Papers by Jeremy Goldberg
This study takes a different approach to Tukulti-Ninurta’s Babylonian wars by using the Tukulti-N... more This study takes a different approach to Tukulti-Ninurta’s Babylonian wars by using the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic as a starting point. This text depicts a multi-year war, with looting across Babylonia and many retreats by Kaštiliaš, which left him holed up in the Sealand. Following a Babylonian surprise attack in the flood season, he was captured when his army was smashed in the dry season.
This contradicts the usual dating of his fall to līmu Etel-pî-Aššur, which is when the main war started, and already dubious due to silence on Babylonia 2 years later (A.0.78.18). Looting of the Sealand, just before the later līmu Aššur-zēra-iddina (KAJ 106), seems to offer a much better clue.
The great contrast of Tukulti-Ninurta’s New Year rites in Babylon (MARV 8.7) with his sack/godnap there (Chronicle P iv 3-6) provides another clue: These rites are early in Azi, while the godnap is dated – with no gap at iv 2/3, e.g. because context would be missing with a gap and iv 1-6 parallels the epic with no gap – soon after Kaštiliaš’ fall in iv 2, likely (cf. KAJ 106) in or just before Azi. Why such a rapid total reversal of policy? A northern revolt explains this and reconciles Kaštiliaš’ last dated text, from Dūr-Kurigalzu in the north (IM 50036), with his fall in the south. To avoid futility and fit with an allusion in the epic, this should precede his army’s rout – here dating his fall to Azi.
Dūr-Katlimmu letters (BATSH 4.nn) point to a 2 month Assyro-Babylonian calendrical offset early in līmu Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat, probably ca.2 years after Azi. On this basis, Tukulti-Ninurta celebrating the New Year in both Aššur and Babylon (direct rule) requires an offset of 1 month early in Azi and a dating of MARV 8.7 to m3 d10. After quickly leaving to deal with plotting in Assyria (epic), Tukulti-Ninurta would then return, still in Azi, to finish off Kaštiliaš, punish Babylon, and appoint a vassal, having destroyed his own standing there. This all explains Kaštiliaš’ fadeout after y7 m10 and allows Ni. 65’s direct rule to date to the Nippur Kassite archives’ known lifespan.
Azi > IAša is currently favored, but differing offsets (above) and difficulties in the year before IAša (contrast Azi: “most successful war year”) support a longer interval. If Kaštiliaš fell in Azi, setting IAša 2 years later aligns Assyrian difficulties in and just before IAša with the Elamite struggle, and explains IAša texts: the recall only of a great Babylonian defeat and Kaštiliaš’ capture (A.0.78.6), a ‘rescue’ of Babylonia (BATSH 4.9), a siege of Lubdu (4.12), and an honored Kassite ‘king’ (4.10) – the last plumping the deposed Enlil-nādin-šumi for a failed attempt to re-install him (cf. 4.8).
The sequel again depends on no gap at Chronicle P iv 1-2/3-6. This is hard-to-avoid (above), but requires identifying iv 7-9’s ‘7 years’ of domination by Assyrian ‘governors’ with BKL-A’s 9 years of kings between Kaštiliaš IV and Adad-šuma-uṣur. However any objection from titles must rely on inconsistent arguments, and 7 years can represent typology achieved by omitting 2 years during which Elam interrupted Assyrian domination. This compares very well with iv 14-22 omitting Elamite rule at this time, and can be explained by greater hatred of Elam than Assyria, as known from the apparently 12th century Marduk Prophecy, and already reflected by BM 35322 c.1200.
On this entire basis, the cure (a gap at iv 2/3) seems worse than the disease: while problems vary greatly by model, two constants of gap models are a failure to well explain the godnap (in strong contrast to no gap/a revolt) or the sequel to Adad-šuma-iddina’s ‘terrible defeat’ by Elam (iv 19). What does seem clear (as widely accepted) is a late phase of direct rule attested by Tukulti-Ninurta’s role as ‘king of Sippar and Babylon' in texts that appear dated well after Kaštiliaš’ fall.
What happened in between? Adad-šuma-iddina’s ‘terrible defeat’ (presumably ending his reign) was apparently focused on central Babylonia and Adad-šuma-uṣur was put ‘on his father's throne’ by a ‘rebellion’ (iv 8-9) in the same year (BKL-A). Combined, this points to him piggy-backing in the north on this Elamite blow to Assyrian power further south. This very well explains his success and enables an excellent integration with BM 35322’s vicious breakup of a alliance of convenience with Elam after a great Babylonian victory (best set now and tying in perfectly with VS 24.91).
This leaves no room for a BKL lacuna, so the 'Sippar and Babylon' texts should overlap with Adad-šuma-uṣur, fitting very well with a probable reference to Assyrian recouping, at the start of his section in Chronicle 25, which names the same cities (cf. Chronicle P iv 23). Adding BM 35322 to this limited scope reconciles this recouping with declining Assyrian power now and allows a claim to rule Tilmun at this time to be very well explained by a trade agreement with Adad-šuma-uṣur.
A recently proposed līmu sequence of Ena > EpA > Unš > Abi > Azi can explain western diplomacy in Ena (VFMOS 2/III 54) as a peace offensive to aid trade. If Kaštiliaš fell in Azi, Ena dates to his year 4, ca. a Babylonia/Elam alliance (VS 24.91/MDP 10.85/EKI 48). This plausibly ties Assyro-Elamite conflict ca. Ena (VFMOS 2/III 70; KAM 11.24,35) to shortly pre-war Assyro-Babylonian border conflict (TN Epic) and further explains the peace offensive by Hittite-Elamite animosity (cf. VS 24.91). Attested regnal years, and economic conditions in Assyria, also support this chronology.
A serious early Hittite crisis is recalled in A.0.78.23 and several 'Sippar and Babylon' texts, highly likely during renewed crises. The first two crises do not seem too long, since no contemporary record is known of the early crisis and A.0.78.23 is isolated. A more extended 'Sippar and Babylon' crisis makes sense, since the decline of Elam (BM 35322) would free Ḫatti to more steadily oppose Assyrian power in Babylonia. Fairly short early and A.0.78.23-related crises can be well identified as the Araziqu crisis (not long [cf. KAL 16.6] before the war and ended due to the Babylonia/Elam alliance ca. Ena) and a measured Hittite response to Tukulti-Ninurta’s overthrow of Kaštiliaš and attack on Babylon, to show support for their fallen ally (VS 24.91) and briefly distract Assyria.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Chronicle P says that the Marduk statue stolen by Tukulti-Ninurta I was returned by 'Tukulti-Aššu... more Chronicle P says that the Marduk statue stolen by Tukulti-Ninurta I was returned by 'Tukulti-Aššur'. He is often identified as a later 12th c. king Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur, but this makes it hard to explain the passion of Nebuchadnezzar to return the Marduk statue stolen by a mid-12th c. Elamite king or good Assyro-Babylonian relations attested still earlier. Explaining this RN by error is also dubious due to a great development of Babylonian historiography evidenced from c.1200. In contrast, a real earlier Tukulti-Aššur can nicely explain Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur's unique RN (with two DNs) as programmatic.
Moreover, it is not plausible that Marduk was retained after the handover of an early 12th c. Assyrian king Enlil-kudurri-uṣur to the Babylonian king Adad-šuma-uṣur (Chronicle 25). Since it seems clear that the army did this, they probably chose the new king. With such a dubious start, he could very well have been noncanonical - as an early Tukulti-Aššur must be - especially if he weakly gave up Marduk. Conditions for a weakness-based return now are probably substantiated by a royal letter (ABL 1282) from a Middle Assyrian king ('your son') to his Babylonian counterpart ('my father').
An inscription of Adad-šuma-uṣur (BM 36042) strongly supports Marduk's return now: 'Marduk … named his name as ruler of (all) land[s]. The great gods … returned to their temples'. Likewise the Adad-šuma-uṣur Epic (BM 34104+), generally set in the wake of Enlil-kudurri-uṣur's downfall: 'dirty … garments' (presumably Marduk's) will 'illuminate the land' after 'the launderer' washes them. Likewise the Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur letter (same corpus as ABL 1282), which appears to warn against ignoring the god's will by recalling a time when Enlil-kudurri-uṣur 'did not return' while Marduk did.
The sequel works extremely well too, because the canonical successor, Ninurta-apal-Ekur, broke off a march on Aššur, apparently during the same war, after which the chronicle section itself breaks off likely after something 'arrived unexpectedly' (Synchronistic History). News arriving of the stunning Assyrian disaster and Tukulti-Aššur's noncanonical accession very well explains both breaks and parallels Chronicle 25, in which this 'news' is decisive at Babylon. The interval till Ninurta-apal-Ekur's reign then provides a perfect setting for an early, noncanonical, Babylonian-compliant Tukulti-Aššur.
On error in Chronicle P: It is dubious to use a confused and less detailed Assyrian tradition (naming Aššur-nādin/naṣir-apli) to correct this text, which says (just before Tukulti-Aššur) that Tukulti-Ninurta I was killed (and apparently succeeded) by his son Aššur-naṣir-apli. While only Aššur-nādin-apli's reign is attested, this could well reflect sacrilege weakening the parricideand plausibly making him noncanonical, helping to explain the confusion. His rehabilitation can avoid making 'Aššurnaṣirpal' I an exception to the unoriginal RNs after Aššur-bēl-kala and allow 'Aššurnaṣirpal' II son of 'Tukulti-Ninurta' II to be a reflex of the parricide (cf. his heir's clear similar reflex). His replacement of his successor in the AKL is explicable by the wretched upshot. Continued confusion can be explained by PAB (normally naṣir) being an early rough writing of nādin: (a) learned scribe(s) saw PAB for naṣir, knew of Aššur-nādin-apli, thought he was seeing PAB for nādin, and "corrected" his text.
On the rise of Marduk, an important result: Since Adad-šuma-uṣur's great victory also recovered Babylon, Marduk's apparent return after Enlil-kudurri-uṣur's fall trumps Lambert's argument that his return after Nebuchadnezzar I's great victory provides the best occasion for his elevation. His second argument, that this elevation would be impossible during the Kassite dynasty, which had its own gods, has also become dubious due to Adad-šuma-uṣur's weakness in Babylon in his epic (cf. also the terrible late Kassite defeats by Assyria and Elam, Chronicle P iv 8, and the late Kassite Dynasty change from Kassite to Akkadian RNs). Especially in view of three mid-12th c. Marduk-RNs, his return after the epic's renewal may be his elevation. In any case, charges of anachronistic importance for Marduk in the epic (weakening its historical value) are vitiated by Adad-šuma-uṣur's remarkable weakness at Babylon in this text and equally varied usage under Nebuchadnezzar I.
Three more noncanonical kings appear in (ostensible) 12th c. Babylonian diplomatic letters:
A widely hated noncanonical Nabû-apla-iddina (Berlin letter) appears clearly identifiable as the heir of Adad-šuma-uṣur. Their careers then match BM 35322 so well as to confirm its setting under the father – reinforcing this gritty epic’s support for Babylonian historiography developing greatly c.1200. His hated accession, fairly soon after the fall of Enlil-kudurri-uṣur, can also explain a major puzzle – Chronicle P’s failure to name the king to whom Marduk returned – by souring Babylonians on his father’s entire role now (cf. his "apology tour" in his epic) – especially since Elamite hatred likely sidelined him during the Assyrian struggle prior to a comeback around when Marduk returned.
A noncanonical royal addressee in the broken Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur letter (Ebeling) seems clear on internal evidence and reconciles it with external evidence: While he is named in the third person, and simply as ‘Aššur-šumu-lēšer’, this usually occurs in relation to his exile, from which he returned with Babylonian help – very plausibly as a rebuke for ingratitude. In one case, Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur’s loss of the throne is contrasted with Aššur-šumu-lēšer’s gain, using language applied elsewhere to the addressee’s throne. In another case, the context says: ‘Aššur-šumu-lēšer … speaks words of glorification’, followed by a quote from a previous message of the addressee including ‘I/he exalt’. The context here also links him directly to Marduk, which sounds royal too. This alternative to Mutakkil-Nusku for the viciously anti-Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur addressee can reconcile his seemingly extremely weak position with the long survival of Mutakkil-Nusku’s line. Specifically, a compromise probably returned Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur to honor but not kingship; cf. probably archive Aššur 6096.
A Lugal-durmah-Ninurta named in BM 35404 (and BM 35496) is apparently a noncanonical Babylonian king, naturally enough since he is set amidst Elamite attacks at the end of the Kassite Dynasty. If years under noncanonicals were ignored, his reign could enable a significant Kassite Dynasty/Isin II overlap without impinging on Marduk-apla-iddina I’s realm or existing synchronisms – while making political space for nascent Isin II by his own likely limited power (as a noncanonical king who came to a bad end) and giving Babylonia time to recover before trying its hand at resistance to Elam again. This overlap would solve a puzzle posed by an omen setting Marduk’s Elamite exile at an otherwise too-short 30 years (III R 61 no.2). While Kassite Dynasty rule was recognized at Ur (well south of Isin) 2 years before the end, Isin II could have rode out this episode somehow, after which it would have been ignored because it was so brief and ended so badly.
Misbegotten years under noncanonicals being ignored is supported by the connection of the AKL to eponym lists, which makes it awkward to absorb such years into adjacent reigns. And a prayer of Aššurnaṣirpal I seems to clearly indicate that a lengthy such period just before his reign was indeed ignored: ‘I was formed in mountains … You took me from the mountains and named me to be shepherd of the people’. This appears to synchronize the end of his father’s reign (roughly) with his birth, rather than with his accession as in the canonical chronology. And since his father only reigned 4 years, any absorption would have to be largely into his own 19 year reign. However if he was still a child during much of this period, his son Shalmaneser II would have been too young to succeed him.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The much-debated "Berlin letter" is an ostensible Elamite royal letter that tells of a marriage a... more The much-debated "Berlin letter" is an ostensible Elamite royal letter that tells of a marriage alliance begun by a Babylonian king Kurigalzu. Identifying him as Kurigalzu I seems to cause too many problems. Kurigalzu II avoids these problems and fits very well in most respects with pre-letter views on Elamite chronology. The principal exception, involving a Burna-Buriaš, can be harmonized with a Kurigalzu II reading by making him a prince - the most legitimate role available for the next Babylonian father-in-law in the letter, XX-Duniaš. But if this legitimizing genealogy names two princes, why doesn't it specify their royal fathers?
The letter has also been criticized for its filiation of Kidin-Ḫutran from Untaš-Napiriša, rather than from Pahir-iššan as in Šilḫak-Inšušinak's crucial list (clearly based on original sources). However all literal views of the list's filiation are dubious and its sequence fits perfectly with the letter's filiation. This seems to point to the list (and so Kidin-Ḫutran) using 'son' for later descendant, especially since (following the letter) Kidin-Ḫutran did descend from Pahir-iššan and a grandfather did employ this usage. But if so, why didn't he name his real father?
The short answer seems to be anathema. This is very promising in the letter, because the sons-in-law of its (putative) two princes with unnamed fathers are precisely the two Igihalkid kings who (apparently) warred with Babylonia. Moreover one such war, waged by Untaš-Napiriša, was against Kaštiliaš IV, who is apparently anathematized in the letter.
For the list: This war quickly leads to an anathema-based solution, by making Kidin-Ḫutran (second in the list after Untaš-Napiriša, just after another 'son of Pahir-iššan') not even heir then. This should date his Babylonian marriage after the war, making it a policy reversal that could very well explain why he ignored his father in favor of Pahir-iššan, the co-founder of the alliance. This has a very good parallel involving Meli-Šipak, who reversed an anti-Elamite policy (according to the letter) of his father Adad-šuma-uṣur and refers to Kurigalzu instead.
For the letter: Its anathema against Kaštiliaš IV treats his accession as a takeover: 'he seized Babylonia'. This suggests that Untaš-Napiriša waged war on behalf of a more "legitimate" pro-Elamite faction, whose leader can best be identified as XX-Duniaš a half-brother of Kaštiliaš. Since Kaštiliaš calling himself 'son' of his predecessor probably indicates he was his heir, a half-brother's omitted filiation can be very well explained by anathema of their father over his wretched choice for heir, and something similar supposed for Burna-Buriaš.
Two such disputes a generation apart, the second centered on Kaštiliaš IV's accession, finds very good support on the ground from the "curious" start of his and his predecessor's reign within a few days of the New Year, "raising a suspicion" (Brinkman) of disputed successions. Indeed, something abortive can be inferred, since this timing seems neither deliberate nor coincidental. This all points to failed opposition, led by more "legitimate" princes XX-Duniaš and Burna-Buriaš, that backfired to trigger both accessions. Such conflict further explains why the letter names these princes while their fathers, who disfavored them, go unnamed.
The old and new arguments sketched above appear to vindicate this text on the main charges against it. Additional matches with external evidence further support the notional origin of the letter - and a Kurigalzu II reading, on which all of this repeatedly depends.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Iranica Antiqua, 2004
browse categories : ... ...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Göttinger Miszellen, 2000
.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Biblica, 1999
The massive Assyrian invasion of Judah in 701 (reflected in 2 Kgs 18,13b; 18,17 – 19,37) has appa... more The massive Assyrian invasion of Judah in 701 (reflected in 2 Kgs 18,13b; 18,17 – 19,37) has apparently been confused with an earlier, limited invasion in Hezekiah’s 14th year (reflected in 2 Kgs 18,13a.14-16; 2 Kgs 20; 2 Chr 32; Isa 22). Historically, this earlier campaign can best be dated to 712, when Sargon II apparently led the Assyrian royal guard on a Palestinian campaign. Chronologically, this dating fits perfectly with e.g. recent dating of the definitive fall of Samaria (2 Kgs 18,9: in Hezekiah’s 6th year) to 720. 2 Kgs 18,9’s parallel dating to Hoshea’s 9th year agrees with his apparent accession in 731 or 729. Dating Menahem’s death to 743 (as required, following biblical data, to avoid a triple overlap among Uzziah, Jotham and Ahaz) agrees with Eponym Chronicle evidence for this dating of 2 Kgs 15,19-20’s presumably already desperate fiasco, and is consistent with a plausibly composite 738 tribute-list naming Menahem. Combining these datings produces a workable later 8th century biblical chronology.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Discussions in Egyptology, 1999
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, 1996
"Espérons que l'égyptologie est enfin débarrassée de l'énigme C 100 et enregistrons au moins l'ex... more "Espérons que l'égyptologie est enfin débarrassée de l'énigme C 100 et enregistrons au moins l'existence d'un Pharaon Iny, même si ce personnage insolite et réprouvé en son temps doit demeurer un fantôme de plus dans les brumes d'une chronologie qu'il est prudent de savoir flottante." J. Yoyotte CRIPEL 11 (1989), 131
Troubles early in the reign of Taharqa (690-664 BC) strongly support explaining the obscurity of his predecessor Shebitku by a weak reign. This could very well be related to a Menkheperre named beside Shebitku at the latter's burial, especially since the only attested candidate is the extremely ambitious and proscribed Menkheperre [...]y. Striking parallels between [...]y's titulary and the legend of Sethos in Hdt II,141 - clearly set in 701, i.e. at least ca. the reign of Shebitku - strongly support conflating Shebitku's Menkheperre, [...]y and Sethos. Since [...]y now appears identifiable as the 'new' king Iny, he can also be seen behind Hdt II,140's similarly-named apparent contemporary of Shebitku, Anysis. Many further alter-egos of Iny appear to occur in Egyptian legends, most notably the Inaros texts' Inaros.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Discussions in Egyptology, 1995
Centuries of Darkness (CoD) has recently pointed to a wide variety of early Iron Age problems as ... more Centuries of Darkness (CoD) has recently pointed to a wide variety of early Iron Age problems as evidence of the need for a major downdating of the Egyptian New Kingdom. Such a lowering of dates would require a massive compression of the following Third Intermediate Period (TIP). However, the CoD authors have failed to come to grips with a number of important arguments in favor of the usual elements of TIP chronology (cf. especially Kitchen CAJ 1 [1991], 235ff. with James et. al. CAJ 2 [1992], 127f.).
The first part of this article re-evaluates the chronological elements called into question by CoD, concluding that in many cases, at least some revision is very plausible. This is followed by an analysis of Egyptian genealogical evidence that appears to strongly support a massive compression of TIP chronology. Both factors point to a compression somewhat less severe than that proposed by CoD. The resulting TIP and Ramesside chronology (see also DE 29 [1994], 68ff.) is briefly tested against biblical history and found to produce a surprisingly good match.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Discussions in Egyptology, 1994
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Jeremy Goldberg
This contradicts the usual dating of his fall to līmu Etel-pî-Aššur, which is when the main war started, and already dubious due to silence on Babylonia 2 years later (A.0.78.18). Looting of the Sealand, just before the later līmu Aššur-zēra-iddina (KAJ 106), seems to offer a much better clue.
The great contrast of Tukulti-Ninurta’s New Year rites in Babylon (MARV 8.7) with his sack/godnap there (Chronicle P iv 3-6) provides another clue: These rites are early in Azi, while the godnap is dated – with no gap at iv 2/3, e.g. because context would be missing with a gap and iv 1-6 parallels the epic with no gap – soon after Kaštiliaš’ fall in iv 2, likely (cf. KAJ 106) in or just before Azi. Why such a rapid total reversal of policy? A northern revolt explains this and reconciles Kaštiliaš’ last dated text, from Dūr-Kurigalzu in the north (IM 50036), with his fall in the south. To avoid futility and fit with an allusion in the epic, this should precede his army’s rout – here dating his fall to Azi.
Dūr-Katlimmu letters (BATSH 4.nn) point to a 2 month Assyro-Babylonian calendrical offset early in līmu Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat, probably ca.2 years after Azi. On this basis, Tukulti-Ninurta celebrating the New Year in both Aššur and Babylon (direct rule) requires an offset of 1 month early in Azi and a dating of MARV 8.7 to m3 d10. After quickly leaving to deal with plotting in Assyria (epic), Tukulti-Ninurta would then return, still in Azi, to finish off Kaštiliaš, punish Babylon, and appoint a vassal, having destroyed his own standing there. This all explains Kaštiliaš’ fadeout after y7 m10 and allows Ni. 65’s direct rule to date to the Nippur Kassite archives’ known lifespan.
Azi > IAša is currently favored, but differing offsets (above) and difficulties in the year before IAša (contrast Azi: “most successful war year”) support a longer interval. If Kaštiliaš fell in Azi, setting IAša 2 years later aligns Assyrian difficulties in and just before IAša with the Elamite struggle, and explains IAša texts: the recall only of a great Babylonian defeat and Kaštiliaš’ capture (A.0.78.6), a ‘rescue’ of Babylonia (BATSH 4.9), a siege of Lubdu (4.12), and an honored Kassite ‘king’ (4.10) – the last plumping the deposed Enlil-nādin-šumi for a failed attempt to re-install him (cf. 4.8).
The sequel again depends on no gap at Chronicle P iv 1-2/3-6. This is hard-to-avoid (above), but requires identifying iv 7-9’s ‘7 years’ of domination by Assyrian ‘governors’ with BKL-A’s 9 years of kings between Kaštiliaš IV and Adad-šuma-uṣur. However any objection from titles must rely on inconsistent arguments, and 7 years can represent typology achieved by omitting 2 years during which Elam interrupted Assyrian domination. This compares very well with iv 14-22 omitting Elamite rule at this time, and can be explained by greater hatred of Elam than Assyria, as known from the apparently 12th century Marduk Prophecy, and already reflected by BM 35322 c.1200.
On this entire basis, the cure (a gap at iv 2/3) seems worse than the disease: while problems vary greatly by model, two constants of gap models are a failure to well explain the godnap (in strong contrast to no gap/a revolt) or the sequel to Adad-šuma-iddina’s ‘terrible defeat’ by Elam (iv 19). What does seem clear (as widely accepted) is a late phase of direct rule attested by Tukulti-Ninurta’s role as ‘king of Sippar and Babylon' in texts that appear dated well after Kaštiliaš’ fall.
What happened in between? Adad-šuma-iddina’s ‘terrible defeat’ (presumably ending his reign) was apparently focused on central Babylonia and Adad-šuma-uṣur was put ‘on his father's throne’ by a ‘rebellion’ (iv 8-9) in the same year (BKL-A). Combined, this points to him piggy-backing in the north on this Elamite blow to Assyrian power further south. This very well explains his success and enables an excellent integration with BM 35322’s vicious breakup of a alliance of convenience with Elam after a great Babylonian victory (best set now and tying in perfectly with VS 24.91).
This leaves no room for a BKL lacuna, so the 'Sippar and Babylon' texts should overlap with Adad-šuma-uṣur, fitting very well with a probable reference to Assyrian recouping, at the start of his section in Chronicle 25, which names the same cities (cf. Chronicle P iv 23). Adding BM 35322 to this limited scope reconciles this recouping with declining Assyrian power now and allows a claim to rule Tilmun at this time to be very well explained by a trade agreement with Adad-šuma-uṣur.
A recently proposed līmu sequence of Ena > EpA > Unš > Abi > Azi can explain western diplomacy in Ena (VFMOS 2/III 54) as a peace offensive to aid trade. If Kaštiliaš fell in Azi, Ena dates to his year 4, ca. a Babylonia/Elam alliance (VS 24.91/MDP 10.85/EKI 48). This plausibly ties Assyro-Elamite conflict ca. Ena (VFMOS 2/III 70; KAM 11.24,35) to shortly pre-war Assyro-Babylonian border conflict (TN Epic) and further explains the peace offensive by Hittite-Elamite animosity (cf. VS 24.91). Attested regnal years, and economic conditions in Assyria, also support this chronology.
A serious early Hittite crisis is recalled in A.0.78.23 and several 'Sippar and Babylon' texts, highly likely during renewed crises. The first two crises do not seem too long, since no contemporary record is known of the early crisis and A.0.78.23 is isolated. A more extended 'Sippar and Babylon' crisis makes sense, since the decline of Elam (BM 35322) would free Ḫatti to more steadily oppose Assyrian power in Babylonia. Fairly short early and A.0.78.23-related crises can be well identified as the Araziqu crisis (not long [cf. KAL 16.6] before the war and ended due to the Babylonia/Elam alliance ca. Ena) and a measured Hittite response to Tukulti-Ninurta’s overthrow of Kaštiliaš and attack on Babylon, to show support for their fallen ally (VS 24.91) and briefly distract Assyria.
Moreover, it is not plausible that Marduk was retained after the handover of an early 12th c. Assyrian king Enlil-kudurri-uṣur to the Babylonian king Adad-šuma-uṣur (Chronicle 25). Since it seems clear that the army did this, they probably chose the new king. With such a dubious start, he could very well have been noncanonical - as an early Tukulti-Aššur must be - especially if he weakly gave up Marduk. Conditions for a weakness-based return now are probably substantiated by a royal letter (ABL 1282) from a Middle Assyrian king ('your son') to his Babylonian counterpart ('my father').
An inscription of Adad-šuma-uṣur (BM 36042) strongly supports Marduk's return now: 'Marduk … named his name as ruler of (all) land[s]. The great gods … returned to their temples'. Likewise the Adad-šuma-uṣur Epic (BM 34104+), generally set in the wake of Enlil-kudurri-uṣur's downfall: 'dirty … garments' (presumably Marduk's) will 'illuminate the land' after 'the launderer' washes them. Likewise the Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur letter (same corpus as ABL 1282), which appears to warn against ignoring the god's will by recalling a time when Enlil-kudurri-uṣur 'did not return' while Marduk did.
The sequel works extremely well too, because the canonical successor, Ninurta-apal-Ekur, broke off a march on Aššur, apparently during the same war, after which the chronicle section itself breaks off likely after something 'arrived unexpectedly' (Synchronistic History). News arriving of the stunning Assyrian disaster and Tukulti-Aššur's noncanonical accession very well explains both breaks and parallels Chronicle 25, in which this 'news' is decisive at Babylon. The interval till Ninurta-apal-Ekur's reign then provides a perfect setting for an early, noncanonical, Babylonian-compliant Tukulti-Aššur.
On error in Chronicle P: It is dubious to use a confused and less detailed Assyrian tradition (naming Aššur-nādin/naṣir-apli) to correct this text, which says (just before Tukulti-Aššur) that Tukulti-Ninurta I was killed (and apparently succeeded) by his son Aššur-naṣir-apli. While only Aššur-nādin-apli's reign is attested, this could well reflect sacrilege weakening the parricideand plausibly making him noncanonical, helping to explain the confusion. His rehabilitation can avoid making 'Aššurnaṣirpal' I an exception to the unoriginal RNs after Aššur-bēl-kala and allow 'Aššurnaṣirpal' II son of 'Tukulti-Ninurta' II to be a reflex of the parricide (cf. his heir's clear similar reflex). His replacement of his successor in the AKL is explicable by the wretched upshot. Continued confusion can be explained by PAB (normally naṣir) being an early rough writing of nādin: (a) learned scribe(s) saw PAB for naṣir, knew of Aššur-nādin-apli, thought he was seeing PAB for nādin, and "corrected" his text.
On the rise of Marduk, an important result: Since Adad-šuma-uṣur's great victory also recovered Babylon, Marduk's apparent return after Enlil-kudurri-uṣur's fall trumps Lambert's argument that his return after Nebuchadnezzar I's great victory provides the best occasion for his elevation. His second argument, that this elevation would be impossible during the Kassite dynasty, which had its own gods, has also become dubious due to Adad-šuma-uṣur's weakness in Babylon in his epic (cf. also the terrible late Kassite defeats by Assyria and Elam, Chronicle P iv 8, and the late Kassite Dynasty change from Kassite to Akkadian RNs). Especially in view of three mid-12th c. Marduk-RNs, his return after the epic's renewal may be his elevation. In any case, charges of anachronistic importance for Marduk in the epic (weakening its historical value) are vitiated by Adad-šuma-uṣur's remarkable weakness at Babylon in this text and equally varied usage under Nebuchadnezzar I.
Three more noncanonical kings appear in (ostensible) 12th c. Babylonian diplomatic letters:
A widely hated noncanonical Nabû-apla-iddina (Berlin letter) appears clearly identifiable as the heir of Adad-šuma-uṣur. Their careers then match BM 35322 so well as to confirm its setting under the father – reinforcing this gritty epic’s support for Babylonian historiography developing greatly c.1200. His hated accession, fairly soon after the fall of Enlil-kudurri-uṣur, can also explain a major puzzle – Chronicle P’s failure to name the king to whom Marduk returned – by souring Babylonians on his father’s entire role now (cf. his "apology tour" in his epic) – especially since Elamite hatred likely sidelined him during the Assyrian struggle prior to a comeback around when Marduk returned.
A noncanonical royal addressee in the broken Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur letter (Ebeling) seems clear on internal evidence and reconciles it with external evidence: While he is named in the third person, and simply as ‘Aššur-šumu-lēšer’, this usually occurs in relation to his exile, from which he returned with Babylonian help – very plausibly as a rebuke for ingratitude. In one case, Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur’s loss of the throne is contrasted with Aššur-šumu-lēšer’s gain, using language applied elsewhere to the addressee’s throne. In another case, the context says: ‘Aššur-šumu-lēšer … speaks words of glorification’, followed by a quote from a previous message of the addressee including ‘I/he exalt’. The context here also links him directly to Marduk, which sounds royal too. This alternative to Mutakkil-Nusku for the viciously anti-Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur addressee can reconcile his seemingly extremely weak position with the long survival of Mutakkil-Nusku’s line. Specifically, a compromise probably returned Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur to honor but not kingship; cf. probably archive Aššur 6096.
A Lugal-durmah-Ninurta named in BM 35404 (and BM 35496) is apparently a noncanonical Babylonian king, naturally enough since he is set amidst Elamite attacks at the end of the Kassite Dynasty. If years under noncanonicals were ignored, his reign could enable a significant Kassite Dynasty/Isin II overlap without impinging on Marduk-apla-iddina I’s realm or existing synchronisms – while making political space for nascent Isin II by his own likely limited power (as a noncanonical king who came to a bad end) and giving Babylonia time to recover before trying its hand at resistance to Elam again. This overlap would solve a puzzle posed by an omen setting Marduk’s Elamite exile at an otherwise too-short 30 years (III R 61 no.2). While Kassite Dynasty rule was recognized at Ur (well south of Isin) 2 years before the end, Isin II could have rode out this episode somehow, after which it would have been ignored because it was so brief and ended so badly.
Misbegotten years under noncanonicals being ignored is supported by the connection of the AKL to eponym lists, which makes it awkward to absorb such years into adjacent reigns. And a prayer of Aššurnaṣirpal I seems to clearly indicate that a lengthy such period just before his reign was indeed ignored: ‘I was formed in mountains … You took me from the mountains and named me to be shepherd of the people’. This appears to synchronize the end of his father’s reign (roughly) with his birth, rather than with his accession as in the canonical chronology. And since his father only reigned 4 years, any absorption would have to be largely into his own 19 year reign. However if he was still a child during much of this period, his son Shalmaneser II would have been too young to succeed him.
The letter has also been criticized for its filiation of Kidin-Ḫutran from Untaš-Napiriša, rather than from Pahir-iššan as in Šilḫak-Inšušinak's crucial list (clearly based on original sources). However all literal views of the list's filiation are dubious and its sequence fits perfectly with the letter's filiation. This seems to point to the list (and so Kidin-Ḫutran) using 'son' for later descendant, especially since (following the letter) Kidin-Ḫutran did descend from Pahir-iššan and a grandfather did employ this usage. But if so, why didn't he name his real father?
The short answer seems to be anathema. This is very promising in the letter, because the sons-in-law of its (putative) two princes with unnamed fathers are precisely the two Igihalkid kings who (apparently) warred with Babylonia. Moreover one such war, waged by Untaš-Napiriša, was against Kaštiliaš IV, who is apparently anathematized in the letter.
For the list: This war quickly leads to an anathema-based solution, by making Kidin-Ḫutran (second in the list after Untaš-Napiriša, just after another 'son of Pahir-iššan') not even heir then. This should date his Babylonian marriage after the war, making it a policy reversal that could very well explain why he ignored his father in favor of Pahir-iššan, the co-founder of the alliance. This has a very good parallel involving Meli-Šipak, who reversed an anti-Elamite policy (according to the letter) of his father Adad-šuma-uṣur and refers to Kurigalzu instead.
For the letter: Its anathema against Kaštiliaš IV treats his accession as a takeover: 'he seized Babylonia'. This suggests that Untaš-Napiriša waged war on behalf of a more "legitimate" pro-Elamite faction, whose leader can best be identified as XX-Duniaš a half-brother of Kaštiliaš. Since Kaštiliaš calling himself 'son' of his predecessor probably indicates he was his heir, a half-brother's omitted filiation can be very well explained by anathema of their father over his wretched choice for heir, and something similar supposed for Burna-Buriaš.
Two such disputes a generation apart, the second centered on Kaštiliaš IV's accession, finds very good support on the ground from the "curious" start of his and his predecessor's reign within a few days of the New Year, "raising a suspicion" (Brinkman) of disputed successions. Indeed, something abortive can be inferred, since this timing seems neither deliberate nor coincidental. This all points to failed opposition, led by more "legitimate" princes XX-Duniaš and Burna-Buriaš, that backfired to trigger both accessions. Such conflict further explains why the letter names these princes while their fathers, who disfavored them, go unnamed.
The old and new arguments sketched above appear to vindicate this text on the main charges against it. Additional matches with external evidence further support the notional origin of the letter - and a Kurigalzu II reading, on which all of this repeatedly depends.
Troubles early in the reign of Taharqa (690-664 BC) strongly support explaining the obscurity of his predecessor Shebitku by a weak reign. This could very well be related to a Menkheperre named beside Shebitku at the latter's burial, especially since the only attested candidate is the extremely ambitious and proscribed Menkheperre [...]y. Striking parallels between [...]y's titulary and the legend of Sethos in Hdt II,141 - clearly set in 701, i.e. at least ca. the reign of Shebitku - strongly support conflating Shebitku's Menkheperre, [...]y and Sethos. Since [...]y now appears identifiable as the 'new' king Iny, he can also be seen behind Hdt II,140's similarly-named apparent contemporary of Shebitku, Anysis. Many further alter-egos of Iny appear to occur in Egyptian legends, most notably the Inaros texts' Inaros.
The first part of this article re-evaluates the chronological elements called into question by CoD, concluding that in many cases, at least some revision is very plausible. This is followed by an analysis of Egyptian genealogical evidence that appears to strongly support a massive compression of TIP chronology. Both factors point to a compression somewhat less severe than that proposed by CoD. The resulting TIP and Ramesside chronology (see also DE 29 [1994], 68ff.) is briefly tested against biblical history and found to produce a surprisingly good match.
This contradicts the usual dating of his fall to līmu Etel-pî-Aššur, which is when the main war started, and already dubious due to silence on Babylonia 2 years later (A.0.78.18). Looting of the Sealand, just before the later līmu Aššur-zēra-iddina (KAJ 106), seems to offer a much better clue.
The great contrast of Tukulti-Ninurta’s New Year rites in Babylon (MARV 8.7) with his sack/godnap there (Chronicle P iv 3-6) provides another clue: These rites are early in Azi, while the godnap is dated – with no gap at iv 2/3, e.g. because context would be missing with a gap and iv 1-6 parallels the epic with no gap – soon after Kaštiliaš’ fall in iv 2, likely (cf. KAJ 106) in or just before Azi. Why such a rapid total reversal of policy? A northern revolt explains this and reconciles Kaštiliaš’ last dated text, from Dūr-Kurigalzu in the north (IM 50036), with his fall in the south. To avoid futility and fit with an allusion in the epic, this should precede his army’s rout – here dating his fall to Azi.
Dūr-Katlimmu letters (BATSH 4.nn) point to a 2 month Assyro-Babylonian calendrical offset early in līmu Ina-Aššur-šumī-aṣbat, probably ca.2 years after Azi. On this basis, Tukulti-Ninurta celebrating the New Year in both Aššur and Babylon (direct rule) requires an offset of 1 month early in Azi and a dating of MARV 8.7 to m3 d10. After quickly leaving to deal with plotting in Assyria (epic), Tukulti-Ninurta would then return, still in Azi, to finish off Kaštiliaš, punish Babylon, and appoint a vassal, having destroyed his own standing there. This all explains Kaštiliaš’ fadeout after y7 m10 and allows Ni. 65’s direct rule to date to the Nippur Kassite archives’ known lifespan.
Azi > IAša is currently favored, but differing offsets (above) and difficulties in the year before IAša (contrast Azi: “most successful war year”) support a longer interval. If Kaštiliaš fell in Azi, setting IAša 2 years later aligns Assyrian difficulties in and just before IAša with the Elamite struggle, and explains IAša texts: the recall only of a great Babylonian defeat and Kaštiliaš’ capture (A.0.78.6), a ‘rescue’ of Babylonia (BATSH 4.9), a siege of Lubdu (4.12), and an honored Kassite ‘king’ (4.10) – the last plumping the deposed Enlil-nādin-šumi for a failed attempt to re-install him (cf. 4.8).
The sequel again depends on no gap at Chronicle P iv 1-2/3-6. This is hard-to-avoid (above), but requires identifying iv 7-9’s ‘7 years’ of domination by Assyrian ‘governors’ with BKL-A’s 9 years of kings between Kaštiliaš IV and Adad-šuma-uṣur. However any objection from titles must rely on inconsistent arguments, and 7 years can represent typology achieved by omitting 2 years during which Elam interrupted Assyrian domination. This compares very well with iv 14-22 omitting Elamite rule at this time, and can be explained by greater hatred of Elam than Assyria, as known from the apparently 12th century Marduk Prophecy, and already reflected by BM 35322 c.1200.
On this entire basis, the cure (a gap at iv 2/3) seems worse than the disease: while problems vary greatly by model, two constants of gap models are a failure to well explain the godnap (in strong contrast to no gap/a revolt) or the sequel to Adad-šuma-iddina’s ‘terrible defeat’ by Elam (iv 19). What does seem clear (as widely accepted) is a late phase of direct rule attested by Tukulti-Ninurta’s role as ‘king of Sippar and Babylon' in texts that appear dated well after Kaštiliaš’ fall.
What happened in between? Adad-šuma-iddina’s ‘terrible defeat’ (presumably ending his reign) was apparently focused on central Babylonia and Adad-šuma-uṣur was put ‘on his father's throne’ by a ‘rebellion’ (iv 8-9) in the same year (BKL-A). Combined, this points to him piggy-backing in the north on this Elamite blow to Assyrian power further south. This very well explains his success and enables an excellent integration with BM 35322’s vicious breakup of a alliance of convenience with Elam after a great Babylonian victory (best set now and tying in perfectly with VS 24.91).
This leaves no room for a BKL lacuna, so the 'Sippar and Babylon' texts should overlap with Adad-šuma-uṣur, fitting very well with a probable reference to Assyrian recouping, at the start of his section in Chronicle 25, which names the same cities (cf. Chronicle P iv 23). Adding BM 35322 to this limited scope reconciles this recouping with declining Assyrian power now and allows a claim to rule Tilmun at this time to be very well explained by a trade agreement with Adad-šuma-uṣur.
A recently proposed līmu sequence of Ena > EpA > Unš > Abi > Azi can explain western diplomacy in Ena (VFMOS 2/III 54) as a peace offensive to aid trade. If Kaštiliaš fell in Azi, Ena dates to his year 4, ca. a Babylonia/Elam alliance (VS 24.91/MDP 10.85/EKI 48). This plausibly ties Assyro-Elamite conflict ca. Ena (VFMOS 2/III 70; KAM 11.24,35) to shortly pre-war Assyro-Babylonian border conflict (TN Epic) and further explains the peace offensive by Hittite-Elamite animosity (cf. VS 24.91). Attested regnal years, and economic conditions in Assyria, also support this chronology.
A serious early Hittite crisis is recalled in A.0.78.23 and several 'Sippar and Babylon' texts, highly likely during renewed crises. The first two crises do not seem too long, since no contemporary record is known of the early crisis and A.0.78.23 is isolated. A more extended 'Sippar and Babylon' crisis makes sense, since the decline of Elam (BM 35322) would free Ḫatti to more steadily oppose Assyrian power in Babylonia. Fairly short early and A.0.78.23-related crises can be well identified as the Araziqu crisis (not long [cf. KAL 16.6] before the war and ended due to the Babylonia/Elam alliance ca. Ena) and a measured Hittite response to Tukulti-Ninurta’s overthrow of Kaštiliaš and attack on Babylon, to show support for their fallen ally (VS 24.91) and briefly distract Assyria.
Moreover, it is not plausible that Marduk was retained after the handover of an early 12th c. Assyrian king Enlil-kudurri-uṣur to the Babylonian king Adad-šuma-uṣur (Chronicle 25). Since it seems clear that the army did this, they probably chose the new king. With such a dubious start, he could very well have been noncanonical - as an early Tukulti-Aššur must be - especially if he weakly gave up Marduk. Conditions for a weakness-based return now are probably substantiated by a royal letter (ABL 1282) from a Middle Assyrian king ('your son') to his Babylonian counterpart ('my father').
An inscription of Adad-šuma-uṣur (BM 36042) strongly supports Marduk's return now: 'Marduk … named his name as ruler of (all) land[s]. The great gods … returned to their temples'. Likewise the Adad-šuma-uṣur Epic (BM 34104+), generally set in the wake of Enlil-kudurri-uṣur's downfall: 'dirty … garments' (presumably Marduk's) will 'illuminate the land' after 'the launderer' washes them. Likewise the Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur letter (same corpus as ABL 1282), which appears to warn against ignoring the god's will by recalling a time when Enlil-kudurri-uṣur 'did not return' while Marduk did.
The sequel works extremely well too, because the canonical successor, Ninurta-apal-Ekur, broke off a march on Aššur, apparently during the same war, after which the chronicle section itself breaks off likely after something 'arrived unexpectedly' (Synchronistic History). News arriving of the stunning Assyrian disaster and Tukulti-Aššur's noncanonical accession very well explains both breaks and parallels Chronicle 25, in which this 'news' is decisive at Babylon. The interval till Ninurta-apal-Ekur's reign then provides a perfect setting for an early, noncanonical, Babylonian-compliant Tukulti-Aššur.
On error in Chronicle P: It is dubious to use a confused and less detailed Assyrian tradition (naming Aššur-nādin/naṣir-apli) to correct this text, which says (just before Tukulti-Aššur) that Tukulti-Ninurta I was killed (and apparently succeeded) by his son Aššur-naṣir-apli. While only Aššur-nādin-apli's reign is attested, this could well reflect sacrilege weakening the parricideand plausibly making him noncanonical, helping to explain the confusion. His rehabilitation can avoid making 'Aššurnaṣirpal' I an exception to the unoriginal RNs after Aššur-bēl-kala and allow 'Aššurnaṣirpal' II son of 'Tukulti-Ninurta' II to be a reflex of the parricide (cf. his heir's clear similar reflex). His replacement of his successor in the AKL is explicable by the wretched upshot. Continued confusion can be explained by PAB (normally naṣir) being an early rough writing of nādin: (a) learned scribe(s) saw PAB for naṣir, knew of Aššur-nādin-apli, thought he was seeing PAB for nādin, and "corrected" his text.
On the rise of Marduk, an important result: Since Adad-šuma-uṣur's great victory also recovered Babylon, Marduk's apparent return after Enlil-kudurri-uṣur's fall trumps Lambert's argument that his return after Nebuchadnezzar I's great victory provides the best occasion for his elevation. His second argument, that this elevation would be impossible during the Kassite dynasty, which had its own gods, has also become dubious due to Adad-šuma-uṣur's weakness in Babylon in his epic (cf. also the terrible late Kassite defeats by Assyria and Elam, Chronicle P iv 8, and the late Kassite Dynasty change from Kassite to Akkadian RNs). Especially in view of three mid-12th c. Marduk-RNs, his return after the epic's renewal may be his elevation. In any case, charges of anachronistic importance for Marduk in the epic (weakening its historical value) are vitiated by Adad-šuma-uṣur's remarkable weakness at Babylon in this text and equally varied usage under Nebuchadnezzar I.
Three more noncanonical kings appear in (ostensible) 12th c. Babylonian diplomatic letters:
A widely hated noncanonical Nabû-apla-iddina (Berlin letter) appears clearly identifiable as the heir of Adad-šuma-uṣur. Their careers then match BM 35322 so well as to confirm its setting under the father – reinforcing this gritty epic’s support for Babylonian historiography developing greatly c.1200. His hated accession, fairly soon after the fall of Enlil-kudurri-uṣur, can also explain a major puzzle – Chronicle P’s failure to name the king to whom Marduk returned – by souring Babylonians on his father’s entire role now (cf. his "apology tour" in his epic) – especially since Elamite hatred likely sidelined him during the Assyrian struggle prior to a comeback around when Marduk returned.
A noncanonical royal addressee in the broken Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur letter (Ebeling) seems clear on internal evidence and reconciles it with external evidence: While he is named in the third person, and simply as ‘Aššur-šumu-lēšer’, this usually occurs in relation to his exile, from which he returned with Babylonian help – very plausibly as a rebuke for ingratitude. In one case, Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur’s loss of the throne is contrasted with Aššur-šumu-lēšer’s gain, using language applied elsewhere to the addressee’s throne. In another case, the context says: ‘Aššur-šumu-lēšer … speaks words of glorification’, followed by a quote from a previous message of the addressee including ‘I/he exalt’. The context here also links him directly to Marduk, which sounds royal too. This alternative to Mutakkil-Nusku for the viciously anti-Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur addressee can reconcile his seemingly extremely weak position with the long survival of Mutakkil-Nusku’s line. Specifically, a compromise probably returned Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur to honor but not kingship; cf. probably archive Aššur 6096.
A Lugal-durmah-Ninurta named in BM 35404 (and BM 35496) is apparently a noncanonical Babylonian king, naturally enough since he is set amidst Elamite attacks at the end of the Kassite Dynasty. If years under noncanonicals were ignored, his reign could enable a significant Kassite Dynasty/Isin II overlap without impinging on Marduk-apla-iddina I’s realm or existing synchronisms – while making political space for nascent Isin II by his own likely limited power (as a noncanonical king who came to a bad end) and giving Babylonia time to recover before trying its hand at resistance to Elam again. This overlap would solve a puzzle posed by an omen setting Marduk’s Elamite exile at an otherwise too-short 30 years (III R 61 no.2). While Kassite Dynasty rule was recognized at Ur (well south of Isin) 2 years before the end, Isin II could have rode out this episode somehow, after which it would have been ignored because it was so brief and ended so badly.
Misbegotten years under noncanonicals being ignored is supported by the connection of the AKL to eponym lists, which makes it awkward to absorb such years into adjacent reigns. And a prayer of Aššurnaṣirpal I seems to clearly indicate that a lengthy such period just before his reign was indeed ignored: ‘I was formed in mountains … You took me from the mountains and named me to be shepherd of the people’. This appears to synchronize the end of his father’s reign (roughly) with his birth, rather than with his accession as in the canonical chronology. And since his father only reigned 4 years, any absorption would have to be largely into his own 19 year reign. However if he was still a child during much of this period, his son Shalmaneser II would have been too young to succeed him.
The letter has also been criticized for its filiation of Kidin-Ḫutran from Untaš-Napiriša, rather than from Pahir-iššan as in Šilḫak-Inšušinak's crucial list (clearly based on original sources). However all literal views of the list's filiation are dubious and its sequence fits perfectly with the letter's filiation. This seems to point to the list (and so Kidin-Ḫutran) using 'son' for later descendant, especially since (following the letter) Kidin-Ḫutran did descend from Pahir-iššan and a grandfather did employ this usage. But if so, why didn't he name his real father?
The short answer seems to be anathema. This is very promising in the letter, because the sons-in-law of its (putative) two princes with unnamed fathers are precisely the two Igihalkid kings who (apparently) warred with Babylonia. Moreover one such war, waged by Untaš-Napiriša, was against Kaštiliaš IV, who is apparently anathematized in the letter.
For the list: This war quickly leads to an anathema-based solution, by making Kidin-Ḫutran (second in the list after Untaš-Napiriša, just after another 'son of Pahir-iššan') not even heir then. This should date his Babylonian marriage after the war, making it a policy reversal that could very well explain why he ignored his father in favor of Pahir-iššan, the co-founder of the alliance. This has a very good parallel involving Meli-Šipak, who reversed an anti-Elamite policy (according to the letter) of his father Adad-šuma-uṣur and refers to Kurigalzu instead.
For the letter: Its anathema against Kaštiliaš IV treats his accession as a takeover: 'he seized Babylonia'. This suggests that Untaš-Napiriša waged war on behalf of a more "legitimate" pro-Elamite faction, whose leader can best be identified as XX-Duniaš a half-brother of Kaštiliaš. Since Kaštiliaš calling himself 'son' of his predecessor probably indicates he was his heir, a half-brother's omitted filiation can be very well explained by anathema of their father over his wretched choice for heir, and something similar supposed for Burna-Buriaš.
Two such disputes a generation apart, the second centered on Kaštiliaš IV's accession, finds very good support on the ground from the "curious" start of his and his predecessor's reign within a few days of the New Year, "raising a suspicion" (Brinkman) of disputed successions. Indeed, something abortive can be inferred, since this timing seems neither deliberate nor coincidental. This all points to failed opposition, led by more "legitimate" princes XX-Duniaš and Burna-Buriaš, that backfired to trigger both accessions. Such conflict further explains why the letter names these princes while their fathers, who disfavored them, go unnamed.
The old and new arguments sketched above appear to vindicate this text on the main charges against it. Additional matches with external evidence further support the notional origin of the letter - and a Kurigalzu II reading, on which all of this repeatedly depends.
Troubles early in the reign of Taharqa (690-664 BC) strongly support explaining the obscurity of his predecessor Shebitku by a weak reign. This could very well be related to a Menkheperre named beside Shebitku at the latter's burial, especially since the only attested candidate is the extremely ambitious and proscribed Menkheperre [...]y. Striking parallels between [...]y's titulary and the legend of Sethos in Hdt II,141 - clearly set in 701, i.e. at least ca. the reign of Shebitku - strongly support conflating Shebitku's Menkheperre, [...]y and Sethos. Since [...]y now appears identifiable as the 'new' king Iny, he can also be seen behind Hdt II,140's similarly-named apparent contemporary of Shebitku, Anysis. Many further alter-egos of Iny appear to occur in Egyptian legends, most notably the Inaros texts' Inaros.
The first part of this article re-evaluates the chronological elements called into question by CoD, concluding that in many cases, at least some revision is very plausible. This is followed by an analysis of Egyptian genealogical evidence that appears to strongly support a massive compression of TIP chronology. Both factors point to a compression somewhat less severe than that proposed by CoD. The resulting TIP and Ramesside chronology (see also DE 29 [1994], 68ff.) is briefly tested against biblical history and found to produce a surprisingly good match.