sign in sign up
<<
Home , 2nd millennium, 2nd millennium BC, Chronicle P

061_070.qxd 13.02.2004 09:50 Seite 61

B A B Y L O N I A N C H R O N O L O G Y O F T H E 2 n d H A L F O F T H E 2 n d M I L L E N N I U M B . C .

Leonhard Sassmannshausen*

C O N N E C T I N G K A S S I T E C H R O N O L O G Y 15 for K a d a š m a n - E n l i l I . Thus the accession W I T H T H E 1 s t M I L L E N N I U M of Kadašman-Enlil I has to be dated at 1374 B. C. at the latest. The most important source for the chronology of For the middle Kassite period we have a good the Kassite and Post-Kassite periods is Babyloni- sample of dated documents from Nippur for the an King List A 1 which gives the lengths of the 125 years from the first of Burna-Buriy å š II reigns of all kings of from the first to Kaštiliy å š IV. These dates confirm the general dynasty ofBabylon to the Neo-Assyrian period. reliability ofthe Babylonian King List A at least Unfortunately we know so far only one copy of for the middle Kassite period. We only have minor this text which has three gaps and lacks the begin- problems, the most serious of which is the 25th ning and the end. Because of the gaps there is no year of king Nazi-Maruttaš. King List A gives 26 direct connection from the 2 nd rulers years for this king. We have documents from his to the 1 st millennium. However, the gap can be 24th year and the year of his death (MU.ÚS.SA) bridged, because there are 14 synchronisms of which should be the 26th year, if the king list is Assyrian rulers with Kassite rulers which allow to correct, but texts from the 25th year are still want- parallel the Babylonian King List with the Assyr- ing. Another problem is posed by a tablet in which ian King List,2 and since we have for the a king with the name of Kadašman-Enlil is placed uninterrupted sequence of regnal dates we can before Kadašman-Turgu. 5 Kadašman-Turgu is thereby connect Kassite chronology with 1 st mil- known to have been the predecessor of Kadašman- lennium chronology (Table 1). Enlil II., his predecessor was Nazi-Maruttaš. A possibility to check the accuracy ofBabylo- A particular problem are the years following nian King List A is provided by the administra- the deposition of Kaštiliy å š, especially the state- tive archives found at Nippur, from the of ment of Chronicle P that Tukult• - Ninurta I of Burna-Buriy å š II to Kadašman-Ô arbe III (usually Assyria administered for seven years. called K.-Ô . II3 ), 1359 to 1223, according to King List A does not mention this administration B RINKMAN’ S chronology. 4 Much less dense is the and gives one and a half year for Enlil-nå din-šumi, documentation for the last 67 years of the late the same duration for Kadašman-Ô arbe III,6 and Kassite period, from which we have dates in texts six years for Adad-šuma-iddina. From documents found in Ur, D ¥ r-Kurigalzu , Tell Zubeid• and in we have the accession year of Tukult• - Ninurta as the unpublished documents found in Babylon. king of Babylonia, the first year of Enlil-nå din- šumi, the accession year and the first year of T H E L A T E A N D M I D D L E K A S S I T E P E R I O D Kadašman-Ô arbe III and the accession year of Babylonian King List A provides dates for the Adad-šuma-iddina. Since we know that Adad- reigns back to the time of K u r i g a l z u I I . The šuma-uß ur came to the throne through a revolt of administrative texts give a minimum of 27 years the Babylonian magnates, that he was said to have for his predecessor B u r n a - B u r i y å š I I and at least been a member of the old Kassite royal family,

* Albstadt, Germany Ô arbe as a predecessor of the later Kurigalzu“, but 1 Most recent edition by GRAYSON 1980–1983, 90–96. rather that we should refer to the predecessor of Kuri- 2 Edited by GRAYSON 1980–1983, 101–115. galzu II as Kadašman-Ô arbe II. 3 4 Kara∆ ardaš of the Synchronistic History is apparently B RINKMAN 1976, 31. 5 a garbled form ofKadašman-Ô arbe; the latter form is D ONBAZ 1982, 207–212, cf. B RINKMAN 1983, 67–74. given for the predecessor of Kurigalzu II in Chronicle P. 6 In his chronological scheme Brinkman assigned only I do not think, as does B RINKMAN 1976, 146, that the one year to Enlil-nå din-šumi and Kadašman-Ô arbe chronicle “mistakenly inserts the name of Kadašman- each. Cf. B RINKMAN 1976, 26f. footnote 76. 061_070.qxd 13.02.2004 09:50 Seite 62

62 Leonhard Sassmannshausen

and attacked Assyria, in all likelihood his three rulers, even one of the most significant kings in the predecessors were more or less Assyrian puppets. entire history ofMesopotamia, and since Kassite So their three reigns combined, nine years accord- rulers with much less profile such as Nazi-Maruttaš ing to the king list, come close to the seven years and Kadašman-Turgu had reigns of 26 and 18 of Chronicle P for Tukult• - Ninurta’s administra- years, it is realistic to reckon for with a tion of Assyria. reign of at least three decades. Thus we reach the In the late Kassite period we have the prob- last decades of the 15th (Table 3). lem of double datings for the kings Adad-šuma- The predecessor of Kurigalzu I was K a d a š m a n - u ß ur, Mele-Š•∆u, and Marduk-apla-iddina. 7 For Ô a r b e I . On a tablet which was found at Nippur a whatever reasons, these three kings seem to have date “year in which king Kadašman-Ô arbe dug the had a second and partly third accession after canal of Diniktum” is attested. Chronicle P 11 which a new numbering of years began.8 For ascribes to him a campaign against the Suteans. Mele-Š•∆u we have his 12th year in an unpublished These pieces of information show that he was a text from Babylon and his second 4 th year in a king who, unlike several other Kassite rulers, left text from Ur. Therefore there seem to have been some historical traces. Although the few data do at least 16 years of this king while the king list not allow us to assess the length of his reign, he – attributes 15 years to him. in all likelihood – ruled at least a few years. Thus Vexing as these problems are, they are only the end of his predecessor K a r a i n d a š may have minor and just show us that King List A, while been around the last but one or last but two generally reliable for the middle and late Kassite decade of the . period, may need some adjustment. Karaindaš did not only rebuild a part of the Eanna in . He also took up relations with T H E E A R L Y K A S S I T E P E R I O D Egypt12 and concluded a border treaty with A ššur- The direct predecessor of Kadašman-Enlil I was b Ÿ l-niš Ÿ š u, a ruler of Assur. 13 Thus he was one of K u r i g a l z u I . He was one of the most active builders the more prominent rulers of the Kassite dynasty. among the Ancient Near Eastern kings. He had Most probably his reign was not short. For a ruler, not only built the residential city D ¥ r-Kurigalzu , who undertook such significant activities in the which must have been still one of the important early Kassite period, I would assume that he centers of Babylonia during the 2 nd quarter of the reigned for more than a decade, possibly much , although no traces of construction more, and that his reign therefore started some- activity ofany ofthe successors of Kurigalzu I where in the second third of the 15th century. It is have been found in D ¥ r-Kurigalzu . He initiated an very likely that Karaindaš was the Babylonian ambitious program aiming at the renovation of king who sent precious gifts, particularly lapis- the main temples of the important Babylonian lazuli, to pharao Thutmosis III during the 8 th cam- cities (Table 2). He is known to have cultivated the paign of this pharao, according to the annals of relations with Egypt9 and married a sister of his to Thutmosis III. If Karaindaš is not the king in the Elamite king Pa∆ ir-iššan, and a daughter to the question, it must be one of his rather obscure pre- next Elamite king, Ô umban-numena.10 decessors, which does not seem very likely. Accord- We have no concrete dates for his reign, but since ing to the Egyptian chronology of VON B ECKE- Kurigalzu I was one of the most important Kassite RATH14 which is not the only possible one, 15 the

7 B RINKMAN 1976, 410. cerning the several co-regencies that have been 8 The 2 nd and 3 rd accession years of Marduk-apla-iddina assumed by some scholars. Because of the problems of are attested in unpublished documents from Babylon. Egyptian chronology ofthe New Kingdom the I owe the correct interpretation of these dates to attempt of B OESE 1982, 15–26 to arrive at a more pre- O. Pedersén. cise Middle Babylonian chronology through links with 9 Amarna letter EA 11, 47’f. Egypt is based on conditions which are not given. This 10 VAN D IJK 1986, 163. is also the case for Boese’s linking of the supposedly 11 G RAYSON 1975, Chronicle 21. simultaneous destruction of Emar, Ugarit and Ô at- 12 EA 10, 8–10. tuša. For Ô attuša see now SEEHER 2001, 623–634. For 13 Synchronistic History, G RAYSON 1975, Chronicle 22. Emar the excavator U. Finkbeiner informs me that 14 B ECKERATH 1997, 108–111 and 189. there is no evidence for a large destruction layer that 15 One of the greatest problems is the controversy con- seals the Late remains. 061_070.qxd 13.02.2004 09:50 Seite 63

Babylonian Chronology ofthe 2 nd Half of the 2 nd Millennium B.C. 63

8 th campaign of Thutmosis III took place in with Išme -Dagan II. It has to be stressed, how- 1447. This date fits well with my assumption on ever, that the Synchronistic King List is very the probable beginning of the reign of Karain- far from being a chronologically precise source daš . Unfortunately, both Babylonian King List A and can be shown to be inexact at several places. and the Synchronistic King List16 have gaps Unfortunately our sources for this stretch of his- where the reign of Karaindaš should be listed. tory are too few and too fragmentary. So far The only clues for the chronological placement of there is no contemporary material to confirm Karaindaš can be found in the Synchronistic His- or disprove the chronological sources for most tory and Chronicle P. Thus we do not know who of the early Kassite period. But since Išme- was the immediate predecessor of Karaindaš . Dagan II lived around 1557–1542, and since the The reign of king A ššur-bŸ l-niš Ÿ š u of Assur, with discussion below will show that this was during whom Karaindaš concluded a treaty, has to be the final years of Samsu-Dit å na, the first Burna- dated according to B RINKMAN’s chronology to Buriy å š should have lived after Išme -Dagan II the years 1417–1409. Presumably the reign of of Assyria. Karaindaš ended in the first years of A ššur-bŸ l- A successor of Burna-Buriy å š I seems to have niš Ÿ š u. As a rough estimate for the reign of been A g u m , son of Kaštiliy å š (usually called Karaindaš I suggest 1450–1415, on the basis of Agum III), because Agum is mentioned in the the data mentioned above. Chronicle of Early Kings19 after Ulam-Buriy å š, One of the predecessors of Karaindaš was one who was a son of a Burna-Buriy å š.20 This Agum B u r n a - B u r i y å š who concluded a treaty with led a campaign into the Sealand, according to the Puzur-Aššur III of Assur, according to the Syn- Chronicle of Early Kings. He conquered the city chronistic History. Puzur-Aššur III must have D ¥ r-Enlil which is otherwise unknown and ruled around the first quarter of the 15th centu- destroyed its temple Egalga’uruna. Annoyingly ry. Unfortunately the reigns of the two prede- the text ends right here. Whether this king21 cessors of the Assyrian ruler Enlil-n åßir II, Aššur- Agum is the same person as the king Agum whose rabi I and Aššur-nå din-a∆∆Ÿ I, are lost in the 4 th year and perhaps also his 3 rd year are attest- Assyrian King List. The reign of the quite ed in the dates of texts found in the area of the obscure Aššur-n å din-a∆∆Ÿ I was probably short. Qal > at al-Ba˙ rain,22 is not yet clear. If yes, then Not too short was the reign of Aššur-rabi I, since Agum conquered the Sealand in his first year, four generations later this king was still included crossed over to Ba˙ rain, had a new palace built, in the royal genealogy 17 and an inscribed clay set up a functioning administration there in his nail documents his construction activity 18. So second year, so that already in his third and two decades for both rulers combined seems a fourth year administrative documents could be good guess. This Burna-Buriy å š of the Synchro- dated after his reign. Not impossible, but not too nistic History was perhaps (but not necessarily) likely. I would prefer to see these two kings the same person as Burna-Buriy å š, the father of named Agum as two different persons. Ulam-Buriy å š. The Synchronistic King List Several e a r l i e r K a s s i t e k i n g s are mentioned names one Burna-Buriy å š as tenth Kassite ruler both in the Babylonian King List A 23 and in the who was contemporary of Išme-Dagan II, who is Synchronistic King List,24 partly not in the same separated from Puzur-Aššur III by 42 regnal sequence. The Synchronistic King List states years. This looks as if there were at least two that eight of these Kassite rulers were contem- early Burna-Buriy å š, one contemporary with porary with Šamš • -Adad II who died 58 years Puzur-Aššur III and one roughly contemporary before Puzur-Aššur III, thus around the middle

16 G RAYSON 1980–1983, 116–121. Buriy å š state that his father was king, they do not 17 Cf. A LBRIGHT 1942, 30. Not only his grandson Aššur- specifically call him king of Babylon. r ª m-nišŸ šu (RIMA I A.0.70) and the son of his great- 21 He is not explicitly called a king, but the text is one grandson, Aššur-uballiã (A.0.73.1-3), but also Er• ba- that deals with the exploits of kings. 22 Adad I. mention Aššur-rabi I. A NDRÉ-SALVINI - L OMBARD 1997, 165–170. 18 RIMA I A.0.65. 23 I 16–22. 19 24 G RAYSON 1975, Chronicle 20. I 18–20. 20 Note, however, that while the inscriptions of Ulam- 061_070.qxd 01.03.2004 11:06 Seite 64

64 Leonhard Sassmannshausen

of the , and ruled for eight years. their inscriptions of disputed authenticity28 do Whether this is really true is doubtful. If yes, it not fit into the early Kassite period and this would mean that these early Kassite rulers either speaks against the authenticity of these inscrip- had short reigns or/and were partly contempo- tions. rary rivals for power. The chronological data given by the Assyrian King List (see below) also T H E E N D O F T H E F I R S T D Y N A S T Y O F B A B Y L O N do not necessitate too long reigns for the early The lengths of the reigns given in the Assyrian Kassite rulers. King List permit to compute approximately the A crucial question is, how the dates on the t e x t s end of the first dynasty of Babylon, despite some f r o m T e l l M u ˙ a m m a d can be fitted into our chrono- dispute over some of the lengths of reigns and logical mosaic. 25 A number of these texts bear dates and the fact, that there are attested rulers who do of the type MU.x.KAM.MA ša KÁ.DINGIR.RAki not appear in the King List. If we depart from the uš-bu , with the “x” standing for numbers between reign of Enlil-nåßir II and follow B RINKMAN in 36 and 41. S. COLE translated this phrase as “year dating it to 1430–1425 and assume as a very x that Babylon was resettled”, a translation that rough estimate for the reigns of Aššur-rabi I and seems reasonable.26 Aššur-nå din-a∆∆Ÿ I, which are not preserved in the It seems not very likely to me that Babylon, Assyrian King List, roughly 20 years, as I sug- at least nominally the capital of the country, was gested above, we arrive at a date around 1725 or resettled only in the final phase of the consolida- 1715 for the final year of Šamš• -Adad I.29 If we tion of Babylonia, after a treaty with Assyria follow C HARPIN and DURAND who assumed the was concluded and texts were dated after Kassite death of Šamš• -Adad I in the 17th year of Ô am- kings all the way down to Ba˙ rain. It is more murapi, 30 we arrive at an estimated date around likely that Babylon was rebuilt provisionally 1544 or 1534 for the end of Samsu-Ditå na. soon after the Hittite sack. Also the war events, An old question that is at the heart of the which are mentioned in several year names on Assyriological chronology debate is the fact that Tell Mu˙ ammad texts, indicate a somewhat the Assyrian King List cannot be reconciled with chaotic time of transition. The Old Babylonian the Babylonian King List A, which gives a length kingdom consisted in its final years only of the of 576 years and 9 months for the entire Kassite city of Babylon and its close surrounding. It period – this would bring us to the year 1733 for seems reasonable to assume that the reestablish- the beginning of the Kassite period, which is ment of the Babylonian Kingdom required some totally impossible, because this date is early in the time. Therefore Cole’s chronological placement of reign of Ô ammurapi or even before the accession the Tell Mu˙ ammad texts after Agum seems of Ô ammurapi and therefore half a century before forced. But in view of the paltry data for the 15th the first safe references for . century it is not yet possible to disprove C OLE’ S The Old Assyrian eponym lists indicate, as far arrangement27 definitively. as they are published, that the length of the Since the somewhat chaotic era of the Tell reigns of the Old Assyrian rulers in the Assyrian Mu˙ ammad texts has to be placed in all likeli- King List are generally correct. The “new” Külte- hood at the beginning of the Kassite period, the pe eponym list31 gives exactly the forty years for titles of Gandaš and Agumkakrime “king of the Ir• šum I that we find in the king list, as well. Fur- four world quarters” and “king who causes the thermore there are headings in the Kültepe four world quarters to exist permanently” in eponym list at the beginning of each reign. This

25 27 For these year names see my paper “Kassite Nomads: In: J. A. A RMSTRONG, S. W. C OLE, H. G ASCHE, V. G. Fact or Fiction?“, Amurru 3, Paris, in press. G URZADYA N 1998, 66. 26 28 In 1999, 414 and in my book of 2001, 456 I suggested S TEIN 2000, 149–165. to translate the phrase “38th year, after x sat down in 29 Puzur-Aššur III ruled for 14 or 24 years, depending on Babylon“. Now, while elliptic versions of Old Babylo- which copy of the Assyrian King List one follows. 30 nian year names are common, it is never the subject C HARPIN - D URAND 1985, 306. 31 that is omitted in such phrases. Therefore Cole’s solu- V EENHOF 2003. tion is definitely preferable. 061_070.qxd 13.02.2004 09:50 Seite 65

Babylonian Chronology ofthe 2 nd Half of the 2 nd Millennium B.C. 65

makes it likely that the figures given in the Assyr- however not called dúr-gar, but gišgu-za , mostly in ian king list are based on eponym lists from which connection with bára “temple”.35 the length of reigns could be most easily taken. It Since the tradition of the days on this tablet is is also interesting to see that the eponym list notoriously bad and this specific omen is pre- begins with Ir• šum I who is also the first Assyrian served only on two of the five known copies of ruler who is listed with the length of his reign in this tablet, this text can at the most function as a the Assyrian King List – certainly not a coinci- possible additional confirmation for a chronology dence. Therefore the Assyrian King List should be which has to rely on other sources. Therefore the seen as generally reliable, and the figure of 576 question of “high, middle or low chronology” years and 9 months of the Babylonian King List should not be asked any more, at least not in the A, of which we do not yet know how it came way it has been done since the early 1940’s, when about, should not be seen as something that these chronologies were first established. would render the figures of the Assyrian King List questionable. P R O S P E C T S F O R M E S O P O T A M I A N C H R O N O L O G Y Thus the written documents which are avail- The open chronological questions can only be able at present speak in favour of an end of the clarified through new text finds. This requires first dynasty ofBabylon shortly after the middle new excavations. Excavations in the cultural of the 16th century. sphere of Assyria like the ones at Assur seem particularly promising, because this is where the T H E “ V E N U S T A B L E T O F A M M I Í A D U Q A ” most important chronological sources like the It is not possible to discuss the chronology of Assyrian King List and the Synchronistic King in the 2 nd millennium without con- List come from. A complete edition of the Assyr- sidering the so-called “Venus tablet of Ammiß a- ian King List would bridge the chronological gap duqa ” which is a traditional designation for the in the 15th and 16th . Finds of addition- 63rd tablet of the astrological omen series En¥ ma al copies of Assyrian eponym lists of the 2 nd mil- Anu Enlil,32 a composition of the first millenni- lennium have been made and more can be um without 2 nd millennium forerunners in which expected, which is important as possible confir- king Ammi- ß aduqa is not mentioned at all. The mation of the King List. Dated documents from tenth omen on this tablet reads: “If Venus sets in Babylonia are still wanting for large parts of the the east on the 25th of Addaru, it is the year of 2 nd millennium, like the years of stability under the golden throne”. The apodosis of that omen Karaindaš and Kurigalzu I. In recent years was seen since more than 90 years 33 as referring sources appeared for periods where they were to the date formula for the 8 th year of Ammi- previously lacking, as was the case with the Tell ß aduqa which reads in its complete form: “Year Mu˙ ammad texts and the new finds from in which king Ammi- ß aduqa brought athrone of Ba˙ rain. This shows that it is realistic to reckon red gold which is fit for the distant place, and his with the possibility that in the future dark forward rushing(?) statue into the Enamtil”. decades may become illuminated by new finds of One could, however, as well see the apodosis as texts, if the sites are not destroyed. referring to the 21st year of Samsu-Dit å na which Also material for dendrochronology would be reads: “year in which king Samsu-Dit å na brought very important, especially for the sites in Baby- his princely statue and athrone of red gold for lonia and Assyria where dendrochronological the distant place into the Enamtil.”34 evidence might be correlated with building A golden throne is also mentioned in several inscriptions. other Old Babylonian date formulas. There it is The continued edition of the tens of thou-

32 35 R EINER 1975 Sumu-la-el years 22, 23, Apil-Sîn 3, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 33 K UGLER 1912 Sîn-muballiã 16, Ô ammu-rapi’ 3, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 34 P IENTKA 1998, 141. The end of the year name reads Samsu-iluna 5, 19, 21, Ammi-Ditå na 6, 19, 31. according to my collation of VS 22, 45: É-nam-ti-la-šè in-ni-en-ku -ra. 4 061_070.qxd 13.02.2004 09:50 Seite 66

66 Leonhard Sassmannshausen

sands of unpublished legal and administrative ry ofthe discipline, we would all derive much texts in the museums and the collation of the more benefit from an adequate and reliable text published material is also important since these edition than from further elaborate theorizing on texts allow sometimes to check the accuracy of an unevenly edited jumble.”36 the King Lists. B RINKMAN’s wish was so far only partly ful- Thirty years ago J OHN B RINKMAN expressed filled through the article “Königslisten und this wish: “In conclusion, if one may look for- Chroniken” in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie. ward to the future, it would be a great service to That article gives the desired overview, but does students of Mesopotamian history ifall the vari- not make up for an edition that shows how the ous Assyrian and Babylonian kinglists were tablets look precisely and what is exactly on the available in more accessible and reliable form. It tablets. Since all historical chronologies for the is essential that these documents be carefully re- entire Near East in the 2 nd and 3 rd millennia B. C. edited from the original tablets, since some of the are entirely or to a larger or smaller degree present disagreements concern even the basic dependent on the Assyrian King List, this new reading of the text. ... At this in the histo- edition is most urgently needed.

36 B RINKMAN 1973, 316f. 061_070.qxd 18.02.2004 13:20 Seite 67

Babylonian Chronology ofthe 2 nd Half of the 2 nd Millennium B.C. 67

Table 1 Kassite - Middle Assyrian synchronisms (BRINKMAN 1976, 30) The highest possibility for the reigns of the Kassite rulers is represented by the unbroken lines on the left side, the low- est possibility (9 years lower) by the dotted lines. 1 year ≅ 1 mm. 061_070.qxd 13.02.2004 09:50 Seite 68

68 Leonhard Sassmannshausen

K i n g C i t y T e m p l e Karaindaš Uruk Eanna of Inanna Kurigalzu Adab Ema∆ of Nin∆ ursag Akkade Emegalam of Ištar of Akkade for the ak• tu-festival (Neo-Bab. copy) Attempted rebuilding of the Eulmaš Borsippa? ... of Enlil (inscription said to come from Borsippa) D Ÿ r Edimgalkalama of Ištarå n D ¥ r-Kurigalzu E’ugal of Enlil Egašanantagal of Ninlil Esagdingirene of Ninurta Šarrat-Nippur Isin Egalma∆ of Gula Cella of Ninurta in the Egalma∆ Kiš Zababa Nippur Ekurigibara of Enlil Sippar Ebabbar of Šamaš Ur Ekišnugal of Sîn Edublalma∆ of Sîn Eganunma∆ of Sîn Ningal Egabur of Ningublaga Uruk Eanna of Inanna Kadašman-Enlil Isin Egalma∆ of Gula Ebabbar of Šamaš Nippur Ekur Burna-Buriy å š Larsa Ebabbar of Šamaš Nippur Ekiur of Ninlil Nazi-Maruttaš Uruk E ∆ iliana of Nanâ Kadašman-Turgu Marad E’igikalama of Lugalmarada Kudur-Enlil Nippur Enlil Šagarakti-Šuriy å š Sippar-Annun• tu Eulmaš of Ištar-Annun• tu Adad-šuma-uß ur Nippur Ekur of Enlil Mele-Š•∆u Isin Egalma∆ of Gula Nippur unpublished inscriptions from the Ekur area Marduk-apla-iddina Borsippa Ezida of Marduk

Table 2 Known temple constructions of Kassite Babylonian Kings in chronological order37 (Data taken from inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Nabonidus are given in italics)

37 Cf. S ASSMANNSHAUSEN 2001, 157f. It is unclear whether I who may have tried to bring the ambitious program of the inscriptions ofKadašman-Enlil were commissioned his predecessor to an end, and not to Kadašman-Enlil II by the first or the second king of that name. I consider it who ruled only for nine years at a time that is charac- likely that they have to be attributed to Kadašman-Enlil terised by little construction activity still visible. 061_070.qxd 13.02.2004 09:50 Seite 69

Babylonian Chronology ofthe 2 nd Half of the 2 nd Millennium B.C. 69

Kadašman-Enlil I 1374 (+x)–1360 Kurigalzu I ca. 1410–1380 Kadašman-Ô arbe I ca. 1415–1410 Karaindaš ca. 1450–1415 Predecessor of Karaindaš ? Agum “III“ son of Kaštiliy å š = (?) Agum of Ba˙ rain-texts Burna-Buriy å š, contemporary with Puzur-Aššur ca. 1480 Burna-Buriy å š father of Ulam-Buriy å š and Burna-Buriy å š I of the Synchronistic King List the same person? Tell Mu˙ ammad texts ca. 1540–1490

Table 3 Suggested chronology for Kassite Babylonia in the 15th–16th centuries

B i b l i o g r a p h y

A LBRIGHT, W. F. V AN D IJK, J. 1942 A Third Revision of the Early Chronology of 1986 Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und , Bulletin of the American Schools of Elamern: eine verhängnisvolle Politik, Orientalia Oriental Research 88, 28–36 N.S. 55, 159–170

A NDRE-SALVINI, B. - LOMBARD, P. D ONBAZ, V. 1997 La découverte épigraphique de 1995 à Qal’at al- 1982 A Middle Babylonian Legal Document Raising Bahrein, Proceedings of the Seminar of Arabian Problems in Kassite Chronology, Journal of Near Studies 27, 165–170 Eastern Studies 41, 207–212

A RMSTRONG, J.A., C OLE, S.W. , G ASCHE, H., G URZADYA N , G RAYSON, A. K. V.G. 1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Texts from 1998 Dating the Fall of Babylon, Mesopotamian History Sources 5, Locust Valley NY and Environment Memoirs 4, Gent 1980–1983 Königslisten und Chroniken, B. Akkadisch, V ON B ECKERATH, J. in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie 6, Berlin - New York, 86–135 1997 Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 46, Mainz 1987 Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC, The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, B OESE, J. Assyrian Periods 1, Toronto

1982 Burnaburiaš II., Melišipak und die mittelbaby- K LENGEL, H. lonische Chronologie, Ugarit-Forschungen 14, 15–26 1983 Altbabylonische Texte aus Babylon, Vorderasiati- B RINKMAN, J.A. sche Schriftdenkmäler 22, Berlin

1973 Comments on the Nassouhi Kinglist and the K UGLER, F.X. Assyrian Kinglist Tradition, Orientalia N.S. 42, 1912 Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, 2. Buch, Teil 306–319 2, Heft 1, Münster 1976 A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to P IENTKA, R. Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty, Chicago 1998 Die spätaltbabylonische Zeit, Teil 1, Münster 1983 Istanbul A. 1998, Middle Babylonian Chronology, and the Statistics of the Nippur Archives, R EINER, E. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische 1975 The Venus Tablet of Ammiß aduqa, Bibliotheca Archäologie 73, 67–74 Mesopotamica 2/1, Malibu

C HARPIN, D. - DURAND, J.-M. S ASSMANNSHAUSEN, L. 1985 La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim, Mari. Annales 1999 The Adaptation of the Kassites to the Babyloni- de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4, 293–342 an Civilization, in: K. Van L ERBERGHE - G. VOET 061_070.qxd 13.02.2004 09:50 Seite 70

70 Leonhard Sassmannshausen

(eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact, OLA 96, S TEIN, P. Leuven, 409–424 2000 Die mittel- und neubabylonischen Königsinschriften 2001Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Baby- bis zum Ende der Assyrerherrschaft, Wiesbaden loniens in der Kassitenzeit, Baghdader Forschun- V EENHOF, K.R. gen 21, Mainz 2003 The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from in press Kassite Nomads: Fact or Fiction?, Amurru 3, Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications, Paris Publications of the Turkish Historical Society, S EEHER, J. Serial VI No. 64,

2001Die Zerstörung der Stadt Ô attuša, in: G. WILHELM (ed.), Akten des IV. internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Studien zu den Bo≠ azköy-Texten 45, Wiesbaden, 623–634