Assyrian chronology is 334 years too early, Middle Assyrian Empire was synchronous with the Neo-Assyrian Empire

 Assyrian chronology is 334 years too early, Middle Assyrian Empire was synchronous with the Neo-Assyrian Empire by Eulalio Diocson Eguia Jr.

This is the transcript to my Youtube video published on March 4, 2024.

In my previous video titled ‘The Sothic rise recorded in the Ilahum Papyrus was on May 27, 845 BC during Ramesses III's 7th year’ I dated the latter part of Ramesses III’s 7th year to 845 BC while Egyptian chronology dated it to 1179 BC, which means the 20th Dynasty during which Ramesses III reigned is 334 years too early. In my other video titled ‘Correcting Egyptian Chronology's 334 years error - Piye defeated Osorkon II not Osorkon IV in 743 BC  I explained what caused this error as follows:

Piye was a Kushite Pharaoh and founder of the 25th Dynasty of Egypt, who ruled Egypt from 744 BC - 714 BC. As the son of the Kushite King Kashta, he was both King of Nubia as well as Pharaoh of Upper (or Southern) Egypt with its capital initially in Thebes. The Stele of Piye chronicles his military feats that he achieved in his regnal year 21 in Nubia, which I believe was also the start of his 2nd year reign in Thebes, in 743 BC. One of the Pharaohs he mentioned conquering in this military campaign was Osorkon of Bubastis which Egyptologists identified as Osorkon IV, the last Pharaoh of the 22nd Dynasty whose capitals were Bubastis and Tanis. 

Egyptian chronology dates Osorkon IV’s reign at 730 BC - 716 BC, while it dates Piye’s reign at 744 BC - 714 BC. It is quite obvious that Egyptologists interpreted the ‘regnal year 21’ mentioned in Piye’s Stele as his 21st regnal year as Pharaoh of Egypt without including his earlier reign as King of Nubia before becoming Pharaoh. In my opinion this is incorrect, and I believe this is where the root of the problem is in the current Egyptian chronology that resulted in dating the periods of dynasties earlier than the 25th Dynasty of Piye, 334 years too early.

In my revision of the Egyptian chronology, the Osorkon of Bubastis whom Piye subjugated was Osorkon II and not Osorkon IV. Osorkon II was also a Pharaoh of the 22nd Dynasty just like Osorkon IV, but Osorkon II’s 1st regnal year was 142 years earlier than the 1st regnal year of Osorkon IV.

I have no revisions to the dating of the 24th, the 25th, and the 26th dynasties of Egypt as my revisions apply only to dynasties that came before them, all the way to the First Dynasty and the Predynastic period of Egypt. However, Egyptologists oppose redating Egyptian dynasties to three centuries later than that given by the conventional chronology. 

This is because according to them it would revise the linked chronology of Hittite history, and would need a revision of the chronology of Assyrian history before 911 BC. Given the dependence of Hittite and Assyrian chronology on Egyptian chronology, a lowering of Egyptian dates would result in reduction (or complete removal) of the Anatolian Dark Age that resulted after the fall of the Hittite empire.

Now allow me to explain why any revision of Egyptian chronology should result in a revision of Assyrian history only before 911 BC, but not on or after 911 BC. In the history of Assyria, the eponym dating system was a calendar system for Assyria, for a period of over one thousand years. Every year was associated with the name, an eponym of the Limmu, the official who led that year's New Year festival. The most well-known limmu lists run from 911 BC through to 631 BC, and have been dated with the aid of the Canon of Ptolemaeus that coincides with dates from the Canon between 747 and 631 BC. 

The Canon of Ptolemaeus was a dated list of kings used by ancient astronomers as a convenient means to date astronomical phenomena, such as eclipses. For a period, the Canon was preserved by the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, and is thus known sometimes as Ptolemy's Canon. It is one of the most important bases for our knowledge of ancient chronology. Thus, it can be safely said that Assyrian chronology starting from 911 BC and forward is reliable and unchangeable, and on this I agree with.

For this reason, my revision of the Assyrian chronology involves only those kings which historians dated earlier than 911 BC. Looking at the entire list of Assyrian kings, these kings will be those who ruled before the establishment of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, dated by historians between 911 BC – 609 BC. 

The Middle Assyrian Empire dated between 1363 BC – 912 BC, was the empire or “dynasty” that immediately preceded the Neo-Assyrian Empire, at least according to historians. However, I disagree with this. I believe the Neo-Assyrian Empire whose earliest king was Ashur-dan II was synchronous with the Middle Assyrian Empire starting from its 6th king Tukulti-Ninurta I.

A Middle Assyrian-age letter from the Babylonian king Adad-shuma-usur is addressed to the "kings of Assyria" rather than the "king of Assyria”, a possible reference to there being two simultaneous kings. Adad-shuma-usur was the 32nd king of the 3rd or Kassite dynasty of Babylon whose reign was dated circa 1216 – 1187 BC and was therefore the contemporary of Tukulti-Ninurta I, the 6th king of the Middle Assyrian Empire. 

Another Babylonian letter, this one to Ibashi-ili, explicitly referred to him as the "king of Assyria". After conquering the Mitanni kingdom and establishing administrative districts there, the Middle Assyrian king Shalmaneser I, the 5th king of the Middle Assyrian Empire, named his brother, Ibashi-ili, as grand vizier and king of Hanigalbat in the territory of the Kingdom of Mitanni. 

Though they are often ignored in historiography, it is possible that the line of kings in Hanigalbat constituted a junior line of Assyrian co-rulers, who were blood relatives of the kings of Assyria ruling in Assur. These Hanigalbat kings therefore had authority and prestige beyond simply being grand viziers. I actually believe Hanigalbat was the second capital of Assyria, in addition to Assur, as early as the Middle Assyrian Empire.

The main reason why historians were led to believe the Neo-Assyrian Empire followed the Middle Assyrian Empire and not synchronous with it, is because they differentiated between Ashur-dan I, the 11th king of the Middle Assyrian Empire, and Ashur-dan II considered the earliest king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. But on the contrary, I actually believe Ashur-dan I and Ashur-dan II were one and the same person. 

Just like in the case of Persian kings, there were no appellations such as the first, the second, and so on among Assyrian kings having the same name. And in my video titled “Daniel's 70 weeks part 1, correcting errors in Persian chronology by redating historical eclipses”, I showed how chronological errors were made when astronomical tablets were assigned to the wrong kings whose names were shared by more than one Persian king, like in the case of Artaxerxes I and Artaxerxes II.

Ashur-dan II was an Assyrian king who officially called himself King of the Universe in addition to his earlier title of King of Assyria. Ashurdan II was best known for recapturing previously held Assyrian territory and restoring Assyria to its natural borders. In addition, he successfully expanded Assyrian territory surrounded by formidable foes and established a provincial administration that once again transformed Assyria from a territorial power to an imperial power known as the Neo-Assyrian Empire. 

The Neo-Assyrian Empire was a diverse and multi-ethnic state from people from many tribes of different origins. Thus, Ashur-dan II can rightfully call himself King of the Universe and not just King of Assyria. And to distinguish his feats and accomplishments as King of the Universe as opposed to his accomplishments as King of Assyria which he previously held, I believe Ashur-dan II asked his scribes who recorded his activities to start a separate record when he first called himself King of the Universe. Ashur-dan I’s reign lasted for 46 years, while Ashur-dan II’s reign lasted for 23 years. Thus, I believe “Ashur-dan” started calling himself King of the Universe in the last 23 years of his 69 year reign as king.

The title of “King of the Universe” was not an original idea of Ashur-dan II. It was first used officially by Ashur-uballit I who ruled circa 1363 BC  – 1328 BC, and who was the son and successor of Eriba-Adad I. Ninurta-apal-Ekur, the father and predecessor of Ashur-dan I, claims descent from Eriba-Adad I in his inscriptions. Ninurta-apal-Ekur also “styled” himself King of the universe sometime during his reign which was dated circa 1191 BC  – 1179 BC. 

After Ninurta-apal-Ekur, the next king who used the title "King of the Universe” officially was Ashur-dan II. Now the big mystery is this, historians dated Ninurta-apal-Ekur’s reign circa 1191 BC – 1179 BC, while they dated Ashur-dan II’s reign circa 934 BC – 912 BC, with their reigns separated by at least 245 years. This means the title of the “King of the Universe” was discontinued for more than 245 years. And this is one of the reasons why I believe Ashur-dan II was actually Ashur-dan I, and that Ashur-dan II’s father and predecessor to the Assyrian throne was actually Ninurta-apal-Ekur and not Tiglath Pileser II as believed by historians.

Now remember, the most well-known limmu lists run from 911 BC through to 631 BC, which have been dated with the aid of the Canon of Ptolemaeus that coincides with dates from the Canon between 747 and 631 BC. Thus, Assyrian chronology can be considered reliable and unquestionable only from 911 BC up to 631 BC. Tiglath Pileser II’s reign is dated circa 966 BC – 935 BC, while 

Ashur-dan II’s reign was dated circa 934 BC – 912 BC. 

Therefore the assertion that Ashur-dan II was the son and successor of Tiglath Pileser II is questionable and was probably based on historians' belief that the Neo-Assyrian Empire followed the Middle Assyrian Empire and was not in sync with it. And since Ashur-dan II was considered the earliest king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire while Tiglath Pileser II was considered the last king of the Middle Assyrian Empire, it would seem logical to these historians that Ashur-dan II was the son and successor of Tiglath Pileser II. Furthermore, historians admit that little is known about Tiglath Pileser II’s reign, thus casting more doubt about his supposed paternal relationship with Ashur-dan II.

Now Ninurta-apal-Ekur’s father is believed by historians to be Ilī-padâ, who was a member of a side-branch of the Assyrian royal family who served as grand vizier of Assyria, and also as king of the dependent state of Ḫanigalbat. Earlier I discussed that the line of kings in Hanigalbat constituted a junior line of Assyrian co-rulers, who were blood relatives of the kings of Assyria ruling in Assur. These Hanigalbat kings therefore had authority and prestige beyond simply being grand viziers and were addressed by foreign kings as “Kings of Assyria” as well.

Because I believe Ashur-dan I and Ashur-dan II are one and the same person, whose father and predecessor was Ninurta-apal-Ekur, this means the Neo-Assyrian Empire during which Ashur-dan II was considered its earliest king, was actually the kingdom of Hanigalbat under Ashur-dan II that became stronger and took control of Assur, the capital formerly controlled by the kings of the Middle Assyrian Empire, after deposing and exiling its kings. 

Ashur-dan I’s 46 years reign were when Ashur-dan was king of Hanigalbat and vassal to the king of the Middle Assyrian Empire ruling in Assur. And as king of Hanigalbat, Ashur-dan was also addressed as “King of Assyria”. The start of Ashur-dan II’s 23 years reign when he started calling himself “King of the Universe'' was when Ashur-dan took control of Assur after deposing and exiling the king of the Middle Assyrian Empire that time. Thus Ashur-dan ruled for a total of 69 years in my revised chronology.

So who was the king of the Middle Assyrian Empire whom Ashur-dan deposed and exiled? If you look at the capitals of the Middle Assyrian Empire, one can see that from 1233 BC – 1207 BC, the capital shifted from Ashur to Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta translated as "Port of Tukulti-Ninurta”. Tukulti-Ninurta I was the king during this period, and the shift of the capital happened in his 11th year. According to historians, Tukulti-Ninurta I transferred the capital “as relations with the priesthood in Ashur began deteriorating”. 

In my opinion, his relations with the priesthood in Ashur began deteriorating because he was already deposed and exiled by Ashur-dan who now took control of Ashur. 

As I said earlier, Ashur-dan I started calling himself “King of the Universe” when he took control of Ashur, and this is  when historians identified him as Ashur-dan II and mistakenly as a separate person, and according to current Assyrian chronology, this happened in 934 BC. 935 BC, or the year before, was when Tukulti-Ninurta I was deposed and exiled in his 11th year. This means in my revised chronology, the corrected start of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s reign was in 945 BC.

Tukulti-Ninurta I was preceded by his father Shalmaneser I who ruled for 30 years between 975 BC - 946 BC. Shalmaneser I was preceded by his father Adad-nirari I who ruled for 32 years between 1007 BC - 976 BC. Adad-nirari I was preceded by his father Arik-den-ili who ruled for 12 years between 1019 BC - 1008 BC. Arik-den-ili was preceded by his father Enlil-nirari who ruled for 10 years between 1029 BC - 1020 BC. 

Assyrian chronology dates the start of Enlil-nirari’s reign at 1327 BC while I dated it to 1029 BC. This means Assyrian chronology is 298 years earlier than my chronology up to this point. 298 years is 36 years short of the 334 years error I expect for my revised version of the Assyrian chronology to match with my revision of the Egyptian chronology. 

Now if you look at Enlil-nirari’s supposed predecessor and father Ashur-uballit I, he ruled for 36 years, which is the same number of years I need for my revised Assyrian chronology to match exactly with my revised Egyptian chronology. Thus I concluded that Ashur-uballit I was a co-regent of Enlil-nirari who also started his reign in 1029 BC but whose reign ended in 994 BC after 36 years. 

This means Enlil-nirari was also the son and successor of Eriba-Adad I just like Ashur-uballit I, and I actually believe they were step brothers having different mothers. I also believe Ashur-uballit I was the father and predecessor of Ninurta-apal-Ekur, who in turn was the father and predecessor of Ashur-dan I. This means also that Ilī-padâ,  a grand vizier and king of Ḫanigalbat, and contemporary of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s grandson Ashur-nirari III, was not the father of Ninurta-apal-Ekur but was his descendant instead. Ilī-padâ probably named one of his sons after Ninurta-apal-Ekur, making historians wrongly conclude that Ilī-padâ was his father. 

Let me now show you that Ninurta-apal-Ekur’s reign came right after Ashur-uballit I’s reign, thus proving Ninurta-apal-Ekur was the son and immediate successor of Ashur-uballit I: Before taking control of Ashur, Ashur-dan was king of Hanigalbat who served for 46 years as vassal to the king of the Middle Assyrian Empire ruling in Assur. This was when historians mistakenly identified him as Ashur-dan I and as a separate person from Ashur-dan II.

In my revised chronology, these 46 years preceded Ashur-dan II’s reign between 934 BC – 912 BC. Thus, Ashur-dan I’s corrected regnal years should be from 980 BC - 935 BC. Ashur-dan I was preceded by his father Ninurta-apal-Ekur who ruled for 13 years between 993 BC - 981 BC. Now I dated Ashur-uballit I’s reign between 1029 BC - 994 BC, which means Ninurta-apal-Ekur whose reign started in 993 BC, was the immediate successor and therefore son of Ashur-uballit I.

And since Ninurta-apal-Ekur was related to the kings of Hanigalbat via his descendant Ilī-padâ, I believe  Ashur-uballit I was also related to the kings of Hanigalbat via his mother, one of the wives of Eriba-Adad I. Hanigalbat was part of the territory of the Kingdom of Mitanni, and during the reign of Eriba-Adad I, a pro-Assyria faction appeared at the royal Mitanni court, which enabled Assyria to finally break Mitanni influence upon Assyria, and in turn make Assyria an influence on Mitanni.

Ashur-uballit I and his descendants via his son  Ninurta-apal-Ekur, were the Kings of Assyria who controlled Hanigalbat which I consider the second capital of Assyria as early as the Middle Assyrian Empire period. On the other hand, Enlil-nirari, the step brother of Ashur-uballit I, as well as Enlil-nirari’s descendants were the Kings of Assyria who controlled Assur, the first capital of Assyria. 

Starting from the 11th year of Tukulti-Ninurta I, the great great grandson of Enlil-nirari, this royal line lost control of Assur and was exiled to Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta until its last descendant Enlil-kudurri-usur. And as I mentioned earlier, Tukulti-Ninurta I lost control of Assur in the hands of Ashur-dan, grandson of Ashur-uballit I, in Ashur-dan’s 47th year reign.

Tiglath-Pileser II was the last king of the Middle Assyrian Empire, and it is important to discuss how this dynasty ended. However, I need to correct one error in the chronology of kings of the Middle Assyrian Empire first: Ashur-rabi II ruled for 41 years and was the son of Ashurnasirpal I, and yet he was listed as the successor of his nephew Ashur-nirari IV, the son of his elder brother Shalmaneser II who succeeded Ashurnasirpal I. I believe Ashur-rabi II was a coregent of his elder brother Shalmaneser II who both succeeded their father Ashurnasirpal I after their father’s death. 

Shalmaneser II reigned for 12 years and was succeeded by his son Ashur-nirari IV who was Ashur-rabi II’s nephew. Ashur-nirari IV ruled for only 6 years and according to historians who believe Ashur-rabi II succeeded  Ashur-nirari IV and was not a coregent of Shalmaneser II, this succession between Ashur-nirari IV and Ashur-rabi II may have been a violent one, hinting at a possible assassination of Ashur-nirari IV by Ashur-rabi II.

Now because I believe Ashur-rabi II who ruled for 41 years was a coregent of his elder brother Shalmaneser II who ruled for 12 years, who in turn was succeeded by Shalmaneser II’s son Ashur-nirari IV who ruled for 6 years,  the actual number of years that Ashur-rabi II ruled after the reign of Ashur-nirari IV was only 23 years and not 41 years. Thus the regnal years of the 2 kings who succeeded Ashur-rabi II, namely Ashur-resh-ishi II and Tiglath-Pileser II were dated 18 years too late.

Current Assyrian chronology dated Tiglath-Pileser II’s final year to 935 BC, but after applying an 18 years correction, this date should have been 953 BC instead. Also, the number of years between the end of Ashur-dan I’s reign currently dated at 1133 BC, and that of Tiglath-Pileser II’s final year at 953 BC, were 180 years. My revised Assyrian chronology dated Ashur-dan I’s final year at 935 BC, so that the end of Tiglath-Pileser II’s reign should be dated at 755 BC in my opinion. Also, Tiglath-Pileser II ruled for 32 years so his regnal years according to my revised Assyrian chronology is 786 BC - 755 BC which makes him a contemporary of Jeroboam II, who is believed to be the King of Israel during the timeline of the prophet Jonah. 

Now 755 BC was when Ashur-nirari V of the Neo-Assyrian Empire succeeded his brother Ashur-dan III. The reign of Tiglath-Pileser II also ending in 755 BC means to me that Ashur-nirari V plotted a coup that ended the reigns of both Ashur-dan III and Tiglath-Pileser II at the same time. The success of this coup meant that under Ashur-nirari V’s reign, the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Middle Assyrian Empire were united into one Assyrian empire. 

I believe Tiglath-Pileser III circa 745–727 BC, who succeeded Ashur-nirari V in what historians believe was a coup or a civil war, was one and the same as Tiglath-Pileser II who, after 10 years, managed to regain power and depose Ashur-nirari V in revenge. He was also the King of Assyria mentioned in 1 Chronicles 5: 25-26 whom God used to punish the Israelites who were unfaithful to Him. Tiglath-Pileser was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser V who was deposed and killed by Sargon II in a palace coup. Thus Sargon II inherited a united Assyrian kingdom when he started his own Sargonid dynasty.