Sargon - Sennacherib, not Cyrus, was Isaiah 21’s destroyer of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey “Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there”. Gordon Franz Charles Boutflower, in his 1930 book, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 in Light of the Assyrian Monuments (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge), would prove most helpful in showing that Isaiah 21, often considered to prophesy the Fall of Babylon to King Cyrus, could neither refer to this relatively peaceful event nor to the initial, similarly peaceful taking of Babylon by Sargon II. I would fully agree with this, except that – with my identification of Sargon II with Sennacherib: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (4) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sargon II’s initial peaceful entrance into Babylon would be followed up, years later, by that same king’s destruction of the mighty city. Gordon Franz has conveniently picked up this discussion of Charles Boutflower and Isaiah 21, the Assyrians and Cyrus, in his article “Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21”, in which he concurs with Charles Boutflower that Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon was what the prophet Isaiah was referring to in Chapter 21: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3006-babylon-revisited-isaiah-21 Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21 Author: Gordon Franz MA Category: Contemporary Issues Created: 06 October 2010 …. Introduction During the First Gulf War - Operation Desert Storm - Saddam Hussein was brought to the forefront of world events. Students of Bible prophecy asked, “What, if anything, does he or Iraq have to do with prophetic events?” Passages concerning Babylon were studied to see where Saddam Hussein, or Iraq for that matter, might fit into a particular prophetic scheme. One passage which deals with the fall of Babylon is Isaiah 21. Verse 9 states, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen! And all the carved images of her gods He has broken to the ground.” I would like to re-examine this passage of Scripture and ask the question, “Was this passage fulfilled, or even partially fulfilled during Operation Desert Storm?” (as some prophecy teachers suggest), or, “Was the passage actually fulfilled in Isaiah’s day?” One of the best-selling books on the place of Babylon in prophecy during the First Gulf War was The Rise of Babylon by Dr. Charles Dyer. It is interesting that Dr. Dyer never addressed this passage in the book, nor does he address it in his follow-up book, World News and Bible Prophecy. Noah Hutching, the radio pastor for Southwest Radio Church in Oklahoma quoted Isaiah 21:9 in his book The Persian Gulf Crisis and the Final Fall of Babylon (1990: 27). Yet surprisingly, in the chapter entitled “Isaiah Against Babylon” (chapter 9), he only discusses Isaiah 13 and ignores completely chapter 21. Other popular prophecy teachers did address this chapter. J. R. Church, in his prophetic magazine Prophecy in the News, states: “While researching the prophets for their perspective on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we came across Isaiah’s prediction of doom upon the ‘desert of the sea’ (Isaiah 21). The description fits the Persian Gulf nations perfectly” (1990: 1). He goes on to identify the “lion” in verse 8 with Great Britain because the British Petroleum Company was given half of the oil rights in Kuwait (1990: 1). At the end of the article he predicted (prior to Operation Desert Storm) that “during the upcoming war with Iraq, Israel will become involved and occupy Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. When Israel destroys Damascus, Russia will retaliate. The U.S.S.R. has a 20-year defense treaty with Syria, promising to come to Syria’s aid in case of attack. The eventual Israeli invasion of Syria will precipitate Russian involvement. Ezekiel called this the Battle of Gog and Magog” (1990: 4). Apparently Rev. Church has not consulted Dr. Edwin Yamauchi’s excellent work (1982) on the proper identification of Gog and Magog! And, with 20-20 hindsight, his predictions were not fulfilled. Another popular prophecy teacher, Dr. Robert Lindsted, in his book Certainty of Bible Prophecy had a little more to say about this chapter. In his chapter entitled “Saddam Hussein, The Persian Gulf, and the End Times” written just prior to Operation Desert Storm, he speculated that the “chariot of men” in verse 9 are the Israeli manufactured “Merkavah” tanks, the word meaning chariot (1990: 21-22). He goes on to quote a bit more of the verse “Babylon is fallen, is fallen” and suggested “again again, two fallings, one an ancient one under the Medes and Persians, and another which could be just around the corner” (1991: 22). Interestingly, he does not quote or comment on the last part of the verse which deals with the smashing of idols. Students of Bible prophecy have generally overlooked an important tool for understanding this chapter; mainly, the archaeologist’s spade. Archaeology has a direct bearing on this passage from two different angles. First, there are ancient inscriptions that give first hand accounts, or historical reflections, of the fall of Babylon in 689 BC. Second, there is confirmation of this destruction by the German excavation at the beginning of the 20th century. With this, let us turn our attention to Isaiah 21. The Context of Isaiah 21 This chapter falls within the “Burden against the nations” section of the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 13-23). It was pronounced by Isaiah around 713 BC, just prior to the “14th year of the reign of King Hezekiah” (713/12 BC), in an attempt to influence Judean foreign policy. It seemed that a group within the “State Department” of Judah, led by Prime Minister Shebna (the royal steward), wanted to join an anti-Assyrian coalition of surrounding nations, lead by Merodah-baladan of Babylon. Isaiah tried to point out the futility of trusting in these foreign powers. He predicted that they would all soon be destroyed. He encouraged Hezekiah to trust only in the LORD for deliverance (Franz 1987: 28-30). Possibilities for Historical Fulfillment There are several candidates for the fulfillment of this passage in the history of ancient Babylon. The older commentaries stated that this was fulfilled when Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 BC. In fact, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates verse 2 as, “Against me are the Elamites, and the princes of the Persians are coming against me.” The “banquet” in verse 5 was seen as Belshazzar’s feast the night of the fall of Babylon. However, when Cyrus entered Babylon he did not treat the carved images the way it was described in verse 9. In fact, “on the contrary, we are expressly assured that his entrance, save for the attack on the palace in which Belshazzar was slain, was a peaceful one, and that there was no cessation whatever of the temple worship” (Bautflower 1930: 148-149). Another possibility is Sargon II’s campaign against Merodah-baladan in 710 BC. This possibility was first suggested by the Assyriologist George Smith and expanded on by Kleinert. George Adam Smith follows this idea in his commentary on Isaiah (nd: 1:201-204). More recently, John Hayes and Stuart Irvine, in their commentary on Isaiah, likewise adapted this view (1987: 271-276). This view, however, also has problems. The entrance of Sargon II into Babylon to assume the throne in 709 BC is described in the Assyrian sources as quite peaceful. Joan Oates in her book on Babylon states: “The cities of northern Babylonia are alleged to have welcomed the Assyrian king, throwing open their gates ‘with great rejoicing’” (1991: 116). Sargon II boastfully inscribed on the wall of his palace in Khorsabad: “Into Babylon, the city of the lord of the gods, joyfully I entered, in gladness of heart, and with a beaming countenance. I grasped the hand(s) of the great lord Marduk, and made pilgrimage (lit., completed the march) to the ‘House of the New Year’s Feast’” (ARAB 2:35). Hardly the way Isaiah described it! The best candidate is Sennacherib’s conquest of the city in 689 BC. When Sargon II died in battle in 705 BC [sic], his son Sennacherib ascended to the throne. In so doing, he assumed the kingship of Babylon as well. In 703 BC, Marduk-zakir-shumi II seized the throne of Babylon. Soon after, Merodah-baladan made a bid for the throne as well. Sennacherib turned his attention on him and he fled to the marshes. A Babylonian puppet, Bel-ibni, was installed as king. He lasted several years until he was replaced by Sennacherib’s son, Assur-nadin-shumi, who ruled in relative peace for about six years (699-694 BC). In 694 BC, Sennacherib launched a daring campaign against the Chaldeans on the western frontier of Elam. While Sennacherib’s forces were engaged near the Persian Gulf, some Elamites made a bold “end-run” and captured Sennacherib’s son at Sippar. The son was never heard from again, so it is assumed he was murdered by the Elamites. Mackey’s comment: No, Ashur nadin shumi was the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith and was also the treacherous Nadin (or Nadab) of Tobit 14:10. Gordon Franz continues: An Elamite puppet, Nergal-ushezib, was placed on the throne of Babylon (694 BC). The Assyrians removed him on their way back to Nineveh several months later. A certain Mushezib-Marduk seized the throne with Aramaean support. This support prompted the new king and his Elamite alliance, paid for with silver, gold, and precious stones from the treasuries of the temples in Babylon, to attack Assyria. A major battle ensued at Halule on the Tigris River. The outcome of the battle depends on whose account you believe. Sennacherib boasted a victory with 150,000 of the enemy dead. The Babylonian Chronicles said the Assyrians retreated. The fact that Sennacherib did not continue the attack suggests that he suffered a reversal so he had to regroup. In 690 BC, he returned to lay siege against Babylon (Oates 1991: 116-119). The Bivian Inscription described the fall of Babylon in 689 BC in these terms. “In a second campaign of mine I advanced swiftly against Babylon, upon whose conquest I had determined. Like the on-coming of a storm I broke loose, and overwhelmed it like a hurricane. I completely invested that city, with mines and engines my hands [took the city]. The plunder ...... his powerful ..... whether small or great, I left none. With their corpses I filled the city squares (wide places). Shuzubu, king of Babylonia, together with his family and his [nobles], I carried off alive into my land. The wealth of that city, - silver, gold, precious stones, property and goods, I doled out (counted into the hands of) to my people and they made it their own. The gods dwelling therein, - the hands of my people took them, and they smashed them. Their property and goods they seized” (ARAB 2:151-152). That is exactly what Isaiah “saw” in verse 9. In fact, A. A. Macintosh points out, “the Assyrian word used for ‘broke them in pieces’ (ushabbiruma) is ‘radically identical to the shbr of verse 9’” (1980: 72). It was as if Isaiah “saw” (prophetically) an advance copy of the “Nineveh News” with the headlines blaring “Babylonian Gods Smashed, Assyrian Army Victorious Over Babylonia” and he lifted the words right off the page and placed them in his book. You’ll pardon the pun, but this prophecy was literally fulfilled to the letter! Sennacherib goes on to describe the total destruction of Babylon in these terms: “The city and (its) houses, from the foundation to its top, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. The wall and outer wall, temples and gods, temple towers of bricks and earth, as many as there were, I razed and dumped them into the Arahtu Canal. Through the midst of that city I dug canals, I flooded its site (lit., ground) with water, and the very foundations thereof (lit., the structure of its foundation) I destroyed. I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood. That in days to come the site of that city, and (its) temples and gods, might not be remembered, I completely blotted it out with (floods) of water and made it like a meadow” (ARAB 2:152). Is it any wonder that Isaiah predicted the destruction of Babylon in similar words? “And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation ...” (13: 19-20a). He later wrote, “’for I will rise up against them,’ says the LORD of Hosts, ‘and cut off from Babylon the name and remnant, and offspring and posterity,’ says the LORD. ‘I will also make it a possession for porcupine, and marshes of muddy water; I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,’ says the LORD of Host” (14: 22-23). That is exactly what happened in 689 BC! Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there. The gods and goddesses of Babylon left their shrines and went up to heaven and the people fled for unknown lands (Brinkman 1983: 39). However, nowhere does he mention the devastating deeds of his father. Brinkman concludes that the purpose of this is that, “within a narrative structured around divine involvement in human affairs, the former debasement of the city and its abandonment by god and man acted as a perfect literary foil for its glorious resurrection under Esarhaddon and the restoration of its exiled deities and citizens” (1983: 42). Nabonidus, the king of Babylon from 555-539 BC [sic], reflected on Sennacherib’s deeds in these words. “[Against Akkad] he (i.e. Sennacherib) had evil intentions, he thought out crimes [agai]nst the country (Babylon), [he had] no mercy for the inhabitants of the co[untry]. With evil intentions against Babylon he let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion. He (even) led the princely Marduk away and brought (him) into Ashur” (ANET 309). In the footnote on “disturbed their foundation outline”, the meaning is “Lit.: ‘to blot out; (suhhu). This seems to have been done to make it impossible to retrace the outlines of the original foundation-walls and therefore to rebuild the sanctuary.” …. Some students of Bible prophecy might question whether this destruction was a literal fulfillment of the words of Isaiah. He said God would overthrow Babylon like Sodom and Gomorrah and it would never be inhabited again. After all, Esarhaddon rebuilt the city only eight years later. I think an archaeologist would understand this better than most. We know that when a city is destroyed by a military campaign or natural calamities it falls into ruins. When someone comes back to rebuild the city, they either fix up the previous buildings, if there is anything left, or reuse the stones that may be scattered on the surface to build an entirely new city. When Esarhaddon surveyed what used to be Babylon he found an uninhabited marshy area with some ruins of houses and palaces inhabited by wildlife. The city that he built was a completely new city on top of the previous one. So Isaiah, in truth, could say, “Babylon ... will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation.” And, “I will also make it a possession for the porcupine, and marshes of muddy water.” The city that Sennacherib destroyed was completely covered over when Esarhaddon rebuilt it so that level was never inhabited again. Esarhaddon built a completely new city on top of the marshy ruins of the old one. The words of Isaiah were literally fulfilled. I do not believe there is any need to speculate whether Saddam Hussein is in any of these passages. They were already fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. ….

Sargon II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad

by Damien F. Mackey But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia? One thing appears to be certain. Babylon was situated in the land of Shinar, because (Daniel 1:2): “And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into [Nebuchednezzar, king of Babylon’s] hand, along with some of the articles from the Temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Shinar and put in the treasure house of his god”. But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia? Dr. W. F. Albright, though a conventional scholar, defied tradition by identifying the land of Shinar in the region of Hana (“Shinar-Šanḡar and Its Monarch Amraphel”, AJSLL, Vol. 40, no. 2, 1924). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Khana “The Kingdom of Khana or Kingdom of Hana (late 18th century BC – mid-17th century BC) was the Syrian kingdom from Hana Land in the middle Euphrates region north of Mari, which included the ancient city of Terqa”. Terqa was located near the mouth of the Khabur river, thus being a trade hub on the Euphrates and Khabur rivers. This area I believe approximates to the land of Shinar, the “country of two rivers”. Now, we really appear to be getting somewhere. For, when the Jews went into Babylonian Exile, the prophet Ezekiel encountered them at the Chebar river, as he tells at the beginning (Ezekiel 1:1; cf. 3:15): “In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Chebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God”. Surely the Chebar - unknown in the “Babylon” region of southern Mesopotamia - can only be the Khabur river. And, indeed, this was an older commentary opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Abib#:~:text=Location,in%20what%20is%20now%20Syria “The Kebar or Chebar Canal (or River) is the setting of several important scenes of the Book of Ezekiel, including the opening verses. The book refers to this river eight times in total. …. Some older biblical commentaries identified the Chebar with the Khabur River in what is now Syria”. This now means that we must be in the approximate region of the real Babylon in the land of Shinar. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. (Psalm 136:1-2 Douay; 137:1-2 NIV). W. F. Albright ostensibly made easier the geographical task by reducing Nimrod’s early cities from four to three. While the biblical text, as it stands, reads (Genesis 10:10): “And the beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar”, Dr. Albright, ingeniously, with a slight tweaking of the Masoretic, translated Calneh as “all of them”. Now, all of Babel, Erech and Akkad (without any Calneh) were in the land of Shinar. Clever on the part of W.F. Albright, but wrong, I think. For Calneh (Calno) is referred to several times in the Bible, its approximate location being fairly tightly circumscribed with it being linked by Ezekiel (27:23) to Haran; by Sennacherib (in Isaiah (10:9) to Carchemish; and by Amos (6:2) to Hamath. Nimrod ‘the Great’ and his early cities “Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord’.” Genesis 10:8-9 Many scholars have tried their hand at historically identifying the biblical Nimrod. Dr. David Rohl’s suggested Enmerkar (“Nmr the Hunter”) may be correct. Enmerkar was an early king of Uruk, which could be Nimrod’s “Erech”, so long as the famous Uruk in southern Mesopotamia is not intended. Dr. David Livingston (I presume) has identified Nimrod with the semi-legendary Gilgamesh, also a king of Uruk, who is reputed to have built walls at Uruk. http://www.davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm (i) Erech A possible candidate for Nimrod’s Erech, then, may be Terqa (t-Erqa), an ancient capital which, as we read, was in the environs of Shinar. Terqa was notable for its walls: https://www.terqa.org/pages/10.html#:~:text=The%20City%20Walls “If one could typify the impact of the size and scope of the ancient city of Terqa in one image, it would have to be the sight of the massive defensive rings surrounding the city – 60 acres of land surrounded by three concentric, solid masonry walls, 60 feet thick, with an additional 60 foot wide moat encircling the outer ring: these are extraordinary dimensions by any standard. So wide were these walls, that the outer ring possessed a passageway to allow for circulation along its perimeter. The date of construction for these extraordinary defenses, supported by Carbon 14 determinations as well as by the ceramic sequences, is indicated at 3000 B.C. for the inner wall, followed in turn by the middle and outer walls at one century intervals. This makes the walls of Terqa among the largest, oldest, tallest and most complex monuments in the Near East”. While the real Nimrod may be a composite of such semi-legendary characters as Enmerkar and Gilgamesh, the most likely full-bodied tyrant-king for him would be, as various scholars have concluded: Sargon the Great of Akkad. I would enlarge on this, though, by modifying the Akkadian dynasty and identifying Sargon with his supposed grandson, the similarly great Naram-Sin, as well as with Shar kali sharri, and, biblically, with “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1). Amraphel was for long (but wrongly) thought to be Hammurabi king of Babylon. Despite the greatness of the Akkadian so-called dynasty, and its fame down through the ages, it is poorly attested stratigraphically. As I have written previously: The long Akkadian empire phase of history (c. 2350-2150 BC), so admired by subsequent rulers and generations, is remarkably lacking in archaeological data. ….: “The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then, so few traces of their work? Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad? The Ur III founder, Ur-Nammu, built a wall at Ur. Not a trace remains”. But here I want to highlight the enormity of the problem. Archaeologists have actually failed to identify a specific pottery for the Akkadian era! This is, of course, quite understandable given that they (indeed, we) have been expecting to discover the heart of the Akkadian kingdom in Lower Mesopotamia. [End of quote] “Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad?” So, let us identify emperor Nimrod’s Akkad, not found by archaeologists to this day. (ii) Akkad (Agade) What do we know about Akkad? Well, the mighty Sargon of Akkad (Nimrod himself?) tells in an Inscription that ships (read reed boats) from Magan and Meluḫḫa docked in the Quay of Akkad: ‘The ships from Meluhha the ships from Magan the ships from Dilmun he made tie-up alongside the quay of Akkad’. Magan and Meluḫḫa in the Assyrian records are, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia. But, for Akkadian times, historians strangely (due to wrong geography and other things) identify them differently, as, say, respectively, Oman - in the Persian Gulf (their Sumer region) - and the Indus Valley. Egypt’s maritime trade with NW Syria was on the Mediterranean. So I looked around the area and found, roughly in line with Carchemish, the famous port city of Ugarit. Nimrod would have needed a port city if he were to embark upon important Mediterranean trade. And here may be the clincher. Another name for Ugarit (used by the Egyptians) was IKAT (very close to Akkad). Nimrod’s city of Akkad was, I believe, a Mediterranean port city, and it - contrary to Dr. Albright (his Calneh theory) - was not actually situated in the land of Shinar. Nimrod did not necessarily found any of these ancient sites, but he built upon them. All of my four (i-iv) proposed candidates (tentative or otherwise) for Nimrod’s first cities will be sites going right back to (with the possible exception of Terqa) the agricultural and farming age (Neolithic) - appropriate to Noah and his descendants. My four choices were all strategic ancient capitals, key strongholds and trade locations. First humanity, coming away from the mountain of the Ark’s landing, Karaca dağ, would have arrived at early sites such as Göbekli Tepe; Ur; and Haran; and would then have moved off from there in all directions. The Cretans from Anatolia, for instance, quickly became a technologically advanced sea-faring people. The land of Shinar, with its waters, early loomed as an attractive prospect. Shem, who no longer appears textually linked to brothers Ham and Japheth, may well have been an eye-witness to the Babel incident that he has recorded (Genesis 11:1-10): “This is the toledôt of Shem”. But it needs to be understood that, prior to this famous event, humanity may already have been divided up into nations and languages (cf. Genesis 10:31-32). Perhaps Ham had already gone to Egypt, “the land of Ham” (Psalm 105:22 Douay), and his son, Cush, to Ethiopia (Kush). Dr. John Osgood has made a very interesting video on: Into Africa - The True History of Man - John Osgood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgAeRFNOOhM Southern Mesopotamia was apparently not yet habitable due to the Flood water levels. There are some intriguing debates amongst Creationists, including Dr. John Osgood and Kenneth Griffith (co-discoverer of Noah’s mountain as Karaca dağ), on southern and central Mesopotamia at this early time. Their contributions can be read at: https://answersresearchjournal.org/tower-of-babel/where-is-tower-babel-reply/ (iii and iv) Babel and Calneh Here, I shall be pinning a lot on the Septuagint version of Isaiah 10:9, which differs appreciably from the usual version according to which: ‘Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?’ These boastful words by the all-conquering Assyrian king Sargon II (Sennacherib) are translated somewhat differently in the Septuagint, with a clue to the Tower of Babel: ‘Have I not taken the country above Babylon and Chalanes, where the Tower was built?’ The name ‘Chalanes’ here is simply one of those several biblical variations for Nimrod’s Calneh, along with ‘Calno’ (above), and ‘Canneh’ (Ezekiel 27:23). Two vital points arise from this Septuagint verse. Firstly, by substituting the usual Carchemish with Babylon, the text may be telling us exactly where Babylon was. It was Carchemish. Appropriately, Carchemish lies on a river, the Euphrates, and is situated in the approximate region of Shinar. We know from Daniel 1:2 that Babylon was in Shinar. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4027-carchemish “[Carchemish’s] importance seems to have been based on its situation at the end of the most direct route from the mouth of the Orontes to the Euphrates and to Harran”. One of Babylon’s ancient names was, in fact, Šanḫara (= Shinar). Thus Rita Francia: (3) The Name of Babylon in Hittite Texts - Kasion 2 FS de Martino | Rita Francia - Academia.edu Carchemish, which had treaty relationships with Ugarit (my Akkad), had a name which I think comes linguistically close to a common ancient name for Babylon(ia): Karduniash. The meaning of this last name is not really known. I have tentatively identified Karduniash also with the famous, but not firmly located, capital city of Tarhuntašša. “Apparently, it was Sargon’s intention that Karkemish would become more than a mere provincial capital, i.e., simply the seat of an Assyrian governor. Rather, because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire …”. Gianni Marchesi Sargon II (Sennacherib) of Assyria initially had great plans for the famous Carchemish, according to Gianni Marchesi (2019, pp. 15-16): A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish (3) A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish [CORRECTED ONLINE VERSION] | Gianni Marchesi - Academia.edu …. In Karkemish, Sargon built not just a dwelling for his provincial governor, but a true royal palace where he stayed for a time and received tribute. In this connection, note the reference to the planting of what appears to be a botanical garden, an essential component of any Assyrian royal palace. Finally, the inauguration ceremony of his palace at Karkemish recalls well the inauguration cerimonies [sic]of Sargon’s palaces in the great Assyrian capitals of Kalhu and Dur-Sharrukenu. All this is quite telling of the great importance that Sargon attributed to Karkemish, putting the city on the Euphrates in a very special position. Apparently, it was Sargon’s intention that Karkemish would become more than a mere provincial capital, i.e., simply the seat of an Assyrian governor. Rather, because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire: a perfect place in which to display the grandeur of Assyria, and from which to control the western and north-western territories of the Empire. …. [End of quote] Archaeologists have identified a megaflood in the region - much later than the Noachic Flood, of course - which they have put down to climate change. But might not this flood which overwhelmed the region, including Carchemish’s ‘outer town’ of Jerablus (Tahtani), have been the work of the vindictive Sargon II (Sennacherib) who tells us that, regarding Babylon: ‘I devastated it with water so that it became a mere meadow’?: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/745/the-mutual-destruction-of-sennacherib--babylon/ I swiftly marched to Babylon which I was intent upon conquering. I blew like the onrush of a hurricane …. I completely surrounded it and captured it by breaching and scaling the walls. I did not spare his mighty warriors, young or old, but filled the city square with their corpses...I turned over to my men to keep the property of that city, silver, gold, gems, all the moveable goods. My men took hold of the statues of the gods in the city and smashed them. They took possession of the property of the gods. …. The city and houses I completely destroyed from foundations to roof and set fire to them. I tore down both inner and outer city walls, temples, temple-towers made of brick and clay - as many as there were - and threw everything into the Arahtu canal. I dug a ditch inside the city and thereby levelled off the earth on its site with water. I destroyed even the outline of its foundations. I flattened it more than any flood could have done. In order that the site of that city and its temples would never be remembered, I devastated it with water so that it became a mere meadow (Nagle, 26). “There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. We read in this report on Carchemish: https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/carchemishreport03brituoft/carchemishreport03brituoft.pdf “In the mass of debris against slabs B. 22 a and h there were charred pieces of poles, round in section, of a lightgrained wood resembling poplar; some of them were tilted up against the wall, others lay parallel to it. These must have been roofing-poles”. Secondly, the way the Septuagint verse is worded, the Tower was built at “Chalanes”, not Babylon. This may be just a matter of the original wording being re-arranged, with Calno usually preceding Carchemish, whereas the Septuagint version has ‘Babylon and Chalanes, where the Tower was built’. Or, was it that the Tower was actually built in Calneh, and that Carchemish (original name?) became known as Babel (Babylon) afterwards due to its being the leading city of the Shinar region? Just a thought. But why I ask this question is because King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (c. 600 BC, conventional dating) will later appear to identify Borsippa, rather than Babylon, as the place of the Tower – which might also suggest, for the true location of Calneh, a Shinar(ian) Borsippa. The similarly named (phonetically) trio Borsippa (not on map – 11 miles SW of Babylon), Sippar and Nippur are thought to have lain in fairly close proximity to Babylon in southern Mesopotamia. Interestingly, the uncertain (in that southern Mesopotamian region) Calneh has been traditionally connected with Nippur: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/calneh “At present there is no acceptable identification of Calneh, although the other cities mentioned together with it in Genesis are known from Akkadian inscriptions. No identification of Calneh can be made on the basis of the "land of Shinar," which serves in this instance, as elsewhere in the Bible, as a synonym for Babylonia (cf. Yoma 10a, which identifies Calneh with נופר, i.e., the modern Tell Nuffar, ancient Nippur, connecting this name with נינפי, i.e., nymphe; the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew כַּלָה, kallah, "bride")”. Nippur, Borsippa, are regarded as being sacred cities dependent upon Babylon with no independent hegemony, never the seat of a regional power. Could ‘they’ be the same? And could they (it) equate to Nimrod’s Calneh? Here is what King Nebuchednezzar said about the Tower at Borsippa. It reads very much like Nimrod’s effort: https://armstronginstitute.org/125-nebuchadnezzars-tower-of-babel …. One thing Nebuchadnezzar isn’t generally known for, though, is a link with the tower of Babel—the attempt by Nimrod to build a tower up to heaven, dashed by God’s confounding of the languages (Genesis 11). A small handful of artifacts, however, help show an interesting link between Nebuchadnezzar and the biblical colossus. Birs Cylinders The Birs Cylinders are a series of clay cylinders dating to c. 600 b.c.e., discovered by Sir Henry Rawlinson during the mid-19th century at the Babylonian site of Borsippa. The cylinders, bearing parallel inscriptions, were found inserted into the walls of a massive, heavily damaged tower at the site. This tower—a type of the famous Mesopotamian religious ziggurats—had been heavily repaired during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. Bricks were found around the site, having been stamped with the name of the king. And the wall cylinders had an interesting story to tell. Rawlinson (known as the father of Assyriology) translated the inscriptions as follows: I am Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon … my great lord has established me in strength, and has urged me to repair his buildings … the Tower of Babylon, I have made and finished … the Tower of Borsippa had been built by a former king. He had completed 42 [cubits?], but he did not finish its head; from the lapse of time it had become ruined … the rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork; the casing of burnt brick had bulged out … Merodach, my great lord, inclined my heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I destroy its foundation platform; but, in a fortunate month, and upon an auspicious day, I undertook the rebuilding … I set my hand to build it up, and to finish its summit. As it had been in ancient times, so I built up its structure …. As translated above, Nebuchadnezzar literally calls this monument the Tower of Babylon. (“Babylon” is interchangeable with Babel.) He describes this tower as an important ancient Babylonian edifice built by a “former king” that, for some reason or other, the workers stopped short in finishing—they “did not finish its head.” Why not? Some clue could be taken from the second name Nebuchadnezzar gives for this tower: the Tower of Borsippa. Borsippa literally means tongue tower, thus providing a link to language. Surely a significant linguistic event must have happened in order for Borsippa to receive its unique name? The Bible—as well as early secular histories—provide the explanation. There is another translation of this text that is even more direct in language. This one comes from Rawlinson’s contemporary Assyriologist, Julius Oppert. He translates a couple of lines slightly differently: … the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it … A former king built it—they reckon 42 ages [ago]—but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it without order expressing their words …. This translation calls this massive, unfinished tower the most ancient monument of Babylon. This fits squarely with the tower of Babel (Genesis 10:10; 11:4). And, if indeed more accurate, it provides an even stronger link to the language “phenomenon” at the tower of Babel, stating that sometime during this original building project the people had “abandoned it without order expressing their words.” Was this, then, the reason that the tower was named Borsippa—because a great “Babel” of “unordered words” led to the abandonment of the project? And what caused such a linguistic phenomenon, that such a rich and luxurious tower would be built and then abandoned, with only its upper “head” left to finish? …. [End of quotes] Nimrod’s Calneh has proven somewhat troublesome for commentators. Taking Isaiah’s seemingly close association of Calneh with Babylon-Carchemish (10:9 Septuagint), and considering that it may be the original Borsippa-Nippur, then I would connect it with the almost identically named (as Borsippa) site of Til Barsip. Til Barsip (modern Tall al-Ahmar) was located about 20 kilometres south of Carchemish, which, situationally, accords very well with the conventional Borsippa (Birs Nimrud), which is located about 11 miles SW of Babylon. And both Til Barsip and Birs Nimrud are to be found to the east of the Euphrates River. Borsippa was closely connected with Babylon:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsippa “Borsippa is mentioned, usually in connection with Babylon, in texts from the Third Dynasty of Ur through the Seleucid Empire and even in early Islamic texts”. Akkadian culture Before proceeding to a consideration of the Babel incident itself, I need to return briefly to these phenomena: “The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then, so few traces of their work? Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad? Hopefully the second of these questions has now been answered (ii) Akkad (Agade) above. As to the first question, part of the answer may be that (as also argued above) the Akkadian dynasty - whilst being mighty and famous - was by no means as lengthy as is thought, with duplication (triplication?) occurring in the lists. As to the worrying lack of a stratigraphical culture, this may be due to chronological miscalculation. I have proposed that the brilliant Halaf culture (c. 6500-5500 BC, conventional dating), geographically most appropriate for the empire of Nimrod (including Nineveh, see map below) needs to be massively re-dated (lowered by some 4000 to 3000 years) to impact upon the Akkadian era (c. 2300 BC, conventional dating). Globalisation of the Babel Incident Shem writes in his toledôt history (Genesis 11:1-10): Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, ‘Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly’. They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth’. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, ‘If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other’. So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. This is the account [toledôt] of Shem’s family line. As with the interpretation of any parts of early Genesis, idiom, original language, scribal methods, ancient customs, etc., all have to be taken into consideration. Idiom will be important here. Conservative scholars have a tendency to globalise the Flood and Babel incidents, with phrases such as “the whole earth” meaning for them the globe, and including everybody. The biblical scribes tended to think more locally. The whole earth, in the case of the Babel incident, for instance, could simply mean the whole region of Shinar. Nor is Babel probably all about language as tends to be concluded. Sam Boyd, finding similar sentiments to the Babel account in Sargon II’s Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription, has suggested that the point of the story is, not about a single language, but about speaking in harmony. In other words, the tyrant Nimrod had instigated a program to which his obedient (terrified?) subjects had conformed, as one. “Sargon's Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription and Language Ideology: A Reconsideration and Connection to Genesis 11:1-9”: (6) Sargon's Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription and Language Ideology: A Reconsideration and Connection to Genesis 11:1-9 | Sam Boyd - Academia.edu Sam Boyd writes: …. One of the foremost pieces of evidence in this discussion has been Sargon II’s Dūr-Šarrukīn cylinder inscription, in which he mentions the role of administrators and overseers in an attempt to consolidate his empire and allegedly to impose “one mouth” (pâ ištēn) on rebellious groups. The passage that has gained particular attention is the following, with phrases that will be important in the analysis below translated in boldface: …. Subjects of the four regions, foreign people, of non-harmonious speech, dwellers of mountains and lands, as many as the light of the gods, lord of all, guides, whom, by the order of Assur my lord, with the power of my scepter, I plundered. I made them act in concert, and I settled them in its (Dūr-Šarrukīn’s) midst. Natives of Assyria, masters of every craft, I dispatched them as overseers and officials to teach correct behavior, namely fear of god and king. …. … I claim that Genesis 11:1–9 is not a story about language, and rather that the idioms that have been translated as such concern political action and the authority to govern. I am not the first to argue so, noting especially Christoph Uehlinger’s groundbreaking 1990 study Weltreich und “eine Rede,” and works as old as Campegius Vitringa’s 17th century dissertation De confusione linguarum. …. Moreover, my explanation both uses more of a political than a personal lens than Virtringa’s interpretation, and makes better exegetical sense of Genesis 11:7 in particular. …. … Neo-Assyrian kings not only developed rhetoric, imagery, and literary and artistic motifs to provide justification to expand and to organize the empire, but, in doing so, also met with resistance. For example, texts from Sargon II’s time indicate a dissatisfaction with the king’s building campaign, specifically the Weidner Chronicle from Babylon. Several key elements of criticism correspond to themes in Genesis 11:1–9. As Marc Van de Mieroop argues, Assyrian kings had long taken credit for the construction of buildings, but did not ever claim credit for the founding of cities per se. The act of selecting the site for a new capital was the prerogative of the divine realm. In contrast, Sargon claimed credit for the identification of the location of his capital Dūr-Šarrukīn, comparing himself to the sage Adapa in the process, in addition to the construction of the capital buildings (part of a massive building campaign generally). Even the dimensions of the city contained proportions that called to mind his name, ensuring that the “measure of the city walls represents a numerical cryptographic writing of his name.” Yet the founding of the city had cosmological significance as well, and Sargon inscribed the language of creation from the Enūma Eliš in his description of his new capital. Sargon, then, not only created a parallel between himself and Adapa, but between himself and the creative acts of [the god] Marduk. This building act and the rhetoric that accompanied it was met with criticism. As Beate Pongraz-Leisten argues, “founding a new city was considered a primordial act of creation by the gods; when performed by a king, it was regarded as an act of hubris.” Indeed, the Babylonian Weidner Chronicle was likely written in the Neo-Assyrian period, possibly to criticize Sargon II’s building campaign. Given the themes that Uehlinger noted, the criticisms seen in the Weidner Chronicle attacking Sargon’s hubris for taking the divine right of founding a city has obvious correlations to the Tower of Babel episode. Indeed, just as the builders of the tower met with divine wrath, so also Sargon II’s untimely death was interpreted as an act of divine retribution in the “Sin of Sargon.” …. Other political transformations have also been identified during Sargon’s reign according to some scholars, most notably the use of Aramaic as a lingua franca. This innovation and a certain inscription that supposedly attests to it have also been connected to Genesis 11:1–9, as discussed below. …. Sargon II may so have admired Nimrod that he took his name, Sargon (‘True King’), and imposed the language of Aramaïc, as Nimrod may have imposed Akkadian: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/king-sargon-akkad#:~:text=Sargon%20sent%20Akkadian%20governors%20to,within%20Mesop “Sargon sent Akkadian governors to rule Sumerian cities and tear down defensive walls. He left the Sumerian religion in place but made Akkadian the official language of all Mesopotamia [sic]. By lowering physical and linguistic barriers and unifying his realm, he promoted commerce both within Mesopotamia and well beyond”.

Sennacherib’s oldest son triplicated

by Damien F. Mackey I have detected a telling X-NADIN-SHUMI name pattern in connection with the rule of ancient Babylon: 1. Sennacherib would place his oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, upon the throne of Babylon. 2. A Ninurta-nadin-shumi would precede Nebuchednezzar so-called I upon the throne of Babylon. 3. Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I’s contemporary, Enlil-nadin-shumi, would take his place upon the throne of Babylon. So what, one might say! Well, in the context of my revision, this all would be the one and the same historical situation. Allow me to explain. A. First Ramifications 1. Sennacherib, conventionally dated to c. 700 BC, placed upon the throne of Babylon his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, who later dies and is replaced by Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s youngest ‘son’. D. T. Potts writes: “For reasons which are not entirely clear, as heir presumptive following the abduction (and presumably execution) of his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, Sennacherib had chosen his youngest son, Esarhaddon, bypassing three older children (see the discussion in Porter 1993: 16ff.)”. (The Archaeology of Elam, p. 274) 2. Ninurta-nadin-shumi, preceding as he does in the king-lists Nebuchednezzar, known as I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating), on the throne of Babylon, is sometimes wrongly considered to have been the father of this Nebuchednezzar. However, with my identification of: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (4) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, who, in turn, was Esarhaddon (see also my): Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Ninurta-nadin-shumi must merge into Ashur-nadin-shumi, now in c. 700 BC. The sequence in 1. and 2. is consistent: (Sennacherib) X-nadin-shumi Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar) 3. Enlil-nadin-shumi will sit upon the throne of Babylon during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta (c. 1200 BC, conventional dating), whom I have confidently identified as Sennacherib: Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? (5) Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Thus, again, our sequence: Sennacherib (= Tukulti-Ninurta) X-nadin-shumi (Esarhaddon = Nebuchednezzar) C13th/C12th BC Assyro-Babylonia needs to be slid down the time scale and re-located in the C8th BC period. A perfect example of this required chronological adjustment is to be found in the succession of Shutrukid Elamite kings of the supposed C12th BC perfectly paralleling those of the C8th BC, according to what I tabulated in my university thesis, 2007 (Volume One, p. 180): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (5) Thesis 2: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, consider further these striking parallels between the C12th BC and the neo-Assyrian period, to be developed below: Table 1: Comparison of the C12th BC (conventional) and C8th BC C12th BC • Some time before Nebuchednezzar I, there reigned in Babylon a Merodach-baladan [I]. • The Elamite kings of this era carried names such as Shutruk-Nahhunte and his son, Kudur-Nahhunte. • Nebuchednezzar I fought a hard battle with a ‘Hulteludish’ (Hultelutush-Inshushinak). C8th BC • The Babylonian ruler for king Sargon II’s first twelve years was a Merodach-baladan [II]. • SargonII/Sennacherib fought against the Elamites, Shutur-Nakhkhunte & Kutir-Nakhkhunte. • Sennacherib had trouble also with a ‘Hallushu’ (Halutush-Inshushinak). Too spectacular I think to be mere coincidence! B. Second Ramifications D. T. Potts (above) is not too far wrong in referring to “the abduction (and presumably execution) of [Sennacherib’s] eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi …”. For Ashur-nadin-shumi, the treacherous Nadin (or Nadab) of the Book of Tobit (14:10), was also the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith, the Assyrian Commander-in-chief, who was indeed “executed”: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (5) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, though, we can add some more to this. “Holofernes”/Nadin was, all at once, Enlil-/Ninurta-/Ashur-nadin-shumi, the oldest son of Tukulti-Ninurta/Sennacherib. Upon his execution, this one-time ruler of Babylon (Isaiah 14:3-27) was succeeded on the throne by Esarhaddon-Nebuchednezzar, with whom there commenced a new dynasty (Chaldean). If Esarhaddon-Nebuchednezzar is to be looked for in the Book of Judith, he can only be “Bagoas”, second to “Holofernes” himself. On this, see e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (5) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sennacherib’s oldest son may, in fact, have been quadruplicated in the person of the ill-fated Sin-nadin-apli, wrongly thought to have been the oldest son of Esarhaddon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ama%C5%A1-%C5%A1uma-ukin “… the crown prince Sin-nadin-apli. …. Upon the unexpected death of Sin-nadin-apli [the Judith incident?] … the Assyrian court was thrown into upheaval”.

Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “In view of the notoriety of Piankhi [Piye], as evidenced by the events narrated on the stela, we should expect that he was an important figure in Egyptian history. If so, we would be disappointed. As we shall see, his life and times are shrouded in mystery”. Displaced Dynasties Better not blink or you might miss it. Thus we have, to name a few, those: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (6) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and the: Great King Omri missing from Chronicles https://www.academia.edu/42235075/Great_King_Omri_missing_from_Chronicles and, again: Nero’s missing architecture (6) Nero's missing architecture | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Even: Henry VIIIs palaces [are] missing (6) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, of course, there is the Missing Link, still missing and he won’t be missed either (G.K. Chesterton). Or as someone less sensibly put it, “found missing”. The above are just a few of the examples of important, presumably historical, characters, who are either poorly attested (statues, relief depictions, etc.), or not at all. “No monument within Egypt bears [Piankhi’s] name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources”. Displaced Dynasties Reading about the impressive, yet most obscure, pharaoh Piankhi (or Piye), took my mind back to when we used to be intrigued, as children in Tasmania, by the famous Disappearing House. Pauline Conolly tells about it: THE DISAPPEARING HOUSE IN TASMANIA - Pauline Conolly The Disappearing House at “The Corners” Conara Standing at the turnoff to St Marys at Conara, the so-called “Disappearing House” earned its name by the illusion of its sinking into the ground as travellers approached along the main road from Hobart to Launceston, due to the peculiar conformation of the landscape. On the old road the house would “vanish” as you descended one hill, the other seemed to rise up in front of you and the house would “disappear” behind it. Then as you ascended the next small hill, it would miraculously reappear. …. That pharaoh Piankhi qualifies for the first part of this trick, the disappearing bit, comes through most clearly in the Displaced Dynasties article, Volume 2- Piankhi the Chameleon (pp. 12-14): Piankhi: The Traditional View In view of the notoriety of Piankhi, as evidenced by the events narrated on the stela, we should expect that he was an important figure in Egyptian history. If so, we would be disappointed. As we shall see, his life and times are shrouded in mystery. When the Piankhi stela was first read by scholars it was immediately recognized that the dignitaries named therein belonged to the late 22nd and 23rd dynasties, and that the rebel Tefnakht must be the father of Bocchoris, the sole occupant of Manetho’s 24th dynasty. With confidence early Egyptologists dated the insurrection of Tefnakht and the response by Piankhi to the last quarter of the 8th century B.C. Flinders Petrie, the eminent and influential British Egyptologist, writing at the turn of the 20th century, dated the “invasion” to the year 720 B.C., with the reigns of the 25th dynasty kings Shabaka and Shabataka following closely on its heels. The whole of the 25th dynasty, including most of the reign of Taharka, is of necessity placed between the time of the Tefnakht rebellion and the conquest and occupation of Egypt by the Assyrians, the later event securely dated to the years 671-664 B.C. A century of scholarship has refined Petrie’s dates only slightly. K.A. Kitchen, the foremost living authority on the 3rd Intermediate Period, Piankhi – 618 B.C. … dates the Piankhi incident to 727 B.C. and the most recent analysis by the Egyptologist D.A. Aston … has placed Piankhi’s 21st year only a decade earlier, in the time span 740-735 B.C. If Aston is correct, the median year 738 B.C. cannot be far wrong. The slight difference of opinion on the date of the Piankhi invasion is related to a secondary question of fundamental concern to this revision. How long did Piankhi continue to rule after the rebellion was suppressed late in his 20th year? …. On this issue as well, there is some divergence of opinion. The question takes on added significance if it be admitted that he ruled over Egypt for much of this time. Who is Piankhi, this Nubian king who had, some years before the Tefnakht rebellion, conquered the southern and central portions of Egypt, if not the entire country, and who now scoffed at any challenge to his authority? If we correctly interpret the stela inscription he was a sovereign of long standing in Egypt, not a recent intruder. The stela is dated, as mentioned earlier, to the first month of his 21st year. Based on normal standards of interpretation we should glean from this fact that he had been king of Egypt, or a king within Egypt, for twenty years. That is, however, not the typical interpretation of his great stela. With few exceptions scholars believe that Piankhi had ruled central and southern Egypt for at most a few years before the rebellion, and that his control of the country was lost soon after. When they discuss his dates they are debating only his tenure as king in Nubia, not the length of his sovereignty over Egypt. The explanation for this opinion is related to considerations apart from the stela inscription itself. There is no evidence within Egypt that Piankhi ruled the country for a single year, much less for twenty years, prior to his 21st year. No monument within Egypt bears his name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources. In view of his renown, as evidenced in the narrative of the great stela, this is … D.A. Aston, “Takeloth II - A King of the ‘Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty’?” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989) 139-153. ….The Great Stele dateline cites the first month of the first season of the civil calendar in Piankhi’s 21st year. The rebellion is over. We assume it ended several months earlier, time for Piankhi to return to Napate and have the monument inscribed (see figure 4 on page 27). …. Piankhi 618 B.C. a particularly troublesome silence. If he lived in Thebes, wherein he based an army, he has left no evidence of the fact. If he became king in Thebes two decades before the Tefnakht rebellion the lack of inscriptional evidence is difficult, if not impossible to explain. The conclusion follows that his involvement in Egyptian affairs was brief. He came; he conquered; and for reasons unknown, he quickly departed the country. Or so we are told. When Piankhi withdrew from the delta, laden with treasure, he was the uncontested sovereign of all of Egypt. Where did he go and for how long did he continue to rule? According to scholars, if he moved south to Thebes he did not long remain there. His home was Napata and there he lived out his years. But for how long? On this issue academia is divided. The majority believe that he continued to rule for either ten or twenty additional years, a conclusion based on the most fragile of evidence. Were it not for an obscured year date on a bandage, it might be argued that his name vanishes from Egypt entirely within a few years of the rebellion. Kitchen, who believes his reign in total lasted only 30 years, provides a summary of the evidence: The one generally accepted year-date of Piankhy is Year 21 on his great stela. However, a minimum of 31 years is assignable to him on the external evidence which is outlined above (sect. 114). To these factors, a little more can be added. First, there are three documents dated by the reign of ‘Pharaoh Py, Si-Ese Meryamun’ - two papyri of his Years 21 and 22, most probably Theban, and the lesser Dakhla stela of Year 24. There is good reason to view Py as the real reading of Piankhy and to attribute all three documents to Piankhy’s reign. Second, a fragmentary bandage from Western Thebes bears an obscure date of Sneferre Piankhy. The visible traces indicate ‘Regnal Year 20', a patch and trace (the latter compatible with a ‘10'), and a shallow sign perhaps an otiose t. In other words, we here have a date higher than Year 20 of Piankhy, and very possibly Year 30 - which would fit very well with the 31 years’ minimum reign which has been already inferred on independent grounds. …. [End of quotes] This bears out what I wrote about pharaoh Piankhi in my article, quoting Sir Alan Gardiner: The Complete Ramses II (7) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Gardiner has written: It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta … and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under the name Sabacōn. No mention of Piankhi by Manetho? Obviously, then, this great pharaoh is in crying need of his being united with a major alter ego, so that he can, like the Disappearing House, re-emerge again (including in Manetho). And this is the way that Displaced Dynasties will choose to go - though with quite the wrong alter ego connection as far as I am concerned. It is also the way that I chose to go in my Ramses II article (above) in which the reader will find how I was able to fill out the Disappearing Pharaoh, Piankhi.

Sennacherib depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?

by Damien F. Mackey “Such representations … are found in the palace of Khorsabad, where the co-regent Sennacherib is facing king Sargon”. Gerard Gertoux A history follower of long-standing from Brazil has enthusiastically embraced my Sargon II as Sennacherib thesis in the context of the drama of the Book of Judith. However, an article by Gerard Gertoux: Dating the Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah (5) Dating the Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah | Gerard GERTOUX - Academia.edu has prompted him to raise some questions with me now about the validity of my university thesis (2007) identification. Thus he has written: Dear “Professor” [sic] Mackey, I hope everything is well with you and yours. I recently read a very interesting academic article titled “Dating the Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah,” which discusses the possibility of a co-regency between Sargon and Sennacherib, following a synchronization involving other kings from the period of Hezekiah; astrological phenomena; and the analysis of inscriptions and other Assyrian reliefs. All of this adheres to a biblical dating. You might already be aware of this article. However, if it’s not too much trouble, I would greatly appreciate knowing what you think about the article. Is it very or slightly plausible? Your opinion is very important to me. …. He went on to write in his next e-mail (re the Khorsabad and Lachish reliefs): …. Mr. Gertoux … some of his statements made me think: “… Some authors also noted an anomaly (underlined) on line 44 of the inscription: They counted (them) as booty, then one would expect more logically from Sargon the sentence: I have counted (them) as booty (with the co-regency anomaly disappears).” I ask you, how would you explain this anomaly differently? “… On the relief carved (below) representing the siege of Lachish, the central element is the king seated on his throne clearly identified by his tiara and scepter and facing the crown prince. The crown prince was always represented (without exception) on panels or stelae as tall as the king and wearing a diadem with two ribbons behind the head, facing the king wearing the tiara, who also bore the two ribbons behind the head: The identification of the two characters is not a problem because Assyrian art (or Babylonian) is stereotyped: gods, kings, and their subjects are prioritized based on their size, according to conventional representations. When a character next to a king is shown the same size, with a tiara, it is another king and when he is without tiara but with the regalia it is a co-regent, like King Darius (522-486) and Xerxes co-regent (496-475) behind him (below). For example, Shalmaneser III (859-824), king of Assyria, and Marduk-zakir-shumi I (855-819), king of Babylon, shake hands as a sign of alliance and mutual support. On the relief carved of Lachish, the co-regent facing the king, seated on the throne, cannot be Ardu-Mulissu, called Adrammelech in Isaiah 37:58 because the latter has been designated heir only from 698 BCE, 3 years after the new 3rd campaign of Sennacherib as king (not co-regent). Therefore, the king seated on the throne at Lachish is King Sargon facing Sennacherib. On the relief of the siege of Lachish, Sennacherib is on the left and Sargon is on the right as on the relief in the palace of Khorsabad. The epigraph of four lines over Sennacherib (in a label) confirms this identification because it is presented as co-regent (MAN) and not as king (LUGAL) and the other epigraph of three lines over the tent of Sennacherib describes him as king (afterward): The MAN sign, written with 2 nail heads << (like number “20”), later translated sharru “king” into Akkadian, literally means shanû “second”. The usual word used for “king” is not MAN but LUGAL, literally “great man” (both terms are used in Sennacherib’s inscriptions). Sennacherib could not bear the title of king during Sargon’s lifetime, because the latter was considered to be “without rival”, but only the title of viceroy (double or replica of the king). In addition, the term -ma meaning “and” connects one who sits to the one passing booty reviewed (who was King Sargon).” If the character next to Sennacherib was neither Sargon nor Adrammelech, who was it? …. Anyone who reads the entire article will notice numerous other small pieces of evidence. I am not an expert like you, but I trust you and, if possible, I would very much like to hear from you on this matter. My best regards …. My response to these e-mails, in part, was as follows: …. What is to stop him from being Crown Prince and Turtan (general)? Ramses II 'the Great', in my revision, had his talented son, Khaemwaset, as such. Khaemwaset, or Shebitku Khaemwaset, was the “Si’be tartan of Egypt” whom Sargon II chased away in 720 BC (conventional dating). His father was the long-reigning Sabacos, or Psibkhanno Ramses (Ramses II), who gave a gift of horses to Sargon. Sargon called Psibkhanno, "Shilkanni king of Egypt". Historians imagine that this Shilkanni was an Osorkon, but the name fits far better as an Assyrian transliteration of Psibkhanno. We know from the Book of Judith that "Nebuchadnezzar" (= Sargon-Sennacherib) sent ahead of him his Commander-in-Chief, second only to the king himself, against the West. Sargon II did the same sort of thing at the beginning, when he sent his Turtan against Ashdod, which is Lachish (Isaiah 20:1). And we know that the king's second self who goes forth with a massive army in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes”, was “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of the Book of Tobit. This Nadin was the king's oldest son, Ashur nadin shumi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-n%C4%81din-%C5%A1umi .... After defeating uprisings in 700 BC, Sennacherib named his own son, Aššur-nādin-šumi, as the new king of Babylon. Aššur-nādin-šumi was also titled as māru rēštû, a title that could be interpreted either as the "pre-eminent son" or the "firstborn son". His appointment as King of Babylon and the new title suggests that Aššur-nādin-šumi was being groomed to also follow Sennacherib as the King of Assyria upon his death. Aššur-nādin-šumi being titled as the māru rēštû likely means that he was Sennacherib's crown prince; if it means "pre-eminent" such a title would be befitting only for the crown prince and if it means "firstborn", it also suggests that Aššur-nādin-šumi was the heir as the Assyrians in most cases followed the principle of primogeniture (the oldest son inherits) .... Gerard Gertoux has, in the Abstract to his article, separated certain characters who I think were the same: Abstract. The traditional date of 701 BCE for Sennacherib's campaign to Judah, with the siege of Lachish and Jerusalem and the Battle of Eltekeh, is accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, the inscription of Sargon II, found at Tang-i Var in 1968, requires to date this famous campaign during his 10th campaign, in 712 BCE, implying a coregency with Sennacherib from 714 BCE. Mackey’s comment: That is a long co-regency considering that Assyriologists do not tend to recognise any co-regency there. If Sargon II was Sennacherib, as I have suggested, then the apparently large overlap of reigns becomes irrelevant. Tangi-i Var is only a problem because of the conventional misalignment of Egyptian chronology. Gerard Gertoux continues: A thorough analysis of the annals and the reliefs of Sargon and Sennacherib shows that there was only one campaign in Judah and not two. Mackey’s comment: A thorough analysis of Isaiah shows that there were two. For, what Isaiah says Sennacherib is not going to do, henceforth (in a failed second effort), the Assyrian king had already done in spades during his 3rd campaign (Isaiah 37:33): “And this is what the LORD says about the king of Assyria: ‘His armies will not enter Jerusalem. They will not even shoot an arrow at it. They will not march outside its gates with their shields nor build banks of earth against its walls’.” Gerard Gertoux continues: The Assyrian assault involved the presence of at least six kings (or similar): 1) taking of Ashdod by the Assyrian king Sargon II in his 10th campaign, 2) taking of Lachish by Sennacherib during his 3rd campaign, 3) siege of Jerusalem dated 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah; 4) battle of Eltekeh led by Nubian co-regent Taharqa; 5) under the leadership of King Shabataka during his 1st year of reign; 6) probable disappearance of the Egyptian king Osorkon IV in his 33rd year of reign. This conclusion agrees exactly with the biblical account that states all these events occurred during the 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah dated 712 BCE (2Kings 18:13-17, 19:9; 2Chronicles 32:9; Isaiah 20:1, 36:1, 37:9). Mackey’s comment: Where are we told that Taharqa was at the battle of Eltekeh? Indeed, Taharqa was co-regent with Shabataka (Shebitku), who, as Shebitku Khaemwaset, was Taharqa’s – as Ramses II – very son, Khaemwaset. Ramses II’s son, Shebitku Khaemwaset of the Tang-i Var document, had been the Turtan, Si’be, but later was co-regent with the great Pharaoh. Osorkon belongs to a later period. Gerard Gertoux will come back to the battle of Eltekeh again, about which he will write: …. the Battle of Eltekeh (Joshua 21:23) which can also be dated in 712 BCE. According to the two stelae of Kawa …after the death of Shabaka, his successor Shabataka immediately summoned an army which he placed under the command of his brother Taharqa, a young son of Piye aged 20, to repel Assyrian attack which was threatening. …. But Piye (Piankhi) was actually, again, Taharqa. For, as I noted in my thesis, 2007 (Volume One, p. 384. Emphasis added): …. Now Piye, conventionally considered to have been the first major 25th dynasty pharaoh, and whose beginning of reign (revised) must have been very close to 730 BC (given that he reigned for 31 years), and whose 21st year (Stele) fell during the reign of Tefnakht - had also adopted the name of Usermaatre. Thus Grimal: “[Piankhy] identified himself with the two great rulers who were most represented in the Nubian monuments, Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II, and adopted each of their coronation names: Menkheperre and Usermaatra respectively”. In other words, Piye was an eclectic in regard to early Egyptian history; and this fact may provide us with a certain opportunity for manoeuvring, alter ego wise. Fortunately we do not need to guess who Piye was, because there is a scarab that tells us precisely that Snefer-Ra Piankhi was Tirhakah, much to the puzzlement of Petrie. It reads: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Tirhakah, Son of Ra, Piankhi”. …. Piye (Piankhi) Usermaatre was both Taharqa (Tirhakah) and Ramses II Usermaatre. But the mighty Piankhi seriously needs one or more alter egos: The Disappearing Piankhi https://www.academia.edu/108993830/The_Disappearing_Piankhi The one facing Sargon II-Sennacherib The one facing Sargon II-Sennacherib at Khorsabad and Lachish could be either, or both, of the two to whom I referred in my correspondence (above): We know from the Book of Judith that "Nebuchadnezzar" (= Sargon-Sennacherib) sent ahead of him his Commander-in-Chief, second only to the king himself, against the West. Sargon II did the same sort of thing at the beginning, when he sent his Turtan against Ashdod, which is Lachish (Isaiah 20:1). And we know that the king's second self who goes forth with a massive army in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes”, was “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of the Book of Tobit. And he could also be the Turtan of Sennacherib’s first major campaign against Judah (2 Kings 18:17): “And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem”. The likelihood is, I think, that, given that “Holofernes” and his military deeds were well known to the Bethulian Jews, he had been around for quite a while. For thus Judith will say to the Commander-in-Chief (Judith 11:8): ‘For we have heard of your wisdom and skill, and it is reported throughout the whole world that you alone are the best in the whole kingdom, the most informed and the most astounding in military strategy’. That would put the odds very much in favour of “Holofernes” being the Turtan of Sargon II as early as Isaiah 20:1: “In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it”. And he continued on through Sennacherib’s most successful 3rd campaign, and into the later ill-fated one, when he was slain by the hand of Judith, with the consequence that 185,000 horrified Assyrians were routed. “And the Assyrian will fall by a sword not wielded by a man, And a sword not of man will devour him”. Isaiah 31:8

Luciferic fall of Ninurta-nadin-shumi King of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey Isaiah 14:12-27 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’. But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: ‘Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?’ All the kings of the nations lie in state, each in his own tomb. But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch; you are covered with the slain, with those pierced by the sword, those who descend to the stones of the pit. Like a corpse trampled underfoot, you will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land and killed your people. Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again. Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities. ‘I will rise up against them’, declares the Lord Almighty. ‘I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants’, declares the Lord. ‘I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland; I will sweep her with the broom of destruction’, declares the Lord Almighty. The Lord Almighty has sworn, ‘Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen. I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down. His yoke will be taken from my people, and his burden removed from their shoulders’. This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations. For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? If, as I have proposed in my article: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (2) (DOC) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu he, supposedly ‘the most potent monarch of the (so-called) second Isin dynasty’, was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ himself (conventionally known as II), then it would follow that Ninurta-nadin-shumi was not the father of Nebuchednezzar, as is generally thought, but was Ashur-nadin-shumi, Nebuchednezzar’s predecessor on the throne of Babylon. According to Marc Van de Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, p. 166): “… the second Isin dynasty. Its most forceful and famous ruler was Nebuchadnezzar I (ruled 1125-04) …”. These dates will now need to be lowered on the timescale by about half a millennium. On p. 292, Van de Mieroop will give this sequence of rulers of Babylon: Tiglath-pileser III … Sennacherib … Assur-nadin-shumi … Esarhaddon … Assurbanipal. But, with Nebuchednezzar (now I-II) also re-set as a ruler of Assyro-Babylonia, as Esarhaddon: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (4) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Van de Mieroop’s conventional scenario will need to be re-shaped like this: Tiglath-pileser III [= I] … Sennacherib [= Nabopolassar] … Assur-nadin-shumi [= Ninurta-nadin-shumi] … Esarhaddon … Assurbanipal [= Nebuchednezzar I and II]. Ashur-nadin-shumi (= Ninurta-nadin-shumi), now to be regarded as the oldest brother of Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar I-II), will play a massive, though ill-fated, rôle in ancient biblico-history: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (2) (DOC) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Apart from Ninurta-nadin-shumi, the other character connected with Nebuchednezzar supposedly of Isin, and who may have seemed right out of place in my revised chronology, is the Assyrian who fought against him, Ashur-resha-ishi. I explained about him in “The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar” article: As to Ashur-resha-ishi, he seems to create something of a problem as an Assyrian fighting against Nebuchednezzar, when the latter I have also identified as a ruler of Assyria, as Esarhaddon/Assurbanipal. I would suggest that this Ashur-resha-ishi was the Sharezer (shureshi) who was one of the two sons who murdered their father, Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37): “One day when [Sennacherib] was worshipping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him down with the sword and escaped into the land of Ararat. His son Esarhaddon succeeded him”. Nebuchednezzar (as Esarhaddon) was thus fighting, against one of Sennacherib’s remaining sons, in a life or death civil war for the control of Assyria. These names, at least, are common to the supposedly two eras: Tiglath-pileser; Merodach-baladan; (three Elamites); Ninurta-nadin-shumi/Ashur-nadin-shumi; NEBUCHEDNEZZAR; Ashur-resha-ishi/Sharezer

Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma

by Damien F. Mackey Introductory Having Lagash-Eshnunna (var. Ashnunna) re-identified now - so that instead of being places in Mesopotamia, as is generally believed, they (now it) belong(s) to Judea, as, Lachish-Ashdod (var. Ashduddu) - has necessitated that the Sumerian history that has been written around the location has since needed to be re-written, as Judean history. And I have already made a positive start on this. See e.g. my article: Called Sumerian History, but isn’t (3) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu From this research it has been learned that certain places thought to have been situated in Sumer, such as Lagash, Girsu, Puzrish-Dagān, and Umma, eventually fall off the political map. I attributed this to the fact that they (or some of them, at least) never actually belonged on the political map of Sumer, that Lagash (or Lakish) and Girsu, for instance, were, respectively, Lachish and Jerusalem, in Judea. The obscure Umma will become a focal point in this article. The Judean history that was being re-written in relation to Lagash and Girsu (supposedly in Sumer) and Eshnunna (supposedly in central Mesopotamia) seemed to revolve entirely around kings David and Solomon and the later Hezekiah of Judah. See, for example, my articles: Prince of Lagash (8) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? (8) Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Thus David and Solomon were, respectively, Dadusha (Naram-Sîn) and Ibāl pî-el of Eshnunna; Solomon was also Gudea of Lagash; and Hezekiah was Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina “Uru-ka-gina, Uru-inim-gina, or Iri-ka-gina was King of the city-states of Lagash and Girsu in Mesopotamia [sic]”. While Girsu (my Jerusalem) is considered to have been the actual capital of Lagash, the region is generally designated by the name of Lagash, rather than of Girsu. According to the Wikipedia explanation, article “E-ninnu”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ninnu “Girsu was the religious centre of a state that was named Lagash after its most populous city…”. In the biblical narrative, however, it is Jerusalem that always takes centre stage. With nearly all of the main players (Dadusha/Naram-Sîn, Ibāl pî-el, Gudea and Urukagina) now having been dealt with, the only one left to be considered, I think, would be Eannatum (var. Eanatum) of Lagash. Odds are, I thought, that Eannatum would be either David or Solomon, or Hezekiah. I quickly ruled out King Solomon, considering that Eannatum was no Gudea (Solomon) type, but was a ruler whose land, Lagash, was under severe invasive threat. Nor did that particular scenario appear to fit King David’s era either, despite the fact that David was a warrior who fought many battles. No, this war was on a far more vast scale, reaching even as far, supposedly, as Mesopotamia and Elam. The era of King Hezekiah of Judah came closer to it, and I had already identified the reforming king Hezekiah with the reforming king Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu, whose land of Lagash (Lachish) had been invaded and overcome by one Lugalzagesi of Umma. In this context - a reforming king of the Lachish region (Judea), overcome by an invader - it became fairly apparent who Lugalzagesi must have been, though Umma itself continued to remain obscure, or imprecise. Lugalzagesi must be Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria. Here is some of what I wrote on the matter in the Urukagina article: Mackey’s further comment: Having said that about Lugal, “King”, it is most interesting to learn that: https://www.joshobrouwers.com/articles/evolution-sumerian-kingship/ “Lugal-Zagesi is said to have had no less than fifty LUGALs beneath him”. Cf. Isaiah 10:8: “Assyria [Sargon II] says, ‘Aren’t my commanders all kings? Can’t they do whatever they like?’” There has been some speculation on whether or not Urukagina enacted his reforms into law or if he was just paying lip service to social reform as a way to increase his popularity with his subjects (many kings announce high-minded reforms at the beginning of their reigns, only to proceed with “business as usual”). With Urukagina there can be little doubt as to his intentions. He repeated his reforms on other foundation cones. The reforms were the central event of his reign, and they would end up costing him dearly, as will later be shown. As for whether or not he enacted the reforms into law: Urukagina was the king, his word was law. This alone was enough to guarantee that the reforms were enacted. …. These social reforms weren't his only concern. He ruled during a period of political instability and civil war between the Sumerian city-states [sic]. His main antagonist was Lugalzagesi, the king of Umma who was making a bid to conquer all of Sumer and Akkad (and beyond). Mackey’s comment: The name Lugalzagesi (with various alternative spellings, such as Lugalzaggessi and Lugalzagissi), just like the name Sargon, which means “True King”, shares at least the King element. Umma is problematical. It is yet another of those supposedly Sumerian places that drops off the political map …. Umma may either be a well-known place … under a different name (below), or it may be the name for a place not in Sumer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umma Umma (Sumerian: 𒄑𒆵𒆠 ummaKI;[1] in modern Dhi Qar Province in Iraq, formerly also called Gishban) was an ancient city in Sumer. There is some scholarly debate about the Sumerian and Akkadian names for this site.[2] Lugalzagesi made several attacks on the kingdom of Lagash. One administrative tablet from this period is dated “the month that the man of Uruk came a third time.” It seems like Lagash was under repeated attacks from two different cities, Umma and Uruk, but in this case they are essentially the same. Mackey’s comment: “… came a third time”. Sargon II had sent his Turtan against Lachish/Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1), then the Assyrian army came again, after Iatna-Iamani had revolted. Then, as Sennacherib, Sargon II famously laid siege to the mighty fort-city, Lachish. And, as we read above, “Uruk and Umma … [may] essentially [be] the same”. Though, as we read on, the two names will now be distinguished. Although Lugalzagesi was originally the king of Umma, he had recently moved his capital to Uruk, so “the man of Umma,” as he’s called on another tablet, and “the man of Uruk,” both refer to Lugalzagesi. Umma and Uruk would be allies in the war against Urukagina, since both cities were ruled by Lugalzagesi. Three (or more) attacks on Urukagina within the span of seven years is a bit much, even by the Sumerian standards of internecine warfare. The reason for this was the long standing animosity between Umma and Lagash. They were at war for more than a century, battling for control of the Guedena, the fertile land between the two cities. Mackey’s comment: Guedena, Gu-Edin, I have identified, basically, as the ancient Eden, which became Jerusalem. Although Lugalzagesi was currently 'the Man of Uruk', he was born and raised as a royal prince of Umma. As such, he would have grown up hating Lagash and dreaming of the day when he could defeat it. The Sumerian Hundred Years War was about to culminate into its final battle. Urukagina was focused on his social reformations. He wasn't interested in foreign wars abroad or Sumerian civil wars at home. Nonetheless, although social reforms were Urukagina's primary concern, he spent most of his time defending his kingdom. Mackey’s comment: This description fits very well with phases during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah. …. The gloominess of Urukagina’s situation can be sensed in a fragment from a heavily damaged foundation cone (CDLI P222617): n lines missing “For my part, what did I have of it?” I said to him: “I did not do any violent act, but the dogs {the enemy} today are ... my city(?)” n lines missing Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army}, and Urukagina exchanged blows with it with weapons. A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there, and dogs he made live there. He went away to his city, but a second time he came ... rest of column missing The “wall” is probably the enemy army surrounding the city, or it may be a siege wall constructed by the invaders to trap the civilians and defenders inside the city, cut off from outside food supplies, in order to starve them into submission. The prolonged siege of the city caused the enemy “dogs” (soldiers) to live there for a while. Mackey’s comment: This would be the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. 2 Kings 18:13-17: In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me’. The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the Temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace. At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the Temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria. Sennacherib Threatens Jerusalem The king of Assyria sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander with a large army, from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They came up to Jerusalem and stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field. Urukagina – Hezekiah during siege of Jerusalem Eannatum – Hezekiah victorious over Assyria This is how I am beginning to see it. Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu belongs to the successful invasion of Sennacherib during the latter’s Third Campaign, when everything went right for the Assyrians. Lachish (Lagash/Lakish) was taken and the capital city of Jerusalem (Girsu) was successfully besieged: Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army}, and Urukagina exchanged blows with it with weapons. A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there, and dogs he made live there. Eannatum of Lagash was, on the other hand, the victorious King Hezekiah. His other name, Lumma, may clinch it. For I have identified King Hezekiah as the Lemuel (Lumma-el?) of Proverbs 31: 1, 4: “Lemuel” of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon (11) "Lemuel" of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon by | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu https://dbpedia.org/page/Eannatum “One inscription found on a boulder states that Eannatum was his Sumerian name, while his “Tidnu” (Amorite) name was Lumma”. So we have, rhymingly, Lumma opposed to Umma. The conventional history, which had wildly assigned Urukagina to the c. C24th BC, instead of to the c. C8th BC where he truly belongs (my view), and had made of him the world’s first reformer, goes similarly beserk with who I believe to be his alter ego, Eannatum: https://dbpedia.org/page/Eannatum “Eannatum (Sumerian: … É.AN.NA-tum2) was a Sumerian Ensi (ruler or king) of Lagash circa 2500–2400 BCE. He established one of the first verifiable empires in history: he subdued Elam and destroyed the city of Susa as well as several other Iranian cities, and extended his domain to Sumer and Akkad”. Did King Hezekiah do any of this? While I am not quite sure how some of this Sumerian-ised Judean history came about – maybe by the later Ptolemies and Seleucids, who glamourised early history and individuals - the whole thing has been grossly mis-dated by modern historians and archaeologists. Let us reconsider some of this, following the Sumerian Shakespeare, writing on whom he calls, “Eannatum, the King of Kish”: https://sumerianshakespeare.com/37601.html Eanatum … the most militarily successful ruler of the first dynasty of Lagash. He conducted many campaigns abroad, including ones against the southern cities of Ur, Uruk, and Kiutu, as well as states further afield such as Kish, Mari, Akshak, and Susa. He even reached northeastern Subartu and the eastern regions of Elam, destroying a city called Mishime. His military campaigns were so widespread that he was able to claim the title "King of Kish," a title associated with if not always actually indicating, the unity of the Mesopotamian city-states and their submission to a single ruler. Mackey’s comment: Obviously no king of Judah ever achieved such far distant conquests as these. It is probably a garbled history that drags in some of the far-reaching conquests of the neo-Assyrian kings. However, the 185,000-strong Assyrian army of Sennacherib that Israel conquered at this time, thanks to the heroic intervention of Judith, consisted of soldiery from many of these named parts. Achior, the nephew of Tobit, for instance, had commanded the Elamite (not Ammonite as in the Book of Judith) contingent. Like other Lagash rulers, Eanatum had to deal with Umma and the unsettled struggle over the Guedena. From the Enmetena cone we know he was in a strong position to dictate terms of an agreement. He divided the land with his rival Enakale and established a no-man's land along the agreed border, marking it with his own boundary stele and restoring the previously ruined stele of Mesalim, in addition to building shrines to Enlil, Ningirsu, and Ninhursag near the division. He also imposed a tax on Umma for the use of its share of the Guedena, which grew to huge proportions and in the time of his descendants resulted in another invasion by Umma into Lagash's side. To enforce the agreement he made the ruler of Umma swear an oath to the gods not to violate the borders. Mackey’s comment: Guedena is another of those geographical names that, I think, belongs to Judah, rather than to Sumer. The site of Jerusalem was originally the Garden of Eden (Guedena? Land of Eden). Though polytheistic elements (not suitable to the rule of King Hezekiah) seem to enter in here, the god Ningirsu, for instance, was simply (so I think) another name for Yahweh – Ningirsu, “Lord of Girsu” (that is, Jerusalem). King Hezekiah, after the victory that must have shaken the entire ancient world, may have been in a position to impose certain terms upon the Assyrians. Much information about Eanatum's deeds comes from the famous Stele of the Vultures, a fragmentary inscription that depicts in both verbally and graphically powerful ways the military exploits of the king of Lagash. One fragment shows the god Ningirsu holding a mace in his right hand while his left holds a net that has bagged a number of helpless enemy soldiers. Another section shows Eanatum leading a heavily armed phalanx of soldiers trampling slain enemy underneath. Yet another shows men piling up corpses into a giant heap, an image which is reflected in the text. The stele also gives testament to developments in the ideology of kingship which are promoted by later Lagash rulers. Eanatum is the first Lagash king to explicitly claim divine birth by a god, in this case Ningirsu. Inheritors of the throne would go on to do likewise, as when Eanatum's son Enanatum I [sic]¬¬¬ named the god Lugal-URU11 his father, and when Enmetena names Gatumdug his divine mother (Bauer pg. 462). Along with the divine progenitor comes a divine wet-nurse, that is, a female goddess who suckles the king to make him strong. For Eanatum this figure is the ancient goddess Ninhursag (Ean 01, IV). Other kings, down to the Neo-Assyrian period, would also make use of this motif. The stele also describes how Ningirsu visited Eanatum in a dream where he instructed him to make war on Umma. This motif surfaces again in the cylinder inscriptions of the later king Gudea, where he narrates how Ningirsu explained the plan for the (re)building of his E-ninnu temple. Mackey’s comment: The first paragraph here could well be describing the victorious Judean king, Hezekiah (Eannatum), led by Yahweh (Ningirsu), joining the rout against the Assyrian foe as begun in the north (around Shechem). Judith 15:5-7: When the Israelites heard it, with one accord they fell upon the enemy and cut them down as far as Choba. Those in Jerusalem and all the hill country also came, for they were told what had happened in the camp of the enemy. The men in Gilead and in Galilee outflanked them with great slaughter, even beyond Damascus and its borders. The rest of the people of Bethulia [Shechem] fell upon the Assyrian camp and plundered it, acquiring great riches. And the Israelites, when they returned from the slaughter, took possession of what remained. Even the villages and towns in the hill country and in the plain got a great amount of plunder, since there was a vast quantity of it. This celebrated incident is what I believe that the Stele of the Vultures may be depicting, whether the stele had been created closely contemporaneously to the event itself, or, more likely, at some later stage (and perhaps far away from Judah) given the polytheistic elements to be found in it. As for the second paragraph, the Davidide kings did regard themselves as sons of God. The “wet nurse” theme for great men is a constant throughout biblical history (Moses) and pagan legend, e.g., Hathor suckling Hatshepsut; Cyrus the Great suckled by a female dog; Romulus and Remus suckled by a she-wolf, etc. Gudea, as King Solomon, certainly did receive a dream from Ningirsu, Yahweh, regarding the building of the temple (Temple). King Hezekiah’s oracles on behalf of Yahweh were Isaiah and, as King Josiah, Huldah, who is Judith. The conflict between Eannatum (Lumma) and Umma over water is probably a vague recollection of the fact that King Hezekiah famously secured the water of Jerusalem, so that the looming Assyrians would not benefit from it. 2 Chronicles 32:1-4: After all that Hezekiah had so faithfully done, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. He laid siege to the fortified cities, thinking to conquer them for himself. When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. They gathered a large group of people who blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. ‘Why should the kings of Assyria come and find plenty of water?’ they said. Compare this with the following: https://classicalwisdom.com/politics/wars/a-war-for-water-the-tale-of-two-city-states/ Eannatum was the King of Lagash, a fertile town nestled between the Tigris and the Euphrates [sic]. While his domain was prosperous, Eannatum wanted more. This ambitious king, upon receiving his power, understood that Lagash’s security relied on its water supply from the Shatt al-Gharraf [sic]. Unfortunately his neighbor, the city-state of Umma, also bordered this very important channel on the western bank [sic]. The chief cause of hostility between these important cities is unknown according to some historians, and while we can never be certain, it seems obvious to us that the conflict was over water. …. Umma held this one strategic advantage over Lagash. Cutting the water supply to the city would hinder its domestic produce and trade via waterway, effectively crippling commerce in Lagash and sending prices upward on all commodities. …. Good try!