ne Assyrian kinglists provide a valuable source of information for the determination of ancient chronology by dead-reckoning. So important is this tradition thut it hm been described as an `insurmountable barrier' to any amendment to the established chronology of the Late BrowIron Age period. Th? present paper is a critical examination of that position. ne conclusion is that the Assyrian kinglists relating to the loth century BCE are of questionable chronological value. Moreover the primary materialfom both Ayria and Babylonia fom thutperiod would appear to support a reduction in the absolute chronology of about 80 years. The chronology of the Late BronzeEarly Iron Ages con- tinues to be an area of active research and various arguments have recently been made that the absolute dating of the second millennium BC should be lowered. Suggested revisions range from a few decades [Dodson, 1995-6; 19931 to one century [Hagens 1996; 19991, or even more Dames et al, 1991; Rohl, 19951. The Assyrian kinglists (AKL), how- ever, presents a major obstacle to any proposed reduction in chronology. So important is this tradition that it has been described as an `insurmountable barrier' to any adjustment to the conventional chronology of that period [Postgate, 19911. The objective of this paper is to explore this position in order to establish whether the information contained within the AKL tradition is indeed of sufficient quality to nullify the hypothesis that conventional dating of the late second millennium may be in error. Ancient chronology by dead-reckoning Dead reckoning of regnal years is now considered to be the most accurate method of estimating the absolute chronology of the Near East during the late second millennium BC [Kitchen, 19911. Furthermore, the close interdependence between the Assyrian and Egyptian dead-reckoned chronol- ogies provides one of the primary foundations of the current chronology. Thus arguments in favour of `high`, `middle' or `low' Egyptian chronologies, always take the Assyrian material into account [Wente and Van Siclen, 1976, p. 249; Ward, 1992, pp. 55-6; Von Beckerath, 19981. Clearly such interdependence requires reliable synchronisms between Egypt, Assyria and their near neighbours. Thus the various synchronisms between Egypt and Mesopotamia during the el-Amarna period provide important information about these relative chronologies during the Late Bronze Age. Elsewhere I have proposed that the absolute chronology of the Egyptian New Kingdom prior to the 22nd Dynasty (c. 945 BC) should be lowered by about 80 years. According to this hypothesis the accession of Ramesses I1 should be lowered to c. 1200 BC, from the now generally accepted `low' date of 1279 BC [Hagens, 19961. It is obvious that the established synchronisms demand that any such adjustment be matched by an equivalent correction of Assyrian dating between the el-Amama period and the reign of Ashur-dan I1 (934-912 BC). Clearly this requires a re-examination of the chronological information contained within the AKL. The Assyrian Kinglists Brinkman has expressed concern about the amount of trust which is placed on the AKLs since they are often the only source for the genealogies and reigns during long and obscure periods of Assyrian history. He wrote: There is a tendency when dealing with such a unique . . . document to forget that all of its data may not be equally reliable - especially when its material on a GRAHAM HAGENS obtained his MSc at the University of Cape- town and went on to complete his PhD at the University of Toronto. Dr. Hagens is an industrial chemist with several patents to his name but he also finds time to research ancient history, in particular Mesopotamian chronology. JACF VOL. 9 61 - Yem - 1080 1070 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1010 1000 990 980 970 960 950 940 930 920 910 900 BABYLONIA 1082 - Marduk-shapik-zeri 1069 - Adad-apla-iddina 1047 - Marduk-ah[he-eriba] 1046 - Marduk-zer-[x] 1034 - Nabu-shumu-libur 1026 - Simbar-Ship& 1009 - Ea-mukin-zeri 1008 - Kashshu-nadin-ahi 1004 - Eulmash-shakin-shumi 988 - Ninurta-kudurri-usur I 986 - Shirikti-Shuqamuna 985 - Mar-biti-apla-usur 979 - Nabu-mukin-apli 943 - Ninurta-kudurri-usur I1 943 - Mar-biti-ahha-iddina C. 905 - Shamash-mudammiq - Yrs 13 22 - 1 12 8 18 1 3 17 3 1 6 36 1 ? - ASSYRIA 1075 - Ashared-apil-ekur 1073 - Ashur-bel-kala 1055 - Eriba-Adad I1 1053 - Shamshi-Adad IV 1049 - Ashurnasirpal I 1030 - Shalmaneser I1 1018 - Ashur-nirari IV 1012 - Ashur-rabi I1 971 - Ashur-resh-ishi I1 966 - Tiglath-pileser I1 934 - Ashur-dan I1 911 - Adad-nkari I1 Table I: ne conventional Mesopotamian chronology and its synchronism? given ruler may be the only historical information available. Many of the dates ... before 910 BC are uncontested simply because there is no additional evidence with which to compare them. [Brinkman, 1973, pp. 313-41 Ward has also stronly cautioned against the tendency within Western-Asiatic scholarship of placing a `dangerous reliance on damaged texts of questionable reconstruction' [Ward, 1992, p. 541. In addition to discrepancies between different exemplars and disagreement about the basic reading of texts, there is the question of interpretation. It needs to be remembered that the Assyrian kinglist was a complex document, the primary objective of which was the glorifica- tion of the incumbent ruler. By the 8th century, when the Assyrian empire was near its peak, the AKL extended back more than a thousand years and had become canonised as a `pillar of the hereditary monarchy.' It was even imbued with mystical properties and sometimes took the form of an amulet which was held to derive power from the belief that all the kings listed were ancestors of the current monarch [Yamada 19941. - Yrs 2 18 2 4 19 12 6 41 5 32 23 21 - When the topic is chronology, it is im- portant to recall some of the more general problems associated with kinglists. Because an important objective of such lists was the depiction of long genealogical sequences which would glorify the incumbent ruler, the authors tended to disregard overlapping or telescoped reigns. The ancient Near East provides many examples where kinglists represent individuals as succeeding one another when they were in fact contem- poraries - a problem partly attributable to the intrinsic linear structure of such docu- ments [Henige, 1986, p. 63; Ward, 1992, p. 541. The possibility that 8th-century Assyrian historians may have ignored periods of co- regency, or accepted without substantiation long reign-lengths for some of the kings, should not be ignored. James et. al. have already drawn attention to one period where the information within the AKL is amenable to more than one interpretation. This is the confused era following the death of Tdulti- Ninurta I, during which it seems possible that dynastic overlap rather than linear succes- sion occurred.' The chronological adjust- ment which would result from implemen- tation of this idea would, however, be quite modest, representing no more than a decade or so. Of far greater chronological si@- cance is the dark age of Mesopotamia which lasted from the time of the Assyrian king Ashur-bel-kala (and his Babylonian con- temporary Adad-apla-iddina) until the reign Ashur-dan I1 (934-912 BC). The generally accepted chronology of the Assyrian kings and their Babylonian conternpor&es during this period is shown in Table I. Assyria in the late second millennium BC Virtually no contemporary documentation has survived from what have been called the `darkest days of Assyria' [Olmstead, 19601 when Aramaean tribes infiltrated and settled throughout Mesopotamia. At that time both Assyria and Babylonia experienced an almost complete breakdown in civil authority due, it appears, to a lengthy drought [Neu- mann and Parpola, 19871. During this period an Aramaean confederacy controlled much of central Mesopotamia and established important urban centers at Guzan and Harran near the headwaters of the Khabur. Their prosperity is also attested by the remains of the palace of Kapara which probably dates to the 10th century [Albright, 1956, pp. 75- 85; Albright, 19751. One of their states - Bit-Adini - occupied both banks of the upper Euphrates well below Carchemish. As a result of these troubles very little first-hand Assyrian or Babylonian material from that time has survived, and most of our understanding derives from secondary reports. 62 JACF VOL. 9 As a consequence, all the names in the AKL covering this period are poorly attested by primary documentation. Only two fragmentary display texts from Nineveh and a monu- mental stela (one of several such stelae which formed a row at Ashur) attests to the short reign of Eriba-Adad 11. Shamshi- Adad IV, whose name was also found on one of the stelae, is attested only by some clay cone fragments which tell of temple repair-work conducted during his reign [Grayson, 1991, p. 113; pp. 117-211. Ashurnasirpal I is even more poorly represented. A broken stela from the row at Ashur may refer to this king, but the reading is in doubt and the stone is also out of sequence. Although some later hymns and prayers inform us that he restored the temple of Ishtar at Nineveh, the situation is confused by the possibility that another Ashurnasirpal may have reigned briefly before him [Grayson, 1991, p. 122; Weidner, 19381. It is unfortunate that the most valuable inscription which might relate to this reign - the White Obelisk - is of doubtful attribution and may refer to Ashurnasirpal 11. Shalmaneser I1 is attested in two inscriptions - an endowment for the temple and the label on a monumental stela, and is referred to in the annals of Ashur-dan I1 [Grayson 1991: 124, 1331. However, his name is not found on any of the AKL exemplars which cover this period. The next two rulers are very obscure. No contemporary inscriptions exist to prove that either Ashur- nirari IV or Ashur-rabi I1 ever lived in Ashur. References to Ashur-rabi do, however, occur in later documents, and there is an illegible stela in the row at Ashur between those of Shalmaneser and Ashur-resha-ishi which may have referred to either Ashur-rabi I1 or Ashur-nirari IV. The only primary document naming Ashur-rabi I1 is a broken clay cylinder mentioning canal work and the restoration of a temple by Bel-erish - an Assyrian vassal who lived near the Khabur river. The inscription states that these activities took place during Ashur-rabi's [x]+3 year, and continued into the reign of his son Ashur-resh-ishi. This is also the only contemporary reference to Ashur-resh-ishi other than the appearance of his name on one of the stelae in Ashur [Grayson, 1991, pp. 166-681. Still less is known of the next king, Tiglath-pileser 11, whose long reign is not unequivo- cally supported by any primary documentation. The only two inscriptions which may refer to him are barely legible, although the location makes it probable that one of them does refer to this king [Grayson, 1991, p. 1291. It is thus significant that the only two exemplars of the AKL which provide chronological information about the chaotic 10th century derive from this later period of Assyrian history. These are the Khorsabad (KhKL) and Seventh Day Adventist Seminary (SDAS) lists, both of which date from the last quarter of the 8th century [Brinkman 1973: 3141. Another important source - two fragments of an eponym list KAV 21 and 22 - share an essential integrity with KhKL and SDAS [Schroeder 1920; Luckenbill 1926: 428-311. Although much of the original data on KAV 21/22 has been lost, the missing line-count on the fragments correlates well with the reign lengths found on KhKL. An older exemplar, the Nassouhi King List [NaKL, Nassouhi 19271, which terminates with Tiglath-pileser I1 (and thus probably derives from the reign of Ashur-dan 11) would be of great chrono- logical value but for the fact that none of the reign lengths during this period are legible. The relevant sources are summarised in Table 2. It was the harmony between KhKL, SDAS and KAV 21/22 which led Postgate to describe the Assyrian kinglist tradition as an `insurmountable barrier' to any substantial modification of the conventional chronology. However, this argument requires the assumption that these exemplars were independent sources which could be used to corroborate each other. It would seem to be more likely that KhKL and SDAS both reflect a version of Assyrian history which had become popular during the 8th century. This is no guarantee that the information they provide about a period of national crisis, which occurred some three centuries earlier, is factual. Moreover, it is not known whether the undated eponym fragments KAV 21/22 predate the kinglists which they so closely resemble. Although these later versions closely resemble each other, they are not identical with the more closely contemporary Nassouhi Kinglist in at least one important detail. NaKL omits Shalmaneser I1 - a king who is attested both by contemporary evidence and the later annals. This is not the only example in the Assyrian records of a near contemporary source being in error. There is also evidence of erroneous information about the parentage of Tiglath-pileser I11 in SDAS - in spite of the fact that the text was written shortly after that king`s death [Brinkman, 1973, p. 3131. It is therefore of interest that the longest reigns during this period are attributed to two of the most obscure of the eight rulers - Ashur-rabi I1 and Tiglath-pileser 11. Eriba-Adad I1 Shamshi-Adad IV Ashurnasirpal Shalmaneser I1 Ashur-nirari IV Ashur-rabi I1 Ashur-resh-ishi Tiglath-Pileser I1 son of son of son of son of son of son of son of son-of Nassouhi Ashur-bel-kala [x] yrs Tiglath-Pileser [x] yrs Illegible Omitted Shalmaneser [x]+2 yrs Ashurnasirpal2O+[x] yrs Ashur-rabi [x] yrs Ashur-resh-ishi [x]+l yrs ~~ Khorsabad Ashur-bel-kala 2 yrs Tiglath-Pileser 4 yrs Shamshi-Adad 19 yrs S.O. Ashurnasirpal [x]+2 yrs Shalmaneser 6 yrs Ash[urna]sirpal41 yrs Ashur-rabi 5 yrs Ashur-resh-ishi 32 yrs SDAS Ashur-bel-kala 2 yrs Tiglath-Pileser 4 yrs Illegible Illegible Shalmaneser [XI yrs Ash[urna]sirpal [x] yrs Illegible Ashur-resh-ishi [x] yrs KAV 21/22 I1 1 e gi b 1 e Illegible (19) yrs4 12 yrs 6 yrs (41) yrss (5) yrs 33 yrs Table 2: Four chronologically relevant exemplars? The years are attributable to the kings in the first column and not their fathers. JACF VOL. 9 63 Suspicion about the long duration of Ashur-rabi's reign arises from the information in the AKL that he did not directly succeed to the throne after the death of his father, but only after his brother Shalmaneser I1 (12 years) and his nephew Ashur-nirari IV (6 years) had reigned. The likeli- hood of a late-born son succeeding his father, brother and nephew, after an interval of 18 years, and then reigning for a further 41 years (a total of 59 very stressful years) must surely be quite low. In light of the almost total absence of documentation from his reign, it would seem reasonable to treat the long reign provided by the later documents with some caution. Other reigns which are of concern include the virtually unattested 33 years assigned to Tiglath-pileser I1 and the 19 years of Ashurnasirpal I (both derive from one exemplar which may be in error [Grayson, 1991, p. 122]), as well as the 12-year reign of Shalmaneser I1 which is found only on KAV 21. There is also the matter of the uninterrupted succession which purportedly lasted for ten generations from the time of Ashur-rabi I1 down to Shal- maneser IV (782-773 BC). Henige [1986, p. 601 has noted that very few authenticated examples of such extended sequences are known: . . . of 660 (non-Assyrian) dynasties encompassing 10,236 separate successions, there were no more than nine or ten attested examples of sons succeeding their fathers for 10 or more consecutive generations. When such an extended sequence is encountered the evi- dence must be considered unreliable until it can be demonstrated to be correct. One should also take into account the evidence that the Assyrians were not above distorting the facts when it suited them. Assyrian documents were notorious for turning any encounter with an enemy into avictory, with the magnitude of the triumph increasing as the event receded in time: . . . one may often question Assyrian claims of kudos both in fact and magnitude. [Brinkman, 1968, p. 25; see also Grayson, 19751 Unfortunately the paucity of primary material makes such distortions difficult or impossible to detect. We are thus faced with the uncomfortable fact that the chronology of a 120-year period in Assyrian history - a period during which virtually all civil authority had broken down -is based almost entirely on the information provided by three very similar documents which were drawn up centuries after the period they describe. And so the AKL, is not the insurmountable barrier to chronological revision which Postgate suggests. More particularly, in light of the doubt which is now being cast on the conventional Sothic- based Egyptian chronology, this is perhaps an opportune moment to explore the possibility of a revised interpretation of the AKL for the period in question. In the following section I will show that the Babylonian data provide primary evidence of dynastic overlap in both Assyria and Babylonia during the 10th century BC. The chronology of Post-Kassite Babylonia It has long been recognised that there may have been over- lap between the dynasties recorded in the Babylonian king- lists during the decades following the Kassite period. Within a span of half a century three dynasties and seven rulers came and went . . . various local groups in the peripheral regions vied for power . . . the pos- sibility of an overlap or an inter-regnum between the Second Isin and Second Sealand dynasties cannot be ruled out.. . this is true of most changes of dynasty in this period. [Brinkman, 1968, p. 92, n. 432; pp. 148-9; p. 150, n. 902; 1993, p. 61 The reliability of the 1st Sealand dynasty for chronological calculations has also been questioned [Brinkman, 1968, p. 78, n. 4051. These concerns are not unique. The first three Babylonian dynasties are listed as consecutive in Kinglist A - even though they are known to have overlapped - and similar problems affect the Kassite period.'j The possibility of dynastic telescoping has, however, not been further ex- plored. Once again the primary reason would appear to be that such an admission would disrupt the established chronological synchronisms between Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Babylonian contemporary of Ashur-bel-kala - Adad-apla-iddina - also experienced a period of difficulty as large numbers of semi-nomadic tribes-people moved into the region. The scant primary documentation which has survived from that period reveals it to have been an era of serious disruption. Adad-apla-iddina is the last 2nd Isin dynasty ruler to be well documented. Although he appears to have been unusually productive in his early years, it seems that his nation later suffered a series of debilitating attacks by the nomadic Aramaeans and sank into civil war. These events may have formed the background to a 9th-century epic which describes a period of chaos during which the king turned the troops against his own people [Lambert, 1958; Brinkman, 1968, p. 139, n. 8401. The relationship between Assyria and Babylonia during this period is con- fusing. According to the Synchronistic History, Ashur-bel- kala appointed Adad-apla-iddina to the Babylonian throne. But another Assyrian source - the Broken Obelisk -implies that Assyria invaded Babylonia during the reign of Ashur- bel-kala, probably around his fifth or sixth year [Brinkman, 1968, p. 142, n. 8591. The Assyrian kinglist also reveals that Babylon harboured a brother of Ashur-bel-kala named Shamshi-Adad, who later returned to Assyria and deposed his nephew Eriba-Adad 11. Since Adad-apla-iddina would still have been on the Babylonian throne at the time, this has led to the speculation that the support for Shamshi- Adad might have been in revenge for the invasion recorded on the Broken Obelisk. There is, however, no good expla- nation as to why Babylon's attitude towards Assyria may have changed [Frame, 1995, p. 50; Brinkman, 1968, p. 144, n. 8691. The Babylonian chronicles do not admit to any Assyrian involvement in the installation of Adad-apla- 64 JACF VOL. 9 iddina, but rather describe him as a usurper who disrupted the entente cordiale which the two nations had enjoyed during the reign of Marduk-shapik-zeri [Grayson, 1975, pp. 180- 811. Little is known of Adad-apla-iddina's final years. Neither the manner of his death nor the place of his burial has been identified. The last three rulers of the 2nd Isin who followed him are also poorly represented. The reign-lengths of Marduk-ahhe-eriba, Marduk-zer-[x] (his full name is not known) and Nabu-shumu-libur are known only from Babylonian Kinglist A. With the exception of a passing reference to the latter in the enigmatic Religious Chronicle, they are not found in any of the other records. In the `Eclectic' Chronicle 24 the line describing a wave of destruc- tion during the reign of Adad-apla-iddina is immediately followed by a reference to Simbar-shipak of the Sealand dynasty [Grayson, 1975, p. 1811. The Dynastic Chronicle, which concerns itself with the correct burial of Babylonian monarchs, also ignores these kings, whilst the Synchronistic History skips the entire period between Adad-apla-iddina and Ashur-nirari I1 [Grayson, 1975, p. 551. These three royal names are also absent from the Synchronistic Kinghst (Ashur 14616~). Fragmentary contemporary references to two of these kings do, however, exist in somewhat remote contexts. One inscription informs us that one Marduk-ahhe-eriba (not definitively this king) gave instructions to district governors in Bit-Piri-Ammuru (a provincial region probably located east of the Tigris and north of the Diyala). A duck weight with the name of Nabu-shumu-libur was found in Assyria [Grayson, 1975, pp. 133-38; Brinkman, 1968, p. 148, n. 8891. Simbar-Shipak, the founder of the Sealand dynasty which succeeded 2nd Isin is quite well attested. The name derives from its location within the coastal marshland - a region which would have been somewhat protected from the political turmoil of the interior [Brinkman, 1968, p. 148; 155, n. 934; Lambert, 1974; Brinkman, 19931. A kudurm from the reign of Nabu-apla-iddina (c. 870-850 BC) informs us that Simbar-Shipak searched for an idol which had disappeared from Sippar during the Sutian (Aramaean) raids. Not finding it, he re-erected an image of the sun disk which was on the table before the shrine of Shamash. He then installed a new priest and re-established the regular food offerings [King, 1912, pp. 122-23; Brinkman, 1968, p. 152, n. 9171. One of the two contemporary inscriptions from his reign relates that Simbar-Shipak restored the throne of Enlil at Nippur which had been lost during the troubles. Apparently the throne had been carried off by the Aram- aeans, but was then re-taken by the Assyrians, one of whom recognised its value and returned it to Nippur. This neigh- bourly gesture has been described as an `astonishing change in Assyrian policy towards Babylonia' [Goetze, 1965; Brink- man, 1968, p. 152, n. 922; Frame, 1995, p. 731. Simbar-Shipak's successors experienced a time of turmoil and rebellion during their short reigns. When the last of them died, power shifted yet again - this time to a regional clan known as Bazi. Eulmash-shakin-shumi, the founder of the this dynasty, is attested in an inscription from the reign of Nabu-apla-iddina, which relates that he helped JACF VOL. 9 to restore some religious practices which had been inter- rupted during the Sealand dynasty [King, 1912, pp. 122-23; Grayson, 1975, p. 1811. Bazi may have been located near the junction of the Diyala and Tigris rivers, but this is not certain. Wherever it was, it seems that its kings did not live in Babylon [Frame, 1995, p. 781. The Bazi dynasty was fol- lowed by Mar-biti-apla-usur - sole representative of the 6- year `Elamite' Dynasty of which very little is known, neither its location nor relationship with Elam having been estab- lished. Mar-biti-apla-usur is, however, attested on some arrowheads, whilst the chronicles inform us that he received the burial of a legitimate Babylonian ruler [Brinkman, 1968, p. 1651. The somewhat better documented `E' Dynasty which commenced with the 36-year reign of Nabu-mukin- apli closed out the tenth century. I suggest that Simbar-Shipak was a regional chieftain of the Sealand and a contemporary of Adad-apla-iddina - the king who rose to national prominence shortly after the Aramaean raids. According to the conventional chronology Simbar-Shipak came to the throne twenty-two years after the death of Adad-apla-iddina. This means that his visit to the desecrated site in Sippar occurred two to three decades after the Sutian incursion. The implication is that the king both searched for cult objects and then replaced the image of the sun which had lain on the table for over twenty years! Since the tale about the recovery of the throne of Enlil also Sealand and Isin Arguments for a dynastic overlap In summary, a number of points can be made in sup- port of the suggestion that the 2nd Isin and Sealand dynasties may have overlapped. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Babylonia entered a state of chaos and civil war during the reign of Adad-apla-iddina. After the death of his Assyrian contemporary - Ashur-bel-kala - Shamshi-Adad returned to Assyria and usurped his nephew Eriba-Adad. According to the conventional chronology model, Shamshi-Adad would have been harboured by Adad-apla-iddina - father-in-law of the man who installed him on the throne. The poorly attested last three kings of Isin are ignored in virtually all the chronicles. The little information we have suggests that the first of these, Marduk-ahhe-eriba, might have been influential in one of the northern provinces. A 9th-century inscription relates that Simbar- Shipak went searching for sacred objects at a cult site which had been desecrated during the Sutian raids. A contemporary inscription relates that Simbar- Shipak restored a royal throne which had been generously returned by the Assyrians. 65 has an air of immediacy, it would seem reasonable to suggest that Simbar-Shipak expanded his role from local chieftain to that of national leader during a period of civil strife which occurred during the reign of Adad-apla-iddina. He may even have been a protagonist in the civil war referred to in the epic. Shortly thereafter, Adad-apla-iddina and his three successors were sidelined. If the single contemporary reference to Marduk-ahhe-eriba in Bit-Piri-Amurru is significant, it may be that their authority was restricted to the northern portion of the country. This hypothesis would also provide a more reasonable explanation for Babylon's support for Shamshi-Adad. By assuming Simbar-Shipak - and not Adad-apla-iddina - to have been the king who harboured this enemy of Eriba- Adad, it would remove the need to postulate duplicity on the part of Adad-apla-iddina. It would also explain the improvement in Assyrian-Babylonian relations after the Sutian raids, for the new entente cordiale would have been between Shamshi-Adad IV and Simbar-Shipak. The Synchronistic Kinglist - Ashur 14616c Finally, there is another piece of primary documentary evidence which provides support for the hypothesis that there was dynastic overlap at this time. This is the Synchron- istic Kinglist known as Ashur 14616~. Although a number of synchronistic kinglists which depict contemporary Baby- lonian and Assyrian kings are known, their historical value is usually discounted. One reason is the clumsy format of such lists which often results in absurd connections. More- ~~~ Ashur-bel-kala Ashur-bel-kala Ashur-bel-kala Ditto Ditto - -..- Eriba-Adad (11) Shamshi-Adad (IV) Ashumasirpal (I) Shalmaneser (11) Ashur-nirari (IV) Ashur-rabi (11) Ashur-resh-ishi (11) Tiglath-pileser (11) Ditto Ditto Reign ~ ~ 1073- 1056 1055-1052 1053-1050 1049-1031 1030-1019 1018-1013 1012-972 971-967 966-935 Add-nirari (11) 91 1-891 BABYLONIA ~ ~ ~ ~ Marduk-[shapik-zeri] Adad-[apla-iddina] [XI [XI [XI [XI [XI Ea-[mukin-zeri] ** Kashshu- [nadin-ahhe]** Ulmash-[shakin-shumi] ** Ninurta-ku[dur-usur] I** Shirikti-[Shuqamuna] Mar-biti-[apil-usur] ** [(Nabu-mukin?)]-apli [Ninurta-kudurl-usur I1 [Mar-bitil-ahhe-iddina** [...I um-man-[shu] Shamash-mudammiq** Ditto Qa-li-ia-a-~[mmanshu] over, the irregular spacing of monarchs often makes it difficult to estimate the number of individuals which might have occupied the missing spaces. In other cases obvious errors have been detected [see for example Grayson, 1980, pp. 116- 117,1191. For these reasons the synchronistic kinglist 14616c has not been considered sufficiently trustworthy for chronological calculations [Brinkman, 1968, p. 52, n. 266; p. 691. Nevertheless this is the only document which pro- vides any synchronistic information about Assyria and Babylonia during the dark period under consideration. In contrast to other lists, the quality of the relevant sections of the tablet is quite good [Brinkman, 1968, p. 29, and n. 1311. A primary reason why Ashur 14616c has, until now, not been included in chronological studies of the Post-Kassite period is probably because most of the affiliations appear to be completely wrong. As shown in Table 3, seven of the eleven contemporaneities between the time of Shamshi- Adad IV and Ashur-dan I1 do not agree with the generally accepted synchronisms. A revised chronology for Mesopotamia I suggest that the primary evidence from Babylonia and Assyria would be better accommodated if we assume that some dynastic telescoping occurred during the chaotic con- ditions which afflicted both nations during the 10th century BC. A proposed revised chronology and synchronistic list which meets most of the concerns raised in this paper is illustrated in Table 4. I propose that the two sons of Ashumasirpal I - that is Reign ~ ~ 1082-1070 1069-1048 1009-1009 1008- 1005 1004-989 988-987 986-986 986-986 979-943 942-941 c. 905 c. 905 Table 3: Conventional dates andSynchronistic Kinglist 146766.' **indicates no match in dates. Ashur-rabi I1 and Shalmaneser I1 -were contemporary rather than consecutive rulers of Assyria. In this hypothesis, Ashur- dan I1 was the direct descendant of Ashur- rabi 11, Ashur-resh-ishi I1 and Tiglath- pileser 11. However, this sub-dynasty of rulers played only minor roles during the Aramaean crisis. During those years it was the other sons of Ashur-rabi I1 who held such power as could be maintained in the environs of Ashur itself. This explains why Ashur-dan I1 and Adad-nirari I1 describe themselves as descendants of Ashur-rabi I1 and Tiglath-pileser 11, although there is no firm evidence that either of the latter ever occupied the palace in Ashur. They claim this even though a number of kings with much shorter reigns during that dark period (e.g. Eriba-Adad I1 (2), Shamshi- Adad IV (4) and Shalmaneser I1 (12) are well attested by primary documentation. In spite of the paucity of contemporary information, the few examples which do exist would seem to support this propo- sition. First is the fact that the name of Shalmaneser I1 was omitted from the Nas- souhi Kinglist - a document probably composed during the reign of Ashur-dan 66 JACF VOL. 9 - Date LO21 LO15 1011 1010 1003 LOO1 998 997 996 (?) 995 990 989 988 978 976 971 970 966 960 950 940 934 - ASSYRIA Ashur-bel-Ma (18 yrs) Mba-Adad (2 yrs) Shamshi-Adad IV (4 yrs) Ashurnasjrpal I (19 yrs) Ashur-rabi I1 (29? yr~)~ Shalmaneser 11 (12 yrs) Ashur-resh-ishi (5 yrs) Ashur-nirari IV (6 p) Tiglath-pileser I1 (32 yrs) Ashur-dan I1 (23 yr~) 2nd Isin Adad-apla-idinna (22 yrs)* Marduk-ahhe-eriba (1 yr) Marduk-zer-[x] (12 yrs) Nabu-shumu-libur (8 yrs) BABYLONIA Sealand 3imbar-shipak (18 YTS) Ea-mukin-Zen (1 yr) Kashshu-nadin-ahhe (3 yrs) Table 4: A suggested Mesopotamian chronolog for the 70th century BC. 11. A reasonable explanation for this observation would be that Shalmaneser headed a rival dynastic line. Another clue is provided by the single contemporary inscription which derives from the reign of Ashur-rabi, associating him and his son with activities far to the west of the capital, near the Khabur river. Ashur-rabi I1 is also linked with this region in later annals. Both Ashur-dan I1 and Shalmaneser I11 (858- 824 BC) inform us of the loss of territory to the Aramaeans during his tenure, the latter naming the town of Mutkinu - a border settlement on the upper Euphrates [Grayson, 1991, p. 133; Luckenbill, 1926, p. 218].12 Thus the only references to Ashur-rabi which have survived associate him with western Assyria, and none exist to link him with Ashur. By contrast, the few references to Shalmaneser I1 clearly associate him with territory close to the capital. Further light on this situation may be provided by the poorly preserved White Obelisk, which Reade [ 19751 persuasively argues should be attributed to Ashurnasirpal I. If he is right, Ashurnasirpal probably campaigned in the general area of the upper Euphrates -the region known as [Ilahanu - during the first two years of his reign. Perhaps Ashurnasirpal attempted to secure these western victories by stationing his son as governor of that region - possibly at Mutkinu - the town with which his name would later be associated. If so, he underestimated the threat, for the Aramaeans were soon to dominate most of the territory between the two rivers. It is therefore not impossible that, for some of the time, Assyria was divided into two sectors which were largely isolated from each other and that Ashur-rabi was in control of the western part of the country whilst his father, Eulmash-shakin-shumi (17 yrs) lo Ninurta-kudur-usur (2 yrs) I' Mar-biti-apla-usur (6 yrs)/Shirikti-Shuqamuna (0) Ashumasirpal, was still alive. This was duringthe Aramaean occupation of central Mesopotamia. Ashur-rabi may have retained some loyal vassals such as Bel-erish for a while, but following the loss of Mutkinu survivors of that branch of the family were forced to retreat to Ashur where, after a period of unknown duration, Ashur-dan I1 gained control of the throne. The revised chronology shown in Table 4 also provides a reasonable explanation of the relative dating of the kings named in the Synchronistic Kinglist, Ashur 14616c.13 Turning to Assyria's southern neighbour, the telescoping of the 2nd Isin and Sealand dynasties would resolve a number of difficulties associated with the extant Babylonian records relating to the 10th century BC. It would explain the evidence that Simbar-Shipak appears to have restored the religious centres soon after the Sutian raids and, at the same time, provide a plausible explanation for the surprising improvement in Assyrian-Babylonian relations during his reign. It would also remove the suspicion of duplicity on the part of Adad-apla-iddina for having harboured an enemy of his son-in-law, Ashur-bel-kala, and eliminate many of the difficulties which have, until now, prevented acceptance of the information contained in the Synchronistic Kinglist Ashur, 14616~. This suggested chronology does not address the possibility that additional dynastic telescoping might have occurred during this turbulent period. The intrusive Elamite dynasty and the regional Bazi dynasty could also have overlapped. This table merely illustrates that such regnal information as we do have is consistent with this hypothesis. JACF VOL. 9 67 Conclusion Having reviewed the primary documentation, it would seem that rather than presenting a barrier to chronological revision of the late second millennium BC, the Assyrian and Baby- lonian records would, in fact, be better served by assuming that there was dynastic overlap during the 10th century BC. The dark period bracketed by the reigns of Ashur-bel-kala and Ashur-dan I1 is of significant chronological concern. Although a total of seventy-eight years is allotted to Ashur- rabi 11, Adad-nirari IV and Tiglath-pileser 11, there is no firm contemporary evidence to indicate that any of these kings ever reigned in Ashur itself. When the Babylonian records and annals -including the enigmatic Synchronistic Kinglist - are combined with the Assyrian material, a strong case can be made that dynastic telescoping occurred in both nations during that dark period. There is even limited evidence to suggest that two branches of the Assyrian royal family may have ruled a divided nation contemporaneously during the period of Aramaean ascendancy. Ashur-rabi I1 and his son may have attempted to govern the west whilst Shalmaneser 11 controlled Ashur itself. It would also seem prudent for dead-reckoning purposes to no longer ignore Poebel's suggestion that some tele- scoping might have occurred after the death of Tukulti- Ninurta I. That was almost certainly a period during which the normal rules of succession were not followed, for two of the AKL exemplars provide different names for the father of Ashur-nirari 111, whilst the line of succession was clearly disrupted by the accession of Ninurta-apil-Ekur. It would therefore seem appropriate to accept no more than six years - the longest of the four reigns - for the period between the death of Tukulti-Ninurta and the accession of Ashur-dan I. As shown in the Appendix (opposite), it is possible to incorporate these suggestions with all known synchronisms between Mesopotamia and Egypt from the el-Amarna period down to the 9th century BC. The harmony between these disparate sources of information provides good support for my proposal that the chronology of the Egyptian New Kingdom should be reduced by about 100 years. 0 Bibliography ALBRIGHT, W. F. (1956): `The Date of the Kapara Period at Gozan (Tell Halaf)' in Anatolian Studies 6, pp. 75-85. ALBRIGHT, W. F. (1975): Syria, the Philistines and Phoenicia, Cambrike Ancient History 11, pp. 529-36. BRINKMAN, J. A. (1968): A Political History ofPost-Kassite Babylonia, 1158- 722 B.C. Analecta Orientalia (Rome). BRINKMAN, J. A. (1970): Bibliotheca Orientalis27, p. 307. BRINKMAN, J. A. (1972): `Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 B.C.: The Documentary Evidence' in JNES76, pp. 271-81. BRINKMAN, J. A. (1973): `Comments on the Nassouhi Kinglist and the Assyrian Kinglist Tradition' in Orientalia 42, pp. 306-19. BRINKMAN, J. A. (1976): Materials andStudiesfbr Kmite Hktory (Chicago) p. 15, n. 28. BRINKMAN, J. A. (1984): `Settlement Surveys and Documentary Evidence: Regional Variation and Secular Trend in Mesopotamian Demography' in JNES43, pp. 169-80. BRINKMAN, J. A. (1993): `Meerland' in RA 8.1/2, pp. 6-10. 1 DODSON, A. (1995-6): KMT Communications Book Report (Internet) 6:4 (Winter 1995-1996), pp. 1-3. DODSON, A. (1993): `Psusennes I1 and Shoshenq I' in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79, pp. 267-68. FORBES, D. (1995-6): KMTCommunicationrBook&port(Internet) 6:4, (Winter FRAME, G. (1995): Rulers of Babylonia. From the Seond Dynasty OfZsin to the End ofAsyrian Domination (7 157-612 BC) (Toronto). GOETZE (1965): `An Inscription of Simbar-Sihu' inJCS 19, pp. 134-35. GRAYSON, A.K. (1972): Assyrian RoyalZnrcrziptionr, Vol 1. (Wiesbaden), pp. GRAYSON, A.K. (1975): Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (N.Y), p. 52. GRAYSON, A.K. (1976): Assyrian Royal Inscr$tions, Vol2. (Wiesbaden). GRAYSON, A.K. (1980): `Konigslisten und Chroniken' in RA 6: 1/2, pp. 87- 124. GRAYSON, A.K. (1991): `Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millenium BC I (1114-859 BC)' in The Royal Znsmiptions ofMesopotamia; Assyrian Periods, v. 2 (Toronto). HAGENS, G. (1996): `A Critical Review of Dead-Reckoning from the 21st Dynasty' in JARCE 33, pp. 153-63. HENlGE, D. (1986): `Comparative Chronology and the Ancient Near East: A Case for Symbiosis' in BASOR 262, p. 63. JAMES, P. J., I. J. THORPE, N. KOKKINOS, R. MORKOT & J. A. FRANKISH (1991): Centuries ofDurkness (London). JAMES, P. J. (1992): `Centuries of Darkness: a reply to critics' in Cambrike Archaeological Journal 2, pp. 127-44. KING, L.W. (1912): Ba6ylonian Boundary Stones (London). LAMBERT, W. G. (1958): `Review of F. Gossman' in Das Era-Epos(Wmburg, 1956) in Arkivfir OrientJrschung 18, pp. 395-401. LAMBERT, W. G. (1974): `The Home of the First Sealand Dynasty' in JCS LUCKENBILL, D. D. (1926): Ancient Records OfAssyria and Babylonia, Vol. I (Chicago). LUCKENBILL, D. D. (1927): Ancient Records ofAssyria andBa6ylonia,Vol. I1 (Chicago). NASSOUHI, E. (1927): `Grand liste des rois d'Assyrie' in Arkivfir Orient- fbrschung4, pp. 1-11. NEUMANN, J. & S. PARPOLA (1987): `Climatic Change and the Eleventh- Tenth-Century Eclipse of Assyria and Babylonia' in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, pp. 161-82. OLMSTEAD, A. T. (1960): History OfAsyria (Chicago), p. 74. POEBEL, A. (1943): `The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad' in JNES2, POSTGATE, N. (1991): `The Chronology of Assyria-an Insurmountable Obstacle' in Cambridge ArchaeologicalJournal 1 (2), pp. 227-53. READE, J. E. (1975): `Assurnasirpal I and the White Obelisk' in Iraq37, pp. ROHL, D. M. (1995): A Zst ofEme (London). SCHROEDER, 0. (1920): Keilschriften au.sAssur historkchen Inhults (Leipzig), WARD, W. A. (1992): `The Resent Status of Egyptian Chronology' in BASOR WEIDNER, E. F. (1938): `Ashurnasirpal' in RA1, p. 214. WEIDNER, E. F. (1938-9): Arkivfir Orientforschung 13, p. 308. WENTE, E. F. &VAN SlCLEN 111, C. C. (1976): `A Chronology of the New Kingdom' in J. H. Johnson and E. F. Wente (eds.): Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (Chicago), pp. 217-61. VON BECKERATH, J. cited by WENTE, E. F. (1998) in Review ofJ. von Beckerath (1994): Chronologie des agyiitologisdze Beitrage, inJourna1 OfNearEastm Studies57, pp. 309-11. YAMADA, S. (1994): `The Editorial History of the Assyrian King List' in Zeitschri$J;r Assyriologie 84, pp. 11-37. 1995-1996), pp. 4-9. 132-53. 26, pp. 208-10. pp. 56-7. 129-50. pp. 11, 77. 288, pp. 53-66. 68 JACF VOL. 9 I Egyptian, Babylonian and Assyrian Synchronisms during the 13th-11th Centuries BC Date 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1170 1160 1150 1140 1130 1120 1110 1100 1090 1080 1070 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1010 EGYPT 1310 Amenhotep I11 (32 yrs) 1284 Akhenaten (18 yrs) 1266 Smenkhkare (2 yrs) 1264 Tutankhamun (10 yrs) 1254 Ay (4 yrs) 1250 Haremheb (29 yrs) l7 1221 Ramesses I 1220 Seti II8 1210 Ramesses I1 (67 yrs)lg 1143 Merenptah (10 yrs) 1133 AmenmesseZ1 1129 Seti I1 (6+ yrs) 1123 Siptah (6 yrs) 1123 Tausert, (8 yrs) 25 11 15 Inter-regnum (1 yr) 1113 Setnakht (3 yr~)~~ 11 10 Ramesses I11 (31 yrs) 1079 Ramesses IV (6 yrs) 1073 Ramesses V (4 yrs) 1069 Ramesses VI (8 yrs) 1062 Ramesses VI1 (6 yrs) 1055 Ramesses VI11 (1 yr) 1054 Ramesses IX (18 yrs) 1036 Ramesses X (3 yr~)~O 1033 Ramesses XI (28 yrs) BABYLON (?) Kadashman-Enlil I (?) 1295 Burna-Buriash I1 (29 yrs) l4 (1263-l?) Kara-hardash/Nazi-BugashI5 1260 K~uigalzu I1 (22 yrs) 1238 Nazi-Maruttash (26 yrs) 1212 Kadashman-Turgu (18? yrs) 1194 Kadashman-Enlil I1 (2? yr~)~' 1192 Kudur-Enlil (6 yrs) 1186 Shagarakti-Shuriash (13 yrs) 1174 Kashtiliash (8 yrs) (Assyrian domination) 1165 Enlil-nadin-shumi/Kadashmm-Kharbe (2 yrs) 1163 Adad-shuma-iddini (6 yrs) 1157 Adad-shuma-usur (30 yrs) 1127 Meli-Shikhu (15 yrs) 23 11 12 Marduk-apla-iddina (13 yrs) 1099 Zababa-shuma-idinna (1 yr) 1098 Enlil-nadin-ahhe (3 yrs) 1095 Marduk-kabit-ahheshu (17 yr~)~~ 1078 Iti-Marduk-balatu (8 yr~)*~ 1070 Ninurta-nadin-shumi (6 s)" 1064 Nebuchadrezzar (22 yrsr 1046 Enlil-nadin-apli (4 yrs) 1042 Marduk-nadin-ahhe (18 yrs) 31 1024 Marduk-shapik-zeri (13 yrs) 101 1 Adad-apla-iddina (22 yrs) ASSYRIA 1319 Eriba-Adad I (27 yrs) 1292 Ashur-uballit I (36 yrs) 1256 Enlil-nirari (10 yrs) 1246 Arik-den-ili (12 yrs) 1234 Adad-nirari I (32 yrs) 1202 Shalmaneser I (30 yrs) 1172 Tukulti-Ninurta I (37 yrs) 1135 Ashur-nirari I11 etc (6 yr~)~~ 1129 Ninurta-apil-Ekur (3 yr~)'~ 1126 Ashur-dan I (46 YTS) (Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur) (Mutakkil-Nusku) 1080 Ashur-resh-ishi I (18yrs) 1062 Tiglath-pileser I (39 yrs) 1023 Ashared-apil-Ekur (2 rs) 1021 Ashur-bel-kala (18 yrsy JACF VOL. 9 69 Notes and References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. P. J. James et aL, 1991, pp. 301-02. A. Poebel (1943) speculated that Assyria might have splintered into four principalities after the death of Tukulti-Nin- and that three of his sons and one Ninurta-apil-Ekur, who appear in the AKL as successors, might in fact have been contem- poraries. This suggestion, based on a letter addressed to `the [small1 kings of Assyria,' lacks corroborating evidence and has been ignored by subsequent scholars (N. Postgate, 1991, p. 245). From J. A. Brinkman, 1968, p. 75; 1973, p. 310; 1972, p. 272(?). From A. K. Grayson, 1980. Although the name of king is missing, KAV21 reveals the reign-length of Shalmaneser's predecessor. By interpolation. `The chronology of the Kassite dynasty can only be regarded as tentative . . . the question of overlap, coincidence, or hiatus . . . has hardly been solved. Further research can be expected to revise many of the late- second millennium dates before 1150 B.C.' U. A. Brinkman, 1972, p. 271, n. 2), and `Kassite and Middle Kingdom chronology present fewer problems if some overlap is postulated between them and preceding or succeeding dynasties.' 0. A. Brinkman, 1976, p. 33, n. 91,427). From A. K Grayson, 1975, p. 119. Lines separate synchronistic kings. Note that `ummanshu' refers to a royal scribe, and some of the illegihle names could be that of a scribe. Established synchronisms require that the commencement of Add- apla-iddina's reign was no earlier than that of Ashur-bel-kala, and no more than 10 years later U. A. Brinkman, 1968, p. 75). The nearly contemporary Nassouhi Kinglist gives this as `2O+[x]', thus contradicting the later Khorsabad list which has the sign for `forty'+l (A. K. Grayson, 1980, p. 113). 17 years in Kinglist A, 14 in the Dynastic Chronicle (A; K. Grayson, 1975, p. 143). 2 years in Dynastic Chronicle; 3 years in Kinglist A. The region referred to by Ashur-dan as [Ilahanu was probably west of the Euphrates, although some have suggested it was near the Lesser Zah. See J. E. Reade, 1975, pp. 139-40). The synchronsim between Ashur-nirari IV and Ninurta-kudurr-usur I in Ashur 14616c auueam to be an intrinsic error: either the Svnchronistic 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 2 7. 28. by interpolation of an undated fragment of an eponym list. Four of the el-Amarna letters are between Amenhotep I11 and Kadashman-Enlil I; six were written by Burnaburiash to Amenhotep I11 (probably), Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) and Tutankhamun. Nine years ten months is a minimum date for Merenptah's reign. Helck suggests that Merenptah reigned for Manetho's 19 years (E.F. Wente & C. C. Van Siclen, 1976, p. 236). The reigns of Kara-hardash and Nazi- Bugash are unknown and, although shown here as c. 3 years, if Merneptah`s reign was increased, so could they. Both 38 & 22 have been suggested for the numeral: A. K Grayson, 1975, p. 94, n. 111. Haremheb's reign is variously estimated at between 25 and 30 years. J. Von Beckerath allows 11-15 then a co-regency of 1 year. Kadashman-Enlil probably came to the throne some time between Ramesses 11's Years 16 and 25 (W. A. Ward, 1992; E. F. Wente, 1998). This is uncertain. Grayson (1975, p. 94, n. I14 a) gives 1 [O+x]; Brinkman accepts anythmg from 8 to 1O+x, and Abel et al. read it as 2. This relative chronology would be sustained if the reigns of Merenptah and Kadashmm-Enlil were both a few years longer. An independent reign Amenmesse was recently reamed, with year 4 as the highest regnal year attested (E. F. Wente, 1998; E. F. Wente & C. C. Van Siclen, 1976). After Poebel (1943): Ashur-nadin-apli (3 years) and Enlil-kudur-usur (5) are taken as contemporaries. Emar was probably destroyed shortly after Meli-Shikhu's Year 2 in the wave of violence which devastated Western Asia, roughly during the reigns of Seti I1 & Tausert (R. Drews, 1993). The Nassouhi, Khorsabad and Seventh Day Adventist kinglists all seem to give the combined reigns of Ninurta-apil-Ekur and Ashur-dan I as 49 years. NaKL has 13 for the former and `26+[x]' for the latter, while KhKl and SDAS give 3 and 46 years respectively (A. K.Grayson 1980: Showing all the regnal years of Siptah appropriated by Tausert (E. F. Wente & C. C. Van Siclen, 1976, p. 236). After J. von Beckerath, 1994, p. 117. Preferred over the alternative of 18 after J. A. Brinkman, 1968, p. 40. The numeral has also been read as `6' (A. K. Grayson, 1980, p. 95 I1 18. a). 111). Kinglist is wrong; or the (19+12=)31 years accorded to Aihurnasirpal and Shalmaneser incorrect. It should be remembered that the 19 is based on a single reading of the AKL which `could be in error' (A.K. Grayson, 1991, p. 122), whilst Shalmaneser's reign-length derives only 29. J. A.'Brinkman, 1968, p. 29, n. 127. 30. Highest year date of 3 confirmed J. Von Beckerath, 1994. 31. J. A. Brinkman, 1968, pp. 124-30.