Common Sense and Gaps in the Assyrian King List

Archaeological finds at a warehouse and marketing center in Acemhöyük, central Anatolia, from the Assyrian Colony period show that those people built that wooden structure around the time of Assyrian King Šamši-Adad I (AKL #39). Radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology put the construction date of that building, the Sarıkaya “Palace,” at circa 1774 BCE.

This date is in close agreement with the Middle Chronology model of the Venus Tablets. However, as discussed in the last post, radiocarbon dating can have some severe offsets compared to the Radiocarbon International Calibration Curve (IntCal). If these dating techniques were relatively accurate in this case, it would mean the Assyrian King List (AKL) had not accounted for all the years between the Old Mesopotamian Era and the Neo-Assyrian Period, and, therefore, the AKL must have one or more gaps during the interim. Alternatively, if the 1774 BCE date were grossly in error due to regional carbon-14 offsets, it would invalidate this early date, and the AKL could potentially have an unbroken record back to Šamši-Adad’s reign.

How can a common-sense consideration of the evidence resolve this issue?

Šamši-Adad I died halfway through Babylonian King Hammurabi’s 17^th regnal year, which closely ties this Assyrian king’s ruling period to the Venus-Tablet models. Scholars astronomically anchor the latter part of the AKL to a solar eclipse in the 10^th year of Aššur-dān III (AKL #106), which they conventionally assign to 763 BCE. During this interval between Šamši-Adad I and Aššur-dān III, three regnal period data have discrepant figures on differing copies of the AKL. Nevertheless, we can safely assume the older copies are more accurate; the number of eponyms relatable to those kings’ reigns supports this premise. Two consecutive regnal period figures (AKL #65 & 66) are missing on all extant copies of the AKL. Yet, those monarchs ruled during political instability when tenures were short. The sum of their reigns cannot have been more than a few years.

The total number of years remaining on the AKL from Šamši-Adad I’s death through the start of Aššur-dān III’s tenth year is 933. This sum would tentatively place the year of the earlier monarch’s demise in 1696 BCE (933 + 763 BCE) plus up to a few years earlier due to the two missing figures. According to the Venus-Tablet models, the corresponding dates in the Middle, Low, and Ultra-Low Chronologies are 1776, 1712, and 1680 BCE. If the AKL were complete during this period, the Low Chronology would appear to be the accurate Venus-Tablet model. Nevertheless, some scholars found that the AKL record keepers had grossly inflated one regnal period, the 40-year reign of Šamši-Adad I’s son, Išme-Dagan I. Using contemporaneous historical evidence, they estimated he ruled Assyria for only about 11 years. If that assessment were correct and the AKL had no gaps, the Venus-Tablet Ultra-Low Chronology would likely be the accurate model. However, could the radiocarbon dates from Anatolia have such a large offset?

Suppose one had no knowledge of the causes of regional radiocarbon offsets except the two most important, CO2 outgassing from seas and tectonic plate boundaries. Would it be logical to assume that Anatolian radiocarbon dates averaged 70 to 100 years too old? An important principle is that every location has environmental radiocarbon offsets. The German oaks that form the backbone of IntCal also have regional offsets. However, to the extent that central Anatolian offsets approximate those in southern Germany, the Anatolian dates would approximately agree with IntCal. The distance between these two locations is only about 2000 km, and the latitude difference is only about 10°, meaning their climates were somewhat similar. Anatolia does have tectonic plate boundaries, but none near Acemhöyük. Although that region has seas on three sides, Acemhöyük is 190 km from the nearest coastline.

Therefore, common sense would strongly suggest that the radiocarbon dates would likely be somewhat biased toward exaggerated ages, but they should be roughly harmonious with IntCal. Thus, the AKL must be missing part of the timeline.

The Six Pillars discusses multiple other lines of evidence that verify this conclusion, including three direct astronomical anchors for Šamši-Adad I’s ruling period. Furthermore, they prove that all the missing years in the AKL were after the Amarna Period synchronisms between Assyria and Egypt.