log in
LC Geerts

LC Geerts

Website URL:

Volume 1 Chapter 14

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

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 proof 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 proofs 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 proofs 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 disproof 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.'

Volume 1 Chapter 12

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

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 proofrbial 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 proofrbs 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 proofd 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) proofs 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 Assyria, recorded by Herodotus. These three short dynasties are listed next.

Second Dynasty of the Sealand Lengths of Reign Dates

Simmash-Shipak

18

747-729

Ea-mukin-shumi

5 months

729

Kashshu-nadin-ahhe

3

729-726

In 726 the Second Sealand Dynasty was displaced by kings from the House of Bazu.

Kings of Dynasty of Bazu Lengths of Reign Dates

E-ulmash-shakin-shumi

17

726-709

Ninurta-Kudurri-usur

3

709-706

Shiriktum-Shukamuna

3 months

706

The year 706 witnessed an Elamite incursion into the land of Akkad, an event which ultimately made possible the rebellion of the Medes (in 700) against their Assyrian overlords. The 'Elamite Dynasty', the seventh to exercise authority at Babylon, was composed of one king: Marbiti-apal-usur. He reigned for 6 years 706-700.

With this the history of Southern Mesopotamia is restored, except for the Kassite kings of Karduniash. This line of kings cannot be placed until the history of Assyria is presented.

Volume 1 Chapter 13

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

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 proofd 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 proof 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!

Volume 1 Chapter 8

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

CHAPTER EIGHT

Egypt to the Persian Conquest

The next big surprise in Egyptian history is the dating of Ramesses the Great and Dynasty XIX. Few scholars were willing to consider the evidence, presented in 1945, for dating Ramesses about seven centuries later than the conventional dating (see 'Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History,' 'Scripta Academica-Hierosolymitana', Scientific Report III, by Immanuel Velikovsky).

Ramesses the Great was a contemporary of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon! The king of Hatti whom Ramesses fought at Kadesh was the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar. At the rise of Babylon to a world power, Nebuchadnezzar had conquered Hatti -- the ancient name of Syria, Palestine and a portion of Asia Minor.

The site of the battle of Kadesh, which Ramesses made so famous in his monuments, was not a city on the Orontes River in Syria, but the famous city of Carchemish. Kadesh is a Semitic word for 'holy.' Kadesh was a holy city. A number of cities in the ancient world bore the name Kadesh because they were holy places. Carchemish was famous -- as was Jerusalem -- as a holy city. The Greek name of Carchemish was Hieropolis, meaning Holy City.

Before proceeding with the detailed relationship between Ramesses and Nebuchadnezzar, we should first establish the chronology of the period from Manetho's transcribers. The exact dating of Dynasty XVIII (and preceding dynasties) has been established and confirmed by the Biblical record. Dynasty XIX follows Dynasty XVIII -- and therefore ruled in the eighth, seventh and sixth centuries B.C.

The following table establishes the proper chronology of the period.

Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII after 773 B.C. and of Dynasty XIX from Eusebius Lengths of Reign Date

Ramesses

68

771-705

Ammenophis

40

705-665

Sethos (Seti I)

55

665-610

Rampses (Ramesses the Great)

66

610-544

Ammenephthis (Merenptah)

8

544-536

Ammenemes

5 (See Africanus' epitome)

536-531

Thuoris, whose husband was Sethos II

7

531-524

The Egyptian year at this period began January 1 531 B.C. and January 1, 524 B.C. This makes the calendar year 525 the last full year of Thuoris. With Queen Thuoris, a contemporary of Psamtik III, this royal line of Egypt and Nubia died out as Ezekiel foretold.

Dynasty XIX has been greatly confused in history books because historians carelessly discarded Manetho. They confounded several Ramesses in Manetho's list into one. It will be proofd later that the Ramesses who ruled from 773 to 705 was the Ethiopian Piankhi. Modern historians have long assumed Manetho overlooked him. He didn't. Ramesses (773-705) is not a mere duplicate of Rampses (610-544). They are two different individuals.

The last documented year of Ramesses the Great recorded on any monument in Egypt is year 44 -- 567-566. The dynasty withdrew to Nubia following Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Egypt.

The 'Israel' Inscription

This restoration of history for the first time makes sense out of the Egyptian account of 'Israel' under Ramesses' son, Merenptah.

The name 'Israel' has been clearly found only once in all Egyptian annals. This illustrates how inadequate is archaeology when used as the whole source of knowledge. The single inscription appears from the reign of Merenptah, son of Ramesses the Great. It is often referred to as the 'Israel Stela.' The reference to Israel is as follows:
'... Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;

'Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; ...

'Israel is laid waste, his seed is not ....'

(See Pritchard, 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', page 378.)

It is to be specially noted that in the Egyptian text all names are preceded with a determinative sign meaning land, except for the name of Israel. The hieroglyphic determinative which precedes the name of Israel refers to people, not land. The record of Merenptah is therefore a historical account of the disappearance of the people of Israel from Palestine. This was never completely fulfilled until the captivity of the House of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar!

For decades historians have attempted to read into this document an account of the exodus, or of Joshua's invasion! Utter nonsense! It is a contemporary record of the deportation of the last remnant of the people of Israel from Palestine.

The 'Thirteen Fatal Years'

In Josephus' 'Contra Apionem', I, 26-31, there is a remarkable account of Egyptian calumnies against the Jews involving this period. The story involves 'thirteen fatal years,' and foreign invaders who polluted the Egyptian religious temples. The Egyptian Manetho made it appear that the enemies of Egypt were the Jews. The enemies were not the Jews but the Assyrians who sent their troops into Egypt, conquered the land and polluted its religious worship.

The setting of the event is during the time of an Amenophis. Josephus doubted such an individual lived. Josephus was correct in assuming the account was propaganda against Jews, but he was incorrect in denying the historical reality of the personages involved. Amenophis, king of Egypt, had, at the beginning of the thirteen years of exile, a five-year-old son Sethos. Young Sethos was named Ramesses after his grandfather. Amenophis was subject to the Ethiopian king, Manetho reports.

The grandfather Ramesses is the Ramesses who rules from 773-705. The Amenophis is his son who ruled during the years 705-665 (including the 13-year exile). The 5-year old son is Sethos (665-610), father of Ramesses the Great. The period is the Assyrian occupation during Dynasty XXV.

Nebuchadnezzar and Ramesses the Great

As final proof of the dating of Ramesses' reign to 610-544, notice the parallels between Egypt and Chaldaea. The history of Chaldaea for this period is best summarized in the 'Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings' 626-556 (B.C.), edited by D.J. Wiseman, 1956 edition. Egyptian source material may be found in J.H. Breasted's 'Ancient Records of Egypt', vol. III.

From these Chaldaean and Egyptian records the following events are extracted.

Egyptian:

Chaldaean:

607-606 -- fourth year of Ramesses, Egyptians march through Palestine, slay Josiah of Judah, and reach Kadesh (Carchemish) on Euphrates.

607-606 -- year nineteen of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, Chaldaeans march up Euphrates, seize Kimuhu on banks of the river near Carchemish.

606-605 -- fifth year of Ramesses, Egyptians record spectacular victory in vicinity of Kadesh (Carchemish) over ruler of Hatti (Syria).

606-605 -- Babylonian Chronicle reports for twentieth year of Nabopolassar: '... the army of Egypt came to the city of Kumuhu and then captured the city.' 'The Egyptian army which had crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish came against the Babylonian army ... the Babylonian army withdrew quickly and retreated.'

605-604 -- Ramesses silent about events in Syria and Palestine.

605-604 -- Egyptian army smashed at Carchemish. Chaldaeans seize 'the whole area of the Hatti country.'

604-603 -- Ramesses again silent about events in Palestines

604-603 -- Chaldaeans capture Judah and city of Ashkelon in land of Philistines.

603-602 -- eighth year -- Ramesses reconquers Ash-kelon, overruns Galilee and proceeds to Carchemish. Breasted comments in a footnote: 'At some time between the fifth and eighth years all Palestine ... revolted against Ramses II, and he was obliged to take up the reconquest of his Asiatic possessions, at his very door, Ashkelon' (pp. 157-158). Ramesses records nothing of the outcome of his march to Carchemish (Kadesh)except that he received tribute upon reaching the Euphrates.

603-602 -- in spring of year 603 Chaldaeans marched to land of Hatti with a powerful army. employ siege towers against a city whose name is broken away on the clay tablet. A notable victory is achieved. Jeremiah 46:2 comes to our aid. This victory was achieved at Carchemish -- it is the second battle for Carchemish (historians have only taken note of the first The Egyptians are totally overthrown. (Who Pharaoh Necho was in the Biblical account will be explained later.)

601-600 -- a damaged monument seems to refer to year 10 of Ramesses and a struggle for Palestine (see p. 125 of Breasted's work, vol. III).

601-600 -- Chaldaean chronicle records: the king 'took the lead of his army and marched to Egypt. The king of Egypt heard (it) and mustered his army. In open battle they smote the breast (of) each other and inflicted great havoc on each other. The king ... turned back and returned to Babylon.'

Here is historical confirmation of astounding significance. We have proceeded with the restoration of Egyptian history from its earliest period. That restoration required that Ramesses the Great be placed in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. -- contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar. And when the pages of history are opened for those centuries. the parallels are there!

In conclusion. note the deeds of Ramesses 'the Great' found on the monuments under the name of Tirhakah, in classical tradition a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar.

Inscriptions found upon certain reliefs at Medinet-Habu -- the Pylon of the Ethiopians -- record the statement that a king Tirhakah claimed sovereignty over Western Mesopotamia, the land of Hatti, part of Assyria, as well as Libya and other regions of Africa (G. Daressy, 'Medinet Habou', page 9). Scholars immediately recognized this vast realm was unhistorical for the Tirhakah of Dynasty XXV. The list was pronounced 'worthless.' Then Mariette discerned that the same record appeared elsewhere on the base of a colossal statue of Ramesses II. (See Mariette's 'Karnak', page 67, plate 18.) Mariette refused to believe his eyes. But there was the evidence: This Tirhakah was indeed Ramesses 'the Great.'

'Curiously enough,' admits E.A. Wallis Budge in 'A History of Egypt', vol. VI, page 157, 'Tirhakah obtained the reputation of being a great traveller and conqueror, and Strabo, under the name of 'Tearko the Ethiopian,' mentions him ... as one whose expeditions were not generally known.' (See 'Strabo', book I, chapter 3, part 21.) 'In another place he quotes Megasthenes, who says that ... Tearko the Ethiopian advanced as far as Europe ....' (See 'Strabo', book XV, chapter 1, part 6.)

Catching Up Loose Ends

Now to complete the restoration of Dynasty XIX from archaeology and Manetho's transcribers. According to Eusebius, Manetho assigns 8 years (544-536) to Ammenephthis (known as Merenptah from archaeology). In Syncellus' copy of Eusebius' epitome of Manetho the figure given is 40 years -- that is 576-536. Now see this confirmed from archaeological sources:

Names of Ramesses and Successors from Monuments Lengths of Reign Dates

Ramesses

67

610-543

Merenptah

10

576-566

Sethos II

6

543-537

Siptah

6

537-531

Twosre, a queen and widow of Sethos II (Thuoris in book of Sothis)

7

531-524

Compare this chart, based on archaeological evidence, with the record of Manetho. The reign of Merenptah (Ammenephthis) is given as 8 years in the Armenian version of Eusebius. This eight year period followed the reign of Ramesses. But Syncellus' copy of Eusebius' Manetho reads 40 years. Merenptah therefore reigned jointly with his father Ramesses for 32 years. Since the 10-year reign of Merenptah is recorded in Egypt, and not solely in Nubia, these ten years are Merenptah's first ten years -- 576-566. Merenptah continued his reign in Nubia after Egypt was depopulated between 570 and 566 by the Chaldaeans.

The reign of Ramesses in Nubia was followed by those of Sethos II, Siptah and Twosre. All the historical inscriptions of Siptah are Nubian graffiti, primarily from Wadi Halfa. Here again is confirmation of Ezekiel's prophecy of Egypt's 40-year desolation (Eze. 29:8-16).

The tombs of these rulers are all found in Egypt. The explanation is simple. Manetho's longer figures indicate that each began to reign in Egypt jointly with Ramesses before the land became desolate. Notice these additional figures from Manetho confirming the joint reigns!

Names of Rulers of Dynasty XIX according to Africanus Lengths of Reign Dates

Sethos

51

656-605

Rapsaces (Ramesses the Great)

61

605-544

Ammenephthis (Merenptah)

20

557-537

Ramesses (Siptah -- in contemporary records his name is spelled Ramesse-siptah)

60

591-531

Ammenemnes

26 (according to Eusebius)

557-531

Thuoris (Twosre)

50 (from book of Sothis)

574-524

For the date 656 marking the beginning of the reign of Sethos, see Gardiner's 'Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 450, especially the comment on the reign of Tanuatamun.

With this, the restoration of Dynasty XIX has been completed. But what are we to do with all the other dynastic houses which, historians say, ruled Egypt during these centuries? And who is that other long-lived Ramesses dated 773-705?

Dynasty XXV, the Ethiopians

Drop back in time to the end of the eighth century B.C. This is the period of Ethiopian rule of Egypt. The evidence from Assyrian sources for the proper dating of this period is so overwhelming historians have been unable to upset it.

From archaeological discoveries the reigns of the recognized kings of Dynasty XXV appear as follows:

Names from the Monuments and Stelae Lengths of Reign Dates

Shabako

15

707-692

Shebitku

3

692-689

Taharka

26

689-663

In 663 Thebes was sacked by the Assyrian king Assurbanipal. In 663 Taharka was succeeded by another Ethiopian Bakare Tanuatamun, whom the Assyrians named Urdamane. Archaeology has recovered indications of only 8 regnal years, but the history of Dynasty XXVI of Sais preserves evidence that his reign following the destruction of Thebes was 9 years -- 663-654.

The account of Dynasty XXV from Eusebius provides additional information of joint rulership not discovered by archaeologists.

Names of Dynasty XXV in Eusebius Lengths of Reign Dates

Sabacon

12

707-695

Sebichos

12

695-683

Taracus

20

683-663

The name of Tanuatamun does not appear in the dynasty. In the book of Sothis the names are as follows: 75 Sabacon; 76 Sebechon; 77 Taraces. The lengths of reign are those of Eusebius.

A comparison of Eusebius' Manetho with archaeological finds indicates Shabako and Shebitku reigned as equals for 3 years -- 695-692, as did Shebitku and Taharka for 6 years -- 689-683.

The account of Africanus differs somewhat from that of Eusebius.

Names of Dynasty XXV in Africanus Lengths of Reign Dates

Sabacon

8

705-697

Sebichos

14

697-683

Tarcus

18

683-665

The shorter reign of Sabacon will be explained later by the 46-year reign of Bochchoris, preserved by Eusebius. Thus:

Bochchoris

46

751-705

Sabacon

8

705-697

In Africanus it may be observed that Sebichos (Shebitku) is found associated on the throne in 697, two years earlier than the coregency indicated by Eusebius. A Biblical parallel may be observed in the relationship of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram. Jehoshaphat associated his son Jehoram on the throne with him in year 17, but it was not till year 22 that he was made full co-regent (compare I Kings 22 with II Kings 1 and 8).

Again these figures illustrate that if all the information is available, the records fit perfectly.

Scribal errors are not the cause of the variations. More important is the individual author's evaluation of events which leads him to emphasize different dates.

The short 18-year reign of Taharka (to 665 instead of 663) is easily accounted for by Egyptian and Assyrian information. Two years after Assurbanipal attacked Memphis (667) the Assyrian records indicate Tanuatamun came to the throne. He was king of Egypt during the final Assyrian attack on Thebes in 663. Though archaeology has provided no documents mentioning a joint reign, the classical writers plainly confirm the Assyrian record. Taharka and Tanuatamun were ruling jointly for two years: 665-663. With the end of the reign of Tanuatamun the last vestiges of Ethiopian control of Egypt cease.

Dynasty XXVI of Sais

The Ethiopian rule over Lower Egypt ended in 663 with the end of the reign of Taharka. Thereafter It passed to Dynasty XIX. In Lower Egypt in that year Dynasty XXVI of Sais rose to power. It was established by Assyrian authority, but its rulers were, to some extent, related to the Ethiopian Theban line by marriage. From the monument the following list of kings, parallel with Dynast; XIX Thebes in Upper Egypt, has been firmly established.

Names of Kings of Dynasty XXVI of Sais in Lower Egypt Lengths of Reign Dates

(Taharka)

(26)

(689-663)

Psamtik I

54

663-609

Necho

16

609-593

Psamtik II

5

593-588

Apries (Hophra)

19

588-569

Ahmose II (Amasis)

44

569-525

Psamtik III

6 months

525

The Persian invasion occurred in the year 525 and the line of Egyptian royalty passed from the scene. The princes that had ruled Egypt for centuries ceased. At this point the proof of the restoration of Egyptian history is established. It agrees to the very year -- from the Tower of Babel in 2254 to the Persian conquest in 525.

Though the archaeological record for the last Saite dynasty is amply demonstrated, some scholars have been puzzled by the dating of the last king Psamtik. A record early in his year 2 has been found. The answer is, of course, that he counted the 44th year of Amasis, during which he came to the throne, as his first year. This method of pre-dating hereafter became the usual mode of reckoning the Persian rulers in native annals. Psamtik's six months of reign overlapped the end of one calendar year and the beginning of the next, hence the date 'year 2' during which he was overthrown.

The classical writers preserve some important additional information concerning Dynasty XXVI that is not known from archaeology.

Manetho's Account of Dynasty XXVI

The evidence from Herodotus is especially valuable, as it gives a fuller view of joint reigns of the various kings. His information for the reign of Apries, the Hophra of the Bible, is as follows:

Name of King Lengths of Reign Dates

Psammetichos I (Psamtik)

54

663-609

Nechao II

16

610-594

Psammetichos II

6

594-588

Apries

25

594-569

Amasls

44

569-525

Psammetichos III

6 months

525

The overlap of Necho II is insignificant. But it is worthy of note that Herodotus pictures Apries and Psammetichos exercising power from the same year. Both Africanus and Eusebius preserve a short reign of 6 years for Necho II, and Eusebius assigns 17 to Psammetichos. Thus:

Nechao II

6

610-604

Psammetichos

17

604-587

Psammetichos died in the early part of 588, near the beginning of his 17th calendar year. From this it appears that Psammetichos and his father Necho shared the throne jointly for 10 years -- 604-594.

In Eusebius' 'Chronicon' another set of regnal years (though improperly dated) is preserved for Apries and Psammetichos:

Psammetichos II

12

599-587

Apries

30

599-569

Here again one sees that Apries exercised equal authority with Psammetichos II even prior to his sole reign, whatever the significance of the year 599 may be.

Eusebius has two other variants of historical significance. He assigns Amasis 42 years only 567-525 -- dated from his expulsion by the Chaldaeans to Cyprus. Also, Eusebius assigns for the Theban reign of Psammetichos I 45 years (according to Syncellus) and 44 in the Armenian Version. These may be easily understood if 9 years (to be proofd from book of Sothis) are assigned to Tanutamun, nephew of Taharka, and if 610 and 609 are considered the beginnings of the reign of Necho II. It should be remembered that Psamtik I ruled in Lower Egypt nine years before his first year at Thebes commenced.

Tanuatamun

9

663-654

or

9

663-654

Psammetichos I

45

654-609

44

654-610

Nechao II

15

609-594

16

610-594

These are not scribal blunders, but consistent evaluations based upon different points of view. Some dates are predated, others postdated. The year 610 is predated. It marks the year in which Ramesses the Great, Necho's contemporary, rose to power. Dynasty XIX of Thebes and Dynasty XXVI of Sais were undoubtedly related. Their kings participated on joint ventures -- as, for example, the wars of Ramesses and Necho with Nebuchadnezzar.

Before the reign of Psamtik I, Manetho preserves a number of kings not included in archaeological lists. From Africanus the following list may be drawn up.

Names of Rulers of Dynasty XXVI Lengths of Reign Dates

Stephinates

7

684-677

Nechepsos

6

677-671

Nechao I (whom the Assyrians appointed in 671)

8

671-663

Eusebius adds the following extra information from Manetho not preserved by Africanus:

Names of Rulers of Dynasty XXVI

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ammeris the Ethiopian

12

696-684

('Ameres' in Armenian Verion)

18 (in Armenian Version)

702-684

The remainder of the list is the same as Africanus'.

Book of Sothis and Dynasty XXVI

Before restoring other dynasties of this period, look at the book of Sothis. It ends with additional figures for the Saite dynasty. It appears so divergent from all other records that it has been totally rejected. Yet its details agree with this restoration of history. In the following chart the dates have been inserted, after which they will be analyzed.

Names in Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

77 Taraces (Takarka II)

20

683-663

78 Amaes (Tanautamun)

38

692-654

79 Stephinathes

27

684-657

80 Nechepsus

13

684-671

81 Nechao

8

671-663

82 Psammetichus

14

648-634

83 Nechao II

9

609-600

84 Psamuthes II

17

604-587

85 Uaphris (Hophra)

34

600-566

86 Amosis (Amasis)

50

575-525

Several of these dates are in chronological order, others are not. In numerous instances the reigns apparently indicate the total length of public service. They take on meaning only after a consecutive chronology for the period has been established.

What is the significance of Nechepsos' 13-year reign? According to Manetho, his 7-years' reign ended in 671 at the Assyrian invasion of Esarhaddon. The 13 years of his reign must therefore precede that date. His reign parallels that of Stephinathes, beginning 684.

In the Sothic list Amaes is given as the successor of Taharka. (The break in continuity occurs after Amaes' name, not before.) Tanuatamun was his Egyptian name. Urdamane is the name in Assyrian. He was the son of Shebitku and nephew of Taharka. He reigned as late as calendar year 655-654 according to Manetho. His 38-year reign would therefore extend from 692-654. It is significant that in 692 Shebitku assumed control of the government according to the archaeological record of Dynasty XXV. Shebitku then associated his son on the throne with him when he came to power.

Necho II's 9 years of reign in the book of Sothis immediately precedes an unusual 34 years of Hophra. This evidence indicates that Hophra, or Apries, assumed powers of government in 600. It explains the emphasis placed by one account of Eusebius on the next (postdated) year -- 599 -- as the commencement of the reign of both Psamtik II and Apries.

But did Hophra live into the calendar year 567-566? Indeed he did. His death is recorded on the Elephantine Stela as occurring in Year 3 of Amasis. Amasis' year 3 was from 567-566. The 50-year reign of Amasis is obviously his sole rule and co-regency.

And what is the origin of the unusual dating of Psammetichus? For an explanation we must turn to an earlier portion of the Book of Sothis.

Another Look at Book of Sothis

The account commences with the end of Dynasty XVIII.

Names in Book of Sothis Lengths of Reign Dates

47 Ramesses Aegyptus

68

770-702

48 Amenophis

8

702-694

49 Thuoris

17

694-677

50 Nechepsos

19

677-648

51 Psammuthis

13

648-635

52 --- (no name)

4

635-631

53 Certos

20

631-611

54 Rampsis (Ramesses 'the Great')

45

611-566

This unusual list seems clearly to be based on political events and royal family relationships otherwise unrecorded. Notice the reign of Psammuthis (Psammetichus), beginning in 648. Observe also the date 702. Compare this with the 18-year reign of Ameres from Eusebius' version of Manetho's Dynasty XXVI presented earlier. Ameris the Ethiopian succeeded Ramesses-Piankhi the Ethiopian in 702.

Now turn back Egyptian history to the beginning of the Ethiopian period in Egypt.

Appearance of Dynasty XXIV of Sais

Immediately before the reign of Shabako of Dynasty XXV the city of Sais, in the Delta, became prominent in politics. Its dynasty is famous for one man, Bochchoris. His father Tefnakhte was of much less importance. The classical writers mention only Bochchoris. Archaeologists recovered the name of Tefnachte. The total duration of Dynasty XXIV was 44 years.

Africanus assigns only 6 years to Bochchoris, but Eusebius and the book of Sothis each attribute 44 years to him. The variation allows for a simple explanation. Tefnakhte, Bochchoris' father, was a local prince before he became king. At the time he rose to kingship he associated his son with him on the throne. Tefnachte must have survived 38 years. The dates of the dynasty are as follows:

Name of King Lengths of Reign Dates

Bochchoris, or Bocchoris (the Bekenrinef of archaeology)

44

751-707

or

Tefnakhte

38

751-713

Bocchoris

6

713-707

The end of the official reign of Bochchoris is 707.

In one document Eusebius indicates Bochchoris survived two more years, for he assigns 46 years to his entire reign -- 751-705.

Africanus informs us that Bochchoris was captured by his successor Sabacon (Shabako).

Who Was Usimare Piankhi?

The pages of history must be turned back a few years again to establish the identity of the Ethiopian Usimare Piankhi, of Dynasty XXV, the immediate predecessor of Shabako, who ruled over all Egypt in the eighth century before the present era. By archaeologists Piankhi is determined to be the father of Taharka (689-663), and of Shebitku (692-689), and the brother of Shabako (perhaps the English 'half-brother' would be more correct).

All archaeologists have expressed surprise that Manetho would have neglected so famous a ruler! But Manetho did not neglect him! The annals of Usimare Pianki reveal who he was.

No archaeologist professes to know when Piankhi obtained control of Egypt. They do know, however, that in the year 21 of his reign a rebellion broke out in Egypt against his rule. (Breasted, 'Ancient Records', vol. IV, page 418). The leader of the revolt was Tefnakhte, the father of Bochchoris. In the Piankhi stela Tefnakhte is commencing his rise to power; he is not yet a king. His official title is only great prince. Upon hearing of the attempt to seize the Delta, Usimare Piankhi ordered his troops in Egypt to quell the rebels, while he remained in Napata, Nubia. The revolt was not quelled. Then, in the succeeding year (see Breasted's footnote on the dating in the Piankhi Stela), Piankhi himself led an expedition and drove Tefnakhte into the marshes of the Delta. An agreement was finally signed before the two, and local autonomy seems to have been granted Tefnakhte, the founder of Dynasty XXIV.

Now turn to the tables of the rulers of Dynasty XXIV of Sais. The 21st and 22nd calendar years of Piankhi's reign must have preceded the first year of Tefnakhte rulership (751-750) for in Piankhi's inscriptions Tefnakhte was not yet king. Here are the limits. The 21st and 22nd years of Usimare Piankhi must not be later than 751. What famous king was in Egypt already in control of Egypt in these years, whose 21st year was 753-752 and whose 22nd year was 752-751 at the latest?

Only one! Ramesses Aegyptus at the end of Dynasty XVIII of Manetho. Ramesses Aegyptus (773-707) was of the Cushite line of Sheba that had been ruling Egypt from Solomon's day. They had intermarried for generations with Egyptians. Piankhi was also a Cushite or Ethiopian ruling Egypt. Archaeologists have discovered his Ethiopian name. They have completely overlooked the fact that Manetho mentioned him under his Egyptian name.

Archaeological evidence indicates that Ramesses-Piankhi made Napata in Nubia his royal city, ruling Egypt from Thebes. The other kings of Dynasty XVIII who succeeded Ay also must have made Nubia their center of operations, since archaeologists have not been able to find evidence for them in Egypt. They have ruled through General Haremhab.

Now consider what occurred in Lower Egypt prior to the Dynasty of Tefnakhte and Bochchoris of Sais.

Dynasty XXIII of Tanis

Dynasty XXIV of Sais was preceded in Lower Egypt by Dynasty XXIII of Tanis. Here are the facts surrounding the new royal family ruling in Lower Egypt while the Thebans of Dynasties XVIII and XIX ruled from Upper Egypt. In the following table 'A' and 'E' stand for Africanus and Eusebius.

Kings of Dynasty XXIII Lengths of Reign Dates

Petubastis (E) or

25 (E)

794-769

Petubates (A)

40 (A)

794-754

Osorthon (E) or

9 (E)

770-761

Osorcho (A)

8 (A)

769-761

Psammus

10

761-751

Zet (only in A)

31 (A), or

751-720

34 (A)

754-720

For the dynasty the book of Sothis provides the following:

Names in Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

68 Petubastes

44

794-750

69 Osorthon

9

770-761

70 Psammus

10

761-751

These figures may, at first, seem confusing. They can be immediately simplified by the following arrangements.

Petubastis

25

794-769

or

Petubastis

40

794-754

Osorthon

8

769-761

Psammus

10

761-751

Zet

34

754-720

Zet

31

751-720

The year of overlap of Osorthon with Petubastis is probably the result of the co-regency having commenced during the 25th year.

This dynasty is very important in Greek history. Africanus wrote of Petubates: 'in his reign of the Olympic festival was first celebrated' ('Manetho', by Waddell, page 161). The Olympic festival commenced in 776, about the middle of Pedubastes' reign.

Further, Osorthon, or Osorcho, was by the 'Egyptians called Heracles.' In Greek history, Heracles lived three generations before the famous Trojan War. He was also the originator of the Olympic games. No historian has ever been able to reconcile these two facts. The reason? None recognize that there were two major Trojan Wars -- one ending 1181, the other over 500 years later in 677. The full story of this dynasty and of the Trojan War must wait the restoration of Greek history.

Documents have been found dated to year 6 of Pedubast and year 12 of an unnamed king, and to year 16 of Pedubast and year 2 of Yewepet. Yewepet was king of Mendes, but none of the Mendesian dynasties have been recorded by Manetho. These parallel datings with Mendesian kings are of value in dating Piankhi contemporary with Dynasty XXIII of Tanis. (See references in Gardiner's 'Egypt of the Pharaoh's', page 449; 'L'Egypte', by Drioton and Vandier, vol. II, page 542, Elgood, 'Later Dynasties of Egypt', page 52.)

Eusebius, unlike Africanus, ended Dynasty XXIII of Tanis with the reign of Psammus in 751, at which point he took up the Dynasty of Sais.

The date of 794 for the beginning of Dynasty XXIII is undoubtedly associated with events in the reigns of Acherres (802-794) and Cherres (794-779). But neither history nor archaeology has preserved any worthwhile events for this period.

In Manetho, Dynasty XXIII of Tanis was preceded by a royal family of foreign origin. It was Libyan, numbered Dynasty XXII and ruled from Bubastis.

Dynasty XXII of Bubastis

Few points in Egyptian history are more misunderstood than this dynasty. Archaeologists have turned up a wealth of information pertaining to Libyans from Bubastis. But they have failed to notice that their kingly line is utterly different in number and sequence from Manetho's. First, one must compare Manetho with history. Then the archaeological evidence must be examined.

Diodorus of Sicily tells us that during the reign of Horus the Libyans from North Africa west of Egypt came into Egypt during the expansion of their realm and dominated the land. That Horus is the Orus of the Greeks the Akhenaton of Dynasty XVIII!

In the previous investigation of this dynasty it should be noted that Orus or Akhenaton actually lived longer than the mere 17-years assigned to his reign by archaeological investigation. Manetho assigns him a reign that even outlasts Ay. This explains several enigmas that historians have puzzled over.

The most plausible moment for the Libyans to have established their dynasty would be just after the death of Ay, in 837, while Akhenaton (Orus) still lived. At this moment in history a curtain of silence descends on the family of Akhenaton. How long Libyan control in lower Egypt lasted may be determined by examining Assyrian records of Egypt. When Essarhaddon and Assurbanipal invaded the land of Egypt in 671-663 they found no Libyan dynasty ruling at Bubastis. But 90 years earlier Piankhi the Ethiopian specifically names a Libyan as king in Bubastis. (See Pritchard's 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', pp. 289-295 for the Assyrian account.) The only recorded king of the Libyans mentioned in the Bible is 'So, king of Egypt' (II Kings 17:4). The king's full name would be the Libyan 'Soshenk' or 'Soshenq'.

For years the name Soshenk has been mistaken for the Biblical Shishak. The assumption is that the Libyans under Soshenk attacked Jerusalem after the death of Solomon. Impossible. No philologist can demonstrate why the 'n' should have disappeared from Soshenk to become Shishak.

Several historians have questioned the authenticity of the Biblical So. But they need not have done so. The account of So is preserved by the Assyrians in the records of Sargon. In Assyrian the name is spelled Sib'e. The Greek Septuasint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament renders the name 'Soba'. According to the Biblical record So was a Delta king second in rank to the Ethiopian rulers of Upper Egypt. For that reason the Assyrians refer to him as 'Turtan', or second in command, to the great 'Pir'u' or Pharaoh.

King So or Sib'e conspired with Hoshea, king of Israel. The time was the calendar year 722-721. The Assyrians quickly heard of it. Sargon dispatched his army to Israel. 'At the beginning of my royal rule' (in 721 -- the accession year of Sargon) the Assyrian king besieged and captured Samaria, carried away 27,290 captives and imprisoned King Hoshea. 'I installed over them an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king,' reports Sargon. In the second year of Sargon's rule (720) 'Hanno, king of Gaza and also Sib'e, the 'turtan' of Egypt set out from Rapihu against me to deliver a decisive battle. I defeated them; Sib'e ran away ... and has not been seen again' (Pritchard's Texts, pp. 284-285). So disappeared from the scene in 720.

Using the date of 720 as a guide for the reconstruction of the Bubastite Libyan Dynasty, the following table may be constructed.

Dynasty XXII according to Africanus Lengths of Reign Dates

Sesonchis (Sosenq)

21

836-815

Osorthon

15

815-800

Three other kings

25

800-775

Takelothis

13

775-762

Three other kings

42

762-720

It is significant that 720 also marks the full end of Dynasty XXIII of Tanis, with the demise of Zet. Assyrian power overwhelmed the petty dynasts and the Pir'u (Pharaoh) himself offered the Assyrians tribute to keep the peace.

Manetho's transcribers have not recorded the names of each of the three other kings. From contemporary sources discovered through excavations in the past century the following names may be supplied. For the period extending from 762 to 720 the Ethiopian Piankhi names 'King Namlot and King Yewepet. Chief ... Sheshonk, of Per-Osiris (Busiris) ... King Osorkon, who was in Per-Bast (Bubastis).' (Breasted's 'Ancient Records', vol. IV, pp. 423-424, 439) All these were Libyan kings in the Delta of Egypt at the time of Piankhi's war in the years 753-751. Manetho's second group of 'three other kings' are here named, together with So or Sib'e. The implication is that during this period the Bubastite family ruled the Delta from three cities -- Osorkon in Bubastis, Yewepet in Tentremu and Tayan, and Namlot in Hermopolis. At a later time anyone of these three kings would have been replaced in his local realm by a son or other near relative. That is probably how So, thirty years later, came to be one of three kings.

For the same threefold division for the earlier period -- 800-775 -- we have the mention of a Libyan king Yewepet (who came to power in 780) as a contemporary with the Tanite king Pedibast. It is doubtful that any other names have yet been recovered.

So-called Dynasty XXII

Archaeologists and historians have totally discarded Manetho's account of Dynasty XXII. They have substituted for it a totally different group of Libyan kings and mislabeled it 'Dynasty XXII.' They never asked themselves whether they may have found another dynasty of Libyans not mentioned by Manetho. They took for granted without proof, that Manetho couldn't be correct.

It is admitted by all historians that the so-called Libyan Dynasty XXII followed Dynasty XX of Thebes. When did Dynasty XX of Thebes rule? After Dynasty XIX. But that would put Dynasty XX of Thebes after the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 -- the date for the end of Dynasty XIX.

That shocking fact will be proofd in the next chapter! There it will be established that Dynasty XX of Thebes governed Egypt during the fourth and third centuries B.C.! The Libyan Dynasty archaeologists have discovered therefore existed sometime during the Ptolemaic period of Egyptian history!

These kings of so-called Libyan Dynasty XXII were not Pharaohs in the ancient sense. They were only local dynasts -- similar to the princes and kings of colonial areas in the nineteenth and early twentieth century of the present era.

The kings of this mislabeled dynasty boasted of being related through intermarriage to the 'royal sons of Ramesses' (page 327 of Gardiner's 'Egypt of the Pharaohs' and other volumes for this period). Historians are hard pressed to explain away the 'royal sons of Ramesses' who survived their father upwards of two centuries! They were indeed what the monuments and stelae claim, the sons of the Ramessides of Dynasty XX.

The monuments and historical inscriptions of the true Dynasty XXII are scarce. Nevertheless archaeology has contributed greatly to our knowledge of the later Bubastite royal family. No small portion of it has been derived from the foreboding Memphite Serapeum, a vast subterranean structure where Apis bulls were buried. It was reopened by the Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy I, after the Persians had forbidden its use.

Discovered by Mariette in 1851, the Serapeum contained huge sarcophagi with mummies of no less than sixty-four bulls. During its lifetime an Apis bull was worshipped as the embodiment of Apis -- a name connected with Orisis. On its death and replacement by another living animal it was mummified and buried with pomp. Stelae were erected in the Serapeum designating, among numerous details, its time of birth, time of death and length of life. The chronological value of the find is obvious. Its historical value negligible.

From the monuments, Nilometer inscriptions and these stelae the following restoration of the so-called Dynasty XXII of Bubastis is now possible.

Here briefly is the proper restoration of the later Libyans during the Hellenistic period.

Names of Kings of Bubastis during the Ptolemaic Era (mislabeled Dynasty XXII) Lengths of Reign Dates

Soshenk 'I'

21

308-287

Osorkon 'I' (Soshenk 'II' co-regent)

36

287-251

Takelot 'I'

7

251-244

Osorkon 'II'

23

244-221

Takelot 'II'

25

221-196

Soshenk 'III'

52

196-144

Pemay 'the Cat'

6

144-138

Soshenk 'IV'

37

138-101

The Roman numerals given after the preceding rulers are those assigned by archaeologists. They are not correct and overlook completely earlier rulers of the real Dynasty XXII mentioned by Manetho. The priest Manetho lived and wrote during the early third century B.C. and died 150 years before the last of these Libyans from Bubastis reigned! No wonder they are not mentioned by Manetho!

These dates are established by the following facts. Soshenk 'I' built the Bubastite Portal adjoining a small temple of Ramesses III of Dynasty XX. This Portal was built sometime AFTER Ramesses III completed his temple. Ramesses III lived near the close of the Persian Period as shall be proofd in the next chapter. The Bubastites were therefore contemporary with and subject to the Ptolemaic Greeks of the Hellenistic Period. The last heir of Alexander the Great died about 308. (See Mahaffey's 'The Empire of the Ptolemies'.)

Alexander had been proclaimed a god-king by the oracle at Ammon in the Libyan desert. Apparently at the death of his last heir, about 308 B.C., the Libyans assumed the right to succeed his line. The first king of this new dynasty, Soshenk 'I,' is commonly -- though erroneously -- assumed to be the Shishak of the Bible. The inscriptions arraying his captured towns in the Palestine-Syria area are found on the Bubastid Portal at Thebes. In them no reference is made to Jerusalem, or to any important town in Judah. Writes Sir Alan Gardiner of the vanishing list: 'The innumeration is disappointing, of the 150 and more places named only a few are well enough preserved to suggest definite routes and these skirt around the hill-country of Samaria without reaching the centre of the Israelite kingdom; nor is there any hint that they ever touched Judah at all. There are, however, some indications of a raid into Edomite territory' ('Egypt of the Pharaohs', page 330).

Soshenk did not live in the fabulously rich Solomonic period. His was the period of Ptolemaic control of Egypt. His claimed capture of Palestinian and Syrian towns -- perhaps villages is the better word -- occurred as a general of Egyptian troops under Ptolemy I.

In the fourth year of Osorkon 'I' -- 284-283 -- a vast compilation of wealth was donated to the temple service. Here again is a parallel with Ptolemaic history. In the year 284 prodigiously rich coronation ceremonies were celebrated for Ptolemy II Philadelphus. No small portion of the riches were later donated to the pagan temple service.

Also, a flood in the third year of Osorkon 'II' corresponds to the period of upset weather conditions mentioned in the Canopus Inscription in the 240's. In Egypt famines are cause by either too much water or an insufficient amount of water flowing in the Nile at the period of inundation.

Osorkon 'II,' in most Biblical studies, is falsely equated with the Ethiopian Zerah of Scripture. Osorkon 'II' was not an Ethiopian. Much less did he ever command a million troops in an attack on Palestine. It was Twentieth Dynasty Ramesside culture that influenced Palestine just prior to and during the years of Osorkon ('Archaeology of Palestine', by W.F. Albright, page 137). Osorkon 'II' reigned after the fall of Persia, not in the days of Israel's kings.

In the 15th year of Osorkon's successor Takelot II, Egypt was devastated by revolt and Nubian invasion. 'Now, afterward, in the year 15 ... great wrath arose in this land .... They set warfare in the South and North ----- not ceasing to fight against those who were therein ... while years passed in hostility each one seizing upon his neighbor ...' (Breasted, 'Ancient Records', vol. IV, sec. 764).

It was during the last two years of the life of Ptolemy IV that Upper Egypt revolted, beginning in the year 207-206.

E.A. Wallis Budge writes: '... a revolt broke out in Upper Egypt, and the Nubians endeavoured to include the Thebaid in the kingdom as in the days of Piankhi I and his successors; this rising was not quelled when Ptolemy IV died, and the Nubians carried on their revolt into the reign of his son.' (Page 251 of 'Egypt Under the Saites, Persians and Ptolemies', vol. vii of the series 'History of Egypt'.)

The end of this Libyan dynasty is not necessarily indicated by the year 101. That is merely the last record in the Serapeum.

Dynasty XXI of Tanis

Yet another dynasty of Manetho must be restored -- number XXI of Tanis. Historians recognize that it preceded a Libyan dynasty. The question is, which one? Should it precede Manetho's Dynasty XXII of Bubastis because it is mentioned previous to it? Or should it be associated in some way with Dynasty XX of Thebes because it is mentioned after it? It means a difference of centuries!'

The answer may be found in the Serapeum. Writes Sir Alan Gardiner in 'Egypt of the Pharaohs': 'Strangely enough not a single inscription of Dyn. XXI was found in the Serapeum, but the material bearing upon Dyn. XXII ... is all the richer' (p. 326). On the same page Gardiner adds: 'Huge sarcophagi had contained the mummies of no less than sixty-four bulls, the earliest dating from the reign of Amenophis III and the latest extending down to the very threshold of the Christian era.'

Yet none from Dynasty XXI of Tanis? Absurd -- unless there was a period when use of the Serapeum was forbidden. Just such a period occurred -- under the Persians and early days of the Greeks before Ptolemy I.

When Cambyses conquered Egypt he ended the religious worship of Apis bulls by ordering the Egyptian priests to devour their god as food! Not until Ptolemy I was the old worship restored to favor ('A Dictionary of Egyptian Civilization', art. 'Serapeum').

Dynasty XXI of Tanis is the Persian and early Greek period and immediately precedes the mislabeled Libyan Dynasty XXII of Bubastis.

When Herodotus visited Egypt around 450 B.C., he did not find this dynasty ruling in Tanis. It therefore commenced sometime later. It could not have continued further than into the reign of the first Ptolemies.

Archaeology has provided evidence that the last king of Manetho's Dynasty XXI -- Psusennes II -- gave his daughter in marriage to the Bubastite Osorkon. He was the son of the Soshenq who founded the Libyan Dynasty. Therefore Psusennes was a contemporary of Soshenq and the daughter was of the same generation as Osorkon.

Archaeology has recovered the latest known year of Soshenq from his monuments as year 21. Whether this was his latest year or not may be answered by Manetho.

Psusennes, the contemporary of Soshenq is assigned two lengths of reign by Manetho -- 14 years and 35 years. The difference is 21! The answer is clear. Soshenq did reign only 21 years at Bubastis before Osorkon, his son, came to the throne. And those 21 years overlapped with the last 21 years of Psusennes II. With the date 308 (see preceding chart of Bubastite Libyans) for the end of the 14-year reign of Psusennes II, the entire twenty-first dynasty may now be reconstructed from Manetho. In the following chart the letters 'A' and 'E' stand for Africanus and Eusebius.

Kings of Dynasty XXI of Tanis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Smendes

26

417-391

Psusennes (I)

41 (E)

391-350

(46) (A)

(391-345)

Nephercheres

4 (A & E)

350-346

Amenophthis

9

346-337

Osochor

6

337-331

Psinaches

9

331-322

Psusennes (II)

14 (A)

322-308

(35) (E)

(322-287)

The Book of Sothis preserves the following variations:

63 Psuenus

25

384-359

64 Ammenophis

9

359-350

65 Nephecheres

6

350-344

66 Saites

15

346-331

67 Psinaches

9

331-327

These charts are in perfect harmony. The Book of Sothis preserves the length of reign of Psusennes, not from the beginning of his reign, but from an event in 384 -- a little-known war between Persians and Egyptians to be explained in the next chapter. It also provides additional information regarding the longer joint reign of Amenopthis.

The beginning date of 417 for the dynasty occurs during a period, which, for historians, is 'a complete blank so far as Egypt is concerned' (Gardiner, 'Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 371). All that is known of the period in that the Persian king who then governed Egypt never visited the country. The Tanites were probably established to maintain Persian authority in the absence of the Persian King. The dynasty survived severe struggles between Egyptians, Greeks and Persians as the only symbol of authority in the Delta, or Lower Egypt. Its last king had only a daughter as heir, and the line was superseded by Libyans who intermarried with the Tanite line.

What Eratosthenes Revealed

Up to this point little has been presented from Eratosthenes, the Alexandrian astronomer, geometer, geographer, grammarian and philosopher who became chief librarian, under Ptolemy III, of the Library at Alexandria. Eratosthenes is noted as the founder of 'scientific chronology.' He had access to the Theban records, preserved by the priests, of all the kings of Egypt. A fragmentary account of his complete book has come down to us through the work of George the Monk -- Syncellus.

Syncellus preserved only those points of Egyptian history of most interest to the Greek mind of his day. Included were the adventures of Cush, Nimrod, Horus, Heber, Shem. Next he preserved the kings who reigned from the momentous year 1958 -- when Babylonia was recovered from the Medes -- to the time of Job (Cheops) and his successors. Then the period of the Exodus.

Syncellus records nothing more of the original Eratosthenes. There is added beginning, with the king of Dynasty XXVIII, a series of rulers under the Persians and Greeks This additional list of kings is from later sources, not Eratosthenes. (See 'Apollodors Chronick' by Jacoby, for proof the last section of the list is not Eratosthenes'.)

The proof of the dating of this list of petty dynasts is found in the names of the so-called 'kings of Thebes.' None are typical of the days of Egypt's greatness. Number 32 is called the second Ammenemes. The previous king of that name was Ammenemes of Dynasty XIX who ruled from 557-531. This earlier Ammenemes does not appear in the list ascribed to Eratosthenes though, some transcribers have incorrectly inserted his name. This second must then have been later! Number 30 is titled Ochytyrannus -- meaning a tyrant like king Ochus -- the Persian who reconquered Egypt in 343. This king of Thebes must have been after the reign of Ochus to have borne such a title! This list is really of petty princes, priests or commanders of the army of upper Egypt who pretended to greatness by the names they took.

Kings Who Ruled in Thebes According to Eratosthenes

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1 Menes, a Theban of This

62

2254-2192

2 Athothes (Nimrod)

59

2192-2133

3 Athothes II (Horus)

32

2126-2094

4 Miabaes -- 'His name by interpretation signifies 'humane', or 'friendly''. He is the second Osiris who was deposed and finally slain by Typhon.

19

2049-2030 (same dates as the Palermo Stone has)

5 Pemphos -- is Shem

18

2037-2019

Eratosthenes' record continues with events after 1958

6 Toegar Amachus -- Momcheiri of Memphis, 'leader of men' -- 'he was irresistible'

79

1958-1879

7 Stoichos, 'his son' -- 'the unfeeling Ares' Ares is the Greek name of the god of War -- Mars

6

1879-1873

8 Gosormies -- 'All demanding'

30

1873-1843

9 Mares, 'his son' -- 'gift of the sun'

26

1843-1817

10 Anoyphis

20

1817-1797

11 Sirius

18

1797-1779

12 Chnubos or Gneuros -- 'gold' (Observe that Chnubos is contemporary with the seventh king of Dynasty II of This -- the last half of whose reign extended from 1775 1765. In Nephercheres' reign Manetho records that the Nile flowed with honey -- not literally, but figuratively, as the land of Palestine was to flow with milk and honey -- great prosperity. Hence the word 'gold' as the name of the king, signifying prosperity.)

22

1779-1757

13 Rayosis

13

1757-1744

14 Baiyres

10

1744-1734

15 Saophis Comates -- 'trafficker, money-getter' -- that is Joseph (according to Manetho, Dynasty IV, Joseph began his reign in 1734!)

29

1734-1705

16 Saophis II (Cheops or Job) (see Dynasty IV of Manetho for the same beginning date of Cheops: in 1699 a branch of Dynasty III came to power in the person of Zoser-teti or Tosertasis)

27

1726-1699

17 Moscheres (the year 1668 is also a major date in the internal history of Dynasties III and IV)

31

1699-1668

18 Mosthes

33

1668-1635

19 Pammes

35

1635-1600

(From here Eratosthenes proceeds to rulers of Dynasty VI who are recognized as rulers at Thebes as well as at Memphis, where the royal line originated.)

20 Appapos (Pepi 'the very great'); Eratosthenes impllee that Pepi was chosen to sit upon the throne from the very date of his blrth.

100

1587-1487

21 Acheskos Okaras, the Pharaoh of the Exodus

1

1487-1486

22 Nitocris, a queen, widow of the Pharaoh who perished in the Red Sea.

6

1486-1480

Eratosthenes' original list ends here. The succeeding kings are no part of the original Eratosthenes who wrote in the third century B.C. These rulers extended two centuries beyond his time.

23 Myrtaios Ammonodotos, the Amyrteos or Amonortais of Manetho's Dynasty XXVIII of Sais

22

421-399

24 Thyosimares, 'Mighty is the Sun'

12

399-387

25 Thinillo, 'having increased his ancestral power'

8

387-379

26 Semphrucrates, 'Heracles Harpocrates'

18

379-361

27 Chuther Taurus, a tyrant

7

361-354

28 Meures Philoscoros

12

354-342

29 Chomaephtha

11

342-331

30 Ancunios Ochytyrannus -- a tyrant like Ochus' -- Ochus was the Persian king who reconquered Egypt

60

331-271

31 Penteathyris

16

271-255

32 Stamenemes (Ammenemes) II

23

255-232

33 Sistosichermes, 'valiant Hercules'

55

232-177

34 Mares

43

177-134

35 Siphoas 'also called Hermes'

5

134-129

36 Fourteen years for which name of king is lost

14

129-115

37 Phruron, 'the Nile'

5

115-110

38 Amuthantaeus

63

110- 47

The calendar year 47 marks the year of Caesar's invasion of Egypt, and the perishing of native Egyptian dynasts under Greek Ptolemaic rule.

The dating of the first king of this period -- Myrtaios (421-399) -- is based on the known date 399, when, as the sole king of Dynasty XXVIII, he ceased to reign. The year 421 consequently marks his rise to power. It was undoubtedly to counteract this aspiring ruler that the Persians established Dynasty XXI of Tanis as a counterweight in 417.

The events that led up to the catastrophe of 47 is told by Budge. Ptolemy XIII died in 51 and 'left his kingdom by will to his daughter Cleopatra VII., and to his elder son Ptolemy XIV., surnamed Dionysius, who was to marry his sister; three years later (B.C. 48) a violent dispute broke out between brother and sister, who had reigned jointly until that time, and Cleopatra was obliged to leave Egypt. In 47 Caesar sent troops to support her claims, and as a result her brother's forces were defeated with great slaughter. Ptolemy XIV, was accidentally drowned in crossing a river whilst trying to escape' ('A History of Egypt', vol. viii, p. 87).

As commander of the Egyptian contingent under Ptolemy, the last native dynast perished in 47.

This chapter of the Compendium closes the history of Egypt to the Babylonian and Persian conquests with a quick, and needed, view into two later dynasties. In all there were twenty-four recorded dynasties ruling from the time of Babel to 525 B.C. Now we come to Dynasty XX of Thebes! These are the many Ramessides III to XI. Where do they belong in Egyptian history? Is the story of Thebes not yet complete?

The answer will be found in the next and final chapter on Egyptian history.

Subscribe to this RSS feed

Log in or create an account