It is not quite clear to what stage in the national history Berossus intended his sixth dynasty to extend;[67] and in any case, the fact that the figure is wanting for the length of his third dynasty, renders their total duration a matter of uncertainty. But, in spite of these drawbacks, a general agreement has been reached as to a date for the beginning of his historical period, based on considerations independent of the figures in detail. A. von Gutschmid's suggestion that the kings after the Deluge were grouped by Berossus in a cycle of ten sars, i.e. 36,000 years,[68] furnished the key that has been used for solving the problem. For, if the first dynasty be subtracted from this total, the remaining number of years would give the total length of the historical dynasties. Thus, if we take the length of the first dynasty as 34,090 years, the duration of the historical dynasties is seen to have been 1910 years. Now the statement attributed to Abydenus by Eusebius, to the effect that the Chaldeans reckoned their kings from Alorus to Alexander,[69] has led to the suggestion that the period of 1910 years was intended to include the reign of Alexander the Great (331-323 b.c.). If therefore we add 1910 years to 322 b.c., we obtain 2232 b.c. as the beginning of the historical period with which the second dynasty of Berossus opened. It may be added that the same result has been arrived at by taking 34,080 years as the length of his first dynasty,[70] and by extending the historical period of 1920 years down to 312 b.c., the beginning of the Seleucid Era.
Incidentally it may be noted that this date has been harmonized with the figure assigned in the margin of some manuscripts as representing the length of tin third dynasty of Berossus. It has usually been held that his sixth dynasty ended with the predecessor of Nabonassar upon the throne of Babylon, and that the following or seventh dynasty would have begun in 747 b.c. But it has been pointed out that, after enumerating the dynasties II.-VI., Eusebius goes on to say that after these rulers came a king of the Chaldeans whose name was Phulus[71]; and this phrase has been explained as indicating that the sixth dynasty of Berossus ended at the same point as the Ninth Babylonian Dynasty, in 732 b.c., that is to say, with the reign of Nabû-shum-ukîn, the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser IV., whose original name of Pulu is preserved in the Babylonian List of Kings. Thus the seventh dynasty of Berossus would have begun with the reign of the usurper Ukîn-zêr, who was also the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser.[72] On this supposition the figure "forty-eight," which occurs in the margin of certain manuscripts of the Armenian version of Eusebius,[73] may be retained for the number of years assigned by Berossus to his third dynasty.[74] A further confirmation of the date 2232 b.c. for the beginning of the historical period of Berossus has been found in a statement derived from Porphyrins, to the effect that, according to Callisthenes, the Babylonian records of astronomical observations extended over a period of 1903 years down to the time of Alexander of Macedon.[75] Assuming that the reading 1903 is correct, the observations would have extended back to 2233 b.c., a date differing by only one year from that obtained for the beginning of Berossus' historical dynasties.
Thus there are ample grounds for regarding the date 2232 b.c. as representing the beginning of the historical period in the chronological system of Berossus;[76] and we have already noted that in a late Babylonian historian, writing during the Hellenistic period, we should expect the beginning of his history, in the stricter sense of the term, to coincide with the first recorded dynasty of Babylon, as distinct from rulers of other and earlier city-states. It will be observed that this date is only seven years out with that obtained astronomically by Dr. Kugler for the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Now the astronomical demonstration relates only to the reign of Ammi-zaduga, who was the tenth king of the First Dynasty; and to obtain the date 2225 b.c. for Sumu-abum's accession, reliance is naturally placed on figures for the intermediate reigns which are supplied by the contemporaneous date-lists. But the Babylonian Kings' List gives figures which were current in the Neo-Babylonian period; and, by employing it in place of contemporaneous records, we obtain the date 2229 b.c. for Sumu-abum's accession, which presents a discrepancy of only three years to that deduced from Berossus. In view of the slight inconsistencies with the Kings' List which we find in at least one of the late chronicles, it is clear that the native historians, who compiled their records during the later periods, found a number of small variations in the chronological material on which they had to rely. While there was probably agreement on the general lines of the later chronology, the traditional length of some reigns and dynasties might vary in different documents by a few years. We may conclude therefore that the evidence of Berossus, so far as it can be reconstituted from the summaries preserved in other works, may be harmonized with the date obtained independently for the First Dynasty of Babylon.
The new information, which has been discussed in this chapter, has enabled us to carry further than was previously possible the process of reconstructing the chronology; and we have at last been able to connect the earlier epochs in the country's history with those which followed the rise of Babylon to power. On the one hand we have obtained definite proof of the overlapping of further dynasties with that of the West Semitic kings of Babylon. On the other hand, the consequent reduction in date is more than compensated by new evidence pointing to the probability of a period of independent rule in Babylonia on the part of some of the Sea-Country kings. The general effect of the new discoveries is thus of no revolutionary character. It has resulted, rather, in local rearrangements, which to a considerable extent are found to counterbalance one another in their relation to the chronological scheme as a whole. Perhaps the most valuable result of the regrouping is that we are furnished with the material for a more detailed picture of the gradual rise of Babylon to power. We shall see that the coming of the Western Semites effected other cities than Babylon, and that the triumph of the invaders marked only the closing stage of a long and varied struggle.
[1] Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 64.
[2] The new discoveries, in their general effect, do not involve any drastic changes in the accepted chronological scheme, as the local rearrangements largely counterbalance one another; see below, [p. 117] f.
[3] Cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III., pp. lxviii, 236 f.
[4] See "Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings," I., p. 68 f.; 11., p. 17 f.
[5] Cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Inscriptions de Sumener et d'Akkad," p. 300, n. 3; and "Sum. und Akkad. Königsinschriften," p. 210 f., note k.