Stubies in Eastern h istory.

CHRON ICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLON IAN

KINGS

VOL. I . INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS.

STUDIES IN EASTERN HISTORY.

Vol . I . —RECORDS OF THE RE IGN OF TUKULT I

Vol .

Vol .

N IN IB I , K IN G OF ASSYR IA, ed ited froma memorial tab le t in the British Museum

I I .—CHRON ICLES CONCERN ING EAR LY

BABYLON IAN K INGS,including re cords

of the early history of the Kassite s and

the Country of the Sea. Vol . i, Introdu ctory chapte rs.

III .-CHRONICLES CONCERN ING EARLY

BABYLON IAN KINGS,includ ing re cords

of the early h istory of the Kassites and

the Coun try of the Sea. Vol . ii , Textsand Translations .

[Other volume s are in pr epara tion . ]

LUZAC AND CO .

A Chronicle conce rning Sargon and Narz’im-Sin, kings of

Agade , and othe r early ru le rs . [N0 . Obve rse . ]

fitub ies in Eastern 1b istorp.

CHRON IC LES

CONCERN ING

EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS,

INCLUDING

RECORDS OF THE EARLY H ISTORY OF THE KASSITES

AND THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA ,

EDITED BY

L . W . KING ,M.A . ,

P.S.A

ASSISTANT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EGYPT IAN AND ASSYRIAN ANT IQU IT IESIN THE BRIT ISH MUSEUM .

‘

VIDI A I .

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS.

L O N D O N

L U ZA C A N D C O .

1 907 .

[All R ig/215 R eserved ]

PR E FAC E .

THE present volume is concerned with the discu ss ion

of the new historical information suppl ied by the

chronicles which are publ ished and translated in the

second volume of this work . The texts here publ ished

and discussed for the first time include two Chronicles

concerning early Babylon ian kings 3 a new Babylonian

Chronicle of events ranging from the eleventh to the

se venth century B .C . ; a Religious Chronicle referring

to the eleventh century B .C . ; a new Date-List of the

kings of the F i rst Dynasty of Babylon and part of a

Ne O-Babylonian version of the “Omens of Sargon and

Naram-S in .

” With one exception,the tablets from

which the texts are taken date from the late Babylonian

period,but they incorporate tradit ions referring to some

Of the earl iest kings of Babylonia and Assyria. Much

of the new information afforded by the Chronicles

concerning early kings is given in the form o f syn

chronisms,in which well-known names are found in

unfamil iar combinations, and these wi l l oblige us to

revise some of ou r conceptions of early Babylon ian and

A ssyrian chronology .

In the present work an attempt has been made to

ind icate the l ines on which a reconstruction o f the

history of these early periods can be made,and we

may here briefly refer to some of the more important

PREFACE.

conclusions deduced from a study of the texts . One

general result of our new information is a considerable

reduction in the dates usually assigned to the earl ier

periods of Babylonian history. We now know that the

kings of the Second Dynasty of the Kings’ List never

occupied the throne of Babylon,but established them

selves only in the “Country of the Sea,

” on the shores of

the Persian Gulf. Here they ruled over an independent

kingdom,and carried on a series of wars against the

kings of Babylon . The total el imination of this

dynasty from the scheme of Babylonian chronology

at once has the effect of redu cing the date usually

assigned to the Fi rst Dynasty of Babylon by three

hundred and s ixty-eight years . We thus Obtain for

Su -abu , the founder of the First Dynasty,a date not

earl ier than the twenty-first century B .C . , and for

Hammurabi,the most powe rful and famous king of

the dynasty,a date not earlier than the twentieth

century B .C .

Confirmation of the correctness of this View is

afforded by a new synchronism in early Babylonian

and A ssyrian history,which occurs on one of the

Chronicles here publ ished . We learn that Su -abu,the

founder of the F i rst Dynasty, was the contemporary of

I lu -shuma, an early Assyrian ruler whose name hasrecently be en recovered at She rghat . Th i s early point

of contact between the history of the two countries not

only supports our conclusions with regard to reducing

PREFACE . ix

early Babylonian dates,but it e nables us to trace back

the history of Assyria beyond the rise of the F irst

Dynasty of Babylon . The revised scheme of Baby

Ionian and A ssyrian chronology may be seen at a

glance by referring to the table of contemporaneous

rulers printed on p . 1 3 6 f. of this volume.

So cons iderable a reduction in the date usually

assigned to the F irs t Dynasty of Babylon is far

reaching in its effects , and in the first chapter of this

volume a sketch i s given of the manner in which it

bears upon certain problems conne cted with the age of

Babylonian civil iz ation , and with the early chronology

of Egypt and of the Bible . I t is there pointed out that

we must reduce considerably the dates usually assigned

to the beginnings of Sumerian and Babylonian history

and that such a reduction harmoni z es with that sug

gested by Prof. Eduard Meyer for the earl ier periods

of Egyptian chronology . On the other hand, we

may now accept without reserve the identification of

Amraphel of the fourteenth chapter of Genesis with

Hammurabi,king of Babylon ; and the chronology

of the Pentateuch , with regard to the period separatingAbraham and the Exodus, i s seen to agree more closely

with the results of archaeological research than has

hitherto appeared to be the case .

The problem of reconci l ing the Babylonian dynasties

with the chronological system Of Be rossu s i s discussed

at some length in the fourth chapter. I t is there shown

X PREFACE .

that the assumption which underl ies the maj ority of the

scheme s of reconci l iation suggested , that the beginning

of the historical period of Be rossu s i s to be set with in

the pe riod'

o f the F irst Dynasty of Babylon , i s incorrect .

I n fact,the first historical dynasty of Be rossu s i s to

b e synchroniz ed with some earlier dynasty than that

founde d by Su -abu - a dynasty which d id not necessari ly

occupy the throne of Babylon,bu t probably had its

capital in one of the other great cities Of Mesopotamia .

A point of l iterary rather than Of historical inte rest

concerns the first of the Chronicles here publ ished,

which recounts the deed s of Sargon and Naram-S in,

th e early kings of Agade ; for it suppl ies us with a

Copy of the original chronicle from which the historical

portions of the famous Omens of Sargon and

Naram—Sin were derived . In the Omen-text ce rtain

appearances observed in the entrai ls,and particularly

in the l iver, of a sacrificial victim are associated wi th

episodes in the history of the se two early kings and it

has long been recogni z ed that the h istorical references

contained in this augural text are of great value. The

copy of the original Chronicle from which the se extracts

were taken suppl ies us with additional information of

considerable intere st,and cle ars up several difficulties in

the augural text. For instance, we gather from it that

in the original composition it was not recorded that

Sargon crossed the Western Sea,

the Medi terranean ,but merely the Pe rsian Gulf. Thus the principal support

PREFACE . x i

Of the theory that Sargon crossed the Mediterranean to

Cyprus fal ls to the ground .

Another point of some l i terary interest attaches to

a later section of the Chron icle,concerning the story

of two early Assyrian kings , which has come down to

us in the history of Agathias . The story relate s how

one of them,although a gardener by profession , was

adopted by the other as his succe ssor,and how he

eventually succeeded him upon the throne . I t has

hitherto been supposed that Agath ias in his history

merely reproduced a form of the legend of Sargon,

who was brought up as a gardener before he became

king of A gade. But we have now recove red the

original Babylonian form of the story, which , with the

exception of certain di ffere nces in the names,tal l ies

exactly wi th that given in Agathias .

Apart from the chronological data to which refere nce

has already been made , the new texts supply u s

with historical information of a very varied character,

extending through wide ly d i ffe rent periods of history.

We need not here enumerate points of detai l, bu t may

select a few of the new facts which are Of special

interest,i nasmuch as they throw l ight upon racial

movements in Babylonia,and i l lustrate the composite

character o f the ancie nt population of the country.

One of the new facts to which we may refer concerns

the period before Babylon attained a position of

pre-eminence among the cities of Mesopotamia . I t i s

xfi PREFACE .

probable that,under the early kings of Sumer and

Akkad , a Sumerian reaction took place against the

rule of the Semitic kings of Northe rn Babylonia . The

rise of the Dynasty of Ur marked the success of this

movement in Southe rn Babylon ia,and we now have

evide nce that the reaction took a rel igious as well as

a political form . For one of the Chronicles embodie s

the tradition that Dungi,king of Ur

,sacked Babylon

and carried off the treasures of E sagila, the great

temple of Marduk in that city ; and it furthe r re cords

the fact that he part icularly favoured Eridu,one of the

oldest rel igious centres of the Sumerians . This passage

suggests that, already under the kings of Agade,

Babylon and her temple had begun to rival the older

shrine of N ippur ; and we may see in Du ngi’

s action

an attempt to destroy her influence by restoring th e

splendours of one Of the earl iest and most sacred citie s

of the Sumerians .

Another record to which attention may be called is

that of an early invasion of the H ittites,which took

place in the reign of Samsu -ditana,the last king of the

F irst Dynasty of Babylon . I n view of the e l imination

of the Second Dynasty from the throne of Babylon ,to which we have alre ady referred , we may conne ct

this invasion with the recovery of the statues of Marduk

and Sarpanitum from Khani,in Northern Syria

,by the

Kassite king,Agum I I . We may

,in fact

,conclude

that the statues were carried off in Samsu-d itana’

s reign ,

PREFACE .

and that,consequently

,the H ittites on this occasion

captured Babylon,and sacked the temple of E sagila .

The end of the powerful dynasty of Hammurabi may

probably be traced,directly or indirectly, to the H ittite

invasion . I n view of the re cent discovery of tablets

at Boghaz Koi,in Cappadocia, which prove that the

ancient capital of the H ittites stood upon that s ite,

and bore the name of Khatti , the record of this early

activity of H ittite tribes in Babylonia is of peculiar

interest.

H itherto no record has been publ ished Of the conquest

o f Babylonia by the Kassites, though the existence of

the Kass ite Dynasty upon the throne of Babylon

pointed to such a conquest as having taken place .

We now learn that the Kassites did not conque r the

whole of Babylonia at one time, and that the i r conquest

of Southern Babylonia was provoked by an invas ion

of Elam,undertaken by Ea-gamil , king of the Country

of the Sea .

” The Kassite conquest of Northern Baby

lonia and of Babylon i tself had already taken place,

probably soon after the sack of Babylon by the H itt ites

at the end of the F i rs t Dynasty of Babylon . A t the

present moment we cannot determine accurately the

length of time which separated these two Kassite

conquests,for the figures assigned by the larger List

of Kings to its Second Dynasty cannot be accepted

unconditionally.

We also learn of another great invasion of Babylonia

x iv PREFACE .

by a hostile race,which took place at a far later period

,

in the reign of Adad-apla- idd ina, the contemporary of

A shur-bél-kala, king of A ssyria . The new Babylonian

Chronicle which is here published,after recording the

friend ly relations existing be tween these two kings in

phrases very similar to those employed in the“Syn

chronou s H istory ”of Babylonia and A ssyria

,re lates

how in his reign the Sutu , a nomad race,perhaps of

A ramaean origin , ravaged the whole of Babylonia, and

returned to their own d i strict with much spoil . One

of the results of this invasion may be traced in the

de struction of the great temple of the Sun-god at

S ippar,which is referred to by Nabu-aplu -idd ina upon

the famous Sun-god Tablet .

The last incursion of hosti le tribes into Babylonia,

upon which l ight is thrown by the new texts , is that of

the A ramaeans themse lves . We learn that in the reign

of Nabfi-mukin-apli,an early king

,and probably the

fo under,of the Eighth Dynasty of the Kings ’ Lis t

,the

A ramaean tribes along the Euphrates made a successful

war upon Babylon . A sti l l later raid Of Aramaean

tribes is also recorded,which must probably b e set

within the eight troubled years fol lowing the destruction

of Babylon by Sennache rib in 689 B .C . On this occasion

the A ramaeans sei z ed property in the immediate neigh

bou rhood of Babylon and Bors ippa, but they were

defeated and drive n off by a certain Erba-Marduk,

who in consequence claimed the Babylon i an throne,

PREFACE. XV

and was recognised as king of Babylon by the Official

priesthood .

We need not here discuss the further points of detail

on which the Chronicles add to our knowledge of

Babylonian history . We may note,however

,that both

the n ew Babylonian Chronicle and the Rel igious

Chronicle afford additional information with regard to

the celebration of the Feast of the N ew Year,whi le the

latter contains a series of portents which are of interest

for the study of Babylonian rel igion . I t is unfortunate

that we can only determine by conjecture the date of

the portent which was probably derived from a solar

ecl ipse . Since this event took place in the eleventh

century B .C . ,i ts value as affording a fixed point in

Babylonian chronology wi l l b e considerable if we

eve ntually recover the name of the Babylonian king in

whose seventh year it is recorded to have taken place .

I n the fi rst chapter of this volume the question is

d iscussed as to what amount of credibil ity is to be

accorded to these late Babylonian chronicles,when they

refer to events which happened in the earl iest periods of

Babylonian history. Among the reasons there adduced

in favour of accepting their e vidence, it is pointed out

that,whenever their statements can be controlled by

early inscriptions,they are found to be correct . A fresh

instance Of such confirmation may here be referred to .

In the autumn of last year I informed Prof. Hilpre cht

of the facts suppl ied by the new Chronicles with regard

PREFACE .

to the overlapping of the F i rst and Second Dynasties

o f the Kings ’ List . I have now re ceived from his pupil ,Dr. A . Poeb e l, an advance copy of a paper

,to be

published in the Zeitschrift f’

L'

Ir Assyrio logie,

” in which

he points out that a contract- tablet in the museum of

the University of Pennsylvania,containing names found

in contracts of the time of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna,i s to be assigned to the reign of Iluma-ilu . But one

of the new Chronicles records the fact that Iluma-i lu

carried on successful wars against Samsu-ilu na and his

son Abeshu ’ We are thus furnished with a fresh

instance in which a statement of one of these late

chron icle s is found to be in accord with data furnished

by an early text .

My thanks are due to H . E . Hamdy Bey, Director of

the Imperial O ttoman Muse um,for al lowing me to

make a copy of the Constantinople Date-List during

my work at the Museum in the winter of 1902 ; to

Mr. P . H . Cowe l l , of the Royal Observatory at Green

wich , for information with regard to solar ecl ipse s of

the eleven th century B .C . ; and to Dr. E . A . Wall is

Budge for friendly suggestions made during the progress

of the work .

L . W. KING .

LONDON,

M ar e}: 3 otiz , 1907 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY

BABYLONIAN KINGS.

CHAPTER I .

THE H ISTOR ICAL VALUE OF THE N EW CHRON ICLES ; THEIR

EFFECTS U PON EARLY BABYLON IAN DATES AN D U PON CERTAIN

PROBLEMS OF EGYPTIAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY .

NOT the least valuable of our sources for the history of

Babylonia are the chronicles,wri tten during the later

periods,which recount in brief outl ine the most striking

achieveme nts of the earl ier kings and rulers of the

country. The scribes who compiled these documents

had not to depend for their material on vague traditions,

for they had at their disposal a large body of historical

and chronological records which they had inherited from

earl ier times . One Of the most striking characteri stics

of the Babylonians was their love O f exactne ss in dating

historical events,a characteristic which they had inhe ri ted

from their Sumerian predecessors . I t is certain that

from the earl iest periods historical records were com

pi led and carefully preserved in the principal cit ies of

Mesopotamia,and proof of this fact may b e seen in the

B

2 BABYLON IAN CHRONICLES.

Sumerian date-l ists which have already been recovered .

The Semitic kings of the F i rst Dynasty adopted

without alteration the Sumerian method of time

re ckoning, and thei r own date-formulae we re written

in the Sumerian language and their date-l i sts were

compiled upon Sumerian lines . I t is true that this

cumbrou s method of dating by events was afterwards

s implified in the Kassite period,but the Sumerian love

of e xact chronology was never abandoned by the

Babylonians,and to its influence we may also probably

t race the annalistic spirit of the Assyr ian kings .

Towards the close of the Ne o-Babylonian Empire,and after the Persian conquest of Babylon, the native

sc ribes devoted themselves to the study and preservation

of the ancient re cords,see king a solace for contemporary

d isasters in a knowledge of the earlier greatness of the i r

cou ntry. To a scribe of the reign of Dariu s we Owe

the famous copy Of the Babylonian Chronicle, one of

the class of documents upon which the Ptolemaic Canon

was based . The similar chronicle,refe rring to rather

earl ier periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history,and both the Babylon ian Lists of Kings

,are also to

be ass igned to this late period. The well-known

ch ronicle of the reign of Nabonidus also dates from the

Persian occupation of Babylon,bu t this document

diffe rs from the othe rs that have been mentioned in

that i t is concerned wi th events which happened nearer

to the time of its compi lation .

THE NEW TEXTS. 3

That the scribe s o f the Neo-Babylonian period did

not invent the method of epitomiz ing history by means

of chronicles and l ists i s amply attested by documents

which have be en found in A shur-bani-pal ’s royal

l ibrary at N ineveh The Synchronous H i story,

”

the tablet of the Babylonian Dynastie s, the l ists of

Eponyms,and the explanatory List of Royal Names ,

prove that in the seventh centu ry the collection and

classification of historical materi al s was already an

advanced s cience. And,although we do not posse ss

any chronological document which was actually wr itten

in the period between the F i rst Dynasty of Babylon

and the later Assyrian Empire, there is no doubt that

the systematic study of chronology was always pu rsued

by the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes . The existence

of such documents is indicated by the chronological

references and calculations which are frequently me t

with in the historical and build ing inscriptions of the

Babylon ian and Assyrian kings .

The present work is concerned wi th the publ ication

and discu ss ion of some fre sh chronological material,

wh ich wi l l be treated in detai l in the following chapters .

Bu t before we undertake an examination of the new

data it may be wel l to ascertain the cred ibi l ity of the

more important documents and their claim to be cited

as evidence.

The new tex ts are not al l of the same class and

character,and three o f them do not cal l for any special

4 H ISTORICAL VALUE

scrutiny apart from that attempted in the chapters

devote d to them . Thus the chronicle relating to events

from the ele venth to the seve nth century although

it gives much o f its information in the form of e xtracts

and summarie s from a longer text,belongs to the same

class as the Babylonian chronicles already known . I t

thus falls into a we l l-define d and re cogni z ed category,and the value of its evidence may be concede d . To a

rathe r d iffe rent category must be assigned the rel igious

chronicle and registe r of portents . 2 N0 other precisely

s imilar document has yet bee n publ ished,but

,since i ts

information is mainly of a re l igious and augural

character,it s historical value is of secondary importance.

I t is true that Spe cial inte re st attaches to o ne of the

portents recorded , which may possibly re fe r to a solar

ecl ipse of the e le ve nth century B .C .,but the interpretation

and credibil ity of th e statement may best be discussed

in conne ction with its context. The new date-l ist of

the First Dynasty of Babylon 3 d iffers from the two texts

already referre d to , in that it was actual ly written duringthe period of which it treats . Like the other date-l ists

of this period which are already known,i t carries the

weight of a contemporary witness,and the value of its

s tatements requ ires no demonstration .

But two of the new chronicle s,4 which may perhaps

I Se e Chap . VI II .

2 Se e Chap . IX.

3 Se e Chap. VII . 4 Se e Chap . II ff.

OF THE N EW CHRON ICLES. 5

b e regarded as the most important of the texts here

published,do cal l for special treatme nt from the nature

of the information they supply . The actual tablets

u pon which the texts are wri tten,l ike the other

Babylonian chronic les , date from the l ate Babylon ian

period,but the ir conte nts refe r to the e arl iest periods of

Babylonian and A ssyrian history. I n them we find

traditions conce rn ing Sargon of Agade and his son

Naram-Sin ; Dung i , king of Ur ; Su -abu,the founder

of the Fi rst Dynasty of Babylon, and Hammurabi ,Samsu- iluna

,Abeshu ’

,and Samsu-d itana

,al l kings of

the same dynasty I luma- i lu , the founder of the Second

Dynasty of the List of Kings,and Ea-

gamil with whose

reign that dynasty came to an end ; Ulam-Bu r iash,

B it iliash,and Agum

,early Kassite rulers ; Ura-imitt i

and Bé l- ibn i , probably two very early kings of Assyria ,and I lu-shfima, _whose name has only recently been

recovered at Sherghat among those of the earl iest rulers

of that cou ntry.

!

From this l ist of names it wi l l be seenthat the tablets deal with pe riods of history far earl ier

,

than those re fe rre d to in any of th e chron i cles as ye t

recovered . The great lapse Of time,wh ich . separated

the events recorded from the period at which the actual

records were inscribed , renders an inquiry necessary

with regard to the credibil ity of the trad itions they

incorporate .

A brief examination of the new texts wi l l suffice to

Show that they are to be classified as chronicles, not

6 HISTORICAL VALUE

legends . The tablets from A shur-bani-pal’s l ibrarywhich are inscribed with legends concerning early

Babylonian k ings, both in the ir contents and the i r style

of composition,form a strik ing contrast to the two

documents under discuss ion .

I While the former are of

the nature of poetical compositions,the latter

,wi th the

e x ception of some lines describing Sargon’s exploits,are

couched in the language of the h istorical chronicles .

Moreover,the new texts describe wars and conquests

,

the capture and sack of cities and the like,and the i r

narrative is never interrupted by the speeches and

mythological episodes so characteristic of the legendarytexts .2 In fact

,we may class the new documents i n the

same category as the Babylonian Chronicle itself. I t i s

true that the l atter gives a rather fuller and more

detailed treatment of the periods to which it refers,but

See Cu ne ifb rm Tex t: from B aby lon ian Tablets, etc. z'

n tlze B r it ish

Mu seum, Pt . XIII , pl l . 3 9 ff. The poe tical natu re of the legends iswe l l represe nted in the two longe st of the texts re cove red , those conce rning Sargon of Agade and an early king Of Erech for a translation of the

former se e Vol . II, pp. 87 ff. , and for the latter se e T/ze Seven Tablets ofCr eat ion , Vol . I, pp. I4o ff.

2 In the tab le t inscribed with a l ist or catalogu e of legends, which wasfound at Kuyun j ik (R. 6 18 , cf. Be z o ld , Catalogu e , Vol . IV, p. the

legend of Sargon is du ly men tioned (Rev. , 1. Anothe r legend of

Sargon is also catalogu ed, beginning farm -M t” .i'

upz? (Obv. , l . bu t

no ment ion is made of the chron icle of Sargon he re published, wh ichb egins farms-akin far Agade . The negative e vidence of this nat ivecatalogue may the refore be c ite d in support of the view that the new

text is to be regarded as a chronicle .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

8 H ISTORICAL VALUE

evidence to prove the credibil ity of the trad i tions Wt h

the new chron ic le s incorporate . A far more convincing

test may b e applied by means of the contemporary

records which have come down to us from the earlier

periods of Babylonian history. Thus the stateme nt of

the first of the new chronicles,that Naram-Sin conquered

the king o f Magan,whose name i s give n as Mannu a

dannu,i s confirmed by an inscription upon a statue of

Naram-Sin wh ich was fou nd recently by de Morgan at

Susa : Naram-Sin is there re corded to have conquered

the lord of Magan,whose name is stated to have been

Mani[ ] . I Again,the se cond o f the chron icle s

states that the Kassite ru le r Ulam-Bu r(i)ash defeated

Ea-gamil (the last king of the Second Dynasty) and

conque red the Country of the Sea . This statement is

strikingly confirmed by an inscribed knob found recently

by Koldewey at Babylon,the inscription on the knob

stating that i t was the property of Ula-Bu rariash,who

styles himself “king of the Cou ntry of the Se a ”? On

the discovery of the inscription it seemed strange that

a king with an obviously Kassite name should be ar this

ti t le,but the explanation is now furnished by the

chronicle .

Such are the two most striking instances in which

I The last syllable of the name is want ing in the text ; se e be low,

Chap . I I .

2 See b e low, Chaps . IV and VI .

OF THE NEW CHRON ICLES. 9

s tatements of the new Chronicles find confirmation in the

early Babylonian texts . But several other instanc es of

agreement between the early records and these l ate

Babylonian chronicles may be cite d . Thus Hammu rab i’

s

defeat of R im-Sin is amply confirmed by his own date

formulae . The writing of the name of the founder of

the Fi rst Dynasty as Su -abu agree s wi th the form of his

name upon the principal date-l ist of the F i rst Dynasty .

The existe nce of the early A ssyrian ru ler Ilu -sh iima i s

vouched for by re cent d iscoveries at Sherghat . The

statements that Naram-Sin was the son of Sargon,that

Dungi was the son of U r-Engu r , and that Samsu

iluna was the son of Hammurabi , are in accordance w ith

the evidence Of these kings themselves,while the

assertion that Abéshu ’

was the son of Samsu-ilu na i s

amply attested by independent evidence . In fact,

wherever i t i s possible to test any statement of the new

chronicles by means of the early inscriptions,it is found

that the statement is correct ; and in no instance does it

happen that an assertion of the chronicles is at variance

with the records of the early kings themselves . Exte rnal

evidence thus leads to the same conclusion at which we

arrived from a cons ideration of the character and style

of the new documents . In spite of the late date at

which the actual tablets were inscribed,their contents

are of the greatest historical value ; and , where they

mention well-known names in new and startling com

bination, their evidence is not to be l ightly d ismissed as

IO EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA

legendary,bu t must be regarded as having its foundat ion

in fact.

Now that we have examined the value of the new

chron icles as evidence,and have seen that the synchron

isms they furnish may be accepted as historically

correct,we may enquire briefly to what e xtent our new

i nformation may modify the very high dates that are

usual ly assigned for the beginnings of Sumerian and

Babylonian history. The effects of the new synchron

isms upon the scheme Of Babylonian chronology wi l l be

d iscussed in detai l in the fo l lowing chapters, bu t we mayhere anticipate the results to b e ob tained from an

e x amination of the texts themselves by stating that the

date of the F irst Dynasty,based upon the figures of

the Babylonian List Of Kings,must be considerably

reduced . In fact our new information definitely prove s

that the First and Se cond Dynasties of the Kings’ List

we re partly contemporaneous,while the most probable

interpretation of other passages in the chronicles wou ld

make the Kassite Dynasty follow immediately after the

F i rst. We may therefore infe r that the so-called

Second Dynasty only ru led in the country of the

Sea (on the shores of the Persian Gu lf), and did not

occupy the Babylonian throne between the Fi rst Dynasty

and the Kassites as might be imagined from the larger

List Of Kings . But, if it was possible for the compiler of

that document to have fal len into such an error, the

su sp icion at once arises that the later Assyrian and Neo

UPON EARLY BABYLON IAN CHRONOLOGY . I I

Babylonian scribes may have been s im ilarly misled in

their calculation of the dates of early Babylonian k ings .

Now the date of 5000 or 6000 B .C .

, to which the

e arl iest remains of the Sumerians are u su al ly assigned ,

I

to a certain extent depends upon the bel ie f that the early

Semitic k ing,Sargon of Agade, ru led at about 3 800 B .C .

But Sargon’s date depends i n turn u pon a reference to

his son by Nabonidus2 and if the scribes of Nabonidus

arrived at their high figu res by treating certain dynasties

as successive,which were in real ity partly or whol ly

contemporaneous,i t wou ld follow that Sargon ’s date

should be reduced considerably. And as a corol lary

to such a reduction it might be urged that the very early

dates for the beginning of Sumerian c ivi l i z ation in

Babylonia should also be considerably lowered .3 Other

I H ilpre ch t has dated the found ing of the temple of B61 and th e firstse ttlements in N ippu r, somewhe re be twe en 6000 and 7000 B . C . ,

possibly e ven earl ie r (se e Old B aby lon ian Inscr ipt ions , Pt . II , p . 24.

2 According to Nabonidu s 3 200 years e lapsed be twe en the bu rial ofNarz

’

im-Sin’s foundation-inscr iption in the temple of Shamash at Sippar,

and h is own finding of the inscription (see Rawl inson, Com. Inst r . West .

Asia (Vol . V, pl . 64, C01. II , 11. 54-65 ) on this figu re the date Of 3 750 B . C .

has be en assigned to Narz’

im-Sin, and 3 800 B . C . to h is fathe r Sargon .

3 Professor H i lpre cht has b e en one of the staunchest upholde rs of the

earliest date s for the beginn ings of Babylonian history (se e above ,n . I ) . In the au tumn of this year ( 1906) I discu ssed th e qu est ion withh im, communicating to him some of the conclu sions at which I had arrivedwith regard to the ove rlapping of the early Babylonian dynas tie s . In

support of re taining early date s he informs me that he wil l shortly publishpart of an early dynastic table t (in his forthcoming work on Mathematical

12 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA

dates,which according to the same hypothesis would

fall under suspicion , are those assigned to Hammurabi

on the figures of Nabonidu s,I and to Kudur-nankhund i’s

invasion of Baby lonia on the figures of A shur—bani-pal .2

Such a method of reducing early dates has far more to

recommend it than any inge nious textual eme ndation .

For the hypothesis accepts the figu res given in the texts

as representing the firm belie f of the scribes by whom

they we re drawn up,while at the same time it gives a

plausible explanation of the error bywhich it is assumed

they were obtained .

But it is not contende d that we must forthwith re j cc t

these dates wi thout further exam ination . On the con

t r'

ary ,each of the three date s referred to above must be

examined on its own merits,and

, when this i s done, i t

wi l l b e seen that they do not all stand in the same

and Chronological Table ts and that, although the portion of the tex tthat is pre se rved refe rs to the Dynastie s of Ur and Isin, the original siz e of

the table t proves the existence of many earlie r dynastie s .

1 L a , the statement of Nabonid us that Hammu rabi rebu ilt the templ e

of Shamash at Sippar seven hundred years be fore Bu rna-Bu r iash . The

date assigned to Gu lkishar on the boundary-s tone of the re ign of B61

nadin-apli ne ed not he re b e re fe rred to, as the re cord date s from the end

of the twe lfth centu ry B . C . , and not from the Neo-Babylonian pe riod ;se e Chap . IV.

2 When he captu red Su sa in abou t 650 B . C . , Ashu r-ban i-pal re lates thathe recove red the image of the godde ss Nanawhich the Elamite Kudur

nankhundi had carried Off from Ere ch 163 5 years before (se e (fem . Inst r .

West . Asia , Vol . III, pl . 3 8 , No . I , Obv. ,l . This wou l d assign to

Kudu r-nankhundi ’s invasion the approximate date of 2285 B . C .

UPON EARLY BABYLON IAN CHRONOLOGY. I 3

category. Thus a good case may b e made out for

regarding the date assigned by N abonidus to Ham

mu rab i as based upon accurate information w ith regard

to the early dynasties of the Lis t o f Kings . I n the

first place i t is not at all ce rtain that e ve n the compiler

o f the larger Kings’ List imagined that al l his dynasties

were con secu tive . If at the e nd of the l ist he had

adde d up the years during which the separate dynasties

lasted and had given the total thus obtained for the

l ength of the ir duration,i t wou ld have followed that

such was his bel ie f. But the end of th e Kings ’ List i s

want ing,and in the absence o f e vide nce it may be

urged that we are not j ustified in assuming he was

unaware that his second dynasty was contemporaneous

with his fi rst and third . I t i s true that he writes one

after the other and gives the total numbe r of years that

e ach endured , but this arrangement upon the tablet is

not conclusive proof that he regarded them as conse cu

tive. In fact , it is poss ible to compare his arrangement

o f the early dynastie s in the l ist w ith the attempt of an

early sculptor to represent two rows of figures marching

abre ast . Through his inabil ity to draw them in per

spe ct ive , h e would first se t ou t one row of figures and

wou ld the n arrange the other row be neath it . N0 one

would imagine that he intended to represent the first

row as walking upon the heads of the second,for the

convention he employed is recogni z ed . And it i s

possible that we must extend a similar indulge nce to

I4 EFFECTS OF THE N EW DATA

the compiler of the larger List of Kings . He had not

evolved the modern system of parallel columns to

represent contemporary events,and the writing of one

dynasty beneath another does not ne cessari ly imply a

consecutive order in point of time.

Such is a plausible explanation of the arrangement

of the Kings ’ List, though it must be admitted that the

method would run considerable risk of being mis

u nderstood even at the time of i ts employment . The

possibil ity, however, does exist that the compiler of the

larger Kings’ List was himself in error with regard to

the period of the Second Dynasty. But, even admittingthat this was the case, i t does not fol low that h is error

was ge ne ral ly prevalent among his contemporaries .

The existence of the new chronicles in the late Baby

lonian period is proof that the trad it ion of the real

order of these early rulers and of their relations to one

another had never died ou t . Moreover,i t is poss ible

to harmon i z e approximate ly the rough estimate of

Hammu rab i’

s period,as given by Nabonidu s

,with the

new information suppl ied by the chronic le .

I I n these

circumstances we may accept his estimate of the date

of Hammurabi , though given in round numbers and

e xaggerated , as based u pon a corre ct conception of the

relation of the first three dynasties to one another.

The same degree of confidence cannot be felt in the

I See b e low, Chap . V.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

16 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA

and,Wh i le our new chronicle proves that the true

position of Iluma-ilu’

s dynasty was Well known to the

later Babylonians , we have no such assurance that the i r

knowledge was equally accurate with regard to the

sequence of the earl ier c ity—states . The possibil i ty

therefore exists that the scribe s of Nabonidus obtained

the ir high figure for N aram—S in by regarding as con

se cu t ive certain dynastie s,which as a matter of fact were

contemporaneous,during the period pre ced ing the rise

of Babylon to the position of the principal C ity in

Babylonia .

More ove r,the fact that in the Chronicle N o .

the section concerning D ungi immediately follows

that conce rning N aram -Sin,is possibly s ignificant .

H ad so long an interval as fourteen hundred,or fifte en

hundred,years separated the pe riod of Sargon from

that of Dungi and his father U r-Engu r , the chronicler

might we l l have included in his text sections record ingth e dee ds of the most famous kings who ru led in this

long interval . That such sections were not included in

th e original text of the composition may be inferred

from the fact that No . i s labelled as the second

tablet of its serie s,and was not me rely inscribed with a

selection of extracts,as was poss ib ly the case with

No . 96, 1 5 2 .

I Such evidence is purely negative,but it

may be cited as an additional argument in favour of a

I Se e be low, Chap. III .

UPON EARLY BABYLON IAN CHRONOLOGY. I 7

reduction in the dates assigned to the early kings of

Agade. l

Though we may thus have to reduce the date of

3 800 B .C . fo r Sargon of Agade, which has hitherto been

gene rally accepted ,2 the earl iest Sumerian remains that

have been recovered may probably be ass igned to the

fourth mil lennium B .C . In support of such a V iew we

may cite the very large number of early dynasties which

were known to the later A ssyrians and Babylonians and

were class ified by them . In the Babylonian Dynastic

Chronicles the period from the F i rst Dynasty of

Babylon to the reign of A shur-bani-pal did not occupymore than two columns of the text, while considerably

more than three columns were devoted to the period

before the First Dynasty. From the missing portion of

the text we may thus infer the existence of a very large

number of dynasties before the rise of Babylon . Ex

cavat ions have as yet revealed the names of merely a

few of these early rulers , and the fragmentary inscriptions that have been recovered are but an earnest of

what we may expect when other sites in Babylon ia are

I See fu rthe r, Chap I I I .

2 For othe r criticisms of this date , se e Lehmann-Haupt, Zwe t'

Haupt :

probleme, pp. 1 72 ff. , andWinckle r in Schrade r’s K e i l z’

nsc/zr z’

flen and a’

as

Alte Testament (3 rd I , p . 17 f. (cf. also M z'

ttez'

l . a’er Vora

’eras . Gesell

settafl, 1906, I , p . 12 , n. I ).

3 See Chap. VII, and Vol . II, pp . 46 ff.

1 8 EFFECTS OF THE N EW DATA

opened u p.

I I t may b e conj ectured that some of the

dynastie s include d in the Dynastic Chron icle we re con

temporaneous with one another,but eve n so we are

j ustifie d in assigning a comparatively early date for theorigin of Babylonian civi l i z ation .

Anothe r subject which may here be briefly refe rred to

i s the effe ct which our new information may have upon

certain problems of Egyptian chronology. I t is true

that du ring the earl ie r periods of Egyptian and Baby

lonian history no point of direct contact has been

establ ished betwee n the two countrie s,and it is not

unti l the time of the XV IIIth Dynasty that the Te l l

e l—Amarna letters furnish us with the names Of contem

poran eou s rulers in Egypt , Babylon i a and A ssyria. A t

this point,however

,the new chronicles do enable u s to

lessen a difficulty with regard to the date of the

Babylonian ruler who was the contemporary of Amen

he tep IV . We know from the Tell e l-Amarna letters

that at the time of Amenhe tep IV a Kassite king

named Bu rna-Bu r iash occupie d the Babylon ian throne,

and Nabonidus state s that only seven hund red years

separated a king named Burna-Bu r iash from Ham

mu rab i. There is evidence that there were two kings of

the Kassite Dynasty who bore the name of Burna

Bu riash,and it is certain that the second of these rulers

I H i lpre ch t’s new dynast ic list (se e above , p . I I f. , n . 3 ) affords an

additional and striking proof of th e e xistence of early dynastie s of whichwe as ye t know l it tle or nothing .

UPON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY . 1 9

was the contemporary of Ame nhe tep IV . But,eve n

by assuming that Nabon idus re ferred to Burna

B u r iash I,i t has been impossible to re conci le h i s state

ment with th e figures of th e List of Kings and,i n order

to reduce the discre pancy as much as possible,there has

been a tendency to raise rathe r than to lower the date of

the Kass i te period . Th is tende ncy the new chron i c les

remove , whi le at the same time they e nable us to u s e

the statement of Nabon idus in confirm ation of the V iewwhich would assign to the acce ssion of Ame nhe te p IV

a date not e arl ie r than 1 3 80

I t has been already noted that there is good re ason

fo r believing that the scribes of Nabonidu s were aware

o f the true relations of the e arly Babylonian dynasties

to one another,and that the i r estimate of the period

which separated Bu rna~B u r iash from Hammurabi,

though given in round numbe rs and rather exaggerated,

was based in the main upon corre ct information .

2 Now,

by adding se ven hundred years to I 3 80 B .C .,we should

obtain for H ammurabi a date not earl ier than 2080 B .C .

I t wi l l be seen that, so far from this date being too late

for Hammurabi,our n ew chronicle s Show that it i s too

early ; for, according to the information they supply , he

1 This is the approximate date which Meye r wou ld assign to Amen

he tep IV’S acce ssion , see his monograph Aegypt z

'

selze Clzro/zotogz'

e in the

Ao/zana’langen der Kon tgtz

'

c/z Pr enssz'

sc/zen Anade fn z'

e o’er

1904.

2 Se e above , p . 14.

20 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA

did not reign before the twentieth century B .C . And

this result is reached,not only through a true conception

of the inter-relations of the early Babylonian dynasties,

but by means of a new synchronism between two early

A ssyrian and Babylonian kings }

In addition to the above evidence which has a bearing

upon the period of the XV IIIth Dynasty,the new

chronicle s supply data which may be regarded as affect

ing indire ctly the problems of Egyptian chronology for

the earl ier periods. Thus the overlapping of the e arl ier

Babylonian dynasties,which have hitherto been regarded

as consecutive,may b e cited in Support of the View

which wou ld regard some of the earl ier dynasties of

Mane tho as partly contemporaneous with one another.2

Moreover,i t is now generally recogni z ed that certain

elements of Egyptian civi l i z ation during the early

dynastic period resemble well-known elements in the

early civil iz ation of Babyloni a. The Semitic element

in the Egyptian language does not point to any

distinctly Babylonian influence,but there are other

indications of a strain in early Egyptian culture which

may perhaps b e traced u ltimately to a Babylonian

source . Thus the art of the Ist and 11nd Egyptian

Dynasties in many respects bears a curious resemblance

to that of the Sumerians and early Babylonians ; the

I See be low, Chap . V .

2 l .o. , some of the dynastie s in the two groups from the VIIIth to theXth and from the XIIIth to the XVI Ith DynastIeS.

UPON EGYPT IAN CHRONOLOGY . 2 1

early u se of the cyl inder-seal in Egypt was probably

derived from Babylonia ; massive crene l lated build ings

o f brick , such as the tomb of king Aha at N akada,have

been compared to the early Sumerian and Babylonian

palaces and temples ; and i t has been sugge sted that

burial in the hori z ontal pos ition and certain elements in

the Egyptian rel igion may also have been derived from

the same q uarter .

We need not here discuss the theorie s as to how this

early Semitic,and ultimate ly Babylonian

,i nfluence

re ached Egypt,whether by way of the Straits of Bab

e l-Mandeb and along the Red Se a l i ttoral into the

Wadi Hamamat, or across the Isthmus o f Suez to the

De lta . Th e point which concerns us is the pe riod at

which such an influence may have been felt . It has

al ready been pointed ou t that we must probably lower

the ve ry h igh dates which have usual ly bee n assigned

for the orig ins of Sumerian and Babylonian civil i z ation

and,if thi s should prove to be the case

,it may wel l

affect our estimate of the period in which we are to se t

this early,though ind i rect

,connection be tween the

civi l i z ations of Babylonia and Egypt .

I

I The sugge sted reduction in Sume rian and early Babylonian dateswou ld not conflict with Meye r ’s ch ronological scheme for the early dynasticpe riod in Egypt , based upon a study of th e Egyptian calendar and the

Soth ic pe riods . I t may b e noted that his approximate date for the Ist and11nd Egyptian Dynastie s is ca . 3 3 1 5—2895 B . C . se e Aegypt isene Corona

logz'

e, pp . 174 ff. For Meye r’s own view upon this que stion , see now his

Sumer z’

er and Semiten z'

n B elay/on ion p . 75 .

2 2 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA

The on ly othe r subject we need touch u pon in the

present chapter is the manner in which ou r new infor

mation wil l affe c t the problems of B iblical chronology

for the earl ier pe riods . The earl ie st point of contact

recorded in the book of Ge nesis between Hebrew and

Babylon ian h istory occurs in the fourteenth chapter,

wh ich would make Abraham the contemporary of

Amraphel , king of Shinar . Schrader’s sugge stion that

Amraphel is a corruption of the name of Hammurabi

has been regarded , l ingu istical ly, as e xtreme ly probable ;but a difficulty wh ich has stood in the way of its

u nqu alified acceptance has been that the majority of

writers on Babylonian history have assigne d date s to

Hammurabi some centurie s earlier than the dateo f Abraham according to the Bibl ical ch ronology .

I

This discrepancy has cau sed many to suspend their

j udgment upon the proposed id e ntification ; others

have accepted the identification,and

,in the confl ict

o f Bibl ical with Babylonian chronology , have been

content to regard the latte r as the more trustworthy

of the two . Ou r new information enables us to accept

unconditionally the identification of Amraphe l with

Hammu rabi,and at the same time it shows that the

chronolog ical system of the Priestly Writer,however

artificial, was calculated from data more accurate than

has hitherto been supposed .

The re are two ways of arriving at Abraham’s date,

I C f. Ryle , article Amraphe l in Hast ings’ D i et . of t ire B io/e , I , p . 88 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

24 EFFECTS OF THE N EW DATA

reigns and in the synchronisms be twe en kings of Israe l

and Judah ,I while U sshu r’

s date for Solomon , if the

chronology be corrected from Assyrian sources, i s fortyor fifty years too early ? More over

,i t i s extremely

unlikely that the Exodus could have taken place at so

early a period as 149 1 B .C .,3 for during the fifteenth

century Palestine was an Egyptian province under

Egyptian admin i stration . I t i s preferable, therefore,to fix the period of the Exodus by means of external

evidence. Upon grounds of general probabil ity the

Pharaoh of the oppress ion has been identified with

Ramses I I,s ince one of the store-C ities bui lt by the

I sraelites in Egypt was named Raamses , and the other,Pithom

,is proved to have been founded during his

reign .4 H is successor

,Merneptah

,i s thus generally held

to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus . To Mer

neptah’

s accession Meyer would assign the approximat e

date of 1 2 3 4 B .C .,

5 while other historians would place

him rather earl ier in the same century. But our new

estimate of Hammu rab i’

s date would separate him from

I See Marti ’s article Chronology in E ng/e] . 19 1231. I , col . 778 ff. , and

Cu rtis, Chronology of the O ld Te stament ” in Hastings’ D iet . of til eB z

’

ole, I , pp. 3 99 ff.2 Cf. Drive r , Genes is, p. xxvn.

3 For the artificial origin of the numbe r 480 in I Kings VI, 1 , see Marti ,op. cit , cols . 775 , 777, and Drive r, Genesis, p . xxix .

4 Se e Naville , Tbe Stor e-city of P i t/zone, p . I 1 .

5 See Aegyptz‘

sclze Cit ronologz'

e, p . 68 .

UPON B IBLICAL CHRONOLOGY . 2 5

Me rneptah by l ittle more than seven hundred years . I t

wi ll be noted that there is no great discrepancy between

this period and the 645 ye ars, which , in the Hebrew

text,separated the Exodus from the cal l of Abraham .

According to this method of fixing the d ate of the

Exodus,the figures of the Hebrew text are to b e pre

ferred to those of the Samaritan version and the

Septuagint . And we may conclude that the chronology

of the Pentateuch, with regard to the length of time

separating Abraham from Moses,exhibits far greater

accuracy than we have hitherto had reason to bel ieve .

In the present chapter we have anticipated some of

the results to be obtained from a study of the new

chronicles , in order to estimate their influence upon

problems of Egyptian and Bibl ical chronology . The

effects of ou r revised conception of the fi rst three Baby

lonian dynasties upon the sti l l earl ier periods of

Sumerian and Babylonian history have also been

referred to . But the new texts have no direct bearings

upon the problems of Sumerian chronology,and th e

earl iest date for which they supply positive evidence i s

that of the rise of the F i rst Dynasty of Babylon . The

following chapters wi l l deal in chronological orde r with

the kings who are mentioned in the new texts . Thus

the inter-relations of the first three dynasties of the

Babylonian List of Kings wil l be discussed in the

fourth chapter, after the traditions concern ing earl ier

ru lers have been examined . The earl iest k ings men

26 THE CHRON ICLE OF SARGON .

t ioned upon the new chronicles are Sargon of Agade

and his son Naram-Sin,and in the following chapter a

comparison wi l l be made between the famous Ome ns

Of Sargon and Naram-Sin and the new chronicle of thei r

achievements, from which the historical portion of the

Omens ” was derived .

CHAPTER I I .

THE CHRON ICLE OF SARGON AN D NARAM-SIN AN D Two

VERSIONS OF THE“OMENS.

”

THE Assyrian tablet,which is u sually referred to under

some su ch title as the Omens of Sargon and Naram

Sin,

” i s one of the best known and most d i scussed

compositions from the royal l ibrary ofA shur-bani-pal at

N ineveh . A lthough the suggested interpretations of the

Omens themselves vary cons iderably,i t was seen from

the first that certain historical achievements of Sargon

and N aram -Sin are therein associated W i th special

augural phenomena . The majority O f writers have

always recogni z ed the value Of the historical tradit ions

which are incorporated in the text ; and an attempt to

throw discredit upon them,as being ou tside the sphere

of history,was not renewed when Sargon

’s conquest of

Elam,at first only known from a single section of the

Omens,was found commemorated in his own date

formulae . The suggestion has been made that the

references to Sargon and Naram-Sin upon the omen

tablet were drawn from some historical composition

2 8 THE CHRON ICLE OF SARGON

record ing the achie vements of the se ancient kings .

That a copy of such a narrative or chronicle would

some day be discovered has always been among the

possibi li ties of cuneiform research .

The first Of the new chronicle s publishe d in the second

volume of this work ]! contains a record Of the dee ds Of

Sargon , king Of Agade . The account occupies the

whole of the obve rse of the tablet,and runs on con

se cu t ive ly without a break for twenty-three l ines . The

first section on the reverse Of the tablet consis ts Of four

l ines,and contains a similar record of the e xpeditions of

Naram-S in , th e son Of Sargon . A glance at these

narratives wi l l suffice to Show that we have here a copy

of part of the original chronicle from which were

derived the historical portions of the Omens of Sargon

and Naram-Sin .

” We have already discussed and tested

the ge ne ral cred ibil ity of stateme nts containe d in the

new texts , and it now remains to examine in some

detail the accounts which the chronicle and the Omens

respectively give of the same events .

I n addition to the chronicle of the deeds Of Sargon

and Naram-Sin,the new texts published in the se cond

volume include a fragment of a Neo-Babylon ian version

of the Omens ? A s in the A ssyrian vers ion of this

composition,each section Of the text is d ivided from the

others by a line ruled hori z ontally across the table t ;

I N o . se e Vol . I I , pp . 3 ff.

2 No. see Vol . I I , pp . 40 ff.

AND THE OMENS. 29

but in another respect the arrangement of the new

vers ion offers a remarkable contrast to the old . I n the

A ssyrian ve rsion the historical facts are incorporated

wi th the augural phenomena,and in each section of

the text the one follows on after the other withou t any

break or mark of divis ion betwee n them . I n the new

version the augu ral and historical portions of the text

are arranged in se parate compartments and divided

from each other by a l ine ru led down the centre O f the

tablet . We could not have a more striking proof,if

such were needed,Of the totally d ifferent origin of the

two strands ofwhich the Omen s are composed .

In the present work we are only concerned wi th the

historical strand of the Omens,and wi th the po ints of

s imilarity and difference which it presents on compari son

with the text of the new chronicle . But we may note

in pass ing that in both versions o f the Omens the same

phenomena are associated w ith the same historical

events . I n fact in the new vers ion we meet with a form

of the same augural compos it ion which is found in

the A ssyrian version of the work .

I I t i s true that

I The augu ral parts of the texts, that correspond to one anothe r in thetwo ve rsions, are indicated in the following table

N ee-B ab. Ver . Assy r . Ver .

Obv. , ll . 1 - 3 (left compartment ) O bv. , l . 3 0 f.3 3 11° H L 3 5 f'

R ev. , 11. 1- 5 Re v. , 1. 3 f.

11. 8 - 10 1. 10 f.

In the N eo-Babylonian ve rsion the lines are numbe re d across the table tand not by columns .

20 THE CHRON ICLE OF SARGONU

the new version presents many variant readings and

contains additional phrases, while it casts the third

of the sections it prese rve s into an entire ly different

form . But there is no doubt that we have in

the two docume nts d iffe re nt vers ions of a composition

from which they are both descended . The inte rpr e

ration of the omens themselves,wi th which at some

early period were associated the deeds of Sargon and

Naram-Sin,though extremely important for the study

of Babylonian augury, i s of no historical interest, and

therefore doe s not fal l within the scope of the presen t

work. They were forme rly regarde d as astrological

forecasts, but it has now bee n recogni z ed that they deal

with the e ntrails,and particularly with the l iver

,of a

sacrificial Vi ctim,and they belong to a class of l iterature

represente d by a considerable number of Babylonian

and A ssyrian composit ions .

I The ir interpretation,

however,does not in the le ast affect ou r understanding

o f the historical portions of the text . In fact,the only

change they have produced in the latter has bee n to

cast the direct statements of the chronicle into a series

Of relative clauses .

I Se e Vol . II , p . 25 . A fu rthe r study of the se l ive r-tab le ts ”has

re cently b e en u nde rtaken by Prof. j astrow, who has supplemented his

analys is of the tex ts by an examinat ion of the l ive rs and entrails of newlyslain she ep . As a re su lt , he informs me , h e has be en enabled to suggestidentifications for most of the ide ograms occu rring in this class of augu ralcomposition. H is re su l ts wil l be published in the forthcoming parts(Nos. 10 and 1 I ) of his Religion B ony /on ions and Assy r iens.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

3 2 THE OMENS OF SARGON .

The historical portions of the Omens are divided into

sections upon both of the ve rs ions,which were current

in the A ssyrian and the late Babylonian periods re spe c

t ive ly . The contents of the various sections may be

briefly indicated as follows

Section I Sargon ’s conqu est of Elam .

[Assyr . Ve rs . , Obv., 11. 1

I I : H is conquest of the Country of the

West.[Assyr . Ve rs . , Obv. , ll . 5

I I I His work at Babylon , and the buildingof a city l ike Agade.

[Assyr. Ve rs . , Obv. , 11. 8

IV : H is conquest of the Country of the

West.[Assyr. Ve rs . , Obv. , II. I 3

V : H i s conquest of the Country of the

West.[Assyr . Ve rs . , Obv. , 11. 16— 18 ]

VI H is support by Ishtar in some enter

prise.[Assyr. Ve rs. , Obv. , 11. 19

VI I : H i s power through Ishtar’s help ;his complete subjugation of the

Country of the West , and the

setting up of his images there ;

h is despoil ing of the Country of

the Sea.

[Assyr. Ve rs . , Obv. , II. 22

AND NARAM-SIN . 3 3

Se ction V I I I : The enlargeme nt of his palace .

[Assyr. Ve rs . , Obv. , l l . 28

IX : H i s expedition against Kasalla .

[Assyr . Ve rs . , Obv ., l l . 3 1 -

3 4 ;

N eo-Bab . Ve rs . , Obv., ll . 1

X : The revolt against Sargon and its

suppre ssion .

[Assyr . Ve rs . , Obv., l . 3 6 —R ev . , l . 2

N eo -Bab . Ve rs . , Obv . , 11. 5

XI H i s expedition against Su b artu .

[Assyr. Ve rs . , Re v. , 11. 5— 9

N eo-Bab . Ve rs . ,Rev. , 11. I

X I I Naram-Sin ’s expedition against

Apirak.

[Assyr . Ve rs . ,R ev. , 11. I I -14 ;

N eo-Bab . Ve rs . , R ev. ,11. 8

X I I I : Naram -Sin’s expedition against

Magan .

[Assyr. Ve rs . ,R ev . , 11. 16 —18

N e d -Bab . Ve rs . , R ev . l l . 12 HR]

A comparison of the two tables which have just been

given wi l l Show that the fi rst six sections of the Omens,

with one possible exce ption , are not repre sented in the

chronicle . Sections VI I— X I and X I I —X I I I occur

in the chronicle in the same orde r as in the Omens ;while one or possibly two portions of the chronicle find

I So l itt le is pre se rved of Se ction XIV, th e last on the table tcontaining th e Assyrian ve rsion , that it is impossible to re cogniz e th e

subje ct with which it dealt .

3 4 COMPARISON OF THE CIIRONICLE

no similar sections in the Omens . The fol lowing table

indicates the se ctions of the Omens to which the subject

matter of the chronicle corresponds

CHRON ICLE . OMENS.

[wanting] Se ctions I -VI

Obv .,l l . 1 6 Section VI I

11. 7 8 V I I I

11. 9— 10 IX

11. 1 1— 1 3 X

l l . 14 - I 7 X I

11. I 8 —19 [c f. Sec . I I I]11. 20 -2 3 [wanting]

R ev.

,ll . 1 3 Section X I I

l . 4 X I I I

In the second half of the volume,translations are

given of the chronicle and of both ve rs ions Of the

Ome ns,

I but we may here asce rta in the e xtent to which

t he te xts of the thre e documents corre spond , and dete r

m ine how far the historical statem e nts O f the Omens

a re supported by the chronicle . I t wi l l be see n that

the latter enables us to restore seve ral gaps in the

Omens,and proves that some of the more d ifficult

phrases which occur in them are du e to corruptions of

the te xt . Fo r purpose s of comparison l l . 1— 6 of the

chronicle and the se venth section of the Omens are

printe d be low in paralle l columns . Whe re it has been

I Se e Vo l. I I , pp . 3 ff. , 2 5 ff. , 40 fl.

AND THE OMENS. 3 5

poss ib le to restore wi th practical certa inty the gaps in

the Omens from the corresponding passages i n the

chronicle,such restorations have been made .

CHRON ICLE .

I”ZSar r a-ukin S

‘ar Agade

K I

ina pct /i2”137m:

(2) S‘a-ni-na a ma-lz i—r i u l i—l‘i

i—lam-ma

ta—lam—mat—sa el i matatif’l (3 )i i—ou -ak

tamta ina si t 5 ami i zloi -ir

ma (4) sa t/a XZKAN mat ere‘

d

Slams? a -a

’

z

'

lei -ti -S‘n fiat—sot

(5 ) pi—i—S‘n a-na

ii -tin n-kz’

n sa lmanii ’Z-i‘a ina

er éo Samsi i i i -Zit a (6) fal-lat

s it -net ina a—ma-a-ti n-i‘e-oi-r a

( I ) Sargon,king of Agade ,

through the royal gift of

I shtar was exalted, (2 ) and he

posse ssed no foe nor rival .

H is glory ove r the world (3 )he pou red ou t .

The Sea in the East he

crossed, (4) and in the

OMEN S (ASSYR .

(2 2 )3‘a ina Ki r i an—n[i—i] (2 3 ) [i—na

pal i i—la-am—ma sa-ni

71a gab-t i a! S

‘a-lam-ma t

s ze e li [matdtz'

fl] (24)

Sar r n akin

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

( 2 2 ) Sargon, who

u nde r this omen ( 2 3 ) (throughthe royal gift of Ishtar] wase xalted , and posse ssed no foe

nor e qu al . H is glory ove r

[ the world] (24) [he

The Sea of the We st he

crossed, and in the thirdD 2

trimta S‘

a er t‘

oSami‘i i—lt i -r ama S

‘attn ina er i é

Samsz'

( 2 5 ) flex-so

zni aa’

nw’a) pi—S‘a aa—s‘ar

a Az nu salmanifl’ —S‘a zna

er eoSarah (26) -z zt

fal-la-sa-nn z'

na ma-a-ti te’

imtz'

n -se -di-m

3 6 SARGON OF AGADE

e leventh year the Country of year in the We st ( 2 5 )the We st in its full extent h is his hand subdued .

hand subdu ed ( 5 ) H e He united them u nde r one

united them unde r one con control ; his image s in theWe st

trol he se t up his image s in ( 2 6) [he

the We st ; (6) the ir booty he the ir booty in the Country Of

brought ove r at (his) word . the Sea‘ he brought ove r.

The first paragraph of this section,de scribing the

powe r to which Sargon attained through Ishtar’s help,forms a fitting introduction to the chronicle. From it

we are able to restore the broken text of the Omens ,which is practically the same as that of the chronicle

i t only presents two variant readings, gabr i for a mania

/i,

and a variant verb for z

'

tba le .

In the second paragraph,which gives an account of

Sargon’s final subjugation of the Country of the West,

we find some interesting variants . The most important

is the statement of the chronicle that the Sea

in the East he crossed,i n place of “ the Sea of the

West he crossed .

” Mainly on the strength of this

passage in the Omens it has been asserted that Sargon

crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus . I t has been

pointed out that the phrase, if recording a fact, should

more probably be taken to mean that Sargon,in the

course of his subjugation Of the West,coasted along the

Palestinian littoral,crossing from point to point ? The

I Se e be low, p . 3 8 , n . 1 .

2 Se e H . R . Hall , Tae Oldest Civi liz at ion of Gr eece , p . 3 15 .

AND THE PERSIAN GULF. 3 7

reading O f the chronicle,however

,throws cons iderable

d iscredit upon the statement of the Ome ns . The phrase

the Sea in the East ” withou t doubt indicates the

Persian Gulf. The Legend of Sargon reproduces a

tradition that he conquered D ilmu n I which was s ituated

in the Pe rs ian Gulf,and we have contemporary proof

that he included in his empire the districts bordering

upon it . For we know,not only from the statement

O f the Omens,but also from date-formulae upon docu

ments contemporary with Sargon , that he conque red

Elam ; and , l ike Se nnacherib at a later date, he may

well have crossed the Persian Gu lf in the course Of his

expeditions thithe r.

I t is true that we Should ex pect a mention of the

Mediterranean,rathe r than of the Pe rs ian Gulf

,in

connection with an expedition to the Syrian coast, but

that very fact should lead us to suspect the reading of

the Omens . The conquest of the Country of the West

is couple d by the copula ma to the crossing O f the Se a

in the East ; but this may legitimately be taken as

intentional on the part of the compiler of the chronicle,

who wishe d to ind icate the extreme limits of Sargon’s

exped itions afte r having state d that he poured out his

glory ove r the whole world . Thus the c ross ing of the

Sea in the East (the Persian Gulf) was balance d by his

conquest of the West (the Mediterranean coast), as in

I Se e th e Appendix to the Texts and Translations, Vol . I I , p. 92 .

3 8 SARGON OF AGADE

the fol lowing lines in the Omens, the setting Up of h is

images in the West (the Mediterranean coast) i s balancedby the conquest of the Country of the Sea (the shore s

of the Pers ian Gulf). The text thus consisted of two

well—balanced clauses,each of which prese nte d in

antithesis the extreme l imits of Sargon ’s empire . But

when the chronicle was cut up into sections and appl ied

piecemeal to separate augural phenomena, the original

intention of the writer was obscured . The stateme nt

that Sargon crossed th e Se a in the East, coupled by the

copula to his conquest of the West,m ight we l l appe ar

out of place,and it would be natural for a copyist to

amend the text and to substitute the re ading which

would seem to him more suitable to the context of the

passage .

I The only definite s upport of the the ory that

Sargon crossed the Me d i terranean to Cyprus thus falls

to the ground .

Another interesting variant which th is portion of

the chronicle supplies to the seventh section of

the Omens concerns the year of Sargon ’s comple te

subjugation of the Coun try of the West. The Omens

state that this event took place in the third ye ar,and

the chron icle in the e leventh year. The forme r state

me nt probably me ans that it took thre e years to subdue

I That the copyist re tained th e phrase ina ma-a-t i lamt i may beexplained on the supposition that he d id not take the words as a ge ographical expression for the Country of the Sea, bu t possibly regarded them as

meaning by land (and) sea .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

40 SARGON’

S HOUSEHOLD .

(7) The sons of his palace (2 8) Sargon, who

for five leasbn (around) he enlarged h is palace to the

se ttled, (8 ) and ove r the extent of five (2 9)hosts of the world he re igned and the mighty

supreme .stood around him,

and they said u nto him,

“Whe re shal l we go ?

The chronicle seems to imply that Sargon caused

the sons of his palace,

” that is,his relatives and

personal adherents,to settle in the Country of the West .

The Omens on the othe r hand make an en tirely new

s e ction out of this portion of the text,not connecting it

with the e xpedition de scribed in the preceding section .

Moreove r,the latter vers ion se ems to repre sent certain

noble s,or powe rful adhere nts o f the k ing,

as havingbeen dispossesse d Of the i r dwell ings in conseque nce of

add itions made to the royal palace and in the last l ine

of the se ction they appeal to Sargon to tell them where

they shall go . I t ce rtainly looks as if both the chronicle

and the Omens omit portions of the original narrative

from which they were derived . By combining the two

Versions we may comple te the narrative of the Ome ns,

which le aves O ff abruptly with the question put by the

noble s to the king . In answer to the ir appeal Sargon

may have settled those whom he had d ispossessed of their

dwe l l ings in a wider circle around h is palace. I t wi l l be

Obvious that the figu re‘five i s taken in d iffe rent se nses

in the two versions . In the Omens it represents the

HIS CONQUEST OF KASALLA . 4 1

extent to which the palace was enlarged in the

chronicle,referring by its context to a settleme nt of the

king’s adherents in a foreign country,the figure has

been retained but the m e asure itse lf has been changed

to Anson . The eighth line o f the chronicle was probably

afterwards inserted as it rounds o ff the account of the

conquest and settlement of the Country Of the West

and se rves to introduce the expedition against Kasalla .

The account o f this expedition is far fuller in the

Assyrian version of the Omens than in the Chronicle,as

wi l l be seen from the following extracts

CHR ON ICLE . OMENS (ASSYR .

(9) a-nam i mKa-sal—la nae (3 1 ) do. (i .e . f arm

ma M w[ fa -sal -la ana ti li a nlein 5a) mi faf-tn-oi-la mdq a

leaf -me n-ti r ( 1 0) ina lid-oi-S‘n sal - la ibbalni tn -S

‘n -ma ana

man-z a-az is-snr n-fzal—lin W WKa-sal -7na

dapa’

é -l‘

n-nu im-{za-sn lea-mar

S‘n-na if-kn-nn ( 3 3 ) u ni -ma

an-i‘a-nu r abita (ta) u -s

‘

am-ni-tn

W WKa-sal—la ana ip-r i n kar

me a-tir -r n (3 4) ma-an-z a-as

issnr e‘

fl u -lza l-lik

(3 1 ) Sargon ,

again st Whom Kashtu b ila of

(9) Against Kasalla he Kasalla revolted, and against

marched , and he tu rned Ka Kasalla ( 3 2 ) he marched, and

Salla in to mounds and heaps he smote them grievously and

of ru ins ; ( 1 0)he destroyed (the defeated them ; (3 3 ) the ir

42 THE REVOLT AGAINST SARGON

land and le ft not) enough m ighty host he ove rthrew; hea bird to re st the reon . turned Kasalla into du st and

heapsofru ins (3 4)he de stroyed

(th e land and le ft not) enoughfor birds to re st the reon .

The chronicle has evide ntly cut down the original

account,for it makes no mention Of the name of Kash

tubila of Kasalla. I t is intere sting to note that the te xt

of the N e o—Babylonian vers ion of the Omens does not

correspond to the A ssyrian ve rsion but agre es with that

of the chronicle . The tablet,on which the Neo-Baby

lon ian ve rsion is preserved,i s very broken

,bu t it i s

cle ar from the s i z e o f the gaps at the end s of the l ine s

that its text must be restored in ac cordance with the

shorter account of the campaign .

The tenth section of the Omens,corre spond ing to

l l . 1 1 —1 3 of the chron icle,records the revolt made

against Sargon and his suppre ssion of it,and the

chronicle gives some important variant readings . The

two forms of the narrative run as fo l lows

CHRON ICLE .

( I I ) ar -na-nis ina f ti on-ti lsamc

'

izte’

z‘

tzWl lea—li-s‘i -na I

'

é-ba-al-nzl

ta-s‘i-ma ( 1 2 ) ina A-

ga-a

’eK I i l

7nu -3‘

u -7na” farm -akin a-na

naéni asi -ma aointa-sn-nn im

{zas ( I 3 ) na-mar ~3‘n-nn zit-nun

OMENS (ASSYR .

( 3 6) Farm -akin S‘a

z'

na Ki r i an-ni—i (3 7) l‘i-ou -ti

mati naliS‘u iooalni tzt -Ku -ma

ina A -

ga-a

’

.eKI i lnzn-i

‘a-ma ( 3 8)

Sar an-akin as i-nza dapa’c'

i-sa

nu im-laa-sn lea-maf —s‘u -na i i

IN H IS OLD AGE . 43

um-ntan -S‘

n -nn r apai‘timUim) ku -na (R ev.

,1 ) umnza

‘

n-S‘a-na

a-S‘

am—é l—i t r aoita(ta) u -S‘am-ki—ta man/tu r

S‘a-na eli—S‘a-nu t

'

k-sa-u ( 2 ) kn

ant zl—su -u

( I I ) Afte rwards in his Old (3 6) Sargon , against

age all the lands revolted whom unde r th is omen (3 7)against h im, ( 1 2 ) and they the e lde rs of all the land

be sieged h im in Agade 5 andrevolted

,and they b e sieged

Sargon wen t forth to battle him in Agade , (3 8 ) and Sargon

and de feate d them ; ( 1 3 ) he we nt forth and smote them

accomplishe d the ir ove rthrow, grievou sly and de feated them ;and the ir wide -spread ing host (R ev.

,I ) he ove rthrew the ir

he de stroye d .migh ty host ; theybou nd the ir

goods upon them ,to the place

of Ishtar they appealed .

The most impo rtant of the variant readings l ies in

the sense assigned to the substantive fel on-t i . A ided

by very Sl ight differe nces in the s tru cture o f th e

sentence,the diffe rence in m e an ing ass igned by the

chronicle to this word entirely alters the me aning

and scope of the passage as a whole . In the Omens iti s stated that the “ elde rs of all the land ” revolted

against S argon,and the episode i s tre ated as a pure ly

domestic occurrence after the suppression of the revolt

the re be l s collected the ir household goods and took

sanctuary in the temple of I shtar . In the chronicle,on

the other hand,the revolt i s described as having take n

place in Sargon’s old age

,

” and the rebels do not form

44. THE REVOLT AGAINST SARGON

a s ingle class of his own subjects,but cons ist of al l the

lands ” of which his empire was composed . The Neo

Babylonian ve rs ion of the Omens,as in the previous

s ection,supports the chron icle ’s account

,for i t repre

s ents the revolt as having take n place in Sargon’s o ld

age ; and , although the ends of the l ines are missing,it

is cle ar that the e arl ier one s are to be restored in

accordance with the text of the chronicle . In the last

two l ines of the section the N e e -Babylon ian version

amplifies the Chronicle ’s text by additional phrases

correspond ing to the elde rs ’ appe al to I shtar in the

A ssyrian ve rs ion ; but the re ading of mc’

z'

z‘

u in 1. I I

proves that the e pisode in the N e o-Babylon ian version

was of an international and not o f a domestic characte r .

O f the two accounts of the re volt, that found upon the

c hronicle,and the N e o-Babylonian ve rsion o f the Omens

,

i s certainly to be preferre d . The phrase “the e lde rs of

a ll the land ” i s awkward,and i s cle arly a conflate

read ing of the two phrases “h is old age ”

and“ all the

Hlands . Moreove r,the siege of Sargon in his own capital

i s far more suitable to an external than to an internal

revolt . In the case of a re volu tion headed by the ruling

class in the centre of the empire we should expect the

fi rst act of the re bels to b e the se i z ure of the c ap i tal .

On the other hand a confe d e ration of subject races who

we re in re vo l t would naturally advance from the out

lying province s , and ,in the e vent of meeting w ith success

,

would at last be siege the k ing in the city to which he

IN HIS OLD AGE . 45

had retired for refuge. Such is clearly the sense of the

original narrative, which has been mangled in the version

of the Omens current in A ssyria .

The historical importance of this new and more co rrect

version of the revolt is considerable . Evidence is gradual ly

accumu lat ing from the finds of early documents at

Tello,N iffer

,and Susa of the e xtent of the Semiti c

Empire founded by Sargon and inherited by Naram—Sin

and possibly by other early Semitic rulers of Babylonia .

But the fact that towards the end of his reign Sargon

should have been driven into his own capital by a con

federation of the races he had himself brought to

subjection,i l lustrates the insecure foundations on which

these early empires were based . Another of the

early chronicles here publ ished proves that the effect ofHammu rab i

’

s victories ove r Elam was not so enduring

as has been s upposed.

I S imilarly the ch ronicle under

discussion establishes the fact that Sargon’s empire

tottered While he himself was sti l l upon the throne.

The conquest of the land of Su bartu , which forms the

subject of the eleventh section of the Omens,i s described

in 11. 14— 17 of the chronicle. The fol lowing extracts

wi l l show to what extent the two accounts differ from

one another

CHRON ICLE . OMENS (Ass .

( I 4) an ti cmamdq ubar ium (5 ) Sar r u -uéé

‘

n for

Magzl zZ-Kzl fu {Mi-ma ( ma kakkz

’

z'

fla Kir i d a-m-z (6) [md fu 5 ]u

I See be low, Chaps. III and VI .

46

( I 5 ) Sar r uakin dalcigzu fu—aJ u ”J aw-ma

abz'

kfa-S‘u -nu z

'

m-{zas ( 1 6) kamar -s‘u -fi u z

'

S‘véz m um-man-S

‘

u

z'

é-mzl z'

s-su—ma

7 m mpat l z’

mUz’

m) u -S‘am-é zl z

'

z‘

( I 7) makkar—S‘

zz-nu a-na Ag a

a’

eK‘u -S

‘e-r zl éa

( I 4) Afte rwards he attackedth e land of Subartu in his

m ight , and they su bmitte d to

h is arms, ( 1 5 ) and Sargon

s e tt led that revolt , and de

feated them 5 ( 1 6) he accom

plished the ir ove rthrow, and

the ir wide—Spread ing host he

de stroyed, ( I 7) and he brought

th e ir posse ssions into Agade .

SARGON’

S CONQUEST OF SUBAR'

I‘

U .

éarm“z'

na gzl z

'

é-S‘zl i‘u {2‘

s fl-ru

ar m éaéé z’

z'

é -mzl szz -ma (7)[S

l

u r ry -21k?” S‘uéc

’

i z‘z'

fl S‘u 7m

u -S‘

e-s‘

zl éu -ma (8) [daPJdd-Ku -nu

z'

m-lza-m kwmar—j ‘u -nu z'

S‘véu -nu

um-ma-an-S‘u -nu r aw/Mia) (9)

—3‘u u -Eu u -ka

2'

c cma A -

ga-d

’em

u—t’

e—r zl l m

5 ) Sargon , Whom

u nde r this omen (6 ) the land

of Su bar tu in its m igh t at

tacked they submitted to his

arms, ( 7 ) and Sargon se tt led

the ir habitat ions , (8) and he

smote them grievou sly and

de feated them, and the ir

migh ty host (9) his

j and his force s he

(and) he brough t into

Agade .

I t wil l be seen that,whi le the Omens state that the

land of Su bar tu attacked Sargon , the chronicle de scribe s

Sargon himse lf as the invade r . The phrase “ and

Sargon settled the ir habitations,

”which occurs in l . 7 o f

the A ssyrian vers ion of the Omens , does not suit the

context,and the ideogram for tabl a i s probably due to

a Copyist’

s misreading of the Babylonian form of the

Again i t wi l l be noticed that the

I See Vol . I I , p. 7 , n . 2 .

sign for amid/m}

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

48 AGADE AND BABYLON .

z

'

s-safz-ma ( 1 9) z’

-t‘

e—e A-

ga-d

’

em z

'

aa d a-a z'

-z'

kzt—S‘a S

‘

a

gab-r i B dbi lz

'

mz'

yba-as z

'

sum-ma

(9) fa S‘al—Za écié GIN -NA

z'

s—sa-éa-ma[ a m

( 1 0) [ki—ma] Agra-ti eKI ala zlpa

5a-m[a ]K I t am—fa

ira—[fla-[a] ( I I )z'

aa lib-b]z'

axe-3 215 a

( 1 8 ) The soil from the (8 ) Sargon, who

trenche s of Babylon b e re unde r th is omen ] the

moved , ( 1 9)and the bou ndar ie s migh[t of Bab]ylon, (9) and

of Agade h e made l ike those removed the so il of the

of Babylon . gate ,and

( 1 0) and bii ilt a c ity [like unto]Agade , and called its name

( 1 1 )th e re]in h e cau sed to dwe ll .

I t should be remarked that the re storations in the

text of the Omens are purely conjectural , for the N e o

Babylonian version of this section has not been

preserved . A comparison O f the A ssyrian ve rsion with

the text Of the chronicle wi l l show that, although the

forme r is the longe r and the fu l ler of the two,the

ge neral nature of their contents i s the same. The

chronicle describe s Sargon as having removed the soi l

from the trenches Of Babylon : the Omens re cord that

he removed the soi l from some other portion of the city.

The passage in the Ome ns is probably corrupt, but the

SARGON ’

S CLOSING YEARS. 49

mention Of a gate may serve to connect the locality wi th

the outskirts of the city. The mention Of Agade in the

chronicle o ccurs in connection with its boundaries which

are recorded to have been made l ike those of Babylon .

We may possibly take this to mean that Sargon

increased the boundaries of Agade . I n the parallel

passage in the Omens we may see the form this increase

took ; for he is there recorded to have bui lt a city l ike

(or, possibly, near) Agade, and, afte r naming it, to have

settled inhabitants therein . The inhabitants doubtle ss

came from Agade, and the C ity itself may wel l have been

re ckoned within the boundary of the capital . I t is

therefore not improbable that we may trace the third

section of the Omens , and 11. 1 8 and 19 of the reverse of

the chronicle,to the same source . While the latter has

been reduced to a short summary,the former has

retained certain detai ls,some of which in the cou rse of

transmission have become corrupted .

The last four l ines on the obverse o f the chronicle

give a picture of the Closing years of Sargon’s reign,

which is not found in the Omens nor upon contemporary

docume nts . We here see his land smitten with famine,

while h is enemies from east to west rise in continuous

rebellion . The revolt Of al l the lands, which had taken

place in his old age,he

'

had Checked,but he evidently

did not suppress it effectual ly ; and his troubles were

increased by the distress of his own people due to the

scarcity of food . I t may be observed that, in the manne r

E

SO EXPEDITIONS OF NARAM-SIN .

of the compiler of the He brew Books of Chronicles,the

write r of this document ascribe s Sargon’s misfortunes to

his evi l deeds,in consequence of which his god Marduk

was angry and sent these troubles upon him as a

punishment.

The first fou r l ine s of the reverse of the

Chronicle deal with the c onquests of Naram-Sin,and

they correspond to the twelfth and thirteenth se ctions

of the Omens . The text of these sections is broken,

and there are gaps in the account of Naram-Sin’

s e xpe

d it ions which we have h i the rto been unable to fi l l up.

The se the chronicle e nable s us to restore . In the

fol lowing extracts, which de scribe Naram-Sin’s expedi

tion against Apirak, the gaps in the text of the Omens

have been fi l led in from the corresponding phrase s in

the Chronicle

CHRON ICLE . OMENS (ASSYR .

( I ) mN a-m -um-fluSz'

a flai r ( I I )” S

v

ar r a-aké‘

a a-aa“Z“A l zfiz

lm é ( 1 2) [fa z'

aa] d a—ml z'

aaa

[xx {Mia-ma] (z )pai l-5 a z'

p-Za “MA-pi -ma z

'

l iéa (é a )—ma ( I 3 )aE-ma ”‘R z-zli

‘fl uAfiad] (3 ) far [pz’

l—z'

Z zp-Za-s‘

a” R f-ist

a luA¢ZLr akK 1 a

am msaééal 1712407

c far “ZZ‘Aybzi-ma ( 14)

A-fif—m km Mt—sa [a “melz‘saééay -r aé

leaf-3 a z'

éfadawa)( 1 ) Naram-Sin , the son of ( I I ) Naram—Sin ,

Sargon, [marched] against the ( 1 2) [who unde r] th is omen

C ity of Apirak, (2) and he marched against the C ityconstructed mine s (against it), of Apirak, ( I 3 ) and con

HIS CONQUEST OF APIRAK . 5 1

and Rish ( 3 ) the kingof Apirak, and the gove rnor

op irak his hand sub [du ed] .

st ru cted [mine s (against it)]R ish—Adad, the king Of Apirak,( I 4) [and the gove rnor] of

Apirak h is hand subdu ed .

From the text of the chronicle we gather that Naram

Sin had to u ndertake a regular siege of the city of

Apirak,which he only succeeded in Capturing by means

Of mine s . I t also enables us to restore the sente nce

recording the capture of the ch ief minister of Apirak i n

addition to that of Rish-Adad , the king. A sti l l more

inte resting addition i s made by the Ch ronicle w i th regard

to Naram -Sin ’s expedition to the Sinaiti c peninsula .

This achie vement Of the king is described in the fourth

l ine on th e reverse Of the Chronicle and in the thirte enth

section of the Omens , which read as follows

CHRON ICLE . OMENS (ASSYR . VER

I 6) N a-r am-fWSz'

a

5a Ma 37 7 5 na-a z’

-z’

( 17) [mmmd fuM a—gjaa-na -maW WM a—gaa

-na z'

s -ba - ia -m [a ]

(4) ram .ilfcz-

<i_gf cz fz -7za

K I z'

Z-Zz'

k~

ma mMaa -a a—d’

a - d a -aa far

Ill a-g emK I [leaf-S14

I 8) far

mfifflM a-

gaa-aa h it—5 a ziés‘aa

’a

WM]( 1 6) Naram Sin

,

who unde r this omen ( I 7 )marched [against the land of

Magj an, and captu red the

E 2

(4) He marched against

Magan, and Mannu-dannu,

5 2 EXPEDITIONS OF NARAM-SIN .

th e king of Magan, [h is hand land of Magan , ( 1 8) and

subdued] . j , th e king of

the land of Magan,his hand

subdu ed .

I t w i l l b e se en that the chronicle gives the name

o f the king Of Magan as Mannu-dannu . This ruler

i s cle arly to be identified with Man i[um], whose

name occurs as that of the lord (ééla) of Magan in an

inscription upon the base of a d iorite statue recently

discove re d by d e Morgan at Su sa .

I The inscription

upon the statue re cords the de feat of Man i[um], the

lord of Magan , and the conque st Of that country by

Naram-Sin,on which occasion it is stated that he cut

the diorite for the statue in the mountains Of Magan and

transporte d it thence to Agade .

The name of Maniu [m] occurs in Col . I I, 1. 4 O f the

inscription,and the last Sign o f the name i s broke n but

the trace s that remain on the stone suggest the read ing

of the Sign am .

2 O f the name of the king of Magan in

the Ne O -Babylonian Chronicle only the fi rst half,Maaaa,

corresponds to the contemporary form of the name ;and it is probable that a

’d ana

,mighty,

”was a late r

addition,incorporated as part Of the name after having

I Se e D e’

lefgat z’

oa en Par se , Me’

moz'

r er,tome VI pp . 2 ff. , whe re

Sche i l gives a translation of the text .2 See th e photographic reprodu ction of the text in the Me

’

moz’

r es , t . VI ,pl . 1 . Sehe il cat , p . 5 ) also c ite s th e name as found upon the O ld

Babylonian contract-table t, publishe d in Can . Tx ts Pt . IV, pl . 10 (Bu .

88-5 -12 , 5 ,

HIS CONQUEST OF MAGAN . 5 3

served me rely as a descriptive t it le .

I I n the A ssyrian

version Of the Omens only part of the last Sign in the

name has been preserved,and this trace does not agree

wi th the end of the name as given by the Chronicle . I t

i s possible that in the A ssyrian version of the Omens

the name Of the king was prese rved in its original form .

2

Such are the points of s imilarity and difference

between the accounts of the deeds Of Sargon and

N aram-Sin ,as suppl ied by the chronicle NO . and

by the A ssyrian and the Neo-Babylonian versions of the

Ome ns . From the detailed comparison that has been

made in the preced ing paragraphs, the following pro

positions may be regarde d as proved : ( I ) The portion

of the chronicle refe rring to the deed s Of Sargon and

Naram - Sin,and the historical portions Of both versions

of the Omens, are descended from the same o riginal

composit ion ; (2) the N e O -Babylonian version of the

Omens presents more points of re semblance to the text

of the chronicle than to that Of the A ssyrian ve rsion Of

the Ome ns and ( 3 ) the A ssyrian version of the Ome ns,

though O ften fulle r and more detaile d than that of the

Neo-Babylonian version and the Chron icle,has under

gone greate r corruption in the course Of transmission .

1 The possib ility also exists , and shou ld no t b e ignored , that th e end of

the name in Naram-Sin’s inscription is pe rhaps not to b e re store d as am

,

bu t as a syllable that has given rise to the te rm inat ion dram a of the lateBabylonian text .

2 Se e Vol . II , p . 3 9, n . 1 .

54 ASSOCIATION OF OMENS

A t the head of this chapter we have,fo r the sake O I

conven ie nce,referred to th e chron icle No . as the

Chronicle Of Sargon and Naram-Sin,but only a portion

o f its text refers to these two kings,and the com

position may be more correctly de scribed as a chronicle

conce rning early Babylonian and Assyrian rulers .

Further,i t is not improbable that the original document,

from which our Chronicle and the two versions of the

Omens are alike descende d , also took this form . We

may suppose it to have incorporated a considerable body

of t raditions concerning the deeds Of a number O f early

Babylon ian and A ssyrian kings . The occurrence of a

catch-l ine upon NO . proves that at any rate in the

Ne O -Babylonian pe riod i ts te xt was written upon more

than one tablet,wh i le the Chronicle No . though

omitting at le ast one section,presents us wi th a continua

tion O f the text } Moreover,the tablet N0 . was

probably not the first of the series,for Sargon ’s conque st

of Elam,and his e arly e xpe d itions t o th e we st

,e t c .

,

which are recorded in the first Six se ctions Of the Ome ns,

must have had thei r equivalent account in a pre cedingsection of the Chronicle .

2

It must have been at a very early period that the

I Se e be low, Chap . I II , pp . 56 ff.

2 B ene ath the catch-line upon NO . are two signs, which eviden tlyform th e t i t le of th e work and give the se rie s to which the table t be longs .

I t is probab le that the se cond of the se signs indicates that N o . was

th e s econd table t of the se rie s se e fu rthe r , th e no te to the translation inVol . I I , p . 14.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPTER I I I .

TRADITIONS CONCERN ING DUNGI AND OTHER EAR LY KINGS ;

THE BELEOUS AND BELETARAS OF AGATH IAS.

IN the preceding chapter i t was remarke d that the

chronicle,on which the deeds Of Sargon and Naram-S in

are re corded,is only part Of a composition conce rning

the most famous of the early kings and rulers of

Babylonia and A ssyria . Th e table t N O .

represe nts a portion of this composition,and the tablet

No . 96 , 1 5 2 ,

I afte r the omission of at least one section,

furnishes a continuation of its te xt . On both table ts

the reigns of differe nt kings are tre ated in separate

sections divide d from on e ano the r by line s ruled across

the tablet,and on both the orde r in which they are

arrange d i s chronological . In addition to the re cord s

conce rning Sargon and Naram-Sin,kings of Agade

,

th e text of NO . includes sections deal ing with

Dungi,king of Ur, and w ith two othe r e arly rule rs

named Ura-im it t i and Be l-ibni . Then follows a catch

1 Se e Vol . I I , pp . 1 5 ff.

TRADITIONS OF EARLY KINGS. 5 7

l ine referring to the early A ssyrian king I lu-Shfima and

the contemporary ru ler Su -abu . The tablet No .

i s not completely pre se rved for i ts lower half i s broken

off,SO that nearly half its text is wanting . I n its first

section it re pe ats the story of Ura-im it t i and Bél-ibni,

and the n follows a se rie s O f traditions concerning kings

Of the Fi rst Dynasty Of Babylon , kings Of the Cou ntry

O f the Sea,and ce rtain Kass ite ru lers

,beginning with

Hammurabi and e nd ing with Agum .

I t wi l l thu s be seen that the section referring to

I lu-shfima and Su —abu is not found upon the second

Chronicle,and it is possible that the original text

contained traditions of a number o f e arly kings between

Bél- ibni and Hammurabi , which fo r some re ason have

be e n omitted by the scr ibe Of NO . I n that case

the latter tablet would pre sent an abbreviated version of

the text . On the other hand,the re is evidence that the

scribe of NO . was a care le ss Copyist, for on the

reve rse O f h is tablet he omitted the section referring to

Shamash-d itana and the H i ttite s,and afterward s

,on

finding out his mistake, he managed to squeez e in the

first l ine of the se ction in order to indicate its existe nce

upon the table t he was copying . The same thing may

have happened wi th regard to the section conce rning

I lu -shfima and Su -abu,though in that instance he doe s

not appear to have detected his omission . I n any case,

whether one or more sections O f the text have been

omitted,there is no doubt that No . gives a con

58 Two CHRON ICLES

t inu at ion of the same composition of which NO .

formed a part . 1 In the following table the subject

O f each se ction upon the two chronicles is briefly

indicated '

R ev.

,11.

CHRON ICLE NO . 5 2 .

1— 7 The sto ry of Ura-im itt i

and Be l- ibn i .

8 —1 2 : The war between Hammu rab i and R im—Sin .

1 While No . is labe lled as th e se cond table t Of this composit ion(se e above , p . 54, n . NO . has no colophon or ti tle Of any sorti t wou ld the re fore se em to have b e e n an ex tract from the history , made for

some spe cial pu rpose , and not a regu lar table t of th e se rie s . This wou ldaccoun t fo r i ts b eginning with a se ction of the se cond tab le t of the compos ition, al though th e greate r part of its tex t wou ld be long to th e third tab le t .

CHRON ICLE NO .

1 -2 3 The reign Of Sargon,king

O f Agade .

1— 4 The exped itions of Naram

Sin,the son of Sargon .

5 —7 The reign Of Dungi , kingOf Ur .

8 - 1 3 The story of Ura- imit t i

and Bel—ibni .

Catch -l ine,referring to

I lu -Sh t’

ima,king of

A ssyria,and Sw abu .

CONCERN ING EARLY KINGS. 59

I I I . Obv.,11. 1 3

— 20 : The war between Samsu

ilu na and R im -Sin .

[The end of the obve rse and th e beginn ing of

the re ve rse are wan ting ]IV . Rev.

,l l . 1— 6 The war betwe en Samsu

ilu na and Iluma- i lu .

l l . 7— 9 The war be tween Ab ish i,

the son of Samsu

ilu na,and Iluma- i lu .

Shamash—d itana and the

H ittite invasion .

11. I 1 - 1 3 The war betwee nEa-gamil,

king Of the Cou ntry

O f the Se a,and Ulam ~

B u r (i)ash ,the brother

o f B i t i l i a s h,t h e

Kassite .

VI I I . l l . 14 17 Agum,the son of B it il iash ,

and his conquests in

th e Country Of the

Sea .

A glance at this table O f conte nts w i ll show that in

the second Of the two Chronicles we have a number OI

familiar names of e arly Babylonian k ings , but that

some O f the names occur in u nfamil iar combination . In

fact,the tablet throws an e ntire ly new l ight on the

relations O f the early dynasties to one anothe r,and

furnishes us with valuable material for settl ing more

60 DUNGI’

S CARE FOR ERIDU .

accurately the Chronology of this period . But before

discu ssing the Chronological problems which are raised

or solved by the second of the chronicle s , i t wil l be wel l

to e xamine the sections separately in the order in which

they occur upon the tablets,omitting those on Sargon

and Naram-Sin which have already been discussed in

the preceding chapter.

On the tablet No . the se ction following that of

Naram-Sin is devoted to Dungi , the son Of U r-Engu r

and king of Ur. This is the famous king from whose

build ing inscriptions we already know that he re stored

and erected temples and othe r build ings in the citie s of

Ur,Erech , Sh irpu rla,

N ippur,Cuthah and Su sa.

I Fromthe short se ction of the chron icle wh ich deals with this

monarch we gather three new facts concerning h im .

For we le arn that he care d greatly for the city of

Eridu which was on the shore of the sea ” that so far

from taking care for the city of Babylon,he plunde red

it and laid hands upon the tre asures of E sagilaa ; and

lastly,that this conduct raised the wrath Of Marduk and

brought about h is own destruction .

1 Cf. Thu reau -Dangin , L es inscr ipt ions de Samar cl d ’

Akéaa’

, pp . 268 ff.

2 In the tab le t known as the legend of Dungi , part of which has be enre cove re d , the king appears to have re lated in th e first pe rson the story ofh is explo i ts, and it is possib le that the text re fe rred to D ungi

’

s de feat ofthe king of Babylon , and h is sacking of the temple (se e Ca n . Tex z

‘

s ,

Pt . XI II , pl . 45 , K . 8708 , Obv.,Col . II ). I t is, howeve r, also possible

that D ungi’s de eds we re no t re corded upon K . 8708 , bu t upon the next

table t of the se rie s .

H IS SACK OF BABYLON . 6 1

In D u ngi’

s care for Eridu to the detriment O f Babylon

we may see evidence of a Consistent policy. I n the first

chapter Of this volume it was sugge sted that the period,

which separated the e arly kings of Agade from those O f

Ur,was not so long as has general ly been supposed ;

and it i s probable that the rise Of the Dynasty O f Ur

marked a reaction in Southern Babylonia against the

Semitic supremacy Of the North,which had been

founded by Sargon and conso lidated by his son Naram

Sin .

I That Naram-Sin was su cce ede d by other Semitic

kings i s not improbable , and we may conjectu re that

these rule rs did not re l inquish without a struggle the

e mpire which they had inhe rite d . But the Dynasty Of

Ur,founded by U r-Engu r , we may regard as the

principal successor to the Semitic empire founded by

Sargon in the north , and Dungi’

s sack o f Babylon and

O f E sagila may be held to repre sent a striking and

pe rhaps a de cis ive episode in the confl ict which took

place at this time between th e Sumerian and the

Semitic elem e nts in the population Of the country.

I t is probable that under the kings O f Agade the

temple of E sagila had already begun to rival the more

ancient shrine Of N ippur,the seat O f Enl i l or Bél

,as the

most sacre d temple in Babylonia . For the Semitic

rulers of Sargon’ s dynasty may wel l have lavi shed

their Offerings on th e temple of Marduk,the god of

I For the re su lts of this Sume rian reaction, as exhibited in the la te r artof Te llo, se e now Meye r, Samer z

’

er aaa’ Semz

'

z‘

ea in Baby lon ian , pp . 3 4 ff.

62 DUNGI’

S EVIL FATE .

Babylon . That Dung i Should sack the temple and

carry Off its tre asures ind icate s a re l ig ious as wel l

as a pol itical revo lution,and in support of this view

we may note that Eridu,the C ity which he selected for

spe c ial ve neration,was probably one of the O ldest

,if not

the O lde st,rel igious centre Of the Sume rians . By

reviving the splendours Of this ancient sanctuary on the

shore of the Persian Gu lf,h e undoubte d ly hoped to form

a counte rwe ight to the influence O f Babylon and of

E sagila, which had be e n so large ly incre ase d u nde r his

Semitic prede ce ssors . We may note that,as in the

account of the end Of Sargon ’ s reign , the style O f the

chronicler be ars a striking re semblance to that Of the

compiler of the H e brew Books of Chronicles . In intro

du c ing the subject Of D u ngi’

s tre atm e nt O f E sagila and

Babylon,he states that he “sought afte r evil ” and

brought upon him se lf his e vi l fate . This comment is

quite in the manner of the j ewish writer, and it comes

naturally from one who was not improbably a prie st in

the temple of E sagila.

The last section of the tablet N0 . i s conce rned

with the story Of two early kings,Ura-imit t i and

Bel-ibni,which has bee n pre served in the history Of

Agath ias , but is he re found in a cuneiform inscription

for the first time . The story also occurs in the first

section of the tablet N O . where i t is told in the

same words,and we are thus enabled to re store the gap

at the end of the fourth line of the se ction in N O .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

64 A STORY IN AGATH IAS.

But we have now recove red from our new chronicles a

story of two early kings which is totally d istinct from

the legend of Sargon,and presents the closest parallel

to that referred to in Agathias .

A ccording to the story on the two table ts NOS.

and 5 2 , Ura-imit t i, the king,se t Bél-ibni

,the gardener,

upon his throne and placed h is royal crown upon his

head . Ifmy interpretation of the phrase at the beg inning

of the’ second l ine i s correct,Ura-imit t i’s reason for doing

this was that he dreaded his dynasty coming to an end ,and he hoped to preve nt this in some measure by

adopting his gardene r as his successor and crowning him

during his own l ifetime . Ura-imitt i’s death the n took

place wi thin his palace, and Bél- ibni,who was seated

upon the throne, be came king. The meaning of the

words describing the manner of Ura-imit t i’s death is

obscure} but the similari ty of the stories in the chronicles

and in the history O f Agath ias i s so great that the re i s

pape r con tribu ted by him to the “ Noldeke Fe stschrift , unde r the title ,B el z

'

tanas a nd B elgi um : B e le taras, h e holds, is entire ly d istinctfrom the Be litanas (q wavas) , whose tomb , according to K te sias , Xe rxessaw in Babylon . The name Be litanas h e wou ld de rive from Bel -E lana ,

and h e wou ld conne c t E tana wi th th e Adonis-Tammuz cu lt in Babylon .

Be le taras, on the othe r hand , h e wou ld de rive from Bel-e rir, whom he

identifie s with Sargon the First , of Agade . Our new chronicles, howeve r,prove that the story reprodu ced by Agathias is ent i re ly d is t inct from thatof Sargon .

1 Cf. Vol . I I, p . 1 3 , n . 2 . A rende ring is the re sugge sted from which i twou ld fol low that U ra-imi tti d ie d by h is own hand . I have s ince re ce ive dsome inte resting sugge stions from Prof. Zimme rn to the e ffe ct that he may

BELEOUS AND BELETARAS. 6 5

no doubt they were derived ultimately from the same

source and represe nt two forms Of the same trad ition .

The Sim i larity in the forms Of the names i s not so

striking,for we get the equations Um - iaz i t t i : Eoleou s

,

and B éZ—iba i =B eletaras . In the se cond equation the

first component of the name is reproduced in th e Greek

form,I but the names Ura-imit t i and Be le ou s have

nothing in common . This may possibly b e partly due

to corruption of the name in the course of transmission,

2

have me t his d eath by accident , or possib ly by po ison . A word papposaoccu rs wi th some su ch sense as

“ pu lp, pap (cf. Kuchle r, Alwyn -Bab .

Med z'

z ia,p . and one of the meanings of mabaga is to thre sh corn .

I t is possible , the re fore , that while th e pap/5am was be ing prepared(i .a. threshe d or b eaten) in th e palace (possib ly as a re l igiou s ce remony),the king may have incau tiou sly wounded himse lf to death . O r

,by

assigning to sardpa the meaning “to su ck , to lap (from the Syriac ) ,

and taking mabb‘

sa in a pregnan t sense , we may suppose that th e kingd ied from d rinking a me ss of pottage which had be en poisoned . In

any case Agathias was j ustified in h is u se of the adve rb n apaaesq .

I The form B eAnToipas wou ld natu ral ly b e taken to repre sent some suchname as B é

‘

l-eg‘ir ; whe reas for B i l-i ba i , or B i l-ban i , the name Bewé¢avmg

(borne , acco rding to D iodoru s, by the chief of the embassy sent by the

Chaldeans to A lexande r, cf. D iodoru s, XVI I , 1 12 , 3 , ed . Dindorf, Vol . III ,

p . wou ld be a probable equ ivalent (cf. Lehmann-Haupt , Ed it . and

B elch , Sonde rabdru ck , p . 9 , n . We may thu s ascribe the diffe rencein this pair of name s to a d iffe rence of tradition rathe r than to a Corruptiono f th e Gre ek text .

The name has undoubted ly unde rgone some corru ption Cf. Niebuhr’snote to the name , with re fe rence to which he says : Qu idqu id sc ripse rit

Agathias, i llud dubio care t e undem esse , qu i in Canone Euseb ii e t apudF

66 BELEOUS AND BELETARAS.

or during the Ne O-Babylonian period there may have

existed variant traditions with regard to the name of

Bel-ibni’s patron and prede cessor.

An e arly A ssyrian king, who bore the name of

Bél-ibni , i s mentioned by Esarhaddon in the text of the

monol ith that was found at Se nj’

i rli. Esarhaddon there

claims that he himself is of the ancie nt royal seed of

Bél-ibni , the son of Adasi , the founder of the kingdom Of

A ssyria, who at the [word] of A shur,Shamash

,Nabu

,

and Marduk smote the yoke ( l it .“forced service [from

upon] the city of Ashu r .

”I In the two chron icles

Ura-imit t i i s referred to me rely as the king,and it i s

not stated in the text whether he was king of Babylonia

or of A ssyria but, as Be le ou s and Be le taras were

Synce llum B eloeba s vocatu r ; se cundum Synce llum XIX Assyriorum rex,

cu i successe rit B alalor a s, apud S. Hie ronymum B e l/(spar es : Eu sebio , qu ieunota frau dibu s tu rbavit, B alaeas dictu s (see Agath ias, ed . N iebuhr,p . 1 19, and Migu e ’s Patrol : car s . complet , Vol . LXXXVII I, C01. 1 3 8 3

I t may b e noted that th e reading of the name of the Plagu e -god as Ur a is

not ce rtain (se e , howeve r, th e additional su pport for this reading ci ted byRanke , E ar ly Baby lon ian Per sonal N ames, 1905 , p . 208

,n . on the

othe r hand , th e first component of th e name Be leous (as a lso that ofBe lochus, e tc . ) is obviously Bel, which would point to the ex istence of a

variant trad ition with regard to th e name .

1 The tex t runs : z e‘r iar ra -a -l i a’a-r a -a .i

'

a m i iuB é'

l-ib-a i mar mA-da-si

ma -lez'

n .i’

ar ra -a -l i mfimA i’

i a rK‘ bada r r a (r a ) Ai i a rm ina

pm “uSv

amai' i lu lVablZa ”“Mardab i la

'

n ip l rabal il” belé‘

PI-i'

a zen -“bas

e m-ma (se e M it lbei langen ans den or ientalisclzen Sammlangen , Hft . XI,

Taf. V,11. I 7

URA-IMITTI AND BEL -IBN I . 67

Assyrian kings according to Agath ias , we may infer that

the latter was the case. Moreove r the catch- l ine Of the

Chronicle No. de als with the war be tween another

e arly A ssyri an ruler,I lu-Shuma

,and Su -abu

,so that the

mention of two early A ssyrian kings in the pre ceding

section upon the tablet would not be out of place .

Against the identification of Be l- ibni,the gardener

,w ith

Be l- ibni,the son of Adasi

,it might be urged that

,while

the forme r may have founde d a dynasty,he is not

described in the story as having founded a kingdom or

secured its indepe ndence ; and that in the chronicle

Ura-im it t i i s termed s’

ar r a,

“king,not Vi ceroy

or priest-k ing .

’ But the trad ition O f Be l-ibn i’s origin

and access ion to the throne is d istinct from that of his

relations w i th Babylon; and the former only is deal t

with in th e chronicle ; thus the title borne by Ura-im it t i

was , in its context, a point of relatively small importance .

I t is not improbable,the refore

,that we may identify

Bél—ibni , the succe ssor of Ura- im it t i,w ith the early

Assyrian ru le r, who ,according to the trad ition preserve d

by Esarhaddon,was the first to secure his country’s

independe nce .

I

The story Of Bel~ ibni’

s accession to the throne forms

the subj ect of the last section u pon the chronicle

I The ex istence of anothe r Bel-ibni , who was probably a Babylon ianking, is vou ched for by th e occu rrence of the name upon the e xplanatoryList of Kings . The name is the re written and explained as fol lows“ WSI -RU 7” ure a-am ; se e Can . l aser . West . A s ia, Vol . V,

pl . 44F 2

ILU—SHUMA AND SU -ABU .

No . The only other portion of this Chronicle

that remains to be discussed is the catch-l ine . This

l ine mentions I lu-shfima,king of A ssyria

,in confl ict

with Su -abu , whom we may identify with the founder of

the Fi rst Dynasty of Babylon . This new synchronism

in early A ssyrian and Babylonian history is of great

interest,and

,as the d iscussion O f the points i t raise s

would necessari ly b e long ,i t i s treated below in a

separate chapte r .

I

The Chronicle NO . opens with the section about

Ura-imit t i and Bél- ibni,which has just been d i scussed

,

and this is followed by a serie s of records referring to

periods subsequent to the increase of the powe r of

Babylon under the e arl ie r kings of the Fi rst Dynasty .

The first Of the events that is recorded of this period i s

th e successful war waged by Hammurabi against the

Elamite king R im-Sin,who

,on succeeding his brother

,

A rad-Sin? on the throne of Larsa,had established his

(K . 4426 R . Rev. , Col . III , 1. 2 . It may b e noted that the re is noindication that th e name of Ura-imitt i

’s su ccessor shou ld be read as Bel-bani ,

and the king himse lf identifie d wi th the early Babylonian ru le r of thisname , who was of th e dynasty of Isin (cf. H ilprecht , Explorat ions in B ible

L ands , p . 3 82 , n . I learn from Prof. H ilpre ch t that in his new dynasticl ist (se e above , p . 1 1 , n . 3 ) th e name of Bel-bani’s prede cessor was not

U ra-imitti according to the trace s on th e table t .I Se e Chapte r V .

2 Thu reau -Dangin is ce rtain ly right in his sugge stion that Arad-Sin and

Rim-Sin are not to be identified , bu t we re two diffe rent pe rsonage s , bothsons of Kudu r-Mabuk , and su ccessive ly kings of Larsa ; se e Les f i i sa ‘

st ion s de Sumer ct d’Abbaa

’

, p . 3 00, n . 3 .

SAMSU -ILUNA AND RIM-SIN . 69

authority ove r a considerable portion Of Southern

Babylonia . The chronicle tells us that Hammurabi

attacked R im-Sin,and

,afte r capturing the C i tie s of Ur

and Larsa,carried the ir Spoil to Babylon . This success

of Hammurab i i s referred to in date-formulae upon

tablets of h is reign that have been re cove re d , and from

the date -l ists we know that his victories over R im -Sin

and the Elamites took place in the thirtieth and thirty

first years of his re ign .

I

I t wi l l be noted that the text Of the chronicle does

not state that Hammurabi succeeded in capturing R im

Sin,and from the following se ction we le arn that in the

reign Of Samsu- ilu na,the son and successor Of Ham

mu rab i,he had rall ied his forces and was again making

war on Babylon . The te xt of this portion O f the

chronicle is very broken,b u t i t would appear that

Samsu- i lana defeate d R im-Sin , and poss ibly capture d

him,or burnt him alive in his palace ? That Of the two

combatants it was R im -Sin and not Samsu-ilu na who

me t the fate referred to in the seventeenth l ine of the

text is C lear from the mention of the latter in a

subsequ ent section of the chron i cles

I Se e my L ette r s and Inscr ipl ion s of Hammu r abi,Vol . II I

,pp . lxviii ,

2 3 6 f.

2 The ment ion of a palace may possibly b e taken to ind icate that R imSin had again su cce eded in e stablishing himse lf in a Babylonian city .

3 I t is possib le that R im-Sin ’s renewed activity is to b e ass igned to the

closing years o fHammu rabi’

s re ign , and h is final defeat to Samsu -iluna’s

se cond year se e be low, Chap . VII .

70 SAMSU -ILUNA AND ILUMA-ILU .

The fact that the first section preserved upon the

reverse Of the tablet refers to other campaigns of Samsu

iluna,may reasonably be taken to ind icate that the

whole Of the missing portion of the text re lated to the

period of h is re ign,and re corded his doings or those of

contemporary rulers . That it was a critical pe riod in

the history Of Babylon is sufficiently prove d by the me re

name of Samsu-ilu na’

s adversary,which occurs upon the

reverse of the tablet . From this passage we learn for

the first time that Iluma- i lu,the founde r of the Second

Dynasty in the List of Kings, was the contemporary of

Samsu -ilu na,and that he wage d a bitte r war with h im .

I t would be d ifficult to over-estimate the importance of

these few l ine s in their effects upon e arly Babylonian

Chronology and history,for the y prove that the Se cond

Dynasty was partly contemporaneous w ith the first , and

that the last five kings of th e latter were oblige d to

defend their empire against a s trongly organi z ed state

w ithin the borders of Babylonia itself.

Iluma- ilu’

s title is not pre se rve d upon the chronic le,

but i t i s practical ly certain that,l ike Ea-gamil in the

eleventh l ine,he was described as king of the Cou ntry

of the Sea ? I n fact,we may conclude that he founde d

I The name assigned in the Lists of Kings to th e dynasty founde d byI luma-ilu is that of SES-XU , writ ten SES-KU in the large r List (No.

and SES-K I’

I-K [ I] in th e smal le r List (No . The addition of th e

de te rminative K I shows that the word is a place-name , and i t has be en

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

7 2 ABESHU ’

AND ILUMA-ILU .

the Chronicle we gather that during the reign ofAbeshu ’

,

I

Samsu- iluna’

s son and succe ssor,Iluma-i lu continued

to be a sou rce of trouble to Babylon . I t was doubtless

in order to check his encroachments that Abeshu ’ con

c e ived the plan of capturing l luma- i lu by stratagem ;and w ith this Obje ct in view he dammed the Tigris,but he was not su ccess ful in his attempt at cutting

I luma- i lu off.

I t is probable that al l Similar attempts on the part of

the later kings of the Fi rst Dynasty to crush or re strain

the growing powe r of the Country of the Se a were

usele ss . Furthe r d e tails of the struggle are no t give n

by the Chronicle , but in the third sect ion prese rved upon

the re ve rse of the tablet,we find a fact re corded which

must have contribute d to hasten the fal l of Babylon,

and may indeed have brought the Fi rst Dynasty to an

e nd . We are there told that in the re ign of Samsu

d itana,

2 the last king of the dynasty,the m en of the land

of Khatti marche d agains t him and invaded the land

o f Akkad . The lines record ing the re su lt O f the invasion

1 In the chronicle the name is wri t ten as A bis’

i,a form which in my

Opin ion d isprove s Ranke ’

s sugge stion that the con temporary form Of the

name shou ld b e read as A bi -es’

ab, ins tead of Abi—es’

a’

(se e his E ar ly B aby

lon ian Per sonal N ames,p . 3 6, n . The form Abis

’

i is far close r to the

e arlie r form of th e name than E bz's'am (which is fou nd in th e smal le r Listof K ings), and its occu rrence defini te ly prove s that th e N e o-Babylon ianscrib e s at any rate re ad the last Sign of th e nam e as the b reathing.

2 The name is wr i tte n Sbamas/z -a’i tona u pon the chronicl e , the more

familiar form Sbamas/z b e ing sub sti tu ted for i ts d iale ctic equ ivalent Samsaas the first componen t o f the name .

THE H ITTITE INVASION . 7 3

have been omitted,but that it met w ith considerable

success is ce rtain , for Agum I I re co rds that he brought

back th e images of Marduk and Sarpanitum from the

land of Khan ’

i in northe rn Syria, and we may infer that

i t was on this occasion they were carried off ? The

invasion O f the H ittites must have weakened and

d ivided the Babylonian forces and reduced the i r

powe r of re s isting any additional foe . The chronicle

does not actual ly relate how the F i rst Dynasty

C ame to an e nd,and it might perhaps be urged that the

king who next occupied the Babylonian throne came

from the Country of the Sea . But, according to the

most probable explanation of othe r passages in the

new tex ts,the kings of th e Country of the Sea neve r

succe eded in absorbing Babylon wi thin their Empire .

We may therefore hold that it was Gandash , or Gaddash ,

the first of the Kassite kings of Babylon,who followe d

Samsu-d itana upon the throne ; and , even if Samsu

d itana’

s reign was brought to an end by the H ittite

invasion,there was probably no long interval between

the close of the Fi rst Dynasty Of Babylon and the

Kassite occupation of the c itv .

From the next section of the chronicle we learn how

the kings of the Country of the Sea fell in the i r

turn before an invasion of the Kassites . I t was pro

bably in self-defence that Ea-gamil,the last king of

I Se e fu rthe r , Chap . VI .

74 THE KASSITE CONQUEST

Iluma-ilu’

s dynasty,set out to conquer the land of

Elam . But whether h e was actuated by desire of

conquest,or was mere ly anxiou s by taking the init iative

to pre vent the invasion Of his own country,he did not

achieve his purpose. For we are to ld that U lam

Bu r (i)ash , the brother of Bit i liash,the Kassite , drove

h im from Elamite te rritory,and

,after pursuing him

across the border,conquered the Country of the Se a

and ex ercised dominion over the land . The last section

on the reverse of the Chronicle re lates how Agum , the

son of B it iliash,made further conquests in the Country

of the Se a ?

Such in brief outl ine are the new facts which the

chronicle N o . suppl ies on the e arly history of

Babylonia . The text itself i s Short,and the history of

each reign i s summari z ed by the chronicle r in a few

te rse sentences ; but th e facts themse lve s are far

reaching in their influ ence Upon current theories . They

oblige us to remode l our conceptions of the e arly

history of Babylonia,and at one blow they demol ish

most of the systems O f early Babylon ian chronology

that have been propounded .

In the two following Chapters an attempt wi l l be

made to indicate how far such systems mu st be mod ified

to suit the new facts at ou r d isposal . The chronicler

I The discussion of the possibili ty of id en tifying Bitiliash and Agum

with Kassite kings of Babylon may be postponed to th e fol lowing chapte r .

OF THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA. 7 5

has eschewed dates and has throughout confined him

se lf to broad statements thus it happens that he has

le ft us a certain margin wherein to manipulate the facts

he has suppl ie d . But the facts once establ ished,there

are l imits to the possible margin Of error ; and these

we shal l attempt to de fine. Moreover, the most pro

bable explanation of the new data settles wi thin ve rydefinite l im its the e arly chronology of Babylon

, whi le it

removes to the Country of the Sea certain unse ttled

problems,the solution of which may be left to future

e xcavations in that region of Southern Babylonia . It

wi l l be advisable first to deal with th e chronology,and

afterwards to make use of the conclusions so Obtained

to revise the early h i story of Babylon and Of he r

foreign relations .

CHAPTER IV

THE INTER -RELATIONS OF THE FIRST, SECOND, AND TH IRD

DYNASTIES OF THE LIST OF K INGS, AND THE CHRONOLOGICAL

SYSTEM OF BEROSSUS.

ALL the systems of Babylonian Chronology propounded

during the last twe nty years have in the main bee n

base d upon the gre at List of Kings , arranged in

dynasties,which i s inscribed upon the table t N0 .

in the British Museum . This invaluable document,

whe n comple te, gave a list of the kings from the First

Dynasty of Babylon down to the N e d -Babylonian

pe riod . The name s of the kings are written in columns,

one name to each l ine,and be fore the name O f each

king are added figure s re prese nting in ye ars or months

the length of time he occupied the throne . A t the

e nd of e ach dynasty l ine s are rule d across the column,

and a note gives the tota l number o f years occupied

by the dynasty,the numbe r of kings of which the

dynasty was composed,and the name by which the

THE LIST OF KINGS. 7 7

dynasty was known ? If the table t were comple te we

should b e i n possession of the system of Babylonian

chronology which was current in the N e O—Babylonian

pe riod,and

,afte r work ing out the dates to be assign e d

to each king according to the system ,i t would only

remain to e xamine how far the re sults we re corroborated

bv the othe r chronological data available, and by the

contemporary documents which have come down to us

from the e arl ier periods . Unfortunate ly both the top

and bottom of the table t are wanting,with the re su lt

that gaps occur in the sequence of the kings,and various

problems remain unso lved as to the length Of some of

th e dynastie s and the orde r in which Certain kings are

to be arranged . I t wi l l be possible in a few words to in

d icat e the position of the principal gaps,and to ascertain

how far they affe ct the problemsof Babylon ian Chronology

and the solu tions which have be e n sugge sted for them .

The fact that the whole of the First Dynasty is

wanting from the great List of Kings is of no importance,

1 The table t was published by Pinches , Pr oc . Soc. B ibl . A rob . Vo l . VI

pp . 193 ff. , and its text re stored from the smalle r List of Kings,N o . th e conte nts of which had be en made known in Vo l . I II

p . 2 1 f. For sub sequ en t pub l ications of th e l ists, see W in ckle r ,Unl er sacbangen z a r altor ien z

‘

a l isc/zen Gese/z ic/z l e pp. 145 ff. ,Knudtz on , A ssy r ia /re Gebel e an den Sonnengott Ed . I , p . 60

Rost , M i ttei lu ngen a’

er Vora’eras ial isc/z en Gese llscbafi, 1897, pp . 240 if. and

Lehmann-Hau pt, Zwe i Haapz‘

pr obleme o’er a l lor ienlal ise/zen C/z ronolog ie ;

Knud tz on and Lehmann-Hau pt give pub l ications of the principa l Listonly, the latte r omitt ing the text from the end of the E ighth Dynastyonwards as having no re fe rence to the problems discu ssed by him.

7 8 DYNASTIES OF THE KINGS’ LIST .

for we are able to restore the text from the smaller

Kings ’ List,No .

I the figures given by this

smaller l ist we can control , and in the main corroborate,by means of the contemporary Date-l ists of the Fi rst

Dynasty of Babylon ? A large gap occurs in the Third

Dynasty,in which we must place the kings known from

the Te l l e l-Amarna lette rs to have been contemporaries

of Amenhe tep I I I and Ame nhe tep IV . But fortu

h ately the summary recording the length of the dynasty

is preserved,so that the existe nce of the gap does not

offe r any d ifficulties w ith regard to the general scheme

of Babylonian chronology as set forth upon th e tablet .

S imilarly the gap in the Fourth Dynasty is d iscounted

by the summary giving the number of its kings and the

total length of their reigns . 3 I n fact, we know from the

Lists the length of each.!

Of the first seven dynasties,and

i t is only in the Eighth Dynasty that a gap in the

principal List brings in an element of uncertainty,for

the summary at the close of this dynasty omits to give

a note as to the length of i ts duration .

4

I Se e above , p . 77 , n . I .

2 Se e be low,Chap . VII , and L e tter s ana

7Inscr ib l ions q amfna rabi ,

Vol . I II , pp . 2 12 ff.

3 The figu re giving the numbe r of years was at first read as 72 bu t

the re ad ing 1 3 2 appears more probable .

4 The reading of th e figu re which gives the numbe r of kings in thisdynasty is also unce rtain . I t was at firs t read as and i ts presentappearance sugge s ts the read ing 12 bu t i t se ems to have been probedwi th a pen or some sharp instrument, and its original reading may we l lhave be en

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

80 CHRONOLOGICAL NOT ICES

approximate ly assigned to 1 120 B .C . From the Cylinder

inscription O f T iglath-pile s e r I we a lso le arn that Six tV

v years separated the pulling down of the temple of Anu

and Adad at A shur by A shur-dan and i ts re storation by

T iglath-

pile se r I at the beginning of his reign ? I t has

therefore bee n concluded that A shur—dan was reigning

about 1 1 80 B .C .

,and from th e “ Synchronous H istory ”

we know that Zamama-Shum- iddina,who ascended the

throne of Babylon four ye ars be fore the e nd O f the

Third Dynasty, was a contemporary of A shur-dan . I t

i s probable that A shur-dan ’s reign was a long one,for

Tiglath-

pile se r I , his great-grandson , states that he

attained to grey hairs and a ripe O ld age .

”2 Thus

,if the

figure s g ive n by Se nnache rib and by T iglath -

p ile se r I

be accepted,3 i t fol lows that the date to b e assigned to

the e nd O f the Third Dynasty fe l l wi thin some fifty

years O f 1 1 80 B .C .

Another me ans Of roughly asce rtain ing the date to b e

I Se e Annals of l be K ings of A ssy r ia , Vol . I , p . 95 f.

075 . ci t .,p . 94.

3 Emendations Of Sennache rib’s figu re have be en sugge ste d by both Rostand Lehmann-Haupt . Instead of “ 4 18 Rost suggeste d re ad ingincreasing th e figu re by sixty years se e M i tte ilu ngen a

’er Vora

’erasial iselzen

Gesellse/za/t II , p . 16. Lehmann-Hau pt wou ld readredu cing it by one hundred years ; se e Zwe i Haapz

‘

problerne o’er allor ien

l a l iselzen Clz r onologi e , p . 98 . Th e contradic tory statemen ts ofShalmane se r Iand Esarhaddon, wi th regard to th e inte rvals of t ime separating I lu -shfima

,

Shamshi-Adad (the son of Bel-kab i) , and Shalmane se r I re spe ctive ly (se efu rthe r , Chap . V) , show that the Assyrian scribe s cou ld make mistake s inthe ir re ckon ing bu t it wil l b e se en that Sennache rib’s figu re in the Bavianinscription n eed not b e rej e cted.

IN LATE H ISTORICAL TEXTS. 8 1

assigned to the end of the Third Dynasty has been

obtaine d from a chronological notice on a cylinde r of

Nabonidus . This k ing tel ls us that Shagarakt i-Bu r iash ,

the son of Kudur-Bél,bu il t a temple in S ippar eight

hundred ye ars before Nabonidus came across his fou ndation- inscription recording the eve nt ? I t is probabl e that

Shagarakt i-Bu r iash i s to b e ide ntified with Shagarakt i

Shu riash,a king of the Third Dynasty

,who

,accord ing

to the List of Kings,was the son and successor of Kudur

Bél . Now the reign O f N abonidus came to an end in

5 3 9 B .C .,and

,by the addition of eight hundred years

,i t

might be inferred that 1 3 3 9 B .C . fell within the reign of

Shagarakt i—Shu riash . Accord ing to the figures of the

List O f Kings Shagarakt i-Shu r iash reigned fo r th i rteen

years,and ascended the throne nine ty-two years before

the end Of the dynasty,which would thus have C losed

betwe e n the years 1260 B .C . and 1 247 B .C . But thi s date

for the end of the Thi rd Dynasty cannot be regarded as

accurately fixed on such evidence,for the eight hundred

years of N abonidus is obviously a round number .

With such rather vague and contradictory indications

Of date,and with a disputed figure for the length of the

Fourth Dynasty,i t i s not surprising that the estimates

of the date at which the Third Dynasty came to an end

should vary considerably. For the sake of comparingthe principal systems of Babylonian chronology the

I Se e Rawl inson, Can . Inst r . West . Asia, Vol . V, pl . 64, C01. III ,11. 27 ff.

82 SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY .

table printed on the opposite page has been compiled ,

g iving in columns the pe riod s ass igned by d ifferent

wr ite rs I to the Fi rst, Se cond ,and Third Dynastie s re spe c

t ive ly,the systems with the highe st dates be ing placed

first in the List ?

I Se e Oppe r t , Conzpt es r ea da s de l’A cad . des l a ser . c l B el les -let t r es

XVI , pp . 2 18 ff. , and B ob. and Or . B ea , I I , pp . 107 ff. Sayce , E ar ly I srae l

and t ire su r r ou nding nat ions , p . 28 1 f. (the date he re give n for th e b eginn ingof the Third Dynasty is stated to b e prob ab ly from fifte en to twe nty yearstoo high ), and E ncycl . B r it . , Vol XXVI , p . 45 Roge rs, H istory ofB aby lon ia and A ssy r ia ,

V01. I , pp . 3 3 8 ff. W inckle r, Gesclz icbte B aby lon ien sa nd Assy r i ens , pp . 58 , 66, 68 , 79 , 92 f. , and Altor ien ta l iscbe For sc/zu ngen ,

I , pp . 1 3 1 , I 3 4 ; Maspe ro , H istoi r e an cienne des peuples de l’

Or ien t

class iqu e , tome I I , pp . 27 , 1 1 3 , 1 19 ; De litz sch and Mu rdte r , Gescb icb te

Baby lon iens a nd A ssy r iens , Ub e rsich t (p . 265) Lehmann -Haupt , Zzoe iHaapzprobleme , Tab . I I -V (the date s b e ing given as possib ly fou r ye arsou t from the beginn ing O f th e F irst Dynasty to th e fou rth king of th e

E ighth Dynasty) , and B e i tr age z u r a lt en Gesc/z ic/z te, Bd . II I He ft I ,pp . 1 3 5 ff. , 163 Marqu art , P/z i lologu s , Supplementband VII

pp . 63 7 ff. Pe ise r , Ze z ts . f ar A ssy r . , VI , pp . 264 ff. Rost, M i tte i l . derVorderas . Gese l lsc/zaft I I , pp . 14 f. , 22 f. , and Or ien t . L i t .

-Ze it ., II I

No . 6, col . 2 16 ; Nie buhr , C/z ron olog ie , p . 7 3 f. and Homm e l ,Gescb icb te B aby lon iens a nd A ssy r iens, pp . 3 52 f. , 4 18 , 446, Ancien t Hebr ew

Tr adit ion ,p . 1 2 5 , and Hastings’ D ict ionary of the B ible , I , p . 226 f.

Ne ithe r Tie le (B aby lon isc/z-Assy r iscbe Gesc/z ic/t te , p . nor Schrade r

(Sz tz u ngsber ic/z te der Ko’

n igl . Pr eu ss . A le. der Wi ssens . ,1887 , p . 60 1 )

attempted to se ttle the chronology accu rate ly, and th e first volume of

Meye r’s Gesc/z icb te des A lter t/z u nzs appeared ju st b e fore the pub lication of

th e large r List of Kings .2 I t shou ld b e noted that De l itz sch , in his Baby lon ia /ac and A ssy r iscb e

He r r scb er l isten while in th e main e schewing e arly dates , now se tsth e beginning Ofth e Fi rst Dynasty at abou t 2 500 B . C . Lehmann -Haupt , onthe othe r hand , has re cently redu ce d h is date for the b eginning of the

First Dynasty to 2296 B . C . (se e B e i tra’

ge ear alten Gesc/z ic/zte , Bd . III

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

84 SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY.

I t wi l l be seen that the majori ty of the writers

enume rated in the table on the preceding page accept

the figure s of the Kings ’ L ists ,I and make the three

dynasties fol low on consecutively, one after the other .

A ccording to the smaller List of Kings the F i rst

Dynasty endured for 3 04 years ,2 and , according to the

principal List,the S e cond Dynasty for 3 68 ye ars , and

the Third Dynasty for 5762 years . The last-named

figure has been cal led in question by Peiser and Rost ,who have both suggested eme ndations of the text . The

former, in order to get the total duration of the dynasties

He ft 1 , p . this re su l t he has in the main arrived at byre ducing th e figu re s of the List of Kings for th e Se cond Dynasty, whichh e conside rs too high (see fu rthe r , Chap . V).

I Oppe rt , De litz sch , Winckle r, Sayce , Maspe ro , and Roge rs . In

1898 Lehmann-Haupt did so too , bu t he has since called in qu estion thefigu res for the Second Dynasty (se e above , pre ceding note ) ; in othe rre spects h is low date s are ob tained by his emendation of th e Bavianinscription (se e above , p . 80, n .

2 I t may b e noted that De litz sch , Winckle r, and Homme l assign 3 05 ,instead of 3 04, years to the Fi rst Dynasty of the List of Kings . Thisis du e to the ir reading th e numbe r of years of Amni i-z aduga

'

s re ign uponth e smal le r List of Kings as 2 2 . I have examined the passage anew,

and the re is no doubt that “ 2 1 is the correc t figu re . The apparen tex istence of a se cond upright wedge is du e to the scribe having wri tten thefigu re 2 1 ove r the line which he had previou sly ru le d down the right-hande dge of th e table t. Maspe ro assigns 3 3 4 years to the dynasty, bu t this is dueto his giving date s to fou r of the kings (Sumu-abu , Sumu la-ilu , Zabam,

and Ammi-z aduga) for which the re is no au thority e ithe r in th e List ofKings or in the contemporary date-lis ts . On a re cen t suggestion of

Lehmann-Haupt to redu ce the le ngth of the First Dynasty to 289 years,se e be low, p . 95 , n . 3 .

SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY . 8 5

to agree wi th the chronolog ical system of Be rossu s

and with the statement of Nabonidus concern ing H am

mu rab i,

I assumed that the reading “9 5 05 5 and 3 6

ye ars (which g ive the total 576 years) was a scribal

error for “6 5 05 5 and 3 9 years ( i .a. 3 99 years), and he

thus reduced the Third Dynasty by I 77 years . Rost,

fo l lowing up Pe ise r’

s suggestion,reduced the figure sti l l

further.2 But the systems o f both Rost and Pe i ser,as

also those of Oppe rt ,3 D e l itz sch, Winckle r, Sayce ,

Maspero,Lehmann-Hau pt

,Marquart

,and Rogers

,are

based on the assumption that the first three dynasties

we re consecutive .

Hommel in his history,mainly w ith the obj e ct of

reducing the date of Hammurabi , reversed the ord e r of

the First and Second Dynastie s,but he afterwards

abandoned this position and adopted a suggestion of

Halevy,that the Third Dynasty followed immed iately

I A diffi cu l ty in al l th e systems which accept th e figu re s of th e List ofKings, and at th e same time assume th e conse cu tive orde r of the dynastie s ,is that they are ob l iged to assign to Hammu rab i a date conside rablye arl ie r than tha t wh ich is given him by Nabon idu s ; see be low, p . 87 f.

2 For refe re nces to Rost ’ s and Pe ise r’

s publicat ions, se e above ,p . 82 , n . I .

3 The ve ry h igh date s sugge sted by Oppert are included on p . 8 3 for

the sake of comparison , b u t they we re based on a fancifu l inte rpre tationof the figu res of B erossu s that doe s not ne e d to b e discu ssed in de tai l .Briefly , the re is no e vidence for his cyclic date of 2 5 17 B .C .

, and , accord ingto the most probab le inte rpre tation of the system of Be rossu s, the

beginning of h is Dyn . II is to be se t , not in 2 506 B .C . , b u t in 22 3 2 B .C .

(se e fu rthe r, p . 9 1

86 SYSTEMS or CHRONOLOGY.

after the F i rst,the Se cond having synchroni z ed with

them . N iebuhr ’s theory is a mod ification of Halevy’s

suggestion,for instead of entirely ignoring the Second

Dynasty,he reduced its indepe ndent existe nce to 143

years by making i t overlap th e Fi rst Dynasty by 2 2 5

years . Our new chronicle,No . shows that

Halevy’s acute sugge stion was neare r the truth than has

hitherto be en supposed . But be fore we turn to the n ew

i nformation furnished by the ch ron i cle, it wi l l be we l l to

consider the two chronological notic e s in Babylonian

l iterature which have a be aring upon the date s to b e

as s igne d to the Fi rs t and Second Dynasties . We may

also examine the date which has be e n de duced for the

beginning of the historical pe riod of the Babylon ian

dynastie s from a study of the chronologi cal system of

Be rossu s .

One of the greatest bone s of contention among

students of Babylonian chronology has bee n the date to

be assigned to Hammurabi,for this is a point on which

the List of Kings offers a serious discrepancy wi th a

chronological not ice in an inscription of Nabonidus

refe rring to the pe riod of Hammu rab i’

s rule . The

majority of wri ters have been content to accept the

figure s o f the List of Kings , and to ignore their incon

s i stency w i th the stateme nt of N abon idu s . Othe rs haveattempted to get over the difficulty by emendations of

the figures in the List and by other ingen ious sugge s

tions. The dates ass igned to Hammurabi in the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

88 DATE OF HAMMURABI .

round numbe r,but such a plea can hardly explain its

d iscre pancy with the date s suggested by Oppe rt , Sayce,Rogers

,Winckler

,Delitz sch

,and Maspero

,whose

results are based on the figures of the List of Kings

wi thout alte rat ion .

I In his first date Lehmann-Haupt

got to within one hundre d years of the estimate of

Nabon idus by eme nding Sennache rib’s figure on the

rock at Bavian,

2 and he has recently reduced this

d iscrepancy sti l l further by emend ing the figures

assigned by th e List of Kings to the Second Dynasty. 3

Finally Peiser and Rost secured complete agre ement

with Nabonidus by their suggested eme ndations of the

figure given by the List of Kings for the du ration of the

Th i rd Dynasty.

4 But the solution o f the problem of

Hammu rab i’

s date we may look for in our new conce p

tion of the relations of the early dynastie s to one anothe r.

Me anwhi le the fact may b e noted that the reference in

the text of Nabonidus would assign an approximate

date to Hammurabi in the twe nty-firs t ce ntu ry B .C .

Another refere nce to a king of this early pe riod

which is found upon a later Babylonian monument

furnishes an independent estimate of the date to be

I Moreove r, the con tex t of the passage in the tex t of Nabonidu s sugge ststhat h is scribes wou ld b e inclined to e xagge ra te , rathe r than to d imin ish,the antiqu ity of Hammu rabi

’s bu i lding se e fu rthe r, Chap . V .

2 Se e above , p. 79 f.3 Se e above , p . 82 , n . 2 .

4 Se e above , p . 84 f. On Homme l ’s two systems and Niebuhr ’s modification oi the second of them, see above , p. 85 f.

DATE OF GULKISHAR . 89

assigned to the Second Dynasty,and its evidence also

may here be taken into account . The passage in

question occurs upon a boundary-stone preserved in the

Philadelphia Muse um,referring to events wh ich took

place in the fourth ye ar of Bel-nadin-apl i . 1 In th e

text engraved upon the stone 2 i t i s state d that 696

years separate d Gu lkishar and N e b u chadne z z ar, i .a.

,

Nebuchadnez z ar I, who was th e immediate pre decessor

of Bél-nad in -apli upon the throne of Babylon . We

know from the Synchronous H istory ” that N e bu chad

n e z z ar I was the contemporary of A shur-réSh -i shi,the

father o f T iglath -

pile se r I , and we have alre ady c ited

evidence on the stre ngth o f which the acce ssion o f

T iglath-pile se r has been s e t at abou t 1 1 20

Neb u chadne z z ar l may thus have been reigning at about

1 12 5— 1 1 3 5 B .C .,and

,by adding 696 years to this d ate,

we obtain for Gu lkishar an approximate date of 1 82 1

or 18 3 1 B .C . But it should b e no ted that the period of

696 years u pon the boundary-stone,though it has an

appearance of great accuracy,was probably de rived

from a round number ; for the stone refers to events

which took place in the fourth ye ar of Bél-nadin—apl i ,and the number 696 may have been based upon the

I Se e H ilpre ch t , Old B aby lonian I nscr ipt ions ,c/z iefly f rom N ippu r ,

Pt . I , pl . 3 0 f. , No . 83 , and A ssy r z'

aca, pp . 10 ff. ; and Jensen , Zei tr . j itr

Assy r iologie , Bd . VI II , pp . 220 ff.

2 O bv., 11. 6-8 .

3 See above , p . 79 f.

90 THE DYNASTIES or BEROSSUS.

estimate that 700 years separated Be l-nadin-apli’

s re ign

from that of Gu lkishar . Moreove r,the date assigned to

Nebuchadnez z ar I is only approximate. We may,how

e ver,take the reference as a rough indication of the

bel ief that a portion of Gu lkishar’

s re ign fell within the

period between 1 8 50 and 1 800 B .C .

Such are the two chronological notices , occurring in

late r histo rical inscriptions which have a bearing upon

the dates of the fi rst two dynasties of the List of Kings .

We may now turn to the dynasties of Be rossu s and

asce rtain what date has be en deduced from them for the

beginning of th e historical period in his system of

chronology. The historical dynastie s of B e rossu s , fo l

l owing the first dynasty of 86 kings who ruled for

ye arsI after the De luge

,are prese rve d only in the

A rmenian version of the Chronicles of E u se b iu sf and

are as follows

Dyn . I I , 8 Median usurpe rs , 2 24 years[in margin of MSS. 3 4 years]

Dyn . I I I,1 1 kings

,wanting

[in margin of MSS. 48 years]

I So Synce llu s (ed . D indorf, p . in th e equ ivale n t in sars, e tc . ,

which is added 9 sars , 2 ne rs , and 8 5 05 5 years) it is probab lethat the un i ts are inte n tionally ignored , though some wou ld regardas the corre ct figu re . In Eu sebiu s (Ob ran . l ib. 1 , ed . Schoene , col . 25 ) th efigu re is (probably a mis take for this figu re at any rateconfirms th e reading of n ine ty (against e ighty) in Synce llus, cf. Meye r,B e itrage z n r a lten Gert /i iclz te , III , p . 1 3 3 .

2 Euseb ius , Cli r on . l i b. 1 , e d . Schoene , col . 2 5 ; se e also Schwartz inPau ly-VVissowa, R eal-E ncyclopadie, III col . 3 1 1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

9 2 THE H ISTORICAL PERIOD

beginning of the historical period wi th which Dyn . I I of

Be rossu s opened .

I

Confirmation of this d ate for the beginning of the

historical period in Be rossu s has bee n found in a state

m e nt,de rive d from Porphyriu s

,which occurs in the

comme ntary of Simplicius upon A r istotle’s D e Caelo, to

the e ffe ct that,accord ing to Callisthe ne s , the Babylonian

records of astronom ical obse rvations exte nde d ove r a

pe riod of 1903 years2 down to the time of A lexande r of

Macedon . A ssum ing that th e read ing 190 3 i s corre ct,

the observations would have e xtended back to B .C . 2 2 3 3 ,

a date d iffe ring by only one year from that Obtained for

the beginning of the h istorical period in Be rossu s .

3

The same resu l t has also b e en arrived at by taking years as the

length of Dyn . I (se e ab ove , p . 90 , n . and e x tend ing th e historicalpe riod of 1920 years down to 3 12 B . C .

, th e b eginn ing of th e Se leu cid Era .

The Gre ek tex t reads ye ars (cf. ed . H e ib e rg, p . bu t th e

figu re 1903 occurs in a Latin translation by Moe rb eka, and this probab lyre pre sents th e original re ad ing cf. Lehmann-IIaupt , Zwe i Hauptprobleme ,

pp . 109 f. , 2 10, and Meye r , B e it rage z n r a lten Gesc/z i elzte , III , p . I 3 1 .

3 A ve ry probab le explanation of o the r po ints in conne ction wi th the

chronological scheme Of Be rossus has re cen tly b e en pu t forward . It has

u sually been he ld that Dyn . VI of Be rossus ended with the prede cessor ofNabonassar, and that the following dynasty (VI I ) b egan in 747 B . C . Bu t

Meye r has pointed ou t that , afte r e nume rating th e Dynastie s II —VI,

Eu sebius goes on to say : post gaos , ingn i t (se . Polyh istor) , r ex Clzaldaeor nrn ex t i t i t , en i nornen P/zn lu s est this Meye r explains as indicatingthat Dyn . VI of Be rossu s ended at th e same point as the E igh th BabylonianDynasty (in B . C . i . e . , with th e re ign of Nahfi-shum-ishkun, the

contemporary of Tiglath-

pile se r . Thu s Dyn . VII wou ld b egin with th e

re ign of the u su rpe r Uk ’

in-z ér (also the contemporary of Tiglath-pile se r) ,i . e .

, at the point marked by the grou p Xiv$np Ka i. in the Ptolemaic

OF BEROSSUS. 9 3

We have now e xam ined the information furn ishe d by

the late r historical inscriptions with regard to the dates

o f the fi rst two dynastie s O f the List of Kings,and we

have al so summari z ed the e vide nce obtained from a

study of t he dynasties of Be rossu s for fixing the

beg inning o f his historical pe riod . I n the ske tch that

has be e n given o f the principal schemes Of Babylonian

chronology, i t was note d that the maj ority of writers

have rel ied upon the figures O f the List of Kings , and

have ignored the discrepancies which the y exhibit with

the figures of Nabonidus and w ith the date which

Be rossu s appears to have assigned for the beginn ing of

his historical dynasties . The means which othe r write rs

have employed for re conci l ing the confl ict ing data have

also bee n refe rred to . We may now return to the

chronicle No . 96, I 5Z,I and , afte r asce rtaining what l ight

it throws on the inte r-relations of the fi rst three

dynasties,we may conside r anew the possibil i ty of

reconci l ing the Kings’ List with Be rossu s .

From th e reverse of the chronicle we know that

Iluma- i lu (the first king of the Second Dynasty) waged

a successfu l war against Samsu-ilu na (the seventh kingof the F i rs t Dynasty) ; and the following paragraph o f

the te xt relate s that Abeshu ’,the son and successor of

Canon . On this supposition the figu re 48, which occu rs in th e Armenianve rsion of Eu sebius on the margin of ce rtain MSS. ( se e above , p . is

to b e re tained for the numb e r of years assigned by Be rossu s to Dynasty 111 .

Se e Meye r, B e itrage ea r ali en Geselz ielzte, III , pp . 1 3 1 ff.

1 See Vol . I I , pp . 1 5 ff.

94 N EW SYNCHRON ISMS.

Samsu- ilu na, attempted to capture Iluma-i lu,but d id

no t succe e d in cutting him Off. I I t is possible that

Abeshu’ conducted his campaign against Iluma- i lu in

the life-time of his father and while he himse lf was sti l l

c rown-prince ; b u t , as e ach .Of the othe r se ctions of the

chronicle deals with a new king,i t is more probable that

h is campaign took place afte r his own ac ce ssion to the

throne . Thus it may be conj ectured that the two

s e ctions of the chronicle describe I luma-ilu’

s relations

to Babylon during the reigns O f two succe ss ive kings of

Babylon,and not during the re ign of Samsu-iluna only .

A s,however

,the o th e r poss ibil ity exists

,it w i l l b e take n

into account in estimating the possible e ffects of our

new information .

Before discussing the limits of the overlapping of the

First and Se cond Dynastie s i t wi l l be as we l l to give

l ists of the kings of which they were composed . I n the

following table of the kings of the First Dynasty the

le ngths Of their reigns are g iven accord ing to the smalle r

List of Kings and also accord ing to the date-l ists of the

Fi rst Dynasty. A s the date - l ists are contemporary

documents,while the List of Kings was inscribed in the

N e o-Babylonian period,the former must

,of course

,be

followed in all cases of disagre eme nt . 2

I Se e above,p . 72 .

2 A l though th e date -lists d iffe r from th e smalle r List of Kings in de tails ,they atte st its gene ral accu racy with regard to th e F irst Dynasty . The

total numb e r Of ye ars assigned to the firs t n ine kings is ve ry nearly thesame in both au thorities .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

96 KINGS OF THE SECOND DYNASTY.

For the reigns of the kings of the Se cond Dynasty wehave no c ontempo rary docume nt such as the date-l ists

O f the Fi rst Dynasty . Th e following table i s base d

e nt i re ly on the two Lists of Kings . The smal ler List

g ive s the royal nam e s only, without any figures fo r the

le ngths O f the i r reigns . The figures occur on ly on the

large r List of Kings, from which they are he re take n .

I

TABLE OF THE K IN GS OF THE SECOND DYNASTY .

NAME . LIST OF KINGS.

Iluma- i lu 60 ye ars

I tti- i l i-n ibi 5 5

Damki - i lish u 3 6

Ishkibal I 5

Shu shsh l 27

Gu lkishar 5 5

Pe shgal-daramash 50

A -dara-kalama2 2 8

Akur-u l-ana3 26

Me lam-kurkura 7

Ea-gami l 9

We have already noted that the majority of writers

on the history of Babylonia have tre ate d the Se cond

Dynasty as following imme diately after the Fi rst,and

have regarde d I luma-i lu as the d i rect successor of

I For a d iscussion as to whe the r the se figu re s can b e regarded as

approx imate ly corre ct, se e b e low, p . 1 1 1 , n . I .

2 Var . A-a-dara3 Var . Eku r-u l

ILUMA -ILU’

S CONTEMPORARIES. 97

Samsu -d itana. Thu s t o assign dates to th e k ings of the

First Dynas ty they have merely adde d th e ye ars of

their re igns to the ac c e s s ion ~

ye ar of the Second Dynasty,which had previously be en asce rtaine d by add ing i ts

du ration to th e access ion -ye ar of the Third . Bu t we

know from the new chron icle,N O . that Iluma-i lu

was not the successo r of Samsu-d itana,but the con ~

temporary of Samsu-ilu na and Abeshu ’

. N ow,ac cord

ing to the larger List O f Kings , Iluma- i lu reigned fo r no

le ss than sixty years,and we have no ind ication from

the chronicle as to the periods o f his reign during which

h e was at war with Babylon . Moreove r , the date - l ists

of the Fi rst Dynasty do not O ffer much assistance in

fixing the years in th e re igns of Samsu-lluna and Abeshu ’

whe n the campaigns against I luma- i lu took place .

I

I The por tion Of the date -l ists which re fe rs to th e re ign of Ab éshu ’ is

almos t comple te ly wanting (se e my Letter s of Hammu rabi , Vol . III ,

pp. 248 T he years Of Samsu-iluna are b e t te r pre se rved , and the

twentie th year of h is re ign , te rmed “th e year in which the land had

m isfortune ”

(op . ci t . , p . 244 may possib ly have be en the ye ar of

Samsu -i luna’s de feat, though the phrase might equ al ly we l l re fe r to a

d rought or fam ine . A more probable year wou ld be th e fou rte en th of his

r e ign , which bore the formu la MU LUGAL IM-G I KAR -RA (toe . ci t ).

A probable explanat ion of th e ide ogram IM-GI (var . IM-G I-DA ), based bothu pon the conte x t of the passage s in which it occu rs and on an analysis ofi ts component parts , is that it is not a geographical name for Chaldaea,”as Winckle r and Homme l wou ld explain i t, bu t that i t s ignifies u su rpe r(se e be low,

Chap . VIII ). The formu la for the fou rte enth year may thusbe translated “

the year in which the u su rping king Bu t,

whe the r the phrase LUGAI . IM-GI be rende re d as“u su rping king or

“ king of Chaldaea Sou the rn the formu la may be in te rpre ted as refe rring to a king of the Country of the Sea, and i t may

H

9 8 THE OVERLAPPING

T hus,if we accept the stateme nt of the List of Kings

‘

that I luma- ilu re igned for s ixty ye ars , we are le ft a con

s ide rab le degre e of latitude in dete rmining the numbe r

of years during which the Fi rst and Second Dynastie s

were contemporaneou s .

On the supposition that Abéshu ’

s campaign took place

a fte r h e had asce nde d the throne we Obtain the follow

ing e xtreme l imits betwe en which the actual figure

must l ie . On the one hand we may assume that the

first year of I iuma-ilu corre sponde d to the l ast year of

Samsu—ilu na in that case the two dynasties would have

ove rlapped for a period of 1 1 8 ye ars .

I On the othe r

hand we may suppose that the last ye ar of Iluma- ilu

c o rre spond e d to th e firs t ye ar Of Abeshu ’ in that case

the dynasties wou ld have overlapped for 1 76 ye ars . 2

possibly have re corded I luma-i lu’s de claration of independence or h is

d e feat of Samsu -iluna . Bu t as I lama-ilu’s name is not actually given on

th e tab le t , i t wou ld b e rash to make u se of the date at pre sent for se ttl ingth e chronology .

I This numb e r is made u p of th e last year Of th e re ign of Samsu -iluna

(corre spond ing to th e first ye ar of I luma-i lu ), and the re igns of his foursu ccessors, Abéshu ’

, Amm i-di tana , Amm i-z aduga , and Sam su -di tana , i . e . ,

1 28 3 7 2 1 3 1 z : 1 18 ye ars .

2 This numbe r is made up of the last twenty-one years of Hammu rab i’s

r e ign and the re ign of Samsu-iluna (the se toge the r corre sponding to the

first fifty-n ine ye ars of Iluma—ilu’

s re ign ), and the re igns of Samsu -iluna’

s

fou r su cce ssors, t .e ., 2 1 3 8 2 8 3 7 2 1 3 1 1 76 years . I t may

b e noted that a contract-tab le t found at Sippar is dated MU -US-SA [D a]m i -z

‘

té-i l i-s’

n LUGAL [BAD ] I -SI -IN MU -RU -A ,Th e year afte r tha t in which

Damik -il ishu re stored the wall of Isin ,” and this ru le r has be en iden tifiedwi th Damki-ilishu , the third king of the Se cond Dynas ty (se e Sche il ,R e t en i l de travaux ,

XXIII,p . 9 3 f. , Lehmann-Haupt, B e it r age z nr al ten

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

THE SECOND DYNASTY

and not later than the last ye ar of Samsu-iluna . Neithe r

of the se extrem e date s is probable,and it i s at some

po int betwe en the two that we must set the rise of the

Se cond Dynasty. Whate ve r point may b e se lected

thi s new information by itself re su lts in a considerable

reduction of the date s hitherto assigned by the majority

of writers to all the kings of the Fi rst Dynasty . I t i s

obvious that we must asce rtain how far this new infor

mation substantiate s or contradicts the othe r data

avai lable for settling the chronology of the period . But

before undertaking this e nquiry it wi ll be well to

examine the re lations of the Second and Third Dynasties

to one another.

I t has been seen that the Second Dynas ty over

lapped the First by a cons iderable period,and

,if there

was no further e vide nce available,i t might be concluded

at once that the remaining portion of the Se cond

Dynasty was contemporaneous with the Third . The

Second Dynasty would in that case be entirely ignored

in the general scheme of Babylonian chronology. This

inde ed is the conclusion to which a consideration of all

the available evide nce would se em to lead , and in the

fol lowing chapter a reconstruction of Babylonian

chronology has been attempted along these line s .

I But

the data supplie d by the new chronicle is capable of

another interpre tation,according to which the Kassite

Dynasty was not partly contemporaneous wi th the

I Se e the table printed on pp . 1 3 6-7 .

AND THE KASSITES. I O I

l ate r portion of the Second Dynasty but was its

imme diate successor. I n view of th e poss ibil ity that

su ch an inte rpretation of the text may be put forward ,i t w i ll b e necessary, before d i sm iss ing i t, to exam ine

carefully the reasons which might be urged in favour of

i ts adoption .

On the reverse of the chronicle,ll . 1 1 ff. ,

I we are told

that Ea—gamil , king of the Country of the Sea,mad e an

e xpe dition to conquer the land at Elam ; and that

Ulam the brothe r O f B it iliash,the Kassite

,

summoned his forces,and after defeating Ea-gamil drove

h im across the Elamite frontier. But U lam—Bu r iash

was no t content with mere ly repe l l ing the invasion , for

he carried the war into th e enemy’s country,and

,

according to the chronicle,

“he conquered the Country

of the Se a and exercised dominion over the land

whil e the last section of the ch ron icle records that

Agum ,the son of B it iliash

,made further conque sts in

the C ountry of the Se a. In the se sections,therefo re

,

the chronicle records the end of the Second Dynasty

and the establishment of Kassite authority in Southe rn

Babylonia .

N ow if it i s assumed that the later k ings of the

Country o f the Sea ruled at Babylon,it might be urged

that the Kassite conque st of the Country of the Sea

took place at about the same period as their conquest of

Babylon . In that case we should be able to identify the

I Se e Vol . I I , p . 22 f.

102 THE THIRD OR KASSITE DYNASTY.

Kassite rulers mentioned on the chronicle with kings of

the Third Dynasty mentioned by the List of Kings .

The name s of the first s ix kings of the Third Dynasty

are preserve d by the large r Lis t Of Kings , which also

gives the number of years in the re igns of the fi rst four

of them . The following table contains the facts with

regard to them as preserved upon this document

NAME . LEN GTH or REIGN .

Gandash 16 years

Agum,the former

,his son 2 2

Bit iliashiI 2 2

U shshi,

2 his son 8

A -du -me-tash3 [wan ting]Ur—z i-gur-mash4 [wanting]

[The name s in th e re s t of this column of the Lis t are wanting ]

The second king mentioned in the List is Agum I,

and it might be held that he i s the Agum of the

chronicle,who succeeded his uncle Ulam-Bu r iash and

continued the subjugation Of th e Country Of the Sea.

1 The reading B it i l ias/z i , in place of Agu iasb i , is ce rtain .

3 Th e reading D u sb i is possible .

3 The first thre e characte rs in the name are ve ry u nce rtain . The trace smay poss ib ly b e read as L albir a ttas/z .

4 The reading of th e last Sign bu t one in the name is ce rtainly ga r(B ritnnow, No . and not re (Br . No . nor gu r u (Br . N o .

We may probab ly identify Ur-z i-gu r -mash with U r-shi-gu-ru -mash , the

fathe r of Agum ,the younge r (cf. Cru z . Inser . We st . A sia , Vol . V, pl . 3 3 ,

C01. In that case Agurn I I was th e seventh king of the ThirdDynasty.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

104 AGUM AND B IT ILIASH .

to identify Bit iliash with B it iliash i. A ccording to the

List Of Kings , the re fore , Agum would have been

su cce eded by his own fathe r,which is a possible but

hard ly a probable sequ e nce . This d ifficulty and the

d ifficulty of parentage would both be removed by

suppos ing that two l ines in the Lis t O f Kings had be e n

transposed . I t wi l l be notice d that both Agum and

B it iliash i are re corded to have reigned for twenty- two

ye ars ,I so that a copyis t m ight poss ibly have confuse d

the orde r of the names . On this su ppos ition the orde r

o f the firs t thre e kings of the dynasty wou ld have run

as follows

Gandash

B it iliash i

Agum,the forme r

,h is son

By this emendation the two docume nts would be

brought into harmony wi th one another,and the orde r

Of events cou ld b e explained as fol lows Ulam -Bu r iash,

having defe ated E a-

gamil , was the fi rst Kassite king to

rule in Babylonia,his brother B it iliash

,the Kassite

,

remaining behind in Elam . Meanwhi le Gandash had

conque re d Babylon where h e reigne d for Sixte en ye ars,

his authority be ing confined to northern Babylonia . He

was succee de d by B it iliash,who

,on the de ath of h is

brother Ulam—Bu riash,m ight have absorbed the Country

of the Sea in h is clomin ions . A fter reigning for twenty

I Se e th e l ist on p . 102 .

A POSSIBLE THEORY . 10 5

two years in Babylon , B it iliash was in turn succeed e d

by Agum ,his son

,who had to unde rtake the re con

quest of the Country of the Se a . I t is a safe rule to

avoid eme ndations of chronological mater ial , but , if we

identify Agum Of the chron icle w ith Agum I , the one

sugge ste d above has mu ch to re comme nd i t . Fo r i t

doe s not i nvolve any alte ration O f figu re s , and on ly

consists in the transpos ition o f two l ine s O f the

Kings’ List which both e nd in th e same way . On

this the ory it wou ld follow that the Third Dynasty

did not overlap the Se cond,b u t wa s its imme d iate

su cce ssor.

A consid e ration,which m ight b e urge d in favour Of

this view,i s that by i ts adoption we Shou ld be able to

re concile the figu re s of the Lis t o f Kings with the total

d u ration of the histo r ical pe riod in B e rossu s . By

assuming that on ly the Firs t and S e cond Dynastie s

ove rlapped e ach othe r,we could e as i ly Obtain from the

figure s of the Lis t of Kings the date 2 2 3 2 B .C . for the

acce ss ion o f Su -ab u,the founde r O f the F irst Dynasty

of Babylon . And this date,as we have alre ady se e n

,

i s that Obtained for the beginning Of Dyn . I I Of

B e ros su s .

I

More ove r,the inc lus ion by Be ro ssu s of only eight

Median usurpe rs in his se cond dynasty,could al so b e

e xplained by the ove rlapping of the Fi rst and Se cond

I Se e above , p . 9 1 f.

106 THE THEORY AND BEROSSUS.

Dynast ie s .

I From the fact that Iluma- i lu was known to

have been the contemporary of Samsu-ilu na as well as

O fAbéshu’

,we might indeed have expe cted that Abeshu ’

would have bee n omitted by Be rossu s along with his

thre e successors . But we know from the new chronicle

that he carried on a comparatively successful war against

I luma- i lu,and the trad ition of this success

,which sur

vived into Neo-Babylonian time s,might have led him to

b e regarded by Be rossu s as the last king of the First

Dynasty . To his e ight “Me dian usurpers Be rossu s

assigns 224 years , and the smaller Kings’ List assigns

to the first eight rule rs of th e Fi rst Dynasty (from

Su -abu to Abeshu ’) 2 27 ye ars ? The close corre spon

d e nce of these two se ts of figure s might be cite d in

support of the equ ation s A further conside ration

which might be brought forward in support of the theoryi s that it would enable us to ass ign dates to Hammurabi

and Gu lkishar agreeing wel l e nough with those obtained

for them inde pendently, from the inscription Of

1 Those who have equated Dyn . I I of Be rossus wi th the First Dynasty ofBabylon , have gene rally sugge sted that Be rossu s om itte d the first thre ekings of th e dynasty from h is l is t , b eginn ing his historical pe riod wi th th e

acce ssion ofApil-Sin, the fou rth king of th e First Dynasty se e Lehmann

Haupt , B e z tr c’

z’

ge z n r a lten Ge sr/i ieb te , III, p . 1 57 , and c f. Marquart ,C/z rono/ogise/ze U nte r su eb nngen (Philo logus, 1889, Supplbd . VII), p . 646.

2 The contemporary date -lis ts assign 2 2 1 years to th e se e ight kings .

3 A weak point in the scheme is that the inclusion of Abéshu’

s re ign inDyn . I I of Be rossus migh t have affe cte d th e gene ral accu racy of h is e stimateof the total length of the historical pe riod .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

108 THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA

Bu riash,on de fe ating Ea-gamil

,i s relate d to have con

que re d the Country of the Sea, and again Babylon is

not re fe rred to . Further,Agum

’s conqu e st was in the

Country Of the Sea . But,if the later kings of the

Second Dynasty had rule d at Babylon,we Shou ld surely

have e xpecte d Ea-

gamil , the last of their numbe r,to

have be e n re fe rre d to as king of Babylon .

”

In place

of such a de scription he i s termed “king of the Cou ntry

of the Se a,

”th e title which was also borne by Gu lkishar ,

the Sixth king of the dynasty,accord ing to the boundary

stone inscribed in Bél—nad in -apli’

s reign . The phrase

ology O f the chronicle is thu s s trongly in favour of

confin ing the later kings of the Se cond Dynasty to the

Country o f th e Se a . Further,to judge from his titles,

Southern Babylonia does not appe ar to have be e n in

cluded wi thin the dominions of Agum II,

1 and though

Gaddash appears from the l ate copy of his inscription

to have styled himself king of Sumer as we l l as of Akkad

the te rm Sume r d id no t n e c e ssari ly include the l ittoral of

the Pe rs ian Gulf. The two historical inscriptions of

e arly Kassite kings,which we possess in the form Of

late copies,may thus be harmoni z ed with the Chronicle ’s

narrative .

The Chronicle ’

s evide nce in this re spe ct is also con

fi rmed by the total absence of inscriptions of the Second

Dynasty from e arly Babylonian Sites on which excava

I Se e fu rthe r,p . 1 1 2 .

2 Se e above,p . 103 , n . I .

AND BABYLON . 109

t ions have as ye t be en u nde rtake n I Fo r the table t

found at S ippar, which has be e n suppose d to date from

the re ign Of Damki- ilishu , the third k ing of the Se condDynasty

,i s to b e assigned

,as we have se e n

,to Damik

i lishu ,the last k ing of the Dynasty O f I s in ? Such

negative evid ence , based on the abse nce of inscription s

from excavated s ite s , ne ce ssarily c arrie s l ittle weight

when unsupporte d ,but its significance i s cons ide rably

incre ase d whe n it accords with positive and docume ntary

e vide nce . A furthe r proo f that we should b e right in

e xcluding th e whole of the Se cond Dynasty from the

throne of Babylon is furnishe d by the n ew syn chronism

in e arly A ssyrian and Babylonian history which is

discusse d in the fol lowing chapter .

We may therefore conclude that the later kings of

the Country o f the Sea did not rule in Babylon,and

that consequently the whole of the Second Dynasty

may be e l iminated from the scheme of Babylonian

chronology . We may now calculate the date we

should Obtain fo r the accession O f Su ~ ab u,on the

assumpt ion that the Kassite Dynasty followed immed iate ly after the Fi rs t Dynasty of Babylon . If we se t

the end of the Third , or Kassite , Dynasty at 1 160 B .C .

,

and accept the figure of the Kings ’ List for i ts duration,

1 Se e now Ranke , B aby lon ian L egal and B u siness D ocumen ts

tko t ime of tko F ir st Dynasty p . 8 , n . I .

2 Se e above,p . 98 f. , n . 2 .

fr om

1 10 THE DATE OF SU-ABU .

we obtain th e date I 7 3 6 B .C . for its beginning, and the

date 203 6 B .C . for the accession-ye ar of Su -abu . But

the date 1 160 B .C . for the end of the Third Dynasty is

n ot de fin itely fixe d,and it may possibly have ended

rather earl ie r. Moreove r,al though we exclude the

whole of the Second Dynasty from the throne of

Babylon,i t does not ne cessarily fol low that the last

year of Samsu-d itana coincided wi th the first year of

the Kassite king Gandash . For Samsu -d itana’

s reign

may have be en brought to a close by the invasion of the

H ittites,and a short interregnum or period of d isorder

may have separate d this eve nt from the Kassite con

qu e st Of BabylonI A s these points of uncertainty

exist,i t would be rash at the present moment to

suggest a de fin ite year for Su -abu’s access ion ; we may,however

,place i t approximate ly in th e twe nty-firs t

centu ry B . C .

A ccording to this the ory of the inter-relations of the

early Babylon ian dynasties,i t i s unl ike ly that we can

I Se e fu rthe r, Chapte r VI . The forty-e ight years, which appear to havebe en assigned by B e rossu s to h is Dyn . III (se e above

,p . 92 f. , n .

migh t conce ivab ly b e e xplaine d as representing such a pe riod , when an

alien dynasty may have e i the r occupied the th rone of Babylon for a time ,or have b e en th e only organiz ed gove rnment in Babylonia. We cannot ,howeve r, u se this me thod of identifying Dyn . II I of Berossu s with thee leven kings of the Country of the Sea, for, by redu cing the independentd u ration of the Se cond Dynasty of th e Kings’ List to forty-e ight years , thee quation of Dyn . II of Berossus wi th the F irst Dynasty of Babylon wou ldb e rende red impossible .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I I Z AGUM II AN D THE CHRON ICLE .

Dynasty ? But against this identification must be set

the fact that Agum O f the chronicle was the son Of

B it i liash , whereas Agum I I was the son of U r- shi—gu

ru -mash (or U r-z i-gur-mash). Moreover,the titles

borne by Agum I I sugge st that h is rule was confined

to Northern Babylonia ? I t i s of course possible that

h e may have unde rtake n conquests in the Country of

the Se a towards the end of his reign,but

,in view of

th e d iscrepancy in the matte r of parentage , we may

regard his identification wi th Aguru of the chronicle as

I Se e above , p . 102,n . 4. I f Agum of the chronicle was Agum I I ,

and we accept the figu re s of the Kings’ List , the Se cond Dynasty, inaddition to ove rlapping the First Dynasty, wou ld have be en contemporan

e ou s with th e Third dur ing th e r e igns Of Gandash ( 16 years) , Agum I

(22 years) , Bitiliash i (22 years ), U shsh i (8 years) , A-du-me -tash (th e lengthof whose re ign is unknown) , and probably a portion of the re ign of

U p z i-gu r-mash , i .e . , for 68 years , and one re ign, and part of a re ign .

2 In th e se ction of h is inscription which enume rate s his title s,Agum II is

styled “king of Kashshu and Akkad , king of the b road land of Babylon

,

who hath se ttle d the wide -spread ing people in the land of Ashnu nnak,

king of the land of Padan and A lman, king of the land of Gu ti, e tc .

”

(se e

Cu n . Inst r . West . A sia, Vol . V, pl . 3 3 , C01. 3 1 I t is noticeable thatSume r , or Sou the rn Babylon ia , was apparently no t included in his

domin ions .From th e fact that Kashshu is he re se t before Akkad and

Babylon ,

it might conce ivab ly b e argued that the conqu e s t of Babylonhad b u t just taken place . Bu t i t is probable that this e stimate of the i rnew te r ritory, as of se condary importance to the land of the ir origin, was notconfined to th e conque ror of Babylon , bu t was share d by all the e arly kingsof th e Third Dynasty . From th e re tention of the ir Kassi te names it iscle ar that they we re not qu ickly assimilate d by th e subj e ct race . Moreover , in add it ion to the title s ascrib e d to Gaddash in the late copy of

his inscription , the conqu e st of Babylon is d istinctly re fe rred to (se e

above , p . 103 , n .

BURNA-BURAR IASH . I I 3

improbable . We may thus provisional ly place the

Kassite conquest of the Country Of the Se a in the

period marked by the gap in the Kings’ List after the

re igns of U r -z i-gur-mash and Agum I I . Accord ing to

this interpretation “Burna—Bu rariash,the king

,

” the

father of Ulam-Bu riash? may possibly have been a

k ing of Babylon while his son was a prince in Elam

and afterwards rule r of the Country of the Sea . Burna

B u rariash may thus have bee n Burna-Bu r iash I . H e

c an scarcely have l ived as late as Burna-Bu r iash I I,the

contemporary of Ame nhe t e p IV .

The last point we need consider in the pre sent

chapter is the effe ct which the total el iminat ion Of the

Se cond Dynasty will have Upon the problem of recon

c iling the Kings’ List wi th the dynasties of Be ros su s .

I t is true that the new system forces us to abandon the

method of harmon i z ing the Babylonian dynasties w i th

the historical period of Be rossus,which was d i scusse d as

a possible solution of the problem earl ier in this chapter ?

Bu t the method there put forward followed the l ines of

other attempts of a l ike nature,in that i t would make

the historical period of Be rossu s begin wi th the F i rst

Dynasty of Babylon . The new system shows that this

hypothe sis i s incorrect . If,as appears most l ikely

,the

historical period of Be rossu s began in the year 22 3 2 B .C .,

3

we must synchroni z e this date wi th the beginning of

I Se e above , p . 8 , and cf. Chap . VI . 2 Se e above , pp . 100 ff.

3 Se e above , p . 9 1 f.

1 14 THE SYSTEM OF BEROSSUS.

some dynasty e arl ier than that founded by Su -abu- a

dynasty which may e ithe r have occupied the throne of

Babylon,or

,as is more probable

,have had its capital i n

one of the other gre at cities Of Me sopotamia . I t is

probably along these l ines that the problem wi l l b e

solve d of reconcil ing the chronological system of

Be rossu s w ith the histori cal dynastie s of Babylonia.

We may now consider the new synchronism be tween

e arly A ssyrian and Babylonian history, which , as has

already bee n remarked,affords striking confirmation of

the view that the whole of the Second Dynasty of the

Kings’ List ru led only in the Country of the Se a. A s

the synchroni sm necessarily introduces the subject O f

e arly A ssyrian chronology it wi l l be best treated in a

separate chapter.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 16 A NEw SYNCHRON ISM

c omplete sentence,but it merits discuss ion in a chapter

by i tself from the value and importance of the infor

mation it suppl ies . For this new point of contact,occurring as it does at the very dawn of Assyrian and

Babylonian history, fundame ntally affe cts the arrange

me nt Of the kings and the chronology of both countries .

Th e l ine in question re ads ' M f l ze —7na s’

a r

a -na tar—s i mSu -a -bu,I lu-Shuma

,king of

A ssyria,against Su—abu - some such word as i llib

,

marched,

” having occurred in the following l ine of the

composition . Now there can be l ittle doubt that

Su -abu,whose name occurs at the e nd of the l ine

,was

the founder of the F i rst Dynasty of Babylon . H i s

name is written upon contracts of th e Fi rst Dynasty as

Su -rnu -a-bu -umI and Su - rnu -a-bi—iru ? and as ”lSu - ru u

a-bi in the smaller List of Kings . But in the Date

List A Of the k ings of the First Dynasty his name

doe s occur under the form Su -a-bu .3 I t has hitherto

appe ared possible that the wri ter of the Date-List had

omitted the Sign mu by mistake ; but the finding of

the form Su -abu upon a tablet of the late Babylonian

1 N o . (Bu . 9 1-5 se e Lette r s of Hammu r abi , Vol . III,

p . 2 14, n . 5 , whe re the form occu rs as a componen t part of the prope rname [ ~ z z

’

-Su -nzu -a -bu -u nz cf. the varian t form of the name fi l l -ai -Sa-r nu

a -bu -um (No. Obv. , l . The form Samu for Su nzu alsooccu rs in the name of Sumu -la-ilu , rare ly written Sa-rnu -la -z

’

la

Rev. l . 12 , N0.

2 Cf. V. A. Th . 9 15 , 9 16 (Me issne r, A ltbab. Pr z'

oatr ee/z t , p .

3 Se e Letter s qf Hammu r abi , Vol . II , pl . 2 17, NO . 10 1 , Col . I, l . 1 5 .

BETWEEN EARLY KINGS. I I 7

period de finitely proves that Su—abu is a contracted

form Of the name,which was read ind iscriminate ly as

Sumu -abu (or Suwu -abu ) and Su -abu ? I t is note

worthy that both these forms were employed at the

t ime Of the Fi rst Dynasty of Babylon and during the

late Babylonian period .

The catch-l ine ends with the name of Su -abu,but

we may regard it as certain that the fol lowing l ine

began wi th his t itle s’

ar Ba'

bil iK I,

“king Of Babylon .

”

I t wi l l be noted that the “catch- l ine follows the section

refe rring to Bél-im it t i and Bél- ibni upon the tablet. Nowin the parallel chronicle No . the section following

that of Bé l-imit t i and Bél-ibni records the relat ions

of Hammurabi with R im—Sin ; and as the sections on

both documents are arranged in chronological order,

we may le gitimately conclude that the “ catch- l ine ”

also deal s with kings O f the period of the Fi rst Dynasty .

In fact , i t me rely happens that the chronicle No .

has omitted the se ction of the composit ion referring to

I lu-shuma and Su -abu, whose place in the sequence

was between the Ura-imitt i and Bél-ibni section and

I The mean ing of the name is Sumu , or Su , is a fathe r cf. th e name

of Su -abu ’s su cce ssor, Sumu -lo-i lu , lit . Is not Sumu a god a qu estion

expe cting the affirmative answe r, and Su nzu -z'

lu , Sumu is a god ,”the

name of a king of Ur. For othe r prope r name s in which Sumu occu rsse e Ranke , Per sonal N ames of the Hammu rabi Dynasty , p . 166. In viewof the prove d con traction of Sumu to Su , we may now trace the name of

this de i ty in su ch prope r name s as Su -da-n inz , Su -ad -da-nu , e tc .

I I 8 ILU -SHUMA OF ASSYRIA .

that refe rring to Hammurabi and R im-Sin ? We ne ed

have no hes itation the re fore in identifying Su -abu of

the catch- l ine with the founde r of the Fi rst Dynasty

of Babylon .

Thre e years ago it would have be en imposs ible to

suggest an identification for the A ssyrian king Ilu

shuma,whose name occurs at the beginning of the

“ catch-l ine,

” and the synchronism would in cou se

qu enc e have had little inte rest beyond the fact that it

suppl ied the name of the rule r in A ssyria whom later

tradition held to have bee n the contemporary Of

Su-abu . But the excavations conducted by Dr. Andrae

at Sherghat have re sulte d in th e recove ry of the name s

of a conside rable numbe r of early A ssyrian kings and

rulers which were hithe rto unknown,and among them

is one named I lu-shuma . The name was first made

known in Decembe r,1903 , having be en found upon

inscriptions of Irishum,an early A ssyrian Viceroy, who

describe s himself upon them as the son of Ilu ~ shuma,

Viceroy of A shir. 2

I Se e above , pp . 56 ff.

2 Se e the M i tte ilu ngen der D eu tseben Or ient -Gese llselzafl, No. 20, p . 28 .

A brick of Irishum has be en pre se rved for many years in the BritishMu se um,

b u t th e signs giving the name of Irishum’s fathe r are much

defaced , and had hithe rto be e n read as K/zallu . An examination of the

text, howeve r, proves that th e s igns are l lu -i’

u -ma,as on the inscriptions

of Ir ishum re cen tly found at She rghfit (cf. op . ci t . p . 28, note ). On the

publicat ion of Hammu rab i’s le tte rs, the possibil ity was noted that Irishum

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 20 HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE OF ASHUR

the putting out of the fire,the king summariz es the

temple’s history in a long parenthesis,as wi l l be seen

from the following translation of the extract : “When

E -kharsag-kurkura

,the temple of Ashur

,my lord

,which

U shpia (variant : Au shpia), the priest of A shur,my

forefather, had built aforetime, —and it fell into decay

and E rishu,my fore father

,the priest ofA shur

,rebuilt it

1 59 years passed by after the reign of E r ishu , and that

temple fell into de cay,and Shamshi-Adad

,the priest of

A shur,rebuilt it ; (during) 5 80 ye ars that temple which

Shamshi-Adad , the priest of A shur had bu i l t,grew

hoary and O ld— (when) fire broke ou t in the midst

thereof at that time I drenched that temple

(wi th water) in (all) i ts ci rcu it .

I n the above extract i t wi l l be seen that Shalmane se r l

su pplies us with the name of a very early A ssyrian

ruler, U shpia or Aushpia, who in his bel ief was the

founder of the great temple of the god A shur. He

1 The text of the passage quoted (Col . I, l . 3 2 -Col . II, I. 9) reads as

fol lows : -(Col . I , l . 3 2 ) e -nu -ma E -bar -sag—bu r -leu r -ra ( 3 3 ) bi t Asi i'

u r

be‘

l i -ia i'

a M Ui -pi-a (var .

”IA -ni -pi -a) (3 4) s’

angz? Asi s

’

u r a-bi i -na pa-na

(3 5 ) e-pu -u s‘

i nza e-na-aZz -r na ( 3 6) fl tE -r i -i'

a a-bi s’

ang u Af-s

’

u r

(3 7 ) II s’

u -s i XXXIX s’anat i i ii-tu pal i‘

( 3 8 ) mE -r i -s’

e i l—l i -ba-ma (3 9) bi tu

s’

u -u e-na-aZz-ma (40) m -fluAdad fangzéA i-s

’

u r -f na (41 )IX s

yn-i i XL .i

’

antlti (Col . II , 1. 1 ) bitu s'

u -u fa

(2 ) i angz? Ais’

u r e-pu -i a -ma i’

e-bu -ta (3 ) u l i-be-r u -ta i l-li -leu (4) from ana

b ir -bi-s'

u int -{tau t (8) i -na u -me-t’

u -ma bttu i a-a-tu a-na (9) si-Zi ir

t i—i’

u u -mi -b i—i r see Lehmann-Haupt, B e itrage z u r alten Geselz ic/zte ,

Bd . IV, Heft 1 , p . 1 12,n . 3 .

BY SHALMANESER I AN D ESARHADDON . 1 2 1

also tells us that 1 59 years se parated the reign of

Erishu from the rebuild ing of the temple by Shamshi

Adad,and that 5 80 years se parated that rebui ld ing

from the fire which broke ou t in th e temple during

his own reign . According to these figures 7 3 9 years

separated the rebuilding of the temple in the re ign of

E r ishu from its destruction in the re ign Of Shalmanese r I .

We have already se e n that the name I lu -shuma has

bee n re cove red as that Of the fathe r of Ir ishum,and

,

by identifying this king with the E r ishu mentioned by

Shalmanese r I,we obtain from the figures what appears

to be a comparative ly accurate date for the pe riod of

I lu - shuma’ s re ign .

The discove ry of this inscription O f Shalmaneser I

was regarded by historians with considerable sat isfac

tion,inasmuch as i t furnished informat ion for assigning

definite dates to the e arl ier A ssyrian ru le rs . But a few

months afte rwards confidence in the figure s su pplie d by

Shalmanese r I was to some exte nt shaken by the

discovery Of a prism of Esarhaddon,the text of which

gave a history of the same temple but ascribe d total ly

different figures for the periods separating the re s tora

tions of its fabric in the re igns of E r ishu and

Shamshi-Adad,and the destruction of the temple by

fire . Esarhaddon agrees with Shalmane ser in ascribing

the found ing of the temple to U shpia, but he states

that only 1 26 years (instead Of 1 59 years) separated

the rebui lding by “ Irishu ,the son of I lu -shum -ma

,

1 22 H ISTORY OF THE TEMPLE OF ASHUR

from that by Shamshi-Adad,the son of Bél-ka-b i

and he states that 43 4 ye ars ( instead of 5 80 years)elapsed between Shamshi-Adad

’s restoration of the

temple and the time when it was burne d down ? Thus

accord ing to Esarhaddon 560 ye ars , inste ad of 7 3 9

years,separate d Ir ishu from Shalmaneser I . The facts

wi th regard to the history of the temple ofA shur, given

respe ctively by Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon , we may

summari z e as follows fo r th e purpose O f comparison

SHALMANESER I .ESARHADDON .

The t emple of Ashu r was The temple of Ashu r was

bu ilt by bu ilt by U shpia afte r be ingafte r b e ing rebu ilt by Erishu , reb u il t by I rishu , the son of

Ilu ~ shuma,

I 5 9 years passed and it was 1 2 6 years passed and it was

rebu ilt by Shamshi—Adad ; rebu ilt by Shamsh i-Adad, the

son of Bél-kabi

5 80 years the n passed and it 4 3 4 years the n passed and it

was bu rned down in the re ign was bu rned down .

of Shalman e se r I .

We may note that E sarhaddon ’

s inscript ion definitely

proves that E r ishu,or Ir ishu

,who re built the temple

after U shpia, was the Ir ish um whose fathe r’s name had

a l ready been recove red as I lu-shuma . But the d is

c re panc ie s be twe en his figures and those of Shal

I Se e M i tte i lu ngen der D eu tseben Or ien t NO . 2 2,p . 74 f. ,

footnote . The prism is registe red as No.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 24 VALUE OF THE FIGURES

of figures,but it ignores the que stion as to which set of

figures is the more l ikely, on the ground of ge neral

probabi lity,to b e corre ct . I n th e case of the inscription

of Shalmanese r I we are not de aling wi th a Single

document,hasti ly d rawn up

,in which the stateme nts

depe nd on the correct copying or calcu lation of an

ind ividual scribe . On the contrary,the text was care

fully engraved in duplicate upon a number of stone

tablets,no less than four of which have be en recove red .

I ts statements,therefore

,re pre sent th e actual be l ie fs

e ntertained by th e A ssyrian historians of the time of

Shalmane se r I,and any e rror in the text would re pre

se nt an e rror in th e historical trad itions of the period .

O nly one example of E sarhaddon ’

s prism has ye t be en

found,but we need not pre ss this point and may give

that te xt also the be nefit of re presenting the Chrono

logical bel iefs which were current at th e t ime it was

inscribed . The e nquiry re solve s itself into the question,

whe the r the scribe s who l ive d und e r Shalmaneser I

were more l ikely to b e right than those at the court of

Esarhaddon .

To this quest ion the re can be only one answe r . The

scribe s of Shalmane ser I l ive d more than six hundred

years e arl ie r than those o f Esarhaddon,and they we re

thus in a far be tte r posit ion to ascertain w ith accu racy

the pe riods at wh i ch the events recorded took place. If,

there fore,one Of the two sets of figures is to be acce pted

as the more correct,i t must on grounds of general

OF SHALMANESER I . 1 2 5

probabil ity be that given in the text of Shalmaneser I .

Moreove r,if we must have some the ory to reconcile the

two sets of figure s,it i s possible to modify Lehmann

H aupt’s suggestion so as to explain to some ex te nt the

d iscrepancy be twee n them . I t i s not unlike ly that the

figures given by the scribes of Esarhaddon were based

on the bel ie f that the longer period mentioned on the

texts of Shalmaneser should have included the shorte r

period separat ing the reigns of Ir ishu and Shamshi

Adad . I t is far more l ikely that some such confu s ion

took place in the se venth century B . C . than that the

results of a miscalculation,such as Lehmann-Haupt

sugges t s , should have been firmly bel ieved six centuries

earlier and afterwards corrected .

But whatever explanation we adopt in order to

explain th e d iscre pancy,there can be l i ttle doubt that

Shalmane se r’

s figure s are the more worthy of credence,

s ince he i s recording eve nts far neare r h is own time .

According to him ,as we have already see n , 7 3 9 years

se parated the rebuild ing of the temple o fA shur by Ir ishu

(the son of I lu—shuma) and the temple’s de struction by

fi re in his own reign . Now the date of Shalmane ser I

may be approximate ly fixe d by means Of Sennache rib’s

reference to his son,T u ku lt i-N in ib I . A ccording to

Sennacherib some s ix hundred ye ars se parate d Tuku lt i

N inib ’s date from one of Sennacherib ’s conque sts O f

Babylon (which took place in 702 B .C . and 689I Se e Records of tbe R e ign of Tu bu lt i -N in ib pp . 60 ff. , 107 ff.

1 26 DATE OF ILU-SHUMA .

Thus Tuku lt i-N inib I was reigning in 1 3 02 B .C . or in

1 2 89 B .C . On this evidence we may assign a date

of 1 3 00 or 1 3 20 B .C . to Shalmaneser I . By the

add i tion of 7 3 9 years to this date we obtain in round

numbers the date 2040 or 2060 B .C . as fal ling wi thin the

re ign of Ir ishu ? Now Ilu -shuma was the father of

I r ishu,and we have no me ans of tel l ing how long either

of them reigned . On these figures we can , howeve r,assign to I lu-shuma a date in the first half of the twenty

firs t ce ntury B .C .

I n connection with the suggested identification of

I lu -Shuma,the father of Ir ishum

,with the I lu-shuma

who was the contemporary Of Su -abu, the founder of

the F i rst Dynasty, i t wi l l be necessary to enquire

whether we may identify the Shamshi~Adad , who

appears to have been an A ssyrian ruler during the

reign of Hammurabi,wi th any of the rulers me ntioned

Upon inscriptions from Sherghat . In a contract-tablet

of the reign of Hammurabi,preserved in the Penn

sylvania Museum,Dr. Hermann Ranke found the name

Shamshi-Adad associated wi th that of Hammurabi in

the oath-formu la,and as only gods and kings are

invoked in oath-formulae Of the period,i t may be

inferre d that Shamshi-Adad was king,or

,at any rate

,

I Esarhaddon’s figures give the ve ry mu ch late r date of 1860 or 1880 B . C .

as within Irishu ’

s re ign . On the se figures we shou ld assign to Ilu -shfimaa

date at the end of the twentie th or the beginning of the n ine te enthcentu ry B. C .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

12 8 HAMMURABI AND SHAMSHI-ADAD .

accord ing to Shalmaneser I ’s figures (which we have

see n are more worthy of crede nce than those of

Esarhaddon) 1 59 years se parated these two events ?

Now Su -abu s accession was separated by 102 years

from Hammu rab i’

s access ion,and by 145 years from

Hammu rab i’

s death . If therefore we identify I lu-shuma,the contemporary o f Su -abu

,wi th the father of E rishu

,

the identification of Shamshi-Adad,the son of Bél-kabi

,

wi th Hammu rab i’

s contemporary is j ust possible? upon

the Assyrian figures .

Thus it wi l l be seen that,while we cannot definitely

ide ntify the Shamshi-Adad mentione d upon the e arly

Babylonian contract-tablet,the inference that an

A ssyrian ru le r of the name of Shamsi-Adad was the

contemporary of Hammurabi gains fresh support from

our new synchronism and this add itional point of

contact between early Assyrian and Babylonian history

must not be ignored as a possible factor in the solution

of the problem . I t i s of course possible that an earlier

Assyrian ru ler of the name of I lu-shuma occupied the

A ssyrian throne be fore the father of Ir ishu . But until

evidence is forthcoming of the e xistence Of such a rule r,

we may accept the identification of the I lu-shuma of

I See above , p . 1 22 .

2 If the contract-tab le t on which Shamshi-Adad ’

s name occu rs wasinscribed at the end of Hammu rab i s re ign (see above , p . 127 , n .

Shamshi-Adad may have su rvived Hammu rab i for some years, and he may

have rebu il t th e temple of Ashu r towards the end of his re ign.

SU -ABU AND ILU -SHUMA . 1 29

the chron icle wi th the only known rule r O f that

name .

The new synchron ism make s I lu-shuma,king o f

A ssyria ,”

th e contemporary of Su -ab u,the founde r Of the

Firs t 'Dynasty of Babylon . We have already seen that

on Shalmane ser I ’s figures a date in th e fi rst half of the

twe nty-firs t ce ntury B .C . i s to be assigned to I lu -shuma,the father of Ir ishu . If the refore I lu—shuma of the

chronic le i s to b e identified wi th the father of Ir ishu,

I

we Obtain for Su -abu,the founder O f the F i rst

Dynasty o f Babylon . a date in the twenty-first c e n

tury B .C .

Now a glance at the table printed on p . 8 3 wi l l show

the dates which have hithe rto been assigned to the

beginning of the Fi rst Dynasty in the principal schemes

of Babylonian ch ronology that have been publi shed .

The major ity of writers have set Su -abu some three or

four centu ries e arlie r than 2 100 B .C .

, while Delitz sch , who

has be e n the first writer to assign a place in h istory to

Ilu -shuma,makes him the contemporary of Samsu

d itana,the last king of the F irst Dynasty

,and to

Su -abu,or Sumu-abu

,its founder

,he assigns a da te of

I The fact that the chronicle r te rms Ilu -shuma“ king of A ssyria,

whe reas I lu -shfima , the fathe r of Irishu was, so far as we know, me re ly an

z si

i a/c/eu (PATESI ), a prie st-king or Vice roy,” doe s not in th e least te l lagainst the possibility of the ident ification. Such a distinction in t itle smay we l l have been los t sight of in the cou rse of many centu rie s of

tradition ; un le ss, inde ed , Ilu -shuma did claim the tit le of king,” as his

war with Su-abu wou ld se em to sugge st .

1 3 0 THE FIGURES OF SHALMANESER I

about 2 500 B .C .

I From these figures it might appear

that the I lu-shuma of the chronicle could not possibly

be the same ruler as the father of Ir ishu .

In the last chapter we have seen that the dates

assigned to the kings Of the Fi rst Dynasty by me ans of

th e figure s given in the Lists of Kings must be con

s ide rab ly reduced . The overlapping of the F i rst and

Second Dynasties alone proves that these date s must

be reduced by a number of years not less than 1 1 8

and no t greater than 200 ? By a reduction within

the se limits , and by assum ing that the Third Dynasty

began when the Second ended, it has been shown that

it i s possible to assign d ates to the First Dynasty

which would harmoni z e with the historical pe riod Of

Be rossu s, and with the d ates obtained for Hammu rabi

and Gu lkishar from the later chronological notice s .

On the other hand it was pointed out that the

evidence furnished by the chronicle su ggests the infer

ence that the kings of the Country O f the Se a never

ruled at Babylon at al l , and that consequently the Third

Dynasty followed immediate ly after the Fi rst ; and ,accord ing to this alternative scheme

,a date within the

twe nty-first century B .C . was to be assigne d for the

accession of Su -abu,the founder Of the First Dynasty .

O u r new synchronism between early A ssyrian and

I Se e his Babylonisclze u nd Assy r isc/ze Her r sclrer listen , II .

2 Se e above , p . 98 f.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 3 2 NEW CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME

and they may here be briefly enumerated . I n the first

place the scheme doe s no t necessitate tampering with

the chronological material or amend ing it in any way .

The figure s assigned by the larger Kings ’ List to its

second dynasty may be accepted or rejecte d without

affecting Babylonian chronology. We may thus await

the discovery of con temporary docume nts to cle ar up

the history and chronology of the Country of the Sea

without attempting to an t icipate their ve rd ict . Similarly

we ne ed not alter the order of the early kings of the

Kassite Dynasty as given by the Kings ’ List,in orde r

to harmoni z e that docume nt with our new information .

But an advantage,which is even greater than the two

just mentioned,is that the scheme is in harmony with

every indication afforded by the new Chronicle itse lf.

The only appare nt d isadvantage of this scheme is

that it does necessitate a slight reduction of the estimate

give n by Nabonidu s for the date Of Hammurabi .A ccording to the suggested system of chrono logy,Hammurabi , as we have seen , would have come to the

throne after 2000 B .C .,whereas on the figures of

Nabonidus we should probably assign him a date at

least a ce ntury earl ie r ? But it must again be pointed

out that Nabonidus is speaking in round numbe rs,

when he asserts that seven hundred years separated

Hammurabi and Burna-Bu riash . Moreove r,

the

I Se e above , p . 88 .

AND ITS EFFECTS. 1 3 3

scribes who d rew up the inscription would be

incl ined to incre ase rather than to diminish the

age of Hammu rab i’

s foundation - in scription,which

Nabonidus had found in the course O f his excava

tions . The king is the re made to say :“Th e

name- inscript ion of Hammurabi,the ancient king who

seven hundred years before Bu rna-Bu r iash had bui lt

for Shamash the temple of Shamash and th e temp le

towe'r upon the O ld foundation,I behe ld in the midst

the reof and I was afraid -and th e text goes on to

re late how the king prayed to the Sun -

god .

I T he

context obviously does not suggest any spe cial chrono

logica l accuracy,the date be ing s imply inserted to

heighten the impression of Hammu rab i’

s great ant iqu ity .

That we should assign to Hammurabi a date which is

within a century or so of this rough e stimate is al l that

nee d be demanded in the way of harmoni z ing it wi th othe r

and more definite ly chronological documents . I t may

further b e pointed out that th e majority of write rs have

been content to assign to Hammurabi dates from one to

two and a-half ce nturies earl ier than the e stimate of

Nabonidus ? The sugge sted system ,the refore , so far

from introducing a fresh difficulty into the chronology,conside rably le sse ns an O ld one .

3

I Se e above , p . 87 , n . 2 .

2 Se e above , p . 86 f.

3 Se e also Chap . 1, pp. 14, 18 ff. The date assigned to Gu lkishar , king ofthe Country of the Sea, on the figu re s of Bél-nadin-apli ’s boundary-stone

1 3 4 N Ew CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME

The e ffe ct of ou r new scheme o f chronology Upon the

problem of harmoni z ing the Babylon ian dynasties wi th

the chronologi cal sys tem of B e rossu s has been alre ady

referred to in the preced ing chapter ? I t was there

pointe d ou t that the e xist ing schemes fo r re concil ing

the confl icting data were based upon the incorrect

hypothesis tha t the beginning of the historical period of

Be rossu s was to be s e t at the beginning or during the

period Of the First Dynasty of the List of Kings . I t

was furthe r sugge ste d that the date 2 2 3 2 B .C . i s probably

to be synchroni z ed wi th the beginning of some e arlie r

dynasty than that founded by Su -abu,and that such a

dynasty may no t necessari ly have had its capital at

Babylon bu t in one o f the other large cities of Mesopo

tam ia. In any case,the problem o f re conciling the

separate dynastie s of Be rossu s with those upon the

larger List of Kings is one that has ne ver ye t be en sati s

fac tor ily solved , so that the adoption of the new system

doe s not involve the sacrifice of any scheme which has

been generally acce pted or should be retained at any cost .

We may therefore accept the sugge sted scheme o f

Babylonian chrono logy as being the arrangement which

harmoni z es best with all th e data at prese nt available .

We may conc lude that the Kassite conque st of Babylon

wou ld also b e too high . He re again we have to deal wi th an e stimate inround numb e rs (se e above , p . 89 Moreove r the d iscrepancy re sts to

some e xten t u pon the figu re s Of th e large r Kings’ List for the SecondDynasty, and the se we have al ready se en are probably too high .

I Se e above , p . 1 1 3 f.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

TABLE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS RULE RS

EAR

60“

s

36)

14)

1

8)

3

828

2

1

ki

IN ASSYRIA ,BABYLON IA AND ELAM .

0 01 01 00

ame

fifim.

fle~

b

a;

4mm

E;

no

man

s

o

amuse

-zoo

mammmdx

0

5

E

to

eo

fl

Emmém

D

Em

mwe

now

m>

NOTE TO THE TABLE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS RULERS

ON THE TWO PRECEDING PAGES.

The name s of kings whom we now know to have be e n

contemporane ou s are pr inted in heavie r type . The figu re s

wi thin paren the se s opposite a king’

s name indicate the number

of years he ru led the figu re s for kings of the“First Dynasty,

”

wh ich are atte sted by the con temporary date ~ lists, are printed

in heavie r type to d ist ingu ish them from su ch figu re s as re st

only on the au thor ity Of the L ists of Kings . I t will b e

noted that the figu re s assigned by the List Of Kings to the

“Se cond Dynasty have be en re tained in the fifth column of

the table for the kings of the Country of the Sea. It has

already be en poin ted ou t that the se high figu re s can scarce lybe regarded as probable (se e above

, p . 1 1 1 ) bu t they are he re

provisionally re tain e d in defau l t of defin ite information to the

contrary. A redu ct ion of the figu re s wou ld have the advantage

of le ssen ing the inte rval be twe en the occupation of Babylon

by the Kassite s and the ir conqu e st of the Cou ntry of th e Sea.

Throughou t the table a comma is se t afte r a king’

s name when

he was su cce eded by h is son .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I4O EARLY ASSYRIAN RULERS

Babylon,in the exhausting wars she carried on succe s

s ive ly w ith Elam and the Country of the Sea,followed

by the H ittite invasion of Northe rn Babylonia . Final ly,

after deal ing with the fall of the early kings of the

Country o f the Se a be fore the se cond Kass ite invas ion,

we may examine briefly the evidence for dete rmin ing

the race to which these e arly rulers are to be assigned .

In the table of contemporane ous kings , printed on

p . I 3 6 f. , it wi l l be seen that a numbe r of early Assyrian

ru lers are set in the pe riod before the acce ss ion Of Su -abu

and during the Fi rst Dynasty Of Babylon . Five of

these rulers are those mentioned in the texts of Shal

mane se r I and Esarhaddon,to which re fe rence has

already been made,

I viz .

,U shpia, I lu -shuma, Irishu ,

Bél-kabi and his son Shamshi-Adad . O thers are men

t ioned on a single small cone or cyl inde r, found at

She rghéi t i n the autumn of 1904? which, though it bears

only a short inscription,restore s the name s of seve ral

e arly A ssyrian rulers whose existence was not previously

known . The text was inscribed by the orders of A shir

rim-n ishéshu,who

,after stating that he was the son of

A shir-nirari and th e grandson of A shir-rabi,both

“viceroys of A shir,3 records h is rebuild ing of the wal l

I Se e above , pp . 1 19 ff.

2 Se e Mi tte ilu ngen der D eu tsc/i en Or ient -Gesel lsc/zaft , No. 2 5 (Nov. ,

p . 66 f.

3 Ashir is the archaic form of the name Ashur, the national god of th e

Assyrians. The form was al ready found upon the Cappadocian table ts .

AND THEIR RELATIONS TO BABYLON . I4 I

o f the city of A shur in the fol lowing word s The city

wall which K ikia,Iku num

,Shar-ke nkat e -Ashi r and

Ashir-n i rar i,the son of Ishme -Dagan

,my fore fathers

,

had built,was fallen

,and fo r the pre servation of my l ife

I rebu ilt i t .”

A s Shar-ke nkate -Ashir and A sh i r-n irar i,the son of

Ishme -Dagan,each restored the wal l of A shur

,i t is

probable that some considerable inte rval separated their

reigns . If,therefore

, we are r ight in making Shamshi

Adad (the son of Bél-kabi) the contemporary of Ham

mu rab i,

I we may conjecturally set Shar-ke nkate -A shir

be fore Bél-kabi , and Ishme -Dagan and his son A shir

mi rari after Shamshi-Adad . The exact period of Ura

imit t i and Bél- ibni i s uncertain , but we know from the

new chronicle No . that they reigned before I lu

sh ilma.

2

From the fact that in their own inscriptions that have

been recovered these early A ssyrian rulers bear the

title of“Vice roy o r priest-king,

and not

Mam/u,king

,

” i t has been inferred that they owed

allegiance to the re igning king at Babylon,and thi s

View is probably correct . On the o ther hand we may

legitimately surmise that whenever a favou rable oppor

tunity presente d itself, they attempted to cast off the

Babylonian yoke . Thus from the catch-l ine in the

new chronicle we know that I lu-shuma waged war on

1 Se e above , pp . 1 26 ff.2 Se e above , p . 66 f.

142 ASSYRIA AND BABYLON .

Su -abu,and we may infer that he sei z ed the occasio\n

of a change of dynasty at Babylon to make a struggle

for his country’s independence .

I Again ,if we may

identify Bél- ibni o f the chronicle with Bél- ibni , the son

of Adasi , who , according to Esarhaddon , smote the

yoke from upon the city of A shur,

”2 we may infer that

in his reign there took place a sti l l e arlier attempt on

the part of Assyria to cut herself ad rift from Babylon .

That neithe r attempt met with pe rmane nt success is

clear from the title borne by later A ssyrian rulers ;while, at some period in Hammu rab i

’

s reign at any rate,an A ssyrian ruler seems to have been associated in

oath-formulae wi th the Babylon ian king s But the re is

l ittle doubt that as a tributary state A ssyr ia must have

given considerable trouble to the earl ier kings of the

Fi rst Dynasty of Babylon . The re i s evidence that even

Hammu rabi was obliged to station troops in A ssyria,4

and he may have had a Babylonian garrison in each of

the principal A ssyrian cities . When under the late r

kings of the Fi rst Dynasty Babylon ’s enemie s closed

I It is probable that Su -abu came in to conflic t wi th Assyria afte r , andnot before , he se cu red the throne of Babylon. Even if he heade d an

invasion of the We ste rn Semite s, h is line of advance wou ld probably haveb e en along the Euphrate s thus Babylon ,

and not Ashu r, wou ld have be enh is first obje ct of attack . I t is also possib le that his acce ssion to the thronewas not se cu red by a sudden raid , bu t was the re su l t of a gradual proce ssof immigration .

Se e above , p . 66.

3 Se e above , p . 1 26 f.

4 Se e La ter : and [ m cn'

pt z'

am of fl ex/”mu rabi , Vol . I II , pp . lxviii, 3 ff.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

144 ELAM AND BABYLON .

empire than any of his immediate predecessors and it

has hitherto appeared probable that from that moment

he freed his country from the fear ofElamite aggression .

But we le arn from the new chronicle that R im-Sin ,although defeated by Hammurabi , was not finally

subdued,and it is possible that the closing years of

Hammu rab i’

s reign were marred by fresh confl icts wi th

his old enemy . A t any rate,in the re ign of Samsu

iluna, Hammu rab i’

s son and successor,R im -Sin was once

more active . The chronicle at this point is too broke n

to admit of our following the operations in detail, but

enough is preserved to show that the force s of Elam ,

under R im -Sin ’s leadership,were once more engaged in

active warfare against the Babylonian state and it may

furthe r b e i nferred that R im-Sin was d e feated,and

probably me t his death at Samsu-iluna’

s hands .

I There

is said to be evidence that an Elamite king named Sadi

or Taki,was defeated by Ammi-z aduga, Samsu-iluna

’

s

great-grandson,

2 but,as far as our information at present

goes,i t would seem to ind icate that Elam

,afte r these

unsuccessful attempts to regain her lost position , ceased

to conte st wi th Babylon her supremacy in any portion

of the Babylonian plain . The kings of Elam in such of

their inscriptions as have been recovered appear to be

I Se e above , p . 69 . It is possib le that the final de feat of Rim-Sin tookplace in Samsu -i luna

’s se cond year se e Chap . VI I .

2 Se e de Morgan, H z’

rtoz’

r e cl [ rm/aux de la D élegrat z'

on m Parse

p. 86, and Sehe il, Me’

moirer, V, p . x iii .

THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA . 145

occupie d only w ith the arts of pe ace . Whe n danger

once more threatene d the empire O f th e S emitic kings of

Babylon,i t came not from the mountains o f Elam

,but

from the low-lying lands on the shore of the Pe rsian

Gul f.

A t what period ex actly Iluma- i lu,the founder of an

inde pendent dynasty,de clared himself rule r Of the

Country Of the Sea it is not possible to deduc e from our

pre sent info rmat ion .

I H i s re ign may have be e n a longone

,as ind icate d by the large r List o f Kings

,and we

cannot te ll from the chronicler ’s narrative how long he

had bee n u pon th e throne be fore hosti l it ie s with Babylon

broke ou t . If the war h e waged w ith Samsu- iluna

occurred in t he latte r part O f his reign we may conclude

that he had be e n engaged fo r many ye ars in organ i z ing

the forces o f the new s tate,which he had fou nd e d on the

littoral of the Pe rsian Gulf, before he attempte d to make

encroachme nts on h is powe rful northern ne ighbour . In

that case the incessant campaigns carr ied on by Ham

mu rab i and Samsu - i luna against E lam would have

afforde d him the Opportunity O f establishing him se lf

fi rmly in the Country of the Sea w ithout the dange r O f

interfere nce from Babylon . On the other hand,on ly a

short interval may have separate d his assumption of

author ity and the ou tbreak Of hosti li t ies with Babylon

and l luma- i lu may have declared himself indepe nde nt of

Babylonian contro l at the very moment wh e n Samsu

I Se e above , p . 97 f.

146 THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA

iluna was devoting all his energies to crush R im-Sin .

If that was so,Samsu-ilu na

,on the successful conclusion

of his Elamite campaign , would have hurried to the

coast in the hope of defeating I luma-i lu be fore he had

time to organi z e his forces and strengthe n his de fence .

From th e chronicler ’s description it wou ld seem that

Samsu -iluna took the initiative in Babylon’s struggle

with the Country of the Sea,and hoped by a prompt

attack to overcome resistance and put an e nd to trouble

from that quarte r. He may have be en induce d to leadout a hat t ily equipped force by the news of some daring

act of aggression on the part Of th is small state,which

had h itherto appeared too insignificant to cause Babylon

any serious trouble. But his hope Of a speedy victory

must have soon vanished,for he found in Iluma-ilu an

adversary who could do more than hold his own . I t i s

true that in his first expedition Samsu-iluna succeeded

in overrunn ing the country and in reaching the Pers ian

Gulf ; but in the battle which ensued he was s ignal ly

defeated,and the bodies Of many of the Babylonian

soldiers who had been slain in the battle were washed

away by the se a. In the second campaign Iluma-i lu

again infl icted a defe at upon the Babylonian army.

I t is Obvious that from this moment Iluma-i lu held

u ndispu te d sway in the d istricts bordering on the Persian

Gulf. Northern and central Babylonia might still be

control led from Babylon by the Semitic kings Of the

First Dynasty, but the southern portion of the country

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

148 THE KASSITES.

were not the only foes whom the later kings Of th e Fi rst

Dynasty had to fear, for the tribe s that we re soon to

capture and sack the capital i tself were already

desce nd ing in small bands from the mou ntains Of Elam

upon the Babylonian plain . Less than ten ye ars after

Hammu rab i’

s d e ath Kassite incursions into Babylonia

were taking place . Thus the date -formula fo r the ninth

year of Samsu -iluna took its title from such an invasion

of the Kassite tribe s , and , as th e e ve nt was com

memorated in this manne r by the Babylonians,we may

assume that the invaders were successfully repulsed .

S imilar invasions may have continued to take place

under the later kings of the Fi rst Dynasty,and

,although

for a time they were probably unsu cce ssful, we know

that the city at last fe l l before the Kassite Ons laught .

From the new chronicle we learn of another invasion

which undoubtedly tende d to weaken Babylon,if it d id

not actually bring the Fi rst Dynasty to an end . The

chronicler states that during the re ign of Samsu -ditana,

the last k ing of the dynasty,

“ the me n of the land Of

Khatti marched against the land of Akkad,that is to

say,the H ittites from northern Syria I marched down the

Euphrates and invade d Babylonia from the north-west.

The chronicle does not record the resu lt Of the invasion,

bu t we may certainly connect it wi th the fact that the

I The capital of the H itti te empire is now prove d to have b e en a t BoghazK01, and to have borne the name of Khat ti (fl lflffa-at-i z

'

) se e W inckle r,

Or i ent . L z'

f .-Ze z t . , D ec .

,1906, Sonde rabz ug , p . I 5 . The H itti te invasion

may the re fore have taken place from Cappadocia .

BABYLON AND THE H ITT ITES. 149

Kassite k ing Agum I I brought back from Khani i n

northern Syria the images of the god Marduk and h is

wife Sarpan it um,and installed them once more w ith

gre at pomp within their shrines in the temple of

E sagila} We may legitimately conclude that the

images we re carried Off by the H ittite s during their

invasion Of Babylonia in Samsu-d itana’

s reign .

Since th e H ittites succeeded in de spoil ing Babylon of

her most sacred deities,i t i s clear that they must have

raided th e c ity,2 and they may even have occupied i t

for some time . Thus the F i rst Dynasty may have been

brought to an end by these H ittite conquerors,and

Samsu-d itana himself may have fallen in defence Of his

own capital . But there is no reason for supposing that

the H itt ites occupied Babylon for long,and even if they

were completely successful , they wou ld soon have

returned to their own country laden wi th heavy spoil .

An interregnum or per iod Of disorder may indeed have

separated the i r departure from the occupation of

Babylon by the Kassites ; but it i s unl ikely that the

Kassites would have long delayed their descent upon

the city,when once its defences had been reduced

,and

i t lay,comparatively speaking

,at their mercy .

I Se e th e Assyrian copy of Agum’

s inscription in Rawlinson, Gu n .

I nscr . Wesi . A s ia , Vol . V, pl . 3 3 , and Jen sen ’

s translation in Sch rade r’sKei l z

’

nscizr ifll z'

clze B ib/”

fol li cle, Bd . III , I pp. I 3 4 ff.

2 The conqu e s t of Babylon refe rred to in th e inscription of Gaddash

(se e above , p . 103 , n . du ring which the temple of B61 Esagila)was damaged, may possibly have be en its conqu e st by the H i ttite s.

1 50 RESULTS OF TH E H ITTITE INVASION .

I t i s also possible that Samsu-d itana succee ded in

driving the H itti tes from Babylon after they had sacked

E sagila. But,even so

,the invasion must have

material ly lessened the decl ining power Of Babylon .

In order to cope with his new foe from the north

west,Samsu-d itana must have weakened the garrisons

upon his eastern frontie r. The Babylonian forces would

thus have been d ivided,and incapable of resisting

pressure from a se cond quarter. So favourable an

opportu n ity fo r invasion would not have been missed bythe Kassite leaders

,and we may assume that ful l advan

tage would have been taken of it. Thus the fact that

Samsu-d itanawas the last king Of the Fi rst Dynasty may

in any case be traced to the H ittite invasion . In her

weakene d state Babylon fe l l an e asy prey to the Kassite

hordes,who from that time were de stined to be her

ruling race for so long a period .

After the reign of I luma-i lu we know l ittle of the

history of the Country Of the Sea,though the new

chronicle does relate how the dynasty he founde d fell in

its turn before a fre sh incu rsion of the Kassite tribes

from Elam . A s Babylon had previously been harassed

by Kassite raids from time to time,so the kings of the

Cou ntry of the Sea probably suffe red encroachm ents

from the same quarter,and experienced on their eastern

borders a constant sense Of insecurity. We may conclude

that i t was wi th the Obj e ct of putting an end to such

incursions that Ea-gamil , the last k ing of the dynasty

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

EXTENT OF KASSITE AUTHORITY

I t is Obvious that Ula—Bu rar iash is a form of the name

Ulam-Bu r iash,as Burna-Bu rar iash is the e qu ivalent of

Burna-Bu r iash . The chronicle doe s not me ntion U lam

Bu r iash’

s fathe r,but merely states that he was the

brothe r of Bit iliash,the Kass ite . There c an be l ittle

doubt, however, that we may id e ntify U la—B u rar iash ,the

son Of Burna-Bu rar iash,with the conque re r O fEa-

gamil .

We nee d not here d iscuss th e que s tion of the ide ntity

Of the se rulers,as this has alre ady bee n done in

Chapte r IV. The e xplanation O f the Chronicle ’s

narrat ive which we have adopte d would not ide ntify

B it iliash and h is son Agum with the e arlv kings o f the

Kassite dynasty who are known to have borne the se

names,unless we completely re j e ct the figure s Of the

K ings’ List for the du ration O f it s se cond dynasty .

I

Burna-Bu rar iash,the father O f U lam-Bu riash

,may

possibly have bee n a Babylonian kingz ; b u t from the

fact that his son ascribe s him simply the title Of“king,

”

without stating the country Of his rule,he may equal ly

we l l have be e n nothing more than a Kass ite chie f in

Elam . A point that is not ve ry cle ar from the narrative

of the new chronicle is the reason for Agum’

s conque sts .

From the chronicler’s bald summary it wou ld appe ar

Col . I I , ( I ) fa. i’

a -ma an -na -a (2 ) z'

-pa-o§-§z'

-tu -ma (3 ) .i’

zz -zmz -i’

a { v i a-af

a-r u (4) 1472-722! i lu Bé‘

l (AB) Z'

ZuE a (SAR -SAR) 5 ) 14 Z'

ZuN z'

fz -mafz

(6) fu -um-s’u b l ip se e We issbach , Baby/on zkc/ze fil med /m ,

p . 7 ,

taf. 1 , No . 3 .

I Se e above , pp . 1 10 ff.

2 See above , p . 1 1 3 .

IN SOUTHERN BABYLON IA . 1 5 3

that Agum invaded the Country of the Se a and con

q u e re d the city O f Dar—Ea . How are we to reconci le

this stateme nt with the previous c onqu e st o f the Country

O f the Se a by Ulam—Bu r iash ? The re are se ve ral ways in

which we might explain the circumstance s , but we may

probably assume that Ulam -Bu r iash did not su c ce ed in

pe rmane ntly subduing the Country O f the Se a ,and that

Agum found it ne cessary to unde rtake its re conque st .

I t i s unl ikely that this sturdy little kingdom submitted

tamely to the Kassite invaders . The subse quent hist ory

o f the cou ntry prove s that it was always ready to cast

O ff the yoke o f Babylon . We may the refore conclude

that fo r a cons id e rable pe riod after i ts conque st the

Kassites had trouble with this portion of their empire .

I n the reign o f Meli -sh ’

ikhu I I,towards the close o f the

Kassi te Dynasty,the borde r Of the Country Of the Se a

was ruled by a Kassite gove rnor , I but it i s probable

that the country itse lf continue d to enjoy a state Of

semi - independence .

W ith re gard to the early kings o f the Country O f the

Sea,who waged war w ith the Semitic kings O f the

Fi rst Dynasty,and

,l ike them

,we re d isplace d by the

Kassite tribe s,the last que stion that we ne e d touch on

1 On th e “ boundary-stone , N O . in th e British Mu se um , whichwas drawn up in th e re ign of Me l i-sh ikhu II , one Of th e wi tnesse s is a

ce rtain -Mard uk , who is de scrib ed as gove rnor of the borde r of th eCountry o f th e Sea NER-ARAD ZAG mdz‘ trimfz

'

)c f. Be lse r, B e z

'

tn’

zge z u r Bd . II , p . 165 f. , C ol . II , 1. 2 f. , and

We issbach , B abylon ia /28 [Wi red /en ,p . 8 .

I 54 RACIAL ELEMENTS

i s that of race . To which of the early race s ofWe stern

A sia are the se rulers to be ass igne d ? Sumerians,

Semites , Elam ite s , and Kassites, all from time to time

ex e rcised dominion in the plains of the Tigris and

Euphrate s, and to one of these race s it is probable that

we may trace the early rulers of the Country of the Se a .

That they did not represent an advance guard O f the

Kassite tribes is indicated by the distinct ion which the

new chronicle draws betwe en the Country of the Se a

and the nationality Of i ts conqu e ror Ulam-Bu r iash ,

whom it de scribes as the brother of B it iliash ,

“the

Kassite . N or i s the re anything to show that they were

Elamite s who,when driven out o f Ur and Larsa, may

have re tre ated southwards and maintained their inde pen

de nce on the shores of the Pe rsian Gulf. The re i s more

to be sa id for the v iew that they re pre sented a fresh

wave O f Semitic immigration similar to that which

resulted in the foundation of the First Dynasty of

Babylon,though it is difficult to reconci le such a View

with the names borne by several of their kings . In

fact,an examination of the royal names distinctly points

to a conside rable Sume rian influe nce , and may poss ibly

be held to indicate Sumerian origin .

Such name s as Ishkibal,Gu lkishar

,Pe shgal

-daramash ,

A-dara-kalama,Akur-u l—ana

, and Me lam~ku rku ra are al l

Sumerian name s,I and Shu shsh i , the name of Ishkibal

’

s

I The fact that fou r of the name s are assigned Semi tic equ ivalents in thee xplanatory List of Kings (Gu n . l aser . West . A s ia, Vol . V , pl . 4

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 56 SUMERIAN SURVIVALS.

Babylon ; but the su rvival Of a strong Sume rian strain

in its population wou ld account for the tendency to

disruption . That the Sume rians we re posse sse d Of the

qual ities Of courage and persistence is amply atte sted by

the wars O f their early city-states,no less than by the

e xte nt of their d i stribution . The shores of the Pe rs ian

Gulf may we l l have been the centre from which

Sumerian civi li z ation spread ove r Me sopotamia , and ,

whe n Semitic influence gained the predom inance at

such centres in Northern Babylonia as Agade and

Babylon,the Sume rians would natural ly gravitate south

wards . That they suffered constant admixture from

the rul ing race at Babylon was but to b e e xpe cted , and

to this fact is to be traced the Semit ic and Kassite

names borne by later rule rs from the Country Of the

Sea . But in this region on the coast the Sumerians

may have long survived,and at the time Of the

independe nt dynasty founded by Iluma- i lu they were

not improbably the predominating element in the

population .

CHAPTER VI I .

A NEW DATE-LIST OF THE KINGS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY0

AND THE BABYLON IAN DYNASTIC CHRON ICLE .

THROUGHOUT the preceding discussion of the earl ier

periods O f Babylonian and A ssyrian history,we have

been deal ing with info rmation derived in the main from

tablets of the late Babylonian period . Before we pass

to the cons ideration of two new chronicles, which do not

refer to pe riods earl ier than the eleventh century B .C .,i t

wi l l be convenient to examine briefly the new date-l ist,

compiled du ring the period of the F irst Dynasty O f

Babylon,which is included in the Appendix to the

second volume .

I This document is marked out from

the others here publ ished and discussed by the fact that

it is not a late te xt embodying traditions conce rning

earl ie r t imes , but is contemporary with the period of

I No. se e Vol . II , pp . 97 ff. , 18 1 if.

I 58 A NEW DATE -LIST

which it treats . Moreover, i t i s strictly not a chronicle

but a date- l i st,

” that is to say ,a li st Of the titles given

to a se ries Of successive years under the kings of the

Fi rst Dynasty. But the se titles were taken from great

occurrences in the rel igious and secular l i fe Of the nation ,

and they are our principal sou rce of information con

cerning the detailed history of that time . NO apology

is therefore needed for including a new Babylonian

date - l ist of the kings of th e F i rst Dynasty in a work

concerned with docume nts which are chronicles in the

stricter sense of the term .

I n the third volume of my Letters and In sc riptions

Of Hammurabi ( 1900) was included an edition Of the

Official date-l ists of the Fi rst Dynasty, based upon the

large tablet No . (Bu . 9 1-

5 -9 , 284) wi th restorations

and a continuation of the text taken from a new

duplicate,NO . in the British Museum collections .

Some time afterwards a fragment of a smal l single

column date-l i st,preserved in the Imperial O ttoman

Museum at Constantinople, was translated by Dr. Lind ]

and Pére Sche il ,I having bee n found by the latter

scholar when conducting excavations for the Turkish

Gove rnment at Abu Habba . While staying at Con

s tant inople in the autumn Of 1902 , I was e nabled,

through the kindness Of Hamdi Bey,to make an

examination Of the collection of tablets from Abfi

Habba in the Imperial Ottoman Mu seum,and among

1 For refe rences to the ir publications, se e Vol . II , p . 97 , n . 1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

160 DESCRIPTION OF DATE—LISTS

I n my published ed ition O f the date- l i sts, the two

chie f tablets,NOS. and which are both in

the British Museum,are referred to by the symbols

A and B respectively, and these symbols w i ll be here

retained . A s the new dupl icate (NO . i s so

s im i lar to No . and,l ike i t

,i s in the British

Museum,i t wi l l be here referred to under the symbol C .

The small fragment of the single-column date-l ist in

the Imperial Ottoman Muse um at Constantinople wi l l

be re fe rred to as D . The fol lowing is a short de scription

of the four documents

A (No . is a large table t measu ring 5s in . in width

by 8 in . in length, with the date -formu lae insc ribe d upon it in

fou r columns, two on e ithe r side . I t cove rs the pe r iod from

the re ign of Su -abu , the founde r of the First Dynasty, to that

of Samsu -ilu na,its seventh king, the formu lae for the separate

re igns b e ing arranged upon it in the following orde r : Col . I ,the re igns of Su -abu and Sumu -la-i lu ; Col . I I , the re igns of

Zabum,Apil-Sin, and Sin-muballit Col . I I I , the re ign of

Hammu rab i and the first six years of Samsu —iluna ; and

C01. IV, the remaining years of Samsu -iluna’

s re ign . For

the text , se e“Le t te rs Of Hammu rabi,

”Vol . I I , NO . 1 0 1 ,

pls . 2 1 7 ff.

B (No . is the lowe r part of a table t , which , when

comple te , measu red 45 in . in width, and abou t 6 or 6—i in . in

length , the date -formu lae be ing inscribed upon it in six columns,

thre e on e ither side . It cove red the period from the re ign of

Hammu rabi,the sixth king Of the First Dynasty, to the tenth

OF THE FIRST DYNASTY . 16 1

year Of Ammi-z aduga, the last king bu t on e of the dynasty, the

formu lae for th e separate re igns having b e en arrange d upon it in

th e following o rde r : Col . I , the first thirty-two or th irty-thre e yearsof Hammu rab i

’

s re ign Col . I I , the remainde r of Hammu rab i’s

re ign and half the re ign of Samsu -lluna 5 C ol . I I I , the se cond

half of the re ign of Samsu - iluna, and th e gr eate r part of th e

re ign of Abeshu ’

Col . IV,the remainde r Of Ab éshu

’

s re ign

and abou t twen ty years of Ammi—ditana’

s re ign ; C ol . V,the

remainder Of Amm i-ditana’

s re ign and abou t the first six ye ars

Of Ammi-z aduga Col . VI , the con t inuat ion of Ammi-z aduga’s

re ign down to h is tenth year, and the summar ie s . I t may be

noted that many of the formu lae for the m issing port ion s of the

re igns Of Abeshu’and Ammi-ditana we re probably given u nde r

the ir fu lle r forms, seve ral of the separate formu lae having each

taken up two l ine s Of a column . For the t ext,se e

“Le t te rs

of Hammu rabi ,” Vol . I I , pls . 2 2 8 ff.

C (No . the n ew date -list,was ve ry simi lar to B both

in its conten ts and arrangement . The table t, when comple te ,measu red abou t 4% in . in width , and abou t 5 or 6 in . in length .

I t cove re d the pe riod from the re ign Of Hammu rabi to the

seven te enth year of Ammi—z aduga, and the date—formu lae we re

inscribed u pon it in Six columns, thre e on e ithe r s ide , in the

following orde r : Col . I , the first th irty-two or th ir ty-thre e years

of Hammu rabi’

s re ign 3 Col . I I , the remainde r of Hammu rab i’

s

re ign and about the first twenty years of Samsu -ilu na Col . I I I ,the remainde r of Samsu -iluna

’

s re ign and abou t the first fifte en

years of Abeshu ’

Col . IV,the remainde r Of Abéshu

’

s re ign

and abou t th e first e ighte en years of Ammi—d itana 3 Col . V, the

remainde r of Ammi-ditana’

s re ign and abou t the first twe lve

M

162 COMPARATIVE TABLE

years of Ammi-z aduga and C ol VI, the cont inuation Of

Amm i-z aduga’

s re ign down to his seve n te e n th year, and the

summarie s and colophon . For the text , se e the se cond volume ,

pp . 1 8 1 ff.

D (S. 1 6,in the Impe rial O t toman Mu seum) is not a large

date -list like the thre e lists pre se rved in th e B rit ish Mu se um,

bu t is part of a small tab le t , in th e shape Of a contrac t or le tte r

table t . When comple te , it was inscribed with date -formu laefor Hammu rab i

’s re ign and for e ight years of the r e ign of

Samsu -ilu na . The tab le t measu re s in . in breadth, and its

pre se nt length is 1 5 in . For the text,se e th e second volume ,

p . 1 9 3 .

In order to enable the reader to ve rify the authorities

fo r any particular date-formula with as l it t le de lay as

possible,it wi l l be we l l to give a l ist of the kings Of the

F i rst Dynasty,from Su -ab u to Ammi - z aduga, noting the

years of their reigns covered by the separate portions Of

the four date - l ists which are now available for study.

In the following l ist,or table

,the date- l ists are re fe rre d

to by the symbols A,B

,C and D

,u nder which they

have been alre ady de scribed

KING . YEARS. DATE—LISTS.

Su -abu I —2 [wanting]

3 — 14 A (CO1. 1)Sumu- la- i lu I - 3 6 A (Co l . I )Zabum I -7 [wanting]

8 - 14 A (Col . I I)Apil—Sin 1 - 18 A (Col . I I )

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

164 THE N EW DATE-LIST

Ammi-ditana 6 early years B (Col . IV)2 2 —

3 O B (Col . V)

3 I —3 7 B (C01. V), C (Col . V)

Ammi-z aduga 1 —7 C (Col . V)

8 (or 9) —10 B (Col . VI)I r— end [wanting]

I n the second part of the appendix to Vol . I I a trans

l iteration and translation are publ ished of the new

duplicate C,with restorations and variant readings from

A ,B and D . As the text Of C

, when comple te , only

began with the reign of Hammurabi, the formulae for the

reigns of his pre decessors upon the throne,which are

given in Cols . I and I I Of A , have not been reprinted .

I

Similarly the gaps which occur in C from the twenty

sixth to the thirty-ninth year of Hammu rab i’

s reign

and from the thirteenth year of Samsu-iluna to the

thirtieth year Of Ammi-d itana have not bee n fi l led

in from A and B as the new duplicate throws no

add itional l ight upon the formulae for these periods .

I hope at some future time to publ ish a complete

edition of the date-l ists wi th restorations and variant

readings drawn from al l the dated documents available

I For th e formu lae for these ye ars se e L etter s of Hammu rabi , Vol . III,

pp. 2 12 -229 . The formu lae for the first five years of Hammu rabi arewanting on the new te xt (C) , as the top of the firs t column is broken away ;bu t in the te x t prin ted in the se cond volume they have b e en restored fromthe principal table t (A) and from the small list (D ) in the Impe rial OttomanMu seum, as th e text of D was not available for s tudy at the t ime my ed itionof the date -l ists was pub l ished .

AND ITS FORMULAE . 16 5

for study. Meanwhile the text of the new tablet only i s

edited and translated in the second volume,and we may

here note briefly the more important points on which

the tablet and the small dupl icate D afford us new

information .

The dupl i cate D does not add to our knowledge of

the pol itical history Of Babylonia during the open ingyears of Hammu rab i

’

s reign , for i t gives the title O f his

fi rst ye ar under it s shorter form,whi le it proves that the

formula for the second year, which probably re fers to

the internal reforms inaugurated by the king in Baby

lonia,should be restored in accordance with the paral lel

date-formulae found upon contract-tablets,as has

already been sugge sted .

I A more valuable piece Of

information i s contained in the variant formula for the

eighth year of Hammu rab i’

s reign,which is found upon

the new date-l ist C . In A the formula for thi s year

reads MU MA -[D ]A2 TIG (ID )N u -fiu—us’ “ The year

in which the district on the banks of the Nukhu sh—nishi

Canal (was but C gives a variant formula for

the year which is taken from the relations of Babylon

w ith Emu tb al,the western di strict of Elam .

3 ThisI Se e L etter s of Hammu raéi , III , pp . 229 f. , n . 44.

2 The reading of the two signs following MU upon A is fairly ce r tainthe whole Of th e sign MA and the end Of DA are clearly written and

pre se rved.

3 Th e line reads MU[ . . ]E -ma -u t-6a The trace s o f the

sign pre ced ing E are probably not those of DA , so that i t is not possibleto restore the l ine as MU [MA-DA] E-ma-u t -éa “

the year in whichthe land of Emu tbal (was

166 THE CAPTURE OF ISIN

refe rence to Emu tbal in the early part of Hammurabi s

reign is of conside rable inte rest,as it shows that at th i s

pe riod a critical situation existed in the re lations of

Babylon with Elam .

I t is also possible to connec t this piece of information

with the formula for the preceding year . I n the title

for the seventh year of Hammu rab i’

s reign , the traces

preceding the name of I sin upon A are probably those

of BAD ; the verb is omitted from the formula in C , but

was probably give n upon A and D . The trace s at the

end of the l ine in D are not those of IN,NA or KI

,but

they might be the e nd of the sign HUL carele sslywritten . In that case the l ine should re ad MU BAD I—SI

IN -NA(KI) [BA-Ij U]L,The year in which the wall of

I sin was [destroyed ]. The city Of I sin had been

previously captured in the seventee nth year of Sin

mu ballit,

and,as tablets have be e n found dated

up to the thirtie th ye ar of the taking of the c ity,

I it

might b e urged that the formula for the seventh

year of Hammurabi could not refer to its capture

or destru ction,s ince tablets would not have been

dated for thirty years by that e ven t if the city had

I The captu re of Isin by R im-Sin , which is re fe rred to in the dateformu lae upon the Te l l Sift tab le ts, mu st have formed an epoch for dat ingtable ts in that part of Babylon ia on ly so long as the E lami te powe rre tained its b old upon the country . 8 0 soon as the Babylon ians succe ededin dislodging the Elamites, the ir system of dating wou ld have be en changedat once , and the regu lar system of Babylon introduced .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

168 DATE OF THE FALL OF ISIN .

success would not have been refe rred to in a date

formula employe d at Babylon . In that case the attempt

to date R im-Sin’s capture Of Isin by means of the

Babylonian date- l i sts must be abandoned , and we must

conclude that the capture and dismantling of the city

in the reigns of Sin-mu ballit and of Hammurabi fol lowed

temporary victories of the Babylonians in their efforts

to impose the authority of Babylon upon the other

great cities of the land .

I

Echoes of othe r confl icts in which Babylon was

engaged du ring the reign of Hammurabi may be seen

in the formulae for the tenth,eleventh and thirteenth

years of his reign,on wh ich the new duplicate C affords

additional information . While i t i s certain from D that

the wall Of Malgia was bui lt in the fourth ye ar of

Hammu rab i’

s reign,we now know that the city was

taken and sacked in his te nth ye ar. 2 The new

I This point b e com es of som e importan ce in v iew of th e ch ronologicaldata fu rnished by H ilpre ch t

’

s dynas tic table t (se e above , p . 1 1 , n . If

th e Dynasty of Isin came to an end e i the r in the seven th year of

Hammu rabi or in the se ven te en th ye ar of Sin-mubal lit , Ur-Engu r’

s

acce ssion wou ld have b e en separate d from that of Su -abu by 2 3 3 % or 243 %ye ars . In accordance with ou r redu ction in the date of th e First Dynastyof Babylon (se e above , p . we shou ld on the se figu re s assign to the

beginning of the Dynasty of Ur a date not earl ie r than 2 3 20 or 2 3 3 0 B . C .

2 Thus the two las t contracts ment ioned in l etter s of Hammum bz’

, p . 2 3 1 ,

n . 46, are to b e re ferred to h is fou rth year. The othe rs men tioned in th e

earlie r part of the note as dated by the captu re of Mae r and Malgia

(orMalga) are to be re fe rred to his tenth year . It may be noted that a kingof Malgi (s

’

ar Ma-d l—g i-z

’

m) named Ib ik -Ishtar has be en found by Sche ilupon a table t of the pe riod of the Fi rst Dynasty of Babylon (se e Or ient .

ECHOES OF OTHER CONFLICTS. 169

duplicate C also enables us to read the name of the

city of Rab iku in the formula for the eleventh year}and if the formula MU R a mf -bzl z

'

é -i luA a’

aa’

BA-D IB,The year in which Ibik-Adad capture d the

city of Rab iku ,

”2 is to be referre d to this year

,we may

conclude that the title in the date- l i st under its ful ler

form commemorated the capture of the city. The city

mentioned in the title for the thirteenth year may be

read provis ional ly as Umu-ki,and wi th this formula we

may compare that for the eighth year of Samsu -ilu na. 3

The reading of Balum ,in place of Basu

,as the name of

the city mentioned in the formula for the twenty-first

year is probably due to a mistake of the scribe .4

L z'

t . VI II No . 1 1 , C 01. 5 12 if th e reading of [ s/ztar

(U DAR ) is not qu ite clear in th e name u pon the table t , h e may proveto b e Ibik -Adad , th e conqu e ror of Rab iku . O the r smal l k ings , or prince s ,of the pe riod are Sin-iribam and GIR-NE-NE (P), whose name s have b e enfound by Sche il in date s u pon contract-tab le ts (see Reene z

'

t de tr aw nx ,

XXIV, p . 24 f. , and Or ient . L z’

t . VIII , C01. 5 12 , n .

I It is thu s possible to assign to this year the first two table ts cited inLetter s of Hanznznr aéz

’

, III , p. 2 3 9 , n . 72 .

2 Op. cz’

t . , p . 2 3 9 , n. 72 . The othe r formu lae mentioning Rab iku , whichare quote d in the same note , are probably to b e refe rred to othe r years ofHammu rab i

’s re ign.

3 The name may b e read as Umu -ki , since the first Sign appears to b eUM , and is ce rtainly not SU , or AB . I t is tru e that in the formu la for th ee ighth year of Samsu -iluna upon B , C , and D it wou ld b e possib le to readthe first sign of the name as AB ; similarly, upon th e new date -l ist C th e

sign m ight b e read as AB in the formu la for th e thirte enth year of

Hammu rabi . Bu t the reading of A for this year shows that in all case sUM shou ld probably b e read ; se e Vol . I I , p . 100, n . I .

4 Se e Vol . II , p . 10 1, n. I .

170 CLOSE OF HAMMURABI’

S REIGN .

I n the formu la for the twenty-third ye ar of Ham

mu rab i’

s reign the new date-l ist enable s u s to restore the

name of the city as S ippar,and

,as the formula for the

twenty-fifth year records the rebuilding of the wal l of

Sippar,i t i s not improbable that in Hammu rab i

’

s

twenty-third year the city su ffered a re ve rse . In the

last ye ar of Hammu rab i’

s re ign Sippar again seems to

have been in trouble,and it i s permiss ible to trace some

conne ction between the closing formula Of Hammu rab i’

s

reign and those for the first two years of Samsu- iluna.

I t is possible that the e nd of Hammu rab i’

s re ign was

clouded by disaste r,du e to th e re cove ry o f R im-Sin

from his defeat in Hammu rab i’

s thirtieth and thirty-first

years . Samsu- ilu na’

s succe ss against the Elamites,

crowned by R im -S in ’s defe at and death,may have taken

place in the beginning of his re ign ,and was perhaps

commemorated in the formula for his second ye ar,which

records his recovery o f the independe nce of Sume r and

Akkad .

O f the buildings e rected by Hammu rabi of which we

have knowle dge for the first time from the new l ist, the

most interesting is the fortress or wal l dedicate d to the

godde ss Laz,which i s commemorated in the formula for

the sixth year . This e arly refere nce to the consort of

the god Nergal is of considerable value,for i t proves

that he r worship u nder the name O f Laz was cultivated

by the kings of the Fi rst Dynasty. The new l ist also

proves that the formula for the nineteenth year of

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

172 LENGTH OF AMMI-ZADUGA’

S RE IGN .

gave a variant formula for Hammu rab i’

s fifth ye arI;

while the n ew l ist C proves that the formula for his

eighteenth year commemorated some action of the

goddess Beltis,

“the great lady of Bél,

” or the perform

ance of some unusu al re l igious ceremony connected with

her worship.

2 The date-l ist C also affords new information

on certain poin t s with regard to the formulae for the

e arly years of Samsu-iluna and for the later years of

Ammi-ditana, and it supplies traces of the formulae for

the fi rst seven ye ars of Ammi-z aduga’

s reign .

3

O f greater interest than these points of detail is the

fact,which is recorded in the summary inscribed in

the sixth column of the new date-l ist, that Ammi

z aduga reigned for at least seventeen years . In the

List of Kings he is recorded to have re igne d for twenty

one years,

4 but this statement has been rejected by

Lehmann-Haupt,who would reduce his reign to ten years

on the ground that ten years are assigne d to him in the

summary g ive n in the sixth column of the date-l ist B .

5

But on the publication of this docume nt I pointed out

that only ten years were assigned to him because the

I It is unl ike ly that D ’s re ading M[U]-UN -[N ]A-AN ~D IM shou ld

b e combined with MU E[N] K[A]-A§-BAR-RA wh ich is a possibler eading of the t race s upon A ; se e Vol . I I, p . 98, n . 5 .

2 The new list C also prove s that the suggested reading of 13 61’s name

in the formu la for the twenty-fou rth ye ar of Hammu rabi is corre ct ; theb u ild ing of the exal ted shrine of Bel may possibly b e refe rred to this year.

3 Se e Vol. II , pp . 103 ff. , 106 f. , 107 f.

4 See above , p . 84, n . 2 .5 Se e above , p . 95 , n . 3 .

LENGTH OF ABESHU’

S REIGN . 17 3

l ist was drawn up in the tenth year of Ammi—z aduga’

s

reign , and this statemen t i s now proved to be correct .

The new date-l ist assigns him , not ten , but seventeen

ye ars,and there is no doubt that it

,l ike the l ist B

,was

d rawn up in Ammi-z aduga’

s re ign,and natural ly

includ e d the titles of those years only which were past

at the t ime it was compile d . A s,therefore

,thi s con

temporary document proves that Ammi-z aduga reigned

for at least seventeen years , it affords additional con

firmat ion of the general accuracy of the figures given

in the smaller List of Kings .

Another point of some importance which is settled by

the summary at the end of the new date-l ist i s the

length O f Abéshu ’

s reign . I n the List Of Kings twenty

five years are assigned to him ,while the figure Opposite

his name in the summary on the date-l i st B reads

]VI I I , the wedges at the beginning of the l ine

being broken . A t the time of the publ ication of the

date-l is t B it was pointed out that,whi le the figure

should probably be restored as [XX]VI I I , the reading

[XXX]VI I I was also possible .

1 If the first of these

restorations proved to be correct,the error of three

years i n the List of Kings would be comparatively

trifl ing ; on the other alternative the error would be

considerably increased . By proving that Abeshu ’

reigned for twenty-eight and not for thirty-eight years

I Se e Le tters of Hammu rabi , III , pp . lxx i and 25 3 .

174 DATING BY EVENTS.

the date-l ist again confirms the information given by the

smaller List of Kings .

Late r in this chapter we wi l l make a comparison of

certain figures given by the large r List of Kings and

the Dynastic Chronicle, b u t be fore we turn from the

contemporary date-l ists of the kings of the First

Dynasty,i t wi l l be conve nie nt to enquire into the general

workings Of the system O f t ime-reckoning which they

re pre sent . With the date-l i sts before u s and the formulae

arranged in orde r,it is a comparatively simple matter to

date the commercial and legal tablets which have

been recovered,so long as the formulae inscribed upon

them correspond to those given in the l ists . But certain

d ifficultie s must have existed for those who employed

this system of dating, which are not apparent on the

surface . For instance,at what period was the year

named ? And,until the ye ar was named

,by what

means was the new year distinguished from that which

preceded it ?

A s the date -formulae were taken from great events,

su ch as the capture or rebuild ing of cities,the cutting

of canals, the restoration or decoration of temple s,the

performance O f unusual rel igious ceremonies,and the

l ike,i t i s obvious that there can have been no special

time at the beginning of the year,such as the first

day of the first month,on which the year was named .

A certain time must always have been al lowed to e lapse

for some event to happen of su fficient importance to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 76 ACCESSION-FORMULAE .

no need to refe r to the preceding formula, for the new

k ing ’s name was sufficient for the moment to d istingu ish

the new ye ar. Thus tablets dated in the early part of

such a year would merely b ear the formula MU [king’s

name ] LUGAL -E,

“The ye ar of so and so,the king.

”I

This is the form under which the first years of the reigns

of Hammurabi and Samsu - iluna are found u pon the

date-l ists D and A respectively ; but this bare formula

must general ly, if not always , have be e n ampl ified in the

course of the ye ar .2 The new date- l ist C shows that in

the fu l ler formula for the first ye ar of Samsu—iluna a

reference was made to the e stablishment of the new

king’s authority,while the first years of Sumu - la-i lu

,

Apil-Sin , and Sin-mu ballit are distinguishe d by add itional

phrases referring to the cutting Of a canal and the bu i lding

of city-walls . The reason of thi s is that the words MU

(king’s name) LUGAL-E could prece de the formula for

any year in that king’s reign , and , in order to assimilate

the form of the first year’s title to those that followed it,and at the same time to remove all chance of confusion

,

the add itional phrase was adde d afte r the royal name .

Another point at which the system may have pre

sented some chance O f confu sion would be at the death

I For table ts dated in this mann e r se e L e tter s of Hammu r abi, III , p . 2 29 ,

n . 43 , and p . 241 , n . 7 5 .

2 That the shorte r formu la cou ld be employed throughou t the whole yearis proved by the tab le ts N o . (date d MU [ fa-am-ma -r a-t i LUGAL-E)and No . (dated MU Se -um-sn -i -Zn -na LUGAL-E), which we re drawnu p on th e fourte enth day of Sebat and the sixth day of Adar re spe ctive ly.

UNOFFICIAL DATE-FORMULAE . I 77

of a king. On the access ion of a new king it would have

been possib le to retain the formula of the current year

by merely changing the name of the reigning monarch.

But it is Obvious that the accession of a new king would

outweigh in importance any other event o f the year,

while the fe el ings of the new king himse lf would tend in

the direct ion of recogni z ing in the date-formula in use

h is own accession to the throne,rather than of con

tinning to refer to some ac t of his predecessor . To

have Official ly renamed the year would have thrown out

the system by making i t necessary to incorporate a

title too many in the l ists } I t was thus necessary for

the king to wait for the new year,that is to say

,the first

year of his reign,before he could inaugurate his own

official formulae. But there is evidence that it was

meanwhi le permissible, during the year of accession ,to

make use of an unofficial formula,written in Sem i tic

Babylonian,and re ferring to the new king

’s adve nt .

Two such formulae occur on table ts Of the First Dynasty,

and refer to the years in which Zahum and Api l -Sin

respe ctively entered his father ’s house .

2 These

formulae were not incorporated in the l ists,but from

I Moreove r , if, as is possible , the naming of the year was accompaniedby a fixed r e ligiou s fe stival (se e be low, p . the ce remony cou ld no t

have b een repeated un til the appointed time came round in the fol lowingyear .

2 The formu la employed reads fatter [king's name ] a-na t i -it (var . t i t )a-t i—fn i -rn -bn ; se e Letters of Hammu rabi , III, p . 220, n . 17 , and

p . 222 , n . 24 .

178 RETENTION OF PROVISIONAL TITLES.

the nature of the case the re was no chance of confusion

aris ing as to the actual dates of any tablets on wh ich

they had been used .

I n the case of a monarch ascending the throne before

the last year of his predecessor had been named , and

while the provisional title taken from the preceding year

was sti ll in use, i t is probable that the provisional title

was adopted as the official formula for that year. A t

any rate t itles taken from preced ing years have been

incorporated in the official l ists as the formulae for the

last years of Su -abu, Sumu-la-i lu , Zahum ,and Apil-Sin .

But it may be seen from the date-l ists that on many

other occasions in the course of a reign the provisional

title for a year was retained as its permanent formula .

A glance at the date-l ists makes it appear that the

practice of dating two or more years by the same event

was more prevalent under the earl ie r than under the

later kings of the F i rst Dynasty ; but this impres

sion may be partly due to the fact that so many

formulae are wanting in the reigns of the late r kings .

I t might be urged that, if the lists were compiled at

the time the actual date -tablets were written,the

scribe s may have found the use of the formulae MU U8

SA,MU US-SA-USS A-BI

,etc.

, a convenient method of

bridging gaps in the l ists which their researches had no t

enable d them to fi l l u p .

I But it is more probable that

I We might pe rhaps explain in this way the read ing of D for the ninthyear of Samsu -iluna ; se e Vol . II , p. 104, n . 5 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 80 THE PUBLICAT ION

tablets,specimens of which have bee n found

,inscribe d

wi th the names of s ingle years , which were evidently

employed for promulgating the ye ar ’s title after it had

been official ly named . One of them,inscribed in

Sumerian with the title of the seventh year of Samsu

ilu na’

s reign ,i s said to have come from Mount Lebanon

,

but it was probably found in Babylonia and carried

thence to Syr ia .

I Two others are preserved in the

Berlin Museum,and give the titles in Sumerian

,with

Semitic translations,for the twenty-ninth ye ar ofAmmi

d itana,

2 and a year in the reign Of Samsu-d itana .3

The se table ts are merely inscribed with the year’s title

and are not addre ssed to any person,or body

,in

particular,nor do they state by whose authority the tit le

of the year is given . Thus , though they we re e vidently

employed to publish the year'

s name,they do not

I The table t is pre se rved in the Mu seum of th e Syrian Prote stant Col legeat Be irfit . A photograph of the table t is published by Porte r, Palest in eE xplorat ion Fu nd , Quarte rly Statement , April , 1900, p . 1 2 3 and plate ;cf. also Pe ise r , Or ient . L i t . -Ze i t . , VI II No . 1 , Col . 3 f.

2 V .A .Th . 670 ; pub l ishe d by Pe ise r, Or ient . L i t . VIII

No . 1 , Col . 1 ff. The Sume rian formu la is inscribed on one side of th e

tab le t and the Semitic t ranslation on the othe r .3 V.A .Th . 1200 ; published by Me sse rschmidt , Or ien t . L it . -Ze it . , VI II

No . 7 , C01. 268 ff. Pe ise r’s sugge sted re storation of 1. 1 is to

b e prefe rred , the text beginn ing ( I ) [§a ~at -tu ]m as‘

i sie -tum .i

’

a i -r u -éa

(2 ) [W éflN isannu z’

lmu [ KAM ( 3 ) MU , e tc . , The new [year] which beganon the first day of th e month N isan ( is) th e year , e tc .

” Then the fu l l titleof the year is given in Sume rian ,

fol lowed by a translation in to Akkadian(Ak /ed d a -ia ), i . e . , Semi tic Babylonian . Finally

, an abb reviated Sume rianform is give n unde r which the ti tle might be wri tte n .

OF THE YEAR’

S T ITLE . 1 8 1

represent the original documents of authori z ation for

adopting the new title . These,doubtless

,took the

form of letters written in the king’s name to the chief offi

c ials and provincial governors . In one of Hammu rab i’

s

le tters to Sin - id innam,the governor of Larsa

,the k ing

orders the insertion in the calendar o f an intercalary

month} and the name of each ye ar may wel l have been

conveyed in l ike manner to the principal c it ies wi thin

the Babylonian empire .

I t i s a matte r of some surprise that such a cumbrous

system of time-reckoning should have lasted for so long

a period . The fact that it was inherited by the Semitic

kings of Babylonia from their Sum e rian predecessors,

and had in consequence acquired the sanctity of long

tradit ion,may account in some degre e for its continued

use. Moreove r,if the naming of the year was assoc iated

with a rel igiou s festival,this fact would have incre ased

the reluctance Of the Babylonians to tolerate any change

or innovation . But the inconvenie nces of the system

are obvious . Withou t a previous knowledge o f the

order of the e vents referred to,the separate formulae

contained in themselves no indication of date,while

the varying importance of events for different cities

tended to the adoption of local systems in parts of the

country remote from the capital . Lastly,the actual

wording of the formulae was to a great extent a matter

I Se e Letter s of Hanz z/znr aéi , III , p . 12 f.

182 THE DYNASTIC CHRON ICLE

of taste , and was left to the di scretion Of the individual

scribes . The later system of reckoning time by the

years of the reigning king, introduced by the Kassites,

was , in comparison , simpl icity itse lf, and , when once it

had been adopted,i ts inherent merits prevented any

l i kel ihood of a return to the O lder system.

I

On a very different plane to the date -l ists of the First

Dynasty stands the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle , a

new edition of which is publ ished in the second volume.2

While the former are to al l inte nts and purposes con

temporary records of the events to which they refer, the

Dynastic Chronicle i s a document of the late A ssyrian

period incorporating traditions with regard to e arl ier

t imes . I ts inclusion in a work containing chronicles

concerning early Babylonian kings is quite appropriate,the more especial ly as the previous separation of two of

its fragments from the main body of the table t?»rendered

a new edition of the text desirable . The fragment

K . which is publ ished in the accompanying

I I t is inte resting to note that even in the Pre -Sargonic pe riod Sume rianscrib e s appear to have dated , or rathe r d istingu ishe d , table ts of accountsby th e years of the re ign ing king. At least , the re is much to be said forthis explanation of the single figu re s inscrib ed upon the pate si~tab le ts,

”

dat ing from the time of Lugalanda, Enlitarz i , and Urukagina. See

Thureau -Dangin, L es inscr ipt ions a’e Sumer et p . 3 20, n . I .

2 Se e Vol . I I , pp . 46 ff. , 143 ff.

3 Se e Vol . II , p . 46, n . 1 .

4 The smal l fragmen t is one of the previou sly unnumbe red fragments ofth e Kuyunj ik col le ction .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

184 THE DYNASTIC CHRON ICLE

FIFTH DYNASTY OF

K INGS’

L IST .DYN . CHRON .

Simmash-shikhu

Ea-mukin-z er

Kashshfi-nad in-akh i

Length of dynasty

SIXTH DYNASTY OF

KINGS’

LIST .

Eu lbar-shakin—shum 1 7 years 1 5 years

N inib -kudu rri—u su r 3 years 2 years

Shilanum-Shukamuna 3 months 3 months

L ength of dynasty 2 0 yrs . 3 mths . 20 yrs . 3 mths .

SEVENTH DYNASTY OF

K INGS’L IST .

[Ae -aplu-u su r (P)] 6 years 6 years

I t wi l l be seen that in the Dynastic Chron icle the

summaries for both the fifth and the sixth dynastie s do

not tal ly with the figures giving the lengths of the separate

reigns : the summary for the fifth dynasty is 2 52; years

too much,and that for the sixth dynasty is 3 years too

much . In order to make the figures agree more closely

with the summaries,the figure giving the length of

Kashshfi-nadin-akh i’s re ign has been read as 6 in place

of 3 , and that refe rring to E u lbar -shakin-shum has be e n

read as 1 8 in place of 1 5 . But even then the summary

fo r the fifth dynasty would be 3 months out, and there

is also no doubt that the figures on the tablet are to be

read as 3 and 1 5 respectively .

L IST OF K INGS.

1 8 years

5 months

3 years

2 1 yrs . 5 mths .

AND THE LIST OF KINGS. 1 8 5

My own explanation of the d iscrepancies is that the

compiler of the chronicle , in adding up the figure s for

the length of the fifth dynasty,made a mistake

in counting the three months of Ea-mukin - z ér’

s

reign as three years . Similarly it i s possible that he

reckoned the months of Sh ilanum-Shukamuna’

s reign

twice over as months and as years ; and the fact that

his total i s the same as that given in the List of Kings

is probably a coincidence . This explanation i s s imple

and at the same time exactly explains the diffe rences

in the figures . But whatever explanation be adopted,

there is no doubt that,in View of the inconsistencies of

the Dynastic Chronicle,preference should be given to

the figure s in the List of Kings . The Dynastic Chronicle

and the List of Kings agree in assigning six years to

the re ign of the king who by himself forms the seventh

dynasty. I t wi l l be noted that the name of this king,

which is missing from both the documents in question,

has been provisional ly restored as A e -aplu-usur in the

table upon the preced ing page . This conj ectural re stora

tion i s base d upon a passage in the new Babylonian

Chronicle,NO . which is discussed in some detai l

in the fol lowing chapter.

CHAPTER V II I .

A NEW BABYLON IAN CHRON ICLE, RELATING TO EVENTS FROM

THE ELEVENTH TO THE SEVENTH CENTURY B .C .

THE chronicle N0 . which is here publ ished for

the firs t time} is not a regular chronicle in the ord inary

sense of the word . I t is true that it relate s to historical

events and episodes arranged in chronological order,but the events themselve s are not all recorded wi th the

same amount of fulness and detai l . The portion of the

text that has been preserved consists of forty l ines , but

these are d ivided into no less than twenty-two separate

sections,each d ivided from the one that fol lows it by a

l ine ru led across the table t ? In fact,the tablet is not a

complete copy of a chronicle,but contains a collection

of extracts from a longe r text,the portion preserved

relating to historical event s which range from the

1 Se e Vol . II , pp . 57 ff. , 147 ff.

2 Strictly speaking, th e port ion of th e chronicle pre se rved consists of

twen ty—fou r se ctions, bu t in two instances whe re we shou ld expe ct a l ineru led across the table t i t has be en omit ted . In the one case this occu rsbe twe en the first and se cond l ine on the edge of the table t, and in the o the rbe twe en the last line of the obve rse and the first l ine of the edge . All the

signs which original ly stood in the se se ctions are b roken away, bu t the irex istence may b e infe rre d from the con tex t .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 88 THE CHARACTERISTICS

intended to give h im practice in wri ting, or to assist his

memory in h is studies of ancient history. Such a theory

would afford a plausible e xplanation of the different

treatm e nt of the sections of the work, for we might

imagine that the points which the learner W ished to fix

in his memory he would copy out in full,while the

contents of those which he knew already he would

summari z e,or he would merely quote th e opening l ine

in order to give the historical sequence of the whole

composition . But a glance at the tablet wi l l show that

it has none of the characteristics of a practice-table t,

”

and that it was not the work of any novice. I t i s a

small tablet} wel l formed , and made of fine clay.

Moreover,the writing i s minute

,and the characters are

carefully and accurately wri tten . In fact i t was evidently

the work of a Ski lled scribe,and we must seek some

other re ason for the pecul iar nature of i ts contents .

After a careful examination of other possibi l itie s,the

e xplanation which appears to me be st suited to the

facts i s that the scribe who wrote the table t had before

him not one but two documents . Both were chronicles

deal ing with the same periods of Babylonian and

A ssyrian history, and many sections in them were

identical . We may suppose that the scribe was not a

mere copyist,but was engaged on a study of historical

I The table t measure s 13 in . in bre ad th, and e ve n when comple te it wasprobably not more than 3 in. long ; se e Vol . II , p . 5 7 , n . 1 .

OF THE NEW CHRON ICLE . 1 89

materials, and wished to note down exactly the points

in which one of his chronicles supplemented the othe r

or d iffered from it. Taking one of them as his principal

text,he compared them section by section , and on the

tablet that has come down to us he noted the differences

in the two documents . Where a section on the second

chronicle was entire ly absent from the fi rst,or gave a

fuller or d ifferent version of the same event,he Copie d

out that section from the se cond chronicle in fu ll . I

Where the two sections were identical he merely

quoted the first line to show that thi s was the case,

or gave a brief summary which answered the same

purpose . An enquiry into the class and characte r of

the original chronicles, so far as the y can be ascertained

from the e xtracts that have come down to us,wi l l

best b e attempted after we have examined the e xtracts

themselves,and briefly noted th e historical information

they contain .

The fi rst section of which traces are preserved upon

the obverse of the tablet is evidently one of those which

are quoted in full ? A lmost al l of i ts text i s wanting,

but the last two words of the last l ine are prese rved,

describing the return of a king after a successful

campaign during which he had gathered heavy spoil .

A s the chronicle relates mainly to the relations of

Babylonian and Assyrian kings to one another,and as the

I I t is , of cou rse , possible that some of the se sections he condense d .

2 Obv . , 11. 1 -3 .

190 MARDUK-SHAPIK-ZER-MATI

following section deals with the reign of Marduk-shapik

z er-mati , i t is probable that this section recorded the

victory of Marduk-nadin-akhé over Tiglath-pile se r I .

The second section of the chronicle I briefly records

four events in the reign of the

Babylonian king of the fourth dynasty of the Kings ’

List . The first of these e vents was related in but

most of the text is wanting. The next l ine is also

broken,but it contains a reference to “forty-four kings

of the lands,” and the statement that they beheld

abundance . This would seem to imply that Marduk

shapik-z er-mati formed a confe de ration of a large

number of petty kings and rulers,probably by conquest

,

and that the result of his su z erainty was benefic ial to the

countries and districts ove r wh ich his authority extended .

The reading of the figure giving the number of the kings

is not absolutely certain,and in the break at the

beginning of the line i t i s possible that we should add

When we consider the number of kings whom

T iglath-pile se r I al leges in his annals that he conquered

wi thin the first five years of his reign,i t w i l l be apparent

that such a number would not be inconsistent with

statements in records of that period .

The passage doe s not imply more than that Marduk

shapik- z er-mati extended the borders of Babylonia

,and

in the course of h is campaigns enforced his authority

upon a large number of pe tty princes and rulers who had

I Obv. , 11. 4-7 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

192 ADAD-AFLU-IDD INA

Adad-aplu -iddina, who succeeded Marduk-shapik-z er

mat i upon the throne of Babylon . I t records four main

facts with regard to this ruler, viz .,his origin , certain

operations in connection wi th the city of Dur-i lu,h is

defeat at the hands of the Sutu , who succe e ded in ravaging

both Sumer and Akkad,and his completion of ce rtain

shrine s in honour o f Marduk . The chronicle embodies

a different tradition to that given in the “Synchronous

H i story ”with regard to the name of Adad-aplu -iddina

’

s

father. While the Synchronous H i story ” states

that he was “the son of E sagil-shadfin i

,the son of a

nobody,the chronicle g ives the name of his father as

Itti-Marduk-balatu , and states that he was an A ramaean

and a u su rpe r .

I

I The cu rren t explanation of the word IM -G I is that suggested byWinckle r ,to the e ffect that it is the equ ivalent of Kaldu , Chaldaea (se e U nter

su ennngen z zer altor i ent . Gesc/z i e/zte , p . while Homme l wou ld fu rthe rexplain i t as me re ly a diale ctic variant of [ ngi which occu rs in the phraseXi -in-gi , or [ r

’

i-[ n-gi , Sume r (se e Gr u ndr iss a’er Geog r ap/z ie and Gese/z i e/z te

des alten Or ien ts, I , pp . 2 41 Bu t in the phrase LUGAL IM-GI the wordwou ld seem to have a descriptive rathe r than a geographical significanceand

“u su rper ” admirab ly fits the con tex t of the passage s in which the phrase

occurs. Moreove r i t is possible to assign this meaning to the ideogram byan analysis of its compone n t parts . Since IM z ranza

‘

nn and Gr z lznnme

(cf. Brtinnow, Nos . 83 67 , we may assign to the compound ideogramthe meaning se lf-appointed thus TUGAL IM-G I se lf-appointed king, ”i . e . , u su rpe r . In th e fu l le r form of th e phrase , IM-GI-DA (se e Rawlinson ,

Can . I nst r . West . Asia, Vol . III , pl . 4, No . 4, l . 47 , Winckle r, Untersu c/mngen ,

p . 50, n . 4, and cf. Syn . H ist . , C ol . II I , 1. the finalsyllab le may probably be regarded as a su ffix or phone tic complemen t ;according to the alte rnative explanat ion DA can b e taken as a postposition( z ina ).

AND THE INVASION OF THE SUTU. 19 3

The “ Synchronous H i story relates that A shu r—be l

kala marrie d the daughter o f Adad-aplu -idd ina, and the

chronicle throws l ight on one of the reasons which may

have led Adad-aplu -iddina to offer a rich dowry in order

to se cu re th e al l iance . We know that A shur-bél-kala had

been on friendly terms with Marduk-shapik-z er-mati ,and he may have been obliged to purchase Ashur-be l

kala’s goodwi l l by offering him his daughter in marriage ;an additional reason for his act ion may perhaps be se e n

in the external troubles with which Babylon ia was faced .

For we gather from the chronicle that during his reign

the Su t t‘

r invaded his territory,and

,after rang ing through

Sumer and Akkad , returned with a rich spoi l to thei r

own l and . I t must have been on this occasion that the

Su tu wrecked Ebabbara, the temple of the Sun-god in

the city o f Sippar, as recorded by Nabu-aplu -idd ina

Upon the Sun-god Tab le t .” I

The three successors of Adad—aplu -iddina upon the

throne of Babylon are enumerated in the List of Kings,

bu t the ends of all the names are broken in that

document. The new chronicle does not enable u s to

I Se e Cu n . I nst r . West . Asia, Vol . V, pl . 60 f. Nabfi-aplu -iddina re late sthat , in spite of the efforts of Simmash-shikhu and those of Eu lbar-shakinshum (which followed a pe riod of fu r the r misfortune in Kashshfi-nad inakhi

’

s re ign), i t was not unti l his own re ign that the temple was re storedto its forme r splendou r. On th e national i ty of the Su tfi and the i rconnection wi th the Aramaeans, see Streck , K

'

Zio, Bd . VI , He ft 2pp. 209 ff.

194 T HE REIGN OF SIMMASH-SHIKHU.

restore them,for it omits any mention of these three

rulers,and in its fou rth s e c t ion I de als with Simmash

shikhu ,the founder of the fifth dynasty in the Kings

’

List . Like the Dynasti c Chronicle? it state s that he

was the son of Erba-Sin,and it i s possible that the

broken title which follows may be restored in accordance

w ith his title and description upon that document. I n

that case the new chronicle supports the tradition given

both in the List of Kings and in the Dynastic Chronicle,

according to wh ich Simmash -shikhu came from the

Country of the Sea, a fact recorde d in the name given

t o the short dynasty he founded . I n addition to the

description of his origin , the Dynastic Chronicle merely

records the length of his re ign and the fact that he d ied

by the sword . This information the new chron icle

supplements wi th th e statement that he constructed

a throne for B é'

l napvkar i

,

“ the Lord of A ll,

”3 in the

temple of Eku r igigal . The inclusion of such re l igious

information along with records which are purely historical

i s characte ristic of all the Babylon ian chronicles that

have come down to us , and i t is in accordance wi th this

practice that the eight l ines which follow the fourth

section upon the chronicle are to be explained .

I Obv. ,l . 12 I.

2 Se e Vol . II , p . 5 1 .

3 For th e title B et napgzar i , cf. the great god-lis t K . 43 49 , Col . X

ll . 8'

and 9 , whe re 27uBé‘

Zs’

a nap-{za-r i is given as the equ ivalen t of

(D INGIR )GU and (D INGIR ) D IR I (se e s . I n st r . West . Asia , Vol . 11, pl . 54 ,

No.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

196 THE CELEBRATION

to have taken place on N ew Year’s Day. On thisoccasion the statue of the god was carried forth alongth e sacred road termed A- ibur-shabu

,which le d from

E sagila to the palace of th e king. The fe stival had a

po l i t ical as wel l as a re l igious significance , for the

Babylonian king,wheneve r possible , made a point of

coming to Babylon for its celebration,and on e ntering

the presence of Nabu,and afterwards of Marduk , he

grasped the hands of the i r statues , in token of his

holding his position in accordance wi th thei r wil l } A t

the beginning of a reign this act was equivalent to a

coronation-ceremony, fo r it legali z ed the claim of the

new king to the throne of Babylon? and the renewal of

the ceremony every ye ar was symbolical of the king’s

continued enjoyment of Marduk ’s confidence and favour .

I t i s not surpris ing,therefore

,that the Babylonian scribe

,

to whose labours we owe the chronicle conce rning the

I A broken passage in the Nabonidus Chronicle (Col . IV, 11. 242 8)re cords how,

afte r the Official entrance of Cyrus into Babylon on th e 3 rd of

March eswan, on the 4th of N isan of th e newyear Cambyse s, as the son and

repre sentat ive of Cyru s , ente red the temple of E-shapa-kalama-shumu whe rehe was re ce ived by prie sts of the god Nabu, and , while o the rs b roughtoffe rings , h e took the hands of Nabfi. H e is then state d to have ente redth e temple of Esagil and to have made offe rings of lamb s b efore Bél

Marduk ). He re the text b reaks off, bu t i t probab ly de scribed howC ambyses proce eded to take the hands of Bél .

2 C f. Winckle r, Ze its. f n’

r A s sy r . , I I , p . 3 03 , Lehmann-Haupt, Sar/tafs'

awakin , pp . 44 ff. , Jastrow, Re ligion of B abylon ia a nd A ssy r ia , p . 680

and se e be low, Chap . IX.

OF THE FEAST OF THE N EW YEAR . 197

reign of N abonidus , should have recorded the years in

wh ich the ceremony did not take plac e .

I

My explanation of the eight l ines of the new chronicle

that are under d i scussion is that they contain a summary

of a number of years in which one of the principal

ceremonies of the Festival of the N ew Ye ar was not

celebrated ,in that the statue of Marduk was not carried

forth from Esagila. If the scribe had two chronicles

before him ,as has been suggested above? i t may be

conjectured that the historical information for the reigns

of Eu lbar-shakin-shum ,A e -aplu

-u sur, Nab t‘

I -makimapli,

and the k ing whose name is partly preserved in the

third l ine upon the edge Of the tablet , was identical in

the two documents ; but that some of the years were

not the same on which it was stated that the statue of

Marduk d id not go forth from his shrine. To show the

po ints of diffe rence at a glance , he summari z ed the

sequence of years from the second chronicle in the

manner we find it in the te xt as reproduced on p . 19 5 .

By means of the words ina paraké i ,“within the shrine

,

”3

I For a fu rthe r d iscu ssion of the ce remon ies and offe rings which aecompan ied the Fe st ival of the N ew Year, se e be low,

Chap . IX.

Se e p . 188 f.

3 It is not l ike ly that the two signs shou ld b e rende red as ina N isann i ,

in ( the month) N isan ,

” for the de te rminat ive is not omi t ted b e fore the

ideograms for th e months in historical ch ronicle s of this pe riod . On the

supposi tion that th e signs shou ld b e so rende re d , the summary cou ld stil lbe explaine d as re fe rring to the Fe stival of the N ewYe ar . In that case wemay take the l ines as implying that in the month N isan , in the year

198 THE CELEBRATION

which he prefixed to his summary, he noted the fact

that Marduk remaine d wi thin h is shrine in E sagi la and

did not go forth . He intended that the phrase should

be understood as repeated at the beginn ing of each of

the fol lowing seve n l ine s,in the same way as the name

of the king is supposed to be re peated from the line

above whe reve r the e nd of the line is left blank .

If this explanation of the l ines be corre ct,we may con

e lude that according to the second chronicle the Festival

of the New Ye ar was not fully ce lebrated in the fifth and

the fourteenth years of Eu lbar-shakin-shum,in the fourth

year of A e -aplu-usur

,in the first year and in three other

years of the reign of Nab -muk tu -apl i,and once in the

re ign of the king the e nd of whose name i s pre serve d as-akh]é-idd ina. The su ggestion that the write r of

ou r tablet had two chronicles be fore him,which differed

in the sequence of years they gave,implie s that the

records concerning the cele bration of the Festival of the

New Year during the e arl ier historical periods were not

always consistent with one another. A confirmation of

this view may be seen in the rel igious chronicle No .

wh i ch records that during the reign of Nabu

mukin-apli,Marduk did not go forth from E sagila in the

of su ch and su ch a king, the Fe stival of th e NewYe ar was not (or poss iblywas ) fu lly ce lebrated .

”In add i t ion to th e ab sence of th e de te rminative ,

this rende ring has the fu rthe r obj e ction of amb igu i ty . Ne ithe r of the seobj e ctions applie s to the rende ring ina para /213 i and to the e xplanationsugge sted in the text .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ZOO AE-AFLU—USUR

is omitted elsewhere upon the tab le t I after the name of

Nabfi—shum-ukin,the last k ing of the eighth dynasty of

the Kings’ List. Moreover, the name of A e -aplu-usur

occurs in a sequence,and

,if he was not a king, i t would

be hard to explain the mention O f his fourth ye ar. We

may therefore conclude that he was a Babylonian king,

who re igned afte r Eu lbar-shakin-shum and before Nabfi

muk'

tu -apl i .Now Nabu-muktu -apl i was one of the earl ier kings

of the eighth dynasty, and may have been its founder .

If he was the first king of the dynasty, as is very

probable? the re is only one place for A e—aplu-usur. He

must have be en the Elamite who re igne d for six years

in Babylon,and was reckoned by the native historians

as forming by himself the seventh dynasty . H is name

has not hitherto been recovere d,as it is broken upon

both the List ofKings and the Dynastic Chron icle. But

an examination of the traces of the name upon these

two docume nts reve als evidence in support of this

identification . For the beginning and the end of the

name are preserved by them,and the traces fit in wi th

the restoration of the name Upon both docume nts as

A e -aplu-usur. 3 I t is therefore ex tremely probable that

I Cf. Rev. , 1. 2 .

2 For fre sh evidence in support of this sugge stion, se e be low,p . 222

3 On the List of Kings the beginn ing of the name is pre se rved as

m z‘

la [ proving that i ts firs t compone nt was th e name of a god , as

is the case with the name Ae-aplu-u su r . On the Dynastic Chronicle , on the

AND HIS DATE . 20 1

we may ide ntify Ae -aplu-usur with the king of the

seventh dynasty of the Kings’ List. That he has a

Babylonian and not an Elamite name is no obj ection to

the proposed identification,for Babylon ian influence

was strong in Elam from the earl iest period . I t i s also

poss ible that he assumed the name Ae -aplu -u sur when

he ascended the Babylonian throne .

The last name in the l ines re ferring to the Festival

of the N ew Year is broken,and only the e nd of i t i s

preserve d,the traces upon the tablet reading

akb ]e-idd ina.

” From the fact that the next section of

the chronicle (Rev .,1. I ) probably de alt with the reign

of Shamash-mudamm ik,i t may be infe rred that the

name is that of one of the kings of Babylon,who

reigned in the early part of the eighth dynasty of the

Kings ’ List,and whose name s have not hithe rto been

recovered .

The seque nce of years in the four re igns that have

be en d iscussed ends upon the edge of the tablet,and we

now pass to a consideration of the text inscribed upon

its reverse . The first three sections on the reverse

consist of s ingle l ines,each of which gives the beginning

of a sentence ; and it has alre ady been suggested that

the se formed the first l ines of dupl icate sections in the

two chron icles wh ich the writer may; have had before

othe r hand , at the end of the name ar e pre se rved the last two we dge s of

the sign nsnr , which is the concluding portion of As-aplu-asar’s name ;

se e Vol . I I , p . 5 5 , n . 2 .

202 T IGLATH -PILESER IV.

him } The names in the fi rst l ine may probably b e

restored from the traces upon the table t as those of

Adad-nirar i I I I,king of A ssyria

,and Shamash

mudammik,the contemporary king of Babylon . Accord

ing to the “Synchronous H i story,Shamash-mudammik

was defeated by Adad-n irari I I I,and it is probable that

the section in the original chronicles recorded this event .

T he second l ine of the reverse gives the opening words

o f another section,which dealt with the relations of

T iglath-

pile se r IV? king of A ssyria, wi th Nabfi-shum

ukin,the last king of the eighth dynasty in the Kings

’

List. The brief duration of the latte r’s reign,which is

attested by both the Kings’ List and the Babylonian

Chronicle,renders it unl ikely that the section recorded

any extensive campaigns conducted by T iglath-pile se r

IV against Babylonia . I t is,probable

,however

,that

T iglath—pile se r had some hand in Babylonian politics

during the troubled years that followed the death of

Nabonassar,and he may have attempted to assert his

influence after Nab t‘I-shum-ukin had succe eded in placing

himself upon the throne .

I See above , p . 188 f.

2 Th is king has hithe rto been known as T iglath-

pile se r II I, bu t he now

b e come s T iglath -pileser IV in consequ ence of the re cen t discove ry of b rickinscriptions at She rghé

‘

t t re fe rring to another king who bore this name .

The new T iglath-pile se r was the grandson ofAshu r-rabi I I, and the son of

Ashu r-résh -ishi II , and he was the fathe r of Ashu n dan II ; se e Andrae ,M i tl e itu ngen a

’er D entscfien Or ient Geseitse/zaj t , No . 3 2 (Nov. ,

p . 19 ff.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

204 THE INTERREGNUM

i n Babylonian of Aplu-idd ina

,may we l l be a corruption

of Merodach-baladan ’

s own name.

The next two sections of the ch ron ic le I d e al with the

re ign of Mardu k—z ak ir- shum,which we know from the

List of Kings lasted only for one month . The name

Marduk-balatsu which occurs in the second of the

sections,may probably be restored as Marduk~balat su ~

[ikbi], and we may conj e cture with some confidence that

he was a pretende r whom Marduk- z akir-shum defeated

du ring his brie f re ign . The pre ce d ing section con

tains the name Marduk-b é l-ushe [ . and,although it

is not stated that he was in oppos ition to Marduk- z akir

shum,he may possibly have been another pretender to

the throne . That the writer of the tablet quoted more

than one l ine of this section is to be explaine d by the

fact that the end of the fi rst l ine only gave the names of

Marduk-z akir-shum and his fathe r,and so gave no hint

of the subject with which the se ction dealt . But,as two

sections of the chronicle referred to the reign of this

king,the writer added the second l ine of the first

section,in orde r to indicate the nature of its contents

and d istinguish i t from the paragraph that followed .

The seventh line of the reve rse records an inte rregnum ,

during which no king occupied the Babylonian throne .

The figure giving the numbe r of years during which the

1 R ev. , 11. 4-6.

The end of th e name shou ld possib ly b e re store d as u skd z z’

é],or

AND THE REIGN OF ERBA-MARDUK . 205

interregnum lasted is not pre served,but there i s no

doubt that we should identify this period with at least

a portion of the interregnum recorde d by the Babylon ian

Chronicle as having followed the capture and deportation

to A ssyria of Mu she z ib -Marduk,and the destruction

of Babylon by Se nnacherib in 689 B .C . A ccording to

the Babylonian Chronicle the interregnum lasted for

eight ye ars ,I while the List of Kings assigns these

eight years to S ennacherib . There is thus a confl ict

of evidence with regard to the political condit ion o f

Babylonia at this time,but there c an be no reasonable

doubt that, after the destruction of the capital,the

country was in an unsettled state and a prey to internal

dissensions . I t is probably within this period of eight

years that we must place the reign of Erba-Marduk

which is described in 11. 8 if. of the reverse .

The chronicle records that Erba-Marduk the son of

Mardu k-shakin-shum,grasped the hands of Be l and of the

son of Be l in the second year. I t has already been noted

that the ceremony of grasping the hands ofMardu k and

Nabfi at the Festival of the N ew Year was carried out

e very year,whe n possible , by the reigning Babylonian

king ; and that the first occasion on which a new king

1 On the supposition that E rba-Marduk , and possibly othe rs, occupiedthe th rone in the latte r part of the pe riod which is styled an inte rregnumby the Babylonian Chronicle (as is sugge ste d be low), we mu st assume thata smalle r numbe r of years than e ight was assigned to the inte rregnum on

ou r table t .

206 ERBA—MARDUK

performed the right was the equivalent of a coronation

ceremony,and substantiated his claim to the throne. ‘

From his statement that Erba-Marduk performed this

ceremony,i t i s clear that the compiler of the ch ronicle

belie ved that he was actual ly recogni z ed as

!

king in

Babylon . The phrase “the se cond year ” probably re fers

to the second year of Erba-Marduk’s reign , and not to

the se cond year of the interregnum ,and we may suppose

that he did not at first succeed in obtain ing recognition

of his claims at Babylon . H is eventual succe ss he

doubtless owed to the benefits which he conferred upon

the capital during the troubled period in which he

ruled .

2

The chronicle relates that certain Aramaeans,who

were se ttled in Shigiltu and Su bartu ,

3 made a raid upon

the d istrict of Babylon,and sei z ed and occupied the

cultivated lands and gardens which surrounded the cities

of Babylon and Bors ippa . But they were not left longin undisturbed possession

,for

,i n the word s of the

chron icle, Erba-Marduk“ smote them wi th the sword

I Se e above , p . 196.

2 E rba-Marduk’

s su cce ss against the Aramaeans is recorded in the tex tafte r th e statement that he grasped the hands of 3 61and of the son of Bel,

bu t it probably pre ceded i t in orde r of t ime . The two events we re re latedby the wri te r in the orde r of the re lat ive importance he at tached to them .

3 For the most comple te account of th e small states or se ttlements formedfrom tim e to time in Me sopotamia and Chaldaea byA ramaean immigran ts ,se e Stre ck , Uber a

’z’

e dlfeste Ge rt /fich e a’er A ra/mi ter , in Kl z

'

o, Bd . VI , He ft2

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

208 LAST SECTIONS OF THE CHRON ICLE .

following section , contains the end of a proper name

that cannot be ass igned to any known ruler .

A fter the interregnum the only occupants of the

Babylonian throne before the rise of the N e o -Babylonian

Empire were, so far as we know,Esarhaddon

,Shamash

shum -uk'

in,Kandalanu (A shur-bani—pal), A shur-e t il-i lani ,

and Sin-shar—ishku n .

I I t is poss ible that othe r kings

ruled both in Babylon and A ssyria dur ing the closing

years of the A ssyrian Empire , but it is unlike ly that-n]as i r should be assigned to this late period .

We may with greater probabi lity regard the name as

that of anothe r pretende r to the throne of Babylon

during the eight trouble d ye ars from 689 to 68 1 B .C .

H e may possibly have succeeded Erba-Marduk in

Babylon , or may at leas t have gain e d re cogn i t ion of his

claims in some other part of the country . The se ction

which the seventeenth line introduced may have con

tinne d the account of the same pre te nde r,or may

pos sib ly have recorde d the rise of a third aspirant to

the throne. O f the remaining two l ines upon the tablet

e ach gave the opening l ine of a section,and each

re corded the accession of a king to the throne of

Babylon,the first of these being at the same time king

o f A ssyria,but the table t re tains no legible traces o f

thei r names .

Such is the historical information wh ich i t has been

I On th e qu e stion of Sin-shar-ishkun ’

s ru le in Babylonia , se e my pape rin the Zez

’

tr . fai r Alwyn , Bd. IX, pp . 3 96 ff.

CHARACTER OF THE CHRON ICLE . 209

possible to gain from a detai led e xamination of the

conte nts of the table t,and i t wi l l have been seen that

,i n

spite of th e abbreviation of many of the sections,they

have furn ished us with some new facts of considerable

interest . We may now conside r briefly the character

and class of document from which the text upon the

tablet was derived . A t the beginning of the chapter i t

was suggested that the writer of our tablet had before

h im two chronicle s,alike in many sections

,b u t differing

in othe rs . I t was fu rther surmised that , wi shing to note

their points of d ifference,he copied o u t i n full on ly

those sections which were absent from the one copy or

were accorde d a diffe rent treatment upon it, and that,where the sections were practically identical

,he merely

quoted their opening l ines or summari z ed them . On

this the ory it wi l l b e seen that the tablet represents

the text of a single original document,portions of

which have been abbreviated . We are therefore

justified in tre ating i ts text as that of a single

chronicle,although some of its sections are not copied

out in full .

We have seen that thedocument in its present condition

records events ranging from the eleventh to the seventh

century B .C .,but when complete its text must

.

have com

prised a period which began considerably earl ier than the

eleventh century,and ende d under the Ne o-Babylonian

empire , or possibly in the Persian period . Wehave already

noted that its complete se ctions bear a strong resemblance

2 10 THE SYNCHRONOUS H ISTORY

in their style and the general nature of the ir conte nts

to the Babylonian chronicles that are al ready known.

Another document to which i t presents some striking

parallel s is the Synchronous H istory ”

of Baby lonia and

A ssyria . For instance,in the description of the friendly

relations which Marduk-shapik-z er-mati establ ish e d with

A shu r ‘ bél-kala the phraseology of the two accounts is

very s imilar I and it is probable that the conten ts of other

sections were al ike.2 On the other hand,in one instance

at least the chronicle and the Synchronou s H istory ”

preserve variant trad itions,for

,although they agree in

repre senting Adad-aplu - iddina as a man of humble

origin,they differ wi th re gard to his fathe r’s

name .

I t i s clear,therefore

,that the text of our tablet was

not derived from that of the chronicle on which the

compiler of the Synchronous H i story ” relied . I t

belongs,however

,to the same class of l iterature as the

Babylonian chronicles that have been recovered,and i ts

statements are equally worthy of acce ptance . With

regard to the theory which is here put forward to

e xplain the abbreviations in the text , i t should be

1 Compare the phrase.

tu bt zdtu ) u su -lum-ma {tri m z luA i [u r ]-6é‘

Z-k[a-Za

far ] m fi iuA i’

i’

u r z'

f-l ’ zw of ou r chronicle (Obv. , l . 6) with the paral le l passagein the Synchronou s H istory ”

(K . 440m, Obv., Col . II , 1. 27 which

reads m-u é-m su -Zu -um-ma-a ga-em[ -r a] z'

Z-l z'

a-[za-mef i i -fcu

2 C f. Obv. ,11. 1 -3 , Rev. ,

1. L , and the corre sponding se c t ions in the

Synchronous History. ”

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPTER IX .

A BABYLON IAN RELIGIOUS CHRON ICLE AND REGISTER OF

PORTENTS ; AND A POSSIBLE R ECORD OF A SOLAR ECLIPSE OF

THE ELEVENTH CENTURY B .C .

THE tablet No . 3 5 ,968I i s of a peculiar character

,and

,

so far as I am aware,no precisely s imilar document has

yet been published , though an A ssyrian copy o f a

table t is known which contains extracts from one or

more texts of the same class . While its language and

style of composition bear a general resemblance to those

of historical chronicle s,the facts i t records are of a

religious and not of a historical character. I t is true

that i t does refer to some secular events,but these are

recorded,not on their own merits

,but solely in re lation

to their effects upon the pe rformance of certain re l igious

ce remonies . A great part of the te xt is take n up by a

series of portents consisting of the appearance and

s laughter of various wi ld be as ts in the city of Babylon

or in its immediate neighbourhood . The facts are set

I Se e Vol . II , pp . 70 ff. , 1 5 7 ff.

A RELIGIOUS CHRON ICLE . 2 1 3

forth in considerable detai l wi th regard to local ity and

date,and there is no doubt that their importance fo r the

chronicler consisted in thei r rel igious s ignificance . This

is clear from the occurre nce be side them of othe r

portents,connected with the appearance of supe rnatural

beings , and with natural phenomena,such as an

exceptiona l ly severe thunderstorm and possibly a solar

ecl ipse .

I t w i l l be obvious that al l these remarkable happen ings

were regarded as signs from heave n,and portended good

or evil fortune for the state . But in the chronicle itself

no inference is d rawn from them . They took place in

a bygone age,and had no practical intere st for the

compiler of the record . Doubtless any expert augur

would have had l ittle trouble in recogn iz ing thei r

favourable or unfavourable character,if he had the

facts before him . I t is to the facts,therefore

,that the

chronicler confines himself. The tex t itself was written

in the late Babylonian period,l ike the other chronicle s

here publ ished for the first time,but the events re corded

took place in the eleventh and tenth centuries B .C .

The publ ished texts which this chronicle may at

first s ight cal l to m ind are two astronomical chron ic les,

compiled in the Seleucid era,and containing certain

astronomical observations together wi th notes on current

events of intere st . One of these chronicles,No .

refers to the thirty-eighth year of the Seleucid era

(B .C . 274 and the other,No . 3 7 , to the seventy

2 14 COMPARISON OF THE CHRON ICLE

ninth year of the same e ra (B .C . 2 3 3-2 3 2) . I Both the

t able ts, in addition to the lunar observations which it

was thei r main object to record ,2 add notes from time

to time as to the height of wate r in the Euphrates ,3

the current prices of grain, dates , sesame-seed , and

wool,

4 the state of the weather,the prevalent w inds, etc .

The first of the two tablets also gives information

conce rning public affairs,undertakings of a military or

official nature, and the state of the country.

5

But the briefe st comparison of these tablets with the

rel igious chronicle No . wi l l suffice to show that

thei r resemblance is but superficial,and that the latter

belongs to a totally different class of document . For

I The chronicle s have be en published , unde r the ir earlie r registrationnumb e rs (82 -7-4, 1 3 7 + 88-4-19 , 1 7 and Rm. IV, 3 97) by Epping and

Strassmaie r, Zar’

i s . f ur Argu s , VI , pp . 2 3 4, 2 3 6 and VII, pp . 226 ff. ,

2 3 6 ff.

2 In the ir colophons the table ts are given the ti tle warran t: 5a: g'

z'

-zz z'

-e ,

Obse rvations for the Feasts (of th e New z’

. e . lunar ob se rvations.

3 Cf. No. 1. 1 1 , and N o . 11. 2 1 , 2 5 , 3 3 f. , 3 8 , 5 2 .

4 Cf. No . 11. 28 f. , 3 5 , 42 , and No . 11. 1 1 , 2 3 , 3 6, 61 f.

5 Thus the text of N0 . in cludes note s on mil i tary expeditions inNorthe rn Babylonia (l . and th e revolt of an Egyptian garrison (l . 3 2)on jou rneys of the king and his cou rt (I. and of gove rnors and highofficials (1. 3 6 th e arrival of twen ty e lephants as tribu te from Bactria(I. 3 3 ) the pre valence of sickne ss ( l . and the occu rrence of fam ine inNorthe rn Babylon ia so that pe ople so ld the ir children into slave ry (l . 41 )the issu e of rations of grain in Babylon, Borsippa , and Cu thah , and the

col lection of flocks and he rds , e tc . , for the sustenance of the royal household(1. 3 8 f. ) the collect ion of brick and asphal t for th e repair ofEsagila (l .and the presentation of spe cial offe rings to that temple by the gove rnor forthe Fe ast of the New Moon (1. 1 1 f.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 16 COMPARISON OF THE CHRON ICLE

portents which pre ceded “ the casting down of Akkad .

”I

I t is not clear what conque st of the country is referred

to,for the reading of the king’s name is uncertain in

whose time the portents are said to have taken place .

2

The text is not in itself a chronicle,since the writer

merely enumerates the particular portents which fore

told the fal l of Akkad . I n three instances he mentions

the month in which a particular event occurred,

3 bu t

elsewhere no references to dates are given . I n fact his

sole obje ct was to enumerate within as small a Space as

possible the evil portents,which

,in his opinion

,foretold

or were connecte d with ce rtain misfortunes of Akkad .

These he undoubted ly obtained from a study of one o r

more chronicles,ve ry sim ilar to No . 3 and when

running through the texts he omitted all extraneou s

matters and me rely jotted down the portents which

struck him as s ign ificant.

The A ssyrian text is of considerable value for the

study of Babylonian bel iefs,but i t has l ittle or no

historical inte rest,and i t i s merely mentioned he re

as afford ing evidence of the existence of rel igio us

1 The first line of the colophon de scribes the contents of the table t asXL V] ! i ttr

’

it zifl a-Zi az-a—t i fa a-na nad’

éYe) mfimA /t/cadi lfl i sz is z’

ifl -m'

. I t is

probab le that Akkad is he re employe d for Northe rn Babylonia, and not in

the vague augu ral sense of the regions which bounded Babylonia on the

north .

2 I t may b e noted that the single wedge (th e de te rminative of a prope rname ) is qu ite clear in l . 1 afte r the phrase [inflat izfil Ia ina tar -ri .

3 Cf. Obv. , 11. 10, I 7 , and 22 .

WITH A LIST OF PORTENTS. 2 17

chronicles and registers of portents , very similar to the

one d iscu ssed in the present chapter. We may note,however

,that the portents it enumerates are drawn from

a far w ider range of phenomena than those of the

chronicle No . They include an instance of

utterance after death I ; the Occurrence of monstrosities ,human and anima12 ; cases of incest and unnatural

matings of animals 3 ; fruitfulness of the male4 ; unnatural

growths and appearance s of date-palms5 ; strange com

b inat ions of inanimate nature6 ; the fal l of buildings and

the outbreak of fire .

7

a} Obv. , l . I , [ cakéaa’u ”al e-m z'

-,ri - i [z , a de capitated head crie d ou t the

ve rb is i-ri-igz , not i -ra-aZZ (Boissie r ).2 Thre e of the portents consis t of a bearded woman wi th a deforme d

unde rl ip (Obv. , l . a mare wi th a horn growing from the le ft side of thehead (Obv. , l . and a fou r-horned she e p (Obv. ,

l . 4) for o the r strange ormonstrous births , cf. Obv. , l . 6 (read SE-KU L, Br . No . 7443 f. , for SE

-MU ),and R ev. , 11. 1 -4 .

3 Case s of incest with a mothe r , siste r, daughte r , and mothe r -in-law are

ment ioned (Obv. , l . and unnatu ral matings of a hu ll with an ass, a fox

with a dog, and a dog wi th a wi ld-pig (Obv. , l .

4 C f. Obv., l . 19, in Kaldu (S. Babylonia) a male dog brought forth ,

and Obv. , l . 8 , “a male palm in Babylon bore fru i t . ”

5 The portents of this class include the appearance of two t rees of t otal lyd iffe ren t spe cies growing from a date -palm ( inn l i bbi gi fimmar i R ev. l . 8 )a date -palm which bore a horn (gi i

’

imma i ’u 43627 -1174 fez -lain Rev. , 1. 10)anothe r with six heads (g. in V] éafléaa

’

é’

fl . ] z Obv. ,l . and an

unusual appearance of the heads of young date -palms (Obv. ,l. 9) cf. also ,

Obv.

,1. 10, and Rev. , 1. 7 .

6 E .g . , the appearance of honey on the so il of N ippu r (irrit imaim)N ippu r im disTpu Obv. , l . and ofsal t in Babylon (Obv. , 1. 20)cf. also Obv. , l . 7 .7 The de st ruction of beams in the hou ses of Daban was regarded as a

2 18 COMPARISON OF THE CHRON ICLE

No portents drawn from su ch phenome na occur upon

the tablet N0 . but portents of other classe s are

represented upon both documents . Thu s the appearance

of wi ld creature s in Babylon,wh ich forms so large a

subject in N0 . may be paralleled in the A ssyrian

l ist I ; and both documents refer to floods,

2 astronomical

phenomena,

3 and the appearance of evi l spirits,or

portents,in sacred place s .4 Anothe r po int of diffe rence

portent (Obv. , l . as also ou tb re aks of fire in the temple -bake ry (éi t t in u -r i ) and e lsewhe re in Esagila (cf. Obv. , ll . 17 and and in the Gateof N inib (Obv. , l .

I Mention is made o f th e appearance in the c ity of a l ion , a jackal, a wildpig from the cane -brake (Obv. , l . 1 and two classe s of white b irds (Obv .

,

l . C f. also Obv. , l . 1 2 , whe re the te xt reads UR -K I , not UR-KU

(Ica lbu ) th e appe arance of a dog among the hou se s (imz di tdt i ) cou ldne ve r have been regarded as a por tent .

2 The flood at Borsippa, when the wate r came within the wal ls of Ez ida(Rev . , 1. may b e compared with the flood at Babylon re co rded by th echronicle (Col . I I I, 1.

3 The flight of me teors or fall ing stars (kak/éabdn ifil ift u far/rag )

imiau ab éu t iifl -m’

: O bv . , l . 19 ) may be compared wi th the Ch ronicle ’

s

possib le re cord of a solar e clipse (see be low,pp . 2 3 2

4 A mix/ai l f i t”

Zimn i t i is re corde d in th e Assyrian l ist to have appearedwithin the shrine ”

(ina papa-[i i O bv. ,l . at the feast of al l the

gods at t r-ilu (Rev l . and also in the kaaba ,

“th e Gate of

Pomp,” in Esagila (R ev. , 1. The se appearances may b e comparedwi th that of an i/u mu le?! r éf l im i t/t i in the sle eping

~chambe r of N abfi,

wh ich is re corde d by the chronicle (Co l . I II, 1. I t is Of cou rsepossible that the s ign z/zi in the chronicle is me re ly a de te rminative , bu tthe refe rence to the { la A'a-r i -bu , or

“ favou rab le de i ty ,” in the pre ced ingl ine (Col . III , 1. 16) se ems to indicate that th e ( i iu ) mu f f! h

is! Ziflm tt i in

th e chronicle at any rate is to b e regarded as a mal ignant pre sence or

pe rsonal ity, and not simply as a phrase for an unfavou rable portent ; the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 20 COLLECTION O F THE DATES

on each side,and is probably one of a serie s of table ts

,

s ince the remains of a catch- l ine exist at the e nd of the

fourth column . I t is cle arly writte n , and the characters

are carefu l ly formed,but in several places its surface

has suffe red considerably . O f the fi rst column only the

end s of some twenty-five l ines are prese rved , bu t from

the words that remain it is possible to conclude that this

column resemble d the two that fol low i t, and contained

records of the same rel igiou s characte r . Of the fourth

c olumn also ve ry l ittle i s pre served,but the remains of

two dates upon it show that its re cord s were in d ire ct

c ontinu ation of those in the third column of the te xt .

Before classifying and discussing the contents of the

chronicle,i t wi l l be wel l to col lect the dates which it

contains,in order to de te rm ine as far as possible the

l imits of the pe riod wi th which i t deals . In the first

column the remains of a date are possib ly pre served in

l . 16 ; but , as only the e nd o f a k ing’s name is given ,

the que stion of his ide ntity may be postponed unti l

the dates upon the rest O f the docume nt have be en

e numerated . I n the second column no king’

s name

occurs , but we find the fol lowing series of dates . In

11. I,6, 7 , and I O we have a number of date s consisting

of the 1 1 th o f Iyyar,the month Tammu z

,the month

Ab,and the 2 5 th of Tisri al l these dates be long to the

same year, which was mentioned at the e nd of the first

column and is not afterward s re peated . I n 11. 12 and

I4 we find the l 6th of Ab and the 26th of Sivan

UPON THE CHRON ICLE . 2 2 1

mentioned,both of the seventh year, that i s to say the

seventh year of some Babylonian king, whose name was

given in the first column , but unfo rtunately the name

is not repeated in any of the dates preserved in the

second column . Similarly the event recorded in l . I 5

is dated in the month Elul of th e eleventh year ; in

1. 16 the thirteenth , fourte enth , and fifteenth years are

mentioned,which are probably a mistake of the scribe

for the twe lfth, thirteenth , and four te enth ye ars I and in

11. I 9 and 20 portents are re co rded on the I 5 th of Iyyar

and the 1 sth of Sivan of the seventeenth year . In

1. 26 the fourteenth year is me ntioned ; this probably

refers to the same reign as the dates in the rest of the

column,b u t the text is broke n , and it i s not cle ar why

this year i s ment ioned out of its proper order.

A ll the dates recorded in the third column fall wi thin

the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli , one of the early kings of

the eighth dvnasty of the Kings’ List,and very probably

its founder. I n 11. 2 and 3 portents are recorded to have

taken place in the month Iyyar, probably in one of the

first s ix years of Nabu-muktu -apli’

s reign and in II. 4,6,and I O the month N isan is refe rred to in his seventh

,

e ighth,and nineteenth years . I n 1. I I the month

Tammu z of the s ixteenth ye ar is mentioned this year

occurs out of order because the re cord for the nineteenth

year re ferred to the same subject as the two that

preceded it . I n 11. 1 3 ff. the twentieth and the nine

1 Se e be low, p . 2 3 0, n . 2 .

222 LENGTH OF THE REIGN

following years are mentioned in connection wi th the

same religious Observances . F inally, 11. 1 5 and I 9 re fer

to the twenty-fourth year and to the 2 1 5 t of Sebat in

the twenty-sixth year o f h is reign . The fourth column

is very broken,but i t i s certain th at it continued the

record of events in Nabu—muktu -apli’

s re ign,for and

5 bo th contained dates , and both stil l preserve the end

of this king’s name.

The above series of dates in the reign of Nabu-mukin

apli i s important for de termin ing the length of his reign

and his probable place among the early kings of the

dynasty to which he belongs . The List of Kings assigns

thirty-s ix years to the founder of the dynasty,but

the name of the king is wanting. We know from a

boundary-stone in the British Museum that Nabu

muktu -apl i re igned for at least twenty-two ye ars,since

h is twenty-second ye ar i s refe rred to on that monument }

Now,the gap at the beginning of the eighth dynasty of

the Kings ’ List is probably not large enough to have

contained two long reigns so that the identification of

Nabu-mukin-apl i with the founde r of the dynasty,to

whom tradition assigned thirty—s ix years , has mu ch to

be said for it . This view finds additional support in the

date s u pon our chronicle,from which we may conclude

that Nabu-mukin-apl i reigne d for at least twen ty-nine

years,and probably longer.

O f the dates that are pre served , the twenty-sixth year

I Brit . Mu s , No . Col. IV, 1. 1 1 f.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

224 PERIOD COVERED BY THE CHRON ICLE .

refer to one king,who we know from 11. I 9 and 20

re igned for at least seventeen years and,s ince the third

and fou rth columns of the chronicle are devoted to the

reign of Nabu-mukim-apl i,i t i s certain that the king of

the se cond column reigned before and not after Nabu

mukin-apl i . Moreover, from the amount of text that is

missing i t is probable that he was among Nabu-mukin

apli’

s more immediate pre decesso rs . Now the only two

kings of the fifth,s ixth and seventh dynasties of the

Kings’ List to whom this description can apply are

Eu lbar-shakin-shum ,the founder of the sixth dynasty

,

who re igned for seve nteen years according to the List of

K ings ,I and Simmash-sh ikhu

,the founder of the fifth

dynasty,who reigned for e ighte en years according to

the same authority ? Were the intere s t attaching to the

chronicle entirely of a rel igious characte r,i t would be

unnecessary to concern ourselve s further with the

identity of the missing king.

3 But,i n view of the

poss ible refe re nce to a solar eclipse in the fourteenth

1 According to th e Dynastic Chronicle he re igned only fifte en years ;se e above , p . 184, and Vol . I I, p . 54 .

2 The Dynastic Chron icle assigns h im se vente en ye ars ; see above ,p . 184, and Vol . II , p . 5 2 .

3 If the fou rte enth year mentioned in Co l . I I , I. 26, of the chronicle doesnot be long to the same re ign as the sevente enth year in 11. 19 and 20

, we

may refe r th e date s in the uppe r part of the co lumn to Simmash-sb ikha,and the fou rte enth ye ar in l . 26 to Eu lbar-shakin -shum. Bu t if the

fou rte enth year, as is more probable , is me re ly mentioned ou t of orde r andbe longs to the same sequ ence as the sevente enth year , we may re fe r all thedates prese rved in the second column to the same king.

ITS PLACE OF ORIGIN . 2 2 5

l ine of the column,the point i s o f some importance

,and

we w i ll return to it late r on in the present chapte r.

The only other line pre served by the tablet which

possibly contains a date is l . 16 of the fi rst column.

This l ine appears to give the e nd of a k ing’s name as

]mu —l ibu r .

”I N O king’s name with this ending

has ye t been recovered , so that , if the signs in que stion

are real ly part of a king’s name

,we must place him in

the gap at the beginning of the fourth dynasty of the

Kings ’ List .

The place at which the chronicle was compiled is

clearly Babylon,for most of the re l igious Observances

and porte nts that are mentioned concern that city. The

references to the Fe ast of the New Year,with the coming

forth of Be l from Esagila, the bringing of Nabu fromBors ippa, and the making of offerings in E sagila and

the othe r temples,natural ly ce ntre in the capital ? The

city is ment ioned by name in two passage s,

3 b u t i n the

case of most of the portents a particular place in the

city i s spec ified,such . as one of i ts gate s or a gate of a

temple . Thus we find references to the Gate of Traffic

or Comme rce,4 the Gate of N inib

,

5 and the Gate of

I The traces before th e sign MU upon the table t show that the restora

tion [m fl u iZi]-ia-Zi -Zmr , il]ia-l ibu r,” is imposs ible .

2 Se e be low,p . 228, n . 3 .

3 Col . I , l . 8 , and C01. II , 1. I 3 .

4 C ol . I , l . 1 3 .

5 Col . I I , 11. 7 , 19 .

226 COMPILATION OF THE CHRON ICLE .

I shtar which was near the r ive r.

I A ll these were i n

Babylon? and in other passages where“ the river ” i s

mentioned3 the reference i s clearly to the Euphrates .

References to places othe r than Babylon are few. Once

the Tigris is mentioned ,4 and once Bit -U rsag i s referred

to and described as situated in the district of N ippu r ;S

but the passages are broken and it i s not possible to tel l

in what connection the i r names occur upon the tablet .

The only other city mentioned is Kar-bél-maté‘

tt i,

6 and

its capture by the Aramae ans is only recorded because

it preve nted the king from coming to Babylon . We

may therefore conclude that the chronicle i s peculiarly

a Babylonian one,and that it was in the city of Babylon

that the events recorde d upon it were observed and

noted down . This point is also of importance in

connection with the poss ible reference to a solar eclipse,

which wi l l be d iscussed later on in this chapter.

A s the chronicle i s a rel igious one i t is natural that

1 Col . II , I. 2 1 .

2 The Mb éé'

lia, or“Gate of my Lord, men tione d in Col . III , 1. 3 ,

may possibly have formed a part of the temple of Esagila. The Gate of

Ishtar ” is mentioned in the Be rlin topographical table t, which include slists of the doors, shrine s, e tc . , of Esagila ; se e Re isne r , Szmzer i rc/z

B aby lon ia-fie Hymnm , Anhang, No .V (V. A. Th . Col. II , 1. 8 , and cf.

Homme l , Gr u na’r isr de r Geogr ap/z ie and Gesc/z zc/u‘e a

’es al ien Or ierz ts

,

I PP 3 23 1?

3 Co l . II , 11. 6, 10, C01. I II, 1. 12 .

4 Col . I , 1. I I

5 Col . I , l . 14 .

5 Col . III, 1. 7 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

22 8 THE CHRON ICLE

the manner in which the N ew Year’s Fe st iva l was

observed . In the preceding chapte r we have noted the

pol it ical Significance which attached to the king’s

participation in the festival} and we may here confin e

ou rselve s to an examination Of the formu lae employed in

th e new re l igious chronicle wi th a view to asce rtainingwhat fresh information it suppl ie s ?

O f the eight passages in th e chron icl e which refer to

the Feast of the N ew Year,

3 several mere ly note that

the king did no t go up to Babylon in N isan,that the

god Nabu d id not go thither, and that Be l we nt not

forth,and the phrases employed are very similar to

those used in the Nabonidus Chronic le t o ind icate the

non-observance of the festival .4 Some o f the passage s,

Se e above , p . 196 .

For a d iscussion of the fe stival and i ts h istory , se e j astrow, R el igion

of B aby lon ia and A ssy r ia , pp . 677 ff. (Ge rman ed it ion, Vol . I I in progre ss )Zimme rn, in the third edi tion of Schrade r’s D ie [ ( e iZi zzse/z r iflen zma

’

dos A lz‘

e Testame/z z‘

, I I , p . 3 14 f. , and h Is pape r oaby loi z ircfzen

N euj a/s est in the E er ie/rt . a’er [ ( on igl . Sore/25 . Gem/Z. o

’

e r Wz’

sre i z . ,

Bd . LVII I , pp . 126 ff. ; and Stre ck , Or ien i . Li t -Zeal , 1905 , No . 9 ,

C01. 3 75 ff.

3 Cf. C ol . I I, 11. 1 -5 , 16 f. , 18 , C 01. II I, 11. 4-6, 69 , w t , 1 3 f. , 14 f.

4 The se occu r in the se ctions deal ing with the seventh , n inth , tenthand e le venth years of the re ign of Nabonidus, and read : fam e and

a r éuN isamm a im (var . a-na ) B rioi l i KI zzZ21127 3244

4

21) Z'

ZflN aozi £2720! Babi l i K I

i t ! iZZi/cuUm) re] i rrr’

i (a ) i -sin -m e (var . isi im ze) ad i eu biz -t i! 722135151

z'

i za E -sag—g i l u E -z i—n’a Mini/51 S‘u -a r B doilz K I u B a r -I iflvar . mg?)Kx fei

rial -71m naa

’na (na) zer i -ga ll z i is

-rc -ma 52m zip-lead ; se e Col . I I , 11. 5

-8,

10-12 , 19-2 1

,2 3 ff. The reading of u -ra -a by the new chronicle definite ly

d isprove s Hagen ’

s suggested read ing of ine r t? z u r Asa/f ., I I,

pp . 2 18 ,

AN D THE FEAST OF NEW YEAR . 2 29

however,afford us additional information . Thu s the

first five l ines of the second column give us in some

detai l the procedure which took place when the festival

had not been celebrated in conseque nce of the k ing’s

absence from the capital . On this occas ion the king

arrived on the 1 1 th day of Iyyar,and he at once

proceeded to slaughter the young beasts which had

been set apart for the ce remony of the going forth of

Bél . The king thus offere d in Iyyar the sacrifice s

which he should have offe re d at the festival in the

preced ing month . Similarly,the private offe rings which

had been received for the New Year’s Fe ast were now

offered during four days in E sagil and the other temples .

The chronicle also notes the fact that unti l the day of

the offerings,that is to say during the king

’s absence,

the u r igal lu-priest poured out the l ibation and

admin istered the temple .

I

From another passage in the chron icle,which record s

the non-celebration of the Fest ival of the N ew Year

in the eighth year of Nabu—mukin-apli, we learn that

certain offerings were made on the Eve of the Fe stival ?

This would seem to mark some departu re from the

general form of procedure,for the following l ines record

that,when the same thing occurred in Nabu-mu kin-apli

’

s

nineteenth ye ar,

“th e appo inte d O ffering

” 3 was made .

I With this note of the chronicle r compare the last phrase of the fo mulae

employe d in th e Nabonidus Chronicle se e the pre ced ing note .

The phrase employed is fimemn fa. a-i e i-z‘i se e Col . III , 1. 9 .

3 The words of the chronicle are i i i/ti ? [ké’

n]u ioi'

i see Col . III , 1. 1 1 .

2 3 0 THE FEAST OF THE N EW YEAR .

A third passage of some interest occurs in the second

column of the chron i cle,where it i s stated that for thre e

consecutive years “from the thi rd day of the month

Adar unti l the month N i san the chariot of Be l wentno t forth .

”1 The contex t o f the passage se ems to imply

that on two,if no t all three

,of these ye ars Be l did go

forth during th e N ew Ye ar ’s Fe st ival? so that we must

here have a reference to some pre l iminary ceremonies

he ld during the last month of the old year . Whether

the statue of Bél was actually d rawn forth and carrie d

in proce ssion during the se preliminary rites,or remained

within his shrine whi le his chariot only was led out ,it i s not possib le to determine from the te xt .

From the pre ced ing paragraphs it wi l l have bee n seen

that one of the principal subjects dealt wi th on the

chronicle was the manner in which the Fe ast of the

New Ye ar was observed . If the sentence s having

reference to this e vent be omitted,the remainde r of the

text wil l b e seen to be e ntirely confined to the record

of portents . Though these are of considerable intere st

for the study of rel igious bel iefs of the Babylonians

they have small value from a historical point of View,

and it wi l l suffice he re to class ify them bri efly .

The majority are portents de rive d from the s laughter

Col . 11, 1. x7 .

2 The stateme nt in 1. 18 , that Bél went not fo rth in the fifte enth year,implies that in o the r years he d id go forth . The “ thre e years afte r thefloods ”

(l . 16) shou ld prope rly b e th e twe lfth , thirte e nth and fou rte enthyears , not th e thirte enth , fou rte en th and fifte enth years .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 3 2 PORTENTS FROM NATURAL PHENOMENA .

to have been connecte d with an unusual appearance

in the flesh of a victim} whi le another may possibly

have been taken from the fal l of a build ing ?

Among the portents de rived from natural phenome na

we may class the great flood in Babylon to which

reference has already been made. 3 Only two other

portents of this class are found upon the portion of the

te xt that has been prese rve d . One of these is de rived

from an exceptional thunderstorm,4 and in itself pre se nts

no point of interest. But in the otherwe may perhaps see

a re ference to an ecl ipse of the su n,and in view of the

importance which such a record,if substantiated

,would

have for Babylonian chronology, i t wil l be necessary to

discu ss the passage in question at some length .

The portent i s record e d in the second column of the

chronicle 5 in the following words On the 26th day of

the month S ivan in the seventh year the daywas turne d

to night,and fire in the midst of heaven

noted that nou j i Z'

ZuN in iooccu rs also in Col . II , 1. 7 ) o the rwise i t mightgive b e t te r sense to take i -bar om in all thre e passage s (Col . II , 11. 8 , 20,and C01. III 1. 17 ) as from ban i ,

“to b ehold ,” rathe r than from Mm ,

to capture . Bu t e lsewhe re in the tab le t mu ffi n is employed for “to

b ehold (cf. Col . I, 11. I 5 , 22 , 2 3 , and C01. III , 11. 2 , 3 , 4, 12 , 1 3 , so

hat i t is pre fe rable to rende r i—éar—r ze as sugge s ted in the translation .

T C01. I II , 1. 18 . I t is probable that the s ign UZU shou ld be h e re takenas him , fle sh,” rathe r than as fin e

, omen , portent .”

Col . II , 1. 25 .

3 Co l . II, 1. 15 se e above , p . 227 .

4 Col . I II , 1. 19 .

5 See Vol . II, p . 76, C01. II , 1. I4.

A POSSIBLE SOLAR ECLIPSE . 2 3 3

The e nd of the l ine,which contained the verb of the

second sentence,i s broken

,and the fol lowing l ine

begins wi th an entirely d iffe rent portent for the eleventh

year. There are several difficulties attaching to the

interpre tation of this passage,but they group themselves

under three heads . The first point to consider is the

meaning of the words , and we must determine at the

outse t whethe r it is probable that the passage does or

does not have reference to an ecl ipse of the sun . I t

wi ll then be necessary, afte r cons idering the identity of

the king in whose seventh year the portent i s recorded

to have taken place,to ascertain the l imits within which

his reign may probably be dated . F inally,on the

supposition that the passage in question does refer to

a solar ecl ipse,i t wi l l be necessary to e nquire if any

ecl ipse is known to have taken place whi ch would fit in

with the data already obtaine d from an independent

study o f the chronicle and its contents .

I t wi l l be noted that the word for an e clipse,amid

,

usually expressed by the composite ideogram AN -MI,

“heaven-darkness,i s not employed in the passage in

question} and only the effect of an ecl ipse of the sun

is recorded in the words “ the day was turned to n ight .”

It might therefore be urged that the cause of theI The solar e clipse of June 1 5 th , 763 D. C . , is re corded in th e Eponym

Lis t in the wo rds i-no: a réuSi /zzdnu 27 24531 77125

l ite rally, “ In the month Sivan Shamash (or the Sun ) made a heavendarkne ss , i . e . , the sun was e clipsed (see s . In t er . Wen

“. Aria,

Vol . II , pl . 5 2, 1.

2 3 4 A POSSIBLE SOLAR ECLIPSE .

portent should be traced to atmosphe ric rathe r than to

astronomical conditions . I t i s true that an exceptionally

severe thunderstorm might have darkened the heavens

sufficiently to j ustify a poet in using the language

employed in the chronicle ; but the document is not a

poetical composition,and in anothe r of the porte nts

,

which was undoubtedly caused by a thunderstorm,the

chronicler ascribes the phenomenon to the agency o f

Adad,the Storm-

god .

I The only other possibil i tywould

be to trace the cause of the portent to a dust—storm .

But anyone acquainted wi th Mesopotamia wi l l have

vivid re collections of the frequent occas ions on which

he has experienced the d iscomfort aris ing from storms

of this nature,and to an inhabitant of the country even

a severe du st-storm would have l ittle of novelty about it .

In fact,there is small probabil ity that so common an

occurrence would have been regarded as a special Sign

from he aven,and incorporate d in a regis te r of portents

alongside of such wonderful happe nings as the visible

appearance o f d ivine beings and the slaughte r of w i ld

beasts in the streets of Babylon .

We are thus forced to accept the occurrence of a

solar e cl ipse as the most probable explanation of the

phrase that the day was tu rned to night 2 We can we l l

I Se e Vol . I I , p . 85 , C01. I II, 1. 19 .

2 Of cou rse the absence of th e actu al word for an e clipse from the passagein th e chron ic le rende rs the obje ction, that the tu rn ing of day into n ightmu st have be e n du e to othe r than astronomical condit ions, incapable of

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 3 6 DATE OF THE PORTENT .

the Kings’ List, who came to the throne within l i ttle

more than twenty or twenty-one years o f one another}

But while, with the help of the List of Kings and the

Dynastic Chronicle,i t is possible to fix the period which

separated the re igns o f these two kings, i t is impossible

to fix their date s with absolute accuracy in the Baby

lonian chronological scheme . A large gap occurs in

the List of Kings , in the portion of the text occupie d by

the rulers of the eighth dynasty or group of kings,and

the summary at the end of this group omits to give the

number of years for i ts total duration . I t thus happens

that the available chronological data allow of consider

able play in the arrangement of the dates for the

dynasties before the gap in the l ist . To what extent

this uncertainty affects the date to b e assigned to the

portent under discuss ion may be seen from the fol lowing

table,which gives the se venth ye ar in the reigns of

Simmash-shikhu and of Eu lbar-shakin-shum according

to the principal schemes of Babylonian chronology

published during the last few years ?

the b eginning of th e third column , which are m issing from the chron icle ,may possibly have cove red a longe r pe riod than that separating th e re ignsof Simmash-shikhu and Nab -mukin-apl i . In that case the re are two

kings in the pre ced ing dynasty, one of whom re igned for sevente en and

th e othe r for twen tyo two years, with whom th e unknown king of the

chron icle might be identifie d . Bu t , as already s tated , the probabilitie s arein favou r of h is identification with a king not earl ie r than Simmash -shikhu .

I Se e the table printed on p . 184 ; cf. also p. 185 .

See Rost , M i z‘te i l . der Vom’

erasiat . Gesellsc/zafl II , p . 26 f. , and

Or ient . L iz‘

.-Ze it . , III , No . 6, Col . z 16 f. Sayce , E ar ly Israel , p . 282

DATE OF THE PORTENT . 2 3 7

7 th ye ar of 7 th y e ar of E u lbar

Simmash-sh ikhu . shakin-Shum.

Ros t ( 1897 ) 1 105 B . C . 1 083

( 1900) 103 0 10 16

Sayce ( 1899) 1089 1068

Homme l ( 1886) 1074 105 3

( 1898 ) 103 6 1014

IVinckle r (1892 ) 107 3 105 3

( 1894) 103 1 ( 10 1 1 )Roge rs ( 1900 ) 1068 1047

De litz sch ( 189 1 ) 1043 1022

Pe ise r ( 189 1 ) 1041 1020

N ieb uhr ( 1 896) 103 0 1007

Marqu art ( 1899 ) 97817 (9 56 )

Lehmann-Haupt ( 1898 ) 974 95 3

( 1903 ) 975 954

The table wi l l suffice to Show that,if the u nknown

king be identified with either Simmash -sh i‘

khu or

Eu lbar-Shakin-shum,an eclipse of the e leve nth century

would be more probable than one of the twe lfth or of

the tenth centu ry B .C . A t least, it would agre e more

nearly with the greater number of the published

chronological schemes .

Mr. P . H . Cowe l l o f the Royal Observatory at

Gre enwi ch,who has devote d much time to the study of

the recorde d solar eclipses of antiquity,in connection

Homme l , Gese/z ie/z te , p . 470 f. , and Hastings’ D iet . of tb e B iole , Vol . I ,

p . 228 W inckle r, A ltor ienm/iso/t e For seh zerzgen , I , p . 1 3 2 , and Gesekieli te ,

p . 99 f. ; Roge rs , History , I , p . 3 44 f. De l itz sch and Mu rdte r , Geso/z ielz te ,

Ub e rsich t (p . Pe ise r, Zei ts . fu r A rg on , VI , p . 269 ; N iebuhr,C/z rozzologie , p . 68 ; Marquart , P/z i lologu s, Supplbd . VII , p . 65 5 ; and

Lehmann—Haupt , Zwei Hauptprobleme , Tab . IV, and B e itmge 2mralten

Gescfz i rfite (A7 10), III , pp . 1 3 5 ff. , 163 . Maspe ro doe s no t attempt toassign date s to the Babylonian kings of this pe riod .

2 3 8 ASTRONOMICAL INTERPRETATION

wi th his attempt to ascertain the secular accelerat ion of

the earth ’s orbital motion , has very kindly inte rested

himself in the passage under d iscussion . He is of

opinion that there is l ittle doubt that the words of the

text describe the effects of a total and not a partial

ecl ipse of the sun,and that the “fire in the midst of

heaven ” refe rs to the appearance of the sun ’s corona

during the period of total ity. We have already see n

that the re l ig ious chronicle was pecul iarly a Babylonian

one,and there i s evidence that the events recorded in

i t were observed and noted down in the city of Babylon

itse lf } I t is clear,therefore

,that we must seek for an

ecl ipse within the period indicated by the chronicle,

which was total at Babylon .

The eclipse which Mr. Cowel l would identify with the

passage in the chronicle is that of July 3 I s t , 1063 B .C .

I t is true that the present tables of the Moon do not

make this ecl ipse total at Babylon,but the corrections

to the secular variations o f the Moon ’s mean motion

and node, pre viously deduced by Mr. Cowell from the

re cords of four other ancient ecl ipses,have the effect of

mak ing the ecl ipse of 106 3 B .C . total at Babylon ? The

obvious objection to the acceptance of this identification

is the equation S ivan 26th= J u ly 3 I st . For it would

I Se e above , p . 225 .

Se e Mr . Cowe ll ’s pape rs in Mant le/y N otices of Vol . LXVpp 86 1 ff. , and T/ze Observatory, N o . 3 63 f. , pp. 420 ff. , 454 ; cf.

also Natu r e , Vol . LXXIV (May, p . 1 1 ff.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

240 CONCLUSION .

A stronomy,therefore

,speaks wi th no certain voice

with regard to the e cl ipse from which the portent may

have been derived,the element of uncertainty being

largely due to the fact that the k ing ’s name is missing

in whose seventh year it i s recorded to have taken place .

In these circumstances we cannot at present make any

u se of the record for the purposes of Babylonian

chronology. If, however, it should happen in the future

that the king’s name Shou ld be recovered,e ither upon

the missing portion of the chronicle,or by means of a

dupl icate inscription,i t m ight be possible wi th the aid

of the astronomers to use his seventh year as a fixed

point i n the Babylonian chronological scheme.

I N D E X .

ABESIIU’

,king Of Babylon ; trad i

t ions in chronicle conce rning, 5 , 9h is war wi th Iluma-i lu , 72 , 93 f. ,147 pe riod of th e war, 94, 97 f.

date -formu lae of, 16 1 , 163 lengthof the re ign of, 95 , 17 3 forms ofthe name of

, 72 , n . 1 ; in tableof contemporaneous ru le rs, 1 3 6.

ABISHI , in chronicle of early kings,59 ; se e ABESHU ’

.

ABRAHAM, contemporary of Amraphe l, 2 2 me thods of deducingda te of, 23 f. inte rval be twe enh is cal l and the Exodus , 2 3 ff.

Anti IIAEBA, table ts from, 1 58 f.

ABYDEN US, re fe rre d to , 9 1 .

ADAD , h is throne and image madeby Hammu rabi , 17 1 ; h is templeat Ashu r, 80 porte n t from,

2 3 4 .

A I)A I>~APLU -IDD INA, king of Babylon ; h is

!

origin, 192 ; varianttradit ions wi th regard to h is

parentage , 2 10 ; invas ion of the

Su tit du ring h is re ign, 192 ; the

Sun-t emple at Sippar wre ckeddu ring h is re ign , 193 ; his policyaffecte d by the invasion of the

Su tft , 19 3 ; his re lations wi thAshu r-bél-kala, 193 ; h is ope rat ions at t r-ilu , 192 ; h is com

ple tion of shrine s in honou r ofMarduk , 192 ; his succe ssors on

the throne , 193 .

ADAD-N IKAR I II I, king ofAssyriah is de feat byShamash-Inudammik ,

202 .

A-I) ARA KALAMA, king of theCountry of the Sea ; reading ofth e name of, 1 54 f. variant formof the name of, 96, n . 2 ; lengthof h is re ign in Kings’ List , 96 ; intable of contemporaneous ru le rs,1 3 7 f.

ADASI , fathe r of Bél-ibni, 66.

ADON IS, cu lt of, at Babylon, 64,note .

ADUMETASH , Kassi te king of Babylon ; re ad ing of th e name of,102 , n. 3 ; length of h is re ig n inKings’ List , 102 in table of contemporaneou s ru le rs , 1 3 7 .

AE-AFLU -Usu R , possibly th e kingof the Seventh Dynasty of theKings ’ List , 184 f. ; h is pe riod ,199 f. ; traces of his name inthe Kings’ List and the DynasticChronicle , his name , 201re cord conce rning h is ce lebrat ionof the Feas t of the New Year,195, I 97 f.

AGADE, reduction in the dates ofthe e arly kings of

, 1 7 ; Sargonbe sieged in , 43 ff. ; spoi l of Subartu brought into, 46 improvements carried ou t by Sargon at, .

47 ff. transport of diorite fromMagan to, 5 2 se e also SARGON .

AGATHIAS, Babylonian original ofh is s tory conce rning Be leous andBe le taras

,62 ff.

242

AGUM, Kassite ru le r, the son of

Bitiliash ,traditions conce rn ing,

5 , 5 7 , 59 ; his conqu e sts in th e

Country of th e Sea, 74, 101 , 108 ;reason for h is conque sts, 1 5 2 f. ;discussion of ident ification wi thAgum I , 104 f. 1 1 1 ; d iscu ss ionof identificat ion with Agum I I ,

1 1 1 f. ; in tab le ofcontemporaneou sru le rs, 1 3 7 f.

AGUM I , Kass ite king of Babylonlength of his re ign in Kings’ List ,102 ; d iscu ssion of identificationwi thAgu ru of th e chron icle , 104 f. ,1 1 1 in table of contemporane ou sru le rs , 1 3 7 .

AGUM II , Kassite king of Babylonrecove red image s from the H itti te s ,7 3 , 149 e xtent of dominion of,108 , 1 12 ; t itle s of, 1 12 ; d iscuss ionof identificat ion wi th Agum of th e

chron icle , 1 1 1 f. ° in table of con

temporane ou s ru le rs, 1 3 7 .AHA ,

tomb of, 2 1 .

A IBUR-SHABU , the sacred road inBabylon , 196 .

AKKAD ,in ti tle s of Agu rn II ,

1 12 , n . 2 ; ravage d by t he Sumin Adad aplu

-iddina’s re ign ,

table t of porten ts pre ced ing the

fal l of, 2 1 5 fl'

.

AKKAD IAN ,name for the Semi tic

Babylonian language , 180, 11. 3 .

AKK I , the irrigator , 63 .

AKUR-UL~ANA ,king of the Country

of the Sea ; reading of the name

of, 1 54 f. ; varian t form of name

of, 96, n . 3 ; length of h is re ignin Kings’ List , in table of

contemporaneou s ru le rs , 1 3 7 f.ALEXANDER , the Great ; Chaldean

embassy to , 65 , n . 1 ; his re ign ine luded in sys tem of Be rossu s ,astronomical obse rvations to the

time of, 92 .

ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR, quotedby Agathias, 63 , n. 1 .

INDEX .

ALMAN , ru led by Agum I I, 1 12 ,n . 2 .

ALORUS, in Eusebius, 9 1 .

AMENHETEP II I, contemporariesof, 78 .

AMENHETEP IV,date of, 18 f. ;

con temporar ie s of, 78 .

AMM I D ITANA,king of Babylon ;

length of re ign of, 95° date

formu lae of, 161 , 164,in table of contemporaneousru le rs, 1 3 6

AMM I-ZADUGA, king of Babylon ;de feated Elamite king, 144

°

length of re ign of, 84, n . 2 , 951 72 f. ; date formu lae of, 161 f.

164, 172 : in tab le of contemporaneou s ru le rs , 1 3 6.

AMRAPHEI , h is ident ification withHammu rab i , origin of nameof

,2 2 .

AN -AM , king of Ere ch , 7 1 , note .

ANU , invoked by U la-Burariash ,

1 5 1 , 11. 1 h is temple at Ashu r, 80 .

AP IL-SIN , king of Babylon lengthof re ign of, 95 date -formu lae of,160, 162 , 177 f. , 178 ; in table ofcontemporaneou s ru le rs , 1 3 6.

APIRAK , its conqu e s t byNaréim-Sin,

50 f. captu re of its gove rnor, 5 1 .

ARAB DYNASTY, of Be rossus, 9 1 .

ARAB -SIN , king of Larsa ; b rothe rof Rim-Sin, 68 , n . 2 ; in table ofcontemporaneou s ru le rs, 1 3 6.

ARAMAEANS, the ir warswith Nabumukim-apli , 22 7 ; the ir captureof Kar be l matati , 226 f. ; the irraid on district of Babylon and

Borsippa afte r 689 B . C . , 206 ;the ir expu lsion by Erba-Marduk ,206 f.

AR ISTOTLE , 92 .

ASH IR , in title s of early Assyrianru le rs , 1 18 ; u pon the Cappadoc ian table ts , 140 .

ASHIR-N IRARI I,Assyrian prie st

king ; rebu ilt city—wal l of Ashu r,141 in table of contemporaneous ru le rs, 1 3 6, 141 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

244 INDEX .

63 ; Babylonian form of th e story,64 f. to be iden tified wi th Be letaras , 65 ; probably an earlyAssyrian king , 66 f. reading of

the name of 68 , note ; d iscuss ionof ident ification with Bél ~ibni ,son of Adasi , 66 f. his re lationsto Babylon , 142 in tab le of con

temporaneous ru le rs , 1 3 6, 141 .

BBL-IBN I , son ofAdasi , 66 f.BEL-IBN I , Babylonian king , 67 ,n . 1 .

BBL-KAB I , fathe r of Shamshi-Adad ,1 2 1 f. , 140 ; poss ible identificat ion with Igu r-kapkapu , 1 27 ,n . 2 ; in tab le of con tempo raneousru le rs, 1 3 6.

BBL-NADIN -APLI , king of Babylonboundary-s tone dated in re ign of,89 , 1 3 3 , n . 3

-SHEMRA, fathe r of AN -AM ,

7 1 , note .

BELEOUS, story in Agathias con

ce rning, 63 ff. ; original Babylonian tradition conce rn ing , 64 f. ;to b e identified wi th U ra-imitti

,

65 d iscu ssion of name , 65 f.

BELEPHANTES, chief of embassy toA lexande r, 65 , n . 1 .

BELETARAS, story in Agathias conce rning, 63 ff. supposed con

fusion with Sargon of Agade ,6 3 f. ; original Babylonian tradit ion conce rning, 64 f. ; to b e

identified with Bel -ibni , 65 ;d iscussion of name , 65 f.

BEL ITANAS, his tomb at Babylon,64 , note .

BELTIS, the lady of Bél , 172 .

BEROSSUS, problems conce rning hissys tem of chronology, 79, 85 , 9 3 .

105 f. , 1 10, n . 1 ; the dynastie sof, 90 f. ; length of his h istoricalpe riod , 9 1 ; length of his thirddynasty, 93 , note ; dates of his

sixth and seventh dynastie s, 92 ,n . 3 ; me thod of harmoniz ing hissystem with the Babyloniandynasties , 1 13 f. , 1 3 4 ; probab lesolu tion of the problem, 1 14.

B IBLICAL CHRONOLOGY, e ffe cts o f

new data upon , 2 2 ff.B ION , q uoted byAgathias, 63 , n . I .

B iT -ALEADA, portent in, 2 19 .

BIT ~IAK IN , in Sou the rn Babylon ia,203 , n . 1 .

B IT ILIASH , Kassi te ru le r traditionsconce rning, 5 bro the r of UlamBu r (i )ash , 59, 74, 101 , 1 5 1 f.fathe r of Agum , 59 , 74, 10 1 d is

cu ssion of ident ificat ion withBi ti l iash i of the Kings’ List , 104f.1 1 1 in table of contemporaneou sru le rs , 1 3 7 f.

B IT ILIASH I , Kassite king of Babylon length of his re ign in Kings’List , 102 discussion of ident ifica

t ion with Bi tiliash , the Kassite , ”104 f. , 1 1 1 in tab le of con temporaneous ru le rs , 1 3 7 .

B iT -URSAG , in distric t of Nippu r,2 26 .

BOGHAZ Kor, site of the H it titecapital , 148 , n . 1 .

BORSIPPA , i ts part in th e ce lebrationo f the Feast of the New Year,195 ; flood at , 2 18 , n . 2 ; i ts d ist rie t raided by Aramaeans afte r689 B . C . ,

206 ; in the Se leu cide ra, 2 14, n . 5 .

BURNA ~BURAR IASH , fathe r of U laBurariash , 1 5 1 f. variant form ofname , 1 52 poss ib ly a Kassi techie f in Elam , 1 5 2 possib lyBu rna-Buriash I, 1 13 in tab le of

contemporaneou s ru le rs, 15 2 .

BURNA-BUR IASH , contemporary ofAmenhe tep IV, 18 ; inte rval betwe en him and Hammu rabi , 1 2 ,n . 1 , 18 f. , 8 7 ; e ffe cts of new

information upon date of, r9 .

INDEX .

CALL ISTHENES, refe rred to, 92 .

CAMBYSES, his par tic ipation in theFeast of th e NewYearatBabylon,196, n . I .

CAPPADOC IA ,H it tite invas ion pos

sibly from , 148 ,n . 1 ; tab le ts from ,

140, n . 3 .

CHALDEAN DYNASTY, of Be rossus,9 1 .

CHRON ICLE , of Sargon and NaramSin, 2 7 ff. analysis of, 3 1 com

pared w ith the Omens,” 3 3 ff.re su lts of th e comparison , 5 3 ;associat ion of i ts tex ts with“ Omens ,” 54 f. one tab le t of ase rie s , 54 conce rning o the r earlykings, 54 ff. continu ation of,

56 ff.CHRON ICLE ,

new Babylonian ,186 ff. characte r of, 209 ; com

pared to Synchronous H istory ,”2 10.

CHRON ICLE , new re ligiou s, 2 12 ff.compared with othe r texts, 2 1 3 ff. ,date s u pon ,

2 20 ff.

CHRON ICLES, Hebrew Books of,

50, 62 .

CHRON ICLES, as sou rce s of Babylonian history, 1 historical valu eof the new chronicle s , 4 ff. credib ility of those conce rning earlykings , 5 ff. confirmation of the irstatemen ts , 7 f.CHRONOLOGY . systems of Babylonian, 8 1 ff.

°

e fi e c ts of new dataupon e ar lyBabylonian chronology,IO ii . , upon Egyptian chronology,18 ff. upon Bib l ical chronology ,22 ff.

COMMER CE , Gate of, 2 2 5 .

COUNTRY OF THE SEA , on the

shore s of the Pe rs ian Gu lf, 10 ;

traditions conce rning early kingsof, 5 7 ru le d by the se conddynasty of the Kings’ List , 10 ;

re lat ions of its kings to Babylon,70 ff. , 1 3 5 , 145 ff. table of earlykings of, 1 3 6 f. encroachments

245

from the Kassite s u pon , 1 50 i ts

conq u e st by th e Kassite s, 8 , 7 3 f. ,10 1 ff. i ts re lations wi th the late rKassi te s , 1 5 3 ; characte ristics o f,1 5 3 , 1 5 5 f. ; national ity of the

e arly kings of, 1 5 3 ff. ; Sume r iansu rvivals in, I 56 ; Sin1mash~

sh ikh u from ,1 94.

CUTHAH , bu ilding ope rations of

Dungi at , 60 ; in the Se l eu cide ra, 2 14, n . 5 .

CYPR US, a llege d occupation bySargon o fAgade , 3 6 new infor

mation on th e su bj e ct, 3 7 f.

CYR US, his en trance into Babylon ,

196, n . 1 .

DABAN , portent in , 2 17 , n . 7 , 2 19 .

DAM IK IL ISHU , king of Isin , r e

stored the wal l of Isin , 98, n . 2 ,

tab le t from Sippar dated in h is

re ign , 99 , note , 109 .

DAMK I-IL ISHU ,king of the Coun try

of the Sea ; length of h is re ign inKings’ List , 96 d iscu ssion of

name of, 1 5 5 tab le t wronglyassigned to re ign of, 98 f. , n . 2 ,

109 ; in table of contemporaneousru le rs, 1 3 6 1 3 8

DATE-FORMULAE, system of t imereckoning repre sente d by , 174 ff.provisional fo rmu lae , 1 75 , 178 ;acce ssion -formu lae

,176 unofficial

formu lae , 177 f. inconven ience sof the sys tem O f, 18 1 f. abandonment of, 182 .

DATE-L ISTS, of the F irs t DynastyofBabylon ; lists previouslyknown,1 5 8 f. , 160 ff. new date -list , 1 59 ,161 f. comparative tab le of, 162 ff.

DELTA , of the N i le , 2 1 .

DELUGE , kings afte r th e , 90 f.D ILBAT

,portent in , 2 19.

D I LMUN , in the Pe rsian Gu lf, 3 7conqu e red bySargon ofAgade , 3 7

D IODORUS, refe rre d to, 65 , n . I .

246

DUN GI , traditions in new chronicleconce rning, 5 , 9 , 56, 58 ; h is bu ilding

-Ope rations , 60 ; his care for

E ridu , 60 f. ; his plunde ring of

Babylon and Esagila, 60 ff. in

t e rval b e twe e n him and SargonO fAgade , I 6 , 6 1 ; his pe riod , 168 ,

h;iS pol icy, 60 ff. °

,legend of,

60, n . 2 .

DU R EA , in the Country of the Sea ;i ts conqu e st by Agum , 1 3 7 , 1 5 3 .

D UR 11.U , ope rat ions of Adad aplu~

iddina at , 192° porten t in , 2 18 ,

n . 4, 2 19 .

DYNAST IC CHRON ICLE, th e earlydynastie s of, 17 ; re storation of

fragments of, 182 ; compared withKings’ List, 183 ff.

°

, fragmen t ofs imilar dynastic chronicle , 182 f.

D I N AST I Es , of the Kings ’ List, 76 if.1 3 5 , 1 3 6 f. of Be rossu s, 90 ff.

of Mane tho,20 .

EA, invoked by U la-Burariash , 1 5 1 ,n . I .

EA-GAM IL , king of the Country of

th e Sea, 70, 107 t1ad itions con ~

ce rning, 59 his invasion ofElam ,

7 3 f. , 101,1 50 f. ; h is defeat by

Ulam 8 , 74, 10 1 , 15 1length of h is re ign in Kings’ List,96 ; d iscu ssion of name of, 1 5 5 ;in tab le of contemporane ou sru le rs, 1 3 7 f.

EA-MUKi N o zER , king of Babylon ;length of re ign of, 184 f.

EAST , the Sea in the , 3 5 name f or

th e Pe rsian Gu lf, 3 7 ; crossed bySargon of Agade , 3 5 , 3 6 ff.

EBABBARA , the t emple of the Sun

god at Sippar, 193° wre cked by

th e Su tu in Adad ~aplu-1ddina

’

s

re ign,193

° work of Simmash

shikhu and Eu lbar-shakin-shumat , 19 3 , n . 1 ; i ts misfortunesunde r Kashshfi-nadin-akhi, 193 ,

INDEX .

n . 1 ; i ts restoration by Nabit-apluiddina, 193 , n . 1 , re cords con

ce rning in Babyloriian Chronicle ,2 15 , n . I .

EB ISHUM , se e ABEsHU’.

ECL I PSE , of the sun in th e e leventhcentu ry B .C . ,

possible re cord of,

E -GAL-MAKH, th e temple of Isin,

167 .

EGYPT , Semi tic e lements in cu l tu reof, 20 f. ; pe riod of e arly Semiticinil uence upon , 2 1 e ffe cts of

n ew data upon chronology of,1 8 ff. in Se le u cid e ra, 2 14, n . 5 .

E -KHARSAG-KURKURA, temple of

Ashu r at Ashu r , 1 19 ; i ts earlyhistoryaccord ing to Shalmane se r Iand Esarhaddon , 1 19 ff.

EKUR IGIGAL , work of Simmash

shikhu in, 194.

EKUR-U 1.-ANA , se e AKUR -UL-ANA .

E LAM , i ts conqu est by Sargon ,2 7 ,

3 7 re lations of Hammu rab iwi th , 165 ff. ; its invasion byEa-gamil , 7 3 f. , 10 1, 1 3 7, 1 50 f. ;in table of early ru le rs , 1 3 6 f.

EM UTBAL , i ts conqu est by Hammu s

rab i, 143 ; new ment ion of in

date -list , 165 f.ENL IL, h is temple at N ippu r, 1 1 ,

n . 1 61 .

EN I ITARZI , pate si of Shirpu rla ;tab le ts from the t ime of, 182 , n . 1 .

E PONYM LISTS, 3 , 2 3 3 .

ERBA MARDUK , ancestor of Me rodach Baladan I II , 203 .

ERB A MARDUK , king of Babylon ,

z o5 f. pe riod of re ign of, 205°

h is succe ss against the Ara

macau s , 206 f. ; re stored the

worship of Marduk at Babylon ,

207° re cogni t ion of h is claims

in Babylon, 206 , extent of hisau thority , 207

° possib le su c

cessor of, 208 .

EREA-SIN , fathe rshikhu , 194.

of Simmash

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

248

GEN ESIS, fou rte enth chap te r of, 22 .

GULK ISIIAR , king of the Countryof th e Sea ; read ing of name of,I 54 f. length of re ign in Kings’L l St , 96 ti t le borne by, 108 ; h isdate accord ing to boundary-s toneof Bel -nadin -apl i

’

s re ign , 89 f. ,1 3 3 f. , n . 3 ; in tab le of con ~

temporaneou s ru le rs, 1 3 7 f.GUTI , land of

, 1 12 , n . 2 .

HAMMURAB I , king of Babylon ;tradit ions in chron icle conce rning,5 , 9 , 5 7 , 5 8 ; Nabon idus’ e stimateof date of, 12 , 1

, 1 3 2 f. in

publishe d chronological scheme s,

86 f. ; new informat ion conce rningdate of, 19 f. , 88 , 1 3 2 ; re forms

of, 165 ; h is early re lations to

Emu tbal , 165 ; his re lations to

Isin , 166 f. his war with RimSin , 68 f. , 143 ; his captu re of

Ur and Larsa, 69 ; e ffe c t of h is

victorie s ove r Elam , 45 stationedtroops in Assyria, 142 ; length of

re ign of, 95 ; re fe rences to ci tie sin h is Code of Laws, 167 , n . 1

history of Sippar in h is re ign ,

1 70 ; b u ildings o f, 12 , n . 1 , 170 f.

canals cu t by, 17 1 his works of

a r e l igiou s characte r , 1 7 1 f. ; h isregu lation of the calendar , 18 1 ;image s of, 17 1 h is c losing years,1 70 ; date -formu lae of, 9 , 160 ff. ,165 ff. in tab le of con tempora

neou s ru le rs, 1 3 6 .

HAMMURAB I KHEGALLU CANAL ,date of construc tl on of

,1 7 1 .

HAMMURAB I N UKHUSH N ISH ICANAL , date of constru cti on of,1 7 1 in date-formu la, 165 .

HEBREW H ISTO RY , i ts earl iest contact with Babylonia, 2 2.

HEZEK IAH , king of Judah ; em o

bassy of Me rodach ~baladan to,

203 .

INDEX .

II IT ’

I‘

IT ES, the ir invasion ofnorthe rnBabylonia in the re ign of Samsu

d itana: 5 7 1 59 1 72 £3 1 3 7 9 I 4S

e ffe cts of the invasion , 7 3 , 149 f.

the ir captu re of Babylon possib lyre fe r red to b y Gaddash ,

149, n . 2 .

IB IK-ADAD , captu red Rab iku , 169 .

IBIK-ISIITAR , king of Malgi , 168 ,n . 2 ; name po ss ib ly to b e re adas Ib ik -Adad , 169 , note .

IB I -SIN ,king of Ur association of

h is e xploi ts with omens , 5 5 , n . 2 .

IGI -KHARSAGGA ,fortress of, 1 7 1 .

IGUR-KAPKAPU , 1 27 , n . 2 .

IK UNUM , Assyrian prie st - king ;re bu il t the ci ty-wal l of Ashu r,14 1 in tab le of contemporaneousru le rs, 1 3 6.

ILUMA-ILA, se e I I UMA

-ILU .

ILU MA-ILU,king of th e Country of

the Se a, 70 t radit ions in chronicleconce rn ing, 5 , 59 ; h is war withSamsu -iluna , 70 f. , 9 3 f. , 147his war with Abéshu ’

, 72 , 93 f. ,147 ; pe i iod of re ign of, 94 ;date s of h i s campaigns , 97 ff. ;le ngth of h is re ign in Kings’ List ,96 f. discu ss ion of name of, 1 5 5 ;to b e identified wi th I luma-ila,

7 1 , note ; in table of contemporaneou s ru le rs, 1 3 6, 1 3 8 .

ILU -SHUMA , Assyrian priest -king,contemporary of Su -ab u , king of

Babylon , 1 16 ff. ; t rad itions inchron icle conce rning, 5 , 5 7 f. ;his war with Su -ab u , 67 f. , 141 f.in inscriptions from She rgé

‘

i t , 9 ,1 18 ff. forme r m isread ing of the

name of, 1 18 , n . 2 the fathe r o fI r ishu , 1 18 , 1 2 1 f. , 140 ; his

ident ification with I lu -shfima of

th e chronicle , 126 , 128 f. , 1 3 1 ;t itle s of, 1 29 , n . 1 ; date o f, 126,1 3 1 in tab le of contemporaneou sru le rs, 1 3 6.

INDEX .

IR ISHU ,Assyrian prie st-king ; son

of I lu -sh irma, 12 1 f. rebu il t the

temple of A shu r , 1 2 1 ff. chronological notice s conce rn ing, 1 2 1 ff.

,

140 ; date of, 126, 1 3 1 ; in tab leof contemporane ou s ru le rs , 1 3 6.

IR ISHUM ,var ian t form of the name

of Irishu 2 2 .

ISAIAH , book of, 203 .

ISIN , dynasty of, 1 1 f.,n . 3 , 168 ,

n . 1 date of its captu re by RimSin , 166 ff.

ISHK IBAL , k ing of th e Country ofthe Sea ; length of his re ign inKings ’ Lis t , 96 ; read ing of nameof

,1 54 f. in tab le of contem

porane ou s ru le rs, 1 3 7 f.

ISHME -DAGAN , Assyrian prie stking ; fathe r of Shamshi-Adad ,1 27 in tab le of contemporaneou sru le rs , 1 3 6 .

ISHME-DAGAN , Assyrian priestking ; fath e r of Ashir-mi rari I ,14 1 in tab le of contemporaneou sru le rs , 1 3 6, 141 .

ISHTAR , aide d Sargon of Agade ,

3 1 , 3 2 , 3 5 ,appealed to by rebe ls

agains t Sargon of Agade , 43 f. ;he r throne and image made byHammu rabi, 1 7 1 ° portent from,

2 3 1 , n . 6 ; Gate of, 2 25 f.

ISRAEL , k ings of, 24.

ISRAEL ITES, in Egypt , 24.

ITTI -IL I -N IB I , king of the Countryof the Se a length of his re ign inKings ’ Lis t, 96 ; d iscussion of

name of, 15 5 ; in tab le of con

temporane ou s ru le rs, 1 3 6 1 3 8

IZI -SAMU -ABUM ,1 16, n . I .

IZI -SUMU -ABUM , 1 16 , n . I .

JUDAH , kings of, 24.

KALEU , portent in, 2 17 , n . 4, 2 19 ;possible geographical te rm for ,192 , n. 1 .

KANDALAN U , Ashu r-bani -pal , hisru le in Babylon , 208 .

249

KAR -BEL-MATAT I , captu red by theAramaeans , 226, 2 2 7 .

KAsALLA , its conqu e s t by Sargonof Agade , 3 1 , 3 3 , 4 1 f.

KASHSHU ,in title of Agum I I ,

1 12 , n . 2 .

KASHSHU-NAD IN -AKH I , king of

Babylon leng th of re ign of, 184

m isfo rtune s of th e Sun ~temple at

Sippar du ring the re ign of, 193 ,n . 1 .

KASHTUB ILA ,ofKasal la , conqu e redby Sargon of Agade , 41 f .

KASSITE DYNASTY , followe d the

First Dynasty of Babylon , 10 ;

date of, 19 , 79 ff.KASSITES, th e i r incu rs ion in Samsuilana ’

s re ign , 148 the ir conqu e stof Babylon , 1 3 7 , 149 f. th e irconqu e s t of the Country of the

Sea, 7 3 f. , 10 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 3 7 , 1 5 1 ; ex

tent of th e ir au thori ty in sou the rnBabylonia , 1 5 2 f. the i r systemof time -re ckoning , 182 ; table of

ear ly ru le rs of, 1 3 6 f.KHAN ’

I’

,in northe rn Syria, 73 .

KHATT I , early invasion of Babylonia from , 7 2 , 148 name of the

H it ti te capital at Boghaz Koi ,148 , n . 1 .

KIR IA ,Assyrian prie st-king ° rebu il t

th e C i ty wal l of Ashu r, 141 ; in

tab le of con temporaneou s ru lers,1 3 6 .

KINGS, se cond Book of, 20 3 .

KTESIAS, refe rred to, 64, note .

KUDU R -BEL , fathe r of ShagaraktiShu r iash , 8 1 .

KUDUR -MABUK , E lamite ru le r ;sons of

,68

,n . 2 in tab le of con

temporaneou s ru le rs, 1 3 7 .

KUDUR -NANKHUND I , E lam i te ru

le r ; h is invasion of Babylonia,1 2 d iscu ssion ofAshu r-ban i-pal ’sdate for , 1 5 .

KUYUNJ IK , 6, n . 2 .

2 50

LARSA, its captu re by Hammu rab i ,69 , 143 re fe rre d to in Code of

Laws , 167, n . I .

LAZ, consort of Ne rgal , 1 70 e arlycu ltivation of he r worship , 170.

LEBANON , 3 9 , 180.

LISTS OFKINGS, date of, 2 ; de scr iption of, 76 ff. ; arrangemen ts of

dynastie s upon , 1 3 f. le ngths ofearly dynastie s of, 84 f. the ir firs tand se cond dynast ie s partly contemporaneou s, 10 , 98 f. the irsecond dynasty ru led only in th e

Country of th e Sea, 10,107 ff. ,

1 3 1 .

LUGALAND A , pate s i of Sh irpu rla ;tab le ts from th e t ime Of, 1 8 2, n . 1 .

LUNAR O BSERVAT IONS, tab le s of,2 14 f.

MAER ,captu re of, 168 , n . 2 .

MAGAN ,i ts conqu e st byN arz’im-Sin,

8 , 5 1 f. ; t ranspor t of d iorite to

Agade from , 5 2 .

MALGA,se e MA LC IA .

MALGI , se e MALG IA .

MALGIA , in date -formu lae of Ham

mu rab i , 1 2 7 b u ild ing o f the wal lof

,168 sack Of, 168 ; king of,

168 f. , n . 2 varian t forms of th e

name Of, 168 , n . 2 .

MANETHO , dynastie s of, 20 .

MAN I[ lord of Magan ; con

qu e re d by N ardm-Sin , 8 , 5 2 to

b e iden tified wi th Mannu -dannu ,8 , 5 2 ; re storation of the nam e of,

5 2 f.

MANNU -DANNU , king of Magan,conqu e red by N aram-Sin , 8 ,

5 1 f. ; to b e id ent ified wi thMani[ . lord of Magan ,

8 , 5 2analysis of name of, 5 2 f.

MARDUK ,h is ange r W1th Sargon of

Agade , 50 ; e arly importanceof h is temple at Babylon , 6 1 ;de stru ction of h is temple byDungi , 60 ; his favou r to Bél-ibni ,66 ; his image carried e ff in the

INDEX .

H ittite invasion, 73 , 149 his

image re cove red by Agum II , 73 ,149 ; invoked by Ula-Bu rar iash ,1 5 1 , n . 1 Adad-aplu

-iddina’

s

Shrines dedicated to ,192 ; h is

worship revived at Babylon byE rba-Marduk afte r 689 B .C . , 207at the Feast Of the New Ye ar ,19 5 f .

MARD UK-EALATSU pos

sib ly an opponen t of Marduk ~z akir-shum ,

204 r estorat ion of

th e name Of, 204 .

MARDUK-BEL-USHE[ possiblyan Opponent of Marduk ‘ z akir

shum, 204 ; re storation of the

name of, 204, n . 2 .

MARDUK -NAD IN -AKHE, king of

Babylon ; h is de fe at of T iglath a

pile se r I , 79 ; se ction in new

chron icle refe rring to, 189 f.MARDUK-SHAPIK-ZER-MAT I , king

of Babylon ; his confede ration of

pe tty kings , 190 f. h is re lationswi th A sh trr-bel-kala, 19 1 , 193 ,2 10 h is jou rney to Assyria , 19 1his resrdenc e at Sippar, 19 1 .

MARDUK - ZAK IR -SHUM , king of

Babylon possible Opponen ts of,204.

MED IAN DYNASTY,of Be rossu s, 90.

MED ITERRANEAN , Sargon ofAgade

and the , 3 6 ff.

MELAM-KU RKURA ,king of th e

Coun try of the Sea length of h isre ign in Kings’ List , 96 read ingof name of, 1 54 f. in tab le of

contemporaneou s ru le rs , I 3 7 f.MELL SHIKHU I I , Kassi te king of

Babylon ; h is re lations to the

Country of the Sea, 1 5 3 .

MERNEPTAH , the Pharaoh of the

Exodus, 24 h is date , 24.

MERODACH-BALADAN 111, name ofthe fathe r of, 203 f.

MOERBEKA ,re fe rred to, 92 .

MOSES, length of the inte rval betwe en him and Abraham, 25 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 5 2

PERSIAN GULF, in re lation to th e

Country of the Sea , 10 c rossedby Sargon ofAgade , 3 7 f. Samsu

ilona’s campaigns on , 7 1 .

PESHGAL -DARAMASH ,king of th e

Cou ntry of the Sea length of h is

re ign in Kings ’ List, 96 read ingof name of

, 1 54 f. in tab le of

contemporaneou s ru le rs , 1 3 7 f.PHARAOH , of the oppre ssion,

24of th e Exodu s, 24.

PITHOM , city of, 24.

PORPHYR IUS, 1 efe rred to , 92 .

PORTENTS, pre ced ing the fall of

Akkad , 2 1 5 ff. in re ligiou schronicle , 2 3 0 ff.PRIESTLY WR ITER

, of Gene sis , 2 2 .

PTOLEMAIC CANON,2 , 92 f. , n . 3 .

RAAMSES, city of, 24 .

RAB IKU, captu re of

,169 .

RAMSES II , th e Pharaoh of th e

oppre ssion , 24.

RED SEA, l i t toral of th e , 2 1 .

RIM -SIN , king Of Larsa ; trad itions in chronicle conce rn ing ,5 8 f. ; su cce eded A rad -Sin , 68 ;( late ofhis captu re Of Isin , I 66 ff.

h is de feat byHammu rab i , 9 , 68 f.143 f. his final de feat by Samsu

ilona, 69 , 144 pe riod of h is

activity in Babylon ia, 167 ; da teof his de ath , 170 In tab le of con .

temporaneou s ru le rs , 1 3 6.

R ISH ~ADAD ,king of Apirak ; h is

conqu e st by Naram-Sin , 5 1 .

SAD I , E lamite king ; h is namepossib ly Taki

,144 ; de fe ated by

Ammi-z aduga, 144.

SAMAR ITAN VERSIO N , o f the Pe n

tate u ch , chronology of, 2 3 f.SAMSU-DITANA , king O f Babylon ;

trad ition in chron icle conce rning,5 , 59 invasion Of th e H itti te s inthe re ign of

, 5 7 , 72 f. , 148 f. ;re su l t Of th e invasion, 7 3 , 1 10 ,

149 f. ; h is su cce ssor , 7 3 , 1 10 ;

INDEX .

length of th e re ign of, 95 ; dateformu lae of, 180 variant form of

the name of, 7 2 , n . 2 in tab le of

contemporaneou s ru le rs, 1 3 7 .

SAMSU -ILUNA ,k ing of Babylon

tradit ions in chron icle conce rning,

5 , 9 , 59 ; h is de feat of Rim-Sin ,

69 , 144, 1 70 ; h is war with I luma

ilu , 70 f. , 9 3 f 97 f. , 147 ; Kassiteincu rsion du ring the re ign of, 148le ngth of re ign Of, 95 dateformu lae of

,160 ff. , 170,

172 , 180 ;in table Ofcontemporaneou s ru le rs ,1 3 6.

SAMU , se e SUMU .

SAMU -LA-ILU,se e SUMU -LA ~ ILU .

SARGON , king of Agade t radit ionsin chronicle conce rning, 5 f. 9 ,

5 6, 5 8 legends of, 6, n . 2 omens

o f,2 7 ff. new chron ic le con

ce rning th e de eds of, 2 8 ff.

favou red by Ishtar , 3 1 f. , 3 5 , 63crossed th e Sea 111 the East , 3 1 ;h is conqu e st of E lam, 3 2 , 3 7 his

de spoil ing of th e Count ry of the

Sea, 3 2 his conqu e st of Di lmun ,

3 7 ; h is conqu e s t of the Cou ntryof th e lVe s t , 3 1 f. , 3 6 , 3 8 f. his

image s on th e Medite rraneancoast , 3 1 f. , 3 6, 3 8 f. ; his suppose d c rossmg to Cypru s , 3 6 ff.h is e xped i tion against Kasalla, 3 1 ,3 3 , 41 f. h is expedition againstSubar tu , 3 1 , 3 3 , 45 ff. re vol tagainst , 3 1 , 3 3 , 43 ff. inse cu rityof h is empire , 45 ; 11 15 work on

Babylon and Agad e , 3 1 f. , 47 ff.

h is enlargemen t of h is palace , 3 3his se tt leme nt of the sons of h is

palace , ” 3 1 , 40 ; troub le s of his

closing years , 3 1 , 49 f. association of h is e xploits with omens ,

54 f. ; supposed re fe rence to h is

s tory in Agath ias , 63 his date onfigu re s of Nabonidu s, 1 1 , 1 5 f.re duction in date o f

,17 .

SARPAN ITUM , h e r th ron e made byHammu rab i , 1 7 1 h e r image

INDEX .

carried off du ring the H itti teinvasion, 73 , 149 ; h e r imagere cove red by Agum II , 7 3 , 149 .

SEA, se e COUNTRY OF T HE .

SECOND DYNASTY , of Kings ’ Listi ts pe riod of ove rlapping w ithFirs t Dynasty , 98 ff. re lation to

Kassite Dynasty , 100 ff. , 1 12 ff.

did not ru le at Babylon , 107 ff. ,1 3 1 discu ssion of le ngth of, 1 1 1 ,1 3 8 ; title of, 70 f. , n . I

,1 3 5 ;

in tab le o f con temporane ou sru le rs , I 3 6 f.

SELEUC ID ERA , ch ron icl es of th e ,2 1 3 ff.

SEM IRAMIS, in history of Agathias ,63 .

SENNAC IIER IB , crossed th e Pe rsianGu lf

, 3 7 his conqu ests of Babylon, 1 2 5 , 205 ; h is e st imate of

date o f T iglath-

pile se r I , 79 ;emendations o f h is figu re s , 80,n . 3 .

SE I’TUAG INT ,2 3 f.

SEVENTH DYN ASTY, of Ixrngs’ Listname of king O f, 184 f.

SHAGARAKT I -BU R IASH , his dateaccording to Nabonidu s, 8 1 to

be ide ntifie d wi th Shagarakt i

Shuriash , 8 1 .

SHALMANESER I,finding of bu ild

ing-inscription s o f, 1 19 ; rebu i lt

the temple O f A shu r , 120 ; chronological no tice s of, 80, n . 3 ; his

history of th e temple of Ashu r ,1 19 ff. comparison O f his accountwith that of Esarhaddon , 122 ;discu ssion o f figu re s of

,1 2 3 ff. ,

1 3 1 ; date of, 1 2 5 f.

SHAMASH , h is favou r to Bel-ibni ,66 ; re bu i ld ing Of h is templeEbabbara by Hammu rab i , 1 3 3 ;late r history Of his temple , 1 1 ,

n. 2 ; re cords in BabylonianChronicle conce rning, 2 1 5 , n . 1 .

SHAMASH-D ITANA , see SAMSUI) IT 4ANA0

2 5 3

SHAMASH -MUDAMM I I§ , king ofBabylon ; h is de fea t by Adadnirari II I , 202 .

SH t 11ASH -SHU 11-U R IN, h is ru le in

Babylon, 208 .

SII .

-ADAD , Assyrian prie s tking, son of Bél -kab i , 1 2 1 f. t e

bu il t the temple ofAshu r , 120 ff.chronological note s conce rning ,12 1 ff.

, 140 possib ly Harn

mu rab i’s contemporary

, 1 26 ff.in tabl e of contemporaneou sru le rs , 1 3 6 .

SIIAMSH I-A DAD , Assyrian prie stkmg, son o f Isl ime -Dagan , 12 7 ;date of

, 1 27 ; in tab le of con

temporaneous ru le rs , 1 3 6.

SHAR -R EN RATE -ASH IR , AssyrianprIe st

-king ; re bu il t c ity~wal l of

AshIr , 14 1 ; in tab le of con temporane ous ru le rs , 1 3 6 , 14 1 .

SHERGA r, 5 , 9 , 1 18 , 11 . 2 .

SH IG II .T U, A ramaeans in, 206.

SH ILANUM-SHUKAMUNA ,king of

Babylon le ng th of re ign of, 184

SHIRPURLA, 60 .

SHUSHSH I, king of the Coun try ofthe Sea ; length of h is re ign inKi ngs’ List, 96 ; reading of nameof, 1 54 f. in table of contemporaneous ru le rs, 1 3 7 f.

SIMMASH -SHIKHU, king of Baby

lon ; son of Erba-Sin , 194 fromth e Count ry of the Sea

, 194 con

structed throne inEku rigigal , 194 ;h is e ffor ts to revive the Sunworship at Sippar, 193 , n . 1

e vents in re ligiou s chron icle possib ly in re ign of, 2 24 s olare clipse possIb ly re corded in th ere ign Of

, 2 3 5 ff. death of, 194 ;length of re ign of, 184 date of,

2 3 6 f.SIMPLICIUS, commentary of, 92 .

SIN , portent from , 2 3 1 , n . 6.

SIN -GAMIL, king of Ere ch , 7 1 , note .

SIN-IRIBAM, early Babylonian

prince or king, 169, note .

2 54

SINJ IRLI, 66.

SIN -MUBALL IT , king of Babylondate -formu lae of, 160, 163 ; the

taking of Isin in his sevente enthyear , 166 ff. length of re ign of,

95 ; in table of contemporaneou sru le rs, 1 3 6.

SIN SHAR -ISHKUN , king ofAssyriahis ru le in Babylon, 208 .

SIPPAR , bu ilding-ope rations of

Narz'im-Sin at , 1 1 , n . 2 in Ham

mu rab i’s re ign , 170 Marduk .

shapik z ér mati ’s re sidence at ,

19 1 bu ilding-ope rations of

Nabonidu s at , 8 1 .

SIXTH DYNASTY, of K ings’ Lis t ,length of, 184.

SOLAR ECLIPSE, possible re cord of

a, 23 2 ff.

SOLOMON , date of, 2 3 f.

SOUTHERN BABYLON IA , racial e lements in, 154 ff. ; e xtent ofKass i teauthority in, 15 2 ff.

SU , god, con traction from Sumu ,1 16 f. as component In prope rnames , 1 17, n. 1 .

SU-ABU ,king of Babylon tradition

in chron icle conce rning, 5 , 57 , 58 ,1 16 ff. h is war with I lu-shfima ,

67 f. pe riod of his conflict withAssyria , 142 , n . I forms of the

name Of, 9, 1 16 f. date -formu laeof, 160, 162 , 178 ; length of the

re ign of, 95 date of, 109 f. , 1 29 ,1 3 1 in tab le of contemporaneousru le rs, 1 3 6.

SUBARTU , i ts conqu est by Sargon of

Agade , 45 ff. ; Aramaeans in , 206.

SUEZ, Isthmus of, 2 1 .

SUMER , not included in the do

minions on um II , I 12 ravagedby the Su ti‘t in Adad-apla-iddina’

s

re ign , 193 .

INDEX .

SUMERIANS, date of the i r earl iestremains , 1 I , 17 f. ; the ir system of

t ime re ckon ing,2 , 18 1 ; the ir exac tchronology inhe ri ted by the Babylonians , 1 Sume rian reactionunde r the Dynasty of Ur , 6 1the ir su rvival in the Country of

the Sea, 15 5 f.

SUMU , god ; forms of th e name of,1 16 f. as component In prope rname s, 1 17 , n . I .

SUMU-AB I , se e SU-ABU .

SUMU -ABU, se e SU -ABU .

SUMU-ILU, king of Ur , 1 17 , 11. 1 .

SUMU-LA -II .U , king of Babylon ;variant forms of the name Of,1 16, n . 1 ; meaning of, 1 17, n . 1 ;date -formu lae of, 160 , 162 , 178 ;length of h is re ign, 95 ; in tab leof contemporane ous ru le rs, 1 3 6.

SU N-GOD TABLET , re fe rs to theinvasion of the Su tu, 19 3 .

SUSA, 8 , 12 , n . 2 , 45 , 5 2 , 60.

SUTU, the i r invasion of Sume r andAkkad in Adad -aplu -iddina

’

s

re ign and i ts e ffe cts , 192 f. ; the irwre cking of the Sun-temple at

Sippar, 193 3 the i r connectionWi th th e Aramaeans, 193 .

SYN CELLU S, refe rre d to, 66, note ,90,

n . 1 .

SYNCHRONOUS H ISTORY , of Babylonia andAssyria, 3 , 79 f. 89 , 2 10 .

SYR IA, 73 .

TAR I , se e SAD I .

TAMMUZ , cu l t of, at Babylon, 64,note .

TASHMETUM, porte nt from, 2 3 1 .n . 6.

TASHRITU, month , meaning ofname

of, 179 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join