Damien F. Mackey
What would have been an impossible connection according to Dr. I. Velikovsky’s radical reconstruction of Egypt’s New Kingdom - that El Amarna’s [EA’s] Aziru was the same person as the Aziru of the Papyrus Harris - becomes inevitable now according to my revision.
In Part One:
Dr. Velikovsky’s most impressive identification of El Amarna’s [EA’s] Aziru of Amurru as the biblical Hazael of Syria was confidently accepted.
This Aziru/Hazael I multi-identified in my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
including the following connection from my section, “Syria (Assyria) Comes to Egypt”, beginning on p. 226 of Volume One, and pre-supposing my further link, Hazael = Ay (Aye):
According to the relevant Egyptian documents, at least as I shall be interpreting them, the revolution against the Amarna régime came from outside Egypt (“from without”). It was led by Ay and Horemheb. The northern ‘Syrians’ had come to Egypt in full force. There are several historical documents that I think may recall this momentous event, wherein Ay (Hazael) is referred to by various of his many names:
(i) One is the ‘Great Papyrus Harris’ which tells of an ‘Aziru’ (var. Irsu, Arsa), thought to have been a Syrian, or perhaps a Hurrian. …. I have already followed
Velikovsky in identifying Hazael with EA’s Aziru; though Velikovsky, owing to the quirks of his revision, could not himself make the somewhat obvious (to my
mind) connection between EA’s Aziru and Aziru of the Great Papyrus Harris. ….
(ii) Another is the reference by Adad-nirari of Assyria to his ancestor Ashuruballit’s [Assuruballit’s] having subdued Egypt. I have already argued, too, that Ashuruballit was the ‘Assyrian’ face of our composite king, Hazael/Aziru.
These two cases (i) and (ii) are, according to my revision, references to the same ‘Syrian’ (Assyrian) subduer of Egypt, Ay/Hazael, who held power there as Chancellor and king maker, and finally, for a brief period, as pharaoh.
The Papyrus Harris is a most important document for the period now under consideration, the chaotic years immediately post-EA. But it is also important as an
introduction to the Ramessides, largely to be discussed in the next chapter, it being a retrospective glance back by so-called 20th dynasty Ramessides on those turbulent times. This very well-preserved papyrus, Rohl has called “the funeral scroll of Ramesses III” … the pharaoh famous for his land and sea war against the ‘Sea Peoples’, including the Philistines. It recalls an unhappy era for Egypt, followed by the overlordship there of a certain ‘Syrian’. And it commemorates Seti-nakht (Setnakhte), the father of Ramses III, who had restored order to Egypt.
Let us now consider the sequence of events as outlined in the papyrus, placing these in a revised scenario, whilst linking them to evidence from Tutankhamun’s ‘Restoration Stela’ (Karnak), which document I believe to be also recalling the same approximate era:
· The first phase recorded by the papyrus was, I suspect, the wretched era of neglect and inactivity, especially for northern Egypt, of Akhnaton’s reign, as also recalled by Tutankhamun in his ‘Restoration Stela’, subsequent to the latter’s return to Memphis. There may also be a reference here to the foreign influence (“outsiders”) of the Akhmim Mafia. I give both texts below, beginning with the Papyrus Harris (as quoted by Rohl):
The land of Egypt was overthrown from without (i.e. by outsiders), and every (Egyptian) man was denied his right. They (the people) had no leader for many years. The land of Egypt was in the hands of chieftains and of rulers of towns. Each slew his neighbour, great and small.
The name of the ‘criminal’ and ‘heretic’ Akhnaton is completely absent in Manetho’s
king list. “According to the monuments”, wrote Courville … “Akhnaton was followed by the brief reigns of Tutenkhamen [Tutankhamun], Sakere [Smenkhare] and Eye [Ay]”.
And: “Manetho does not recognize any of these successors of Akhnaton …”.
Next, I give the relevant part of Tutankhamun’s stele, describing what I believe to have been the same wretched period (or its aftermath) as referred to in the Papyrus Harris: ….
Now when his majesty (Tutankhamun) appeared (i.e. was crowned) as king, the temples of the gods and goddesses from Elephantine (Aswan) [down] to the marshes of the delta [had been neglected and] fallen into ruin. Their shrines had become desolate and had become mounds overgrown with [weeds]. Their sanctuaries were as if they had never been. Their halls were a footpath. The land was in chaos and the gods turned their backs upon this land. If [soldiers were] sent to Djahi (the Levant) to extend the frontiers of Egypt, no success whatsoever came to them. …
This document was perhaps inspired by Horemheb (e.g. Doherty calls it ‘Horemheb’s
Manifesto’); … Horemheb having carved his name on it over Tutankhamun’s name.
· The Papyrus Harris narrative continues on to the next phase, though closely connected to the first I believe, with the introduction of one ‘Aziru [the] Syrian’, or Hurrian, during those “empty years” (when the throne was considered effectively to have been vacant, or usurped). This Aziru I am convinced can only be EA’s Aziru (biblical Hazael). ….
(I have taken the liberty here of changing Rohl’s version of this person’s name, Arsa, to the equally acceptable variation of it, Aziru):
This was then followed by the empty years when [Aziru] – a certain Syrian – was with them as leader. He set the whole land tributary before him. He united his companions and plundered their (the Egyptians’) possessions. They made gods like men and no offerings were presented in the temple.
LeFlem, borrowing a phrase from Gardiner, has asked this question with reference to Aziru: … “Who was this so-called ‘Syrian condottiere’?” LeFlem’s question by now I think emphatically answers itself: he was EA’s Aziru! This was the foreign takeover of Egypt, an action of the Sinai commission, to depose the irresponsible Akhnaton and his régime and to re-establish ma'at (order, status quo). Though Aziru’s involvement was not necessarily so highly regarded by later Ramessides. Velikovsky has discussed the change of situation and its aftermath as follows, again with reference to ‘the Oedipus cycle’: ….
Whereas Akhnaton when on the throne assumed the appellation ‘Who liveth in truth’, Ay, upon becoming king, applied to himself the cognomen, ‘Who is doing right’. Such titles were rather unusual among the kings of Egypt. Yet one can understand Ay’s selecting this motto. Like Creon of the Oedipus cycle, Ay professed to be doing his duty to the crown and the nation by deposing Akhnaton, installing Akhnaton’s sons, and then siding with the younger son in the brothers’ conflict.
….
Rohl will, in his explanation of the name Arsa, by which he designates the ‘Syrian’ Aziru, even come to the conclusion - interesting in my context - that this name can be rendered as ‘Asa-el’, which is equivalent to Hazael; though Rohl himself will actually look to date this Arsa to the time of king Asa of Judah (early C9th BC, conventional dating). Here is Rohl’s account of this: ….
ARSA: also written Arsu or Irsu. However the hieroglyph usually transcribed as ‘u’ was invariably vocalised as ‘a’ (e.g. Hut-waret = Haware; Hut-Hor = Hathor).
The link between the Israelite Arsa and the Arsa of the Egyptian texts is intriguing but there is another identification possibility. The short name Asa could be a hypocoristicon of a longer nomen containing a theophoric element. The name Asa-el (‘El has made’) does occur in 2 Chronicles 17:8 …. The name Asa combined with the theophoric element El is attested at this time …. Asa, like the king of Damascus Hazael (Aramaean Haza-ilu) ….
[End of quote]
The Old Testament, not surprisingly, is entirely silent about any ‘Syrian’ or ‘Assyrian’
invasion of Egypt, though it does tell of Hazael at a later time fighting against Gath and even threatening Jerusalem itself, until king Joash [Jehoash] of Judah paid him off with all the votive offerings and gold upon which he could lay his hands, including the gold in the treasuries of the Temple (2 Kings 12:17-18). Presumably, Hazael was assisted in all this by his militant son Ben-Hadad II (cf. 13:3). ….
The next step will be explore the possibility of an Egyptian identification for Hazael/Aziru.
No comments:
Post a Comment