G e n e a l o g ic a l P e r io d .
This class embraces those Assyrian Kings, of whose reigns no contemporaneous monuments
have been discovered, but who are recorded in the pedigrees or archives of their successors
: distinguishing Rawlinson’s reading by R, and Hincks’ by H.
King (conjectural readingn;. About b. c.
B Dergeto (R.)....................• •................... ..................... •**“** 12Q0
I I . DlVANTJKHA (R.), DlVANURISH (H .)........................................................... ....... .. ....................
I I I . ANAKBAR-BETH%mA (R.), SHIMISH-BAL-BlTHKHIRA (H.)>.......................................................... .
IV . Mardokempad ?
V. MESESSIMORDACüS ? } (B.)-«--- m o m ................. ...........................
— N ,',T ............ 1000 VI. A d rammeleoh I . (R.)..
V U . A naku Merodak (R .), Shimish B ar (H .) ................ ....................... ..........................................................V ^
M o n um e n t a l P e r io d .
T i n . SiB i>ASAriLUSl.(B..),AsHOaiKHBAL ( H . ) - N o r th -w e s t P a la c e , N im r o u d ........................................ 930
I X . D iv a n u ba ea (R .), D iv a nu ba r (H .)—O b e lisk ; c o t em p o r a r y w i t h J e h ü ; .............................. ™
X . S hamas Ad a r (R .), S hamsiyav ( H . ) . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................................................
X I . A dbammelech I I . (R . ) . . . . . . ....................................... *................................................... ••••• ^
x n . BALDASI? (H.)................................................................................ ~
x n i . A sh u r k ish ? (H.) ....... .......ÿys.......................................... ! 750
722
XIV. ? P ul, or Tiglath-Pileser ..
XV- Sarqon ..........
................................. 703
XVI. Sennacherib.................. .
xvm.XVII. ESSARHADDON ...........................• • • • • .............. ................... ..................................................... S a bd a n a pa lu s H I. (R.), A sh u b a k h ba l (H.)............................... .............. ..v...^ .................... ^
XIX. (Son of preceding) • ••...... .......Vlv.;...v............................ g
x x . BEunsuxHinoKt ...... «»
The chronological approximations of our sketch hinge upon the name of Jehu, king of
Israel, who, on the Obelisk of Nimroud, is made tributary to Divanubar; thus establishing
a synchronism about the year 885 B. 0.
Everything yet discovered on the site of Babel seems to belong to the reign of N&bn-
-kudurruchur (i. e., Nebuchadnezzar), king of Babylon, son of Nabubaluchun, king of Babylon”
— n o t earlier than about B. c. 604.
Time the performer of so many marvels .in archmology, will assuredly enable us soon to
attain greater Assyrian precision; already foreshadowed through the pending excavations
of M. Place, and the personal studies of M. Fulgence Fresnel and of Col. Rawlinson, on
the sites of Mesopotamian antiquity.
CHRONOLOGY — HEBREW.
« Tor a thousand years in th y sight are h u t as yesterday when it is past.”—(Psalms xc. 4.)
“ One day is with the Lord [leHOuaH] as a thousand years, and a thousand yearsns^neday.”^
I t would be affectation if not duplicity, on the part of the authors of “ Types oi Mankind
” after the variety of shocks which the plenary exactitude of Hebrew chromoles has
received at their hands, not to place everything Israelitish on precisely the same human
footing as has been assigned to the more ancient time-registerWf Egypt and of China, ana
to the more solid restorations of Assyria. _ .
The reader of our Essay I, in the present volume, can form his own estimate of the Justo
ricnl weight that Hebraical literature may possess hereafter in scientific ethnography. ^
Monumental history the Hebrews have none. Even their so-called “ Tombs of kings,
owing to the absence of inscriptions, have recently occasioned a discussion among s
deep archaeologists as De Saulcy, Quatreinbre, and Raoul-Rochette, (541) that shows upo
how tremulous a foundation their attribution rests. The “ arch” and massive basemen
of Jerusalem's temples (discovered by Catherwood, Arundale, and Bonomi, 1632-3). m y
15411 Revue Archidogique; lS51-’52. AIbo, Du Smjlct: Journey round (tieDead Sea; 1853; ii. p. 131.
belong to Zerubbabel’s or to Solomon’s edifices; or, in part, to the anterior Jebusites, for anything
by tourists imagined to the contrary. In the absence of monumental criteria, we are
compelled to give the Hebrews but. & fourth, place in the world’s history ; at the same time
that justice to a people whose strenuous efforts to preserve their records has encountered
more terrible obstacles and more frequent effacements than any other-nationality, demands
the amplest recognition.
The numerous citations and tables with which the subject of chronology has been already
ushered, spare us from recapitulation of the manifold instances whereby the Text contradicts
the versions; the numerical designations of a given manuscript, those of another;
and the modern computations of one individual, the estimates of almost every other individual;
whensoever the date of any Jewish event, anterior to Solomon’s semi-pagan
temple, is the object sought after.
In fact, we may now realize with Lepsius, that the strictly-chronological element was
wanting in the organism of Hebrew, as of other Semitish, minds; until M a n e t h o the
Sebennyte, about b . c . 260, first established the principles of chronology through Egyptian
indigenous records; and, by publishing his results, in Greek, for the instruction of the
Alexandria School, first planted the idea of human “ chronology” upon a scientific basis.
All systems of computation (heretofore followed by Christendom) take their departure, historically,
from Manetho.
It is deeply to be lamented, for the sake of education, that no qualified translator has
yet honored Anglo-Saxon literature with an English version of Lepsius’s “ Introduction ”
to his Chronology of the Egyptians; of which the writers, through the Chevalier’s complaisance,
have possessed the first-half since December, 1848, and the second since May, 1849.
Impossible, we fear, until such translation be accessible, is it to convey to the majority of
our readers, the entirely-new principles of chronological investigation this wonderful grasp
(of a mind at the pinnacle of the culture of our time) has condensed into 554 pages quarto.
Erudition stands humbled at the aspect of this volume’s conscientious and universal probity
of citation; at the same time that its perspicacity of arrangement is such, that those who,
like ourselves, possess no acquaintance with German, can track the footsteps of its author
almost paragraph by paragraph. Through the kindness of many Allemanic friends, the
writers have been enabled to annotate their copies of the Chronologie der JEgypter with marginal
and other notes that justify whatever assertions they respectively make upon an
authority otherwise to them Germanically concealed: and, in consequence, with reference
to Rabbi Hillel and many of the facts subjoined, they may confidently refer the reader of
“ Types,of Mankind” to Lepsius’s compendium ; (542) as a ground-text which the writers’
comparative studies of works in other tongues, more or less familiar, have resulted in
deeming the highest, in these peculiar branches, of our common generation. In any case,
a German scholar can easily verify our desired accuracy by opening a printed book; four
copies, at least, of which are now even at Mobile, Alabama.
We have said that Manetho is the.founder of the science called “ chronology.” We
meaq^that he is the first writer who developed through the Greek tongue, at his era the
language of Occidental science, those methods of computation in - vogue from very ancient
times among the sacerdotal colleges of the Egyptians. He is the exponent, not the inventor
of his country’s system : Eratosthenes, Apollodorus, &c., are his successors; together with
Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and the Syncellus; whose Judaico-christian theories have
been the sources of that fabric of superstition heretofore reputed to inform us concerning
the epoch of God’s Creation.
No doubt remains any longer that, centuries prior to Manetho, the Egyptian priesthood
did possess chronological registers; because, aside from inferences patent in his predecessor
Herodotus’s “ Euterpe,” we have before our eyes in the Turin hieratic papyrus (dating
in the 12th-14th century b . c ., or 1000 years before Manetho) the same system, often with
the same numerals, of reigns of Gods, Demi-Gods, and Men, that this chronographer subsequently
expounded to the Alexandrian schools. Alas! Manetho’s mutilators, not his
(542) Evrdeitung ; 1S49; pp. 14-20, 359-404, 405-410.