CHAPTER FOURTEEN

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

History of Assyria Concluded

The history of Assyria differs greatly from the history of Babylonia. Babylonia was divided into numerous semi-independent regions and city-states. Its dynasties were usually shortlived. Assyria, by contrast, had unusually centralized government. Not more than two or three royal families dominated the life of the Empire for generations.
Historians today assume that these contemporaneous dynasties succeeded one another. They place the kings of the city of Assur -- the Ellasar of the Bible -- immediately before the kings of Calah and Nineveh. Their assumption is based on the fact that the Dynasty of Assur is listed immediately before the kings of Calah. As in all the royal canons, the order in which dynasties appear does not prove they were necessarily successive. It indicates only that one line of kings may have begun earlier than another. This fact is admitted for much of early Babylonia, but adamently denied -- without proof -- when it comes to late Babylonian and Assyrian history.
The kings of the city Assur were contemporary with Dynasties XVIII and XIX of Egypt. Hence they, too, must have ruled during the time of the kings of Israel and Judah -- not in the time of the judges! Numerous letters of correspondence have been found in El-Amarneh, Egypt, that passed between these Assyrian kings and those of the Egyptian Empire. The Dynasty of Assur thus constituted a third contemporary royal line ruling Assyria from the twelfth to the seventh century before the present era.

The following chart restores to their proper dates the Assur kings from Enlil-Nasir II to Enlil-kudur-usur, the last king of the city Assur.
 

Names of Kings of the City Assur	Lengths of Reign	Dates
(two preceding numbers lost)
Enlil-nasir (II) deposed his brother	6	930-924
Assur-nirari (II)	7	924-917
Assur-bel-nisheshu	9	917-908
Assur-rim-nisheshu	8	908-900
Assur-nadin-ahhe (II)	10	900-890
Eriba-Adad (I), son of Assur-bel-nisheshu	27	890-863
Assur-uballit (I)	36	863-827
Enlil-nirari	10	827-817
Arik-den-ili	12	817-805
Adad-nirari (I), brother of Arik-den-ili	32	805-773
Shulmanu-asarid (Shalmaneser I)	30	773-743
Tukulti-Ninurta (I)	37	743-706
While Tukulti-Ninurta lived, Assur-nadin-apli, his son, seized the throne	4 - or - 3	707-703  706-703
Assur-nirari (III), son of Assur-nasir-apli	6	703-697
Enlil-kudur-usur, son of Tukulti-Ninurta (I)	5	697-692

The "Cambridge Ancient History" or any other reputable source will provide the information linking the reigns of these kings with their contemporaries in Egypt. The exact dates are determined as follows. Assur-uballit I was a contemporary of Akhenaton and Tutankhamen, and corresponded with both. In 930 a revolt occurred in the Calah line. In the preceding chart a revolt in 930 brought Enlil-nasir II to the throne. The line ceased in 692 when the last king was killed in a battle with the Kassites in Babylonia. The year 692 witnessed a great war in Babylonia which also involved Sennacherib, an Assyrian king of Nineveh (see the account in his annals).

The Kassite Dynasty

The Kassite Dynasty in the King List was inserted by the ancient scribes after Dynasty I of the Sealand and before Dynasty II of Isin (the Pashe Dynasty). This position proves only that it began after ,the Sealand Dynasty (1098), but before Dynasty II of Isin (879). It is known to have been contemporary with both these royal families, as well as the line of Hammurabi. Its kings ruled over Karduniash, a territory bordering on Babylon and the Sealand.

The last king of the Assur dynasty of Assyria -- Enlil-kudur-usur -- died in the same battle in which a Kassite king fell. The year was 692. From this event the list of Kassite rulers of Southern Mesopotamia can be dated consecutively back to 845. Prior to that point the names and dates are broken away. A few contemporary tablets supply the missing names almost in entirety, but they cannot be dated.
 

Names of Kassite Rulers from 845-692

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Nazi-bugash comes to power during struggle in 846 when Kassites overthrow Eagamil of the First Dynasty of the Sealand.
 

Kurigalzu (the younger)	25	845-820
Nazi-maruttash	26	820-794
Kadashman-turgu	18	794-776
Kadashman-harbe	11	776-765
Kudur-enlil	9	765-756
	(or 6)	(765-759)

During the three years from 759-756 two other Kassite kings (listed next) came to the throne who were not sons of Kudur-enlil.
 

Enlil-nadin-shumi	1 1/2	759-756
Kadashman-harbe	1 1/2

They were succeeded by
 

Adad-nadin-shumi

6

756-750

Thereafter the royal line of Kudur-enlil was restored.
 

Shagarakti-shuriash, son of Kudur-enlil	13	750-737
Kashtiliash, son of Shagarakti-shuriash	8	737-729

At this point there occurs a break in the history of the Kassite Dynasty. Tukulti-ninurta I occupied Babylon for seven years -- 729-722. (observe that 729 is also the year that Tiglathpileser III "took the hands of Bel" and became king of Babylon.) An inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta I on a building informs us: "... I made ready to do battle with Kashtiliash, king of Karduniash, and brought about the overthrow of his host. His warriors I slew. In that encounter I took Kashtiliash prisoner. I trod upon his royal neck as on a footstool, naked and in bonds brought I him before Asshur my lord, Sumer and Akkad in their whole extent I brought under my power." Another document reads: "The defeat of Kashtiliash .... Tukulti-Ninurta turned back to Babylon ... he drew near, he wasted the wall of Babylon, he destroyed the Babylonians .... He set his governors over Karduniash. For seven years Tukulti-Ninurta ruled over Karduniash, thereafter the great ones of Akkad and Karduniash arose and made Adad-shumuli-nasir to sit upon his father's throne" (see pages 13-14 of Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia").
 

Adad-shumuli-nasir

30

722-692

The period from Kudur-enlil to Adad-shumuli-nasir has not been properly understood by any modern authors. Van der Meer espouses one view; M. B. Rowton another in the "Revised Cambridge Ancient History", Vol. I, ch. IV. The Assyrian record proves that no Kassite rulers succeeded Kashtiliash until the reign of Adad-shumuli-nasir. Therefore the only place for the reigns of Enlil-nadin-shumi, Kadashman-harbe and Adad-nadin-shumi was at some previous period. Where that period occurred is revealed by the otherwise inexplicable difference in the length of reign of Kudur-enlil -- 6 or 9 years. The Kassite king list does not place them in the actual order of their rule. It places the son and grandson of Kudur-enlil first because the scribe who drew up the document presented the kings in their blood relationship. His list of kings was not intended to be successive.

After the year 692 four more Kassite kings came to the throne. They are as follows:
 

Kassites from 692-660	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Melishipak	15	692-677
Marduk-aplaiddin, his son	13	677-664
Zababa-shumiddin	1	664-663
Ellil-nadin-ahhe	3	663-660

In 660 the Kassites -- Cushites from the east -- were overthrown in an Assyrian attack that carried Assyrian arms to the River Indus!

The Earliest Kassites

The Kassite kings make their first appearance in Southern Mesopotamia in year 8 of Samsu-iluna, son of Hammurabi. The event is commemorated in the "year-name" of year 9: "Year in which Samsu-iluna the king (defeated) the host of the Kassites." Year 8 is 1022-1021. (See p. 23 of Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia".) The first Kassite kings are listed below:
 

Names of First Kassite Kings	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Gandhe (or Gandash)	16	1022-1006
Agum the First, son of Gandhe	12	1006-994
	(or 22)	1006-984
Kashtiliash I	22	984-962
Ushshi	8	962-954

Though succeeding names are known, the years of reign are broken away.
Now consider Agum I, who is variously assigned 12 or 22 years. Who was his contemporary after 12 years of reign? Here is the answer. The great-grandfather of the Assyrian king Enlilnasir II (930-924) was Puzur-Assur. The dates of Puzur-Assur's reign have not yet been presented. (Later it will be demonstrated that they fell from 994-980.) A contemporary of Puzur-Aggur III was the Kassite king Burnaburiash. A document naming them both reads: "Puzur-Assur, king of Assur, and Burnaburiash, king of Karduniash, took oath, they established the border of that region." (Page 19 of Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia", second edition.)
This Burnaburiash (probably an older brother of Kashtiliash I) was contemporary with the Kassite kings Agum I and Kashtiliash I. His reign must have begun in 994.
For the 109 years between Ushshi (962-954) and Kurigalzu the Younger (845-820) only a bare outline of Kassite names is preserved. By a comparison with Egyptian and Assyrian and Babylonian history the Kassites can be associated with their contemporaries, though it is not always possible to determine which Kassite rulers were brothers, which sons.
After Kashtiliash I (984-962) some lists place either Ushshi or Abirattash (who were apparently brothers). After Abirattash come either Kashtiliash II or Tazzigurumash (again probably older and younger sons of Abirattash). Inheritance of the Kassite line was passed first to brothers, then to sons.
Following Tazzigurumash were Harbashipak, Tiptakzi and Agum II Kakrime, probably all brothers, since Agum II is known to be a son of Tazzigurumash. Agum II overthrew Babylon in 879, bringing to an end the First Dynasty of Babylon. (page 22 of Van der Meer's "Chronolgy of Ancient Western Asia"). No lineal descendants of Agum II are known. Agum II is the fifth generation after Gandhe in about a century and a quarter.
The successor of Agum II was Burnaburiash II, who descended from a different line of Kassite kings. Burnaburiash II's long reign began in the closing years of the life of Amenhotpe III of Egypt and extended to the early years of Tut-ankhamen. (p. 17 of Van der Meer's publication). Burnaburiash's father was Kurigalzu I, a contemporary of Amenhotpe III. The two previous generations were Kadashman-harbe I and Karaindash I. Karaindash I, near the close of his life signed a treaty with Assur-bel-nisheshu (917-908). He also gave his daughter (a sister of Kadashman-harbe I) to Amen-hotpe III. Karaindash I was therefore of the generation of Thutmose IV of Egypt. The ancestry of Karaindash is not yet recovered. He may have been a descendant of Ushshi, brother of Abirattash.
Burnaburiash II had three sons: Karaindash II, Ulamburiash and Kashtiliash III. Ulamburiash defeated Eagamil and conquered the Sealand in 846. Some years later the Sealand had to be reconquered by Agum III, a son of Kashtiliash III in a war which involved Nebuchadnezzar I, the king of Isin (847-825).
A third son of Burnaburiash II was Karaindash II, who married the daughter of Assur-uballit of Assyria. Their son was Kadashman-harbe II (who was also named Karahardash in the Assyrian record). A rebellion broke out against Kadashman-harbe II. He was slain and a usurper, known by the names of Suzigash or Nazi-bugash, seized the throne. To avenge his grandson, Assuruballit (863-827) launched an attack on the Kassite realm. Upon the defeat and death of Nazi-bugash the throne was restored to Kurigalzu the Younger, a son of Kadashman-harbe II. This Kurigalzu has already been dated from the Kassite list as ruler from 845-820.
Thus all 36 kings of the Kassites have been recovered from contemporary documents. Their government in Mesopotamia and Sumer extended from 1022-660, a period of 362 years. Because of numerous joint reigns with brothers, nephews and sons the total assigned to the Kassite kings in the King List is 576 years. There is no reason to dispute this figure, as many scholars have recently done. A final note of caution. None of the artificial lists of Kassite kings usually found in history textbooks is correct.

The First 1000 Years of Assyrian History

The complete line of kings from the city Assur has not yet been restored because the two predecessors of Enlil-nasir II have their regnal years broken away in every tablet thus far discovered.
The key to these missing years lies in the early history of Assyria preserved exclusively in classical Greek sources.
The Greek historian Ctesias copied out of the annals in the Persian realm the ancient histories of Assyria and Media. Historians, since the advent of archaeology, have cast aside his records as worthless. They have found no evidence of the kings -- but then they have found no written records of anything for that period. Mere lack of knowledge does not disprove the traditional record of history.
In numerous cases the most important events of the past were carefully copied each generation on perishable materials -- and later preserved in the classical writers. Witness the history of the Hebrews. The history of Palestine cannot be found on stone monuments or on clay tablets. It is to be found only in the pages of a Book, the Bible.
The same is true of Assyria. The earliest ages have come down through royal annals only in the pages of books. Archaeology had nothing to say about the period other than confess its own ignorance!
The most complete evidence for the early Assyrian kings may be found in "Fasti Hellenici the Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece", by Henry Fynes Clinton, vol. I, p. 267. Additional works include John Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities", vol. I, pp. 247-253. The classical records in Greek and Latin are reproduced in Dr. Alfred Schoene's "Eusebi Chronicorum", especially in the "Excerpta Latina Barbari." Compare these with Dr. Rudolf Helm's "Die Chronik des Hieronymus".
Ctesias begins his consecutive history with the last 38 years (2006-1968) of the reign of Gilgamesh or Ninyas. Ninyas, it should be remembered, was the Assyrian name for Gilgamesh; Horus was his Egyptian. Ctesias does not preserve any record of the short period following the 42-year reign of Semiramis I (the Egyptian Isis) to the year 2006. This was the period of Median power in Babylonia.
In his History, Ctesias noted that the Assyrian power endured 1306 years before the time of the Median revolt. It was exactly 1306 years between 2006 and 700, the year the Medes obtained their freedom from the Assyrians -- only to lose it again to their own rulers!

In the following chart all significant variants in names and figures are included.
 

Names of Assyrian Rulers Preserved by Ctesias	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Ninyas (Gilgamesh)	38	2006-1968
Arius (Arioch of Genesis 14)	30	1968-1938

(Note that the year 1938 also marked the death of Amraphel of Shinar, according to the king list of Erech. Thus archaeological and classical records confirm the date of Abram's slaughter of the kings as 1938.)
 

Aralius (Amyrus)	40	1938-1898
Xerxes (Balaeus)	30	1898-1868
Armamithres	38	1868-1830
Belochus	35	1830-1795
Balaeus	52	1795-1743
Sethos (Zaztagus, Altallus, or Altadas)	35	1743-1708
Mamythus	30	1708-1678
Aschalius (Macchaleus)	30	1678-1648
	(or 28)	(1678-1650)
Sphaerus	20	1648-1628
	(or 22)	(1650-1628)

(The year 1650 marked a great Assyrian attempt to conquer India. The battle was fought in the winter of 1650-1649. Assyrian losses, together with those of their allies, were sufficient to change the balance of power in Babylonia in 1649. See the history of Indian and early Babylonia for that date.)
 

Mamylus	30	1628-1598
Sparaethus (Spartheus, or Spareus)	42	1598-1556
Ascatades	38	1556-1518
Amyntes	45	1518-1473
Belochus	25	1473-1448
Attosa (Semiramis II)	23	1448-1425
Beletares or	34	1425-1391
Belochus	45	1473-1428
Attosa (Semiramis II)	7	1428-1421
Beletares	30	1421-1391

(With Semiramis II the direct male line ceases. Beletares, the keeper of the royal gardens, comes to the throne, possibly through intermarriage with an heir of royal line.)
 

Lamprides	32	1391-1359
Sosares	20	1359-1339
Lampares	30	1339-1309
Panyas	45	1309-1264
	(or 42)	(1309-1267)
Sosarmus	19	1264-1245
	(or 22)	(1267-1245)
Mithraeus	35	1245-1210
Teutamus (Assyrian King during the First Trojan War)	32	1210-1178
Teutaeus	44	1178-1134
Thinaeus	30	1134-1104
Dercylus	40	1104-1064
Empacmes	38	1064-1026
Laosthenes	45	1026-981
Pertiades	30	981-951
Ophrataeus	21	951-930
Ephecheres (Ophratanes)	52	930-878
Acraganes	42	878-836
Thonos Concolerus	20	836-816

In 816 the Medes end the Assyrian dynasty. The king at this time was at his royal Palace at Rehoboth-Ir on the Euphrates (Genesis 36:37). A history of the Median kings who rode to prominence in 816 will be given in another section.

Analyzing the King List

Several unusual features, some not included in the preceding chart, are worth special study.
First, consider king Sethos or Altadas (1743-1708). His reign, according to Syncellus, extended over half a century -- 1758-1708. Why did he come to the throne about 1758 during the reign of Balaeus? Assyrian history is silent. But Egyptian history may reveal the answer. This was the time of King Senwosre III (the Sesostris of classical writers). Senwosre III had spent his first 19 years (1779-1760) in the subjugation of Ethiopia (Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. I). He then set out to conquer all Asia. Manetho records that "in nine years he subdued the whole of Asia (meaning Western Asia), and Europe as far as Thrace." It is very probable that the year 1758 marks the conquest of Assyria by the Egyptian Pharaoh and the beginning of a joint reign in Assyria to stabilize the weakened monarchy.
In Eusebius' account of Ctesias only 32 years (1740-1708) are assigned to Sethos or Altadas. As this king's reign is the only one in the early part of the list to vary so unusually, this figure too must have significance. As the sole reign of Senwosre III ended in 1741, it may well be that the year 1740 points up the regaining of independence from Egyptian overlordship.
Now consider the reigns of Sosarmus (1267-1245) and Mithraeus (1245-1210). In the "Excerpta Barbara" king Sosarmus is assigned only 20 years (1267-1247). In Africanus his successor Mithraeus is given 37 years (1247-1210). What is especially significant is that Eusebius assigns only 27 years to Mithraeus (1247-1220).
Eusebius' figure cuts the reign of Mithraeus short by 10 years. What is the significance of his figure which ends the reign in 1220 instead of 1210? Herodotus answers the question! The year 1220 marks the beginning of 520 years of Assyrian hegemony over Upper Asia, ending in the year 700 at the Median revolt (Clio -- I, sect. 95).

The full significance of the year 1220 has not yet been exhausted. Syncellus' account of Ctesias includes four otherwise unknown Assyrian rulers who belong to a collateral dynasty. Their reigns total 162 years. No other writer includes them. Where should these kings be placed? Syncellus provides a clue. He placed this short dynasty at its midway point, opposite kings Teutaeus and Thinaeus. Its beginning would therefore be about 1220. Observe the missing link in Assyrian history when this short dynasty is properly placed beginning in 1220.
 

Contemporary Kings of Assyria	Lengths of Reign	Dates
(Mithraeus)	27	1247-1220
Arabelus	42	1220-1178
Chalaus	45	1178-1133
Anebus	38	1133-1095
Babius (or Tautamus II)	37	1095-1058

(What occurred in 1058? The answer is in the next line!)
 

Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of Ilu-ihadda, seized the throne

3

1058-1055, etc.

From here on the kings of the Calah line continue until 621. Thus the four kings of Syncellus provide the missing link that unites the testimony of Herodotus with the list of Ctesias and the record of archaeology!

To return to the history of Ctesias. For the three kings Teutamus, Teutaeus and Thinaeus (1210-1104) several transcribers of Ctesias provide shortened figures. Altogether, 6 years are deleted. Who came to power during those six missing years? In chart form the three reigns appear thus:
 

Teutamus	31	1210-1179
	(6 missing years)	(1179-1173)
Teutaeus	40	1173-1133
Thinaeus	29	1133-1104

Did a new dynasty perhaps arise in the years 1179-1173? Was there a king who ruled 6 years at this period in Assyrian history? Indeed. These years witness the rise of the royal house of the city of Assur. Its first king, Assur-dugul, reigned 6 years. In his sixth year -- 1174-1173 -- some kind of internal catastrophy hit the city, for six kings came to the throne during the sixth and last year of Assur-dugul. Was there a special event that befell Mesopotamia in the year 1174-1173?
The year 1174-1173 was the first year of king Sumu-abum of the First Dynasty of Babylon: Heretofore no parallel event could account for the sudden appearance of government at Babylon in 1174. A major revolution in Assyria would have been necessary to allow a rival power to rise in the city Babylon, which had had no political power since the days of Nimrod.

With this period as a starting point it is now possible to complete the list of kings of the city Assur and fill in the sum of the two missing reigns.
 

Kings of the City Assur	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Assur-dugul, "son of a 'nobody'"	6	1179-1173
Assur-apla-idi, "son of a 'nobody'";
Nasir-Sin, "son of a 'nobody'":
Sin-namir, "son of a 'nobody'":	"together exercised sovereignty for a BAB TUPPISU", that is, the remainder of an official year
Ipqi-Istar, "son of a 'nobody'";
Adad-salulu, "son of a 'nobody'';
and Adasi, "son of a 'nobody'"		1174-1173
Belu-bani, son of Adasi	10	1173-1163
Libaiiu	17	1163-1146
Sarma-Adad (I)	12	1146-1134
En-tar-Sin, son of Sarma-Adad	12	1134-1122
Bazzaiiu, son of Belu-bani	28	1122-1094
Lullaiiu, "son of a 'nobody"'	6	1094-1088
Su-Ninua, son of Bazzaiiu	14	1088-1074
Sarma-Adad, son of Su-Ninua	3	1074-1071
Erisu, son of Su-Ninua	13	1071-1058
Samsi-Adad, son of Erisu	6	1058-1052
Isme-Dasan, son of Samsi-Adad	16	1052-1036
Samsi-Adad, son of Isme-Dasan, son of Su-Ninua	16	1036-1020
Assur-nerari, son of Isme-Dasan	26	1020- 994
Puzur-Assur, son of Assur-nerari	14	994- 980
Enlil-nasir, son of Puzur-Assur	13	980- 967
Nur-ili, son of Enlil-nasir	12	967- 955
Assur-saduni, son of Nur-ili	1 month	955
Assur-rabi (I), son of Enlil nasir, deposed Assur-saduni, and seized the throne	---	---
	(25)	(955-930)
Assur-nadin-ahhe (I), son of Assur-rabi (I)	---	---
Enlil-nasir (II) deposed his brother Assur-nadin-ahhe	6	930-924,
		etc.

The lengths of the reigns of Assur-rabi and Assur-nadin-ahhe are broken away on every document. But the preceding restoration of contemporary history supplies the total length of the missing figures -- 25 years (955-930) -- a very reasonable figure for the passage of one generation. The reigns of Enlil-nasir and his successors to 692 have been presented in a former section.
With this chart the restoration of Assyrian history is complete for all datable reigns.
The next chapter will connect the history of Media, India and Japan with the Assyrian Empire and with famous Queen Semiramis III, the thrice-born "Queen of Heaven."
Next
Prev

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

History of Assyria

In earlier days of critical study scholars were enamored of Egyptian history. Everything in the Bible was made to conform to the latest interpretation of Egyptologists. As with all fads, it wore thin.
Then came an abundance of new material from Mesopotamia. Assyria proved particularly rich. In its buried palaces and libraries were unearthed long lists of Assyrian kings and of officials who gave their names to each succeeding calendar year. These lists were assumed to be consecutive. That is, one Assyrian dynasty was thought to have followed another in orderly succession for century after century. This careless interpretation of Assyrian history was a consequence of German Rationalism. If the scholars even once admitted the lists to be of parallel dynasties, they knew they would have to turn to some other source in order to assemble the dynasties correctly. That meant to the Bible, the only complete written record of the ancient world. That they would not do.
Instead, they contrived to reject the historicity and authority of Scripture. As always they found a way to justify their interpretation of the Assyrian dynastic lists. In the Assyrian "limmu" lists -- lists of officials who held an office comparable to Greek "eponyms" -- there was found a reference to a summer solar eclipse. It was dated to the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale. As the lists were drawn up in successive order by the Assyrian scribes, this "limmu" year appeared to fall in 763. In that year, astronomers assured the historians, there was indeed a solar eclipse that could have been seen in Assyria. That pronouncement was deemed all-sufficient. Assyrian chronology -- as interpreted by modern scholars -- henceforth became the standard of the world. Where the Bible history did not agree with it, the Bible was arbitrarily rejected. Josephus contradicted the new interpretation. Out went Josephus.
Only one little flaw in the historians' conclusions. The astronomers' evidence they accepted would be valid only if the "limmu" lists were themselves correct. What astronomers overlooked is this. They assumed that the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale was 763, when an eclipse did occur. They overlooked the fact that the "limmu" list was not drawn up until more than a century after 763. And that what really happened is that the eclipse of the year 763 was arbitrarily assigned to the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale who really held office 124 years later. The scribes who added the astronomical datum to the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale did so to make this historical record appear confirmed by astronomy, when, in fact, it was not.
The Bible records a more outstanding astronomical event than the solar eclipse of 763. This event occurred in 710 during the reign of Hezekiah. By a divine act the sun was seen in the heavens to return ten degrees in the direction in which it had arisen (Isaiah 38:8).
Egyptians, too, were startled by it. Their priests, who kept the records, informed Herodotus that their history preserved an account in which the sun was seen to set that morning at the place where it was wont to rise!
Ancient Peruvians, too, observed a drastic change in the heavenly movements about Hezekiah's time. See volume II of the Compendium for Yahuar Huquiz, Peruvian contemporary of Hezekiah.

Later Assyrian Kings

It is now possible to restore Assyrian history to its original form.
In 745 a new dynasty sat upon the Assyrian throne in Nineveh. It commenced with Tiglath-pileser III. This dynasty existed to the collapse of Assyria in 612. It is correctly dated in all modern history books. The original account of it is found in the Babylonian Chronicle and confirmed by Ptolemy's Canon of Babylonian kings.

Tiglath-pileser III came to power in April of 745. The "limmu" lists designate this as his accession year, but he claimed it as his first year. Altogether he reigned 19 years. He is listed below with his successors.
 

Dynasty of Tiglath- pileser III at Nineveh	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Tiglath-pileser (III)	19	745-726
Shalmaneser (V)	5	726-721
Sargon	17	721-704
Sennacherib	23	704-681
Essarhaddon	13	681-668
Assur-banipal	42	668-626
Assur-etililani	4	626-622
Sin-sarra-ishkun	10	622-612
Assur-uballit (II) -- reigned in Haran after fall of Nineveh, in 612, then disappears from history.	4	612-608

Who Was Shalmaneser?

Almost everyone has assumed that Shalmaneser V, whose inconsequential reign extended from 726-721, is the Shalmaneser of the Bible who besieged Samaria. But how, one might ask, could Shalmaneser V, who died late in 722 (in the last year of his reign), execute a three-year siege of Samaria in 721-718 after he was dead? And then wage war against Tyre, including a five-year siege of the famous emporium, as Josephus records? ("Antiquities", book IX, chap. 14.) Shalmaneser V accomplished neither of these two deeds! But the Assyrian records do reveal a Shalmaneser who did accomplish both!
Who was this Shalmaneser?
Surprising though it may appear, the Shalmaneser of the Biblical record -- and of Josephus -- is Shalmaneser "the Great" or the III. Ever since archaeology became a fad -- as well as a science -- scholars have assumed that Shalmaneser "the Great" was a contemporary of Israel's king Ahab and of king Jehu. They had no proof of it. They merely wanted to believe it.
The dates in the Assyrian annals were 40 years too low for the reign of Ahab (914-892) It was impossible to reconcile the Assyrian records as understood by the critics with the Bible. It was much easier to strip away about 40 years from the Biblical record and make it conform to the assumed date of Shalmaneser III. Thus the end of Solomon's reign was changed from 971 to about 930 by historians.
But, ask the critics, did not Shalmaneser III refer to an Ahab of Israel and to a Jehu son of Omri in his monuments? Indeed he did! But once again the historians have had recourse to deception. The Jehu of the Bible is "the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi" (II Kings 9:2). The Jehu of the Assyrian records is another person -- the son of Omri! Two different people. How did the scholars resolve this dilemma? They concluded the Assyrians did not know what they were writing about!
Furthermore, not one word is in the Bible that Jehu ever paid tribute to any Assyrian king. Assyria is not so much as mentioned in his reign. Who the Jehu of the Assyrian records is will be revealed shortly.
But what of Ahab? In the Assyrian account this king of Israel is allied with the Arameans against the Assyrians. He contributed a contingent of troops to fight against Shalmaneser III at Karkar near the Euphrates. The Arameans and their allies were routed. Shalmaneser, follows up the victory by the conquest of Syria and Phoenicia and neighboring nations. (See Shalmaneser's annals in Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts".)
Does this political situation conform to the era of the Ahab of the Bible?
Certainly not! The Ahab of Scripture fought many battles with the Arameans, none with the Assyrians. Aram (Syria), in Ahab's day, was a powerful confederation. There is not the slightest Biblical indication that any Aramean king was the least concerned over Assyrian expansion. Nor is there any shred of evidence that Ahab, the son of Omri, ever sent troops to Aram to defend the eastern Mediterranean lands against Assyrian incursions at the time of his death.
Modern historians mistakenly place the death of Ahab in 853 -- the supposed year of the battle of Karkar. In the Biblical history Ahab died fighting the Arameans, not as an ally of the Arameans at Karkar against the Assyrians!
Who then is the "Ahab of Israel" mentioned by Shalmaneser "the Great" in his monuments? And at what period were Israel and Aram allied against Assyria?
The last question first. II Kings 16 unveils the answer. Israel and Aram (Syria) were allied shortly before the fall of Samaria! Rezin king of Syria and Pekah king of Israel united to attack Judah. In defense the Jews sought the assistance of the Assyrians who attacked Aram first, then later Israel.
But who was "Ahab of Israel"? The answer again is found in Scripture. II Kings 15:30 reveals that Hoshea made a conspiracy against Pekah, king of Israel, slew him and reigned in his stead. This occurred in the autumn of 737, the fourth year of Ahaz or twentieth of Jotham. Yet later, the Bible records Hoshea again returning to the throne, this time in the summer of 728, near the end of the twelfth year of Ahaz (II Kings 17:1). Tiglathpileser (III) records in his monuments that Hoshea has been deposed and that he had restored him to power.
About nine years occurred between Hoshea's seizure of the throne and his restoration. Who was king during those years? The Bible does not reveal the answer -- but the Assyrian records do! The king was Ahab II, who perished in his wars with Assyria.
In his year 14 -- 722-721, spring-to-spring reckoning -- king Shalmaneser III sent 120,000 troops across the Euphrates to crush a revolt, which had suddenly developed along the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean. His attack met with brilliant success. The next three years are silent in Shalmaneser's annals.
No record has been preserved. Then, in year 18 -- 718-717 -- Shalmaneser receives tribute from "Jehu, son of Omri." The three intervening years (721-718) were those of the siege. When the war was over, the Assyrian reorganized Palestine into an Assyrian province and appointed Jehu, son of Omri, to administer Assyrian affairs temporarily in the land of Israel! Nebuchadnezzar treated the Jews in similar fashion when he appointed Gedaliah temporarily to supervise Babylonian affairs in Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 40:5).

It is now possible to date the Calah Dynasty of Assyrian kings from the reign of Shalmaneser "the Great" to the revolt at Calah in 622-621. Calah, a suburb of Nineveh, was one of the three capitals of the late Assyrian Empire. It was also called Nimrud. (See page 53 of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings", by D. J. Wiseman.)
 

Names of Assyrian Kings at Calah	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Shalmaneser "the Great" (III)	35	735-700
Shamshi-Adad (V), whose queen Semiramis (III), exercised great authority for 42 years -- 699-657	13	700-687
Adad-nirari (III)	28	687-659
Shalmaneser (IV)	10	659-649
Assurdan (III)	18	649-631
Assur-nerari (V)	10	631-621

Observe the exact parallel between these dates and the collapse of the Assyrian Empire. The last six years of Shalmaneser III's reign are the years 706-700. These years are each marked by the word "revolt" in the "limmu" canon. They are the six years of the incursion of the Elamite king Marbiti-alap-usur -- 706-700.
During the reigns of the last three kings in Calah (659-621) the Assyrian Empire gradually disintegrated. Plagues ravaged the homeland. Revolt flared throughout the length and breadth of the Empire. Then a final revolt in Calah in the last year of Assur-nirari V brought the downfall of the dynasty in the calendar year 622-621. This is the very year that the Babylonian Canon records a revolt and a great victory over the Assyrian army.
For details, compare the "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings", by Wiseman, with the corresponding "limmu" canons on pages 288-290 in Thiele's "Mysterous Numbers of the Hebrew Kings". Remember that Thiele misdates the reigns of Shalmaneser III and his successors 124 years too early:

Predecessors of Shalmaneser III

In the Assyrian Canon are listed 20 predecessors of Shalmaneser III who reigned altogether 323 years. These kings are usually dated about 124 years too early in most books because the dynasty is made to end about 745 instead of 621!

The following chart lists these 20 kings from the beginning of the dynasty through the reign of Shalmaneser III. (The cumbersome spelling of "Ashshur" is reduced to the simple Assur in this list.)
 

Names of Kings of The Calah Line	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of Ilu-ihadda, seized the throne	3	1058-1055
Assur-dan (I)	46	1055-1009
Ninurta-tukulti-Assur	reigned for a "bab tuppisu", that is, for part of the remaining official year	calendar year  1010-1009
Mutakkil-Nusku, his brother, fought with him, held the throne, then died.		1009
Assur-resh-isshi (II)	18	1009-991
Tukulti-apil-Esarra (Tiglath-pileser I)	39	991-952
Asarid-apil-Ekur	2	952-950
Assur-bel-kala	18	950-932
Eriba-Adad (II)	2	932-930
Shamshi-Adad (IV), son of Tiglath-pileser (I), deposed Eriba-Adad, seized throne	4	930-926
Assur-nasir-apli (I)	19	926-907
Shulmanu-asarid (Shalmaneser II)	12	907-895
Assur-nirari (IV)	6	895-889
Assur-rabi (II)	41	889-848
Assur-resh-ishi (II)	5	848-843
Tukulti-apil-Esharra (Tiglath-pileser II)	32	843-811
Assur-dan (II)	23	811-788
Adad-nirari (II)	21	788-767
Tukulti-Ninurta (II)	7	767-760
Assur-nasir-apli (II)	25	760-735
Shulmanu-asarid (Shalmaneser III -- "the Great")	35	735-700

Of these kings it is known that Assur-reshishi II was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar I of Isin, and that Tiglath-pileser II of Marduk-nadin-ahhe of Isin. Van der Meer and most other historians mistakenly assumed Assur-resh-ishi I and Tiglath-pileser I were the contemporaries. This error arose when the Assyrians drew up in two opposite columns the kings of Assyria and the kings of Babylonia. Kings which were not contemporary were made to appear so, and those who were contemporary appeared not to be.
A similar error occurred when the late kings counted the years between themselves and their ancestors. Kings who lived no more than 200 years earlier, for example, were recorded to have lived perhaps 500 or 600 or more years previous. The cause of this kind of error is readily determined. The king lists were drawn up with the kings of the city Assur listed first, then the kings of Calah followed by Nineveh. This naturally placed the rulers of Assur, who were contemporary with those of Calah, centuries too early and centuries apart. These errors did not, however, completely obscure the known total length of time that had elapsed since Babel. But the contradictory statements of elapsed time between any two kings led later scholars in the Greek and Roman world into confusion. Van der Meer sums up these supposed durations of time between early and late Assyrian kings by saying: "The statements of Esserhaddon and Salmanasser also fail to agree with one another"; and "hence all the statements which we have from Nabonaid are incorrect" (pages 36, 35 of "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt").

King Pul and the Bible

This dynasty provides a clue to the ancestry of Tiglath-pileser III, who ascended a separate dynastic throne in 745. Tiglath-pileser III named "Adad-nirari" as his father. This is Adad-nirari II -- 788-767. Upon the death of the father the direct line of descent passed to Tukulti-Ninurta II. But the throne was shared with Tiglath-pileser, who, at that time, had the personal name of Pul, which he also later used when he ascended the throne of Babylon in 729.
In his later annals Tiglath-pileser refers to kings Uzziah of Judah and to Menahem of Israel. As both of these rulers were dead several years before 745, historians assume that the Bible is woefully in error. It never occurred to them to verify how many years elapsed between the death of Adad-nirari and 745, years in which the young Pul might have been ruling jointly with an older brother.
In the Bible the name "Pul" refers to those early years, and "Tiglath-pileser" or "Tilgath-pilneser" to the later independent reign beginning in 745. See II Kings 15:19 and 29. Also I chronicles 5:26, which should be translated: "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, EVEN the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and HE carried them (Israel) away."
Historians generally have been unwilling to recognize the possibility of joint reigns among Assyrian kings. Yet their own discoveries prove it. Events which Shalmaneser III dates as years 11 and 18 in his annals are dated to years 14 and 21 on the Black Obelisk (page 280 of Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts"). He therefore reigned 3 years jointly with his predecessor. Similarly, Sennacherib was king of Assyria in year 14 of Hezekiah -- 711-710 (II Kings 18:13) -- although he did not succeed his father until 704.

Tiglath-pileser I and Thutmose III

Another king in the Calah list is very significant -- Tiglath-pileser I. His reign commences in 991, almost the exact midpoint of Solomon's reign. Tiglath-pileser wrote in his annals that he beheaded the kings of Meshech at that time. "In the beginning of my reign, twenty thousand men of the land of Mushki and their five kings, who for fifty years had held the lands of Alzi and Purukuzzi, which (in former times) had paid tribute and tax unto Assur, my lord, and no king had vanquished them in battle," he beheaded. ("Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia", by Daniel David Luckenbill, vol. I, page 74.) What is the significance of the 50 years from 1041 to 991 when Tiglath-pileser I defeated Meshech (Musku)? In year 32 of Hammurabi (1041-1040) he and his allies defeated Assyria and annexed it to his expanding realm! (See Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia", page 30.) It was exactly 50 years between Hammurabi's victory and Assyria's return to power.
In the latter days of Tiglath-pileser I's reign Assyria was again defeated and conquered. who was the conqueror? Thutmose III! In his annals Thutmose recorded receipt of tribute from Assur. "The tribute of the chief of Assur" (Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. II, sec. 446).
In conclusion. The first king of the Calah line -- Ninurta-apil-Ekur -- began his sole rule in 1058 (near the end of the reign of King Saul of Israel). The SDAS King List assigns a 13-year reign to him, implying a 10-year joint rule with a predecessor. Who were the kings that ruled Assyria before the Calah line came to power? The next chapter will answer!
Next
Prev
Table of Contents

CHAPTER TWELVE

CHAPTER TWELVE

Hammurabi to the Fall of Babylon

Since the building of the city of Babel, not a single recorded dynasty originated in the city precincts of Babylon for over 1000 years. Not until the renowned First Dynasty of Babylon did it become the supreme seat of political power.
Hammurabi -- or rather each historian who has written about him -- has made The First Dynasty of Babylon famous. It was a time of blossoming culture, of proverbial literature, of law. Vast quantities of written material have been recovered from this and succeeding centuries.
Shortly after archaeologists uncovered the history of this period it was commonplace to connect Hammurabi with Amraphel of the Bible (Genesis 14). Today the equasion of Hammurabi with the generation of Abram has been abandoned. In its place confusion reigns. Dates for this famous king now range from the "short chronology" of Albright and Cornelius through the "middle" of S. Smith and the comparatively "long" chronological reckonings of Goetze. In other words, anywhere from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century before the present era.

Why Hammurabi Dated Early

To bring disrepute upon the Law of God critical scholars early indulged in speculating that Babylonian law was the basis of the Hebrew Torah. Proof? -- There was none: History, when properly restored, overturns the hypothesis. Whatever influence there may have been was in the opposite direction.
Culturally the Hebrews in Solomon's day led the world. The reigns succeeding Hammurabi's saw a rapid expansion in writing of proverbs and other wisdom literature -- a consequence of Solomonic influence. Historians have assumed that this literature long antedated Solomon. Contrariwise, the writing of this kind of literature in Mesopotamia can now be proved a result of direct influence of Solomon's Empire on surrounding cultures. Egypt exhibits the same literary features at the same time -- not centuries before.
Now for the political restoration of the land of Shinar. In the days of Saul and David the cities of Sumer were in a three-corner struggle for supreme political dominion. In the struggle between Isin and Larsa, the latter won, only to be devoured by the city of Babylon. The events may be summarized in four concerted attacks. Babylon first reduced Isin, but was forced to yield to Larsa's military attack and final conquest of the city two years later. In another eight years, however, Babylon had grown in strength sufficiently to challenge the hegemony of Larsa over Shinar. Isin was recaptured. Then, 23 years later, Larsa succumbed to Hammurabi.

The Dynasty of Larsa

To date the First Dynasty of Babylon correctly, it is first necessary to restore the royal family at Larsa to its true place in history. This dynasty rose to power during the struggles between Elam and the Third Dynasty of Ur. The last king of Isin I -- Damiq-ilishu -- was driven from the city after completing a 23-year reign (1098-1075). Rim-sin, the victor, and king of Larsa won the war and incorporated the city of Isin into his realm in his year 29 -- 1075-1074. (Where Damiq-ilishu fled, and how much longer he reigned elsewhere, will be discussed later under the First Sealand Dynasty.)

From the synchronism between these two kings the entire Larsa Dynasty may be restored as follows (see "Journal of Cuneiform Studies", III, "Nippur und Isin", page 27, for lengths of reign).
 

Kings of Larsa	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Naplanum	21	1306-1285
Emizum	28	1285-1257
Samu'um	35	1257-1222
Zaba'a	9	1222-1213
Gungunum	27	1213-1186
Abi-sare	11	1186-1175
Sumu-ilum	29	1175-1146
Nur-Adad	16	1146-1130
Sin-idinnam	7	1130-1123
Sin-iribam	2	1123-1121
Sin-iqisham	5	1121-1116
Zilli-Adad	1	1116-1115
Warad-Sin	12	1115-1103
Rim-Sin	61	1103-1042

When Did Hammurabi Reign?

Larsa's last king, Rim-sin, reigned full 60 years. Then, in his year 61, Hammurabi attacked the aging king and captured Larsa in Hammurabi's year 29 -- 1043-1042. This victory became the "year-name" of the succeeding calendar year.
A second synchronism (already referred to) between the First Dynasty of Babylon and Larsa is provided in a historical record from the reign of Hammurabi's father, Sin-muballit. Sin-muballit attacked Isin and reduced it to submission in his year 16, which was year 22 of Damiq-ilishu -- 1077-1076. This event became the year name of Sin-muballit's succeeding year. ("Orientalia", series 2, no. 24, "Chronological Notes," by H. Levy.)
Two years later the Babylonians were driven out and Isin was overthrown by Larsa in Rim-sin's year 29. The event became the "year-name" of Rim-sin's year 30. (It was the custom in that day to name each year after some famous event in the preceding twelve months.)
Then, in year 6 of Hammurabi, Isin was recaptured by Babylon. A tablet dating from the time of the conquest bears the following double dating: "the eighth and tenth year since Isin was captured" ("Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt", by P. Van der Meer, page 44).

These chronological notes make absolutely certain the dates of the First Dynasty of Babylon as follows:
 

Names of Kings of First Dynasty of Babylon	Lengths of Reign from "Year-Names"	Dates
Sumu-abum	14	1174-1160
Sumu-la-ilum	36	1160-1124
Zabum	14	1124-1110
Apil-Sin	18	1110-1092
Sin-muballit	20	1092-1072
Hammurabi (often spelled Hammurapi)	43	1072-1029
Samsu-iluna	38	1029- 991
Abi-eshuh	28	991- 963
Ammi-ditana	37	963- 926
Ammi-zaduga	21	926- 905
Samsu-ditana	26	905- 879

Of special note are the 26 years for the last king. Many books erroneously insert the figure 31. Only 26 year-names have ever been found. ("Journal of Near Eastern Studies", "The Date List of Samsu-ditana," by Samuel I. Feigin, vol. XIV, no. 3, July 1955.)

The figure 31 is taken from a king list which dates the reigns differently. The two methods of dating should not be mixed promiscuously. From the king list the reigns of Hammurabi to the end of the dynasty are as follows:
 

Names of First Dynasty of Babylon	Lengths of Reign from King List	Dates
Hammurabi	55	1072-1017
Samsu-iluna	35	1017- 982
Abi-eshuh	25	982- 957
Ammi-ditana	25	957- 932
Ammi-zaduga	22	932- 910
Samsu-ditana	31	910- 879

The total from Hammurabi to the close of the dynasty is precisely the same -- 1072-879. The early kings of the dynasty appear as follows from the king list:
 

Sumu-abum	15	1174-1159
Sumu-la-ilum	35	1159-1124
Zabum	14	1124-1110
Apil-Sin	18	1110-1092
Sinmuballit	30	1092-1062

It is to be noticed that the king list preserves a ten-year joint reign in the early part of Hammurabi's long government -- from 1072-1062. These divergent figures are not mere scribal errors. They are genuine. Egyptian records and the Bible reflect the same practice. In most cases it is due to joint reigns -- of father with son. On occasion they are due to internal political changes of which the divergencies in dating are the sole remaining testimony.
In summary: Hammurabi is the contemporary of Saul and David!
The ancient king lists recovered by archaeological excavation insert two lengthy dynasties after the First Dynasty of Babylon -- the First Dynasty of the Sealand and the Dynasty of the Kassu or Kassites. The "Sealand" is referred to in the Bible as the "Desert of the Sea" in Isaiah 21:1, KJV.
It was originally assumed that these dynasties were successive. Today it is recognized that they were, in part, contemporary with the First Dynasty of Babylon and with each other.
The list of the Kassite kings is so badly shattered that it is not possible to restore it without recourse to Assyrian history. But it is possible at this point to present the history of the Sealand in full.

Damiq-ilishu Reappears!

No greater enigma faces Mesopotamian archaeologists and historians than the mystery surrounding the Sealand Dynasty. The total reigns of its kings -- several of which are exceedingly long -- still fall 22 years short of the total of 368 years assigned to the dynasty by the ancient scribes. At first numerous readings were proposed to "restore" the text. Critics simply could not accept the simple evidence of the tablets. Not until 1921 was a clear reproduction of an original tablet made available, by C. J. Gadd. (See Pallis' "Chronology of the Shub-Ad Culture", page 309.) The evidence was clear. The scribe had indeed added 22 years too many! Or had he?
The mistaken figure was presumably that of king Damiq-ilishu. But why should his reign be shortened 22 years? Could it be that the missing 22 years were the same 22 years which had elapsed in the reign of Damiq-ilishu of Isin at the time of the conquest of Isin by Sin-muballit of Babylon? Was Damiq-ilishu of Isin the same man as Damiq-ilishu of the Sealand?
Indeed! And the restoration of Mesopotamian history when completed will confirm it.
Damiq-ilishu was king of both Isin and the Sealand. The scribe recorded in the Sealand Dynasty only those years of his reign which elapsed after Isin ceased to be independent. Isin, it will be remembered, was reduced to submission in year 22 of Damiq-ilishu by Babylon. Though Damiq-ilishu contained at Isin one more year -- his 23rd -- it was included in the reckoning of the Sealand because the king was independent only in the Sealand, not at Isin.

Following are the kings of the Sealand (excluding the first two, which will be discussed immediately after).
 

First Dynasty of the Sealand	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Damiq-ilishu (before & after Sin-muballit's conquest of Isin)	(First 22 years)	(1098-1076)
	16	1076-1060
Ishkibal	15	1060-1045
Shushshi	24	1045-1021
Gulishar	55	1021- 966
Pesgaldaramash	50	966- 916
Aidarakalamma	28	916- 888
Ekurulanna	26	888- 862
Melamkurkurra	7	862- 855
Ea-gamil	9	855- 846

Some transcribers have 26 years for Shushshi, but see Pallis' summary regarding the clear reading of 24 years.
In 846 the Dynasty of the Sealand was overthrown by the Kassites in a famous war that involved Assyria and other Mesopotamian powers.
In the king list appears a vague notation after Gulishar. Its implication is that another king reigned at the same time as Pesgaldaramash. Who was that other king?
Listed before Damiq-ilishu in the Sealand Dynasty are two Kings of another branch of the royal house. Their reigns may readily be dated from synchronisms with the First Dynasty of Babylon. Van der Meer's study (page 21 of "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia", second edition) proves that the first of these two kings, Iluma-ilum, came to power in the year 14 of Samsu-iluna of Babylon. That is 1016-1015 (See the chart giving "year-name" sequence). Iluma-ilum reigned 60 years -- 1016-956. He was succeeded by the second in the king list: Itti-ili-nibi, who reigned for 56 years -- 956-900.
Little else is known of the Sealand other than these royal names.

Nebuchadnezzar the First

The end of the First Dynasty of Babylon in 879 brought to prominence a new line of kings from the city of Isin. One of its kings is the famous Nebuchadnezzar I, a predecessor of the Nebuchadnezzar of the Bible. The new Isin royalty is often referred to as the Pashe Dynasty. It exercised its government both from its native city and from the city of Babylon. At that time in history Babylon played a role in Mesopotamia similar to the role of Thebes in Egypt. Both cities had become the political and religious capitals of their respective regions.
It has been too long assumed by historians that the Second Dynasty of Isin followed the Kassite rule in Mesopotamia. It did not. It was contemporary with it. The kings of Isin record several wars with the Kassites. Nebuchadnezzar I attained the epithet "destroyer of the Kassites" consequent to his wars with them. Who the Kassites were will be discussed in the next chapter of this Compendium.
The most thorough discussion of the new royal house at Isin is found in the University of Chicago Press publication: "Second Dynasty of Isin according to a New King List Tablet," by Arno Poebel.

The Dynasty of Pashe or Isin II appears in chart form thus:
 

Names of Kings or Isin II	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Marduk-kabit-ahheshu	18	879-861
Itti-marduk-balatsu	8	861-853
Ninutar-nadin-shumi	6	853-847
Nebu-kudur-uzur (or Nebuchadnezzar I)	22	847-825
Enlil-nadin-apli	4	825-821
Marduk-nadin-ahhe	18	821-803
Marduk-zapik-zeri	13	803-790
Adad-apal-iddin	22	790-768
Marduk- . .	1	768-767
Marduk- . .	12	767-755
Nabu-sum-libur	8	755-747

The names of two of the kings are partly broken away in the most complete tablet. But they may be restored by other records to be discussed later.

Era of Nabonassar

At this point the history of ancient Babylonia is correct. Through all succeeding centuries the reigns after 747 have been known and available to the public. The year 747 marks the beginning of the "Era of Nabonassar" -- named after the first of a new series of kings, native and foreign, who ruled at Babylon. The ancestors of Nabonassar are broken away in the king lists.

The classic account of these later kings has always been, since its writing, the Canon of Ptolemy. In early days the Babylonian Chronicle, unearthed through archaeological expeditions, contained the same information -- only in more detail. For those who do not have ready access to the Canon of Ptolemy for the Era of Nabonassar the following list is provided. The Greek spellings of Ptolemy are not used as generally the Babylonian names find complete acceptance with scholars. A list of the kings is available in "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", by Edwin R. Thiele, page 293.
 

Kings of Babylon from the Era of Nabonassar to the Persian Conquest	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Nabonassar	14	747-733
Nabu-nadinzir	2	733-731
Ukinzer and Pulu (Tiglath-pilerer III)	5	731-726
Ululai (Shalmaneser V)	5	726-721
Marduk-appal-iddin (Mero dach-baladan)	12	721-709
Sargon	5	709-704
Two kingless years		704-702
Bel-ibni	3	702-699
Assur-nadin-shum	6	699-693
Nergal-ushezib	1	693-692
Mushezib-Marduk	4	692-688
Eight kingless years		688-680
Assur-akh-iddin	13	680-667
Shamash-shum-ukin	20	667-647
Kandalanu	22	647-625
Nabopolassar	21	625-604
Nebuchadnezzar	43	604-561
Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach)	2	561-559
Nergal-shar-usur	4	559-555
Nabonidus (father of Belshazzar)	17	555-538

Babylon fell to the Persian and Median armies at an annual festival -- a new moon -- in the seventh month in year 17 of Nabonidus (539). But the calendar year continued to the beginning of spring in 538. The succeeding kings of Babylonia were the Persian rulers, whose reigns are commonly available. The finest summary of the period after the fall of Babylon is "Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75", by Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein.

Three Succeeding Dynasties

Though the Second Isin Dynasty was succeeded at Babylon by king Nabonassar in 747, the king lists add three other short dynasties immediately after the Isin Dynasty. These ruled to 700, the year of the great Median rebellion against