The commencement of the Babylonian empire was probably about 2234 B. C., for which date there is very considerable evidence. For example, the t hronological scheme of Berosus makes the first Chaldwan empire to extend from the middle of the twenty-third century before Christ, to the end of the sixteenth, and as we find a list of more than twenty kings before and after the given date 1861, it is of course evident that the period assigned by Berosus is at once brought within the limits of probability. We know, moreover; from the same historian, that the first Chaldwan dynasty consisted of eleven kings, while from Berosus, Ptolemy, and others, we learn that the various dynasties reigning in Chaldma extended over a space of 1662 years. Berosus, however, gives the entire chronological scheme of the Babylonians as 36,00o years, of which a period of 34,08o years is assigned to mythical dynasties, consequently to make up this sum the number 258 is required, which is missing in the MS., but which singularly enough is a very reason able period, to have comprised the reigns of eleven kings, leaving an average of about 23-1 years for the duration of each reign. The first ruling dynasty of Berosus is a Median one of eight kings, reigning 224 years. As this dynasty probably was not of the same ethnic variety as the subsequent dynasties which were Hamite or Semitic, we may disregard it, and then, reckoning backwards from the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, obtain a fixed date 2234 B.C. for the foundation of the first great ami d man empire. Now it is very remarkable that we are enabled to obtain almost precisely the same date from other independent calculations. For instance, Callisthenes visited Babylon in the year 33 r, when he found that stellar observations had been recorded for 1903 years. Now we may infer that they were kept from the commencement of the empire, where fore, adding these numbers together, we obtain once more the required 2234.
There is one king who may be considered almost as ancient as Urukh and Ilgi, who is also described by a title which Sir H. Rawlinson reads Apda Martu, and translates Ravager of the West. His name is Kudur Mapula or Mabuk. He has been supposed to represent the Chedorlaomer of Scripture, and to confirm this supposition it has lately been discovered that Mabuk is in the Hamite dialect what Lamer or El-ahmar, 'Rufus,' is in the Semitic. Few points in connection with the cunieform discoveries can offer more interest than this, which leads us at once up to Abraham, and, as it were, makes us spectators of the battle which he fought for the deliverance of Lot. The father of Kudur, whom he seems to have succeeded, was Sinti-shil-khak, the last ele ment in whose name appears again in that of the Ethiopian king Tir-khak, or Tir-hakah. After Kudur Mapula, but with a considerable interval, we must place the Isini-dagon before mentioned, whose date can be obtained approximately from the Assyrian inscriptions. In the title of this king Babylon is not yet noticed, but mention is made of Niffer, from which circumstance we may infer that in his age the cities of Babylonia proper had risen to metropolitan importance, while, before his time, the southern portion of the province was exclusively possessed of that dignity. The son of Ismi-dagon was the builder of the great cemeteries, the remains of which are still to be seen in the mounds at Mu. gheir. He is called the governor of Hui. It may readily be supposed that his name is difficult to read with certainty ; Rawlinson gives it as Ibil-anu. duma. Nothing is known of this king's son and successor, and the name which is read as Gurguna is extremely doubtful. It is equally uninteresting and unprofitable to record the uncertain names of the rest of this line of kings,—nothing is known of their achievements. The only feature to be noticed is the frequent occurrence of the word for the moon.
god as an element in their own names. This fact shews us very plainly the estimation in which the worship of the heavenly bodies was held at that early time, though it is not easy to assign a reason for the prevalence of the word in the particular instances where it occurs. It appears that about 2234 the inhabitants of southern Babylonia, who were of Cusbite origin, and therefore of the same ethnic stock with the first colonists of Arabia and Ethiopia, acquired some sort of supremacy over the other tribes who were settled in the districts of Babylonia. Very good reasons have been advanced by Rawlinson for connecting in one common origin the inhabitants of southern Babylonia with those of Arabia and Ethiopia. This common origin indeed is indicated in the account of Gen. x. 6, Which tells us that Cush and Mizraim were brothers, while Nimrod, the great father of the Chaldaan race, was descended from Cush.
A glance at the scheme given by Berosus shews us that the earliest occupants of Babylonia, leaving out the mythical Chaldwan dynasty, were Medes, who in the twenty-third century B. C. were displaced by a primitive Hamite dynasty, probably represented in the Bible by Nimrod, and embracing perhaps the two monumental kings Urukh and Ilgi. It was by these kings that the cities named in Genesis as forming the kingdom of Nimrod are supposed to have been founded. The period assigned by Berosus to this dynasty, from 2234 to 1976, is in accordance with the dates obtained from the monu ments. A break may be supposed to have occurred at the termination of this period, when a change of dynasty took place, and the Hamite kings were displaced by Chaldwans, who appear to have emi grated from Susiana to the Euphrates. This was the commencement of the great Chaldwan dynasty of Berosus, which lasted for 458 years, till B . C. 1578. The leader of these Chaldmans from Susiana was perhaps the Chedorlaomer of Scripture, though a difficulty occurs in his identification, inasmuch as in Genesis he is called king of Elam, the Elamites being a people of Semitic origin, while the inscrip tions of Susa appear to be Hamitic. Col. Rawlin son, however, suggests that in the earliest times thcrt may not have been so very marked a difference between the Hamite and Semitic tongues. It is to the line of kings thus supposed to commence with Chedorlaomer that the names referred to above as those of his successors are to be assigned. Next to nothing is known of the history of these kings. Their names very doubtfully read, together with certain territorial titles, are all that remain to assure us that they ever existed. This second Chaldman dynasty of Berosus was succeeded, according to him, in 1518, by what he calls an Arab dynasty, of which, however, no traces have been discovered on the monuments. Mention indeed is often made in the Assyrian inscriptions of several Arab tribes who attained distinction and importance, and in the time of Sargon some had even passed into Media and became known as the Arabs of the East, but there is no evidence of an Arabian line of kings ruling over Babylonia, and at present the testimony of Berosus on this subject is unconfirmed. Of the Assyrian dynasty which, according to this historian, succeeded the Arabian, notice is made under the article Assyria. As therefore during the ascendency of the Assyrian power, Babylonian history was merged in that of Assyria, we must pass on to the period at which Babylon again became dominant, which dates from the so-called era of Nabonassar, or 747 B. C. The origin of the change of events at Babylon, resulting in the accession of Nabonassar to the throne, is not ascertained ; neither is it definitely known who Nabonassar was or how he raised himself to the throne.