text:
American Bandstand

American Bandstand (AB) is an American music-performance and dance television program that aired regularly in various versions from 1952 to 1989, and was hosted from 1956 until its final season by Dick Clark, who also served as the program's producer. It featured teenagers dancing to Top 40 music introduced by Clark. The program was televised from Philadelphia from its 1952 debut until its move to Los Angeles in 1963.

Over the decades, a wide range of musical acts, from Jerry Lee Lewis to Run-DMC, appeared in person to lip-sync one of their latest singles. Artists would sing naturally to the studio audience over a background of their own disc, while viewers at home would hear only the original recording. Freddy Cannon holds the record for most appearances, at 110.

The show's popularity helped Clark become a media mogul and inspired similar long-running music programs, such as Soul Train and British series Top of the Pops. Clark eventually assumed ownership of the program through his Dick Clark Productions company.

Background
American Bandstand premiered locally in late March 1952 as Bandstand on Philadelphia television station WFIL-TV Channel 6, which is now WPVI-TV, as a replacement for a weekday movie that had shown predominantly British films. Hosted by Bob Horn as a television adjunct to his radio show of the same name on WFIL radio, Bandstand featured short musical films produced by Snader Telescriptions and Official Films, with occasional studio guests. This incarnation was an early version of the music video shows that became popular in the 1980s, featuring films that were the ancestors of music videos.

Horn, however, was disenchanted with the program, and wanted to change the show to a dance program with teenagers dancing along on camera as records played, based on an idea that came from a radio show on WPEN, The 950 Club, hosted by Joe Grady and Ed Hurst. This more-familiar version of Bandstand debuted on October 7, 1952, in "Studio 'B'", which was located in their just-completed addition to the original 1947 building in West Philadelphia, and was hosted by Horn, with Lee Stewart as co-host until 1955.

Stewart was the owner of a TV/Radio business in Philadelphia and, even though he was an older gentleman, his advertising account was a large one for WFIL-TV, so he was put on the program to appease the account. As WFIL grew financially and the account became less important, Stewart wasn't needed and was eventually dropped from the program. Tony Mammarella was the original producer with Ed Yates as director. The short Snader and Official music films continued in the short term to fill gaps when dancers were changed during the show—a necessity, because the studio could not fit more than 200 teenagers.

On July 9, 1956, Horn was fired after a drunk driving arrest, as WFIL and dual owner Walter Annenberg's The Philadelphia Inquirer were then running a series on drunken driving. He was also reportedly involved in a prostitution ring and brought up on morals charges. Horn was temporarily replaced by producer Tony Mammarella before the job went to Dick Clark permanently.

In late spring of 1957, the ABC television network asked their O&O's and affiliates for programming suggestions to fill their 3:30 p.m. (ET) time slot, In Philadelphia, WFIL was already preempting ABC programming with Bandstand. Clark decided to pitch the show to ABC president Thomas W. Moore, and after some negotiations the show was picked up nationally, becoming American Bandstand on August 5, 1957. This first national broadcast of American Bandstand was filmed in the Starlight Ballroom in Wildwood, New Jersey. One show from this first season (December 18, 1957, identified as the "Second National Telecast") is preserved in the archives of the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago.

One market not telecasting Bandstand was Baltimore affiliate WAAM (now WJZ-TV), which chose to produce its own local dance show in the same afternoon time slot. Local radio disc jockey Buddy Deane was chosen as the host of The Buddy Deane Show on Channel 13, and began a daily two hour broadcast on September 9, 1957. This development created a sometimes heated rivalry between Dick Clark and Buddy Deane, when performers who appeared first on Deane's program were refused booking on American Bandstand. Acts debuting on Bandstand appeared on Deane's program, but were asked to not mention their previous appearance with Clark while on the Baltimore show. The Buddy Deane Show aired on WJZ-TV until January 4, 1964.

"Studio 'B'" measured 80 x, but appeared smaller due to the number of props, television cameras, and risers that were used for the show. It was briefly shot in color in 1958 when WFIL-TV began experimenting with the new technology. Due to the size of the studio, the need to have as much dance space as possible, and the size of the cumbersome color camera compared to the black-and-white models, it was only possible to have one RCA TK-41 where three RCA TK-10s had been used before. WFIL reverted to the TK-10s two weeks later when ABC refused to carry the color signal and management realized that the show lost perspective without the extra cameras.

Rate-a-Record
Clark regularly asked teenagers their opinions of the songs being played, through the "Rate-a-Record" segment. During the segment, two audience members each ranked two records on a scale of 35 to 98, after which their two opinions were averaged by Clark, who then asked the chosen members to justify their scores. The segment gave rise to the catchphrase "It's got a good beat and you can dance to it." In one humorous segment broadcast for years on retrospective shows, comedians Cheech and Chong appeared as the record raters.

Featured artists typically performed their current hits by lip-syncing to the released version of the song.

Hosts
The only singer to ever co-host the show with Dick Clark was Donna Summer, who joined him to present a special episode dedicated to the release of the Casablanca film Thank God It's Friday on May 27, 1978. From the late 1950s and most of the 1960s, Clark's on-camera sidekick was announcer Charlie O'Donnell, who later went on to announce Wheel of Fortune and other programs hosted or produced by Clark, such as The $100,000 Pyramid. There were occasional shows that were not hosted by Clark, in which case a substitute host (among them Rick Azar) was brought in.

Theme music
Bandstand originally used "High Society" by Artie Shaw as its theme song, but by the time the show went national, it had been replaced by various arrangements of Charles Albertine's "Bandstand Boogie", including Les Elgart's big-band recording remembered by viewers of the daily version. From 1969 to 1974, "Bandstand Theme", a synthesized rock instrumental co-written by Mike Curb, opened each show. From 1974 to 1977, there was a newer, orchestral disco version of "Bandstand Boogie", arranged and performed by Joe Porter, played during the opening and closing credits. Elgart's version was released as a single in March 1954 (Columbia 40180) as well as Curb's theme (by "Mike Curb & The Waterfall") in October 1969 (Forward 124).

From 1977 to September 6, 1986, the show opened and closed with Barry Manilow's rendition of "Bandstand Boogie", which he originally recorded for his 1975 album Tryin' to Get the Feeling. This version introduced lyrics written by Manilow and Bruce Sussman, referencing elements of the series. The previous theme was retained as bumper music. From September 13, 1986, to September 5, 1987, Manilow's version was replaced at the close of the show by a new closing theme arranged by David Russo, who also performed an updated instrumental arrangement of "Bandstand Boogie" when Bandstand went into syndication.

From 1974 to September 6, 1986, Bandstand featured another instrumental at its mid-show break: Billy Preston's synth hit "Space Race".

Early changes
When ABC picked up the game show Do You Trust Your Wife? from CBS in November 1957, they renamed the program as Who Do You Trust? and scheduled the program at 3:30 pm ET—almost in the middle of Bandstand. Instead of shortening or moving Bandstand, ABC opted to just begin Bandstand at 3 pm, cut away to Who Do You Trust? at 3:30 pm, then rejoin Bandstand at 4 pm. In Philadelphia, however, WFIL opted to tape-delay the game show for later broadcast in another time slot, and to continue on with Bandstand, though only for the local audience.

A half-hour evening version of American Bandstand aired on Monday nights from 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (ET), beginning on October 7, 1957. It preceded The Guy Mitchell Show. Both were ratings disasters. Dick Clark later stated that he knew the prime-time edition would fail because its core audience – teenagers and housewives – was occupied with other interests in the evenings. The Monday-night version aired its last program in December 1957, but ABC gave Clark a Saturday-night time slot for The Dick Clark Saturday Night Beech-Nut Show, which originated from the Little Theatre in Manhattan, beginning on February 15, 1958. The Saturday show would run until 1960.

The program was broadcast live, weekday afternoons and, by 1959, the show had a national audience of 20 million. In the fall of 1961, ABC truncated American Bandstand's airtime from 90 to 60 minutes (4:00–5:00 pm ET), then even further as a daily half-hour (4:00–4:30 pm ET) program in September 1962; beginning in early 1963, all five shows for the upcoming week were videotaped the preceding Saturday. The use of videotape allowed Clark to produce and host a series of concert tours around the success of American Bandstand and to pursue other broadcast interests. On September 7, 1963, the program was moved from its weekday slot and began airing weekly every Saturday afternoon, restored to an hour, until 1989.

Move from Philadelphia to Los Angeles
When WFIL-TV moved to a new facility on City Line Avenue (one that did not have a studio that could accommodate the show), ABC moved production of Bandstand to the ABC Television Center in Los Angeles (now known as The Prospect Studios) on February 8, 1964. Prior to the move, Bandstand had sourced many of its up-and-coming acts from Philadelphia's Cameo-Parkway Records. The combined impact of Bandstand's move to California and the Beatles' arrival devastated Cameo-Parkway and inflicted permanent damage to the artists signed to the label.

The program was permanently shot in color starting on September 9, 1967. The typical production schedule consisted of videotaping three shows on a Saturday and three shows on a Sunday, every six weeks. The shows were usually produced in either Stage 54 or Stage 55 at ABC Television Center.

In September 1964, Bandstand began using a new logo based on the ABC circle logo, reading "ab" in the same typeface followed by a number representing the year the show aired. This started with "'65", then "'66", "'67", "'68", and "'69" when each year arrived. On September 13, 1969, the Bandstand set was given a complete overhaul and Les Elgart's big band version of "Bandstand Boogie" was replaced by the Mike Curb theme. The "ab" logo was replaced with the iconic stylized "AB" logo (shown at the top of this page) used for the remainder of the show's run. This set and theme music were used until September 1974, with the arrival of a brand new set and the second, updated version of "Bandstand Boogie".

For a brief time in 1973, Bandstand alternated its time slot with Soul Unlimited, a show featuring soul music that was hosted by Buster Jones. Soul Unlimited was not well-received among its target audience of African-Americans, ostensibly due to its being created by a white man (Clark), and because of its alleged usage of deliberately racial overtones despite this fact. Don Cornelius, the creator and host of Soul Train, along with Jesse Jackson, entered into a dispute with Clark over this upstart program, and it was canceled within a few weeks. Set pieces from Soul Unlimited were utilized by Bandstand for its 1974–1978 set design. As previously mentioned, during the 1978 season of Bandstand, Donna Summer became the only music artist in Bandstand's history to co-host the program.

Move from ABC to syndication and the USA Network
As Bandstand moved towards the 1980s, the ratings began to decline. Many factors were involved in this, particularly the launch and rise of MTV and other music programs on television, and along with that, the number of ABC affiliates opting to pre-empt or delay the program. The increase in competition hurt Bandstand and the variety of options for music on TV decreased its relevance. The other reason was that American Bandstand was pre-empted on many occasions by televised college football games (which expanded greatly in number in the wake of a court-ordered deregulation in 1984) which were becoming huge ratings successes, as well as occasional special presentations (i.e. unsold game show pilots). Making matters worse, on September 13, 1986, ABC reduced Bandstand from a full hour to 30 minutes; at Clark's request, the 2,942nd and final ABC installment (with Laura Branigan performing "Shattered Glass" ) aired on September 5, 1987.

"Hey, our thanks to Laura Branigan for joining us here on American Bandstand today. I hope you've had a good half-hour. Come and join us two weeks from today for an hour version of American Bandstand on Saturday, September 19. We'll see you then. In the meantime, have a wonderful week or two. We'll see you the next time on American Bandstand. For now, Dick Clark on ABC, so long."

Two weeks later, Bandstand moved to first-run syndication. Dubbed as The New American Bandstand and distributed by LBS Communications, the series' tapings were moved from the ABC Television Center to the Hollywood studios of Los Angeles's PBS member station KCET, with a new set similar to that of Soul Train. Clark continued as host of the series, which was restored to its former hour length, and aired on stations including KYW-TV in Philadelphia; WWOR-TV in New York City (WWOR's superstation status also gave the program further national exposure); KTLA in Los Angeles; WMAQ-TV in Chicago; WDIV in Detroit; WEWS in Cleveland; WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee; and WCIX in Miami.

The first syndicated episode aired on the weekend of September 19, 1987 but this run was short-lived; The New American Bandstand ran until the weekend of June 4, 1988.

After a ten-month hiatus, Bandstand moved to cable on USA Network on April 8, 1989, with comedian David Hirsch     taking over hosting duties. In another format shift, it was shot outdoors at Universal Studios Hollywood. Clark remained as executive producer. This version was canceled after 26 weeks, and its final show (with The Cover Girls performing "My Heart Skips a Beat" and "We Can't Go Wrong") aired on October 7, 1989, thus ending the show's 37-year run.

"Well, it's our last show here on Bandstand and I really want to thank the viewers who have kept American Bandstand on the air all these years. Dick Clark, wherever you are, we miss you. I tried my best to fill your shoes and I hope I have lived up to what you were expecting of me. American Bandstand will be back someday, I assure you. I'm David Hirsch and, on behalf of American Bandstand, I bid you, for the last time, goodbye."

Civil rights movement and social impact
With American Bandstand being originally located in Philadelphia, segregation easily affected the concentrated area. "With Bandstand, WFIL resolved this tension by drawing on Philadelphia's interracial music scene to create an entertaining and profitable television show, while refusing to allow the city's black teenagers into the studio audience for fear of alienating viewers and advertisers. Like the white homeowners associations' concerns about property values, WFIL's version of defensive localism built on a belief that integration would hurt the station's investment in Bandstand." WFIL defended these local associations in order to maintain support.

Once the program went national upon its move to Los Angeles, new host Dick Clark decided that integration was the most responsible move. History goes back and forth with the timing and motives of the integration, but nevertheless, American Bandstand socially impacted teenagers' opinions regarding race.

50th anniversary
On May 3, 2002, Dick Clark hosted a one-off special 50th anniversary edition on ABC. Michael Jackson, a frequent Bandstand guest, performed "Dangerous". The Village People performed their legendary song, "YMCA" for the audience in Pasadena, California. Other performers including Brandy, members of KISS, Dennis Quaid and his band The Sharks, Cher, and Stevie Wonder performed to remember the iconic program.

Revival plans
In 2004, Dick Clark, with the help of Ryan Seacrest, announced plans to revive the show in time for the 2005 season; although this did not occur (due in part to Clark suffering a severe stroke in late 2004), one segment of the revived Bandstand—a national dance contest—eventually became the series So You Think You Can Dance. Dick Clark Productions is credited as the show's co-producer, and longtime employee Allen Shapiro serves as co-executive producer. While the American series has aired sixteen seasons, its format was also replicated worldwide, from Norway (Dansefeber) to Australia (So You Think You Can Dance Australia).

Dick Clark died on April 18, 2012, at the age of 82.

Legacy
American Bandstand played a crucial role in introducing Americans to such famous artists as Prince, Jackson 5, Sonny and Cher, Aerosmith, and John Lydon's PiL—all of whom made their American TV debuts on the show. American Bandstand was a daily ritual for many teenagers throughout the nation. The Top 40 hits that everyone heard were matched with fun routines performed by relatable teenagers. It became a staple in homes and heavily influenced American society culturally, musically, and socially. It also was a prototype for musical television properties including cable channel MTV and Fox's reality-competition show American Idol.

References in popular culture

 * In the 1958 song "Queen of the Hop", Bobby Darin mentions the show, while also indicating its daily TV schedule during the early years of the show.
 * In his song "Sweet Little Sixteen" recorded 1957, Chuck Berry name-checks the show with the lyric "Cause they'll be rocking on Bandstand in Philadelphia, PA".
 * Travis Bickle watches American Bandstand while holding his Model 29 in Taxi Driver, while Jackson Browne's "Late for the Sky" plays.
 * The show was featured prominently in the 2002–2005 NBC-TV drama series American Dreams, which like Bandstand was executive produced by Dick Clark. In a 2005 episode, Eddie Kelly and Bunny Gibson – one of the most famous couples to appear on American Bandstand in the Philadelphia years – were the only two to make cameo appearances on the acclaimed TV series. Along with that, Kelly and Gibson were named a number of times in the script, and Kelly referred to in the last episode. Actor Paul D. Roberts made frequent appearances as Dick Clark, while Michael Burger played announcer Charlie O'Donnell. Clark frequently provided voice-overs as his younger self.
 * In the film Escape from New York, the theme song is heard while in the cab and near the end when Snake Plissken takes out the President's address and replaces it with the tape that had the American Bandstand theme.
 * In the animated TV series King of the Hill while Bobby is cleaning the gutters on the roof he is attacked by a bird. Hank hears him stomping around and shouts "It's a roof, not American Bandstand!"
 * The live national program National Bandstand in the film version of Grease was an ode to the American Bandstand; director Randal Kleiser lived in the suburbs of Philadelphia during the real Bandstand's early years and adapted the original source material (which used a radio show instead) to match his own upbringing.
 * Pam Tillis' video for her 1994 cover of "When You Walk in the Room" depicted a mid-1960s performance on American Bandstand, and featured a voiceover by Dick Clark.
 * In the quarterfinals of season 7 of America's Got Talent, contestant Ulysses performed a cover of the American Bandstand theme song.
 * In episode 4089 of Sesame Street, there was a parody of American Bandstand called "American Fruit Stand" where a duck named "Duck Clark" hosted the program. It featured Miles singing songs about fruits to the tune of famous oldies songs such as "Johnny B. Goode", "Twist and Shout", and "I Feel Good".
 * The lyric video for Sia's song "Cheap Thrills" features a show reminiscent of American Bandstand ("Dance Stage USA").
 * In the film Peggy Sue Got Married, Peggy Sue time-travels from 1985 back to 1960 and watches American Bandstand and remarks that Dick Clark never ages.
 * On Archie Bell and the Drells's song "I Could Danced All Night" from their 1975 album Dance Your Troubles Away, they reference both Bandstand and Soul Train.
 * In Jersey Boys, Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons perform the song "Sherry" to an audience on American Bandstand. In real life, they were asked to perform "Big Girls Don't Cry".
 * Soul for Real's video for "If You Want It" shows the group performing on the American Bandstand stage, with Clark making a cameo at the beginning and end of the clip.
 * The September 17, 1983 episode of the Chicago-based horror movie television program Son of Svengoolie opened with a song parody of The Beatles' "Good Morning Good Morning", with lyrics referencing the show's move to a 10 AM Saturday time slot. The song was sung by show star Rich Koz. The particular verse that references American Bandstand is "People tuning in at 10 o'clock/Find you on their sets and it's a shock/Later on they'll leave you in the dark/When they change the channel to Dick Clark."

title: American Bandstand


text:
Wikipedia talk:Software Phase IV

Shouldn't we move this to meta? en wikipedia is the site dedicated to make an encyclopedia in English not wiki software. -- Taku 15:50 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Uups, sorry was adding a redundant empty line to page by accident when accessing wikipedia first time. Nice piece of work. -- Visitor 23:57 Apr 4, 2003 (CET)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Software Phase IV


text:
Taphonomy

Taphonomy is the study of how organisms decay and become fossilized or preserved in the paleontological record. The term taphonomy (from Greek, τάφος 'burial' and , νόμος 'law') was introduced to paleontology in 1940 by Soviet scientist Ivan Efremov to describe the study of the transition of remains, parts, or products of organisms from the biosphere to the lithosphere.

The term taphomorph is used to describe fossil structures that represent poorly-preserved, deteriorated remains of a mixture of taxonomic groups, rather than of a single one.

Description
Taphonomic phenomena are grouped into two phases: biostratinomy, events that occur between death of the organism and the burial; and diagenesis, events that occur after the burial. Since Efremov's definition, taphonomy has expanded to include the fossilization of organic and inorganic materials through both cultural and environmental influences. Taphonomy is now most widely defined as the study of what happens to objects after they leave the biosphere (living contexts), enter the lithosphere (buried contexts), and are subsequently recovered and studied.

This is a multidisciplinary concept and is used in slightly different contexts throughout different fields of study. Fields that employ the concept of taphonomy include: There are five main stages of taphonomy: disarticulation, dispersal, accumulation, fossilization, and mechanical alteration. The first stage, disarticulation, occurs as the organism decays and the bones are no longer held together by the flesh and tendons of the organism. Dispersal is the separation of pieces of an organism caused by natural events (i.e. floods, scavengers etc.). Accumulation occurs when there is a buildup of organic and/or inorganic materials in one location (scavengers or human behavior). When mineral rich groundwater permeates organic materials and fills the empty spaces, a fossil is formed. The final stage of taphonomy is mechanical alteration; these are the processes that physically alter the remains (i.e. freeze-thaw, compaction, transport, burial). It should be added that these stages are not only successive, they interplay. For example, chemical changes occur at every stage of the process, because of bacteria. Changes begin as soon as the death of the organism: enzymes are released that destroy the organic contents of the tissues, and mineralised tissues such as bone, enamel and dentin are a mixture of organic and mineral components. Moreover, most often the organisms (vegetal or animal) are dead because they have been killed by a predator. The digestion modifies the composition of the flesh, but also that of the bones.
 * Archaeobotany
 * Archaeology
 * Biology
 * Forensic science
 * Geoarchaeology
 * Geology
 * Paleoecology
 * Paleontology
 * Zooarchaeology

Research areas
Taphonomy has undergone an explosion of interest since the 1980s, with research focusing on certain areas.
 * Microbial, biogeochemical, and larger-scale controls on the preservation of different tissue types; in particular, exceptional preservation in Konzervat-lagerstätten. Covered within this field is the dominance of biological versus physical agents in the destruction of remains from all major taxonomic groups (plants, invertebrates, vertebrates).
 * Processes that concentrate biological remains; especially the degree to which different types of assemblages reflect the species composition and abundance of source faunas and floras.
 * Actualistic taphonomy uses the present to understand past taphonomic events. This is often done through controlled experiments, such as the role microbes play in fossilization, the effects of mammalian carnivores on bone, or the burial of bone in a water flume. Computer modeling is also used to explain taphonomic events.
 * The spatio-temporal resolution and ecological fidelity of species assemblages, particularly the relatively minor role of out-of-habitat transport contrasted with the major effects of time-averaging.
 * The outlines of megabiases in the fossil record, including the evolution of new bauplans and behavioral capabilities, and by broad-scale changes in climate, tectonics, and geochemistry of Earth surface systems.
 * The Mars Science Laboratory mission objectives evolved from assessment of ancient Mars habitability to developing predictive models on taphonomy.

Paleontology
One motivation behind taphonomy is to understand biases present in the fossil record better. Fossils are ubiquitous in sedimentary rocks, yet paleontologists cannot draw the most accurate conclusions about the lives and ecology of the fossilized organisms without knowing about the processes involved in their fossilization. For example, if a fossil assemblage contains more of one type of fossil than another, one can infer either that the organism was present in greater numbers, or that its remains were more resistant to decomposition.

During the late twentieth century, taphonomic data began to be applied to other paleontological subfields such as paleobiology, paleoceanography, ichnology (the study of trace fossils) and biostratigraphy. By coming to understand the oceanographic and ethological implications of observed taphonomic patterns, paleontologists have been able to provide new and meaningful interpretations and correlations that would have otherwise remained obscure in the fossil record. In the marine environment, taphonomy, specifically aragonite loss, poses a major challenge in reconstructing past environments from the modern, notably in settings such as carbonate platforms.

Forensic science
Forensic taphonomy is a relatively new field that has increased in popularity in the past 15 years. It is a subfield of forensic anthropology focusing specifically on how taphonomic forces have altered criminal evidence.

There are two different branches of forensic taphonomy: biotaphonomy and geotaphonomy. Biotaphonomy looks at how the decomposition and/or destruction of the organism has happened. The main factors that affect this branch are categorized into three groups: environmental factors; external variables, individual factors; factors from the organism itself (i.e. body size, age, etc.), and cultural factors; factors specific to any cultural behaviors that would affect the decomposition (burial practices). Geotaphonomy studies how the burial practices and the burial itself affects the surrounding environment. This includes soil disturbances and tool marks from digging the grave, disruption of plant growth and soil pH from the decomposing body, and the alteration of the land and water drainage from introducing an unnatural mass to the area.

This field is extremely important because it helps scientists use the taphonomic profile to help determine what happened to the remains at the time of death (perimortem) and after death (postmortem). This can make a huge difference when considering what can be used as evidence in a criminal investigation.

Archaeology
Taphonomy is an important study for Archaeologists to better interpret archaeological sites. Since the archaeological record is often incomplete, taphonomy helps explain how it became incomplete. The methodology of taphonomy involves observing transformation processes in order to understand their impact on archaeological material and interpret patterns on real sites. This is mostly in the form of assessing how the deposition of the preserved remains of an organism (usually animal bones) has occurred to better understand a deposit.

Whether the deposition was a result of human, animals and/or the environment is often the goal of taphonomic study. Archaeologists typically separate natural from cultural processes when identifying evidence of human interaction with faunal remains. This is done by looking at human processes preceding artifact discard in addition to processes after artifact discard. Changes preceding discard include butchering, skinning, and cooking. Understanding these processes can inform archaeologists on tool use or how an animal was processed. When the artifact is deposited, abiotic and biotic modifications occur. These can include thermal alteration, rodent disturbances, gnaw marks, and the effects of soil pH to name a few.

While taphonomic methodology can be applied and used to study a variety of materials such as buried ceramics and lithics, its primary application in archaeology involves the examination of organic residues. Interpretation of the post-mortem, pre-, and post-burial histories of faunal assemblages is critical in determining their association with hominid activity and behaviour.

For instance, to distinguish the bone assemblages that are produced by humans from those of non humans, much ethnoarchaeological observation has been done on different human groups and carnivores, to ascertain if there is anything different in the accumulation and fragmentation of bones. This study has also come in the form of excavation of animal dens and burrows to study the discarded bones and experimental breakage of bones with and without stone tools. Studies of this kind by C.K. Brain in South Africa have shown that bone fractures previously attributed to “killer man-apes” were in fact caused by the pressure of overlying rocks and earth in limestone caves. His research has also demonstrated that early hominins, for example australopithecines, were more likely preyed upon by carnivores rather than being hunters themselves, from cave sites such as Swartkrans in South Africa.

Outside of Africa Lewis Binford observed the effects of wolves and dogs on bones in Alaska and the American Southwest, differentiating the interference of humans and carnivores on bone remains by the number of bone splinters and the number of intact articular ends. He observed that animals gnaw and attack the articular ends first leaving mostly bone cylinders behind, therefore it can be assumed a deposit with a high number of bone cylinders and a low number of bones with articular ends intact is therefore probably the result of carnivore activity. In practice John Speth applied these criteria to the bones from the Garnsey site in New Mexico. The rarity of bone cylinders indicated that there had been minimal destruction by scavengers, and that the bone assemblage could be assumed to be wholly the result of human activity, butchering the animals for meat and marrow extraction.

One of the most important elements in this methodology is replication, to confirm the validity of results.

There are limitations to this kind of taphonomic study in archaeological deposits as any analysis has to presume that processes in the past were the same as today, e.g that living carnivores behaved in a similar way to those in prehistoric times. There are wide variations among existing species so determining the behavioural patterns of extinct species is sometimes hard to justify. Moreover, the differences between faunal assemblages of animals and humans is not always so distinct, hyenas and humans display similar patterning in breakage and form similarly shaped fragments as the ways in which a bone can break are limited. Since large bones survive better than plants this also has created a bias and inclination towards big-game hunting rather than gathering when considering prehistoric economies.

While all of archaeology studies taphonomy to some extent, certain subfields deal with it more than others. These include zooarchaeology, geoarchaeology, and paleoethnobotany.

Microbial Mats
Modern experiments have been conducted on post-mortem invertebrates and vertebrates to understand how microbial mats and microbial activity influence the formation of fossils and the preservation of soft tissues. In these studies, microbial mats entomb animal carcasses in a sarcophagus of microbes—the sarcophagus entombing the animal's carcass delays decay. Entombed carcasses were observed to be more intact than non-entombed counter-parts by years at a time. Microbial mats maintained and stabilized the articulation of the joints and the skeleton of post-mortem organisms, as seen in frog carcasses for up to 1080 days after coverage by the mats. The environment within the entombed carcasses is typically described as anoxic and acidic during the initial stage of decomposition. These conditions are perpetuated by the exhaustion of oxygen by aerobic bacteria within the carcass creating an environment ideal for the preservation of soft tissues, such as muscle tissue and brain tissue. The anoxic and acidic conditions created by that mats also inhibit the process of autolysis within the carcasses delaying decay even further. Endogenous gut bacteria have also been described to aid the preservation of invertebrate soft tissue by delaying decay and stabilizing soft tissue structures. Gut bacteria form pseudomorphs replicating the form of soft tissues within the animal. These pseudomorphs are possible explanation for the increased occurrence of preserved guts impression among invertebrates. In the later stages of the prolonged decomposition of the carcasses, the environment within the sarcophagus alters to more oxic and basic conditions promoting biomineralization and the precipitation of calcium carbonate.

Microbial mats additionally play a role in the formation of molds and impressions of carcasses. These molds and impressions replicate and preserve the integument of animal carcasses. The degree to which has been demonstrated in frog skin preservation. The original morphology of the frog skin, including structures such as warts, was preserved for more than 1.5 years. The microbial mats also aided in the formation of the mineral gypsum embedded within the frog skin. The microbes that constitute the microbial mats in addition to forming a sarcophagus, secrete an exopolymeric substances (EPS) that drive biomineralization. The EPS provides a nucleated center for biomineralization. During later stages of decomposition heterotrophic microbes degrade the EPS, facilitating the release of calcium ions into the environment and creating a Ca-enriched film. The degradation of the EPS and formation of the Ca-rich film is suggested to aid in the precipitation of calcium carbonate and further the process of biomineralization.

Taphonomic biases in the fossil record
Because of the very select processes that cause preservation, not all organisms have the same chance of being preserved. Any factor that affects the likelihood that an organism is preserved as a fossil is a potential source of bias. It is thus arguably the most important goal of taphonomy to identify the scope of such biases such that they can be quantified to allow correct interpretations of the relative abundances of organisms that make up a fossil biota. Some of the most common sources of bias are listed below.

Physical attributes of the organism itself
This perhaps represents the biggest source of bias in the fossil record. First and foremost, organisms that contain hard parts have a far greater chance of being represented in the fossil record than organisms consisting of soft tissue only. As a result, animals with bones or shells are overrepresented in the fossil record, and many plants are only represented by pollen or spores that have hard walls. Soft-bodied organisms may form 30% to 100% of the biota, but most fossil assemblages preserve none of this unseen diversity, which may exclude groups such as fungi and entire animal phyla from the fossil record. Many animals that moult, on the other hand, are overrepresented, as one animal may leave multiple fossils due to its discarded body parts. Among plants, wind-pollinated species produce so much more pollen than animal-pollinated species, the former being overrepresented relative to the latter.

Characteristics of the habitat
Most fossils form in conditions where material is deposited on the bottom of water bodies. Coastal areas are often prone to high rates of erosion, and rivers flowing into the sea may carry a high particulate load from inland. These sediments will eventually settle out, so organisms living in such environments have a much higher chance of being preserved as fossils after death than do those organisms living in non-depositing conditions. In continental environments, fossilization is likely in lakes and riverbeds that gradually fill in with organic and inorganic material. The organisms of such habitats are also liable to be overrepresented in the fossil record than those living far from these aquatic environments where burial by sediments is unlikely to occur.

Mixing of fossils from different places
A sedimentary deposit may have experienced a mixing of noncontemporaneous remains within single sedimentary units via physical or biological processes; i.e. a deposit could be ripped up and redeposited elsewhere, meaning that a deposit may contain a large number of fossils from another place (an allochthonous deposit, as opposed to the usual autochthonous). Thus, a question that is often asked of fossil deposits is to what extent does the fossil deposit record the true biota that originally lived there? Many fossils are obviously autochthonous, such as rooted fossils like crinoids, and many fossils are intrinsically obviously allochthonous, such as the presence of photoautotrophic plankton in a benthic deposit that must have sunk to be deposited. A fossil deposit may thus become biased towards exotic species (i.e. species not endemic to that area) when the sedimentology is dominated by gravity-driven surges, such as mudslides, or may become biased if there are very few endemic organisms to be preserved. This is a particular problem in palynology.

Temporal resolution
Because population turnover rates of individual taxa are much less than net rates of sediment accumulation, the biological remains of successive, noncontemporaneous populations of organisms may be admixed within a single bed, known as time-averaging. Because of the slow and episodic nature of the geologic record, two apparently contemporaneous fossils may have actually lived centuries, or even millennia, apart. Moreover, the degree of time-averaging in an assemblage may vary. The degree varies on many factors, such as tissue type, the habitat, the frequency of burial events and exhumation events, and the depth of bioturbation within the sedimentary column relative to net sediment accumulation rates. Like biases in spatial fidelity, there is a bias towards organisms that can survive reworking events, such as shells. An example of a more ideal deposit with respect to time-averaging bias would be a volcanic ash deposit, which captures an entire biota caught in the wrong place at the wrong time (e.g. the Silurian Herefordshire lagerstätte).

Gaps in time series
The geological record is very discontinuous, and deposition is episodic at all scales. At the largest scale, a sedimentological high-stand period may mean that no deposition may occur for millions of years and, in fact, erosion of the deposit may occur. Such a hiatus is called an unconformity. Conversely, a catastrophic event such as a mudslide may overrepresent a time period. At a shorter scale, scouring processes such as the formation of ripples and dunes and the passing of turbidity currents may cause layers to be removed. Thus the fossil record is biased towards periods of greatest sedimentation; periods of time that have less sedimentation are consequently less well represented in the fossil record.

A related problem is the slow changes that occur in the depositional environment of an area; a deposit may experience periods of poor preservation due to, for example, a lack of biomineralizing elements. This causes the taphonomic or diagenetic obliteration of fossils, producing gaps and condensation of the record.

Consistency in preservation over geologic time
Major shifts in intrinsic and extrinsic properties of organisms, including morphology and behaviour in relation to other organisms or shifts in the global environment, can cause secular or long-term cyclic changes in preservation (megabias).

Human biases
Much of the incompleteness of the fossil record is due to the fact that only a small amount of rock is ever exposed at the surface of the Earth, and not even most of that has been explored. Our fossil record relies on the small amount of exploration that has been done on this. Unfortunately, paleontologists as humans can be very biased in their methods of collection; a bias that must be identified. Potential sources of bias include,
 * Search images: field experiments have shown that paleontologists working on, say fossil clams are better at collecting clams than anything else because their search image has been shaped to bias them in favour of clams.
 * Relative ease of extraction: fossils that are easy to obtain (such as many phosphatic fossils that are easily extracted en masse by dissolution in acid) are overabundant in the fossil record.
 * Taxonomic bias: fossils with easily discernible morphologies will be easy to distinguish as separate species, and will thus have an inflated abundance.

Preservation of biopolymers
The taphonomic pathways involved in relatively inert substances such as calcite (and to a lesser extent bone) are relatively obvious, as such body parts are stable and change little through time. However, the preservation of "soft tissue" is more interesting, as it requires more peculiar conditions. While usually only biomineralised material survives fossilisation, the preservation of soft tissue is not as rare as sometimes thought.

Both DNA and proteins are unstable, and rarely survive more than hundreds of thousands of years before degrading. Polysaccharides also have low preservation potential, unless they are highly cross-linked; this interconnection is most common in structural tissues, and renders them resistant to chemical decay. Such tissues include wood (lignin), spores and pollen (sporopollenin), the cuticles of plants (cutan) and animals, the cell walls of algae (algaenan), and potentially the polysaccharide layer of some lichens. This interconnectedness makes the chemicals less prone to chemical decay, and also means they are a poorer source of energy so less likely to be digested by scavenging organisms. After being subjected to heat and pressure, these cross-linked organic molecules typically "cook" and become kerogen or short (<17 C atoms) aliphatic/aromatic carbon molecules. Other factors affect the likelihood of preservation; for instance sclerotization renders the jaws of polychaetes more readily preserved than the chemically equivalent but non-sclerotized body cuticle. A peer-reviewed study in 2023 was the first to present an in-depth chemical description of how biological tissues and cells potentially preserve into the fossil record. This study generalized the chemistry underlying cell and tissue preservation to explain the phenomenon for potentially any cellular organism.

It was thought that only tough, cuticle type soft tissue could be preserved by Burgess Shale type preservation, but an increasing number of organisms are being discovered that lack such cuticle, such as the probable chordate Pikaia and the shellless Odontogriphus.

It is a common misconception that anaerobic conditions are necessary for the preservation of soft tissue; indeed much decay is mediated by sulfate reducing bacteria which can only survive in anaerobic conditions. Anoxia does, however, reduce the probability that scavengers will disturb the dead organism, and the activity of other organisms is undoubtedly one of the leading causes of soft-tissue destruction.

Plant cuticle is more prone to preservation if it contains cutan, rather than cutin.

Plants and algae produce the most preservable compounds, which are listed according to their preservation potential by Tegellaar (see reference).

Disintegration
How complete fossils are was once thought to be a proxy for the energy of the environment, with stormier waters leaving less articulated carcasses. However, the dominant force actually seems to be predation, with scavengers more likely than rough waters to break up a fresh carcass before it is buried. Sediments cover smaller fossils faster so they are likely to be found fully articulated. However, erosion also tends to destroy smaller fossils more easily.

Distortion
Often fossils, particularly those of verterbates, are distorted by the subsequent movements of the surrounding sediment, this can include compression of the fossil in a particular axis, as well as shearing.

Significance
Taphonomic processes allow researchers of multiple fields to identify the past of natural and cultural objects. From the time of death or burial until excavation, taphonomy can aid in the understanding of past environments. When studying the past it is important to gain contextual information in order to have a solid understanding of the data. Often these findings can be used to better understand cultural or environmental shifts within the present day.

The term taphomorph is used to collectively describe fossil structures that represent poorly-preserved and deteriorated remains of various taxonomic groups, rather than of a single species. For example, the 579–560 million year old fossil Ediacaran assemblages from Avalonian locations in Newfoundland contain taphomorphs of a mixture of taxa which have collectively been named Ivesheadiomorphs. Originally interpreted as fossils of a single genus, Ivesheadia, they are now thought to be the deteriorated remains of various types of frondose organism. Similarly, Ediacaran fossils from England, once assigned to Blackbrookia, Pseudovendia and Shepshedia, are now all regarded as taphomorphs related to Charnia or Charniodiscus.

Fluvial taphonomy
Fluvial taphonomy is concerned with the decomposition of organisms in rivers. An organism may sink or float within a river, it may also be carried by the current near the surface of the river or near its bottom. Organisms in terrestrial and fluvial environments will not undergo the same processes. A fluvial environment may be colder than a terrestrial environment. The ecosystem of live organisms that scavenge on the organism in question and the abiotic items in rivers will differ than on land. Organisms within a river may also be physically transported by the flow of the river. The flow of the river can additionally erode the surface of the organisms found within it. The processes an organism may undergo in a fluvial environment will result in a slower rate of decomposition within a river compared to on land.

title: Taphonomy


text:
Esarhaddon

Esarhaddon, also spelled Essarhaddon, Assarhaddon and Ashurhaddon (, also  Aššur-aḫa-iddina,  meaning "Ashur has given me a brother"; Biblical Hebrew:  ʾĒsar-Ḥaddōn) was the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the death of his father Sennacherib in 681 BC to his own death in 669. The third king of the Sargonid dynasty, Esarhaddon is most famous for his conquest of Egypt in 671 BC,' which made his empire the largest the world had ever seen, and for his reconstruction of Babylon, which had been destroyed by his father.'

After Sennacherib's eldest son and heir Aššur-nādin-šumi had been captured and presumably executed in 694, the new heir had originally been the second eldest son, Arda-Mulissu, but in 684, Esarhaddon, a younger son, was appointed instead. Angered by this decision, Arda-Mulissu and another brother, Nabû-šarru-uṣur, murdered their father in 681 and planned to seize the Neo-Assyrian throne. The murder, and Arda-Mulissu's aspirations of becoming king himself, made Esarhaddon's rise to the throne difficult and he first had to defeat his brothers in a six-week long civil war.

His brothers' attempted coup had been unexpected and troublesome for Esarhaddon and he would be plagued by paranoia and mistrust for his officials, governors and male family members until the end of his reign. As a result of this paranoia, most of the palaces used by Esarhaddon were high-security fortifications located outside of the major population centers of the cities. Also perhaps resulting from his mistrust for his male relatives, Esarhaddon's female relatives, such as his mother Naqiʾa and his daughter Šērūʾa-ēṭirat, were allowed to wield considerably more influence and political power during his reign than women had been allowed in any previous period of Assyrian history, with the possible exception of Sammuramat in the 8th century BC.

Despite a relatively short and difficult reign, and being plagued by paranoia, depression and constant illness, Esarhaddon remains recognized as one of the greatest and most successful Assyrian kings. He quickly defeated his brothers in 681, completed ambitious and large-scale building projects in both Assyria and Babylonia, successfully campaigned in Media, Persia, Elam, the Arabian Peninsula, Anatolia, the Caucasus, and the Levant, defeated the Kushite Empire and conquered Egypt and Libya, enforced a vassal treaty upon the Medes and Persians and ensured a peaceful transition of power to his two sons and heirs Ashurbanipal as ruler of the empire and Šamaš-šuma-ukin as king of Babylonia after his death.

Background
Although Esarhaddon had been the crown prince of Assyria for three years and the designated heir of King Sennacherib, with the entire empire having taken oaths to support him, it was only with great difficulty that he successfully ascended the Assyrian throne.

Sennacherib's first choice as successor had been his eldest son, Aššur-nādin-šumi, who he had appointed as the ruler of Babylon in about 700 BC. Shortly thereafter, Sennacherib attacked the land of Elam (modern day southern Iran) in order to defeat the Elamites and some Chaldean rebels which had fled there. In response to this attack, the Elamites invaded Babylonia in the south of Sennacherib's empire and in 694 successfully captured Ashur-nadin-shumi at the city of Sippar. The prince was taken back to Elam and probably executed, causing Sennacherib to wreak savage revenge on the Elamites, Chaldeans and Babylonians.

After Aššur-nādin-šumi's presumed death, Sennacherib elevated his second eldest surviving son, Arda-Mulissu, as crown prince. After several years as crown prince, Arda-Mulissu was replaced as heir by Esarhaddon in 684. The reason for Arda-Mulissu's sudden dismissal from the prominent position is unknown, but it is clear that he was very disappointed. Esarhaddon described the reaction of his brothers to his appointment as heir in a later inscription:

""

Arda-Mulissu was forced to swear loyalty to Esarhaddon by his father, but repeatedly appealed to Sennacherib to again accept him as heir instead. These appeals were not successful, and Sennacherib came to realize that the situation was tense, so he sent Esarhaddon into exile in the western provinces for his own protection. Esarhaddon was unhappy with his exile and blamed his brothers for it, describing it with the following words:

""

Though Sennacherib had foreseen the danger of keeping Esarhaddon near his ambitious brothers, he had not foreseen the dangers to his own life. On 20 October 681, Arda-Mulissu and another of Sennacherib's sons, Nabû-šarru-uṣur, attacked and killed their father in one of Nineveh's temples. However, Arda-Mulissu's dreams of claiming the throne would be crushed. The murder of Sennacherib had caused some friction between Arda-Mulissu and his supporters which delayed a potential coronation and in the meantime, Esarhaddon had raised an army. With this army at his back he met an army raised by his brothers at Hanigalbat, a region in the western parts of the empire, where most of the soldiers deserted his brothers to join him and the enemy generals fled. He then marched on Nineveh without opposition.

Six weeks after his father's death he was accepted and recognized as the new Assyrian king at Nineveh. Shortly after taking the throne, Esarhaddon made sure to execute all conspirators and political enemies he could get his hands on, including the families of his brothers. All servants involved with the security of the royal palace at Nineveh were "dismissed" (i.e. executed). Arda-Mulissu and Nabû-šarru-uṣur survived this purge as they had escaped as exiles to the northern kingdom of Urartu a vassal state of the Assyrian Empire in Anatolia. The frequent mentions of Arda-Mulissu and Esarhaddon's other brothers in his inscriptions indicates that he was surprised and bothered by their actions. Esarhaddon's own inscription chronicling his entry into Nineveh and his purge of those in support of the conspiracy reads as follows:

""

Paranoia
As a result of his tumultuous rise to the throne, Esarhaddon was distrustful of his servants, vassals and family members. He frequently sought the advice of oracles and priests on whether any of his relatives or officials wished to harm him. Although highly distrustful of his male relatives, Esarhaddon seems to not have been paranoid in regards to his female relatives. During his reign his wife Ešarra-ḫammat, his mother Naqiʾa and his daughter Šērūʾa-ēṭirat all wielded considerably more influence and political power than women during earlier parts of Assyrian history.

Esarhaddon's paranoia was also reflected by where he chose to live. One of his main residences was a palace in the city of Nimrud originally constructed as an armory by his predecessor Shalmaneser III (r. 859–824 BC) almost two hundred years earlier. Rather than occupying a central and visible spot within the cultic and administrative center of the city, this palace was located in its outskirts on a separate mound which made it well-protected. Between 676 and 672, the palace was strengthened with its gateways being modified into impregnable fortifications which could seal the entire building off completely from the city. If these entrances were sealed, the only way into the palace would be through a steep and narrow path protected by several strong doors. A similar palace, also located on a separate mound far from the city center, was built at Nineveh.

All Assyrian kings are known to have sought the guidance of the sun-god Shamash (which was obtained through interpreting what was perceived as signs from the gods) for advice in political and military matters, such as whom to appoint to a certain position or if a planned military campaign would be successful. Queries concerning the possibility of betrayal are known only from Esarhaddon's reign.

Most scholars have classified Esarhaddon as paranoid, some going as far as suggesting that he developed paranoid personality disorder after the murder of his father. Other scholars have refrained from using this label, instead simply characterizing him as "mistrustful" and noting that paranoia is "by definition delusional and irrational" while Esarhaddon is likely to have had many real opponents and enemies.

Reconstruction of Babylon
Esarhaddon wished to ensure the support of the inhabitants of Babylonia, the southern part of his empire. To this end, the king sponsored building and restoration projects throughout the south to a far greater extent than any of his predecessors had. Babylonia had only become part of the Assyrian empire relatively recently, having been ruled by native kings as vassals of the Assyrians until its conquest and annexation by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III in the previous century. Through his building program, Esarhaddon likely hoped to show the benefits of continuing Assyrian rule over the region and that he meant to rule Babylon with the same care and generosity as a native Babylonian king.

The city of Babylon, which gave its name to Babylonia, had been the political center of southern Mesopotamia for more than a thousand years. In an effort to quell Babylonian aspirations of independence, the city had been razed by Esarhaddon's father in 689 BC, and the statue of Bel (also known as Marduk), the patron deity of the city, had been carried off deep into Assyrian territory. The restoration of the city, announced by Esarhaddon in 680, became one of his most important projects.

Throughout Esarhaddon's reign, reports from the officials the king appointed to oversee the reconstruction speak of the great scope of the building project. The ambitious restoration of the city involved removing the large amount of debris left since Sennacherib's destruction of the city, resettlement of the many Babylonians who by this point were either enslaved or scattered across the empire, the reconstruction of most of the buildings, the restoration of the great temple complex dedicated to Bel, known as the Esagila, and the enormous ziggurat complex called Etemenanki as well as the restoration of the two inner walls of the city. The project was not only important because it illustrated goodwill towards the Babylonian people, but also because it allowed Esarhaddon to assume one of the essential characteristics the Babylonians invested in kingship. While the king of Assyria was generally supposed to be a military figure, the king of Babylon was ideally a builder and restorer, particularly of temples. Careful to not associate himself with the city's destruction, he only refers to himself as a king "ordained by the gods" in his inscriptions in Babylon, only mentioning Sennacherib in his inscriptions in the north and blaming the city's destruction not on his father but on Babylon "offending its gods". Writing of his reconstruction of Babylon, Esarhaddon states the following:

""

Esarhaddon successfully rebuilt the city gates, battlements, drains, courtyards, shrines and various other buildings and structures. Great care was taken during rebuilding of the Esagila, depositing precious stones, scented oils and perfumes into its foundations. Precious metals were chosen to cover the doors of the temple and the pedestal that was to house the statue of Bel was constructed in gold. A report from the governor Esarhaddon installed in Babylon confirms that the reconstruction was very well received by the Babylonians:

""

The rebuilding of the city was not completed during Esarhaddon's lifetime and much work was also done during the reign of his successors. Exactly how much of the reconstruction was done during the reign of Esarhaddon is uncertain, but stones with his inscriptions are found in the ruins of the city's temples, suggesting that a substantial amount of work had been completed. It is likely that Esarhaddon fulfilled most of his restoration goals, including the near complete restoration of Esagila and Etemenanki, with the possible exception of the city walls, which were likely fully restored by his successor.

Esarhaddon also sponsored restoration programs in other southern cities. In his first regnal year, Esarhaddon returned the statues of various southern gods that had been captured in wars and held in Assyria. During the time since Sennacherib's destruction of the city, the statue of Bel had, along with statues of several other traditional Babylonian deities, been kept at the town of Issete in the northeastern parts of Assyria.' Although the statue of Bel remained in Assyria, statues of other gods were returned to the cities of Der, Humhumia and Sippar-aruru.' In the years to follow, statues were also returned to the cities of Larsa and Uruk. As he had in Babylon, Esarhaddon also cleared away debris in Uruk and repaired the city's Eanna temple, dedicated to the goddess Ishtar. Similar small-scale restoration projects were undertaken in the cities of Nippur, Borsippa and Akkad.

Because of Esarhaddon's extensive building projects in the south and his efforts to link himself to the Babylonian royal tradition, some scholars have described him as the "Babylonian king of Assyria", but such a view might misrepresent the actual efforts of the king. Esarhaddon was king of both Assyria and Babylonia and his military and political base remained in the north, much like his predecessors. While his southern building projects were impressive, ambitious and unprecedented, he completed projects in the Assyrian heartland as well, although they were not as civically oriented as those in Babylonia. In Assyria, Esarhaddon constructed and restored temples but also worked on palaces and military fortifications.

Possibly in order to reassure the Assyrian people that his projects in the south would be matched with projects of equal proportion in the north, Esarhaddon ensured that repairs were made to the temple of Ešarra in Assur, one of the chief temples of northern Mesopotamia.' Similar projects were conducted for temples in the Assyrian capital, Nineveh and in the city of Arbela.' Though the temple-building projects conducted in the south were matched with temple-building projects in the north, Esarhaddon's prioritizing of Assyria over Babylonia is apparent from the various administrative and military building projects undertaken in the north and the complete lack of such projects in the south.

Military campaigns
Vassals who had hoped to use the unstable political climate in Assyria to free themselves, perhaps believing that the new king hadn't yet consolidated his position well enough to stop them, and foreign powers eager to expand their territory soon realized that (despite Esarhaddon's distrust) the governors and soldiers of Assyria fully supported the new king.' Two of the principal threats to Assyria were the kingdom of Urartu under King Rusa II in the north, a sworn enemy of Assyria which still sheltered his brothers, and the Cimmerians, a nomadic tribe which was harassing his western borders.'

Esarhaddon allied with the nomadic Scythians, famous for their cavalry, in order to dissuade the Cimmerians from attacking but it doesn't appear to have helped. In 679 BC, the Cimmerians invaded the westernmost provinces of the empire and by 676 they had penetrated further into Esarhaddon's empire, destroying temples and cities on the way. To stop this invasion, Esarhaddon personally led his soldiers in battle in Cilicia and successfully repelled the Cimmerians. In his inscriptions, Esarhaddon claims to personally have killed the Cimmerian king Teušpa.

While the Cimmerian invasion was underway, one of Esarhaddon's vassals in the Levant, the city of Sidon, rebelled against his rule.' Sidon had only recently been conquered by Assyria, having been made a vassal by Esarhaddon's father in 701.' Esarhaddon marched his army down along the Mediterranean coast and captured the rebellious city in 677 but its king, Abdi-Milkutti, escaped by boat. He was captured and executed a year later, the same year that Esarhaddon decisively defeated the Cimmerians. Another rebellious vassal king, Sanduarri of "Kundu and Sissu" (likely locations in Cilicia), was also defeated and executed. In order to celebrate his victory, Esarhaddon had the heads of the two vassal kings hung around the necks of their nobles, who were paraded around Nineveh.' Sidon was reduced to an Assyrian province and two cities which had been under the Sidonian king's control were gifted to another vassal king, Baal of Tyre.' Esarhaddon discusses his victory over Sidon in a contemporary inscription:

""

After dealing with the problems in Sidon and Cilicia, Esarhaddon turned his attention to Urartu. At first, he struck at the Mannaeans, a people allied with Urartu, but by 673 he was openly at war with the kingdom of Urartu itself.' As part of this war, Esarhaddon attacked and conquered the kingdom of Shupria, a vassal kingdom to Urartu whose capital Ubumu was located on the shores of Lake Van.' The king's casus belli for this invasion was the king of Shupria's refusal to hand over political refugees from Assyria (possibly some of the conspirators behind Sennacherib's death) and though the Shuprian king had agreed to give up the refugees after a long series of letters, Esarhaddon considered it took him too long to relent. The Assyrians seized and plundered the city after the defenders had attempted to burn down the Assyrian siege weapons and the fires had instead spread into Ubumu. The political refugees were captured and executed. Some criminals from Urartu, who the Shuprian king had similarly refused to give up to the king of Urartu, were seized and sent to Urartu, perhaps in order to improve relations. Ubumu was repaired, renamed and annexed, with two eunuchs being appointed as its governors.

In 675, the Elamites invaded Babylonia and captured the city of Sippar. The Assyrian army had been away at the time, campaigning in Anatolia, and was forced to abandon this campaign in order to defend the southern provinces. Little is recorded of this conflict and as the fall of Sippar was an embarrassment it is not mentioned by Esarhaddon in any of his inscriptions. Shortly after seizing Sippar, the Elamite king Khumban-khaltash II died, which left the new Elamite king, Urtak, in a bad position. To repair relations with Assyria and avoid further conflict, Urtak abandoned the invasion and returned some statues of gods which the Elamites had stolen. The two monarchs entered into an alliance and exchanged children to be raised at each other's courts.

Near the end of Esarhaddon's seventh year on the throne, in the winter of 673, the king invaded Egypt. This invasion, which only a few Assyrian sources discuss, ended in what some scholars have assumed was possibly one of Assyria's worst defeats. The Egyptians had for years sponsored rebels and dissenters in Assyria and Esarhaddon had hoped to storm Egypt and take this rival out in one fell swoop. Because Esarhaddon had marched his army at great speed, the Assyrians were exhausted once they arrived outside the Egyptian-controlled city of Ashkelon, where they were defeated by the Kushite Pharaoh Taharqa. Following this defeat, Esarhaddon abandoned his plan to conquer Egypt for the moment and withdrew back to Nineveh.

Deteriorating health and depression
By the time of Esarhaddon's first failed invasion of Egypt in 673 BC, it had become apparent that the king's health was deteriorating.' This presented a problem since one of the chief requirements of being the Assyrian king was that one had perfect mental and physical health.' The king was constantly suffering from some illness and would often spend days in his sleeping quarters without food, drink and human contact. The death of Esharra-hammat, his beloved wife, in February 672 BC is unlikely to have improved his condition. Surviving court documents overwhelmingly point to Esarhaddon often being sad. The deaths of his wife and their recently born infant child made Esarhaddon depressed. This can clearly be seen in letters written by the king's chief exorcist Adad-shumu-usur, the man who was chiefly responsible for Esarhaddon's well-being. One such letter reads:

""

Notes and letters preserved from those at the royal court, including Esarhaddon's physicians, describe his condition in some detail, discussing violent vomiting, constant fever, nosebleeds, dizziness, painful earaches, diarrhea and depression. The king often feared that his death was near, and his condition would have been apparent to anyone who saw him as he was affected by a permanent skin rash which covered most of his body, including his face. The physicians, likely the best in Assyria, were perplexed and eventually had to confess that they were powerless to aid him. This is clearly expressed in their letters, such as the following:

""

Because the Assyrians saw illness as divine punishment, a king who was ill would have been seen as an indication that the gods were not supportive of him. Because of this, Esarhaddon's poor health had to be hidden from his subjects at all costs.' That his subjects remained unaware was ensured through the ancient royal Assyrian tradition that anyone who approached the king had to be both on their knees and veiled.'

Planning the succession
Seeing as he himself had only acquired the Assyrian throne with great difficulty, Esarhaddon took several steps in order to ensure that the transition of power following his own death would be a smooth and peaceful one. A treaty concluded between Esarhaddon and his vassal Ramataia, the ruler of a Median kingdom in the east called Urakazabarna in c. 672 BC makes it clear that all of Esarhaddon's sons were still minors at the time, which was problematic. The same treaty also shows that Esarhaddon was worried that there might be several factions who might oppose his successor's rise to the throne after his death, listing potential opposing forces as his successor's brothers, uncles and cousins and even "descendants of former royalty" and "one of the chiefs or governors of Assyria".

This indicates that at least some of Esarhaddon's brothers were still alive at this point and that they or their children could possibly represent threats to his own children. The mention of "descendants of former royalty" might allude to the fact that Esarhaddon's grandfather Sargon II had acquired the Assyrian throne through usurpation and may not have been related to any earlier Assyrian king. It is possible that descendants of earlier kings may still have been alive and in a position to press their claims on the Assyrian throne.

In order to avoid a civil war upon his death, Esarhaddon appointed his eldest son Sin-nadin-apli as crown prince in 674, but he died just two years later, again threatening a succession crisis. This time, Esarhaddon appointed two crown princes; his eldest living son Shamash-shum-ukin was selected as the heir to Babylon whilst a younger son, Ashurbanipal, was selected as the heir to Assyria. The two princes arrived at the capital of Nineveh together and partook in a celebration with foreign representatives and Assyrian nobles and soldiers. Promoting one of his sons as the heir to Assyria and another as the heir to Babylon was a new idea, for in the past decades the Assyrian king had simultaneously been the King of Babylon.

The choice to name a younger son as crown prince of Assyria, which was clearly Esarhaddon's primary title, and an older son as crown prince of Babylon might be explained by the mothers of the two sons. While Ashurbanipal's mother was likely Assyrian in origin, Shamash-shum-ukin was the son of a woman from Babylon (though this is uncertain, Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin may have shared the same mother which would probably have had problematic consequences if Shamash-shum-ukin was to ascend to the Assyrian throne. Since Ashurbanipal was the next oldest son, he then was the superior candidate to the throne. Esarhaddon probably surmised that the Babylonians would be content with someone of Babylonian heritage as their king and as such set Shamash-shum-ukin to inherit Babylon and the southern parts of his empire instead. Treaties drawn up by Esarhaddon are somewhat unclear as to the relationship he intended his two sons to have. It is clear that Ashurbanipal was the primary heir to the empire and that Shamash-shum-ukin was to swear him an oath of allegiance, but other parts also specify that Ashurbanipal was not to interfere in Shamash-shum-ukin's affairs which indicates a more equal standing. The two crown princes soon became heavily involved with Assyrian politics, which lifted some of the burden from the shoulders of their sickly father.

Esarhaddon's mother Naqiʾa ensured that any potential enemies and claimants took an oath to support Ashurbanipal's rise to the Assyrian throne, another step to avoid the bloodshed which had begun Esarhaddon's own reign.' In order to ensure the succession of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin, Esarhaddon himself also concluded succession treaties with at least six independent rulers in the east and with several of his own governors outside the Assyrian heartland in 672.' Perhaps the main motivating factor to create these treaties was the possibility that his brothers, particularly Arda-Mulissu, were still alive and sought to claim the Assyrian throne. Some inscriptions suggest that they were alive and free as late as 673.

Conquest of Egypt and substitute kings
In the early months of 671 BC, Esarhaddon again marched against Egypt.' The army assembled for this second Egytian campaign was considerably larger than the one Esarhaddon had used in 673 and he marched at a much slower speed in order to avoid the problems that had plagued his previous attempt.' On his way he passed through Harran, one of the major cities in the western parts of his empire. Here, a prophecy was revealed to the king, which predicted that Esarhaddon's conquest of Egypt would be a successful one. According to a letter sent to Ashurbanipal after Esarhaddon's death, the prophecy was the following:

""

Three months after having received this prophecy, Esarhaddon's forces were victorious in their first battle with the Egyptians. Despite the prophecy and initial success, Esarhaddon was not convinced of his own safety. Just eleven days after he had defeated the Egyptians, he performed the Substitute king ritual, an ancient Assyrian method intended to protect and shield the king from imminent danger announced by some sort of omen. Esarhaddon had performed the ritual earlier in his reign, but this time it left him unable to command his invasion of Egypt. The "substitute king" ritual involved the Assyrian monarch going into hiding for a hundred days, during which a substitute (preferably one with mental deficiencies) took the king's place by sleeping in the royal bed, wearing the crown and the royal garbs and eating the king's food. During these hundred days, the actual king remained hidden and was known only under the alias "the farmer". The goal of the ritual was that any evil intended for the king would instead be focused on the substitute king, who was killed regardless of if anything had happened at the end of the hundred days, keeping the real monarch safe.

Whatever omen Esarhaddon was fearing, he survived 671 and would perform the ritual twice during the two years that followed, which left him unable to fulfill his duties as the Assyrian king for a total of almost a year. During this time, most of the civil administration of his empire was overseen by his crown princes and the army in Egypt was likely commanded by his chief eunuch, Ashur-nasir. The Assyrian army defeated the Egyptians in two additional battles and successfully seized and plundered the Egyptian capital of Memphis.' The Assyrian army was also forced to fight some of their vassals in the Levant, such as Baal of Tyre, who had allied with the Egyptians against Esarhaddon.'

Although the Pharaoh Taharqa had escaped, Esarhaddon captured the Pharaoh's family, including his son and wife, and most of the royal court, which were sent back to Assyria as hostages. Governors loyal to the Assyrian king were placed in charge of the conquered territories. In his victory stele, erected to commemorate the defeat of Egypt, Esarhaddon is depicted in a majestic pose with a war mace in his hand and a vassal king kneeling before him. Also present is the son of the defeated pharaoh, kneeling and with a rope around his neck.' The conquest resulted in the relocation of a large number of Egyptians to the Assyrian heartland.' In an excerpt from the text inscribed on his victory stele, Esarhaddon describes the conquest with the following words:

""

Conspiracy of 671–670 BC
Shortly following Esarhaddon's victory in Egypt, news spread throughout his empire of a new prophecy at Harran. Since Esarhaddon had conquered Egypt and proven the previous prophecy from the city right, the oracles of Harran were seen as trustworthy. The prophecy, spoken by an ecstatic woman (the oracle of Nusku), was the following:

""

The meaning of the prophecy was clear: it provided a possible religious foundation for a revolt against Esarhaddon's rule by declaring all of Sennacherib's descendants as usurpers. It is possible that Esarhaddon's skin condition would have become apparent during his visit to Harran, which might be the reason for declaring him illegitimate. The identity of the Sasî who was proclaimed as the rightful king is unknown but he might have been connected to previous Assyrian royalty in some manner to give him a claim to the throne. It is possible that he was a descendant of Esarhaddon's grandfather Sargon II. Sasî managed to rally a large amount of support throughout the empire quickly, perhaps even rallying Esarhaddon's chief eunuch Ashur-nasir to his side.

It did not take long for Esarhaddon to learn of the conspiracy. Because of his paranoia, Esarhaddon had a vast information network of servants throughout the empire, sworn to report to him once they heard of any planned actions against him. Through these reports, Esarhaddon was made aware that conspirators were active not only in Harran, but also in Babylon and in the Assyrian heartland. For a while, Esarhaddon simply gathered information on the activities of the conspirators and fearing for his life, performed the "substitute king" ritual for a second time in 671 BC, just three months after he had previously completed it.

As soon as the ritual was complete, Esarhaddon emerged from hiding and brutally massacred the conspirators, the second such purge during his reign. The fate of Sasî and the woman who had proclaimed him king is unknown, but it is likely that they were captured and executed. Because of the extent of the officials killed, the administrative structure of Assyria suffered more than it had in many years. For the first few months of 670, no official was chosen to select the name of the year, something which was extremely rare in Assyrian history. Remains of several buildings in various cities, believed to have been the homes of supporters of Sasî, have been dated as having been destroyed in 670. The aftermath of the conspiracy saw Esarhaddon tighten security considerably. He introduced two new ranks into the court hierarchy so as to make it more difficult to meet him, which also limited the number of officials who controlled the access to his palaces.

Death
Although he had successfully survived the conspiracy, Esarhaddon remained diseased and paranoid. Just a year later, in 669 BC, he once more performed the "substitute king" ritual. Around this time, the defeated Pharaoh Taharqa appeared from the south and, perhaps combined with the chaotic political situation within Assyria, inspired Egypt to attempt to free itself from Esarhaddon's control.

Esarhaddon received word of this rebellion and learnt that even some of his own governors who he had appointed in Egypt had ceased to pay tribute to him and joined the rebels. After emerging from his hundred days of hiding, apparently relatively healthy by his standards, Esarhaddon left to campaign against Egypt for the third time. The king died at Harran' on 10 Araḫsamn 669 BC (approximately November 1 in the proleptic Julian calendar),' before reaching the Egyptian border. The absence of evidence to the contrary suggests that his death was natural and unexpected.

After Esarhaddon's death, his sons Ashurbanipal and Shamsh-shum-ukin successfully ascended the thrones of Assyria and Babylon without political turmoil and bloodshed, meaning that Esarhaddon's succession plans were a success, at least initially.

Diplomacy with the Arabs
The support of the Arabic and other tribes of the Sinai Peninsula had been crucial in Esarhaddon's 671 BC Egyptian campaign. Esarhaddon was also determined to retain the loyalty of the Arabic tribes who had been subjugated by his father in the Arabian Peninsula, particularly around the city of Adummatu. The king of Adummatu, Hazael, paid tribute to Esarhaddon and sent him several presents, which were reciprocated by Esarhaddon through returning the statues of Hazael's gods which had been seized by Sennacherib years earlier. When Hazael died and was succeeded by his son Yauta, Yauta's position as king was recognized by Esarhaddon, who also aided the new king in defeating a rebellion against his rule. Shortly thereafter, Yautu rebelled against Esarhaddon and though he was defeated by the Assyrian army, he successfully retained his independence until the reign of Ashurbanipal.

Esarhaddon also successfully appointed a woman who had been raised at the Assyrian royal palace, Tabua, as "queen of the Arabs" and allowed her to return to and govern her people. In another episode, Esarhaddon invaded the country of "Bazza" in 676 (assumed to be located in the east of the Arabian Peninsula) after being petitioned for aid by a local king of a city called Yadi. The campaign apparently saw the Assyrians defeating eight kings of this region and granting their conquests to the king of Yadi.

Diplomacy with the Medes
The reign of Esarhaddon saw many of the Medes and Persians becoming or remaining Assyrian vassals. Esarhaddon's armies had proven to the Medes that Assyria was a great power to be feared when the Assyrians defeated the Median kings Eparna and Shidirparna near Mount Bikni (the location of which is unknown beyond being located somewhere in central Media) at some point before 676 BC. As a result of this victory, many of the Medes willingly swore allegiance to Assyria and brought gifts to Nineveh and allowed Esarhaddon to appoint Assyrian governors to their lands.

When Esarhaddon made his subjects swear to uphold his wishes in regards to the succession of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin, some of the vassals made to swear allegiance to his successors were rulers and princes from Media. Esarhaddon's relations with the Medes weren't always peaceful as there are records of Median raids against Assyria as late as 672 and the Medes are constantly mentioned in Esarhaddon's requests to his oracle as potential enemies of Assyria. Among the chief rivals of Esarhaddon in Media was a figure the Assyrians called Kashtariti, who raided Assyrian territory. This king is perhaps identical with Phraortes, the second king of the Median Empire.

Family and children
From inscriptions it can be ascertained that Esarhaddon had multiple wives as his succession treaties differentiate between "sons born by Ashurbanipal's mother" and "the rest of the sons engendered by Esarhaddon". Only the name of one of these wives, Esarhaddon's queen Esharra-hammat (Ešarra-ḫammat) is known. Esharra-hammat is chiefly known from sources after her death, especially in regards to a mausoleum Esarhaddon constructed for her. It is uncertain which of Esarhaddon's many children were hers.

Esarhaddon had at least 18 children. Some of these children suffered from constant illness, similar to Esarhaddon, and required permanent and constant medical attention by the court physicians.' Contemporary letters by Esarhaddon's subjects discussing the king's "numerous children" confirm that his family was viewed as large by ancient Assyrian standards.' Those of Esarhaddon's children known by name are the following:

 * Serua-eterat ( Šeruʾa-eṭirat) – the eldest of Esarhaddon's daughters and the only one known by name, Serua-eterat was older than Ashurbanipal and might have been the eldest of all of Esarhaddon's children. She held a position of importance in Esarhaddon's court and in the later court of Ashurbanipal as attested by numerous inscriptions.
 * Sin-nadin-apli ( or Sîn-nadin-apli)  – Esarhaddon's eldest son and crown prince from 674 BC until his unexpected death in 672.
 * Shamash-shum-ukin ( Šamaš-šumu-ukin) – Esarhaddon's second eldest son, crown prince and heir to Babylon 672–669 and King of Babylon thereafter.
 * Shamash-metu-uballit ( Šamaš-metu-uballiṭ) – possibly Esarhaddon's third eldest son. His name, which means "Shamash has brought to life the dead", suggests that he suffered from poor health or had a difficult birth. He was still alive by 672 and his health might be the reason why he was overlooked in favor of his younger brother as heir. It is possible that Shamash-metu-uballit did not accept the succession of Ashurbanipal and paid for it with his life.
 * Ashurbanipal ( Aššur-bāni-apli)) – possibly Essarhadon's fourth eldest son, crown prince and heir to Assyria 672–669 and King of Assyria thereafter.
 * Ashur-taqisha-liblut (Aššur-taqiša-libluṭ) – possibly Esarhaddon's fifth eldest son. Thought to have been a sickly child, possibly dead before 672.
 * Ashur-mukin-paleya ( Aššur-mukin-paleʾa) – possibly Esarhaddon's sixth eldest son. Probably born after Esarhaddon was already king. Was made a priest in Assur during the reign of Ashurbanipal.
 * Ashur-etel-shame-erseti-muballissu ( Aššur-etel-šamê-erṣeti-muballissu) – possibly Esarhaddon's seventh eldest son. Probably born after Esarhaddon was already king. Was made a priest in Harran during the reign of Ashurbanipal.
 * Ashur-sarrani-muballissu ( Aššur-šarrani-muballissu) – attested only in a single letter, it is possible that Ashur-sarrani-muballissu is identical to Ashur-etel-shame-erseti-muballissu.
 * Sin-Peru-ukin ( Sîn-perʾu-ukin ) – known from a letter inquiring as to when it was appropriate to visit the king and another letter in which he is described as healthy.

Assyria after Esarhaddon's death
After Esarhaddon's death, his son Ashurbanipal became the king of Assyria. After attending his brother's coronation, Shamash-shum-ukin returned the stolen statue of Bel to Babylon and became the king of Babylon.' At Babylon, Ashurbanipal sponsored a lavish coronation festival for his brother.' Despite his royal title, Shamash-shum-ukin was a vassal to Ashurbanipal; Ashurbanipal continued to offer the royal sacrifices in Babylon (traditionally offered by the Babylonian monarch) and the governors in the south were Assyrian. The army and guards present in the south were also Assyrians. Most of Shamash-shum-ukin's early reign in Babylon was spent peacefully, restoring fortifcations and temples.

After he and his brother had been properly inaugurated as monarchs, Ashurbanipal left in 667 BC to complete Esarhaddon's unfinished final campaign against Egypt. In his 667 campaign, Ashurbanipal marched as far south as Thebes, plundering on his way, and upon his victory he left the joint Pharaohs Psamtik I (who had been educated at Esarhaddon's court) and Necho I as vassal rulers. In 666–665, Ashurbanipal defeated an attempt by Tantamani, nephew of Pharaoh Taharqa, to retake Egypt.

As Shamash-shum-ukin grew stronger, he became increasingly interested in becoming independent of his brother. In 652 Shamash-shum-ukin allied with a coalition of Assyria's enemies, including Elam, Kush and the Chaldeans, and forbade Ashurbanipal from any further sacrifices in any southern city. This led to a civil war that dragged on for four years. By 650 Shamash-shum-ukin's situation looked grim, with Ashubanipal's forces having besieged Sippar, Borsippa, Kutha and Babylon itself. Babylon finally fell in 648 and was plundered by Ashurbanipal. Shamash-shum-ukin died, possibly committing suicide.

Throughout his long reign, Ashurbanipal would campaign against all of Assyria's enemies and rivals.' After Ashurbanipal's death, his sons Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun retained control of his empire for a time,' but during their reigns many of Assyria's vassals seized the opportunity to declare themselves independent. From 627 to 612, the Assyrian empire effectively disintegrated and a coalition of Assyrian enemies, chiefly led by the Median Empire and the newly independent Neo-Babylonian Empire pushed into the Assyrian heartland. In 612, Nineveh itself was plundered and razed.' Assyria fell with the defeat of its final king, Ashur-uballit II, at Harran in 609.'

Assessment by historians
Esarhaddon, his predecessor Sennacherib and his successor Ashurbanipal are recognized as three of the greatest Assyrian kings.' He is typically characterized as gentler and milder than his predecessor, taking greater efforts to pacify and integrate the peoples he conquered.' The king has been described as one of the most successful of the Neo-Assyrian rulers on account of his many achievements, including the subjugation of Egypt, the successful and peaceful control of the notoriously rebellious Babylonia and his ambitious construction projects.' According to Assyriologist Karen Radner, Esarhaddon emerges more clearly as an individual from available sources than all other Assyrian kings.' Most Assyrian kings are known only from their royal inscriptions, but the decade of Esarhaddon's rule is exceptionally well documented because many other documents dating to his reign, such as court correspondence, have survived as well.

Ashurbanipal, who would famously gather ancient Mesopotamian literary works for his famous library, had already begun collecting such works during the reign of Esarhaddon. It is possible that Esarhaddon is to be credited with encouraging Ashurbanipal's collection and education.

Titles
In an inscription describing his appointment as crown prince and his rise to power, Esarhaddon uses the following royal titles:

""

In another inscription, the titles of Esarhaddon read as follows:

""

A longer version of Esarhaddon's royal titles, and an accompanying boast of his gifts from the gods, preserved in another of his inscriptions, reads:

""

title: Esarhaddon


text:
Chelmsford (disambiguation)

Chelmsford is a city in Essex, England.

Chelmsford may also refer to:

Australia

 * Chelmsford, Queensland, a locality in the Southern Burnett Region
 * Chelmsford Royal Commission, an Australian investigation into the Chelmsford Private Hospital.

Canada

 * Chelmsford, New Brunswick
 * Chelmsford, Ontario

United Kingdom

 * Chelmsford (UK Parliament constituency)
 * Chelmsford City F.C., a football club in the above town
 * Chelmsford railway station, a railway station in the above town
 * City of Chelmsford, a local government district
 * Chelmsford 123, a sitcom set in the above town
 * Maldon and East Chelmsford (UK Parliament constituency)
 * West Chelmsford (UK Parliament constituency)

United States

 * Chelmsford, Massachusetts, Middlesex County, United States
 * Chelmsford High School, a high school in the above town

People

 * Viscount Chelmsford, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
 * Frederic Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford, known for command during the Anglo-Zulu War
 * Frederic Thesiger, 1st Viscount Chelmsford

title: Chelmsford (disambiguation)


text:
841 BC

The year 841 BC, is highly significant in ancient Chinese history, in that Sima Qian was able to construct a year-by-year chronology back to that point. Any earlier events in Chinese history cannot be confidently dated by historians.

Events

 * The Compatriots Rebellion in Western Zhou dynasty. The Chinese people rioted against King Li of Zhou, who was then sent to exile at a place called Zhi.
 * The start of Gonghe Regency, an interregnum period in Chinese history, after King Li of Zhou was exiled.
 * The First Assyrian Invasion of Israel.

Deaths

 * Marquis Jing of Jin, the sixth ruler of the state of Jin.
 * Baal-Eser II, king of Tyre.

title: 841 BC


text:
Yoshihito (name)

Yoshihito is a masculine Japanese given name.

Possible writings
Yoshihito can be written using different combinations of kanji characters. Here are some examples:

 * 義人, "justice, person"
 * 義仁, "justice, benevolence"
 * 吉人, "good luck, person"
 * 吉仁, "good luck, benevolence"
 * 善人, "virtuous, person"
 * 善仁, "virtuous, benevolence"
 * 芳人, "virtuous/fragrant, person"
 * 芳仁, "virtuous/fragrant, benevolence"
 * 良人, "good, person"
 * 良仁, "good, benevolence"
 * 喜仁, "rejoice, benevolence"
 * 慶仁, "congratulate, benevolence"
 * 佳仁, "skilled, benevolence"

The name can also be written in hiragana よしひと or katakana ヨシヒト.

Notable people with the name

 * Emperor Taishō, previously known as Prince Yoshihito (嘉仁, 1879–1926)
 * Yoshihito, Prince Katsura (宜仁, 1948–2014), previously known as Prince Yoshihito of Mikasa, grandson of Emperor Taishō
 * Yoshihito Onda (恩田 快人, born 1963), bassist and founder of the 1990s pop band Judy and Mary
 * Yoshihito Fujita (藤田 祥史), Japanese footballer
 * Yoshihito Iizuka (飯塚 欣士), Japanese footballer
 * Yoshihito Ishii (石井 義人), Japanese baseball infielder
 * Yoshihito Nishioka (西岡 良仁), Japanese tennis player
 * Yoshihito Yamaji (山路 嘉人), Japanese football player
 * Yoshihito Yoshida (吉田 義人), Japanese rugby union player

title: Yoshihito (name)


text:
Juche Tower

The Juche Tower (more formally, the Tower of the Juche Idea), completed in 1982, is a monument in Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, and is named after the ideology of Juche introduced by the country's first leader, Kim Il Sung.

Background
The Juche Tower is situated on the east bank of the River Taedong, directly opposite Kim Il Sung Square on the west bank. It was built to commemorate Kim Il Sung's 70th birthday. Although his son and successor Kim Jong Il is officially credited as its designer, interviews with North Korean former officials contradict this assertion.

The architectural style of the Tower is inspired by stone pagodas of premodern Korea. The 170 m structure is a four-sided tapering 150 m spire – the tallest in granite – containing 25,550 blocks (365 × 70: one for each day of Kim Il Sung's life, excluding supplementary days for leap years), dressed in white stone with seventy dividers and capped with a 20 m-high 45-ton illuminated metal torch.

The torch on top of the tower is always lit. It is possible to ascend the tower by elevator and there are wide views over Pyongyang from the viewing platform just below the torch.

At its base, there are reception rooms where videos explaining the tower's ideological importance are sometimes shown. The Juche Tower is the second tallest monumental column in the world after the San Jacinto Monument in Texas, United States, which is 2.9 m taller.

Associated with the tower is a 30 m statue consisting of three idealised figures each holding a tool – a hammer (the worker); a sickle (the peasant); and a writing brush (the "working intellectual") – in a classic Stalinistic-style reminiscent of the Soviet statue Worker and Kolkhoz Woman. The three tools form the emblem of the ruling Workers' Party of Korea. There are also six smaller groups of figures, each 10 m high, that symbolize other aspects of Juche ideology.

A wall carrying 82 friendship plaques from foreign supporters and Juche study groups forms part of the Tower.

title: Juche Tower