Chronology. Besides the Canon of Ptolemy and the As.syr. anil Egj-p. synchronisms already described in art. Assvitl.v, Impcn-lant chronological data are supplied by the later historical inscrip- tions, esp. those of N.abonldns, and by .some earlier monuments. In using these data, however. It must always be borne in mind that In all pro- bability, as early as the time of Assurbanipal, the Bab. chronographers had already fallen into the error of making Ihe first two dynasties in the li.st of kings successive instead of contemporaneous. Conseipiently, a number of the following dates must lie reduced by .•(08 years, the duration of the .second dynasty.
a. A bonmlary-stone, dated the 4tli year of king Bel-nadin-apli (Ililprecht, Old Jinh. /lisrrip. i. pi. .'50), informs us that from Gnlkisliar, king of the sea-laiul (i.e. Gulki.sar, the sixth king of the second dynasty), to Nebuch. I., there were
224
BABYLONIA
BABYLONIA
696 years. Now, since Bel-nadin-apli was the immediate successor of Nebuch. I., tlie first four years of l>is own reign must be added to tiie above number, giving us tlie round number of 700 years between the death of Gulkisar and the time when tlie boundary-stone was set up. As the latter date is c. li.c. 1118, the death of Gul- kisar would have to be dated B.C. 1818, or a fevf decades later, for the round number 700 may, if need be, stand also for 050 or 660.
b. Sennacherib relates that 418 years before the destruction of Babylon (H.C. 689), Marduk-nadin- akhi, the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser I. of Assyria, carried away two images of gods from the Assyr. city of Ikallati to Babylon. This im- plies that in li.r. 1107, and during the reign of Marduk-nadin-akhi, Babylonia had the upper hand of Assyria. Now it so happens that a boundary-stone, dated the 10th year of Marduk- nadin-akhi, records a great victory gained that year over Assyria, so that this 10th year will be B.C. 1107, or, in other words, the first year of M.'s reign must be dated B.C. 1117.
c. Assurbanipal, in conne.Kion with the conquest of Elam (c. 640 or later), mentions that the image of a god brought back by him from Elam to Erech had been carried away from the latter city 1635 years before, by Kudur-nankhundi. This invasion of Babylonia by the Elamites must accordingly have taken place c. B.C. 227.5. It is quite possible, however, that, for the reason stated above, this last number ought to be reduced by 368 years, and that the date should be B.C. 1007.
d. Mabonidus relates that he restored the temple E-ulmash at Sippar-Anunit (i.e. Agade), which had not been restored since the reign of Shaga- raktiburiash 800 years before. This gives us as the year of the death of the latter (which took place 7.50-800 years before Xabonidus, who himself reigned B.C. 555—539) a date somewhere between B.C. 1300 and 1350. (See further below, under Kurigalzu U.)
e. In tlie same inscription (Tr..4/, v. pi. 64) Xabonidus states that 3200 years before himself, the old king Naram-Sin, son of Sargon (now known to us from the inscriptions as Sargiini-shar-ali, king of A.gadc), founded the temple of Samas at Sippar. This carries us to the high antiquity of B.C. 3750 for the reign of NarS,m-Sin. This fi.gure, however, for the above reason, should certainly be reduced to c. B.C. 3400.
f. Nabonidus further mentions, in an inscription which found its way to the I5rit. Museum in 1885, that Burnaburias restored the temple of the sun at Larsa 700 years after Ivhamnuirabi. Since this undoubtedly refers to the more celebrated monarch of that name, Burnaburias II. (c. 1400- 1375),* we are enabled thus to fi.\ the date of Khanimurabi's reign at c. B.C. 2100. And, as a matter of fact, we obtain c. 2139-2084 as the date of his reign, if we follow tlie later custom of adding together the years of dynasties A and B as if they had been successive instead of con- temporaneous, and if we assume (with Dr. Peiser, Zeitsch. f. Assyr. vi. 264-271) as the probable duration of dynasty C only 399 instead of the traditional 576 years (6 sosses and 39 years, instead of 9 sosses and .30 years). In reality, however, Khammurabi, the contemporary of Abraham, must have reigned B.C. 1772-1717 or 1949-1894.
History of Babylonia. As far back as we can go, and thus in any case considerably earlier than B.C. 4000, we find Sumerians and Semites side by side in Babylonia. Yet we can see clearly enough — (1) that the Semites in the earliest period were .settled for the most part in the X.W., and that they penetrated into Babylonia from Meso- * In any case, Burnaburias i. reigned only 40 years earlier.
potamia (Harran), while the Sumerians, at a very early date, were confined to the extreme S.E. of the Euphrates region ; (2) that the Sumerians were the founders of Bab. civilisation, and that in the remotest antiquity they certainly at one time occupied the whole of Babylonia. The Semites not only employed at all times the Stimerian wrilinfj, which they accommodated as they best could to their purposes, but for a long time (at least for official records, such as dedicatory inscrip- tions) they used the Sumer. language as well. It was not till shortly before Sargon of Agade (c. B.C. 3500) that in N. Babylonia inscriptions began to be composed also in Semitic.