Chronology of the Ancient Near East edit
extracted from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
(using Wikipedia Reflection Script)
|
Chronology of the Ancient Near East edit
|
|
| The ancient Near East |
|---|
 |
| Regions and States |
| Mesopotamia • Sumer • Akkadian Empire • Babylonia • Assyria • Neo-Assyrian Empire • Neo-Babylonian Empire Egypt • Ancient Egypt |
| Archaeological Periods |
| Chronology • Bronze Age • Bronze Age collapse • Iron Age |
| Languages |
| Assyriology • Cuneiform script Sumerian • Elamite • Akkadian • Hittite • Hurrian • Urartian |
| Literature |
| Sumerian literature • Babylonian literature • Hittite texts |
| Mythology |
| Mesopotamian mythology • Babylonian mythology • Hittite mythology |
| Other topics |
| Cuneiform law • Babylonian law • Assyrian law |
The chronology of the Ancient Near East is a framework of dates for various events, rulers and dynasties of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC.
The following periods need to be distinguished:
Contents |
Due to the sparsity of sources throughout the "Dark Age", the history of the Near Eastern Bronze Age down to the end of the Third Babylonian Dynasty is a "floating chronology". In other words, it fits together internally as a "relative chronology" but not as a "absolute chronology".
The major schools of thought on the length of the Dark Age are separated by 56 or 64 years. This is because the key source for their dates is the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa and the visibility of Venus has a 56/64clarification needed year cycle. More recent work has suggested that the fundamental 8 year cycle of Venus is a better metric "1. There have been other attempts to anchor the chronology using records of eclipses and other methods, but they are not yet widely supported. The alternative major chronologies are defined by the date of the 8th year of the reign of Ammisaduqa, king of Babylon. This choice then defines the reign of Hammurabi.
The current scholarly consensus is with the short chronology (sack of Babylon 1531 BC) used in this article. In older literature, the most commonly encountered is the middle chronology (sack of Babylon 1595 BC). The middle chronology currently still has strong academic supporters. The alternative "long" and "ultra low" chronologies are clear minority views. There are also some scholars who discount the validity Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa entirely.
The following table gives an overview of the competing proposals, listing some key dates and the deviation relative to the short chronology:
| Chronology | Ammisaduqa Year 8 | Reign of Hammurabi | Fall of Babylon I | ± |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultra-Low | 1542 BC | 1696 BC - 1654 BC | 1499 BC | +32 a |
| Short or Low | 1574 BC | 1728 BC - 1686 BC | 1531 BC | ±0 a |
| Middle | 1638 BC | 1792 BC - 1750 BC | 1595 BC | -64 a |
| Long or High | 1694 BC | 1848 BC - 1806 BC | 1651 BC | -120 a |
The chronologies of Mesopotamia, the Levant and Anatolia depend significantly on the chronology of Ancient Egypt. To the extent that there are problems in the Egyptian chronology, these issues will be inherited in chronologies based on synchronisms with Ancient Egypt.
Thousands of cuneiform tablets have been found in an area running from Anatolia to Egypt. While many are the modern equivalent of grocery receipts, these tablets, along with inscriptions on buildings and public monuments, provide the major source of chronological information for the ancient Middle East.2
While there are some relatively pristine objects, such as you might see in the Louvre or the British Museum, the vast majority of recovered tables and inscriptions are in much worse condition. They have been broken with only portions found, intentionally defaced, and damaged by weather or the effects of being buried underground. Many tablets were not even baked in antiquity and have to be carefully handled until they are heated properly. 3
The site of an item's recovery is an important piece of information for archaeologists. Unfortunately, two factors impinge on this. First, in ancient times old materials were often reused either as building material or fill, sometimes at a great distance from the original location. Secondly, looting has been a fact of life for archaeological sites, dating at least back to Roman times. The provenance of a looted object is difficult or impossible to determine.
Over time, key documents like the Sumerian King List were repeatedly copied across the generations. As a result, there are sometimes multiple versions of a chronological source that differ from each other. It can be very hard to determine which version is correct.4
The translation of cuneiform documents is quite difficult, especially given the damaged nature of much source material. Additionally, our knowledge of the underlying languages, like Akkadian and Sumerian, have evolved over time, so a translation done now may be quite different than one done in AD 1900. The result of all this is that there can be honest disagreement what the document really says. Worse yet, many archaeological finds have not yet been published, much less translated. Those held in private collections may never be.
Many of our important source documents, such as the Assyrian King List, are the products of government and religious establishments. They often have a built-in slant in favor of the king or god in charge. A king may even take credit for a battle or construction project of an earlier ruler. The Assyrians in particular have a literary tradition of always putting the best possible face on history. The tablets or inscriptions in question still have value, though one does have to keep the slant in mind.
Keeping historical lists of rulers was traditional in the ancient Near East.
Covers rulers of Mesopotamia from a time "before the flood" up to the fall of the Isin Dynasty. For many early city/states it is the only source of chronological data. A major problem is that many early rulers are listed with fantastically long reigns. There has been some speculation that this stems from an error transcribing from the base 60 arithmetic of the Sumerians to the decimal based system of the later Akkadians.5
This list deals only with the rulers of Babylon. It has been found in two versions Babylonian King List A and Babylonian King List B. The later dynasties in the list reflect the Kassite and Sealand periods of Babylon. There is also a Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period which covers the later part of the 1st millennium.6
Found in multiple differing copies, this tablet lists all the kings of Assyria and their regnal lengths back into the mists of time, with the portions with reasonable data beginning at around the 14th century BC.7 When combined with the various Assyrian chronicles, the Assyrian King List anchors the chronology of the 1st millennium. However, inconsistencies raise doubts over how tightly the two are connected.8
Many chronicles have been recovered in the ancient Near East. Most are partial or fragmentary, but when combined with other sources, they provide a rich source of chronological data.9
Found in the library of Assurbanipal in Nineveh, it records the interaction of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, from the Assyrian point of view. While useful, the consensus is that this chronicle should not be considered reliable.10
While quite incomplete, this tablet provides the same type of information as the Assyrian Synchronistic Chronicle, but from the Babylonian point of view.11
The Sumerian King List omits any mention of Lagash, even though it was clearly a major power during the period covered by the list. The Royal Chronicle of Lagash appears to be an attempt to remedy that omission, listing the kings of Lagash in the form of a chronicle.12It should be noted that some scholars believe the chronicle to be either a parody of the Sumerian King List or a complete fabrication.13
As today, political figures in the ancient Near East liked to take credit for public works. Temples, buildings and statues built by a ruler are likely to have some sort of inscription mentioning his name. The kings also were sure to record major deeds like battles won, titles acquired, or gods appeased in some form of public inscription. These are very useful in tracking the reign of a ruler.
Unlike current calendars, most ancient calendars were based on how long the current ruler had been in power. A year might be "the 5th year in the reign of Hammurabi". As part of this, each royal year was given a title, like "the year Ur was defeated". Most often this reflected a deed of the ruler. The compilation of these years are called date lists. 14
In Assyria, a royal official, or Limmu was selected every year of a king's reign. Many copies of these lists have been found. 15 16. Naturally, details are not always clear cut. There are sometimes too many or few limmu for the length of a king's reign and sometimes the different versions of the Eponym List disagree on a limmu.
As is often the case in archaeology, it is everyday records that give the best picture of a civilization. Cuneiform tablets were constantly moving around the ancient Near East, offering alliances (sometimes including daughters for marriage), threatening war, acting as shipping documents for mundane supplies or settling accounts receivable. Most were tossed away after use the way that we would discard unwanted receipts. Fortunately for us, tablets are durable and many are well-preserved even when used as material for wall filler in new construction.
The classic example. A number of cuneiform tablets were found at Amarna in Egypt, the city of the pharaoh Akenaten. They were written mostly in Akkadian, the diplomatic language of the time. Several named rulers in the region including the kings of Assyria and Babylon. Assuming that the correct kings have been identified, it locks the chronology of the ancient Near East to that of Egypt, at least from the middle of the 2nd Millennium.
Some data sources are available to us from the classical period
Berossus was a Babylonian astronomer living during the Hellenistic period. He wrote a history of Babylon which has not survived to modern times. Luckily, portions of this work were preserved by other classical writers.
This book provides a list of kings starting at around 750 BC in Babylon and forward through the Persian and Roman periods, in an astronomical context. It is used to help define the chronology of the 1st millennium.
Not having the benefit of being written into clay and buried, the records of the Hebrews have an additional layer of time and translation to work through in being used as a source for chronology. On the other hand, the Hebrews did live pretty much in a territory directly in the crosshairs of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and the Hittites, giving them a front row seat to actions in the area. Mainly of use in the 1st millennium and with the Assyrian New Kingdom.
A record of the movements of Venus during the reign of a king of the First Babylonian Dynasty. Using it, various scholars have proposed dates for the fall of Babylon based on the 56/64 year cycle of Venus. The mentioned recent work suggesting that the fundamental 8 year cycle of Venus is a better metric, lead to the proposal of a "ultra-low" chronology.17
A number of lunar and solar eclipses have been suggested for use in dating the ancient Near East. Many suffer from the vagueness of the original tablets in showing that an actual eclipse occurred. At that point, it becomes a question of using computer models to show when a given eclipse would have been visible at a site, complicated by difficulties in modeling the slowing rotation of the earth, Delta T. One important event is the Ninevah Eclipse, found in an Assyrian limmu list q.e. "Bur-Sagale of Guzana, revolt in the city of Ashur. In the month Simanu an eclipse of the sun took place." This eclipse is considered to be solidly dated to 15 June 763 BC. Another important event is the Ur III Lunar/Solar Eclipse pair in the reign of Shulgi. Most calculations for dating using eclipses have assumed that the Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa is a legitimate source. 181
Dendrochronology attempts to use the variable growth pattern of trees, expressed in their rings, to build up a chronological timeline. At present, there are no continuous chronologies for the Near East. A floating chronology has been developed using trees in Anatolia for the Bronze and Iron Ages. Until a continuous sequence is developed, the usefulness for improving the chronology of the Ancient Near East is limited. 1920 21
As in Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean, radiocarbon dates run one or two centuries earlier than the dates proposed by archaeologists. It is not at all clear which groups is right, if either. Mechanisms have been proposed for explaining why radiocarbon dates in the region might be skewed. Equally logical arguments have been made suggesting that the archaeological dates are too late. Time will tell. 22 The spread of accelerator based carbon dating techniques may help clear up the issue. Another promising front is the dating of lime plaster from structures. 23
At least as far back as the reign of Thutmose III, Egypt took a strong interest in the ancient Near East. At times they occupied portions of the region, a favor returned in later days by the Assyrians. Some key synchronisms:
There is much evidence that the Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley traded with the region. This is demonstrated by clay seals found at Ur III and in the Persian Gulf. 26In addition, if the land of Meluhha does indeed refer to the Indus Valley, then there are extensive trade records ranging from the Akkadian Empire until the Babylonian Dynasty I.
Goods from Greece made their way into the ancient Near East, directly in Anatolia and via the island of Cyprus in the rest of the region and Egypt. A Hittite king, Tudhaliya IV even captured Cyprus as part of an attempt to enforce a blockade of the Assyrians.27
The eruption of the Thera volcano provides a possible time marker for the region. A large eruption, it would have sent a plume of ash directly over Anatolia and filled the sea in the area with floating pumice. This pumice appeared in Egypt, apparently via trade. Current excavations in the Levant may also add to the timeline. Unfortunately, the exact date of the volcanic eruption is subject of strong contest between the radiocarbon experts, who place it at around 1610 BC and archaeologists, who support a date around 1470 BC.28
