174 



T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 



nevertheless. Another king, called " the Scorpion," reigned 840 

 years; whilst Liigal-banda, a deified king of Erech, ruled for 

 1,200 years. Soon, however, the list becomes entirely historical, 

 and the reigns are of the ordinary length — " 1)6, 7, or 20 years." 



A very long period must, in view of these long i-eigns, be 

 assigned to the epochs dealt with, and this would appear to be 

 confirmed by certain summations. Thus one of the tablets, 

 written under the l.*)4th king, the 11th of the dynasty of Isin, 

 reckons 32,175 years, and another from the Flood to the 139th 

 king, the last of the dynasty of Isin, 32,234 years. 



And tliis brings us to the exceedingly im])ortant chronological 

 list published by Prof. Scheil in October, 1911, whicli seems to 

 be upon a pred'<ely similar plan. This insci'iption gives the 

 dynasties of Opis, Kis, Erech, Agade, and Erech again, and 

 among the historical references we find one stating that Azag- 

 Bau, queen of Kis, who ruled for 100 years — she was the 

 founder of her dynasty — was the wife of ^ a wine- 

 merchant ; whilst another informs us that Sarru-(u)kin 

 of Agade was apprenticed to ;i gai'dener, and was cup-bearer 

 in the temple of Zagaga. it- is the tin;il ])lirase of this 

 important chronohtgical document which attracts attention, 

 however, for it tells us that " the rule of Erech was ciianged,and 

 the army of Gutiu'" acquired the dominion." This is a reference 

 to the celebrated Median invasion, and from the time of the 

 Flood until this dale, according to the (ireek writers, was a 

 period of 33,091 years, during which 1inu\ liowever, only 80 

 kings ruled — a number which falls far short (jf tlie regality. 



It seems not unlikely that this great Babylonian chronological 

 document will prove to be a completion of that recognized by 

 G. Smith among the treasures of the British Museum in 1873. 

 It is needless to say that that scholar fully realized the value of 

 his find, notwithstanding that its completeness fell far short, to 

 all appearance, of the new^ records just announced. 



IV. — Abraham's Plough. 



( ■oming to the period of the " Dynasty of Babylon " — the 

 dynasty to which Hammurabi belonged, the new inscriptions 

 which have been published do not add veiy much to our 

 knowledge, either of tiie lile of the period or the history of the 

 time. We are still in doubt as to how this dynasty — which 

 was of foreign origin, and seemingly kept the rememljrance of 

 that origin clearly in mind — came to the throne. Probably 

 the most important work upon the period is Ungnad's corpus of 

 translations — 1,417 in number — in his l)ook, Jla)/nii ffrahi\s 



