List of kings of Babylon

  (Redirected from King of Babylon)

The king of Babylon (Akkadian: šakkanakki Bābili, later also šar Bābili) was the ruler of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Babylon and its kingdom, Babylonia, which existed as an independent realm from the 19th century BC to its fall in the 6th century BC. For the majority of its existence as an independent kingdom, Babylon ruled most of southern Mesopotamia, composed of the ancient regions of Sumer and Akkad. The city experienced two major periods of ascendancy, when Babylonian kings rose to dominate large parts of the Ancient Near East: the First Babylonian Empire (or Old Babylonian Empire, c. 1894/1880–1595 BC) and the Second Babylonian Empire (or Neo-Babylonian Empire, 626–539 BC).

King of Babylon
šakkanakki Bābili
šar Bābili
Shamash-sun-symbol (3 rays).svg
Stylised version of the star of Shamash[a]
Harran Stela.png
Last native king
Nabonidus
25 May 556 BC – 13 October 539 BC
Details
First monarchSumu-abum
Last monarchNabonidus
(last native king)
Shamash-eriba or Nidin-Bel
(last native rebel)
Artabanus III
(last foreign ruler attested as king)
Artabanus IV
(last Parthian king in Babylonia)
Formationc. 1894 BC
Abolition539 BC
(last native king)
484 BC or 336/335 BC
(last native rebel)
AD 81
(last foreign ruler attested as king)
AD 224
(last Parthian king in Babylonia)
AppointerVarious:
  • Election by the Babylonian priesthood or aristocracy
  • Hereditary inheritance
  • Usurpation/conquest of Babylon

Many of Babylon's kings were of foreign origin. Throughout the city's nearly two-thousand year history, it was ruled by kings of native Babylonian, Amorite, Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean, Elamite, Greek, Kassite, Parthian and Persian origin. A king's cultural and ethnic background does not appear to have been important for the Babylonian perception of kingship, the important matter instead being whether the king was capable of executing the duties traditionally ascribed to the Babylonian king: establishing peace and security, upholding justice, honouring civil rights, refraining from unlawful taxation, respecting religious traditions, constructing temples, providing gifts to the gods in the temples and maintaining cultic order. Babylonian revolts of independence during the times the city was ruled by foreign empires probably had little to do with the rulers of these empires not being Babylonians and more to do with the rulers rarely visiting Babylon and failing to partake in the city's rituals and traditions.

Babylon's last native king was Nabonidus, who reigned from 556 to 539 BC. Nabonidus's rule was ended through Babylon being conquered by Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid Empire. Though early Achaemenid kings continued to place importance on Babylon and continued using the title 'king of Babylon', later Achaemenid rulers being ascribed the title is probably only something done by the Babylonians themselves, with the kings themselves having abandoned it. Babylonian scribes continued to recognise rulers of the empires that controlled Babylonia as their kings until the time of the Parthian Empire, when Babylon was gradually abandoned. Though Babylon never regained independence after the Achaemenid conquest, there were several attempts by the Babylonians to drive out their foreign rulers and re-establish their kingdom, possibly as late as 336/335 BC under the rebel Nidin-Bel.

IntroductionEdit

Royal titlesEdit

Three different attested spellings in Neo-Babylonian Akkadian cuneiform for the title 'king of Babylon' (šar Bābili). The topmost rendition follows the Antiochus cylinder, the other two follow building inscriptions by Nebuchadnezzar II (r605–562 BC).

Throughout the city's long history, various titles were used to designate the ruler of Babylon and its kingdom, the most common titles being 'viceroy of Babylon', 'king of Karduniash' and 'king of Sumer and Akkad'.[2] Use of one of the titles did not mean that the others could not be used simultaneously. For instance, the Neo-Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (r729–727 BC in Babylon), used all three of the aforementioned titles.[3]

  • Viceroy (or governor) of Babylon (šakkanakki Bābili)[4] – emphasises the political dominion of Babylon itself.[2] For much of the city's history, its rulers referred to themselves as viceroys or governors, rather than kings. The reason for this was that Babylon's true king was formally considered to be its national deity, Marduk. By not explicitly claiming the royal title, Babylonian rulers thus showed reverence to the city's god.[5] The reign of the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib (r705–681 BC) has been noted as a particular break in this tradition,[5] as he assumed the title king of Babylon (šar Bābili),[6] which may have contributed to widespread negative reception of him in Babylonia.[5] However, šar Bābili is recorded as being used in some inscriptions from before Sennacherib's time, such as in the inscriptions of his father and predecessor Sargon II (r710–705 BC in Babylon), who used it interchangeably with šakkanakki Bābili.[4] Though Sennacherib's successors would primarily use šakkanakki Bābili,[7] there are likewise examples of them instead using šar Bābili.[8] The titles would also be used interchangeably by the later Neo-Babylonian kings.[9]
  • King of Karduniash (šar Karduniaš)[10] – refers to rule of southern Mesopotamia as a whole.[2] 'Karduniash' was the Kassite name for the Babylonian kingdom, and the title 'king of Karduniash' was introduced by the city's third dynasty (the Kassites).[11] The title continued to be used long after the Kassites had lost control of Babylon, for instance as late as under the native king Nabu-shuma-ukin I (rc. 900–888 BC)[12] and the Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon (r681–669 BC).[7]
  • King of Sumer and Akkad (šar māt Šumeri u Akkadi)[13] – refers to rule of southern Mesopotamia as a whole.[2] A title originally used by the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112–2004 BC), centuries prior to Babylon's foundation. The title was used by kings to connect themselves to the culture and legacy of the Sumerian and Akkadian civilizations,[14] as well as to lay claim to the political hegemony achieved during the ancient Akkadian Empire. The title was also a geographical one, in that southern Mesopotamia was typically divided into the two regions Sumer (the south) and Akkad (the north), meaning that 'king of Sumer and Akkad' referred to rulership over the entire country.[11] The title was used by the Babylonian kings until the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BC, and was also assumed by Cyrus the Great, who conquered Babylon and ruled Babylonia until his death in 530 BC.[15]

Role and legitimacyEdit

The Babylonian kings derived their right to rule from divine appointment by Babylon's patron deity Marduk and through consecration by the city's priests.[16] Marduk's main cult image (often conflated with the god himself), the statue of Marduk, was prominently used in the coronation rituals for the kings, who received their crowns "out of the hands" of Marduk during the New Year's festival, symbolizing them being bestowed with kingship by the deity.[17] The king's rule and his role as Marduk's vassal on Earth were reaffirmed annually at this time of year, when the king entered the Esagila, Babylon's main cult temple, alone on the fifth day of the New Year's Festival each year and met with the high priest. The high priest removed the regalia from the king, slapped him across the face and made him kneel before Marduk's statue. The king would then tell the statue that he had not oppressed his people and that he had maintained order throughout the year, whereafter the high priest would reply (on behalf of Marduk) that the king could continue to enjoy divine support for his rule, returning the royal regalia.[18] Through being a patron of Babylon's temples, the king extended his generosity towards the Mesopotamian gods, who in turn empowered his rule and lent him their authority.[16]

Babylonian kings were expected to establish peace and security, uphold justice, honor civil rights, refrain from unlawful taxation, respect religious traditions and maintain cultic order. None of the king's responsibilities and duties required him to be ethnically or even culturally Babylonian. Any foreigner sufficiently familiar with the royal customs of Babylonia could adopt the title, though they might then require the assistance of the native priesthood and the native scribes. Ethnicity and culture does not appear to have been important in the Babylonian perception of kingship: many foreign kings enjoyed support from the Babylonians and several native kings were despised.[19] That the rule of some foreign kings was not supported by the Babylonians probably has little to do with their ethnic or cultural background, but rather that they were perceived as not properly executing the traditional duties of the Babylonian king.[20]

DynastiesEdit

 
The name of Babylon's first dynasty (palû Babili, simply 'dynasty of Babylon') in Neo-Babylonian Akkadian cuneiform

As with other monarchies, the kings of Babylon are grouped into a series of royal dynasties, a practice started by the ancient Babylonians themselves in their king lists.[21][22] The generally accepted Babylonian dynasties should not be understood as familial groupings in the same vein as the term is commonly used by historians for ruling families in later kingdoms and empires. Though Babylon's first dynasty did form a dynastic grouping where all monarchs were related, the dynasties of the first millennium BC, notably the Dynasty of E, did not constitute a series of coherent familial relationships at all. In a Babylonian sense, the term dynasty, rendered as palû or palê, related to a sequence of monarchs from the same ethnic or tribal group (i.e. the Kassite dynasty), the same region (i.e. the dynasties of the Sealand) or the same city (i.e. the dynasties of Babylon and Isin).[22] In some cases, kings known to be genealogically related, such as Eriba-Marduk (rc. 769–760 BC) and his grandson Marduk-apla-iddina II (r722–710 BC and 703 BC), were separated into different dynasties, the former designated as belonging to the Dynasty of E and the latter as belonging to the (Third) Sealand dynasty.[23]

SourcesEdit

 
The Uruk King List, recording rulers of Babylon from Kandalanu (r648–627 BC) to Seleucus II Callinicus (r246–225 BC)
 
The Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period, recording rulers of Babylon from Alexander the Great (r331–323 in Babylon) to Demetrius II Nicator (r145–141 BC in Babylon)

Among all the different types of documents uncovered through excavations in Mesopotamia, the most important for reconstructions of chronology and political history are king-lists and chronicles, grouped together under the term 'chronographic texts'. Mesopotamian king lists are of special importance when reconstructing the sequences of monarchs, as they are collections of royal names and regnal dates, also often with additional information such as the relations between the kings, arranged in a table format. In terms of Babylonian rulers, the main document is the Babylonian King List (BKL), a group of three independent documents: Babylonian King List A, B, and C. In addition to the main Babylonian King Lists, there are also additional king-lists that record rulers of Babylon.[24]

  • Babylonian King List A (BKLa, BM 33332)[25] — created at some point after the foundation of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, Babylonian King List A records the kings of Babylon from the beginning of Babylon's first dynasty under Sumu-abum (rc. 1894–1881 BC) to Kandalanu (r648–627 BC). The end of the tablet is broken off, suggesting that it originally listed rulers after Kandalanu as well, possibly also listing the kings of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. All dynasties are separated by horizontal lines, under which subscript records a sum of the regnal years of each dynasty, and the number of kings the dynasties produced. Written in Neo-Babylonian script.[26]
  • Babylonian King List B (BKLb, BM 38122)[25] — date of origin uncertain, written in Neo-Babylonian script. Babylonian King List B records the kings of Babylon's first dynasty, and the kings of the First Sealand dynasty, with subscripts recording the number of kings and their summed up reigns in these dynasties. Regnal years are recorded for the kings of the first dynasty, but omitted for the kings of the Sealand dynasty. The regnal years used for the kings are inconsistent with their actual reign lengths, possibly due to the author having copied the list from a document where the years had been lost or damaged. The list records genealogical information for all but two of the kings of the first dynasty, but only for two of the kings of the Sealand dynasty. Because the document is essentially two lists for two dynasties, it is possible that it was copied and extracted from longer king lists in the late period for some unknown purpose.[26]
  • Babylonian King List C (BKLc)[27] — a short text,[28] written in Neo-Babylonian script.[26] King List C is important as a source on the second dynasty of Isin, as the first seven lines of the preserved nine lines of text provide a portion of the sequence of kings of this dynasty and their dates. The corresponding section in Babylonian King List A is incompletely preserved.[28] As the list ends with the Isin dynasty's seventh king, Marduk-shapik-zeri (rc. 1081–1069 BC), it is possible that it was written during the reign of his successor, Adad-apla-iddina (rc. 1068–1047 BC).[26] Its short length and unusual shape (being curved rather than flat)[28] means that it might have been a practice tablet used by a young Babylonian student.[26]
  • Synchronistic King List (ScKL)[29] — a collection of individual tablets and examplars. The Synchronistic King List features two columns, and records the kings of Babylon and Assyria together, with kings recorded next to each other presumably being contemporaries. Unlike most of the other documents, this list generally omits regnal years and any genealogical information, but it also differs in including many of the chief scribes under the Assyrian and Babylonian kings. The tablet with the earliest known portion of the list begins with the Assyrian king Erishum I (uncertain regnal dates) and the Babylonian king Sumu-la-El (rc. 1880–1845 BC). The latest known portion ends with Ashur-etil-ilani (r631–627 BC) in Assyria and Kandalanu in Babylon. As it is written in Neo-Assyrian script, it might have been created near the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[30]
  • Uruk King List (UKL, IM 65066)[27] — the preserved portion of this king list records rulers from Kandalanu in the Assyrian period to Seleucus II Callinicus (r246–225 BC) in the Seleucid period.[27]
  • Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period (BM 35603)[27] — written at Babylon at some point after 141 BC, recording rulers from the start of Hellenistic rule in Babylonia under Alexander the Great (r331–323 in Babylon),[31] to the end of Seleucid rule under Demetrius II Nicator (r145–141 BC in Babylon) and the conquest of Babylonia by the Parthian Empire.[32] Entries before Seleucus I Nicator (r305–281 BC) and after Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r175–164 BC) are damaged and fragmentary.[33]

As years in Babylon were named after the current king, and the current year of their reign, date formulas in economic, astronomical and literary cuneiform texts written in Babylonia also provide highly important and useful chronological data.[34][35]

Kingship after the Neo-Babylonian EmpireEdit

 
Relief of Artaxerxes I of the Achaemenid Empire (r465–424 BC), the last of the Achaemenid kings to officially use the title 'king of Babylon'

In addition to the king lists described above, cuneiform inscriptions and tablets confidently establish that the Babylonians continued to recognise the foreign rulers of Babylonia as their legitimate monarchs after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and throughout the rule of the Achaemenid (539–331 BC), Argead (331–310 BC), and Seleucid (305–141 BC) empires, as well as well into the rule of the Parthian Empire (141 BC – AD 224).[36]

Early Achaemenid kings greatly respected Babylonian culture and history, and regarded Babylonia as a separate entity or kingdom united with their own kingdom in something akin to a personal union.[17] Despite this, the Babylonians would grow to resent Achaemenid rule, just as they had resented Assyrian rule during the time their country was under the rule of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (722–626 BC).[17] Babylonian resentment of the Achaemenids likely had little to do with the Achaemenids being foreigners, but rather that the Achaemenid kings were perceived to not be capable of executing the duties of the Babylonian king properly, in line with established Babylonian tradition. This perception then led to frequent Babylonian revolts, an issue experienced by both the Assyrians and the Achaemenids. Since the capitals of the Assyrian and Achaemenid empires were elsewhere, these foreign kings did not regularly partake in the city's rituals (meaning that they could not be celebrated in the same way that they traditionally were) and they rarely performed their traditional duties to the Babylonian cults through constructing temples and presenting cultic gifts to the city's gods. This failure might have been interpreted as the kings thus not having the necessary divine endorsement to be considered true kings of Babylon.[37]

The standard regnal title used by the early Achaemenid kings, not only in Babylon but throughout their empire, was 'king of Babylon and king of the lands'. The Babylonian title was gradually abandoned by the Achaemenid king Xerxes I (r486–465 BC), after he had to put down a major Babylonian uprising. Xerxes also divided the previously large Babylonian satrapy into smaller sub-units and, according to some sources, damaged the city itself in an act of retribution.[17] The last Achaemenid king whose own royal inscriptions officially used the title 'king of Babylon' was Xerxes I's son and successor Artaxerxes I (r465–424 BC).[38] After Artaxerxes I's rule there are few examples of monarchs themselves using the title, though the Babylonians continued to ascribe it to their rulers. The only known official explicit use of 'king of Babylon' by a king during the Seleucid period can be found in the Antiochus cylinder, a clay cylinder containing a text wherein Antiochus I Soter (r281–261 BC) calls himself, and his father Seleucus I Nicator (r305–281 BC), by the title 'king of Babylon', alongside various other ancient Mesopotamian titles and honorifics.[39] The Seleucid kings continued to respect Babylonian traditions and culture, with several Seleucid kings recorded as having "given gifts to Marduk" in Babylon and the New Year's Festival still being recorded as a contemporary event.[40][41][42] One of the last times the festival is known to have been celebrated was in 188 BC, under the Seleucid king Antiochus III (r222–187 BC), who prominently partook in the rituals.[42] From the Hellenistic period (i. e. the rule of the Greek Argeads and Seleucids) onwards, Greek culture became established in Babylonia, but per Oelsner (2014), the Hellenistic culture "did not deeply penetrate the ancient Babylonian culture, that persisted to exist in certain domains and areas until the 2nd c. AD".[43]

 
Coin of Artabanus III of the Parthian Empire (rAD 79/80–81), the last known ruler who is attested as king in Babylonian texts

Under the Parthian Empire, Babylon was gradually abandoned as a major urban centre and the old Babylonian culture diminished.[44] The nearby and newer imperial capitals cities of Seleucia and later Ctesiphon overshadowed the ancient city and became the seats of power in the region.[45] Babylon was still important in the first century or so of Parthian rule,[44] and cuneiform tablets continued to recognise the rule of the Parthian kings.[46] The standard title formula applied to the Parthian kings in Babylonian documents was "ar-ša-kâ lugal.lugal.meš" (Aršakâ šar šarrāni, "Arsaces, king of kings").[47] Several tablets from the Parthian period also in their date formulae mention the queen of the incumbent Parthian king, alongside the king, the first time women were officially recognised as monarchs of Babylon.[48] The few documents that survive from Babylon in the Parthian period indicate a growing sense of alarm and alienation in Babylon as the Parthian kings were mostly absent from the city and the Babylonians noticed their culture slowly slipping away.[49]

When exactly Babylon was abandoned is unclear. The Roman author Pliny the Elder wrote in AD 50 that proximity to Seleucia had turned Babylon into a "barren waste" and during their campaigns in the east, Roman emperors Trajan (in AD 115) and Septimius Severus (in AD 199) supposedly found the city destroyed and deserted. Archaeological evidence and the writings of Abba Arikha (c. AD 219) indicate that at least the temples of Babylon may still have been active in the early 3rd century.[45] If any remnants of the old Babylonian culture still existed at that point, they would have been decisively wiped out as the result of religious reforms in the early Sasanian Empire c. AD 230.[50]

Due to a shortage of sources, and the timing of Babylon's abandonment being unknown, the last ruler recognised by the Babylonians as king is not known. The latest known cuneiform tablet is W22340a, found at Uruk and dated to AD 79/80. The tablet preserves the word LUGAL (king), indicating that the Babylonians by this point still recognised a king.[51] At this time, Babylonia was ruled by the Parthian rival king (i. e. usurper) Artabanus III.[52] Modern historians are divided on where the line of monarchs ends. Spar and Lambert (2005) did not include any rulers beyond the first century AD in their list of kings recognised by the Babylonians,[36] but Beaulieu (2018) considered 'Dynasty XIV of Babylon' (his designation for the Parthians as rulers of the city) to have lasted until the end of Parthian rule of Babylonia in the early 3rd century AD.[53]

Names in cuneiformEdit

The list below includes the names of all the kings in Akkadian, as well as how the Akkadian names were rendered in cuneiform signs. Up until the reign of Burnaburiash II (rc. 1359–1333 BC) of the Kassite dynasty (Dynasty III), Sumerian was the dominant language for use in inscriptions and official documents, with Akkadian eclipsing it under the reign of Kurigalzu II (rc. 1332–1308 BC), and thereafter replacing Sumerian in inscriptions and documents.[54] For consistency purposes, and because several kings and their names are known only from king lists,[55] which were written in Akkadian centuries after Burnaburiash II's reign, this list solely uses Akkadian, rather than Sumerian, for the royal names, though this is anachronistic for rulers before Burnaburiash II.

It is not uncommon for there to be several different spellings of the same name in Akkadian, even when referring to the same individual.[56][57] To examplify this, the table below presents two ways the name of Nebuchadnezzar II (r605–562 BC) was spelt in Akkadian (Nabû-kudurri-uṣur). The list of kings below uses more concise spellings when possible, primarily based on the renditions of names in date formulae and king lists.

Concise spelling (king lists) Elaborate spelling (building inscriptions)
 
Nabû - kudurri - uṣur[58]
 
Na - bi - um - ku - du - ur - ri - u - ṣu - ur[59]

Even if the same spelling is used, there were also several different scripts of cuneiform signs: a name, even if spelt the same, looks considerably different in Old Babylonian signs compared to Neo-Babylonian signs or Neo-Assyrian signs.[60] The table below presents different variants, depending on the signs used, of the name Antiochus in Akkadian (Antiʾukusu). The list of kings below uses Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian signs, given that those scripts are the signs primarily used in the king lists.

Date formulae (Neo-Babylonian signs) Antiochus cylinder[b] Antiochus cylinder (Neo-Babylonian signs) Antiochus cylinder (Neo-Assyrian signs)
 
An - ti - ʾ - i - ku - su[62]
 
An - ti - ʾ - ku - us[63]
 
An - ti - ʾ - ku - us[64]
 
An - ti - ʾ - ku - us[64]

Dynasty I (Amorite), 1894–1595 BCEdit

Per BKLb, the native name for this dynasty was simply palû Babili ('dynasty of Babylon').[65] To differentiate it from the other dynasties that later ruled Babylon, modern historians often refer to this dynasty as the 'First Dynasty of Babylon'.[65] Some historians refer to this dynasty as the 'Amorite dynasty'[66] on account of the kings being of Amorite descent.[67]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Sumu-abum[c]  
Šumu-abum
c. 1894 BC c. 1881 BC First king of Babylon in BKLa and BKLb [69]
Sumu-la-El  
Šumu-la-El
c. 1880 BC c. 1845 BC Unclear succession [69]
Sabium  
Sabūm
c. 1844 BC c. 1831 BC Son of Sumu-la-El [69]
Apil-Sin  
Apil-Sîn
c. 1830 BC c. 1813 BC Son of Sabium [69]
Sin-Muballit  
Sîn-Muballit
c. 1812 BC c. 1793 BC Son of Apil-Sin [69]
Hammurabi  
Ḫammu-rāpi
c. 1792 BC c. 1750 BC Son of Sin-Muballit [69]
Samsu-iluna  
Šamšu-iluna
c. 1749 BC c. 1712 BC Son of Hammurabi [69]
Abi-Eshuh  
Abī-Ešuḫ
c. 1711 BC c. 1684 BC Son of Samsu-iluna [69]
Ammi-Ditana  
Ammi-ditāna
c. 1683 BC c. 1647 BC Son of Abi-Eshuh [69]
Ammi-Saduqa  
Ammi-Saduqa
c. 1646 BC c. 1626 BC Son of Ammi-Ditana [69]
Samsu-Ditana  
Šamšu-ditāna
c. 1625 BC c. 1595 BC Son of Ammi-Saduqa [69]

Dynasty II (1st Sealand), 1725–1475 BCEdit

Both BKLa and BKLb refer to this dynasty as palû Urukug ('dynasty of Urukug'). Presumably, the city of Urukug was the dynasty's point of origin. Some literary sources refer to some of the kings of this dynasty as 'kings of the Sealand', and thus modern historians refer to it as a dynasty of the Sealand. The designation as the first Sealand dynasty differentiates it from Dynasty V, which the Babylonians actually referred to as a 'dynasty of the Sealand'.[65] This dynasty overlaps with Dynasty I and Dynasty III, with these kings actually ruling the region south of Babylon (the Sealand) rather than Babylon itself.[22] For instance, the king Gulkishar of this dynasty was actually a contemporary of Dynasty I's last king, Samsu-Ditana.[70] It is possible that the dynasty was included in Babylon's dynastic history by later scribes either because it controlled Babylon for a time, because it controlled or strongly influenced parts of Babylonia or because it was the most stable power of its time in Babylonia.[71] The dates listed below are highly uncertain, and follow the timespan listed for the dynasty in Beaulieu (2018), c. 1725–1475 BC, with the individual dates based the lengths of the reigns of the kings, also as given by Beaulieu (2018).[72]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Ilum-ma-ili  
Ilum-ma-ilī
c. 1725 BC ?? Unclear succession [73]
Itti-ili-nibi  
Itti-ili-nībī
?? Unclear succession [73]
...[d]
[e]
?? Unclear succession [74]
Damqi-ilishu  
Damqi-ilišu
[26 years(?)] Unclear succession [73]
Ishkibal  
Iškibal
[15 years] Unclear succession [73]
Shushushi  
Šušši
[24 years] Brother of Ishkibal [73]
Gulkishar  
Gulkišar
[55 years] Unclear succession [73]
mDIŠ-U-EN[f]  
[Uncertain reading]
?? Unclear succession [73]
Peshgaldaramesh  
Pešgaldarameš
c. 1599 BC c. 1549 BC Son of Gulkishar [73]
Ayadaragalama  
Ayadaragalama
c. 1548 BC c. 1520 BC Son of Peshgaldaramesh [73]
Akurduana  
Akurduana
c. 1519 BC c. 1493 BC Unclear succession [73]
Melamkurkurra  
Melamkurkurra
c. 1492 BC c. 1485 BC Unclear succession [73]
Ea-gamil  
Ea-gamil
c. 1484 BC c. 1475 BC Unclear succession [73]

Dynasty III (Kassite), 1729–1155 BCEdit

The entry for this dynasty's name in BKLa is lost, but other Babylonian sources refer to it as palû Kasshi ('dynasty of the Kassites').[75] The reconstruction of the sequence and names of the early rulers of this dyansty, the kings before Karaindash, is difficult and controversial. The king lists are damaged at this point and the preserved portions seem to contradict each other: for instance, BKLa has a king in-between Kashtiliash I and Abi-Rattash, omitted in the Synchronistic King List, whereas the Synchonistic King List includes Kashtiliash II, omitted in BKLa, between Abi-Rattash and Urzigurumash. It also seems probable that the earliest kings ascribed to this dynasty in king lists did not actually rule Babylon, but were added as they were ancestors of the later rulers.[76] Babylonia was not fully consolidated and reunified until the reign of Ulamburiash, who defeated Ea-gamil, the last king of the first Sealand dynasty.[70]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Gandash  
Gandaš
c. 1729 BC c. 1704 BC Unclear succession [77]
Agum I  
Agum
c. 1703 BC c. 1682 BC Son of Gandash [77]
Kashtiliash I  
Kaštiliašu
c. 1681 BC c. 1660 BC Son of Agum I [77]
...[g]
[h]
c. 1659 BC ?? Unclear succession [77]
Abi-Rattash  
Abi-Rattaš
?? Son of Kashtiliash I [79]
Kashtiliash II  
Kaštiliašu
?? Unclear succession [79]
Urzigurumash  
Ur-zigurumaš
?? Descendant of Abi-Rattash (?)[i] [79]
Agum II[j]  
Agum-Kakrime
?? Son of Urzigurumash [79]
Harba-Shipak  
Ḫarba-Šipak
?? Unclear succession [79]
Shipta'ulzi  
Šipta’ulzi
?? Unclear succession [79]
...[k]
[l]
?? Unclear succession [81]
Burnaburiash I  
Burna-Buriaš
c. 1530 BC c. 1500 BC Unclear succession, earliest Kassite ruler confidently attested as ruling Babylon itself [82]
Ulamburiash  
Ulam-Buriaš
[c. 1475 BC] Son of Burnaburiash I (?), reunified Babylonia through defeating Ea-gamil, the last king of the first Sealand dynasty [83]
Kashtiliash III  
Kaštiliašu
?? Son of Burnaburiash I (?) [79]
Agum III  
Agum
?? Son of Kashtiliash III [79]
Kadashman-Sah[m]  
Kadašman-Šaḥ
?? Unclear succession, co-ruler with Agum III? [85]
Karaindash  
Karaindaš
[c. 1415 BC] Unclear succession [79]
Kadashman-Harbe I  
Kadašman-Ḫarbe
[c. 1400 BC] Son of Karaindash (?) [86]
Kurigalzu I  
Kuri-Galzu
?? Son of Kadashman-harbe I [79]
Kadashman-Enlil I  
Kadašman-Enlil
c. 1374 BC c. 1360 BC Son of Kurigalzu I (?)[n] [79]
Burnaburiash II  
Burna-Buriaš
c. 1359 BC c. 1333 BC Son of Kadashman-Enlil I (?) [79]
Kara-hardash  
Kara-ḫardaš
c. 1333 BC c. 1333 BC Son of Burnaburiash II (?) [79]
Nazi-Bugash  
Nazi-Bugaš
c. 1333 BC c. 1333 BC Usurper, unrelated to other kings [79]
Kurigalzu II  
Kuri-Galzu
c. 1332 BC c. 1308 BC Son of Burnaburiash II [79]
Nazi-Maruttash  
Nazi-Maruttaš
c. 1307 BC c. 1282 BC Son of Kurigalzu II [79]
Kadashman-Turgu  
Kadašman-Turgu
c. 1281 BC c. 1264 BC Son of Nazi-Maruttash [79]
Kadashman-Enlil II  
Kadašman-Enlil
c. 1263 BC c. 1255 BC Son of Kadashman-Turgu [79]
Kudur-Enlil  
Kudur-Enlil
c. 1254 BC c. 1246 BC Son of Kadashman-Enlil II [79]
Shagarakti-Shuriash  
Šagarakti-Šuriaš
c. 1245 BC c. 1233 BC Son of Kudur-Enlil [79]
Kashtiliash IV  
Kaštiliašu
c. 1232 BC c. 1225 BC Son of Shagarakti-Shuriash [79]
Enlil-nadin-shumi[o]  
Enlil-nādin-šumi
c. 1224 BC c. 1224 BC Unclear succession [79]
Kadashman-Harbe II[o]  
Kadašman-Ḫarbe
c. 1223 BC c. 1223 BC Unclear succession [79]
Adad-shuma-iddina[o]  
Adad-šuma-iddina
c. 1222 BC c. 1217 BC Unclear succession [79]
Adad-shuma-usur  
Adad-šuma-uṣur
c. 1216 BC c. 1187 BC Son of Kashtiliash IV (?) [79]
Meli-Shipak  
Meli-Šipak
c. 1186 BC c. 1172 BC Son of Adad-shuma-usur [79]
Marduk-apla-iddina I  
Marduk-apla-iddina
c. 1171 BC c. 1159 BC Son of Meli-Shipak [79]
Zababa-shuma-iddin  
Zababa-šuma-iddina
c. 1158 BC c. 1158 BC Unclear succession [79]
Enlil-nadin-ahi  
Enlil-nādin-aḫe
c. 1157 BC c. 1155 BC Unclear succession [79]

Dynasty IV (2nd Isin), 1153–1022 BCEdit

Per BKLa, the native name of this dynasty was palû Ishin ('dynasty of Isin'). Presumably, the city of Isin was the dynasty's point of origin. Modern historians refer to this dynasty as the second dynasty of Isin to differentiate it from the ancient Sumerian dynasty of Isin.[65] Previous scholarship assumed that the first king of this dynasty, Marduk-kabit-ahheshu, ruled for the first years of his reign concurrently with the last Kassite king, but recent research suggests that this was not the case. This list follows the revised chronology of the kings of this dynasty, per Beaulieu (2018), which also means revising the dates of subsequent dynasties.[89]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Marduk-kabit-ahheshu  
Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu
c. 1153 BC c. 1136 BC Unclear succession [90]
Itti-Marduk-balatu  
Itti-Marduk-balāṭu
c. 1135 BC c. 1128 BC Son of Marduk-kabit-ahheshu [90]
Ninurta-nadin-shumi  
Ninurta-nādin-šumi
c. 1127 BC c. 1122 BC Relative of Itti-Marduk-balatu (?)[p] [90]
Nebuchadnezzar I  
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur
c. 1121 BC c. 1100 BC Son of Ninurta-nadin-shumi [90]
Enlil-nadin-apli  
Enlil-nādin-apli
c. 1099 BC c. 1096 BC Son of Nebuchadnezzar I [90]
Marduk-nadin-ahhe  
Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē
c. 1095 BC c. 1078 BC Son of Ninurta-nadin-shumi, usurped the throne from Enlil-nadin-apli [90]
Marduk-shapik-zeri  
Marduk-šāpik-zēri
c. 1077 BC c. 1065 BC Son of Marduk-nadin-ahhe (?)[q] [90]
Adad-apla-iddina  
Adad-apla-iddina
c. 1064 BC c. 1043 BC Usurper, unrelated to previous kings [93]
Marduk-ahhe-eriba  
Marduk-aḫḫē-erība
c. 1042 BC c. 1042 BC Unclear succession [90]
Marduk-zer-X  
Marduk-zēra-[—][r]
c. 1041 BC c. 1030 BC Unclear succession [90]
Nabu-shum-libur  
Nabû-šumu-libūr
c. 1029 BC c. 1022 BC Unclear succession [90]

Dynasty V (2nd Sealand), 1021–1001 BCEdit

Per BKLa, the native name of this dynasty was palû tamti ('dynasty of the Sealand'). Modern historians call it the second Sealand dynasty in order to distinguish it from Dynasty II.[65]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Simbar-shipak  
Simbar-Šipak
c. 1021 BC c. 1004 BC Probably of Kassite descent, unclear succession [95]
Ea-mukin-zeri  
Ea-mukin-zēri
c. 1004 BC c. 1004 BC Probably of Kassite descent (Bit-Hashmar clan), usurped the throne from Simbar-Shipak [95]
Kashshu-nadin-ahi  
Kaššu-nādin-aḫi
c. 1003 BC c. 1001 BC Probably of Kassite descent, son of Simbar-shipak (?) [95]

Dynasty VI (Bazi), 1000–981 BCEdit

BKLa refers to this dynasty as palû Bazu ('dynasty of Baz') and the Dynastic Chronicle calls it palû Bīt-Bazi ('dynasty of Bit-Bazi'). The Bit-Bazi were a clan attested already in the Kassite period. It is likely that the dynasty derives its name either from the city of Baz, or from descent from Bazi, the legendary founder of that city.[96]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Eulmash-shakin-shumi  
Eulmaš-šākin-šumi
c. 1000 BC c. 984 BC Possibly of Kassite descent (Bit-Bazi clan), unclear succession [95]
Ninurta-kudurri-usur I  
Ninurta-kudurrῑ-uṣur
c. 983 BC c. 981 BC Possibly of Kassite descent (Bit-Bazi clan), unclear succession [95]
Shirikti-shuqamuna  
Širikti-šuqamuna
c. 981 BC c. 981 BC Possibly of Kassite descent (Bit-Bazi clan), brother of Ninurta-kudurri-usur I [95]

Dynasty VII (Elamite), 980–975 BCEdit

BKLa dynastiacally sepearates Mar-biti-apla-usur from other kigns with horizontal lines, marking him as belonging to a dynasty of his own. The Dynastic Chronicle also groups him by himself, and refers to his dynasty (containing only him) as the palû Elamtu ('dynasty of Elam').[97]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Mar-biti-apla-usur  
Mār-bīti-apla-uṣur
c. 980 BC c. 975 BC Described as having Elamite ancestry, unclear succession [95]

Dynasty VIII (E), 974–732 BCEdit

Per BKLa, the native name of this dynasty was palû E ('dynasty of E'). The meaning of 'E' is not clear, but it is likely a reference to the city of Babylon, meaning that the name should be interpreted as 'dynasty of Babylon'. The time of the dynasty of E was a time of great instability and the unrelated kings grouped together under this dynasty even belonged to completely different ethnic groups. Another Babylonian historical work, the Dynastic Chronicle (though it is preserved only fragmentarily), breaks this dynasty up into a succession of brief, smaller, dynasties.[98]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Nabu-mukin-apli  
Nabû-mukin-apli
c. 974 BC c. 939 BC Babylonian, unclear succession [99]
Ninurta-kudurri-usur II  
Ninurta-kudurrῑ-uṣur
c. 939 BC c. 939 BC Babylonian, son of Nabu-mukin-apli [99]
Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina  
Mār-bῑti-aḫḫē-idinna
c. 938 BC ?? Babylonian, son of Nabu-mukin-apli [99]
Shamash-mudammiq  
Šamaš-mudammiq
?? c. 901 BC[s] Babylonian, unclear succession [99]
Nabu-shuma-ukin I  
Nabû-šuma-ukin
c. 900 BC[s] c. 887 BC[t] Babylonian, unclear succession [99]
Nabu-apla-iddina  
Nabû-apla-iddina
c. 886 BC[t] c. 853 BC[t] Babylonian, son of Nabu-shuma-ukin I [99]
Marduk-zakir-shumi I  
Marduk-zâkir-šumi
c. 852 BC[t][u] c. 825 BC[u] Babylonian, son of Nabu-apla-iddina [99]
Marduk-balassu-iqbi  
Marduk-balāssu-iqbi
c. 824 BC[u] 813 BC[v] Babylonian, son of Nabu-zakir-shumi I [99]
Baba-aha-iddina  
Bāba-aḫa-iddina
813 BC[v] 812 BC[v] Babylonian, unclear succession [99]
Babylonian interregnum (at least four years)[w][x]
Ninurta-apla-X  
Ninurta-apla-[—][y]
?? Babylonian, unclear succession [99]
Marduk-bel-zeri  
Marduk-bēl-zēri
?? Babylonian, unclear succession [99]
Marduk-apla-usur  
Marduk-apla-uṣur
?? c. 769 BC[z] Chaldean chief of an uncertain tribe, unclear succession [99]
Eriba-Marduk  
Erība-Marduk
c. 769 BC[z] c. 760 BC[z] Chaldean chief of the Bit-Yakin tribe, unclear succession [99]
Nabu-shuma-ishkun  
Nabû-šuma-iškun
c. 760 BC[z] 748 BC Chaldean chief of the Bit-Dakkuri tribe, unclear succession [99]
Nabonassar  
Nabû-nāṣir
748 BC 734 BC Babylonian, unclear succession [99]
Nabu-nadin-zeri  
Nabû-nādin-zēri
734 BC 732 BC Babylonian, son of Nabonassar [99]
Nabu-shuma-ukin II  
Nabû-šuma-ukin
732 BC 732 BC Babylonian, unclear succession [99]
note: Babylonian King List A records the names of 17 kings of the dynasty of E, but it states afterwards that the dynasty comprised 22 kings. The discrepancy might be explainable as a scribal error, but it is also possible that there were further kings in the sequence. The list is broken at critical points, and it is possible that five additional kings, whose names thus do not survive, could be inserted between the end of the Babylonian interregnum and the reign of Ninurta-apla-X.[106] Lists of Babylonian rulers by modern historians tend to list Ninurta-apla-X as the first king to rule after Baba-aha-iddina's deposition.[99]

Dynasty IX (Assyrian), 732–626 BCEdit

'Dynasty IX' is used to, broadly speaking, refer to the rulers of Babylonia during the time it was ruled by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, including Assyrian kings of both the Adaside dynasty and the subsequent Sargonid dynasty, as well as various non-dynastic vassal and rebel kings. They are often grouped together as a dynasty by modern scholars as BKLa does not use lines to separate the rulers, used elsewhere in the list to separate dynasties.[22] BKLa also assigns individual dynastic labels to some of the kings, though thus not in the same fashion as is done for the more concrete earlier dynasties.[22] The palê designation associated with each king (they are recorded in the list up until Mushezib-Marduk) is included in the table below and follows Fales (2014).[107]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until palê Succession Ref
Nabu-mukin-zeri  
Nabû-mukin-zēri
732 BC 729 BC palê Šapî
'Dynasty of Shapi'
Chaldean chief of the Bit-Amukkani tribe, usurped the throne [108]
Tiglath-Pileser III  
Tukultī-apil-Ešarra
729 BC 727 BC palê Baltil
'Dynasty of [Assur]'
King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — conquered Babylon [108]
Shalmaneser V  
Salmānu-ašarēd
727 BC 722 BC King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — son of Tiglath-Pileser III [108]
Marduk-apla-iddina II
(First reign)
 
Marduk-apla-iddina
722 BC 710 BC palê Tamti
'Dynasty of the Sealand'
Chaldean chief of the Bit-Yakin tribe, proclaimed king upon Shalmaneser V's death [108]
Sargon II  
Šarru-kīn
710 BC 705 BC palê Ḫabigal
'Dynasty of [Hanigalbat]'
King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — son of Tiglath-Pileser III (?) [108]
Sennacherib
(First reign)
 
Sîn-ahhe-erība
705 BC 703 BC King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — son of Sargon II [108]
Marduk-zakir-shumi II  
Marduk-zâkir-šumi
703 BC 703 BC A Arad-Ea
'Son [descendant] of Arad-Ea'
Babylonian rebel of the Arad-Ea family, rebel king [108]
Marduk-apla-iddina II
(Second reign)
 
Marduk-apla-iddina
703 BC 703 BC ERÍN Ḫabi
'Soldier of [Hanigalbat?]'
Chaldean chief of the Bit-Yakin tribe, retook the throne [108]
Bel-ibni  
Bel-ibni
703 BC 700 BC palê E
'Dynasty of E'
Babylonian vassal king of the Rab-bānî family, appointed by Sennacherib [108]
Ashur-nadin-shumi  
Aššur-nādin-šumi
700 BC 694 BC palê Ḫabigal
'Dynasty of [Hanigalbat]'
Son of Sennacherib, appointed as vassal king by his father [108]
Nergal-ushezib  
Nergal-ušezib
694 BC 693 BC palê E
'Dynasty of E'
Babylonian rebel of the Gaḫal kin family, rebel king [108]
Mushezib-Marduk  
Mušezib-Marduk
693 BC 689 BC Chaldean chief of the Bit-Dakkuri tribe, rebel king [108]
Sennacherib[aa]
(Second reign)
 
Sîn-ahhe-erība
689 BC 20 October
681 BC
King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — retook Babylon [112]
Esarhaddon  
Aššur-aḫa-iddina
December
681 BC
1 November
669 BC
King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — son of Sennacherib [113]
Ashurbanipal[ab]
(First reign)
 
Aššur-bāni-apli
1 November
669 BC
March
668 BC
King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — son of Esarhaddon [109]
Shamash-shum-ukin  
Šamaš-šuma-ukin
March
668 BC
648 BC Son of Esarhaddon, designated by his father as heir to Babylon, invested as vassal king by Ashurbanipal [109]
Ashurbanipal[ac]
(Second reign)
 
Aššur-bāni-apli
648 BC 646 BC King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — retook Babylon after rebellion by Shamash-shum-ukin [115]
Kandalanu  
Kandalānu
647 BC 627 BC Appointed as vassal king by Ashurbanipal [109]
Sin-shumu-lishir[ad]  
Sîn-šumu-līšir
626 BC 626 BC Usurper in the Neo-Assyrian Empire — recognised in Babylonia [109]
Sinsharishkun[ad]  
Sîn-šar-iškun
626 BC 626 BC King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire — son of Ashurbanipal [109]

Dynasty X (Chaldean), 626–539 BCEdit

The native name for this dynasty does not appear in any sources, as the kings of Dynasty X are only listed in king lists made during the Hellenistic period, when the concept of dynasties ceased being used by Babylonians chronographers to describe Babylonian history. Modern historians typically refer to the dynasty as the 'Neo-Babylonian dynasty', as these kings ruled the Neo-Babylonian Empire, or the 'Chaldean dynasty', after the presumed ethnic origin of the royal line.[22] The Dynastic Chronicle, a later document, refers to Nabonidus as the founder and only king of the 'dynasty of Harran' (palê Ḫarran), and may also indicate a dynastic change with Neriglissar's accension, but much of the text is fragmentary.[117][118]

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Nabopolassar  
Nabû-apla-uṣur
22/23 November
626 BC
July
605 BC
Babylonian rebel, defeated Sinsharishkun [119]
Nebuchadnezzar II  
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur
August
605 BC
7 October
562 BC
Son of Nabopolassar [119]
Amel-Marduk  
Amēl-Marduk
7 October
562 BC
August
560 BC
Son of Nebuchadnezzar II [119]
Neriglissar  
Nergal-šar-uṣur
August
560 BC
April
556 BC
Son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II, usurped the throne [119]
Labashi-Marduk  
Lâbâši-Marduk
April
556 BC
June
556 BC
Son of Neriglissar [119]
Nabonidus  
Nabû-naʾid
25 May
556 BC
13 October
539 BC
Son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II (?), usurped the throne [120]

Babylon under foreign rule, 539 BC – AD 224Edit

The concept of dynasties ceased being used in king-lists made after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, meaning that the native Babylonian designations for the ruling dynasties of the foreign empires that succeeded the Chaldean kings are unknown.[22]

Dynasty XI (Achaemenid), 539–331 BCEdit

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Cyrus II the Great  
Kuraš
29 October
539 BC
August
530 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — conquered Babylon [121]
Cambyses II  
Kambuzīa
August
530 BC
April
522 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — son of Cyrus II [121]
Bardiya  
Barzia
April/May
522 BC
29 September
522 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — son of Cyrus II or an impostor [121]
Nebuchadnezzar III  
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur
3 October
522 BC
December
522 BC
Babylonian rebel of the Zazakku family, claimed to be a son of Nabonidus [122]
Darius I the Great
(First reign)
 
Dariamuš
December
522 BC
25 August
521 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — distant relative of Cyrus II [121]
Nebuchadnezzar IV  
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur
25 August
521 BC
27 November
521 BC
Babylonian rebel of Armenian descent, claimed to be a son of Nabonidus [123]
Darius I the Great
(Second reign)
 
Dariamuš
27 November
521 BC
November
486 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — retook Babylon [121]
Xerxes I the Great
(First reign)
 
Aḥšiaršu
November
486 BC
July
484 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — son of Darius I [121]
Shamash-eriba  
Šamaš-eriba
July
484 BC
October
484 BC
Babylonian rebel [124]
Bel-shimanni  
Bêl-šimânni
July
484 BC
August
484 BC
Babylonian rebel [124]
Xerxes I the Great
(Second reign)
 
Aḥšiaršu
October
484 BC
465 BC King of the Achaemenid Empire — retook Babylon [121]
Artaxerxes I  
Artakšatsu
465 BC December
484 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — son of Xerxes I [121]
Xerxes II
[ae]
424 BC 424 BC King of the Achaemenid Empire — son of Artaxerxes I [121]
Sogdianus
[ae]
424 BC 423 BC King of the Achaemenid Empire — illegitimate son of Artaxerxes I [121]
Darius II  
Dariamuš
February
423 BC
c. April
404 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — illegitimate son of Artaxerxes I [121]
Artaxerxes II  
Artakšatsu
c. April
404 BC
359/358 BC King of the Achaemenid Empire — son of Darius II [121]
Artaxerxes III  
Artakšatsu
359/358 BC 338 BC King of the Achaemenid Empire — son of Artaxerxes II [121]
Artaxerxes IV  
Artakšatsu
338 BC 336 BC King of the Achaemenid Empire — son of Artaxerxes III [121]
Nidin-Bel  
Nidin-Bêl
336 BC 336/335 BC Babylonian rebel (?), attested only in the Uruk King List, alternatively a scribal error [126]
Darius III  
Dariamuš
336/335 BC October
331 BC
King of the Achaemenid Empire — grandson of Artaxerxes II [121]

Dynasty XII (Argead), 331–305 BCEdit

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Alexander III the Great  
Aliksandar
October
331 BC
11 June
323 BC
King of Macedon — conquered the Achaemenid Empire [127]
Philip III Arrhidaeus  
Pilipsu
11 June
323 BC
317 BC[af] King of Macedon — brother of Alexander III [129]
Antigonus I Monophthalmus[ag]  
Antigunusu
317 BC 309/308 BC King of the Antigonid Empire — general (Diadochus) of Alexander III [132]
Alexander IV  
Aliksandar
316 BC 310 BC[ah] King of Macedon — son of Alexander III [134]

Dynasty XIII (Seleucid), 305–141 BCEdit

King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Seleucus I Nicator  
Siluku
305 BC[ai] September
281 BC
King of the Seleucid Empire — general (Diadochus) of Alexander III [134]
Antiochus I Soter  
Antiʾukusu
294 BC[aj] 2 June
261 BC
King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Seleucus I [136]
Seleucus[ak]  
Siluku
281 BC 266 BC Joint-king of the Seleucid Empire — son of Antiochus I [137]
Antiochus II Theos  
Antiʾukusu
266 BC[aj] July
246 BC
King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Antiochus I [136]
Seleucus II Callinicus  
Siluku
July
246 BC
225 BC King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Antiochus II [136]
Seleucus III Ceraunus  
Siluku
225 BC 223 BC King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Seleucus II [138]
Antiochus III the Great  
Antiʾukusu
223 BC 3 July
187 BC
King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Seleucus II [138]
Antiochus[al]  
Antiʾukusu
210 BC 192 BC Joint-king of the Seleucid Empire — son of Antiochus III [140]
Seleucus IV Philopator  
Siluku
189 BC[aj] 3 September
175 BC
King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Antiochus III [141]
Antiochus IV Epiphanes  
Antiʾukusu
3 September
175 BC
164 BC King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Antiochus III [142]
Antiochus[al]  
Antiʾukusu
175 BC 170 BC Joint-king of the Seleucid Empire — son of Seleucus IV [143]
Antiochus V Eupator  
Antiʾukusu
164 BC 162 BC King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Antiochus IV [144]
Demetrius I Soter
(First reign)
 
Dimitri
c. January
161 BC[am]
c. January
161 BC
King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Seleucus IV [146]
Timarchus
[an]
c. January
161 BC[ao]
c. May
161 BC[ao]
Rebel satrap (vassal governor) under the Seleucids — captured and briefly ruled Babylonia [147]
Demetrius I Soter
(Second reign)
 
Dimitri
c. May
161 BC
150 BC King of the Seleucid Empire — reconquered Babylonia [148]
Alexander Balas  
Aliksandar
150 BC 146 BC King of the Seleucid Empire — supposedly son of Antiochus IV [149]
Demetrius II Nicator  
Dimitri
146 BC 141 BC King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Demetrius I [150]

Dynasty XIV (Arsacid), 141 BC – AD 224Edit

note: The chronology of the Parthian kings, especially in the early period, is disputed on account of a lack of sources. The chronology here, which omits several rival kings and usurpers, primarily follows Shayegan (2011),[151] Dąbrowa (2012)[152] and Daryaee (2012).[153] For alternate interpretations, see the List of Parthian monarchs.
King Akkadian Reigned from Reigned until Succession Ref
Mithridates I  
Aršakâ[ap]
141 BC 132 BC King of the Parthian Empire — conquered Babylonia [156]
Phraates II
(First reign)
 
Aršakâ
132 BC July
130 BC
King of the Parthian Empire — son of Mithridates I [157]
Rinnu[aq]  
Ri-[—]-nu[ar]
132 BC July
130 BC
Mother and regent for Phraates II, who was a minor at the time of his accession [157]
Antiochus VII Sidetes  
Antiʾukusu
July
130 BC
November
129 BC
King of the Seleucid Empire — son of Demetrius I, conquered Babylonia [160]
Phraates II
(Second reign)
 
Aršakâ
November
129 BC
128/127 BC[as] King of the Parthian Empire — reconquered Babylonia [162]
Ubulna[at]  
Ubulna
November
129 BC
128/127 BC Unclear identity, associated with Phraates II – probably his queen [162]
Hyspaosines  
Aspasinē
128/127 BC[as] November
127 BC
King of Characene — captured Babylon in the wake of Antiochus VII Sidetes's campaign [163]
Artabanus I  
Aršakâ
November
127 BC
124 BC King of the Parthian Empire — brother of Mithridates I, conquered Babylonia [164]
Mithridates II  
Aršakâ
124 BC 91 BC King of the Parthian Empire — son of Artabanus I [165]
Gotarzes I  
Aršakâ
91 BC 80 BC King of the Parthian Empire — son of Mithridates II [166]
Asi'abatar[at]  
Aši'abatum
91 BC 80 BC Wife (queen) of Gotarzes I [166]
Orodes I  
Aršakâ
80 BC 75 BC King of the Parthian Empire — son of Mithridates II or Gotarzes I [167]
Ispubarza[at] Isbubarzâ 80 BC 75 BC Sister-wife (queen) of Orodes I [168]
Sinatruces  
Aršakâ
75 BC 69 BC King of the Parthian Empire — son or brother of Mithridates I [169]
Phraates III  
Aršakâ
69 BC 57 BC King of the Parthian Empire — son of Sinatruces [170]
Piriustana[at] Piriustanâ 69 BC ?? Wife (queen) of Phraates III [171]
Teleuniqe[at] Ṭeleuniqê ?? 57 BC Wife (queen) of Phraates III [171]
Orodes II  
Aršakâ
57 BC 38 BC King of the Parthian Empire — son of Phraates III [172]
Phraates IV  
Aršakâ
38 BC 2 BC King of the Parthian Empire — son of Orodes II [173]
Phraates V[au]  
Aršakâ
2 BC AD 4 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Phraates IV [174]
Orodes III  
Aršakâ
AD 4 AD 6 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Phraates IV (?) [175]
Vonones I  
Aršakâ
AD 6 AD 12 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Phraates IV [176]
Artabanus II  
Aršakâ
AD 12 AD 38 King of the Parthian Empire — grandson of Phraates IV (?) [177]
Vardanes I  
Aršakâ
AD 38 AD 46 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Artabanus II [177]
Gotarzes II  
Aršakâ
AD 38 AD 51 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Artabanus II [177]
Vonones II  
Aršakâ
AD 51 AD 51 King of the Parthian Empire — grandson of Phraates IV (?) [178]
Vologases I  
Aršakâ
AD 51 AD 78 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Vonones II or Artabanus II [156]
Pacorus II  
Aršakâ
AD 78 AD 110 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Vologases I [179]
Artabanus III[av]  
Aršakâ
AD 79/80 AD 81 Rival king of the Parthian Empire (against Pacorus II) — son of Vologases I [180]
Osroes I
[aw]
AD 109 AD 129 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Pacorus II [181]
Vologases III
[aw]
AD 110 AD 147 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Pacorus II [182]
Parthamaspates
[aw]
AD 116 AD 117 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Osroes I [183]
Vologases IV
[aw]
AD 147 AD 191 King of the Parthian Empire — grandson of Pacorus II [183]
Vologases V
[aw]
AD 191 AD 208 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Vologases IV [184]
Vologases VI
[aw]
AD 208 AD 216/228 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Vologases V [185]
Artabanus IV
[aw]
AD 216 AD 224 King of the Parthian Empire — son of Vologases V [186]

See alsoEdit

NotesEdit

  1. ^ The star of Shamash was often used as a standard in southern Mesopotamia from the Akkadian period down to the Neo-Babylonian period.[1]
  2. ^ The Antiochus cylinder is written in Babylonian cuneiform, though with some unorthodox and strange choices of signs. Its rendition of the name Antiochus is featured here, alongside transcriptions of the same spelling of Antiochus, but with ordinary Babylonian and Assyrian signs, to illustrate the differences.[61]
  3. ^ Sumu-abum was the first king of Babylon according to Babylonian King Lists A and B. There is no contemporary evidence for his rule in Babylon; the earliest ruler who there is textual evidence of in Babylon itself is Sin-Muballit, the fifth king according to the king lists. Sumu-abum is contemporarily attested as a ruler of the cities Dilbat, Sippar and Kisurra, but some evidence seems to suggest that he and Sumu-la-El (his supposed successor) were contemporaries. Later rulers of Babylon's first dynasty referred to Sumu-la-El, rather than Sumu-abum, as the founder of their dynasty. It is possible that Sumu-abum did not rule Babylon, but for some reason was inserted in later traditions into the city's dynastic history. Perhaps Sumu-la-El ruled Babylon as a vassal of Sumu-abum, who might have ruled a larger group of territories.[68]
  4. ^ No king list includes a king between Itti-ili-nibi and Damqi-ilishu, and Babylonian King List A states that Dynasty II had 11 kings, speaking against the existence of this figure. The existence of an unknown king here is thus very speculative, based on the presence of the sign between lines 5 and 6 of BKLa, between Itti-ili-nibi and Damqi-ilishu, which might be a reference to a king between them, as the same sign later in the list has been seen by some scholars as evidence of an attestation of another unknown king, attested in the Synchronistic King List but unattested in other sources.[74]
  5. ^ Name not preserved.[74]
  6. ^ Omitted in Babylonian King Lists A and B, only being included in the Synchronistic King List. The reading of the signs making up his name is not certain.[72] The issue derives from the poor quality early photographs of the tablet and its subsequent deteriorating condition. The presence of the sign between lines 10 and 11 of BKLa, between Gulkishar and Peshgaldaramesh might be a reference to a king between them.[74] Given that he only appears in one source, and BKLa states that there were 11 kings of this dynasty, his existence is not certain. Perhaps he was a real king who reigned very briefly.[74]
  7. ^ Babylonian King List A adds a king between Kashtiliash I and Abi-Rattash, but the list is damaged and the name is not preserved. The Synchronistic King List omits this figure.[78]
  8. ^ Name not preserved.[78]
  9. ^ One possible reading of an inscription by Agum II indicates that Abi-Rattash was an ancestor of Agum II's father Urzigurumash.[80]
  10. ^ As Agum II explicitly refers to Urzigurumash as his father in his own inscriptions, Beaulieu (2018) placed him as Urzigurumash's direct successor.[78] Chen (2020) placed him later, as the direct predecessor of Burnaburiash I.[66]
  11. ^ There being a king between Shipta'ulzi and Burnaburiash I is indicated by both Babylonian King List A and the Synchronistic King List, but as both texts are damaged, neither list preserves the name of this ruler. Historically, the fragments left have been interpreted as suggesting that this king's name was Agum, but this reading has been abandoned by modern scholars.[78]
  12. ^ Name not preserved.[78]
  13. ^ Kadashman-Sah does not appear in king lists. The only evidence of his existence are tablets that are dated to the reign of 'Agum and Kadashman-Sah', suggesting that he was a king, and that there was some form of co-rulership. It is possible that he was a transitional ruler with only local power.[84]
  14. ^ There are no sources that directly indicate a familial connection between Kadashman-Enlil I and Kurigalzu I, but Kadashman-Enlil I's presumed son, Burnaburiash II, refers to Kurigalzu I as his ancestor in a letter.[87]
  15. ^ a b c Kashtiliash IV was deposed by the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I c. 1225 BC. The Bablyonian Chronicles describe Tukulti-Ninurta I as destroying Babylon's walls and incorporating the city into his empire for seven years until the Babylonians rebelled and placed Kashtiliash IV's son, Adad-shuma-usur, on the throne. Babylonian King List A contradicts this, listing three rulers between Kashtiliash IV and Adad-shuma-usur. As the reigns of these three kings add up to just a little less than seven years, scholars have historically interpreted this to mean that these three kings were appointed vassals of Tukulti-Ninurta I. The Babylonian Chronicles seem to suggest that Adad-shuma-usur ruled in the south of Bablyonia concurrently with Tukulti-Ninurta controlling the north (and Babylon itself). Beaulieu (2018) suggests the possibility that these three kings were contemporary rivals, rather than successors of one another, and that Adad-shuma-usur did succeed Kashtiliash IV directly, but only in the south, and only took control of Babylon late in his reign.[88]
  16. ^ A family link between Ninurta-nadin-shumi and his immediate predecessors cannot be proven from the sources, but the only definitely attested break in family succession to the throne in this dynasty was the accession of Adad-apla-iddina, who is explicitly designated as an usurper in the sources.[91]
  17. ^ Marduk-shapik-zeri was once believed to be attested as Marduk-nadin-ahhe's son, but the reading of the relevant text is uncertain–it cannot be proven, or disproven, that Marduk-shapik-zeri was Marduk-nadin-ahhe's son.[92] The only definitely attested break in family succession to the throne in this dynasty was the accession of Adad-apla-iddina, who is explicitly designated as an usurper in the sources.[91]
  18. ^ The name of this king has not survived in its complete form in any source. The 'X' in his name was inserted by modern historians to mark the missing portion. The reading of the second element of his name, zēra, is not fully certain. According to Brinkman (1968), there are many possibilities for what the full name was (based on known Babylonian names with the same first two elements), including: Marduk-zēra-ibni, Marduk-zēra-iddina, Marduk-zēra-iqīša, Marduk-zēra-uballiṭ, Marduk-zēra-ukīn, Marduk-zēra-uṣur, Marduk-zēra-ušallim and Marduk-zēra-līšir.[94]
  19. ^ a b Shamash-mudammiq is described as having been defeated by the Assyrian king Adad-nirari II c. 901 BC.[100]
  20. ^ a b c d Beaulieu (2018) states that Nabu-apla-iddina's 31st year as king was c. 855 BC.[100] Chen (2020) ascribes Nabu-apla-iddina a 33-year reign.[66]
  21. ^ a b c Chen (2020) ascribes Marduk-zakir-shumi I a 27-year reign.[66]
  22. ^ a b c Marduk-balassu-iqbi was deposed by the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad V in 813 BC. Less than a year later, in 812 BC, Shamshi-Adad deposed Marduk-balassu-iqbi's successor, Baba-aha-iddina.[101]
  23. ^ After Baba-aha-iddina was taken to Assyria as a captive by the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad V in 812 BC, Babylonia entered into an interregnum lasting several (at least four) years, which the chronicles describe as a period when there was "no king in the land". The chief claimants to royal power in Babylonia at this time was the Assyrians. Though they did not claim the title 'king of Babylon', Shamshi-Adad V took the title 'king of Sumer and Akkad' after his victory in 812 BC and Shamshi-Adad's son and successor, Adad-nirari III, claimed that 'all the kings of Chaldea' were his vassals and that he had received tribute, as well as sacrificial meals (a Babylonian royal perogative) at Babylon. The Babylonian crown had thus, at least nominally, been taken over by the Assyrians, though as Assyria was in a weakened state its kings were unable to fully exploit the situation.[102]
  24. ^ Some of the Chaldean tribes during this time also either claimed royal Babylonian power, or asserted their own independence. A seal from the time of the interregnum depicts the chief of the Bit-Yakin tribe (and father of the later king Eriba-Marduk), Marduk-shakin-shumi, in the traditional Babylonian royal garbs. There is also a contract tablet known that describes a weight being sent to the 'palace of Nabu-shumu-lishir, descendant of Dakkuru'. Nabu-shumu-lishir of the Bit-Dakkuri tribe's claim to reside in a 'palace' was equivalent to claiming to be a king.[102]
  25. ^ Ninurta-apla-X is only known from Babylonian King List A, where his name is broken off and incompletely preserved. The 'X' in his name was inserted by modern historians to mark the missing portion.[103][104] The second element of the name, apla, is not a fully certain reading.[104] According to Brinkman (1968), the full name might have been Ninurta-apla-uṣur or something similar.[104]
  26. ^ a b c d Beaulieu (2018) writes that Eriba-Marduk's ninth and last year as king was c. 760 BC.[105]
  27. ^ Recognising Sennacherib as the king of Babylon from 689 to 681 BC is the norm in modern lists of Babylonian kings.[109] Babylon was destroyed at this time and many contemporary Babylonian documents, such as chronicles, refer to Sennacherb's second reign in Babylonia as a "kingless period" without a king in the land.[110] Babylonian King List A nevertheless includes Sennacherib as the king of this period, listing his second reign as taking place between the downfall of Mushezib-Marduk and the accession of Esarhaddon.[111]
  28. ^ Though Shamash-shum-ukin was the legitimate successor of Esarhaddon to the Babylonian throne, appointed by his father, he was not formally invested as such until the spring after his father's death. Lists of kings of Babylon by modern historians typically regard Ashurbanipal, Esarhaddon's successor in Assyria, as the ruler of Babylon during this brief 'interregnum'.[109] The Uruk King List lists Ashurbanipal as Shamash-shum-ukin's predecessor, but also lists him as ruling simultaneously with his brother, giving his reign as 669–647 BC.[114] In contrast, Babylonian King List A omits Ashurbanipal entirely, listing Shamash-shum-ukin as the direct successor of Esarhaddon, and Kandalanu as the direct successor of Shamash-shum-ukin.[111]
  29. ^ Ashurbanipal is again not recorded by the Babylonian King List A as ruler between Shamash-shum-ukin and Kandalanu,[111] and is not recorded as such in lists by modern historians either.[109] Ashurbanipal did however rule Babylonia from the defeat of Shamash-shum-ukin in the summer of 648 BC to Kandalanu's appointment in 647 BC. Date formulae from Babylonia during this time are dated to Ashurbanipal's rule, and indicate that the transfer of power to Kandalanu was gradual. Tablets were still dated to Ashurbanipal around the end of 647 BC at Borsippa, and as late as the spring of 646 BC at Dilbat. After 646 BC, tablets in Babylonia are exclusively dated to Kandalanu's reign.[115]
  30. ^ a b The Babylonian Chronicles describe the period between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar as a "kingless" one and some date formulae from this period are dated to "the year after Kandalanu", suggesting an interregnum. The Uruk King List records Sin-shumu-lishir and Sinsharishkun's reigns, however,[116] as do lists of Babylonian kings by modern historians.[109]
  31. ^ a b Contemporary Babylonian contract tablets, as well as Babylonian king lists, omit both Xerxes II and Sogdianus, suggesting that the Babylonians viewed Darius II as Artaxerxes I's immediate successor.[125]
  32. ^ Philip III Arrhidaeus died in 317 BC. Certain Babylonian documents continue to recognise him as king until 316 BC.[128]
  33. ^ Antigonus, one of Alexander III's former generals who took power in the eastern regions of Alexander's empire, began issuing date formulae in his own name, rather than in the name of an official king.[130] The Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period suggests that Antigonus's rule was not considered legal and that he should have submitted to the rule of Alexander III's son, Alexander IV. The list writes that "there was no king in the land" for several years and titles Antigonus as the chief of the army, rather than king.[131] The Uruk King List includes Antigonus without comments on his status.[114]
  34. ^ Alexander IV died in 310 BC. Certain Babylonian documents continue to recognise him as king until 305 BC, when Seleucus I Nicator became king.[128] The Babylonians were aware that Alexander IV had died in 310 BC, but they continued to date documents to his reign posthumously for several years since there was no clear legitimate heir.[133]
  35. ^ Seleucus I Nicator became king in 305 BC, but he retroactively dated to his accession to 311 BC.[128] The Babylonian King List dates Seleucus I's accession to 305/304 BC.[130]
  36. ^ a b c Did not technically become senior king until his father's death, from which his rule is counted in the Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic period,[135] but recognised as king in date formulae alongside his father from this earlier date onwards.[128]
  37. ^ Junior ruler who never ruled in his own right, recognised as king of Babylon alongside his senior counterpart in date formulae.[128]
  38. ^ a b Junior ruler who never ruled in his own right, recognised as king of Babylon alongside his senior counterpart in date formulae[128] and in the Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period.[139]
  39. ^ Demetrius I Soter deposed and killed Antiochus V Eupator in 162 BC, but the last known document dated to Antiochus V's rule at Babylon is from 11 January 161 BC. It is possible that it took several weeks for the news of Antiochus V's death to reach the eastern provinces.[145]
  40. ^ No known cuneiform tablets record Timarchus's brief rule in Babylonia.[147]
  41. ^ a b Given that tablets dating to Antiochus V Eupator are known from January 161 BC, and the earliest known tablet dated to Demetrius I is from 14 May 161 BC, Timarchus's brief control of Babylon must have transpired at some point between these dates.[145]
  42. ^ Babylonian documents from the period of Parthian rule refer to virtually all Parthian kings as Arshaka, Arshakan, Arshakamma, or some other Akkadian variant of the name Arsaces.[154] This list uses the spelling Aršakâ per Spar & Lambert (2005).[155] Arsaces was used as the regnal name by all Parthian kings, making it more similar to an official title, such as the Roman Caesar, than a name. If there was a period of civil war or rivalry, i.e. in times where there were multiple Arsaces at the same time and clarification was needed, Babylonian documents sometimes employed the personal names of the kings.[154] The practice of all Parthian kings assuming Arsaces as their regnal name complicates establishing a chronology of rulers,[154][128] which mainly has to follow evidence from coinage.[154]
  43. ^ Though formally only a regent during the minority of her son, a contemporary Babylonian tablet counts Rinnu as a monarch. The date formula of this tablet reads 'Arshak and Ri-[in(?)]-nu, his mother, kings'.[158]
  44. ^ Name incompletely preserved (middle sign missing).[159]
  45. ^ a b Phraates II's rule in Babylon is last attested on 17 May 128 BC. Hyspaosines is first attested as ruler on 30/31 May 127 BC.[161]
  46. ^ a b c d e Queen consort, and thus not formally a monarch, but recorded together with her husband as ruler in Babylonian date formulae.[36]
  47. ^ Phraates V's mother, Musa, who ruled with him as co-ruler, is not recorded as a monarch in any known Babylonian tablets.[36]
  48. ^ The latest known datable Akkadian cuneiform tablet is W22340a, found at Uruk and dated to AD 79/80. The tablet preserves the word LUGAL (king), indicating that the Babylonians by this point still recognised a king.[51] The ruler of Babylonia at this point in time was the Parthian rival king (i. e. usurper) Artabanus III, noted by historians as having had support for his rule in Babylonia, but not much support elsewhere in the Parthian Empire.[52]
  49. ^ a b c d e f g Although the late Parthian kings would presumably have been referred to as Aršákā, like their predecessors, no cuneiform records are known from beyond AD 79/80.[51]

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Black & Green 1992, p. 168.
  2. ^ a b c d Soares 2017, p. 23.
  3. ^ Soares 2017, p. 24.
  4. ^ a b Karlsson 2017, p. 2.
  5. ^ a b c Luckenbill 1924, p. 9.
  6. ^ Shayegan 2011, p. 260.
  7. ^ a b Soares 2017, p. 28.
  8. ^ Karlsson 2017, pp. 6, 11.
  9. ^ Stevens 2014, p. 68.
  10. ^ Goetze 1964, p. 98.
  11. ^ a b Soares 2017, p. 22.
  12. ^ Van Der Meer 1955, p. 42.
  13. ^ Da Riva 2013, p. 72.
  14. ^ Soares 2017, p. 21.
  15. ^ Peat 1989, p. 199.
  16. ^ a b Zaia 2019, p. 3.
  17. ^ a b c d Dandamaev 1989, pp. 185–186.
  18. ^ Laing & Frost 2017.
  19. ^ Zaia 2019, p. 4.
  20. ^ Zaia 2019, pp. 3–7.
  21. ^ Fales 2014, p. 208.
  22. ^ a b c d e f g Beaulieu 2018, p. 13.
  23. ^ Fales 2014, p. 210.
  24. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 1–2.
  25. ^ a b Chen 2020, pp. 2, 4.
  26. ^ a b c d e Chen 2020, p. 4.
  27. ^ a b c d Chen 2020, p. 2.
  28. ^ a b c Poebel 1955, p. 1.
  29. ^ Chen 2020, p. 5.
  30. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 5–8.
  31. ^ Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 202.
  32. ^ Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 209.
  33. ^ Sachs & Wiseman 1954, pp. 204–205, 209.
  34. ^ Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 201.
  35. ^ Van Der Spek 1993, p. 95.
  36. ^ a b c d Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii.
  37. ^ Zaia 2019, pp. 6–7.
  38. ^ Waerzeggers 2018, p. 3.
  39. ^ Sherwin-White 1991, p. 75–77.
  40. ^ Hoover 2011, p. 204.
  41. ^ Deloucas 2016, p. 59.
  42. ^ a b Kosmin 2014, p. 192.
  43. ^ Oelsner 2014, p. 297.
  44. ^ a b Van Der Spek 2001, p. 449.
  45. ^ a b Brown 2008, p. 77.
  46. ^ Van Der Spek 2001, p. 451.
  47. ^ Boiy 2004, p. 187.
  48. ^ Oelsner 1964, p. 272.
  49. ^ Haubold 2019, p. 276.
  50. ^ George 2007, p. 64.
  51. ^ a b c Hunger & de Jong 2014, p. 182–185.
  52. ^ a b Schippmann 1986, pp. 647–650.
  53. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 14.
  54. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 144.
  55. ^ Beaulieu 2018, pp. 125–130, 176–177, 185.
  56. ^ George 2003, p. 85.
  57. ^ Bloch 2012, p. 14.
  58. ^ Bertin 1891, p. 50.
  59. ^ Wallis Budge 1884, p. 69.
  60. ^ Ceresko 2001, p. 32.
  61. ^ Wallis Budge 1884, pp. 94–97.
  62. ^ Strassmaier 1888, p. 137.
  63. ^ Wallis Budge 1884, p. 94.
  64. ^ a b Wallis Budge 1884, p. 97.
  65. ^ a b c d e Beaulieu 2018, p. 12.
  66. ^ a b c d Chen 2020, pp. 202–206.
  67. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 67.
  68. ^ Beaulieu 2018, pp. 69–70.
  69. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 69.
  70. ^ a b Beaulieu 2018, p. 131.
  71. ^ Boivin 2018, p. 46.
  72. ^ a b Beaulieu 2018, p. 129.
  73. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, pp. 129–130.
  74. ^ a b c d e Boivin 2018, p. 37.
  75. ^ Beaulieu 2018, pp. 10–13, 154–155, 176–178.
  76. ^ Beaulieu 2018, pp. 127–128.
  77. ^ a b c d Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 126; Murai 1979, p. 6.
  78. ^ a b c d e Beaulieu 2018, p. 128.
  79. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 126.
  80. ^ Brinkman 1976, p. 85.
  81. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 126.
  82. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 126; Leick 2003, p. 142.
  83. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 126.
  84. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 132.
  85. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 133.
  86. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, pp. 126, 136.
  87. ^ Brinkman 1976, p. 15.
  88. ^ Beaulieu 2018, pp. 148–149.
  89. ^ Beaulieu 2018, pp. 154–155.
  90. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 155.
  91. ^ a b Brinkman 1968, p. 98.
  92. ^ Brinkman 1968, p. 119.
  93. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 155; Brinkman 1968, p. 136.
  94. ^ Brinkman 1968, p. 146.
  95. ^ a b c d e f g Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, pp. 176–178.
  96. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 177.
  97. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 178.
  98. ^ Beaulieu 2018, pp. 12–13.
  99. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 178.
  100. ^ a b Beaulieu 2018, p. 180.
  101. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 184.
  102. ^ a b Beaulieu 2018, pp. 184–185.
  103. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 185.
  104. ^ a b c Brinkman 1968, p. 59.
  105. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 186.
  106. ^ Goossens 1940, p. 33.
  107. ^ Fales 2014, pp. 204–218.
  108. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 195; Fales 2014, pp. 204–218.
  109. ^ a b c d e f g h i Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 195.
  110. ^ Brinkman 1973, p. 95.
  111. ^ a b c Fales 2014, p. 206.
  112. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 195; Radner 2003, p. 166.
  113. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 195; Fales 2012, p. 135.
  114. ^ a b Lendering 2005.
  115. ^ a b Beaulieu 2018, p. 217.
  116. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 223.
  117. ^ Waerzeggers 2015, p. 183.
  118. ^ Thomas 2014, p. 137.
  119. ^ a b c d e Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 220; Parker & Dubberstein 1942, pp. 9–11.
  120. ^ Chen 2020, pp. 202–206; Beaulieu 2018, p. 220; Parker & Dubberstein 1942, pp. 9–11; Wiseman 1991, p. 244.
  121. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Beaulieu 2018, p. 247; Parker & Dubberstein 1942, pp. 11–17.
  122. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 247; Lendering 2001; Nielsen 2015, pp. 55–57.
  123. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 247; Lendering 1998.
  124. ^ a b Beaulieu 2018, p. 247; Lendering 1998b.
  125. ^ Gertoux 2015, p. 24.
  126. ^ Lendering 2004.
  127. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 204; Depuydt 1997, p. 117; Parker & Dubberstein 1942, pp. 11–17.
  128. ^ a b c d e f g Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxi.
  129. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxi; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 204; Depuydt 1997, p. 117; Bertin 1891, p. 52.
  130. ^ a b Boiy 2011, p. 3.
  131. ^ Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 204.
  132. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxi; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 204; Bertin 1891, p. 52.
  133. ^ Boiy 2011, p. 4.
  134. ^ a b Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 205.
  135. ^ Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 206.
  136. ^ a b c Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 206.
  137. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii.
  138. ^ a b Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 207; Mittag 2008, p. 50.
  139. ^ Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 207.
  140. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 207.
  141. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 208.
  142. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, pp. 208–209; Mittag 2008, p. 51.
  143. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, pp. 208–209; Gera 1998, p. 110.
  144. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxi, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 209; Scolnic 2014, p. 5.
  145. ^ a b Houghton 1979, p. 215–216.
  146. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxii, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 209; Scolnic 2014, p. 7.
  147. ^ a b Houghton 1979, pp. 213–217; Boiy 2004, pp. 164–165.
  148. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxii, xlii; Houghton 1979, pp. 213–217; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 209.
  149. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxii, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 209; Mittag 2008, p. 51.
  150. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxii, xlii; Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 209.
  151. ^ Shayegan 2011, pp. 229–239.
  152. ^ Dąbrowa 2012, pp. 169–176.
  153. ^ Daryaee 2012, pp. 391–392.
  154. ^ a b c d Olmstead 1937, p. 14.
  155. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xlii.
  156. ^ a b Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 57.
  157. ^ a b Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Shayegan 2011, p. 123.
  158. ^ Olmstead 1937, p. 13.
  159. ^ Shayegan 2011, p. 230.
  160. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, pp. xxii, xlii; Shayegan 2011, pp. 110–111; Shayegan 2011, p. 123.
  161. ^ Shayegan 2011, p. 111.
  162. ^ a b Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Shayegan 2011, pp. 110–111; Shayegan 2011, p. 123.
  163. ^ Oelsner 2014, p. 301; Shayegan 2011, pp. 110–111.
  164. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Daryaee 2012, p. 391.
  165. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 35.
  166. ^ a b Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Lewy 1944, p. 202.
  167. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Lewy 1944, p. 203; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 36.
  168. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Lewy 1944, p. 203.
  169. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, pp. 36–37.
  170. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 40.
  171. ^ a b Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Shayegan 2011, p. 235.
  172. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 41.
  173. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 43.
  174. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, pp. 45–46.
  175. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 48; Daryaee 2012, p. 391.
  176. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 48.
  177. ^ a b c Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 49.
  178. ^ Daryaee 2012, pp. 391–392; Olbrycht 2016, p. 24.
  179. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 58.
  180. ^ Spar & Lambert 2005, p. xxii; Schippmann 1986, pp. 647–650.
  181. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 14; Ellerbrock 2021, pp. 60–61.
  182. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 14; Dąbrowa 2012, p. 176.
  183. ^ a b Beaulieu 2018, p. 14; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 61.
  184. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 14; Patterson 2013, pp. 180–181.
  185. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 14; Ellerbrock 2021, p. 63.
  186. ^ Beaulieu 2018, p. 14; Ellerbrock 2021, pp. 63–64.

BibliographyEdit

Web sourcesEdit