Shamsi-Adad I

Shamsi-Adad I (1717-1678 BCE), King of Assyria. He was an Amorite warlord who at a fairly young age, possibly less than 30 years old, usurped the kingship from the Assyrian king Erishum II. He was a conqueror in Syria, Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia.

The reason that Shamsi-Adad acted this way at such a young age is that he inherited the throne of Ekallatum from Ila-kabkabu, who was his father. After receiving the kingdom of Ekallatum, Shamsi-Adad was not content with it, but became a conqueror.

The Limmu list describes his rise to the kingship of Ekallatum by saying that "Shamsi-Adad entered his father's house". According to the limmu list, this happened around 1732 BCE, when Shamsi-Adad was only about 15 years old.

Board time

If you look at the earlier estimate (which appears in the treatise highlighted in the Blog Texts below), he reigned for 44 years and his reign as King of Assyria would have started in 1724 BCE. Now that I have studied the limmu list in more detail, it is necessary to make a change to this.

Researchers estimate that he became king a little later, apparently based on the following line of the limmu list:

“The eponym of Erishum, Shamsi-Adad won . . . ".

This relates to 1717 BCE. This may refer to King Erishum II. However, there is no full certainty about the meaning of this, there were other men named Erishum at that time. Using this assumption, it would appear that Shamsi-Adad had ruled for 39 years and his predecessor Erishum II for 9 years.

At this point, the solar eclipse recorded in the limmu list is taken into account. It is applied in 1746 BCE. solar eclipse that occurred. This solar eclipse occurred approximately in the 24th year of Naram-Sin's reign.

End of term of office

It seems that the line of the limmu list that relates to 1680 BCE tells about the last full-fledged reign year of Shamsi-Adad. It tells about the battle against the people of Turku and the people of Jamin. Both of Shamsi-Adad's sons, Ishme-Dagan and Yasmah-Adad, were involved in the battle.

Probably Shamsi-Adad died soon after 1679 BCE. in the early months. That year's line in the limmu list has been corrupted. From that we can find out that there was a battle in the region of Saggaratum, which apparently belonged to the kingdom of Mari. Then there are the very significant words:

“A total of . . . years"

The conclusion can be drawn from this that it told the length of a king's reign. While Yasmah-Adad may have died in that battle, it is also likely that Shamsi-Adad died at that time.

This conclusion is influenced by the reign of Hammurabi, the king of Babylon, and the reign of Mari's next king, Zimri-Lim.

Here, the so-called extremely low chronology. According to it, Hammurabi's reign ended in 1654 BCE. He became the king of Mari about 12 years earlier, no later than the beginning of 1665 BC. around (here it is good to remember that in ancient times a calendar was used where the year started in spring and ended in the following spring). Based on the available archaeological data, Zimri-Lim ruled for about 15 years. This leads to the conclusion that Zimri-Lim's reign began in 1679 BC at the latest.

Scholars have assumed that his reign ended in the 18th year of the Babylonian king Hammurabi's reign. In this shallow chronology, it would be 1679 BCE. or 1678 BCE. It depends on what month Hammurabi became king.

In theory, the battle described above in the territory of the Mari kingdom could have ended in the winter of 1678 BCE. This is because the line in the limmu list, the time representing the ancient calendar year, ended in the spring of 1678 BCE.

Lunar eclipse

Archaeological records tell of a letter from Asqudum, a former servant of King Yasmah-Adad of Mari, to Zimri-Lim. This probably relates to the time when Zimri-Lim had already taken the kingship of Mari.

In a letter, Asqudum tells about the lunar eclipse he observed in Mari. Since lunar eclipses were believed to be ominous at the time, Asqudum may have attracted attention in March 1679 BCE. to the lunar eclipse that happened. It may have been dated to the end of the reigns of Shamsi-Adad I or Yashman-Adad or both.

Naram-Sin

Naram-Sin, (1770-1726 BCE) Early king of Assyria, son of Puzur-Ashur II.

Scholars have had great uncertainty about his reign. Based on a broken ancient inscription, it is estimated that he reigned perhaps 44 or 54 years. However, there is an interesting clue available for this, which all researchers have not wanted to use.

According to the Assyrian limmu list, Naram-Sin's reign began 24 years before the Assyrian eclipse. This means that it began 74 years before the rise to power of the Babylonian king Hammurabi. It can also be noted that it happened 53 years before Shamsi-Adad I became king.

Therefore, it is estimated here that Naram-Sin ruled for 34 years or 44 years.

The length of his successor Erishum II's reign has also been uncertain. The length of his reign has been suggested to be 9 or 19 years. According to my interpretation, its length was 9 or 19 years.

The more likely option is that Naram-Sin ruled for 44 years. This is influenced by the fact that the following indirect "evidence" can be found in the archaeological data (Assyrian king list):

"Shamsi-Adad went to Babylon in the time of Naram-Sin"

On the other hand, the Assyrian eponym list says about that year that "Shamsi-Adad went to his father's house". From this one can get the idea that Shamsi-Adad I managed to become the king of Ekallatum before the end of Naram-Sin's reign. It happened in 1732 BCE, about the 41th year of Naram-Sin's reign.

In this regard, this can be said to be a correction to the previous blog text, which dealt with the new dissertation. In that chapter, "A solar eclipse in the year of Sin-Eribam's rise to power", the length of Naram-Sin's reign was estimated to be 15 years. It was based on an estimate that the researchers had made at the time when I was originally working on that chapter.

Assyrian king Sargon II

Sargon II (745-729 BCE). Sargon became king while his brother Shalmaneser V was still king of Assyria. Sargon expanded Assyria during his reign and started building a new capital, Dur-Sarrukin.

Rise to power

Very little is known about Sargon's rise to power and the reasons for it. To a large extent, the events of that time seem to be based on estimates. ABC1 Aikakirja gives a seemingly exhaustive statement about it:

"Salmaneser went to his Destiny in the month Tebêtu. For five years Šalmaneser ruled Akkad and Assyria.

On the twelfth day of the month Tebêtu, Sargon ascended the Throne in Assyria.”1

From this statement, one could conclude that Shalmaneser V's reign ended there and he met a violent end. However, it is good to note that this ABC1 Chronicle was probably not written by the Assyrians. And if they were made by the Assyrians, they may have been written by scribes defending the kingship of Sargon II or by scribes who did not care about the details of Shalmanrser V's reign. (Apparently the ABC1 Chronicle was written several decades later and the information in it was copied from smaller clay tablets.)

However, it is possible that Sargon imprisoned his brother for a short time, or perhaps he put up a strong verbal resistance.

It appears that Sargon's kingship was not officially recognized by Assyrian officials, as the Assyrian limmu list contains a total of 8 lines for Shalmaneser V's reign. However, this rise to power of Sargon was not completely ignored, because the limmu list has the following line for the 5th regnal year of the reign of Shalmaneser V:

"Commander in chief"2

Probably the Commander mentioned here was Sargon II. One can also get the impression that this rise to power of Sargon happened at least partially peacefully, because a little later Shalmaneser V was actively involved in attacking the capital of Israel, Samaria. The Bible describes it briefly:

"In the fourth year of king Hezekiah, that is, in the seventh year of Hoshea, the son of Ela, king of Israel, King Shalmaneser of Assyria attacked Samaria and began to besiege it"3

This happened in 743 BCE, in the 8 year of Shalmaneser's reign. However, it is likely that Sargon II exercised real power in Assyria at that time.

Shamaneser V's reign ended in 742 BCE. (Perhaps even before the turn of the year according to the Assyrian calendar. Shalmaneser's 8th regnal year ended in the spring of 742 BCE. If he ruled for some time during the following calendar year, he did not step down until his 9th regnal year. The Assyrian limmu list does not give details of when he abdicated of the king's duties.), it is possible that he was killed in a battle against Samaria. However, there is no more detailed information about this. However, it is possible that Shalmaneser V at that time officially stepped down from the duties of king and continued as a warlord under his brother Sargon. According to the Limmu list, only after this was Sargon II officially recognized as the king of Assyria.

Military campaigns

Sargon II and his army made several attacks on neighboring countries, as was the custom of Assyrian kings. Let's highlight a few of them here.

One of the notable campaigns he made was an attack on Arpad, Simyra and Damas in Syria and Samaria in Israel4, although it was a minor battle. The reason for this is that it may have been the same battle described in the Bible:

"However, the king of Assyria found out that Hosea was involved in the conspiracy, because Hosea had sent messengers to So, king of Egypt, and had not brought tribute To the king of Assyria as in former years. Therefore the king of Assyria captured him and kept him bound in prison”5

Even more significant were Sargon's battles and constant quarrels with Urartu, or Armenia. In the 6th year of Sargon's reign (740 BCE), the Armenian king Ursaha (aka Rusa I) turned to rebellion. He killed Aza, the local representative of Assyria. Sargon appointed his brother Ullasa as his new representative of Armenia. However, this apparently feared King Rusa I and allied with him. This led to Sargon invading Armenia but forgiving his servant Ullasa.6

He attacked Armenia the very next year and it led to the destruction of Rusa I. Sargon also attacked his successor Argistus II in the 10th year of his reign.

Sargon says that he also made a campaign against Egypt in the 2nd year of his reign (744 BCE). Scholars consider this to be an erroneous statement and claim that Sargon had diplomatic relations with Pharaoh Osorkon IV.9 However, this seems to be a wrong interpretation, as Osorkon IV was the king of Egypt about 50 years before Sargon's reign.10 During Sargon's reign, the king of Egypt was apparently Shabako, Sargon II calls him Sebech.

Dating the reigns of Sargon II and Shalmaneser V

It seems that there are a few errors in the old chronology in dating the reigns of these kings. Perhaps the reason is the wrong interpretation of the Assyrian Limmu list.

First, the beginning of Shalmaneser V's reign. It seems that scholars assume that his reign began in 727 BCE. during.11 Here we do not comment on that timing according to the old chronology of the researchers. Instead, let's focus on the limmu list related to that event. It says the following:

"During the eponomy of Bêl-Harran-bêla-usur, the Governor of Guzana, campaign against [...]. Shalmaneser [V] ascended the throne.”2

Here it is good to remember that this was the last year of the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III and the accession year of Shalmaneset V. This Assyrian calendar year ended in the spring of 726 BCE according to that old chronology. The reign of Shalmaneser V began on the 25th day of the month Tebetu of that calendar year.1 This roughly corresponds to the current date of January 26th. Shalmameser had time to rule for about 2.5 months before the change of the calendar year. Thus Shalmameser's 1st regnal year would have begun in the spring of 726 BCE.

A similar error appears to be associated with the beginning of the reign of Sargon II. He proclaimed himself king at the end of Shalmaneser V's 5th regnal year. Scholars assume that he became king in 722 BCE.11 But given the previous, was it the Fifth regnal year of Shalmaneser?

Yes it was, but here too it should be taken into account that he became king at the end of that calendar year, during the month of Tebetu.1

He became king on or about January 16th. 721 BCE. This otherwise does not affect the timing of their reigns as interpreted by the old chronology. Only the length of their accession year is significantly shorter.

References

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

2 livius.org/articles/concept/limmu/limmu-list-858-699-bce/

3. Bible, 2. Kings 18:9

4 Records of the past: being English translation of the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments, 1876, p. 29

5 Bible, 2. Kings 17:4

6 Records of the past: being English translation of the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments, 1876, p. 31,32

7 livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-1-from-nabu-nasir-to-samas-suma-ukin/abc-1.ii/

8 Records of the past: being English translation of the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments, 1876, p. 59

9 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_II

10 P. Mansikka: The Mystery of Ancient eclipses, p. 388

11 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Assyrian_kings

King Pul of Assyria

Pul (804-768 BCE) This king is one of the least known ancient kings. There are two mentions of him in history: the historian Josephus said he ruled for 36 years, and in the Bible he is said to have collected taxes from King Menahem of Israel.

In addition to this, archeological records have found information that a king of this name served as king of Babylon for two years. Based on this information, it can be known that he was the same person as Tiglath-Pileser III. This is where this information ends. Why is there no information about this king in archaeology? History tells us that his grandson's son Esarhaddon destroyed the clay tablets relating to Tiglath-Pileser III. Perhaps this is exactly the reason why clay tablets related to this are not found.

It seems that all scholars ignore this Assyrian king in arranging their chronology. Some few have estimated that he reigned concurrently with Shalmaneser IV, Assur-Dan III and Ashur-nirari V.

However, there are grounds for the estimate that Pul ruled Assyria for 36 years after Ashur-nirari V and before the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III. The arguments related to this probably do not satisfy all researchers. The reason for this is that this blog brings out how the history of the Bible and the chronology of the Bible help to better rationalize the events of history.

It can be used to note that the reign of the earlier Assyrian king Shalmaneser III began as early as 919 BCE. This leads to the conclusion that the reign of Ashur-nirari V (traditionally the king before Tiglath-Pilser III) ended in 805 BCE.

When we calculate the chronology from the other direction by comparing it with the history of the Bible, we notice that the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III began in 768 BCE. It's probably no coincidence that there is a 37-year long "empty era" in between.

There will be more detailed justifications for this timing in older blog posts.

A Critical Evaluation of the Assyrian Solar Eclipse

Scholars have applied in June 763 BCE. from the solar eclipse that occurred in the 9th year of the Assyrian king Ashur-Dan III's reign. Amazingly, no researcher has presented a carefully crafted paper on what strong scientific basis there is for this assumption.

Let's deal with it here in a critical way. Looking at the officially accepted Assyrian chronology, does this solar eclipse fit into the 9th year of Ashur-Dan III's reign? Looking at the limmu list, it could also have been his 8th year of reign, because kings used to have a year of rising to power that sometimes lasted several months.

Scholars date Asur-Dan III's reign to begin in 773 BCE. Some have suggested, as if in passing, that his reign began in 772 BCE.

The appropriateness of this solar eclipse is also tested by the fact that it happened in the summer, i.e. at the beginning of the government year. Therefore, this solar eclipse occurred about 8 years after Ashur-Dan III's reign began. It is possible that in the Limmu list the first 8 lines of the reign of Ashur-Dan III were only about 7.5 years. In that case, his reign would have started in the fall.

The reign years of the Assyrian kings began in the spring, around the beginning of April.

Examining the reign of Ashur-Dan III in the Limmu list, you will notice that a solar eclipse is mentioned in the ninth line. It is a regnal year that began in the spring of 765 BCE. Note that it was two years too early. Some have attempted to remedy this by shortening the reign of Ashur-Dan III's successor, Ashur-nirari V. However, that option has not received widespread support. Rather, some researchers doubt the reliability of the limmu list. However, it is very inconsistent. It reflects the following attitude: "If we can't make history fit the thesis we're making, we have to change history to fit us."

Of course, one can understand why researchers have their "backs against the wall" with this problem: No other sufficiently covering solar eclipses can be found from that time.

However, the solution to the problem is not to try to falsify history.

There is a real solution to this, it is presented in the previous blog posts about the new thesis.

Ten Big Coincidences for Solar Eclipses - How Likely Are They? or The Mystery of Ancient eclipses

 This text could briefly be called an introduction. Here, the result of this thesis is 'squeezed' into a short text. Let's look at ten remarkable coincidences.

When you have looked at ancient solar eclipses compared to the chronology of the Bible, you come across a surprising number of 'coincidences'. That's exactly how the wise of this world and those who consider themselves wise would treat them. But how likely is such an abundance of coincidences?

Let's start with the discovery of a solar eclipse that happened in the 9th year of the reign of the Assyrian king Ashur-Dan III.

In the past, the following happened: Shalmaneser III fought the Syrian king Benhadad II only in his 11th year of reign. A little later he fought Hazael, king of Syria. In the Bible account, Hazael is said to have become king of Syria some years before Jehu became king of Israel. Soon, already in the 18th year of Shalmaneser III's reign, Jehu sent him a gift showing respect. According to biblical chronology, Jehu became king of Israel around 905 BCE. Given this information, where should Ashur-Dan III's regnal year 9 be dated?

1. coincidence: this is found in the correct year, 824 BCE.

2. coincidence: this is found in the right month. Although this happened in early April, it is possible to date it to the month of Simanu.

3. coincidence: viewed with the current program, this appeared in low quality. There are grounds in the Bible for the fact that the Earth's rotation as changed about an hour after this event.

Let us then consider the solar eclipse that occurred in the 7th year of the reign of the Babylonian king Shimbar-Shipak. According to chronology, this time was 254 years earlier.

4. coincidence: this is found in the correct year: 1078 BCE.

5. coincidence: this is found in the correct month, the month of Simanu.

6. coincidence: here we have to make the same assumption as earlier in point 3.

Let's go back about 700 years. Then we move to the time of Hammurabi and Shamsi-Adad I. A year after the latter was born, there was a solar eclipse. This was 50 years before the beginning of Hammurabi's reign.

7. coincidence: this is found in the correct year, 1746 BCE.

8. coincidence: with the current program, this was on the other side of the globe. However, the Bible gives reasons to assume that during the days of Joshua, the earth's rotation stopped for many hours.

Then let's go back a little more than 200 years. In the 23rd year of King Shulgi of the Ur III Dynasty, a double eclipse occurred. Here it would be limited to around 1960-1990 BCE. This 'sliding' time is influenced by the fact that there is no precise information on how the Larsa dynasty and the Ur III dynasty was simultaeous reigned.

9. coincidence: this is found in 1979 BCE.

10. coincidence: here we should assume the same as in the previous point 8, the position of the earth in relation to the sun has changed a little more than 9 hours.

So a total of 10 'coincidences' would have happened here. Could such a thing be possible 'by accident'?

Many who consider themselves wise are of the opinion that it is self-evident that the earth could not have rotated backwards and could not have stopped.

Nevertheless, such observations can be made with e.g. the Stellarium program. Just the fact that there are so many of these solar eclipses in this way is a great coincidence. And it is also a great coincidence that the Bible gives grounds for changing the position of the Earth if necessary. And it is no small coincidence that these coincide with the chronology of the Bible

There are other coincidences, but these are the most notable. The magnitude of these coincidences is increased by the necessity of changing the Earth's position and the long periods of time.

There is also an extra an unwritten "eleventh" coincidence: when all the evidence is taken into account, no any solar eclipses can be found if we assume that the position of the Earth has remained the same as it is today.

Current 'scientific research' naturally cannot accept any kind of major change in the earth's rotation. However, it doesn't eliminate these big 'coincidences'. These 'coincidences' are and will remain.

Of course, one could say that this treatise reserves the scientific evidence that God has done very great miracles by changing the position of the earth in a very radical way. However, the purpose of this treatise is not to emphasize these miracles, but to state that it is probable that such miracles have occurred.

Is this also a coincidence?

When the Assyrian chronology is dated to 824 BCE. according to the solar eclipse that took place, we notice such a peculiarity that the reign of Ashur-nirari V would end already in 805 BCE.

A careful examination of the reigns of Sargon II, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, along with archeological findings, reveals that the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III began in 768 BCE. Note that there will be a surprising 37-year blank period in between.

Is this blank period just a coincidence?

In connection with this, we notice an interesting coincidence: the historian Josephus says that the Assyrian king Pul, or Pulu, ruled for 36 years.

Another surprising coincidence is connected with this passage: During the time of King Menahem of Israel, King Puli of Assyria is said to have demanded a forced tax from the Israelites. According to Bible chronology, Menahem ruled in the 780s BCE.

Since the Bible tells about this king, he can be trusted to rule during that time.

Therefore, it seems very likely that Pul was the king of Assyria at that time. Based on this, it may seem that after Pulu's the possibly violent seizure of power in Assyria, there was an interim period lasting a few months, before Pulu got the kingship for himself.

The positive timing of Esarhaddon's reign is influenced by the eclipse during the month of Tammuz, which occurred at the time of his campaign against Egypt. The chronology of the Bible, together with Sennacherib's writings, on the other hand, dates Sennacherib's reign almost exactly to a certain point. This thesis will provide detailed justifications for these timings.