104 SUNG JIN PARK when they mention their royal ancestry 22. Only a small inscription found in Istanbul informs us that Sargon was a son of Tiglath-pileser III 23. It is very intriguing, however, why he made such an important statement in this short inscription. The scanty textual evidence indicates that Sargon might be the son of Tiglath-pileser III, but it is most likely that he was not the legitimate heir to the Assyrian throne like Shalmaneser V. Furthermore, it is beyond any shadow of doubt that Sargon was able to ascend the throne shortly after the death of Shalmaneser. Having supposed that Shalmaneser died right after the conquest of Samaria in the autumn of 722 BCE, Sargon could take over the kingship within a few months since he ascen- ded the throne on the twelfth day of the month Tebet (December) in 722 BCE according to the Babylonian Chronicle. This kind of swift accession would have been normally impossible unless Sargon was already recognized as the successor; otherwise, he must have made an insurrection against Shalmane- ser. The latter is very likely for two reasons. The first reason is Sargon’s an- tagonistic propaganda against his predecessor from the Assur Charter. This sort of political propaganda usually occurs in times of usurpation because a usurper had to give political reasons to justify the legitimacy of his kingship. Second, the rebellion of “6,300 guilty Assyrian soldiers” opposing Sargon II implies the illegitimate ascent of Sargon and opens the possibility that there was a more legitimate heir (who needed to be protected) than Sargon to Shal- maneser V. Furthermore, according to the Babylonian King List, the names of Tiglath-pileser III and his son Shalmaneser V were recorded in the same dynasty, whereas Sargon II belonged to another dynasty 24. In summary, the exemption from corvée service in Assur is most likely due to Sargon’s political propaganda, justifying his illegitimate ascent to the Assyrian throne and pacifying the citizens of Assur through the re- storation of the privileges. After the conquest of Samaria, Sargon usurped the throne from Shalmaneser by using his military power, probably with the aid of the priest group in the cities of Assur and Harran . IV. Historical Reconstruction of the Fall of Samaria By means of the above discussion, it has been determined that it is most likely that the conquest of Samaria by Sargon II happened only once, under the reign of Shalmaneser V in 722 BCE. Shalmaneser V recognized 22 H. TADMOR, “History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions”, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and His- torical Analysis (ed. F.M. FALES) (Rome 1981) 25. 23 E. UNGER, AfO 9 (1933-34) 79. 24 H. TADMOR, “History and Ideology”, 27. 25 OLMSTEAD, Western Asia, 31-35; READE, “Sargon’s Campaigns”, 100-102.