From the time of the Assyrian kings Sargon II and his son Sennacherib, there is information that determines the time period of Assyrian chronology from the time of Sargon to the years 745-646 BCE.
there is information that determines the period o
Therefore, in this chapter we will delve into it in more detail before looking at the Esarhaddon eclipse.
Lunar eclipse of Sargon II
Let us first take a closer look at the lunar eclipse seen by Sargon II.9-1 It may be noted that scholars estimate this to have occurred some time before Sargon invaded Armenia, ancient Urartu. However, their justification for dating this lunar eclipse to the time of Sargon's military campaign remains unclear. However, their interpretation contradicts the fact that Sargon's chronicle states that the lunar eclipse he saw was 'visible over Harran'.9-2 This suggests that it occurred at dawn. Sargon's chronicle also records that he attacked Urartu in his 6th year of reign. In addition, he may have attacked there in some other year not mentioned in history.
It seems that the search for this lunar eclipse must be done mainly according to that time, small hours or morning, rather than according to any specific regnal year.
There seem to be mainly three options for this. The first was on November 25th, 744 BCE., the second is found on March 20th, 740 BCE., and the third lunar eclipse occurred on September 12th, 740 BCE. In order to apply the first two, we would have to use the assumption that Sargon was on a military expedition somewhere in the north when he observed them, because they happened around 00:30 UTC. Instead, the last option happened about two hours later (approx. 02:30 UTC). This last would fit the assumption that Sargon was in Assyria near Nineveh when he observed the lunar eclipse. In addition, Sargon II may have attacked the Neo-Hittite region of Tabalu a few times. Then the lunar eclipses that happened in the evening and at midnight are also suitable. Such were in 739 BCE., 736 BCE., 735 BCE. and 732 BCE.
Examining the Annals of Sargon
Annals of Sargon, which mentions this lunar eclipse, also says something else very interesting:
"In the beginning of my reign the Samaritan . . . [Three lines are missing] . . . with the help of the Sun, who aided me to vanquish my enemies, I besieged, I occupied the town of Samaria and I brought into captivity 27,280 persons"9-3
In this text, attention is drawn to the mention of Sargon 'In the beginning of my reign' and in the same sentence there is a word that can be judged to mean Samaria.
In this context, it can be noted that the current old chronology estimates that Sargon became king only around the time of the destruction of the city of Samaria.
However, it can be concluded from that text of Sargon that he was about to besiege Samaria and probably also about to start that siege. In this context, it is good to mention that this treatise, which tries to date the chronology according to the solar and lunar eclipses, has dated Sargon II's reign in 748 BCE. in its 1st edition. (According to the Neo-Assyrian limmu list, his kingship was confirmed three years later) The siege of Samaria began according to the Bible's chronology in 743 BCE.
Another bit of interesting information here relates to Sargon's second year in reign.
"In the second year of my reign, Ilubid of Hamath ; he established himself in the town of Qarqar and excited against me the towns Arpad, Simyra, Damas and Samaria .... . ."9-4
This event may date back to 744 BCE., when Sargon II rose against Samaria for some reason. This may be related to the following information that is told in the Bible:
However, the king of Assyrʹia learned that Hosheʹa was involved in a conspiracy, for he had sent messengers to King So of Egypt and did not bring the tribute up to the king of Assyrʹia as in former years. Therefore, the king of Assyrʹia kept him confined and bound in prison.9-5
Based on this information, we can assume that Hosea conspired with the kings of Arpad, Simyra and Damascus. These were cities in ancient Syria. It seems that the king of Hamath was also asked to join this conspiracy against Assyria. As a result, knowledge of this conspiracy reached the king of Hamath, who revealed the plot to Sargon, king of Assyria. This is related to an interesting piece of information in Sargon's Chronicle. In that same year, he made at least a brief military campaign against Egypt.
However, it seems plausible that Sargon's predecessor, Shalmaneser V, was still alive and at least a warlord, since the Bible records him attacking Samaria in the fourth year of Hezekiah, 743 BCE.9-6 The archaeological record does not say when and how Shalmaneser V died, so it is partly a matter of conjecture. The brief reference in ABC 1 Chronicles to "Shalmaneser met his fate "9-7 may simply mean that he was forced to resign as king of Assyria, possibly because his brother Sargon was unhappy with his way of ruling. One reason why less is said about him at that time may well be that his brother Sargon was king of Assyria at the time.
The exact timing of Sargon II's reign may raise problematic questions. This is influenced by what he says about his seventh year in office:I marched against the tribes of Tasidi, of Ibadidi, of Marsimani, of Hayapai, of the land (of Arabia) the remote inhabitants of the land .... I sub mitted them to the obedience of Assur, and those who remained, I pulled them out of their dwellings and I placed them in the town of Samaria.9-8
This must have happened sometime after 740 BCE.
Thus, Sargon II would have become king no later than 745 BCE., with the alternative being a year later, 744 BCE. It is at this point that this thesis recognises the new problem this poses. A problem arises relating to the reign of the Assyrian king Sin-shar-ishkun, which was examined a little earlier. The postponement of the reign of Sargon II by three years initially raises the need to postpone the whole Assyrian chronology by that much. However, there is no reason to shorten the reign of Sin-Shar-Iskun. But let us not get ahead of things.
Earlier, it was pointed out that the Bible says that Shalmaneser attacked Samaria in 743 BCE. On this basis, one could theoretically assume that Sargon II became king in 742 BCE. at the earliest. However, it may be noted that the Bible says that Sennacherib was king of Assyria in 732 BCE., only 11 years later. It can therefore be assumed that either the Bible does not follow the official Assyrian kingdom announcements on this matter, or there is a lack of accurate historical information from that time. Secondly, an earlier quotation from the Chronicle of Sargon in his 2nd year of reign may suggest that the event in question (Sargon's invasion of Samaria) could not have taken place after 743 BCE., when the siege of Samaria was already underway.
However, there are some important data from that period that have a major impact on this chronology.
Beginning of Sargon II's reign
In the meantime, let's look at the beginning of Sargon II's reign. What do the archaeological texts tell us about it? Two main archaeological discoveries tell us about it: the ABC 1 Chronicles on the Reigns from Nabu-Nasir to Shama-Shuma-Ukin and the Annals of Sargon. It may be noted that there are slight differences in their records. The Annals of Sargon is here considered the more reliable source, as it was written by Sargon himself. At the same time, however, this paper will try to clarify, as far as possible, the reasons for the differences between them.
However, the ABC 1 Chronicle reveals one important piece of information that Sargon does not mention: It says that Sargon II became king on the 20th day of the month Tebetu,9-9, which corresponds to today’s January.
Second, ABC 1 Chronicles tells us that during that same year, Marduk-Apla-Iddina became king of Babylon. It says that it happened in the "month of Nisannu", which basically corresponds to April. This was the first month of the then calendar year.
A quick calculation could be made from this, that Sargon II's 1st year of the reign also began. Are there grounds for this assumption? Sargon tells what happened:
"In the first year of my reign, Humbanigas, sinned against the precepts of the great gods and revolted himself. He came into my presence for delivering a battle. I van quished him."9-4
The ABC 1 Chronicle says this happened in the 2nd year of Marduk-Apla-Iddina II's reign. This is a very peculiar statement and seems unlikely unless it was a completely different battle. This may raise doubts as to whether all the years reported by the ABC 1 Chronicle can be trusted. Marduk-Apla-Iddina's 1st regnal year could be assumed to have started in the spring about a year after he became king. Sargon also tells a little more about that year:
" In the first year of my reign . . . Merodach-Baladan having usurped against the will of the gods, the kingdom of Babylon "9-4
It seems that Sargon II counted his 1st year as beginning at that time, a little more than two months after he became king. It seems that the researchers made a mistake at this point when they estimated that it started a year later.9-10 On the other hand, such a mistake is very easy to make, that's how confusing the related archaeological data is. This "confusion" is emphasized by the way they describe the 12th year of Sargon II's reign.
Both of these sources tell us that Sargon invaded Babylon that year and defeated Marduk-Apla-Iddina.
This fled to Elam, ABC 1 Chronicles says that Sargon became king of Babylon.9-11 This in turn gives reason to assume that both of them date those reign years in the same way. It seems likely that the ABC 1 Chronicle dates Marduk-Apla-Iddina II's 1st regnal year to have begun in the same year (according to the Julian calendar) that Sargon II became king.
How then should one evaluate the ABC 1 Chronicle's statement that Marduk-Apla-Iddina II became king in the month of Nisannu? First of all, it must be stated that the information does not tell the exact time of his accession to power. So it may be possible that Marduk-Apla-Iddina II declared himself king already at the end of the previous month, but his activities related to the seizure of power became more active during the month of Nisannu.
Date of Sargon II's reign
So when did Sargon II rule? As has come up before, this treatise in its 1st edition has timed it to begin in 748 BCE. Here we take a slightly new perspective on this matter.
His reign is estimated to date from 745-729 BCE. The accuracy of this estimate could be challenged by the biblical mention of Marduk-Apla-Iddina as king of Babylon around 732 BCE., but it should be noted that Marduk-Apla-Iddina was king of Babylon again after a break of about four years.9-12
The previously mentioned 12th year of Sargon II's reign is connected to this point. Applying this interpretation, Sargon II's 12th regnal year would have been 734/733 BCE. In that year, Sargon II became king of Babylon. Although Sargon seems to take credit for the conquest of Babylon, it may be that his son Sennacherib took the lead in the battle, as will be shown later.
Let's draw attention to the following ABC 1 Timeline statement:
"The seventeenth year . . Sargon marched to Tabalu. "9-13
The Assyrian limmu list shows that this was the last year of Sargon's reign and he died during that campaign.
Therefore, here Sargon II is estimated to have ruled for about 16 years and 5 months and it ended in the summer of 729 BCE. Sennacherib officially became king of all Assyria in the month of Ab of that year, which corresponds to today's August. 9-14
Related to this is the biblical mention that Sennacherib was king of Assyria as early as 732 BCE., three years before the end of Sargon's reign. This biblical reference is hardly a mere assumption on the part of the biblical author. Instead, it shows that Sargon II had appointed his son Sennacherib as the official heir to the throne, and that he was responsible for a number of matters that were normally the king's responsibility.
Next, let's take a little more justification for the afore-mentioned period of Sargon II's reign. You can surprisingly notice that there is an exact timing for it. Shalmaneser V probably reigned for eight years between 750 and 742 BCE. This is supported not only by the earlier biblical statement9-6 but also by the lines of the Assyrian limmu list.9-14 This is in line with the earlier statement that the Limmu list says that Sargon II became king at that time, which may have been merely a formal confirmation of his kingship.
Date of Sennacherib's reign
When we examine Inscription of Sennacherib of the Assyrian king, a little more closely, we can get a little different information about the time of his reign. He tells what happened at the beginning of his reign:
"In my first expedition, of Merodach-Baladan King of Kardunias the I overthrow. For the preservation of his life, by himself he fled away . . . I went up to his palace in the heart of Babylon ... and . . . I plundered"9-15
This may surprise you, it describes events similar to those of the 12th year of Sargon II's reign. ABC 1 Chronicle also tells about this, but its line is corrupted, only the word "Marduk-Apla-Iddina" stands out. What time in history does this date to?
It is good to note a few small details here. Marduk-apla-iddina was mentioned as the king of Babylon and his reign ended. Scholars are of the opinion that this was the 2nd reign of Marduk-apla-iddina, when he ruled for about 9 months.9-12 But could it be possible?
Sennacherib also tells of one event that can be timed:
”In my third expedition . . . Hezekiah King of Judah . . . himself I made like a caged bird in the midst of Jerusalem the city.”9-16
This attempt by Sennacherib to conquer Jerusalem and subjugate King Hezekiah of Judah took place in 732 BCE. according to the Bible's chronology. This can be estimated to have happened in the third year of Sennacherib's reign. Now the question arises: What battle was going on during Sennacherib's 1st campaign? It dates back to 732 BCE. to the previous time. It could not be the short 9-month reign of Marduk-apla-iddina.
The timing of Sargon II's reign should also be taken into account here. As stated earlier, it began in 745 BCE. or a year later. Based on that, Sargon II's 12th regnal year began in 734 BCE. or in 733 BCE. It should be noted that it dates to the same year as the above-mentioned 1st campaign of Sennacherib.
Those campaigns recorded by Sennacherib apparently did not correspond to the years of Sennacherib's reign.
There could be more than one year between them. Here, first of all, it is considered probable that the 1st campaign of Sennacherib dates to the 12th year of the reign of Sargon II. At the same time, it is estimated here that there are about two years between Sennacherib's 1st and 3rd campaigns. It can be calculated that it dates back to 734 BCE. It also reveals one very special piece of information: It was Sargon II's 12th regnal year, so Sargon's reign began in 745 BCE.
This thesis makes a very exceptional solution. Sennacherib's reign is calculated to have started in 734 BCE. or 735 BCE., apparently for some reason his father Sargon II appointed him as co-ruler. It is unclear what situation could have led to it. Perhaps it included Sargon's plan to attack Babylonia and Sargon calculated that he also needed his son Sennacherib to join this campaign to lead the army. This assessment of Sennacherib's rise to king-ship is supported by the fact that the Bible says he was king in 732 BCE.
Sennacherib's reign ended in 710 BCE. at the beginning of. It has a very positive effect on the timing of his successor Esarhaddon's reign.
Challenges to Babylonian Chronology
Above, it was presented how the reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib overlap. In terms of Assyrian chronology, it would not cause major problems. Babylonian chronology, on the other hand, is a bit more challenging.
At this point, let's bring up the details of Sennacherib's next campaign:
"In my fourth expedition to the land of Bit-Yakin I pro ceeded (to Babylon) ... Merodach-Baladan 1 whose overthrow I had accom plished in the course of my former campaign, avoided the blows of my powerful arms, and to the city of Nagiti which is in the midst of the sea he fled .... On my return, I seated Assur-nadin-sumi my son on the throne of his dominion."9-17
Here again the battle against Merodak-Baladan, or Marduk-Apla-Iddina, was mentioned. It is noteworthy that Ashur-nadin-sum is said to have become king after Marduk-Apla-Iddina. Scholars seem to ignore this event and assume that Ashur-Nadin-Sumi succeeded Bel-Ibn as king. However, it seems that Marduk-Apla-Iddina was again king of Babylon at that time, but only for 9 months.9-12 And what time could this be? It is good to note that according to the Assyrian limmu list, Ashur-nadin-sumi became king in the fifth year of Sennacherib's reign. In the interpretation presented here, this was 730 BCE. Based on this, that short reign of Marduk-Apla-Iddina would date back to 731-730 BCE. Thus, it appears that there was about two years between Sennacherib's third and fourth campaigns.
”At that time the king of Babylon, Beroʹdach-balʹadan son of Balʹadan, sent letters and a gift to Hezekiʹah, for he had heard that Hezekiʹah had been sick.”9-18
The Bible does not tell the exact time for that event, but only mentions "at that time", so it could have happened about a year later than Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem.
Ashur-nadin-sumi's reign is dated here to 730-724 BCE.
Since the reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib are here set to overlap for many years, the Babylonian chronology must be shortened accordingly. It is accomplished here by removing the reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib 1 from the Babylonian chronology.
Sennacherib does not mention Bel-Ibni in his writing, but apparently Bel-Ibni was appointed king soon after the Babylonian conquest in 734 BCE.9-19 The Babylonian coronation ceremony9-20 emphasizing Sargon II's rule was apparently a mere formality. It seems to have taken place at least some weeks after Bel-Ibni had been appointed king of Babylonia, or it has been customary to mention it only after the first full regnal year began at the beginning of the month of Nisannu.
But this may indicate that there is an error in the Assyrian limmu list. It says that Ashur-nadin-sumi became the king of Babylon more than four years after the death of Sargon II.9-14 According to Inscription of Sennacherib, comparing it with the text of the Bible, it can be seen that it happened in the 16th year of Sargon II's reign.
This "error in the limmu list" may be the researchers' own error. It may be that, if the lines related to Sennacherib's reign were originally on their own clay tablet, scholars have estimated that they all follow Sargon II's reign without realizing that Sennacherib may have ruled partly at the same time as his father.
The timing of Sennacherib's reign presented here can also be confirmed by Sennacherib's own words. At the beginning of his writing he says:
”Sennacherib, great Prince, powerful Prince, Prince of legions, King of the land of Assyria”9-21
It is probably no mere coincidence that Sennacherib emphasizes that he was a ”Prince”, as were all the official heirs to the crown and warlords. It may indicate that his father, King Sargon II of Assyria, was still alive at the time. The fact that he says that he is also a king only shows that he has a power comparable to the position of king that he already had during his father's lifetime.
Problems with this interpretation. As with many other options, this one also has one clear problem in addition to many good points. ABC 1 Chronicles tells about the reigns of many kings of Elam. This passage relates to the king of Elam, Shutruk-Nakhunte, who is said to have become king in the 5th year of the reign of Marduk-Apla-Iddina.9-22 In this treatise, this was the year 741 BCE. His reign ended in the 5th year of the reign of the aforementioned Ashur-nadin-sumi.He is said to have ruled for a total of 18 years.9-23 In this interpretation, his reign ended in 726 BCE. So it is noticed that its length would be only 16 years. That would seem to be the only problem with this option.
In this treatise, it is interpreted that there is an error in that ABC 1 Chronicle statement. It is more likely than not that the interpretation presented here of the overlap-ping reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib is incorrect.
Effect on chronologies
Based on this change, the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies would undergo a major change. The reigns of Sennacherib and his successors would be moved back four years. When the author has thought about this, it seems like the best option. Sennacherib ruled from 734-710 BCE. As will be revealed in the next chapter, this also has a very positive effect on the lunar or solar eclipse observed during Esarhaddon.
The reigns of Tiglath-Pileser III and his predecessors are moved three years later than how they were dated in the 1st edition of this book.
A small table of the Babylonian kings of that time:
Marduk-Apla-Iddina 745-734 BCE.
Bel-Ibni 734-731 BCE.
Marduk-Zakir-Shumi 731 BCE.
Marduk-Apla-Iddina 731-730 BCE.
Ashur-nadin-sumi 730-724 BCE.
In later times, the chronology of Assyria and Babylonia has to be extended by four years. This extension is made to the reigns of Assurbanipal and Sin-Shar-Ishkun, as its exact length is also uncertain. His reign between 654-650 BCE. has been added to the Babylonian chronology.
Sargon II:s’ 1st regnal year
There is also an interesting fragment of the archaeological finds, the full meaning of which is not certain. It is not certain whether there was any solar or lunar eclipse at that time. In any case, the unidentified astrologer saw fit to write it down. It says:
‘On the 14th [the sun stands] with the moon Kislev(IX), Day 14, Year 1, Sargon of Babylon king.’9-24
When interpreting this statement, one should take into account the earlier mention that Sargon II himself did not directly act as Babylonian king. Bel-Ibni was probably the actual king of Babylon at that time. Here is a similar situation as during the reign of Ashurbanipal mentioned in the previous chapter. Babylonian businessmen recorded Ashurbanipal as king of Babylon throughout his long reign, even though he did not rule in Babylon.
At least two things can be concluded from this: Firstly, it was the 1st year of Sargon II's reign as king of Babylon. Secondly, it was Kislev or Kislimu month, which corresponds to November-December. Third, du-ring a full moon, the moon and sun were seen at the same time. In this treatise, the reign of Sargon II began in 745 BCE. and he became king of Babylonia in 734 BCE. It could be concluded that it was the year 733 BCE. Did something similar happen in November-December?
It can be observed that the full moon at that time was on December 23rd, 733 BCE. As the moon set that morning, it was visible for a few minutes at the same time as the rising sun. Thus, in this thesis, it is considered probable that this short archaeological text may be related to the events of this particular night. However, there was such a small difference between the setting of the moon and the rising of the sun that they could probably be seen at the same time from the place where they used to be observed.
According to the old chronology, the same feature can be found on December 27th, 709 BCE. and also on December 9th, 710 BCE. This latter is a correction made by this treatise on how the 1st year of Sargon II's reign is dated, as was brought up earlier. However, there are other very big challenges to the application of the old chronology.
Lunar eclipse of Sennnacherib
We take here as an additional feature the lunar eclipse, which was written down by Abil-Istar, who, judging from the text, acted as an astrologer. The related discovery was made in Sennacherib's palace, so it can be concluded that the 'king' mentioned in that letter was Sennacherib. A lunar eclipse is described as follows:
"This eclipse of the moon which did happen, concerns the countries with their god all. Over Syria it closes."9-25
This happened in the early morning and the eclipse was apparently complete, as it is described as "closing over Syria".
There is no surviving information about the exact time of this lunar eclipse. There are a few options for this, the best ones being September 12th, 721 BCE. and May 1st, 714 BCE. total lunar eclipses that have occurred.
The third option is a partial lunar eclipse on April 30th 733 BCE. However, this is highly unlikely, with the downside that Sargon II was also king of Assyria at the time. At that time, a letter concerning the lunar eclipse would probably have been sent to Sargon II, so it would be strange if it had reached the palace of Sennacherib.
References
9-1 penn.museum/sites/expedition/sargons-march-a-new-translation/
9-2 AEM, p. 27
9-3 AEM, p. 28
9-4 AEM, p. 29
9-5 Bible, 2. Kings 17:4
9-6 Bible, 2. Kings 18:9
9-7 ABC 1, Column I, 29
9-8 AEM, p. 32, 34
9-9 ABC 1, Column I, 31
9-10 go.gale.com/ps/i.dop=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A667767427&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=edb6aa00
9-11 ABC 1, Column II, 5
9-12 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marduk-apla-iddina_II
9-13 ABC 1b, Column II, 20
9-14 Assyrian Limmu-list (859-669 BCE.)
9-15 AEM, p. 59
9-16 AEM, p. 61,62
9-17 AEM, p. 63
9-18 Bible, 2. Kings 20:12
9-19 ABC 1, Column II, 23
9-20 ABC 1b, Column II, 15
9-21 AEM, s. 59
9-22 ABC 1, Column I, 38-40
9-23 ABC 1, Column II, 32-34
9-24 SAAO, SAA 08/Ch. 22, 501
9-25 George Smith: Assyrian discoveries, pp. 408-9
No comments:
Post a Comment