by
Damien F. Mackey
“… there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V …”.
With that particular quote, on a previous occasion, I had introduced my brief article:
Shalmaneser V and Nebuchednezzar II were 'camera-shy'?
While it might reasonably be expected that ancient kings to whom great deeds are attributed - as is the case with Shalmaneser V (despite his supposedly short reign) and, far more especially, with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ - would have abundant statues and relief depictions dedicated to them, it was found in the above article that there is virtually nothing of this nature for these two kings combined.
That irregular situation, to my way of thinking, screams out the need for alter egos.
And these I have provided in abundance for Nebuchednezzar, for example in my article:
Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans
Various of the alter egos whom I have attached to Nebuchednezzar in this article can boast of numerous statues and relief depictions.
The separate issue of the neo-Assyrian king, Shalmaneser so-called V, and who else he might have been, has arisen in a recent exchange of e-mails I have had with a would-be revisionist, who has sent me his hopeful revision of Assyrian history. (Yet another one of these!)
He wrote in part:
Hello Dr. [sic] Mackey,
I've been enjoying your series on academia.com.
Here is the key to the Assyrian King List. It is, like Manetho, dynasties by city, which are in parallel.
...
Shalmaneser III is Shalmaneser V ....
Without my yet knowing very much about what this correspondent has come up with, I thought that I needed to fire off this note of caution – though not intending to dampen any enthusiasm?
.... It is no easy task .... I'll tell you why - you may already have realised this.
Shamaneser III has been an enormous problem for me and indeed for others.
It is one thing to say that he is Shalmaneser V, who I think he is, but quite another to show how the long reign of III can be squared off against the very short reign (conventionally speaking) of V.
(I personally would enlarge V to embrace also Tiglath-pileser III).
You need to be able to explain the Black Obelisk of III now in your revised context. Who, for instance, is the apparent king of Israel mentioned there?
And how do the recorded names of participants in the Battle of Karkar (Qarqar), opponents of III, fit into your revised scenario?
These are only some of the issues with which you would be faced. Not sufficient simply to declare that Assyrian king X = Assyrian king Y.
For reasons such as the above I have held off so far with a revision of Shalmaneser so-called III. ....![https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif]()
