Chapter III (2)

Incidentally it may be noted that this date has been harmonized with the figure assigned in the margin of some manuscripts as representing the length of tin third dynasty of Berossus. It has usually been held that his sixth dynasty ended with the predecessor of Nabonassar upon the throne of Babylon, and that the following or seventh dynasty would have begun in 747 B.C. But it has been pointed out that, after enumerating the dynasties II.-VI., Eusebius goes on to say that after these rulers came a king of the Chaldeans whose name was Phulus[71]; and this phrase has been explained as indicating that the sixth dynasty of Berossus ended at the same point as the Ninth Babylonian Dynasty, in 732 B.C., that is to say, with the reign of Nabû-shum-ukîn, the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser IV., whose original name of Pulu is preserved in the Babylonian List of Kings. Thus the seventh dynasty of Berossus would have begun with the reign of the usurper Ukîn-zêr, who was also the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser.[72] On this supposition the figure "forty-eight," which occurs in the margin of certain manuscripts of the Armenian version of Eusebius,[73] may be retained for the number of years assigned by Berossus to his third dynasty.[74] A further confirmation of the date 2232 B.C. for the beginning of the historical period of Berossus has been found in a statement derived from Porphyrins, to the effect that, according to Callisthenes, the Babylonian records of astronomical observations extended over a period of 1903 years down to the time of Alexander of Macedon.[75] Assuming that the reading 1903 is correct, the observations would have extended back to 2233 B.C., a date differing by only one year from that obtained for the beginning of Berossus' historical dynasties.

Thus there are ample grounds for regarding the date 2232 B.C. as representing the beginning of the historical period in the chronological system of Berossus;[76] and we have already noted that in a late Babylonian historian, writing during the Hellenistic period, we should expect the beginning of his history, in the stricter sense of the term, to coincide with the first recorded dynasty of Babylon, as distinct from rulers of other and earlier city-states. It will be observed that this date is only seven years out with that obtained astronomically by Dr. Kugler for the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Now the astronomical demonstration relates only to the reign of Ammi-zaduga, who was the tenth king of the First Dynasty; and to obtain the date 2225 B.C. for Sumu-abum's accession, reliance is naturally placed on figures for the intermediate reigns which are supplied by the contemporaneous date-lists. But the Babylonian Kings' List gives figures which were current in the Neo-Babylonian period; and, by employing it in place of contemporaneous records, we obtain the date 2229 B.C. for Sumu-abum's accession, which presents a discrepancy of only three years to that deduced from Berossus. In view of the slight inconsistencies with the Kings' List which we find in at least one of the late chronicles, it is clear that the native historians, who compiled their records during the later periods, found a number of small variations in the chronological material on which they had to rely. While there was probably agreement on the general lines of the later chronology, the traditional length of some reigns and dynasties might vary in different documents by a few years. We may conclude therefore that the evidence of Berossus, so far as it can be reconstituted from the summaries preserved in other works, may be harmonized with the date obtained independently for the First Dynasty of Babylon.

The new information, which has been discussed in this chapter, has enabled us to carry further than was previously possible the process of reconstructing the chronology; and we have at last been able to connect the earlier epochs in the country's history with those which followed the rise of Babylon to power. On the one hand we have obtained definite proof of the overlapping of further dynasties with that of the West Semitic kings of Babylon. On the other hand, the consequent reduction in date is more than compensated by new evidence pointing to the probability of a period of independent rule in Babylonia on the part of some of the Sea-Country kings. The general effect of the new discoveries is thus of no revolutionary character. It has resulted, rather, in local rearrangements, which to a considerable extent are found to counterbalance one another in their relation to the chronological scheme as a whole. Perhaps the most valuable result of the regrouping is that we are furnished with the material for a more detailed picture of the gradual rise of Babylon to power. We shall see that the coming of the Western Semites effected other cities than Babylon, and that the triumph of the invaders marked only the closing stage of a long and varied struggle.

[Footnote 1: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 64.]

[Footnote 2: The new discoveries, in their general effect, do not involve any drastic changes in the accepted chronological scheme, as the local rearrangements largely counterbalance one another; see below, p. 117 f.]

[Footnote 3: Cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III., pp. lxviii, 236 f.]

[Footnote 4: See "Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings," I., p. 68 f.; 11., p. 17 f.]

[Footnote 5: Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Inscriptions de Sumener et d'Akkad," p. 300, n. 3; and "Sum. und Akkad. Königsinschriften," p. 210 f., note _k._]

[Footnote 6: Cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III., pp. xxvi ff.]

[Footnote 7: Their votive inscriptions are collected by Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," pp. 206 ff.]

[Footnote 8: Knowing that I was engaged upon this volume of my History and that it would probably be printed off before his own work left the press, Professor Clay very kindly sent me a transcript of his Larsa Kings' List with full permission to make use of it. To enable the reader to follow the argument with regard to the dynasty and its chronology, the following transliteration and rendering may be given of the text: "21 MU Na-ap-la-nu-um | 28 MU E-mi-su I 35 MU Sa-mn-um | 9 MU Za-ba-aia | 27 MU Gu-un-gu-nu-um | 11 MU A-bi-sa-ri-e | 29 MU Su-mu-ilum | 16 MU Nu-ur-(ilu)Adad | 7 (?) MU (ilu)Sin-idin-nam | 2 MU (ilu)Sin-i-ri-ba-am | 6(?) MU(ilu)Sin-i-ki-sha-am | 1 MU Sili(li)-(ilu)Adad | 12 MU Warad-(ilu)Sin | 61 MU (ilu)Ri-im-(ilu)Sin | 12 (?) MU (ilu)Ha-am-mu-ra-bi | 12 MU Sa-am-su-i-lu-na sharru | 289 MU-III." In the translation that follows, a semicolon separates each line of the text: "21 years Naplanum; 28 years Emisa; 35 years Samum; 9 years Zabâia; 27 years Gungunum; 11 years Abi-sarê; 29 years Sumu-ilum; 10 years Nûr-Adad; 7(?) years Sin-idinnam; 2 years Sin-iribam; 6(?) years Sin-iḳîsham; 1 year Sili-Adad; 12 years Warad-Sin; 61 years Rîm-Sin; 12(?) years Hammurabi; 12 years Samsu-iluna, the king; 289 the years thereof." From the insertion of the word _sharru,_ "king," after Samsu-iluna's name, we may infer that the list is a contemporaneous document, drawn up in Samsu-iluna's twelfth year. Another point of interest is that the scribe has written the determinative for divinity before the names of Rîm-Sin and Hammurabi, but not before that of Samsu-iluna. The numbers followed by a query are those suggested by Professor Clay for the three broken passages; it will be noted that they make up the total of the figures, which is given by the scribe as two hundred and eighty-nine years.]

[Footnote 9: See above, p. 88.]

[Footnote 10: See further, p. 98 f.]

[Footnote 11: It should be noted that the name of the Babylonian city now usually rendered as Isin should be more correctly read as Nîsin. This is suggested by two forms of the name, which Prof. Clay tells me occur on two tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection, Nos. 5415 and 5417; in the date-formulæ upon these tablets the city's name is written as _Ni-i-si-in_ (KI) and _Ni-i-si-in-na_ (KI). Eventually the initial was dropped; cf. p. 254, n. 2.]

[Footnote 12: Cf. "Chronicles," I., p. 168, n. 1.]

[Footnote 13: Cf. Hilprecht, "Mathematical, Metrological and Chronological Tablets" (in "Bab. Exped.," Ser. A., Vol. X., i.), p. 55, n. 1.]

[Footnote 14: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," pp. 63, 313 f.]

[Footnote 15: The identification of Rîm-Sin's capture of Nîsin with that referred to in Sin-muballit's seventeenth year was first suggested in "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 228, n. 39, and it was adopted for purposes of chronology,'by Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tabl.," p. 50, note; Meyer, "Geschichte," I., ii., pp. 345, 556; Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, Col. 66, and "Z.D.M.G.," LVI., p. 714, and others. Langdon has recently sought to identify Rîm-Sin's capture with that referred to in the formula for Hammurabi's seventh year; see "The Expositor," 1910, p. 131, and "Babyloniaca," 1914, p. 41, and cf. Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents," p. 24 f. For Chiera's own researches on the point, see below, p. 93 f.]

[Footnote 16: Cf. Edward Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents from Nippur chiefly from the Dynasties of Isin and Larsa" (in "University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Babylonian Section," Vol. VIII., No. 1), pp. 19 ff.]

[Footnote 17: _Op. cit.,_ p. 22.]

[Footnote 18: Cf. Chiera, _op. cit.,_ pl. ix., No. 15, 11. 27 ff.; pl. xxiii., No. 35, 11. 20 ff.; and p. 21, No. 26.]

[Footnote 19: _Op. cit.,_ pl. vii., No. 12, 11. 29, 35 f.; pl. xxxv., No. 81, 11. 2, 23 ff.; and p. 20, No. 6.]

[Footnote 20: Professor Clay has written to inform me that on the two tablets Y.B.C., Nos. 4229 and 4270, the usual formula for the second year of the Nîsin era is followed by the words _shag mu ki XVIII-kam,_ which may be rendered "within the eighteenth year," _i.e._ corresponding to the eighteenth year. On one tablet the addition to the usual date takes the form _shag mu ki XVIII-kam in-ag (?),_ but Prof. Clay is not quite certain of the reading of the sign _ag,_ which, he writes, "because the tablet was cased, is badly twisted." If the reading is correct it is important, for the addition may then be rendered "within (_i.e._ corresponding to) the eighteenth year that he reigned," the word _in-ag_ being the verb usually employed in Sumerian dynastic lists in sentences stating the number of years a king reigned. Two other long date-formulæ for the same year (on tablets Y.B.C., Nos. 4307 and 4481) begin as follows: _mu ki II dim(?) mu ki XIX giš-ku-makh Ana (dingir) En-lil (dingir) En-ki,_ etc. Here the reading of the sign _dim_ is not absolutely certain, but, assuming its correctness, the formula may be rendered: "The second year (corresponding to the nineteenth year) in which with the exalted weapon of Anu, Enlil and Ea, Rîm-Sin the king took the city of Nîsin," etc. It will be seen that the readings, which are suggested by Prof. Clay for the two uncertain signs in the formulæ, give excellent sense, and, if correct, they definitely prove that the second figures in the equations were derived from Rîm-Sin's regnal years. Hut, even if we regard the two signs as quite uncertain, the general interpretation of the double-dates is not affected; it would be difficult to explain them on any other hypothesis than that adopted in the text.]

[Footnote 21: Some of his earlier date-formulæ have been recovered; see below, p. 155.]

[Footnote 22: For many years past the latest date recovered of the Nîsin era was one of the thirtieth year; see Scheil, "Recueil de travaux," XXI. (1899), p. 125, and cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 229. Prof. Clay informs me that among the tablets of the Yale Babylonian Collection is one dated in the thirty-first year of the fall of Nîsin.]

[Footnote 23: The fact that they had always dated by formulæ, and not by numbered years of the king's reign, is quite sufficient to explain the uncertainty as to whether the accession-year should be included in their reckoning. Thus the apparent discrepancy in the double-dates, so far from weakening the explanation put forward in the text, really affords it additional support and confirmation.]

[Footnote 24: See below, p. 190.]

[Footnote 25: See "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings," II.. p. 18.]

[Footnote 26: Cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, Col. 585 f., and Hrozný, "Wiener Zeitschrift," Bd. 21 (1908), p. 382.]

[Footnote 27: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 317, n. 2. The broken line in the chronicle reads: (.........) _zu-na-a_ (m)Rîm-(ilu)Sin ana (.........) illik(ik), "(.........) ... Rîm-Sin to (.........) marched." The rendering suggested by Winckler and Hrozný was: "[.........]zuna, the son of Rîm-Sin, to (.........) marched;" but their translation ignored the fact that, in these late chronicles, "son" is always expressed by the sign TUR (_mâru,_) never by A (_aplu_).]

[Footnote 28: _Cf._ Ungnad, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXIII., pp. 73 ff., and Thureau-Dangin, "Journal Asiatique," xiv., 1909, pp. 335 ff.]

[Footnote 29: The difference in price may perhaps be traced to the political revolution, which may have enabled one of the parties to exact better terms from the other.]

[Footnote 30: See above, p. 90 f.]

[Footnote 31: Cf. "Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings," I., p. 184 f.]

[Footnote 32: See above, p. 93 f.]

[Footnote 33: See above, p. 94, n. 2.]

[Footnote 34: If Ibḳushu was appointed priest in Damiḳ-ilishu's last year, the interval would be exactly forty-four years; but as Damiḳ-ilishu reigned for twenty-three years, Ibḳushu may well have been appointed several years earlier.]

[Footnote 35: See Poebel, "Babylonian Legal and Business Documents," pl. 3, No. 6, 11. 25, 30 ff., and pl. 11, No. 23, 11. 33, 36 ff.; and cf. Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents from Nippur," p. 21, No. 24.]

[Footnote 36: Cf. Chiera, _op. cit.,_ p. 22. Chiera's own deduction from the proper names (pp. 29 ff.) must of course be modified in view of the Larsa Kings' List; but his data hold good.]

[Footnote 37: On the suggested hypothesis with regard to the Larsa List, Rîm-Sin's capture of Nîsin would have taken place two years after Hammurabi's attack on that city. But, if we reject the hypothesis, the Nîsin era would have begun in Sin-muballit's seventh year.]

[Footnote 38: See pp. 142 ff. The survival of the Nîsin era, during the first years of Larsa's vassalage, seems to offer less difficulties than those involved in an acceptance of Rîm-Sin's sixty-one years of independent rule, followed at first by twenty-one or twenty-two years of political obscurity, and then by a period of active operations in the field. And, apart from the improbabilities involved in the length of Rîm-Sin's life, the further difficulty of the interruption of the Nîsin era by Sin-muballit's and Hammurabi's conquests of the city would still remain (see above, p. 92 f.).]

[Footnote 39: That was the view I suggested in "Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings," I., pp. 96 ff., and it was adopted by Meyer, "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft, ii., p. 340 f.]

[Footnote 40: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 63, n. 2.]

[Footnote 41: See Poebel, "Business Documents," pl. 40, No. 68, and Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents," pi. xl., No. 89.]

[Footnote 42: Cf. "Chronicles," II., pp. 19 ff. That the Sea-Country was Babylon's most powerful rival at this time may be inferred from the inclusion of Iluma-ilum's name in the Chronicle. He is evidently selected for mention as the leader of the most notable invasion of the period.]

[Footnote 43: See above, p. 90, note.]

[Footnote 44: See Schorr, "Urkunden des altbab. Ziv. und Prozessrechts," p. 595.]

[Footnote 45: We know that Iluma-ilum was the contemporary of Abi-eshu' as well as of Samsu-iluna. As he is credited by the Kings' List with a reign of sixty years, it is possible, if we accept that figure, that he had established his dynasty in the Sea-Country some years before attacking Larsa. His accession has been placed as early as Hammurabi's twenty-sixth year (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 176 ff.), though the same writer, by making a reduction of twenty years in his dates for the Third and Second Dynasties, afterwards assumed that he secured his throne in Samsu-iluna's fourth year (_op. cit.,_ p. 185 f.). As we have no evidence that Iluma-ilum was Hammurabi's contemporary, it is safer to place his accession in Samsu-iluna's reign; and, in that case, the date-formula for the twelfth year appears to offer the most probable occasion for his revolt.]

[Footnote 46: The figures are probably not absolutely accurate; see below, p. 209, n. 1.]

[Footnote 47: see his "Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel," 1907-1913.]

[Footnote 48: This, the principal text, is numbered K. 160, and its text was published by George Smith in Rawlinson's "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," III., pl. 63. Translations and studies have been given of it by Sayce, "Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," III. (1874), pp. 316 ff.; by Sayce and Bosanquet, "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society," XL. (1880). p. 566 ff., and by Schiaparelli, "Venusbeobachtungen und Berechnungen der Babylonier" (1906). For other references, see Bezold, "Catalogue," I., p. 42.]

[Footnote 49: The second of the two inscriptions is numbered K. 2821 + K. 3032, and its text has been published by Craig, "Astrological-Astronomical Texts." pl. 46; cf. also Virolleaud, "L'Astrologie Chaldéenne," Ishtar XII., XV. and XIV.]

[Footnote 50: Cf. "Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Mabel," Buch II., Teil ii., Hft. I, pp. 257 ff. In addition to broken passages occurring in the two texts, some scribal errors appear to have crept in in the course of transmission.]

[Footnote 51: From contemporary date-formulæ we know that Ammi-zaduga reigned for more than seventeen years. The Babylonian Kings' List ascribes him twenty-one.]

[Footnote 52: According to this criterion, Anuni-zaduga's sixth year could have fallen in 2036-5 B.C., or in 1972-1 B.C., or in 1853-2 B.C., thus giving for his first year the three possible dates, 2041-40 B.C., or 1977-6 b.c., or 1858-7 b.c.]

[Footnote 53: For this purpose it may be used in conjunction with the later Assyrian synchronisms, and with the date of Burna-Buriash as obtained from Egyptian sources (see below, p. 111).]

[Footnote 54: It may be worth while noting-that, if we place the whole of Rîm-Sin's reign of sixty-one years before Hammurabi's conquest of Larsa, we raise the first two dates given in the text by twenty-two years. On that assumption the Dynasty of Nîsin would have been founded in 2361 B.C., and that of Larsa in 2357 B.C. Consequently the Dynasties of Nîsin and of Babylon would have overlapped for a period of eighty-nine years, instead of one hundred and eleven. But the balance of probability is in favour of the later dates; see above, p. 103, n. 2.]

[Footnote 55: See Bezold, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XI., pp. 94, 99, and pl. iv., 85-4-30, 2, Col. II., 11. 20 ff., and Rawlinson, "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," I., 69, Col. II., 1. 4; cf. also Langdon, "Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften," p. 238 f.]

[Footnote 56: See "Chronicles," I., p. 87 f.]

[Footnote 57: An approximate date of 1430-1400 _b.c._ is assigned to him by Budge, "History of Egypt," Vol. IV., pp. 113 ff.; while his accession is placed in 1383 b.c. by Pétrie, "History of Egypt," Vol. II., pp. 205 ff.; in 1380 B.C. by Meyer, "Ægyptische Chronologie," p. 68, and "Geschichte," I., ii., p. 335 f., and Hall, "Ancient History of the Near East," p. 228; and in 1375 B.C. by Breasted, "History of Egypt," p. 509, and "Ancient Records," Vol. I., p. 43. Maspero implies a date of about 1380 B.C.; cf. "Histoire ancienne," II., p. 337, note.]

[Footnote 58: According to Dr. Budge's scheme of chronology, an approximate date of 1400 B.C. for Burna-Buriash would yield for Hammurabi a date of c. 2100 B.C. (equivalent to his twenty-fourth year).]

[Footnote 59: See Hilprecht, "Old Babylonian Inscriptions," Pt. I., pi. 30 f., No. 83; cf. also Jensen, "Zeits. für Assyr.," VIII., pp. 220 ff.]

[Footnote 60: Cf. King, "Tukulti-Ninib I.," p. 118 f.]

[Footnote 61: See Rawlinson, "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," Vol. III., pl. 38, No. 1, Obv. 1. 10.]

[Footnote 62: See below, p. 133.]

[Footnote 63: That Berossus depended on native lists of rulers in compiling his first dynasty of semi-mythical kings has been strikingly confirmed by documents discovered recently in the Niffer Collection of tablets preserved in the Pennsylvania Museum. These have been published by Poebel, "Univ. of Pennsyl. Mus. Publications," Vol. IV., No. I, and Vol. V., and the new information they furnish is of great interest for the earlier history. It may be noted that the figure 34,090 is that given for the duration of the dynasty in Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p. 147); in the equivalent in sars, etc., which is added (_i.e._ 9 _sars,_ 2 _ners,_ and 8 _soss_ = 34,080 years), it is probable that the units are intentionally ignored, though some would regard 34,080 as the correct figure (see below, p. 115). In Eusebius ("Chron. lib. I.," ed. Schoene, Col. 25) the figure is 33,091 (probably a mistake for 34,091); this figure at any rate confirms the reading of ninety (against eighty) in Syncellus, cf. Meyer, "Beiträge zur alten Geschichte (Klio)," III., p. 133; and see further, p. 116 f., n. 5.]

[Footnote 64: Eusebius, "Chron. lib. I.," ed. Schoene, Col. 25; see also Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, "Real-Encyclopädie," III. (i.). Col. 311.]

[Footnote 65: In margin of MSS. 34 years.]

[Footnote 66: In margin of MSS. 48 years.]

[Footnote 67: See further, p. 115 f.]

[Footnote 68: Those before the Deluge are said to have reigned for a hundred and twenty _sars, i.e._ 432,000 years.]

[Footnote 69: Eusebius, "Chron. lib. I.," ed. Schoene, Col. 53: "Hoc pacto Khaldæi suæ regionis reges ab Aloro usque ad Alexandrum recensent."]

[Footnote 70: See above, p. 114, n. 1.]

[Footnote 71: "Chron. lib. I.," ed. Schoene, Col. 25: "postquos, inquit (_sc._ Poly-histor), rex Chaldæorum extitit, cui nomen Phulus est."]

[Footnote 72: That is to say, at the point marked by the group Χίνξηρος καὶ Πῶros in the Ptolemaic Canon. Ukîn-zêr is an abbreviation of Nabû-mukîn-zêr.]

[Footnote 73: See above, p. 114, n. 4.]

[Footnote 74: Cf. Meyer, "Beiträge zur alten Geschichte (Klio)," III., pp. 131 ff.]

[Footnote 75: The statement occurs in the commentary of Simplicius upon Aristotle's "De Caelo," and the Greek text reads 31,000; cf. ed. Heiberg, p. 506. But in a Latin translation by Moerbeka the figure is given as 1903, and this probably represents the original reading; cf. Lehmann-Haupt, "Zwei Hauptprobleme," pp. 109 f., 210, and Meyer, _op. cit.,_ p. 131.]

[Footnote 76: The Pennsylvania documents published by Poebel (see above, p. 114, n. 1) suggest that variant traditions were current with regard to the number of mythical and semi-mythical rulers of Babylonia and the duration of their rule. For instance, in two of the lists drawn up under the Nîsin kings, and separated from one another by an interval of only sixty-seven years, the total duration of the preceding dynasties appears to be given in one as 32,243, and in the other as 28,876 years. But this fact does not, of course, prevent the use of the figures which have come to us from Berossus, in order to ascertain the beginning of the historical period in the system he employed.]