CHAPTER ELEVEN

Berossus and Babylonian History

The writings of Berossus, the contemporary of Manetho, are altogether lost. No valid dates of individual kings have been preserved by classic writers from Berossus.

Berossus' first post-flood dynasty is completely distorted. It is said to be composed of 86 Chaldean kings who supposedly reigned about 34,000 years! This dynasty includes Evechous and Kosmabelos -- Cush and Nimrod. The kings who composed the first dynasty were not successive but contemporary leaders who formed the first Democratic Council in history this side of the flood. Samuel Kramer, in his book "History Begins at Sumer", draws attention to the fact that the earliest records of democratic government are found in references to Shinar and the city of Kish.

The other dynasties of Berossus strikingly confirm the Sumerian King List and Biblical history. The following chart is from Berossus' transcribers.
 

The dates for these dynasties may easily be restored. Pul, in Babylonian history, is Tiglathpileser III. He seized the city of Babylon in 729, during the third year of the reign of Ukinzer. See the "Babylonian Chronicle", Col I. Tiglathpileser considered this his first year; the Babylonians considered it his accession year assigning it to Ukinzer. Ptolemy coupled them together and designated the period as that of Chinziros and Poros.
 

The year 2192 marks not only the beginning of Nimrod's rule in Egypt, but also the Median seizure of Babylonia at the time Nimrod usurped Supreme authority at the dethroning of his father cush. This confirms Greek traditions that even Japetus (Japheth) opposed the Titans -- the followers of Nimrod. The Medes, descendents of Japheth kept their power over Babylon for 224 years to 1968 -- the year of the death of Gilgamesh. In another ten years (1968-1958) the Chaldeans regained full power.

Those ten years and the previous 38 were times of great stress during which 11 Chaldean kings, including Gilgamesh, ruled contemporaneously as Berossus' Dynasty III -- 2006-1958. The date 2006 is confirmed by the Persian account of Gilgamesh. Persian historians assign him only 38 years -- 2006-1968 -- the exact duration of his rule as part of Dynasty III of Berossus. (See Al Biruni's "Ancient Nations", page 99.) The remarkable agreement of all these figures, found among different nations, is proof that the historical data have never been totally lost.

Another Account of Earliest Dynasties

As generally recorded, Berossus' First Dynasty begins with Cush and Nimrod; the Second Dynasty was Median. But Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus preserve, from the most ancient records of the Temple of Belus at Babylon, an account of parallel rulers -- five Chaldean kings who were in turn succeeded by no less than six Arabians (pre-Ishmaelites). The information may be obtained from Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities", Pages 233-235. These much-misunderstood dynasties -- even Jackson did not understand their import -- perfectly correspond with the restoration of the Dynasty of Erech already presented.
 

(Note that the 35 years -- 2254-2219 -- of Porus are also the same for Mizraim.)
 

(the year 1958 marks the final expulsion of the Medes from Babylonia.)
 

In 1828, "the Assyrian kings succeeded in the Babylonian Empire, and thenceforth Babylonia and Chaldea became a part of the Assyrian Empire" -- Page 237, Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities". This is also the year of the defeat of Erech by Ur. Syncellus preserved a total of 190 years for the Chaldean kings, and not the above total of 211 -- though his separate figures add up to 211! It is exactly 190 years from 2233 to 2043. The year 2233 was famous in Babylonian history as the beginning of astronomical observation. The Babylonians began their observations 1903 years before Alexander came to Babylon in 330.

First Dynasty of Ur and Successors

The city of Ur in Babylonian history is not the Ur from which Abram came. Abram's Ur was Urfa in northern Mesopotamia, not on the fringes of Shinar.

According to the Sumerian King List, the First Dynasty of Ur came to power at the close of the First Dynasty of Erech.
 

The significance of the 36 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna will be explained when the Dynasty of Akshak is restored. The proper dates of Dynasty I of Ur are those of the Nippur list, which gives the total as 171 -- 1828-1657. (The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 adds the parallel reign of six years of Mes-kiag-Nunna to the total.)

At the close of the First Dynasty of Ur the Sumerian King List carries the government to the city of Awan in Elam (see page 224 of Pallis' "Chronology of the Shub-Ad Culture"). Reference to three kings is made, but only a cuneiform remnant of the last king's name is preserved: Kul ... 36 years. The total length of the Dynasty is 356 years -- 1657-1301. The date of the last king is therefore 1337-1301. A confirmation of these dates will be found in the succeeding history of the city of Isin and Dynasty III of Ur.

Historically the date 1657 marks Elamite prominence in Southern Mesopotamia and throws important light on the early history of India.

After Awan the Sumerian King List returns to Dynasty II of Kish. Though the names of the rulers of Kish during this period are preserved, the dates assigned to its rulers are extravagant -- over 3000 years being designated to 8 kings. Kish II begins about the time of the reigns of Gilgamesh and Mes-anne-padda, whose lives overlapped; for the last king of Kish I submitted to both (see the Sumerian poem "Gilgamesh and Aqqa" in Pritchard's Texts). The true length of Dynasty II is confirmed by Kish III and IV which we will now establish.

Listed after Kish II, though in part contemporary with it, is the Dynasty of Hamazi. Only one name of this dynasty is preserved: Hadanish. The total length of the dynasty is sometimes given as 360 years, sometimes as 420. It cannot be dated until Dynasty II and Dynasty III of Uruk are determined.

The shattered list of Dynasty II of Uruk is in the prism given 60 years and 120 years. In other documents it ends a period of 480 years. There is a definite relationship between these figures and those of Hamazi. But Uruk II and Hamazi cannot be dated until Uruk III is established.

From archaeology it is known that Uruk II was followed immediately by Uruk III -- though the King List branches off into parallel dynasties. Uruk III is composed of one King Lugal-zaggisi, who reigned 25 years. Comparative archaeology establishes that he succeeded Ur I, 1828-1657. The date of king Lugal-zaggisi is therefore 1657-1632.

As Uruk II preceded Uruk III, the 480 years extend back from 1657 to 2137. That is, the year 1657 ended an era of 480 years which began in 2137. As Uruk I ended in 1828, Uruk II lasted only 171 years 1828-1657. The figure 480 is not the length of the dynasty but the dating of an era. What happened in the year 2137? Isis (Ishtar or Semiramis) came to power after the 57-year era (2194-2137) of Nimrod. It was commonplace to date reigns in the "Era of Ishtar" (see Pritchard's "Texts", page 266, in Sargon's "Chronicle", and footnote 2). In chart form the figures for Uruk II are as follows.
 

Now the Dynasty of Hamazi may be dated:
 

Both these dynasties commenced with the Era of Ishtar. In another chart these two would appear as follows:
 

or
 

Skipping for the moment other parallel Dynasties, notice that Uruk III was succeeded by the Dynasty of Akkad. Uruk III -- composed of one king Lugal-zaggisi -- extended for 25 years to 1632.

Now Sargon of Akkad

The greatest name in Babylonian history in this period is undoubtedly that of Sargon "the Great" -- first king of the Akkadian Dynasty. The history of this dynasty has been confused by the Weld-Blundell Prism 444. The complete and correct record is that of the Nippur lists. Prism 444 is incomplete.
 

The reign of Sharkalisharri confirms Berossus, who dates the Arabian invasion in 1500. It toppled Naram-Sin from his power and brought his successor to a weakened throne. Naram-Sin died after one more year of reign. Rimush is the younger twin brother of Manish-tusu (Jacobsen, "Sumerian King List", p. 113). He overthrew an otherwise unknown Kaku of Ur.

The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 is fractured in the middle of the history of this dynasty. However, its total indicates that Naram-Sin's reign is cut short and does not include part of the period of his subjection to the invading Guti hordes. It also gives different figures for the three early rulers as follows.
 

Year 1633 is the accession year of Sargon.

This document(W.-B. 444) by itself is not a proper standard for Babylonian history. It should be used in conjunction with the other lists rather than by itself as is customarily done by modern authors.

Dynasties IV and V of Erech

The collapse of the Dynasty of Akkad brought Erech again into prominence. In the Scheil Text the Fourth Dynasty of Uruk is listed as follows:
 

The Weld-Blundell prism assigns 7 years to the first king -- 1440-1433.

Fragment C of the Susa list of these kings follows (see "Journal of Near Eastern Studies", Apr. 1960, p. 157).
 

In this list the contemporary reigns of Kudda and Puzur-ili are incorporated in the long reign of Ur-Utuk. As in Egyptian history, numerous rulers shared the government at the same time. In another fragment of the Susa list the following information is preserved for the first three kings:
 

What is the significance of the year 1472? It is the end of three years of confusion (1475-1472) under the Akkadian Dynasty when four kings ruled. During that period it became proverbial to ask: "who was king? who was not?" Far from being bad scribal errors, these various figures for Dynasty IV of Uruk tell much of the story that is otherwise unpreserved. The real rise to power commenced in 1472, though the kings of Uruk did not replace the kings of Akkad until 1436.

The kingship over Uruk was obtained in 1410 by Utuhegal, who constitutes Dynasty V. All documents agree in giving full 7 years to this short-lived Dynasty -- 1410-1403. Utuhegal gained prominence at the beginning of his reign by overthrowing the Guti who had invaded Babylonia 125 years before, in 1535, and wrested complete control in a second attack in 1500 (see the dates from the W.-B. Prism 444).

The Guti Dynasty

Berossus designates 1500 as the year in which an Arabian dynasty of 9 kings wrested control of Babylonia from the Chaldeans. Coupled with this invasion from Arabia was one from the east under the Guti. The Guti Dynasty is not complete in any one document, but may be determined from a comparison of each of the documents. Its first King is nowhere preserved in the King Lists, but an otherwise unknown king of the Guti has been found. As he is the only Guti king known to have usurped the titles of Naram-Sin, it is quite clear that he -- Erridupizir -- should head the list as the leader in the initial attack on Akkad in 1535. (Jacobsen's , "King List", p. 117, from Hilprecht's "The Earliest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and The Temple Library of Nippur". Pennsylvania Univ. Babylonian Expedition, Series D: Researches and Treatises V 1 (1910), chap. 4.)

The initials in brackets in the following list indicate the source of the different reading. Their significance will be explained afterward.
 

The second king is, in one tablet, assigned 5 years instead of 3. This indicates that Erridupizir may have reigned the last two years (1504-1502) jointly with Imta. The different lengths assigned to the reign of the third king -- Inkishush -- exactly fits the years 1500 and 1499 which overlap in the account of the Akkadian Dynasty. The variation in the reign of Elulumesh, the sixth king, is again made plain by the struggle for power recorded in the Akkadian Dynasty for 1475-1472. The king's total reign was 7 years, but only six to the year 1475, when the struggle for power in Babylonia commenced.

Three Other Dynasties

The coming of the Guti into Babylonia brought further division to the land. At the city of Ur a new Dynasty rose to power and lasted 108 years according to the Nippur List. The total for the Dynasty is missing from the document, but the total for Dynasties I, II and III is plainly given as 396. Dynasty I ruled 171 years; Dynasty III, 117, as will be noticed shortly. These two figures, subtracted from 396, leave 108.

The royal names of this dynasty are nearly illegible, and no internal dates are preserved. The Dynasty may be dismissed with the dates: 1535-1427.

In 1427 the Dynasty of Adab succeeded Ur II according to the Sumerian King List. It exercised authority in Babylonia for 90 years -- until 1337. The only name of a king of this Dynasty is that of Lugal-Annemundu. The collective verb -- "they reigned" -- indicates other names are lost.

At the same time that Ur II lost control to the city of Adab, another city, far distant, on the Middle Euphrates, came into power. It was the city of Ma (e) ri. Mari later became famous as a town bordering on Israel's territory on the Euphrates. The Mari Dynasty, placed after Adab in the King Lists, was, in point of fact, contemporary. It lasted 136 years -- 1427-1291. All that has been thus far discovered of its rulers is a tattered document that looks like the following:
 

Total: six kings for 136 years.

The year 1291 will become significant in the study of Kish IV.

Dynasty III of Ur

Meanwhile the city of Ur revived and another powerful dynasty came to power -- the Third. This dynasty was made famous by Woolley's excavations at Ur. It succeeded Dynasty V of Erech, and reigned for 117 years according to the Nippur List. Its first king once was functionary of Utuhegal before Ur rebelled and seized political prominence. Utuhegal (Uruk V) ruled 1410-1403.
 

Fragment C of the Susa List has a different account of this Dynasty. This account is usually rejected, merely because it is different from the preceding one.

But in it is a key to yet a third account of the same dynasty! The duration of Ur III was 117 years -- 1403-1286.
 

This list does not include the last year of Ibbi-Sin, during which he was carried captive to Elam. But, as in the Nippur List, it does include that year in its dynastic total (123 years), which is one year more than the total assigned to all the kings (122 years).*

The 48-year reign of Shulgi assigned in the Susa List stops in 1337. This date is significant. It marks the end of the Adab Dynasty (already discussed). It also is the beginning of the reign of "Kul scribe recording the Susa List does not give the last 10 years of Shulgi as it is incorporated in the long reign of Amar-Sin.

The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 differs from either preceding list in its length of the reign of Shulgi, which it gives as 46 -- 1385-1339. This dating provides the clue to the proper beginning of the 25-year reign of Amar-Sin as recorded in the Susa List. Also, W.-B 444 shortens the reign of Ibbi-Sin to 24 years -- 1311-1287, ending it in the same year as the Susa scribe does. That is, it does not include the last year in which the king was taken captive. It also assigns 9 years to Shu-Sin, probably the 9 years from 1311 (when Ibbi-Sin came to power) to the year 1302 (the last year of Shu-Sin in the Susa List).

(*Note: dynastic total of 123 years includes coregencies.)

Dynasty of Isin

During the reign of Ibbi-Sin of Ur the Elamites made inroads into the land of Shinar. This is the time that Elamite Awan dominated part of Babylonia under its last king.

The question of the corresponding years between Ibbi-Sin of Ur III and Ishbi-Irra, first king of Isin, has led to many learned articles in all the journals on Near Eastern Studies. The question cannot be determined by itself. Vital information is missing for the earliest years of Ishbi-Irra. The problem can be resolved, however, when combining the known facts with the information contained in Dynasty IV of Kish. Why no historian has ventured to correlate Kish with both dynasties is a mystery: If they had done so, they would have resolved the difficulties.

The following outline history of the Dynasty of Isin begins with the correlation of Ibbi-Sin's year 24 with Ishbi-Irra's year 14, and year 25 of Ibbi-Sin with year 15 of Ishbi-Irra. This correlation is one of several possibilities commonly espoused. It is, however, the only one which harmonizes with the history of Kish IV -- a fact to be proved in a succeeding section.
 

In 1075 Damiq-ilishu was overthrown by Rimsin of Larsa, who was in turn overthrown by Hammurabi.

The above list is the recognized standard for the Dynasty of Isin. Minor variations occur in two documents discussed in the "Journal of Cuneiform Studies", VIII, 4, "New Lists of the Kings of Ur and Isin." In them the year in which Ishbi-Irra came to power is treated as the accession year -- only 32 are assigned him. Ishme-Dagan is given 19 instead of 20, but Bur-Sin is assigned 22 instead of 21. In other documents the last year of Irra-imitti is replaced by a ursurper.

Dynasty IV of Kish and the "400 Years"

The records of Dynasty IV of Kish are so divergent -- and unusual -- that no historian or archaeologist would accept them. "Corrupt," "worthless," are the common epithets applied. No one has tested the evidence to see if the accounts are, in fact, true'!

In the Scheil Text (left) and the Weld-Blundell Prism 444 (right) Dynasties III and IV of Kish appear as follows:
 

Total 28 kings -- 586 years.

The 586 years of the Scheil Text includes the 400 not listed, minus the 6 which is listed: 100 plus 25 plus (400) plus 30 plus 6 plus 11 plus 11 plus 3 equals 586.

Now compare this with the evidence of the Susa Text. Notice the changed order of kings.
 

Who is this Shu-ilishu?

"This king can be no other than the well known Shu-ilishu of Igin and, comparing the account of the Isin dynasty ... we may perhaps assume that the copyist had a loose, unplaced fragment ..." -- and thus Thorkild Jacobsen suggests that a King of Isin was misplaced by a stupid scribe into the Kish IV Dynasty! (See page 108 of his "Sumerian King List", footnote 228.)

First, consider the mysterious 400 years. This period begins with the end of the reign of Puzur-Sin. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa (in the Schell Text) are a part of the 400 of the other texts. A break in the continuity of the dynasty is clearly indicated by this unusual figure.

Next, consider the close of the dynasty. One list ends with Nannia -- the other with Simudar. Now to assemble these divergent facts.

Shu-ilishu reigned 10 years after Ishbi-Irra according to the Isin dynastic list. His dates: 1268-1258. The W.-B Prism 444 states Shu-ilishu's total reign as 20 years, but does not count the first 10 in its total. In the Kish list from Susa his reign is given as 15 -- that is, 1273-1258. The following charts indicate how the remaining kings fit around the reign of Shu-ilishu.
 

or
 

and
 

What is the significance of the dates 1291 and 1255? The year 1291 is the date of the overthrow of Mari and the return of the old royal family of Kish to power. And the year 1255 is the date of return of the Chaldeans to power according to Berossus!

Now place the end of the 400 years in 1255. The beginning of the 400 years brings us to 1655. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa therefore extend from 1655 to 1649. This is shortly before the reign of Sargon "the Great" of Akkad. When Sargon was young he served as cupbearer to Ur-Zababa! (Pallis, "Chronology of Shub-Ad Culture", p. 360). Thus the 400 years have significance after all!

The reign of Puzur-Sin covers the preceding 25 years: 1680-1655.

But why should Kish IV have ended abruptly in 1649 and Ur-Zababa been slain? Archaeology answers: Lugal-zaggisi of Erech III overthrew Kish. The inhabitants were sent into exile. Years later Sargon restored the inhabitants to their estates: "Sargon, king of Agade, ... king of Kish .... restored Kish, he ordered them to take again possession of their city" (Pritchard's "Texts", p. 267).

The year 1649 is also of unusual significance in the history of India. IN THE WINTER OF 1650-1649 THE ASSYRIANS WERE DEFEATED ON THE BORDERS OF INDIA, resulting in collapse of Assyrian confederates in Mesopotamia.

Dynasty of Akshak

At the time Kish was overthrown Akshak was defeated also. The Dynasty of Akshak appears next.
 

Several of the dates are paralleled with others in contemporary dynasties. Year 1748 marks the end of the long reign of Mes-Anne-pada of Dynasty I or Ur. The short reign of 6 years for Uhdalulut second king of Akshak, explains the extra 6 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna of Ur I. In chart form the two kings' reigns appear thus:
 

or
 

But the relationship does not end here. Under Akshak's king Puzur-Sahan aging Queen Ku-Baba of Kish III gained unusual reputation for her "pious deeds." As a result her son Puzur-Sin came to royal estate upon the death of Puzur-Sahan in 1680. (See Pallis' "Shub-Ad Culture", pp. 359-360.) Notice that in the restoration of Kish IV the year 1680 is already marked as the commencement of the reign of Puzur-Sin, the son of Queen Ku-Baba! Here again is harmony among contemporary dynasties. Though Akshak lost power in 1649 the last king, Gimil-Sin (1656-1649), is assigned in the Susa List a total reign of 24 years (1656-1632) to the reign of Sargon of Akkad.

Dates of Queen Ru-Baba

Only one more Dynasty needs to be firmly established -- Kish III. Kish III is famous for a one-time woman wine merchant who became Queen. Her son and grandson ruled during her late years as the first two Kings of Kish's Dynasty IV. Since Dynasty III of Kish is at times listed first and on occasion later than the Dynasty of Akshak, it must have begun at the same time as Akshak. The dates of Kish III are therefore 1748-1648. Who the husband or the father of Queen Ku-Baba may have been is not stated in the lists. That she continued one year after the death (in 1649) of Ur-Zababa, her grandson, is clear from the statement of Sargon. He claims that she adopted him as her own son in place of her own heir now dead (S. Lloyd, "Mesopotamia", page 140).

It becomes clear with this restoration that Dynasties I and II of Kish are limited to the time between 2254 and 1748, with Kish I ending in the days of Gilgamesh.

With this account the clouded history of Babylonia to the era of Hammurabi closes. It is a period of nearly twelve centuries of strife division and wars.

Next

Prev

Table of Contents