This issue was extensively addressed in the NCUSES.
Let us outline the main points here.
In 1983, the Journal of Cuneiform Studies looked at some of the records of the reigns of the various kings in the 7th century BCE.
In that paper, scholars J.A. Brinkman and D.A. Kennedy list the ’Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of the Early Neo-Babylonian Society: A Survey of Dated Babylonian Economic Texts, 721-626 BCE.’ until the reigns of the kings of Babylon from Marduk-Apla-Iddina II to the predecessor of Nabopolassar. It also mentions the era of the Assurbanipal king of Assyria.
Domination of Assyrian imperium
The innumerable clay tablets mentioned above, the business documents of Babylon, are all written by the ancient Babylonians. From these alone it is not possible to deduce which of the kings mentioned in them were the kings of Assyria and which only the kings who reigned in Babylon.
This can be deduced from the fact that numerous Babylonian businessmen mentioned Assurbanipal as their reigning king, although this was not king in Babylonia.
Puzzle
The NCUSES uses a puzzle-like layout for this purpose. In particular, the kings Sin-shar-ishkun and Ashur-etil-ilani will be made king at the point in the “puzzle” where they fit, given the length of their reign.
Sin-shar-ishkun
The most notable “new discovery” is in the business documents marked for the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun.
Brinkman and Kennedy use the name Sin-šarra-iškun for this king of Assyria and Babylon. He is estimated to have ruled as king of Assyria for 15 years and king of Babylon for one year. The clay tablet FP 1319 is dated to the third month of the accession year of the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun,8-1 or Simanu (May-June), and the clay tablet BM 93000 is recorded to the 10th day of the month of his 7th year, i.e. Tebetu (December-January).8-2
On that basis, he would probably have ruled during the 8 Julian calendar years (it should be noted here that this was apparently the time he was king before Nabopolassar).Here is one notable anomaly associated with this king: the length of the period associated with the beginning of the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun is more than 7 years and 7 months.
The location of the clay tablets is noteworthy. Many of the clay tablets from his penultimate, seventh reign are located in Uruk and Nippur, the traditional Babylonian region. According to the current chronology, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon after Sin-shar-ishkun had ruled Babylon for one year. So this raises a strange question: why did the business people at Uruk in Babylonia record this as Sin-shar-ishkun's 7th year, if during that time he was only king of Assyria after losing to Nabopolassar? This rather gives the impression that Sin-shar-ishkun was king of both Assyria and Babylonia for a full eight years before Nabopolassar seized the Babylonian kingdom. Even here, the fact that Babylonian businessmen named him king during that period does not prove that he ever ruled Babylon.
History of Israel
By substantially extending the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun mentioned above, applying the royal list of the old chronology, a NCUSES examined whether the chronology of Assyria could be extended so much (applying the year 699 BCE. to the 10th year of the reign of Esarhaddon).
It noted a contradiction with the history of Israel during the reigns of King Ahaz of Judah and Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria.8-3
This discrepancy has been resolved in this thesis, which moves the Assyrian and Babylonian chronology back a few years.
Conclusion
Applying the thinking typical of “assembling a puzzle” to this case, the NCUSES concluded that the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani did not fit into the Assyrian chronology.
On this basis, his four-year reign was transferred to the Babylonian chronology before Nabopolassar.
This new edition of this book, which extends the chronology by four years, considers it possible that Ashur-etil-ilani became king after Ashurbanipal and was king of Assyria for about four years.8-4 However, there is no absolute certainty. A small number of scholars, on the other hand, believe that Ashurbanipal reigned for a total of 42 years.8-5 Perhaps no one has compromised on this point and concluded that both estimates may be correct.
This paper presents a new estimate that Ashur-etil-ilani was co-ruled by Ashurbanipal during his last four halli years. This may have been necessary in the event that Ashurbanipal had fallen ill and was therefore prevented from performing many of the important functions of the king.
In addition, one “empty year” has been added to the chronology of Babylon when there was no king.
After these changes, it is concluded that the reign of Esarhaddon ended in 698 BCE. and Assurbanipal succeeded him as king of Assyria in December of that year.
References
Kennedy: ’Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of
Early Neo-Babylonian Society: A Survey of Dated Babylonian
Economic Texts, 721-626 B.C.’, p. 53
8-2 Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1983; J. A. Brinkman, D. A.
Kennedy: ’Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of
Early Neo-Babylonian Society: A Survey of Dated Babylonian
Economic Texts, 721-626 B.C.’ p. 58
8-3 NCUSES, p. 35
8-4 Nadav Na'aman: Chronology and History in the Late
Assyrian Empire (631-627 B.C)
8-5 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurbanipal#Late_reign_
and_succession
No comments:
Post a Comment