[13] The purely arbitrary character of the assumption is well illustrated by the different results obtained by those who make it. By clinging to Berossus's date of 2232 B.C., Thureau-Dangin assigns to the second dynasty of the Kings' List a period of 168 years of independent rule in Babylon (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 176 ff., and "Journal des savants," 1908, pp. 190 ff.), and Ungnad 177 years ("Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 638, 1908, col. 63 ff.). Lehmann-Haupt, in his suggested reconciliation of the new data with his former emendation of the Bavian date, makes the period 80 years ("Klio," 1908, pp. 227 E). Poebel, ignoring Berossus and attempting to reconcile the native chronological notices to early kings, makes it 160 years (cf. "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXI., pp. 162 ff.). The latest combination is that proposed by Schnabel, who accepts the date of 2232 B.C. for both the system of Berossus and that represented by the Kings' List, but places the historical beginning of the First Dynasty in 2172 B.C.; this necessitates a gap of 120 years between Dynasties I. and III. ("Mitteil. der Vorderas. Gesellschaft," 1908, pp. 241 ff.). But all these systems are mainly based on a manipulation of the figures, and completely ignore the archaeological evidence. [14] See below, Chap. XI., pp. 313 ff. [15] Cf. Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tabl.," p. 55, n. 1. [16] Thureau-Dangin would assign only one hundred years to this period (cf. "Journal des savants," 1908, p. 201). [17] The period may well have been longer, especially if Manishtusu should prove to have been the contemporary of Urukagina. [18] See below, pp. 176, n. 2, 209 f. [19] For a list of the kings and rulers of Sumer and Akkad with their approximate dates, see the List of Rulers at the end of the volume. [20] See the plate opposite p. 62. The objects have been previously published by Hayes Ward in "Proc. Amer. Orient. Soc.," Oct., 1885, and "Amer. Journ. Arch.," vol. iv. (1888), pp. 39 ff. They subsequently found their way into a London sale-room, where they were bought as forgeries and presented as such to the British Museum. [21] Our knowledge of Sumerian art is mainly derived from the finds at Tello, since the objects from other early sites are not yet published. For its best and fullest discussion, see Heuzey's descriptions in "Découvertes en Chaldée," his "Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes," "Une Villa royale chaldéenne," and the "Revue d'Assyriologie"; cf. also Perrot and Chipiez, "Histoire de l'art," vol. ii. The finest examples of Semitic art have been found at Susa (see De Morgan, "Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse," _passim_). A scientific treatment of the subject is adopted by Meyer in "Sumerier und Semiten," but he is inclined to assign too much credit to the Semite, and to overestimate his share in the artistic development of the two races. [22] See below, p. 267, Fig. 66. [23] See the photographic reproduction in "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 22, Fig. 5.