|
|
Too spectacular I think to be mere coincidence! These peculiar circumstances between the C12th BC and the C8th BC could hardly be duplicated in such detail after a period of about four hundred years.
Having established this reasonably solid base around king Merodach-baladan, we can now use the better documented C8th BC to help sort out the more fragmentary C12th BC so-called.
Assyro-Babylonian Connections
With Merodach-baladan now recognised as both a Kassite (Chaldean) and a contemporary of the early Second Isin Dynasty, he is to be brought squarely into range with the great 'middle' Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser I (1115-1077 BC, conventional), who dominates this era. We saw in a previous discussion of Assyrian history that Tiglath-pileser I stands out amidst a most poorly documented age of so-called 'Middle Assyrian' history that James has called a 'Dark Age'. I suspect the reason for this is that the documents for this period are actually to be found in neo-Assyrian history. That Tiglath-pileser [I], son of Ashur-resh-ishi, grandson of Ashur-dan is none other than Tiglath-pileser [III], son of Ashur-nirari (var. Adad-nirari), grandson of Ashur-dan, contemporary of both Merodach-baladan II - whom he encountered before the latter had progressed to ruler of Babylon - and of Hezekiah.
Assyria even had, for Tiglath-pileser I, the very same enemies as for Tiglath-pileser III: namely, Aramaeans, Nairi and Urartians. Tiglath-pileser I's renowned exploits against the Phrygians, too, seem far more appropriate in a neo-Assyrian context. Unfortunately the reign of Tiglath-pileser III cannot be perfectly reconstructed. Whereas we have detailed and methodical records from Sargon/Sennacherib, much of Tiglath-pileser III's reign was later vandalised by Sennacherib's son, Esarhaddon. Thus C. Archer writes [12]:
The domination of military affairs in the reign of Tiglath-pileser left little time for building. Little remains of the palace that Tiglath-pileser built for himself at Nimrud, for it was unfinished at the time of his death and left empty. A later king used the palace as a quarry for relief scenes, and because of these acts of vandalism by Esarhaddon, no official record survives for many years of Tiglath-pileser's reign.
Any interruptions to the flow of Kassite/Chaldean rulers of Babylon, most notably by Nebuchednezzar I (c.1124-1103 BC, conventional), can now be seen as Assyrian - and possibly occasional Elamite - interventions in Babylonia.
Now I am going to propose that Nebuchednezzar I himself, who had a famous battle with the Elamites outside Dêr, is to be recognised as the Babylonian version of Sargon/ Sennacherib, who fought with the Elamites outside Dêr. The Assyrian 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 also had a lengthy reign in Babylon before being finally overthrown by the Assyrian king. What therefore complicates a reconstruction of so-called 'post-Kassite Babylonia' - apart from a dearth of material [13], 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, now placing a son or other official in charge. And 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. 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).
Now Adad-apla-iddina, a non-native Babylonian, makes 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. J. Brinkman tells the story of the nomadic incursions into the region [14]:
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.
Soon the throne of Babylon passed to one of these newcomers [14]:
… 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.
This account by Brinkman could perhaps also be a plausible explanation of how Merodach-baladan might have come to power in Babylon, with the assistance of the Assyrians (hence perhaps the Adad element also in his name). And his having Assyrian support would account 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 be a classic example of the 'cunning, crooked serpent that was Babylon'.
As for Nebuchednezzar I he, as we shall see, makes a very good Babylonian version of Sargon/Sennacherib. The major problem with this last though would be that his father is thought to have been one Ninurta-nadin-shumi [15], whose name does not bear any resemblance to that of the father of Sargon/Sennacherib. A possible explanation, given the dearth of genealogical material for Ninurta-nadin-shumi [16], is that he was actually 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 [17].
The Sumerians
Much of Nebuchednezzar I's own history is recorded in Sumerian, about which Heinsohn makes the following intriguing connection with Chaldean [18]:
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.
E. Sweeney has written in support of Heinsohn [19]:
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.
This, Heinsohn's explanation, appears to have solved the age-old Sumerian problem.
Nebuchednezzar I as the 'Babylonian Face' of Sargon/Sennacherib
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 24 years. This new scenario also puts a completely new slant on Sargon/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 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 [20].
'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' [21]. Sargon simply records, without specific details [22]: "I undertook the (re)habilitation of Sippar, Nippur, Babylon and Borsippa, … and remitted the taskwork of Dêr, Ur, Uruk, Eridu, Larsa …."
The Vizier (Ummânu)
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, 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 [23]:
… 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 [24]: "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 [25]:
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.
There are various fabulous legends about Ahikar and his association with Sennacherib.
For instance, the latter commissioned him to build a castle in the sky. More realistically, 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). He was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh (hqewAb4ra) 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 (see 3. (ii)). 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 [26]:
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.
"An Assyrian tablet from the Seleucid era relates that "In the time of king Esarhaddon, Aba-enlil-dari whom the Arameans call Ahikar was ummanu (court scholar)" [27].
Perhaps Sennacherib's description of Bel-ibni, grown up in Nineveh 'like a young puppy' [28], may have been equally applicable to Ahikar, taken captive to Nineveh when very young. The talented Ahikar, rising quickly through the ranks, attained to Rabshakeh.
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.
|
|
(= l) in the name Chaldeans (xaldaÝoi) whom the Hebrews knew as Kasdim (
). I think though that this is unlikely, and that the letter change was instead one quite natural in the Assyrian language.
Crawl out of this tomb