A history of Babylon from the foundation of the monarchy to the Persian conquest . n separates each line of the text: 21 yearsNaplanum ; 28 years Emi§u ; 35 years Samum ; 9 years Zabaia ; 27 yearsGungunum ; 11 years Abi-sare ; 29 years Sumu-ilum ; 16 years N^ur-Adad ;7(?) years Sin-idinnam ; 2 years Sin-iribam ; 6(?) years Sin-ikisham ; 1 yearSili-Adad ; 12 years Warad-Sin ; 61 years Rim-Sin ; 12(?) years Hammurabi ;12 years Samsu-iluna, the king ; 289 the years thereof. From the insertionof the word sharru, king, after Samsu-ilunas name, we may infer that thelist is a contemporaneous document
A history of Babylon from the foundation of the monarchy to the Persian conquest . n separates each line of the text: 21 yearsNaplanum ; 28 years Emi§u ; 35 years Samum ; 9 years Zabaia ; 27 yearsGungunum ; 11 years Abi-sare ; 29 years Sumu-ilum ; 16 years N^ur-Adad ;7(?) years Sin-idinnam ; 2 years Sin-iribam ; 6(?) years Sin-ikisham ; 1 yearSili-Adad ; 12 years Warad-Sin ; 61 years Rim-Sin ; 12(?) years Hammurabi ;12 years Samsu-iluna, the king ; 289 the years thereof. From the insertionof the word sharru, king, after Samsu-ilunas name, we may infer that thelist is a contemporaneous document, drawn up in Samsu-ilunas twelfth point of interest is that the scribe has written the determinative fordivinity before the names of Rim-Sin and Hammurabi, but not before that ofSamsu-iluna. The numbers followed by a query are those suggested byProfessor Clay for the three broken passages ; it will be noted that theymake up the total of the figures, which is given by the scribe as two hundredand eighty-nine years. * See above, p. 88. 2 gee further, p. 98 f. ^0 CO. i Z - ? O ?? z S ^ 5 e: s X — -• — < S THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 91 throne of Larsa when merely a boy of fifteen, we shouldhave to infer from the new figures that he was leadinga revolt against Samsu-iluna in his ninety-eighth year—a combination of circumstances which is just within thebounds of possibility, but is hardly probable or con-vincing. We shall see presently that there is a com-paratively simple, and not improbable, solution of thepuzzle, to which another line of evidence seems toconverge. It will be noted that the new list of the kings ofLarsa, important as it undoubtedly is for the history ofits own period, does not in itself supply the long-desiredMnk between the earher and the later chronology ofBabylonia. The relationship of the First Dynasty ofBabylon with that of Nisin ^ is, so far as the new hst isconcerned, left in the same state of uncertainty as possibili
Size: 1212px × 2063px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookpublisherlondo, bookyear1915
