by
Damien
F. Mackey
Thanks to the
efforts of Dr. I. Velikovsky and his historical classic, Ages in Chaos I (1952), and also his fascinating, Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960), the El-Amarna
[EA] archive of the influential 18th dynasty pharaohs, Amenhotep III
and IV (Akhnaton), conventionally dated to the mid-C14th BC, would at last find
its proper historical locus in the mid-C9th BC.
This was no small
contribution to our knowledge of ancient history in its relation to the Bible.
But Velikovsky encountered
a real problem in trying to account for the Mesopotamian rulers.
Considering the
achievement of Dr. Velikovsky, despite the many flaws that exist in his
revision - as becomes clear with the benefit of hindsight - I felt inclined to
express indignation, in my article:
Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky
at such of those more
recent revisionists who I thought were not giving Velikovsky sufficient
acknowledgement.
Thus I wrote:
… the UK (in particular) revisionists, aware that Velikovsky was
regarded with contempt by the conventional scholars, whose system they
themselves were completely undermining - though perhaps also seeking some
academic respectability - and aware that
Velikovsky’s latter phase
revision, e.g. the 19th dynasty of Egypt, was archaeologically untenable
(though loyal Velikovskians have clung to it), sought to distance themselves
from Velikovsky completely, they hardly at all, or at least very scarcely, even
mentioning him in their later books and publications. And when they
did mention him, they laughed him off as a “wayward
polymath”, or “maverick”. Now, whilst these epithets can be appropriate in the
right context, they are mean and miserable when revisionists fail to admit
their owing a debt to Velikovsky.
The most arrogant example of this, which is not only unjust to
Velikovsky but which demeans all those others who have put a lot of effort into
a revision of ancient history – as well as the
writings of ‘Creationists’ - was
this piece in the flyleaf introducing David Rohl’s The Lost Testament (Century, 2002)
as if the revision recognizing the over-extension of chronology by modern
researchers had begun with him in
1995 (forgetting Velikovsky’s beginnings in the 1940’s):
The earliest part of the bible is recognised as the
foundation-stone of three great religions –
Judaism, Christianity and Islam – yet
over the last century archaeologists and historians have signally
failed to find any evidence to confirm the events described in the ‘book of
books’. As a consequence,
many scholars took the view that the Old Testament was little more than a work
or fiction. The testimony of biblical history had, in effect, been lost.
Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the
Bible was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl,
burst onto the scene with a new theory. He suggested that modern researchers
had constructed an artificially long chronology for the ancient world - a false
time-line which had dislocated the Old Testament events from their real
historical setting. The alternative ‘New
Chronology’ - first published
in A Test of Time: The Bible From Myth to History - created a world-wide
sensation and was fiercely resisted by the more conservative elements within
academia. Seven years on, however, the chronological reconstruction has
developed apace and numerous new discoveries have been made.
[End of quote]
Velikovsky
- partly right, partly wrong
As
one might reasonably expect from a pioneering
work, and one involving such a massive historical shift, mistakes and
imprecisions must surely occur – presuming the basic thrust of the 500-year
downward shift be correct.
Velikovsky,
perhaps justifiably labelled a “polymath”, might also be called a “maverick”
with regard to, for instance, his lack of knowledge of the Egyptian
hieroglyphics, or his sometimes casual disregard for the archaeological
evidence.
Let
us re-assess things here.
Velikovsky
was on safe ground with the Egyptian
rulers of EA, Nimmuria and Naphuria, these being recognizable
attempts to record the throne names of Amenhotep III and IV, respectively, Nebmaatre, and Neferkheperre.
So effectively I
thought did Velikovsky manage to argue a link between the successive EA kings
of Amurru, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with the biblical Syrians,
respectively, Ben-hadad I and Hazael, that this became a very foundation stone
of my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
And thus I wrote (Volume One, p. 52):
A Solid Starting Point
We are now in the C9th BC, about 500
years after the well-documented EA period of the 18th dynasty pharaohs
AMENHOTEP III (c. 1390-1352 BC) and AMENHOTEP IV [Akhnaton] (c. 1352-1348 BC),
according to the Sothic chronology, but squarely within EA according to Velikovsky’s
revision.135 Courville had accepted Velikovsky’s basic 18th dynasty
scenario, without adding much to it. My starting point here will be with what
competent revisionists in the late 1970’s to early 1980’s, who had followed
Velikovsky, considered to have been a most convincing aspect of Velikovsky’s EA
restructuring: namely, his identification of the two chief EA correspondents
from Amurru, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with two successive
Syrian kings of the Old Testament in the C9th BC, respectively, Ben-Hadad I (c.
880-841 BC, conventional dates) and Hazael (c. 841-806 BC, conventional dates).
Thus James had written, favourably: ….
With [these] two identifications [Velikovsky]
seems to be on the firmest ground, in that we have a succession of two rulers,
both of whom are characterised in the letters and the Scriptures as powerful
rulers who made frequent armed excursions - and conquests - in the territories
to the south of their own kingdom. In the letters their domain is described as
“Amurru” - a term used, as Velikovsky has pointed out ... by Shalmaneser III
for Syria in general, the whole area being dominated by the two successive
kings in “both” the el-Amarna period and the mid-9th century.
From Assyrian evidence it is known that Hazael
succeeded to the throne between 845 and 841 BC, and thus we have a reasonably
precise floruit for those el-Amarna correspondents who relate the
deeds of Abdi-Ashirta and Azaru [Aziru], particularly for Rib-Addi, whose
letters report the death of Abdi-Ashirta and the accession of Azaru [Aziru].
[End of quote]
See also my more recent:
Is El Amarna’s Aziru Biblically Identifiable?
And Velikovsky may have perhaps also struck gold with
his proposal that the important EA official, Iaanhamu, was the biblical Syrian captain, Na’aman. See my:
In Velikovsky’s new
context, the somewhat meaningless phrase, Bit
Šulmáni, of
EA 74 and 290, all of a sudden would become pregnant with significance. Velikovsky
wrote of it as follows (http://www.varchive.org/ce/sultemp.htm):
The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem
In the el-Amarna letters No.
74 and 290 there is reference to a place read (by Knudtzon) Bet-NIN.IB. In Ages
in Chaos, following Knudtzon, I understood that the reference was to
Assyria (House of Nineveh).(1)
I was unaware of an article by the eminent Assyriologist, Professor Jules Lewy,
printed in the Journal of Biblical Literature under the title: “The
Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem.”(2)
From a certain passage in
letter No. 290, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded
that this city was known at that time also by the name “Temple of Šulmán.”
Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much puzzled the researchers before
him.(3)
After complaining that the land was falling to the invading bands (habiru),
the king of Jerusalem wrote: “. . . and now, in addition, the capital of the
country of Jerusalem — its name is Bit Šulmáni —, the king’s city, has broken
away . . .”(4)
Beth Šulmán in Hebrew, as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of
Šulmán. But, of course, writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the
edifice was the Temple of Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it
was a place of worship (in Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources
as Shelmi, Shulmanu, or Salamu.
The
correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his reading) fits
well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In Ages in Chaos
(chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown
that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba,
etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be expected that
there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon.
[End of quote]
Revisionists have
since noted that this phrase should be emended to read, “House of Solomon”,
meaning Solomon’s kingdom, since the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem was never actually
referred to as the Temple of Solomon.
Whilst (once again
with the advantage of hindsight) we may now recognize that Velikovsky may have
just fallen just short with his proposed identification of the EA king of Urusalim: “In Ages in
Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it
is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov,
Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century)”, he laid the ground here
for the placement of another firm pillar of revisionism, as I explained in my:
King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History
And Velikovsky may
also have succeeded in identifying some of the king of Judah’s captains at the
time with certain military officers of EA. He definitely appear to have scored
a major goal at least with his connection of EA’s “son of Zuchru” as the
biblical “son of Zichri”.
See my account of
this in:
Is El Amarna’s “Son of Zuchru” Biblically Identifiable?
In other aspects,
however, Velikovsky’s EA revision has not been able to stand up to the later intense
scrutiny of it.
A notable example of
this was Velikovsky’s hopeful identification of the most prolific of EA’s
Syro-Palestinian correspondents, Rib-Addi
of Gubla (thought to be Byblos), with
king Ahab of Israel, and the Sumur (thought
to be Simyra) mentioned by Rib-Addi,
as Samaria.
Velikovsky, in the
process of trying to make this apparently Phoenicia-based king fit the biblical
mould of king Ahab, had had to get rid completely of Ahab’s son, Jehoram, as a
“ghost”.
I have discussed all
of this in my article:
Is El Amarna’s Rib-Addi Biblically Identifable?
And I wrote (my thesis, p.
83):
Velikovsky, for his part, had,
as already mentioned, looked to identify Ahab with Rib-Addi of Gubla,
the most prolific Syro-Palestine correspondent to the EA pharaohs (over 50
letters in number). …And this was surely a big mistake. For, in order for him
to ‘make’ Ahab, like Rib-Addi, a very old man at death, Velikovsky was prepared
to fly in the face of the biblical data and completely re-cast the chronology
of Ahab’s life. He had convinced himself that there existed a contradiction
between the accounts of Ahab in Kings and Chronicles so that, as he claimed,
Ahab did not die at the battle of Ramoth-gilead as is stated in 1 Kings 22 (cf.
vv. 6, 29 & 37), but rather reigned on for a further 8-10 years. Thus,
according to Velikovsky’s view, king Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC,
conventional dates), never truly existed, but was a ghost.
From a biblical point of view,
the fact that Rib-Addi had been able to report the death of Abdi-Ashirta
(Velikovsky’s Ben-Hadad I) meant that Velikovsky was quite wrong in
identifying Rib-Addi with king Ahab; since Ahab’s death preceded that of
Ben-Hadad (cf. 1 Kings 22:40 & 2 Kings 8:15). But this was Velikovsky in
his favourite rôle as “the arbiter of history”, according to Sieff … forcing
historical data to fit a pre-conceived idea. Velikovsky called this Rib-Addi
king of Gubla and Sumur (var. Sumura) … which EA
cities he had tried to equate with Ahab’s chief cities of, respectively,
Jezreel and Samaria; though they are usually identified with the coastal cities
of Byblos (Gebal) and Simyra. Moreover, letters from Egypt may indicate that Sumur
was not really Rib-Addi’s concern at all. …. Velikovsky greatly
confused the issue of Ahab of Israel for those coming after him, since Rib-Addi
was chronologically and geographically unsuitable for Ahab. ….
To account adequately
for the EA rulers of Assyria and Babylonia in his revised context would turn
out to be by far the greatest challenge to Dr. Velikovsky and to subsequent
revisionists.
Next, I shall
consider what sort of a fist I think Velikovsky was able to make of this most
difficult of tasks.
Assuruballit
Whilst I think
that Dr. I. Velikovsky made something of a mess of the El-Amarna [EA] rulers of
Mesopotamia, he can readily be excused considering the immense difficulty of
the problem and the fact that no revisionist since, apparently, has been able
to provide a proper solution.
Velikovsky, having
chronologically lowered the EA era from the C14th BC to the C9th BC, now found
himself faced with some real difficulties. One of them was king Assuruballit,
writer of EA 15 and 16.
WHO THEN WAS ASSURUBALLIT, THE CORRESPONDENT OF
AKHNATON?
Was Assuruballit I, son of
Eriba-Adad of the 14th century, the king who wrote to Akhnaton?
In the Assyrian sources there
is no reference to any contact of the king Assuruballit, son of Eriba-Adad,
with Amenhotep III or Akhnaton, and nothing that would substantiate the claim
that he was the author of two letters in the el-Amarna collection.
All her history long, Assyria
was an important kingdom in the ancient world. Assuruballit, son of Eriba-Adad
of the king list, is regarded as one of the greatest kings of ancient Assyria,(18) and
his grandson Adad-Nirari was proud to be an offspring of this great king. The
letters of Assuruballit in the el-Amarna collection do not convey the
impression of their author being an important suzerain. It is worthwhile to
compare the meek way of writing of Assuruballit, and the self-assured way of
Burraburiash. And letters of other kings on the Near Eastern scene, extensive
as they are, make it by contrast little probable that Assuruballit was an
important king. But decisive is the fact that the author of very extensive
letters, Burraburiash, clearly refers to his “Assyrian subjects”.
Assuruballit, son of
Assur-nadin-ahe, could have been a provincial prince, or a pretender to the
crown of Assyria. In a later age we find a prince Assuruballit installed by his
brother Assurbanipal as the governor of the Harran province. Assuruballit could
have been a provincial pretender in the days of Burraburiash; and Burraburiash
actually complained to the pharaoh Akhnaton for entering into direct relations
with some Assyrian potentates, despite the fact that he, Burraburiash, is the
lord of Assyria.
Letter 9: Burraburiash to Amenophis IV
31 - Now as to the Assyrians, my subjects
32 - have I not written thee? So is the situation!
33 - Why have they come into the land?
34 - If thou lovest me, they should not carry on any business.
35 - Let them accomplish nothing.(19)
[End of quotes]
The inconvenient
Assuruballit, whom Velikovsky attempted to brush out of the way: “Assuruballit, son
of Assur-nadin-ahe, could have been a provincial prince, or a pretender to the
crown of Assyria”, cannot be so lightly dismissed, however. In EA 15 and 16 he
titles himself as “the king of the land of Ashur”; “king of Assyria”; and “Great
King”:
EA 15
1 To the king of the land of Egypt 2 speak!
3 So (says) Ashur-uballit, the
king of the land of Ashur ….
EA 16
To
Napkhororia [1], Great King, king of Egypt, my brother, thus speaks
Ashur-uballit [2], king of Assyria, Great King, your brother ….
Those are not the
words of some mere “provincial prince”!
My own proposed
solution to EA’s Assuruballit as given in my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era
of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
had actually been
to extend Velikovsky’s very solid identification of EA’s Aziru with the biblical Syrian king, Hazael, thereby now enabling
for
the Aziru of the Harris Papyrus, who came to
Egypt, to be both EA’s Aziru and the king
Assuruballit of Assyria, who according to the latter’s descendant Adad-nirari,
had conquered Egypt; and for
Assuruballit,
son of Eriba-Adad of the king list, to be Hazael, son of Ben-hadad I.
We are dealing here with no lightweight king,
but one befitting EA’s “Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, Great King, your
brother …”.
More recently, I have expanded upon these multi-identifications
in my series:
Dr. I. Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) really nailed
this one, I believe, with three enthralling biblico-historical correspondences.
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.
When an early King of Assyria subdued the land of Musru
[Egypt] ….
Aziru of the El Amarna [EA] Era, whom I have identified
as the biblical Hazael, following Dr. I. Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952),
here acquires an identity in Egypt’s history.
Velikovsky’s hopeful
solution to EA’S Assuruballit has not at all convinced some of the best minds
amongst the revisionists - it having since become known as “The Assuruballit
Problem [TAP]”.
Shalmaneser III
The problem was that
there was a very powerful and long-reigning king of Assyria, Shalmaneser III, apparently
sitting right in the middle of the C9th BC, wherein Velikovsky had located the
EA era.
In my university thesis
I summarised TAP as follows (Volume One, p. 230):
TAP is this:
If EA is to be
lowered to the mid-C9th BC, as Velikovsky had argued, why then is EA’s ‘king of
Assyria’ called ‘Assuruballit’ (EA 15 & 16), and not ‘Shalmaneser’, since
Shalmaneser III – by current reckoning – completely straddles the middle part
of this century (c. 858-824 BC)?
Velikovsky, never
stuck for a solution of one kind or another, found typically ingenious ways to
account for Shalmaneser III. These I shall discuss in Part Two (b).
Burnaburiash
Velikovsky attempted
to account for Shalmaneser III, a truly prominent king of Assyria, by
identifying him with both El-Amarna [EA]’s Kassite ruler of Karduniash
(Babylonia), Burnaburiash (Burraburiash), and with the ‘Shalmaiati’ of the EA
correspondence.
In the following
piece, “The Ivory of Shalmaneser III”, we read about Velikovsky’s ingenious
ploy to absorb the mighty Shalmaneser III, occupier of Babylon, into EA’s
strong Kassite ruler of Babylon, Burnaburiash (http://www.varchive.org/ce/assuruballit.htm):
THE IVORY OF
SHALMANESER
In Ages in Chaos, in
chapters Vl-VIII, it is claimed that Shalmaneser III, was a contemporary of
Kings Amenhotep III and Akhnaton, and that Burraburiash must have been the
Babylonian name of Shalmaneser III, who had actually occupied Babylon. To the
reader of these lines, if unfamiliar with Ages in Chaos (and he should
judge the discussion only upon its reading), it is not superfluous to report
that the kings of Mesopotamia regularly applied to themselves different names
in Assyria and in Babylonia. In the el-Amarna correspondence, he signed his
Babylonian name (used more in the sense of a title) also on the tablet in which
he referred to his Assyrian subjects (letter no. 9).
Our identifying Shalmaneser
III as Burraburiash of the letters and as a contemporary and correspondent of
Akhnaton(20)
could receive direct archaeological verification. In the section “The Age of
Ivory”, I quoted from the letters of Burraburiash in which he demanded as
presents, more in the nature of a tribute, ivory objects of art, “looking like
plants and land and water animals”, and from letters of Akhnaton in which he
enumerated the very many objects of ivory art, vases, and carved likenesses of
animals of land and water and of paints that were sent by him to Burraburiash.
Calakh (Nimrud) was the
headquarters of Shalmaneser: what could we wish for more than that ivory
objects made in Egypt in the time of Akhnaton should be found there. This also
happened.
The excavation project at
Nimrud on the Tigris in Iraq was initiated by M. E. L. Mallowan (1959) and
continued by David Gates. Recent excavations there have been carried on in Fort
Shalmaneser III that served as headquarters from the ninth to the end of the
eighth century before the present era.
The reader of The New York
Times of November 26, 1961,(21) must
have been surprised to find a news story titled “Ancient Swindle is Dug Up in
Iraq” . The report carried news of the finds of the British School of
Archaeology’s Nimrud Expedition:
When archaeologists dug into
the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud in Iraq earlier this year, they were
surprised to find not Assyrian but “Egyptian” carvings. . .
The explanation given . . . by David Oates, director of the British School of
Archaeology’s Nimrud Expedition, is that the archaeologists had dug into an
ancient Assyrian antique shop. The “Egyptian” carvings had been cut by local
craftsmen . . . to satisfy their rich clients’ demands for foreign
“antiquities” .
There could be no question
that this was Shalmaneser’s loot or collection, for in one of the storage rooms
was found his statue and an inscription attests to the king’s approval of the
portrait as “a very good likeness of himself” .
Although the cut-away skirts
worn by the bearers are typically Assyrian, the carvings are of a style that
antedates by hundreds of years the period in which they were made. If found
elsewhere, they would have been identified as Egyptian . . . they are
considered to be “manufactured antiquities”, designed to satisfy a rich man’s
taste for antiques.
The quantity of ivory found
was so great that, in three seasons, the excavating team did not empty the
first of the three storage rooms. The excavators strained their wits to
understand why so much ivory work reflecting Egyptian styles of over five
hundred years earlier should fill, of all places, the military headquarters of
Shalmaneser III. Mallowan and his representative archaeologist on the site,
David Oates, could not come up with anything better than the theory that, in
the military headquarters of Shalmaneser, a factory for manufacturing fake
antiques had been established.
No better explanation was in
sight. Neither did the late Agatha Christie (the spouse of Mallowan), who took
an intense interest in the archaeological work of her husband, know of a better
solution to the mystery. Yet, the first volume of Ages in Chaos, with
its el-Amarna chapters, had been on the shelves since 1952.
In complete accord with our
historical scheme, Egyptian art of Akhnaton was found in the headquarters of
Shalmaneser III. I could not say, “as we expected”, because this was too much
to expect. From the point of view of the reconstruction, we could only wish
that these objects would be found in Assyria, but we could hardly expect that
they would be found almost intact in the fort of Shalmaneser III. Again it is
too much to expect, but maybe there will still be found, in the same compound
or in a room of archives to be discovered in Nimrud, original el-Amarna
letters.
[End of quote]
At the time of
writing of my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era
of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
this explanation
of Velikovsky’s for Shalmaneser III was the one that I had accepted, then
thinking that Shalmaneser III was absolutely fixed to the mid-C9th BC - where
the conventional history also has him. Shalmaneser’s Annals, as it then seemed
to me, fixed him to several biblical characters of that era, such as Ahab and
Ben-hadad I (battle of Qarqar); Hazael (Damascus), and king Jehu of Israel.
I have since had
reason to question all of this, as I shall explain at the end of this article.
Less compelling,
though, was Velikovsky’s view that the ‘Shalmaiati’ of the EA correspondence
was also Shalmaneser III.
EA 155 is a letter
from king Abi milki of Tyre. The phrase found therein, “Servant of Mayati”, which name Velikovsky took as being Shalmaiati, hence Shalmaneser III (=
Burnaburiash), is generally considered to be a hypocoristicon reference to an
Egyptian princess, to Meritaten, a daughter of pharaoh Akhnaton.
Comments: In line 41 (Mercer, line 44 others) the
cuneiform transliteration is given as "ù àš-šù mârti-ka mimma i-ia-[a-n]u ki-i eš-mu-ù". The form in red is
also given as "ma-i-ia-[(a)-ti]mi" which Albright translated as
Mayati to be read as Meritaten, daughter of Akhnaton, and Velikovsky as
`Shalmaiati' to mean `Shalmaneser III'.
Velikovsky’s lack
of detailed knowledge of Egyptian history would sometimes vitiate his sincere
efforts to construct a more accurate ancient history.
+ + + + +
TAP solved?
I am hopeful that I
may recently have solved TAP, or at least blown a big hole into it, by showing
that Shalmaneser III is by no means fixed securely to the mid-C9th BC, but that
he may actually belong about a century later:
The supposedly mid-C9th
BC Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, lies at the heart of one of the revision’s
most awkward conundrums, now known as “The Assuruballit Problem” [TAP].
