Nebuchednezzar I as the ‘Babylonian Face’ of Sargon II/Sennacherib
by
Damien F. Mackey
What follows
here presupposes my view that Sargon II and Sennacherib ‘were’ one and the same
royal person, as explained in (for example) my:
Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib
and in:
Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap
Now I am going to take a stage
further, into the realm of Babylon, my expansion of the mighty Sargon II, by proposing
also that Nebuchednezzar I himself, who had a famous battle with the Elamites
outside Dêr, is to be recognised as the Babylonian version of Sargon II/
Sennacherib, who indeed fought with the Elamites outside Dêr.
The neo-Assyrian king had
succeeded Merodach-baladan as king of Babylon in his 13th year, and had reigned
there for about a decade, placing now one governor, now another, over the city.
But Merodach-baladan himself had had a lengthy reign in Babylon before finally being
overthrown by the Assyrian king. What therefore complicates a reconstruction of
so-called ‘post-Kassite Babylonia’ - apart from a serious dearth of material as
noted by J. Brinkman, in A Political
History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. 1158-722 B.C. (Roma, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968), who continuously
laments this fact, “fragmentary inscriptions” (p. 88), “veiled in obscurity” (p.
89), “relatively obscure” (p. 90), “quite uncertain” (p. 92), and so on - a dearth due, I think, to the failure to connect it
with its C8th BC ‘other face’ - is this tricky Babylonian succession, with, now
Sennacherib, now the Chaldean king, Merodach-baladan, ruling there; then Sennacherib
ruling again; and now placing a son or other official in charge.
And also having to cope with
the constant Elamite interference in the region.
Whilst one can basically follow
this complex series of successions in Babylon in the well-documented C8th BC
context, it becomes extremely difficult in the fragmentary ‘other half’ C12th
BC context.
But let us try to make some
inroads.
Art,
Architecture and Other Overlaps
Revisionist scholars have
argued for an overlap of the art and architecture of both (supposedly)
historical periods in question here – but eras that I am suggesting need to be
fused into one. The likes of professor Lewis M. Greenberg (“The Lion Gate at
Mycenae”, Pensée, IVR III, 1973, p.
28); Peter James (Centuries of Darkness,
p. 273); Emmet Sweeney (Ramessides, Medes
and Persians, p. 24), and others, have all come to light with art-historical
observations of striking likenesses between art works of the 13th-12th
centuries BC, on the one hand, and the 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture,
on the other.
I, in my postgraduate
university thesis,
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
quoting P. James, wrote as
follows about this art-historical overlap (Volume 1, Ch. 7, p. 181):
I should like to recall that my revision of this actual
period of Mesopotamian history may have some degree of art-historical support; for,
as already noted in Chapter 3 (p. 81), James claims to have found
artistic likenesses between the C13th-12th’s BC and the neo-Assyrian period –
though admittedly the data is scarce [Centuries
of Darkness, p. 273]: ….
Developments in art are also difficult to trace. Not
only is there a dearth of material, but styles on either side of the gulf
between the 12th and 10th centuries BC are curiously similar. One scholar noted
that the forms and decoration of the intricately carved Assyrian seals of the
12th century are ‘clearly late’, as they ‘point the way to the ornate figures
which line the walls of the Neo-Assyrian palace of Assurnasirpal [mid-9th
century BC]’. The sculptors employed by this king, in the words of another
expert on Assyrian art, ‘worked within a tradition that went back to the thirteenth
century BC’. Not surprisingly, then, the dating of the few sculptures which
might belong to this grey period has been hotly debated.
[End
of quote]
Nebuchednezzar I and his
Contemporaries
------------------------------------------------------
And so
lacking in this virtue [of modesty] was Sargon II, in fact, that historians
have had to create a complete Babylonian king, namely, Nebuchednezzar I, to
accommodate the Assyrian's rôle as ‘King of Babylon’.
------------------------------------------------------
For the C12th BC period the next substantial ruler of
Babylon after Nebuchednezzar I - and not connected to the latter’s dynasty -
was one Adad-apla-iddina (c. 1067-1046 BC, conventional dating). Now
Adad-apla-iddina, a non-native Babylonian it is said, appears to make a very
good alter ego for the Chaldean,
Merodach-baladan (i.e. Marduk-apla-iddina). The origins of Merodach-baladan may
well have been with the incursion into Babylonia of semi-nomadic groups
(Aramaeans, Chaldeans) consequent to the sacking of Babylon by Tiglath-pileser
I. I have already identified the latter with Tiglath-pileser III, during the
final part of whose reign Merodach-baladan II first appears on the Babylonian
scene. See e.g. my:
Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria
Brinkman tells the story of the
nomadic incursions into the region (op.
cit., p. 92):
At this point [i.e. Tiglath-pileser I's destruction of
Babylon], semi-nomads from the middle Euphrates region interrupted the internal
flow of Assyro-Babylonian history. Crop failures and famine in at least two
separate years debilitated the inhabitants of the cultivated areas in Assyria
and Babylonia; and the Arameans, unable to obtain food through regular
channels, spilled into the civilized lands in search of food and plunder. The
Assyrians in large numbers retired towards the mountains, and Tiglath-pileser
himself seems to have beaten a strategic retreat to a region in the
neighbourhood of the later Commagene.
[End of quote]
Soon the throne of Babylon
passed to one of these newcomers [loc.
cit.]:
… Adad-apla-iddina, whom later Babylonian tradition
linked with one of these semi-nomad groups. During his reign, the Arameans and
Sutians living along the Euphrates irrupted into the land, devastating cult
centers in Sippar, Nippur, Uruk, Der, and Dur-Kurigalzu and perhaps fomenting
trouble in Babylon itself. Relations between the Assyrian and Babylonian kings
remained friendly for the most part during this period of changing regimes in
the south. Though Assyria may have assisted Adad-apla-iddina in gaining the
throne, he paid the northern country back by later interfering in the Assyrian
royal succession.
[End of quote]
This account by Brinkman could
perhaps also be a plausible explanation of how Merodach-baladan had come to
power in Babylon, with the assistance of the Assyrians (hence perhaps the Adad
element included in his name). And his having Assyrian support might account,
too, for how he managed to survive for so long. Though, all the time he
apparently had his own agenda that would eventually bring about his ruin at the
hands of his benefactors.
Merodach-baladan appears to have
been a classic example of Isaiah’s ‘cunning, crooked serpent that was Babylon’
(27:1).
As for Nebuchednezzar I, he, as
we shall see, makes a very good Babylonian version of Sargon II/Sennacherib.
The major problem with this last suggestion, though, would be that his father
is thought to have been, as Brinkman tells, one Ninurta-nadin-shumi [op. cit., p. 99], whose name does not
bear any resemblance at all to that of the father of Sargon II/ Sennacherib. A
possible explanation, given the dearth of genealogical material for this same Ninurta-nadin-shumi
as attested by Brinkman [op. cit., p.
98], is that Ninurta-nadin-shumi may actually have been the like-named (but
with Assyrian theophoric) Ashur-nadin-shumi, son of Sennacherib, whose name
actually precedes Sennacherib’s in a second phase of the latter’s as ruler of
Babylon, as given in the Xth Babylonian Dynasty list [See C. Boutflower’s The Book of Isaiah. Chapters [1-XXXIX],
London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1930, p. 101].
I have, in a most recent
re-assessment of “Holofernes”, the anti-hero of the Book of Judith, identified
him with this same Ashur-nadin-shumi (and with “Nadin” of the Book of Tobit):
“Nadin went into everlasting darkness”
Much of king Nebuchednezzar
I’s own history is recorded in Sumerian, about which culture the highly
adventurous professor G. Heinsohn {whom I would not normally recommend}, in his “The Restoration of Ancient History” (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html),
makes the following intriguing connection with
Chaldean:
Though the ancient Greeks freely admitted that their
science teachers were Chaldaeans (from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia), they
never gave any hint that they trailed their inspirers by one-and-a-half
millennia. They rather gave the impression that Chaldaean knowledge was
obtainable by travelling Greek students. Today, we are taught that there were
no Chaldaean teachers to speak of. This supposedly most learned nation of
mankind, did not leave us bricks or potsherds, not to mention written
treatises.
.... Nevertheless, researchers before 1868 - when Jules Oppert created the term Sumerian - had called proto-Chaldaean that today is called Sumerian. Up to the end of the 19th century, art historians labeled as Chaldaean artifacts which today are called Sumerian artifacts. At the turn of the century, major European museums underwent a relabeling procedure from Chaldaean to Sumerian on their exhibition pieces from Southern Mesopotamia.
.... Nevertheless, researchers before 1868 - when Jules Oppert created the term Sumerian - had called proto-Chaldaean that today is called Sumerian. Up to the end of the 19th century, art historians labeled as Chaldaean artifacts which today are called Sumerian artifacts. At the turn of the century, major European museums underwent a relabeling procedure from Chaldaean to Sumerian on their exhibition pieces from Southern Mesopotamia.
[End of quote]
Whilst I am far from accepting
most of Heinsohn’s radical model of revision, I do find rather interesting what
E. Sweeney has written in support of the former’s Sumero-Chaldean link (“Gunnar
Heinsohn’s Mesopotamian Historiography”, SIS
Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, No. 2 [UK, 1987], pp. 20-21):
The Chaldaeans, according to Assyrian sources from the
first millennium, occupied 900 cities, 88 of which were walled. Many of these
were presumably located in Lower Mesopotamia, where the Assyrians regularly
located the Kaldu, yet of the 900 cities not a trace, not a single brick, or
inscription, has been discovered.
On the other hand, a whole civilisation (Sumerian),
unknown to the ancients, but which left an abundance of records and remains,
has been discovered in exactly the same area.
.... Concomitant with the loss of the Chaldaean cities was the loss of the Chaldaean language. Yet against this painful loss was the great gain of the Sumerian tongue, previously unknown. Archaeology seems basically to lean in the direction of this identification, in that the old ‘Sumerian’ remains of the Ur III dynasty are frequently found directly underneath the remains of the later Babylonian kings.
.... Concomitant with the loss of the Chaldaean cities was the loss of the Chaldaean language. Yet against this painful loss was the great gain of the Sumerian tongue, previously unknown. Archaeology seems basically to lean in the direction of this identification, in that the old ‘Sumerian’ remains of the Ur III dynasty are frequently found directly underneath the remains of the later Babylonian kings.
This, Heinsohn's explanation, appears to have solved
the age-old Sumerian problem.
[End of quote]
The
Elamite/Shutrukids
In 1985, Lester Mitcham had attempted to identify the point of fold in the Assyrian King List [AKL], necessary for accommodating the downward revision of ancient history. (“A New Interpretation of the Assyrian King List”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of C and AH, pp. 51-56). He looked to bridge a gap of 170 years by bringing the formerly C12th BC Assyrian king, Ninurta-apil-Ekur, to within closer range of his known C14th BC ancestor, Eriba-Adad I.
In the same publication, Dean Hickman had argued even more radically for a lowering, by virtually a millennium, of formerly C19th BC king Shamsi-Adad I, now to be recognised as the biblical king, Hadadezer, a Syrian foe of king David of Israel. (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, pp. 13-28). And I myself have accepted this adjustment in:
Hammurabi the Great King of Babylon was King Solomon
Prior to all that, Dr. Immanuel
Velikovsky had of course urged for a folding of the C14th BC Kassite king {and
el-Amarna correspondent}, Burnaburiash II, with the C9th BC Assyrian king,
Shalmaneser III, who had conquered Babylon. (Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, 1952).
And there have been other
attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history and chronology; for
example, Phillip Clapham’s attempt to identify the C13th Assyrian king,
Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib. (“Hittites and Phrygians”,
C and AH, Vol. IV, pt. 2, July, 1982,
p. 111). Clapham soon realised that, despite some initially promising
similarities, these two kings could not realistically be merged. (ibid., Addenda, p. 113). Whilst all of
these attempts have some merit, other efforts were doomed right from the start
because they infringed against established archaeological sequences. Thus
Mitcham, again, exposed Sweeney’s defence of Professor Heinsohn’s radical
revision, because of its blatant disregard, in part, for archaeological fact.
(“Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced”, C and CW, 1988, 1, pp. 7-12).
Here I want briefly to propose
what I think can be a most compelling fold; one that
(a) does not infringe against archaeology, and that
(b) harmonises approximately with previous
art-historical observations of likenesses between 13th-12th centuries BC and
9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture. And it also has the advantage -
unlike Mitcham’s and Clapham’s efforts - of
(c) folding kings with the same name.
I begin by connecting Merodach-baladan I and II (also equated by Heinsohn - as noted by Mitcham, op. cit.), each of 12-13 years of reign, about whose kudurrus Brinkman remarked (op. cit., p. 87, footnote 456):
Four kudurrus ..., taken together with evidence of his
building activity in Borsippa ... show Merodach-baladan I still master in his
own domain. The bricks recording the building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk
..., assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum’s A Guide to the
Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities ... cannot now be readily located in the
Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks
belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 ...).
[End of quote]
My proposal here involves a C12th to C8th BC fold.
But, more strikingly, I draw attention to the
succession of Shutrukid rulers of Elam of the era of Merodach-baladan I who can
be equated, as a full succession, with those of the era of Merodach-baladan II.
Compare:
|
C12th BC
|
C8th BC
|
|
Shutruk-Nahhunte
|
Shutur-Nakhkhunte
|
|
|
|
|
Kudur-Nahhunte
|
Kutir-Nakhkhunte
|
|
|
|
|
Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak)
|
‘Hallushu’ (or Halutush-Inshushinak).
|
This is already too striking, I think, to be accidental.
And it, coupled with the Merodach-baladan pairing, may
offer far more obvious promise than have previous efforts of revision.
There is also lurking within close range a powerful
king Tiglath-pileser, variously I and III.
Apart from the approximate
synchronisms with the Elamite Shutrukids, as tabulated above, we find too that
Nebuchednezzar I’s reign length of 22 years conforms rather well to the
standard estimate of Sennacherib’s total period of rule of approximately 21-24
years. This new scenario also puts a completely new slant on Sargon II/Sennacherib’s
presumed ‘modesty’ in not taking the title of ‘King of Babylon’ as had
Tiglath-pileser III, preferring to use the older shakkanaku (‘viceroy’). That modesty was not however an Assyrian
characteristic we have already seen abundantly. And so lacking in this virtue
was Sargon II, in fact, that historians have had to create a complete
Babylonian king, namely, Nebuchednezzar I, to accommodate the Assyrian's rôle
as ‘King of Babylon’.
Nebuchednezzar, like
Sennacherib, had successful and unsuccessful campaigns against Elam, on one
occasion striking deep into the Elamite heartland (Cf. Brinkman, op. cit., p. 106 and G. Roux, Iraq,
pp. 321-322).
‘Their’
restoration work in Babylonia may perhaps be compared. We know that
Nebuchednezzar, in Babylon, constructed a shrine for the god Adad (an Assyrian
god, note), “another of his divine patrons in war”; and he restored a statue of
the god Marduk to his temple. In Nippur, he restored the famous Ekur temple;
and, at Ur, he gave to a temple ‘precious gold’ and ‘two bowls of red gold’ (Brinkman, op. cit., p. 113). Sargon II simply
records, without specific details (D. Luckenbill, Ancient
Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. 2, NY, #182): “I undertook the (re)habilitation of Sippar, Nippur,
Babylon and Borsippa, … and remitted the taskwork of Dêr, Ur, Uruk, Eridu,
Larsa …”.
One indication that I may be on
the right track in attempting to merge the C12th BC king of Babylon,
Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sennacherib (= Sargon II),
is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was
to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that
this is one and the same vizier. I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to
the following celebrated vizier (Brinkman, op. cit., pp.
114-115):
… during these years in Babylonia a notable literary
revival took place …. It is likely that this burst of creative activity sprang
from the desire to glorify fittingly the spectacular achievements of
Nebuchednezzar I and to enshrine his memorable deeds in lasting words. These
same deeds were also to provide inspiration for later poets who sang the
glories of the era …. The scribes of Nebuchednezzar’s day, reasonably competent
in both Akkadian and Sumerian…, produced works of an astonishing vigor, even
though these may have lacked the polish of a more sophisticated society. The
name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or "royal secretary" during the
reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one
thousand years - as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.)….
To which Brinkman adds the
footnote (ibid., n. 641): “Note … that
Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu also under Adad-apla-iddina and, therefore,
his career extended over at least thirty-five years”.
Even better known is Ahikar (var. Akhiqar), a
character both of legend and of real history. Regarding his popularity, we read
(The Jerome Biblical Commentary, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968, 28:28):
The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in
the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and
has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian,
Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic,
found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered at the
beginning of the 20th cent. on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked
its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church
Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the Old Testament itself.
[End of quote]
There are various fabulous
legends about Ahikar and his association with Sennacherib. For instance, the
latter supposedly commissioned Ahikar to build a castle in the sky. More
realistically though, according to his uncle, Tobit: “Ahikar had been chief
cupbearer, keeper of the signet, administrator and treasurer under Sennacherib”
and was kept in office after Sennacherib’s death. At some point in time Ahikar
seems to have been promoted to Vizier (Ummânu), second in power in the
mighty kingdom of Assyria, “Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kingdom and
given the main ordering of affairs” (Tobit 1:21, 22).
Ahikar was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh,
during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign when Jerusalem was besieged (2
Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2). His title (Assyrian rab-šakê) means,
literally, ‘the great man’. It was a military title, marking its bearer amongst
the greatest of all the officers.
Tobit tells us that Ahikar
(also given in the Vulgate of Tobit as Achior, "son of light")
was the son of his brother Anael (Tobit 1:21). Ahikar was therefore Tobit's
nephew of the tribe of Naphtali, taken into captivity by the Assyrian king, "Shalmaneser",
father of Sennacherib.
He is the Achior of the
Book of Judith. For more on this, see my series:
Ahikar Part One: As a Young Officer
for Assyria
and
Ahikar Part Two: As a Convert to Yahwism
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, whilst incorrectly suggesting that: “There does
not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [of Judith]
and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story”, confirms however that the
name Achior can be the same as Ahikar (“Ahikar”, NCE, Vol. VIII, p. 222):
A certain Achior is mentioned in four passages of the
Book of Tobit. He is presented as chief administrator and royal adviser (“keeper
of the seal”) under Esarhaddon and is claimed as Tobit’s nephew (1:21-22) and
friend (2:10).
.... In view of these striking similarities there can
be little doubt that this Achior is to be identified with Ahikar of the Aramaic
Story. Moreover, the spelling of the name in the Greek text [Axi{‹}karoû]
eliminates any difficulty on that score.
[End of quote]
In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
article “Ahikar”, Abingdon Press, N.Y., p. 69, E. Kraelin notes the name
similarity, but is likewise reluctant to identify the two.
The name Achior - and
hence the very person under discussion - may also have belonged to the governor
of Babylon during the reign of Merodach-baladan (whom I have identified as
Adad-apla-iddina and whom, as we saw, was served by the famous vizier,
Esagil-kini-ubba). This governor was called Bel-akhi-erba in which
compound the name Achior, or Akhior, can easily be discerned
(Bel-AKHI-ERba = AKHIOR), especially with the removal of the
pagan theophoric, Bel. A relief on the Merodach-baladan Stone depicts the
latter making a grant of land to this Bel-akhi-erba, governor of Babylon.
All added up,
this Nebuchednezzar I, the Assyrian conqueror of Babylon, makes a compelling ‘Nebuchadnezzar
the Assyrian’ of the Book of Judith, showing the latter drama to be correct in
its most controversial detail: an Assyrian king with a Babylonian name. And his
vizier squares very well with Achior.
Chaldea, a cunning, 'crooked
serpent' diplomatically, has also been a tortuous riddle for historians to try
to unravel.
Comments