THE DYNASTIES OF BABYLON: THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME IN THE LIGHT OF
RECENT DISCOVERIES
It has often been said that chronology is the skeleton of history;
and it will be obvious that any flaw in the chronological scheme must
react upon our conception of the sequence and inter-relation of events.
Perhaps the most serious defect from which Babylonian chronology has
suffered hitherto has been the complete absence of any established
point of contact between the Babylonian dynasties and those earlier
lines of rulers who exercised authority in cities other than Babylon.
On the one hand, with the help of the Babylonian List of Kings, we
could build up from below a scheme of the rulers of Babylon itself. On
the other hand, after the discovery of the Nippur Kings' List, it was
possible to establish the succession of the earlier dynasties of Ur
and Nîsin, and to conjecture their relation to the still more remote
rulers of Akkad and other cities in the north and south. The two halves
of the skeleton were each articulated satisfactorily enough, but the
few bones were wanting which should enable us to fit them together. It
is scarcely necessary to say that there was no lack of theories for
filling in the gap. But every one of the schemes suggested introduced
fresh difficulties of its own; and to writers of a more cautious
temperament it seemed preferable to avoid a detailed chronology for
those earlier ages. Approximate dates only were suggested, for, in
spite of the obvious temptations presented by the Nippur List, it was
realized that any attempt to work out the earlier dates in detail
was bound to be misleading. Such writers were content to await the
recovery of new material and meanwhile to think in periods.[1]
It is thus with some satisfaction that the announcement may be made
that the connecting link, for which we have been waiting, has quite
recently been established, with the result that we have now in our
hands the necessary material for reconstructing the chronology on a
sound basis and extending it back without a serious break, into the
middle of the third millennium. The effect of the newly recovered point
of contact between the earlier and the later phases in the country's
history is naturally of greater importance for the former, so far as
strict chronology is concerned.[2] But the information afforded, as to
the overlapping of additional dynasties with that of the West-Semitic
kings of Babylon, throws an entirely new light upon the circumstances
which led to the rise of Babylon to power. Our picture of the capital's
early history, as an independent city-state struggling for the mastery
of her rivals, ceases to be an abstraction, and we may now follow
her varying fortunes to their climax in Hammurabi's reign. This will
form the subject of the following chapter; but, as the new historical
material is only now in course of publication, it will be advisable
first to give some account of it and to estimate its effects upon the
chronological scheme.
It has long been recognized that certain kings of Larsa, the city
in Southern Babylonia now marked by the mounds of Senkera, were
contemporaneous with the First Dynasty of Babylon. The greatest of
these, Rîm-Sin, a ruler of Elamite extraction, was the contemporary of
Hammurabi, and his signal defeat by Babylon was commemorated in the
date-formula for the thirty-first year of the latter's reign.[3] This
victory was, indeed, the chief event of Hammurabi's reign, and at one
time it was thought that it freed Babylon once for all from her most
powerful enemy. But the discovery of a chronicle of early Babylonian
kings, while substantiating the fact of Hammurabi's victory, and
affording the additional information that it was followed by the
capture of Ur and Larsa, proved that Rîm-Sin survived into the reign
of Samsu-iluna, Hammurabi's son, by whom he was finally defeated.[4]
Another king of Larsa, Warad-Sin, formerly identified with Rîm-Sin, was
correctly recognized as his brother, both of them sons of the Elamite
Kudur-Mabuk, and successively kings of the city.[5] The names of other
rulers were known from votive texts and foundation-records, and from
this source it was possible to incorporate in the dynasty Gungunum,
probably Sumu-ilum (a king of Ur), and Nûr-Adad or Nûr-Immer and his
son Sin-idinnam. It was realized that Sin-idinnam, the correspondent to
whom Hammurabi addressed his letters, was not to be identified with the
king of Larsa of that name,[6] and all four rulers were provisionally
regarded as having preceded Warad-Sin upon the throne.[7]
A complete list of the Larsa kings has now been recovered by Professor
A. T. Clay of Yale University, who is engaged in preparing the text for
publication. The dynasty is seen to have consisted of sixteen kings,
and against the name of each ruler is stated the number of years he
occupied the throne. The surface of the tablet is damaged in places and
the figures against three of the names are wanting. But this is of no
great consequence, since the scribe has added up the total number of
years enumerated in the list, and states it at the close as two hundred
and eighty-nine.[8] A most important point about the list is that
the last two kings of the dynasty are stated to have been Hammurabi
and Samsu-iluna, who, as we know, were the sixth and seventh rulers
of the First Dynasty of Babylon. It is true that Hammurabi is one of
the three kings against whose names the figures are wanting. But we
already know that he conquered Larsa in his thirty-first year,[9] so
that we may confidently regard him as king of that city for the last
twelve years of his reign. The two remaining kings of the dynasty whose
years are missing, Sin-idinnam and Sin-iḳisham, have thirteen years
to divide between them, and since they are only separated from each
other by the short two-years' reign of Sin-iribam, the absence of the
figures is practically immaterial. We are thus furnished with the means
for establishing in detail the relationship of the earliest kings of
Babylon to those of Larsa.
[Illustration: VII. Brick of Sin-idinnam, King of Larsa, recording the
cutting of a canal and the restoration of the Temple of the Moon-god in
the city of Ur]
But like most new discoveries, this one has brought a fresh problem
in its train. We already suspected that Rîm-Sin was a long-lived
monarch, and we here find him credited with a reign of sixty-one years.
But that fact would be difficult to reconcile with his survival into
Samsu-iluna's tenth year, which, according to the figures of the new
list, would have fallen eighty-three years after his accession to
the throne. That Rîm-Sin did survive into the reign of Samsu-iluna
seems practically certain, since the broken passage in the late
chronicle, from which the fact was at first inferred, is supported
by two date-formulæ which can be satisfactorily explained only on
that hypothesis.[10] Thus, if he ascended the throne of Larsa when
merely a boy of fifteen, we should have to infer from the new figures
that he was leading a revolt against Samsu-iluna in his ninety-eighth
year--a combination of circumstances which is just within the bounds
of possibility, but is hardly probable or convincing. We shall see
presently that there is a comparatively simple, and not improbable,
solution of the puzzle, to which another line of evidence seems to
converge.
It will be noted that the new list of the kings of Larsa, important
as it undoubtedly is for the history of its own period, does not in
itself supply the long-desired link between the earlier and the later
chronology of Babylonia. The relationship of the First Dynasty of
Babylon with that of Nîsin[11] is, so far as the new list is concerned,
left in the same state of uncertainty as before. The possibility has
long been foreseen that the Dynasty of Nîsin and the First Dynasty of
Babylon overlapped each other,[12] as was proved to have been the case
with the first dynasties in the Babylonian List of Kings, and as was
confidently assumed with regard to the dynasties of Larsa and Babylon.
That no long interval separated the two dynasties from one another
had been inferred from the character of the contract-tablets, dating
from the period of the Nîsin Dynasty, which had been found at Nippur;
for these were seen to bear a elose resemblance to those of the First
Babylonian Dynasty in form, material, writing, and terminology.[13]
There were obvious advantages to be obtained, if grounds could be
produced for believing that the two dynasties were not only closely
consecutive but were partly contemporaneous. For, in such a case, it
would follow that not only the earlier kings of Babylon, but also the
kings of Larsa, would have been reigning at the same time as the later
kings of Nîsin. In fact, we should picture Babylonia as still divided
into a number of smaller principalities, each vying with the other in
a contest for the hegemony and maintaining a comparatively independent
rule within its own borders. It was fully recognized that such a
condition of affairs would amply account for the confusion in the later
succession at Nîsin, and our scanty knowledge of that period could then
be combined with the fuller sources of information on the First Dynasty
of Babylon.[14]
In the absence of any definite synchronism, such as we already
possessed for deciding the inter-relations of the early Babylonian
dynasties, other means were tried in order to establish a point
of contact. The capture of Nîsin by Rîm-Sin, which is recorded in
date-formulæ upon tablets found at Tell Sifr and Nippur, was evidently
looked upon as an event of considerable importance, since it formed an
epoch for dating tablets in that district. It was thus a legitimate
assumption that the capture of the city by Rîm-Sin should be regarded
as having brought the Dynasty of Nîsin to an end; such an assumption
certainly supplied an adequate reason for the rise of a new era in
time-reckoning. Now in the date-formulæ of the First Dynasty of Babylon
two captures of the city of Nîsin are commemorated, the earlier one in
that for the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, the later in the formula
for Hammurabi's seventh year. Advocates have been found for deriving
each of these dates from the capture of Nîsin by Rîm-Sin, and so
obtaining the desired point of contact.[15] But the obvious objection
to either of these views is that we should hardly expect a victory by
Rîm-Sin to be commemorated in the date-formulæ of his chief rival;
and certain attempts to show that Babylon was at the time the vassal
of Larsa have not proved very convincing. Moreover, if we accept the
earlier identification, it raises the fresh difficulty that the era
of Nîsin was not disturbed by Hammurabi's conquest of that city. The
rejection of both views thus leads to the same condition of uncertainty
from which we started.
A fresh and sounder line of research has recently been opened up. A
detailed study has been undertaken of the proper names occurring on
contract-tablets from Nippur, and it was remarked that some of the
proper names found in documents belonging to the Nîsin and Larsa
Dynasties are identical with those appearing on other Nippur tablets
belonging to the First Dynasty of Babylon.[16] That they were borne
by the same individuals is in many eases quite certain from the fact
that the names of their fathers are also given. Both sets of documents
were not only found at Nippur but were obviously written there,
since they closely resemble one another in general appearance, style
and arrangement. The same witnesses, too, occur again and again on
them, and some of the tablets, which were drawn up under different
dynasties, are the work of the same scribe. It has even been found
possible, by the study of the proper names, to follow the history of
a family through three generations, during which it was living at
Nippur under different rulers belonging to the dynasties of Nîsin,
Larsa and Babylon; and one branch of the family can never have left
the city, since its members in successive generations held the office
of "pashishu," or anointing-priest, in the temple of the goddess
Ninlil.[17]
Of such evidence it will suffice for the moment to cite two examples,
since they have a direct bearing on the assumption that Rîm-Sin's
conquest of Nîsin put an end to the dynasty in that city. From two of
the documents we learn that Zîatum, the scribe, pursued his calling
at Nippur not only under Damik-ilishu, the last king of Nîsin, but
also under Rîm-Sin of Larsa,[18] a fact which definitely proves
that Nippur passed under the control of these two rulers within the
space of one generation. The other piece of evidence is still more
instructive. It has long been known that Hammurabi was Rîm-Sin's
contemporary, and from the new Kings' List we have gained the further
information that he succeeded him upon the throne of Larsa. Now two
other of the Nippur documents prove that Ibkushu, the _pashishu,_ or
"anointing-priest" of the goddess Ninlil, was living at Nippur under
Damik-ilishu and also under Hammurabi in the latter's thirty-first
year.[19] This fact not only confirms our former inference, but gives
very good grounds for believing that the close of Damik-ilishu's reign
must have fallen within that of Rîm-Sin. We may therefore regard it as
certain that Rîm-Sin's conquest of Nîsin, which began a new era for
time-reckoning in central and southern Babylonia, put an end to the
reign of Damik-ilishu and to the Dynasty of Nîsin, of which he was
the last member. In order to connect the chronology of Babylon with
that of Nîsin it therefore only remains to ascertain at what period in
Rîm-Sin's reign, as King of Larsa, his conquest of Nîsin took place.
It is at this point that a further discovery of Prof. Clay has
furnished us with the necessary data for a decision. Among the tablets
of the Yale Babylonian Collection he has come across several documents
of Rîm-Sin's reign, which bear a double-date. In every case the
first half of the double-date corresponds to the usual formula for
the second year of the Nîsin era. On two of them the second half of
the date-formula equates that year with the eighteenth of some other
era, while on two others the same year is equated with the nineteenth
year.[20] It is obvious that we here have scribes dating documents
according to a new era, and explaining that that year corresponds
to the eighteenth (or nineteenth) of one with which they had been
familiar, and which the new method of time-reckoning was probably
intended to displace. Now we know that, before the capture of Nîsin,
the scribes in cities under Rîm-Sin's control had been in the habit
of dating documents by events in his reign, according to the usual
practice of early Babylonian kings.[21] But this method was given up
after the capture of Nîsin, and for at least thirty-one years after
that event the era of Nîsin was in vogue.[22] In the second year of the
era, when the new method of dating had just been settled, it would have
been natural for the scribes to add a note explaining the relationship
of the new era to the old. But, as the old changing formulæ had been
discontinued, the only possible way to make the equation would have
been to reckon the number of years Rîm-Sin had been upon the throne.
Hence we may confidently conclude that the second figure in the
double-dates was intended to give the year of Rîm-Sin's reign which
corresponded to the second year of the Nîsin era.
It may seem strange that in some of the documents with the
double-dates the second figure is given as eighteen and in others as
nineteen. There is more than one way in which it is possible to explain
the discrepancy. If we assume that the conquest of Nîsin took place
towards the close of Rîm-Sin's seventeenth year, it is possible that,
during the two years that followed, alternative methods of reckoning
were in vogue, some scribes regarding the close of the seventeenth
year as the first year of the new epoch, others beginning the new
method of time-reckoning with the first day of the following Nisan.
Rut that explanation can hardly be regarded as probable, for, in view
of the importance attached to the conquest, the promulgation of the
new era commemorating the event would have been carried out with more
than ordinary ceremonial, and the date of its adoption would not have
been left to the calculation of individual scribes. It is far more
likely that the explanation is to be sought in the second figure of
the equation, the discrepancy being due to alternative methods of
reckoning Rîm-Sin's regnal years. Again assuming that the conquest
took place in Rîm-Sin's seventeenth year, those scribes who counted
the years from his first date-formula would have made the second year
of the era the eighteenth of his reign. But others may have included
in their total the year of Rîm-Sin's accession to the throne, and that
would account for their regarding the same year as the nineteenth
according to the abolished system of reckoning.[23] This seems the
preferable explanation of the two, but it will be noticed that, on
either alternative, we must regard the first year of the Nîsin era as
corresponding to the seventeenth year of Rîm-Sin's reign.
One other point requires to be settled, and that is the relation of the
Nîsin era to the actual conquest of the city. Was the era inaugurated
in the same year as the conquest, or did its first year begin with
the following first of Nisan? In the course of the fifth chapter
the early Babylonian method of time-reckoning is referred to, and it
will be seen that precisely the same question arises with regard to
certain other events commemorated in date-formulæ of the period.[24]
Though some features of the system are still rather uncertain, we have
proof that the greater historical events did in certain cases affect
the current date-formula, especially when this was of a provisional
character, with the result that the event was commemorated in the final
formula for the year of its actual occurrence. Arguing from analogy, we
may therefore regard the inauguration of the Nîsin era as coinciding
with the year of the city's capture. In the case of this particular
event the arguments in favour of such a view apply with redoubled
force, for no other victory by a king of Larsa was comparable to it in
importance. We may thus regard the last year of Damik-ilishu, King of
Nîsin, as corresponding to the seventeenth year of Rîm-Sin, King of
Larsa. And since the relationship of Rîm-Sin with Hammurabi has been
established by the new list of Larsa kings, we are at length furnished
with the missing synchronism for connecting the dynasties of the Nippur
Kings' List with those of Babylon.
[Illustration: VIII. Hammurabi, King of Babylon, from a relief in the
British Museum, dedicated on his behalf to the West Semitic goddess
[Ash]ratum by Itur-ashdum, a provincial governor]
We may now return to the difficulty introduced by the new list of
Larsa kings, on which, as we have already noted, the long reign of
Rîm-Sin is apparently entered as preceding the thirty-second year
of Hammurabi's rule in Babylon. Soon after the publication of the
chronicle, from a broken passage on which it was inferred that
Rîm-Sin survived into Samsu-iluna's reign.[25] an attempt was made to
explain the words as referring to a son of Rîm-Sin and not to that
ruler himself.[26] But it was pointed out that the sign, which it was
suggested should be rendered as "son," was never employed with that
meaning in chronicles of the period,[27] and that we must consequently
continue to regard the passage as referring to Rîm-Sin. It was further
noted that two contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, which record the
same deed of sale, are dated the one by Rîm-Sin, and the other in
Samsu-iluna's tenth year.[28] In both of these deeds the same parties
are represented as carrying out the same transaction, and, although
there is a difference in the price agreed upon, the same list of
witnesses occur on both, and both are dated in the same month. The most
reasonable explanation of the existence of the two documents would
seem to be that, at the period the transaction they record took place,
the possession of the town now marked by the mounds of Tell Sifr was
disputed by Rîm-Sin and Samsu-iluna. Soon after the first of the deeds
had been drawn up, the town may have changed hands, and, in order that
the transaction should still be recognized as valid, a fresh copy of
the deed was made out with the new ruler's date-formula substituted
for that which was no longer current.[29] But whatever explanation be
adopted, the alternative dates upon the documents, taken in conjunction
with the chronicle, certainly imply that Rîm-Sin was living at least as
late as Samsu-iluna's ninth year, and probably in the tenth year of his
reign.
If, then, we accept the face value of the figures given by the new
Larsa Kings' List, we are met by the difficulty already referred to,
that Rîm-Sin would have been an active political force in Babylonia
some eighty-three years after his own accession to the throne. And
assuming that he was merely a boy of fifteen when he succeeded
his brother at Larsa, he would have been taking the field against
Samsu-iluna in his ninety-eighth year.[30] But it is extremely
unlikely that he was so young at his accession, and, in view of the
improbabilities involved, it is preferable to scrutinize the figures
in the Larsa list with a view to ascertaining whether they are not
capable of any other interpretation.
It has already been noted that the Larsa List is a contemporaneous
document, since the scribe has added the title of "king" to the last
name only, that of Samsu-iluna, implying that he was the reigning king
at the time the document was drawn up. It is unlikely, therefore, that
any mistake should have been made in the number of years assigned to
separate rulers, the date-formulæ and records of whose reigns would
have been easily accessible for consultation by the compiler. The
long reign of sixty-one years, with which Rîm-Sin is credited, must
be accepted as correct, for it does not come to us as a tradition
incorporated in a Neo-Babylonian document, but is attested by a scribe
writing within two years of the time when, as we have seen, Rîm-Sin was
not only living but fighting against the armies of Babylon. In fact,
the survival of Rîm-Sin throughout the period of Hammurabi's rule at
Larsa, and during the first ten years of Samsu-iluna's reign, perhaps
furnishes us with the solution of our problem.
If Rîm-Sin had not been deposed by Hammurabi on his conquest of Larsa,
but had been retained there with curtailed powers as the vassal of
Babylon, may not his sixty-one years of rule have included this period
of dependence? In that case he may have ruled as independent King of
Larsa for thirty-nine years, followed by twenty-two years during which
he owed allegiance successively to Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna, until
in the latter's tenth year he revolted and once more took the field
against Babylon. It is true that, with the missing figures in the
Kings' List restored as suggested by Professor Clay, the figure for the
total duration of the dynasty may be cited against this explanation;
for the two hundred and eighty-nine years is obtained by regarding the
whole of Rîm-Sin's reign as anterior to Hammurabi's conquest. There
are two possibilities with regard to the figure. In the first place
it is perhaps just possible that Sin-idinnam and Sin-iḳîsham may have
reigned between them thirty-five years, in place of the thirteen years
provisionally assigned to them. If that were so, the scribe's total
would be twenty-two years less than the addition of his figures, and
the discrepancy could only be explained by some such overlapping as
suggested. But it is far more likely that the figures are correctly
restored, and that the scribe's total corresponds to that of the
figures in the list. On such an assumption it is not improbable that
he mechanically added up the figures placed opposite the royal names,
without deducting from his total the years of Rîm-Sin's dependent rule.
This explanation appears to be the one least open to objection, as it
does not necessitate the alteration of essential figures, and merely
postulates a natural oversight on the part of the compiler. The placing
of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna in the list after, and not beside, Rîm-Sin
would be precisely on the lines of the Babylonian Kings' List, in
which the Second Dynasty is enumerated between the First and Third,
although, as we now know, it overlapped a part of each. In that case,
too, the scribe has added up the totals of his separate dynasties,
without any indication of their periods of overlapping. The explanation
in both cases is, of course, that the modern system of arranging
contemporaneous rulers in parallel columns had not been evolved by
the Babylonian scribes. Moreover, we have evidence that at least one
other compiler of a dynastic list was careless in adding up his totals;
from one of his discrepancies it would seem that he counted a period
of three months as three years, while in another of his dynasties a
similar period of three months was probably counted twice over both as
months and years.[31] It is true that the dynastic list in question is
a late and not a contemporaneous document, but at least it inclines us
to accept the possibility of such an oversight as that suggested on the
part of the compiler of the Larsa list.
The only reason which we have as yet examined for equating the first
twenty-two years of Babylon's suzerainty over Larsa with the latter
part of Rîm-Sin's reign has been the necessity of reducing the duration
of that monarch's life within the bounds of probability. If this had
been the only ground for the assumption, it might perhaps have been
regarded as more or less problematical. But the Nippur contract-tablets
and legal documents, to which reference has already been made,[32]
furnish us with a number of separate and independent pieces of evidence
in its support. The tablets contain references to officials and private
people who were living at Nippur in the reigns of Damik-ilishu, the
last king of Nîsin, and of Rîm-Sin of Larsa, and also under Hammurabi
and Samsu-iluna of Babylon. Most of the tablets of Rîm-Sin's period are
dated by the Nîsin era, and, since the dates of those drawn up in the
reigns of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna can be definitely ascertained by
means of their date-formulæ, it is possible to estimate the intervals
of time separating references to the same man or to a man and his
son. It is remarkable that in some cases the interval of time appears
excessive if the whole of Rîm-Sin's reign of sixty-one years be placed
before Hammurabi's capture of Larsa. If, on the other hand, we regard
Rîm-Sin as Babylon's vassal for the last twenty-two years of his rule
in Larsa, the intervals of time are reduced to normal proportions. As
the point is of some importance for the chronology, it may be as well
to cite one or two examples of this class of evidence, in order that
the reader may judge of its value for himself.
The first example we will examine will be that furnished by Ibkushu,
the anointing-priest of Ninlil, to whom we have already referred as
having lived at Nippur under Damik-ilishu and also under Hammurabi in
the latter's thirty-first year[33]; both references, it may be noted,
describe him as holding his priestly office, at Nippur. Now, if we
accept the face value of the figures in the Larsa List we obtain an
interval between these two references of at least forty-four years
and probably more.[34] By the suggested interpretation of the figures
in the List the interval would be reduced by twenty-two years. A very
similar case is that of the scribe Ur-kingala, who is mentioned in a
document dated in the eleventh year of the Nîsin era, and again in
one of Samsu-iluna's fourth year.[35] In the one case we obtain an
interval of fifty years between the two references, while in the other
it is reduced to twenty-eight years. Very similar results follow if we
examine references on the tablets to fathers and their sons. A certain
Adad-rabi, for example, was living at Nippur under Damik-ilishu, while
his two sons Mâr-irsitim and Mutum-ilu are mentioned there in the
eleventh year of Samsu-iluna's reign.[36] In the one case we must infer
an interval of at least sixty-seven years, and probably more, between
father and sons; in the other an interval of forty-five years or more
is obtained. It will be unnecessary to examine further examples, as
those already cited may suffice to illustrate the point. It will
be noted that the unabridged interval can in no single instance be
pronounced impossible. But the cumulative effect produced is striking.
The independent testimony of these private documents and contracts thus
converges to the same point as the data with regard to the length of
Rîm-Sin's life. Several of the figures so obtained suggest that, taken
at their face value, the regnal years in the Larsa List yield a total
that is about one generation too long. They are thus strongly in favour
of the suggested method of interpreting Rîm-Sin's reign in the Larsa
succession.
We may thus provisionally place the sixty-first year of Rîm-Sin's rule
at Larsa in the tenth year of Samsu-iluna's reign, when we may assume
that he revolted and took the field against his suzerain. It was in
that year that Tell Sifr changed hands for a time. But it is probably a
significant fact that not a single document of Samsu-iluna's reign has
been found in that district dated after his twelfth year. In fact we
shall see reason to believe that the whole of Southern Babylonia soon
passed from the control of Babylon, though Samsu-iluna succeeded in
retaining his hold on Nippur for some years longer. Meanwhile it will
suffice to note that the suggested sequence of events fits in very
well with other references in the date-lists. The two defeats of Nîsin
by Hammurabi and his father Sin-muballit, which have formed for so long
a subject of controversy, now cease to be a stumbling-block. We see
that both took place before Rîm-Sin's capture of Nîsin,[37] and were
merely temporary successes which had no effect upon the continuance
of the Nîsin dynasty. That was brought to an end by Rîm-Sin's victory
in his seventeenth year, when the Nîsin era of dating was instituted.
That, in cities where it had been long employed, the continued use
of the era alongside his own formulæ should have been permitted
by Hammurabi for some eight years after his capture of Larsa, is
sufficiently explained by our assumption that Rîm-Sin was not deposed,
but was retained in his own capital as the vassal of Babylon. There
would have been a natural reluctance to abandon an established era,
especially if Babylon's authority was not rigidly enforced during the
first few years of her suzerainty, as with earlier vassal states.[38]
The overlapping of the Dynasty of Nîsin with that of Babylon for a
period of one hundred and eleven years, which follows from the new
information afforded by the Yale tablets, merely carries the process
still further that was noted some years ago with regard to the first
three Dynasties of the Babylonian List of Kings. At the time of the
earlier discovery considerable difference of opinion existed as to the
number of years, if any, during which the Second Dynasty of the List
held independent sway in Babylonia. The archæological evidence at that
time available seemed to suggest that the kings of the Sea-Country
never ruled in Babylonia, and that the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty
followed the First Dynasty without any considerable break.[39] Other
writers, in their endeavours to use and reconcile the chronological
references to earlier rulers which occur in later texts, assumed a
period of independence for the Second Dynasty which varied, according
to their differing hypotheses, from one hundred and sixty-eight to
eighty years.[40] Since the period of the First Dynasty was not fixed
independently, the complete absence of contemporary evidence with
regard to the Second Dynasty led to a considerable divergence of
opinion upon the point.
So far as the archæological evidence is concerned, we are still without
any great body of documents dated in their reigns, which should
definitely prove the rule of the Sea-Country kings in Babylonia. But
two tablets have now been discovered in the Nippur Collections which
are dated in the second year of Iluma-ilum, the founder of the Second
Dynasty.[41] And this fact is important, since it proves that for two
years at any rate he exercised control over a great part of Babylonia.
Now among the numerous documents dated in the reigns of Hammurabi and
Samsu-iluna, which have been found at Nippur, none are later than
Samsu-iluna's twenty-ninth year, although the succession of dated
documents up to that time is almost unbroken. It would thus appear
that after Samsu-iluna's twenty-ninth year Babylon lost her hold upon
Nippur. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the power which
drove her northwards was the kingdom of the Sea-Country, whose founder
Iluma-ilum waged successful campaigns against both Samsu-iluna and his
son Abi-eshu', as we learn from the late Babylonian chronicle.[42]
Another fact that is probably of equal significance is that, of the
tablets from Larsa and its neighbourhood, none have been found dated
after Samsu-iluna's twelfth year, although we have numerous examples
drawn up during the earlier years of his reign. We may therefore assume
that soon after his twelve years of rule at Larsa, which are assigned
to him on the new Kings' List,[43] that city was lost to Babylon. And
again it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Sea-Country was
the aggressor. From Samsu-iluna's own date-formulæ we know that in his
twelfth year "all the lands revolted" against him.[44] We may therefore
with considerable probability place Iluma-ilum's revolt in that year,
followed immediately by his establishment of an independent kingdom
in the south.[45] He probably soon gained control over Larsa and
gradually pushed northwards until he occupied Nippur in Samsu-iluna's
twenty-ninth or thirtieth year.
[Illustration: X. Brick of Warad-Sin, King of Larsa, recording building
operations in the city of Ur]
Such appears to be the most probable course of events, so far as it
may be determined in accordance with our new evidence. And since it
definitely proves that the founder of the Second Dynasty of the Kings'
List established, at any rate for a time, an effective control over
southern and central Babylonia, we are the more inclined to credit the
kings of the Sea-Country with having later on extended their authority
farther to the north. The fact that the compiler of the Babylonian
List of Kings should have included the rulers of the Sea-Country in
that document has always formed a weighty argument for regarding
some of them as having ruled in Babylonia; and it was only possible
to eliminate the dynasty entirely from the chronological scheme by
a very drastic reduction of his figures for some of their reigns.
The founder of the dynasty, for example, is credited with a reign of
sixty years, two other rulers with reigns of fifty-five years, and a
fourth with fifty years. But the average duration of the reigns in the
dynasty is only six years in excess of that for the First Dynasty,
which also consisted of eleven kings. And, in view of the sixty-one
years credited to Rîm-Sin in the newly recovered Larsa List, which is a
contemporaneous document and not a later compilation, we may regard the
traditional length of the dynasty as perhaps approximately correct.[46]
Moreover, in all other parts of the Kings' List that can be controlled
by contemporaneous documents, the general accuracy of the figures has
been amply vindicated. The balance of evidence appears, therefore, to
be in favour of regarding the compiler's estimate for the duration of
his Second Dynasty as also resting on reliable tradition.
In working out the chronological scheme it only remains therefore to
fix accurately the period of the First Dynasty, in order to arrive
at a detailed chronology for both the earlier and the later periods.
Hitherto, in default of any other method, it has been necessary to
rely on the traditions which have come down to us from the history of
Berossus or on chronological references to early rulers which occur in
the later historical texts. A new method of arriving at the date of the
First Dynasty, in complete independence of such sources of information,
was hit upon three years ago by Dr. Kugler, the Dutch astronomer, in
the course of his work on published texts that had any bearing on the
history and achievements of Babylonian astronomy.[47] Two such tablets
had been found by Sir Henry Layard at Nineveh and were preserved in
the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. Of these one had long
of Sippar,
Bunutakhtun-ila, occupied the throne in Sumu-la-ilum's re
astronomical omens derived from observations of the planet Venus.[48]
It was certain that this Assyrian text was a copy of an earlier
Babylonian one, since that was definitely stated in its colophon. The
second of the two inscriptions proved to be in part a duplicate,[49]
and by using them in combination Dr. Kugler was able to restore the
original text with a considerable degree of certainty.[50] But a more
important discovery was that he succeeded in identifying precisely the
period at which the text was originally drawn up, and the astronomical
observations recorded. For he noted that in the eighth section of his
restored text there was a chronological note, dating that section by
the old Babylonian date-formula for the eighth year of Ammi-zaduga,
the tenth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty. As his text contained
twenty-one sections, he drew the legitimate inference that it gave him
a series of observations of the planet Venus for each of the twenty-one
years of Ammi-zaduga's reign.[51]
The observations from which the omens were derived consist of dates
for the heliacal rising and setting of the planet Venus. The date was
observed at which the planet was first visible in the east, the date
of her disappearance was noted, and the duration of her period of
invisibility; similar dates were then observed of her first appearance
in the west as the Evening Star, followed as before by the dates of
her disappearance and her period of invisibility. The taking of such
observations does not, of course, imply any elaborate astronomical
knowledge on the part of the early Babylonians. This beautiful planet
must have been the first, after the moon, to attract systematic
observation, and thanks to her nearly circular orbit, no water-clock
nor instrument for measuring angles was required. The astrologers of
the period would naturally watch for the planet's first appearance in
the glimmer of the dawn, that they might read therefrom the will of the
great goddess with whom she was identified. They would note her gradual
ascension, decline and disappearance, and then count the days of her
absence until she reappeared at sunset and repeated her movements of
ascension and decline. Such dates, with the resulting fortunes of the
country, form the observations noted in the text that was drawn up in
Ammi-zaduga's reign.
It will be obvious that the periodic return of the same appearance of
the planet Venus would not in itself have supplied us with sufficient
means for determining the period of the observations. But we obtain
additional data if we employ our information with the further object
of ascertaining the relative positions of the sun and moon. On the one
hand the heliacal risings and settings of Venus are naturally bound
up in a fixed relationship of Venus to the sun; on the other hand the
series of dates by the days of the month furnishes us with the relative
position of the moon with regard to the sun on the days cited. Without
the second criterion, the first would be of very little use. But,
taken together, the combination of the sun, Venus and the moon are
of the greatest value for fixing the position of the group of years,
covered by the observations, within any given period of a hundred years
or more. Now if we eliminate the Second Dynasty altogether from the
Babylonian Kings' List, it is certain that Ammi-zaduga's reign could
not have fallen much later than 1800 B.C.; on the other hand, in view
of the ascertained minimum of overlapping of the First Dynasty by the
Second, it is equally certain that it could not have fallen earlier
than 2060 B.C. The period of his reign must thus be sought within the
interval between these dates. But, in order to be on the safe side,
Dr. Kugler extended both the limits of the period to be examined; he
conducted his researches within the period from 2080 to 1740 B.C. He
began by taking two observations for the sixth year of Ammi-zaduga,
which gave the dates for the heliacal setting of Venus in the west
and her rising in the east, and, by using the days of the month to
ascertain the relative positions of the moon, he found that throughout
the whole course of his period this particular combination took place
three times.[52] He then proceeded to examine in the same way the
rest of the observations, with their dates, as supplied by the two
tablets, and, by working them out in detail for the central one of his
three possible periods, he obtained confirmation of his view that the
observations did cover a consecutive period of twenty-one years. In
order to obtain independent proof of the correctness of his figures,
he proceeded to examine the dates upon contemporary legal documents,
which could be brought into direct or indirect relation to the time of
harvest. These dates, according to his interpretation of the calendar,
offered a means of controlling his results, since he was able to show
that a higher or lower estimate tended to throw out the time of harvest
from the month of Nisan, which was peculiarly the harvest month.
It must be admitted that the last part of the demonstration stands in
a different category to the first; it does not share the simplicity
of the astronomical problem. It formed, indeed, merely an additional
method of testing the interpretation of the astronomical evidence,
and the dates resulting from the latter were obtained in complete
independence of the farming-out contracts of the period. Taking, then,
the three alternative dates, there can be no doubt, if we accept the
figure of the Kings' List for the Second Dynasty as approximately
accurate, that the central of the three periods is the only one
possible for Ammi-zaduga's reign; for either of the other two would
imply too high or too low a date for the Third Dynasty of the Kings'
List. We may thus accept the date of 1977 B.C. as that of Ammi-zaduga's
accession, and we thereby obtain a fixed point for working out the
chronology of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and, consequently, of the
partly contemporaneous Dynasties of Larsa and of Nîsin, and of the
still earlier Dynasty of Ur. Incidentally it assists in fixing within
comparatively narrow limits the period of the Kassite conquest and of
the following dynasties of Babylon.[53] Starting from this figure as a
basis, and making use of the information already discussed, it would
follow that the Dynasty of Nîsin was founded in the year 2339 B.C.,
that of Larsa only four years later in 2335 B.C., and the First Dynasty
of Babylon after a further interval of a hundred and ten years in 2225
B.C.[54]
It will have been seen that the suggested system of chronology has
been settled in complete independence of the chronological notices
to earlier rulers which have come down to us in the inscriptions of
some of the later Assyrian and Babylonian kings. Hitherto these have
furnished the principal starting points, on which reliance has been
placed to date the earlier periods in the history of Babylon. In the
present case it will be pertinent to examine them afresh and ascertain
how far they harmonize with a scheme which has been evolved without
their help. If they are found to accord very well with the new system,
we may legitimately see in such an agreement additional grounds for
believing we are on the right track. Without pinning one's faith
too slavishly to any calculation by a native Babylonian scribe, the
possibility of harmonizing such references at least removes a number of
difficulties, which it has always been necessary either to ignore or to
explain away.
Perhaps the chronological notice which has given rise to most
discussion is the one in which Nabonidus refers to the period of
Hammurabi's reign. On one of his foundation-cylinders Nabonidus states
that Hammurabi rebuilt E-babbar, the temple of the Sun-god in Larsa,
seven hundred years before Burna-Buriash.[55] At a time when it was
not realized that the First and Second Dynasties of the Kings' List
were partly contemporaneous, the majority of writers were content to
ignore the apparent inconsistency between the figures of the Kings'
List and this statement of Nabonidus. Others attempted to get over the
difficulty by emending the figures in the List and by other ingenious
suggestions; for it was felt that to leave a discrepancy of this sort
without explanation pointed to a possibility of error in any scheme
necessitating such a course.[56] We will see, then, how far the
estimate of Nabonidus accords with the date assigned to Hammurabi under
our scheme. From the Tell el-Amarna letters we know that Burna-Buriash
was the contemporary of Amen-hetep IV., to whose accession most
historians of Egypt now agree to assign a date in the early part of
the fourteenth century B.C.[57] We may take 1480 B.C. as representing
approximately the date which, according to the majority of the schemes
of Egyptian chronology, may be assigned to Amen-hetep IV.'s accession.
And by adding seven hundred years to this date we obtain, according to
the testimony of Nabonidus, a date for Hammurabi of about 2080 B.C.
According to our scheme the last year of Hammurabi's reign fell in 2081
B.C., and, since the seven hundred years of Nabonidus is obviously
a round number, its general agreement with the scheme is remarkably
close.[58]
The chronological notice of Nabonidus thus serves to confirm, so far
as its evidence goes, the general accuracy of the date assigned to the
First Dynasty. In the case of the Second Dynasty we obtain an equally
striking confirmation, when we examine the only available reference
to the period of one of its kings which is found in the record of a
later ruler. The passage in question occurs upon a boundary-stone
preserved in the University Museum of Pennsylvania, referring to events
which took place in the fourth year of Enlil-nadin-apli.[59] In the
text engraved upon the stone it is stated that 696 years separated
Gulkishar (the sixth king of the Second Dynasty) from Nebuchadnezzar,
who is of course to be identified with Nebuchadnezzar I., the immediate
predecessor of Enlil-nadin-apli upon the throne of Babylon. Now we
know from the "Synchronistic History" that Nebuchadnezzar I. was the
contemporary of Ashur-rêsh-ishi, the father of Tiglath-pileser I., and
if we can establish independently the date of the latter's accession,
we obtain approximate dates for Nebuchadnezzar and consequently for
Gulkishar.
In his inscription on the rock at Bavian Sennacherib tells us that
418 years elapsed between the defeat of Tiglath-pileser I. by
Marduk-nadin-akhê and his own conquest of Babylon in 689 B.C.[60]
Tiglath-pileser was therefore reigning in 1107 B.C., and we know from
his Cylinder-inscription that this year was not among the first five
of his reign; on this evidence the beginning of his reign has been
assigned approximately to 1120 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar I., the contemporary
of Tiglath-pileser's father, may thus have come to the throne at about
1140 B.C.; and, by adding the 696 years to this date, we obtain an
approximate date of 1836 B.C. as falling within the reign of Gulkishar
of the Second Dynasty. This date supports the figures of the Kings'
List, according to which Gulkishar would have been reigning from about
1876 to 1822 B.C. But it should be noted that the period of 696 years
upon the boundary-stone, though it has an appearance of great accuracy,
was probably derived from a round number; for the stone refers to
events which took place in Enlil-nadin-apli's fourth year, and the
number 696 may have been based upon the estimate that seven hundred
years separated Enlil-nadin-apli's reign from that of Gulkishar. It is
thus probable that the reference should not be regarded as more than a
rough indication of the belief that a portion of Gulkishar's reign fell
within the second half of the nineteenth century. But, even on this
lower estimate of the figure's accuracy, its agreement with our scheme
is equally striking.
One other chronological reference remains to be examined, and that is
the record of Ashur-bani-pal, who, when describing his capture of Susa
in about 647 B.C., relates that he recovered the image of the goddess
Nanâ, which the Elamite Kudur-Nankhundi had carried off from Erech
sixteen hundred and thirty-five years before.[61] This figure would
assign to Kudur-Nankhundi's invasion an approximate date of 2282 B.C.
As we possess no other reference to, nor record of, an early Elamite
king of this name, there is no question of harmonizing this figure with
other chronological records bearing on his reign. All that we can do is
to ascertain whether, according to our chronological scheme, the date
2282 B.C. falls within a period during which an Elamite king would have
been likely to invade Southern Babylonia and raid the city of Erech.
Tested in this way, Ashur-bani-pal's figure harmonizes well enough
with the chronology, for Kudur-Nankhundi would have invaded Babylonia
fifty-seven years after a very similar Elamite invasion which brought
the Dynasty of Ur to an end, and gave Nîsin her opportunity of securing
the hegemony.[62] That Elam continued to be a menace to Babylonia
is sufficiently proved by Kudur-Mabuk's invasion, which resulted in
placing his son Warad-Sin upon the throne of Larsa in 2143 B.C. It will
be noted that Ashur-bani-pal's figure places Kudur-Nankhundi's raid on
Erech in the period between the two most notable Elamite invasions of
early Babylonia, of which we have independent evidence.
Another advantage of the suggested chronological scheme is that it
enables us to clear up some of the problems presented by the dynasties
of Berossus, at least so far as concerns the historical period in
his system of chronology. In a later historian of Babylon we should
naturally expect to find that period beginning with the first dynasty
of rulers in the capital; but hitherto the available evidence did not
seem to suggest a date that could be reconciled with his system. It may
be worth while to point out that the date assigned under the new scheme
for the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon coincides approximately
with that deduced for the beginning of the historical period in
Berossus. Five of the historical dynasties of Berossus, following his
first dynasty of eighty-six kings who ruled for 34,090 years after
the Deluge,[63] are preserved only in the Armenian version of the
Chronicles of Eusebius[64] and are the following:--
Dynasty II., 8 Median usurpers, ruling 224 years;[65]
Dynasty III., 11 kings, the length of their rule wanting;[66]
Dynasty IV., 49 Chaldean kings, ruling 458 years;
Dynasty V., 9 Arab kings, ruling for 245 years;
Dynasty VI., 45 kings, ruling for 526 years.
It is not quite clear to what stage in the national history Berossus
intended his sixth dynasty to extend;[67] and in any case, the fact
that the figure is wanting for the length of his third dynasty, renders
their total duration a matter of uncertainty. But, in spite of these
drawbacks, a general agreement has been reached as to a date for the
beginning of his historical period, based on considerations independent
of the figures in detail. A. von Gutschmid's suggestion that the
kings after the Deluge were grouped by Berossus in a cycle of ten
_sars, i.e._ 36,000 years,[68] furnished the key that has been used
for solving the problem. For, if the first dynasty be subtracted from
this total, the remaining number of years would give the total length
of the historical dynasties. Thus, if we take the length of the first
dynasty as 34,090 years, the duration of the historical dynasties is
seen to have been 1910 years. Now the statement attributed to Abydenus
by Eusebius, to the effect that the Chaldeans reckoned their kings from
Alorus to Alexander,[69] has led to the suggestion that the period of
1910 years was intended to include the reign of Alexander the Great
(331-323 B.C.). If therefore we add 1910 years to 322 B.C., we obtain
2232 B.C. as the beginning of the historical period with which the
second dynasty of Berossus opened. It may be added that the same result
has been arrived at by taking 34,080 years as the length of his first
dynasty,[70] and by extending the historical period of 1920 years down
to 312 B.C., the beginning of the Seleucid Era.
Incidentally it may be noted that this date has been harmonized with
the figure assigned in the margin of some manuscripts as representing
the length of tin third dynasty of Berossus. It has usually been held
that his sixth dynasty ended with the predecessor of Nabonassar upon
the throne of Babylon, and that the following or seventh dynasty
would have begun in 747 B.C. But it has been pointed out that, after
enumerating the dynasties II.-VI., Eusebius goes on to say that after
these rulers came a king of the Chaldeans whose name was Phulus[71];
and this phrase has been explained as indicating that the sixth
dynasty of Berossus ended at the same point as the Ninth Babylonian
Dynasty, in 732 B.C., that is to say, with the reign of Nabû-shum-ukîn,
the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser IV., whose original name of Pulu is
preserved in the Babylonian List of Kings. Thus the seventh dynasty of
Berossus would have begun with the reign of the usurper Ukîn-zêr, who
was also the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser.[72] On this supposition
the figure "forty-eight," which occurs in the margin of certain
manuscripts of the Armenian version of Eusebius,[73] may be retained
for the number of years assigned by Berossus to his third dynasty.[74]
A further confirmation of the date 2232 B.C. for the beginning of the
historical period of Berossus has been found in a statement derived
from Porphyrins, to the effect that, according to Callisthenes, the
Babylonian records of astronomical observations extended over a period
of 1903 years down to the time of Alexander of Macedon.[75] Assuming
that the reading 1903 is correct, the observations would have extended
back to 2233 B.C., a date differing by only one year from that obtained
for the beginning of Berossus' historical dynasties.
Thus there are ample grounds for regarding the date 2232 B.C.
as representing the beginning of the historical period in the
chronological system of Berossus;[76] and we have already noted that
in a late Babylonian historian, writing during the Hellenistic period,
we should expect the beginning of his history, in the stricter sense
of the term, to coincide with the first recorded dynasty of Babylon,
as distinct from rulers of other and earlier city-states. It will be
observed that this date is only seven years out with that obtained
astronomically by Dr. Kugler for the rise of the First Dynasty of
Babylon. Now the astronomical demonstration relates only to the
reign of Ammi-zaduga, who was the tenth king of the First Dynasty;
and to obtain the date 2225 B.C. for Sumu-abum's accession, reliance
is naturally placed on figures for the intermediate reigns which
are supplied by the contemporaneous date-lists. But the Babylonian
Kings' List gives figures which were current in the Neo-Babylonian
period; and, by employing it in place of contemporaneous records, we
obtain the date 2229 B.C. for Sumu-abum's accession, which presents
a discrepancy of only three years to that deduced from Berossus. In
view of the slight inconsistencies with the Kings' List which we find
in at least one of the late chronicles, it is clear that the native
historians, who compiled their records during the later periods, found
a number of small variations in the chronological material on which
they had to rely. While there was probably agreement on the general
lines of the later chronology, the traditional length of some reigns
and dynasties might vary in different documents by a few years. We may
conclude therefore that the evidence of Berossus, so far as it can
be reconstituted from the summaries preserved in other works, may be
harmonized with the date obtained independently for the First Dynasty
of Babylon.
The new information, which has been discussed in this chapter, has
enabled us to carry further than was previously possible the process
of reconstructing the chronology; and we have at last been able to
connect the earlier epochs in the country's history with those which
followed the rise of Babylon to power. On the one hand we have obtained
definite proof of the overlapping of further dynasties with that of
the West Semitic kings of Babylon. On the other hand, the consequent
reduction in date is more than compensated by new evidence pointing
to the probability of a period of independent rule in Babylonia on
the part of some of the Sea-Country kings. The general effect of
the new discoveries is thus of no revolutionary character. It has
resulted, rather, in local rearrangements, which to a considerable
extent are found to counterbalance one another in their relation to the
chronological scheme as a whole. Perhaps the most valuable result of
the regrouping is that we are furnished with the material for a more
detailed picture of the gradual rise of Babylon to power. We shall
see that the coming of the Western Semites effected other cities than
Babylon, and that the triumph of the invaders marked only the closing
stage of a long and varied struggle.
[Footnote 1: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 64.]
[Footnote 2: The new discoveries, in their general effect, do not
involve any drastic changes in the accepted chronological scheme, as
the local rearrangements largely counterbalance one another; see below,
p. 117 f.]
[Footnote 3: Cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III., pp. lxviii, 236 f.]
[Footnote 4: See "Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings," I., p.
68 f.; 11., p. 17 f.]
[Footnote 5: Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Inscriptions de Sumener et d'Akkad,"
p. 300, n. 3; and "Sum. und Akkad. Königsinschriften," p. 210 f., note
_k._]
[Footnote 6: Cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III., pp. xxvi ff.]
[Footnote 7: Their votive inscriptions are collected by Thureau-Dangin,
"Königsinschriften," pp. 206 ff.]
[Footnote 8: Knowing that I was engaged upon this volume of my History
and that it would probably be printed off before his own work left
the press, Professor Clay very kindly sent me a transcript of his
Larsa Kings' List with full permission to make use of it. To enable
the reader to follow the argument with regard to the dynasty and its
chronology, the following transliteration and rendering may be given
of the text: "21 MU Na-ap-la-nu-um | 28 MU E-mi-su I 35 MU Sa-mn-um
| 9 MU Za-ba-aia | 27 MU Gu-un-gu-nu-um | 11 MU A-bi-sa-ri-e | 29 MU
Su-mu-ilum | 16 MU Nu-ur-(ilu)Adad | 7 (?) MU (ilu)Sin-idin-nam
| 2 MU (ilu)Sin-i-ri-ba-am | 6(?) MU(ilu)Sin-i-ki-sha-am | 1 MU
Sili(li)-(ilu)Adad | 12 MU Warad-(ilu)Sin | 61 MU (ilu)Ri-im-(ilu)Sin
| 12 (?) MU (ilu)Ha-am-mu-ra-bi | 12 MU Sa-am-su-i-lu-na sharru | 289
MU-III." In the translation that follows, a semicolon separates each
line of the text: "21 years Naplanum; 28 years Emisa; 35 years Samum; 9
years Zabâia; 27 years Gungunum; 11 years Abi-sarê; 29 years Sumu-ilum;
10 years Nûr-Adad; 7(?) years Sin-idinnam; 2 years Sin-iribam; 6(?)
years Sin-iḳîsham; 1 year Sili-Adad; 12 years Warad-Sin; 61 years
Rîm-Sin; 12(?) years Hammurabi; 12 years Samsu-iluna, the king; 289 the
years thereof." From the insertion of the word _sharru,_ "king," after
Samsu-iluna's name, we may infer that the list is a contemporaneous
document, drawn up in Samsu-iluna's twelfth year. Another point of
interest is that the scribe has written the determinative for divinity
before the names of Rîm-Sin and Hammurabi, but not before that of
Samsu-iluna. The numbers followed by a query are those suggested by
Professor Clay for the three broken passages; it will be noted that
they make up the total of the figures, which is given by the scribe as
two hundred and eighty-nine years.]
[Footnote 9: See above, p. 88.]
[Footnote 10: See further, p. 98 f.]
[Footnote 11: It should be noted that the name of the Babylonian city
now usually rendered as Isin should be more correctly read as Nîsin.
This is suggested by two forms of the name, which Prof. Clay tells me
occur on two tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection, Nos. 5415 and
5417; in the date-formulæ upon these tablets the city's name is written
as _Ni-i-si-in_ (KI) and _Ni-i-si-in-na_ (KI). Eventually the initial
was dropped; cf. p. 254, n. 2.]
[Footnote 12: Cf. "Chronicles," I., p. 168, n. 1.]
[Footnote 13: Cf. Hilprecht, "Mathematical, Metrological and
Chronological Tablets" (in "Bab. Exped.," Ser. A., Vol. X., i.), p. 55,
n. 1.]
[Footnote 14: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," pp. 63, 313 f.]
[Footnote 15: The identification of Rîm-Sin's capture of Nîsin with
that referred to in Sin-muballit's seventeenth year was first suggested
in "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 228, n. 39, and it was adopted for
purposes of chronology,'by Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tabl.,"
p. 50, note; Meyer, "Geschichte," I., ii., pp. 345, 556; Ungnad,
"Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, Col. 66, and "Z.D.M.G.," LVI., p. 714,
and others. Langdon has recently sought to identify Rîm-Sin's capture
with that referred to in the formula for Hammurabi's seventh year; see
"The Expositor," 1910, p. 131, and "Babyloniaca," 1914, p. 41, and cf.
Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents," p. 24 f. For Chiera's own
researches on the point, see below, p. 93 f.]
[Footnote 16: Cf. Edward Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents
from Nippur chiefly from the Dynasties of Isin and Larsa" (in
"University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Babylonian Section,"
Vol. VIII., No. 1), pp. 19 ff.]
[Footnote 17: _Op. cit.,_ p. 22.]
[Footnote 18: Cf. Chiera, _op. cit.,_ pl. ix., No. 15, 11. 27 ff.; pl.
xxiii., No. 35, 11. 20 ff.; and p. 21, No. 26.]
[Footnote 19: _Op. cit.,_ pl. vii., No. 12, 11. 29, 35 f.; pl. xxxv.,
No. 81, 11. 2, 23 ff.; and p. 20, No. 6.]
[Footnote 20: Professor Clay has written to inform me that on the
two tablets Y.B.C., Nos. 4229 and 4270, the usual formula for the
second year of the Nîsin era is followed by the words _shag mu ki
XVIII-kam,_ which may be rendered "within the eighteenth year," _i.e._
corresponding to the eighteenth year. On one tablet the addition to
the usual date takes the form _shag mu ki XVIII-kam in-ag (?),_ but
Prof. Clay is not quite certain of the reading of the sign _ag,_
which, he writes, "because the tablet was cased, is badly twisted." If
the reading is correct it is important, for the addition may then be
rendered "within (_i.e._ corresponding to) the eighteenth year that he
reigned," the word _in-ag_ being the verb usually employed in Sumerian
dynastic lists in sentences stating the number of years a king reigned.
Two other long date-formulæ for the same year (on tablets Y.B.C., Nos.
4307 and 4481) begin as follows: _mu ki II dim(?) mu ki XIX giš-ku-makh
Ana (dingir) En-lil (dingir) En-ki,_ etc. Here the reading of the
sign _dim_ is not absolutely certain, but, assuming its correctness,
the formula may be rendered: "The second year (corresponding to the
nineteenth year) in which with the exalted weapon of Anu, Enlil and Ea,
Rîm-Sin the king took the city of Nîsin," etc. It will be seen that
the readings, which are suggested by Prof. Clay for the two uncertain
signs in the formulæ, give excellent sense, and, if correct, they
definitely prove that the second figures in the equations were derived
from Rîm-Sin's regnal years. Hut, even if we regard the two signs as
quite uncertain, the general interpretation of the double-dates is not
affected; it would be difficult to explain them on any other hypothesis
than that adopted in the text.]
[Footnote 21: Some of his earlier date-formulæ have been recovered; see
below, p. 155.]
[Footnote 22: For many years past the latest date recovered of the
Nîsin era was one of the thirtieth year; see Scheil, "Recueil de
travaux," XXI. (1899), p. 125, and cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III.,
p. 229. Prof. Clay informs me that among the tablets of the Yale
Babylonian Collection is one dated in the thirty-first year of the fall
of Nîsin.]
[Footnote 23: The fact that they had always dated by formulæ, and not
by numbered years of the king's reign, is quite sufficient to explain
the uncertainty as to whether the accession-year should be included in
their reckoning. Thus the apparent discrepancy in the double-dates,
so far from weakening the explanation put forward in the text, really
affords it additional support and confirmation.]
[Footnote 24: See below, p. 190.]
[Footnote 25: See "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings," II..
p. 18.]
[Footnote 26: Cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, Col. 585 f.,
and Hrozný, "Wiener Zeitschrift," Bd. 21 (1908), p. 382.]
[Footnote 27: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 317, n. 2. The broken line
in the chronicle reads: (.........) _zu-na-a_ (m)Rîm-(ilu)Sin ana
(.........) illik(ik), "(.........) ... Rîm-Sin to (.........)
marched." The rendering suggested by Winckler and Hrozný was:
"[.........]zuna, the son of Rîm-Sin, to (.........) marched;" but
their translation ignored the fact that, in these late chronicles,
"son" is always expressed by the sign TUR (_mâru,_) never by A
(_aplu_).]
[Footnote 28: _Cf._ Ungnad, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXIII., pp. 73 ff.,
and Thureau-Dangin, "Journal Asiatique," xiv., 1909, pp. 335 ff.]
[Footnote 29: The difference in price may perhaps be traced to the
political revolution, which may have enabled one of the parties to
exact better terms from the other.]
[Footnote 30: See above, p. 90 f.]
[Footnote 31: Cf. "Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings," I.,
p. 184 f.]
[Footnote 32: See above, p. 93 f.]
[Footnote 33: See above, p. 94, n. 2.]
[Footnote 34: If Ibḳushu was appointed priest in Damiḳ-ilishu's
last year, the interval would be exactly forty-four years; but as
Damiḳ-ilishu reigned for twenty-three years, Ibḳushu may well have been
appointed several years earlier.]
[Footnote 35: See Poebel, "Babylonian Legal and Business Documents,"
pl. 3, No. 6, 11. 25, 30 ff., and pl. 11, No. 23, 11. 33, 36 ff.; and
cf. Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents from Nippur," p. 21,
No. 24.]
[Footnote 36: Cf. Chiera, _op. cit.,_ p. 22. Chiera's own deduction
from the proper names (pp. 29 ff.) must of course be modified in view
of the Larsa Kings' List; but his data hold good.]
[Footnote 37: On the suggested hypothesis with regard to the Larsa
List, Rîm-Sin's capture of Nîsin would have taken place two years after
Hammurabi's attack on that city. But, if we reject the hypothesis, the
Nîsin era would have begun in Sin-muballit's seventh year.]
[Footnote 38: See pp. 142 ff. The survival of the Nîsin era, during
the first years of Larsa's vassalage, seems to offer less difficulties
than those involved in an acceptance of Rîm-Sin's sixty-one years of
independent rule, followed at first by twenty-one or twenty-two years
of political obscurity, and then by a period of active operations in
the field. And, apart from the improbabilities involved in the length
of Rîm-Sin's life, the further difficulty of the interruption of the
Nîsin era by Sin-muballit's and Hammurabi's conquests of the city would
still remain (see above, p. 92 f.).]
[Footnote 39: That was the view I suggested in "Chronicles concerning
Early Babylonian Kings," I., pp. 96 ff., and it was adopted by Meyer,
"Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft, ii., p. 340 f.]
[Footnote 40: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 63, n. 2.]
[Footnote 41: See Poebel, "Business Documents," pl. 40, No. 68, and
Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents," pi. xl., No. 89.]
[Footnote 42: Cf. "Chronicles," II., pp. 19 ff. That the Sea-Country
was Babylon's most powerful rival at this time may be inferred from
the inclusion of Iluma-ilum's name in the Chronicle. He is evidently
selected for mention as the leader of the most notable invasion of the
period.]
[Footnote 43: See above, p. 90, note.]
[Footnote 44: See Schorr, "Urkunden des altbab. Ziv. und
Prozessrechts," p. 595.]
[Footnote 45: We know that Iluma-ilum was the contemporary of Abi-eshu'
as well as of Samsu-iluna. As he is credited by the Kings' List with a
reign of sixty years, it is possible, if we accept that figure, that
he had established his dynasty in the Sea-Country some years before
attacking Larsa. His accession has been placed as early as Hammurabi's
twenty-sixth year (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp.
176 ff.), though the same writer, by making a reduction of twenty years
in his dates for the Third and Second Dynasties, afterwards assumed
that he secured his throne in Samsu-iluna's fourth year (_op. cit.,_
p. 185 f.). As we have no evidence that Iluma-ilum was Hammurabi's
contemporary, it is safer to place his accession in Samsu-iluna's
reign; and, in that case, the date-formula for the twelfth year appears
to offer the most probable occasion for his revolt.]
[Footnote 46: The figures are probably not absolutely accurate; see
below, p. 209, n. 1.]
[Footnote 47: see his "Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel," 1907-1913.]
[Footnote 48: This, the principal text, is numbered K. 160, and its
text was published by George Smith in Rawlinson's "Cun. Inscr. West.
Asia," III., pl. 63. Translations and studies have been given of it by
Sayce, "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," III. (1874), pp. 316 ff.; by Sayce
and Bosanquet, "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,"
XL. (1880). p. 566 ff., and by Schiaparelli, "Venusbeobachtungen und
Berechnungen der Babylonier" (1906). For other references, see Bezold,
"Catalogue," I., p. 42.]
[Footnote 49: The second of the two inscriptions is numbered
K. 2821 + K. 3032, and its text has been published by Craig,
"Astrological-Astronomical Texts." pl. 46; cf. also Virolleaud,
"L'Astrologie Chaldéenne," Ishtar XII., XV. and XIV.]
[Footnote 50: Cf. "Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Mabel," Buch II.,
Teil ii., Hft. I, pp. 257 ff. In addition to broken passages occurring
in the two texts, some scribal errors appear to have crept in in the
course of transmission.]
[Footnote 51: From contemporary date-formulæ we know that Ammi-zaduga
reigned for more than seventeen years. The Babylonian Kings' List
ascribes him twenty-one.]
[Footnote 52: According to this criterion, Anuni-zaduga's sixth year
could have fallen in 2036-5 B.C., or in 1972-1 B.C., or in 1853-2 B.C.,
thus giving for his first year the three possible dates, 2041-40 B.C.,
or 1977-6 b.c., or 1858-7 b.c.]
[Footnote 53: For this purpose it may be used in conjunction with the
later Assyrian synchronisms, and with the date of Burna-Buriash as
obtained from Egyptian sources (see below, p. 111).]
[Footnote 54: It may be worth while noting-that, if we place the whole
of Rîm-Sin's reign of sixty-one years before Hammurabi's conquest of
Larsa, we raise the first two dates given in the text by twenty-two
years. On that assumption the Dynasty of Nîsin would have been
founded in 2361 B.C., and that of Larsa in 2357 B.C. Consequently the
Dynasties of Nîsin and of Babylon would have overlapped for a period of
eighty-nine years, instead of one hundred and eleven. But the balance
of probability is in favour of the later dates; see above, p. 103, n.
2.]
[Footnote 55: See Bezold, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XI., pp. 94,
99, and pl. iv., 85-4-30, 2, Col. II., 11. 20 ff., and Rawlinson,
"Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," I., 69, Col. II., 1. 4; cf. also Langdon,
"Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften," p. 238 f.]
[Footnote 56: See "Chronicles," I., p. 87 f.]
[Footnote 57: An approximate date of 1430-1400 _b.c._ is assigned to
him by Budge, "History of Egypt," Vol. IV., pp. 113 ff.; while his
accession is placed in 1383 b.c. by Pétrie, "History of Egypt," Vol.
II., pp. 205 ff.; in 1380 B.C. by Meyer, "Ægyptische Chronologie," p.
68, and "Geschichte," I., ii., p. 335 f., and Hall, "Ancient History
of the Near East," p. 228; and in 1375 B.C. by Breasted, "History of
Egypt," p. 509, and "Ancient Records," Vol. I., p. 43. Maspero implies
a date of about 1380 B.C.; cf. "Histoire ancienne," II., p. 337, note.]
[Footnote 58: According to Dr. Budge's scheme of chronology, an
approximate date of 1400 B.C. for Burna-Buriash would yield for
Hammurabi a date of c. 2100 B.C. (equivalent to his twenty-fourth
year).]
[Footnote 59: See Hilprecht, "Old Babylonian Inscriptions," Pt. I., pi.
30 f., No. 83; cf. also Jensen, "Zeits. für Assyr.," VIII., pp. 220 ff.]
[Footnote 60: Cf. King, "Tukulti-Ninib I.," p. 118 f.]
[Footnote 61: See Rawlinson, "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. III., pl.
38, No. 1, Obv. 1. 10.]
[Footnote 62: See below, p. 133.]
[Footnote 63: That Berossus depended on native lists of rulers in
compiling his first dynasty of semi-mythical kings has been strikingly
confirmed by documents discovered recently in the Niffer Collection of
tablets preserved in the Pennsylvania Museum. These have been published
by Poebel, "Univ. of Pennsyl. Mus. Publications," Vol. IV., No. I, and
Vol. V., and the new information they furnish is of great interest for
the earlier history. It may be noted that the figure 34,090 is that
given for the duration of the dynasty in Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p.
147); in the equivalent in sars, etc., which is added (_i.e._ 9 _sars,_
2 _ners,_ and 8 _soss_ = 34,080 years), it is probable that the units
are intentionally ignored, though some would regard 34,080 as the
correct figure (see below, p. 115). In Eusebius ("Chron. lib. I.," ed.
Schoene, Col. 25) the figure is 33,091 (probably a mistake for 34,091);
this figure at any rate confirms the reading of ninety (against eighty)
in Syncellus, cf. Meyer, "Beiträge zur alten Geschichte (Klio)," III.,
p. 133; and see further, p. 116 f., n. 5.]
[Footnote 64: Eusebius, "Chron. lib. I.," ed. Schoene, Col. 25; see
also Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, "Real-Encyclopädie," III. (i.). Col.
311.]
[Footnote 65: In margin of MSS. 34 years.]
[Footnote 66: In margin of MSS. 48 years.]
[Footnote 67: See further, p. 115 f.]
[Footnote 68: Those before the Deluge are said to have reigned for a
hundred and twenty _sars, i.e._ 432,000 years.]
[Footnote 69: Eusebius, "Chron. lib. I.," ed. Schoene, Col. 53:
"Hoc pacto Khaldæi suæ regionis reges ab Aloro usque ad Alexandrum
recensent."]
[Footnote 70: See above, p. 114, n. 1.]
[Footnote 71: "Chron. lib. I.," ed. Schoene, Col. 25: "postquos, inquit
(_sc._ Poly-histor), rex Chaldæorum extitit, cui nomen Phulus est."]
[Footnote 72: That is to say, at the point marked by the group Χίνξηρος
καὶ Πῶros in the Ptolemaic Canon. Ukîn-zêr is an abbreviation of
Nabû-mukîn-zêr.]
[Footnote 73: See above, p. 114, n. 4.]
[Footnote 74: Cf. Meyer, "Beiträge zur alten Geschichte (Klio)," III.,
pp. 131 ff.]
[Footnote 75: The statement occurs in the commentary of Simplicius
upon Aristotle's "De Caelo," and the Greek text reads 31,000; cf. ed.
Heiberg, p. 506. But in a Latin translation by Moerbeka the figure is
given as 1903, and this probably represents the original reading; cf.
Lehmann-Haupt, "Zwei Hauptprobleme," pp. 109 f., 210, and Meyer, _op.
cit.,_ p. 131.]
[Footnote 76: The Pennsylvania documents published by Poebel (see
above, p. 114, n. 1) suggest that variant traditions were current with
regard to the number of mythical and semi-mythical rulers of Babylonia
and the duration of their rule. For instance, in two of the lists
drawn up under the Nîsin kings, and separated from one another by an
interval of only sixty-seven years, the total duration of the preceding
dynasties appears to be given in one as 32,243, and in the other as
28,876 years. But this fact does not, of course, prevent the use of the
figures which have come to us from Berossus, in order to ascertain the
beginning of the historical period in the system he employed.]