Defusing the problematical Shalmaneser

by Damien F. Mackey But the fact was that Shalmaneser was nowhere to be found in the El Amarna archive, at least under that Assyrian name. Instead, the king of Assyria in El Amarna was one “Ashuruballit”. Introduction For those faithfully following the revision of history as set out by the insightful scholar, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, in Ages in Chaos (I, 1952), especially back in the late 1970’s, a seemingly impenetrable obstacle loomed for them with regard to the re-location of the El-Amarna (EA) history from the c. C14th BC, where the history books situated it, to the mid-C9th BC, where Dr. Velikovsky had re-set it. The obstacle was the great Assyrian king, SHALMANESER III. For, if EA belonged to the mid-C9th BC, then one ought to encounter there the long-reigning Shalmaneser III, who straddled this era (c. 860-825 BC, conventional dating). But the fact was that Shalmaneser was nowhere to be found in the EA archive, at least under that Assyrian name. Instead, the king of Assyria in EA was one “Ashuruballit” [Assuruballit]. This quickly became recognised as a major issue for the validity of the revision, earning the title, The Assuruballit Problem (or TAP). Dr. Velikovsky, with typical ingenuity, tried to get around the problem by suggesting an identification of Shalmaneser with EA’s powerful king of Babylon (Karduniash), “Burnaburiash” [Burraburiash]. Whilst that appeared to have some potential, his other suggestion did not. He, finding the name Shalmaiati in the EA letters, thought that this must refer to Shalmaneser. But Shalmaiati has been recognised as a contemporary Egyptian princess, Meritaten. All sorts of ingenious alternative solutions were subsequently proposed by revisionists. But all of these seemed to arrive at dead ends. For a much fuller account of TAP and things associated with it, see e.g. my article: El Amarna archive’s Lab’ayu as King Ahab, Baalat-Neše as Jezebel (DOC) El Amarna archive’s Lab’ayu as King Ahab, Baalat-Neše as Jezebel * * * * * How was the seemingly impossible going to occur, to save the Velikovskian revision from the highly problematical Shalmaneser? The first really positive step in the right direction, which excited my interest, at least, was Emmet Sweeney’s proposal that EA’s Ashuruballit was the great Assyrian king, Ashurnasirpal, and that the latter’s presumed son, Shalmaneser, was to be taken out of the EA era, thereby completely erasing a major problem. Following on from this, I began working on a reconstruction which removed Shalmaneser right out of the EA era, but going even further than had Emmet Sweeney. My simple solution: Shalmaneser so-called III must be conveyed right down to the time of the Assyrian invasions of Samaria (late C8th BC) and be merged with the somewhat poorly known Shalmaneser V, who had commenced the actual siege of Samaria. This facile solution, whilst perhaps getting to the nub of TAP, by taking Shalmaneser right out of the EA era, still leaves other tricky problems in its wake: - Who, then, is Ashuruballit? - What happens to Ashurnasirpal, whom Emmet Sweeney had identified as Ashuruballit? - How can the long-reigning Shalmaneser III now become the same king as the short-reigning Shalmaneser V? - Shalmaneser III’s long reign must now also impinge on that of the great Tiglath-pileser III, presumed predecessor of Shalmaneser V. Leaving Ashuruballit aside, since I want to focus solely in this article on Shalmaneser - who I now have ruling Assyria a good century after EA and Ashuruballit - I shall endeavour to answer the last three questions posed above. Ashurnasirpal - What happens to Ashurnasirpal, whom Emmet Sweeney had identified as Ashuruballit? If Shalmaneser is to be moved down the time scale by about a century, then his predecessor, Ashurnasirpal, must likewise be moved down, and be properly fitted in. Well, my answer to this problem is as surprising and radical as was that which I have given for Shalmaneser. I do not follow the conventional history in having Shalmaneser follow on directly from Ashurnasirpal, who I have, instead, coming two reigns after Shalmaneser. In such fashion, Ashurnasirpal so called II, too, is to be taken well away from EA – even further away from there than is Shalmaneser. Here is how I explained my move right away from the conventional Assyrian listing in: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (4) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences and my justification for doing so: …. Marc Van de Mieroop will give one perfect sequence (as I see it) of four Middle Assyrian kings, who, nevertheless, need to be folded into the Neo Assyrian era, where Van de Mieroop has these four kings listed again, but now in the wrong sequence. I refer to his “King Lists” towards the end of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 -323 BC. The following I would consider to be a perfect Assyrian sequence of kings (p. 294): Adad-nirari [I] Shalmaneser [I] Tukulti-Ninurta [I] Assur-nadin-apli [I] where Tukulti-Ninurta = Sennacherib and Assur-nadin-apli = Ashurnasirpal = Esarhaddon. This sequence accords perfectly with the neo-Assyrian sequence given in Tobit 1: “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; “Esarhaddon”. But on p. 295, the same four kings will become skewed, as follows: Adad-nirari [II] Tukulti-Ninurta [II] Ashurnasirpal [II] Shalmaneser [III] [End of quote] So, now, in this new system of revision, Shalmaneser no longer directly follows Ashurnasirpal as his son and successor, but he, instead, precedes Ashurnasirpal with another Assyrian king in between them. This dramatic turn of events renders Ashurnasirpal - as with Ashuruballit - somewhat irrelevant for our primary focus here on Shalmaneser. But for those who may be interested to read how the mighty Ashurnasirpal is now to be fitted into a revised scheme of things, they will find it all set out in e.g. my article: Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’ (4) Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’ Before we can proceed to answer the last two questions posed earlier, a complication has to be dealt with. For it does significantly affect Shalmaneser. Historical Folding In the brief discussion of the Assyrian king lists above I referred to “… Middle Assyrian kings, who, nevertheless, need to be folded into the Neo Assyrian era …”. The implication of identifying Shalmaneser I of the first list as Shalmaneser III of the second list is that the C13th era of Shalmaneser I (c. 1275-1245 BC) now has to be folded into the C8th BC era of Shalmaneser III (thereby cutting out any Shalmaneser II). In my university thesis (2007), I gave some compelling examples of how the two approximate eras must be folded together; none perhaps more striking than the C12th – C8th BC (Shutrukid) Elamites: C12th BC C8th BC Shutruk-Nahhunte Shutur-Nakhkhunte Kudur-Nahhunte Kutir-Nakhkhunte Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak) ‘Hallushu’ (or Halutush-Inshushinak). To have a Shalmaneser I, one needs there to be at least one other Shalmaneser. Thus in my article: Shalmaneser I, king of Assyria, dated some 500 years too early (4) Shalmaneser I, king of Assyria, dated some 500 years too early I went so far as to conclude: “This raises the intriguing question, was there actually a Shalmaneser I at all?, because, to be numbered as I (as some do wrongly with the current pope Francis), there has firstly to be a II of that same name, and so on”. So far we have all of I-III merged into just the one Shalmaneser. And I think that we can easily include IV here, since that king appears to have been confused with so-called V: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-men-bible/Shalmaneser “… Shalmaneser IV who succeeded Tiglath-pileser and who invaded Israel and carried off Hoshea and the ten tribes to Assyria (2 Kings 17:3; 18:9)”. Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V The last two questions: - How can the long-reigning Shalmaneser III now become the same king as the short-reigning Shalmaneser V? and - Shalmaneser III’s long reign must now also impinge on that of the great Tiglath-pileser III, presumed predecessor of Shalmaneser V. I have answered together, both in my thesis (2007) and in my article: Important lapse of ‘many years’ in Tobit, in Acts (4) Important lapse of 'many years' in Tobit, in Acts “But after a long time, Salmanasar [Shalamneser] the king being dead, … Sennacherib his son, who reigned in his place, had a hatred for the children of Israel”. Tobit 1:18 … This attested lapse of a long time opens up the door for a possible extension of the reign of the conventionally brief Shalmaneser [V], c. 727-722 BC, and for the conventionally brief procurator, Felix, c. 52-60 AD. The Vulgate Tobit 1:18 employs, in the case of Shalmaneser, the Latin phrase, post multum vero temporis (“after a long time”), and the Greek Acts 24:10 employs, in the case of Felix, the phrase, Ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν (“for many years”). King Shalmaneser Whereas the conventional history has Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V as separate Assyrian kings, my own view, as outlined in my university thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf is that Shalmaneser was Tiglath-pileser. In Volume One, Chapter 6, I wrote the following brief section on this, in which I took a lead from the Book of Tobit regarding the neo-Assyrian succession: Shalmaneser V (c. 726-722 BC, conventional dates) Looking at the conventional date for the death of Tiglath-pileser III, c. 727 BC, we can see that it coincides with the biblically-estimated date for the first year of king Hezekiah. But, if the former is to be identified with Shalmaneser V, thought to have reigned for five years, then this date would need to be lowered by about those five years (right to the time of the fall of Samaria), bringing Tiglath-pileser III deeper into the reign of Hezekiah. Now, that Tiglath-pileser III is to be equated with Shalmaneser V would seem to be deducible from a combination of two pieces of evidence from [the Book of Tobit]: namely, 1. that it was “King Shalmaneser of the Assyrians” who took Tobit’s tribe of Naphtali into captivity (1:1, 2); a deportation generally attributed to Tiglath-pileser III on the basis of 2 Kings 15:29; and 2. that: “when Shalmaneser died … his son Sennacherib reigned in his place” (1:15). Unfortunately, very little is known of the reign of this ‘Shalmaneser’ [V] to supplement [the Book of Tobit]. According to Roux, for instance: “The short reign of … Shalmaneser V (726-722 B.C.) is obscure”. And Boutflower has written similarly: “The reign of Shalmaneser V (727-722) is a blank in the Assyrian records”. It seems rather strange, though, that a king who was powerful enough to have enforced a three year siege of Israel’s capital of Samaria (probably the Sha-ma-ra-in of the Babylonian Chronicle), resulting in the successful sack of that city, and to have invaded all Phoenicia and even to have besieged the mighty Tyre for five years, and to have earned a hateful reputation amongst the Sargonids, should end up “a blank” and “obscure” in the Assyrian records. The name Tiglath-pileser was a throne name, as Sargon appears to have been – that is, a name given to (or taken by) the king on his accession to the throne. In Assyrian cuneiform, his name is Tukulti-apil-ešarra, meaning: “My confidence is the son of Esharra”. This being a throne name would make it likely that the king also had a personal name - just as I have argued above that Sargon II had the personal name of Sennacherib. The personal name of Tiglath-pileser III I believe to have been Shalmaneser. A problem though with my proposed identification of Shalmaneser V with Tiglath-pileser III is that, according to Boutflower, there has been discovered “a treaty between Esarhaddon and Baal of Tyre, in which Shalmaneser is expressly styled the son of Tiglath-pileser”. Boutflower makes reference here to H. Winckler (in Eberhard Schrader’s Keilinschriften, 3rd Edn. pt. I, p. 62, note 2); Winckler being the Assyriologist, we might recall, who had with Delitzsch spirited Sargon’s name into Eponym Cb6 and whose edition of Sargon’s Annals had disappointed Luckenbill. So far, I have not been able to find any solid evidence for this document. Boutflower had surmised, on the basis of a flimsy record, that Tiglath-pileser III had died in battle and had been succeeded by Shalmaneser: “That Tiglathpileser died in battle is rendered probable by the entry in the Assyrian Chronicle for the year 727 B.C. [sic]: “Against the city of …. Shalmaneser seated himself on the throne”.” Tiglath-pileser is not even mentioned. A co-regency between Shalmaneser V and Sargon II can be proposed on the basis that the capture of Samaria is variously attributed to either king. According to my revision, that same co-regency should exist between Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon; and indeed we find that both Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon campaigned on the borders of Egypt; both defeated Hanno the king of Gaza, and established (opened) there a karu “quay”; both received tribute from Queen Tsamsi of Arabia; both had encounters with Merodach-baladan. Further, according to my revision, that proposed co-regency can be extended to accommodate Sennacherib (as Sargon). Perhaps a clear proof is that, whilst Sennacherib claimed that the Medes had not submitted to any of his predecessor kings (see p. 153), both Tiglath-pileser and Sargon claimed to have received tribute from the Medes. Interestingly, nowhere in Kings, Chronicles, or in any other of the books traditionally called ‘historical’, do we encounter the name ‘Sargon’. Yet we should expect mention of him if his armies really had made an incursion as close to Jerusalem as ‘Ashdod’ (be it in Philistia or Judah). Certainly, Sargon II claimed that Judah (Iaudi), Philistia (Piliste), Edom and Moab, had revolted against him. If the Assyrian king, Sargon II, can have two different names – as is being agued here – then so might his father. So I conclude that 2 Kings, in the space of 2 chapters, gives us three names for the one Assyrian king: - 15:19: “King Pul of Assyria came against the land ...”. - 15:29: “King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria came and captured …”. - 17:3: “King Shalmaneser of Assyria came up”. …. (iv) [Book of Tobit] [The Book of Tobit], like [the Book of Judith], was a popular and much copied document. The incidents described in [Book of Tobit] are written down as having occurred during the successive reigns of ‘Shalmaneser’, ‘Sennacherib’ and ‘Esarhaddon’. No mention at all there of Sargon, not even as father of Sennacherib. Instead, we read: “But when Shalmaneser died, and his son Sennacherib reigned in his place ...” (1:15). Moreover this ‘Shalmaneser’, given as father of Sennacherib, is also - as we saw - referred to as the Assyrian king who had taken into captivity Tobit’s tribe of Naphtali (vv. 1-2); a deed generally attributed to Tiglath-pileser III and conventionally dated about a decade before the reign of Sargon II. This would seem to strengthen my suspicion that Shalmaneser V was actually Tiglath-pileser III, despite Boutflower’s claim of a treaty document specifically styling Shalmaneser as son of Tiglath-pileser III. A Summarising and Concluding Note The neo-Assyrian chronology as it currently stands seems to be, like the Sothic chronology of Egypt - though on a far smaller scale - over-extended and thus causing a stretching of contemporaneous reigns, such as those of Merodach baladan II of Babylonia, Mitinti of ‘Ashdod’ and Deioces of Media. There are reasons nonetheless, seemingly based upon solid primary evidence, for believing that the conventional historians have got it right and that their version of the neo-Assyrian succession is basically the correct one. However, much of the primary data is broken and damaged, necessitating heavy bracketting. On at least one significant occasion, the name of a king has been added into a gap based on a preconception. Who is to say that this has not happened more than once? Esarhaddon’s history … is so meagre that recourse must be had to his Display Inscriptions, thereby leaving the door open for “errors” according to Olmstead. With the compilers of the conventional neo-Assyrian chronology having mistaken one king for two, as I am arguing to have occurred in the case of Sargon II/Sennacherib, and probably also with Tiglath-pileser III/Shalmaneser V, then one ends up with duplicated situations, seemingly unfinished scenarios, and of course anomalous or anachronistic events. Thus, great conquests are claimed for Shalmaneser V whose records are virtually a “blank”. Sargon II is found to have been involved in the affairs of a Cushite king who is well outside Sargon’s chronological range; while Sennacherib is found to be ‘interfering’ in events well within the reign of Sargon II, necessitating a truncation of Sargon’s effective reign in order to allow Sennacherib to step in early, e.g. in 714 BC, “the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah” (2 Kings 18:13; Isaiah 36:1), and in 713 BC (tribute from Azuri of ‘Ashdod’). [End of quote] If the reign of Shalmaneser so-called III did not span the mid-C9th BC as the text books say it did, then one will need to question the series of supposed biblical connections from this era with the Assyrian king: e.g. Ahab and Ben-Hadad at Qarqar, which some greatly doubt anyway (https://theopolisinstitute.com/chronologies-and-kings-part-8-ahab-and-assyria/), and Jehu of Israel in the Black Obelisk.