Appendix III The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia in the Lacunae of A.117 1 Shamshi-Adad I / Ishme-Dagan I vs. Hammurabi The synchronization of Hammurabi and the ruling family of Shamshi-Adad I’s kingdom can be proven by the correspondence between them, including the letters of Yasmah-Addu, the ruler of Mari and younger son of Shamshi-Adad I, to Hammurabi as well as an official named Hulalum in Babylon1 and those of Ishme-Dagan I to Hammurabi.2 Landsberger proposed that Shamshi-Adad I might still have been alive during the first ten years of Hammurabi’s reign and that the first year of Ishme- Dagan I would have been the 11th year of Hammurabi’s reign.3 However, it was also suggested that Shamshi-Adad I would have died in the 12th / 13th4 or 17th / 18th5 year of Hammurabi’s reign and Ishme-Dagan I in the 28th or 31st year.6 If so, the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I recorded in the AKL might be unreliable and he would have ruled as the successor of Shamshi-Adad I only for about 11 years.7 1 van Koppen, MARI 8 (1997), 418–421; Durand, DÉPM, No. 916. 2 Charpin, ARM 26/2 (1988), No. 384. 3 Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 39, n. 44. 4 Whiting, OBOSA 6, 210, n. 205. 5 Veenhof, AP, 35; van de Mieroop, KHB, 9; Eder, AoF 31 (2004), 213; Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52; Gasche et al., Akkadica 108 (1998), 1–2; Charpin and Durand, MARI 4 (1985), 293–343. Since the Assyrian calendar year begins in spring, while the Babylonian calendar year begins in autumn, the year of Shamshi-Adad I’s death was later restored by Charpin and Ziegler to be the 18th year of Hammurabi’s reign. See Charpin and Ziegler, FM 5, 160–161; see also Pruzsinszky, MCh, 163. 6 According to the Mari Letters, Ishme-Dagan I might have had to withdraw from Ekallatu and take sanctuary at Babylon in the 28th year of Hammurabi. See Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52. Since Ishme-Dagan I disappeared from the sources after the 30th year of Hammurabi, Veenhof suggested that his last year would have been the 31st year of Hammurabi’s reign. See Veenhof, MARI 4 (1985), 213. 7 Gasche et al., MHEM 4, 52–53. Landsberger proposed that Ishme-Dagan I might have ruled the first half of his reign as the ruler at Ekallatu (before the death of Shamshi-Adad I) and then the second half of his reign as king of Assyria at Ashur (after the death of Shamshi-Adad I). See Landsberger, JCS 8/1 (1954), 36–37. For the invalidity of the reign length of Ishme-Dagan I in the AKL see also Veenhof, MARI 4 (1985), 212; CA, 68. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430921_010 Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:11:41PM via free access 208 Appendix III 2 Ashur-uballit I vs. the Kassite Kings from Burnaburiash II to Kurigalzu II Ashur-uballit I must have been contemporary with several Babylonian kings. His first Babylonian counterpart must have been Burnaburiash II, because both of them were in correspondence with the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV.8 Moreover, Ashur- uballit I married his daughter Muballitat-Sherua to a Kassite king. Muballitat-Sherua gave birth to a son, who later became the Babylonian king but was soon overthrown by a native Kassite. Ashur-uballit I marched to Babylonia and expelled the usurper and then installed a new Babylonian king. This event, which must have happened towards the end of the Amarna Period,9 was recorded by the Synchronistic History and Chronicle P,10 but the narratives of the two sources are inconsistent: 1) The son of Muballitat-Sherua is first called Karahardash but then Karaindash in the Synchronistic History, but Kadashman- Harbe, son of Karaindash, son of Muballitat-Sherua, according to Chronicle P; 2) The usurper is called Nazibugash in the Synchronistic History, but Shuzigash in Chronicle P; 3) The new Babylonian king installed by Ashur-uballit I is Kurigalzu, the younger, son of Burnaburiash, according to the Synchronistic History, but Kurigalzu, son of Kadashman-Harbe, according to Chronicle P. However, neither of both sources records explicitly who the husband of Muballitat-Sherua was. The difference between the names of the usurper might be due to diverse phonetic readings. According to Peise and Röllig, the authentic name should be Nazibugash.11 The two sources both record that the Babylonian king installed by Ashur-uballit I is called Kurigalzu, who must be Kurigalzu II.12 According to Brinkman, there could only have been two Kassite kings named Kurigalzu.13 Kurigalzu in the Synchronistic History is clearly called “the younger, son of Burnaburiash”, which would imply that there had been a previous king with the same name. Moreover, Burnaburiash II also mentioned one of his ancestors named Kurigalzu,14 who must be Kurigalzu I. Of the two “Kurigalzu”: one was the son of Kadashman-Harbe, and the other was the son of Burnaburiash;15 one ruled before Burnaburiash II and the other ruled after 8 Moran, AL, EA 7–11, 15–16. For the time of Burnaburiash II’s reign see Boese, UF 14 (1982), 15–26. 9 Brinkman, MSKH, 421. 10 Grayson, ABC, 159–160, 171–172. 11 Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 8; Röllig, HSAO, 175, n. 3. 12 Grayson, ABC, 212. 13 Brinkman, Or 38 (1969), 320–327; RLA 6 (1980–1983), 369–370. For the earlier proposition of “Kurigalzu III”, see Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 9; Ungnad, AfK 1 (1923), 21. 14 Moran, AL, EA 11; Maidman, Kaskal 8 (2011), 112–113; Mladjov, NABU 2016/3, 109–110. 15 Brinkman, MSKH, 205. Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:11:41PM via free access The Selected Synchronistic Kings of Assyria and Babylonia 209 Burnaburiash II. Thus based upon the Synchronistic History, Kurigalzu II must be the son of Burnaburiash II; while in accordance with Chronicle P, Kurigalzu II is the son of a Kadashman-Harbe. Furthermore, the identifications for the son and the hus- band of Muballitat-Sherua remain irreconcilable between the two sources. By the Synchronistic History, the son of Muballitat-Sherua is Karahardash or Karaindash, but his father (i.e. the husband of Muballitat-Sherua) is never mentioned. As for the discrepancy between Karahardash and Karaindash, Röllig argued that the authentic name should be Karakindash (i.e. “Ka-ra-ḪAR-da-áš” should be read as “Ka-ra-kín- da-áš”), and Karaindash must be a scribal error.16 On the other hand, the records in Chronicle P are ambiguous, depending on how we interpret the phrase “[mKa-dáš- man-Ḫa]rbe mār mKara-in-da-áš māru šá SALMu-bal-liṭ-at-dṢēru-u-a”;17 that is, it could be “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash, (who was) son of Muballitat-Sherua”,18 or “Kadashman-Harbe, son of Karaindash (and) son of Muballitat-Sherua”.19 Because of the lacuna in the BKLa and the ScKL (A.117), it cannot be determined directly which of the two sources is right or which is wrong. Some scholars give preference to the Synchronistic History. Jaritz supposed that the scribe of Chronicle P might have mistaken Kurigalzu II as Kurigalzu I.20 Chronicle P was rejected by Röllig, who adduced certain other pieces of information from that document to prove it untrustworthy.21 Equally, Brinkman thought that it was unrea- sonable to insert a Kadashman-Harbe or a Karaindash between Burnaburiash II and Kurigalzu II and the “non-existent extra rulers” would have misled us on the modern reconstructions.22 If the evidence from the Synchronistic History can be accepted, the Kassite royal sequence for this period will be: Karahardash (probably the son of Burnaburiash II23) – Nazibugash – Kurigalzu II (the son of Burnaburiash II). On the contrary, many scholars believe that Chronicle P is more reliable:24 1) Chronicle P is right that Kurigalzu II was the son of Kadashman-Harbe, who was the son of Muballitat-Sherua,25 while the scribe of the Synchronistic History might have 16 Röllig, HSAO, 176–177; von Soden, PW, 61; Paulus, IRW 1, 70, n. 58; Miller, KBUK 1, 104, n. 24. 17 Grayson, ABC, 171. 18 Röllig, HSAO, 175. 19 Peise, OLZ 11 (1908), 8; Brinkman, MSKH, 419; Glassner, MC, 279. 20 Jaritz, MIO 6 (1958), 215. 21 Röllig, HSAO, 173–184. 22 Brinkman, MSKH, 418–423; van Seters, SH, 86–87; Maidman, Kaskal 8 (2011), 111. 23 Röllig, HSAO, 178; Melville, ACANE, 225. 24 According to Grayson, the Synchronistic History is replete with all kinds of errors and its author showed a more favourable light on Assyria, while Chronicle P contained no signifi- cant errors and its author was far more objective. See Grayson, ABC, 58, n. 69. 25 Luckenbill, AJSL 23/4 (1907), 281; Radau, BE 17/1, 63–67; Furlong, AANEC, 55; Sassmannshausen, MDAR, 61, n. 3; see also Bloch, JAC 25 (2010), 71, n. 42. Fei Chen - 9789004430921 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 06:11:41PM via free access 210 Appendix III been mistaken in calling Kurgalzu II the son of Burnaburiash II,26 or Kurigalzu II is merely a descendant of Burnaburiash II in the Synchronistic History;27 2) the Karahardash in the Synchronistic History must be identical with Kadashman-Harbe, the son of Muballitat-Sherua;28 3) the father of Kadashman-Harbe and the husband of Muballitat-Sherua would be Karaindash29 (more precisely Karaindash II,30 since one Karaindash was mentioned by Burnaburiash II in a letter to Amenhotep IV31).