A History of Babylon, from the Foundation of the Monarchy to the Persian Conquest

by L. W. King

It may seem strange that in some of the documents with the double-dates the second figure is given as eighteen and in others as nineteen. There is more than one way in which it is possible to explain the discrepancy. If we assume that the conquest of Nîsin took place towards the close of Rîm-Sin's seventeenth year, it is possible that, during the two years that followed, alternative methods of reckoning were in vogue, some scribes regarding the close of the seventeenth year as the first year of the new epoch, others beginning the new method of time-reckoning with the first day of the following Nisan. Rut that explanation can hardly be regarded as probable, for, in view of the importance attached to the conquest, the promulgation of the new era commemorating the event would have been carried out with more than ordinary ceremonial, and the date of its adoption would not have been left to the calculation of individual scribes. It is far more likely that the explanation is to be sought in the second figure of the equation, the discrepancy being due to alternative methods of reckoning Rîm-Sin's regnal years. Again assuming that the conquest took place in Rîm-Sin's seventeenth year, those scribes who counted the years from his first date-formula would have made the second year of the era the eighteenth of his reign. But others may have included in their total the year of Rîm-Sin's accession to the throne, and that would account for their regarding the same year as the nineteenth according to the abolished system of reckoning.[23] This seems the preferable explanation of the two, but it will be noticed that, on either alternative, we must regard the first year of the Nîsin era as corresponding to the seventeenth year of Rîm-Sin's reign.

One other point requires to be settled, and that is the relation of the Nîsin era to the actual conquest of the city. Was the era inaugurated in the same year as the conquest, or did its first year begin with the following first of Nisan? In the course of the fifth chapter the early Babylonian method of time-reckoning is referred to, and it will be seen that precisely the same question arises with regard to certain other events commemorated in date-formulæ of the period.[24] Though some features of the system are still rather uncertain, we have proof that the greater historical events did in certain cases affect the current date-formula, especially when this was of a provisional character, with the result that the event was commemorated in the final formula for the year of its actual occurrence. Arguing from analogy, we may therefore regard the inauguration of the Nîsin era as coinciding with the year of the city's capture. In the case of this particular event the arguments in favour of such a view apply with redoubled force, for no other victory by a king of Larsa was comparable to it in importance. We may thus regard the last year of Damik-ilishu, King of Nîsin, as corresponding to the seventeenth year of Rîm-Sin, King of Larsa. And since the relationship of Rîm-Sin with Hammurabi has been established by the new list of Larsa kings, we are at length furnished with the missing synchronism for connecting the dynasties of the Nippur Kings' List with those of Babylon.

VIII. HAMMURABI, KING OF BABYLON, FROM A RELIEF IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, dedicated on his behalf to the West Semitic goddess [Ashratum by Itur-ashdum, a provincial governor]

We may now return to the difficulty introduced by the new list of Larsa kings, on which, as we have already noted, the long reign of Rîm-Sin is apparently entered as preceding the thirty-second year of Hammurabi's rule in Babylon. Soon after the publication of the chronicle, from a broken passage on which it was inferred that Rîm-Sin survived into Samsu-iluna's reign.[25] an attempt was made to explain the words as referring to a son of Rîm-Sin and not to that ruler himself.[26] But it was pointed out that the sign, which it was suggested should be rendered as "son," was never employed with that meaning in chronicles of the period,[27] and that we must consequently continue to regard the passage as referring to Rîm-Sin. It was further noted that two contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, which record the same deed of sale, are dated the one by Rîm-Sin, and the other in Samsu-iluna's tenth year.[28] In both of these deeds the same parties are represented as carrying out the same transaction, and, although there is a difference in the price agreed upon, the same list of witnesses occur on both, and both are dated in the same month. The most reasonable explanation of the existence of the two documents would seem to be that, at the period the transaction they record took place, the possession of the town now marked by the mounds of Tell Sifr was disputed by Rîm-Sin and Samsu-iluna. Soon after the first of the deeds had been drawn up, the town may have changed hands, and, in order that the transaction should still be recognized as valid, a fresh copy of the deed was made out with the new ruler's date-formula substituted for that which was no longer current.[29] But whatever explanation be adopted, the alternative dates upon the documents, taken in conjunction with the chronicle, certainly imply that Rîm-Sin was living at least as late as Samsu-iluna's ninth year, and probably in the tenth year of his reign.

If, then, we accept the face value of the figures given by the new Larsa Kings' List, we are met by the difficulty already referred to, that Rîm-Sin would have been an active political force in Babylonia some eighty-three years after his own accession to the throne. And assuming that he was merely a boy of fifteen when he succeeded his brother at Larsa, he would have been taking the field against Samsu-iluna in his ninety-eighth year.[30] But it is extremely unlikely that he was so young at his accession, and, in view of the improbabilities involved, it is preferable to scrutinize the figures in the Larsa list with a view to ascertaining whether they are not capable of any other interpretation.

It has already been noted that the Larsa List is a contemporaneous document, since the scribe has added the title of "king" to the last name only, that of Samsu-iluna, implying that he was the reigning king at the time the document was drawn up. It is unlikely, therefore, that any mistake should have been made in the number of years assigned to separate rulers, the date-formulæ and records of whose reigns would have been easily accessible for consultation by the compiler. The long reign of sixty-one years, with which Rîm-Sin is credited, must be accepted as correct, for it does not come to us as a tradition incorporated in a Neo-Babylonian document, but is attested by a scribe writing within two years of the time when, as we have seen, Rîm-Sin was not only living but fighting against the armies of Babylon. In fact, the survival of Rîm-Sin throughout the period of Hammurabi's rule at Larsa, and during the first ten years of Samsu-iluna's reign, perhaps furnishes us with the solution of our problem.

If Rîm-Sin had not been deposed by Hammurabi on his conquest of Larsa, but had been retained there with curtailed powers as the vassal of Babylon, may not his sixty-one years of rule have included this period of dependence? In that case he may have ruled as independent King of Larsa for thirty-nine years, followed by twenty-two years during which he owed allegiance successively to Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna, until in the latter's tenth year he revolted and once more took the field against Babylon. It is true that, with the missing figures in the Kings' List restored as suggested by Professor Clay, the figure for the total duration of the dynasty may be cited against this explanation; for the two hundred and eighty-nine years is obtained by regarding the whole of Rîm-Sin's reign as anterior to Hammurabi's conquest. There are two possibilities with regard to the figure. In the first place it is perhaps just possible that Sin-idinnam and Sin-iḳîsham may have reigned between them thirty-five years, in place of the thirteen years provisionally assigned to them. If that were so, the scribe's total would be twenty-two years less than the addition of his figures, and the discrepancy could only be explained by some such overlapping as suggested. But it is far more likely that the figures are correctly restored, and that the scribe's total corresponds to that of the figures in the list. On such an assumption it is not improbable that he mechanically added up the figures placed opposite the royal names, without deducting from his total the years of Rîm-Sin's dependent rule.

This explanation appears to be the one least open to objection, as it does not necessitate the alteration of essential figures, and merely postulates a natural oversight on the part of the compiler. The placing of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna in the list after, and not beside, Rîm-Sin would be precisely on the lines of the Babylonian Kings' List, in which the Second Dynasty is enumerated between the First and Third, although, as we now know, it overlapped a part of each. In that case, too, the scribe has added up the totals of his separate dynasties, without any indication of their periods of overlapping. The explanation in both cases is, of course, that the modern system of arranging contemporaneous rulers in parallel columns had not been evolved by the Babylonian scribes. Moreover, we have evidence that at least one other compiler of a dynastic list was careless in adding up his totals; from one of his discrepancies it would seem that he counted a period of three months as three years, while in another of his dynasties a similar period of three months was probably counted twice over both as months and years.[31] It is true that the dynastic list in question is a late and not a contemporaneous document, but at least it inclines us to accept the possibility of such an oversight as that suggested on the part of the compiler of the Larsa list.