Assyrian and conventional chronology
Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:33


Regarding the chronological debates I think when we take Assyrian king Esarhaddon's chronological statements along with Assyrian, Egyptian and Hittite snchronisms it supports the conventional chronology. There is an inscription by king Esarhaddon of Assyria that states 586 years elapsed between the restoration of the temple of Ashur by Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon's own year 2 restoration (680/679 BC), as well as 434 years between the restorations of Shamshi-Adad I and Shalmaneser I. This would place Shalmaneser I around 1275 BC and Shamshi-Adad in the 18th century BC (there's also an inscription from Tiglath-Pileser referring to 641 years separating Shamshi-Adad's reconstruction of a temple and his own restoration, which would also place Shamshi-Adad in the 18th century BC). But it seems other Assyrian kings should be ruling at these times according to the New Chronology. Also, since we know Hammurabi and likely Pharaoh Neferhotep I were contemporaries of Shamshi-Adad I this would seem to provide a link with Babylonian and Egyptian chronology in the 18th century BC.

There are other synchronisms between Egyptian and Assyrian chronology. Amenhotep III corresponded with Kadashman-Enlil and Burnaburiash of Babylon who were contemporaries of Eriba-Adad I of Assyria (c. 1392-1366 BC according to the conventional chronology). Also, we know that Rameses II was contemporary with both Muwatalli II (they fought at Kadesh) and Hattusili III (they signed a treaty) and the latter two both corresponded with Assyrian king Adad-Nirari I (early 13th century BC according to the conventional chronology) and Hattusili III corresponded with Shalmaneser I. If Shalmaneser reigned around 1275 BC based on Esarhaddon's statement then this would also place Ramesses II in the 13th century BC. I've read the argument that many of the Assyrian kings between Tiglath-Pileser (c. 1115-1076 BC according to conventional chronology) and Ashur-Dan II (c. 934-912 BC) reigned concurrently rather than sequentially but we have the explicit statement by Esarhaddon that 586 years elapsed between Shalmaneser I and himself. It seems difficult to imagine Esarhaddon would be ignorant of the chronology given the records he would have had access to. It seems that according to the New Chronology different Assyrian kings would need to be ruling during these times prior to Ashur-Dan II , and a lot of Assyrian monarchs would need to be able to fit within the period between Tiglath-Pileser and Ashur-Dan II (between about 1076 and 934 BC) in order for New Chronological adjustments to be made.

    • Assyrian and conventional chronologyRobert Killian, Sat Aug 18 01:42
      Hello MichaelSBOL, Regarding the chronological "dates" that you mention in this ANEC "Forum "post", I would like to "share" what I have found and published in 2012AD, since beginning to "collect"... more
  • Click here to receive daily updates