[11] and that of
Maspero,[12] may be grouped together, for they are based on the same
principle. Having first fixed the date of the close of Dynasty III., they
employed the figures of the Kings' List unemended for defining the earlier
periods, and did not attempt to reconcile their results with other
conflicting data. The difference of eighteen years in Sayce's two dates for
the rise of Dynasty I. was due to his employing in 1902 the figures
assigned to the first seven kings of the dynasty upon the larger of the two
contemporary date-lists, which had meanwhile been published, in place of
those given by the List of Kings. It should be noted that Winckler (1905)
and Delitzsch (1907) gives the dates only in round numbers.

A second group of systems may be said to consist of those proposed by
Lehmann-Haupt, Marquart, Peiser, and Rost, for these writers attempted to
get over the discrepancies in the data by emending some of the figures
furnished by the inscriptions. In 1891, with the object of getting the
total duration of the dynasties to agree with the chronological system of
Berossus and with the statement of Nabonidus concerning Khammurabi's date,
Peiser proposed to emend the figure given by the Kings' List for the length
of Dynasty III. The reading of "9 soss and 36 years," which gives the total
576 years, he suggested was a scribal error for "6 soss and 39 years"; he
thus reduced the length of Dynasty III. by 177 years and effected a
corresponding reduction in the dates assigned to Dynasties I. and II.[13]
In 1897 Rost followed up Peiser's suggestion by reducing the figure still
further, but he counteracted to some extent the effects of this additional
reduction by emending Sennacherib's date for Marduk-nadin-akh[=e]'s defeat
of Tiglath-pileser I. as engraved on the rock at Bavian, holding that the
figure "418," as engraved upon the rock, was a mistake for "478."[14]
Lehmann-Haupt's first system (1898) resembled those of Oppert, Sayce,
Rogers, Winckler, Delitzsch and Maspero in that he accepted the figures of
the Kings' List, and did not attempt to emend them. But he obtained his low
date for the close of Dynasty III. by emending [v.03 p.0110] Sennacherib's
figure in the Bavian inscription; this he reduced by a hundred years,[15]
instead of increasing it by sixty as Rost had suggested. Lehmann-Haupt's
influence is visible in Marquart's system, published in the following
year;[16] it may be noted that his slightly reduced