The Mystery of Ancient eclipses

  Since 2017

 I have been doing a thesis outlining the history of the peoples of the Near East, trying to time it at the right point in history. Observed solar and lunar eclipses have been used in the thesis.

Another significant departure from traditional historical research is the application of biblical chronology. It can be noticed that archeology supports biblical history in many places. It is therefore not a surprising assumption that another type of biblical history, the chronology found on the pages of the Bible, could be reliable in determining the dates of history.

This treatise is called The Mystery of Ancient eclipses, its last edition was published on November 2, 2023. If you want a printed version for yourself, this edition can be found mainly in European online stores. This blog contains the main points of this thesis. In addition, less important details have been removed from some chapters.

Relevant comments are of course welcome. :)

Pekka Mansikka, Finland

The meaning of the abbreviations used and Label

 AEM = Records of the past: being English translation of the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments, 1876

ABC 1 = livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/aBCE.-1-from-nabu-nasir-to-samas-suma-ukin

ABC 1b = livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-cjronicles-content/aBCE.-1b-from-nabu-nasir-to-esarhaddon/

CHA = Change. The change in the position of the eclipse in longitude compared to how NASA's calculator estimates the location of the eclipse. This change in position is due to a large change in the position of the Earth.

CTMMA = Cuneiform Texts in The Metropolitan Museum of Art III

DAUB = Peter S. Huber: Dating of Akkad, Ur III and Babylon I

EAE = Enuma Anu Enlil, collection of cuneiform texts

NCUSES = New Chronology using Solar eclipses, Volume III

SAAO = oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/corpus

SC = Short Chronology

UL = Ultra Low Chronology

LABEL:

Title of the original Finnish work: Muinaiset pimennykset paljastavat salaisuuden

Cover: 

”Planet earth in universe”, Details, flickr.com

Images:

Eclipse photos: Pekka Mansikka, Background map for graphic images: Google Maps

III edition

ISBN of the printed version: 978-952-6525556

2nd November 2023

The reign of Nebuchadnezzar II

 This chapter reviews some of the Babylonian business documents discussed in the NCUSES.

The information discussed in this chapter is also closely related to how the clay tablet VAT 4956 discussed in the previous chapter should be evaluated when it states the date as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

The 43rd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar  II

At this stage, attention is drawn to a different interpretation of this new chronology regarding the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. From the related appendices, the chronological tables show that the length of his reign is estimated to be a little over 43 and a half years between 625-581 BCE. There are several reasons for this change, for which evidence of archaeological finds is presented in this chapter.

There is no need to present any entirely new archaeological discovery here, as Assyriologist Ronald H. Sack recounted the findings quoted here in a book published in 1972. The related information is as follows:

 ‘Archaeological finds mention the fourth month of the year of the reign of Amel-Marduk, the successor to Nebuchadnezzar II, or tammuz. . . Another archaeological record mentions the sixth (Ululu) month of the 43rd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.’2-1 

It seems that scholars have not seriously considered this and other similar contradictions.

Scholar David B. Weisberg writes in the Journal of near eastern studies about Ronald Sack's writing.2-2 In connection with the dates of the clay tablets, he states that the businessman in Uruk was unaware of the change of power that had taken place. However, that sounds like from mere fiction. Scholar Weisberg ignores the fact that the king's death was followed by a period of public mourning, proclaimed nationwide. Thus, it is probable that the city of Uruk also spent time of mourning after the death of Nebuchadnezzar II. After the proclamation of the time of mourning, the rapid messenger set out to report it to other parts of the kingdom. The journey from Babylon to Uruk was less than 200 kilometers. It may be considered probable that a period of mourning was proclaimed in Uruk within a week of its proclamation in Babylon. However, one might ask the question, how could that be possible so soon? Let's look into that.

Local conditions in Babylonia

Uruk. It was one of the notable centers of Babylon, which was therefore sought to be kept up to date. Some of the influential servants of Nebuchadnezzar II may have come from that area.

Road condition. Because Uruk was a remarkable city, there was probably a better road connection from there than Babylon to many other places. Apparently local traders used these roads regularly.

Rider speed. Many today work out and walk very long distances. They can confirm that it is possible can go that about 170 kilometers a week even walking if there are good roads. It would only require about 15 miles of walking in a day. With a horse in good condition, the journey is much faster.

That statement by researcher Weisberg - which merely repeats the general position of researchers - does not seem to be justified, given the local customs of the time.

In this thesis, the hypothesis put forward by the scholars that there was a long (even several months) information gap during the change of reign of the kings is considered unlikely. Since Uruk was close to Babylonia and was one of the major centres of the empire (possibly Neriglissar, an influential officer of Nebuchadnezzar II, was from that region),2-3 such an information blackout would have been very exceptional.

A similar contradiction is that the clay tablet BM 55806 mentions the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar II and the tenth (Tebetu) month, which corresponds to December-January. In this clay tablet, however, its date is somewhat damaged. Unfortunately, the author does not have access to source material for the researchers' materials on this clay painting. According to one source (the reliability of the source cannot be verified), this clay tablet has not been officially approved by scientists at that time. The reason for this is that a damaged year can be interpreted to mean 43 years and a damaged month can somehow be interpreted to mean something other than 10 months.

Scholars generally estimate that the accession year of Amel-Marduk's reign was the same as the last year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign.

So what does this mean? First of all, it must be stated that there is no basis for developing such fictions that Amel-Marduk had become king even before the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. Instead, it can be concluded that those archaeological records must have had a different calendar year.

Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar

There is a similar overlap between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II's successor, Amel-Marduk, and that of Neriglissar.

However, let's take a brief look at Neriglissar, who ruled for a total of about four years. Earlier it was already stated that he was apparently in a prominent position as an officer of Nebuchadnezzar II. It therefore seems that he may have been quite old when he became king, which partly explains why his reign was short. Some have speculated that he may have been the same person mentioned in the Bible at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem. The Bible describes the event as follows:

‘After the city was conquered, the chief men of the king of Babylon set up their headquarters at the central gate of the city. Among them were Nergalsareser, commander of Sin-Magir, Nebu-Sarsekim, captain of the court, and Nergalsareser, commander of the army. ’2-4

That first-mentioned Nergalsareser, the commander, was the person in question, whom some consider to be the same, later known as Neriglissar, who was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II. If that were the case, that Neriglissar was 30 years old at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem, he would have been 77 years old when he became king. While this may seem like old age, it would have been by no means exceptional. It may be that he somehow imagined himself to be the ‘deliverer of the people of Babylon’ after seizing power from his predecessor. Why he did this, a little later.

But back to thing. The clay tablets BM 75106 and BM 61325 are dated 7 and 10 months in the year considered the last (second) year of the reigning King Amel-Marduk.2-5 However, BM 75489 is dated the 2nd month of the reign of Neriglissar who ruled after him.2-6

These is probably also a matter of different calendar years. When this information is put into practice, it opens up new perspectives on the course of history. Let’s deal with these years at this point according to the old chronology, making it easier for readers to identify with that period.

The second month of Neriglissar's accession year (Ajaru), would have been 560 BCE. at the earliest in April-May. Indeed, the 10th month of Amel-Marduk's second reign (BM 61325) would have been December-January 561/560 BCE. (But as will be seen later, it may be possible that Amel-Marduk ruled for more than 18 years longer, for a total of 21 years.)

When these archaeological data are applied, the fourth month of Amel-Marduk's reign must have been a year earlier, the month of January 563 BCE., and the 43rd year of Ululu in Nebuchadnezzar II should be two years earlier, August-September 564 BCE. (Time is counted here from 539 BCE. back, which date has been confirmed).

This would mean that Nebuchadnezzar II would have become king of Babylon according to ancient chronology in 607 BCE. and his 37th year of government would have begun as early as the spring of 570 BCE. These years are here, therefore, applying the current old chronology.

This is a simple but very consistent conclusion. At the very least, this necessary correction forces us to look at the VAT 4956 data from a new perspective. This brief review shows that, even using the old chronology used by current scholars, this clay tablet cannot date to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign.

Based on these observations, in this study it is considered very possible that Nebuchadnezzar II died only in the last month of the 43rd year, i.e. Addaru month. After this, a mourning period of 30 days was apparently declared in Babylon (This may have been a common length of mourning at that time. Compare the death date of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon and the inauguration of his successor Ashurbanipal2-7), after which a new king, Amel-Marduk, became king during the month of Nisannu. The mourning period in ancient times can be assumed to have been influenced by external factors, i.e. how popular the king had been and whether there was a national state of war.

King Jehoiachin's 37 years in prison

Consistent with the above is the related period of 37 years found in the Bible.

It is said that King Amel-Marduk released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison during his reign. It is said to have taken place in the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin, on the 27th day of its 12th month.2-8 In the 12th anniversary of Jerusalem, the captivity of the king of Judah is recorded in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar II:

And he besieged the city of Judah, and on the second day of the month Adar took hold of the king, and took the king2-9

According to the old chronology, it was then February or March of 597 BCE.

From the above, it is noted that Jehoiachin had also been in exile for three days less than 37 years. A simple calculation reveals that the year of Amel-Marduk's rise to power would have been in the winter of 560 BCE in progress. But that is clearly too late, as Neriglissar, Amel-Marduk's successor, became king that year.

References

2-1 R. H. Sack: ‘AmelMarduk 562–560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, (Alter Orient und Altes Testament)’, 1972 pp. 3, 90,106 

2-2 journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/372466

2-3 Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., p. 62 

2-4 The Bible, Jeremiah 39:3

2-5 Leichty, Erle & Finkelstein J. J. & Walker, C.B.F: Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Osa VIII. 1988, pp. 25,35.

2-6 Leichty, Erle & Grayson, A. K: Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Osa VII. 1987,p.36. Sack, Ronald H: Neriglissar – King of Babylon. 1994, p. 232.

2-7 livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/aBCE.-14-esarhaddon-chronicle/, lines 32 and 37

2-8 The Bible, 2. Kings 25:27

2-9 livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/aBCE.-5-jerusalem-chronicle, Rev. 11-12

The Solar eclipse of Cyrus

 When Cyrus the Great became the king of Anshan, however, according to researchers' assumption, he was not yet a completely independent ruler. Scholars assume that Cyrus was forced to recognize Median supremacy, even though his uncle Astyages served as Median king. They assume that he rebelled and started a war against the supremacy of the Medes. However, the Greek historian Xenophon says that Astyages died before Cyrus became king.

Xenophon tells of the birth of the Media and Persian Empire. He then writes the detail - albeit based on tradition - when Cyrus the Great besieged the city of Larissa, Nimrud.

Cyrus stated that he could not take it in any way. However, something surprising happened during that fight.

The cloud covered the sun and made it disappear completely and the inhabitants of the city were frightened, and thus the city was brought under control.

George Airy was the first to think that this story had to be associated with a total solar eclipse that spread such panic among the city’s defenders.5-1

He concluded that this solar eclipse occurred on 19th May 557 BCE.

This attack by Cyrus on Nimrud probably took place early in his reign, before he had consolidated his kingship with a successful battle against Croesus, King of Lydia. The timing of this battle of Cyrus at this point causes a change in Persian history and also affects the reliability of Nabonidus Chronicle.

Thus, it can be concluded that Nabonidus was probably not a king who changed his name and ruled for another “extra” 18 years. Instead, that king was apparently Amel-Marduk.

The reign of Cyrus

The aforementioned solar eclipse may open the rationale for the necessary changes in the history of both Persia and Media during that time.

As mentioned earlier, the statements about the Persians in the Nabonidus Chronicle are not likely to be part of the original document made during the reign of King Nabonidus of Babylon. However, it contains interesting information that tells something about the history of Persia. Let us quote here from a scripture of Nabonidus Chronicle to the 9th year of Nabonidus’ reign.

"In the month Nisanu, Cyrus, king of Parsu, mustered his army crossed the Tigris below Arbela. In the month Ajaru, he marched to the land of... He killed its king, took his possessions, (and) stationed his own garrison (there)"5-2

Here are very interesting similarities to that solar eclipse of May 19th. That solar eclipse would appear to have taken place at the end of the month of Nisannu, as it was probably 13 months in the Babylonian calendar the previous year.

Cyrus is mentioned to have crossed the Tigris, i.e. moved to its west side, during that month of Nisannu.

The city of Nimrud in question, against which he is described as attacking, was situated east of the Tigris. The Arbela mentioned in the text is about the same point on the Tigris as Nimrud. The mention of 'below Arbela' may refer to approximately where the Zab River joins the Tigris.

Since that solar eclipse occurred at the end of the month of Nisannu, it seems that Cyrus did not cross the Tigris until the early days of the Ajaru month of the time.

During that Ajaru month, he carried out a main attack on the Assyrians. It is probably this attack that is described in Xenophon's Cyropedia, at the end of Book III and the beginning of Book IV,5-3 for Xenophon says that the king of Assyria died in that battle. It also turns out that this would appear to be Cyrus' first expedition since he became king.

In this thesis it is considered likely that the situation described in the 9th year of Nabonidus’ reign occurred 10 years earlier in 557 BCE. This also fits with the earlier mention that the reign of Astyages, king of Media, apparently ended in 560 BCE. Another similarity can also be observed with the above-mentioned Xenophon's writing. His account gives the impression that Astyages died a few years before Cyrus' campaign mentioned above.5-4

There is also another option for this solar eclipse. It is the annular solar eclipse of January 14th, 559 BCE. This may be less likely because this is timed in a cold winter.

Also the tradition that appeared earlier, that Cyrus would have fought against the Assyrians in the month of Ajaru, would support more the year 557 BCE.

Attack to Anatolia

Cyrus's attack on Assyria, mentioned above, was only an intermediate stage. According to Xenophon, that attack, which also included the Median army, was directed towards Anatolia. Lydia and Assyria with many of her allies had planned an attack on Media and Persia. The Median and Persian armies advanced against them before they could launch an attack. The king of Media asked Cyrus of Persia to join this campaign.5-5 As mentioned earlier, this campaign started in 557 BCE. Relations between Media and Babylonia were probably still good at that time. It would be strange if Media had not also asked the king of Babylon to join this campaign.

It is indeed a very strange coincidence that the archaeological record tells us that the Babylonian king Neriglissar made a military attack in 557 BCE. precisely to the Anatolian region.5-6

It seems that Babylonia's part in this struggle was completely ignored by the Medes very soon. This is because in 539 BCE., just 18 years later, Media was involved in the conquest of Babylonia. It may be interesting to note that the very region that Neriglissar invaded, Cilicia, is mentioned separately in the Median tradition. It is said that it was not part of the alliance assembled by Lydia, which was about to attack Media.5-5 This may just be a propaganda of the Medes, which was used to divert attention from the fact that Babylon would have supported the Medes on their campaign at that time.

References:

5-1 Airy, George Biddell, “On the Eclipse of Agathocles, the Eclipse at Larissa, and the Eclipse of Thales. With an Appendix on the Eclipse at Stiklastad”, MEMOIRS OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY, 26 (1858), p. 131-152

5-2 livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/

5-3 Xenophon: Cyropædia; Or, The Institution Of Cyrus, Printed by J. Swan, Angel Street, Newgate Street, Lontoo, 1803; pp. 147-150

5-4 Xenophon: Cyropædia; Or, The Institution Of Cyrus, Printed by J. Swan, Angel Street, Newgate Street, Lontoo, 1803; pp. 61,62

5-5 Xenophon: Cyropædia; Or, The Institution Of Cyrus, Printed by J. Swan, Angel Street, Newgate Street, Lontoo,  1803; pp. 83-92

5-6 livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-

content/abc-6-neriglissar-chronicle/

Certificate issued by the clay tablet VAT 4956

In this publication can be obtained slightly revised information from this clay tablet.

It may be noted from Chapter 1 and the related chapter, “The Timing of the Babylonian Calendar in 568 BCE.” that the clay tablet in question is probably a report originally written by eyewitnesses events of in the Babylonian calendar year 568/567 BCE.

It could also be stated that the error assumed by the researchers in relation to the 8th day of the Nisannu month is a mere assumption. The date Nisannu 9th indicated by this clay tablet is true for the year 568 BCE.6-1 This is also confirmed by the beginning of the month of Ajaru following the month of Nisannu depicted on the clay tablet.

Characteristics of the copy

There is more to this clay tablet than its date that points to a copy.

It shows a long time gap, more than six months, for which there is no data. This indicates that the old clay tablets associated with this period were probably so damaged that the Babylonian astrologers were unable to reproduce the information they contained.

In the 11th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar

When the Babylonian astrologers began to reproduce ancient clay tablets in about 200 BCE.,6-2 what did their dates read? Could the date read: 'in the 11th year of Nebuchadnezzar'? Perhaps.

In any case, they used the astronomical tool of that time and, with the help of lunar and planetary movements, timed that clay tablet just right up to 568 BCE.

If there read that date above, they must have wondered greatly about it.

After all, they only had information about the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, and that chapter ‘11’ did not seem to fit at all.

According to the royal list in their possession, it corresponded to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign. So they wrote that chapter to a copy. It is also possible that the original text was so damaged that it was not clear from the year, but the name of the king ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ somehow happened to be perceived from it.

What if the king's name on the date was completely different? Since the Babylonian astrologers had already dated the clay tablet to the year 568 BCE., they would not necessarily have changed the date of the original clay tablet, nor the years of the reign of the kings, according to the knowledge they had of history at that time. Why not?

They would have interpreted that they had found entirely new information in history and would have considered it probable that this “king named after him” had acted as king along with Nebuchadnezzar II, his co-ruler. Perhaps they would have liked to pass this “information they found” to future generations.

In this regard, the clay tablet VAT 4956 bears a wordless testimony: in 568 BCE. Babylon was ruled by a king who used the name Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar V, despised king

The introduction already referred to the quandary that what could be the reason for Nebuchadnezzar V’s absence from the Babylonian royal list.

It cannot be considered very consistent to conclude that the Babylonian scribes made a mistake in this matter and “forgot” one king who had acted during their own lifetime.

Religion seems to have been the most important thing to the Babylonians, mainly the identity of the whole people. Therefore, the religious reason would seem to be the most probable, which is why a king wants to completely forget and hide the history of the people.

Is there then evidence that Amel-Marduk could have had a different religious background? Yes.

The biblical account shows that he was sympathetic to Jewish prisoners. He released Jehoiachin, king of Judah, from honor, and gave him glory so that he could eat at the king's table at the same table with the king for the rest of his life.

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar V may have shown positive attention to the Jews in many other ways. This infuriated the “pure” Babylonians, and so Nebuchadnezzar V was a despised king in his lifetime. And possibly this attribute of his was one of the reasons why the king's brother-in-law, Neriglissar, murdered him. The reign of Nebuchadnezzar V was thus about 18 years and 4 months from 578-560 BCE.

Earlier, mention was made of Nabonidus’ old mother Adad-Guppi and the list of kings she made. This begs the question: why did such an old woman see fit to make a king's list? Was it not the task of the scribes appointed for the purpose to draw up the king's lists?

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that Adad-Guppi, in so far as she was the author of the list, wanted to argue that the name of Nebuchadnezzar V should not be mentioned in the list of kings. Such a procedure, whereby an unpopular king is not included in the list of kings, was not unusual in ancient times.

References

6-1 This will be examined in more detail in chapter 33

6-2 Because there was a great deal of text in the original cuneiform text, time of over a year, it was likely that the text  was divided into several clay tablets.

6-3 internationalstandardbible.com/N/nebuchadnezzar-

nebuchadrezzar.html

Nebuchadnezzar V in the pages of the Bible

 Somewhat surprisingly, the scriptures found in the Bible may also provide more information about this lost king, Nebuchadnezzar V.

In the 2nd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar

Chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Daniel tell of Nebuchadnezzar, whose definition of reign is astonishing.

Chapter 2 of the book of Daniel begins:

’In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had several dreams, and he was troubled’

This verse has amazed many. Since the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II had begun long before the events described here, it has given rise to many different interpretations.

Jewish scholars have held that this was the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar II's rule since he conquered Jerusalem.

On the other hand, doesn't that biblical account give the impression that during the time the Jews were in Babylon, a new king named Nebuchadnezzar arose?

But can these chapters mean Nebuchadnezzar V? The book of Daniel does not give an absolute definition of which Nebuchadnezzar was in question, for it does not mention the names of the father of the kings of Babylon, as was the custom at the time of the talk of the kings of Judah. However, that mention of the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar seems to support the fact that the king mentioned here was Nebuchadnezzar V. It would also remove the contradictions associated with it.

Nebuchadnezzar, erratic king

The personality of Nebuchadnezzar described in Daniel chapters 2 and 3 seems very volatile.

When the Babylonian sages could not tell the king about his sleep, the king reacted very strongly to it.

Daniel chapter 2 says:

’At this the king flew into a violent rage and gave the order to destroy all the wise men of Babylon’

Such a radical attitude towards the scholars of the Babylonian religion was probably not very common in ancient Babylon. A few hours later, after Daniel had explained the dream, the king went to another extreme:

’Then King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar fell down with his faceto the ground before Daniel and paid homage to him. And he gave the order to offer a present and incense to him.’

The end of Daniel chapter 2 tells of the exaltation of Daniel and his three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in high places in Babylon. Such favoring of the Jews, at least, did not elevate the king's reverence among the Babylonians.

The third, very harsh command of the king is found in Daniel 3rd chapter. It first tells of the salvation of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace.

This impresses King Nebuchadnezzar and he declares:

’I am therefore issuing an order that any people, nation, or language group that says anything against the God of Shaʹdrach, Meʹshach, and A·bedʹne·go should be dismem-bered, and their houses should be turned into public latrines’ 

Such an order was very exceptional from the king of Babylon. This, too, shows the very extreme nature of the king going to extremes, swinging from side to side.

Because the Babylonian people strongly supported their own religion, which had a tradition of hundreds of years, they hated the fact that the king gave such a command that forced them to honor the God of the Jews.

Although the book of Daniel does not directly state which Nebuchadnezzar is in question in these chapters, the things mentioned here support the fact that he was Nebuchadnezzar V. Nebuchadnezzar II ruled for a long time and was highly revered, so it seems unlikely that he would have acted in that way.

Daniel and his three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were approximately 55 years old in the2 and year of Nebuchadnezzar V, 577 BCE.

A look at the Babylonian cuneiforms

 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

8-1 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. 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

The date of Sennacherib's is found

 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

Eclipses of Esarhaddon

 Initially, in 2017, in a NCUSES, the reign of Esarhaddon dates back to 705-693 BCE.

In 1924, Professor Sidney Smith made a translation of the Esarhaddon Chronicle, and from this it could be inferred that there had been an solar eclipse during the month of Tishritu, the first year of Esarhaddon's reign.10-1

This was applied on October 19th, 704 BCE. solar eclipse.

The second edition of the NCUSES saw the need to move the chronology back one more year at this point.

The eclipse during campaign against Egypt

Let’s take a closer look at the related Assyrian cuneiform text. Professor Leroy Waterman wrote about it in his Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire as early as the 1930s:

‘After the king, my lord, went into the land of Egypt, there was an eclipse in the month of Tammuz’10-2

However, this record by an ancient Assyrian official would clearly seem to also indicate that the eclipse occurred during that month of Tammuz. In the old days, text was written without punctuation. Here, as often elsewhere, the meaning of the text is determined by where the comma is in the sentence. It is therefore possible to judge which thing about the author of the text was worth mentioning: the month in which the eclipse occurred or the month in which the king went on a campaign. Historians took care of recording the king's military expeditions, a task apparently performed by priests in the past.

On July 12th, 699 BCE. there was a lunar eclipse.

A NCUSES examined whether this lunar eclipse could be applied to the 10th year of Esarhaddon’s reign. (Now Stellarium can be used to specify that it did not seen in Niniveh.)

The eclipse of Esarhaddon’s 10th year of rule

Previously, the 1st edition of this book applied August 6th, 700 BCE. event from the solar eclipse to the 6th year of Esarhaddon's reign. The time in question corresponded to the end of the Babylonian month of Tammuz. This is the same month that the servant of Esarhaddon mentioned in connection with the eclipse. A very significant change was revealed in the previous chapter. The period of Sennacherib's reign was in the years 734-710 BCE. What effect does it have on Esarhaddon's reign?

It can be noted that Esarhaddon ruled from 710 to 698 BCE. This means that the previously applied summer 700 BCE. a solar eclipse occurred in the 10th year of Esarhaddon's reign. That observation further confirms the dates of the reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib, which were brought up in the previous chapter.

Let's take a closer look at the time of the solar eclipse mentioned here. It can also be noted that planets such as Jupiter, Saturn and Venus were quite close to the Sun at the time of the eclipse. The eclipse was at its maximum near sunset at approximately 19:00 local time.

Some might think negatively about the possibility apply this eclipse of the sun because it was not total visible in Assyria. A related map could too causes negative reactions.10-3 However, it is good to note some positive features: First, this happened in the evening shortly before sunset. Second, that happened in the summer when the sun set later than normal. At that time, the sun was approximately midway of the west and northwest. The moon's shadow passed over southern Scandinavia.

Again, this was approximately in the northwest as seen from Assyria. Thus, it can be observed when using the Stellarium program, that this eclipse was visible in Assyria approx with the brightness of an annular solar eclipse.

Esarhaddon's first attack on Egypt

And is there any archaeological evidence that Esarhaddon invaded Egypt before the 10th year of his reign, mentioned in the Esarhaddon Chronicles? Such evidence seems rather limited. One of these attacks is recorded at the end of Esarhaddon’s 7th year of rule. According to investigators, this was one of the worst losses for the Assyrians,10-4 so it is understandable that there is very llittle information about it in the Assyrian records. According to Babylonian records, King Taharqa of Egypt and his army had defeated the Assyrians directly a year earlier. This was apparently the 7th year of Esarhaddon's reign.

Due to the losses of the Assyrians, it may not be known about all their wars against Egypt. The first such war, which lasted at least until the creek of Egypt, took place as early as the 4th year of Esarhaddon’s reign as he fought against the Arab tribes.

The article Esarhaddon, Egypt, and Shubria: Politics and Propaganda written by Israel Ephʿal referred to earlier also mentions the lunar eclipse mentioned by Mugallu, which took place in the month of Tebet and which had frightened a certain king.10-5 A little later on this. Of Esar-Haddon's other campaigns into Egypt, no information. In the fifth year of his reign, Esar-Haddon made a fierce campaign against Sidon in the early days of the month of Tishria gainst,10-6 which is close to the route to Egypt.

Lunar eclipses on 682 BCE., 681 BCE. and 680 BCE.

Given the example above of Esarhaddon campaigning against Egypt even in his 7th year of rule, some might point out that the eclipse in question did not necessarily occur in the years mentioned in Esarhaddon's Chronicle.

Let us therefore take a few alternatives for consideration here to see if such a possibility exists.

Consideration of this option may be important for those who find the idea of having to extend the chronology by a very large amount very alien. It is therefore useful to provide further arguments in this respect.

Taking into account only the previously discussed extension of the chronology based on Babylonian business records in this example, the beginning of Esarhaddon's reign would be moved back 7 years to 688 BCE.

It may be noted that in three consecutive years there was a lunar eclipse during the month of Tammuz, on August 3rd 682 BCE., July 22nd 681 BCE. and July 11th 680 BCE.

If the year 682 BCE. is applied, it would be the 6th year of Esarhaddon's reign in this experiment. However, there is a slight uncertainty as to how accurately the Babylonians timed the calendar in that year, as the month of Addaru II would have started about two days before the vernal equinox according to the Gregorian calendar. If the month of Addaru II was not added, this beginning of August was already the month of Ab.

The Ashurbanipal lunar eclipse could be found in June 660 BCE. and November 660 BCE.

However, there are a number of other findings related to the appropriateness of the right option, which are discussed below.

Lunar eclipse of Mugallu

In the three previous examples, the search for suitable lunar eclipses was based on the assumption that Esarhaddon's reign would have started in 688 BCE. This theory is complicated by the much earlier lunar eclipse, about which a letter was sent by Mugallu, also known as the neo-Hittite king.
This lunar eclipse occurred during the month of Tebetu, which corresponds to the Christmas-January month. Mugallu probably sent this letter after Esarhaddon had fought against Mugallu in the 6th year of his reign. (That confrontation may have ended with Mugallu concluding some kind of peace treaty with Esarhaddon.)

In this new edition, where Esarhaddon's reign began as early as 710 BCE., lunar eclipses from a slightly earlier period can be examined. However, no such eclipses are found. But perhaps the best option is found on January 27th 700 BCE. at about 01.30 local time. This was at the end of the 9th year of Esarhaddon's reign, with 90% coverage. Although this may seem late, this probably corresponded to the month of Tebetu. There were probably 13 months in the previous calendar year and the month of Nisannu did not start until around April 23th.

The second option was previously applied on January 6th 698 BCE., although it had less than 29% coverage. The lunar eclipse could have occurred in the morning, as it is predicted to cause difficulties for the "Westland". This lunar eclipse of 698 BCE. would fit that assumption. This lunar eclipse occurred during the 11th year of Esarhaddon's reign.

A weakness of this lunar eclipse is that one could assume that only the initial phase of the eclipse was very faint when the moon set (at 05:13 UTC time). However, this is assuming that the ground is completely flat and the horizon is interpreted accordingly. However, the shape of the earth's surface has a great influence, especially given that in ancient times there were apparently some kind of structures for astrological observations. Moreover, the Neo-Hittite area from which Mugallu was observing was apparently some distance west of Nineveh.

If one were to use the estimate that Esarhaddon's reign had begun in 688 BCE., then the Mughal lunar eclipse would be found on January 28th 681 BCE., it was around 00:30 local time and when it occurred the moon was almost directly south. This may be so late that it could be assumed to be the next month, Sabatu. This may be something of a shortcoming, judging by the significance of the archaeological finds brought to light earlier, in which the Babylonians recorded the Assyrian Sin-shar-ishkun as their king. This finding would seem to undermine the theory that it was only necessary to extend the chronology as far as the archaeological evidence would suggest.

In the current old chronology, it would be a lunar eclipse on December 28th 671 BCE. However, this would appear to be yet the month of Kislimu.

The company applied the 680- century BCE. The beginning of Esarhaddon's reign is accompanied by another major omission, the lunar eclipse of Bel-Shuma-Ishkun, about which more later.

Lunar eclipse of Assurbanipal

In the past, significant changes to the chronology have emerged, pushing the reign of Esarhaddon back to 710-698 BCE. The NCUSES and the 1st edition of this book applied to this Ashurbanipal observation10-8 the lunar eclipse of May 678 BCE. It may be noted that a matching lunar eclipse is also found four years earlier, on August 3rd 682 BCE.

Lunar eclipse of Bel-shuma-ishkun

This major change in the timing of Esarhaddon's reign is also supported by the writing of a priest who served him, Bel-shuma-ishkun.10-7 In the clay tablet RMA 235A he writes on line r6:

‘The lunar eclipse in Marchesvan (VIII) began . .’10-8

This was the Babylonian month of Artahsamma, which corresponded to October-November. Given the years of Esarhaddon's reign in the NCUSES and the old chronology from 710-669 BCE., there is only one lunar eclipse that corresponds well to this.

It is a total lunar eclipse at dawn on November 4th 696 BCE. It is accompanied by a partial (51%) lunar eclipse on November 3rd 677 BCE. The moon began to eclipse as soon as it rose over the horizon, and the eclipse was at its peak about an hour after the moon rose. It should also be noted that this line continues:

‘[After that] Jupiter came to the moon three times.’

This meaning of the sentence may be somewhat interpretive. This at least shows that the planet Jupiter was not very far from the moon. However, after that eclipse, the moon passed Jupiter three times quite close: November 23rd, in 696 BCE., December 21st, 696 BCE. and January 18th, 695 BCE. When the time of the fourth pass came on February 15th, it was New Moon and Jupiter was very close to the sun. Looking back at November in 677 BCE., Jupiter and the sun were then far apart and the moon could pass Jupiter several times prominently.

Let's make an additional note here. Archaeological records tell us that in the first half of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign, Babylon had a temple scribe named Bel-shuma-ishkun (Ronald H. Sack: Chaldean and Persian Periods, pp. 91, 92) On November 5th, 612 BCE., there was a lunar eclipse. After this, the moon passed Jupiter three times. Although the fourth pass occurred about two days after the new moon, it could still be quite faintly visible in February 611 BCE. If this were applied to the above observation, it would help to support the idea that Nebuchadnezzar II reigned several years earlier than has been estimated. On the other hand, it could leave room for the theory that Bel-shuma-ishkun was already in office during the reign of Nabopolassar, applying the timing of the old chronology.

However, this latter option is pure fiction, for which there is no archaeological confirmation. Nor is it known that this contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar II served as royal astrologer.

References

10-1 Babylonian Historical Texts (London 1924) p. 14
10-2 Leroy Waterman: Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire, vol. I (1930-1936), s. 187 
10-3 moonblink.info/Eclipse/eclipse/-0699_08_06
10-4 journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/JCS40025994? journalCode=jcs
105 SAAO, SAA 10/Ch. 19, 351
10-6 livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-14-esarhaddon-chronicle/
10-7 John Malcolm Russell: The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace  Inscriptions, Eisenbrauns. s. 164 , (1999)
10-8 webspace.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/babylon/babybibl_tupsaru.htm
10-10 SAAO, SAA 08/Ch. 21, 469

______________________________________

Shalmaneser V                  750-742 BCE.

Sargon II                            745-729 BCE.

Sennacherib                      734-710 BCE.

Esarhaddon                       710-698 BCE.

_____________________________________