by
Damien F. Mackey
Adad-Nirari III, as in the case of Shalmaneser
III, seemed to be fixed
to various firm anchors, one of them – as with
Shalmaneser III and Jehu –
a Jehu-ide king of Israel.
Introduction
The
conventional positioning of the mighty Assyrian king Shalmaneser (so-called)
III ranks probably amongst the several most vexing difficulties for a
Velikovskian-based revision of ancient history, featuring alongside where to
place Ramses II? and how to explain, or to fit in, the highly complex
Third Intermediate Period (TIP)?
These
loomed as three virtually insurmountable problems, amongst other lesser ones;
though
one might expect that the enormous 66-67 year reign of pharaoh Ramses II would serve
to carve out a rather conspicuous niche in the revision.
With
Shalmaneser III dated to c. 859-824 BC, then Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s hopeful
revision of the El Amarna (EA) period, with the C14th BC moved down to the C9th
BC, struck a seemingly impenetrable barrier. The Assyrian king at the time was
nowhere ever referred to as “Shalmaneser” - who conventionally straddles that
C9th BC period - but was one “Ashuruballit”, or “Assuruballit” (EA letters 15
& 16).
Thus
was born “The Assuruballit Problem”, TAP - to accompany TIP, and Ramses II.
While
an obvious solution to TAP might be to suggest that Shalmaneser III has been
wrongly located in the mid-C9th BC, and needs to be shifted away from there –
and that, indeed, is the solution – what made me most reluctant to move
that king was his apparent historical connection with, firstly, kings
Ahab and Ben-Hadad (at Qarqar), secondly, with the Syrian Hazael, and, thirdly,
with king Jehu of Israel (Black Obelisk).
This set appeared
to fix king Shalmaneser III securely to the C9th BC historico-biblical period
to which the textbooks have assigned him.
Eventually,
though, I did let go of these superficially impressive syncretisms.
My
struggles with this and my progression to a later-located, composite,
Shalmaneser, can be read in fair detail in my article:
Shalmaneser
III not of the El Amarna [EA] era
(2) Shalmaneser III not of the El Amarna [EA] era
See also the
related article:
Shalmaneser
I, king of Assyria, dated some 500 years too early
(6) Shalmaneser I, king of Assyria, dated some 500 years too early
Might
Adad-Nirari III likewise need to be chronologically lowered?
After
my having long accepted that Adad-Nirari so-called III (and, presumably, I and
II as well - considering the requisite folding of the ‘Middle’ into the New
kingdom) was fixed as a predecessor of the composite “Shalmaneser”, I have most
recently come to ponder whether or not this might really be the case.
Adad-Nirari
III, as in the case of Shalmaneser III, seemed to be fixed to various firm
anchors, one of them – as with Shalmaneser III and Jehu – a Jehu-ide king of
Israel. The famous Tell al-Rimāḥ Stela, for instance,
purportedly tells of Adad-Nirari III taking tribute from either Jehoahaz, son
of Jehu, or from Jehoash, grandson of Jehu.
Epigraphist Stephanie
Page has argued for Jehoash in preference to Jehoahaz:
A
Stela of Adad-nirari III and Nergal-ereš from Tell al Rimah
Stephanie
Page
Iraq
Vol. 30, No. 2 (Autumn, 1968), pp. 139-153 (18 pages)
Then
there is the reasonably close association of Adad-Nirari I (great grandson)
with the Assyrian El Amarna (EA) correspondent, “Ashuruballit” (EA letters 15
and 16). This I referred to briefly in my (2007) thesis (Volume One, p. 228):
…. In Assyrian history, this appears to have been the
situation of which Adad-nirari I (c. 1305-1274 BC, conventional dates) had
cause to boast, namely that his great-grandfather, Ashuruballit, had subdued
Egypt. Harrak gives the relevant text as follows:[1]
Adad-narari [Adad-nirari] I had summarized in an
inscription the achievements of his royal predecessors. He said the following
about Ashur-uballit:
(31) mušekniš
mât Musri museppih ellât (32) mât Šubârê rapalti murappiš misrî u kudurrî
Subduer of the land Musru, disperser of the hordes of
the extensive land of the Shubaru, extender of borders and boundaries.
….
Finally,
Adad-Nirari I/II, at least, precede a Shalmaneser in the Assyrian king lists
(see next).
Previously,
I have written on this challenging subject:
The best sequence for the most powerful Middle-to-Neo kings of Assyria,
I believe, is the one to be found in Marc Van de Mieroop’s “King Lists” on p.
294 of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC (Blackwell, 2004).
The Assyrian kings listed there (I shall call this list A) are as follows:
Adad-nirari I
Shalmaneser I
Tukulti-Ninurta I
Assur-nadin-apli
Ignoring Van de Mieroop’s dates for these kings, spanning c. 1300 - c.
1200 BC – which dates, I consider, are far too early – we find these names
again, but in a different sequence, on the author’s p. 295. (I shall call this
list B):
Adad-nirari II
Tukulti-Ninurta II
Ashurnasirpal II
Shalmaneser III
But, now, they are dated to c. 900 - c. 800 BC – meaning that list B is dated some 400 years later than list A.
Returning to the first list (A), which I consider to be the proper order (but
wrong dates), this is how I would fill out, and re-date, these four major kings:
Adad-nirari (is I-III), and was a contemporary of king Jehoash of Israel (c.
800-785 BC, conventional dating) according to the Tell al-Rimah stele.
Shalmaneser (is I-V), and is the same as Tiglath-pileser (I-III), a contemporary of
king Hoshea of Israel (c. 733-722 BC, conventional dating).
Tukulti-Ninurta (is I-II), and is (Sargon
II =) Sennacherib, as according to e.g. my article:
Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib?
https://www.academia.edu/40246318/Can_Tukulti_Ninurta_I_be_king_Sennacherib
{For what will follow, it needs also to be mentioned
that
Shamsi-Adad IV/V, too, was Sargon
II/Sennacherib}
Assur-nadin-apli (or Ashurnasirpal) (I-II) is (Esarhaddon =) Ashurbanipal, and is also
the same as Nebuchednezzar (I-II). See e.g. my article:
Aligning
Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel
(10) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel
Whilst I would still firmly accept the following
sequence from list A:
Shalmaneser I (= Shalmaneser)
Tukulti-Ninurta I (= Sargon II/Sennacherib)
Assur-nadin-apli (= Ashurnasirpal/Ashurbanipal)
I am no longer as sanguine as I was before about the
right location for Adad-nirari (whether I, II, or III).
This is a matter that I
hope to address more fully in a forthcoming article.
Well,
this is that anticipated article concerning whether or not Adad-Nirari III may
need to be - like Shalmaneser III - dislodged from his conventional position in
the Assyrian king lists.
Where to fit in
Adad-Nirari III?
Obviously,
if Adad-Nirari III is to be shifted down the time scale to something like the
extent that my revised, composite Shalmaneser has been, that is, minimally a
century (from c. 825 BC - c. 725 BC), then the Jehoahaz, or the Jehoash, from
whom the Assyrian king took tribute can no longer be either Jehoahaz, or
Jehoash, royal descendants of King Jehu of Israel.
We
recall that epigraphist Stephanie Page had argued for Jehoash in preference
to Jehoahaz.
The
Tell
al-Rimāḥ Stela tells of Adad-Nirari III taking
tribute from one … iu- a-su KUR sa-me-ri-na-a-a …, generally considered to
indicate, as according to Stephanie Page’s interpretation of it, “Jehoash the
Samarian”, that is, Jehoash (the grandson of Jehu).
This equation can no longer apply, of course, if Adad-Nirari III must needs
undergo a significant chronological shift. Indeed, “Samarian” would appear to be
quite a unique Assyrian designation for a king of Israel, the usual term being Bît
Humri (“House of Omri’). I shall come back to this.
Here, now, are several reasons for
why I am of the opinion that Adad-Nirari III was, in fact, Sennacherib’s
successor, Esarhaddon (including his various alter egos).
Since
this is a new idea, I would expect that much fuller comparisons (e.g.
campaigns) will be provided later on.
If
Sargon II/Sennacherib was Shamsi-Adad IV/V as I have confidently argued. See:
Assyria’s second Shamsi-Adad was Sennacherib all over
again
(5) Assyria’s second Shamsi-Adad was Sennacherib all over again
then,
according to the following later Assyrian king list sequence:
Shalmaneser III
Shamsi-Adad V
Adad-Nirari III
Adad-Nirari
III, the successor of Shamsi-Adad V, would have been Esarhaddon, the successor
of Sargon II/Sennacherib.
The Mother
As with Esarhaddon, so
with Adad-Nirari III, a very strong mother was a powerful influence: Adad-nirari III - Wikipedia
“Adad-nīrārī was a son and
successor of king Shamshi-Adad V, and was apparently quite young at the time of his accession, because
for the first five years of his reign, his mother Shammuramat … was highly
influential, which has given rise to the legend of Semiramis.
…. It is widely rejected that his mother acted as regent, but she was
surprisingly influential for the time period”.
Esarhaddon - Wikipedia
“Esarhaddon's female
relatives, such as his mother Naqiʾa …
were allowed to wield considerably more influence and political power during
his reign than women had been allowed in any previous period of Assyrian
history, with the possible exception of Sammuramat in the 9th century BC [sic]”.
For more, see e.g. my
article:
Tukulti Ninurta and Semiramis
(15) Tukulti Ninurta and Semiramis
A
religious revolution
A notable revolution
towards a monotheistic worship of the god, Nebo, that occurred during the reign
of Adad-Nirari III – somewhat akin to that of pharaoh Akhnaton towards the Aton
– was common as well to Adad-Nirari’s alter egos (in my revision), e.g. King
Nebuchednezzar’s Monotheistic Inscription (No. 15) and the singular worship by King
Nabonidus of the god, Sin:
Venerating the god Sin common to Nebuchednezzar’s main ‘alter
egos’
(13) Venerating the god Sin common to Nebuchednezzar's main 'alter egos'
In that article I considered, for instance:
Nabonidus’s fanatical devotion to
god Sin
Previously I have written on this phenomenon:
‘God of gods’
Though it would be much
over-stating things to claim that King Nabonidus became a monotheist, there is
a definite progression in that direction in
the course of his
reign.
“Monotheistic Tendency” of Nebuchednezzar
Charles Boutflower has advanced a strong
argument in his book, In and Around the
Book of Daniel:
https://archive.org/stream/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft_djvu.txt
for evidence of a trend towards a Marduk
(Merodach) monotheism in various inscriptions of Nebuchednezzar:
According, then, to this authority, No. 15 is the latest of the
inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Merodach tendency
noticed by Langdon is of necessity a monotheistic tendency, for
Merodach, who, as we have seen, is always foremost of the gods,
appears in some passages of this inscription to stand alone.
Now it is just in these monotheistic passages, these " inserted
prayers "
and " changes of text," that we seem to see the work of the
real
Nebuchadnezzar.
Thus, immediately after the introductory
passage, which describes the position occupied by the king with
reference to Merodach and Nebo, there follows a hymn to those
divinities, col. i. 23 to ii. 39, extracted from inscriptions 19 and
14. But in the middle of this hymn we meet with a prayer
addressed to Merodach alone : col. i. 51 to ii. 11, and this prayer,
be it noted, is an entirely original addition, not found in any previous
inscription. Jastrow remarks with reference to it, "The con-
ception of Merodach rises to a height of spiritual aspiration,
which comes to us as a surprise in a religion that remained steeped
in polytheism, and that was associated with practices and rites
of a much lower order of thought." 2 This remarkable prayer
runs thus
"To Merodach my lord I prayed,
I addressed my supplication.
He had regard to the utterance of my heart,
I spake unto him:
'Everlasting prince,
Lord of all that is,
for the king whom thou lovest,
whose name thou proclaimest,
who is pleasing to thee :
direct him aright,
lead him in the right path !
I am a prince obedient unto thee,
the creature of thy hands,
thou hast created me,
and hast appointed me to the lordship of multitudes of people.
According to thy mercy, Lord, which thou bestowest upon
all of them,
cause them to love thy exalted lordship :
cause the fear of thy godhead to abide in my heart !
Grant what to thee is pleasing,
for thou makest my life’.” ….
And a similar exaltation of the god, Sîn, in the case of King Nabonidus, is a central
feature of Paul-Alain
Beaulieu’s book, The Reign of Nabonidus,
King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989).
Beaulieu has interpreted Nabonidus’s exaltation of the
moon god, Sîn, as “an outright usurpation of Marduk’s prerogatives”.
Sîn is the ilu/ilani sa ilani, “the god(s) of
the gods”.
This exalted invocation is
undoubtedly due to the influence of the prophet Daniel.
Now, similarly (and I do
not agree with the following in its entirety):
“A
strange religious revolution took place in the time of Adad-nirari III,
which
can be compared with that of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ikhnaton.
For
an unknown reason Nabu (Nebo), the god of Borsippa, seems to have
been
proclaimed sole god, or at least the principal god, of the empire”.
Francis
D. Nichol
The influence of two historical queens, Nefertiti and Naqia, ought not
to be underestimated.
Nefertiti may have been the one who religiously spurred on her husband,
pharaoh Akhnaton, and may therefore have been instrumental in fostering the
strange and somewhat Indic [sic] cult of Atonism in EA’s Egypt. If so, then she
would have been acting just like the biblical Jezebel. For, the very first we
hear of Queen Jezebel is in association with Baal worship (I Kings 16:31):
“[King Ahab] also
married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and began to
serve Baal and worship him”.
And she, again, was apparently the wind beneath his idolatrous wings (I
Kings 21:25): “… there
was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do wickedness in the sight of the
LORD, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up”.
Mackey’s comment:
For the true nature of Atonism, though (somewhat different from the quasi
monotheistic tendency of Nebuchednezzar, of Nabonidus), see my article:
Akhnaton’s Theophany
Francis D. Nichol
continues:
Likewise, Queen Semiramis may have been instrumental in the case of the
(different) religious reform at the time of Adad-nirari III. Writing of “The
Age of Semiramis” in his Chapter XVIII, Donald MacKenzie will make some
interesting observations about her, including this one: “Queen Sammu-rammat of
Assyria, like Tiy of Egypt, is associated with social and religious
innovations”. Here is a part of MacKenzie’s intriguing account of this
semi-legendary queen:
…. One of the most
interesting figures in Mesopotamian history came into
prominence during
the Assyrian Middle Empire period. This was the famous Sammu-rammat, the
Babylonian wife of an Assyrian ruler. Like Sargon of Akkad, Alexander the
Great, and Dietrich von Bern, she made, by reason of her achievements and
influence, a deep impression on the popular imagination, and as these monarchs
became identified in tradition with gods of war and fertility, she had attached
to her memory the myths associated with the mother goddess of love and battle
who presided over the destinies of mankind.
In her character as
the legendary Semiramis of Greek literature, the Assyrian queen was reputed to
have been the daughter of Derceto, the dove and fish goddess of Askalon, and to
have departed from earth in bird form.
It is not quite certain whether Sammu-rammat was the wife of
Shamshi-Adad VII [we now take this as V] or of his son, Adad-nirari IV [III].
Before the former monarch reduced Babylonia to the status of an Assyrian
province, he had signed a treaty of peace with its king, and it is suggested
that it was confirmed by a matrimonial alliance. This treaty was repudiated by
King Bau-akh-iddina, who was transported with his palace treasures to Assyria.
As Sammu-rammat was evidently a royal princess of Babylonia, it seems
probable that her marriage was arranged with purpose to legitimatize the
succession of the Assyrian overlords to the Babylonian throne. The principle of
"mother right" was ever popular in those countries where the worship
of the Great Mother was perpetuated if not in official at any rate in domestic
religion. Not a few Egyptian Pharaohs reigned as husbands or as sons of royal
ladies. Succession by the female line was also observed among the Hittites.
When Hattusil II gave his daughter in marriage to Putakhi, king of the
Amorites, he inserted a clause in the treaty of alliance "to the effect
that the sovereignty over the Amorite should belong to the son and descendants
of his daughter for evermore". ….
As queen or queen-mother, Sammu-rammat occupied as prominent a position
in Assyria as did Queen Tiy of Egypt during the lifetime of her husband,
Amenhotep III, and the early part of the reign of her son [sic], Amenhotep IV
(Akhenaton).
The Tell-el-Amarna letters testify to Tiy's influence in the Egyptian
"Foreign Office", and we know that at home she was joint ruler with
her husband and took part with him in public ceremonials. During their reign a
temple was erected to the mother goddess Mut, and beside it was formed a great
lake on which sailed the "barque of Aton" in connection with
mysterious religious ceremonials. After Akhenaton's religious revolt was
inaugurated, the worship of Mut was discontinued and Tiy went into retirement.
In Akhenaton's time the vulture symbol of the goddess Mut did not appear above
the sculptured figures of royalty.
What connection the god Aton had with Mut during the period of the Tiy
regime remains obscure. There is no evidence that Aton was first exalted as the
son of the Great Mother goddess, although this is not improbable.
Queen Sammu-rammat of Assyria, like Tiy of Egypt, is associated with
social and religious innovations. She was the first, and, indeed, the only
Assyrian royal lady, to be referred to on equal terms with her royal husband in
official inscriptions. In a dedication to the god Nebo, that deity is reputed
to be the protector of "the life of Adad-nirari, king of the land of
Ashur, his lord, and the life of Sammu-rammat, she of the palace, his
lady". ….
During the reign of Adad-nirari … the Assyrian Court radiated Babylonian
culture and traditions.
The king not only recorded his descent from the first Shalmaneser, but
also claimed to be a descendant of Bel-kap-kapu, an earlier, but, to us,
unknown, Babylonian monarch than "Sulili", i.e. Sumu-la-ilu, the
great-great-grandfather of Hammurabi. Bel-kap-kapu was reputed to have been an
overlord of Assyria.
Mackey’s comment:
My confident suggestion for Bel-kap-kapu would be Ilu-Kabkabu, or Uru-Kabkabu,
the biblical Rekhob (Rehob), father of King David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer, who is,
Shamsi-Adad I:
Ilu-Kabkabu
as Biblical Rehob
(5) Ilu-Kabkabu as Biblical Rehob
And, for the true nature of Atonism, as opposed to,
say, henotheism (Dr. Velikovsky), see e.g. my article:
Akhnaton’s Theophany
Francis D. Nichol
continues:
Apparently Adad-nirari desired to be regarded as the legitimate heir to
the thrones of Assyria and Babylonia. His claim upon the latter country must
have had a substantial basis. It is not too much to assume that he was a son of
a princess of its ancient royal family. Sammurammat may therefore have been his
mother. She could have been called his "wife" in the mythological
sense, the king having become "husband of his mother". If such was
the case, the royal pair probably posed as the high priest and high priestess
of the ancient goddess cult--the incarnations of the Great Mother and the son
who displaced his sire.
The worship of the Great Mother was the popular religion of the
indigenous peoples of western Asia, including parts of Asia Minor, Egypt, and
southern and western Europe. It appears to have been closely associated with
agricultural rites practised among representative communities of the
Mediterranean race. In Babylonia and Assyria the peoples of the goddess cult
fused with the peoples of the god cult, but the prominence maintained by
Ishtar, who absorbed many of the old mother deities, testifies to the persistence
of immemorial habits of thought and antique religious ceremonials among the
descendants of the earliest settlers in the Tigro-Euphrates valley. ….
It must be recognized, in this connection, that an official religion was
not always a full reflection of popular beliefs. In all the great civilizations
of antiquity it was invariably a compromise between the beliefs of the military
aristocracy and the masses of mingled peoples over whom they held sway. Temple
worship had therefore a political aspect; it was intended, among other things,
to strengthen the position of the ruling classes. But ancient deities could
still be worshipped, and were worshipped, in homes and fields, in groves and on
mountain tops, as the case might be. Jeremiah has testified to the persistence
of the folk practices in connection with the worship of the mother goddess
among the inhabitants of Palestine. Sacrificial fires were lit and cakes were
baked and offered to the "Queen of Heaven" in the streets of
Jerusalem and other cities. In Babylonia and Egypt domestic religious practices
were never completely supplanted by temple ceremonies in which rulers took a
prominent part. It was always possible, therefore, for usurpers to make popular
appeal by reviving ancient and persistent forms of worship. As we have seen,
Jehu of Israel, after stamping out Phoenician Baal worship, secured a strong
following by giving official recognition to the cult of the golden calf.
MacKenzie now proceeds to draw his hopeful religious parallel between EA
and Sammuramat alongside Adad-nirari III:
It is not possible
to set forth in detail, or with intimate knowledge, the various innovations
which Sammu-rammat introduced, or with which she was credited, during the
reigns of Adad-nirari … (810-782 B.C.) and his father. No discovery has been
made of documents like the Tell-el-Amarna "letters", which would shed
light on the social and political life of this interesting period.
….
The prominence
given to Nebo, the god of Borsippa, during the reign of Adad-nirari … is highly
significant. He appears in his later character as a god of culture and wisdom,
the patron of scribes and artists, and the wise counsellor of the deities. He
symbolized the intellectual life of the southern kingdom, which was more
closely associated with religious ethics than that of war-loving Assyria.
A great temple was
erected to Nebo at Kalkhi, and four statues of him were placed within it, two
of which are now in the British Museum. On one of these was cut the
inscription, from which we have quoted, lauding the exalted and wise deity and
invoking him to protect Adad-nirari and the lady of the palace, Sammu-rammat,
and closing with the exhortation, "Whoso cometh in after time, let him
trust in Nebo and trust in no other god".
[End of quotes]
“Whoso cometh in after time, let him trust in Nebo and trust in no other
god”.
This
is so biblically (Hebrew) influenced!
No
wonder, then, that, given the conventional dating (c. 811 to 783 BC) for Adad-Nirari coinciding with the standard
dating for the prophet Jonah’s contemporary king of Israel, Jeroboam II (c. 793
to 782 BC) (cf. 2 Kings 14:25), Bible enthusiasts can opt for
Adad-Nirari III as Jonah 3:6’s “king of Nineveh”.
And even for the “saviour” of Israel:
No comments:
Post a Comment