Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 3, Part 1, Slice 1 Part 25

Since its publication in 1884 the Babylonian List of Kings has furnished the framework for every chronological system that has [v.03 p.0109] been proposed. In its original form this doc.u.ment 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 Neo-Babylonian period from which our princ.i.p.al cla.s.sical authorities (see sect. II.) derived their information. The princ.i.p.al 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 Nabona.s.sar 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 cla.s.sical authorities to the chronological system of Berossus (_q.v._); chronological references to earlier kings occurring in the later native inscriptions, such as Nabonidus's estimate of the period of Khammurabi (or Hammuribi); synchronisms, also furnished by the inscriptions, between kings of Babylon and of a.s.syria; and the early Babylonian date-lists.

Dyn. I. Dyn. II. Dyn. III.

--------- -------- ------------ B.C. B.C. B.C.

Oppert (1888) 2506-2202 2202-1834 1834-1257 Sayce (1899) 2478-(2174) 2174-(1806) 1806-(1229) " (1902) 2460-(2174) 2174-(1806) 1806-(1229) Rogers (1900) 2454-2451 2150-1783 1782-1207 Winckler (1894) (2425-2120) 2120-1752 1752-1177 " (1892) 2403-2098 2098-1730 1729-1150 " (1905) c. 2400-2100 c. 2100-1700 c. 1700-1150 Delitzsch (1907) c. 2420-2120 c. 2120-(1752) (1752-1176) " (1891) 2399-2094 2094-1726 1726-1150 Maspero (1897) 2416-2082 2082-1714 1714-(1137) Lehmann-Haupt (1898) 2360-2057 2056-1689 1688-1113 " " (1903) 2296-2009/8 2008/7-1691 1690-1115 Marquart (1899) 2335-2051 2051/0-1694/3 1693/2-1118/7 Peiser (1891) 2051-1947 1947-1579 1579-1180 Rost (1897) 2232-1928 1928-1560 1560-1224 " (1900) 2231-1941 1940-1573 1572-1179 Hommel (1901) 2223-1923 (1923-1752) 1752-1175 or 2050-1752 " "

" (1895) 2058-1754 1753-1178 " (1886) 2035-1731 2403-2035 1731-1154 (1898) 1884-1580 1580-1180 Niebuhr (1896) 2193-1889 2114-1746 1746-1169

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 princ.i.p.al 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.[6] 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[7] 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 B.C., 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 Sayce,[8] that of Rogers,[9] the three systems of Winckler,[10] both those of Delitzsch,[11] and that of Maspero,[12] 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 I. was due to his employing in 1902 the figures a.s.signed 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 emending 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 a.s.signed to Dynasties I. and II.[13]

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 Marduk-nadin-akh[=e]'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."[14]

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 emend them. But he obtained his low date for the close of Dynasty III. by emending [v.03 p.0110] Sennacherib's figure in the Bavian inscription; this he reduced by a hundred years,[15]

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;[16] 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.[17] In his revised scheme of chronology, published in 1903,[18]

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 a.s.signed 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 a.s.signed to Dynasty I. were effected chiefly by their treatment of Dynasty II. In his first system, published in 1886,[19] 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),[20] and in his second alternative scheme of 1901 (see below), he abandoned this proposal and adopted a suggestion of Halevy that Dynasty III. followed immediately after Dynasty I.; Dynasty II., he suggested, had either synchronized with Dynasty I., or was mainly apocryphal (_eine spatere 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.[21] 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.[22]

According to one of these he attempted to reconcile Berossus with the Kings' List by a.s.signing 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[23] 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 sh.o.r.es 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., Hitt.i.tes from Cappadocia raided and captured Babylon, which in her weakened state soon fell a prey to the Ka.s.sites (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 Ka.s.sites, who from that time onward occupied the whole of the Babylonian plain. The same chronicle informs us that Ilu-sh[=u]ma, an early a.s.syrian patesi, was the contemporary of Su-abu, the founder of Dynasty I. of the Kings' List, thus enabling us to trace the history of a.s.syria 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 pa.s.sage 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, a.s.suming 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[24] 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 225 years. Now the capture of the city of Isin by R[=i]m-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 Babylonia,[25] 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.

These considerable reductions in the dates of the earlier dynasties of Babylonia necessarily react upon our estimate of the age of Babylonian civilization. The very high dates of 5000 or 6000 B.C., formerly a.s.signed by many writers to the earliest remains of the Sumerians and the Babylonian Semites,[26] depended to a great extent on the statement of Nabonidus that 3200 years separated his own age from that of Nar[=a]m-Sin, the son of Sargon of Agade; for to Sargon, on this statement alone, a date of 3800 B.C. has usually been a.s.signed. But even by postulating the highest possible dates for the Dynasties of Babylon and Ur, enormous gaps occurred in the scheme of chronology, which were unrepresented by any royal name or record. In his valiant attempt to fill these gaps Radau was obliged to invent kings and even dynasties,[27] the existence of which is now definitely disproved. The statement of Nabonidus has not, however, been universally accepted. Lehmann-Haupt suggested an emendation of the text, reducing the number by a thousand years;[28] while Winckler has regarded the statement of Nabonidus as an uncritical exaggeration.[29] Obviously the scribes of Nabonidus were not anxious to diminish the antiquity of the foundation-inscription of Nar[=a]m-Sin, which their royal master had unearthed; [v.03 p.0111] and another reason for their calculations resulting in so high a figure is suggested by the recent discoveries: they may in all good faith have reckoned as consecutive a number of early dynasties which were as a matter of fact contemporaneous. But, though we may refuse to accept the accuracy of this figure of Nabonidus, it is not possible at present to fix a definite date for the early kings of Agade.

All that can be said is that both archaeological and epigraphic evidence indicates that no very long interval separated the empire of the Semitic kings of Agade from that of the kings of Sumer and Akkad, whose rule was inaugurated by the founding of the Dynasty of Ur.[30]

To use caution in accepting the chronological notices of the later kings is very far removed from suggesting emendations of their figures. The emenders postulate mechanical errors in the writing of the figures, but, equally with those who accept them, regard the calculations of the native scribes as above reproach. But that scribes could make mistakes in their reckoning is definitely proved by the discovery at Shergat of two totally conflicting accounts of the age and history of the great temple of a.s.sur.[31] This discovery in itself suggests that all chronological data are not to be treated as of equal value and arranged mechanically like the pieces of a Chinese puzzle; and further, that no more than a provisional acceptance should be accorded any statement of the later native chronologists, until confirmed by contemporary records. On the other hand, the death-blow has been given to the principle of emendation of the figures, which for so long has found favour among a considerable body of German writers.

(L. W. K.)

IX. _Proper Names._--In the early days of the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, the reading of the proper names borne by Babylonians and a.s.syrians occasioned great difficulties; and though most of these difficulties have been overcome and there is general agreement among scholars as to the principles underlying both the formation and the p.r.o.nunciation of the thousands of names that we encounter in historical records, business doc.u.ments, votive inscriptions and literary productions, differences, though mostly of a minor character, still remain. Some time must elapse before absolute uniformity in the transliteration of these proper names is to be expected; and since different scholars still adopt varying spellings of Babylonian and a.s.syrian proper names, it has been considered undesirable in this work to ignore the fact in individual articles contributed by them. The better course seems to be to explain here the nature of these variations.

The main difficulty in the reading of Babylonian and a.s.syrian proper names arises from the preference given to the "ideographic" method of writing them. According to the developed cuneiform system of writing, words may be written by means of a sign (or combination of signs) expressive of the entire word, or they may be spelled out phonetically in syllables. So, for example, the word for "name" may be written by a sign MU, or it may be written cut by two signs _shu-mu_, the one sign MU representing the "Sumerian" word for "name," which, however, in the case of a Babylonian or a.s.syrian text must be read as _shumu_--the Semitic equivalent of the Sumerian MU. Similarly the word for "clothing" may be written SIG-BA, which represents again the "Sumerian" word, whereas, the Babylonian-a.s.syrian equivalent being _lubushtu_ it is so to be read in Semitic texts, and may therefore be also phonetically written _lu-bu-ush-tu_. This double method of writing words arises from the circ.u.mstance that the cuneiform syllabary is of non-Semitic origin, the system being derived from the non-Semitic settlers of the Euphrates valley, commonly termed Sumerians (or Sumero-Akkadians), to whom, as the earlier settlers, the origin of the cuneiform script is due. This script, together with the general Sumerian culture, was taken over by the Babylonians upon their settlement in the Euphrates valley and adapted to their language, which belonged to the Semitic group. In this transfer the Sumerian words--largely monosyllabic--were reproduced, but read as Semitic, and at the same time the advance step was taken of utilizing the Sumerian words as means of writing the Babylonian words phonetically. In this case the signs representing Sumerian words were treated merely as syllables, and, without reference to their meaning, utilized for spelling Babylonian words. The Babylonian syllabary which thus arose, and which, as the culture pa.s.sed on to the north--known as a.s.syria--became the Babylonian a.s.syrian syllabary,[32] was enlarged and modified in the course of time, the Semitic equivalents for many of the signs being distorted or abbreviated to form the basis of new "phonetic" values that were thus of "Semitic" origin; but, on the whole, the "non-Semitic" character of the signs used as syllables in the phonetic method of writing Semitic words was preserved; and, furthermore, down to the latest days of the Babylonian and a.s.syrian empires the mixed method of writing continued, though there were periods when "purism" was the fas.h.i.+on, and there was a more marked tendency to spell out the words laboriously in preference to using signs with a phonetic complement as an aid in suggesting the reading desired in any given instance. Yet, even in those days, the Babylonian syllabary continued to be a mixture of ideographic and phonetic writing. Besides the conventional use of certain signs as the indications of names of G.o.ds, countries, cities, vessels, birds, trees, &c., which, known as "determinants," are the Sumerian signs of the terms in question and were added as a guide for the reader, proper names more particularly continued to be written to a large extent in purely "ideographic" fas.h.i.+on. The conservatism which is a feature of proper names everywhere, in consequence of which the archaic traits of a language are frequently preserved in them, just as they are preserved in terms used in the ritual and in poetic diction, is sufficient to account for the interesting fact that the Semitic settlers of the Euphrates valley in handing down their names from one generation to another retained the custom of writing them in "Sumerian" fas.h.i.+on, or, as we might also put it, in "ideographic" form. Thus the name of the deity, which enters as an element in a large proportion of the proper names,[33] was almost invariably written with the sign or signs representing this deity, and it is only exceptionally that the name is spelled phonetically. Thus the name of the chief G.o.d of the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk, is written by two signs to be p.r.o.nounced AMAR-UD, which describe the G.o.d as the "young bullock of the day"--an allusion to the solar character of the G.o.d in question. The moon-G.o.d Sin is written by a sign which has the force of "thirty," and is a distinct reference to the monthly course of the planet; or the name is written by two signs to be p.r.o.nounced EN-ZU, which describe the G.o.d as the "lord of wisdom." The G.o.d Nebo appears as PA--the sign of the stylus, which is a.s.sociated with this deity as the originator and patron of writing and of knowledge in general,--or it is written with a sign AK, which describes the G.o.d as a "creator."

Until, therefore, through parallel pa.s.sages or through explanatory lists prepared by the Babylonian and a.s.syrian scribes in large numbers as an aid for the study of the language,[34] the exact phonetic reading of these divine names was determined, scholars remained in doubt or had recourse to conjectural or provisional readings. Even at the present time there are many names of deities, as, _e.g._ Ninib, the phonetic reading of which is still unknown or uncertain. In most cases, however, these belong to the category of minor deities or represent old local G.o.ds a.s.similated to some more powerful G.o.d, who absorbed, as it were, the attributes and prerogatives of these minor ones. In many cases they will probably turn out to be descriptive epithets of G.o.ds [v.03 p.0112] already known rather than genuine proper names. A peculiar difficulty arises in the case of the G.o.d of storms, who, written IM, was generally known in Babylonia as Ramman, "the thunderer," whereas in a.s.syria he also had the designation Adad. In many cases, therefore, we may be in doubt how the sign IM is to be read, more particularly since this same G.o.d appears to have had other designations besides Ramman and Adad.

Besides the divine element, proper names as a rule in the Babylonian-a.s.syrian periods had a verbal form attached and a third element representing an object. Even when the sign indicative of the verb is clearly recognised there still remains to be determined the form of the verb intended. Thus in the case of the sign KUR, which is the equivalent of _na[s.][=a]ru_, "protect," there is the possibility of reading it as the active participle _n[=a][s.]ir_, or as an imperative _u[s.][s.]ur_, or even the third person perfect _i[s.][s.]ur_. Similarly in the case of the sign MU, which, besides signifying "name" as above pointed out, is also the Sumerian word for "give," and therefore may be read _iddin_, "he gave,"

from _nad[=a]nu_, or may be read _n[=a]din_, "giver"; and when, as actually happens, a name occurs in which the first element is the name of a deity followed by MU-MU, a new element of doubt is introduced through the uncertainty whether the first MU is to be taken as a form of the verb _nad[=a]nu_ and the second as the noun _shumu_, "name," or vice versa.

Fortunately, in the case of a large number of names occurring on business doc.u.ments as the interested parties or as scribes or as witnesses--and it is through these doc.u.ments that we obtain the majority of the Babylonian-a.s.syrian proper names--we have variant readings, the same name being written phonetically in whole or part in one instance and ideographically in another. Certain cla.s.ses of names being explained in this way, legitimate and fairly reliable conclusions can be drawn for many others belonging to the same cla.s.s or group. The proper names of the numerous business doc.u.ments of the Khammurabi period, when phonetic writing was the fas.h.i.+on, have been of special value in resolving doubts as to the correct reading of names written ideographically. Thus names like _Sin-na-di-in-shu-mi_ and _Bel-na-di-in-shu-mi_, _i.e._ "Sin is the giver of a name" (_i.e._ offspring), and "Bel is the giver of a name," form the model for names with deities as the first element followed by MU-MU, even though the model may not be consistently followed in all cases. In historical texts also variant readings occur in considerable number. Thus, to take a cla.s.sic example, the name of the famous king Nebuchadrezzar occurs written in the following different manners:--(a) _Na-bi-um-ku-du-ur-ri-u-[s.]u-ur_, (b) AK-DU-_u-[s.]u-ur_, (c) AK-_ku-dur-ri_-SHES, and (d) PA-GAR-DU-SHES, from which we are permitted to conclude that PA or AK (with the determinative for deity AN) = _Na-bi-um_ or Nebo, that GAR-DU or DU alone = _kudurri_, and that SHES = _u[s.][s.]ur_. The second element signifies "boundary" or "territory"; the third element is the imperative of _nasaru_, "protect"; so that the whole name signifies, "O, Nebo! protect my boundary" (or "my territory").

It is not the purpose of this note to set forth the principles underlying the formation of proper names among the Babylonians and a.s.syrians, but it may not be out of place to indicate that by the side of such full names, containing three elements (or even more), we have already at an early period the reduction of these elements to two through the combination of the name of a deity with a verbal form merely, or through the omission of the name of the deity. From such names it is only a step to names of one element, a characteristic feature of which is the frequent addition of an ending _-tum_ (feminine), _[=a]n_, _[=a]_, _um_, _atum_, _atija_, _sha,_ &c., most of these being "hypocoristic affixes," corresponding in a measure to modern pet-names.

Lastly, a word about genuine or pseudo-Sumerian names. In the case of texts from the oldest historical periods we encounter hundreds of names that are genuinely Sumerian, and here in view of the multiplicity of the phonetic values attaching to the signs used it is frequently difficult definitely to determine the reading of the names. Our knowledge of the ancient Sumerian language is still quite imperfect, despite the considerable progress made, more particularly during recent years. It is therefore not surprising that scholars should differ considerably in the reading of Sumerian names, where we have not helps at our command as for Babylonian and a.s.syrian names.

Changes in the manner of reading the Sumerian names are frequent. Thus the name of a king of Ur, generally read Ur-Bau until quite recently, is now read Ur-Engur; for Lugal-zaggisi, a king of Erech, some scholars still prefer to read Ungal-zaggisi; the name of a famous political and religious centre generally read s.h.i.+r-pur-la is more probably to be read s.h.i.+r-gul-la; and so forth. There is reason, however, to believe that the uncertainty in regard to many of these names will eventually be resolved into reasonable certainty. A doubt also still exists in regard to a number of names of the older period because of the uncertainty whether their bearers were Sumerians or Semites. If the former, then their names are surely to be read as Sumerian, while, if they were Semites, the signs with which the names are written are probably to be read according to their Semitic equivalents, though we may also expect to encounter Semites bearing genuine Sumerian names. At times too a doubt may exist in regard to a name whose bearer was a Semite, whether the signs composing his name represent a phonetic reading or an ideographic compound. Thus, _e.g._ when inscriptions of a Semitic ruler of Kish, whose name was written Uru-mu-ush, were first deciphered, there was a disposition to regard this as an ideographic form and to read phonetically Alu-ushars.h.i.+d ("he founded a city," with the omission of the name of the deity), but scholarly opinion finally accepted Uru-mu-ush (Urumush) as the correct designation.

For further details regarding the formation of Sumerian and Babylonian-a.s.syrian proper names, as well as for an indication of the problems involved and the difficulties still existing, especially in the case of Sumerian names,[35] see the three excellent works now at our disposal for the Sumerian, the old Babylonian, and the neo-Babylonian period respectively, by Huber, _Die Personennamen in den Keilschrifturkunden aus der Zeit der Konige von Ur und Nisin_ (Leipzig, 1907); Ranke, _Early Babylonian Proper Names_ (Philadelphia, 1905); and Tallqvist, _Neu-Babylonisches Namenbuch_ (Helsingfors, 1905).

(M. JA.)

[Plate I.] [Plate II.]

[1] For a survey of the chronological systems adopted by different modern scholars, see below, section viii. "Chronological Systems."

[2] The compiler of the more complete one seems to have allowed himself liberties. At all events he gives 30 years of reign to Sin-muballidh instead of the 20 a.s.signed to him in a list of dates drawn up at the time of Ammi-zadok's accession, 55 years to Khammurabi instead of 43, and 35 years to Samsu-iluna instead of 38, while he omits altogether the seven years' reign of the a.s.syrian king Tukulti-In-aristi at Babylon.

[3] They are also called high-priests of Gunammid[=e] and a contract-tablet speaks of "T[=e] in Babylon," but this was probably not the T[=e] of the seal. It must be remembered that the reading of most of the early Sumerian proper names is merely provisional, as we do not know how the ideographs of which they are composed were p.r.o.nounced in either Sumerian or a.s.syrian.

[4] For the events leading up to the conquests of Cyrus, see PERSIA: _Ancient History_, -- v. The chronology is not absolutely certain.

[5] The following is a list of the later dynasties and kings of Babylonia and a.s.syria so far as they are known at present. For the views of other writers on the chronology, see -- viii., _Chronological Systems._

_The Babylonian Dynasties from cir._ 2500 B.C.

_Dynasty of Ur._

Gungunu, _cir._ 2500 B.C.

Ur-Gur.

Dungi, more than 51 years.

Bur-Sin, more than 12 years.

Gimil-Sin, more than 9 years.

Ibi-Sin.

Idin-Dagan.

Sumu-ilu.

_First Dynasty of Babylon._ 2350 B.C.

Sumu-abi, 14 years.

Sumu-la-ilu, 36 years.

Zabium, 14 years.

Abil-Sin, 18 years.

Sin-muballidh, 20 years.

Khammurabi, 43 years.

Samsu-iluna, 38 years.

Abesukh, 25 years.

Ammi-ditana, 25 years.

Ammi-zadoq, 21 years.

Samsu-ditana, 31 years.