Sunday, November 30, 2025

Reign of King Deioces stretched over 55 years

by Damien F. Mackey Deioces would be a contemporary of the early part of Ardys’ reign or the late part of Gyges’ reign. However, if we recall that in 660 BC Gyges made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, it would seem strange to find Deioces, who was transported by Sargon in 715 BC to Hamath, to be still found at the time of Ashurbanipal. In my postgraduate thesis (2007), Volume One, pp. 142-144, I gave the following five: …. (B) Conventional Theory’s Weaknesses Consider these categories: • Worrying Duplications and Anomalies. 1. The ubiquitous king of Babylon, Merodach-baladan II, was: - already a political factor in the days of Tiglath-pileser III (c. 744-727 BC). - He then, supposedly two reigns later, becomes a complete thorn in Sargon II’s side for the latter’s first, approximately, 12 years of reign (c. 721-710). - He then resurfaces at the time of Sennacherib, who defeats him in his first campaign and then, finally, in his fourth campaign (c. 704-700). Kings can reign over long periods of time, but this Merodach-baladan seems perhaps to have overstayed his welcome. Mitinti of ‘Ashdod’ ranges through the same approximate, long neo-Assyrian period. Comment: The matter can be greatly simplified, however, if, as I also argued in this thesis, the conventional neo-Assyrian succession: Tiglath-pileser; Shalmaneser; Sargon; Sennacherib be modified to just this: Tiglath-pileser = Shalmaneser; Sargon = Sennacherib Perhaps even more telling in this regard is the case of: 2. Deioces, king of the Mannaeans and the Medes. A study of Deioces in relation to the succession of neo-Assyrian kings (Sargon II to Ashurbanipal) who I am arguing were all contemporaries of Hezekiah, would tend to support my argument that this period stands in need of a significant time reduction. Sargon II, in his Annals for c. 715 BC, refers to Daiukku as a ruler of the Mannai (the Minni of the Bible) … allies of the Medes. Most scholars consider Daiukku to be the same as the Deioces of the Greek sources, the founder of the Median empire. Daiukku followed Aza and Ullusuv as ruler of Mannai. According to Luckerman, Daiukku had a very short reign as Sargon deposed him from the throne after only a year in power and exiled him to the west. …. Herodotus, on the other hand, makes Deioces an approximate contemporary of Gyges, who made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, thought to be Sargon’s great grandson. Herodotus wrote that Alyattes, the son of Sadyattes, the son of Ardys, the son of Gyges, made war with Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, the son of Deioces. …. Luckerman, not surprisingly, has some problem with the chronology of all this: …. If this be the case, then Deioces would be a contemporary of the early part of Ardys’ reign or the late part of Gyges’ reign. However, if we recall that in 660 BC Gyges made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, it would seem strange to find Deioces, who was transported by Sargon in 715 BC to Hamath, to be still found at the time of Ashurbanipal. A span of 55 years (715-660 BC) for Deioces, though humanly possible, is somewhat unlikely. Thus Luckerman, in order to maintain the traditional identification between Deioces and Daiukku, feels it necessary to stretch the matter a bit: It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Daiukku, if he is correctly identified with Deioces, was only a child ruler when first overthrown by Sargon of Assyria. Later, while the successors of Sargon expended Assyria’s power in debilitating warfare, Daiukku/Deioces was able to take advantage of the situation to found a Median dynasty. And such a stretching is indeed necessary if one maintains the conventional linear succession of (i) Sargon II, (ii) Sennacherib, (iii) Esarhaddon and (iv) Ashurbanipal. According to the model being proposed here, and in Section Three, on the other hand, with Sargon II identified as Sennacherib, and with Esarhaddon’s entire reign being incorporated within his father’s reign - and with Ashurbanipal even being active in the latter part of Esarhaddon’s reign - then the conventional 55 years for Deioces can be reduced by approximately 30 years, to a more realistic 25 years. In that case Luckerman’s “child ruler” theory for Deioces need no longer be proposed. Comment: As already noted, (i) and (ii) here need to be merged into one. But I was completely wrong about (iii), whom I have since merged as one with (iv). Thus the conventional arrangement: Sargon; Sennacherib; Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal now becomes simply: Sargon = Sennacherib; Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal thereby still trimming off about three unwanted decades. 3. Sennacherib is thought, already by 713 BC, to have been the recipient, as crown prince, of the heavy tribute from Azuri of ‘Ashdod’, who was in fact Sargon’s foe. …. 4. Disturbing, too, is the following unprecedented situation at ‘Ashdod’ as viewed by Tadmor from the conventional angle: …. Ashdod was then organized [by Sargon] as an Assyrian province. Sennacherib however restored it to its former state as a tributary kingdom. .... Mitinti, the king of Ashdod, is mentioned in the Annals of Sennacherib .... There is no doubt, therefore, that at the time of the campaign of Judah (701) Ashdod had an autonomous king and not an Assyrian governor. The reorganization of Ashdod - from a province back to a vassaldom - has no precedent. .... in the time of Esarhaddon Ashdod was again turned into a province. All this topsy turvy supposedly in the space of a few decades! 5. The somewhat recently published Tang-i Var inscription (to be considered further in Chapter 12) cannot possibly accommodate the conventional links between Sargon (died 705 BC) and the 25th (Ethiopian) dynasty, since it now reveals that pharaoh Shebitku, thought not to have begun to reign until c. 702 BC, was the Cushite pharaoh who handed over to Sargon the rebel, Iatna-Iamani; an incident currently dated to c. 711 BC. …. [End of quotes] For a revised identification of pharaoh Shebitku, see e.g. my article: Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’ (1) Khaemwaset, son of Ramses 'the Great'

Ahikar, Uriakku (Arioch) of Adana (Ecbatana), extended as Deioces (Daiukku) of Ecbatana

by Damien F. Mackey DEIOCES (Gk. Dēïókēs), name of a Median king; this Greek form, like Assyrian Da-a-a-uk-ku (i.e., Daiukku) and Elamite Da-a-(hi-)(ú-)uk-ka, Da-a-ya-u(k)-ka, and so on, reflects Iranian *Dahyu-ka-, a hypocoristic based on dahyu – “land” (cf. Schmitt). DEIOCES - Encyclopaedia Iranica Awarikus [Arioch] became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III … who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE [sic]. …. Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum. …. Wikipedia Introduction Much of this introductory part will be taken from my article: Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria’s Shalmaneser (3) Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria's Shalmaneser in which I further extended the identity of Ahikar (Achior, Arioch), nephew of Tobit, and governor of Elam for Assyria, to include Awarikus [Uriakku, Arioch] of Adana (Ecbatana). We know this great man now under some several variations of his name, Ahikar (Aḥiqar): http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html “The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar”.” In the Book of Tobit, he is called Ahikar, but Achior, in the Douay version. In the Book of Judith, he is called, again, Achior. His Babylonian name may have been, Esagil-kini-ubba: Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba (2) Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba Islam turned him into a great sage and polymath, Loqmân: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân https://www.academia.edu/117040128/Ahiqar_Aesop_and_Loqm%C3%A2n but, even more incredibly, a handful of Islamic polymaths, supposedly in AD time, were based on Ahikar, as either Aba-enlil-dari or as Esagil-kini-ubba: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This man was obviously monumental, leaving a giant historical and literary footprint. We know from the Book of Tobit that Ahikar went to Elam (Elymaïs) (2:10): “For four years I [Tobit] remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais”. This fact is picked up in a gloss in the Book of Judith in which Achior is referred to, rather confusingly, as Arioch (1:6): “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”. Apparently, then, Ahikar actually governed Elam on behalf of the neo-Assyrians. Thus the Book of Judith should have referred to Achior as leader of all the Elamites, rather than (causing much confusion) “Achior … the leader of all the Ammonites” (5:5). Arioch may well be now, also, the “Arioch” of Daniel 2: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (2) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? We are now in the reign of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean. It is most important, however, for what follows, that Nebuchednezzar be recognised as the same king as Esarhaddon, as Ashurbanipal: King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 (2) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 As “King Arioch of Elam” ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ Isaiah 10:8 We probably find Arioch as Uriakku, and Urtak, of the Assyrian records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtak_(king_of_Elam) Urtak or Urtaku was a king of the ancient kingdom of Elam …. He ruled from 675 to 664 BCE, his reign overlapping those of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (681-669) and Ashurbanipal (668-627). …. Mackey’s comment: Not “kings”, but only the one king, Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal (see above). Urtak was preceded by his brother, Khumban-Khaldash II. …. Khumban-Khaldash made a successful raid against Assyria, and died a short time thereafter. …. He was succeeded by Urtak, who returned to Assyria the idols his elder brother had taken in the raid, and who thereby repaired relations between Elam and Assyria. …. He made an alliance with Assyria's Esarhaddon in 674 … and for a time Elam and Assyria enjoyed friendly relations … which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon's reign, and deteriorated after Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal [sic]. …. We find Arioch, again, in the context of a geographically revised Elam (Media): Ecbatana and Rages in Media (1) Ecbatana and Rages in Media as the ruler of Adana (Ecbatana) during the neo-Assyrian period, as one Wariku/ Awariku(s), which name is clearly Arioch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarikus …. Other attestations …. The name Awarikkus referred to in the Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions as ʾWRK (𐤀𐤅𐤓𐤊‎‎), and Warikkas is referred to in the Hasanbeyli and Cebelireis Daǧı inscriptions as WRYK (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊‎)[7] and in the İncirli inscription as WRYKS (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊𐤎‎‎).[11] In Akkadian Awarikkus or Warikkas is referred to in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions as ᵐUrikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅅𒆠)[12]) and ᵐUriaikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅀𒅅𒆠[12]).[13][14] …. Life Awarikus claimed descent from one Muksas, who is also referred to in his Phoenician language inscriptions as MPŠ (𐤌𐤐𐤔‎‎), and also appears in Greek sources under the name of Mopsos (Μόψος) [Mackey: derived from Moses?] as a legendary founder of several Greek settlements across the coast of Anatolia during the early Iron Age. This suggests that Awarikus belonged to a dynasty which had been founded by a Greek colonist leader.[15][7][21][22] Damien Mackey’s comment: Is Mopsus a reflection back to Moses, the great Lawgiver? Ahikar, as a Naphtalian Israelite, could, in a sense, have claimed descent from Moses. Reign Awarikus became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III,[23] who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE.[7][24][25] Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum.[26][20] Awarikus seems to have remained a loyal vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire throughout most of his reign, thanks to which he was able to reign in Ḫiyawa for a very long period until throughout the rules of Tiglath-pileser III and his successor Shalmaneser V, and was still reigning when Sargon II became the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[27] Ḫiyawa under Awarikus likely cooperated with the Neo-Assyrian forces during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign in the Tabalian region in 729 BCE.[28] In his inscription from his later reign, Awarikus claimed to have enjoyed good relations with his overlord, the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II, with Awarikus's relation with Sargon II appearing to have been an alliance or partnership through a treaty according to which Sargon II was the protector and suzerain of Awarikus.[29][7] According to this inscription, Awarikus had a very close relationship with Sargon II, and he declared that Sargon II himself and the Neo-Assyrian royal dynasty had become "a mother and father" to him and that the peoples of Ḫiyawa and Assyria had "become one house."[15] According to this same inscription, Awarikus had built 15 fortresses in the west and east of Ḫiyawa.[30][15] Assuming the king WRYK of the Cebelires Daǧı inscription was the same as Awarikus of Hiyawa, his kingdom might have extended to the western limits of Rough Cilicia and nearly reached Pamphylia, and would thus have included Ḫilakku.[31] …. Monuments An inscription by Awarikus is known from the site of Çineköy, located about 30 kilometres to the south of his capital of Adanawa.[23][35] Other monuments of Awarikus include a stela from İncirli and a border stone from Hasanbeyli.[36] Under direct Neo-Assyrian rule After Sargon II's son-in-law and vassal, the king Ambaris of Bīt-Burutaš, had rebelled against the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 713 BCE, he deposed Ambaris and annexed Bīt-Burutaš.[30][35] As part of his reorganisation of the Anatolian possessions of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the annexation of Bīt-Burutaš, in 713 BCE itself Sargon II imposed a Neo-Assyrian governor on Ḫiyawa who also had authority on Bīt-Burutaš, as well as on the nearby kingdoms of Ḫilakku and Tuwana.[37] Under this arrangement, Awarikus became subordinate to Aššur-šarru-uṣur, who was the first governor of Que, as Ḫiyawa was called in the Neo-Assyrian Akkadian language. Thus, Awarikus was either reduced to the status of a token king or deposed and demoted to a lower position such as an advisor of the governor, while Aššur-šarru-uṣur held all the effective power although the Neo-Assyrian administration sought to preserve, for diplomatic purposes, the illusion that Awarikus was still the ruler of Ḫiyawa in partnership with Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][38][39] Thus Hiyawa and other nearby Anatolian kingdoms were placed the authority of Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[40][41][42] Following the appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur, Awarikus of Ḫiyawa and Warpalawas II of Tuwana became largely symbolic rulers although they might have still held the power to manage their kingdoms locally.[39] The reason for these changes was due to the fact that, although Awarikus and Warpalawas II had been loyal Neo-Assyrian vassals, Sargon II considered them as being too elderly [sic] to be able to efficiently uphold Neo-Assyrian authority in southeastern Anatolia, where the situation had become volatile because of encroachment by the then growing power of Phrygian kingdom.[39] Deposition The appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur as his superior might have led to tensions between him Awarikkus, who had likely been left disillusioned with Neo-Assyrian rule after his long period of loyal service to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, Awarikus might have attempted to rebel against the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and therefore in 710 or 709 BCE he sent an embassy composed of fourteen delegates to Urartu to negotiate with the Urartian king in preparation for his rebellion.[43] This embassy was however intercepted by the king Midas of Phrygia, who was seeking a rapprochement with the Neo-Assyrian Empire and therefore handed it over to Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][35][44] Awarikus was consequently deposed, and possibly executed, by the Neo-Assyrian Empire for attempting to revolt, after which Ḫiyawa was annexed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire as the province of Que, and Aššur-šarru-uṣur was given full control of Que, which merely formalised the powers that he had already held.[30][45][44] The exact fate of Awarikus is however unknown,[46] and he might already have been dead by the time that Midas handed over his delegation to Assur-sarru-usur, hence why no mention of punishing him appears in the Neo-Assyrian records.[47] Mackey’s comment: No, Arioch was still alive and well during the reign of Esarhaddon, like Urtak (above), “… which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon’s reign”. Aššur-šarru-uṣur (var. Ashur-resha-ishi), for his part, may well have been one of the sons of Sargon II/Sennacherib, Sharezer (šarru-uṣur), who assassinated their father: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/119221740/Adrammelech_and_Sharezer_murdered_king_Sennacherib When Tobit’s (and presumably Ahikar’s) tribe of Naphtali was taken into captivity by Shalmaneser ‘the Great’, who must be recognised as Shalmaneser III/V, and also as Tiglath-pileser so-called III, or Pul, who took Naphtali into captivity (2 Kings 15:29), Tobit and his family were taken to “Nineveh”, whilst some of Tobit’s relatives, or kinsmen, Ahikar, Raguel and Gabael?, must have been taken into Media (Elam). Since Tiglath-pileser took his Israelite captives “to Halah, and on the Habor [Khabur], the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (17:6), then Tobit’s “Nineveh” may likely have been Calah (Nimrud), given here as “Halah”. Deioces of Ecbatana The legendary Deioces, whose name Daiukku might well remind one of Uriakku (Arioch), ruler of Adana in southern Cilicia – Ecbatana in Elam – ruled over that region for a very long time, the same time as Arioch “was the king of the Elymeans” (Judith 1:6). Arioch, who was Tobit’s nephew Ahikar, a kind person, who “gave alms” (Tobit 14:10), befits the wise and just, lawgiving ruler, Deioces. As K. Halk tells of him (2025): Deioces: The Legendary Founder of the Median Kingdom — Historact Platform Deioces (Ancient Greek: Δηιόκης) was the legendary founder and the first king of the Median kingdom, an ancient polity in western Asia that played a significant role in the development of the ancient Near East. Deioces is remembered for his efforts to establish a centralized and orderly government in a region marked by chaos and disunity. His leadership laid the foundation for what would eventually become the Median Empire, a precursor to the mighty Achaemenid Empire. This article explores the life, reign, and legacy of Deioces, as well as his contributions to the formation of one of the first organized states in the region. Through his story, we gain insight into the emergence of the Medes as a powerful and influential people in ancient history. The Background of the Median Kingdom The Medes were an ancient Iranian [sic] people who inhabited the region that is today known as northwestern Iran. The Median kingdom emerged during the early 1st millennium BCE, at a time when the area was dominated by various tribes and small polities. The Medes, along with other Iranian groups, began migrating into the region, where they settled and gradually assimilated with the local population. The political landscape of the region was characterized by a lack of central authority, with numerous tribes vying for power and influence. The Rise of the Medes The Medes are believed to have settled in the region sometime around the 9th century BCE. They were one of several Iranian-speaking groups that migrated southward from the steppes of Central Asia. Over time, the Medes established themselves as a distinct cultural and political entity, and by the 8th century BCE, they began to emerge as a significant power in the region. The early history of the Medes is largely obscure, with much of what is known coming from later sources, such as the writings of Herodotus. The Medes faced challenges from neighboring powers, including the Assyrian Empire, which exerted considerable influence over the region. The Assyrians were a dominant force in the Near East, and their campaigns often brought them into conflict with the Medes. Despite this, the Medes managed to maintain their independence and gradually consolidated their power under the leadership of Deioces. The Rise of Deioces Deioces is traditionally regarded as the first king of the Medes and the founder of the Median kingdom. According to Herodotus, Deioces was a wise and just man who gained the respect and admiration of the Median people. His rise to power was marked by his reputation for fairness and his ability to resolve disputes, which earned him a following among his fellow Medes. The Need for Order During the time of Deioces, the Median tribes were divided and lacked a central authority. The region was plagued by lawlessness and internal conflicts, with each tribe governed by its own leader. In this chaotic environment, Deioces distinguished himself as a man of integrity and wisdom. He became known for his ability to mediate disputes and deliver impartial judgments, which led many people to seek his counsel. Recognizing the need for stability and order, the Medes decided to unite under a single ruler. They chose Deioces as their leader, believing that his sense of justice and fairness would bring peace and unity to their people. Deioces accepted the role of king, but he set certain conditions: he demanded that the Medes build a fortified capital and establish a centralized government that would allow him to exercise authority effectively. The Establishment of Ecbatana One of Deioces’ first actions as king was the construction of a new capital city, which he named Ecbatana (modern-day Hamadan in Iran). Ecbatana was strategically located and well-fortified, serving as the political and administrative center of the newly unified Median kingdom. According to Herodotus, the city was built with a series of seven concentric walls, each painted in different colors, creating an impressive and formidable fortress. The establishment of Ecbatana as the capital was a significant step in the consolidation of Median power. It provided a central location from which Deioces could govern, and it symbolized the unity of the Median tribes under a single ruler. The construction of Ecbatana also demonstrated Deioces’ vision for a strong, centralized state that could withstand external threats and maintain internal order. The Reign of Deioces Deioces’ reign marked the beginning of a new era for the Medes, characterized by political stability and the establishment of a centralized government. As king, Deioces implemented a number of reforms aimed at strengthening his authority and creating a more organized and cohesive society. Centralization of Power One of Deioces’ primary goals was to centralize power and establish a strong monarchy. He sought to distance himself from the people, believing that a sense of awe and reverence was necessary to maintain authority. …. … Deioces was able to create a stable and orderly government that laid the foundation for the future expansion of the Median kingdom. Legal Reforms and Governance As a ruler known for his sense of justice, Deioces placed a strong emphasis on the development of a legal system that would ensure fairness and equality. He established a formal system of laws and appointed judges to oversee legal matters throughout the kingdom. These judges were responsible for resolving disputes and ensuring that justice was administered impartially. The establishment of a legal system helped to create a sense of order and stability within the kingdom. It also reinforced Deioces’ authority, as he was seen as the ultimate source of justice and the guarantor of the people’s rights. By creating a system of laws and governance, Deioces was able to transform the Medes from a collection of loosely connected tribes into a unified and organized state. The Legacy of Deioces …. Deioces was a visionary leader whose efforts to establish a centralized and orderly government laid the foundation for the rise of the Median kingdom and the eventual emergence of the Achaemenid Empire. His reign marked the beginning of a new era for the Medes, characterized by political stability, legal reforms, and the construction of a powerful and well-organized state. Although much of what is known about Deioces comes from the writings of Herodotus and may contain elements of legend, his legacy as the founder of the Median kingdom is undeniable. ….

Sunday, November 9, 2025

What brought low the Assyrians – an angel, plague of mice, distemper, a rogue comet, electromagnetics?

by Damien F. Mackey Sennacherib took 46 fortified cities, notably Lachish, laid siege to the capital City, had the Temple stripped of its gold and silver, and took tens of thousands of Jews into captivity. His 3rd Campaign was virtually a total success. Let the Great King of Assyria tell it to us personally: As for Hezekiah, the Judaean, who had not submitted to my yoke, I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities and surrounding small towns, which were without number. Using packed-down ramps and by applying battering rams, infantry attacks by mines, breeches and siege machines, I conquered (them). I took out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep, without number, and counted them as spoil. Himself [Hezekiah], I locked him up within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthworks, and made it unthinkable for him to exit by the city gate. His cities which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, and thus diminished his land. I imposed upon him in addition to the former tribute, yearly payment of dues and gifts for my lordship. He, Hezekiah, was overwhelmed by the awesome splendor of my lordship, and he sent me after my departure to Nineveh, my royal city, his elite troops and his best soldiers, which he had brought into Jerusalem as reinforcements, with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, choice antimony … countless trappings and implements of war, together with his daughters, his palace women, his male and female singers. He (also) dispatched his personal messenger to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance. —From the annals of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (705–681 B.C.E.), translated from the Rassam Prism, in Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 337–339. That doesn’t read like any sort of miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from its enemy – nor was it. Today I received, and answered, this Message in relation to my latest article: Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 (5) Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 in which Message a U.S. reader argues for “… Jerusalem being [Assyria’s] only demonstrative failure …”. …. If you read Scripture thoroughly, you will find that in addition to Hezekiah's tunnel, he also ordered all of the wells around Judea stopped up, or diverted by another spring channel under Jerusalem. It is not improbable then, that the troops, searching for water, fell victim to typhoid, or a similar dysentary which epidemic kills quickly. There were great preparations before the siege. A scorched earth type preparation. Also, as some have postulated, … the word "thousands" was mistranslated by original scribes, originally meaning "captains" or "chiefs". So 185 captains of 50s would make it 9,000 or so died. This is more likely, if true, since hundreds of thousands of army are really overkill for any battle of the time— near impossible for logistics to handle. Also, since the Assyrians, using what is called hoplite tradition, used mercenaries from their conquered nations as fodder for their forces ("meat assaults"), of which they had an endless supply; 40-something nations, we read, were overcome, with Jerusalem being their only demonstrative failure, according to the Bible and other sources. …. Damien Mackey’s response: But the Assyrians did not fail at Jerusalem. This is a mistake that many make. Sennacherib took 46 fortified cities, notably Lachish, laid siege to the capital City, had the Temple stripped of its gold and silver, and took tens of thousands of Jews into captivity. His 3rd Campaign was virtually a total success. The Rabshakeh had sarcastically offered to give the beleaguered Jews horses to ride, knowing that they could not even man them (2 Kings 18:23). Then the Assyrian betrayed the agreement and came back to take the City entirely. But he heard that Tirhakah was on his way and lifted the siege, just as Nebuchednezzar would do in the face of Necho's advance, only to return later and finish the job. About a decade later, Sennacherib sent his eldest son with the biggest army of all time, to conquer Jerusalem on the way to Egypt, the main prize. The all-conquering army devastated the north, but did not get any further south than Shechem (“Bethulia” in the Book of Judith). Judith killed the Commander-in-Chief, and the army fled with terrible losses and captives taken. Jerusalem was not affected. …. Barry Setterfield (2024) will make the same mistake about Jerusalem, adding his idiosyncratic ‘scientific’ reason for the presumed annihilation of the Assyrian army. Barry is a Creationist, though a most original one. Creationists do tend to impose modern scientific views on these ancient Semitic texts: Barry’s Beacon - Shining Biblical Light on Current Events Part 2 Written By Barry Setterfield Hezekiah, Assyria, Archaeology and Science Brief Overview: Archaeological research this month supports the Biblical narrative historically from the time of Hezekiah, king of Judah. The accounts of the Assyrian invasion and siege of Jerusalem and associated events in 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 19:37 are proving accurate. Additional detail can be found in 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 and Isaiah 36 and 37. Background: In June, 2024, the Journal of Near Eastern Archaeology, Volume 87 (2), pages 110-120, published a research article by an independent archaeologist, Stephen Compton, whose expertise included the Neo-Assyrian Empire. That empire was a major civilization whose dominion included the lands that today are in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Kuwait. The Neo-Assyrian Empire existed from 911 BC to 609 BC and had perfected iron technology. This contrasted with many surrounding states which made their weapons and implements of the softer metal, bronze. This gave Assyria an advantage in many military campaigns. Their strategy was to dominate the trade routes across the Syrian Desert to the Mediterranean Sea, and control politically and economically the countries these routes passed through. These countries included the kingdom of Judah with its capital, Jerusalem. Hezekiah, was the king of Judah at the time of this Assyrian campaign. Outline of Assyria’s Campaign: In 705 BC, the Assyrian king, Sargon II, was killed in battle, and his son, Sennacherib, ascended the throne, making Nineveh his capital. My comment: This, I believe, is quite incorrect and will only serve to throw right out of kilter neo-Assyrian and biblical history. Sargon II was Sennacherib. Sargon’s attack on “Ashdod” (Lachish) (Isaiah 20:1) was the beginning of what will become Sennacherib’s devastating 3rd Campaign, greatly affecting Judah and Jerusalem (as we have read above). Barry Setterfield continues: Sennacherib first overcame rebellions in Asia Minor, then, in 701 BC, he turned his attention to the Levant where Hezekiah of Judah, Lule king of Sidon, Sidka, king of Ascalon and the king of Ekron had formed an alliance with Egypt against Assyria. Sennacherib attacked the rebels, conquering Ascalon, Sidon and Ekron. After going down to Egypt [My comment: He didn’t], he came back and destroyed Libna and Lachish. Records in the Assyrian palace at Nineveh state that 46 cities were destroyed in this military campaign. That included the well-fortified frontier city of Lachish, one of the best equipped cities in Judah, which was some 40 miles south-west of Jerusalem. Finally, the Assyrian expedition ended with the siege of Jerusalem itself. This feat of overcoming so much resistance was considered to be Sennacherib’s greatest victory. This particular campaign was of interest to Compton because of the detailed records available. These records are in the form of carvings in Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh (present day Mosul) in northern Iraq. In addition, a six-sided prism was found associated with the remains of the palace that turned out to be Sennacherib’s annals or dairy of the events (see images below). Finally, there are extensive details from Hezekiah’s point of view in the Bible in 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 19:37; and then 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 coupled with the prophet Isaiah, chapters 36 and 37, as Isaiah the prophet also had a hand in the outcome. The Clue From Military Camps: Because these accounts are in the Bible, many skeptical archaeologists insist on historical material entirely separate from any Biblical source before they will even begin to consider its validity. The question was whether or not Sennacherib even came down as far as Judah, let alone destroying Lachish and placing Jerusalem under siege. One scientist commented: “There has not been any archaeological evidence that the battle actually happened.” It was at this point that Stephen Compton’s research became important. He examined the details in the palace carvings. From those records, it became apparent that the Assyrian armies had an unusual style of structure for their military encampments (something that had first been queried only in January 2004, and studies are still continuing). These Assyrian camps were all of an oval shape. The Romans also had military camps throughout the Levant, but these Roman camps were always of a square or rectangular design. This contrasted with the Assyrian oval pattern recorded on the palace walls. The Clues From Old Aerial Photos: For many archaeologists, the most important discovery of them all would be to find an oval structure at Lachish and/or Jerusalem. Compton was aided in this by a 19th century archaeologist, Sir Henry Lanyard. In 1849, Sir Henry sketched the massive reliefs detailing the battle of Lachish from the palace walls in Nineveh, and placed the sketches in the British Museum. The palace record also detailed the landforms the Assyrian army was operating on, as well as the placement of the oval campsite. Compton then searched for early aerial images taken before the end of World War 2, and thus before subsequent alteration of the land. He found an aerial image taken in 1945 of the entire region around Lachish as shown on the palace record in the British Museum. He was able to match the landforms and determine the location of the oval military camp of the Assyrians. When checking on the ground in that location, he found the feature was already known as ‘Khirbet al Mudawwara,’ meaning “Ruins of the Camp of the Invading King.” Archaeological investigation at the site confirmed its identity. In a similar way, aided by the earliest aerial photograph of Jerusalem, taken in the 1930’s (held in the Library of Congress), the oval military camp of the Assyrians was located just north of Jerusalem at a place called “Ammunition Hill.” Initially it had been thought to be a Roman camp. However, examination then revealed it to be consistent with the Assyrians as, among other things, its form was oval, not rectangular. Because of its good location, the British also used it and gave it the name Ammunition Hill. Compton’s continued his research and, “In some cases, it has also been possible to use the newly discovered camps to locate the sites of ancient cities that were known to have been besieged by the Assyrians but whose locations were unknown or uncertain,” Compton wrote. Archaeological Proof – But was there a Miracle? The initial conclusion from Compton’s research is that the evidence is certainly strong that Sennacherib did invade the land of Judah, with a special emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem. One assessment expressed it this way: “While the archaeological evidence discovered by Compton does not confirm the supernatural aspects of the Biblical narrative, it does provide compelling support for the historical presence of Assyrian military forces near Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s reign.” My comment: Yes, this is evidence for the well-chronicled – and highly successful, for Assyria – 3rd campaign. The extraordinary deliverance of Israel would not occur in the environs of Jerusalem, but well north, at Shechem. Barry Setterfield continues: Additional evidence is available from the palace walls in Nineveh. The record from those walls includes a complex scene of the Assyrians storming Lachish. There is a vivid written description of what was being depicted by German archaeologist Werner Keller. After this description, Professor Keller continues: “Amid the confusion of the battle and the din around this frontier fortress of Judah, an order went out from Sennacherib: ‘And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah, along with a great host against Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:17).’ That meant an attack on Jerusalem. The historians of the Assyrian king have preserved a record of what happened next. The hexagonal prism that was Sennacherib’s diary says: “And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke … him I shut up in Jerusalem his royal city like a caged bird. Earthworks I threw up against him, and anyone coming out of his city gate I made to pay for his crime. His cities which I had plundered I cut off from his hand…’. ” Professor Keller then writes: “Surely now must come the announcement of the fall of Jerusalem and the seizing of the capital. But the [palace] text continues: ‘As for Hezekiah, the splendor of my majesty overwhelmed him .. 30 gold talents … valuable treasures …. He caused to be brought after me to Nineveh. To pay his tribute and to do me homage he sent his envoys.’ Keller then comments: “This is simply a bragging account of the payment of tribute – nothing more. – just as in 2 Kings 18:14. The Assyrian texts pass on immediately from the description of the battle of Jerusalem to the payment of Hezekiah’s tribute. Just at the moment when the whole country had been subjugated and the siege of Jerusalem, the last point of resistance, was in full swing, the unexpected happened: Sennacherib broke off the attack at the very last minute. Only something quite extraordinary could have induced him to stop the fighting. What might it have been? While the Assyrian records are enveloped in a veil of silence the Bible says: “And it came to pass that night, that the Angel of the LORD went out and smote the camp of the Assyrians, one hundred and eighty-five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.” (2 Kings 19:35, 36). My comment: Werner Keller wrote a disastrous book, The Bible as History (1955), tethering the Bible to an uneven conventional historical yoke. Here, he has merged into one two separate Assyrian campaigns, Sennacherib’s successful 3rd campaign, and a later disastrous one, led by his eldest son. Barry Setterfield continues: So What Actually Happened? My comment: One now suspects that Barry will not be able satisfactorily to answer his question. He turns for assistance to that most unreliable of ancient historians, Herodotus, who has Sennacherib’s army falling at, not Jerusalem, but at the near rhyming Pelusium, in northern Egypt. A combination of Herodotus and Werner Keller, as given next, is not to be desired. We learn a little more from another historical link to these events which Professor Keller brought to light. He points out that the famous traveler, historian and author of the ancient world, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, has given us some interesting clues not found in other records. In Egypt, Herodotus held conversations with the temple priests. They mentioned that Sennacherib marched against Egypt with a large armed force. They told Herodotus that “at the narrow entrances to the country, an army of field-mice swarmed over their opponents in the night … gnawed through their quivers and their bows, and the handles of their shields, so that on the following day they fled minus their arms and a great number of them fell [by the resulting plague].” For peoples of the ancient world, the mouse was the equivalent of the rat in the Middle Ages and was a symbol of plague. Archaeological Conclusion: Werner Keller concludes his assessment with the following information; “On the edge of the city of Lachish, the British archaeologist, James Lesley Starkey found shocking proof of this story in 1938: A mass grave in the rock with 2000 human skeletons, unmistakably thrown in with the utmost haste. The epidemic must have raged with frightful destruction among the Assyrian warriors. The drama of the campaign had been unfolded, and once more, Jerusalem had escaped…” My comment: But surely these were casualties of the mass devastations caused by the invading Assyrian army! But Behind the Scenes….. Our conclusion here is that, as far as it is possible for modern science to do so, it supports the Scriptural account of the Assyrian invasion of the land of Judah. Yet even this is not the end of the story scripturally. There is another whole dimension to the drama of the situation that the Bible leaves until the very end. In 2 Kings 19 we have the record of the wipe-out of the Assyrian host. However, as we go on to read 2 Kings 20:1-11 we are amazed to find that just in the middle of this crucial time, the king of Judah, Hezekiah himself, was on his bed in the palace in Jerusalem, very sick and near death. My comment: King Hezekiah was ill at some point in time near to Sennacherib’s successful campaign, as the following makes clear. Barry Setterfield continues: Indeed, we are told in 2 Kings 20:1 that the prophet Isaiah went to Hezekiah and told him to put his house in order because he was not going to live. This, just at the time when the Assyrians had Jerusalem under siege and the people needed to be encouraged by their king to stand steadfast in the face of this opposition. At that point, Hezekiah turned his face to the wall, wept, and prayed fervently. Before Isaiah had even gone as far as the middle court in the palace, God gave him a message: “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely, I will heal you. On the third day you will go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add to your days fifteen years. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the King of Assyria, and I will defend this city for My own sake and the sake of my servant David”. When the prophet had delivered this message, king Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “What is the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord on the third day?” Then Isaiah said “This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing which He has spoken: “Shall the shadow [on the sundial] go forward ten degrees, or go backwards ten degrees?” And Hezekiah answered, “It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees; no, but let the shadow come back ten degrees.” So Isaiah the prophet cried out to the Lord, and He brought the shadow backwards ten degrees by which it had gone down on the sundial of Ahaz.” The incident is told in detail again in Isaiah 38. My comment: Get ready for some Creationist ‘science’. Are there Scriptural songs from these events? This miracle in itself needs an explanation, but we put that aside for the moment to concentrate on something else that is Biblically relevant. Several words in the above account give us the context with certainty; they are the word “degrees,” “sun,” “sundial” and “shadow.” Plainly what is being referred to here is the shadow cast by the sun on the sundial of Ahaz. This shadow from the sun is usually marked off in “degrees” around a circle or half-circle. There are thus 15 degrees per hour which means that 24 hours would make up a full circle of 360 degrees. In this case, 10 degrees would correspond to 40 minutes of actual time. The word translated as “degrees” is the same as the word “dial” used in the biblical accounts as “sun-dial”. It can be translated as “steps” or “stairs,” but astronomically the word “degrees” is better. Interestingly, this same word “degrees” is found as the heading for 15 Psalms. There has been a wide discussion as to what was meant in the case of these Psalms. Some have suggested they were part of a pilgrimage going up to Jerusalem for one of the three annual Feasts. However, there is nothing in any of these Psalms to indicate either a pilgrimage or a feast. Despite this, many Bible versions label these Psalms as “Songs of Ascents” on the basis of the pilgrims ascending to Jerusalem. A number of other popular explanations also fall short. However, the headings for each of those Psalms give their own clue. In each case there is the definite article before the word “degrees” (or ascents or steps). So literally each heading reads “A Song of THE Degrees.” There is only one incident in the whole Bible where the attention is specifically drawn to “the degrees” and that is on the sundial of Ahaz at the healing of Hezekiah, where the shadow went backwards 10 degrees and Hezekiah’s life was extended by 15 years. The fact is that there are precisely 15 Songs of the Degrees, and 10 of them have no named author. The other five are by David or Solomon. We also know that Hezekiah was a Psalm-writer as one of his Psalms appears in Isaiah 38 starting at verse 9 which specifically mentions his recovery from this sickness. It is thus possible that Hezekiah wrote those other 10 Psalms himself and left them unattributed. Bible scholars also suggest that he had a large part in shaping the book of Psalms into its present form just as he did for the book of Proverbs (see Proverbs 25:1). A new appreciation for some songs? If this background for the ‘Songs of the Degrees’ is accepted, some of those 10 unattributed Psalms open up in a new way. For example, imagine how the people of Jerusalem felt that early morning when they looked out over the walls of Jerusalem and saw that, incredibly, the siege was over and their enemy destroyed. I believe we may have a record of just this moment. Psalm 126, which is one that Hezekiah may have written, we read, in the literal Hebrew, verses 1 to 3, as follows: “When the Lord restored Zion (the city of Jerusalem) from being a prisoner, we were like those who dream, and our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue with singing. They said among the nations, The Lord has done great things for them…whereof we are glad.” Connecting the dots… The final aspect of this amazing series of events is the cause of the shadow going back 10 degrees on the sundial of Ahaz. Many view this as an isolated event and so miss something important. If we connect the dots by looking at the unusual behavior of the sun in the Bible, something important emerges. There is the time when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still along with the moon, with the whole story in Joshua 10:6-15. Then there was Hezekiah as we have seen above. If we move forward to the time of the Crucifixion, we read that the world turned dark around noon. However, the prophet Amos had already told us what was going to happen in Amos 8:9-10. It reads: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth on a clear day: And I will turn your feast (Passover) into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day.” So we have three occasions in the Bible when this occurs. If we look at the times when these events occurred, something becomes apparent. Using the dating from the most ancient text of the Bible available, the Alexandrian Septuagint (LXX), which is backed up by the chronologies of the Apostolic fathers, the approximate dates for these events are as follows: Joshua – 1450 BC +/- 100 years. Hezekiah -710 BC +/- 50 years. The Crucifixion 33 AD +/- 3 years. There seems to be a systematic progression in these dates with about 745 years between each event. If we come closer to the present by 745 years from the time of the Crucifixion, we come to about 778 AD. In August 15th that year, Emperor Charlemagne was poised to attack the forces that treacherously destroyed his closest associate, Roland, and his forces in Spain. Charlemagne asked the Lord for a sign of assurance before the battle that he had Divine approval. He recorded in his diary and in his “Song of Roland” that the Sun stood still in the heavens that day. Have you ever played with a gyroscope? If the gyroscope is mounted so it can move freely in any direction, and it is then given a push, it will swing back and forth systematically for a time - then, suddenly, it will do a figure 8 roll and then go back to its swinging back and forth. After this the process repeats with the figure of 8 roll. We know the earth behaves like a gyroscope, so that figure of 8 movement every 745 years may be explained. It would cause a ‘long day’ on one side of the earth and a ‘long night’ on the other. This is exactly what is recorded in various ancient cultures at different places around the world. One other important point is that, if the earth’s movement changed like that, there should be relevant records in the magnetic fields of the earth associated with those times. If we come another 745 years closer to the present after Charlemagne, we arrive at about 1520 AD. My comment: For my entirely different view of Charlemagne, see e.g. my article: Solomon and Charlemagne (5) Solomon and Charlemagne About that time, Thai pottery shows that there were some unusual, but temporary, changes in the earth’s magnetic field. This was reported in the University of Sydney News, vol. 16. no.4, for 6th March, 1984. The team was headed by Dr. Mike Barbetti, whose speciality was paleo-magnetism. He found that there was a change in the strength and direction of the earth’s magnetic field around that time. This implicates the earth’s core as being involved in what was going on. This was also true for the Hezekiah incident as there was a dramatic change in the earth’s magnetic field intensity recorded in Judean pottery with Hezekiah’s seal on them on that occasion. That leads to another data point. In 1972 an article in the journal Nature entitled “Archaeomagnetism in Iran” pointed out that there was a major change in the direction of movement of the geomagnetic pole. Again, this implies that the earth’s core was involved. The date of that change was about 2200 to 2300 BC and corresponds with the wipe-out of civilizations around the world as a result of meteorite impact. Such impacts definitely affect the earth’s core. Our analysis and the astronomical data supporting the impact in 2300 BC with an error of about 150 years is here: https://www.barrysetterfield.org/Worldwide_Event.html Further discoveries about the earth’s core in 2013 and 2015 have confirmed the period of 720 to 750 years and indicates that the asteroid impact about 2300 to 2200 BC may indeed be the basic cause of the effect seen by Hezekiah that has been a puzzle for so many. My comment: Not entirely sure how c. 2000 BC vitally affects what was going on in King Hezekiah’s kingdom of the late C8th BC.