Might Dr. Velikovsky have been right after all about Hattusilis?
by
Damien F. Mackey
Dr. Velikovsky had the rare ability of arriving at a right conclusion,
of hitting the bullseye whilst others, perhaps more methodical, more analytical,
but less synthetically able, and certainly far more boring, were managing
to strike only the outer targets.
Even as one ticks off a new alter ego for King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ it seems that yet another candidate must needs spring to our attention.
The new field of productivity - one that Dr. Velikovsky, though, had already cultivated about forty years ago, with Ramses II and His Time (1978) - is the kingdom of the mighty Hittites. Not only did I find “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” symptoms in emperor Mursilis (so-called II), Velikovsky’s Nabopolassar:
having written there, e.g.:
“Most interestingly now, I find, from re-reading Velikovsky (and others) on this subject,
that Mursilis, too - {and Nabopolassar} - had suffered a shocking Nebuchednezzar-like illness”.
but, more recently, it appeared that the supposed son of this Mursilis, Hattusilis (so-called III), had the same sorts of symptoms:
“Nebuchednezzar Syndrome”: dreams illness-madness Egyptophobia. Part Six: Illness of Emperor Hattusilis
“Here, in this description of the emperor’s [Hattusilis’s] dire illness, we can discern various likenesses to the case of King Nebuchednezzar’s sickness as recounted in the Book of Daniel chapter 4:
extremely poor health at an early stage; a dream interpreted; promise of return to health; divine terms to be fulfilled” .
That, on its own, has set me in the direction of thinking that Velikovsky may have been right on the mark in his identifying of Hattusilis, a known contemporary of Ramses II ‘the Great’, with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’.
This will be taken up again as this article progresses.
Dr. Velikovsky had the rare ability of arriving at - in the midst of a confusing mix of history - a right conclusion, of hitting the bullseye whilst others, perhaps more methodical, more analytical, but less synthetically able, and certainly far more boring, were managing to strike only the outer targets.
The Autobiography of Hattusilis, from which Velikovsky derived much of his material in Ramses II and His Time, seems to settle an obscure part of the neo-Babylonian succession that I had previously mis-read.
- Dynasty XI (or Neo-Babylonian)
- Nabu-apla-usur 626–605 BC
- Nabu-kudurri-usur II 605–562 BC
- Amel-Marduk 562–560 BC
- Neriglissar 560–556 BC
- Labaši- Marduk 556 BC
- Nabonidus 556–539 BC
I had collapsed a lot of this to:
- Nabopolassar = Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus
Amel Marduk = Neriglissar = Labash Marduk = “Belshazzar”
just two kings.
But
- it becomes apparent from Velikovsky’s book that Neriglissar (Nergil) was the brother of Hattusilis (our Nebuchednezzar) and that Labash (Marduk) was Nirgil’s son.
“King Nabonidus wrote: “When the days were fulfilled, and he [Nergilissar] met his fate, Labash-Marduk, his young son, who did not understand how to
rule, sat on the throne, against the will of the gods”.”
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky
This scenario, we shall find (I believe), is well re-visited in the case of the Great King, Ashurbanipal (my Nebuchednezzar), who rules Assyria whilst his older brother is ruling Babylonia.
Situation of Hattusilis like that of Ashurbanipal
“An Assyrian noble who apparently was aware of the situation existing between
the two princes, made it clear to his overlord, their father, that the settlement
of the succession in this manner is no kindness to Assyria”.
Sami S. Ahmed
The arrangement between Nergil and his younger brother, Hattusilis, reminds me greatly of that between Shamash-shum-ukin and his younger brother, Ashurbanipal.
According to the conventional opinion of how the situation came about (with all due allowance for the conventional wrong dates, wrong succession, and somewhat wrong scenario):
The succession to the Assyrian throne, as settled by Esarhaddon, (680—669 B. C.), no doubt displeased Shamash-shum-ukin. Despite the; fact that he was the eldest, his younger brother, Ashurbanipal acquired the lion's share and was appointed as heir for the Assyrian monarchy. Although Shamash-shum-ukin was assigned for the kingship of Babylonia, his realm was to be under the jurisdiction of his, brother. Evidence is quite meager of the relationship between the two brothers during the lifetime of their father. However, enough data are preserved to show that it was not so good. An Assyrian noble who apparently was aware of the situation existing between the two princes, made it clear to his overlord, their father, that the settlement of the succession in this manner is no kindness to Assyria1.
Esarhaddon died while on his way to Egypt [sic] in 669 B. C. and Ashurbanipal assumed the responsibilities immediately. However, it was not until the New Year festival 668—667 B. C. that he "appointed" Shamash-shum-ukin to the Babylonian throne and the latter held the hands of Marduk at Ashur. Thus began the first ruling year »of Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin as joint brothers. ….
[End of quote]
{That section was taken from “Causes of Shamash-shum-ukin's uprising, 652—651 B. C”.
By Sami S. Ahmed}
The real situation was, I think - and the Autobiography of Hattusilis will make this clearer - somewhat different from Sami Ahmed’s explanation.
The reason why the older brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, was not given by his father (who was not Esarhaddon, incidentally) what Ahmed calls “the lion's share … the Assyrian monarchy”, was because he himself had an older brother, Sin-iddina-apla, who had been the Crown Prince.
The latter, who died an untimely death, must have been the same as the Ashur-nadin-shumi, my “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith (and the “Nadin” of the Book of Tobit), who had indeed died an untimely death. See e.g. my article:
"Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith
This meant that, whilst Shamash-shum-ukin continued to remain ensconced in his rulership over Babylonia, the young brother Ashurbanipal, who had never expected to reign, now seamlessly succeeded Sin-iddina-apla as ruler of Assyria.
By no means did Ashurbanipal ever actually appoint Shamash-shum-ukin, despite whatever the former’s propaganda may later have claimed.
This situation finds its partner in Hattusilis’s being appointed to rule the kingdom of Assyria and the Hittite lands, whilst his older brother ruled over Babylonia.
It also explains how Nebuchednezzar, my alter ego of Ashurbanipal (and Esarhaddon), could have ruled Assyria, as Ashurbanipal assuredly did, when Assyria is supposed to have been destroyed as a power some years before the reign of Nebuchednezzar had even begun.
In both the Nebuchednezzar scenario, and the (same?) Hattusilis scenario, Assyria is still a great world power.
It is quite clear in the Hittite account of the dual kingship arrangement that the older brother, “Nirgal”, held the reins (taken from Velikovsky’s Ramses II and His Time):
Autobiography sec. 5 When my brother Nirgal obtained his insight of the matter, he gave me not the slightest punishment, and he took me again into his favor, and gave into my hands the army and the chariotry of the Hath Land.
Other passages of relevance for this article arising from this ancient document (as recalled by Velikovsky) are these:
Chapter 5
The Autobiography of Nebuchadnezzar
Climbing the Throne
….
Autobiography sec. 4 My brother Nir-gal [Nergil] sat on the throne of his father, and I became before his face the commander of the army. ... My brother ... let me preside over the Upper Land, and I put the Upper Land under my rule.
The Upper Land was apparently either Assyria or some part of Anatolia; the Lower Land was Babylonia.
While still a lad, he led his troops against the enemies who invaded the country.
….
Various districts rebelled against the Chaldean yoke and the lad on the Assyrian throne.
Autobiography sec.6 All the lands of Gasgas, Pishukus, Ishupittas did rebel and took the strongholds. And the foe went over the river Massandas and pressed into the country.
In this chapter of the autobiography of Hattusilis again may be found some three or four allusions to events and circumstances described in the texts concerning Nebuchadnezzar. Berosus wrote in his lost History of Chaldea, in a passage preserved verbatim by Josephus Flavius, that the king of Babylonia, on hearing of the defection of the provinces, “committed part of his army” to Nebuchadnezzar
... still in the prime of life, and sent him against the rebel Nebuchadnezzar
engaged and defeated the latter in a pitched battle, and placed the district under Babylonian rule.-
In the first series of wars Nebuchadnezzar headed the army, although he was not king; in this, we see, Berosus was correct.
For a chief of the army he was very young: this detail also is true. He subdued the rebellious provinces, and here again Berosus was correct. But in one detail Berosus and other later
sources were wrong, and it is possible to check and correct it now, after
more than two thousand years.
It concerns the question of who sent Nebuchadnezzar against the rebels, his father or his brother.
The matter of succession received special attention in a previous section. The event itself - the revolt of the provinces and its suppression - is truly depicted by Berosus, and is repeated at length in the autobiography:
The Gasgas Lands rebelled. ... My brother Nirgal sent me, giving me but a small number of troops and charioteers. ... I met the foe ... and gave him battle. And Ishtar, my Lady, helped me, and I smote him ... And this was the first act in the prime of manhood.
Both Hattusilis’ autobiography and Berosus’ writing about Nebuchadnezzar stress the extreme youth of the commander of the army. As soon as the youth was made governor of the Upper Land, even before he had earned his laurels in his first encounter with rebels, he met opposition in the person of the former ruler of that province.
Autobiography sec. 4 Before me it was governed by Sin-Uas, the son of Zidas. ... And Sin-Uas, the son of Zidas ... wished me evil. ... And accusations became loud against me. And my brother Nirgal set action against me. Ishtar, my Lady, appeared in a dream: “I shall trust thy care to a god. Be not
afraid.” And thanks to the Divinity I justified myself.
The proceeding in which Hattusilis was apparently charged with plotting to seize the throne marked a painful period in the life of the youth. But sufficient evidence was not produced, and the king ignored the admonitions of his father’s adviser.
Autobiography sec. 5 When my brother Nirgal obtained his insight of the matter, he gave me not the slightest punishment, and he took me again into his favor, and gave into my hands the army and the chariotry of the Hath Land.
From the building inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar (Inscription XVII) we know that he used this term for the land under his rule west of the Euphrates: “the princes of the Hath land beyond the Euphrates to the west, over whom I exercised lordship.”
Then came the time of his great and victorious battles. He was raised from governor of the Upper Land (either Assyria or a part of Anatolia) to king. The king of the Upper Land was subordinate to the Great King of Hath, but it was the second most important position in the empire. ….
If Nebuchednezzar really was Hattusilis, then Dr. Velikovsky could not err in identifying the (or at least a) contemporary pharaoh as Ramses II, who was indeed a known contemporary of emperor Hattusilis.
But whether Velikovsky was also right in identifying Ramses II of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty as a Twenty-Sixth Dynasty pharaoh is a matter that requires further investigation.
Comments