Bringing New Order to Mesopotamian History and Chronology
by
Damien
F Mackey
Introduction
In 1985, Lester J. Mitcham had attempted
to identify the point of fold in the Assyrian King List [AKL], necessary for
accommodating the downward revision of history.[1]
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
Shamshi-Adad I, now to be recognised as the biblical king, Hadadezer, a Syrian
foe of king David of Israel.[2]
I myself have accepted this adjustment
(See B. below).
Prior to all that, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky
had 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.[3]
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.[4]
Clapham
soon decided that, despite some initially promising similarities, these two
kings could not realistically be merged.[5]
For a completely new approach to a revised
Sennacherib, see my:
Whilst all of these attempts at
Mesopotamian revision appear to have certain merit, other efforts were doomed
right from the start because they infringed against established archaeological
sequences. Thus Mitcham, again, exposed Emmet Sweeney’s defence of Professor
Gunnar Heinsohn’s most radical revision, because of its blatant disregard, in
part, for archaeological fact.[6]
I myself am proposing that:
A.
C12TH BC
FOLDS INTO C8TH BC
Here I want briefly to offer what I think
can be a most compelling fold; one that
- does not infringe against archaeology, and that
- harmonises approximately with previous art-historical observations of likenesses between 13th-12th centuries BC and 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture.[7] And it also has the advantage – unlike Mitcham’s and Clapham’s efforts – of
- folding kings with the same name.
I begin by connecting Merodach-baladan I
and II (also equated by Heinsohn[8]), each
of 12-13 years of reign, about whose kudurrus J. Brinkman remarked:[9]
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 …).
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
Shutruk-Nahhunte;
Kudur-Nahhunte; and Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak)
with
C8th BC
Shutur-Nakhkhunte;
Kutir-Nakhkhunte; and Hallushu (or Halutush-Insushinak).
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.
Common to Tiglath-pileser I/III were:
a love of building
(especially in honour of Assur) and hunting, and many conquests, for example:
the Aramaeans, with frequent raids across the Euphrates; the Hittites (with the
possibility of a common foe, Ini-Tešub); Palestine; to the Mediterranean; the
central Zagros tribes; Lake Van, Nairi and Armenia (Urartu); the conquest of
Babylon.
To name just a few of the many
similarities.
It seems to me that historians really
repeat themselves when discussing these presumably “two” Assyrian “kings”.
Consider this amazing case of repetition, as I see it, from S. Lloyd:[10]
The
earliest Assyrian references to the Mushki [Phrygians] suggest that their
eastward thrust into the Taurus and towards the Euphrates had already become a
menace. In about 1100 BC Tiglath-Pileser I defeats a coalition of “five
Mushkian kings” and brings back six thousand prisoners. In the ninth century
the Mushki are again defeated by Ashurnasirpal II, while Shalmaneser III finds
himself in conflict with Tabal …. But when, in the following century,
Tiglath-pileser III once more records a confrontation with “five Tabalian
kings”, the spelling of their names reveals the fact that these are
no sort of Phrygians [sic], but a semiindigenous Luwian-speaking people, who
must have survived the fall of the Hittite Empire.
I think that we should now be on safe
grounds in presuming that the “five Mushkian kings” and the “five Tabalian
kings” referred to above by Lloyd as having been defeated by Tiglath-pileser
I/III – but presumably separated in time by more than 3 centuries – were in fact the very same five kings.
Previously I had written (but must now
modify):
If
this revised scenario is acceptable, then it would absolutely demand that the
C10th BC’s two -decade plus ruler of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, be identified
with the neo-Assyrian king of similar reign-length, Sennacherib, conqueror of
Babylon, whom C. Jonsson claims was actually king of Babylon a year before his
becoming king of Assyria.[11]
Nebuchednezzar
was a noted devotee of the Assyrian god, Adad[12]. It
is thought that both Sargon II and Sennacherib (whom I have identified as one)
had, somewhat modestly, unlike Tiglath-pileser III, not adopted the title,
“King of Babylon”, but only shakkanaku
(“viceroy”). We well know, however, that modesty was not an Assyrian
characteristic. And so lacking in this virtue was Sargon II/Sennacherib, I
believe, that historians have had to
create a complete Babylonian king, namely, Nebuchednezzar I, to accommodate the
Assyrian’s rôle as ‘King of Babylon’.
I have since made what I think is a far
more satisfactory later connection of Nebuchednezzar I with his namesake
Nebuchednezzar II, who follows closely Sennacherib in my revised chronology.
[1] “A New Interpretation of the Assyrian King
List”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of
C&AH, pp. 51-56.
[2] “The Dating of Hammurabi”, pp. 13-28.
[4] “Hittites and Phrygians”, C&AH, Vol. IV, pt. 2, July, 1982, p.
111.
[6] “Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced”,
C&CW, 1988, 1, pp. 7-12.
[7] E.g. Lewis M. Greenberg, “The Lion Gate at
Mycenae”, Pensée, IVR III, 1973, p.
28. Peter James, Centuries of Darkness,
p. 273. E. Sweeney, Ramessides, Medes and
Persians, p. 24.
[8] As noted by Mitcham, “Support …”. Heinsohn
then goes way too far and equates Merodach-baladan with Lugalzagesi of the time
of Sargon of Akkad.
[11] “The Foundations of
Assyro-Babylonian Chronology”, C&CR,
vol. ix, 1987, p. 23, n. 24.
[12] Brinkman, op. cit., p.113.
B.
C19TH
BC FOLDS INTO C11TH BC
Now, following the lines of argument as
pioneered by Dean Hickman, evidence may favour that certain famous kings of
Mesopotamia of the c. C19th BC need to be radically re-dated and biblically
identified. Among these are:
- Shamshi Adad I, who becomes Hadadezer, the foe of King David of Israel;
- Ila-kabkabu, who becomes Rekhob, father of Hadadezer.
- Zimri Lim of Mari, who becomes King Solomon’s Syrian foe Rezon;
- Iahdunlim, who I becomes Eliada, father of Rezon.
- Yarim Lim of coastal Yamkhad, who becomes Hiram, king of Tyre.
We should recognize that the ancient
history of Mesopotamia is not yet based on a secure chronology. Typically, king
lists of Mesopotamia contain merely names with no indications as to overlapping
and time periods. Modern historians have tried to parallel their concepts of
Egyptian data with those of Mesopotamian history.
In my estimate there are a few clues which
allow for equating certain kings with those from Biblical history where they
are known under different names. What I intend to do is bring source material
together of three central figures,
Shamshi Adad I,
Zimri Lim and
Yarim Lim.
I shall use them as pillars to present a
defensible chronology which we shall elaborate on as new information comes in.
Shamshi
Adad is
conventionally dated to about 1815-1782 BC. His name is found in the so-called
‘Assyrian Kinglist’. Shamshi Adad's father was Ila-kabkabu, who was according
to all appearances an insignificant local ruler at Assur. From Shamshi Adad we
have building inscriptions written in what scholars call ‘Old Babylonian’. But
first we quote from the scriptural source since many can follow along these
verses in their own copy of this book. Hadadezer
was the foe of King David of Israel (2 Samuel 8:1-12):
"And
... David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took
`Metheg-am-mah' out of the hand of the Philistines. And he smote Moab, and
measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines
measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the
Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts. David smote also
`Hadadezer', the the son of Rekhob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his
border at the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots: and
700 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen: and David lamed (cut the heel's sinew) all
the chariot horses, but saved of them 100 chariots. But when the Syrians of
Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of Zobah, David
slew of the Syrians 22,000 men. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus:
and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts. And the Lord
preserved David wherever he went. And David took the shields of gold that were
on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. And from Betah,
and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass.
When `Toi', king of Hammath, heard that
David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, then `Toi' sent Joram his son unto
king David, to salute him, because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten
him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of
silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass: Which also king David did
dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all
nations which he had subdued; of Syria and Moab, and of all the children of
Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of
Zobah."
(2 Samuel 10:6-17 NIV): "When the Ammonites realized that they had become a
stench in David's nostrils, they hired 20,000 Aramean soldiers from Beth Rehob
and Zobah, as well as the king of Maacah with a 1,000 men, and also 12,000 men
from Tob. ... Then Joab and the troops with him advanced to fight the Arameans,
and they fled before him. ... After the Arameans saw that they had been routed
by Israel, they regrouped.
Hadadezer
had
Arameans brought from beyond the River (Euphrates); they went to Helam, with Shobach the commander of Hadadezer's
army leading them. ... When David was told of this he gathered all Israel,
crossed the Jordan and went to Helam. The Arameans formed their battle lines to
meet David and fought against him. But they fled before Israel, and David
killed 700 of their charioteers and 40,000 of their foot soldiers. He also
struck down Shobach the commander of the army, and he died there. When all the
kings who were vassals of Hadadezer saw that they had been defeated by Israel,
they made peace with Israel and became subject to them. So the Arameans were
afraid to help the Ammonites anymore".
One significant chronological anchor is
the information that Shamshi-Adad boasted that he had erected triumphal stelae
in Lebanon. He was allied with the princes of upper Syria, notably Carchemish
and Qatna. We know from Scripture that Hadadezer liked to set up victory
monuments; David defeated him "as he went to set up his monument at the
river Euphrates" (1 Chronicles 18:3). Scripture records also that the
Syrian was ruler of the kings beyond the river (2 Samuel 10:16, 19), i.e. the
Euphrates, as later records from Assyria confirm as well. Hickman thought that
"this description resembles that of Shamshi-Adad".
Some
Confused History Explained
Some writers have pointed out that the
Biblical narrative first claims that David defeated the Syrians and, two
chapters later, when David was campaigning against the Ammonites, the Syrians,
he had just defeated, (the author, being a poor scholar, actually makes a
defeat into a total wipe out), are now sending troops to help the Ammonites.
How can that be?
Well, as we learn about the Mesopotamian
kings we realize they ruled off and on over a large region and would have had no
problem in raising new armies. We learn from the scriptures that Assur was
called Zobah in Israel and Shamshi Adad's father was called Rekhob. Shamshi
Adad did seem to have controlled the three major city centres of Assur, Nineveh
and Erbil. He also set up stone stelae on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea.
We learn that he had a significant army including siege engines and many
chariots but little training to fight a war against an experienced guerrilla
warfare tactician like David. His successes against the kings of the north
ensured a period of peace which lasted into the time of Solomon. The defeat of
Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad marked the eventual weakening of the Assur of his days.
Hadadezer had another capital “Shubat-Enlil”, the ‘Residence of Enlil’, located
at the source waters of the Khabur River. The ruins of Chagar-Bazar are thought
to be that second capital where an administrative archive from the time of
Shamshi-Adad/Hadadezer was found. Shamshi/Hadadezer had two sons, Ishme-Dagan
sub-king of Ekallatum on the Tigris, and Yasmah-Adad sub-king of Mari. It
appears that Yasmah was inferior in his administrative skills to his brother as
letters from his father to him show. These letters reveal a father full of
anxiety, parental concern sometimes alternating with an ironic approach and
even humorous in some cases. Hadadezer/Shamshi was an able administrator who
kept a close eye on the affairs in his realm. He castigated officers in his
army who were unfair in dividing up the spoils of warfare. Reading the letters
we can hear the direct voices of authentic, ancient kings. His influence
reached to Carchemish and the shores of the Mediterranean. In ancient times a
kingdom was often the product of its founder and largely disappeared with him.
The person who took up where Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad left off was Rezon.
Rezon I
identify as Zimri Lim of Mari who once wrote this historically important Mari
letter: "There is no king who can be mighty alone. Behind Hammurabi, the man of
Babylon, march 10 to 15 kings; as many march behind Rim-Sin, the man of Larsa,
Ipal-piel, the man of Eshnunna, Amut-piel, the man of Qatna, and behind `Yarim
Lim', the man of Yahmad, march 20 kings."
Of the palace archives of Mari 1,600
letters have been published addressed partly to the palace at Mari or copies of
letters sent from the palace. Most of them cover the period from Yasmah Adad,
son of Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad to Rezon/Zimri Lim.
"And
God stirred up another adversary, Rezon, the son of Eliadah, who fled from his
lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: And he gathered men unto himself, and became
captain over a band, when David slew those of Zobah: and they went to Damascus,
and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. And he was an adversary to Israel
all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred
Israel, and reigned over Syria." [1 Kings 11:23-25]
"To
Zimri Lim communicate the following: ‘Thus says your brother Hammurabi [of
Yamhad]: The king of Ugarit has written to me as follows: "Show me the
palace of Zimri Lim! I wish to see it." With this same courier I am
sending on his man.'"
"This
building is not ... the gem of the Orient, rather one palace on a par with many
others."
Zimri Lim was a contemporary of king Hammurabi the author of the famous
Hammurabi Codex, Book of Laws – Solomonic Laws based on Moses, I believe. Being
a contemporary of Solomon, Zimri Lim would thus have been one of all those
"kings of the earth" who came to visit King Solomon.
Zimri Lim's multi-storied palace at Mari
with over 260 rooms is the source of one of the richest sources of written
documents anywhere in the Middle East. Famous rooms include the shrine of
Ishtar in the palace, the Court of the Palms, the King's Throne Room, the
Banquet Hall, and the Royal Apartments but later excavators (Margueron)
identified the use of the rooms quite differently from Perrot. In later times
it was Hammurabi, the former friend, who conquered Mari and burned the palace.
The palace occupied more than 6 acres which were excavated by the French
archaeologist A. Perrot in 1933. He viewed the whole complex as belonging to
Zimri Lim without considering its longer history. The wall-paintings in the
throne room were in five registers depicting scenes from myth, religion, and
secular themes. Some wall paintings of men and women represent them as wearing
long, colourful robes and headdress, others wear kilt style tunics reaching to
the knees or with split cutouts further up the thigh. No foot wear can be seen.
Two winged lions with the head of bearded man with headdress are seen as well
as a large cow behind the throne of the king. Hammurabi, besides destroying at
least parts of the palace, also reconstructed it. The literary form of the Mari letters remind us of the El Amarna letters which were written
just some 100 years later. Rulers of equal status address each other as
“brother”, “father” and “son” even if they are overlord or vassal. Subordinates
to the king call him “lord” and themselves “slaves”. From Mari also comes what
has been described as the earliest mention of Canaan - but later now, of
course, according to this revision. There we read simply: "Thieves and
Canaanites are in Rahisum. We just face each other."
For more, see my:
Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon
C.
C24TH
BC AKKAD DYNASTY
Ramifications
for Biblical Studies
What ensues from the sort of revision of
history that I am pursuing is a fairly complete turnaround of the almost
universal tendency by historians and biblical commentators to argue for a
dependence of the biblical material upon Mesopotamian, Canaanite and Egyptian
myths and influences. With Hammurabi now re-dated to the time of King Solomon,
then no longer can his Laws be viewed as a Babylonian forerunner of Mosaïc Law.
And, with the age of El Amarna now re-dated
to c. C9th BC, no longer can pharaoh Akhnaton’s Sun Hymn, so obviously like
King David’s Psalm 104, be regarded as the influence for the great King of
Israel.
The same comment applies to the Psalm like
pieces in the monuments of Queen Hatshepsut, the biblical Queen of Sheba, whose
influence was Israel. See e.g. my:
Solomon and Sheba
But, just as conventional historians have
wrongly assumed an all-out pagan influencing of biblical Israel, so had I
assumed (based on the tendency of the revision) that the Moses-like - as to
associated mythology - Sargon of Akkad, conventionally dated to c. 2300 BC,
must actually have post-dated Moses. And I had accordingly looked for a much
later, revised location for the Akkadian dynasty.
However, that apparently futile search was
finally stopped short after I had read the following scholarly article by
Douglas Petrovich:
Identifying
Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological
Means
That would mean that the Akkadian dynasty
has been dated to at least within a few centuries of its proper place. My
conclusion now would be that the famous Sargon legend (I have
taken this from: http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id3.html):
“I
am Sargon, the powerful king, the king of Akkad. My mother was an Enitu
priestees, I did not know any father . . . . My mother conceived me and bore me
in secret. She put me in a little box made of reeds, sealing its lid with
pitch. She put me in the river. . . . The river carried me away and brought me
to Akki the drawer of water. Akki the drawer of water adopted me and brought me
up as his son. . .”[,]
so like the account of Moses in Exodus 2,
but thought to have been recorded as late as about the C7th BC, was based upon
the biblical Exodus story that would have been recounted in Mesopotamian
captivity by people like Tobit and his family, and other Israelites and Jews.
So, even though Sargon of Akkad himself,
and his dynasty, well pre-dated Moses, the famous written legend about the
mighty king of Akkad well post-dated Moses.
Comments