Assyriologie

Feminist scholarship launched a search for women in human history. As soon as one starts looking for women, they are inevitably found. Neither women nor gender were invisible in the past. In terms of the Neo-Assyrian period, the rich textual material collected by Saana Svärd exemplifies how numerous our written sources are on the Neo-Assyrian women. 1 Nonetheless, with the further development of gender studies the following questions arise. 2 What methods should we apply to our sources? What aspects of gender were chosen for representation? Which were consciously suppressed and why? Svärd examines the rich evidence she has assembled from the important aspect of its relation to power, and there is no doubt that research should be continued in this direction. The interdisciplinary comparative investigation into the diachronic changes in the status of women over the entire course of Mesopotamian history is definitely a promising direction of investigation. The correct evaluation of sources concerning women is an essential methodological concern, and here comparison is useful not only when applied interdisciplinary. Tallay Ornan writes: "Assuming that visibility. .. serves as one parameter for the political, social, or cultural status of the depicted figure, one may conclude that royal women in first-millennium Assyria were devoid of official political, social or religious power." 3 This statement is based on Ornan's assumption that "the few 1. Svärd 2015. Svärd has collected, arranged in easily accessible form, and thoroughly analyzed all the Neo-Assyrian sources related to royal women. Svärd's Women and Power in Neo-Assyrian Palaces naturally encompasses only high-ranking women. Numerous sources on women of lower status still await research. There are only two other monographs regarding Neo-Assyrian women (Melville 1999 and Macgregor 2012). However, they do not embrace the entire range of existing sources on Neo-Assyrian royal women, because that was not the focus of their investigation. Valuable information on Neo-Assyrian women can be also found in the monograph by W. Meinhold dedicated to Ištar of Assur (Meinhold 2009). A discussion of Neo-Assyrian women is found also in Melville 2004. 2. See Bahrani 2001: 1-39 for an overview of the role of feminist scholarship, postmodernism, and poststructuralism in gender studies. 3. Ornan 2002: 464. 35. RIMA 3 A.0.104.3, from Pazarğik. 36. RINAP 3/2 40 44″b-46″. 37. RINAP 4 2002 (Ass. 1). This inscription preserves a fragment of the epitaph of this queen. 38. RINAP 4 2010 with related description and references. 39. These are the "eye-stone" of Sammu-rāmat (Seymour 2008: 104), the inscriptions of Naqīʾa-Zaqūtu-all for the life and well-being of Esarhaddon (RINAP 4 2005-8), and a votive text of the queen of Assurbanipal, probably Libbāli-šarrat, dedicating a golden object for the life and security of reign of Assurbanipal and her own life (Deller 1983: 22-24; this is a non-monumental inscription on a clay tablet). The queen also asked the goddess to make the king attentive to her words. Moreover, a stone jar was dedicated by Inūrta-abūni, sister of Assurnaṣirpal II (ASV 615). Remarkably, all of these objects were dedicated to female deities. 40. These are the steles of Nergal-āpil-kūmū'a (no. 50, 673 b.c.e.), Issār-emūqāia (no. 99, 867 b.c.e.),

Third-millennium Mesopotamia has provided an impressive quantity of sources for the study of ancient slavery, among them a collection of standards (the so-called Laws of Ur-Namma). Despite the volume of documents, Mesopotamian slavery remains elusive in its general traits. This is partly due to the nature of the sources, but also to the approaches and interpretations of modern scholars. Slavery in ancient Mesopotamia has been the focus of several studies in the 1960s and 1970s that interpreted the sources using comparative approaches and Marxist analyses. Since then, the topic has seldom been revisited. In this article, I present the status quaestionis with an overview of the available sources and related studies, together with a sketch of the different types of bonded and forced labor in the Neo-Sumerian period (21st cent. bce).

Jérôme PACE, « Analyse de l'espace mésopotamien à la lumière du Lugal.e », dans : Patrick Voisin, Marielle de Béchillon (éds.), L’espace dans l’antiquité. Utilisation, fonction et représentation, Kubaba, L'Harmattan,  Paris, 2015, pp. 29-41.

[Présentation préliminaire d'une thématique particulière à mon travail de thèse de doctorat : Mythopoeïa, ou l’art de forger les “mythes” dans l’“aire culturelle” syro-mésopotamienne, méditerranéenne et indo-européenne]

This study shows some of the Egyptian captives who were captured in the Ancient Iraqi, both in the Assyrian and the late Babylonian period. The research starts with the term "captives" in the ancient Iraqi texts, which is close to the current term. Many Assyrian kings followed the policy of Assyrian deportation, we found a lot of Egyptian captives in the period of the kings of Assyria, perhaps the most prominent King Ashurbanipal, who conquered Egypt and occupied - for a short time - as the texts of the Babylonian period late Chaldean, the existence of some Egyptian captives in Babylon, then the research studied the social life of those captives and them works, and we see some of this captives working in Medicine.

This paper describes the elements of demonology in Mesopotamian texts as background for research on demons in the Hebrew Bible. The demon in Mesopotamian mythological culture was identified with one of the winds bringing illnesses; specifically with the hot wind, which was often connected to the appearance of the spread of infectious diseases. The essay aims to describe some parallel and different phenomena within the concepts of illness-demon-impurity contained in the ancient Near East and biblical text-traditions.

At the end of the 24th century, c.2300±30 bce, Sargon of Akkade (2324–2285±30 bce) defeated Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk, unified the whole of Babylonia proper in a single territorial state, and laid the foundation of the Akkadian Empire. Sargon, his sons Rimush and Manishtushu, and his grandson Naramsuen led their armies as far as the Mediterranean in the west, reached the springs of Euphrates and Tigris in the north, and campaigned as far as highland Iran in the east and the Arabian Gulf in the south, dominating the political landscape of Mesopotamia for more than a century (2300–2181±30 bce). Under Sharkalisharri, westerners and Guteans penetrated the empire, provinces defected, and Akkade was reduced to a petty state. After a short period of confusion, Dudu and Shudurul (2177–2142±30 bce) presided over an Akkadian resurgence, but the Guteans successively conquered central and northern Babylonia and thus eliminated Akkade from the political stage.

Представлена детальная реконструкция систем мер длины, применявшихся на территории Древней Месопотамии до завоевания ее персами.
(There is detailed reconstruction of the systems of measures of length used on the territory of ancient Mesopotamia until its conquest by the Persians.)
(Das ist detaillierte Rekonstruktion der Systemen der Maßen der Länge, der  auf dem Gebiet des Alten Mesopotamien bis zur Eroberung durch die Perser  verwendet.)

On 04 July 2020 I directly updated and expanded this article (Ezra Confirms 3 Biblical & 1 Extrabiblical Jubileess ...)  by its finalized successor version, entitled "Mediterranean-Ancient Near East Absolute Astronomical Chronology 1661 BC Thera Megaeruption to 132 AD Bar Kokhba Revolt  A Treatise Digest Final Edition (04 July 2020)

Unfortunately the title of this successor version obscures its origin in its very important original, whose title makes its as well as its perfected successor study's content clear:

Ezra confirms 3 biblical & 1 extrabiblical Jubilees & by Daniel 9:25 launched its 10 Jubilee cycles, vindicating Ben Zion Wacholder's 1975 study by Thiele's transparently repaired chronology. Edition 1.0


Abstract - Moses' Jubilee calendar validates absolute biblical chronology

The present biblical Jubilee cycle recovery discovering three biblical Jubilees and one extrabiblical (Bar Kokhba's in ff132/133 AD), would be impossible without establishing its basis in my repair and vindication of Dr. Edwin Thiele's chronology of the Hebrew kings by 25 extrabiblical synchronisms spanning and validating 1000 years of Masoretic Text history as attested by its 2nd century BC Dead Sea Scrolls antecedents, from my Appx. D chart 18/19 astronomically recovered Saturday Julian 21 April 1443 Exodus, to Ezra's Ezra 7:4-10 Yom Kippur ff457/456 celebration in Jerusalem of the 19th Jubilee to restore Lev. 25 Jubilee-based land ownership rights fundamental to repatriation of the returning Babylonian exiles. Recovery of two biblical Jubilee observations, the ff702/701 14th in Hezekiah's 15th year (2 Kings 19:29), and its closely related 19th observed by Ezra, were both found in synchronism with the suspected Jubilee in the ff132/133 (31st) year of Jubilee held in the second year of Bar Kokhba's revolt against Hadrian studied in 1975 by Dr. Ben Zion Wacholder (see ch. 2).

Ezra's mission was urgent in view of the Leviticus 26 curse against breaking the Jubilee cycle of Lev. 25, driving both Jeremiah's 70 years of Babylonian exile prophecy (exactly fulfilled per Fig. 5, as pointedly commented by Ezra himself in 2 Chronicles 36:21. Israel's guilt under this curse was grieved by Daniel in his chapter 9. Fig. 5 exposes his Book as his chronicle of Jeremiah's 70 years exactly from end to end.

Thiele, acclaimed for having brought to light the most convincing internal biblical method to date for establishing the chronology of the Hebrew kings, ruined it due to faulty assyriology having created a localized “wrinkle” in the last four of “Sennacherib's First Five Years” per my 250 pages Treatise part I of II, misdating Sennacherib's 3rd campaign to 701BC instead of its correct 702BC for Hezekiah's 14th year (confirmed to me by leading Assyriologist Prof. Simo Parpola as linked below).

With his originally flawless internal biblical chronology as recovered by my repair (my charts 1/19-11/19) thus offset by a year, Thiele, otherwise unable to further synchronize the rich biblical record of Assyrian synchronisms (my correction found 8), resorted in panic to its corrupting emendation in 2 Kings 15:30-33 as my Fig. 1: "The Thiele Lietuvietis Chronology Comparison Chart" (before and after repair) transparently disclosing my 2005 reverse-engineering of his catastrophe, demonstrates. Herein my correction of Thiele's chronology as superficially improved in 1991 by Dr. Leslie McFall (removing emendations and adding coregencies without affecting its basic structure) and correctly but only peripherally improved by Rodger C. Young's 2003 biblically shifting the death of Solomon by an equinoctical semester earlier. Adopted by McFall in 2008, and applied to my correction of Thiele only in April, 2015, this shift was key to my recovery of the Exodus chronology, wherein the foundations for the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles of Leviticus 25 were laid per my Fig. 2 Exodus-centric chart 12/19 based on my astronomy of Appx. D chart 18/19 and the entire chapter 9 of my 575 pages Treatise part II of II, in turn based on my 250 pages Treatise part I of II.



Ezra confirms 3 biblical & 1 extrabiblical Jubilees & by Daniel 9:25 launched its 10 Jubilee cycles, vindicating Ben Zion Wacholder's 1975 study by Thiele's transparently repaired chronology. 7 June 2019 Edition 1.0 (20.5MB .pdf file)

https://www.academia.edu/39435727/Ezra_confirms_3_biblical_and_1_extrabiblical_Jubilees_and_by_Daniel_9_25_launched_its_10_Jubilee_cycles_vindicating_Ben_Zion_Wacholders_1975_study_by_Thieles_transparently_repaired_chronology._7_June_2019_Edition_1.0

Since Max Weber who denied that the Oriental cities were "real" cities , effforts of many scholars have been aimed at establishing a connection between the city form and its socio-political structure.1 It has often been claimed that the city plan mirrors a city's political organisation.2 The lack of preconceived public spaces in the Near Eastern cities as opposite to the city-states of the Classical Antiquity was one of the focuses of these discussions (Liverani 1997, 91-93; May / Steinert, Introduction, this volume).

Jérôme PACE, Mythopoeïa, ou l’art de forger les “mythes” dans l’“aire culturelle” syro-mésopotamienne, méditerranéenne et indo-européenne, SAAS 27, Helsinki, The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2018, 376 p.

Préface : Renée Koch Piettre
Postface : Simo Parpola

[Religious and historical myths defined the worldviews and identities of human societies and form a fascinating, but difficult, object of study. In presenting a comparative analysis of several interrelated ancient mythical themes, such as the storm god, the young hero, chaos, combat with monsters, kingship, final judgment, organization of the cosmos, and the foundation of kingship, this study explores the possibility of a mythological — or “mythopoeic” — Indo-Mediterranean cultural space.]

The present book does not consist in a concise Ancient History of the Emirates; it does not represent an effort of systematization of the textual sources relating to the ancient land of the Emirates. Furthermore, the ancient historical sources and the modern bibliography are not exhaustively discussed.

However, this book is the first effort to incorporate two key subjects into the modern historiography of the pre-Islamic history of the Emirates: Meluhha and Gerrha.

Meluhha is an ancient land known through Ancient Sumerian and Assyrian – Babylonian texts; due to the colonial involvement and owed to political needs of nationalistic character that were also instigated by the colonial academia of England and France into the political elites of the Indian subcontinent, Meluhha was falsely identified with the Harappa civilization cities in the Indus Delta area. References to Meluhha in Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets cover indeed a long period from the end of the 3rd millennium BCE down to the middle of the 1st millennium BCE.

Gerrha is an ancient city known through Ancient Greek and Latin texts; it was a key point in the trade between the South and the North, the East and the West during in the Antiquity. However, similarly with Meluhha, Gerrha was falsely identified as located in the area of today’s Dammam in Saudi Arabia. References to Gerrha in Ancient Greek and Latin texts cover many centuries before and after the beginning of the Christian era.
http://www.adlibris.com/se/bok/meluhha-gerrha-and-the-emirates-9783847385363
https://books.google.com.eg/books/about/Meluhha_Gerrha_and_the_Emirates.html?id=9WP1kgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

The paper aims to provide a comprehensive description of Hittite clause structure. The picture that emerges is quite different from both the view of Hittite clause architecture as codified in (Hoffner, Melchert 2008) and as documented in the parallel line of research (Luraghi 1990; 2012; forthcoming).
The paper focuses on two key features of Hittite clause architecture: (a) preverbal vs clause initial vs clause second positions; (b) verb’s positions in the clause, although in-depth study of these aspects involves examination of virtually every significant feature of Hittite syntax.
Preverbal position is constituted by wh-words, subordinators, negation markers, negative, indefinite and relative pronouns as well as some adverbs, only part of these constituents can alternatively be clause initial or second. Contrastive focus is normally preverbal, contrastive topic is clause initial. Two focus positions are distinguished in a Hittite clause – high (subjects and objects) and low (adverbs, adverbials). Wh-words, subordinators and relative / indefinite pronouns can also be optionally postverbal. It is significant that only lower focus can be postverbal, never high focus, even though in the canonical word order both high and low focus is preverbal. No information structure difference is detectible between the preverbal and postverbal positions.
It is shown that non-canonical positions of the verb can be described by two movements to the left from the canonical clause final position: (a) to the clause internal position which follows subject and object, both topical and focal, on the one hand, and precedes what is in the canonical word order the preverbal position5, on the other, producing V-wh/Neg/Rel, S-O-V- wh/Neg/Rel word orders; (b) to the clause leftmost position, producing V-S-O word order. *V- wh/Neg/Rel-S-O or *wh/Neg/Rel-V-S-O word orders are not attested in my ‘diplomatic’ corpus.
The last point raises an important question of sociolinguistics of the Hittite language, namely evidence for (idio)lects.

Akkadian is, after Sumerian, the second oldest language attested in the Ancient Near East, as well as the oldest known Semitic language. It is also a language with one of history's longest written records. And yet, unlike other relevant languages written over a long period of time, there has been no volume dedicated to its own history. The aim of the present work is to ll that void. The outcome is presented in 26 chapters written by 25 leading authors and divided into two volumes, the rst covering the linguistic background and early periods and the second covering the second and rst millennia BCE as well as its afterlife.

This thesis contends that myth served the role of speculative philosophy for ancient Near Eastern peoples and examines some of the implications, particularly hermeneutical implications, of the claim.  The Introduction presents a case for using the Sumerian mythographic tradition as a control, an introduction to the field of mythography, and the problem of viewing ancient Near Eastern myth through the lens of Western, particularly Hellenistic, views of myth.
Chapter One is an overview of the influential mythographers of the last two hundred years and their writings. Emphasis is placed on functionalist approaches to myth as functionalism is the aspect of ancient Near Eastern myth being addressed in this thesis.  Chapter Two is the heart of the thesis and presents the case for speculative philosophy as a dominant function, but not the only function, of ancient Near Eastern myth.  The ways in which rational-instrumental thought contrasts with analogical reasoning are unpacked and the case is made that one does not preclude the other.  Divination is presented as a (counter-intuitive) example of rational-instrumental thought and a brief excursus on analogical vs. rational-instrumental thought in Genesis 4 is provided to help make the distinction concrete and to model the hermeneutical implications of the distinction.
Chapters Three and Four present case studies. The first (Chapter Three) is the Sumerian myth Gilgamesh and Huwawa and the second (Chapter Four) is the Babel story of Genesis 11:1-9.  Both case studies are presented for two reasons: 1) To demonstrate that I am not an outside theorist but have gained the expertise to handle the materials in the original languages; and 2) To provide concrete examples of the hermeneutical implications of the claims made in Chapter Two.
A note of concern: The order of the chapters of the dissertation could give the impression that I developed a theory and then tried to apply it to the data (in this case, texts). In actuality I developed the theory from immersing myself in the texts.

Josephus nailed Solomon's ff969/968 accession!: Hiram's Solomonic Temple contract in ff969/968 by Josephus' Tyrian, Greek, & Roman dating, confirms Thiele's 2005-2015 corrected chronology


Valerius Coucke's 1928-published near-dating of Tyrian King Hiram's fall-to-fall (ff) 969/968 12th year Solomonic Temple construction contract was one year late (ff968/967) only due to his misreckoning as May (sic.) 1207 BC the Parian Marble's correct ca. June 1208 BC fall of Troy. This latter was by Justin quoting Trogus (18.3) 1 year after the ca. June 1209 founding of Tyre, which in turn by Josephus quoting Meander (Ag. Ap. I.18) was 241 years before Hiram's 12th year 1 Kings 5:1 contract with Solomon to build his Temple ca. June 1209 - 241 = spring/summer 968 BC (ff969/968). Just here David died by my 2005-2015 correction of the Coucke/Thiele/McFall/Young chronology by its wholesale 3 years later offset up to Uzziah's death. Thus: {[June 1208 fall of Troy] - 1 = June 1209 refoundation of Tyre} + 241 years until Hiram's 12th year Temple contract = June 968 = spring/summer ff969/968 1 Kgs. 5:1 accession of Solomon.

The Fig. 1 Tyrian kings chronology based on Josephus' copy of Meander's Tyrian King List using only Athenian, Tyrian, and Roman records, validates Coucke's method and confirms its result by use of my chronology: Hiram's certain ff969/988 12th year start of Solomon's Temple project invalidates the Coucke/Thiele/McFall/Young version of Thiele's chronology because by it Hiram was 2 years dead when required to receive Solomon's 1 Kgs. 9:10-14 20th year construction bonus (E, 8/19). By the Thiele chronology's unavoidable 1 Kgs. 6:1 Temple assembly start, that bonus fell in Solomon's 24th year, while by my chronology's 1 Kgs. 5:1 start, it fell 2 years before Hiram's death in Solomon's 20th (sec. 2.3). A tiny wrinkle in Assyrian chronology (701 BC, E 11/19) misled Thiele to corrupt his internal biblical chronology to make it absolute.

Coucke failed to follow through in developing his near-solution to its full potential for unlocking the entire Dead Sea Scrolls-based Masoretic Text's chronology, or at least its Hebrew kings foundation as Thiele nearly did by 1943, independently of Coucke. But Coucke provided corroborating independent results anticipating Thiele's better work, further refined by Leslie McFall (1991) and R. C. Young (2003).

Dating Hiram's Temple contract with Solomon
Tyrian kings chronology synchronized to & confirming my correction of Thiele in 20 pages:

Valerius Coucke's 1928-published near-dating of Tyrian King Hiram's fall-to-fall (ff) 969/968 12th year Solomonic Temple construction contract was one year late (ff968/967) only due to his misreckoning as May (sic.) 1207 BC the Parian Marble's correct ca. June 1208 BC fall of Troy. This latter was by Justin quoting Trogus (18.3) 1 year after the ca. June 1209 founding of Tyre, which in turn by Josephus quoting Meander (Ag. Ap. I.18) was 241 years before Hiram's 12th year 1 Kings 5:1 contract with Solomon to build his Temple ca. June 1209 - 241 = spring/summer 968 BC (ff969/968). Just here David died by my 2005-2015 correction of the Coucke/Thiele/McFall/Young chronology by its wholesale 3 years later offset up to Uzziah's death. Thus: {[June 1208 fall of Troy] - 1 = June 1209 refoundation of Tyre} + 241 years until Hiram's 12th year Temple contract = June 968 = spring/summer ff969/968 1 Kgs. 5:1 accession of Solomon.

The Fig. 1 Tyrian kings chronology based on Josephus' copy of Meander's Tyrian King List using only Athenian, Tyrian, and Roman records, validates Coucke's method and confirms its result by use of my chronology: Hiram's certain ff969/988 12th year start of Solomon's Temple project invalidates the Coucke/Thiele/McFall/Young version of Thiele's chronology because by it Hiram was 2 years dead when required to receive Solomon's 1 Kgs. 9:10-14 20th year construction bonus (E, 8/19). By the Thiele chronology's unavoidable 1 Kgs. 6:1 Temple assembly start, that bonus fell in Solomon's 24th year, while by my chronology's 1 Kgs. 5:1 start, it fell 2 years before Hiram's death in Solomon's 20th (sec. 2.3). A tiny wrinkle in Assyrian chronology (701 BC, E 11/19) misled Thiele to corrupt his internal biblical chronology to make it absolute.

Coucke failed to follow through in developing his near-solution to its full potential for unlocking the entire Dead Sea Scrolls-based Masoretic Text's chronology, or at least its Hebrew kings foundation as Thiele nearly did by 1943, independently of Coucke. But Coucke provided corroborating independent results anticipating Thiele's better work, further refined by Leslie McFall (1991) and R. C. Young (2003).

My correction of Thiele's at first perfected but by afterthought marred biblical chronology builds upon its foundational part I, correcting the chronology of Sennacherib's first five years, which revealed 702 BC as the true date of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, enabling correction of Dr. Edwin Thiele's error in his widely accepted chronology of the Hebrew kings. Part I proved that Sennacherib's third campaign, biblically recorded in king Hezekiah of Judah's 14th regnal year, did not take place in 701 BC as Thiele had trusted for the cornerstone of his chronology, but rather in 702 BC, vindicating and perfecting his work. The lion's share of credit for my having discovered the ultimate biblical chronology belongs to Thiele (1943) as given improvement and correction by his indirectly participating colleagues Valerius Coucke (1928), Leslie McFall (1991), and Rodger C. Young (2003) who advanced Thiele's work without essentially modifying its chronological structure (CTMY). CTMY made possible my solution (solved in 2005, perfected and first published in 2015). My results validate not only their work, but the Masoretic Text (MT) as confirmed by its majority Dead Sea Scrolls representation, on which this chronology is exclusively based, and into which this chronology was imperceptibly (indeed mystifyingly according to over 2 millennia of effort since the 3rd century BC LXX futile effort to make sense of it) woven into the MT as a watermark or hologram of its authenticity.

By his Assyrian cornerstone thus out of place, no other Assyrian synchronism would fit Thiele's at first perfect internal biblical chronology, "IBC", (my solution has 8). So he emended it in Jotham's reign (2 Kgs. 15:30-33), adding 4 years to Jotham to shift Ahab's disastrous 853 Battle of Qarqar (Shalmaneser III's 6th year) immediately before Ahab's 1 Kgs. 22 fatal battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad. Thus Shalmaneser's 18th year receipt of Jehu's tribute in 841, 12 (= 18 - 6) years after Qarqar by IBC, harmonized Jehu's 841 accession with his 14th year of Hezekiah set in 701! But Thiele failed to notice that annihilation of Ahab's powerful military at Qarqar per Shalmaneser's 6th year annals, made impossible his 1 Kgs. 22 participation in his fatal war with Benhadad. Likewise Shalmaneser's 18th year annals report of Hazael's total incapacitation for his 2 Kgs. 9:15-16 wounding of Israel's Joram in battle, discredited Jehu's having killed both Joram and his sickbed visitor Judah's king Ahaziah in 841 (Appx. H, chart 2/19), stripping Thiele of all Assyrian synchronisms.

The Chronology Comparison Chart Fig. 3 exposing the difference between my and Thiele's chronologies, shows my two simple structural corrections: First Thiele's 701 BC synchronism with Hezekiah's year 14 is corrected to 702 BC. Second, Thiele's 4 fabricated years by which he (I believe honestly) found a self-deceptive pretext to lengthen Jotham's reign in order to contrive a specious but futile 853 BC Battle of Qarqar synchronism in Ahab's year of death in battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad, are removed: Jotham's 2 Kgs. 15:30 actuarial 20th year (4 years after Jotham's death) used to synchronize Pekah's death in his official chronicle, in my chronology properly observes Jotham's official 2 Kgs. 15:33 16th regnal year of death.

One of the earliest and ultimately most fruitful clues in not only exposing Thiele's error, but confirming my entire resulting Bible chronology, was the common but hitherto unproven observation that the two fallow years in succession of 2 Kings 19:29 in Hezekiah's 14th year (Sabbatical years 7 & 1 in Fig. 3) suggested the Lev. 25:2-13 49th year of a jubilee cycle (fallow), followed in the next year by its figurative 49 + 1 = “50th” in the post-Sabbatical 7 + 1 = “8th” per Lev. 25:20-22, namely Hezekiah's 15th calendrical year (also fallow), observed on its Tishri 10 by celebration of the 49-year jubilee cycle just completed in the first year of its next sabbatical cycle, whose purpose was to establish and regulate perpetual and inalienable land ownership in ancient Israel on a jubilee cyclical ceremonial basis. This exposed the purpose of the Ezra 7:7 mission from Babylon to Jerusalem on the same 49 year cycle as that of 2 Kgs. 19:29 (arguably prophesied in Daniel 9:25 dating the start of its 70 Lev. 25 Sabbatical weeks of years, namely 10 Jubilee cycles), and likewise that of the first 2 years of Bar-Kokhba's revolt against Hadrian (introducing Appx. A), thus triply confirming Moses' jubilee cycle in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's sabbatical cycles.

Appendix C shows the 4 structural charts for my chronology. Appendix D offers scholarly confirmation of Thiele's biblical chronological method. Appendix E examines Sennacherib's 702 BC 3rd campaign synchronism with Hezekiah' 14th year. Appendix F discovers my 21 April 1443 Exodus date shown in Fig. 7 in proper synchronism with Amenhotep II's short and final military campaign begun on 11 November 1444 (the “Amenophis” of Mantheo, clearly the Exodus pharaoh as preserved in Josephus' “Contra Apion”). Appendix G concisely details all 25 of my extrabiblical synchronisms validating the breakthrough nature of my discovery. And Appendix H presents the complete set of my 19 key chronology charts, where my correction of Thiele in a span of 40 years is illustrated in my Chronology Comparison Chart “CCC,” shown as Fig. 11/19, also shown as Fig. [fig:Chronology-Comparison-Chart].

Appendix [sec:25-Extrabiblical-Synchronisms], “Synchronisms for Thiele's & my chronologies” lists and locates expositions of its 2 Egyptian, 8 Assyrian, 6 Babylonian, 1 Tyrian, 3 Persian, 1 Sabbatical, and two pairs = 4 of Jubilee synchronisms (49th & 50th year Jubilee pairs, extrabiblically anchored to Bar Kokhba's spring-summer of 132 AD 49th Jubilee cycle year launching his revolt against Hadrian) totalling 25. These include synchronism of the Exodus with Amenhotep II's year 10, a Tyrian and Sabbatical year synchronism with Solomon's accession, Assyrian and Jubilee synchronisms in Hezekiah's 14th and 15th years, and Persian and Jubilee synchronisms of Ezra 7:7; exposing 3 historical Jubilee years in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's 1857 Sabbatical cycle.

My correction of Thiele's at first perfected but by afterthought marred biblical chronology builds upon its foundational part I, correcting the chronology of Sennacherib's first five years, which revealed 702 BC as the true date of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, enabling correction of Dr. Edwin Thiele's error in his widely accepted chronology of the Hebrew kings. Part I proved that Sennacherib's third campaign, biblically recorded in king Hezekiah of Judah's 14th regnal year, did not take place in 701 BC as Thiele had trusted for the cornerstone of his chronology, but rather in 702 BC, vindicating and perfecting his work. The lion's share of credit for my having discovered the ultimate biblical chronology belongs to Thiele (1943) as given improvement and correction by his indirectly participating colleagues Valerius Coucke (1928), Leslie McFall (1991), and Rodger C. Young (2003) who advanced Thiele's work without essentially modifying its chronological structure (CTMY). CTMY made possible my solution (solved in 2005, perfected and first published in 2015). My results validate not only their work, but the Masoretic Text (MT) as confirmed by its majority Dead Sea Scrolls representation, on which this chronology is exclusively based, and into which this chronology was imperceptibly (indeed mystifyingly according to over 2 millennia of effort since the 3rd century BC LXX futile effort to make sense of it) woven into the MT as a watermark or hologram of its authenticity.

By his Assyrian cornerstone thus out of place, no other Assyrian synchronism would fit Thiele's at first perfect internal biblical chronology, "IBC", (my solution has 8). So he emended it in Jotham's reign (2 Kgs. 15:30-33), adding 4 years to Jotham to shift Ahab's disastrous 853 Battle of Qarqar (Shalmaneser III's 6th year) immediately before Ahab's 1 Kgs. 22 fatal battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad. Thus Shalmaneser's 18th year receipt of Jehu's tribute in 841, 12 (= 18 - 6) years after Qarqar by IBC, harmonized Jehu's 841 accession with his 14th year of Hezekiah set in 701! But Thiele failed to notice that annihilation of Ahab's powerful military at Qarqar per Shalmaneser's 6th year annals, made impossible his 1 Kgs. 22 participation in his fatal war with Benhadad. Likewise Shalmaneser's 18th year annals report of Hazael's total incapacitation for his 2 Kgs. 9:15-16 wounding of Israel's Joram in battle, discredited Jehu's having killed both Joram and his sickbed visitor Judah's king Ahaziah in 841 (Appx. H, chart 2/19), stripping Thiele of all Assyrian synchronisms.

The Chronology Comparison Chart Fig. 3 exposing the difference between my and Thiele's chronologies, shows my two simple structural corrections: First Thiele's 701 BC synchronism with Hezekiah's year 14 is corrected to 702 BC. Second, Thiele's 4 fabricated years by which he (I believe honestly) found a self-deceptive pretext to lengthen Jotham's reign in order to contrive a specious but futile 853 BC Battle of Qarqar synchronism in Ahab's year of death in battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad, are removed: Jotham's 2 Kgs. 15:30 actuarial 20th year (4 years after Jotham's death) used to synchronize Pekah's death in his official chronicle, in my chronology properly observes Jotham's official 2 Kgs. 15:33 16th regnal year of death.

One of the earliest and ultimately most fruitful clues in not only exposing Thiele's error, but confirming my entire resulting Bible chronology, was the common but hitherto unproven observation that the two fallow years in succession of 2 Kings 19:29 in Hezekiah's 14th year (Sabbatical years 7 & 1 in Fig. 3) suggested the Lev. 25:2-13 49th year of a jubilee cycle (fallow), followed in the next year by its figurative 49 + 1 = “50th” in the post-Sabbatical 7 + 1 = “8th” per Lev. 25:20-22, namely Hezekiah's 15th calendrical year (also fallow), observed on its Tishri 10 by celebration of the 49-year jubilee cycle just completed in the first year of its next sabbatical cycle, whose purpose was to establish and regulate perpetual and inalienable land ownership in ancient Israel on a jubilee cyclical ceremonial basis. This exposed the purpose of the Ezra 7:7 mission from Babylon to Jerusalem on the same 49 year cycle as that of 2 Kgs. 19:29 (arguably prophesied in Daniel 9:25 dating the start of its 70 Lev. 25 Sabbatical weeks of years, namely 10 Jubilee cycles), and likewise that of the first 2 years of Bar-Kokhba's revolt against Hadrian (introducing Appx. A), thus triply confirming Moses' jubilee cycle in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's sabbatical cycles.

Appendix C shows the 4 structural charts for my chronology. Appendix D offers scholarly confirmation of Thiele's biblical chronological method. Appendix E examines Sennacherib's 702 BC 3rd campaign synchronism with Hezekiah' 14th year. Appendix F discovers my 21 April 1443 Exodus date shown in Fig. 7 in proper synchronism with Amenhotep II's short and final military campaign begun on 11 November 1444 (the “Amenophis” of Mantheo, clearly the Exodus pharaoh as preserved in Josephus' “Contra Apion”). Appendix G concisely details all 25 of my extrabiblical synchronisms validating the breakthrough nature of my discovery. And Appendix H presents the complete set of my 19 key chronology charts, where my correction of Thiele in a span of 40 years is illustrated in my Chronology Comparison Chart “CCC,” shown as Fig. 11/19, also shown as Fig. 3.

Appendix G, “Synchronisms for Thiele's & my chronologies” lists and locates expositions of its 2 Egyptian, 8 Assyrian, 6 Babylonian, 1 Tyrian, 3 Persian, 1 Sabbatical, and two pairs = 4 of Jubilee synchronisms (49th & 50th year Jubilee pairs, extrabiblically anchored to Bar Kokhba's spring-summer of 132 AD 49th Jubilee cycle year launching his revolt against Hadrian) totalling 25. These include synchronism of the Exodus with Amenhotep II's year 10, a Tyrian and Sabbatical year synchronism with Solomon's accession, Assyrian and Jubilee synchronisms in Hezekiah's 14th and 15th years, and Persian and Jubilee synchronisms of Ezra 7:7; exposing 3 historical Jubilee years in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's 1857 Sabbatical cycle.

Son of Piye and Abale, younger brother of Shebitqu, Taharqa (690 – 664) reigned in Kemet (Egypt) and Kush (Ethiopia) at the times of the Assyrian zenith. There could not be worse time for a polytheist pharaoh to merge Kush / Ethiopia and Egypt under his scepter. The monotheistic emperors of Assyria Sharrukin (722 – 705 BCE; Sharru Kinu: ´Stable King´ in Assyrian; also known as Sargon, through his mention in Ancient Greek historiography) and Sennacherib (705 – 681 BCE; Sin Ahe Eriba: ´Sin has elevated the brother´ in Assyrian) reassessed the Assyrian monotheistic imperial ideology, as heirs of the Sumerian – Akkadian universalist ideal, and reigned as "Emperors of the Universe". This signified unprecedented military expansionism, exportation of Assyrian administration to all the faraway places of the immense empire, and elimination of all polytheistic priesthoods and associate administrations from the invaded territories. From Caucasus to the central parts of Arabia, and from the Iranian plateau to Cyprus and the westernmost confines of today´s Turkey, an area of ca. 3.3 million km2 was ruled by one emperor – for the first time in the History of the Mankind.
First published on 27th March 2010 in AfroArticles, Buzzle and American Chronicle
Republished in the portal of the Oromo Parliamentarians:
https://www.oromoparliamentarians.org/English/Facts%20about%20Oromo/Kush%20-Oromo%20Part%20VIII.htm

Arnhem (nl) 2013 -3 Anatolia in the Bronze Age © Joost Blasweiler -Student Leiden University [email protected] Kings, queens and princes of the Hittite Kingdom in the offering lists of the royal ancestors. Heinrich Otten 1968, Die hethitischen historischen Quellen un die altorientalische Chronologie.

It is now firmly established that Sargon II's brother Sīn-aḫu-uṣur was also his vizier (sukkallu). He was the addressee of many letters written by the subjects of the Empire. He appears on a number of contemporary documents. The present study demonstrates that the correspondence of Sargon's brother and vizier, together with some historical documents, show that Sīn-aḫu-uṣur was ruling Babylonia on behalf of his brother, the king. The paper will analyse the spheres of the king's brother's involvement in the state affairs. The article investigates the extraordinary status and functions of the sukkallu of Sargon, who restored the grandeur of this office based on the Middle Assyrian precedent especially for his brother. The author further explores Ḫarrān as the seat of the collateral royal family members and the role of the precedent of the Middle Assyrian dynasty of sukkallus, the kings of ḪaniGALbat, 2) in the ideology of the Sargonids. Lastly, I will argue that the relationship between Sargon and Sīn-aḫu-uṣur served a model for Esarhaddon in his division of power between his two sons and heirs, Assurba-nipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukīn.

This is the third, revised edition of the Altbabylonisches Lehrbuch. It contains a concise but full and up-to-date grammar of Old Babylonian, exercises, and a glossary of the most frequent Old Babylonian words. Cuneiform is introduced with both Old Babylonian cursive and Neo-Assyrian monumental ductus.

In this paper we treat changes in weaponry and armament, which occurred in the Aegean and Levantine regions between the late 14th and the early 12th century BC. We aim at reconstructing these changes in a sequence as fine-phased as possible and try to identify the regions in which they originated. As a case study we use a sword of Naue II type found at Ugarit. As it has no clearly stratified context, we try to fix its chronology on one hand by reference to the overall stratigraphy of the site, and on the other by discussing better datable archaeological evidence from the Aegean and Cyprus. Swords of the Naue II group belong to new weapon types introduced to the eastern Mediterranean a few decades before the breakdown of many palace states around 1200 BC. There are different reasons that lead us to believe that these new weapon types arrived together with their users and producers from the central Mediterranean and cannot be seen as a result of goods exchange.

Печатается по решению редакционно-издательского совета государственного эрмитажа научный редактор: н. в. Козлова труды государственного эрмитажа : [т.] 95 : материалы международной конференции, посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения игоря михайловича дьяконова (1915) / государственный эрмитаж. -сПб. : изд-во гос. эрми тажа, 2018 настоящий сборник включает материалы международной конференции, посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения игоря михайловича дьяконова , которая состоялась в государственном эрмитаже и институте восточных рукописей ран 13-15 января 2015 года. состав сборника отражает широту научных интересов и. м. дьяконова. статьи посвящены различным областям ассириологии, переднеазиатской археологии и семитологии. в них затрагиваются проблемы политической и социально-экономической истории месопотамии и сопредельных стран, месопотамской религии и литературы, лингвистики и истории письменности.