Assyrian Sources Research Articles

West Semitic Lexicon in Sumerian

Sumer’s conquest by Semitic-speaking peoples from the west is symbolized by the history of Sargon of Akkad. Assyrian sources report that he was the son of an unknown father, associated with hilly regions, born in the west on the banks of the Euphrates, and defeated Lugalzagesi of Uruk (Liverani, 2013). This narrative has influenced both historical reconstructions and the perception of cultural and linguistic contact between the Semitic and Sumerian worlds. Indeed, while the absorption of syntactic, morphological, and lexical features from Sumerian into Akkadian and West Semitic languages has been studied extensively (Zólyomi, 2012), little has been said about Semitic influences in Sumerian, especially West Semitic. Certainly, until the early second millennium BC, Sumerian remained an evolving linguistic system rather than a frozen substrate, acquiring Semitic features (Streck, 1998). Yet before the Akkadian empire’s foundation, West Semitic lexicon seems to have penetrated Sumerian, already in its formative period.

PRE-URARTIAN (EARLY IRON AGE) GROOVED POTTERY OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES OF EASTERN AND SOUTHEASTERN ANATOLIA (NAIRI-URUATRI LANDS) AND ITS INFLUENCE IN THE URARTIAN POTTERY

The highland of eastern Anatolia, southern Caucasia and north-western Iran were the main territory of pre-Urartians, in other words, small local independent polities of the land of Nairi and Uratri communities. Grooved ware related to the local communities of Nairi-Uruatri lands is spread for centuries over this vast area associated with other distinct pottery groups in peripheries during the EIA, from the c. 13th-12th centuries to the 9th century BC. It decreasingly continued with new forms during the MIA until the 7th century BC. The distribution and chronology of the grooved pottery well matched the borders and dates of the Nairi and Uruatri lands mentioned in Middle Assyrian sources starting from the 13th century BC. The fortified site area, the settlement system of the Nairi and Uruatri territory, which is the formation of a mobile-sedentary lifestyle of local communities, also contains these borders. The existence of grooved ware beyond eastern Anatolia in the south indicates to spread of these agro-pastoral groups in the Upper Tigris Valley during the temporary void of the Assyrian Empire. The eastern side of the Lake Van basin within the vast pre-Urartian land shows a particular situation with its different pottery subgroups and fine wares. It seems that Urartian red polished ware (Biainili ware) was derived from the pinkish-buff red slipped ware of the pre-Urartian period on the northern and eastern shores of Lake Van, where major pre-Urartian and Urartian settlements were located and most probably the core area of grooved ware. The eastern side of Lake Van, which is the heartland of the Urartian Kingdom, is also well matched to Uruatri land. The characteristics of the foundation of the Urartian Kingdom seem mainly developed based on the local traditions of the pre-Urartians who lived in the eastern part of Lake Van, which later became the capital of the Urartian Kingdom.

Խուբուշկիա և Արմիրալի երկրների նույնության ու բնույթի մասին

Assyrian sources mention the country Khubushkia (Hubuškia). It was among the smaller countries situated on the Armenian Tavros. The Khubushkia occupied the part of Southern Armenia, to south of Lake Van, in the river basin of Eastern Tigris. According to the author, the capital of country-of the same name Khubushkia, was situated in the centre of country in Hovadasht. In the toponym Hub-ušk-ia for component Hub-//*Hov- compare with Armenian toponym Հով (next Օվ)>Հովա(>Հովա դաշտ “field of Hova”), possessive case: Hova. Ancient Armenian princely families Mokatsi and Andzavatsi are mentioned together in the “History of Armenia” by Movses Khorenatsi. So, their possessions were in the neighbourhood in the river basin of Eastern Tigris, hence the ancestors of the tribe Khimuva/Khimme lived in the neighbourhood in the cuneiform Khubushkia-Armirali. For Armirali<*arm-ir-ali compare with Zarmayr<*z-arm-ayr, where *arm-“chariot” (compare ancient Greek aρμα “chariot”). To deduce, the Union of the future regions of ancient Armenia – Mokq and Andzevatsik was the most important center of that time where Indo-European social institute of two leaders and Indo-European cult of godlike Twins were shaped (compare with Sanasar and Baghdasar from “Sasna tsrer”).

THE IMPORTANCE OF MANNA COUNTRY IN FOREIGN POLITICS OF THE URARTU STATE

The Manna State was established in the south of Lake Urmia in the 9th century BC. The name of this state is mentioned in Urartian and Assyrian cuneiform sources from the 1st millennium BC. The region where the land of Manna located is particularly important as it is on trade routes when a great drought and thus a wave of migration from Central Asia began during the Iron Age. Urmia Lake Basin, which has attracted the attention of the Urartian Kingdom from the early period, is one of the regions that could not be dominated and therefore almost all Urartian kings organized expeditions. The attempt to subdue Manna increased during the reign of the Urartian King Menua and the Assyrian threat was faced during the intense campaigns during the reign of Menua’s successor, Argišti I. During the Sarduri II period, expeditions continued and tribute was taken from the Manna principalities. Manna King Iranzu, who was an Assyrian vassal, took advantage of Assyrians’ successful war against Urartu, followed a policy of centralization and created a principality system dependent on the central authority in the country. Although Manna became a powerful state around the Urmia Lake Basin during Iranzu’s reign, some rulers and princes who did not like Iranzu’s centralization policy gave Urartu the opportunity to interfere in Manna’s internal affairs. Urartian King Rusa I used the internal political crisis among the Mannas for his own purposes, provoked some principalities against the central authority, and a pro-Urartian group emerged in the country. Thus, the Lake Urmia Basin became the subject of an intense struggle for dominance between the Urartu and Assyrian States during the reign of Rusa I. With the Assyrian King Sargon II, the pressure of the Urartians in the region decreased. After the defeat of Urartian Kingdom by Sargon II, the balance of power in the region changed, and Manna was not mentioned in Urartian written sources after that. In this study, the importance of the Manna State, which has an important place in the history of Azerbaijan, in terms of the foreign policy of the Urartian State is discussed.

Baneful Night of Cimmerian Land: Poetry, History and the Whim of Chance

The Odyssey places “the city of the Cimmerian men” in the immediate vicinity of the realm of the dead — in an area that is never illuminated by the rays of the sun. Meanwhile, Greek writers call by the same name «Cimmerians» a real people who invaded in the 7th century BC Asia Minor and who are called “gimir”/“gamir” in Assyrian sources. This context gave rise to many ingenious, sometimes extravagant lines of thought in the minds of scholars — ancient and modern. Two ideas became especially influential: according to one, the Cimmerians are the most northern people living in the conditions of the polar night; according to another, the Homeric image was due to the reports of fogs covering the shores of the Black Sea Colchis. A common tendency, however, was to ignore the poet’s words that “the breath of the North Wind” will bear Odysseus’s ship towards the realm of the dead. These words clearly imply that this realm is located in the extreme south, but such a conclusion seemed so strange to scholars that they preferred to pass over the issue in silence. The article explains that the unusual localization of the realm of the dead goes back to the Bronze Age. It is the notion of a solar disk bright only on one side, which stands behind such a localization. The Odyssey depends on a particular version of this notion that came, apparently, from Scandinavia. As for similar sounding of the names of imagined and real peoples, it is the whim of chance.

Israel and Phoenicia in the Assyrian Sources

Israel and Phoenicia in the Assyrian Sources

The Formation and Significance of Assyrian Narrative for the Soviet Historiography of Antiquity

The author of the article, using the method of backward chronology, highlights characteristic features of the narrative about Assyria from the beginning of the 21st century until the middle of the 20th century, and points out that I. M. Dyakonoff, who used to be the leading Assyriologist, gradually had delegated to his pupils almost all of the aspects of Assyrian history, retaining the history of Sumer within his major research scope. On the basis of archival documents, the author shows that the Assyrian narrative of I. M. Dyakonoff had been generally shaped even before the war, during his work on the chapters for the multi-volume “World History”. His Assyrian narrative was formed under the influence of the “Cambridge History of Antiquity” and V. V. Struve’s lectures: in the first case, this was evident in the presentation of a large amount of material; in the second case — in the desire to search for non-obvious explanations of the essence of historical processes. Moreover, I. M. Diakonoff did not share V. V. Struve’s views on the Assyrian history and attempted to present his position. The author concludes that the shift of I. M. Diakonoff’s interests from Assyrian history to mainly the history of Sumer was inevitable and was very unlikely to have been caused by the desire to supersede academician V. V. Struve in his status of the classic of Soviet scholarship. Two main factors influenced this transition: first, the features of Soviet historical scholarship, which presupposed a search for in-depth explanations almost exclusively in the socio-economic field, and secondly, the specificity of Assyrian sources, which contained scanty information about socio-economic processes.

Investigation of the Origin of the Scythians According to Written Sources

Greek sources, mainly Chinese, Persian and Assyrian sources revealed by the findings of archaeological excavations in the information given in the elucidation of the history and culture of the Scythians has taken an important place and to keep it continue. Despite the research conducted by many scientists on the origin of the Scythians, who, taking part in historical events from Manchuria to Hungary, from the Caucasus to Egypt, “made history, but did not write it”, there was no consensus among scientists. There is not enough information about the origin of the Scythians in ancient sources and finds unearthed as a result of archaeological excavations. With the beginning of Scythian studies, the issue of the origin of the Scythians was also raised and various opinions were put forward. E.H. Minns states the importance of the issue by saying that “no issue related to ethnography has perhaps been discussed as much as the problem of the ancestry of the Scythians”. On this issue, which keeps minds busy various opinions have been put forward by carrying out studies from the XVIII century to the present day. Some authorities have stated that the Scythians belonged to the Iranian, some to the Slavic, and some to the Ural-Altaic race. Accordingly, three different points of view arise – the Iranian, Slavic and Ural-Altaic views. The article discusses the origin of the Scythians in the light of written sources.

ASUR KAYNAKLARINDA ARAPLAR VE ARAP KRALLIKLARI

Araplar, Asur yazılı belgelerinde ve sarayların duvarlarını süsleyen rölyeflerde kendilerine yer edinmişlerdir. Arapların Asur kaynaklarına konu olması, onların önemli ticaret güzergâhlarından birisinin kontrolünü ellerinde tutmaları, aramotikler ve deve açısından zengin kaynaklara sahip olmalarıyla ilgiliydi. Asur kralları Arabistan Yarımadası’ndaki çıkarlarını bazen askeri seferler ile bazen ise siyasi uzlaşma yoluyla korumaya çalışmıştır. Asur, gerçekleştirdiği askeri seferler ile Araplar üzerinde üstünlük kurmuş olmasına rağmen, bölgenin sahip olduğu coğrafi ve iklim şartları Asur’un bölgeye nüfuz etmesine engel olmuştur. Asur’un bölgeye gerçekleştirdiği seferler geniş çaplı yağma faaliyetlerinden öteye geçememiş, Asur ordusu geri çekilir çekilmez Arap kabileleri bağımsız bir şekilde davranmışlar ve ilk fırsatta Asur karşıtı hareketlerin içerisinde yer almışlardır. Asur kaynakları, Asur ve Arap krallıkları arasındaki askeri ve siyasi ilişkilerinin yanında, Arapların siyasi ekonomik ve sosyal hayatları hakkındaki önemli bilgileri barındırmaktadır. Asur yazılı belgeleri Arabistan tarihi hakkında bilgi veren ilk yazılı kaynak olma özelliği de taşımaktadır.

The unconquerable country: the Babylonian marshes in the Neo-Assyrian sources

The Assyrians ruled in the first half of the first millennium BCE over most part of the Ancient Near East. The Neo-Assyrian Empire was constructed on the base of a powerful, well organized and trained army, which defeated all enemies and seemed to be invincible. Babylonia was a special case, because of the complicated political situation and especially its particular geography. Southern Babylonia (nowadays Southern Iraq) was a region of marshes and lagoons, an ideal refuge for rebels. The area could become a mortal trap for those who entered it without knowing it well enough. This region, which represented a severe challenge for the Assyrian army, was called in the Assyrian sources the “Sealand”, a region where water played a crucial role. The aim of this paper is to show how this particular landscape was perceived by the Assyrians as well as to point out its decisive role in the development of the historical events on the base of the cuneiform sources and the depictions on the stone plates, which decorated the walls of the Assyrian palaces.

The House of David: Between Political Formation and Literary Revision by Mahri Leonard-Fleckman

Reviewed by: The House of David: Between Political Formation and Literary Revision by Mahri Leonard-Fleckman Michael J. Stahl mahri leonard-fleckman, The House of David: Between Political Formation and Literary Revision (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016). Pp. xvii + 334. $79. Leonard-Fleckman’s monograph on the “House of David” offers a significant contribution to both biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies. Her treatment of David’s “house” com bines biblical studies with Assyriology and ancient history in a two-part sequence: (1) historical investigation of the Syrian “House of X” terminology (chaps. 1–3); and (2) literary-historical and historical-critical analysis of the biblical evidence for David’s “house” (chaps. 4–7). Part 1 especially examines evidence from early first-millennium b.c.e. Assyrian royal annals regarding the Syrian “House of X” terminology, freshly concluding that “bīt X polities center on a specific leader rather than on a particular geographical area or [royal or central] town,” and are “[d]epicted as multicentered systems with often-decentralized populations,” from which the polities’ rulers emerge (pp. 16–17). The early Assyrian evidence indicates that the term bīt X primarily refers to a population attached to a particular ancestor or leader; only in later Assyrian sources does the expression become identified with a royal town ruled by a single leader. Part 2 centers on three biblical texts that use the term “House of David” but anomalously do not equate this entity with Judah or the Judahite dynasty in Jerusalem, as elsewhere in biblical writing: (1) the Absalom and Sheba rebellions in 2 Samuel 15–20, wherein David’s “house” leaves Jerusalem for the Transjordan (2 Sam 15:16a; chap. 4); (2) David’s elevation as Israel’s king in 2 Sam 2:1–5:3, in which David’s “house” competes against Saul’s “house” for rule of Israel (2 Sam 3:1; chap. 5); and (3) Rehoboam and the Shechem assembly in 1 Kgs 12:1–20, where Judah follows David’s “house” after Israel rejects David’s heir Rehoboam (chap. 6). The book’s core issue is historical: the relationship of David, David’s “house,” Israel, and Judah during the early monarchy. Methodologically, L.-F. engages in what she dubs a “historian’s literary history,” which emphasizes major narrative changes coupled with broad shifts in political perspective to utilize the biblical materials for purposes of historical reconstruction. L.-F. thereby seeks to disentangle older, independent lore in the David story [End Page 121] (e.g., 2 Sam 2:13b-28a; 15:1–16a; 18:1–19:9bα; 20:14–22) from later phases of editorial organization, structuring, and revision. In light of current literary-historical scholarship on the David story prioritizing David’s rule of Judah without Israel, L.-F.’s primary literary-historical conclusion is bold: the David narrative’s major compositional phase (much of 2 Sam 2:1–5:3; 15:17–17:29; 19:16a, 18b-40) connects David’s rule with Israel, not Judah. Politically, this compositional phase (and its earlier “building blocks”) conceives of Israel as a collective, mobile political body, and its narrative geography restricts Israel to the central highlands and Transjordan, without clear geographical distinction between later Israel and Judah. Whereas the David story’s earliest “building blocks” may potentially go back to the tenth century, L.-F. situates the David story’s primary compositional phase in Judah during the period of the two kingdoms. During a second compositional phase, Judahite tradents reoriented the David narrative to emphasize David’s rule of Judah and Israel (with Judah primary) by adding references to Judah (2 Sam 2:4a; 19:9bβ-15, 16b-18a; 19:41–20:13). Literarily, L.-F. observes that Judah as a political entity (1) rarely appears in the David story, to the point that, “[i]f the Judah material were indeed primary to the David story, the story would collapse from lack of self-standing, independent lore” (p. 4); and (2) is not deeply integrated into the David narrative, typically occurring in editorial revisions around the narrative margins. L.-F. concludes that this second compositional phase occurred by the time of the Samuel–Kings combination, as part of...

North Pontic Indo-Europeans in Troy

The paper contains the text of author’s lecture at the conference “Trojan colloquium” which took place in Kyiv in May, 30th, 2018. The questions of connections between ancient Asia Minor population and North Pontic region are considered on the base of archaeological sources and Indo-European studies. The lower Troy layers contain the traces of several invasions of Anatolian group of Indo-European peoples from the Balkans (the Hittites, Palayans, Luwians) and also the Phrygian and Armenian ancestors. They had been formed in the Danube River region in the 4th millennium BCE under the influence of Chalcolithic migrants from the North-Western Pontic region. Migration of the Hittites-Luwians from Balkans to Asia Minor in the 3rd millennium BCE was a part of great spread of Indo-European tribes in the Chalcolithic-Bronze Era from two centers of Indo-European ethno-genesis which situated in the north of Central Europe and in the North Pontic region. The fall of Homer’s Troy (layer VІІа) clashes with the invasion of “sea people” and the destruction of the Hittite Kingdom (about 1200 BCE). A leading role, in opinion of I. Diakonov and L. Klein, in Troy’s fall and in the Hittite Empire disintegration was played not by Mycenaean Greeks, but by Phrygian and Armenian ancestors, militant “musks” of the Assyrian sources. During the invasion of “Sea Peoples” they came to Asia Minor from the West — from the Balkans. The beginning of the mentioned ethnic groups formation was linked with the Lower Danube and the North-Western Pontic region, in particular, with Usatovo-Chornavoda II cultures population. Traces of the contacts of native languages: Thracian, Phrygian, Armenian, Greek with the Indo-Iranians bind them to Northern Pontic region. Just here the majority of researchers place the Indo-Iranian motherland, the ancestors of whom they consider the Yamna and Catacomb cultures population. Archaeological and literary sources testify the participating in the Asia Minor ancient history of three more peoples from the North Pontic Steppe — Sabatinovka culture tribes, Cimmerians and Scythians. “Sabatinians” apparently took part in the invasion of “Sea Peoples” which is proved by finds of bronze weapons, typical for the final Bronze Age of the North Pontic region, at the Middle East territory. Cimmerians in 675 BCE destroyed the Phrygian state with the capital of Gordion and founded the Gammira state. The latter was destroyed in 605 BCE by Scythians who had come to Asia Minor, as well as the Cimmerians, through the Caucasus.

The Family God in Old Babylonian and Especially in Old Assyrian Sources

The Family God in Old Babylonian and Especially in Old Assyrian Sources

Cannabis and epilepsy: An ancient treatment returns to the fore.

Cannabis has been associated with the treatment of epilepsy throughout history, and if ancient Assyrian sources referring to "hand of ghost" are considered credible, this relationship may span four millennia. A tradition of usage continued in Arabic medicine and Ayurvedic practice in India, which led, in turn, to early experiments in Europe and North America with "Indian hemp." Lack of standardization, bioavailability issues, and ultimately prohibition were all factors in cannabis-based medicines failing to maintain mainstream usage in seizure treatment, but investigation was resumed in the 1970s with interesting signals noted in both laboratory and clinical settings. Early case studies showed promise, but lacked sufficient rigor. Resumption of research coupled with mass experimentation by families of epilepsy patients has led to intense interest in cannabis-based medicines for its treatment once more, with greatest focus on cannabidiol, but additional investigation of tetrahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, and other phytocannabinoids. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Cannabinoids and Epilepsy".

In Search of ḪArḫar (The Neo-Assyrian Kar-Šarrukin) in the Central Zargos Mountains, Western Iran: A New Proposal

From the reign of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) until Ashurbanipal (668-627) numerous locations and fortresses in western Iran are mentioned in the Assyrian sources. According to these inscriptions the major fortress was Ḫarḫar, located alongside the Great Khorasan Road. After the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727) significant political changes occurred in the central western Zagros, and in the reign of Sargon II (726-705) Ḫarḫar was turned into an Assyrian province with the aim of operating as an outpost for monitoring Media. Some researchers believe that Ḫarḫar must be located in the Mahidasht plain in the west of Kermanshah Province, but up until now no definite location has been proposed. Recent studies, however, suggest that in all probability the site of ancient Ḫarḫar is to be identified with the mound of Tapeh Kheibar in the north/north-west Mahidasht (Kouzaran region). The results of field survey and surface collection indicate that in the Iron Age Kheibar was a huge fortress with an area of c. 20 ha, strongly fortified and protected by a deep, broad moat around its outer part. The location, description, and appearance of the site very closely match the depiction of Ḫarḫar in a relief from Room II of the palace of Sargon at Khorsabad showing an Assyrian attack on the city. It is therefore proposed that Tapeh Kheibar is to be identified with the site of ancient Ḫarḫar.

THE SOUTH-EASTERN BORDER REGION OF THE HITTITE STATE

Tegarama was one of the eastern lands of the Hittite Kingdom. In the geographic sense it is part of the Armenian Highland that is why its history is of special interest to us. Taking into account the fact that the Armenian people had considerable ethnic ties with the Upper Euphrates region, specialists have traditionally tended to identify “Home of Torgom” in the Trans Euphrates region together with the city Tegarama (Assyrian Til-Garimmu) mentioned from the 2nd millennium BC. “Home of Torgom” literally repeats Bet-Togarma mentioned in the Bible. The study of the history of the country of Tegarama is also important because in Armenian historiography, starting from Movses Khorenatsi, Armenian ancestor Hayk is called “Son of Torgom”, and the Armenian people - “People of Torgom”. Most of the researchers located Tegarama in the place of the present settlement Gyurun. By comparing the “Cappadocian”, Hittite and Assyrian sources, Tegarama can be located in the Upper Euphrates valley, on the right bank of the river, to the north of Kargamis, to the west of Isuwa, to the south of Upper Land and to the east of Kanes. The territory of Tegarama was not far from Nesa - one of the initial centers of the Hittites; and it was also one of the initial places of inhabitance of the Hittites. Tegarama also occupied a strategically important position. On the one hand it bordered on the country of Mitanni, on the other hand - on Isuwa. Thus, the country of Tegarama occupied a significant geographic position: on the one hand roads led from here to other western districts of the Armenian Highland, to Tsopk, and on the other hand - to Northern Syria and Northern Mesopotamia. It was also one of the spiritual centers of Hatti.

Yaṯa ‘’ amar Watār fils de Yakrubmalik, mukarrib de Saba’ et le synchronisme sabéo-assyrien sous Sargon II (722-705 av. J.-C.)

The Sabeo-Assyrian synchronism between Sargon II (722-705 BC) and “Ita’amra the Sabaean” mentioned in Assyrian sources constitutes one of the foundations for the chronology of South Arabia. Since the 2003 publication of the inscription AO 31929, and the 2005 discovery of the inscription DAI-Ṣirwāḥ 2005-50 by the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut of Ṣan‘ā’, the Sabaean sovereign Yaṯa‘’amar Watār son of Yakrubmalik mukarrib of Saba’, author of these two texts, appears to be the best candidate for the identification of “Ita’amra the Sabaean”, calling into question the previous identification with Yaṯa‘’amar Bayān son of Sumhū‘alī. Yanūf. Several other new inscriptions, attesting further synchronisms for the second half of the 8th century BC between the kingdom of Saba’ and the cities of Nashshān and Ma‘īn, from the Jawf region in Yemen, support this new hypothesis.

Palaeography of the Ancient South Arabian script. New evidence for an absolute chronology

The chronology of the Ancient South Arabian civilisation in the first millennium BC has always been based on palaeography. In the past, however, palaeographical comparison of the extant inscriptions was in fact the only reliable tool for historical reconstruction of that period; absolute dates were confined to the alleged synchronism of the Sabaean ruler Karibʾil Watar in Assyrian sources in the early seventh century BC. Only recently have some Ancient South Arabian inscriptions come to light, which are dated according to an absolute (foreign) era and thus allow us, for the first time, to determine the absolute date of a particular ductus of the script in that period. Furthermore, the radiocarbon analyses of a number of inscribed wooden sticks from ancient Yemen have helped to establish a reliable chronology for this particular type of documentation as well (see Drewes et al., this volume). Based on this new evidence, the paper gives a general overview of the development of the Ancient South Arabian script from its emergence in the late second millennium BC up to the latest instances in the mid-sixth century AD. The different periods of both monumental and minuscule variants of this script are characterised by representative examples of established chronology in order to provide some reliable cornerstones for dating epigraphic material from pre-Islamic Yemen.

Ein Vorschlag zur Chronologie der 25. Dynastie in Ägypten

Abstract The first mention of Kush in the Assyrian sources comes in the context of the resolution of the conflict between Sargon and the rebellious prince of Ashdod, Iamani, in ca. 707 BCE. However, this event plays a critical role in our understanding of the chronology of the end of the 24th and beginning of the 25th Dynasties. This paper re-examines the relevant data pertaining to the period in an attempt to synchronize the historical and chronological relationships presented in the Assyrian and Egyptian sources. As a result of this work, a reversal of the conventional order of the kings Schabako-Schebtiko, which was obscured in Manetho’s epithoma and is thus exclusively a matter of modern reconstruction, is needed. The new chronology put forward by the author also necessitates the re-evaluation of several other documents essential to the history of this period.

Tiglath-pileser III's Aid to Ahaz

This study examines the discrepancy in the biblical text's account of Tiglath-pileser III's aid to Ahaz during the Syro-Ephraimite crisis in light of the Assyrian sources, II Kings I6:5―9 (and Isaiah 7) states that Tiglath-pileser helped Ahaz by repelling the attacks of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, while II Chronicles 28:5― 2I proclaims that Tiglath-pileser failed to help the Judean king. Previous studies have attempted to resolve the textual conflict by way of literary analysis or textual emendation. By undertaking an historical methodology of the biblical text and an examination of the Assyrian sources, the case is made that while the biblical accounts contradict each other in specific areas, there are key elements that are historically accurate in both accounts which are in complete accord with the Assyrian sources, and in turn clarify the biblical accounts. * .