So Here's the Thing About History...
We've all heard the phrase "history is written by the winners," right? Well, a new study just gave us a fascinating case study in just how literally that phrase can apply.
Two researchers—Alexander Johannes Edmonds and Eckart Frahm—have published findings in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies suggesting that the Assyrian King List, which historians have used for over a century as the definitive record of Assyrian rulers, might be missing at least three kings. And get this: they think some of these rulers might have been erased on purpose.
I don't know about you, but I find this absolutely fascinating. We're not talking about some minor bureaucratic oversight here. We're talking about one of the most powerful empires in the ancient world potentially editing its own Wikipedia page—except without the citations.
The Drama: A Solar Eclipse and a Power Grab
Let me tell you about the first "missing" king, because his story is genuinely juicy.
There's evidence that someone using the name Tiglath-pileser—a name already used by an earlier, famous Assyrian king—tried to overthrow the officially recognized ruler, Aššur-dān III. This wasn't just any random coup attempt, though. It happened right after a solar eclipse.
Now, in the ancient world, celestial events like eclipses weren't just cool things to look at—they were deeply spiritual omens. A solar eclipse would have been interpreted as the gods sending a message, which made it the perfect moment for someone to claim divine backing for a power grab.
This rival Tiglath-pileser apparently ruled for about a year (roughly 763-762 BCE) before being deposed. The evidence comes from a clay tablet at the British Museum that records royal grants made during his reign. So we have proof he actually ran things for a while—but the official King List says nothing about him.
That's because the official king, Aššur-dān III, was the one who "won" history. And winners, as we know, get to write the records.
A Statue Without a Head
The second case involves some good old-fashioned archaeological detective work.
Researchers have long been puzzled by a stela (that's a carved stone monument) discovered in Iraq back in 1894. The name of one king had been scratched out and replaced with Tiglath-pileser's name. For over a century, scholars debated why this happened.
Edmonds and Frahm now propose a simple explanation: there was a king named Shalmaneser who ruled just before Tiglath-pileser III took power in 745 BCE. When Tiglath-pileser III consolidated his rule, he basically said, "Nope, we're not counting the guy before me." And just like that, a king vanished from the official record.
The third case is perhaps the creepiest: a ruler named Aššur-uballiṭ. A text from King Tukultī-Ninurta II mentions a ritual vessel that had been restored by this Aššur-uballiṭ, but the King List shows no such king existed between Tukultī-Ninurta I and Tukultī-Ninurta II.
There's also a damaged statue discovered at the ancient city of Aššur itself. The statue shows a royal figure—but its head is missing, along with the arms and royal insignia. Edmonds and Frahm suggest this headless king might be our forgotten Aššur-uballiṭ.
I don't want to get too dramatic here, but... that's a lot of damage for one statue, isn't it? Kind of makes you wonder if someone was really, really determined to erase this guy's identity.
Why Does This Matter?
Here's what really got me thinking about this study.
The researchers suggest that the Assyrian King List wasn't meant to be an objective historical record at all. Instead, it probably functioned as what they call a "legitimizing canon"—basically, a list of kings whose rule was officially approved by the state.
If you were a short-lived ruler, a rival claimant, or someone who lost a power struggle, you didn't make the cut. Your administration might have functioned for months or even years, but if you didn't officially belong to the right lineage or political faction? Poof. Gone from history.
This changes how we think about ancient sources. We often treat things like king lists as reliable, neutral records. But they were created by people with political agendas, just like everything else.
The Bigger Picture
Look, I'm not an Assyriologist (the actual scholars who study ancient Mesopotamia). But what I find compelling here is the reminder that history isn't just "what happened"—it's also about who gets to tell the story and why certain information survives while other information gets... let's say, strategically forgotten.
The Assyrian Empire was one of the ancient world's superpowers. They built vast road networks, developed sophisticated administration systems, and created incredible art and architecture. We still use the term " Assyrian" today to describe certain types of organizational structures.
And yet, even for this incredibly well-documented civilization, there's still so much we don't know—or more accurately, so much that someone wanted us not to know.
What Edmonds and Frahm have done is give us a glimpse behind the curtain of ancient statecraft. They show us that power struggles, political legitimacy, and historical memory were just as important in 700 BCE as they are today.
The next time someone tells you that history is objective, you might want to mention the three kings who got erased from the Assyrian King List. Some things never change.
Source: ScienceDaily - "Three New Kings of Assyria" study published in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260824065549.htm