CHRONOLOGY
OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
The
chronology of the ancient Near East is a framework of dates for
various events, rulers and dynasties. Historical inscriptions and
texts customarily record events in terms of a succession of officials
or rulers: "in the year X of king Y". Comparing many records
pieces together a relative chronology relating dates in cities over
a wide area. For the first millennium BC, the relative chronology
can be matched to actual calendar years by identifying significant
astronomical events. An inscription from the tenth year of Assyrian
king Ashur-Dan III refers to an eclipse of the sun, and astronomical
calculations among the range of plausible years date the eclipse
to 15 June 763 BC. This can be corroborated by other mentions of
astronomical events, and a secure absolute chronology established,
tying the relative chronologies to the now-dominant Gregorian calendar.
For
the third and second millennia, this correlation is less certain.
A key document is the cuneiform Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa, preserving
record of astronomical observations of Venus during the reign of
the Babylonian king Ammisaduqa, known to be the fourth ruler after
Hammurabi in the relative calendar. In the series, the conjunction
of the rise of Venus with the new moon provides a point of reference,
or rather three points, for the conjunction is a periodic occurrence.
Identifying an Ammisaduqa conjunction with one of these calculated
conjunctions will therefore fix, for example, the accession of Hammurabi
as either 1848, 1792, or 1736 BC, known as the "high"
("long"), "middle", and "short (or low)
chronology".
For
the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, the following periods can be distinguished
:
No. |
Particulars |
1. |
Early
Bronze Age: A series of rulers and dynasties whose
existence is based mostly on the Sumerian King List
besides some that are attested epigraphically (e.g.
En-me-barage-si). No absolute dates within a certainty
better than a century can be assigned to this period. |
2. |
Middle
to Late Bronze Age: Beginning with the Akkadian
Empire around 2300 BC, the chronological evidence
becomes internally more consistent. A good picture
can be drawn of who succeeded whom, and synchronisms
between Mesopotamia, the Levant and the more robust
chronology of Ancient Egypt can be established.
The assignment of absolute dates is a matter of
dispute; the conventional middle chronology fixes
the sack of Babylon at 1595 BC while the short chronology
gives 1531 BC. |
3. |
The
Bronze Age collapse: A "Dark Age" begins
with the fall of Babylonian Dynasty III (Kassite)
around 1200 BC, the invasions of the Sea Peoples
and the collapse of the Hittite Empire.
|
4. |
Early
Iron Age: Around 900 BC, written records once again
become more numerous with the rise of the Neo-Assyrian
Empire, establishing secure absolute dates. Classical
sources such as the Canon of Ptolemy, the works
of Berossus, and the Hebrew Bible provide chronological
support and synchronisms. An eclipse in 763 BC anchors
the Assyrian list of imperial officials.
|
|
Variant
Bronze Age chronologies :
![](Mesopotamian_Chronology_2-2011-29-03.jpg)
Middle
chronology of the main dominations
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 or relative 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 56/64 [clarification needed] year cycle. More recent work by Vahe
Gurzadyan has suggested that the fundamental 8-year cycle of Venus
is a better metric (updated). However, some scholars discount the
validity of the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa entirely. There have
been 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
"middle chronology" (reign of Hammurabi 1792–1750
BC) is commonly encountered in literature, including many current
textbooks on the archaeology and history of the ancient Near East.
The alternative "short" (or "low") chronology
is less commonly followed, and the "long" (or "high")
and "ultra-short" (or "ultra-low") chronologies
are clear minority views. A recent analysis combining dendrochronology
and radiocarbon dating supported the middle chronology as most likely.
A further refinement by the same group shifted that to the "low-middle
chronology" 8 years lower. As mentioned below, at present there
are no continuous chronologies for the Near East, and a floating
chronology has been developed using trees in Anatolia for the Bronze
and Iron Ages. Until a continuous sequence is developed, the usefulness
of dendrochronology for improving the chronology of the Ancient
Near East is limited. For much of the period in question, middle
chronology dates can be calculated by adding 64 years to the corresponding
short chronology date (e.g. 1728 BC in short chronology corresponds
to 1792 in middle chronology).
The
following table gives an overview of the competing proposals, listing
some key dates and their deviation relative to the short chronology
:
Chronology |
Sumerian
Ruling House |
Ultra-Low |
Ammisaduqa
Year 8 : 1542 BC
Reign
of Hammurabi : 1696 – 1654 BC
Fall
of Babylon I : 1499 BC
+
- : + 32 a |
Short
or Low |
Ammisaduqa
Year 8 : 1574 BC
Reign
of Hammurabi : 1728 – 1686 BC
Fall
of Babylon I : 1531 BC
+
- : + 0 a |
Middle |
Ammisaduqa
Year 8 : 1638 BC
Reign
of Hammurabi : 1792 – 1750 BC
Fall
of Babylon I : 1595 BC
+
- : - 64 a |
Long
or High |
Ammisaduqa
Year 8 : 1694 BC
Reign
of Hammurabi : 1848 – 1806 BC
Fall
of Babylon I : 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.
Sources
of chronological data :
Inscriptional :
Thousands of cuneiform tablets have been found in an area running
from Anatolia to Egypt. While many are the ancient 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.
Underlying
issues :
• State of materials :
While there are some relatively pristine display-quality objects,
the vast majority of recovered tables and inscriptions are damaged.
They have been broken with only portions found, intentionally defaced,
and damaged by weather or soil. Many tablets were not even baked
and have to be carefully handled until they can be hardened by heating.
•
Provenance :
The site of an item's recovery is an important piece of information
for archaeologists, which can be compromised by two factors. First,
in ancient times old materials were often reused as building material
or fill, sometimes at a great distance from the original location.
Secondly, looting has disturbed archaeological sites at least back
to Roman times, making the provenance of looted objects difficult
or impossible to determine.
•
Multiple versions :
Key documents like the Sumerian King List were repeatedly copied
over generations, resulting in multiple variant versions of a chronological
source. It can be very hard to determine the authentic version.
•
Translation :
The translation of cuneiform documents is quite difficult, especially
for damaged 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: there can be honest disagreement over what a document
says. Worse, the majority of archaeological finds have not yet been
published, much less translated. Those held in private collections
may never be.
•
Political slant :
Many of our important source documents, such as the Assyrian King
List, are the products of government and religious establishments,
with a natural bias 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 putting the best possible face on history, a fact the interpreter
must constantly keep in mind.
King
Lists :
Historical lists of rulers were traditional in the ancient Near
East.
•
Sumerian King List :
Covers rulers of Mesopotamia from a time "before the flood"
to the fall of the Isin Dynasty. For many early city-states, it
is the only source of chronological data. However many early rulers
are listed with fantastically long reigns. Some scholars speculate
that this stems from an error in transcribing the original base
60 arithmetic of the Sumerians to the later decimal-based system
of the Akkadians.
•
Babylonian King List :
This list deals only with the rulers of Babylon. It has been found
in two versions, denoted A and B. The later dynasties in the list
document the Kassite and Sealand periods. There is also a Babylonian
King List of the Hellenistic Period in later part of the 1st millennium.
•
Assyrian King List :
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 around the 14th
century BC. When combined with the various Assyrian chronicles,
the Assyrian King List anchors the chronology of the 1st millennium.
•
Indus Valley King List :
A list of Indus Valley Civilization kings was compiled by Laurence
Waddell, but it is not generally accepted or well regarded by mainstream
academia.
Chronicles
:
Many chronicles have been recovered in the ancient Near East, most
fragmentary; but when combined with other sources, they provide
a rich source of chronological data.
•
Synchronistic Chronicle :
Found in the library of Assurbanipal in Nineveh, it records the
diplomacy of the Assyrian empire with the Babylonian empire. While
useful, the consensus is that this chronicle should not be considered
reliable.
•
Chronicle P :
While quite incomplete, this tablet provides the same type of information
as the Assyrian Synchronistic Chronicle, but from the Babylonian
point of view.
•
Royal Chronicle of Lagash :
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.
Some scholars believe the chronicle to be either a parody of the
Sumerian King List or a complete fabrication.
Royal
inscriptions :
Rulers in the ancient Near East liked to take credit for public
works. Temples, buildings and statues are likely to identify their
royal patron. Kings also publicly recorded major deeds such as battles
won, titles acquired, and gods appeased. These are very useful in
tracking the reign of a ruler.
Year
lists :
Unlike current calendars, most ancient calendars were based on the
accession of the current ruler, as in "the 5th year in the
reign of Hammurabi". Each royal year was also given a title
reflecting a deed of the ruler, like "the year Ur was defeated".
The compilation of these years are called date lists.
Eponym
(limmu) lists :
In Assyria, a royal official or limmu was selected in every year
of a king's reign. Many copies of these lists have been found, with
certain ambiguities. 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, for example in the Mari
Eponym Chronicle. There is now an Assyrian Revised Eponym List which
attempts to resolve some of these issues.
Trade,
diplomatic, and disbursement records :
As often in archaeology, everyday records 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, recording shipments of mundane supplies,
or settling accounts receivable. Most were tossed away after use
as one today would discard unwanted receipts, but fortunately for
us, clay tablets are durable enough to survive even when used as
material for wall filler in new construction.
•
Amarna letters :
A key find was a number of cuneiform tablets from Amarna in Egypt,
the city of the pharaoh Akhenaten. Mostly in Akkadian, the diplomatic
language of the time, several of them named foreign rulers including
the kings of Assyria and Babylon. Assuming that the correct kings
have been identified, this locks the chronology of the ancient Near
East to that of Egypt, at least from the middle of the 2nd millennium.
Classical
:
We have some data sources from the classical period :
•
Berossus :
Berossus, a Babylonian astronomer during the Hellenistic period,
wrote a history of Babylon which was lost, but portions were preserved
by other classical writers.
•
Canon of Ptolemy or Canon of Kings :
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.
•
Hebrew Bible :
Not having the stability of buried clay tablets, the records of
the Hebrews have a great deal of ancient editorial work to sift
through when used as a source for chronology. However, the Hebrew
kingdoms lay at the crossroads of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and the
Hittites, making them spectators and often victims of actions in
the area. Mainly of use in the 1st millennium and with the Assyrian
New Kingdom.
Astronomical
:
• Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa :
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, led to the proposal of an "ultra-low"
chronology.
Eclipses
:
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 (T).
One important event is the Nineveh 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 the Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa to be a legitimate source.
Dendrochronology
:
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. The difficulty in tying the chronology to the modern
day lies primarily in the Roman period, for which few good wood
samples have been found, and many of those turn out to be imported
from outside the Near East.
Radiocarbon
dating :
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 group is right, if either. Newer accelerator-based
carbon dating techniques may help clear up the issue. Another promising
technique is the dating of lime plaster from structures. Recently,
radiocarbon dates from the final destruction of Ebla have been shown
to definitely favour the middle chronology (with the fall of Babylon
and Aleppo at c. 1595 BC), and seem to discount the ultra-low chronology
(same event at c. 1499 BC), although it is emphasized that this
is not presented as a decisive argument.
Other
emerging technical dating methods include rehydroxylation dating,
luminescence dating, and archeointensity dating (geomagnetic).
Synchronisms
:
Egypt :
At least as far back as the reign of Thutmose I, Egypt took a strong
interest in the ancient Near East. At times they occupied portions
of the region, a favor returned later by the Assyrians. Some key
synchronisms :
|
Particulars |
• |
Battle
of Kadesh, involving Ramses II of Egypt (in his
5th year of reign) and Muwatalli II of the Hittite
empire. Recorded by both Egyptian and Hittite records. |
• |
Peace
treaty between Ramses II of Egypt (in his 21st year
of reign) and Hattusili III of the Hittites. Recorded
by both Egyptian and Hittite records. |
• |
Amenhotep
III (Amenophis III) marries the daughter of Shuttarna
II of Mitanni. There is also a record of messages
from the pharaoh to Kadashman-Enlil I of Babylon
in the Amarna Letter (EA1–5). Other Amarna
letters link Amenhotep III to Burnaburiash II of
Babylon (EA6) and Tushratta of Mitanni (EA17–29)
as well. |
• |
Akhenaten
(Amenhotep IV) married the daughter of Tushratta
of Mitanni (as did his father Amenhotep III), leaving
a number of records. He also corresponded with Burna-Buriash
II of Babylon (EA7–11, 15), and Ashuruballit
I of Assyria (EA15–16) |
|
There
are problems with using Egyptian chronology. Besides some minor
issues of regnal lengths and overlaps, there are three long periods
of poorly documented chaos in the history of ancient Egypt, the
First, Second, and Third Intermediate Periods, whose lengths are
doubtful. This means the Egyptian Chronology actually comprises
three floating chronologies.
Indus
Valley :
There is much evidence that the Harappan civilization of the Indus
Valley traded with the Near East, including clay seals found at
Ur III and in the Persian Gulf. Seals and beads were also found
at the site of Esnunna. In 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.
Thera
and Eastern Mediterranean :
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.
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. The exact
date of the volcanic eruption has been the subject of strong debate,
with dates ranging between 1628 and 1520 BC. Radiocarbon dating
has placed it at between 1627 BC and 1600 BC with a 95% degree of
probability. Archaeologist Kevin Walsh, accepting the radiocarbon
dating, suggests a possible date of 1628 and believes this to be
the most debated event in Mediterranean archaeology.
Source
:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Chronology_of_the_ancient_Near_East