Assyrian and Babylonian Synchronisms with Egypt and Hatti
Since there are no apparent discrepancies in the synchronisms outlined in the reconstructed AKL and BKL we may assume that the BKL dating is fairly accurate, at least as far back as Kurigalzu III when we first start to receive actual reign lengths in the BKL for the kings of Babylon. The next step in assessing this premise must be to test the combined results of these chronologies against Hittite synchronisms and correlating all three regions with the revised Egyptian chronology presented in chapter 3. There are numerous opportunities to examine these revised chronologies through diplomatic marriages (Schulman 1979), parity and vassal treaties (Gutterbock 1970; Landsberger 1954) and personal correspondence (Campbell and Freedman 1970). It is felt that an undisputed, well known historical event would offer an excellent trial. There are two periods that afford us this opportunity, one is during the reign of the XVIIIth Dynasty Pharaoh, Akhenaten, and the other falls during the reign of the XIXth Dynasty Pharaoh, Ramesses II.
Beginning with Ramesses II we have at our disposal some very precise chronological and astonomical data regarding the reign length of this king. According to Parker (1957, 39-43) the most likely accession date for Ramesses II is 1304 BC based on lunar criteria deriving from regnal year 52. This accession date also fits most suitably with the reconstructed Egyptian chronology presented in chapter 3. We are aware that Ramesses II fought at Kadesh in Year 5 against the Hittite king, Muwatalis, and then signed a peace treaty in Year 21 with Hatusilis III. Between the reigns of Muwatalis and Hatusilis III, Mursilis III (var. Urhi-Teshup) reigned in Hatti for seven years. We also know that Hatusilis III communicated with the Babylonian kings Kadashman-Turgu and his son and successor Kadashman-Enlil II (KBo I, 10) and we can deduce correspondence with Adad-nirari I (1307-1276 BC), king of Assyria, from clues surrounding KBo I, 14. All of this information is universally accepted and it now remains to be seen whether these long-time chronological synchronisms can be tied to the revised Near Eastern chronologies presented in this thesis.
Other apparent correlations also exist between regions of the Near East at this time and these must also be examined. For example, while the Amarna Period in Egypt gives us a glimpse of the political situation in the area at the end of the XVIIIth Dynasty through the unearthed letters (mainly found in Egypt but some also in Palestine), we also have the names of particular kings who communicated with each other during this violent and unstable time. The correspondence allow us to build up quite an extensive picture of who was ruling the major kingdoms of the day and give us the opportunity to rigorously test the chronological proposals previously outlined.
Other, 'lesser', correlations should not be forgotten either. These include, Shalmaneser I (1275-1246 BC), king of Assyria, and his correlations with Hatusilis III, king of Hatti (KUB, XXXIII, 88), and Tudhalya IV, also king of Hatti (KUB XXIII, 99) and another king of Assyria, Tukulti-Ninurta I (1245-1209 BC) with Tudhalya IV (KUB III, 74; KUB XXVI, 70). It should, however, be emphasised that the events surrounding the first 25 years of the reign of Ramesses II (esp. from the Battle of Kadesh until signing the peace treaty with Hatti) and the Amarna Period, along with the external correlations available to both of these periods, allow us the level of evidence necessary to test the implications of a series of revised Near Eastern chronologies and whether these proposals can be maintained in light of the overwhelming source material available to us at this time.
The Accession Date of Ramesses II: 1279 BC, 1290 BC or 1304 BC?
The accuracy surrounding the Ptolemaic Canon has already been presented in chapter 3 and need not be repeated here other than to re-emphasise that there is no doubt amongst present scholars that this document is an extremely precise and valuable dating tool for Assyria chronology from the time of Adad-nirari II in 911 BC. The Babylonian chronology is apparently anchored to the Ptolemaic Canon through the association of the Assyrian king, Adad-nirari II, with Shamash-mudammiq (Synchronistic History iii, 1-8) and Nabu-shuma-ukin (Synchronistic History iii, 9-11) who were contemporary kings of Babylon. As we are believed to have the exact reign lengths of Babylonian kings from the time of Kurigalzu III (1343-1319 BC), a king from the Kassite Dynasty, extending down to the Elamite Dynasty at Babylon, it is therefore possible to link both these data to provide extremely accurate correlations between these two regions. The importance of this as far as Egyptian chronology is concerned, is that the accuracy of the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies can be employed to ascertain the exact accession date of Ramesses II through the contacts all three regions had with Hatti during the thirteenth-century BC.
There has always been a debate as to the accession year of Ramesses II. Numerous possible dates have been forwarded based on new moon observations dating from his reign. Most of these possible dates have since been rejected for various reasons with most credence being given to 1279 BC as the most likely accession date for Ramesses II (Kitchen 1996). However, although modern scholarship favours a 1279 BC accssion date, other possibilities such as 1290 BC and 1304 BC cannot lightly be ignored. It is well known that in his 5th regnal year, Ramesses II fought the Hittite king, Muwatalis, at Kadesh and in his 21st regnal year he signed a peace treaty with Hatusilis III. The crucial question is, which historical years correlate to the Ramesses II Year 5 and Year 21 data?
We know that Hatusilis III communicated with the Babylonian king Kadashman-Turgu (by implication of KBo I, 10 which states that he (i.e. Kadashman-Turgu) had previously offered military assistance to Hatti against Egypt) and Kadashman-Enlil II (KBo I, 10) as well as signing the peace treaty with Ramesses II in either 1279 BC, 1290 BC or 1304 BC. As Kadashman-Enlil II succeeded Kadashman-Turgu in 1275 BC according to the revised Babylonian chronology (outlined in chapter 5) and tied to Assyrian chronology through the Ptolemaic Canon, Hatusilis III had to be on the Hittite throne during this date in order to communicate with both these kings (i.e. if he came to the throne after 1275 BC he would be unable to write to Kadashman-Turgu, who would have been dead, and if his reign ended before 1275 BC he could not have written to Kadashman-Enlil II, who would not as then have become king).
If Ramesses II came to the Egyptian throne in 1279 BC his Year 21 peace treaty with Hatusilis III would have been signed in 1258 BC which would mean that his Year 5 Battle of Kadesh with Muwatalis should be placed at 1274 BC. Between these two events we also have to find space for the seven year reign of Mursilis III. Even if Mursilis III came to the Hittite throne immediately after the Battle of Kadesh at the earliest, Hatusilis III cannot have started his reign before 1267 BC. This is eight years after the death of Kadashman-Turgu and obviously too late for Hatusilis III and Kadashman-Turgu to have been in communication with each other.
Alternatively, if the accession of Ramesses II is placed at 1290 BC we are not faced with the difficulties mentioned above. The Battle of Kadesh could be placed at 1285 BC and the Egypto-Hittite peace treaty could have been signed in 1269 BC. This would entail Mursilis III coming to the Hittite throne in 1285 BC at the earliest with his seven year reign extending to 1278 BC, allowing Hatusilis III to have been offered help by Kadashman-Turgu as Mursilis would have come to the Hittite throne three years before the death of Kadashman-Turgu. A 1290 BC accession date for Ramesses II would therefore allow suitable correlations in the historical data.
Again, if Ramesses II acceded to the throne in 1304 BC his Year 5 datum would refer to 1299 BC with the 7 year reign of Mursilis III falling between this time and the Year 21 treaty with Hatusilis III. Provided the accession of Mursilis III was not after 1290 BC (i.e. his 7 year reign begins between 1299 BC and 1290 BC) this scenario would also see Hatusilis III occupying the Hittite throne during 1275 BC which would allow him to communicate with both Kadashman-Turgu and Kadashman-Enlil II, kings of Babylon, as well as being able to sign the Egypto-Hittite peace treaty with Ramesses II in 1283 BC. Therefore, based on the Hittite order of succession combined with Egyptian new moon data there are two possible accession dates for Ramesses II, 1290 BC and 1304 BC. Is it possible to elliminate one of these dates and therefore provide the exact accession date for Ramesses II?
Further Precision in Determining the Accession Date of Ramesses II
It should be emphasised that these calculations are based on the most extreme possibilities in each case and in reality it is unlikely that Mursilis III would have acceded to the throne in the same year as the Battle of Kadesh and that Hatusilis III would only be separated from Muwatalis by seven years. It is much more likely that a period of time elapsed between the Battle of Kadesh involving Ramesses II and Muwatalis and the accession of Mursilis III and that, therefore, if the seven year reign of Mursilis III is pushed down, so too will the accession date of Hatusilis III. This shows that the date of 1278 BC, in particular, for the accession of Hatusilis III is the absolute extreme and that the real date should probably be placed much lower.
Although we can reject 1279 BC as a possible accession date for Ramesses II, both 1304 BC and 1290 BC still appear likely candidates even after examining the problem from the perspective of known reign lengths. However, we can also utilise other known historical facts in order to disregard one of these dates. We know, for example, that Kadashman-Enlil II was still only a child when his father Kadashman-Turgu died and the vizier Itti-Marduk-balatu held the reigns of power at Babylon until Kadashman-Enlil II came of age (KBo I, 21-40). Furthermore, Rowton (1960, 16) has presented a strong case for believing that KBo I, 10 was written after the peace treaty with Egypt was signed rather than before. The essence of Rowton's hypothesis rests mainly on the rhetorical question by Hatusilis III in the letter when he says to Kadashman-Enlil II "And if you are sending envoys to the king of Egypt (i.e. to Ramesses II), why indeed should I attempt to hinder you?". Rowton contends that this statement would be totally out of place if it refered to a period before the Egypto-Hittite peace accord as there would clearly have been, at this time, a very good reason for Hatusilis III to hinder Kadashman-Enlil II's advances to Egypt (with Hittite-Egyptian politics in a very bad state, just prior to the Battle of Kadesh, the last thing Hatusilis would need would be for Egypt to form an alliance with Babylon). But, if the statement referred to a post-treaty period, then why should Hatusilis III attempt to stop Kadashman-Enlil II from resuming diplomatic contacts with Egypt? If we can accept this theory, especially when we remember that Kadashman-Enlil II was still only a child when Kadashman-Turgu died and that setting up fresh diplomatic contacts with such a powerful neighbour would be totally expected from a new king, we can effectively rule out 1290 BC as the accession date of Ramesses II.
It must be remembered that KBo I, 10 was written by Hatusilis III to Kadashman-Enlil II and only refers back to his dealings with Kadashman-Enlil's father, Kadashman-Turgu. This means that KBo I, 10 must have been written sometime after 1275 BC when Kadashman-Enlil II had replaced his father on the Babylonian throne. If Ramesses II is assumed to have acceded to the Egyptian throne in 1290 BC, 1275 BC would be his Year 15. It also means that Hatusilis III has replaced Mursilis III after his seven year reign who himself had replaced Muwatalis, the Hittite king who had fought with Ramesses II at Kadesh during Year 5 of Ramesses. On this assumption, only three years of overlap (at the very extreme) are allowed for all these events to occur, a very implausible scenario. It would virtually entail the Battle of Kadesh occurring in the final year of Muwatalis and the letter between Kadashman-Turgu and Hatusilis III, referred to in KBo I, 10, being written in the first year of Hatusilis III (just before Kadashman-Turgu dies) but before the Hittite crisis with Egypt broke out. But, even this hypothesis still does not leave enough time for Kadashman-Enlil II to grow to adulthood. The idea that Ramesses II acceded to the Egyptian throne in 1290 BC cannot therefore be realistically maintained based on the Hittite and Babylonian data. Moreover, Assyria also provides an chronological datum that appears to totally disallow a 1290 BC accession for Ramesses II and, furthermore, just like the Hittite and Babylonian data, actually seems to support 1304 BC as the actual date of Ramesses II accession.
According to the revised AKL (see chapter 4), Adad-nirari I ruled Assyria between 1307-1276 BC. Interestingly, this timespan is only three years higher than the first translation of the Khorsabad list by Poebel (1942) who states 1304-1273 BC as the same kings reign but similar to Rowton (1960, 21) who supplies dates of 1307-1275 BC, presumably, and incorrectly, counting up to the first regnal year of Shalmaneser I rather than to the final year of Adad-nirari I as Shalmaneser's first regnal year would be the year after his first official year (like all Assyrian kings at this time) meaning his first regnal year would one and the same with his predecessors final regnal year (again like all other kings of the time).
When we look at KBo I, 14 we can see that it was written by Hatusilis III, shortly after his accession, to a unnamed Assyrian king who must have been on the Assyrian throne before the accession of Mursilis III at least seven years earlier (KBo I, 14 rev. 4). Simply going on regnal data, Year 13 of Ramesses II is the highest limit for the accession of Hatusilis III (i.e. the Battle of Kadesh in Year 5 plus the seven year reign of Mursilis III equals 13 years) and this equates to 1291 BC if a 1304 BC accession date is accepted for Ramesses II (or 1277 BC if 1290 BC is taken for the same event). In other words, the unnamed Assyrian king written to by Hatusilis III was ruling in Assyria beyond 1291 BC (which is the earliest date Hatusilis III could have came to the Hittite throne on any chronology) and he must have been ruling before 1299 BC (as Mursilis III cannot rule Hatti prior to Ramesses II Year 5 battle at Kadesh with his predecessor, Muwatalis). The only Assyrian king that can fulfil all these criteria according to any so far presented chronological construct is Adad-nirari I (1307-1276 BC). We can therefore say with certainty that although KBo I, 14 does not contain the name of the Assyrian king, this king can only have been Adad-nirari I.
The significant point arising from KBo I, 14 is that in the same letter, Hatusilis III also refers to the "king of Hanigalbat". This implies that the letter must have been written more than six years before the demise of Adad-nirari I as he in fact defeated Wasashatta, the king of Hanigalbat, more than six years before his death meaning that after this time there would not have been an independent king of Hanigalbat for Hatusilis III to communicate with. If Adad-nirari I died in 1276 BC then KBo I, 14 must have been written before 1282 BC, a date that must also be fairly close to the accession date of Hatusilis III. This emphasises the above conclusion and makes certain that Ramesses II cannot have came to the Egyptian throne as late as 1290 BC as his Year 13 would then be 1277 BC (the absolute earliest date Hatusislis III could have been on the Hittite throne and sign the Egypto-Hittite peace treaty) and therefore too late to allow the KBo I, 14 Hatusilis III correlation with Adad-nirari I which cannot have occurred after 1282 BC. It also shows that Muwatalis must have continued to reign in Hatti after the Battle of Kadesh with Hatusilis III replacing Mursilis III probably just prior to 1282 BC. It is possible to reconstruct the following chronological sequence regarding the events surrounding the Battle of Kadesh (Rammeses II Year 5) and the signing of the Egypto-Hittite peace treaty (Ramesses II Year 21).
- - 1304 BC - - - - - - Ramesses II accedes to the Egyptian throne
- - 1299 BC - - - - - - Battle of Kadesh between Ramesses II and Muwatalis
- - 1299-1290 BC - Mursilis III accedes to the Hittite throne in this range
- - 1283 BC - - - - - - Peace treaty signed by Ramesses II and Hatusilis III
c. 1282 BC - - - - - - KBo I, 14 written by Hatusilis III to Adad-nirari I
- - 1275 BC - - - - - - KBo I, 10 written by Hatusilis III to Kadashman-Enll II
In summary, on the basis of the revised Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies, the 1279 BC and 1290 BC accession dates for Ramesses II have to be rejected in favour of 1304 BC as the only date that fulfils all known historical criteria pertaining to this event. As can be seen above, KBo I, 14 cannot have been written after 1282 BC and if Ramesses II came to the Egyptian throne in 1290 BC at least 13 years must elapse until Hatusilis III can come to the Hittite throne (i.e. Battle of Kadesh Year 5 followed by a period that covered at least the seven year reign of Mursilis III). This would take us down to 1277 BC (or 1266 BC based on a 1279 accession date for Ramesses II) for the accession of Hatusilis III. This is simply not possible based on KBo I, 14 which refers to the "king of Hanigalbat" and which therefore must have been writen at least six years before the death of Adad-nirari I which occurred in 1276 BC. Mursilis III must have been on the throne in Hatti from at least 1282 BC and when the attested 13 years of Ramesses II are added to this we have 1295 BC as the earliest possible date for Ramesses II to be on the throne. This rules out any lunar dates indicating an accession after 1295 BC and therefore only a lunar date implying an earlier accession will fit, the only candidate is 1304 BC.
Amarna Period Synchronisms in the the Near East
The so-called Amarna Letters were discovered in 1887 by an Egyptian peasant woman at the deserted site of Akhetaten, built by Akhenaten, which was situated midway between Thebes and Memphis. They describe the political situation in Palestine at the time of the Pharaoh's Amenhotep III, Akhenaten (var. Amenhotep IV), Smenkhare, Tutankhamun and the generals turned Pharaohs Ai and Horemheb. With the exception of Amenhotep III these kings are generally referred to as the 'Amarna Pharaohs' after the region where Akhenaten moved his royal court to when he introduced Aten worship to Egypt. This new religion was so greatly resented by later Pharaohs to such an extent that Akhenaten's name was (almost) totally obliterated from his statues and monuments so that his existence has only recently been confirmed. Before we examine the apparent historical correlations associated with the Amarna Letters it is worth noting that according to the revised Egyptian chronology presented in chapter 3, the 'Amarna kings' ruled for a combined total of 59 years. This figure agrees with the Mes Inscription which dates to the reign of Ramesses II and refers to Year 59 of Horemheb. It is universally agreed that Horemheb did not reign for this length of time so it would appear that the best explanation for this statement is that it is actually referring to the combined reign length of all the 'Amarna kings'. This means to say that Year 59 marks the end of the Amarna Period which began with the accession of the heretical Pharaoh, Akhenaten.
It is difficult to ascertain any sort of timeframe within the New Kingdom chronology as our main sources (e.g. Josephus, Africanus and Eusebius) all regularly disagree with each other regarding reign lengths and even the order of succession. However, there are certain points in New Kingdom history that can be fixed to a specific, calendrical date on the basis of both internal and external evidence. We have seen, above, that Ramesses II must have came to the Egyptian throne in 1304 BC according to astronomical data and Near Eastern synchronisms. If we can accept that the Mes Inscription is indeed referring to the period between the accession of Akhenaten and the death of Horemheb this would place Akhenaten's accession around 1377 BC dependent upon whether the combined reigns of Seti I and Ramesses I (who reigned between Horemheb and Ramesses II) totalled either the conventionally assigned 16 years or the 13 years given by the highest regnal date criteria (see chapter 3). With Akhenaten's accession date falling around 1377 BC it means that the traditionally assigned reign of Tuthmosis III (1479-1425 BC; Kitchen 1996) cannot be maintained. The combined regnal dates from the accession of Tuthmosis III to the accession of Akhenaten are accorded 128 years by chronologists and the same span according to a revised Egyptian chronology gives a very similar total of 127 years.
The lowest possible accession date for Tuthmosis III using conventional dating is 1507 BC (based on a revised 1304 BC accession date for Ramesses II as discussed above) while using the more accurate and historically verifiable highest regnal date criterion his accession appears to be placed at 1503 BC. Fortunately we have other lunar data associated with the reign of Tuthmosis III which allow his reign to begin exactly, not only in the traditional 1479 BC, but also 1490 BC or 1504 BC. From this it would appear that 1504 BC is the only candidate possible based on a 1304 BC accession for Ramesses II and the number of known regnal years that must be fitted between the reigns of both these kings. Although the date of 1503 BC for the accession of Tuthmosis III is still one year too low to fit the lunar data, the extra year must come from either Tuthmosis IV or Ramesses I as these are the only kings within this period whose highest regnal date from their inscriptions is less than those traditionally given. Nevertheless, armed with the evidence so far gleaned, we can confidently state that Tuthmosis III began to reign in 1504 BC, Akhenaten began the Amarna Period around 1376 BC (1379 BC is too early and would push the accession of Tuthmosis III before the astronomical deried date of 1504 BC) and Ramesses II began to reign in 1304 BC. These dates should be thought of as the anchor points of the New Kingdom.
Near Eastern Correlations with the New Kingdom
Now that we can place the Amarna Period in historical time, we must now examine the synchronisms between Egypt at this time and other regions through the famous Amarna Letters. First of all it is necessary to point out that the precise regnal dates for most of the New Kingdom Pharaohs are presently not as accurate as those for Assyrian and Babylonian kings reigning during the same period due to the fact that no similar kinglist exists for this period of Egyptian history. However, as we have seen above, astronomical observations dating to the reigns of Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II, along with the assumption that the Mes Inscription gives the 'Amarna Pharaohs' a total timespan of 59 years, does allow us to place the accessions of all New Kingdom Pharaohs between Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II in historical time to a certain degree of accuracy with the accession of Akhenaten and the death of Horemheb (based on the Mes Inscription) able to provide an additional chronological resraint.
We have Amarna Letters associated with three Pharaohs of the XVIIIth Dynasty, Amenhotep III, his son Akhenaten, and the relatively unknown (in historical terms) Tutankhamun. The Babylonian kings named in these communications are Kurigalzu II (Kassite No 18), his son Kadashman-Enlil I (Kassite No 19) and also Burna-buriash III (Kassite No 20). Assur-uballit II, king of Assyria (No 73), is also mentioned as he wrote to Akhenaten (EA 16). Unfortunately the Babylonian synchronisms are difficult to confirm as they fall just before the BKL can be chronologically linked to the AKL due to the fact that the reign lengths of the Kassite kings of Babylon are missing from our copies of the BKL. Nevertheless, we do have the historical dates for the Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit I, and fortunately he not only wrote to Akhenaten but also to Burna-buriash III. Furthermore, his predecessor, Eriba-Adad I, for whom we also possess historical dates, wrote to the predecessor of Burna-buriash III, Kadashman-Enlil I, who himself was in correspondence with Amenhotep III. It is hoped that after an examination of all this tangled data that it will be possible to at least show that Egyptian XVIIIth Dynasty chronology must be pushed back from that now traditionally accepted even if precise dates cannot be gained from the synchronisms discussed.
According to the reconstructed AKL, Assur-uballit I reigned in Assur between 1365-1330 BC (these are exactly the same dates given by Roux (1976, 233); see also chapter 4). This means that Burna-buriash III, king of Babylon, and Akhenaten must both be comtemporary with him and each other as Assur-uballit I communicated with both. As has previously been stated, the BKL does not provide reign lengths as far back as Burna-buriash III (Kassite No 20) as the first entry does not come until Kurigalzu III (Kassite No 22). As Kurigalzu's reign can be placed during 1343-1319 BC, Burna-buriash III can easily reign over the first part of Assur-uballit's reign as only one Kassite king comes between himself and Kurigalzu III. On the basis of an astronomically derived and historically verifiable accession date of 1304 BC for Ramesses II, we can count back from this point, with the aid of the Mes Inscription which gives the Amarna Pharaohs a combined 59 year reign, to find that Akhenaten has an accession date of 1377 BC (see above), with his actual reign lasting for 21 years (see chapter 3). It is therefore also quite possible for Assur-uballit I to write EA 16 to Akhenaten as there is at least a seven year overlap between the two reigns. Moreover, whenever we examine the letters Akhenaten received from Burna-buriash III (EA 7; EA 11; marriage proposal) in light of possible Assur-uballit I and Burna-buriash III synchronism, we see that the dates fit again. With Burna-buriash III reigning prior to 1343 BC and Akhenaten starting his reign in 1377 BC there is ample time for them to enter into an ongoing discussion regarding the marriage of Burna-buriash's daughter to Akhenaten. But if we look at the traditionally assigned dates for the reign of Akhenaten (i.e. 1353-1337 BC) as provided by Egyptologists (Kitchen 1996, 12) we can observe that it is also quite possible to match all these synchronisms as well. Burna-buriash III could easily have still occupied the Babylonian throne after 1353 BC while Assur-uballit I was certainly on the Assyrian throne during the period 1353-1337 BC. So far all we have been able to discern is that the revised chronologies as well as the traditional chronologies can both fit these series of synchronisms.
To advance the situation in order to find the correct dating system we must look at other evidence associated with these synchronisms. Fortunately Burna-buriash III played a central role during the Amarna Period and wrote to at least three different Pharaohs at this time, Amenhotep III (EA 6), Akhenaten (EA 8; EA 11) and Tutankhamun (EA 9). These letters must have covered a period of at least 25 years (i.e. from the last year of Amenhotep III to the first year of Tutankhamun) and when we take into consideration the other external synchronisms we have an historical timeframe to work with where individual correlations must also fit with a wider picture of accessions, reign lengths and deaths.
Armed with this information we can ascertain through the correspondence EA 1-5 that the transition of the Babylonian throne from Kadashman-Enlil I to Burna-buriash III took place during the reign of Amenhotep III which equates to 1415 BC based on a 1377 BC accession for Akhenaten. This implies that Burna-buriash III cannot have been on the Babylonian throne after 1377 BC at the very extreme as he would have the been unable to write EA 6 to Amenhotep III who had died by this date and had been replaced by his son, Akhenaten. We do not know how long Burna-buriash III or his successor reigned, only that the following Kassite king, Kurigalzu III (Kassite No 22), came to the throne in 1343 BC. Using the same historical and chronological standard we can also state that Tutankhamun must have been on the Egyptian throne prior to 1343 BC for Burna-buriash III to be able to write to him (EA 9). This fact, however, cannot find support in conventional dating as here Tutankhamun's reign is placed at 1336-1327 BC (Kitchen 1996, 12), at least seven years after Kurigalzu III had become king of Babylon. This obviously rules out the possibility of Tutankhamun communicating with Burna-buriash III according to the conventional dating system. (See Table 3 for the revised XVIIIth Dynasty dating.)
Conclusion
Quite simply, conventional Egyptian chronology does not presently agree with the current Babylonian dating. If we decide to keep the traditional Egyptian chronology we must disregard the Mes Inscription and also lower Babylonian chronology by at least eight years while being obliged to do the same with the Assyrian chronology in order to retain the certain correlations contained within Chronicle P and the Synchronistic History. This also forces us to disregard the apparently accurate timespan statements of Assyrian kings presented in chapter 4 and the many other criteria mentioned. Even if we were to attempt all this, we would still encounter chronological difficulties in lowering Assyrian and Babylonian by ten years to fit with the accession date of Ramesses II (see above) as we have synchronisms between this Pharaoh and the Assyrian king Adad-nirari I and the Babylonian kings Kadashman-Turgu and Kadashman-Enlil II through the Hittite kings Muwatalis and Hatusilis III. It is clearly simpler to suggest that the traditional chronology employed by Egyptologists has now, in light of intense analysis, been found wanting.
If the chronological reconstructions proposed for Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia could not be accurately tied to each other and if the Hittite correlations with all three regions did not fit, then the postulation forwarded here would have proved groundless. However, after extensive investigation all currently known relevant synchronisms certainly can be maintained and this would suggest that Eastern Mediterranean history does indeed have to be rewritten along the lines presented in this examination. Furthermore, the hypothesis forwarded here appears to fit the known historical events much better than any chronology based on Egyptian dating. It must be emphasised, however, that such a revised chronological framework would surely be impossible to maintain if it was incorrect. There are simply too many historical data concerned for a coincidental match.
In conclusion, additional years have been added to the conventional Egyptian dating system and to the AKL, both against scholarly opinion. Previously untenable timespan statements of Assyrian kings have now been explained and make perfect historical and chronological sense. And, after all this, historical synchronisms between all the Near Eastern regions can still be matched. This provides extremely forceful evidence for the lengthening of what we presently perceive as Eastern Mediterranean ancient history in the second millennium BC.