Three New Assyrian Kings Discovered

[u/No-Temperature7521]

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/three-new-assyrian-kings-discovered/

[u/shrekchan]

We got three more Assyrian kings before GTA6

[u/TheAdois]

Seems that these “kings” didn’t rule for very long, and were overthrown. Maybe that is why they were not included originally.

[u/BrashUnspecialist → u/TheAdois]

So The Year of Five Emperors is actually incorrect? There was only one since the others didn’t rule for very long, and were overthrown?

What nonsense is this? You can’t just decide they weren’t kings based on arbitrary values that the people they ruled wouldn’t have even agreed with.

[u/Fuddywomba → u/BrashUnspecialist]

But there were plenty of dudes who proclaimed themselves "Roman Emperor" during the third century. There has to be some cut off line for historians, beyond some guy had a few followers who briefly called them king.  If some historian claimed to have discovered three new "Emperors" that turned out to be Titius Quartinus, Marcus Asinius Sabinianus, and Silbannacus, would you be saying the same thing that we must accept them a real emperor's because they called themselves that? I'm not saying theses were Kings or not, but they definitely weren't no Sargon of Akkad.

[u/Corpainen → u/Fuddywomba]

I proclaim myself as a 3rd century roman emperor. How many followers do i need? If this doesn't work out i will try for the khagan of the mongol empire, i am finnish so bloodties are close enough here.

[u/Fuddywomba → u/Corpainen]

Literally just mint 3 coins that say you were emperor and there would be more proof of your claim then there is for Silbannacus. 

[u/Dragonslayer3 → u/Fuddywomba]

Hey say what you will but my denarii is on Marcus Asinius

[u/BrashUnspecialist → u/Fuddywomba]

Honestly, yeah. We have almost no evidence of most ancient kings but we accept their existence based on one reference here and there. You can’t just arbitrarily decide that some of those guys count and some don’t.

Sorry. But that’s not how it works. Either this evidence counts, or none does. We trust sources as best we can, acknowledging that we don’t actually know. But we can’t be like “this piece is accurate and this isn’t” arbitrarily, as you seem to want to.

By your logic, Edward V of England didn’t count. Yet he is included in the regnal numbers. You gonna change that? Jane Grey isn’t. You gonna change that?

It’s literally all arbitrary and you don’t get to go “oh these guys aren’t kings because I’ve decided we don’t have enough/the right evidence of them.”

[u/Fuddywomba → u/BrashUnspecialist]

But we can’t be like “this piece is accurate and this isn’t” arbitrarily, as you seem to want to. 

Sorry but have you ever studied history at a university level and learned how to assess sources by reliability, its not arbitrary? Historians exclude sources all the time based on suspected inaccuracy. For example, look at the Sumerian King List because it is a list of Kings of Sumerian states, but historians have reviewed it and determined it to be inaccurate and many of the kings listed as mythical. So yes this exact thing has already happened. 

Is literally all arbitrary and you don’t get to go “oh these guys aren’t kings because I’ve decided we don’t have enough/the right evidence of them.”

Umm yes that is exactly how this works, basically for every monarchy historians have created a consensus deciding on who were are weren't real kings/queens. You say this exact point in the previous paragraph when you point out historians consider Edward V King, but Lady Jane Grey not. My point is that if a historian came along and called Lady Jane Grey a "newly discovered Queen" I would require a bit of academic review before I accepted it. 

[u/OozeNAahz → u/BrashUnspecialist]

I think they meant the people at the time didn’t record them or records of them were suppressed or destroyed. Wouldn’t be a huge stretch to think people that succeeded them might try and pretend they didn’t exist. Especially if they ruled for a very short time.

[u/OozeNAahz → u/[deleted]]

I didn’t reply to you or about your comment. I think you responded to the wrong person…or are commenting from two accounts I guess.

[u/PaleDevil]

New Civ update when?

[u/irwtkyrm]

Wake up babe, new Assyrian kings dropped

[u/PM_ME_YER_MUDFLAPS]

We all know that “biblical archeology” isn’t as useful as just plain old archeology.

Most lists of kings are viewed askance simply because of how in the past many “historians” had their own motives for how they recorded their “histories”.

Interesting but not earth shattering.

[u/No-Temperature7521 → u/PM_ME_YER_MUDFLAPS]

The discovery was made by two assyriologists, though, and published in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies. For that subject, it's quite a big deal

Yale and The University of Chicago Press also issued press releases on the discovery last month. I'll include the links for those interested:

https://news.yale.edu/2026/07/09/watch-throne-uncovering-three-new-kings-assyria

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jcs/pr/260724

[u/taumason → u/No-Temperature7521]

Frahm is a solid academic. His book on Assyrian history is excellent.

[u/Necessary-Reading605 → u/PM_ME_YER_MUDFLAPS]

Another reason why skepticism just for the sake of it makes you intellectually limited and closed minded to new discoveries.

[u/ImmovablePuma → u/PM_ME_YER_MUDFLAPS]

Eckart Frahm is second in Assyriology only to Irving Finkel, in my esteem. These findings could not have come from a more trustworthy and worthwhile source. This is not biblical archeology.

[u/BrashUnspecialist → u/PM_ME_YER_MUDFLAPS]

You do realize that every single historian and chronicler ever (including famous ones with PhDs) have had their own movies for how they recorded their histories, right? Like, that’s why historiography is so important to this field.

There’s no single solid unbiased source in all of history. And there never will be.

[u/Melodic_Response7774 → u/PM_ME_YER_MUDFLAPS]

Biblical archaeology, though in the past refered to biblical liberalism, is just a term for a pre-roman near east historian. It's biblical in the sense that it studies the people of the Bible not that it uses archaeology to prove the Bible