CHAPTER IV

CHRONOLOGY

NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY SUMERO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD

(The discovery of the Sumerian King List)

Professor Langdon has recently published an important inscription, part of the Weld-Blundell collection in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. It is a large prism with eight columns of closely-written chronological material which gives the entire Sumerian lists of dynasties before and after the Flood to the end of the Isin dynasty in 2076 B.C. A small tablet in the same collection contains the names of the ten kings who reigned before the Flood, for which period it gives 456,000 years. The dynastic prism has only eight kings before the Flood and assigns to them a duration of 241,200 years. Other important dynastic lists in fragmentary condition have been found in the Nippur Collection. These agree with the Oxford prism in giving twenty dynasties from the Flood to the Isin dynasty inclusive, and 125 kings.

The first dynasty reigned at Kish. It included 23 kings, who are said to have reigned 24,510 years, 3 months and 3 days. The figure recalls the World-year of 25,920 years, the approximate period of the sun’s apparent revolution through the twelve signs of the zodiac; but it is unlikely that the precession of the equinoxes was known even in the age of the most advanced Babylonian astronomical knowledge. The longest and shortest reigns of this dynasty are 1500 and 140 years respectively; the names differ somewhat, and the name of Zukakipu (the scorpion ) is replaced by Daggagib. The first dynasty of Erech counted twelve kings, reigning 2310 years. The name of the second king of the dynasty of Ur may preferably be read Meskem-Nannar. The dynasty of Awan (the identification with Awak should be omitted) had three kings ruling 356 years. The details are considerably affected by the new prism. A list of seven kingdoms now intervenes between the semi-historic period and the northern Semitic kingdom of Akshak. The second dynasty at kish, which succeeded that at Awan, may be placed about 3000 BC; to its eight kings the prism assigns 3195 years. The next dynasty ruled at Khamazi and its king Khadanish is said to have ruled 360 or 420 years, the figures are presumably errors for six or seven year. The sovereignty then returns to Erech in the south, where the name of only one king, Enugduanna, is known. It is probable that the names of Lugalkigubnilakh and Lugalkisalsi are to be inserted here. After this second kingdom of Erech we reach the second kingdom of Ur, where four kings ruled 108 years. The capital now shifts to Adab for a period of 90 years, and then far to the north at Maer, where a dynasty of six kings (Ansir, [Lugaltar]zi, the rest are mutilated) reigned 136 years. It seems evident from the texts that the two succeeding kingdoms of Kish (the third) and Akshak were contemporary.

If therefore, we may follow the new source, it may be computed that these dynasties were founded about 2967-6 BC, in which case the first approximately fixed date in Sumero-Babylonian history will have to be placed more than 200 year lower than that given in the first edition.

Moreover, it would now seem that the old third dynasty of Kish disappears; the two kings Urzaged and Lugal-tarsi belong to the second dynasty of Erech, and Mesilim possibly to the Awan dynasty. The first kings of Kish of whom we have contemporary records apparently belonged to other kingdoms, and claim the title because of its dignity.

The third (not fourth) dynasty of Kish was founded by Kug-Bau, as the name should now be read instead of Azag-Bau. Ur-Nina was contemporary with the rulers of Maer, not Akshak.

Rimush, according to the Oxford prism, reigned nine years. Manishtusu was his elder brother. Naram-Sin was his son, although Babylonian tradition calls him son of Sargon; and note that the prism gives a much lower figure for his reign, probably 38 years.

The fifth dynasty of Erech contains only one king, Utukhegal, to whom is ascribed a reign of 7 years, 2 months and 7 days. To Dungi is ascribed a reign of 47 (not 58) years, and Langdon reduces all the figures in his reign by eleven. The length of the reign of Bur-Sin is given as nine (not eight) years.

Finally, on the basis of the Oxford prism and other evidence Langdon arrives at dates generally lower than those adopted in this volume. Starting from Kuller's brilliant interpretation of the tablet of observations of the planet Venus for the twenty-one years of the reign of Ammi-zaduga, the tenth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty, and in consultation with the Oxford astronomer, Dr Fotheringham, he now holds that the beginning of this dynasty may be placed at 2169 BC. The astronomical calculations in themselves are not entirely final, and the argument also turns upon the precise beginning of the year in certain contracts relating to the division of the date-harvest and the renting of fields in the seventh-eighth months. The date which Langdon now adopts is fifty-six years lower than that adopted in this volume, but he definitely rejects the much lower dates for the dynasty which are held by Weidner and Kugler.

Langdon maintains the date 2357 for the beginning of the dynasty of Isin; but, besides the modification of the earliest approximately fixed date (viz. 2907-6, see above), other important changes are suggested arising out of the Oxford prism. Thus, the Maer-Akshak-Kish domination may be dated 3103-2777. For the Kug-Bau dynasty he suggests 2967-2873, and a similar reduction of about 120 years becomes necessary. So the date of Sargon becomes 2752. Lugal-zaggisi begins to reign in 2777. The fourth dynasty of Erech is dated 2571-2542, and that of Gutium becomes 2541-2416. Ur-Bau's date is 2620. The end of the last dynasty of Ur is fixed at 2328, and Dungi and Bursin are dated respectively 2391 and2345.

These dates indicate the complexity of the chronological problems, and the difficulty of obtaining conclusive results, owing to the serious differences among the ancient sources themselves and the frequently very intricate character of the astronomical and other questions. They are not to be regarded as final, but it seemed desirable that a general statement of the evidence published by Prof. Langdon should be made accessible in this edition.

OUTSIDE the Bible three eras gained currency at an early date, namely, those of the first Olympiad (776 BC), the foundation of Rome (753 BC), and the establishment of the Seleucid power in Syria and Mesopotamia (312 BC). The last of these long continued in use, even by the side of the Mohammedan era (622 AD), and survived among the Jews until about the fifteenth century. By means of these and other less familiar eras it became possible to synchronize biblical and 'profane' history; and the earliest efforts to form a single scheme of universal history may be said to begin in the third century AD, when Julius Africanus, in the first Christian history of the world, combined biblical and other data in one comprehensive scheme. He reckoned 5500 years from the Creation of the world to the birth of Christ, and in the person of Peleg (Gen. X, 25) found a partition of the world. He was followed by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, who succeeded in subordinating all his eras and dates to an era of Abraham (corresponding to 2017 BC). The work of the 'Father of Church History' thus gives him an honorable place among those who have sought, and with increasing success, to construct an absolute chronology of history.

The necessity of some method of reckoning time was naturally felt from an early age. On the other hand, the interest in preserving and arranging records of the past has not been so widespread. Only after a long development did the desire to record the dates of business dealings and of political and other occurrences give rise to a variety of devices which were gradually made more consistent and trustworthy. Only at a relatively late date were there efforts to synchronize different systems, and, finally, to attempt to subordinate them to national or to universal history. But, unfortunately, the most important of the more detailed of the accessible sources seems to have been already imperfect and inconsistent; and when, for example, Eusebius endeavored to arrange his biblical and other material, in order to exhibit a comparative table of past kings and events, he was obliged to submit the numbers contained in the Bible to a candid criticism, the necessity of which has also been recognized by every succeeding historian.

In more modern times the vast and increasing accumulation of ancient historical and archaeological material has solved some serious problems, but has brought many new ones. The task of writing the history of the past has been rendered difficult, partly by the obscurity or ambiguity even of old and often more or less contemporary evidence, partly by the greater strictness of modern historical methods, and partly, also, by the fact that long before the time of Eusebius scribes and historians had frequently employed a sort of criticism of their own and have left us results which we are unable to control. Consequently, the modern historian often cannot do more than balance the probabilities; and conflicting conclusions are unavoidable, on account of the difficulty of deciding between conflicting sources, each apparently valid, and of determining the meaning or worth of historical references or allusions. Further, from time to time new discoveries are made which force some revision of historical and chronological conclusions.

From Eusebius to Ussher—whose chronological scheme found its way into the margin of the Old Testament and thus gained widespread currency in the English-speaking world—and from Ussher to the present day, solid progress has been made in determining an absolute chronology. Still, as regards the Ancient East, finality is far from attained, and in every department there are characteristic fundamental problems which have to be considered by themselves and in relation to the other departments. The chronology of Syria and Palestine is bound up with that of the Old Testament and of the surrounding Empires. The Old Testament is the most ancient of continuous historical writings, and in the past its chronology has invariably been of the first importance for universal history. But it is relatively young compared with the records of Egypt and Mesopotamia; and its chronology can be fixed only through that of Mesopotamia which is also essential for fixing the chronology of Egypt. With the chronology of Egypt is connected, to a certain extent, that of prehistoric Greece; and the evidence of both Egypt and prehistoric Greece is indispensable for dating the archaeological development of Syria and Palestine. All the chronological problems are therefore interrelated, and it will be convenient to summarize them separately, beginning with those of Mesopotamia.

I. MESOPOTAMIA