el aL. Daling ... beginl1ing \\ith tile reign of KadaSman-Enlil I (no. 18), whom they daled to 1369-1355 instead of 1374-1360 (-+ AKL sub 2.2.1.3.). For a list of Kassite­Middle AsslTIan synchronisms and their ranges of possible dates see S.\SS\I\''lNSH.\L' EX, MDAR 67.

BKL C reports on the first se"en rulers of tile Isin II dynasty (ca. 1157-1069") from ~ I arduk-kabit­

aooesu to Marduk-siipik-zel;. At the end a summary of 500 "cars from one (unknown) fixed point to another is calcu lated. No specific cOllllemporan e\-;-

the K..\s~ite d\""lli.lSt' is offered. Some of the di<;;crep..1ncies I'n,\\" lx' explained by the method of recording acces..<;;ion \ear~. The reign length for Kudur-Enlil implied b\ the eco­nomic texts is to be prefcred O\er t.hat ghen b\ the KL (see fn. 62 for deti\il<;;). BKL A nedits the AssyliaJl nbSa.l kings no". 29-31 wilh a tOUlI of9 ,ears and Chronicle P \\ith 7 or 8 wa~; but nothing i" presently known to ~how which is

correct. BR" ..... " ". ~ ISKII 430. ,\N BlH S{'{' S\ss\L\l\'SIHlS~" MDA.R 61. '" I A nt'wh disco\t're-d ;\chniniittfatiH' document from .. ~ur

pro\ ide ... i.l ne\\ ~\ nchroni"m: ~ter . ipal dnd "inurlJ.·apil­

Hili: '. FR.""I . .\woe 13·1 (2002) 75. "\Pil The third rt~gn"l yeaa of the Ko.\.."\:'lilt' rule-r. £nlil-nadin-a~i

W~b identical with the .\cce~ion ,·eal" 01 ~I arduk·kabll· abbc~lI of the h in II (1\ na'l\".

1.«2 BKL \ gi\{· ... 132 \ ·(',U'" and 6 months for this d,n~\St~·:

8R1' ..... 't\'. PIIPh..B :)8.

90 \k,oput.lI11ian Chrontllo~ 01 lht" ~nd \ljllt-nniulH BC

dence for the inten<ll between tht' end of the Kassite d)llastyand the beginning of tht' hin II dl na'tl, art' known (,ee BRI'''-IH'' \IShl-I ~9':' lor detail,). ROII-10' (1959) I-II a"umed that the finallt'arofEnlil­nadin-abi. the I,bl ruler of the h..a ... ,jtt' d\ na,t\. '\~h '\ nchrono", with til(' acce"ion of \larduk-kabit­abbiSu. the fil"t bin II ruler. Howel'er BRJ'h.'1\ , PHPKB 7:->-83 pointed Out that there w,r- no ni­de nee for this ~1.' ... umption and therefore an oH'rlap of dnl,bolil'~ h;'LS to bt'" taken into con .. ider;.uion at thb point. l'\t'l1 lho\l~h the\ are Ibled con",cclllheh in BI\L A. In gennal, Brinkman beliel'ed that the 1-.<,,­,ite chronolog) ,hould be dealt with without refer­ence to Ilin II date. He therefore propt"ed a rel'i­sion of Rowton \ table of late ~,ite ruler.. (al,o bibed on the texl", BE 14.38 [CBS 3014] and CBS 15050 [unpubli,hed] of Kurigalzu\ reign). It i, aho unlnown ho\\' many yea~ elap ... ed between the end of the reign of KaStiliasu IY and the fil t lear of Adad-suma-u~l1r. which make the margin of error for the CAH ,cheme el'en larger than the proposed fil'e lears (~abOle).

BRI, "-'t.\: , (1970) 307 propo,ed ma.ximum and minimum dales for the Kassite kings baled solell on the known synchronism, plm that of Adad-niran I &: KadaSman-Turgu (see note 62). All dates therefore can be mised bl four lear, or lowered b, I (from Adad-suma-u,:,ur onwards nine \eaf\,' without affect­ing S\nchroni m~. Brinkman as~umed a wider mar­gin of error than generall, accepted, which ,hould be taken into aCCOunt in di'Cll"isions of Babylonian relation~. As a con\equencc, much more Lime can be a"umed for Kada,man-lJarbe I in the iI1len-al between Kara-inda_ and Buma-BuriaS /I and a slight ol'erlap of the Isin II and Kassite dynaslies might hale been the casco

The reign lengths of the Sealand I d}llasty, which parallels the earh ""'Site dmam (Ea-giimil & Ulam-

"" SRI "-\l\~ (1993-1997) f~JO. Tht" .. o-callerl "xoaland tablcll" (unpubJi"lhed Icw-n) of the Schown collt(lioll formaJJ~ corre pond to the Old Bab,.lonian "(oflllat hhapt' ~nd pal(·{.1grdph~·) and how \fiddle Uab))onian gr.:tmlllat­ltal ft.-alUn-.. f\1. Ju~. pri\. comm.,. Thi\ lIlav bt" an irnpm lalll due" for the (hronologic'al plat<OIlIc:n', of Lht" (hna.\I~

!I&I ~·or)car-Jlam( .... during JJullla-.-\~ "(>C' L-\'\I)'ihl HI.tlt (1954) fiX I I". )0 Babylonia G,,,,w,' '1!I~(}-19H:l, WO,

SII6 ROWIO' (1970) J91J. "'7 T tl'

• Ole t Jal I 11\ nUllItx-r dcw" IIC)( ('(Jill( icit' wJlh Iht' \lUlI of

tht' (('gnal V( .. (u-~ gh~'11 ill BK1. .\, whirh i~ :151; or :HO }'(.ar .... BI('''.':'M \:'\, \f~KJ J 1~~ "1'('( lilait'd [hal til(' mj .... ~il1g J 2 Or 22

HlIria;), art' onll dOClIllH'ntl'd in SKI. A (see SR.!'}"'I\'. \ISh.11 ~l fl'. lI,r thl' ligurl's proviclt>d b) I~KL \ romp,lIl'd WIth the I1lIl11nl'rs fro III economic tl",tll. rhest' llllmbers shou ld hl' regarded a, not fulh rt'llablt' lilHt' no con nhorati\.. Illaterial exi'll.' (.mlenth the King Chronicle (, \8C no. ~OB) i, the onh 'OllITl' th.Il pn'sentl the beginning and end of thi, dm"'t\ (aho pre'enl'd in BKL B), with Iluma-A'. heing the filst I uler. '"

BKL B "ate, the r .. igll length, for the kings of the Babl Ion ( d\l1.l\l\ and I"" mosl probabh (opied from an earlit'r \er"ioll. which it~e1f ",L"i panl" dam­,Iged. ," i, implied I" BI\L B\ estimatt's of figures which had ob,iou,h bet'n lo,t." l nfonunatell no regnal length, for thl' lll1er, of the Sealand dl nast), are recorded in this li,t. _\ccording to BKL A and B, lhe Babylon I d}llasty Illled :~OO leal'S and the Sealand I d)1lasty some :168 \('ar,. '" BOlh dynasties O\'erlappcd fOI about 1 ~ 7 ~ ear" ,ince the firs; lear of Iluma-A, ' coincide, with the 91h I car of Samsuiluna. Further, Ea-gamil was dethronl'd bl Ulam-BuriaS, who according to the Smchronistic I\L Wib the 13th

ruler of the ~l"ite dlnasl\'. 'COITenions concern­ing the older Ka"ite -kings were gil'en by Wlltl\lR

(1959-1960) DR based on a collation of tile S)11-rhronistic KL bl Krall> in the Istanbul Museum. For recent reasse~~l1lents of the Kassil(' rulers see BRI'<'-Il\, \lShl-I and RIA 5 (1976-1980) 464-473 and SW.\lA'<, ' I I.\L"', ~IDAR 61-70, The total dynast~ duratio", given by the lisLs, specificallv 576'cars for the Ka"ite dynast) alld 368 years for the Sl'aland dm'''t\ hase prol'en no help in set­tling problems of ~nd millenniulll MCljopowmian chronolof.."'; imtead th(" arc considered merelv "t) pological". A Distalvangabe referring to th(' rei~ of GulkiSar of th(' Sl'alalld I dynast)', BE I, 83, states that 696 yea" passed betweell his rei!;n and th at of :'\ebuchadnc'71al 1(1125-110'1). -> Distanzangabeo

)"<.-<11 ~ W('n" lh()~(· I)f 111(' nlj~,ing 1111('1 ()f th(' S(o.t l;and d}'laSl)

m('lJtiOIl('d 0111\' in tht· S~'lIdJr()I\I'lir K1., 'DIS. U~FN. .. WfllJ fR (19:Uj) di~('tI'~('<1 lh(· ... (· fhlonolclgic.:al 1(-J,lIion­

\hip .. h('I\\,("("11 the' B .. thyloll I, Sl'al.uld, and Ka'\\il(' thllit\tie'i

(illriwlillJ,{ (',II Ii", I'IC11""ilJ..i b} Mc..'),(·f, Fcul1l'ringhillll -LallgtlcJII lind ~ hoc h) anel ('ondud('(1 Lhilt <t f{('IH.orill

(,flU( lion of daa', wali m'( (''1 ... 11) (though <;Iill in tht, range of lilt L'IIL!). 1ft, propowd 2057 175H flil til t, Uith)'loli J drna.'Ily. J9{H- I:;:~fi for III(' <.x,·al.llld ( dVII,l'IlY, 171iO-I IN5 lor lh(' Ka\~if(' d~lIil\I). \\·ddll(·r 'tlKg,'~u.'d Ihill 1, ,I-galllil wa\ clq)("c'-d III I:):~(i alld l hlfll-J\tlJia" \\';t\ ('IIlIIIOIINI i ll

i!;:{O. nut he wanwd <lK.tllI\! lI\illJ.( tilt. \q 1}(' ("~U1"'(' of iL" (,Offllpt 1('", .wd Ih,' II (t·glltu inl(·I(itl.uiOll'" of th.1I t'la

4. Babvlonian King Li\t 91

The Larsa KL li 'ts lbc king' of the Larsa dynasty (copied twice on bOlh sidc~. of lh(' tablet) and includes th(' Ii,st twO BabylOlllan Illle" of Larsa. It was wriuell (luring the 12lh year or Sam,;uiluna·~~1 and is considered a reliabk sourcc, although the ntllner­als arc badly damaged. Duplicate lish as well as date­list.> allow some r(,sLOralion. According to GRAY'>O' (1980-1983) 89, only the number of regnal years of Nur-Adad remains doubtful. C.\''>CJl~ pi a/., f)allllg ... han' noted ~ome llnccnainties concerning the length of individual reigns within the KL due to the number of known year-names, speCifically for lhe reigns of Gungunum (27 or 28 years) and Rim-Sin ( (6 1 or 60 years). -> Babylonia and Year. The preced­ing Cr III and contl'mporary Isin I dynasties are list­ed in the Ur-Isin KL, which contains reliable reign lellgths. ~' The Dynastic Chronicle, however, due main I, to it.> bad state of preservation, has no reliable information on thi' period, nor is it useful for the chronology of th(' other Babylonian dynasties, such

as the Sealand dvnasn. Because of its innaled reign lengths and its uncer­

tain textual history, the SKl. is not legarded as a his­torically and chronologicalh reliable source. EOlARD (1980-19~3) 81 poil1led out, the time span bel\\'een UI~Nammu of the Llr III and Sargon of the Akkad dynasn' is impossible to determine on the bas;' of the SKL. 'H l\loreoY('r, a number of rulers are mi.,l.iing from the li't (seeJ\(:()BS~' [1939]180-183; fora list of rulers preserled in the ' h.J. lee EOZ,\RO [1980-1983J 82-8~). And there all' problems with the real as well as legendary numbers cited in lhis

" RO\\T()' (19iO) 200. i'~l Rdglllt'IIWh\ lUi ,Ilt' kiuR' of the PI III.mel Lh(' "ill I d,Il.L.v

tit· ... ("an bt· ("ompult'd tn:'IIn the aLt~, ... tt.'d Illllubcr of year­names 1(.)1 each ll·iKn. Tht' H'i~'ll kllgth wt.,I, of ,~\riOtL" <i)Il,t"lit'''o dint'l" on the dilli.'!t'llt SKl t.tbkt:-.: 1(.>1 tht' l'r 111 petiod it j ... "'(;Hl'd llt;1I four lillJo." rukd \(k~ \t';,I" (nuH.'t"t numbt'd): on tht, olher hand 117. l~"") . ,and I~B \(,,\!'\ .\rt'

~i\l'n 101 Iht· kinh ....... \ht,1' Ihl' "UIHIHan of lht' L r II I chna.,()

k.illg'l "dlt' killhrship W'\.'I l,th'lI to I,in"; hilt l"IX·d.llh the reign 1t'l1h'1h ... 1m the kin/o,l"\oo 01 tilt' hin I <"nib!\ Plt'..,t,.·I\Ie<l ill the Sl\.1. h,tH, prmc.'n !() Iw \11\1 (.'I;,lhlt" .tnd Iht' IOt,l1lt'ign kng!h

101 til,' hi" ( drll 'I"'!\" i ... \Ouiou..1\ g-h t'll ,l~ 20~{ H'ar'S ,md 2~:' H'al' ,mil n mOll,h ... _ both nllmbel'S art' \\nmg, bUI Iht,

.. c:qUt·1ll (' 01 ruk"'" i ... nuu·c..t. In ,hi ... L\"C' dale-lists and tht' t· f­!sill 1\1. Iidp \(' 1 ih lilt· 1\U1uhc.·I ..... FUllht'tmon'. it i ... kl1O\\ J\

thallht'l"1 III ;md I .. in Ith,,;\ .. lit''j mt·ll.lppt·d fOI ra. It'l1 W.II'>

( .• YeaNWnes: (hhi -Sin \"t'.\I" ~ Ehi·Fn-.1 \(.';\1" I), which Iht' SKL <lOt'" nOI ... \\ . {:t·II(· ... III\ . illfolllUllion dl~n\1l Irnm d.ll(~ 1ist~ i ... to he.' cOIl'ii<.it'lt'ct mOil' rt'ii;lbk 101 ('h1't)l\olo~rl(al pll"­pn\l'~ than h.L,. Ihl' dint·It·llte.· .. in Illllllhc;'I", of It'gnal \Cit'"' IX'I\\l'('u tht' L:r-hul KI.. d.lh ..... li ... L ... lIld Iht' S .... t han' bet'll

text."" ILs vcry number of varianL' indicates that the SKL cannot be used a\ a chronologicalll' primary source but imtead must be lhought of a' a "Prutlllki del SrhrPibergeiRIIr5(tlllkeif wilh propagandistic and political intent. Still, it repre,ents an important document for our historical understanding of evenlS at the lUrn of the 2nd millennium BC ...

In conclusion, the '-driouS BI\L lisL' are Ie'S reli­able and informatis'e for genealogical i"ues and his­torical el'ents than other lists, mo>t notabh the AKL. Some of the recorded filiations are incorrect, as can be proven for Kassite rulers. ~Io. t irritating is the persistent listing of dvnasLies al; conseculive which are known lO hal'e been concurrent. Especialh for the Dark Age and the peliod just preceeding it. the BI\L docs not provide clear information. Other ~Ollrces are not as precise as one would wi~h to define \-arious inner-Bab\·lonian s\nchronisms and lhere arc len fell' sources from Lhe Dark Age itself. For some dynasties, like the Bab,lon I d)'llast), the date-lists and year-names compiled from l<lriOllS doc­uments prove lO be extremely I'aluable for the elalu­ation of the given data. Additionalll the presen"tion 'tate of the BKL, (BI\L A. Larsa I\L) is bad, at times almost 2 3 of the rext il missing (to say nothing of the "problems" connected \\;th "hoo1 tablets: copy­ing, spelling or mnemonic mistakes, and the like). Onh in a fell' ct.>es can the gap' be bridged (such as for lhl' Isin II dmasl\' on the basis of BI\L C). And there are omi ... ~ions: the BKL A, for instance, sa\" nothing aboutlhe Sealnnd I d\ nasty. Due the numer­Otts problems and mistakes, it is hard to decide

'IlJtlm'lri/cd b\ S\IL\Bt.Rt.tR (~W!). ilnd .. hO\\l1 in hk. t.able 6. Ditlt:rt>llce.:-.lOtalhng up lO.l fe\\ \l'aN onl\· can lX' oh-.enro. S.\U.\8tR<.;ER (200-1) 2I:.l-37. Iktneen tl1l:" .\.l.J .. ad and l'r HI d\11a. ... tit., "-..,, Illt~ GUUUI11 pt.>liod. TIlt;' KL rq)Orb that the "k.in~T\," ofCUliulll ruled a total of ('a .. 100 \l;'a1' .... SaUabt·l~er. felt:rring to 01 n \I \., '. nil .. " 23 ( 199·1) 98. 'UAAt:'~lecl a time <;JXlIl of ill kasttO \eOll'>. Set' Zt rn tit. {20(3) 19-20, It'ft~.~­ring l() II \11.0 in RIA :\ (1972-19i5) i.13f.. when;" a maxl­mUI1l of 30 \l'.IN i'l propo,ed for the mtt'rre.·h'lUllll 01 the

GUlian ling ..... Tht' ~IC (BRl'h.....\l\' [1977]) " b.betl Oil t1~e .\5.'IlI11lptioll of an 80-\(".\r CUllum petiod. For ,<.hol.u-.. III

favor of .\ l(mcr ('hronoloH'. and it:-. COIl'll'qucnoe-'1 011 the daling of tht' s.u'g"onk (\\"IU"'\\·, ,l't' Z. rlltA.. (2003) 20. refl'ning: (Oo.\{(.·,propo.'1t"<.t b, BtH'. (19H:?).t.\.. ...... 11t rltlL .

[)(lfwg ... ~lIld R~ \In. (2001). "I'JI En/.\RI) (19S~1983) 81 with t~x.\lnplt.·,.

:\ .UKIIt (!.mOl) 10. '\'OIt' !-iH" ... tI UK (2003) 2~ \\ho .. t.~n~d that Ill(' inrOIH'C1 '1l'qm'nn' of lr~ol1iC rukr ... III tht, l ~Kl. " ... 11l"kt" om' w(u\dt'r ,dll'lhl'" til(' "' Kl. ,Iwuld lx- glH.'n

,1Il\ c.Tedenn' illthi .. alt'a (pt't'-l',. II/ ~(HL\) .n all.w

... Flll\Rll (2004) Ill.

92 \le<:'opol.nni,\ll Chronol~)~ of the 2nd \Iilknnium B('

which text groups other than date-lists 'cncd as ource material for the BKi.. Their I'alm' for ab,olute

chronolo!(' i> len limited. but at least the BKL gil'" u some information about othen,;se ,carceh docu-

mented periock B",iralh nothing in the BKL can be accepted without n~rification. But used in tandem with 1ht' ~\.ss\Tian data. it is an (~n()rmoush important chronological document.

Parts of the 2nd millennium BC cO\'ered by the various versions of the BKL

SKL ante­dilu\l3I\ tUllc."'S

- I m I

Ur-Isin

Vr III

- I m I

L""", dynast)

- Sam..";U1luna

BKLA BKLB

Bab Ion I Babylon I

- Sealand

- Kaudalanu

BKLe

Ism 11

Dyn. Chr. alltc­diluvi3" times

.. Dotted area: poorly preserved pan of the BKL. Hatched fields: chronologically valuable pans

Table 24

Unks

AKL, Bab)lon I Dmast\·, Chronicles Chronicle P D r O· Isin I Dynast', Isin II D~nastv (Earl <j ""'. 0 ' ate- ISts, IStan13ngaben, Genealogy, GILD, IlislOrical Epic, Sealand I d ... ;'ast < S h '.'. KL} S me pI.ast},. La,..,a Omasty, Old Babvlonian Period. Royal InscripLions.

. ). ync romSllC ,\nchrOnlslIC History, \ear-names

5. BABYLONIA IN THE FIRsT HALF OF THE 2nd MILLENNIUM Be 395

BABYLON I DYNASTY, THE EARLy KAssITE DYNASTY AND THE SEAlAND I DYNASTY

Sources BKL. chronicles. date-lists, documents. letters, liter­ary texts, war-names, royal inscriptions, \'T

General The dates of the Babvlon I and early Kassitc d}nasties are deci~ive for t.lesopotamian chronology. Not only can the reigns of the Babylon 1 kings be safel) linked to the Assvrian rulers (most notable is the synchro­nism between Samsi-Adad and Hammu-rapi'); Ammi)aduqa's reign has been absolute" dated with the help of the Venus cycles of the \'T (-7 General and Astronomical Data) in the past. i\loreo\'er. the mlers of the Sealand dynastv. who reigned parallel to the last ntlers of the Babylon I dynasty and be}ond (Ea-gamil is a cOlltemporaI1' of Ulam-BuriaS), are mainly ~nown from the BKL B. \\11ereas the dating of the Ka,ssite

'rwtu filium 1--1 ,e<lr~ SUlTllll.ld 36 \ ears

~ S;jhium 1-1 'ears .\pik'iin 18 ~t'ars Sin-1I1l1hallit 20 ,ea~

d}'I1asty and the sequence of its mlers is sLiIl debated and for its early pan highly uncertain, the mlers of the Babylon I dynasty and the length of their reigns are relatil'e1y well known. The chronology of each of these kings has been compiled and discussed by HORSSEIJ. (1999) 3-93, who carefully studied the date­lists and year-names covering their reigns. Further elidence can be found in the kings' rO\'3.1 inscripLions compiled in Rl~IB. Besides important S}nchronisms with Assyrian kings, links to Elam help to reconstruct a chronological framework for the relatil'e equence of mlers of the SlIkkalmab dynast\ (Atta-h...su, Sill'e­palar-hllppak, Kudu-zul...s. KlIk-:-\aSur IL). '" The rule of the elel'en knOl''I1 kings of the Babylon 1 dj11asty lasted a total of 300 years (Table 25).

RICH.\RDSO~ (2002) 2 a rgued that 300 years i slight­ly too high for the length of Bab} Ion I: he assigned 19

Alta-huSLI

Sin-iqiSatll. Warnd-Sin-

II~unmu·I.lpi' ''· I :~ leaN Rim·Sin I. Siwe-palar-htlppak. Kudu-zulus I Sa1l1~lIillln,\ 38 ,e-ar... Rim in II , lIt1m'h-\~. Agum t (?)

I' '-\h,o{'su~ 28 \(',U lIuma-.-\...'\l \nlmidit.lIl.l 37 \t'ars Oamiq-ilisu?

I~ A1I1mi,.l(tll<t.l 21 year:) Kuk-Nasur II

L~~·<:!!I:!!I'::"":!:I(:!!li~I,!!"!!li.l~L.:.3:.!I.l,::oe!!"c:I~~-l MUrSili I

~ - ~ Year 101 thl' II III ;.md l;;in-l .... tf'i,l d'n'L"tie,. all lilt' Old B.\h,'loni.tll pc.'rind \t'e CII \RPI,\ (20(H). \11 (bte~ dlcxl 11u.'I'l'(ollm, Iht' r-.IC (set' pp. :~':)-:'6).

- I h)It""I' I I (1999) 22:l-226. Ili\ f"blt- 31 (Omp~lft·~ lltt: Iltlln~ I.>c.'\\ 01 H'~II', attt''iH'd in lht~ date-lists ,\I\(I in BKL B. St't"

ill",) Iht'l'lblt·, 1>\ \\'\IIo.JR (1993). \HOlhel' "lllhlOni'lIl iii attested bt'lWt't'1l 'iruklllh illld

\.IIlI\I-.\dad l. III 1995 \ 'alb( jllt",t, ntt'd;tl\ OH'nit'\\ 011 ~nd millc.'llIliullI Ebm 'In.d ih fi\'ilil<tliol\, with 'pl'd,ll c.'mph;l~i, 011 lilt' hililOl'r 01 Sus .. ! (\\'hirh did 1101 ,lIw;\\1> Iwlong- to F.lam). I)()n~ (19ml) ('ompilrd tht' 1I10,t impol'lanl Ie,,, tOI Ihl' I l'rOlhlrU(, liOlI 01 Flalllitt~ histon ,l lld chlOl1olog'. .

~, Ctl\RPI,\ (200-1) 0-86 ,ho\\ed that Sumuabulll presumabh "itS not a king of Bab~lolt. but mJed contemporaneoush with Sumulael. Indirect ,\11Cllroni'm Ihrough year-names: EnL.\RO (1957) 21-22 and 169-170.

~c .) In their t~labof'3tC;' stud\ CiHRI)I'\ - Zn-c.;UR (2003) l69ff. ofrefed upd;\ted lable" of ,rnchrolli ... nb bet',een ~hui (Zimri-Lim), E,.'nunna (Dadu;", lbal-pi-EI II ). B.."lb,'Ion (I bnnnu-rapi) and Lars .. 1 (Rim in I). :-+ Eponyms ~ub 10.6. For Ihe e",\('l "Yllchroni ... 1\\ lxtween &ull;j-.\ dad I and I hU1I11Iu-I':.lpi) Epon),ns.

~I First mkr of the Seal;.tnd drlla~t\ and second mler of the K~l~itt' (I\'n;\ .. ,t\ (for Ihi, ","lchroni'il1 below).

\ic.' ... npmami,m Chronol()~ of Ilw ~ntl '1iIlt-nnilll1l 1\(

\t'a", i.Nead of ~I (BI-J.. B) to .-\mmi",duqa"" and pointcd out (hat on1\- 26 Or 27 \t"ar-name instead of31 (BI-J.. B) are attested for '\;ul1sudit,ma. His propo\"1 ,,;11 not go unchallenged,

Value for Absolute Chronology and Historical Rele"ance

The chronolOg\ of the Bab,lon I ,h nast>·" is inter· loc"cd "ith .-\.",nan chronolo!:" which is main" recon'tmcted on the b""is of the AKL and eponyms. ~lam schola", hme uied to draw an absolute date for the reign of the penultimate ru"'r of Bab, Ion I ,-\nlll1i,aduqa from the 'T. 11,e best "nO\\11 S~llChro­nism bet>H:-en ,\;.s\na and Bab,lonia is that of '>:un' .. Adad I and H"'nmll-rnpi '. the latter bein!:,: aI", a con­temporary of Rim-Sin I of Larsa. Silll~pa1ar-huppak and Kudu-zullls of Flam (. ukkahna1J dlll"'t,). H,unmtHiipi' was the 6rl, ruler of the Bab,lon I dmast>.«> IIhich traced it> JJlCeslOrs all the "'3" bad, to the Gmi<m peri­od (Cutium) JJld claimed common "'lCestr\ "ith the Amorite kin~ of ASs\TIa (~ GHD). From hi~ 3()'" 'ear OI1\\'3rtb Hammu·rnpi po"er exp:ulded rapid" to the

40e For detail... of hi-. argument f equation .. 01 ,t"M-Ilalnf"', I re\;t"\\·­ing the recem "'Iurue-. of PUYfK\ (1~IS' amI !-lOR ... >Ell

(1m, ')tt pp. ~J()~-2()6, In a per\ooal communkation 'an K.oppen 'it~lled to me apmpo" Richanl"o(m"s pmJXhal for a "hont'ned reign of .\m~lIqa t.}.2.~)f)41: ~ ... I don·t \ee huw that i~ JX)',. ... ible: the ling h ... T.! haw 21 \ea. ..... th('re are IH abllndant.l~ documented ,e-d.r\. '-wo mCJn' me-dgerh aU~led, but nonethde;, .. Ob\;OIl~ additionaJ vea~. and t'nough otl'o,(ure dale formulae to a<;,ume uU· t'"\:j It-nee or on(' more Lhu~ ha\ing21 \eari. Th(" la .. t point is Oloot, bur a rtigTl hon: t"r than 20 vnt'. i .. imJ>O' ... ibl(· ...

om Con"<"quemh RiehardY>1l dated the t"nd of Ih(' Rah, Ion d\11;1"'~ 10 139i in lead of 1595 (he U~·, .he ~f{' through­out hl'l worlL HO\\·e\cr. 159:; i\ ba. ... ed on thf' (O\<llllalion of Lht" ~lronomkal data of the \ T ami cannot lx' alt(#f(-d \\lthout con .. c-qur-nct"os: Thw'I Richard'>ClIl did nm u-.e til(" \lC li.t('raJI~. but o~lv for all appmximat(o chronological ori­('ntaUon and aU hl\ cia1('s haHo to bt- (on~idcr("'d a\ f('lali\(O,

tIM \f(J"t of the cicKumemalion dot"~ not dCTi\e from l~alJ\.lon, but from Sippar and Lar a; 1\.1 HRI (I~):;) WM. .

400 (:orneliu\ and .\Ibrighl prnpo\cd li:.?K-lr~6 for J-farnmu­rap,' (!>.ee al'tC) PRITClt\RU. \:\ET (1930j) = I.e, lfrcunv ff)llo\\ing Smilh and L c. \I). pmpo-.c:·ct 1791 a, Iht' arC('!r ,jon date for. l-bmmu-roJpi' = .\1(". \ .. ,\: inK '1}tR (1947) ugge'>ted a '1Ighth- shoru'r (hronolr,~~. 17 I I + x _ 1660 ...

x. and in his later rni\('d c.·ditioll (19:;3): l7~n-lfJ82. SO~(' of II~<.' chronological.irnpli<"dtiOll'> fOlthe Old Bab>.­loman pt'nod du(' to the d'~("(,\cry ;111(\ public-atioo of th(' tablet) from 'Jari .... (·rc l>lllllfllari/('d b\' IHwrm(' at Ihc' 211(1 (.RRAI. Pari,> (19.) 1 ) 35ff. (for an dtu'mpt to "yndlronil"c'

lilt" ruJer"'; of 'fari ..... ith tfw\C of A~"IyJia and Uah)lollia '(~e p. ~{q). For (·\iden«:' 011 \~nd1foni\m\ ill t('xt, florn I.al"<;a ~e(' LH\1\ , (19.;3) 202-201. (- ) General \ub C.hrono­logical S) [('m) and -t Astronomical Data ) Studi(» on

nOl1h and south 0\ e. the main \ksopot:unian cities. That H'ar h .. Imli-l' with Rlln-Sin I. dd(>ated him and tOok 1.11''''. Tllo wars lat~'1 (in 17!i2. according to the ,\Ie) I 'ammll·r.pi' conqlll're'd ~I<ui and ad"anced to tht' horde. of lambad lIalah. 8nllnn.\ and the U.ns­Tigridian cit, states also Idl to H<unm.Hiipi"s amlY belim' the l'nd 01 h., reign. BlIt his SllCCl'''ors could not maintain (ontrol o\er hi ... \,\. ... t realm. 'Iari wa." losl 20 'ea. alkr his death (emt''1-\ence of the "ingdom of lI'Ula""'), and dllling this time the Sealand I dynastysuc. cesd,II" establish"d iN'U~ \('cording to reCent studies on the end 01 the' &,1,,1011 I dmast> t hat include archae­oIOj,>iGII elidellc~',"" Bab\IOII's power did not decline as quiclJ, ,ts "<lS IX'lined some ,'ear, ago. It still main­tained it> inOuenr(' along the Fuphrates: For example Terqa "<ls mll'd lil)11I &,b, Ion as latt, a' Al11l11i~aduqa ""d s..1.l11sudit;ma .... ~ R1< tl\RllSOS; (2002) 50 ha, linked the end of the &,b,lon I dmasty to Aml11i~aduqa's rather th,U) S:ullSuditma" reign .• I It' prefe'Ted to con· nect the full of the Bab,lon I d\1last\ ,,;tI, "ci,;1 strife"­that i" intt'rnal alb, Ionian problems 110 - and the Kas­sites - mther tllan "itll ti,e Ilittite raid bv .\il1rSili I.'"

Hammu-rapi' \\('[1;" pre~el1lt'd b, CII\RI)I\; (2003) and \".\\ DE" 'In ROOf> (~OIr»),

¥l6 011 lilt" influenn' of the Babvloniall rulers \mllli!,:arluqa and S.un<,tldiL.tna at Terqa ("Babyloni.}n inlt'ncgnum") see ROL\III, \ID.\R :')6. On Tl"rqa nOLe Clt\RP'\; (2002) 61-92 (\\ho commenh on rht' )wdie-, h, PCKlany and ROllauh) alld (~1){)4) 3'11 '" well a, 1'0." (21X)4) 221-223, who atl<'mpl"10 intt"g:r..ltf' the rult-r, ofTcrqa (rom the Dark Age into hi~ chronoloJ...'\ cljo;cu,,,ion.

"" G "'1>, \lHBf 1 (I9A9) to8 ROl '\'11. \ID.\J{ 51iand , .. ,\ KOI'J'u ... i\IDAR 23H3 (referring

to lr.Hit' aClhit\ 1)\ Ill(' Bahylonian\ in thi' area). The mldv on tl\(' (-nel of IIu' Bah\-Ion 1 d)na\l\ hy RIC II\I{J)">(")\: (2002) t'xamim·\ lhe' (·collOmi< ilnd politif .. tl hhlory of the late Bab\-Ioll 1 dYIl;hlV in an dlml 10 d<'lt'nnillt' the CilU"es for it, (·ollap .. e. Fen,~ \UlI1lllar\-" of hi\ reslI1!\ ... ('(~ pp, 5:l-!i6, On p. 1 :l11J Richa,d ... on poimc:d 0111 lilt, problt-m<; pO':lNI by lhe fan Ihat ')am\lulit,ula I(ht H'1i ildum hUI 1"l'I~tined n.-rqa,

to9 ertlc-Ial for Rirhard"lon j\ Ill(' (',HI of lhl" dO("lUlI('l1t;Hiol1 of !Janidmll in \lIlllli"}actuqa\ IHlh year ami tilt' dt',)llUflion of the> e,·l'IU hoU\(' in Sippill.\llllliUlUIlI, which Ih(' aUlhor would lik(> 10 ("OIHIC.'( 1 with .. 11\ 0\ ('rall d(·,U1IC·tioll of Sippar· l\mnaJlurn.

·UQ RIC 1I-\K1)"It')\ (2002) .;:)-!)() and 195, IIi", ("h~lpl(' 1 7.5.0 i~ d(·,olt·d W lll(' "Iilll.HUHl ill Babylollia hdof(> the end oftht:: B<lh~ loli I cI~nit"I)· fc)(u",illg Oil illft',"a l prohl("I11~ ratber Ihitri (·xl('rnalthr<"itl.'. A ··wi(lp, " vic'w with \p4:da l c.· llIph;l~is (~II tll(' , illlilliOl I in N0111wII1 M(·"'OJHH.<Ulli,1 ( I ole of the Ka_~­"'11<." MId earl) Mill.tIli) llil" h('('11 I.II('h pr<·\c.'ntl'cI b) \" . .\.' KOI'I'I ., \-1D:\R ~l~~ti. SOUl«'\ I('fnling 10 Ilw fall orB;!b)'­Inri ,IIC' the Kill K ( .hnmirl(', IIIf' Edin 01 ·1(.' lipil1l1 ,.1 prayt'r 01 ,\o1 ur'lli 11 10 I Ill' .. un j.(oddc'\) or Ati II II it alld KUU 2H, 7·J. ')(.(. ,,\\""I\'~.,IL\t ..... (2{)O·La ) 290,

.ri. Btlbylonia in thl' Fir\t Half of the 2nd ~1illcnnium BC 95

:viole chronologiral information on the Babylon I dynasty can bc drawn from the B~, which listed the king'> ill ,uccessive Older, neglecting synchronisms \I;th rilal rulers (stich as the Lar,a and Ism I dynasties; compa. e with the SKI. ~ Year). As was mentioned in chapter ·1.2., the BKL B provide's reign lengths for each of tht' clcvcn kings of Bahvlon I. Btlt these num­bers hale not pr",cn reliahle and mu;t he corrected b)' the Iltlmber of year·names known for each rtller (date-lists).''' Synchronisms with Assyrian kings arc presened ill the Synchronistic KL (where is abo pre· ser\ed the Sealand I dI11ast)'), which is not len reli· able chrononologically cith,'" RI('II~RD"O" (2002) 7-8 and 5·1-55 demonstl ated a decrease in the number of stm;,;ng t('xL' for the time after the remit of Rim·Sin II of Larsa during the reign of Samsuiluna. This was due to the abandonment of cities in central and southern Bab,lonia. Most of our inforn1ation of this area deri\"{·r., r;-om lexts from northenl Babylonia."

An almost complete absence of texts can be noticed for the time after ti,e htll of Bab,lon caused by the Hit· tites. This e"ent, which was caused bl ~lurSili I, is kno"" from ti,e Edict of Telipinll (ern 19): ":-,'ow later he went to Bab,lon, he de'trmed Bab,lon and foughl the Hun'ian [u-oops]. Bab,lon's deportees (and ) its goods he kept in IJat[UI"'] ... ". I Other refe.~ ences to Mursili's raid can also be fotlnd in the Agum. kakrime inscription (~ Royal Inscription and below) and the Babylonian King Chronicle. The latter rq)orts:

~II Tt'"\.l1J,\1 t'\idt·TlC<.· indir;.tle'" that thl" B~tl)\ hHl 1 dynality wa.~

"'Irugglinf.{ to "'''l\iH·. Tht' la ... t dOCll1nent from lJar~d\l11l (Silll;ul'cI 'iollth of \tari) d.Ut'~ (0 tht' "l7+b" \('ar of Ammi~4.ldll<t>.l: "'('C.' I()\'\'\i-~. in: l\..nIPI'\ ....... I-l.IoU)\ln (c.'d.) (1992) :\-1. The- 011\1.'1 t(''\l\ from UMuchlln mainh ditte to

the reign .. ofSam"lIiltlna and S<llllstldil.lna .. Inti t6tih to the (of)<.;icll' r'lble inl1l1t'IlU' of lhe B;,\byionian ... on Iht.~ \t iddk Euphratt·, region "Ilhat tilll(, .. \11 Hmn ... and citie", in ~oHth­ern \1 ("I0 IXH,H1litl wc.'re ab,mtiol1t'd during lilt" r("i~n of S;ull'ouiiuna. Tt·",,, flOlll mhc.'1 'lilt' ... frulll lilt' I"t'ign of th(' I,hl rule '! Sam<.;lldit;lI1il (l\.i~. Dilhat. Sippar, Sippar­.\11\n<l1l1l1ll i.1I1(\ B,llnlon) indiGuc.' th,u b, tht' til1lt~ the empire had ,hnl1lt... to the ... ilC.· it had "I tilt' l)(>~inning of lIalllIlHH ,tpi '\ !eiAn. FOI ,Ill oH'nit'\\ 011 Old n~\b,lonii\n ,itt'" "('(' (~()nm IRIS (2002), Nl'\\ Ic.· ... lual linch from Tt'rqa dated III tilt' rt.'i~Il'" 01 \1ll11li~lduq;\ ,tIld ~'\llhlldit"n.\ nt;\\ rc.·\t'allH'w l'\idt'nn' tnt dlionol0J.." ("t·c.' POln'\\ [20021 5{).

41: rhi .. 1.1"I t... ha ... I)(.'t'll l1ndc.'II.I)...t·n h' IIOR"'H I (19~l9), On II\('ir ("Ollll'nl-.. c.·"pl'c.·i!\I h- thost' 1('ft'ITing to th(' L;.lIt~ Old l\ah,luni'l1l pc.'liod, "'l't.' Rlt II \Rn"o'\ (2002) (. .... 7. Fc.,\\t·1 rd­t'n:nn· ... to Illilil .\r\ ('\('11'''' (,Ill 1)(.' Ilowd hom thl' timc.' of S;lIlhuihlll<lOI1\\ .I("(k

41' ROil It. ( 19ti:l) I to .... II !"1 ha ... rtullpikd a\l important ni(knce on Ih(' pt'riod ot RlIlI ..... "iill II ;Ulcl S.\llNl ihtl\~I. \rnH'dill~ 10

tht· I...an;a KL, ;.I ... \\('11 01"1 mhc.'1 ... O\lrn· ... , S .. \lIhUihlll.I· ... I :Vh H'~\I 11l.ul" Iht· ('lId of Iht' r1l1c.' of Rl1n·Sin II. Hut ... OO Il n.lhdon

"At the time of Samsuditana the Hittites marched againstAkkad." (re,. II Cl. Though the King Chronicle onl), states that "the Ilittite" came to Babylonia, en I 19, §9, some other Hittite texlS (KSo 3, 45 and 57 as well as KLJB 26,74" ') make it cI('ar that "the Hittite" is to be identified with MUrSili I. As reported in Cfl i 19 !\IurSili I fir;[ campaigned against Ijalab before turn· ing to Bahylonia against Samsuditana, who had reigned 31 years according to the BKL. 11,e exact point of time within ~ll1rSili's reign is lInknO\\11, but it is agreed tI,at this attack brought down the Bab, Ion 1 d)1'lasty. This elent i; alluded to in the Agum·kal<rime inscription and the Marduk prophecy: here it is report· cd that the stalUe of ~Iardllk "'3> returned from l.1ani to Babllon by Agum.ka!uime after 24 "ear<; of exile. '"

C .... cial for absolllle Bab\lonian chronology and the length of the Dark Age is the date of the start of the early Kassite dynasty'" Besides the lack of infor­mation on the Kassites from tl1e Old Babvlonian peri. od, '" little on the transition of d\11asties i; known to

us. Texts of the Kassite period onh' "all "ith KlIri­gaIzu II: \\'e ha,'e no contemporary sources of tile Kas­site for the first 170 ~ears (Le, and depending on the absolute dates of the Bab,'lon I d\1lastY). and uncer· taintie~ concetlling the succession of early Kassite rulers as w('11 a their reign lengtllS exist. The BKL A sa,s that tl1e Kassite dmast> ruled 576 (\ears), 9 .' . months and had 36 kings (-4 Distanzangahen). The last Kassite ruler Enlil-nadin·ahi is to be placed ca.

,{"elm to ha\-e lost power o\"er l"'l"'-l (and ... ollthern Babyl~ nia 4b a whole). probabh because or lhre~\b b\ the Sealilnd. The dedine in the numbt'r of .. w""\i\ing le .... l\ and it" ~i~ economic .\ltd hi .. lOlical implications is ... ubjl"Ct of \":1.11 KOfr pen \ illw .. tigaLion b;."L"t'd on (mainh unpubli ... hed) text".

~H \ tran ... lation has been prO\id(~d b\, \..., DE' Iiol r. in: I l \lJ 0 _ YOl-,(,t·R (eds.). In, (.en/n:1 of Sni.plm-r I, Leiden - "t',\ Yor)... -"-f>1n (l99i) 19l-198 (on z\h.lr'ili 1 ... t'"l" e ... p. p. 195). Later rdt'll~n("e... to thi ... ("\"el\l can be found in royal inscrip­tions or in lht" Marduk prophecy. etc. n:ferring: It.) the abduc­lion oftlw Marotal;. .. I,\tUt.'. Rt(HWIN)' (2002) :it)-'5il'u'J (011-...jdt.'frd thi~ raid to h,m:' bern" a minor mili/at) opnali01t.

~I Referring to $.lnl)ara S;.unban~1 ilbtead of alb, Ion: on thi ...

l('l1n 'lee , .\'\ KoP(">}·'. MD.\R 227r-:. Uti For Ihe . \ RlIm-t..."k.ri11lC.~ imrriplion ,b a po ..... ibk, hint 011ht·

importance of Liana ... et" POD \"" (2002) 5S-59, For Ihe p~t'" ....lgt' of rc.·Wrrl in thi ... in ... cription "C.0(0. HI' (~OOO) .1}3.

~I The c;\rli6t ('\;o('nc(' on tht.' K.l" ... ue, dcrnc.· ... Irol11 lhe . \blab \ ·11 ,"Thin· ... and from B,tb\ Ion dati ilK to the timc of s.. ... IIl'iuilullil ,('.\1' 9: 01- $\11:'1 (1990) R-12 (who ;\1"'0 di .. l"u, .....

e ... tht~ problcln of the origin of lhl~ K."1...." ... itl": l"limi.n:l~l' <!(" Sme(· ... rdl'fence to 'lad. ,dH.'rc.~ the t0ptHWIlI (.,l-"U til

l 'ppt'l" ~k,oput;'lllli,\ i\ reft'ITC"d to). , . . till On " non-admini ... t1,ltin· dOCUlIIt'1\l from ttll'; pt"nodo thl"

litl"ra" ll'"\.t ('HS 1 122. refl'ning to the K..u.-,itt' ... "'Ct'

~IIUIUO\\~""I (19~1) :\q:)-:~~9.

96 \It',opoti.uui.m (,hronolo~ of lht, 2nd \lillenniulll Be

1155. TI,e d\nasty's beginning therefore would be 1729 or 1730. suggesting a ignificant overlap with the Babdon I dmasl\. But, since no further indepen­dent e\idence exists. all the Ik,bvlonian time 'pans are general" limited in their u,efulne s. However, BKL A remains a tarting point for the relative chronololl' of the l\,.1.\site dm''''I\. listing kings no,. 1-6 and 26-36 (regnal veal" onl\ of kings no,. 22-25 are preserved). The S}"chronistic KL parallels part of the sequence \I;th the names of the first 13 rulers of this d\nasl\ (see WEID'ER [1926] 70; the ,econd col­Wlln \;elded no usable information on the latter part ofthedmasty). Eight of the Kassite mlers. which mu t have mled for a short period of time, are said to par­allel the Ass\lian king Sarnsi-_\dad 11.<i9 TI,e mchro­nistic KL and BKL _\ give different name, for kings nos. -l and 5 (Abi-RauaS). BRI'h..\l\'. ~l KH 26-27 attempted a detailed reconstmction of the equence of monarchs for the whole Kassite dmast) (~ BKL) and his rud\' remains basic for Kassite ources. histo­n and chronololl" . But it is still unknO\m who was the Kassite king who established Kassite mJe in Bab\ Ion after the reign of the last Babylon I mler Sam uditana.

BKL A gives the number of reign lengths of Kassite kings nos. l--l (CandaS, Agum I, I\aStiliaSu and X-51) and 2~36_ while the Synchronistic KL reports the names of Kassite kings 1-13. Kings 7-14 are on" pre­sened in the Synchronistic KL, but on" the ~ames IJarba-x (no. 7, contemporary \lith Sa~Si-Adad 11) and Buma-BuriaS r (no. 10, contemporarv \I;th ISme­Dagan U) can be safeh- reconstmcted - though BRJ'\K.\l-\.', ~ISKH II re,tores king no. 9 as Agum (11 )_ SAS'\l-\."SHALSE.'\, ~IDAR 63 (follo\l;ng Brinkman) placed Buma-BuriaS I after lSme-Dagan IJ (lea\;ng aside the Idea that there might have been two differ­ent Buma-BuriaS). [;nfortunately, we lack sources confirming this part of the S}nchronistic KL: other parts of it have prO\en to be incorrect. Another text sheds ligbt on this period: The SynchrOnistic History

r, 5'-7' repons on a treal) bel\"een Burna-Buri" I and PULUr-AS~ur IJI concerning the borders between

41"1,\ d' -. cC(Jr mg W the AKL. Sam;i-Adad II ended the r(~ign 58 \ea ..... before the acce'iw)n of Pw:ur-A,\ur 111 ...... '

"'1C)r~ de~l ... on the lin~ between the Sealand J d}11a. ... l) and ~J~e Ka~sl!t"'I ar~ to. be expecLed from lhe )·tt unpublhlwd ~Iand archive In the Sch0yen C(lllt'Clion. Ac("ording to ~~')( UF. t'l aL: IJalmg ... 34.'f.. lh~s. period, "'hieh Ia.\lt·d only Ca. 24 )eaN, I~ marked by lII ... tab,IHl and di~l()cation. It coin. cides with the ceramic 'tequence of :,\,ippur and Tell {'d.Dcr (ancien~ Sippar·Amnanum). It \',~ aL th is poilll, a(.(ording to the ~C. that Bab}lon ..... a\ resenJed hy the Ka.\\ilC~,

':-"-~\ ~-,a :l1ld Bab, Ionia. Burna-~~riali I is Succeeded by !\,.ciuh,,,,u III and lam-Bunas. Further, the King Chronicle rc\. 11- I 7 memions campaigns against the Sealand I d\1la'l\ "" b\ LJlam-BUI-ias, brother of KaStil­iasu IJI and -"'gum. son of K"stilialiu (usuallya,sumed to rcf~r to Agum III, since gum II was contemporary \I;th SamSi-Adad II) . A knob (macehead?; V,\ Bab. 645 - BE 6405) mentiom Ulam-Burias as king of the

aland I dmastv and son of Burna-Burari~. Agum 111 might also be mentioned in the ,eal~names of the text, from Qal'at al-Bal.""in'" (after his conquest of the 'ealand).

The Agum-kakrime inscription is possibly wrillen in the mUlle of -"'gum 11 referred to as Agum-kakrime who claimed to have brought back the statues of Mar­duk and Sarpanitum from Uani to Bab)'lon which had been stolen b\ the Hillites, presumably during ~Iu~ili' I raid (-+ Royal Inscriptions). According to the Marduk prophecy, the statues had been gone 24 \·ears. If the abme Burna-BuriaS is identified with the lOth };assite king, who is also mentioned in the Syn­chronistic KL (~abo\e), KastiliaSu, Ulam-BUli~ and Agum ma\' be regarded as three of his successors. perhaps kings nos. 11-13 or 12-14. KaStili~u and AglUll. however, are not given an) royal titles, and Clam-BuriaS is onl) called "king of tlle Sealand", Apart from the fact tllat their reign lengths are unknm\1l, it has to be kept in mind that the sequence of the Early Kassite kings nos. 4-14 i, far from secure. Thus a chronological conclusion from this Babylo­nian Distanzangabe is con,idered to be problematic.

Invasions bv Kassites are first mentioned during the reign of Sam sui luna ()ear 9)'~' and later in a date formula of Abi-esub, possibly from his third year'" The year-names impl) military conflicts in the core­lands of Babylonia caused by Kassite aggrcssion"" VA' lfRlIERGItf (1995) 379-393 compi led (new) evi­dence on the beginning of the Kassitcs in Bab)'lon during the Old Babylonian period, specifically refer­ring to a group of texts in luding the ICller AbB 1,2 dating to the reign of Ammi,aduqa (p. 384) possibly

t:!1 $t '" . At' · " \'~\I.\.""'JfAt·~ I !\. MDAR 63 (with lunhel IiteraLUre),

$(A(" id. (2006) )(j7: h('re Iw Ic"cind~ 'tollle of hi, idt'as in \10AR du(" to tIlt" uncertain I ('ading of the dille of lilt" doc­Hment found jn Bah.dill,

~n . ' I), S"" ( 1990) Hj anet S''''''A~~''I\I'''' (2004a) 288 and 292.

~:t$

J 'ORV\III (1~)9) 21:;, 4~4 p . . (

'''' "" (1\J9H) 2,,8. See al", 0, GRAI ", Ai<kailim I I I ( 1999) 1 ... -4H 1)11 lilt" p(·rlod bt'IWt.'('n AhH.'~lIb and S<llll!illdilana. For (lIlOllwr Ii'l of all M;,lIi()!I .. of Kas'tiH.'\ ill Old Uau)ilo­nian l('XI\ \C(' SI\.,\\fA"'..,IIAl·.,,,, (2004a) 29G ..... 30J.

5. Babylonia in the First Half of the 2nd Millennium Be 97

, . (') 'b I S b -m referring to a KassIle " tn e name( am an under the control of a certain Kastil, who might be identified a' the Kassite king KaStiliasu'2. According to \A:" KOPPES , ~DAR 2278, the Kassite community along the Middle Euphrates was known by the name Sambarll/i. Only later, when the Kassites actually con­trolled Babylon, was this term used for the whole kingdom of Babylon. TI1e occurrences of Kassites identified by means of Kassitc names in Old Babylo­nian texts have becn compiled by SASS~ll..\;:-';SIL\LSE,\ in aLA 96 (1999) 409-424, where he stressed that no K.'lSsite personal names appear in documents from Mari, Tell Leilan, Sagar Bazar, TUllul or Kanis,

Another Old Babylonian letter AbB 6, 24 (the so­called "Agum letter"), states that Agum housed mes­sengers from IJalab.127 This letter presumably dates to

the reign of Samsuiluna. Consequently this Kassite mler or prince (bllkiisum) may be identified with Agum I, the second known K,'lSsite king according to

all chronologies. His synchronism with Samsuiluna is established on the basis of this very text. The' Agum letter" offers further c\'idence for Agulll's (and the KaSSiICS ') domination of the Middle Euphrates dur­ing the Old Babylonian period. However, B=K.\L-\.\;, MSKH 97 (sub Agum I) emphasizes that tl1e identifi­cation of the Agum of this letter Witll any of the pre­\lously mentioned Agums remains uncertain.

A crucial year-name discussed by Cole in Daling ... , 84 from a Tell Mllbammad text refers to tlle resettle­ment of Bab)'lon. Cole believes this to be an allusion to the ](,\ssite take-over. ", Linking the lunar eclipse mentioned in twO of the year-names \\;th pOllen' sequences"~ and textual / historical evidence, CASGHE ,I al. found morc e\'idence for the NC. ( Astronom­ical Data sub 3..J.) The texts from Tell Mul)ammad date to the early Kassile period and are still mostly unpublished."· Some of the Tell Mul)ammad texts include a year-name reading: MU.x.KAM (.MA) sa KA.Dl'lCIR.RA.K1 ,ei-bll ''lear x that Babylon was (re)seuled". "x" of these ),ear-names, which are of a

!-~ \'\,'1 I. I· IUH R{,iII' ( 1995) 384-1-\K5, ~Iore details on lhi'l lcnn can !lOW Iw [ound in \"\~ KOI'I''''. MOAR 2278 and S\S-..,", \1.,\ ''''" \l'~.~ (200 Ll) 289_290 17.

I •• Sel' \ \1\ KOI'PH\ , ~ I D,\R 22-23, {"pe ii.\lh on independent K..1"I\ilt'S IrUlIi lhl' I l'igll or Abl--{"'hdJ onwards, b;\sed primal'·

il\ on oh~l'rYJliol\"i of the ,1'Wl' trade ill the Lut' Old B~lb" ... IU lli.11l Iwriod,

4·; Set' L\~n"I\l-lu .• l- R ( I mH) ()2-ti!\, BRI NKS' \'\. ~ISKI I 9f-r-97 or POll 1M (2002)19.

1 ~'II Oimlll1til'~ wi lh the tr~lIhl~llioll of lh~ Y('i.n·namc wcrt' n'e ... oj.{lIilC.·d b, SL\l (:!OO I) 169 .Iud S.\..'\..'i\l \ '1,:-,11 \l"S~' ''' OL\ 96 (1999) t 13-4I·l: ) yea .... names <ind Astronomical Data, A

type othen\;se unknown, is a number from 36 to 41. Thcse yeal~names appear in texts of level II of Tell Mul)ammad'" The resettlement of Babylon to which they refer is most probabl)' that following the attack of Mu~ili I. SASS~IA..'iSSHAt.:SES, MDAR 64 concluded that Babylon was rebuilt prO\;sionally soon after the Hittite raid and that the Tell ~lul)ammad texts belong to the beginning of the Kassite period. Howe,'er, RJUIAJUJSO'i (2002) 9 stated that "it is not in fact clear precisely when this resettlement happened" and that the link to the Kassites is nowhere explicitly stated.

The Uana kings were contemporary \I;th at least part of the Babylon [ dynasty, as well as with other such kingdoms as lambad, Bllunna, Susa and the Sealand. Depending on the amount of time cmered by the texts, late tIana kings may have been neighbors of the Kassite rulers in Mesopotamia. Earlier archi\es of Terqa record a ruler ,,;th a well kno\>11 Kassite name: KaStiliaSu, who mled before the Babylonian Ammi:,aduqa and Samsuditana controlled Terqa!" Kastili~u of Terqa rna\' be identified \I;th KaStiliaSu I or II of Bab)lon depending on the chronologY' applied (see POD,I..W [2002] 48). Still, we lack e\;­dence supporting this identification, and the Kassites' role in Terqa and along the Middle Euphrates is still unclear since the texts are still unpublished. PODA'" (2002) 50 pointed out: ", .. Kassite princes \\;th an aggresshe military were settled perhaps on the Euphrates. probably nortll ofTerqa, by the end of the reign of SamslIiluna or the beginning of Abiesub· This is approximate I\' the time that the Babvlonians must have lost control over the region of tlana," he believed that Terqa was the base from which the Kas­

sites laullched attacks against Baby-Ionia (p. 51), Rouault, whose recon miction of the line of Terqa rulers differs from that of Podam' and Charpin . placed 1\,.1Stiliasu of Terqa ju t after or just before LIanaya and lauSa (= Usse?) - that is before the begin­ning of the I\,.,ssitc dmasl)' in Babylonia and S)11chro­nous with the end of [he reign of amsuilulla."':"

list of thl' Tell Mubammad 'l'ar·namcs J.ppears in ... \.'-"'""

~L\' '~IL\l""1:' (200·1.\ l 302-305. ~"!"I The Tdl :\tub:ulll1lad m3ten.1.l which p.lrth dales to lht'

Late Old Bab,lonian period (ph<bes 111 and II) show, strong n'~ell\blance!'! to that from Tl.'ll e~.O<:r.

I~I 30 texli \,"(,'I't' publi"ht'(l b\ . \l ·l'8.\JO III hel' ~1..:\ thc.·,i"

Baghdad ( 1983). ..:II G \..'"cm rt al., Dallng .. , 8(-....87. .. ~ ROl\Llr (Hl92) ~53-~:j"', POLH''\ (2002) -4:30, (on Ka.\tiii·

asu of lctqa and hi, chrollolog-ical "cuing). 1"-\ ROl \UT, ~IDAR [.5-56.

9

List of Late Old Babylonian rulers of Terqa'"

Iior-Um I~d-I III

lSI nag I -Il II

Abuni lfammu.ripi'

Synchronisms

Earh ~liddlt B.lln 101ll.tl1 }1'"1 illd

kmg of 1I.m3

Qi A.ddu \fillalllan cOlHrol P.lr.Ulalll.t \iill.lIli) ,md S.tll"',Hl.ltra (Sau talar ~ 01 \1 i lI.4U II )

TukultI-. muna I -t!mant-"lf I limll I ibuT-:/min ·Him Du-iqjja

Tukult>-Mer

• These rulers who cannot be placed secureh (ROl-\l1T [2001 16 Iv CHAlU'l' [2002J 68-il and [9004J 391) Th d _ \efSU' POD' , [2002] 10 and 12 and .'pecial­Kasapan Kasa~ili Ku",;uj and- IauSa u_~_ t' atlJ~g of the ru.le" ladib-abum 0, Zim.ri~Lim, son of Iadib-a.bum, .L -' \}4IliIIya rematn~ unct'nalO" ma\be [he\ c be I lie d UI31 IS according to Pcxiam the ~\liddl p . od • & Id " an p aeC'( a [('r Jdll1')U Hana,

e en . , t~pe mark3 falher-'ion paif'l.

Table 2G

Close to the larger cities of Babylonia, especially in the area of Slppar, were Kassite camps and hou\es'" that seem to have been integrated into Babylonian socIety peacefully_"" Th~ means that the Kassiles had

... Base . don ROLALTT, MDAR 54. For a different \;ew in the \ur.

cession of Terqa rulers ~e POOA.'Y (1997) 428-429 and CiL.v, ,"".A.B.V_ 1995/23, 19-20, (200'l) 61-91 and 120(1) 391.

4~ P .

( .. uzurum 15 one of the major protagonist'i in the archin-"1 Hou(C of PU/urum").

4~ Cimil-Ninkarrak's 'iCribc was Pagirurn, anolJ1('r meml)(:r of

a well known family (rom Terqa. Gimil-Ninkarrak wa.\ a "'(-r­• ". ",ant,of KaStiliaiu: Poo.~,y (2002) 22.

Prevlou~Jy read Alilia: see ROliA(;lT MDAR '4 '1111 0 . .J.

n the later chronoJrwica l placement 01 IJalnm . _, -'0' lH<.Ipt ,>(,('

PODA.'Y (1991-1993) 62 (in con nection with a lImu .. dalt: of

settled in Babylonian territory during Samsuiluna's reIgn long before th e I lillite raid, '" had been point­~doutbyS'flTH (194() 24.'" POll.'''' (20()2) 43-5 1, In connection with the identificmion of Ka;Liliasu of

lukllhi-\'inurta I). SI1(' propo\(-cI lhe ('xi"'I('l1(c: of twO dif· (,H-Ill rlllt-c ... with Llw nanll' J l.tJlIJllll-l ill>j', FIHk (200-4) 29 3'It't h) -'. \ ate's L at I odallY\ pl.trelflt'll( of ILIIllIllIl-nlpi' .Ifwr QI,>-Arldu If) dll(~ to h(', pu:'('u'nct' lor lilt' :\1(,. For iI elif-

""!! f<'rcllt recomlrll(lioJ) 't('(' ROl \1 II, M()AR 5n. for ,til ('xplanatioll of til(' If)('alllllg of "f{; lv'Iiw lIoll~(,\" ii' \toldl.\ of d \('mi-ind('pt'nd(' IJI K.1\\ilt' polily "!('l' n" K(JI'I'f\, MDAR 227!", .

Hi, I' .II-NIKA (J99H) 2;,)H--259 with filithel rt'fl'r('!1u'!'i, Set' 011110

HI S!\''').~\1Moj''''~IIAI '~ I'N, OLA 9G ( l ~m~)) 'III. ~'(' al\o W.fI.i K()jll'~ \i, MDAR 22 011 lilt, IOC.ltioll of lit e 1\.;.1\­\Il{'~ to lh(' nOI thw("1 of tlw Babylollian 11(';11 tland,

5. Babylonia in the Firsl Half of the 2nd Millennium Be 99

Te .. qa_ proposed the existence of a Kassite state from the reign of Ab'-eSub onwards.''' Also hostile hordes associated with the Hurrians auacked Babylonia LOwards the end of the Babylon I dynasty (Ammi~aduqa). It has been archaeologically proven thaI Tell ed-Ocr was destroyed by the end of Ammi,aduqa's reign, mOSt probably by the Kassites."" Unfoltunately, none of these altacks can be linked wilh a specific Kassile ru ler known from the BKL-

On the Middle and Late Kassite period starting with Kurigallll 11 -t BKI.. (A), which provides the cru­cial data fOI ti,e kings' reigns_ H'

, rears

?, 22 years 22

Samsuiluna (?)44l Samsuiluna (?) +tI

Puzur-A!~ur III

Ea-gamil

min.15years min. 27 \;ears (\ lear) 1133 (I year) 1133

AMur·uballit AMuNlballil

.=...LO.= __ -' MSur-uballil

Table 27

The SeaJand I dynasty ruled lower Me opotamia, which was railed miil tamti(m)/ KUR A.AB.BA. According I() the BKL A and B Scaland had at lea t three dyna~ties and main wined its imporlance as long as Babylon remained independent (until 539)_ According to the BKL A the Sealand I d)1lasty lasted 368 \('al' (ca. 1710-1475 according to tile MG) , which is al,o Illl'J1lioned in the BKI.. B (which on ly pro,id(', a lisl of its kings) _ the Synchronistic KI.., , .. and lhl' D)11astic Chronicle_ BR"K \I \~ ( 1993-1997) 7 oflelt-d a lahle of .ukrs based on those texts after col­!;uion. I >II Rl'iJ{1l h.' llhrths in the BKL A are Hl1con·

finned by other sourc('s. I h(' King Chronicle presenls a chronological

flilnll'","k 1(" th(' beginning and the end of the d) nasI)' (AHe no. :!O H, rev. I fr.) . lIuma-AN, the first "ukl of 'he eI)'nasl)', w,,, contemporary with Sam­s"il"n" '>I and Ab'-cSub of Bab)'lou (for ),eaHlamcs in Nippur "O(Ullll'IllS during lIullla-A sec I_·\NDSBER-

GER [1954] 68174 and BRJ:\KMAN [1993-1997] 6). I1uma-AN successfully resisted the Babylonian kings_ Ea-giimil, the last ruler of the dynasty fled to Elam before the invasion of the Kassite Ulam-BuriaS (brother of KaStiliaSu III), who then became the overlord of the SeaJand_ Furthermore, it is stated that Agum (III), son ofKaStiliaSu III marched against the Sealand and destroyed the Enlil-temple in Our EnliL All these synchronisms between the Early Kas­site and Sealand dynasties are not as useful chrono­logically as they may seem because the absolute chronology of neither dynasty can be fixed and thus the precise dates of the synchronisms cannot be determined_ The synchronisms of the Early Kassite

+t! POD.-\'''Y (2002) 47, referring to the KaStilia.su attested at Terqa, whose identification is under discussion depending on which chronology is applied, stressed: <Oil is clear, no matter which chronology is correct, that the Kassite dynasty overlapped lilal of lile Late Old Babylonian kings."

.., CHARI'''', RA 82 ( 1998) 26'4. On different Kassite groups in Babylonia see I'I ENTKA (1998) 262.

4+t A summary "''as presented by )1A''''SH.''l'SE.~. MUAR 61-70_ For a deoailed stud} see BRJ"""L"-". ~!SKH and id. (1983) 67-74.

+U G.-\SCH[ it al, Dating ... (chart \\;t.h note 27). The synchro­nism is based on the fact that the Kassites are first men­tioned during the reign of amsuiluna (year 9), EOER (200-1) 214-217 S}nchronized GandaS and Samsuditana based on the GandaS inscription (BM 77438-> Distanz­angaben and Royal lnscriptions) _ He assumed lilat lile Kassite d}l1a5l)' beginning '";th CandaS tarts after or ",ith lhe faJl of Babylon dated to 1665 (linear succession), How­e\'er. his conclusion are based mainly on his interpreta­lion of the high I}' disputed Agum-kakrime inscription. Between Agum I a nd Agum 11 he reconslnlcted five gen­erations, and rrom GandaS to Burna-BuriaS 1 (a contem­porary orPuzur-ASSur II I) se,'en generations covering 170 'ears, (Eder's dates are based on a ver)' high chronology reconstnlctcd mainly on the basis of lhe Assyrian Dislruu­angaben ).

...0 ynchronism based on Ihe interpretation of the Agurn let­ler (-> abo'-e)_

H1 Mentioned "';lh his Assrrian counterpart in the Synchro­

nistic History. <t..-l He is recorded together with the contemporary Assyrian

mle .. A..\Sur-1XI-llis~u in the Synchronistic History. ( e -\SS.\L\."~SHAUSE~, ~IDAR 62,) Perhaps he was also contem­

porary with Tuunosis IlL '" See GIlA,roN (1980-1983) 11 0-125. For references '0 the

end of the Sealand I d"ta")' (Ea-glimil and Ulam-BuriaS) see esp_ lines 19-22_

~VI Previous chronologic:'ll studies on the Sealand I dynasty were b)' L"-~DSBf.RGER ( 1954) 68-70 and ROWG ( 1965)

110-119_ "!II IIllllla~AN year I ,. amsuillina year 9

100 \1e-.opOlami.lll Chron()lo~" of lilt' 2nd \lill<.'nniulll B( '

rulen; with the .-bsn;an> in the mchronistic Kl han~ proven to be ven unreliable.

L1ter texLs - \\;th a few exceptions (KU. chromo des. etc.) - <eldom mention the Sealand dn1i1't'.~'· Cul!...i::'1r appear, in a colophon dating;' and a Oi . tanzang-abe (BE I. ,3. 6-$) reports that 696 lear, elapsed between him and '\'ebuchadne71ar I (1125-110-1; ~ Distanzangaben sub 9.6.). The fir\! king of the Sealand [J dlllast\ Simbar-Sipak (1025-1008) i refen'ed to in the Dynastic Chrortide V. 3 as -manoldier of the dm3>t\ of Oamiq'ilisu-. During the pel;od between ca. !-Ii:> and lO26 the Sealand was underconu'ol oflhe l\.;,,,,sites and the I'in II dnlast\. Since no genealogical tie, are knO\\ll for the aland I rulers. no generation COUIll i, po"ible.

[n total t\\elve kings of the aland [ dmast\ are knO\\ll (Table 2 '):

Samsuiluna . . \bi-e;u~

Ammiditana:

- (12;)",

'-"--__ --l L1am-Buria

Table 28

... See L'-".f ..... (1990) 2M.

....., OPP[\:}f£J~t " al., Glass and GlaHmahinK in ."n('intl .It"opotamla. Chicago ( 1970) 6~.

.,. BRI. k>t." (J977) 317'.

"!oS Onl~ presened in Lhe S\nchroniSlic KL -+ 8KI. A 456 Xote ~pecialJy persofl'ol which cam' Hunian n~me~: WII .•

H[J.\f (1982) 18. CHARI'''. CRRAJ 3s (1992) 207-218 and S\lI"I. PdP 55 (2000) 55fT. (esp. Tigunanu) and 103ff. (esp. AJaJal.J and ljaJab).

67 .\1iuani or Uanigalbat is not e\en mentioned in tht' It-Xu of

Tunip-Te\\up, a contemporary of IJattusili I (5(.(. J)f, \iYlTJ­

'0. ~IOAR 35). See al"" '-', K(JPI'''. \ID .. \R 23. "ho '''g' ga~ tht're wa.\ Sl->me lind of a strong Hurrian ('ntit) in the Ijabur ba! jn aJ le....,t :;0 ye-dI"'J before the brealdo,,-II of Ihc' Bab}lon I dyna.,,,.

UI WU_HtL\f (I9f'J3-I997) ~9J-293. 01-_ ~f..\R'1f'O, PdP 55 (2000) 6Ilff. and \fU,\R 35-42. KLH'f (1999) 203ff, Sin'e 'f)rne excellent \ummarie\ and re\-iews on the eady lIurri­an, and ,\Iittani ha\e been publhhed, nothing' fUHh(., need be y.id here. ($(-(: Ufo, '100"0, .\1DAR ~l:>-42 amJ FRft [20031.)

"'"19 An ('arlier confIiCl bf·t ..... een the Hurrian\ and I Jiuilc\ i!i p<)\sibh aut\u:d in a yetunpublirshcd Lext f'oll1 I ('rqil wi lh

.-\ccording to the BKI.. A the Babllon [ d"'as~ mkd 300 lears and Sealancl I 36!\ I('ar,. which is inconsistent with the reported rei~n lengths. ince the filt lear of lIuma·.-\. ' " nchroni/", with Ihe nimh lear of Samsuiluna. the two clllla'ties coexisted for abom l-l i lears. Another importanl 'Illchronism is that of Ea-gnmil. who lIa" called "~ing or the Sealand" and dethroned bl l'lam·fillli,,' (- 13 'h ruler or the l\.;"ssite d'nash,).

Hunians"~16 as \\'(:'11 <1., Kas!)ilt."'s are mentioned in the Lue Old Bab\ Ionian pcdod as well, ,\ lIurrian population existed to the west of the Euphrates in lJa[ab. UrSum. lJas;lIm and Karkcmis .. ·• and to the east from the Zagros mount.ains, the mountainous areas of Xonhem :-Iesopotamia to the lJabiir basin. Apparemh the formation or the ijartigaIbat/ Mittani <tate fall, in this period .. '~ 01 shonh after the rail of Bab, Ion. Funher el;dence on earh :- rillani comes from Old Hittite sources (esp. ijattuSili I) . which refer to a "king of the people from [[urri". who were

then strong enemies of the [[illites ("Hurrian enem\'- or "enem,' of the country of lJanigalbat")."" Another important source of inrormation is lhe Stal. ue of Idrimi in which a Ireat)' between Idrimi and Parattama is mentioned. Thi, treat' refers to the exis­tence of "earlier Hurrian king,". The dating orIdrimi (in the 151h cemur" afler lhe conquest of llalab by ~lurSili [) is rele\'am for the historical role of ~Iiuani, who>e dominance o\'er lJalab could hale been either during the reign of Samsllditana or after the rail of Babllon ....

a "car-name which mt>nLion\ COllfliCl\ bt>twecn Kuwali , nller of Terqa. and /Jauum ("\OTitu.·n Ij .. uw/ ljauc). pOl;l;ibh !Jatu (:-), Lhat \eem to haw' occlIlT('(lncttl Ill(> beginning of the 171.h cent. (Me; ';(.·C ROl .\L II, MOt\R 55).

~ Idrimi, a c()Iltemporary of Pantllal na I and rll l l1lo~j~ Ill , ma~ be dated lO the tran"liliOIl 1)(.'lwcrll Alalilb le\(.'1 Vand k~\ell\" (around 15(0).011 til(.' I;talm' of lell imi (. \IT 3) ~(' D" 'RI( II-UIR'". U 13 (I'IHI) 201-2(;9. KIF".>!. LTI S (1981) 2(;<)-278. 'vi "".·0""" '''. (jo 13 (1'181) 279- 29(1 , 'ilRQUI ROWF (19'17) 177-20'> and 10' D\.w", (200M) 23-45. For \'ariom (hrol1ologifill \(h(,I11('\ th.u pllt hi, rei$.,'ll wmc-..... hert' jll the intc.~rval C .I. J :)~:->-I !fiO \t'(' \fcCi H ­

I.-\\;. in: FS Kantor (19H9) IH:3, A \UJnIll,U)' 011 I ll(> chronol­ogy of Al.dab (an be found ill BHtc,OIlI" (20(tl) 395--110, Sinct' few ((~xtl; hav('I)('('n found ill Idrill1i's paliln.~ BH{(,OF­n" (2003, 4(JO al;\lIJ11l'd thitl 11(" 1\ to he..' d;ut'd 10 Alai au lewl V(S). JJ ow(>\'(~r, \'() Ih .... "t()\\. (!WOH) :iG ob,,'I'\('\ ... orne

('vid('of(: fm Idrillli''i I ul«' dill inK AJ.t1ab IV (Will i ill1 e.' ''tend· ('d di\Cu\ ... 101l 011 B<'· I KOff('n\ 1"('\1111, of 20c}!j) , F(lr Idrimi \ ImpOrtance in lh(' ffu Illmioll of 1/1{' M il tOill i sial" dllflii/{ or \Iwrt ly ahN tll(' c~ ll d of lh t' Ilahyloll I dYll it\ IY, 11 01(' VAN 1'011. "". M DAR 2().

5. Bab)'lonia in the FirM Half of the 2nd Millennium Be

. of the Dark Age of Mesopotamia (dates according to !be MC) 161 OverVlew

Links

llammu-nipi ' (1792-1750)

Samsuiluna ( 1749-1712)

Abi·c'ug (1711-1684)

Ammiditana ( 16R3-1647)

\mmi .. duqa (1646-1626)

Samsuditana ( 1625-1595)

MUrSili's I raid: end of the Babylon I dynasty

r

Ganda~ (I)

Agum I (2)

KaSliliaSu I (3)

kings 4-9

Buma·BuriaS (10)

Ulam·Buria' (12)

Kara-inda

lIuma·AN

Damiq-ilisu

Gulkis.r (6)

En·gamil (II)

Table 29

. I 0 I" 0 naslic Chronicle Eponyms . Astronomical Data, BKL. Chromc es, ate· ,st;,) . . • '. .

King Chronicle. Larsa dynast). Rowl Inscriptions. rnchrolltsuc KL. 'Icar·names

SamSi·Adad I (39) (1 807-1775 "')

ISme·Dag''" I (40) (1775-1761,>

A"ur·dugul (41) 6 years

kings 42-47 ca. I year?

king; 48-55 ca. 115 years

lri,um III (56) 13 years

Sam,j·Adad II (57) 15 years

ISme·Dagan II (58) 6 years

SamSj.Adad III (59) 15 years

"~ur·njrfuj (60) 25 years

Puzur·A;;ur III (61) 1424 years

kings 62-66 4:! years

Enlil·nii>ir II (67) 142220-14 171415

As,,'\lr·nirfuj II (68) 1415-1409

A ~ur·bCl·n;;8u (69) 1409-1402

101

I listo,;cal Epic. [ in [ dynasty .

,,,' ""t· \",,"en (~()() I ) :111 (tabl,' 6). Fin. (~OO·I) 2 1H-221.

mill~ .1 d U'olloloh,) h ighN t~H;,n Ih.\I \ Iht' IIC. R~\l". IHliCh. (';lIli l' l' tI . tJ t" Ih<l ll lllo, (,' in Lhi ... lable luI' tlw Iwglllmng'i 01

tilt· i\i\l; .. itc.· and S(.';\!;uld ch ni.l'l i t,~. Om' 10 hi ... inte.', !>n'I,uion 01 ti ll' Distan'langaben the.' Chll.Hioll 01 tht' D.lrl.. \ ge' j"

,(rt~lchcd LO 160 H·~m~). Furtht'( Il101 e he makes ~L"Ie of the Babylon ian lime "'p.m ... , "hieh are gt·ner..l lh rejected for cI\r~nologiti.1 1 puq)()S6 by mhel schol.u ....

~~ -+ Gener-II ,ub 1.7."

6. CALENnAR

General Features

The calendar of the Ancient Near East originates in the rhythm of agricultural and religious activities, which arC ba~ed on the natural easons depending on the course of the sun, and on the movement of the moon. Cuneifonn sources quote three units: day (All. ti1ll11,

Sum. L I)' month (ar!J14 ITI) , year (.fall II, MlJ) ."" The ctm stam with 'unsct and lasts until the next sunset. The names of the 12 months mostly refer to ag,icultur­al telms or the cycle of vegetation and festivities. The month Mans with the crescent or the new rnoon. which usuallv becomes \isible in the evening one or two day' after the inferior conjunction of sun and moon. Since a synodic month (lhe interval between cO''!iunctions of the sun and moon) is 29 days I 2 hours 44 minutes, a Babylonian lunar month consists of either 29 or 30 cta\ . In Babvlonia the year usuall} started around spring equinox or soon after, whereas in Assyria the beginning of the year took place in autumn.

The Mesopotamian lunar year"" was ca. 35-1 da" (12 x 29.5 da),s). Economic te'<ts prO\e that both 30-and 29·<la\ mon ths were used. 1M The ci\il and religious years were geared to the lunar year.~''06 ince ~ l e,opotal1lians celebrated seasonal agriculLUral hoi i­dapi, intercalan' months were introduced approxi­mately C\'CI) third vear to keep the IUllar lear in pace with the ,casons of the 365-<1a) solar year. Howe\el; regu lar illtercalation is nOt attestcd uillil the 1,1 mil­len nium. \ norm year of 360 (\;I)~ containing onil 30-

·M .... Eponym o; fo r tht· linl(' unit bamushutl ill Old .\..· .. :-.\ri .. tIl It"'" from Kflill'pl' h.ani;, rhe concept of .\ ~'H·t'l.." j" nOI ,Ult"tl'c1,l\ 'lith: 'l'l' Rt\t,tR (2002) 1$-Il.

~ .. Fm tht'lunar \l'a. in Et"'-'Ipt. " hi(h 'hi, tI'l'cI for ag-licullur­,II ("\t'II". It'iigiou'l I{" thal, ,mel t'l'\.-g;.uht'dng "t't' ROIU' .... ('\1'; 1':1 (1993) IHt I.

• 1\.\\('1\ h ,h "'pt'ull"It'd that the numbt'l of"!n 1ll0I\lh~" .\11(.''1[-('<I in i\ Ith lIlillt 'lllliUIlI ( •• hk-! from l In ,!.. Ill.n Idel to a timc "IMII of :\ H',II' .mel one "ddiliol1;'\ inlt'lcal.\f\ mOlHh . See Nt".- \; 1'1 al., \nlwir U(t(wkrt"/li"J.!. Chic. It{O (199:\) :3()-:\7.

\,~, lIw hlallHt f<lIt'lId,lI' j, h;\'il'd on o.l lUll;'!' war without illlt'l'­('a litl iclIl.

11,7 S ,\11 \!\I'ltt.llt ( 1 9~m) 2:t\-2:\7, C\\UI\-KIN .. ";(III\.\t \1 (2001) ~HI and K~M~~H (200~) 7 H.'kITing: 10 the illlporl.lni "Iuch h, h,," ,", JI·.\//O 31 (1988) t ~ 1- t 8".

day months was created by tile end of the 4,11 millen­nium and used to the late 3'" and early 2nd millenni­um (Ur III period) for administrath'e purposes.<6; It is further attested in MUL.APIN 1 in connection with astronomical theories ..... The solar year consists of 365.2422 days. Since 12 lunar months add up to about 354 days (eleven day shorter than a solar year) events depending on the position of the sun "ill occur on a later calendar date from one lunar year to the next."" For this reason an intercalary month was added when­ever necessaI)' (decided by observation)'''' Intercalary months are first attested in the time ofUminimgina of LagaS of the 24lh cent. The agticultural year is orient­ed afterthe solar year, which means that the lunar year would be one montll "ahead" after tllree year> if no intercalary months were inserted.

Intercala!) years were inserted irregularly until ca. 500 BC in the Achaemenid period,HI when, on the basis of astronomical observations, the s<>-called Baby­lonian I 9-) ear or MeLOnic cycle was introduced with 7 intercalan' months ever\, 19 years. The intercalary years during tile cycle were nos. 1,3.6,9, 12, 1-1 and 17. The Metollic cycle was a sophisticated mathemat­ical scheme to produce a regular intercalation; it re­mained in use until the Seleucid and Arsacid periods.

6.1. Babylonian Calendar

TIle Babylonian calendar was based on natural time illlen-aJs produced by the mOlion of tile sun and tile moon. It was SU'lIClUred by tile solar year, the lunar

*",'1 Hl'\C;lR _ PI'\GIU"E (19 .. 9). In Egypt five extra days \\·ere added to the end of the "ear in order to ghe t.he nearest approximation <b J. whole number of days to the length of the Sothic ,ear (- chil calendar). L..lter, a non-Sothic lunar ,car wa$ dc\"i"ed Lhat \\,15 linl..ed to the chil w'ar: ROBIX:oi,

C\NE 3 (1995) I II. For !IIore detail"ee s.",n. z.is 110 (t983) t6-26 and \0' BHKFR.\TI1 (l99i) 41-54 .

1I For the practical diOiculties of the 'iolar calendar see 1l0RO\\lrl (1996) 3i-3i.

17l.) NOlC that there ;1r(' no rt~felence .. fOI intt:'rcalal"\' months in Nuzi or Alalab. belm\ sub 6.2.

,ra II lM~t'R (197fl- 1980) 298 (for an oH·rview). On the rules of intcrcalalion in .\l)tronomical texLS .. t~e IlL ,erR - REI:"':ER (1975) 21-28.

104 .\1e,opolamj.Ul Chronoiog'o of tht' 2ncl \lillt"nniull1 Be

month and the solar day,'''' the '<><ailed luni-solar cal­endar. The beginning of the ,ear was in 'pring. on the dm of the first new moon after the 'pIing equinox (ideaU, taking place on the 15th of Adar. the 12,h momh of the "ear) in the month :'\isannu. ince 12 lunations (29.26 to 29. 0 da" each) do not dhide the solar 'ear e\enh nor do olar da" di,ide the lunar month e,enh one is confronted "ith the problem of smchronizing the 12 lunar months "ith the solar ,ear. There is a difference of approximateh II da, between the two kinds of 'ear. This means tllat the month, occur about e1e\en da, earlier each vear ( .... belmnub 6.4.). and after three 'ears the calendar \ear is mOre than one month OUl of,tep "itll the season. In 32.5 ,ears a given montll would pass through the entire cycle of seasons. In order to ensure tile con'e<pon­dence between months and seasons (which is especial­h' crucial for a"ariculrural acti,itiesl and maintain the proper positinn of a month ,,;tllin tile solar ,eat: an extra il1lercalar\' 13th month was added "hene,er nec­e<<ar\ (usualh' effected b, a ro~al decree; -ad hoc inter­calations - can be obsen ed in roval letters from the reign of Hammu-rapi' oll\,ard). Intercalation "as determined bv ob-cnation ratller thatl b, mathemati­cal calculations (note the modem Je\,i h calendar).

6.2. Assyrian Calendar

The Old Assyrian calendar year can be reconstructed ?n the basis of 2nd millenniwn texts from the time of Samo-i-.-\dad I and earlier (the Karum Kanis II texls) and from the later Killtepe Ib and A1i~ archives. It had Se\eral important differences from the Bamlonian calendar. Whereas the tart of the ~ear in Babylonia took place III the month. 'isannu, which corresponds to ~farch /.\pril in the Julian calendar, in A! ,}ria the year started in late fall (according to Kiiltepe II texts and the EL), as "as true in 3rd millennium Ebla'" Dur­ing Karwn Kanis le\el II some kind of solat· calendar . ,-"as III use. ' Although no intercalal} years are attested so far for texts of levels II and Ib, '>Orne \Cholars belie,e that there must ha'e existed some kind of adjustment

.. ~ The Greg~rian ~aJendar b).' comr.t.'il i\ b~d on a purel\! solar ~'ear, 19nonng the lunar month. '

." On Bamionian momh·names ~e for ilhtancc- CRt •. '\( t '> (200 I) 257-267. ' ...

, PHlI m,. ,1f025 (1974-19i7) 3'\-35 m [All'" (1976) 193.

.76 Thu~ L\R .... ,\ (J976). (lling a purely lunar (alt'ndal reft'rred LO the month" by which thc' text\ were dated an I

h . , (

nOLl() t e appolntmem ()f {'ponyrn\, ",hich mU\l haH' con. Ul1u~·d to follow the \olar p:ar: \t:c· R .. \1)1- (2000) J 52. For a p<)\s,bl.e aW''>ta~Qn oJ intercalatioll during Ihe Old A\~yd. an penod ""C \" "'" (2()OO) 111-147.

between the solar and lunar ,ear. since th(' designation of lilllll (eponyms) was carried Oul rcgularll.'" The naming of the epon)'l1 vears, b, which tile st.~n of the 'ear W", identified, indicates that the vear alway. tan. ed dllling till' ,ame '('ason. This means that the solar epon\TIl year was ... omehow coordinated \\;th lunar months. A modified Old Ass"rian calcndar is first attested during ti,e epomm' of Ilabil-kenu (: KEL G 110 during Kiiltepe le,el Ib according to G(\IlATII

[200<] 128): COH~' (1993) 238-239 referred to it as the -Restored AsS\1ian calendar". This "Restored A.ssjT­ian calendar" offel tl1e order of Assvrian months:'" it did not coincide ,,;th the cpomm year starting around the aUlumnal equinox as tl1e calendar did dllling the earh' 2nd millennium (Kiirum Kanis le"el II texts).

The calendar unden"em several modifications;" but intercalation seems to be missing from the Ktilte. pe lb texts, which emplm the calendar used in the ~fiddle Assyrian period until Tiglath-pileser I ( .... below sub 6.4. ). The lack of intercalation in the Mid· die .\ssyrian lunar calendar caused the slipping of seasons backward through ti,e months. This was remedied when the As "Iians adopted the Babylo­nian calendar ("Standard Mesopotamian calen· dar"'-) duting the reign of Tiglath-pileser l.

Various regional or local calendars ( below sub 6,5. ) developed simultaneously all m'er the Ancient :'\ear East. ... Hammu-riipi ' of the Babylon I dynaslV introduced a unifolm calendar for Babylonia (the "Babrlon ian calendar" or "Standard Babylonian/ ~Iesopotamian calendar"), which was based on the one of. 'ippur.

Value for Absolute Chronology'"

6,3. Astronomical nala and Calendar (month­length dalal' •

:>tonth-Iengths have played a crucial role in Ht BfR's i'/

aL treatment in OP E of th e astronomical data in con­nection with tile absolute chronology of the late 3,d and the 2nd millennium Be. Il is approach "'-dS to fit the di£.

m \' R 13 ( I{. 140) and KAV 155 (VI\'I 99(9): see COllEN (1993) 240.

mUll", (1976) 53 and 193 ,~ .

(;('"" (1993) 237 alld 2971f w; !It ·~.J.R (l97f)-19RO) 299 \lIh Munal.\l1allll'JI\Y\leme.

Ole I\\ue of ("OOrcilllaling 'IIlticm c.II(' nd",.., with Illoot'nl 011('\ (u\lra ll y Ihe Juli:.tn-(.I('goriall ("a lc lld'.II") \\101 .. \ brien)'

.II~ U'(~alcd oy CRY} R ( 1995) 652 and 655-656. III III R ,/ ai, OP~E, li t III'. (J H99-20(0) 2R7-290. -> Astro­nomical Data \jul> 3.3.

6. Calendar 105

uibution of29-and 30-day momhs to any given chronol­ogy drm"" from the astronomical obsen-ations embed­ded in FAE (GtRl.\DY" [2000] 183). Regarding the

uestion of the VTs salidit) and the four main Venus ~hrOnologies proposed from it (tile four possibilities for Ammi»lduqa year 1 are -1701, - 1645, -1637, and -1581) Ht BER, High ... 3,20-21, commented: " ... the last three of them are out: ti,e middle twO agree poorly with the Venus data themselves, and all three disagree with the month-length data from COntempordry economic texts. The first one [tl1e -1701 chronology] I could not reject, but being the only compatible chronology does not imply that it is right (the Venus tablet may be invalid, after all) .... Now as for testing a chronology by month-lengtl1s: ... When I am testing it [i.f. -1701 chrmwklfo] against the month-length data and it turns

out to agree significatltly better than it ought to ifit were "Tong, tl1en I have to assume it is right... if we test the agreement between ob en'ed and calculated month­lengths, we simultaneously also test the reliability of the extrapolation [which slands in clmneclion urilh Ihe irregu­larities in the rolalion ojthumth]." According to the stati£. tical study ofHtBER f/ aL, OPNE, tile HC (-1701) has a 93% probability of being correct, ULC only 6%, and tile reSt share tile remaining 1 %. 'Il,e Ur III month-length data'" also support ti,e HC. But Huber pointed out in High ... 3,24: "The main problem \\ith the calculation of month-lengths is this empilical cun'e detemlining the ,i.sibilitv of ti,e crescel1l and tl1ere at'e several such empirical curyes in the literature."

The sighting of the lunar crescent depends main­lyon the weather: calculations only give approxima­tions valid for the average good weather obserying conditions. I1 lBER et al., OPNE 2~ state: -The posi­tion of the moon is calculated at tl1e time of su nset for the first few evenings after the n('\\ moon." The crescel1l is supposed to become visible on the first even ing for which the altitude of the moon at sunset exceeds a certain value, which depends on the sepa­ration between sun and moon and the angle the line joining the 'tm and the 11100n makes wi til the hori­lon (which in the northern hemisphere is greater in the spring than it i, in autllmn). On the basis ofa cal­culation for lunar crescen ts in Babvlon 1I 1IIlFR f/ al., or E 7 oneluded that there existed no 28-dm months, bnt29- (-16.9%) and 30-da) monthS (53.1%) which followed each other in an irregular

4~' J h !\lit /·t al .. OPNF ~8-~\n I'~ t: ,

.-x 'l';ll"lo(:oln \' (199:1) ·1-5. t Sl't' l it 1I1'R (1999-~WOO) :.0 fOl 11101'(' sluclk, on Ihi~ j:.."IU<".

sequence ..... while the occasional 31" day \\as carried over to the next month.

For Ammi)aduqa years 1-16 the intercalary months were fixed by the \'T and contemporal} eco­nomic texts. The order of year-names after Ammi,aduqa's year 16 is unknown. Years 1-16 con­tain 21 auested 3O-day months (HLBER et al., OP. E 137). According to HLBER e/ al. :>lC and LC can be rejected because of the high number of mi ses in the calculation of month lengths, while \'T data favors the HC. This is of course based on the premise that one of the Venus chronologies must be correct and that the obser.-ations are to be associated \\;th Ammi~acluqa's reign. In response to G\SCHE f/ a/.'s 1998 book on absolute chronology (month-length data were not considered in thi study), HLRER (1999-2000) held to his fOlmer method and results and stressed that an) auempt to accommodate a lower date for the Babylon I dynasty would do \;0-

Ience to the a\ailable astronomical e,idence, natnelv the vr, DB and Vr ill month-length data, V r ill eclipse omens and Akkad eclipse omens. The \'T and DB month-length data are linked to Ammi,aduqa year I and the Ur 1Il month-lengths combined \\;lh ~he eclipse omens are linked to Amar-Sin year I.

l" "

According to the KLs, these twO kings mled about 400 years apan ( .... Babylortia).

The available r III month-length data does not suffice to fix the date of Amar-Sin, but according to l1uber ti,e Ur III month-lengths and the eclip es together detemline a unique chronolog\. He tated tI,at if one calculates backwards with the Venus chronologies bv subtractin a -100 years from Ammi>aduqa to /\mar-Sin, the onh plausible chronol­og\' is again the He. which offers a comincinglv high likelihood of both (\ 'T data and Ur III 1l10ntl" align­ments). The second choice in statistical tenns would be the ULC, which can be mled out due to tile histor­ical e,idence (generation lengths in Hillitc chronolo­g\, etc.).'''' Tim tl1C e,idence presented in HlllER f/

al., OI'NE fa,ored the HC "ith Amml.aduqa year 1 : 1702 BC and the most probable first ,ear of Amar in's reign is -2093. For ti,e last 16 ,ea, of ,\mmiditana (real 22-37) eight intercalations with a sequence of four consecuti,'c inlercalan years (25-2 ) are atlested. Within the period of 24 veal's bet""en Ilammu-rapi' ~H and Sam uiluna \'ear I I, e1en'll inlercalalions are

t. rht"'lt~ con ... idcrati01h ;lre ,\11 b~ed on thl' ,t umed hi ... •

toricity of the lunar t'clipse"

106 "t>upOl.lmi.Ul (:hl-()Jl()h)~ of lilt' 2nd \tilknniulll B(

known. including four COlh("fllti\t~ ont,' ... (Hammu­rapi' :~~. 33. 3·\. :~j. 38. -to and 'amsuilulla :~. j. ~. !l. II). There are j-t "tle"ed :l().<fa, 1ll00ulb. and if Olll' reckons bad.ward, from .. \nllni~aduqa I -I iOI. then 'umuiluna he~an to 011.. in -I, 04 (un the <l'itronom,cal difficultie, with thi. date 'l'e III SIR d (II •• OP'E 14~).

For Clitical remarks on the lise of monlh-l~nglh\ (basical" that there are too m"", di'lTepancie, in Huher's results) and intercalation in the chronolo""i­cal di'ClI"ion 'ee Gl RL\on.'\ C?OOO) I :>-1,' \. ~I ~t (2001) I iI and T\.WH (200-!) 5-1~ in the fhapter on Astronomical nata sub 3.2.

6.4. Assyrian versus Babylonian Calendar

FRnu" .. (1991) 16-17 and I~".' disfu"ed the ,till un'ohed problem of whether the Bab,lonian or .~ ~\Tian calendar was in ll\e in.~ vria in the 2nd mil­lennium during the "'Iiddle ,\.<., rian period."" According to WUDXER (1935-1936) 27-~ tIlt" lunar ~~lem was dominant in 2nd millennium .\s,\ria because of the lack of illlercalan' months. Due to the fact that apparentl, no correction of the Illnar war existed in Assyria. tlle introduction of Bab, Ionian month names in parallel lISe with ,\.<.s\lian month names was the first step in coordinating the dates of Lh~ lu.nar ,-ear \\;th the astronomical ... olar ,ear, wh,ch IS alte'ted during the reign ofTiglath.pile e I (.1111-10;6).' So far no 29-da, month\ are alteste~ SlOce for admini trati,e purpo<es lISual" on" 3(kJa; months were u<cd .. 'ow, Fre~dank h"" prolen that there eXISted a 29 da\-lnonth in the \I',ddl'" .' . " e ~""" ~'nan ~nod (mentioned in the ~liddle A"'\lian ration-list \ S21, 14, T. II') for the months Sin and kalmar/u. ThIS fact prmed the existence of a lunar month..,l.,.. ~em. and w'th ,t the changing sequence of 30- and _9-da, months, although the evidence is ,till ,er\ scarce. The use of the lunar system is also suppone;1

~ Thi\ impc)rtmt i\ ... u(: wa~ t.ouched Uf)(m b\- J{(JII'( (191'-3Ji2-3Il1. ' ',I)

.. On the' "O{Jppel(LHi(:nlllgen" (dal(~ wilh lv "l, \. I Bat J '. ,., ....... \ TI(;III 'UI( "onJan IOOnth-name:,,) '-e(" FRH1).\!f\ (1991) k') "'I,

HfHlH rh -~. ami _ _. to toxan modt' of tnlmition ""jth r(."\I)("O to inl(.,-_

ralallfHl and .. tau of Ih(' \-t"dr is unknown L r I I ' ,.,., ar OIl(.' (an WI) (-{('C t momh-Ilame\ of the Swncli -d 'I . aJ. 1- . . I.,. ('''OpOlanllall

4lI'J C _ f JJ( df u'lo('d dunng lh(' rime of Tiglath-pil<.'\4"-1 1 'o(c-d b~ \\"fllHl \1 (lYlJ1) 5)1 in h'" ",,' /'f (J9! . . . U:W () R.\'I)\,,,-

!JI). In hl\ outlint" 011 PI'. 1(>-.7 Fr("yd.mk 1'1 t'xdu.~k tt.le IX""i!>ilit) Ul<tl a \oJar (alcoct.u lik(. (ha: ::f :;;:~ \"'~~Ilan ~1It1("\ m.Jght ha\'e:.' o,lilll)("cn lI'iNI during 111(> Mul.

die A\'~~JJali pc"nod. Wlwl1 ("xacilli &.J,'" cl ' / 01 I . . _ I lang(' '!'CUll Ih .. ( , \\\~nall \(JldJ-b,L\(>rj c<:ikndar H, ,1,(, lu' . I I J1ar (41 ('IIC <I.,

I" Ihl' -doubk daling-'" ([)oppddatierungen) pre. "'IlI"bh due to the 'll'('d 10 link the \,< .' . . ,llIan and Bal" 10lllan .. alend"", to IIll' ,oIl,' 1'("lr ep

~ ~ OIlYTllS. On" Ix·tween fa. I I ~O and IO<JO \\<'Ie t"x" r

~~ ~ .... '-~ rom \"ur dated b, \.'" rian and Babl Ionian month. nallle, "llIultant'om", \\ hit h indicale' th 'l t \. .

:1 ,t\,Swnan l1lotll.I~-nalllc, were "lill n.·Yoh'illg around the ~olar war. lhe Bablloniall monlh.' 'tawd in s,nchro!' . . ' , Ilza-non wllh the ,e'NIIlS. bec.luse of the insertion of Illtercalan monlhs.

Becau,,, of the lark of evidence 10, '1111 intercalaC)' months in ,\.""ia. FRnll\\~ (Hl91) 17 assumed that tl,le \Iiddle "\.'''Tian epol1\ mIca" and tlle reign Ie ngtllS of tlle kill!," III the A.KL refen-ed to lunar lear.. On tllt' otbe, hand. he cited (pp. 188f.) dates for the rei~n lengths nl('ntiOlwd in the KU. which are based on the ,olar 'ear (in which the months are bound to fertain seasons).'" Alreadl BRI,,,-,t,-, \ISKH ''>'" . " . ')-' po III ted out: "If the Ass"rians used a lunar calendar "ithoUl intercalan months before the calendar reform of Tiglath'pileser I. .... all Ass\Tian date hefore 1132 would ha,e to be lowered approxi­mate" three leal'S per century; and Kassite dates should be set about fi'e vea, , lower than those in the ~ble (e.g .. Kurig-.lllll II at 1327-1303) with a varia­tion of ±7 vear~. "I'

G \.<,( HE p/ al., Da/III/( ... 61-62 co,rened their -base chronoloR'" (ba,ed on a solar calendar) agalOst 'olar date; on the premise that the lunar cal­e~dar was used in ,,\ssHia until the reign of Tiglath­plleser I. Before I 100 Be 18 ,ear, in total mal have to be subtracted for tlle period back to Samsi-Adad 1m 'f h, .' .' t e lunar c,llendar was employed 'n Ass)na unlll the first half of til(' reign of Tiglath-pileser I. when the Babylonian 'olar-ba,ed calendar IVlIS adopt· ed. A\ FRF\1HX~ (1991) 16 pointed out, this would unpl} that the dates arou nd the beginning of the 15,J, cent I'e' . 13 • " J e (a. years lower l han by the aSSlImp-

took plac(> i\ ullkneJ"1l and of (OU"(' po,<.''1 dillkullic\ for Ih(." (:aku~alioll (,1 A"")Tian n'igll~ Ihwtlghotll the:.' 211d lIlil-1(>lIIl1urn fhe (ill(' of f'lUYU\\ ... \ 2mn ,lItide " \'Iwli\{ht" /.(>i1 [(.( hilling - ('in ung('wr)hnli( Iw, Sj\t('rn" ( hill ;UU'Ji/c~

t'-lO OU~ pH'M'nt \lal(' of kllowh·dJ.W.

J !IJ~ ~·'b appli('d to tilt' h.i.l"jU· cJYIlOl\I} h) HOI.,I (I!IH2) h-2h .. Sc:'(- (;\.\( IIf 1'1 (ll., /)fltitIK. " .tIld blll'l llrd, red,.,,, t"hlt' 111 Akkrullm IOH (1~~Ui) hil\('d Oil iI (u l l4.'uioll agai ll\t

f'JI \01<11 datt'\ ( ~IIIJl'1I I(>dutlioll").

1. ('. a I('clu(lionof I )'(".11 ('1,0'1'1) ~~:~ )(',11", 0/ :J )'t'itfS per cen"

III~)': "'t'e al\() ('A~W f'l al. (I 9~'H.I) :i. Nort. ho\\'evc.'r Ihal 111111 I('(IIKI/( " . m 1\ IIIC"Ornp'lllhk with Illl' ~11C 'WII D isUUlzall'

gabe n, whkh (t l (' 111('1(>(0/(' (;md 1(" 0111('1 I'('I\"IUII\) r(:jt'C I­Nl h) lht:' ,lI llhOl "I.

6, Calendar 107

tion of a solar )car'sy,tem. Unfortunately. the syn­chronisms within the period between 1500 and 1085 are not suffiriently precise to 'olve this vexing prob­lem. Thus. tllC reduction obviously does nOt affect the known synchronisms with Babylonia. Egypt or Anatolia. BlIt, it is not clear which systcm was used before the reign of Tiglath'pileser 1."" 1I0pcfully, future finds will shed more light on intercalation before Tiglath-pilcscr I and provide more support for Vccnhofs belief that the Assyrians used inter­calary months during the Old and Middle Assyrian periods (~ below). VI'hile the existencc of ~liddle AsS}Tian lunar system was taken to be likely b} Casche e/ ai., which resulted in a reduction of I year e,ery 33 Years, one generally sticks to the solar sy'­tem, as can be seen from various chronological tables. I'"~ It is still IInknO\\1l when a calendar with illlercalation was introduced in AsS}lia. This is espe­cially important for the question of ho\\ the AKL and ELs. which are allied, were related to the calendar. For long-term chronology this is of crucial impor­tance since 100 years of the AKL might represent only 97 so lar years (i.e. the "lunar reduction") .m

The earliest Old Ass}Tian texts of Kiirum Kanis level II demonstrate that the Ass}Tians were using a solar calendar for the appointment of cpomms,'·' Concerning the eponyms of this period one can obserle that there must have existed some kind of coordination between the lunar calendar (-month­calendar") and the solar year based cponlm years. This coordination was apparently not in function during Klirum Kanis level Ib with the result that the lunar months shifted throughout the year.

\~J rh('l'l' Me indication" for int('IT~\I,Hion during the Old \s.wri;\n prriod. Sl'C it prt.'\iou\ siudy b\ Koul. ,\rut' {'nll'r­

,WtJWflJ..'t'1l wr 'OjXl/r"ajJJuf d/'\ bab"lol1isrlim NxM,'mhrmlrll'l_" \'Vie'lbadl'n (I9H9) 132-1-11 (alio di\C'lh'l'ci b\ Yu \1101-'

[20001 14 1-112). l'l~ ( : .

~'l' ROWlo\ (1970) ~~). For it rt.'ph to G\. ... ( In 1.'1 (lL .... pro-pm,,1 \('t' RJ..\I)I- (2(00) 151-133, who ,lrgllt'd f()! ;\ ... ul.\1' cal· I:ne:.1;\1- \\ilh r(''''pert 10 lIlt' l'pOmJ1l '('~t1.

tH ' , . (.'''-<1Il 1'1 al .. /)atw/! ... (ll-t)~ ,\Ild Rt \nt (~W(}O) 131. F.II,,,,, (1991) If,...17. RIc'IlI (~O() I ) 2. ",,,"m (2000) 11(;"'1-17 ) KEL

'., WilD" •. If 0 ;, ( 1921<-192\1) IHI-IH;; .I"d (1935-1931il 27-2H,

t" Not(. Ih.1t tht' Middle\.'\Hi'lH Il"\.h H"l'i trullt Girit:ano n·pt' <lal('d to the re ign (~f A\ .. Ul'-bd· .... d" U,(' nab\ Ionian 11\()lIth-n a ll \t,'s: R.\L)\1 R (2001) HO-81.

I', I .... tI (''i1 1.lhl(· wi th rOI I('lled (b ll· ... (.In b(' luund in C\SClII' r(

aL ( HIH8a) 2-~i. Salll;i-Ad.td I died ;I(fording" ill 16$~ l1I\ll'ad ui 1705 (Nt:: ... ('t.' Omi,,/! ... ti~-ti3) .• \.'i tht' author~ Iht'Hht' I\-(''i POilltl'd 0 11 1, Lht'il nick!' lable did nut l'ollionn to

BRI"K.\lAX, PHPKB 383-386 deduced from the -Bro­ken Obelisk", which i; tentatively dated to the reign of rusur-bel-kala (1073-1056) and w,es onl, standard Babylonian month-names, that a lunar calendar without intercalary month .• was still in use in AssI'ria after Tiglath-Pileser I. '" Ilowever, his chronological chart from OPPE'IIEI\f'S -'\ncimt Mesopo/amia" (1977) is also based on the lise of the solar calendar. COHEX (1993) reconsidered the isslIe ane! reached the same conclusiom <l'i Brinkman. Other scholars, such as LARsEX" (1976) and GAscm: et al., argued that the Assvrians employed a purel) lunar calendar (where­as cponpTI years were u~ed only in conjunclion , .. ilh the solar calendar as L\R.\l' [19i6] 193 stressed) between the earliest Old AsS\'rian texts and the time of Tiglath-Pileser I, during whose reign both Assni­an and Babylonian month names are attested (BRlX"K.'v..'\, PHPKB 383).

In conllast to G\sOIE e/ aL,''' IUADE (2000) 151 assumed the use of a solar calendar for all regnal years. He applied a difTerent approach than G·\sCHE et aL, bllt arri"ed at the same low absolute chronolo­gy (mainly due to a re-ime'l)retation of tlle AKL con­cerning tlle period succeeding Sams"Adad I). READE (2000) 153 concluded: 'So the que tion is not whether in particular pc,iods the Assvrian months revoh'ed around the seasons, which is perfectl, well kno\,vTl. but ,,,'hether an epon"mate or regnal vear con isted of twelve lunar months alone or of twelve lunar montllS plus a periodic adjusunent to keep pace with the solar 'ear.-

"EEXllor (2000) HI-I47 tried to pro,-e that the ,,\,ss"rians applied intercalan month in ~Iiddle

dw (importl1l1l) pH'mist, that S.1I11~i-Ad.td I i't "'HO\\TI to 11J.\~ died in \t~,t.r 17 of Il.llllmu·rapi l (-+ Epon)ws). According (0 uU' ir earlier (ahk in nallnK ... -. un;i-Adad 1 died in ,e;.u of 1l.l1llJ1l11~1'3pi l. Tim ... lhe d,Ul'~ of Sam\J-.\dad I were reduced b, .mother nine \('.1T' (1710-1679 'el ..... lb 1719-1688). p. 2: -Thh is ea!'ih ;lccornplbht~d b\ \Ubt .. aCling Lht' required number o1'\('al-'" from lhe rt'igns l)f ... illt-. ..... 66 and 6), \,hieh are Iwpothctical It.'l-on ... tnlClinn ... ;\11')\"<1\ and lherefore el.'L"~ tic. Of COlII"i('. the regnal pt.'dod ... of lings 64-tO mUSl al'>l) then be Icdu(l'd I" thi ... magnilude.

M

(...,. AKL). Oli:"! nUl on" be:' dOlle b\ IWKlcctin~ tht, chronolo¢cdJ value of Dis­~angaben, \., \\'11 lit I \1. \lo.\R 7"1-' ha~ pointed Ollt,

(hlSChe (I aL did nOt t .... (· lht'lo\\t,~red ;\liddle . 'l~ ... n~U1 datt.'" pr'OIX)M.'d b~ f\o!-".~ - WIl.llt! \1 (1979). but rc.aached ,lhllO!<ol

equally low d,llt''i fo!' Iht' I·ltll cent\1l"\ duC' 10 tllt.'ir premi~' of lhe l',i_'ltUfl' of ,\ hUMl Gllendar in A"'t\ da. See SOl \. (198~) I ~2li for tht, (On"'l'qttl'nct"~ on the M~itt' d.nes. NOlt' that \\',\1 .... 1{\ ch.ut of 199,j (~(C) ,111d ST\RM'l) chan (l.C) 0[2002 Mt·l,.bl"'C:t on Ihl' .l ........ ulllplion tiM 1 $.'-m,;i-.\d.ld I died ill H"\I 12 of 1I.\IllllllH;'ipi)

108 \le,OIx.ltami.ln (:hwll()lo,",,, 01 Iht' .:!nd \Iillt'nnitltll B(

.\$.\\1;an time, (ha'l'd on y , 19. i:~ and ~ I. I: 'l't' p. 142 following Koch) and e,en in to the Old \'" nan period.-m But no direct e,"idence fol' fhi ... t",i"'h '0 far."" Hence Yeenhof recommended again't adapt. mg the lunar reduClion. Thu~. the exan time when

the As" ria", finalh and fllll~ adopted (he Bat" Io­nian ... olar calendar \\;lh inlercalan month, remain ... unknown.

6.5. Local Calendars

Local calendapoi in the Ancien( :\ear East are atle ... ted from the 3rrl millennium onward,. each cil\ h", in'" it,

h ~I ~ O\~'n mont name,. ~Ionth-Iength, "ere deler-mmed b, weather condition" (mitaken) ob,erya. tiOI1'o,>. etc. E,"er\' pro\incc had its Q\\n "-'tern of intt"r­

~Ialion. COllE' (1993) ??5ff. compiled the mO'1 Important calendars from the beginning of the 2nd

millen ilium onwards: in ,outhem ~le'opotamia the umenan (Xippur) calendar continued to be IN'd

whe~:..a, in the centers of the north -.\mol;te- calen. dars \\ere IIllroduced.

According 10 Charpin's"" recon tmction, 1\'0 dif­fercntw·~ lem~ of month-name!) \,ere in u'\e in ~1ari after Sam;[·Adad P'H during the reign of his ")11 lasmalrAddu:

• !he ~SamSl'Adad calendar". also labelled Ihe Elw!latum ~a1endar-. was used in northern S'ria

(Ill Karana. Sagar Bazar. Tuttul, Tell ar-RilJla~ as well as III the let~ers of the roval famih and their official, ent from Subat·EnliL Xine'eh "'ur l:.kall-.. '""\..: ~. alllm

." F or mu-rcalan month dunng the n.'lgll of S-trn\r, \dad ami later on In the l(+XluaJ t"\ldencf:" from \fan fI-11 Ri • and'" " L< la ' t ar- ma.,

500 (' 'I n 'lee \A.'-1 m \llfROOP (19')1) 301{...310. Here he ai,",) dl<;("~I\\{'d the UCie of ifJ qiit': ("pOI1\ 01 ... ( .... U(. ce\~or t'1)Om-ln'l) III re')pr.mse to L\R~~"", (11'_(') 'I h' .'\ J/) I( (.'<1\ on

50 1 e lie.(- (~f cal("ndaf"\ in Old :\·"wnan lime",

For an IfIlroducLion S('e C.Olle, (1993) ~13· I S\J 14 \RERf.[R (I~)93) .~H . all( .., ( ,

LJlJ" (IY'J~) 21Ml See al", (' t:!'l72 and (,11101) '''~ tfi- ,IU'\(,I '.}.IOI 107 (1!IXi)

• . - _ .)1- I on the AmOnll" calendar in Old ~lJ\.I~.~Jan ('Xl .. f~om ';ippar. Dw .. e \<lriation .. 01 a 'X--milk fa t'n"dr, M1Inman.l('d .., Amorit<- cale",]-. __ J ( J J_ d' ar\, aI(' all('M('d r'~ 11(: 'HC' .~r mJlI('nnium on V, the ()I,I Bal~1 '

Ix' · ( I (<- 'I n O.lIall , 11)( .")dm'UI n,na). In the: Ur III • ' ,,1 I "I ,_. pen( ..... (xa ral('netaN

"'( rt' III 11-,(- ( naU\(' ralendar") I' I I - . . If' '" lie 1 H)\\ no !roIOIII,ifllu'''1

"'Ill (Hit" () the' .\mont(' C41lcnetal'\ Th" "l.. ~. \ I I .. - I ' ,;lanl'h C 'Iet ("al· (-nf ar a -.tJ t)(-'Jong' lO th(- group of ,\mnrit(- ('all-nd-II' U\f'd Ihoughout nonlwin \1(:\OntHamia' I I • Fd r St .. I~' an( f('P dC'C'd III(-

r J(-f 'Inltl(' ralt'nd"r, of Ebla \lari ('If 0 I ' I dar . I I t - • • II I II, fd ('lI w

_ ,a n ('rnw( a\ 'Tkall:tlum ralende" ., (" Zlf(l fK(2()(n)I~~ ... r,\« ·!f\Rl'f,_

... .' . ;).:.-J.,(" On til(' It'latium,hi ) e,f II (. .' al cal,.'ndau during Ihc- Old J3ab~I()llian I)C!'iC,,1 jill ~(jl{J(~tl the' I)l\ala r('" I \-1" _ ' "p,ut

~HJI) aile . an ,,(,(. ( .. R •• "" '\ (200 I ) 2;;!J-2W~

~nd olher plac<". <"p. Ihl' r<'!,>ion frOIll wh ' h S . \ . . ele l e "un, ... dad d, na,l, oIlITmat<,d) II ",·t, 'l l,() . • _ - ~ . (,', 111 lise for a lime a!tcrlhe ('ollalh<' of Ihe "IIlI>ire ofS' " . amsl· . \dad b, I", '011\ la"naI,-. \ddu and ISnW.Dagan.

• The local "Mari calendar" of Ihe Old B,tb I . " '. ( ~ olltan

pell.od \\~ 1I~_r()ntll1l1al \1,,('_ - with an illlerruplion ~unng S,II11"·. \ <I,,d I - from the t'nd of Ihe Sakl-anaH.u p<'lind (roughl, rontt'l11porarv wilh Ihe lr III period). through lhl' reign of labdun. tlln, to the period or limri·l .im (a lso rd'erred to I L' • t W - IIlHh n,l>l:\" or \lilli \ ..\morilt' period).

The . am'i·Adad calendal n"" ha,(' rl'placed Ihe Old \."'1'lan calendar in '\'''tll "hen Sam;j·Adad I controlled the cit,. ,inre Ihe "nt''' - cait'lldar can be aJ...o found on ,orne l ... lblets froll) A~sur, It has been

pecu!.".ed that the ~am'I·.\dad calendar mal hare c~me '~'th him from hi, town of origin. EkaHiintm ( [kallatum calendar"), but this cannot be confirmed (CH-\RP" - ZIH.LIR [?OO:l] 156) . Other local calen. ~lars.e'isted at lhe beginning of the 2nd millennium 111 Karkem];. Terqa~ , Fsnunna (Ii, and e l ~e\\'here, After the amsi-\dad chnalt) losl po\\'er, the Old A''''nan calendar "'as re'tored in A"ur: il is labeled the -Restored Assn'ian Calendar" bl COHF\ (J 993)

~3iff. \\nen lasmai)·Addu was dri,en out of Mari. the Sam\i·.\dad calendar disappeared and the "l\Ial; cal­endar- was reintroduced. A hiatm of two >ea" look p;:ce bel\\'een the dating b, eponyms of SamSi.Adad I and the use of year· names bl Zimli·Llln folloll'ing Ihe older Bab)lonlan fashion of dating."~ For a final

"'~lh a chan on p. 267. FOI OIlwr\morit(. calt'll(bu', ~ee COIlf\ (](~J1) 211>-21ii\ "" . C~~\5{P~\ (l9M5) 211-2·17 and (;II\RI'/\ _ ZIH;lfoK (2003) 1:).)-1,>0.

"" In order to d(:!('nniJ1(' th(' Il'l1l4lh of thh Pl'l rod tIl(' (Orft'-'pomk-nc(' IX~I" .,. II I I ' t.' n 1(' Iwo (a ('II( i.ll"\ and the OIde-r of [he known ('I)()m-m I · I . . 'dll( ~«\I"II,IIII('., Md 10 he clt'wnnll1t'ci. FOI

Ih(' (-J)()nnn {'al('IHial .,(.(. C!I\KI'/\ _ J)t 1t\'\0 (19Hr.) 2tJ8

and Wllrn,\(, (I!¥.H» I~Jf>-197, I h(: !\I.llioll'" ".l.,{-d Iheir <all'lIdal on a \oh· ,. ,'I I . I " ~(.u "It I Ullill 1110nlll"l (hllll·,olarcil-('ndar) Marting ill fall, Ih\l\ folleJ\\'IIIg tll(' \Wt'l iilll Iradition of lilt' (~arl\' 21,d millellniulII .

"x'(. KRtlult" ... (2001) ,PI and (200Ia) H aJ1(1 (;1I\lU'/\ _

IHC.I ~K (200:l) I;,;)-):;(), POll'" ('IIKI21 17 ] ....... ('Iqa illiti'llh· 1I\('d IIi(' 1II01lih 11;t1ll(" of Ill" \-1all nl("'II' -. I . I ' . < <II , ) 111 III 1 1(' '\1ICldlc' illHI I ,;.ltl· 11;111;1 p(,fI '

'tlt7 oel, 11('"" lIalll(', Wt·", illuodtu ('d, . 011 IiI<' ('()IT('''I' I' I . I F' , ' . Oll( (/l( ('''I U'I'\'('('II IIi(' t'4,h'lld,u 0/ M.m ;lIle

:\oIM J~ItIUlnil 'te(' (.II.\KI'" -I.II'('III( (200:H ~WO-20 1 I I H'\(' .11(" kll . r I own nUll 11(' MH . 011111 d ( )(llllIl'tll\; alI<I llavt"

o,t1l b('c'll (. OHl pilt'cl by ell \RI'I\; - ZII (,I Ht (~OO:') 15G- 157. ('''KJ'''-IlIIt''"(II)U')'l()' () " . I ..' ..,0.), .). II Ill(' }'t':H-tl ;III1(''i (If Zutln-

.1111 "( ( ell '1t!,1\ - Za C.I I I( (2()O.'~) ~ 17-2. 19.

6. Cale-ndal 109

lisl of Ihe "SaIl1Si·Adad calendar" and it, correspon­dencl' with the "Mad calendar", which ""as used from Ihe leign of Zimri-Llln onwards, see CIl\RI''' (1985) 216-217 and CIlIRJ'" - ZIH;U R (2003) 156. Xiq. mum, Ihe first month of the 'Sam'I-Adad calendar", com"pollds to IGI.KL:R, the 61h month of the "~lari calendar".'·'" BOlh calendars share the months Kinimum and Ahum. which was crucial for their recollslruct ion . For synchronisms. belween the Mari calendar and lhal of Babylonia see CI L\RP" - ZIFGI fR

(2003) 26 1-262. Careful studies of Ihe calendars in u,e in Mari ha., re.sulted in a slightly changed syn­chronislll between SamSi-Adad and Hamlllu-rapi' (see pp. 170-175 fOI details): Charpin and Ziegler pro­pose that Ihe death of Samsi-Adad took place in the 18th• not the previouslv-thought 17'11 , year of Hamlllu­rapi' (~ 10.6.).

Concluding Remarks

The stud) of ralendar systems fomlS the basis for the chr()nolo~ of Ihe Ancient Ncar East, gi'ing us an idea of how lO COI1"Crl "ancient" calendar dales into "our" Julian calendar. A knowledge of the month­Ienglhs of the Ur III and the Old Babylonian pel;od is necessary for the statistical reduction of the \Tand olher astronomical data from that peliod . . " This pro­cedure is quite COlnlnon in studies on Egyptian chronolo~ (''smodic month" within the E~lltian lear of 365 dal' "'). bUI less lIsed for ~Ie,opotamian studies. So far, this ana"sis has on" been performed oJ III ilL R pi Ill., OP:-\E, who "",ored the IIC, which is based on a 56 6.J-,ear Venlls c,cie. I>lonth·!englh data were not included b, Gurlac" an in GI.'>Ulf rl aL. Dlllilll( ... in his sllId) of (he astronomical dala and Mesopotamian chronolog. (Sec abo SLII [2001] 171 who stressed that Ihe monlh-Iength discus,ion c(.'rtainh de~en;l'.s mort' a u e ntio n in the fUlure. On Ihl' olhel halld TIWII [20(),I] 5-12 bdien's Old Babylolliall month-lengths are nOI useful for chl'llnulogical purposes). 3.2. Based on all their OII1('r rl'SUllS (especia lh Iheir compulation of ,>e1i l"" data) and obsened slnchroni,n". Ga"'he pi

~IU II .1(' "'til i ("II('ml,ll" i ... ;\1,0 i.U!c..'\ll'd in H"I'" hom nlllul:

h.IT 17H- 1H~ bl't' 1\.1{1111' H'\[Io. r~OOlal 190). I'wo ollhnl' (t.,,, hl';" .t \l';II -lI,HIU' quotil\~ l.illUi-LIIII .

\11 W' I ' ,. 111111 tIll' '111,,1\, ... h month-k-IIHlh ... ~\ll' lilt' ollh f011tl'mpO-

nu\, dal.L

fit. date Arnmi,aduqa" lear 1 to J 550 (based on an 8-)ear Venus cvcle) and therefore Ihe fall of Bab,lon to 1499. How~\'er. il remains to be seen wheth~r or nOI the momh.lengths can confirm the proposed 8-year Venu, cycle. which is supported chronological. I)' hy the dating of lunar eclipses.,·L If the eclipse and Venus data are rejected as inaccurate. then month· lengths loose much of their importance chronolog· ically.

The use of different calendars (time of adaptation of the Babylonian calendar in Assyria; the problem of the beginning of intercalation) does nOt haye a \et') strong impact on absolute chronolo~ in terms of the total time difference or on synchronisms. but is important for an mendl understanding and evalua­tion of Assyrian chronological data (AKL, epon\1ns. Assyrian Distanzangaben). One needs to be aware of the differences in time reckoning before Tiglath· pileser I. A chan of the reigns of Ass,'rian rulers reo calculated on the assumption that a lunar calendar existed in Assyria before the time of Tiglath.pileser I is presented in ,Ikkadita 108 (1998) 3 undenhe head­ing 'corrected base chronology". The authors reduced Samsl-Adad's I dates b\' 18 years (another nine years were subu"'ac(ed due to the important syn­chronism ,,;th Hammu·rJpi'), The still-open question of the calendar in llse in Assyria in lhe 2nd millenni­um BC (see RF, \DE [2000] 151-153 and [2001] 2-3) ma" be resol,ed b, ne" ~liddle Ass\'T;an texts. The chronolOgical charts in handbooks and em"'clope­dias following the ~IC are usuall,' based on the solar calendar5H and lhe absolute dales are ultimately based on the e\'a1uation of the \ T The <l>tronomical dara is declining in importance in chronological stud­ies a, more emphasis is being placed on the Ass~Tian calendar in combination with results from the natur­

al sciences.

Links

AKL. Astronomical Dma. Di<;tal17angaben , Epon~111s . i\liddle Ass\1'ian Period. Old Assyrian Period. Year(· names)

\l~ \ '0"\ BHIo.HtHIl (H~}7) 7-9 «(.)1\ lhl' Ft,"plian c-alc.~ndar) .md 42-t3 (01\ $othi( (bIll ).

\I~ S('(' Gl'RI..\1)\ \"\ (~O{)()} IS I ,-,nd ,ub Astronomical Data

(:\.3.) . \11 The ... e ;u,' primarih b~hl.~d Oil kin~ Ii'tt d.lIa. t'ptlll)'lll'. Oi'tw

t.ullangalx'IL elC,

7. CHRONICLES

Sources

Sumerian: _ TummaJ Chronicle (or Tummal inscription'''''):

from Ki, Ito Ur III d~nast}' (Ur-l\ammu, Amar-Sin, Ibbi-Sin); of limited use for chronologr'"

~kkadian:

- Dynastic Chronicle = ABC no. 18: from the ante­dilU\'ian period to the 8 'h cent.; of limited chrono­logical use (-> BKL)

- Weidner Chronicle = ABC no. 19: from the Earl} D}nastic period to the Babylon I dmast\ (Sumu­lael); of propagandistic nature. the information gh;en cannot be lrtlsted

- MEC (-> Eponyms)'"

- Chronicle of the Early Kings (= King Chronicle) = ABC no. 20: from Sargon of Akkad to the "",,,ite period (Agum Ill ); valuable for the historian, but ,erification impossible due to the lack of texts from this period

- Synchronistic History = ABC no. 21: from PlllUr­A;;lIr III until the reign of Adad-nlmri Ill: As,,,;an propaganda. therefore must be lI"1cd with caution; see Chronicle P

- Chronicle P = ABC no. 22: I",,,ite period: 11'ILI2'h crnt. Be; l110re reliable than Ihe S"nchronistic llis­ton

- Eclectic Chronicle = ABC no. 24: from Isin II d}ltasl\ (be!()J'c ~larduk-sfipil--/0ri) IIntil a period littC'r than Sallnaneser V.

- (Chronicle of Market Prices = ABC no. 23: f1'Ol11 Bahll"n I ,hnast' [before ll ammlH1lpi'J ulllil the H'igll of Nahll-sli ma-iskull) 'I~

" (:. ,~·t' fur ill".\1)[(-' Blu' .... "" (1993) nfl7 for it .. doubtful d.l\-

lit ~ilir.uiul1 .l" iI dl1ouific, fill till' \"1 iou ", t,thlt,,\ 01 the TUllltlial Chmllidt' ,t't' O~ L.'"­~Ht, ill : /.\ lrllrk" (200~~) 2()9-2~ I (indudin~ m'w rolla-11011\) ,

'" I'll(' ME< i, 1101 Ilt't't''i~.tlih ('o ll\id l' ITd it rhrolliric: '1M nltl\h..~I\' ( 19nr.) ()ti7,

I hi\ '(Iuonidt" j, IIH'lt'\~UH lO (' hlonulo~" (\\, S~'H:''''' II~m71 ~IO) itud ",illthl'll'fol{' IlOl Ill' fUllht'l' di,ClI .... 't·(1.

- Chronicle BM 27796 = ABC no. 25 (hypothetically): from the Kassite dynast} (reign ofAdad-suma-ll,ur) to the Isin II d}11a\ty (reign of Adad-apla-iddina)

General

EO/_\RD (1980-1983) 85-86; GL\S,,'[R. ChrMis (and 2004; English lIanslation of ChrMes); GRAYSO', ABC and (1980-19 3) 86-88; \\''\LKER (1982) 398-417; http: "",w.lh;m.org/ cg-cm chronicle chronOO.hunl (Allg. 2007)

Selected further studies

BRI'''-''.-\.'' (1962) 8-1-85, MSKH and (1995) 667-670; G.\SCHE fl al., Dalillg ... H and table; GRAI>O" (1980) 171-182; H~LLO (1983) 13-14: KRECHER - MGUER

(1975) 24, 28-30: Ry"ClR (1996) 9-60: ScJt\ttOTKr (1952) 20-29: \.\' ETE.Rl> (1997) 79-92: WILCKE (1988) 130-133

General Features and Historical Relevance

GR~\'O', .\.BC 4 defines chronographic texts, which include KLs and chronicles, as those which are essential" composed along chronological lines:·I '

Chronicles are prose narraLions of evenlS arranged in chronological ordel-~ -'1l t sorted by rulers or year : - ... A.llem An chein nach sind solche Chroniken alls fortlallfenden lind dann tradierten AlIfzeichnungen yon Zeitgeno<;;;sen hervorgegangen ..... \21 A dislinc­tion among " 'pes of chronographic texts is essential, but it is not ah"1\"s possihle to calegorize a text. For in~tance chronicles and K.Ls are do 'ely interrelated and some tim e cannOt be difTerentiatcd from each other (like the D,nastic Chronicle). The beginning of the AKL simph lisls one ruler after another (and therefore is a clt'arh distinguishable chronogmphic

..... GU').. .... 't.R CWO·I) :n: "l.i,l ... and chronicle.;; ct"rtainh lx'longt'<1 to tht~ ,amc.~ chrollogr .. 'phic genre, ,ince their aUlhor~ \\I;"rt' moth.ut·d 1)\ the '.HIlt' (OnCl'rn for (hron~ logicill ore!. .......... "

\:!II St'e a sp('dal «ht', Ihl' MEC, wht-rt' i.H Ic.'a't on(' imporlafll

t'H'nt i, chrollicll~d for t'ilCh cpomll1 ,e,1I (BIROT (19R5]

219-242: "'\.'$'t'ri'lll ( ~hronicl(', "). ',::!L KRl',UItR-~tlll"R (19it) ~l.

112 \le' opot.uni.Ul Chronolo~ ()f tht."' ~nd \lilJl~ nl1illm B(

text): but the nalTati\e eClions in it belong to Ihe chronicle genre (GR.\\so,. ABC -I) : "Th", Ihe\." , r­ian Nng LiS! iIIu,trates quile well Ihe faer thaI il i, impo"ible 10 stud, chronicle, in isolation from king Jj"its. - ',_ _ 0.,;

The slUd, of these lexts in terms of ancient liler­an pallen" (GR.",o,. ABC.'>-6 and 193-201) help, to elucIdate their origin and aerual purpo<e. Fir,t it i impotlam to note the state of preseryation. the ,ize and ,hape of Ihe lablet. Llrge lablets u,ual ll comain ~olophons and in some cases the~ are pan of a senes (Bab, Ionian Chronicle series"" ). The, contain "catch lines" and fonned an illlegral pan of a library. 13\ contrast mall tablets. haped like bmi­ness documents. were usual" · composed for ptilate use (the Eclenic Chronicles [ABC nos. 23-2-1] and Chronicle B~I 21796)_ GUS..,"ER (200·1) 3, referred to chronicles as "a kind of handbook that reduced h!Ston to a erie of facts."

. ince date-Iits and the late chronicles hale iden­ucal pattern, it ma, be that bl the time the lear­names were being replaced b,' dating according to r.egnal lears (around 1500 BC Or later), scribes con­unued 10 compile such texts, although the oliginal purpose for them no longer existed. Howe\er. this is nothtng more than a hl-pothesis, ince no lexts are known from the transitional petiod and the lext­group "chronicles" has no unifonn panern '!, F r . Our Iteran panerns or fOrn1ulae can be distinguished:

A) "The lear when ... "; "X (number oflears) werel are the years of the king" (ABC nos. 1-17)

B) "The king ruled for X years" (Dmastic Chronicle: therefore also considered as a KL ... BKL)

C) Royal name followed bl narralile (Tum I Ch ' ,. ' ma

rolllcle, \\ eldner Chronicle Ki'ng Ch . I ' roOte e Bab) Ionian Chronicle Fragment I ) '" '

D) Synchronistic pattern: IWO conte mpo rary ru lers of d Ifferent cou n tries a re PU t side by ~ id e

m ~e J.\'~I"8fR(~FR <.195-1) 34-~ for the chronicalhlic partli pan\ or th(" AKL In\"ohing Sam;i-Adad's J fit' r h thron('. 'J/Uf(" () I t'

Its main ~ourc~ mal("riaJ was the astronomical d iari(·~ h('('

~J'I,() Lht' Chrollide of \ farket Prices, AB C no. 23,. Sc:'C' f .'1 In'lan(e V"" ~f,HR" (1997) 8Off. with Ii tera tllH', or ~l~t'r fa( lOri rna) ha\'e pJa}'('o some role. ~u(h as til<.' lI\(' o t 1(,:,)(, lahl('~ for d ivinalion, o r 'limplc Cullllral/ rt'liuio COIl't'nau'tm (GRA'r')O' ABC 5) h U't

, :!,: • ~.

•• "'~)I(: l.h<ll nUN I<:xl\ of th i\ group al ~J r('pOrt on tlw (,' trli-tl P(~ I I(xh. .:

(Chronicle p, Chronicle) " ..

,n(hroni'lic lIistory, Ecleclic

The ,,,riou, t, pes of (hronographic texIS ha'e COn.

nec!tons ",th one anOlher (for details see G ' [ 1<lRO] 1-<) -- R\\5O\

." ' _-11/), thollgh thei. oligin and fU llction dIffer (\A:\ n~R.~ [1997] 80, GLI"'''''f R [2004] 38-39); thl" one can d"llIlgu"h bel\\eC'n KLs and chronicles .\!' GR.\\",), poimed Ollt, chronicles (among olhel: lexlS) al>o selTed as a WII ITe 1'01' the compilation of the AKL and for (Al>s\lian) royal inScriptions,'" ChronIcle ~,a\ al,o haH' been used for keeping track of ''llchromsms throughoUl histol. 10 bridge periods of pohocallI1stablhr. (e.g .. DUB-pi-slI"petiods; R()wG

(1969) 27-1-275 di tinguishes between chronicles and tex~ wrinen chronicle-slyle). Still . il is purely hypo­theuc,tI that chrolllcles were Ihe forerunners of the All. It is more like" that ELs scr,ed as the priman source malerial for KLs (~ REL). '''' '

"l\1ixed~ texts (different formulation and emphasis)

The classification of historiogl1lphical texIS is "idelv debaled, '"". Basicalll', chron icles are narrativcs of politi­cal or rehg>ous e\'ents in ch ronological o rder (-t

abOle) .. GL.'5.~-;fR (CI.,,\fis) defi nes chronicles as prose texIS '<TIlten in the third person lhal briefly note selecl­ed elents by dale, However BRI\,h.,\LI.., (1995) 668 point. ed out that all these charactetistics can be fo und in roval annals as well (e.g., the Blad. Obelisk of Sal. maneser III). On the other hand, it has been noted thaI rOlal imcriptions might hal e sen'ed as source material for chronicles (such as for the Synchronistic Histol)'). Some chronicles like the (Assyrian) S~'1Ch ronislic 11is­ton and the (Babylonian ) Chron icle P, comain epic­hke sections with direct speech and th us do not con­form to the res t of thc chronicle u·adition."" GRAI'liO~, ABC J94-1 95 noted that Ihe distinction between date­li sLs and chronicles i; that th e chaf'dCletistic fonllula of chronicles is "year - x - narration" wh creas thaI of date-lislS is "year - narration" or "x _ year-name of the

526 ,," ' \21 . .. Ole aho Ihe Synchronistic KL.

( 1 980-1 9H3) 86 anel ( I 'lHO) I(H- 170;;eo R(,II I(, ( 1969) 90 w~o d~ ~() po inted 0 111 Midd le A'WI ian lOya l in.,c l iplions wuh ht 'ilOri ci:i1 CKCUr'l ll "l. .

In hi, t"ialx)nt lt: 1969 ' Iudy. ROllI(, .trgut'd againM E1...'I <1\

~ ~)IIr«.\ for the AKL (Pl>. HH-92),

Set' D~" w\ Imq 37 ( 1975) ~J~j-!j11 «·'pt.'(; ially Oil H;IIJ>lonian r hlOl1Id('s), "'01 a gC' IH'ral vi<'w 011 the lli ~lOriog/'a phi c

',:WI value of d,ronicl(',s '1( . ( . a l ~o VAN SI' I I' It" ( IVU7) 9 1-92, 0" the /'c lm ioll 'ihip betwe'c ll LIlt' SYI1( III Oll i~ l i c Ili !'ltOl)' :I ud ( ;hroni c; I(' P \ ('C VAN S" -II'K." ( 19H7) SG-H7,

7. Chronicle') 113

king". These fOlID ulae suggest a close connection between the twO Iypes; but chronicles certainly must have d raml on more sources than date-lislS because they were written for specific purposes or aimed at spe­cific topi s such as building activities (Tum mal Chroni­cle), the butial places of kings (Dynastic Chronicle) , ~le provision of fish for the Marduk-cull (Weidner Chronicle) , the history of Assyro-Babylon ia n relalions (Synchronistic Histo ry, Chron icle 13M 27796, King Chronicle), even ts re lati ng to Babylon ian history (Chronicle P, 13M 27796, King Chronicle) and com­mercial quotations in astronomical diaties (Chronicle of Market Prices) . Various fonnu lae are used depend­ing on the chronicles' purpose. These different pat­lelllS of narrative may have been derived from such other sources;':\1 as omen texts/~2 astronomical dial;es,' date-lislS,"1 other chronicles,'" royal inscrip­tions, annals, literary texts, e tc.'''' As GlASS-;ER (2004) 45 Slated: "The question of sources is practical ly insolu­ble". (See id ., pp. 46-48 on the various histOliograph i­cal "oilings of Ass)1i a and Babylonia which could have sen 'ed as source ma terial for some chronicles).

Not a ll the texIS designated as "chronicle" by GRAI'SO~, ABC o r GLASS:-lER, ChrMis a re universally agreed to be such . GALTER (2000) 29- 33 objected to the designatio n "chro nicle" fo r the Syn ch ron istic His-1Of) on the basis of ilS use of language, in which he saw connections to royal inscriptio ns. treaties and epics (Tukulti-Ninurta epic) .'" In particular the ,'n­chronistic History 's closing sente nce he believed to hale been copied fro m a nari't-inscription .'''' a type o f literary text (p . 33). Galle r regarded Ihe Weidner Chronicle and Chronicle P as literary le n ers.'''' T he early pan of th e King Chro nicle clearly comains SOurce malcrial fro m o me ns, as does the \\'cidne r Chronicle. On the othe r hand th e Dynaslic Chroni­cle, which starLS with th e a ntediluvian d 'nasties,3HJ shows 'cry close para ll els in fo rm and style 10 thc SKL (GRAYSON [ 1980] 177-1 0).'" GR.-\\ ():-I observed Ihat none of Ih c chronicles wh ich cove r particularly lo ng

"I (;\In. (20()O) 3 1.

; F~"" .' If" , PIPS 107 (1963) 470. (, It\\"t( )\, \ BC 1 :~ 11 : \, \\ St:rUL\ ( 1997) 8 1; O n .blronom· itill di.uit' \ "t't' Ilr'( il R - 3.\<1 IS . .. \51,.(mOI1l;(I/ /);mlr:, (Iud Hrlllird 'fr.\'h /ivm 8n/))'/0I1 ;a, \\' jel\ 1988 1989. 1996 and 200 I. " . . . hH ('xa tll plc, lh t.' Bab) lo ni:ln Chronicle .;t.'ri es: GR"\~O" (19HO) 173,

'on F or t'''J lltph.' , thl' We i Ine l Chronicle obviousl) provided

'''-1 '~HHU' IlMtn iallor th e King Chron icle. ." ~1I 1It' - MlI"' . ( 1975) 29-30, ", St'(' "Iso C"''''''' ( 1980) 18 1.

Set' KW.U' ItHt - l\I ll.IJR (1975) 20-2 1, PO\( :1l\11-Lt' l" 11'''1.

W()30 ( 1999) 67- 90 "!lei SL\~,'" (2000) 9:>- 11 4.

periods of time contains tl'pologically uniforn1 entries. Their purpose of compilation therefore often remains unknown. The debate on the classification of Mesopotamian chronicles and lexlS dealing "ith chronology will certainly continue. Due 10 the vary­ing nature of chronicles as well as the diversity of top­ics and periods treated, different times of redaction are proposed (for a detailed description and study of chronicles see GRAYSO-;, ABC 29ff. and [ J980-1983] 86ff.) . Most of them date to the 1 I millennium BC:""

• King Chronicle: unknown (preserled on 1\<0 late Babylonian tablets)

• Dynastic Chronicle: unknown (811' cenl.?, preserled tablet from the ASsurbanipal library in :-.Iinel·eh)

• Weidner Chronicle: 71h '61h cem. BC (KRECHER -~r(;LLER [1975] 25): three copies pre en'ed, one Neo-Assyrian and two I\eo-Babvlonian; earliesl redaction perhaps done during the late E'assite periodl early r in \I dynast\' or Babylon I dynasl}'

• Eclectic Chronicle: l " millennium BC

• Synchronistic History: I" mille nnium BC (from the ASSurbanipal librar) in Nine"eh; Adad-niriiri m: see G.-I.LTER [2000] 34)

• Chronicle P: 1" millen nium BC (according to GRA\, 50S, ABC 56 original might be dated 10 1157 BC)

• Middle Assyrian chronicles (fragments): 14ill/ 121l,

cem . BC (KRECHER - MeLLER [1975] 29)

• Tummal Chronicle: Isin I dVllasr.'

Synchronistic Ties and Relations

Babylonian ch ronology is ul ti matelv based o n S)11-chro nisms with Assyri an rule l , wh ich are mainly prOl;ded by the S)11chronistic KL, Ass}Tian royal annals and chronicles. Basic in fonnation on S) nchro­nism be lween Assyria, Babylo nia and (10 a Iimiled extent) Elam can be d rawn fro m the Synchronistic HislO'1', Chronicle P (incl uding Elamile ki ngs) and Chronicle B~I 27796.'" Howe"er, "ithi n Ihe chroni-

,19 See \l.-R \W1. Imq52 ( 1990) 1- 13 on the tablet n1 12..J..1 70. ... See FN 'FL,jC 32 (1980) 65-i2. "4t BRJ ' ..... ' l\., (l99~ l 99i) (i de ... ignatro the Dnlastic Chroni­

cle .\S a KL. Tht' D)11.blk Chronidt~ h c1o ... eh related to the SKL, but d ifTer,\ b, lhe additional "[.ltemelll lhin ~the king \\ <15 buried in .. , ". BKL

.\.t:! See \ \). SHfR.. ... (1 9~)7) 79-92. For i\ dinerem \;ew on lhe dependenc~ of tht" Smchronh tic ll i"' LOI'- and Chronicle P from thai of CR.\)!'o()' '1e~ pp. S()....87.

'4' Sn l'UOTI\.f ( 1952) 210", di"cu\:I(,'d '10 111 (' of lhe mO~1 impor~

talll svnchfOnh m", fo r ch rotl olo~,,·.

114 \lesopotamian Chronol~' of lht' 2nd :\lil lenniulll Be

cles no exact reference point in time for the mchro­nism i prmided ( General sub 1.2.1."'This makes the construction of an absolute chronology on the basis of the chronicle cited above nearh' impo ible. although refinements are sometimes possible (e.g. ~inurta-apil-Ekur). In combination "ith annals. an approach towards a closer chronological framework can be accomplished. The annals also often correct £aI e tatements in the chronicles ( ee Chronicle P). 4 General sub 1.6.2.

Specific S)nchroni m are cited in the ancient sources:

Puzur-ASSur ill & Burna-BuriaS I (S}nchronistic History)

ASSur-bel-niSeSu & Kara-indaS (Smchronistic Histon. see GRA"~:o.. ABC 222)

ASSur-nadin-abbe U & KurigaIzu I (?; 4 sub Chronicle P)

Erib",Adad I & Kwigalzu I (?; 4 sub Chronicle P)

ASSur-uballit I & Burna-Burla.< U (S~nchronistic History)

ASSur-uballit I & KarakindaS

(S}nchronistic History. see GR,"~:o.. ABC 211 and 222 sub KarabardaS)

ASSur-uballit I & azi-BugaS (Synchronistic History, Chronicle P)

ASSur-uballit I & Kwigalzu U

(Synchronistic Historv, Chronicle P, see GM\~" ABC 223) . ,

Enlil-nlrari & Kwigalzu U

(Synchronistic History, Assyrian Chronicle Fragment I: see G~~x, ABC 66)

Adad-nlliiri I & KadaSman-Turgu (4 sub Ch ronicle P)

Adad-niriiri I & N azi-MarultaS

(S}nchronistic History, Chronicle P [restored ])

Tmlli~NmwuI&KaSillWuN

(S}nchronistic History, Chronicle P, Synchronistic KL [restored ] see GRAI"iO,-':, ABC 222, 249)

Tukulti-Nmurta I & Adad.suma-u~ (4 sub Chron icle P)

Enlil-kudurri-U$ur & Adad.sum...u~ur (4 sub Synchronistic History and Chronicle P)

...... Only ~e B~bylon ia n Chronicle series provides dates, including day, monlh and }'ear. WI with

Ninwu-apil-Ekur & Adad.suma-u~ur

( mchronistic History. Synchronistic KL [restored])

ASSur-diin I & Zababa~uma-u~ur ( }1lChronistic Histon, Synchronistic KL [restored])

ASSur-resa-iSi I & Nebuchadnezar I ( mchronistic Hbton. mchroni tic KL)

Tiglath-pileser I & Marduk-nadin-abbe

( mchronistic History, S\1;an Ch ronicle Fragment 4 [.ce GR\l~:o.. ABC 67], S)1lchronistic KL)

ASSur-beJ-kala & Marduk-Siipik-zeri

( mchronistic H i ton, Eclectic Chronicle Synchro-ni tic KL [restored]) •

ASSur-bel-kala & Adad-apla-iddina

( mchronistic History. l11chronistic KL [restored])

Ulam-Buria.< & Ea-glimil (& KaStilia.<u ill?) (King Chronicle. mchronistic KL [?: see GRA"SO~ ABC 249]) .

Duma-AN & Samsuiluna (King Chronicle)

Duma-AN & Abi-club (Ki ng Chron icle)

Burna-BuriaS U & Muballitat-Serua (4 Ch ronicle P)

Enlil-na<iitHumi & Kidin-Hutran ill (Chronicle P)

Adad.suma-iddina & Kidin-Hutran ill (Chron icle P)

Value for Absolute Chronology

~e largest group of extant chron icles is the Babylo-man Chro . I . me e senes (ABC nos. 1-13) containing about 15 texts and fragme n ts, which report on the peri­od between 747 and 539 BC (year of the Persian con­quest). It relates th e mili tary and po li tical alTail~ of the Babylonian kings accordi ng to th eir regnal yea l~. Frag­ments of an earlier Assyrian chro nicle come from the library of Tigla th-pileser I (Tiglath-piJeser Chronicle: see ABC 66-{j7 and 184-189 sub "Assyrian Chronicle Fragments"'''), blll arc too rew to tell us wh ether or not SO~cthi.ng similar as th e Babylonian Chronicle series ~XISted 10 Assy.i a a~ well. They conta in less precise dat­lOb'S an~ difTer considera bly in characte r from the Babylo nIan chronicles. When using chronicles for his­toncal or chronological purposes, o ne should always con~ldcr the chronicle,' date, o rigin and purpose.

'" Se (' e ... I.A.\"'''';R. Chr Mc~ 174-1 7H (c-hronicl(' fr::tgl1lents of Enlil· IlIran (no, 74 J. Adk-dcn-ili [no. 75], Tukulu-NinurLI I {no. 781. Mlur-rcsa-il i I [no. 85J and Tigl",h-pilcser 1 [110. 87J.

7. Chronicles ll5

7.1. Synchronis tic H istory

Figure 4 GRA'">O'. ABC no. 21. 1'1. XXlII

The primary and unique source for chronicle tradi­tion in Assyria is lhe Synchronistic History (ABC no. 21, pI. XXIII) (Fig. 4) ... • three versions of which were found in ASsurbanipa l's libra,)' in ineveh. It is

assumed that lhe sources for th is lext must have been quite compre he nsive because virtua lly all known contacts between Ass}Tia and Babylonia in the time be tween Puwr-ASsur III and Adad-nirar1 III ( 10-783) are me ntio ned here. The propagandistic nature of this text is indicated best by its accoulll of lhe border connicts be twee n th e two powe rs. which emphasizes the borde r offe nces by the Babylonians in favor of th e Assyria ns. T hus. the text is wrillen from a pro-Assyrian pe rspective. It incl udes 20 episodes (separated on the ta blets by ho rizon tal lines) of borde r contracts b reached by Babylonia and subsequently resoh ed to the Ass)Tians' benefit. Clo,e para lle ls fo r this text ma) be found in inscrip­tions of various Assyrian kings (VAN SETFRS [ 1997] 4; -> above for furth e r sources discussed by GALTER (2000) 31 fL ) .

'M! St-e C\I HR (20(}O) 29-37, The [{'Xl ('"n also be found in GI.\" ".. ChyM" 170-17 I a",1 id. (2004) 176-183 slIb "S)llrhrolli'lic ( ;lllOnirle", TIl(' S),nchronisLi r llislOI) was 1""" I.Jled by II F< KI· , ill r 'I' N.F. 2 (2005) 42-15. On p. -12 Ih.'tkt'l pro\'ide.; it li st of s),l1 chronisllls b(' l\\l't~ 1l Assyrian ,\lui B.,b} loni,m K:.1 :<.,~ilt· rukrs ,IC('Oldillg to col. 1 of the ob\,t' l'\t' of til{" S) I\chronistic Ilbtory.

The introduction of the Synchronistic History is mostly lost'" It is followed by the main pan on Ass)'­ro-Babylonian relations and runs parallel to the Syn­chronistic KL. The early Kassite kings (nos. 7-14), who are preserved in the ASSur Synchronistic KL, can be complemented by the Synchronistic History and the King Chronicle (see BRlNKMA.'1, MSKH 6 fT. and 4 Babylonia). The dates for the earliest Kassite kings may be calculated from the duration of the dynasty given at the end ofBKL A (576 years, 9 months for 36 kings). The abbreviated fonn of the names of Kassite kings no . 26-36 given in BKL A can be restored on the basis of the Synchronistic History and the literary text K. 2660 [= ill R 38, 2],"" which relates to the end of the Kassite dynasty.

The Synchronistic History has been frequen tly cited in discussions on the length of reign of Nmurta-apil­Ekur (no. 82, 4 AKL sub 2.2.I.5.).549The Nass. KLsays he reigned 13 years. and the Chors. and SDAS KLs only three. In order to resolve this dilemma it has been argued that according to the S)nchronistic History, the death of the Kassite king Adad.suma-u$ur is to be placed after the end of reign of Enlil-kudurri-w;ur (no. 81) and during the reign of inurra-apil-Ekur (no. 82). Because Tiglath-pileser I sunived Marduk-niidin-a1Joe. ROIITON (1966) 241 and HORXL'NG (1964) 40-41 claimed that a 13 rear reign for Ninurta-apil-Ekur has to be accepted in order to halIDonize tlle inten -al.s men tioned in tlle AKL and BKL. Howe"er, BoESE - W IL­HEL\J (1979) 26-28 pointed out that the passage in the Synchronistic History dealing with Ninurta-apil-Ekur is broken (GRA~N, ABC 162 and BRlNI(.\IAN, PHPKB 87). It was assumed that this passage describes an unsuc­cessful campaign by the Babylonians. For a probable 10 of the 1lchronism between Ninuna-apil-Ekur and

dad.suma-u>ur see BRlNI(.\tA.'1, MSKH 3239. According to BoESE - WIUIEL\l no conclusive evidence can be offe red for either tllree or 13 'ears on the basis of this chronicle. Howevel; epooyms~'" and Distanzangaben imply that 13 years are correct. On the discrepancies between tlle Synchroni tic History and Chronicle P conceming the sequence of Ba bylonian rulers between Burna-BuriaS II and Kllligalzu II 4 below sub 7.3.'"

'U7 111is lext is a rather carele~h written docllme lll with man\' scrib.."ll f lTOrs: BRI'K.\t\.' . PH'PKB 32150.

.... T\D" O< (1958) 129- \41. PKHPB 6-90. Ilistorical Epic ~~9 For his allcestry see C\.i\CtK· K1RSO -IBAUM (1999) 215-222. '\'10 CA 'iCI .... K1RSCltB.-\U ~t (1999) 2 17 slressed the o\ emll reliabil·

it) of the Nass. KL ....\1 For a SUllunap, see also BR" .... .\tAS . M KH 428-423,

116 \tt' \opotalnii\ll Chronolo~ of' lhl' ~\lI1 \lillellniulll I3C

Olltll1lt of the SPlchIVlliltic History

prologue (lo,t ) lacuna first two \ections 1) and 2) in re\(~'T~e chronological

order. PUlllr-.-\.."ur III & Buma-Buria, I. Ram­indaS & Assur-bel-ni~c:sl1

3) and 4) _-\S'ur-uballi\1 & RamI-indaS.' ,\'"i-BugaS & Kurigalzu II

5) Enlil-niriili & Kurigalzu II 6) Adad-niriiri I & :\azi-~[an1lta, i) Tukulti-:\inurta I & KastiliaSu IY

) EnW-kudurti-tI>ur & Adad-suma-u,ur 9) .lliur-diin I & Zababa-suma-iddina lacuna 2 10) A55ur-re\a-isi 1& :\ebuchadnel.Lar I II) Tiglath-pile,er 1 & ~larduk-nadin-abbe 12) treaty between .-\Ssur-bel-kala and ~larduk-sapik­

zeri, later .-\dad-apla-iddina \\<l> appointed b, .lliur-bel-kaIa

13) Adad-nirari ]] & -amaS-mudammiq who was suc­ceeded b\ :\abll-suma-ukin

14) Salmaneser III & :\abii-apla-iddina who was suc­ceeded b, ~Iarduk-ziikir-sjjmi

lacuna 3

15) -amSi-Adad \' & ~Iarduk-balassu-iqbi & Baba-aha-iddina. his succe 'Or (bad" broken)

lacuna 4

16) Adad-niriiri III (bad" broken) 17)epilogue

7.2. King Chronicle

The e,idence for Bab,lonian chronicles before the I t millennium Be is limited. - TI,e Chronicle of Ear" Kings or King Chronicle (ABC no. 20), most probabl} deri,ed from omen literature. It reports on ",ents that took place in ~Ie,opotamia from the reign of Sargon of Akkad to the reign of Agum ilL'" TIle purpo~e of thi~ text remains unknown~ but it is COIl-

~ The \ectiom, arc usually clhided b\-' hori/ontal lin<.-\. ~, On the reading of this name sec BR"K\lA\i, .\1SKJ I 420. Jt

ha, also!>een read Kard-barda.\: \('t' G \\(IU ,1 fll .• /)fltinK ..

table (king no. 20) and ~A''''~\t\.''' ''''HAl "'I '. \fDAR 62-'. ----. below sub 7_3.

56<1 '~(' '\hona~e (~f ("h~ooi~f(,,\ from the 2nd mill(~nJliurn may be due to "abu-na,If, klllg or Bab)lon (741;-734 BCi. who B<'r~'\OS. s~ud to haH' d(:!')IH»)t'd all {"Xi'\ling hi~torical records 1Il ordt'r to haH:' hi'\wry 'itart with him: L"'1nuCI (1990) 27.

'Y.$ ~or two more Babyloniall chronicl(' fragment ... (K. IOfJ09. K. 14011). whl(h aJ\Q cm'er Ih(~ JX'riod of ~JIl'iuillina of

side red ba,ical" historical" reliable. Still, 'erification of it b, othel SOlllTes is lIeeded.

The ,eclioll about SargOIl in the earl\' palt of the King Chronicle ("ontaim religious propagandistic material mo,t like" copied from the Weidllel Chron­icle. IIhich lIa, mainh concerned with the provision of lish-offerinh'" 10 the temple of ~Iarduk. ,,. Because the author mu~t haye drawn upon information from a ,-ariet) of 'omce, ill order to produce a chronicle for the ear" hi,ton of Babslonia. its original p"rpOle is not fulh app,uen!. AnOther problem is its date of redaction: because its accoUIll of the Babylon I d~lla,n i fundamental" correct (although most kings are mi .. sing) whereas th{' 3rd mil1enniUIll material is mixed "ith legend, L\stBt RT (1990) 28 postulated that the King Chronicle is a late cops sharing Some fea­tures "ith (he I'" millennium Chronicle cries.

The re,-erse of the King Chronicle tablet which pos­sibly refel to ~lurSili's I mid on Bab) Ion (-t Babylonia and Hittite Chronology sub 19.9.1.), also contains infomlation on the beginning and end of the Sealand I dynasty. '" It reports that Ulam-Buri..s (brother of KaStiliaSu IU and Agum, -t below) conquered the Sealand after Ea-g-dmil of the Sealand I dm3.'>tv Oed to Elam. This ob\iousl) happened dUling KastiliaSu's III reign, whom Ulam-BuliaS later succeeded. He united Akkad and the Sealand and was the ftrst king after Hammu-riipi' to rule oyer the whole of Bab\lonia (see BRI'''-'l,-', ~fSKH 318-319). Further, the Chronicle gives an account of a military campaign by Agum ill, the nephew of L' lam-BuriaS, against the SeaJand.'" It refer; to Clam-BuriaS as the brother of Kalitili..su, while the latter calls Burna-BuriaS his father (on Burna-Bud­as see BRI,\,,-st\.,\, MSKH 100ff.). This seems consistent ",th the SplChronistic KL (BR""-S1A', MSKII 11-12), although one ruler, whose name is broken, must hare ruled between Burna-Burias I and Ka~tilia~u. Already WlII)'f R (I926) 72-74 assumed that the sons of Buma· Buria~ I were Ka~tiliaSu III and Ulam-BuriaS. According

lht' Babylon f dyna.\ty (?; J d't'rrillg 10 til<" K:.l'i~il(''i?) . \;t'C L.A\flUKI (1990) 27-~H. A((:wding' 10 I.ambt'rt. til(' ('()\er­as,w of lhi'\ period \,'(:m\ lO Ix' reli .. bl(, . On p, ~8 hc' atlrib­ut('d lht' fr-dWlwnt\ in GkAY-,()'I,j. AIl( 190-192. which al'io l1anl(' IIlJ1na·A~ (\-OIIH'lilll('" lead IhIllHna-i1I1). W the Bab~l()n I dyna.,\ly (t''i». Salll'ildlul1;l) .IUel 1I0l 10 til(' hill I p<'ricxl. a~ GIlA'!'''')' ctid.

Mt. For funhl'r 'i()urct'\ of 11)(' King Cillollidt, ,(:,(' U S~ nll\ (19'17) H3

~'i7 HI

>vI",,," ( 192(i) lib-77, II,,,.,,,, ( I \I!I1-1'l'l7) h-IO, (~RA\·\()'. ABC no, 20, ICV. I-X.

RoyaJ Inscription,

7. Chronicles 117

to BKL A the Babylon I dynasty ruled 300 ycan. and the Sealand I dynasty 3(iS years. Both dynasties must have existcd synchronically for 147 years, since the lirst year of Duma-AN (first ruler of the Scaland dynasty) corre­sponds with the 9th ycar of Samsuiluna. lluma-AN was also a contl'mpOl"ry of Abj-eSub. "'~J Though Iluma-AN successfullv resisted the Babylonian kings, Ea-g-dmil, the last ruler of the Sealand I dynast), Oed to Elam before the invasion by the Kassite ruler Ulam-BuriaS.

The proposed synchronism benveen the Assyrian llu,uma (no. 32) and Sumuabum is based on an obscure passage at the end of the text and has to be rejected, not only because of thc impossible identift­cation of 'Su-a-bu with Sumuabum, but more particu­larlv because the known reign Icngths of the Ass}rian and Babvlonian kings during this peliod rule out its

possibility:"" The King Chroniclc, like the Tummal and Weidner

chronicles, also deals with the earliest periods of histo­ry (see WH.<KE [1988] 130-133). All of them focus on a sanctuary of a certain city and report on the ruler's fate, which was dependent on the god. The early ntlers appear in the same line of order as in the SKL""

Outline of the King ChIVllic/e

I) reign of Sargon of Akkad _ 2) reign of ~aral1l-Sin of Akkad & Sulgi of the Ur III

d\11ast, 3) E~m-imitti and Enlil-bani of the lsin I d)11asl) &

ll"ma-A~ of the Sealand 1 dynast)' 4) Hammu-riipi' of the Babylon I dynasn' & Rim.sin I

of Lal,a, Samsuiluna & Rim in Il 5) Abl-dub of the Babllon I d) nasl)' and a later inser­

tion conccming the Hittite attack on Babylon in the reign of Samsuditana (fall of the Bab, Ion I dyna\ly?)

6) Ell-gamil of the Sea land I dynasty who was replaced b\ Ulam-Burias

7) Agum III of the Kassite dynasl)'.

... 1.\\1)"" 0(,10 (1% I) LiB'7'. 11,,,.,,,, (1991-1997) 6.

.. ,/ St,C", R{H It(~ ( 1 ~1()5) ~·t5-2·17 \,ith rdert' llce'" to earlier di;;­

nl"IUU'" b\ Fnl \I{J) (1957) 92-9:l l :,:! ~tnd mlwrs. "', W" ( ., (1982) :1 I-52 and (1988) I 11-1 10 (on lhe SKI ""­

c1ilion: ".Ult'CdOll·' m hi\lOrit'lIl""). 'Il St't' ,\I~o .111 ,HTOIlIll on rt'bliolh bt'lWt'l'll ll.lbylonia and

FI.1I11 III Iht, fr.lgllH.'1lt 01 '11l historical epic pn"t'lItl'd b~ CIt\'",,,. !Jilln'tallitHl J/i.\Wt-;m/-l.itrm,..,.· r,"<h. Toronto and Bun.lln (1975') 17--!"15. fill' \t'~ml'1\1 (;r Chronicle P <kaling Will! Iht.' nab,lolliOln·EI.ullill' .t'illtiom i, fonnuL\tt'ci ill '-' 'I\'lt· ",hid, j,' lime to l'pk pOt'ln. Thi, ma\ inciic,\l{' thal thi, dU'onidl' i, hit-It'd on two difft,rt'nt ~()urn's: "Ct' Rt)\\­Ill, ( I!lfill ) 21l.

7.3. Chronicle P

Chronicle P{inches) (ABC no_ 22) deals with the latter half of the 2nd mjJJennium BC. Generally speaking it is a narration of events relating to Babylonia during the Kassite period, more precisely a report on Babylonian­Asspian and Babylonian-Elamite military relations."" Only one third of the tablet is preserved. Its date is uncertain, but since the narrative StOPS at the end of the Kassite dynasty, it was probably composed during that time. Though written in Babylonia, four Babylo­nian setbacks are reported, a fact which led GR.wso:-; (198~1983) 88 to the conclusion that this source is more reliable than the Synchronistic History from the historical point of siew. Some parts of Chronicle P show direct parallels "ith those from the S)nchronistic History (see GM'iSO"l [198~1983] 88 and VAN SETER.~

[1997] 86-87 on the n,o texts' close relation). Unlike other chronicles it contains an epic-like section (on the successfi.ll campaigns of Kurigalzu il).""

R6wG (1967) 175-177 discussed the reliabilil)' of Chronicle P. Of special interest to him were the sec­tions in which Chronicle P parallels the Synchronistic History and where there are several discrepancies. Chronicle P was considered the better tractition, but Rollig demonstrated that in three instances Chroni­cle P is not as reliable as pre\iously thought:""

1. Chronicle P sas Kurigalzu {m was the son of RadaS­man-tlarbe I. but inscriptions pro"e this to be incor­rect;"" The S)11chronistic Histon correctly gi\'es Kun­galm 11 as the son of Burna-BuliaS II. BlIt this mistake ma\ be the kev to the rest of the differing tractition of Chronicle P: Kurigalzu I was the son of KadaSman­lIarbe I and not a contempomry of A55ur-uballi! I.". The Synchronistic History' reports for the Early Kassite dynasty smchronisms ben"en Puzur-Assur III & Burna-BuriaS I and K.al-a-indaS & i\S-ur-bel-nis.;su. KUligalzu I therefore W-,15 the gl-andson or nephew of Kam-inda' {ule exact relationship ben,'een his prcde-

" , On it, parallel, \,;Ih alb, Ionian epic:"> ... ee (;R.\'~" ABC 57 . " ... See also BRI'~\IA', MSKII-tI8-423 (for "Iimih,lT results see

Rl)Lut; [196:)1 -120 \\ith a Ii ... , or di"-l~,rreen1{.'nts). Note y,\..'

OU'" (1986) 159-liO comparing the leller ,~S 24: 91 (a..~~ dated with the Chedorlaomer tablets: -+ HistoncaJ EplC). in \\ hich the camp~\iKns again'll £lam (Unt~NapiriSa) b\ Kurigalzu 11 arc dc"cribed. \\ith Chronicle .P. 1 !o~\'e\-:~':i~l Chronic-It- P Burna-nll1;il; 11 i ... named a~ lIlL.u,-:\'apll1"\ 'I

ad\,cnk,\I"\.

'A' Sec .,hoUR""-'I\..' (1970) ~W3'tO, :.0 .... For it table cOlllainillg direct 'i\nchroni'lm" between &\by­

Ionian and \.. ..... ,;;\,;<\11 ruleno !'oce BRI' ..... 'U'. MSKH ~:lO.

1I8 \Ie- opotamian Chronology of the 2nd \li1It"'nniulll Sf'

cessor !\ada.!man-tlarbe and K.~ra-inda.! i unknml11: see RO\\TO~ [1970] 37)_ Burna-Buria.! II probabh was the grandson of Kurigalzu I, and Assur-uballil the grandson of Assur-bel-nis<su_ Kurigalzu I must ha\'e been a contemporary of ASSur-nadin-abbe II and Eliba­Adad I and is attested to ha\'e been in contact "ith Amenhotep III, while Assur-uballill was in touch "ith Amenhotep IV. For that reason !\ada.!man-tlarbe I (who is not contemporan' "ith or to be dated after ASSur-uballil) must be a fauln' emn in Chronicle P. " Here, the scribe oblioush confused the earlier !\ada.S­man-tlarbe I. son of I\ara-inda.! "ith Karakinda.!. The similar name (this reading goe back to B.-\ll.-\x, BeIlNn 12 [1948] 745; see also BRN'-'L"''', M KH 420 and 422) is mentioned in the Synchronistic History. Karakinda.! and l\ara-indaS were probably already co~­fused in the )TIchronistic History (see ~ol. I li~e 14: Kara-indaS instead of I\arakindaS). In this respect the tradition of the )TIchronistic History (which has errors of its 01111 and cannot be uncriticall) trusted) prOl'ed to be the correct one. For another erroneous repon in Chrortide P. (~ Historical Epic ub 13.6.)

2. Synchroni tic Histo!)' I, 18--23 and Chrorticle P III, 20-22 both mention the battle at Sugaga"" ben"een Knrigalzu n and either EnliI-nIrari ( )TIchrortistic His­tory) ~r Adad-niriiri I (Chronicle P) . According to Chromcle P the Babylonians won; according to the Synchronistic Histof}, composed by Ass}nans, Ass}na "'on. GMYSOX, AS 16 (1965) 339, who distrusted the S)TIchronistic Histo!)·, beliel'ed the version of Chroni­cle P and concluded that the battle had been "'on by the Babylomans and lOOk place during the period benve<:.n Kurigalzu" and Adad-niriiri I. ROWG (1967) 178--119 contradicted Grayson's assumption by pre­senung the hlStof}' starting with Burna-BuriaS n who was married to the Assyrian princess Muballitat.~rua and reigned for ca. 25 years (BE 14,9) . BuITta.Buria.!'s II son KarakindaS ascended the throne after his father's death. His other son Kungalzu II was installed by ASSur-uballil I after the revolt of Nazi-BugaS. It is assumed that Kurigalzu II was still very young then (ROlIig suggested 15-16 years old, while his brother KarakindaS must have been 17-20 years old, when he ascended the throne; This indicates that the marriage between MuballiIat-Serua and Burna-BuriaS /I took

, • ., Se e also BRI~K.\IA.~, MSKH 422.

5< ... This confwion might be an indication that Kara-barda, ,.... should be read Karakinda> (--> rn. 553 and above sub 7.1.) .

See also Bow (1982) 24 and B'''K.It'''' (1970) 302-303 and MSKH 207-208.

". S iASS\fA."SI-v.t..:~PIi, MDAR 61.

place ca. Jl:'1-20 \(~al before the latter's death). The earliest the 3(}.year reign of A~sur-uballil I could hal'e begun. would hi" e been "ilh Burna-BuriaS's II 6th year. For !\arakindas and Nazi-Bugas R611ig COunted one lear of reign. corresponding to ASSur-uballifs year 20. Howerer. because of reports in Chronicle P he took a longer reign of K.lrakinda.! into considera: tion. For the reign of Kurigallu II he calculated 24 e,u in total (based on cr 36, 24, hl;L'Dr/O:-l, AGS I,

60 and unpublished texts from the Istanbul Museum mentioned bl BlR.\.', .ljO 18 [1957-1958] 268).25 vears were assumed bl GraYson and Jantz because of the enu ... for KurigallU 's II reign in BKL A. Enlil-niran succeeded .-\SSur-uballi\ I and reigned for ten years. According to R6l1ig's calcu lation , he must have sur. IiI ed KUligaIzu II for two years (see also WEID~ER, AJO 20 [1963] 115-1 16 on an AsS\lian chronicle). Then, Arik-den-ili reigned for 12 veal'S before Adad-niriiri I ascended the throne. ROLLIG (1967) 179-180 doubted that Adad-ntriill I and KurigallU II were contempo­raries (VAT 15420 published b} WEIDNER in ITN 46, table 12 recorded that Kadasman-Turgu and Adad­nirari I were contemporaries; see WEID:-IlR, AjO 20 [1963] 1l3-1I5 and GRA\'SO', AS 16 [1965] 3388). Benl'een KUligalzu II and Kada.!man-Turgu Nazi­;\1anltta.! reigned for about 26 } eal'S,570 which makes the S)TIchronism between Adad·nirari rand Kurigalzu 11 quite improbable. ROLLIG (1967) 180 demonstrated that a minimal calculation by which ASSur-uballil died in year 0 of Kurigalzu n, his grandchild, is very unlikely due to the attested synchronism between KadaSman-Turgu and Adad-nlrii ri 1 and the 26-year reign of Nazi-MaruttaS in between. Even by counting backwards from KaStiliaSu rv, who 'vas a contemporary of Tukulti-. 'inurta I, no cOI1l'incing rcsull.s call be achieved which could verify the reports of Chronicle P (for details see R()uIG [1967] J8J). ASsur-uballil's I and KurigallU's II reigns overlapped for ca. 10-15 years and the synchronism with Adad-niriiri I reported in Chronicle P is virtually impossible. J lowel'er, BRJ'K.\tA." (1970) 302-303 rea.soned that because of general uncertainties in KassilC chronology (reigns benveen Kada,man-Turgu and K>,slilia.!u IV) , the syn­chronism between Adad-niran I and Kurigalzu If can­nOt be entirely rlll 'd out, but considered Enlil-nirDn to have been the "mmp lii<fly mndidalf"'.'" On the other

~71 () n more owrvauons On Middle B.\hylollian chronolOgy

\Ce BRI\KMA" (IYH3) f.i7-74, c'p. 711~ (:)11 tilt' lnlil-lIlrlln & Kurigal/tl ~yn('hrolli'jl1l aud SA."~MANN~IIALT~Ji.N, MDAR 61. Scoc ll'INK."A~ (1970) 305-307 contra CAl i on the nneer­taimi('\ of Babylonian ChIOIlOJOJ.,ry.

7. Chronicles 119

hand BOESE (1982) 24, who proposed Kassite dates be lowered by five year, excluded Adad-niriiri (1295-1264 [+3/-lll as the adversary of Kurigalzu II (1327-J303 [+2/-3]).

3. In the fourth column of Chronicle P the Assyrian suzerainty over Babylonia due to the conquest of Babylon by Tukulti-Ninurta I is reported:'" the chron­iele records that Tukulti-Ninurta I ruled over Babylo­nia (which he did essentially through puppets) for 7 years (see WEID~ER, [TN 41-42, no. 37; BKL records 9 years)'" and then the Babylonians revolted, A~ad­suma-ulur seiging the throne from hIS father KaSuh­aSu lV. The chronicle mentions nvo Elamite invasions during this time: one under Kidin-Hutran ill during the time of Enlil-niidin-sumi, and the second during the reign of Adad-Suma-iddina.'" However BKI.. A, which is also of Babylonian tradition names four rulers following KaStiliaSu IV, namely EnIil-nadin-Sumi (I lear + 6 months), KadaSman-ijarbe II (I year + 6 months), Adad-Suma-iddina (6 years) and Adad-suma­u~ur (30 years) '" That the line of rulers (Chronicle P gives here) is incorrect is shown by the kltdllm.t. of Meli-Sipak, BBSt no. 3, which repeats the line of rulers reponed in BKL A. Chronicle P is not entirely \\Tong since it does give the correct synchronisms. Still, the chronological order of kings is incorrect. For the chronological sequence of these events see RO\\TO:-l (1960) 18--21, BRJ'~L\.'I, MSKI [ 18--21 or S.\ss~L"'\1.'1S­fl-\CSE~, MDAR 61-62. (~Historical Epic)

BR"K.IL\.\1 in MSKH compared the infDlma,ion on Babylonian kings nos. 28-32 in Chronicle P with

!ti:/: -+AKL ~~ Or eight years of hegemony, laking a two-vear reign of

K;ld'l~man-liarbe 11 according lO economic documents rrom Ur imo account: BR"K.\I"-!\, PHPKB 66 ~uld MSKH L50. On Tukuhi.Ninurta's dethronement b, his son (note the confuo;ion ASSurna$irpal and AMur-nildin.apH) see Pmlll'l (19·12-194~) 48()"-189 ilnd more recellllil. AKL \lib 2.2.1.4.

", Po,-", (1999) 231. m For ob\er\,alion\ on the use ofH'ar-names during the reign

of Ad"d-:;l1l1l~HI~lIl ,ee BRI~""I ". ~I KII -110-411 '711 . I . I 1.\1)'101{ (1958) 13(~t37 pointed O\llihat the C WOIllC e tm-

dil ion In U'\1 han' been indepclIdt'nl of the KL tradition. On lilt' t'~idenC(' fOI Lht· reigll lellglh~ of Bab,loni,Ul kings Set' BIU' .... 't\t\, MSKII 21-23 (including e,idence drawn from lilt.· economic Lt'XH) . The di\cr('pal1C) in SOllie ;L,es may be expt.til1ed b) LIlt.' lnelhod of recording accession years (onl" in Ihe cast.' of Kudur-Enl il i~ the ('\'idence of tht' e onomic n'cord'i comidt'rl'd more ;\mhol,ltive than the SKL) .

m The well known inscription EKI 48 (KtY\l(.;, Aro 8h.l [19ti51 no. 48) \\.l' writtell during the reign of ilhak-

that of BKI.. A'" He pointed out that Chronicle P is much more elaborate, inserting Tukulti-Ninurta r as a mler of Babylon (see MSKH no. 13) and citing syn­chronisms with Elamite kings (Enlil-niidin-sumi & Kidin-Hutran JIl as well as Adad-suma-iddina & Kidin-Hutran lll).'" Brinkman stressed that other Babylonian sources (like kudllmi) omitted Tukulti-

inurta I from the sequence of Babylonian rulers. However, an economic text from Nippur dated to the accession year of Tukulti-Ninurta means that he mled over at least part of Babylonia for some time (MSKH 314-317).

Chronicle P arranges the events by topic in three sections (YA.'LillA (2003) 153-177). NOI only does it state that Tukulti-Ninurta reigned seven years in Babylonia, it also mention that the statue of Marduk was returned in the time of Ninurta-tukulti-ASSur (no. 84). BOESE (1982) 20-21 studied Chronicle P in con­nection with the Distanzangaben and the Assyro­Babylonian relations described in the S}TIchronistic Histof}·. This discu ion is crucial for determining whether there lvas an Elamite interregnum between the Kassite and Isin II dynasties or the two dynasties overlapped. The synchronism benveen Tukulti-Nin­urta I (no. 78) and KaStiliaSu IV is weU knmm'''' !\astilia.!u IV ,vas defeated by the Ass}nan ruler who, according to Chronicle P, carried off the statue of Marduk'19 After ca. 7 yeal'S of reign in Babylon (see above and ~ BKL) a revolt took place and Adad­suma-~ur ascended the throne in Babylon. Chroni­cle P states that x + 6 years passed benveen the abduc­tion of the Marduk statue and its return during

Inswinak and mentions sc\eral kings including their filia­tion in chronological order, from 19i-halki (the fOWlder of the 19ihalkid dynasty) '0 Kidin-Hutran I. This succession has been confinned by inSCliptlOns of other rulers (see. p. 223). It is agreed that these rulers are to be dated to ~le 13th cent. Be due to the twO S\llchroni ms \\;th Babvlol1lan kings attested in Chronicle P.

"" BRIN""l"~, MSKH: 1225 BC; BoES[- WIUlf.L\' (1979): 1215 Be (Middle Ass)Tian chronology shortened bv len years); BoESE (1982): 1218 ±-I years BC (based on the lowered chronology. dlC Distanz..'\I1gaben, and the fuel that the con­quest of B.,b) Ion and the abduction of the ~1a.rduk statue occlired a few years afler KaStili~lI's implisol1mclll: a longer Assyro-Babylonian conflict is assumed: see Kt\J 103, 12-16 and'MAR\, '1, I and FlU. ... 'OA." .. [1975) -18 and 53fT.)

~N This s\'nchronism in "secondan' sources" is crucial. for the chronology of Tukulti·Ninurta"s I reign .. inc~ Ius ro~al inscriptions (BoRGlR, tAl\. 71-97) do not contaltl ~n) da~es (see ('...\NClkKutSCHBAl"t (1996) 12-18 in c~nneClJOI~ \~~Lh lhe recon5lruClion of the order of Middle Ass~l1an eponnlls).

120 ~lt:,opot.unian Chrol1()lo~ 01 the 2nd \lillennillt11 Be

-Tukulti-.-\SSur-. ' In the p<l>t 86. 96 or 106yeal: haye been proposed. Boese, re,ising problem' of the Mid· die Bab 'Ionian period, considered 6, 1".11 to be cor­rect, '" meaning that the end of K.1StiliaSu" 1\' reign"" W<l> in 1222 Be and 1132 BC the regnal 'ear of :-:in­urta-lUkulti-.~~ur (note his DUB-pi·n, reign). The abduction of the ,tallle of ~larduk therefore would haye taken place in 1219 (±2) BC.~' (-> 7.7,)

From Chronicle B~l 27796 it is now knmm that AssYria controlled Babylon 32 'ear> that is e,'en' ears before the acce. ,ion of \dad-,uma-u~ur and 25 Yeal . during hi, reign. " :-:othing is knmm aboUlthe ,itua­tion in northern Babylonia after the death of .\dad­-uma-iddina. the predece"or of Adad-'lIIua-mur. Another question is whether Adad-,uma-u~ur and the puppet king Adad.suma-iddina reigned contempora­neously for any length of time. BKi. A assign 30 ,ears to Adad.suma-~ur. but it is unknmm whether the ix ,ears credited to ASSur-suma-iddina are to be regard­ed as pre,ious to, or oyerJapping \\ith, that period. W\ll£R (19 2) 409 concluded: -If the two reigns did oyerJap there is no problem mer reconciling Chron­icle P (22)'s statement that the re,·olt took place after Tukulti-:-:inuna I had controlled Karduniash for se\"en "ears with the even. eight. or nine ,ears assigned to the puppet kings b, King List A. For chronological purpose the interval between Kashtil­iash and Adad-,;huma-usur could be regarded as e,'en years howe,er one interprets the King List's

data for the interyening kings.-Another reconstruction of e,ents on the basis of

Chronicle P, Chronicle B~[ 27796, BKi. A and the Sm­chronistic Histon has been proposed b, Y~\I~A (2003) I 53-17i. He offered an account of the con­tents ~f ,these ~ources for thLs period starting \\ith Tukulu-:":tnurta s defeat of KaStiliaSu 1\' (-> TukuJti-

Inurta epic) and his conquest of Babylon. The basic dLfference between the BKL and Chronicle P is that the former organizes e'ents b, chronoloID and the lauer by topic (Y~\fADA [2003] 154). BKi. A omits Tukulti-1\'inurta I; but Chronicle P, which is also of

M) 'lukuIU-A,;ur i gt"nerally idcmifi('d with Ninurta-t k 1 '. .,~ ._ ( u u U nMUT no. 84).

: T\U\tOR (1938) rejecled all lhree po\'~ihjliti(> . For a chan on the relathe chronoJ~"Y of Ka: \itc king'i seC? BRI\ ..... \f-\\. \1SKJf 2r~27 and BOFM (1982) 23 (dal('~ low­ered by live YCOin) .

.. , c. C' u, :~e .. -\ ~.IK-n.lR.~lmAL\f (H)96) 11-12 referring (() WIII)-

~.R. J r~ 41 on l?t' .r~lati\c dar(", conccming lhe: synchro ... IlIsm bt-l\\('cn .KaliU~la\U IV and Tuklllu-Ninuna J ,Kcording {() BKL and Ch(()Ulcie P More dctaiJ'i on Ka\lililbU'\ ("a,~ ture can be found 10 [h(> \Ollrct!) from Our Kitllllnrnu.

Bab, Ionian origin, acknowledges a 7-year rule of the yrians oyer Babvlonia until Adad-Slima-lI~lIr came

to power, which is docllmellled in BM 27796. Later, at the end of Enlil-klldllrri-lI"ur's reign, Adad-sul1la.u,ur re-<:onquered Bab\lon (the ballie desctibed in the Synchronistic History II, 3-8"') 14 or 15 years after TlIklllu-. inmta 's assassination, It is still uncertain whether Tukll lu-1\' inuna's rule of se'en years is to be reckoned as direct or, as BKi. A implies, indirectly through the three successors of KastiliaSu IV, Enlil. nadin-<iumi, Kadasman-liarbe II and Adad-suma.iddi. na. On p. 155 Yamada summed up Walker's resulLS based on B~[ 27796. Walker concluded that the three kings O\erlapped "ith the 7-year nile mentioned in Chronicle P, although difficulties remain - specifieal. h', the effects of Elamite invasions, the role and title of Tukulti-:-:inurta I in Bab,lonia, and the reign lengths of the Babylonian puppet-kings. Y~\IADA (2003) 155-156 cited an economic text from Nippur and royal inscriptions as e"idence for Ass)Tian rule orer Babylonia ,,;thoutlocal go\·ernol or \'assai rulel~. As Chronicle B~I 27796 uggests, Assrrian rule must have lasted until Adad-suma-u$lU"s conquest at the end of Enlil-kudurti-u~ur's reign (Yamada rejected Reade's proposal in XA.B. U. 2000. ·76, 87 for a new reading of B~[ 27796). Yamada (pp. 158-159) suggested that the m chronistic History, col. II, 3-8 implies some co­

operation between the Assyrian usurpaLOr Ninuna· apil-Ekur and Adad-' uma-uwr must have taken place before the Babylonian re-conquest. It is difficult to

synchronize the events that happened shortly after the defeat of KaStiliaSu IV and Tukulti- inurta's con· quest of Babylon. Obviousl} the defeat and conquest did take place in two stcps witl1 some time in between (generally about two years were assumed), as pro­posed by W1CIK-KJR.;<1 IIIAl'! (1996) 15-17 (and oth· ers). Yamada reviewed the text and concluded that the conquest of Babylon must have taken place during the reign of Adad.suma-iddina after the tWO Elamite invasions under Kidin- llu tran 111 men tioned in Chronicle P (during En lil-nadin-<iumi and Adad,,"ma-

~ W" K'R (1982) 408f. ( Adad-luma.u;UI <,)ic ,ub lI islori· cal Epic).

) The text 1Juggt'ljts that Adad~lIl1la-u)lIr Willi recoglllled as king for 25 Y('ars only III wmhern Mesopolamia, the COIl­

trol ~)f Babylon i~e l f l)('ing in til(' hands of As!!.yria or her nOl11ll1e(' • Enlil-kudurll-lI)Ur was handed OVCI LO Adad­\uma-u,>ur hy the A-tsyriilll'l wgelher with a ownb(' .. of Babylonian rdugec'J in Assyria. Ninu lla-api l-Ekt, r ( It O. 82) look adval1l;:tgt' of th is ~j l twti oll a nd scited the [hront" ill ~~u~ (Synchronistic I l i\lOry II , 5-li and AKl widl ,l chron~ Ic l(·-llkc.· section).

7. Chronicles 121

iddina), becallse Adad'suma-lI)lIr is explicitly men­tioned to have freed Babylonia from Tukulti-Ninurta I. Chronicle BM 27796 does not s~em LO contradict this reconstruction (YA~tAD.\ [2003] 161 ). The Assyri­an governors (jaklllite), whom Tukulti-Ninurta installed at Babylon, must have ntled until Adad­sUl1la.u,ur LOok over. At first Adad-suma-u~ur ruled the southern part of Babylonia, then Tukulti-Ninurta I was assassinated by his own son and his noblemen. As Yamada showed (pp. 164 and 166-168) by recon­sU'llCting the succession of events during his reign, Tukulti-Ninurta's seven-year ntle in Babylonia did not end with his death but with Adad-suma-u$ur's enthronement. This implies that Chronicle P dated the beginning of Adad-sllma-uwr's reign (which according LO BKL A lasted 30 y·ears) to his take-o"er of southern Babylonia (yA\iWA [2003]165-166)."'''

Out/ille oj Chronic/£ P

1) only last line presen·ed: for identification (Syn­chronistic History) see comm. in ABC 159

2) broken: for identification (Synchronistic History) ee comm. in ABC 159

3) Kadasman-lJarbe I and h is son and successor Kurigallu II & ASsur-uballil I

lacuna 1 4) Kurigalzu II & Adad-nirfiri I (wrong!) 5) broken: Na7i-~larllLtaS lacu na 2 6) TlIkulti-N inurta I & Adad-suma-u$ur 7) Enli l-nfidin-sull1i & Kidin-Jlutran lJ[

8) Adad-suma-iddina & Kidin-Hutran III rest missing

7,4, Eclectic Chronicle

The Eclectic Chronicle (ABC no. 24)"" is ,'en ' frag­melllary. It covers the period from the end of Chron­icle P, the time of Marduk-~lipik-zeri of the Isin II dynasty, LO the 'eo-Babylonian period (until a period la ter than Saimaneser V) an I pamllels the Synchro­nis tic History. Like Chronicle P it focuses on Babylo­nian ki ngs and religious issues, especially the Marduk cult (akitll festhoal). For un known reasons it omits lome Babll" nian kings. For example the last three kings of the Isin II d) nasty and twO of the Sealand II and Bali dynast ics."" Another morc importalll king, ASSur-bel.kaia, i, not named in the same section with

! "I hili .tho h.I' h('('1l .Iho d(·,,1t wi th b, BR1!\!h.M" (1970) 3111-:1 11.

-'\ In "ppl'nctix A \\'.\1 h.I R ( 19H2) II () publi"lwd it collation of Ih(' Edt'nk Ch ro ll id t' ( n~ t 27H59).

his vassal Adad-apla.iddina (compare with the report in the Synchronistic History). It has been suggested that this chronicle, which summarizes important events in Babylonian history after the foundation of the Isin II dynasty, was written following Babylon's destruction in 689 BC by Sennacherib. (-> Chronicle BM 27796 sub 7.7,)

OuiliM oj Ihe EciRelic Chronicle

1) the period before ~1arduk.sapik-zeli is lost 2) Marduk.sapik-zeri & ASSur-bel-kala 3) + 4) Adad-apla-iddina 5) Simbar-Sibu/-Sipak 6) interruption: alUtu-festival during the reign of Eul­

maS-Sakin-sumi i)-II) interruptions: same e,'ent for subsequent

kings 12)-20) synchronistic account: Assyrian and Babylo­

nian kings of the 1 Sl millennium BC; endLng with Eriba-Marduk (akilu-festhm)

21 )-25) badly broken: Nabll-l1ii$ir & the accession of Tiglath·pileser III to the Babylonian throne; last accession is probabl)' Salmaneser \'

7 _5. Weidner Chronicle

The Weidner Chronicle (ABC no, 19) reports on the period between the Early Dynastic period and umu­lael (-> King Chronicle and Dynastic Chronicle for the earlv period). Three Neo-Assyrian and Neo­Babylonian copies were known up to the time of GRA~~O~'S publication of ABC.'" ince tl,en. more fragments (including lhe bilingual BM 39202 and BM 47733) ha,'e been published by F"'KEL (19 0) 72ff.; and a complete tablet (1M 124470) from a Neo­Babvlonian temple library in Sippar has been pre­sented b, At-RAwt (1990) 1-13. This text, which i labeled as a "roval/literan' leLter" wriuen by a king of the Isin I dn1a;tY (Damiq-iliSu?) to a king of Bab~'lon (Apil-Sin?) ·or Lm a (Rim-Sin), conce."s the attitude of the ruler towards Babylon. its cin' god ~lardllk, and in particular the prmlsion of fi h-offerings to the temple £Sagil (GR."so,. ABC 44). Its n"tl1010gl­cal inlroduClion and concern wilh Mardllk is unique. Ba ed on its content, GRA"O' (19 0-19 3) assumed that the Weidner hronicle had been com­posed LO\\oards the end of the K.1ssite dynasty or in the early Isin II period. \\'lICKE (198 ) 130-133 and

... ... ~ GR.\ySO\. ABC tl...'l ~L~\lIned tlUllhc\ might h .. ne been quite

in,,-iglli (i C';Hl l rukr~. '''<l GRWSO'. ABC ·13 ,md 115.

122 \te~opol.lmian Chronologv of the 2ml ~Iillenni\lm Be

(1993) 36 thought its purpose was to it"gitimile the Babylon I dynasty through the Isin I dynasty. This ,iew is supported by the ippar tablet nl 12·14 iO. Like the ynchronistic Histol) the text is formulated propagandi tical" and cannot be considered as his­torical" reliable. me rulers are omiued (e. p. for the Ear" Dynastic period). In the manner of the Akkadian prophecie , bllt unlike other chronicles, kings are classed as -good- or "bad", The Weidner Chronicle was u ed as source material for the King Chronicle. BUI in contrast to the King Chronicle, it ho" similarities "ith the omen literature, which

may have erved as its source (as GRA\ m;. ABC 44).

Outlin~ of the Iltidnl'T Chronuk

I) section of ad,ice b\ the sender of the leuer (description of a nocturnal vision of Gula)

2) stan of the historical sections in chronicle-like fashion: Akka

3) Enmekiri 4) Puzur-:...'irab 5) Ku-Baba 6) LI r-Zababa 7) Sargon I

) :\ariim-Sin 9)Guti

10) Vtu-begal II)-ulgi 12) .-\mar-Sin 13) Su-Sin 14) Ibbi" in 15) Sumulael

16) the ending links the historical section to the main purpose of this text/leuer

7.6. Tummal Chronicle

The Tummal Chronicle, of which ten copies are known, is written in Sumerian. It basically deals with the htStory of :...'inlil's Tummal sanctuary in the tem­ple district of Nippur. The text was presumably writ­ten in the time of /Sbi-Erra, the founder of the Isin I dynasty. This narrative begins with Enme(n)-bara­gesi, ruler of the first dynasty of K.iS."" Additional information on the early rulers can be found in the SKL. As SoLLBLRGER (1962) 40-41, who trusted the

~..., SoU..8fR(~F-R ,(1962) 40-47; KRAMER. 71v SUmeritms, ('llirago

.. , (1963) 46; G.-"S" .. ChTMis84-85 and id. (2004) 1:;1>-1'>9. ""J'J ~RJ'K..\l\" (l9?5) ~ (re ... ~iew of GI~~!\,P_R. ChrMis).

G~w')o,. ~~ 6 dafioslfied It a.\ .ca~gary C (Royal name _ nar­rauon) \\1lh a VfT) compla ilm-ary patt""'" (Crd),soll lill

KL tradition, has shown, there seem to have been different tradition ( I' and Nippur) concerning the sequence of the early kings Enme(n)-baragesi, ~les-ane-pada and Gilgames. Which tradition is to be followed depends on the relative trustwOrthiness of the II and the Tummal Chronicle. The Tummal Chronicle is usualh not identified with the chroni. c1e genre and has al 0 been called the "Tummal in. scription".'" Due to its pauern - royal name fol. lowed b,' narrative"" - OLLBFRGER (1962) 40 stated: "The Tummal inscription ... gives the impression of being a literary composition rather than a purely historical chronicle". Because building inscriptions contain imilar infOlmation, Rmno:-- (1970) 201 preferred the Tummal building chronicle to the ll, though saying its rel iability applies only to the

identity and the sequence of builders, not to the time interval between them. Other chronicle (such as the Weidner and the King Chronicle) concen· trate on a specific sanctuary in a certain city and report on the rulers involved with it. They also sum· marize the earliest periods of history (WILCKE [198 1 130-133), and all chronicles buttheTummal text list almost all the early rulers in the same sequence as the SKL. All these texts come from the early period, two of them having identical pas· sage .' IS

Outlint of the Tummal ChronirlR

Sections treated: I) Enme(n)-baragesi 2) Gilgames 3) ~fes-ane-pada 4) Nanne 5) Ur-Nammu 6) Amar-Sin - Ibbi- in 6a) lSbi-Erra 7) Colophon

7.7. Chronicle BM 27796

In (1982) 398-4 17, WALKER published the new chronicle tablet BM 27796, which he designated as ABC 00. 25 in col1linuation of Grayson 's numbering scheme. The ch ronicle, on a tablet shaped like a

eo-Babylonian business document, repons on

dC)ublt'd it" :luribution to CfllfgQry C.). AI.-RAwl, Irall 52 (1990) 1- 13 cJruiljified the Weidner Chl'Onicle ~L~ a lilt"r.lry ICLler.

"" GRANN (1980) 180.

7. Chronicles 123

events relating 10 Babylonia in the time of Adad· suma.u~ur and Adad-apla-iddina, the period of tran­sition from the Rassite to the Isin \I dynasties (~ above sub 7.3.). The text covers the gap between Chronicle P and the Eclectic Chronicle, with some o,erlap. Like the Eclectic Chronicle, Chronicle BM 27796 very likely comes from Babylon, since it was acquired as part of the same collection and shows some duplication. This may be taken as evidence that both texts were excerpted directly or indirectly from the same source. Chronicle BM 27796 makes it evident that Adad-apla-idclina was not an Aramean, as has been thought (see p. 414 and BRI'IL\f~', PHPKB 135-138). His ancestor is recorded as Itti­Marduk-balalu, who probably cou ld not have been his father since the} are separated by 63 years. Per­haps three generations can be counted between lui­Marduk-balalu and Adad-apla-iddina, but this is uncertain since family relationships are unknown. The third to the seventh kings of the Isin II dynasty were descendants of inurta-nadill-sumi and it

seems likely that the line was broken with Adad-apla­

iddina, no. 8.

Outline ofChronick BM 27796

1)-4) Tukulti-Ninurta I, En lil-kudUlTi-u~ur and Adad­

suma-u~ur

5)-6) Enlil-nadin-apli, Marduk-nadin-abbe (brother; both sons of Nebuchadnezzar) and Tiglath-pileser I

7) Marduk-sapik-zeri 8) Adad·apla-iddina

Concluding Remarks

Data from the KLs and known Assyro-Babylonian s 'n­chroni ms, provided by chronicles and otller ources, are the framework for dales which must be harm<r niled "ith the eddence from contemporary econom­ic texts (BRIN["\L\\;, ~ISKH 31). suallv no synchro­nisms referring La a specific regnal rear are known, which complicates the dating of th e Kassite kings. Because of Ihe lack of reign lengths (a few exceptions do exist) or references to specific points in time, chron icles only prodde information on relative chronology. But sometimes, 'LS with the reign length of Ninurta-apil-Ekur (no. 82) and Ihe information of the SYllchronistic IlistOry, chronicles do contribute to ab\olute chronology.

II ~. L",,"'(' .11\0 CI.\SS\~R (200 I) 19-1lt.

i Ihi ... chronidt' i ... ,,1"0 fOlhidel('d a ... ;\ I.tlt' \t'rsion of th{' SIQ: GR."",, (19HO) 177.

Some inconsistencies can be noted. These are partly due to the propagandistic nature of the e texts, which were wrillen from a pro-Assyrian or pro-Baby­lonian point of ,iew and not for chronological pur­poses ..... Th is is most ob,ious for the period of Assn­ian rule over Babylonia during the reign of Tukulti­Nillurta I, for which Chronicle P, Chronicle BM 27796 and the Synchronistic History each gi"e a dif­ferent ·take'. Fortunately, Chronicle P and the Syn­chronistic History have some parallel sections which can be compared with each other in order to evaluate their historical and chronological reliability. Chroni­cle P has proven to be incorrect on orne points. Con­cerning its badly broken Distanzangabe, different estimates of its ''lIlue have been made by Brinkman and Boese. Supplementary information on the 1sin II rulers is provided bl the Eclectic Chronicle, which othenvise is not very useful for the chronology of the 2nd millennium BC.

The King, Weidner, Dynastic and Tummal chroni­cles parallel and complement the SKL's catalogue of earIv kings. The King Chronicle is an important source of information on the yet scarcely document­ed Sealand I dynasty of tile earlv Kassite period (~ Babylonia). Although its information is considered reliable, additional tex" .. 1 verification is desirable.

The Synchronistic History, which is a concise nar­rati"e of }To-Babylonian relations, is pre en'ed in three exemplars from the library of Assurbanipal at Nineveh and belongs to the propaganda written at the end of Adad-nirari's III reign, when .-\sspia was toO weak to resist Babylonian encroachmenl. Since a large number of e":ors can be detected in it, it must be used with great caution for any historical and chronological evaluation. Nevertheless, this Assyrian chronicle remains important since it covel the otherwise sparsely documented Dark Age.

The Dvnastic Chronicle"'" unfortunatelv lists fig­ures which are demonstrably unreliable ( ..... BKL). It records the origin of rule. , their reign lengths and their place of burial. The text does not omit any king for the periods treated, but its reign lengths disagree with those of BKL A and its dvnastic totals are incor­rect as well.-'46 In short, thi chronicle is of no use for

absolute chronology. For a clearer picture of the chronological place­

ment of various s\ nchronisms (especialh ,,;th Anato-

-'It. BRI;\. ... \t.\:'\. PIIPKB 31-32.

12-1 \tc,opoI.lmi.\u (;hlonol()~" of Iht' ~nd \lil l('nni\11ll B(

lia and E~pt) the follo\\ing te';tual eddence ,hould be t..1.J...en into account:

• lli. t'ponnn~. ,'car-names

• royal in"'Cliption~ and annal,

Parts of the 2nd millennium BC covered by the chronicles

• rmal. correspondence (such as til{' Amarna lelle,,~' or Hmllt' letters to the Bab\lonian king: c g KB 10 ') .. 0 I,

• dated docutllt,nts (see BRt'~\t ", \1 KH ~ tJ L' . or Ie n.1"lle penod and PIIPKB far the Isin II dlllastv)

Dynastic C. Chroructe P Synchr. H. BM 27796 Ectectic C

End ofKaaitc ..P!!!9d Isin II dynasty

Adad-apla-Iddina

~III

Salman..:~~V

Table 31)

Links

ARL, Babvlonia. BKI.. A Distanzangaben E . . ' , , ponyms HlStorical £. (E I . Uons, Sealand I D~TIasty, S}TIchronistic KL ' ' pIC, ar}) Kasme Dynast), MEC, Royal lnscrip·

.., Kell , (1973). ,. R"\\To, ( 1961)) 15-22; UR"K\fA' (l9R3) fi7-71' II 81 (/"H /) K ' ) • \(,1 \.

• lI' orr~spondm1. r/n IIftlutf?' II, J f<'idc- lht'rJ(

19M!!, 29:.; I\"KM" (1'190) I :SR-14 :S', KI .. "".1 (HI!lll) 20(i, 22~~, 21·1.

8. DENDROCHRONOLOGY

"IVf ran rommence Ihe smou" business oj sludying ItllriPllt hillmy (lnd arrhaeology lVilh a timl'-jrmne in /Jwee

Ihal is inde/mulent oj ideololJles and prpronctptions, or 50 lV' likR 10 think." Kl'''IHOI.\1 (1993) 373

General

General introductions to dendrochronology

hup:'\\,ww,arts.comell.edu 'dendro (Aug. 2007, b) Kuni­holm and \Janning) .• "

Imp:'! www.arl.i.comelJ.edu.d .. lSsicsFacuIt./S~lanning Jil" Dcndro1nfo.pdf (Aug. 2007. ~lanning).

Imp: W\\'\\'.ltIT.<lri/ona.edu / archivc biblio.hunl (Aug. 2007. by Gli~ino-~Ia,cr).

hup: , www.ngdc.l1oaa.go\./ pttleo/ treering.html(Aug. 2007, b) the 'Jalional Oceanic .. mel Auno~phcric Administration).

B\lIIU, IirfHlIIg/)(l/i1lgaruIArrh(lfOlog)', Londoll ( 19S2 1990). id .. .1. ~li(t' Fhmug" Timt>: /)("1J(iroc/mmoiogy (HId Precision Datil/g. LOlldon (1\)<)5): OIT\\lW (cd.) . . lrcharol"lO, DmdTrKhrvno/og) anti /lIt' RlJllio((lrboll Calibration Clln.,., Dept. of Archaeolog". Occasional Papers 9. Lni\"el .j[\ of Edinburgh (1983).

Fe\\ ~tlldies related to Ancient Near Eastenl chronolo~ are devoted to or include den­drochronological results, mainly because of the gen­eral lack of presen cd wooden material from the

I!j http:, www.~ln •. coml.ll.edli 'clendro pik.bib.llll11l#biblio lor ,I H~t.·ful <;;t~lt'('t<.·d bibliography. (.\llg. ~O(7)

bo'l FUlthi, iclt'l1tilkation noll' O~R( ·~"'. in: FS \1'f"lllw/ (200 1)

{il. Other pl"I(t.·~ ill Ihe\ndt'IH Near E;,\t han' pro\idt.'d dl'IHlrorhrollolo){ical male rial <is ,\t'll . Ilo\\t'\cI. none of

.. lht'\l' (itn be lil\J..t~d with de\!" hi"llOrictl t',iclenct'. , F or '1Il .momah (,OlTt~lilling "jth tht' (;tN'nl .. md ict' core

.Ulom;'I" (whil'h ,IHl\\~ ... igm of an volcanic t,tuption. 1110't plOhahh tht' t.'mplion vi rht'l,l in ttH'). 1t12R,Ol 1520 Be li.t· 11(, or L(I> '"" (:0110' (20(Xl) 7 ... R \ ',,,,,,,, (~lX)3) 5H al,o pOilHt'd out tIll' problem of lltt' idl'l1lificatiul1 01 tht" r,ltl\t.· 01 tht., "majm gro,\ th ,\llolllah" chit' to i\ "dim;ujc t"\'t'IIt". II\~t\IHt t'f al., CChEM ., (20():~) H7-91 f .. \\Ot Lht'

i<il' llI iiil<ltioll of lhi' "c1illl'ltic t'\t'l\t" \\ilh t il<' t'ruption of fht' I'I, Bt'fOtt' 20(H Kl "1101 \1 and hi ... col1t."\~\lt'\ .. 1\,,\\:\

dillt'<ltlw ,tllomah ill Ihl' trct' dill{ d.Ul'''' to 1()2H Be. "hill' I,Ut, 1' tltt" pi t'fc..' ITt'C1 I (j 15 (which ittlplit" .\11 \('gt'itll hi~h thl'llllOIOk" whkh j, hard l\' I"l'('oll(."ilabll' with E!{\-ptiiltl thl'Oltoloh": Wl' l\I\~~I'l, l IHH<J). FOI tlw (' \('1\ hight'l" t'l"uptioll d,tte;' of 1U!)(), 15 Be \et' II "I\UR. CehE\! I

Ancient Near Ea,!. As of today our main source of dendrochronological data whi'ch rna)' be compared with historical texts comes from Anatolia, specifical­ly Karum K.,ni, (Kftltepe) and Acem-Hii}uk (Burusballum~~) . Bv 2003 the sequence of tree-rings co\'ered the period from 2657 to 6-19 BC."" Scientists dated this chronolo~ by obtaining high-precision t4C detenninations on a sequence of decadal sam­ples (see Kt::\IHOL\1 ,I al. [1996] 780). These results were then matched with the results of precisely radiocarbon dated samples of European wood (for details see ibid. pp. 781-782).

S}TIchronisms and historical data rna)' offer precise relative dates for 2nd millennium BC ~lesopotamian chronology, but these cannot be turned in abslolute dates because of the lack of absolute astronomical or dendrochronological data."~ Indeed, secure his­torical links are usualll mis ing for potentially mea­surable wooden material. There is an increasing demand for nalUral science data - including den­drochronological information - to be used in chronological studies of ~lesopotamia, despite seri­ous L1ncenaintie, in this data (READE [2001] 10--11).

(2000) 3!"'-37 (---t al ~o below). FRIH)R1UI tl at. SOmCI' 312 (~006) sugge ... ted a date for thl~ eruption ofThe-ra belween 16~i and 160(1. ~ote BltT\ ... ·S replie!'l of 2003. 2004 and BIET'" - H6Fi" \\l R (2007) '0 'he proposed high Aegean chronoloS' and the difficulty in reconciling il with the low Egyptian chronolo~. Bielak preft'J"S a lo\\'el" eruption d,ltt" ofTher.t (ca. 1350--1500 Be) due lO al"ch;lt~ological ob!'ler­,alions (Jik.e the appear-ann" of\\11itt' Slip \"are I). Accord­ing to him all the lie d'Ht~!\ for thb perioo are 5~IOO \ ears tOO high.

•• Set' Uo", ( 19,2) 16. fi,.1 Some of tht' cntcial quc!'Ition'i concerning dt'lldrochron<r

logical dale ... and dating ml'thlXh ill e: 00 the phases deter­mined b\ e'\ceptiOlul grO\\ tit realh correlate "ilh the erup­lion ofl~llt'r"? II.\\t~ Iht' rdl',alll \('.11" ofdepo .. ilioll in the ice COrt'~ realh bt'en (Lued with ... uch plt'ci ... ion? b the Iret." rinK sequcnct' iucoutro\t° rtibk .. md .\re lht' appli«l eorre­lations corrccl? '" Iht~ timbt'r l"l'alh lJ<.lrt of the MfUcture in \dlich the ... c.llitlg" \H'It' found? t·te.

1~6 \te\opolami.lll Chronolo~ of l)lt~ 2nd \lillenllil11l1 Be

Value for Absolute Chronolo

The ~[alcolm and Ctrolm \\'(,I1('r Research L,bora­tory for Aegean and :'\ear Eastern D(,l1drochronolo!l' at Cornell L·ni\ersi". Ithaca (:'\.Y). no" under the direction of t. ~Ianning (fonnerl\ P. Kuniholm), is th(' institution mo t acti\eh inyohed "ith Eastern ~lediterral1ean d('ndrochronological research. Kuni­holm and his collea!l'les ha\(' alread\ established numerous absolut(, and floating chronologies for juniper, pine and cedar from different sit('s in the Aegean and Turke\. A C[DI ~OOO project under the direction of O. Cichock.i aims to -e>lablish floating chronologies for the second millennium-and to "link the objects of the rele\'ant time period to a rela­ti\'e chronolo!l' of certain historical e\(.'nts- (O(liOC­(;J ~I aL [2004] 96). pecial emphasis is being gi\'en to Cedrus libani,"" which from the Old Kingdom onwards was imponed to E!l'l)l and small gro-es and i olated indi\;duals of which still suni\e in their na(­ural habitat in Lebanon,'" Turke\ and nia. This imestigation i sampling as much material as po ible carting from the present and going back to the 2nd

millennium Be. So far 607 floating years of the 2nd millennium ha\'e been co-ered by the project (see OC:HOC{;J eI aL [2004] 96-102 on problem in svn-chronizing measurement data). .

. The aim of the Aegean Dendrochronolo!l' Project IS to construct tree-ring chronologie for the Eastern ~Ie~iterranean from the :'\eolithic to the pre ent. TheIr data begins with tree-rings from Ii\ing forests, extends back through the rings of timbers from medieval buildings and continues into the past as far as material e\idence can be obtained. Since they do not follow any specific historical I) or archaeologi~ally

One ~pe.Cl of th~ .I?n~.tenn ~ientific proj<'ct "lbe S)n­~hromzatJon of CJ\1hzauon in we Ea..\lern \Iediterranean ~n lh~ 2~d .\1illennium 8e" h the dendrochronologicaJ Jm~ugatlon of \\ooden artifacts \'tim 'pedal me-d..\uring­dnices ",hich do not d~lro .. them.

1m .xOt~ that different data ",~uld be obtained (rom other IitJ6 ~peae\ of cedar, sueh a~ that from the Amanu\,

!"~ numer()~ mj~ ing ring!'> in \ample, (rom I..c.banon indicate ~(J"ess from \(')Iitary growth,

(,In ~di.ocarbon based '\ .. iggle matching", which j, applied by Kunlholm and hi~ colle-dgu(', because of the lack of den­droch .. ~onological ma~eriaJ bridging the pa\t with the pre­\em, In\:ohes ~alchlng 'peelfic irregularili('\ on the rna~ ter lree--n~g cahbrduon cune \\-ilh irreguJarili('\ in a \eric!) of ~nown-IOLer\."al radiocarbon dales from a gi\{'n archat'o-1(>gIcal ~ood "'mpl<." (Iu" •• ~, Natu" :IS I 1J99fJ] 733.) On Impro\emC'nu. of lh'5 method \t'e , "t\no, _ Kt '" If), \f (2004) 16:;"'176. .

MH Note. the latest chart in ~f.\no, - Kl '11101 \1 (2001) 169 ~ho\'o1Jlg the changin~ tree-ring dales due LO irnproH~mcnts

based chronology, Ihe team considers itself in a "be . tel'" po,ition than hislorians. archaeologists etc t , ,to shed 'ol~le light on chrono logical issue,. Presently, the conunllOUS dendrochronological sequence goes bad. to Ihe mid 3·d milk-nnium BC: but these remote pal'l\ of Ihe sequence still cannol be linked to the long absolule chronologies of lhe 2nd millennium AD. The equence is giYen ab olute dales by radio­carbon tesl on pecificall) selected rings.''''' . Discll"Sed below is ome of the dendrochronolog_ ICal e\ldence from Anatolia relevant for Mesopotami­an chronology:~

8.1. Kiirwn .KaniS (Kiiltepe)

At Kt.ltepeKanlln Kanis a number of palaces Or palace-sized buildings were exca\'llled in which resided the local rulers of Kanis in business with lhe Assyrian traders."'" The 1l10,t important levels are Kantm Ib (ca. I th cent. B.C. according to the MC) and Karum II period (ca. One centu" earlier) because they (panicu­larh Kantm II) produced an abundan e of tablets. The time span be"<een the periods has been frequemly dis­cussed (~ Eponyms) . KEL G gives two 10 Ihree years for the gap for the u'ansi tional period.

• Warianta palace (Kaolm Ib): [832 BC (+4/-7)·· .. is the construction date based on carbonized beams fr01l1 the main building phase, all of which had attached bark were cut in the same year. Samples were also taken from repair pieces CUt 17 and 61 }ears later. This indicates thallhe building slOod at leasl 61 years, and Ihat its destruction by fire occurred no earlier than 1771 BC (+4/-7) •. Also timber WilhoUl altached bark used for repair of !he Slnlcture was found. fill

in measurement during the pa~l few )'ears" According to them the present dau's are "accurate to withi" ft vtry ftw ,l'Iln." (meaning thai the illlcn:als arc constant, blll the ab .. oluLt" dendrochronological sequence from the pre~ent '.0 tJ}e 2nd millennium HC j') still rni"sing).

6", r ~', OZ('l~. 1h1 PaUlUS and TPlnpler of KiiltfjJf'-l\(wij/Nria, I urk Tanh Kurumu Ba.sunt'\'i Allkara (1999)

1010 ••

All datt·\) marked in bold with an a\lerisk arc based 011 Ihe new dendrochronological f'CSU IL't published by MANNING et aL (2001) 2!)32-2:;35, while the other nUlllber'i fCJ llow older re'luILS. Sec N~\I,TO' - Kl '1110/ \1 (200"1) 169-172 for further c{)mm(~nt.\ and d(·taiJlj 011 ddlt·S proposed in Ihe pas!. COl 10 .... (2000) 7 rt'marked thaL lhe~e daL('~ fil well with Ihe ~1C illce at the cnd of Kitnlln Kanis le"el JJ around 1850 He (U'~ing Kn",ulol.M fl ai,'" I 99G dale,) the W;a~am;:1 palace: replac(.~d an (';.11 lit" .. Iil l UCllI rc (for the gap heLween K:inllll Kal1i~ level Ih ;H'Id II » Eponyms ~tlh 10,5.). Tilll­b('r\ of Ihe clllra ll«' ~tI(:';1 of tll (' old('1' ('onlill uctiOlt h'('re

daled 1'0,,-2033 Be. Note ai,,, Mum .. (2002) 17- IH.

8. Dendrochronology 127

• Eski SaraY' (Old Palace, Kiirum II): In 1999 the leam lead by Kuniholm took some samples from the Eski Saray, which is of the Kantm II period. These samples were from the door-sills and consisl­ed of carbonized oak logs . which had been pre­served for 30 years after the original excavalion. Furlher samples came from the juniper floor­boards of a room adjoining the entranceway: these have 520 preserved rings and match wilh a 395-year overlap the 503-year juniper sequence in Ihe norlh­west u'ench at Acem-Hiiyiik (wiggle-malched 627-year continuous chronology for the EBA/MBA extending from 2660 to 2033 BC [±4 years] for the outside ring on the floorboards at Kiiltepe). The life-span of Ihis Slrtlcture and date of its destruction remain unknown.

Phases of Kantm KaniS/Kiiltepe according to NE\ITO~ - KlStHOL\I (2004):

Eski Saray. (:Karum II)

EslO SaraYI entranceway

Wadama Saray. (:Kiirum Ib)

8.2. Acem-Hiiyiik

Represented by a 52 I-year tree-ring chronology: 2544-2024 BC; buildings's lifespan unknown

Date not yet known

Constructed in 1832 Be (+41- 7)'

Early repair colwnn installation in 1810 BC (+41-7)'

Structure stood until after 1771 BC (+41-7)'

• Hatipler Tepesi: This palatial building, from which samples of burnt juniper were taken, was constructed in [774 BC (+4/- 7)· (= cutting date of the timbers) .

• Sankaya palace: Th is palace was in lise for at least 61 years. In its ru ins were found bullae impre eel with a seal of Samsi-Adad I (IO.h year; see photo·" Figure 5), whose timbers were fe lled in 1774 BC (+4/ - 7)* (for the datl' below). This is 58 jears later than the timbers of the Wa..sama PRlace. ince amsi-Adad I was a comempomry of Hammll-rilpi" lhe laller's reign could be placed in Ihe firsl half or the IStl,

61~ -O. T,.\LI ( 19H9). pI. 137, 1-2 and (1993) 629-~33. On" crit-ical COllllllt·IlI i.IJ"\ cOlln'rning the ~eah' i.mribUlion to lhe 10th )C;U of ,un ' I-Adad I see G \!-.(JU· ,.1 {IL, ()filing ... 1010.

m 'l . . .. j~ A"""[\(t f l "J, (200 1) 253·1 and 25~\[)1..){1 (on ~ IC/LC), KUllI-

holOl , w.; ing [he o lder I't's liits, had fonne r!} p ropm.ed ;.t LC lor M('\opmaltl ia, d ati ng I la11l11l 1l-ritpi l to lht' set'oud half of Lhe IHtll ('l' n t. Be.

cent. BC, consistent with the MC/LC.'" The ea1s of Samsi-Adad [ and his officials clearly postdate the palace's "construction" date of ca. 1774 BC. Some of the earliesl documents from Kiiltepe-KaniS Ib are associated with the laler pan of Samsi-Adad's I reign, implying thaI the beginning of Kanis level Ib is to be placed around or a little before the Assyrian king's accession. According 10 the latest evaluation of den­drochronological data, Samsi-Adad's reign is between 1832 (+7/-1) BC' and 1776 (+7/-1) BC' (close to the MC)."'The palace was repaired in 1766 (+4/-7) BC· (NnlTo:o; - Kt.:;>;IHOL\f [2004J 169).

MtCHEL - ROCHER (1997-2000) 120-123 com­pared the dendrochronological data (older results; bUI see ~L-\''i'''I;>;G ,I aL [2001] 253526 for a rel;sion using the most recent dendrochronological dates) with the eclipse data from the MEC, which reports that a solar eclipse occurred the year after Samsi­Adad I was born. Though the data does not exactly malch, the results tend towards lhe LC, with the besl po ible dates for the eclipse being 1744 and in 1795 BC (favouring the first [po 123]). However, GASCHE (I

aL, Daling ... 10-11 and COLLaI' (2000) 7 refused to base results on the data from Acem-Hoyiik alone, since the relationship between the bullae fOWld in the building and the timber remains are unclear (e.g. the timber may ha\'e been llSed for later rebuildings of the palace) '" MICHEL (2002) 17-18 adapted her 1997-2000 results to Manning pi aL's new data, and opted for a slight lowering of lhe ~IC.

According 10 \\'ARBl'RTO:O; (2002) 112, the den­drochronological data fits the NC proposed b), Gasche

Figwe 5 Tt·\c., (1989) pis. 1-2

t\H See ~l\..' '''G ~I aL (200 I) 2535~. These dates are compa­rable ,,;Ih th~e found for Samsl-Ada.d I b\ ~"cm~l. (2002) 17-18: 1792-1760 Be and, based on Distanzangaben, by PRl1S1\S,", (2006) 73-79.

til!! ee also Zrrn.rR (2003) 19; (the stratigraphic context of the sealings rt'mains unclear), One tan obsen"e that gen­erall) nOl (00 much confidence i" put into this date b) scholars of Ancient Near Eastel1l swdie-s.

12 \te .. opotamian Chronolog'l of tht' 21\(1 ~tilknnium S(

and his colleague,. which is based on a ""the,is of astronomical. philological. and archaeological infol~ mation (he al-o remarks on the mcthodolo!;' applied to chronological research). " 'arbunon believed that Acem-Hovi'lk provides an upper limit to tJle ~ekction of eclip e dates (~Iichel calculated -ld6. -1,32. -1794 and -1763). Howeve,; problems arise ill> to the qualil\ of the eclipse infonllation (~ Astronomical data). G>.>CHE (2003) 207-20 (with reference to ~ticher stud\') tenned the dendrochronological date" as a ·chmn%i!/L pSnldlHlbsolll[.

same time as the Hatipler Tepl',i and Sanka}"" palace (SItuated approxlInatelylOO mete, to the southeast); ~ above and ub Eski Sarav, sub 8.1.

8.3. Por.mk Ulukl~a

• Building ill in the northwest trench: Longitudinal stretchers inside the walls near floor le\el provide a 503-\ear long chronolo!;, (report of 1999). The associated finds belong to the ~!BA and the con­stmcrion is assumed to ha\'e been destroy-ed at the

Timlx'l of the inner postem in the wcst cit\' lI'al\ which have iltGlChed bark, date lO 1604 (+4/ -7) BC': and timber" from the outer postem in the west cit; wall (al 0 with bark) to 1573 (+4/ -7) BC'. M.A.\~'~G ~ aL (200 I) 2534-2535 connected tJ1C dendrochrono­logical data of 61 trees found at Porsuk with the Thera (Samorini) emption. since rings 854[[. show a growth anomah. Ring 85-1 is currently dated to 1650 BC (+4 -7)·. This con'e1ates with tJle I,trge volcanic signal detected in the Greenland ice cores, which is daLed to around 1645 BC (+4/ -7)', and supposed to represent

Comparison of dendrochronological results for consrruction- and repair-<iates

-2700

Warl.ama palace:

I"",mou< ., 01_ (1996) M"s"l.~G ., al. (200 I) NawroN· KaooHouI (20M)

1"10 1832(+4 1. i) 1852-1835

1149 1771(+4 1·7) 1771-1774

Sankaya palace:

Ace

1-~<' .,. 1774(+4 / -7) 1774-1777

liH \766(+4 / -7) 1766-1769

Table 31 Companson of Kamm Kani' (Kultepe) and Acern-lIo)i',k dale.. 0 I d 8 9 ~ ~ee o .. an ._.

Karah Ok·Ko a MBA Juniper Chronology

t=6

1=41

t=68 (NW Trench) 1=9.6..QjO!!JI.L!=~Il!l:ti.!..Iii!!u~

= ·2500 ·2300 .2100

Calendar Years Be

1=26

< EBA Juniper Chronology

·1900

Figure (j N,WfO' - KL ""'" " (2004) 17fJ r 7 w'th tl .. d. 1, Ig. ; )1('1'(" dt.·lldrochrollologkalljnkag{·~ I 1(> a\'~o<lau.· l""",core!) a'l a nwa'itlre or the quality of fit all' ,hown

·1700

8. Dendrochronology 129

Lhe Thera eruption. MANi'iI";G et aL point out that this implies a high Aegean chronology, since it is some 10(}.-1 50 years earlier than the conventional 1520 BC

. Th . SUi daLe for the era erupuon.

8.4. Kara Hoyiik/Konya

One 19B-year long sequence (the archaeological con­Lextremains unclear) which dates between 2359-2162 Be. The last preserved ring in wood from the site dates 10 1768 (+4/-7) BC·. (It has no bark, which means thaL the building may have been constructed after the wood was cut). For the dates see Figure 6 .

Figure 6 is taken from NE\\TON - Kt,;-:IHOL\! (2004) 176, fig. 7. It shows the first halfofa 2009-year tree.ring chronology for Anatolian juniper "pinned in place" by approximately 65 radiocarbon dates. It is the synthesis of the sampled and communicated dates throughout the past years. The links between Lhe EBA and the MBA are three pieces of charcoal from Kiiltepe, one from the WarSama palace, and twO from door-sills in the Eski 5aray .. The additional 1121 years of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age tree-ring chronology are noL shown: the full sequence thus IlIIlS from 2657 BC to 649 BC.617

8.5. Anatolian sites with wood samples dating to the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BC

~Hoyiik (5arissa): The last preserved ring (no bark) of the wood sample found in the Hittite temple aL Sarissa was dated to 1384 BC. However, a cuneiform tablet fragment found in the temple ruins used sign.forms characteristic of the 13lh cent. BC, which would mean that the building was either rather long-lived or a number of ,ings had burned off the exte,ior of the wood (Kuniholm's suggestion in his 1996 report). In his online report of2001 Kunihohn discussed new samples from Ku~akh, as well as wood

6L6 _) abo\'e. The datt's for cem-H6)'flk wi.1l not be ,\{fected if tht.' identiftcation of the climatic unonmh or cvcnt with the..' eruption of Theta b incorrt'ct: M ••• while having no effect on tht· datt' for A<;etnhllyCtk. bt·(·au'l.e the date is dept'odeot upon tht' 'climatic en.'nt· and not upon rller:\. As the ·eli· matic (",et\!' lI\e U ha"! no t - to ITI) knowledge - been placed in doubt , lhat anchor is pre<;.ened ...... (\\'\Rlll'Rro, (2000) 62") See BitT" (2003) 2~33 for ,he dinicul" Oflhi' high datt'o The) lI'"t' tht. 'tame radiocarbon curve as M \,":-:1'(": tt ai, '" (2001), bUi pi t''icnt ~U1 o\'{~-r"ll ~3 sigm~\ error r.Ulgt' (99.7%)

imtt'ild of 2 '\igrna (95.4%). . , I ' LArKe limite buildillg wit h s;uuples without bar\.... (,tung tn t:l(H Be ±~n }t';tP'l ,md 13 19 Be ±~7: Kuniholm's report \994. Set" .\\'0 http:/ w·ww.arLS.comell.edu· cltndro 200 I nt.'ws . ·adp~()Ol.ht11l1 (Aug. 2007): ..... Tt' l\t~\li\"(~ dt'll-

samples from Ortakoy/ Sapinuwa'" dating to the 14lh and 16lh cent. BC. More samples come from building C and the Southeast Gate. The material from build­ing C shows a I 44-year juniper chronology which cross dates with the established Bronze Age/ Iron Age sequence. A crucial question for future research will be whether the temple of 5arissa of the Middle King­dom, not built before lIatlusili I, dates to the begin­ning or the end of the 16th cent. BC·"

From ~t-Hoyiik come samples ("ithout bark) collected from the upper Hittite level and dated to 1353 BC, where Late Helladic IIlB pottery was found (see Kuniholm's 1996 report). At Tille Hoyiik sam­ples were taken from the gateway and the last pre­served ring in them dated to 1140 BC ±37 )ears (Kuniholm's 1991 report).

Concluding Remarks

According to KU);IHOL\l et aL (1996) 782, \,ith tJleir results, which combined high-precision radiocarbon wiggle-matching "ith dendro-marker events. the HC is unlikely. Today dendrochronological results seem to support either tJle LC or a lower MC. However, ~1A'1-xL-:G eI aL [200 I] 2532-2535 replaced the 1996 dating "ith dates 22 (+4 -7) years earlier using new radio­carbon wiggle-matched dates. According to Manning ft aL, these offer a unique independent source for establishing the absolute chronology of the Ancient 1\ear L'lSt and the Aegean and supersede the dates of 1996. The floacing Anatolian Bronze Age-Iron Age tree ring chronology was linked to a conrinuous sequence mnning from li\ing trees backward (Anatolian wood was compared with the sequence of Gelman oak over a pe,iod of 250 years). This study rt,les out tJle UHC, HC and ULC, fa\'oring MC - though the "Io\\'-~Iiddle chronology" b) MtCHEL - R OCHER (1997-2000) is also considered plausible (p. 2534). Seal in cliption found

dro d,nes for lhe ronner in the I-ph centurY Be and the lat­ler in the 16lh ccnltln Be are, in conjunction "ith radio-­carbon work, contributing to a coanplete rethinking of Hit-

tite chronoloh" , .... oHI In (<be the results tt~nd to the beginning of the 16

th cent.

Be. a lo\\(,red ,\tC ",ill be lll0St likeh for the Ancient ~ear Ea~t. According to MllllR-K,\Rl>F (2003) 387. lhe Limber: \I~ecl for tht.~ cOllsu'uction of the temple "ere Cttt in 1529 Be (Old llittite Kingdom). But "0 f~\I' the cotl'\lruction of tilt' temple cannOL be a .. ~igned to ,l 'ipecific ntk'r. I lo"t"'E'"1 , rhe tret""-ring ~equenct" h still f1o~'ling and does. nOt allow chronological ('ot\c1usion~. For further detail .. on the den­ciroduonologicai re~uIL' from ~\1'i~ .... , sec K.l'1I10DI- :\t'W­TO', j\U)OG 13·' (2002) 3:\9-342. According to them. the buildin~ were quile old at Ihe timc of tht.'" major dC!llntC­

lions ,\{ Kup \""11 arissa.

130 ~1esopc.){amian Chronoiog\' of the 2nd Millennium 8e

in the Sankava palace at Acem-HoYllk date to the latter part of SamSi-Adad's 1 reign (see esp. p. 2534) and indicate that the palace was in use during the Klirum KaniS Ib period. So fur, this is the only dendrochrono­logical data that can cOlllribme to the absolute chronolog\ of ~lesopotamia: the rest i less helpful due to the absence of inscriptions at the site which could prO\;de another historical link.

Other than methodological difficulties (such as dating the eruption of Thera: or the accuracy of HC dating) the question i whether the timber was real­II part of the building in use during ' amsi-Adad's reign. It is also uncertain when the seals arrh'ed at Acem-HoYllk: After Sam ·'·Adad 's death or earlier?"") At first glance there seems to exi t a direct connec­tion between the historical record and the den­drochronological data, which could pre umabll reso"'e the yexed chronological question: but that is not real ly the case.'-I For the time being, one can not define the exact date of the beams' arrival in the palace in which they were found: one is therefore limited to hypotbetical conclusions (VEE\'!lOF [2000] 148-l49) . The dendrochronological data for !<arum levels at Kiiltepe, l 32 BC· and 1774 BC. for !<arum [b. do not confliCt with the ~IC/LC, but call intO question either the archaeological associations between differelll areas of the Kiiltepe site or the assumed time length of the gap between Karum [b

and II of the Old Assyrian period."" Within recent years Ancient "'ear Eastern chronological tudies have focused on the A~em.Hovuk dendrochronolog­Ical date and the date SamSi-Adad I solar eclipse. It is h.oped that a firm I?' fixed dendrochronology wi ll pro­\1de Important e\1dence tOwards the resolution of a century of debate o\'er Assyoian chronology. Key ISsues are the relations.hip between tree-growth-data, the consIStency of radiocarbon determ inations, vol­canic eruptions (Thera"") and climatic cha nges. The exact archaeological contexts from which the wood­samples come need to be stated in the excavations reports in detai l, or they are of little use for chronol­ogy. Dendrochronology will resolve chronological Issues of the 2nd millen n ium BC on ly when d irect links between timber and chronologically relevant texts are available.

... See also R1wJ£ (2001) 10 and V"'HClF (2003) 58, who still used Kuniholm's 1996 dales.

421 HlBfR (2000) 173 stressed thal the astronomical evidence cannot !>e di~redited by dendrochronological evidcnc(' from a Single SH£' (he considers both as hard evidence).

8.6. E.xcursus: 14C d ata

General

A general introduction to 14C data a nd ilS use for chronology' can be found on http://www.arlS.comell. edn classics Facu\t, Manning_lil eS/ Radiocarbon Intro.pdf (Aug. 2007)

For further general studies see : BO\\'\IA.\ , Radiocar. bon Daling, lnlnp'~ling lhe Pasl, niversilY of Califor. nia (1990); CICHOCIU i t 01. (2004) 102-104; D,~\Io~, T'" Hislo,) of Ihe Calibration of Radio<arbon Dalts b)' Den­drrxhmnolog)" BAR 379 ( l987) 61-104; GoWLEIT­

HEDGES, Radio<arboll DOling b)' AUfieralor Mass Spec. Im'MtT), ApplicatiOlls 10 Anharologj' ill Ihe Near East, BAR 379 (19 7) 121-144; LEn - HIGHA.\t (eds.), Til( Bihk alld Radiocarbon Dating, ArchlU!ologj" Texi and Scienc~ Oxford (2005): MA.\\I);G, Thf Absolute Chmnowl!J oftht Atgran Earl) Bmnu Ag..: Archaeologj, Radiocarbon alld HislllT) , helfield (1995); MooK - WATERBOLK, Rndio­carbon Dating, Handbooks for Archaeologists 3 (1985)

Se lected further literature and comments on 14C data

In tbe Ancient ear East: GeT (1999) 22-24; HAsEL

(2004) 6-11, HASSAN - ROSIl'so:-J (1987) 1l9-l35; POTTS (I 999a) 12- l 8; ROLLlG (1965) 384-386; THmIAS (1992) 143-151

In Anatolia (combined witb dendrochronolol!J): A\lW\'A, The Problems of Dating of the Anatolian Bronze Age: on the Radiocarbo n Chronology of Ille Region, Rossiyskaya arlUuologiya (1996) 5-10; KU~I· HOL\i - NEWTQ\ (19 9) 279- 293; KUNII101~\1 (1993) 37 /-1 73; MA."\I\G rl aL (2001) 2532-2535; REIMER (200 I) 2494-2495; http://tayproject.org!veri labeng.hlml (Aug. 2007)

In connection with the eruption at Thera and the Aegean chronology: BALTER, New Ca rbon Dates Sup­POrt Revised History of An cien t Mediterranean , Sci· fnce3 12 (28 Ap ril 2006) 508-509; BRONK RAMSEY el aL , Dating the Volcanic Erupti on a t T hera, Rat/iom,Iion 46 (2004) 325-344; FRI EDRICI1 el at., Sa ntorin i Erup­tion Rad iocarbon Da ted to 1627- 1600 B.C., Scirnce 312 (28 April 2006) 548; MANNING el aL, Ch ronology for the Aegean Late Bro nz Age 1700-1400 B.C., Sci­met 312 (28 April 2006) 565-569.

lirJS I V " , ee t lC: new rt'sul ts based on lhe KEL and MEC by HN-

"'" (2000), (2003), (2007) alld (2008), MJ( ,,>I - Row •• (1997-2000). MILI" I (2002) 17-18 a nd CCN IlArIl (2008).

I.t, A '.. J • I I m C('lJl}g A.'i f lfS anrllrf . WmJoJwp 071 Tt'/,lt m Alltilysu alit (f

C.orr JJfllmg'. Vicnnil, R.- JO. July 2004, was oq,ranilcd by SCII:;M 2000.

8. Dendrochronology 13l

Value for Absolute Chronology

Among other methods, dendrochronology and 14C

dating can lead to an absolute chronology'" As THOMAS (1992) 143 pointed out, radiocarbon dating had li ttle influence upon the historical chronologies of Egypt and Mesopotamia (beginning with the first d 'nasty of Ur in the middle of the 3rd millennIUm B~) until the late 1960s, when it became possible to calibrale radiocarbon dates."" Before that, one had to rely on infomoation only from archaeologists and historians, who correlated archaeological strata and potlery sequences with the historical documents and calendars of ancient times. For various reasons, we still do not have sufficient (published) 14C data for the Ancienl Near East."'· THO\IAS (1992) 148 urged that radiocarbon dates be used aware of their limits for absolute dating - specifically, for choosing among the high, middle and low chronologies of the 2nd mil­lennium BC'" On the other hand POTrS (1999a) criticized the lack of 14C data for Ancient Near East­ern chronology:';" his chart of published 14C mea­surement from Egypt to Ind ia clearly hows how little radiocarbon data exists for Mesopotamia.6!!9

In the same volume GUT (1999) 22-25 pointed Oll t how natural science data has been neglected in the smd), of the chronology of the ruk period in the lale 4th millen nium BC.630 However, she also cau­tioned about the p roper gathering and processing of

~, GASWE (2003) 20(}"'208 call; il a -pseudo-absoIUle" dating. 62' lA.'Ol>I\FR(;FR ( 1954) used Libby's radiocarbon dates in his

chronological study. Blll even today I -Ie dates for (he MBA are con\idered to be 50-100 years tOO h igh: see B1ETMi. (2003) 2~33, id. (200 1) 215--222. Dendrochronology.

fiJI\ THO\l\'~ ( 1992) 143- 151 presented the most import.1.nt I-IC.-data for Mesopot..l lllia. Syd a and Anatolia concerning the gal millt' llIlillm Be. lie concluded: "Todar, much greater emphal>i!t must be placed upon historical ch ronolc:r gies I. uher Ihan calibr;u ed radiocarbon dating in the con­struction of a rchaeologic~\1 ch ronologies of somhwestern Asia, th .. , Aegt',tll and Greece. It has become incrcasingl) clear Ih'\I rad iocarbo n dating mllst be regarded as a 'fa id), blulli tool' . wh t'll it im'oh 'es o lder radiocarbon dales." (p. 149; 'tee p. I t8 ror raciiOGlrbon da le'> fro m Mesopo tamia for Iht.' Akkad and Post-AU.ad periods, which cannot be used for hronologic.tl ptl rpo:,es).

~ See :'Iho lht' ,lbs tr.lCl in /-/if(" ... 3 ( 1989) stressing that m.tny rJdiocarbon d .. Ut's do no t a ltain the requi red acCu­r;:Iey; note the d i,cu"ion 0 11 pp. 24-~0. In gener-II mdic:r (<lrbon d.uc\ are LOU high : e.g, Alalau nncl lhe Leva nt (G,,, ,, HIgh ... ~, 78).

14C data from Near Eastern sites, listing the correct procedures: data-series from one find<omplex of the site; conve ntional versus calibrated dates plus wiggle matching; and using data from short-lived, unconta­minated, organic material. In respect to Near Eastern archaeology Gut concluded that one should stick to relative chronology as the main dating-method as long as there are no major improvements in 14C data gathering and analysis from Near Eastern sites.

A similar view was put forward by ZEES (2001) 88--89 in his short report on chronological studies and advances during the recent past. He pointed out that in the case of older samples the length of the probability-values (+y/ - y years) are sometimes e\'en longer than the relevant Venus cycles and thus use­less for Mesopotamian absolute chronology. Within the field of Ancient Near Eastern chronology of the 2nd millennium BC with its pre-existing historically based chronologies, 14C data are believed to be less accurate and superfluous. Other sources such as the ELs or the AKL wh ich are tied to at least one reliable astronomical date (in the I" millennium) are, for the time being, considered more precise and accurate than l4C-dating.

There is an increasing demand for radiocarbon dati ng becallSe supra-regional comparisons of cul­tures are usually done \;a HC data. (BlIl, as has been said, data for Mesopotamia is missing''') And within the past few years there have been maj or impro\'e-

o..;os See his short 1999 comment regarding the dating of the e nd of the Sukkalmab dyn asty. which correlates with the

Mesopotamian Dark Age. .. Ii29 POllS criticized the classical ceramic synchronisms and pen­

odizations and the over-reliance on ceramic parallels (con­sidered as an old methodolog}') which does not take into :lCount growing dara and infonnatio~. ,He pl~aded 1 for more use of new scientific methods ' ''1thlll Anetent Near

Eastern archaeology. ti.'IO T he data presen ted in ROWG (1965) 385- 6 is nOl suffi­

cient"" e"act ("l1llr 110-11 hOchst btdingmn Hforf) for absolllle chronolog). since it shows an uncertainty of at least 140 rears, which is tOO much to e liminate the He. the ~\lC. or (he Le. T he dates p resented were taken from M l"l'-"'t(.H.

rinlft 126 (1957) no. 3266, 19-1-199. . 6!l1 The SCI EM 2000 proj ec t lead bv " '· KUlSchera deals wlIh

"(,..dating (see e.g. in CICHOCKI , I aL [2004]). "Cdata ror Mesopotaln ian chronology was not discussed In detail b) C .\SCII E ,I aL, Dal ing ... 10-11: note SEAL (2001) 164 rerer­ring to Dinkha IC"e1 IV (contemporarJ \\1~h lhc I~me _ of Samsi-Adad 1) indicating a HC. Fo r an men ,c" of C data in ~ I esopotamia see liAS£L (2()().t) 9. Ilowc\'cr. Bll:.'"T.\K ([2003] 2~33 and [2004] 215--222) ,,':\fned that generall) the 14Gdates for this penod arc sull tOO lugh,

132 ~It"'opolamian ChrolH)I\l~" of the 2nd ~lillelllliUJn Il(~

ments in the precision of radiocarbon daling. lill, it is not sufficienlh' accurate, as some schot.u-s'-,ugge't. and has its limilations (e.g. the \liggles in cune, give ranges and no absolme dales). For a sun,,, of radio­carbon dating \lithin the pasl decade, t'mphasiling the mId-2nd millennium BC Easlern ~Iediterranean, see ~k""G - R .... 'fSE\ (2003) I II-II-!' The I~C data suggests a -High Chronology- for Aegean whereas cOlwentional archaeology hints at a lower chronolo­gy: the difference is as much as 100 yea!. In the 19;0s and 19 Os. the results di\'erged considerabh from estimate due to the methods then used. Toda\. better and more reliable chronological re ults can be achie\ed in combination \lilhtrmigraphl. Den­drochronology,':" pumice anal) is and ice-core dal-

... See \1""" 1'/ aL (2001)' d • ' an the reply by IQ",," (200 J) 2494-249~ on regional radiocarbon OffICL' (e" (, ' a d J L'... 'n" ""( rrn~m'y n t 1t: La.\lem \1cditerranean) \'ihich m' k d'ff on the h" . . ' a l~ a I «:I"c'nce

Igh·preclMoll chronologie'i (nOl(- thlo comnin _I northern he . I d) " « ml"ip Jere ala. A'i 'iht' pointed Out (p. 2491)' "T~e al~lh(:r~ due,.npted to malc.:h the mdiocarl)()JJ agc'') of a oalln~ trc:e·nng \Cquencc {""lth unknown (alt'ndar age) from arrhaC"ologkaJ monumellt"i in AnawJia to t11('

ing will help improH' the precision of th d Th . ' e ale;.

ough at preselll there IS a seriou, "' IP bell ' I I~C . ,,' ,een lIe

and archaeologIcal dales for th n \eg '" .. i" ean and Eastern ~ledllell'anean chronolo", for tile \ .

1 ' C'I" " nClent "ear East - Yna, Anatolia and ~lesopo lalliia _ the efTon has been to reroncill' the s~alled "I ' d" ' • , yo--.. lar SCI-

:nufic d.:ndroehronoIOg1 and a.stronom) with the floaung lustoncal teXlual information. 1I0weler

for ~lesopotamia we still miss material which 0'" , - r bl I ~ . _ . " lIers Ie la e, C d.lu~ .md IS deady lInked 10 a historical conte'l."'1~

Links

AKL, Asu'onomieal Data, Epon\'lns, KEL. MEC, Old Ass\1ian Period, olar Eclipse

combined NonlwfIl 11{-ll1 i"iphc.'n' djjlil M'I." ( 'lIlchoring 1\" of I he.- I,rc:e-ring chronulogy)

For an Interesting nOLl' on 111(' adapl,llion oj Ih(' NC for du: Indu"i Civililltliun ~ee Po_,-, (2003) 121 (n.'fening 10 the p.I'~)blematic lI"iC of "'(;.oatil). Not(, alo;o C;-\S( III' (2003) 214 (: IUlIg a ~tudy by C, POS.~I' III , 'fllfl/llr/US Cwilizufioll, A COIl­tf'ml)~/rary Pt'rJjJntivl', W;1l 11 II I CI'('('k, CA (2002) 29. who apphed lh,' NC '" well.

9. DISTANZANGABEN (ABSTANDSDATEN, ABsTANDSANGABEN, TIME SPANS)

Sources, Textual Evidence

(Roj'al) Inscriptions, Chronicle P, cultic text, docu­menlS, kut/url'u, Marduk prophecy

General Features

Assnian Di,lanzangaben'''' mostly derive from inscriptions found in various temples in rusur, in which the, \ssvrian mlers are referred to as builders andlor renO\'3tors of the temples. These in criptions record the numbers of years which had passed since the previous building-acti\'oities b) earlier AssY'ian mler,. Babylonian and Hittite Distanzangaben, which occur in 1'01'31 inscriptions where the king refers to an earlier event (such as the abduction of the stalue of Marduk), have proved to be less reliable in chrono­logiealterms than Assyrian Distanzangaben. The lal­ler are therefore more important in chronological disclissions .1>.1:'

Distanlangahen and their vallie for absolute chronology were known before the discovery of the AKL and hale therefore been thoroughh' discussed in the pasl.'" Some of the time spans, especialll' the Babllonian and Hittite ones, are no more than cmde estimales and are of no help for establishing an exaCl chronolog\. The unreliabilil) of the Babylonian time spans is probably mainly due to the fact that the Baby­lonians did nOl have a continuolls chronographic tra­dilion like the f\ssyrians. At least no such lI'3dition is known LO us: In Babylonia both, year-names and reg­na! years, were in use. Date-lislS ceased to exist after lhe Babylon I dynaslY and the BKL gained in impor­lanet' from then on.".'\; In contrast, Assyria had a sin­gle and un interrupled system of limekeeping

'" nUt· 10 tilt' K(,llt.'r;1I U\t' of th(' Gt'rman word "Di ... I.Hl/ang.t-bC.'".lhi"lt'lm h,,"! Iwt' ll u~l'd lhrOll{1hotlt Ihill book.

1\ • ~. ~ HI tht' primal1 l'diliow~ of A.')~, rian irl'.criptioll<: and fur-

tht' l dt't~\il ... 'l't' eltw~o" ARt I ;\11(\ the Rl~L·\ \OIUllll"S. St't' .I\'N'it\ (~006) n~72 011 the lall'st tr(\\UIIl'1\1 of A~,\Ii'Hl 1}'\I,Ul/,tIlK.t!)t·1\ !'l'it-rring to o ldt..'!' SUlclit'~. Anothl'r Dis­lilU/iHlg.lht· It'klTi ng 10 tht' A.vsvrii11l ling Ninos ~lelllS

lrunt II hi'lUl io~'l aphical source of Ihl' !llUt Ct'nl. Be and h,,~ hf't,U di\(u"I"It'd b, C\'\{:IK-}\JRSUU\.\lM, in: FS P;"kbtinf'l (:!O()(i) ~r)~}-~Wti,

through the centuries. The Assyrian Dist.1l1zangaben reflect considered calculations of available data and thus are an important source for chronological issues. They especiall) help bridge the less well docu­mented periods and reigns of the AKL and ELs.

For their parr, the AKL and ELs help us under­stand the calculation of Assyrian Distanzangaben and sen'e as a check on their reliability .... KLs and ELs, which quote the reign lengths of kings or the number of epon}ms during a king's reign (historical material of ''3rious kinds seems to have been at the disposal for the compilation of these lists). mosl probably sen'ed as the primary ources for Ihe com­putation of the Ass)'.ian Dislanzangaben. Especially in the cases of the kings rusur-rabi I (no. 65) and rusur-nodin-abbe I (no. 66), whose reign lengths are lost in all existing \'ersions of the AKL. the Assyrian time spans are helpful: depending on the interpreta­tion and analysis of time spans, from zero to 70 years hale been proposed for the length of these kings' reigns (-7 sub 2.6,). It is still disputed whether or not the compilers of these Dislanzangaben had access lO a uniform EL. a "master copl" 1 such as the one COy­

ering the 1" millennium BC. 0 far, the evaluation of the Di tanzangaben difTer toO much to allow any decish'e conclusion,

In his fundamental Sluely on Distanzangaben, HACH~L'NN (1977) 106-107 included the <u'Chaeo­logical background of the inscriptions containing Distanzangaben. He que tioned wh)' and how those inscriptions were used and possibly reused. Genel'3l­I)' a king attempted to find the inscriptions of the pre\oious ruler who had restored the building. In

t..~, ,\ ccording to COR.'I:I11"i (195-l--1956) 294-295 the Distanz­angabell are to be e\ Cil more lnl'<led than the Chors. KL.

M7 B'lb\loni~nl Dislanl~tngaben an.~ ",1'0 considered as a Iiler­'U} device: ~ee for ilhtimre Whiling \\;lhin the discussion with the ~Ne" Chronologbts" in the ANE-fonun on As.s~Ti­an chronology on t(j ~I,u-ch 2003: hltP:, www.caeno,orgi Epoll)11l pdf IIASTRO_AKL%~Opo"ing>.pdf (OeL. 2007)

t..'\.~ L\~l)SI\.-RG~'R ( 195·1) :\9, '\~\'\I\'>; ( 198-1) 115. PRl'LSL'-.:sZ .... ·y

(2006) i:l-7!l.

134 Mesopotamian Chronolo~ of the 2nd ~tillennium B ~

some case these were copied from each other .... ince Distanzangaben were seldom found in ,isible

insCliptions, it i assumed that the compiler extract­ed the data from other sources, such as the EL which probably could be found in the state's archive (and all those co pie of the AKL made for temples, whIch ha"e uf\i\ed imph that such information was readih' acc ible) :" ELs are sources which offer the pre~ise number of vears for a pecific period whert"­as KLs also report on genealogical ties (by filiations) and how many generations had p ed. ince the Assvrian , in contrast to the Babylonians, had a con­tmuous tradition, they were able to compute the number of rears that had pas ed between one reb~jlding of a temple and another. Howe"er, we still lac; a continuous EL cQ\'ering the time between 14_0. 30 BC and the end of the KEL and it i ques-tionable that the compilers of the AKL d th . " an e IIlscnpllons containing the Distanzangaben had access to a complete epon~m list: if one existed

f · h ,a copy 0 !l as yet to be discQ\·ered.

H~CH\l~'~ (l97i) 97-130 carefully tudied the chronologJ_cal !mpli~atio~ of five DisLanzangaben. On pp. 12/-128 he IISLS eIght imporLant general fea­tures of the Assyrian Dis=gaben:

I ) The data was not invented or guessed at; it seem th~t .the numbers were calculated on the basi of eXIsting material.

2) The material ob'iously contains errors.

3) DocumenLS containing Distanzangaben reveal mlSundersLandings of the KLs and ELs.

4) Most of the Distanzangaben were calculated inde­pendenuy of each other.

5) The bases of the calculations were most probabl KLs and ELs. y

6) One might be able to reconstruct how far back in ume the EL was used.'"

7) No.unifonn scheme can be detected for detenni­nallons of the reign lengths of dynasties

8) DisLanzangaben always contain the l~t Or first regnal year of the ruler to which they refer.

OJ The stone inscriptions by SaJmaneser J for Lh r are similar to tbose of Adad.nirari I Unfi n C s~r te~ple

640 .~Jab was found in situ. . 0 Unate y. neither

Also PRLI.~/' ""y', (2006) and (2006a) I . Ass' . ~ ('va uatlon of the yn~n Olstan.t..angaben suggests that some kind of EL

must. ave I~en at hand. Here one can O~n'e that m' Lalhkes In l~mg down the specific king OCcurred: the SC"i~~ CJ cr ml sed lhe "corre .. ki' .'" were uJed) . Cl ng (lh,s indicales that Kl.A

or mlscaJcuJaled the Lime pan by 10 year.

Historical Relevance and Value for Absolute Chronology

The chronological "alue of the Distanzangab . en was rccogmzed long ago, and numerous attemplS to app'.' them . hronologically have been conducted TheIr rehablhty for absolllle chronolo'" has b h'

b' . . 0 ' eente u ~eCl of man) tudies."" 0 far, no decisive answer

has been found. me scholars eve n den) theif\'alue :or absolllle chronoIOg)' due to ule difficulties in ll1terpretallon ulev presel1l and the ambiguities of theIr numbers.

POEBEL ( 1942-1943) was the first to work with Dis­tanlangaben, allcmpting to fit them illlO his AKL. based chronological scheme. WEIDNER ( 1945- 1951) und.ertook the same line of inquiry. L""DSBERGER (1954) howed that there is a major chronological gap III the ARL after the reign of lSme-Dag;ln I and that n IS therefore impossible to establish an exact chronolOgical scheme by combining all the available reIgn lengths. evertheless, he believed that in Mid. dl Ass' . e rnan times there must have existed a com-plete, unshortened version of the ARL which served as a basis for the calculations of time spans by Sal. maneser I and Tiglaul-pile er 1. Weidner assumed that the Disanzangaben had been calculated by means of data independent of the KLs (in this he was followed by ComelillS, Rowton , H. Lewy, Tadmor and Hachmann: see the summary by A)AMAN [1984]). who recalculated the time spans, by overcoming the eXlsllng gap in the ARL, and arrived at a date of 1852 BC for the first year of Samsi-Adad I.

HACt I\!ANN (1977) 9&-99 extensively discussed the texLS contallllllg time spans and their function as hi .. torica~ documenLS. li e stressed that all sampled data from lIlscnpllons are ambiguous (p. 105) since it is ~ncertalll what poinLS were the beginning and end· mg of the Distanlangaben - whether the beginning was wIth. the beginning of the king'S reign who did the prevIOUS restoration or with the completion of that restoration; and whether the ending was wilh the beginning of the king's reign who did the current rest' . orallon or wnh the completion of that restora·

Th.c\c miSLakes mighl have I N:ll at!)o due LO f<lullY cOlllpi· l all on~ from previCJu~ Fl--;.

,..1 The KEL shows lhi, to have b{'ell r ri~lIm J. (see VH'lIor r2~)()3J). This it i, no \urpri\e a.s tht" AKL begim sp dfying

84~ reign lenglhs with r-,-j~lIm J.

::~~~"'.ANN ( 1977); NA'AMAN ( 1984); ilm.'" _ WIII/U." ), O. OlloRlm (1995) 18-19 al1d ill reply GAl nR. Or

70 (200 1) 199.

9. OisLal17.angabcn (AbsLandsda!en, AbsLandsangaben, Time Spans) 135

tion. It is unlikely that the actual time of (re)building was referred to since building activities were usually not included in ELs or KLs and the earlier building inscriptions do not contain eponym datings. [n case of successive Distanzangaben it is hard to estimate the number of included dynasties and whether this num­ber includes all dynasties between the earlier and mOSt recent restoration.

In [979 BOESo and WILHELM, when dealing with chronology of the second half of the 2 nd millennium, re\;ewed the Distanzangaben and proposed a l(}.year shortening of the Middle Assyrian chronology."" (-+ 9.1. and 9.2. for details.)

Dis['1ozangaben have been !lSed for the recon­stnICtion of the less precise parLS of the AKL,'" espe­cially to determine ule length of lost reigns or those designated as DUB-pi·su. The value ofDi tanzangaben particularly is clear in instances of those of Sal­maneser I and Esarhaddon referring to the reign of EriSum I. Such Dis['1nzangaben are very useful in reconstructing the chrono[o~y of the 2nd millennium, especially regJlal dates for Samsi-Adad I. Eponyms, dendrochronological and astronomical data may help in evaluating uleir reliability. The KEL shows that ELs served as source material for the compilation of data in these inscriptions as well as in the ARL: that the Dis­tanzangaben do correlate with the AKL in iLS present­ly known state, can be demonstrated on the basis of the numbers of years between Erisum [ and his suc­cessors·" Perhaps earlier redactions of the AKL, which have not been presef\'ed or discovered ret, were used to collect Distanzangaben data.

NA'A\lA~ (1984) believes some or the Dismnzanga­ben are no more than rough estimates and therefore of no help for ule esmblishment of an exact chronol­ogy. But other Dismnzangaben he thinks are thought­ful calculation of avai lable data and thus an impor­tant Source for chronology. He believes that ELs were of no "lllle for the calculation of the throne tenure of Old Assyrian kings, since no li sLS were known then. lie agrees with L111dsberger that there was a chrono­logieal gap in the AKL tradition following Isme­Dagan I and dou bLs that th e Assyrian scribes had any Information concerning the length of this period. Only KAV 14 seems to know something about this obscure gap; bill it lacks exact chronological data

~, Sf , 't' J \r\"E' (200H) 6·1-65 for iI slllnmal) 0 11 SOlllt' protr Iflll~ of Midcll{' A"yrian chlono log)" ""or a cri ti ca l slale­JUt'llI on Ihl' low{'rt'd Middle Aswrian chronolog\' see

'" 110"" R (1993) 50. For lht'~e wei.lk POitlL'1 \\;thin the AKL sec II \( II\1A:"I~

conceming the throne tenures during this period. According to a)aman this gap is due to the lack of information available to the Assyrian compilers dur­ing a politically turbulent period. Na)aman concludes that the KLs contained all chronological data neces­sary for the calculation of time spans of past evenLS and that they were the main sources for all Distanz­angaben, which means that the latter are of no value for the establishment of an exact chronological scheme or for the confinnation of a gi,'en chrono­logical system. But DisLanzangaben are imporLant for the investigation of the KLs available to the scribes at different periods. On p. 119 NA)AMAN (1984) summa­rizes his conclusions conceming the computation of Distanzangaben:

• The scribe calculated backwards (Tiglath-pileser I, Esarhaddon) .

• All dates were usually calculated from the accession of one king. to the acce sion of the previous king (except for Sahnaneser).

[n their book Daling ... , 61 G . .\SCHE ,I al. conclud­ed that the "Distanzangaben cannot be used with any degree of confidence in establi hing accurate dates for the reign of S;unSi-Adad I." They were supported by S.\ss~l~NN HAUSEI' [2006] 161. BUI as RLillE (2001) 3-5 pointed out in his reply, the Distanzangaben may not tell when exactly u,e respective building activities took place, but do contain infOlmation. which com· plies with the AKL (and ELs; though he does not expliciuy tate this) and tllerefore need to be consid­ered. According to Reade's calculations, the Distanz­angaben suppOrt the NC first proposed by Gasche ,/ al. Despite ule fact ulal ome cholars refuse to con­sider Assyrian time spans for chronological purpo e , another el'aluation of the Distanzangaben has been presented b ' EDER (2004) 19 1-236, who found a "ery high chronolog)" different result was presented by PRL'ZSII'SZKY (2006) 73-79, who combined Assrrian lime spans with the most recent astronomical results for' amsi-Adad I by MtCHEL (2002), which seem con­sistem with dendrochronological resulLS from Acem­Ho)il k. Thi stud)' attempted to pro,ide a general scheme b), which the Di tanzangaben might be understOod and calculated , since ule crucial question remains concerning ule point from which their cal-

(1977) 121-122. ummaries refening to older ~lUdies ha\e been provided by L~'OSBER('ER (J95~) 31-73. AKL

b" \\'IUIEL\I. MOAR 7jl and EOER (2004) 197-200. Eder belie\es lhat chronicles also mar have been used as source material for calcuhting lime ~pans ( ....... sub 9.2.).

136 \te'>opotamian Chronoiog'l of the ~nd ~lillennium 8("

culations started and where they ended: onh afler this has been determined can the Distal11angaben be used 10 decide among the competing chronologies. j.-I.:SF' (2006) dealt with Ihe .-\SS,rian Distanzanga­ben and aI 0 com pUled a solution between the ~lid­dIe and Low Chronolo~ for ~lesopotamia.

AssYRIA.'" DISTANZANGABEN

9.1. Rebuilding of the ASSur temple by ASSur-resa-iSi I (no. 86)

Cia} (ont jrom .lliur. RlJH 2, A.O. 6.11 (.Issllr 125i2)

- [The temple of the od --tIT - which Uspia ... had pre,ioush built and] (when) it became dilapidated [Erisum (I) ... rebuilt (it and when 159 (?) 'ears had pas ed and] it had (again) become dilapidated, SamSi-[Adad (I) ... rebuilt (it and) 5,0 (?) ,ears (passed), then halmaneser (I)] rebuilt (it), (and) 132 ["ears (pas<ed), then ASSttr]-nSa-i5i (I), ,ice-regent of [ASSur, rebuilt (it) ... ]. [~lay] a later [prince ... j"

Assur-reSa-isi I

132 years

Salmaoeser 1

. The con,e is hadl, damaged. Ir.-. text was first pub­lished bv \\ EID'ER (1927) 12 and later reconstructed by BoRGER, EAR 105. For its importance to the con­struction histo') of the ASsur temple see H.~( HIlA' (1977) 110.

The results presented here are taken from the stud} of BOESf - \\'JLHEL\! (1979) 29-33. The text poses no problems of interpretation: 132 rears are said to hale elapsed ?etween the restorations of the temple. of ASsur by Salmaneser J (no. 77) and ir.-. rebUJI~ong by ASsur-rcSa-isi 1 (no. 6). The clay cone was wnue~ dunng the ~liddle Assyrian period by one of the hell" of ASsur-rcSa-iSi. According to Boese _ Wilhelm, the years are to be counted from the respec-

64G ~e ~Iso ROIl 1(, (1965) 321 for ~m(; bask (omide-idliol1\, RO".lg refu;\Cd to believe in the exi'Jtence of an EL for Lhl' earlier PC~(K'I' ( AKL and EL). In his ~tudy hc also Ir("at­

ed l~\s rt'lIa~I(~ ~r I('~\ precise time spam bt·gillning with lhe Un,,:, of .'>am\l-r\dad 1 (EAK I. 911. wilh a diM'u\'!ion on th(' Akkadian Won (liirum).

tile accession dates: Assllr-r~sa-isi I (I J 32), Sal. maneser J (1264). The combined reigns of Ninurta. apil-Ekur (no. 2) and .-\Ssllr-dan I (no. 83) thus add up 10 49 Years, "hich form lhe basis for the "lowered ~liddle Ass)1;an chronology" ( AKL, below and sub 9.2.). The reigns of Ninuna-tukulti-ASSur (no. 84) and ~111~ak.kil-;-:usku (no. 85), which are designated DUB-pr-slI. then total one year.'" According to the

OAS and ChOl . AKL ( sub 2.2.1. and 2.2.1.4.) three "ears are assigned to ASSu.'nadin-apli (no. 79).

Lisl oj.1s.')"Iiall killgs accordillg 10 I'~ AKL

ii Sallllaneser I 30 ; Tukuhi-l 'inuna I 37 ;9 A.s.sur-n.1idin-apli 4/ 3 0 AS.Sur-ni~ri III 6

Enlil-ludurri-~llr 5 2 ,,\i nurta.-apil-Elur 3. 13 3 Aiiur;kJn I 36. 46

84 Ninlirta-{uklilti-MSur ? 5 ~1makk.iI-NlIsku

6 ASSur-reSa-iSi I 18

There is a discrepanC) in the reign length of Ni-nurta­apil-Ekur (no. 82) among the surviving tablet.s of the AKL: the 'ass. KL records 13 years for this king, while the Chor . and SDAS KLs both note only three years. Before the study of Boese - Wilhelm the high· er number 13 had been generally accepted, as pro­posed by POE BEL (1942-1943) 288" 3 and (1943) 87, and added to the 46 years of reign of ASsur-dan I (no. 83). Poebe!'s approach has been followed by most scholars for the following two reasons:

I) The sum of 3 + 46 years for these two kings of the AKL is not compatible with the Diswnzangaben and the synchronisms between Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt (assuming the Egyptian chronology is secured for the Amarna period: see POfBEL [1942- 1943] 288 113, WEIO!,/t' R [1945-1951] 88 and 1I0RNUNG [J964] 57-58). Poebel therefore accepted 13 as the correct number of years unless "new and more authorik1tive evidence" should prove the number 3to be the correct one.

(,41 c:_ X'c lately Rfo.AHfo. (200 1) 5 on it po'isibk' interprewlioll of lu/JjJi(u as 16 years, the cCJuivalclIl 01 all average throne l(·nure). -+ sub 2.5. and 9.5. NOLe that the Disw lIl:'lIlWlbe (~fT~lkulti-Ninurl(J was not considered by Rt' ;'lcI ' in Ilis pub­IIcallon of 2001 si nce it iii 1101 relcY-tllt to the dating or Salll'i-Adad r.

9. Distaillangabcn (Abstandsdaten. Abstandsangaben. Time Spans) 137

2) The Synchronistic History (AB no. 21, 11,4-8)

implies the death of the Kassite rule~ A~ad-sum~-u~ur occured aftc. the end of re.gn of Enlll-kudurn-u~ur (no. 81) (GRAYSO:>;, ABC 162, BR"'K~!\~, PHPKB 87) during the reign of Ninurta-apil-Ekur (no. 82). Fur­ther. it is known that Tiglath-pileser I (no. 88) sur­vived the Isin II ruler Marduk-nadin-abbc (ABC no. 21, 11 , 14'-17'; see also BRlNK.\IA:-; [l968] 69, 74f., 130)'" These facts, considering the interval between the Babylonian and Assyrian kings according to their KLs, can onl), be hal1TIonized if the reign of Ninurta­apil-Ekur was J 3 years (Poebel and others such as ROI\TO~ [1966] 241-242).

However. both these arguments were criticized by BOES, and WIIIIEI.\t (1979) 27 and 36-37, who point­ed out that all assumptions depend on the low Egypt­ian chronology, which is not fully secured since it depends on the AKL and ultimately on the reign length of Ninurta-apil-Ekur (RO\\TO:\ [1966] 257&19). They warned that the second argument concerning the (unfortunately broken) passage of the Synchro-­nistic History is based only on the assumption that this passage describes an unsuccessful Babylonian campaign: if it does not, the synchronism between Ninurta·apil-Ekur and Adad-suma-uwr is lost (see BR.\K\lAN, MSRH 3289. -4 Chronicles sub 7.1. and 7.3.) Another argument for a longer Ninuna-apil­Ekur reign (next to the epon)1TI evidence: -4 below and AKL sub 2.2.1.5.) is in the overlap of the Kassite and Isin n dynasties. BRlNK.\IA.:-;, PHPKB 82 ques­tioned the chronological relationship between both dynasties (overlap or interregnum) and at first con­cluded that no elidence existed for either; later in M KII 29R; and 33'11 and RIA 5 (1976-19 0) 184 he argued for a slight overlap. BOESF and \l'IIIlEL\t (1979) 2 concluded that because absolute Babylo--

6VI The ,!)Ilchrollism is attested in tht' } nchrolli"lic lIi~ton and in lht' ynchrouistic KL. For another Oi'lalll<mgabe of 418 re.Ir''I in Ihe Bavian inscription (OIP 2, p. 83: 48tT.) bt'l\\l"l'n St'nn<lChtTib and riglath-pile~el t i\(ilrduk.-n:ldin­.IUbe '('t' Ilkl'I..~I,\t\, PIlPKB 83-85 ,Ind t 26-125. Thert' it is '!t'Hed lhill altt'rIIS )t'ar') the gods, which wert' brought to n"b,loli by ~1.l1dllk-n.)din-i1bb~ chuing the reign ofTiRlalh­pilesl'l' t, hell' rt'llirned b} ennadlt'rib to Fl..i\ltutllIl in his 17tll yt'<u during his Rlh campaign. 0 problelH~ occm ror lhe d,lIt, of lht, rl'ign ofTigli\lh·pilt:"'l'r whilt· SOIlll' discrq)­'1Ilt} I'i to bl' nOled in ICllpecllO that or~ I.\1'dllk-njdill-abbc ( 1099-IOH2), which cannot be explained: :>t't' BRI~K.'L", PlIllKU 1~771!\ .\ 1\(\ again ,\SS\t\NN~ II , \l, ... t-'.N (2006) IU .... BOlli mll'l!cl .lll' recorded as (,OIHt'H1ponllic~ in Ih(' S) 11-

t'hronislir KL. and Splchronilitic I tistOl}. S('t' al,o PI A It '2 (200 1) 7HI 'Ulb Marduk-nild ill -abbc. Tht' boot) must ha\'e

nian chronology ultimately depends on Assyrian chronology, the Babylonian data cannot be u ed to detennine the reign length of an Assyrian mler - it would be circular reasoning.

Eponyms compiled from Middle AsslTian docu­ments indicate that Ninurta-apil-Ekur must ha"e reigned more than three rears."" The reign of ASSur­dan I (no. 83) is generally beliel'ed to have lasted 36 years"" (-4 below sub 9.2,). Moreover, the 46 plus 13 years of Poebel do not fit the 132 lears Distanzanga­be of ASSur-riSa-iSi. Note that the sum of either com­bination, i.e. 46 + 3 and 36 + 13 (= 49 years), is equal. It probably is based on a correct hi torical calcula­tion; but at some point a mistake must have been cor­rected - but exactly when cannot be detennined. The sum of both reigns (49 ,ears) is crucial for the recon­scruction of chronology and the succession date of Ninurta-apil·Ekur and complies "ith the Disranzan­gabe of 132 years as shown bl BOESE - \\'ll.HEL\t (1979). Further instances of IO-year gaps in Disranz­angaben and the AKL are pointed out by PRCtst:-;SZKY (2006c) 26.

The hortening of ASSur-diin 's reign from 46 to 36 years was not accepted by EDER (2004) 20023, though he did not object to ti,e shortened Ass)'rian chrol1ol­o~' of Boe e - Wilhelm. Thus Eder attributed 0111)' three years to Ninurta-apil·Ekur.

BORGE.R, EAK 105, belieled that ti,e clay cone with the time span of 132 years was wriuen by ASSur-resa-i5i I. This was followed bl" RO\\TO~ (1966) 25-1 and GRA) O~, ARI I, pp. 151f.j.'-"SSE.:-; (2006) 65 also con­sidered it po ible. This implies that ome of the reg­nal years might have been included to the Dismnzan­gabe. But Boese and Wilhelm had second thoughts about this interpretation and cautiously suggested that this inscription rna", have been wriuen for one of

been taJ...f'n to Bab\lon before ~larduk'":ldilh'lbbc'~ 9th ,ear. -+ General sub 1.6.2 .. \ccording to R,)wG (1965) 339,.. the Dist<tlll3ngabe of the 8..1\;<\11 insClipliOl~ "ist sicnn ~~T gt'Schiil:..f and ~tigtl,t s;rh tlichl :Ilm A.UJbtIU nl~" (.hrrm~ ..

M'l RO\\TO' (1966) 249-252 urged a 10\\ Egvpuan chronol~ becau!'e of the letter KBo 1. 14." hich pre",ulIlabh was ... ~nt by L1anusili 111 to .\dad-nir.ili L Further e\;dence of Hittite l~tters which indicate an Eb"l>tiall LC were presented b, BOl~r _ WUJUt \I (1979) 3600. On the consequt"nce~ or the LC ror E~p( on Ilittite chronolo!-l"\ se~ ~)U.F: \\'IU tEI .'\

(19;9) 3;6' and 11'1111>1 " - Btl'" ( 19 I) 14-11/. For a dlr­ferent date for this INter note GI()R(;URI, OriO (2001) 91

.

,,,0 F.m1l\~' (19<)1) 195. MI This result w;.\s confirml-o b\ t'\a)aman and supported b~

lhesl\Ich orFRf\1).,"'''' (199t) 33-3l iHld i2-78.

1 ~le~polami.Ul Chronolo~ of the 2nd ~Jillennillm Be

the sllccessors of MlIr-resa-isi 1: the\" assumed that the Di tanzangabe mo t probabh denoted the time span between the beginning of one reign and the beginning of the next ( ee p. 30; other options are possible). If one calculates the distance bel1\'een Sal­mane er I and ASSIIJ~r('sa-iSi I according to the AKL b,' counting the so far generallv accepted 59 'ears for :-\inllna-apil-Ekur and ,-\SSur-<ian I. there remain an exce of to 11 vears m'er the 132 years given bl the cia\" cone Assur 12572. This excess di appears if a total of 49 years reign for the 11.-0 kings is accepted (see RO\\To~ [1966] 254f.. who interpreted Di tallZ­angaben literalh' and belie"ed tllem to denote the ome pan from the beginning of one building-phase to the next. The Statistical results of this assumption fumred the HC. which Rowton preferred: see BOESE - .'~·JLHEL\f [1979] 32). Rowton' assumption was cno;lzed b" ROWG (1969) 275. According to Boe e - \\ Ilheim. any \"ear (thus anI year of the 18 . · . vear reIgn of ASliur-resa-i-i I) could have been the ;ear when the building taned. which invalidates Row­ton's argument for a higher as opposed to the lower chronology.

Altho~gh the Tukulti-Ninuna Distanzangabe doe not contnbUle to determine Assyrian chronolOg} for the first half of the 2nd millennium BC -t d 'd '. • I oes pro-n e Important information for the chronolog} of the second half of the 2nd millennium BC and h th . . ows at Assynan Dlstanzangaben should be considered as ,aluable e'ldence for Assyrian chronoIOg}-.

9.2. Statement of Tigiath-pileser I

Prism inscription from the A nu-Adad tnnple in Aifur and lhe palace of Aifu~irpal 1/: RI!t-fA 2. A.O.87.} (dale of compasl/wn: (jlh year of Tiglalh-pileser /)

"At that time the temple of the gods Anu and Adad.

the great g~s. my lords. which Samsi-Adad. vice­regent of ASsur. son of ISme-Dagan (who was) also \Oce-regent of the god ASSur. had pre,;ously built, (after) 641 years had passed it had become dilapidat-

V,j For instance S"'S\IA'''IAn" (2006) 162 h d 'Id .\\ooesnol

f;'., me u e the 60 years in the 64 J years. . The numbers of kings (I II) '. · , . elC. are only indicated by fir

tOt allon or position within the Assyrian line of ruler I 1-

'" See also Bo>-,,-- WIlIIII.1f (1979) 25 (table). . CAS<!If ,I aL. Dalmg _ .. 59259 or RUDE (200 I) 4

.... Differently EilER (2004) 207-208 (-. bel()w) -~ . · h be f • l fie mix-up

!:J1Jg,,: t ... 3 \0 due to the fact that no famil)' Lic\ ..... ere kno lOr Sam.'tl-Adad (no'. Ih h - I . . wn AKL) . ..... e c rOllle c-hk(' lO\Cnion in the

ed and ,-\SSur-<ian, king of Assyria son ofN' . .'.. . . ". IIlUrta-apil_

Ekllt (llho II.IS) also king of Ass)l1a tOI-e I . . • (OMI thIS

temple but dId not rebui ld (it) and for 60. , . lears I~

foundauon had not been relaid:

c=. Tiglath-pileser I

60 years

641 yea"

amsl-Adad 1

:-<ote that folloll;ng graph does not cOITespond to e,eryone's interpretation of this inscription'"

In the first edition of his annals Tiglath-pileser I (no. i) repone.d that after 641 years tl,e Anu-Adad temple built bl' amsi-Adad III. son of ISme-Dagan Il (note the IITong order!)"" had become dilapidated. It was restored by ASsur-<ian I (no. 83) and was fin. Ished 60 years later by Tiglath-pileser I.

List of kings betwen! Tiglath-Pileser I and ASiur-diin} according to Ihe AKL~"

83 AiSur-dan J

84

85

86

87

"inuna-tukuILi-ASSur

MUlllkJul-!IIusku

MSur·nSa-iSi I

Tiglath-pile~er J

46/36

?

?

18

39 (6"' year!)

S --Ad ~msl- ad III was an unimportant. almost unknown k~ng. Therefore, il. can be assumed tl,at Tiglath­plleser I intended Samsi-Adad I"" despite the fact thatlhe relation~hip has been inverted: Samsi-Adad I was the father of ISme-Dagan /."", The 60 years seem to have been counted backwards from Tiglalh­pileser '~ 6th year.'" Thus if lhis inscription . the first

6(,7 Due ~() th~ fact Lhal in lhi" case calcuhlliolH began frolll lht year III which th(' building aClually LOok place, E!)tlt (2004) 200 assumed thal cJlI'oni les had bcell lI5ed as SOllrce'! for lh~ computation of Di'Han/angabeli . I Ie propos('d a cHlcu­fallon lrom lhe.- 51h }'('al' ofTigfaLh-pileser I. Norc ( .. A.\CIIf. et (JL, Akkruirm 108 (1998) 3 a.ssilming thaL! It.~nar calendar may have be('n in 1.1 ."1" befor(' the lillie of 11~lalh-pilc~el J. For a critical view on lhe problem of the tl~e of the lunar 01'/ and solar c", lendal in A'is)'ri~1 see BKI\KMAN, MSKJ I 32"9 and mort' recently again REAllf'

(201J1J) 152 and VII ." ")f (2000) I 4 I If. -> Calendar

9. Di""nlang-dben (Ab'1.1ndsdalen. Ab,tandsangaben. Time Spans) 139

edition of his annals. was wrillen in 1109 (6th year). the first regnal year of ASsur-<ian I would have been 1169 (see WEIDNER [1945-1951] 93 and HACmIANi'i

[1977]117). The 60 years seem to have been included in the

641 years. as PRlI.SI~SZKV has tried to show in articles published in 2006 dealing with the Distanzangaben. A different "ew can be found in the study by GASCHE ,/ aL. Datillg ... 58. where it is assumed that the build­ing of the Anu-Adad temple took place in Tiglath­pileser's accession year (1115). This marks the stan­ing point of their calculation. adding 60 years to the time of ASSur-<ian I and another 641 years to the time of Samsi-Adad's original construction. H owever. scholarly consensus has been that the 60 years are to be included in the 641 years (for instance HACH\l-\XN [1977] 125 ..... who compared this with Distanzanga­ben of Salmaneser I and Esarhaddon). Since GASGHE it aL. Dating .... 59 did not acknowledge this inclu­sion. the re t of the calculation leading to Samsi­Adad's 1 reign is regarded as useless. Also S.-\SS'l.\XNS­HAt'SES (2006) 162 disagrees tl,at the 60 years were included in the 641 years. and commented on the reliability of the inscription: ..... Man fragt sich. wie zu"erHissig ein Datum sein kann. wenn der Verfasser nicht einmal den Vatersnamen cines der prominen­testen Herrscher von Assur ZlI kennen scheint. ....

NA'AMA~ (1984) 118 recalculated the possible dates for Samsi-Adad r. He proposed 1750-1718 for Samsi-Adad's reign b) taking 1109 fo r Tiglath-pileser's 6th year, accepting a 33-}'ear Lhrone tenure for" amsl­Adad I. and assuming tlle Distanlangabe refered to his first year. The reign lengths of ASSur-rabi I (no. 65) and A\Sur-nadin-abbe I (no. 66) are unknown. but assumed bl N\'t\.\I.\;-' (198-1) to be 32 years. This num­ber is based on average reign lengths (-t Generation). All kings up to Belli-bani (no. 48) may be dated accordingly. But from thi ' poilll onwards. due to the DUB-pi,Su reigns and tl,e first AssITian Dark Age (-t sub 2.5. and 9. 1. ) we are unable to establish accurate dates for Assyrian kings. Furthermore. the duration of the re igns of ASs lI r-<i n I and his father Ninurta-apil­Ekuf is vcr} uncertain, a variation of up to 20 years

being pos~ible ( above sub 9. 1.).

>II li e u"o(,'d i1 'ilighlh dillerem cI.ut· COl the beginning of Tiglalh-pil e~cr\ I r~it-p·l: 1112. \,hich r{"suh.~ in 1752 for the

..., ".In ofSallt\H\ d.td s reign. A (',lIcuillion frorn Ihe rllk'I"'8 lirst )("ar would ride! 1755

"'(1 .~C. \O,·hkh doe ... I\UI pn)pl'd ) fit tll(' le~iI of the le ... uh:-.. f ht' iuidition of;.\n extra fiO )c.u'S would lead 10 a chroHol­t.g) hiKhf'1" than tht, i\ tC.

The prism inscription ofTiglath-pileser I includes the Distanzangabc of 60 years beMeen Tiglath-pileser I and ASsur-<ian I. Boese and Wilhelm calculated from Tiglath-pileser's first year (11I4) a maximum date of 1174 (excluding the reign of Tiglath-pileser) and a minimum date of 1169 (calculation from the last pos­sible point in time) for the beginning or end of ASSur­dan's reign. In view of his long reign. it is assumed that the Distanzangabe referred to tl,e beginning of h is reign (see a lso the table on p. 25). The calculation based on the Distanzangabe, which was ,mtten down soon after the event. demonstrates that the 36 years of the Nass. KL for the reign of ASSur-<ian I must be the correct one. Considering this new result a dis­crepancy often years in total was obtained (= lowered Middle Assyrian chronology).

PRVlSISSZJ..'Y (2006) 7~79 made another effon to demonstrate that the 60 years should be included in the 641 years. A ten-year gap is still obtained when the calculation begins at the 61h year of Tiglath-pileser I. the compo irion date of this prism."'" However. gaps of len rears are e\idenl elsewhere in the various manu­scripts of the AKL. specifically concerning ASSur-<ian I.

inurta-apil-Ekur and Puzur-ASSur Ill. The first time span of 60 years refers to the first rear of ASSur-dan, thus confirnling a 36-year reign as reported in the Nass. KL (-t AKLsub 2.2.1.5.). Considering kings nos. 83-86. and starting tllC calculation in the beginning of Tiglath-pile er' reign it is reasonable to assume that the 60 years are to be included to the calculation of 641 years bel1,een Tiglath-piJeser and Samsi-Adad I. ... The end of tlle calculation refers to the last year of Samsi-Adad I (1750) if one accepts the dates of his reign bel1,-een 1792 and 1760 (note the gap of 10 years!). as was proposed bl' MICHEL (2002) on tl,e basis of the solar eclipse that followed tlle year of hi birth which seems to be in accordance 1I1th the e,aluation of dendrochronological data from Anatolia.

EDER (2004) 207-20 undel tood thi statement to be a reference to ISme-Dagan' building acti,ities. lI is calculations yield 1816 or 1812 and thus are inconsistelll with h is date for Samsi-Adad 1.661 H e begins his calculations \\itll Tiglath-pileser' fifth 'ear. which he places in I III BC ..... then adds the fil t time

f'il Note PRl1SIi'.'IK\ (200&) for further comments on Eder's

approach. btl:! The inscription report .... on the first ti\C 'ears. Pnusinszk)'

a$"U111eS lila! the building took place in Ule }'t"~H' the inscri~ lion \\~.\S recorded. i.e. the 6 lh ve~,r, which according to the

C'oll\cmional chrol101o~ would be 1109 Be.

HO \te\up()(amian (,hronolo~ of tilt' 2nd \l1l1enniulI1 Bf'

span of the 60 'ears. which re,ulb in 11;5 or II i I. l'nfonunatell the e "eaL do not fall ,,;thin\'\;Ulc dan's reign. Eder proposed ' en hig-h date, for I\me­Dagan (I 4:'>--1806) and concluded that tlli, Ditan7-angabe referred to the 'ear when the building actu­alII took place. Gi,en that th~ _-\hL credils ];me­Dagan I ,,;th a reig-n of -10 "eal (a number ,,;dell belie, ed to be incorrect).'"" the con tntnion would ha,'e taken place in his ~th to 33m regnal) ear. How­e\"er, thi, reference point is unu ual ( ... below sub 9.S. and PRLl.>I'SZJ..' [?006] ,:'>--;6 and [2006c] 2:'>--?6). Thi dating and the long reign ofIsme-Dagan I of 40 'e",", combined ,,;th the 125 'ears (!) of reigns unattested in the AKL (but in the Puzur-Sin inscrip­

tion and KAV 14 ... AKL ub 2.1.1.) were correlated ,,;th the time after Hammu-rapi'. which is carcel, documented in As.wrian ource,. Eder' historical conclusions (-humtarh, Sat,llit",- which did not appear in the.-\hL due to a damnatio mnnoriaF) til ere­fore ha\"e to await funher ",;dence. As mentioned abO\-e, he does not accept the 36 'ears for .-\SSur-<ian, but ne,ertheless affirms the lower ~liddle .-\ssn;an chronolo~ (p. ?OO, fn . ?5). The dates ofSamSj-Adad I were calculated on the basis of the Di tanzangabe of Salmaneser l. One notice that neither of Eder's cal­culated lears corresponds ,,;th either the end or the beginning of the ntler' reign ....

In COnlraSt to PRl"Z.'>I'-SZK\- (2006) J ,,-,s"f:~ (2006) 6; began from the 4th year of Tiglath-pileser r (1111 BC) and added both numbers mentioned in the inscription: 1111 T 60 + 641 = I II, which is 33 years shoner than the 1264'''' + 580 = 184-1 ofSalmaneser's records. According to J"-'SSE~ (2006) 68, the scribe of Tiglath-pileser probabl' took his information from the Distanzanj;:abe of Salmaneser I b, subtracting the 33 years of SarnSi-Adad and adding the 94 lears between -almaneser J and MSur-dan. TI,e subtraction of the 33 years is due to the fact that in Tiglath­pileser's Distanzangabe Samsi-Adad J was the oldest king referred to and, according to J anssen's omen-a­tions in· Regeln tier DiJtanzangabm" (p. 68), no lear of ti,e oldest king referred to is included in the calcula­tion. Janssen's solution for Tiglath-pilescr\ statement also implies that 13 years were calculated for ~inurta­apil-Ekur and that an AKL version similar to the ~a".

...... AKl_ ,ub 2.2.1.1. 61">'1 See PRl/_\"VKY (200fx:) 26.

u. SeeJ""'>f.' (2006) 65-67 for this dale ill (OIlII<'Clion wilh hi, di\ClI\sion of the Iup/Jiflbreigns. (fir which he (OllIlL;, 2 'ear-..

list was at hand . II i, o\"erall e' aluation of the Distanz. angaben for absolute ~l e'opotamian chronolo81' is ba.sed on the 11\ pothesi, that an error of 100 years mighl h",e occurred in Ihe SlatemenLS ofSalmaneser and Tiglath-pile,,'r. The difTerence between the stale­menlS of Esarhaddontiti6 and \ almaneserllll7 is 146 'eal-". Pan of thi, ditTerence. the -16 ,eal.., in Es,trhad. don" statement, mal be due to king" whose reign length, in the AKL cannot be filII)' tnlsted: the AKL Ii'h -10 ' eal . for ISme-Dagan I and 6 \"ears for ASSul' dugu!. Taking Esarhaddon '; difTerence or 46 Years into account. J"-"'f' (2006) 70 dates Samsi-Adad to 17+-1. Thus j-I."'F' (2006) 7 1 OpLS for a solmion between the shonened ~JC and the LC.

o,"""'i"", of calculations b)' Eder alld Pruz.sillSzR.l'

Eder IIII 5 ( I" or (1h regnal 'ear)

+(1)

"" 5 +6-11

1816 12 (Reference to the actua l building pha~e during l!me-Oagan [1845-1806])

Pruzsinszky II) '1 (I" regnal ,ear) +&1 I (60 ) ears included)

1755

1109 (6th regnal lear) +64 1 (60 )ears included)

1760

9.3. Statement of Esarhaddon

Building doruml'ntJ from Ass"r: BORG/oR, AfD 13/1. 9 (1956) 3 (Ars. A III I 6JJ.:fi"01l! his 2'1(/ YFar)

• AI. der friihere AS,ur-Tempel, den mein Vorfahr V'pia, Priester des ASsur, vorclem gebaut hatte, ver­fallen war, bautc mein Vorfahr Erisum, dcr Sohn des lIusuma, Priesler des ASsur, (ihn) auf. Als er nach 126 Jahren wieder \"{'I"fallen war, baute mein Vorfahr Srunsi-Adad, der Sohn des lIu-kabkabi, Priester des Assur, (ih n) auf. AI. nach 434 Jahren dieser Tempel durch cine FClIcrsbrunsl lenilon war, baul(' l11ein Vorfahr Salmana,sar, der Sohn des Adad-nirari, Priester des Assur, (ihn ) a uf. Nach 580 (Var. 586)

Jahren waren ... schwdch gewordcn.·

f#A According to lan<;wn \ Glkulatiol1 S<lm~I-Adad I dillt'd LO I 69Il-WI;(; Be ("." p. G9).

l,l" Affolding to Jal1~"i{'n'~ (";11("1l1alioll Sam\i.Adad I cI:llt.'d to

IH1-1-IHI~ IlC ("'1' p. fi9) .

9. Di<;Lanhmgabcn (Ab\tand!tdaten. Abstandsangaben. Time Spall') 141

[ Esarhaddon (679)

U 580/586 years

Salmaneser I ~

11 434 years J ~

I Sam~i-Adad I

II Erisum I

126 yea!> 1

This inscription , dating to the econd year of F.sarhaddon (679), reporLS that 126 years elapsed from the restoration of ASsur's temple by £riSum I (no. 33) to that of Samsi-Adad I (no. 39) r,,~ Another 434 years separate the latte r's restoration from the one bv Salmaneser I (no. 77). Finally, 5S0/ 586 years (Bom - WII_H U,\I [1979], 33-35 pre~er. 586,. whic'!.:s reponed in another of Esarhaddon s Illscnpuon_ ) passed IIntil it was rebuilt by Esarhaddon. Sal­maneser's accession date would accordingly, be be~,cen 1265 and 1262, depending on the starung point of the calculation. .

The second part of the statement is problemau~, since ~34 vears is shorter than the length of that pen­od gi,en in the AKL. Landsberger assumed that lhis nllmber is a mistake for -194 lears·'o According to

Na'aman's calculation of 1984, • am-i-Adad I would Ihen ha,e to be dated 10 1759- 1727. roughll 10 years earlier than calculated abo\"e (1750-1718; see 'a'a­mall's rommems sub 9.2.). The discrepanCl mal' be

It>ft St-t' ,,1\0 \'tF\IIOt (2003) ;) I-52 and Eponyms. ., &'01.'0 .. \10 Bh. 9 (1956) 7 (.\". B) " 1.\\,,\1,,0(.," ( 1951) 1(}...j1: 7Saii~ IL' 11 [.·134] i''''''ad Qf8

illi"1 \Il I t I 19 I}). In COHlbilliUioll with hi, 0\\11 rt'con­~tnlctioll or tht· \"1 " hannoni/ing .\11 1-.110\\'1\ I)i"'lil11~illlg<l­hell, I.ilnthl)c.-'I'I-;l·\ l',Ilcubled 185~ for lilt' firsl w.lr of ~"un;i· .\dadl (l' IIC). lId",,, hi\\\ \1'""". ( 1915-W;; I) R,,..102 • md I)ot L\H (HH2- 191:\) hm (' t'\(l'Il,ht"h de.,\( with the It'fUIl\l/1lluon of tht' \Kj and lhe lilllt' ~p<ln d.lta. Set' .11...0 Rt \.In (2001) ;) and S \. .... "\1 \.\ , ... /1 \l ,t \ (2006) 16~. ,dlo It'jt'ul'd tht' ('lHl'lld,lIiol1 frol1\t1~· llOt~ll )e~\N. Note.' Ihalthe.' dil1t'It'lll't' I>t'[\\(-'(.'1I tilt> '-19·1 War .. ill F<.;;uhaddotl\ "Il;ttt'J1It'l11 I' I' . I I" 1 '1" ( 0$0-126 OJ Ill, IlIlIt' 'p~uIlH:d and Iht' orw 0 .)- \t', " ,

}'t'iU\) 1 ('rOI dc.'d in IIIf..' in"l(riplioll of &,ltnant'ser I j"l 10 \(.';lI~, whith forr("'I)(U}(h 10 lilt., 1t.-11Hlh of l ' ri'tllH 's 1 rei~n th"t \\.13

explained by the use of dillerent KLs. The accession of Samsi-Adad I would then fall in 1728 + x, the miss­ing years (x) of ASSur-rabi I (no. 65) and m-ur-niidin­abbe I (no. 66) would amount to 31 years ( ... AKL), and their dates lie between 1451 and 1421. There is no funher support for the scribal error in the inscrip­tions of Esarhaddon; the numbers were corrected to be in accordance ,,;th the time span ofTiglatll-pileser I (see also ROIlTo:-: , jNES 17 [1958]102- 103).

POEBEL (1942-1943) 289-293 set the accession date of Samsi-Adad I to 1726 + x (Le). In order to determine x (the two lost reigns in the AKL), he re\iewed the Ass}",ian Distanzangaben of Salmaneser I Tukulu-Ninurta I and Esarhaddon.·" Whil e WElD­~ER (1945--195 1) S71f. suggested 1727-1695 for the date of Samsi-Adad I (reckoning 1 year for x), Poebel reduced x to 0, and dated the 39th AssvTian king to 1726/ 25--1694 / 93.

A different solution ,,-as presented by HAcmL,,-\JN (1977) 123: He first calculated the sum of years between Esarhaddon and SamSi-Adad I: 580 + 434 =

101-1 ,'e"" - or rather ,,;th the inclusion of 30 years for Sa'imaneser 1, 1044 years. Then, he subtracted one year for ti,e last and first regnal year each, which he believed to ha,e been counted l\,;ce, and obtained 10-12 years. Accordingly. the last (!) regnal year of Samsi-Adad I would date to 1692 or 1720 (depending on whetller ti,e reign of Salmaneser I ,,-as included or not). HACH\I."""" (1977) 125 proposed as a s)nth~S1s of the Distanzangaben between Esarhaddon and Sal­maneser I dates for Samsi-Adad I of 1752-1720, reck­oning 0 years for DUB-p;-sl~rc igns and 12.58 as the 14th year of "aln'laneser I. However. accordmg lO the aene'rall\" accepted lowered Ass) rian chronolo~ pro­~osed b;- BOFSE - WILHEL','.; thi.s date would corre­spond to the fourth rear) ." -. TillS proposal IS conSI -

·tI tile LC (Witllout lakll1g Into account the cor-tent \,1 1 . •

not included in the calculation here. In COntrast E~ER (200-4.) 205-206 proprn-l'tl much higher dates and. n."~eCled thIS

. , . Ihe differl'nce of -to \eani: 111"lead he e'planatlon ,0 1 . _ .. ~ f belil'\t'!l that the scribes might ha\t:' IL-.ed dtRerent \ eNon!') 0 tht~ AKL for Iht.' calculation of the lime ,p~lb.nl~ lIJllbUal

1 ~ ... th· text hruo been J...indh poll1ted Out U'Il' of the WOr<SIlSI III I~ • • .:. '>:\-21': to me b~ K. Raclner: see al~o Ot" ~DORlc() (199.:» _~ :.l •

1>71 p\U I!) (19.")6) 472 (with 1.111 mt'nle\\). .) . M E . Cl7"! Note lIachmi\lln·s critical ;;talement _~:l P,:.( ~- -be ··b _1I~e

Ouit'nlll &:11lI'i·,\dad·~ I. "d,clwil 1/0'2-1 t2. . ~1 . r ~uc t

• . g 1 - I en Stellcll der .~YI;"chen Konl~llSten , (\\ Ir die 'C "hi, I '. . . ' I 0 • d· .. -loch klJren III I-.onnen, ... M TIlI~ I~ ~11Il1 ar t

ohne leSt ~('( , " ... ( 1954-1956) ~>98: 1749-1717 , • conciul;lon b\ (.ORMUl .".,"

111.' , I, , 1' "1 deuiled prc'enl.;\tIOIl hi ... 1IIIetprel.l-(due 10 the .K ... O. • , . . fl' D' 1 \'\l"lIllrl!)en rem.lIll' unclear). lion 0 I H, I'. < l't~

142 ~le,opO[ .. ll1lii.ln Chronolo~ of the 2nd \lillenniulll BC'

reel s~l1chronisll1 between Hamlll1.Hilpi) and "amsi­Adad I or a lowered chronolo!:, according 10 Ihe 8-year Venus cycle) .

According to G·\SCHF " al.. Daling ... 59-60, Esa~'haddon' calculation referred to Ihe beginning of amsi-Adad's I reign (10 be compared with the statement of -almaneser I sub 9.4.) . The, followed it

different calculation than Hachmann: preferring Land berger's reading of 494 year;, between -al­maneser I and $amsi-.-\dad I and subtracting 29 'ears because of a scribal error for ISme-Dagan's reign (~ AKL sub 2.2.1.1.):" Finalh. on p. 60, the, corrected the re ult again t the solar calendar. Accordingh the, reckoned the rebuilding b\" -amsi-Adad I to ha'·e taken place in 1712 or 1706.

-\&>~L\S HALES (2006) 163 suggested that the Distanzangabe of Esarhaddon refers to the end of Samsi-Adad's reign. He startS his calculation w;th the second lear of Esarhaddon (679) and adds 434 vears (Sassmannshausen rejects the emendation to 494 years) to the firsl ,·ear of Sal mane er I (since other­wise the re ult of 1693 Be is too shon). The result of 1707 is based on the addition of - 0 I·ears. According ~o Sassmannshausen 1713 is -about" the end of Samsi-Adad's reign. In Sassmann hausen's recon­struction the point of reference for the end of one intemtl and the beginning of the next differ for each step of the calculation. Although Sassmannshausen generally rejecrs the use of Distanzangaben for chro?ological purposes (see p. 161 for his critique of Eder s and the present author's studies), he ob'ious­I)' tries to accommodale the infolmation of Esarhad­don's Distanzangabe for his preferred -higher" low chronology (which dates the fall ofBab)lon 10 1544).

As has been obsened, there is a connection between the Distanzangaben of Esarhaddon and Sal­r.nan~~er 1 "'ith re~pect to the time span between ~ams'-Adad I and Erisum I. It becomes e"ident that Samsi-Adad I ruled 33 years, which is confirmed by the KEL (VEEsHor [2000] and [2003]; ~ AKL). By adding to the second year of Esarhaddon (679) 586 years (BoESE - WU_HEL'I [1979) 33-35) plu~ the 491 years (based on the correction by LA'DSBfRCER

[1954] 40-41) as welJ as the 33 regnal years of Samsi-

'" E nFR (2004) 207 used the 40 years for "me.Oag"n's reign gnen by the AKL. Howtl-cr. t\"idencc from Mari indicates that there ""AS a period of a co-reg('ncy be(\'oeen Sam\l­~dad J ~d gmc-Oagtm. ;,.,;ho ""as stationed at EkalJatum ao; 'lce-roy In the beginning of his reign.

dad lone reaches 1792 for lhe stan of Samii-Adad's 1 reign.'" This corre ponds to the ncwil calculated dates of ~flCIIH. (2002) 17-1S.

:-\l PRl1.51:-';S''', (2006c) 27 has shown, EIlER (2004) 20:> adds the numbers of these Distanzangaben 10

126~. with the resu lt of 1759 - 119 years tOO low for his amsi-.~dad date of 187 (based on the Dislanz. angabe of Salmane er). This difference is due to the mi ing pan of the AKL after the reign of ISme­Dagan.

Past tudies ha,·e shown lhat Distanzangaben are of onll a limited value for the calculation of absolute dates for Sam -i-Adad I, which is further obvious from the tatement of -almaneser 1,6" which follows.

O"m'i,'w 0/ mlelllalLOns by Ed" and f'rta.sinszky

Eder 6i9 (2'od regnal rear) +5R6 (instead of 580) +-I9~ (~34+60 according to Landsberger)

1759 (= ,tart of am~j-Adad's I reign , but a difference of 119 '-ears from Eder's calculated dales for Sam~i-Adad )

Pruzsinszky 6i9 (2' regnal \ ear) +586 (in>tead of 580) +494 (434+60 according to Landsberger) +33 (!)

1792 (I regnal yearofSall1~i-Adad)

9.4. Statement of Sa1maneser I

SUm'labul/rom IhtAffurlemplt: RiMA I, A.O.77.I, clay COnt /rom IhR A fluTlnlljJu: R1 MA I, A. O. 77. 2

"At th at time Ebursagkurkurra, th e lemple of ASSur, my lord - which spia, vice-regent of ASSur, my fore­father had previously built and (when) it became dilapidated Eriiium, my forefather, vice-regent of ASsur rebuilt (it and when) 159 years had passed after the reign of Erisum and lhat temple had (again ) become dilapidated Samsj-Adad (who was) also vice-regent of ASsur rebuilt (it and) 580 years (passed ... ) - that temple, irs sanctuary, the chape ls, shrines .. . burlll in the fire."

f,,. PRtl""I.KY (2006) 76. 6'~ (: __ ,.

.xe vA.~ lit: pi aL, /)ating ... nO-61.

9. Oi'tall7.angabcn (Abstandsdaten , Abstandsangaben , Time Spans) 143

Salmaneser I J

Oam~i-Adad I J n I 159 years

L.Q.risum I

580 years

Salmaneser I (no. 77) reponed in his inscrip­lions that 159 years passed between the repairs of the ASSur lemple by Erisu m 1 and those by Samsi­Adad 1 and 580 years elapsed up to his own reign. The 159 years seem to have been reckoned within the 580 years, similar to the approach in th e Dis­tanzangabe of Tiglath-pileser I discussed above (XA'A.\L,"' [1984) 119).

It is ob,ious that the calculations of Esarhaddon and Salmaneser 1 were done independently (see also HACH\L,"'" [(977) 124): because there is a 33-year dif­ference in the time span between Eriswn I and Samsi­Adad 1 (Salmaneser I: 159 years and Esarhaddon: 126 years). This difference equal the 33-year reign of Samsi-Adad I, which was included in the Salmaneser T

Distanzangabe bUl nOt in Esarhaddon's."" Thus Esarhaddon's inten'3lto EJisum I was to Sanlsi-Adad's accession date whereas Salmaneser's was all tile way to

the end of -amii-Adad's reign. The time span coin­cides with the numbers in the KEL A and MEC as "e~'" Accordingl)', the inten'3l between ti,e lasl year of Samsi-Adad I and the first year of hiium I must be 199 years.'''' Unfortunately, it is unknown in which ),ear ofSalmancser's reign thi inscription was I~ritten (reckoned as x years). This indicates that amsi­Adad's end of reign dales to 1684 - x = 1263 [the accession date of -almanescr 1 6~'l + 421 [which is from the abOl·e discussed statement of Esarhaddon, 580-159''''''], which was considered tOO low.

.,. Se I' e "Nil'" (2003) 5 1-52 alld ,Epou)",.. 1m B ., s-ul nOI(.' that KEL G indicaLe" a 36-yc,\r rClgn lor "Ill \-

Ad.,d I. One ,hould lake notice that this EL does not list the t'pOIl) III \'eanh in which .. ilTnsi-:\d .. \d conquered Ek.1IhiLUIIl, A .. \sur and Mari . Note that GlNt\.\rn (2008) 116 also qtlOlt'~ HI insl('aci of 6·~ )c.lrs for the length of the reign"! of N.uillll in ,llld f-riSlll11 11.

~ V . ) U\lIm (~()()3) 57 (includincr rri~lIm's 40 .. se.\r reign. ~ n ·

According to Bm" - WIlIIEI \I (1979) 34 - I I' . n Stlle I('~ I)(.'fort' the illtl'oduflion or the lowen.'d Assyrian

chronoloj.O b) Boc"t.' .111<1 Wilhdlll , the higher date<o\ were

Several proposals for explaining Salmaneser's T statement have been made:

• Use of a different compilation of the AKL, which is unknown to us

• Use of a panially destroyed copy of the AKL

• Omission of some numbers

NA'AMAN (1984) 119 concluded on the basis of the computation of Distanzangaben that (I) the scribe started calculating backwards (Tiglath-pileser I, Esarhaddon), and that (2) all dates were usually cal­culated from the accession of one king to the acces­sion of another (except for Salmaneser I).

Like GASCHE el al., Daling ... , Na'aman believed that the 159 years had been reckoned within the 580 years. A slightly different approach was pursued by GASCHE ,'aL, Daling ... 57-58, who suggested that the 580 years denoted the time span between Erisuill I and Salmaneser 1 (see also Na'aman above). Upon this assumption, 421 years (580-159) would have elapsed between Samsi-Adad 1 and Salmaneser's reconstruction, while the exact date is wlknown. In order to achie"e an approximately correct date for lhe reign of -amsi-Adad T, one has to take Esarhad­don's calculation into consideration: 679 + 586/ 580 =

1265 or 1259 (i.e. Salmaneser's rebuilding date). Thus Gasche " al. proposed four dates for SamSi­Adad's final year: 1845, 1839, 1686 or 1680 - which, corrected against the solar dates became 1823, 1827, 1669 or 1663. Based upon the lowest varianrs for the reigns of lime-Dagan 1, Puzur-ASSur m, ASSur-niidin­apli and Ninurta-apil-Ekur (and variou other assumptions) GASCHE " aL, Daling ... 57-5 found the last year of Samii-Adad could hal·e been 21 years higher: 1690 or 1684. However, thi approach is high­ly speculative and does nOl include Boese -: Wilhelm' valuable results concern ing tile reigns of Salmaneser 1 and Ninurta-apil-Ekur. Of COUI e, neitller of the proposed dates of Daling ... are con istent wi til the results bv GASCHE " aL (199 a) 1-1. where they adjusted tile dates of Samsi-Adad I "itl, those of

prefen'ed for Salmaneser I (R6IJJG [ 1965] 327 staned hi calculation from 1274). Rollig's considerations as to the exact building date (on p. 328 he assumed them to be years 1~18 of almaneser I) for the calculation of Ohranzanga­ben is tOO speculative and does not prO\id~ reliab~e d~~es (he­prO\ided eight different re3ults for the relg~l of ·unsl-Adad I: the four options for the date of com~1.lcuo l~ - \cars 15 to 18 of Salman~er I - each ~\I'e the 3tMtmg polin of t\~'O cal­cuh\liol1s. one calcul.1lion assuming the 40 yeal .relgn. of ,.. .~ '",.". to be ·,ddLVI <\I\d the second calculation Wlth-l·n'ilUn I .. 'I~ < .....

0Iitit-i.e.1274+; 0-126+ 39 or 1274 +580-126).

144 \te'opotamian Chronolo~ of the 2nd \tillt-nnium Be

Hammu-rapi' and reduced them b, nine 't'ar-. (from 1719-1 to 1710-1679"').

Generalh. this Distanzangabe of Saltnane,er 1 ha.> not been used much for chronological discussions -,dth the e,ception of H\CH\H" (l9ii) 125, who belie'ed that 125 should be under'tood as the 14!h lear of' Imaneser I.' sz (Esarhaddon is suppo ed 10

hale comidered 125 "-' Ihe last regnal lear of • al· maneser I). S Combining the Di,tanzanQ'aben of' al·

<-maneser I and E.sarhaddon. he concluded that' ams;· Adad reigned from 1752 to 1720.

EOER (200-1) 201-205 proposed that the 159 lears should be addM to the 580 lears, which ,ields len high dates for Samsi·Adad I: 1 78-1 46. \reidne;, Hachmann, • 'a'aman and Gasche all belieled the 159 'eal to be included in the 5 0 ,ears (--+ abOle). How. e,'er, according to Eder, the 5 0 'ears refer 10 the first lear of lSme-Dagan (who is lI~t mentioned in the inscripti~n) and should be added 10 1265, the begin. ning of Salmane""r' I reign. " This Distanzangabe sened Eder's computation of' amsi·Adad's I absolUle dates. By adding the eponlm lears known from the KEL A to Samsi·Adad's regnal lears he dated Eri' um 1 10 20-t+-2oo5. Thirtl years ,,'ere attribUled to the kings nos. 66 and 65, whose reign lengths are lost in the AKL Eder added all the gilen time spans and consequenth proposed the unusually long period of 125 lears for ~e first Assyrian Dark Age succeeding the reIgn of hme-Dagan I (which is othen,ise reck. oned to ha,e lasted ca a quaner of a centun). Isme. Dagan's reign is calculated to be 40 years, as ~eported III Ihe ARL, which is contradicled bv other sources _ such as the C\id~nce from ~fari cl~arl) indicating a ~o-regency with SamSi·Adad I and including his reign III Ekallalum. S ~!oreOler, EDER (2004) 207-209 belieled that Ihe Distan/.angabe ofTiglath-pileser (--+ ~.2. ) referred to Bme·Dagan's reign instead of that of SamSi·Adad I.

". 0 ne ~ear \\:a.! ~UbLraCted before dut' to (heir "lunar reduc-tion": ~ CaJendar ~ub 6.4.

- Thi\ can be al~ deduced from ~e diff('rence in lime spall ~ata ben' .. ~en SalmaneM:r I and Sam<;i-Adad J: 159 ~'car1 arc mcluded In the number or 580 )"ean, A difference of J 3 \ea~ adds up tfJ the 434 ~ears reportf"d by the ~('filx: of Eurhaddon.

"" B~t note no.',~ BO[~" - WUJlI:_'-\f\ lowef('d Middle A\syrian relgn\ publl~hed rn 1979, which im-alidate 11 -\( IHtA'~\ reconSlru( tion of 1977.

6I;.f $(:(' PRl/'>I ,V),.:y (2oo6c) 28, especially fn. 20 'Where it i\ ~LaLCd thal hili caJ(ulaliol1\ on p. 20G remain unclear 10 her.

In 2006 PRI/SI"SIK" reevalualed Ihis difficull Dis­tanzangabe in combination with lhe dales for Sallti;. Adad, 1792-1760. proposed bl' 1\I1cmL (2002) 17-18. ~I adding 586 '580 years 10 the firsl regnal year of almane,er I (1263 B ) one reaches a too low dale

(1 '-19 3) for I risum I. Because Ihe KEL giles Ihe reign lengths of the earl) A.! ITiall kings. iriSlI111 I is now known 10 dale ca. 100 yeal earlier. II mighl be that the later cribes confused (risum I with Erisum ll. a. thel had done with the SamSi·Adads in Ihe Di~ tanzangabe ofTiglath·pileser l. The rest of Ihe calcu. lation fit, the re I of the known data. Nonetheless. ~li' assumed confusion is surprising, ince il is from Etisulll I. onward that we know of eponyms. If olle adds to almaneser's I lasl ,ear (1233)"" 580 years one obtains I 13. which could theoreticall) coincide \\;th the reign of Erisum II. Due to the gaps lIithill the Old Assyrian EL. we still do nOI know Ihe lengths of reigns of ~ar3m-Sill and his successor Erisum II (see \ 'EE'HOF [2000) 139 and [2003] 29, 45 and 57) .'.,' So f3J~ only the end of Erisulll's II reign can be detennined at 1793 (accord ing 10 the lowered Me propo ed by !\iICHFL in 2002; according to the Me his reign would end 1 09) ..... ,

Overvinu of mkulalions by Ed" and Pruzsinszky

Ede. 1265 (beginning of reign) +580 (= I'" \'ear of Bme-Dagan\ I) +159

2004 (EnSum I.: 204·1-2005 Be; SarnS;·Adad I: 1878-1846 Be; length of the fif~l Assrrian Dark Age I J 9 )'ears)

pruzsins-Lky 1233 (I"", regnal ,ear) +580

1813 (pt'rhap\ the beginning of reign of tri~urn II ?; ac~ordmg to ~1ichel\ Jo\\'ered middle chronology, end of reign of lri~lIm 11 was 1793 Be)

.. ' \''''IJOI (200R) 30. TIle in\cription i\ dalC:d to the Irmu MlI\allim-As\ur, wh ich according LO Ik)K(,JrR, EAK. 65 and FKFYDANK (199 1) 531~9, i\ \ellale in Salmanc\er\ ,(·ign.

7 .-J> 10.4. AC('()lcJing to V""'''IICH (2003). the reign of NarJm­Sin t'nd" at IH2H or 1818 (it i\ not ckcid('d )'e l wll('lht'r he ruled 41 or 54 yea rs), corr('..,pollding 10 1812 or 1802, if Oll(-- follow., Miclwl\ r(--"lI lts. ~I his w01lld incl icatt' thal the

,_ [lint· \pan r('f~r, to the beginning of the ruler'.; Icign. fhe reign lellKth\ o f king:s nos. 65 a nd 6n sti ll puSt' a prob-

1('111. ~ AKL '}ub 2.6.

9. DiSlanlangaben (Abstandsdaten. AbSlandsangaben. Time Spans) 145

9.5. Statement of Tukulti·Ninurta I

Illscriptions Oil various materials from thf iStar temple in

Aiillr: RIMA I, A. O. 78. J 1

"Allhal time Ihe temple of the Assyrian IStar, my mi£­tress. which llu-5umma. may forefather, lice-regen I of ASSur. a king who preceded me, had previously built-720 years had passed (and) thaI lemple had become dilapidaled and old. At that time, at the beginning of my sovereignty, I cleared away its debris .. ."

J

720 yca",

[ llu~uma

Several inscriptions that deal ,,;th the building activities of the IStar lemple derive from the time of Tukulti·Ninurta I (no. 78), who stated that the IStar temple was founded by llmurna (no. 32) 720 years before he restored il at the beginning of his reign."" Almost all these tablets were found in the walls behind lhe pedestal of !Star ASiurllu (the "Assyrian IStar") lOgelher wilh alabaster inscription by Adad· n;riili I..~ An inscription of llusuma which reports the erection of the temple was discOl'ered in the sanc· luary of lhe Tukult;·Ninurta I structure.

Unfortunately, tile length of llusuma's reign is not preselwd in any version of the All since he belongs 10 lhe section of kings whose eponyms are UnkilOll1l"" Therefore the time span of 720 yeal'S prmided by Tukulti·Ninurta I cannot be full) verified and has been generally ignored."'" Current calculations would date llllsilma lo the middle of the 20,h cent., which has

&III See l.\O\.JI\I\.\CIU-'R ( 1982) 17 referring to stud ies b) Weid­nl'!' and Rowton.

&10 FOI mOlt' tl''i..t\ found in lhi~ temple:" see II \t:ll\l \...;~ (1977) 11 3-11 1

~, POliln ( 1912- 19'13) 27:>-276, Rl IIlG ( 1969) 265-266 and FRFnl\'\h. ( H175) 173-175. After lIusuma begins a serit's 01 kin~ whmt' IMme. fil i.lIion, a nd reign length, are all gi,en (hi\um I is Ih(' fin,( o f thi, serj('<;.). Their rt'ign lengths .lIe ronfirrnc.--d ho.; the KEL A.

IVI" I . £.\'en Emil. (2001) for .1 V{'I, high chronology does not

includt' Ihis in'\cription in his SHl(h. ., . SeC;" .11\0 I')OHHt 119,12- 19·H1] 297-298, ,"ho 'luggestc.·d the: reading of t120 )(,,11 ,. Note: .11110 R Ilt (; (19m'.) 329. who c()r~ Icelt'd lht' ,uK~e'Hion OfWHIlNl'R (1945-1951) 94-95 that the linlt' 'p.lll It:ft'IT('d to the fc.'ign of Sulili.

been considered much too high (e.g. HA('HMA.':O; [1977] 12(}"'127: " ... wi zu hlXh ... "; but see below for the results obtained from the KEL) -'''' lllCrefore the number has been regarded only as approximate, refer· ring to the early past. ROIITO:O;,jNES 17 (1958) 108sug· gested thaI il might merely be an artefact of the sexa· gesimal number syslem (12 x 60). More recently, READE (2001) 4 suggested that il might have been a fig. ure "calculated on the assumption that an average reign or generation lasted 16 years" (--+ Generation), since 45 kings are attested between Husuma and Tukulti·Ninurta I: 45 x 16 = 720."" Reade assigned 16 years to each of the six Assyrian kings, who are said to

have reign biib DUB-pi-ill. a total of 96 years (--+ AKL sub DUB-pi-fu). On the other hand he considered tlli Distanzangabe merel\' as an "approximation relating to the distant past, 12 x 60", which is similar to

Brinkman 's ,iew of the Babyloni3Jl Distanzangaben. HACH~IA.'':o; (1977) 12&--127 interpreted this time

span from another angle: Because Tukulti·:\'inurta I succeeded his father Salmaneser I, who rebuilt the ASSur temple. Hachmann suggested that tile son used the father's calculation of the time inten-a! back to Erisum I. son of llusuma, 580 years, and adding to it the reign length of Eri'um 1,40 yeal , plus the rest of the reign of his father, x years. Howe,'er, the total could not ha"e been more than 630, '&-lO years.

VEESIIOF (2003) 57 published the reign lengths of kings preceding Samsi·Adad r as they are known from tile KEL A. F lislUn I cOlTesponds to the Old Assyrian period Kanis le,'el II. This level is dated by \ 'eenhof between 1974 and 1935 (according lO the ~lC) based on the KEL A. f£<> Taking these dates into con idera· tion, Tuklllti·Ninurta's Distanzangabe back lO rIu'u­ma proyes LO be not so wrong afler all.Wb If we CalCll­

late from Tukulti-Ninurta's first lear 12-13 (non·low· ered Middle Assyrian chronologv) and add 720 veal'S we reach 1963, which, according to the lowered :-.IC

~~ Further examples ,,;th this IllUnbt.'f 16 ha\e been applied to the &\b)lonian Distanlangabe of the B~~L. name". Iha~~76 ,ears have been <'L"Signed to 36 Kas....ite kings (36 x 16 = ;)16).

tit \ See \ 'U" Hor (2()()8) 32 wilh discu~ion on the beginning of IeI'd II proposed 1971-183; Be. \"[."10> (2003) 58 ~mcssed that Old .t\ss\rian evidence C;1Il1l0t be dCCI"I\'C ror ~lb,\olute chrollolog-.. Neverlhe1e~. the Old tUsyrian m,Ue­:ial is cruci;ll for chronological problem". since it prO\;de, the histoliCill st"tting fQr dendrochronological e\;dence. For refined dales according to the KEL G CO\el~lg Kanlln Kolilis IeH"h 11 and Ib see C( '8.\rt I (2008) III: he pro­po:,ed IH2i-1836 ror N'Ii1.lm Kani:; 1t"\elll,

"" St-e rRU.'''''.' (2006b) 11-12 <lnd (2006c) 29-30.

146 Mt"sopotamian Chronologo. of lht" 2nd \tillenniutn Be

of MICHEL (2002) is consistent "ith the dating of the earh Assyrian mlers . .'\.1 0 the ten vear lower date does not fallout of the period of time allowed b\ the KEL. if we accept a lowered Me. Of course. the exact dating of \Iusuma. the predecessor of f"risum. remain uncertain. Pmzsinszkv assumes though that thi inscription relates to the last year of lIusuma (1959). corresponding to the pattem of the \1;an Distanzangaben. The starting point of calculation hould be the 5 th year of Tukulti·. 'inurta I. 1239

according to the ~liddle Assyrian chronology but nOt according to the lowered ~Iiddle Assyrian chronolog\ proposed by BoESE - WILHEUI (1979). Thus we can observe a difference of 10 years again. a we ha\'e done "ith the Distanzangabe of Tiglath-pileser I. J\.'\ EX (2006) 63 seems to accept the validity of this Distanzangabe for chronological purposes, but doe nor include it in his calculation )ielding a chronolo­g\' between the classical ~liddle and Low ~lesopo­tamian chronolog\'. .-\SS~t\'V'SfIALSEX (2006) 163 likewise seems to accept the general accuracy of this Distanzangabe.

In conclusion: It is doubtful that the compilers in the reign of Tukulti-:\inuna and others had access to any material that could tell them the exact date of a mler of the first half of the 2nd millennium Be. Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that they might have had to stmggle "ith the same problems in understanding the chronologv as we do.

BABYLONIAN DISTANZANGABEN

9.6. Statement of EnJil-nadin-apli (Isin D dynasty)

kudurru ("baundary st~").'·n PHPKB 116-118, 329-330 (no. 5); HIU'REOrT, BE 1,83, 6-8 (from his 4'h year)

ebucbadnezzar I

GulkiSar

"" On kudurrus see SL'.~'''' (2003). "" .'lA'"""" (1984) 119-121, B.""",,,,, (1993-1997) 6-10.

PO',BEL (1955) 3(fI; pointed Out that the ,urn of 6'J6 yea" equal, Ihe ,urn of the BKL's lengths for the Kassile (576 }eaJ'S) and Sealand I dynaMic, (120 yo .. ,,).

4MI Agum JJ is the 8lh king in the BKL and ha'S been identified "ith Agum·kakrime (-+ Agum-kakrime inscription) by NA'A­\lA, (for the problem of identifying the early K.ssilC king(,)

Enlil-nadin-apli, 51h ruler of the Isin II dynasty, stated on the kudurm BE I, 83, 6-8, which dates to hi fourth year. that 696 'ears elapsed between Nebu. chadnezzar I (1125-1104) and Culkisar, the 6th king of the SeaIand I dynasty.'"" A'A'~\i': (1984) 120 sug. gested that the Babylonian counted the years of the I in II dYnast) from the time when the text of the boundan stone was composed (and not the end of :\ebuchadnezzar's reign). Thus in the lOtal of 696 yeat would be 5 years for the Isin II dynasty­the reign of its first four kings plus the first four vears of Enlil-nadin-apli. From Ihe remainder a fur. ther 120 years would then be subtracted for the last five kings of the ealand I dynast)" lea,;ng 518yealO for the Kassites, about 60 yea! Ie s (= I sus.) than the 576 ,ears and 9 months (36 kings) attributed to the Kassite dynasty bl BKI.. A The average throne tenure for Kassite kings nos. 4-18, who covered 250 years, is 16.5 years (NA''''\IA.' [1984] 120, who ulti· matelv argued for a solution between the LC and MC). Enlil-nadin-apli's copy of the BKL was nOt much older than the BKL available to us, which is nearer the end of the Kassite dynasty. According to """,\.\t\.'\ (19 4) 120 his data fit much better all the available chronological data relating to the Kassite d}nast) (mainly stemming from the BKL, the Agum. kakrime inscription and partly the Synchronistic KL; 'a'aman suggested a reduction of 60 years for the

length of the Kassite dynasty as reported in the BKL leaving only 516 years). The missing kings between KaStiliaSu 1 and Agum II,&.!'I presumably twO genera· tions, is still a problem.7°O

ROLLIG (l965) 341-343 attempted to find an expla· nation for this time span and suggested that the mis­takes might have been due to the BKL, which listed the Sealand I and Kassite dynasties consecutively. This cou ld have resulted in the exceedingly high dates for Culkisar who is credited 55 years by BKL A. The Dis· tanzangabe under discussion would place Culkisar at the turn of the 19th to the 18th cent. BC - which is much too high. Due to the unknown tradition of these numbers and their source material (specifically, which version of the BKL had been used) Riillig

Agum sec BRINKMA!\<, MSKJ I 13). GCIIt:rally Agull1 II I il) pre­ferred. Na'aman attempted l() recon.struCl via llabylonial1

data the dUl<uion of the obvioll~ly LlIrbu lclil period afLer the reign' of Sam',-Adad I and Ilme-Dag:1Il I ( AKL).

7,,, \". h . N' N 'Vit re'pCCL LO tht, average length or generauons A A~IA (1984) 122 main ly refers to R()WT()~ (1970) 207. See ho'" ever BRINKMAN, MSKI f 2777 anel 30r.87.

9. Dista07.ang-dben (Abstand, da len, Abstandsangaben, Time Spans) 147

refused to use this time span for chronological con­siderations. Brinkman PHPKB 83-84 considered this Distanzangabe an artificial calculation by a scribe on the basis of canonical KLs, in which the Sealand and

. d t b u' 70 1 ){assite dynasues were assume 0 e consecu ve. Bof..% - WILHEL\l (1979) 35 claimed, according to

their resullS on Middle Assyrian chronology, that all Kassite dates should be lowered by 10 yean. (see for ins~1nce the table OfVEENHOF [2001]). 1n 1982 BoESE re\;ewed the data and lowered the dates by five years, which was accepted by CASCHl et aL, Dating .. . . 700 The reign lengths of the first three Kassite kings (CandaS, Agum I and KaStiliaSu I) are given by the BKL. By adding 576 years to the known date of the end of the Kassite dynasty, 1155, their reigns would be between 1729-1660, which still is much too high in view of the dating of the kings of the Babylon I dynasty. The reigns of the succeeding kings are unfortunately lost (see above for a'aman's considerations). The reign lengths of nos. 19-36 starting with Burna-BuriaS II are well known and cover tile period bet\\een 1349-1155."" Kings nos. 4-18 were assumed to have covered a period of ca. 310 years (J 659-1350), which is con id­ered too high, since the average reign would then have lasted ca. 20 years. By suggesting that the Kassites ruled only 516 years in total the average reign for kings nos. 4-18 would be 16.5 years (compare to READE [2001] 4 who gives 16 years for tile king's average reign length or "generation", which he applied to some kings men­tioned in the AKL; for similar results by a'aman see abo,e). Consequently A'AMAN (J 984) 120 assumed that the 576 years credited to the Kassite dynasty by BKL A was a scribal error."" For consequences of this new reconstnlction see below.

EOER (2004) 216-217 proposed another approach, which was primarily based on ti,e very high chronology derived from his evaluation of the Assyri-

~II Thi!. might ,'gain prme the close relationship between Dis­I,tnlilllgabell and h.u, ilS suggested fo r lhe Assyrian sources (where also the FL pta.,. a crucial role. which need to be included in the chronological evaluation).

M Sre S.·\.\.""L\\\Sll-\ll!')I:'''I. MDAR 61 on the difficult correla­tion between lhe Assyrian and Bab)'lonian KLs.

M In hi, ch,lr! B''''M.\N ( 19771 338 sets aHlhe !-.ings' dales \0 \'eaf'1i higher. For anolher updated chart wilh ma.ximum and minimum d.HCS for B~tb,loni,U\ rulers starting \\'ith KadJIIlI.ln·F,,1i1 I "e S"'''M \ NNMI\l'S>:N (2006) 173-174

_ (king no. 3ti, En lil-niidifHlbi . (.nding with 1150 B ). ~ AI$o S"\!\M"I -\~1\;"'l t \l:M'r-.;, ~IDAR 61 preferred lite AKL data.

Blil nute R~ \OF 's (200 1) . ~ ob')en~~Hi ons 011 this number ill c~mpJrison Wilh the Ass)'rii.11l OiSti.lIll,mgabt' b} 1\lklllll~ Nmmw. I. Em)!. (200-1 ) 215 considered this nUlllber to be a \Cribal errol as well.

an and Babylonian Oistanzangaben: To the 54 years from the end of ebuchadnezzar's reign on to Mar­duk-kabit-abbesu (according to BKL A+C) he first added 516 years (the corrected total for the Kassite dynasty), then 120 years (from the end of the Sealand 1 dynasty to the reign of PeSgaldaramaS according to BKLA) and finally 6 years (?) for the reign of I DlS+U­EN (documented in the Synchronistic KL). This adds up to 696 years, the total of Enlil-nadin-apli's Distanz­angabe. Eder belie\'ed, on the basis of the CandaS inscription (~ Royal Inscriptions) that CandaS, the first Kassite mler, was a contemporary of Samsu­ditana.105 This calculation also formed the basis of Eder's date for the fall of Babylon (~ Babylonia) .''''

Further Babylonian Distanzangaben707

The Babylonian references on time spans are less reliable than the Assyrian ones. This may be due to the frequent use of "typological" numbers and the less continuous tradition of Babylonia. Dating tech­niques changed with time, which means that the Babylonians could not rely on exact tools such as the ELs. There were date-lislS which gave year-names in their correct sequence; but after the Old Bab Ionian period texIS were dated by regnal years, which made the KLs (BKL) very necessary. This means that no continuous, uninterrupted list of years from the beginning of the 2nd millennium to the 1" millenni­um ever existed, as it did for Assyria. It is also unknown what kind of data was available to Babylo­nian scribes for the computation of Babylonian time spans back to various e"enlS (abduction of statues, the sack of Babylon etc.) or mlers.

Samples of Babylonian time spans:

• Nabonid's inscliption state that Hammu-rapi' built the Ebabbar and ilS temple tower 700 yea l'S1ll8

~ Eder read all lhe inscriptions of the Kassile ntlers CandaS and Agnm-kakrime literallr Unlike other scholars he believed in Lheir aUlhenticity and chronological value and therefore proposed the K..'l..~ile d)11asty to have slicceeded lhe B.1b)lon I d\lla5tY·

706 He therefore refused 10 use the asu-ollomical data. 1U7 For a cOlnpilalion see BNlNK..\L\..'t MSKH 85 ...... sub 9.2. for

lhe Bavlan inscription. 7Q!; For more lime sJXtllS cited by Nabonid see R6LUG (1965)

343-342. Due 10 the fact lhat he used only round numbers (3200. 700. 800 years). their chronological value is gener­ally disparaged: M ••• Die Distanzangaben ~abon~ds g~ben ' \1'0 keinen ufschluB tiber chronologlsch-llI'<lonsche ':dl\'erhalre ... : (p. 345) e also $cHAl DIG (2003) 463--464, 468, andt94 (simple add~tiOl~ of regnal leal'S recorded in various KLs wilhout consldenng overlaps).

\Ie--;.opotamian ( hronol()~ of thl' :?nd \tillennium Be

before Burna-BuriaS (I U) (\AB 4, 23 , ii 20-22, cr 34. 29. ii 1-3, dupl.: \'An 4, 244).

• Length of exile of the Marduk statue in ijani: 24 ,,~,u. (according to the ~Iarduk prophec\ K. 21- +' ').

• First exile of the Marduk statue to Assyria: " + 6 vears (Chronicle P. i, 12; -+ Chronicle P).-"

• From Sagarakti-SuriaS to abonid: 00 'ears (\:\B 4,22 . iii 27-2 ).

• From the Babylonian recm'e" of the Sagarakti-Suri­as seal until i~ recaptme b,' Sennacberib: 600 'ears.

• Length of exile of the lIlarduk statue in Bam between the time of EnliI-niidin-abi (Kutir­Nahhunte) and ebuchadnezzar I: 30 \ears (<I>tro­logical omen apodO,i : III R 61, 2, 21'-22' [parallel: LBAT 1526. re\'. 1-3): see Brinkman PHPKB 10 : 3 and .\1SKH 8-93).-

BRI'K.\l".';, ~lSKH 29 pointed Ollt that all Babylo­nian Distanzangaben are multiples of either 6 or 100 and their accuraC) is therefore suspect. BOESE (19 2) 2J4~, howe,·er. read the length of the exile of the .\farduk->tatue in Chronicle P as 86 years. Onl\' three Bab,lonian time spans are useful for the reconstruction of Babylonian chronology (-+ Babylonia).

9.7. Hittite "Distanzangabe"

The cultic text KCB 25, 21 by Tudbalia 1\' reports that the cult center of the weather god ~erik is said to

have lain in ruins for 400 or 500 rears since the reign of Ijantili (1'), when the KaSkeans had destroyed it. This time span is much too long to offer any useful chronological information:"

'. ~ Royal Inscriptions (,ub Agum-kakrime inscription ) and Bab~ioni3

n, See BrJESI (1982) 20-21 on the reading of x + 6 yea .... : he proposed 86 ~ea~ for Lhe time bel' .. :een 1222 (end of reign of Ka.\tili~u rV) and 1 J 32 (:\inUrta-lul..ulti-A':;;ur), li e recaJculau:d the year J2J9 (:t2 ~:eaf'\) for Ihe abdUClion­

date of the \farduk \tatue mentioned in Chronjcle p, (~:v UK-KJRSCHMl.\f (1996) 14-18 also deal') \\-ilh the \yn(;hr~ nism bet .... een Tukuhi-!\'illurta J and Ka~tj)ja\l1 rv in COII­nection Wi lh the eponyms a(l(~ted ill ~)mt: of the Irun\ from Our Katlimmu_

,. See BRJ'K.\t-\, :\1SKI J ~~ and 3391 on lhe implicatilm of the O\erJapping Ka~\i((' and Isin II dyna"iti('s, IJ(~ ~la L('''' thal J 155, the end ()f EnJiI-ltadin-alji', reign a nd of lhe Kassite dyna5ty. flu weJJ """jth the OisLalllangane of N('bu.

9.8, Dates for Hammu-rJpi' and Samsi-Adad I

The chronological implications of the abo'e men. tioned Kassite dates were discu;sed by l'il'lll .... \ (1984) 121. The allthor was aware of tht, problems of reconciling tht' 576 real'> as>igned to the Kass ites b, the BKL to one of the eh rollological schemes and stated that ..... no single datllm is decisive for solring slich a composite com pie, of problems ... ", lIis dat. ing of the Bab\lon I d"nasl\ fell between the ~IC and LC (compare this with the most recent results on Ass, rian chronolo&" based on the solar eclipse and dendro hronological data related to Samli. Adad, which seem to confirm the Assyrian Distanz­angaben). Hence, 'A'A\~\' (1984) 121 a>sllmedtlJal the observations in the VT \\ere based on an 8-year clcle, as did Glse HE fl al. in Dating .... lie set Hammu-rapi"s accession date in 1760 and the beginning of the Kassite dmasty was set around 1660, in the 20th year of Abi-eSuQ. NA'A.'lA~ (1984) 121 identified Agum II with Agum-kakrime, ' " who, according to the Marduk prophecy, is connected to the fall of Babylon (--> Royal Ioscriptions). Agum n was the eighth king in the BKL, which accords with the Assyrian Synchronistic History and the genealo­&" of his own inscription. This might. bridge the gap in the AKL b) bringing the dates of Samsi-Adad I to

1781 78- 1749. 46 (different from the AKL tradi­tion; Na'aman argued that Samsi-Adad 1 died some­times dUI-ing )ears 11-14 of lIammu-rapi'; bU l ....

Eponyms sub 10.6. for year 18). The gap in our documentation after I;me-Dagan I (first Assyrian Dark Age) I""ted about a quarter century (N \';\.\t .... ~ [1984) 115-123).'"

On the implications of the Assyrian Distanzanga­ben for the second half of the 2nd millennium Be

chadnC/.I.ar r. Thu'I the dale of the n'cm'ery of tilt- Marduk \!.aLUe would Ix- 11 25 (30 yearllior its exile).

11l! See BloC I\MA.\ (2()(X» 22 wilh litc..'I-:.uurc: A"lIOl K (1989), D~ 'hIe"'" ( 1993) 2 I fl-24(J, WIIJ If 1\1 ( I !XII ) 47() .. 47!i; WIIJI" " - 11m." (1987) 74-117; lext: KLIl2'>. 21 (eTI I 5H iii, 1 ~1).

," 11(' caul lously 'itdlt'd thi.u hi~ diftclI",ion WiH n{)( .1 m .'.lIllicnl

of tilt' genentl Mt'",op0Lamian chronoloh,),. 711 I3RI 'KMA", M~KIJ 95. S,'e /lOW :tJ.'1U SAS'S,\fA!'ON"iIIH\oH'I"

M DAR 1i3 (AKwn I II ) and> BKL. . 1h J J -\(II"tA~~\ J (~"iuh.\ ( J 977. p, 129) Wt'J (. aho cOII", j'lu.-'n l \\'lIh

tlw LC: he pla«('(1 Jf.II11llllHi..Ipi',\ .1«e'''';OIl around 1730 (b<1.", ... d on 111(' known synchlOlli'lolll with Sal1l\I-Ad;ld I. whu Wd"l dau'd bct ..... (:'('ll 17:')2- 1720), J IMh.mull) poinlC'd Ollt that (at Ihar lime) no ('OJJ"l'n~m h;l<I 1)('(:11 reac:ill'" ahollt the infol fII<:Ilion in th l' I{'xt"i frolll Mari, Ala l. lU and Mllulllla.

9. Distanlangaben (A1xtandsdaten. Abstandsangaben, Time Spans) 149

- Wit IIEI.M (1979) 35-37 who obtained a see BmS! . . h . I I vering of ten years, conSIstent Wit genel a 0' 09 II

.' stlld ies in MSKH 320• and genera y BRI~~lt'~ s .

. I dav R~ \!H (200 I) 3-8 correctly stressed accepttC to , . . I the p'lI l of the AKL text preceedmg lhal (ue to I-

Tukulti-Ninurta I, Di;taIvangaben ~_o not tell us . tlv Samsi-Adad 1 bllllt the !\Ssur temple but when exac . . '.

r r to reign lengths of Assynan rulers, rather rr,e , I . t the first vear of Kidin- ' inlla (no. 54) to ca. ~Ke~. . . th

1593 BC and critici/ed Casche el al. for reJecung e f Distanzangaben. He demonstrated that the ~o . k. b I . absolute dates for Assynan mgs can e same ow , .. #

h· d based on his interpretauon of the Dlstanz-ac leH" ( b nd Of the AKL's section on the sLlccessors anga en a ."

of gme-Dagan I, the so-called "Assynan Dark Age H AKL). VFE:-iIlOF (2000) 1397 concluded that the KEL A revealed that the Distanzangaben were defi­niteh related to the reigns of ntlers and that the Assyrian sClibes and scholars had enough chrono­logical data for their calculation of time sp~ns.ln the EL.s each named eponym represents one yeal , whIch is indicated b) the sLlmmaries in KAV 21-24 where the scribe employed the Sumerian term for rears, ~IU.MES, and not eponyms. .

Due to the confirmation by the KEL A o~ the valrd­it, of A.mTian Distall7angaben regarding FrisLlm's. 1 r~ign in ~elation to other Assyrian reigns and lhelr close relationship to the AKL, the Distanzangaben cannot be neglected as C,\SCItE el al., Dating ... have done. Their e'<llLlation is based on such interlocked factors as their yiew of Venus chronOlogy, the sr~­chronism between Samsi-Adad I and Hammu-rap', and their interpretation of cenain passages of the AKL (successors of Igme-Dagan I. interpretauon. of the term DUB-/);-.'II, the reconstrLlction of lost reIgn lengths of kings no". 65 and 66 as well as the Inter­prcuuion of\'arianls in numbers of reign lenglhs, and the amllnption ofa ILlnar calendar in Ass -ria).

Propo,,\! b) PRl/\I"I.;IK' (2006) 78. \\ho lested Ilw . \'~~lian . . . f't ' 1 (900") 17-18. (1I1lt' 'pall data a gol1l\1, l tht· e1al t's 0 1\ It !IF _ _

:\ nuthel pfopthill lUI tht' rules of A.", ri;111 Di,t"n"'nga~n i~ h~ J\\s<.;~ \ (~()()(i) ()s. Iii, re'illl!s f01 d.lling tht' \:)."~nan ~inJ.{\ Ii(" bt' (\H't' ll thl' Me and Le,

"" " I" J \llI cln ' J v" ... ~. \ (20()f") ()R OI1'>tT\('d ,ub I. ,._ ",('Ill •

'R " . H 'H • "( \ ) • ·,1 "litgel"t'chne l, l.'glt'ntllg''ilt'll <It" .dll·'tt'll Kt)JH~1'i i '\11

1 . 1 1 J ,hr des n,h ,Ull"ll' J.lh!". da"l \t'ITt'chncl \\"111"( (" 1"11 (.1" . •

tlnmittl'lb.\rt"1I :'\li\(hl()l~l'r"l \un \ .... ". , • \c.' t' (:\\( In 1'1 til, (lH~)8a) I ~I with lhe correC110n to the \01.11 d,ut", applit'd ill I)atmg , .. , rh(' widely-u"I('d charls ( , [} ,(1977) 11'".,. .... hi( h folio\\' lht' ~ I C 01 LC) h) RJNK\I \ '.

(1995) ,\lId SnR"~ (2002) do not U,l' Ihi~ 1'iruchl'Ol\Ism. lhu, il 'hift 01 <lila', ,hould bl' cOIl,idl'led_

The following are the most important chrono­logical characteristics of the Assyrian Distanzanga­ben:71!;

• The start of the calculation back in time is always from the year of the inscription (see the inscrip­tions of Tiglath-pileser I and Esarhacldon) - which is also one of the conclusions ofj"'\;SSE' (2006) 68.

• The final Distanzangabe of the calculation refers to the last regnal year of the named ruler'"

• For the intermediate rulers mentioned in the Dis­tanzangabe (including Samsi-Adad I ) the refer­ence is to their first regnal year (see also J.'ISSSE.'; [2006) 68).

• Some Assyrian kings have been conf,:secl with oth­ers - specifically Samsi-Adad_ II with Samsi-Adad I , and possibly Eri,um " with Erisum I.

JM'SSE.'; (2006) 68 concluded: " ... Unter Beruck­sichtigung gelegentlicher Abwe,chungen !..ann m~ somit als Faustregel feststellen, daB dIe Cesanudls­tanz zwischen dem letzten des alte ten und dem ersten Jahr des jiingsten Konigs ,·erlauft. .:." Some­Limes. however, it is the first rear of the earhes~ men­tioned king that is being referred to (as Pruzsll1s:k), has shown above with regard to Esarhaddon and al­maneser).

It has to be kept in mind that at the time of the earl)' studies of POEBEL ( 1942-1943). . WEtDNE: (1945- 1951: review of Poebel). and U",DSBERGE (1954: re,;ew of Weidner) Ir~tle. II1formauon o n the reign of - amsi-Adad I and hIS lies ",th othel rulers "I- known, For example, it was nOL k~o.~\'n that Samsi-Adacl 1 died in year 18 of Hammu-rapl as pro­)osed b,' CHARPt;>; - ZtECLfR [2003) 175, and thIS !'esulled'in the incorrect S\11Chronism of Hammu­rapi'l'ear I I with LSme-Dagnn I year I (L-IND BERGER [1954) '38) '" based on \,AB 5, 2 4.709 LWDSBERGER

119 On it SUIl11l1an of lhe older slUdie~' approach (l~plO 19.55) ;)\LIIS ( 19':;6) 463-18-t According 10 the Distanzanga-

.see . ' "I::'L.\ 199 rears n.:~ed bel'\een f lis lIl"Il I and be" and the"" . r- Bab J l1 ~i·-\d;\d I .m(l, accordi ng to Ihe- dala known 0 11 ) 0-

11 • , I 1 '-ears In.~ed belween SUllluabum and Ihn !Jugs on, '1;) " ~ • be ' ~ - ,) "Uut nOlt'" lhal the s'-nchrolll~m ",een Ilam11l1l-rapI . . 4&1 an be

• -, I S 1I1l1li\bu11l Illt.'ullolled on p_ c lIusum., .tIl( \ _ [ 19r.-] 9-15-C).n on the se<:-

Ii 'd (" ~ -,oon' and ROLlI(. \l.? _ . -

I~' utl.' f .sll~e· Ki ng Chronicle. which dO,e<;, ".Ot nal~le lion 0 t ,nbllm who Cd llnOI be Identified "1th Sumuabtlltl. btu S , . [ l tr7) 9'L93) Pa llis him~eLf the Bab~lon i,\11 ruin: ED1_\RO .J - be~ .... -labl,"

- I -~ ,ian lime 'pans to mrrona comldered t It' . \' \KL (Chors.), For leferences to with Iht' diu;.1 rh .. n .. n 10m . _ 476-477 Di~I~1I1 z...1 ngnl)t.'n in eariil'I' 'l.Hldll" 'ee pp. .

150 Mesopotamian Chronolog\ of thl" 2nd :\1illenniunl BC

(1954) 51 ("ith u eful o\'eniew of the numbers accepted by him) calculated I 52 for 'ear I of Samsi-Adad I and therefore obtained e\'en higher dates for the "auached" Babvlonian d)llast\ (L'HC). I n hi chapter on the time span ROLLIG (1965) pro­,ided as many options as po ible for the calculation and imerprelation of Assn;an Distanzangaben. He perfonned mam different computation leading to ,-arious results and concluded that Samsi-Adad I must ha"e ruled bet\<een 1756. 48-1723 15, a date that corre ponds approximatel\' to the LC.'''' According lO him the time spans in the inscriptions of -almaneser, Esarhaddon and Tiglalh-pile er I do not result in one specific date. As for the Bab\'lonian chronologl, more than the main three options exist (HC. ~fC and LC). which opens a whole new range of po ibilities for the absolute date of Bab\'lonian rulers. But the \ T upon which astromicalh dating is based, is rar from unquestionable. Thus the date of Bab,lonian rulers "ill ha"e lO be ultimatel\' deri\'ed from Assyrian chronology based on the ARL, epom-ms, Dislanzangaben, calendar (olar or lunar""). and other astronomical and den­drochronological data.

no Similarly HACfI\tA"" (1977) and NA'AMA" ( 1984).

Overview on the more recently proposed dates for Samsi-Adad I (1808 bis 1776 accOrding to the MC)

• 1719 bis 1688 ". Chr. (C-\sCHE ,/ aL, Dating ... )

• 1710 bis 1679 \'. Chr. (CASClIE ,/ al. [199 ])

• 17 bis 1725 v. O,r. (MICIlEl- ROCHER [1997-2000])

• 1792 bis 1760 \'. Ch ... (l\IICHEL [2002] followed by PRL'Z ' INSZhT [2006])

• I 78-1 46 (EDER [2004])

• 1744-1712 UA.,\ EN [2006] = LC}

Distanzangaben Discussed with Respect to the Absolute Chronology of the 2nd millennium Be

All fi\'e of the abo"e-discussed Assyrian Distanzanga. ben. three of which refer directly or indirectly to SamSi-Adad I, can potentially provide useful informa­tion for bridging the gaps in the ARL.

The Babvlonian Distanzangabe by Enlil-niidin-apli refening to CuIkiSar of the Sealand I dynasty is of no value for ~1esopolamian chronology. All otller known Distanzangaben from Babylonia (with the possible exception of the one referring 10 the abduction of the tatue of Marduk) and Anatolia (KUB 25, 21) are wonhless for chronology.

Links

AKL, BKL, Calendar, D Bpi-su, EL, Isin I Dynast)', lsin II Dynasty, Kassite Dynasty, Old Assyrian Period, Middle Assyrian Period, Royal Inscriptions, Sealand I D)nasty, Sealand 11 Dynasty, Synchronistic History.

'" Note I'RU7.S' NWKY (2006) 78.

10. EPONYMS (LiMu)/EPONYM LIsTS/EPONYM CHRONICLES

Sources, Textual Evidence

One basically distinguishes between eponym lisls (ELs), which give the name of the eponym for each year in chronological order (Class A), and Eponym ChroniclRs or Carwns, which add after the eponym an event that happened during each year (Class B):

_ Eponym Chronicles/ Canons of the first millenni-um BC: Ca, Cb and the prism Cd72'l

_ KAV 21-24 (EL}'" (CC)

- KAV 19 (ce), KUB 4, 93 (CI) (EL)

- MEC: Mari Eponym Chronicle: BIROT (1985) 219-242. (Five exemplars)

- KEL: Ktlltepe Eponym List: VUNIIOF (2003~, and GUNBATfI (2008) 103-132. (Seven exemplars )

- Furlher eponyms are known from documents from AS,ur, Kiir-Tukulti-Ninurta, Bo~azkoy, AJi§ar, Subat-Enlil (Tell LeiHin},m Q attara (Tell ar­Rimab),"" QaI'at a1-J:Hidi, Mari,"" Tell Taya, Tuttul (Tell Bi'a},''' Sagar Bazar (Chagar Bazar} 7l!'I and Tigunanu."" A useful compilation of these epomms fo r chronological studies can be found in VEENHOF

.' Funher information on their publication can be found .in U\l'\'\l) ( 1938) 413-414 and ~lJLl",Rn ( 1991): BI - BJO: ,d. (1995) 208-209. Complemental) to t\ l illard's study IS a chapler by Wh iling on the post-canonical. cpon ms (p~. 72-78). For the post-canonical eponplls alter 6-19, that IS

from 6·18 to 609, "hen tht' ELs/ Canon end. the works b) F,,"., - R. 10' (1995) 167-172 and (1998) 248-254 as well as Rt \t)to ( 1998) 25~265 ha\'e to be taken inl ,-,ccount. For il llot lwl' order "it'e P\RIl()LA in P A 1/ 1 ( 1998) XYIII-XX.

" Ch lSll'N of "ilOne stelae "SIe1enreihen" etisco,ered in Assur CM1) tilt.' n"lme~ of kings, queens, and men who served as cponlln\ (-""It", W\ 'DOC 24 [1913J ""d FR.:nA~' [200:i J 2H-32). For il ne\\ ill(t'rprel~Hjon of the function ~r tht, Sle1t'nreihen found .n M~ur imd .\ SUl1ll11an of pre'1· ollsl} \uggt'\tt-d i n tt~rplel~'lioll s ~ee ~hGl,l'S, /A 7·1 (19RI) 1 ~3- 1 40.

.4 Set" CI 'Ioill,\rll (200R) 103-104 and M IClIt-I'S reviewofVFF~­IIOf (2003) in AJV 5 1 (2007) 323 on KEL G from le,d I\J.rulll Ib which IiSb 80 more epoll)lns aner lhe enet of Ka.rum Kotn i~ II .. m et thu 'i covers the reigns or ;ullSi·Ad"et I ,IlId Filll ('-oD.lgun l.

"" Willi '", ( I!!UO) 167-2 18, VAN Of M II'HOOP (1!19·1) 306-308. ", Ill" " ,/ ,,/. ( 197G) 278-335.

(1985) 19lff. , (1993) 63fT. , (1998) 447f. and (2000). For a historical synopsis between ca. 1792-1775 see CHARPIN - ZIEGLER (2003) 75-169.

General Features

The system of dating by eponym (= name of an offi­cial: limu) goes back to the 3rd miliennilUn (Fara, Ebla). In upper Mesopotamia this system is attested from the 2nd millennium onwards and later became the standard Assyrian method of dating. Used parallel lO the word limu in the early period was the Sumerian BALA ("term of office"), employed from the end of the Early D)nastic period om,-ards (note the BKL A}.'" In Assyria/ onhem Mesopotamia the ~ating system was based on limu known from the re'gn of Erisum I onwards.'" In contraSt the Babylomans named years after important evenlS or kings (year­names, regnal years).'" For administrative chronolog­ical purposes the Ass)1ians compiled the names of eponyms in epon}m Ii IS (ELs) and probably used them pal-allel with genealOgical hsts of mlers (AKL). With the help of such lists it was possible lO determme spans of time between one specific year and another

,,, NOle especiall) M. 5681: CH"'RP'~ ( 1985) 249 (on the order orMan epon)1ns in an economic te.xt ). ,_

m KR[BER.'\I};' (200la) 7-10 (\,;th a hst of epon)1lls knmm from Man .1Ild 5.1.gar·Bazlir) and 190-2~.. , .

'" TALO~, OBTCB 10. I 2, Dl RA'D (1997) 4" 'A" KoPP£"' , AjO 46+47 (1ggg.2000) 336-341.

"" s...L\1~' (1996) 7-16. id. (1998) 30!>-311. More eponrms are knO\\'1l to hm'e existed in Tigunanu. whIch appear In

yet unpublished textS. It is not clear whe~her a local ystem of eponpns or A.{Sur limli were used at Tigunlillu.

'" On BAJ.A (palil) see TAD"OR, Jrs 12 (19- ) 26-27 and ~ , ,\.-\5 (1998) 81 (especialh on 'IS use 1Il .-\ssm., rLCBS. . .. f on ll' regnal struclm;ng c,-enls in ro\'al1l1SCnptlOns 0 arg .

~'ears \'ersus epom1I1s). . (199 ) . .. f · ·pom11lS see \ EE.'1l0F m On lhe slgmficance a H'ar,,: - ~ '>OOP) 3

936 -491-422. Note however HECUR. T Al :-.l.F. 2. (-.:) -- . l ll,al me AKl. hints at an earher mtroduc· wh pomts au • .' . f

tion of e 1l)111S. Importallt is IllS pomt ~lat Ole reign a a king ob"ro:ISh- started '\~lh the fi,I'St mClltton of all epomm (0 I lot \,;Ih hi:) aeee Ion \ear.). .. .

730.' F~;(g~lleral comments on methods of designaung years m Mesopotamia see HORSNEI1 (1999) 123ff.

1_<) 3_ ~tt'""OI)()tamian Chronolog'o of thl" 2nd ~lillennium Be

(~ Distanzangabenl. Epon"n Chl"Onicles, which are knOlm from the eponlltlate of Salmaneser III in ,:\7 down to 700, are not list.>. but annual c1lt"Onicles which conL.1.ined the names of eponllns. Because epom1l1s ,,"ere the main means of '"ear identification in .'\ssn;a and because each entn of the Epomlll Chronicle starts ",th ilia li,,,, ... -in the eponlltlate of .. .-. such texts are, in contrast to the ELs, historicalh rather than chronologically oriented: more emphasis was given to the event (drawn from annals'). than to the epomTIl. ~1LLL-\JU) (1997) 20 suggested that such chronicles might have been in ttse as earh as the time of Sam~i-Adad I (note the MEC).

E"er" 'ear a new official was appointed limll.'" The origin of the epomll1 office and its duties remain obscure'" GRAYSO' (19 0) 176-177 ques­tioned whether the S\'Stem of eponyms, which goes back to Old AsS\Tian times, was originalh in pi red b,' ~[esopotamian date-lists; note also the reference to epom111S in the beginning sections of the ARt. as well as the KEL. -. In Old AsS\Tian times the kings did not sel\-e as epon\1TI, whereas in the 1'" millenni­um this was regularly the case (see G.>.REUJ. in: FS \'emhoJ [2001] 149). During the ~liddle AsS\Tian period some of the leading men of the state appear as limii,""; and the king, starting ",th Enlil-niriiri (no. 74), is recorded [0 have held this post during one year of his reign. A cenain pattern of succession can be observed from the reign of Salmaneser III (no. 102) onwards.

Lists of limii - epon~TIl lists (ELs) - were estab­lished to keep records of their chronological sequence and to serve as a tool for determining time intef\als in the history of the AsS}Tian empire (~ Dis­tanzangaben). ELs are ,aluable chronological docu­ments, since they are free of ideological bias. In con­trast to Babylonia, eponyms pro\ided AsSYria "ith a continuous method of dating that lasted until the fall of Msur in the late 7,h cent. Some lists contain chron· icle-like notes on military events, and the like: they

".. CRA\~'. ABC 19~197. For general noLC~ on epon'rms ~e V[E.'1I0f (2003) 20fT. in hi') publication oft"'o manuKriplli oflhe KEL.

7l'I See discu\sion in FmlH'fo.. (1991) 1~17 (on Laf\Cn con­tra Oppenheim).

'N6 Judging from the variolJ.\ manuscrip'-" of the KEL, the reign lengths cited in the AKL depended on \uch EL, as the Old Assnian KEL It can be demOn\traled that also thc Distanz.. angaben (orrelate .... ith the infonnation in th(' AKL and I'J~.

'M For a tabl(' of ~fiddle A\Ij)Tian nll("r\ who ser.ed a~ el>omm, ",. CA"I"·KJ .... H8\t·\t (1999) 211.

"" Oflhe \fEC V"~Hm 12(03) 17 'tates: " ... lie (the <ompil·

are the Eponnn Chronicles Canons and the MEG.'" Onh one eponym for each year was recorded, even if there were other eponyms (local eponyms"') appointed eI ewhere in the empire.

The earliest auestation of ELs is the KEL, which o,erlap ,,;,h the ~IE . The KEL is also among the most recentlv disco,ered or identified of such lists and resolves many chronological problems and uncertainties concerning the Old Assyrian period before the reign of Samsi-Adad I be ause it records reign lengths not preser,ed in the ARL. A relation· ship between the AKL and the KEL of the Old Assyr· ian period ha been shown by VEDiHOF (2003) 57ff. The relation hip between the EL and AKL for the :\eo-Ass)Tian period (a complete list of the eponyms between Adad-oiriiri n [no. 99) and the rear 648 is \mO""l) has been studied by MIl.LARD (1994) 13. Unfortunately, we do not possess an EL covering the entire 2nd millennium. However, a reconstruction of the sequence of the knmm Middle Assyrian eponyms has been auempted by SAPORElTi (1979) and FREY· DASK (1991). Further research will be possible on the basis of,et unpublished evidence ( ee below) .''''

Another earlv 2nd millennium time unit is the , /JamuJtllln of Old Assyrian texts from Kiiltepe/KaniS (L-\RSE' [1976) 354-365 and VEE'HOF [1995-1996] :>-26). This was a week eponymy, each period of seven days was being designated by the name of an official.'" The limii and bmllllsttt111 officials of the Klimm were of quite different rank. The limii were from important Assyrian families elected on a yearly basis in ASsur to hold an executive office (limu) in Klimm'" and its representatives. They were recruited from the colonial ranks of the bamSiitli (pl.), who were mostly Assyrians, sometimes Anatolians, from the Klimm.'" Since this was a weekly office th ere were about 50 lwmSlitlt during a year. However, this office was only a colonial innovation and did not sun1\'e Kamm Kanis level II. Little is known about this office except Lhat it worked in rotation.

tr) used an existing eponym list a~ a chronological skele­LOn, which he fle!thed out by adding pieces of historic;tl infonnalion, which he may have derived from existing royctl in5(;ripuon~. chl'onicleMlike texts ,:!lid perhaps even chancery documents .... " See MII1.ARI) ( 1997) 208-209 on lh(' 50urcc material of lhe MEC and its compari'ion wilh the Babylonian Chronicle.

,., \IUIARll (1991) 73. ,., FREYllA" (2000) 67-72. ,,, See KRYVAI (2001) 159-197. 141 i..AR.SI'.s (IH76); for a liM of dalings ')t'c BALKAN ( 1955). 741 VU'1I0F ( 1995-1996) 5-2(j,

10. tponym' (Jimu)/Eponym Lists/Epon)m Chronicles 153

The documents from Klirum were traditionally db.' A."UI eponymics, but some also by local

dale ) ollvmies or KiiTlim IImii. These were J{arum ep J '

f the Klirum itself and tI,u, useless for eponyms 0 .

. h 'onology (VHNflOF [1998) 445). It IS not Assynan c I . . Y to differentiate between local and Assyn-

always eas . . Ii -. ·or instance in MATOCS's ArOr46 (1978) hst an 111W. l ' . - " . d

of collected eponyms, Kiirum-limu are Intermmgle

with Assyrian limii. . Sometimes during the early wmter months, Anato-

I· Id be Cttt off from ASsur by deep snow Itl the ta wOll passes of the Taums and the name of the new eponym would not be known by the start of the new eponym

. ter solsu'ce '14 As a stop-gap were used the year at wm . so<alled sa qiiti PN-eponyms - literally "from the hand

f PN" 'n the sense of "the eponym who took over o i ,l . h' from p,," or limit .sa warki P "the eponym whtc. tS

( d) after P1'\". These are usually attested dunng use 7ti Th the first four mon ths of the epon\TIl year. e

break-off of communication coinciding "'th. th~ beginning of the new eponym year might be an mdl­cation that a solar year con'elated with the seasons was in use in Assyria at the beginning of the 2nd mtllenn:­urn (VlE:\HOF [2000) 144 with reference to L~RSE' s [1976] observations on Kiirum level n, when some coordination between the month-year and the epomm year can be obsef\"ed). VEESHOF (2000) 146-147 sorted the Old Assyrian year eponyms according ti,e months of the year and concluded that intercalaf) months might ha,e already extsted at tillS time (in the form of a second 12,h month to restore the correlation of the beginning of the year ",th the autumnal eqttinox).;~; Ilowever, [his has not b~en ver­ified ,md we have no idea as to how this coordtllauon worked ( -> Calendar). On p. 144 he tated: , .... But in a system based on a lunar year without intercalauon th~ smn of the eponym's period of office in the first mOlllh over the years would have moved back,,~rds through the solar year and tI,is would exclude tile clI­matic' explanation of regular occurrences of 'succe -'or eponyms' during the same fil'St tlIonths of the ,ea.r. ... 'Therefore, VFE\;1l0F (2000) 147 rejected a chmauc explanation fOI the SII (fIti eponyms during the first

"u In Karum h.alli~ le\t' l Ib month I of the S~\ll\;i·.\(bd cairn· (iJr "-.1'1 "'11Chronoll' with MOnlh \,1 of the Mari calendar. 1~1 It'\t'\ IIII'lt' rpon\111 )('ar sl.uled with lht~ WlnlL'r ,oi'itin'. It I" st ill unJ...nown wh, th is ~hifl took plaC{·. Calendar sub 6.2.

U l.''''''./IA flll (1974) 21-21. VH.NIIO> (2()OOl I4:1-111 and (~~M)~) c'!l. St'e "hOYll""" ( 1991) 155 (Komi,. Man and Q"I1J1'.l) ,mel KRtl\t IU'It... (~O() I ) ~--4 a~ wdl as \l tl\tI'tl

(20()3) 314-3W (on lhe nc\\ t'\idcllCl' from TUlllll ).

months of the year, instead attributing the break­down in communication that resulted in "successor eponymies" to political disorders or similar factors.'''

10.1. KAV 21-24

KAV 21-24 reaches back to the Middle Assyrian peri­od (ca. 1200) and in its original state listed epony1lls for a period of ca. 600 years. It is the longest known EL continuing onto the post-canonical era (648-609) . It was clearly composed for calculating elapsed time because it sums up "years instead of "eponyms". Unlike other ELs, il has a horizontal line drawn after the statement of each king's reign length. These ELs show the same pattern as date-list sum­marie, with the shortened structure "Name - MlJ (Year)". A similar summary appears at the end of BKL C (CRAYSOS, ABC 197). For this reason WEID'ER (1941-1944) believed that ELs sen'ed as a basis for KLs.''' This ma} now be proven by means of the KEL, which covers the Old Assyrian part of the ARL. KAV 21-24 gi"es the total number ("~ummiemngs­zahlen") of epon)1ll real'S (M .MES) that pas ed between each king's epOn}l1l year and that of hIS pre­dece or. This total coincides with the reign lengths only when each king's eponpll year (lim" sarri/limll sa sarri/lil1l~ sam) coincided with his first regnal year. Usually, the sum of all reign is correct. Most Impor­tantly the "Summierungszahlen" show one epon~m

equals one year. . Since KA\, 21-24 consists of fragments whIch do

. . do not know the exact number of not J01l1, we . , eponlms that ,,'ere recorded here. However, U~G~AD, RLA 2, 414, assumed the texts ongmally conmttled

b t 5,'2 epon\'ms. nfortunatelY', the recovered a au "1: . • r. - f

. f KA V <) 1_9-\ do not cOIHam the ,IIIW 0 poruons 0 - - f . Mur-nlldin-apli (no. 79), whose number 0 retgn lengLh varies in the difTerent manu cnpts of the AKL

( POFBEL [19-13] 56-90 on tillS problem). ee esp. . . th I KA \'

Chors. KL gives difTerent reign leng s t lan 21-24 for tWO I" millennium kings: 33 veal'S for

'1 II ' KA" 2" \' 94 vel'Su 32 yeal'S and Tiglath-pt eser 111 ., - , - ..: <)

2.' years for ASsurnasirpalll (no. 97) III KA\_ :2\,1, 16 vel' us 25 lea,'S (together ther add up to ~I rears) .

. . . (199.1) 155 for a li"l of Ia q1Ili liMu. On inter-Ho See' 1I10,l. _. cal d b\ the AS."iH·

("llan months and the u .. e of., lunar en l~ . .' ' . 11' - 1 £R ;\f05 (1928-1929) I 4- :>. lan~ "ee E.1l'.' (qoo~) 316-317 who uied lO "ho\,' that

7-4. ee .llso IItI\IPU -' ". . f I d· e from -bSur nor dl:)nlpuon 0 comlllU-

)either t le !Stane .' . I I .. . uIIsnble political SilU<lUon was t 1t· C3U"e meatlon .... 1101 an . ~

for U'Q,*i-d,\tings. i.t~ Rt)UJ(; (1969) 265-;!7i disagreed. AKL

154 :\le .. opot~\mian Chronology of lht" 2nd \tiUennium Be

The reign lengths of the kings from Adad-niliiri II are kn0\\11 from other sources, such as ELs from _ illen'h and royal inscriptions. For earlier kings one ha ... to rei\' on the All. although one can not prO\'e the cor­rectness of numbers given (i.e. first regnal 'ear (?) = king's epon\1n rear' ). Howe\er, u1e KEL prO\;des u ~\ith exact figure on the reigns of ntlel preceding San1-i-Adad l. which have nOt been preserved or reported in the All.

10.2, KUB 4, 93 and KAV 19"

The ELs KCB 4, 93 and KAV 19 were both composed during the reign of ASSur-uballil I (no, 73). Both cover onh parts of the Middle Assyrian period. KA \' 19 lists epomms \\ith u1eir fathers' names. It has two columns on the obverse and three on the reverse. The upper and lower edges are 10 l. Of KCB 4, 93 only a small fragment of nine damaged lines is pre­sen·ed. (-> below sub 10,S,)

10,3, ?dEC (Marl EpOD}'Ill Chrooicle"')

During the period of Samsi-Adad' I rule me tablets of ~larl were dated b,' epomm , later. during Zimri­Urn, the year-name ,tern was again used.'" The ;>'fEC, presen'ed in se,'en fragments (~(EC A-G), cov­ers eponyms dating to Karum !\ani; le"els II and Ib (VEEXHOF [2003] 17ff. and 47ff.). Its chronicle-like entries pro\ide important historical information on political events during the lifetime of Hu-kabkabi Aminum and SamSi-Adad l. The ~( EC O\'erlaps with the KEL: together they give a continuous sequence of ~pon}ms co\ering 253 years from the beginning of EriSum's reign (KEL A) to the death of Samsi-Adad ( (KEL G) and beyond'" It prO\ides reign lengths for the eariyAss}1ian kings which can be compared with mformauon knO\m from the Distanzangaben. The MEC ': a valuable source correlating year epon}ms ~th hlstoncal events from the time of. 'aram-Sin to SamSi-Adad's death.

BIROT (l9S5) 219-242 published the manuscripts of the MEC consisting of two larger tablets (A.1288 and S. 24-1 + S. 24-2 + A.1614b) and several small tablet fragments (M.74S1 + 11250, S. 115-26, M.59 11 and M.8566). The term ITmu is mentioned only on fragment ~1.7481, line I; but it is clear from the style

"4') F . r' or an o\"("r,,"Jew 0 ,\1IddJe ;\Mynan kings attested a~

epon}ms starling \\-ilh M\ur-nirari II (no. 68) see C.,:..." IK­

J\.JR.S(.HBAl'\f (1999) 211. She pointed out that it i not kno~n exactJy when during their reign the Middle A~\yri~ an km~ held this oflice, During lhe 1\1 millenni um it was the firn, second or ,-","'en the third regna l ~(>ar.

and rcference~ to c'cnts, that all the other fragmen~ belong to tillS text. \ \1,en a chronicle-like ent occurs the eponym is preceded b, the Akk. prepoZ lion ilia -"hen ... , 111 the (epom'my) of ... ". The main text .\.1288 ronsi,ts of two columns. The re,. is most. Iy destroyed, only part of the 4th column being pre. sen·ed. The L.lbleLS originalh measured ca. 18-20 em

in height - though in .some cases the ize of the orig­lI1al tablet IS uncertall1 sll1ce the upper and 100\'er edges of the fragments are lost. The text of columns 1 and II is also presen'cd on fragment M.5911 (col. I), ~1.\566 (col. II), ob,·. of M.7481 + 11250 (col. I) and S.I 15-26 and .24-1 (col. 11). Gol. l\' is not pre­ened on am of U1e small fragments. Up to fire

epon}111S can be listed in one line. OfM.N81 + 11250 U1e obverse is onh paruv preserved (bOU1 edges are presencd): it end \\ith the same ITmu as A.128 . On U1e lower edge of we re\ersc We total number of eponnns is recorded before the colophon and the scribe's name, but it is badly preserved: it had been something between 70 and 99. This tablet began \lith the stan of a reign or a d}11asIY; but the name of the ruler in the first line is lost. This period is referred to as -,;ctOI'\' of the pon of Saggaratum". The ensemble of joined fragments S.24-1 (obv. and rev. inscribed), S.24-2 (rev.) and A.]6 14 b (rev.) has a total height of II cm. .24-3 certainl" belongs to the same tablet but does not join with an} of the other fragments. How­e"er, it does not seem that a ll u1ese fragments belong \\ith M.7481 + 11250 in one single tablet. Only the lower half of .115-26 (obv. and rev.) is preserred. ince this tablet probably originally was 10 cm higb,

ca. 50 epon}ms must have been recorded on it. M.59 II and M.8566 reproduce certain parts of A.1288 I and II.

Birot di\ides the MEG into twO ma in parts: A and B, which correspond to A. I 288 I and Il , M.7481 obv., S.II5-26 and S.24- 1 (obv.). T hey are separated by the fi rst lacuna: some eponyms are missing before S. I I5-26 and aftcr A. 1288 I, 27'. The second lacuna interntpts the ,eries of eponyms of the fragmental)' S.24+ ensemble. It an on ly bc affirmed that it con­tained parts of the fourth column of A. 1288 as well as S.24-3 (the order remaim unde termined). The rest of the tablet of this e nsemble joins A. 16 14c. MEG A,

7'011 rRtv""K (1991) lilT., SAI'OKI nl (1979) 8-10. 7~1 BRJ\K\fA' (19<J5) 670 favored Ihe term "NOlll,cln Meso­

potamian" or anotlwi U'eoO'r.)I>hiGti label. 7',:/. ~ ~ •

FOI ,.'"oflym) duri ng tht" (jf'~l 9 yt"ar'i of Zjl1lri~LiIll 'S re ign ,t,· CIIARI'IN - Z IE(,II K (2003) IOG- J(iS. 7'" K' I ( '. ' I c. ~ ~ C'OIlUlI lI (.'\ 60 years bc:yolld Salll;I.Ad"d's dCil l 1.

10. Eponyms (limu)/Eponym Lim/ Eponym Chronicles 155

which started with the reign of Nariim-Sin, parallels the last part of KEL A. On the basis of KEL A, VEEN­f10F (2003) 47ff. restored four epon}111S in the gap between parts A and B. However, on the basis of KEL G which dates to level Karum Kanis Ib, and MEC Mlc,u./ , AfO 51 (2007) 323 believed that the gap had held onl)' 3 eponyms (see also VEE:-;HOF [2007]60).''''

According to BIROT (1985), the MEG contains a LOtal of71 + x (= gaps) eponyms. VEE:-IHOF (1998) 446, on the basis of his studies on Old Ass}1ian epon}1lls collected from other sources and the AKL, concluded that the MEG covered a period of at least 90 years. In his publication of 2003 on p. 56 he suggested a period ofca, 97 years (ca. 1872-1776 according to u1e MC). According to Giinbatll'S latest study of 2008 (p. 117) based on KEL G the MEC covered 92 years. It is important to note that the MEC covers several decades of the Karum KaniS level II, the gap between 11 and Ib and the epon}1ll years of Samsi-Adad"', who is to be linked with the revival of Karum Kanis level lb.'" VEE~HOF (1998) p laced me first eponym oo,fEC at ca. IS66 (MC). The historical content of the MEG can be roughly di,ided into four parts:

1) Period preceding Sam!i-Adad 1 (AI-B.7"'): >lam in th~ r~ign of. anm-Sin: ca. 22 + x ,ears: text A

lit IIcuna - (a. 2H + x yeaN: text B

2) P~riod of the fint pan of Sam~i~.-\dad\ 1 reign (1.~B,30): text B complemented wi th text~ C and D

5) Period when the cOl1que~l' of _\.\.~ur and '-Iari take place

2Dd 1aama

4) The Mari ""riod (E. I- I I): Mari epormm

Gaps can be fou nd within all parts of u1e text, as

~ In hel' public,uiot) Mirhel quOl{"S KEI, C ,\5 KEL F. See G(",-8\11'1 (2008) 103-10-1 for clarification.

'" See CII,\RI'" - 7.1",1 fR (2003) 157. 'fOw, On Karum Kani, lewis II and Ib S('t.' VI'l.MIOF (2003.l) 83f.

and (in more derail) id. (2003) '" well as G(o~It\rrl (2008) I It).... I 17. On the ,(.'a l irnpr<'s'\iolls frmn t\cem-Ilo)l-lk dat~ inK to ~nlln le\'t"l lh note \'U~1I0F (1993) 645 and Den­drodu-onology. In his publiC<1tion of 2003 Vt'cnhof slill made USt' of Ihe older resu tl'i bv Kl '\11101 \1 ,1 aL ( 1996), indk;uill K' a rt'<itl cec\ Me of at lea.\1 30 'ears. According to MI( IH I (2002) 17-18 a reduction of 15 veal'S is more likely toda, bt;'l',\me o fth l' nlort· recent ('(.', u ILS presented b) ~l"~ \I't, 1'1 ill. (200 1) and the solar t' lipst· wh ich b historically lit'd to 5Jm'i~Ad'ld I.

1\: For tht' designatio n, A~G and it.,~ att ributed eXe l1\ phlf'~ see BIRO I (1985) 220,

sho'm by BIROT (19S5) 233-235. With the help of the KEL VEENIIOF (2000) 139 established that there was a total of 191 or 194 + x (finally 199)'58 epon}1ll years which have passed between the accession of IlriSum I (= beginning ofKEL A) and the death ofSamsi-Adad I (MEG C-E). This agrees with the Distanzangaben of Salmaneser I and Esarhaddon.

The following Table 32 is from VEENHOF (2003a) which was refined by the same author in 2007:

Kin!!, (yea,,) KElA (/29 <pOOIm,) MEG (97 epon}m,)

Erilum 1 (40) 1-40 lkunum (14) 41-<>1

Sarro-kin (40) 55-94 Puzur-A5Sur 11 (8) 95--102

Naram-Sin LO~I29 \/EGA and Erisum II end 1-30

(64) MECB I-~

Sam!i-Adad 1 (33) ~tEGC-E

1-33

Table 32

\'EE:-:HOF (2000) 140 and (2003) 57 suggested that the MEC must have cO\'ered a period of97 years while according to Giinbaw's edition and sUldy of KEL G in 2008 the MEC covered U1e period of 92 years.T,g The MEC has helped to establish the order of epon}ms during the reign of Samsi-Adad I and hi predeces­sors, although U1ere still remain orne problems \Vith a few epon)ms.'''' The mo t interesting point for absolute chronology could be the po ible reference to a solar eclipse (na'dllr Samas) in the year succeed­ing Samsi-Adad's birth (= KEL no. 126). in the eponym)' of Puzu r-lStar, the year when Aminum (Sam'i-Adad's brother?), son of Ilu-kabkabi,761 died (-> below sub 10,5,).76> The gap in the MEC after ca.

?IS X con'eponds to a small gap of four. to . five epon~1TIS between tJu,' end of K.EL A and the beg1l1mng of MEC B dudng the reigns of Naram in and Erislim II.

7.'09 G(" MTfI (2008) 118. Note that KEL G differs in some ways fro ll1 lhe so fur known list of eponrms: for illsL.1.nce. it omi~ the eporml1 rear in which Samsi-Adad I conquered Man (<ee Ol\RP" - ZIEGLER [2003] 145).

nOll On the eponyms of lasmab-Addu. son of Samsi-Adad I see K.RfRE.R.\IK (2001) 1-7 based on textual e\;dence f~om TUl~ tu l. Note also Ctt\RJlIN - Zln~t Fit (2003) 145-155 \'1th a syn~

optic table. r •

761 According to the second se<:tiOI1 of the ARL. ~lIlgs n~s. 25--26. ant" has to stre though that here no dtrect fiha~

lion is explicitly stated. . . ' ~ 7W See MICHEl _ RlX:lltR (1997-2000) 113. lI1~e till'. obsen-a--

. lei refer to some other aslrononllcal e\cnt, the (Ion cot! . " .. "d chronological \~.lllle of this "solar echpse IS ve l" illTIllC .

156 \l~~opotat1li .ltl (,hronolo~ of the 2nd \hllenllllll11 BC

1 15 (last epom111 of \lfG B; according to \IC) h,,-, caused some problems for the placement of epon\1l1': onh three complete names of epon\l'" are men­tioned in fragments C and D. Two more. connected with $amsl-..I.dad·s conquest of Ekallalllm and. -'til: are knm\1l from the ,\hl.. For the time between 1c'60 and 1 35 the \ IEC (A + B. 1-6) correlates well with the epomms mm\1l from Kamm Kanis. Howe\·er. none of the parallels gOt" be\'ond \IEG B. 6. since the epon\ms listed do not occur in the te"ls from the Kamm. including tllOse of Bogazko\ and A.li~ar ( below)."'" Thi, fact complicate the reconstntClion of the time of destruction of leve!lI. Therefore the \IEC did not help to calculate the chronologicalh impor­tant lenglh of the gap between II and lb. which i now e'tablished on behalf of KEL G with 2- 3 \ ears.'" \\ 11ile the last epon\l1l mentioned in the \1EG i the one dating to tile death of Sam' I-Ad ad (l776).level lb lasted until at least 1760 (a.!1 according to the \IC),'" since a pecific epomm anested at Ten ar-RimatJ (no later than 1(60), who can be dated to Hammu-rapi's conquest of \Iari. occurs on a le\'e! Ib tablet as well (\·EE.'HOr [199 ] 442). The Ten Leiliin tablets, cmer­ing the period between ca. li90 and 1775. do not help soh'e these chronological issues:' Further, the information on tile local rulers of KaniS is far too lim­ited and vague to be med as a check on chronologl (\·EE.HOF [199 ] 412-443). KEL G sho\\ tI,at Kantm KaniS Ib epon)11lS continued at least until 1719 BG (and be\ond).

10.4. KEL (Killtepe Eponym List)

·.-In eponyms lisl jrrYm kiirum Kanl.Sh itself is badl) ru'1!dRd .•

\'EE~Hor (998) 438

One of the great discO\'erie, of the past few lears has certainly been the EL covering the period of the early 2nd millennium. On this period we find onl) scanty information in the AKL. Freydank, Veenhof and oth­ers, who have dea.lt "ith the reconstruction of the eponym sequences, hale expressed the longing for an EL stretching back to the first half of the 2nd mil­lennium in order to verity the chronological data of the KLs, the building-inscriptions, and other texts

-" J On the problem of the number of texts found dating to the

period before the de\tnlclion of tCH:1 II 'JCt' VH'1I01' (1998) 437-438.

7fj.f Gt'8,\TTl (200K) t 17. -+ lx-low sub lOA. ,., In 1998 Veenhof prop",ed 180()-1740 or 1HIO-1750

(according'" the ~1C) lor le,eI lb. In 2003 (I" 67) he ,ug­gt:sted thatle\el Ib Ia.sted beyond 1740 -+ below \ub 10.5.

containing information on timC' spans, So far the reconstruction of the epon\m sequence has been based main" on epoll\ms collened from records who were an.lIlged in a chronological sequence o~ the basis of pro,opographical ob'('l'\atio"" archi\~1 ~tud ies, frequenC\. and their occurrences in the .. alllllleimemoranda" (= lists of outstanding dated debts)." -

Presentl\ seven \ e,,,ions have been identified as belonging to the Kiiltepc Fpomm List (KFL)'" can. taining epon\1l" of Klirulll Kanis levels Ib and II (-> belo" sub 10.5.): KEL A (kt 92 k 193) , B (kt91 k 555). C (Ka 306 = IGK 2,315), D (ktn k 517 + 1571), E (kt 94 k 36). F (kt P I, 9) and G (kt Ol / k 287). The KEL was first presented bv Veenhof at the RAJ in 199 (KEL..I. and B). KEL G, a fragment which can· tains on" 20 epomlll-nallles. was pre\'iously published as leK 2. 345, but not recognized as an eponym list. Origina.lh· it might ha\'e contained ca. 75--80 eponl'ms and seems to have been wrillen duting ti,e reign of Sarru-kin. KFL A lists 129 epon)1llS and KEL B con· tains 107. In 2003 KEL A and B were published b}

YlCE'Hor ("ith references to KEL E discovered br Larsen; see p. 69 sub 10. addendum) . The identifica­tion of KEL G, that conta ins Klirulll Kanis level II and Ib epon\11lS was first announced bv Giinbattl at the congress of Hittitologl' at orum in Sept. 2002 after its discO\erv in 2001. The list which adds more infonna· tion on the time succeeding Samsl-Adad's death was final" published in 2008. Since not a.!1 eponym data has been full) evaluated so far, th e data presented below is to be regarded a.s a work-in-progress.

The evaluation of the KEL is uucial for the deter· mination of the length of Karum Kanis le\els II and Ib, the unknown length of the gap between both IeI" els, and the date of their destruction. Linked with other data (such as dendrochronology and the possi­ble solar eclipse), it may h 'Ip establi~h absolute dates for the Old Assyrian rulers, thus allowing a better chronological corre lation between Anatolia, ASslIr and Mari.

Alltogcther the preserved pans of the KEL A can· tain J 29 year eponyms,"" the oldest dating to the fi"t year of BriSum I (= eponym year I). The KFL A com·

11"i \'1'1 'IICH (2003) (.»4-65. 71,7 VII ~ IIOf (2003) 201'1. 1'", For ~I \hon on'rvi('w '»C(' ~llc lli'l • AJO 5 1 (2007) ~21 ~lI1d

Gl "" 11' (200H) 103-1 01 ,. V .. """ (2000) l :lH and (200!l) f>--IO.

10. Epomms (1I1nu)/Eponjm Lisl,/ Epontm Chron icles 157

plemenLS the MEC and our knowledge of the Karum Kanis level II eponyms. The KEL can be correlated with five Old Ass}Tian rt~lers whose reign lengths (except for f ri,um I and Samsi-Adad I) are not pre-

'ed in the AKL: I.-ilium I, Ikunum, Sargon I, ~el. .. PlIllIr-ASsllI II , Narum-Sin, [risum II and Samsi-Adad I. As VFE'llOf (2003) 107 stated: " ... Thanks to the list, we nOW aho know all the names and, but for four or five, the sequence of the last fifteen year-eponyms before the end of kiimm Level II, which falls about ten years afwr the end o f the eponym list, c. 35-40 \'eal~ after the accession of Naram-Sin .... " 'iill

List of mlers and their reign lengths according to lhe KEL according to VEEl'ltOF (2007) 60:

~3. Fri.i.uml 40 years 1971-1935

:ii. Ikunulll )5 \ears 1931-1920

35. Sargon 1 40 year> 1919-1880

36. PUlUr-A.;~ur J I 8 ycars 1879-1872

:n. ~aram .. Sin 54 or 44 ~ears 1871-1829 19

38. hisumll 20 Of 10 ),ear'» 1828, 11>-1809

39. Sam;i·Adad I 33 year> 1801>-1776

Total 199 years

The main part of the KEL correlates with the kings nos. 35-37 of AS"ur (see AKL) . KEL A ends after tile epon)m 129, which is to be placed in tile 27th year of :\aram-Sin.'" It is imponant to keep in mind that this Narlim-Sin b the son and successor of PUZllt~..I.SSur II, as stated in the t\hl. (contra Ha.!lo),Ti'! and not his namesake from Esnunna.i7~ Nariim-Sin and his succes­sor f ri;um II reigned for about 65 years together. The laller was ,ucceeded by SamSi-..I.dad I, "ho ruled at Ek.111atum for three ,ea," before he conquered ASSur, where he ruled 33' years.'" According to the KEL Kanom Kallis level II staned much earlier than pre\;­ollsh as;umed (VH,\llOF [2000] 138: ..... certainlv more than hundred years ... ""') and included the

For mort' dt·t<lih~ Oil tht' Old AS .. \\Ti.Hl mlt'l" !'ol'C VtT\lItU (2003) 3H--l(i.

III KFL B ('ml\ with Nitr. m-Sin. C with rrisulll 1, 0 wilh Naram·Sili ~lI1d F "hh PU/Uf-,\':;;\II 11. KEL G gOt.''' bnond s.un;;j-,\dild 1.

'. \t't' .11~o I\l()( III-R (~(}():"l) 3i7. who di'Cll~St'S the seal \\hich lIam .. ', N.t1ullh"iin (no.:\7 Oflht',\KL) ,md PlIlllr-As.;ur 11 (no. lli) p"hli,h,'" I" ()II," in 1993, ill: FS S. (r-/.,If. 1'1. 9~. 2b. Rf)!lI(. (1~lIi5) Ht) had ,llrt';\{h qll t:'~lion{'(t Iht' icit-ntific,nion

ullhi, N.uJI1l-Sin with the rlllt'l of E'nUIlIl'\' " Illlntal Sam:;i-, \ dad II ukd 57 ,('ar,:\\ king: III 'CUR. TU,\T

\.F. ~ (~O(n) 2H. "'.FL. G hilH~ .11 :\5 \'t.,\! .... of reign (in~H'ad (It 3~~ H',lr,) which h not in 'lnordancf.' with the rt"t of tht' "\\\\11,\1\ 1I'I(ilLion.

..,~ Fur pn'\'iolt~ ,"it·\\, ... '('l' for ex~llHple \'lFf\IIOt" ( 19BH) 116: Mound P)~()"'I~)25 01 l'\('II5--1O l'pOll\lm ('~\llier (e.l. 19~n) .

reign of Naram-Sin son of PuzlIr-M,ur II, who, on the basis of the All, had been usually assigned a hon reign (see GRA\;o, [198~1983] 105, who giles r4 (+ ?)l years). According to Vu:xHor (2003) 45 and (2008) 29, which includes the new e\;dence from tile REL, Naram-Sin mlLSt have ruled for either 44 or 54 years."·

VU,\Hor (2000) 139 concluded: .... The first gap in MEG can be filled by epon)11lS attested in texts from kiirum Kanish le\el II which are not contained in and hence must be later than the end of KEL. The last eponym listed in MEG, which is still anested in texts from levelll of kiirum Kanish, is MEC text B no. 5. which must belong to the year when le\'elll of the kiirt/m came to an end, since none of the next 22 year eponyms list­ed in MEC B occurs in texts from the kiirt'"/. ... " (--> table above). As pointed out before, the ~lEC came to an end with Samsi-Adad's I death. The time span between EriSlIm I and Samsi-Adad's I death lasted 199 years which coincides "ith the information dra\m from . ' the Assyrian Distanzangaben (see below)'"

Historical Relevance and Value for Absolute Chronology

ELs are considered to be the most reliable chronD­logica.! sources because they primarily served adminis­trative purposes. not ideological ones like some of the KLs and chronicles. These lists were nOt composed for a certain purpose or event (like building in criptions) and were without an) political or ideological back­ground. The) were among the p,imary sources for the compilation of the All, which in tum enhance the AKL's reliability (--> Distanzangabenm

). Unlike the KLs, ELs give the acma.! number of years unaffected bv gaps between reigns or by parallel reigns. Kings are usually mentioned in ELs only when they served as epon)111 - except for KEL A, where the} are listed before ti,e epon\1n of tI,eir reigns (\'EExHOr [2003]

.,.,." \ 'U'HOF" (2003) 45. tL,ing the e\;cie-ncc rrom the K.EL and the- Distanzaugaben. propose~ LO restore the. AKL ~eign length ror l\'ari\m in ~'s 4-1 or ~-I veal . A(~ordm.g to , ~\t\· 1).\ (2003.,) ~6..i.-275·. who l-e\;ewed the dl~U'\StOI1 o~ the idel1tific~lliol1 or ~'lrom..sin based on i.l sealing publl';.;hed b, S. 6",,,,. in: fS S. Q...giif (1993) pI. 92. 2b. the KEL implies Lhh niler reigned more lh,l1I 27 \'ea~. ~1. Llebl~ (prj\ . comm.) lindh infonned me that the reign length of ".1 " ........ i to bt' preferred ~ince ~Jl-alll..sin !)eem'" LO haH' ~ ~e."" ') I' 4~lh Ix'en :..till'lliH" in M£C B. I,L which corresponds 10 liS :.>

Yl'"ar or reign. rrislIlfl 11 would h~l\f' then fl~led to ~ea", b('I(JI'e S.un~j-Adad :<ucc('eded the lhr~ne. lllfortl~nalel\ h.FL C doe:t nOt pt"()\ide dll\ furlhn e\ldence ,mct" It doe, not name ruler::; in it, enumeration or epoIl\111,.

m \'n'IUW (2003) 51-52 . -:ox Tht,\ wcre n ... eful for the calculation of lime "pan~.

158 \tesopOlamian Chronolog'o of the 2nd 'Hllenniulll Be

6--11). Especial!) for periods of instabilit\, for which KLs are less precise, ELs can help to clear up prob­lems concerning reign lengths, the continuit\ and development within administrative ections, etc. (Fiu.",OA.'K (1991) 223-227).

The histOrical and chronological evaluation of the Old Assnian Pe.iod marked b,' Kanlln le,els II and Ib was, and is, dependent on the knowledge of epomms. me of these epon"ns first appeared in BALK. ... ' (1955), who used hitheno unpubli. hed texLS. The list of epomm was supplemented bv ~1~TOl'S (197 ),"" who included orne from Bogazkov and A1i­~. '" The ~1EG and the KEL supplemented b,' eponj1n in texLS from other site in northern Mesopotamia ha"e increased our knowledge con id­erabl\' and ha"e helped to prO\ide bener dating for e'enLS and kings ("EEXHOF (2003) 62, 137-150). Determining the duration ofIe"els II and Ib depends on knowledge of epon,'lllS, supplemented by roval genealogies and reign lengths from the AKL The AKL also pro,ides information on histOrical e"enLS such as SamSi-Adad's I conque t of Ekalliirum and ASsur which can be S)nchronized I,ith epom·m. Additional epon\m come from such Assl'rian-domi­nated northern ~Iesopotamian sites as Tell Leilan Tell ar-Rimiil), Sagar Bazar, Tutlul'" and Mari. I~ working "ith epon~'lllS it is imponantto keep in mind that one needs to differentiate between epon~'lllS used at the Karum sites for commercial administra­tion and those from nonhern Mesopotamian sites used for central administration."'"

Apart from that between Samsi-Adad I and Hammu-rlipi), S)nchronisms bet\<een Assyria and

'" VEE."HOF (1998) 421fT. , VEE.'HOF (2003) 63-{;5.

;:, KREafJt\f. (2001) 1-7 and (200la) S-IO, 190-194. See \ 'EE.'HOF (1998) 437 on the frequency of auested epon>m~.

"" On Karum KaniS If and Ib see the lable by STARKE in the catalogue "0;. HtlhiUT und ihr R£ich, DiU IW< dn- 1000 Gi;,­

teI', Bonn (2002) 310, VEE"I()f (2000) 137-150, and the OIeme ... by BLOWER (2003) 37S-382. The length of the ~p between Ie\els If and Ib is alSC') re levant for the discus-­SIO~. ~n Lh~ uncertainlk., concerning 1e\e1 Ib eponyrn~. which 15 mamly due w the limited infonnation from Ib level texIS, see Y',E'HOF (2003) 67-{;8.

"" M'CHH, in her review of Y. '''<OF (2003) in AfO 5 1 (2007) and publi'hed by C~"8Arn in 2008.

7IIS KArum Kani~ Ie\·el Jb is widely believed to have continued for a Significant period following Sam;i-Adad's death. VH\IIOf­(2003) 63fT. Slated that a minimum of 64 }ea ... have to be reckoned for level Ib, and proposed that level Ib lasted at Ic..-asl beyond 1740 according LO the Me (p. 67 in connc(tion

Bab,lonia are lacking for the Old Asspian period before the first Dark ge of A~s)'rian chronology (--I AKL sub 2,1.1.). As \'n'HoF (2003) 58 pointed OUt the KEL cannot be used as an argument pro or cont~ one of the chronological S} tems. One could atlt'ibUle more of the limu-datings of the KEL to Klirum Kanij le,el II, thu enhancing its ~uration.'" Eponyms for more than 60 "ears beyond Samsi-Adad's death, and therefore s"nchronous "ith the Karum Kanis levellb epomms, comes from KEL G" '.'''; Between the MEC which contain epOn\111S of the reign of Samsi·Adad i (it does not go beyond Sarnsi-Adad's death in 1776 [~IG), and the newh identified KEL, the sequence of attested epom'tns co'ers ca. 253 epon~ years. The Distanzangaben, the AKL and the epOn}1llS are all correlated, thus implying Assyrian chronological data are homogenous and reliable (but see GASCHE el aL, Dating ... 5 iff.). • A chronological link may now be established ,'a amSi-Adad I with the cOl1lemporary senlemem of

Acem-Hoyiik, from where "historically linked" Anato­lian dendrochronological material derives ( .... Den· drochronology). The locus of the discovered timbers, ~e Sankara palace, can possibly be linked with Sarnsi-Adad I due to seal-impressions on bullae also found at this site,"'" Dendrochronological tests gave the date 1774 BG (+4/ -7 years) for tJ,e construction date of the Sankaya palace (or, to be precise, when the wood used in it had been cut).'"

Samsi-Adad I is known to have d ied in Hammu· rapi)'s year 18. A solar eclipse in the year after his birth is mel1lioned in the MEG'" MICHEL (2002) 17- 18 has proposed 1833 as the most probable date

\\iLh the limu ~imar-Kiibe auested at Ten LeiUin, who can be connected wil.h lakun-ASar. the last ru ler of Sebna). Accord­ing (() Gunballl level lb lasted at lea'tl 113 )'ears (ca.

1833/ 32-1719 Be according'" the MC). 7JOO r\o material which predales lhe reign of Sall1si~Adad I has

been found there. 7111 MA!\'I'C. "al. (2001) 2532-2.1)35. Note thai jn his di3cus­

'iion on absolute chronology VHNIIO~ (2003) applied "older" dendrochronological datc~ taken f!"om Kt1NIJlOl.M

"aL (1996) 780-783, implying all at least30-year reduction in the Me (~('t= p. 58: ..... a shortel' chronology has no direct impaclon the reconstrll(lion of the illlcmal chrollo10gy of tJle Old Assyrian period."). FO I an updated discussion see Y.",,,,, (2007) 6 1. ~. Dendrochronology

,.. M"""" fI al. (200 1) 2532-2:,35; M'WI-t (2002) 17- 18, WA.t!tK'l()~ (~()02) 108- 11 4.011 5amli·Adad I set' CnAR"IN (I 985) 24~268 alld Yillard, CANE ( 1995) 873-{;83. 0" hi' kingdom in Upper or N(u thern Mesopotam ia see the rnap in .. /)irtionnmrf (il' /" rivilll(tlion I1I1:Wj)lamifrlftll', Pads (200 I) 75 1.

10. Eponyms (Ilmu)/Eponym LislS/ Eponym Chronicles 159

of the solar eclipse (MG lowered by 15 years),''''' All th is implies Samsi-Adad I was born 1I1 1834, con-

'ed ASsur in 1792 and dted tn 1760. However, quet . . \'[E~fJOF (2000) among others, whtch IS based on CI.JARI'IN and Dt'RANO (1985), sllggem a date for $atnSi.Adad's I death of 1776M (= year 17 ofHammu­rnpi', MC), noW a commonly used date.

10.5. Old Assyrian Period~JI

The discovery of the KEL shed new chronological light onlO the Old A~syrian period. Before the resulLS of col­lations of the MEG had been presented by DL'RA.'O and Gt:ICHARD in FM 3 (1997) 42-43, according to which a solar eclipse LOok place one year after the birth of Samsi-Adad I~" (-> Astronomical Data). As demonstrat­ed abol'e, the end of the KEL overlaps \\;th the MEG and alIOl'~ the reconstmcLion of the order and number of epon~s mentioned at the beginning of the MEG. The firs t gap in the MEG can be filled by eponY'llS men­tioned in the LeXLS from Klinun KaniS level n,"" which are "not contained in and hence must be later than tJle end of the KEL" (VEE'JlOF [2000]139).""

~lEC B no. 5 is the last eponym mentioned in Kamm Kanis II texL~. It is therefore believed to belong to the year when level II came to an end, since none of the following eponyms is auested in the texLS of ill is level (VEE~JlOF (2000) 139 and Gb:MTTI [200 ) 111-112: MEG B 5 corresponds to KEL G 28 which marks the end of level II). ow, the KEL indi­cates that the period of Kiirum Kanis II started earli­er and lasted much longer (ca. 110 years: ca.

""'<1 See also W.\RBl"RTO' (2002) 110. A reduction of the Me b} ]5 )"eOlro; is dO.'iely tied to <l dale for .. atll~i-Adad's death of 1775, as propo,ed b, CIt'RP'" and ZtWtIK (2003) 262 (-+ abo\t" mb In. 106). SomClime'S a reduced Me of 16 H"'US is u,ed (e.g. V} t!\1I0F [2008] 30 and others) : then the older "comentiollal" yeil l for his death, l776. follows: lhe diLTer­encf" i~ ciependcnr on the sYllchroni:-.11l between 1I.\I111n,,· rapi ' and SCl lll sl-Adad\ death. Since, based on the \~. one mu.\l1 ~· Illa};.c.', usc or the ~ I C clate~ for the Bab,toni,m kinK'. lhe 17lh H~ar ofll,unmu-r.ipi' i<li eql1alro 17i6 ,md his 18th ,car to 1775.

."*J Com·pare also wilh " HNIIOF (2008) 30: "a reduction of the middlt- dll onolog) b, ca. 16 '{',n"''',

"II Srr Vt l"lOt- (2008). rOI an inllodtlClion ,Uld rt'cOI\SU'\IC~ lion on tht' ba,b of M;'al ... , see Tdssier ( 1 ~)91).

'i't: A.1 22H, 25' (I()r ib puhli ~llioll 'l't' SIRUT [ 1985 J 228 <lnd 237), \""" 0> [2000[ 149, ~I tt "" - R(l< tt>R [1997-2000J 111- 121» .. \ IIL'W pu blication of ti lt' collated MEC, with the inr\u'\ioll of Ill(' Ilt'\\" n .. ·.ldillg, b ph\l\l"\('d b} Durand (refer-

"" t.' .. !lct.' by \'u\lIor [200~'1 1 7 1 ~). .. Fm }\Arum Koilli s 11 l'pOm'IlI" ~e(' BAl.IV\N ( 1955). ~L\l·Ol'!'i. Ar(h ·16 ( 197H) 2 17-2:1 1. LI.s. ~ ( 1976) 381 alld K. , l.xr (2()O.I ). On Kfirulll Kom i, Ib and II le\"t'h iCt' r lSlmR ( 1965)

1945?-1835 according to Veenhof; 91 years: ca. 1927-1836 BG according to GUllbatlt) than had been assumed. The reign of Narum-Sin must have been during Karum KaniS level I!. For his successor Erisum II (no. 38), we unfortunately lack textual evidence and do not know the exact length of his reign. The same is true for Erisum's successor, Sam'i-Adad I (no. 39; though no texLS from Kanis can be assigned to

Samsi-Adad I, bullae with his sealing were found at Acem-Hoyitk; -> above and Dendrochronology).

In 1998 HECKER (pp. 297-308) published an article on the imernal chronology of Karum Kanis based on KR\'S7.AT'S dissenation (Munster 1995, published in 2004). KrJ~zat (without the assistance of the yet unknown KEL) reconstructed the order of epon~ of Karum Kanis level II, which ends with the beginning of MEG B (time of SamSi-Adad I""). According to Hecker (p. 303f.) epon)m no. 17 is still level II (= Samsi-Adad I year 11) , whereas epon~ no. 27 belongs to levellb (= Samsi-Adad I year 20)."" Hecker there­fore assumed that the interval between the levels could not have been longer than eight years,"" in con­traSt to the generally accepted 30 or more years. VEE:-;­HOF (2000) 140, who did not mention the Hecker -KrJ zat work, calculated 35 years between the levels -a ,iew ob,;ottsly maintained in his 2003 srudy on the KEL A (on p. 67f. of which he does al lude to HECKER [1998]) and 2008 sntdy (p. 33) before KEL G was pub­lished. His number was mainly based on the MEG (for details see VEEKHOF (2003) 49f. proposing a mi nimum of 22 years: MEG B *6--*27""'). One of the major prob-

1-16, VH~HOF (\998) ~21-l50 and GC~"'TTt (2008)

12~ 1 29. i'H See C(:-;8.\TII (2008) 126 for an O\·crview .. j9: , Compare the older results b W HITI:\G (1990) 213, who

places the end of le\el 11 between MEC B I~O. 8 and ~lO. 21. "Nl\ Le\t:l Ib i~ marked b) substantial changes III ui\de: III par­

ticular the Assyrians plmed a less important role tha~ pre-­,iousl)' (note that Sa.msi-Adad I is not explicith· me."uoned ~H Kiiltepe). Furthe-nnore, Ie-vet lb lacb large arclm·es. On the tr.tIlsilion of 1e\ eI II to lb. and the gradual abandon­ment of the archi,·es, see \ 'F£:\1I0F (199 ) 42i and 436ff ..

.. nd (2003.1) 100f. Calendar. 7'\7 For an interval of even fe\\'er ~ears see IIF(""M.R (1998) 306.

See also BLO<H ... (2003) 378. who agreed ,,;th I IRk". ( 1998) citing a "alue of fi\'e )cars. Note that KR\'tJ.AT (2004) 5 agreed with V n!\HOf (2000 and 2003). KE.L G pro~·e~ that the gap between II and Ib lasted 2-3 ,eal only: GL :\B.-\TTI

(2008) I 17. 7911 While Vet'llhof Stilted thai le\ c1 II muSt have come to an

rod dllli ng q>onym ,ear *5 (the inten,;:,1 reckoned at least <)9. [ l\IEC B .~.~61. Iled.er still atuibuted epom·111 ...... )eal 1 I' . no .• 17 (.\btl~s.tlil11 ) LO 1t"'\ eI II. Compare these pre 1I1l1nary rC'IulLS with Cl'~ll\lTI (200 ).

160 \it''topolamian <':hnlI101<>g' of tilt' 2nd \tillt"llniuln B(~

lems is the fact that thousands of the levellb texl~ are till unpublished. It i, expected that further eddence

from Ki-.ltepe or Tell Leillin w;1I resol,e problems of the dating and length ofle,d Ib (at lea; t be"ond 1 740 according to the ~IC) .

Both HEl.UR (199) and \'fEXHOf (199<) re\;ewed past studies of K.1mm Kani, le,'eIs U and Ib, beginning ,,;th S\ll.\.' (1955). Depending upon the total time represented b, the twO le,eI" most researche proposed a gap ben,een them of around 50 'ears (B.\lXA.' [1955]. G~RLLU [1963]. LWL'

[1976]). which mainly relied on estimate of genera­tion lengths, Assyrian mlers and the archaeological e,;dence (YEE.'HOF [199 ]422). Howe"er, the length of generations can be hardly fixed for such a shon period of time (id .. p. 426): Therefore, it was cmcial to find out how long le"e! Ib lasted. and especialh when it began. As \ ·EE.'HOF (199 ) 42&-427 pointed OUl, it is difficult 10 set up a useful statistical calcula­tion of generation length for a pel;od of three to four generation. since we are left in the end w;th a margin of two decade>. almost one generation. Our knowledge of the epomms of both le,eIs is somewhat unbalanced due to many unpubli hed KiUtepe texIS. t:nfortunately, there is no stratigraphic e,;dence for the length of time of the gap between the le'els II and Ib, because it is not an occupational le,el. Thi (and the textual e,;dence) implies thatle,-e! 1I ended gradually, not abmpth (\'EE"HOF [199 ] 437-43 ) .

New chronological parameters based on the K£L and ~IEC based on \·EE.-';HOF (2000) 139-140 and (2003) 57:

1) 199 ,eaN must ha,e pao;sed between the acces­sion of Eri.'um I (reign of 40 ,'eaN) and the death of Samsi-Adad I (ca 1974-1i76 aCCor­ding 10 the ~C). This number is in accordance \\ith the Distanzang-.. ben: 159 "ears bet\\('en Sam'i-Adad I }ear I and i:risurn' I year I, \\ho mled 40 years according 10 the AKL.

2) !\amm Kanis IcyellI came 10 an end during the 2nd half of ~ariim-Sin's reign (1836 according to the ~C)

3) Kamm Kanis II lasted at least 110 years

4) Th(' inter\al between ICY'eI, II and Ib lasted about 35 years (cont ...... HI.C:Kt.R (1998])

5) The ~EC co,'ers a period of 97 years (ca. 1872-1776 according 10 the ~C!)

6) ~c dates for Samii-Adad I: Born ca. 1850; beca­me king around 1833 at the age of 18; died 1776 at the age of 75.

The KEL n"" also help to tie the Ur III period 10

the Ass,nan chronolog-. The lasl ruler of Ur 1I1111lS Thbi in. a contemporan of ISbi-Erra of the Isin I d\l""'n.'" The acce ion of llriSum. 1 took place aboul 50 year. aft~r.~he end of the Ur III dynast). TIle kings ~reccdll1g l.1:'IIl~' I are subsumed under Ihe heading altogether >IX king-; whose eponyms are not ... " ( ... .~). At least three of these kings (hOlur·ASSur I.

alim-aoum and lIusuma = nos. 3(}..32) must hare ouled ,,;thin the time span of Assur's independence from Cr.''<I)U

According to "eenhof and Michel, who studied the ~IEC in combination with other results of Ihe past vears (esp. dendrochronology and the solar eclipse date ). the KEL information demands a low. ering of the ~IC. As \'EENIIOF (2000) pointed Ollt,

the red~ced chronologies do nOt affect the period before SamSi-Adad I, since synchronisms with Bab,· Ionia are lacking and the Old Ass)Tian chronolog), cannot be used as an argument against or for any certain chronology, due LO the fact that the length of the intenal ben,een the end of the Ur 11\ period and the death of Samsi-Adad I stays the same (the arne goes for the corrected solar dates before

Tiglath-pileser I . which result in a reduction of only three "ears per century; ~ Calendar). Veenhofpro­posed a MC lowered by ca. 50 years:"" he still used the "old' dendrochronological data of the Sankaya palace (where Samsi-Adad 's seal impressions were found daling LO Kiimm Kanis le\'ellb) by Kl:NIIIODI tt al. (1996), which imply a cutting-building date of 1752: '" This result may ha\'e to be adjusted in the future LO the new dates published by MANNI NG ,( ai, (200 I), as has been done by MICIIEL (2002) 17- 18 in connection wi th the solar eclipse which reponedly LOok place one year after Samsi-Adad's birth. It has to be kept in mind that the dendrochronological dates also rely on 14C data and by no m eans can be considered ahsolute.

As to the solar eclipse mel1lioned in Ihe MEG, il needs to he stressed that we do not know anything

,.. V, ""01 (2003) 59-61 "",I SAIIAIIF R(.lk (20(H) 4()-<12: here the "'ynchronj~1ll i" dated lO 2019 (acfording to [he MC).> Year.

. ..:t F\u a po~",jblc id(~lHificaLion of Sulili (no. '"27) ~t"t' Vn:~1I0F (2fXJO) 140 .nel (2003) 59. (-> AKL)

HlI. ()nl~' ill hi.., unpuhh,hed "con cction'i" LO hi ~ 2003 study did he incCHpOral(' th(' (la[c~ by MUII" I (2002).

itr/. Nuw ill VB-NIIOI· (200~i) 58: a I'cdllt'lion of "fit Ino/ Ihirf)l )'f'tln, probably fUm/',

10. Eponyms (limu)/Eponvrn LislS/ Epon,m Chronicles 161

aboulthe nalure of the eclipse nor even from where (Mari or possiblv A~;ur) it was observed. Therefore one should treat the result by MICl I[L - ROCHER about

I · solar eclipse with reserve. In re ponse to the lat­lllS . ' • . est slUdies on this cdipse and Its chronologJcallmph-cation W\RBlRTO-'; (2002) published a very critical bul perspicacious paper on the usc of astronomical data (eclipses and Venus cycles) in chronological sludies. In this case we have an astronomical obser\'3-tion linked to a specific historical event (i.e. the year afler Samsi-Adad's birth) , but are confronted with dif­ficulties of defining the nature of the obserYation and ilS parameters - including the time span within '~hic~ il occurred. W,RBlRTO:--t (2002) 109 "'limed: ThIS means that subjective assumptions excluding certain eclipses or preferring a certain time range because of a preferred chronology are not the best poinlS of

departure." MICHEL (2002) 17-18 combined the eclipse data

with the dendrochronological data from Acem­HOyllk, where seal impressions of SamSi-Adad I and his officials have been found. Ignoring for the moment the broader problems of the chronological ,,,Iue of dendrochronological data"''', in this particu­lar case the choice of candidates for the solar eclipse date headly depends on the dendrochronological one."'" In a period of ca. one year a change of opin­ion and resullS can be obsen'ed: what seemed impos­sible before (MICIlEL - ROCHER [1997-2000]) became po ible with the new data presented by M.I.N-';I:O:G it aL (2001): a lowering of the MC dates (on the impli­cation of this "slight change" see WARBl'RTO;': [2002] 113), which were neglected before by forcing the dales into an LC scheme.""

In light of such rapid changes, one perhaps should refrain from using the solar eclipse evidence ullIil other (astronomical) material shows up (or 'hard I'llidencp" according to HUllER [1999-2000] 68),

" (A)1I0N (2000) (;",9 and nOle ~lln .... - Rom,'. ( 1997-2000) 1 1 ~1; ... _. l.t·~ IlOlHbn'u'tes bulh.l(" retrou\,tes appartiellnent logiqul'mt"nt a \" dl'lllii.'re phase d' occupation <Ill b;lrimenl 9, Hili II \r..li\{,ll1able11lt'lll lite dctruil au cours de regne de SJm'i·,\ctdu .....

" St· .. "'peditH) Nil( lifO _ R,xmk (1997-2000) 120-121. , Set ,11,0 B'()( II >R (2003) 379-380 for a "IQI,ere I Me". ~, Fur il dt· ... cripliot\ 01 Ihe.' procedult" or selecting.1 d.ut' see

\\\l\RlklO' (2(XI2) 111-112. " II is qUt'\liOllilhlt' wlwther tht' 'lpproach b) G\M 111" " lIl.

..... l' \uccr'i'ilul <tllel Idi,\ble. rhe)' 'lttl'mpted to lilld c\,j· d l' II('t' from various sout'ces (the iULercii:\ iplin.u") "Pproitch be,,,le"'oi\)"d by Z .... u 12001 J 71, 84n·.) Ih ... Slip'

which can be placed within some archaeological or historical context. Moreover Michel relied on an assumption "that the 'Middle Chronology' can be reduced by twO eight-year Venus cycles' (WUWuRTO:-; [2002] Ill). But by denying the 56/ 64-year cycles on which the MC depends, a reduction of the MC is made meaningless and the selection of dates for the solar eclipse refen'ing to HC, MC and LC turns out to be imalid ... • A chronological framework other than the 56/ 64-year cycles has 10 be sought for."" 1\ote Warburton 's important comment on p. 112: " ... By contrast, it is remarkable - e,'en using the most limit­ed possible range of ,ariables (a single solar eclipse and a single dendrochronological date) - neither the 'Middle' nor the 'Low Chronology' can be sa,'ed ....•

10.6. Eponyms and the reign of SamSi-Adad I"· Due to the faClthat Samsj-Adad I (like his predecessor) is not mentioned in the texIS of Killtepe, discussion arose on the chronological placement and sequence of epon~IDs of the time of Samsj-Adad I as well as the dat­ing of Kanom KaniS leyel lb. Before the publication of KEL G the order and number of epon}IDS for the mid­dle ofSamsi-Adad's reign were unknown due to gaps in the MEC (\'EE.'"0F (1998] 430f.). The MEC howe,eO' offered a good con-elation of year epon}IDS and hislor­ical e,'enlS during the time of Sam -j-Adad w;th a mar­gin of ±5 years (for further di>cussion on the alU;bu­tion of epon)IDS 10 Kanom KaniS le,'el nand Ib ~ above). FlU'ther e.idence and the most recenl summa­ry of the mo t importantresults of the ";-'1ari IUdie" of the past 20 years hm'e been Ialel), presented b,' CHARPl:O:

- ZIEGLER (2003) 161-168. WHrn~G (1990) 167-220 presented a chronologi­

cal framework for the time of SamSi-Adad I on the basis of the still unpublished lillllj from Tell L?Jiin/ Subat-EnIiI, which stretch from the reign of Sam'j-

dad to that of ISmc-Dagan."" \\11iting's reconsU1.1C-

pOlled tht'il' cer:Hnic e,idence for the dU~"3tiOn ofth~l~n­sition from the end of the Old B.1b~·loman .lO lhe KaSSllC' peJiod. Unfortunaleh. contl"3dicling 11l.~tenal was .mostl) left out of their diSCll.ssion. They often Ignored e\1den~e I ' o,O'Iett'd with their premi .... e. ~1ort"O\er sum.tantlal

t 1.U C I I . (" 'iticism of their a'i.lronomical appro,teh for Bab, oman

I' . I '10' 'hieh the A. .... 'wrian one i .... linked to. has c 1I"0no 0g\. \

l}('cn published b, Il uber. Ilungcr and Koch. N.~ for the most I'('cenl rea~es.'ml·nt of the e~t1\ Ill .... .1ttested

at ~t.ui set' CII\RPI' - ZIH;J .. H. (2003) 156-16$. . 1<1 .... ~c al.:;o \\'\ m ~tltR()OI' (~99·~) ~~O _ (S":'lcJlI'OtlI:)~n

b QII'I,'I Lim of \ndanq With Zmtn·Llln H,II' 4-8, C.l. e lween ,. -. . ~

17iO-17ti6, or ,oon thefeafiel i\ccol'<img to the Me).

162 ~lesopolamian C'Ju-onoiog'" of the 2nd Millennium Be

tion also utilized four articles in .\L1Rl4 (19 5) on the umu from ~rum Kanis Ib, on the ~IEC, on the -Sam 'i-Adad I calendar- (based on admini tratjye tablets from ~1ari), and on documents relating to the final yeat of 'lJ1lsi-Adad I and the collapse of his dmast\. The follm'ing material add significanth to the reconstruction of a detailed chronolog" of the reign of Samsi-Adad I : The umu from Anatolia tart­ing "ith EriSum I, from Subat-E,nlil which help fill the gaps of the ~lEC,'" the Po t-Sam~i-Adad limu from Tell Leilan, and the umu found at agar Bazar which corre pond to those found at ~lari (ee Tu,o-,:, OBTCB 8--9) and to new material from Tunul, first presented b, hlu:BERXIK (2001 ).'" CH.>JU'I' - ZIEGLER (2003) 168 and 260-262 offered updated tables of synchronisms between ~Iarl (Zimri-Um), Bnunna (DadtiSa, \bill-pi-EI II), Babylon (Hammu-rapi') and Larsa (RIm- in I) and presented a thorough s\TIthesis of the results achieyed ",thin the past 20 years,

Ibil-pi-E1 II ,ear -I ~ar of conquot of Q.bra In Samii­Ada<! I and DaduSa = U .. u -\>qudum . .usur-malik

1bI1-p;'E111 ,.,.,. 0 Dadu. ... · d~ath = U",u . .usur-malik A"'ili\a

lbil-p;.E1I1 \Tar 1 Hanunu-rapi' \<ar 15

Ibil-pi-EI II ~nr 4 :to I !lAd .... _ = "-lHipi'rear 18" - = <ond of " ..... TI1>i"I~.-\iSur warla Tiib-,iII;'Aiiur Zimri-Lim \ear 0

SamSi-Adad's I birth was believed to be mentioned in section A of the MEC (A.12 1,22'-24') due to cal­culations by WHm'G (1990). At first VEE-':HOF (1985)

'10 See CH.\RPl - ZIEGwt (2003) 166-168 (on the epon"m attested in the Tell LeilAn lableLS. 'K>me of which Whiling dated differentl~·). For Zimn-Um's lear-names see p. 257ff.

til The ten eponyms attested in texts from TUlluJ tart shortly after lasmab-Addu' installation at \tan and end \\ith th~ epon~m T3b-,ill~Aiiur. Slight alterations (such as the change of Nimer-Sin and Adad-Wini, and overlaps of warlti­dates \\ith other epon)1nies: p. 190) were due to the inclu­sion of the data from Marl and Sagar-Bazar: see KREBl".R.'U;'

(2001a) 194 and compare his results ..... ith the prC'\ious list on p, 8 based on CHARPI" (1985) 256-266; esp, 261-262 and see a1so Anbar (1991) 50-51. See now also the supple­mem"ry noleS by CHARP" - Z,ECUR (2003) 157-160, Eponyms continued to be used during Zimri-Lim'! lint nine years, despite the fact that he adopted the Sabylonian )ear-name dating S} tern.

'1' Others suggested year< II to 13 (WIIIT"', [19901 21020·~: )ear 12 or 13; see below), Note that most charts (Brinkman, Walker, Starke, Ctc.) do not incorporate this synch ronism, Ho ..... tler. for a correction of dates including this synchro­nism see (.A~W£ ,loL (1998a) 1-4 (-+ Calendar). CHARI'''

21387 disagreed, but in 2000, p . 149, he changed his mind due to the nOte of a collation by Dl'RA.~D _ GUClIARD in F~l 3 (1997) 42-43, MEC places 5.1mli. Adad's birth dllling eponym Dadia, According 10 the AKL, 'amsi-Adad I conquered Ekallillum in lhe lim. of Ibni-Adad, He ruled there for three ),ears and lhen defeated Erisum II in the epon)1ny of Atamar-lStar and ruled .\$Sur for 33 years,S!< Already G(~8Am (2008) 116 noticed that some epon)11lS are not pre­sent in KEL G, which again OmitlS ome of the knO"ll epomUls (IJaya-malik: year when Samsi-Adad con· quered Mari and two more successive ones)'I. KELG also notes 35 years for Samsi-Adad's reign instead of the 33 years of the ARL.

The' accession of Samsi-Adad took place in the lim. Sarrum-Adad, He died in the 4th year of lbal-pi-EllI of Bnunna. lbal-pi-El's II predecessor. DadtiSa died in the ,ear following the conquest of Qabri! (lbal-pi-E11l vear 0), SamSi-Adad and DaduSa had campaigned together against Qabra (lbal-pi-El ll year -I)'"

The umu of Samsi-Adad's death is not explicitly preserved in the MEC. CHARPI~ - ZtEGLER (2003) 136-138 showed that the year of Samsi-Adad's death remains unknown: because the month of Sallls~ Adad's death is identified "ith month xii and kispum (funerary) ceremonies are attested since 16-xii-Talr ~illi-ASsur. they cautiously postulated that the death occurred in month xii of the lfmu Tab-.illi-ASsur, which corresponds to year 18 of Hammu-rapi> (-1775 BC according to the MC) HI.

Until the publication of Charpin and Ziegler in 2003 the death of SamSi-Adad was placed some·

- ZIEGI [R (2003) apply dates according to the MC ror Hammurapj' ( 1792-1750) and synchroniLe olher rule. accordingly, Thu~ the death of amsi-Adad is dated LO 1775 instead of 1776 Be. The death or Samsi-Adad I is com·

S '" ' I memorated in Ib!ll-pi-EI'Ii 5th year: VnNIIOt (200) \\1tl

reference to the ~tlIdy ofCIIARPIN ANI) ZHCLl"R (2003),

lin CIlAJlPI' (J985a) 60-61. IL is \till unknown how long hilum II reigned: V.F~"OF (2003) 39,45 and 61.

I. Gl~llArrl (2008) 11G-117 and 127: compare wi th CII""I'" - Z,EC,!ER (2003) 145,

tll~ On 'he 5tt'Je of DaduSa describing the conqucM of Qahrn sec I\MAh - C.WIC,,,.ACX, BaM 3'1 (2003) 129-163 and Ihe review by eilARPIN, RA 98 (2004) 151- 178, Note also (;IIARPI~ - Zlft.UK (2003) 92 (th is event is daLCd to month viii (spring), NOle lhatthe texts from Sem~ ra can be datcd to this period, Sam'I-Ad.d', yeal 28-30: EIIlI'" (1992) IGIT, See EIOfM - I "+~t (200 J) 16-18 fOI an overview of c\'enI5,

IIjt, On ~ynchron ilims with ESntll1l1<t bee CtlAH.l'tN - ZIH .. UK

(2003) 163, On the year or death or Samli-Adad I accord· ing to the different chronological systems ~ee WAH.Ul' KrO!'ll

(2000) 60-61.

10, Eponyms (limu) / Eponym Lists/ Eponym Chronicles 163

b 'en Hammu-rapi ' year 10 and 18, the lat-where etwe " . _ ear marking the accessIon of Ztmn-L,m, For

~er Y WHtTING (1990) 210205, accepting a gap of mslance, ,- d Z' 'L-, between amsl-Adad 1 an Imn- 1m, a few years • ,_' .,

d I death of Samsl-Adad I III Hammu-rapt Place tIe . . , 12 therefore in 1781 (MC), argul.ng for a five-Year , f S '-Ad d' , of lasmab-Addu a ter amsl- a s year reIgn

I '" However, his main argument was based on ~dl, 20 d' db

d.ting of the leller ARM 5, e tte y lhe wrong ~

O ' as has been shown by CH.>JU'IN, MARl 7 ossin [19931 173 and summarized by CHARPtN - ZIL?LER [20031161-168, ARM 5, 20 does not belong to Isme-

O ' n's correspondence as assumed by Whiting, but aga d' h the one oflsme-Addu of ASnakkum, an IS t ere-

flO of nO use for Samsi-Adad's chronology. Thus all ore ' ,- Ad d'

'd e of lasmab-Addu's rule after Samsl- a s e\'\ ene ... . death including the synchronism with Esnunna III

Ibal-pi-El's tenth year, which was erroneously con­nected with lasmab-Addu, has been ruled out by CHARPI~ - ZIEGLER (2003) 162818 On pp, 162:-166 Charpin and Ziegler discussed eponyms (Abtyaya and Pussanum), which cannot be placed securely, bUl have been used by 'A'hiting as an argument for a gap between Samsi-Adad's and Zimri-Lim's ,rel~~ since lhey were dated to the penod after Samsl­Adad's death and before Zimri-Lim's reign, The main question is how many eponyms are to be placed between the death of Samsi-Ad~d and Z,mn­Lim, Charpin and Ziegler bring up van OUS evtdence for the dating of the eponym Abiyaya during lasmab-. Addu's reign which ended during the eponym wark. T!b-~illi-ASsur, but find it impossible to place. It chronologically in the series of known eponynlles, Thus they consider that certain years were named by two eponyms at the same time (p, 165). According to the scholars' new evaluation (pp. 166 and 174) lasmab-Addu left Mari after the fifth month of the eponym wllrki T~b->iI1i-ASsur, while Zimri-Lim ascended the throne in the sixth month of the same eponym year (this implies that onl ' 14 da),s passed

between both rulers),

'" See CII," I'I~ _ ZI>Gl.fR (2003) 166-168 for a detailed dis­cU'i'iion on rpoll)'In!i which an' contemporar), with the fi,:' rOlir )'(';\1'5 of Zimri-Lim's reign. Five epon '1115 allesl~d 111

the texts of Te ll Lei l n, which were d.Hed by WIIiTINC:

(1990) 185-186 arter SalTlsi-Adad's conquest of Ma,n (dined to ltamnHHlipi )s 121h yeilr). were placed b) Charpl~l and Zieglrr aflttr "U1\~i~Adad's dt'i\th and lasmab·Addu,S di!tlo\ppear.ulcr, Theil results concerning their placement IS

CIlnflrmed b\' KfL G: iii g,I-S8, ~1. NO .... ~J.days th~ t'\ent of the tenth )('ar of Iblil-pl-El ll (;\1) be

correl.ned wilh Zimri-Lilll',s ti lth ear.

VwmOF (2000) 139[, and (2003) 6lf, also refined his solution because of the new data derived from the KEL: according to him SamSi-Adad was born ca. 1850 (MC), became king in 1833 at the age of 18, and died in 1776 at the age of 75 after 57 years of reign,'I> New material points towards a lowered MC (-+ above and Astronomical Data sub solar eclipse and Dendrochronology), The synchronism between Samsi-Adad's death and Hammu-rapi 's 18th

year depends on the correlation of the calendars (the Assyrian eponym years start in fall, the Babyl<r nian calendar starlS in sprinr)·

After lasmab-Addu's reign ended with or shortly after Samsi-Adad's 1 death (eponym warki Tah-.illi­ASSur), the Assyrian period in Marl came to an e~d and Zimri-Lim ascended the throne in Man III

Hammu-rapi"s year 18 and ruled 13 years and alleast 3 months until year 32 of Hammu-rapi' (CH.>JU'IN -

ZIEGLER [2003]175), Karum Kani' level Ib ended with another disas­

trous fire, which is usually dated to ISme-Dagan's reign. According to VEENHOF'S suldy of 2003, ill

which he listed at least 65 pOSt level II eponyms, Karum Kanis level Ib lasted until at least 1740, Le\'e1 11 ended by fire during Naram-Sin 's r~ign or early years of Erisum 11, therefore before SamSi-Adad. I conquered !\SSur. GUNBATn (200 ) could obtalll improved results for the chronology of levels II and Ib: According to KEL G le\'el II started at leasl from Idua (= 7th year of lkunum) and ended 91 years later during the late reign of Naram-Sin. Afte.r al~~ntef\~ of 2 to 3 years level Ib st.arted around amsl-Adad s

acce ion date,

10.7. Eponyms from the Late Old Babylonian Period

ewly translated tablets acquired on the antiquities ket have revealed the existence of a httle lale

mar d T - ..,1 The Old Babylonian kingdom calle tgunanu, Mari archives date ca. 150 years before the T unanu lexts, This kingdom was ruled b)' the pre-

Ig . T ' ']': " up A letter willch viousl)' unknown king ump- e .

. sed b\ CHWI" -1119 "('enhof uses the S,11chrolllsm pro~ . ~. Ad d: death

DLRA .. '\O ( 1985) according to \\'hOI~~ :u"\m!)l- as, took place in ear 17 of Hanunu-rnp. 'I

,. Se Cu '''P1~ - ZIFGUR (2003) 160-16 . . e .. ,~.. , blished L\1~1

I'll Most of the Tigunnnu lexts sull are unpu ..' lo~e to 996) ~O6-307 locales Tigunli nu east of the Tigns C !i

( I , 'A B U 2000 58 and MI u.ER. <BoT 45 Ll,lbbu1l1, CHARPI:\, l 'I' , .. r Tigris in the are~\ of 8i"01i1. (~00 1 ) 410--129 on tIe uppe

164 \t("'opol.l1nian Chronolog'\ of lhe 2nd \li1It'nnitlIU Be

was addressed to a cenain Tunia (Il\pocorislic form ofTunip-Tessup) b, Labarna (11 ; lIallusili 1) deal­ing \\ith militar, operation in the 61h 'ear of tlallusili I against the cit, lIabbum'-'2 (situaled most probabh' along the upper Euphrates; pre,ioush identified "ilh San"al or Lidar-Ho, .... ik) was pub­lished b, .-QVI'I (1996). Ob,ioush Tunia was a ,,,-,_ sal of !:Ialtusili I considered essential to this cam­paign. The smchroni. m between fjallusili I and .-\mmi>aduqa'-~ as well '" the duclu of Ihe leuer dale this event towards the end of the Bab,lon 1 dynast). An overlap between the EL> and the epon~ms melllioned in the yet unpublished Tiguniinu texts might re oh'e mam' chronological i ues (like the dating of '-'allu-ili I) and COntribule to the dating of the start of the Dark Age. -. There­fore the exact dating of Nirum hani' le"e! Ib is cru­cial for the dating of the subsequent period. the Hit­tite Old Kingdom.

The most prominent document from Tigunanu is the tfabiru prism. which lisl.> 43 babirn troops of Tunip-Te!:-up and is dated b, an epOn)ID. It is debat­ed whether Tigunanu came in contact "ith .\ssn;an cara"ans, or ome son of an unusual double epOn)ID-5}stem existed. The laller could be due to local traditions hith local functionaries. The dale formula on the prism tLSeS a Bab,'lonian month name and mentions IWO heretofore unknown limu­officers, Tamkaru and ASsur-iddin (thus Tigunanu had contacts "ith both Bab,lonian and .\ssyrian cal­endar traditions). We lack a contemporaf) Assyrian EL which could help us 10 identif, those two limii; but both were probabh local officers, which could be taken as an indication that Tigunanu used an indigenous system of epOn}IDs. Ho"e\er, the calen­dar of the Tigunanu texts seems 10 correspond "ith the one used in Sagar Bazar, Karana and in Ihe lei­ters ofSamsi-Adad I from .'.fari (S.\lYI'1 (1996) 13). The Tigunanu lexts show some affinity with the era of Samsi-Adad I, which again implies their impor­tance for linking the Old Assyrian wilh the lale Old

,.., See also 5".,1 ·1, Ul£131 (199·1) fil-81). "'c Via the destruction of AJaJab \11: ~t" e.g. \A\ ScJLUI (2{)()())

lO~and 113.

II..!. See Hl!\"('lR - PRl/},' 'VKY (ed').), \10AR and VH!\' 1I0f (20()3) 67f.

~L' Sec .J.,,, FRmM ~ (200()) 67-72.

For an Updated Ihl of ~fiddle Avsyrian erx)ll}'m~ 0,(>'(' FREY­"AS' (1991) 211-29 and 192-196.

Bab, Ionian period. The ,el unpublished Tigllnanll texl.> with eponnn-dating will hopefull, gi'e us 1lI0re insight into this poor" documcnted period.

10.8. Middle Assyrian eponyms

Onh parI.> of the ~Iiddle ruS\ rian EL (KUB 4. 93 and K. \\' 19) are kn \\'n. The ~liddle A<syrian EL \\'a. sllldied b, AI'ORI rTl (1979), who listed epomms taning with .\'ssur-niriiri II. FREIU.\XK

(199/'-') compiled all known Middle Assrrian eponllns on tablets from Kar-Tukulti-Ninuna (see esp. pp . ..13-51) and Assur (in the , 'orderasialische ~lu;eum. Berlin),'''' and included texts frOIll Dur hatlimll1u'" (see pp. 4()......!3: aboul 50 rears are attested). E pecial" for the reigns succeeding Tukulti-:-;inurra I ti,e AKL still offer some prob­lems. For tllal reason one primarih has 10 rei)' on daled documents (earlier studies on Middle Assl'ri­an epomln are b,' F"l. (1955) and SA/'ORETII (1979). FIillU.-\'" (1991) could not pro,ide a com­plete EL for the period in question, bUI he collated and collected all old and new data of dated docu. ments slored in ti,e Berlin ~ruseum . He grouped texts according to their find SpOt (kFundon") and context, discussed their internal connection in order to establish synchronisms, and drew chrono­logical conclusions. The dating of Midd le Assyrian literary texts was also used . Freydank gathered and studied 300 epon)'!ns for the period between rusur­

niriiri IT (no. 68) and ASSur-bel-kaJa (no. 89). Onl) eight years within this lime span remain unattested. AlmoSI all Ihe eponyms of ti,e 131h cenl. are known , although their sequence between Salmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I remains uncertain. There are some large eponym gaps in the 121h cent., during the reigns of :-.Iinuna-apil-Ekur, MSlIr-diin I , inllrta­lukulti-Msur, and Mutakkil-Nusku.'" The current Assur project in Berlin , which aims at publishing all the remaining Middle Assyrian documents stored III

the VA\1, shou ld help iii I the remaining epon),m gaps (FRFYOA'K [2()03]). Further evidence is coming

8:t7 (':""(IK-K1R~.Im""l \1 (1996) !J-Ik: 1lH.' Lt'Xl\ SLall, wilh Adad-,urari I (no. 7G). St't.· ROlllC; (20fH) Hi-51 for '.I'~rcr vi~ional Ihl of 41 (:ponym'i (lolling to lht' \t'(OI1<1 half of Sal·

mant.·Ij('r\ rt'ign and p.tll of tlw 111 1(" of TukuJu-NinUII;t I. ,. FRfYl"', (1991), ,d. (2000) liM alld IIAR""h ( 19M7) ~7rr.;

J !)7fT ,ll1d 2~2fr. Fur all l'xarnplt. of oll-going chang(" dllt" to Ilt'W 1('XllIal (·\liclt·Jlt.(· \(.(. fOI ilflilann' DO .... II\!. N,A./J,(.. 2001 1:,5. :')"-55 wh() dau:/j Ih(.' ('ponynl), (If Uraci.St'nia, ~nl1 of A~\lII·htilli .t() IJ!t.' lmc 1711. 01 {'i:llly 16111 ("('nt.

10. Eponyms (limu) / Eponym Lisls/ Eponym Chronicles 165

, I excavations in the western part of the from clirre II ) '''' 'ddl A·,s).ian Empire al Tell Chucra (!Jarbe ,

lit e '" _. . "" I 'T" II 5 b' . . . Tcpc (Ounnu-sa-u71bl) · an( <e a 1 C'flcano .. dd't" lal . d here numerous texts contallllng a I 101 IIbva ,W '" M· Idl As . .. ~ . b 'en unearthed. · More I( e synan {llnll haYe c .. d

f 1 Ihe lime of Tlglath-plleser I are oc-eponyms ron . (0 - '" . I' Ihe texLs from Tell Bden ur n.:>Sllf-limen tee 111

~ 1--' ) pl,blishcd by MAtI. in BBVOT 2 ( 1992) . kef 0- eSir .

Value for Absolute Chronology

, . d ac.· records to documcnt the time between E...s '1crvc (,J

n'lllale and another and have been used for onc epo, . . practices (debts length of ownersh Ip, economIc (. •

) As can be shown the Distanzangaben and the etc. . ( . AKL were b",ed on ELs, whereas the AKL not on ly recorded the number of years, but also how many

Ii os'" had passed So ELs are one of Ihe genera 0 .

Documems of lhe \fiddle ,\s!'ot)rian perlod from Tell Chuem will be publi,hed b\' l. Jakob in 2009. SOI~le .texts

. I ' J ("003) For a prehmlnan ha\"e alread) been C!lec In -\KOl\.... . . report '>t'(' Kl',""1: (1995) 203--225 and ( 1996) 3--7, "hel e he di .. nh'>l'~ lhe tablt.'l\ t.~xca"ltt.· III ... a • . d · 1999 l ll·ll·be The" tablet", ale from lhe \Iiddle t\.,,,,, dan Period. and ~rtSenl the pro\'i ncial poi n l of \'iew on tht.' historical. SOCial a~\{l

. . . fl· ·od 'r" 'cnl,' lellers and 31 t:C01101l1lC ,UU;.U1on 0 IllS pen. . ecol1omic text:-. han" been found in the palatial structures ofllarbt" dating to 111(' reign tlfTukulli-;\'inllrt.\ 1. But onh

- . . r. I . l C· Il,e t.':nCl orcit-r il rdau\t.' datt." call be gl\t'l1 101 L Win, SII... . •

of tht' \Iiddlt' \\!'ot) rhlll lim" il, Mill unknowl1. even epOl1\l11' are prc~{'r\'l'd, twO of \\hieh can be di.\tt.'d to the

. '. . l ·ht.· rcfe rence 10 '>t'cond p.llt of Tukulu- 'lnurt.\, 1t~lgn. - I I . .. I <cel't'n The battlc the Hah) loni;uh 111., I lt~ 1ISLQnc.\" .

. ' ... ' I', ~ IY ·· to be undl'l"-bt'{\\'(:('n I'lIkuhi-NlIlun.1 I .\l1d K.I'" lastl IS , I . I of three h igh \lUnc! i.l'" .1 Ir1"tlIllIlH IX'" qurm. T ,t· me nllOI .

\,. . . I ' f I ·I,·ch·I',·' will help d.ut' '""'-mil oll!na ' .... nO\\11 rom Ollel • , lilt' teXl .. \\ ilh mOlt' prl'ci,ioll (a~ cOlllp:'lrt'd with , Dllr ilu li mill 1I: \('t' KllI'\l ll9H5J ~OH). 1\\'0 fragl1l(,lllS 01 1.t'I-

I· . I . (['LUll 'H"l {'"rht'l tt'r\ 1lI.1\ bt'IOIlH to .In (';.Ir lt'l "IC me • . " bllildill~ ph.I\(' of tht' patin'?). R('ft-rellct"~ to lIarbev:llt'

. rD· . L', IIim1llu A.~ur-.ll\() 10 Iw fOlllld in tht, ilrclllH" 0 III n..\ '.

idrli n, tilt' Sl! l\.I\.. \L G,\ 1., is lllt"lHiollCd in both arcl~I\:l' '' .:I' , 'I (11', (rht''it~) oillClal 'lIlu " L.nown 10 haH' bt't'll all IInponan ~. ' .

lor 'ii, OJ WH'n \t'iH"!> in tilt.· l1liddlt' of Iht.' rt.'ign of:Hk\~~IJ­... ,. . I . . ,II,i' officml SIl1-·+jlllun.l (p. 209, Bot h .IIC mt'~ Illt'IlIlOi

. 'b 1 ts art' also I1Il1d.lilIll llq,) Rl'\l' 11l b l.tlIC('!'ot 10 tilt· U·\I c t"\ - . r lound in Ill(' ·It'\.l' {mill rt.'11 Sabi Abpd d.lling 10 lli·p.l( I

most important and reliable chronological sources to complement the AKL. l:nfortunately, our knowl­edge of the order of eponyms in the Middle Assyrian period (LBA) is incomplete. If we knew ,the proper sequence of eponyms from the reign of Sarttii-Adad I to ca. 1420/ 30, we could solve Ihe problem of the Assyrian calendar before Tiglalh-pileser J. We lack of decisive evidence yet; but ELs remain tile most promising lines of research in the quest for an absolute chrononog) of 2nd millennium BC Mesopotamia'"

Links

AKL, Astronomical Data, Date-lists, Dendrochronolo­gy, Distanzangaben, Calendar, Chronicle, Middle Assyrian period, Old Assnian period, Regnal rear, Solar eclipse, Ur III period, Year-names

(topom.ms mentioned). The hislorical setting of lhe tlarbe archh'e is set b, the reference 10 diplomats from the Le'~1

. . . 1ger named Tih-( idon and Arnunu), to a Hume messel . ' , Samlma in connection with exchange of gtf~ fo~ Tudb~ha IY .• md LO lablets originating from the E~~uan king being brought b'l that diplomat from Sidon. KUhne concluded lInl Sidonite--Assyrian relations could demOnSlJ<lle the cO~llmercial relations and the need for diplol~lalS f~m !l.e Levant b\ the Egvplian~ ( ~lereI1Ptah or Se~ II ). n . IS

. 1- F iT (900 I) '>0'>-205. Interesungh Anum u, topiC see a so AI.s... .. .. .

h· h ~o de pendent on lhe Hiaite.s. also had relaoons W IC \\ ... ., • • d' hal slich with A.,..wlia during Ihis peliod, 11l1S In lcates. l ' . .

I · ·1 'e ll Ilad beell forbidden by Tudb.lha ". \ .. ere re atlons, \\ 11, .• .

now rt""sumed (also from liato S Side). '" n Il'"R (90tH) 52-53.

~, < - • d II'IGCE""'"'' (2000) ~'\l On lhe texts from Tell S.lbl Ab'l"fi !)ee . ~ . 171-231 . ~ote the papn MArchi\·es Jnd Te~t C.oll~cuon~ ~n 'r II 5; bi Ibl<ld- pre,ellled b, the field ep'gr.lpl1l>1 F.A. ._1. Ie 1 • . Le'd n in ')002 \\'here he abo \\'iggel:ld"\I~131 '1\111~~~:~!n~~ ~Ia:,\e of Ih; tabielS found indi-Present... .... . . I 11- di (-+

I I <ric·,] rehtion.shlp Will I·pa . L .\ close C 1rono 0t". •• . d ( ca e • \ ho 0\\11e<! the dumw Sabl Abya see AKL 'lib 2.2.I.5.)" 119991 ""O-~~I). Thi, iii-pad; call ' 11,,0 C\'\('lti.-KIR5( H6.\1 \t ... - -- . . nd • 'd" T d a~ the M:, l1 kno\\'11 A .. ,l;rnan p~nce, gra ~.I enldll~. g'·o[lhllic...Y:llb.ll frollllhe reign Salmaneser I nller, an ... 111 • r't

10 lhe reign ()f\...~ur-Jlirf~l~i III. /1,'\1 PO\lI'OXIO ( 1996) 159-16..~ .

II'-~ F'Rn1HN"" (HJ91) 17.

11. G ENFALOGY INCLUDING THE GENEALOGY OF THE IIAMMu-RAPI) DYNASTI (GHD)

Sources, Textual Evidence

AJ{L, BKL, Chronicles, HiKL, literary texts, SKL, UKL and archival texts, which provide us with information of the nllers' genealogy or prosopographical data rel­evant to the reconstruction of internal chronology (the absence of the father's name and homonyms of len complicating genealogical reconstructions).

GHD (Genealogy of the Hammu-riipi> Dynasty): B~1 80328 published by FI~K£LSTEI!\ (1966) 95-118.

Further studies: AA'IAUD (1998) 153-173, BRl!\K.\IA." (1973) 317, GAR£LU (1985) 91-95, KRAus (1965) 123-142, LI..\tBERT (1968) 1-2, lARsE~ (1976) 34-43. MALI..\lAT (1968) 163-173, M1LL>.RD (1970) 175, R6wG

(1969) 265-277, \A.'1 SETERS (1997) 74, WILCKE (1982) 36-37 and (2001) 93-116, YAMADA (1994) 11-37.

General Features of the GHD

Tablet B~1 80328, the GHD, is quite well preserved, only the lower right edge being broken away. The lexl on the ob\erse is well preserved; but the surface of lhe reverse, where the script is smaller and more cramped than in the rest, has been partly worn away.'" The GHD was composed on behalf of Ammijaduqa (\. 41) and opens with a list of the so­called "ancestors'·, and concludes with the kings of the Babylon J dynasty from Sumuabum to Ammidi­tana (11. 20-28). A total of 2 names appear. A hori­lontalline separates the list of rulers from the subse-

l'\t On Lht thitl.. marks opposite the names and their po ~ible function o;;l'l' FI\,ji\.t" STt!:' (1966) 95.

.\ TIl is Inm h.lS b('en giH'n different interpretations b} dif­f(,ft'n! \( hol;u": T\I)\IOR (1958) 26-27 "term of oOice (tllr­

PI"')": Ft"".'fI" (1966) 105-106 (""ge .• ,","): L\."n ... r ( l9flll) 1-2 ("d),n'Ni,,"): WILl" (1982) 37 .. nd 41 ("Aml­~/eiten" ill the SKL). BKL and Year. In Ass -rian annills Iht" It'fm "alii dt',ignales lhe individual regnal ,ears of i\

... kmg: FI'''''. S,\AS 8 (1998) 81 ( Royal Inscription). KinK' oj lIgari t re.\ching back lO the beginning of the 2nd

mlll("lllliUIll .IIt' kJ l()\\'1l from tht' Ugarit King List'\ ( KL) and u th l'! iliol.tu.'d sources "hieh ('.1111101 be placed in a rhrullological fralllt'Work. T his UKL "ppcm'S Oil the reverse Ollilbll'! RS 24.257 ( KTU 1. ( 13), which is the fll"S1 known

t'xt'lIlpl.u in alphabetic SCriP l found in 196 1 b)' Virolleaud and \'i" L~ in ilioll l" identi fit~d a"l a rit ual or pra)l'r. The ob\'{'rse

quem list of three BALA (akk. paltl""), the Amorites, tIaneans and Guti. The 28 personal names (without filiation) are believed to be linked to the three drnas­ties named in II. 29-31. One of the chronological problems is when these three paW took place.

Structure of !be GHD

1-19: name; of anceslors 20-28: mlers of the Bab\ Ion I d\u. 29-31: BAL\: Amorites, tIaneans, Guti 32-13: text referring to kispu

The composition con ists of a single sequence of generations spanning a period of many centuries. The text is the end-producl of evolved and elaborated genealogical traditions of Semitic tribes situated west of the Euphrates and in the Upper Euphrates region ("Northern Mesopotamia") at the tum to the 3'" mil­lennium. Obviously the people living there believed in a series of early ancestors common to all of them. According to FL"KELSTEI:-I, who published this text, the GHD might have served as a prototype for later genealogical traditions, e,·en for Arab genealogies. It may be possible that the GHD is a recopied or reused and modified version to uil the needs of a particular occasion. Apart from its similarities with the beginning pan of the AKL, the GHD al 0 sho\\ some resem­blance to the extension of the UKL'" published by

of tIle tablet is poorly preserved and seems to deal with music or contains some kind of religious text. The reverse has (\\,o columns. the left one almost entirely lost, the other containing lhe Kl.. The UKL has resemblances \\ith the KL or ancestors' list from Ebla: the names of the kings are pre­cedt"d b) a di\;ne lexeme and are li ... ted in rerrograde order. The last name of the right column is the name of the dma5ty's founder laqanul1. Since most of the tablet i bro­k~n. tl~e exact number of kings Ihled is not knO\\11 (for 5e\­

eml proposals see N". [1999] 611--612). Despite Ill: deplorable SC<lrcit) of dat,\ on the earh~st ph<beS of ~gant S

hiSlOr" lhe combined {'\idenet' of UKL and d\nasuc seals seems ~o indicate that the LBA kinw of Ugaril traced their origins b .. l.Ck to the beginning or the :I~d n~iIIellnil.lm.~ This mt"ans thm the foundation ortht~ Ug-.lI1l1C 1...IIlgdOlll was part of the Amonte expansion into Mesopotamia and S Tia.

168 \le.;.op0L.lmian ('hronolog't Col( the 2nd ~lillennillm Be

.-\R,~tO (199,) J:i3-1 ;3." Thi, mighl indicate till' existence of some kind of prolo-genealogical list of semi-nomads "ith a unifonn tribal tradition (.-\R'.~t'D

[199 ] 158-159)." As FhlJ:Lml'-. (1966) 99 pUI it: "Genealogical traditions of the Hammurapi dmasty and Ihose of the Assyrian king Ii t [ ... ] are one and the same insofur as they represent a consciousne~ of trib­al odgins: The function of th",e list>, their 'it:. im Lebro and textual otigins, ha\'e been summadzed I)\" BRl.:K.\l'-' (19i3) 31i-31 : " ... "hen one hal gained some appreciation of the textual uadition and what it stands for in te!l11!i of 'Iiteran truth'. one hould also attempt to assess the tradition as a 'hi torical tntth· preferably b\ means of reliable contemporary doeu­menb.-";'19

The lauer portion of the GHD indicate that the tablet ma,· ha\e sen'ed in a kispu-ceremom for the dead ance tors, a tradition known from Pre-Sar­gonic umer continuing to the :\eo-Bab\lonian period. "'" E,idence from ~lari uggesl thaI Ihe recitation of the complete pedigree of reigning monarchs must ha\e occurred regularl,.'" An indi­cation for the cultic or religious use of the eKL is the appearance of the di\ine determinati\e before the kings names. Arnaud considered the lJKL to be an extension of the GHD: therefore part of the so­called "Ahnentafel" of the AKL mar have originally sened a similar purpose as the GHD. Y,-\I.\OA (1994) 11-3;, however, postulated that the AKL is not 10 be connected "ith a prototype text (as pro­posed by Finkelstein and others), since in its pre­sent form the AKL is not compatible with use in such a cult (kispu):"" he interpreted the amulel­form of the AKL (RI'I:-<fR [1960] 55) to be a sec-

'" ~Ole the genealogical Ii LS from Ebla: ARc]" (2001) ~13. ror "" 'imilar Hittite genealogicaluadition, see Orrr, (191'>8) 103.

AI< \t" (1998) 168 poInted out .hat these genealogical Ii ... (the earl~ part of the AK1., the GHD. the LKL a.s w,,11 35 the list of anceMon from £bla) were nOI u-\ed a\ chrono­logical-historical \()urces, but written for r(')igiou\ or cultic pU~!>t:~ and are therefore of limited U~ (Of chronolOgi_ cal 1\lJue . A relaLion~hip between the ruler mentioned in the A..KL and the "sacred trees" of the .\'orthwe\l palace at

Kalbu bUIlt by A'Iurna"irpal II has been prop"",d by Rl""RIW)~. SAAB 13 (19')9 ... 2001) 14;;"'216.

DJ The li'il of ancestors i beliC\oo to ha\(.' been transmitted oral­I} (~ne~()u.-chnic) . FI~Joa !.'inr, (1966) 112 ("\'en 'iuKg(!'led th4illt might ha\'e been prc-,cned in d{-<;('rt Chanl\. For emil traJhmi~ion of gc:ncalogiN \oCe aJ\t) ARe.flf (2001) 4 in (on-

IHO necLion \\ilh Ule ren:'r\(: ord('r of th(~ KU (Ebla, LKL, AKL). On ,ufru ",e nlKJ\lO"fO. AOAl 216 (19R5). 'Ill(' royal IJ)mix of Qatna are p(x,ibly COJIII(-cwd \\ith kiJlm·ritf:\: AI ... MAQj'l%l rl aL, MJ){){; 135 (2003) 201-206.

olldan development introduced afler ilS canoniza, tion . Yt HOV. (1990) 34-35 likewise believed in the ch ronological and historical purposes of Ihe earlier king lisL, (BKL. GHD, KL, etc.).

Historical Relevance and Value for Absolute Chronology

Genealog-' in the fonn of a long list of predecessors was an important 1001 for legitimizing a d}nasry or royal line."" It aimed to draw up an uninten'upled line of rulers. As earlv as the middle of the 3rd millenniulll BC the mlers of LagaS and Umma attempted to JUSlify their mle on the basis of family history. Royal genealo­gies aim LO trace a single royal line of descenl. ... Errors in the recorded genealogy are signaled either by incor' rect reign lengths (see STEI:'IER [198 ] 11-12 and 129-152) or b,' demonstrably false filiations. HAuo (19 3) II believed that genealogical KU represent an Akkadian, and more particularly an Amorile, tradition written dm\11 for ideological purposes""

Besides 'arious inscdptions and other official texts of historiographical value that cite the genealo­g-' of rulers, the most importanl sources for genealogical lists are the AKL, the early parIS of "hich can be Ihought of as the genealogy of Samsi· Adad I , and the GHD, AnlOrite genealogical list of Sumuabum ..... The first nine to eleven names of the AKL, the section on the "tent dwellers", include the first six names of the GilD ( ee FII\KFlSTWI (1966) 98ff, and in fig. I ofWILCKE [2001] 96). Divergences are perhaps due to textual variants and a faulty trans­mission. Different 10 the AKL, the GHD lists the gen­erations in an unilllerrupted sequence (ending \\llh Ihe list of three BALA, the Guteans, the Vaneans and

.. , See Dt RA.'D - GLJ(flARD. FM 3 ( 1997) 6~70. Fortherunc· tion ofa ki'/J.Hable. $Ce also IA\llllRT (196R) I.

,*u Thi\ purpose of KL, ha<; alw been propo~t'd by Bu. KMA .. \

(2000) 20 in connection with the ~()-('alled IliKL which are in fact \acrifice lists and not chronographic lOols.

... J. EIS,\(,lt, Ilandbuch rtbglOllWlIHtnSrhajllir/J1?' CrondhfgnfJ' 2 (1!J90) 486-491. C.K. MAhlJ ." EMly Civi/i,,,lioll' o/Ih, Old World. London (19'.19) 3fJO-361.

.... By contra'I, the SKJ ~ doe" not bhow lhis linear presellta­tion: 'cc Wu 'J(f (1982) 41 and (1988) I 15. The lIIid_sod mill<.-nnium dynol.lily of Laga.~ is olllmcd in lht' SKL.

'<4', For a provhiunal list of "Amolltc:s" lhroughout lil<' end of lhe 3rd millennium sec fig. 14 in JlAII.O - SIMPSON (l~j8) f)4 (MC). Tudia. lhe first name in til(' AKl ... ill set between 21c,o and 2150 Be (accord ing to .he MC).

.... 1. \",,1\,"(,," (1951) 35-37. MA1AM"r ( 19G8) IG3- 173. W,U K/ (1982) 36-37. icl. (200 1) 9;;"'90.

II. Genealogy Including the Genealogy of the Hammu-rapi' Dynastv (G HD) 169

Amoritcs'''), thus providing an unbroken string of , .. ,\-Ill

"gcnerauons . " The "king' who are ancestors of the AKL has

been interpreted meaning the "official" ancestors of Samsi-Adad I in his effort to legitimize his rule. Because Ihe tribal names of thc second section of the AKL are connected "ith the names listed. in the GHD and are Ihcrefore ob\iously not part of Samsi-Adad's tribal genealOgy, this section of the AKL seems to come from a second source. Finkelstein proposed this part"''' LO be a laler interpolation originating in Ihe region of Mari and Terqa."''' GRAYSO:-< (1980) 179 suggested that the conflation of these ~vo sources mosllikely LOok place during the reign of Samsi-Adad I. Inlerestingly Ihe list of patiJ. in II. 29-31 is quoled in inverted chronological order (compare this "ith parIS of the AKL!). It is debated whether these palli are a summary of the named ancestors of Ammi,aduqa or whether only the fir,t paW is to be conneclcd with the mlcrs of the Babylon I dynasty. Fl\KF.LSTEI\ (1966) believed that the ancestors called Gu,li,uJII are 10 be identified ,-oth the dynasty of Gutium and traced the line of ancestors further back (for Ihe Guteans see FRAYNE, RIME 2 [/993]).''-'1 L'\.\I­BlRT (1968) 1-2 offered an alternative solution: Since Ihe names of the Babylon I dynast)' fit perfectly with the AnlOrite !)(lW, the two others should be under­slood as contemporal) dvnasties in tlli arca (compa­rable to the parallel dynasties of the SKL). The GHD should therefore not be considered as a genealogical lisl, but is rather understood to have religious pur­poses. imilarly ROLU(; (1969) 265-277 (follm\'ing K!t\tS [1965]) proposed that some of the d)1laSties melllioned ruled simultaneously, not conseculh'e1y, and thatlhc teXI presented a summa" with some sort of geographical division. According 10 Riillig, only Ihose BAlA werc used for the AKL which seemed to

ii' Arcording to FI" .... fLIoiTH\ ( 1966) 106 this 111.\\ be under­stood a.!o "Ihrrt' HlrUHlVt' 'aws' or '"lIS' or d),WSli/j" of the hi .. -tOI) of lht' Wt'~1 St'milk lribe~ I;ti.lrting with the GUlian il\\;\­,ion th.u toppled tht., Mt.>,opotamiall Akkad Cl\llilst'.

Nt ~t\l.\~t\ l ( IH68) 192-19,1 discII'\s('d thl''!(' nallll'!<r. and their order

.. L. l ')') I h S .... · ,. ,'It''t" _',,\u ... nt R(.~ R (195,1) 3-1~~ who 'N,tllne< t ill .1I1l'it-

:\dad 1 belollgc..·d 10 thi ... "Mr')opolami'lll" dvn,lslY, II O"t~'t'r, Ilott" L\MIURl (19f>R) 1-2. wht.) interpreted thh l,lbkt dif­lert"lllh-,

OJ FI"'Kll."oIHN ( 19tiG) 117 laheltd Ihis Sl'Clioll ~IS a piece of pmpalf·u1(l~t,

: Similarly ~hl.\" \I (1\)68) 16~173. s... R,lllt(. (19(i9) 26(i •• nd G,.,";ON (1980- 1!l83) 102. In hi, import.ulI "lud) on tht' .lJ)n,..,tOl~ of the Iloll-A""'rdan

have had some relevance for Assyrian history and which may have still been known by the time of the compilation of the AKL (Samsi-Adad I).

It is widely believed that SamSi-Adad I had LO prove himself as a legitimate ruler and to obscure his non­Assyrian antecedents by appropriating a native geneal­ogy ("Ahnemafel") and tracing it back to Puzur-ASSur I (no. 30)."'" MAu~IAT (J968) belieyed these genealo­gies to be fictional compositions linking historical per­sonages to earlier epon}11lS by means of artificial tribes or geographical sites. He studied the differences and similadties between the various sources and concluded that there was a common genealogicaluadition (note his comparative table on royal genealogies) based on a ten-generation table (as in the "ten kings who are ancestors" of the AKL) that "as adjusted to the pecif­ic situation b) transitional links. Malamat thought the difference of three generations between the AKL (5) and the GHD (2) corresponded LO the "mte chrono­logical gap between the fOlmdations of the twO West Semitic dY11asties" in Assyria (AKL). and Babylon (GHD) during the 19th cenL (MC). Thus Malamat, fol-100\ing Finkel tein , altempted to show that both lislS rely on chronological-historical tradition and contain reliable calculations of generations follm,;ng a "genealogical pauel11" of ten genetations. This is con­sidered highly speculative.' There are simply too mall)- uncertainties and tOO few conIinned facts.~

Because of ti,e missing filiations in the GHD and the beginning section of the AKL, no precise c1lronology can be deduced from them.

A radical reinterpretation of f\sspian genealogie has been applied to Ass),!ian rulers of ti,e 10,h cenL. by the NC group of Rohl. Two parallel ruling dynas­ties (Assydan and "Hanigalbalean") starting "ith ASsur-rabi II and Salmaneser III were hYpothesized in order 10 reach a drastic shortening of the ~le opo-

U'iurper 5..1msk\dad I. KRAl. ... (1965) ah-ead~ suspected thal ule beginning of the ARL was tal..en from ~omewhere ebe . Fl't...El.STl:I"': (1966) 95-11 also believed in a protot)'pe document (a lruh genealogical list which could ha\e served Cllltie purposes) "hich had been added to lhe AKL.

1\. ... ., M.llamat also pointed out thaI &un'i-Adad 1 and hi ... con­c~ 0"' tl I' tt'mporan in-muball il both are IlUmucf _, III 1C .... IS .

!\.\~ On the (OI1Cepl of the past in ~ksopotalllia see \\'llLIiJ:

(1982.1988. 1998.2001). See 1I'1It"- (2001) 9i ... 99.01l

M.lbmat's ideas: ..... Sei dt"11 amurritischcn O\llMlit"1l smd wi .. so in der gllicklichcn Llge. die gent'alogische, ~egiti­malion von llern.ch"n in Illlll1dlichen lammeslradHlonen \chriftlo:'ler NOllladen in die Schrlfllichleil einn~eBe,~ und . I md mit ihl' wei tel' llocrlieferl ill sehen, '" (\\ tUKl " \ KL [200 I J 99). Similar" ROil". (1969) for .he A

170 \Ie"opot.unian Chronoiog'l of the 2nd ~1illennil1nl Be

lamian chronology." " But POST(,\TE (1991) 2H-2-16 and Whiting'''''' had already proyed that the method used by :-Iewgrosh, James and Rohl (esp. in connec­tion with the unde. tanding of ELs) i untenable. " Morem'er, such drastic reductions are incompatible \,;th kIlO"l1 synchronism ..

Genealogical studie are neceS&~n' to underst,md and \'erifv the uccession and order of rulers. espe­ciallv for areas. regions and dmastie which did not keep or produce KLs nor left us "ith any other chronological guidepo ts. Particularh' this i, m.e for peripheral region, from where onh a few of which have uniyed are amwing like ffi.e KLs or ELs, among them the UKL and the ancestors' Ii ts or so­called HiKL.' , In case of the Hittite chronolo~, one lacks true KLs and therefore can on" e tabli h the order of kings from genealogies in official texts, lists of sacrificial offerings, seals, etc. With the help of the generation count, based on genealogical data, only a relati\'e chronology can be prmided which is a1m~st always spuriously high or low.~ In ~1DAR 74-75 \'tIL­

HEBI demonstrated the necessil\ of exact genealogies

" SE\\'CROSH,jACF8 (1999) 78fT. ... hups:! / Iisth",cuchkago.edu Ipipennail /ane/ 200:J..March/

007236.html (note his comment on the 3'<' of March 2003 regarding the AKL in conjunction v.ith the EL). All of Whiting's posungs in this forum regard ing this i"mc ha\'e

.,-;_ been compiled on ,,"'\\'W.caeno.org (Aug. 2007). " P(>HGAIT (1991) 244-246 messed thaI, in 'pite of i .. erro­

neow: genealogical slalemen~ the AKL Olherw:i~ contain only minor discrepancies and inconsjslencie$, which can be corrected by the EL

858 For Obsen'3lions on genealogical lies of the ~ucc~'<>'" of Kidin-. 'inua "'e Po"po"" (1996) 169-165. lie also col­lected the faulty genealogical en me. of the AKL: Royal mscnpuons pro\"C;~ that UU" ~ucce~o:;o,", of Enlil~nn~ir I (no. 62) "ere related differently than i~ documented in the AKL.. which aimed at a linear succes\ion of kings. M5ur~ ~II-an 11 (no. 68) and A\;ur·rC'im·nisc5u (no. 70) are listed Jncorrecuyas sons of their predece~~ors. while they were in

.," fact their brothers. See YAMADA (1994) 31 as well. GTH 661: TI,e H1IQ wa. published by allen, Die hethitl­schen "KOnigslisten" und die alLOricntalische Chronologie, MJ)OC83 (1951) 47-71: KUB 36,120,2 BoTU 27+2 BoTU

for reliable chronological results. He also proved \lith the help of the Hittite genealo~, that generation intenal are quite unhelpful in establishing an absolute chronolo~' : with the I [itlite data only the UL can be ruled out. \\'ithin the past few years ~,e genealo~' of the Hittite royal lille has been refined considcl.-abh, which helps historical and chronologi. cal studtes. Studlcs before the 1980s are now obso­lete .. \ short review on the changes concerning the line of Hittite rulers can be found in BECK"'''' (2000) 2-1, "ith more refinements by WllIIE!.\I, MDAR (table). (-+ Generation).

ince they cm'er the period of the ~Iesopotamian Dark Age, the Hittite ro)-al lines are important to the dete.mination of ~1e opotamian chronology: absolute dating mav be establi hed by linking those rulers \ia S)llchronisms to other rulers or to specific evenLS. So far, howe\'er, we are mostly dealing "ith relative dates.

Links

AKL, BKL, Generation, Old Babylonian Period, Mid­dle Ass)'Iian Period

28, KUB II, 7+K B 36, 121+KUB 36,122, KUB II , 10, The tex~ were r('-edited (trans literation and tramlation) b) R()u 1(, (1965) 175-183. BUI due 10 the rapl sealing> and bulJae.impres~ions on >;Land\Chenku ng\u rkunden" found within the past few years, bt'uer information on the succes­sion or kings, their causes of death and their genealogictil tie~ is now avai lable: An U'i ~fu l updated table of ll iui te kinK'. including their genealogical tie~. ha'i been published by WIIII.l", MOAR 76,

"'.., COR""ULS (1958) 104 (with reference La the Alalab rulers): ..... K1I17, wir wisst"1l nicht, wit" die VerwanduchafLS\'erhah~ nisse waren, und dC'iwegen hat alles Rec hn en mil Cenerd~ tioncn nur dem Wen \"011 Vermuwllgen ...... AI~o N. Ziegler (priv. comm.) point.s Ollllhat an interes ting reliearch topiC would be LO find ou t wh(,ther king!), who are named as ""() n~" of their pl(-dec(OSsof'j in ordef 10 ("xpres.'l ,lid!' dynas­tic right of 'IU("Ct"S\H)I) , infan rl~ally were lheir children: she refer to an l'xample from M,ld : Zill1ri~1 ,im , tenneel.I' "son of Jabdun·Llln" was infact hh nephew or gran(i<;on. Also brothers art' known to have IIttcceeded one another (e,g. Lana and Bl'ltIrllla).

12. GENERATION

"Di, kuru Chronologie beruht auf astrrmomischen Daten und mit Jahreszahlrn versehenen Kiinigslisttm, die llingm Chronologie beruht aUf unsichertm Generations­

schiitzungen in ebenso unsicMren Chronologien . • CORNElIUS (1958) 104

Sources

-I Genealogy

Further studies

11fSO/>Otamia: BRI",\IA.', MSKH 27-28 and (1993-1997) t>-IO; \1AlA\fAT (1968) 185-195; P,,-u, (1956) 478-479 (mostly out­dated; presentation of discussion up to 1955); RO\\Tox.p:FS 17 (1958) 100-102 and (1970) 193-239; SIT", 7.A 79 (1989) 36-1iO; Sn"'R, High ... 3, 170-195 and (1988) 131: U",~,,,,

(1921) 13-17: \\'.LHED., in: FS Moran (1990) 52397 and MDAR 71-79: Zn8, MDAR 83-81. Alalnb: ED .. (2003) 227-289: GATES, High ... 2, 60-86 and (2000) 77-79; HEI'IZ (1992) 198-212; L"'DSBERGER (1954) 52-53;N.\'\\I-\.' (1979) 103-113:\0' D.\SSOW (2008) 1...j;7;\,-, SoUlT (2000) 103-115: Z"8 (2001) 76 l'gmit: AR.'I\lD (1998) 153-173: \\" SoWT, AOAT 40 (1991). r"qa: CHARPI' (200..1) 391: COLBO\\' (2000) 122-136; EDlR 12(04) 221-223: POD,"" (2002); ROl,"'lT. MDAR 51-59. Hlltll' rh"m%f!:l: BEC .... "\N (2000) 19-32; COR.'IHilS (1954-1956) 294-309 and (1958) 101-104; DE ~I\RT"O (1993) 224-229; Gml/l (1957) 53-73; Cl",'" (1974) 108-109: H",,"'" (1993) 50; KJ N,lR (1995) 235-248: OlTI..' (1968) 1111-126: W,LII>I\I (1991) 470-476 and MDAR 71-79: \I'll-11>111- So", (1987) 74-117. Ka"ii: HH"'R (1998) 297-308: Til 'I>R (1994) 69-75: \'H~­IIOf (1985) 191-218, ( 1987) 421-450, (1998) 426, (2000) 137-151 , (2003) and (2008): WllrnNG (1990) 167-2 18 -> Eponyms ,uh 10.5 .

F./arn: Srf" - \\I1 .n (19R9) 223-23R; \ 'HlAT (1990) 119-127, (19')5) 102:1-1033 and (1996) 297-319.

General Features

Whenever the is ue of generations is brought up Witl,­in chronological discussions, one usually refers to genemtions of mlers. As previous studies have shown, there is a <ii, tinction bel\\'een the length of gencl1l-

A din"I'.'rt·nt "it.'\\' \\';1" II/dd by SnlNI-R (1988) 13 t, \\ho pro­posed ·1{) yt'ilrs for on tO gencralion of rulers. t't.' iel., High .. . 3, 170-H):',

tions within a royal line (not to be confused with the average throne-tenure within a dynasty, although the distinction is not always clear) and that of "private" fanlily. [n general d}llastiC generations are shorter than family generations."" The average length of pri­vate family generations is mainly determined from prosopographical studies (archives), while the gener­ation lengths of ruling dynasties are mainly mo.," from KLs, inscriptions, chronicles, and historical or hi IOriographical documents. Val}ing proposals on the lengths of generations ha\'e led 10 \'ery different re ults concerning Mesopotamian absolute chronolo­gy. The basis of any calculation of generation intervals is, however, sufficient and reliable information on the genealogy within a family. A period of more than 200 years is nece ary for ti,e calculation of a\'erage gener­ation lengths, in order to smooth out irregularities. According to WllHEL'I, MDAR 74-75, there are 1\\'0

,,-ays of defining a generation interval: (1) natural conditions (inten'lll between the birth of a man 's eldest sUr\i\lng son and the birth of this son's eldest suni\ing son), and (2) culm raJ condition (ranking, succe ion of heirs, etc .... ). The e two approaches resull in differelll generation lengths.

Historical Relevance and Value for Absolute

Chronology

The lack of the exact reign length for many mlers pose a serious problem in Mesopolamian chronolo­gy. This is e pecially mte for Hittite chronology and the chronology of Syria and the Levant, from where no KLs (with the kings' reign lengtlls) ha\'e been found and in Ihe textS of which reign lengths are usually omitted or lost (.... Genealogy). Becau~e there are a great many more documenLS from Syna and Analolia than from MesopOlamia itself that date from Ihe lauer's Dark Age, it is important that we reconstruct Hittite, S}'rian, and Anatolian fO ral chronologies. In the absence of true KLs (note for

.... , See for <,ample H .. ,\(;,·X.tW,"R. S,IlE.-I29 (1992) 116, cit­ing the [\el Ih;:\1 children. could I1Mr!)' at the ..Ige of ten

;\ccording 10 Middle Ass, nan laws.

\h~"()pot.lIni.\Il (,hronol()~ of lilt' 2nd \lillennium Be

in rance the HiKL or the UKL).'" generation counls can help. For one thing. a generation count 01'"

clarif\ whether or not ~e\"eral members of a certain rO\al famih belonged 10 the same generation (genealogical information).'" ince the reign lengths of mo,t \lian and Anatolian kings from Ihi, period are unknown. generation counb often pro­,ide us with Ihe onh W,I\ of establishing approximate S\11chronisms with :llesopotamian rulers.

The question of how long generations I'bt is still ,el') much up in the air.'" Both. biological and cul­tural factors. contribute to generation inter"als. :llodem anthropological studies generalh find the lenglh of a generation i to be about 15 10 30 ,e3J (rareh 40 'ears). But this should not be confused with a"erage lenglh of reigns. A,erage reign lenglh, should be used onh when no better genealogical data is a'''ilable - as in the beginning parts of the AU and the L'KL."

GlRSD (1974) 101)-109 pointed out the eldest child usualh is not born before the father has reached at least age 1 and suggeted that the same inten,,1 hould be true for royal uccession. Howe,­er, for the British rO\'a! family, Gum", calculated that the inten'a! of one generation to 3Jlother \\45 29-30 years. The inference is that -o,er a number of reigns, generational tenure will a"erage Out to reflect the underlying biological realities" (BEe,,-,!-\., [2000] 25 and WILH£L'I, ~ID.\R 74). ROIHO', f\FS Ii (195 ) 100-102, on the basis of Ancient :'\ear Eastern dmas­ties that co,ered a period of se,en generations, obtained generation inter\'a!s between 21.1 and 31. 7 years. On the basis of hi, tudie on the - ih,,,-T6sup archive from :'\uzi Wilhelm (pri,. comm.) found that for economic and hereditary rea'ons a generation "45 dependent on the point of time when a son "45

born to the first wife of a man: Wilhelm calculated rough I} 21.5 years (using the Ottoman dynasty as a model; see now ~1DAR 75). :lluch higher number~ for generation lengths were lately presented by' ZEf S,

~fDAR 84, who demonslrated that a generation inter­,:,"1 could be 30-40 years, comparable to the ,ugge". uon by STEI'ER ( 1989) 170ff. Howe'er, like Gurney, Zeeb proposed an average generation length of 28 w

,"Ole a~ that thi\ i\ the case for the beginning parL\ of til<" AKL, w~,ch \how resemblances with tll(o GHD: \cquence of generauon'i spanning a period of many (emu ric" (fl\:Kt I ,.

""" [1966J %--1 18). 8M Vo\:INUR{"I-R (1954) 44 warned al)Oul (he ".S)stnn tier Bro.

dI'Y/o/I{f", "'!lkh has a con\idcrablc impact on Ih(' (ol1llting

of g<tnerauon\ (nOle th(O comments in fn. 8(0). ')(-<, lx-low

30 'ears for the . \ncit'11l Near E",lern dynasties. Of COUI. e. he b'L'ed h i, argumenLs mainl\ on the ave

• '0 - rage reIgn length, of speCIfic dmasties (such as lhe Bab),. Ion 1 and tht' Ilabsbmg dynasucs) . The same a,erage generation lenglh was proposed by EOfR (2004) 221-22; based on his slIlch on the Kassile and Hiltile kin~ and the rulers of Terqa resu lled in a chronolo­~ higher Ihan the HC (as well as Eder's interprela. tion of the .-\. .. , rian Distanzangaben) .

According LO RmlTm,. B.-l.SOR 126 (1952) 20-21 the alcntge length of a generation in the Ancient :'\ear East was 25 \(',u-s (hlln, in 1970, he reduced this to 20 ,ears - i.e. the ",crage reign length), A;,TOt'R (1992) 23-24 followed RowLOn's recon idenltion, cal­culating 20 "eal per generation for the late 3rd mil. lennium king-; of Ebla in T~1 74.C 120, where there had been 311 unil1lernlpted continuity, of political power unti l the destruction of palace G,"" The archiles lasted approximateh three generations (= 60 )ears ror the kings of this period: Igris-Ualam, Irkab­Damu and !S'ar-Damu), which is in accordance "ilh the known smchron isms wi th the cOl1lemporary rulers from .\Iali, Emar and Laga'.'· · Howe\er, ARCHI (1996) reckoned an average of only 15 years per reign. ;-':~ ' -\'\L,' (1984) computed 16.5 years as the a"erage throne tenure for the 51 &-year Kassile d)nast\. READE (2001) 4 proposed 16 years for an "avrrage mgn or gnzrration" on lh e basis of his evalua­tion of Distanzangaben, the BKL (on the Kassites) and the AKL (see below). This number accords with Eder's proposal for Ihe average reign lengths of Ihe Hittite kings during the Dark Age after Ihe end oflhe Babllon 1 dynasty. Even though both scholars employed 16 lears for the average length of a reign, they obtained different results for absolute Mesopotamian chronology due to differing hiSlOrical interprctatiom of variOLl' periods. Th is facI shows thal a simple calcu lation of generation il1lervals or average regnal years has less relevance for recon­'tructing chronology than hi,wrieal il1lerpretation.

Generations of the upper pan of Ihe AKL and in the GHD, which were the subject of M.ALAMAT'S 1968 article (-> Genealogy), do nOI offer any specific information towards ab~ollltc Mesopotamian

for til(' problcm of lh(." \lIfC(~s"i()n uf '1011"t-ill-law and it~ implic-aLion for g('IH'raliOlI illlt'rval'i.

"', ~O(' WIIIUI \1, MI)AR 74 for 1I10n' d('Litil, <mel vadoll\ \'il'\\'i. hlA. AR'''l J) (199H) I ()2 "'I" OpO"i the UKL r('CkOllCd (ht· king'

1>('1' {,(~ntllry, an " ... ,.'rage I eign lengl h of 20 )('<lrll. .,' On ,I", ttLo! ~:bl"',·eA.(II' (201t 1) 1-- 1:1. ~. ~". A.I "' ( I~)% ) 2~ (",hI,').

12 Generation 173

I 1010'" since several inconsistencies are observed c lrOI 0.' . ( . 195)"" and the generations involved precede the Pliod relevant for 2nd m illennium chronology. Fur­~cnnore, no useful genealogical ties arc reponed

,inee filiations are missing. The reign of the Ass)'rian ruler lSme-Dagan I,

which is s)nrhronous with the reign of Hammu-rapi', is of great importance, since the details of the reigns of his SLlCCl""ors remain uncertain (-> AKL). 1n con­neClion with the period starting with Erne-Dagan I, which is insuf1icicntly documented in the AKL (note the expression bob DUB-pi-su for the six rulers start­ing "ith Assur-apla-idi, who arc said to have ruled ina IiJl}i of ASsur-dugul), RL\lH, (200 I) 4 proposed on the basis or his evaluation of Distanzangaben that "an at'trage mgn or generation" lasted 16 years."''' To be pre­cise, Reade was referring to .Fign IRngth, not genera­tioll length , since nothing aboul the famil)' ties of these rulers is known. It is essential to be clear about Ihe difference bet\\'een th ose two fundamentalh dif­ferellt lelms, especially in the pri mari ly generation-

d H· · I I .,1 base Itltte c lrono ogy. As BRI""-\I-\.'. MSKlI, pp. 2777 and 203-204 point­

ed out apropos the Kassite dynasty, some genealogies require 100 many generatiom for toO rew years and Ihus require closer SlUdies.'''' This is tfile for E1amite chronology which is partly reconstructed ,ia Kassite s~'nchronisms: about 12 Elamite nllers are known from tile 141h to the 12th cent., which leaves us "ith an average throne tenure of abollt 25 ,ears per king. Synchronisms "ith the !Zassite kings Kurigallll I and Burna-Buria; 11 altest to the fact that the fil t four generations (represented bl eight rulers) of the Elamite dmam' ruled witllin one cenLU" (see STF\1' -- V\lUl [1989'] 223-238). 0 far, no satisfying resulLS were achi"\ed for the Early Kassite period (-> Baby­lonia) with the help of generation (ount. As has been pointed OUI. a time span of 1110re than 200 rears is

IIW M.llam;\I t"pOlhl''1ilt'd lh,H the .\nCt."iLOI .... of the drniL ... tic fuun<it'r' well' ba,~~d on a con,tant len-g{·t\t~r.llioll dt:'plh. \l.llam,u\ \I('W, '\t~n.· trifici/ell b\ " 'Ill t,J (~()Ol). L\\I)~IHIU •• R ( 195·1) !\R-39 rdU'il'd lO ,-,pph gl'nel'al ion WUIH~ to thi, perioct.

I Sit K" \\ 121l(0) I!HI. , w. r," • (21l0 I) 2111-221. "' B.bylonia

On Iht, di,<"u""ioll tit huw 1Il,IIn V;t'Ilt'r:.ttiOlh ;lit' .Htt''1tt'd al ,Ihllab "',. I lf '" (1992). z, FIt (20() I ) ,\lid II, RC ,0"'" (200:1) :\9:)-otiO. Nol<' Ih.1I thn.'l' gt'ut'l;uioll' ,1I \blab corre'ipond t(l f(lUl ~t'Ill'1 ,Hion, ill !Jotl"b l,nllb'I I. Em R (2003) 227-:.?89 POMU\;Ut'c\ .1 \l'., high th, nnoh)~" b.\~t'd 01\ all .n t'ragt' of2~ ),('01" 1(11 ~h. ~t.' IH'I.Hiom or l.lIHb.td-rulel"s.

needed for a reliable calculation of the average length of generations or reigns.

Because the reign lengths of the indi\idual Hittite kings are unknown, the only \\"y we ha"e of recon­structing Hittite chronology is through average gen­eration lenglh. This approach to Hittite chronology (and that of AJalab''') had been taken as early as CORSEUt;S (1954-1956) and (1958). Since then the inforn13tion about Hittite history has increased con­siderably,"" and the work by Cornelius (who famured the LC on the basis of the astronomical data) is out­dated. In 195 (p. 104) he objected to GOETlES' 1957 HC, which "45 mainly based on Hittite history and generation counLS.873

BEGK.\L-\''' (2000) 24-26 discussed GA;{;HE el aL's Dating ... and re-calculated the knmm Hittite genera­tions "ith respect to the proposed NC, in which Hit­tile ro),,1 generation lengths would be only 15.36 years. Beckman found more likely the generation lengths of the MC, 24.01 years and HC, 29.18 years. WILHEL\I, MDAR 75 pointed out that fam ily ties change the calculations of Beckman (only 10-11 gen­erations bet\,'een ~Iurlili 1 and' uppiluliuma 1 cO\'er­ing the Dark Age after the fall of Babylon). anI), half a generation should be counted when a son-in-law succeeds to the throne and brother-in-law successions and usurpers should not counted as generations at aiL Thus for tile peliod between ~tu~ili 1 3Jld Zidanta 1 as well as for the one between Telipinu and Alll"'<U11ma onlv half a generation is to be calculated. \\1U,elm reached a "ma.ximum" calculation of eleven genera­lions for the time span in question. whereas the "min­imum" calculalion gives only SL ... generations.1'';6

II'U_IIEL'I (1991) 470 pointed out in his review of ASTOL'R (19 9) that generation counts hale been often used b\ those in favor of a "longer" chronolo­g-' _ as in ' BECK.'H"·s contribution in Akkadira 119-120 (2000) . Also EOER (2004) 191-236 showed

IiH For;lIl upd,uerl discussion see O'rn::\ (1968) 11~126; i~. (1983) 1!>-21, Ilf MIRTNl ( 1993) 21 240 and Ble"-'"\.,, latesl slUnntaf" in 2000, pp. 19-32.

s7" GOt~llt" cliticiled Alblight. r.omeliu~. Laroche. and others fbI' trealin~ chronol~'" :,olel~ on the b<Uiis of ~he ~Ls and 'l'lc'll dale" neglecting mO:'lo1 of the Imtoncal and .l,uonOI1· "", .

. haeol(xnc.\1 e\idencc. lie urged that ~lrchaeol<>g' and hIS­.\le, -0' Z ~'I) 6--ft lon' \,·or1.. hand in hand. e also nil (~\I\I I 0

:;7h 11 .. III ~11" II'lu'on exclude:'lo lidanta 1. A1lu\\'~unna. and It' IllIlUIl ...... ,. 0 •

L1.l1ltili I to \mnwand" I. i.e. i\ son.'n-l:)\\"" ~rother-II~-Iaw, an ,1Cloptt-d 'tOil .lnd unc\e;1( hunth r~l.l~lon'lups: M."e " .LLHfL\t.

~IOAR i5. f:\rlit"r di!tCu~ion~ on Illllllt' chronok~" based on

I I I, '" Ila\'~' to be chec1..t-d with newer endence ,can-t It' 1'0,',\ II \ '" .' .

. I 'd- IU"lc'lu'on 'mel at'nealo'" of I hLUle "tIl~o Ct.'nllng t 1C l...z II. '~ ~

174 ~lesopotamian Chronol~ of the 2nd \lillenniul1'I Be

that a yen high chronolo!:" for the fall of Babylon, 1665 BC, can be confirmed b\ Hittite generation coul1{ (though his results were mainh based on Assyrian Distanzangaben). For the period ben, een ~1urSili I and -uppiluliuma 1 (total of eleven genera­tions) the a,'erage generation length therefore would be ca. 2 years. The a,'erage reign of the Hit­tite kings is estimated to have been ca. 19 years. According to Eder' very high chronolo!:", and counting ca. 26 years for one generation the Dark Age (~(urSili 1 - Zidanta II) lasted 150-160 ' ·ears.'" Howeyer \\' tLHEL\t. ~1DAR 7i concluded that the generation il1{en-als of the Hittite kings cannot solve the problems of absolute chronolo!:"; according to his calculations, Hittite ro\-al generation can elimi­nate onh the GLC (full of Babvlon in 1467).

Regarding the O ld Hittite Kingdom problems remain ,';th the corresponding generations of A1alab \11 and Iambad. tJam,sili I can be smchronized "ith the end of Alalab \11 on the basis of his annals (CfH 4 = KBo 10, 1- 3). ' (L\.'I;OSBERGER [1954] 52-53 incorrectly attributed the destruction of A1alah \ 1 1 to

~furSili I.) A recent reasse ment of O ld Bab~lonian Alalab has been presented by y.\., SoLDT (2000) 10~116, who summarizes (pp. 107-11 2) the discus­sion in the 1970s between :-<a'aman and Collon con­cerning the number of generations and kings in the O ld Babylonian period. Accorrung to \',\." SoLDT, the . 'C proposed by G.-\SCHE tt aL could also be applied to the textual material from Alalab. ZEES (200 I) dis­cussed past views on Alalab chronology, favori ng a very low chronology (:\C) as well."" H oweyer, both scholars approached the subject from premises,

fm Zidanta II can be synchronized \ia Pilli\'3 of Kinuwatna "'iLh Idrimi of A1a1a1J. See also DE ~t\Jm'o, \!DAR 36. Idri­mi is generall) dated to ca, 15 10/ 1500 Be H7, • • In Its second year of repon (\\'hich doe~ not automatically correspond ",ilh the ~cond regnal year) CTH 4 says thal l;Iattwili I fought Iamoad and destroyed AlalaO. One assum.:~ rnal this event lOOk place in lhe early reign of ljattu)lh, whm.e length of reign remains unknown. OF. M _\RTl!\O (1993) 270 points out, that it is unknmom whether this report correspond!: with Lhe a rchaeological destruction la)er. h is also unkno~ n , when ,'\.1 u rii li's cam. paign against Bab)lon took p lace d u ri ng his reign (iL~ length i~ also unknown). The name of the m ili tary com. mander is Zukrali (mentioned in CTff 15 and AJT 6 and assumed to be contemporary with Ijalluiili J: see a l'Kl AsrOlR, L'F 29 [ 1997J 24; th is con nection m UM be wwd ,,"ith cau tion as Bl\;'E!\~ [ 1994] 96-'J7 warnC'd). But, il is not certain Lh~l lh~ exca~'3.led destruction laye r actually corre~pond.s ~"Ilh Ih l~ 'ipeclfic event. The d i ~l.a nce bt"tw('cn Alalab's destruclion by Ijallusi li I and and the fa li or Baby-

other than generation lengths .... ' Alalab's importance for chronology is (I) that it can be histOrically li nked "itll the Babylon I dynasty, and (2) it has remains from the Dark Age (i.e. the transition from the MBA II lO the LBA I; levels \ 11 , \ 1 and V = from the mid 171h cent. lO the mid 151h cenl. BC) . CITES (2000) 78 st..~tes that three generations for Alalab VII are Con. temporal" with four generations in lambad and that roughly four generations separate tlle destruction of Alalab \ 11 from lIammu-rilpi ' (assuming approxi­mateh 30 ' ears per generation) .''''' Still , as van Soldt pointed Oul. the textual and archaeological material from A1alab does not prmide us with conclusive C\;­dence for absolute date, (p, 113) ..... , since lOO litLle is knm\1l from the hi lOrical point of view about levels \ 1 (in which the rulers · arra-EI and Abba-ANI Abba. EI II are only known from seal impressions), level V, and the !ran ition to level IV, which is documented bv the well-k.tloMl historical figure and ruler Idrimi, A rather sceptical ,iew on the usefulness of generation lengths in the te t case of Alalab was put forward by ZEES, MDAR 83-84.

For the Middle H ittite Kingdom synchronisms exist "ith mIers, such as from Kizzuwama, AJalab N, Minani , and elsewhere. For the period between MUrSili I (fall of Babylon) and - uppiluli uma I (begin· ning of the Hitti te empire period )"'" Cornelius and ALBRIGHT, who both favored the ( ) LC, counted for nine generations m'er 150 years, which comes to less than 20 years per ge neratio n . GoETZE (1957) and LWOSBERGER ( 1954), opting for a higher chronology (including tlle Alalab material) suggested up to 270 years fo r the peliod in q uestio n. ALBRIGHT (BASOR

Jon due to ~1 ur~ i li I remai ns u nknown: for a Slim mary see VA' S<'LOT (2000) 108 (15-35 years) and note ZHII (2001 ) 104 (40-50 years).

W79 Exca\-,llions al Kinel HOyUk (lssos) conducled b) Cates may pro ... ide more 'lccure dati ng fo r lhe archaeological rcmaj n~ (especially the impo rted Aegean and Cypriot pot· tery) found at AI.laO: GATIS (2000) 77-102, New r.",arch on the Cypriot pollery from Alalab (VI-II ) was done by C. B .. WFfH with in SCIEM 2000 and published in CChEM 5 (2005).

I A ~hort preS('l1t3 lion of her work on AJalab can be found i ll

B'R(,om.~ (2003) 39!'>~ 10. "" See for a different opi nion OUVA (1999-2000) 229-239

(following Na'aman concern ing the di \ wjlj ion of lhe homonym la rim·Lim OIc mio nt'd on a seal o riginally pu l>­lished by Colion).

:t See a l\() GAitS, jhgh ... 2, 75 Oil the corr e la tio n be tween lja llu\i1i J a nd AI;IJab VII and iu connectio n with Lhe B;lby­Ion J d ynasty (Oldy " r lalive'il.:quc ncc). .. , Se 'e OJ. MAR'''~O ( 19<)3) 22!),

12. GeneraLion 175

139 [1955) 22) rebutted Landsberger with strati-phic evidence from Palestine, Syria and Alalau

~ASOR 144 [ l956) 26-30). Cornelius also .reaf­finned his posJUon (150 years for none generauons) in 1956 based on the astronomical evidence. LlRoCHr (Ana(/o/u 2 [1955) 1-22) accepted the LC, basing his arguments on Hittite chronology. Goetze, who favored the H C, _ credited the 9 generations between MurSili I and uppiluliuma I with 210 years or more. OTTE'" (1968) 117-118 eliminated the HC bv assuming parallel royal lines, but later changed his mind."" Even though most Hinitologists have bee n in favor of a LC for the past few years (de Manino, Wil­helm), some, such as Ki.tI'GER (1995) 235-248 (espe­ciallv for the Hittite Middle Kingdom) and BECKMA." (2000) have argued for the MC, based on Hittite sources and S)nch ronisms. EOER (2004) 224-227, as has been me ntioned, proposed a very high chronolo­gy ,,;th an average of ca. 28 years for each of the elel'en generations of the Middle Hittite Kingdom. He also tried to show that the Kassite and Terqa dynasties also con formed to this average generation length , But Eder's arguments are based on poor e\i­dence - in particular th e Agum-kakrime inscription. Moreover both dynasties are poorly documented. But funher information from Terqa is to be published soon and may help ove rcome this gap of infornla tion.

II'ILHEL\1 [199 l ) 470-471 cri ticized ASTOL'R (1989) for eliminati ng se,'eral Hittite ru lers to get a bener generation-leng th fit to his LC. Astour posited 145 years between Mursili I and Suppiluliuma I , but counted only seven Hi tti te gen erations to ge t an aver­age generation inte rval of 21 years. However, tlle addition of important rulers, lIalllili II , Zidanta II and !Junia II , resul ts in a wider range of generation and would have red uced Aslo ur's average generation length to the uncomfo rtable leve l of 16 )ea! . As WI L­fUL\! - BoE',~ ( 19 7) 74-11 7 de monstra ted o n the basi, of the text "Deeds o f - uppiluliuma I" a nd the 0-

called da/Jamlln:lI affair, the re ign of Su ppiluliuma I"" can be shortened by 20 years ( 1 34~ 1322/ 18 BC)""',

1M ~ Wir \eh(' 11 he mt'. daD die Ungllnsl der Obt'rliefel1l1lg hier iuu.: h Gekhrte yo m unbcsu e ilbare n Ra nge c ines B. L\NllSBt~RGER und A. GOETtE "iner Fehleinsrh:'wUlg drl hagnhiglt'it ih lt'f h islOri'lt(" h t' 1l Quelle n \t~rrllhn h'lI. ,.," (p. 117), On p. 118 he wriles: ..... Kri nt.' be\\"ebkr~\.fti· gen I\rilt' l i(' n I.l'). ... en "k it dag('gen illl A1.lgt·nblick \'on den hrthiti'iChell Quellen If II' c ine En t'icheid ung h imichllich dt'r ~ur/e- II od(' r miuit'l en Chrollulogie beibringen ...... Set' WII_IUI M. MDAR 73-74 fo r a ~ ho rt SUI\111U\ l1' o l the con· I("nu of the "I)l'l'd s o f Slippilulillm ~1 1", o f the dabmHun::1l

which leaves an ever greater gap between the fall of Babylon and SuppiJuliuma 1: 188 years. They counted 9 Hittite generations in this period of 188 years for 21 years each. However, both authors warned that the Anatolian material does not supply conclusive proof for the LC, but stated that their sutdy does support it (pp. lO8-I09). ROWG (1965) 319 (and Otten a few years later; ... above) noticed: "Die hethitische Uber­lieferung kann also - abgesehen von ihrer Unsicher­heit beziiglich der Fiirsten der Ubergangszeit - nicht zur LOsung unserer Frage (i.e. Dark Age) beitragen." The same is true for Alalau and Ijalab/ Iambad, whose rulers and generations have been focused on in past chronological debates. M,~Yf.R (2001) 14-19 attempted LO provide the

missing Jjnk between Mesopotamian and Egyptian chronology of the 2nd millennium by dating the texts from Ekalte (which span three generations) bem'een the campaigns by MUrSiIi I and Tudbal ia I against tJalab. According to him, this implies a low chronolo­gy (LC) for Mesopotamia and its neighbors. Unfortu­nately, as was pointed out by /{uNGER (1995) 246-247, the time span benveen tllOse n,o H ittite rulers exceeds the duration of the th ree Ekalte generations. Furthermore, the dating attested in Ekalte associated \\ith Tudbalia's I campaign against Ijalab, as well as the association of the destruction of Ekalte with the 8 th campaign of TULmosis III i far from secure.SII' Ekalte is not even mentioned on the 7th pylon in Karnak, which lists conquered SYlian sites. Kl inger has Sh0\\11 ,ia numerous synchronisms that, the Hit­tite ruler Tudbalia I can be placed shortly afte r the midd le of tlle 15th cent. BC.'" The ten gen erations between lIauusil i I and Tudbalia I canno t fi t within tl,e one centu!]' resulting from the LC's ca. 1560 BC start of the Old Hittite Kingdom. With WILHEL\{'S minimum calculation in MDAR, p. 75 we would end up with 6 generations - still LOO much for a centul'}'. Because of tllis difficu llY with tlle pre ently known number of generations ben,'een Suppiluliuma I and MUrSili I when applyi ng the LC, we have to conside r

affair (after the dea th of her h usb..'\nd Nipbuna. an Egypt· ian queen asks a SOil of Suppilu liuma (Q lll'lIT) her~: of t~e identificatio n of the Egyptian pharaoh Ipbuna

(Smenl..hk;,re?) .• .\11d of the chronol~cal imp~ ic:ll ions. ~ n lis is generall) accepted . A few 1111110r va~auons hme

been published b) FRfl (2002) and IS(. • •• B10r 57 (2000) 6-10 (moo;;th depending o n the synch ronlSllls \\1th Egyp t).

"', ,,'uC". ( 1992) 124-135, Ku",lR (1995) 245", SAu.>JllR­GrR, 1.i193 (2003) 27~278 and PRL """ ',"" MOAR 4~50.

.., BH>"'l' N (2000) 19-32,

176 \kwpOl<lmian Chronolo!-,,,' of the 2nd \lillenniulll Be

ne\\ ~olutions. which ma\ not necessadh' ~ lied to the traditional Yen us ehronolo~ies. Furthermore. as has been pointed out bY Rml10n and others, the gen­eration count can be safeh used on I) for periods of more than 20.0. ' ·ears.

At KaniS, the Old Assyrian trading point (kant/ll) in .-\natolia. the problem is the gap between Karum Kani' levels Ib and Il (~Eponpns sub 10.5.). HEch­ER (199 ) and \ '[P'HOF (199 ) summarized the most important comment> on the time length of thi gap made in the past: Balkan, on the basis of the archae­ologica[ e,idenee and other chronological SOllree , suggested 3D ,ea:-; or one generation. Garelli pro­posed 50. 'ears. Ozgil<; imilarh ugge ted that the gap was at least two generations long, rehing on LeW)'S suggestion of 0. year . Biirker-Klahn, on the basis of art-hi torieal criteria, concluded that in fact there was no time intendl between the two level . Yeenhof calculated. using the epomms known as of 19 7, that the gap ,,-as 30-40 ,'ears (earlier on in 1985 he proposed a greater gap). Forlanini estimat­ed the gap at 3O-t1 ) ears, but anticipated that a reductiou of that number is most likel\,. The aim of Hecker's study, based on G. Kn zat' then unpub­li hed dissertation (~tiinster [995) on the chronolo­gv of KaniS," ,,-as to interpret the gap between le\'­els n and Ib in terms of the archaeological and tex­tual evidence, and to determine its duration bv means of knmm epon)ms and the MEC; the studl w-as done before the KEL became known." The level " fire did not destro,' the whole town. Some le,'el II documents found in le\el lb, were interpret­ed as "intrusions" by the excavators. There is no occupation layer between levels" and [b (thus no stratigraphic evidence exists for the length of this gap), though the historical and archaeological e\'i­dence implies the time inten-al between the two lev­els might be about 50. years - the seal impressions by themselves Imply a lime lapse of 20. }·ears. Hecker belie\'ed that the intrusive tablets show that shonly after the fire many of the town residents returned

... See now KR\",I,\T (2004).

"' ... , l:nfor:unaleJy, the publication of text') from the J(."I>t'cti..,c levels 1\ un('ven: "U!\HOF (2003) 63ff.

continu~d with busines. as usual: after a debt had be~n paId, the tablet recording it, which had been \\ rotten dunng le,el II, was, as usual, deliberately broken. Again, \'~1\;1I0F (1998) 426--127 pointed out that Kan"n Ranis II is much too short for a sta. tistieal {',aluation of generation lengths: three gen. erallo"" can be e limated with 60. '70 to 90/ 100 \eal , \\hieh again show a margin of two decades. For another account of the Old AssHian period based on the eponyms recorded in the KEL and MEC ee \'fl~HOF (200.0), 137ff., who proposed an inten,Il of ca. 35 'ears between levels II and [b (p. [40., see also id. [2003] 57)."" The edition ofKEL G b, G('BAITI (20.0. ) reveals that the gap bet\\een lev. el [b and II is much shoner than assumed and last. ed ca. 2-3 ,ears only (KEL G 3[, year of Samsi. Adad's accession). In anI c'ent, this issue does not ha,e a significant impact on chronological issues since the period in consideration just precedes the Dark Age. According to Giinbatll's study of 2008, le"ell/lasted 91 years (ca. 1927-1836 BC according to the ~!C), the gap 2-3 }ears (ca. 1835-1833/ 32) and le,el Ib 113 years (ca. 1833/32-1 719 plus some ,ears after KEL G was written).

Despite the fact that the discussion on generation lengths has been frequently (mis)used for chrono­logical issue , it ough tto be contin ued - especially for the Dark Age, from which we are badly undersup­plied \\ith textual material. E\'en with funher evi· dence on the genealogy of various royal dynasties, generation lengths or average throne tenures wiU never be able to provide decisi\'e e"idence for one of the several chronologies currently being considered: at its best, it will on ly be a supplemental source for the reconstruction of the chronology of 2nd millenni· urn Mesopotamia.

links

AKL, BKL, Distanzangaben, Genealogy. GHD, Kas­sites, KEL, MEC, Old Assyrian Period, Old Babylo­nian Period

" VU"'OF ( 19'JH) 43HfT. e"i l1latcd gap al 3(HO year' (-+ Eponyms) .

13. HISTORICAL EPIC

Sources. Textual Evidence and General Features

Hi,torical or ropl epics are poetic narratives of a ruler's activities. The historical epic seems to be an Akk.1dian "invention" after the Old Babylonian period: this literary genre is not known in any other Ancient Kear Eastern language ..... ' Texts \\ith literary patterns, such as the Legends of Sargon (ID3fr.~"), the Legends ofNariim-Sin (109 ff.), ..... accounts by Nebuchadnezzar I (290 If.), are important sources of historical informa­tion."'; Conuibuting to our knowledge about events in 2nd millennium Mesopotamia are the Kwigalzu Epic. the Adad.suma-u$ur Epic, the Epic of Adad-niriiri I, the ThkuIfi.Ninurta Epic (20.9 ff.), and the Chedor[aomer Jablets (283ff.)"'" The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic is the best preserved and longest of lhese."'" The distinction between historical epic and otller epic literanlre is the former's focus on historical heroes without m) thologi­cal aspects (CRAYS<>' [1975]41). The 2nd millennium Be histOrical epics have all been intensely studied, and so will be onl) discussed here briefly. They refer to evenlS of the latter part of the millennium and tI,erC" fore are not of much help in clearing up tile chrono­logical problems caused by ti,e Me opotamian Dark Age; but they clo add valuable histolical e\idence.

Historical Relevance and Value for Absolute Chronology

Ill. Kurigalzu Epic~"

One of the epics dealing with the K.~ssite period is the badh preserved Kurigalzu Epic, which records

• RUIII(., Litecllllr, RI.\ 7 ( \987- \990) 52. FOHfR, G~ITR 2 (20U;) 19 cat't'lu lh cO!1"ideN the ro\;.\1 epic\, tradition to hJ\'e ".ult'd aht'ild) in lht' I.m quaner of the 3rt! mi1lcnni­Hill. In rolltrll\! to the \. ...... )Tia ll hbtoric~\1 t:'pics, the Bab\lo .. nian OIit'S have nn parallel, in commemol4\lhe in,criptiOIl~ dnd pUIII,I) Iht' ruler .1_'\ n hUlll<ll'l bt'ing rathn than a

~,upelhUIll;ul \\ ,urior" th;\raClcri"tic for the .b'lHi.111 tradi-.. linn (Fo,nR, GMTR 2 [20071 19).

rht· ... t' P"Kt' IHunlwn. rl'icllO lilt' ('clition ly~ F'o~ nR (1996). 54 Ste in RI.\ 7 ( 19H7-1990) [.2 .,ub "pst'udo-autuhiographit',\"

(hrlon~inR to liu.' nunf...litt'l-;lI\l1c). Whl'll'as tilt' hiSlori<.'al rt. t'~ic Prolwi appl'ar\ ;t!tt'r Iht' Old Bab)'lonian period.

(.R.\\'t)~ (19HO) IN!). FOI iurlht'l "tub·divi,ioll\ of these lileran -munt, 't'l' Rn'~ R, in: \\'. Rt I1JI. (ed .), Nt/lIS Hmulhlllh tin IiiI'" mtur Wi.lll1l.\{'lmjll, . l/lurinll(llwlv l i/Nflt"'.,.". \\'iesbadt'J\ (1978). Tht" public.Hioll of thl' ZiUlri-l.llll epic h) ~1. Guichard iii;

battles attributed to Kurigalzu II and seems to be largel} based on Chronicle P. The theme of this epic is apparently the on-going hostilities between the Kassites and Elam. t..:nfortunateh only one fragment of a four-column tablet of the epic is preserved, in total less than a quaner of the original texl. Thus the nature of the story is not quite clear, but it has similarities with the Aciad-suma-u,>lIr epic (~ 13.4.). As in all the other Babylonian historical epics. one of its main motifs is ~larduk's supremacy over all other gods.

13.2, Adad-nlriiri I Epic

The Epic of Adad-nirall appears on five tablet frag­menlS dating to the Middle Ass}Tian period. It deals with the connict between Adad·niriiri I, who is intro­duced \\ith h,mn of praise, and the Kas ite king Nazi-Maruttas."" Similar accounts of the ba[tles between these [11'0 nIlers appear in the Synchronis­tic History. The text's stor\, tarts with Arik.den-ili, father of Adad-nirari [, and presumably was written from a pro-AsS)Tian point of ,iew.

13,3, Tukulti- inurta Epic''''

The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic probabl)' dates to the end of the 13'h cenl. and reports on connicts between Tukulti-Ninurta [ and Kalitilialiu [yo Thi piece of political propaganda offers an historical account of AsS\1ian-Babvlonian relations (RRRHtR [[975] 26), dwelling on Babylonian ,iolations of a treatv between Assnia and Babylonia."'" As FOSTER (1996) 21 [ stated:

still 'Iwailed. For preliminal} 110tt'S and tiw.lions see Dtll\'O - GUUl\RO, nl 3 (l99i) 2116.

~~ More fragmellb on lhe Kassite period c:.~l ~ fOl~lld in R~( ... RL\ 7 (1987-1990) 52 (\\;lhout llsefullu!)wncaJ lI1[onn.\IIon)_

....tS GIl\hO'. Bnb)1()lIian Historical-Ulna,) Ttxls. Toronto and

BulTalo (1973)12 and 47fl. 1>~1Il Wtlll'FR. AfV20 (1963) 11 3-116 (\\1lh ~\ text documenling

hallles bet'~l'('n [nlil-1Iiral; and KUrig.11Lu II). "'!Leu. l.-t 67 ( 19i7) 187-191.

• .. TII()'"'''O' .1..~1 20 (1933) 12(\-\35. L\\lS[RT. NO \8 (1957 '8) :is-13, ~I\lll"'" (1978) and Con", (1979). For :1 chan of Iht~ epic'l> e,-enb in chronolog1Cotl ordt'J" ~l'l' G.Y.­

n •. . -I/036 37 (1989-1990) 1-12. '"II Two 1e1tt~1"" depict the ~illMtion ~fore lh{' ,",clllal b~~~t1t'

lx'1\\ccn the ;ulI."lgoni"tl.'1 (C\.'UK-h.IR~ III.\.\l \1, \O,\T _47

II\)<J71 72-73).

17 \1e~opotamian ('Jlronolo~ of lht' 2ml Millt.'llIlitUll I\C

" ... The text ... is a product of a mature and learned master steeped both in BabYlonian and Assnian tra­

dition ..... The idioms of treatie, and diplomaCl, pen­itential psalms and laments, heroic tale, hmll1ogra­phy, and commemorative inscriptions are freeh used ....... • KaStiliaSu lY was defeated and brought to ASSur. The r\s>,Tians plundered Babvlonia, caming off the ~larduk statue as boo(\' ~ Chronicle sub 7,3, The text paints the two main figures in moralistic col­ors, the Babylonian mler as sinful and the As nian king as righteous.

13,4, Adad-Suma-u$Uf Epic

The Adad-suma-u~ur Epic is an accoum of the revolt of Babylon against the Assnians de cribing Adad-suma-u~ur' take-over of Babylon during the reign of Tukulti-:\inurta I. ~ (see also Chronicle P; see W.-\LMR [1982] 407 in connection \\ith the e"ents mentioned in Chronicle BM 27796). GRA"O-;

(1975) initall} imerpreted the text as an accoum of a rebellion against Adad-'uma-u$ur which he sur· ,ived. From the Synchronistic History it i known that Adad-suma,u$ur supported :\inurla.apil.Ekur's bid to take over As~Tia ... The epic also deals \\ith the restoration of the cults of the gods of Babylon, Borsippa and Cutha. ~10re e,idence on Adad-suma­U$ur' life and reign comes from Chronicle B~l 27796 (WALKER [1982] 402ff.), which mainh deals \\ith Adad-suma-u$ur's ,;ctory over Enlil-k~durri. U$ur before ascending the throne of Babylonia. The battle between Enlil·kudurri-u~ur an'd Adad­suma-U$ur is also described in the S)nchronistic His-

.,. On Tukulti-:\inuna I see WEID\ER, AfO 13 (1939-1941) 109-124 and id., IT:\,

W3 The text was first edited by GRA\~. ' , Bab)1unian HislfJrical­

Lit"",ry TndJ, Toronto and Buffalo (1975) 56-i7. 904 See BRlXJ3fA,.,. MSKH 19-21 \\ith a summary on the discus­

sions concerning the chronology from TukuJti-~inurta I to

Adad-suma-u~ur, including the \"35SaJ kings Enlil-nadin­sumi and Kadaiman-Ijarbe 11. For a new interpretation \ee

... Y"'-'DA (2003) 153-177 and -+ Chronicles sub 7.3. W,>JJ(EJ!, (1982) 406 noted that there is no good e,idence for the interprecation of GRA''''' (1975). One would expect. t.h~ statue of Marduk, which had been remO\'ed by Tukulu-Nmuna J, to be reLUrned by Ninurta.-apil-Ekur when he visited Kardunia\ (Babylonia).

•• On the synchronism \\ith M;ur-mri.ri HI see BRI. K'tA ' MSKH 91 and WALXfR (1982) 409. . ,

90'1 These texts are named after Chedorlaomer (or Kedor­Laomer) king of EJam, who is mentioned in Gcnc\is 14 and to be identified with KUlir-Nahhunte. See Fo~n.R (1996) 283' for further lilerature and B"'KMA', PIIPKll

LOn. ,\, in the Kurigalw epic, part of Babvlon's problems was due to its neglect of the cult of Mar. dllk and its temple. both of which the new Babvlo-nian king resLOred. .

13.5. Cbedorlaomer Tablets

The so-called Chedorlaomer'''' texts consist of lWO literan texb and one leller, all first published b) Pt'C1US,j1l J 29 (1897) ."" All tablets date to the Late Bab,lonian and Pc. 'ian (Achaemenid) periods and recoulll ti,e invasion of Babvlonia (in particular attacks upon :\ippur, BOlippa and Babylon itself) by the Elamites in conjunction with the decline of the Kassite d}llasty and subsequent rise of the Isin n dynasty. In tilt' course of the attack Kutir-1I:ahhunte took ~1arduk "itll him back to Elam."'"

In the letter BM 35404'1IJ to KlItir·Nahhunte by the Bab, Ionian king Enlil-nadin·abi. the Elamite mler reaffirmed his legitimate claim to tile vacant throne of Babylonia through the female line in "Berlin letter" VS 24, 91 9

" The beginning of the VS 24, 91 lener b, KUlir·:\ahhunte'" to the Babylonian king. which i~ onl, fragmentaril" prescn'ed, most probabh contained refcrences to earlier marriages between Babylonia and Elam (~ below). The Elamite mler claimed the Babylonian throne for himself on the basis of his alleged descendant from the daughter of Kurigalw L'" He asserted that some of the Bab}lonian rulers unjustl), held the throne. In his article of 1986 van Dijk discussed dynastic mar· riages between Kassites and Elamites during ti,e peri. od based on \'S 24, 91. BM 35-W4 was ob,;ously the

80L Thi identification i, doubted b) L"'""T (1994) 67 and col1<idered ob,olele by Fo" •• , GMTR 2 (2007) 21.

•• BM 35404 (pp. 84-85). BM 34026 (pp. 8&-89) and B\1 35496 (pp. 82-83). BM 3·1026 wa> r('edited by L'MBFRT (1994) 67-72. Note the bibliog .... phy in Fosn. (1996) 289.

90'1 Sec Porn, (J999) 237 for a ~hort d{'scription oflhe COlllent

of these tablets. ) Q FO'JTl R, GM fR 2 (2007) 22 comid('rs lhi\ Iettel' a "dead)'

literary fabr ic:alioll". 911 See VA' OIJK (1986) J60 (Kulir- "ahhulll(, calb hilll'it'lf ,1k1r

mDrll"son of Ihe ciatlghlt'r"). '112 VA' OJIK (1986) 1:,9-170 (the ,end(', Wit' id<.'I1lifi d with

Suu"uk·f\;ahhuI1LC or Kllli,·Nahhllnu.'), SH\'J - V\fIAT (19!!') 223-238, Po,..s ( 19')9) 207-208 and 235.

'111 On til(' ~o{"hl) "iy!l:WIlI of tl1(' Elal11ia' rtllen~. numt'ly thl'

ruhuiak (",i'Sl<'r'~ lJOI1"), 'N,' (01 (·xalllple V II XI (1990) 299-301. St'e POri ., ( I~~J ) IG·I-1fj5 on III(.~ "fiIialiom" of the Sukkalmab dynasty ;uul POrlo, (lU9U) 207 on the Igi­halki family.

13. Historical Epic 179

answer by the Babylonian king to VS 24 , 91 defend· in his legitimacy. The following synchronisms were re~onstructcd by van Dijk on the bas!s of VS .24,91: KurigalZll 1'''' & Pahir·issan, and MeJi·Sipak & SUllUk­

Nahhunle. The Chedorlaomer tablets ~uggested to BRI~K.\tA-"

(PHPKI3 80fT.) the possibility of an EI~mite interreg· num. Elamitc control over Babylon' a well estab­lished fact (note also ill R 38, 2 below), but no inter­regnum can be dt'duced from the tcxts describing it. BRlSK.\l.\,>, PI IPKB 82 stated that "neither overlap nor con sec uti on nor interregnum has been demon­strated; nor have any of these been ruled out". Later in ~{SKH 29 and 33 and RIA 5 (1977) 184 he argued

for a slight overlap.

13,6, Elam and the Kassites

The Chedorlaomer tablets depict the time of the collapse of the Kassite dynasty caused by the Elamites under the rule of Kutir-Nahhunte. The texts also mention the destmction of 'ippur (BM 34026). Other towns, including Borsippa and Baby· lon, were attacked as well. Finally Marduk's anger LUmed against the invaders (BM 35496). The letter VS 24, 91 documents the line of descendants of Kurigalzul in order to prcss Kutir-Nahhunte's claim 10 the Babylonian throne. According to VA.' DUK (1986) 169 the Chedorlaomer letters preceded the fall of the liil.~site dynasty, which he regarded as the second most dramatic event in Babylonian history after the fall of the Ur III dynast}. Chronicle BM 27796 reports on the transition of K,~ssite power to the Isin II dynasty. VS 24, 91 contradicts the accounts of Chronicle P (II, l-lII, 19) on the cam­paigns of Kurigallll II, '<lying that the latter fought Cmas·)<Japirisa of Elam, which is impossible accord· ing to the chronicle. Since the Chedorlaomer texts do not conlradiClthe ktter VS 24, 91, Chronicle P,

'It According (0 Brink-rnan \ 1977 chilrt, hb reign t'nded in 137:'), \\'hith mean, thal tht~ milrriage must ha\c taken pIa" betore then. \ all DUk ( t986) 165 pointed ou"hal (:hrnnidr P did nOt differenliate between KlirigalzlI I and II

\l1~ 1 hi~ leX( (,wn)..lil er,utlrt' or poetic aUlObiographv?)

dt\(ribt'\ ('H,'Ill\ in the- lalt~ h.a" .. ite period (GR.\\'SO' and LA"",r. JCS 18 [1964] ~, T\n"o. [1958] L37-139 and pon\ (199~)1 233) tt'poning a contlict between Enlil­nAdin-abi olli<lh\IOIl and h.ulir~Nahhllnlc of Flam. Accord­inK 1(1 T\ll\ION.. "itl1 iJllt'IH'gUtl1t1 bel'H'cn the K.~ite and 1\111 II dyn.l\t" I1HI\l havt.' l;.\kt'll pl~\('(' becau')c of the lOt~11 dt'ltruflion of B~lh\I()11 by lht' Flamit(''). The l1;.une of the 1'11)11 kinK, \\"110 al 1i1"'\t nl~d from the Elill'llile~, is unknown.

which is a later compilation, must be wrong (-+ 7.3. for more errors).

In the third chapter of PHPKB 86-90 BRlsK.\IA.'1 analyzed the rise of Elam and the downfall of the Kassite dynasty. After the Assyrian interregnum of Tukulti·Ninurta 1 and his three Babylonian vassals Babylonian power revived under Adad-suma'U$ur and a new dynasty, the SUllUkids, seized the throne of Elam. (During the reign of Tukulti·Ninurta I, Kidin·Hutran lll, the last mler of the 19ihalkid d}nasty, had returned to Babylonia, as reported in Chronicle P.) Important mlers followed in Babylo­nia, Meli-Sipak and Marduk·apla·iddina L But dur­ing the reign of Zababa·suma-iddina, the renascence of Babylonia came to an end. Babylonia was smitten first by the Assyrian ASsur-<iiin I and later by the Elamite SUllUk-Nahhunte (see Synchronistic History and the literary text ill R 38, 291

'). SUllUk·Nahhullle passed the Elamite throne on to his eldest son Kutir­Nahhunte. Enlil·narlin·alli, the last Kassite king, fought three years against Elam before being defeat­ed and carried offas prisoner (described in detail by 11I R 38, 2). The details of the transition from the Kas ite to the Isin Il dynasty remain obscure, but Elamite influence continued under Silhak-lnsuSinak, a contemporary of ASSur-<iiin L Although the transi­tion from one d}nast)' to another is the subject of BKL A (on the beginning of the Isin Il dynasty) and Chronicle BM 27796, this period remains in the dark'" The list of conquered sites witllin Assyrian and Babylonian territories in the inscriptions of SiI· hak-Insusinak suggests that ti,e early Isin 11 mlers might have been vassals of the Elamites'17 A1t!'0ugh there exists no proof for this suggestion, Silhak· In-usinak obviously took advantage of the weakened Assyrian empire of ASSur-<illll I and the end of the Kassite dynasty.'" Only the 4th king of tile Isin II d)nasty, Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104), managed

See also \'J.N DUK ( 1986) 169-170 and S ..... n; - VAll-'T

(1989) 22B-229 on this text. ... BRINKMAN, PHPKB 91fT. and POTIS ( 1999) 252f.

on POTT'S (1999) 242-247. .., • !lIt! On the absolute chronology of the ~Posl-Ka.s.s.ite penod

see SRINI';.MA.:.'-;. PIIPKB 68ff., who stressed that "the absolu­te dating for B..'1b)'lonia is en Ii rely depend~nt ~n .,lchro­nisms wilh lhe Ass)'lian chronolo~ oflhe ume. Bm~km~n lists Ass)1'c;Bab)lonian s)llchron~sn~ o~ the ~ost-Kas lle

'od starling with Ninurta-nadlll-sullli and Ius contem-pen , . I d poral)" ASSur-resa-jSi 1 (cited sources: chromcles, anna san ltcalies). On pp. 78fT. he mentions the problem of an Ela­mite interregnum and the Distanxangaben related to the

absolute dating of this period.

1 0 \le:-.opotamiall Chronolog" of the 2mt :\tillt'nnium Be

to defeat the Elamite Hutellltll--lnSllsinak in the bat­tle of the l ' lai ri\'er. With Hute!utlls-lnSllsinak the • lltrukid d~l1asn came to an end'I'

Since the reign length- of Elamite king» are unkno"'l it is impo"'ible to establish am absolute dates . .. \n approximate date can be establi,hed b\ sm­chronizing them "ith the .-\ss\1ian and Bab,·lonian sovereigns. till. mostly we lack exact S\l1Chronisms or links to specific years of Ass\li,m or Babylonian rulel .. Little is kalO"" on the circumstances which lead from one Elamite dmasn' to another (especiaU\' the Kid­inuids, which date to the Dark .\ge of ~[esopotamia and the rransition 10 the bener documented 19ihalkid

Taziua

Kindattu

Ana-buSu

Kidin-Hutran [JJ

Sutrukids .,.

d\llasn) and genealogical information is 100 scarce for thi, period. TIm , ELamitc chronologv bv no mean.s can be decish~ for absolute chronolOgical qlle,uons. even though It has been postulated that the "litten (,\idence in combina.~ion Witll archaeological da!;.1 (espeClaU~ from usa, \ IUe Royale A""') accords "ith a 10\\ ~lesopot<unian chronology.~l1

An O\cryiew of Elamite rulers"" with their con· temporan Bab\ Ionian rulers is depicted in Table 33.

For difficulties with reign length assigned to Adad· suma-u;",r in BKL A and the data gi\'en in Chronicle P see W\l.llR (1982) 409. It is nOt sure whether the 30 ,ears assigned to him in the BKL include the six

Table 33

... POlTS (1999) 253. !':ebuchadneuM, who did nOI OCCUP}

Elam, rel~med the \1arduk \talue to Babylon, which had been earned off by KuLir-Xahhunte (-+ Distanzangaben on the limits of their u\efu~lne\S for chronological pur~lj).

.... See BRNe ...... " ~ISKH 9' and 3391 and l'lll'KB 10851<5, Accordmg to CA.'M~ l-ff n ai, J)almg ... 20 continuity can be ob'ie~'ed bet"een the Old and Middle E.larnite period, For the different le"\e1\ connected with the Elamitc rulers mrn­~oncd in the texts ~c pp. 2111. On pp, 23-24 it i~ men­uoned thal the information on the Kidinuids 1\ \Carre and that their sequence cannot be detcrmined ($("(' e"tp. fn. 23).

9'.!1 VAU.Ar (2000) 14-16. N, can be seen in the table in CA'J(JIl­et aL. o.a'i~K .. _ the Elamite chronology with il~ S(·qut.'nc(· of rulers " ued to the Babylonian one, whidl is ba'ied on tht-

evalualion of the' a.,tronomi<:lIl data (Il.unely via Ammi~adllqa, who i't a cont('mporaJ"Y of Ku k-Na~lIr II ) .

'rr! For a reconMruclion 01 the El alTIi l ~ dyn~L'it i es including imponalllt('xl-qlloUttiolU.I "tee VAl IA'I (2000) B-17. For the approximate· datt·" of the 1U 1 (~p~ of the' Igihalk d)na~t) .,Ct

SteveNA! IAI (1989) 234. '.m For the Sima\kian KL "t(:"(- POIT"a (1999) 14-1-148. 'I'!4 Set.' Pon") (1999) 1 H4-16!", on a tcnt;tti\,t.> "iequcilce of the

Sukkalmab". On their rC"iaLioll" wilh A.,syria and Bab,lolliil (including Mad) ,("(' pp. 1 ()f~171.

.,,~ FOJ a t('IHativt' iarni IY-lrN' 01 Lhe Jgilwlkidoro .,(.(. porI's ( 1999) 207.

"~' POI''' (1999) 23 1-25H.

13. Historical Epic 181

eal~ of hi, predecessor a,signed to Adad..suma-iddi­y 01. their reigns overlapped, as indicated by Chron­n3 ide P. The lattcr ,tates that the revolt of Adad-suma-u ur lOok place after Tukulti- inurta I had reigned r~r ,even years in Babylonia through Babylonian vas­sal;. "For chronological purposes the interval between Kashtiliash and Adad-shuma-usur could be regllrded as s('ven years however one interprets the King List's data ror the intervening kings. For the pre­~nt, howeH'r, the question cannot be answered." According to Y~\I\O\ (2003) 165-168, the 30 years are 10 be reckoned from the point of time when Adad';uma-u~nr put an end to Tukulti-i'linurta's I ",ven.,ear reign in Babvlonia. This means that Adad­suma.;I,ur's reign over southem Babylonia ran paral­lel 10 the Assyrian reign o\'er Babylon until Enlil­kudurri'\I,ur, whom he defeated (~AKL sub 2.2,1.3. and Chronicles sub 7.3.).

Though they provide vivid reports on the political situation, one should nOt expect too much historical or even chronological accuracy from historical epics "where literary creativity and tlleological interpreta­tion play an important role" (BRINK.\fA.'1, PHPKB 33.). They can serve as additional material, and approach their material in a completelv different manner from the KLs, ELs, and chronicles: but their historical statements must be cross<hecked with other sources. Most of these texts do not ha\'e such a long history of editing and redaction as the text material, which mostly stems from the first millennium BC (KLs, ELs, and chronicles).

Links

BKL, Chronicles, Distanzangaben, lsin II Dynasty, Kassite D}l1asl}', Royal Inscriptions, Synchronistic

Histol}'

14. ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS

WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE AGUM-KAKRIME INsCRIPTION'''

Sources, Textual Evidence

General information on Sumerian and Akkadian rOlal inscriptions (their classification, style, typology, function. editions, and secondary literature) can be found in Rl"<,tR (1980-1983) 59-n. A study specifi­call, on Assrrian roral inscriptions was presented by F,\L;:S ( 1999-200 I) 1 15-144.

~Iore infonnation on the of royal inscriptions of the 3rd , 2nd and 1" millennia Be is to be found in B<JR(,[R, EAK, " GIt\\)o", ARl 1 and Rl~l (= Royal Inscriplions of Mesopotamia, consisting of RlME, RIMA and Rl~!B, a project directed by Grayson). On ~liddle Babvlonian royal inscriptions see STEI" (2000):"~ The Kassite ro\'al inscriptions were inte­grated to BR"K.\I \", MSKH, but the) haye nOt been published by the RIM project.

General Features and Historical Relevance

Roral inscriptions are among the most important \Qurces for Mesopotamian historv and chronologr, since Ihe) relate ('n'nlS that tool. place during a king', reign"" and of Len allow us to place these ('rents in chronological order, especialh in combination .ith eponn","" The K1 help place the ro\'al inscrip­tions into a larger a chronological Context. Unfoflu­nalel, ASsYrian royal inscriptions for d,e time uc­(eeding Samsi-Adad I, which could shed more light on the Dark Age. are \Carce. The sources from Earh

WI On lht' Puzur-Sin inscription ilnd ib Ilnplicatiom, for the n"CtUl'tllKlion of tht, t'arl> . \ .... .;\ ri,11l rtlll'f'i AKL Sur/t;t'1" ollt"u"d au t'\.lt'mh'(' ,mel \'l'n u~t:'flll )tud, on the rompitH ioll of lhl' 10\.11 in'lrriprion.., 01 fht' :;t:"cond milkn· lliuIU Il(., "'lMling with lilt" in\(ripliolh of lh(.~ Old h..,,!ian

I!!I pt'riod ,m<! ('Il(ling \\ IIh \."ur·dull I J. nu~ ~Iucl) hil\ bt't'll It'\Il'wed 1)\ Snl\tOl(;, \\11\.\1 91 (2001) 1I1 .. IIR \,ho di ... n"'~t'''' tilt' 1('1111 "!'Oyal inscription" and Ih I"pt'''' (fortlHlI,\q, (.'1('.). kwlurnu w('n- not included ~T1 SIt' in \ hook. \ sttld~ on kudurmJ publisht.'d b~ S1.\'1\1\1

111 2UUO \\1\.., t·xp.HI(!c-d Il1tO " Illunugl.lph in 2003. Rfl)iilllhfl Iplion.., ,-Ut' d""ilil'd "ub It' .... b ,"rprest'nling "hb· ton. Irom ,tbml'" h, \ " LH i\ln ROOI' (1999)IOrr., \\ ho ;lhu rnit'wlI tht· "('lond,H) l iu.'l .HUl't' 011 rO\l\) in'icriptiolls ;lnd

I sum miu'l/l'\ \ .tr io\1\ I t'I,\lt~d IOpits (..,("t' (:,..,p. pp. 112ff.). FIU'lI\)'\1\ (IH91) 51-Mt

Kassite Babylonia do not help much.'" EDER (2004) 214-221 used the inscription of GandaS (BM 77438) for his chronological calculations; but the authentici­ty of that text is highly suspect. GandaS, who ruled for 16 years, was claimed to be a contemporary of Sam­suditana who conquered Babylon during the latter's reign: but the Kassite dynasty is believed to have begun already during Samsuiluna's reign. (~ Baby­lonia). Eder's arguments are based on his doubtful evaluation of the Distanzangaben, which according to him call for a very high chronology. Brinkman and others ignore Babylonian Distanzangaben aI together in chronological calculations because of the unrelia­bilil\' of those texts.

Only from the 14th cenL Be, especially beginning \\;th Adad-niriiri I (no. 76), do elaborate royal inscrip­tions appear, including accounts of political and mil­itar\, e'ents .... Later, starting with Salmaneser l, the contents of the royal inscriptions began to be arranged in chronological order (annals'''). The insCl;ptions of Tukulti-Ninurta I are characterized by an e pecially elaborate style (WEID:<ER, !TN) . A brief pel;od of decline can be ob eryed before Tiglalh­pileser I, in who e reign tme annals appear for the first time (among which were the well-known prisms, which contain detailed aCCOunts of his acti,;tie ). Annals are a special type of commemorative inscrip­tion and nomlally included building inscriptions (~

,~ On the difficulties of their classification see 8RJ\"K.\l"-.'-:,

MSKH 51. Another difficultY is that lhe inscriptions attrib­uted lO earl, Kassite kings are presen'ed in much younger copies (Ganda! [BM 77438], Agum I p, K.3992], and Agum·kakrime [\' R 33J). Note also ~e lmr~ucl~~' remarks b\' Snl:'" (2000) 8-9. The 8..'1b~·loOian rO~<l1 IIlscnp­tioll'i dau;lg lO the Dark Age are listed on p. I .:> of his \lud, (Candas, Agurn I, Agum II, Uh:lm·Buria.s).

Q\.' Trac~) of supplemenrary infonnation can be found in ilhcriptions of lIusmna and Samsi·Adad I or Ia~d.un.Um ~u~d Zimn·lim. On ajoint Oligin of Assn;an and HUl1te alll~als.1I1 N0I1hem rna'<ee Ku'GER. tRoT 45 (2001) 2 1-285 ,,"h further Iitemture. Klinger denied i.UI} direct influence b\' the I (illite annalistic ll.ldition on the Ass\Tian olle.

9'4 Dated anna ls Me ,mcslcd rrom ASsur-bel·kala (I07~I056

BC) onwards.

Ivl \te~opotami,\n Chronolo~ of the ~nd \lilknniulll Be

Distanzangaben). From Adad·niniri I onwards the annals are sUl.lctured b, eponml 'ear' (iimu). tart­ing with Salmaneser III events in rmal imCliptions are organized b, regnal ,ears (palri).""

TIle main functions of roval inscriplions were lO commemorate the kings' deed,. especialh 01 iIi tan exploit> and building acti,ities, to record hi> offer­ings and sel'ices to a god. and to indicate ownership. ~1all\ different l\pes of texts were included in the genre inscriptions. Annal> and displa, text, ("Prunk­inschriften") pro,ide us with detailed infonnation about historical events. CR.">O' (19,0) cOn<idered the Bab\lonian roval inscriptiol" to be generall, reli­able as historical source material. thoul\"h sometimes. especialh when milital' enterpli"" are described. the terms are too general. As for the milital' ani,itie one has to bear in mind that a distinction bel\,'een the chronological and non-<:h ronological arrang .... ment has to be made. The Ass)Tian ro,al inscriptions are primaril,' used as a major source for information about the official religious cults. Funhermore, recen· sion have to be considered in the light of the proce of election and conflation of ''3.rious ources. Often omission are e,idenL C.omprehen i\e studies on Assyrian royal inscriptions ha,e been pre emed b, CR.-\YSO, (19 0) 150-179 and FAl.ES (1999-2001) 11!>-144.

Ass)Tian rm'3.l inscription most probabh were among the SOurces used for the compilation of As IT­

ian chronographic texts, such as the mchronistic History, the All, etc."" But this \\'3.5 a give-and-take,

... See F-lli..' (19'J9-2QQI) 1~3-12~. FUll', 5..us 8 (1998) 81ff, t36 On the distinction bet",een annalistic texts and di'ipla\

tex(..l) (= commemorau\e texb \\ithout annalistic feature:!') 'lee GR.\\'>Ox (1980) 150.

!m ?n the compilation of (especiall\: Assyrian) HJ\41 in~rip-­uons <eo GR.\\'>Ox (1980) 164-170 (A;"nan chronicle> booty and tribute lisu, itineraries, diaries.l~llef\ to the god):

9S8 On the reJationshjp betv.een ~ear-namC5 and ro)-al in'K:rip­tions see HOR'''II (2003) 201-202,

'" EU/.AItD and Rt- (,[It in RIA 6 (l9Ml}..19M3) 39fT, and 75f. See WaLla ~ 1982) 12-43 on the issue of wh~ roy-.tI in'K:riplions were \\ntten on the'lot' monUmenl.,. Based on pa~g{"~ in \fari letters CIf.\RPJ' and ZlfJ,I.FR (2003) 20-22 have shown thal the king picked out of ~erall}~ of commcmordlhe inscriptions, \\hich he handt'd o~er to UW ani~an to creat(' an inscriplion. It i~ '.ILlggeslCd thal the few cia)" tahlels .... ith such inM'ripuons were tho'!e "'hich tht." arti\an did not receive. The king dc:cided .... here tht imcriptiol1 was W be er<:cled or hown in a procession. Short in'l<riplion\ on

k.J ~~ricJc.... exi'it as .... ell ~r<"igl1 ofZi~ri-Um. \('(' id., p. 10). Set' BKI,\K.\f.\..'. \.-fSKI I II (with Ihe pa\sage containing .\gum\ genealogy) and ""STIR (1996) ~74 rr. 1 he lal"" edillon was ple\CnLc'd by SUI' (2000) 150-16:), whose

because the chrouicle, then sen'cd as a Source ror rO\,lI inscription ."" Ne"enheless, the manner in which ro\'al inscriptions wcre composed is still unknown. a, CR.-\\Vl' (1980) 16-1-170 has shown, The) \\('re usuall\' written on more durable material other than cia, tablets, such as dOOt'phots, baked bricks. stone pavement slabs, steles, cone, metal ulblets. haked cia, ptisms and cylinders.""

From the numerous ro~'3.1 inscriptions from the 2nd millennium the most chronologicallv contrOl'er. sial is the Agum-kakrime inscription.

14.1. Agum-kakrime Inscription (V R 33, K. 4149+)""

The cop' of the Agum-kakrime inscription was dis­covered in the ASsurbanipal library and dates from the first millennium B . It i an ancient forgery, pan. I) damaged, consisting of eight columns, In the text the earh Kassite mler Agum-kakrime de cribes how he returned [arduk's statue from !Jani (= the land of !Jana) to Babylon and restored the cult of Marduk and his spouse arpanitum at Babylon (col. I, 44-col. ll, Ii). BKL A and the Synchronistic KL presen'ed onh a shortened name of this Kassite ruler, Agum, But this could be either Agum I, II or Ill. Contrary to ear· lier assumptions, Aglml Il is not mentioned in the Smchronistic KL (BRl'K.\I.'I.', MSKH 11). Agum. kakrime has been identified with Agum II ( th/ 9th

Kassite king» or Agum III (l3.h or 14th Kassite king)."" Parallel with this inscription, the Marduk propbecy (K. 2158+)"" reports that 24 years passed between the recovery of the Marduk statue in Uani

lran\lalion is based on his tnU1slitcralion of a photograph of K. 4149+., 'ote al,o HHKFR, TUAT ,F, 2 (2005) 50-53 ",it..h a Gennan translation.

11-41 See BRI. '1(.\1."'. MSKH 2fi'O and cspeciall)' p. 13 on (he \gum·kakrime in..:ription, LA~I»BFR(,FR (1954) 116 pre­ferred the identification with Agum I. See Sir I." (2000) 150 and S\'\'~\f""'~HAL.·~"'. MDAR 63. according LO whom Agum·kahimc is to be identified wi th Agum II. This rol­I()w~ Blinkman (Agum III i ~ to be identified with Lhe son of ~liliaijll III atle~led in lhe King Chronicle and perhaps Wilh the Agum mentioned in the Qal'dl Babri.tin teXL<i). In comrdSt CAse .In_ rt at, /)lIlinK , .. 88-89 identified Agul11-kakTime with Agum JlI , who followed Burna-Borias I (con­temporary with PII/ur-M~ur Ill ), Ka&tilia;u III <Ind L"Iam­Buria~ (contcmporary with Ea-gnmil). -4 Babylonia

'" GRA"''' ancl LA'ttIlRT,jG\ 18 (1964) 8, BOKl, •• , B.o,28 (197 1) 3-24 (<<p, p, 21-22), BKI NKMAN, MSKII 97, Lo'" \lA' (19<)1) 13611 , (reviewed by S(;II"""", BiOI' 52 [1995J 92-97), Fo,,,. ( 19%) 302, The lext allude, to .he abduc· Lion 01 Ih(' Marduk \lalllc lO AnalOlia (Mursili I) , A!~lIr (Tukll ltl-Ninulla J) alld ~Jam ( KlIlir-Nahhulllc) and Lht' event\ hdore Nebuchadnt.'/lar L

14. Royal Imcription~ with Special Emphasis on the Agum ' - k ' I " -"-do nme nscrlptlon 185

ld the abduction of the statue as booty in the at COUI~e or Mursili's I raid on Babylon (~ Distanzan-gabeo) . Thi> return of the Marduk statue is normal· I) associated WIth Agum-kaknme, although the inscriptiOn's genuineness, due to its linguistic fea­tures and historical information, has been doubt­ed.''' The chronological usefulness of the informa­tion contained here is therefore very much in ques­lion (B.""-\I \'i, MSKH 97),

Value for Absolute Chronology

14,2, The return of the Marduk statue

Agum.kakrime is said to have returned the Marduk ,laille to Babvlon from the region of Ijanio" after the god had been exiled for 24 years following the Hittite raid against Babylon. I1 0wever, the time period the ~Iarduk staltte remained at Ijani, and the cause of its exile, can only be deduced from the Marduk propbe­cy, Problems arise nOt onl), \\;th the authenticity of the Agum-kakrime inscription, but also with the iden­tification of the Agum in the inscription, since there Agum is named the son of UrSigurtunaS/ Urziguru­maS (= Kassite king no. 6; Agum-kakrime then would be Agum II) and not of KaStiliaSu 111 (father of Agum III"';), Thus it is hard to place the information of the inscription into the proper chronological and hi tor­ital rramework, BRlNK'L"", J\.ISKH 13 pointed out, eren gil'en the iden tification of the fall of Babvlon due to ~lur;i1i I with the Hittite theft of the Marduk statue and the end of the Babylon I dp,aSl\', and 24 lea" ror the return of this Stllllte to Babylon, difficul­tie, arbe in attempting to "fit "lilhtSf elemmls into a coW1I1 \(heIllP and reconcile them with the fact that the Synchronistic KL does not even list Agum 11. Gen­erall) this Diltanzangabe is used by those favoring a LC ror \\esopotamia,

to 1..()\(,\I\\ (H)91 ) Hfi with funhn bibliographic;\l nOles and

Fm'IIR (19H6) 27·1. For the colophon. which "ays th:Hlhis text hdollj{' to "G('ht"im\\'b\t~n", ,ee BOtH_a ' R, RIA 3 (19'>7-1971) 18H-IH9, RI "". (1996) 1:,.. 16 unci nl' 121WWI) 161. .. \ \lllhal ('I 1"01 I'm HaUl had lx'en it l1I11t'd: 'It't' L\"\{I).~I\FR(;H. (19:H) 1i511>0 Thi" ilh<.:riplion might a ho iudi ate that llalu "'a.~ l1ouri'lhing during Ih(' reign of \gum II : '<'t" Po!).\'" (~>f)()~) 59 Oil Ihe Micldk llitna p<-'riod ;tnd {ht~ D.lrl .\ge. lh~ King Chronicle ~"')S \gum III h ,l\e It'd .1 campaign ag-.umlllll'St'"blld. It j, qu('siion.tble. hO\\('u'r. that Agum III ~all bt· idemific'd \\'lIh lht' \gUIll Ilu'ntiollt'd in Ihe ~.tIIH B;t~I.\in t("XI,. Sec: S\'\~\I "NSII'l'~";-':, IO .. \R 63, who I~ ~kt'pli<:al th,H une: <inri the' 'iJIlIt'" per.;on h rererrt'd 10 in Iht'w Ir)o;.l\ ,\ud lht.· King Chroni It'.

A possible identific.,tion with Agum III was lately proposed by CASCHE et al., Daling ",88-89 linking the information with that taken from the Tell Mubammad texts recognizing the difficulties of this texl."'" G\scHE el al. believed the Agum·kakrime inscription indicates that Agum-kakrime ruled after the Kassites occupied Babylon and consolidated their power ol'er the south. Especially because of the continuity of the pottery"" G,-\S(HE el aL, Dating ." concluded that the phase of instability and dislocation must hal'e been shon and that the fall of Babylon marked the end of a long slow breakdown and the beginning of a new era ( .... Baby­lortia) .The Synchronistic History informs us that in the intermediate aftermath of the collapse of the Bab)lon I d}nasty Burna-BuriaS I fixed the northern border with Puzur-ASSur 1Il, a phase that is marked by stable social conditions .... The possibility that the period of instabilil) followi.ng the fall of Babyon was brief had been pre,iously considered by \A' DUK (1986) 159: "Wenn es damals nur den Einfall del' Het­hiter gegeben hat und die Restauration unter Agum­kakrime, dann kann dieses Zeitalter nicht so dunkel gewesen sein und nicht so lange gedauen haben, \\'enn die Schriftquellen uns zeil\,eise im Stich lassen, so heisst das nicht, dass sie nicht dagewe en sind."

According to C-\SCIIE el al., Daling '" 3-88 the texts from Tell ~Iul)anlmad, whose year·names record the petiod from 36 to 4 1 years after the resettlement of Bab\'lon.'"' are to be dated after Agttm. Therefore, the time span ben,een the raid on Babylon and its resettlement is belie"ed to hal'e been very shorL .... ASS~I \~"SHAL'SE:-<, MDAR 63 instead placed tllis

group of texts at the I'eI" beginning of the Kassite period, but distrusted tlle autllenticity of the inscrip­tions of CandaS and Agum-kakrime due to such fea­tures as the epithet used, The argument of Ga ehe ,I al. is based mainlv on Ihe el'ollllion of Old Babl'lo-

, Acc.:ording 10 G.\.."'-HE rl al_. Dali"g .. ' \; ,the sClibe copied the inscription incorrecth by insening an incorrect gene,",l­

ogl, .hal of Agum II. 'W7 G_\SU-If rt aL, Daling ... 26fT. 'HS The aUlhor~ sucS-\cd thal according to the archaeological

('vidence thl~ time after the end of the Babylon I d\lla5tl is

nOL marled b\ in"li.lbilil\. ~q On the problemalic historical attribution of tht' \ear-nallle~

documented in lhose U''i.lS see RIt"ll"Rn~)' (2002) 9. For tht' .\OOol\llt' elate of Ihe luna.r eclip.)c atte:o.ted in those date formul.l{" Astronomical Data.

~c) More on the rise of the K.lssitt"\ and the COlhOlidi.ltion of their powl'r in thi~ petiod jl<: in the Synchronistic History

,\lid King Chronicle.

1 6

nian potten'; but theil oh"'en,uions han:' not \t't bt,t.'11 commented on in the ... cholarh literature.

EDER (200-1) 218-221 ba.,ed his propo"'l for a ,en high chronolog- illl"r alia on the Agum-~akril1ll' inscription. \\ hich accordin~ to him pn)\idc'\ the lin.' royal generations from Agum I to .\gllln II (=

Agum-kakriOle) "ith file kin~. The remaining nllll" l\assite kings mentioned in BKI. A and the Synchro­nistic KI. are. according to him. brothers of the rule", mentioned in the A~lm-kaL..dme in ... criplion ( " \)",\/1

dl'r Brudl'rfolg.- ). Ho,,,,,er the reading of the ruler\ name usualh' refelTed to as L',~e (fn . ' 1) m;}Y GlU",e ~1.

problem for Eder\ interpretation and the weight Ill' puts on the Agum-kakriOle inscription . • 'ot(' that based on the inscription of Cand'L' the first J-;.."site ruler CandaS is llChronized "ith the last ruler of till" Bab,lon I dmasr., amsuditana: Eder. hll\\e,er. did not belie,e that tI,ere "'3> am olerJap bemeen till' two d}llastie . . --> Babylonia

The authenticir.· of the Agum·bkrime in crip­tion has been often questioned."" Due to the lack of e,idence confirming it. and the general dearth of information about the circllm~lance~ "tuITounding the fall of Bab, Ion and the ri e of the "", ite . ' the Agum-kakrime imcription has been often left out of chronological di,cmsions. G \.-.( HE tl at.. Ualmg ... i'l9 state that this inscription pre"lt.'llts too man\' lUlCer­tainties to be secureh c,-aluated or to be -jilled wil"­in a (o"m'lll -,(h,me • . -\(Cording to R()lUL (1965) 145, the material known for the Earh ""',itc period is inconclusive and each statement is ba"ed on inde­cishe data that usuall, can not be confirmed b, am other source. The 2-1 '}car> of \Iarduk', exile ,e('m~ to be the onl, precise chronological information available: it implie, that the consolidation of """ite power in Babylonia must ha,e taken place shonl, after the fall of Babylon. For thi, reason Riillig dal<'c\ Agum's reign ca. 23 years after the Hittite raid.

1&1 H e r("ck(J11 up to :lO ~("al~ pN g(·nnati(Hl. wh ich h u\ually con\idered LOn Jong.

"" Lo ( ........ , (1991) Hii.

Tht' \Iarduk statut' is later rcpollt'd to have been t"ken ,b boo(' b, lukulu-:\inurt<l I from Babylon to \"U1 ( .. H istorical Epic sub 13.3. ) . where it n'nl<lint'd I,ll abollt a l'elltul'\ ( • Distallzangabeo and Chronicle P ).

Rln ,II insniption, <lIt' cOtlSidl'red being historical. " Idiablt' in", fill a .S th,,\ repol t on building acti,i. tit's (which ran oftt'n br' archaeo logical" cross­checked) and militan e'ploits. Concc'rning the lat. l("r, it i" imponant to fheck. if the narration is in chronolo~ical old"r. "hich kinel of recension was used. and which variant OUt' can be ('onsidered the IlHh( reliable (GR.\"I" [1980] I 70-171 ) . ~Ioreover, the propagan<iistir purpose of >llcll texts needs LO be kept in mind. till. the ,mchroni,ms cited are usual· h (on-eel. Be"jde~ infonnation on historical e\'ents, otller chronologicalh ,aluable material can often be drawn from ro\al inscriptions (as is demonstraLed in the chapter on Di,tanzangahen ). The Assyrian royal inscriptions ob,iou,h (olllaincd a chronologicall) fairh accuraLe account of building ani\·ilies. Unfor­tunateh there is a gap of documentation for the peri­od between Sam;,·Adad I and thc beginning of lhe reiKn of AS"n-nil an II , who ruled in ti,e last third of the 1511• cent. PO\lI'O'IO (1996) 162-165 demonstrat­ed that ti,e rmal inscriptions "ith their genealogical inlollnation prm(' that the -\KL\ depiction of a lin· eal ro~al "illcce ... sion during this period is inCOITeCl (A,' ur-nirari II [no. 611] and A"m-... :'im-niSesu [no. 70]). Th" prnhabh ",IS a time of internal and exter­nal political ill'tahility.

Links

\KL, A\tlOnomical Data, BKI.., Babllon I D)nast)', Chronide" Dist'l\uangabell, Early Kassite period, KinK Chronicle, Synchronistic Histol,), Synchronistic KL, Year-names

" A\ \ h o \\, tI hy R IC II !\RUSO"l OWIJ2) til' nr>; K O I' I'l'.N, MOAR I ~ J-2:l. ( #1\,0",( I II (·t .Ii., /}flilllJ.( •• H!J aI{' 1 iKhl thai ..... Ih l' f~J1 of l~ahy l () 11 I did I 1I0t HI ' II k. til(' 011 ..,<.'1 01 di 'lmd(AI", but Mg" lIa l["fJlt h,' t'lId 0 1 .1 I OIl ~ \Iow 1)I ("akd owll .....

15. S YNCHRONISTIC KING LIST

Sources, Textual Evidence

Ass, 14616c ( A,sm 4128, A.117): WUl)'~R ( 1926) 70-71: complete copv made from a photo; \\'~ID"'R (192 1) pis. 1-1\' anel ( 1926) 6&-77; SUIKOFDfR, KAV 216 (onl\ rev. copied), The \tate of thts tablet has bad I, deteriorated since its first publication: for deta;" see GK.\\'i(l" (1980-1983) II &-117. KAY 216 is badly broken anel no reliable copy has ,'et been made: in 1920.2 1 Sr hroeder, KAY 216 and \\'Hl):>EK (1921 ) each published copies which were based on poor pho­tographS taken d uring the excavation. In 1925 the tablet ,,-"" identified in the Istanbul musewn (A.II i) and WEIll'ER (1926) 70-71 made a re,isl'd COP) from a ne" photograph and cautioned that on" a collation of the original could lerih his COp" In 19-19 Kealts col­lated the fi rst column ,dth regard to the Kassite names, wh irh was then published b, WElD" R

(1939-1960) 138. Brinkman later collated lhe tablet for his MSKH (p. 4Ili), where he demonstrated how badly the tablet had deteriorated since iLs es("ration. GR.\I>;() \ \ u-;lIlslitc't<llion in RlA 6 (1980-19 3) is ba.sed Oil Weidner\ COpl in ,va 3 (1926) and Brinkman', collation . H e poillted out that the read­IIlg"l of tht, obvc l,e h,wc to be studied with great cau­tion due to lhe bad sta te of the tcst. J-;...\\' ~ Ili and the fragments li,ted below \\ere fonnel in A"IIf.

Smchroni,tir KL Ihrgments ,\ -E: \ : VAT 11931 (KAV 9) , B: \,Af 11 26 1 (KAV 10), C: \ 'AT 11262 (KAV II ) + VAT I I:l l:i (KAV 13), 0: \',\T II:tI8 (KAV 12), E: A.'-s. 1:1956 dh (KAV 182): \\'FJ[)"K (19 17.1) 3-5 and (1921 ) 11. Set' (,R\\ SOX (l9li9) 111 - 11 8 . • \.Be 271 and (1980- 198:1) 11(>- 125.

fH St-t' ROil u ~ ( 19ti9) ~!()~ .... :!77 tOi "6"·t.,p<.' Kl .... n ~tlneh p.,ral" 1("IIi\un~ ... 0{'\" '11.\l1 ,\lid Bahylo ni ;m king', "ith \ilriOtlS

lul>np .. " BI (1<.\\ ~Ili). B~ (10..\\ I ~) ,lilt! B:l (1<. \\ 9). Oi\l!iJOIl 011\.1 '" 111 to I", 2m'. :-\ul ,mel Ilh "( .. utung" b, \n ll~ \ }R (1921 ): ... imph: C 'I\I I1 ~'''' 01 ruk,,; ,u.lditionai lisli llg of rl:'igll It"u),;th, ane! "onl(' l1l1ll'~ li li ,ll ion.;;; !M\;\lld li..,lillH of AMnian i.tIld I\ab\ Ionian ruin..,; '1 1I et S\ 1\chroni..,tir 1\.1 _.., ""hi{h do 1101 li'l tht. hl'g inllin ~f\ oJ It'igth anel Ih<" l l'fon' ufll:'r unh' .Ippmxim.u(' ill f! IIIlI.\ li(HI (HI cont l'm pOI;\t"\

.. \,jng. (K.\\ 10,10..\\ 11 , 10..\\ 1:1, 1<.\\ I H~, 10..\\ ' ~Il\). ~ 1Ut'lHiOlIt'<i in lilt, \h.1 h~\gllll' !1t K.\\ 1M (\ ' \1' 1 205~): Ga..\\",-)\ (lqt)q ) II I _ II ~ \,jlll ( h i.mlll ~,,\ ill tht' hark {pp.

General

According to CRWSO' (1980) 181-182 the Assyrian Synchronistic KI.. belongs to category D of the chronographic texts (--> Chronicles) .' ''' In this text the As'pian kings and in its latter part ummnni?" (",;ce chancellors" or "roval secretaries") are paral­leled "ith their Babylonian contemporaries. The AsS}lian kings are usually listed to the right of the Babvlonian ntlers; only in KA\ ' 2 16 are Assyrian mon­archs listed to the left of tlleir Babylonian contempo­laries. for an exact description of the shape, compo­sition and dh;sion lines of the S}llchronistic KLs see BKt'K't"-x, PHPKB 27-29.

The list of ntlers starts off in the early 2nd millen­nium BC \\ith Adasi (no. -17) and ends \\ith the Neo­Assnian ruler As.surbanipal (668-627 BC) and his Bab,lonian counterpart Kandaliinu (6-17-627 BC). ln its complete state it started ,,ith EriSum I (Ass)lia) and Sumulael (Bab,·lonia) ·- After ti, e enwnelation in the colophon it is stated that 2 kings of ASSm ntled from F risum I to As.surbanipal and 9 kings of Akbel from Sumulael to Kandalanu, which agrees comparatileh well with the Chon,. KL (Erisum being tht' 33r<l and Assurbanipalthe 11 3"' king of ASSur. the difference belW('en the totals beingjl1sL one uniL: see POFBIl [19-13] 79"';).

The ro\al names are an,lnged in parallel columns, 1\10 set, of columns on one side ("double columns") . J-;.. \\" 216, of which onh two-thirds is presen 'ed , is divided into sections b, horizontal li nes usuall)' "how­ing one synchronic pair of nller~ .. In some case more than one n ller is listed in one Iltle. The rulers are

117-118): h.. \\ IR prt',el"\l'~ the portion or kings ~for~ hi;IIIH 11 t'Hding \,ith ;\,uihn 111. Onh one side j .. legible.: It i~ dh ided into [\\'0 Cohtltllh or \, hich the left o n.e .cont~ms lhe IhUnt', uf .\.. .... ,' dan Iwm'limJ. Tht' fi ... ~1 cOhm.lI1 b tdenucal

. I I \ 1. L but lht' fonmH i, compieleh dlfierenl (note \\"11)11(', ,,- . .- - t;)]?' I ) ai-o 1.\\1""'"",. [19" '11 \tiS ,lI1d RO\\l~" [19~. - . ' .

. I . . Il'll attt·.,ted t.'hewhere ,md lhe! efOle , TII1''' ..,,"(' \fOIlt,m I ' ,

i vl101ed. $t't;' Rot 11G ( 196.:;) 2,17.. ., 101': OR .. (\ I,) I I','<'bel , ludit'd till' .dt',ncpanncs 111 mllll·

II pp. 1:14"\·.... h . bering bt'lWt'cn tht, S, nciuonislil' l\L the epom,,, c ront·

Cll· ... ;lnd i lhcripl iun ...

\tl~",opOtilmi;ln (:hronolo~ of lhl' :!nd \lillenni111ll B(~

titled "king of Ass\1ia" (left ,ide in the case of K. \y

216) and "king ofAkbd (= Bab\lonia)- (right side in the case of K.-\Y 216) resp{'ctiyeh and are 'epa rat cd b\ double lines. The other Smchroni,tic KL. frag­ments show a different arrangement: there the ,-\""\1'­

ian king» are placed to the right of the Bab\ Ionian king" (see BRl"~\l-\". PHPK.B 27f. with illustrations of the basic stmeture of the mchroni tic KL).

Reign lengths are generally mi ing. K.-\\' 216 was probabh written by an llmmanll or at least under his upenision durin" the reign of Assurbanipal or

shortl\ aften,1Ird (GR.\\,<;()' [19,0-1983] II i). The AKL. BKL A and chronicles or other documents with historical information could have sened asource material. Some inaccul1lo with regard to synchro­nism can be obsened. The readings of the reverse ha\e to be used with some caution due to the poor state of the tablet. One lacuna can be found between the first and second column lea\ing a gap between the kings ASSur.saduni (no. 64) and Tukulti-~inurta 1 (no. 78). A.nother lacuna is between columns III and 1\' bUl inmh'es kings of the 1,1 millennium Be. '.

Fragments: '

\~-\T 11931 (K-\V 9) is a fragment which contains remains of columns 1lI and 1\' of the re\'. of a large tablet (of the ~TIchronistic KL?). ' A comparison with BKL A 1\', 1 &---22 reveal that abbre\iated names of the Babylonian rulers ha\e been used. The Ii t begins with Enoa-Adad I and records reign lengths after the Assyrian kings in the right column: these reign lengths roughly corre'pond to those of the AKL.' l:nfonunateh the corresponding Babylonian mlers on the left side are lost. At the point where the abbreviated names of the Babylonian kings stan the corresponding Assyrian kings are lost.

\:-\T 11261 (KAV 10) and \:-\T 11345 (KAV 13) belong together but do not jOin. A'S,,;an and Babvlo­nian kings were listed separately in [\~o columns: A~svr­ian mlers (column 1) ;>re presened from ~inurta-al;iI­Ekur (1191-1 li9) to Samsi-Adad IV (105:>-1050); and Babylonian mlers (column II , on ly here di,ided by horizontal lines) are presen'ed from Sirikti-Suqamu­na (985 Be) to ;-':abu~uma-iSkun (760?-748; several intervening kings are mis~ing due to the lacuna). ;-':0

attempts were made to list them synchronously.

" ... CR.\Y-.():,\ added an claborat(~ comrrwntary to hi .. tr3lhliwr­ation in RiA 6 (1980-1983) 120-121 referring to rcading\ b) \\'cidner and Brinkman.

'oY, t:" TQr comments on llit'S<: fragmeJw~ set- (,R.A\,~" ( I UC,9) 112-115. The) ~ere fir-, publi;heci by WfllJ\'R (1917) along with fragment,oftht' AKL (KAV 14 and J!) . Set'alw

l 'lIIl11iillli can be also found in these tcxt-fl1\gmCllIs. Till". this list fonnal" diffel"> from Ihe other syn­chronistic KG.

VAT 11:~63 (KAV 11) is formalh similar to KAV 216. except for the fact that the names of the BabYlo­nian rulers are {'mire" missing. It is possible that i11C}

had been inscribed on the left side of the original tablt,t (compare \\ith K.-\\, 12). ince there is more than one ruler in each segmem, the li,t was probabl\' organized b,' the Babvlonian kings. It starts with Enlil­nii~ir II (no. 67) and ends w;th Arik-d(;n-ili (no. 75), Thi, pan fits imo the lacuna of the 2nd column of K.-\\' 216.

\ 'AT 1133 (KAV 12) has the same format as KAY 216 (II, 12-18), but with the Bab}'lonian rulers on the left column. In contl1lst to all the other knOll1l ver· sions of the mchronistic KL (except perhaps for K.-\\. II). this list is organized b) the Babylonian kings. The s)TIchronizations in this list are considered reliable and it is thus regrettable that onl} 6 lines of it are presened (Isin II d\'nasl\: Nebuchadnezzar I -~larduk-nadin-abbe) .

Ass. 13956dh (KAV 182) is a fr1lgment from the lower central pan of the relerse of a large tablet, which originalh had two columns, each di,ided into foursulr columns <--\ss~Tian kings and wnmanu plus Babylonian kings and umllliiniJ). The format is qu ite different from oU1er S)11chronistic lists. The presen'ed pans extend from Ka;su-nndin-abbc (l007-1005) to Kandalanu (64i~27) and from Assurna,irpal I ( 1049--1031) lO

A"ur-etel-ilani (627-?). HOlizontal lines are at several points in the section of Babylonian kings.

Historical Relevance and Value for Absolute Chronology

The Synchronistic KL was obyiously composed for imemational purposes: a list of parallel reigns in neighboring kingdoms was established to coordinate the histories (royal successions) of Babylonia and Assyria ( Synchronistic History sub Chronicles)."'" Despite the faci that the Synchronistic KL docs not contain any reign lengths (excepl for KAV 9) or Glia­tions, thi~ text is valuable (or iL' information on Ihe numerou, contempol1\ry As,yri an and Babylonian rule" and the as>ocialeei hi'torica l evenL'.

ROIU(, (196:;) 234-241 ( A,,;;KL BI 'I with lhl' main Ll'xi A ilnd fragment\ B-D).

, .. ,I, [)(.(. al\o W"IJ)"'~ R ( 1945-1 n!J I ) RH. W,I For A~~lIr-uhallil l ~5 in\lt'itd of 3() p::aPi .Ire IhlCd .llId ror

Aclad-nilDri I ~i3 in~lt·itd of ~12 yt';.tfli.

"" I"I W (1911:\) 12-1:1.

l5. Synchroni'itic King List 189

When Wf Ill"! R (1917) first published fragments of the Sll1chronistic KL the line of A"yrian rulers up to 1500 Be was known. T he rt'ign lengths for those .iogs were reconstru teel on the basis of the BKL A (especially iLs totals of 576 years, 9 months and 36 .inS' for the K.Lssitl' dynasl\""') and the AKL (Nass. KL). Despite this time span the exact starting point of Ihe !\assite dsnasty remains unknown. mainly due to rI,e uncertainties concerning the Early K."ssite rulers. The Synchronistic KL is the only source that reports on the Kassite rulers nos. 7-13, but due to its bad state of preservation only the names Uarba-x (no. 7) and Burna-BuriaS (I. no. 10) can be reconstmcted, Traces of king no. 9 allow the restoration of Agum (II) ..... The subseq uent kings are nOI presen'ed in any of rIle known KLs: BRI"~\I"", MSKH 14ff. --+ Babylo­nia. The Sl11chronistic KL lists names of the first 13 !\a'Site mlers. but conflicts "ith BKL A I\ith respect 10 Ihe fourth anei fifth kings (Abi-Rattas and KaStili",u II): :\0 cOl1\incing explanation for this has been offered so far. The list of eight Kassite kings starting 1I1th Agum I is paralleled to Samsi-Adad II (no. 55). The firs t Ka"ite ki ng Gandas (only presened as IrGa (?)1.x-x) is listed paralielLO Erisu 11I (no. 56).~';

Puzur-,\SslIr 11I is known to have concluded a rrea~ IIlth Burna-Burias I (--+ Synchronistic History). The .-\KL implies Puzur-,\ ssur III ruled around the fiN quaner of Ihe 15lh centul)- The reigns of hi suc­,,\SOl) '-\-"ur-rabi I (no. 65) and ,-\.Ssur-niidin-abbe I (no, 66) arc 1I0t prescn·t·d in the AKL (--+ sub 2.6.). It is assumed that the reign of ASSur-nfidin-abbc 1 was ,horl. The reign of As'ur-rabi I was probably not too ,han, since four generations latcr this ling 11"'-' still included in the roval genealogY and is altestcd to

hale bt'en illlohed in bu ilding acti\·ities .. \ Ithough so far there is no way to separate their reign lengths. at Ira.-r two decades must be allowed for bOU1 rulers. The Burna-Btllia, mentioned in the S\I1chronistic Hi,torl was perhaps (but not necessarilv) the 'ame pel)()Il as Burna-Btll ias, father of Ulam-Burias ... •7 The Slnchmnistir KL names a Burna-Burias as tenth Kas-

.. DiI .... zangaben "lid BKL. , 8'''",1\\. MSJ,.IJ 11 - I :1.

BRI\II..\1 \\, \ISKII 11, 171 and t:~7 (t"011niel;\; .Iho occur with t~t' ,\KUIlI·k.akl illH.' ill 'ltriptioll. -). Ro),al lnscriptions). \nlt' th,u hl' j, \hu;,lh cOIl,i<ic.'1 ed to lx.' ,1 rOIlIt'lHtxlr.ll'\ of San\~uiht1l;l ( ~ BKL) ,lIld j ... tllll' dall'd 1\\u('11 l'arlit-r. FOI the- :\""'''11 ,\1 1 I tlll'l, 01 Ih~H tlllH' • AKL 'tlh 2.2.1. 'irt' ,11'0 BRI \t-.\1 , .... , " SKI I I ()~- 1 05 riting GOt'ttl" .If.S 17 (iI,HtI) !INf 81 illk.lIl.1l1 Plhllll,ued OIH:" t',lr" Burna-HIli;"; (thl;' It'mll l\il"',ih' k.in~{) .mel OIIt.' ( II) d.Hin~ to tht" \ m.lrn,\

site .. ~Ier and contemporary with Bme-Dagan II (ca. mIddle of the 16lh cent. "), who is separated from Puzur-ASsur III by 42 years. It has therefore been suggested that two different rulers with the name Burna-BuriaS existed"'" and the Synchronistic KL is therefore chronologically imprecise. Indeed, according to SAS.Slt-\."SHALSl', ~1DAR 6:>-64 (fol­lOlling BR"K.\l\", MSKH 28) the synchronisms of the SynchronisticKL between Samsi-Adad II and the early Kassite kings are incorrect, because it states that eight of Kassite mlers were contemporary \lith Sam'i­Adad II, who died 58 years before Puzur-ASsur III (ca. middle of the 16th cent.), and ruled for just eight Years. This would mean that these early Kassite rulers either had I'ery shorl reigns or/ and were partl} con­temporary ril1lls for power. BRIKK.I!A;>I, MSKH 102 10

thus stressed the "general unu-ustworthiness of 'syn­chronisms' given in the synchroni tic kinglist5 for precise chronological c.,lculations",

The Sealand I dynasty, ca. 17-!0-1~75 BC accord­ing to the \lC. is documented in the Synchronistic KL, as well as in BKL A, BKL B and the Dynastic Chronicle; BRl~K.\l-\." [199:>-1997] 7 offered a table of Sealand I mlers based on those texts after collation. At least 16 years hal'e to be allowed for Damiq-ilisu of the dynasty (see also GR.WSOI\'). A IGIS-EN (IDIS+U­EN), who is mentioned neither in BKL A and nor in BKL B, is in erted in the Svnchronistic KL as no. 6a before PesgaldaramaS (no. 7) of the Sealand dmastr­His reign lasted 12 \ears''''

¥\.II\D.\ ( 199 ) 2&---27 poimed out that the S)11-chronistic KL's statement ulat ASSur-oiidin-apli was the succe or of TukuIti-Ninurta 1 (00.79). is \'erified by the latter's own inscriptions. Poebel and Weidner reconciled this "ith the seemingly conflicting state­ment of the AKL naming ASSurnasirpal the SOil of Tukulti-:'iinurta b} suggesting that ASSur-nii"ir-apli and /\5!iur-nfidin-apli were brothers. A5Surna~irpal the murderer of Tukulti-;-':inurta I and /\5!iur-niidin-apli Tukulti-Ninurta's successor. This had been widely accepted. 1-10we\'er, as Yamada stre ed, only sources

pctioci. Ill' notes howe\er Ihal the dOClimelUJlion of the ('arh kL""itl' period i') much tOO .. caree lO offer any conelu-

::ii\ e l'\idt'nCl~. . ..,011 S\... .... '\I\ ... ":-H\l-~I':'. ~IO.\R 63: BIUt. .... Oa~1l II ruled dunng

the final H'~II"" ofunsudit;\I1<1. and Burna-Burii.ls I i ... 'U~ po~ed 10 il;lH~ lin'd :t[ll'r I ~m.e--D'-Igtin II .

<110\1 S\..."""l\""H\l'\t-:'\,MDAR63. .' <1':'\1 See SRI'.: ..... '!." ( 19ii) ~H7'~ for the rC'COlhlnlClion ~f thiS

l..in~\ reign length: 36c.~ ,caN (total of \ca~. ~,C('"oJ'dlllg 10 BKl. \ ) mimI'! 35H Hoar:) (tOtal of the other kll1g").

190 \It''OpOl.Ullian Chrollolo~ of the 2nd \1ilknnium B(

of the 'lh cent. Be mention .\.<;Sullla"irpal (Chronicle P and eho.". as well as 50 .. \$). and Yamada dl'mon­strated that lhis name \\'a!) due to '\(lib."ll confu,ion and that the murderer", well as the ,on m"'t have been As.'ur-niidin-apli - '" was con'en" recorded b\ the scribe of the "ass. hL. Thi, error could have occurred due to thc confusion \lith the kin~ Tukulti­"inurta II and his son .\ii'urtu"irpal II who rukd some 300 year, later. This pair of name' could h'1\e influenced the erroneot" entries of the .\.hL. which was edited on" about 100 years after .\iisur-nii,ir-apli II. The last AhL \'ef"ion ( 0.-\5) dcsign,nes .\ii'ur­na>irpal as Tukulti-"inurta\ I ,uccc sor. omitting Assur-niidin-apli complete". A~ Yamada noted. a number of close affinities can be found ben,een Chors. and 0.-\5 as opposed to "a<s. It i probable that the error which occurred in the AhL aho infil­trated such Babylonian text> '" Chronicle P, (in which incorrect data h'" been pointed Out) ! '"

BRI'''K.\l~-'. PHPIill 29 tressed that the pre~enta­tion of the first three Bab,lonian dma'tie in h..\\' 216 as consecuti\e means that the \llchroni,tic KLs should not to be interpreted literal". Other knO\m synchronisms prO\e that some of the data of the S\n­chronistic KLs is incorrect. Ho\\e\"er. onh· a few of the vnchronisms recorded in these Ii ts (including fragments) are mi taken: specifically, \Iulakkil­:\usku and :\ebuchadnezzar I. and _ 'inurta-apil-Ekur and \!arduk-nadin-al)he in K-\\ 12. These mistakes may have been caused by paralleling the AhL with the BKL \\ithout considering the o\erlapping d~nas­ties of the BKL, which aTe listed in succc"i\e order. Brinkman therefore remarked, "it is clear that theses

Y'71 See aho PfOfR.\t.:\ (19'")9) 369-37:~. who al~) did Ilot a("(('pl

the existence of a s<.'cono \(m of Tlikulll-~inurta I. 'I he fOil.

fusion rna)' lx' due lO mi\(('a(ling of th(' Il)gogrdll101 PAP (-+ AKL ,ub 2.2.1.4.).

"nrhronistic kingli.ts cannot he used as proof for ~nl\ \\t1chronism withollt supporting c\"idence." Nev­ertheless, the, are a ,aluahlt, chronological sOllrce for the Olhen,ise poorh documented Babylonian periods and prO\ ide synchronistic ties with historical t~\enl'i a~ "et.~n from all \ssyrian point ofyiew. Despite Ihe fact that sOllle of th .. smchronisms arc unrdi. able, the ,ucce"inn and ,equ('ncc of rulers agrees "ilh the AKL and ELs. 5inc(' no regnal ,ears or other hints al ab.olllte datc, can be found in the Synchro­nistic Kl.. thi~ list mainh sen'('s as an important source for relati\c chronolo~ and synchronisms bet\\c.'en .\s~~ ri~Ul and Babylonian rulers,

At the end of the text the number of ruling kings is recordcd. It is consistent with other KLs. Further e,idence on the '~llrhronism' and e\enlS that took place in the relevant period has to be drawn from Ihe chronicle, (such a.s Ihe \1lchronistic Histol), Chroni· cle P) and rO\al inscriptions. And the 5\nchronisms in Ihis hL must be supponed b, funhcr <,\,dence before the-. can be accepted. ". ince the S)nchronistic KL lists the rule, of the fi, t three Bab,lonian dmasties con· <cwti\ely, though parb of lhese d,'lasties overlapped, it is not to be imerpreted literall). :-./r,,·ertheless, this list contains \-aluable hiStorical and chronological infor· mation: in panicular the kings of the Sealand 1 and Earh Ka..,ite dy"a.ties, which are, with the exception of BKL A, otherwise poorly documented.

Links

AKL, BKL, Babylonia, Chronicles, Historical Epic, "-assitc O"nasty, RO\-allnscriptions, Scaiand 1 Dynasty, Smchronistic Ili.,tol)

'11'1. Fx.unpl('~ h<l\.."(' h('('ll qllolt'd by I\IU .... KM.\N. PIIPKU 29.

16. YEAR (DATE FORMULAE/YEAR-NAMES, DATE-LIsTS/

YEAR-LISTS, REGNAL YEAR, ACCESSION YEAR)

General

16,1. Dale formuJae/year-names, Date-lists! Year'lislS, Regnal year, Accession year

Throughout >"Iesopotamian hi,ton \-ariOLL~ methods for designaung and memoli/ing \pecific years were emplo,ed. Year designations can be cla"ified into IwO group' depending on their use in different gcogt-aph­ie areas and al 'arious times: (I) dating b, number (of the regnal ,ea' of Ihc' king: ~lL x IV'"'! R.: '), and (2) dating by names (official! cpomm in A'S,ria, or e,ent, i.e. ,ear-name, in Babdonia). TIl(' earliest ')Stem of counting wa~ by ycar-name't, These were chosen b\ the roral authoril' (",ea. in which .. ... or ·,car folim,ing the one in which ..... ). Each veal' was gin'Jl a name which comnwmo)<lted an importanl en' nl, which usu­

alh look place in the war preceding thal, in which the rear-namt.' "as aoualh u"it'd, This s\ ... tem was fit .. t applied lowa.ds the end of the Earh Omaslic pe,iod and officiallv in usc during tilc \kkad, l'r III and (Earlv) Old Bab~llJnian periods (24,h to mid-14'h cent. BC)"" The ruler, of Ihc' Akkad cl\'n'''t' were the fiN to introduce a n'lltrali/ed dating ,,\stem b\ naming their ~eal" for the whole coullt)"'y in both Sumerian

and Akkadian. In ordc'. to compile the ,ear-names in their c()tre<l rhronological sequence lists of \('a,­name\ or dal,-lish werl' kq)(, which can be' (om pared 'ith EU. Th,',e lists or ye"II-namcs help place daled documellls chronologicallY and providc a frame\lork for '''''nl, during a king's reign. Till'\ often offer his­IOrical information Itll Ie" "ell dO('lIl11l'ntcd periods. In Mlme fa."C.·" a \('qut'llce of significant OCCl1rrence~ in a Kilen "'ign (all he rt'CO'hlllltled from Ihem (e.g.

?n tht' rlo't' 1(·l.ltiollship Ill'lwt't'n \c"'al"-ll;unt" .. md rm.d ~I IlbrriPlinth ('t' IIlH{"'H I (~OO:') 20 1-202.

KRf( inK - MI"II !-It ( I q7!l) tH, \.\It dl.' .\ l it.'mop (1999) 20. Stt 81(...\ (2(Ht\) :t~)O-:V):\ 011 tilt' dilliful" 01 rhmllo\ogi­

aU" ()rg;.'lIi/in~ till' n',l1 lonnuLu' alh, ... u.'d in the..' It"b lrom f.bla. SIlt' '''''''It'cll'' I \1 7: •. (,.1~7 ( \RF I Ill,IOO) . whirh mrnrion, ,t 't.'lln 01 ,',('n'" ill cllIOIlOlo~i("L\1 or<it.'r thallnuk. pl.ut' \\ Ilhin .I pnioti (Ii 't" t'll \ (';\1 .. , fhi, Il'"\1 p;n

f1I illltb \C)I11t" Inn~ IIlt'tal Il'"\t ...

BRt,,,-,,-,, (19711) :1I1, \" S. ,1-1,' (I \ln7) ti~-7Ii .

Ebla'·"). Date-lim were kepI from the U r III period until the end of the Bab} Ion I dmasty.

In the late Earh Dvnastic III period (LagaS. Umma, Zabalam) also appear the first known instances of dating b\ regnal ,ears: ) ear x of the reign of R.'\'. At first. the year usualil referred to the gover­nor of U mma. BUI since gO\'ernors frequently changed and their names were not included in the date, the s,stem was soon abandoned and replaced by the year-name s\·slem. The so-called MU-ITI ("year-month-) dating "slem was also used at the end of the EarlY' Ol'na.stic and beginning of the Akkad periods. It apparently emerged from the numerical s,stem of late Pre- argonic LagaS and Umma. It was used to designate texIS bl lhe era of an [:>lSI ("ruler"). Hence, before the Sargonic period in the 24th cent., three dating 5\ (elllS were used side by side: r('gnal years, \eat-names and po ihl" eponyms. The best ,,-;}, of keeping track of the regnal years was to compile lislS of kings "ith their respective length of reign. D\ naslic datt'· .. lists al 0 prO\~ded material for thc KLs (ShL, BKL), "hich recorded ti,e numbers of dalc fort1wlas for cach king (Iengtll of reign).'"

The \ear-natne desc.ibing an e,'em was usually wriuen in Sumerian. seldom in Akkadian. U ually se" .. eml variations in the naming of one specific \'ear (date f0l111ulae or year-name) are available, which some­times rnakes its identification difficult,47- The system of naming ,ears after e,en IS was used beyond the end

of Ihe Babvlon 1 d\'l1'''I' inlo the Dark c\ge (-+ below sub 16,5,). It """ followed, starting "ilh the Kassite ruk,. K;lda.sman-Enlil I. in Ihe Hlh cent., bl' the num­bering of ycars each king's reign (regtlal \eat'S).'"

192 ~l('sopotiunian (:hronolo~ of the 2nd \Iillennium Be

We therefore do not po e a continuous list ofyeat'i in their proper sequence stich as the. nians IllU"l

have had. The regnal Year ",tem \\, u ed until 280 Be. when dating b\ "eras" (Seleucid. A.rsacid) became the standard system. which it continue to be today. The "era-5\stem - was introduced at the beginning of the h lh cent. Be b\ Rim in of Larsa after hi> con­quest of Isin: but it was not in use long after him.

Date-Ii ts covering reign, or dynasties ened as the ources for the reign lengths in lli. Date-lisb usual"

cOY'ered two dmasties on". while the :\ippur recen­sion of the li. for instance. listed all the dmasties thought to have ruled in lower ~Iesopotamia from the flood to the fall of [sin. In contrast to the date-lists. the li was organized b\ cities (and therefore aI 0

referred to as a ·ci~ Ii to) and Ihed in succession dmasties that had been in pan or wholly smchr<r nous." " Date-lists or year-Ii ts (\'Ls) compiled year­name in chronolo!!ical order and were composed as an aid for the identification of the chronological po i­tion of any particular year-name in relation to other y·ear-names. TheY' also prOYided such historical infor­mation as the sequence of significant occurrences \\ithin a reign ..... \'Ls contain the name of the king and the number of regnal years (counted until the king died). These lists are considered one of the mo t reliable chronological sources for the period before 1600 BC and help c1arif) some of the problems \\ith the KLs. \'Ls are knoym from the yd millennium BC onw·ards. though incompletel\'. Of course. many prob­lem remain due to broken passages. conuadictions between lists, and year-names unattested in them but kno"n from other SOurces. Furthermore. no \'Ls exist for mo t of the dp,asties oflocaJ petty rulers (one of the exceptions is ESnunna·"). This means that in many cases the order of vear-names may be estab­lished only b\ the recon~truction of ar'chi\es and prosopographical observations.

'm The SKL had a specific historiogmphic and ideological purpose: the h\l was to demonstrate lhe exi~tence of a dhine Mkjngship" that mO\ed from city to city. It v.'a.\ creat­ed from indhidual KL~ from \'3.00U\ cities, which were "pa.\led" LOgelher in one long, M:t'rningly continuom list­but thi\ rt'$ulteo in the sepannion, \()rnctimes bv ccnlurie!). A Inlh linear \t"quence was follo'ncd b,,' the 'newly pub­lish<d t;SKL (SIT, "'.U..fR [2003] 267-292) from .h< ;ec­ond half of the Ur JIJ p(.'riod, which contain\ a "'ingle li )t of the rul~n of Kj~ followed by at It"a..,l lhree olher dyna\lie). According to the LSKL, king\hip, after it de~("ndcd from ~l-a\en,. sta)ed in Ki~ until Sargon J. Other d)na\lie men­uoned 111 lhe SKl.. were not acknowledged by the USKL (S .r",,,.u. [2003]276).

The , li is the main source for MeSOpotamian ~hr(ln~logy priorto the Ur 111 period. The lengths of .ts earhest d\.uslJes are clear" mythOlogical. In gen. eral the Illll~be.~ starting \\ith the Uruk III dynasl)' seem to be real and therefore probabl) should be con idered "historical": see rmlfR (1988) 1291T., who ne\erthele-.s belie\cd that some "legendary" numbers were calculated according to a certain scheme. According to VOl "G. j.VES 47 (19 8) 123-129. some of the numbers. because they are ums. multiples or squares of 60. appear to be artifi­

cial. EnHRD (1980-1983) 81 belieyed that all num-bers in the RL up to 60 can be considered real (for in tance the 60-\ear rule of Rim-Sin of Larsa). Still, the e -real" numbers need to be confirmed by other source~.

Because date-lists and category A chronicles of the first millennium BC have identical literary patterns. GR.wso,. ABC 6 suggested that after the replacement of \ear-names (and date-lists) b\ regnal yea.~ the scribes still continued to compile such texts. Ilowev­er, he stressed that this is purely hypothetical since no such texts are known from the transitional pedod coinciding with the Dark Age. Perhaps other factOl~, such as divination, generdl interest in history or the traditionallv consenati\'e attitude of the Babylonians ma~ ha\'e played some role in the presen'3tion of "outdated" modes of dating. KLs are considered to be a further stage of date-lists, in which the number of lear-names or regnal years for each king was added (summaries of date-lists; GRAISON [1980] 172-177). Category A is defined by the cha.acteristic phrase "the year whl'1l ... " and "x were/art' the Jew', oJlhe killg .... ' The first independent KLs of category A are the Larsa KL and lhe Ur-Isin KL (~ BKI..).

The main source of error were th .. so-called MU US.SA year-names ("the year fo llowing the lear" or "double-dating" according to ED/ARD [1957J 27.

'H, See <;C:J.\1J1)J'K> (1952) 14-16 or P.,.,,,rKA (1998) 21: prolr lem.., ariM: when elm(' fonnula(' .... ere not noted within Ihose dal<-li,e,; further, ",;.call<d MU • S.SA dales ("Dopp<l­dalierungen" according 10 En/Al{n (19[.7] 27-28) cornpli­("d t(· tht· ;ilu<lljon (--+ below), See ~II~() GonmHu~ (2002) 25.

'.1 See SAI'ORfl·11 (2()()O) 913-920 dealing with lhe ycar·nalllt!) pubh,lll'd by IIAQI •• Sum" 5 (1919) 3'1-84 and 13(; ... 143 (Nar3rn-Sin, Dadu\i:I ami 11>1\1-pl-EI II : twO dale-lj~l5 are shown in pholOgr.:lph on PI'. H5-8G). For a hi'iwrital as'ie~\j­ment of ESllllnna ';{Oe YlJIO~(; ( 1994 ) LInd 1110re rt'cclllly CIJARI''' (2001) b1-<iR, Imll'",.

'''''1 for II Ii,\! of leXL'i hdonging to Lhi!i c~tll"Kory set' CRA\WN, AnC 5. On such lists of til(: Babylon J and the L:usa dynas­tie\ "S(·c GRAY'j(J~, ABC, Appt'ndix A.

16. Year (Date FormulaelYear-Names, Date-Lis15!Year-Lisl5, Regnal Year, Accession Year) 193

1I0R.,r-;ELl. [1999] 139-147 proposed the translation "provisional years" for this term) '"'' MU.US.SA year­names were used up to the point the official name of the new year was known (ROWTON [1970] 198)."'" This "renaming" clearly bears the seeds of confusion and errors, the more so since \'Ls omit most of the US.SA years. Another potential source of confusion is the numerous abbreviated forms of year-names.

Year-names relating to the lime after the fall of the Babylon I dynasty, the Dark Age, are known from texts from Terqa in Syria and Tell Mu~ammad. The year-names from Tell Mul)ammad might be especially important for Mesopotamian chronology since they may contain some important information on the resettlement of Babylon by the Kassites. These year­names, which also refer to a lunar eclipse, have been included by GASCHE el aL in Dating ... 83-89 ( ... below sub 16.5. ). The Kassites, according to the evidence from Terqa"" ruled the kingdom of tlana along the Euphrates. also employed the traditional year-name system. [n the year-name of an unpublished text con­flicts between Kuwari and tlattum (written tlattu/ J:latte) , perhaps Uatti (?), are reported, which po i­bly dale to the beginning of the 17th cent. according to the MC (RoUAULT, MDAR 55). Rouault conse­quentl)" argued that Terqa was under Kassite control before Mursili I, who caused the fall of Babylon . by identifying the name lausa \vith the Ka ite king USse, who is attested in BKI.. A (BRlNKlItA.'I . ~ISKH

173-175). and identifying KaStiliaSu ofTerqa \\ith the well known Kassile king Kasti liaSu II , probably a con­temporary of Ammi~aduqa.'1S6 For the rulers ofTerqa ..... Babylonia. The year-name system was abandoned sometime after the fall of Babylon [ dynasty and replaced by regnal years.

An extensive study on issues pertaining to the chronological order of year-names, ti,e year-name y-

Variam: M CIBl l.(4) (ia EGIR) in combination with (he preceding rear-name: PIEl'..'TIv\ ( 1998) 23-24.

, .. A cording 10 Widell. JAC 17 (2002) 107-108 aflcr Ihe beginning of a year a period of discussion on how that \car should be named onen fol1o\\'ed, causing a delared prochl­malion. The OS.SA )ear was used in parallel with the offi­cial "new" year-n~m\e.

.., POll '" (2002) 3S-39. For another identification with K:.lhilia§u 1 see Poo_"" (2002) -'3fT. alld t"'ip. p. 48 Wilh respecl La the proposed chronologit,s (now thal she proposc') another line of Terqa-king,») . It is lInfonumllc thal so little is known .1OOm the Ka~~ite kings mUlled K:.l~tiliasu .

!J1:17 St'e \'01. I, 149ff. Promulgation document;;; are tablets con­taining 0111)' one' year-name recorded fOi its own sake. Year­lIiune, wert' oOiciall) promlllg-~\led each )ear. St'\ eral 'iillch

tern (purpose and function , problem of the term · promulgation document, - , identification of their "Sitz im Leben- ) and the transliteration of 20 date­lists (including description of their characteristics, publication history. attempted reconstruction of orig­inalline arrangement and size, chronological succes­sion) of the kings of the Babylon [ dynasty, covering ca. 300 years, has been published by HORS:-'ELL (1999; see p. 175ff., see pp. 215-218 for the time spans each date-l ist covers). The length of each king's reign is established by HorsnelJ, followed by a discussion on the chronological order of lear-names. On p. 233 Horsnell summarized: •... They function as primary sources for significant historical information present­ed in a chronological framework. Their chronologi­cal reliability is attested b)' their contemporaneity \vith the period in question and by their close agree­ment with each other regarding the number of years C k'" "'l/l9 .or a 'mg s re.gn. ... .

Value for Absolute Chronology

Like eponl'ms, year-names are an important source for chronology. Due to their content the)' also help establish synchronisms or links to specific events that allow some further chronological conclusions. The kings of the ancient world usually reckoned their reg­Ilal years according to the calendar vear.""" As it was rare that a king would actually become king on the first day of the year. the fraction ofa ) ear between the actual accession and the beginning of the first full year was dealt with the following way: The remainder of the current year, after the dealh of ti,e old king, was called tile "acce ion year- (year zero) of the ucceed­ing ruler.~11 His first regnal year (or "official acc.. ion" year according to HOl~nell [1999] 13693) su'lrted with the next calendar year in spring (Babylonia) or fall (Assyria. but some exceptions are attested-) after his

documents rrom the reign of l-bmmu-rapi' onwards have been found. The) give the year-name in umedan on the obwrse ~lI1d Akkadian on the re\'efSe. Such documents

"ith the AJ .. kadian \ersion onl\ are r.u·e.

PIt''-'''' ( 199 ) 2~25 • SimilarlY Goddeeris (2002) 317 ... 319. .

~I(I A S\ nchronistic lie or co-regenc), is anested when tWO ktng'i afC named ~ide by side in an oath in a legaJ document:

Coddeeds (2002) "27. IlQI See BRI' .... \t-\~. ~ISKH 403 on the lenn ~tU . \C NA\1.

LL'CALL.\ . \\!hich i .. known from the reign of Kada.Sm~Ul-

Enlil II onwards. . '':11 T~n\lOR,JCS 12 ( 1958) 22~O, 77-100 (on the d~~ng meth­

ods during s.argou'!\ 11 reIgn) ... ee t"\p. pp. _1-3~\. e

FtCIIS. &\AS B (1998) Bi rr.

194 :\tesopot3J1lian Chronology of the 2nd \1illt"IHlium Be

enthronement (--+ Calendar). The term "acce· ion year" is therefore used for the vear in which a ne" king ascended the throne. It corrt~ponds to the last regnal vear of the preceding king.

\ear-names also offer infomlation on militarv con­quests. building acti,-ities and oaths. and reflect hege-­monie and co-regencie . etc. The vear-names from the Akkad to the end of the Old Babylonian period were first compiled in 1938 by C,G'-W in RL-\ 2 sub -Datenlisten" \\-ith additions b, EBEU~G in RIA 2. pp. 194-195 and 256-257. A Ii t of year-names from the Earh Dmastic period onwards is published online b, SIGRIST and DA .. ,lf.ROW."'" An updated list of year­names of the Babvlon I dmast) "ith an hi torical eval .. nation has been published by PI£SThA (199 ) ... and HORS~ELl. (1999; including discus ions on chrono­logical problem for each king of the Babylon I dmasl)·). The order of other local rulers during the Babylon I dynast) still remains uncertain (no YLs have been recovered) .... Almost complete lists exist for the Larsa dynasl\' and the Bab,lon r dynasl\' up to Sarnsuiluna. and fragments are knOl." for lsin and ESnunna. In general date--lists are chronologically more reliable than KLs. In his useful chan WAllER (1995) 233ff. paralleled the reign lengths of the Babv­Ionian rulers attested in KLs \\ith date-lists (columns 4 and 5). In Dating... 0-81 CoLE pointed out that discrepancie and uncertainties exist for the recon­struction of an accurate relative chronology due to the numerous difference among sources for the reign lengths of the indhidual Babylonian kings. Sometimes the number of lear-names exceeds or falls shon of the reign length found in KLs by one year:'

Ibbi-Sin: 15/24, 25 (SKL) or 24 years (Ur-Isin KL and rear-names)

Cungunum: 27 (Larsa KL) or 28 ,ears (year-names)

Warad-Sin: l3 years (year-names) rather than 12 years (Larsa KL)

Rim-Sin I: 61 (Larsa KL) or 60 years (year-names)

"" hUP:i'cdli.ucla.edu IIOOIs',earnames/YTI_index.htmi (Aug. 2(07). An indhidual tudy on year-names of the Ur ill peri­od IS by SIC,RJSf - eo", (1991) and on the !sin-Ursa period

.... by SIGIU!>T (- KRO\fHOlZ),lAPAS 1,2 and 3 (l9R6-1990). P,entka speciahzed on the period be,,,een the rule" Abi­eSub and Samsuditana.

'" On the ~ear·names from Mari see now Cf-IARPJ' _ ZIH .. UR (2003).

~'" Th I ' e syn(" lrOOlsrns betv.·een lhe Babylonian rulers have been worked out by EOlAllD (1957) and STOI (1976) before

W1 (-> Synchronisms .ub General) . Note also CIIARPI' (2001). See SAI.u.B'RCFR (2004) 38 (Tabelle 6) On .11 the varianL' in KLs.

Bur in: 22 (Ur-Ism KL) or 21 lears (SKL and year­names)

Ella-imitti: 8 (Ur-Isin KL) y . 7 years (lealCnames)

Itor-piSa: 3 (Ur-Ism KL) , . 4 years (SKL and year­names)

Urdukuga: 3 (Ur-Ism KL) , . Ilears (SKL and year­names)

Damiq-ilisu: his reign length is only preser'ed in the SKL

Ammi>aduqa: his reign length is onl\ preserved in BKLB

amsuditana: his reign length is onl . preserved in BKLB

16.2. Ur ill Period""

l8lears

48 years

9 years

9 years

24 years 99!l Bbi-Erra

CoLE'S primarv goal in Dating ... 77-83 was to deter­mine the time span bel\veen the fall of the Ur III d~nast:y (established by a lunar eclipse mentioned in EAE)Yf) and Ammi,aduqa's first year. He calculated this to be 359 or 358 years. This had to be subtracted from 1912 or 1911, the computed date of tJ,e lunar eclipse at the time of the fall of the l' IJI dynasty, to find the first regnal year of Ammi~aduqa. BlIt the 8-year Venus cycle also had to be taken into account. The two options tumed out to be 1550 or 1558 (-t

Astronomical data). The authors of Dating ... , 80-83 opted for 1550 (separation of 362 or 361 years). which resulted in the synchronism of Ibbi in year 24 with ISbi-Erra year I I ( below for the corrected syn­chronism according to van de Mieroop). The syn-

. According to SAI.I.AIUR(.ut (2001) 37 lhc' 25 i'cars .ulesled

in ule SKL could be aJ\o be aCfcplcd. ." CIA"". (2000) 386-391 presented a study on the end of

dynasLiCli, ('~peciall y the fdll of the r III dynast)' invohing Ibbj·Sin, Kindallu of Elam and Hbi-Erra of lh(' hin I dyna~ty. On the fall of Ur 111. il\ Lextual evidence and cau'd') 'ICe Will"", 7.11 60 ( 1979) 54-69, ,ub Ibb,-Suen and "hbi-Elfa in RIA 5 (1976-1980) alld SAJI.AB'RGfR (1999) 174-178 (on the uoc "fyea,-nallle,). On the 1,,11 of the Ur III dyna"y 'ee al", Pon, ( 1999) 112-144 (r. 142: "the rclationship between Jbbi-Sin, Ishbi-Erra and Kindatlu i\ faa from lr-.tn~pa l elll and spcnilaliol1 on il ha~ been great").

10. Year (Dale Formulae/Year·Namcs. Dale--LislS/year·Li.sts, Regnal Year, Accession Year) 195

chronism between the rulers of the Ur III and the Isin I dynasty is vital. It was assumed that the lunar eclipse associated with Ibbi-Sin's downfall took place in his penultimate year which accordingly resulted in a gap of 362 years. They calculated for year 1 of Ammi,aduqa the year 1550 BC. The penultimate year of Ibbi-Sin was dated to 1912 BC and Sulgi's penulti­mate year to 1945 BC.

Considering the difficulties with the computation of tJle lunar eclipse of the end of the Ur 1lI dynasty, one might decide for the data presented in date­Iists'~10 rather than rely upon the doubtful astronom­ical data. SALlAllERGER (2004) 15-43 presented the chronology for the Babylonian dynasties starting with the Akkad period, and showed that based on the information provided by the date-list UET I, 292 from Ur, ISbi-Erra year 1 corresponded to Ibbi-Sin year 8"'" This provides us with a link to the partJy contemporary first ruler of the succeeding Isin 1 dynasty. for linking the Ur III dynasty with Old AsS)T­

ian rulers --+ Eponyms sub 10.5.

16.3. Early Old Babylonian Period: Isin-Larsa Period''''''

The succeeding Isin-Larsa period of two and a half centuries came to an end with Hammu-riipi"s defeat of Rim-Sin in the lauer's 60,h year. In his treatment of the "Zwischenzeit", EOZARO (1957) 10-1 3 summa­rized the main sources for its history including year­names ("Jahresdaten") belonging to the primary sources.'o'" On pp. 26-29 he presented the use of year-names and the irregular intercalation (control of seasons, lunar year). He listed and discussed syn­chronisms conccrning the so-called "Zwischenzeit" dynasties on pp. 18-25 (based on studies by KRAUS,

jCS 3 [1951] 21-24 and MATOl'S, ArOr 20 [1952] 292-298; the numbers of the Isi11 list were preferred). The interconnections between the Isin, Larsa and Babylon I dynasties have been dealt with and pre­sented in a table by IGRIST ( 19 8) 8"'" and AL­

IABERGER (2004) table 7, who summarized the d iffer­ences bctween the KLs and various date-lists. The year-names of Larsa kings were treated sepaIately

lI·o{)Seeah()Cole in G\..'KIU ,taL,Datmg ... 1!27 . 1t")1 For lhi, ,,,nchroni'i1U see \'A:-'; OF MII"ROOI'. OLA 24 (19 7)

125-126 and hi' publication BIN 10 ( 1987). See also S,!;"", (1988)1 (" ilh further lil.) .lIld GIURP" (200~ ) 38-1 (Wilh lable). In contrasl (; \..\U I. rt al .• Dalmg ... 82.

UNI:.' Lik~ L\NOSl1nU;.R (195-1) 120, Edzard \\'~1fned about ab30hllt' d.lling for lhi3 period. EOHRO (1957) 25 de~ided to follo\\ lhe Me lhroughout his "toci)-, allhough thIS W'lS

appliNI ilfbitmrily. rhe main purp 3(' of quoting numbers \\'i.l'> to facilitale cross checking ,,'ith other I .. ,bles.

by SIGRlSf - KRO\IHOLZ (1986). where he pro\ided a list of kings with the reign lengths as well (p. 3). CoOOEERlS (2002) offered an introduction to studies of the early Old Babylonian Period (2000-1800 BC) and mainly concentrated on the textual evidence from Sippar, Dilbat and K.iS (on the dating system see esp. pp. 24-26). She emphasized that the kings' names (Babylonian and local) are mainly known from year-names and oaths as well as clauses referring to miSiimm acts. ,~" According to the date-lists and lists of the reign lengths of the kings of r and !sin (--+ BKL) the Isin-Larsa period lasted 254 years. The end of the Ur 111 dynasty took place 224 ±I years before Hammu-riipi"s accession (--+ below for the Sjnchro­nism bel\veen Rim-Sin and Hammu-riipi').

Synchronisms between lsin land Larsa dJ1/asty (Eoz.o\RD [1957] 20-21):

ISbi-Erra year 1 & NapHinum year 9 Lipit-lSlar year 11 & Cungunum year 9 Ur-Ninurta accession year & Cungunum year 9 Zambiya year I & Sin-iqiSam year 5 Damiq-ilisu year 23 & Rim-Sin I year 19

Synchronisms between Larsa and Babylon dynasty (Eoz.o\RD [1957] 22_24):'006

Warad-Sin year 2 & Sabium year 12 Rim-Sin J year 60 & Hammu-riipi' year 30

Ou/'rlappillg oj Ur J[J d),nasty and Isin I d>nasty:

ISbi-Erra & Ibbi-Sin (to Eoz.um [1957] 24-25 the exact synchronism was till unknown; for that reason a synchronistic history between Ur III and Isin 1 was not po sible: see ET 1,292) --+ above sub 16.2.

Sigrist collected and published the Isin year­names as well as the Larsa year-name (starting with Cungunum) u ing !\Ie dates. The BKL and the SKL offer additional evidence on tJle relation between the Isin I kings and tJle beginning of tJ,e Old Babylonian period. For an updated list of Sjnchronism berween the mlel of the r Ill, the Isin, the L'11'sa and the Bab Ion I dynasties see CHAAPI;': (2004) 3 4-387.

I"" e also SToL (1976). Towards the end of this period the lelterS of Mari with their polilical correspondence becomes important as well: OURPI' - ZIECUR (2003).

10l'104 For more s'1lchronistic ties -. below sub Babyton 1

dynasty. . l()(l,\ CAD M2 116 "redress: legislathe act lO remed)' certam ec~

nomic malfunctions" lOO~ For a shift of 2 'cars for the date of th~ L .. in I rulers and

its onsequenccs see CHARPI1'\ (2004) 38·1- 7.

196 \te,opoldllli.m Chrol1ololt' of tht" 2nd \hlknnium He

16.3.1. !sin I D}nascy

16.3.2. Larsa Dynasty

33 ",<Irs 10 , eal'i

2] H?ilf'l

19 \ eaf\ 1001

11 'ean

2:"O,eaJ""'i

21 or 221

5 yeaf\ 10Ul

\ ears

6 month. 101

24 \"eaT'\

3 years

-4 yeal Ol:!'

-l "ears

II ,ear<;

23 \cars

21 years

28 years

35 ,ears

9)ean;

27 years

II years

29 years

16 rears

7 years

2 yean

5 ) ears

I year

13 )'ea,,' "

60 years'GIS

Ibbi "in

Cung-unum

Gungunulll

umuel100'J

in-iqisam

Rim-Sin 1

LipiL-/SLar, Ur-NinurLa

Bur-Sin

Zambiya, Sabilllll

SabiumllJ

'.

Damiq-iJi ~lI

''''So . an the Ur-hin KL' onl J 8 SICRIST (1988) 2 • r ye-dr-n~me:\ arc atte~l(:d;

'''' 5 . II/It SKL: 4 .• _ .

. . )<af\, only Lhl(' (' y(' ;u'-name~ art' known from Ihe L,-Je,u) KL. KL: 21 years: 51(.'" r (19M) 2' 22

: QI CffARPPIi (2004 77 '. . \-ear-narne,> allC'\ltd. 1011,1 SKL: 7years) referrmg to Stol and van de Mit'roop.

'Oil SKL P f ,. inv) 'Lhro~ Nlppur ad.d~ thj~ name (of ullC('naiJl read­

"WI a slx-moOlh rtlgn.

IIJn I ..ar\a KL: 12 y(~ar\ JUtl Indi'('(l Ii' .•.• . . yn(hron ' ~Ill, S. blliln }t:.lr 12 & W;'Irad-Sin yea l 2:

f. I>/.A." (1957) 22-2'j IQI~ •.

La!"\a KL: (j I yc.·ar.,

16. Year (DaLe Formulae!Year-Names, DaLe-Li"''''ear-L' R 1 ~ . f I' ISIS, egna ,ear, AcceSSIOn Year) 197

Schematic overview of synchronisms'"''

Ur UI dynast} II Ibbi-Sin Su-Sin Amar-Sin Sulgi Ur ammu

Babylon I dynasty Samsuditana Ammi5aduqa Ammiditana Abi-esuQ Samsuiluna Hammu-rapi ' Sin-muballi\

Apil-Sin

Siibium

umulael (Sumltabltm)

Table 34 on Iht' b.asis of W",,\'.Ihills.org cg·on chronology mesopotamia,hunl \\;m adaptions

16,4, Babylo n I Dynascy (--. Babylonia)

Year-name,; form the primary source for the history of the Babylon I dynast)'. Therefore it was an impor­lalll la,k to provide a hand), reference list for the

101h 1I ,{'ful 'Yllchnmi'lir li~l~ of ruler'! of lhe Lursa, Isin and Bab, Ion I c1yn.\,li{" can be found in M \TOllS. ,\ rOr 20 (1952) 295-29G, Fn/\RD ( 1957) ,\ nhang A (Me (Smilhl a11d LC ,.\ Ibright _ Cornrlill'ij; Iht' ex,lCI s\nchronism bel\\'{'('11 Ihbi-Si1l a nd ISbi-E.rra w.\s lhen llllknm\n). SIt:RI\ I ( 198H) H (yt'ar 1<>}"lIfh ron isllls). W, IIIT\h.FR ( 1989) 79 (Me), F.,,,,,, R I ~ I E 1 (1990) ",x- xxxi ( IIC), II ,"O

chronological p lacemel1l of documents with date formulae . The latest assessment of yeaJ~naJ11es of the complete Babrlon I dynast)' was published in 1999 by HORS.'>:ELL."''' I'tr,'T"--\ (1998) concenu-ated on the decline of the Bab Ion I dynasty, during the reign of

_ S"'PS<l' ( 199 ) 91 (MC) and CilARPI' (2004) 3 !>-39O

( ~IC) . Ion Note tht" lunar ec1ip:.t' lhat is mentioned in FAE 21 for me

cnd or Ihe L' r III d\,nast\,. ~ sub Astronomy. 10t~ I ll" ofTt.'red " description of earlier compendia on pp,

18-32, beginnillg with King's publication of date-lists A

and B ill 1900.

19 Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd ~1illenl,ium BC'

Samsuiluna. and prm;ded an 3! e_ ment of the texts from Babylonia and their distribution.'o!· Another md,' on the year-name of the Babylon I dmasn is in

preparation bv igrist. The reign length of Ammi.aduqa and Samsuditana are only preser-,ed in BKI.. B. which, however, contains errors and is there­fore con idered an unreliable chronological ource. RICHARDSO:-'; (2002) 2 propo ed a reign length of onlv 19 for .-\mmi,aduqa (-> Babylonia), which has not been generally accepted. I.,., A table of the differ­ent reign length anlOng the date-lists and BKL 13 was published by HORS:-';EU (1999) \"01. I. 22!>-226 (see pp. 86-87 for discu ion). He ummarized that due to their internal total of known Year-names the num­bers recorded in the date-lists usuall) prm'e to be correct.

The decline of this d\1lastV is especially e,idem from me destruction and abandonment of several important cities in umem Bab\ Ionia during its later pan. l1ley were not resettled until the start of U1C Middle Babylo­nian period. which means U1at m'chaeological e,idence for me transition period is basicalll' non-existenl.'·I! Still, P1EXTKA (199 ) 21 stressed Ulat me picture presented here is far from complete mld might easil) be altered by new or till Wlpublished text.>. dealing "im mis and the succeeding period. FIxlillSl"tl\;.jC 13 (1958) 3~9sug. gested new year-nmnes from near me end of Ule Babylon I dynasty may also be found on Wlpublished tablets from me Yale and ule British MUseWll collections."'" In par­ticular tl,e still-missing texts from SoutllCIll Babylonia could potentially alter ule picture of decline towards the end of me Bab"lon I d,nasn (Pll""TKA [1998] 7)."1"

1-4 vearsH".!4

36\ears '"

14 years

Atta-hu~u (Elam)

Sin-iqRam, Warad-Sin

1 years

20 rears ",,.

43 years lor.

38 years """

28 years " " 37 years I...,

Rim-Sin I. Kudu-zulu~ and Siwe-palar-huppak (Elam)

Rim-Sin U!""!Iuma-A.'I. Agum I and perhaps Kutir- ahhume '''·

Duma-A."I

21 years

31 years

300 years

Kuk-;-':~ur II (Elam)

1019 F ks P' ••• _. k or remar on Icnl,.at,.d. s wor see HORSSEU. (1999) \'01. 2, 29-31.

, ... See CHARI''' (2004) 390 for Lhe reign length, of the king. of the Babylon I dynasty (dates according to the MC).

'''''" Lh f Lh " ~'1Ole e attempt rom e archaeological Side by GASeHf. it aL, Dating ... based on pollery from Tell ed·DCr (Sippar. Amnanum) in !"':orlhem 8ab}Jonia and comparison'i from other ite5 (see map on p. 23). No reaction to this evalua. tion \\-iLh the implication for a NC has been publi~hed "Clo

'''''An . d' ' exlen Ive stu y on the penod of the decline of the Babylon J d)-nasty focusing on the reign of Samsuiluna including unpublished material i5 being prepared by F. van Koppen.

,~" Note the latest sludy on Lhe end of the Babylon I dynasty by RlCl-fAJUlSO' (2002) .... Babylonia.

"'2:4 BKL 8: 15 )'ears~ note that according to the ome,.valiolu by CHARPI~ (2004) 80-86 Sumuaburn W'dS not a ruler of

Babylon and presumably ru led cOlllempoliHlco1.l'l ly \\'ith SumulaeL

'"'' BKL B: 35 years. I.", BKL B: 30 years.

'"'' BKL B: 55 years. 1(0 BKL B: 35 yean. Itf19 On Kassite lhreats in hili and Salll\uiluna',\ lime see PnST­

K.A {l998) 17 and 258 (with fUlllier litenllure), Con flicts between Babylonian') ;:IIld Ka.'lSilC'S arc fir~t reported in the dale formula of the 9th year of Sarmuiluna, Another reft'r· ence late appears in one of tIl(' year·mulles of AbH.'sub· .... Babylonia.

HlW PI""TKA (1998) 16 (later tradition, no contemporary sources),

Ifl\. BKL B' 25 , years. Ifnt BKL B: 25 years.

16. Year (Dale FomlUlae/year·Names, Date-Lists/year·Lists, Regnal Year, Accession Year) 199

16.5. Tell Mul)ammad In their introduction of Dating ... , GA,CIIE et al. point­ed out that no Ii ts are known for me penod between

h . d of Babylon I and Burna-BuriaS II of me Kasslte teen . I' dynasty. and therefore Babylonian chronology. IS u u-mately based on synchronisms wi~ the Assynans. A

exists for the transition penod from the Old r~ylonian [0 me Middle Babylonian period. Inter­nal as well as external synchronisms of rulers of me first and second half of me 20d millennium BC can be established. as shown above (EDZARD [1957] and Stol [1976]). However. me lack of sources for me beglll­ning of ule Kassite dynasty results in an incomplete

sequence of rulers. . Most interesting in chronological terms are the

year-names of the texts from Tell Mu~ammad."I" which date from shortly after me reign of Samsu­ditana and report mat ule Babylonian capItal was abandoned for a certain amount of time follo",ng me reign of this king."" Tell Mu~mnmad has )'lelded the only texts from Babylonia which allude to the period after the end of the Babylon 1 dynasty and to Babylon's resettlemenl."'" Old Babylonian economIc tablets in levels 11 and 1Il '''' contain date formul:s

. " . x (3" AI) mal Bab)'lon was resettled. a)'lng: yeal V-"T •

According to me auUlOrs of Daling ... tillS year-name

I\I'~ At.UIl\1I) MA thesis. University of Baghdad (1983. unpu-, D' 84'38 Level I of Ihe

blished); see C\~lllt It aL. atwg ..... I II " ". p 'od Le\'es . site i"\ d-ned 10 the beglll1llllg of K,asslt~ ert .

~rll dat~ to the Old Bab}10niall Period ,md include1" Itel 0

1'11-

. ,bltge from leu' s -piC' :lIld houit'\. Tht: poue!)' ,\SSell • , ; h;L\ been as~odi.lted with tht' mater1 .. ,1 from Tell t'd-Dd, which date~ 30 >ea." before the f .. ,11 of Babylon.

14(.\."'I(m rtal,Dahng",83 " ft ,'ts LU~, In works on Me\opot ... ,mi.1I1 hi"itoJ;. the_ "b,e~ce 0., ex

1 h If ft r SamsUllun~l '\ final d,lltng to the century <\0( ;,\ a a e , 0 [1906J

h . I ("e e" '" II" 0 ,"'CJ.r i, p;rnf'ralh ernp .L"'('( 'l'I' 'T' II . bl· ·h-d texb from le l:>9ft.). Nott' th(' mo'\t1} unpu l:'!o ..

'\Iuhammad and T('rqa.

can only refer to a time after the reign of Samsudi­tana and therefore falls wimin the gap between the end of me Old Babylonian period and 1400. The abandonment and resetuement of Babylon referred to presumably alludes to me Hittite attack during the reign of Mu..sili ) and me site's later occupauon by the Kassites. Two others of mese year-names refer [0

a lunar eclipse said to have taken place 38 years after Babylon was resettled (-> Astronomical Data): MU.38.KAM.MA sa KA.Dl GIR-RAKt uJ/m ·year 38 that Babylon was resetued" (COLE. Dating .... 83-89: testimony for me first 170 years [LC] of Kassite rule in Babylonia). SA5S~IANNSHAlJSEN. OLA 96 (1999) 413--414 translates me phrase. "38th year after x sat down in Babylon" (referring to me installation of me Kassite dynasty in Babylon?).'·" but later accep:ed Cole's translation (see MDAR 64 and -> Babylorua). However. RICHARDSON (2002) 9 believes .mis year· name did not specifically refer [0 Babylon s rese.tue­ment so soon after its destrUction , but Just verifies mat Babylon was resetued. '1\311

Links AKL Astronomical Data. Babylonia. BKL. Calendar.

, E (Earl)') Kasslte Chronicle. DistanZmlgaben. ponym.

Dynasty

tu..~ The existence of (\\'0 different dating S) ten15 for l~vel ~l 1'1 '-.. bserved' The texts from level 111. \\'hlch ;;\1 e

and I can lJI;' o· h as tho...~ Id -cre dated by an indigenous System, \\' ere .

o. er'I'\ I II use bolh indigenous and the Babylo1l1an S)"S" hom c,e d . d' tion of alle-­t('ms This is generall, interprete as In lea

. .. I !(assile king (or to the king of the Sealru,d 1 ~ance to t 1C

d '1astv) in &"b\-'lol1. f ) , , ' ,-_" d Oil th(' shorten('d yeaNlames 0

I 'His translauon wa.' l"kl.3e .. 11 • .' od \ h('rt' th(' subject IS \1sua " th< Old &1bylontan pen .' mi .. "ing.

'''' See abo '.\1. (2001) 169.

GENERAL INDEX

8-year cycle --t Venus cycle

75, 77, 81329, 109, 142, 148, 161

* 14Cdata (radiocarbon data) 186,19,22,28, 125-126,

130-1 32,160-161

absolute chronology 18 passim accession years 119576,191, 193-194

Adad-njrilri Epic/ epic of Adad-njrali 177 passim Adad-sllma-lI~ur Epic 177 passim Aegean chronology 20,125601 ,129-130,132

Agllm-kakrime inscription 88, 95-96, 99445, 146, 175,184-186, I 9965

Agum letter 97

Akkad dynasty 74279,191, 194

Akkad eclipses 69, 74

A1alab (level) IV 100460, 174

A1alab (level) VII 95417, 164, 174

Amorite 167-169 ancestors' list from Ebla 48 137,85, 167836,168837+8!18,

172

an/aUum 75284

--t nam/aliu",

Assyrian calendar 104, 10&-108

Assyrian Chronicle Fragments 114

Assyrian Dark Age 50, 53-55 67, 76, 107, 134, 136 passim, 148-149,15,173

Assyrian Distanzangaben 27, 32, 50152, 61, 64-66, 106491 , 115, 119578, 133 pas­sim, 154- 155, 160, 173, 183-184

Assydan King List (AKL) 22, 24-25, 45 passim, 83-86, 107, 11 2, 115, 133-134, 136, 144-145, 152, 162, 164-165, 167-169, 171 863, 172, I 'I, 1 6, 188, 190

horsabad King List, Nassouhi King List and SDA King List

Assyrian /llIIli 153 astronomical data 19,22,69 passim, 104-106, 135

average throne tenure / reign 64,1361>17, 147, 172

bab IIlPpiSu

Babylon I dynast

* 54, 55 In, 62, 145, 173

25-26, 29, 34, 57, 79, 84 pas­,lilli, 93 p(lsim, 11 &- 11 7, 148, 167,169, 174, 19 1 passim

Babyloniaca 17 --t Chaldaica

Babylonian calendar 79,10&-108

Babylonian Chronicle series 112, 1/4

Babylonian Distanzangaben 87,90,95,100,123,146 passim, 180919, 183, 185

Babylonian King List (BKL) 26,192,195 BKL A 58, 83 passim, 99-100, 115,

117, Jl9-120, 123, 14&-147, 180,184,186,188-189,193

BKL B 83 passim, 93, 95, 189 BKL C 93 passim, 147, 153

Babylonian month 72, 103 Babylonian year

BALA (paW) battle of Naid

battle of Sugaga

Bavian inscription

Bazi dynasty

Black Obelisk

Broken Obelisk

buluiSllm

calendar

Odrus lwa ni

Chaldaica --t Babyloniaca

Chedorlaomer tablets

Chorsabad King List

72 8-1,87,151,167-169,184 381tH,59 118 25-26, 137648

121 112 107 97

* 22.52, 77-7 , 163-164, 165 126 17

117, 177 passim

26, 45 passim, 115. 136, 153, 187, 190

chronicles 22, 49 146, 85, 13 657, 171 , 184, I

Chronicle P 5 -59, 87, 89, III passim, 133, 14 ,177passi"~ 190

Chronicle of Market Prices I I I, 113 Chronicle BM 27796 III passim, 178-179

--t D)11astic C., Eclectic c., Epon 1n C, King C., 1>lal; Eponym C., Tiglath-pileser C., Tummal C and Weidner C.

chronological 'Stems 21 passim

dabam.IIIlZ11

Dark Age

date-lists

* 175 17,24.28-29,71, 6,91,95. 101 ,171 Passilll, 191, 193 83, 6.91,93, 112, 133. 147, 191. 195

202 ~1e"opotamian Chronolo!t' of the 2nd Millennium Be

Deeds of Suppiluliuma I 175

dendrochro!lolo~ 19. 22. 72>-76. 78. 125 ",mlll/. 135. 139. H . 156. 158. 160-161

Distanzangaben 22, 55, 101461 . 119, 133 pas­sim, I 3

~ Assyrian D .. Babylonian D. and Hiltite D.

Doppeldatiemngen 106"'. 1919;~-192 ~ ~fU ( •. SA

DUB-p,-su (fuppiS!~ ttlppiSu) 32.55 175.62-64, 120, 132>-136,139-141

dunnu 165831

Dvnastic Chronicle 3 passim, 100, lll. 113. I 9

• Ear" Dvnastic period 121. 191. 194

Ear" Kassite d~nasty 2441, 6. 93 passim, 117, 173, I 6, 1 9

Early Old Babylonian period -W--tl. 192>-197, 191 passim

Eclectic Chronicle Ill-112, 121, 123

Edict of Telipinu (CfH 19) 95

Egyptian chronology 21 ~6, 2 , 30, 59, 61, 76, 125601 ,137

Ekalliitum calendar 10 502

~ -antii-Adad calendar

Elamite chronology 307 , 173

Elamite interregnum 6353, 119

tliS 74

EniiTfUl Anu Enlil (EAE) 69 passim, 105

Eponym Chronicle Cb 76

epon)m lists (EL) 22, 48, 50, 52, 66, 107, 112, 135, lSI passim, 170, 191

epon}ms (limu) 22,48-49,52,58,63-65, 104,

107-108, 115, 133, 145, 148710, 151 passim, 176, 184

~ limu sam/limu sa sam, limuia warn; and Sa qme/qul; epon}ms

epon}m }ear

era

Eski Saray.

62, 107, 111520

191-192

127, 129

* fall/end of the Babylon I dynasty 24,31,40,74,86349,

94~~, 116, 147, 175, 185, 193, 199

CandaS inscription

genealogy

* 99445, 147, 183, 18.'>-186

22,50,61 216,134,167 jJallim, 171,176,180,186

Genealo~ of the Hammu-r"pi' DIIl"st) (GHD)

48 133, 49, 83-84, 167 passim, Ii I H'i.\ I 72

generation 28, 134,165, 169, 171 passim, I 6

generation length 22, 65, 99410. 145-147, 160, 171 passim

Guti Gutian dlnast\ period 91391,94,167, 169

* Hatipler Tepe i 127

high chronolo~ (HC) 20, 55 175, 71-72, 75289, 81, 105, 129

historical epics

historical omens

Hillite chronolo~

22,115, 117562+564. 177 passim 78-79

212~, 22, 25, 2 -3078, 32, 76~'99, 137(>49, !71-173

Hittite Distanzangabe 148

Hittite King List (HiKL) 168842,170-171

Hittite Old Kingdom Old Hittite

Kingdom 129619,164,174

Hurrians 55 175,99-100

• oamttStwn (week eponymy) 103463, 152

Uaneans 167

• ice cores of Greenland 20 11, 78, 125601+603, 128

19ihalkid dmasty 119577, 178913

intercalation, intercalary month 72-73, 103 passilTl, 153

!sin I dynasty 34,85,91, 122, 194-197 ~ Isin-Larsa period

!sin II dynasty 42-44, 85-86, 89-90, 11 9, 121, 123, 137, 178-179, 188

Isin-Larsa period 33-34, 40-41, 195-197 ~ Isin I dynasty and Larsa dynasty

*

100, 146,

!<arum Kanis levellb 40, 50, 104, 126 pfl,srilll, 151 paHim, 175-176

Klimm Kanis leve l II 40,50, 104, 107, 126 pasS;II, 15 1 j)(lssim, 175- 176

Kiirum limii 153

Kassite dynasty

Kidinuid dynasty

* 25-26, 35, 42-44, 74, 86353

/}(mim, 931)(1S5i"" 115,117, 119, 123, 137, 14 1>- 148, 1 72- 1 7:~, 175, 178, 19:1, 1 981O~r.

31,180

General Index 203

King Chronicle

king lists (KLs)

kisp,,( m)

Kis I dynasty

95-96,99, III passim, 149719,

184941,185945

22, 171

162, 167-168

Ill,I22

kudum, 89, 119, 133, 146, 183929

Kiiltepe eponym list (KEL) 48, 51, 65, 134-135,

Kurigalzu Epic

142, 145, 151 passim, 176

KEL A 143,145, 151 passim KEL G 50, lSI passim, 176

177 passim

• Landschenkungsurkunden

Late Bronze Age (LBA)

170859

21, 174

Late Kassite period 99

Late Old Babylonian Period 41,100,163-164

Larsa dynasty 34,40-41,85,91,192982,194 ~ Isin-Larsa period

Larsa King List 83 passim, 95, 192,194

lJmu sani/lim" S(l smri 153

limu sa warki

literary leners

low chronology (LC)

153, 162811

11 3

21, 58, 71, 81, 141, 185, 129-1 30,161

lowered/reduced Middle Assyrian chronology 19,64, 80325, ]]9·;78, 135, 139-141, 143680, 145-146

... Middle Ass)Tian chronology

lowered middle chronology 76, 129619, 146, 161,

local calendars

lunar calendar

lunar eclipse

lunar reduction

luni-solar calendar

lunar year

129, 160

104, 108-109

2966, 32, 75, 79, 104, 1386.'\7, 149, 153

29,69,71,73-74,76,81,97, 109,185919,193,195, 1971(117,199

29,66,101>-107,143-144681

104

103

• Marduk prophecy 88361+366, 95-96, 133, 148,

184-1 5

Mali calendar 108

Mari Eponym Chronicle (~ IEC) 19,69,75,79, III , 127, 143, 15 1 passill~ 176

llllir milrl; 17891 1

llllillri llJli(m) (KUR AAB.BA) 99

Metonic cycle 103

Middle Assyrian chronology 50, 164

Middle Assyrian period 153-154, 164-165

Middle Babylonian Period 42 ~ Kassite dynasty and Isin 11 d}nasty

Middle Bronze Age (MBA) 18, 174

middle chronology (MC) 19,71,81,130,161

Middle Hittite Kingdom 174

Mittani period

month-lengths

94410

25,69,72-73,80,104-106,109

MU-ITI dating system 191

MU GIBIL(4) (Sa EGIR) 193983

MU US.SA 192-193 ~ DoppeidaLiemng

na'durdUTU

namlal/um ~ anlal/lim

nam

Nassouhi King List

new chronology (NC)

noml year

* 75, 155

89m , 113, 177894, 179915

45 passim, 115, 189

1911,21,66, 74,128,174

103

Old Assyrian period ~ !<amm KaniS levels Ib and II

Old Babylonian king list ~ Sumerian King List (SKL)

Old Babylonian period 40-41,93 passim

omens 69

• palu~ BALA

pel;odization 39 passim post-canonical era 153

Post-Kassite period 43-44, 17991

promulgation document 193

p eudo-autobiography 177894

Ptolemaic Canon 17, 76

Puzur-Sin 1 inscription 5015~, 54, 140, 1 3~7

• regnal ),ea rs

relath'e chronology

res sarrut; royal inscriptions

n"ltIsak

Sam mel memoranda

Sanka)'a palace

SDAS king List

ealand I dynasty

11 2.133,147, 191 passim I 22

63 22,58,1 12,133 passim, 171, I 3 passim, 190

178913

• 156

127, 130

45 passim, 136, 190

2441 , 35, 84 passim. 93 passim, 11 1>-117,123,141>-147,189

204 \lC'\llPowmian Chronol0t-" 01 tht" 2nd \lillt'nniuJU BC

aland II d\113Sl\

imaSki d'll3Sl\· solar calendar

olar eclipse

solar 'ear Sothis date

Sothic vear statue of Idrimi

statue of~larduk

100. 121 I 0

32.107.142

Ii, 19.22,52.69.75-77. 79. 127. 139. I~. 155-156. 15 .160

103 77 103

100-

:;. ~ 95-96. 119. 133. 148. 17 . I '0919. I -!-I 6

tele of DaduSa 162~1;

SukkaImab dm3Sl\ 31. 93-9-1. 17 '913. leO

sulwllu mini (St:KKAL C . .Q) 61216. 165"'9

Sumerian King list ( KL) -19, 3-8-1. 9139(1, 113. 122-123. ISH, 192, 194

~ Old Bab,lonian king list and t:r Sumerian King List (t: KL)

S\llchronism , S\llchronization I , 22. 24. 30 passim,

66. 113-114. I 7-190, 195. 197-19

Synchronism ~ Index of S~llchronism S)llchronistic King List 53-54, 5140, 6--87, 90,

S}llchronistic History

synodic month

S}llodic period

95-96, 115, 137~, 146-147. 187-190

"1- :>, 5340, 7-89, 96, 99+17, 111 passim, 137. 148, 177-179, I 5, 188-189 79318, 103, 109 79

* am5i-Adad calendar 108, 162 ~ EkaJlatum calendar

sapliS 74

'a qtile/qati eponyms 10850°, 153 Silwa-Tessup archi,e 172

SimaSki d}llast} 40 sullumum 72

surinnu 74

Hii;

mrukid d, nam

141 67(l

179-180

* Tiglath-pileser Chronicle 114

Tukulti-:'\inurtil Epic :;. 113. 177 passim

Tummal Chronicle inscription 111 /lassim tllmlln

TUnIkkeans

-<) 1-

56

* t:g:uit King List (L'KL) 30, 5. 167, 171-172866

ultra-high chronolo!:, (L'HC)20,7 1

ultra-low chronolo!:, (t:LC) 1911

ummal1u 187-188

ummiinu11l 84 lJ r 1lI dmasl\

L'r III eclipse

73, 85-86, 91, Ill, 160, 191 passim

69, 73

L'r-Isin King list (Erlenme\er-list) 83 passim. 192, 194 lJr umerian King li t (lJSKL) 84, 192979 ~ umerian King List (SKL)

t: ruk King list 84

\ 'enus c,cles ~ 8-rear cycle

\ 'enus Tablet (VT)

Watiama palace

Weidner Chronicle

wiggle matching

I ears

year-lists (YL)

,ear-names

Zimri-Um Epi

* 71, 75 , 77, 79-81

22, 24-25, 69 passim, 105

* 126-127, 129

III passim

126607

153, 191 /ill«im

192

22, 69, 71 , 73, 8 1, 83, 90l84,

91, 93, 95-97, 100459, 105, 108, 11 2, 133, 147, 1849~, 185, 19 I /ms5im

•

INDEX OF PlACE NAMES

Accm-Ilo)'uk

A1alau

A1i~ar

Amarna

Amurru

Andariq ASnakkum

ASsur Azzi-Ilaiasa

Babylon Bismil Bogazko),

Byblos

Chorsabad

22, 30, 75-76, 125, 127-130, 135, 158-159,161 24-26, 28, 81, 100456, 173

104,156 37,88,123

165829

160

163 158, 164

76

• 74, 199

163821

156 26,31

* 25

• Diniktu ~ Tell Mu~ammad Dinkha 131631

Otlr-Enlil 99 Diir-Katlimmu ~ Tell Sob J.lamad

* Ebla 104, 191 975

Egypt 21,25, 35-38, 76298, 103464

EkalHitum 53166• 55 175, 56, 64, 142673, 144, 158

Ekalte 175

Elam 41,93,99,14 , 177-1

Emar 172 Esnunna 35,97, 162-1 63, 192

et-Tod 28

* Cassu 95 117

Ciricano (Dunllu-sa-U7ibi) 107 197, 165 Clltium 91 391 ,94, 169

Uabbum !Jana

* 16382 1

88361 ,94.97, 193

137648,

0

Uani Uanigalbat

95-96, 148, 184-185 44,61216, 100, 1658:11, 169

Miltani

!Jan dum

Uarbc Tell Chll'ra

fjaSsum

tlatti Ijattum

tlazor

lambad/Ualab

Kanis (Kultepe)

Kara-Hoylik (Kon)'a)

Karana Karkemis Klir-TlIkulti-Ninurta Kinet-Ho)ilk (!ssos)

KiZZU''''''3Ula

100

35-38, 59, 100459, 193

100459, 193 197

* 2543, 94-95, 97, 100, 173873,

174-175

* 40,125-127,151 passim, 175

129 164 37, 100

164 30, 174879

38, 174

KiUtepe ~ KaniS Ku§akh-Hoylik (Sarissa) 129

Lagas Levant

Ma§at-Ho)ilk :'>1ari

Mittani ~ tlanigalbat

Nairi ~ battle of Nairi

ibl;a

Nippllr

Onako), ( apinuwa)

Plamnos

PorslIk

Qabra

QadeS Qal(at al-Balu-ain

* 168, 172, 191 76298, 171

• 129 2-1, 31, 35, 56, 71, 87360, 94, J.!2673, 144, 153745, 164, 172, 1 092\ 19-1995

2-141_25,37-3 , 100460, 174

* 3 104,59

59209

2 ,96420

* 129

•

• 162815

76299

96, I 4911 , I

168810 Qalna

Qaltara Tell ar-Rimn~

•

206 \te:-.opotamian Chrono!og'\' of till' 2nd ~Ji1I{"nntum 8e

idon

ippar-Amniinum ~ Tell ed-D~r

Syria 171

Sugaga 11

usa 97. I 0

• Sa£ar-~ 26. 162, 164

Sanbara Sambani Ii 9541:',. 97

Sebna IS 7,-

SemSiira 7360, 162 16

Subat-Enlil ~ Tell Leiliin

• Tell ar-Rimiitt (Qanara) 153.45• 156

Tell Bderi (Dur-ASSur-ketti-lesir) 165

Tell Brak 26

Tell ed-Daba'a 197

Tell ed-Dec (ippar-Amniinum) H, 94-«19. 964~, 974.."9, 99, 19 1030

Tell Chuera (tlarbe) 5 191<, 165

Tell Leiliin (t1bat-Enlil) 56,156, 15 7~\ 161-163

Tell l\ftlbammad (Diniktu) 30, 69, 74, 81, 97, 199, I 5,193,199

Tell abi Ab\'ad 61,165

Tell 'b l.Iamad (DOr Mtlimmu) 58 198, 148710, 164-165

Terqa

Thera

Tigunanu

Tille-Hc'lIiik

Tumu

Ugarit

Umma

Urium

Zabalam

30, 9-1406+408, 97, 172, 175, 193, 1991035

186,20,78, 125601 , 128-130 100-1'>6,163

129

153745, 162

• 25, 28,30, 59, 167836

168, 191

100

• 191

(~ below sub ynchronisms)

INDEX OF PERSONS

Abba-AN 11/ Abba-EI II 174

Abi-esub

Abi-RattaS

Abj-sarc

Adad-apla-id d ina

Adad-llIrfin 1

Adad-njran II

Adad-njrarj 111

Adad-stlma-iddina

Adad-suma-u~ur

Adasi

Agum

Agum 1

Agum II

Agum III

Agum-kakrime

A1 luwam ma

Amar-Sin

Amenem het III

An1111um

Amm iditana

Ammi~aduqa

Am muna

Apil-Sin

Aplabanda

Arik-c\(;n-i li

Arnuwa nda

Asinu

ASsur-apla-idi

Asstlrbanipal

Assur-bd -kala

ASsul' bd-niscsu

ASs tl r<iil n I

ASstir-dtlgul

ASSlII'C lCI-i lfi ni

ASsul' n fidin-abbc 1

25,96,97426,99, 148, 194994, 198

88,96,189

196

121, 123

90,118,164827,177,183-184, 188961

152

lIS, 154

58,119-120,181

59, 89, 115, 119-120, 123, 137,178 passim

187

88

96-97, 147,183932,184,198

96,146,148,183932,184-185, 189

96,99,116,146699,184

95-96,148, 183932,184-186

173

69, 105, Ill, 194

25

154

lOS, 167, 198

24, 3 1, 69, 71-72, 77, 79, 86349,94406,97- 99, 105-106,

167,194,198

58

12 1, 19

76

11 8, 177,188

173876

53

173

187

107, 121, J64, 183931

11 8

63, 66, 136 passim, 16·1, 179

53, 62-63, 140, 173

188 27,55, 64-66, 133,1 39, 14 1,

189

rusur-nfidin-apli 32, 59-60, 62, 66, 89, 136, 143, 153, 189

ASSurn~irpall (ASSur-n~ir-ap1i) 59,62,188,189

ASSurn~irpa1 II 153,186, 190

rusur-njran II

ASSur-njriiri III

rusur-rabi 1

ASSur-rabi II

ASsur-re>im-nisesu

rusur-rcsa-isi 1

rusur-saduni

rustlr·uballi! [

Alta-huSU

Belli-bani

Berossus

Burna-Burias I

Burna-BuriaS n Buma-BuraIia.s

Bur-Sin

Dadusa Damiq-ilisu

1m -EN (ICr

Ea-gamil

Emi.}ulll

Enlil-bani

En lil·kudtlni-lljur

Enlil-nadin-abi

Enl il-nadin-apli

En1il-niidin-sumi

En lil-nasir I

Enlil-nils ir II

Enlil-njrfirj

En me(nl-barage i

Erjba-Adad I

Erjba-Mardtlk

i'riSlI m I

trisuITI II

154749,164, 17(J858, 186

61216,165831,178906

27,55,64-66, 133, 139, 141, 189

169

17()&;8, 186

63,136-138

64, 188

8 , 117-118, 154, 188961

93, 198

• 139

17

88,99445,116,148,189, l99

87-88,117-118,147-148,19

88,96

194, 196

• 93400,162, 1929 1

100,121, 189,194,196

-ENl 90- 7, 100, 147, 1 9

• ,90,99,116

196

196

115, 120,137,178,1 2

90,95, 148

146

5 , ll9-120, 17g9O-1

64, 170 -

17,32,64,188

I I ,152

122

188

121

47~18, 134 passim, 151, 155-157, 160, 163, 187

144, 157, 159

20 ~lf"'opotami.lIl Chronolog\ of lht" 2nd \1illennium Be

Erra-imitti

Esarhaddon

CandaS

Cimil-:-\inkarrak

CulkiSaT

Cungtmum

Hammu-riipi'

Hana, ..

f:lantili I

f:lantili IT

f:larba-x

19-1. 196

135. 1-10--143

• 25.27.96.99445, 14i. 1 3 97

90.100.146

91. 194. 196

• 22. 24. 29. 40. i I. 93.!()(). 94. 105-106. Hi-ISO. 19 9i-9

148. li3';6

liS

• I 9 f:lattuSili T (=Labarna IT) 2543, 100. 129. 16-t. 1 i4-1 is f:latruSili !II

HUlelutuS-lnSuSinak 1 0

f:luzzia 1I I is

ladilrabum 1I

Tabdun-Um

lakiin-Asar

lantin-'Ammu

laqarum Tarim-Urn

TasmalrAddu

TauSa

IbaJ-pi-EI II

Ibbi-Sin

lbiriinu

lB.TAR-Sin

~ fuzur-Sin I

Iddin-Dagan

Iddin-lStar

Idrimi

19i-halki

Igris..ljaIarn

• 9 76, liOR60. I 3933 15 785

26.31 16f836 174 1

56. 163

97-98. 193

93400.162- 163. I 92'l81

69.73.78. 111.122,194-196 59

5015354,64

196 196

100.174 1\9577

172 Ikunum 157

lIi-padJ 61216.165829+831 Ilu-kabkabi 154

Burna-A.'\' (lIu-ma-i lu ) 90,99,198

f1uSuma 145, 160. 183933 Irkal>-Damu 172 lS'ar-Damu 172

Ebi-Erra 122. 194999-196 Eme-Addu (Mnakkum) 163

Hme-Dagan 1 53166, 56-57. 66. 134-135,

[sme-Dagiin II

It<r-pisa

Illi-~ lard uk-ba liittl

K,..stil

K..sliliaSu I

K.lStiliaSu II

KaStiliasu IJI

K.lStiliaSu 1\'

KaStiliaSu (Terqa)

K.ldaSman-Enlil I

KadaSman-Enlil II

KadaSman-lJarbe 1

KadaSman-lJarbe II

KadaSman-Turgu

Kandaliinu

138. [.l0. 142-143.148-149, 163,173. 196 138. 189!l6.~

194, 196

123

• 97

88.96.97. 146-147. 193986 97. 189, 193

96.116,184941 ,185

9.119-120.148710

97-9 . 193

191

88-89

31.90,1I7-1l8

58.89. 119-120, 178904

88,90.118

187-188 Kara-bardaS 116553• 118568 ~ Kara-indaS and KarakindaS

Kara-indaS IJ6553, I 17-1J 8 ~Kara-bardaS and Kara-indaS

KarakindaS l IS ~Kara-indaS

Kasapan. Kasap-ili

KaSSu-nadin-abb<

Kidin-Hutran I

Kidin-H utran 1II

Kidin-r\inua

Kindauu

Kudur-Enl il

Kudu-zulus

Kuk-NaSur II

Kurigalzu $ebru

98

18

119577

89, 179

54 168.55,149, 170858

194999

89,119576

93, 198

31.93. 198

88

Kurigalzu I 117-118. 178, 179914, 191978

KurigalLU II 95,99, 117-118, 177. 179

KUlir-:";ahhunte (Chedoriaomer) 148, 178. 180919,

198 Kuwari 98, 100459, 193

• Labama II (=lJallu ~ili I) 164

Li pil-En lil 19G

Lipil-Htar

Lu llaia 196

64

• Marduk-apla-iddina 179

Marduk-kabil-abbcsu 89-90, 147

Marduk-nadi n-abbe

Marduk-sapi k-zcri

Mcli-Sipak

Merenptah

MUrSili I

Mursili 11

Mutakkil-Nusku

Mlll-ASkur

Nabonid

Nabu-suma-iSkun

NapHinum

Naram-Sin (Akkad)

aram-Sin (ASsur)

Nariim-Sin (ESnunna)

Nazi-BugaS

Nazi-Marunas Nebuchadnezzar I

Neferholep I

Ninos

Nin urta-apil-Ekur

~inurta-nadin-sumi

Ninu na-lU kulti-ASsur

~ Tukulti-ASsur

Nipburia

, ur-Adad

Nllr-ili

Parallarna

Pcsgaldaramas Pilli)'a

PUlllr-ASsUl I

Puzu r-AS\lIr II

PUlur-ASsur III

PU/ur-Sin I IB.TAR-Sin

PUlllflim

Ram,e, II

RlIn- ' in I

Rlln-Sin II

Rimlls

Index of Perwns

1I5, 137, 188

61 21ij , 89, 121

58, 89, 119, 179

59210, 165829

25,28.31,40,69,81,88364, 94-96, 116, 173-175, 185, 193, 199

76 62-63, 136, 164

53

• 147-148

188

196

122 50,144, 154, 157, 1 5~160, 163

50,157,192981

88, 118 118,177 90,100, 147-148. 179-180, 188

26, 31

133635

32, 66, 89, 115, 120, 123, 136-13 , 140, 143, 16·1, 188

123 62-63, 119-120, 136. 1487W,

161

1751\85

9 1, 196

6·1

• 98, 100 147,189 I 74H77

160, Hi9 157 57-58,65-66,88,1 15, I 1 ~, 189

501~\ " I, 56, 6·1

98

• 21, 76~KJ'I, 88 9 1, 9:~IIXI, 91. 121 , 162, 192, 19·1, 19G, 198

95, 198

53

•

Siibium

Samium

Samsuditana

Samsuiluna

Sargon [ (Sam'-kin)

Sargon II

Sennacherib

Seli II

Simbar-Sipak

Sin-enbam

Sin-iddinam

Sin-imguranni

Sin-iqiSam

Sin-magir

Sin-muballi\

Siwe-palar-huppak

Smenkhkare

ISU-ll-OU, Suabu1l1

Sulili

ullIuabuT11 SUl11uel

SU\l1ul,wl

.. "Ri" L\"'li·SlllIJ~ Sal i m-abtlll\

ii,llm:tIll"el 1

ii,llm,II"''''1 III

-' '. III1MI1t''''' 1 V S,lIn'l \(\,1(1 I

S;JIll,I-Adad II

am'I-Ad.ul III

,1;,lIn\I-Ad.ld 1\

Sal l,I-FI

ill\.lk-I n,u;inA

Sirikli IIqamlllta

Sll-ilisu

SlIlgi

Suppilllliuma 1

Sl,-Sin

SUlntk-Nahhllnte

Sillt-Adad

196, 198

196

209

71,86349,88,94 passim, 105, 147, 183, 194,198-199

56,8(360,88,90--91,95 passim, 105, 183, 198

69,91.116,156-157

76-77

137648, 148

165829

100,121

196

196

98 196, 198

196

198 93, 198

175""" 117, 149719

160 1497111, 157-llia. 198

196 121-122,187.198

• 87, 1111 lIiO (i!,'I", 1 ~1l IlfL\I/IIi' 11~- 1I1. Ih I Hi '>, 111:1

Iii!)

I~I

1I:!, Ill, 1'1, 1.0, In 71 7'1 711, 1117 I Ill!, 1!.I7, 1'111, I'\~ /HlIIII" ,

I ll! 1,,11, 1" 'IHI\III1'. 1111 1/,'\, 111:\'111

IN'! J;IK

INM 173 119~77

18N I ~)(j

69,7:1,78, 122, 194-195

25, 28, 75, 173-175

122,19·1

179

196

210 \1 opotamian Chronolo1--'" or the 2nd \lillennium B

* Telipinu 1 i3 Tepti-ahar 31 Tiglath-pileser I 104, 109. 115. 134. 13i pas-

sim. 153, 165. I 3 Tudbalia I li5 Tudbalia II <)-

-:>

T udbalia fII 3 99

Tudbalia IY 148, 165 -. Tukulri-Assur 1205'

--+ :-\inuna·tukulri-Assur

Tukulti-~inurta I 58-59. 62, 9, 119-120, 123, 145-146. 164. I 2-1 3.

TukuJti-~inurta II

Tunia

--+ Tunip-Te--up

1 6, 188-1 9

190

164

Tunip-Te--up l()()45i, 163-164

--+ Tunia

Tuunosis III 21,100460, li5

* Tudia 168845

• 90,96,99. 116, 1

194.196

91,111,194

196

l'lam-Burias

Crdukuga

Cr-:\ammu

l'r-:\inuna

C 1 -igurumas

l'l'l'lU Crzigurumaii 185

94409

l'-se 97. 193

• "'arad in 194.196,19

• Zababa-suma-iddina 179 Zaba"a 196 Zambiva 196 Zidanta I 173 Zidanta 11 174877,175 Zimri-Um 31, 56, 93400, 154, 162-163,

17()860 Zimri-Urn (Terqa) 98, 108 Zukraiii 174878

III R 38 179

III R 61 148

V R 33 (K. 41949+) 183932, 184-186

V R 43 (K. 140) 104447

AbB I, 2 96

AbB 6. 24 97

A1T3 100460

A1T 6 174878

AO 7025 85

AR.\11,93 3183, 86350

ARM 5, 20 163

Ass. A III 16ff. 140

Ass. 1395 dh 187-188

Ass. 1461& 187

Assur 12572 63, 136, 138

--+ RIMA 2, A.0.86.11

BBSt no. 3

BE I , 83

• 59,89, 119

90, 100, 146

BE 14,9 118

BE 14, 38 (= CBS 3044) 90

BE 6405 96

BM 27796 --+ Ch ronicle BM 27996

B 1 33332 83

BM 34026 178008, 179

BM 35404 178-179

BM 35496 178008, 179

BM 35572+ 83

BM 38 122 83

BM 39202 121

BM 40565 83

BM 47733 121

BM 77438 99445, 183

BM 80328 167

Bl\I 98730 36

BM 128059 4H7

• CBS 1422 95"8

CBS 15050 90

CT 34, 29 148

CT 36, 24 118

CT I1 4 174878

CTII 15 174878

INDEX OF TEXTs

CTH 19

CTH 70

CTH 661

EAE 20

EAE 21

EAE63

EKl48

lCK 2,345

1M 124470

95

76

17()859

* 69 passim 69 passim, 1971017

69 passim 119'77

• 156

121-122

* K. 160 70 (Fig. 3)

K. 2158+ 88364, 148

K. 2660 (= 111 R 38, 2) 88, 115

K. 3992

K. 10609

K. 14011

KAY 9

KAV 10

KAVI1

KAV 12

KAV 13

KAV 14

KAV 15

KAY 18

KAY 19

KAV 21-24

KAV 155

KAV 182

KAV216

KBo I , 10

183932

116555

116555

187-188

187-188

187-1 88

187-188,190

187-18

47,53-56,135,140,188959

4H7, 18 959

47-48, 187955

151 , 154, 164

149, 151-154

104447

1 7-188

I 7,1 9-190

8 KBo I , 14 1 37~9

KBo 3. 45 95

KBo 3, 57 95

KBo I, 10 123

KBo 10, 1-3 174

K B 3, 74 (= CTH 177.1 ) 59

KUB 4. 93 (= CTH 17) 66245, 151. 154, 164

K B 14, 4 69, 76

KUB 25, 21 (= CTH 524) 148,150

KUB 26, 74 95

*

212 ~te-sopOl~lmi.Ul Chrollolog-. of the 21m \Ii llennium B(~

LBAT 1526 148 • • VAB 4. 22 148

RHfA I, AO.77.1-2 142 YAB.I.23c 14 RI~fA I, .-\.0.7 .1 1 145 \ ~.\B 5. 28.1 149 RIMA 1, AO.7 .23-24 59 \'.-\T 15.120 118 RnIA 2, AO 6.11 136 y 19.73 107

-+ Assur 12572 \ "' 21. I 107 RnIA 2, A.O. 7.1 61. 13 VS 21. 1.1 106 RS 24.257 (= KTU 1.113) 167 36 Y 2.1,9] 117.178-179 RS 34.165 (= RSO 7, 46) 59 •

• " '.-8. 4+t 83 TIl 74.C.120 172 • TIl 75.C.427 (=ARET 10, 100) 1919;5 YBC 2142 83

• YO I. 32 83 L'ET 1, 292 195

INDEX OF SYNCHRONISMS

Assyria and Babylonia/K,'lSsites

Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Mittani and Anatolia Watti)

Assyria, Babylon ia and Elam

Assyria, Egypt, Mittani, Anatolia Watti) and Karkemis

Babylonia/ Kassites and Elam

Babylonia/ K,'lSsites, ealand I dynasty and Assyria

Early Kassites and Assyrians

Early Kassite and Sealand dynasties

lIatti , Kiauwatna, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia and Mittani

Kizzuwatna, AJalab IV and Mi ltani

Mari, £5nunna, Babylon and Assyria

Mari , Esnunna, Babylon and Larsa

Mesopotamia, Anatolia (\:Iatti ) and Egypt

Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Syria/ the Levant and Mittani

Adad-nira.i I and KadaSman-Turgu

Adad-nirari I and Ku rigalzu II

Adad-nirari I and azi-Maruttas

Adad-nirari II and SamaS-mudammiq

Adad-suma-iddina and Kidin-Hulran III

Agum II and Sanlsi-Adad II

Ammi$aduqa and KaStiliasu II

Ammi$ad uqa and Kuk- aSu r II

ASsur-bCl-kala and Adad-apla-idd ina

ASsur-bcl-kala alld Mard llk-sapik-zeri

ASsur-bel-nisesu and Kara-indas

ASsu r-diin I and Silhak-Insusinak

ASsur-dan I and Zababa-suma-u$lIr

ASsllI' nnd in-ahbc I and Kurigalzu I

ASsur-rcsa-isi I and Nebuchadnezar I

Adad-suma-u~ur alld Tukulti-Ninurta

Adad-suma-u$ur a nil ASsur-n irii .i II!

ASsuH.ball il and AmenhOlep IV

ASsur-uball i\ and Burna-Burias "

ASsu,' uballi \ and Kadasman-Uarbe I

ASSur-uballi \ and Karakindas

ASsur-uball i\ find Kurigalzu II

ASsur-uball i\ fi nd Na/i-Bugas

Burna-BuriaS I and Bille-Dagan II

Burna-Bu ri ns I and PU/u., ASsur III

Burna-Burias I! and Muball ital-Se l'lla

*

*

*

33,87,114, 119, 158, 17991 8, 180

37

34,113-114

37 33-34, 93, 117, 177-180

35 33,99- 100,123

33,99

38

174

35 93400,94, 162

34-36

34

90,114,118

118-119,121

114, 11 6,177

116 114, 119-121

96, 189

193

180921

114, 11 6,121

1l4, 116, 121

11 4, 116-117

179-180

114, 11 6

11 4, 11 8 114. 116, 146

178 17 906

11 8 11 4

121 11 4. 11 6 114, 118, 121

Jl 4

96 58,96,99445, 114, 116-117, I .1941 , I 5, 1 9

11 4, 118

214 Mesopotamian Chronologo. of (h('" 2nd \fillennium BC'

Damiq-iliSlI and Rim in

Ea-gamil and C1am-BlIriaS

Enlil-klldllrri-lI~lIr alld Adad-slllla-lI>lIr

Enlil-nadin-abi and KlItir-Xahhllnte

Enlil-nadin-sllmi and Kidin-HlItrall III

Enlil-niriiri and Kurigalzll II

Eriba-Adad I and KlIrigaizu I

GandaS and ErislI III

GandaS and Samsllditana

Hammll-riipi' and rme-Dagan

Hammu-riipi' and Rim- in I

•

•

*

Hammll-riipi', Rim-Sin I, Siwe-palar-hllppak and KlIdll-zlIlill

• Ijarba-x and SamSi-Adad II

Ijaulliili I and Ammisdllqa

IjattuSili III and Adad-niriiri [

IjattuSili III and Ramses II

Iasmab-Addu and Ibiil-pi-ElII

Ibbi-Sin and l.Sbi-Erra

Idrimi and Parattarna

numa-AX and Abi-esub

n uma-A-" and Samsuil una Ililluma and Sumuabum

l.Sbi-Erra and Xaplanum

lime-Dagan II and Samsuditana

Kurigalzu [ and Buma-BuriaS II

KurigaJzu [ and Pahir-issan

Kurigalzu II and Amenhotep 111

Lipit-l.Star and Gungunum

Meli-Sipak and Sutruk-Xahhunte

~1utakkil-Xusku and Nebuchadnezzar [

, 'azi-BugaS and Kurigalzu II

Nebuchadnezzar I and HutelutuS.-lnsusinak

Ninuna-apil-Ekur and Adad-suma-u5ur

Ninuna-apil-Ekur and Assur-<lan I

l'iinuna-apil-Ekur and Marduk-nadin-abbc

Ninurta-nadin-sumi and ASsur-resa-isi [

Qami-Lim and Zimri-Lim

*

*

•

*

*

•

195

90, 93, 1 H 116

IH,Il6, 120. li8

1i9-1 0

114,119-121

114, 116, 118, 177899

1H 11

1 9

1 6. 1 9966

149,172

195

9-1

96

164

137649

163

160, 195

100

114, 117

114,117

117,149719

195

189968

173

179-180

11 8

195

179-180

190

116

179-180

89,114-115, 120,137 60-61

190 179918

161 1i1YJ

Index of Synchronisms 215

* Salmaneser III and Nabu-apla-iddina

Samsi-Adad I and Hammu-rapi'

SamSi-Adad I and Sin-mllballit

Samsi-Adad V, Marduk-balassll-iqbi and Baba-aba-iddina

• Tiglath-pileser I and Marduk-nadin-abbe

Tiglath-pileser III and Nabu-na~ir

Tudbalia TV and Suppi111liuma 11

TlIklllti-Ninurta 1 and Adad-suma-lI~lIr

Tuklllti-Ninurta I and KaStiliaSu TV

Tukulti-Ninurta 1 and TlIdbalia IV

TlIk1l1ti-Ninurta I and Kidin-Hutran III

Rim-Sin II and Samsllilllna

Siruktllh and Samsi-Adad I

UntaS-Napirisa and Kurigalzu II

Ur-Ninurta and GlIngunllm

Warad-Sin and Sabium

Zambiya and Sin-iqisam

Zidanta ll, Pilliya and [drimi Zimri-Lim, Ibal-pi-EI II, Hammu-riipi ' and Samsi-Adad [

ZlIkraSi and ljattuSili I

•

*

*

*

*

116 25, 40, 65, 71, 86, 94, 107498, 127, 148-150, 158, 162-163

169853

116

114-116

121

58 114,121 58-59,114,116,118-120,148710,177

59

179-180

95

117564 ,179

195

195

195 17487i

162-163

174878

BmuoGRAPHY

A. AABOE. A Text Conceming Sulxli\'ision of the Synodic Motion of Venus from Babylon: 8M 37151, in: GS Finkrl­Itrm (1977) 1-4.

F. AL-RAWI, T,tblels from the Sippar Library, 1.. The "Weidner Chronicle": A Superstitious Letter Concerning a Vision, Iraq 52 (1990) 1-13.

M. ANBAR, Us trW"" amumt's Ik Mari, OBO 108 (1991).

A. ARCHI , Chronologie relative des archives d'Ebla, Amurru. I (1996) 11-28.

_ The King-Lists from Ebla, in: T. ABL"W tI al. (eds.), Prrr mdings of tk XL"- RAJ, Pan I, Bethesda, ~IO (200 1) 1-13.

D. ARNAUD, Proh~gomi:nes a la redaClion d'une hisloire d'Ougaril II: Les bordereaux de roi~ dhini5e~. S.HEA 41 (1998) 153--173

M.e. AsTOUR, HiUitt History and Absotult ChronologJ oflh~ Brmlu

A8l'. Studies in Mediterranean ArchaeoloID' and Literature Pocket-book 73. Partille (1989).

- An Outline of the History of Ebl. (Pan I), in: C.H. GOR­no' (cd.), Eblailica: Essays on thl f-J>la Arrhillts aPld Eblaile LariIPUlgs3. \l'inona Lake, IN (1992) 3--82.

J. AzIZE, Who Was Responsible for lhe Assyrian King List?, Abr­Nnftmi,,35 (1998) 1-27.

M. BAICE.Vf, From IhF Omn1S of Boll)'/on: Astrology lind AncV1I1

Mt'sopotamia, London (199-&).

K. BALKAi"'J, Kanis Karum 'unun Krono/Of.rJ' prohlnlllni haJcJundo mii§ahMeln' (Obsmmtions 011 Ih, Chronological Prohlnnl of Ih, .\drum Kallis,. Ankara (1955).

B. BANJEVlC. Ancient Eclipses and the Fall of Bab, Ion . • U)mdi­fa 126 (2005) 169-193.

G. S.:CKMAN. I/ittit, Diplomatlr T,xlS, Second Edition. SBL Wril­ings from Ancient World Serie\ 7 (1999).

- lli ttilt! Chronolog\. in : jwt In Tim,., Prrxmli"gi oj Iii, lntrr­lUltiOtwl Colloquium 011 I tudmt Nntr to'Mltt.." Chrrmology (2rw

Millnmillm Be), (;11,.,11 7-9 j"{Y 20()O. ,\kkat/ira 119-120 (2000) 19-32.

C. B ERGO .... FF..N , The C)priOlt' POllt'1"'; from Alillakh: Chrono­logical Consideration.." in: M. Bn·T\h. (t'd.). TIlt S.\'nrhrvni­.wllioll ojCit'ilisalionJ in til' f -:mtffn j\l,(/ilr/mnnm in Iht Strond ,\ttl/n","un B.C .. Proowling5 0/111' Sf/E.\! 2000 - EumC,(JIljtr· n1ff, 1/(IIlIIlor! 2'''/ of,I/",~ 7" ofMav 2001. CChE~I ·1 (2003) 1195-4 10.

nIt (,:)Pllol /J"CniU j \J.!'l" Potlny il11m Sir I.roullIci \\ 'oollf"t' \ exm- • tl(li/OPH at Il ltdakh ( lflI .ltduma). CChF.~ t :1 (2005) .

M.L. BIE.R8RJ ER, 'nIt Li,t, S,w KmJ.,rdom in Fgypl. Wanninsler ( 1970).

M. BIETAK (cd .), Til, S)'IIrhwlIiwtiotl {/fCitlili.~at;o1/.\ ;', Ill' J-:nstt7'tl [\/1'{1I11""'(lI/('(l1/ illihe .'km"d MiIlnmium I1.e .. Prorftdill/:." 0/ nil

I lIln'Iwl;ullfl/ S),I11/JOsium (I I Srllltl}J l/(lindO//. 15,1)-1 if/J 0/ NOlli'lI/ber 1996 (lml (II tht' flusl,.;,,,, l \cadt'IJI\\ \"...,,,,a 11'/J_ l21lt

of tlln.\' 1998, CChE~ 1 I (2000).

TM Synchronisation 0/ Civilisations in lhi Easltrn Mtdiln'· rallean illlk&cOM Mil/mnium B.G., Proceedings oftkSCIEI/ 2000-EuroConfmnct, Haintim! 2"4 of,\1"J-]I1> ofM., 2001, CChEM 4 (2003).

M. BIETAK, Science versus Archaeology, Problems and Conse· quences of High Aegean Chronology, in: M. BI.ETAK (ed.), TIw SYlchronisation 0/ Civilisations in 1M Easltrn Mediln'· mn,an illlht&COrld ,lfil/mnium B.G., Proaedings OflkSCIEM 2000- EuroConJrrmu, Haindor! 2"4 ofM"J-]I1> of .11., 2001, CChE~l 4 (2003) 23--33.

- Re,-of.: ST.\\'. ~lA."ISC, A Test of Time, Oxford 1999. B,Or 61 (2004) 199-222.

M. BIETAK - F. HOFLMAYER, Introduction: High and La\\

Chronology, in: ~1. BIEHK (ed.). ThLSJ1uhrrmisal.onofCivil­ualruns in 1M Eastml .\ltditnrantarl in lht &cond MiUl11n;um B.C. III. Proceedings of tk SCI£If 2000 - EuroConf'""u, Imma, 28" of ,\/"J-I" of JUII' 2003, CChE\1 9 (2007) 13--23.

M.C. BIG.",-. The reconslruction of a relative chronology for the Ebl. texts, Or 72 (2003) 345-367.

M. BlROT. Les chron iques "Assyriennes" de Mari, MARl 4 (1985) 219-242.

F. Blocher, Chronological Aspects of the KJirurn Period (Mid­dle Bronze Age). in: M. BI£TAK (ed.), Tk5.1nchronisation of Cit'riisat;Qn.s in 1M EasIm1 .\Irdilnrnntan in 1M &rond Mlllnz· niUl" B.G., Proceedings of th, SCIEIf 2000 - EuroConfrrmet, Haindoif. 2'"' of M"J-'" of MaJ 2001, CGh£M 4 (2003) 377-382 .

J. BOESE, Bumaburias 11.. Melisipal.. und die miuelbabyloni· sehe Chronologie. L'FH (19 2) 15-26.

_ Zur absohllen Chronologie der Allad·Zeil. nZKAI 74 ( 1982a) 33--55.

J. BOESE- G. WIUU:J..M. Mur..<flin I.. Ninurta·apil-ekur und die mittelassvrische Chronologie. \\ZKM71 (1979) 19-38.

R. BORGER. Einln'/ung '" dil' ass)'r1.schl1l KonigsinschnJlro. £rsltr 1rik Das ,writ. JahrtOftSnld t'. ChT.. HdO I '5 I (1961). (:

EAK)

J.A. BRL~KMAN. A Preliminan' C .. uaJogu~ of\\'ritlell Sources for a Political Hi,ton of Iktblonia: 1160-722 B.C., jCS 16

(1962) 83--109.

_ ,I I'oliliml HistOl) of f'o.<t·Kassil< Babylonia. 1158-i12 B.G. . AnOr 43 (1968). (=PHPKB)

_ ~Ole, on MesopOlamian Hhton in the Thirteenth Celllu· n B.C .. BiOr27 ( 1970) 301-314.

_ Coml1\ell~ 011 the X<1~ouhi Kinglisl and Lhe . .\ss~';an Kingli,t Tradition. Or 12 (1973) 306-319.

_ Alnlmnll tmd SJmJlts/Qr Kassllt IIlSlor) \01. I, A. CalaJQgu~ of CIOln/Orln Sourrl'S Pn'laillmg 10 fJ«ific .\lolI~'rhs.of I'" Kas:'tt D¥IUISI)" rhe OriCIII;,l! Institute of lhe Unnersll\, of Gh,ca· K;' ( 1976) . (w ~ISKII)

/:(I.<Ji/m, R\.\ 5 (1976-1980) 164-473.

21 ~te!:lopO{.m\ian ChronoloS' of the 2nd \lill('llniutll Be

- Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period. Appendix, in: A.L OPP[~HEI" . • ~nrirol .IIesopota.ua. Portrtul of a Dtad Cit'ilizalitm. Re,ised Edition completed by Erica Reiner. Chicago (1977) 33.'>-341l.

- Istanbul A. 199 ,~liddle Bab~ Ionian Chronolog' and the ratisti", oflhe \;ippur Archi,..", Z~ 73 (19 3) 67-74.

- .\fm'iand {Sealand, Rl-\ 8 (1993-1997) 6-10.

Glas.ner' ~!e-;opotamian Chronicles, j{OS 115 (1995) 667-670.

J.A. BIU!\'KMA.'I - J.A. lARsoN, A Missmg Frdgmem of the Khorsabad Kinglisl, . '-",,-B.l'. 1999 33,32-33.

T. BRYCE, The Death of Niphururi,'a and its Af«nnath, j£{ 76 1990) 97-105.

TIll: Kingdom of HUlil", Oxford l'ni .. ,..;" Pre , Oxford 1\999).

G. Bl.~'1\".ENs. \\'as There a Military Officer i\'amed Zukrai, in the AlaJakh Texts?, MJT-_"ahm", 32 (1994) 96-97.

G.G. Cun:Ros, HIStory of Earl) [mn, C\ticago (1936).

E. c...'ICIK·Kntsam.UM, 1m ... Udall)'rwhtTa B""f- OIL! Tall Seb­Hamad, BATSH 4 (1996).

- • 'ebenlinien des asspi.schen KOoi hauses in der 2. Halfte des 2.Jts. ,. Chr., AOF26 (1999) 210-222.

- C'ber den Anfang d<r Zeil, in: 5<hulUYgr, fubriliumsi>w:h tUs L1tIand-CyrnnasiuffU, Tilbingen (2001) 277 - 2 i.

- Im.~ Gtscluchu, Gtscllsrhaft. KulIuT, ~!ilnchen (2003).

E. CAR:rnt - ~L STOLPER, EIa .... Sun"]! of PoIitrml Hrslor) and ArrhaLoWgy, Near Eastern rudies 25, Berkel,,), CA (1984).

E. CA.VAIGNAC, Les lisles de Khorsabad, RA 40 (194.'>-/946) 17-26.

- Brb'es communications, Les deux list.es ro\-ales amTi­ennes, Consequences chronOlOgiques, R.~. 49 (1955) 94-98.

- DuppiSu, RA 49 (1955) 204-206.

P. CECH. Kimjg5lislen und ihre (Ir)rele\'anz fur die Cochichts-­forxhung, L'F34 (2002) 39-44.

K. W. CHA.~G, Imhtungm tkr lnt Tulrull,·.\'inur/a$l. von A!.<)ritn, Europatsche HochschuJschriften 27 (1979).

D. ~, Les archh-es d'epoque "~Tienne" dan Ie paJais de Mari, ,\>fARi4 (1985) 243-267.

- Donn~es nouvelles ur la chronOlogie des sauvcrains d'Ej... nuna, 10: FS BtrO/ (l985a) 51-66.

- Hammu-rabi de Bab\;lone el Man: NoU\'elles Sources, Nou,"lles Perspective" in: j. RE~GfJ< (ed.), Bab;lan, FlXUJ mewpotarruS<her Gtschu:hlL, W;.g.. frUher c;,~hl'!amJrnl, M)llw! mtkr MotUsnc, 2. Inln'lW.lllJTUlks c"IWqUlum tin' DeutlChm OrimI·Gtscllsdraft, 24.-26. Man 1998 in 8Prlin. CDOG 2 (1999) 121 - 130.

- Chronique du ~joyen·Euphrale, I. Le "royaume de Hana"' lex"", el hisLOire, RA 96 (2002) 61-92. .

- Hammu,.rabo tY Bab;lan, Pari (2003).

- HisLOi re Po lilJque du Proche-OriemAmorrilC (2002-1 595), 10: P. ATI1",FR tt aL (eds.), MtWfXJlamvn: 1m a/tbabylanwM lnt, Ann<ihetungm4, O BO 161)/4 (2004) 2:.-480.

D. Q-UltPT. - J.-M. DURAND. La prise clu pou\"oir par Zimri­ul1l,,\L~Rl4 (1985) 293-342.

D. C\wu>L' - . ZIEGLER .. lImi d ~ ProrM-Onnll Ii ItpoqUi' amor. n/" E{~ai d1Hstmrr pobtlqUt', F~t 5, Mt~moirt"s de N.A.B.U. 6 (2003).

O. ClQlOCKI ~ al .• llit" ynchroni/~ltion of Chililation in the E7btt"m .\t.editerra.n~.m in the (ond Millennium Be: :\aturaJ SCience D.lung A..lLempts, in: C. Bl( K - A.R. MIL­

L:w' (eds.). Tools for c"mstrurlmg CI,rollologin, Cros'lng DiJ. nptmar;. Boundatlt'\. Lecture ~otes in tatistics 177, Lon­don (2004) 83-110.

E. COHL'I - R. W ESTBROOK (eds.) , Amo",o D,plollloq. Ballimore - London (2000). .

M.E. CoHL' . Tit. Cullir C.aln,dors of 1M Allorol Xear Easl, COL Pre, Bethesda, MD (1993).

G. CoLaOW. ~1iddle. Low 01 Ultra-Low? in: Just in Time. Pro­ceedin~ of the international Colloquium on Ancient ::-ear Eastern ChronolOg' (2nd ~!il!ennium BC), Ghent 1-9Jul\' 2000. Akkad,ca 119-120 (2000) 117-135.

- Tradlhan uad Xrol!.gtnn, Ei,~ ausfiihrlirhe &arbeilung db spal. a/tbabylanisrhm.~broUungm aIL! S,ppar ulld ih".s &ilrags zur C.I)'Pltlr tin' Ka.mlro, ~liinchen - Wien (2002).

S.W. COLE - L. DE MEYER, Tepli·abar, King of Susa, and Kadashman.dKlJR.GAL, .Wad,ea 112 (1998) 44-45.

D. Cou.os, Discussion Article, Implications of Introducing a Lo" ~le,opotamian Chronolog', BAXEA ,v"",/Llltr 13 (2000) 6-9.

F. CoR.~ELrlIS, Berossos und die alwriemalische Chronologie, Ki,035 (1942) 1-16.

- Die Chronologie des Vorderen Orients im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., AfO 17 (1954-1956) 294-309.

- Chronol<>g), Eine E",;derung,jCS' 12 (1958) /01-104.

F.H . CRYER, Chronology: Issues and Problems, in: CANE 2 (1995) 656-659.

ST. DAl..I...£V, .\1a" and KaTana, Two Old Bab)lonian C;li~s, lon-don - ~e" York (1984). .

ST. DAI.U'Y et al., TM Old Bahywman Tab~/S from 7tU AI-R,mah, London (1976).

ST. OE MAImNo, Problemi di cronologia luita, Pd P 48 (1993) 218-240.

A Tentative Chronology of the Kingdom of Miuani from u.s Rise to the Reign of Tu~ratla, in: II. J IUr-;GFR -

R. PRLLSI'SlKV (ed .), M""/}(JUJmian Vm'k AII' JlnJllilfli, CChEM 6 (2004) 3:.-42.

M. DE OOORlOO, The Use of Numbm and QUllnltjiralion, In 1111

A''Yrum iI.oyalimm/)llOn!, SAAS 3 ( 1995).

W. O f SMET, "Kashshu" in O l<l-llabylo nian Documen ts, Aklulll­II'a68 (1990) 1- 19.

V. OONBAZ, A Midd le Babylonian Legal Documellt R;li ~ing I'roble ll15 in Ka,s,ilf Chronology, ./NM4 1 ( 19R2) 207-2 12.

- TI,e "I lou," 01 King'" in lhe cily 01 AS u r, in : FS Alp (1992) 119-125.

J.-M. D URAND, La s itu ~ tio l1 his tori<lue de, Sakkanakku : IlOU­

ve lie approche, MAlU4 ( 1985) 14 7-1 72.

Bibliography 219

- fragment\) rejoin lS pour une histoire clamite, in: FS SlerJe ( 1986) 111-128.

- Us dor"",,,,,/< ,plStalal'" d" palau ,u Man, tAPO 16-18 ( 1997-2000) .

CHR. EOER, Die Datierung des spcitaltbabylonischen AlaJab, in: FS Nagel (2003) 227-289.

- Myrische Distal113.ngaben und die abrolute Chronologie Vord e",s ie ns, AOF31 (2004) 191-236.

W. £oER - J. &ENCER (eds.), Hmsch£rrhronolog'n! tUs anliMn 'Welt, Namen, Daten. Dynastien, Der eue Pauly Supplement I, SluUgart (2004).

D.O. EoZARD, Die "2. ZwiJchenz.eit" Bahyloniens, Wiesbaden (1957). (= Z,,;schcnzeil)

Konigslislen ,,"d Chrtmiken. A. S"lIImsch, RIA 6 (1980-1983) 77-86.

- Geschich te Mesopotamiens, \'on den SUJ1U'rn'n bis zu Alexan­tin'dnn GrojJm, Mfmchen (2004) 40.

R.W. EHRICH (ed .), Chronologies in World ArchfUOWK>, Third Edi· tion, Chicago (1992).

J. EmE.\t, The Shlnnshlira Archiv~s 2, Tilt AdminislTlltive T~I..s, His­lOrisk-filosofiske Wler 15, Copenhagen (1992).

J. EIDEM - J. lA:.ss0E, TM SI"mshiJm Archives 1, TM LLIlm, Hi .. lOrisk-fiIosofiskc krifter 23, Copenhagen (2001).

B. EINwAG, Die J(ulllnik aus drm Bmich Iks PalaslLs A in '{all Bi'a/Tuttul und dos Problnn tin' fnihm .lliIIlnm Bronuutl, Mi'mchner Vorderasiatische Studien 19, ~ 1 i'lIl chen-Wien

(1998).

B . I. FAIST , Da F~rnh(lnd~l d~s assyrischm Reichl'S zwiscM,1 tkm 14. ""'111.jh. v. Ch" AOAT 265 (2001).

F.M. FALES, Ass)'lian Royal Inscriptions: . ewer Horizons, SAAR 13 ( 1999-200 1) 115-144.

H.A. FINE, Studies in ft f iddlt-Assyritm Chronology (IUd Rtligio'l, Cincin nati ( 1955).

1.1.. FINKEL, Bilingual Ch ronicle Fragme nts. jCS' 32 (1980) 65-80.

I.L. FINKEL - J .E. READE, LoIS of eponyms, 1roq 57 ( 1995) 167- 172.

- Assyrian eponyms, 873-649 BC, 0 .. 67 (1998) 248-254.

J.J. FlNKEI.SrElN, T he Genealogy of the Hammurapi D~llasl). j CS20 (1966) 95-118.

F. FISCHER, Bogalkoy und d ie hro nologie de l' i.lltaSSyrische n Ilandeisni ederlil 'iSungCll in Kappado k.i e n, lsi. M ill. 15 (1965) 1- 16.

B.R. FOSTER, l"JIjorf til' MIlSl'~, 4 ~ n '-\ 1I tllology of Akkadian Litem­turt, 2nd (.'cl ition. Be thesda, f\ ID ( 1996).

J.K. FOl1 lER1NCHAM - S. LANGDON - C. S CIIOCH, Tltt ' lot/us Tablets of Ammuai/uga, Oxford-Lo ndon ( 1928).

H. f'RE\'DANK, Zur ' l.~s)Ti sch t' n KUlligslistc. AOF 3 (1975) I 7!!-1 75.

IJrih iig"t· :' /1 " miltt'llIss),,.;srhtn Chronologit ,wd Cfsrhirhtt, SGKAO 2 1, Berlin (199 1) .

- Addenda und Corrigenda LU mitlelas~) rischell Eponp nc n, in : FS Oels,," (2000) 67-72.

- Assyrische Zeitrechnung - ein ungewohnliches S~'Stem, in: j. MARZAH. - B. SALJE (cds." IVttekrmtd!cndes AllUr, 100 Jahre dro/<che Awgrabungm in AlS)'YUn, Mainz (2003) 29-32.

- /uppu in anderer Sichl, AOF3-1 (2007) 22.'>-236.

J. FREu, La fin d'Ugarit et de "empire Hittite, Donnees nou­velles el chronologie, Sernitica 47 (1997) 17-39.

- La chronologie du regne de Suppilu1iuma: E.ssai de mise au point, in: FS Poplw (2002) 87-107.

- Hisloire du Mitanni, Paris (2003).

- De la confrontation a l'entente cordiaJe: Les relations asS}'-

ro-hittites it la fin de I'age du Bronze (ca. 1250-1]80 av. j.C.), in: FS Hoffnn- (2003a) 101-118.

H.D. GALTER, Die srnchronistische Geschichte und die assyrische Crenzpolitik, in: L. Mu.A.,\o ft aL (eds.), Land­sapes, TfTT'itmiLs, Fruntitn and Hrnizons in lht An.omt NfaT Easl, 44. CRRAl, Hfu'lE/M 3/2 (2000) 29-37.

P. GAREW, Us A!S)Tirru '" c"ppadoc<, Paris (1963).

- Retlexions sur les listes royaJes assrriennes. in: FS Birol (1985) 9 1-95.

H. GASCHE, La fin de la premiere dynastie de Babylone: une chule difficile, ,1kkadica 124 (2003) 205-220.

H. GASCHE et al., Daling 1M FaU of Babylun, A JltappraiJal of &C. ond·Millronnium ChronowK>, MHBl 4, Ghent and Chicago 1998. (= Daling ... )

- A Correction lO Daring the Fall of Babylon, A Reappraisal of Second-Millennnium Chronology (=~I HEM 4). Ghent and Chicago 1998, Akkadira 108 (1998a) 1-4.

M.-H. GATES. A\aJakh Chronologl' Again, in, High ... 2 (19 7) 60-86.

- Ki nel HOyl'k (Hatay, Turkey) and MB le\antine Chronol· ogy. in: just in ThM, ProcHdi1Jgs of tht Intmwtional CcIloqui­um on Ancinll .\'mT Easltrn Chronolog)' (zM .\Ii/Jnmium BC), GhmI7-9ful)' 2000, Akkadira / 19-120 (2000) 77-IO \.

1.]. GELB. T" o Assyrian King Lists,j\'ES 13 (1954) 209-230.

M. GIORCII.RI - C. MORA, LL Lttll!J"f Tm I IV l itit; t I & Amri Ril""",l, a Hallusa, Hfu'lE/~1 7 (2005).

]..J. GlASSNER, Chrortiqu.s Mis0polatninwtS. Paris (1993). (=

ChrMis)

_ L'hislon en mesopOlamien Cl la fi n des empires. in: GS c"gru (2000) 38!!-393.

~Iesopolamian Chronicles. in: THJ . U \\lS (ed.>, l\'rilinp from 1M Allcinll \IOr1d 19, SBI., Atlan~' (2004).

A. CODO£ERIS, E(onomy alld soOtt)' m northtm Babylollia ;11 1M rorfy old Bab)'lortiart "",oct (ca. 2000-1800 B ), O LA 109, LeU\'en (2002).

A. GOETZE. O n ule Chronology of the Second ~t i Ll e n nium B.C., j CS' II ( 1957) 5!!-73.

A.K. CRAl'SON. Ass\Tian and Bab\lonian King Lists, Collations and Commen ts, in: fS '''''' Sodn, ( 1969) 105- 11 .

_ .1Sl)·,iall allll Babyloniall Chro"lries. T 5 ( 1975). (a ABC)

_ Histories and Historians ill the Ancient ("ar East: Asspia and Babylonia, 0..49 (1980) 140-194.

_ KOllill'/is'm urod C/llvnikm. B. Akkadllrh .. RIA 6 ( 19 0-19 3)

86-135.

220 ~tesopo(:.\mian (:hronoloJ{" of lhe 2nd \lillennium B(,

S. CRIE -Cl'S. :\e'\ E,idenee on the Old Bab\.loni.lo C\lend~\r and Real EM .. ue OOClunencs from ippar.j-tO\ 121 (2001)

25i-~67.

G. GC.UA"D1. Te-rqa Gh-ptic Data Highly 'upport .1 Lo\\ Chronol~. ·.A.B.t. 19ge 137. 13~134.

C. G(""",,,"TTl. An Epomm 1i>'1 KEL G) from };.(tlleP'" . . ~OF :\.'; ~OOS) 1O~13~.

O.R. Gl'R.'Tf, The Hittite Line of Kin~ and Chronolog'\. in: FSGutnl>nro, (1974) 105-111.

V.C. GURZAD\:A. ...... On the Astronomical Record.." '.\I1d Bah,lon' ian Chronolog\~ in: just in Ti"", Proawti"~ of 1M brl",-".a· litmal GJIJoquzum on .~nciml Star EasUm Chronol"!{l 12"" 111/· ""mum BC}. Ghem 7-9 Juh ~OOO • • Uoar/ico 119-1~0 I~()OO) 1,,-186.

.\strollon1\" and the Fall of Bab\lon. Potten, lunar «lip and state-of-the-art anah'tica11«hniques o;;ohe a 3 .. ~OO·\ear· old rn,,'er\. Soy &' T""'op-loo 1 (2flOOa) 4~5.

- The \'enus Tablet and Refraction, .. ·\JcJtadi(a 124 f~OO3)

1~1i.

V.G. GL"RZADI:."" - S.W. CoLE. l'r III Eclip"'" Re\i,"ed . . Uknd· I£a 113 (1999, 1-5.

R. Ct.,-. Relathe und absolUle Chronologie in der \·order.b.l· aLischen Archaologie. Einige Anmerlungen lum Thema. in: FS Sis.,." 0999\ 19-28.

R. 1iACHYA.'l's. Ass\TIsche Abstandsdaten und absolute Chronologie. ZDP\'93 (1977) 9,-130.

G. HAc"" •• The nan King lisl and Chronol~" a Cri· tique. Or74 (2005) 2~1.

W.W. HAu.o.1Ariqum.j\1:S 13 (1954) 22~225.

\mnan HisLOriograph,' Re\i5iled, Err/;. l$Tad H (19, ) I -7.

- Dating The ~l"",pol3mian Past, The Concepl of Eras from $argon to Xabonassar. BCS.\IS6 19 3) 7-1 .

WOW. HAu.o - W.K. SOO'SO~ . The .~nnml S,ar fASI • . ~ HuWry, 2nd Edition. Orlando, FL (199 ).

A. HARRAK, Au)"na and Hamgalhat, Hild",heim (19K7).

M.G. HAsEL. Recent De\·elopments in , 'ear Eastern Chron(}I(~ gv and Radiocarbon Dating. Ongr1l.56 (2004) 1>-31.

FA JiA.ssA."J - S.W. R OBIXSOS, High·Preci~ion Radiocarlxm ChronomeUJ· of Ancient Egypt, and Comparisons with ",ubia. Palesline and ~lesopol3mia. Anl"lUlty 61 (19H7) 119-135.

.K. HEaa:a, Zur Dauer des Inter\-aJls .l\\ischen den Schichten Karum II und Ib am KlilleP'", in: S. All' -A. SLfI (ed,.). 1If. L'lu.bJ.rarao H.I.toIajl Khngrni Bildirilm. (mum 16-221;)lUl 1996. Ankara (1998) 297-308.

W. HDMPEL, On the recently published Old Bab~,..lonian lexl' from TUllul. Or 72 (2003) 307-326.

M. HUNZ, 7;1l AtcharUJ/AlaW<h, JJw Srhirhtnl VII-X~7/. AOAT 41 (1992).

H.A. HOf'FN"ER, The Last Day .. of KhaulBha, in: WA. WAR)) fl aL (ed.." 7)" Crim Y,an; Th, 12"< Cmlury B.G.. lrom bryonil till' OanulN 10 II" Tigri •• Dubuque. Iowa (1993) 46-52.

E. HORNUNC. l 'ntenwhungm zur Chronoibgu und (~psrhirJtlP d" .'1,·t1V7I IVirIvl. Wie,lnden (1964).

W. HORO\\ITZ. The 360 ilud 36·1 D.1\ Year in Ancienl \le<opOl.mia.jA.\E\ 24 (1996) ~5-41.

M.J. HORS~<£U.. Fh, ltor·.\.,,,,, oj Ih, hnl O",(I.'/) o[ Baby«"'. Omario (1999).

- \\In Year-. ·ame,? \n F'plor..ltlon into the Rt"a<\ons of their L'e. Or ,2 1200~) 196-~3.

PJ. HUBER, .-\.slronomical E\;dt'nce for the Long and against lhe ~Iiddle and Short Chronologie,. in: High ... I (1987) ~li.

- Dolting by Lunar Eclip .. e On1ln.1 with Spt'culaliOlls on Birth of Omen AsLrOIO!,,,. in: Pi \aoo. ( 1987a) ~13.

.\;lronomical Daling of l ' r III and Akkad. A[O ·16-47 (1999-2000) 5~ 79.

- Re\ of.: ReI. of: H G\.\(HE rl aL. MHE\lI. Ghelll- Chica­go (! 998). ~jO 46-1, (1999-2000) 287-290.

.-\.srronom\ and Anciem Chron()lo~, in: jllJI HI Time. ~ CM'iings of 1M Intnnaliona/ C.oIloquJUm. (J1l J.lICU"PlISfar EasUm

C.hronol"!{l (2"" .11tI"""iu." BCI. Ghrol 7-9 july 2000. Akkad· ica 119-IW (2000) 159-176.

- The Solar Omen oOlll"ili II.J.~OS 121 (2001) 640-6+4.

P.]. HLtBER et aL . -l'ilronomlcal Dalmg of Bab)·/.on I and Ur III,

OP:<'"E I (19 21. (= OP:-<E)

H. HUNCER. Kalnllur. Rio\. 5 (1971>-1980) 297-301.

- Cses of Enuma Anti Enlil for Chronology. in: just in Time, Prorttdings of tM Intl'17lalional ClJlloquium on Antimt Near EmlnTJ Chrrmol"!{l 12-d .\fillnmium BC). Gh",1 7-9 july 2000. • iliadica 119-120 (2000) 155-158.

- Cher die Bedeutungslo~igkeit der Finslerni~se in Ellut/la • ~nu Enlil fUr die Chronologie. in: FS DiLlrich (2002) 1"-176.

H. HL"SCER - D. Pt."CREE • • IIU .. API.\'; An AslronomlCal Com· prodium in Cunn[onn. AfO Bh. 24 (1989) .

- Aslral Snroces in Mnopolamw. lidO 1/64 (1999).

H. Ht."SCER - R. PRUZSINSZKY (eds.). MfSopolomilln Dar. Agr lInJt.iled. Procteding> oj an Inlmwlional COllj,""" o[ SClf.M 2000 (I'iron(l IJ'h_9. N"'''mlm- 2(}()2). CChEM 6 (2004). (= I,!DAR)

H. HUNGER - E. RufltER, A Sch"mc for Illlel"calal"Y Monlhs from Bab}lonia. Wl . ./(M67 ( 1975) 2 1-28.

T. J ACOBSEN. The Sumnum KIllI( 1.1". AS II ( 1939).

ST. JAKOB, Mlltp/.tHf)risrhf' VrrUlaltung und Sozialstntktllr, UnttrSU· (hungnl. eM 29 (2003).

- Die millela~\}'Ii"<'hen Texte aus Tell Chllera in ordost· Syrien. \\,ie~baden (in pre~ .. ).

P. j A.\fES et 01., C..mIUnI'i of {)arknfH, A Clwllnlf(f to IIlI' C..om"tI~ lional Chrrmow/O oj Old WflTUi Arrlwrolo/(j. London ( 1991 ).

Til. JANSSEN, ZII d('n Berl?chnung\wei'ien lind Re'iult:Ut'1l as,yri;cher Di,tan/angaben . AkkfUh((l 127 (2006) 63-72.

TUl1JHu in der AKL - B(·rechnllng. KOlllepl, Bt'dclILUng, AlU<adi(fl 12M (2007) '19-108.

M, j URSA, Oil' /JabykmiPT, (;P~clllfhll', (;ffl'{/~rI/flft, Kuilllr, Milll·

ch"n (2004).

A. KEMPlNSKl , Syrim untl PaliiSlwfI (Kfl1tfl(m) in d/fT lP11.tnl PJUHl' dPT MilIP/bronu /IIl·lAt. AA'I 4 ( 1983) 197-229.

Bibliographv 221

C. KEMPINSKl·l..ECOMTE (ed.), f/(mldum J: U,U vll" flOUVtUt sur Ie MflJ",·Eu/Jhrale (XHII'-XVlI' IIkl" ftv. I'C,), Pari; (1992) 3~36.

K.A. KITCHE1"J. Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I). The lIi>lorical Chronology of Ancient Egypt. A Currem As~e'isment, in: M. StET..\){ (ed.), Tht Synchronisation of Civilisations in lhe EILSlem IWediler· rantan in the Second MilItnmum B.C., Proaedingl of an Inler· natIOnal Symposium at Schlo} Haindorj. 15/h-17'. ojMay 1998. CChEM I (2000) 39-52.

H. KLENC£I.. Syria. 3000 10 3(}() B.C .. Berlin (1992).

Geseh.ehle des helhilisehm Reiches. HdO 1/34 (1999).

J. KLINCER. Synchronismen in der Epoche vor Suppiluliuma I. - einige Anrnerkungen zur Chronologie der millelhethiti­schen Geschichle. in: O. CARRLBA ,I ai (ecls.). II UmgrtSSC

InlnTJazwnale di Hittilologi'l, Slud. Med. 9 (1995) 235-248.

Zur Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches. OLZ 95 (2000) 5-13.

- Chronological Links between the Cuneifonn World ofthe Ancient i\'ear East and Ancient Egypt, in: E. HOR.'l.':"G tt al (eds.). Aneirol Egyptian Chrono{O[D. HdO 1/83 (2006) 304-324.

J. KOCH. Neues von den UR lJl·~ l ondeklipsen. NAB.U. 1998/132.121>-129.

U. KOCH·WESTENHOLZ. Mesopotamia7lAslrology. CNIP 19 ( 1995).

F.R. KRAus, Konige. die in Zellen wohnten. SClrachlUngen ....lber den Kern der as5pischen Konigsliste, i\'ieull..'l !?nics 28/2. AmSlerdam (1965) 12~ 1 42 .

- Allbabylollisek BneJe ill Umsehrift und D""",,"ung. Leiden (1964 IT.) .

M. KRE.BERi'11K. Neues lU den Epom·nlen unter Jasmab-Addu, AOF28 (2001) 1-7.

Tall Bra / Tullfll - fl, D;~ altorinllalisrhm Schriflfu,ult~ WVDOG 100 (200 1.).

j . KRECHER - H.P. MULLER, \'erg-.mgenheitsimerc'iSc in Meso-­potarnien und Israel , afrol"", 26 (1975) 1~4.

G. KRYSZAT, lur Chronologit dtr Kau!ma nnsa,rhhtf (lll tier St-hichl 2 d,s I\limm KanfS, Studien und ~ I atl'rialit'n, Old Ass)'lian Archh·e~, Studies. Voluml' 2 (200·1).

C. KOHNE, Oil' CJmmoiogie del' illll'nlalionalm I\on"fs/)(mdnl! von EI·Ama",a. AOAT 17 (1973).

- Poli tisc he Slencrie und iUlerl'lalilHlille Beziehungen Vorcierasiells UIll dit.· Mille des 2. Jahrtaust'nds \'. ChI'. (7uglcich ein KOIlIepl del' KUl/chronologie) mit einer Zeillaf"l. 8BI 'O I (19$2) 203-264.

- F.in 111iuel.lssyrisches \'erw"ltllllgs.lrchi\ lind andere Keil· ..chrifltexte. in: W. ORTII\I\,\,\ t'l al. (t·d,.). AIHj...rr(lbutlg'm;lI '1fIJ Clau"a m NordQSt~),jfn I, VOI"(il'rasi.nische Fonochun· gen <It'l" ~tax Freiherr \"on Oppt'nheim - tillung, \01. 2. Sa'll'br(kken ( 199[) 20~205.

- f~pt.'ct.; of the Middle A .... .')\rian lLtlbu ArchiH", S:\r\B lO ( 1996) ~7.

- tlllperi.lI Miuani: An '\Ut'IHPI .11 t li'lOrical Rt~COnSll'Uctiol1.

SeCN II 10 (1999) 20~22 1.

F.X, KUGLEK, Sll'rrtkulltil' ftlld Stt-nulitnSI ;', nabt'I, leil II , lien I, I\ tull'ilt'r, Aschendodl (19 12) .

A. KUHRT. The Anciml Sear Ea.,. c. 3()()()"'3(}() Be. Routledge. London (1995).

P.I. KUNJHOLM, A Date-Ust for Bronze Age and Iron Age ~1on­uments Based on Combined Dendrochronological and Radiocarbon E,idence. in: FS N. 6zgur (1993) 371-373.

P.I. KUNIHOLM et a1., Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of Ihe easlern ~Iedilerranean. 222~718 BC. Nat"", 38 I (1996) 78~783.

P.I. KUN IHOL\l - M.W. NEWTON. A 677 Year Tree.Ring Chronology for the Middle Bronze Age, in: FS T. Ozgtk (1989) 279-293.

J.·R. KUPPER. S.m'i·Adad el I"Assyrie. in: FS Birot (1985) 147-151.

D. UCA.\{8R£ - 6. TuNC\, Histoire de la \oaJlee de I'Euphrate entre Ie barrage de TiSrin et KarkemiS au,x lIlt et 11'" miJIe­naires a,·. J.-C .. in: G. DEL ODIO LETE. - J.-L. Mo:-.nuo FE"OU.OS (ecls.). A rrhatology oj tilt L""," Syrian Euphral<5. lhe Tishrin Dam Arro, AuOrS 15 (1999) 5 7-ffl3.

S. UCKENBACHER. u roi balissror. Paris (19 2).

J. i..£SSOE. Prop" ojAnnD.1 A.'!]ria. Their Inscriplioru and Com>­spontkna. 'ewYork (1963).

- 1M 62100: A Leller from Tell Shernshara, AS 16 (1965) 1891-196.

W.G. lAMBERT, Another Look at Hammurabi's Anceslors,jCS 22 (1968) 1-2.

- Tukulti·Ninurla I and the Assyrian King List. Iraq 36 (1976) 85-9~.

- Samsu-I1una in Later Tradition. in: FS Kuptxr (1990) 27-34.

- The Fall of the CassiEe D)11ast) to the Elamites, An HislOr· ical Epic. in: ",".u Mry .... (1994) 67-12.

B. lANDSBERCER, Assyrische Konig:sliste und "DunkJes Zeital· ler".jQ,8 (195·1) 31-73.106-133.

M.T. L"'SEN. The Old A,,)"riall City-Slal< and lis Colonits. ~lesopo",ll1ia 4 (1976).

'V.F. LEE~tANS . Le s~11chronisme -am~i·addu·Hammurabi d'apres certain.;; lextes du Loune, R.-\ 49 (1955) 202-20-1.

j. LEWY. ZUI' neuen Konigslisle aus ~ur, Z-t 3S (1929) 9~lOi.

M. UVERANI , PmliJ7 and Inlrrl'Sl, Inltrnalional Rttations in lht .Year Easl. 1600-11(}() B.C.. Ht\;"\'('S I (1990).

- Re\". of: H. G\>(:HE tI ai. ~IHEM 4. Ghem - Chicago ( 1998).jSE &I (2005) 214-215.

T. LoNCMAN IU. firlional A.kkadian AldobiographJ, A Gmni<: and Comptlmlittt Slu(/). Winona L1ke, IN (1991).

P. MAOUNIST. The Epic oj 1UJU//II·Sill"rUt I. ,~ Stud, In .lJuldir .-l5.S).,..ia" Ultra/II,." Ph .O . Di~1; ,. Ne\\ Haven, Yale- Unhef"lli[\ ( 1978).

A. MAlA\tAT. King Lists of the Old B<lb~lonian Period a.nd Bib­lie.,1 Genealogie,. JAO 88 (1968) 163-173. (rep.im in Marialldlh,Bibl,.SII \1 E 12[199]).

_ Mad and llS ReIalioH' .. with lht~ E.."l.Stem Medil~rranean. in: FS Corrloll (1998) II 1-4 18.

ST.W. MANNING. A 'ltSl of nine. Oxford (1999) .

ST,W. ~hNNINC et al. , Anmolian Tree Rings and a New

222 ~tesopotamian Chronolog, of the- 2nd \lillenniu11l Be

Chronol~ for the Eobl \fediterrane.ut Bronze--ll'Ol1 ~ges. &u.u 294 (2001) 2532-2535.

ST.W. MANNL'(G - B. RAMSEY. A Late ~linoan I-II absolute chronolo~' for the A~an - combining archaffll~ "ith radiocarbon. in: ~1. BlIT'" (ed.). TIl, yruhmlllsaJUm of CitPilisations In 1M EAsIlnI .'fedilirranMn In 1M S«tmd .\Iillm· nium RC.. Procmiings of Iht CJE.II 2()()() - EumCcnj"'tfJ(', Hamdorf. 2'wI of .I(ay-;<' of .110) 2001. CChDI 4 (2003) 111-133.

I. MARQUEZ Ro\\'E. ljalab in the :\.\ 1,h and >.."h C.enturies B.C .. A :-<ew Look at the .-\.Ialab ~Iaterial. \\ZK.I( 8i (1997) 17i-205.

M.G_ MASITtl-ROt:ALU_ Cullum Iot-aks du J(oym-Euphml,_ .I(od&s n ivinnrImJs I/<-/' rru/L Ql' f.-C.. ubanu. (2000).

ST_\f. MAL~ nnenfinslemisse in .·\swrien: Eine Bedrohung der Weltordnung, in: H. K6tru:R n aL (eds.). "5JUnnmd auf jinslDlm Pfad ... ", EinSy .. fXJSitm ,ur SoonmJinsUrnis indn-.~nb­U, Un~-ersitiilS\erlag C. Winter, HeIdelberg (2000) 1-12.

W. MAin. Ta/J Mun/)dqa - E1w11L fl. IN T_, in: D. ~lm-llu (ed.). Ausgrabungen in Tall ~Iunbiqa - lla]I •• I\YDOG 102. SOl', Saarbnicken (2001)_

P. MICHI.!..,..-."' . An Old Bab,lonian Literan fragment Con­cerning the Kassites, AlOS 41 (I I) 385-- 9.

C. MI~ Comple-reodu de I'atelier .-\rrlill'tS pafio..ass)Tirrr.nD d ch~ (XLVI< RAI Paris. juillet 2000), "AB.t: 2000 '42. 48---19.

- . 'om-eUes donnees pour la chronologie du [It millenaire, :\AB.t;. 200220, 17-1 .

C. MImn. - P. ROCHER. La chronologie du lit millenaire. 1k\ue a I'ombre d'une eclipse de solei!, JEOL 3;;'-36 (1997-2000) 111-126.

A.R M1UAlW, Fragments of Historical TexIS from ~ineyeh. haq32 (19iO) 123-142.

Tht EpunJrns of u.. Assynan Empil? 911J-.<j12 Be. SAAS 2 (1994)_

- Obse", ... tions from the Epomm Lists, In: S. PW'OLA - R.~I. WHm'G (eds_), AmTia 1995. Prrxt<dmgs ofu.. I(IA .~nnn,..,.­saT] Symponum of u.. .\'to-.~"J"On Tat Corpus Proj'<1 HnnnJr.i, .'!.ptnnbn- 7-11, 1995, Hel'inki (1997) 207-215.

W.A. MrrOfEU..., Anciem Aslronomica1 Olbervations and . ear Eastern Chronology,fACF3 (1989.'90) 7-26.

W.L MORAN, ThtAmarna Lttt=, Baltimore (1992).

V. MULLER, Eine kritische Darstellung der derzeitigen Disk .... .. ion zur hisLOrischen_ Chronologie Agyptens in der 2. Hatfw des 2.JL v. Chr., in: U. Y..u:;", etaL (eds.). Dos Schiffwn L7u­huntn, \ltlJho1ldel tJOr 3()()() jahTen. Bochum (2005) 19~21O.

- \Vie gut fi:oert ist die ChronOlogie des :-..'euen Reiche~ "irkJich', A&L 16 (2007) 20~230.

A. MIIU.£R-KAAPE. Remark on Central AnalOlian ChronolOl!Y of the Middle Hillite Period, in: M. S".lAK (ed.), T/" Syn­chrrmisaliun of CivUisatums In 1M EaJlITn M,.ditnTa,-"an tn tlv .Stwn4Mll/;nnium B.C., Procudmgs oflht SCI£~120oo-Eurfj­Ccnf"eTICI!, Hamdorj. 2"" of Ma:r7f1o of May 2001, CChEM 4 (2003) 38~394.

N. NA' ....... ,<, The ChronolOl!Y of A1alakh Level VII Once Again, AnSt29 ( 1979) 1O~113.

- tatemenb ofTimt"-Sp.llb b\ Sab, Ionian and :~syrii.\n Kings and \iesopOIami,\ll ('JIron"lo!:'. Iroql6 (198·1) 11;;'-123.

W. NAGEL - CHR. EDER. Altwrien lind t\!:,plen. OaM 6 (1992) I-lOR

E. N. onu. Grande Ii'le dt'S rOt d·A .. ",ie, ~fD4 (1927) I-II.

KR. DIET- >JAT. Dailv Life 111 \ncient \Iesopolamia. Green. "ood Pre".. \\hlpon. CT - London (1998).

O. NEL'GE&4.lU. Zur Frage- der asuonomi.;;chen Fixienmg der bab\loni«hen Chronologie. OLZ32 (1929) 9 1 ~921.

M.\\', NEwrov - P.I. KU!\LHOLM. A Dendrochronological Frame\\ork for the Ass\Tian Colon\" peliod in Asia Minor. Tum!) Billmks .Iltadnnin~m",loji Dng'S/ 7 (2004) I 65--1i6.

M. NlSSI''L'<, ProphfU alld Prophtry III tht ,IlIcintt ,"rar East. Wril­ings from the Ancient World 12 (2003),

J.C. Ou". Alalab III Chronographica, t:na revision del archi\"o sobre la base de los te\.lOS de Yarim-Lim. in: f""S dtl Olmo Ltt. (1999-2000) n9--239.

C.H. OULR. The In~riplion of Idrimi: A Pseudo-AUlobiogra­ph\? in: fS~J"""'lr(19 9) 411-417.

A.L QPPE.''HEL\l , ;\1J(U"tl1 Mt'.SO/JOlamia, Portrait of a Diad CM­IIUlIUm. Revised Edition compleled b) E. Reiner, Chicago (19i7)

H. 0'rrEs. Die hethitischen historischen Quellen und die altorienta1ische Chronologie. Abh. d. Gristts- und Sozialwis­vrurhafllichtn KIas" Jg. 1968, No.3. franz Steiner Verlag, lUlegan (1968) 100-126.

- Die leute Phase des hethitischen Gro6reiches nach den Texten, Osltrr. Akademie du Wiss., Phtl.·hist. Klasse, Si12ungs· bmrhk 418, Imf! dn- Komm. fur lIlykmisrht l'orsrhung 10, "erlag der Akad. der Wi s., Wien (1983) 9-21.

- Das hethitische Kimigshaus im 15. Jahrhunden v. ehr., Anutger dn- phl/.-hlSt. Klassr d'tf OstrrrrirhlSrhm AklldR1/11e dR1 WiwnMhoftm 123 (1987) 21-34.

SA. PAU.1S, Tht AntlqUlI) of 1m", A Hamlhook of Assyriology, Copenhagen (1956).

R. PARKER - W. DI!BBERSTEJN, 8ab)/uma>! Chronology 626 B.C. -A.D. i5. Pro,idence (1956).

O. PWERStN, A Problematic King in the A~syrian King List, in: fS Renger (1999) 369-373.

R Pn:.VTKA, Die spataUbabylonij(h~ 7.eit, Abil';u!1 bii SrmlJuditana, Q;ullm.fahmdatm, c-!fhirhlf,IMGULA 2 (1998).

A.H . PODM"Y. A Middle Babylonian Dale for the Ilana King· dom,jeS43-45 ( 1991-1993) 53-62.

Some Shared Tlddilion~ b(·tween J lan~ and the K..1.ssilfs, in: F\ Astour (1997) 417-432.

Tht Umd of llana, Kin!:" Chronology, and Srriblll Ttad,tion, COL Press. SClhe>da, \10 (2002).

A PO£8£L. The A~~:yrial1 King Li\t from Kllor~abacl, jNES I (1942-1943) 247-306; 460-592 andjNFS2 (1943) 5&-90.

- Study V, The Use of Mathemalical Mean Values in Ihe Babylonian King List B, A.S )4 (1947) 110-121.

- The Second Dynasty of J\in A('cording wa New King·Lisl Tablel,AS 15 (1955).

F. POMPONIO, Acribia ed errori nella Li'sta Reale A'i)ir.t, A/ON 56(1996) 159-165.

Bibliography 223

N. PONS, Encore la chronologie du 2('mc miilenaire!, AJdw.dlCll 124 (2003) 121.

N. POSTGATE, The Chronology of Assyria - An insurmountable Obstacle, CAJ I (1991) 244-246.

- Early Mtsopotamw, Society and reanomy at Iht dllwn of hulory, London (1994).

D.T, POTt'S, The Archaeology of Elam, Formatian and Tramfurma­Lion oj an Ancient/raman Statt, Cambridge (1999).

- A Di.collrse on Time. in: fS Nwen (19990) 12-18.

R. PRU2SINSZKV. Evidence for the Short Chronology in Mesopo­tamia? The Chronological Relationship between the Texts from Emar and Ekalle, in: f I. Ilv;'ltCER - R. PRl:ZSI~SZKY

(eds.), Mtsopotamian Dam Age RrolSikd, CChEM 6 (2004) 4~50.

- Samsi-Adads L "neue" Regierungsdaten und assyrische Dis­tanzangaben, in: fS Bi,tal< (2006) 7~79.

- Ein bibliographischer Weg".·eiser zur absoluten mesopotaffii-­schen Chronologie des 2. JIS. v. Chr., A&L 15 (2006a) 181-201.

- Die "verklll-lle mittlere Chronologie" unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Distanzangabe des Tukulti·i'Jinurta I. , N.A.B.U. 2006/13 (= 2006b) , 11-12.

Zum Versulndnis der as5yrischen Distanzangaben: Beitrage zur assyrischen Chronologie, SAAB 14 (2006c) 2~31.

K. RAoNER. Das mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von Giri· cano/Dunnu·Sa-uzibi, in: A . .5cH.-\CH""£R (ed.), Ausgrablm­gm in Girirano I, Subartu 14 (2004).

J.E. READE, Assyrian eponyn'lS, kings and pretenders, 648--605 BC, Or67 (1998) 25;;'-265.

- Absolute Dales and As.s\Tian c..1..lendars. in: just III Tim,. Pro­uedings ofthi' International Colloquium ou AncUut Sror Eastnn Chronology (Z"d Mil/mlli"m BC). Ghtnt 7-9 jul.j 2()()(), AUad­ica 119-120 (2000) 151-153.

- Assyrian King-LislS, The Royal Tombs of Ur, and Indus On· gins,jNES60 (200 1) 1- 29.

P. J. REIMER, A ew Twist in the Radiocarbon Tale. &unCi 29 .... (200 I ) 219-1-2495.

E. RElNER. Plitgue Amulets and House Blessings, ]SES 19 ( 1960) 14S- 155.

E. REINER - D. PINCREE, Babyloniall Plar"tary 0 .. " .... Pari I: Tht \~"'LI 'Ii,hl.t ofAI1IIII/.$atluqa., BiMes 2 1(1975). (= BPO I)

Babylon;an Plan'tmy 0111""', I'art Th .. t, CM II ( 1998). (= BPO 3)

J. RENGEl<, KOlllgsi'lSrhnflnl. B. IIhkadl.5eh. RIA 6 (198(}-1983) 0;;'-77.

Vergallgenes Ceschehen in del" Texlllberliefemng des alten ~ t esopot..U'njen, in: 11. J. .1-I1Rh.E - A. M U.ER (cds.). l't-rg01igt'llhn't utld /Awtlswtlt, So:.iali' !\ommuniJcal;on. Tradi­tiollslnldtmg unci historiselus Iktuu.u/Sehl, ScriplOralia 90, Tubingen ( 1996) 1;;'-16.

- VOI"Mellungen von Zdt und Zeiunellsung und del" Blick auf vergangcncs Ceschehell in der . berliefenll1g des "Ilen MeSOpOl<l miens, in: II. F'\l_" (cd.), lbm l-it'fTlrht!,- .wr /),11('.

slit', l'frglri(hmcil' StlU/ipn .w Anlik, find O"i,nt l, Brt"men (2002) f>-26.

S.f.C. RICHAIlDSON, Tht CclltJpse of a Compkx Stak: A &appralSal ofthtEnd oftht Fint Dynasty of Babylon, 1683-1597 B.c., UMI Diss. Columbia University (2002).

M. ROM. BildaJlas d'tf \\~ltkuitu,..., Mey;polJJTTUm, Aug,burg (2000).

F. ROCHBERG-HALTON, AJpecJs of Babylonian CtkslUlI DivinatIOn: The Lunar Eclipse Tablets of En" ... Anu Enli~ AfO Bh. 22 (1988).

- Astronomy and Calendars in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: CANE 3 (1995) 192;;'-1940.

W. ROUJG, Maleria/in! ,ur Ch~ Vordnruims 1m 2. Jahrtau­send v. Chr., Habilitationsschrift der Philosophischen Fakultit der Westf3lischen \\'ilhelms--Unh:ersitit zu Miin­ster (WestI.), Munster (1965).

- Die Glaubwfudigkeit der Chronik P, in: fS Falkmstnn (1967) 17~184.

- Zur Typologie und Entstehung der babylonischen und assyrischen Konigslisten, in: fS von Sodm ( 1969) 26;;'-277.

- Epon}men in den miuelasspischen Dokumenten aus Tall Seh 1:Iamad/Diir-Katlimmu, liI94 (2004) IS-51.

O. ROUAULT, Cultures locales et influences exterieures: Ie cas de Terqa, S,~IEA 29 (1992) 247-256.

- Terqa el sa region (6~_I CT millenaires a\'. J.-C.) , Recherch· e recentes, Aklradica 122 (2001) 1-26.

- Chronological Problems Concerning the .Middle Euphrates during the Bronze Age, in: H. Hl!'''''GER - R. PRVZSfNSZKY (eds.), Mt.sqpotamian Dam A~ Rrt>i.siltd. CChEM 6 (2004) 51-59.

M.B. ROWTON, Tuppii in the Ass)Tian King-LisLS, jI\'ES 18 (1959) 21~221.

Compar.uhe Chronology at the Time of O)nasty XIX, fl'-'ES 19 (1960) 1;;.-22-

_ The Material from Western Asia and me Chronology of the Nineleenth Dynast),f.\'ES25 (1966) 240-25 .

_ Chronology, 11. Ancient Weslern Asia, CAH I 1,3 (1970) 19~239.

W. 5.w.ABERGER, C!i!r hullueht Kalmd'tf tkr ~'r [JJ - Zn~ UAVA 7

(1993).

r 11I-Zeit. in: P. ATfINeE" - M. WMLER (cd .j. Mey;pola­mint: AUad ... Uit u"d Ur IlI·Uit. OBO 160/3 (1999) 119-390.

_ Relatjve Chronologie \'on der spaten friihdynastischen bis lUr altbab)'ionischen Zeit. in: JAV. MEYER - W. So~t\tlR· f£1D (eds.). 2()()() v. Chr. , Palilurht, u!irtschofllu:ht und hullu­"ik Entwirkltmg itn Ztirhni ri,,,,. jahrtau.srodlJ.lt1tdt, 3. intn"· lIational" Cclloquiu,n tll'r TPutsrhm Orimt-c-mlsrhafl. 4.-i. April 2000 i" FranAfwtl Maill unll MarlJurgiLahn. CDOG 3 (2004) 15-43.

M. SALVl."II, Tht Uabi", Pris,n of Tunif>-TriSup of Tihunani. DA 3 (1996).

n I'O)'3ume hourrile en Me opolamie du Nord a I'epoque de tlanulili I, ubartu 4 (199 ) 30;;'-311.

A. SAMMAN, Ancintl ~'ria" &xU1) m Iht Ag.> of lambad (ca. 2000-1500 B.C.). Arrhaeologirol and Glyptic Studies. MI Di.ss. University of Califomia, Berkele\' (1997).

224 \lc,opor:.uni.l1l C1uonolo~ of the :,!nd \lilit'nnium B(

C. 5.<PORETT1. Gil tf>o'I."" ~\1Ij. Bi\le, 9 (19;9).

- Due punti ';,una cnmologia di Bmmll.l. in: (;S ( ..... ~I

(2000) 913-921.

L Y... .... """SR-\l'SL'. Bab\ Ionian Chronol<lg\ of Ihe 2nd hall 01 the 2nd \(ilIennium s.c.. in: H. Hl'l~ER - R. PR17"'''" .... , (et6. I •. 1(""fJO/Il"';"rr Dorlr .~!!" &t."lfd. tThJ:: 'I ti (201141 61-iO.

- ~ile :'\omad .. ; KloCb or fiction: . • -\mwTU 3 (= 36. CRRAJI (2004a) 2 ... ~7-305.

- Zur mesopolaJlli~hen Chronologit" de:>. ~. Jahrtau'tends. in' FS Finlcbtiru'r(2006) 157-17i.

H~ SCHAt;OIG. ~abonid. def 'Archaologe auf dem h.oni~ thron', Zurn Geschichbbild des ausgehenden neubab\It.>­nischen Reiche.. in: f) I\.imast (2003) 447-497.

F. ScmonTIU.. On- .~uJbau dn- bab)/Qrruchnr CJrrrnteU,'t. Orbi, Antiquus 7. ~lunsler "'btf (1952).

O. SaiROEDElI.. Zu den Mnig"lc'len aus ...... 'ur. O/.Z 21 (191 'l 41-43,

- KrilMhnfttm, aus .~"ur ,,,,,,,m.dnrm IlIholJ~ \\'\"DOG 35 1920

Th. SEAL. Re\. of: H, G,'-,CHE tI aL. \[HE.l1 4. Ghent - Chicago (199 ). B,or- (2U01) 163-1,3,

C J. SELZ. Die KOnigslisten ab polit:ische TendenZ\\erke~, Fm· buTT!." Cnit<mrlatsbliitln' 156 (2U02) 21-30.

M. S.GRIST. I'in ltarSamA L\PAS 2 (19 ).

- Larsa I,ar SamA L\P"\S 3 (19901.

M. SIGRIST - T. Go"". In. Corrt/M1rnrsiw Catalogw oj Pub/.Vrn/ Cr[fITabIrl,. Bethesda.~1D (1991).

M. SIGRIST - A.M. KRoYHolZ. CanronJanu ojtM I"n - LanQ ltar ,\"""" L\PAS 1 (19 6)_

L SL'GEll, A Polrucal Hi Ion ofCgaril. in: WG.E. Wn"" -:-; \\>Arr 1et6.). Handbooll. oj L'ganlU' Stud",. HdO I 39 (1999,603-735.

K. S lA.",SKI, Oassification, Hisroriograph\, and \ Ionumental AUlhority: The Bab)lonian Entitlement noTUs (hudU1TW),

ja 52 (2000) 95-114.

T/" Babt/Qrrran /:."I.I/mvnt .umis Ikudurrusi, A \Iud) In Till'll'

Fomr and Function. ASO R 9 (2U03).

S. SMITH. AIaWrh and Chrono!J>gy. London (1941))

LSoLLBERGEll, TheTummal ln'Cription.ja 16 (1962) 4(1-47.

F. STARKE. Chronologi5Che Cbersicht lur Gt-schichte de\ hethitischen Reiche. in: U" HtthiltT und ihr Ml'h. /)flS \olJc dn- 1O{JfJ (;';110 (Exhibition calalogue). Bonn (2()(J2)

310-315,

P. STEl~ , 1m mum· und nl"Ubabylonisrhm KiJII'gsmv'mftm 1m tum I:n'" d,.,. AUJ,rrMrnrha/t, Grammat'frht Cnt,.."urhunKnl, W.e baden (20()()).

C. SnJ'f.R. Der "n .. a1e Kern" in den .. It-genddren'' Zahl('n \011

R(-gl(-nlll~jahren otr aiL(;"\wn I f err~ht'r ~1 (·\t'Jp<)(arnit·II\, ..IV 10 (19K1!) 12'1-152,

- Oi t· D,llll'r cION '(;encr4.tlioll' Ha(:h (i<' n Vor r(,( lung-en d{'" All tn 0"".11\. 111 l iI/(h ,., ~ (l9M9) 170-1f)'>,

P. STlI~IQI .UR, O n IIH' Iclt-utit\- of th t· TOr)(Hl\m Ll SU (A). lW\ 10K (I'IKH) 1')7-~{J~

:\.n l'r III :\l,um ... cllpt of the.' SUlllt'n.tIl King Lhl, in: FS l\lllk~ t~OO3) ~l)i-':..ltl2.

M.J. TEVE - F. V..u.L4.T. La lhtl.l ... ri(· dt· ... IgihaU,idt". :\ou\l'Iles inlt'rptt'L.Hion" in: f' t'IWdf'1I &'''~hr (Hl~9) 223-238.

G. SnoIUR·Au.GRl\, ElIl k,t. ...... iti ... c.:hc, Rolhiegt'l at" der Zeit d6 :\.bi~:'\uh. Betllt'rl..uIlRt'n lUI l..uflf.'n ChronolOgie lind ihre Bt'dt"Ulllng ftlr dit, "protok." ... ili,cht" Ghptik", Ortrot· hi'" (J!199 3) 95.

M. TOL • . )Iudir. In Old Bdm'louitm 1I;.\lot), Leiden (1976). (= SOBH)

H. T . .ul\tOR, Hi~lon('al Impliration\ of the Cor rect Rendering oL\lJ-adian rUikll, pEl I; (l95B) I ~>9-ll L

The (:hronolo~ of tht' Ancienl "\t'ar Ea.lil III Ihe Second \lillennium B'cE.. in: B. \[V.\R (cd). TlU' \lurid Huto,) oj

Ih'Jn.",h Proplt 2. PalrinlTh~ Rutgc" (1970) 63-10 I.

Ob!»t"n-ation, on .\.1O,;vrian Hi"!llOriograph\, in: GS Finktlsum (l9;i) 209-213,

P. Tu.o' . Old Babtl<J1lurn T",II J.vm (:hagar &:,ar. AkkadicaS 10 (199,). (= OBTeB)

M. TAsRIT. Whal A Dillerence a Da, Made .n: On Old Bab,· lonran \lomh Lenglh,.jCS 56 (2004) 5-12.

B. TDssIER. SroUng and "rol> jmm A.uIYf" KARL'M Leutl 2. Ned­e-r1ands HislOri~ch-Archaelogi~ch In~LiluliL Te I ~t.anbul

1994).

H.L T HOMAS. Hiswr1cal Chronologies and Radiocarbon Dat· ing . . ~&L3 (1992) 143-151,

F. T HLREAU-O .\.....;CI"l; . La Cilionologie de~ lrois premieres dmasties bab,loniennes. z.~ 24 (1927) 181-198,

F. THl..:1lE.At:-DA.'GI' (ed. ) • . YconM Rni.(ont" AnyriologiqllL Initr· nat'ullaiL(2, CRRH). Pari, (1951).

V.S. TL'YA.~. :utrological Omenl) from Lunar Eclbpses As a ~urce for Bab\lonian Chronolo~. Confinm The Long Chronology. in: Hi/(h. 3 (l9M9) 197-206,

O. TcsCA.. Cylinder <;eal ImcripliOll"i of i)am\j·Adi.ld I and His Omcial, from Acemhoyf.k. in: 1''; T (r.gU( (1989) 481-493,

- D('~ in~ription\ de ~ceaux-c)'lindre\ divcr-.<..'s pro\,enant cl"Acemh6yiik. in: r\ N, OzgU( ( 1993) 629-633,

A. USCNAD, Zu den a\s}ri~hen Ktmigen, OLZ 24 (192 1) 15-17,

- /Jalm/"Im (m.t nnnn N(uilirag von /0.. Mflillg). RIA 2 ( 1938) 131 - 195,

- l.pon)",,,,, RIA 2 (1938) 4 12-457.

- Die Venustafeln und cia, neu 11 It: J ah r Salll\u ilu lllU ( 1741 \" Chr,), \\'\0(, IV3 (1910),

F. VAU..AT, Reflexioll"i "iur I't~p()(I Ue ell-' SlIkkalmali, ill: FS Prrrot ( 19<JO) 119-127,

- Su\a and SU"ildna in 'x-('o lld. \111i t't ll tlUI11 Iran, in: CA 'E 2 (l9!):;) 1 1)23-IO~!\'

- L'fJarn a I'epoqu(' pa l ~o.hab)· l on il·IlIl(' t l "l' Oj rapport!! .IVt'C la ~I (oc,c)p()lamit" Amun u I ( l UnG) ~W7-!~ H).

SlI-iH;u. Idd in·OJ.gan l' l Irna lll , mi d'AIl \all . N.A. B.U. 1 !~ Ir,a/87. 77-7R

- I ,," "oi, Kuk-N<ll u. , N,A lUI 11)<)7/ 11 0. 102- IO!1,

Bibliography 2'>" -;)

L'Elam du Ife millenaire ella chronologie coune, in: Just in Time. Proceedings of lhc International Colloquium on Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (2nd Millennium BC), Chent 7-9 July 2000. Akkad.ra 119-120 (2000) 7-17,

M. VAN DE MIEROOP, Swnman Adminirlrativl' Dorumenls from 1M Reignl oj Iib.-EfTa and Su-.liiu, BIN 10 (1987).

- The Tell Leilan Tablets 1991, A Preliminary Repon. Or 63 (1994) 305-344,

Cunrijonn Texts and 1M Writing oj History, Approaching Ihe Ancien! World, London - New York (1999),

History oj the Ancient Near East, C. 3000-323 B.c.. London (2003) .

King Hammurabi oj Babykm, A BIOgraphy. Oxford (2005).

P. VAN OER MEER, TM Chronowgy oj AncU'1It W",/n'n Asia and Egypl. Second. Revised Edition. D~IOA 2 (1955).

P. VAN OER VEEN - U. ZERBST (eds ,). BihlrscM Archiiologi< am Scheidew<g1. Fur und Wider rinn Nrwulaplinung arrhiioWgi­scher t.)ochen im allrestomentlichm PaUislina. Holzgerlingen (2002),

B.L. VAN OER WAEROEN. On Old Babylonian ASlronomy L. The Venus Tablel of Ammi~aduqa. JEOL 10 (1945-194 ) 4 14-424,

- Die Anjiinge liD Aslnm011lie, C roningen (1966).

J.JA VAN DIJK, libi-Erra. Kindallll, I"homme d·Elam. el I. chute de la ville d'Ur,jCS30 ( 1978) 189-207.

- Die dynastischen Heiraten Iwischen Kassiten und Ela­mern: eine verhiingnisvolle Politik. Or 55 (1986) 159-liO.

F. VAN KOPPEN, The Geograplw of the la\'e Trade and :\orth­em Mesopotam ia in the Late Old Babylonian Period, in: II. Hli'o"CFR- R. P Rl'ZSI:,\SZKY (ed!i.), Mtsopotamiml DarkA.gt Rrvrsited. CChEM 6 (2004) 9-3~,

K. VAN LERBERGHE, Kassites and Old Babylonian Society, A Reappraisal. in: fS Lrpifrski ( 1995) 379-393,

J. VAN SETERS, T he HistOriography oflhe Ancient Near East, in: CANE 4 ( 1995) 2433-2444,

- In Si'(rrch oJ History, Historiography in 1M A ,ICu.nt World and Iht Origins oj Biblical Hislory. Winona L1ke. IN (1997).

W. VAN SOLDT, S}Tian Chronology in the O ld and Earl}' ~I iddle

Babylo nian Pe riods, in: j ust i l l Timt, P)ocft'liings 0/ th, blln-· national C.tJlloqu'um on Anrimt Nmr /:,'aslfnl Chronology (2'Ui AlilU.",imn BC). Glln" 7-9 J uly 2000. Akk.dira 11 9- 120 (2000) 103- 11 6.

K.R. VEENHOF, Ch rono logie \'an he l D ude abije Oosten , Phonri.' 27 ( 198 1) 15-34,

- EpoIIYIIl ,;; of the "Lner O ld A\S\Tian Period" ,lIld ~I ari Chro no logy. M.VU 4 ( 1985) 19 1-2 18,

- O n the Identi fi a lion and Illlp licalio ll s of Some- Bullae from Acemho)'tlk and Klil lt.'pe, in : FS N. Q...gU( ( 1993) tH 5-657.

- The O ld As. .. yrian h~lmu'ihltllll·peri od : a "' ('\'en~a\ week, jliO!' ~4 ( 1995-1996) 5-2G,

The Chrono logy o f I\J\/{UM Kanish. Some ew Obser\,a· lions, ill : II . ERKANAI et al. «('ds,) , XXXI \ frH, Hnlrolunt .-\5,\)'ri· ologifJltI' l nt"" fwtioll alt' - XXXI\~ Ulu~/(m'I'(M I Auiri)'%ji I\.on· J.,"'l'U (34. CRRAI) - T ii ,-/f 'Iar-ill KunwlfI H.J),;Il /mi XX1'1. Dizi-

Sa, 3. Turk Tarih Kurumu Bas.me,;, Ankara (1998) 421-450,

- Old Assyrian Chronology. in: just in Ti11U!, ProcMlingr oj the Intematicmal Colloquium on Anrilnt Sear Easltrn Chronology (2". M.llmnium Be), Ghnrt 7-9 jul] 2000. Akkadica 119-120 (2000) 137-150,

Gr<chicht, d.s AIJ",. Ontnts bis tur Zrit A/r.candm IlLs Gro)m. Gnmdrisse zum Allen Testament, Erganzungsreihe II, COltingen (2001).

- The Old Asryrl(1II Lisl oj Y",r Eponyrrrs from KaTlim Kanislr and lIS Chronologi(al lmplicalionJ, Turk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara (2003),

- Archives of Old As,)rian Traders, in: ~L BROSILS (ed.). Anrimt Arrhit ... and Arrhiuai Tradrlions. Oxford (2003a) 78-123.

- The Old Assyrian Lisl of Year Eponyms. Corrections. Addi­tions .nd Chronologv. NAB.U, 2007 '3. ~2,

- The Old Assyrian Period, in: ~1. WAfLER (ed.). Mesopotamia: TM Old Assynan Pmod. Anruihnungm 5. OBO 160, 5 (2008).

J VON B ECKEIlATH. Chrrmologi< IlLs phamcmirchnr Agyptms. D" 7..nllwstimmllng dn'iig)'Ptis(hm Ges<hi(h" von do \m-.t.til bis 332 t', Ch<. ~L.\s 46 (1997).

E. VON D.'-"ow. State nnd Sod'1) in 1M Late Bronu At;' AInIalJ undn- th, Millan. Ernp,". SCCNH 17 (2008).

C.8.F. WALKER, Babylonian Chronicle 25, A Chronicle of the !\assile and Isin II D)11asties. in: FS KIHL' (19 2) 398--117.

- Episodes in The HislOf), of Babvlonian Astronomy, BCS,.\1S 5 (19 3) I {}-26.

_ ~Jesopor:amian Chronology. in: D. CoLLO;\:, Ancintl Sear Ens"", .11'1. British ~Iuseum Press. London (1995) 230-238.

DA WARBURTON. ynchronizing lhe Chronology of Bronze Age Western Asia ldth Egypt, in: just in Ti~, Pnx:mlings 0/ 1M Intnnalional C.olloquium Oil Antiml Xrar Eastml Chronolo­gy (2"d Mill,nniuln BC). Ghnrl 7-9 Jill] 2000 •• UAadira 119-120 (2000) 33-76,

_ Egypt a"d 1M .\'rar East. Politics in tht Bronu Age, Ci\;lisatiom, du Proche-Orien l, rie- I\', Historie - Essais I, ~euch;hel

- Paris (200 I ),

_ Ecl ipses, ' ·enus·Cycles & Chronol"8" Akkadica 123 (2002) 108-114,

Shamshi.Adad and the eclipses, in: fS Laf5t11 (2004)

5 3-598,

E. WEIDNER ludim wr lUS'I~(h.fxIlrtlo"i.s£hnl ChrrmologiL urld C.,.srhirh;, aujGnmd ."";.. f,,,,d,. ~1"AeG 20 (1917),

_ Neue Konigsli, tenausAssur.J\IDQC- (19173.) 1-21.

Die Anl~lge da Ko niR'listen \"on Assur, :\'1\,AeC 26/1

(192 1) 2-9,

_ Dit KOlligt ll()'l A.SS).,.;I1I. SitU (hro,.oWgist"k DoIrummle aus Assur, M\'r\eG 26 '2 ( 1921) .

_ Die groSSt~ Konigslistt' aus .. W ur. Aj03 ( 1926) 66-77.

Die ne ut' K6n i!,~ lisu' am A .... \u r. AjO -4 (1927) 11-17.

_ Au .. dell Tag-e ll eil1 ('~ as.. ... 'I;schen ha ltenkoni~. AjO 10

( 1935- 1936) 1- 18.

226 ~Iesopolamian Chronolo&" of the 2nd l\1illennium Be

- Die Ki>nigsliste aus Chorsab3d, ,-\jD 14 (1941-1944) 362-369.

- Bemerkungen zur Konigsli.ste au' Chorsab3d. AfO 15 (194!>-1951) !>-102.

- Die astrologische Serie EOlima Anti Enlil, .vO 17 (1954-1956) 71-89.

- [N /nschnjlm T""uIJJ-Sinurtas I. und srin" Sachfoigrr, AIO Bh. 12 (1959) (= ITN)

Die alteren Kassitenkonige .• -\jD 19 (1959-1960) 138.

- Die 3.! lTologische Serie Emjrna Anu Enlil . .-4./0 22 (1968-1969) 6:>-75

J.D. WEIR, The \j'nus Tahitts of.~ .. rru:.aduga, Istanbul (1972).

- The Pattern of Venus Tablet Solutions. J.~CF 7 (1994 I 1995) 70-78.

R. \VESTBROOK. Babylonian Diplomaq in the Amaroa Leuers, JAOS 120 (2000) 377- 2.

R M. WHTllXG. Tell Leilan Subat-Enlii. Chronological Prob­lems and Perspectives. TaU al-J:(amidIva 2, in: S. ElOilll. t!I aL (eds.). OBOSA 6 (1990) 167-21 .

C.M. WBTlTAKDt. The Absolute Chronolt>g\ of ~lesopotantian Archaeolol!', ca. 2000-1600 B.C.. and Iron Age. .U<scpotamil124 (19 9) 7~116.

F.A.M. W'GGEIlMA-"". Agriculrure in the !l:orthern Balikh \'a!­lev. The Case of Middle AmTian Tell Sabi Am.d. in; R.M. J-\S fed_). &inJaIl and .~gnrultu,.,. In .\'orthnn .Imopoiamia. Prrxudlngs oJ thL JnI MOS Symposium, UuJm .Ifll] 21-22, 1999, PIHA..'i (2000) 171-231.

C. Wll..CKE, Zum Geschich15~uB~in im Alten Orienl, in: H. Mtu.ut-KW'E (ed.) .. ~~ und G.<rhIrJushnw}LsDn, ~liinchen (1982) 31-52.

- Die 5umerische KOnigsliste und erzahh.e \'ergangenheil,

in; J. \'0' C'CER.'-SlDL'lIEKG - H. RII-"l (eds.). Inx-an­grnM1 in rnundlu:h<rL11miLJn-ung. Colloquium Rauricum I. Sru,tgan (1988) 1l~140.

- AtJ die '"'Bnider" \"on Emar, t:mernJchungen zur Schrei­ber=dition am Euphratknie, AuOr 10 (1992) l! !>-I 50.

- Politik im piegel der Literarur, Uter.llur als Miue! der Politik im alLeren Babylonien. in; K. RA,\fI.ALB (ed.), Anfong- polili5chen Droknu In Ikr AnlIM, Schriften des Histo­ri.schen Kollegs, Kolloquien 24, Munchen (1993) 29-75.

- Gestah.et.es Altertum in antiker Gegen ...... art: Konigslisten und HisLOriographie des alteren Mesopotamien. in: D. Ki.:H'O - H. STAHL (eels.), [N Ctgmwart tks Alttrtums, FfmTIm und FunJuurnen tks Alttrtumhtzugs in tim Hochkultu,.,.. Ikr Allen 11<11, Heidelberg (2001) 9~116.

G. WtI.Hl'lll, Grundzilgt Ikr Gtschichu und KUltUT Ikr Hurnln, W.....,nschaflliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt (1982).

- Probleme der hethilischen Chronologie, OLZ 86 (1991) 469-476.

- Mzttan(n)i, Mitanni., Marian" A. HrslM'ifch, RJA 8 (199~1997) 286-296.

- Rev. of; H. Fre)'dank, Beitrage wr millelassyrischen Chro­nologie und Ceschichte, Berlin (1991), OLl 89 ( 1994) 549-552.

- Generation Count in Hiu..iw Ch ronOlogy. in: H. J h;M,,..R­

R. PRL7,s"SLKY (eels.), MnopolamUln Darlt Age IUtuiszud, CChEM 6 (2004) 71- 79.

C. WIl.HEl..M - J. BOESE. Absolute Chronologie und die hClhiti­

sehe Ge.chichlt' dl~S 15. und 14. JahrhunderL" \" Chr., in: High ... I (19~7) 7-1-117.

R.J. WlU . .IA.m, RelatiollS bet\\t.'en Egypt and ~Je~()pOtamia. BG.~.\fS 10 (19&\) ~1O.

S. YAMADA. The Editorial History of the Aswrian King List. z.~ 4 (I9<J4) 11-37.

- The A')Svrian King List and the Murderer of Tukulti.Nin. tina I. NAB.L' 1998123.2(>-27.

- Tukulti-:'\inuTta 1\ Rule O\'er Bab\'lonia and Its Aftermath A Hi'lOrical Reconstn.coon. Onnzl38 (2003) 15~177. '

- ~otes on the GeneaJogica1 D~\l<\ of the rusyrian King List, Errl:.I.7JWI27 (2003.) 200*-275*.

'W. YL"HOSG. Did the Assyrian King List Attempt To Pro\'e the LegitimaC\ ofSam'i-Adad?JAC5 (1990) 2!>-37.

.{ Polilual Hislmj of Esh,tunna, Mari and Assyria dunng tilt Early Old BabJlonuln PfTiod (From thL End OJUT 11110111. /Ralh of Sa..s;...~dad). Periodic Publications of Ancient Ci\;liza­tion.;; 2, Institute of Hislon of Ancient Civilizations: Changchtln (1994).

F. ZEEB, Di< Palaslwlrlschafl In Aits)nro nach tim spiilallbabyumi­s<hen Gdrruklislm aus AlaJab MI), AOAT 282 (2001).

The Histoo' at AJaJab as a Teslcase ror an Ultrashort Chronolo~ of the Mid-2nd Millennium B.C., in: H. Hl'GER - R. PRLZS'''''''' (eels.). M",opolamia1l Darlt Agp RMsztM, CChE.\16 (2004) 81-95.

R.L. ZETTLER, Reconstructing lhe V{orld or Ancient Mesopotamia: Di\;ded Beginnings and Holistic History, jFSH046 (2003) 1-45.

Festscbriften and Gedenksclzriften:

FS Aaboe:J.L BER(;GRF'I- B.R. CoWSTEI" (eels.), From Anciml Omnu 10 Statistiau Mecha'lics, Esra)'s on Exact Sdences fust71t­

ell to Asgtr Aa.IxN. Acta HisLOrica Scientarium aturalium el Medicinarium 39, Copenhagen (1987).

FS Alp; E. Orn.' tl aL (eds.), Hillzl, and Olher Analolian and Ntar Eastern Stud;,s in HonourojSedal Alp, TU I k Tarih Kuru­mu Bas.me\i, Ankara (1992).

FS As' our: G.D. YOl'" tl aL (eels.). Crossing IJoundarits anil Linking HonUJm. Studies in /lOtiOr of Mirh01'I C. As/our on His 80 BIrthday, Bethesda, M D ( 1997).

FS Bielak: E. CZER.''Y tt aL (cds.), 1imelln"s, StudIes in HOl/ouro! Manfrtd BlI'lak, OLA 149/1-3 (2006).

FS Birot: J.-M. Dl RA'" - J.-R. Ktp,.>R, Miscellanea iJaltylonico, Mflanges oJJI'TIl a M Birol, Paris (1985).

FS de Meyer: II. GASCl If' fI aL (t.'d~.). Cillqu(mtl'-lieux riJltxiollS ,UT Ie Prrxil,·OrvnI And"" oJlfTle\ m i1ommflg- a Lion rU MtjeT,

MH EOP 2 (1991).

FS del Olmo Lete: M. MOl " A el aL (ed'i.), Arbor.'inentilU', }o;stu­d,os del Proximo Onl'nlt Anllf.,I"UO dnlirati-()s a (;'rl'gorio del ()[mo Lelt ron orasion dim 65 lln1liversario. AllOr 17- 18 ( I 99'J-2ooo).

FS Dietrich: O. LORf--' 11'1 aL (ed,.), l-:X Ml'SQPotamia i f S)"rla Lux, FI'~hrlrriJt fiir Mmtj1'tl'fl DIPtrich %U ~eilUlln 65. GrlJurtstal(. AOAT 28 1 (2002).

Bibliography 227 FS Falkenstein; D.O. El)ZARD (ed.), Hti{lelbc-ger Siudim tum

Allen Onenl, Adam F'aIJllmslnn tum 17. &p/e17zW 1966, HSAO I (1967).

FS Fine" M. Lf.IlEAU - PII. TAW" (eels.), Re.flets tks dewcfleuves, Volu,,,, rU mP/ange.. oJlerts a AndTi Fin.I, AkkadicaS 6 (1989).

FS Finkbeiner; M. VAN Ess el aL (eels.), 'e. isl schon lange. hn: Das frrot uns umso 11U!hr." VorderasialiscM &itriigt fur lJwt Finkheiner, BaM 37 (2006).

FS Gordon; M. LUB£TSKI ,I al. (eels.), Boundaries oJ the Anciml NeaT E{ljlm, World, A Tribute 10 c.H. Gordan, jSOT Suppl. 273 (1998).

FS Gii'erbock.; K. BITI'El ,I aL (eds.), Analolian Siudies f'resml­ed 10 Hans Guslav GUterbock qn his 65·h Birlhday, ederlanels Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut vor het Nabije Oosten, Istan bul (1974) 10!>-111.

FS H offner; G. BECK.\1A", ,I aL (eels.), Hillil, Siudies in Honor oJ Hany A. HoJJner F on Ihe Occasion oJ His 65'h Blrlhday, Winona Lake, IN (2003) .

FS Kantor; A.1.. LWX-\RD,jR. - B.B. W'UH,\IS (eels.), &says in Ancimt Civilization Prl'stnlM. If) HtlLneJ. Kantor, SAOC 47 ( 1989).

FS Kienast; GJ. SEll (ed.). Festschrift for Burkharl Klnzasl, zu sn.·nnn sirlaigstt1l G1Jurtstagr dargelnachl von snnro Frrondm, KolJ~. Schulnn. Versamml!U und hnausgtgtbtn von Gmhard J Selz, AOAT 274 (2003) 447-497.

FS Kraus: G. VAN DRJU et aL (eds.), Zikir sumim. AlSJrioWgical Stut/its fusfflud to F.R Kraus on tM Occasion of his &rN1llitth Bilhday, Leiden (1982).

FS Kupper; 6. Tl'~C.A (ed.), De Ia Babylani< a la ~·zV, nz passanl par Man. Millmgt's of In-Is (i Mansieur J.-R. Kupper a lOccasion d, son 70' annilJt'T$airt. Liege ( 1990).

FS Larsen;J G. DERC""', (ed.). ASl)'ria and &yond, Siudies Pr.­smttd 10 AtorgtrlS Troll, Larsnl. Nederlands lnslituul voor het Nabije Oosten. Leiden (2004).

FS Lime" 6. Tu,,,,, - D. D£Hf.sELI .E (eds.), Tablet/iS tl lmagrs aux Pays dt Sumer tt d'Akknd. Mflan~ OfftTls a Monsinlr H. Lit,",I, Liege ( 1996).

FS Lipiflski; K. "\N LE''''',"''HE - A. ScHOORS (eds.), l mmigmlioll ami Emigration wilhi'l tht A,IOmJ Ntar East. ffilsrhrijl £ Lipinski. O LA 65 ( 1995).

FS Moran: T. AlHTSCi I fl aL (eds.). Ungmng ovtr n~mls; Studits in Allr;PIU Nl'ar casltm U It1nt"I'f' ;'1 Honor of William L. AloTlln, IlSS 37 ( 1990).

FS Nagel: R. Dln'\t\~N 1'1111. (eds.), AII"tlllnSllJ~1lSChafl"" im

Dialog, F"'lslhrifl fUT Wolfram Nagrl wr ,ollendung "'= 80. LtiJensjahm, AOAT 306 (2003).

FS Nissen: H. KCH~E tI aL (eels.), FruehlPUnkl UruA, Ftltschrift H.J. Niss ... Rahden/Westfahlen (1999).

FS Perrot; F. VAlI.AT (ed.), ConlribullOn a l'hzswirt tk rlran Milangrs oJltrts aJean Pmr!4 Paris (1990). '

FS Popko; P. TAAACHA (ed.), Silva AnaWiica, Anatolian Siudits f'resmled 10 MacieJ Pop,", on the Oaasion oJ His 65'h Birthday, Agade, Warsaw (2002).

FS Oelsner. J. MARzAH" - H. NWMA-"" (eels.), Ass)-riologrca d

Semilica, Ft!tschrift foT Joachim Otlsntr, AOAT 252 (2000).

FS N. 6zgii~; MJ. MEllt"K d aL (eds.), Asptcts oJ ATI and /conograeh). Anatolia and its NtrighlHm, Studin in HonfJT of Nimtt O:gU(, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basi me\-i , Ankara (1993).

FS T. 6zgii~: K. E,oo; e/ aL (eels.), Ana/olio and Ilu!Anciml NtaT Easl, A>m.tolia and thL Anatnl Ntm Easl, Siudies in Honor oJ Taksin rr..gii.(, Turk Tanh Kurumu Basime,,;, Ankara (1989) .

FS Renger. B. B6cK ,I aL (eels.). AI unuscula Mt!opolomica, F",I­schriflforJohan= Rnzf;", AOAT 267 (1999).

FS Sjoberg: H. Bf.HRL''S d aL (eds.). DUMLLETDU~A, Slud", in Honor oJ J.. IV. Sjiibtrg. Philadelphia (1989).

FS Steve; I.. DE ~l"'iER <I aL (eels.), Fragmenla Hisloriat E1amicat, AI.langrs oJltrts a M.j. SI" ... , Paris (1986).

FS vanden Bergh.; L DE ~ lm:R - E. IiA£Iu"CK (eds.) , An:hattr I~allranic-a n Orinttalis. Misctllmua in lumortm Louis van­tin. Bn-gIII', Ghent (19 9).

FS Veenhof; W. H. VAN SolDT tI aL (eds.), ItmhoJ Annivn-sary 101 .. "" Siudies f'resmted 10 Klaas R. \'tmJzoJ on thL O«asion oJ his Sixl)'Hflh Birthday, Nederlanels Insetuut \'or he<. abije Oosten, Leiden (2001).

FS von Soden; IV. ROWG (ed.),1ii4n mil!zurt~ FtslslhnflllOl.fram Frrihm- {'Oil Sodm tum 19. \7. 1968 grwid~t von stinm Schii-1m, IIlId Milarlxiln-n. AOAT I (1969).

FS Wilde; W. SAllABERGER el aL (eds.), LilLrolll" Polilil< und R«hl in Mtsopotamim, Fes/slhrifl foT Claus Il7kk<, OBC 14 (2003).

GS CagrU; S. GRAZlA.~1 (ed.) , Siudi ,ul llczno Orient< Anlico tkdz­cali alia mnnorln di L1~;gi Cagn~ lstituto Uni\ersitario Ori­entale, DipartiulentO di s(udi asjatici Series Minor 61, Napoli (2000).

GS Finkelstein; M. DE J ONG Ews (ed.). Essays 07' 1M Ancinzl Ntar Easl ill Mnnory of Jacob Jotl FinMlsUin, Hamden. cr (1977).

UNTERSUCHUNGEN DER ZWEIGSTEllE KAIRO DES OSTERREICmsCHEN ARCHA.OLOGISCHEN INSTITUTS

Herausgegeben in Verbindung mil der Kommission fiir Agyplen und Le\'ante der OSlerreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften von MANFRED BIETAK

Band I MA'-.;F1U..D BIETAti., "Iell ~l·DaVa I/. On- FU1UJort 1m Rahmm rintT archiioWgi.sch-grographi.schrn L"nlml.L{hung ii.btr da.s OgyplislM O1t. d/ita. Wien 1975.

Band II L·\BJ8 HA~Cl-II, I,ll tl-DaVa and Qa~I;T I. !ht Site and iLs. Conn«twn unJh Awns and Pira~ Am dem ~achlan herausgege­ben von EVA MARL\ E!'OCFL Unter Mllarbell von PETlRjA'OSI und CHIUST.\ MU:,\AR. Wie" 2001.

Band III JOAUU\I BOESS~[(', Tell ,/·DaiFa 11/. f)" T",*noc/mJfuntk 1~1969. Wien 1976.

Band IV MA\;.-RED BIET-\K lind ELFR..IEDl RJ:JSER-HAsLAllR. Das Grab tks r AJUh·Hor. Obmthofmrislrr drr Gotl.tJgrmahlin l\'iLoItris (mil einem Beiuag \'on ERJIART GIl\rn:). \Vien 19;8.

Band V ~lA.'t'"RED SIF.TAl\. und El..fRlF.Of RELSER-HASIACFR, DaJ Grab dtJ fAnch-Hor; Obn'stlwjtn.tillu dn- Gott,sgnrwhlin Xitoltris. Tn/II (mit Beilriigen \"on JOALHI\l BoESS"'fT~ A"iCELl, \ '0' DE.' DRlESOI. jA .. , Q,u:CEBEl'R. HELGA uESE-Ku:JBER und HfL.\IL'T Saturn. TI llRU). Wicn 1982.

Band VI OIETIIEL\1 Ele'ER, Oi, monummlakn Grabbaulm tin SpiiJuil in drr TMhaniJduTi X,1trrJjxJk (mi l einem Beitrag von JOSEf OcR· NER). Wien 198~.

Band VTJ MMI'RED BIETAK. Tell ,{-DaVa fl.: Siraligraph', und ChronologU- (in Vorbereilllng).

Band vn I ~l'\'''FRED BlliA-K. umer Mitarbeil \'on CHRlST_-\ Mu."\.\R und A'GEL-\ Sa--n\AB, nil tl-DalFa l : £in FrUdhojsbr...irll dn- .\fllJinm Bnm­uull mil TOlnllempel und Sitdlungsschlehtm. Wien 1991 .

Band IX Eill M. WI'KUR lind J-hRALD \\'LUU"G. Ttll tl·DaUa ~7. Alllhropolbgisdu L'lI/~urhungm an dnJ Skdrtlrrslm dn Kampagnm l%fr69, /975-80, 1985. ll'ien 1991.

Band X JOACHIM Bof.'iS'ECk tOld A .... CEI.-\ VO:-' DE .... DRIESCH. T,U rl-DaVa ~7/. T~ Ulld histomdw ('mwtll,m XorrilJst-Dr/tn ,m 2.Jahrtau· snltl allhalld der Knochmjumh der AIt.sgrabungrn 19i5-1986. Wien 1992.

Band Xl KARl KRO\l[R, Xn.ul &llran. £;", .\IOJtaha aw dnn Alun RrUh Iwi GiYh (AroPtm). Ostnmrhi.scMAwgrabungm 1981-1983. Wien 1991.

Band Xli D.wU) A. MTO:\, \l" .... FR.t:O BIET.\};.. Trll rI-DaUa \71/. 1M Clas:siflCal;o" and Chrrmolbg\ ojTtll n·}Ohud0·a Him", .... ;th contributions by Aren ~Iaeir, Robert ~Iullills. La .... Tence E. Stager Ross Voss and Karin KOpelZk\', Ausgrabungen in Tell d-DabCa. ~lanfred BielAk (II rsg.).

B..1.nd XI II PEURJA.,\OSI. 0" Pyramidmml/agt"11 dn- Konigimu-n. l'lItrrslUJllmgm:u rinnn Crabt)'P tks A.lIna und ,\Wllm" RLichn. Wiell 1996.

Band XIV i\I ",,"'UD BII'; r.-Ui. (Hrg.), Haw IlIId Pa/asJ im .. Him .~g)Plnl. ll1tt'17lal;Onaks s..pnposium 8. bis II. April 1992 ;n KalTO. Wiell J 996.

Band XV ERNST ClI"RXY, lell ,/·Daifa IX Ehu Plausi,dlung drsjllihm Mittlnm Rnchn. Wicn 1999.

Band XVI Pt'RI.\ FL 'i(~·\LDO. Ttll,I·Dalla X. TM Palau Districl oj . It'aris. Thr PmtFr)' oj 1M HJ1t.s4s PtriDd ana ,Iv .\'rot Kingdom (A,mu Hl 111 and II/ W), Pari 1. /"«us 66. Wien 2000.

B,md XVII Sl ~,.-"'~A CO,ST\Nzt· I-tfl,\Z. 01, Frld::.ugldarsll'lhmgru d'f SI'Uni Rt1·rh~ - t.lnt Biltlanary~ Wien 2001.

Band XVIII \1\'.'RF.1) BIHAk (Ed.), .-hrhaisrM Gril'f"hiJeN Ttmptl Ulld Alliig:t'Plnl. b",.,."ationali'S KoI/oqUlum am 2 . SUtonnhn-199i im buJilut for t\lOl}lologi' dtr ('"ilAt1llllill\",.". Mil Beilriigen \'011 DIETER AR.'OID. A.,''TO:\ 8.-\,\1\10, Eu~ GEBJURD, GERHARD H.u:." ., I hRM \;-..:~ Kit-' ''>1. N.u"'o MARl' \TOS, ERIK OSTBY und UI_RlUI I"'. Wien 2001.

Ban d X IX BETIINA n \nt-R. Till Ii-Dalia XIII. Typo/OK" ulfd C.hrcmolD!.'l' (/tr .\I"1{f'1 C-Totl KrromUt . .\Ialmalin, <:u"'- Binnntlwndti Ms .\lUtlnm /?rich,s u ml tin' ::'lI'f'ilm IWI:<;rhrnult. \\'icn 200 I.

Band XX M \M-RF.n BltT.\,,- und M \RIO S("II\\\R7 (Eds.). I\ri'f( utld • Wg. Yarm/nlf' H'tmddaJ"strllungrn tl(m .-4.ltiigJpun bis ,'LS M,tulalJn; Inln"· d;~:tl)limi"'\ l\oIlol{flllun, 29.-)(). Juli /Q97 im &hloj lIailld01f, uWJ.,'f''f/ois. \\'ien 2002.

8;:lI1d XX I I RM{'AIU> 1I t'1l\ und PfTER I <"O~I, rtll f/-IRIII"a XI, A,.rol.\/l: S,tdilmgsrrliJt.tr tin' spiilnJ H.l·ksO-.~L Milikilriigen \"On It KOI'ETZ· "'. I..e. M \(;lTIRf. C. M il' \R, G. Pllllir. A. Till 'L\.". 0. TII\.,m]$FR. K. GROSSUI\UDT. Wiell 2004.

B.lnd XX II N.\U1\ Fi. .... 'iIiOIiOl \11. On- lOll i", /..tbm. F,II, t1(1),.-rfnrhnld, ,-tntl/p' aluig)'ptwkr lind ,r..nrlt'r iigJP1UCMr ·I"Ou-nhn'urN. F"w phonDtM­IIQitJgl.sch, Stlldi,. Wien 200·1.

v t RLAG DER STERR£ICIIISCII EN AJV\ J)DIIE DER m SSENSCH.\fTEN

Band X.XlIl D\\1D A.'ITO' in collaboration with \1\.'\FRtO BIET\ .... and \\;th the a.'''lstanc('' of BtTn.\ BUltR, lRl ... FORS1'iFR~Ml'IH.R and ROBERT SCJ-m:sn .. Tnl tl-l)a}ln _VI. :\ Cmptu of Lalt" \f,ddk Kmgdom and ,wond Intn'Wfiinl, PrriOti POIl,,'Y' Volume 1: Text; Volume 11: Pld.t~ \fien 200-t.

Band XXIV PHU j.""oo, Gi:a in tkr 4. D)nas"'. IN &r~cJw'hI< und BNgtmg nn ... Stir"""", tin ~II,... line"", &rnd I, IN ,\flUlaiJru ti ... 1\"... fMJIWfr und d" Frlsgriibt-r. \\1en 2005.

Band XXV

Band x..X\l GRAJ-l\.\1 PHIUP, Ttll n.fJaira .\1: ,\ftlarul()'* and .\Irlalwtntmg I:.'tmlt'tlct oft}" Lat~ MuMI, Kingdom and lh' Strond }nlmfltdiall' P"i­od.. \fien 2006.

Band X-.'\."11 MA.'TRED S(ET,.\h. ~\.,""o ~L\Rl'\~ and a..A1RY P.UJYOl. 1lnumdar Sm-Itj ;n Trlt tI Dalla (A,lrans) m,d Ku()Sj()$ (with a cOl1lri­bUlion b, Ann Bn: .. ba~rt). Wien 2007.

Band >c\'YIlI IRES!. rORSl':\U-~tlU.ER. Ttil tl-Dalfa .\17.lN Griibn-dn.'hmls ~/II von TtJJ t/·DaVa. Ausgmbungen in Tell eI-Dabca, Manfred Bietal. (H<'g.). Wi.n 200 .

Band x..X1X \ 'ER.' MelLER. TdI tI-DaiF •. \17/. Opfmkf'O""""',,", in tkr H,/t.sn.iJouf1'5Uu/J Auans ITtill/-Daif a) tOOt • • piilnI MIl/kim linch bu tum .fril.Nn -'"tuna RncIt.. Tnt I: Kala./ng dn- &Jundt und hmtk; 7nlll~ !\llJtUI'rlunR' IHld Dt'u/lltI!r d,., &JutUU lind Fum/e, Ausgrabungen in Ten el-DaV .. ~Ianfred Bi.Glk (H<'g ). Wien 200, .

Band x..'LX ROBERT SOUISll., Ttil t/-DaJTa .\17[[. IN PaJruJntIr"""", ",. TdI rl-l>aifa. D" GriiM tin A"",1s F/I d ... Slmln, d/2 Imd d/I. Ausgrn. bun n in Ten .I-Dab'a 3. Manfred Bi.taI. (H<'g.). Wi.n 2009.

Band xx.XI BETIl'\.\ R:\Do, Tfill'l-DalFaXIX .·hums und .Ut1ffPhis;", .\lrttlnnt Rnch "rut In ckr H)ksoszrtt. \trglti{hs(mal)-~ tin' mattWlkn Kul­lur; Ausgrabungeo in TeU d-DabC~ \fanfred Bielak (Hrsg.). Vienna 2009,

Band x..'LXlI """" K<>I'£nK> , TdI tl-DaJFaXx. IN C.ltnmolDgv tkr SWlungWramlk tkr Zu'II1rit Zu'lSdlnlUtt aus TdI t/. [)(#a. Trill, AI"""rlulIg and Dabmmg; Ttillle Abbiidungm und Tabrl1m. Ausgrnbungen in Ten <I·Dab'a, ~Ianfred Bielak (H"g.).

Band xx..XllI Lot.lSE C. ~l=1R£, TdI tI-DaiF •• \ :Y1. The G.Tj1nDI i'oULr-i and i1s OmJoJum In 1M L""nL Ausgrnbungen in Tell <I·Dab'a, Manfred BieGlk (Hr.;g.). \\1en 2009.

Band XXXI\' JUJA Bl'D"-" Btstatlungsbrouchtu .. und FnnIhofrslnJIlur , .. /15=/ Ei .. l'nlrtWChung tkr spiituitIJehm Befunde anhand tkr Ergrl>­nWl' tkr iistmn<hischm Au.sgrnbungm IR den )ahrtn I 969-19ii, &rnd I, T.pograph", A",hI,,"lur und Funde.

Band xx..\.'\' ~t BIIT"" E. ezn.", I. FORST"Dt·MLUDl (Eds.). Gil", and L'rbanm. IRA"""" EgypJ. Papmfrom a IICml5lwp In NrNnIIbtr 2006 at IMAUJlrwdeodnwJofSanu:4 Wien 2009.

forthcoming Tl'I B..\CH, TtIltJ.fJaUo ,'()(fl. Ln,Iantln,Pain1Ltl \i.Qnoond IN Blginnmgoftht .\1uJd/r BronuAg1~ Levanti", PUi1J/td nnnoftr",t Ttll fl­DalFa CompartxlID 0tIu!r Siln I. Eg:rpt and 1M /..roanL Ausgrnbungen in Ten <I·D.V .. Manfred Bielak (Hrsg.).

VEROFFENTLICHU GE DER A.GYPTISCHE KOMMISSION

Begriindet von FRITZ ScHACHERMEYR t Herausgegeben von MAXFRED BIETAl>

Band I

Band 2

Band 3

G(STHER H oLSt., A.IOPtischn KulJurgm auf dn! lnuln M(llta und Gow in I,hihllkisdln" und punurher 7.ell. Wien 1989. Osterrei. chische Akademie der Wis.senjChaften, Phil.-hisL Klas~, Siuungsberichte, Bd. 538.

UI.JUCH Ll fT, /);, chrrnwlogl.Mhe Aximt.ng tU! Mrttkren RncMs nach {/,m 1'nnptlarrhiv von l ilchun. Wicn 1992, OSlelTcichischc Aiademie der WisscnKhaflen. PhiiAlisl. KJas~, SitJ'ungsi:>erichte, Bd . 598.

PEnR JJ..-';OSJ, {JJ~h wr tim Pyromukn. IN Gmbungro Hermann Jrmhnl rm Auftmg (in' Of/f'f'ffirlmdlm Alull/m,,' tifT Wmm­uhaftm in \Vim bti dn' groJlnt f")'famw in Giza. Wien 1997. OstcrTcidli'$Chc Akademie der Wisscmchaflt'll, Phil.· llIst. KJa5se, Si17ungsberichIe, Bd. 648.

VERLAG DER OSTERR EICIIIS(,IIEN AKADf:MIE D~;R WISSF.NSCl fAFl EN

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Edited by MANFRED BIElAK and HERMANN H UNGER

Volume I

Volume II

Volume III

Volume lV

MANFRED BllTAK ,(Ed.), 'I'M SJnchronlSa~itm of Civilisations in W Easlmr MedikrtanMn in 1M SmmdMillnrium. Be. PmrmliTf.gJ of allftllmWi'Onal Symposwm at SchlojJ f1umdorJ, }jlh_l'Jh of Nowmhu 1996 and at thr Austrian Acadt?n'll Vi 11'A_I'V.\; .r '\1 } 998, Wicn 2000, ..,. u-nnn, ~. oJ' ay

V'''-~ASOS KARAGEG'ORlGIlIS (Ed,:). _7"0< WhINU,SIIP 110" of /..ole B= Age Cyprus. Pmcttdings of an InlmlOlionoJ OmftmlCe organJ:Ld by L'U! nasta.nos -', .LVt111u ·OUru.wtum, uo.ua, In Honour of Malcolm Winm; Niama 29"-](JA OcIDhn' 1998, \Vien 2001-

MANFREO BIF.TAK (Ed.), The Middk Brrmu Ag1 in tlu inJanl. ProcffllingJ of an Intnnaliorud Conftmla on MB IIA Uramil: Maim-01. Vimna, 24"-2&' of)anuary 2001. Wien 2002.

MANFRED BII:.TAK (Ed.), The Synchroni.Jalion of Civilisations In 1M Eastrm Mtditnmnmn in 1M !Wand MiLlmnium BC fl. ~ dllIgs of 1M sClm 2000 - curoConfermu, Hmndorf, znd of 1>1ay-7" of May 2001. Wien 2003.

Volume V CELIA BER(;()fTh~, The CyprwI Bnnt:L Jll' J>oIi"J from SIT l.LOnard liOolky; E:cmootUm.s at AInIaJJh (TdI Jltdtana~ IV'lCn 2005.

Volume VI Htx\tA.o,,:'l HU~GE.R and REcl"JE PRL'ZSI'\5ZiU· (Eds.). MtsoJxHamum Daric Agt &uuilrd. Proatdings of an Inll:rna1ional Conftrmlt oj SCI£\I 2000, V'ttnna 8'A_'.1' of Nuvnnb<r 2002. Wien 2004.

Volume VII ULRICH LefT. Urltundm zur ChrrmolcgU drr spatm 12. Dyno.st~: Bmft aus lllahun. Vienna 2006.

Volume \~II MAMRED BIETAK and E .. wr CzER.W (Eds.), Scarabs oflMStcond Millntmum BCfromEgypt, XuIna, Crete, and the Ltvan" Clmm%g>­

cal and HiJtoncallmpUcalions. Wien 2004.

Volume IX MA"FRED BlnAK and ER."ST CzER...,,;, (Eds.), TIu S.ynchronisntion ofCn-,'hsalions In tAt Easltm ,\Itd,ltrranmn;n thL&rond Millm­nju", BC. 111. Proutdmgs oflhe SCI£I/ 2000 - zm1 EuroColIftmI<I, V'tnllIlI, 28" of May-I" of)u .. 2(0). Vienna 2007.

Volume X K..nHR\,N 0, ERIKSS(Y\. , 7M Crratit." Ind.qJmdnutofLAu BrcmuAg1 Cyprus. An Account o/tMArr:hatologicallmportanuo/l'r7lit~Slip "'art' in AsSt'ssi1lg th" &latltlt C.hronology of Lal, Bnmu Agt C)'jJrw and Ihr fj/ands Historical LinJes with 1M SoriLtiI':S of tht Eosln'n M~dlltrrantan During this Pmoti. Vienna 2007,

Volume XI PETER FlSCflER, Trll Abu al-Khartu I1J INJon/an laUry. lWIlIM II: TM .\IUldk and l..nU Brorcl Agrs. Vienna 2006,

Volume XII pfT£R FISCHER (Ed.), 7'ht Chronology of 1M )orrl<m \allty durmg 1M Middf, and /..au Bronu Agrs.' PdIa, Tell.Uu al-Kharaz and Tell !Hir (Alia. Vienna 2006.

Volume XIII IR.\IGARD HFI'I (Ed.), 7M LIUlf01U UortS of Loll Bronu Agr Cjprus and 1M Erutml MtditnmnMn, Cunftmra hLld at 1M Awtrian Aradnny of SciroCl!S, \'inma. j lA---6'h Xmnnbtr 2004. Vienna 2007.

Volume XlV F'l.ORFNS FEITF.'1, WU.TER C\l'SS and RLOOLJ'I'E S~IETA,,'I.\ (Eds.), Middlt HtlJadir PoJilry and SJnchroriisms. Procttdings oflM Inlt'(· nat,miDl Hortshop Mid tJl Sab.burg, J lsi of Oclohn'-2fId XlllnWn- 2{)(H. Agina Kolonna, Forxhungen und Ergebnisse I, Vienna 2007.

Volume XV CI_\I·~ R~(~HOLDT, lXr friihbron.:.r...ritlirM &hmurltlwrtfund von Knp KoJollno_ Jgma lIJui dU! Agtiis i1ll C,old:.,ital16 des ],jahrlnwmds v, Chr. J\1Jt min" &dragvon A.G. Kary'das IHld ClI, Zariado.s. Agina Kolonna, Forschungen und Ergebnisse 2. Vienna 2008.

Volume X\ 1 PElf.:K FI5( IllR. Abu a/~KhaY'fC. i,. 1/1, jordan \all~~ 10lumt I: 7-'" Earl) Bron:L Agr. Vienna 2008.

Volume XVII MANt'RED BI FTA ... <lnel EIl'ST CZERN'I (Eds.), TN BrmlJ.t Ag'l" in IhI l.tbanon. Slutlit.:S Oil tk Arrhntologt and ChrrmologJ of Ltbaf'flR'lt S)'M

ami 4o'PL Vienna 2008.

Volume XVIII J\CQll£L.INl P .. II U.lPS, Aqo'Ptrara OIl III, Island OfCrtt, 'n Ihnr CArouologirnl Co'lltxt: A Cnliral Rntitw, \ ienna 2008.

Volume XIX Tom \.."i M OIH .F'SRU II. D.t S.Plchronulmmg lin- lIo,dilchm u,l(lllt, Wid KiliAims mit ckr Agiiischnl SpiillmmuurL Vienna 2009,

Volume XX IRM(,,\RO .h l~ (£el.), 1'1" fb,."wlion afCyprus In 1M ?Ill A/illmimn B,e. SJud;& 011 Rrgiolln"sm in tM Middhand!AlI Bronzr Agt.

PrrKtffl;"~rs of 1I mn*shop, Mid at lhl' .ph C)proiOJ.,riral Congrtss. May 2'ld 2008. Nicosia, Cyprus. Vienna 2009.

Volume X.'XI Dwm A, A."TON. Burial Assfmblllgt,'i of 1):ma.sI)' 21-25, Ch,.rmolOj{l' - 7}pology - Dn.'f'lopmrflls. Vienna ~'009.

Volume XXII RU:I "'I"Y PRl /\Ir\SZI\'I. AltSopoltWlitw CJulmoltigy of lh, 2"jl Mill"",iu11i Be. Afl Itl/rrxiuCI;()1I to 1M Tr.dual Evidmct and JVlattd Chm­

IlOiogira/ bjll,..j, Vit~n ll .l 2009,

Volume XXIII J RG \\'l llil \RTNlR. 'thlimoJlitl. J)i, Utnnrisrhm lI'ugtllsst ilbIT dill nntiA, AigitltJ llOfI Ho"," bis in by:.nntinucM Zrll. .~gwn J\olmma.

f'orli hung-t'lI unci Ergebni~e 3. Vie 111m 2009,

I'FRLAG DER OSTERREICH ISCIIEN AKADEMIE DER WI ENSCHAFTE."

VollOne x..X1\ VfRO'I ..... \j\.RO"lJI-RH\1I01DT. 1M po.,tn.((N Knnrtlik tlOti Knp AoomM. \gm.\ KolnllllJ., FOI'l-hun~t'n und Frgebrll\St" I.

Vienna ~009.

forthcoming k\TIIR\:\ O. ERlli...'...o:'\. <. ... '[JrUX BromJ :\.t:" Unitt' PaHlW 1 a"d \ J l\(l/t'~. I"mblrm~ oj Chwltf}IQJ..,r"t, anti First ,.\ppmrallrf,\.

fonhcoming-\R[, \I Ulll. In 1M .IM.,./,M }.n,1n V., 4: /(I~' TIu}<JITfan I IJr,' t}U".~ 1M lI,ddk Bum;; II.'" (no ... 20(N)-1 llX) IJI:J-:) - .lIThnr­

oIL~t41 and Hislc.rrKal C(JnrlaJ~

fonhcoming lll\{( .. um Hf'!:'\. CmJt~ .. all!)ht/J m Rrd and Blade: 1M \(amml of (lpnol 8k hrorrw U'htrltlllul, ni-llr.

forthcoming A,',T flLIR. ROBI:.RT JIl[.';TL (eds.). lf/ddU Kir.~ Hill", /larlilhooif. \(.Iu",", I: 7M CQ'1HU l(IIt",,,. lmum,//: rll, RFgiolial

\OIu".,.

forthcoming FR.,-,cl'" BRE'ly.R. .~~pun und .... "otolwn. PoUtl~clu, kutlurrllt uPid spmclllu-J., I\.QnttlJcI, :wl\(/vn ti"n S,/tal ulld KkJntwtn un

2. Jahrta~ II Clir.

BERICHTE DES OSTERREICIllSCHE ATIO ALKOMlTEES DER UNESCO-AKTION FUR DIE

RETfUNG DER NUBISCHEl ALTERTtJ MER

Herausgegeben .. on der Kommission fUr Agypten und Le .. ante der 0 terreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften durch ~L\SFRED BIET.>.k

Band I

Band II

Band III

Band IV

Band\'

Band 11

Band III

Band \111

Band IX

~t\.'TRED BtET,.\K und Rlr.\"}fOlJ) E'C[L\l"'\~ Em, JrUIuIJnQ.)IIS1N .'11m-.\i"'/ung PlItt Ftlslnldwn (JUS ,\ir)aLa - ,""uhrm. Wien 1963. Osterreich.bcbe Alademie der '\-lS~n~haflen. Phil.-hlst. hJ~ 'i.e. Denlo,chriften. Bd.82.

R.f.f'\HOW E!G~,"Ul, IN FtlWavinu'4;''m ,,,, Di"itnJd .\a)aiJt - SubUTI. lnl r J)" Schlffvlanulltmgtn. Wien 1965. Denkschrif· ten, Bd. 90.

\ fA:;f1tIl) BfITAK, .~ wK"abun ("I ;n SaJala - S uhtt1I /96 J -/96 5. lJnilf1niiin- dn GCrupp' u ",1 rIn Pan ·GrmN"Y-h U /L Ilr (m i l Be i lrj·

gen \'00 KL IT S\CER., KARL W. BliZ.fR. WU..HERL\( EII{L~t R und JOII '" Jl '(,\\lRTII). \\ len 1966. OenkM hriften. Bd. 92.

K.\RL KRo!otEJl, RDmiVM Uitinslubtn In .\ayala ICnlrmrdnnt). Wien 1967. D<:nk~hriften. Bd. 91.

~1A: nu:v BfET-\K, Studlt'll z.ur Chrrmoingll' dn nuburhm C,.(;rupp', E,n lJnlra/f zur rrUhgf~,hlfhl' Untmwlnnn zwurhm 2200 und 1550v. Orr. \\-Ien 1968. Denk.schriften. Bd. 97.

FAnu Ann Bw,,,,. Dv", .. w/vn GrObn-},/tkrwn .Sa)n/o Sub"". Wien I 97f,.,. Denk5chriften, Bd. 126.

~('E-' SlltOUiAL und JOllA" Jt:-'(,\\lRTlt, I);' antJrrr>/J<Jlhglvll, Cnlmwlwng Mr c.Grup/JI'n urld Prl1l-Grubtr-Slttltltt ous Sa)flla, Ar;JP"";'SuhJm. \\'en 19H4. Denk5chriflcn. Bd. 176.

~h.'FRfO BlfT.u.. und \l\RI(} SOl\\AJV .• Saf( tl-.X"Mm4, tint IJI'!,stfftt' rhritlllflv \lfdJunf{. Jl1uJ (Hid," r/tm/brlll Drokm(iirr in Sa) n/o-Subvn.II'en 19S7. Denk5chriflfn. Bd 191.

\fA'fltfD BIFT.Uri. und .\.f.\.JUo Sc.HW\KI. Sal( ,PYMmll. 1;,J II IN Gmhun/.."'"gfbniH' (lUS tI,.,. ,\,rJll nron,.,. t ondlUnJ.,""'. " 'il'lI I99H. Denk5chriflen. Bd. 25;_

In Vorbereitung:

E.n~I' STROUtAl. und ERIUI :\U-YoUtlll. /)" anlhra/JlJuJgur/" l·ntnJlU"hung tin- ~pIlITIJmlSfhnljnlhhrJmt"usd""l S~"tt, filL{ .\(~)"ll­la, AICP,u<n·"-ub",,.

F.L·(.t!'li SnOlHM. und ERlc.1i • ·tL Volin II, 0" anlhmp{JvlJ.,'Hr/lI lltlPnurhUiJ/( tilT rJmslb.rhl'll\lulfllr (lUJ S(t),a/a. AJ()/Jllsrlt-NuIJlm.

\'\'RL\" l)fR 6~Tf.lI.RI: ICIIISCHf."i AKADf .. '1 If. Dfll. WISSF"iS(.f IAFTEN