Go West, young student of ancient geography!

by Damien F Mackey This article was previously a four-part series entitled: Bringing New Order to Mesopotamian History and Chronology But a veritable historical (chronological) and geographical revolution has occurred since that was written, challenging even the very notion of what was Mesopotamian. As I recall it: A first step was taken by Creationist writers, which was most unexpected considering their strong focus upon the Babel incident, traditionally thought to have occurred in Sumer in southern Mesopotamia – this region long considered to have been the biblical “land of Shinar” (e.g. Genesis 10:10). The thought now, however, was that Shinar was to be located, insteads, in NW Syria, with various differing geographical suggestions being brought forth. This was basically a return to the view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Shinar was to be found NW of Sumer. He believed that it was the same as the ancient kingdom of Hanna in N Syria. A second step: Kenneth Griffith and his colleague, Darrell K. White, who were amongst those favouring a re-location of Shinar, and hence of ancient Babel: An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel (6) An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel | Kenneth Griffith - Academia.edu really ‘hit the scoreboard’, I believe, when they proceeded to identify the Mountain of the Ark’s landing as Karaca Dağ (in SE Turkey): A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb (6) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu apparently the site of first (i.e., post-diluvian) human agriculture (Neolithic). Humanity’s beginnings, post-Flood, were now appropriately being set where we find the world’s oldest sites/cities: Göbekli Tepe; Urfa (Șanliurfa); and Harran. A third step: I, who had been following closely this fascinating shifting of a long-held geography far westwards and northwards, was eventually able to bring forward my own contributions. I had long held – a view also espoused by W.F. Albright – that Magan and Meluḫḫa referred to, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia, and were not, as we are told, regions close to Sumer during the Akkadian and Ur III periods (though they later meant Egypt and Ethiopia). On this premise, I re-thought Akkad and Dilmun, and re-located them to the Mediterranean coast, as, respectively, Ugarit (Egyptian IKAT) and Tyre: Magan, Meluhha, Dilmun and Akkad (6) Magan, Meluhha, Dilmun and Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu After that, things would become quite sensational. A fourth step: Sumer and Central Mesopotamia were now to be stripped of some of their (supposedly) most famous locations, which I found to be Judean instead: (Girsu = Jerusalem; Lagash (Lakish)/Eshnunna = Lachish/Ashduddu (Ashdod)): As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash (6) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumeria’s standard history and geography now needed to be radically revised: Sumerian History in Chaos (7) Sumerian History in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? (7) Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumerian Geography in Chaos (7) Sumerian Geography in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, as if all this were not enough: A fifth step: (This one actually pre-dated my efforts, but I only learned of it this year, 2023). Royce (Richard) Erickson saw fit to shift certain countries closely associated with Sumer, Elam and Chaldea (and others), far, far to the NW. See my favourable, brief, coverage of his research in my article: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea (8) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I strongly recommend for those interested, though, to read Royce Erickson’s article referenced therein. Obviously this necessary (so I think) impoverishing of southern Mesopotamia will significantly colour any future attempts on my part at: Bringing New Order to Mesopotamian History and Chronology Previously I had written: Introduction In 1985, Lester J. Mitcham had attempted to identify the point of fold in the Assyrian King List [AKL], necessary for accommodating the downward revision of history.[1] He looked to bridge a gap of 170 years by bringing the formerly C12th BC Assyrian king, Ninurta-apil-Ekur, to within closer range of his known C14th BC ancestor, Eriba-Adad I. In the same publication, Dean Hickman had argued even more radically for a lowering, by virtually a millennium, of formerly C19th BC king Shamshi-Adad I, now to be recognised as the biblical king, Hadadezer, a Syrian foe of king David of Israel.[2] I myself have accepted this adjustment (See B. below). Prior to all that, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had urged for a folding of the C14th BC Kassite king (and el-Amarna correspondent), Burnaburiash II, with the C9th BC Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, who had conquered Babylon.[3] And there have been other attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history and chronology; for example, Phillip Clapham’s attempt to identify the C13th Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib.[4] Clapham soon decided that, despite some initially promising similarities, these two kings could not realistically be merged.[5] For a completely new approach to a revised Sennacherib, see my: Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib Whilst all of these attempts at Mesopotamian revision appear to have certain merit, other efforts were doomed right from the start because they infringed against established archaeological sequences. Thus Mitcham, again, exposed Emmet Sweeney’s defence of Professor Gunnar Heinsohn’s most radical revision, because of its blatant disregard, in part, for archaeological fact.[6] I myself am proposing that: A. C12TH BC FOLDS INTO C8TH BC Here I want briefly to offer what I think can be a most compelling fold; one that (a) does not infringe against archaeology, and that (b) harmonises approximately with previous art-historical observations of likenesses between 13th-12th centuries BC and 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture.[7] And it also has the advantage – unlike Mitcham’s and Clapham’s efforts – of (c) folding kings with the same name. I begin by connecting Merodach-baladan I and II (also equated by Heinsohn[8]), each of 12-13 years of reign, about whose kudurrus J. Brinkman remarked:[9] Four kudurrus …, taken together with evidence of his building activity in Borsippa … show Merodach-baladan I still master in his own domain. The bricks recording the building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk …, assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum’s A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities … cannot now be readily located in the Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 …). My proposal here involves a C12th to C8th BC fold. But, more strikingly, I draw attention to the succession of Shutrukid rulers of Elam of the era of Merodach-baladan I who can be equated, as a full succession, with those of the era of Merodach-baladan II. Compare: C12th BC Shutruk-Nahhunte; Kudur-Nahhunte; and Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak) with C8th BC Shutur-Nakhkhunte; Kutir-Nakhkhunte; and Hallushu (or Halutush-Insushinak). This is already too striking, I think, to be accidental, and it, coupled with the Merodach-baladan pairing, may offer far more obvious promise than have previous efforts of revision. There is also lurking within close range a powerful king Tiglath-pileser, variously I and III. Common to Tiglath-pileser I/III were: a love of building (especially in honour of Assur) and hunting, and many conquests, for example: the Aramaeans, with frequent raids across the Euphrates; the Hittites (with the possibility of a common foe, Ini-Tešub); Palestine; to the Mediterranean; the central Zagros tribes; Lake Van, Nairi and Armenia (Urartu); the conquest of Babylon. To name just a few of the many similarities. It seems to me that historians really repeat themselves when discussing these presumably “two” Assyrian “kings”. Consider this amazing case of repetition, as I see it, from Seton Lloyd:[10] The earliest Assyrian references to the Mushki [Phrygians] suggest that their eastward thrust into the Taurus and towards the Euphrates had already become a menace. In about 1100 BC Tiglath-Pileser I defeats a coalition of “five Mushkian kings” and brings back six thousand prisoners. In the ninth century the Mushki are again defeated by Ashurnasirpal II, while Shalmaneser III finds himself in conflict with Tabal …. But when, in the following century, Tiglath-pileser III once more records a confrontation with “five Tabalian kings”, the spelling of their names reveals the fact that these are no sort of Phrygians [sic], but a semiindigenous Luwian-speaking people, who must have survived the fall of the Hittite Empire. I think that we should now be on safe grounds in presuming that the “five Mushkian kings” and the “five Tabalian kings” referred to above by Seton Lloyd as having been defeated by Tiglath-pileser I/III – but presumably separated in time by more than 3 centuries – were in fact the very same five kings. Previously I had written (but must now modify): If this revised scenario is acceptable, then it would absolutely demand that the C10th BC’s two-decade plus ruler of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, be identified with the neo-Assyrian king of similar reign-length, Sennacherib, conqueror of Babylon, whom C. Jonsson claims was actually king of Babylon a year before his becoming king of Assyria.[11] Nebuchednezzar was a noted devotee of the Assyrian god, Adad[12]. It is thought that both Sargon II and Sennacherib (whom I have identified as one) had, somewhat modestly, unlike Tiglath-pileser III, not adopted the title, “King of Babylon”, but only shakkanaku (“viceroy”). We well know, however, that modesty was not an Assyrian characteristic. And so lacking in this virtue was Sargon II/Sennacherib, I believe, that historians have had to create a complete Babylonian king, namely, Nebuchednezzar I, to accommodate the Assyrian’s rôle as ‘King of Babylon’. I have since made what I think is a far more satisfactory later connection of Nebuchednezzar I with his namesake Nebuchednezzar [so-called] II, who follows closely Sennacherib in my revised chronology. [1] “A New Interpretation of the Assyrian King List”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of C&AH, pp. 51-56. [2] “The Dating of Hammurabi”, pp. 13-28. [3] Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, 1952. [4] “Hittites and Phrygians”, C&AH, Vol. IV, pt. 2, July, 1982, p. 111. [5] Ibid., Addenda, p. 113. [6] “Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced”, C&CW, 1988, 1, pp. 7-12. [7] E.g. Lewis M. Greenberg, “The Lion Gate at Mycenae”, Pensée, IVR III, 1973, p. 28. Peter James, Centuries of Darkness, p. 273. E. Sweeney, Ramessides, Medes and Persians, p. 24. [8] As noted by Mitcham, “Support …”. Heinsohn then goes way too far and equates Merodach-baladan with Lugalzagesi of the time of Sargon of Akkad. [9] A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, p. 87, footnote 456. [10] Ancient Turkey, pp. 68-69. [11] “The Foundations of Assyro-Babylonian Chronology”, C&CR, vol. ix, 1987, p. 23, n. 24. [12] Brinkman, op. cit., p.113. B. C19TH BC FOLDS INTO C11TH BC Now, following the lines of argument as pioneered by Dean Hickman, evidence may favour that certain famous kings of the c. C19th BC need to be radically re-dated and biblically identified. Among these are: 1. Shamshi Adad I, who becomes Hadadezer, the foe of King David of Israel; 2. Ila-kabkabu, who becomes Rekhob, father of Hadadezer. 3. Zimri Lim of Mari, who becomes King Solomon’s Syrian foe Rezon; 4. Iahdunlim, who becomes Eliada, father of Rezon. 5. Yarim Lim of coastal Yamkhad, who becomes Hiram, king of Tyre. We should recognize that the ancient history of these regions is not yet based on a secure chronology. Typically, king lists contain merely names with no indications as to overlapping and time periods. In my estimate there are a few clues which allow for equating certain kings with those from Biblical history where they are known under different names. What I intend to do is bring source material together of three central figures, SHAMSHI ADAD I, ZIMRI LIM AND YARIM LIM. I shall use them as pillars to present a defensible chronology which we shall elaborate on as new information comes in. Shamshi Adad is conventionally dated to about 1815-1782 BC. His name is found in the so-called ‘Assyrian Kinglist’. Shamshi Adad's father was Ila-kabkabu, who was according to all appearances an insignificant local ruler at Assur. From Shamshi Adad we have building inscriptions written in what scholars call ‘Old Babylonian’. But first we quote from the scriptural source since many can follow along these verses in their own copy of this book. Hadadezer was the foe of King David of Israel (2 Samuel 8:1-12): "And ... David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took `Metheg-am-mah' out of the hand of the Philistines. And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts. David smote also `Hadadezer', the the son of Rekhob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots: and 700 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen: and David lamed (cut the heel's sinew) all the chariot horses, but saved of them 100 chariots. But when the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians 22,000 men. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts. And the Lord preserved David wherever he went. And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. And from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass. When `Toi', king of Hammath, heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, then `Toi' sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass: Which also king David did dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he had subdued; of Syria and Moab, and of all the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah." (2 Samuel 10:6-17 NIV): "When the Ammonites realized that they had become a stench in David's nostrils, they hired 20,000 Aramean soldiers from Beth Rehob and Zobah, as well as the king of Maacah with a 1,000 men, and also 12,000 men from Tob. ... Then Joab and the troops with him advanced to fight the Arameans, and they fled before him. ... After the Arameans saw that they had been routed by Israel, they regrouped. Hadadezer had Arameans brought from beyond the River (Euphrates); they went to Helam, with Shobach the commander of Hadadezer's army leading them. ... When David was told of this he gathered all Israel, crossed the Jordan and went to Helam. The Arameans formed their battle lines to meet David and fought against him. But they fled before Israel, and David killed 700 of their charioteers and 40,000 of their foot soldiers. He also struck down Shobach the commander of the army, and he died there. When all the kings who were vassals of Hadadezer saw that they had been defeated by Israel, they made peace with Israel and became subject to them. So the Arameans were afraid to help the Ammonites anymore". One significant chronological anchor is the information that Shamshi-Adad boasted that he had erected triumphal stelae in Lebanon. He was allied with the princes of upper Syria, notably Carchemish and Qatna. We know from Scripture that Hadadezer liked to set up victory monuments; David defeated him "as he went to set up his monument at the river Euphrates" (1 Chronicles 18:3). Scripture records also that the Syrian was ruler of the kings beyond the river (2 Samuel 10:16, 19), i.e. the Euphrates, as later records from Assyria confirm as well. Hickman thought that "this description resembles that of Shamshi-Adad". Some Confused History Explained Some writers have pointed out that the Biblical narrative first claims that David defeated the Syrians and, two chapters later, when David was campaigning against the Ammonites, the Syrians, he had just defeated, (the author, being a poor scholar, actually makes a defeat into a total wipe out), are now sending troops to help the Ammonites. How can that be? Well, as we learn about the Mesopotamian kings we realize they ruled off and on over a large region and would have had no problem in raising new armies. We learn from the scriptures that Assur was called Zobah in Israel and Shamshi Adad's father was called Rekhob. Shamshi Adad did seem to have controlled the three major city centres of Assur, Nineveh and Erbil. He also set up stone stelae on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea. We learn that he had a significant army including siege engines and many chariots but little training to fight a war against an experienced guerrilla warfare tactician like David. His successes against the kings of the north ensured a period of peace which lasted into the time of Solomon. The defeat of Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad marked the eventual weakening of the Assur of his days. Hadadezer had another capital “Shubat-Enlil”, the ‘Residence of Enlil’, located at the source waters of the Khabur River. The ruins of Chagar-Bazar are thought to be that second capital where an administrative archive from the time of Shamshi-Adad/Hadadezer was found. Shamshi/Hadadezer had two sons, Ishme-Dagan sub-king of Ekallatum on the Tigris, and Yasmah-Adad sub-king of Mari. It appears that Yasmah was inferior in his administrative skills to his brother as letters from his father to him show. These letters reveal a father full of anxiety, parental concern sometimes alternating with an ironic approach and even humorous in some cases. Hadadezer/Shamshi was an able administrator who kept a close eye on the affairs in his realm. He castigated officers in his army who were unfair in dividing up the spoils of warfare. Reading the letters we can hear the direct voices of authentic, ancient kings. His influence reached to Carchemish and the shores of the Mediterranean. In ancient times a kingdom was often the product of its founder and largely disappeared with him. The person who took up where Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad left off was Rezon. Rezon I identify as Zimri Lim of Mari who once wrote this historically important Mari letter: "There is no king who can be mighty alone. Behind Hammurabi, the man of Babylon, march 10 to 15 kings; as many march behind Rim-Sin, the man of Larsa, Ipal-piel, the man of Eshnunna, Amut-piel, the man of Qatna, and behind `Yarim Lim', the man of Yahmad, march 20 kings." Of the palace archives of Mari 1,600 letters have been published addressed partly to the palace at Mari or copies of letters sent from the palace. Most of them cover the period from Yasmah Adad, son of Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad to Rezon/Zimri Lim. "And God stirred up another adversary, Rezon, the son of Eliadah, who fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: And he gathered men unto himself, and became captain over a band, when David slew those of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria." [1 Kings 11:23-25] "To Zimri Lim communicate the following: ‘Thus says your brother Hammurabi [of Yamhad]: The king of Ugarit has written to me as follows: "Show me the palace of Zimri Lim! I wish to see it." With this same courier I am sending on his man.'" "This building is not ... the gem of the Orient, rather one palace on a par with many others." Zimri Lim was a contemporary of king Hammurabi the author of the famous Hammurabi Codex, Book of Laws – Solomonic Laws based on Moses, I believe. Being a contemporary of Solomon, Zimri Lim would thus have been one of all those "kings of the earth" who came to visit King Solomon. Zimri Lim's multi-storied palace at Mari with over 260 rooms is the source of one of the richest sources of written documents anywhere in the Middle East. Famous rooms include the shrine of Ishtar in the palace, the Court of the Palms, the King's Throne Room, the Banquet Hall, and the Royal Apartments but later excavators (Margueron) identified the use of the rooms quite differently from Perrot. In later times it was Hammurabi, the former friend, who conquered Mari and burned the palace. The palace occupied more than 6 acres which were excavated by the French archaeologist A. Perrot in 1933. He viewed the whole complex as belonging to Zimri Lim without considering its longer history. The wall-paintings in the throne room were in five registers depicting scenes from myth, religion, and secular themes. Some wall paintings of men and women represent them as wearing long, colourful robes and headdress, others wear kilt style tunics reaching to the knees or with split cutouts further up the thigh. No foot wear can be seen. Two winged lions with the head of bearded man with headdress are seen as well as a large cow behind the throne of the king. Hammurabi, besides destroying at least parts of the palace, also reconstructed it. The literary form of the Mari letters remind us of the El Amarna letters which were written just some 100 years later. Rulers of equal status address each other as “brother”, “father” and “son” even if they are overlord or vassal. Subordinates to the king call him “lord” and themselves “slaves”. From Mari also comes what has been described as the earliest mention of Canaan - but later now, of course, according to this revision. There we read simply: "Thieves and Canaanites are in Rahisum. We just face each other." C. C24TH BC AKKAD DYNASTY Ramifications for Biblical Studies What ensues from the sort of revision of history that I am pursuing is a fairly complete turnaround of the almost universal tendency by historians and biblical commentators to argue for a dependence of the biblical material upon Mesopotamian, Canaanite and Egyptian myths and influences. With Hammurabi now re-dated to the time of King Solomon, then no longer can his Laws be viewed as a Babylonian forerunner of Mosaïc Law. And, with the age of El Amarna now re-dated to c. C9th BC, no longer can pharaoh Akhnaton’s Sun Hymn, so obviously like King David’s Psalm 104, be regarded as the influence for the great King of Israel. The same comment applies to the Psalm like pieces in the monuments of Queen Hatshepsut, the biblical Queen of Sheba, whose influence was Israel. See e.g. my: Solomon and Sheba https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba But, just as conventional historians have wrongly assumed an all-out pagan influencing of biblical Israel, so had I assumed (based on the tendency of the revision) that the Moses-like - as to associated mythology - Sargon of Akkad, conventionally dated to c. 2300 BC, must actually have post-dated Moses. And I had accordingly looked for a much later, revised location for the Akkadian dynasty. However, that apparently futile search was finally stopped short after I had read the following scholarly article by Douglas Petrovich: Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological Means https://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means That would mean that the Akkadian dynasty has been dated to at least within a few centuries of its proper place. My conclusion now would be that the famous Sargon legend (I have taken this from: http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id3.html): “I am Sargon, the powerful king, the king of Akkad. My mother was an Enitu priestees, I did not know any father . . . . My mother conceived me and bore me in secret. She put me in a little box made of reeds, sealing its lid with pitch. She put me in the river. . . . The river carried me away and brought me to Akki the drawer of water. Akki the drawer of water adopted me and brought me up as his son. . .”[,] so like the account of Moses in Exodus 2, but thought to have been recorded as late as about the C7th BC, was based upon the biblical Exodus story that would have been recounted in Mesopotamian captivity by people like Tobit and his family, and other Israelites and Jews. So, even though Sargon of Akkad himself, and his dynasty, well pre-dated Moses, the famous written legend about the mighty king of Akkad well post-dated Moses. Taking the Middle out of ‘Middle Assyrian Era’ The so-called ‘Middle Assyrian Period’, thought to range from approximately 1400-900 BC (dates vary) can no longer stand as a separate entity of history, but must - like the so-called ‘Middle Kingdom’ of Egyptian history, partly contemporaneous with Egypt’s ‘Old Kingdom’ - be folded with another era. Assyrian history, for the era of present concern - from El Amarna [EA] to late Tiglath-pileser - is conventionally arranged like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Assyrian_kings Middle Assyrian Period Middle Assyrian Period King name Reigned[18][19][20] Notes[14][15] Eriba-Adad I c. 1380–1353 BC (short) "son of Ashur-bel-nisheshu" Ashur-uballit I c. 1353–1318 BC (short) "son of Eriba-Adad (I)" Enlil-nirari c. 1317–1308 BC (short) "son of Ashur-uballit" Arik-den-ili c. 1307–1296 BC (short) "son of Enlil-nirari" Adad-nirari I c. 1295–1264 BC (short) "son of Arik-den-ili" Shalmaneser I c. 1263–1234 BC (short) "son of Adad-nirari (I)" Tukulti-Ninurta I c. 1233–1197 BC (short) "son of Shalmaneser (I)" Ashur-nadin-apli c. 1196–1194 BC (short) "during the lifetime of Tukulti-ninurta (I), Ashur-nadin-apli, his son, seized the throne" Ashur-nirari III c. 1193–1188 BC (short) "son of Ashur-nadin-apli" Enlil-kudurri-usur c. 1187–1183 BC (short) "son of Tukulti-Ninurta (I)" Ninurta-apal-Ekur c. 1182–1180 BC (short) "son of Ila-Hadda, a descendant of Eriba-Adad (I), went to Karduniash. He came up from Karduniash (and) seized the throne." Beginning with Ashur-Dan I, dates are consistent and not subject to middle/short chronology distinctions. Ashur-Dan I c. 1179–1133 BC "son of Ashur-nadin-apli" Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur c. 1133 BC "son of Ashur-dan (I), briefly" Mutakkil-nusku c. 1133 BC "his (Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur's) brother, fought him and took him to Karduniash. Mutakkil-Nusku held the throne briefly, then died." Ashur-resh-ishi I c. 1133–1115 BC "son of Mutakkil-Nusku" Tiglath-Pileser I c. 1115–1076 BC "son of Ashur-resh-ishi (I)" Asharid-apal-Ekur c. 1076–1074 BC "son of Tiglath-pileser (I)" Ashur-bel-kala c. 1074–1056 BC "son of Tiglath-pileser (I)" Eriba-Adad II c. 1056–1054 BC "son of Ashur-bel-kala" Shamshi-Adad IV c. 1054–1050 BC "son of Tiglath-pileser (I), came up from Karduniash. He ousted Eriba-Adad (II), son of Ashur-bel-kala, (and) seized the throne" Ashur-nasir-pal I c. 1050–1031 BC "son of Shamshi-Adad (IV)" Shalmaneser II c. 1031–1019 BC "son of Ashur-nasir-pal (I)" Ashur-nirari IV c. 1019–1013 BC "son of Shalmaneser (II)" Ashur-rabi II c. 1013–972 BC "son of Ashur-nasir-pal (I)" Ashur-resh-ishi II c. 972–967 BC "son of Ashur-rabi (II)" Tiglath-Pileser II c. 967–935 BC "son of Ashur-resh-ishi (II)" Ashur-Dan II c. 935–912 BC "son of Tiglath-Pileser (II)" Neo-Assyrian Period Neo-Assyrian Period King name Reigned[21][22][23] Notes[14][15] Adad-nirari II 912–891 BC "son of Ashur-Dan (II)" Tukulti-Ninurta II 891–884 BC "son of Adad-nirari (II)" Ashur-nasir-pal II 884–859 BC "son of Tukulti-Ninurta (II)" Shalmaneser III 859–824 BC "son of Ashur-nasir-pal (II)" Shamshi-Adad V 824–811 BC "son of Shalmaneser (III)" Shammu-ramat, regent, 811–808 BC Adad-nirari III 811–783 BC "son of Shamshi-Adad (V)" Shalmaneser IV 783–773 BC "son of Adad-nirari (III)" Ashur-Dan III 773–755 BC "son of Shalmaneser (IV)"; solar eclipse 763 BC[7] Ashur-nirari V 755–745 BC "son of Adad-nirari (III)" Tiglath-Pileser III 745–727 BC "son of Ashur-nirari (V)" Shalmaneser V 727–722 BC "son of Tiglath-Pileser (III)" That is a lot of kings - and they supposedly span more than six centuries. But now, with the second listed king, Assuruballit, Ashur-uballit I c. 1353–1318 BC re-dated from the mid-C14th BC to the mid-C9th BC, we all of a sudden have five centuries less with which to manoeuvre. Many of these kings, though, I believe, are duplicates. And other listed names might refer to powerful officials and generals rather than actual kings. For, did not that neo-Assyrian ‘Great King’, Sennacherib, boast (Isaiah 10:8): ‘ARE NOT MY COMMANDERS [PRINCES, OFFICIALS] ALL KINGS?’? We need to discern a dynastic pattern for the above-listed Assyrian kings in order for us to be able to corral these manifold names into the much reduced time space, now, of approximately one and a half centuries. Continuing the compression of those oppressive Assyrian kings. John R. Salverda, commenting on my identification of the conventional Tiglath-pileser I with Tiglath-pileser III, in my article: Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria https://www.academia.edu/9293293/Tiglath-pileser_King_of_Assyria wrote this: “You may just as well throw in Tiglath-pileser II as well. He was the son of another Ashur-resh-ishi (II), the contemporary of another Jeroboam (I) and the father of another Ashur-Dan (II)”. According to the conventional arrangement of the Assyrian king lists, the kings Shalmaneser (I-V) span a period from approximately C13th BC-C8th BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser • Shalmaneser I King of Assyria (1274–1245 BC) • Shalmaneser II, King of Assyria (1031–1019 BC) • Shalmaneser III, King of Assyria (859–824 BC) • Shalmaneser IV, King of Assyria (783–773 BC) • Shalmaneser V, King of Assyria (727–722 BC) and Biblical conqueror of Israel whilst the kings Tiglath-pileser (I-III) span a period from approximately C12th BC-C8th BC: • Tiglath-Pileser I was a king of Assyria (1114–1076 BC) • Tiglath-Pileser II was King of Assyria (965-932 BC) • Tiglath-Pileser III was a King of Assyria (745–727 BC) However, according to my revision so far, four of these supposedly individual kings merge into just the one Assyrian king, whose reign ceases at the approximate time of the Fall of Samaria (c. 722 BC, conventional dating), when Sargon II comes to the throne. Thus I have concluded: Tiglath-pileser I = Tiglath-pileser III = Shalmaneser III = Shalmaneser V As an approximation, working backwards from 722 BC, and taking the longest reign, the 38 years for Tiglath-pileser I, we arrive at the possible span of (722 + 38 =) 760, 760-722 BC for our composite king Shalmaneser/Tiglath-pileser. That would mean that, in biblical terms, the long reign of this Assyrian monarch would have spanned back from the Fall of Samaria all the way to the late reign of king Jeroboam II of Israel (William F. Albright has dated his reign to 786–746 BC, while E. R. Thiele says he was coregent with Jehoash 793 to 782 BC and sole ruler 782 to 753 BC.[1]). If this present new arrangement is truly on the right track, then John R. Salverda’s view that Tiglath-pileser II must also be merged with our composite king is looking most likely indeed. And what of the remaining kings Shalmaneser, I, II and IV?