Joe Baker
Re: 5th year of Esarhaddon
Sun Apr 9, 2017 07:36
60.228.108.99

Hi Michael

When two ancient sources give conflicting dates, I choose the one which was contemporary with the event (the Assyrian source - Esarhaddon 002 = prism Nineveh 2) rather than the one copied several centuries later (the Babylonian sources - Chronicle 1 [from Babylon] and Chronicle 14 [from Borsippa] = the Esarhaddon Chronicle). The early preserved Babylonian Chronicles were extracts made by scribes from an earlier (more fuller) chronicle whose ultimate source may (or may not) have been astronomical diaries (or simply from the works of scribal schools interested in history for history sake). Somewhere along the way the miscopying of this original Babylonian source has seen the events of year 4 being divided between year 4 and year 5.

Regards Joe


  • 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Fri Apr 7 17:30
    Asarhaddon's text RINAP 4, No. 2 cites, among others the execution of Abdi-Milkuti and Sanda-uarri and the conquest of Bazu. Because the date of the inscription is the 22. II. 676/5, one would have... more
    • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonTory, Mon Apr 10 23:06
      Hi Michael, The reason no Assyriologist has questioned the Babylonian chronicle sources on this matter is because they are the unbiased sources, but more especially because the date at the very end... more
    • Re: 5th year of Esarhaddon — Joe Baker, Sun Apr 9 07:36
      • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Mon Apr 10 10:52
        Hi Joe, I also think so. I am surprised, however, that despite the knowledge of the inscription Esarhaddon 2 the scholars dont trow consequences. They see only the dates of the chronicles.... more
        • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Tue Apr 11 12:47
          Hi friends, now I have discovered, that Barbara Neviling Porter came 1993 to the same conclusion as Joe, in her book "Images, Power, and Politics", on p. 156. Hi Tory, The scribe knew the events... more
          • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonTory, Wed Apr 12 03:42
            Hi Michael, The building inscription, or public works section, is simply recycled and used to close this annal inscription which was made after month VII in year 5. Of course the original building... more
            • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Wed Apr 12 06:55
              Hi Tory, Meanwhile I have found an datailed analysis of the problem by Lanfranchi ("I Cimmeri" = HANE-S II bis, p. 56ff.), unfortunately Italian. I do not trust a translation into English. But... more
              • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonJoe Baker, Tue May 2 05:52
                Hi Michael Thank you for the Lanfranchi pages. I am not convinced by his arguments. I simply see the Babylonian Chronicle account as having split the year 4 entries between year 4 and 5. Lanfranchi... more
                • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Thu May 4 02:02
                  Hi Joe, nearly the same modification you can find here: Ivantchik, A. I.: Les Cimmérians au Proche-Orient, OBO 127(1993).... more
                  • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonJoe Baker, Fri May 5 08:11
                    Hi Michael Thanks for the Ivantchik. It is time consuming to translate into English as the paper is in jpg format. I have to save it in pdf format and then put it through an OCR and converter program ... more
                    • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Sat May 6 05:28
                      Hi Joe, Here a link to the text of the Ahmar stele with the figure "Abdi-M[ilk]ūti, king of Sidon": http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/corpus/ (all: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/ )... more
                    • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Sat May 6 04:57
                      Hi joe, You write: "Now Dietrich appears to have the incorrect date for the eclipse. It must be that of Julian 14 Sep 675 because the eclipse of Julian 21 Mar 675 actually occurred in the previous... more
                    • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Fri May 5 11:41
                      Hi Joe, you write: "Now Dietrich appears to have the incorrect date for the eclipse. It must be that of Julian 14 Sep 675 because the eclipse of Julian 21 Mar 675 actually occurred in the previous... more
              • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonTory, Thu Apr 13 05:32
                Hi Michael, I hope Lanfranchi's explanation in Italian is more detailed than the quick two-word remark Barbara Porter offered in her 1993 book. That was hardly the same conclusion as Joe's. The... more
                • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Thu Apr 13 13:29
                  Hi Tory, ich have send you and Joea pdf with the detailed work of Lanfranchi. Regards Michael
          • Re: 5th year of EsarhaddonMichael Liebig, Tue Apr 11 12:50
            It is also unlikely that the kings were beheaded in their homeland only in the year after their capture.
Click here to receive daily updates