Low Chronology



Reviewing: A Third Revision of the Chronology of West Asia by,
W.F. Albright, BASOR 1942

Albright's "Low" Chronological Table:


Babylonia (p. 32) Warka Period -c. 32nd cent.
Jemdat Nasr Period - c. 30th cent.
Early Dynastic I - c. 28th cent.
Early Dynastic III - c. c. 26th cent.
Royal Tombs of Ur - c. 25th cent.
Dyn. of Akkad - c. 2360/2180
Guti rule - c. 2190.2065
Ur III - c. 2070/1960
Dyns. of Isin and Larsa - 1960-
Babylon I - 1830-
Hammurabi - 1728-1688 (code of Hammurabi 1690)
Babylon II - c. 1675
Babylon III - c. 1600
End of Dyn. I - c.1550
Agum II - c. 1520
End of Dyn. II - c. 1475
Burnaburiash - c. 1370



At the beginning of his article, Albright relates that in the 1880s two Babylonian king lists were published for the first time.
Because of mis-readings and the general early state of interpretation at the time, the first chronological models placed reigns far too early..
As new lists and datings became available, the estimates gradually were placed lower, and particularly the gap between the estimated rule of
Sargon of Akkad and Hammurabi began to diminish. Cuneiform chronology began to appear "rather solidly established."

However, there were and are still different models use amoung Assyriologists. To attempt some perspective, I give some of Albright's
comments on the "long" [high?], middle, and low chronologists. Albright calls the first conservative, because, traditionally estimates projected reigns too early




[referring A high estimate of the 1940s]

Albright: "The more conservative "long" chronologists (among whom the
writer was found) followed the "Venus" chronology of Fotheringham,
which placed Hammurabi's reign 2067-2025,"

(Hammurabi= 2067-2025 B.C.)



[referring to a low estimate of the 1940s ]

Albright: "while the radical "low" chronologists adopted Weidner's date cir. 1955-1913"

( Hammurabi= 1955-1913 B.C.)



[a misc. estimate]

Albright:"Here matters rested until the discovery of the Mari Tablets (Bulletin, No. 69, 1938) proved that Hammurabi
was actually contemporary with an Assyrian king Shamashi-Adad I, previously considered by most scholars to as much later.
Adopting the datings for Shamashi-Adad given directly by one Assyrian king of the thirteenth century and
indirectly by his successor (Bulletin, No. 69, p.19), the writing deduced that Hammurabi could be dated about 1870-1830 B.C."

(Hammurabi= 1870-1830 B.C.)



So, we see above that Albright was a high chronologist originally, but based on evidence from Mari,
he pioneers the "low" chronological theory. The pivotal piece of information for him, is a document that
grounds Shamshi-Adad I in the same time as Hammurabi; Shamshi-Adad ruled 33 years "and was still
reigning in the tenth year of Hammurabi, [so] he cannot have ascended the Assyrian throne more than
23 years before Hammurabi." Previously, a document dating Shamshi-Adad had been observed
and written by a scribe of a 13th century Assyrian king, and this date is what leads Albright to state
Hammurabi must have lived in 1870-1830 (an intermediate estimate.) But he goes father still.

Albright recognizes abundantly that the actual value of his proposal rests quite decisively on the
accuracy of the Assyrian's own dating of their forebearer (Shamash-Adad I), a fact which
has drawn the proposal considerable criticism. However the author himself continues to ponder
the correct dating and has proposed even lower estimates still. Using a modified version of Poebel's
work on the Khorsabad list of Assyrian Kings, Albright amends his earlier estimate and states this list
helps place the reign of Shamshi Adad I (= Hammurabi), to "about" 1746 B.C. He also draws attention
to Hammurabi's conquering of Mari and defeat of Zimri-lim; Zimri-lim was preceded by Yasmah-Adad
who was the son and viceroy of Shamshi-Adad, leading Albright to comment that the latter "cannot
have become king of Assyria less than about 14 years before Hammurabi." -

Low estimate: Hammurabi= 1728-1688