44 OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR. 



(Z. c, p. Ill) and favored by Delitzseh, 1 finds no support in "Winekler's edition and 

 'besides does not suflice to solve the chronological difficulty. As according to Peiser 

 (Z. c.) the passage is much effaced, 2 and as his proposed reading, 60 + 60 + 12 = 132 

 years, is the most simple and probable" solution of the existing difficulty, I accept it 

 and accordingly construct the following table : 



1. Nebuchadrezzar I, . . 1139-1123 (seventeen years). 



2. Bel-nadin-aplu, .... 1122-1117) (six years). 



3. Marduk-nadin-ahe, . . 1116-c. 1102 (c. fifteen, at least ten, years). 



4. Marduk-shapik-zirim, 4 1 



5. Kamman-aplu-iddina, [ c. 1101-1053 (forty-nine years). 

 6-7. Two missing kings, 



8 , . 1052-1031 (twenty-two years). 



9. Marduk-bel , . 1030-1029 (one year and six months). 



10. Marduk-zer , . 1029-1016 (thirteen years). 



11. Nabu-shum , . 1016-1007 (nine years). 



Total one hundred and thirty-two years and six months. 



"Anhang " to his Geschichte. 



2 It is to be regretted that Winckler has not indicated the actual condition of the passage by shading the effaced 

 portions of the characters. 



3 Cf. also Winckler, Gesch., p. 329, note 17. Another possibility (that 60+10 + 10 + 2=82 stood originally 

 there) is less probable for various reasons. 



1 This name has been transliterated Marduk-shapik-zer-mati (Tiele, Gesch., p. 155 ; Delitzseh, Gesch., " Ubersicht ") 

 or Marduk-shapik-kul-lat (Winckler, Gesch., p. 98). I regard both transliterations as incorrect, and would substitute 

 that given above for the following reasons : (1) The cylinder fragment published by Dr. Jastrow (cf. above, p. 31, 

 note 7) was unfortunately misunderstood by the latter and misread in various passages. Having examined the frag- 

 ment carefully, I find that the old Babylonian character transliterated ta by Jastrow is distinctly the sign sha in the 

 form so characteristic for the documents of the Pashe dynasty. The name can only be read Marduk-shapik-zi-ri-im. 

 (2) This correct reading is important in connection with the transliteration of the name of Ramman-aplu-iddina's pre- 

 decessor. It is in itself improbable that two rulers of a Babylonian dynasty of eleven kings bore names almost (if not 

 wholly) identical. The thought forces itself upon our mind that Marduk-shapik-zirim is the same person as the king 

 whose name was heretofore generally read Marduk-shapik-zer-mati. That at least these two names are identical is 

 certain. The last character of the latter name {MAT, Briinnow, I. c, 7386) was either erroneously read by the Assyri- 

 ologists who copied the so-called " synchronistic history, " or by the Assyrian compiler who used a Babylonian original, 

 instead of the character RIM (Briinnow, I. c, 8867). For it is well known among Assyriologists that the two charac- 

 ters are nearly identical iu the later-middle and the latest periods of Babylonian cuneiform writing. In consideration 

 of this fact, and in view of the phonetic writing zi-ri-im on the cylinder fragment, I unhesitatingly read the name in 

 question either phonetically Marduk-shapik-zir-rim, or ideographically (plus phonetic complement) Marduk-shapik- 

 zirim(-rim). The king, Marduk-tabik-zirim, introduced by Dr. Jastrow and accepted by Peiser (Schrader's K. B. Ill, 

 Part 1, p. 162 seq.) as an hitherto unknown ruler of the Pashe dynasty thus disappears. As to my other corrections 

 of certain readings offered by Dr. Jastrow in connection with the cylinder in cpiiestion cf. "Sprechsaal" in one of 

 the next numbers of Z. A. 



