‘Eradicating’, through revision, some of the late kings of Israel

 

 by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 Part One:

Menahem to be merged with Hoshea

 

 

“Pul king of Assyria came against the land; and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to strengthen the kingdom under his control”.

 

2 Kings 15:19

 

“… Hoshea I placed as ruler over them … I received a tribute of … 1,000 talents of silver”.

 

Tiglath-pileser III/Pul

 

 

If there be any validity to my radical shortening of the Assyrian king lists (‘Middle’ to ‘Neo’):

 

Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings

 

https://www.academia.edu/40988894/Folding_four_Middle_Assyrian_kings_into_first_four_Neo_Assyrian_kings

 

then there must follow a corresponding truncating of those kings of Israel tied to Assyria.

 

Can Menahem of Israel (749-738 BC, these conventional dates vary), for instance, be merged with Hoshea of Israel (732-722 BC)?

 

There are indeed some notable similarities between Menahem and Hoshea.

Thus:

 

Act of assassination

 

Menahem murdered Shallum (2 Kings 15:14).

Hoshea murdered Pekah (15:30).

 

Assassinated (previous) king was apostate

 

“The rest of the history of Shallum … all that is recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel” (15:15).

“The rest of the history of Pekah … is not all this recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel” (15:31).

 

Ruled in Samaria for about a decade

 

“[Menahem] reigned for ten years in Samaria” (15:17).

“[Hoshea] … in Samaria … reigned for nine years” (17:1).

 

Non-Yahwistic ruler

 

“[Menahem] did what is displeasing to Yahweh” (15:18).

“[Hoshea] did what is displeasing to Yahweh” (17:2).

 

Attacked by invading King of Assyria

 

“In [Menahem’s] times, Pul king of Assyria invaded the country …” (15:19).

“Shalmaneser king of Assyria made war on Hoshea …” (17:3).

 

Mackey’s note: In my “Folding four … Assyrian kings” article above, I have identified “Pul”, i.e., Tiglath-pileser, with Shalmaneser.

And, if Menahem was Hoshea, then this would only serve to reinforce my identification.

 

King of Israel pays tribute to King of Assyria

 

“… Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver” (15:19).

“… Hoshea … submitted to him and paid him tribute” (17:3). [Likewise a thousand talents of silver: http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/hoshea.htm]

 

 

Part Two:

Need to reduce the later monarchs of Israel

 

 

 

What are the potential biblico-historical ramifications of Menahem, Hoshea,

now being tentatively identified as the one and very same king of Israel,

during the reign of a rampant Tiglath-pileser (“Pul”), king of Assyria?

 

 

 

 

Logically (if Menahem/Hoshea be just the one king of Israel), it ought to follow, now, that:

 

• the biblically-unfavoured king Shallum, whom Menahem murdered, was
• the biblically-unfavoured king Pekah, whom Hoshea murdered.  

 

During this most bloody phase in the history of Israel - {though somewhat less bloody if I am correct in reducing the number of bloodthirsty kings}- the king who was murdered was himself, in turn, a king murdered.

 

This fiendish situation occurred twice according to the standard interpretation of 2 Kings:

 

1.  Shallum murdering Zechariah (2 Kings 15:10) and then himself being murdered; and    
2.  Pekah murdering Pekahiah (2 Kings 15:25) and then himself being murdered.     

 

More than likely, though (at least as I am thinking), this despicable double-murder situation happened only the once: i.e., Shallum/Pekah murdered Zechariah/Pekahiah, and then Shallum/Pekah was murdered by Menahem/Hoshea.

 

Six of the later kings of Israel here reduced to only three – all of whom were contemporaneous with the neo-Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser (“Pul”)/Shalmaneser.  

 

As with Menahem/Hoshea, the combination of Zechariah/Pekahiah is an adequate fit.

Compare the following, word for word in some instances:

 

2 Kings 15:8-11

 

Zechariah … became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned six months. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his predecessors had done. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. Shallum son of Jabesh conspired against Zechariah. He attacked him in front of the people, assassinated him and succeeded him as king. The other events of Zechariah’s reign are written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel.

 

2 Kings 15:23-26

 

Pekahiah son of Menahem became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned two years.  Pekahiah did evil in the eyes of the Lord.

He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. One of his chief officers, Pekah son of Remaliah, conspired against him. Taking fifty men of Gilead with him, he assassinated Pekahiah, along with Argob and Arieh, in the citadel of the royal palace at Samaria. So Pekah killed Pekahiah and succeeded him as king. The other events of Pekahiah’s reign, and all he did, are written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel.

 

Less promising a fit, it seems, is my combination Shallum/Pekah, though we know virtually nothing of Shallum. His reign “in Samaria one month” (2 Kings 15:13) is highly doubtful given that (v. 15): “The other events of Shallum’s reign … are written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel”.

Of Shallum’s ‘other half’, Pekah (according to my reconstruction), it is likewise written (v. 31): “As for the other events of Pekah’s reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?”

 

But his length of reign is given far more reasonably as “twenty years” (v. 27).

 

Modern chronologies cannot cope with this length of time, however, and so reduce Pekah’s reign to less than a decade: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-kings-of-ancient-israel

 

737-732  740-732  736-732  Pekah  Pekah ben Remalyahu

Reigned over Israel in Samaria for 20 years. Death: Hoshea son of Elah conspired against him and killed him.

 

 

Does the famous Black Obelisk really mention a king of Israel?

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

According to the neo-Assyrian revision that I have presented in some recent articles, such as e.g.:

 

Finding new opponents for the Assyrians at Qarqar

 

https://www.academia.edu/40961824/Finding_new_opponents_for_Assyrians_at_Qarqar?email_work_card=view-paper

 

1. the formidable Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, fought the Battle of Qarqar (Karkar), not against Ahab of Israel and Ben-Hadad I of Syria, amongst others, but, about a century later, against Pekah of Israel and his known confederate, Rezin of Damascus, this thereby
2. lifting Shalmaneser III right out of a revised El Amarna (EA) period where he has caused revisionists so many headaches, and
3. catapulting him into the era of Tiglath-pileser  III - of whom Shalmaneser now becomes an alter ego.  
4. Tiglath-pileser III I have already identified with (Shalmaneser III’s namesake) Shalmaneser V.

 

All of this, apart from having enormous ramifications for neo-Assyrian history in its relation to the Bible, and to Assyrian inscriptions relating to the Battle of Qarqar and associated incidents, must now affect, too, one’s interpretation of Shalmaneser III’s marvellously preserved  Black Obelisk which is generally considered to depict king Jehu of Israel as a vassal king at the feet of the Assyrian monarch.  

 

In our new context, the prostrate king depicted in the Black Obelisk must be one of the various biblical kings, presumably of Israel, who gave tribute to Tiglath-pileser III/ Shalmaneser V. Biblical kings known to have been tributary to Tiglath-pileser III/ Shalmaneser V were Menahem and Hoshea of Israel, and Ahaz of Judah.

 

We read about this, as real history, in the following piece by W. Reinsch (not my BC dates): https://watchjerusalem.co.il/639-king-ahazs-tribute-proof-from-an-assyrian-inscription

 

King Ahaz’s Tribute: Proof From an Assyrian Inscription

 

An inscription that confirms the biblical account of Ahaz’s tribute to Tiglath-Pileser iii

 

….

Discovered in 1873 by Austen Henry Layard in the ancient Assyrian palace of Nimrud, the Tiglath-Pileser iii Summary Inscription Seven lists numerous conquests and building operations of one of Assyria’s most powerful kings, reigning from circa 745 to 727 b.c.e. And the 24 x 19 centimeter clay tablet, dating to circa 729 b.c.e., contains the first known extra-biblical proof of Ahaz, king of Judah.

 

Surrounded

King Ahaz was 20 years old when he began to reign (circa 735 b.c.e.), and was on the throne for 16 years. The Bible states that Ahaz “did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God,” but instead he made idols, sacrificed his children to Molech, and observed pagan rituals (2 Kings 16:1-4; 2 Chronicles 28:1-4). As a result of his sins, God caused the surrounding nations to rise up and form a confederation against Judah.

Both king Rezin of Syria and king Pekah of Israel came and besieged Jerusalem, but could not break through the city walls. Instead, they moved south toward Elath and joined forces with the Edomites. “At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath to Aram, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Edomites came to Elath, and dwelt there, unto this day” (2 Kings 16:6; Jerusalem Publication Society). The Philistines also invaded Judah’s cities in the south: Beth-shemesh, Ajalon, Gederoth, Shocho, Gimzo and the mining region of Timnah.

Judah found itself surrounded. As a result of the invasions, it suffered great losses. “For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand in one day, all of them valiant men” (2 Chronicles 28:6; jps). The inhabitants of Judah were experiencing this suffering “because they had forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers.” God “brought Judah low because of Ahaz … for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord” (verse 19; King James Version).

 

The Tribute of Ahaz

At that time, King Ahaz sought help from the Assyrians. He sent messengers to King Tiglath-Pileser iii, saying, Come up, and save me out of the hands of my enemies. “And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria” (2 Kings 16:8; jps).

This tribute that Ahaz took from the temple is confirmed by the discovery of Summary Inscription Seven from Tiglath-Pileser’s palace. Part of the inscription reads:

 

From these I received tribute … Sanipu of Ammon, Salamanu of Moab, … Mitinti of Ashkelon, Jehoahaz [Ahaz] of Judah, Kaush-malaku of Edom, … Hanno of Gaza … including gold, silver, iron, fine cloth and many garments made from wool that was dyed in purple … as well as all kinds of lavish gifts from many nations and from the kings that rule over them.

 

The inscription uses Ahaz’s full name, Jehoahaz, whereas the Bible uses the short form, Ahaz. The text parallels the biblical account, in both tribute and specific materials that Ahaz sent to Tiglath-Pileser. It also describes the Assyrian king receiving tribute from many kings who were in the confederation against Israel—this indicates that after receiving Ahaz’s request for help, Tiglath-Pileser led a military campaign to conquer these different peoples attacking Judah. The Bible states that Tiglath-Pileser attacked King Rezin of Syria and took away many captives (verse 9). The Annals of Tiglath-Pileser mention the Assyrian king receiving tribute from Rezin.

 

Another artifact, Summary Inscription Four (circa 730 b.c.e.), confirms Tiglath-Pileser’s conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel.

Since its discovery, the clay inscription has been lost; however, Layard made a paper mache imprint, known as a squeeze, before its disappearance. The inscription reads:

 

Israel … All its inhabitants (and) their possessions I led to Assyria. They overthrew their King Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000 talents of silver as their [tri]bute, and brought them to Assyria.

 

This inscription confirms several details in the biblical account. “In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took [numerous Israelites cities], and carried them captive to Assyria. And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead” (2 Kings 15:29-30). It is possible that Hoshea colluded with Tiglath-Pileser to replace King Pekah.

 

These Summary Inscriptions add to the expanding fund of discoveries that help confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible. The biblical kings Ahaz, Pekah, Hoshea, Rezin and Tiglath-Pileser all really lived, Ahaz really did send tribute to the Assyrian king, and Tiglath-Pileser really did attack and conquer much of Israel and subdued the surrounding regions. ….

[End of quotes]

 

 

The relevant part of the Black Obelisk - that supposedly depicting Jehu, king of Israel, at the feet of the Assyrian king - is described by Bill T. Arnold (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 237):

 

Above the second panel on one side is a caption mentioning “Jehu son of Omri” (Akkadian Iaua mar Humri). The image in all probability portrays Israel's King Jehu on his knees, submitting to the Assyrian king .... The caption in full reads as follows:

 

‘I received the tribute of Jehu, the son of Omri: silver (items), gold (items), a gold bowl, a gold goblet, gold cups, gold buckets, tin (Items), a staff of the king’s hand, spears’.

 

Arnold then makes the usual point, that king Jehu was not, however, a son of Omri.

 

But, as explained at: https://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/cp/House_of_Omri.html

“Contemporary documents refer to the political units we are used to calling the Judahite and Israelite kingdoms by the name of dynastic founders.

Thus, in Aramean and Assyrian documents, but also in various biblical passages, Israel is called the “House of Omri” and Judah the “House of David” (cf. Isa 7:1). Similarly, Aram-Damascus is called the “House of Hazael.” This usage continues whether or not dynastic succession is disrupted, which means that legitimate succession is related to linguistic, ideological, and cultic rather than physiological aspects of continuity”.

 

The question must now be asked, in our revised context:

 

Who was the Black Obelisk’s Iaua mar Humri?

 

I am going to go left-field here, and suggest that he was, not a king of Israel at all, but was Ahaz king of Judah. Previously I had written on this:

 

King Ahaz of Judah is, I believe, a very good fit for

Shalmaneser III’s Iaui mar Humri.

 

He fits chronologically, given my identification of Shalmaneser III with Tiglath-pileser III, a known contemporary of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:7): “Ahaz sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, ‘I am your servant and vassal. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me’.”

 

And he, like ‘Iaui’, paid tribute to the Assyrian king (v. 8): “And Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the temple of the Lord and in the treasuries of the royal palace and sent it as a gift to the king of Assyria”, whom he later visited (v. 10): “Then King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria”.

…

Moreover, his name, as rendered in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III’s, Iauhazi, accords perfectly with Iaui (Iau-haz-i) (http://libertyparkusafd.org/Burgon/cd-roms/124bible.html):

 

…. "Iauhazi [Jehoahaz, i.e., Ahaz of Judah." Tribute is mentioned as consisting of "gold, silver, lead, iron, tin, brightly colored woollen garments, linen, the purple garments of their lands ... all kinds of costly things, the products of the sea and the dry land ... the royal treasure, horses, mules, broken to the yoke. . . ." [Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. I, sec. 801.]

 

[End of quote]

 

Similarly, Shalmaneser III had recorded: “I received from [Iaui] silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king [and] spears”.

 

I now consider there to be an historical correspondence between these records. 

 

Apparently I had also in that piece above suggested an Omride connection between Ahaz through Queen Athaliah. That may yet be a possibility.

Certainly I had, in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

(Volume One, pp. 372-373), made the point (that others have, too) that Jehu-ide blood may have flowed in the veins of Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah (through the wife of Ahaz):

 

It could be that Jehu-ide blood also flowed through his veins, from his mother’s side. This at least is the opinion of Irvine:[1]

 

It may be significant … that Hezekiah’s mother was a certain Abi, the daughter of Zechariah [2 Kings] (18:2). Quite possibly this Zechariah was the last member of the Jehu dynasty whom Shallum brutally assassinated (15:8). If so, it would appear that Ahaz had been married into the Israelite royal house. The political marriage, perhaps arranged by Jotham … would have served to buttress an alliance between the two kingdoms that had existed during the first half of the eighth century and possibly had begun as early as the Omride period ….   

 

[End of quotes]

 

That would at least make king Ahaz about as good a candidate for an Omride as Jehu.

 

Failing Ahaz as the tributary king depicted on the Black Obelisk, one would need to consider whatever other king (of Israel), e.g. Hoshea, had been a vassal of the now composite Assyrian king: (Shalmaneser III =) Tiglath-pileser III/Shalmaneser V.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Op. cit, p. 78.

Sargon II-Sennacherib’s god “Nisroch”

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch,

his sons Adrammelek and Sharezer killed him with the sword, and they escaped

to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king”.

 

Isaiah 37:38

 

 

 

 

The god name rendered in the Hebrew as Nisroch (נִסְרֹךְ) is the Assyro-Babylonian fire-god, Nusku. This connection has been well explained by professor J. Dyneley Prince in his article, “Nisroch and Nusku” (JBL, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1904), pp. 68-75).

 

On. p. 68, the professor had noted: “There is no Assyrian or Babylonian deity Nisroch, but the consonantal elements of the word have led a number of its expositors to look for its equivalent in the name of the Assyrian fire-god Nusku ….

Vol. 23, No. 1 (1904), pp. 68-75 (8 pages)

He then asked this question:

 

Was the Assyro-Babylonian god Nusku, whose name seems to resemble the Hebrew word “Nisroch,” a deity of sufficient importance in the Assyrian pantheon to justify this allusion to him in the Old Testament as being the god par excellence of the great Assyrian king Sennacherib …?

 

Things do not appear to be immediately favourable in this regard.

However, the professor does find that (on p. 69):

 

… the silence of the ancient Babylonian historical texts regarding Nusku, mentioned by Jastrow, is, I think, more than counterbalanced by the existence of the name of this god in certain votive texts from the ancient Cassite [Kassite] dynasty of Babylonia.

 

The professor’s examination of this god in relation to Sennacherib, though, will lead him to conclude that (pp. 72-73): “All this evidence seems to indicate that, although. Nusku undoubtedly occupied a well-defined position in both the. Babylonian and Assyrian pantheons, he was distinctly a subordinate deity in the later Assyrian divine hierarchy ….

 

On p. 73, he will make this suggestion: “It is much more likely that [“Nisroch”| is a very corrupt hybrid form from both the names Nusku and Ašur….

 

The professor’s conclusion on all of this being (p. 74):

 

I am strongly inclined to the view that the form נִסְרֹךְ crept into the original text of 2 K. 19³⁷ = Is. 37³⁸ by the hand of some copyist, who, possibly wishing to show his Assyriological knowledge and also to make the text complete, inserted the vague form נִסְרֹךְ which had descended to him from a confused mixture of tradition, embodying the well-known Ašur with the less known, but not unimportant, fire-god Nusku.

 

The fire-god Nusku, which Hildegard and Julius Lewy have brilliantly identified as the planet Mercury (“The God Nusku”): https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43078841.pdf

may take on a far greater Assyrian significance if I am correct (following Phillip Clapham) in coupling Sennacherib as one with Tukulti-Ninurta I:

 

Another dimension for Sargon II-Sennacherib: as Tukulti Ninurta I

 

https://www.academia.edu/40892677/Another_dimension_for_Sargon_II-Sennacherib_as_Tukulti_Ninurta_I

 

of whom (Tukulti-Ninurta I) we have a depiction of him on his knees worshipping the very god Nusku (our “Nisroch”).

 

Another dimension for Sargon II-Sennacherib: as Tukulti-Ninurta I

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Modern historians judge that Tukulti-Ninurta’s sacking of Babylon with the carrying off

of Marduk’s statue must have been considered sacrilegious by many Assyrians”.

W. G. Lambert

“Turning Babylon into a lake – covering the civilized land with water, returning the city of Marduk to the primordial chaos – was an insult to the god. Sennacherib compounded this by ordering the statue of Marduk hauled back to Assyria”.

Susan Wise Bauer

In a recent, revised version of my article:

Bringing New Order to Mesopotamian History and Chronology

https://www.academia.edu/40237272/Bringing_New_Order_to_Mesopotamian_History_and_Chronology

I have recalled what I had previously written with regard to different efforts by revisionists to sort out Assyro-Babylonian history.

And I made mention again of a suggestion of Phillip Clapham’s:

“And there have been other attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history and chronology; for example, Phillip Clapham’s attempt to identify the C13th Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib.[4] Clapham soon decided that, despite some initially promising similarities, these two kings could not realistically be merged.[5]”

[End of quote]

That was enough for me at the time to abandon any notion that Tukulti-Ninurta I may have been Sennacherib, who is also my Sargon II:

Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib

Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap

https://www.academia.edu/8854988/Sargon_II_and_Sennacherib_More_than_just_an_overla

But I have since been struck by the incredible similarities - that must have impressed Clapham also - between Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sennacherib (though I would add Sargon-Sennacherib).

Here are some of these (I am using largely, for Tukulti-Ninurta I, Marc Van de Mieroop’s book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC):

(i)                 Son of Shalmaneser

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243-07 BC, conventional dates)

Son of Shalmaneser (I)

Sargon-Sennacherib (721-05 – 704-681 BC, conventional dates)

Son of Shalmaneser (V)

(ii)              Hittites and Anatolian revolt

Tukulti-Ninurta I

P. 150: “… attacked the Hittite state from the east, and vassals in the west and south-west of Anatolia rebelled”.

Sargon-Sennacherib

“Evil Hittites without respect for the command of the gods, whisperers of treachery”—these and similar reproaches were hurled by Sargon II's scribes against the peoples of Syria and Palestine who would not submit to the Assyrian yoke, or who having submitted sought relief in rebellion. Sargon's anger marked a crisis in the long but intermittent Assyrian relationship with the Anatolian peoples of North Syria and the Taurus, loosely termed “Hittites”.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/iraq/article/assyrians-and-hittites/75F371933AB39A293386C806765939A1

(iii)            Invades Babylonia, puppet king(s) installed

Tukulti-Ninurta I

P. 165: “… invaded Babylonia and deposed Kashtiliashu IV … whom he took in chains to Assur. ….

After assuming Babylonian kingship for a short time, Tukulti-Ninurta appointed a series of puppet rulers, who represented Assyrian interests for a decade.

Sargon-Sennacherib

Sennacherib likewise “placed a puppet ruler … by the name of Bel-ibni, in charge at the city of Babylon”. (Paul A. Lindberg, God's Plan of the Ages Volume 4: King Ahaz to Messiah).

“After consolidating his rule over the empire, Sargon was ready to reclaim the lost throne of Babylon. In 710 BC Sargon invaded Babylonia. The fractures and conflicting interests between the polities of the region became visible in the ensuing war when some cities and tribes quickly joined Assyria while others stayed loyal to Marduk-apla-iddina. Eventually, faced with this crumbling of support, the Chaldean abandoned Babylon and its citizens invited Sargon to enter the city (SAA 17 20-21). ….

Once again, an Assyrian king assumed the Babylonian throne. In contrast to his Assyrian predecessors, Sargon remained resident in Babylon for five years, leaving the Assyrian heartland in the hands of his crown prince Sennacherib.

Sargon began the process of properly integrating Babylonia into the empire, following a very different course than his father Tiglath-pileser's laissez-faire policy. For the first time in Assyria's rule over the south, large-scale restructuring was evident. Babylonia was split into two provinces under the rule of Assyrian governors: the province of Babylon comprised the northern part of Babylonia where most of the big cities were located, the province of Gambulu consisted of the Aramaean and Chaldean tribal areas. Under the two provincial governors operated individual city governors, also directly appointed by the Assyrian king, and military commanders based in the Assyrian garrisons securing the region. There was, however, little extensive militarisation.

The Assyrian administration exerted control mainly through an elaborate intelligence system comprised of local informers and Assyrian agents.

Unlike in other provinces, the hierarchical relationships in Babylonia were not clear cut, best evidenced by the fact that Sargon frequently corresponded with and intervened at all levels and various aspects of the administration.

Sargon took the role of king of Babylon seriously. He participated in all major Babylonian festivals, such as the New Year festival (akitu TT ), and restored the region's temples, a traditional duty and privilege of the king of Babylon. Sargon profoundly shaped Babylonian politics by appointing his favoured officials as provincial and city governors and stewards over the most important temples. Their correspondence with the king survives in many cases (SAA 17). As his special envoy to the region, Sargon appointed Bel-iddina [Sennacherib’s Bel-ibni?], a scholar from his entourage whose task in Babylonia it was to oversee the operation of cults and to report directly to the king on the officials in the region. Bel-iddina was the king's eyes and ears amongst his administrators in Babylonia and he acted as an extension of the king's authority”.

(iv)             Faced with a powerful Elamite-Babylonian coalition

Tukulti-Ninurta I

P. 165: “Elamite pressure and a successful Babylonian rebellion returned Babylon to Kassite control, but Elam’s raids eventually led to the collapse of the Kassite dynasty and deposed Kashtiliashu IV … whom he took in chains to Assur. ….

Sargon-Sennacherib

Sargon reacted to this provocation by marching his troops southwards and Merodach-baladan retaliated by joining forces with the king of Elam … Assyria's rival of old. Together they mustered a massive army against Sargon's forces. In 720 BC, the troops met in battle at the city of Der … in the plains east of Babylon …. Although Merodach-baladan's troops arrived too late for active combat, the Assyrian army was pushed back by his Elamite allies and he retained control of the south and the title of king of Babylon.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/essentials/kings/sargonii/

(v)               Literary tablets seized from Babylonia’s temples

Tukulti-Ninurta I

P. 169: “Tukulti-Ninurta I, for example, after sacking Babylon, took home literary tablets as booty. He may thus have laid the foundation of a royal library in Assyria filled with Babylonian manuscripts”.

Sargon-Sennacherib

“Sargon II … or his successor [sic] Sennacherib … gave an order to a Babylonian scholar concerning … a “writing board of the temples”. …. The order to prepare a list of Babylonian temples might have had administrative reasons … but it could also concern the tablets of the Babylonian temple libraries”.

(vi)             Following his father in deporting nations

Tukulti-Ninurta I

P. 172: “Under Tukulti-Ninurta this practice was extended by deporting north Syrian people to Assyria, where they were set to work on public projects and agriculture”.

Sargon-Sennacherib

“[Sargon II] conquered Samaria and destroyed the kingdom of Israel. Sargon’s inscriptions record that he deported 27,290 Israelites from their homeland and re-settled them to regions throughout the empire from Anatolia across to the Zagros Mountains. In doing so, he was simply following Assyrian political and military procedure …. https://www.ancient.eu/Sargon_II/

(vii)          Building new city on virgin soil

Tukulti-Ninurta I

P. 172: “The military successes provided the economic resources for great building activity in Assyria. The greatest project was the construction of a new capital city by Tukulti-Ninurta, named Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, opposite Assur on the Tigris river. It was built after he had defeated Babylon, the spoils of that campaign helped provide the means. The city was founded on virgin soil and covered an enormous area, some 240 hectares, if not more”.

Sargon-Sennacherib

P. 251: “… Sargon II … decided to build an entirely new [capital city] on virgin soil, and called it Dur-Sharrukin, “Fortress of Sargon” …”.

“A massive wall of mud brick, 14 meters thick and 12 meters high, surrounds the rectangular site of the city, which covers nearly 300 hectares”. 

https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraq05-042.html

(viii)        New city did not last long

Tukulti-Ninurta I

P. 172: “The city’s life as a capital was short, however. After Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated, it became a place of secondary status”.

Sargon-Sennacherib

“Sargon was killed in battle [sic], and Dur Sharrukin was quickly deserted”.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Dur-Sharrukin

Part Two:

Tukulti-Ninurta I definitely not Nimrod

“The etymology of the name is uncertain as is also the identification of Nimrod with an historical personality. E.A. Speiser connects him with Tukulti-Ninurta 1 (13^th century B.C.E.), who was the first Mesopotamian ruler effectively to have combined Babylon and Assyria under a single authority”.

Jewish Virtual Library

Assyriologist E. A. Speiser is not the only scholar to have thought to identify the biblical Nimrod with Tukulti-Ninurta I. The conventional dating of this so-called ‘Middle’ Assyrian king to the C13th BC does, to some degree, make this a more plausible consideration – at least by contrast with any revised dating for Tukulti-Ninurta I which is always going to be far lower.

However, even a C13th BC date would be a good half a millennium or more too late for the biblical Nimrod.

I would sincerely hope that my quite different location for – and identification(s) of - Nimrod would be both archaeologically and historically more sound than is the suggestion of Speiser and others that he was Tukulti-Ninurta I. See e.g. my article:

Nimrod a "mighty man"

https://www.academia.edu/39638349/Nimrod_a_mighty_man_

In the following piece on “Nimrod” from: https://www.livius.org/articles/mythology/nimrod/

the author will mention as possible historical candidates for Nimrod, Tukulti-Ninurta I, but also ones that I have suggested (and combined together as the one person) in the above article: namely, Sargon of Akkad and Naram-Sin:

The name "Nimrod" could be applied as a synonym for Assyria. If there is any need to identify this legendary figure with a figure from Mesopotamian civilization, this may well be the heroic god Ninurta, who was a warrior, a hunter, and a founder of human civilization. However, the type of great hero is quite common and there may have many models, even historical kings like the Sumerian Lugal-Banda, the Akkadians Sargon of Akkad and Naram-Sin, and the Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta I. ....

Increasing the unlikelihood (to my mind, at least) of Tukulti-Ninurta I’s being Nimrod are the striking parallels between Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sennacherib, a late (neo-) Assyrian king, that were uncovered in the first part of this article:

And one could now add to all this the parallel run of Elamite kings for the approximate era of Tukuti-Ninurta I and those of the approximate era of Sennacherib:

C12th BC

Shutruk-Nahhunte; Kudur-Nahhunte; and Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak)

with

C8th BC

 Shutur-Nakhkhunte; Kutir-Nakhkhunte; and Hallushu (or Halutush-Insushinak).

But wait, there is more.

What did Tukulti-Ninurta I do when he conquered Babylon?

He installed one Enlil-nadin-shumi on the Babylonian throne.

And when Sennacherib conquered Babylon, he set up his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, as king of Babylon.

Now, this Ashur-nadin-shumi (= Enlil-nadin-shumi?) will, in turn, become a figure of great and fateful significance, as:

"Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith

https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith