with Tiglath-Pileser, king of
Assyria, 418 years previously. This gives for the date of the war with
Tiglath-Pileser the year B.C. 1112. As that monarch does not mention the
Babylonian war in the annals which relate the events of his early years,
we must suppose his defeat to have taken place towards the close of his
reign, and assign him the space from B.C. 1130 to B.C. 1110, as,
approximately, that during which he is likely to have held the throne.
Allowing then to the six monumental kings who preceded Tiglath-Pileser
average reigns of twenty years each, which is the actual average
furnished by the lines of direct descent in Assyria, where the length of
each reign is known, and allowing fifty years for the break between
Tiglathi-Nin and Bel-kudur-uzur, we are brought to (1130 + 120 + 50)
B.C. 1300 for the accession of the first Tiglathi-Nin, who took Babylon,
and is the first king of whom extensive conquests are recorded.
Secondly. Sennacherib in another inscription reckons 600 years from his
first conquest of Babylon (B.C. 703) to a year in the reign of this
monarch. This "six hundred" may be used as a round number; but as
Sennacherib considered that he had the means of calculating exactly, he
would probably not have used a round number, unless it was tolerably
near to the truth. Six hundred years before B.C. 703 brings us to B.C.
1303.

The chief uncertainty which attaches to the numbers in this part of the
list arises from the fact that the nine kings from Tiglathi-Nin
downwards do not form a single direct line. The inscriptions fail to
connect Bel-kudur-uzur with Tiglathi-Nin, and there is thus a probable
interval between the two reigns, the length of which can only be
conjectured.

The dates assigned to the later kings, from Vul-lush II., to Esarhaddon
inclusive, are derived from the Assyrian Canon taken in combination with
the famous Canon of Ptolemy. The agreement between these documents, and
between the latter and the Assyrian records generally, is exact; and a
conformation is thus afforded to Ptolemy which is of no small
importance. The dates from the accession of Vul-lush II. (B.C. 911) to
the death of Esarhaddon (B.C. 668) would seem to have the same degree of
accuracy and certainty which has been generally admitted to attach to
the numbers of Ptolemy. They have been confirmed by the notice of a
great eclipse in the eighth year of Asshur-dayan III., which is
undoubtedly that of June 15, B.C. 763.

The