Zuz – Zuz

Zuz

Zuz m,— One of the nations defeated by Chedorlaomer and his allies when they went against the cities of the plain (Genesis 14:5). It Is described as being In Ham. This name is read by some as Cham (i.e. with initial heth, not he as in MT) and regarded as possibly identical with ‘Amman (interchange between the aspirates heth and ‘ayin), the Ammonites being descended from Ben-amml, son of Lot’s second daughter (Genesis 19:35). This Identification of Ammon with Ham has led to the suggestion that Zuzim and Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2) were the same, by the contraction of am and um to fl, which may be supported by Babylonian analogies. Robinson points out that Zuzim reminds one of Ziza (Ptol. v. xvli. 6), between Bosra and LejQn. T. G. Finches.

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO ARTICLE ‘ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA.’ Since the article Assthia and Babylonia was put Into type, the appearance of Mr. L. W. King’s Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings, and Professor H. V. Hilprecht’s Chronological Tablets from the Temple Library at Nippur have made public a considerable amount of additional information as to early Babylonian and Assyrian history. A new set of synchronisms is established and new rulers are restored, while the chronology Is considerably affected. A mere sketch of the new facts is all that can be attempted here. Three new rulers, liu-ellati, Enmennunna, and Apil-kishshu, must be placed centuries before the first dynasty of Babylonia, almost doubling the historic period. The period of Sargon and Naram-Sin Is more fully made known, the latter’s conquest of Magan being especially Important. Sargon aggrandized Agade at the expense of Babylon, already the seat of Marduk worship. The dynasty of Ur, founded by Ur-Engur (or Ur-Gur), can now be set out completely as follows: — Ur-Engur . . . reigned 18 years

DungI, his son . . ,, 58 ,,

Bur-Sin, his son . . ,, 9 ,,

Gimil-Sin, his son . ,, 7 ,,

Ibl-SIn, his son . . „ 25 „

For the reign of Dungi we have the additional information that ‘he cared greatly for Eridu, which was on the shore of the sea,’ and that he sacked Babylon. Gudea was his contemporary at Shirpula. On the fall of this dynasty the power passed to Isin, where the following dynasty reigned. The place of Gungunu is not certain.

Ishbi-Urra

reigned 32 years

Gimil-ilishu, his son

10 „

Idin-Dagan, his son

21 „

Ishme-Dagan, his son

„ 20 „

Libit-Ishtar, his son

., 11 ,.

Ur-Ninib

28 „

Bur-Sin, his son

21 „

Iter-Kasha, his son

S „

7 , his brother

7 „

Sin

6 „

BSl-bani .

„ 24 „

Zame. ...

3 „

?

5 „

Ea

4 „

Sin-magir

11 ,.

Damki-ilishu, his son

23 „

This last king has been thought to be a contemporary of Ammiditana, who, in the last year of his reign, destroyed the wall of Isin ‘which the men of Damki-ilishu had erected.’ But the reference may be to the third king of the second dynasty; and in any case is not very clear.

Two new names, TTrra^imitti and BSl-ibni, are now to be placed high in the list of Assyrian kings. The latter was a gardener whom Urra-imitti raised to be his successor. They appear to have preceded Ilu-shuma, whom we now know to have been king of Assyria and contemporary with Sumu-abi, founder of the first dynasty of Babylon. Sulili may be another form of the name of Sumu-la-ilu, the second king of this dynasty, who thus reigned over Assyria as well.

We further learn that Hammurabi’s conquest of Rim-Sin was not final, for Samsu-iluna had to fight with him again. Samsu-iluna also fought with Ilu-mailu, who was king of the Sea-land, and AbSshu later waged indecisive war with him. In the time of Samsu-satana the Hittites invaded the land of Akkad. Ea-gamil, the last king of the second dynasty apparently, and king of the Sea-land, attacked Elam, but was defeated and deposed by the brother of BitUiashu the Kassite. Agum, son of Bitiliashu, then conquered the Sea-land. These synchronisms, if the proposed Identifications of the rulers named are correct, show that the second dynasty was contemporary partly with the first, partly with the third, and consequently that the dates of the first dynasty must be lowered. Whether the Kassite dynasty directly followed Samsu-satana is still uncertain.

Later, we learn that Adad-apliddlna was an Aramaean usurper, and that in his reign the Sutu nomads ravaged Sumer and Akkad. The name of the Elamite who formed the seventh dynasty was Ae-aplusur. A new Tiglath-pileser has to be added to the kings of Assyria. He was the father of Ashur-dan ii. and son of Ashurresh-ishi ii., grandson of Ashur-rabi n. Hence the Tiglath-pileser of B.C. 731 becomes iv. Merodach-baladan, ‘the son of Baladan,’ Mardul^ apliddina in., was the son of Nabu-shum . . . We«ei fresh information as to the troubled times in Babylonia after Sennacherib destroyed Babylon; and the name of Erba^ Marduk (who dispossessed the Aramseans from the estates which they had seized in Babylon and Borsippa, and restored E-sagila and E-zida, the temples of Marduk and Nabu) is, with others, rescued to history.

The changes which these new facts involve are likely to give rise to much discussion, and will probably not be settled till we have still further information. C. H. W. Johns.