7T? &IV% Lu ND A*so I, 1OF TIhE r OF?4CICRN,. r-11 e"'\ — AW rjll- t -- It-. A Ks,..k, "I-4 O . 2' / (N <111e/ Ztubi'ez In Eastern lbiztorp~, II. CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS: VOL. I. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS. - - STUDIES IN EASTERN HISTORY. Vol. I.-RECORDS OF THE REIGN OF TUKULTININIB I, KING OF ASSYRIA, edited from a memorial tablet in the British Museum. Vol. II.-CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS, including records of the early history of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea. Vol. i, Introductory chapters. Vol. III.-CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS, including records of the early history of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea. Vol. ii, Texts and Translations. [Other volumes are in preparation.] LUZAC AND CO. A Chronicle concerning Sargon and Naram-Sin, kings of Agade, and other early rulers. [No. 26,472, Obverse.] Stubiez in Eaztern bistor,. ii i i iii ] CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS, INCLUDING RECORDS OF THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE KASSITES AND THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA, v EDITED BY L. W. KING, M.A., F.S.A., ASSISTANT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EGYPTIAN AND ASSYRIAN ANTIQUITIES IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. VOL. I. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS. LONDON: LUZAC AND Co. 1907. [All Rights Resemved.] PREFACE. THE present volume is concerned with the discussion of the new historical information supplied by the chronicles which are published and translated in the second volume of this work. The texts here published and discussed for the first time include two Chronicles concerning early Babylonian kings; a new Babylonian Chronicle of events ranging from the eleventh to the seventh century B.C.; a Religious Chronicle referring to the eleventh century B.C.; a new Date-List of the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon; and part of a Neo-Babylonian version of the " Omens of Sargon and Naram-Sin." With one exception, the tablets from which the texts are taken date from the late Babylonian period, but they incorporate traditions referring to some of the earliest kings of Babylonia and Assyria. Much of the new information afforded by the Chronicles concerning early kings is given in the form of synchronisms, in which well-known names are found in unfamiliar combinations, and these will oblige us to revise some of our conceptions of early Babylonian and Assyrian chronology. In the present work an attempt has been made to indicate the lines on which a reconstruction of the history of these early periods can be made, and we may here briefly refer to some of the more important 17506 i Vlll 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 earlier 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 themselves 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 elimination of this dynasty from the scheme of Babylonian chronology at once has the effect of reducing the date usually assigned to the First Dynasty of Babylon by three hundred and sixty-eight years. We thus obtain for Su-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty, a date not earlier than the twenty-first century B.C., and for Hammurabi, the most powerful 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 Assyrian history, which occurs on one of the Chronicles here published. We learn that Su-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty, was the contemporary of Ilu-shfima, an early Assyrian ruler whose name has recently been recovered at Sherghat. This 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 enables us to trace back the history of Assyria beyond the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The revised scheme of Babylonian and Assyrian chronology may be seen at a glance by referring to the table of contemporaneous rulers printed on p. 136 f. of this volume. So considerable a reduction in the date usually assigned to the First Dynasty of Babylon is farreaching in its effects, and in the first chapter of this volume a sketch is given of the manner in which it bears upon certain problems connected with the age of Babylonian civilization, and with the early chronology of Egypt and of the Bible. It 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 harmonizes with that suggested by Prof. Eduard Meyer for the earlier 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 separating Abraham and the Exodus, is seen to agree more closely with the results of archeological research than has hitherto appeared to be the case. The problem of reconciling the Babylonian dynasties with the chronological system of Berossus is discussed at some length in the fourth chapter. It is there shown x PREFACE. that the assumption which underlies the majority of the schemes of reconciliation suggested, that the beginning of the historical period of Berossus is to be set within the period'of the First Dynasty of Babylon, is incorrect. In fact, the first historical dynasty of Berossus is to be synchronized with some earlier dynasty than that founded by Su-abu-a dynasty which did not necessarily occupy the throne of Babylon, but probably had its capital in one of the other great cities of Mesopotamia. A point of literary rather than of historical interest concerns the first of the Chronicles here published, which recounts the deeds of Sargon and Narim-Sin, the early kings of Agade; for it supplies 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 certain appearances observed in the entrails, and particularly in the liver, of a sacrificial victim are associated with episodes in the history of these two early kings; and it has long been recognized that the historical references contained in this augural text are of great value. The copy of the original Chronicle from which these extracts were taken supplies us with additional information of considerable interest, and clears 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, i.e., the Mediterranean, but merely the Persian Gulf. Thus the principal support PREFACE. xi of the theory that Sargon crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus falls to the ground. Another point of some literary interest attaches to a later section of the Chronicle, concerning the story of two early Assyrian kings, which has come down to us in the history of Agathias. The story relates how one of them, although a gardener by profession, was adopted by the other as his successor, and how he eventually succeeded him upon the throne. It has hitherto been supposed that Agathias in his history merely reproduced a form of the legend of Sargon, who was brought up as a gardener before he became king of Agade. But we have now recovered the original Babylonian form of the story, which, with the exception of certain differences in the names, tallies exactly with that given in Agathias. Apart from the chronological data to which reference has already been made, the new texts supply us with historical information of a very varied character, extending through widely different periods of history. We need not here enumerate points of detail, but may select a few of the new facts which are of special interest, inasmuch as they throw light upon racial movements in Babylonia, and illustrate the composite character of the ancient 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. It is xii PREFACE. probable that, under the early kings of Sumer and Akkad, a Sumerian reaction took place against the rule of the Semitic kings of Northern Babylonia. The rise of the Dynasty of Ur marked the success of this movement in Southern Babylonia, and we now have evidence that the reaction took a religious as well as a political form. For one of the Chronicles embodies the tradition that Dungi, king of Ur, sacked Babylon and carried off the treasures of Esagila, the great temple of Marduk in that city; and it further records the fact that he particularly favoured Eridu, one of the oldest religious 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 Nippur; and we may see in Dungi's action an attempt to destroy her influence by restoring the splendours of one of the earliest and most sacred cities of the Sumerians. Another record to which attention may be called is that of an early invasion of the Hittites, which took place in the reign of Samsu-ditana, the last king of the First Dynasty of Babylon. In view of the elimination of the Second Dynasty from the throne of Babylon, to which we have already referred, we may connect this invasion with the recovery of the statues of Marduk and Sarpanitum from Khani, in Northern Syria, by the Kassite king, Agum II. We may, in fact, conclude that the statues were carried off in Samsu-ditana's reign, PREFACE. xiii and that, consequently, the Hittites on this occasion captured Babylon, and sacked the temple of Esagila. The end of the powerful dynasty of Hammurabi may probably be traced, directly or indirectly, to the Hittite invasion. In view of the recent discovery of tablets at Boghaz K6i, in Cappadocia, which prove that the ancient capital of the Hittites stood upon that site, and bore the name of Khatti, the record of this early activity of Hittite tribes in Babylonia is of peculiar interest. Hitherto no record has been published of the conquest of Babylonia by the Kassites, though the existence of the Kassite Dynasty upon the throne of Babylon pointed to such a conquest as having taken place. We now learn that the Kassites did not conquer the whole of Babylonia at one time, and that their conquest of Southern Babylonia was provoked by an invasion of Elam, undertaken by Ea-gamil, king of the " Country of the Sea." The Kassite conquest of Northern Babylonia and of Babylon itself had already taken place, probably soon after the sack of Babylon by the Hittites at the end of the First Dynasty of Babylon. At 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 xiv PREFACE. by a hostile race, which took place at a far later period, in the reign of Adad-aplu-iddina, the contemporary of Ashur-bel-kala, king of Assyria. The new Babylonian Chronicle which is here published, after recording the friendly relations existing between these two kings in phrases very similar to those employed in the "Synchronous History" of Babylonia and Assyria, relates how in his reign the Sutu, a nomad race, perhaps of Aramaean origin, ravaged the whole of Babylonia, and returned to their own district with much spoil. One of the results of this invasion may be traced in the destruction of the great temple of the Sun-god at Sippar, which is referred to by Nabu-aplu-iddina upon the famous " Sun-god Tablet." The last incursion of hostile tribes into Babylonia, upon which light is thrown by the new texts, is that of the Aramaeans themselves. We learn that in the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli, an early king, and probably the founder, of the Eighth Dynasty of the Kings' List, the Aramaean tribes along the Euphrates made a successful war upon Babylon. A still later raid of Aramaean tribes is also recorded, which must probably be set within the eight troubled years following the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib in 689 B.c. On this occasion the Aramaeans seized property in the immediate neighbourhood of Babylon and Borsippa, but they were defeated and driven off by a certain Erba-Marduk, who in consequence claimed the Babylonian 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 new Babylonian Chronicle and the Religious Chronicle afford additional information with regard to the celebration of the Feast of the New Year, while the latter contains a series of portents which are of interest for the study of Babylonian religion. It is unfortunate that we can only determine by conjecture the date of the portent which was probably derived from a solar eclipse. Since this event took place in the eleventh century B.C., its value as affording a fixed point in Babylonian chronology will be considerable if we eventually recover the name of the Babylonian king in whose seventh year it is recorded to have taken place. In the first chapter of this volume the question is discussed as to what amount of credibility is to be accorded to these late Babylonian chronicles, when they refer to events which happened in the earliest periods of Babylonian history. Among the reasons there adduced in favour of accepting their evidence, 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. Hilprecht of the facts supplied by the new Chronicles with regard xvi PREFACE. to the overlapping of the First and Second Dynasties of the Kings' List. I have now received from his pupil, Dr. A. Poebel, an advance copy of a paper, to be published in the " Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie," 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, is to be assigned to the reign of Iluma-ilu. But one of the new Chronicles records the fact that Iluma-ilu carried on successful wars against Samsu-iluna and his son Abeshu'. We are thus furnished with a fresh instance in which a statement of one of these late chronicles 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 Ottoman Museum, for allowing me to make a copy of the Constantinople Date-List during my work at the Museum in the winter of 1902; to Mr. P. PI. Cowell, of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, for information with regard to solar eclipses of the eleventh century B.C.; and to Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge for friendly suggestions made during the progress of the work. L. W. KING. LONDON, March 30th, 1907. CONTENTS. PAGE CHAPTER I. The historical value of the new chronicles; their effects upon early Babylonian dates, and upon certain problems of Egyptian and Biblical chronology............... CHAPTER II. The Chronicle of Sargon and Naram-Sin and two versions of the "Omens.................. 27 CHAPTER III. Traditions concerning Dungi and other early rulers; the Beleous and Beletaras of Agathias........... 56 CHAPTER IV. The inter-relations of the First, Second, and Third Dynasties of the List of Kings, and the Chronological System of Berossus... 76 CHAPTER V. A new synchronism in early Babylonian and Assyrian history, and its effects upon Babylonian and Assyrian chronology...... 15 Appendix to ChapterV.: Table of contemporaneous rulers in Assyria, Babylon, Elam, and the Country of the Sea...... 136 CHAPTER VI. The early history of Babylon and her foreign relations; the Hittite Invasion, the Kassites, and the Country of the Sea.... 139 CIAPTER VII. A new Date-List of the Kings of the First Dynasty and the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle............ 157 CHAPTER VIII. A new Babylonian Chronicle relating to events from the eleventh to the seventh century B.C................ I86 CHAP rER IX. A Babylonian Religious Chronicle and Register of Portents; and a possible record of a solar eclipse of the eleventh century B.C... 212 INDEX.......................... 241 (IC CHRONICLES CONCERNING EARLY BABYLONIAN KINGS. CHAPTER I. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE NEW CHRONICLES; THEIR EFFECTS UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN DATES AND UPON CERTAIN PROBLEMS OF EGYPTIAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. NOT the least valuable of our sources for the history of Babylonia are the chronicles, written during the later periods, which recount in brief outline the most striking achievements of the earlier 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 earlier times. One of the most striking characteristics of the Babylonians was their love of exactness in dating historical events, a characteristic which they had inherited from their Sumerian predecessors. It is certain that from the earliest periods historical records were compiled and carefully preserved in the principal cities of Mesopotamia, and proof of this fact may be seen in the B 2 BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES. Sumerian date-lists which have already been recovered. The Semitic kings of the First Dynasty adopted without alteration the Sumerian method of timereckoning, and their own date-formulae were written in the Sumerian language and their date-lists were compiled upon Sumerian lines. It is true that this cumbrous method of dating by events was afterwards simplified in the Kassite period, but the Sumerian love of exact chronology was never abandoned by the Babylonians, and to its influence we may also probably trace the annalistic spirit of the Assyrian kings. Towards the close of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and after the Persian conquest of Babylon, the native scribes devoted themselves to the study and preservation of the ancient records, seeking a solace for contemporary disasters in a knowledge of the earlier greatness of their country. To a scribe of the reign of Darius 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, referring to rather earlier periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history, and both the Babylonian Lists of Kings, are also to be assigned to this late period. The well-known chronicle of the reign of Nabonidus also dates from the Persian occupation of Babylon, but this document differs from the others that have been mentioned in that it is concerned with events which happened nearer to the time of its compilation. THE NEW TEXTS. 3 That the scribes of the Neo-Babylonian period did not invent the method of epitomizing history by means of chronicles and lists is amply attested by documents which have been found in Ashur-bani-pal's royal library at Nineveh. The "Synchronous History," the tablet of the Babylonian Dynasties, the lists of Eponyms, and the explanatory List of Royal Names, prove that in the seventh century the collection and classification of historical materials was already an advanced science. And, although we do not possess any chronological document which was actually written in the period between the First Dynasty of Babylon and the later Assyrian Empire, there is no doubt that the systematic study of chronology was always pursued by the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes. The existence of such documents is indicated by the chronological references and calculations which are frequently met with in the historical and building inscriptions of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings. The present work is concerned with the publication and discussion of some fresh chronological material, which will be treated in detail in the following chapters. But before we undertake an examination of the new data it may be well to ascertain the credibility of the more important documents and their claim to be cited as evidence. The new texts are not all of the same class and character, and three of them do not call for any special 4 HISTORICAL VALUE scrutiny apart from that attempted in the chapters devoted to them. Thus the chronicle relating to events from the eleventh to the seventh century B.C.,] although it gives much of its information in the form of extracts and summaries from a longer text, belongs to the same class as the Babylonian chronicles already known. It thus falls into a well-defined and recognized category, and the value of its evidence may be conceded. To a rather different category must be assigned the religious chronicle and register of portents.2 No other precisely similar document has yet been published, but, since its information is mainly of a religious aid augural character, its historical value is of secondary importance. It is true that special interest attaches to -one of the portents recorded, which may possibly refer to a solar eclipse of the eleventh century B.C., but the interpretation and credibility of the statement may best be discussed in connection with its context. The new date-list of the First Dynasty of Babylon3 differs from the two texts already referred to, in that it was actually written during the period of which it treats. Like the other date-lists of this period which are already known, it carries the weight of a contemporary witness, and the value of its statements requires no demonstration. But two of the new chronicles,4 which may perhaps S ee Chap. VIII. 2 See Chap. IX. 3 See Chap. VII. 4 See Chap. II ff. OF THE NEW CHRONICLES. 5 be regarded is the most important of the texts here published, do call for special treatment from the nature of the information they supply. The actual tablets upon which the texts are written, like the other Babylonian chronicles, date from the late Babylonian period, but their contents refer to the earliest periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history. In them we find traditions concerning Sargon of Agade and his son Naram-Sin; Dungi, king of Ur; Su-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and Hammurabi, Samsu-iluna, Abeshu', and Samsu-ditana, all kings of the same dynasty; Iluma-ilu, the founder of the Second Dynasty of the List of Kings, and Ea-gamil with whose reign that dynasty came to an end; Ulam-Buriash, Bitiliash, and Agum, early Kassite rulers; Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni, probably two very early kings of Assyria, and Ilu-shuma,._whose name has only recently been recovered at Sherghat among those of the earliest rulers of that country. From this list of names it will be seen that the tablets deal with periods of history far earlier, than those referred to in any of the chronicles as yet recovered. The great lapse of time, which, separated the events recorded from the period at which the actual records were inscribed, renders an inquiry necessary with regard to the credibility of the traditions they incorporate. A brief examination of the new texts will suffice to show that they are to be classified as chronicles, not 6 HISTORICAL VALUE legends. The tablets from Ashur-bani-pal's library which are inscribed with legends concerning early Babylonian kings, both in their contents and their style of composition, form a striking contrast to the two documents under discussion.I While the former are of the nature of poetical compositions, the latter, with the exception of some lines describing Sargon's exploits, are couched in the language of the historical chronicles. Moreover, the new texts describe wars and conquests, the capture and sack of cities and the like, and their narrative is never interrupted by the speeches and mythological episodes so characteristic of the legendary texts.2 In fact, we may class the new documents in the same category as the Babylonian Chronicle itself. It is true that the latter gives a rather fuller and more detailed treatment of the periods to which it refers, but I See Cuneiform Texts front Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, Pt. XIII, pll. 39 ff. The poetical nature of the legends is well represented in the two longest of the texts recovered, those concerning Sargon of Agade and an early king of Erech; for a translation of the former see Vol. II, pp. 87 ff., and for the latter see The Seven Tablets of Creation, Vol. I, pp. 140 ff. 2 In the tablet inscribed with a list or catalogue of legends, which was found at Kuyunjik (R. 6I8, cf. Bezold, Catalogue, Vol. IV, p. I627), the legend of Sargon is duly mentioned (Rev., 1. 9). Another legend of Sargon is also catalogued, beginning Sarrn-ukin huph2 (Obv., 1. 5), but no mention is made of the chronicle of Sargon here published, which begins Sarru-uktn saar Agade. The negative evidence of this native catalogue may therefore be cited in support of the view that the new text is to be regarded as a chronicle. OF THE NEW CHRONICLES. 7 this was doubtless due to the greater wealth of historical material which its compiler had at his disposal. The new texts treat of kings and rulers who lived at very much earlier periods, and the records concerning them which had survived in the later Babylonian periods were naturally more fragmentary and incomplete. When due allowance has been made for the restricted character of their sources of information, it will be seen that the compilers of the new texts have treated their material in precisely the same manner as the chroniclers who deal with later kings. The principal information supplied by the new texts is contained in a series of synchronisms between contemporaneous rulers, a characteristic which in itself entitles them to a special claim of credibility. In this particular they present a strong contrast to the lists of kings and dynasties, which are essentially artificial, and are liable to considerable changes in the course of transmission. A broken original or a sleepy scribe ma) cause alteration of figures or transposition of names in a list of kings. But synchronisms which are based, not on any mechanical order of names in a list, but on definite traditions concerning wars and conquests, are liable to no such risks of alteration. From their style of composition and the nature of their contents, the new texts are therefore such as to inspire confidence in the accuracy of the statements they contain. But we have not to depend entirely upon internal 8 HISTORICAL VALUE. evidence to prove the credibility of the traditions which the new chronicles incorporate. A far more convincing test may be applied by means of the contemporary records which have come down to us from the earlier periods of Babylonian history. Thus the statement of the first of the new chronicles, that Naram-Sin conquered the king of Magan, whose name is given as Mannudannu, is confirmed by an inscription upon a statue of Naram-Sin, which was found recently by de Morgan at Susa: Naram-Sin is there recorded to have conquered the " lord " of Magan, whose name is stated to have been Mani[.. ].1 Again, the second of the chronicles states that the Kassite ruler Ulam-Bur(i)ash defeated Ea-gamil (the last king of the Second Dynasty) and conquered 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 it was the property of Ula-Burariash, who styles himself "king of the Country of the Sea."2 On the discovery of the inscription it seemed strange that a king with an obviously Kassite name should bear this title, but the explanation is now furnished by the chronicle. Such are the two most striking instances in which The last syllable of the name is wanting in the text; see below, Chap. II. 2 See below, Chaps. IV and VI. OF THE NEW CHRONICLES. 9 statements of the new chronicles find confirmation in the early Babylonian texts. But several other instances of agreement between the early records and these late Babylonian chronicles may be cited. Thus Hammurabi's defeat of Rim-Sin is amply confirmed by his own dateformulae. The writing of the name of the founder of the First Dynasty as Su-abu agrees with the form of his name upon the principal date-list of the First Dynasty. The existence of the early Assyrian ruler Ilu-shuma is vouched for by recent discoveries at Sherghat. The statements that Naram-Sin was the son of Sargon, that Dungi was the son of Ur-Engur, and that Samsuiluna was the son of Hammurabi, are in accordance with the evidence of these kings themselves, while the assertion that Abeshu' was the son of Samsu-iluna is amply attested by independent evidence. In fact, wherever it is 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. External evidence thus leads to the same conclusion at which we arrived from a consideration 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 combination, their evidence is not to be lightly dismissed as IO EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA legendary, but must be regarded as having its foundation in fact. Now that we have examined the value of the new chronicles as evidence, and have seen that the synchronisms they furnish may be accepted as historically correct, we may enquire briefly to what extent our new information may modify the very high dates that are usually assigned for the beginnings of Sumerian and Babylonian history. The effects of the new synchronisms upon the scheme of Babylonian chronology will be discussed in detail in the following chapters, but we may here anticipate the results to be obtained from an examination of the texts themselves by stating that the date of the First Dynasty, based upon the figures of the Babylonian List of Kings, must be considerably reduced. In fact our new information definitely proves that the First and Second Dynasties of the Kings' List were partly contemporaneous, while the most probable interpretation of other passages in the chronicles would make the Kassite Dynasty follow immediately after the First. We may therefore infer that the so-called " Second Dynasty" only ruled in the country of the Sea (on the shores of the Persian Gulf), and did not occupy the Babylonian throne between the First 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 fallen into such an error, the suspicion at once arises that the later Assyrian and Neo UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY. II Babylonian scribes may have been similarly misled in their calculation of the dates of early Babylonian kings. Now the date of 5000 or 6000 B.C., to which the earliest remains of the Sumerians are usually assigned,I to a certain extent depends upon the belief that the early Semitic king, Sargon of Agade, ruled at about 3800 B.C. But Sargon's date depends in turn upon a reference to his son by Nabonidus2; and if the scribes of Nabonidus arrived at their high figures by treating certain dynasties as successive, which were in reality partly or wholly contemporaneous, it would follow that Sargon's date should be reduced considerably. And as a corollary to such a reduction it might be urged that the very early dates for the beginning of Sumerian civilization in Babylonia should also be considerably lowered.3 Other I Hilprecht has dated the founding of the temple of Bel and the first settlements in Nippur, "somewhere between 6000 and 7000 B.C., possibly even earlier " (see Old Babylonian Inscriptions, Pt. II, p. 24. 2 According to Nabonidus 3200 years elapsed between the burial of Naram-Sin's foundation-inscription in the temple of Shamash at Sippar, and his own finding of the inscription (see Rawlinson, Cutn. Inscr. West. Asia (Vol. V, pl. 64, Col. II, 11. 54-65); on this figure the date of 3750 B.C. has been assigned to Naram-Sin, and 3800 B.C. to his father Sargon. 3 Professor Hilprecht has been one of the staunchest upholders of the earliest dates for the beginnings of Babylonian history (see above, n. i). In the autumn of this year (I906) I discussed the question with him, communicating to him some of the conclusions at which I had arrived with regard to the overlapping of the early Babylonian dynasties. In support of retaining early dates he informs me that he will shortly publish part of an early dynastic tablet (in his forthcoming work on " Mathematical 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 Nabonidus,I and to Kudur-nankhundi's invasion of Babylonia on the figures of Ashur-bani-pal.2 Such a method of reducing early dates has far more to recommend it than any ingenious textual emendation. For the hypothesis accepts the figures given in the texts as representing the firm belief of the scribes by whom they were drawn up, while at the same time it gives a plausible explanation of the error by which it is assumed they were obtained. But it is not contended that we must forthwith reject these dates without further examination. On the contrary, each of the three dates referred to above must be examined on its own merits, and, when this is done, it will be seen that they do not all stand in the same and Chronological Tablets"), and that, although the portion of the text that is preserved refers to the Dynasties of Ur and Isin, the original size of the tablet proves the existence of many earlier dynasties. I.e., the statement of Nabonidus that Hammurabi rebuilt the temple of Shamash at Sippar seven hundred years before Burna-Buriash. The date assigned to Gulkishar on the "boundary-stone" of the reign of Belnadin-apli need not here be referred to, as the record dates from the end of the twelfth century B.C., and not from the Neo-Babylonian period; see Chap. IV. 2 When he captured Susa in about 650 B.c., Ashur-bani-pal relates that he recovered the image of the goddess Nana which the Elamite Kudurnankhundi had carried off from Erech I635 years before (see Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. III, pl. 38, No. I, Obv., 1. 16). This would assign to Kudur-nankhundi's invasion the approximate date of 2285 B.c. UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY. 13 category. Thus a good case may be made out for regarding the date assigned by Nabonidus to Hammurabi as based upon accurate information with regard to the early dynasties of the List of Kings. In the first place it is not at all certain that even the compiler of the larger Kings' List imagined that all his dynasties were consecutive. If at the end of the list he had added up the years during which the separate dynasties lasted and had given the total thus obtained for the length of their duration, it would have followed that such was his belief. But the end of the Kings' List is wanting, and in the absence of evidence it may be urged that we are not justified in assuming he was unaware that his second dynasty was contemporaneous with his first and third. It is true that he writes one after the other and gives the total number of years that each endured, but this arrangement upon the tablet is not conclusive proof that he regarded them as consecutive. In fact, it is possible to compare his arrangement of the early dynasties in the list with the attempt of an early sculptor to represent two rows of figures marching abreast. Through his inability to draw them in perspective, he would first set out one row of figures and would then arrange the other row beneath it. No 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 recognized. And it is possible that we must extend a similar indulgence to 14 EFFECTS OF THE NEW 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 necessarily 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 misunderstood even at the time of its employment. The possibility, 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 admitting that this was the case, it does not follow that his error was generally prevalent among his contemporaries. The existence of the new chronicles in the late Babylonian period is proof that the tradition of the real order of these early rulers and of their relations to one another had never died out. Moreover, it is possible to harmonize approximately the rough estimate of Hammurabi's period, as given by Nabonidus, with the new information supplied by the chronicle.I In these circumstances we may accept his estimate of the date of Hammurabi, though given in round numbers and exaggerated, as based upon a correct conception of the relation of the first three dynasties to one another. The same degree of confidence cannot be felt in the See below, Chap. V. UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY. Is date assigned by Ashur-bani-pal to Kudur-nankhundi's invasion of Babylonia. The date 2285 B.C.I has up to the present harmonized well enough with the majority of chronological schemes which have been propounded. But, according to -our new information, the First Dynasty was not founded before the twenty-first century B.C.,2 so that Ashur-bani-pal's figures can only be accepted if we assume that Kudur-nankhundi's invasion took place at a considerably earlier period than the Elamite wars of the First Dynasty. That Assyrian scribes could make mistakes in their reckoning is proved by the variant accounts of the history of the temple of Ashur upon the texts of Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon, which have recently been discovered at Sherghtt.2 Unless, therefore, the date suggested by Ashur-bani-pal for Kudur-nankhundi's invasion should receive confirmation from some independent source, it will be wiser to regard his figures with suspicion. The last of the three early dates to be considered is that assigned to Nartm-Sin by Nabonidus.3 As we have shown that it is possible to accept the general accuracy of his date for Hammurabi, it might be supposed that similar confidence should be felt in his estimate of the date of Naram-Sin. But Naram-Sin lived at a very much earlier period than Hammurabi, I See above, p. 12, n. 2. 2 See below, Chap. V. 3 See above, p. In, n. 2. EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA and, while 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 their knowledge was equally accurate with regard to the sequence of the earlier city-states. The possibility therefore exists that the scribes of Nabonidus obtained their high figure for Naram-Sin by regarding as consecutive certain dynasties, which as a matter of fact were contemporaneous, during the period preceding the rise of Babylon to the position of the principal city in Babylonia. Moreover, the fact that in the chronicle No. 26,472 the section concerning Dungi immediately follows that concerning Naram-Sin, is possibly significant. Had so long an interval as fourteen hundred, or fifteen hundred, years separated the period of Sargon from that of Dungi and his father Ur-Engur, the chronicler might well have included in his text sections recording the deeds of the most famous kings who ruled in this long interval. That such sections were not included in the original text of the composition may be inferred from the fact that No. 26,472 is labelled as the second tablet of its series, and was not merely inscribed with a selection of extracts, as was possibly the case with No. 96,I52.I Such evidence is purely negative, but it may be cited as an additional argument in favour of a See below, Chap. III. UPON EARLY BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY. I7 reduction in the dates assigned to the early kings of Agade.I Though we may thus have to reduce the date of 3800 B.C. for Sargon of Agade, which has hitherto been generally accepted,2 the earliest Sumerian remains that have been recovered may probably be assigned to the fourth millennium B.C. In support of such a view we may cite the very large number of early dynasties which were known to the later Assyrians and Babylonians and were classified by them. In the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle3 the period from the First Dynasty of Babylon to the reign of Ashur-bani-pal did not occupy more 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. Excavations 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 Babylonia are See further, Chap III. 2 For other criticisms of this date, see Lehmann-Haupt, Zwei Hauptprobleme, pp. 172 if., and Winckler in Schrader's Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (3rd ed.), I, p. I7 f. (cf. also Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesell. schaft, I906, I, p. I2, n. l). 3 See Chap. VII, and Vol. II, pp. 46 if. C I8 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA opened up.' It may be conjectured that some of the dynasties included in the Dynastic Chronicle were contemporaneous with one another, but even so we are justified in assigning a comparatively early date for the origin of Babylonian civilization. Another subject which may here be briefly referred to is the effect which our new information may have upon certain problems of Egyptian chronology. It is true that during the earlier periods of Egyptian and Babylonian history no point of direct contact has been established between the two countries, and it is not until the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty that the Tell el-Amarna letters furnish us with the names of contemporaneous rulers in Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria. At this point, however, the new chronicles do enable us to lessen a difficulty with regard to the date of the Babylonian ruler who was the contemporary of Amenhetep IV. We know from the Tell el-Amarna letters that at the time of Amenhetep IV a Kassite king named Burna-Buriash occupied the Babylonian throne, and Nabonidus states that only seven hundred years separated a king named Burna-Buriash from Hammurabi. There is evidence that there were two kings of the Kassite Dynasty who bore the name of BurnaBuriash, and it is certain that the second of these rulers IHilprecht's new dynastic list (see above, p. I f., n. 3) affords an additional and striking proof of the existence of early dynasties of which we as yet know little or nothing. UPON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. I9 was the contemporary of Amenhetep 1V. But, even by assuming that Nabonidus referred to BurnaBuriash I, it has been impossible to reconcile his statement with the figures of the List of Kings; and, in order to reduce the discrepancy as much as possible, there has been a tendency to raise rather than to lower the date of the Kassite period. This tendency the new chronicles remove, while at the same time they enable us to use the statement of Nabonidus in confirmation of the view which would assign to the accession of Amenhetep IV a date not earlier than I380 B.c.I It has been already noted that there is good reason for believing that the scribes of Nabonidus were aware of the true relations of the early Babylonian dynasties to one another, and that their estimate of the period which separated Burna-Buriash from Hammurabi, though given in round numbers and rather exaggerated, was based in the main upon correct information.2 Now, by adding seven hundred years to 1380 B.C., we should obtain for Hammurabi a date not earlier than 2080 B.C. It will be seen that, so far from this date being too late for Hammurabi, our new chronicles show that it is too early; for, according to the information they supply, he I This is the approximate date which Meyer would assign to Amenhetep IV's accession, see his monograph Aegyptische Chronologie in the Abhandlungen der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1904. 2 See above, p. 14. C 2 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 Assyrian and Babylonian kings.I In addition to the above evidence which has a bearing upon the period of the XVIIIth Dynasty, the new chronicles supply data which may be regarded as affecting indirectly the problems of Egyptian chronology for the earlier periods. Thus the overlapping of the earlier Babylonian dynasties, which have hitherto been regarded as consecutive, may be cited in support of the view which would regard some of the earlier dynasties of Manetho as partly contemporaneous with one another.2 Moreover, it is now generally recognized that certain elements of Egyptian civilization during the early dynastic period resemble well-known elements in the early civilization of Babylonia. 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 be traced ultimately to a Babylonian source. Thus the art of the Ist and IInd Egyptian Dynasties in many respects bears a curious resemblance to that of the Sumerians and early Babylonians; the See below, Chap. V. I.e., some of the dynasties in the two groups from the VIIIth to the Xth and from the XIIIth to the XVIIth Dynasties. UPON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 21 early use of the cylinder-seal in Egypt was probably derived from Babylonia; massive crenellated buildings of brick, such as the tomb of king Aha at Nakada, have been compared to the early Sumerian and Babylonian palaces and temples; and it has been suggested that burial in the horizontal position and certain elements in the Egyptian religion may also have been derived from the same quarter. We need not here discuss the theories as to how this early Semitic, and ultimately Babylonian, influence reached Egypt, whether by way of the Straits of Bab el-Mandeb and along the Red Sea littoral into the Wadi Hamamat, or across the Isthmus of Suez to the Delta. The point which concerns us is the period at which such an influence may have been felt. It has already been pointed out that we must probably lower the very high dates which have usually been assigned for the origins of Sumerian and Babylonian civilization; and, if this should prove to be the case, it may well affect our estimate of the period in which we are to set this early, though indirect, connection between the civilizations of Babylonia and Egypt.I The suggested reduction in Sumerian and early Babylonian dates would not conflict with Meyer's chronological scheme for the early dynastic period in Egypt, based upon a study of the Egyptian calendar and the Sothic periods. It may be noted that his approximate date for the Ist and lInd Egyptian Dynasties is ca. 3315-2895 B.C.; see Aegyptische Chronologie, pp. 174 ff. For Meyer's own view upon this question, see now his Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien (I906), p. 75. 22 EFFECTS OF THE NEW DATA The only other subject we need touch upon in the present chapter is the manner in which our new information will affect the problems of Biblical chronology for the earlier periods. The earliest point of contact recorded in the book of Genesis between Hebrew and Babylonian history occurs in the fourteenth chapter, which would make Abraham the contemporary of Amraphel, king of Shinar. Schrader's suggestion that Amraphel is a corruption of the name of Hammurabi has been regarded, linguistically, as extremely probable; but a difficulty which has stood in the way of its unqualified acceptance has been that the majority of writers on Babylonian history have assigned dates to Hammurabi some centuries earlier than the date of Abraham according to the Biblical chronology." This discrepancy has caused many to suspend their judgment upon the proposed identification; others have accepted the identification, and, in the conflict of Biblical with Babylonian chronology, have been content to regard the latter as the more trustworthy of the two. Our new information enables us to accept unconditionally the identification of Amraphel with Hammurabi, and at the same time it shows that the chronological system of the Priestly Writer, however artificial, was calculated from data more accurate than has hitherto been supposed. There are two ways of arriving at Abraham's date, Cf. Ryle, article "Amraphel " in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible, I, p. 88. UPON BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 23 depending on the manner in which the date of the Exodus is fixed. If we accept Archbishop Ussher's date for the reign of Solomon, the Exodus would have taken place in 1491 B.C.I And since, according to the Hebrew text, 645 years separated the Exodus from the call of Abraham, we should obtain for the latter event the date 2136 B.C. But the new chronicles prove that Hammurabi did not reign at an earlier period than the twentieth century B.C., so that, on this method of fixing the date of the Exodus, the figures of the Hebrew text would be at least one hundred and fifty years too high. On the other hand, according to the Samaritan version and the Septuagint, the interval between Abraham and the Exodus was only 430 years; this would yield the date of I92I B.C. for Abraham's call, which would roughly harmonize with that obtained for Hammurabi by means of the new chronicles. Thus, by retaining the conservative chronology for the later periods of Hebrew history, we could accept the figures of the Samaritan version and the Septuagint, for the interval between Abraham and the Exodus, in preference to those of the Hebrew text. But the historical books of the Old Testament exhibit many inconsistencies both in the lengths of separate In I Kings vI, I, the fourth year of Solomon, the year of the Temple's foundation, is recorded to have been " the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt." For the figures given in the text, see the valuable discussion on the chronology of Genesis in Driver, The Book of Genesis (Fifth Edition, I906), pp. xxv. ff. 24 EFFECTS OF TIE NEW DATA reigns and in the synchronisms between kings of Israel and Judah,I while Usshur's date for Solomon, if the chronology be corrected from Assyrian sources, is forty or fifty years too early.2 Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that the Exodus could have taken place at so early a period as 1491 B.C.,3 for during the fifteenth century Palestine was an Egyptian province under Egyptian administration. It is preferable, therefore, to fix the period of the Exodus by means of external evidence. Upon grounds of general probability the Pharaoh of the oppression has been identified with Ramses II, since one of the store-cities built by the Israelites in Egypt was named Raamses, and the other, Pithom, is proved to have been founded during his reign.4 His successor, Merneptah, is thus generally held to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus. To Merneptah's accession Meyer would assign the approximate date of I234 B.C.,5 while other historians would place him rather earlier in the same century. But our new estimate of Hammurabi's date would separate him from I See Marti's article " Chronology" in Encycl. Bib. I, col. 778 ff., and Curtis, "Chronology of the Old Testament" in Hastings' Dic. of the Bible, I, pp. 399 ff. 2 Cf. Driver, Genesis, p. xxvii. 3 For the artificial origin of the number 480 in I Kings VI, I, see Marti, op. cit., cols. 775, 777, and Driver, Genesis, p. xxix. 4 See Naville, The Stoore-city of Pithomz, p. i I. 5 See Aegyptische Chronologie, p. 68. UPON BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 25 Merneptah by little more than seven hundred years. It will be noted that there is no great discrepancy between this period and the 645 years, which, in the Hebrew text, separated the Exodus from the call of Abraham. According to this method of fixing the date of the Exodus, the figures of the Hebrew text are to be preferred 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 believe. 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 Biblical chronology. The effects of our revised conception of the first three Babylonian dynasties upon the still earlier 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 the earliest date for which they supply positive evidence is that of the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The following chapters will deal in chronological order 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 will be discussed in the fourth chapter, after the traditions concerning earlier rulers have been examined. The earliest kings men 26 THE CHRONICLE OF SARGON. tioned upon the new chronicles are Sargon of Agade and his son Naram-Sin, and in the following chapter a comparison will be made between the famous " Omens " of Sargon and Naram-Sin and the new chronicle of their achievements, from which the historical portion of the " Omens " was derived. CHAPTER II. THE CHRONICLE OF SARGON AND NARAM-SIN AND TWO VERSIONS OF THE "OMENS." THE Assyrian tablet, which is usually referred to under some such title as the " Omens of Sargon and NaramSin," is one of the best known and most discussed compositions from the royal library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh. Although the suggested interpretations of the Omens themselves vary considerably, it was seen from the first that certain historical achievements of Sargon and Naram-Sin are therein associated with special augural phenomena. The majority of writers have always recognized the value of the historical traditions which are incorporated in the text; and an attempt to throw discredit upon them, as being outside 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 dateformulae. The suggestion has been made that the references to Sargon and Naram-Sin upon the omentablet were drawn from some historical composition 28 THE CHRONICLE OF SARGON recording the achievements of these ancient kings. That a copy of such a narrative or chronicle would some day be discovered has always been among the possibilities of cuneiform research. The first of the new chronicles published in the second volume of this workI contains a record of the deeds of Sargon, king of Agade. The account occupies the whole of the obverse of the tablet, and runs on consecutively without a break for twenty-three lines. The first section on the reverse of the tablet consists of four lines, and contains a similar record of the expeditions of Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon. A glance at these narratives will 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 general credibility of statements contained 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. In addition to the chronicle of the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin, the new texts published in. the second volume include a fragment of a Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens.2 As in the Assyrian version of this composition, each section of the text is divided from the others by a line ruled horizontally across the tablet; 'No. 26,472; see Vol. II, pp. 3 ff. 2 No. 67,404; see Vol. II, pp. 40 ff. AND THE OMENS. 29 but in another respect the arrangement of the new version offers a remarkable contrast to the old. In the Assyrian version the historical facts are incorporated with the augural phenomena, and in each section of the text the one follows on after the other without any break or mark of division between them. In the new version the augural and historical portions of the text are arranged in separate compartments and divided from each other by a line ruled down the centre of the tablet. We could not have a more striking proof, if such were needed, of the totally different origin of the two strands of which the Omens are composed. In the present work we are only concerned with the historical strand of the Omens, and with the points of similarity and difference which it presents on comparison with the text of the new chronicle. But we may note in passing that in both versions of the Omens the same phenomena are associated with the same historical events. In fact in the new version we meet with a form of the same augural composition which is found in the Assyrian version of the work.I It is true that I The augural parts of the texts, that correspond to one another in the two versions, are indicated in the following table:Neo-Bab. Ver. Assyr. Ver. Obv., 11. I-3 (left compartment) = Obv., 1. 30 f.,, 11. 4-7,, 1. 35 f. Rev., 11. I-5,, = Rev., 1. 3 f.,, 11. 8 —IO,, =,, 1. Io f. In the Neo-Babylonian version the lines are numbered across the tablet and not by columns. 30 THE CHRONICLE OF SARGON the new version presents many variant readings and contains additional phrases, while it casts the third of the sections it preserves into an entirely different form. But there is no doubt that we have in the two documents different versions of a composition from which they are both descended. The interpretation of the omens themselves, with which at some early period were associated the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin, though extremely important for the study of Babylonian augury, is of no historical interest, and therefore does not fall within the scope of the present work. They were formerly regarded as astrological forecasts, but it has now been recognized that they deal with the entrails, and particularly with the liver, of a sacrificial victim, and they belong to a class of literature represented by a considerable number of Babylonian and Assyrian compositions.' Their interpretation, however, does not in the least affect our understanding of the historical portions of the text. In fact, the only change they have produced in the latter has been to cast the direct statements of the chronicle into a series of relative clauses. See Vol. II, p. 25. A further study of these "' liver-tablets" has recently been undertaken by Prof. Jastrow, who has supplemented his analysis of the texts by an examination of the livers and entrails of newlyslain sheep. As a result, he informs me, he has been enabled to suggest identifications for most of the ideograms occurring in this class of augural composition. His results will be published in the forthcoming parts (Nos. Io and I I) of his Relzgion Babyloniens und Assyriens. AND NARAM-SIN. 3r Before undertaking a detailed comparison of the chronicle with the historical portions of the Omens, it will be advisable to give an analysis of the two documents, from which it will be possible to gather their general contents at a glance. The following is a list of the headings under which the early part of the chronicle relating to Sargon and Naram-Sin may be conveniently arranged:Obv., 11. I-3a: Sargon's power through Ishtar's help.,, 11. 3b-6: His crossing of the Sea in the East; his complete subjugation of the country of the West, and the setting up of his images there; followed by 11. 7-8: the settlement of "the sons of his ) 11. 9 —0: 11. II-I3:,, 11. I4-17:, 11. I8-I9:, 11. 20-23: Rev., 11. 1-3: palace." His expedition against Kasalla. The revolt against Sargon and its suppression. His expedition against Subartu. His work on Babylon and Agade. His troubles through famine and his enemies. Naram-Sin's expedition against Apirak.,, 11. 4: Naram-Sin's expedition against Magan. 32 THE OMENS OF SARGON. The historical portions of the Omens are divided into sections upon both of the versions, which were current in the Assyrian and the late Babylonian periods respectively. The contents of the various sections may be briefly indicated as follows:Section I: Sargon's conquest of Elam. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. I-3.] II: His conquest of the Country of the West. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. 5-6.], III: His work at Babylon, and the building of a city like Agade. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. 8-II.] IV: His conquest of the Country of the West. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. I3-14.] V: His conquest of the Country of the West. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. I6-i8.] VI: His support by Ishtar in some enterprise. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. 19-2I.] VII: His power through Ishtar's help; his complete subjugation of the Country of the West, and the setting up of his images there; his despoiling of the Country of the Sea. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. 22-26.] AND NARAM-SIN. 33 Section VIII: The enlargement of his palace. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. 28-29.] IX: His expedition against Kasalla. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 11. 31-34; Neo-Bab. Vers., Obv., 11. 1-4.] X: The revolt against Sargon and its suppression. [Assyr. Vers., Obv., 1. 36 -Rev., 1. 2; Neo-Bab. Vers., Obv., 11. 5-II.],, XI: His expedition against Subartu. [Assyr. Vers., Rev., 11. 5-9; Neo-Bab. Vers., Rev., 11. I-7.] XII: Naram-Sin's expedition against Apirak. [Assyr. Vers., Rev., 11. 11-14; Neo-Bab. Vers., Rev., 11. 8-II.] XIII: Naram-Sin's expedition against Magan. [Assyr. Vers., Rev., 11. I6 —8; Neo.-Bab. Vers., Rev., 11. I2 ff.I] A comparison of the two tables which have just been given will show that the first six sections of the Omens, with one possible exception, are not represented in the chronicle. Sections VII-XI and XII-XIII occur in the chronicle in the same order as in the Omens; while one or possibly two portions of the chronicle find I So little is preserved of Section XIV, the last on the tablet containing the Assyrian version, that it is impossible to recognize the subject with which it dealt. D 34 COMPARISON OF THE CHRONICLE no similar sections in the Omens. The following table indicates the sections of the Omens to which the subject matter of the chronicle corresponds: CHRONICLE. [wanting] Obv., 11. I- 6, 11. 7- 8, 11. 9-1o, 11. I-13 11. I4-I7, 11. i8-i9 11. 20-23 Rev., 11. I- 3 1. 4 OMENS. Sections I-VI Section VII VIII IX X,, XI [cf. Sec. III] [wanting] Section XII XIII In the second half of the volume, translations are given of the chronicle and of both versions of the Omens,I but we may here ascertain the extent to which the texts of the three documents correspond, and determine how far the historical statements of the Omens are supported by the chronicle. It will be seen that the latter enables us to restore several gaps in the Omens, and proves that some of the more difficult phrases which occur in them are due to corruptions of the text. For purposes of comparison 11. i-6 of the chronicle and the seventh section of the Omens are printed below in parallel columns. Where it has been See Vol. II, pp. 3 ff., 25 ff., 40 ft. AND THE OMENS. 35.possible to restore with practical certainty the gaps in the Omens from the corresponding passages in the chronicle, such restorations have been made. CHRONICLE. ( S ~~arru-ukin ~ar Agadel mna jpal ZZuI3ar i-lam-ma (2) ga-ni-na u ma-hi-ri ul i-.i ~a-lum-mat-sui eli ma/atd"1 (3) it-bu-uk Idm/a mna syit Sam~i i-bi-irma (4) Watu XIKAN mad/ erlb ik.~ud(ud) (5) jfi-i-~u a-na iS-tin u-kin salmabnil'u mna erM~ Sam~i u~-zi-iz (6).~al-lafs-n-fu mna a-ma-a-ti u-.e-bi-ra (i) Sargon, king of Agade, through the royal gift of Ishtar was exalted, (2) and he possessed no foe nor rival. His glory over the world (3) he poured out. The Sea in the East he crossed, (4) and in the OMENS (AsSYR. VER.). (2 2).... Sarru -ukin 3~a mna V~ri an-n[i-ilj (23) [i-na pali ilu-Nar] i-la-ami-ma la-nina gab-ri ul i~i(~i) 3Sa-lum-malsu eli [ma/bihiiN] (24) [ /bm/a ~a erlb Sam~i i-bi-ruma Watu JJK A Nima erM~ S~amli (2 5) [. ja]b-su iku _d)p'-ze a-~ar i~ten(en) u-ki-nu salmabniA'-u mna erM~ Sam~i (26) [.....]-zu M~l-la-su-nu mna ma-a-/i Ibm/i (22).....Sargon, who under this omen (2 3)[-through the royal gift of Ishtar] was exalted, and possessed no foe nor equal. His glory over [the world] (24) [he... 1. The Sea of the West he crossed, and in the third D 2 36 SARGON OF AGADE eleventh year the Country of year in the West (25) [... the West in its full extent his..] his hand subdued. hand subdued. (5) He He united them under one united them under one con- control; his images in theWest trol; he set up his images in (26) [he..........]; the West; (6) their booty he their booty in the Country of brought over at (his) word. the Sea' he brought over. The first paragraph of this section, describing the power 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; it only presents two variant readings, gabri for u mahiri, and a variant verb for itbuk. 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," in 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. It 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.2 The See below, p. 38, n. I. 2 See H. R. Hall, 7he Oldest Civilization of Greece, p. 315. AND THE PERSIAN GULF. 37 reading of the chronicle, however, throws considerable discredit upon the statement of the Omens. The phrase "the Sea in the East" without doubt indicates the Persian Gulf. The Legend of Sargon reproduces a tradition that he conquered DilmunI which was situated in the Persian 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 of the Omens, but also from date-formulae upon documents contemporary with Sargon, that he conquered Elam; and, like Sennacherib at a later date, he may well have crossed the Persian Gulf in the course of his expeditions thither. It is true that we should expect a mention of the Mediterranean, rather than of the Persian 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 coupled by the copula ma to the crossing of the Sea in the East; but this may legitimately be taken as intentional on the part of the compiler of the chronicle, who wished to indicate the extreme limits of Sargon's expeditions after having stated that he poured out his glory over the whole world. Thus the crossing of the Sea in the East (the Persian Gulf) was balanced by his conquest of the West (the Mediterranean coast), as in I See the Appendix to the Texts and Translations, Vol. II, p. 92. 38 SARGON OF AGADE the following lines in the Omens, the setting up of his images in the West (the Mediterranean coast) is balanced by the conquest of the Country of the Sea (the shores of the Persian Gulf). The text thus consisted of two well-balanced clauses, each of which presented in antithesis the extreme limits of Sargon's empire. But when the chronicle was cut up into sections and applied piecemeal to separate augural phenomena, the original intention of the writer was obscured. The statement that Sargon crossed the Sea in the East, coupled by the copula to his conquest of the West, might well appear out of place, and it would be natural for a copyist to amend the text and to substitute the reading which would seem to him more suitable to the context of the passage.' The only definite support of the theory that Sargon crossed the Mediterranean to Cyprus thus falls to the ground. Another interesting variant which this portion of the chronicle supplies to the seventh section of the Omens concerns the year of Sargon's complete subjugation of the Country of the West. The Omens state that this event took place in the third year, and the chronicle in the eleventh year. The former statement probably means that it took three years to subdue That the copyist retained the phrase ina ma-a-ti tdmti may be explained on the supposition that he did not take the words as a geographical expression for the Country of the Sea, but possibly regarded them as meaning "by land (and) sea." AND CYPRUS. 39 the country, the latter that the conquest was achieved in the eleventh year of Sargon's reign. It is impossible to tell which of the readings is to be preferred. The variant readings ina amdti and ina mdti tdmti are also interesting. The latter certainly gives the better sense of the two, and, as we have already seen, supplies the antithesis in the second of the phrases describing the limits of Sargon's conquests; we may therefore regard it as representing the original reading of the text. A reading, ina anmdtisu, "at his word," would, however, not be impossible, and the phrase would then have a general application to all Sargon's conquests, both in the East and in the West. Finally, it may be noted that the chronicle supports the statement of the Omens that Sargon set up his images in the West, that is, that he carved his image upon rocks near the Mediterranean coast, or in the Lebanon, as a lasting memorial of his conquest of the country. The eighth section of the Omens obviously corresponds to 1. 7 f. of the chronicle, but the sense of the two passages is entirely different. They read as follows:CHRONICLE. OMENS (ASSYR. VER.). (7) mare1L ekalli-lu a-na (28) [....] Sarru-ukimn V kas-buTA-^AAN u-ge-lib-ma (8) la ekalla-zu 2ta-tu p TA-A-AN baturn-mat matadti mit-ha-ris hu u-rap-pi-Su-ma (29) [.....] i-be-el dann2/tit i-zi-zu-ni- tumn-ma e-ki-a-am i ni-hik ik-bu-Su 40 SARGON'S HOUSEHOLD. (7) The sons of his palace (28) [......] Sargon,who for five kasbu (around) he enlarged his palace to the settled, (8) and over the extent of five....., (29) hosts of the world he reigned and [.....] the mighty supreme. [.....] stood around him, and they said unto him, "Where shall 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 other hand make an entirely new section out of this portion of the text, not connecting it with the expedition described in the preceding section. Moreover, the latter version seems to represent certain nobles, or powerful adherents of the king, as having been dispossessed of their dwellings in consequence of additions made to the royal palace; and in the last line of the section they appeal to Sargon to tell them where they shall go. It certainly looks as if both the chronicle and the Omens omit portions of the original narrative from which they were derived. By combining the two versions we may complete the narrative of the Omens, which leaves off abruptly with the question put by the nobles to the king. In answer to their appeal Sargon may have settled those whom he had dispossessed of their dwellings in a wider circle around his palace. It will be obvious that the figure 'five" is taken in different senses in the two versions. In the Omens it represents the HIS CONQUEST OF KASALLA. 4I extent to which the palace was enlarged; in the chronicle, referring by its context to a settlement of the king's adherents in a foreign country, the figure has been retained but the measure itself has been changed to kasbt. The eighth line of the chronicle was probably afterwards inserted as it rounds off the account of the conquest and settlement of the Country of the West and serves to introduce the expedition against Kasalla. The account of this expedition is far fuller in the Assyrian version of the Omens than in the Chronicle, as will be seen from the following extracts: CHRONICLE. (9) a-na mtauKa-sal-la il-likma matuKa-sal-la ana tzli u kar-me u-tir ( o) ina lib-bi-Su man-za-az is-sur u-hal-lik (9) Against Kasalla he marched, and he turned Kasalla into mounds and heaps of ruins; ( o) he destroyed (the OMENS (ASSYR. VER.). (31) do. (i.e. [..... ] SarruukOn ~a) 'IKa~-tu-bi-la m"tuKasal- la ibbalkitu - u - ma ana mnatKa-sal-la (32)illiku(ku)-ma dapda-4u-nu im-ha-su ka-marNu-nu ig-ku-nu (33) um-maan-Su-nu rabzta(/a) u-Sam-ki-tu z"atuKa-sal-la ana ip-ri u karme u-tir-ru (34) ma-an-za-az issuriPt u-hal-lik (3 ) [ *..] Sargon, against whom Kashtubila of Kasalla revolted, and against Kasalla (32) he marched, and he smote them grievously and defeated them; (33) their 42 THE REVOLT AGAINST SARGON land and left not) enough for a bird to rest thereon. mighty host he overthrew; he turned Kasalla into dust and heaps of ruins; (34)he destroyed (the land and left not) enough for birds to rest thereon. The chronicle has evidently cut down the original account, for it makes no mention of the name of Kashtubila of Kasalla. It is interesting to note that the text of the Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens does not correspond to the Assyrian version but agrees with that of the chronicle. The tablet, on which the Neo-Babylonian version is preserved, is very broken, but it is clear from the size of the gaps at the ends of the lines that its text must be restored in accordance with the shorter account of the campaign. The tenth section of the Omens, corresponding to 11. II-13 of the chronicle, records the revolt made against Sargon and his suppression of it, and the chronicle gives some important variant readings. The two forms of the narrative run as follows: CHRONICLE. (I I) ar-ka-niS ina gi-bu-ti-Su matatiMz ka-li-i'-na ib-ba-al-kita-Si-ma ( 2) ina A-ga-leKI ilmu-Su-ma "tSarru-ukin a-na kakki ssi-ma abikta-3u-nu imhas (x3) ka-mar-~u-nu iS-kun OMENS (ASSYR. VER.). (36)... Sarru-ukfn Sa ina Szri an-ni-i (37) li-bu-ti mati kalilu ibbalkitz-Su-ma ina A-ga-de;K ilmn-2u-ma (38) Sarru-ukin.si-ma dapda-Su nu im-ha-su ka-mar-Su-nu iS IN HIS OLD AGE. 43 um-man-.u-nu rapastim(tim) u2-Sam-ki-it (II) Afterwards in his old age all the lands revolted against him, (12) and they besieged him in Agade; and Sargon went forth to battle and defeated them; (I3) he accomplished their overthrow, and their wide-spreading host he destroyed. The most important of the sense assigned to the ku-nu (Rev., i) umman-~u-nu rabita(ta) u-.am-ki-/u makkurgu-nu eli-Su-nu ik-su-u (2) kuum ailtlar il-su-u (36).... Sargon, against whom under this omen (37) the elders of all the land revolted, and they besieged him in Agade, (38) and Sargon went forth and smote them grievously and defeated them; (Rev., I) he overthrew their mighty host; they bound their goods upon them, to the place of Ishtar they appealed. the variant readings lies in substantive si-bu-ti. Aided by very slight differences in the structure of the sentence, the difference in meaning assigned by the chronicle to this word entirely alters the meaning and scope of the passage as a whole. In the Omens it is stated that the "elders of all the land" revolted against Sargon, and the episode is treated as a purely domestic occurrence; after the suppression of the revolt the rebels collected their household goods and took sanctuary in the temple of Ishtar. In the chronicle, on the other hand, the revolt is described as having taken place in Sargon's " old age," and the rebels do not form 44 THE REVOLT AGAINST SARGON a single class of his own subjects, but consist of "all the lands" of which his empire was composed. The NeoBabylonian version of the Omens, as in the previous section, supports the chronicle's account, for it represents the revolt as having taken place in Sargon's old age; and, although the ends of the lines are missing, it is clear that the earlier ones are to be restored in accordance with the text of the chronicle. In the last two lines of the section the Neo-Babylonian version amplifies the chronicle's text by additional phrases corresponding to the elders' appeal to Ishtar in the Assyrian version; but the reading of nmdtu in 1. 1I proves that the episode in the Neo-Babylonian version was of an international and not of a domestic character. Of the two accounts of the revolt, that found upon the chronicle, and the Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens, is certainly to be preferred. The phrase "the elders of all the land " is awkward, and is clearly a conflate reading of the two phrases "his old age" and " all the lands." Moreover, the siege of Sargon in his own capital is far more suitable to an external than to an internal revolt. In the case of a revolution headed by the ruling class in the centre of the empire we should expect the first act of the rebels to be the seizure of the capital. On the other hand a confederation of subject races who were in revolt would naturally advance from the outlying provinces, and, in the event of meeting with success, would at last besiege the king 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 Assyria. The historical importance of this new and more correct version of the revolt is considerable. Evidence is gradually accumulating from the finds of early documents at Tello, Niffer, and Susa of the extent of the Semitic Empire founded by Sargon and inherited by Naram-Sin and possibly by other early Semitic rulers of Babylonia. But the fact that towards the end of his reign Sargon should have been driven into his own capital by a confederation of the races he had himself brought to subjection, illustrates the insecure foundations on which these early empires were based. Another of the early chronicles here published proves that the effect of Hammurabi's victories over Elam was not so enduring as has been supposed.I Similarly the chronicle under discussion establishes the fact that Sargon's empire tottered while he himself was still upon the throne. The conquest of the land of Subartu, which forms the subject of the eleventh section of the Omens, is described in 11. 14-17 of the chronicle. The following extracts will show to what extent the two accounts differ from one another: CHRONICLE. OMENS (ASSYR. VER.). (14) arki ana matuSubartLi (5)..... Sarru-ukhn la ina gi-ib-3i-Su itbi-ma ana kakki ina Sfri an-ni-i (6) [miauS]uSee below, Chaps. III and VI. 46 SARGON'S CONQUEST OF SUBARTU. ik-mi-is-su-ma (I5) Sarruukzn daldhu Su-a-tu u-Se-Sib-ma abikta-Su-nu irm-has (i6) kamar-Su-nu iS-kun um-man-gunu rapaltim(tim) u-Sam-ki-it ( 7) makkur-Su-nu a-na A-gadeT' u-se-ri-ba (I4) Afterwards he attacked the land of Subartu in his might, and they submitted to his arms, (I5) and Sargon settled that revolt, and defeated them; (i6) he accomplished their overthrow, and their wide-spreading host he destroyed, (I7) and he brought their possessions into Agade. bartuK' ina gi-ib-Si-Su itbu-Sgu ana kakki ik-mi-su-ma (7) [Sarr]u-uktn dubatizl- u-nu u-Se-Si-bu-ma (8) [dap]dda-u-nu im-ha-su ka-mar-Su-nu il-ku-nu um-ma-an-Su-nu rabita(ta) (9) [.....]-Su u illdtiZ-u u-.ai-la ana A-ga-deKI u-se-ri-bu (5)..... Sargon, whom under this omen (6) the land of Subartu in its might attacked; they submitted to his arms, (7) and Sargon settled their habitations, (8) and he smote them grievously and defeated them, and their mighty host (9) [..... ] his [.....] and his forces he....., (and) he brought into Agade. It will be seen that, while the Omens state that the land of Subartu attacked Sargon, the chronicle describes Sargon himself as the invader. The phrase "and Sargon settled their habitations," which occurs in 1. 7 of the Assyrian version of the Omens, does not suit the context, and the ideogram for subtu is probably due to a copyist's misreading of the Babylonian form of the sign for daldhu.' Again it will be noticed that the See Vol. II, p. 7, n. 2. SARGON'S CONQUEST OF SUBARTU. 47 Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens in the main agrees with the chronicle, so far as its text has been recovered. Thus it reads daldhu in place of subtu, and its account of the conquest and sack of Subartu clearly agrees with that of the chronicle; but at the beginning of the section it probably supports the reading of the Assyrian version of the Omens, which ascribes the attack to Subartu. The conquest of Subartu forms the last episode in the career of Sargon which is recorded upon both versions of the Omens, for with the twelfth section the central figure is changed to that of Naram-Sin. In the chronicle on the other hand we find six additional lines, describing the improvements Sargon carried out at Babylon and Agade, and the troubles which befel him in the closing years of his reign. With regard to the two lines recording his repair of the trenches of Babylon and his work on the boundaries of Agade, the possibility should be noted that the third section of the Omens may have been derived from a parallel account. It is true that the two texts are not so alike as in the sections we have already examined, but that they exhibit certain points of similarity will be obvious on comparison. The two extracts are therefore printed below in parallel columns: CHRONICLE. OMENS (ASSYR. VER.). (18) e-pi-ir e-si-e ga Babii(K (8)..... Sarrgi-uhinz Sa 48 AGADE AND BABYLON. is-suh-ma ( 9) i-te-e A-ga-deKI gab-ri BabiliKI i-pu-uX (18) The soil from the trenches of Babylon he removed, ( 9) and the boundaries of Agade he made like those of Babylon. ina z2ri an-ni-i kil-Su-[ti la Bdb]iliKI i-[..... ]- um-ma (9) [ep]irz Na 3al-la bab GIN-NA is-su-hu-ma[.........]-ma ( o) [ki-ma] A-ga-de K ala i-puSu-m[a..........]KI Sum-SI im-[b]u-[u] ( i) [.......... ina lib-b]i u-Se-Si-bu (8)..... Sargon, who under this omen [....] the migh[t of Bab]ylon, (9) and removed the soil of.... the gate....., and [.........], (Io) and built a city [like unto] Agade, and called its name [... ]; (II) [........ there]in he caused to dwell. It should be remarked that the restorations in the text of the Omens are purely conjectural, for the NeoBabylonian version of this section has not been preserved. A comparison of the Assyrian version with the text of the chronicle will show that, although the former is the longer and the fuller of the two, the general nature of their contents is the same. The chronicle describes Sargon as having removed the soil from the trenches of Babylon: the Omens record that he removed the soil from some other portion of the city. The passage in the Omens is probably corrupt, but the SARGON'S CLOSING YEARS. 49 mention of a gate may serve to connect the locality with the outskirts of the city. The mention of Agade in the chronicle occurs in connection with its boundaries which are recorded to have been made like those of Babylon. We may possibly take this to mean that Sargon increased the boundaries of Agade. In the parallel passage in the Omens we may see the form this increase took; for he is there recorded to have built a city like (or, possibly, near) Agade, and, after naming it, to have settled inhabitants therein. The inhabitants doubtless came from Agade, and the city itself may well have been reckoned within the boundary of the capital. It is therefore not improbable that we may trace the third section of the Omens, and 11. 18 and I9 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 details, some of which in the course of transmission have become corrupted. The last four lines on the obverse of the chronicle give a picture of the closing years of Sargon's reign, which is not found in the Omens nor upon contemporary documents. We here see his land smitten with famine, while his enemies from east to west rise in continuous rebellion. The revolt of all the lands, which had taken place in his old age, he' had checked, but he evidently did not suppress it effectually; and his troubles were increased by the distress of his own people due to the scarcity of food. It may be observed that, in the manner E So EXPEDITIONS OF NARAM-SIN. of the compiler of the Hebrew Books of Chronicles, the writer of this document ascribes Sargon's misfortunes to his evil deeds, in consequence of which his god Marduk was angry and sent these troubles upon him as a punishment. The first four lines of the reverse of the chronicle deal with the conquests of Naram-Sin, and they correspond to the twelfth and thirteenth sections of the Omens. The text of these sections is broken, and there are gaps in the account of Naram-Sin's expeditions which we have hitherto been unable to fill up. These the chronicle enables us to restore. In the following extracts, which describe Naram-Sin's expedition against Apirak, the gaps in the text of the Omens have been filled in from the corresponding phrases in the chronicle: CHRONICLE. (i) "zNara-am-izSin mar mSarru-ukzn a-na aA-pi-rak[KI il-lik-ma] (2) pi-i-Su zip-Iug-ma -"Rz-i-ilu-Ad[ad] (3) gar aluA-pi-akKI u amlususkkal A-pi-rakKI kat-su ik[Sud(ud)] (i) Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon, [marched] against the city of Apirak, (2) and he constructed mines (against it), OMENS (ASSYR. VER.). ( I)..... Na-ram-iuSin (12) [ha ina] iri an-ni-i ana auA-pi-rak illiku(ku)-ma (13) [Pil-il-S]u ip-lu-lu n'Ri-iSiluAdad Car "a'A-pi-rak (14) [u a"Crlsukka]l 4luA-pi-rak klS-su ikludu(du) (I)..... Naram-Sin, (I2) [who under] this omen marched against the city of Apirak, (I3) and con HIS CONQUEST OF APIRAK. 5 and Rish-Ad[ad], (3) the king of Apirak, and the governor of Apirak his hand sub[dued]. structed [mines (against it)3; Rish-Adad, the king of Apirak, (I4) [and the governor] of Apirak his hand subdued. From the text of the chronicle we gather that NaramSin had to undertake a regular siege of the city of Apirak, which he only succeeded in capturing by means of mines. It also enables us to restore the sentence recording the capture of the chief minister of Apirak in addition to that of Rish-Adad, the king. A still more interesting addition is made by the chronicle with regard to Naram-Sin's expedition to the Sinaitic peninsula. This achievement of the king is described in the fourth line on the reverse of the chronicle and in the thirteenth section of the Omens, which read as follows: CHRONICLE. (4) ana Ma-gan-naKI il-likma m Man-nu-da-an-nu Sar Ma-ganKI [kat-su ikiNd(uCd)] (4) He marched against Magan, and Mannu-dannu, OMENS (ASSYR. VER ). (16)....Va-ram-iZuSin Sa ina z"rz' an-ni-i (17) [ana matuMla-g]an-na illiku(ku)-ma MatulMa-gan-na is-ba-tu-m [a] (18) [.........] ar mt"uMa-gan-na ait-su ik/udu [(du)] ( 6)..... Narm - Sin, who under this omen (17) marched [against the land of Mag]an, and captured the E 2 52 EXPEDITIONS OF NARAM-SIN. the king of Magan, [his hand land of Magan, (i8) and subdued]. [..........], the king of the land of Magan, his hand subdued. It will be seen that the chronicle gives the name of the king of Magan as Mannu-dannu. This ruler is clearly to be identified with Mani[um], whose name occurs as that of the lord (belu) of Magan in an inscription upon the base of a diorite statue recently discovered by de Morgan at Susa.T The inscription upon the statue records the defeat of Mani[um], the lord of Magan, and the conquest 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 transported it thence to Agade. The name of Maniu[m] occurs in Col. II, 1. 4 of the inscription, and the last sign of the name is broken; but the traces that remain on the stone suggest the reading of the sign um.2 Of the name of the king of Magan in the Neo-Babylonian chronicle only the first half, Mannu, corresponds to the contemporary form of the name; and it is probable that dannu, "mighty," was a later addition, incorporated as part of the name after having 1 See Delegation en Perse, Memoires, tome VI (I905), pp. 2ff., where Scheil gives a translation of the text. 2 See the photographic reproduction of the text in the Memoires, t. VI, pl. I. Scheil (op. cit., p. 5) also cites the name as found upon the OldBabylonian contract-tablet, published in Cun. Txts., Pt. IV, pl. io (Bu. 88-5-12, II, 11. 5, 2I). HIS CONQUEST OF MAGAN. 53 served merely as a descriptive title.1 In the Assyrian version of the Omens only part of the last sign in the name has been preserved, and this trace does not agree with the end of the name as given by the chronicle. It is possible that in the Assyrian version of the Omens the name of the king was preserved in its original form.2 Such are the points of similarity and difference between the accounts of the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin, as supplied by the chronicle No. 26,472, and by the Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian versions of the Omens. From the detailed comparison that has been made in the preceding paragraphs, the following propositions may be regarded as proved: (I) The portion of the chronicle referring to the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin, and the historical portions of both versions of the Omens, are descended from the same original composition; (2) the Neo-Babylonian version of the Omens presents more points of resemblance to the text of the chronicle than to that of the Assyrian version of the Omens; and (3) the Assyrian version of the Omens, though often fuller and more detailed than that of the Neo-Babylonian version and the chronicle, has undergone greater corruption in the course of transmission. 'The possibility also exists, and should not be ignored, that the end of the name in Naram-Sin's inscription is perhaps not to be restored as un, but as a syllable that has given rise to the termination dannu of the late Babylonian text. 2 See Vol. II, p. 39, n. I. 54 ASSOCIATION OF OMENS At the head of this chapter we have, for the sake or convenience, referred to the chronicle No. 26,472 as the Chronicle of Sargon and Naram-Sin, but only a portion of its text refers to these two kings, and the composition may be more correctly described as a chronicle concerning early Babylonian and Assyrian rulers. Further, it is not improbable that the original document, from which our chronicle and the two versions of the Omens are alike descended, also took this form. We may suppose it to have incorporated a considerable body of traditions concerning the deeds of a number of early Babylonian and Assyrian kings. The occurrence of a catch-line upon No. 26,472 proves that at any rate in the Neo-Babylonian period its text was written upon more than one tablet, while the chronicle No. 96,152, though omitting at least one section, presents us with a continuation of the text.' Moreover, the tablet No. 26,472 was probably not the first of the series, for Sargon's conquest of Elam, and his early expeditions to the west, etc., which are recorded in the first six sections of the Omens, must have had their equivalent account in a preceding section of the chronicle.2 It must have been at a very early period that the See below, Chap. III, pp. 56 ff. 2 Beneath the catch-line upon No. 26,472 are two signs, which evidently form the title of the work and give the series to which the tablet belongs. It is probable that the second of these signs indicates that No. 26,472 was the second tablet of the series; see further, the note to the translation in Vol. II, p. 14. WITH THE CHRONICLE. 55 sections dealing with Sargon and Naram-Sin were taken from their context and cut up into episodes to illustrate the augural phenomena. This is obvious from the variants and corruptions that have crept into the Assyrian version of the historical portion of the text, no less than from the variants presented by the two versions of the augural portions of the Omens.' Moreover, it is certain that Sargon and Naram-Sin were not the only early rulers whose deeds were associated in this way with omens.2 The Assyrian copy of the Omens of Sargon and Naram-Sin, made for the library of Ashur-bani-pal, contains a catch-line proving that the tablet in question was not a complete composition in itself, but was followed by at least one other tablet, and may well have been only one of a series. In the tablets of this series that have not been recovered it is probable that a similar use was made of traditions concerning other early rulers. And we may further surmise, that the source of the traditions so incorporated was the original series of texts of which the chronicle of Sargon and Naram-Sin formed a part. I See above, p. 29 f. 2 It is true that the names of Sargon and Naram-Sin were employed in other compositions of this nature from which the names of other rulers are absent. That their names should have been selected more frequently than those of other kings is natural in view of the magnitude of the empire they founded, while their early date invested them with a half legendary and mythical character. But that the names of other early rulers were associated in the same way with omens, is definitely proved by the occurrence upon omen-tablets of the name of Ibi-Sin, the early king of Ur (cf. e.g. Cun. Txts., Pt. XX, pl. I3, Rev., 1. 12 f.). CHAPTER III. TRADITIONS CONCERNING DUNGI AND OTHER EARLY KINGS; THE BELEOUS AND BELETARAS OF AGATHIAS. IN the preceding chapter it was remarked that the chronicle, on which the deeds of Sargon and Naram-Sin are recorded, is only part of a composition concerning the most famous of the early kings and rulers of Babylonia and Assyria. The tablet No. 26,472 represents a portion of this composition, and the tablet No. 96,I52,I after the omission of at least one section, furnishes a continuation of its text. On both tablets the reigns of different kings are treated in separate sections divided from one another by lines ruled across the tablet, and on both the order in which they are arranged is chronological. In addition to the records concerning Sargon and Naram-Sin, kings of Agade, the text of No. 26,472 includes sections dealing with Dungi, king of Ur, and with two other early rulers named Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni. Then follows a catchSee Vol. II, pp. 15 ff. TRADITIONS OF EARLY KINGS. 57 line referring to the early Assyrian king Ilu-shuma and the contemporary ruler Su-abu. The tablet No. 96,152 is not completely preserved for its lower half is broken off, so that nearly half its text is wanting. In its first section it repeats the story of Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni, and then follows a series of traditions concerning kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, kings of the Country of the Sea, and certain Kassite rulers, beginning with Hammurabi and ending with Agum. It will thus be seen that the section referring to Ilu-shuma and Su-abu is not found upon the second chronicle, and it is possible that the original text contained traditions of a number of early kings between Bel-ibni and Hammurabi, which for some reason have been omitted by the scribe of No. 96,I52. In that case the latter tablet would present an abbreviated version of the text. On the other hand, there is evidence that the scribe of No. 96,152 was a careless copyist, for on the reverse of his tablet he omitted the section referring to Shamash-ditana and the Hittites, and afterwards, on finding out his mistake, he managed to squeeze in the first line of the section in order to indicate its existence upon the tablet he was copying. The same thing may have happened with regard to the section concerning Ilu-shuma and Su-abu, though in that instance he does not appear to have detected his omission. In any case, whether one or more sections of the text have been omitted, there is no doubt that No. 96,152 gives a con 58 TWO CHRONICLES tinuation of the formed a part.' of each section indicated: same composition of which No. 26,472 In the following table the subject upon the two chronicles is briefly A.-THE CHRONICLE No. 26,472. I. Obv., 11. 1-23: The reign of Sargon, king of Agade. II. Rev., 11. 1-4: The expeditions of NaramSin, the son of Sargon. III.,, 11. 5-7: The reign of Dungi, king of Ur. IV.,, 11. 8 —I3: The story of Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni. V.,, 1. I4: Catch-line, referring to Ilu-shuma, king ot Assyria, and Su-abu. B.-THE I. Obv., 11. II.,, 11. CHRONICLE No. 96,I52. I-7: The story of Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni. 8-I2: The war between Hammurabi and Rim-Sin. While No. 26,472 is labelled as the second tablet of this composition (see above, p. 54, n. 2), No. 96,I52 has no colophon or title of any sort; it would therefore seem to have been an extract from the history, made for some special purpose, and not a regular tablet of the series. This would account for its beginning with a section of the second tablet of the composition, although the greater part of its text would belong to the third tablet. CONCERNING EARLY KINGS. 59 III. Obv., 11. 13-20: The war between Samsuiluna and Rim-Sin. [The end of the obverse and the beginning of the reverse are wanting.] IV. Rev., 11. I-6: The war between Samsuiluna and Iluma-ilu. V.,, 11. 7-9:The war between Abishi, the son of Samsuiluna, and Iluma-ilu. VI.,, 1. Io: Shamash-ditana and the Hittite invasion. II. I. 11. I-13: The war betweenEa-gamil, king of the Country of the Sea, and UlamBur(i)ash, the brother of Bitiliash, the Kassite. III.,, 14-17: Agum, the son of Bitiliash, and his conquests in the Country of the \ V Sea. A glance at this table of contents will show that in the second of the two chronicles we have a number oi familiar names of early Babylonian kings, but that some of the names occur in unfamiliar combination. In fact, the tablet throws an entirely new light on the relations of the early dynasties to one another, and furnishes us with valuable material for settling more 6o DUNGI'S CARE FOR ERIDU. accurately the chronology of this period. But before discussing the chronological problems which are raised or solved by the second of the chronicles, it will be well to examine 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. 26,472 the section following that of NAram-Sin is devoted to Dungi, the son of Ur-Engur and king of Ur. This is the famous king from whose building inscriptions we already know that he restored and erected temples and other buildings in the cities of Ur, Erech, Shirpurla, Nippur, Cuthah and Susa.I From the short section of the chronicle which deals with this monarch we gather three new facts concerning him. For we learn that he "cared 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 plundered it and laid hands upon the treasures of Esagila2; and lastly, that this conduct raised the wrath of Marduk and brought about his own destruction. 1 Cf. Thureau-Dangin, Les inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad, pp. 268 if. 2 In the tablet known as the legend of Dungi, part of which has been recovered, the king appears to have related in the first person the story of his exploits, and it is possible that the text referred to Dungi's defeat of the king of Babylon, and his sacking of the temple (see Cun. Texts, Pt. XIII, pl. 45, K. 8708, Obv., Col. II). It is, however, also possible that Dungi's deeds were not recorded upon K. 8708, but upon the next tablet of the series. HIS SACK OF BABYLON. 6i In Dungi's care for Eridu to the detriment of Babylon we may see evidence of a consistent policy. In the first chapter of this volume it was suggested that the period, which separated the early kings of Agade from those of Ur, was not so long as has generally been supposed; and it is probable that the rise of the Dynasty of Ur marked a reaction in Southern Babylonia against the Semitic supremacy of the North, which had been founded by Sargon and consolidated by his son NaramSin.' That Naram-Sin was succeeded by other Semitic kings is not improbable, and we may conjecture that these rulers did not relinquish without a struggle the empire which they had inherited. But the Dynasty of Ur, founded by Ur-Engur, we may regard as the principal successor to the Semitic empire founded by Sargon in the north, and Dungi's sack of Babylon and of Esagila may be held to represent a striking and perhaps a decisive episode in the conflict which took place at this time between the Sumerian and the Semitic elements in the population of the country. It is probable that under the kings of Agade the temple of Esagila had already begun to rival the more ancient shrine of Nippur, the seat of Enlil or Bel, as the most sacred temple in Babylonia. For the Semitic rulers of Sargon's dynasty may well have lavished their offerings on the temple of Marduk, the god of For the results of this Sumerian reaction, as exhibited in the later art of Tello, see now Meyer, Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien, pp. 34 if. 62 DUNGI'S EVIL FATE. Babylon. That Dungi should sack the temple and carry off its treasures indicates a religious as well as a political revolution, and in support of this view we may note that Eridu, the city which he selected for special veneration, was probably one of the oldest, if not the oldest, religious centre of the Sumerians. By reviving the splendours of this ancient sanctuary on the shore of the Persian Gulf, he undoubtedly hoped to form a counterweight to the influence of Babylon and of Esagila, which had been so largely increased under his Semitic predecessors. We may note that, as in the account of the end of Sargon's reign, the style of the chronicler bears a striking resemblance to that of the compiler of the Hebrew Books of Chronicles. In introducing the subject of Dungi's treatment of Esagila and Babylon, he states that he "sought after evil" and brought upon himself his evil fate. This comment is quite in the manner of the Jewish writer, and it comes naturally from one who was not improbably a priest in the temple of Esagila. The last section of the tablet No. 26,472 is concerned with the story of two early kings, Ura-imitti and B61-ibni, which has been preserved in the history of Agathias, but is here found in a cuneiform inscription for the first time. The story also occurs in the first section of the tablet No. 96,I52, where it is told in the same words, and we are thus enabled to restore the gap at the end of the fourth line of the section in No. 26,472. A STORY IN AGATHIAS. 63 The story in Agathias runs that a king named Beleous, who after an interval had followed Ninus and Semiramis, had no descendant to succeed him upon the throne; and that his gardener, a certain man named Beletaras, who was in charge of the gardens of his palace, gained the kingdom in an unexpected manner, and established his own race upon the throne.' Hitherto it has been supposed that the legend, which Agathias connected with Beletaras, was derived from that of the boyhood of Sargon, king of Agade. Sargon, after having been set adrift upon the Euphrates by his mother, was brought up by Akki, the irrigator or gardener, and trained by him in his own profession; and while Sargon was pursuing this humble occupation he was loved by the goddess Ishtar, who gave him the kingdom.2 Now Beletaras is described by Agathias as having been a gardener before he secured the throne; what more natural than to suppose that the Sargon legend had been appropriated and applied to Beletaras? 3 The story is given in the second book of Agathias, on the authority of Bion and Alexander Polyhistor, and reads as follows:-.... E'Xp Ka Ce BeAXeovi Tb AvepfceT8aov. es.o~rov y&ap s8 Tob BeAeoiv rjS To0 Iey.pateitov f(v'ov 8a&oxijs 7r raatfevflr, BeAhrTapacr TIr ovo!a, civrovpyob a!vap Kal r3v Ev TOZg /sao-LXrAefo Kerrwv j, eXCeScvbs Kai eirra7ris., eKoprrno-'aTo 7rapaAoywos riv tacr-Leiav KKal TA oK:ety eveoTevae -yevet, o~s 7rov Biwvc yeypaorTac Kai 'AXAetvxp S T0 IIoAvlc-TopL, K.T.h. Agathias, Hist. Lib. 7I, 25 (ed. Dindorf, p. 222). 2 See Vol. II, Appendix, pp. 87 if. 3 Cf. e.g., Sayce, Hibbert Lectures (I887), p. 26, n. I. This idea has recently been developed with much elaboration by Lehmann-Haupt in the 64 A STORY IN AGATHIAS. But we have now recovered from our new chronicles a story of two early kings which is totally distinct from the legend of Sargon, and presents the closest parallel to that referred to in Agathias. According to the story on the two tablets Nos. 26,472 and 96,152, Ura-imitti, the king,set Bel-ibni, the gardener, upon his throne and placed his royal crown upon his head. If my interpretation of the phrase at the beginning of the' second line is correct, Ura-imitti's reason for doing this was that he dreaded his dynasty coming to an end, and he hoped to prevent this in some measure by adopting his gardener as his successor and crowning him during his own lifetime. Ura-imitti's death then took place within his palace, and Bel-ibni, who was seated upon the throne, became king. The meaning of the words describing the manner of Ura-imitti's death is obscure,' but the similarity of the stories in the chronicles and in the history of Agathias is so great that there is paper contributed by him to the "Noldeke Festschrift," under the title, iBelitanas und Beletaras (I906). Beletaras, he holds, is entirely distinct from the Belitanas (BtLTaroa), whose tomb, according to Ktesias, Xerxes saw in Babylon. The name Belitanas he would derive from Bel-Etana, and he would connect Etana with the Adonis-Tammuz cult in Babylon. Beletaras, on the other hand, he would derive from Bel-etir, whom he identifies with Sargon the First, of Agade. Our new chronicles, however, prove that the story reproduced by Agathias is entirely distinct from that of Sargon. Cf. Vol. II, p. 13, n. 2. A rendering is there suggested from which it would follow that Ura-imitti died by his own hand. I have since received some interesting suggestions from Prof. Zimmern to the effect that he may BELEOUS AND BELETARAS. 65 no doubt they were derived ultimately from the same source and represent two forms of the same tradition. The similarity in the forms of the names is not so striking, for we get the equations Ura-imzitti = Beleous, and B9l-ibni = Beletaras. In the second equation the first component of the name is reproduced in the Greek form,I but the names Ura-imitti and Beleous have nothing in common. This may possibly be partly due to corruption of the name in the course of transmission,2 have met his death by accident, or possibly by poison. A word pappasu occurs with some such sense as "pulp, pap" (cf. Ktichler, Assyr.-Bab. Medizin, p. 128), and one of the meanings of mahzasu is to thresh corn. It is possible, therefore, that while the pappasu was being prepared (i.e. threshed or beaten) in the palace (possibly as a religious ceremony), the king may have incautiously wounded himself to death. Or, by assigning to sardpu the meaning "to suck, to lap" (from the Syriac), and taking maheasu in a pregnant sense, we may suppose that the king died from drinking a mess of pottage which had been poisoned. In any case Agathias was justified in his use of the adverb trapaXAyc,. The form BeAxrdpa5 would naturally be taken to represent some such name as BSl-etir; whereas for Bel-ibni, or B/l-bani, the name BeAxavr7nC (borne, according to Diodorus, by the chief of the embassy sent by the Chaldeans to Alexander, cf. Diodorus, XVII, 112, 3, ed. Dindorf, Vol. III, p. 516), would be a probable equivalent (cf. Lehmann-Haupt, Belit. und Belet., Sonderabdruck, p. 9, n. 2). We may thus ascribe the difference in this pair of names to a difference of tradition rather than to a corruption of the Greek text. 2 The name has undoubtedly undergone some corruption; cf. Niebuhr's note to the name, with reference to which he says: Quidquid scripserit Agathias, illud dubio caret eundem esse, qui in Canone Eusebii et apud F 66 BELEOUS AND BELETARAS. or during the Neo-Babylonian period there may have existed variant traditions with regard to the name of Bel-ibni's patron and predecessor. An early Assyrian king, who bore the name of BMl-ibni, is mentioned by Esarhaddon in the text of the monolith that was found at Senjirli. Esarhaddon there claims that he himself is " of the ancient royal seed of BMl-ibni, the son of Adasi, the founder of the kingdom of Assyria, who at the [word] of Ashur, Shamash, Nabu, and Marduk smote the yoke (lit. "forced service") [from upon] the city of Ashur."I In the two chronicles Ura-imitti is referred to merely as "the king," and it is not stated in the text whether he was king of Babylonia or of Assyria; but, as Beleous and Beletaras were Syncellum Belochus vocatur; secundum Syncellum XIX Assyriorum rex, cui successerit Balalorus, apud S. Hieronymum Bellepares: Eusebio, qui cuncta fraudibus turbavit, Balaeus dictus (see Agathias, ed. Niebuhr, p. 119, and Migne's Patrol: curs. complet., Vol. LXXXVIII, Col. 1383 f.). It may be noted that the reading of the name of the Plague-god as Ura is not certain (see, however, the additional support for this reading cited by Ranke, Early Babylonian Personal Names, I905, p. 208, n. 4); on the other hand, the first component of the name Beleous (as also that of Belochus, etc.) is obviously Bel, which would point to the existence of a variant tradition with regard to the name. ' The text runs: zgr sarrz-u-ti da-ru-u s'a miluBe7-ib-ni?jmdr mA-da-si mu-kin 'arrz-u-ti mdluAsurKI kudurru(rzt) [.....] As'urK' ina p[iz] iluAsur iluSamas iluNabM2 u IUMarduk ilcniP1 rabt2tia t blleq-s14u imn-hasam-ma (see Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen, Hft. XI, Taf. V, 11. 7 ff.). URA-IMITTI AND BEL-IBNI. Assyrian kings according to Agathias, we may infer that the latter was the case. Moreover the catch-line of the chronicle No. 26,472 deals with the war between another early Assyrian ruler, Ilu-shuma, and Su-abu, so that the mention of two early Assyrian kings in the preceding section upon the tablet would not be out of place. Against the identification of Bel-ibni, the gardener, with Bel-ibni, the son of Adasi, it might be urged that, while the former may have founded a dynasty, he is not described in the story as having founded a kingdom or secured its independence; and that in the chronicle Ura-imitti is termed sarr, " king," not isakku, " viceroy or priest-king." But the tradition of Bel-ibni's origin and accession to the throne is distinct from that of his relations with Babylon, and the former only is dealt with in the chronicle; thus the title borne by Ura-imitti was, in its context, a point of relatively small importance. It is not improbable, therefore, that we may identify Bel-ibni, the successor of Ura-imitti, with the early Assyrian ruler, who, according to the tradition preserved by Esarhaddon, was the first to secure his country's independence.' The story of B1&-ibni's accession to the throne forms the subject of the last section upon the chronicle 'The existence of another Bel-ibni, who was probably a Babylonian king, is vouched for by the occurrence of the name upon the explanatory List of Kings. The name is there written and explained as follows: m iluSI-RU = m iluBeglib.ni; see Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. V, pl. 44 F2 68 ILU-SHUMA AND SU-ABU. No. 26,472. The only other portion of this chronicle that remains to be discussed is the catch-line. This line mentions " Ilu-shuma, king of Assyria," in conflict with Su-abu, whom we may identify with the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon. This new synchronism in early Assyrian and Babylonian history is of great interest, and, as the discussion of the points it raises would necessarily be long, it is treated below in a separate chapter.' The chronicle No. 96,I52 opens with the section about Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni, which has just been discussed, and this is followed by a series of records referring to periods subsequent to the increase of the power of Babylon under the earlier kings of the First Dynasty. The first of the events that is recorded of this period is the successful war waged by Hammurabi against the Elamite king Rim-Sin, who, on succeeding his brother, Arad-Sin,2 on the throne of Larsa, had established his (K. 4426 + R. 617), Rev., Col. III, 1. 2. It may be noted that there is no indication that the name of Ura-imitti's successor should be read as Bel-bani, and the king himself identified with the early Babylonian ruler of this name, who was of the dynasty of Isin (cf. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, p. 382, n. 2). I learn from Prof. Hilprecht that in his new dynastic list (see above, p. II, n. 3) the name of Bel-bani's predecessor was not Ura-imitti according to the traces on the tablet. See Chapter V. 2 Thureau-Dangin is certainly right in his suggestion that Arad-Sin and Rim-Sin are not to be identified, but were two different personages, both sons of Kudur-Mabuk, and successively kings of Larsa; see Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad, p. 300, n. 3. SAMSU-ILUNA AND RIM-SIN. 69 authority over a considerable portion of Southern Babylonia. The chronicle tells us that Hammurabi attacked Rim-Sin, and, after capturing the cities of Ur and Larsa, carried their spoil to Babylon. This success of Hammurabi is referred to in date-formulae upon tablets of his reign that have been recovered, and from the date-lists we know that his victories over Rim-Sin and the Elamites took place in the thirtieth and thirtyfirst years of his reign.I It will be noted that the text of the chronicle does not state that Hammurabi succeeded in capturing RimSin, and from the following section we learn that in the reign of Samsu-iluna, the son and successor of Hammurabi, he had rallied his forces and was again making war on Babylon. The text of this portion of the chronicle is very broken, but it would appear that Samsu-iluna defeated Rim-Sin, and possibly captured him, or burnt him alive in his palace.2 That of the two combatants it was Rim-Sin and not Samsu-iluna who met the fate referred to in the seventeenth line of the text is clear from the mention of the latter in a subsequent section of the chronicle.3 I See my Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, Vol. III, pp. Ixviii, 236 f. 2 The mention of a palace may possibly be taken to indicate that RimSin had again succeeded in establishing himself in a Babylonian city. 3 It is possible that Rim-Sin's renewed activity is to be assigned to the closing years of Hammurabi's reign, and his final defeat to Samsu-iluna's second year; see below, 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 Samsuiluna, may reasonably be taken to indicate that the whole of the missing portion of the text related to the period of his reign, and recorded his doings or those of contemporary rulers. That it was a critical period in the history of Babylon is sufficiently proved by the mere name of Samsu-iluna's adversary, which occurs upon the reverse of the tablet. From this passage we learn for the first time that Iluma-ilu, the founder of the Second Dynasty in the List of Kings, was the contemporary of Samsu-iluna, and that he waged a bitter war with him. It would be difficult to over-estimate the importance of these few lines in their effects upon early Babylonian chronology and history, for they prove that the Second Dynasty was partly contemporaneous with the first, and that the last five kings of the latter were obliged to defend their empire against a strongly organized state within the borders of Babylonia itself. Iluma-ilu's title is not preserved upon the chronicle, but it is practically certain that, like Ea-gamil in the eleventh line, he was described as king of the Country of the Sea.' In fact, we may conclude that he founded I The name assigned in the Lists of Kings to the dynasty founded by Iluma-ilu is that of SES-KU, written SES-KU in the larger List (No. 33,332) and SES-KU-K[I] in the smaller List (No. 38,122). The addition of the determinative KI shows that the word is a place-name, and it has been CAMPAIGNS ON THE PERSIAN GULF. 71 his state in the extreme south of Babylonia in the district bordering on the Persian Gulf. The chronicle relates that Samsu-iluna undertook two expeditions against him, both of which were unsuccessful. In the first of these he penetrated to the very shore of the Persian Gulf, where a battle took place, and, as may be inferred from the fourth line of the section, the dead bodies of the Babylonian soldiers were washed away by the sea. In the second campaign Iluma-ilu did not await his attack, but advanced to meet him and succeeded in securing a second victory. From the next section of suggested that, as SES has the value URU, the name should be read as URU-KU and identified with Uruk, or Erech (see Hommel, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., XVI, p. I4). Were this identification certain, it would follow that the Country of the Sea included Erech within its borders, and that this city was Iluma-ilu's capital and that of his successors; further, we might accept Hommel's proposed identification of Iluma-ilu of the Kings' Lists with AN-AM, or lumca, the son of Bel(?)-shemea, who was the contemporary, and probably the successor, of Sin-gamil, king of Erech (see Cun. Texts, Pt. XXI, pi. 17, No. 91,082, IIilprecht, Old Bab. Inscr., Pt. I, No. 26, and Thureau-Dangin, Les inscriptions de Sumer et dAkkad, pp. 316, 345). But, as the name of Erech is not written elsewhere as gSE-KU, it is preferable to regard the proposed identifications as unproved, though we may legitimately hold that SES-KU, or SES-Kd(KI), represents the name of the district in Southern Babylonia whence Iluma-ilu sprang, or that of the city which was his capital. We may also note the probability that Iluma-ila, whose name occurs on contracts apparently of the First Dynasty (see Daiches, Altbabylonisches Rechtsurkunden, p. 34 f.), is to be identified with Iluma-ilu, king of the Country of the Sea, who is now proved by the new chronicle to have been the contemporary of Samsu-iluna and AbEshu'. 72 ABESHU' AND ILUMA-ILU. the chronicle we gather that during the reign of Abeshu',I Samsu-iluna's son and successor, Iluma-ilu continued to be a source of trouble to Babylon. It was doubtless in order to check his encroachments that Abeshu' conceived the plan of capturing Iluma-ilu by stratagem; and with this object in view he dammed the Tigris, but he was not successful in his attempt at cutting Iluma-ilu off. It is probable that all similar attempts on the part of the later kings of the First Dynasty to crush or restrain the growing power of the Country of the Sea were useless. Further details of the struggle are not given by the chronicle, but in the third section preserved upon the reverse of the tablet, we find a fact recorded which must have contributed to hasten the fall of Babylon, and may indeed have brought the First Dynasty to an end. We are there told that in the reign of Samsuditana,2 the last king of the dynasty, the men of the land of Khatti marched against him and invaded the land of Akkad. The lines recording the result of the invasion 1 In the chronicle the name is written as Abisz, a form which in my opinion disproves Ranke's suggestion that the contemporary form of the name should be read as Abi-es4uh, instead of Abi-esu' (see his Early Babylonian Personal Names, p. 36, n. I). The form Abisi is far closer to the earlier form of the name than EbiSum (which is found in the smaller List of Kings), and its occurrence definitely proves that the Neo-Babylonian scribes at any rate read the last sign of the name as the breathing. 2 The name is written Shamash-dzlana upon the chronicle, the more familiar form Shamash being substituted for its dialectic equivalent Samsu as the first component of the name. THE HITTITE INVASION. 73 have been omitted, but that it met with considerable success is certain, for Agum II records that he brought back the images of Marduk and Sarpanitum from the land of Khani in northern Syria, and we may infer that it was on this occasion they were carried off.I The invasion of the Hittites must have weakened and divided the Babylonian forces and reduced their power of resisting any additional foe. The chronicle does not actually relate how the First Dynasty came to an end, 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 other passages in the new texts, the kings of the Country of the Sea never succeeded in absorbing Babylon within their Empire. We may therefore hold that it was Gandash, or Gaddash, the first of the Kassite kings of Babylon, who followed Samsu-ditana upon the throne; and, even if Samsuditana's reign was brought to an end by the Hittite invasion, there was probably no long interval between the close of the First Dynasty of Babylon and the Kassite occupation of the city. From the next section of the chronicle we learn how the kings of the Country of the Sea fell in their turn before an invasion of the Kassites. It was probably in self-defence that Ea-gamil, the last king of I See further, Chap. VI. 74 THE KASSITE CONQUEST Iluma-ilu's dynasty, set out to conquer the land of Elam. But whether he was actuated by desire of conquest, or was merely anxious by taking the initiative to prevent the invasion of his own country, he did not achieve his purpose. For we are told that UlamBur(i)ash, the brother of Bitiliash, the Kassite, drove him from Elamite territory, and, after pursuing him across the border, conquered the Country of the Sea and exercised dominion over the land. The last section on the reverse of the chronicle relates how Agum, the son of Bitiliash, made further conquests in the Country of the Sea.' Such in brief outline are the new facts which the chronicle No. 96,152 supplies on the early history of Babylonia. The text itself is short, and the history of each reign is summarized by the chronicler in a few terse sentences; but the facts themselves are farreaching in their influence upon current theories. They oblige us to remodel our conceptions of the early history of Babylonia, and at one blow they demolish most of the systems of early Babylonian chronology that have been propounded. In the two following chapters an attempt will be made to indicate how far such systems must be modified to suit the new facts at our disposal. The chronicler The discussion of the possibility of identifying Bitiliash and Agum with Kassite kings of Babylon may be postponed to the following chapter. OF THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA. 75 has eschewed dates and has throughout confined himself to broad statements; thus it happens that he has left us a certain margin wherein to manipulate the facts he has supplied. But the facts once established, there are limits to the possible margin of error; and these we shall attempt to define. Moreover, the most probable explanation of the new data settles within very definite limits the early chronology of Babylon, while it removes to the Country of the Sea certain unsettled problems, the solution of which may be left to future excavations in that region of southern Babylonia. It will be advisable first to deal with the chronology, and afterwards to make use of the conclusions so obtained to revise the early history of Babylon and of her foreign relations. CHAPTER IV. THE INTER-RELATIONS OF THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD DYNASTIES OF THE LIST OF KINGS, AND THE CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF BEROSSUS. ALL the systems of Babylonian chronology propounded during the last twenty years have in the main been based upon the great List of Kings, arranged in dynasties, which is inscribed upon the tablet No. 33,332 in the British Museum. This invaluable document, when complete, gave a list of the kings from the First Dynasty of Babylon down to the Neo-Babylonian period. The names of the kings are written in columns, one name to each line, and before the name of each king are added figures representing in years or months the length of time he occupied the throne. At the end of each dynasty lines are ruled across the column, and a note gives the total number of years occupied by the dynasty, the number of kings of which the dynasty was composed, and the name by which the THE LIST OF KINGS. 77 dynasty was known.I If the tablet were complete we should be in possession of the system of Babylonian chronology which was current in the Neo-Babylonian period, and, after working out the dates to be assigned to each king according to the system, it would only remain to examine how far the results were corroborated by the other chronological data available, and by the contemporary documents which have come down to us from the earlier periods. Unfortunately both the top and bottom of the tablet are wanting, with the result that gaps occur in the sequence of the kings, and various problems remain unsolved as to the length of some of the dynasties and the order in which certain kings are to be arranged. It will be possible in a few words to indicate the position of the principal gaps, and to ascertain how far they affect the problems of Babylonian chronology and the solutions which have been suggested for them. The fact that the whole of the First Dynasty is wanting from the great List of Kings is of no importance, I The tablet was published by Pinches, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., Vol. VI (I884), pp. I93 ff., and its text restored from the smaller List of Kings, No. 38,122, the contents of which had been made known in Vol. III (i880), p. 2I f. For subsequent publications of the lists, see Winckler, Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte (1889), pp. I45 ff., Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott (1893), Bd. I, p. 60; Rost, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1897, pp. 240 ff.; and Lehmann-Haupt, Zwei Hauptprobleme der altorientalischen Chronologie; Knudtzon and Lehmann-Haupt give publications of the principal List only, the latter omitting the text from the end of the Eighth Dynasty onwards as having no reference to the problems discussed by him. 78 DYNASTIES OF THE KINGS' LIST. for we are able to restore the text from the smaller Kings' List, No. 38,I22 I; the figures given by this smaller list we can control, and in the main corroborate, by means of the contemporary Date-lists of the First Dynasty of Babylon.2 A large gap occurs in the Third Dynasty, in which we must place the kings known from the Tell el-Amarna letters to have been contemporaries of Amenhetep III and Amenhetep IV. But fortunately the summary recording the length of the dynasty is preserved, so that the existence of the gap does not offer any difficulties with regard to the general scheme of Babylonian chronology as set forth upon the tablet. Similarly the gap in the Fourth Dynasty is discounted by the summary giving the number of its kings and the total length of their reigns.3 In fact, we know from the Lists the length of each of the first seven dynasties, and it 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 its duration.4 'See above, p. 77, n. I. 2 See below, Chap. VII, and Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, Vol. III, pp. 2I2ff. 3 The figure giving the number of years was at first read as " 72 "; but the reading " I32 " appears more probable. 4 The reading of the figure which gives the number of kings in this dynasty is also uncertain. It was at first read as "3I," and its present appearance suggests the reading" I2 "; but it seems to have been probed with a pen or some sharp instrument, and its original reading may well have been "2 I." THE KINGS' LIST AND BEROSSUS. 79 The dates of the kings from the latter part of the Eighth Dynasty onwards, beginning with Nabonassar, are fixed, and had we known the length of this dynasty it would have been possible to recover completely the main lines of the system of chronology as represented by the List of Kings. But a fresh series of problems is introduced when an attempt is made to reconcile those figures that have been preserved with the chronological system of Berossus. Some historians have sought to fix the date of the First Dynasty in accordance with Berossus by ingenious emendations of the chronological data. Others have been content to ignore Berossus, and to rely upon some of the chronological notices which occur in the later historical inscriptions, in order to fix approximately the dates of the earlier dynasties. Two such chronological notices and a reference in the "Synchronous History " have been employed to ascertain within certain limits the date at which the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty came to an end. 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-akh6 and his own conquest of Babylon in 689 B.c.I Therefore Tiglath-pileser I was reigning in 1IO7 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 See my Records of the reign of Tukulti-Ninib I (supplementary texts), p. 118 f. 80 CHRONOLOGICAL NOTICES approximately assigned to 120 B.C. From the Cylinderinscription of Tiglath-pileser I we also learn that sixty years separated the pulling down of the temple of Anu and Adad at Ashur by Ashur-dan and its restoration by Tiglath-pileser I at the beginning of his reign.I It has therefore been concluded that Ashur-dan was reigning about I I80 B.C., and from the " Synchronous History " we know that Zamama-shum-iddina, who ascended the throne of Babylon four years before the end of the Third Dynasty, was a contemporary of Ashur-dan. It is probable that Ashur-dan's reign was a long one, for Tiglath-pileser I, his great-grandson, states that he " attained to grey hairs and a ripe old age."2 Thus, if the figures given by Sennacherib and by Tiglath-pileser I be accepted,3 it follows that the date to be assigned to the end of the Third Dynasty fell within some fifty years of 1180 B.C. Another means of roughly ascertaining the date to be See Annals of the Kings of Assyria, Vol. I, p. 95 f. 2 Op. cit., p. 94. 3 Emendations of Sennacherib's figure have been suggested by both Rost and Lehmann-Haupt. Instead of" 418 " Rost suggested reading " 478," increasing the figure by sixty years; see Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft (897), II, p. I6. Lehmann-Haupt would read "3I8," reducing it by one hundred years; see Zwei Hauptprobleme der altorientalischen Chronologie, p. 98. The contradictory statements of Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon, with regard to the intervals of time separating Ilu-shtma, Shamshi-Adad (the son of Bel-kabi), and Shalmaneser I respectively (see further, Chap. V), show that the Assyrian scribes could make mistakes in their reckoning; but it will be seen that Sennacherib's figure in the Bavian inscription need not be rejected. IN LATE HISTORICAL TEXTS. 8i assigned to the end of the Third Dynasty has been obtained from a chronological notice on a cylinder of Nabonidus. This king tells us that Shagarakti-Buriash, the son of Kudur-Bel, built a temple in Sippar eight hundred years before Nabonidus came across his foundation-inscription recording the event.' It is probable that Shagarakti-Buriash is to be identified with ShagaraktiShuriash, a king of the Third Dynasty, who, according to the List of Kings, was the son and successor of KudurB1l. Now the reign of Nabonidus came to an end in 539 B.C., and, by the addition of eight hundred years, it might be inferred that 1339 B.C. fell within the reign of Shagarakti-Shuriash. According to the figures of the List of Kings Shagarakti-Shuriash reigned for thirteen years, and ascended the throne ninety-two years before the end of the dynasty, which would thus have closed between the years 1260 B.C. and 1247 B.C. But this date for the end of the Third Dynasty cannot be regarded as accurately fixed on such evidence, for the eight hundred years of Nabonidus 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, it is not surprising that the estimates of the date at which the Third Dynasty came to an end should vary considerably. For the sake of comparing the principal systems of Babylonian chronology the 'See Rawlinson, Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. V, pl. 64, Col. III, 11. 27 ff. G 82 SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY. table printed on the opposite page has been compiled, giving in columns the periods assigned by different writers I to the First, Second, and Third Dynasties respectively, the systems with the highest dates being placed first in the List.2 See Oppert, Coozptes rendus de Z'Acad. des Inscr. et Bdles-lettres (x888), XVI, pp. 218 ff., and Bab. and Or. Rec., II, pp. 107 ff.; Sayce, Early Israel and the surrounding nations, p. 281 f. (the date here given for the beginning of the Third Dynasty is stated to be probably from fifteen to twenty years too high), and Encycl. Brit., Vol XXVI, p. 45; Rogers, History of Babylonia andAssyria, Vol. I, pp. 338 if.; Winckler, Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, pp. 58, 66, 68, 79, 92 f., and Altorientalische Forschungen, I, pp. I3I, I34; Maspero, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient classique, tome II, pp. 27, II3, I9; Delitzsch and Miirdter, Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, Ubersicht (p. 265); Lehmann-Haupt, Zwei Hauptprobleme, Tab. II-V (the dates being given as possibly four years out from the beginning of the First Dynasty to the fourth king of the Eighth Dynasty), and Beitrage zur alten Geschichte, Bd. III (1903), Heft I, pp. 135 ff., 163; Marquart, Philologus, Supplementband VII (1899), pp. 637 if.; Peiser, Zezts. fuar Assyr., VI, pp. 264 ff.; Rost, Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesellschaft (1897), II, pp. I4 f., 22 f., and Orient. Lit.-Zeit., III (900o), No. 6, col. 216; Niebuhr, Chronologie, p. 73 f.; and Hommel, Geschichte Babyloniens znd Assyriens, pp. 352 f., 418, 446, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, p. 125, and Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, I, p. 226 f. Neither Tiele (Babylonisch- Asyrische Geschichte, p. II2), nor Schrader (Sitzungsberichte der Kdnigl. Preuss. Ak. der Wissens., I887, p. 6o0) attempted to settle the chronology accurately, and the first volume of Meyer's Geschichte des Alterthums appeared just before the publication of the larger List of Kings. 2 It should be noted that Delitzsch, in his Babylonische und Assyrische Herrscherlisten (I905), while in the main eschewing early dates, now sets the beginning of the First Dynasty at about 2500 B.C. Lehmann-Haupt, on the other hand, has recently reduced his date for the beginning of the First Dynasty to 2296 B.C. (see Beitrdge zur alten Geschichte, Bd. III TABLE OF DATES ASSIGNED TO THE FIRST TIREE DYNASTIES OF THE LIST OF KINGS. Oppert (1888) Sayce (1899),, (I9o2) Rogers (I900) Winckler (I894),, (I892) Maspero (1897) Delitzsch (I89I) Lehmann-Haupt (1898),, (1903) Marquart (1899) Peiser (I891) Rost (1897),, (1900) Niebuhr (1896) Hommel (1895) 0,, (1886),, (i898) IST DYNASTY. B.C. B.C. 2506 - 2202 2478 - (2174) 2460 - (2174) 2454 - 2151 (2425 - 2120) 2403 - 2098 2416 -- 2082 2399 - 2094 2360 2057 2296 2009/8 2335 - 2051 2251 - I947 2232 - 1928 2231 - I94I 2193 - 1889 2058 - 1754 2035 - I73I 1884 - 1580 / B.C. 2202 2174 2174 2150 2120 2098 2082 2094 2056 2008/7 2051/0 I947 1928 1940 2114 B.C. 1834 - (8o6) -.(i80o6) 1783 - 1752 1730 I714 1726 1689 - 169I - 694/3 1579 1560 1573 1746 IIND DYNASTY. I IIIRD DYNASTY. B.C. B.C. 1834 - 1257 i806 - (1229) 80o6 - (1229) 1782 1207 1752 1177 I729 - 1150 I714 (1137) 1726 - 1150 i688 - 1113 1690 - II5 1693/2 - 1118/7 1579 II80 1560 - 1224 I572 - I79 1746 - 1169 I753 1178 1731 -- 1154 1580 - 8o rn cn H C3 0n 0 n z 0 0 0 0 2403 -2035 I1 84 SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY. It will be seen that the majority of the writers enumerated in the table on the preceding page accept the figures of the Kings' Lists,I and make the three dynasties follow on consecutively, one after the other. According to the smaller List of Kings the First Dynasty endured for 304 years, and, according to the principal List, the Second Dynasty for 368 years, and the Third Dynasty for 5763 years. The last-named figure has been called in question by Peiser and Rost, who have both suggested emendations of the text. The former, in order to get the total duration of the dynasties (I903), Heft I, p. I46); this result he has in the main arrived at by reducing the figures of the List of Kings for the Second Dynasty, which he considers too high (see further, Chap. V). I.e., Oppert, Delitzsch, Winckler, Sayce, Maspero, and Rogers. In 1898 Lehmann-Haupt did so too, but he has since called in question the figures for the Second Dynasty (see above, preceding note); in other respects his low dates are obtained by his emendation of the Bavian inscription (see above, p. 80, n. 3). 2 It may be noted that Delitzsch, Winckler, and Hommel assign 305, instead of 304, years to the First Dynasty of the List of Kings. This is due to their reading the number of years of Ammi-zaduga's reign upon the smaller List of Kings as " 22." I have examined the passage anew, and there is no doubt that "21" is the correct figure. The apparent existence of a second upright wedge is due to the scribe having written the figure 21 over the line which he had previously ruled down the right-hand edge of the tablet. Maspero assigns 334 years to the dynasty, but this is due to his giving dates to four of the kings (Sumu-abu, Sumula-ilu, Zabum, and Ammi-zaduga) for which there is no authority either in the List of Kings or in the contemporary date-lists. On a recent suggestion of Lehmann-Haupt to reduce the length of the First Dynasty to 289 years, see below, p. 95, n. 3. SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY. 85 to agree with the chronological system of Berossus and with the statement of Nabonidus concerning Hammurabi,I assumed that the reading "9 soss and 36 years" (which give the total 576 years) was a scribal error for " 6 soss and 39 years" (i.e. 399 years), and he thus reduced the Third Dynasty by 177 years. Rost, following up Peiser's suggestion, reduced the figure still further.2 But the systems of both Rost and Peiser, as also those of Oppert,3 Delitzsch, Winckler, Sayce, Maspero, Lehmann-Haupt, Marquart, and Rogers, are based on the assumption that the first three dynasties were consecutive. Hommel in his history, mainly with the object of reducing the date of Hammurabi, reversed the order of the First and Second Dynasties, but he afterwards abandoned this position and adopted a suggestion of Halevy, that the Third Dynasty followed immediately A difficulty in all the systems which accept the figures of the List of Kings, and at the same time assume the consecutive order of the dynasties, is that they are obliged to assign to H-ammurabi a date considerably earlier than that which is given him by Nabonidus; see below, p. 87 f. 2For references to Rost's and Peiser's publications, see above, p. 82, n. I. 3 The very high dates suggested by Oppert are included on p. 83 for the sake of comparison, but they were based on a fanciful interpretation of the figures of Berossus that does not need to be discussed in detail. Briefly, there is no evidence for his cyclic date of 2517 B.C., and, according to the most probable interpretation of the system of Berossus, the beginning of his Dyn. II is to be set, not in 2506 B.C., but in 2232 B.C. (see further, p. 91 f.). 86 SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY. after the First, the Second having synchronized with them. Niebuhr's theory is a modification of Halevy's suggestion, for instead of entirely ignoring the Second Dynasty, he reduced its independent existence to 143 years by making it overlap the First Dynasty by 225 years. Our new chronicle, No. 96,I52, shows that Halevy's acute suggestion was nearer the truth than has hitherto been supposed. But before we turn to the new information furnished by the chronicle, it will be well to consider the two chronological notices in Babylonian literature which have a bearing upon the dates to be assigned to the First and Second Dynasties. We may also examine the date which has been deduced for the beginning of the historical period of the Babylonian dynasties from a study of the chronological system of Berossus. One of the greatest bones of contention among students of Babylonian chronology has been the date to be assigned to Hammurabi, for this is a point on which the List of Kings offers a serious discrepancy with a chronological notice in an inscription of Nabonidus referring to the period of Hammurabi's rule. The majority of writers have been content to accept the figures of the List of Kings, and to ignore their inconsistency with the statement of Nabonidus. Others have attempted to get over the difficulty by emendations of the figures in the List and by other ingenious suggestions. The dates assigned to Hammurabi in the DATE OF HAMMURABI. principal chronological systems that have been propoundedI are classified in the following table: Oppert (I888)... Sayce (1899)... Rogers (1900)... Winckler (1894)... (I892)... Delitzsch (1891)... Maspero (1897)... Lehmann-Haupt (1898),, (1903) Marquart (1899)... Peiser (1891) Rost (1897)... Niebuhr (1896)... Hommel (I895),, (1898)... DATE OF HAMMURABI. B.C. B.C. 2394 - 2339 2376 - 2333 2342 - 2288 (2313) - 2258 2264 - 2210 2287 - 2232 2287 - 2232 2248 - 2194 2194 - 2152 2233 - 2191 2139 - 2084 2120 - 2065 2081 - 2026 1947 - I892 1772 - 1717 - According to Nabonidus Hammurabi rebuilt the temple E-babbara 700 years before Burna-Buriash,2 and even by identifying this ruler with Burna-Buriash I we could not on this evidence assign Hammurabi to a period much earlier than the twenty-first century B.C.3 Now the 700 years of Nabonidus, like his 800 years when speaking of Shagarakti-Buriash,4 is obviously a For a list of the works from which the table has been compiled, see above, p. 82, n. I. 2 See Bezold, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., Vol. XI, pp. 94, 99, and pl. IV (85-4-30, 2, col. II, 11. 20 ff.); and Rawlinson, Cun. ZIscr. West. Asia, Vol. I, pl. 69, col. II, 1. 4. 3 See above, p. 18 f. 4 See above, p. 8I. 88 DATE OF HAMMURABI. round number, but such a plea can hardly explain its discrepancy with the dates suggested by Oppert, Sayce, Rogers, Winckler, Delitzsch, and Maspero, whose results are based on the figures of the List of Kings without alteration.I In his first date Lehmann-Haupt got to within one hundred years of the estimate of Nabonidus by emending Sennachcrib's figure on the rock at Bavian,2 and he has recently reduced this discrepancy still further by emending the figures assigned by the List of Kings to the Second Dynasty.3 Finally Peiser and Rost secured complete agreement with Nabonidus by their suggested emendations of the figure given by the List of Kings for the duration of the Third Dynasty.4 But the solution of the problem of Hammurabi's date we may look for in our new conception of the relations of the early dynasties to one another. Meanwhile the fact may be noted that the reference in the text of Nabonidus would assign an approximate date to Hammurabi in the twenty-first century B.c. Another reference to a king of this early period which is found upon a later Babylonian monument furnishes an independent estimate of the date to be Moreover, the context of the passage in the text of Nabonidus suggests that his scribes would be inclined to exaggerate, rather than to diminish, the antiquity of Hammurabi's building; see further, Chap. V. 2 See above, p. 79 f. 3 See above, p. 82, n. 2. 4 See above, p. 84 f. On Hommel's two systems and Niebuhr's modification of the second of them, see above, p, 85 f. DATE OF GULKISEIAR. 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 Museum, referring to events which took place in the fourth year of Bl-nadin-apli.I In the text engraved upon the stone2 it is stated that 696 years separated Gulkishar and Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., Nebuchadnezzar I, who was the immediate predecessor of Bel-nadin-apli upon the throne of Babylon. We know from the " Synchronous History" that Nebuchadnezzar I was the contemporary of Ashur-resh-ishi, the father of Tiglath-pileser I, and we have already cited evidence on the strength of which the accession of Tiglath-pileser has been set at about I I20 B.C. 3 Nebuchadnezzar I may thus have been reigning at about II25- I35 B.C., and, by adding 696 years to this date, we obtain for Gulkishar an approximate date of I821 or 1831 B.C. But it should be noted that the period ot 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 the fourth year of Bel-nadin-apli, and the number 696 may have been based upon the See Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions7 chiefly from Nippur, Pt. I, pl. 30 f., No. 83, and Assyriaca, pp. Io ff.; and Jensen, Zeits. fir Assyriologie, Bd. VIII, pp. 220 ff. 2 Obv., 11. 6-8. 3 See above, p. 79 f. 9o THE DYNASTIES OF BEROSSUS. estimate that 700 years separated Bel-nadin-apli's reign from that of Gulkishar. Moreover, the date assigned to Nebuchadnezzar I is only approximate. We may, however, take the reference as a rough indication of the belief that a portion of Gulkishar's reign fell within the period between 1850 and I800 B.C. Such are the two chronological notices, occurring in later historical inscriptions which have a bearing upon the dates of the first two dynasties of the List of Kings. We may now turn to the dynasties of Berossus and ascertain what date has been deduced from them for the beginning of the historical period in his system of chronology. The historical dynasties of Berossus, following the first dynasty of 86 kings who ruled for 34,090 yearsI after the Deluge, are preserved only in the Armenian version of the Chronicles of Eusebius,2 and are as follows:Dyn. II, 8 Median usurpers, 224 years [in margin of MSS. 34 years] Dyn. III, II kings,.... wanting [in margin of MSS. 48 years] So Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p. I47); 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. 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, Beitrdge zur alten Geschichte, III, p. I33. 2 Eusebius, Chron. hb. I, ed. Schoene, col. 25; see also Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, Rea-.Encyclopddie, III (I), col. 3II. THE DYNASTIES OF BEROSSUS. 91 Dyn. IV, 49 Chaldean kings, 458 years. Dyn. V, 9 Arab kings,.. 245 years. Dyn. VI, 45 kings,... 526 years. It is unfortunate that the figure is wanting for the duration of Dyn. III of Berossus,' but we are not solely dependent on the figures in detail for ascertaining the total length, according to Berossus, of the historical period. 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 (as those before the Deluge are said to have endured for I20 sars, i.e., 432,000 years), furnished the key that has been used for the solution of the problem. For, if Dyn. I be subtracted from this total, the remaining number of years gives the length of the historical dynasties. Thus if we take the length of Dyn. I as 34,090 years,2 the length of the historical dynasties was I9IO years. Now the statement attributed to Abydenus by Eusebius, to the /effect that the Chaldeans reckoned their kings from Alorus to Alexander,3 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 I9IO years to 322 B.C., we obtain 2232 B.C. as the Differences of opinion have also existed with regard to the point at which Dyn. VI ended; but see further, p. 92, n. 3. 2 See above, p. 90. 3 Eusebius, Chron. hIb., ed. Schoene, col. 53: Hoc pacto Khaldaei suae regionis reges ab Aloro usque ad Alexandrum recensent. 92 THE HISTORICAL PERIOD beginning of the historical period with which Dyn. II ot Berossus opened.I Confirmation of this date for the beginning of the historical period in Berossus has been found in a statement, derived from Porphyrius, which occurs in the commentary of Simplicius upon Aristotle's De Caelo, to the effect that, according to Callisthenes, the Babylonian records of astronomical observations extended over a period of I903 years2 down to the time of Alexander of Macedon. Assuming that the reading 1903 is correct, the observations would have extended back to B.C. 2233, a date differing by only one year from that obtained for the beginning of the historical period in Berossus.3 The same result has also been arrived at by taking 34,o80 years as the length of Dyn. I (see above, p. go, n. I), and extending the historical period of 1920 years down to 312 B.C., the beginning of the Seleucid Era. 2 The Greek text reads 3I,000 years (cf. ed. Heiberg, p. 506), but the figure I903 occurs in a Latin translation by Moerbeka, and this probably represents the original reading; cf. Lehmann-Ilaupt, Zwei Hauptprobleme, pp. 109 f., 2o0, and Meyer, Beitrdge zur alien Geschichte, III, p. I3I. 3 A very probable explanation of other points in connection with the chronological scheme of Berossus has recently been put forward. It has usually been held that Dyn. VI of Berossus ended with the predecessor of Nabonassar, and that the following dynasty (VII) began in 747 B.c. But Meyer has pointed out that, after enumerating the Dynasties II-VI, Eusebius goes on to say: post quos, inquit (sc. Polyhistor), rex Chaldaeorum extitit, cui nomen Phuhus est; this Meyer explains as indicating that Dyn. VI of Berossus ended at the same point as the Eighth Babylonian Dynasty (in B.c. 731), i.e., with the reign of Nabu-shum-ishkun, the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser. Thus Dyn. VII would begin with the reign of the usurper Ukin-zer (also the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser), i.e., at the point marked by the group Xivt'p Kal nImpog in the Ptolemaic OF BEROSSUS. 93 We have now examined the information furnished by the later historical inscriptions with regard to the dates of the first two dynasties of the List of Kings, and we have also summarized the evidence obtained from a study of the dynasties of Berossus for fixing the beginning of his historical period. In the sketch that has been given of the principal schemes of Babylonian chronology, it was noted that the majority of writers have relied upon the figures of the List of Kings, and have ignored the discrepancies which they exhibit with the figures of Nabonidus and with the date which Berossus appears to have assigned for the beginning of his historical dynasties. The means which other writers have employed for reconciling the conflicting data have also been referred to. We may now return to the chronicle No. 96,I52,I and, after ascertaining what light it throws on the inter-relations of the first three dynasties, we may consider anew the possibility of reconciling the Kings' List with Berossus. From the reverse of the chronicle we know that Iluma-ilu (the first king of the Second Dynasty) waged a successful war against Samsu-iluna (the seventh king of the First Dynasty); and the following paragraph of the text relates that Abeshu', the son and successor of Canon. On this supposition the figure 48, which occurs in the Armenian version of Eusebius on the margin of certain MSS. (see above, p. go), is to be retained for the number of years assigned by Berossus to Dynasty III. See Meyer, Beitrdge zur alien Geschichte, III, pp. I3I if. 1 See Vol. II, pp. 15 ff. 94 NEW SYNCHRONISMS. Samsu-iluna, attempted to capture Iluma-ilu, but did not succeed in cutting him off.I It is possible that Abeshu' conducted his campaign against Iluma-ilu in the life-time of his father and while he himself was still crown-prince; but, as each of the other sections of the chronicle deals with a new king, it is more probable that his campaign took place after his own accession to the throne. Thus it may be conjectured that the two sections of the chronicle describe Iluma-ilu's relations to Babylon during the reigns of two successive kings of Babylon, and not during the reign of Samsu-iluna only. As, however, the other possibility exists, it will be taken into account in estimating the possible effects of our new information. Before discussing the limits of the overlapping of the First and Second Dynasties it will be as well to give lists of the kings of which they were composed. In the following table of the kings of the First Dynasty the lengths of their reigns are given according to the smaller List of Kings and also according to the date-lists of the First Dynasty. As the date-lists are contemporary documents, while the List of Kings was inscribed in the Neo-Babylonian period, the former must, of course, be followed in all cases of disagreement.2 See above, p. 72. 2 Although the date-lists differ from the smaller List of Kings in details, they attest its general accuracy with regard to the First Dynasty. The total number of years assigned to the first nine kings is very nearly the same in both authorities. KINGS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. 95 TABLE OF THE KINGS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. NAME. Su-abu, or Sumu-abu Sumu-la-ilu Zabum.... Apil-Sin... Sin-muballit. Hammurabi Samsu-iluna... Abeshu'... Ammi-ditana Ammi-zaduga. Samsu-ditana. LIST OF KINGS... I5 years 35,,... 14,... i8,,... 30,, ~ 55,, ~.. 35,,.. 25,... 25,,... 213... 31, DATE-LISTS. 1. 4 years... 36.,... I4,,.. I8,... 20,..* 43,,... 38,,.. 2 82, *.. 37,,.. I7+,,... (wanting) Prof. Delitzsch in his Babylonische ztndAssyrische Herrscherlisten (1905) makes use of the information afforded by the copy A of the chronicle concerning the reigns of the first seven kings of the dynasty (No. 92,702; see my Letters of Hammzurabi, Vol. II, pll. 217 ff., Vol. III, pp. 212 if.). But he has overlooked the information with regard to the reigns of Abeshu' and Ammi-ditana given by the copy B of the chronicle (No. 16,924; op. cit., Vol. II, pl. 234, Vol. III, p. 252 f.). 2 The reading of the figure on No. I6,924 has hitherto been uncertain, for, while "[2]8" was probable, "[3]8" was also possible (cf. Letters of Hammurabi, Vol. III, pp. lviii, lxxi, 253). The new date-list published in Vol. If, now proves that Abeshu' reigned for only 28 years; see further, Chap. VII. 3 That the figure is " 21 " and not " 22," see above, p. 84, n. 2. LehmannHaupt has recently suggested a reduction of the total duration of the First Dynasty to 289 years, on the assumption that Ammi-zaduga reigned for only ten years (see Beitrage zur alten Geschichte, Bd. III, Heft I, p. I45). It is true that the number " Io" appears against his name in the summary at the end of the date-list B (No. I6,924); but this is because the list was compiled in the tenth year of his reign (see Letters of Hammurabi, III, p. 253). In the new date-list published in Vol. II it is definitely stated that Ammi-zaduga reigned for at least seventeen years; see further, Chap. VII. 96 KINGS OF THE SECOND DYNASTY. For the reigns of the kings of the Second Dynasty we have no contemporary document such as the date-lists of the First Dynasty. The following table is based entirely on the two Lists of Kings. The smaller List gives the royal names only, without any figures for the lengths of their reigns. The figures occur only on the larger List of Kings, from which they are here taken.I TABLE OF THE KINGS OF TH NAME. Iluma-ilu Itti-ili-nibi Damki-ilishu... Ishkibal...... Shushshi...... Gulkishar Peshgal-daramash. A-dara-kalama2. Akur-ul-ana3... Melam-kurkura Ea-gamil We have already noted that E SECOND DYNASTY. LIST OF KINGS.. 60 years * 55, ~.. 36,,... I5 ~.. 27,,. 55,,.. 50,,.. 28... 26,,... 7,, 9, the majority of writers on the history of Babylonia have treated the Second Dynasty as following immediately after the First, and have regarded Iluma-ilu as the direct successor of For a discussion as to whether these figures can be regarded as approximately correct, see below, p. III, n. I. 2 Var. A-a-dara-[kalama]. 3 Var. Ekur-ul-[ana]. ILUMA-ILU'S CONTEMPORARIES. 97 Samsu-ditana. Thus to assign dates to the kings of the First Dynasty they have merely added the years of their reigns to the accession-year of the Second Dynasty, which had previously been ascertained by adding its duration to the accession-year of the Third. But we know from the new chronicle, No. 96,I 52, that Iluma-ilu was not the successor of Samsu-ditana, but the contemporary of Samsu-iluna and Abeshu'. Now, according to the larger List of Kings, Iluma-ilu reigned for no less than sixty years, and we have no indication from the chronicle as to the periods of his reign during which he was at war with Babylon. Moreover, the date-lists of the First Dynasty do not offer much assistance in fixing the years in the reigns of Samsu-iluna and Abeshu' when the campaigns against Iluma-ilu took place.' The portion of the date-lists which refers to the reign of Abeshu' is almost completely wanting (see my Letters of Hiamimurabi, Vol. III, pp. 248 ff.). The years of Samsu-iluna are better preserved, and the twentieth year of his reign, termed "the year in which the land had misfortune" (opp. cit., p. 244 f.), may possibly have been the year of Samsu-iluna's defeat, though the phrase might equally well refer to a drought or famine. A more probable year would be the fourteenth of his reign, which bore the formula MU LUGAL IM-GI KAR-[... ]-RA (loc. cit.). A probable explanation of the ideogram IM-GI (var. IM-GI-DA), based both upon the context of the passages in which it occurs and on an analysis of its component parts, is that it is not a geographical name for "Chaldsea," as Winckler and Hommel would explain it, but that it signifies "usurper" (see below, Chap. VIII). The formula for the fourteenth year may thus be translated "the year in which the usurping king [..... ]." But, whether the phrase IUGAT, IM-GI be rendered as "usurping king" or "king of Chaldaea (i.e., Southern Babylonia)," the formula may be interpreted as referring to a king of the Country of the Sea, and it may H 98 THE OVERLAPPING Thus, if we accept the statement of the List of Kings that Iluma-ilu reigned for sixty years, we are left a considerable degree of latitude in determining the number of years during which the First and Second Dynasties were contemporaneous. On the supposition that Abeshu's campaign took place after he had ascended the throne we obtain the following extreme limits between which the actual figure must lie. On the one hand we may assume that the first year of Iluma-ilu corresponded to the last year of Samsu-iluna: in that case the two dynasties would have overlapped for a period of 18 years.I On the other hand we may suppose that the last year of Iluma-ilu corresponded to the first year of Abeshu': in that case the dynasties would have overlapped for I76 years.2 possibly have recorded Iluma-ilu's declaration of independence or his defeat of Samsu-iluna. But as Iluma-ilu's name is not actually given on the tablet, it would be rash to make use of the date at present for settling the chronology. This number is made up of the last year of the reign of Samsu-iluna (corresponding to the first year of Iluma-ilu), and the reigns of his four successors, Abeshu', Ammi-ditana, Ammi-zaduga, and Samsu-ditana, i.e., I + 28 + 37+ 2 + 31 = II8 years. 2 This number is made up of the last twenty-one years of Hammurabi's reign and the reign of Samsu-iluna (these together corresponding to the first fifty-nine years of Iluma-ilu's reign), and the reigns of Samsu-iluna's four successors, i.e., 2I + 38 + 28 + 37 + 2I + 31 = 176 years. It may be noted that a contract-tablet found at Sippar is dated MU-US-SA [Da]mi-ik-ili-sz LUGAL [BAD] I-SI-IN MU-RU-A, ' The year after that in which Damik-ilishu restored the wall of Isin," and this ruler has been identified with Damki-ilishu, the third king of the Second Dynasty (see Scheil, Receuil de htavaux, XXIII, p. 93 f., Lehmann-Haupt, Beitrdge zur alten OF THE DYNASTIES. 99 But it is possible that the period was still longer, if we assume that Abeshu's campaign against Iluma-ilu took place in the life-time of his father. As Samsuiluna reigned for thirty-eight years it is probable that he ascended the throne when a comparatively young man, and it is unlikely that his son would have been old enough to be entrusted with the conduct of a campaign before Samsu-iluna himself had been at least fourteen years upon the throne. On this last supposition therefore the two dynasties cannot have overlapped for more than 200 years. Such are the possible limits of the period within which the First and Second Dynasties were contemporaneous. Iluma-ilu established his dynasty in the Country of the Sea not earlier than the nineteenth year of Sin-muballit,I Geschiichte, Bd. III, Heft I, p. 142, etc.). Had this identification been correct, two important consequences would have followed: (I) The Second Dynasty could not have overlapped the First for more than 150 years; and (2) the Second Dynasty must have occupied Northern Babylonia, and therefore the First Dynasty must have fallen before a king of the Country of the Sea, and not a Kassite. The Damik-ilishu of the Sippar tablet, however, is not the same personage as Damki-ilishu of the Second Dynasty, but one of the kings of Isin (cf. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, p. 381 f.). I learn from Prof. Hilprecht that in the new dynastic tablet which he will shortly publish (see above, p. I, n. 3) Damik-ilishu's name occurs as that of the last king of the Dynasty of Isin. It has already been stated that Abeshu's campaign probably took place in his own reign rather than in that of his father. On this supposition Iluma-ilu did not establish his dynasty earlier than the twenty-third year of Hammurabi. It should be noted that these calculations depend upon the statement of the larger List of Kings with regard to the length of Iluma-ilu's reign. H 2 I 00 THE SECOND DYNASTY and not later than the last year of Samsu-iluna. Neither of these extreme dates is probable, and it is at some point between the two that we must set the rise of the Second Dynasty. Whatever point may be selected this new information by itself results in a considerable reduction of the dates hitherto assigned by the majority of writers to all the kings of the First Dynasty. It is obvious that we must ascertain how far this new information substantiates or contradicts the other data available for settling the chronology of the period. But before undertaking this enquiry it will be well to examine the relations of the Second and Third Dynasties to one another. It has been seen that the Second Dynasty overlapped the First by a considerable period, and, if there was no further evidence available, it might be concluded at once that the remaining portion of the Second Dynasty was contemporaneous with the Third. The Second Dynasty would in that case be entirely ignored in the general scheme of Babylonian chronology. This indeed is the conclusion to which a consideration of all the available evidence would seem to lead, and in the following chapter a reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been attempted along these lines.I But the data supplied by the new chronicle is capable of another interpretation, according to which the Kassite Dynasty was not partly contemporaneous with the See the table printed on pp. 136-7. AND THE KASSITES. IOI later portion of the Second Dynasty but was its immediate successor. In view of the possibility that such an interpretation of the text may be put forward, it will be necessary, before dismissing it, to examine carefully the reasons which might be urged in favour of its adoption. On the reverse of the chronicle, 11. I I ff., we are told that Ea-gamil, king of the Country of the Sea, made an expedition to conquer the land at Elam; and that Ulam-Bur(i)ash, the brother of Bitiliash, the Kassite, summoned his forces, and after defeating Ea-gamil drove him across the Elamite frontier. But Ulam-Buriash was not content with merely repelling the invasion, for he carried the war into the enemy's country, and, according to the chronicle, "he conquered the Country of the Sea and exercised dominion over the land"; while the last section of the chronicle records that Agum, the son of Bitiliash, made further conquests in the Country of the Sea. In these sections, therefore, the chronicle records the end of the Second Dynasty and the establishment of Kassite authority in Southern Babylonia. Now if it is assumed that the later kings of the Country of the Sea ruled at Babylon, it might be urged that the Kassite conquest of the Country of the Sea took place at about the same period as their conquest of Babylon. In that case we should be able to identify the See Vol. II, 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 names of the first six kings of the Third Dynasty are preserved by the larger List of Kings, which also gives the number of years in the reigns of the first four of them. The following table contains the facts with regard to them as preserved upon this document:NAME. LENGTH OF REIGN. Gandash...... 16 years Agum, the former, his son.. 22 BitiliashiI...... 22 Ushshi,2 his son... 8 A-du-me-tash3...... [wanting] Ur-zi-gur-mash4.... [wanting] [The names in the rest of this column of the List are wanting.] The second king mentioned in the List is Agum I, and it might be held that he is the Agum of the chronicle, who succeeded his uncle Ulam-Buriash and continued the subjugation of the Country of the Sea. The reading Bitiliashi, in place of Aguiashi, is certain. 2 The reading Dushi is possible. 3 The first three characters in the name are very uncertain. The traces may possibly be read as Lalbirattash. 4The reading of the last sign but one in the name is certainly gur (Briinnow, No. 7315), and not it (Br. No. 8645), nor guru (Br. No. 8199). We may probably identify Ur-zi-gur-mash with Ur-shi-gu-ru-mash, the father of Agum, the younger (cf. Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. V, pl. 33, Col. I, 1. 2). In that case Agum II was the seventh king of the Third Dynasty. GANDASH AND ULAM-BURIASH. I03 From this identification it might be expected that Ulam-Buriash should be identified with Gandash, or Gaddash, who refers to the conquest of Babylon in an inscription which has been recovered.I But the difference of name can hardly be explained by supposing that Ulam-Buriash assumed a second name in his own life-time, so that we have here a discrepancy. In fact, the evidence would seem to show that UlamBuriash and Gaddash were separate personages, who made independent conquests in the Babylonian plain; and to harmonize the chronicle with the Kings' List we must assume that Ulam-Buriash reigned only in the Country of the Sea while Gandash ruled in Babylon as the first king of the Third Dynasty. A second discrepancy is that Agum of the chronicle was the son of Bitiliash, whereas in the List of Kings he is described as the son of Gandash. Moreover, the name Bitiliashi occurs in the List of Kings as that of the third king of the dynasty, and, if we identify Agum of the chronicle with Agum I, it would be reasonable Gandash has been identified with Gaddash, a king of Babylon whose name is found upon a Neo-Babylonian tablet purporting to contain a copy of one of his inscriptions. He there terms himself wGa-ad-das sar kib-ra-a-tu ar-ba-a sar matuSu-me-ri u AkkadKic(i) sar Ba-ba-lam, "Gaddash, king of the four quarters (of the world), king of Sumer and Akkad, king of Babylon" (cf. Winckler, Untersuchungen, p. 156, No. 6). From what is left of the inscription it may be inferred that it recorded the restoration of the temple of Bel (i.e., Marduk), which seems to have been destroyed or damaged ina ka-sad Ba-ba-lam, "in the conquest of Babylon "; see further, Chap. VI. 104 AGUM AND BITILIASH. to identify Bitiliash with Bitiliashi. According to the List of Kings, therefore, Agum would have been succeeded by his own father, which is a possible but hardly a probable sequence. This difficulty and the difficulty of parentage would both be removed by supposing that two lines in the List of Kings had been transposed. It will be noticed that both Agum and Bitiliashi are recorded to have reigned for twenty-two years,I so that a copyist might possibly have confused the order of the names. On this supposition the order of the first three kings of the dynasty would have run as follows:Gandash.... 16 years Bitiliashi...... 22 Agum, the former, his son.. 22, By this emendation the two documents would be brought into harmony with one another, and the order of events could be explained as follows: Ulam-Buriash, having defeated Ea-gamil, was the first Kassite king to rule in Babylonia, his brother Bitiliash, the Kassite, remaining behind in Elam. Meanwhile Gandash had conquered Babylon where he reigned for sixteen years, his authority being confined to northern Babylonia. He was succeeded by Bitiliash, who, on the death of his brother Ulam-Buriash, might have absorbed the Country of the Sea in his dominions. After reigning for twentySee the list on p. I02. A POSSIBLE THEORY. I05 two years in Babylon, Bitiliash was in turn succeeded by Agum, his son, who had to undertake the reconquest of the Country of the Sea. It is a safe rule to avoid emendations of chronological material, but, if we identify Agum of the chronicle with Agum I, the one suggested above has much to recommend it. For it does not involve any alteration of figures, and only consists in the transposition of two lines of the Kings' List which both end in the same way. On this theory it would follow that the Third Dynasty did not overlap the Second, but was its immediate successor. A consideration, which might be urged in favour of this view, is that by its adoption we should be able to reconcile the figures of the List of Kings with the total duration of the historical period in Berossus. By assuming that only the First and Second Dynasties overlapped each other, we could easily obtain from the figures of the List of Kings the date 2232 B.C. for the accession of Su-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon. And this date, as we have already seen, is that obtained for the beginning of Dyn. II of Berossus.I Moreover, the inclusion by Berossus of only eight "Median usurpers " in his second dynasty, could also be explained by the overlapping of the First and Second See above, p. 9I f. Io6 THE THEORY AND BEROSSUS. Dynasties.I From the fact that Iluma-ilu was known to have been the contemporary of Samsu-iluna as well as of Abeshu', we might indeed have expected that Abeshu' would have been omitted by Berossus along with his three successors. But we know from the new chronicle that he carried on a comparatively successful war against Iluma-ilu, and the tradition of this success, which survived into Neo-Babylonian times, might have led him to be regarded by Berossus as the last king of the First Dynasty. To his eight "Median usurpers" Berossus assigns 224 years, and the smaller Kings' List assigns to the first eight rulers of the First Dynasty (from Su-abu to Abeshu') 227 years. The close correspondence of these two sets of figures might be cited in support of the equation.3 A further consideration which might be brought forward in support of the theory is that it would enable us to assign dates to Hammurabi and Gulkishar agreeing well enough with those obtained for them independently, from the inscription of Those who have equated Dyn. II of Berossus with the First Dynasty of Babylon, have generally suggested that Berossus omitted the first three kings of the dynasty from his list, beginning his historical period with the accession of Apil-Sin, the fourth king of the First Dynasty; see LehmannHaupt, Beitrdge zur alien Geschichte, III, p. I57, and cf. Marquart, Chronologische Untersuchungen (Philologus, I889, Supplbd. VII), p. 646. 2 The contemporary date-lists assign 221 years to these eight kings. 3 A weak point in the scheme is that the inclusion of Abeshu's reign in Dyn. II of Berossus might have affected the general accuracy of his estimate of the total length of the historical period. WEAKNESS OF THE THEORY. Io7 Nabonidus and the boundary-stone of Bel-nadin-apli's reign.' Thus it will have been seen that a plausible case could be made out for regarding the Third Dynasty as having followed the Second. By transposing two lines in the List it has been shown to be possible to identify Bitiliash of the chronicle with Bitiliashi of the List of Kings, in addition to identifying Agum of the chronicle with Agum I. Moreover, by the adoption of this arrangement we should at last have succeeded in retaining the figures of the Kings' List unaltered,2 while at the same time reconciling them with the duration of the historical period of Berossus. But the suggested theory rests entirely upon the assumption that the later kings of the Second Dynasty ruled at Babylon, and, if this assumption should prove to be unfounded, the proposed method of reconciling the dynasties of Berossus with the Kings' List would of course fall to the ground. Now such indications as are furnished by the chronicle certainly do not favour the assumption that the later kings of the Second Dynasty ruled at Babylon. Thus Ea-gamil, the last king of the Second Dynasty, is termed by the chronicle "king of the Country of the Sea," not "king of Babylon"; and Ulam -- -- See above, pp. 87 ff. 2 As to whether this would be altogether an advantage with regard to. the Second Dynasty, see below, p. I I. io8 THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA Buriash, on defeating Ea-gamil, is related to have conquered the Country of the Sea, and again Babylon is not referred to. Further, Agum's conquest was in the Country of the Sea. But, if the later kings of the Second Dynasty had ruled at Babylon, we should surely have expected Ea-gamil, the last of their number, to have been referred to as " king of Babylon." In place of such a description he is termed " king of the Country of the Sea," the title which was also borne by Gulkishar, the sixth king of the dynasty, according to the boundarystone inscribed in Bel-nadin-apli's reign. The phraseology of the chronicle is thus strongly in favour of confining the later kings of the Second Dynasty to the Country of the Sea. Further, to judge from his titles, Southern Babylonia does not appear to have been included within the dominions of Agum II,' and though Gaddash appears from the late copy of his inscription to have styled himself king of Sumer as well as of Akkad,2 the term Sumer did not necessarily include the littoral of the Persian Gulf. The two historical inscriptions of early Kassite kings, which we possess in the form of late copies, may thus be harmonized with the chronicle's narrative. The chronicle's evidence in this respect is also confirmed by the total absence of inscriptions of the Second Dynasty from early Babylonian sites on which excava I See further, p. I 12. 2 See above, p. 103, n. I. AND BABYLON. og09 tions have as yet been undertaken.' For the tablet found at Sippar, which has been supposed to date from the reign of Damki-ilishu, the third king of the Second Dynasty, is to be assigned, as we have seen, to Damikilishu, the last king of the Dynasty of Isin.2 Such negative evidence, based on the absence of inscriptions from excavated sites, necessarily carries little weight when unsupported, but its significance is considerably increased when it accords with positive and documentary evidence. A further proof that we should be right in excluding the whole of the Second Dynasty from the throne of Babylon is furnished by the new synchronism in early Assyrian and Babylonian history which is discussed in the following chapter. We may therefore conclude that the later kings of the Country of the Sea did not rule in Babylon, and that consequently the whole of the Second Dynasty may be eliminated from the scheme of Babylonian chronology. We may now calculate the date we should obtain for the accession of Su-abu, on the assumption that the Kassite Dynasty followed immediately after the First Dynasty of Babylon. If we set the end of the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty at i60 B.C., and accept the figure of the Kings' List for its duration, 'See now Ranke, Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the time of the First Dynasty (I906), p. 8, n. I. 2 See above, p. 98 f., n. 2. IIO THE DATE OF SU-ABU. we obtain the date I736 B.C. for its beginning, and the date 2036 B.C. for the accession-year of Su-abu. But the date II6o B.C. for the end of the Third Dynasty is not definitely fixed, and it may possibly have ended rather earlier. Moreover, although we exclude the whole of the Second Dynasty from the throne of Babylon, it does not necessarily follow that the last year of Samsu-ditana coincided with the first year of the Kassite king Gandash. For Samsu-ditana's reign may have been brought to a close by the invasion of the Hittites, and a short interregnum or period of disorder may have separated this event from the Kassite conquest of Babylon.I As these points of uncertainty exist, it would be rash at the present moment to suggest a definite year for Su-abu's accession; we may, however, place it approximately in the twenty-first century B.C. According to this theory of the inter-relations of the early Babylonian dynasties, it is unlikely that we can See further, Chapter VI. The forty-eight years, which appear to have been assigned by Berossus to his Dyn. III (see above, p. 92 f., n. 3), might conceivably be explained as representing such a period, when an alien dynasty may have either occupied the throne of Babylon for a time, or have been the only organized government in Babylonia. We cannot, however, use this method of identifying Dyn. III of Berossus with the eleven kings of the Country of the Sea, for, by reducing the independent duration of the Second Dynasty of the Kings' List to forty-eight years, the equation of Dyn. II of Berossus with the First Dynasty of Babylon would be rendered impossible. LENGTH OF THE SECOND DYNASTY. III retain the suggested identifications of Agum and Bitiliash of the chronicle with Agum I and Bitiliashi of the List of Kings; for such a plan would necessitate reducing the total duration of Iluma-ilu's dynasty in the Country of the Sea to the period during which it was contemporaneous with the First Dynasty of Babylon. It is true that the figures assigned to the Second Dynasty upon the List of Kings are unusually high,' but, unless we obtain evidence that the conquest of the Country of the Sea by the Kassites took place at about the same period as their capture of Babylon, it is preferable to avoid such a wholesale reduction of figures given in the List of Kings. A far smaller reduction in the length of the Second Dynasty of the Kings' List would be entailed by identifying Agum of the chronicle with Agum II, who was probably the seventh king of the Third In this short dynasty of eleven kings the founder is represented as ruling for sixty years, and his successor for fifty-five years; another king who ruled for fifty-five years is succeeded by one who ruled for fifty years; while the average duration of the reigns in the dynasty is more than thirtythree years. These very high figures can scarcely be regarded as probable in themselves. It is true that the First Dynasty, which also consisted of eleven kings, lasted for some three hundred years, giving an average of more than twenty-seven years to the separate reigns. But such long reigns were exceptional: for instance, the average for the reigns of the thirty-six kings of the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty, according to the Kings' List, is only sixteen years. I 12 AGUM II AND THE CHRONICLE. Dynasty.I But against this identification must be set the fact that Agum of the chronicle was the son of Bitiliash, whereas Agum II was the son of Ur-shi-guru-mash (or Ur-zi-gur-mash). Moreover, the titles borne by Agum II suggest that his rule was confined to Northern Babylonia.2 It is of course possible that he may have undertaken conquests in the Country of the Sea towards the end of his reign, but, in view of the discrepancy in the matter of parentage, we may regard his identification with Agum of the chronicle as 1 See above, p. I02, n. 4. If Agum of the chronicle was Agum II, and we accept the figures of the Kings' List, the Second Dynasty, in addition to overlapping the First Dynasty, would have been contemporaneous with the Third during the reigns of Gandash (I6 years), Agum I (22 years), Bitiliashi (22 years), Ushshi (8 years), A-du-me-tash (the length of whose reign is unknown), and probably a portion of the reign of Ur-zi-gur-mash, i.e., for 68 years, and one reign, and part of a reign. 2 In the section of his inscription which enumerates his titles, Agum II is styled "king of Kashshu and Akkad, king of the broad land of Babylon, who hath settled the wide-spreading people in the land of Ashnunnak, king of the land of Padan and Alman, king of the land of Guti, etc." (see Curn. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. V, pl. 33, Col. 1,11.3 ff.). It is noticeable that Sumer, or Southern Babylonia, was apparently not included in his dominions. From the fact that Kashshu is here set before Akkad and Babylon, it might conceivably be argued that the conquest of Babylon had but just taken place. But it is probable that this estimate of their new territory, as of secondary importance to the land of their origin, was not confined to the conqueror of Babylon, but was shared by all the early kings of the Third Dynasty. From the retention of their Kassite names it is clear that they were not quickly assimilated by the subject race. Moreover, in addition to the titles ascribed to Gaddash in the late copy of his inscription, the conquest of Babylon is distinctly referred to (see above, p. 103, n. I). BURNA-BURARIASH. II3 improbable. We may thus provisionally place the Kassite conquest of the Country of the Sea in the period marked by the gap in the Kings' List after the reigns of Ur-zi-gur-mash and Agum II. According to this interpretation "Burna-Burariash, the king," the father of Ulam-Buriash,I may possibly have been a king of Babylon while his son was a prince in Elam and afterwards ruler of the Country of the Sea. BurnaBurariash may thus have been Burna-Buriash I. He can scarcely have lived as late as Burna-Buriash II, the contemporary of Amenhetep IV. The last point we need consider in the present chapter is the effect which the total elimination of the Second Dynasty will have upon the problem of reconciling the Kings' List with the dynasties of Berossus. It is true that the new system forces us to abandon the method of harmonizing the Babylonian dynasties with the historical period of Berossus, which was discussed as a possible solution of the problem earlier in this chapter.2 But the method there put forward followed the lines of other attempts of a like nature, in that it would make the historical period of Berossus begin with the First Dynasty of Babylon. The new system shows that this hypothesis is incorrect. If, as appears most likely, the historical period of Berossus began in the year 2232 B.C.,3 we must synchronize this date with the beginning of I See above, p. 8, and cf. Chap. VI. 2 See above, pp. Ioo ff. 3 See above, p. 9I f. I 114 THE SYSTEM OF BEROSSUS. some dynasty earlier than that founded by Su-abu-a dynasty which may either have occupied the throne of Babylon, or, as is more probable, have had its capital in one of the other great cities of Mesopotamia. It is probably along these lines that the problem will be solved of reconciling the chronological system of Berossus with the historical dynasties of Babylonia. We may now consider the new synchronism between early Assyrian and Babylonian history, which, as has already been remarked, affords striking confirmation of the view that the whole of the Second Dynasty of the Kings' List ruled only in the Country of the Sea. As the synchronism necessarily introduces the subject of early Assyrian chronology it will be best treated in a separate chapter. CHAPTER V. A NEW SYNCHRONISM IN EARLY BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN HISTORY AND ITS EFFECTS UPON BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN CHRONOLOGY. HITHERTO, in the absence of definite information, it has been the custom to arrange and date the earlier rulers of Assyria without reference to the contemporarykings of Babylon. The earliest certain synchronism between Babylonian and Assyrian kings, which the inscriptions have previously supplied, occurs well on in the Kassite Dynasty and does not date from a period earlier than the fifteenth century B.C. But in the "catch-line" inscribed at the end of the chronicle No. 26,472, which gives the opening line of the next tablet in the series,1 we are furnished with a new synchronism which is far earlier than any that has yet been recovered. The " catch-line" consists of no more than six words, and in itself does not even contain a See above, p. 54. I 2 ii6 A NEW SYNCHRONISM complete sentence, but it merits discussion in a chapter by itself from the value and importance of the information it supplies. For this new point of contact, occurring as it does at the very dawn of Assyrian and Babylonian history, fundamentally affects the arrangement of the kings and the chronology of both countries. The line in question reads: mIlu-su[m]-ma. sar mttfuAssur a-na tar-si mSu-a-bu, "Ilu-shuma, king of Assyria, against Su-abu "-some such word as illik, " marched," having occurred in the following line of the composition. Now there can be little doubt that Su-abu, whose name occurs at the end of the line, was the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon. His name is written upon contracts of the First Dynasty as Su-mu-a-bu-umI and Su-mu-a-bi-imn,2 and as mSu-mua-bi in the smaller List of Kings. But in the DateList A of the kings of the First Dynasty his name does occur under the form Su-a-bu.3 It has hitherto appeared possible that the writer 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 No. 80,338 (Bu. 9I-5-9,475), see Letters of Hammurabi, Vol. III, p. 2I4, n. 5, where the form occurs as a component part of the proper name I-zi-Su-mu-a-bu-um; cf. the variant form of the name mI-zi-Sa-mzta-bu-um (No. 80,752, Obv., 1. 7). The form Samu for Sumu also occurs in the name of Sumu-la-ilu, rarely written Sa-mu-la-ilu (ibid., Rev., 1. 12, No. 92,640, etc.). 2 Cf. V. A. Th. 915, 916 (Meissner, Altbab. Privatrecht, p. 4). 3 See Letters of Hammurabi, Vol. II, pl. 217, No. 101, Col. I, 1. 15. BETWEEN EARLY KINGS. II7 period definitely proves that Su-abu is a contracted form of the name, which was read indiscriminately as Sumu-abu (or Suwu-abu) and Su-abu.' It is noteworthy that both these forms were employed at the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon and during the late Babylonian period. The "catch-line " ends with the name of Su-abu, but we may regard it as certain that the following line began with his title sar BdbiliKI, "king of Babylon." It will be noted that the "catch-line" follows the section referring to Bel-imitti and Bel-ibni upon the tablet. Now in the parallel chronicle No. 96,I52 the section following that of Bel-imitti and Bel-ibni records the relations of Hammurabi with Rim-Sin; and as the sections on both documents are arranged in chronological order, we may legitimately conclude that the "catch-line" also deals with kings of the period of the First Dynasty. In fact, it merely happens that the chronicle No. 96,152 has omitted the section of the composition referring to Ilu-shuma and Su-abu, whose place in the sequence was between the Ura-imitti and Bel-ibni section and I The meaning of the name is " Sumu, or Su, is a father"; cf. the name of Su-abu's successor, Sumu-la-ilu, lit. " Is not Sumu a god? ", a question expecting the affirmative answer, and Sumu-ilu, " Sumu is a god," the name of a king of Ur. For other proper names in which Sumu occurs see Ranke, Personal Names of the Hammurabi Dynasty, p. I66. In view of the proved contraction of Sumu to Su, we may now trace the name of this deity in such proper names as Su-da-nim, Su-ad-da-nu, etc. I 8 ILU-SHUMA OF ASSYRIA. that referring to Hammurabi and Rim-Sin.I We need have no hesitation therefore in identifying Su-abu of the " catch-line " with the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Three years ago it would have been impossible to suggest an identification for the Assyrian king Ilushuma, whose name occurs at the beginning of the "catch-line," and the synchronism would in consequence have had little interest beyond the fact that it supplied the name of the ruler in Assyria whom later tradition held to have been the contemporary of Su-abu. But the excavations conducted by Dr. Andrae at Sherghat have resulted in the recovery of the names of a considerable number of early Assyrian kings and rulers which were hitherto unknown, and among them is one named Ilu-shuima. The name was first made known in December, I903, having been found upon inscriptions of Irishum, an early Assyrian viceroy, who describes himself upon them as " the son of Ilu-shuma, viceroy of Ashir."2 See above, pp. 56 ff. 2 See the Mitteilungen der Deuttschen Orient-Gesellschaft, No. 20, p. 28. A brick of Irishum has been preserved for many years in the British Museum, but the signs giving the name of Irishum's father are much defaced, and had hitherto been read as Khallu. An examination of the text, however, proves that the signs are Ilu-szu-na, as on the inscriptions of Irishum recently found at Sherghat (cf. op. cit., p. 28, note). On the publication of Hammurabi's letters, the possibility was noted that Irishum THE FATHER OF ILU-SHUMA. II9 Moreover, two of the newly found texts of Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon contain chronological passages from which it is- possible to fix within certain limits the dates at which the scribes of Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon respectively believed that Irishum, or Erishu, the son of Ilu-shuma reigned. Before discussing the new synchronism further and the possibility of identifying the Ilu-shuma of the chronicle with the father of Irishum, it will be well to cite the passages in question and note the dates to be obtained from the figures they supply. The earlier of the two chronological passages to be discovered was that occurring in a building-inscription of Shalmaneser I, inscribed in duplicate upon four stone tablets.1 In recording his rebuilding of E-kharsagkurkura, the temple of the god Ashur in the city of Ashur, Shalmaneser I gives a brief summary of the temple's history with details as to the length of time which elapsed between the different periods at which it had been previously restored. The temple was burned in Shalmaneser's time, and, in recording this fact and should be placed in the earliest period of Assyrian history-that is to say, at a considerably earlier date than Ishme-Dagan and Shamshi-Adad; see Letters of Hammurabi, Vol. III, p. 5, and Records of the Reign of Tukulti-Ninib I, p. 55. 1 Tablet No. 859 and its duplicates Nos. 86o, 783 and 890, which were found by Dr. Andrae in January, 1904; see Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Geselischaft, No. 21, pp. 30, 34, 38, 48. 120 HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE OF ASHUR the putting out of the fire, the king summarizes the temple's history in a long parenthesis, as will be seen from the following translation of the extract: "When E-kharsag-kurkura, the temple of Ashur, my lord, which Ushpia (variant: Aushpia), the priest of Ashur, my forefather, had built aforetime,-and it fell into decay and Erishu, my forefather, the priest of Ashur, rebuilt it; 159 years passed by after the reign of Erishu, and that temple fell into decay, and Shamshi-Adad, the priest of Ashur, rebuilt it; (during) 580 years that temple which Shamshi-Adad, the priest of Ashur had built, grew hoary and old-(when) fire broke out in the midst thereof...., at that time I drenched that temple (with water) in (all) its circuit."' In the above extract it will be seen that Shalmaneser I supplies us with the name of a very early Assyrian ruler, Ushpia or Aushpia, who in his belief was the founder of the great temple of the god Ashur. He I The text of the passage quoted (Col. I, 1. 32-Col. II, 1. 9) reads as follows:-(Col. I, 1. 32) e-nu-ma E-har-sag-kur-kur-ra (33) bit As-sur beli-ia sa nUs-pi-a (var. mA-us —pi-a) (34) Sangi As-sur a-bi i-napa-na (35) e-pu.us-ma e-na-ah-ma (36) mE-ri-ku a-bi angzi A-s'ur epus(us) (37) II su-si XXXIX sandti is-tu palt (38) 7E-ri-se il-li-ka-ma (39) bztt su-u e-na-ah-ma (40) m iluSami(si)-iluAdad sangl2 As-sur-ma (41) epuY(us) IX su-si XL sandti (Col. II, 1. i) bNtu su-u sa n iluSamz(si)-i)luAdad (2) sangz2i Asur e-pu-4u-ma 'ebu-l-ta (3) u li-be-ru-ta il-li-ku (4) isdlu ana kir-bi-su im.-kut..... (8) i-na u-me-Su-ma bitu Sa-a-tlu a-na (9) si-hirti-su u-mi-ki-ir; see Lehmann-Haupt, Beiirage zur alien Geschichte, Bd. IV, Heft I, p. 112, n. 3. BY SHALMANESER I AND ESARHADDON. 121 also tells us that 159 years separated the reign of Erishu from the rebuilding of the temple by ShamshiAdad, and that 580 years separated that rebuilding from the fire which broke out in the temple during his own reign. According to these figures 739 years separated the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Erishu from its destruction in the reign of Shalmaneser I. We have already seen that the name Ilu-shuma has been recovered as that of the father of Irishum, and, by identifying this king with the Erishu mentioned by Shalmaneser I, we obtain from the figures what appears to be a comparatively accurate date for the period of Ilu-shuma's reign. The discovery of this inscription of Shalmaneser I was regarded by historians with considerable satisfaction, inasmuch as it furnished information for assigning definite dates to the earlier Assyrian rulers. But a few months afterwards confidence in the figures supplied by Shalmaneser I was to some extent shaken by the discovery of a prism of Esarhaddon, the text of which gave a history of the same temple but ascribed totally different figures for the periods separating the restorations of its fabric in the reigns of Erishu and Shamshi-Adad, and the destruction of the temple by fire. Esarhaddon agrees with Shalmaneser in ascribing the founding of the temple to Ushpia, but he states that only I26 years (instead of 159 years) separated the rebuilding by "Irishu, the son of Ilu-shum-ma," 122 HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE OF ASHUR from that by " Shamshi-Adad, the son of Bel-ka-bi"; and he states that 434 years (instead of 580 years) elapsed between Shamshi-Adad's restoration of the temple and the time when it was burned down.I Thus according to Esarhaddon 560 years, instead of 739 years, separated Irishu from Shalmaneser I. The facts with regard to the history of the temple of Ashur, given respectively by Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon, we may summarize as follows for the purpose of comparison: SHALMANESER I. The temple of Ashur was built by Ushpia (var. Aushpia); after being rebuilt by Erishu, 159 years passed and it was rebuilt by Shamshi-Adad; 580 years then passed and it was burned down in the reign of Shalmaneser I. ESARHADDON. The temple of Ashur was built by Ushpia; after being rebuilt by Irishu, the son of Ilu-shuma, 126 years passed and it was rebuilt by Shamshi-Adad, the son of Bel-kabi; 434 years then passed and it was burned down. We may note that Esarhaddon's inscription definitely proves that Erishu, or Irishu, who rebuilt the temple. after Ushpia, was the Irishum whose father's name had already been recovered as Ilu-shuma. But the discrepancies between his figures and those of ShalI See Mitfeilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, No. 22, p. 74 f., footnote. The prism is registered as No. I,783. BY SHALMANESER I AND ESARHADDON. 123 maneser I are disconcerting; for they prove that Assyrian scribes could make mistakes in their reckoning, and they can thus be used to cast discredit on the accuracy of other chronological notices occurring in late Assyrian inscriptions. It will be obvious that while both sets of figures cannot be right, one of the sets probably represents the actual facts more nearly than the other, and the question to be decided is which set is the more likely to be correct. Even before the finding of the Esarhaddon prism, Lehmann-Haupt stated that Shalmaneser's figures could not be right inasmuch as they did not support his correction of the date at Bavian; and the 580 years mentioned by Shalmaneser I he held must really have included the previous period of 159 years.I His argument was based mainly upon the identification of the Shamshi-Adad mentioned by Shalmaneser I.with Shamshi-Adad, the son of Ishme-Dagan. This identification the prism of Esarhaddon disproved, but the figures given by Esarhaddon were accepted by Lehmann-Haupt as a direct confirmation of his method of reducing the figures given by Shalmaneser I.2 It may be admitted that Lehmann-Haupt's ingenious suggestion does to a great extent reconcile the two sets I See Beitrdge zur alten Geschichte, Bd. IV, Hft. I, p. II4. For other discussions of the figures, see Peiser, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., VII (1904), No. 4, Col. I49 f., and Rost, op. cit., No. 5, Col. 179 ff. 2 Op. cit., p. 260 f. 124 VALUE OF THE FIGURES of figures, but it ignores the question as to which set of figures is the more likely, on the ground of general probability, to be correct. In the case of the inscription of Shalmaneser I we are not dealing with a single document, hastily drawn up, in which the statements depend on the correct copying or calculation of an individual scribe. On the contrary, the text was carefully engraved in duplicate upon a number of stone tablets, no less than four of which have been recovered. Its statements, therefore, represent the actual beliefs entertained by the Assyrian historians of the time of Shalmaneser I, and any error in the text would represent an error in the historical traditions of the period. Only one example of Esarhaddon's prism has yet been found, but we need not press this point and may give that text also the benefit of representing the chronological beliefs which were current at the time it was inscribed. The enquiry resolves itself into the question, whether the scribes who lived under Shalmaneser I were more likely to be right than those at the court of Esarhaddon. To this question there can be only one answer. The scribes of Shalmaneser I lived more than six hundred years earlier than those of Esarhaddon, and they were thus in a far better position to ascertain with accuracy the periods at which the events recorded took place. If, therefore, one of the two sets of figures is to be accepted as the more correct, it must on grounds of general OF SHALMANESER I. 125 probability be that given in the text of Shalmaneser I. Moreover, if we must have some theory to reconcile the two sets of figures, it is possible to modify LehmannHaupt's suggestion so as to explain to some extent the discrepancy between them. It is not unlikely that the figures given by the scribes of Esarhaddon were based on the belief that the longer period mentioned on the texts of Shalmaneser should have included the shorter period separating the reigns of Irishu and ShamshiAdad. It is far more likely that some such confusion took place in the seventh century B.C. than that the results of a miscalculation, such as Lehmann-Haupt suggests, should have been firmly believed six centuries earlier and afterwards corrected. But whatever explanation we adopt in order to explain the discrepancy, there can be little doubt that Shalmaneser's figures are the more worthy of credence, since he is recording events far nearer his own time. According to him, as we have already seen, 739 years separated the rebuilding of the temple of Ashur by Irishu (the son of Ilu-shfma) and the temple's destruction by fire in his own reign. Now the date of Shalmaneser I may be approximately fixed by means of Sennacherib's reference to his son, Tukulti-Ninib I. According to Sennacherib some six hundred years separated TukultiNinib's date from one of Sennacherib's conquests of Babylon (which took place in 702 B.C. and 689 B.C.).1 See Records of the Reign of Tukulti.Ninib I, pp. 60 ff., I07 ff. I26 DATE OF ILU-SHUMA. Thus Tukulti-Ninib I was reigning in 1302 B.C. or in I289 B.C. On this evidence we may assign a date of I300 or I320 B.C. to Shalmaneser I. By the addition of 739 years to this date we obtain in round numbers the date 2040 or 2060 B.C. as falling within the reign of Irishu.I Now Ilu-shuma was the father of Irishu, and we have no means of telling how long either of them reigned. On these figures we can, however, assign to Ilu-shuma a date in the first half of the twentyfirst century B.C. In connection with the suggested identification of Ilu-shuma, the father of Irishum, with the Ilu-shuma who was the contemporary of Su-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty, it will be necessary to enquire whether we may identify the Shamshi-Adad, who appears to have been an Assyrian ruler during the reign of Hammurabi, with any of the rulers mentioned upon inscriptions from Sherghat. In a contract-tablet of the reign of Hammurabi, preserved in the Pennsylvania Museum, Dr. Hermann Ranke found the name Shamshi-Adad associated with that of Hammurabi in the oath-formula, and as only gods and kings are invoked in oath-formulae of the period, it may be inferred that Shamshi-Adad was king, or, at any rate, Esarhaddon's figures give the very much later date of I86o or I88o B.C. as within Irishu's reign. On these figures we should assign to Ilu-shuma-a date at the end of the twentieth or the beginning of the nineteenth century B.C. IAMMURABI AND SIIAMSHI-ADAD. I27 viceroy of Assyria at some time during the period of Hammurabi's rule in Babylon.I Now from other sources we know of at least two Shamshi-Adads who were early rulers of Assyria. Shamshi-Adad, the son of Ishme-Dagan, is said by Tiglath-pileser I to have restored the temple of Anu and Adad 64I years before it was pulled down by Ashur-dan. He must therefore have ruled a little before 1820 B.C. and cannot be identified with Hammurabi's contemporary. Another Shamshi-Adad, the son of Bel-kabi, is known from the newly found inscriptions at Sherghat to have been one of the early Assyrian rulers who restored the temple of Ashur.2 According to Esarhaddon 126 years separated his rebuilding of the temple from that of Irishu, while See my Records of the Reign of Tukulti-Ninib I, p. 55 f. According to Dr. Ranke, the tablet is dated MU MA(?)-KI-IA(?)-NIN-BI MAL-GE-A(KI); see his Early Babylonian Personal Names, p. x. Now Malgia is mentioned in the formulae for the fourth and tenth years of Hammurabi's reign, the first of these years being dated by the building of its wall, the second by the carrying off of its inhabitants and cattle (see below, Vol. II, p. 98 f.). Neither of these formulae correspond to that published by Dr. Ranke, so that it is possible that we must assign the tablet in question to the end of HIammurabi's reign, where some of the formulae are missing from the date-lists (e.g., those for the 36th, 37th, 39th, 40th, and 41st years). 2 See above, pp. I20 if. The Samsi-Adad whose name occurs on bricks in the British Museum as a restorer of the temple of Ashur is there stated to be the son of Igur-kapkapu (see Annals of the Kings of Assyria, p. 2); but it is not improbable that Igur-kapkapu is the same personage as B8l-kabi (cf. Delitzsch, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, No. 22, p. 75, note). I28 HAMMURABI AND SHAMSHI-ADAD. according to Shalmaneser I's figures (which we have seen are more worthy of credence than those of Esarhaddon), I59 years separated these two events.' Now Su-abu's accession was separated by 102 years from Hammurabi's accession, and by 145 years from Hammurabi's death. If therefore we identify Ilu-shuma, the contemporary of Su-abu, with the father of Erishu, the identification of Shamshi-Adad, the son of BMl-kabi, with Hammurabi's contemporary is just possible,2 upon the Assyrian figures. Thus it will be seen that, while we cannot definitely identify the Shamshi-Adad mentioned upon the early Babylonian contract-tablet, the inference that an Assyrian ruler of the name of Shamsi-Adad was the contemporary of Hammurabi gains fresh support from our new synchronism; and this additional point of contact between early Assyrian and Babylonian history must not be ignored as a possible factor in the solution of the problem. It is of course possible that an earlier Assyrian ruler of the name of Ilu-shuma occupied the Assyrian throne before the father of Irishu. But until evidence is forthcoming of the existence of such a ruler, we may accept the identification of the Ilu-shuma of See above, p. 122. 2 If the contract-tablet on which Shamshi-Adad's name occurs was inscribed at the end of Hammurabi's reign (see above, p. 127, n. I), Shamshi-Adad may have survived Hammurabi for some years, and he may have rebuilt the temple of Ashur towards the end of his reign. SU-ABU AND ILU-SHUMA. I 29 the chronicle with the only known ruler of that name. The new synchronism makes " Ilu-shuma, king of Assyria," the contemporary of Su-abu, the founder of the First-Dynasty of Babylon. We have already seen that on Shalmaneser I's figures a date in the first half of the twenty-first century B.C. is to be assigned to Ilu-shuma, the father of Irishu. If therefore Ilu-shuma of the chronicle is to be identified with the father of Irishu,1 we obtain for Su-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon. a date in the twenty-first century B.C. Now a glance at the table printed on p. 83 will show the dates which have hitherto been assigned to the beginning of the First Dynasty in the principal schemes of Babylonian chronology that have been published. The majority of writers have set Su-abu some three or four centuries earlier than 2Ioo B.C., while Delitzsch, who has been the first writer to assign a place in history to Ilu-shuma, makes him the contemporary of Samsuditana, the last king of the First Dynasty, and to Su-abu, or Sumu-abu, its founder, he assigns a date of The fact that the chronicler terms Ilu-shuma "king" of Assyria, whereas Ilu-shuma, the father of Irishu was, so far as we know, merely an is.akeku (PATESI), a " priest-king " or " viceroy," does not in the least tell against the possibility of the identification. Such a distinction in titles may well have been lost sight of in the course of many centuries of tradition; unless, indeed, Ilu-shuma did claim the title of "king," as his war with Su-abu would seem to suggest. K 130 THE FIGURES OF SHALMANESER I about 2500 B.C.I From these figures it might appear that the Ilu-shuma of the chronicle could not possibly be the same ruler as the father of Irishu. In the last chapter we have seen that the dates assigned to the kings of the First Dynasty by means of the figures given in the Lists of Kings must be considerably reduced. The overlapping of the First and Second Dynasties alone proves that these dates must be reduced by a number of years not less than 118 and not greater than 200.2 By a reduction within these limits, and by assuming that the Third Dynasty began when the Second ended, it has been shown that it is possible to assign dates to the First Dynasty which would harmonize with the historical period of Berossus, and with the dates obtained for Hammurabi and Gulkishar from the later chronological notices. On the other hand it was pointed out that the evidence furnished by the chronicle suggests the inference that the kings of the Country of the Sea never ruled at Babylon at all, and that consequently the Third Dynasty followed immediately after the First; and, acccrding to this alternative scheme, a date within the twenty-first century B.C. was to be assigned for the accession of Su-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty. Our new synchronism between early Assyrian and See his Babylonische und Assyrische Herrscherlisten, II. 2 See above, p. 98 f. AND THE NEW SYNCHRONISM. 131 Babylonian history strikingly supports the conclusion that the later as well as the earlier kings of the Country of the Sea are to be eliminated from the scheme of Babylonian chronology. According to the figures of Shalmaneser I the approximate date of 2040 or 2060 B.C. fell within the reign of Irishu, the son of Ilu-shuima. But our new synchronism makes Ilu-shuma contemporaneous with Su-abu, and to the latter's accession we may, as we have seen, assign a date in the twenty-first century B.C., if we eliminate the whole of the Second Dynasty from the throne of Babylon. That is to say, our one chain of evidence points to a date in the twenty-first century B.C. as falling within the reign of Ilu-shuma; and our other chain of evidence points to an approximate date of 2040 or 2060 B.C. as within the reign of Ilu-shuma's son. The close agreement of these figures is remarkable, and each chain of evidence strengthens the other. Thus, on the one hand, we obtain an additional reason for accepting Shalmaneser I's figures as approximately correct, and on the other hand our supposition is confirmed that the Kassite Dynasty followed immediately after the First Dynasty of Babylon. Finally, we may note that this result is obtained by identifying Ilushuma, the contemporary of Su-abu, with the only Assyrian ruler who is known to have borne this name. The other advantages attaching to this chronological arrangement will be obvious after a moment's reflection K2 1I32 NEW CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME and they may here be briefly enumerated. In the first place the scheme does not necessitate tampering with the chronological material or amending it in any way. The figures assigned by the larger Kings' List to its second dynasty may be accepted or rejected without affecting Babylonian chronology. We may thus await the discovery of contemporary documents to clear up the history and chronology of the Country of the Sea without attempting to anticipate their verdict. Similarly we need not alter the order of the early kings of the Kassite Dynasty as given by the Kings' List, in order to harmonize that document 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 itself. The only apparent disadvantage of this scheme is that it does necessitate a slight reduction of the estimate given by Nabonidus for the date of Hammurabi. According to the suggested system of chronology, 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 century earlier.' But it must again be pointed out that Nabonidus is speaking in round numbers, when he asserts that seven hundred years separated Hammurabi and Burna-Buriash. Moreover, the I See above, p. 88. AND ITS EFFECTS. 133 scribes who drew up the inscription would be inclined to increase rather than to diminish the age of Hammurabi's foundation-inscription, which Nabonidus had found in the course of his excavations. The king is there made to say: " The name-inscription of Hammurabi, the ancient king who seven hundred years before Burna-Buriash had built for Shamash the temple of Shamash and the templetower upon the old foundation, I beheld in the midst thereof and I was afraid"-and the text goes on to relate how the king prayed to the Sun-god.I The context obviously does not suggest any special chronological accuracy, the date being simply inserted to heighten the impression of Hammurabi's great antiquity. That we should assign to Hammurabi a date which is within a century or so of this rough estimate is all that need be demanded in the way of harmonizing it with other and more definitely chronological documents. It may further be pointed out that the majority of writers have been content to assign to Hammurabi dates from one to two and a-half centuries earlier than the estimate of Nabonidus.2 The suggested system, therefore, so far from introducing a fresh difficulty into the chronology, considerably lessens an old one.3 See above, p. 87, n. 2. 2 Set above, p. 86 f. 3 See also Chap. 1, pp. 14, 8 ff. The date assigned to Gulkishar, king of the Country of the Sea, on the figures of Bel-nadin-apli's boundary-stone 134 NEW CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME The effect of our new scheme of chronology upon the problem of harmonizing the Babylonian dynasties with the chronological system of Berossus has been already referred to in the preceding chapter.' It was there pointed out that the existing schemes for reconciling the conflicting data were based upon the incorrect hypothesis that the beginning of the historical period of Berossus was to be set at the beginning or during the period of the First Dynasty of the List of Kings. It was further suggested that the date 2232 B.C. is probably to be synchronized with the beginning of some earlier dynasty than that founded by Su-abu, and that such a dynasty may not necessarily have had its capital at Babylon but in one of the other large cities of Mesopotamia. In any case, the problem of reconciling the separate dynasties of Berossus with those upon the larger List of Kings is one that has never yet been satisfactorily solved, so that the adoption of the new system does not involve the sacrifice of any scheme which has been generally accepted or should be retained at any cost. We may therefore accept the suggested scheme of Babylonian chronology as being the arrangement which harmonizes best with all the data at present available. We may conclude that the Kassite conquest of Babylon would also be too high. Here again we have to deal with an estimate in round numbers (see above, p. 89 f.). Moreover the discrepancy rests to some extent upon the figures of the larger Kings' List for the Second Dynasty, and these we have already seen are probably too high. See above, p. 113 f. AND ITS EFFECTS. I35 took place at the end of the First Dynasty, and that the kings of the Country of the Sea, though they certainly harassed the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and may also have given trouble to the Kassites, never succeeded in capturing Babylon itself or in occupying the Babylonian throne. Thus the so-called "Second Dynasty" loses its title and disappears from the scheme of Babylonian chronology, to reappear as an independent dynasty in the Country of the Sea on the shores of the Persian Gulf. It is possible for the " First Dynasty of Babylon" to retain its name, but the Kassite kings of Babylon can never again be referred to without qualification as forming the " Third Babylonian Dynasty."' A further point of interest which follows from the new arrangement of the chronology is that we may now trace the early history of Assyria back beyond the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon. In the following chapter a sketch will be attempted of the early history of Babylon and of her foreign relations in the light of our new information. Meanwhile we give on the following pages a table, arranged in parallel columns, showing the suggested arrangement of the early kings of Babylon with the contemporary rulers of Assyria, Elam, and of the Country of the Sea. I The dynasties which followed the First Dynasty upon the throne of Babylon may still, for convenience, be referred to as the third, fourth, fifth, etc., dynasties of the List of Kings. C'q Approximate Dates. B.C. 23000 1900 i 80o AssYRIA. Ushpia Kikia Ura-imitti Be'l-ibni Ilu-shuma,..... I rishurn, I ku nurn Shar-kenkate-Ashir B6-kabi, Shamqhi-Adad..j Ishme-Dagan, Ashir-nirari I I shme-Dagan, Shamsbi-Adad etc., etc., etc. BABYLON. ELAMITES AND KASSITES. COUNTRY OF THE SEA. First Dynasty of Kings' List: YEARS Su-abu (14) Sumu-la-ilu, (36) Zabum, (14) Ap I-Sin, (18) Sin-muballit, (20) Kudur-Mabuk, Hammurabi,... (43) Arad-Sirn Rim-Sin Samsu-iluna,..(38) j(brother of Aradi-Sin') Abeshu',.....(28) }............. Ammi-ditana, (37) Ammi-zaduga, (21I) (-I1 0 0 0 VI U) Second Dynasty of King), ~ List: Iluma-ilu......(6o),Damki-ilishu (36) 1 70J $amsu-ditana (01) flittite Invasion of N. Babylonia, Third Dynasty of followed by the Ishkibal Kings Lit KASSITE CON- Shushshi YEARist S QUEST OF BABYGandash (orLO Gaddash), (i6) Gulkishar, Agum I (22) Bitiliashi i, (22) Pesbgal-darn Ushshi (8) Adumetash A-dara-kalat Urzigurmash (or Urshigurumash), Agum II Akur-ul-ana etc., etc., etc. Invasion of Elam' Melam-kurki by Ea-gamil, followed by the KASSITE CONQUEST OF THE -Ea-gamiil.. COUNTRY OF THE SEA (by Ulam-Buriash) Ulam-Burias] )" Burna - B the king, Agum (son of Biti bashther of liash) conquers Du'r- lah h Ea in the Country of the Sea armas Ila (15) (27) (55) Z1 (o), (28) 01 (26) t,. (7) Z4 -n of ~ ash, t;? and ~iti aira h (so jrari; t I1 C_#J '11-4 -.- - - --- I NOTE TO THE TABLE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS RULERS ON THE TWO PRECEDING PAGES. The names of kings whom we now know to have been contemporaneous are printed in heavier type. The figures within parentheses opposite a king's name indicate the number of years he ruled; the figures for kings of the " First Dynasty," which are attested by the contemporary date-lists, are printed in heavier type to distinguish them from such figures as rest only on the authority of the Lists of Kings. It will be noted that the figures assigned by the List of Kings to the "Second Dynasty" have been retained in the fifth column of the table for the kings of the Country of the Sea. It has already been pointed out that these high figures can scarcely be regarded as probable (see above, p. i i ); but they are here provisionally retained in default of definite information to the contrary. A reduction of the figures would have the advantage of lessening the interval between the occupation of Babylon by the Kassites and their conquest of the Country of the Sea. Throughout the table a comma is set after a king's name when he was succeeded by his son. CHAPTER VI. THE EARLY HISTORY OF BABYLON AND HER FOREIGN RELATIONS; THE HITTITE INVASION, THE KASSITES, AND THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA. IN the two preceding chapters we have treated our new information concerning the early Babylonian dynasties from the chronological side. We have dealt mainly with figures and dates in an attempt to estimate the effect our series of new synchronisms will have upon the general scheme of Babylonian chronology, and we have discussed the best manner in which we may reconcile the new data with the old. We may now sketch in outline the historical relations of the early dynasties to one another in the light of the information which the new chronicles afford. We will first revise our conception of the position occupied by Babylon at the time of the First Dynasty, and sketch her relations with the contemporary rulers of Assyria. We may then trace the causes, which led to the Kassite conquest of 140 EARLY ASSYRIAN RULERS Babylon, in the exhausting wars she carried on successively with Elam and the Country of the Sea, followed by the Hittite invasion of Northern Babylonia. Finally, after dealing with the fall of the early kings of the Country of the Sea before the second Kassite invasion, we may examine briefly the evidence for determining the race to which these early rulers are to be assigned. In the table of contemporaneous kings, printed on p. 136 f., it will be seen that a number of early Assyrian rulers are set in the period before the accession of Su-abu and during the First Dynasty of Babylon. Five of these rulers are those mentioned in the texts of Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon, to which reference has already been made,I viz., Ushpia, Ilu-shuma, Irishu, Bel-kabi and his son Shamshi-Adad. Others are mentioned on a single small cone or cylinder, found at Sherghat in the autumn of 1904,2 which, though it bears only a short inscription, restores the names of several early Assyrian rulers whose existence was not previously known. The text was inscribed by the orders of Ashirrim-nisheshu, who, after stating that he was the son of Ashir-nirari and the grandson of Ashir-rabi, both "viceroys of Ashir,"3 records his rebuilding of the wall 1See above, pp. II9 ff. 2 See Mitteilungen der Deutscheiz Orient-Gesellschaft, No. 25 (Nov., 1904), p. 66 f. 3 Ashir is the archaic form of the name Ashur, the national god of the Assyrians. The form was already found upon the Cappadocian tablets. AND THEIR RELATIONS TO BABYLON. I4t of the city of Ashur in the following words: " The cityvall which Kikia, Ikunum, Shar-kenkate-Ashir and Ashir-nirari, the son of Ishme-Dagan, my forefathers, had built, was fallen, and for the preservation of my life *...I rebuilt it." As Shar-kenkate-Ashir and Ashir-nirari, the son of Ishme-Dagan, each restored the wall of Ashur, it is probable that some considerable interval separated their reigns. If, therefore, we are right in making ShamshiAdad (the son of Bel-kabi) the contemporary of Hammurabi,I we may conjecturally set Shar-kenkate-Ashir before Bl-kabi, and Ishme-Dagan and his son Ashirnirari after Shamshi-Adad. The exact period of Uraimitti and Bel-ibni is uncertain, but we know from the new chronicle No. 26,472 that they reigned before Ilushuma.2 From the fact that in their own inscriptions that have been recovered these early Assyrian rulers bear the title of ishzsakku, " viceroy" or " priest-king," and not s/arrut, "king," it has been inferred that they owed allegiance to the reigning king at Babylon, and this view is probably correct. On the other hand we may legitimately surmise that whenever a favourable opportunity presented itself, they attempted to cast off the Babylonian yoke. Thus from the catch-line in the new chronicle we know that Ilu-shuma waged war on 1 See above, pp. I26 if. 2 See above, p. 66 f. I42 ASSYRIA AND BABYLON. Su-abu, and we may infer that he seized the occasion of a change of dynasty at Babylon to make a struggle for his country's independence.' Again, if we may identify Bel-ibni of the chronicle with Bel-ibni, the son of Adasi, who, according to Esarhaddon, "smote the yoke from upon the city of Ashur,"2 we may infer that in his reign there took place a still earlier attempt on the part of Assyria to cut herself adrift from Babylon. That neither attempt met with permanent success is clear from the title borne by later Assyrian rulers; while, at some period in Hammurabi's reign at any rate, an Assyrian ruler seems to have been associated in oath-formulae with the Babylonian king.3 But there is little doubt that as a tributary state Assyria must have given considerable trouble to the earlier kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon. There is evidence that even Hammurabi was obliged to station troops in Assyria,4 and he may have had a Babylonian garrison in each of the principal Assyrian cities. When under the later kings of the First Dynasty Babylon's enemies closed It is probable that Su-abu came info conflict with Assyria after, and not before, he secured the throne of Babylon. Even if he headed an invasion of the Western Semites, his line of advance would probably have been along the Euphrates; thus Babylon, and not Ashur, would have been his first object of attack. It is also possible that his accession to the throne was not secured by a sudden raid, but was the result of a gradual process of immigration. 2 See above, p. 66. 3 See above, p. 126 f. 4See Letters and Inscriptions of HZammurabi, Vol. III, pp. Ixviii, 3 ff. ELAM AND BABYLON. I43 around her, and she had to fight with Elamites, Kassites, the people of the Country of the Sea, and Hittite tribes from the north-west, she can have exercised but little control over Assyria. We may assume that it was at some period after the fall of the First Dynasty that Assyria permanently acquired her independence. It has hitherto been supposed that the supremacy of Babylon, as the leading city of Mesopotamia, was not disputed when once the separate cities and states of Babylonia had been consolidated into a single empire under the more powerful of the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty. But, from the glimpse into her foreign relations which the new chronicle affords us, we see that her position was not so well defined nor so assured as is generally imagined. It is true that Hammurabi succeeded in welding together a mighty empire with its capital at Babylon, but, after Elam had ceased to be a menace, his successors on the throne experienced trouble from other quarters. In his thirtieth and thirty-first years Hammurabi had signally defeated the Elamite army, had overthrown Rim-Sin, and had added the land of Emutbal to his dominions; and the new chronicle furnishes the information that the cities of Ur and Larsa were conquered on this occasion and their spoil carried to Babylon. By thus ridding Babylon for a time of her most powerful enemy, he established a more extended I44 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 of Elamite aggression. But we learn from the new chronicle that Rim-Sin, although defeated by Hammurabi, was not finally subdued, and it is possible that the closing years of Hammurabi's reign were marred by fresh conflicts with his old enemy. At any rate, in the reign of Samsuiluna, Hammurabi's son and successor, Rim-Sin was once more active. The chronicle at this point is too broken to admit of our following the operations in detail, but enough is preserved to show that the forces of Elam, under Rim-Sin's leadership, were once more engaged in active warfare against the Babylonian state; and it may further be inferred that Rim-Sin was defeated, and probably met 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-zaduga, Samsu-iluna's great-grandson,2 but, as far as our information at present goes, it would seem to indicate that Elam, after these unsuccessful attempts to regain her lost position, ceased to contest with 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 'See above, p. 69. It is possible that the final defeat of Rim-Sin took place in Samsu-iluna's second year; see Chap. VII. 2 See de Morgan, Histoire et (ravaux de la DlZegation en Perse (I905), p. 86, and Scheil, Memoires, V, p. xiii. TIHE COUNTRY OF THE SEA. I45 occupied only with the arts of peace. When danger once more threatened the empire of the Semitic kings of Babylon, it came not from the mountains of Elam, but from the low-lying lands on the shore of the Persian Gulf. At what period exactly Iluma-ilu, the founder of an independent dynasty, declared himself ruler of the Country of the Sea it is not possible to deduce from our present information.l His reign may have been a long one, as indicated by the larger List of Kings, and we cannot tell from the chronicler's narrative how long he had been upon the throne before hostilities with Babylon broke out. If the war he waged with Samsu-iluna occurred in the latter part of his reign we may conclude that he had been engaged for many years in organizing the forces of the new state, which he had founded on the littoral of the Persian Gulf, before he attempted to make encroachments on his powerful northern neighbour. In that case the incessant campaigns carried on by Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna against Elam would have afforded him the opportunity of establishing himself firmly in the Country of the Sea without the danger of interference from Babylon. On the other hand, only a short interval may have separated his assumption of authority and the outbreak of hostilities with Babylon; and Iluma-ilu may have declared himself independent of Babylonian control at the very moment when SamsuSee above, p. 97 f. L I46 THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA iluna was devoting all his energies to crush Rim-Sin. If that was so, Samsu-iluna, on the successful conclusion of his Elamite campaign, would have hurried to the coast in the hope of defeating Iluma-ilu before he had time to organize his forces and strengthen his defence. From the chronicler's description it would 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 end to trouble from that quarter. He may have been induced to lead out a hattily equipped force by the news of some daring act of aggression on the part of this small state, which had hitherto 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. It is true that in his first expedition Samsu-iluna succeeded in overrunning the country and in reaching the Persian Gulf; but in the battle which ensued he was signally defeated, and the bodies of many of the Babylonian soldiers who had been slain in the battle were washed away by the sea. In the second campaign Iluma-ilu again inflicted a defeat upon the Babylonian army. It is obvious that from this moment Iluma-ilu held undisputed sway in the districts bordering on the Persian Gulf. Northern and central Babylonia might still be controlled from Babylon by the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty, but the southern portion of the country AND BABYLON. I47 would from this time forward have passed into the undisputed possession of the kings of the Country of the Sea. But we may imagine that Iluma-ilu did not long rest content with the territory he had wrested from Babylonian control, and, in the reign of Abeshu', Samsuiluna's son and successor, he seems to have undertaken fresh acts of aggression in an attempt to extend his boundaries still farther to the north. It was probably during one of his raids into Babylonian territory that Abeshu' sought to check the growing power of the Country of the Sea by the capture of Iluma-ilu himself.' But Iluma-ilu did not fall into the trap, and reached his own territory in safety, where he doubtless awaited a more favourable opportunity for renewing the conflict. The further stages of the struggle between Babylon and the Country of the Sea are not recorded in the chronicle, but we may conclude that the later kings of the First Dynasty accepted the independence of the new state upon their southern border as an evil which they were powerless to prevent. Like Abeshu', they may have succeeded in checking the more daring of the raids into their territory, but it is certain that, as the kings of the Country of the Sea established themselves more securely in the south, the authority and influence of Babylon declined. The independent rulers of the Country of the Sea See above, p. 72. L 2 148 THE KASSITES. were not the only foes whom the later kings of the First Dynasty had to fear, for the tribes that were soon to capture and sack the capital itself were already descending in small bands from the mountains of Elam upon the Babylonian plain. Less than ten years after Hammurabi's death Kassite incursions into Babylonia were taking place. Thus the date-formula for the ninth year of Samsu-iluna took its title from such an invasion of the Kassite tribes, and, as the event was commemorated in this manner by the Babylonians, we may assume that the invaders were successfully repulsed. Similar invasions may have continued to take place under the later kings of the First Dynasty, and, although for a time they were probably unsuccessful, we know that the city at last fell before the Kassite onslaught. From the new chronicle we learn of another invasion which undoubtedly tended to weaken Babylon, if it did not actually bring the First Dynasty to an end. The chronicler states that during the reign of Samsu-ditana, the last king of the dynasty, "the men of the land of Khatti marched against the land of Akkad," that is to say, the Hittites from northern Syria' marched down the Euphrates and invaded Babylonia from the north-west. The chronicle does not record the result of the invasion, but we may certainly connect it with the fact that the The capital of the Hittite empire is now proved to have been at Boghaz K6i, and to have borne the name of Khatti (auea-al-li); see Winckler, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., Dec., I906, Sonderabzug, p. 15. The Hittite invasion may therefore have taken place from Cappadocia. BABYLON AND THE HITTITES. 149 Kassite king Agum II brought back from Khani in northern Syria the images of the god Marduk and his wife Sarpanitum, and installed them once more with great pomp within their shrines in the temple of Esagila.I We may legitimately conclude that the images were carried off by the Hittites during their invasion of Babylonia in Samsu-ditana's reign. Since the Hittites succeeded in despoiling Babylon of her most sacred deities, it is clear that they must have raided the city,2 and they may even have occupied it for some time. Thus the First Dynasty may have been brought to an end by these Hittite conquerors, and Samsu-ditana himself may have fallen in defence of his own capital. But there is no reason for supposing that the Hittites occupied Babylon for long, and even if they were completely successful, they would soon have returned to their own country laden with heavy spoil. An interregnum or period of disorder may indeed have separated their departure from the occupation of Babylon by the Kassites; but it is unlikely that the Kassites would have long delayed their descent upon the city, when once its defences had been reduced, and it lay, comparatively speaking, at their mercy. See the Assyrian copy of Agum's inscription in Rawlinson, Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. V, p1. 33, and Jensen's translation in Schrader's Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, Bd. III, I, pp. I34 if. 2The conquest of Babylon referred to in the inscription of Gaddash (see above, p. I03, n. I), during which the temple of Bel (i.e., Esagila) was damaged, may possibly have been its conquest by the Hittites, 150 RESULTS OF THE HITTITE INVASION. It is also possible that Samsu-ditana succeeded in driving the Hittites from Babylon after they had sacked Esagila. But, even so, the invasion must have materially lessened the declining power of Babylon. In order to cope with his new foe from the northwest, Samsu-ditana must have weakened the garrisons upon his eastern frontier. The Babylonian forces would thus have been divided, and incapable of resisting pressure from a second quarter. So favourable an opportunity for invasion would not have been missed by the Kassite leaders, and we may assume that full advantage would have been taken of it. Thus the fact that Samsu-ditana was the last king of the First Dynasty may in any case be traced to the Hittite invasion. In her weakened state Babylon fell an easy prey to the Kassite hordes, who from that time were destined to be her ruling race for so long a period. After the reign of Iluma-ilu we know little of the history of the Country of the Sea, though the new chronicle does relate how the dynasty he founded fell in its turn before a fresh incursion of the Kassite tribes from Elam. As Babylon had previously been harassed by Kassite raids from time to time, so the kings of the Country of the Sea probably suffered encroachments from the same quarter, and experienced on their eastern borders a constant sense of insecurity. We may conclude that it was with the object of putting an end to such incursions that Ea-gamil, the last king of the dynasty KASSITES IN SOUTHERN BABYLONIA. I15 founded by Iluma-ilu, determined to carry the war into the enemy's country. He evidently hoped to cripple the tribes by destroying their mountain strongholds and to secure his frontier by reducing Elam to the condition of a tributary state. The new chronicle briefly records the result of Ea-gamil's Elamite campaign. So far from conquering the Kassites, Ea-gamil was defeated and driven back. Ulam-Buriash, the brother of Bitiliash the Kassite, pursued him across the border and succeeded in conquering the Country of the Sea and in establishing his own authority in that region. The Kassites were now masters of the whole of Babylonia. Babylon itself had already fallen and was in the hands of Kassite kings, and the new chronicle tells us that Ulam-Buriash succeeded Ea-gamil in ruling the Country of the Sea. That he established friendly relations with the Babylonian Kassites is not improbable, and an indication that this was the case may perhaps be seen in the finding of one of his inscriptions at Babylon. The inscription is engraved upon a stone knob, and states that it was the property of UlaBurariash, who styles himself "king of the Country of the Sea," and "the son of Burna-Burariash, the king."I 'The inscription reads as follows:-" Knob of diorite, the property of Ula-Burariash, the son of king Burna-Burariash, the king of the Country of the Sea. Whosoever shall destroy this name and shall write his own (in place thereof), may Anu, Bel, Ea, Marduk and Ninmakh destroy his name!" (Col. I, (I) hi-in-gi Sa abtnuu-Z. (2) Sa U-la-Bu-ra-ri-ia-as (3) mdr Biur-na-Bu-ra-ri-ia-as sarri (4) sar mdt, tdmti (KUR A-AB-BA) 1,52 EXTENT OF KASSITE AUTHORITY It is obvious that Ula-Burariash is a form of the name Ulam-Buriash, as Burna-Burariash is the equivalent of Burna-Buriash. The chronicle does not mention UlamBuriash's father, but merely states that he was the brother of Bitiliash, the Kassite. There can be little doubt, however, that we may identify Ula-Burariash, the son of Burna-Burariash, with the conquerer of Ea-gamil. We need not here discuss the question of the identity of these rulers, as this has already been done in Chapter IV. The explanation of the chronicle's narrative which we have adopted would not identify Bitiliash and his son Agum with the early kings of the Kassite dynasty who are known to have borne these names, unless we completely reject the figures of the Kings' List for the duration of its second dynasty.' Burna-Burariash, the father of Ulam-Buriash, may possibly have been a Babylonian king2; but from the fact that his son ascribes him simply the title of "king," without stating the country of his rule, he may equally well have been nothing more than a Kassite chief in Elam. A point that is not very clear from the narrative of the new chronicle is the reason for Agum's conquests. From the chronicler's bald summary it would appear Col. II, (I) sa stu-a an-na-a (2) i-pa-as-sZi-tu-ma (3).i-um'-SuZ i'sa-ata-ru (4) An-nu iluBl(AB) iluEa(SAR-SAR) iluJAarduk (5) u iluNin-mah (6) sz-umit- l-i-ip-Si-tL); see Weissbach, Bablyonische Miscellen, p. 7, taf. I, No. 3. ' See above, pp. x o if. 2See above, p. 113. IN SOUTHERN BABYLONIA. 53 that Agum invaded the Country of the Sea and conquered the city of Dfr-Ea. How are we to reconcile this statement with the previous conquest of the Country of the Sea by Ulam-Buriash? There are several ways in which we might explain the circumstances, but we may probably assume that Ulam-Buriash did not succeed in permanently subduing the Country of the Sea, and that Agum found it necessary to undertake its reconquest. It is unlikely that this sturdy little kingdom submitted tamely to the Kassite invaders. The subsequent history of the country proves that it was always ready to cast off the yoke of Babylon. We may therefore conclude that for a considerable period after its conquest the Kassites had trouble with this portion of their empire. In the reign of Meli-shikhu II, towards the close of the Kassite Dynasty, the border of the Country of the Sea was ruled by a Kassite governor,' but it is probable that the country itself continued to enjoy a state of semi-independence. With regard to the early kings of the Country of the Sea, who waged war with the Semitic kings of the First Dynasty, and, like them, were displaced by the Kassite tribes, the last question that we need touch on I On the "boundary-stone," No. 90,829, in the British Museum, which was drawn up in the reign of Meli-shikhu II, one of the witnesses is a certain [... ]-Marduk, who is described as governor of the border of the Country of the Sea ([...-lu]JMarduk NER-ARAD ZAG [..] lndt tdmli); cf. Belser, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, Bd. II, p. I65 f., Col. II, 1. 2 f., and Weissbach, Babylonische 'Miscellen, p. 8. 154 RACIAL ELEMENTS is that of race. To which of the early races of Western Asia are these rulers to be assigned? Sumerians, Semites, Elamites, and Kassites, all from time to time exercised dominion in the plains of the Tigris and Euphrates, and to one of these races it is probable that we may trace the early rulers of the Country of the Sea. That they did not represent an advance guard of the Kassite tribes is indicated by the distinction which the new chronicle draws between the Country of the Sea and the nationality of its conqueror Ulam-Buriash, whom it describes as the brother of Bitiliash, "the Kassite." Nor is there anything to show that they were Elamites who, when driven out of Ur and Larsa, may have retreated southwards and maintained their independence on the shores of the Persian Gulf. There is more to be said for the view that they represented a fresh wave of Semitic immigration similar to that which resulted in the foundation of the First Dynasty of Babylon, though it is difficult to reconcile such a view with the names borne by several of their kings. In fact, an examination of the royal names distinctly points to a considerable Sumerian influence, and may possibly be held to indicate Sumerian origin. Such names as Ishkibal, Gulkishar, Peshgal-daramash, A-dara-kalama, Akur-ul-ana, and Melam-kurkura are all Sumerian names,i and Shushshi, the name of Ishkibal's I The fact that four of the names are assigned Semitic equivalents in the explanatory List of Kings (Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. V, pl. 4 IN SOUTIERN BABYLONIA. I55 brother, is not necessarily Semitic.I It would be tempting therefore to see in the Dynasty of the Country of the Sea the last successful struggle of the ancient Sumerians to regain possession of a portion of Babylonia. But the first three kings of the dynasty, Iluma-ilu, Itti-ilinibi and Damki-ilishu, as well as the last king, Ea-gamil, all bear Semitic names, and it is unlikely that they are translations of original Sumerian forms.2 The most probable explanation of this mixture of names is that it accurately reflects the mixture of races in the Country of the Sea at this early period.3 It is not improbable, however, that the Sumerian element in the population preponderated, and the original impulse to revolt from Babylonian control may have had its origin in racial jealousy. There is much to recommend this view, since it would explain the constant striving of the Country of the Sea for independence. The geographical position and physical features of the country presented few difficulties to its permanent absorption by the ruling power at Col. I, 1. I4 ff.) does not prove that they were originally read as Semitic names. Indeed, the inference is the other way; cf. the renderings, in the List, of the names of Hammurabi, Ammi-zaduga, and the Kassite kings. For the contrary view, cf. Jensen, Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, I900, p. 86. 2 On Hommel's proposed identification of Iluma-ilu with AN-AM (Sem Iluma), the son of Bel(?)-shemea, see above, p. 70 f., n. I. 3 Cf. Lehmann-Haupt, Beitrage zur allen Geschichte, Bd. III, Heft I, p. 142. I56 SUMERIAN SURVIVALS. Babylon; but the survival of a strong Sumerian strain in its population would account for the tendency to disruption. That the Sumerians were possessed of the qualities of courage and persistence is amply attested by the wars of their early city-states, no less than by the extent of their distribution. The shores of the Persian Gulf may well have been the centre from which Sumerian civilization spread over Mesopotamia, and, when Semitic influence gained the predominance at such centres in Northern Babylonia as Agade and Babylon, the Sumerians would naturally gravitate southwards. That they suffered constant admixture from the ruling race at Babylon was but to be expected, and to this fact is to be traced the Semitic and Kassite names borne by later rulers 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 independent dynasty founded by Iluma-ilu they were not improbably the predominating element in the population. CHAPTER VII. A NEW DATE-LIST OF THE KINGS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY AND THE BABYLONIAN DYNASTIC CHRONICLE. THROUGHOUT the preceding discussion of the earlier periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history, we have been dealing with information derived in the main from tablets of the late Babylonian period. Before we pass to the consideration of two new chronicles, which do not refer to periods earlier than the eleventh century B.C., it will be convenient to examine briefly the new date-list, compiled during the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon, which is included in the Appendix to the second volume.' This document is marked out from the others here published and discussed by the fact that it is not a late text embodying traditions concerning earlier times, but is contemporary with the period of No. 80,037; see Vol. II, pp. 97 ff., 181 if. I58 A NEW DATE-LIST which it treats. Moreover, it is strictly not a chronicle but a " date-list," that is to say, a list of the titles given to a series of successive years under the kings of the First Dynasty. But these titles were taken from great occurrences in the religious and secular life of the nation, and they are our principal source of information concerning the detailed history of that time. No apology is therefore needed for including a new Babylonian date-list of the kings of the First Dynasty in a work concerned with documents which are chronicles in the stricter sense of the term. In the third volume of my " Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi" (900o) was included an edition of the official date-lists of the First Dynasty, based upon the large tablet No. 92,702 (Bu. 9I-5-9, 284) with restorations and a continuation of the text taken from a new duplicate, No. I6,924, in the British Museum collections. Some time afterwards a fragment of a small singlecolumn date-list, preserved in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople, was translated by Dr. Lindl and Pere Scheil,' having been found by the latter scholar when conducting excavations for the Turkish Government at Abu Habba. While staying at Constantinople in the autumn of 1902, I was enabled, through the kindness of Hamdi Bey, to make an examination of the collection of tablets from Abu Habba in the Imperial Ottoman Museum, and among For references to their publications, see Vol. II, p. 97, n. i. OF THE FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON. 159 those of which I made copies was the small datelist, S. I6. As my copy differs in several points from the published transliterations of the text it is included in the second volume.' This little fragment made it possible to restore one or two of the broken formulae at the beginning of the reigns of Hammurabi and of his son Samsu-iluna, and, for the periods covered by its text, it is a valuable supplement to the two larger and more important date-lists previously published, which' are preserved in the British Museum. The new date-list, No. 80,037, which is published for the first time in the present work,2 adds a further instalment to our knowledge of the period of the First Dynasty. In form and contents it is very similar to No. I6,924, inasmuch as its text was arranged in six columns, and covered the period from the reign of Hammurabi to that of Ammi-zaduga, under whom it was compiled. Unfortunately, portions of only four of its six columns have been preserved, but these enable us to complete and restore many of the missing formulae. We are thus in possession of four tablets inscribed with date-lists of the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and, before discussing the historical information which the new tablet supplies, it will be advisable to give a short description of the separate lists and a comparison of the periods covered by those portions of them which have been preserved..1See Vol. II, P- J93 - 2 See Vol. II, PP- 97 ff., I81 ff. I6o DESCRIPTION OF DATE-LISTS In my published edition of the date-lists, the two chief tablets, Nos. 92,702 and 16,924, which are both in the British Museum, are referred to by the symbols A and B respectively, and these symbols will be here retained. As the new duplicate (No. 80,037) is so similar to No. I6,924, and, like it, is in the British Museum, it will be here referred to under the symbol C. The small fragment of the single-column date-list in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople will be referred to as D. The following is a short description of the four documents: A (No. 92,702) is a large tablet measuring 58 in. in width by 8- in. in length, with the date-formulae inscribed upon it in four columns, two on either side. It covers the period from the reign of Su-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty, to that of Samsu-iluna, its seventh king, the formulae for the separate reigns being arranged upon it in the following order: Col. I, the reigns of Su-abu and Sumu-la-ilu; Col. II, the reigns of Zabum, Apil-Sin, and Sin-muballit; Col. III, the reign of Hammurabi and the first six years of Samsu-iluna; and Col. IV, the remaining years of Samsu-iluna's reign. For the text, see " Letters of Hammurabi," Vol. II, No. 1oI, pls. 217 ff. B (No. 16,924) is the lower part of a tablet, which, when complete, measured 41 in. in width, and about 6 or 6~ in. in length, the date-formulae being inscribed upon it in six columns, three on either side. It covered the period from the reign of Hammurabi, the sixth king of the First Dynasty, to the tenth OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. i6i year of Ammi-zaduga, the last king but one of the dynasty, the formulae for the separate reigns having been arranged upon it in the following order: Col. I, the first thirty-two or thirty-three years of Hammurabi's reign; Col. II, the remainder of Hammurabi's reign and half the reign of Samsu-iluna; Col. III, the second half of the reign of Samsu-iluna, and the greater part of the reign of Abeshu'; Col. IV, the remainder of Abeshu's reign and about twenty years of Ammi-ditana's reign; Col. V, the remainder of Ammi-ditana's reign and about the first six years of Ammi-zaduga; Col. VI, the continuation of Ammi-zaduga's reign down to his tenth year, and the summaries. It may be noted that many of the formulae for the missing portions of the reigns of Abeshu' and Ammi-ditana were probably given under their fuller forms, several of the separate formulae having each taken up two lines of a column. For the text, see " Letters of Hammurabi," Vol. II, pls. 228 ff. C (No. 80,037), the new date-list, was very similar to B both in its contents and arrangement. The tablet, when complete, measured about 42 in. in width, and about 5- or 6 in. in length. It covered the period from the reign of Hammurabi to the seventeenth year of Ammi-zaduga, and the date-formulae were inscribed upon it in six columns, three on either side, in the following order: Col. I, the first thirty-two or thirty-three years of Hammurabi's reign; Col. II, the remainder of Hammurabi's reign and about the first twenty years of Samsu-iluna; Col. III, the remainder of Samsu-iluna's reign and about the first fifteen years of Abeshu'; Col. IV, the remainder of Abeshu's reign and about the first eighteen years of Ammi-ditana; Col. V, the remainder of Ammi-ditana's reign and about the first twelve M i62 COMPARATIVE TABLE years of Ammi-zaduga; and Col. VI, the continuation of Ammi-zaduga's reign down to his seventeenth year, and the summaries and colophon. For the text, see the second volume, pp. i8i ff. D (S. i6, in the Imperial Ottoman Museum) is not a large date-list like the three lists preserved in the British Museum, but is part of a small tablet, in the shape of a contract or lettertablet. When complete, it was inscribed with date-formulae for Hammurabi's reign and for eight years of the reign of Samsu-iluna. The tablet measures 2} in. in breadth, and its present length is i I in. For the text, see the second volume, P. I93. In order to enable the reader to verify the authorities for any particular date-formula with as little delay as possible, it will be well to give a list of the kings of the First Dynasty, from Su-abu to Ammi-zaduga, noting the years of their reigns covered by the separate portions of the four date-lists which are now available for study. In the following list, or table, the date-lists are referred to by the symbols A, B, C and D, under which they have been already described:KING. YEARS. DATE-LISTS. Su-abu... I-2 [wanting],,... 3-I4 A (Col. I) Sumu-la-ilu... 1-36 A (Col. I) Zabum... 1-7 [wanting],... 88-14 A (Col. II) Apil-Sin... I-18 A (Col. II) OF THE DATE-LISTS. 163 Sin-muballit... Hammurabi...,,... 1-20 I-5 6-7 8-13.. 4-25,...26-3I,, ** 32-35,.. 36.. 37-39,,... 40... 41... 42-43 Samsu-iluna... I A (Col. II) A (Col. III), D (Obv.) A (Col. III), C (Col. I), D (Obv.) A (Col. III), C (Col. I) A (Col. III), B (Col. I), C (Col. I) A (Col. III), B (Col. I) A (Col. III) [wanting] A (Col. III) [wanting] C (Col. II) A (Col. III), C (Col. II) A (Col. III), C (Col. II), D (Rev.) 2 —3 A (Col. III), B (Col. II), C (Col. II), D (Rev.) 4-6 B (Col. II), C (Col. II), D (Rev. and Edge) 7 B (Col. II), C (Col. II)... 8-9,,.. 10-19... 20-26,.. 27... 28-38 Abeshu'... 3 early years B (Col. II), C (Col. II), D (Edge) A (Col. IV), B (Col. II) A (Col. IV) [wanting] A (Col. IV) B (Col. III) M 2 I64 THE NEW DATE-LIST Ammi-ditana 6 early years B (Col. IV),, 22-30 B (Col. V) 31-37 B (Col. V), C (Col. V) Ammi-zaduga I-7 C (Col. V), 8 (or 9)-o B (Col. VI),, I I —end [wanting] In the second part of the appendix to Vol. II a transliteration and translation are published of the new duplicate C, with restorations and variant readings from A, B and D. As the text of C, when complete, only began with the reign of Hammurabi, the formulae for the reigns of his predecessors upon the throne, which are given in Cols. I and II of A, have not been reprinted.' Similarly the gaps which occur in C from the twentysixth to the thirty-ninth year of Hammurabi's reign and from the thirteenth year of Samsu-iluna to the thirtieth year of Ammi-ditana have not been filled in from A and B as the new duplicate throws no additional light upon the formulae for these periods. I hope at some future time to publish a complete edition of the date-lists with restorations and variant readings drawn from all the dated documents available For the formulae for these years see Letters of Hammurabi, Vol. III, pp. 212-229. The formulae for the first five years of Hammurabi are wanting on the new text (C), as the top of the first column is broken away; but in the text printed in the second volume they have been restored from the principal tablet (A) and from the small list (D) in the Imperial Ottoman Museum, as the text of D was not available for study at the time my edition of the date-lists was published. AND ITS FORMULAE. I65 for study. Meanwhile the text of the new tablet only is edited and translated in the second volume, and we may here note briefly the more important points on which the tablet and the small duplicate D afford us new information. The duplicate D does not add to our knowledge of the political history of Babylonia during the opening years of Hammurabi's reign, for it gives the title of his first year under its shorter form, while it proves that the formula for the second year, which probably refers to the internal reforms inaugurated by the king in Babylonia, should be restored in accordance with the parallel date-formulae found upon contract-tablets, as has already been suggested.I A more valuable piece of information is contained in the variant formula for the eighth year of Hammurabi's reign, which is found upon the new date-list C. In A the formula for this year reads MU MA-[D]A2 TIG (ID)Nu-hu-us-ni-si, " The year in which the district on the banks of the Nukhush-nishi Canal (was...)"; but C gives a variant formula for the year which is taken from the relations of Babylon with Emutbal, the western district of Elam.3 This See Letters of Hammurabi, III, pp. 229 f., n. 44. The reading of the two signs following MU upon A is fairly certain: the whole of the sign MA and the end of DA are clearly written and preserved. 3 The line reads MU[.. ]E-mu-ut-ba-lum(KI). The traces of the sign preceding E are probably not those of DA, so that it is not possible to restore the line as MU [MA-DA] E-mu.ut-ba-lum(KI), "the year in which the land of Emutbal (was...)." I66 THE CAPTURE OF ISIN reference to Emutbal in the early part of Hammurabi's reign is of considerable interest, as it shows that at this period a critical situation existed in the relations of Babylon with Elam. It is also possible to connect this piece of information with the formula for the preceding year. In the title for the seventh year of Hammurabi's reign, the traces preceding the name of Isin upon A are probably those of BAD; the verb is omitted from the formula in C, but was probably given upon A and D. The traces at the end of the line in D are not those of IN, NA or KI, but they might be the end of the sign HUL carelessly written. In that case the line should read MU BAD I-SIIN-NA(KI) [BA-IJU]L, "The year in which the wall of Isin was [destroyed]." The city of Isin had been previously captured in the seventeenth year of Sinmuballit, and, as tablets have been found dated up to the thirtieth year of the taking of the city,' it might be urged that the formula for the seventh year of Hammurabi could not refer to its capture or destruction, since tablets would not have been dated for thirty years by that event if the city had The capture of Isin by Rim-Sin, which is referred to in the dateformulae upon the Tell Sifr tablets, must have formed an epoch for dating tablets in that part of Babylonia only so long as the Elamite power retained its hold upon the country. So soon as the Babylonians succeeded in dislodging the Elamites, their system of dating would have been changed at once, and the regular system of Babylon introduced. BY RIM-SIN, KING OF LARSA. I67 again been destroyed within that period.' But if a reference to the capture of the city by Rim-Sin is to be traced at all in the official date-lists of Babylon, we might perhaps identify it with that referred to in the formula for the seventh year of Hammurabi, rather than with its earlier capture under Sin-muballit. The Elamite power in Babylonia, as we have already seen, was finally broken on the defeat of Rim-Sin at the hands of Samsuiluna,2 and the placing of Rim-Sin's capture of Isin in the seventh year of Hammurabi would fit in with the suggestion made below, that Rim-Sin's death took place in the second year of Samsu-iluna's reign.3 For on this supposition the period of Rim-Sin's activity in Babylonia would have lasted for thirty-eight years; according to the earlier date no less than forty-eight years would have separated Rim-Sin's death from his capture of the city. But the longer period is by no means impossible, and the expression employed in the date-formula for the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit is in favour of assigning the fall of Isin to that year. On the other hand, it is possible that an Elamite In the introduction to his Code of Laws, Hammurabi states that he collected the scattered people of Isin and bestowed abundance upon E-gal-makh, the temple of Isin (see Scheil, Deldg en Perse, Mem. IV, p. I6, pl. 4, Col. II, 11. 49-54). Since Ur and Larsa are also mentioned in this introduction, the passage probably refers to events which took place after Hammurabi's defeat of Rim-Sin in his thirty-first year 2 See above, p. 144. 3 See below, p. 170. I68 DATE OF THE FALL OF ISIN. success would not have been referred to in a dateformula employed at Babylon. In that case the attempt to date Rim-Sin's capture of Isin by means of the Babylonian date-lists must be abandoned, and we must conclude that the capture and dismantling of the city in the reigns of Sin-muballit and of Hammurabi followed temporary victories of the Babylonians in their efforts to impose the authority of Babylon upon the other great cities of the land.' Echoes of other conflicts in which Babylon was engaged during the reign of Hammurabi may be seen in the formulae for the tenth, eleventh and thirteenth years of his reign, on which the new duplicate C affords additional information. While it is certain from D that the wall of Malgia was built in the fourth year of Hammurabi's reign, we now know that the city was taken and sacked in his tenth year.2 The new This point becomes of some importance in view of the chronological data furnished by IIilprecht's dynastic tablet (see above, p. I I, n. 3). If the Dynasty of Isin came to an end either in the seventh year of Hammurabi or in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, Ur-Engur's accession would have been separated from that of Su-abu by 233k or 2431 years. In accordance with our reduction in the date of the First Dynasty of Babylon (see above, p. IIO), we should on these figures assign to the beginning of the Dynasty of Ur a date not earlier than 2320 or 2330 B.C. 2 Thus the two last contracts mentioned in Letters ofHammuzrabi, p. 231, n. 46, are to be referred to his fourth year. The others mentioned in the earlier part of the note as dated by the capture of Maer and Malgia (or Malga) are to be referred to his tenth year. It may be noted that a king of Malgi (sar Ma-al-gi-im) named Ibik-Ishtar has been found by Scheil upon a tablet of the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon (see Orient. ECHOES OF OTHER CONFLICTS. I69 duplicate C also enables us to read the name of the city of Rabiku in the formula for the eleventh year,' and if the formula MU Ra-bi-ku(KI) mI-bi-ik-ihAdad BA-DIB, "The year in which Ibik-Adad captured the city of Rabiku,"2 is to be referred to this year, we may conclude that the title in the date-list under its fuller form commemorated the capture of the city. The city mentioned in the title for the thirteenth year may be read provisionally as Umu-ki, and with this formula we may compare that for the eighth year of Samsu-iluna.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 Lit.-Zeit., VIII (I905), No. II, Col. 512 f.); if the reading of Ishtar (u + I)AR) is not quite clear in the name upon the tablet, he may prove to be Ibik-Adad, the conqueror of Rabiku. Other small kings, or princes, of the period are Sin-iribam and GIR-NE-NE (?), whose names have been found by Scheil in dates upon contract-tablets (see Resueil de travaux, XXIV, p. 24 f., and Orient. Lit.-Zeit., VIII, Col. 512, n. 2). I It is thus possible to assign to this year the first two tablets cited in Letters of Hammurabi, III, p. 239, n. 72. 2 Op. cit., p. 239, n. 72. The other formulae mentioning Rabiku, which are quoted in the same note, are probably to be referred to other years of Hammurabi's reign. 3 The name may be read as Umu-ki, since the first sign appears to be UM, and is certainly not su, or AB. It is true that in the formula for the eighth year of Samsu-iluna upon B, C, and D it would be possible to read the first sign of the name as AB; similarly, upon the new date-list C the sign might be read as AB in the formula for the thirteenth year of Hammurabi. But the reading of A for this year shows that in all cases UM should probably be read; see Vol. II, p. Ioo, n. I. 4 See Vol. II, p. ior, n. I. I70 CLOSE OF HAMMURABI'S REIGN. In the formula for the twenty-third year of Hammurabi's reign the new date-list enables us to restore the name of the city as Sippar, and, as the formula for the twenty-fifth year records the rebuilding of the wall of Sippar, it is not improbable that in Hammurabi's twenty-third year the city suffered a reverse. In the last year of Hammurabi's reign Sippar again seems to have been in trouble, and it is permissible to trace some connection between the closing formula of Hammurabi's reign and those for the first two years of Samsu-iluna. It is possible that the end of Hammurabi's reign was clouded by disaster, due to the recovery of Rim-Sin from his defeat in Hammurabi's thirtieth and thirty-first years. Samsu-iluna's success against the Elamites, crowned by Rim-Sin's defeat and death, may have taken place in the beginning of his reign, and was perhaps commemorated in the formula for his second year, which records his recovery of the independence of Sumer and Akkad. Of the buildings erected by Hammurabi of which we have knowledge for the first time from the new list, the most interesting is the fortress or wall dedicated to the goddess Laz, which is commemorated in the formula for the sixth year. This early reference to the consort of the god Nergal is of considerable value, for it proves that her worship under the name of Laz was cultivated by the kings of the First Dynasty. The new list also proves that the formula for the nineteenth year of BUILDINGS AND CANALS. I7I Hammurabi was taken from the building of the fortress of Igi-kharsagga. Of the canals cut by Hammurabi we now know for the first time that the Hammurabikhegallu Canal was cut in his ninth year, and we may probably assign the cutting of the Hammurabinukhush-nishi Canal to the thirty-third year of his reign. Not much new information is to be obtained from formulae commemorating acts of a religious character. Thus the new date-list C only confirms the readings of A and B for Hammurabi's twelfth, fourteenth, sixteenth, and twentieth years, in which thrones were made for Sarpanitum, Ishtar, Nabu, and Adad; while for the third year, in which the throne of Nannar was built, D gives the fuller formula in accordance with one already found upon a contract-tablet.' The names of the two deities, Ishtar and Adad, which were missing from the formula for the seventeenth year, we can now restore from the new list C, and we know that in that year Hammurabi made images in their honour. The new list also confirms the fact that seven images of the king himself were made in his fifteenth year, and it supplies the information that in his twenty-second year the royal image, called " Hammurabi, the king of righteousness," was made. Of years which take their titles from religious ceremonies, it may be noted that D possibly I See Letters of Hammurabi, III, p. 230, n. 45. 172 LENGTH OF AMMI-ZADUGA'S REIGN. gave a variant formula for Hammurabi's fifth year'; while the new list C proves that the formula for his eighteenth year commemorated some action of the goddess Beltis, "the great lady of Bel," or the performance of some unusual religious ceremony connected with her worship.2 The date-list C also affords new information on certain points with regard to the formulae for the early years of Samsu-iluna and for the later years of Ammi-ditana, and it supplies traces of the formulae for the first seven years of Ammi-zaduga's reign.3 Of 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-list, that Ammizaduga reigned for at least seventeen years. In the List of Kings he is recorded to have reigned for twentyone 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 assigned to him in the summary given in the sixth column of the date-list B.5 But on the publication of this document I pointed out that only ten years were assigned to him because the It is unlikely that D's reading [..... M[U]-UN-[N]A-AN-DIM should be combined with MU E[N] K[A]-AS-BAR-RA [.... ], which is a possible reading of the traces upon A; see Vol. II, p. 98, n. 5. 2 The new list C also proves that the suggested reading of Bel's name in the formula for the twenty-fourth year of Hammurabi is correct; the building of " the exalted shrine of Bel" may possibly be referred to this year. 3 See Vol. II, pp. 103 ff., o06 f., o07 f. 4 See above, p. 84, n. 2. 5 See above, p. 95, n. 3. LENGTH OF ABESHU'S REIGN. I73 list was drawn up in the tenth year of Ammi-zaduga's reign, and this statement is now proved to be correct. The new date-list assigns him, not ten, but seventeen years, and there is no doubt that it, like the list B, was drawn up in Ammi-zaduga's reign, and naturally included the titles of those years only which were past at the time it was compiled. As, therefore, this contemporary document proves that Ammi-zaduga reigned for at least seventeen years, it affords additional confirmation 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-list is the length of Abeshu's reign. In the List of Kings twentyfive years are assigned to him, while the figure opposite his name in the summary on the date-list B reads [.. ]VIII, the wedges at the beginning of the line being broken. At the time of the publication of the date-list B it was pointed out that, while the figure should probably be restored as [XX]VIII, the reading [XXX]VIII was also possible.' If the first of these restorations proved to be correct, the error of three years in the List of Kings would be comparatively trifling; on the other alternative the error would be considerably increased. By proving that Ab6shu' reigned for twenty-eight and not for thirty-eight years I See Letlers of Hammurabi, III, pp. lxxi and 253. I74 DATING BY EVENTS. the date-list again confirms the information given by the smaller List of Kings. Later in this chapter we will make a comparison of certain figures given by the larger List of Kings and the Dynastic Chronicle, but before we turn from the contemporary date-lists of the kings of the First Dynasty, it will be convenient to enquire into the general workings of the system of time-reckoning which they represent. With the date-lists before us and the formulae arranged in order, 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 lists. But certain difficulties 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 year was named, by what means was the new year distinguished from that which preceded it? As the date-formulae were taken from great events, such as the capture or rebuilding of cities, the cutting of canals, the restoration or decoration of temples, the performance of unusual religious ceremonies, and the like, it is 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 allowed to elapse for some event to happen of sufficient importance to PROVISIONAL DATE-FORMULAE. I75 give the year its title. Meanwhile, how was the new year named? There can be little doubt that until the new year received its own name it took a provisional title from that which preceded it.I The method may be best illustrated by an example. The nineteenth year of Hammurabi's reign was entitled "The year in which the fortress of Igi-kharsagga (was built)." In the course of his twentieth year Hammurabi built a sumptuous throne for the god Adad, and, when this work of piety was completed, the year was officially named from the event, being known as " The year in which the throne of the god Adad (was made)." After the year had received its name, all contracts inscribed and dated during the remainder of the year would bear this official formula, and the title duly appears opposite the twentieth year in the official date-lists. But documents drawn up in the preceding months, before the year's name had been decided, must have been dated in "the year after that in which the fortress of Igi-kharsagga (was built)."2 The only exception to the use of a provisional title taken from the preceding year must have occurred in the first year of a new reign. In such a case there was rCf. also, Peiser, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., 1905, No. I, Col. 5. 2 The tablet referred to in Letters of Hammnurabi, III, p. 234, n. 54, as dated MU US-SA E IGI-KHAR-SAG-GA, was inscribed in the month Elul, and may thus have been drawn up in Hammurabi's twentieth year before the year's name had been decided. The tablet mentioned in the following note (loc. cit., n. 55), as dated by the making of the throne of Adad, is not dated by the month, but only by the year. I76 ACCESSION-FORMULAE. no need to refer to the preceding formula, for the new king's name was sufficient for the moment to distinguish the new year. Thus tablets dated in the early part of such a year would merely bear the formula MU [king's name] LUGAL-E, "The year of so and so, the king."' This is the form under which the first years of the reigns of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna are found upon the date-lists D and A respectively; but this bare formula must generally, if not always, have been amplified in the course of the year.2 The new date-list C shows that in the fuller formula for the first year of Samsu-iluna a reference was made to the establishment of the new king's authority, while the first years of Sumu-la-ilu, Apil-Sin, and Sin-muballit are distinguished by additional phrases referring to the cutting of a canal and the building of city-walls. The reason of this is that the words MU (king's name) LUGAL-E could precede the formula for any year in that king's reign, and in n 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 additional phrase was added after the royal name. Another point at which the system may have presented some chance of confusion would be at the death For tablets dated in this manner see Letters of Hammurabi, III, p. 229, n. 43, and p. 241, n. 75. 2 That the shorter formula could be employed throughout the whole year is proved by the tablets No. 80,919 (dated MU Ha-am-mu-ra-bi I.UGAL-E).and No. 78,313 (dated MU Sa-am-sut-i-tluna LUGAL-E), which were drawn up on the fourteenth day of Sebat and the sixth day of Adar respectively. UNOFFICIAL DATE-FORMULAE. 177 of a king. On the accession of a new king it would have been possible to retain the formula of the current year by merely changing the name of the reigning monarch. But it is obvious that the accession of a new king would outweigh in importance any other event of the year, while the feelings of the new king himself would tend in the direction of recognizing in the date-formula in use his own accession to the throne, rather than of continuing to refer to some act of his predecessor. To have officially renamed the year would have thrown out the system by making it necessary to incorporate a title too many in the lists.' It 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 meanwhile permissible, during the year of accession, to make use of an unofficial formula, written in Semitic Babylonian, and referring to the new king's advent. Two such formulae occur on tablets of the First Dynasty, and refer to the years in which Zabum and Apil-Sin respectively " entered his father's house."2 These formulae were not incorporated in the lists, but from I Moreover, if, as is possible, the naming of the year was accompanied by a fixed religious festival (see below, p. 179), the ceremony could not have been repeated until the appointed time came round in the following year. 2 The formula employed reads saltu [king's name] a-na bi-it (var. bii) a-bi-su i-ru-bu; see Letters of Hammurabi, III, p. 220, n. 17, and p. 222, n. 24. N 178 RETENTION OF PROVISIONAL TITLES. the nature of the case there was no chance of confusion arising as to the actual dates of any tablets on which they had been used. In 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 still in use, it is probable that the provisional title was adopted as the official formula for that year. At any rate titles taken from preceding years have been incorporated in the official lists as the formulae for the last years of Su-abu, Sumu-la-ilu, Zabum, and Apil-Sin. But it may be seen from the date-lists that on many other occasions in the course of a reign the provisional title for a year was retained as its permanent formula. A glance at the date-lists makes it appear that the practice of dating two or more years by the same event was more prevalent under the earlier than under the later kings of the First Dynasty; but this impression may be partly due to the fact that so many formulae are wanting in the reigns of the later kings. It might be urged that, if the lists were compiled at the time the actual date-tablets were written, the scribes may have found the use of the formulae MU USSA, MU US-SA-US-SA-BI, etc., a convenient method of bridging gaps in the lists which their researches had not enabled them to fill up. But it is more probable that I We might perhaps explain in this way the reading of D for the ninth year of Samsu-iluna; see Vol. II, p. 104, n. 5. THE NAMING OF THE YEAR. I79 the date-lists which have come down to us are inscribed with the formulae which had actually been employed. There can be little doubt that lists of the years were kept from the first by responsible officials, who added to them the name of each year as soon as it was fixed. Such lists must have been carefully preserved, so that, in the case of any legal or commercial dispute arising with regard to the date of any particular year, the point at issue might be decided by reference to the central authority. We may conclude, therefore, that the datelists we have recovered incorporate the names which were actually given to the years by the central authority in Babylon, and definite proof of this may be seen in the great number of dated documents, the years of which may be accurately fixed by comparison with the formulae upon the date-lists. It cannot be decided at present whether there was any fixed period in the year at which the year was named,' but it is not improbable that the naming of the year was celebrated by the holding of a religious festival. The solemn publication of the year's name in Babylon would thus have insured the adoption of the title among the priests and scribes of the capital. A further method of making known the year's title was by means of It is possible that the year may have been named in, or at the beginning of, the seventh month, since the Babylonian name for the month, Tasrftu, means "beginning, inauguration"; see Peiser, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., 1905, No. 7, Col. 271, n. I, and cf. Winckler, in Schrader's Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (3rd ed.), I, p. 330. N 2 I8o THE PUBLICATION tablets, specimens of which have been found, inscribed with the names of single years, which were evidently employed for promulgating the year's title after it had been officially named. One of them, inscribed in Sumerian with the title of the seventh year of Samsuiluna's reign, is said to have come from Mount Lebanon, but it was probably found in Babylonia and carried thence to Syria.I Two others are preserved in the Berlin Museum, and give the titles in Sumerian, with Semitic translations, for the twenty-ninth year of Ammiditana,2 and a year in the reign of Samsu-ditana.3 These tablets are merely inscribed with the year's title and are not addressed to any person, or body, in particular, nor do they state by whose authority the title of the year is given. Thus, though they were evidently employed to publish the year's name, they do not I The tablet is preserved in the Museum of the Syrian Protestant College at Beirft. A photograph of the tablet is published by Porter, Palestize Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, April, I900, p. I23 and plate; cf. also Peiser, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., VIII (I905), No. I, Col. 3 f. 2 V.A.Th. 670; published by Peiser, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., VIII (1905), No. I, Col. I ff. The Sumerian formula is inscribed on one side of the tablet and the Semitic translation on the other. 3 V.A.Th. I200; published by Messerschmidt, Orient. Lit.-Zeit., VIII (1905), No. 7, Col. 268 ff. Peiser's suggested restoration of 1. I is to be preferred, the text beginning: (I) [sa-at-tu]m e.-s-e-tum sa i-ru-ba (2) [arhu]Nisannu zmu rKAM (3) MU, etc., "The new [year] which began on the first day of the month Nisan (is) the year, etc." Then the full title of the year is given in Sumerian, followed by a translation into Akkadian (Ak-ka-du-sa), i.e., Semitic Babylonian. Finally, an abbreviated Sumerian form is given under which the title might be written. OF THE YEAR'S TITLE. i8i represent the original documents of authorization for adopting the new title. These, doubtless, took the form of letters written in the king's name to the chief officials and provincial governors. In one of Hammurabi's letters to Sin-idinnam, the governor of Larsa, the king orders the insertion in the calendar of an intercalary month,I and the name of each year may well have been conveyed in like manner to the principal cities within the Babylonian empire. It is a matter 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 Sumerian predecessors, and had in consequence acquired the sanctity of long tradition, may account in some degree for its continued use. Moreover, if the naming of the year was associated with a religious festival, this fact would have increased the reluctance of the Babylonians to tolerate any change or innovation. But the inconveniences of the system are obvious. Without a previous knowledge of the order of the events 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 1 See Letters of iHamurabi, III, p. I2 f. I82 THE DYNASTIC CHRONICLE of taste, and was left to the discretion of the individual scribes. The later system of reckoning time by the years of the reigning king, introduced by the Kassites, was, in comparison, simplicity itself, and, when once it had been adopted, its inherent merits prevented any likelihood of a return to the older system.I On a very different plane to the date-lists of the First Dynasty stands the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle, a new edition of which is published in the second volume.? While the former are to all intents and purposes contemporary records of the events to which they refer, the Dynastic Chronicle is a document of the late Assyrian period incorporating traditions with regard to earlier times. Its inclusion in a work containing chronicles concerning early Babylonian kings is quite appropriate, the more especially as the previous separation of two of its fragments from the main body of the tablet3 rendered a new edition of the text desirable. The fragment K. I4,839,4 which is published in the accompanying I It is interesting to note that even in the Pre-Sargonic period Sumerian scribes appear to have dated, or rather distinguished, tablets of accounts by the years of the reigning king. At least, there is much to be said for this explanation of the single figures inscribed upon the "patesi-tablets," dating from the time of Lugalanda, Enlitarzi, and Urukagina. See Thureau-Dangin, Les inscriptions de Sumer et adAkkad, p. 320, n. I. 2See Vol. II, pp. 46 ff., I43 if. 3 See Vol. II, p. 46, n. I. 4 The small fragment is one of the previously unnumbered fragments of the Kuyunjik collection. AND THE LIST OF KINGS. i83 block, is a small portion of a similar chronicle of the Babylonian dynasties. It will be noted that it gives the names of four of the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, but from their arrangement upon the tablet we may infer that the text of the chronicle was not identical with that of K. 8532, etc. It has not therefore been Fragment of a Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle from a tablet made for the library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh [K. I4,839]. used to restore the first column on the reverse of the Dynastic Chronicle. Of the new readings obtained as a result of a careful examination of the text, we may here briefly refer to those which throw some light upon the points of disagreement between the chronicle itself and the larger Babylonian List of Kings. These will be best seen in the following table which gives the figures from both these documents for the fifth, sixth, and seventh dynasties of the List of Kings: i84 THE DYNASTIC CHRONICLE FIFTH DYNASTY OF KINGS' LIST. Simmash-shikhu Ea-mukin-zer... Kashshu-nadin-akhi Length of dynasty.. SIXTH DYNASTY OF KINGS' LIST. Eulbar-shakin-shum... Ninib-kudurri-usur Shilanum-Shukamuna... Length of dynasty. SEVENTH DYNASTY OF KINGS' LIST. [Ae-aplu-usur (?)] It will be seen that summaries for both the LIST OF KINGS. I8 years 5 months... 3 years... 21 yrs. 5 mths. DYN. CHRON. 17 years 3 months 3 years 23 years 17 years 3 years. 3 months... 20 yrs. 3 mths. 15 years 2 years 3 months 20 yrs. 3 mths. 6 years... 6 years in the Dynastic Chronicle the fifth and the sixth dynasties do not tally with the figures giving the lengths of the separate reigns: the summary for the fifth dynasty is 2a 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 Kashshi-nadin-akhi's reign has been read as 6 in place of 3, and that referring to Eulbar-shakin-shum has been read as I8 in place of 15. But even then the summary for 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 15 respectively. AND THE LIST OF KINGS. I85 My own explanation of the discrepancies is that the compiler of the chronicle, in adding up the figures for the length of the fifth dynasty, made a mistake in counting the three months of Ea-mukin-zer's reign as three years. Similarly it is possible that he reckoned the months of Shilanum-Shukamuna's reign twice over as months and as years; and the fact that his total is the same as that given in the List of Kings is probably a coincidence. This explanation is simple and at the same time exactly explains the differences 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 figures in the List of Kings. The Dynastic Chronicle and the List of Kings agree in assigning six years to the reign of the king who by himself forms the seventh dynasty. It will be noted that the name of this king, which is missing from both the documents in question, has been provisionally restored as Ae-aplu-usur in the table upon the preceding page. This conjectural restoration is based upon a passage in the new Babylonian Chronicle, No. 27,859, which is discussed in some detail in the following chapter. CHAPTER VIII. A NEW BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE, RELATING TO EVENTS FROM THE ELEVENTH TO THE SEVENTH CENTURY B.C. THE chronicle No. 27,859, which is here published for the first time,' is not a regular chronicle in the ordinary sense of the word. It is true that it relates to historical events and episodes arranged in chronological order, but the events themselves are not all recorded with the same amount of fulness and detail. The portion of the text that has been preserved consists of forty lines, but these are divided into no less than twenty-two separate sections, each divided from the one that follows it by a line ruled across the tablet.2 In fact, the tablet is not a complete copy of a chronicle, but contains a collection of extracts from a longer text, the portion preserved relating to historical events which range from the See Vol. II, pp. 57 ff., 147 if. 2Strictly speaking, the portion of the chronicle preserved consists of twenty-four sections, but in two instances where we should expect a line ruled across the tablet it has been omitted. In the one case this occurs between the first and second line on the edge of the tablet, and in the other between the last line of the obverse and the first line of the edge. All the signs which originally stood in these sections are broken away, but their existence may be inferred from the context. A NEW BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE. I87 eleventh to the seventh century B.C. Some of the sections of the original chronicle from which the tablet of extracts was made, are copied out in full, others are summarized, and in the case of several others only the first line of each section is quoted.' Before examining the historical information which this tablet affords, it will be as well to state briefly the principle on which the series of extracts appears to have been compiled. A brief examination suffices to show that the text is not an original composition by the writer of the tablet. It is clearly based upon another document. Why then should that document not have been copied out in full in accordance with the usual practice of scribes of this period? Why should this have been done in the case of some extracts, while summaries of others are given, or only their first lines quoted? An answer to these questions that might suggest itself is that the tablet may have been one of the class of so-called "practice-tablets," that is, a learner's copy ' Of the first of these classes of extracts (i.e., sections quoted in full) we have six instances: the longest consists of seven lines (Rev., 11. 8-I4), two sections consist of four lines each (Obv., 11. 4-7 and 8-II), one of at least three lines (Obv., 11. I-3), one of two lines (Obv., I1. 12 and 13), and one of a single line (Rev., 1. 7). Nine summaries are given, eight of them in single lines (Obv., 11. I4-18, and Edge, 11. I-3), and one in a section of two lines (Rev., 11. 4 and 5); it is probable that the scribe quoted the first two lines of this section, as the first line did not sufficiently indicate its subject matter. Finally, of nine sections of the original chronicle, only the first lines are quoted (Rev., 11. 1-3, 6, and I5-I9). I88 THE CHARACTERISTICS intended to give him practice in writing, or to assist his memory in his studies of ancient history. Such a theory would afford a plausible explanation of the different treatment of the sections of the work, for we might imagine that the points which the learner wished to fix in his memory he would copy out in full, while the contents of those which he knew already he would summarize, or he would merely quote the opening line in order to give the historical sequence of the whole composition. But a glance at the tablet will show that it has none of the characteristics of a " practice-tablet," and that it was not the work of any novice. It is a small tablet,I well formed, and made of fine clay. Moreover, the writing is minute, and the characters are carefully and accurately written. In fact it was evidently the work of a skilled scribe, and we must seek some other reason for the peculiar nature of its contents. After a careful examination of other possibilities, the explanation which appears to me best suited to the facts is that the scribe who wrote the tablet had before him not one but two documents. Both were chronicles dealing with the same periods of Babylonian and Assyrian 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 The tablet measures zi in. in breadth, and even when complete it was probably not more than 3 in. long; see Vol. II, p. 57, n. I. -'."."':. v.:,. z. OF THE NEW CHRONICLE. I89 materials, and wished to note down exactly the points in which one of his chronicles supplemented the other or differed 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 entirely absent from the first, or gave a fuller or different version of the same event, he copied out that section from the second chronicle in full.I Where the two sections were identical he merely quoted the first line to show that this was the case, or gave a brief summary which answered the same purpose. An enquiry into the class and character of the original chronicles, so far as they can be ascertained from the extracts that have come down to us, will best be attempted after we have examined the extracts themselves, and briefly noted the historical information they contain. The first section of which traces are preserved upon the obverse of the tablet is evidently one of those which are quoted in ful1.2 Almost all of its text is wanting, but the last two words of the last line are preserved, describing the return of a king after a successful campaign during which he had gathered heavy spoil. As the chronicle relates mainly to the relations of Babylonian and Assyrian kings to one another, and as the It is, of course, possible that some of these sections he condensed. 2Obv., 11. I-3. I90 MARDUK-SHAPIK-ZER-MATI following section deals with the reign of Marduk-shapikzer-mati, it is probable that this section recorded the victory of Marduk-nadin-akh& over Tiglath-pileser I. The second section of the chronicle: briefly records four events in the reign of Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, the Babylonian king of the fourth dynasty of the Kings' List. The first of these events was related in 1. 4, but most of the text is wanting. The next line 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 Mardukshapik-zer-mati formed a confederation of a large number of petty kings and rulers, probably by conquest, and that the result of his suzerainty was beneficial to the countries and districts over which 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 it is possible that we should add " Ioo." When we consider the number of " kings " whom Tiglath-pileser I alleges in his annals that he conquered within the first five years of his reign, it will be apparent that such a number would not be inconsistent with statements in records of that period. The passage does not imply more than that Mardukshapik-zdr-mati extended the borders of Babylonia, and in the course of his campaigns enforced his authority upon a large number of petty princes and rulers who had Obv., 11. 4-7. AND ASHUR-BEL-KALA. I9I up to that time been independent. He does not seem to have merely exacted tribute from them, for the chronicler adds as a comment on his policy that " they beheld abundance." He probably achieved this result in a great measure by regulating and improving their water-supply, and by enlarging the area of their land under cultivation. The next line of the section records the friendly relations which Marduk-shapik-zer-mati established with Ashur-bel-kala, king of Assyria, and it is interesting to note that the phrases employed in the chronicle are almost identical with those occurring in the description of the same event upon the "Synchronous History." The last line of the section adds that "at that time the king went from Assyria unto Sippar." As the chronicle is a Babylonian and not an Assyrian one, "the king" is obviously Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, and we may infer from this passage that he personally went to Assyria in order to ratify the treaty with Ashur-bel-kala. The phrase that " he went unto Sippar," after his return from Assyria, probably implies that from that time he took Sippar as his principal residence in place of Babylon, This change of residence may have been dictated by political motives; but it may also have been due to the king's preference for some palace at Sippar which he had either built or enlarged for himself. The third section of the textI deals with the reign of Obv., 11. 8-II. I92 ADAD-APLU-IDDINA Adad-aplu-iddina, who succeeded Marduk-shapik-zermati upon the throne of Babylon. It records four main facts with regard to this ruler, viz., his origin, certain operations in connection with the city of Dur-ilu, his defeat at the hands of the Sutiu, who succeeded in ravaging both Sumer and Akkad, and his completion of certain shrines in honour of Marduk. The chronicle embodies a different tradition to that given in the " Synchronous History" with regard to the name of Adad-aplu-iddina's father. While the "Synchronous History" states that he was "the son of Esagil-shaduni, the son of a nobody," the chronicle gives the name of his father as Itti-Marduk-balatu, and states that he was an Aramaean and a usurper.' 1 The current explanation of the word IM-GI is that suggested by Winckler, to the effect that it is the equivalent of Kaldu, " Chaldaea " (see Uttersuchungen zur altorient. Geschichte, p. 50); while Hommel would further explain it as merely a dialectic variant of Ingi which occurs in the phrase Ki-in-gi, or Ki-In-gi, = Sumer (see Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des al/en Orients, I, pp. 241 ff.). But in the phrase LUGAL IM-GI the word would seem to have a descriptive rather than a geographical significance; and "usurper" admirably fits the context of the passages in which the phrase occurs. Moreover it is possible to assign this meaning to the ideogram by an analysis of its component parts. Since IM==ramdnu and GI=kunnu (cf. Briinnow, Nos. 8367, 2390), we may assign to the compound ideogram the meaning "self-appointed"; thus LUGAL IM-GI = ' self-appointed king," i.e., usurper. In the fuller form of the phrase, IM-GI-DA (see Rawlinson, Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. III, pl. 4, No. 4, 1. 47, Winckler, Untersuchungen, p. 50, n. 4, and cf. Syn. Hist., Col. III, 1. 33), the final syllable may probably be regarded as a suffix or phonetic complement; according to the alternative explanation DA can be taken as a postposition (=ina). AND THE INVASION OF THE SUTU. I93 The "Synchronous History" relates that Ashur-belkala married the daughter of Adad-aplu-iddina, and the chronicle throws light on one of the reasons which may have led Adad-aplu-iddina to offer a rich dowry in order to secure the alliance. We know that Ashur-bel-kala had been on friendly terms with Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, and he may have been obliged to purchase Ashur-belkala's goodwill by offering him his daughter in marriage; an additional reason for his action may perhaps be seen in the external troubles with which Babylonia was faced. For we gather from the chronicle that during his reign the Sutut invaded his territory, and, after ranging through Sumer and Akkad, returned with a rich spoil to their own land. It must have been on this occasion that the Sutu wrecked Ebabbara, the temple of the Sun-god in the city of Sippar, as recorded by Nabu-aplu-iddina upon the " Sun-god Tablet."I The three successors of Adad-aplu-iddina upon the throne of Babylon are enumerated in the List of Kings, but the ends of all the names are broken in that document. The new chronicle does not enable us to See Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. V, pl. 60 f. Nabu-aplu-iddina relates that, in spite of the efforts of Simmash-shikhu and those of Eulbar-shakinshum (which followed a period of further misfortune in Kashshu-nadinakhi's reign), it was not until his own reign that the temple was restored to its former splendour. On the nationality of the Sutu and their connection with the Aramaeans, see Streck, Klio, Bd. VI, Heft 2 (I906), pp. 209 if. 0 194,THE REIGN OF SIMMASH-SHIKHU. restore them, for it omits any mention of these three rulers, and in its fourth sectionI deals with Simmashshikhu, the founder of the fifth dynasty in the Kings' List. Like the Dynastic Chronicle,2 it states that he was the son of Erba-Sin, and it is possible that the broken title which follows may be restored in accordance with his title and description upon that document. In that case the new chronicle supports the tradition given both in the List of Kings and in the Dynastic Chronicle, according to which Simmash-shikhu came from the Country of the Sea, a fact recorded in the name given to the short dynasty he founded. In addition to the description of his origin, the Dynastic Chronicle merely records the length of his reign and the fact that he died by the sword. This information the new chronicle supplements with the statement that he constructed a throne for Bel naphari, "the Lord of All,"3 in the temple of Ekurigigal. The inclusion of such religious information along with records which are purely historical is characteristic of all the Babylonian chronicles that have come down to us, and it is in accordance with this practice that the eight lines which follow the fourth section upon the chronicle are to be explained. Oby., 1. 2 f. 2 See Vol. II, p. 51. 3 For the title BSl naphari, cf. the great god-list K. 4349, Col. X (Rev.), 11. 8 and 9, where iluBl Ya lnap-ha-ri is given as the equivalent of (DINGIR)GU and (DINGIR) DIRI (see Czu. ]nscr. West. Asia, Vol. II, pi. 54, No. I, 1, 8f.). THE FEAST OF THE NEW YEAR. 195 These lines,' most of which are divided from the others by lines ruled across the tablet, read as follows:Within the shrine the fifth year of Eulbar-shakin-shum, the king the fourteenth year the fourth year of Ae-aplu-Lsur the first year of Nabu-mukin-ap[li, the ki]ng [ the.... year] [ the.... year] [ the.... year] [ the... year of..... -akh]6-iddina The chronicle, No. 35,382, which records events in the reign of Nabonidus and the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, makes special mention of the years in which the Festival of the New Year was not celebrated. From the time when Babylon attained a prominent position among the cities of Chaldea this festival had been peculiarly associated with the god Marduk. In token of his allegiance to the god of Babylon, the statue of Nabu was carried from Borsippa to Babylon, and on the eighth and eleventh days of the month, at any rate during the Neo-Babylonian period, in company with the statues of the other gods it made obeisance before Marduk in the temple of Esagila. But the principal ceremony of the Festival was the going forth of Marduk from his shrine in the temple of Esagila, which seems Obv., 11. I4-I8, and Edge, 11. 1-3. 02 I96 THE CELEBRATION to have taken place on New Year's Day. On this occasion the statue of the god was carried forth along the sacred road termed A-ibur-shabu, which led from Esagila to the palace of the king. The festival had a political as well as a religious significance, for the Babylonian king, whenever possible, made a point of coming to Babylon for its celebration, and on entering the presence of Nabu, and afterwards of Marduk, he grasped the hands of their statues, in token of his holding his position in accordance with their will.I At the beginning of a reign this act was equivalent to a coronation-ceremony, for it legalized the claim of the new king to the throne of Babylon,2 and the renewal of the ceremony every year was symbolical of the king's continued enjoyment of Marduk's confidence and favour. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Babylonian scribe, to whose labours we owe the chronicle concerning the A broken passage in the Nabonidus Chronicle (Col. IV, 11. 24-28) records how, after the official entrance of Cyrus into Babylon on the 3rd of Marcheswan, on the 4th of Nisan of the new year Cambyses, as the son and representative of Cyrus, entered the temple of E-shapa-kalama-shumu where he was received by priests of the god Nabfl, and, while others brought offerings, he took the hands of Nabft. IHe is then stated to have entered the temple of Esagil and to have made offerings of lambs before Bel (i.e., Marduk). Here the text breaks off, but it probably described how Cambyses proceeded to take the hands of Bel. 2 Cf. Winckler, Zeits. fiir Asyyr., II, p. 303, Lehmann-Haupt, SamaSsumukin, pp. 44 if., Jastrow, Religion of Bahylonia and Assyria, p. 680; and see below, Chap. IX. OF THE FEAST OF THE NEW YEAR. 197 reign of Nabonidus, should have recorded the years in which the ceremony did not take place.' My explanation of the eight lines of the new chronicle that are under discussion is that they contain a summary of a number of years in which one of the principal ceremonies of the Festival of the New Year 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,2 it may be conjectured that the historical information for the reigns of Eulbar-shakin-shum, Ae-aplu-usur, Nabu-makin-apli, and the king whose name is partly preserved in the third line 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 did not go forth from his shrine. To show the points of difference at a glance, he summarized the sequence of years from the second chronicle in the manner we find it in the text as reproduced on p. I95. By means of the words iza parakki, "within the shrine,"3 For a further discussion of the ceremonies and offerings which accompanied the Festival of the New Year, see below, Chap. IX. 2 See p. I88 f. 3 It is not likely that the two signs should be rendered as ina Nisanni, " in (the month) Nisan," for the determinative is not omitted before the ideograms for the months in historical chronicles of this period. On the supposition that the signs should be so rendered, the summary could still be explained as referring to the Festival of the New Year. In that case we may take the lines as implying that " in the month Nisan, in the year... I98 THE CELEBRATION which he prefixed to his summary, he noted the fact that Marduk remained within his shrine in Esagila and did not go forth. He intended that the phrase should be understood as repeated at the beginning of each of the following seven lines, in the same way as the name of the king is supposed to be repeated from the line above wherever the end of the line is left blank. If this explanation of the lines be correct, we may conclude that according to the second chronicle the Festival of the New Year was not fully celebrated in the fifth and the fourteenth years of Eulbar-shakin-shum, in the fourth year of Ae-aplu-usur, in the first year and in three other years of the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli, and once in the reign of the king the end of whose name is preserved as [.....-akh]e-iddina. The suggestion that the writer of our tablet had two chronicles before him, which differed in the sequence of years they gave, implies that the records concerning the celebration of the Festival of the New Year during the earlier historical periods were not always consistent with one another. A confirmation of this view may be seen in the religious chronicle No. 35,968, which records that during the reign of Nabumukin-apli, Marduk did not go forth from Esagila in the of such and such a king, the Festival of the New Year was not (or possibly was) fully celebrated." In addition to the absence of the determinative, this rendering has the further objection of ambiguity. Neither of these objections applies to the rendering ina parakki and to the explanation suggested in the text. OF THE FEAST OF THE NEW YEAR. 199 eighth year, in each of the years from the nineteenth to the twenty-ninth, and also probably in the seventh year of his reign.' The record for the beginning and the end of the reign is wanting, but the sequence of years that is given for the intermediate portion does not agree with that upon our tablet, according to which it would appear that Marduk did not go forth from Esagila in only four years, including the first of his reign. Possibly the sequence of years upon the first of the chronicles, which it has been suggested the writer of our tablet had before him, corresponded to that given in the chronicle No. 35,968. The information which we indirectly obtain from these lines with regard to the names of the kings mentioned and the length of their reigns either supports or supplements the facts supplied by other documents concerning them. The mention of the fourteenth year of Eulbar-shakin-shum is not inconsistent with the List of Kings or the Dynastic Chronicle; for according to the former he reigned for seventeen years, and according to the latter for fifteen years.2 But the greatest interest attaches to the name Ae-aplu-usur, for this name has not hitherto been found as that of a Babylonian king. It is true that on the tablet the title Sarrzu, " king," is not written after his name as it is after the names of Eulbar-shakin-shum and Nabui-mukin-apli; but the title 'See below, p. 228, and the translation of No. 35,963 in Vol. II. 2 See above, p. 184, and Vol. II, p. 54. 200 AE-APLU-USUR is omitted elsewhere upon the tabletI after the name of Nabu-shum-ukin, the last king of the eighth dynasty of the Kings' List. Moreover, the name of Ae-aplu-usur occurs in a sequence, and, if he was not a king, it would be hard to explain the mention of his fourth year. We may therefore conclude that he was a Babylonian king, who reigned after Eulbar-shakin-shum and before Nabumukin-apli. Now Nabu-mukin-apli was one of the earlier kings of the eighth dynasty, and may have been its founder. If he was the first king of the dynasty, as is very probable,2 there is only one place for Ae-aplu-usur. He must have been the Elamite who reigned for six years in Babylon, and was reckoned by the native historians as forming by himself the seventh dynasty. His name has not hitherto been recovered, as it is broken upon both the List of Kings and the Dynastic Chronicle. But an examination of the traces of the name upon these two documents reveals evidence in support of this identification. For the beginning and the end of the name are preserved by them, and the traces fit in with the restoration of the name upon both documents as Ae-aplu-usur.3 It is therefore extremely probable that Cf. Rev., 1. 2. 2 For fresh evidence in support of this suggestion, see below, p. 222. 3 On the List of Kings the beginning of the name is preserved as m izu[..... ], proving that its first component was the name of a god, as is the case with the name Ae-aplu-usur. On the Dynastic Chronicle, on the AND HIS DATE. 201 we may identify 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 objection to the proposed identification, for Babylonian influence was strong in Elam from the earliest period. It is also possible that he assumed the name Ae-aplu-usur when he ascended the Babylonian throne. The last name in the lines referring to the Festival of the New Year is broken, and only the end of it is preserved, the traces upon the tablet reading "[.....akh]e-iddina." From the fact that the next section of the chronicle (Rev., 1. I) probably dealt with the reign of Shamash-mudammik, it may be inferred 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 names have not hitherto been recovered. The sequence of years in the four reigns that have been discussed 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 single lines, each of which gives the beginning of a sentence; and it has already been suggested that these formed the first lines of duplicate sections in the two chronicles which the writer may have had before other hand, at the end of the name are preserved the last two wedges of the sign usur, which is the concluding portion of Ae-aplu-usur's name; see Vol. II, p. 55, n. 2. 202 TIGLATH-PILESER IV. him.I The names in the first line may probably be restored from the traces upon the tablet as those of Adad-nirari III, king of Assyria, and Shamashmudammik, the contemporary king of Babylon. According to the " Synchronous History," Shamash-mudammik was defeated by Adad-nirari III, and it is probable that the section in the original chronicles recorded this event. The second line of the reverse gives the opening words of another section, which dealt with the relations of Tiglath-pileser IV,2 king of Assyria, with Naba-shumukin, the last king of the eighth dynasty in the Kings' List. The brief duration of the latter's reign, which is attested by both the Kings' List and the Babylonian Chronicle, renders it unlikely that the section recorded any extensive campaigns conducted by Tiglath-pileser IV against Babylonia. It is, probable, however, that Tiglath-pileser 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 Nabu-shum-ukin had succeeded in placing himself upon the throne. See above, p. I88 f. 2 This king has hitherto been known as Tiglath-pileier III, but he now becomes Tiglath-pileser IV in consequence of the recent discovery of brickinscriptions at SherghAt referring to another king who bore this name. The new Tiglath-pileser was the grandson of Ashur-rabi II, and the son of Ashur-resh-ishi II, and he was the father of Ashur-dan II; see Andrae, Mitteilungen der De2tschen Orient- Gesellschaft, No. 32 (Nov., I906), p. I9 ff. THE FATHER OF MERODACH-BALADAN. 203 The third line upon the reverse, like the tawo preceding ones, gave the opening line of a section, and it contains traces of the end of a name which read " [..... -ap]luiddina." It is probable that, as in the other sections, we have here also to do with a Babylonian king, and in that case the context shows that he must have reigned between Nabu-shum-ukin and Marduk-zakir-shum. The only king with whom he may therefore be identified is Marduk-aplu-iddina, i.e., Merodach-baladan III, whose first occupation of the throne of Babylon lasted from 72I to 710 B.C. The only point of interest resulting from this identification is that the second half of the line gives the name of Merodach-baladan's father as Nabushum-[......], a fact that has not been previously ascertained. In his brick-inscriptions found at Warka, Merodach-baladan is stated to have been " of the dynasty of Erba-Marduk," but the name of his father is not given.I In the account of Merodach-baladan's embassy to Hezekiah, king of Judah, in the Second Book of Kings and in Isaiah, he is described as "the son of Baladan,"2 which does not agree with the statement of the chronicle. But the name Baladan, the equivalent See Cun. Inscr. West. Asia, Vol. I, pl. 5, No. XVII, 1. 6. It may also be noted that Tiglath-pileser IV's description of Merodach-baladan as mar mla-.kt-zi (see Cul Is. West. es Asia, Vol. II, pi. 67, 1. 26) does not refer to his actual parentage but to his nationality, and merely implies that he was a native of Bit-Iakin, a district of Southern Babyldnia. 2 See II Kings, xx, 12; Is., xxxIX, I. 204 THE INTERREGNUM in Babylonian of Aplu-iddina, may well be a corruption of Merodach-baladan's own name. The next two sections of the chronicle' deal with the reign of Marduk-zakir-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-balatsu[ikbi], and we may conjecture with some confidence that he was a pretender whom Marduk-zakir-shum defeated during his brief reign. The preceding section contains the name Marduk-bel-ushe[...],2 and, although it is not stated that he was in opposition to Marduk-zakirshum, he may possibly have been another pretender to the throne. That the writer of the tablet quoted more than one line of this section is to be explained by the fact that the end of the first line only gave the names of Marduk-zakir-shum and his father, and so gave no hint of the subject with which the section dealt. But, as two sections of the chronicle referred to the reign of this king, the writer added the second line of the first section, in order to indicate the nature of its contents and distinguish it from the paragraph that followed. The seventh line of the reverse records an interregnum, during which no king occupied the Babylonian throne. The figure giving the number of years during which the I Rev., 11. 4-6. 2 The end of the name should possibly be restored as ushe[hi], ushe[zib], or ushe[si]. AND THE REIGN OF ERBA-MARDUK. 205 interregnum lasted is not preserved, but there is no doubt that we should identify this period with at least a portion of the interregnum recorded by the Babylonian Chronicle as having followed the capture and deportation to Assyria of Mushezib-Marduk, and the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib in 689 B.C. According to the Babylonian Chronicle the interregnum lasted for eight years,' while the List of Kings assigns these eight years to Sennacherib. There is thus a conflict of evidence with regard to the political condition of Babylonia at this time, but there can be no reasonable doubt that, after the destruction of the capital, the country was in an unsettled state and a prey to internal dissensions. It is probably within this period of eight years that we must place the reign of Erba-Marduk which is described in 11. 8 ff. of the reverse. The chronicle records that Erba-Marduk, the son of Marduk-shakin-shum, grasped the hands of Bel and of the son of Bel in the second year. It has already been noted that the ceremony of grasping the hands of Marduk and Nabu at the Festival of the New Year was carried out every year, when possible, by the reigning Babylonian king; and that the first occasion on which a new king 'On the supposition that Erba-Marduk, and possibly others, occupied the throne in the latter part of the period which is styled an interregnum by the Babylonian Chronicle (as is suggested below), we must assume that a smaller number of years than eight was assigned to the interregnum on our tablet. 206 ERBA-MARDUK performed the right was the equivalent of a coronationceremony, and substantiated his claim to the throne.' From his statement that Erba-Marduk performed this ceremony, it is clear that the compiler of the chronicle believed that he was actually recognized as king in Babylon. The phrase " the second year " probably refers to the second year of Erba-Marduk's reign, and not to the second year of the interregnum, and we may suppose that he did not at first succeed in obtaining recognition of his claims at Babylon. His eventual success he doubtless owed to the benefits which he conferred upon the capital during the troubled period in which he ruled.2 The chronicle relates that certain Aramaeans, who were settled in Shigiitu and Subartu,3 made a raid upon the district of Babylon, and seized and occupied the cultivated lands and gardens which surrounded the cities of Babylon and Borsippa. But they were not left long in undisturbed possession, for, in the words of the chronicle, Erba-Marduk "smote them with the sword See above, p. I96. 2 Erba-Marduk's success against the Aramaeans is recorded in the text after the statement that he grasped the hands of Bel and of the son of Bel, but it probably preceded it in order of time. The two events were related by the writer in the order of the relative importance he attached to them. 3 For the most complete account of the small states or settlements formed from time to time in Mesopotamia and Chaldaea by Aramaeai immigrants, see Streck, Uber die irfeste Geschzichte der Aramaiter, in Klio, Bd. VI, Heft 2 (9go6). AND THE ARAMAEANS. 207 and defeated them, and he took the fields and the gardens from them and he gave them unto the men of Babylon and Borsippa." The chronicle adds that in the same year he set up the throne of Marduk in Esagila, and it implies that he rebuilt that temple and the temple of Ezida in Borsippa. It is clear, therefore, that Erba-Marduk made good, in some measure, the havoc wrought by Sennacherib when he attempted to blot out Babylon by fire and water. Moreover, by re-establishing the worship of Marduk and Nabu, he strengthened his own claim to the throne. He had already secured the gratitude of the citizens by the recovery of their lands; his revival of the national religion, and his grasping of the hands of Bel, raised him from the position of a popular leader to the rank of an established king. It is not clear from the text where Erba-Marduk exercised authority during the first year of his leadership, but from the fourteenth line of the reverse we may infer that from the time of his defeat of the Aramaeans he dwelt in Babylon, and enjoyed the full confidence of the official priesthood. But his influence may not have extended far beyond Borsippa. The fifteenth line of the text probably recorded a further expedition which he undertook, but not enough of the line is preserved to show whether it was directed against external foes, or was undertaken to crush another aspirant to the throne. The latter supposition is not improbable, for the sixteenth line, which gave the opening words of the 208 LAST SECTIONS OF TIIE CHRONICLE. following section, contains the end of a proper name that cannot be assigned to any known ruler. After the interregnum the only occupants of the Babylonian throne before the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire were, so far as we know, Esarhaddon, Shamashshum-ukin, Kandalanu (Ashur-bani-pal), Ashur-etil-ilani, and Sin-shar-ishkun.I It is possible that other kings ruled both in Babylon and Assyria during the closing years of the Assyrian Empire, but it is unlikely that [.....-n]asir should be assigned to this late period. We may with greater probability regard the name as that of another pretender to the throne of Babylon during the eight troubled years from 689 to 68I B.C. He may possibly have succeeded Erba-Marduk in Babylon, or may at least have gained recognition of his claims in some other part of the country. The section which the seventeenth line introduced may have continued the account of the same pretender, or may possibly have recorded the rise of a third aspirant to the throne. Of the remaining two lines upon the tablet each gave the opening line of a section, and each recorded the accession of a king to the throne of Babylon, the first of these being at the same time king of Assyria, but the tablet retains no legible traces of their names. Such is the historical information which it has been On the question of Sin-shar-ishkun's rule in Babylonia, see my paper in the Zeits. fur Assyr., Bd. IX, pp. 396 if. CHARACTER OF THE CHRONICLE. 209 possible to gain from a detailed examination of the contents of the tablet, and it will have been seen that, in spite of the abbreviation of many of the sections, they have furnished us with some new facts of considerable interest. We may now consider briefly the character and class of document from which the text upon the tablet was derived. At the beginning of the chapter it was suggested that the writer of our tablet had before him two chronicles, alike in many sections, but differing in others. It was further surmised that, wishing to note their points of difference, he copied out in full only those sections which were absent from the one copy or were accorded a different treatment upon it, and that, where the sections were practically identical, he merely quoted their opening lines or summarized them. On this theory it will be seen that the tablet represents the text of a single original document, portions of which have been abbreviated. We are therefore justified in treating its text as that of a single chronicle, although some of its sections are not copied out in full. We have seen that the document in its present condition records events ranging from the eleventh to the seventh century B.C., but when complete its text must have comprised a period which began considerably earlier than the eleventh century, and ended under the Neo-Babylonian empire, or possibly in the Persian period. We have already noted that its complete sections bear a strong resemblance P 210 THE SYNCHRONOUS HISTORY in their style and the general nature of their contents to the Babylonian chronicles that are already known. Another document to which it presents some striking parallels is the " Synchronous History" of Babylonia and Assyria. For instance, in the description of the friendly relations which Marduk-shapik-zer-mati established with Ashur-bel-kala the phraseology of the two accounts is very similar'; and it is probable that the contents of other sections were alike.2 On the other hand, in one instance at least the chronicle and the " Synchronous History" preserve variant traditions, for, although they agree in representing Adad-aplu-iddina as a man of humble origin, they differ with regard to his father's name. It is clear, therefore, that the text of our tablet was not derived from that of the chronicle on which the compiler of the "Synchronous History" relied. It belongs, however, to the same class of literature as the Babylonian chronicles that have been recovered, and its statements are equally worthy of acceptance. With regard to the theory which is here put forward to explain the abbreviations in the text, it should be Compare the phrase tuzbtz(tu) uz su-lIn-mu ii n itluti 4A[ur]-bl'k[a-la Sear],nztUA4tur is -kzun of our chronicle (Obv., 1. 6) with the parallel passage in the "Synchronous History" (K. 440Ia, Obv., Col. II, 1. 27 f.), which reads ta-ub-ta su-hl-uznt-a-a ga-am[-ra] it-li a-ha-rmes i;-kt-[izu]. 2 Cf. Obv., 11. 1-3, Rev., 1. I., and the corresponding sections in the Synchronous History." AND THE CHRONICLE. 211 I remarked that it does not in any way concern the credibility of the statements of the document itself. The theory has a purely literary and not a practical interest, and, whether it be right or wrong, it does not affect the historical conclusions which may be drawn from a study of the actual contents of the tablet. 1 2 CHAPTER IX. A BABYLONIAN RELIGIOUS CHRONICLE AND REGISTER OF PORTENTS; AND A POSSIBLE RECORD OF A SOLAR ECLIPSE OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY B.C. THE tablet No. 35,9681 is of a peculiar character, and, so far as I am aware, no precisely similar document has yet been published, though an Assyrian copy of a tablet 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 chronicles, the facts it records are of a religious and not of a historical character. It is true that it does refer to some secular events, but these are recorded, not on their own merits, but solely in relation to their effects upon the performance of certain religious ceremonies. A great part of the text is taken up by a series of portents consisting of the appearance and slaughter of various wild beasts in the city of Babylon or in its immediate neighbourhood. The facts are set See Vol. II, pp. 70 ff., 157 ff. A RELIGIOUS CHRONICLE. 213 forth in considerable detail with regard to locality and date, and there is no doubt that their importance for the chronicler consisted in their religious significance. This is clear from the occurrence beside them of other portents, connected with the appearance of supernatural beings, and with natural phenomena, such as an exceptionally severe thunderstorm and possibly a solar eclipse. It will be obvious that all these remarkable happenings were regarded as signs from heaven, and portended good or evil fortune for the state. But in the chronicle itself no inference is drawn from them. They took place in a bygone age, and had no practical interest for the compiler of the record. Doubtless any expert augur would have had little trouble in recognizing their favourable or unfavourable character, if he had the facts before him. It is to the facts, therefore, that the chronicler confines himself. The text itself was written in the late Babylonian period, like the other chronicles here published for the first time, but the events recorded took place in the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C. The published texts which this chronicle may at first sight call to mind are two astronomical chronicles, compiled in the Seleucid era, and containing certain astronomical observations together with notes on current events of interest. One of these chronicles, No. 92,688, refers to the thirty-eighth year of the Seleucid era (B.C. 274-273), and the other, No. 33,837, to the seventy 214 COMPARISON OF THE CHRONICLE ninth year of the same era (B.C. 233-232).I Both the tablets, in addition to the lunar observations which it was their main object to record,2 add notes from time to time as to the height of water in the Euphrates,3 the current prices of grain, dates, sesame-seed, and wool,4 the state of the weather, the prevalent winds, etc. The first of the two tablets also gives information concerning public affairs, undertakings of a military or official nature, and the state of the country.5 But the briefest comparison of these tablets with the religious chronicle No. 35,968 will suffice to show that their resemblance is but superficial, and that the latter belongs to a totally different class of document. For I The chronicles have been published, under their earlier registration numbers (82-7-4, 137 + 88-4-19, 17 and Rm. IV, 397) by Epping and Strassmaier, Zeits. fir Assyr., VI, pp. 234, 236 and VII, pp. 226ff., 236 if. 2 In their colophons the tablets are given the title massartu sat gii-ni-e, " Observations for the Feasts (of the New Moon)," i.e., lunar observations. 3 Cf. No. 92,688, 1. Iz, and No. 33,837, 11. 2I, 25, 33 f., 38, 52. 4 Cf. No. 92,688, 11. 28 f., 35, 42, and No. 33,837, 11. II, 23, 36, 6I f. 5 Thus the text of No. 92,688 includes notes on military expeditions in Northern Babylonia (1. I ), and the revolt of an Egyptian garrison (1. 32); on journeys of the king and his court (1. 31), and of governors and high officials (1. 36 f.); the arrival of twenty elephants as tribute from Bactria (I. 33); the prevalence of sickness (1. 35), and the occurrence of famine in Northern Babylonia so that people sold their children into slavery (1. 41); the issue of rations of grain in Babylon, Borsippa, and Cuthah, and the collection of flocks and herds, etc., for the sustenance of the royal household (1. 38 f.); the collection of brick and asphalt for the repair of Esagila (1. 40), and the presentation of special offerings to that temple by the governor for the Feast of the New Moon (1. II f.). WITH OTHER TEXTS. 215 in the former the observations are compiled in an astronomical and scientific spirit, and the secular matters to which the texts refer are current events of interest, recorded and set out with as little occult meaning as a paragraph in a modern newspaper. The religious chronicle, on the other hand, refers to events which took place at periods remote from the time at which the tablet was compiled, and its contents, for the most part, belong to the world of augury and the study of signs and portents. Moreover, the references in the text to the celebration of the Feast of the New Year serve to connect it with the historical chronicles of Babylonia,, rather than with the astronomical records of the Seleucid era. Although we do not possess another chronicle of precisely the same character as No. 35,968, an Assyrian tablet from Kuyunjik is inscribed with a number of extracts which were undoubtedly derived from one or more texts of this class.2 The Assyrian tablet is a copy of an older original, and gives a list of forty-seven evil Its phrases are in several passages identical with those employed in the Nabonidus Chronicle (see below, p. 228). It may be noted that similar records with regard to Shamash and Ebabbara occur in the Babylonian Chronicle (Col. II, 1. 41, and Col. IV, 1. 9 f.), in addition to notes concerning the journeys of other deities (Col. III, 11. 2S f., 44-46, and Col. IV, 11. 34-36). 2 The tablet is numbered R. 155; see Boissier, Documents Assyriens relatifs aux presages, I, pp. 267 ff., and Choix de textes relatifs a la divination Assyro-Babylonienne, I, pp. 253 ff. 216 COMPARISON OF THE CHRONICLE portents which preceded " the casting down of Akkad."' It is not clear what conquest 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 foretold the fall of Akkad. In three instances he mentions the month in which a particular event occurred,3 but elsewhere no references to dates are given. In fact his sole object was to enumerate within as small a space as possible the evil portents, which, in his opinion, foretold or were connected with certain misfortunes of Akkad. These he undoubtedly obtained from a study of one or more chronicles, very similar to No. 35,968, and when running through the texts he omitted all extraneous matters and merely jotted down the portents which struck him as significant. The Assyrian text is of considerable value for the study of Babylonian beliefs, but it has little or no historical interest, and it is merely mentioned here as affording evidence of the existence of religious 1The first line of the colophon describes the contents of the tablet as XL VII ittdtiP a-ha-a-ti sa a-na nadg(e) n1i /euAkkadiKI iziziil-ni. It is probable that Akkad is here employed for Northern Babylonia, and not in the vague augural sense of the regions which bounded Babylonia on the north. 2 It may be noted that the single wedge (the determinative of a proper name) is quite clear in 1. I after the phrase [itt]fitil a ia tar-si. 3 Cf. Obv., 11. lo, I7, and 22. WITH A LIST OF PORTENTS. 217 chronicles and registers of portents, very similar to the one discussed in the present chapter. We may note, however, that the portents it enumerates are drawn from a far wider range of phenomena than those of the chronicle No. 35,968. They include an instance of utterance after deaths; the occurrence of monstrosities, human and animal2; cases of incest and unnatural matings of animals3; fruitfulness of the male4; unnatural growths and appearances of date-palms5; strange combinations of inanimate nature6; the fall of buildings and the outbreak of fire.7 ~ I Obv., 1. I, kakkadu nak-su i-si-ih, " a decapitated head cried out"; the verb is i-si-ih, not i-ra-ah (Boissier). 2 Three of the portents consist of a bearded woman with a deformed underlip (Obv., 1. 4), a mare with a horn growing from the left side of the head (Obv., 1. 3), and a four-horned sheep (Obv., 1. 4); for other strange or monstrous births, cf. Obv., 1. 6 (read SE-KUiL, Br. No. 7443 f., for SE-MU), and Rev., 11. I-4. 3 Cases of incest with a mother, sister, daughter, and mother-in-law are mentioned (Obv,, 1. 4), and unnatural matings of a bull with an ass, a fox with a dog, and a (log with a wild-pig (Obv., 1. I5). 4 Cf. Obv., 1. I9, " in Kaldu (S. Babylonia) a male dog brought forth," and Obv., 1. 8, "a male palm in Babylon bore fruit." 5 The portents of this class include the appearance of two trees of totally different species growing from a date-palm (ina lzbbi gisimmari: Rev., 1. 8); a date-palm which bore a horn (gisimmaru kar-nu.a-kin: Rev., 1. Io); another with six heads (g. Ja VI kak[kad&Z...]: Obv., 1. 8); and an unusual appearance of the heads of young date-palms (Obv., 1. 9); cf. also, Obv., 1. lo, and Rev., 1. 7. 6 E.g., the appearance of honey on the soil of Nippur (irsilima(tim) N2ippuriK dis[pe. ]: Obv., 1. 12), and of salt in Babylon (Obv., 1. 20); cf. also Obv., 1. 7, 7 The destruction of beams in the houses of Daban was regarded as a 218 COMPARISON OF THE CHRONICLE No portents drawn from such phenomena occur upon the tablet No. 35,968, but portents of other classes are represented upon both documents. Thus the appearance of wild creatures in Babylon, which forms so large a subject in No. 35,968, may be paralleled in the Assyrian listI; and both documents refer to floods,2 astronomical phenomena,3 and the appearance of evil spirits, or portents, in sacred places.4 Another point of difference portent (Obv., 1. 5), as also outbreaks of fire in the temple-bakery (blt tinu-ri) and elsewhere in Esagila (cf. Obv., 11. 17 and 22), and in the Gate of Ninib (Obv., 1. I8). Mention is made of the appearance in the city of a lion, a jackal, a wild pig from the cane-brake (Obv., 1. I I), and two classes of white birds (Obv., 1. i6). Cf. also Obv., 1. 12, where the text reads UR-KI, not UR-KU (kalbu); the appearance of a dog among the houses (ina bttdti) could never have been regarded as a portent. 2 The flood at Borsippa, when the water came within the walls of Ezida (Rev., 1. 5), may be compared with the flood at Babylon recorded by the chronicle (Col. III, 1. 15). 3 The flight of meteors or falling stars (kakkabdniAl istu sga;(e) izntanakkutz2l-ni: Obv., I. I9) may be compared with the chronicle's possible record of a solar eclipse (see below, pp. 232 ff.). 4 A tmuktl rgs liimtti is recorded in the Assyrian list to have appeared "within the shrine" (ina pa-pa-hi: Obv., 1. i8), at the feast of all the gods at Dir-ilu (Rev, 1. 9), and also in the Bab kuzbu, s" the Gate of Pomp," in Esagila (Rev., 1. I). These appearances may be compared with that of an ilu muki/ rs' limzitti in the sleeping-chamber of Nabui, which is recorded by the chronicle (Col. III, 1. 17 f.). It is of course possible that the sign ilu in the chronicle is merely a determinative, but the reference to the ilu ka-ri-bu, or "favourable deity," in the preceding line (Col. III, 1. i6) seems to indicate that the (ilu) muktl risY limutti in the chronicle at any rate is to be regarded as a malignant presence or personality, and not simply as a phrase for an unfavourable portent; the WITH A LIST OF PORTENTS. 2I9 consists in the fact that while the chronicle, in the main, confines its records to portents which occurred in Babylon, the Assyrian list ranges over a far wider area, and includes occurrences in several other cities.I It is true that in the majority of cases, where no city is mentioned by name, it is implied that the event took place in Babylon itself,2 and it is obvious that these extracts were drawn from chronicles which dealt principally with Babylonian events. But the compiler of the fortyseven portents must have consulted other documents, and he probably owed his information to an exhaustive acquaintance with the augural literature of the period. His text, preserved for us in a late Assyrian copy, thus proves the existence of a large class of religious and augural records, of which the tablet No. 35,968 is the first example that has yet been recovered. We may now pass on to a detailed examination of the new chronicle itself. The whole of the tablet No. 35,968 has not been preserved, but only its upper portion.3 It is inscribed with two columns of writing latter meaning would certainly fit the two passages in the List of portents which mention the appearances in connection with the kanka'nnu, the mystic vase or vessel. E.g., Daban (Obv., 1. 5), Dilbat (Rev., I. 7), Dur-ilu (Rev., 1. 9), Nippur (Obv., 1. 12), Kaldu, or Southern Babylonia (Obv., 1. I9, Rev., 1. Io), and Bit-Albada (Obv., 1. 7). 2 E.g., Obv., 11. II, 12(a), I6, iS, 20(b). 3 The part preserved measures 4 in. in breadth by 3i in. in length. The breadth of the tablet when complete must have been about 5 in., and its length probably not less than 6 in. 220 COLLECTION OF THE DATES on each side, and is probably one of a series of tablets, since the remains of a catch-line exist at the end of the fourth column. It is clearly written, and the characters are carefully formed, but in several places its surface has suffered considerably. Of the first column only the ends of some twenty-five lines are preserved, but from the words that remain it is possible to conclude that this column resembled the two that follow it, and contained records of the same religious character. Of the fourth column also very little is preserved, but the remains of two dates upon it show that its records were in direct continuation of those in the third column of the text. Before classifying and discussing the contents of the chronicle, it will be well to collect the dates which it contains, in order to determine as far as possible the limits of the period with which it deals. In the first column the remains of a date are possibly preserved in 1. I6; but, as only the end of a king's name is given, the question of his identity may be postponed until the dates upon the rest of the document have been enumerated. In the second column no king's name occurs, but we find the following series of dates. In 11. I, 6, 7, and Io we have a number of dates consisting of the IIth of Iyyar, the month Tammuz, the month Ab, and the 25th of Tisri; all these dates belong to the same year, which was mentioned at the end of the first column and is not afterwards repeated. In 11. 12 and 14 we find the I6th of Ab and the 26th of Sivan UPON THE CHRONICLE. 221 mentioned, both of the seventh year, that is to say the seventh year of some Babylonian king, whose name was given in the first column, but unfortunately the name is not repeated in any of the dates preserved in the second column. Similarly the event recorded in 1. 15 is dated in the month Elul of the eleventh year; in 1. I6 the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth years are mentioned, which are probably a mistake of the scribe for the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth years'; and in 11. I9 and 20 portents are recorded on the I5th of Iyyar and the I5th of Sivan of the seventeenth year. In 1. 26 the fourteenth year is mentioned; this probably refers to the same reign as the dates in the rest of the column, but the text is broken, and it is not clear why this year is mentioned out of its proper order. All the dates recorded in the third column fall within the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli, one of the early kings of the eighth dynasty of the Kings' List, and very probably its founder. In 11. 2 and 3 portents are recorded to have taken place in the month Iyyar, probably in one of the first six years of Nabi-mukin-apli's reign; and in 11. 4, 6, and 10 the month Nisan is referred to in his seventh, eighth, and nineteenth years. In 1. I the month Tammuz of the sixteenth year is mentioned; this year occurs out of order because the record for the nineteenth year referred to the same subject as the two that preceded it. In 11. I3 ff. the twentieth and the nine 1 See below, p. 230, n. 2. 222 LENGTH OF THE REIGN following years are mentioned in connection with the same religious observances. Finally, 11. 15 and 19 refer to the twenty-fourth year and to the 2Ist of Sebat in the twenty-sixth year of his reign. The fourth column is very broken, but it is certain that it continued the record of events in Nabu-mukin-apli's reign, for 11. 4 and 5 both contained dates, and both still preserve the end of this king's name. The above series of dates in the reign of Nabu-mukinapli is important for determining 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-six 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 Nabumukin-apli reigned for at least twenty-two years, since his twenty-second year is referred 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-apli with the founder of the dynasty, to whom tradition assigned thirty-six years, has much to be said for it. This view finds additional support in the dates upon our chronicle, from which we may conclude that Nabu-mukin-apli reigned for at least twenty-nine years, and probably longer. Of the dates that are preserved, the twenty-sixth year Brit. Mus., No. 90,835, Col. IV, 1. ii f. OF NABU-MUKIN-APLI. 223 of Nabu-mukin-apli's reign is the latest that is actually mentioned, but other later dates may be inferred. It has been noted that in 1. I4 the nine years are mentioned that followed Nabu-mukin-apli's twentieth year, and there is little doubt that these years fell within his reign; for it was the practice of the Babylonian chroniclers to separate the events of each reign from one another, and, when dealing with one king, not to refer to events which fell within the reign of his successor. Moreover, it is stated that during these nine years " Be went not forth and Nabi went not (to Babylon)," that is to say, the Feast of the New Year was not fully celebrated, and, by inference, the king did not grasp the hands of B61. But this ceremony was performed by each Babylonian king as early as possible in his reign, since it was the equivalent of a coronation-ceremony.I We may therefore legitimately conclude that during these nine years Nabu-mukin-apli was still upon the throne. That he reigned for more than twenty-nine years is probable from the fact that, while his twenty-sixth year is mentioned in the last line of the third column of the chronicle, the whole of the text in the fourth column was also devoted to his reign. The data furnished by the chronicle thus make the probable length of his reign approximate still more nearly to that assigned by the List of Kings to the founder of the dynasty. The series of dates in the second column all probably See above, p. I96. 224 PERIOD COVERED BY THE CHRONICLE. refer to one king, who we know from 11. I9 and 20 reigned for at least seventeen years; and, since the third and fourth columns of the chronicle are devoted to the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli, it is certain that the king of the second column reigned before and not after Nabumukin-apli. Moreover, from the amount of text that is missing it is probable that he was among Nabu-mukinapli's more immediate predecessors. Now the only two kings of the fifth, sixth and seventh dynasties of the Kings' List to whom this description can apply are Eulbar-shakin-shum, the founder of the sixth dynasty, who reigned for seventeen years according to the List of Kings,' and Simmash-shikhu, the founder of the fifth dynasty, who reigned for eighteen years according to the same authority.2 Were the interest attaching to the chronicle entirely of a religious character, it would be unnecessary to concern ourselves further with the identity of the missing king.3 But, in view of the possible reference to a solar eclipse in the fourteenth 1 According to the Dynastic Chronicle he reigned only fifteen years; see above, p. I84, and Vol. If, p. 54. 2 The Dynastic Chronicle assigns him seventeen years; see above, p. I84, and Vol. II, p. 52. 3 If the fourteenth year mentioned in Col. II, 1. 26, of the chronicle does not belong to the same reign as the seventeenth year in 11. I9 and 20, we may refer the dates in the upper part of the column to Simmash-shikhu, and the fourteenth year in 1. 26 to Eulbar.shakin-shum. But if the fourteenth year, as is more probable, is merely mentioned out of order and belongs to the same sequence as the seventeenth year, we may refer all the dates preserved in the second column to the same king. ITS PLACE OF ORIGIN. 225 line of the column, the point is of some importance, and we will return to it later on in the present chapter. The only other line preserved by the tablet which possibly contains a date is 1. i6 of the first column. This line appears to give the end of a king's name as " [....... ]mu-libur."I No king's name with this ending has yet been recovered, so that, if the signs in question are really 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 religious observances and portents that are mentioned concern that city. The references to the Feast of the New Year, with the coming forth of Bel from Esagila, the bringing of Nabu from Borsippa, and the making of offerings in Esagila and the other temples, naturally centre in the capital. The city is mentioned by name in two passages,3 but in the case of most of the portents a particular place in the city is specified, such.as one of its gates or a gate of a temple. Thus we find references to the Gate of Traffic or Commerce,4 the Gate of Ninib,5 and the Gate of The traces before the sign MU upon the tablet show that the restoration [m ilu... -ii]-iia-li-bnr, "[.... -ilia-libur," is impossible. 2 See below, p. 228, n. 3. 3 Col. I, 1. 8, and Col. II, 1. 13. 4 Col. I, 1. 13. 5 Col. II, 11. 7, I9. Q 226 COMPILATION OF THE CHRONICLE. Ishtar which was near the river.' All these were in Babylon,2 and in other passages where "the river" is mentioned3 the reference is clearly to the Euphrates. References to places other than Babylon are few. Once the Tigris is mentioned,4 and once Bit-Ursag is referred to and described as situated in the district of Nippur;5 but the passages are broken and it is not possible to tell in what connection their names occur upon the tablet. The only other city mentioned is Kar-bel-matati,6 and its capture by the Aramaeans is only recorded because it prevented the king from coming to Babylon. We may therefore conclude that the chronicle is peculiarly a Babylonian one, and that it was in the city of Babylon that the events recorded upon it were observed and noted down. This point is also of importance in connection with the possible reference to a solar eclipse, which will be discussed later on in this chapter. As the chronicle is a religious one it is natural that I Col. II, 1. 21. 2 The bdb belia, or "Gate of my Lord," mentioned in Col. III, 1. 3, may possibly have formed a part of the temple of Esagila. The " Gate of Ishtar" is mentioned in the Berlin topographical tablet, which includes lists of the doors, shrines, etc., of Esagila; see Reisner, SumerischBabyionische Hymnen, Anhang, No.V (V. A. Th., 554), Col. II, 1. 8, and cf. Hommel, Grundriss der Geograpkhie und Geschizcite des allen Orients, I. (1904), pp. 323 ff. 3 Col. II, 11. 6, Io, Col. III, 1. I2. 4 Col. I, 1. II 5 Col. I, 1. 14. 6 Col. III, 1. 7. HISTORICAL REFERENCES. 227 but few historical events should be recorded in it, and those that are referred to are mentioned incidentally. The great flood on the Euphrates, when the waters rose to a high point within the city,' was obviously recorded as a portent, and possible references to historical events in the broken text of the first and fourth columns2 must have been made in connection with portents or religious festivals. The only historical records preserved intact upon the tablet occur in the third column, where it is related that the Aramaeans made war in the seventh and eighth years of Nabu-mukin-apli's reign, and in the second of their campaigns against Babylon succeeded in capturing the Ferry-Gate of the city of Kar-belmatati. But these campaigns are recorded, not as of interest in themselves, but as the cause of the king's absence from Babylon at the Festival of the New Year. In the careful record which the chronicle gives of the years in which the Festival of the New Year was not fully celebrated, it bears a striking resemblance to the Nabonidus Chronicle, No. 35,382. In this document the greater part of the records are historical, but a prominent place in the narrative is given to notices of Col. II, 1. 15. 2 E.g., Col. I, 11. 8, 20, Col. IV, 11. 2, 6, 7; cf. also the reference to "men[of the sea] " in Col. II, 1. 27. 3 Col. III, 11. 4, 6 ff.; if the " ditto" sign in 1. Io includes more than the king's absence from Babylon and modifications in the Feast of the New Year, we may conclude that the Aramaeans made war also in Nab't-makln-apli's nineteenth year. Q2 228 THE CHRONICLE the manner in which the New Year's Festival was observed. In the preceding chapter we have noted the political significance which attached to the king's participation in the festival,' and we may here confine ourselves to an examination of the formulae employed in the new religious chronicle with a view to ascertaining what fresh information it supplies.2 Of the eight passages in the chronicle which refer to the Feast of the New Year,3 several merely note that the king did not go up to Babylon in Nisan, that the god Nabu did not go thither, and that Bel went not forth, and the phrases employed are very similar to those used in the Nabonidus Chronicle to indicate the non-observance of the festival.4 Some of the passages, See above, p. 196. 2 For a discussion of the festival and its history, see Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 677 ff. (German edition, Vol. II in progress); Zimmern, in the third edition of Schrader's Die Keilinschriften zind das Alte Testament, II, p. 314 f., and his paper Zzuc babylonischen Nezj/ahrsfest in the Bericht. der Knigl. Si/chs. Gesell. der Wissen., Bd. LVIII, pp. 126 ff.; and Streck, Orient. Lit.-Zeil., I905, No. 9, Col. 375 ff. 3 Cf. Col. II, 11. I-5, I6f., 18, Col. III, 11. 4-6, 6-9, Iof., 13 f., 14f. 4 These occur in the sections dealing with the seventh, ninth, tenth and eleventh years of the reign of Nabonidus, and read: sarru ana arMucNisannu ana (var. a-na) B(biliKi ul zlliku(kt) ilzNablz ana BabiliKi ul illiku({k) iiuBel tl isd(a) i-sin-nzt (var. isinnnu) a-ki-tn ba-til nikWpl itza E-sag-gil i E-zi-da ildniPl gu-ut Bdbilitr u Bar-sip(var. sap)Ki ki sal-mn nadna(na) utri-gal is-rztk-ma bta ip-kid; see Col. II, 11. 5-8, IO-I2, I9-21, 23 ff. The reading of t-sa-a by the new chronicle definitely disproves Hagen's suggested reading of ittasd (Beitr. zur Assyr., II, pp. 218, 220). AND THE FEAST OF NEW YEAR. 229 however, afford us additional information. Thus the first five lines of the second column give us in some detail the procedure which took place when the festival had not been celebrated in consequence of the king's absence from the capital. On this occasion the king arrived on the I Ith day of Iyyar, and he at once proceeded to slaughter the young beasts which had been set apart for the ceremony of the going forth of Bel. The king thus offered in Iyyar the sacrifices which he should have offered at the festival in the preceding month. Similarly, the private offerings which had been received for the New Year's Feast were now offered during four days in Esagil and the other temples. The chronicle also notes the fact that until the day of the offerings, that is to say during the king's absence, the urigallu-priest poured out the libation and administered the temple.I From another passage in the chronicle, which records the non-celebration of the Festival of the New Year in the eighth year of Nabu-mukin-apli, we learn that certain offerings were made on the Eve of the Festival.2 This would seem to mark some departure from the general form of procedure, for the following lines record that, when the same thing occurred in Nabu-mukin-apli's nineteenth year, "the appointed offering"3 was made. With this note of the chronicler compare the last phrase of the fo mulae employed in the Nabonidus Chronicle; see the preceding note. 2 The phrase employed is simSltan sa a-ki-ti; see Col. III, 1. 9. 3 The words of the chronicle are nikii [kMn]u ibsi; see Col. III, 1. I. 230 THE FEAST OF THE NEW YEAR. A third passage of some interest occurs in the second column of the chronicle, where it is stated that for three consecutive years "from the third day of the month Adar until the month Nisan the chariot of Bel went not forth."I The context of the passage seems to imply that on two, if not all three, of these years Bel did go forth during the New Year's Festival,2 so that we must here have a reference to some preliminary ceremonies held during the last month of the old year. Whether the statue of B1e was actually drawn forth and carried in procession during these preliminary rites, or remained within his shrine while his chariot only was led out, it is not possible to determine from the text. From the preceding paragraphs it will have been seen that one of the principal subjects dealt with on the chronicle was the manner in which the Feast of the New Year was observed. If the sentences having reference to this event be omitted, the remainder of the text will be seen to be entirely confined to the record of portents. Though these are of considerable interest for the study of religious beliefs of the Babylonians, they have small value from a historical point of view, and it will suffice here to classify them briefly. The majority are portents derived from the slaughter Col. II, 1. I7. 2 The statement in 1. i8, that Bel went not forth in the fifteenth year, implies that in other years he did go forth. The " three years after the floods" (1. i6) should properly be the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth years, not the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth years. SIGNS AND PORTENTS. 231 of wild beasts in various parts of Babylon, including lions,' jackals,2 a leopard,3 and three deer.4 It will be seen that in the majority of cases the part of the city is carefully stated in which the beast was slain. A portent of a very similar class consisted of tle capture of a dog in what was probably a very sacred area.5 Other portents were taken from the appearance of certain deities, such as the malignant being who was seen in the sleeping-chamber of Nabu,6 probably one of the inner chambers of Ezida. The "favourable deity" at the right side of the door of a shrine, from whom another of the portents was derived, we may conjecture was one of the stone colossi who guarded the entrance to the temple in question.7 One of the portents seems Col. I, 1. I7, Col. III, 11. I ff., and possibly Col. II, 11. 19-23. 2 Col. II, 1. 6, and Col. III, 1. 2. 3 Col. II, 11. 9-II. 4 Col. II, 1. 12 f.; and Col. III, 1. 3 f. Cf. also Col. I, 1. 7. s Col. II, 1. 7 f. Cf. also Col. II, 1. I9 f. 6 Col. III,. I7 f.; see above, p. 218, n. 4. Similar appearances of other deities may have been chronicled in Col. I, 11. 15, 22 and 23; while Sin in Col. I, 1. 2, the Lady of Nineveh (i.e., Ishtar) in Col. I, 1. 6, Tashmetum in Col. 1, 1. 21, and the goddess in Col. I, 1. 9, may perhaps have been mentioned in connection with portents derived from them. 7 Col III, 1. I5 if. The passage appears to say that, as he couched, they captured him, the verb employed being the same as that used for the capture of the dog in Col. II, 1. 7 f. The same phrases are employed in Col. II, 1. 20, and in the translation of that passage in Vol. II, p. 78, it is suggested that the subject of the verb i-du-lu, to which the suffix of i.bar-ru-su also refers, was probably some beast, the name of which has been omitted by mistake. It is scarcely possible that the god Ninib, whose name occurs at the end of 1. 19, is] the subject of i-du-lu (and it may be 232 PORTENTS FROM NATURAL PHENOMENA. to have been connected with an unusual appearance in the flesh of a victim,' while another may possibly have been taken from the fall of a building.2 Among the portents derived from natural phenomena 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 text that has been preserved. One of these is derived from an exceptional thunderstorm,4 and in itself presents no point of interest. But in the other we may perhaps see a reference to an eclipse of the sun, and in view of the importance which such a record, if substantiated, would have for Babylonian chronology, it will be necessary to discuss the passage in question at some length. The portent is recorded in the second column of the chronicle5 in the following words: "On the 26th day of the month Sivan in the seventh year the day was turned to night, and fire in the midst of heaven [.......... ]." noted that abu.i ilzuinib occurs also in Col. II, I. 7); otherwise it might give better sense to take i-bar-.r-z in all three passages (Col. II, 11. 8, 20, and Col. III, 1. I7) as from baril, "to behold," rather than from bdru, '" to capture." But elsewhere in the tablet amdzru is employed for "to behold " (cf. Col. I, 11. 15, 22, 23, and Col. III, 11. 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, I8), so hat it is preferable to render i-bar-rz as suggested in the translation. Col. III, 1. I8. It is probable that the sign uzu should be here taken as Isruz, " flesh," rather than as stru, " omen, portent." 2 Col. II, 1. 25. 3 Col. II, 1. 15; see above, p. 227. 4 Col. III, 1. 19. s See Vol. II, p. 76, Col. II, 1. I4. A POSSIBLE SOLAR ECLIPSE. 233 The end of the line, which contained the verb of the second sentence, is broken, and the following line begins with an entirely different portent for the eleventh year. There are several difficulties attaching to the interpretation 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 outset whether it is probable that the passage does or does not have reference to an eclipse of the sun. It will then be necessary, after considering the identity of the king in whose seventh year the portent is recorded to have taken place, to ascertain the limits within which his reign may probably be dated. Finally, on the supposition that the passage in question does refer to a solar eclipse, it will be necessary to enquire if any eclipse is known to have taken place which would fit in with the data already obtained from an independent study of the chronicle and its contents. It will be noted that the word for an eclipse, atalu, usually expressed by the composite ideogram AN-MI, " heaven-darkness," is not employed in the passage in question,' and only the effect of an eclipse of the sun is recorded in the words " the day was turned to night." It might therefore be urged that the cause of the 1 The solar eclipse of June I5th, 763 B.C., is recorded in the Eponym List in the words i-na arhuSimndnu iluSamas a/ta/(AN.MI) istakan(an), literally, "In the month Sivan Shamash (or the Sun) made a heavendarkness," i.e., the sun was eclipsed (see Cun. Znscr. West. Asia, Vol. II, pl. 52, 1. 7). 234 A POSSIBLE SOLAR ECLIPSE. portent should be traced to atmospheric rather than to astronomical conditions. It is true that an exceptionally severe thunderstorm might have darkened the heavens sufficiently to justify a poet in using the language employed in the chronicle; but the document is not a poetical composition, and in another of the portents, which was undoubtedly caused by a thunderstorm, the chronicler ascribes the phenomenon to the agency of Adad, the Storm-god.I The only other possibility would be to trace the cause of the portent to a dust-storm. But anyone acquainted with Mesopotamia will have vivid recollections of the frequent occasions on which he has experienced the discomfort arising from storms of this nature, and to an inhabitant of the country even a severe dust-storm would have little of novelty about it. In fact, there is small probability that so common an occurrence would have been regarded as a special sign from heaven, and incorporated in a register of portents alongside of such wonderful happenings as the visible appearance of divine beings and the slaughter of wild beasts in the streets of Babylon. We are thus forced to accept the occurrence of a solar eclipse as the most probable explanation of the phrase that the day was turned to night 2 We can well See Vol. II, p. 85, Col. III, 1. I9. 2 Of course the absence of the actual word for an eclipse from the passage in the chronicle renders the objection, that the turning of day into night must have been due to other than astronomical conditions, incapable of DATE OF THE PORTENT. 235 imagine the terror with which a total eclipse of the sun would have been regarded by the ancient Babylonians, and there would be nothing more likely than to find a record of such an event in a chronicle devoted entirely to religious matters and portents of an unusual nature. If therefore it could be shown that an eclipse did actually take place, which with regard to date and line of totality satisfies the conditions attaching to the record, there would be little risk in accepting the astronomical interpretation of the phrase. The next question that arises is the date at which the portent is recorded to have taken place. It is stated upon the tablet to have occurred in the seventh year of a Babylonian king whose name was given in a missing part of the first column of the chronicle. We have already seen that this king reigned before Nabi-mukinapli, that he was probably one of Nabu-mukin-apli's more immediate predecessors, and that his reign lasted for at least seventeen years.' It has also been pointed out that the only two kings who satisfy the above conditions are Simmash-shikhu and Eulbar-shakinshum,2 the founders of the fifth and sixth dynasties of disproof. The question is one of greater or less probability. For a list of other passages in the cuneiform inscriptions which have been interpreted, in some cases on rather slender grounds, as referring to solar or lunar eclipses during the seventh and later centuries, B.C., see Ginzel, Handbuch der mathemnatischen und technischen Chronologie, Bd. I (I906), pp. 134 f. See above, p. 223 f. 2 It should, however, be stated that the end of the second column and 236 DATE OF TIHE PORTENT. the Kings' List, who came to the throne within little more than twenty or twenty-one years of one another.' But while, with the help of the List of Kings and the Dynastic Chronicle, it is possible to fix the period which separated the reigns of these two kings, it is impossible to fix their dates with absolute accuracy in the Babylonian chronological scheme. A large gap occurs in the List of Kings, in the portion of the text occupied 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 its total duration. It thus happens that the available chronological data allow of considerable play in the arrangement of the dates for the dynasties before the gap in the list. To what extent this uncertainty affects the date to be assigned to the portent under discussion may be seen from the following table, which gives the seventh year in the reigns of Simmash-shikhu and of Eulbar-shakin-shum according to the principal schemes of Babylonian chronology published during the last few years.2 the beginning of the third column, which are missing from the chronicle, may possibly have covered a longer period than that separating the reigns of Simmash-shikhu and Nabu-mukin-apli. In that case there are two kings in the preceding dynasty, one of whom reigned for seventeen and the other for twenty-two years, with whom the unknown king of the chronicle might be identified. But, as already stated, the probabilities are in favour of his identification with a king not earlier than Simmash-shikhu. See the table printed on p. 184; cf. also p. I85. 2 See Rost, Mitteil. der Vorderasiat. Gesellschaft (1897), II, p. 26 f., and Orient. Lit.-Zeit., III, No. 6, Col. 216 f.; Sayce, Early Israel, p. 282; DATE OF THE PORTENT. 237 Rost (1897)....,, (1900)... Sayce (I899)... Iommnel (886)...,, (1898)... Winckler (I892),, (1894) Rogers (19).. Delitzsch (1891) Peiser (1891)... Niebuhr (1896). Marquart (1899)... Lehmann-Haupt (1898) I, (1903) The table will suffice............. to 7th year of 7 Simmash-shikhu. B.C. 1105,, 1030,, I089,, 1074,, 1036,, 1073,, 1031,, io68,, 1043,, 1041,, 1030,, 978/7,, 974,, 975 show that, if 7th year of Eulbarshakin-shum. B.C. 1083,, IOI6,, 1068,, 1053,, 1014,, 1053,, (I1I),, 1047,, 1022,, 1020,, 1007,, (956),, 953,, 954 the unknown king be identified with either Simmash-shikhu or Eulbar-shakin-shum, an eclipse of the eleventh century would be more probable than one of the twelfth or of the tenth century B.C. At least, it would agree more nearly with the greater number of the published chronological schemes. Mr. P. H. Cowell of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, who has devoted much time to the study of the recorded solar eclipses of antiquity, in connection Hommel, Geschichze, p. 470 f., and Hastings' Dict. of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 228; Winckler, Altorientalische Forschtunenz, I, p. 132, and Geschichte, p. 99 f.; Rogers, History, I, p. 344 f.; Delitzsch and Miirdter, Geschichte, Ubersicht (p. 265); Peiser, Zeits. fur Assyr., VI, p. 269; Niebuhr, Chronologie, p. 68; Marquart, Philologus, Supplbd. VII, p. 655; and Lehmann-Haupt, Zwei i]auptprobleme, Tab. IV, and Beitrege zur alten Geschichte (Klio), III, pp. 135 ff., 163. Maspero does not attempt to assign dates to the Babylonian kings of this period. 238 ASTRONOMICAL INTERPRETATION with his attempt to ascertain the secular acceleration of the earth's orbital motion, has very kindly interested himself in the passage under discussion. He is of opinion that there is little doubt that the words of the text describe the effects of a total and not a partial eclipse of the sun, and that the "fire in the midst of heaven" refers to the appearance of the sun's corona during the period of totality. We have already seen that the religious chronicle was peculiarly a Babylonian one, and there is evidence that the events recorded in it were observed and noted down in the city of Babylon itself.I It is clear, therefore, that we must seek for an eclipse within the period indicated by the chronicle, which was total at Babylon. The eclipse which Mr. Cowell would identify with the passage in the chronicle is that of July 3Ist, 1063 B.C. It is true that the present tables of the Moon do not make this eclipse total at Babylon, but the corrections to the secular variations of the Moon's mean motion and node, previously deduced by Mr. Cowell from the records of four other ancient eclipses, have the effect of making the eclipse of o063 B.C. total at Babylon.2 The obvious objection to the acceptance of this identification is the equation Sivan 26th July 3Ist. For it would See above, p. 225, 2 See Mr. Cowell's papers in Monthly Notices of R.A.S., Vol. LXV (1905), pp 86i ff., and The Observatory, No. 363 f., pp. 420 ff., 454; cf. also Natlure, Vol. LXXIV (May, I906), p. II ff. OF THE PORTENT. 239 follow from this equation that, although the equinox occurred about April Ist, yet the Babylonians did not begin that year till about May 4th. The only conceivable explanation of this would be that the month beginning about April 4th was an intercalary month. But intercalary months were only inserted to bring the calendar into harmony with the seasons, and the insertion of one in the above circumstances would imply a very inaccurate system of observation in the eleventh century B.c., or the existence of some custom with regard to the insertion of intercalary months at this period of which we have no other evidence or indication. Another eclipse that would admirably suit the requirements of the chronicle with regard to both year and month is that of June 20th, 1070 B.C. In this case the equation Sivan 26th = June 20th presents no point of difficulty, and the year 1070 B.C. would suit equally well the indications of date presented by the chronicle. The only objection to this identification is that the eclipse of June 20th, 1070 B.C. could not have been total at Babylon,I and a partial eclipse could hardly have justified the chronicler's phraseology. The eclipses of May 28th, 117 B.C., and May I8th, I 24 B.C., are rather earlier than the period to which, as we have already seen, it is probable that we must assign the portent under discussion. See Mr. Cowell's paper, Monthly Notices of R.A..5., Vol. LXV (I905), pp. 865, 867. 240 CONCLUSION. Astronomy, therefore, speaks with no certain voice with regard to the eclipse from which the portent may have been derived, the element of uncertainty being largely due to the fact that the king's name is missing in whose seventh year it is recorded to have taken place. In these circumstances we cannot at present make any use of the record for the purposes of Babylonian chronology. If, however, it should happen in the future that the king's name should be recovered, either upon the missing portion of the chronicle, or by means of a duplicate inscription, it might be possible with the aid of the astronomers to use his seventh year as a fixed point in the Babylonian chronological scheme. INDEX. ABuESIU', king of Babylon; traditions in chronicle concerning, 5, 9; his war with Iluma-ilu, 72, 93 f., 147; period of the war, 94, 97 f.; date-formulae of, I6r, I63; length of the reign of, 95, 173; forms of the name of, 72, n. I; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. ABISHI, in chronicle of early kings, 59; see ABASHU'. ABRAHAM, contemporary of Amraphel, 22; methods of deducing date of, 23 f.; interval between his call and the Exodus, 23 ff. ABU I[ABB1A, tablets from, 158 f. AB1YDENUS, referred to, 91. AI)AI, his throne and image made by Hammurabi, 171; his temple at Ashur, 80; portent from, 234. A)ADA-APLU-IDDINA, king of Babylon; his 'origin, 192; variant traditions with regard to his parentage, 2IO; invasion of the Sutu during his reign, 192; the Sun-temple at Sippar wrecked during his reign, 93; his policy affected by the invasion of the Suti, 193; his relations with Ashur-bel-kala, 193; his operations at Dur-ilu, 192; his completion of shrines in honour of Marduk, 192; his successors on the throne, 193. ADAD-NIRA.RI II, king of Assyria; his defeat byShamash-mudammik, 202. A-DARA- KALAMA, king of the Country of the Sea; reading of the name of, 154 f.; variant form of the name of, 96, n. 2; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137 f. ADASI, father of Bel-ibni, 66. ADoNIs, cult of, at Babylon, 64, note. ADUMETASH, Kassite king of Babylon; reading of the name of, I02, n. 3; length of his reign in Kings' List, 102; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137. AE-APLU-USUR, possibly the king of the Seventh Dynasty of the Kings' List, I84 f; his period, 199 f.; traces of his name in the Kings' List and the Dynastic Chronicle, 200 f.; his name, 201; record concerning his celebration of the Feast of the New Year, I95, 197 f. AGADE, reduction in the dates of the early kings of, 17; Sargon besieged in, 43 ff.; spoil of Subartu brought into, 46; improvements carried out by Sargon at, 47 ff.; transport of diorite from Magan to, 52; see also SARGON. AGATHIAS, Babylonian original of his story concerning Beleous and Beletaras, 62 ff. R 242 INDEX. AGUM, Kassite ruler, the son of Bitiliash; traditions concerning, 5, 57, 59; his conquests in the Country of the Sea, 74, IOI, IO8; reason for his conquests, I52 f.; discussion of identification with Agum I, I04 f., I I; discussion of identification with Agum II, I I I f.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137 f. AGUM I, Kassite king of Babylon; length of his reign in Kings' List, 102; discussion of identification with Agurn of the chronicle, 104 f., II I; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137. AGUM II, Kassite king of Babylon; recovered images from the Hittites, 73, 149; extent of dominion of, IO8, 112; titles of, 112; discussion of identification with Agum of the chronicle, I I f.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37. AHA, tomb of, 21. A-IBUR-SHABU, the sacred road in Babylon, I96. AKKAD, in titles of Agum II, 112, n. 2; ravaged by the Sutfi in Adad-aplu-iddina's reign, 193; tablet of portents preceding the fall of, 215 ff. AKKADIAN, name for the Semitic Babylonian language, I8o, n. 3. AKKI, the irrigator, 63. AKUR-UL-ANA, king of the Country of the Sea; reading of the name of, I54 f.; variant form of name of, 96, n. 3; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137 f. ALEXANDER, the Great; Chaldean embassy to, 65, n. I; his reign included in system of Berossus, 91; astronomical observations to the time of, 92. ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR, quoted by Agathias, 63, n. I. ALMAN, ruled by Agum II, I I2,n. 2. ALORUS, in Eusebius, 9I. AMENHETEP III, contemporaries of, 78. AMENHETEP IV, date of, I8 f.; contemporaries of, 78. AMMI-DITANA, king of Babylon; length of reign of, 95; dateformulae of, I6I, I64, 172, 80o; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. AAMI-ZADUGA, king of Babylon; defeated Elamite king, I44; length of reign of, 84, n. 2, 95, 172 f.; date-formulae of, I6I f., 164, I72: in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. AMRAPHEI, his identification with Hammurabi, 22; origin of name of, 22. AN-AM, king of Erech, 71, note. ANU, invoked by Ula-Burariash, 151, n. I; his templeat Ashur, 80. APIL-SIN, king of Babylon; length of reign of, 95; date-formulae of, 160, 162, 177 f., I78; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. APIRAK, its conquest by Naram-Sin, 50 f.; capture of its governor, 51. ARAB DYNASTY, of Berossus, 91. ARAD-SIN, king of Larsa; brother of Rim-Sin, 68, n. 2; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. ARAMAEANS, their wars with Nabuinukin-apli, 227; their capture of Kar-bel-matati, 226 f.; their raid on district of Babylon and Borsippa after 689 B.C., 206; their expulsion by Erba-Marduk, 206 f. ARISTOTLE, 92. ASHIR, in titles of early Assyrian rulers, IIS; upon the Cappadocian tablets, I40. ASHIR-NIRARI I, Assyrian priestking; rebuilt city-wall of Ashur, 141; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I36, 141. INDEX, 243 ASHIR-NIRARI II, Assyrian priestking; father of Ashir-rimnisheshu, 140. ASHIR-RABI, Assyrian priest-king; grandfather of Ashir-rim-nisheshu, 140. ASHIR-RIM-NISHPSHU, Assyrian priest-king; cone of, 140f, ASHNUNNAK, settlement of its people by Agumn II, 112, n, 2. ASHUR, the god, 66; history of his temple at Ashur, 119 ff. ASHUR, the city; freed by Belibni, 66; the temple of Ashur at, I9 ff. ASHUR-BANI-PAL, his date for Kudur-nankhundi's invasion, 12; discussion of the accuracy of his figures, I; library of, 3, 6, 27, 55; see also KANDALANU. ASHUR-BEL-KALA, king of Assyria; new account of his relations with Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, 191; comparison with account in " Synchronous History," 210; his relations with Adad-aplu-iddina, 193. ASHUR-DAN I, king of Assyria; date of, 80. ASHUR-DAN II, king of Assyria; son of the new Tiglath-pileser, 202, n. 2. ASHUR-ETII.-ILANI, his rule in Babylon, 208. ASHUR-RABI II, king of Assyria; grandfather of the new Tiglathpileser, 202, n. 2. ASHUR-RESH-ISHI I, king of Assyria; contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar I, 89. ASHUR-RESH-ISHI II, king of Assyria; father of the new Tiglathpileser, 202, n. 2. ASSYRIA, her history before the rise of Babylon, 135; her early relations to Babylon, 141 if.; table of early rulers of, I36; journey of Marduk shapik-zermati to, 191. AUSHPIA, variant form of the name Ushpia (q.v.), 120, 122. BAB EL-MANDEB, Straits of, 21. BABYLON, improvements carried out by Sargon of Agade at, 47 ff.; plundered by Dungi, king of Ur, 60 f.; her early relations with Assyria, 141 ff.; her early relations with Elam, 143 f.; her relations with the Country of the Sea, 147 f.; the Hittite capture of, I48 ff.; the Kassite occupation of, 73, I37 f., 149 f.; knob of Ula-Burariash found at, 8, 151; table of early kings of, 136; Sennacherib's destruction of, 205; raided by Aramaeans after 689 B.C., 206; in Seleucid era, 214, n. 5; gates in, 225 f.; portents in, 217 ff.; celebration of Feast of the New Year at, 195 f.; chronicle compiled at, 225 f.; tomb of Beiitanas at, 64, note. BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE, date of, 2; new chronicles to be classed with, 6; records of a religious nature in, 215, n. I. BACTRIA, elephants from, 214, n. 5. BALADAN, father of Merodachbaladan III in II Kgs. and Is., 203; possible origin of name, 203 f. BASU, city of, 169. BAVIAN, inscription of Sennacherib at, 79. BRL, invoked by Ula-Burariash, 151, n. I; shrine of, I72, n. 2; lady of, 172; see also ENLIL. BEL NAPKHARI, the title, 194, n. 3; throne dedicated to, 194. BEL-BANI, king of Isin, 68, note. BEL-IBNI, successor of Ura-imitti; traditions in chronicles concerning, 5, 56 f., 58; his story preserved in the history of Agathias, R 2 244 INDEX. 63; Babylonian form of the story, 64 f.; to be identified with Beletaras, 65; probably an early Assyrian king, 66 f.; reading of the name of, 68, note; discussion of identification with Bel-ibni, son of Adasi, 66 f.; his relations to Babylon, 142; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136, I4I. BEIL-IBNI, son of Adasi, 66 f. BEL-IBNI, Babylonian king, 67, n. I. BEL-KABI, father of Shamshi-Adad, 121 f., 140; possible identification with Igur-kapkapu, I27, n. 2; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. BFL-NADIN-APLI, king of Babylon; boundary-stone dated in reign of, 89, I33, n. 3. BFL(?)-SHEMEA, father of AN-AM, 71, note. BELEOUS, story in Agathias concerning, 63 ff.; original Babylonian tradition concerning, 64 f.; to be identified with Ura-imitti, 65; discussion of name, 65 f. B3ELEPHANTES, chief of embassy to Alexander, 65, n. I. BELETARAS, story in Agathias concerning, 63 if.; supposed confusion with Sargon of Agade, 63 f.; original Babylonian tradition concerning, 64 f.; to be identified with Bel-ibni, 65; discussion of name, 65 f. BELITANAS, his tomb at Babylon, 64, note. BELTIS, the lady of Bel, 172. BEROSSUS, problems concerning his system of chronology, 79, 85, 93, 105 f., I o, n. I; the dynasties of, 90 f.; length of his historical period, 9; length of his third dynasty, 93, note; dates of his sixth and seventh dynasties, 92, n. 3; method of harmonizing his system with the Babylonian dynasties, II3 f., 134; probable solution of the problem, 114. BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY, effects of new data upon, 22 ff. BION, quoted by Agathias, 63, n. I. BiT-ALBADA, portent in, 219. BIT-IAKIN, in Southern Balylonia, 203, n. I. BITILIASH, Kassite ruler; traditions concerning, 5; brother of UlamBur(i)ash, 59, 74, IOI, 151 f.; father of Agum, 59, 74, IOI; discussion of identification with Bitiliashi of the Kings' List, Io4f., I I; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37 f. BITILIASHI, Kassite king of Babylon; length of his reign in Kings' List, 102; discussion of identification with "Bitiliash, the Kassite," o04 f., IIT; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37. BiT-URSA(, in district of Nippur, 226. BOGHAZ KOr, site of the Hittite capital, I48, n. I. BORSIPPA, its part in the celebration of the Feast of the New Year, 195; flood at, 218, n. 2; its district raided by Aramaeans after 689 B.C., 206; in the Seleucid era, 214, n. 5. BURN.A-BURARIASH, father of UlaBurariash, 151 f.; variant form of name, 152; possibly a Kassite chief in Elam, 152; possibly Burna-Buriash I, 113; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 152. BURNA-BURIASH, contemporary of Amenhetep IV, I8; interval between him and Hammurabi, 12, n. I, I8 f., 87; effects of new information upon date of, r9. INDEX. 245 CALLISTHENES, referred to, 92. CAMBYSES, his participation in the Feast of the New Year at Babylon, 196, n. I. CAPPADOCIA, Hittite invasion possibly from, 148, n.; tablets from, 140, n 3. CHALDEAN DYNASTY, of Berossus, 9I. CHRONICLE, of Sargon and NaramSin, 27 ff.; analysis of, 31; compared with the " Omens," 33 if. results of the comparison, 53; association of its texts with " Omens," 54 f.; one tablet of a series, 54; concerning other early kings, 54 ff.; continuation of, 56ff. CHRONICLE, new Babylonian, I86 ff.; character of, 209; compared to "Synchronous History," 210. CHRONICLE, new religious, 212 ff.; compared with other texts, 2I3 ff.; dates upon, 220 ff. CHRONICLES, Hebrew Books of, 50, 62. CHRONICLES, as sources of Babylonian history,; historical value of the new chronicles, 4 ff.; credibility of those concerning early kings, 5 if.; confirmation of their statements, 7 f. CHRONOLOGY, systems of Babylonian, 81 ff.; effects of new data upon earlyBabylonian chronology, io ff., upon Egyptian chronology, I8 ff., upon Biblical chronology, 22ff. COMMERCE, Gate of, 225. COUNTRY OF THE SEA, on the shores of the Persian Gulf, IO; traditions concerning early kings of, 57; ruled by the second dynasty of the Kings' List, Io; relations of its kings to Babylon, 70 ff., 135, I45 ff.; table of early kings of, I36f.; encroachments from the Kassites upon, 150; its conquest by the Kassites, 8, 73 f., IoI ff.; its relations with the later Kassites, 153; characteristics of, I53, I55 f.; nationality of the early kings of, 153 ff.; Sumerian survivals in, I56; Simmashshikhu from, 194. CUTHAH, building-operations of Dungi at, 60; in the Seleucid era, 214, n. 5. CYPRUS, alleged occupation by Sargon of Agade, 36; new information on the subject, 37 f. CYRUS, his entrance into Babylon, 196, n. r. DABAN, portent in, 217, n. 7, 219. DAMIK-ILISHU, king of Isin; restored the wall of Isin, 98, n. 2; tablet from Sippar dated in his reign, 99, note, 109. DAMKI-ILISHU, king of the Country of the Sea; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; discussion of name of, I55; tablet wrongly assigned to reign of, 98 f., n. 2, Io9; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136, 138. DATE-FORMULAE, system of time reckoning represented by, I74 ff.; provisional formulae, 175, 178; accession-formulae, 176; unofficial formulae, 177 f.; inconveniences of the system of, I8I f.; abandonment of, 182. DATE-LISTS, of the First Dynasty ofBabylon; lists previouslyknown, 158 f., 6o ff.; new date-list, 159, 16i f.; comparative table of, i62ff. DELTA, of the Nile, 21. DELUGE, kings after the, 90 f. DILBAT, portent in, 219. DILMUN, in the Persian Gulf, 37; conquered by Sargon of Agade, 37. DIODORUS, referred to, 65, n. I. 246 INDEX. DUNGI, traditions in new chronicle concerning, 5, 9, 56, 58; his building-operations, 60; his care for Eridu, 60 f.; his plundering of Babylon and Esagila, 60 if.; interval between him and Sargon of Agade, I6, 61; his period, I68, n. I; his policy, 60 ff.; legend of, 60, n. 2. DOR-EA, in the Country of the Sea; its conquest by Agum, 137, 153. DUR-II.U, operations of Adad-aplu. iddina at, 192; portent in, 218, n. 4, 219. DYNASTIC CHRONICLE, the early dynasties of, 17; restoration of fragments of, 182; compared with Kings' List, 183 ff.; fragment of similar dynastic chronicle, 182 f. DYNASTIES, of the Kings'List, 76ff., 135, I36 f.; of Berossus, go ff.; of Manetho, 20. EA, invoked by Ula-Burariash, 15r, n. I. EA-GAMIL, king of the Country of the Sea, 70, Io7; traditions concerning, 59; his invasion of Elam, 73 f., II1, 150 f.; his defeat by Ulam-Bur(i)ash, 8, 74, IoI, 51; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; discussion of name of, 155; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137 f. EA-MUINX-ZiER, king of Babylon; length of reign of, 184 f. EAST, the Sea in the, 35; name for the Persian Gulf, 37; crossed by Sargon of Agade, 35, 36 ff. EBABBARA, the temple of the Sungod at Sippar, 193; wrecked by the Sutfi in Adad-aplu-iddina's reign, I93; work of Silnmash-' shikhu and Eulbar-shakin-shum at, 193, n. I; its misfortunes under Kashshfi-nadin-akhi, I93, n. I; its restoration by Nabfi-apluiddina, 193, n. I; records concerning in Babylonian Chronicle, 215, n. I. EBISHUMI, see ABiSHU'. ECLIPSE, of the sun in the eleventh century B.C., possible record of, 232 ff. E-GAL-MAKH, the temple of Isin, I67. EGYPT, Semitic elements in culture of, 20 f.; period of early Semitic influence upon, 21; effects of new data upon chronology of, 18ff.; in Seleucid era, 214, n. 5. E-KHARSAG-KURKURA, temple of Ashur at Ashur, 119; its early history according to Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon, I 9 ff. EKURIGIGAL, work of Simmashshikhu in, 194. EKUR-UI-ANA, see AKUR-UL-ANA. ELAM, its conquest by Sargon, 27, 37; relations of Hammurabi with, 165 ff.; its invasion by Ea-gamil, 73f., Ior, I37, 50 f.; in table of early rulers, 136 f. EMUTBAL, its conquest by Hammurabi, 143; new mention of in date-list, I65 f. ENLIL, his temple at Nippur, II, n. i; 6I. ENr ITARZr, patesi of Shirpurla; tablets from the time of, 182, n. I. EPONYM~ LISTS, 3, 233. ERBA-MIAARDUK, ancestor of Merodach-Baladan III, 203. ERBA-MARDUK, king of Babylon, 205 f.; period of reign of, 205; his success against the Aramaeans, 206 f.; restored the worship of Marduk at Babylon, 207; recognition of his claims in Babylon, 206; extent of his authority, 207; possible successor of, 208. ERBA-SIN, father of Simmashshikhu, 194. INDEX. 247 ERECH, building - operations of Dungi at, 60; Kudur-nankhundi's sack of, 12, n. 2; its relation to the Country of the Sea, 71, note; legend concerning an early king of, 6, n. I. ERIDU, " on the shore of the sea," 60; one of the oldest religious centres of the Sumerians, 62; Dungi's care for, 6o ff. ERIS1IU, Assyrian priest-king; rebuilt the temple of Ashur, 120 if.; chronological notices concerning, 121 ff.; see also IRISHU. ESAGILA, under the Semitic kings of Agade, 6; its treasures despoiled by Dungi, king of Ur, 6of.; its sack by the Ilittites, I49; rebuilt by Erba-Marduk after 689.c., 207; repaired in the Seleucid era, 214; outbreak of fire in, 218; New Year rites in, I95 f. ESARIHADDON, descendant of Belibni, 66; his rule in Babylon, 208; chronological notices of, 80, n. 3; find of a prism of, 121; his history of the temple of Ashur, 121 ff.; his account compared to that of Shalmaneser I, 122; discussion of his figures, 123 ff. E-SHAP.A-KALAMA-SHUMU, temple, 196, n. I. ETANA, Babylonian hero, 64, note. EULBAR-SHAKIN-SIHUM, king of Babylon; his efforts to revive the Sun-worship at Sippar, I93, n. I; records concerning his celebration of the Feast of the New Year, 195, I97 f.; length of the reign of, 184, I99; date of, 236 f.; records possibly concerning the reign of, 224; solar eclipse possibly recorded in the reign of, 235 ff. EUPHRATES, in legend of Sargon, 63; references to in religious chronicle, 226; flood on, 227; notes concerning height of water in, 214. EUSEBIUS, Aimenian version of the Chronicles of, 90, 93, note; referred to, 65, n. 2, 9I. EXODUS, date of the, 23 f.; interval between it and the call of Abraham, 23 ff. EXPLANATORY LIST, of royal names, 3, 67, n. I, I54, n. I. EZIDA, rebuilt by Erba-Marduk after 689 B.C., 207; Nabu's sleeping-chamber in, 231; flood in, 218, n. 2. FEAST, of the New Year, records concerning, I95 ff., 215, 227 f.; participation of the king in, I96; ceremonies preliminary to, 230; the Eve of the Festival, 229; manner of celebration when postponed, 229. FEASTS, of the New Moon, 2I4. FIFTH DYNASTY, of Kings' List, length of, 184 f. FIRST DYNASTY, of Babylon; its date considerably reduced, IO; followed by Kassite Dynasty, Io; its period of overlapping with second dynasty of Kings' List, 98 if.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I36 f.; kings of, 95; in the chronological system of Berossus, I 3. GADDASH, to be identified with Gandash, a Kassite king of Babylon, 103; his titles, 103, n. I, Io8; his reference to the conquest of Babylon, I03, n. I; possibly refers to the Hittite capture of Babylon, I49, n. 2. GANDASH, Kassite king of Babylon followed Samsu-ditana upon the throne, 73, IIO; length of his reign in Kings' List, 102; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37. 248 INDEX. GENESIS, fourteenth chapter of, 22. GULKISIIAR, king of the Country of the Sea; reading of name of, 154 f.; length of reign in Kings' List, 96; title borne by, o08; his date according to boundary-stone of Bel-nadin-apli's reign, 89 f., 133 f., n. 3; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137 f. GUTI, land of, II2, n. 2. HAMMURABI, king of Babylon; traditions in chronicle concerning, 5, 9, 57, 58; Nabonidus' estimate of date of, 12, 85, n. I, 132 f.; in published chronological schemes, 86 f.; new information concerning date of, 19 f., 88, 132; reforms of, 65; his early relations to Emutbal, 165; his relations to Isin, I66 f.; his war with RimSin, 68 f., I43; his capture of Ur and Larsa, 69; effect of his victories over Elam, 45; stationed troops in Assyria, 142; length of reign of, 95; references to cities in his Code of Laws, 167, n. I; history of Sippar in his reign, 170; buildings of, 12, n. I, I70 f.; canals cut by, I71; his works of a religious character, 171 f.; his regulation of the calendar, I8I; images of, 171; his closing years, 170; date-formulae of, 9, I6off., 165 ff.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. HAMMURABI-KHEGALLU CANAL, date of construction of, 171. HAMMURABI - NUKHUSH - NISHI CANAL, date of construction of, 171; in date-formula, 165. HEBREW HISTORY, its earliest contact with Babylonia, 22. HEZEKIAH, king of Judah; embassy of Merodach-baladan to, 203. IIITTITES, their invasion of northern Babylonia in the reign of Samsuditana, 57, 59, 72 f., 137, 148; effects of the invasion, 73, I49 f.; their capture of Babylon possibly referred to by Gaddash, 149, n. 2. IBIK-ADAD, captured Rabiku, 169. IBIK-ISIITAR, king of Malgi, J68, n. 2; name possibly to be read as Ibil-Adad, 169, note. IBI-SIN, king of Ur; association of his exploits with omens, 55, n. 2. IGI-KHARSAGGA, fortress of, I71. IGUR-KAPKAPU, 127, n. 2. IKUNUM, Assyrian priest- king; rebuilt the city-wall of Ashur, I4I; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. ILUMA-ILA, see II.UMA-ILU. ILUMA-ILU, king of the Country of the Sea, 70; traditions in chronicle concerning, 5, 59; his war with Samsu-iluna, 70 f., 93 f., I47; his war with Abeshu', 72, 93 f., I47; peiiod of reign of, 94; dates of his campaigns, 97 ff.; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96 f.; discussion of name of, I55; to be identified with Iluma-ila, 7I, note; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136, I38. ILU-SHUMA, Assyrian priest-king, contemporary of Su-abu, king of Babylon, I 6 ff.; traditions in chronicle concerning, 5, 57 f.; his war with Su-abu, 67 f., 141 f.; in inscriptions from Shergft, 9, I8 f.; former misreading of the name of, II8, n. 2: the father of Irishu, II8, I21 f., 140; his identification with Ilu-shutma of the chronicle, I26, I28 f., 131; titles of, 129, n. I; date of, 126, 131; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. INDEX. 249 IRISHU, Assyrian priest-king; son of Ilu-shfima, 121 f.; rebuilt the temple of Ashur, 121 f.; chronological notices concerning, I2I ff., I40; date of, 126, I3I; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. IRISHUM, variant form of the name of Irishu (q.v.), 22. ISAIAH, book of, 203. ISIN, dynasty of, ii f., n. 3, I68, n. I; date of its capture by RimSin, I66 if. ISHKIBAL, king of the Country of the Sea; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; reading of name of, 154 f.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37 f. ISHME- DAGAN, Assyrian priestking; father of Shamshi-Adad, I27; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. ISHME-DAGAN, Assyrian priestking; father of Ashir-nirari I, 141; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136, I41. ISHTAR, aided Sargon of Agade, 3I, 32, 35; appealed to by rebels against Sargon of Agade, 43 f.; her throne and image made by Hammurabi, 171; portent from, 23I, n. 6; Gate of, 225 f. ISRAEL, kings of, 24. ISRAELITES, in Egypt, 2.4. ITTI-ILI-NIBI, king of the Country of the Sea; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; discussion of name of, I55; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I36, I38. IZI-SAMU-ABUM, 116, n. I. IZI-SUMU-ABUM, II6, n. I. JUDAH, kings of, 24. KALDU, portent in, 217, n. 4, 219; possible geographical term for, 192, n. I. KANDALANU, Ashur-bani-pal, his rule in Babylon, 208. KAR-BEL-M1,kTATTI, captured by the Aramaeans, 226, 227. KASALLA, its conquest by Sargon of Agade, 31, 33, 41 f. KASHSHU, in title of Agum II, 112, n. 2. KASHSHiT-NADIN-AKSII, king of Babylon; length of reign of, 184; misfortunes of the Sun-temple at Sippar during the reign of, 193, n. I. KASHTUBILA,Of Kasalla, conquered by Sargon of Agade, 41 f. KASSITE DYNASTY, followed the First Dynasty of Babylon, 1o; date of, 19, 79ff. KASSITES, their incursion in Samsuiluna's reign, 148; their conquest of Babylon, 137, I49 f.; their conquest of the Country of the Sea, 73 f., 101, II3, 137, 151; extent of their authority in southern Babylonia, I52 f.; their system of time-reckoning, 182; table of early rulers of, 136 f. KHANI, in northern Syria, 73. KHATTI, early invasion of Babylonia from, 72, I48; name of the Hittite capital at Boghaz Koi, 148, n. I. KKIA, Assyrian priest-king; rebuilt the city-wall of Ashur, 141; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. KINGS, second Book of, 203. KTESIAS, referred to, 64, note. KUDUR-BIEL, father of ShagaraktiShuriash, 8I. KUDUR-MABUK, Elamite ruler; sons of, 68, n. 2; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37. [KUDUR-NANKHUNDI, Elamite ruler; his invasion of Babylonia, 12; discussion of Ashur-bani-pal's date for, I5. KUYUNJIK, 6, n. 2. 250 INDEX, LARSA, its capture by Hammurabi, 69, 143; referred to in Code of Laws, 167, n. I. LAZ, consort of Nergal, I70; early cultivation of her worship, 170. LEBANON, 39, I80. LISTS OF KINGS, date of, 2; description of, 76 ff.; arrangements of dynasties upon, 13 f.; lengths of early dynasties of, 84 f.; their first and second dynasties partly contemporaneous, Io, 98 f.; their second dynasty ruled only in the Country of the Sea, IO, 107 ff., LUGALANDA, patesi of Shirpurla; tablets from the time of, 182, n. I. LUNAR OBSERVATIONS, tables of, 214 f. MAER, capture of, I68, n. 2. MAGAN, its conquest byNaram-Sin, 8, 51 f.; transport of diorite to Agade from, 52. MAL(A, see MALGIA. MALGI, see MALGIA. MALGIA, in date-formulae of Hammurabi, 127; building of the wall of, I68; sack of, I68; king of, I68 f., n. 2; variant forms of the name of, 168, n. 2. MANETHO, dynasties of, 20. MANI[.. ], lord of Magan; conquered by Naram-Sin, 8, 52; to be identified with Mannu-dannu, 8, 52; restoration of the name of, 52 f. MANNU-DANNU, king of Magan, conquered by Naram-Sin, 8, 5i f.; to be identified with Mani[.. ], lord of Magan, 8, 52; analysis of name of, 52 f. MARDUK, his anger with Sargon of Agade, 50; early importance of his temple at Babylon, 61; destruction of his temple by Dungi, 60; his favour to Bel-ibni, 66; his image carried cff in the Hittite invasion, 73, I49; his image recovered by Agum II, 73, I49; invoked by Ula-Burariash, 15I, n. I; Adad-aplu-iddina's shrines dedicated to, 192; his worship revived at Babylon by Erba-Marduk after 689 B.C., 207; at the Feast of the New Year, I95 f, MARI)UK-BALATSU-[....], possibly an opponent of Mardukzakir-shum, 204; restoration of the name of, 204. MARDUK-BEL-USHE[...], possibly an opponent cf Marduk-zakirshum, 204; restoration of the name of, 204, n. 2. MARDUK-NADIN-AKHE, king of Babylon; his defeat of Tiglathpileser I, 79; section in new chronicle referring to, i89 f. MARDUK-SHAPIK-ZER-MIATI, king of Babylon; his confederation of petty kings, I90 f.; his relations with Ashur-bel-kala, 191, 193, 2IO; his journey to Assyria, I9I; his residence at Sippar, I9I. MIARDUK - ZAKIR- SHUM, king of Babylon; possible opponents of, 204. MEDIAN DYNASTY, of Berossus, 90. MEDITERRANEAN, Sargon of Agade and the, 36 ff. MELAM-KURKURA, king of the Country of the Sea; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; reading of name of, 154 f.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137 f. MELI-SHIKHU II, Kassite king of Babylon; his relations to the Country of the Sea, 153. MERNEPTAH, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, 24; his date, 24. MERODACIH-BALADAN III, name of the father of, 203 f. MOERBEKA, referred to, 92. MOSES, length of the interval between him and Abraham, 25. INDEX. 25I MUSHEZIB-MARDUK, king of Babylon; his deportation to Assyria, 205. NABONASSAR, date of, 79; death of, 202; his position in the scheme of Berossus, 92, n. 3. NABONIDUS, his date for NaramnSin, II, 15 ff.; his date for Hammurabi, 12 ff., 85, n. I, 87 f., 132 f.; his date for ShagaraktiBuriash, 8I; chronicle concerning, 2, 196 f., 215, n. I, 227 f. NAB0, his throne made ly Hammurabi, 171; his favour to Belibni, 66; his worship revived at Borsippa by Erba-Marduk after 689 B.c.,'207; portent in sleepingchamber of, 218, n. 4, 231; at the Feast of the New Year, I95 f. NABU.APLJ-IDDINA, king of Babylon; his record of the invasion of the Sutu, 193; his revival of the Sun-worship at Sippar, 193, n. I; records concerning his celebration of the Feast of the New Year, 195, 197 ff. NABCr-MUKiN-APLI, king of Babylon; dates in his reign upon religious chronicle, 221 ff.; length of reign of, 222 f.; his position in Kings' List, 222 f.; his war with the Aramaeans, 227. NABU-SHUM-UKiN, king of Babylon; his relations to Tiglath. pileser IV, 202. NABU-SHUM-[..... ], probably the father of Merodach-baladan III, 203 f. NAKADA, 21. NANA, image of, I2, n. 2. NANNAR, throne of, I71. NARAM-SIN, king of Agade; traditions in chronicle concerning, 5, 8 f., 28 ff., 56; expeditions of, 58; his conquest of Apirak, 31, 33, 50 f.; his conquest of Magan, 31, 33, 51 f-; association of his exploits with omens, 54 f.; his date according to Nabonidus, II, n. 2.; reduction in the date of, I5 ff.; finding of his statue at Susa, 8. NEBUCHADNEZZAR I, date of, 89; interval between him and Gulkishar, 89. NERGAL, early worship of his consort, 170. NEW YEAR, see FEAST. NIFFER, see NIPPUR. NINEVEH, 27; Lady of, 231, n. 6. INIIB, Gate of, 218, 225. NINIB-KUDURRI-USU R, king of Babylon; length of reign of, 184. NINMAKH, invoked by Ula-Burariash, I5I, n. I. NINUS, in history of Agathias, 63. NIPPUR, first settlements in, II, n. I; building - operations of Dungi at, 6o; its temple rivalled by Esagila, 61; Bit-Ursag within the district of, 226; portent in, 217, n. 6, 219; find of early documents at, 45. OMENS, their association with the deeds of early kings, 54 f.; of Sargon and Naram-Sin, 27 ff.; Neo-Babylonian version of the "Omens," 28 ff.; augural parts of, 29 f.; analysis of the historical parts of, 32 f.; comparison of the "Omens" with the chronicle, 33 ff.; results of the comparison, 53 -PADAN, in title of Agum II, 112, n. 2. PALESTINE, Sargon of Agade in, 36; in the fifteenth century B.C., 24. PENTATEUCH, chronology of the, 23 ff. 252 INDEX. PERSIAN GULF, in relation to the Country of the Sea, o; crossed by Sargon of Agade, 37 f.; Samsuiluna's campaigns on, 7I. PESHGAL-DARAMASH, king of the Country of the Sea; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; reading of name of, 154 f.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37 f. PHARAOH, of the oppression, 24; of the Exodus, 24. PITHOM, city of, 24. PORPHYRIUS, referred to, 92. PORTENTS, preceding the fall of Akkad, 215 ff.; in religious chronicle, 230 ff. PRIESTLY WRITER, of Genesis, 22. PTO.EMAIC CANON, 2, 92 f., n. 3. RAAMISES, city of, 24. RABIKU, capture of, 169. RAMSES II, the Pharaoh of the oppression, 24. RED SEA, littoral of the, 21. RIMa-SIN, king of Larsa; traditions in chronicle concerning, 58 f.; succeeded Arad-Sin, 68; late of his capture of Isin, 166 ff.; his defeat by Hlammurabi, 9, 68 f., 143 f.; his final defeat by Samsu. iluna, 69, 144; period of his activity in Babylonia, I67; date of his death, I70; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I36. RISH-ADAD, king of Apirak; his conquest hy Naram-Sin, 51. SADI, Elamite king; his name possibly Taki, I44; defeated by Ammi-zaduga, I44. SAMARITAN VERSION, of the Pentateuch, chronology of, 23 f. SAMSU-DITANA, king of Babylon; tradition in chronicle concerning, 5, 59; invasion of the Hittites in the reign of, 57, 72f., 148 f.; result of the invasion, 73, 1Io, 149 f.; his successor, 73, I10; length of the reign of, 95; dateformulae of, I8o; variant form of the name of, 72, n. 2; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137. SAMSU-ILUNA, king of Babylon; traditions in chronicle concerning, 5, 9, 59; his defeat of Rim-Sin, 69, 144, I70; his war with Ilumailu, 70 f., 93 f, 97 f., r47; Kassite incursion during the reign of, 148; length of reign of, 95; dateformulae of, 60o ff., 170, 172, I80; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. SAMU, see SUMIU. SAMU-LA-ILU, see SUMU-LA-ILU. SARGON, king of Agade; traditions in chronicle concerning, 5 f., 9, 56, 58; legends of, 6, n. 2; omens of, 27 ff.; new chronicle concerning the deeds of, 28 ff.; favoured by Ishtar, 31 f., 35, 63; crossed the Sea in the East, 31; his conquest of Elam, 32, 37; his despoiling of the Country of the Sea, 32; his conquest of Dilmun, 37; his conquest of the Country of the West, 31 f., 36, 38 f.; his images on the Mediterranean coast, 31 f., 36, 38 f.; his supposed crossing to Cyprus, 36 ff.; his expedition against Kasalla, 31, 33, 41 f.; his expedition against Subartu, 31, 33, 45 if.; revolt against, 31, 33, 43 ff.; insecurity of his empire, 45; his work on Babylon and Agade, 31 f., 47 ff.; his enlargement of his palace, 33; his settlement of " the sons of his palace," 31, 40; troubles of his closing years, 3I, 49 f.; association of his exploits with omens, 54 f.; supposed reference to his story in Agathias, 63; his date on figures of Nabonidus, II, 15 f.; reduction in date of, 17. SARPANITUM, her throne made by Hammurabi, 171; her image INDEX. 253 carried off during the Hittite invasion, 73, 149; her image recovered by Agum II, 73, I49. SEA, see COUNTRY OF THE. SECONI) DYNASTY, of Kings' List; its period of overlapping with First Dynasty, 98 ff.; relation to Kassite Dynasty, 100 ff., 112 ff.; did not rule at Babylon, 107 ff:, 131; discussion of length of, IIi, 138; title of, 70 f., n. I, I35; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136 f. SELEUCID ERA, chronicles of the, 213 ff. SEMrIRA.MIS, in history of Agathias, 63. SENNACI1ERIB, crossed the Persian Gulf, 37; his conquests of Babylon, 125, 205; his estimate of date of Tiglath-pileser I, 79; emendations of his figures, 80, n. 3. SEPTUAGINT, 23 f. SEVENTH DYNASTY, of Kings' List; name of king of, 184 f. SHAGARAKTI - BURIASH, his date according to Nabonidus, 81; to be identified with ShagaraktiShuriash, 8I. SHALIMANESER I, finding of building-inscriptions of, I 9; rebuilt the temple of Ashur, 120; chronological notices of, 80, n. 3; his history of the temple of Ashur, I19 ff.; comparison of his account with that of Esarhaddon, 122; discussion of figures of, 123 if., 131; date of, 125 f. SHAMASH, his favour to Bel-ibni, 66; rebuilding of his temple Ebabbara by Hammurabi, 133; later history of his temple, I, n. 2; records in Babylonian Chronicle concerning, 215, n. I. SHIAMASIt-DITANA, see SAMSUI)ITANA. SHAMASH - MUDAMMIK, king of Babylon; his defeat by Adadnirari III, 202. SH \.ASH-SHU.l-U KIsN, his rule in Babylon, 208. SIIAMSHI-ADA), Assyrian priestking, son of Bel-kabi, 121 f.; rebuilt the temple of Ashur, I20 ff; chronological notes concerning, 121 ff., 140; possibly Hammurabi's contempoary, 126 if.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. SIIAMISHI-ADAD, Assyrian priestking, son of Islme-Dagan, I27; date of, 127; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. SHAR- KEN KATE-ASHIR, Assyrian priest-king; rebuilt city-wall of Ashir, I4I; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136, I41. SHERGA, 5, 9, 118, 202, n. 2. SHIGILTU, Aramaeans in, 206. SHILANUM-SHUK.AMUNA, king of Babylon; length of reign of, I84. SHIRPURLA, 60. SHUSHSHI, king of the Country of the Sea; length of his reign in Kings' List, 96; reading of name of, I54 f.; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137 f. SIMMASH-SH'IKHU, king of Baby. lon; son of Erba-Sin, 194; from the Country of the Sea, I94; constructed throne in Ekurigigal, I94; his efforts to revive the Sunworship at Sippar, 193, n. I; events in religious chronicle possibly in reign of, 224; sJlar eclipse possibly recorded in the reign of, 235 if.; death of, I94; length of reign of, I84; date of, 236 f. SIMPLICIUS, commentary of, 92. SIN, portent from, 231, n. 6. SIN-GAMIL, king of Erech, 71, note. SIN-IRIBAM, early Babylonian prince or king, I69, note. 254 INDEX. SINJIRLI, 66. SIN-MUBALLIT, king of Babylon; date-formulae of, I6o, 163; the taking of Isin in his seventeenth year, 166 ff.; length of reign of, 95; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. SIN SHAR-ISIIKUN, king of Assyria; his rule in Babylon, 208. SIPPAR, building-operations of Naram-Sin at, I I, n. 2; in Hammurabi's reign, 170; Mardukshapik - zer- mati's residence at, 191; building-operations of Nabonidus at, 8I. SIXTH DYNASTY, of Kings' List, length of, 184. SOLAR ECLIPSE, possible record of a, 232 ff. SOLOMON, date of, 23 f. SOUTHERN BABYLONIA, racial elements in, 154 ff.; extent of Kassite authority in, 152 ff. Su, god, contraction from Sumu, 116 f.; as component in proper names, 117, n. I. SU-ABU, king of Babylon; tradition in chronicle concerning, 5, 57, 58, i i6 ff.; his war with Ilu-shuma, 67 f.; period of his conflict with Assyria, I42, n. I; forms of the name of, 9, 16 f.; date-formulae of, I60, 162, 178; length of the reign of, 95; date of, 109 f., 129, 131; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. SUBARTU, its conquest by Sargon of Agade, 45 ff.; Aramaeans in, 206. SUEZ, Isthmus of, 21. SUMER, not included in the dominions of Agum II, I12; ravaged by the Suta in Adad-aplu-iddina's reign, 193. SUMERIANS, date of their earliest remains, I I, 17 f.; their system of time reckoning,2, I81; their exact chronology inherited by the Babylonians, I; Sumerian reaction under the Dynasty of Ur, 61; their survival in the Country of the Sea, 155 f. SUMU, god; forms of the name of, I16 f.; as component in proper names, 117, n. I. SUMU-ABI, see SU-ABU. SUMU-ABU, see SU-ABU. SUMU-ILU, king of Ur, 117, n. I. SUMIU-LA-ILU, king of Babylon; variant forms of the name of, 116, n. I; meaning of, 117, n. I; date-forniulae of, I6o, 162, 178; length of his reign, 95; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136. SUN-GOD TABLET, refers to the invasion of the Sutu, 193. SUSA, 8, 12, n. 2, 45, 52, 60. SUTU, their invasion of Sumer and Akkad in Adad - aplu - iddina's reign and its effects, I92 f.; their wrecking of the Sun-temple at Sippar, 193; their connection with the Aramaeans, 193. SYNCELLUS, referred to, 66, note, 90, n. I. SYNCHRONOUS HISTORY, of Babylonia and Assyria, 3, 79 f., 89, 210. SYRIA, 73. TAKI, see SADI. TAIMMUZ, cult of, at Babylon, 64, note. TASHMETUM, portent from, 231. n. 6. TASHRiTU, month, meaning ofname of, 179. INDEX. 255 TELL EL-AMARNA, letters from, 18, 79. TELL SIFR, tablets from, I66, n. I. TELLO, 45. THIRD DYNASTY, of Kings' List; its relation to the second dynasty, Ioo ff.; list of early kings of, 102; title of, 135; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137. TIGLATH-PILESER I, section in new chronicle referring to, 189 f.; date of, 79. TIGLATH-PILESER (II or III), new Assyrian king of this name, his genealogy, 202, n. 2. TIGIATH- PILESER IV, formerly known as Tiglath-pileser III, 202, n. 2; his relations to Nabcshum-ukin, 202; his description of Merodach-baladan III, 203, n. I. TIGRIS, 226, TUKULTI-NINIB I, king of Assyria, date of, 125 f. ULA-BuRARIASH, Kassite king of the Country of the Sea; his knob from Babylon, 8, 151 f.; to be identified with Ulam-Bur(i)ash, 152. ULAM-BUR(I)ASH, Kassite king of the Country of the Sea; traditions in chronicle concerning, 5, 59; defeated Ea-gamil, 74, loI, 51; his conquest of the Country of the Sea, 74, 01o, 107 f., 151; ruled in the Country of the Sea, I51; his relations to Babylon, 151; to be identified with Ula-Burariash, 8, 152; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 137. UMU-KI, city of, 169. UR, date of the Dynasty of, 6I, I68, n. I; dynastic tablet referring to the Dynasty of, II f., n. 3; building-operations of Dungi at, 60; its capture by Hammurabi, 69, 143; in Hammurabi's Code of Laws, 167, n. I. URA, the Plague-god, 66, note. URA-IMITTI, traditions in chronicles concerning, 5, 56 f., 58; his story preserved in the history of Agathias, 63; Babylonian form of the story, 64; to be identified with Beleous, 65; probably an early Assyrian king, 66 f., 68, note; in table of contemporaneous rulers, 136, I41. UR-ENGUR, founder of the Dynasty of Ur, 61; father of Dungi, 9, 6; interval between him and Sargon of Agade, 16; date of his accession, I68, n. I. URSHIGURUMIASTI, father of Agum II, 102, n. 4, I2; to be identified with Urzigurmash (q.v.), 102, n. 4. URUKAGINA, king of Shirpurla; tablets from the time of, I82, URZIGURMASH, Kassite king of Babylon; length of his reign in Kings' List, 102; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37. USHPIA, Assyrian priest - king; founded the temple of Ashur, 120 ff., 140; in table of contem. poraneous rulers, 136. USHSHI, Kassite king of Babylon; length of his reign in Kings' List, 102; reading of the name of, 102, n. 2; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I37. WADi I HAMA.MAT, 21. WARKA, brick-inscriptions from, 203. 256 INDEX. WEST, Country of the, 31, 32, 36. WEST, Sea of the (the Mediterranean), '35; not crossed by Sargon of Agade, 36 if. XERXES, 64, note. YEAR, the naming of the, 179 ff.; publication of the title of the, 18o f. ZABUM, king of Babylon; dateformulae of, I60, I62, 177 f.; length of reign of, 95; in table of contemporaneous rulers, I36. ZAMAMA-SHUM-IDDINA, king of Babylon, 8o. [..... -AKN]P-IDDINA, probably a king of Babylon, 201; record concerning his celebration of the Feast of the New Year, 195, I98. [.....]MU-LIBUR, possibly the name of a Babylonian king, 225. [..... ]-NASIR, possibly a pretender to the Babylonian throne, 208. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN DATE DUE hALI 15 ft - ON - re - G.'s a &-&I L -- -- - - -.1 4.-Jran. I SEP 22 1988 Lfl UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN l^ 11111 1 1 1 1 1 ii iilllll lllll lll llI[ fll i lIl l Il ill i i1 IIll II 3 9015 00484 5973 4 'Filmedby JUL 1 9 2001 Preservation I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i m 0