On the Early Babylonian Eclipse of the Sun. 
245 
We can well imagine the terror with which a total eclipse of the sun 
would have been regarded by the ancient Babylonians, and there would 
be nothing more likely than to find a record of such an event in a 
Chronicle devoted entirely to rehgious matters and portents of an unusual 
nature. If, therefore, it could be shown that an eclipse did actually take 
place, which with regard to date and line of totality satisfies the condi- 
tions attaching to the record, there would be little risk in accepting the 
astronomical interpretation of the phrase " (" Chronicles Concerning Early 
Babylonian Kings," vol. i., pp. 233-235). 
Mr. King's words seem a fair and impartial summing up of the ques- 
tion, though it is true that Mr. King seems to have overlooked the fact 
that three thousand years ago, when the region around Babylon was in 
much closer proximity to the sea than at present, and was highly cultured 
and well irrigated, these dust-storms would have been far less common 
than at present, as well as the fact that severe thunderstorms are included 
in the list of portents ; yet few will be found to dispute his conclusion 
that the portent recorded is not likely to have been either a dust-storm or 
an ordinary severe thunderstorm. Still there is another description of 
storm to which Mr. King does not refer, the dangerous " dry storm " that 
at rare intervals sweep up the border of the Persian Gulf and over Baby- 
lonia ; a storm unaccompanied by either wind or rain, coming up in the 
form of a dense high cloud, bordered by vivid lightning, but with only 
occasional distant deep peals of thunder. These are so exceptional that 
possibly Mr. King has not experienced one, and they might well be 
regarded as portents worth recording as so many years elapse between 
their occurrence, though they are more frequent on the coasts of South- 
East Arabia and Africa. 
Yet, as Mr. King justly remarks, it is a question of greater or lesser 
probability, and the greater probability is certainly in favour of the 
inscription recording the occurrence of a solar eclipse, if such an eclipse 
can be found which might have been visible from Babylon. 
If the inscription may be taken as recording the occurrence of an 
eclipse of the sun, it remains to determine its probable date. The 
following note by Mr. King deals clearly with this matter : — 
" In column II of the Chronicle the eclipse is recorded to have taken 
place * in the seventh year,' that is to say, 'in the seventh year of a 
Babylonian king whose name occurred in the lower part of column I of 
the Chronicle, which is now missing.' But the date may be fixed within 
certain limits from other indications in the text. Columns III and IV 
of the Chronicle are concerned with the reign of the Babylonian king 
' Nabu-mukin-aph,' one of the earher kings of the Eighth Dynasty, and 
probably its founder. It is therefore certain that the king whose reign is 
dealt with in column II reigned before and not after ' Nabu-mukin-aph,' 
