Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:45:48.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mesopotamian Chronology and the ‘Era of Menophres’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

M. B. Rowton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Mesopotamian evidence discussed in this article indicates 1356 for the accession of Ashur-uballiṭ I, who from the Amarnah correspondence is known to have been a contemporary of Akhenaten. Egyptologists believe that the lowest possible date for the death of Akhenaten is 1358. We are dealing here with a comparatively remote period, and a discrepancy of only 2 years may not seem very significant. But closer examination reveals that the discrepancy is considerably greater. Several years must be allowed for the overlap between the reigns of Akhenaten and Ashur-uballit; moreover, if the Menophres theory is accepted—that a Sothic cycle began in the first year of Seti I—the date 1358 for the death of Akhenaten does not allow for a sufficient interval between Akhenaten and Seti. The Mesa inscription proves that 59 years elapsed between the accession of Akhenaten and an unknown year in the reign of Horemhab. It has hitherto generally been assumed that the year in question was the last of Horemhab's long reign, but in the absence of any evidence to this effect such an assumption is absolutely inadmissible if we intend to abide by probabilities. Consequently, the discrepancy we are confronted with here must be increased by the number of years between this unknown regnal year of Horemhab and his death.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 8 , January 1946 , pp. 94 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 94 note 1 The Assyrian king-list found at Khorsabad is abbreviated throughout as KKL. The letters L.A.R. indicate D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria.

page 94 note 2 Owing to the war I have not had access to many of the periodicals published on the Continent since September 1939, nor have I seen all the American publications. It is possible, therefore, that some of the conclusions reached in this article may have already been expressed elsewhere.

page 94 note 3 Pinches, , P.S.B.A. VI. 193 Google Scholar. See also Knudtzon, , Assyr. Gebete an den Sonnengott, 1893, no. 60Google Scholar; Lehmann-Haupt, , Zwei Hauptprobleme (1898)Google Scholar; Meyer, E., Geschichte, 1. 2 (1909), 334 Google Scholar; C.T. XXXVI, nos. 24 and 25.

page 95 note 1 See p. 96, n. 1.

page 95 note 2 Poebel, , J.N.E.S. 1. 247 f. and 460 f.Google Scholar; II. 56 f.

page 95 note 3 C.T. XXXIV. 42 Google Scholar; for recent translation of the passage in question see Poebel, , J.N.E.S. 11. 57 Google Scholar.

page 95 note 4 That the figures, 17 and 6, in King-List A for the reigns of Marduk-shapik-zeri and Enurta-nadin-shum are at least very nearly correct is shown by Nebuchadrezzar I's statement that he brought back the statue of Marduk from Susa 30 years after it had been carried off by the Elamites (III R 61 b, 21). The statue was almost certainly taken in the Elamite invasion which brought the Kassite Dynasty to an end. Cf. Winckler, , Forschungen, 1. 239, n. 1Google Scholar.

page 95 note 5 Nassouhi, Essad, A.f.O. IV. 1 f.Google Scholar

page 96 note 1 See Clay, , B.E. XIV. 62 f.Google Scholar, texts 10-145; Legrain, , Historical Fragments, 1922, p. 99 fGoogle Scholar; Radau, , B.E. XVII. 1 fGoogle Scholar, for discussion of revised dates.

page 98 note 1 Poebel, , J.N.E.S. 11. 70–8Google Scholar. The conclusion expressed on p. 77 is that: ‘Facts known about the beginning of the reigns of Adad-nerari II? Šulmanu-asared III and Tukulti-apil-Ešarra III make it likely that also in all other cases before Tukulti-apil-Ešarra III the king's first year corresponds to the limmu immediately preceding the king's limmu.’ This opinion is accepted by Thiele, E. R., J.N.E.S. III. 146, n. 20 Google Scholar.

page 98 note 2 Actually this argument does not tend to prove that Assyrian kings before Tiglathpileser III held eponym office in their second year. It simply indicates that, whatever the regnal year was in which eponym office was held, it was the same for nearly all the kings of this period.

page 98 note 3 The first king of the third and last section of the KKL is Erishu I. A statement is made concerning this king which Poebel has restored as follows? ‘(first) king) (both) with (known) father and with (known) limmus’. Poebel states that this ‘characterizing epithet was, of course, intended by the compiler to be mentally repeated in every one of the following paragraphs’ (of the third section). Cf. J.N.E.S. 1. 282–4Google Scholar.

page 99 note 1 On the assumption that Poebel's figures for the eponym periods of these kings represent the correct solution. See J.N.E.S. 11. 87 f.Google Scholar, particularly notes 14-20.

page 99 note 2 e.g. the case of Baiaṭu in the eponym period of Sbalmaneser III. For recent discussion see Thiele, , J.N.E.S. III. 145, n. 20 Google Scholar.

page 100 note 1 Smith, S., A.J.A. XLIX. 20 Google Scholar.

page 100 note 2 Poebel, , J.N.E.S. II. 61 Google Scholar.

page 101 note 1 The šu (his) referring to Ashur-dan in both cases. It should be noted also that once the assumption is accepted that the KKL figure 46 for Ashur-dan I represents the eponym period of this king, we are no longer entitled to regard as valid the reasons advanced in section i of this article for maintaining that Enurta-tukulti-Ashur and Mutakkil-Nusku ruled only a short time. These two reigns may in theory have covered a considerable portion of the eponym period of Ashur-dan I. However, apart from the general historical conditions, there is a statement by Tiglathpileser I which tends to confirm our previous conclusion. Tiglathpileser I states that his grandfather, Ashur-dan I, ‘attained to grey hairs and a ripe old age’ (L.A.R. i., para. 257). Since the latter's father, Enurta-apal-ekur, only reigned 3 years it seems probable that Ashur-dan I was not advanced in years when he came to the throne, and that his reign was consequently a long one.

page 102 note 1 Ungnad, , R.L.A. II. 418 Google Scholar; Poebel, , J.N.E.S. II. 88 Google Scholar.

page 104 note 1 Cf. Weidner, , A.f.O. V. 184 fGoogle Scholar. and A.f.O. X. 27 f.Google Scholar; also Smith, Sidney, A.J.A. XLIX. 19 Google Scholar.

page 105 note 1 On this point see Smith, Sidney, Early History of Assyria, 115 Google Scholar; and Weidner, , A.f.O. V. 185 Google Scholar.

page 105 note 2 See J. Lewy, Ar. Or. XI, 35 f., for the existence of an Assyrian year of 365 days. It began at the spring equinox in the month of ṣibbu, as did the eponym year, at least under Enurta-tukuIti-Ashur.

page 105 note 3 K.A.H. II. no. 127; L.A.R. II. 713 f. Eponymy of Itti-Adad-(a)ninu. This date is confirmed in K.A.H. I. 75 Google Scholar ( L.A.R. II. 709 f.Google Scholar) where, after describing the rebuilding of the temple of Ashur, Esarhaddon states that he rebuilt Babylon in the same year. In IR. 49 f. ( L.A.R. II, 643 Google Scholar) and also in L.A.R. II. 650 Google Scholar it is stated that Marduk ordered that Babylon should be rebuilt in the eleventh year after its destruction, i.e. in 679. Work was commenced already in the accession year of Esarhaddon, so that this date presumably refers to the year in which the Esagila was completed.

page 105 note 4 K.A.H. II. no. 125 ( L.A.R. II. 702 Google Scholar). In a similar text K.A.H. II. no. 126 = K.A.H. I. no. 51 (L.A.R. 11. 706) the interval is given as 580 years. It is possible that the scribe who was the author of this inscription was able to ascertain the exact year of Shalmaneser I's reign in which the temple of Ashur was rebuilt. On the whole, however, it seems unlikely that he would go to such trouble, even if the information was still available in the time of Esarhaddon. The interval of 434 years between Shamshi-Adad I and Shalmaneser I is certainly an error which shows that the scribe we are dealing with here was a careless workman. Consequently, it would seem safer to view 580 as a round figure derived from the exact figure, 586.

page 105 note 5 Cf. Poebel, , J.N.E.S. I. 291 Google Scholar, who himself does not share this opinion.

page 106 note 1 King, L. W., Chronicles, I. 212 f.Google Scholar and 11. 70 f.; eclipse discussed in vol. 1. 232 f.

page 106 noet 2 King himself apparently thought that the eclipse is to be dated to the reign of Simmash-Shipak rather than to the reign of Eulmash-shakin-shum. Cf. his History of Babylon, p. 237, n. 3.

page 106 note 3 Neugebauer, P. V., Spes. Kanon der Sonnenfinsternisse für Vorderasien und Ägypten für die Zeit von 900 v. Chr. bis 4200 v. Chr. (Kiel, 1931)Google Scholar, D 26 (Astronomische Abhandlungen, Ergänzungshefte zu den Astronomischen Nachrichten, Band 8, No. 4).

page 106 note 4 Cf. ib., D 3, on the necessity for taking three months into consideration.

page 106 note 5 Albright, B.A.S.O.R. no. 88, 28 f.

page 106 note 6 Cornelius, , Klio, XXXV. 7 Google Scholar; quoted by Ungnad, , Orientalia, XIII. 86, n. 1Google Scholar.

page 107 note 1 King, , Chronicles, II. 73 (col. II., ll. 1-5)Google Scholar.

page 107 note 2 Ehelolf, and Landsberger, , Z.D.M.G. LXXIV. 218 Google Scholar; Smith, Sidney, E.H.A. 115 Google Scholar.

page 107 note 3 The Mesa inscription (Gardiner, in Sethe, , Untersuchungen, IV. 127 f.Google Scholar) proves that 59 or possibly 58 years ( Borchardt, , Die Mittel zur zeitlichen Festlegung, &c., 85, n. 3Google Scholar) elapsed between the accession of Akhenaten and an unknown year in the reign of Horemhab. The highest date recorded for Akhenaten is his 17th year (note that Akhenaten's 18th year in Gauthier's Livre des Rois is an error). It is very unlikely that Akhenaten ruled more than 18 years at the very most, since his brother Tutankhamen, who followed him on the throne, reigned at least 9 years and died at the age of 19, or more probably 18 ( Engelbach, , Annales du Service des Antiquités, XL. 159 Google Scholar).

page 107 note 4 Edgerton, , A.J.S.L., LIII. 192 Google Scholar and J.N.E.S. 1. 309 Google Scholar.

page 107 note 5 Sethe, , Zeitschrift für âgyptische Sprache, &c. (abbr. Z.Ä.S.) LXVI. 1 f.Google Scholar

page 108 note 1 Sethe, loc. cit. 6-7.

page 108 note 2 For recent discussion see Cooney, J. D., J.E.A. XXX. 2 f.Google Scholar

page 108 note 3 Recently Albright, J.N.E.S. V. 21 Google Scholar.

page 108 note 4 Ibid.

page 108 note 5 Struve, , Z.Ä.S. LXIII. 45 f.Google Scholar

page 108 note 6 Biot, J., Sur la période sothiaque, 21 Google Scholar; Blackman, A. M., J.R.A.S. (1924), 319 Google Scholar; Hommel, , Ethnographie des Alten Orients (1926), 884, n. 1Google Scholar.

page 109 note 1 Olympiodorus, Aristot. Meteor. 25. I. quoted by Ginzel, F. K., Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, Band I, 189, n. 3Google Scholar, even goes so far as to state that in his day ‘the Alexandrians reckon the rise of Sirius not from the moment when it rises for them, but from the moment when it rises for the inhabitants of Memphis’. This statement may or may not be wrong, but it shows how strong the Memphis tradition still was in the time of Olympiodorus.

page 109 note 2 Gauthier, G. H., Dict. des Noms Géographiques (1926), III. 38 Google Scholar. Montet, P., Comptes rendus de l'Acad. des Inscr. 1937, 419 Google Scholar, compares Onnophris, the Greek form of Un-nofir, with Menophres = M en-nofir.

page 109 note 3 Struve, , Z.Ä.S. LXIII. 46 Google Scholar, rejects the identification of Menophres with Ramses I. For the opposite view see Montet, loc. cit. 421.

page 109 note 4 Hall, H. R., Cambridge Ancient History, III. 281, n. 2Google Scholar, for the name of Memphis in the VII cent. B.C.

page 110 note 1 See also Meyer, E., Geschichte des Altertums (1928), n (1), 341 Google Scholar, whose date for the death of Horemhab (1310) shows that he had completely discarded the Menophres theory.