figure for the
beginning of Dynasty I. was arrived at by incorporating the new information
supplied by the first date-list to be published. When revising his scheme
of chronology in 1900, Rost abandoned his suggested emendation of
Sennacherib's figure, but by decreasing his reduction of the length of
Dynasty III., he only altered his date for the beginning of Dynasty I. by
one year.[17] In his revised scheme of chronology, published in 1903,[18]
Lehmann-Haupt retained his emendation of Sennacherib's figure, and was in
his turn influenced by Marquart's method of reconciling the dynasties of
Berossus with the Kings' List. He continued to accept the figure of the
Kings' List for Dynasty III., but he reduced the length of Dynasty II. by
fifty years, arguing that the figures assigned to some of the reigns were
improbably high. His slight reduction in the length of Dynasty I. was
obtained from the recently published date-lists, though his proposed
reduction of Ammizaduga's reign to ten years has since been disproved.

A third group of systems comprises those proposed by Hommel and Niebuhr,
for their reductions in the date assigned to Dynasty I. were effected
chiefly by their treatment of Dynasty II. In his first system, published in
1886,[19] Hommel, mainly with the object of reducing Khammurabi's date,
reversed the order of the first two dynasties of the Kings' List, placing
Dynasty II. before Dynasty I. In his second and third systems (1895 and
1898),[20] and in his second alternative scheme of 1901 (see below), he
abandoned this proposal and adopted a suggestion of Halevy that Dynasty
III. followed immediately after Dynasty I.; Dynasty II., he suggested, had
either synchronized with Dynasty I., or was mainly apocryphal (_eine
spaetere Geschichtskonstruction_). Niebuhr's system was a modification of
Hommel's second theory, for, instead of entirely ignoring Dynasty II., he
reduced its independent existence to 143 years, making it overlap Dynasty
I. by 225 years.[21] The extremely low dates proposed by Hommel in 1898
were due to his adoption of Peiser's emendation for the length of Dynasty
III., in addition to his own elimination of Dynasty II. In 1901 Hommel
abandoned Peiser's emendation and suggested two alternative schemes.[22]
According to one of these he attempted to reconcile Berossus with the
Kings' List by assigning to Dynasty II. an independent existence of some
171 years, while as a possible alternative he put forwar