539 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)
Appointer
Various:
Election by the Babylonian priesthood or aristocracy
Hereditary inheritance
Usurpation/conquest of Babylon
Theking of Babylon (Akkadian:šakkanakki Bābili, later alsošar Bābili) was the ruler of the ancientMesopotamian city ofBabylon 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 ofSumer andAkkad. The city experienced two major periods of ascendancy, when Babylonian kings rose to dominate large parts of theAncient Near East: theFirst Babylonian Empire (or Old Babylonian Empire,c. 1894/1880–1595 BC) and theSecond Babylonian Empire (or Neo-Babylonian Empire, 626–539 BC). Babylon was ruled by Hammurabi, who created theCode of Hammurabi.
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 (Akkadian),Amorite,Kassite,Elamite,Aramean,Assyrian,Chaldean,Persian,Greek andParthian 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 wasNabonidus, who reigned from 556 to 539 BC. Nabonidus's rule was ended through Babylon being conquered byCyrus the Great of theAchaemenid 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 rebelNidin-Bel.
Three different attested spellings in Neo-Babylonian Akkadian cuneiform for the title 'king of Babylon' (šar Bābili). The topmost rendition follows theAntiochus cylinder, the other two follow building inscriptions byNebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 BC).
Throughout the city's long history, various titles were used to designate the ruler ofBabylon and its kingdom, the most common titles being 'viceroy of Babylon', 'king ofKarduniash' 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, theNeo-Assyrian kingTiglath-Pileser III (r. 729–727 BC in Babylon), used all three of the aforementioned titles.[3]
Viceroy (orgovernor)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 kingSennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) has been noted as a particular break in this tradition,[5] as he assumed the titleking 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 predecessorSargon II (r. 710–705 BC in Babylon), who used it interchangeably withšakkanakki Bābili.[4] Though Sennacherib's successors would primarily usešakkanakki Bābili,[7] there are likewise examples of them instead usingšar Bābili.[8] These 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 theKassite 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 kingNabu-shuma-ukin I (r. c. 900–888 BC)[12] and the Neo-Assyrian kingEsarhaddon (r. 681–669 BC).[7]
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), thestatue of Marduk, was prominently used in the coronation rituals for the kings, who received their crowns "out of the hands" of Marduk during theNew 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 theEsagila, 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 theregalia 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]
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 aspalû orpalê, 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 asEriba-Marduk (r. c. 769–760 BC) and his grandsonMarduk-apla-iddina II (r. 722–710 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]
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 underSumu-abum (r. c. 1894–1881 BC) toKandalanu (r. 648–627 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]
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 kingErishum I (uncertain regnal dates) and the Babylonian kingSumu-la-El (r. c. 1880–1845 BC). The latest known portion ends withAshur-etil-ilani (r. 631–627 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 toSeleucus II Callinicus (r. 246–225 BC) in the Seleucid period.[27]
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]
Relief ofArtaxerxes I of theAchaemenid Empire (r. 465–424 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 theAchaemenid (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 theNeo-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 kingXerxes I (r. 486–465 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 successorArtaxerxes I (r. 465–424 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 theAntiochus cylinder, a clay cylinder containing a text whereinAntiochus I Soter (r. 281–261 BC) calls himself, and his father Seleucus I Nicator (r. 305–281 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 kingAntiochus III (r. 222–187 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 ofArtabanus III of theParthian Empire (r. AD 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 ofSeleucia and laterCtesiphon 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-kâLUGAL.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]
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 atUruk and dated to AD 79/80. The tablet preserves the wordLUGAL (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]
The list below includes the names of all the kings in Akkadian, as well as how the Akkadian names were rendered incuneiform signs. Up until the reign ofBurnaburiash II (r. c. 1359–1333 BC) of theKassite dynasty (Dynasty III),Sumerian was the dominant language for use in inscriptions and official documents, with Akkadian eclipsing it under the reign ofKurigalzu II (r. c. 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 ofNebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 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.
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.
Per BKLb, the native name for this dynasty was simplypalû 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 ofAmorite descent.[67] While the king list gives a regnal length of 31 years for the final king, Samsu-Ditana, thedestruction layer at Babylon is dated to his 26th year and no later sources have been found.[68]
Both BKLa and BKLb refer to this dynasty aspalû Urukug ('dynasty of Urukug'). Presumably, the city ofUrukug 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.[71] 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.[72] 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).[73]
The entry for this dynasty's name in BKLa is lost, but other Babylonian sources refer to it aspalû Kaššī ('dynasty of the Kassites').[76] The reconstruction of the sequence and names of the early rulers of this dynasty, 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 Synchronistic 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.[77] Babylonia was not fully consolidated and reunified until the reign of Ulamburiash, who defeated Ea-gamil, the last king of the first Sealand dynasty.[71]
Per BKLa, the native name of this dynasty waspalû Išin ('dynasty of Isin'). Presumably, the city ofIsin 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 Sumeriandynasty 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.[90]
Per BKLa, the native name of this dynasty waspalû tamti ('dynasty of the Sealand'). Modern historians call it the second Sealand dynasty in order to distinguish it from Dynasty II.[65]
BKLa refers to this dynasty aspalû Bazu ('dynasty of Baz') and the Dynastic Chronicle calls itpalû 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 ofBaz, or from descent from Bazi, the legendary founder of that city.[97]
BKLa dynastically separates Mar-biti-apla-usur from other kings 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 thepalû Elamtu ('dynasty of Elam').[98]
Per BKLa, the native name of this dynasty waspalûE ('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, theDynastic Chronicle (though it is preserved only fragmentarily), breaks this dynasty up into a succession of brief, smaller, dynasties.[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.[107] 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.[100]
'Dynasty IX' is used to, broadly speaking, refer to the rulers of Babylonia during the time it was ruled by theNeo-Assyrian Empire, including Assyrian kings of both theAdaside dynasty and the subsequentSargonid 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] Thepalê 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).[108]
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] TheDynastic 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 accession, but much of the text is fragmentary.[118][119]
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]
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 theList of Parthian monarchs.
^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]
^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 citiesDilbat,Sippar andKisurra, 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.[69]
^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 signAŠ 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.[75]
^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.[73] The issue derives from the poor quality early photographs of the tablet and its subsequent deteriorating condition. The presence of the signAŠ between lines 10 and 11 of BKLa, between Gulkishar and Peshgaldaramesh might be a reference to a king between them.[75] 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.[75]
^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.[79]
^One possible reading of an inscription by Agum II indicates that Abi-Rattash was an ancestor of Agum II's father Urzigurumash.[81]
^As Agum II explicitly refers to Urzigurumash as his father in his own inscriptions, Beaulieu (2018) placed him as Urzigurumash's direct successor.[79] Chen (2020) placed him later, as the direct predecessor of Burnaburiash I.[66]
^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.[79]
^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.[85]
^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.[88]
^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.[92]
^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.[93] 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.[92]
^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.[95]
^abcdBeaulieu (2018) states that Nabu-apla-iddina's 31st year as king wasc. 855 BC.[101] Chen (2020) ascribes Nabu-apla-iddina a 33-year reign.[66]
^abcChen (2020) ascribes Marduk-zakir-shumi I a 27-year reign.[66]
^abcMarduk-balassu-iqbi was deposed by the Assyrian kingShamshi-Adad V in 813 BC. Less than a year later, in 812 BC, Shamshi-Adad deposed Marduk-balassu-iqbi's successor, Baba-aha-iddina.[102]
^After Baba-aha-iddina was taken to Assyria as a captive by the Assyrian kingShamshi-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 prerogative) 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.[103]
^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 ofNabu-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.[103]
^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.[104][105] The second element of the name,apla, is not a fully certain reading.[105] According to Brinkman (1968), the full name might have beenNinurta-apla-uṣur or something similar.[105]
^abcdBeaulieu (2018) writes that Eriba-Marduk's ninth and last year as king wasc. 760 BC.[106]
^Recognising Sennacherib as the king of Babylon from 689 to 681 BC is the norm in modern lists of Babylonian kings.[110] 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.[111] 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.[112]
^Though Šamaš-šuma-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'.[110] The Uruk King List lists Ashurbanipal as Šamaš-šuma-ukin's predecessor, but also lists him as ruling simultaneously with his brother, giving his reign as 669–647 BC.[115] In contrast, Babylonian King List A omits Ashurbanipal entirely, listing Šamaš-šuma-ukin as the direct successor of Esarhaddon, and Kandalanu as the direct successor of Šamaš-šuma-ukin.[112]
^Ashurbanipal is again not recorded by the Babylonian King List A as ruler between Šamaš-šuma-ukin and Kandalanu,[112] and is not recorded as such in lists by modern historians either.[110] Ashurbanipal did however rule Babylonia from the defeat of Šamaš-šuma-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 atBorsippa, and as late as the spring of 646 BC atDilbat. After 646 BC, tablets in Babylonia are exclusively dated to Kandalanu's reign.[116]
^abThe 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,[117] as do lists of Babylonian kings by modern historians.[110]
^abContemporary 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.[citation needed]
^Philip III Arrhidaeus died in 317 BC. Certain Babylonian documents continue to recognise him as king until 316 BC.[128]
^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.[115]
^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]
^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]
^abcDid 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]
^Junior ruler who never ruled in his own right, recognised as king of Babylon alongside his senior counterpart in date formulae.[128]
^abJunior 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]
^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]
^No known cuneiform tablets record Timarchus's brief rule in Babylonia.[147]
^abGiven 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]
^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 nameArsaces.[154] This list uses the spellingAršakâ 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 RomanCaesar, than a name. If there was a period of civil war or rivalry, i.e. in times where there were multipleArsaces 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 assumingArsaces as their regnal name complicates establishing a chronology of rulers,[154][128] which mainly has to follow evidence from coinage.[154]
^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]
^abPhraates 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]
^abcdeQueen consort, and thus not formally a monarch, but recorded together with her husband as ruler in Babylonian date formulae.[36]
^Phraates V's mother,Musa, who ruled with him as co-ruler, is not recorded as a monarch in any known Babylonian tablets.[36]
^The latest known datable Akkadian cuneiform tablet is W22340a, found atUruk and dated to AD 79/80. The tablet preserves the wordLUGAL (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]
^abcdefgAlthough the late Parthian kings would presumably have been referred to asAršákā, like their predecessors, no cuneiform records are known from beyond AD 79/80.[51]
^Koppen, Frans van. "2. The Early Kassite Period". Volume 1 Karduniaš. Babylonia under the Kassites 1, edited by Alexa Bartelmus and Katja Sternitzke, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2017, pp. 45-92
Black, Jeremy; Green, Anthony (1992).Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. University of Texas Press.ISBN0-292-70794-0.
Fales, Frederick Mario (2014)."The Two Dynasties of Assyria". In Gaspa, Salvatore; Greco, Alessandro; Morandi Bonacossi, Daniele; Ponchia, Simonetta; Rollinger, Robert (eds.).From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.ISBN978-3868351019.
Kosmin, Paul J. (2014). "Seeing Double in Seleucid Babylonia: Rereading the Borsippa Cylinder of Antiochus I". In Moreno, Alfonso; Thomas, Rosalind (eds.).Patterns of the Past: Epitēdeumata in the Greek Tradition. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0199668885.S2CID201634512.
Nielsen, John P. (2015). ""I Overwhelmed the King of Elam": Remembering Nebuchadnezzar I in Persian Babylonia". In Silverman, Jason M.; Waerzeggers, Caroline (eds.).Political Memory in and After the Persian Empire. SBL Press.ISBN978-0884140894.
Olbrycht, Marek Jan (2016). "Dynastic Connections in the Arsacid Empire and the Origins of the House of Sāsān". In Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh; Pendleton, Elizabeth J.; Alram, Michael; Daryaee, Touraj (eds.).The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion. Oxbow Books.ISBN9781785702082.
Peat, Jerome (1989). "Cyrus "King of Lands," Cambyses "King of Babylon": The Disputed Co-Regency".Journal of Cuneiform Studies.41 (2):199–216.doi:10.2307/1359915.JSTOR1359915.S2CID163504463.
Van Der Spek, R. J. (2001). "The Theatre of Babylon in Cuneiform".Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday:445–456.
Wiseman, Donald J. (2003) [1991]."Babylonia 605–539 B.C.". In Boardman, John; Edwards, I. E. S.; Hammond, N. G. L.; Sollberger, E.; Walker, C. B. F. (eds.).The Cambridge Ancient History: III Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.ISBN0-521-22717-8.
.svg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_in_Akkadian.png)
.jpg)
%2c_Seleucia_mint.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_Colorized_per_source.jpg)
%2c_Hamadan_mint.jpg)
