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'