Chronology of the ancient Near East

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Ancient Mesopotamia
Euphrates – Tigris
Assyriology
Cities / Empires
Sumer: Uruk – Ur – Eridu
Kish – Lagash – Nippur
Akkadian Empire: Akkad
Babylon – Isin – Susa
Assyria: Assur – Nineveh
Dur-Sharrukin – Nimrud
Babylonia – Chaldea
Elam – Amorites
Hurrians – Mitanni
Kassites – Urartu
Chronology
Kings of Sumer
Kings of Assyria
Kings of Babylon
Language
Cuneiform script
Sumerian – Akkadian
Elamite – Hurrian
Mythology
Enûma Elish
Gilgamesh – Marduk

The chronology of the ancient Near East deals with the notoriously difficult task of assigning dates to various events, rulers and dynasties of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC.

The chronology of this region is based on five sets of primary materials. They are, from the most recent to the earliest:

  1. The Canon of Kings of Babylon (747BC to 539BC) and Persia (538BC to 332BC) from Ptolemy.
  2. An unbroken series of Neo-Assyrian eponym lists.
  3. Babylonian King Lists A and B, the Synchronistic Chronicle, the Assyrian King List, and a number of shorter lists of year names.
  4. The First Dynasty of Babylon, though ambiguities and disagreements have led to three different schemes for dates between the 10th and 21st centuries. The most common ("low chronology") sets the eighth year of Ammisaduqa at 1531 BC.
  5. The Sumerian King List.

Three different dating schemes for dates between the 10th and 21st centuries BC are in use in literature:

  • The low or short chronology, most commonly used today, sets the eighth year of Ammisaduqa at the year 1531 BC as the end of the first dynasty (with a reign of king Hammurabi 1728 BC–1686 BC).
  • The middle chronology, which was the most commonly used chronology until recently, is 64 years (one period between identical conjunctions of Venus, Sun and Moon) earlier than the short chronology (Hammurabi 1792 BC–1750 BC).
  • The long chronology is 120 years earlier than the short chronology (Hammurabi 1848 BC–1806 BC).

Contents

[edit] Primary sources

The chronology of this region is based on five sets of primary materials. They are, from the most recent to the earliest:

1. The Canon of Ptolemy. This is a list of the kings of Babylon and the Persian Empire, from Nabonassar down to Alexander the Great, which Claudius Ptolemy added to one of his books because of the astronomical observations connected with this information.

2. An unbroken series of Neo-Assyrian eponym lists from the time of Ashurbanipal (r.669-c.627 BC) back to Adad-nirari II (ascended in 911). These lists assign to each year an eponymous official known as a limmu, and some bearing an important event for the previous year, are fixed with the precision of a year due to the mention of the solar eclipse of June 16, 763 BC. These two sets overlap for over a hundred years, and help to supplement each other.

3. For the centuries between the previous two groups and the ones following, we depend upon a group of interrelated, yet incomplete, documents: Babylonian King Lists A and B, the Synchronistic Chronicle, the Assyrian King List, and a number of shorter lists of year names recovered from Babylon and Assyria.

4. The First Dynasty of Babylon. Not only have all of the year names for Hammurabi and his descendants survived more or less intact, but a record of astronomical observations made during the eighth regnal year of Ammisaduqa, offer another opportunity to reliably fix these floating dates. Unfortunately, due to ambiguities in the text, as well as disagreements over the interpretation of these observations, there are three possible dates for these observations, which have led to the three chronologies mentioned above.

5. The Sumerian King List. The beginning of the third dynasty of Ur (Ur-Nammu; 2047 BC short ch.) is the earliest date that may be directly calculated from dates of Assyrian or Babylonian sources. Preceding this date is the Gutian period, variously estimated to have lasted between 45 and 120 years. The preceding Akkadian period is again well-documented, leading to a year of ca. 2235 BC for the ascension of Sargon of Akkad. Yet earlier dates are subjected to increasing uncertainty.

[edit] Synchronisms between Assur and Babylon

The chronology of Babylon and Assur can be aligned by the list of wars and treaties between the two cities from the time of king Ashurbanipal. Hittite chronology is dependent on Assyria and Egypt. For times earlier than 1500 BC, various systems based on the Venus tablets of Ammisaduqa have been proposed. The death of Shamshi-Adad I of Assur in the 17th year of the reign of Hammurabi (1712 BC short ch.) is another synchronism which is helpful. The Palace at Acemhöyük burned to the ground, allowing for Dendochronological dating of the seal impression of Shamshi-Adad I found in the ruins. While the stratigraphy of the connection between the burnt beams and the seal impression is not 100% clear, it does support the short chronology.

The entries of the Synchronistic Chronicle, mentioned above, record which Assyrian king was ruling during which Babylonian king's reign, and vice versa.

[edit] Synchronisms between Mesopotamia and Egypt

It is possible that mutual influences existed between the Nile Valley and Mesopotamia since very early times. Some authorities believed that Mesopotamian influence affected predynastic Upper Egypt (also known as the Mesopotamian Stimulation) between 34th–31st centuries BC. As of this date, the evidence is not conclusive. On the other hand Iron age Hama (Hamath) shows strong Egyptian influence.

The Amarna letters provide the earliest known synchronisms between ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. They provide clear evidence that the New Kingdom kings Amenhotep III and Akhenaten were contemporaries of Kadashman-Enlil I and Burnaburiash II of Babylon, Ashur-uballit I of Assyria, and Suppiluliumas I of the Hittite empire.

Other synchronisms between Mesopotamia and Egypt are indirect, depending on synchronisms between Egypt and the Hittite empire. For example, because Ramesses II signed a peace treaty with Hattusili III in Ramesses' 21st regnal year, and letters from Hattusili III to Kadashman-Turgu and Adad-nirari I of Assyria exist, one can argue that the reign of Ramesses overlapped the reigns of Kadashman-Turgu and Adad-nirari I.

Direct synchronisms between Egypt and Assyria return in the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt (Dynasty 25), when Assyrian armies attacked and conquered Egypt.

See Egyptian chronology.

[edit] Synchronisms between Mesopotamia and the Hittite Empire

The sack of Babylon by the Hittite king Mursilis I, which ended the reign of Samsu-Ditana, provides an anchor for the earliest dates in Hittite history.

The Battle of Nihriya links Tudhaliya IV and Adad-nirari I as contemporaries.

The correspondence of the Hittite kings Hattusili III and Tudhaliya IV with the Assyrian chancellor Babu-ahu-iddina conclusively proves that they were the contemporaries of Adad-nirari I, Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I, not their later namesakes.

[edit] Babylon and Assyria

The Chaldean king Nabonidus (reigned from 556 BC), who was more of an antiquarian than a politician, and spent his time in excavating the older temples of his country and ascertaining the names of their builders, tells us that Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon of Akkad, lived 3200 years before himself, i.e. around 3750 BC. It is generally accepted by the archaeological consensus this date is much too early. As the reign of King Nabonidus ended by the accession of Cyrus in Babylonia around 539 or 538 BC, the "years" may have been given by actual modern half years. The Jewish chronology and the Old Testament has the same situation with the same dilemma. Their "years" may have been commenced both by the first day of Nisanu (Nisan) and that of Tashritu (Tishri) in their remote histories. Therefore, it is likely that the correct interval is not 3200 but 1600. It is probably a rounded figure. One must be careful with the several intervals between rulers and events cited by the above mentioned unearthed documents. We cannot prove that a totally reliable chronological list was available for all the scribes, and they may not have been versed historians. They may have been pressed to give a figure but not enough time for a thorough research. Many of the figures contradict to each other, etc.

[edit] Chronology and notes

We start our list of Babylonian kings with a significant ruler of Erech called Lugalzagesi, placing him from 2411 BC to 2376 BC. He was a contemporary of Urukagina king of Lagash (reigned 2407-2399 BC) and Sargon (2399-2343 BC) king of Akkad.

After Sargon, the next king was Rimush(...). His contemporary in Ur was Ka-kug or Ka-ku (2376-2341 BC). The son and successor of Rimush was Manishtusu (2334-2329 BC), whose Assyrian viceroy was Abazu, son of Nuabu.

In this period the rulers of Kish were Simudarra or Simudar (2399-2369), a contemporary of Sargon. After him Usi-watar (2369-2362), Eshtarmuti (2362-2351), Ishme-shamash (2351-2340), and Nannia (2340-2243) reigned in Kish.

In Akkad, after Manishtusu, the following kings reigned:

2329-2282 Naram-sin
2282-2257 Shar-kali-sharri

He was contemporary with the first Gutian king, Erridupizir, and he later defeated Sarlagab, another king of Gutium.

2257-???? Igigi, Nanum, and Imi, pretenders
????-2254 Elulu, a pretender, maybe King Elul(u)mesh of Gutium.
2254-2233 Dudu
2233-2218 Shu-durul

Shu-durul was the last ruler. (Agade/Akkad was defeated by Erech. Then Erech dominated until 2194, then eight Median-Elamite usurper tyrants ruled for 224 years, according to Berossus, from 2194 to 1970 BC. Some of them are listed here.)

Erech:

2219-2212 Ur-nigin(ak)
2212-2206 Ur-gigir(ak)
2206-2200 Kudda or Gudea
2200-2195 Puzur-ili
2195 (?) Lugal-melam (?)
2195-2189 Ur-utu(k)
2189-2179 Utu-khegal or Utu-khengal

He was a contemporary of Tirigan, the last king of the Guti.

During this period the Gutian or Guti kings flourished as follow:

2280-2277 Erridupizir, the first ruler.
2277-2274 Imta
2274-2268 Inkishush
2268-2265 Sarlagab
2265-2259 Shulme'
2259-2253 Elulmesh or Elulu-mesh
2253-2248 Inimabakesh
2248-2242 Igeshaush
2242-2227 Iarlangab or Iarlagab
2227-2224 Ibate
2224-2221 Iarlangab
2221-2220 Kurum
2220-2217 Habil-kin
2217-2215 La'erabum
2215-2213 Irarum
2213-2212 Ibranum
2212-2210 Hablum
2210-2203 Puzur-sin
2203-2196 Iarlaganda
2196-2189 Si'u or Si'um
2189-2189 Tirigan

Tirigan reigned only for 40 days, according to Jacobsen. His chrononolgical table (1934: 208 ff.) has placed the accession of Ur-Nammu (Dynasty III of Ur) ten years after the end of Utu-khegal's reign. His fall may or may not have coincided with his lost battle against Erech. This famous battle took place on the day of an eclipse of the moon, on the 14th day of the month Duzu or Tammuz, from the first watch to the middle watch. See Carl Schoch (1927: B6-B8), and Thorkild Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Chicago, 1934: 203). This is the first eclipse record in the Near East that is identifiable with high probability. It took place on August 13, 2189 BC, with a magnitude of 120% which is remarkable.

After the defeat of Gutium, the Third Dynasty of Ur was fourishing:

2179-2161 Ur-Nammu or Ur-Engur
2161-2113 Shulgi

A double (solar and lunar) eclipse took place 23 years after Shulgi's accession to the throne. Prof. Jacob Klein of Bar-Ilan University in his book Three Sulgi hymns (1981: 59 and 81) tells that the first 23 years of his reign was peaceful, and that the sun was eclipsed on the horizon, just like the moon on the sky, during the first battles of Sulgi. (Most historians do not feel confident about their own astronomical profiency, therefore the extreme importance of this double eclipse record remained unnoticed. Another difficulty is that the reading has a questionmark.) Z.A. Simon adds that the lunar eclipse is mentioned first in the poem, because the worship of Sin (The moon) was predominant for them, and that the record is poetic, not that of an astronomer. This rare phaenomena occurred on May 9, 2138 BC (solar eclipse), with a magnitude of 34%. The lunar eclipse took place on May 24, 2138 BC.

2113-2104 Amar-Sin or Bur-Sin. His viceroy in Assyria was Zariqum.
2104-2095 Shu-Sin

An eclipse of the moon observed in the month Simanu (Sivan) may be placed near the end of Shu-sin's reign, called patricide eclipse in the literature. The clipse "drew through" and "equalized" the first watch, meaning that has coincided with it, then touched the second watch. It took place on July 25, 2095 BC. Refer to Carl Schoch, Die Ur-Finsternis (Berlin, 1927: B6-B8). Professor Peter J. Huber, Astronomy and Ancient Chronology in the journal Accadica (Vol. 119-120) deals with this issue about the omen EAE 20-III. We have learned from him that it may have belonged to the death of Shulgi, or it may have been another king, for the name is not mentioned. (Therefore, it could have belonged to Shu-sin, we believe, also adding that the expression will wrong him does not necessarily mean murdering a king. We note here that the data evaluated by Huber (page 166) "rejects the middle chronologies on the 1% level... this is a strong argument against the correctness of the middle chronologies." (Editor's note: those are still in common use.)

2095-2070 Ibbi-Sin

Ibbi-Sin's reign lasted for 24 or 26 years (S. Langdon and John K. Fotheringham, The Venus tablets of Ammisaduqa, 1928). An eclipse of the moon caused terror shortly before his fall, in the month Adaru or Adar. The real eclipse had a magnitude of 153%. (Schoch describes this eclipse as well, proposing a different candidate.)

A few years before the fall of Ibbi-Sin, another city started to flourish: Isin. Its first ruler had emerged several years earlier. The kings of Isin are as follow:

2083-2050 Ishbi-erra
2050-2040 Shu-ilishu
2040-2019 Iddin-dagan
2019-2000 Ishme-dagan
2000-1989 Lipit-Ishtar
1989-1961 Un-ninurta
1961-1940 Bur-sin or Amar-sin
1940-1935 Lipit-enlil
1935-1927 Erra-imitti or Ura-imitti
1927-1927 Tabbaya
1927-1903 Enlil-bani
1903-1900 Zambiya
1900-1896 Iter-pisha
1896-1892 Ur-dulkugga
1892-1881 Sin-magir
1881-1858 Damiq-ilishu

The First Dynasty of Babylon was almost contemporary with Isin. Their chronology is debated, because there is a King List A and a Babylonian King List B. Hereby we follow the regnal years of List A, because those are widely used, although we believe that the other list is better, at least for one or two reigns out of the first six. (The reigns in List B are longer, in general. Unfortunately, it is not available for the editor.)

First Babylonian Dynasty:

1959-1945 Su-abu or Suum-abum
1945-1909 Sumula-ilum
1909-1895 Sabium or Sabum
1895-1877 Apil-Sin
1877-1857 Sin-muballit
1857-1814 Hammurabi

His other name was Hammurapi-ilu, meaning Hammurapi the god or perhaps Hammurapi is god.

1814-1776 Samsu-Iluna
1776-1748 Abi-eshuh or Abieshu
1748-1711 Ammi-ditana
1711-1690 Ammi-zaduga or Ammisaduqa

His Venus tablets of Ammisaduqa (i.e., several ancient versions on clay tablets) are famous, and several books had been published about them. Several dates have been offered but the old dates of many sourcebooks seens to be outdated and incorrect. There are further difficulties: the 21 years span of the detailed observations of the planet Venus may or may not coincide with the reign of this king, because his name is not mentioned, only the Year of the Golden Throne. A few sources, some printed almost a century ago, claim that the original text mentions an occultation of the Venus by the moon. It seems to me a misinterpretation because in the original texts in the book of Erica Reiner and D. Pingree, The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa there is no such sentence.

1690-1659 Samsu-Ditana

A text about the fall of Babylon by the Hittites of Mursilis I at the end of Samsuditana's reign tells about a twin eclipse, which is crucial for a correct Babylonian chronology. (The reading of the word Babylon is uncertain but why should a Babylonian tablet refer to another city?). The pair of lunar and solar eclipses occurred in the month Shimanu (Sivan). Professor Peter J. Huber has computed several options that would satisfy the conditions of the detailed description. The lunar eclipse took place on February 9, 1659 BC. It started at 4:43 and ended at 6:47. The latter was invisible which satisfies the record which tells that the setting moon was still eclipsed. The solar eclipse occurred on February 23, 1659 BC. It started at 10:26, has its maximum at 11:45, and ended at 13:04. This indicates that the presently accepted Middle Chronology is too low from the astronomical point of view. See Peter Huber, "Astronomical dating of Babylon I and Ur III" in Monographic Journals of the Near East (1982: 41).

[edit] Divergent chronological views

The divergent chronologies of Babylonia and Assyria can cause confusion for readers with no specialist knowledge. In this section an attempt is made to indicate briefly the causes which have led to so great a diversity of opinion, and to describe in outline the principles underlying the chief schemes of chronology that have been suggested. A short account will then be given of the latest discoveries in this branch of research, and of the manner in which they affect the problems at issue.

There is no disagreement over the dates of the Persian and later Babylonian and Assyrian kings. The Canon of Ptolemy lists the kings who ruled in Babylon with the number of years they reigned, from Nabonassar in 747 BC to the conquest of Babylon by Alexander the Great in 331 BC. The Canon's accuracy is confirmed by the larger king lists, the principal Babylonian Chronicle and the Assyrian Eponym Lists (or limmu lists), by which Assyrian chronology is fixed from 911 BC to 666 BC. The solar eclipse of June 15, 763 BC, which is recorded in the eponymy of Pur-Sagale or Bur-Sagale, fixes the dead reckoning for these later periods with certainty.

For the years before these dates, historians put forward different chronologies, with the discrepancy between them growing further back in time. The various opinions stem from some of the available data being either ambiguous or conflicting.

Since its publication in 1884 the Babylonian List of Kings has furnished the framework for every chronological system that has been proposed. In its original form this document gave a list, arranged in dynasties, of the Babylonian kings, from the First Dynasty of Babylon down to the Neo-Babylonian period. If the text were complete we should probably be in possession of the system of Babylonian chronology current in the NeoBabylonian period from which our principal classical authorities derived their information. The principal points of uncertainty, due to gaps in the text, concern the length of Dynasties IV and VIII; for the reading of the figure giving the length of the former is disputed, and the summary at the close of the latter omits to state its length. This omission is much to be regretted, since Nabonassar was the last king but two of this dynasty, and, had we known its duration, we could have combined the information on the earlier periods furnished by the Kings' List with the evidence of the Ptolemaic Canon. In addition to the Kings' List, other important chronological data consist of references in the classical authorities to the chronological system of Berossus; chronological references to earlier kings occurring in the later native inscriptions, such as Nabonidus's estimate of the period of Hammurabi; synchronisms, also furnished by the inscriptions, between kings of Babylon and of Assyria; and the early Babylonian date-lists.

In view of the uncertainty regarding the length of Dynasties IV. and VIII. of the Kings' List, attempts have been made to ascertain the dates of the earlier dynasties by independent means. The majority of writers, after fixing the date at which Dynasty III closed by means of the synchronisms and certain of the later chronological references, have accepted the figures of the Kings' List for the earlier dynasties, ignoring their apparent inconsistencies with the system of Berossus and with the chronology of Nabonidus. Others have attempted to reconcile the conflicting data by emendations of the figures and other ingenious devices. This will explain the fact that while the difference between the earliest and latest dates suggested for the close of Dynasty III is only 144 years, the difference between the earliest and latest dates suggested for the beginning of Dynasty I is no less than 622 years. A comparison of the principal schemes of chronology that have been propounded may be made by means of the preceding table. The first column gives the names of the writers and the dates at which their schemes were published, while the remaining columns give the dates they have suggested for Dynasties I, II and III of the Kings' List (These three dynasties are usually known as the First Dynasty of Babylon, the Dynasty of Sisku or Uruku, and the Kassite Dynasty). The systems with the highest dates are placed first in the list; where a writer has produced more than one system, these are grouped together, the highest dates proposed by him determining his place in the series.

Omitting that of Oppert, which to some extent stands in a category by itself, the systems fall into three groups. The first group, comprising the second to the sixth names, obtains its results by selecting the data on which it relies and ignoring others. The second group, comprising the next four names, attempts to reconcile the conflicting data by emending the figures. The third group, consisting of the last two names, is differentiated by its proposals with regard to Dynasty II. It will be noted that the first group has obtained higher dates than the second, and the second group higher dates on the whole than the third.

Oppert's system represents the earliest dates that have been suggested. He accepted the figures of the Kings' List and claimed that he reconciled them with the figures of Berossus~ though he ignored the later chronological notices. But there is no evidence for his "cyclic date" of 2517 BC, on which his system depended, and there is little doubt that the beginning of the historical period of Berossus is to be set, not in 2506 B.c., but in 2232 B.C. The two systems of Archibald Sayce, that of Rogers, the three systems of Winckler, both those of Delitzsch, and that of Maspero, may be grouped together, for they are based on the same principle. Having first fixed the date of the close of Dynasty III, they employed the figures of the Kings', List unemended for defining the earlier periods, and did not attempt to reconcile their results with other conflicting data. The difference of eighteen years in Sayce's two dates for the rise of Dynasty was due to his employing in 1902 the figures assigned to the first seven kings of the dynasty upon the larger of the two contemporary date-lists, which had meanwhile been published, in place of those given by the List of Kings. It should be noted that Winckler (1905) and Delitzsch (1907) gives the dates only in round numbers.

A second group of systems may be said to consist of those proposed by Lehmann-Haupt, Marquart, Peiser, and Rost, for these writers attempted to get over the discrepancies in the data by amending some of the figures furnished by the inscriptions. In 1891, with the object of getting the total duration of the dynasties to agree with the chronological system of Berossus and with the statement of Nabonidus concerning Khammurabi's date, Peiser proposed to emend the figure given by the Kings' List for the length of Dynasty III. The reading of "9 soss and 36 years," which gives the total 576 years, he suggested was a scribal error for "6 soss and 39 years"; he thus reduced the length of Dynasty III. by 177 years and effected a corresponding reduction in the dates assigned to Dynasties I and II. In 1897 Rost followed up Peiser's suggestion by reducing the figure still further, but he counteracted to some extent the effects of this additional reduction by emending Sennacherib's date for Mardukriadin-akhe's defeat of Tiglath-Pileser I as engraved on the rock at Bavian, holding that the figure 418, as engraved upon the rock, was a mistake for "478." Lehmann-Haupt's first system ~1898 resembled those of Oppert, Sayce, Rogers, Winckler, Delitzsch and Maspero in that he accepted the figures of the Kings' List, and did not attempt to amend them. But he obtained his low date for the close of Dynasty III by amending Sennacherib's figure in the Bavian inscription; this he reduced by a hundred years, instead of increasing it by sixty as Rost had suggested. Lehmann-Haupt's influence is visible in Marquart's system published in the following year; it may be noted that his slightly reduced figure for the beginning of Dynasty I. was arrived at by incorporating the new information supplied by the first date-list to be published. When revising his scheme of chronology in 1900, Rost abandoned his suggested emendation of Sennacherib's figure, but by decreasing his reduction of the length of Dynasty III, he only altered his date for the beginning of Dynasty I by one year. In his revised scheme of chronology, published in 1903, Lehmann-Haupt retained his emendation of Sennacherib's figure, and was in his turn influenced by Marquart's method of reconciling the dynasties of Berossus with the Kings' List. He continued to accept the figure of the Kings' List for Dynasty III, but he reduced the length of Dynasty II by fifty years, arguing that the figures assigned to some of the reigns were improbably high. His slight reduction in the length of Dynasty I was obtained from the recently published date-lists, though his proposed reduction of Ammizaduga's reign to ten years has since been disproved.

A third group of systems comprises those proposed by Hommel and Niebuhr, for their reductions in the date assigned to Dynasty I. were effected chiefly by their treatment of Dynasty II. In his first system, published in 1886,i Hommel, mainly with the object of reducing Khammurabi's date, reversed the order of the first two dynasties of the Kings' List, placing Dynasty II before Dynasty I. In his second and third systems (1895 and 1898), and in his second alternative scheme of 1901 (see below), he abandoned this proposal and adopted a suggestion of Halévy that Dynasty III followed immediately after Dynasty I; Dynasty II, he suggested, had either synchronized with Dynasty I, or was mainly apocryphal (eine spätere Geschichtskonstruction) Niebuhr's system was a modification of Hommel's second theory, for, instead of entirely ignoring Dynasty II, he reduced its independent existence to 143 years, making it overlap Dynasty I by 225 years. The extremely low dates proposed by Hommel in 1898 were due to his adoption of Peiser's emendation for the length of Dynasty III, in addition to his own elimination of Dynasty II. In 1901 Hommel abandoned Peiser's emendation and suggested two alternative schemes. According to one of these he attempted to reconcile Berossus with the Kings' List by assigning to Dynasty II an independent existence of some 171 years, while as a possible alternative he put forward what was practically his theory of 1895.

Such are the principles underlying the various chronological schemes which had, until recently, been propounded. The balance of opinion was in favour of those of the first group of writers, who avoided emendations of the figures and were content to follow the Kings' List and to ignore its apparent discrepancies with other chronological data; but it is now admitted that the general principle underlying the third group of theories was actually nearer the truth. The publication of fresh chronological material in 1906 and 1907 placed a new complexion on the problems at issue, and enabled us to correct several preconceptions, and to reconcile or explain the apparently conflicting data.

From a Babylonian chronicle in the British Museum we now know that Dynasty II. of the Kings' List never occupied the throne of Babylon, but ruled only in the extreme south of Babylonia on the shores of the Persian Gulf; that its kings were contemporaneous with the later kings of Dynasty I. and with the earlier kings of Dynasty III. of the Kings' List; that in the reign of Samsu-ditana, the last king of Dynasty I, Hittites from Cappadocia raided and captured Babylon, which in her weakened state soon fell a prey to the Kassites (Dynasty III); and that later on southern Babylonia, till then held by Dynasty II. of the Kings', List, was in its turn captured by the Kassites, who from that time onward occupied the whole of the Babylonian plain. The same chronicle informs us that Ilu-shuma, an early Assyrian patesi, was the contemporary of Su-abu, the founder of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List, thus enabling us to trace the history of Assyria back beyond the rise of Babylon.

Without going into details, the more important results of this new information may be summarized: the elimination of Dynasty II. from the throne of Babylon points to a date not much 'earlier than 2000 or 2050 B.C. for the rise of Dynasty I., a date which harmonizes with the chronological notices of Shalmaneser I; Nabonidus's estimate of the period of Khammurabi, so far from being centuries too low, is now seen to have been exaggerated, as the context of the passage in his inscription suggests; and finally the beginning of the historical period of Berossus is not to be synchronized with Dynasty I of the Kings' List, but, assuming that his figures had an historical basis and that they have come down to us in their original form, with some earlier dynasty which may possibly have had its capital in one of the other great cities of Babylonia (such as the Dynasty of Isin).

New data have also been discovered bearing upon the period before the rise of Babylon. A fragment of an early dynastic chronicle from Nippur gives a list of the kings of the dynasties of Ur and Isin. From this text we learn. that the Dynasty of Ur consisted of five kings and lasted for 117 years, and was succeeded by the Dynasty of Isin, which consisted of sixteen kings and lasted for 2251/2 years. Now the capture of the city of Isin. by Rim-Sin, which took place in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, the father of Khammurabi, formed an epoch for dating tablets in certain parts of Bahylonian and it is probable that we may identify the fall of the Dynasty of Isin with this capture of the city. In that case the later rulers of the Dynasty of Isin would have been contemporaneous with the earlier rulers of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List, and we obtain. for the rise of the Dynasty of Ur a date not much earlier than 2300 B.c.

[edit] Notes

See Chronology of Babylonia and Assyria/1911 for the partly obsolete article of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This version of that article removes some of the conflicting numbers and includes much more absolute dates, based mainly on solar and lunar eclipse records.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/Chronology_of_the_ancient_Near_East_4a82.html"