Part One:
Needs re-consideration
by
Damien
F. Mackey
The supposedly mid-C9th BC
Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, lies at the heart of one of the revision’s most
awkward conundrums, now known as “The Assuruballit Problem” [TAP].
Introduction
According to the
Velikovskian revision of the El Amarna [EA] period, which I accept in general,
though by no means in all of its details, the vast correspondence of the EA
archives belongs to the mid-C9th BC period of the Divided Kingdom of Israel and
Judah.
Whilst Dr. I.
Velikovsky managed to lay down a set of biblico-historical anchors that have
stood the test of time, e.g., the sturdy synchronism of EA’s Amurrite kings
with C9th BC Syrian ones, he also left unresolved some extremely complex
problems.
At the beginning of
Chapter 3 of my thesis (Volume One, p. 52):
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
I named what I then
considered to be:
… the three most
problematical aspects of the [Velikovskian] matrix: namely,
(i) ‘The Assuruballit Problem’ [henceforth TAP];
(ii) where to locate Ramses II in the new scheme; and
(iii) the resolution of the complex [Third Intermediate Period]
TIP.
And I think that I
can fairly safely say that these are still amongst the three most vexing
problems. Here, though, I am concerned only with (i) TAP, towards the
resolution of which difficulty I dedicated an Excursus: ‘The Assuruballit Problem’ [TAP], beginning on p. 230
(Chapter Ten) of my thesis. Whilst I did not shy away from discussing in detail
any of the above (i) - (iii) in my thesis, I do not claim to have provided
perfect solutions to any of them. However, I am hopeful that my revision has
laid down some sort of basis for a full resolution of these problems in the
future.
On p. 230 of my
university thesis, I re-stated TAP that had already been well addressed by
other revisionists, such as P. James (“Some Notes on the "Assuruballit
Problem",” 1979): http://saturniancosmology.org/files/.cdrom/journals/review/v0401/18notes.htm). I explained:
TAP is this:
If
EA is to be lowered to the mid-C9th BC, as Velikovsky had argued, why then is
EA’s ‘king of Assyria’ called ‘Assuruballit’ (EA 15 & 16), and not
‘Shalmaneser’, since Shalmaneser III – by current reckoning – completely
straddles the middle part of this century (c. 858-824 BC)?
Velikovsky’s part
solution to the problem was to identify Shalmaneser III, as ruler of Babylon,
with EA correspondent and Kassite ruler of Babylonian Karduniash, Burnaburiash
(so-called II).
Until now, I have
considered that suggestion of Velikovsky’s to be quite plausible.
I no longer do.
There is no doubt
that the Kassites, albeit most powerful kings, are so sorely lacking an
archaeological culture within conventional history as to demand alter egos.
And, regarding EA’s
Assuruballit, James (op. cit.) tells of:
…. Velikovsky's
Unpublished Solution.
Although
he has yet to publish in full his own answer to the problem, Velikovsky does
consider, like Courville, that the differences in the paternities of the
el-Amarna Assuruballit and Assuruballit I cast doubt on their assumed identity
and relieve the problem - there must have been another Assuruballit in the
mid-9th century who wrote to Akhnaton. Velikovsky stressed this point in a
letter to Professor SAMUEL MERCER, author of an English edition of the
el-Amarna letters, as long ago as 1947. He has also considered the possibility
that Assuruballit was not a king of Assyria, but a Syrian ruler, perhaps an
Assyrian governor of Carchemish, albeit one not mentioned in the contemporary
records [14]. Such a solution would have to explain the usual reading
"King of Assyria" in EA 15 and 16 [15], and how, "within the
ethics of that day", an Assyrian governor could write to the king of Egypt
on equal terms and describe himself as a "great king".
[End of quote]
My own argument went
along lines somewhat similar, with Shalmaneser III (= Burnaburiash) as ruler of
Assyria and Babylonia, and Assuruballit as the Syrian Aziru (= biblical
Hazael), who would come to dominate Assyria and Egypt - both of whom,
Shalmaneser III and Assuruballit, being amongst those despised “sons of
Abdi-ashirta, the dog”, the bane of EA correspondent Rib-Addi of Gubla. That was my provisional suggestion, whilst still
being open to a more satisfactory location of Shalmaneser III within EA.
And that brings me to
the purpose of this new series.
I now suspect that
Shalmaneser III does not fit at all within an EA scenario - that he has must be
removed right out of the mid-C9th BC. Basically, Shalmaneser III is the problem of TAP.
Part Two:
Un-hooking him from the mid-C9th BC
If Shalmaneser III is to be
removed from the mid-C9th BC biblico-historical scene, then it will be
necessary to show that the ‘pins’ ostensibly fastening him to that era are
insecure.
Introduction
Although I - by no
means averse to the use of alter egos - had
previously searched about for a possible identification of Shalmaneser III with
some other potent Assyrian king, I was probably unable ultimately to detach him
from his apparent mid-C9th BC links.
For one, Shalmaneser
III is considered to have campaigned against Ben-Hadad of Damascus, and, afterwards,
against Hazael. And this Syrian sequence appears to represent the biblical
succession of kings of these very names - properly identified by Dr. I. Velikovsky,
I believe, in EA’s Amurrite succession of Abdi-ashirta
and Aziru.
Ben-hadad and Shalmaneser.
The relations between
Ben-hadad and the Assyrian king Shalmaneser II[I] are very clear. The Syrian
forces were utterly defeated at Karkar on the Orontes in 853 B.C., in
spite of the enormous armament which the Damascene had brought to his aid. The
inscriptions of Shalmaneser in one passage give the number of the slain as
20,500. With 120,000 men in 845 B.C. Shalmaneser again entered Syria
and overthrew Ben-hadad and a large army of allies.
According to II Kings viii.
7-15, Ben-hadad fell ill and sent Hazael to the prophet Elisha—who was then in
Damascus—in order to inquire whether he would recover. Elisha prophesied that
Hazael would be king in Ben-hadad's stead and would do much evil to Israel. On
Hazael's return to his master he smothered Ben-hadad with a wet cloth and
declared himself king (see Hazael).
When, in 841, the Assyrian king once more encountered the forces of Damascus,
his chief foe was Hazael, who, it is known, was Ben-hadad's successor, so that
the latter must have died between 845 and 841 B.C.
[End of quote]
Data such as this
seemed to me to lock Shalmaneser III firmly into place in the mid-C9th BC.
Furthermore, one of Ben-Hadad’s
allies at Karkar (Qarqar), A-ha-ab-bu Sir-’i-la-a-a, has commonly been identified with king Ahab of Israel, who was a
contemporary of Ben-hadad I.
And, finally, there
was the famous Black Obelisk inscription of Shalmaneser III, supposedly recording
the submission to the king of Assyria of Jehu king of Israel. We read this
excited account of apparent biblical import at: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/07/top-ten-biblical-discoveries-in-archaeology-%E2%80%93-9-jehus-tribute-to-shalmaneser-iii/
The
obelisk contains five different scenes on five different rows. Each row
depicts the tribute of a foreign king. A tribute would usually entail a foreign
king coming before Shalmaneser and bowing down before him showing Shalmaneser
to be the ultimate king of his land.
Guess
what? The second row of pictures on the Obelisk depicts the tribute of one
particular king whom we know. When the ancient Assyrian Cuneiform inscription
was translated the biblical world was shocked. The inscription reads, “The
tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a golden bowl,
a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a
staff for a king [and] spears.”
Significance
This
is the ONLY, to my knowledge, contemporary artistic depiction of anyone
mentioned in the Bible. What do I mean by contemporary? This is the only artistic
depiction of someone in the Bible done by a person who actually lived during
the same time. The Obelisk you see before you was created while Jehu was still
the king sitting on his throne in Israel. The people knew what Jehu looked
like. History outside of the Bible tells us Jehu and Shalmaneser were kings at
the same time.
[End of quote]
In Search of an Alternative
Surely then, based on
the above, Shalmaneser III must firmly belong to the mid-C9th BC era of
Ben-hadad I and Hazael of Syria, and Ahab and Jehu of Israel!
But, then again, must
he?
Since these biblico-historical
synchronisms with Shalmaneser III are occasionally challenged - and especially given
the immense problem that a mid-C9th BC Shalmaneser III presents to the revision
- it may well be worthwhile exploring some alternative possibilities.
