ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA

separate their history. Some of the common sources for history will be noticed here.

(o) Chronology. — (a) Year-names. — The Babylonians gave each year a name. Thus the names of the first four years of the reign of Hammurabi are: (1) the year in which Hammurabi became king; (2) the year in which Hammurabi established the heart of the land in righteousness; (3) the year in which the throne of Nannar was made; (4) the year in which the wall of Malga was destroyed. These dates, or year-names, were decided upon and notice sent round to the prin-cipal districts, early each year. Thus we know that the date, or year-name, to be used tor the eighth year of Samsu-iluna was sent as far as the Lebanon, where the tablet giving the order was found. Until the new year-name was known, the year was dated 'the year after' the last known date. Thus the fourth year of Hammurabi would be called ' the year after that in which the throne of Nannar was made.' The scribes kept a record of these dates, and a long list of year-names, in two recensions, has been published, which, if perfect, would have given the year-names from Sumu-abi to the tenth year of Ammi-zaduga. It was natural that the same ideogram M U should denote ' year ' and ' name.' When, therefore, this Ust counts 43 ilf t/ to the reign of Hammurabi, we do not know that he reigned '43 years,' but only that he used 43 year-names in his reign. We know that the same year was sometimes called by two different names. When, therefore, the King's List gives him a reign of 55 years, we may explain the dis-crepancy by supposing that the list of year-names gives only the number of separate names. As a year- name often mentions a campaign, it seems most unlikely that it could have been given at the beginning of the year, still more when it records such an event as the fall of a city. The list of year-names records some event, usually domestic, reUgious, or miUtary, for each year, and consequently has been called a 'chronicle.' This system of dating occurs as early as Sargon i. Its ambiguity for future generations is obvious. The kings of Larsa developed an era, the years being called the first, second, etc. (up to the 30th), 'after the capture of Isin.' In the third dynasty the method of dating by the year of the king's reign was introduced. If a king died in the 20th year of his reign, he is said to have reigned 20 years. The remainder of the year was ' the accession year' of his successor, and his first year was that begin-■ning on the first of Nisan after his accession. Thus over a long series of years, the sum of the reigns is accurately the length in years, except for the margin at the beginning and end : it is exact to a year.

(/3) Eponym Canon. — The Assyrians devised a modi-fication of the year-name which avoided all difficulty. They named each year after a particular official, who could be selected at the beginning of the year, which was called his limmu or eponymy. The particular oflicial for each year was originally selected by lot (pffiTTi), but later a fixed order was followed, the king, the Tartan, the chief of the levy, the chief scribe, etc., then the governors of the chief cities. As the Empire extended, the governors of such distant places as Car-chemish, Razappa, Kummuh, or even Samaria, became eponyms. Later still the order seems to be quite arbitrary, and may have been a royal choice. Lists of these officials, in their actual order of succession, known as the Eponym Canons, were drawn up, are fairly complete from b.c. 911 to e.g. 668, and can be restored to B.C. 648. This method of dating is at. least as early aa Arik-den-ilu, and was in use in Cappadocia, possibly much earUer. A very large number of names of Eponyms are known, which are not in the Canons, but as yet they can rarely be dated.

(v) ChTonological statements. — This system, however, provided an accurate means of dating, and warrants great reliance on the statements of the kings as to the dates of events long before their times. Provided

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA

that they had access to earlier Eponym Canons than we possess, there is no reason why they should not be exact. Later kings were not disinclined to give such chronological statements. Thus Shalmaneser i. states that Erishum built the temple of Ashur, in Asshur, which Shamshi-Adad rebuilt 159 years later, but which was destroyed 580 years later by a fire and built afresh by him. The king does not state in which year of either of the reigns these events took place. Esar-haddon also states that the temple was built by Erishum, restored by Shamshi-Adad, son of Bel-kabi, and again by Shalmaneser i. 434 years later, and again by himself. The former statement may be preferred, as Shalmaneser I. was much nearer to the events, and it is easier to reconcile with other statements. Sennacherib's Bavian inscription states that he recovered the gods of Ekallati, which had been carried away by Marduk-nadin-ahe, king of Akkad, in the days of Tiglath-pileser i., 418 years before, thus dating both Marduk-nadin-ahe and Tiglath-pileser i. at about B.C. 1107. Tiglath-pileser i. tells us that he rebuilt the temple of Ashur and Adad which had been pulled down by his great-grandfather Ashur-dan r., 60 years before, and had then stood 641 years since its foundation by Shamshi-Adad, son of Ishme-Dagan. This puts Shamshi-Adad about b.c. 1820 and Ashur-dan about 1170. Sennacherib also states that a seal captured from Babylon by Tukulti-Ninib i. had been carried away to Babylon again and was brought back by him 600 years later. This puts Tukulti-Ninib i. about B.C. 1289. Ashurbanipal states that on his capture of Susa he brought back the image of Nana, which had been carried off by Kudur-nanhundi, 1635 years before. This puts an invasion of Babylon at B.C. 2275. A boundary stone dated in the 4th year of Bel-nadin-apU states that from Gulkishar, probably the sixth king of the second Babylonian Dynasty, to Nebuchadrezzar i. there were 696 years. This puts Gulkishar about b.c. 1820. Nabonidus states that he restored a temple in Sippara, which had not been restored since Shagarakti-shuriash, 800 years before. This puts that king about b.c. 1350. Further, that Naram-Sin, son of Sargon i., was 3200 years before him, which dates Naram-Sin about b.c. 3750. Further, that Hammurabi lived 700 years before Burna-buriash. This dates Hammurabi about b.c 2100, or b.c 2150, according as we understand Burna-buriash i. or ii. to be intended. It is evident that all such dates are vague. The numbers may be only approximate, 600 for 560 or 640, say. Further, we do not know from which year of the writer's reign to reckon, nor to which year of the king named. This may add a further margin of uncertainty.

(6) The Kings' List, Ptolemy's Canon, Eponym. List. — The Babylonian Kings' List, if complete, would have given the names of the kings of Babylonia from the First Dynasty down to the last native ruler, Nabonidus, with the lengths of their reigns. It does furnish these particulars for long periods. The famous Canon of Ptolemy begins with Nabonassar, b.c 747, and gives the names of the kings, including the Assyrians Poros (Tiglath-pileser in.), Sargon, and Esarhaddon, with the dates of their reigns, down to Nabonidus, then the Achsemenids to Alexander the Great, the Ptolemys and Romans, so connecting with well-known dates. The Eponym Canon lists record the eclipse of b.c. 763, and their dates are thus fixed. So far as they overlap, the last three sources agree exactly. We may then trust the Eponym Canons to b.c. 911 and the Kings' List wherever preserved.

(e) Genealogies, Date Documents. — The kings usually mention their father and grandfather by name; often an earlier ancestor, or predecessor, naming his father, and we are thus enabled to trace back a dynasty from father to son over long periods. Unfortunately we are rarely told by them how long a king reigned, but where we have documents dated by the year of his reign, we can say he reigned at least so many years.

61