Study of a Reconstruction of Time

Home , Amqu, Irsu, Niqmaddu III, Niya Kingdom, Pierre Montet, Sitre

The Late Bronze Age in the Ancient Middle East

Rudi Laatsch The Netherlands 2015

Ancient Near East in the Bronze Age - Reconstruction in Time

Index I - Reconstruction of the period 900 – 800 BCE sheet

a - Egypt 4 b -The Philistine Coastal Cities 11 c - Phoenicia 13 d - Ugarit 14 e - The Hittites (Land of Hatti) 22 f - Phrygia 46 g - Aram 47 h - Mitanni 51 i - Urartu 52

II - Reconstruction of the period 800 – 700 BCE

a - Egypt 53 b - The Philistine Coastal Cities 68 c - Phoenicia 73 d - Ugarit 75 e - The Hittites (Land of Hatti) 82 f - Phrygia 104 g - Aram en Israel 108 h - Mitanni 109 i - Urartu 109

III - Reconstruction period > 700 BCE in Egypt 112

Conclusions 130

Addendum 1 131 Radiocarbon Dating, Dendrochronology

Addendum 2 135 Time schemes Existing Chronology

Bibliography 137

Time-scheme - 1

Reconstructed Chronology

Time Egypt Judah Israel Aram

x x 950 x x

940

930

920

910 Tuthmosis IV x x x (907 – 898) Baasha 900 x (909 – 885)

890 Amenhotep III Asa x x 880 (898 – 861) (912 – 871) Omri Benhadad I (885 – 874) x (885 – 865) 870 x x 860 Akhnaton x Jehoshaphat Ahab Benhadad - II (861 – 845) (871 – 849) (874 – 842) (865 – 848) 850 x x Smenkhare (845 – 844) x Ahaziah 840 Tuthankhamon (844 – 837) (849 – 842) x (Ahaziah, Jehoram) x Ay (837 – 833) x Athaliya (842 – 837) x Aziru (Hazael) 830 Arma’a Jehu (848 – 814) (833 – 819) (842 – 815) 820 Ramses I (819 – 818) x Jehoash (837 – 797) x Benhadad III x 810 Sethi Jehoahaz (814 – 810) x (818 – 807) x (815 – 801) Duppi--Teshub / 800 x Bentishina (810 -802) x x Shapili 790 Jehoash (802 – 793) x Ramses II Amaziah (801 – 786) x 780 (807 – 767) (797 – 768) Bentishina 770 x (793 – 763) x Jeroboam x 760 Uzziah (786 – 747) Sheshonq -1 (768 – 740) Shausgamuwa 750 (763 – 746) Menachem x x 740 x (746 – 737) Rezin Jotham x Pekah x (746 – 732) 730 (740 – 736) (735 – 732) x x Hoshea 720 Ahaz (732 – 722) x (736 – 716) x 710 End of Israel End of Aram 700 Hezekiah

Time-scheme - 2

Reconstructed Chronology

Time Assyria Aram Hatti Ugarit

950

940

930

920 i

910 X Adad-nirari 900 (911 – 891) Tudhaliya X (901- -884) 890 Tikulti-ninurta X (891 - 884) X X X 880 Benhadad I (885 – 865) Ammishtamru 870 Ashur-nasir-apal ( - 858) (884 – 858) X Shuppiluliuma 860 X Benhadad II (884 – 836) X (865 – 850) 850 X Shalmanassar 840 (858 – 824) Niqmaddu Aziru (Hazael) Arnuwanda (836 – 835) X (858 – 825) 830 (850 – 814) X Arhalbu X 820 Shamsi-adad Murshili (825 – 822) X (824 – 810 X (814 – 810) X X (810 – 805) X Duppi-Teshub/Benteshina Muwatalli 800 (810 – 802) X (810 – 800) X Adad-nirari Shapili Murshili (800 – 793 X Niqmepa 790 (805 – 783) (802 – 793) X (822 – 778) X 780 Shalmanassar Hattushili X (783 – 772) Benteshina (793 – 769) 770 X (793 – 763) X Ashur-dan X Tudhaliya Ammishtamru 760 (772 – 755) (769 – 755) (778 – 748) X Shausgamuwa Kurunta (755) X 750 Ashur-nirari (763 – 746) Arnuwanda X Ibiranu X (755 – 745) X X (755 – 752) (748 – 744) X 740 Tiglath-Pileser III Rezin Niqmaddu 730 (745 – 727) (746 – 732) X (744 – 732) X X 720 Shuppiluliuma Ammurapi Aram province (752 – 712) (732 – 712) 710 of Assyria X X End of Hatti End of Ugarit 700

I - Reconstruction of the period 900 – 800 BCE

I – a Egypt (900 – 800 BCE)

The el-Amarna Archive This section of Egyptian history in the study is to shed some light on the shift of Egyptian chronology into the 9th century BCE. The text will refer to Velikovsky’s hypothesis which he detailed in Ages in Chaos.1 Part of his proposal was based on interpretations of the texts on the cuneiform tablets found in the State Archive of Akhnaton, which will be partly referred to hereafter. The main item of this hypothesis was the repositioning of this pharao at some time in the 9th century BCE, corresponding with the reigns of kings in neighbouring countries. As mentioned earlier, Velikovsky’s hypothesis will be followed in order to study all the foreign relations in a wide area. Akhnaton’s reign being positioned on the Timetable, the text will start with his grandfather Thutmosis IV.

Thutmosis IV reigned only briefly, from about 907 to 898 BCE in the reconstructed timescheme, but he acquired Egyptian hegemony over Canaan and Syria with fast and powerful campaigns. The Egyptian hegemony was firmly anchored by appointing governors in the various countries and encamping troop contingents in strategic places. But Egypt’s control on these areas lessened considerably during Akhnaten’s reign. The various countries in Canaan and Syria could no longer rely on Egyptian military support at the breakout of severe hostilities. The internal tensions within Egypt should be seen as the cause of this development. The el-Amarna state archives included an exchange of letters between some Egyptian pharaoh’s from the 18th Dynasty, Amenhotep III and his son Ahknaten, and some vassal kings in the Levant, including Aram (Syria). Kings of major countries in Mesopotamia and further north started their letters with the phrase "To my brother", indicating they felt to be regarded as equal to the Egyptian Pharaoh. Those writing from Canaan wrote their letters starting with the phrase "To my king, my lord", as they still were vassals.

One of the most active writers was the king of Sumur with a number of about 60 letters. The cities of Sumur and Gubla were most frequently referred to in all these letters. They were apparently quite important, as they played a prominant role in that neighbouring northern country. The name of the king of Sumur referred to was Rib-Addi. Velikovsky identified this king as Ahab, king of Israel, whose name, read in Hebrew, meant "the older brother / son, father," which is also the meaning of the name Rib-Addi, read as an ideogram. Following is a brief overview of the type and nature of this correspondence, which contained quite some attention to the dangerous situation of Sumur. This city should be identified as Samaria. It was threatened by Aram without much hope for relief. Samaria was founded by Omri, king of Israel in the period 885-874 BCE. The el-Amarna letters should therefore be dated to the later reign of Omri, eg. after 880 BCE. The texts all refer to Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos. It is probably to the governor of Samaria, meanwhile returned to the court in Egypt, to whom Rib-Addi wrote

1 Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, Doubleday & Co, New York, 1952.

4 letters in which the following texts: "You know my my attitude: while you were in Sumura, that I was your faithful servant" "Have you not said to your Lord that he sends you at the head of the archers?" ''I come to you’, you wrote to me. Hear me. Say to the king to give to you three hundred men." The name of this governor, accredited to Sumur, was Aman-appa as evidenced by the letter of Rib-Addi to the Egyptian pharaoh. "Verily, Aman-appa is with you. Ask him. He knows that and has seen the distress which oppresses me". This person was governor of the city of Samaria during Ahab´s reign with the name of Amon, as mentioned in Chronicles II 18:25. But Aman-appa appeared to be an old man who had died in Egypt, as shown by the following letters: To Aman-appa: “Might it be so that you are dead, I will die too.” To the king: "There is hostility against Sumur. And in truth, her governor is dead now." Rib-Addi found himself at some point in a precarious position because his armed forces apparently could not withstand enemy attacks of his neighbour, Abdi-Asjirta, king of Amuruland (Aram), with capital Dumaska (Damascus). That king should then be identified as Benhadad II in this revised chronology. The following letters refer to this king: "What is Abdi-Asjirta, the servant, the dog, that he can take possession of the king’s land? What is his family? " "All chiefs are with Abdi-Asjirta" To an Egyptian dignitary: "Why have you been silent and not told the king that he should send archers, that they might take Sumura? What is Abdi-Asjirta, the servant, the dog, that he is to take the land from the king for himself? ……send fifty horses and two hundred foot soldiers to me ... .upto the departure of the archers ... " Later: "I have written to the palace, ’Send archers’. Did they not reconquer the land for the king in the past? " The wishes of Rib-Addi were apparently heard: "When Abdi-Asjirta conquered Sumuri, I protected the city by my own hand. I had no garrison. But I wrote to the king, my Lord, and soldiers came and they took Sumuri. " There are many letters of the same tenor, showing that also later on the next king of Damascus pressed hard on Israel. That next king was Aziru, who came to power in Aram after killing his father Abdi-Asjirta. Aziru should be synonymous with Hazael, who is known to have killed his father Benhadad in order to acquire the throne of Aram. Rib-Addi also reported on that subject: "Abdi-Asjirta is very sick, who knows whether he will not die?" en: "They have indeed killed Abdi-Asjirta, whom the king had placed over them. " And several letters later: "Aziru has taken all my cities, Gubla in her solitude is left to me... Behold, soldiers have gone up against Gubla ... And if he takes it, where shall I stand?" There are also a series of letters about the terrible famine that struck the country , on revolts, respectively raids, of Mesh (synonymous with Mesha, the vassal king of Moab). And then time and again about the very

5 difficult situation his country is being in. Finally Rib-Addi fled from Gubla to save his life and arrived in Beirut, where he wanted to find support from the reigning monarchy there. His last letter to the Pharaoh ended with: “ When I die, my sons, the servants of the king, will still live, and they will write to the king: ‘Oh, bring us back into our city.’ ” The letters show that the country of Rib-Addi was hit on the edge of the abyss by war and famine. This is wholly consistent with the events known from the Old Testament, especially I - II Kings. A similar picture can be called up from a series of letters that were written from Oeroesalim. The name of the ruling king there appears to be Abdi-Hiba. The king reigning from Jerusalem in Juda in the ninth century is known under the name Jehoshaphat or Josafat, the name meaning “Yahweh is the Judge”. Velikovsky made it plausible that the identification of Abdi-Hiba as Jehoshaphat is very acceptable. Judah and Jerusalem were up to the 8th century still in a development stage, as shown by recent excavations, and the country was apparently of minor importance as a regional power in that period. Samaria on the other hand was a major town in the 9th century, not only for Israel in a more northern area but also for Egypt as an administrative center.

Aziru and his brothers had Doemasqu (Damascus) as the capital of their country, with Akkadian being their language, as was shown in letter nr. 106. Velikovsky mentioned in Ages in Chaos that the name Hazael was known in Akkadian as (H)aza-ilu, with the sound -H- aspirated. Hazaël may be identified as Aziru, as it also is to be remarked that both men are mentioned to have killed their father. Hazael's reign is set to 849-814 BCE, the one of his father Abdi-Asjirta, then to be equivalent to Benhadad II, could then be the period of 865-849 BCE. It is assumed that Amenhotep III initially controlled the correspondence, but that it was especially Akhenaten who was the recipient of the letters on the Egyptian side at his new capital Achetaton. It is also known that Akhenaten repeatedly called upon Aziru to come to Egypt, because he doubted his loyalty. In the end Aziru could no longer refuse this urgent request and spent quite a time at the Egyptian court. The political situation in Damascus became however so critical after some time, with its king unable to control the local events, that the pharaoh ordered Aziru to return to Aram again.

The main writer of letters to Akhnaten, Rib-Addi, should have reigned in the period 874-842 BCE, Rib-Addi being identical to Ahab. Possibly, Ahab's last letters were never seen by Akhenaten after their arrival at the court, in view of Ahab’s disappointment about the not forthcoming answers from the pharao. This correspondence should well have taken place after 880 BCE, this being the approximate buildingdate of the city of Samaria by Omri. The other correspondent , Jehoshaphat, king of Jerusalem, had a reigning period of 873 – 848 BCE. These dates were to have impact on the timeline used.

Some other letters have been preserved, like the one written by Abimilki, king of Tyre, whose city-state almost broke down under the violence of Shalmanassar’s army in 854 BCE. His last letter to the Pharao had the following dramatic content:

"May the king turn his face towards his servant and Tyre, the city of Sjalmajati ... .Behold, the Man of Beruta has gone in a ship, and the Man of Sidon goes away in two ships, and I go away with all your ships and my whole city. " The Phoenician cities had undoubtedly come under the yoke of Assyria, with their king Shalmanassar, and part of the population had fled by sea. The foregoing text may be interpreted as to refer to the emigration of part of the Phoenician population to distant shores in the west. Shalmanassar was enthroned as king of Assyria in 858 BCE, he conquered Babylon shortly after. Shalmanassar then conducted a series of violent wars against his neighbours. He wrote In one of his annals: " All the kings of the land of Amuru, all of them, were terrified at the approach of my mighty and awe-inspiring weapons." From the content of the el-Amarna letters Akhnatons reigning periode can be assessed in this study. This leads to a period like 861 – 845 BCE.

Considerations ** A large amount of letters found at el-Amarna were written from the small kingdoms in the Levant. To a large extent they appear to correspond with the political situation as known from the 9th century BCE. These letters arrived at the Egyptian court within a period of some decades at the time of a political chaos in the northern vassalstates of Egypt, a period in which these countries were also harassed by a severe drought and famine. Most of these letters were sent by Rib-Addi who appealed for an urgent military support. This support was likely to be provided by one of the military garrisons in the area, but the court in Thebes hesitated quite a bit to respond, and probably for good reasons. The knowledge about the political situation in that area in the 9th century has mainly been provided by the Bible, and especially the two Books Kings I and II. It then mainly concerns king Ahab of Israel in this respect. Velikovsky explained in Ages in Chaos that both the names Rib-Addi and Ahab have the same meaning of “brother – father” , probably to be read as “the older brother of the father”, but written in a different script. Rib-Addi, then identical to Ahab, wrote most of the letters, all with a content of misery and disappointment, and an urgent call for help. Aram (Damascus) attacked Israel several times over these years. Samaria was first besieged a couple of times by king Benhadad II, later on again by his son Hazael. Benhadad was even made prisoner near Afek at his second campaign against Israel (I Kings 20:31-34). Both Biblebooks of Kings made mention of a serious drought and famine in the area, by which II Kings 8:1 indicated the famine to have lasted for seven years, Israel forcing to make desperate attempts to save lives of people and the country. Benhadad was murdered after some time by his son at his sick-bed. That did not help Israel, as Hazael resumed the wars against Samaria. These events were referred to in both the archive of the Egyptian pharao as in the Biblebooks mentioned, and in quite some detail. Ahab was seriously wounded by an arrow at the battle at Ramoth and played no further part in the events described in the Bible, though it led to the end of his kingship in the country. Velikovsky treated the whole subject quite elaborately in Ages in Chaos, where he compared the letters that were found at el-Amarna with the information provided for by the Bible. It resulted in a comprehensive treat-

7 ment of the warfare between Israel and Aram, the terrible drought and famine, the relation between the pharao and his vassals, the role and name of the Egyptian governors in the main cities, the revolt of Mesha of Moab against Israel and the role of Damascus in the conflict, and finally the difficult situation Jerusalem had come into. Velikovsky concluded that the events in all their coherence, with all the details that were transmitted, could not be other than those of the 9th century BCE.

** Gubla was mentioned in the el-Amarna correspondence quite some time, the city appeared to be connected to Samaria in some way. Rib-Addi referred to Gubla even as his residence when Samaria was being captured or besieged, which happened a couple of times. Velikovsky suggested Gubla to be the fortified city of Jizreel, which is supposed to have been situated on some distance from Samaria, with a name preceding the one of Jizreel. The name of Gubla in that case could then be read as a cuneiform transcription of the name of Ahab’s favourite queen Jebel, Jezebel, Izebel. The city should then have been renamed after she was murdered.

** Ahab was seriously wounded at the battle of Ramoth by an arrow and supposedly transferred to a safe place. This battle took place between the combined forces of Israel and Juda on one side and Benhadad of Aram with his allies on the other. The objective was apparently to get control of the cornfields in the highland of Gilead in that disastrous time of drought and famine. Ahab’s destiny apparently led to disagreement between scientists. Ahab dies on the battlefield In one version, and was then directly succeeded on the throne by his son Ahazia, and shortly after that followed by Joram. The second version relates that Ahab was seriously wounded indeed, but recovered later and then was able to rule for another nine years. The difference between the two interpretations depends on the wording in the various paragraphs of the Bible, among others the contents of II Kings 1:17 and 3:1, where Ahab’s reign differs nine years. Because of the identification of Ahab with Rib-Addi of the el-Amarna letters this subject should be further looked into. Quite some letters appeared to have been written by Rib-Addi in the later phase of his life. That would mean that Rib-Addi, and therefore Ahab, would still have ruled for some seven years after his injury at the battlefield, after which he fled to Beirut and Sidon (the city where Ahab’s father- in- law was ruling). Quite some events did happen in these final seven years of Ahab in Samaria, like the revolt of Mesja. Velikovsky elaborated on this item and concluded that all texts ascribed to Mesja and Shalmanasser and the letters written by Rib-Addi to the Pharao support the version in the Bible according to which Ahab was still living during the last seven years of Josafat’s reign in Jerusalem. He then fled to a safe place on the coast. Ahab therefore must have died after Josafat, and not earlier. This study, this version of events as proposed by Velikovsky will be followed. The death of Ahab will therefore be fixed on 842 BCE in the timeline.

Aye With the death of Tuthankhamon, one of Akhenaten’s sons, the18th Dynasty came more or less to an end. It finished in chaos. An uncle of Tuthankhamon by the name of Aye, took the throne after the death of his nephew for a short period of time, after which an army commander proclaimed himself king. After

Tuthankhamon’s death an Egyptian queen dowager sent a letter to King Shuppiluliuma I of the Land of Hatti (to the modern world better known as king of the Hittites) with the request to send her a prince, a son of him, whom she would accept as her spouse and new king of Egypt. This topic is of some importance because it marks the end of the reign of Shuppiluliuma, which will be further discussed in chapter I- e The Land of Hatti, (900-800). It is being assumed that this request of the Egyptian queen does identify her as being the widow of Tuthankhamon. Shuppiluliuma died shortly after. This makes this event of some importance for timing purposes. However, there are still many questions left. The identity of the widow plays an important role in the unraveling of this drama. It is to be seriously doubted whether the young Anchesenpaaten, Tuth-Anch-Amon’s widow, could have had the independent authority and power to send such a letter to a neighbouring and hostile head of state. Also Meritaten, the sister of Smenkhare and Tuth-Ankh-Amon, is not an acceptable proposition. But who then was the widow? There are few other widows who qualify. Some scientists believe Nefertiti, Akhenaten’s widow, to be an acceptable proposition. There are indications that she was still alive at the time. She was one of the two propositions that were suggested by Jared Miller as the widow who sent the invitation to Hatti. 2 She was on good terms with Aye shortly after the death of Tuth-Anch-Amon, when there clearly was no successor for the throne yet in sight. C. Aldred showed that Aye was the father of Queen Nefertiti. 3 Moreover, he proved to be her counselor, while they both belonged to the group in court that conspired at the struggles for power during the chaos that developed after the death of Pharao Akhenaten. Great Queen Teje had already died then.

Horemhab -- Arma’a Aye died after a reign of about four years. The country then was in a state of increasing anarchy and chaos, which brought general Horemhab to seize power. Nothing is further known of the fate of Ay. Horemhab's reign is estimated at 14 years. He had let prepare a royal tomb for himself in the Valley of the Kings at Thebes, where incidentally his mummy was not found. A large amount of sherds were found in the shaft of it some years ago, with inscriptions of details about each year of the vintages of Horemhab's own vineyards. Not one of tyhem referred to a date older than year 14. This was seen as a confirmation of a reign of 14 years, which had been open for debate for a long time. The time scheme elaborated in this study, incidentally, proves only to allow for a reigning period of 14 years, because more time could not be permitted between the start of Akhenaten’s reign and the end of the one of Ramses II. It should also be remarked that the time schemes, inter- dependent as they are with respect to a large number of documented events from neighbouring countries, do not allow for further changes. Horemhab prepared his succession at the end of his life. He chose a military leader, later vizier, in whom he had confidence. That was Paramessu, who took the name Ramses at his inauguration. However, Ramses reigned only briefly, but his reign is to be seen as the beginning of the 19th dynasty. The identification of Horemhab, as the pharaoh who appears to have achieved a transition between the

2 Jared Miller, Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibhururiya…., Alt Orientalische Forschungen. 34, 2007 3 Cyril Aldred, The End of the el-Amarna Period, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1957).

18th and the 19th dynasty in the country, appears to be debatable. About a hundred years later another military leader could be identified by the name of Horemhab, a pharao, who was handed power in Egypt under very difficult circumstances. The Nubian Dynasty and the Assyrians were then struggling for dominance in Egypt. In that time of changing foreign rulers, Egyptians came forward, who demanded or were handed over important offices, and, thereafter, could rule as kings or princes, but submissive to their sovereign. One of them, in all probability, appears to have been Horemhab, who was installed as vice-king at a certain moment. It appears there are very good arguments to identify that person as Horemhab. This particular Supreme Commander of Egypt did not have his powerbase in Thebes, but in Memphis. This has led to an item of discussion, while it has become of interest to determine which of the two men in power actually was Horemhab, and which influence they both had on the course of events. The question will now be adressed whether this interchange of personalities could have effect on the course of events which play a role in this reconstruction. That does not seem to be the case for the period described here at the end of the 18th dynasty, around 833 BCE. With an Horemhab functioning as a Chief of State some hundred years later, however, most of the particular events attributed to him should be moved along with him to the later time. Then it becomes obvious that, unfortunately, too little of the known time-specific events can be ascribed to the man who seized power around 833 BCE after the reign of Aye. However, there is no doubt about a number of key events. It is known that the Horemhab who succeeded Aye shortly after his accession did sent an army to northern Syria in an attempt to maintain the traditional Egyptian power in that area. He had to battle with Murshili, the Hattean king. Correspondence has been preserved in Hattusha, Murshili’s capital, wherein the Egyptian commander, the pharao, was called Arma’a. It is also beyond any doubt that he supported Paramessu to be placed on the throne. Of the two tombs that can be attributed to Horemhab, the one in In the Valley of the Kings, near Thebes being the capital in those years, could be the one of Arma'a, that being the tomb with the inscriptions about the vintages.

Seti I Paramessu, being Ramses I, reigned but a very short time. His son was Seti, known as Seti I. Seti reigned from about 818 to 807 BCE, and turned his ambitions especially on the lost northern areas. His armies moved into northern Syria and Aram. Wikipedia (5-3-2012) reports the following:

“The greatest achievement of Seti I’s foreign policy was a capture of the Syrian town of Kadesh and neighboring territory of Amurru from the Hittite Empire. Kadesh had been lost to Egypt since the time of Akhnaton. Tuthankhamon and Horemheb had both failed to recapture the city from the Hittites. Seti I was successful in defeating a Hittite army that tried to defend the town. He entered the city in triumph together with his son Ramesses II and erected a victory stela at the site. Kadesh, however, soon reverted to Hittite control because the Egyptians did not or could not maintain a permanent military occupation of Kadesh and Amurru, which were lost to the Hittite homelands. “

Seti marched to Kadesh, a strategically located city, along the coast route, but that does not make it clear whether he also actually besieged Damascus, as that city was not quite en-route when capturing and occupying the western parts of the Levant. Egypt was not fully able to maintain its authority over these northern areas.

Ramses II It was Seti’s son Ramses II who marched north again in the 2nd and 4th year of his reign. Passing with his army along the coast in Canaan he arrived in Beirout, where he raised a stela, twice showing an inscription marking his presence in the area. He established his headquarters in the fortress of Riblah for all the military operations he further had in mind and garrrisoned the city. Riblah lay north of Damascus, which makes it clear that Ramses actually had control over the whole area south of it, including Aram and Damascus. In the fifth year of his reign Ramses II had increased his powerin the Levant to such an extent that he could challenge king Muwatalli of Hatti for power and influence in the northern areas of Syria. That led to the Battle of Kadesh in the year 802 BCE. Velikovsky made an analysis of all the data around this battle and suggested Kadesh, meaning “holy city”, was to be seen as identical to Carchemish, laying at the bend of the Euphrates. Ramses suffered quite a defeat and lost his influence in the northern Levant for some years to come.4

This text having Ramses II as subject will be continued in chapter II- a Egypt (800 – 700).

I – b The Philistine Coastal Cities (900-800 BCE)

The main coastal and trading towns were particularly Ashdod, Ashkelon and Gaza. In Biblical times the inhabitants were called Philistines by the Jewish peoples. Ashkelon probably was the biggest and richest seaport city on the southern coast. Gaza could also have been a big trading city for transit-trade from the south, but that is difficult to prove because the ruins of the old city from the Bronze and Iron Ages lies underneath the modern town and can not be examined, apparently not either in past times. Excavations carried out at the ruins of the two ancient cities of Ashkelon and inland Ekron have provided information on the periods being discussed. The whole region has been militarily and economically dominated by Egypt for a long time, whereby the Canaanites were pursuing their independence time and again. Prof. Lawrence Stager, an archaeologist from Harvard University, was the leader of the excavations in Ashkelon, where the Canaanite culture of the city became apparent. The city was heavily defended and fortified, with walls 15 meters high and about 40 meters thick at the foot, with two large arched gates. Stager estimated the population of Ashkelon at the time of the Canaanites at about 15.000. After ca. 1500 - 1400 BCE, in the conventional chronology, it was mainly populated by first Cypro-Minoan and later Mycenaean people, who marked their presence quite distinctly. It appeared that Ashkelon was mainly orientated on Egypt, which is quite understandable from a strategic point of view. The city must have been a very important economic center in this region, with a major olive-oil industry. Much later, Ashkelon was destroyed thoroughly by Nebudchadnezzar in 604 BCE, with some revival in later years.

4 I.Velikovsky, Ramses II and his Time, Sidgwick&Jackson, London, 1978. 11

An excavation report was published by Lawrence Stager and Frank Moore Cross, the latter one also connected to the Harvard University and an authority in ancient languages from the Middle East. It was published in The Israel Exploration Journal; it mentioned that inscriptions were found on some pots and storage vessels, inscriptions in a non-Semitic language which could not be deciphered:

"Perhaps it is not too bold to propose that the inscription is written in a form of Cypro-Minoan script utilized and modified by the Philistines. " The San Diego Union Tribune also wrote about this in April 2007. The magazine mentioned a statement by Professor Cross in an interview about the inscriptions found in Ashkelon:

"The Ashkelon inscriptions fit in with well-known Cypro-Minoan, in particular from artifacts recovered at sites in Cyprus and at Ugarit, in Syria ...... The script had some characteristics of Linear A. "

Considerations ** This reconstruction of time and events should lead to a revision of the timescale for the end of the Late Bronze Age. The Late Bronze Age ended with the destruction of many city-states and the end of several major cultures in the Ancient Middle East, which were conventionally dated at about 1175 BCE. This date should be redated to 700 – 690 BCE in this reconstruction. The period of 900 – 800 BCE, which is here being addressed with the cities of Ashkelon and also Ekron, should first see a Cypriot - Minoan influence in the Canaanite Ashkelon, and thereafter a slow increase of imported Cypriot- Mycenaean wares, with an impulse to a local production.

** The town of Ekron was not a port, it was located at some distance from the coast, towards Jerusalem. But it proved to be quite interesting because the mound has undergone a complete excavation process, by which much knowledge has been gained which made a comparison possible with the data found in Ashkelon. The excavators were Trude Dothan, of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University and Seymour Gitin, director of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, both from Jerusalem. The excavation results were of course linked to the excavated occupation layers, identified with the scientifically accepted classification in which the current views for Mycenaean / Helladic cultures serve as a basis, being the period of the 14th to the 11th century BCE. The following text is based on the same data, but these have been rearranged according to the new chronology, resulting in a new picture in which Ekron comes to life in the 9th - 6th centuries BCE in stead of in the 14th – 11th centuries. The excavated strata X and IX appear to contain the occupation layers of Ekron from the Late Bronze Age periods LB I and LB II A, a period of about 1000 to 800 BCE in this reconstruction. Ekron at this time was a non fortified town, where only the Acropolis was habitated. Much imported Cypriot and Mycenaean ware and also Anatolian Grey Ware pottery was excavated, besides originally Canaanite pottery. That gave evidence of an extensive maritime trade with distant ports, similarly to Ashdod and Ashkelon.

I – c Phoenicia (900-800 BCE)

Ancient Phoenicia was especially represented by the four major ports and commercial cities Byblos, Beirut, Sidon and Tyre. These were the major maritime trading cities along the northern coast of the Levant, all belonging to the Phoenician homeland: city-states, politically independent, competing with each other, sometimes at war with each other, but together a cultural unit. Sidon and Tyre were the most powerful of them. Their language was probably related to Hebrew and Arabic. The cities conducted extensive trade with all countries and cities along the Mediterranean, shipped enormous amounts of papyrus from Egypt and metals from the western countries , and were transit-harbours for all kind of goods brought in from the eastern countries. Also that trade was very intensive, because it not only concerned products of Mesopotamia, but also products that were supplied by India, shipped over the Indian Ocean. The Phoenician cities themselves produced wool and earthware. Byblos, or Gwal, was the export harbor for the cedars, which were cut down in the mountains, and were shipped in large quantities to Egypt and Assyria. The Phoenicians also got known because of their sailings on the Mediterranean and their migrations to the west. They became rich, mainly from trade, from the production and selling of purple dyed fabrics, and of the particular purple paint they made from shellfish.

It should be regarded as quite strange that so little is known of the Phoenicians themselves. They are mostly known from the influence they exerted on the populations and cities along the Mediterranean. They had a tremendous reputation as sailors, they traded in everything that was in demand. Many colonies were founded, of which Carthago was the most important and powerful. It is worth noting at this point that the Roman Pompeius Trogus was of the opinion that Carthago was founded about the year 825 BCE, which then fell shortly after the reign of Tutankhamon in this reconstruction of time. With a view to the correspondence of Abimilki of Tyre with Akhenaten, it is more likely to take a slightly earlier date. It is widely agreed upon that the modern alphabet had its origin in the Phoenician cities. Scholars also believe that there was very much text put in writing, most of it on parchment, imported from Egypt. But the material was vulnerable and did not survive. Hardly anything, therefore, hardly any text, has been preserved over the centuries. Their name, incidentally, derives from the Greek: the Greeks called them Phoinikes, to the purple woven fabrics they were manufacturing and exporting. Excavations have not led to much further information. They were started in Tyre after the Second World War, but these were stopped by the following Civil War and the invasion from Israel. Results of these excavations were never published. Modern Sidon lies on top of the ancient Sidon, which makes excavations in the city unpractical and extremely difficult. There appeared to be some room for research on a mound in the middle of the city quite recently. Archaeological research has started in Beirut, as the destructions in the city and the peaceful conditions at present appear to allow for it. During much of this period of 900-800 BCE the city-states were able to keep a reasonable independence, but they were indeed largely tributary to Egypt. The rulers had great difficulty to conduct a political course for trying to stay out of the forceful grip of their powerful neighbouirs. The "political tight-rope walking" did not always turn out all too well, as e.g. Tuthmoses IV marched northward with a large army around the year 900 ,

13 and invaded the Levant and northern Syria, in order to ascertain Egyptian control over all the northern territories. Letters have been found in the el-Amarna archive in which Abimilki, king of Tyre, informed the pharaoh of the partial destruction of Ugarit. This probably happened in the year 854 BCE, the year Shalmaneser III triumphantly reported the destruction of two cities of Ugarit, Nikdime and Nikdiera. As a result, the situation had become quite critical for Tyre, as also some other cities had succumbed under the pressure of the Assyrians. Abimilki also wrote some depressive letters In those years, in which he beseeched the pharao for help. Eventually, the pharaoh sent him some forces by sea, but that help was totally inadequate and too late. About that time, Abimilki wrote to the pharao in concrete terms that a part of the population of the Phoenician coast would emigrate because the pressure of violence and exploitation by the Assyrians had become too much: "May the king turn his face to his servant and to Tyre, the city of Sjalmajati ... .See, the Man of Beruta (Beirut) has left in one ship, and the Man of Sidon is going to leave in two ships, and I will leave with all your ships and my whole city. " Abimilki wrote his letters, beseeching Akhnaten to take care for all those that would remain behind in Tyre, and certainly would be tributary to the usurper. In his last letter he wrote: “The king is the Sun to all eternity. The king has ordered that air shall be provided to his servant and to the servant of Shalmajati, that him will be given water. But they did not follow the orders of the king, my Lord. They did not give anything. Let the king then take care for the servant of Shalmajati, that water be given for the sake of his life. Further: as there is no wood, no water, no straw, no soil, no place for the dead, may the king, my Lord, take care for the servant of Sjalmajati, that him will be given life.” The Phoenician cities had undoubtedly come under the yoke of the Assyrian king Shalmanasser for some time, and part of the Phoenician population had fled by sea. The foregoing text may be interpreted as to refer to the emigration of the Phoenicians to distant shores in the west. The rest of Syria also was in unbalance. A number of the city-states, including Aram and Israel, had aligned themselves and had jointly drawn together a large army, which evidently was successful in keeping the Assyrians out of northern Syria for some time at the battle at Qarqar in 853 BCE.

It is very regrettable that no further information could be made available over the following decades in this 9th century . Neither archive data, nor archaelogical research, can apparently help to fill in the further developments in the coastal Phoenician areas.

I – d Ugarit (900 – 800)

This very prosperous trading town on the east coast of the Mediterranean has been very important in this century. It had an exceptionally good strategic position in view of maritime trade westward along the Anatolian coast towards the Aegean, also by sea to the Egyptian ports and with eastward trade towards Mesopotamia along the Euphrates, through Aleppo (Haleph), Carchemish, and previously Mari. According to

14 current scientific views the city flourished in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, and was then destroyed after a hostile siege at about the year 1200 BCE. There appear to be a number of finds in the ruins of the city that indicate to a synchronization of time for the city-state of Ugarit and the Egyptian 18 th dynasty at the time of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. These were the following:

* Two letters that were sent from Ugarit to the court in Egypt were found in the el-Amarna files. One was written by Ammishtamru I, the other by King Niqmaddu II and his consort.

* The toplayers of the ruined city contained objects that were of Cypriot and Mycenaean origin, and also Egyptian objects that belonged to the 18th and 19th dynasties. A seal imprint of Amenhotep III was found in the upperlayers of the burnt city, with letters of the type of the el-Amarna collection. These finds were entirely determining the age of the layers, being the 14th to the 12th century BCE. In 1937 Swedish scientists published their report on the excavations on Cypre. 5 It appeared that the excavated gravetombs on Cypre had a structure identical to those found in the necropolis of Minet el Beida at Ugarit, at the opposite side of the Strait. In both cases it concerned deeply dug out gravechambers with a vaulted ceiling, which could be accessed via a stairway in stone. Provisions had also been made to make sacrifices; it was even possible to give liquid nourishment to the dead, to encourage their soul on the journey. Construction and form were very characteristic and similar. The Cypriote graves were still built in the 7th century, while those of Ugarit should have been some 500 years older. However, making replica’s or to build according to the old design after such a long time is not credible, while all the graves of Ugarit were covered with soil. It should also be mentioned that the painted pottery inside the graves at Minet el Beida clearly were of Cypriot origin. 6

A number of very extensive libraries became available during the excavations. The clay tablets were all engraved in cuneiform, in four languages: Sumerian, Akkadian, Ancient Hebrew and Carian. One of the languages written on clay tablets found in Ugarit appeared to be written in alphabetic script, a script with thirty signs. It also appeared to resemble Cypriotic scrypt from the 6th century BCE. 7 This cuneiform writing could be read after replacing the characters with Hebrew. Scientists were of the opinion that this script already was in an advanced stage of development. The development of the Hebrew and the Phoenician alphabetical phoneme writing could only have proceeded in a linguistical acceptable way if that had taken place since the 9th century BCE in a natural development.

Many of the texts contained poems, in which the actions and battles of the gods and the adventures of heroes were described, very similar to those of Homer's Iliad, which is thought to have been written in the 8th century BCE. The mythological images that emerge from the texts, and the texts themselves, also appear to be

5 E.Gjerstad e.a., The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 1927-1931, Stockholm, 1934-1937. 6 Charles Virolleaud, Les Inscriptions cunéiformes de Ras Shamra, Syria, Revue d’ art oriental et d’archéologie, 1929. 7 Ibid. 15 quite similar to those in the Old Testament (Isaiah 27: 1; Psalm 74:14; Psalm 136: 13). The language used, surprisingly, also appeared to be etymologically and syntactically related to the language of the Bible from the 8th or 9th century BCE, but written in the cuneiform alphabet in an ancient form of Hebrew.

J.W.Jack in 1935: 8 “There are striking similarities in the vocabulary of the Hebrew used in the tablets and that of the Bible. Many words and even phrases are identical….” “The style is most reminiscent of the poetic books of the Old Testament, and in particular the Book Isaiah.” Schaeffer, the excavator of Ugarit 9: "There is an intimate relationship between the Ras Shamra tablets and the literature of the Old Testament. and also Velikovsky 10 : "This full revival of style and metre, of religious myths and cult, of ancient customs, of sizes and weights, medicine, clothing and jewelry, being repeatly emphasized by modern scholars, would certainly have to indicate to the coexistence of Ugarit and the city of Jerusalem from the eighth or ninth century.”

Many parallels have been found in language, poetic forms, technical expressions, moral opinions, religion, legends and traditions between the tablets and the Old Testament. These similarities have caused much confusion, because of the great difference in time between the 14th and 13th century BCE, the time in which Ugarit is supposed to have existed, and the time which the Old Testament is supposed to represent. The old cultural customs of these two areas in the Levant did have so much in common, that the coexistence of Ugarit and the countries of Jerusalem and Samaria during the 9th and 8th centuries appears to be the only sound solution.

The history of the city-state of Ugarit was very closely connected with those of Egypt and Hatti. A shift in history should therefore correspond with those of the big neighbours south and north. Ugarit, being in the sphere of influence of both countries, was quite successful in keeping friendly relations with both Egypt and Hatti. The infomation that has become known of the international relations of Ugarit is unfortunately quite fragmentary. One is looking into a shadowy world where much is depending on interpretation. Relations with neighbouring countries like Judah, Israel, Syria and Assyria are also critically important, but, unfortunately, very little is known. The following texts may shed some more light on the most important relationships and their impact on Ugarit’s own history, though viewed within the limits of this period:

* Ugarit’s royal palace had a surrounding wall with a gate of the Hatti type of architecture. It was a great palace, similar to that of Alalakh, a neighbouring city-state, one that was part of the territory of Ugarit at the time of king Shuppiluliuma of Hatti.

8 JWJack, The Ras Shamra Tablets T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1935 9 Schaeffer, Cuneiform Texts or Ras Sharma-Ugarit, Oxford University Press, London, 1939 10 I.Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, Doubleday & Co., New York, 1952. 16

* Schaeffer in 1939 11 : "Fashion in Egyptian and Aegean-Mycenaean art at Ugarit: Besides the objects witnessing to the influence of Egyptian art and industry at Ugarit from the end of the 16th to the 14th century, objects from the Aegean or Mycenaean are still more numerous "

* and: "It is also noteworthy that only in Crete and Cyprus are tombs found built with square vaulted chambers or dromoi similar to the imposing family burial-vaults at Ugarit. Whereas the Cretan ones are earlier than those at Ras Shamra and could be their prototype, those in Cyprus are considerably later and continue down to the eighth and seventh centuries, according to the Swedish excavators. One might therefore consider these Cypriot tombs to be late copies of the chamber tombs at Ras Shamra. One fine example is the burial-vault or Trachones on the east coast of the Karpas peninsula, exactly facing Ras Shamra. However, until earlier tombs of this type have been found in Cyprus, direct affiliation can not be claimed. Some 500 years lie between the Trachonas tomb and those of Ras Shamra.” 12

* Vansteenhuyse, Al-Maqdisse, Degryse, Van Lerberghe 13: "LH IIIA: 2 and IIIB sherds have been found in three contexts at Tell Tweini. This collection is thereby the first assembly from stratigraphically controlled excavations outside the immediate region of Ugarit. The sherds represent a minimum of 36 vessels. There are at least two open forms: two kylikes and two chalices (but also a possible bowl or cup).There are 31 closed vessels: ten closed vessels of unidentified form, six stirrup jars, five amphoroid kraters, five pyxides, four piriform jars and one possible flask. There are also two figurine fragments. Interestingly enough, the entire collection can be dated before the second half of the 13th c.BC. No younger material has been found. This suggests that the import to Tell Tweini was halted at some point in the 13th c.BC for an unknown reaso. It may also indicate that the site was partially destroyed or abandoned before the sack of Ugarit at the beginning of the 12th c.BC.”

* Niqmaddu must have been king of Ugarit in the years before 845, which marked the end of Akhnatens reign. As Shalmanasser invaded the country in 854 BCE and also partly destroyed it, it is very plausible that Niqmaddu was king at the time, on basis of the little that is known of him and of what may be concluded from the text on the clay tablet. It may be reminded on this point again that Ugarit’s history has been shifted with a considerable number of centuries in this study, but that the Assyrian king Shalmanasser operated in the conventional historical time.

* About the destruction of the city the following: It is apparent that the great city-states along the coast suffered heavily from the aggressive Assyrian campaigns. From Shalmanasser a text is known in which he mentioned a campaign to the Phoenician coast in

11 C.Schaeffer, Cuneiform Texts of Ras Sharma-Ugarit, Oxford University Press, London, 1939. 12 Ibid. 13 Vansteenhuyse, Al-Maqdisse, Degryse, Van Lerberghe, The Distribution of Mycenaean Ceramics in the Kingdom of Ugarit, Directorate-General of Antiquities (Syria) and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). 17

854 BCE, in the conventional chronology, and referred to the destruction he had inflicted. "Year four. To the cities of Nikdime [and] Nikdiera I drew near. They became frightened at my mighty, awe- inspiring weapons and my grim warfare, [and] cast themselves upon the sea in wicker [?] boats ..., I followed after them in boats of ...., fought a great battle on the sea, defeated them, and with their blood I dyed the sea like wool." A text on a clay tablet from the el-Amarna archive, where Abimilki, King of Tyre, informed his liege in Egypt, probably Pharao Akhenaten, with the following: “ And fire wasted Ugarit, the city of the king; half of it has been burned, and its other half is not; and the men of the army of Hatti are not there.” This did not mention that the fire had been caused by a hostile siege and invasion of the city. King Abimilki, however, did live in the same period of time as Shalmanasser. One of the tablets found in Ugarit contained a text that also needs further attention. It has the following text, of which the writer is not known: "The Jamanu, the people of Ddmy, the Char, the people of Alasia, all foreigners, together with king Nikmed, will be banned from Ugarit. All those who rob you, all those who oppress you, all those who bring you to ruin. "

* From the foregoing information a number of subjects can be discussed n greater detail. These are in turn: -- the relation with Hatti -- the time of the catastrophe -- a siege or earthquake -- the identity of the Jamanu and the People of Ddmy -- the name of Niqmaddu -- emigration and return -- some other items

Considerations: ** The relation with Hatti Letters of both Niqmaddu II and king Shuppiluliuma of Hatti have been found in the el-Amarna archive. They were both contemporaries of Akhnaten. It is know that Shuppiluliuma and Niqmaddu concluded a treaty, whereby itis not known whether this took place preceding or following the great fire in the city. Both cases appear to be possible. The treaty must have been of a great military importance. Hatti, undoubtedly, was the dominant partner, but it also was dependent on Ugarit to quite some degree, as this city-state not only was a major trading center, but it also had an important harbour and possessed a large navy. It is also known that Shuppiluliuma and Niqmaddu jointly worshipped the Goddess of Arne, a city not far from Ugarit, and apparently were on good terms. 14 Shuppiluliuma began the First Hurrian War in 853 BCE, shortly after Shalmanasser’s campaign to the west. Shuppiluliuma’s army first marched to the east where he defeated Mitanni, but then turned to the western countries in northern Syria and ended up at the Mediterranean coast. It is possible that Hatti and Ugarit

14 G.Virolleaud, Suppiluliuma et Niqmad d’Ugarit, Revue hittite et asianique, 1940 18 concluded a treaty shortly before this war, and later on, after the end of the Hurrian War, came together in Arne. This is plausible, because Hatti and Ugarit kept up a relation for another hundred years after this catastrophe. Apparently, some Hattian forces had arrived earlier in the city as a consequence of the treaty, but were then forced to leave. It is certainly not comprehensible that these army units, where Abimilki was writing about, had been fighting with the invading Assyrians, and then were forced to depart. It is also highly implausible that Hatti forces themselves were the cause of the destruction of the city and the fire.

** The time of the catastrophe Shalmanasser conquered the towns Nikdime and Nikdiere at the coast and pursued the inhabitants or warriors on the sea. These towns must have belonged to the city-state Ugarit. It is also known that Ugarit itself was devastated partly by a fire. And the above mentioned text illustrated that an hostile army commander, very likely the king of Assyria, had obtained the authority and power in Ugarit, and had expelled the king with a large part of the population. This scant information does give support to the hypothesis that the year 854 BCE is the year of the catastrophe that hit Ugarit. It might be possible that the expulsion of so many inhabitants by a foreign ruler did not concern Niqmaddu II, but Niqmaddu III, who was king of Ugarit more than hundred years later. The city should then have been captured by Tiglath Pileser III. The interpretation of what actually happened can unfortunately only be based on very little information, which also does not leave much clearness to be desired. This study will base the historic descriptions on the year 854 BCE to be the most likely in view of all the developments known. See also Item IId-Ugarit (800-700).

** A siege or an earthquake It is quite possible that Ugarit was destroyed by an earthquake and then catched fire, the fire Abimilki was writing about to Pharao Akhnaten, his Lord in Thebes. That possibility is not so preposterous with regard to the observations of Claude Schaeffer and the departure of the Hattian military troops at the time of the disaster. Claude Schaeffer reported the following in 1939: 15

“About the middle of the 14th century the town and its port were devastated by an eartquake and a tidal wave. Some of the ruined houses have been uncovered with the walls still leaning and cracked. Fire broke out in various quarters of Ugarit, but the port seems to have suffered most.”

City and palace were partly destroyed, but shortly after rebuilt again, as became obvious from the excavations. The middle of the 14th century, as mentioned, is to be regarded as equivalent to about 860 BCE in the corrected chronology. If Ugarit had partly been destroyed shortly before Shalmanasser and his army appearing at the gates of the city, it might explain the omission of a great deal of text referring to a long siege, a violent battle in the city itself, and the attitude of the conqueror who locally let write a major command on a tablet and acted by organizing an immense change in the social organization of the state. Shalmanasser then threatened some nearby lying towns, after which he could quite easily enter the main city

15 C.Schaeffer, Cuneiform Texts of Ras Sharma-Ugarit, Oxford University Press, London, 1939 . 19 because its defense could not be made effective. During his life he never demanded a tribute of Ugarit, which he actually did with all the Phoenician cities. It may be assumed that this had all to do with the protection offered by Hatti.

** The Jamanu and the People of Ddmy. The Jamanu has been translated as “Ionians” ,which is to be regarded as quite problematic for a Greek population living in the 14th century. Translation and date does not make the socio-political situation in the Achaean area more explicit. The people of Ddmy are generally assumed to be from Didyma, a city in Ionia, not far from Milawata or Millawanda (Miletus), on the west coast of Anatolia. This city was very famous because of its cult of Apollo Didymeus and its temple since the 8th century. The existence of this sanctuary appears to be much older and precedes that of the Ionian times in Anatolia. The name itself has an Anatolian background. Given the situation around Ugarit in the 9th century BCE, one must assume the sanctuary to be mainly Anatolian, where Mycenaean settlers were arriving in increasing numbers and intermingled with the existing population around Millawanda. A reference to Ionians and people from Didyma in a text attributed to king Shalmanasser in the midst of the 9th century is therefore quite conceivable.

** The name of Niqmaddu The name Nikmed gave food for reflection with many scientists, because Nikomedes was a very well known and ancient Greek- Ionian name. In Ugarit the name was written as Niqmaddu, but Niqmed or Nikmed also appear to have been used. That does not necessarily mean that the name has a Greek or Mycenaen origin, as it also is possible that the name is indigenous, and later became common in the Greek world.

** Emigration and return King Niqmaddu had come to power in approximately 1350 BCE, which will correspond to 858 BCE. This should in any case have happened iin advance of Shalmanasser’s invasion in 854 BCE and the moment that Shuppiluliuma of Hatti started the First Hurrian War, which has been estimated to be 852 BCE. Reference:I e- The Land of Hatti (900-800). Shalmanasser, then, had expulsed king and part of the population, but the conclusion can not be other than that Niqmaddu returned to Ugarit shortly after and started to rebuilt his city up to its full strength under the care and protection of Hatti. Shalmanasser, apparently, did not have the power or was not capable any more to prevent such a development. Undoubtedly, a large portion of the expelled people had earlier found a refuge on Cyprus, which is located just outside of the horizon and, moreover, had a related population. One should not assume that these deportations were carried out very friendly. It can not be otherwise than that the deported peoples have had to leave all their belongings, so that everything resulted in a grim atmosphere. Return of many people, but certainly not all, after a relative short time is quite conceivable, provided that safety was assured. Ugarit was geographically fairly safe situated behind the nearby mountain range, used to have a strong navy, but certainly had to rely on Hatti's military support. Further developments seem to confirm that Assyria later on avoided

20 confrontations with Hatti, as long as that country could develop its great military power. However, the order of events is not entirely clear. It could be conceivable as follows, along the new timeline: - Niqmaddu ascended the throne in 858 BCE, and concluded an alliance with Hatti. - An earthquake possibly occurred in the region, which might have been the case in 855 BCE. - Shalmanasser forced his will on the city in 854. - Shuppiluliuma and Niqmaddu met again in 851 during the First Hurrian War (see later).

** Emigration to the Aegean world The emigration of a major part of the cosmopolitan population of Ugarit to areas laying west and far more west in the Mediterranean might explain the great artistic impulse emanating from potters and artisans from the Levant on the Aegean world, which mainly occurred in the 8th century BCE. Then the production of pottery, tableware and jewelry, associated with painting, was started in the Greek world by which oriental motifs were applied. The impact on the artistic design was so strong that it gave its name to the new cultural trend. A similar thought emerges with respect to the development and use of the alphabet, which spread from the coastal cities in the Levant to the Hellenic world of the time, where it further was developed.

** The option of Ugarit being destroyed by Tiglath Pileser in the 8th century. Another option is conceivable for the identity and date for the usurper who expelled king Niqmaddu and part of Ugarit’s population. It might be supposed this to have been Tiglat-Pileser III in stead of Shalmanasser III, being the king who threatened Ugarit some 100 years later. Another Niqmaddu was reigning in Ugarit at that time, in the period of 744-732 BCE, in the reconstructed timeline. Tiglat-Pileser followed the Phoenician coast to the south in a campaign directed against Gaza in 734 BCE. He had first submitted Arpad en Hamath, he could possibly have attacked Ugarit thereafter on his way south. A number of objections can be raised to this option.

* Tiglat-Pileser never has let known anything about any action against Ugarit. It is even conceivable that his army only passed the Libanon mountainrange on the eastern side. But it is quite clear that he established Assyrian hegemony over the complete coastal area of the Phoenician cities. Nothing, however, has been found about an Assyrian assault in the annals of Ugarit either, nor could a monument or building be found in the city with an Assyrian connection.

* Niqmaddu III died in 732 BCE, and was succeeded by Ammurapi, who turned out to be the last king of the city. This date of death, naturally, has been determined by means of the new timeschedule, and therefore is not indisputable. However, Niqmaddu’s statefuneral took place with all honours, ceremony and rituals in the presence of the authorities and the new king Ammurapi.

* These events took place at the time Hatti and king Shuppiluliuma II were having great militairy and political problems. Hatti had done its utmost to boycot the trade with the Mycenaean merchants, which had resulted in an isolation of the country. Ugarit had also been forced to take part in the boycot. It is difficult to imagine that Assyria should want to force Ugarit to dispel the merchant core of the city.

* There are indications that the city already was quite weakened, both economically and militairy. Close to the end of its existence the city found it almost impossible to defend itself against attacks of relatively small enemy forces. On top of that, Ugarit suffered from a shortage of food, the fields were drying up and the sands of the deserts were blowing into the city oncewhile.

All together: It appears quite improbable that the second option could be appraised as really convincing. The first option, with the identification of Nikmed as king Niqmaddu II, turns out to be the most attractive one, leading to the confrontation of Niqmaddu II with Shalmanasser III in the year 854 BCE.

I – e The Land of Hatti (900 – 800)

This important country in Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age played a very important role. Its population is conventionally known as the Hittites, but the name is actually the result of a mistake at its discovery, made at the beginning of the 20th century. In the Annals of their own Kings, the country is known as the "Land of Hatti". It concerned a multicultural society where many people lived and various languages were spoken. For many centuries, Neshili had been the main language of the elite and part of the population, later on succeeded by Luwian, a related language. Khattili was another language in Hatti, apparently used by the original population in the area, of which the culture had been gradually mixed with the Indo-European populations, which had invaded from the north, centuries earlier. The people that had settled in eastern Anatolia did have Neshili as their languge, those that settled in the western part of Anatolia spoke Luwian. A timeframe for the first arrival in Anatolia of these invaders can not really be given. The best guess seems to be that this happened quite some centuries earlier, probably from the territories west of the Ural. Traces of the Luwians have also been found in Hellas and Crete, but their habitation in the Aegean world might have been the result of a migration from their previous Western Anatolian homes. The Luwians migrated also slowly to eastern Anatolia in the following centuries. The Neshili founded Hatti around their capital Hattusha, which they builded by enlarging a previous town. It was located some 200 km east of the present city of Ankara. It is assumed that this happened some 250 years before the start of the events being discussed in this study, which then leads to a dating of around 1150 BCE in this reconstructed timeschedule, or 1600 BCE in the conventional timescheme. The Land of Hatti consisted of an area which practically encompassed the whole territory of Anatolia, west of the Euphrates. The Hattians exercised their power from Hattusha, and controlled large areas in the west of Anatolia and some smaller kingdoms in the east, all of them tributary. The many wars they waged in Western Anatolia will not be given much attention in this study. The wars, the contacts, with Assyria, Aram and Egypt at their eastern borders will mostly be adressed. Hatti had its center of power within the approximate circular course of the Marrassantiya river (the Greeks called this river the Halys, the Turks later on Kizil Irmak), in which area Hattusha was located with an estimated population of 40.000 tot 50.000 people. Information about this civilization became available through the very important libraries that were discovered in the ruines of the city some time in the 20th century. They shed light on culture, religion and some 22 major events in this country. The many thousands of cuneiform clay tablets had been written in various languages, but the conducts of war and the national administration had been written in Neshili, the main language. After considerable time the cuneiform type of writing changed to hieroglyphic. Neshili and Luwian, also the other languages, have been deciphered meanwhile in the second half of the 20th century. Neither are these texts complete, nor do they tell the whole story of the main events that have our interest. There is no absolute chronology of the kings of Hatti and their reigns. The Hatti archives made quite some data available about the events during their lifes, but there are only a small number of texts available that refer to the relations with the neighbouring countries in the east. The el-Amarna correspondence is of great importance, while Akhenaten’s death needs to be valued in its relation to the fateful consequences for the royal family of Hatti, namely the murder of Shuppiluliuma’s son on his journey to Egypt after being invited to marry the widow of the deceased king. With respect to the objective of this study it has been found necessary to analyse the father to son relationship of the sequence of kings for the total of the period under review. A number of ten kings determined the role of Hatti, ultimately leading to the end of the existence of the empire. These are in the following order: Tudhaliya - Shuppiluliuma I - Arnuwanda - Murshili II - Muwatalli - Urhi Teshub (Murshili III) - Hattushili – Tudhaliya - Arnuwanda and Shuppiluliuma II. They all have a clear father-son relation in the order mentioned. All texts and references of the Hatti-archive illustrate their relationship in this manner. The total time of the reigns of this sequence of kings is about 200 years.

Shuppiluliuma- I This section of the reconstruction will start with Shuppiluliuma I, because he also figured in the letters of the el-Amarna archive, by which he is to be seen as a contemporary of Akhenaten. Four letters have been found in el-Amarna that originated from Shuppiluliuma I. In letter 41 the name of the sender-writer was called Shuppiluliuma, while the Pharao was addressed as Huriya, which name appeared to be equivalent to Akhenaten. In this reconstruction both the last Pharao’s of the 18th dynasty and Shuppiluliuma I, the king of Hatti, have been placed synchronous in the 9th century BCE. The Land of Hatti had already been quite dominant in Anatolia for at least 200 years, but the first mentioned Tudhaliya and his son Shuppiluliuma made the supremacy of Hatti through-out Anatolia hard felt. The son, Shuppiluliuma, proved to be a very professionel army-commander and succeeded in securing Hatti’s hegemony in Anatolia, first with military campaigns along with his father, then as the king-commander-in-chief. Later on, his son Murshili had all activities of his father recorded on clay tablets in cuneiform writing, which have become known as "The Deeds of Shuppiluliuma".

The beginning of his reign can be determined by a confrontation between Tikulti-Ninurta, the Assyrian king, and the Hattian king Tudhaliya, which is known as the Battle of Nihriya. The forces of Hatti lost the battle, after they in vain had counted on the military assistance by a local king. The Hattian forces had been commanded by king Tudhaliya himself, who shortly after angrily showed his resentment towards this vassal. King Tudhaliya and

23 his youthful son Shuppiluliuma had been jointly commanding their forces in the various wars that proved to be necessary in the foregoing years. But Tudhaliya died quite suddenly, after which Shuppiluliuma became the new king. Some letters have been preserved of a short correspondence between Tikulti-Ninurta en Tudhaliya, followed by some letters written by the Assyrian king to the young Shuppiluliuma. It is quite plausible that Tikulti-Ninurta died shortly after, he only had a short reign. Please be referred to Timescheme 2A . The time of Tikulti-Ninurta’s reign and the year of his death have been used as a guide to determine the date of Shuppiluliuma’s accession to the throne. This subject will be further discussed in the following text, with the heading “Considerations”. The end of his reign may largely be determined on the basis of the events following the death of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten. Please be referred to “Considerations” following this text. His widow wrote a letter to Shuppiluliuma with the request to send her one of his sons to be her husband. That happened during military combats between the two countries in Amqu, a small country in Northern Syria bordering to Egypt, which actually was a vassal of Egypt. A text has been preserved by Murshili in his “Second Plague Prayer”: “Since the men of Hatti and the men of Egypt were bound by the oath of the storm-god of Hatti, and the men of Hatti proceeded to get the upper hand, the men of Hatti thereby suddenly transgressed the oath of the gods. My father sent infantry and chariotry, and they attacked the borderland of Egypt, the land of Amqu. And again he sent, and again they attacked. When the men of Egypt became afraid they came and asked my father outright for his son for kingship. But when my father gave them his son, as they led him off, they murdered him. My father was appalled and he went to Egyptian territory, attacked the Egyptians, and destroyed the Egyptian infantry and chariotry.” With a view to the Timescheme and the political situation of the time, this can only have been an event at the end of the Second Hurrian War. Shuppiluliuma I had come in a difficult position by this letter from the widow of the Egyptian pharaoh. He had serious doubts whether he could trust this request on that particular moment, because the two countries were at war and because Egypt had shown to have claims on areas on the south- eastern borders of Hatti. He sent an envoy to Egypt for gathering information, and then decided to send his son Zannanza to Egypt with an armed and mounted escort along the coastal route, after he became confident on the intentions of the Egyptian Court. Zannanza, however, was killed, either on his journey, or after arrival in Thebes. Shuppiluliuma became furious upon hearing this tragic news and immediately decided to revenge by intensifying the military campaign in the northern territories in Syria and to break the Egyptian military hegemony. That campaign was successful, but unfortunately he brought along with him a great number of Egyptian prisoners who carried with them a deadly epidemic disaease. Shuppiluliuma himself was infected and died not long after, as did his eldest son Arnuwanda. The epidemic spread rapidly over eastern Hatti, with the effect that many towns, villages and rural areas were severely depopulated.

Shuppiluliuma later conducted extensive wars in western parts of Anatolia, where he succeeded in con- solidating Hatti's supremacy over the entire area up to the Aegean Sea. He was also forced to ward off the repeated attacks of the Kaskapeoples from the northern mountains, which must have cost a lot of effort and

24 lives. The capital Hattusha proved to be located on vulnerable spot in the Anatolian highlands, and was often marked as a target of the massive raids. The repeated wars with Hayasaland and Isuwa, mountainous areas on the north-eastern borders of Hatti, proved also to be necessary to secure the borders of Hatti. Shuppiluliuma led two major campaigns at the eastern borders in the last 20 years of his life, directed against Mitanni and its Syrian vassal states. This whole area was originally inhabited by the Hurrians, but gradually Mitanni had be-come the dominant power. Isuwa, an eastern mountainous country, had once again come under the influence of Mitanni, and felt strong enough to start for an invasion of Tegarama, a neighbouring vassal of Hatti. Isuwa itself also was a kingdom towards which Hatti attempted to extend its influence. Shuppiluliuma apparently felt this invasion as very threatening to his own interests, and considered the hostilities in this area as a direct challenge by the Mitannian king Tushratta. Isuwa was of great strategic importance in the eastern part of Anatolia. It was situated on the northern border of Mitanni and east of Hatti, and had in many years tried to keep her independence by regularly shifting its allegiance to one of the two major military powers on its borders. Shuppiluliuma did not hesitate very long and marched to Isuwa with a large army. This was the beginning of the First Hurrian War. The struggle in Isuwa lasted several months, after which the winter came, whereupon Shuppiluliuma decided to quarter his men on the site for a while. Hatti then invaded Mitanni from the north in the beginning of the following year. It is assumed that the First Hurrian War started quite soon after the 6th year of the reign of Akhnaten, shortly after the correspondence between the Mitannian king Tushratta and Akhenaten ended. Shuppiluliuma conquered much of Mitanni, he probably did not put a siege to the capital Wassukanni. The remains of Mitanni’s army were defeated in that part of the country, king Tushratta withdrew from further acts of war and fled. Shuppiluliuma continued his campaign in the next few years toward Carchemish, Aleppo, the northern coastal states and Nuhasseland, all territories west of the Euphrates. Part of these Hurrian areas had belonged to the sphere of influence of Mitanni, some others, like Nuhasseland, were considered to be belonging to the power of Egypt. Sarrupsi, king of Nuhasseland, had previously concluded a treaty with Shuppiluliuma, by which he wanted to tighten the affiliation with Hatti. In the period following the defeat of Mitanni in its core-area, this treaty with Sarrupsi led to new hostilities by Tushratta, with an army that had been brought together from various sources, as may be read in the following text found in Hattusha: “When the king of the Land of Mitanni plotted to kill Sarrupsi, thereupon the king of the Land of Mitanni along with his élite troups and his chariots invaded the Land of Nuhasse. And when he attacked it, thereupon Sarrupsi sent his messenger to the king of the Land of Hatti: “I am the servant of the king of the Land of Hatti. Rescue me now!” And I, My Sun, sent warriors and horse to his support, and he drove out the king of the Land of Mitanni along with his troops and his chariots from the Land of Nuhasse. “ Shuppiluliuma came to the relief of Sarrupsi with troops, but the king, however, was later killed in a palace coup, after which part of the elite, hostile to Hatti, seized the power. Thereupon, Shuppiluliuma was forced to enter the country for the second time and to install a king acceptable to him. Nuhasseland was the area east of Ugarit and the Lebanon Mountains, and south of Carchemish and the Euphrates. With the outcome of this great war, Isuwa and Tegarama in the eastern mountain area and a very large territory on the coast of the Mediterranean, which included Niya, Nuhasseland, Qatna, and cities such as (Haleb) Aleppo and Kadesh, the last at the border with Egypt, came into the sphere of influence of Hatti. The

25 city of Kadesh was withdrawn from Egyptian control, which subsequently led to tensions with that country. Shuppiluliuma then appointed his son Telipinu to Viceroy of Aleppo, which emphasized the importance of this area for Hatti. Telipinu had previously held the important position of High Priest in Kizzuwadna, an important region in the south-eastern part of the country. In that function he also had had major political and military responsibilities. This First Hurrian War is commonly called the One Year Syrian War. Violetta Cordani, however, indicated with a series of arguments that the duration of this war should have been at least 3 years, but probably even about 5 years. She offered a number of arguments to substantiate this view, dealing with the immense area in which the warfare took place, the booty taken and to be transported, the organisation of a new regime in each country and then the installation of a new king in some instances, with disappointing resistance in some cases. A number of details in the often fragmentary texts were also having some impact on her conclusions. 16 Violetta Cordani finally concluded to the following scheme: First year Isuwa Second Year Mitanni Third Year Aleppo, Mukis, Ugarit, Niya, Qatna. Fourth Year Nuhasse Fifth Year Kadesh, Land of Apina This study will be based on a little bit more than four years for this war. Shuppiluliuma had probably already prior to this war settled for a treaty with Ugarit, while a threatening problem with Mukis had been eliminated as a result of this treaty. Consequently, these two coastal areas had come in Hatti’s sphere of influence and had given up their partial allegiance to Egypt. The First Hurrian War, therefore, should then have ended in 849 BCE. See also Timescheme-3

The Second Syrian or Hurrian War must have lasted 5- 6 years and started some years later. In the intermediate period, the Hurrians had gathered all their forces and gained courage to start an armed resistance. In the meanwhile, Tushratta had been murdered in the newly developed chaotic situation and one of his sons had been placed on the throne in Washukanni, the capital of Mitanni. Tushratta's successor and son Shattiwaza could barely flee the country and sought refuge in Hattusha. He was able to win the confidence of the king during his stay, befriended Shuppiluliuma’s son Piyashili and even got his sister as a wife. After a while the Hurrians felt strong enough and attacked Hatti's garrison in Murmuriga, a city in the region of Aleppo. Piyashili and Shattiwaza then pulled together with an army on the King’s command and crossed the Euphrates and marched to Murmuriga in order to relieve the city. They then led their army eastward. Irridu and Harran came in their hands, whereupon Washukanni, capital of Mitanni, was conquered. Shattiwaza was then restored again to the throne. At this time Shuppiluliuma had forced the Hurrian Carchemish to surrender after a short siege, after which Piyashili was appointed by his father as Viceroy of the country Carchemish. The entire area west of the Euphrates was then assigned to Carchemish, as a buffer state against possible eastern and southern aggression. Shuppiluliuma I was the first king of Hatti who obtained power over Carchemish, the major Hurrian

16 Violetta Cordani, “One Year or Five Year War? A Reappraisal of Suppiluliuma’s First Syrian Campaign”, Altoriental. Forsch., Akademie Verlag, 38 (2011) 2

26 city on the bend of the Euphrates and located on the main trade route to the coast, like the port city of Ugarit. The information on these events became especially known by the "Suppiluliuma-Shattiwaza Treaty" and "The Deeds of Shuppiluliuma", the latter, unfortunately, only survived in a collection of fragmentary clay tablets. After these wars the power of the Hurrians and of Mitanni was broken; Mitanni itself had not survived unviolated from the chaos of wars and uprisings, especially because Assyria had managed to get hold of an important part of the country. The king signed a number of treaties with the neighbouring states that were important for Hatti. He also signed a treaty with Aziru, the king of Aram. By making Aziru equal to the Biblical Hazael, the historical events in both countries may be compared and be matched. The relations between Shuppiluliuma and Ugarit remained friendly, which apparently was important for both of them. The “Shuppiluliuma - Shattiwaza Treaty” contained a text that may be rendered as a conclusion at this point: “The entire land of Mitanni went to ruin and the Land of Assyria and the Land of Alsi divided it between them. Until now, I, Great King, Hero, King of Hatti, have not crossed to the east bank and have not taken even a blade of straw or a splinter of wood of the Land of Mitanni” “I, Great King, King of Hatti, captured the Land of Mitanni. I did not capture them in the time of Prince Shattiwaza, I captured them in the time of Tushratta. The Euphrates is my frontier. I my rear, I established Mount Lebanon as my frontier.”

Considerations: ** The battle between Tukulti-Ninurta and Tudhaliya According to current historical chronology, this involved a violent confrontation in Nihriya and a subsequent friendly exchange of letters, between the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta-I and the Hattian king Tudhaliya IV, while later on his son Shuppiluliuma II was also involved in the correspondence. This Battle of Nihriya should then have taken place approximately 1240 BCE. Tudhaliya IV and his son Shuppiluliuma II were considered to be the last rulers of the kingdom of Hatti before it fell apart by violent invasions of enemy armies. Tukulti-Ninurta-I was an important Asssyrian king from the Middle Period. A reigning period of 36 years was ascribed to him, between 1243 – 1207 BCE, a time that approximately coincided with the reign of king Tudhaliya IV of Hatti in the conventional chronology. Tukulti-Ninurta-I is known from his wars with the Kassites of Babylonia and his capture of that major city, by which he established the Assyrian hegemony in Mesopotamia. He was also victorious in the Battle of Nihriya, were forces of Hatti, commanded by king Tudhaliya, were defeated. This should then have taken place around 1240 BCE.

* In this reconstruction of time and events, this Battle of Nihriya can only apply to another Hattian king Tudhaliya, a king Tudhaliya who was reigning at the beginning of the era of the Hattian hegemony in Anatolia, and then, more precisely, in the first half of the 9th century. Also at that time two kings were reigning in Hatti with the names Tudhaliya and Shuppiluliuma, his son. Accidentily, another king Tukulti-Ninurta was reigning in Assyria in the same period, which was determined to be 891 – 884 BCE. Please be referred to Timescheme -2A. The Timescheme prepared for this study and the events described for the Battle of Nihriya, with the kings concerned, coincide to a high degree. The Battle of Nihriya shall therefore be assigned to the 9th century in

27 stead of the 13th century.

* According to the current scientific view, Tukulti-Ninurta-I, the Assyrian ruler in the 13th century BCE, broke off his campaign in northern Syria and visited Washukanni, the capital of Mitanni. There he made a gesture to the king of Carchemish by giving him back the previously conquered towns of the city-state. That became evident from a letter from Shuppiluliuma II to the son of the Assyrian king, who had died meanwhile, of which the following lines are taken from a damaged and fragmentary text: “--- he gave it back to the king of Carchemish ……. .he had come……into the city Washukanni. ……….he. As your father,…….he gave the cities to the king of Carchemish. …… I. My brother should know it. ……….see, I have written you. ……….as the king of Carchemish himself….. ……….somebody saw it. ……….furnished hardly anything.” According to the current scientific views Carchemish in that time would have fallen under the sovereignty of Hatti, as Shuppiluliuma I had conquered that city in a much earlier period. The above information from the tablet is therefore quite remarkable, because Carchemish in this time still was one of the most important cities of the empire, while at the same time Washukanni, as capital of Mitanni, no longer played any role in the balance of power in the region, where Mitanni even was about to be annexed by Assyria. Washukanni could never have had a role in the negotiations about Carchemish at the end of the 13th century BCE, and certainly not in the incidental way it came to the knowledge of Shuppiluliuma II. There was no point for a Hattian prince, then king of Carchemish, going to Washukanni to have discussions with Tikulti-Ninurta on whatever subject.

* Tukulti-Ninurta marched thereupon with his army to Babylon, for which he apparently had asked Tudhaliya’s support in advance.

* The Assyrian king was on the warpath in the region of Nihriya. However, it is very unclear which intentions he had, which importance should be assigned to the region or place, and most of all: where was it located. Trevor Bryce, in The Kingdom of the Hittites 17, believed that Nihriya could not be other than Nairi, being one of the mountainous regions in Eastern Anatolia, economically important because of its valuable ores. Meanwhile, this has been contested by others, with reference to Neo-Assyrian documents. Strong arguments have been brought forward that support the location of Nihriya in the Upper Balih Basin, this being somewhere in North-Eastern Syria, not far from Mitanni.

* Tikulti-Ninurta-II started his campaign in Ashur, then marched north by rounding Mitanni at its southern borders, and invaded Nihriya around 886 BCE. On his return to Assur he visited Washukanni, the capital of Mitanni, which then was the capital of a major power in northern Syria, a kingdom of which the Land of

17 Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999. 28

Carchemish was a part as a major fortified city at the Euphrates in the west. It seems as if Tukulti-Ninurta apologized for the forcible passsing of this western region of Mitanni. Shuttarna was the then reigning king in Mitanni, and therefore also the sovereign king of Carchemish in that period. He ruled between 890 – 875 BCE in the timeschedule being applied in this reconstruction.

* Tukulti-Ninurta had asked for Tudhaliya’s and Shuppiluliuma’s consent before departing to Babylon with his army in about 886 BCE , which has been shown in a cuneiform text. That passage was valid for the 13th century, and should likewise be valid for the 9th century. For this latter period is known that Assyria earlier had concluded a peace treaty with Babylon, with Assyria being the sovereign power. A.K.Grayson mentioned that Tukulti-Ninurta-II commanded an expedition to Babylon some day, of which nature and purpose has remained a mystery. 18 That does not make clear which role Tudhaliya and his son were playing. It is known, however, that Shuppiluliuma-I (884 – 836BCE) had been married to the daughter of the king of Babylon. In a subsequent letter to Shuppiluliuma, the Assyrian king again applied for the support of Hatti, this time directed against the country Suhi, located in the middle area of the Euphrates. Those letters had as a heading: " Shuppiluliuma great king, king of the country or Hatti, my brother", and such a salutation could be considered as friendly at that time.

* Tukulti-Ninurta-II commanded a campaign in 886 BCE to the north and west of Assur. It is known that the king marched to the whole area of the Middle-Euphrates and Khabur to extort tribute. It is therefore quite possible that his army ended up in the Balih vally, where the Battle of Nihriya most likely is to have taken place.

* The battle between Tikulti-Ninurta and Tudhaliya at Nihriya probably only had a minor impact on the political-military relation between Assyria and Hatti. In these early years of the 9th century Assyria did not belong to the great powers in that part of the region.

** Zannanza’s death * The death of the Egyptian Pharaoh, which led to the letter to Shuppiluliuma with the request to send one of his sons to Egypt as a husband for the widow, could naturally be understood as to refer to the widow of the deceased Tuthankhamon. This, however, is being questioned. This question is of present interest because of Murshili’s written prayer, known as his "Second Plague Prayer", in which the son of Shuppiluliuma prayed to the Gods for assistance and forgiveness, while his father was considered to have been seriously guilty for the mistakes he had made. Shuppiluliuma was to be blamed because he had violated a treaty with Egypt. Shuppiluliuma’s guilt was thought to be exceptional, because the Land of Hatti turned out to be in a disastrous situation at the time Murshili wrote the text, and apparently was suffering from punishments of the Gods. The relevant text is as follows: “ Since the men of Hatti and the men of Egypt were bound by the oath of the storm-god of Hatti, and the men of Hatti proceeded to get the upper hand, the men of Hatti thereby suddenly transgressed the oath of the

18 A.K.Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 2000. 29 gods. My father sent infantry and chariotry, and they attacked the borderland of Egypt, the land of Amqu. And again he sent, and again they attacked. When the men of Egypt became afraid they came and asked my father outright for his son for kingship. But when my father gave them his son, as they led him off, they murdered him. My father was appalled and he went to Egyptian territory, attacked the Egyptians, and destroyed the Egyptian infantry and chariotry.” This text seemed to suggest that the invasion of Amqu as mentioned was another than the one which was part of the Second Hurrian War. Amqu, a country on the Levantine coast, belonged to Egyptian sovereignty, while Hatti also had a non-aggression treaty with Egypt. The confusion is further increased by the name used for the deceased pharaoh as it became known from another document. That specific name could apply to both Akhenaten and Tuthankhamon, as a second or third name. There is only information available of one Hatti incursion in Amqu, which took place in the endphase of the Second Hurrian War. A preceding invasion should have occurred some 7 to 8 years earlier, before Shuppiluliuma started the Second War against Mitanni and the Hurrians. That possibility can be dismissed.

* Shuppiluliuma was astonished and angry by hearing this emphatic and important message from the Egyptian queen right at that moment, and decided to send an envoy to the Egyptian court after extensive consultations with his counsellors. Quite some wintermonths had passed before the chamberlain Hattusha-ziti returned from Egypt, but he was accompanied by an important and experienced Egyptian diplomat by the name Hani. Hani was assigned to explain or clear up the queen’s request. Hani had with him the following letter of the Egyptian queen: “Why did you say ‘they deceive me’ in that way? Had I a son, would I have written about my own and my country’s shame to a foreign land? You did not believe me, and you even spoke thus to me! He who was my husband is dead. I have no son. Never shall I take a servant of mine and make him my husband! I have written to no other country. Only to you I have written. They say you have many sons; so give me one son of yours. To me he will be husband. In Egypt he will be king! “ But Shuppiluliuma was not directly convinced, the queen did not have any reason to complain, he probably thought. His son could be used as a hostage. But the Egyptian envoy Hani did know how to convince him, which ultimately led to his decision to send Zannanza to Egypt and grant the queen’s request. It is made explicit that it took quite some time after the death of Tuthankhamon and the following time needed for the diplomacy, before Zannanza was sent by his father to Egypt. Incidentally, it is not entirely certain that Zannanza was assassinated during his trip to Egypt. It is quite possible that he arrived safely in Thebes and was killed in a palace coup. 19

* The passing time and confusion proved to be sufficient for Aye to seize the power and have himself proclaimed as the new Pharao, notwithstanding he was not entitled to it. The identity of the widow plays an important role in the disentanglement of this drama. It is very doubtful whether the young widow of Tuthankamon, Anchesenpaaten, could have had the stature and the independent authority to send such a letter to a neighbouring and hostile head of state. The youthful Meritaten, the sister of Smenkhare and

19 Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999. 30

Tuthankhamon, is not acceptable either. But who then was the widow? There are few others who qualify. Nefertiti, Akhenaten’s widow, has been proposed. There are indications that she still was alive. C. Aldred showed that Aye was the father of queen Nefertiti. 20 Moreover, he showed him to be her counselor, while both belonged to the group at the court that conspired during the time of chaos and changes of power that resulted from the death of Akhenaten. Great Queen Tiy had died already earlier. Nefertiti had earlier been an authoritative queen and apparently still had the disposal of considerable support at the court for a while.

** Time Synchronization Beginning and end of the reign of Shuppiluliuma are globally defined by the two basic assumptions mentioned above. There are still a number of known data to play a role in the synchronization of the Timeschemes as shown in Scheme-1 and Scheme-2A for Egypt - Aram - Hatti. Those are the following:

* King Ahab of Israel died in about 846 BCE. Not long before his death, probably in Sidon where he received asylum, he wrote his last letter to Akhenaten, which is found in el-Amarna. In that letter he complained about not having been answered on his previous letters. This could be considered as an indication that the pharaoh no longer was in the position to reign at the time, that he actually had lost power. The Timeschemes should take this into account.

* Aram's king Aziru was summoned by the pharaoh on a high tone to come to Egypt. Aziru succeeded in postponing this compelled stay in Egypt, but eventually could not get away from it, which had as a result that he had to spent some time as a hostage in Thebes. Akhenaten was forced to let him leave again when the political situation in Damascus deteriorated seriously, viewed from the perspective of the Pharaoh. In this reconstruction, Aziru has come in the role of Hazael, the king of Aram, who has been transferred to modern times with the narratives in the Bible. Some moments of his life have been recorded. Aziru's forced stay in Egypt, therefore, is to be limited in time. Aziru / Hazael could not have been king before 848 BCE, because his father Benhadad participated in the battle against the Assyrian king Shalmanassar III in 848, together with a great number of other kings. At the same time it is very likely that Akhnaten died in 845 according to the Timescheme. It should also be mentioned that Ahab (Rib-Addi) referred to evil plans of Aziru in his letters to Akhenaten; Ahab must have known Aziru (Hazael) for some years because of the wars between Aram and Israel.

* Both the Hurrian wars mentioned had a major impact on the chronology of the events in the Timeschemes, while they at the same time also should correspond to the developments in Egypt and Hatti. The date of death of Shuppiluliuma is also to be seen in relation to the timing of the wars. Because King Shalmanassar regularly started destructive campaigns in the Levant, his activities are also to be integrated into those of the other countries mentioned. This subject will be given attention in the following item :

20 C. Aldred, The End of the el-Amarna Period, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1957.

** How fits Assyria into this picture? * With the shift in history of, among others, Egypt, Hatti and Mitanni to the 9th century BCE, these countries were not to have confrontations with the Assyrian Middle Kingdom but with the militant kings of the New Kingdom. The Assyrian kings living in the later centuries proved to be perfectly matching the events, because of the practice of repeating the names of the monarchs. However, this proves not to be true for Ashur-uballit. Ashur-uballit reigned during the Middle Assyrian Kingdom in the time period 1365 - 1330 BCE, or some time later, but his name does only appear in the Kinglist of the New Assyrian Kingdom as the last one of all, fighting for the survival of his country in 610 BCE. Two letters were found in the el-Amarna archive, which made him a contemporary of Akhenaten. In one of them he made a reference to the king of Hanigalbat (the Assyrian name for Mitanni). This Ashur-uballit could not be given a proper place in this reconstruction, which is to be regarded as a problem, as no solution could be found in the given context.

* The Assyrian king Shalmanassar, reigning in the period 858 -824, was a particularly warlike prince. He has recorded his achievements in war, with the result that much of it is known. He waged war to all sides of Assyria, but particularly his wars in the northern territories of the Levant and against Aram are of great importance. This information should also be referred to Hatti, in order to find a verification of the details known of that empire. The victories Shalmanassar, acclaimed in this area over a period of 31 years, have been written down on the Black Alabaster Monolith, which has been preserved in the British Museum. There also exists a "Monolith Inscription" on a stele, on which the operations of his first six years are engraved. Hereafter to be read a part of this text dealing with the second year of his reign, the year 857 BCE, in the translation of Luckenbill: 21 “In the month Airu, the 13th day, I departed from Nineveh, I crossed the Tigris, traversed the lands of Hasamu and Dihnunu. To the city of La’la’ti, of Ahuni, son of Adini, I drew near. The awe-inspiring terror of Assur, My Lord, overwhelmed them and they went up into the mountains. The city I destroyed, I devastated, I burned it with fire. From La’la’ti I departed. To Ki-ka, the royal city of Ahuni, son of Adini, I drew near. Ahuni, son of Adini, trusted in the mass of his armies and came out against me to offer battle and fight. Trusting in Assur and the great Gods, my Lords, I battled with him, I accomplished his defeat. I shut him up in his city…. In goatskin rafts I crossed the Euphrates. The tribute of Katazilu, of Kummuhi…..silver, gold, cattle, sheep, wines, I received. Against the land of Pakarruhbuni and the cities of Ahuni, son of Adini, which are on the farther bank of the Euphrates, I drew near. I overthrew the whole land. His cities I turned into ruins…… From Pakarruhbuni I departed. To the cities of Mutalli, the Gurgumean, I drew near. The tribute of Mutalli, the Gurgumean, silver, gold, cattle, wines, his daughter, with her costly dowry, I received. From Gurgum I departed. Against Ustibu, the royal city of Hani, the Samalite, I drew near. Hani, the Samalite, Sapalulme, the Hattinite, Ahuni, son of Adini, Sangara, of Carchemish, they trusted in each others help, prepared for battle, came out against me to offer resistance. In the mighty power of Nergal, who goes before me, with the terrible weapons which Assur, the Lord, gave me, I fought with them, I defeated them………….I fashioned a heroic image of my royal self. My deeds of heroism, my acts of bravery, I wrote thereon.

21 David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1926. 32

At the sources of the Saluan River, which is at the foot of Mt. Amanus, I set it up. From Mt. Amanus I departed. The Arantu River I crossed (de Orontes). Against Alimush, the stronghold of Sapalulme, the Hattinite, I drew near. Sapalulme, the Hattinite, to save his life, summoned to his aid Ahuni, son of Adini, Sagara of Carchemish, Haianu, the Samalite, Kate, the Kuean, Pihirisi, the Hilukite, Burunate, the Iasbukite,…. Their forces I shattered. The city I stormed and captured, …his numerous chariots, his horses, broken to the yoke…I carried off…I slew with the sword. In the midst of that battle, Buranate, the Iasbukite…. my hands captured. The strongholds of the Hattineans, I approached….The tribute of the kings of the seacoast I received. Along the shore of the wide sea I marched, justified and triumphant…… I climbed Mt. Amanus; timbers of cedar and cypress I cut……..”

* In this timeframe, this expedition must have taken place in 857 BCE. Shalmanassar crossed the Euphrates, such, that his army actually could pass the heartland of Mitanni along its southern borders. But he actually arrived in an area that belonged to the sphere of influence of the Hurrian Mitanni. From the summary of all his campaigns, on the inscriptions on the Black Obelisk, it is known that Shalmanassar raided Ahuni by force of arms at Til Barsip, a city along the Euphrates. His army then headed more or less straight up to the Mediterranean, waging war against the cities and countries that he passed and robbing them. There Shalmanassar arrived in the countries behind the Amanus mountains at the coast, bordering on Cilicia. The text seems to indicate that Shuppiluliuma (called Sapalulme) organized the resistance. This is possible, but it is certainly not the most likely case. Of that part of Cilicia and the extreme northern coast of the Levant (now Turkey) is known that never remnants of the Hatti culture have been found. It apparently never belonged to Hatti. Communication and trading between Hatti and the merchant towns further south on the coast, so it is now thought, found their way along the eastern and more urban roads. From the related text can be read, however, that Hatti maintained a fortress up north at the Cilician borders, apparently called Dabigu. This could have been of strategic importance, explaining Hatti’s role in the resistance against the intruder.

Sjalmanasser’s The Hurrian Wars Campaigns to the West

Year Assyria Aram Mitanni Hatti

860 Shalmanassar Benhadad II Tushratta Shuppiluliuma 858 (858 – 824) X (865 – 849) (870 – 844) (884 – 836) Campaign Euphrates 856 Campaign to Mt.Amanus

854 Tel-Barsip / Ugarit Battle at Qarqar 853 X 852 Ist Hurrian War 850 X 849 X 848 Battle at Hamath Campaign Aram 846

844 Campaign Aram X Tushratta 844 X murdered 842 IInd Hurrian War 840 Campaign Aram X 839 X 838 Campaign Cilicia Campaign Aram Aziru epedemic in Hatti 836 Campaign Tabal (849 – 814) X Death Shuppiluliuma Milid X Death Arnuwanda 834 Campaign Cilicia 832 Shattiwaza Murshili (839 – 810) (835 – 810) 830

Time-scheme - 3

* In Shalmanassar's fourth year, in 854 BCE, he led another campaign to the western regions. First he defeated Ahuni again, the latter was captured and taken to Assyria. In three consecutive years he had waged war against Ahuni and finally brought the conquered area around Tel- Barsip on the Euphrates under his control. But in 854 he continued his campaign in the direction of Ugarit, where the Assyrians devastated two cities of this city- state, Nikdiera and Nikdima. As mentioned earlier this became evident from the following text of Shalmanassar: "To the cities of Nikdime [and] Nikdiera I drew near. They became frightened at my mighty, awe-inspiring weapons and my grim warfare, [and] cast themselves upon the sea in wicker [?] boats ..., I followed after them in boats of ...., fought a great battle on the sea, defeated them, and with their blood I dyed the sea like wool." Undoubtedly, Shuppiluliuma will have observed this development with a huge annoyance. Mitanni could have felt similarly, it had been dominant in this region in the preceding years, also in the northern part of Mesopotamia, north of Assyria. That dominance, the military superiority of Mitanni, appeared to fade away. It is therefore also quite plausible that the treaty Niqmaddu of Ugarit closed with Shuppiluliuma for military assistance and protection was primarily related to the new Assyrian power.

* The great battle of Qarqar at the Orontes took place in 853 BCE. Shalmanassar was bound to battle with a great coalition of small principalities in Syria, led by the Egyptian general Biridri. With the Monolith Inscription Shalmanassar himself gave an acccount of the size of the opposing army. His enemy should have controlled an army of about 50,000 soldiers and 3,000 men cavalry, completed with chariots, probably in a limited quantity. Musri also took part in the coalition with 1000 soldiers, while Musri was meant to be Egypt. In the time of Pharaoh Akhenaten Egypt had its borders in the northern Levant at the height of Qadesh, with governors in all the major capitals. The fortress of Megiddo maintained an Egyptian force of mainly archers. Shalmanassar made it clear that he was well aware of the nature and composition of the army of the coalition. The large size of it, as mentioned on the Monolith Inscription, was undoubtedly meant to make his own performance more glamorous and impressive. The entire army of the coalition was under command of Hadad-ezer, according to the translation of Luckenbill in Ancient Records of Assyria. 22 Modern translators made him to be Benhadad II of Aram, the most obvious identification for this command. Velikovsky, however, was of the opinion that the actual name of the commander should be the Egyptian general Biridri, who had the command of all Egyptian and coalition forces, and represented the authority of Pharao Akhenaten. A great number of military reports to the pharao have been preserved in the el-Amarna archive, which deal with the preparations he made for the defense against the aggressor. 23 Shalmanassar had apparently marched westward on purpose, first to Til Barsip on the southern bend of the Euphrates. This was the Luwian-Hurrian city he previously had captured on Ahuni and then had given the name Kar-Shalmaneser. He had converted this city into a fortress. It provided for a very useful ford in the river Euphrates, although his inscriptions referred to a passage with rafts covered with goatskin. There he obtained tribute from a dozen towns more northern along the Euphrates, but also from kings along the northern coast,

22 David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1926. 23 I.Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, Doubleday & Co, New York, 1952. 35 kings he in previous years had made tributary. After some time the army took a route south of Mitanni and Carchemish and marched in the direction of Hamath, passed Halep (Aleppo) at some distance and focused on Qarqar, according to the inscriptions. By doing this, Shalmanassar came into the sphere of influence of both Egypt and Aram. In that area the army of the coalition had entrenched and had been prepared for battle. The battle ended undisputed, notwithstanding the bombastic reports that were left by Shalmanassar. The possibility can not be dismissed that the army Shalmanassar was fighting against did not have the size he reported on. The inscriptions he left were mostly set up for purposes for propaganda and self-glorification. Timescheme -3 is mainly meant to show the time-relationships of the major events in Assyria, Hatti and Aram as applied to the reconstruction of this important part of the 9th century BCE.

* It must have been an important decision for Hatti's king Shuppiluliuma to start a war against Mitanni, because that country was a strong military power in northern Mesopotamia at the time. The campaign to Isuwa and Mitanni had to be well planned and prepared. Shuppiluliuma had to put together his army from all the contingents that the various vassal kings from the whole country in Anatolia were obliged to put to his disposal when required. The whole armyforce and its organisation and structure, the chariots and horses, the supplies, had to be ready at some point in 853 BCE to depart from Hatti. The distance that had to be covered to reach Isuwa was of the order of 350 – 400 km, mainly via the main Anatolian Plateau, which the army would cost less than three weeks of travel time, in case there would not be any resistance. But the clay tablets let us know that the army came to fighting in Isuwa not earlier than in autumn, which resulted in further combat in cold wintertimes. Shalmanassar's army then must have been en route to Qarqar for some considerable time, a distance of more than 700 km. Both the relatively long stay in Til - Barsip on the Euphrates, where also part of the population certainly was hostile to Shalmanassar, and the route of his army through hostile terrain with regular skirmishes, will have slowing down his march to the south-west. The coalition of kingdoms in the west must have known of the long march for some time, enabling them to organize the defense. Apparently the Egyptian Biridri was in command. Not only the coalition forces were informed at Qarqar, also Shuppiluliuma will have received information of Shalmanassar's campaign. Usually, wars were not carried on in wintertime. Shuppiluliuma, it may be assumed, must therefore have been preparing himself to start his great and intensive campaign in spring or early summer of 853 BCE. It is obvious that Shuppiluliuma first had the urgent need to know the purpose and the effects of Shalmanassar’s campaign, before having his own campaign started, if at all. That information must have been essential for him for assessing the defense and safety of his own south-eastern border. When Shuppiluliuma finally decided to have his army march towards Isuwa, it is also conceivable that strategic considerations could have been part of it, while the direction in which his army would march was to be considered as a warning to Assyria, itself being located in the northern Mesopotamian area. This option for the beginning of Shuppiluliuma’s campaign towards Isuwa and Mitanni contains an unlikely delay into autumn, caused by the unexpected Assyrian campaign. In 849, the war, which has been called the first Syrian (Hurrian) War in modern times, probably had been ended. Mitanni and the northern Syrian coastal areas upto and including Nuhasseland had been incorporated

36 in the sphere of influence of Hatti, the principalities southern thereof, and also Aram, were still dominated by Egypt. The question can be raised whether the events as described can be verified against other information available. The developments described above are of course dependent on the Timeschedule which is at the basis of it. The First Hurrian War, however, could not have started before 853 BCE, because that would have led to an unbelievable situation with regard to Shalmanassar's campaign. In another option, Shuppiluliuma might have begun his campaign against Isuwa a year later, but that also meets objections. Not only the correspondence between Tushratta, king of Mitanni, with Pharaoh Akhenaten, would further come out of sight, but also the renewed raids of the Assyrian king Shalmanassar to the Land of Hamath and Aram in the years 849 and 848 BCE then needs to be taken into account. In those years Hatti had largely pulled back its armies into Anatolia, which allowed Shalmanassar to obtain some freedom of action. It is seen as highly preferable that the First Hurrian War had ended in or before 849 BCE. Practically, Shuppiluliuma could only have waged these wars with all the various principalities in the specified time frame, or possibly in a shorter period. In the years that followed, Mitanni recovered somewhat from the huge defeat it had undergone. Great unrest developed again in these areas, which forced Hatti again to intervene, starting the Second Hurrian War.

* A new major battle took place at Hamath, south of Qarqar, in 848 BCE, between Assyria and a coalition of the small western kingdoms, which again was commanded by Biridri, who was killed in action this time. This one also ended undecided, the losses on both sides appeared to be very high again. Hatti did not play a role in the military operations. The battle actually took place on "Egyptian territory". The interventions of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten in this period show that Egypt still had considerable authority in the southern part of the Levant, though its power appeared to be severely compromised. * Shalmanassar continued to campaign in the western areas of the Levant, mainly against Aram. Hazaël (Aziru) had meanwhile succeeded his father King Benhadad. One of these Assyrian campaigns took place in 845 BCE, one year before the beginning of the Second Hurrian War. Assyria was campaigning every year, especially towards Aram, Urartu, Persia and Babylon. Shalmanassar conquered the large and important city-state Babylon again, where he probably was enthroned as king. He did not, however, make any attempt to assault any part of Hatti during the reign of Shuppiluliuma.

Piyashili and Shattiwaza were necessitated to recapture Washukanni with an Hatti army at the end of the Second Hurrian War. Mitanni had become a vassal of Assyria, after deposing Shattiwaza, the former king, in a coup. The Hatti and Hurrian troops were received as liberators by the population. Assyrian forces were nearby at the time but avoided any contact. It was mentioned earlier that Shuppiluliuma had sworn revenge after the murder of his son Zannanza. His eldest son Arnuwanda was given the order to command an army and march against the Egyptians in the southern Syrian areas. That fierce reaction caused a huge disaster, because a deadly epidemic erupted in Hatti after the transfer of thousands of Egyptian prisoners. The epidemic had very large and disastrous consequences for the country and its inhabitants. Parts of the country were depopulated, army units were decimated, the

37 strength of the army was seriously affected. Assyria, meanwhile, had stepped up its military power and did no longer bypass the Hatti borders. In 837 the Assyrian army was directed to Tabal in the eastern part of the Taurus mountains, apparently for obtaining silver and marble. Shalmanassar received gifts from a large number of kings in that area. This campaign demonstrated that Hatti was no longer in the position to defend the border areas of its territory. Shuppiluliuma died in the year 836 BCE. It is supposed that his death was caused by the epidemic, like that of his son Arnwanda not long afterwards. In that same year an Assyrian army besieged Milid (Malatiya), the major town on the eastern border of Hatti, some distance to the west of the Euphrates. Tabal and Milid had fallen into Hatti’s power during Shuppiluliuma’s campaign in 853 BCE., while he was on his way to Isuwa. This meant another blow to Hatti’s sovereignty in the area, and confirmed that its military power had been considerably weakened. In 834 BCE, after the death of Shuppiluliuma, Shalmanassar marched towards Cilicia at the Mediterranean, passing Mt. Amanus, which he repeated in 833 BCE.

Murshili Murshili came to the throne after the sudden death of his elder brother Arnuwanda, at the time the country was facing very serious problems. The deadly epidemic had greatly weakened the country in a short time, while the very youthful age of the new king did not inspire much confidence at the court and the ruling princes of Hatti, and not at all with the many enemies. But Murshili proved to be a powerful and intelligent king, general and administrator. Rather much information has become known of him, because he had let written down the most important military activities he himself had been involved in. This has also been done for his father Shuppiluliuma. His Annals expressed his personal involvement over a period of 10 years, but also a concise, and very incomplete, narrative over the following years upto the 21st year of his reign. Regrettably, the Annals offer only a limited view on the political and military events in Hatti. It is estimated that his reign lasted 26 years or more, but in this reconstruction his rule has been determined to be a period of 25 years. See Timescheme 2 .

His Annals started as follows: “While I had not yet sat myself upon the throne of my father, all the surrounding enemy lands became hostile to me. When my father became a God, my brother Arnuwanda sat down upon the throne of his father. But he became ill in the same way that my father had. When all the enemy lands heard about the illness of Arnuwanda, my brother, then all the lands began hostilities.” The various hostile kings, perhaps also those princes who were dependent of Hatti and possibly vulnerable, judged the young Murshili, who suddenly had come to power as the new king, ruler and commander-in-chief, in negative terms. Everyone realized how terribly bad the situation in Hatti had developed: “You are a child. You know nothing! You cannot make me show respect! On this side, your land is ruined for you. Your infantry and your chariotry are small. My troops are more numerous than your troops! My chariots are more numerous than your chariots! The infantry and chariotry was very numerous for your father, but you who are a child, where will you go to rule? “

Followed by: “Now who sat down on the throne of his father? He is a child! He cannot save Hatti and the borders of Hatti.” And Murshili later added to that in his "Annals of Murshili of Hatti" , as they are now being called, “ So they belittled me, they did not support me as subjects.” Murshili then pleaded for support at the Sun Goddess of Arinna: “I tended to the person of the Sun Goddess of Arinna, My Lady. …I held my hand up to the Sun Goddess of Arinna, My Lady. I spoke thus: “Oh Sun Goddess of Arinna, My Lady, the surrounding lands which are hostile to me called me a child! They belittled me! They began striving to take your borderlands, Sun Goddess of Arinna, My Lady. Walk with me, Sun Goddess of Arinna, My Lady! Strike those surrounding lands for me!” And the Sun Goddess of Arinna heard my words, and she walked with me. When I sat down upon the throne of my father, I conquered these surrounding enemy lands in ten years. I struck them.”

Murshili had an eventful life. He had to fight wars on many fronts, and for a long time he also had to deal with the deadly epidemic that decimated the population of his country. But over the years, he managed to obtain control throughout Anatolia, from the Aegean Sea to the Euphrates. His grandfather and father earlier had been very successful, but Murshili finally stabilized all those areas again with his army, and concluded new treaties and appointed trustees to important posts in the country. The Annals of Murshili provide mainly an overview of his actions on his first ten years of reign. His reign time is set at the period of 835 to 810 BCE. Murshili conducted almost continuously war against the countries in the periphery of Hatti, against countries that were claiming their independence again, against powers that invaded Hatti’s territory. Those were his enemies in the western parts of the country like Arzawa and Mira, they were the Kashku in the northern mountains, the mountain populations in eastern Tipiya and Hayasa. He appeared to have received a very strong support from his older brother Piyashili, who was called Sarri- Kusuh as vice-roy of Carchemish. Sarri- Kusuh commanded military forces in various parts of the Anatolian country, as he apparently was able to delegate his duties and responsibilities in the Land of Carchemish to another commander or to the local prince. Murshili left words about that in his Annals for Year Two: “When I sat on my father’s throne, ….I sent forth Mr. Nuwanza, the Great Wine Man, along with infantry and chariotry, into the Land of Kargamish, and he stationed himself up in the Land of Kargamish for the sake of Sarri-Kusuh, my brother. I commanded Mr.Nuwanza, the Great Wine Man, thus: “If the Man of Assur comes, you attack him! If he does not come, then remain before the land, and keep the land protected!” When the Man of Assur heard: “The infantry and chariotry of Hatti have come!”, then he did not come.” The upcoming danger from the side of Assyia was perceived; the military force sent was apparently sufficiently dissuasive. It is likely that this measure was taken around or shortly after the year 835 BCE. In his 7th year, in 828 BCE, Murshili had to send an army to Nuhasseland, because a rebellion had broken out in that country. That army was under the command of general Kantuzzili, who moved south after first having consulted Sarri-Kusuh in Carchemish. Not only forces of the Nuhasse countries had to be countered, the text revealed also that Egyptian troops were met. Egypt appeared to have supported the rebels in Nuhasse- land to thereby gaining influence in the region at the expense of Hatti.

In the year 827 BCE fate hit again: Sarri-Kusuh suddenly died in Kummanni, halfway Hattusha and Carchemish, where he had met his brother for consultations, where they also intended to jointly celebrate the Feast of Hebat. "...... When I arrived in the city or Kizzuwadna(which then should be the city Kummanni), my brother, the King of Kargamish, drove into my presence. He remained with me……… Sarri-Kusuh, my brother, fell ill and died. They carried him…. What are the rites of the dead, they performed them before My Sun. What threshold of the God ……I sent. “ And again Murshili was forced to send an army to Nuhasseland. Still in that period Hatti’s armies had to operate on several fronts at once, resulting in a reduction of strength. Not only Sarri-Kusuh of Carchemish had died, also his younger brother Telipinu, king of Aleppo, had deceased. Murshili then installed a son of each as the new king, to whom the nobles of each city had to swear allegiance. General Nuwanza was leading an army of about 10,000 men in northern Hayasaland, Kurunta was waging war in southern Nuhasseland. But Murshili's armies were still not having the size of the ones of his father. Murshili had concerns. Assyria was either marching through the land of Carchemish or was raiding the country-side, and Murshili had to guess about Assyrian’s intentions. It might have been possible that they were just starting of to do what he suspected: to test the military strength of Hatti at a time of possible organizational and military weakness, and certainly at the time a large part of the armies were north in Hayasaland. It had also been made clear to Murshili that general Nuwanza hesitated to start the battle with his opponent. Murshili’s Annals provide for the following information on that subject: “The King of Assur conquered the Land of Kargamish. Should I go to that enemy? Should I conquer him? If the men of Assur heard, would they not have spoken thusly: “His father conquered the Land of Kargamish,…..His brother, who he made king in Kargamish, he died. He did not go to Kargamish. He did not organize the land of Kargamish. He went to another land? “ This is how I spoke this word in my mind. I took an oracle for Nuwanza, the Great Wine Man, by means of birds and flesh. I determined it by means of birds and flesh oracles. I sent forth Mr. Nana-ziti, a prince, to Nuwanza, the Great Wine Man. I wrote to him: “I made an inquiry by means of birds and flesh omens for you. I determined it by means of birds and flesh omens. Go ! (meant for Nuwanza: "attack, force the enemy from the city of Kannuwara": for Nuwanza was uncertain about the strength of his own forces). Go! Further, the Storm God, My Lord, gave that Hayasan enemy to you. You will kill him! “ Murshili's whereabouts on that moment are not known, possibly he stayed in Astata, located south of the Euphrates and east of Nuhasseland. There he was able to rally a force of soldiers and chariots from various places and marched north to Carchemish. No information is available over any combat near the city, nor could any reference be found to Assyrian enemy forces. The reporting was primarily directed to the battles in Hayasaland, and later Azzi, located much more northerly, no further words were spilled on the Assyrians. Murshili was apparently successful to avert the threat with a relative small army unit. The Assyrians apparently withdrew to Til-Barsip, the city-state they had conquered earlier. A few years before his death, Murshili concluded a treaty with Duppi-Tessub of Aram. Mutual rights and duties were established between the two countries, but above all Aram’s political and dependant position was

40 determined in relation to Hatti. This treaty is known as the “Akkadian-Hittite Treaty “. Treaties being signed in the name of kings of Hatti contain a historical introduction in most cases. That is also the case in this one. The text referred to another occasion when Murshili concluded a treaty with the father of Duppi-Tessub at a much earlier date. The text on this is as follows: “ ……..It happened that the Nuhasse kings and the king of Kinza rebelled a second time against me. But Aziras, your grandfather, and DU-Tessub, your father, did not take their side, they remained loyal to me as their lord. When he grew too old and could no longer go to war and fight, DU-Tessub fought against the enemy with the footsoldiers and the charioteers of the Amurru land just as he had fought with foot soldiers and charioteers against the enemy. And the Sun destroyed them………. ”When I die, accept my son Duppi-Tessub as your vassal.” When your father died, in accordance with your father’s word I did not drop you. Since your father had mentioned to me your name with great praise, I sought after you. To be sure, you were sick and ailing, but although you were ailing, I, the Sun, put you in the place of your father and took your brothers and sisters and the Amurru land in oath for you.” Notes: * the translator added that from the ideogram expressing DU-Tessub the actual name remained obscure. * DU Tessub recommended his son as his successor.

Murshili installed Duppi-Tessub on the throne of Aram at a young age, but Duppi-Tessub was also sick at the time and died probably soon after. It also appears from the text that his father had previously been coming at a relatively great age. The king of Aram DU-Tessub, as mentioned in the text of this Treaty, appears to be the son of Aziru, and should therefore be identified as Ben-Hadad III, a king who is known to have occupied the throne of Aram at a late stage in his life, and only could reign for a period of four years. For further details see the following chapter about Aram. This treaty with Aram also makes clear that the mutual military support was enforced. It also reveals that Murshili in some later years of his life had been forced to support Aram in an earlier war; it also related that Hatti had been requested for military support via an urgent message delivered by a courier. It is further to be noted that Aram, insofar as known, was the only country that had to pay an annual rent to Hatti. Murshili was overtaken by a stroke at some time, which made it difficult for him to speak. He left a personal note on a clay tablet: “Thus speaks My Sun Murshili, the Great King: ‘I travelled to Til-Kunnu….A storm burst forth and the Storm God thundered terrifyingly. I was afraid. Speech withered in my mouth, and my speech came forth somewhat haltingly. I neglected this plight entirely. But as the years followed one another, the cause of my plight began to appear in my dreams. And in my sleep, the God’s hand fell upon me, and my mouth went sideways. I consulted the oracles, and the Storm God of Manuzziyah was ascertained.” Murshili died after some years and was succeeded by his son Muwatalli.

Muwatalli The length of the reign of Muwatalli is not well known, but there are indications that this king has not been on the throne for a very long period. Under the current timetable, a reigning period of ten years in the period 41

810-800 BCE appears to be the most appropriate. See the Time scheme 2. Very soon in this period Muwatalli moved the capital of Hattusha to Tarhuntassa, a place far south and certainly safer in the Luwian-speaking Kizzuwadna. Incidentally, no traces of this city have been found up to the present day. Muwatalli moved all the statues of the Gods and the Saints from Hattusha to Tarhuntassa. leading to a very large religious commotion. At the same time he commisioned his younger brother Hattushili to command forces to protect the northern borders against the Kashku. The capital Hattusha had proved to be highly vulnerable to the incursions of the Kashku from the northern mountain regions, which always led to many wars and destructions and tied many military forces. It can be anticipated that Muwatalli foresaw a great war with Egypt, as the military pressure in the Levant from the side of Egypt under their new Egyptian rulers Arma'a and Seti had been cleary noticeable. It must have been very clear to Muwatalli to which hazards Hatti came to be exposed. A direct indication of the new Egyptian policy had become evident in the changed attitude of Aram, that for quite a time had had a good relation with Hatti, especially in the time of king Aziru. Aziru died in 814 BCE. Murshili had signed a new peace treaty with the new king in Damascus, who had died shortly thereafter. The relationship between Hatti and Aram become more clear with their peace treaty: the "Akkadian-Hittite Treaty". Some passages show a historical introduction, in which Murshili clarified to Duppi-Tessub the situation and set the conditions for new relations between the two countries: “ It happened that the Nuhassi kings and the king of Kinza rebelled a second time against me. But Aziras, your grandfather, and DU-Tessub, your father, did not take their side; they remained loyal to me as their lord. When he grew too old and could no longer go to war and fight, DU-Tessub fought against the enemy with the footsoldiers and charioteers against the enemy. And the Sun destroyed them. When your father died, in accordance with your father's word, I did not drop you. Since your father had mentioned your name with great praise, I sought after you. To be sure, you were sick and ailing, but although you were ailing, I, the Sun, put you in the place of your father and took your brothers and sisters and the Amurru land in oath for you.” This treaty determined the conditions to which Aram and Duppi-Tessub should adhere to as vassal, as applicable to the political siding of Aram and a requirement for military assistance in case of emergency. Meanwhile Murshili had died and Aram had allied itself with Egypt, which obviously had claimed that it was entitled to old rights, which it could enforce by military power. It was also obvious that the political circumstances in Hatti had become somewhat worrying. The political and military situations had changed quite rapidly. Tudhaliya, Muwatalli's cousin, made mention of it a number of years later in the so-called "Shausgamuwa Treaty", a treaty that was concluded between Tudahliya and Shausgamuwa, a member of Aram’s royal family: “But when Muwatalli , the brother of the father of My Sun, became king, the people of Amurru broke faith with him, and this is what they had to say to him: ’From free entities we became vassals. Now, however, we are your vassals no longer! ’ And they entered into the following of the king of Egypt.” Around 810 BCE, at the time Muwatalli succeeded on the throne of Hatti, Seti had led a campaign into Syria, together with his son Ramses, where he managed to conquer Kadesh again, which he, however, was not able to retain. During that campaign, they established their headquarters in the fortress in Riblah, south of Homs, where they let know to Damascus that it had to comply with the requirements of Egypt. Aram clearly had no 42 choice at that time. That was the moment Duppi-Teshub sent a message to Hattusha for letting Muwatalli know that Aram had sided with Egypt. The young king proved to be ill. It was undoubtedly difficult for the court in Damascus to outline a good political course. Seti died in 807 BC, Ramses II was apparently engaged in the process of building a formidable military force in the years after. In 805 Aram was attacked by Adad-nirari of Assyria, whereby Aram’s army again suffered from heavy losses. Shortly before, Pharaoh Seti of Egypt had died and was succeeded by his son Ramses. Bentishina had come on the throne in Damascus after the death of Duppi-Tessup, but the country had apparently entered a chaotic situation, so that the king took to flight and looked for protection in Hattusha. It is also possible that he was taken prisoner by a Hattian military unit which was looking for him. In the next year Aram was raided again by Assyrian forces. Aram was greatly weakened, hit by dynastic problems and hostile invasions. In 803 BCE the Egyptian army, now under Ramses II, attacked Aram again. The country had fallen into a very difficult situation. Hatti had to stand on the side of all these complications. Muwatalli waited, as has become evident, reinforced his army and prepared for what was to come. In the late summer of 802 BCE Ramses II marched with an army of 20,000 men, spread over four divisions of infantry and chariots, to the northeast and passed the Levant along the coastal areas, marching north along the Orontes. But he had apparently not anticipated that Muwatalli had been preparing himself extremely well for his arrival.The army of Hatti being deployed in this battle is currently estimated to have been 37,000 soldiers and 3500 chariots. All the kingdoms allied with Hatti were forced to supply military units for this battle. While Ramses marched north through the Levant, Muwatalli must already have been engaged with his military preparations and strategy. Muwatalli had already lined up his armed forces in concealed positions near the future battlefield at Carchemish, while Ramses was still marching north, west of Aram. Ramses appeared to be poorly informed about the position of his enemy, and marched north with his divisions widely spread. The first two divisions were totally surprised by the assault of Muwatalli´s forces, Ramses and his bodyguard of elite soldiers were even totally surrounded. The Egyptian forces took to flight in the huge chaos, the king himself narrowly escaped with the assistance of an elite unit of soldiers. “So then His Majesty went to look about him and he found 2500 chariots hemming him in on his outer side….they being three men on a chariot acting as a unit.” This is according to Ramses’s own account of the battle in the "Poem of Pentaur." The remaining divisions of the Egyptian army withdrew very quickly. Muwatalli commissioned his brother Hattushili to free the whole southern region from Egyptian troops. Aram came again under Hatti’s control. The Egyptian Pharao obtained a huge self-confidence after his heroic outbreak of the encirclement at the battle, which he carefully used in the propaganda after having arrived home again, claiming a total victory in the battle against Hatti.

In the ten years of his reign Muwatalli had spent very much energy on the relocation of the capital and the adaptation of the requisite religious practices. He had encountered a lot of resistance, which had been cause to a lot of trouble and problems, as Hattusha always had been the religious center of the country with a great symbolic value. His authority over some of the western kingdoms in Anatolia was also affected, which made it necessary to send military forces westwards in order to maintain his authority in these vassal states. His younger brother Hattushili had gradually been playing an important role in the events. First Muwatalli 43 had appointed him commander of the guard, later he made him Viceroy of the area around Hattusha, with the important mission to prevent further invasions by the Kashku. He was even given the assignment to obtain control of all the northern areas. And Hattushili proved to be a very capable commander. During the battle of Kadesh (Carchemish) Hattushili was assisting his brother as commander of the army. Muwatalli died some years thereafter.

Considerations ** The Battle at Kadesh The battle took place at Kadesh, a city in northern Syria which has not clearly been identified. Velikovsky has made it very plausible that this city, in this context, only could have been synonymous with Carchemish. 24 It was a clash of two military superpowers for the hegemony of northern Syria, Aram and the associated coastal regions. That happened in the late summer of the fifth year of the reign of Ramses II, which must have been in the year 802 BCE of the reconstructed time. The pharaoh had mercenaries in the army who had served him extremely well during this battle. In the English translation of the report that Ramses II had made of this battle, in which he ascribed himself a very glorious role, the "Poem of Pentaur", these guards were prominently called "Sherden". It has always been believed that these soldiers were originating from a northern Mediterranean region, although there appeared to be a difference of opinion about the specific origin of it. However, the hypothesis predominates that the origin of the Sherden lied at the west coast of Anatolia. The archaeologist Margaret Guido was of the opinion that they should be considered to have been the Sardan, mercenaries from Sardis, the capital of Lydia.25 Sardis was one of the city-states against which Suppiluliuma I and his sons regularly had been conducting military campaigns. The Old Testament does not make mention of this battle, for the reason of which one only can guess. While the route of the Egyptian army was along the coast, it is plausible to assume they were leaving the eastern range of hills on their right flank at their side, as Judah strategically was not being very important around the year 800, and Israel was severely impoverished by wars with Aram, while its population was decimated and demoralised. These two Jewish countries were entirely focused on themselves and were on the sidelines of major international developments at this moment of history. For the situation of Judah, and Jerusalem in particular, reference is being made to the archaeological records, as published by Finkelstein 26 and Steiner 27.

** Relations with Assyria Adad-nirari III was the new king of Assyria since 811 BCE, but still so young that his mother had to be regent until 805. Very little is known about this king, however. Practically no other information about Adad-nirari has been preserved than some texts on a number of stelae, which were found spread over a large area. In the first years of his reign in which he actually could act independently, he led campaigns in western and south-

24 I.Velikovsky, Ramses II and His Time, Doubleday & Company, 1978. 25 Margaret Guido, Sardinia, Thames and Hudson, London, 1963. 26 Israel Finkelstein, The Rise of Jeruzalem and Judah, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv Univ., 2001. 27 Margreet Steiner, The Archaeology of Ancient Jeruzalem, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1998. 44 western direction especially. He emphatically mentioned his siege and capture of Damascus on a number of stelae, where he humbled the king and the courtiers especially and departed with great treasures taken from the city and its palace. The Saba'a stele mentioned that Adad-nirari's first campaign westward began in the fifth year of his reign. That must have been in 805 BCE, based on the time of his reign (810) 805-783 BCE, which commonly is assigned to this Assyrian king. The Saba'a stele mentioned that the Assyrians battled with an alliance of small monarchies west of the Euphrates, north of Carchemish, at the beginning of this campaign. Arpad and Kummuh were then involved. The Assyrian army then marched to Damascus. In 804, 803, and probably in the spring of 802 again, Adad-nirari appeared again with his army on the coast of the Mediterranean. He was first near Mt. Amanus in the north, and later at the Orontes and the Phoenician coast. In those years the Assyrians increased their control over the traderoutes between the coastal cities and the towns further inward along the major rivers, in the direction of Mesopotamia. The Assyrian interests were totally at variance with those of Hatti, and probably those of Egypte. Since the Second Hurrian War not only a great part of Mitanni had passed into Assyrian hands, but their army had also conquered the land of Ahuni on the Euphrates, and had settled there permanently with Tel- Barsip as a major stronghold. That area was adjacent to Carchemish and Haleb, both under Hatti control, which meant that Hatti and Assyria had become neighbours. The campaigns of Adad-nirari through northern Syria and on the Mediterranean coast from 805 BCE onward were not only threatening to the principalities in that area, but also threatening for Hatti. That situation is raising major questions, as it endangered Hatti ‘s control on Nuhasseland and Ugarit, while it also jeopardized the stability in that region. Hatti’s influence on Aram and Arpad already had been lost. Adad-nirari, meanwhile, also had made a vassal of the remaining part of the independent state of Mitanni. His intentions must have been clear to all. The relations between Hatti and Assyria had become rather harsh after the capture of Mitanni and the further activities of Adad-nirari III. That is evident from a letter sent by a courier of Muwatalli to the Assyrian king. Muwatalli wrote among other things: “You continue to speak about the defeat of Wasashatta and the conquest of the land of Hurri. You have indeed conquered by force of arms. And you conquered [………….], and you have become a Great King. But why do you still continue to speak about brotherhood and about seeing Mt. Amanus? What is this brotherhood? And what is this seeing Mt.Amanus? For what reason should I write to you about brotherhood? On what account should I write to you about brotherhood? Were you and I born from one mother? As [my grandfather] and my father did not write to the King of Assyria [about brotherhood] and Great Kingship. [It is not my] wish! All further references in the letter were not aimed to break off the relations, as, undoubtedly, many interests were at stake. And the Assyrian king after all had shown to be very successful and powerful. In the foregoing, it should be laid stress on the aspect that it concerned a correspondence between Hatti's king Muwatalli (1295 - 1272) and Adad-nirari I (1307 - 1275), as dated in the existing conventional chronology. In this study, Muwatalli was shifted to the end of the 9th century, but that did not apply to Adad-nirari I. The last king is supposed to have finally subjected Mitanni, to have subjected a large part of Mesopotamia, but also ultimately to have recognized Hatti’s power on his western borders in the 13th century. With this reconstruction Muwatalli came to meet the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III (810-783). It seems more 45 than likely that the activities of these two kings Adad-nirari have been overflowing in each other. In the year 802 BCE came finally the aforementioned big showdown between Egypt and Hatti, with the result that both countries shared their spheres of influence in the Levant, although after some time. In the years after, Assyria turned almost all its attention to northern and eastern areas, as evidenced by the Eponym List, and avoided serious clashes with Hatti.

I – f Phrygia (900-800)

According to Greek legend, the Phrygians came from Thrace, possibly from an area deeper in South-East Europe, into Anatolia via the Bosporus. They settled in the western part of the Anatolian Plateau. The time of their arrival and first settlement is not known. It is likely that this migration of a Balkan People into Anatolia took place not earlier than in the 9th century, because there are practically no finds of their culture before that time. E. Akurgal even assumed in 1955 that these immigrations might have occurred later. 28 They made Gordion their capital, located about 80 km south-west of current Ankara, near the Sehiriya River (Sangarius river). They were of Indo-European origin, their language could only be deciphered to a slight extent. A set of words and the knowledge acquired from their grammar led to the insight that the Phrygian language appeared to have similarities with the Greek language at that time. Very little is known of the Phrygians, hardly anything more than what has been conveyed from Greek tradition and some sporadic texts from elsewhere. Excavations at Gordion in the last decades of the last century have produced a lot of information, but this is especially of a cultural nature, while it provided little or no information about the history. The University of Pennsylvania, and other research institutions, have rather continuously been involved in excavations at Gordion since the 50s of the last century. That has yielded valuable data, which significantly clarified the knowledge of the culture of that area. The following is a very brief summary of the main results. A great continuity in the cultural patterns of the area could be determined from the oldest found Phrygian pottery until the beginning of the 8th century BCE. The University of Pennsylvania, the administrator and executor of the Gordion Archaeological Project wrote the following introduction to this culture:

“During the Late Bronze Age, Gordion fully entered the political and cultural orbit of the Hittite Kingdom. From the textual archives unearthed at Boğazköy-Hattuša, Hittite kings are known to have periodically cam- paigned to the west, and their preferred route involved crossing the Sehiriya River (Sangarios/Sakarya River) near Gordion. The rock reliefs at Gavurkalesi near Haymana, southeast of Gordion, and at Yağrı, to the southwest, also clearly indicate Hittite hegemony. Gordion's ceramics are easily paralleled in other settlements on the central Anatolian Plateau, such as Boğazköy-Hattuša, Alişar, Maşat, and Alaça Höyük, but similarities are also apparent as far away as Tarsus, Korucutepe and Beycesultan, undoubtedly due to Hittite expansion in these areas.”

28 E.Akurgal, Phrygische Kunst , Ankara, 1955. 46

The city of Gordion came into existence after the development of a series of local villages, it became a citadel with strong fortifications around a number of significant buildings. This period has been called the Early Phrygian Iron Age. It was estimated that in the second half of the 9th century a few very large burial mounds were built near the city, of which the largest carries the codename Tumulus W. Part of the citadel was destroyed by a huge fire about the year 800, after the citadel and the city were plundered or abandoned, as shown by the traces that were left. The excavators called the devastated layer on top of the old ruined town the Destruction Level. It will be shown that this layer of destruction will play an important role in the dating of the excavated remains of Gordion. But the tumuli remained intact and they have made available a very large amount of artifacts. The disaster at the time was huge, the citadel and the first city Gordion were completely lost. A more detailed discussion will be presented in Chapter 2 f -Phrygië (800-700 BCE).

I – g Aram (900-800)

Aziru was frequently mentioned in the el-Amarna correspondence as king of Aram, and especially in his relationship with the neighbouring kingdoms. Aziru will be regarded as synonymous to Hazael in this reconstruction of events, as also discussed in the previous chapter II - a Egypt (900-800). Hazael came to the throne of Aram in the 9th or 10th year of the reign of Shalmanassar of Assyria, leading to 849 BCE. It should also be remembered that Aziru (Hazael) succeeded his father in the wars against Israel: King Ahab of Israel had still been at war with Aziru for some time. Ahab lived until about 842 BCE. These data have been specified in Timescheme-1 The reigning time of Hazael's son Ben-Hadad, Ben-Hadad III, has been subject of interpretation due to the few details known about him. Ben-Hadad came to the throne during the reign of Jehoahaz of Israel, whose reign was between 815 - 801 BCE. 29 The name Ben-Hadad as king of Aram is used in the Bible in a number of texts, but turns out to be considered as a title, meaning "the son of Hadad”, in which Hadad represented the main deity in the country, even the whole Aramaic region. That also applied to the name Teshub, the most important God named in another language. Ben-Hadad III was undoubtedly already a relatively old man when he became king of Aram after the long reign of his father Aziru. It is generally assumed that he ruled during the short period of about four years. No successor is known from existing sources, nor was this mentioned in the Bible at any place.

Murshili's peace treaty with Aram, known as the "Akkadian-Hittite Treaty", or the "Treaty between Murshili and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru" provided some enlightening paragraphs: “Aziras was the grandfather of you, Duppi-Tessub. He rebelled against my father (Shuppiluliuma), but submitted again to my father. When the kings of Nuhassi Land and the kings of Kinza rebelled against my father,

29 2 Kon.13:3, 22, 24. 47

Aziras did not rebel. As he was bound by treaty, he remained bound by treaty. As my father fought against his ennemies, in the same manner fought Aziras. Aziras remained loyal toward my father and did not incite my father’s anger. My father was loyal toward Aziras and his country; he did not undertake any unjust action against him or incite his or his country’s anger in any way. 300 shekels of refined and first-class gold, the tribute which my father had imposed upon your father, he brought year for year, he never refused it. When my father became God and I seated myself on the throne of my father, Aziras behaved toward me as he had behaved toward my father. It happened that the Nuhassi kings and the king of Kinza rebelled a second time against me. But Aziras, your grandfather, and DU – Tessub (this name had become unreadable), your father, did not take their side; they remained to me as their lord. When he grew too old and could no longer go to war and fight, DU – Tessub fought against the enemy with the footsoldiers and the charioteers of the Amurru land just as he had fought with foot soldiers and charioteers against the enemy. And the Sun destroyed them…………. DU – Tessub recommends his son as his successor…….When I die, accept my son Duppi -Tessub as your vassal. When your father died, in accordance with your father’s word I did not drop you. Since your father had mentioned to me your name with great praise, I sought after you. To be sure, you were sick and ailing, but although you were ailing, I, the Sun, put you in the place of your father and took your brothers and sisters and the Amurru land in oath for you.” There is one other text known showing that Murshili had to deal again with the succession to the throne in Aram. That refers to Bentishina, with a reference to Aziru, with the following contents: “ When Shuppiluliuma, my grandfather, died, Murshili, my father, the son of Shuppiluliuma, sat on the royal throne. In Amurru, Idin-Teshub seized the kingship. After Idin-Teshub, Abbi-Teshub seized the royal throne. According to the treaty with Shuppiluliuma, my grandfather, wrote for Aziru, the treaty of my grandfather they observed. After my father, Muwatalli, my brother, seized the royal throne. Muwatalli, my brother,………….Bentishina. When……..……... died, Bentishina of Amurru seized the royal throne. Muwatalli, my brother, …………Bentishina, king of Amurru, from the throne of Amurru he removed him and brought him to Hatti. I, at that time, requested him of Muwatalli, my brother, and….I toke him to Haggamishsha; a palace I gave him; he saw no harm; I guarded him. When Nergal had snatched the great king to his fate, I, Hattushili, sat on the throne of my father. Bentishina, a second time, I made ruler of Amurru. The house of his father and the royal throne I confirmed upon him. Between us we established kinship…………My son Nerikka-ilim took the daughter of Bentishina of Amurru for his wife……….And the king’s daughter, Gashshuliauie, in Amurru, for the king’s house, to Bentishina I gave for his wife…………In Amurru she shall hold the place of queen. The kingship in Amurru shall belong to the son and grandson of my daughter for all time.”

These two texts, cited from treaties between Hatti and Aram, provide a fascinating insight into the relations between the two countries, with information about the names of the successive kings of Aram, and also allows making an estimate of the duration of the reigns of some kings in the revised chronology. Because Murshili had almost come to the end of his reign and life, these events must have taken place in a

48 relatively short time. The timetable shows that Murshili was a younger contemporary of Aziru, but he knew, as it appears, also Aziru’s son after Aziru died. And he finally even came to know Duppi-Tessub, the son of DU- Tessub, the latter being identified as Ben-Hadad III (his Biblical name; apparently also known as Idin-Teshub). Murshili had put the sickly Duppi-Tessub to the throne of Aram and concluded a treaty with him not long before he died himself. The second text also reveals that this new and young king also carried the name of Abbi-Teshub. He apparently was only king of the country for a short time, became further ill and died. The various and different names create confusion, but kings were known in those years to have a great number of names, most or all related to the various gods in the country, and with names in the various languages being used in the country. Finally Bentishina was enthroned as king of Aram after the death of Abbi-Teshub (Duppi-Teshub), apparently shortly after a new king had come on the throne of Hatti, being Muwatalli. Precisely at that time Aram had to decide to terminate the treaty with Hatti and resolved to side with Egypt.

Meanwhile, a new king had come to power in Assyria, who would be the source of a disaster to Aram. Adad-nirari III was underage in the year 810, when he succeeded his father in Nineveh, but his mother was to be his regent until the year 805 BCE. With youthful zest he directly mustered his army in that year and led it immediately to campaign in the western countries and in Aram. Hardly any records have been preserved. Not either any record or information is known of the kings that were succeeding him, by the way. A number of stelae have been found that have provided valuable information about a number of his campaigns, even as the texts were short in size.

His first campaign in 805 started actually in Til-Barsip at the Euphrates, at the invitation of King Uspilulume of Kummuh, who was attacked by neighboring countries. Til Barsip had come into the hands of Shalmanasser a few decades earlier, and had been made into an Assyrian fortress. From the Saba'a stele the following text is of importance: “In the fifth year I solemnly ascended to the royal throne and mobilised the land. I commanded the wide spreading armies of Assyria to advance against Palashtu. I crossed the Euphrates River during its flood. The wide spreading hostile kings, who in the time of Shamshi-Adad, my father, had rebelled and withheld their tribute…….by the command of Assur, Sin, Shamash, Adad, Ishtar, the Gods who support me, terror overwhelmed them and they laid hold of my feet. I received the tribute, gifts [and....], which they brought to Assyria. “I marched against Damascus, I shut up Mari’, the king of Damascus, in Damascus, his royal city. The fear of the brightness of Ashur, my Lord, smote him to earth, he took my feet and surrendered. 2.300 talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3.000 talents of copper, 5.000 talents of iron, colored garments, linen, an ivory bed, an ivory couch with inlaid border, his possessions, his goods in unmeasured number in Damascus, his royal city, I took in his palace.” Aram was also mentioned on the Tell al-Rimah stele, which was found on the westside of Mosul: “I mustered chariots, armies and camps and I commanded them to go to Hatti. In one year I subjugated the land of Amurru and the entirety of Hatti (land of the Hurri) at my feet”.

Adad-nirari, therefore, had both been fighting against Arpad as well was besieging Damascus, and had extorted a huge tribute from that city and its king in 805 BCE.

Shuppiluliuma of Hatti regularly had to carry on war with Egyptian armies marching northward in Syria, in a period that Egypt and Hatti were having a common border. Hatti had decided later on to use Aram as a buffer- state in order to safeguard its borders along the north-south flowing Euphrates until Carchemish, including the important approach to and the control of the tradingport of Ugarit, including the large area around the city. Various kings of Hatti had wanted to arrange their relations with Aram via treaties, thereby attempting to force some loyalty. That situation seemed suddenly to change drastically when Murshili no longer was able to ascertain and guarantee the safety of the large area that was subject to him. This area encompassed Western Anatolia, and had borders in the east with Urartu and Assyria and Egypt in the south-east. Also in this period Egypt and Hatti were each others opponent with different interests in the Levant. And power was highly dependent of the authority and person of the king. In the year 810, perhaps not coincidentally at the death of Murshili, Seti and his son Ramses led a large Egyptian army to Kadesh, and established their headquarters in Riblah. They let neighbouring Damascus know that it had to comply with the wishes of Egypt. Duppi-Teshub then sent a message to Hattusha and let know to Muwatalli, the new king of Hatti, that Aram had to break open the treaty with Hatti. The Egyptian pharaoh Seti died in 807, his son Ramses clearly could not immediately be involved with problems in Syria. Some years later, in 803 BCE, Ramses led an army into Syria, where the Assyrians in the mean time had caused major damage to Damascus. Bentishina was probably already in power in Damascus. Muwatalli was furious about Aram's changed attitude, as is known, and went to great lengths to get the king in his hands. Bentishina, the new king, was apparently quite young when he came to the throne. He was probably a victim of the situation to some extent and probably let himself be captured by Muwatalli after some time. Both the king of Hatti as his powerful brother Hattushili appeared to receive Bentishina benevolent- ly. Hattushili even offered him a beautiful residence, hospitality and protection, all with the approval of the king, his brother. Moreover, family ties were strengthened by mutual marriages. Hatti was waiting for a change in the events. No detail information is available about what followed. It took finally some more years before the final settlement with Egypt took place: the battle that went down in history as the Battle of Kadesh. Aram returned to the sphere of influence of the powerful northern neighbour after Hatti’s victory in 802 BCE. The Timetables shows the optimum date for the battle between Hatti (Muwatalli, Hattushili) and Egypt (Ramses II) to be the year 802 BCE. Muwatalli placed a new king on the throne of Aram after his victory over Egypt, being Shapili.

Aram must have been exhausted after the many wars, then followed by the heavy siege of Adad-nirari and finally the war with Hatti in which they apparently had to participate. Even though it was under the protection of Hatti after the major battle in 802, the country was still forced to defend its own borders itself in case of emergency. That refers to their defeat against Israel under Joas, the son of Joahaz, as described in the Bible, which should have taken place after 802 BCE. Aram and the two Jewish states of Israel and Judah had been great enemies of each other, large and destructive wars were fought.

That last battle between Aram and Israel makes a problem visible regarding the name of the king of Damascus involved. Joash, the then king of Israel, whose name also is rendered as Jehoash, has been assigned a reign of 801-786 BCE . This period is in line with the above mentioned date of the battle of Israel against Aram. It is to be noted, however, that also other reigns have been proposed, but the timescheme of Albright is being used in this study. But the adversary of Joash/Jehoash in the following text is not in agreement with the succession of monarchs in Damascus as being applied in this study. The text of 2 Kings 13:24 reads: "Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, took the cities again from the hand of Benhadad, the son of Hazael, which he had won by force from the hand of Jehoahaz, his father. Joash beat him three times, and recovered the cities of Israel again." Jehoahaz, reigning between 815-801, had earlier to give up territory and some towns to Benhadad in a war. Benhadad died at a relative great age in 810, which means that these two kings have ruled some time in parallel. Therefore, it must undoubtedly have been Benhadad, as son of Hazael, who defeated Jehoahaz in battle and conquered land and cities of Israel. But this Benhadad can not further be associated with a later battle with Israel's King Jehoash, who came on the throne of Israel in 801. This battle with Israel must have taken place some time after 801 BCE, and can not have involved a king of Aram (Damascus) as son of Hazael. A mistake is conceivable, when keeping in mind that many kings of Aram could be identified with their important God Hadad via one of their names. This mistake could have developed when many years later one of the clerks working on this Bibletext added this reference to Hazael without having the detailed information.

I –h Mitanni (900-800)

Mitanni was a kingdom in northern Mesopotamia and Syria to the north of the Euphrates. The inhabitants were Hurrians, a part of the people that originally had been living in a large part of this area and the southern Caucasus for a long time, and time and again had to adapt themselves to a large extent to invading populations, mainly from eastern areas. The land known as Mitanni was ruled already for some time by an Indo-Iranian elite, by which is referred to an immigrant warrrior group with an Iranian background, which earlier invaded from the northern part of Iran, as it currently is being called. These people were extremely well armed, were very familiar with horses and therefore very mobile, and had a large armed force to their disposal, equipped with a large number of chariots. Washukanni was the capital, a city whose remains have not yet been traced. The precise location of the country has also remained unclear. It was situated north-west of Assyria and south of Urartu, while king Tushratta is known to want his western borders along the Euphrates, inclusive the city of Carchemish. He thereby arrived in a disastrous conflict with Shuppiluliuma of Hatti. The present understanding of this dynasty leads to a ruling in the period of 1475 - 1275 BCE. Letters sent by king Tushratta of Mitanni have been found in the el-Amarna library, which connect the kingdom to that of the Egypt of Amenhotep III and Akhnaten. Clay tablets found in Hattusha have also revealed that the Hatti king Shuppiluliuma defeated an army of Mitanni and subsequently occupied its capital. It therewith becomes clear that the events of Tushratta’s defeat and the subsequent end of the Mitanni kingdom

51 should be placed in the 9th century BCE, together with the shift of events in Egypt and Hatti.

Shuppiluliuma unleashed a furious attack on Mitanni by the First Hurrian War of 853-849 BCE, he defeated the Hurrian army after invading the country from the north, after which king Tushratta fled from the country. Some years later Tushratta was murdered by rebels led by one of his sons. His son Shattiwaza succeeded him, but had to flee from the country in order to safe his life shortly thereafter. He sought and found refuge and protection in Hattusha, Hatti. Details on this are known from the document known as the Shuppiluliuma- Shattiwaza Treaty, which showed that the king of Hatti bound himself to help this young man to the throne of his homeland again. He additionally let him marry to one of his daughters. The Hatti prince Piyashili along with Shattiwaza undertook a campaign to Mitanni shortly before the end of the Second Hurrian War. This then should have been in approximately 841, when the capital Washukanni was conquered. This enabled Shattiwaza to take the throne again in Washukanni, but he had to accept that now the large eastern section of the country had become a vassal of the neighbouring Assyria. At present, no original sources for the history of this kingdom exist. There is a brief knowledge of the history, derived from Assyrian, Hattian and Egyptian sources. Absolute data are not available. Dates during which kings in the country were in power have been estimated. The beginning of Shattiwaza’s reign can be estimated to be 840 BCE, as the result of the military action with Hattian troops under the joint leadership of himself and his brother-in-arms Pyashili. Shattuara then probably succeeded his father Shattiwaza in 810, reigning until approximately 805-802, after which he became a vassal of Adad-nirari III. Mitanni had retained a limited independency, subordinate to Assyria.

I – i Urartu (900-800)

Urartu (ca. 1000 BC -.. 585 BC) was a kingdom in the mountainous area of north-east Anatolia. Its own name was Biaini. It was situated north of the area where Assyria had laid claims on.

Within the kingdom three populations could be distinguished: the Nairi, the Hay and the Armen, whose languages did not show great differences. Meanwhile it has become clear that their languages were related to Hurri, which appeared to have been neither Semitic nor Indo-European. For a proper understanding it should be mentioned that in all probability the Hurri originally populated the whole of northern Syria, northern Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia. The Hurri should perhaps be seen as the "original inhabitants" of the whole north-eastern area in the Levant. Assyrian inscriptions show that Urartu had become a strong military power in the 9th century, where the population was united under King Aramu (858-844 BCE). Shalmanassar III conquered his capital Arzashkun during one of his wars. Aramu’s son Sarduri (844-828) later on moved the capital to Tushpa at the Lake Van and further resisted Shalmanassar. The country was also harassed by Assyrian hostile ingresses from the south in the period 828-810, when it was ruled by Ishpuini, son of Sarduri. At that time the Assyrian army was 52 commanded by their king Shamshi-Adad.

II - Reconstruction of the periode 800 – 700 BCE

II –a Egypt (800 – 700)

Ramses II as a continuation of I- a Egypt (900 – 800) The brief account of the activities of Ramses II in the Levant in the previous chapter were interrupted at the battle of Kadesh in 802 BCE. Ramses lost his influence there on the northern part of that area to Hatti. He was living to a relatively high age, and was a contemporary of Hattushili, king of Hatti. He corresponded with Hattushili, even the Hatti queen Puduhepa was actively involved in the correspondence with the Egyptian court. After some time Egypt and Hatti signed a peace treaty. A copy of it was found in both Egypt, in Pi Ramesse and Karnak, as well as in the ruined library of Hattusha, both copies having the same content. Obviously, it mattered a great deal to both kings to finally have an agreement with each other and to have settled and accepted their mutual interests in the Levant. The now resulting status quo undoubtedly turned out to be to the advantage of both countries as the sovereignty over Canaan and Syria was divided. The ties of friendship were further strengthened in subsequent years, a Hatti princess was sent to Egypt and was given to Ramses as his bride, Ramses sent an Egyptian doctor, known for his medical expertise, to the Hatti court. There is an issue that needs attention: the length of the reign of Ramses II. Textbooks indicate that he has reached a great age. Authors living in antiquity appeared to have been of this opinion. But the length of his reign also appears to have been determined by his coronation as co-regent with his father Seti, when he himself was still a boy. A picture of him has been found as king, still being a child and sitting on his father’s knee. Information has been published after his mummy was made source of a study. In 1912 it already had become clear that his teeth were in a good condition, even when being in his sixties. It was estimated at the time that Ramses II was something like 60 – 65 years old at his death. J.E.Harris and K.E.Weeks 30 in later years did arrive at a similar conclusion, while W.Krogman, who actually made the X-rays of a number of Egyptian mummies in Cairo and examined them during the scientific research, con-cluded that Ramses II most likely had an age between 50 and 55 years when he died. For this analysis of the events, and for dating purposes, it will be assumed in this study that Ramses II died at the age of 55. It is further assumed that the young prince was 16 years old at the death of his father Seti and then became sole-ruler of Egypt for the following 39 years of his life. His day of death will then be 767 BCE.

30 J.E.Harris, K.E.Weeks, X-raying the Pharaoh’s, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1973. 53

Egyptian chronology In the foregoing text a large part of the Egyptian 18th and 19th dynasties have been given attention in the scientifically known sequence, but in a much later timeframe. The 30th dynasty, the one which also is the last one preceding the Second Period of the Persian Domination, must indeed end, however, in the year 332 BCE. The total of time left for the other and later known events in Egyptian history will therefore be drastically limited. That can only lead to a thoroughgoing revision of Egyptian chronology. The 19th dynasty has been broken off with pharaoh Ramses II, while in the prevailing views four other pharaoh’s would have followed, namely Merneptah, Seti II and Amenmesse-Siptah, followed by his widow Twosret. After them the pharaoh’s of the 20th dynasty should have been addressed, containing a long series of pharaoh’s with the name Ramses. That sequence will not be followed in this reconstruction. There appear to be very good reasons to change the sequence of the dynasties, and their details in some cases. It will be made clear below that Merneptah as pharaoh should be placed in a much later period, and was to rule Egypt as Pharaoh Hophra or Apries at the beginning of the 6th century BCE. See chapter III-Reconstruction period > 700 BCE in Egypt. Seti II and Amenmesse-Siptah enter the period of the Assyrian domination of the country at the end of the 8th century. It is further of importance to note that pharaoh Ramses III is to be identified as Nectanebo I, resulting in a replacement of the pharao’s of the 20th dynasty, an interpretation of modern times, to the fourth century. The chronology of the events and the sequence of Egyptian rulers from the death of Ramses II in this study will follow a schedule that will look as follows:

* After 767 BCE, the death of Ramses II, the princes of the Libyan Dynasty came to power. It concerns a fairly large number of priests and kings, exercising power or ruling in small kingdoms in Upper- and Lower Egypt, sometimes even the greater part of it or the entire area. * They were followed by the Nubian dynasty. * The Assyrian dominance of mainly Lower Egypt between 720 and 663 BCE, with a partial occupation of the country. The three aforementioned pharaoh’s: Seti II, Amenmesse-Siptah and Twosret, close off the eighth century as a vassal of Assyria. * The line of the conventional chronology will be picked up again with the 26th dynasty, starting with Necho I. Pharaoh Merenptah was left out sofar, but he will be given a place in this dynasty as Pharao Hophra. * No room will be made in the Timeschedules for the princes of the 21st, 23rd and 24st dynasties. These are all regarded as High-Priests, ruling oases and main cities of Upper- and Lower Egypt. They will be given attention further on in the text.

First an important question needs to be raised, a question that concerns the basis and the scientific reliability of the general accepted Egyptian chronology. Little information, few data and inscriptions have been found in Egypt which recorded the sequence of kings or even could sufficiently clarify the sequence of the dynasties. Important for the Egyptian chronology was the register of dynasties, the succession of kings and their time of reign compiled by Manetho. He was High Priest in Heliopolis around 250 BCE and his work has

54 been handed down into a few languages, unfortunately abominably maimed by copyists. Many kings were named on these lists that later on never were found on a building or monument or elsewhere, which gave little confidence in the correct rendering of Manetho's work.

Breasted wrote on that subject: "The chronology of Manetho is a late, inaccurate and uncritical compilation, which by far in most cases may be exposed as erroneous with help of contemporary monuments, as far as preserved.” 31

Also Gardiner gave his opinion on the subject: "What we have left of the chronology of Manetho is only a distorted excerpt in the texts of the Christian chronologists ...... Despite all these shortcomings this subdivision in dynasties has rooted so much there is a slender chance they will ever be abolished ...... The gravest kind of inaccuracies were found……. The royal names lend themselves well to a bewildering mutilation. " 32

In modern times Manetho’s chronology was reconstructed, improved, modified, interpreted. When, for example, abundant material was found about a pharaoh being named Ramses III it turned out that he did not occur in any of the lists of Manetho. He was then, together with all his successors, referred to by scientists to the 20th dynasty. These surviving lists of Manetho, transcribed, translated and mutilated have finally formed the basis for the current sequences of dynasties and kings of Egypt.

Another important pillar on which the chronology was determined had a astronomical nature. That dating was performed on the basis of a Sothis calendar, a calendar in which the Nile flooding in the month of July had to play a role. The bright star Sirius, Sothis, arises every summer heliacally, which coincides with the major flooding in July on the first day of the month Toth. Because the Egyptian calendar of 365 days (360 days plus 5 additional days) is one day short every four years, it was only four times that the heliacal rising of Sirius could take place on the first day of the month Toth. After that the event shifted through the calendar over the many years. It was the Roman Censorinus in 238 CE who established that the Egyptians attached importance to this cycle. According to him, the new Sothis period should have started in 139 CE, as the beginning of a cycle of 1460 years. From the 19th century on, scientists have tried to develop the Egyptian chronology on this astronomical basis. Based on some texts found on the rise of Sothis, presumably a heliacal rise which then possibly could be linked to specific kings, the so-called "Sothis calendar" was further used to match dynastic sequences to some data taken from this Sothis calendar. The date on which Ramses I, founder of the 19th Dynasty, ascended the throne of Egypt, was set to 1321 BCE in this way, later on corrected slightly. It is believed that the Egyptians felt it of importance to use a Sothis cycle with a size of 1460 years alongside their civilian-religious lunar calendar. However, there is not a single Egyptian document that points to or suggests to such custom or usage. The greatest astronomer of antiquity, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, wrote

31 Breasted, A History of Egypt, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1905. 32 Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford University Press, New York, 1964. 55 extensively about astronomical and calendar issues of his time, but never referred to a Sothis cycle or related calculations. He was living in the year 139 CE, the particular year of which Censorinus assumed it had been at the start of the great Sothis cycle. Ptolemy never paid any attention to it. The chronology based on this concept also assumed that there never had been a calendar revision in Egypt in all those many centuries. If a single calendrical adjustment had been made, it would have completely invalidated the Sothic calculations. There are more problems. The few inscriptions on documents and on stones that were used for the astronomical dating never mentioned a name of a reigning pharao to whom the particular text should apply. That information was later filled in speculatively. The foregoing summary and brief discussion of the basis on which the current scientifically used Egyptian chronology is based is derived from the text which I.Velikovsky devoted to this topic in a chapter of Peoples of the Sea 33 and also from Peter James et al. in Centuries of Darkness. 34 The in modern times drafted Sothis Calendar, with the connected absolute dating of the archaic Egyptian history, is based on very few texts by which kings, and then a series of dynasties, are linked to it. But these linkages prove to be of questionable value. Much value was set on the Ebers Papyrus, in which year 9 of the reign of Amenhotep I was mentioned, a year that could be linked to 1506 BCE in the Sothis cycle. But it was Wolfgang Helck who offered serious criticism, as the Papyrus certainly mentioned a heliacal rising of Sothis but did not mention a date. The important linkage to the Sothis Cycle, therefore, was loosing much of its value. Reference: Peter James et al. in Centuries of Darkness. 35 The concept of the Sothis calendar as an astronomical basis for Egyptian chronology shows too many weak spots. There are good reasons not to further use this concept as a scientifically approved method for dating.

The 21st Dynasty The rulers of this dynasty have not been given a place in this reconstruction of time and events for the period 900 – 700 BCE. There are many reasons to place them as high priests in a much later period, particularly in the 4th century BCE. This idea is motivated by a number of specific observations that will be further illustrated hereafter. Pierre Montet found the tombs of Psusennes I and Amenemope from the 21st Dynasty at Tanis in 1929. There can not be any doubt that these tombs were built after the reign of Osorkon II, as shown by the design and construction details of these tombs. Osorkon´s tombe was nearby . In the conventional scientific opinion Psusennes and Amenemope were living much earlier than Osorkon II. Psusennes had been given a very rich grave, but almost every grave gift was stolen from former kings, whose tombs had been looted. Even the sarcophagus in which his mummy was placed was originally made for somebody else whose name had been made illegible, while it had been put in a bigger one, which had belonged to Merneptah-Hotphi(r)mā’e, known as Hophra-Maat. The burial chamber appeared to have been built for one of the Shoshenq's. The burial chamber of Amenemope appeared to be in a bewildering miserable condition. Also his sarco-

33 Immanuel Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea, Doubleday & Co, New York, 1977. 34 Peter James, Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, London, 1992. 35 Peter James, Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, London, 1992. 56 phagus was originally from someone else. Velikovsky described the situation in the two burial chambers extensively in Peoples of the Sea 36. He demonstrated that all the last settlements in the burial chambers were made by Si-Amun, another prince-priest of the so-called 21st Dynasty. He was clearly involved in an attempt to prevent further looting. A large number of jewelry was found in the tomb of Psusennes. One golden bracelet aroused great interest with Montet, because of the inscription in hieroglyphics. The text read: "n-s-w (king), lord of two countries, lord of the sword, first prophet of Amun-Re-sonter -n -t - r, (Psusennes Miamun), life given. " The word n-s-w , meaning king, was written with the symbol of a baboon with an eye between the hands. It is a kind of pun that should express "prince or king". Montet also made an observation about the word "n-t-r", which was added as an accompaniment to Amun-Re, and which was written as a hawk. Both forms were actually very common in the later Ptolemaic period. Montet also found an inscription on a wall where Psusennes was invoking the Goddess Maat: "Psusennes, speaking truth ...... the heavenly Lady, suzerain of two countries, mistress of the Hellenic coast .... " Velikovsky commented on it as follows : “In Herodotus we read that “the Hellenic Coast” was the region along the coast of the Delta which was taken by many Greek cities, as a kind of enclave, for which Amasis had given permission to keep Hellenic temple services. The Hellenic coast as referred to in the tomb of Psusennes came into existence in the time of Amasis, and as Psusennes should belong to the fourth century it is obvious that in his tomb a reference was found to the Goddess Maat, as suzerain of the two countries, mistress of the Hellenic Coast.”

The "Inhapi Cache" made some more information available. It concerns a repository of mummies that was found in Egypt at the end of the 19th century. It contained a large amount of mummies which were brought together, all of them from the 18th, 19th and 20th dynasties, from Amosis to Ramses III. This deeply cut out shelter was converted into a depository, to prevent further desecration and robbery in the original tombs. It must have been of an enormous labour, undertaken by the priests who were involved in this project, and having a great responsibility for the religious tradition. Many mummies were re-bandaged by the priests, being, amongst others, Herihor, Peinuzem I and II and Si-Amun, who left their name on the new bandages. Si-Amun sealed this repository. One of the mummies belonged to a priest from the the 22th dynasty, the dynasty that was expected to follow that of Si- Amun. His name was Djet-ptah-efonkh. This proved to be a great mystery. Moreover Maspero reported that the coffin of Djet-ptah-efonkh was found deep and far into the mountain, which made it implausible that it later, or even shortly afterwards as a second interment, was added. It is also interesting that the mummy of Ramses III was wrapped by Peinuzem, son of Paiankh, which must mean that Peinuzem lived a number of years later than Ramses III. Pharaoh Ramses III has now been assigned a place in the 4th century BCE in this Reconstruction. Herihor was High Priest shortly after, at the time of the Second Persian Occupation of Egypt in the 4th century.

36 Immanuel Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea, Doubleday & Co, New York, 1977. 57

The Third Intermediate Period (767 – ca. 720 BCE : TIP) No more time has been left available for this period than the 47 years between 767 and 720 BCE. The Nubian Dynasty started at that year in phases, more or less simultaneously with the Assyrian invasions and subsequent occupation of the country. The phase in which Egypt in this reconstruction now enters is the period known as TIP. This interim period would then have to consist of the 21st Dynasty, the 22th, 23th and 24th Dynasty. In the conventional scientific chronology a large amount of time has been allotted for this period, from ca. 1050 upto 712 BCE, keeping in mind that the 18th Dynasty was supposed to start in the 16th century. In this reconstruction of all the relations between people and kingdoms in the eastern part of the Mediterranean this whole space of time practically disappears. The period that now becomes available for the Libyan Dynasty is not only confined at the end by the arrival of the Nubians in about 720, but can not be altered at the beginning either. Changing one or more of the parameters that were applied for the intertwining of the different events, by which so many nations and princes were involved, appears not to be successful. On the contrary, it makes matters worse. The sequence and reigns of the different kings in the Land of Hatti, for example, are hardly susceptible to change. The very short time of 47 years for the TIP seems to be an unsurmountable obstacle for the hypothesis followed in this study, but that appears not to be the case when the problem is examined in more detail. The 21st Dynasty consisted of a series of princes from Smendes to Psusennes, of whom can be made clear that they were living in later times and should be considered as High Priest, or Priest -Prince. Some of them called themselves pharaoh. In Chapter III more attention will be given to the princes of this Dynasty. See III - Reconstruction Period > 700 BCE in Egypt. The 22nd and 23rd Dynasties will be discussed hereafter. Genealogical tables have been found of the men and women who belonged to these families. Their relationships have become known to a reasonable extent. They represent an elite in the empire of the time, most probably Upper priests, priests, high government officials, generals and other military commanders. But the genealogies do not provide any information about person and function. Of some of them texts have been found in recent times, like inscriptions on temple walls, or on wrappers of their mummies. Some texts have also been found on a terrace of the Temple of Karnak at Thebes, which proved to be of importance. These texts are known by the name of Nile Quay Texts. A number of pharaohs from the 18th Dynasty onward had ordered to engrave the highest waterlevel of the Nile, added by their name. Some of these kings also were mentioned in the manuscripts of Manetho. The 22nd Dynasty is also called the Libyan Dynasty. It concerns the period 767-720 BCE in this reconstruction. Of the nine sovereigns that are considered for that purpose in the current scientific views, no more than five will be given a place in this period. These are: Shoshenq I, Osorkon I, Shoshenq II, Takelot I and Osorkon II.

Shoshenq I Scholars in the modern era equated Shoshenq I, the founder of the 22nd Dynasty, with Pharaoh Shishak, who is mentioned in the Bible as the robber and plunderer of the kingdom of Judah and specifically of Jerusalem.37 That was to happen in the 5th year of the reign of King Rehoboam. Shishak would have

37 I Kings 14: 25-6 58 established his victory on a gate at Karnak, and it was felt that that had happened in 945 BCE. But an identification on basis of solely a name alone is extremely unreliable. However, the Sothis chronology then gave support to this identification. But this identification proves to be very problematic. That may be shown by the following text. A fragment of an statue of Shoshenq I has been found in Byblos, on which King Abibaal of this city had inscribed that he had it taken along with him from Egypt and had it dedicated to the Goddess Baalath-Gebaal, the Patroness of Byblos. Philologically, this inscription is regarded to belong to a group of Phoenician-Hebrew texts which are known from other sources and are reckoned to a much later time. This isssue will be taken up again at the section in this text dedicated to pharaoh Osorkon. At this point it is sufficient to establish that King Abibaal probably lived in the years 760-755 BCE. Shoshenq’s reign should be in the same period. It is to be mentioned as well that in this study Jerusalem is to be seen as a small village, with Judah non- existing as a state, in the 9th and 10th centuries BCE. This was referred to earlier at the discussion related to the Egyptian army marching north in the year 802, on their way north to Carchemish in 802 BCE. This view on matters is based on the archaeological research in the area by the universities of Leiden and Tel-Aviv in modern times.38 39 The possibilty can therefore be dismissed that Jerusalem should have been able to play such a role, as described in the Bible in that year and in that area. Neither a tomb has been found of this pharao, nor any construction or buildings are known that might be linked to him. Some family relations are known, but no inscriptions are known that could help to fix his reign. The inscriptions at Karnak from the conquest of Palestine in the 10th century will not play any role in this reconstruction of history. This particular pharao was assigned with the Biblical name Shishak, and was identified with Shoshenq I as well, without sufficient certain grounds. It might be worthwhile to view the situation in Palestine for the mid 8th century BCE in an attempt to clarify possible Shoshenq’s activities. But even then, virtually no information from that region is made available that may shed light on this Shoshenq. Assyria in those years was plagued by civil war, until Tiglath-Pileser III seized power in 745 BCE. Nothing is known either from an Egyptian militairy campaign against Judah. In Megiddo a stele has been found with the name of Shoshenq I engraved on it, but it could not be given a date for lack of a stratified survey. However, it made clear that Shoshenq I had been in Palestine some time. It should not be seen as surprising that Sheshonq could have led an army upto Megiddo, when one bears in mind that Ramses II not long before had considered the area as his "front yard". Moreover, the Phoenician rulers in the large coastal cities apparently still considered the Egyptian pharao as their overlord, given the friendly relations they maintained with Egypt. A part of Shoshenq’s genealogy is known, from which it became clear that he belonged to a prominant Libyan- Egyptian family of Amun priests and vizirs. Moreover, the length of his reign it is not known.

38 Israel Finkelstein, The Rise of Jeruzalem and Judah, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv Univ., 2001. 39 Margreet Steiner, The Archaeology of Ancient Jeruzalem, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1998. 59

Osorkon I He succeeded his father as pharaoh. The length of his reign is also not known, nor a tomb of him has been found. The highest reign specified in documents attributed to him is 12 years. Flinders-Petrie attributed to him a reigning period of 36 years at the beginning of the 20th century, but this was criticized by Helen Jaquet- Gordon. 40 She showed that this number was the result of an erroneous reading of the characters on a stele of Osorkon by Flinders Petrie himself. Manetho, moreover, mentioned a reigning period of 15 years in his documents. A statue of Osorkon has been found in Byblos, showing a Phoenician-Hebrew text with an homage of king Elibaal to Osorkon I. King Elibaal, the successor of Abibaal, so like his older brother, had devoted a statue to Osorkon, the then reigning Egyptian pharao. This also made it very likely that of the two pharaoh’s involved also the one succeeded the other, like what happened with the two brothers. The importance of these two ancient texts is much more profound. These texts are among the oldest Phoenician epigraphic texts and can be integrated into the established and accepted development of the similar Hebrew writing and must consequently be dated to the period of approximately 850-700 BCE. Some more and more elaborate texts are to be mentioned, which are the ones at the tomb of King Ahiram of Byblos. These will be discussed in the chapter on Phoenicia: II -c Phoenicia (800 - 700). Experts dated the script to the period of the 9-7 th century BCE. Inside that tomb vases and a cartouche of Pharaoh Ramses II were found at the excavation. Ahiram was succeeded by his son Ithobaal, who had let install the sarcophagus. It is assumed that Yehimilk succeeded Ithobaal on the throne of Byblos, in his turn succeeded by his sons Abibaal respectively Elibaal. Elibaal’s son Shipitbaal was forced to pay a large tribute to the Assyrian king Tiglath Pileser III in 739 BCE. A space of time has been woven by these short remnants of historic information in which also King Osorkon I is to find a place. His reign may be estimated to some extent by the one of Elibaal, which might have been about 755-745 BCE.

Shoshenq II His father remained unknown. He was apparently already living during the reign of Osorkon I, which makes it possible that he can have been on the throne in Tanis for a short while after the death of Osorkon. His reign is estimated to have been approximately 2 years. Then the throne was taken over by Takeloth, Osorkon’ s son. Shoshenq’s tomb in Tanis was found by Montet in 1939. Hardly anything is known of this pharao.

Takelot I Osorkon's son and later successor Takelot I is only known from one surviving genealogy. No monuments have been found that can be attributed to him, and there are virtually no references elsewhere. His son Osorkon II had him buried in one of the chambers of the tomb complex at Tanis, which he had built for himself and his family. It is assumed that his reign was very short. The idea has now taken hold that Takelot I only ruled over Lower Egypt with its capital at Tanis. A rival, and

40 Helen Jaquet-Gordon, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 53, 1967. 60 relative, the priest Harsiese, had seized power in Upper Egypt, with its capital Thebes.

Osorkon II Osorkon II is much more known. He succeeded in recovering his authority over Upper Egypt and the western oases after some time, after his cousin Harsiese, King and High Priest of Amun in Thebes, had died. He obtained sufficient authority in the country to build monumental buildings on a large scale. The length of his reign is also not well known. Based on Nile Quay Text no. 14, one can conclude that Osorkon let it engrave in year 29 of his reign. These Nile Quay Texts are inscriptions on a terrace of the Temple of Karnak in Thebes, where the pharaohs from the 18th Dynasty onward kept track of the maximum height of the Nile, while stating their name. It is therefore assumed that Osorkon II, must have been Egypt’s king for at least 30 years. In Tanis he had built a tomb complex with five burial chambers, which were then used for his father and himself. The three other chambers remained empty. His genealogy may be very known, very little is known of his activities and his political history in the country. It appears that Egypt was hit by a large natural catastrophe in the early phase of his reign. Velikovsky mentioned it in Worlds in Collision41 , with a reference to the following text by Breasted 42: “In the reign of Osorkon II of the Libyan Dynasty in Egypt, in the third year, the first month of the second season, on the twelfth day, according to a damaged inscription “the flood came on, in this whole land…. this land was in its power like the sea; there was no dyke of the people to withstand its fury. All the people were like birds upon it…the tempest…..suspended….like the heavens. All the temples of Thebes were like marshes.” This text gives also the indication that Osorkon had authority over both Upper and Lower Egypt in the early phase of his reign. Hardly anything is known of his influence on the Egyptian neighbouring countries, other than one can interpret using only scarce data, such as the following:. * In an old cemetery at Cerro de San Cristobal, near Almuñécar, some graves alabaster vases have been found with the cartouches of Osorkon II, Takeloth and Shoshenq III. These were urns which could be dated at about 700 BCE with reference to other objects from the Phoenician and Greek period.

* In the remains of the royal palace of Samaria, in Israel, fragments of an alabaster vase were found with the name of Osorkon II on it. Its dating has given rise to extensive discussions, because of the precise location of the find, in view of ostraca of pottery and ivory with inscriptions laying nearby. The latter were assigned to the time of Jeroboam II, who ruled until about 753 BCE. It appeared justified to conclude that the building in which the alabaster vase with the cartouche of Osorkon II was found was of a later date than the building in which the ostraca were laying. The alabaster vase might therefore date from some time later than 753 BCE.

* On Cyprus, a scarab of Osorkon II has been found in a tomb at Salamis which was dated to about 700 BCE.

41 I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1950. 42 J.Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt IV,University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1907.

* From the Israeli king Hoshea, reigning between 732 and 720 BCE, it is known that he paid tribute to the Egyptian pharaoh So in the year 726 BCE. It might now be assumed that this pharao could be no other than Osorkon II. One can only guess at the end of the reign of Osorkon II. Shoshenq III might have been his successor, but it is quite probable that this Shoshenq had a different role in a different region in Lower Egypt. Peter James mentioned that an overlap in government must have taken place between Osorkon II and Shoshenq III due to the data available from the tombs of the Apis bulls. 43 In Memphis these bulls were considered as a manifestation of the god Ptah, and one of them was selected to live in the vicinity of the temple for a religious service. After his death, the bull was mummified and buried in a necropolis at Saqqara. There appears not to be any bull between year 23 of Osorkon’s government and year 28 of the reign of Shoshenq III. It can be deduced that both lived in the same time and ruled in parallel. One may also conclude that year 28 of Sheshonq III possibly was the time of death of a later bull. Takelot II also appeared to have ruled in parallel ruled to Osorkon II. W.G.Waddell wrote the following on this in his book Manetho 44: “It seems that different kings held sway in different regions, and that each dynasty was confined to its own nome; thus it was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions.”

Church Father Eusebius, who passed on one of the versions of Manetho's work, had a similar impression. When the Nubian prince Pyankhi invaded Egypt with his forces in 747 BCE it turned out that he had to fight with numerous opponents, officials and "Chiefs of the Ma", but also with four princes who all of them called themselves pharaohs. The reigns of the aforementioned five pharao’s Sheshonq I, Osorkon I, Sheshonq II, Takelot I and finally Osorkon II completed jointly approximately the time period of 47 years, which became available between 767 and circa 720 BCE. This presupposes that Shoshenq I just governed a few years, which is not in contradiction with the data that are available. It is conceivable that he had a high position in the Egyptian hierarchy during the reign of Ramses II, and after Ramses’s death came to power at a somewhat higher age. Osorkon II proved to be the most successful pharao, whose reign, however, was seriously disturbed by the disastrous flooding of the Nile in the early years of his reign, after which the Nubian invasion of Piankhy made everything worse. The various available genealogies of all these Libyan Egyptian rulers make more clear that they all belonged to important and related families and already very early on had found themselves on prominent religious and political positions. Everything points to a socio-political development in Egypt in which these elite families apparently saw the opportunity to consolidate this power during the difficult period following the death of Ramses II. The national state of Egypt gradually disintegrated into a patchwork of feudal states, which the neighbouring Nubia and the militarily strong Assyria then tried to dominate, in which they proved to be quite

43 Peter James et al., Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, London,1992. 44 W.G.Waddell, Manetho, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1940. 62 successful.

The Nubians and Assyria Pyankhi had invaded Egypt in 747 BCE, had usurped power in a large area, but appeared to have remained at a relatively large distance from the local rulers. Moreover, he focussed mainly on the country's southern part, on Upper Egypt. Pyankhi, the Nubian prince who previously had attempted to get control over the whole of Egypt, but soon retreated to southern Egypt and then to the Nubian Napata, died there in 721 BCE. He was succeeded by his son Shabaka. Around 720 BCE, Egypt suffered heavily when it became military involved in a conflict with one of its vassals. Assyria had laid strong claims on Gaza, of which the king had claimed direct support from Egypt. Gaza let it develop into a large conflict with Assyria, which ended badly. The Assyrian king Sargon II left a report about it on a wall of his palace in Khorsabad. This has become available via The Gutenberg Project 45 : “Hanun, King of Gaza, and Sebech, Sultan of Egypt, allied themselves at Raphia to oppose me, and fight against me; they came before me, I put them to flight. Sebech yielded before my cohorts, he fled, and no one has ever seen any trace of him since. I took with my own hand Hanun, King of Gaza”. “I imposed a tribute on Pharaoh, King of Egypt; Samsie, Queen of Arabia; It-amar, the Sabean, of gold, sweet smelling herbs of the land, horses, and camels”. Sargon claimed the overall victory of this battle of Raphia. He was able to impose a tribute on Egypt, and thereafter was lord and master in the southern part of the Levant. He placed another king on the throne in Gaza, and with the text quoted above he let known that he never heard anymore of king Sebech of Egypt, who had taken to the flight at the battle. Undoubtedly Assyria compelled Egypt to pay tributes over a number of years to come, as was customary. It is quite plausible to make “Sebech as sultan of Egypt “ equal to Shabaka, keeping in mind that his father Pyankhi had deceased shortly before. From the above text it can be seen that Shabaka was acting as army- commander of the Egyptian-Nubian army at Raphia. Because “Sebech”, the commander-in-chief, had fled at the battle, it is quite possible that the Egyptian army also had to flee in disarray. It is then quite conceivable that Shabaka's influence later on in Egypt, especially in Lower Egypt, was lost for some time. Shabaka needed time to build up military power and force his authority on the officials in the most important layers of the Egyptian society again. Shabaka made Thebes as his capital, the city far to the south. The events did not have, as one may assume, much influence on the form of government of Egypt, as the country was divided into dozens of kingdoms, in which the power of each monarch was determined by tradition and a kind of a feudal system. That form of government, with so many local kingdoms, was still to continue for quite some time. The Nubian power was spread over it, with respect for the Egyptian traditions, religion and social customs. The Nubians saw themselves as part of the great Egyptian empire and identified themselves with it. Moreover, it might be noted that the events in Egypt as described for this period of time and the interaction thereof with the Assyrian and Nubian military power should generally be in complete agreement with the current views in archaeology.

45 Donald A. Mackenzie, Project Gutenberg’s Myths of Babylonia and Assyria. 63

In the year 713 BCE Egypt had apparently become so powerful that the city-state Ashdod ventured to trust on it and made steps to throw off the Assyrian yoke: Ashdod rebelled against the Assyrian king. But Sargon did not hesitate a moment. He first responded by using his local forces, but immediately after he marched south with his regular army and subdued Ashdod harshly. Sargon left the following text: “Azuri, King of Ashdod, determined within himself to render no more tributes; he sent hostile messages against Assyria to the neighboring kings. I meditated vengeance for this, and I withdrew from him the government over his country. I put his brother Akhimit on his throne. But the people of Syria, eager for revolt, got tired of Akhimit's rule, and installed Iaman, who like the former, was not the legitimate master of the throne.” He sent bribes to Pir’u king of Musru, a potentate incapable to save him, and asked him to be an ally.. In the anger of my heart, I did not assemble the bulk of my army nor divide my baggage, but I marched against Ashdod with my warriors, who did not leave the trace of my feet. Iaman learnt from afar of the approach of my expedition; he fled beyond Egypt toward Meluhhi and no one ever saw any further trace of him. I besieged and took Ashdod and the town of Gimtu-Asdudim; I carried away captive Iaman's gods, his wife, his sons, his daughters, his money, and the contents of his palace, together with the inhabitants of his country. I built these towns anew and placed in them the men that my arm had conquered. I placed my Lieutenant as Governor over them, and I treated them as Assyrians. They never again became guilty of impiety.” And a somewhat later text: “The King of Meluhhi lives in the middle of the desert, in an inaccessible place, at a month's journey. From the most remote times until the renewal of the lunar period his fathers had sent no ambassadors to the kings, my ancestors, to ask for peace and friendship and to acknowledge the power of Merodach. But the immense terror inspired by my Majesty roused him, and fear changed his intentions. In fetters of iron he threw him (Iaman), directed his steps toward Assyria and kissed my feet.” A reference to this event can also be found in Isaiah 20, Isaiah being a contemporary and living in Judah during the reign of Hezekiah: "In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria had sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it: Then the Lord said, alike my servant Isaiah who walked naked and barefoot for three years, till a sign and a miracle upon Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt; and they shall be afraid and be ashamed of the Ethiopians they saw, and of the Egyptians, their glory ...... " Apparently the forces of Ashdod were supported from Egypt. Shabaka was succeeded by his cousin Shebitku in 706 BCE. It is assumed that Shabaka had granted asylum to Yamani, but then his nephew and successor Shebitku did not hesitate to extradite Yamani to Sargon after having come on the throne, to avoid any possible conflict with Assyria. That should mean that Yamani was living in exile in Egypt from about 712 to 706. Shebitku remained in power until 690, when his cousin Taharqa had to take his place. The unexpected and sudden death of Sargon in 705 BCE led to a mass revolt in large parts of the territories occupied by Assyië. It is highly probable that also Shebitku tried to take advantage of Sargon’s death and to strengthen his position in

64 the Levant. In 701 Sargon's son Sennacherib was able to break the revolt in the western territories, after which he marched towards Egypt with a huge army. It was at Eltekeh that Sennacherib very likely obtained a crushing victory on the Egyptian-Nubian army, which was commanded by the Nubian Taharqa. Sennacherib had then recorded that the Egyptian army commanders could hardly save their lives: “The people of Ekron became afraid and called upon the Egyptian king. The bowmen, chariots and horses of the king of Melukha, a boundless host, and these came to their aid.” “In the plain of Eltekeh their battle lines were drawn up against me, and they sharpened their weapons.” “The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the charioteers of the Ethiopian king my hands took alive in the midst of the battle.” Herodotus reported in II -141, that Sennacherib employed a large army against Egypt and then encamped at Pelusium. This probably means that Egypt officially submitted to Sennacherib in that place. However, objective information about the consequences of this battle does not exist. Assyrian sources make it at least very plausible that Assyria was firmly in control of the southern Levant during the last two decades of the 8th century. Herodotus also reported that Sennacherib's invasion of Egypt took place during the reign of the High Priest of Hephaestos called Sethos.46 With that Sethos was introduced as reigning prince in this period, when the Nubian Shebitku represented the dominant power in the country. It is of some importance to try to investigate the importance of Sethos in this history. Sethos is also referred to in other writings, and there is some confusion about his place in history and his relationship to people and events in the country. Sethos must have functioned in the period that followed the battle of Raphia in the spring of 720 BCE, when Sargon was able to impose his will on Egypt, administratively even. Sethos must, as is thought, have been a princely priest for some time until the arrival of Sennacherib, probably with varying loyalties. In this study, he will take the place of Seti II. This pharaoh is difficult to place in the Egyptian chronology. He is not acceptable as successor to Merenptah, now being one of the last pharaohs before the start of the First Persian Domination. Setos is believed to have lived and ruled in a turbulent time, in which he was at war with a rival with the name Amenmesse on the overlordship of all Egypt. Roy Hopper, of the University of Memphis, USA, devoted a thorough study on it. 47 He came to the conclusion that Amenmesse apparently succeeded in having power over a part of the country in almost four years, which he finally had to return to Setos again. In those four years Amenmesse managed to be ruler over Upper Egypt, with its capital at Thebes. It follows that Setos had lordship over the whole of Egypt in the first two years of his reign, and finally again in the latter part of his life. Quite a number of reliefs and statues have been preserved of him. Wolfgang Helck also came to this conclusion. 48 Seti and Amenmesse were rivals for the throne, but the relationship between them is not clear. Seti's queen was called Twosre or Tausert, and with her a very complicated problem is ìntroduced. In her tomb in the Valley of Kings she was called "The King's Great Wife", "Lady of the Two Lands", "Mistress of Upper and LowerEgypt" and "Hereditary Princess." This apparently was to make clear that this woman had

46 Herodotus, The Histories-II, 141. 47 Roy Hopper, The Monuments of Amenmesse and Sethi II: A Historical Inquiry, University of memphis, 2010. 48 Wolfgang Helck, Handbook of Ancient Egyptian Chronology,ed.Hornung, Kraus & Warburton, Brill, Leiden,2006. 65 hereditary rights to the throne, in the important female line, and for some time had acquired supreme power in Egypt in person, the power of pharaoh. Twosre also had a throne name: Sitre merit-Amen. 49 A relief has been found in the corridor which gave access to her tomb, on which she is pictured standing behind a king who brings a sacrifice, with the name Merenptah-Siptah. The latters name had been plastered, and another name was filled in, the one of Sethos. 50 Twosre had a son, Merenptah- Siptah, who shortly after his birth was made pharaoh of the country. That young man died after a short number of years, he seemed to have had polio. His father remained unknown. She is also shown with a child on her lap, the child with the name Merenptah-Siptah. On this picture of mother and son, Twosre was named "the protectress of the pharaoh." Twosre should also be associated with a very important person at that time, the man who has become known as "Great Chancellor of the Entire Country", and bearing the name Bey. He is supposed to have been a foreigner, probably a Syrian. A wall inscription is known on which Bey is admiringly pictured directly behind Siptah, with the text: “the spirit of the Great Superintendent of the Seal of the entire land, who established the king [Siptah] in the place of his father; beloved of his Lord, Bay.” An ostraca has been found which stated that Bey had been put to death by order of the royal court, which apparently happened in year five of Siptah’s reign. Siptah must have been a young man at the time, with his mother as regent. That information was given to the labourers who were working on the decoration of Bey's tomb, with which they immediately had to stop. It is still remarkable that Bey had a position at court with so much power and influence that it enabled him to build a tomb for himself in the Valley of the Kings.

Considerations: After the 19th dynasty ended with pharao Ramses II, the so-called Libyan dynasty came to power, of which Osorkon II was the last pharao to reign for quite some time. Sethos appeared to be one of the kings who came to power in the turbulent times when Assyrian and Nubian rule played an important role, while Twosre, Amenmesse, Merenptah-Siptah en Bey also were mentioned in relation to the court. Herodotus indicated Sethos to have functioned at the time of the invasion of the Assyrian king Sennacherib at the end of the 8th century, that is some time after the Libyan priest-princes had to leave the field. But more information can be reviewed. Setnakhte is regarded as successor to Twosre in the conventional chronology. He is seen as somebody by whom the reign of the Ramessides was to begin. It has already been indicated that the 20st dynasty of the Ramessides, the Pharaohs Ramses III, IV, etc., should be shifted to the beginning of the fourth century BCE, where it is equivalent to the 29th and 30th dynasties, whose pharaohs Nectanebo I, II and Tachos were the most important. It is important to note that these pharaoh’s came to power following the Persian rule and exploitation of Egypt, which lasted for a period of 121 years. Setnakhte was no member of the royal family, he probably entered the throne as a strong man from the army, in a period of a great crisis and political and social unrest. The Great Harris Papyrus provides some

49 Petrie, Six Temples at Thebes, Bernard Quaritch, London, 1897. 50 Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford University Press, 1964. 66 information about the circumstances in which this took place. With a translation by J. Breasted 51 “The land of Egypt was overthrown from without, and every man was thrown out of his right; they had no chief mouth for many years formerly until other times. The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and of rulers of towns; one slew his neighbour, great and small. Other times having come after it, with empty years. Irsu, a self- made man, a certain Syrian (Kahru) was with them as chief. He set plundering their possessions. They made gods like men, and no offerings were presented in the tempels.” The circumstances in Egypt at the times following the rule of Osorkon and the take-over by the Nubians, or the rule of Sethos and Twosre after that, can certainly not be compared with the ones described in the Papyrus. Egypt did not pass a phase of great religious and social chaos and overwhelming poverty after the stepback of the Libyans. Apparently, these two environments were completely different in all political and social aspects. Setnakhte can not be seen as the successor of Twosre. Twosre, maybe Seti as well, was responsible at the court to Bey, the”Great Chancellor of the Great Land” for a time, or at least they were politically dependent of him. But Bey can not be compared with the Irsu as mentioned in the text of the Great Harris Papyrus. It is quite possible that Bey had been appointed by Sargon after the battle of Raphia in 720 BCE, and was assigned an important role in the administration on behalf of Assyria as long as Sargon could exercise sufficient authority in Egypt. The Assyrian army is thought to have had control on Upper-Egypt, maybe even on Lower-Egypt for a while, until 712 BCE, the time Shabaka gained power in Lower-Egypt. It is probably the period between 720 and 712 BCE in which Amenmesse/Seti, Twosre and Merenptah- Siptah could operate, all under supervision of the Great Chancellor Bey, having the ultimate responsibiliy on behalf of Sargon. To this may be added that such a set-up after an Assyrian usurpation of an hostile country is to be considered as a usual pattern. Velikovsky also treated this subject in The Assyrian Conquest, part of the Velikovsky Archive Website, where he referred to some texts of Josephus Flavius, in Josephus contra Apionem. Josephus Flavius described Sethos in a role with his brothers Ramesses-Siptah and Harmais, vice-roy of Egypte:

“After him came Sethosis, and Ramesses Siptah, two brethren, the former of whom had a naval force, and in a hostile manner destroyed those that met him upon the sea; but as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, so he appointed another of his brethren to be his deputy over Egypt.” and in another version of the document: “The last named king {Sethosis], who possessed an army of cavalry and a strong fleet, made his brother Harmais viceroy of Egypt and conferred upon him all the royal prerogatives, except that he enjoined upon him not to wear the diadem and not to wrong the queen……” This text also provides a link to Harmais, or Horemhab, and allows for an indication to the period being dealt with. But no other information has been passed on which might confirm these texts from Josephus Flavius. In these texts also reference was made to Ramesses Siptah, a brother of Sethos. He also is part of the entourage of Sethos, Twosret, Merenptah-Siptah, Amenmesse, as mentioned in Roy Hopper’s study. All these highranking persons appear to have been mixed up in conflicts and intrigues, while afterwards, fed by resentment and hate, names on statues were erased and filled in with other names, in order to command anewed

51 J. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt IV, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1906. 67 authority in the country by falsifying and forging image and writing. It is very regrettable that this narrative on Sethos, his queen and contemporaries, provides barely more than indications and probabilities of their world and time. It should also be added that an alternative scheme is hardly possible.

Sennacherib was later necessitated again to march with a large army towards Egypt. That was the year 687 BCE, and this campaign ended in a disaster, of which cause and details are still under discussion. During the 30-40 preceding years the political and military situation in Egypt was very confusing. Both Nubian and Assyrian kings repeatedly proved able to impose their power on Egypt, while the local rulers in every region of the country had to change loyalty over and over again, lost their functions or received them again, might have to flee or go into hiding, all depending on the color of power. This situation was outlined in some detail because it was supposed to provide for a background for a subject that was raised earlier when discussing the succession of Aye, Tuthankhamon’s uncle, in 833 BCE. It concerns the identity of Horemhab as the military commander who took control of Egypt after Aye and who conveyed the power to Ramses I, or alternatively the Horemhab as the very important official and vice-roy, of whom the traces can be found in the turbulent times of the early 7th century. Horemhab's position and identity will therefore further be discussed in III – Reconstruction. period> 700 BCE in Egypt.

II-b The Philistine Coastal Cities (800-700)

Ekron was not fortified in previous years, the town was mainly inhabited on the Acropolis. The inhabitants lived from agriculture and horticulture in the area, while they also traded with distant regions, such as Egypt, Cyprus, Anatolia and Mycenae. A fairly large amount of richly decorated pottery from the Mycenaean world was imported in the coastal plains of Canaan in the second half of the 9th century BCE. Both Ekron and Ashdod appeared involved in extensive trade and showed a cosmopolitan element. Extensive excavations have been carried out in Ekron by the W.F.Albright Institute and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem led by Trude Dothan and Seymour Gitin. Ekron was found to be representative of the cultural and political developments in the region, similar to those of Ashkelon and other towns in the coastal plains. It was one of the five major cities of the Philistine Pentapolis. The investigated Stratum VIII, counting from XI to I, turned out to be the last of the Late Bronze Age and was assessed to belong to the period 1300-1175. Stratum VIII as excavated and researched should approximately correspond to the period of 800-700 BCE in this reconstruction of time, the period being discussed in this chapter. It was the last Canaanite settlement and the final phase of a series of non fortified settlements around an Acropolis. Details and findings of the excavations will be discussed below. Egypt had had the southern part of the Levant in its sphere of influence under Pharaoh Ramses II. Very little is known of the period after that. It seems likely that a reasonably quiet time had set in under both Ramses and the Libyan pharaoh’s after him. But that could only have lasted until about 735 BCE, when Assyria became the cause of danger.

In 745 BCE an Assyrian general seized power in his country, in a time of great turmoil in Assyria. He became known as Tiglath-Pileser III, in power in the period 745-727 BCE. He spent the first years of his reign in building and training a strong professional army, in which also many foreign emprisoned soldiers were taken on. From that time on the Assyrian army could be deployed throughout the year. Assyria clearly wanted to dominate the entire region of the Levant. In 734-733 BCE Tiglath-Pileser marched south with a large army along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This was to be part of his multi-year campaign to break the power of the recently formed coalition of states on his western borders. Gaza was an important center of resistance or rebellion against Assyria. Peter Dubovsky reasoned that Tiglath Pileser attacked the cities along the Philistine coast from the north, and not from the interior through the hills of Judah. Therefore, he could quickly advance upon Gaza along Tyre, Acre and Ashkelon. 52 Dubovsky provided the following explanation of the probable strategy of Tiglath Pileser:

“The Assyrian army leaned heavily on its chariotry and cavalry. The decision to attack the coastal region first took into consideration the fact that the flat coastal terrain would allow the fast advance of Assyrian troops. This would not have been the case if Tiglath Pileser had decided to move his army through Israelite hills.”

All cities along the coast surrendered to him, but Megiddo and Acre were completely destroyed. The cities along the coast also surrendered, but Megiddo and Acre were completely destroyed. Ashkelon surrendered as well. Mitinti, the ruling king in Ashkelon gave up his throne and was succeeded by Rubiktu, who submitted to the king of Assyria. Heavy tributes were imposed. The coalition of states was crushed, they had not been able to prepare themselves for a coordinated defense. Gaza was ruled in these years by king Hanunu, who had fled to Egypt at the approach of the great Assyrian army. Hanunu returned from Egypt later on and was then appointed again by the Assyrians on the throne of Gaza. But from that moment on he was fully submitted to the mercy of the Assyrian king. The Assyrians made from Gaza an Assyrian trade center and could thus control a large part of the long-distance trade. Ibidi'clu was installed as the Assyrian governor, who also had the task to exercise control over the Egyptian border and pass on information to Nineveh about the political and economic developments of the whole region. All this illustrates the importance of Gaza for the Assyrians. In 722 BCE Sargon II came on the throne in Assyria. At that moment king Hanunu of Gaza took the risk again of a serious conflict with Assyria, whereby he requested military support from the Nubian king Shabaka. That led to the great battle at Raphia where Sargon totally defeated his Nubian-Egyptian opponent, and thus forced Gaza again to its knees. Sargon put another king on the throne in the city. Gaza was very important for Egypt, but had proven not to be able to maintain a certain neutrality between the big powers in the region. Moreover, Gaza could clearly not properly assess the changing international developments independently of the Egyptian court. Around 715 BCE Ashdod also came into a lot of trouble with Assyria. A certain Yamani had taken power in the city in a time of serious unrest. Yamani then tried to set up an anti-Assyrian league, and therefore sought

52 Peter Dubovsky, Tiglath Pileser´s campaigns 734 /732 BC, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome.

69 help from Egypt and Edom. Hezekiah of Judah being asked refrained from taking part in it. Sargon did not wait very long with a response and sent an army towards Ashdod. Yamani then fled to Egypt. The entire region was plundered by Sargon and had become tributary to Sargon. That must surely have lasted until the year 705 BCE, the year Sargon died in a great battle with the Cimmerians in north eastern Anatolia. Some scholars consider Yamani to have had a Greek background. His appearance in Ashdod roughly corresponded, or preceded, with the invasion of a large number of people with an Achaean background in these coastal cities. It also coincided with the great fire that destroyed Ekron at the end of Stratum VIII, which was mentioned above. The small town of Ekron was then completely rebuilt and enlarged by the newcomers, who, as has been shown, gradually mixed with the previous inhabitants. Ekron appeared to have become a complete different city with the Strata VII and higher on, a city which is now reckoned to the Iron Age I A until II C. In the newly built and then heavily fortified city a completely new and different culture developed. Incidentally, the nearby Ashkelon was not destroyed by a fire around 1175, in the conventional chronology, as is shown by the publications of the excavator Lawrence Stager of the Harvard University. The excavations in Ashkelon and Ekron show that a complete change in culture took place in this region at the end of the Late Bronze Age IIB, as a result of a large influx of foreign people. These events should be dated around 715-690 BCE in this study, as a result of the changed chronology. In this new settlement a Lower City was built, the Upper Town and the Acropolis were completely renovated, the whole city was provided with ramparts and defensive walls, a totally new material culture developed from excavation layer VII onwards. Trude Dothan wrote the following about it: 53

"....The Upper and Lower Cities are characterized by a new material culture with Aegean affinities. That was Introduced by the Philistines (Trude Dothan added at this place:one of the Sea Peoples). Its special features include Megaron type buildings, Hearths and locally-made Mycenaean IIIC: 1 pottery, which predominates in the earliest phase of occupation, Stratum VII. Philistine Bichrome pottery with red and black decoration on white slip is the major type of ceramic in the Strata VI-V city. Stratum IV in the material culture reflects the influence of a new ceramic tradition, with notes predominantly red-slipped and burnished pottery. "

Almost everything changed rather suddenly in the city. These changes appear to have been of great importance. They indicate to migrations with an enormous impact on people, their culture, political developments, and much more. Trude Dothan wrote another article in which these aspects also clearly came forward 54:

“The character of the city changed dramatically. The imports from Cyprus and the Mycenaean pottery from the Aegean suddenly ended. The unmistakable initial pottery style of the Philistines, locally made Mycenaean IIIC:1b, appeared and in overwhelming quantities.

53 Trude Dothan, Tel Miqne-Ekron, Summary of Fourteen Seasons of Excavation 1981-1996, Albright Institute/Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 2005. 54 Trude Dothan, Tel Miqne-Ekron:The Aegean Affinities of the Sea Peoples, Archaeological Institute of America, Dubuque, Iowa, 1995 70

The situation in the other Philistine cities brought a similar change to light, in the urbanization, the industry, religion and worship, metallurgy, ceramics, all at the same time. It is understandable that this massive influx of people around 1175 BCE, in particular by Aegean people, gave rise to the hypothesis of an invasion of the Sea Peoples, to which must be added that this was accompanied by a large number of different and new problems, which could not satisfactory be explained. It will be understood that these major events will have a totally different explanation in this study. Ann Killebrew, archeologist and ceramics specialist, was directly involved in the excavations in the ruins of these southern coastal towns. Some of her conclusions and observations will be mentioned below. 55 She mentioned that the import of Mycenaean pottery in Canaan reached a peak at the end of the Late Bronze Age II B. She thereby naturally referred to the final phase of the 13th century BCE. In this study this period will be modified to the final phase of the 8th century BCE.

“ Ekron represents a large urban center, complete with city fortifications, impressive public buildings, a series of pottery kilns on the eastern slope of the north-east Acropolis. Quantities of locally produced Aegean inspired MIII C:1b pottery and its associated assemblage appear suddenly, largely replacing the ceramic tradition of Stratum VIII and the locally produced Late Bronze II pottery…… Two shapes from the earlier Canaanite LB II assemblage continue to appear – the storage jar and the flask. Both were produced at many locations throughout the eastern Mediterranean during the LB II period and may be considered a type of ‘international style’ .”

The culture of the invaders has been allocated to the period Mycenaean IIIC: 1, or: to the beginning of Late-Hellenic III C. The culture objects of these new inhabitants clearly belonged, and in all aspects, to the Mycenaean world. The excavators of Ashkelon and Ekron reported a whole new culture which unfolded after the usurpation of the cities by the new incoming population at the Palestinian coast. It concerned a new material culture to Aegean model. Megaron type buildings with a hearth in the great central hall were discovered, similar to those found in the remains of Mycenaean cities such as Mycenae and Pylos. Bi-chrome Mycenaean style pottery was found in stratum VII of the excavation at Ekron. The pottery was locally made from clay and painted with fanciful motifs in red and black, including fishes, birds and many geometric figures. The archaeologists noticed in an aside that the Israelites at this time were still producing rough and unpainted pottery.

Dr.Stager, the excavator of Ashkelon: "Throwing caution to the wind, I am willing to state flatly that 'these people' were Mycenaean Greeks."

55 A.E.Killebrew,The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millenium, Aegeum 18, Cline and Harris-Cline, eds. Luik, 1998. 71

Ann.E.Killebrew: “With the appearance of Mycenaean IIIC:1b wares at Tel Miqne-Ekron, the typical handleless open cooking pot of the Late Bronze Age tradition almost disappears. Instead, a type of cooking jug previously unknown in Canaan becomes the prevalent type alongside the Mycenaean IIIC:1b wares. This vessel has a close globular shape, a flat base and one handle extending from the upper rim to the shoulder of the vessel. Dark black soot appears on the exterior surface of these cooking jugs, clearly confirming their use as cooking vessels. The form is well-known in Cyprus at sites such as Athienou, Enkomi and Kition, at Tarsus on the southern coast of Anatolia and, to a lesser extent, in the Aegean at Perati and Lefkandi. Coinciding with the sudden change in cooking vessels at Tel Miqne-Ekron, a shift occurred in the animal production systems that supported the city. During the 12th century BC pigs and cattle became more important in the economy at the expense of sheep and in particular goats. This change in diet and herd management, together with a different shape of cooking vessel, indicates a different cuisine for the 12th century BC inhabitants of Tell Miqne-Ekron.”

She supplied some additional information on the type of pottery which was produced in the city, and on its relationship with pottery in other areas of the eastern Mediterranean: “Ekron represents a large urban center, complete with city fortifications, impressive public buildings, a series of pottery kilns on the eastern slope of the north-east Acropolis. Quantities of locally produced Aegean inspired MIII C:1b pottery and its associated assemblage appear suddenly, largely replacing the ceramic tradition of Stratum VIII and the locally produced Late Bronze II pottery…… Two shapes from the earlier Canaanite LB II assemblage continue to appear – the storage jar and the flask. Both were produced at many locations throughout the eastern Mediterranean during the LB II period and may be considered a type of ‘international style’ .”

The events took a tragic turn with the invasion of the Assyrian army under Sennacherib at the end of the century. That must have taken place in the year 702 BCE. He first marched through Aram, then he turned all his attentions, and his lust for power, on the coastal cities. Sennacherib first attacked Sidon where he drove king Lule to the flight and placed Tuba'lu on the throne as a vassal. He then moved south along the coast. Sennacherib had the following inscribed on his Prism: “ From Menachem, the Shamsimurunite, Tuba’lu the Sidonite, Abdi-liti the Arvadite, Uru-milki the Gublite, Mitinti the Ashdodite, Budu-ilu the Beth Ammonite, Kammusu-nadbi the Moabite, Malik-rammu the Edomite, they brought before me for the fourth time, and kissed my feet. But Sidka, the king of Ashkelon, who had not submitted to my yoke, the Gods of his father’s house, himself, his wife, his sons, his daughters, his brothers, the seed of his paternal house, I tore away and brought to Assyria. Sharru-lu-dari, son of Rukibti, the former king, I set over the people of Ashkelon, and I imposed upon him the payment of tribute: presents to my majesty. He accepted my yoke. In the course of my campaign, Beth-Dagon, Joppa, Banaibarka, Asuru, cities of Sidka, who had not speedily bowed in submission at my feet, I besieged, I conquered, I carried off their spoil.. The officials, nobles, and people of Ekron, who had thrown Padi their king – bound by oath and curse of Assyria – into fetters of iron and had given him over to Hezekiah, the Judahite – he kept him in confinement like an

72 enemy – their heart became afraid, and they called upon the Egyptian Kings, the bowmen, chariots and horses of the king of Meluhha [Ethiopia], a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighborhood of Eltekeh, their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered battle. With the aid of Assur, my lord, I fought with them and brought about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the Ethiopian king’s charioteers, my hands captured alive in the midst of the battle. Eltekeh and Timnah I besieged, I captured, and I took away their spoil. I approached Ekron and slew the governors and nobles who had rebelled, and hung their bodies on stakes around the city. The inhabitants who rebelled and treated Assyria lightly I counted as spoil. The rest of them, who were not guilty of rebellion and contempt, for whom there was no punishment, I declared their pardon. Padi, their king, brought out to Jerusalem, I set him on the royal throne over them, and imposed upon him my royal tribute.” The battle of Eltekeh in 702 BCE marks the end of this report of the events up to the year 700. The Prism text of Sennacherib indicates that the Assyrians had come to power in a large part of the southern Levant, and moreover, also inflicted a major defeat to the Nubian-Egyptian army.

II – c Phoenicia (800 – 700 BCE)

No country or state, but a group of coastal towns along the current Lebanese coast, of which the main cities are from north to south: Arvad, Byblos, Beiruta, Sidon, Tyre and Sarepta, between the Lebanon Mountains and the sea. Starting with Shalmanasser, the Assyrians had a significant influence on these ports in the 8th century as the trade was of great importance to them. Assyria was also a major buyer and consumer of all the products that were imported in Phoenicia or locally produced in the merchant cities. The Assyrians were also monitoring the trade of Tyre and Sidon, raised taxes there, and checked the sale of the cedar wood from the mountains. But the cities also received military support in case of emergency. Sargon is known to have sent military forces to Tyre in 715 BCE when the city was besieged by Ionians (a data from conventional history). Phoenicia also maintained good relations with Egypt, but the Phoenician cities were apparently careful watching their relations with Egypt and Assyria. Their relationship with these two powers was always in a delicate balance, dependent on the way these powers manifested themselves. The Phoenicians are known as sailors, as founders of colonies far away on the shores of the Mediterranean and elsewhere, allowing them to trade with a great variety of products, especially pottery, tin and other metals. Several small excavations have given some insight into this ancient world. Statuettes and short texts were found, the latter have contributed greatly to knowledge about the development of writing and the alphabet. Knowledge gained about language and religion showed that the culture was largely Canaanite until about 700 BCE, with the year 700 approximately equivalent to the year 1200 from the conventional chronology. Meanwhile, a number of excavations are carried out in a number of places, like Beirut and Sidon. The British Museum is conducting one in Sidon since 1998. Brief Excavation Reports mentioned the find of ruins that could be dated by a C-14 dating method. It showed that the trees of which the wood was measured were growing in the period from about 1390 to 1120 BC, which indicates to the Late Bronze Age. Also a scarab and

73 a cartouche was found in the remains of the building which referred to an Egyptian ruler of the Second Intermediate Period and Queen Twosre. It is self-evident that the radio-carbon measurements confuse matters for the reconstruction of time and events which is being applied in this study, but the accuracy of the radiocarbon measurements is under discussion for the entire area in this period. Pierre Montet uncovered some royal tombs in Byblos in the year 1922. A very important find was the tomb with the sarcophagus of King Ahiram. A shaft in the rocks led to a grave-chamber, which was closed from the outside by a wall. One of the tombs found belonged to king Ahiram. A short inscription in the Hebrew- Phoenician language on the south wall of the shaft warned not to further continue. On top of the lid of the sarcophagus another text had been engraved: “The coffin which Ithobaal, son of Ahiram, King of Gwal, made for his father as his abode in eternity. And if any king or any governor or any army commander attacks Gwal and exposes this coffin, let his judicial scepter be broken, let his royal throne be overthrown, and let peace flee from Gwal; and as for him let a vagabond efface his inscriptions!” A fragment of an alabaster vase was found close to the entrance of the tomb with the royal name of Ramses II on it, together with another fragment with a cartouche of this king. It was not much that the robbers had left behind long ago, but there still was laying an ivory plate and some pottery, which R.Dusseau assigned to the Mycenaean period. In addition, there also was a lot of pottery sherds of Cypriot origin, which was attributed to the 7th century BCE. Because there was too much intermediate time between Ramses II (13th century BCE) and that of the pottery, the Cypriot pottery was thought to have been left by the grave robbers. However, the pictographs used in the shaft and on the lid of the sarcophagus appeared to lead to a great problem, which only could be explained by a major break in the development of writing and alphabet. This subject was worked out by Immanuel Velikovsky in detail in Ramses II and his Time.56 A brief summary follows, including some references: * The inscriptions should entirely fit into the epigraphic structure prepared for the development of writing in ancient times since the use of cuneiform. The texts on and around the sarcophagus appear to be written with an alphabet of 22 characters, in a language related to or similar to Hebrew. The Greeks copied and modified the characters later and brought this into to the alphabet as we know it at present. The first Greek inscriptions that have been found with these new characters date to the 8th century. The shape of these characters on the early alphabet in its first phase was similar to the text as written on the stele of Mesha, which dates from about the middle of the 9th century BCE. For that reason a development is conceivable whereby this script was acquired and further developed in Greece via the seafaring communications from Byblos or another Phoenician port, respectively Ugarit. In Greece it then gradually replaced the Linair B script. This possible development is of course fully related to the hypothesis as followed in this study. The characters of the script used on the sarcophagus of Ahiram showed a great similarity to the texts as used by Abibaal and Elibaal engraved on the statues of the Egyptian pharaohs Shoshenq and Osokon. Scholars also believed that the characters used for the sarcophagus of Ahiram formed an intermediate between the ones as used on the Mesha’s stele and those that were used by Hezekiah at the Shiloah well near Jerusalem in 700 BCE.

56 I. Velikovsky, Ramses II and his Time, Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1978. 74

It should be kept in mind that the dating of the sarcophagus at Byblos was established to be under the reign of Ramses II at the beginning of the 13th century BCE. Because dating of the various phases in the development of the alphabet in the Middle East was made dependent of the reign of Ramses II, it did not prove possible to reconstruct this development of the alphabet in a natural and comprehensible way. ----- This controversy led to very long and intense debates, without resulting in an acceptable scientific solution. Also Montet commented on this subject in 1956: 57

“The oldest alphabetic inscription then known was that of Mesha, king of Moab, dating from the ninth century. The new texts, of Ahiram’ s tomb, put back the use of the alphabet by four centuries. Some scholars maintain that the presence of the vases of Ramses II -- as a matter of convenience they speak of ‘a vase’ – does not mean anything, but as new alphabetic inscriptions, even more ancient, have been subsequently found at Byblos, all their laborious argumentation can no longer convince anybody.”

* A study on the figures, in bas-relief, on the side of the sarcophagus should be mentioned. Women were portrayed in deep mourning, four on each side of the sarcophagus. Two of them beat their chest, the other two put their arms over their head in the air. An Israeli researcher published an article about it, because he had noticed that the Old Testament had described a similar attitude, where women hit their hips when in deep mourning. 58 See Jeremiah 31:19 en Ezechiel 21:12.

A large number of citiy-states along the coast where apparently quite relieved at hearing of the death of Sargon in the year 705 BCE. They stopped sending tributes to Assyria. The king of Tyre-Sidon went further and arranged an alliance with Judah and Ashkelon. Sennacherib came immediately into action and forced king Lule to the flight to Cyprus.

II – d Ugarit (800-700)

Of some kings virtually nothing is known, a little bit more of some others. Their period of ruling as used in this study have more or less been copied from the scientifically known data. In some cases, a well-known interaction with others could be used to determine their reign. The following kinglist will be used for the kings mentioned in this period: * Niqmepa 822-778 * Ammishtamru II 778-748 * Ibiranu 748-744 * Niqmaddu III 744-732 * Ammurapi 732-712

57 P. Montet, Isis, Paris, 1956.

58 M.Haran, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 8, No.1, 1958. 75

Of Niqmepe no data have been found. Murshili placed him on the throne of Ugarit in 822 BCE, as estimated. More is known about his son Ammishtamru, as this king became entangled in serious problems in his own family. Both Great King Tudhaliya of Hatti as the kings of Aram had to deal intensively with his personal problems, because the interests of both their countries also proved to be at stake. Ugarit’s king Ammishtamru clearly did not give evidence of a good judgement on the interests of state. The following text was found in Hattusha: “Before My Sun Tudhaliya, Great King, King of Hatti: Ammistamru, king of Ugarit had taken as his wife the daughter of Benteshina, king of Amurru. With regard to Ammistamru, she had only sought to do him harm. Therefore, Ammistamru, king of Ugarit, had repudiated the daughter of Benteshina for all time. Everything the daughter of Benteshina brought to the house of Ammistamru, she may take with her when she leaves the house. For everything that Ammistamru may have taken, may the sons of Amurru swear that Ammistamru reimbursed them. Regarding Utri-Sharruma the crownprince of Ugarit. If he says “I want to follow my mother”, may he place his robe on a stool and leave. Ammistamru, king of Ugarit will designate another of his sons as crownprince. If, when Ammistamru dies, Utri-Sharruma takes his mother back into Ugarit and makes her queen-mother, may Utri-Sharruma place his robe on a stool and go wherever he wants. My Majesty will designate another son of Ammistamru as king of Ugarit. For all future days the daughter of Benteshina will not make a claim among her sons and daughters, nor among her inlaws. If she claims anything, this tablet will prevail over her.” There were more complications, also because Bentishina, king of Aram, died during the negotiations. The divorced wife was the sister of Shausgamuwa, the subsequent new king of Aram, with whom Tudhaliya directly concluded a treaty. Tudhaliya finally decided that the law had triumphed. A seal of king Tudhaliya has been found in the ruins of Ugarit, of which H.Kübra Ensert came to the conclusion that the image of the seal ring itself reflected Tudhaliya's grandfather Murshili, deified after his death, and serving as his personal protector. 59 The seal had this important event as subject: “The tablet relates the divorce of Ammistamru, king of Ugarit, and the daughter of Bentesina, the king of Amurru. The poorly preserved cuneiform writing of two lines that borders the circular seal impression narrates the ancestry of Tudhaliya as follows: “The seal of Tudhaliya, the great king, the grandson of Murshili, the great king, the hero, the son of Pudukhepa, the great queen of Khatti and Khattushili, the great king of Khatti, the hero.” Ammishtamru II also had two brothers who conspired against him and their mother, the Queen Mother Ahat-milku. The problem was eventually solved by a verdict of Initeshub, king of Carchemish, and by the intervention of Tudhaliya. The brothers got their share of the inheritance, money, tools and livestock, and were exiled to Cyprus. In the course of time Ugarit had become a vassal of Hatti, and was obliged to pay an annual tribute. Moreover, Ugart had to deliver warriors, chariots and ships for the Hatti army when so requested. Occasionally, this led to disagreements, as shown by some texts. Queen Pudukhepa initially played a prominent role at the court of Hatti, alongside her son and king Tudhuliya. She was also active in international relations with neighbouring countries. That must have been the case in the first years after the death of Hattushili,

59 H.K.Ensert, The Seal Impression of Tudhaliya IV, Anadolu, Anatolia 30, 2006. 76 probably by Pudukhepa ‘s personal ascendancy and because of the power she had acquired in the country. She repeatedly wrote to Ammishtamru, by which she reproached him to have been negligent. The relationship between the two countries was quite intensive, so that for example the Hattian viceroy of Carchemish, or even the court in Hattusha, was forced to act as the supreme judge in disputes between citizens Ammishtamru was succeeded by successively two sons, viz. Ibiranu, the new crown prince, and then Niqmaddu. They ruled together about 16 years. Ibiranu succeeded his father Ammishtamru on the throne in about 748 BCE. Very little known is known of Ugarit and its king at this time. Ibiranu had been very restrained in showing respect to the Great King in Hattusha after his accession to the throne, being Shuppiluliuma this time. This could be interpreted as an hesitation because of the complicated political situation at that time, and an hesitation might have prevailed over a renewal of the alliance with Hatti. After all, Shuppiluliuma himself had come in very difficult political circumstances after his own coronation in Hattusha. Alternatively, Ibiranu might physically not have been able to make the trying trip to Hattusha, because afterwards it became clear he died shortly thereafter and was succeeded by his younger brother. But the court in Hattusha started worrying and finally became annoyed about the irresolution of the king of Ugarit. This is demonstrated by a letter that was handed over to Ibiranu: “Thus speaks Pihawalwi, son of the king: to Ibiranu, my son, say: ….Since you have assumed royal power at Ugarit, why have you not come before My Sun? And why have you not regularly sent messengers? This has made My Sun very angry. Therefore send messengers to My Sun with all haste, and see that gifts are brought for the king.”

Considerations: ** The picture has emerged that Ugarit, as one of the most important city-states on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, for many centuries could take an independent position towards both Egypt and the Land of Hatti, and also with Assyria. It also was obvious that their kings were successful in maintaining good relations with these important neighbours. It was reasonably protected between the Lebanese mountains and the sea, had a strong defence and had the possession of a strong fleet. It was apparently in the interest of the whole region that Ugarit could play its important role in the significant trade in that part of the world. But texts that deal with the role of the Viceroy in Carchemish, respectively the royal court at Hattusha, in internal conflicts of Ugarit in the 8th century BCE, give a totally different picture of the status of Ugarit and her king. They showed that Hattusha had the final supervision and control of the local administration in the end. It should really be considered as a matter of course that internal conflicts should entirely fall under the juris- diction of the king of Ugarit himself, as usually every vassal is entitled to administer justice in his own country or district. It is quite odd, in any way striking, that a conflict between shipmasters or shipowners had to be brought to the court of the Viceroy in Carchemish to resolve the conflict. The texts give the impression that the city-state of Ugarit to a great extent was under surveillance in the 8th century, being the last decades of its existence, and completely had become dependent on Hatti. Ugarit had lost a major part of its importance and influence.

** Ibiranu received little respect from his overlord, as the king of Hatti not himself did correspond with Ugarit’s king, but let his son write the letter, in which the prince nota bene addressed king Ibiranu as “his son”, the form of address of a subordinate. This could also be seen an indication that Ugarit had lost a great deal of its status and importance, and therewith its power.

** The situation in that area may have been affected in a very different way. The effects of an earthquake may be considered, keeping in mind that Ugarit was located on the Eastern Anatolian Fault, the rift that runs along the Dead Sea and beyond into Africa. Velikovsky wrote about possible heavy earthquakes in Egypt and Judah in Worlds in Collision60, where he quoted an ancient Egyptian text, which was published by Breasted in Ancient Records of Egypt 61 :

“In the reign of Osorkon II of the Libyan Dynasty in Egypt, in the third year, the first month of the second season, on the twelfth day, according to a damaged inscription” …, “the flood came on, in this whole land…. this land was in its power like the sea; there was no dyke of the people to withstand its fury. All the people were like birds upon it…the tempest…..suspended….like the heavens. All the temples of Thebes were like marshes.”

The text might indicate to a major earthquake during the reign of Osorkon II, which could have taken place in this chronology in about 747 BCE. This would also match the accession of Ibiranu, which took place shortly after.

** In Chapter I d - Ugarit (900-800) it was considered which time and which king of Ugarit was involved when an hostile army commander, probably king of Assyria, forced a large part of the population to leave the country. It appeared to be highly possible that this happened in 854 BCE under the Assyrian king Shalmanassar, while Niqmaddu II was deported. Tiglath-Pileser III marched along the coast in 734 BCE with the intention to bring the Philistine cities under his control again. He apparently was in a hurry. The Assyrians might have invaded Ugarit at the time, but Tiglath- Pileser never left information on such a detour in his annals, nor did he mention Ugarit at all. This is quite in contrast to the triumphant decision made by the unknown Assyrian king, who left orders for a part of the population to leave the country. In the preceding chapter on Ugarit it was assumed that this incident should be related to Niqmaddu II, deported by Shalmanassarin 854 BCE.

** In 732 BCE Ammu-rapi III became the last ruler of Ugarit. Nothing is known of his relationship to the earlier ruling royal family. He was married to a Hattian princess, but divorced her, much to the displeasure of the court in Hattusha. The king was still involved in grain shipments from northern Mukis to the port of Ura, the port in Tarhuntassa which Hatti used for transports by sea. It is quite possible that Ugarit did not have much

60 I.Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1950. 61 J.Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt IV, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1906.

78 strength and power left, such as it had possessed in previous decades. An immense drought had struck the whole area. It has even been considered that the harbour had been choked up with sand, in view of Ugarit never have been playing any role on the coast after the collapse of the city-state, as did other important trading cities, in spite of its previous great importance. Shuppiluliuma of Hatti had to call on military support from his vassals in his efforts to safeguard the sovereignty of the country. But everything points to a situation in which Hattusha only could enforce control on a few number of vassals and only could enforce control on a limited part of the country, considerably smaller than he inherited of his father Tudhaliya. Ammurapi also had to deliver military forces, warships and armed crews to Shuppiluliuma. No information has become available from any Hatti archive on this fase of the wars in Hatti. An extremely small number of tablets have been found in Ugarit that reveal some details,like the request of the king of Hatti to Ammurapi: “The enemy [advances(?)] against us and there is no number [. . .]. Our number is pure(?) [. . .] Whatever is available, look for it and send it to me." The end of his reign and that of the city of Ugarit can only be estimated on the basis of some texts that shed some light on the events in the region. There are three texts on clay tablets found in the ruins of the city, the third of which was probably never sent, because archaeologists discovered it in an unbaked form in the oven. The contents are as follows: “[The King of Alashiya to the King of Ugarit] : Greetings to yourself and to your country. As to those matters concerning the enemy, it was indeed men of your country and your boats that did it. Your people were indeed responsible for that offence, but do not complain to me. The twenty boats that the enemy left previously in the mountainous parts did not stay there, but they were off suddenly, and now we do not know where to look for them. I write to inform you and to put you on your guard.” and the content of the second: “From the King of Alashiya to Hammurapi: Thus says the King to Hammurapi King of Ugarit. Greetings, may the Gods keep you in good health. What you have written to me, enemy shipping has been sighted on sea. Well now, even if it is true that enemy ships have been sighted, where are they stationed? Are they stationed close at hand or are they not? Who presses you behind the enemy? Fortify your towns, bring the troops and the chariots into them, and wait for the enemy with feet firm.” and the third, obviously not sent yet: “To the king of Alashiya. My father, thus says the King of Ugarit his son. I fall at my father’s feet. Greetings to my father, to your house, your wives, your troops, to all that belongs to the King of Alashiya, many many greetings. My father, the enemy ships are already here. They have set fire to my towns and have done very great damage in the country. My father, did you not know that all my troops were stationed in the Hittite country, and that all my ships are still stationed in the Lukka Land and have not yet returned, so that the country is abandoned to itself? Consider this, my father. There are seven enemy ships that have come and done very great damage. Now if there are more enemy ships, let me know about them, so that I can decide what to do [or know the worst].” In the light of the last letter, which gives an impression of the desperate situation of Ugarit, the following brief

79 notices, incised on clay, further emphasize the critical situation of Ugarit. It first concerns a message sent from a northern site in the region to the king of Ugarit: "Your messengers arrived. The degraded one trembles, the low one is torn to pieces. Our food in the threshing floors is sacked (or: burned), and also the vineyards are destroyed. Our city is destroyed, may you know it!" General Sipti Baal posted the following message to his king in Ugarit: "Your servant fortified [his] position in Lawasanda with the (Hittite) king. And behold, the king retreated, fled, and there he sacrificed [. . .]" The military situation apparently ran completely out of hand, given a letter from a certain Ewir-Šarruma to the Queen Mother at Ugarit, in which he wrote that the enemy was in Mukis, north of Ugarit: "And, behold, the enemies oppress me, but I shall not leave my wife (and) my children [. . .] before the enemy."

Considerations ** Ugarit must have found itself in a deplorable state in these years, the city must have been economically ruined. The overseas trade collapsed completely by a multitude of events and phenomena. The occurrence of an earthquake in the region, but also elsewhere, should be considered as highly probable in this time of collapsing cultures. Moreover, the climate had become considerably drier, causing failed crops. The excavator Prof. Claude Schaeffer extensively reported on that subject in an article that he had published in 1968 (1983). Please read the folowing: 62

“Beginning in our first season of excavations at Ras Shamra in 1929, we noted in our excavation diary the presence of a fine, powdery, homogeneous soil, pale yellow or more frequently whitish in color, which was characteristic of Ugarit’s last level. This layer had no internal stratification and in places was two meters thick. In this dry and powdery soil lay the remains of the buildings devastated by the earthquakes and by the fires of Ugarit’s last days. From the eastern edge of Ras Shamra’s extended hill, near the temple of Baal and Dagon, to the western limits at the seacoast where the palace, public buildings and luxurious private houses were located, everything was covered by this whitish-yellow dust layer. It is irrefutable evidence that Ugarit’s last days were hot and dry. This dust layer is covered by layers of brown earth and debris and above those layers by surface soil consisting of a medium to dark brown humus which was not dusty but normally constituted. These darker, less dusty layers are clear proof of a damper climate than that which characterized Ugarit’s last days. Under the layer of dusty, yellowish soil of the late 13th to early 12th centuries, were strata containing the remains of buildings and tombs of the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (15th to 14th centuries) and of the end of the Middle Bronze Age (17th century). The color and non-powdery composition of these earlier strata also indicate a rainier climate than that of Ugarit’s last days. Thus, at Ras Shamra the thick blanket of dusty soil, white or pale yellow in color, in which the latest ruins of Ugarit are embedded indicates an extremely dry climate. This blanket is sandwiched between two levels of non-dusty soil of normal composition—the late Middle Bronze and early Late Bronze below and the Iron Age and later above—which attest a rainier climate.

62 Claude Schaeffer, Ugaritica V, The Center for Online Judaic Studies, 1983. 80

The stratigraphic evidence at Ras Shamra of a long period of extreme aridity and heat during the city’s last years agrees with the frequent references to famine among Ugarit’s neighbors, and doubtless at Ugarit itself, [as reflected] in the texts [found at Ugarit]. “

Evidently, Claude Schaeffer put his views of the excavation layers in the timeframe valid for the current scientific conceptions. According to his analysis this thick layer of dust reflecting a serious drought must be dated at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 12th century BCE, which should be made equivalent to approximately 740 and 690 BCE in the reconstructed time of this study. Schaeffer was also of the opinion that Ugarit was struck by a major earthquake in that period. He treated the subject in a comprehensive text, of which the following is a part:

“The condition of the ruins shows clearly that the palace and the city were struck suddenly by a series of violent tremors which caused even the most solidly built walls to collapse. In the huge palace, swarming with officials and servants, and in the districts where private houses and workshops were located, life was brutally and instantaneously halted. While the earthquakes were leveling the city, conflagrations of exceptional violence broke out.”

The text concluded with the following comments on the fate of the people themselves: “Despite the extent and the violence of the seismic catastrophe and the accompanying conflagration which destroyed the city, it must be noted that during our many years of excavation we did not find a single human victim or skeleton apart from those which had been properly interred during Ugarit’s final phase in the burial chambers in the basements of the palace and the private houses. It seems, therefore, that the population had been warned by the kinds of signs which frequently precede such events, warnings whose significance they must have understood,c or that they had already deserted the city because of the drought and famine which prevailed elsewhere in Syria and in nearby countries at that time, as our texts illustrate……. This disaster included a prolonged drought which caused the famines mentioned in the texts from Ugarit’s final phase, and quakes and conflagrations whose severity is clearly indicated by the condition of the ruins. The population must have abandoned this center of commercial and literary activity, never to return, leaving behind many precious objects cached under the floors or in the walls of their houses.”.

** From the foregoing correspondence between the king of Alashiya (Cyprus) and the one of Ugarit appears that the dreaded enemy from overseas finally had arrived and had caused serious damage to the country. Where the king of Alashiya earlier wrote about 20 ships that could not be detected, it now appears that seven went ashore into the land of Ugarit. It is not unimportant to make an estimate of the number of warriors the enemy could dispose of, affecting such a disaster upon Ugarit. It may be assumed that the warships being written about were of the type of the biremes, warships with a double set of oars. They probably offered two rowers on each oar, separated by a walkway in the middle, in which stood archers and spearmen. Such a ship was portrayed by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (705-681) in his palace in Nineveh after his last campaign to the Phoenician coast. The picture of it is the following: 81

The number of rowing locations along the length of the ship is not known. In the case of 15 oars per side, the total of oarsmen would be 15 x 2 x 2 = 60. Another 20 warriors should be added for each ship. This total per ship is approximately the same as the average number of warriors per ship of the Mycenaean force of warriors as reported by Homer in the Iliad. Using this number, the total number of warriors in these seven ships would amount to some 600 men. This number of enemy warriors might be on the low side, however, the size of the enemy forces attacking Ugarit is still to be regarded as quite small. This should also be seen in comparison with the large navies which could be put into war in those times, consisting of several hundreds of warships. King Ammurapi had been forced to cede a large part of his army and navy to Hatti, but it does not seem credible that he could not resist such a small enemy force of warriors, given that Ugarit always had been a heavily fortified and powerful trading city with a large population.

** Ugarit was not rebuilt or re-inhabited by anyone. Shards and parts of Late Helladic III B pottery was found in the layers of the destroyed buildings, but nothing at all from the following period LHIII C. It is assumed that the collapse occurred in 690 BCE, the equivalent of 1175, the conventional date. The timelines of both Ugarit and Hatti end in approximately 710 BCE, see Timescheme 3 b. It will therefore be assumed in this study that the year 710 BCE marks the end of this stormy development.

II – e The Land of Hatti (800 – 700)

Urhi – Tesub He was one of the sons of Muwatalli, and took the throne of Hatti as a young man under the name Murshili. He is now known by the name Murshili III. From Hattushili’s Annals is known that he reigned seven years. His uncle Hattushili had apparently always been of the opinion that he himself could assert more rights to the throne than his nephew, though he had promised his brother on his deathbed to support his young son. Murshili, his name in Neshili, also had the name Urhi-Tesub, which belonged to the Khattili language. There

82 were many conflicts between the young king and his uncle, which led to many serious disputes and quarrels. Eventually, after seven years, Hattushili seized power in Hattusha, but at the cost of a small civil war, with hard fights between the two parties, both having their own supporters. Young Murshili had taken some decisions by which he nullified a number of measures previously taken by his father. Very important was Murshili’s decision to reinstall Hattusha again as the royal and religious capital of the country, by which Tarhuntassa was given up as major centre in the south. Hattushili had been assigned viceroy of the northern territories by his brother, with Hakpis as the major centre. But the young Murshili deprived Hattushili of the title and position, and reduced his means of power considerably, very clearly meant to put him aside. With Hattusha as the new capital in the northern region again, Hattushili’s powercenter in the northern Hakpis lost its weight. This dramatic change in affairs came finally to an end when Murshili was challenged by his uncle by force. The new king could also not adequately respond to the new Assyrian power, which certainly was also affected by the internal struggle for power in Hatti. The kings in Mitanni had ties with the royal family of Hatti, which had Hatti given the possibility to have some influence on the region east of the Euphrates. Nevertheless, Assyria had mean-while acquired a strong grip on Mitanni, of which Sattuara wanted to disengage himself and thereby increasing his independence from his neighbour. The Assyrian king Adad-nirari was no match for him, he first took him captive, then conditionally allowed him to return to Hanigalbat, the Assyrian name for Mitanni, but the costs were extreme. Hatti eschewed these complications in the international relations, but that meant that Hatti's influence on the eastern regions was totally lost and the status of Hatti as a major military power in northern Syria had received a terrible blow. There are various indications that Urhi-Tesub made some irresponsible decisions and thereby lost good-will with a large part of the elite, and then gradually lost respect and loyalty. He was not so much respected at all by a part of the elite, because he was considered "a second-rank" son of Muwatalli, and thereby hardly having any experience. It was felt that the interests of state had come at risk. Then Hattushili took the lead, allowed the political situation to come to a confrontation and seized power.

Hattushili Hattushili (793-769) first got to do with a divided support, because many still felt loyal to Urhi-Tesub, to whom they had sworn allegiance, as being the legitimate king. Urhi-Tesub was banished by Hattushili, but it turned out that he continued to have some disturbing influence in the country. The struggle for power had led to a short civil war, which certainly was not a good way to recruit loyalty where necessary. Hattushili very soon appointed his cousin and friend Kurunta Viceroy in Tarhuntassa, the country and city in the south, on the eastside bordering to Kizzuwadna. Tarhuntassa had earlier been the new administrative and religious center of the country at the time of Muwatalli, Kurunta’s father. He also assigned Kurunta considerable power and authority. Kurunta had grown-up at Hattushili's court and had always been given strong support. Now he became Viceroy and was given the responsibility in an important sector of the country, where he could secure the desired stability. One of the other fast actions of Hattushili was to place Bentishina on the throne of Aram again. Aram had been in the sphere of influence of Hatti since the battle of Carchemish in 801 BCE. Bentishina had spent the

83 previous years at the royal court of Hatti, where the two royal families had strengthened their ties through mutual marriages. Hattushili and his wife, queen Puduhepa, appeared to have had many diplomatic contacts with Egypt, as the relations between the two countries were significantly improved after several years of border disputes and the great battle at Carchemish. After several years they even concluded a peace treaty. Two versions of this treaty have been found. The Egyptian version has been found in the Temple of Amun as well as in a temple of Ramses, both in Thebes. The Hattian version has been engraved on two clay tablets, which were found in the ruins of Hattusha. The two versions are written in two different languages, they are not literally alike, but identical in substance. From an early age on, Hattushili did not have a particular good health. Later in his life he also appears to have been regularly ill. It is generally assumed that he had a reign of 30 years, however, In the reconstruction, it appears that he must have reigned in the time 793-769 BCE, a period of 24 years.

Considerations ** Relations with Assyria In 773 BCE, the Assyrian commander Shamshi-ilu undertook a bellicose campaign along the southern boundary of Hatti and then headed directly southward to Damascus, where he seriously humiliated the king of Aram and commanded a considerable tribute. This appears to have been the year of the death of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser. Aram was a vassal state of Hatti and this Assyrian campaign therefore was a serious infringe- ment upon the authority and the power of Hatti’s king. It is considered very helpful to further assess these dangerous developments in the relationship with Assyria and envisage the situation in that area. Shuppiluliuma had obtained almost the entire Hurrian area in his power with the two Hurrian wars. But uprisings, new local wars had led to great instability in the heartland of Mitanni, in the years after Hatti had withdrawn its forces from the area. King Shalmanassar III did not fail to use the opportunity and occupied the eastern part of the ancient kingdom of Mitanni, the western part, with its capital Washukanni, remained in the hands of a Hurrian elite, faithful to Hatti. The severe epidemic in Hatti later on also brought the country almost to the brink of a disaster and weakened its military power immensely. After the severe weakening of Hatti that followed on the relatively short reign of Murshili III, with the Hurrian name Urhi-Tessub, and subsequent civil war in the country, the power of Assyria rose considerably. This development was very unfavourable for Hatti, but it appears that Hattushili did not have sufficient military potential left, and probably not much ambition either, to come to a major military showdown with Assyria over these areas to the east of Carchemish after the years 790- 785 BCE. Then the Assyrians gradually left very little autonomy to the Hurrian areas. The man who mainly was responsible for this development was the Assyrian turtanu, the supreme commander of the Assyrian armed forces in the western areas. His name was Shamshi-ilu, having total power in the army and acting independently of Nineveh, but obedient to the king. The last kings of Mitanni were a vassal of Assyria, until the area finally was annexed as a province in the year 766 BCE.

** Relations with Aram The Assyrian turtanu Shamshi-ilu had settled himself in the conquered Bit-Adini, with its capital Til-Barsip. This was at the time an important and strategic area lying south-east of Carchemish on the east side of the Euphrates. In the year 773 BCE Shalmaneser was still king of Assyria. The following text was found on a stele which the Assyrian army left on a big boundary stone near Kummuh, when it withdrew to Til-Barsip. This stone had been placed there much earlier by the king of Kummuh, and is known as the Pazarcik Stele. The text is of interest to assess the effect of Shamshi-ilu’s campaign and the international and military status of Hatti. Shamshi-ilu let it engrave with the following: “Shalmaneser, Great King, King of Assyria, son of Adad-nirari, Great King, King of the world, King of Assyria, son of Shamshi-Adad, King of the four rims (of the Earth), Shamshi-ilu, turt anu. When they marched to Damascus (mat Emarisu), I received the tribute of Hadyan the Damascene: silver, gold, copper, his royal bed, his royal couch, his daughter with a rich dowry, goods of his palace beyond counting. On my return, I gave back this border stone to Uspilulume, king of Kummuh.” Nothing is known of Hadyan, the king of Damascus, Aram, from the text above. According to the timeschedule, the events being described in this study, for Aram, this king can be no other than Bentishina. Aram proved not to be able, or was perhaps unwilling, to resist the Assyrian aggression. The city choose for a large tribute to the usurper. Although the consequences were not very desastrous for Aram, the country finally retained its independence, they were very humiliating and mournful. Moreover, Aram was still a vassal of Hatti. The question therefore arises how the lack of support from Hatti could be explained. That support was not only necessary to keep Aram strong and independent, but it was also of great importance to the safety and status of Hatti itself. Aram was strategically very important as a safe guard on Hatti’s south-eastern border. King Hattushili must have been a sickly person in 773 BCE, who died a few years later. Young Tudhaliya, his successor but not his eldest son, appears to have been engaged intensively in the defense of the northern border against the invading Kaskans, so that the administrative and military power center of the country might have been weak. It is also conceivable that Hattushili passed away some years earlier. After all, his reign has been left unknown, as it has not been recorded. It is also quite plausible that an internal struggle for his succession broke out after Hattushili’s death, may be even during his sick-bed. This might be inferred from Tudhaliya’s attitude after he became king: he appeared to be very unsecure, even was fearing for an attempt to murder him.

In any way: Hatti was losing large parts of its eastern and southern sphere of influence, which was to make it vulnerable.

Map of Hatti at the time of Muwatalli and Hattushili

Tudhaliya Tudhaliya ((769-755) was one of the last kings who ruled over the Land of Hatti before the country succumbed to a series of dramatic events. Much of what was going to happen must already have been noticeable during his life. To work out and comment on the approaching end of this country this chapter will quite elaborately go into the major developments in the whole area of Hatti in this period. The kings at Hattusha had an extensive archive, run by some clerks and master clerks (scribes). They administered treaties, letters and instructions, rules and laws on all matters of state, religious and non- religious. Especially religious matters encompassed a predominant part of the state archives. However, from the last 50 -100 years of the kingdom of Hatti, virtually nothing has been found in the state archives. Hattusha was abandoned by population and elite at the end of the empire, taking with them all the important possessions. It is regarded as very likely that the elite took with them an important part of the archive of tablets when they left their residences on their departure and flight for another home. Whatever their plans for the future, the archive was apparently considered to be indispensable and of enormous importance for their immediate future. Therefore, to unravel the last series of decades of Hatti, there is very little information available. One must rely on a number of texts, engraved in hieroglyphics on stones, found again somewhere in the countryside and some information that got astray. Some data can be added coming from military campaigns carried out by hostile neighboring countries. All this inevitably means that the level of conjectures and interpretations in a text about the last phase of the Hattian empire will be undesirably large. Hattushili had his son extensively campaign against the Kaska's, the northern mountainous population that again and again ravaged the areas north of Hattusha, sometimes even threatening the capital. Tudhaliya gained a lot of war experience by doing this, which he badly needed later on as commander in chief of the army. He also had to concur with his mother, who appeared to have a significant influence on state matters for some time after his father’s death in 769 BCE. It is not known when Puduhepa died. She corresponded with Ramses II, but he probably died already in 767 BCE, shortly after the beginning of Tudhaliya's kingship. The 86

Queen Mother also corresponded with Ammishtamru of Ugarit (778-752), but that may only have been in the beginning of his kingship.

The new and young king had to face many important and serious problems in his early years on the throne, which concerned the stability and unity of the country. He appeared to have fear for his position as king, even for his life, as can be seen from various agreements and treaties he made with vassal rulers in the country. In addition, there was rebellion and great political unrest in the far western areas, where it was increasingly difficult for the central government to maintain its sovereignty. One of the first acts of the new king was to conclude a treaty of friendship with his cousin Kurunta, king of Tarhuntassa. Kurunta had previously been appointed by Hattushili as Viceroy of Tarhuntassa, the country in the southern Luwian areas, strategically located east of Lukka (Lycia), the country that time and again was openly hostile to Hatti, even in the time of Hattushili. Nowadays it is often supposed that Hattushili wanted to appoint Tudhaliya as his successor because of his extremely good relationship with his cousin Kurunta. It even appears plausible that the two had become friends by swearing an oath of friendship. Tudhaliya provided Kurunta with ample concessions, increased his status and enlarged the geographical sphere of his authority. Kurunta thereby obtained an important rise in power within the kingdom of Hatti.

The Land of Hatti had grown in the course of history by binding vassal states with treaties, marital alliances, taking local princes into the royal family, and by reporting and monitoring systems. It is important to note that each vassal state was virtually autonomous, though it recognized the king of Hatti as their sovereign. Some kings often waited on a favourable moment to break away again from Hattusha. That happened several times during the installation of a new Great King in Hattusha, especially when he was assessed as weak or incom- petent. That also occurred when the central government suffered heavily at an invasion, and the losses were considered high enough to make an attempt to loosen the ties with Hatti. Moreover, there was often a great hostility or a major conflict of interest between some of these countries themselves, which forced the Great King to respond by sending an army. Thereupon a new king had to be installed somewhere, who also had to be interested by the proposals that were made by the king of Hatti. The vassalstates were all located in the periphery of the core area of the Land of Hatti, but that did not lead to any political or social integration. The internal wars often led to large transport of prisoners of war and material to Hattusha, were they were taken into the army or were put to work somewhere . One of the consequences was undoubtedly that large groups of Luwian-speaking people migrated from western parts of Anatolia to the eastern parts of the country. Gradually, the language in Hatti therefore mainly became Luwian, up to the court. 63 The political situation in the Land of Hatti at the inauguration of Tudhaliya was not different. The enemies around tested the power of Hattusha or had found powerful allies elsewhere to shake off the power of the Great King. Tensions in the western vassalstates of Hatti were largely caused by the king of Ahhiyawa. For a long time this kingdom played an important role in the exchange of letters, texts and contacts between the kings of Hatti and the western kingdoms. There is now a large certainty that Ahhiyawa must be sought in an influential,

63 I.Yakubovich, Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language, The University of Chicago, Chicago, 2008. 87 powerful and seafaring Mycenaean kingdom or a confederation of Achaean kingdoms. Milawata, alternative Millawanda, a city on the western Anatolian coast, in later years known as Miletus, was in early times under strong Mycenaean influence, even during the events described here. This city-state had become a vassal state of Ahhiyawa. The Mycenaean king of Ahhiyawa used all his means to expand his influence in western Anatolia with Milawata as his stronghold. Prominent dissidents of Hatti's hegemony in western Anatolia were supported and offered protection if necessary, or they were appointed as vassal rulers of Ahhiyawa in one of the kingdoms there, torn loose from the association with Hatti. In all likelihood, the purpose was to control the trade in the Aechean area, and to dispose over raw materials and resources as much as possible. But Ahhiyawa could not continously keep control over Milawata. Murshili occupied the area again during one of his military campaigns, but the city fell into the hands of Ahhiyawa again, which remained in Mycenaean hands during the reign of Muwatalli. Hattushili had felt necessitated a few years later to occupy Milawata again in order to prevent a worsening of the revolt in that whole area, but he finally had to admit that his mission had failed. This became evident from the so-called Tawagalawa Letter. He could not get a grip on the unrest and the opposing forces in these western countries. Hattushili wrote this letter to the king of Ahhiyawa, in which he complained about the leader of the insurgents, a man named Piyama-radu, who always had escaped his grasp and had sought the support of Ahhiyawa. In this letter Hattushili requested diplomatic support, while he he emphasized the warm relations between the two countries, undoubtedly with more hope than certainty. The situation was not different at Tudhaliya’s assession on the throne. Seha River Land, the most northern of the three Arzawa countries on the west coast of Anatolia, had separated from Hatti after an internal rebellion under Tarhunaradu. He also felt supported by the king of Ahhiyawa. Tudhaliya immediately dealt with it. That led to a military campaign in which he put an end to the government of Tarhunaradu, captured him and his family and put them, together with the vanquished army units, on transport to the holy city of Arinna, the city which was devoted to the major Hattian Goddess of Arinna. Tudhaliya then put another member of the local royal family on the throne of Seha River Land, knowing him as one of his trusty followers. Tudhaliya could also by force establish his authority again in the city of Milawata. He had earlier been compelled to restore a deposed, but loyal, king again on the throne in Wilusa, the northern kingdom on the west coast, and ensured himself of his power and security. With this campaign, Tudhaliya had succeeded in asserting his authority on the Anatolian westcoast from Milawata to Wilusa (Troy) in the north. The powerful authority of Ahhiyawa on the Anatolian area had been completely nullified. The interests of Hatti in this area were now secured to a large extent. It is plausible that the army then marched through the mountanous area from the north-west to the south to regain control in the Lukka Lands, Lycia in later years. All the fortified cities which Tudhaliya conquered in Lukka Land were listed on a wall somewhere on the border. It is also plausible that Kurunta at the same time was waging war against Lukka, as warrior groups were time and again invading at his western borders. Tudhaliya conquered a large part of Lukka and succeeded in imposing his power on this always rebellious area. The above information is taken from the "Milawata Letter", which made known that Tudhaliya conveyed responsibilities and orders to an unknown addressee in Milawata, probably the newly appointed king of the city. In this letter he also explained the situation as it had developed throughout the western area. The text which Tudhaliya let engrave on the wall of a large waterreservoir has also been crucial for information

88 on the actions that were taken during his Lukka campaign. This reservoir was located in a place now called Yalburt, a place northwest of current Konya. This script was written in Luwian hieroglyphics and not in cuneiform, as previously was usual.

In about 763-2 BCE Tudhaliya became closely involved in the vital interests of Ugarit and Aram because of the marital problems of Ammishtamru, by which also the interests of Hatti were at stake. Both Aram and Ugarit were vassals of Hatti, and issues of any importance beyond the reach of its own king had apparently to be solved by the viceroy of Carchemish, as became evident from the now available texts. Ammistamru had his wife, queen and mother of his children, repudiated because of adultery, as it seems. Apparently a major problem for Ugarit, but in this case it exceeded all its own borders, because the wife was a daughter of Aram's king Bentishina, and a niece of Tudhaliya. The problem turned out to grow to huge proportions, so that Tudhaliya finally urgently had to address it. The succession of Ammishtamru also came up for discussion in the case the rejected wife would bring claims forward for the rights on the throne at his death. Bentishina died during these negotiations, which resulted in Shausgamuwa, the new king of Aram, having to finish the negotiations on the fate of his sister. An assessment can be made of Bentishina’s date of death, which then probably is to be the year 762 BCE. That also means that Tudhaliya had to address these problems of his niece early in his administration. Tudhaliya was suddenly also enforced to involve himself intensively on the succession of Bentishina, and to assure aand restore the relation between Hatti and Aram with a new king. He installed Shausgamuwa, Bentishina’s son, as the new king and sealed it with a new treaty. This treaty is known as the Shausgamuwa Treaty, of which a copy has been preserved to this day. It might be noted that the King's mother Puduhepa did not enter the dicussions anymore.

Tudhaliya renovated the acropolis of Hattusha significantly, and more than doubled the size of the capital by expanding it to the south. A large temple complex was built in the Upper Town. In Tudhaliya’s time the city of Hattusha certainly impressed as political, religious and administrative center of the country. The defenses were also significantly strengthened, the rampart was heightened to more than 10 meters and towers were built over the full length with a distance of 20 meters between them.

The following sections deal with various topics, brought up to describe the situation in the country during Tudhaliya’s reign. It should be noted again that the texts include a certain degree of interpretation, using information from different sources.

Considerations ** Ahhiyawa It has become evident that Tudhaliya succeeded in reducing to a minimum or annihilating Ahhiyawa’s influence in the western regions. His father Hattushili had previously faced the same problems but could not satisfactorily solve them, the unrest and uprisings therefore started all over again when Tudhaliya became king. But now he had brought Lukka under his control, he had restored his authority in Milawata and placed a

89 new king on the throne, loyal to him and probably related to the royal family, while also the northerly Seha River Land and Wilusa not only had recognized his authority again but also were facing an apparent stable and military strengthened and stable time. Milawata had long been under the authority of the king of Ahhiyawa, as evidenced by the Tawagalawa Letter, and also from other correspondence from the previous years. Apasa (Ephesus) had also belonged to the region where Ahhiyawa was the dominant power, which now had to turn to Hatti. Hattushili had been negotiating with a brother of the king of Ahhiyawa by the name of Tawagalawa during his reign. J.Hawkins wrote the following about this subject 64 :

“The Achaean settlements in the Anatolian coast and the relevant diplomatic relationship with the Hittite Empire seems to be led by the Achaean city of Thebes. In the letter of Hattushili the name of Ahhiyawa’s Great King’ s brother is Tawagalawa, which is the Hittite version of the Achaean name Etefoklefes or Etewokleweios. These two occurrencies of the name in the Pylos tablets seem to supply a link between Tawagalawa and this early version of Eteokles, which is traditionally related with the Achaean kingdoms of Orchomenos and Thebes. Another evidence is in a letter from the Great King of Ahhiyawa to the Hittite king Hattushili. In this document, written in Hittite, but with linguistic features of the text confirming that the writer spoke Greek rather than Hittite as his mother tongue, the Ahhiyawan king calls himself heir of Kadmos, which is traditionally the founder of Thebes. This is archaeological reasonable the city of Thebes, before its destruction about 1250 BC.”

** The Shausgamuwa Treaty and Ahhiyawa The treaty between Tudhaliya and Shausgamuwa, the king of Aram who was indirectly related to Tudhaliya, contained obligations between the two kingdoms, but primarily those of the vassal to the Great King of Hatti. Two important short texts in this treaty appear to be of interest, which will be discussed in the following. The first of the two texts was related to the trade between Ahhiyawa and Assyria via Aram, in which Aram was forced to stop totally with all trading with Ahhiyawa and Assyria. It also referred to the list of Great Kings, against whom Hatti could claim military support from Aram in case of emergency. It has become very enigmatic why the king of Ahhiyawa was struck from this list. These two items gave rise to ample discussions in modern times. Tudhliya had succeeded in breaking the influence of the King of Ahhiyawa in the various kingdoms on the western coast of Anatolia. The greatest threat for Hatti had been removed and Tudhaliya had acquired complete authority again. The treaty with Aram should therefore have been brought about after these campaigns in the west, which could then have taken place approximately in 762 BCE. It was customary at the court in Hattusha to draft a treaty according to a certain standard, where introduction and conclusion of the text also were written down according to a certain pattern. Therefore, it has been assumed that the scribe had started writing the treaty with a previously used preamble, as was accustomary under Hattushili, and then had to come to the conclusion that the name of the king of Ahhiyawa had to be crossed. But why? A clear answer

64 J.David Hawkins, The Arzawa Letters in recent perspective, British Museum Studies, 2009.

90 has not been found. After all, the threat of Ahhiyawa had been averted at this time. An assumption can be made on this point, associated with the aforementioned thesis, when the idea was unfolded that the kingdom Ahhiyawa could not be other than the Mycenaean kingdom of Thebes and Orchomenos, which was spreading her power over the islands and coasts of the Aegean. But Thebes is also known as the city-state that was destroyed after a revolution and civil war, and lost all its power in the Mycenaean world for many years. This event should have taken place before the Trojan War, as Thebes was neither asked to participate nor had the possibility to join at the war. With the newly reconstructed calendar of the Mycenaean and Middle East World, Thebes must have been destroyed approximately around the year 760 BCE, which corresponds to the time when the treaty between Tudhaliya and Shausgamuwa probably was concluded. With the disappearance of a dangerous enemy, a superpower from Thebes, however, no end had come to the threat by a major Mycenaean military power. On the contrary, the enemies of Thebes had developed so much power and influence that they particularly were to be feared. The Mycenaeans traded with their ships all over the Mediterranean and thus acquired much influence and power on coastal towns and the maritime routes, from which they enforced their influence widely. A text is known which revealed that Tudhaliya made a raid on Alasiya, in all probability the important city of Enkomi on the east coast of Cyprus. This island was customary used as an intermediate port for the maritime trade in the Mediterranean. Alasiya was well known as being under the Mycenaean influence. Tudhaliya: “I seized the king of Alasiya with his wives, his children and his [ ]. All the goods, including silver and gold, and all the captured people I removed and brought home to Hattusha. I enslaved the country of Alasiya and made it tributary on the spot.” It may be assumed that Hatti’s king wanted to secure his influence on Enkomi and to protect Hatti’s interests against the Mycenaean threat. Enkomi was undoubtedly an important intermediate port for the trade by barter between Hatti and Egypt and the southern Levant, of which grain represented a very large part in these years. Moreover, Tudhaliya had to ascertain that Hatti always could count on the supply of grain and copper ore. A looming political and strategic change in the reign of Alasiya could not but lead to intervention.

** The Shausgamuwa Treaty and Assyria The second text in the Shausgamuwa Treaty referred to Assyria. That text was to read as follows: “As the king of Assyria is the enemy of My Sun, so must he also be your enemy. No merchant of yours is to go to the Land of Assyria, and you must allow no merchant of Assyria to enter your land or pass through your land. If, however, an Assyrian merchant comes to your land, seize him and send him to My Sun. Let this be your obligation under divine oath ! And because I, My Sun, am at war with the king of Assyria, when I call up troops and chariotry you must do likewise.” Tudhaliya must have closed this Treaty with Shausgamuwa when he personally was in Damascus in the days when Bentishina was borne to the grave and a new king had to be appointed. This was a matter of the utmost concern and importance to Hatti, and the king undoubtedly wanted to have a guiding hand in it. The old king of Aram probably died in about 763 BCE, which year should fit in the course of other events, such as those at

Ugarit, events that are closely intertwined. For Tudhaliya it evidently was beyond any doubt that Hatti was at war with Assyria. But how is that to be interpreted? The text indicates that Tudhaliya did not have a requirement for an immediate military support from Aram. Hatti had apparently on that moment no clear plans for a massive military campaign against Assyria. Assyria was not an important regional military power since the death of Adad-nirari, as king Ashur-dan did not appear to have much power and the country also was swept with an epidemic in the period 765 –758 BCE. The royal power also became greatly weakened by rebellions and uprisings in the country. Important generals had also appropriated themselves with large parts of the country, where they performed autonomously, like Shamshi-ilu, who earlier had established himself in Til-Barsip, a significant area on the east bank of the Euphrates and south-east of Carchemish. But Mitanni had been annexed in 766 BCE and the entire Hurrian area had meanwhile been extracted from Hatti's influence without leading to war between the two powers. Shamshi-ilu represented an aggressive and dangerous military power north of Aram, and therefore also was to be regarded as a threat. No information is available about any military campaign from Tudhaliya against this Assyrian outpost in Tel-Barsip.

Ashur-nirari, the new king of Assyria, led a campaign some years later in 755 BCE against the city-state Arpad. Arpad was located at some distance south of Carchemish, north of Halpa (Halep, or Aleppo). Arpad was originally belonging to the sphere of influence of Hatti. That military action was undoubtedly started from Til-Barsip. Ashur-nirari, however, left no record of it. But it led to a treaty with King Mati-ilu of Arpad, by which he swore an unconditional loyalty to the Assyrian king, and was strictly forbidden to ally himself to anyone else. It showed that Mati-ilu had become a vassal of Assyria. He not only had to swear this to the Assyrian king, but also to a man named Bar-Gaya, a prince of a neighbouring country, which is believed to have been Shamshi-ilu. It has also become clear that Sarduri, king of Urartu, crossed the boundary of the Euphrates with a strong army and then caused a major defeat to the Assyrian army near Arpad. This was the year 755 BCE, in which Hatti’s military situation seriously was threatened. It probably also is the year in which Tudhaliya died and Hatti found itself in chaos and trouble.

** Urartu In the 8th century BCE this kingdom had developed a formidable power in the mountainous region around Lake Van, with its capital Tushpa. It should be noted that the country’s name Urartu was given by the Assyrians. The inhabitants called it Biainili. The kingdom had expanded to the north-east up to the river Araxe under their kings Argishti and Sarduri, where de city Erebuni was founded. In the south-east these kings took the whole area around lake Urmiah in possession. Eventually Urartu also encompassed the mountainous area upto the Euphrates river, which also was Hatti’s eastern border. This resulted in Urartu having influence and interest in the northern Syrian kingdoms upto Kummuhu. Sarduri then caused Shamshi-ilu a major defeat at Arpad in 755. Moreover, Sarduri had been able to make Melid tributary, the north-eastern border town of Hatti on the Euphrates. The Assyrians, their southern neighbours in North Mesopotamia, initially were no match for the forces of Urartu. The Assyrians themselves undertook a number of military expeditions to the north and the east, but it was not until Tiglath-Pileser in 745 BCE that Assyria proved powerful enough to press hard on

Urartu. Seen from Hattusha this development must have been very oppressive. Their eastern border was not exceeded, but cities in the east and the south-eastern region were forced to submit now and then and pay high tributes. Carchemish, maybe Aleppo, may have hold out, as they were strongly fortressed cities, but Hatti's influence was severely compromised.

** Egypt Hatti had mainly to deal with the pharao’s Osorkon I and II in this time, if they had to. Of none of these two pharaohs, who certainly had influence in the southern regions of the Levant, any political or military pressure on Hatti can be perceived.

** Phrygia and Mira During the 8th century BCE Phrygia was apparently developing as an independent country in the western central Anatolian Highlands. The status of the capital Gordion might not have been very high yet in the period 770-760 BCE, but the inhabitants were working hard on its expansion. It is also quite possible that new waves of Phrygians crossed the Hellespont from the Balkans to join the people who were busy building a new future in Anatolia. However, any information concerning such a development is missing. There is some evidence that the relationship between Hatti and Phrygia was pretty good. There is also some information that the Phrygians maintained close contacts with the Greeks, both in terms of trade and culturally.

The country of Mira was situated west of Phrygia, and it appeared to have become important. It spread along the northern part of Lukka until some place close to the south-western coast of Anatolia. In the north, the Karabelpass appears to have marked the boundary between Mira and the more northern Seha River Land, in the mountainous area between Apasa (Ephesus) and the city Sardis. A giant relief on a rock-face can still be found containing a portrait of King Targasnawa of Mira, who probably came to the throne at the time of Tudhaliya. He was shown with a pointed hat and therewith exhibited divine power. It is assumed that Targasnawa was shown on this pass as Great King, and that this relief is an indication of the increased power and independence of Mira in these years. A silver seal and some sealprints of Targasnawa have also been found in the ruins of Hattusha, but under the name Tarkondemos, which name has been identified as the one of Mira’s king. 65

** Religion During the reign of Tudhaliya a large number of new temples were built in the country and the religious rituals were intensified. A cultic reformation was carried out in this period, probably also a revision of the religious festivities. Peter Neve, who was executing excavations in Boğazkale (Hattusha), appears to be of the

65 Stefano de Martino, Studien zu den Bogazköy Texten, Pax Hethitica, Edited by Yoran Cohen, Amir Gilcen, Jared Miller, Harassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2010.

93 opinion that almost the entire Upper City of Hattusha was built by Tudhaliya and then reached its greatest extent. Specifically in Hattusha a large number of new temples were built; it is estimated that the total number of them in the city amounts at thirty, which were dedicated to different gods, both Hurrian and Anatolian. Moreover, Tudhaliya had considerably enlarged a ritual centre close to the capital, now known under the Turkish name Yazilikaya. Yazilikaya appears to have been an impressive and very important rock sanctuary. The cult must have been very intensive, with ceremonies, processions, sacrificial rituals. The rockwalls in the sanctuary at the time of Tudhaliya were decorated with carved out reliefs of more than ninety Goddesses and Gods. In one of the rooms, all without roofing protection and therefore open to the influence of climate, two reliefs of Tudhaliya been found. A king in the world of the Bronze Age in particular, but also in the Early Iron Age, was as Highpriest the main medium to the world of the Gods, and thus largely responsible for the fortunes of the country. The favour of the Gods had to be implored with sacrifices and rituals, where the king was leading the ceremony. Theo van den Hout wrote about the great influence of religion on the state system 66:

“In the Hittite empire religion was an integral and essential part of the administration, there is no need to be surprised at the overwhelming presence of documents of a religious character in the tablet collections. Maintaining the cultic calender and keeping the festival scenarios up-to-date was as much government business as drafting diplomatic documents like treaties, writing instructions and letters, keeping track of incoming and outgoing goods.”

The loss of sacred powers could be dear to the king, where the fate of the population and the country was at stake. Tudhaliya's great efforts on this sacred ground could not have been without a special meaning in this period of time.

66 Theo van den Hout, Fathom archive, Miles of Clay: Information Management in the Ancient Near Eastern Hittite Empire, The University of Chicago Library, Digital Collections. 94

Relief in the Temple of Yazilikaya: King Tudhaliya is embraced and led by his protective Mountain God Sarruma. Sarruma is conventionally attired in a short skirt and a high pointed hat with four rows of horns. The king is dressed in a long robe with a round cap, holding a long staff with a coiled end in his left hand. God Sarruma has his left arm around the king’s shoulder and is holding the king by his wrist. Both have a crescent shaped hilt of a sword in the belt on the right side. The relief has seriously been damaged.

** Climate There are strong indications that the predominantly hot and dry climate prevalent over many centuries still persisted at the end of the 8th century. Some texts that have survived indicated to very adverse hot, dry summers, also to major efforts for regular grain imports from Egypt and Canaan into Hatti, while the constant interference of Tudhaliya and his son Shuppiluliuma with water storage and waterdistribution also suggest that water had become scarce. Tudhaliya had built large waterreservoirs, some dams have also been found which were built for having control on the waterdistribution. Several scholars are of the opinion that Hatti experienced serious and prolonged food shortages in the last decades of the kingdom. Over the last decades, a series of studies were published about abrupt climate changes, both in Western Europe and the Levant as well on a much larger scale, indicating a very dry and warm period between two abrupt changes in the climate, with a margin dated around 1100 and 800-750 BCE. As a reference can be mentioned the study of Kaniewsky et al. 67 These datings were brought about by using the radiocarbon method, using samples from the region , and then calibrated. But the radiocarbon dating via C-14 is continuously questioned by scientists, whereby invariably is suggested that the reported datings rate many centuries too high, especially for Anatolia and the countries around the eastern basin of the Mediterranean. Dendrochronology has also not been able to provide for a satisfactory

67 Kaniewsky et al., Abrupt Climate Changes in Coastal Syria, Quaterny Research Report, 2010. 95 correction either. Please be referred to the Addendum. It is of interest to know that Kaniewsky et.al. did research at Gibala, an ancient town not far from Ugarit, and concluded that the town had come in a severe drought at the time it was destructed, simultaneous with Ugarit.

** The end of Tudhaliya’s kingship Tudhaliya appears to very self-consciously have had authority in the country and to have been able to exercise his power, even as the threat of enemies from outside the country and the internal instability increased considerably. It will be necessary, however, to have some clarity on the enddate of his reign. The date that Ibiranu was installed on the throne in Ugarit is then of importance. Ibiranu was probably installed as king in 748 BCE. It should be noted again that this year, like many others, received a logical place in the timeline, based on the starting point of this reconstruction, the different events which happened afterwards, their relationship, and the generally accepted duration of the reigning periods of the various kings. Pihawalwi, a son of the Great King of Hatti, had emphatically and confidently pointed out to Ibiranu some time, probably the same year 748, that he had failed to make an appearance in due time at the court in Hattusha. Shuppiluliuma was apparently involved in other and more important matters. Pihawalwi must have been a son of Shuppiluliuma since Shuppiluliuma’s elder brother Arnuwanda appeared to have died after a short reign without having a son. This is evident from the following text of Shuppiluliuma: “The inhabitants of Hatti rebelled against him. But I was not at fault. If he had had descendants, I would not have passed over them; I would, rather, have acknowledged these descendants. Because he had no descendants, I enquired about whether there was a pregnant wife; but there was no pregnant wife. As now Arnuwanda has left no descendants, could I have offended by passing over his descendants and making another lord?” From this text it may be concluded that Shuppiluliuma was on the throne in Hatti, while his son Pihawalwi must have been a young adult in 748. Quite some events occurred preceding that year. One may assume that Tudhaliya’s nephew, bosomfriend and pretender to the throne Kurunta, Viceroy of Tarhuntassa, had proclaimed himself as Great King of Hatti, and also actually ascended the throne in Hattusha. A pair of seal prints have been found in the ruins of Hattusha with the text: "Kurunta, Great King, Labarna, My Sun", which only can mean that Kurunta actually was the king at that moment. Also the Hatip relief, at a place that in ancient times was located within the Hatti-domain, shows a representation of the Great King Kurunta. No further information is available on him, it is therefore not known how long and under what conditions Kurunta could have been ruling. He was succeeded on the throne by Arnuwanda, the eldest son of Tudhaliya, but that apparently involved a lot of violence. Arnuwanda reigned only a few years.

As shown in the preceding text, Arnuwanda had to deal with rebellion in the main city, perhaps even in the country, because of signs of destruction. It may be concluded that Arnuwanda claimed his father’s throne of Kurunta, which may lead to the following hypothesis: Tudhaliya died, Kurunta then claimed his rights to the throne, to which he was entitled as the son of Muwatalli.

Kurunta came on the throne in Hattusha with the support of a part of the army, and certainly with the support of his Luwian supporters from the rest of the country. Various possibilities may then be discussed. Kurunta may have been king for a short while, after which he died and was succeeded by Arnuwanda. Most probable, however, is the other possibility: Arnuwanda claimed the throne of his father, which started a civil war, resulting in the expulsion of Kurunta. Then Arnuwanda came on the throne and carried on with the royal line that began many years earlier with the rebellion of Hattushili, the younger brother of Muwatalli. That whole process should have lasted a minimum of three years. Assuming that Shuppiluliuma came to the throne of Hatti in 751 BCE, Tudhaliya should have died approximately in 755 BCE.

Kurunta en Arnuwanda (755 – 751) Kurunta was a son of Muwatalli, the elder brother of Hattushili. On the various reliefs he was depicted as the Great King of Hatti, even shown wearing a pointed hat, which was reserved for Gods only. This may be inter- pretated as Kurunta having a high status in the country. Nothing is known of Arnuwanda. It may be assumed he only reigned for a short period.

Shuppiluliuma Shuppiluliuma (751-715/710), the younger brother of Arnuwanda, is considered to have been the last reigning king of Hatti. The end of his reign, and so the final end of the Anatolian empire, is not known from the Hatti archives, but is generally thought to have been synchronous with that of Ugarit. These two events approximately coincide in this reconstruction of time and events. Shuppiluliuma incidentally ruled for quite some time, but questions arise to the size of his territory and the circumstances allowing him to rule. With the death of Tudhliya in 755, and the subsequent turbulent time probably ending in a civil war, a number of observations can be made. The court in Hattusha had undoubtedly lost much of its authority over the numerous and large satellite countries. This might especially have been the case with certain groups of the local elite, which often had taken part in revolts and resented the court in Hattusha, wanting independance, much more as with the local kings and their courts, which had personnally committed themselves to Hattusha and the Great King. As the period of turbulence and revolt in Hattusha might have lasted for some 3-5 years, a whole new political-geographical situation could have arisen in Hatti, of which unfortunately not a bit of information is available. It is certainly clear from some subsequent reports that the southern region of Tarhuntassa had been lost, as it later had to be conquered, and was annexed as part of the kingdom again and subsequently had lost its autonomous status. The preceding text also made clear that military strong neighbours had been quite successful in annexing former vassals to Hatti in northern Syria. Even Ugarit might have had serious doubts about whether this coastal state could still count on some protection of Hatti. Many questions remain to be asked. What happened in the western Anatolian countries, where the influence of Ahhiyawa had been destroyed not long before? What happened to Hatti’s weak influence in the Lukka Lands? It probably was not accidental that Mira had become a strong force in western Anatolia in this period. It can similarly be thought of for Lukka and Phrygia. It also appears desirable to view the mountainous Highland of Anatolia more closely. The sparse reports of Tudhaliya some decades earlier concerned the city-states, the countries to the west and south-west of

Anatolia. From the northern countries as Tummanna, Pala, Masa, and also Pitassa, Kuwaliya and Mira in the central highlands of the country, all traces are missing. He marched with his army along more southern routes to Anatolia’s westcoast. It might be posssible that his authority did not stretch all over these areas anymore in these years, or probably not to the extent he himself felt necessary. But it has become clear in the course of events that Hatti went into a period of serious problems and succumbed to them a few decades later. Therefore, the assumption seems justified that Hatti not only greatly lost power and authority with the death of Tudhaliya and the struggle for power that followed, but also had to accept the loss of a number of vassal states in its periphery. And the developments in the neighbouring countries have not been considered yet.

Shuppiluliuma's government started under difficult circumstances with a brief civil war. The fights resulted in a significant destruction of parts of the city, which had to be reconstruction later. Seal impressions of Shuppiluliuma in the Citadel with the palace, and in the Great Temple in the Lower Town, seem to be related to large fires and violence in Hattusha. Some ruined temples in the Upper Town were never restored; there are also indications that the religious cult that Tudhaliya had instituted had been changed into one with new ceremonies. Apparently, in addition, there were still major problems and intrigues at the court, which probably were related to the difficult situation in which the country had come to be. Undoubtedly, a great number of influential princes in the large royal family, courtdignitaries and armycommanders wanted to exercise influence on the course of events in this chaotic period. Shuppiluliuma had to wage war again against Alasiya, like his father felt obliged to. The following cuneiform text provides information about it: “My father [ ] I mobilized and I, Shuppiluliuma, The Great King, immediately marched to the sea. The ships of Alasiya met me in the sea three times for battle, and I smote them; and I seized the ships and set fire to them in the sea. But when I arrived on the land the enemy from Alasiya came in multitude against me for battle.” One can only imagine a tablet with this text when the campaign had been successful, but there is no indication whatsoever that might further give more details on the outcome. It also has not been made explicit which enemy was met on the island.

Considerations ** Trade-problems The question still remains: which interests were at stake for Hatti? The drought has been mentioned earlier, and the pressing necessity to import grains from overseas. Egypt was apparently the major supplier of grain, and that must have been transported via the Mediterranaen. The Land of Hatti was mainly positioned on the Anatolian Highland, and only disposed of the small harbour of Ura in Cilicia where the cargo´s were unloaded. An absolute control of the southern region was necessary, but the maritime transport should be secured as well in some way. The Land of Hatti did not have the disposal of a merchant fleet of its own, and was forced to use the services of Ugarit. But it could also make use of individual skippers, or a small group of skippers, to take care of the

98 transport. At the crossing the ships probably made for the Mediterranean coast, but Alasiya appeared to have been a major centre in this maritime trade. Because of that Alasiya was of a major importance to Hatti. Alasiya increasingly had come under the influence of Mycenaean traders and immigrants, who apparently had a significant impact on the trade and the nature of the trade. It is very likely that the Mycenaean interests in the maritime trade were totally different from those of Hatti. It may certainly be supposed that the total number of the available sailing merchant ships was very limited. Hatti had apparently lost fairly much influence on the trade, and therefore very essential interests of the country were harmed, especially when one considers the food shortages. And Hatti had not shown any interest in trading with Mycenae, had even thwarted the trade. To formulate it even stronger: Hatti had even been aiming at a boycott of all trade with Mycenae.

** The Südburg-inscription The “Südburg” once was a monumental building in the immediate vicinity of the Upper Town. It has been identified as consisting of two large chambers in stone, each with a symbolic entry to the Underworld. A huge artificial and sacred pond had been built behind it, to which the water was fed by a stream from the city, from inside the walls. In one of them reliefpictures have been found of Shuppiluliuma and the Sun God, completed with a hieroglyphic text describing a number of military campaigns of the deified king and his father Tudhaliya. The second chamber was never completed, so it is assumed that the rest of his glorious deeds should be engraved after his death in the other entrance of the Underworld. But apparently they never got that done because of the later cataclysmic events. The text found on the wall is of importance. Linguistically it proved extremely difficult to decipher, which led to different interpretations. It seems clear that the first part of it was a reference to the victories of his father Tudhaliya, by which he showed his respect. It was a reference to all Tudhaliya’s victories in the Lukka region. The text also mentioned that king Shuppiluliuma was waging a war in Tarhuntassa. That great southern area was apparently still in his power for some time, but it may be assumed he could not trust it any more in later years. In one of the translated versions Shuppiluliuma would have made war again in Tarhuntassa and subsequently deported the population of three cities to Adana, in another version he had felt compelled to punish the people of Tarhuntassa and two other cities for serious religious violations of a most important taboo, which also was followed by the aforementioned deportation. But in both cases it can be concluded that Shuppiluliuma was in the process of losing control of the Luwian country Tarhuntassa.

** Ahhiyawa Tudhaliya had regained power of the western coast of Anatolia again and could restore the rule of Hatti again in the area. That was at the expense of Ahhiyawa, the Mycenaean kingdom where in later years nothing more was heard off in the Hattusha archive. But between 750 and 745 BCE the so-called Trojan War must have started, a war between all the Mycenaean city-states and Wilusa, lasting for over 10 years. It is estimated that the combined Mycenaean kings went into the war with about 10.000 warriors. This great war must have coincided with part of the reign of Shuppiluliuma, not only on basis of this reconstruction. Of everything that

99 has become known about this war it is certainly clear that the Mycenaean forces were firmly in control of the west coast of Anatolia after some time. Not only Troy was threatened, cut off from most of the ties it had with the hinterland, but that affected the whole coast, from southern Milawata and Apasa up to the northern Seha River Land and further. There is no doubt that any control or authority Hatti may have had on the westcoast of Anatolia had lapsed. It is known that Phrygians took part in the battle as an ally of Wilusa, it is also characteristic that the Iliad did not spent a word on Hatti as a specific nation, while all the allies of Troy were mentioned. It is also evident meanwhile, that Hatti was trying to raise itself from the dust.

** Assyria From 755 BCE Ashur-nirari was king of Assyria. Kingship had considerably weakened in the country, the Assyrians were still a formidable foe, but internal court intrigues, recurring rebellion, a revolt, made the kingdom a plaything within the country. That came to an end in 745 BCE with the arrival of Tiglath-Pileser. He was supported by a significant part of the armed forces and seized the royal power. In a relatively short time he reorganized and centraliized the government and made the army into a formidable force. King Sarduri of Urartu and a number of princes of the northern Syrian states had united to avert the power of Assyria, but were totally defeated in 740 BCE by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser. Arpad, south of Carchemish, also fell in the hands of the Assyrian king after a siege of three years. In 736 Tiglath-Pileser decided to attack Urartu itself in the Caucasus mountains, he conquered and destroyed everything he came across, though he was unable to take the heavily fortified citadel in the capital Van. Sarduri died shortly afterwards, while his country was totally ruined. Urartu then needed a very long time to recover. In 732 BCE Aram ceased to exist as an independent state and was incorporated as a province into Assyria. In a period of about 13 years Hatti had totally lost its control of northern Syria, not only of the northern small kingdoms, but also of Aram. Its border on the Euphrates was still respected, but Hatti had no guarantee whether that would be crossed or even when. Moreover, Hatti could not either have any more certainty on its important and almost indispensable cooperation with the coastal towns along the northern Syrian coast, especially Ugarit. In 717 BCE Sargon conquered the most important city-state Carchemish, which is to regarded as a terrible loss to Hatti. Many Hatti princes had been vice-roy in this place, as it exercised control on a very large area in Syria and along the coast. And then fell Malatiya in Sargon’s hands in 712 BCE.

** Ugarit Ammurapi was still king of Ugarit in this last phase of Hatti as a state in Anatolia. He was e.g. involved in grain shipments from the nearby Mukis to the port of Ura, the port in Cilicia which Hatti used for transports on the Mediterranean. It is very doubtful whether Ugarit possessed as much strength and power as in previous decades. The terrible drought must have been felt there too. It is also appears very possible that its port got filled up with sand, as Ugarit’s role totally had come to an end after the subsequent collapse of the city and it .

100 never was rebuilt again. The city would never function any more in the region, how important her place had ever been on this coast. Shuppiluliuma continued to appeal on assistance of a number of vassalstates, in his attempts to safeguard the independence of Hatti. Ammurapi as well had to yield vessels with crew and warriors for the war. But there is no further information available about any detail. It even seems more than likely that Shuppiluliuma only could dispose of a small army , too small to resist all the hostile forces. Only a small number of tablets inform us on the situation of that moment, such as the following request of the king of Hatti to Ammurapi: “The enemy [advances(?)] against us and there is no number [. . .]. Our number is pure(?) [. . .] Whatever is available, look for it and send it to me." Other messages have been mentioned in the chapter dealing with Ugarit.

** Hatti’s situation at 715 BCE in review The military, and also political, situation of Hatti about the year 715 BCE must really be regarded as hope- less. The entire western part of Anatolia was lost. All coastal areas in western Anatolia had fallen into enemy hands. Mira and Phrygia should be considered as independent and powerful countries at this time, which probably did not care much om Hatti’s precarious situation, may be even had to make a huge effort to preserve their own independence. Lukka occupied themselves by expanding their territory, developing as a more powerful state Lycia. Both Lukka and Tarhuntassa should be considered as lost. Carchemish had also completely been lost to Assyria. Cilicia had become a threatened area because of the invading Mycenaeans, making the use of the port of Ura very questionable. There was no country left in Anatolia that might furnish warriors and chariots to Shuppiluliuma. Hattusha’s role as an administrative and authoritative center was largely lost. Shuppiluliuma appears to have had his last fight in Lawasanda, as appeared from the urgent message of the Ugarit general Sipti-Baal to his king Ammurapi: "Your servant fortified [his] position in Lawasanda with the (Hittite) king. And behold, the king retreated, fled, and there he sacrificed [. . .]" Lawasanda very probably was located in eastern Cilicia , where the remnants of the army attempted in vain to resist the enemy invading from the coast. Shuppiluliuma had to flee and decided to sacrifice to the gods and request their help. On what could Hatti fall back on? Very probably, the country ‘s surface had been brought back to the size within the bent Marassantiya River. It might still have had some influence in the nort-eastern areas of Isuwa and Hayasaland. But it also must be added that the prolonged drought must have been alarming for the population.

** The War on Troy and the Effects Some time after Shuppiluliuma had settled with difficulty his authority in Hatti after the death of his brother Arnuwanda, the Trojan War began. It is not the intention of this study to go into detail on all the theories and knowledge obtained meanwhile about this war. In this reconstruction it is assumed that the Mycenaean Greeks went to war against the heavily fortified Troy VI, which came to an end by war and an earthquake. The war ended in a huge disaster, in which the city and a large part of the region were completely destroyed. The city

101 was on the Northern Anatolian Fracture Zone, and was the victim of extremely violent and dangerous earthquakes. Homer also reported this in the Iliad, with the following passage: “Then terribly thundered the father of the Gods and men from on high; and beneath did Poseidon cause the vast earth to quake and the steep crests of the mountains. All the roots of many-fountained Ida were shaken and all her peaks, and the city of the Trojans, and the ships of the Achaeans. And seized with fear in the world below was Aidoneus, Lord of the Shades…. Lest above him the earth be cloven by Poseidon, the Shaker of the Earth, and his abode be made plain to view for mortels and immortels……So great was the din that arose when their Gods clashed in strife.” The Mycenaeans penetrated the city with difficulty,, but the chaos was everywhere. Everyone could not do other than seek safety in flight. The remains of the Mycenaean army retreated in disarray and tried to find the way home. The great Mycenaean force had disintegrated and the subsequent fate of the heroes was miserable. Throughout the Aegean world the situation at that time must have been very chaotic, whereby both warriors and the population got massively adrift. That was the case in Hellas, and that happened as well along the coast of Anatolia. The Ten Year’s Troian War is supposed to have ended approximately 735-730 BCE in this reconstruction. Many of the warriors could be considered displaced and homeless and be broken adrift, torn loose from their roots, and doing quite an effort to find a home elsewhere, like Odysseus who started to roam. That process might lead to an explanation for the gradual Hellenizing of the island of Cypre and the Canaan coast. Many Mycenaean cities in Hellas, especially on the Peloponnesus, were themselves caught by large earthquakes, fires, floods of water and mud. Athens was spared. That moment in time is being marked with the end of the period Late-Helladic IIIB, which might approximately be equivalent to 720 -715 BCE in this reconstruction of time and events, knowing the official dating being 1175-1150. A great migration got underway; many residents fled to Athens and, later on, to the cities on the Anatolian northwest coast where a Mycenaean culture developed. But the chaos and the disorganization were enormous. It is therefore not at all surprising that in these years a great migration of especially Ionians started coming to the shores of Cilicia and the coasts of the land that later would be called Palestine. The developments as described earlier, like those on the south east coasts of the Levant, indicated already that the Mycenaeans in very large numbers turned up on foreign beaches. Dani, Mohen, Lorenzo, Masson 68 also claimed that large numbers of Greeks had settled in Pamphylia, which is the southern coastal area of Tarhuntassa, who had come in there from the Peloponnese in the 12th century BC. That time must then be adjusted to the period mentioned in this study.

** The Aftermath Hattusha was left abandoned by the whole population. They left the city by taking with them all their possessions, as far as possible. Even the whole state-archive made up in the foregoing decades was apparently taken on the flight, because it has not been found until now. The city was virtually left empty. And not only Hattusha was abandoned, virtually all residents of the heartland of the country left their homes. Some time

68 Dani, Mohen, Lorenzo, Masson, History of Humanity-Scientific and Cultural Development: From the Third Millennium to the Seventh Century BC (Vol. II), Unesco, 1996. 102 later the remains were put to fire by others, but it is not clear how much later that happened: it might have been several months or years after the departure of the population. Some traces have been found of some habitation in later years, most probably these were Phrygians. That marked the end of the drama which took place over Hattusha.

Where did they go? Their destination is totally unknown, no information was found whatsoever. It is challenging to dwell on it a little longer, admitting that this is speculative. If that problem is imagined from the perspective of Hattusha, in the middle of the ancient heartland of the once great empire, it could be argued that only one direction might have been possible for the final departure of the crowd of people. And that could only have been to the north east. Hatti was threatened in its existence on practically all sides. First the large areas in the far west and in the south should be mentioned, where great waves of hostile immigrants had violently come in. That implies all the large countries in the west and south of Anatolia, all fully autonomous and confident as independent states, which would certainly not welcome large groups of refugees from Hatti, having their own problems meanwhile. And these refugees wanted to start a new life with preservation of their own identity, for which they were carrying their gods and archive, all their possessions, and of course their pride. And of course: there had been many wars and quarrels amonst them over the many years, with Hatti as the sovereign. In the north lived the mountain tribes of the Kaska's, with whom Hatti had been waging great wars throughout its existence. In the south-east was the immense threat of Assyria, which meanwhile had conquered one of Hatti’s major strongholds: Carchemish, and was threatening Milid. There could not be any doubt on Assyrian’s intentions. Viewed in that light, only one possibility remained open for this people to flee: the hills and mountains of the Southern Caucasus, with a route to the north-east and then along the coast into the mountains. They would arrive in the area of Urartu. A lot of damage was inflicted on Urartu by her old enemy Assyria, the country was severely destroyed. Urartu was also the state that was heir to the original Hurrian population in the Southern Caucasus, a culture the people of Hatti felt partly related to since ages. Urartu and the small population left from Hatti had got a common enemy: Assyria, to which both certainly wanted revenge, or a combined defense at least. It is certainly conceivable that the ruling elite of Hatti could have reached an agreement with Rusa, king of Urartu, who himself had arrived in a very vulnerable position with his country. That would mean that the fleeing population might have had the permission of Rusa to settle somewhere in the western part of Urartu’s territory. This hypothesis could give food to another, much discussed topic, a topic related to the Armenian ethnogenesis.

** Armenia Armenia ‘s history is very unclear concerning its origins in antiquity. It is certain that Armenia owes its development largely to Urartu, even to the extent that some scientists are of the opinion that Urartu’s development directly led to the genesis of Armenia, in one way or the other. But it remains very obscure to which degree these two entities may be compared, and it then also becomes im-portant from which moment

103 in history this may be valid. Urartu should mainly be seen as a state with a Hurrian background, with a language that only slightly has been deciphered, as far as texts have been found, while it certainly is not an Indo-European language. Armenia has especially been gone through a development from Indo-European origin, judging by the language. There are several theories about the Armenian ethnogenesis, whereby one of them could be interesting for the hypothesis for the emigration of the Hatti population, as described in the foregoing paragraph. This theory is supported by scientists as Diakonov Melikishvili, Nikolsky and Mestchaninov. It is therein stated that the Hurrian language of Urartu in the 8th and 7th century BCE primarily was a formal written language, while population and elite were speaking a language which is now being called Proto-Armenian. The Hurrian speaking population had mixed themselves with groups speaking another language in the preceding periods, such that the spoken language had taken complete different forms. That idea has taken hold because the Hurrian texts that have survived hardly or not at all developed in that period. Diakonov described it as follows 69 :

“The Armenians are an amalgam of the Hurrian (and Urartians), the Luvians and the Proto-Armenian Mushki, who carried their Indo-European language eastwards across Anatolia. After arriving in its historical territory, Proto-Armenian would appear to have undergone massive influence on part of the languages it eventually replaced. Armenian phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism.”

This hypothesis opens the possibility that the Hatti population took their flight to the north-east indeed, after which they settled in the Caucusus mountains somewhere, and mixed with others, speaking different tongues.

II - f Phrygia (800-700 BCE)

With the current scientific views Phrygia had only developed as a state some time after the collapse of the empire of the Land of Hatti in the 12th century, primarily in the 9th century and later. The shift in history in this study of the Hittites, the Land of Hatti, to the later Early Iron Age should therefore result in these two countries being contemporary for some time. That should then be recognizable from the archeological reports. The excavators of the Gordion Archaeological Project, the University of Pennsylvania, reported that Phrygian type of pottery has been found on the Central Anatolian Plateau in an environment which was culturally dominated by Hatti. Hattian reliefs were also found not far from Gordion. It should be noted, of course, that this was envisioned to have been in the 12th century BCE. Texts found in Hatti give no information on this western neighbour. The area around the Sehiriya River was actually located on the route to the western Anatolian countries Wilusa, Mira and Seha River Land, countries

69 Diakonov, Armenians, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, edited by Mallory and Adams, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

104 with which Hatti kept close relations, and which also sometimes were involved in revolts leading to military campaigns by Hatti. Shortly after 810 BCE had Muwatalli, King of Hatti, secured his authority over the western Anatolian states. Hattushili had written in his Apology that he had obtained sovereignty over the entire Upperlands, which also included the northern coastal mountains, including westward Tummanna. The latter area was north of the central part of the plateau on which the Phrygians had settled. Hattushili also made known that he had camped with his army at Sallapa, which was not far to the west of the place were Gordion should be situated. But none of the texts that the kings of Hatti have left a reference to the Phrygians or Gordion is known. The names by which Phrygia is known to us are all transmitted through the Greek tradition. An equivalent in Luwian or Neshili has not been found. Places from the region around the Sehiriya River appear not to have been of sufficient interest for more than a casual mention in the Hattian Annals. It may be concluded that the kings of Hatti did not consider it necessary to engage themselves seriously with changes in the demography of the area directly to the west of their own western territory in the period 850 to approximately 770 BCE. From the above it may be concluded that the Phrygians were going to live in a fertile part of the Anatolian highlands, gradually built up a local power, built a city with defensive works, and probably maintained a loyal relationship with their powerful eastern neighbour Hatti. It is obviously of importance to establish in which period this was to happen.

The Citadel and the city of Gordion were destroyed by a massive fire. Scientists dated the destruction on a date around 800 BCE, based on dendrochronology and C-14 analysis of wooden remains. However, that date is contested, mainly because of style and shape of objects and pottery found in the burnt layer. The archaeologist Oscar Muscarella, a specialist in the art of the Ancient Middle East and former curator of the Metropolitan Museum, is still of the opinion that the earlier dating of about 700 BCE is the right one, based on his study of the pottery, the bronze pots, the furniture and the fibula. 70 Also Douglas Keenan believes that a measurement error of 75-100 years in both the radiometric and the dendrochronological measurements is likely, which should lead to a destruction level of Gordion sometime later in the 8th century. Douglas Keenan is the author of a study on the application of dendrochronology and C-14 measurements in Anatolia, in which he argues that these should be considered as inaccurate for that specific area. 71 72 Please be referred to the Addendum .

There is quite another aspect that needs attention. That concerns the enormous layer of clay that has come to lay over the ruins of the city. The director of the archaeological excavations in Gordion R.S.Young published on this subject in the American Journal of Archaeology in 1955 73 : “For purpose of dating the sherds from this layer of clay are of little use, they are almost entirely Hittite. They are clearly a deposit already in the clay when it was brought from elsewhere to be laid down over the surface of the Phrygian city mound.”

70 O. Muscarella, The date of the destruction levels at Gordion, Ancient West & East 2, 2003. 71 D.J.Keenan, Anatolian Treering Studies are Untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London, 2006. 72 D.J.Keenan, Early-Historical RC Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol.44.1, 2002. 73 R.S. Young, Gordion: Preliminary Report, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.59, 1953.

105

A Hatti culture layer above instead of under a Phrygian one was totally unthinkable, the Hittite Kingdom had disappeared 400-500 years earlier indeed. For the excavators this was an impossible pattern of thinking. The statement that the layers of clay must have been brought up from elsewhere was virtually inevitable. The excavators of the University of Pennsylvania then came to the conclusion that the Phrygian population had begun to rebuild their city by first raising the devastated area with clay and rubble over approximately 4-5 meter after the calamity that came upon them. That was to be the basis for the new upper citadel. The scientists realized that this must have been an extraordinarily large project, involving so much time and effort that it would have taken a few decades to work on. It was, however, very remarkable that the layout of the new citadel very accurately followed the lay-out of the previous citadel. The aforementioned concept appears extremely unlikely. Apart from efficiency considerations, even the magnitude of it can not be imagined. One has to have in mind an area of more than five hectares that had to be heightened with 4 to 5 meters. That amounts to a weight of roughly 500,000 tons of clay and rubble. That does not sound credible, especially with the limited development of technology and machinery of that day in mind. And the implausible ratio of means and ends then remains unmentioned. Geological investigation established that the meandering Sehiriya River shifted its course several times in history which led to major inundations. In a number of cases sediment was then deposited up to thicknesses of 3 to 5 meters. The river appeared to have been a dangerous neighbour. It seems plausible that the first city of Gordion was met by inundation after the Sehiriya River was forced to divert its course, and large amounts of sediment were deposited over the ruins of the city, which was destroyed by fire at an earlier stage of the calamity that came over the region.

Considerations ** It is also quite possible that the city was ruined at that time as a result of a violent earthquake, causing a fire to break out, and also causing the river to divert its course due to the violent geological changes in the upper layer of the earth's crust. It should also be reminded that the city was located on or very close to the North Anatolian Fault, which even in this time shows several deep rifts at this location on the Anatolian Plateau. Gordion could have suffered the same fate as Troy VI, the city which was very badly destroyed by earthquakes and fires at the end of the Trojan War, which may have happened in the same period of time. Troy is the name of the city-state which is known as Wilusa, the former vassal state of Hatti at the Dardanelles. Wilusa was a distant neighbour of Phrygia, about 300 kilometers west of it. The architecture and the building structure of the impressive Gate in the defensive walls of Gordion was very similar to that of Troy VI, although the citadel of the latter city was smaller. R.S.Young of the Gordion Archaeological Project of the University of Pennsylvania mentioned on this: 74

“The Phrygian Gate had its closest parallel in the wall of the sixth city at Troy. Though separated in time by five hundred years or thereabouts the two fortifications may well represent a common tradition of construction in northwestern Anatolia.”

74 R.S. Young, Gordion: Preliminary Report, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.59, 1953. 106

Troy was also located on the North Anatolian Fault, and city VI, probably the city that became a victim of the 10- year Greek expedition , was also the city that was destroyed by earthquakes and fires. The possibility can not be ruled out that that took place simultaneously with the disaster of Gordion. Phrygian armed forces were reported to have participated in the Trojan War on the side of Troy, which then clearly happened before Gordion was destructed. Only a rough estimate can be made of the time at which Troy VI was devastated. Taking in mind the shift in time and events of this study this might have happened approximately 745-740 BCE.

** With the hypothesis of the destruction of Gordion due to earthquake and landslide at a date around 745 BCE, the political situation can be further examined. This was the time that Shuppiluliuma did his utmost to obtain even part of authority and power in the Land of Hatti, following a period of civil war and intrigues at the court for the succession on the throne. Military campaigns from Hattusha to the west of Anatolia were not undertaken anymore, it is even conceivable that any reason for such an expedition had become invalid, because large parts of western Anatolia had come in chaos and disarray after the Trojan War and the earthquake at the end of it. Large groups of people were on the move, looking for another place for living.

** The following scenario might serve for obtaining an acceptable picture of Phrygia in this period: At the beginning the Phrygians immigrated gradually and perhaps in ever greater numbers to the Anatolian Highland at the end of the 9th century, but later on mainly in the 8th century BCE. A nation unfolded and the first city of Gordion was built. In view of the situation that was described in this reconstruction, as a result of the major historical shift of events, it could be assumed that the population gradually increased by new immigrations from the Balkan by relatively small groups of people at the start. The Phrygians became neighbours of the Land of Hatti on their western borders. Up to the disaster in 745 BCE and some time after, Phrygia was not regarded as a risk-factor for the safety of Hatti. During the Trojan War Phrygia was an ally of Troy, but only took part in the war with a small contingent of military forces, as one may assume with Homer’s description in the Iliad in mind. Incidentally, Priam, king of Troy (Wilusa), was married to a Phrygian princess, which should signify that Phrygia had won stature in the course of the 8th century BCE.

Some time around 745 BCE, Gordion was hit by severe earthquakes, its inhabitants had abandoned the place, the city caught fire, after which the ruins were flooded with a thick layer of sediments and rubble caused by earthquake and diverted river. The returning inhabitants decided immediately afterwards to rebuild their city on the same spot, with all the knowledge that was still present. A decade later the new city of Gordion had been built again, with the new city and citadel precisely on top of the earlier foundations, but some 3-5 meters higher. Phrygia appeared to have started on a period of extreme prosperity. Near the town a number of very large burial mounds were built. The largest of these was the grave-mound codenamed Tumulus MM, Midas Mound

107 to-day, which is dated to the end of the 8th century. That proved to be a very rich grave. All coastal states of Anatolia and the Levant were to suffer heavily of invading warriors and settlers from the Aegean world, who forcibly took possession of the land in the last two-three decades of the 8th century BCE. It is quite conceivable that Phrygia remained wholly or largely unaffected. The country was finally at a great distance from the coast, and clearly had sufficient power to guard its independence. From Greek sources it is well known that the Phrygians maintained very close contacts with the Greek, Aegean, culture and were influenced intensively. According to tradition Gordion was destroyed again by passing hordes of Cimmerians in the year 687 BCE, but there is also doubt about it.

II – g Aram and Israel (800-700)

From the text of the Shausgamuwa Treaty, drawn up between the Hattian king Tudhaliya and Shausgamuwa, king of Aram, is known that king Shapili of Aram was replaced by Bentishina in 793 BCE, the latter being Shausgamuwa’s father. That took place in the first year of Hattushili’s reign, after Murshili III was expelled from the throne and was sent into exile. Bentishina, who had spent some years at the court of Hatti, was now married to a sister of Muwatalli and Hattushili and had gained respect at the court in Hattusha. The following can be read in the general part of the Treaty: “But when Muwatalli , the brother of the father of My Sun, had become a god, then Hattushili, the father of My Sun, became king, and he put Shapili aside and made Benteshina, your father, king in the Land of Amurru.” In 773 BCE it was undoubtedly Bentishina who was surprised by an Assyrian army and was forced to pay a huge tribute in order to find the Assyrians willing to leave. The Aram king was terribly humiliated by the turtanu Shamshi-ila, as he not only had to hand over a large amount of treasures, but he also had to give up his daughter. Hatti appeared unable to keep this Assyrian army away and protect its vassal and prevent this act of violence. Since that raid Shamshi-ilu remained a major threat to the country, as the Assyrians had lodged themselves in Bit-Adini on the Euphrates, where Shamshi-ilu reigned locally with a large autonomous power. In about 763-2 BCE Bentishina was involved in the marital problems of Ammishtamru, king of Ugarit, who was married to his daughter. This appeared to have become a major problem, not only for the two royal courts of Ugarit and Aram, but also for Tudhaliya, then being king in Hatti, as Bentishina was his brother-in-law. Bentishina died during the negotiations and his son Shausgamuwa had to finish the negotiations on the fate of his sister. Then Tudhaliya was also forced to thoroughly involve himself with the succession to the throne in Aram and the newly formed relationship with Aram as a vassal. He installed Shausgamuwa as the new king, which was then sealed by the so-called Shausgamuwa Treaty. Shausgamuwa reigned until 746 BCE. During his reign Aram did not have to stand in great fear of Assyria, as that country was severely weakened by internal strife. But one year after the death of Shausgamuwa a new forceful king came to power in Assyria. This was Tiglath-Pileser, who after some years made an end to the independence of Aram. Aram's new king Rezin remained in power for the next fourteen years, but in 732 BCE

108

Aram ceased to exist as an independent state and was annexed by Assyria as a province.

Israel No attention has been paid so far to neither Judah nor Israel, similarly to the other countries in this ancient world. The history of these two countries is very well known, even in a great detail, and they were only indirectly involved in the consequences of the immense shift of historic events of some of the neighbouring countries to a more recent time. Their history was hardly or at all influenced by the new chronology developed in this study, while the enormous mutual cultural influence which must have effected all these countries in Palestine did not correspond with the object of this study either. There were not any events that appeared to effect the known history of these two countries. This historic narrative also evokes an image of the time, of the enormous tragedy, which resulted from the great destructive powers that were released in the Ancient Middle East. Israel was ultimately one of the major victims in this century, Israel was led to the abyss, the population was deported to far away regions, mainly to Assyria. The Assyrians had first overrun the country and besieged Samaria for quite some time, after which Sargon conquered the city. This happened in the year 722 BCE, which signified the end of the kingdom of Israel.

II-h Mitanni (800-700)

Shattuara ruled until his death in 790 BCE, but during his reign he was largely dependent on directions of Assyria, to which country he undoubtedly had to pay large tributes. The powerful Assyria was his southern and eastern neighbour. Data on further developments are missing. Assyrian troops marched regularly through the country towards Urartu without caring much about Mitanni in those years. The following kings Wasashatta (790-770) and Shattuara (770-766) undoubtedly were vassals of the expanding kingdom of Assyria, before the country was annexed.

II –i Urartu (800-700)

The now available texts indicate that particular attention should be given to the campaigns of Argishti, who came on the throne of Urartu early in the 8th century. The center of the country was around the massive citadel of Van, then the capital of the country. A long text in cuneiform has been found in this citadel known as "The Chronicle of Horhor". This text describes a series of campaigns led by Argishti north and southwest of the country. There were also references to campaigns in northern Syria, known as Hatti. In northern Syria as well as in the land Tsupani he took more than 6000 warriors as prisoner and had them transported to his new city Erebuni, which he had founded recently in a northern region. Argishti probably reigned in the period 785-760. Urartu became one of the most powerful kingdoms in the southern Caucasus and in eastern Anatolia during his kingship. 109

Argishti founded Erebuni in 782 BCE. The present name of Erebuni is Yerevan, the capital of Armenia. Erebuni became an important center of power in Urartu during a number of years. But Argishti also founded Argishtihinili, which he made defensible with strong walls and towers, and used this new city as an administrative and economic center, thereby decreasing the significance of Erebuni. The power of the country stretched as far to the north as the Araxes River and in the southeast to Lake Urmia. The fertile areas near the Araxes River were irrigated and made suitable for agriculture, including the production of wine. The country came to prosperity. This can also be appreciated by the production of utilities and artifacts of pottery and bronze. Pottery and objects produced in Urartu were widely distributed. Small figurines and large bronze vessels from Urartu were found in a tomb at the Phrygian Gordion, and also elsewhere in the western Mediterranean. According to The Chronicle of Horhor Argishti was already campaigning to the northern Syrian countries in his fourth year. That should then have been about the year 781 BCE. Of this text the following is a translation in French: “J’ai détruit le pays de la ville de Kikhuni, localisée sur les rives du lac. Je suis allé à la ville d’Alishtu; j’ai emporté hommes et femmes de cette endroite. Pour la grandeur de Haldi, Argishti, fils de Menua, parle: J’ai construit la ville Erebuni pour la puissance du pays de Biaineli (Urartu) et pour la pacification des pays ennemis, le pays était sauvage, rien n’y avait était construit (auparavant)…J’y ai établi 6600 guerriers des pays de Hatti et Tsupani.”

Considerations ** The kings of Hatti had established their eastern borders along the Euphrates. Isuwa and the city of Malatiya (Milid) had been conquered in the year 845 BCE by Shuppiluliuma. His son Murshili had later led several campaigns on the north-eastern border and eventually succeeded in making Hayasaland part of the Land of Hatti. That probably marked the eastern border of Hatti during the reigns of Muwatalli and Hattushili in the following decades. The expansion of Urartu during Argishti’s reign is visible on the following map, which also clarifies that Argishti did not cross the eastern borders of Hatti in the 8th century. Argishti's army appears to have reached Melita (Meliddu, Malatiya), probably threatened the city, he even may have claimed tribute, but the city was not taken in all likelihood.

110

Sarduri inherited from his father a prosperous kingdom. He maintained the foreign policy and further developed the national administrative and economic centers. The Euphrates became the strongly defended western border of the kingdom. With Tiglath-Pileser on the throne in Assyria in year 745 BCE the political and military situation changed considerably. An army under command of Sarduri was defeated at Arpad in 743 BCE, whereby Tiglath Pileser got hold of a very large number of horses and chariots, which were very well trained for warfare. In 735 BCE Tiglath Pileser penetrated deep into the northern land of Ugarit and besieged Tushpa. He appeared not to be able to capture the large fortress situated high above the lake, but he destroyed the city. Tiglath Pileser wrote about this event in one of his annals: "I shut up Sarduri the Urartian in Turushpa (Tushpa), his principal city, and wrought great slaughter in front of the city gates. Then I set up the image of my majesty over against the city." Urartu was thus dealt a severe blow, even as several vassals revoked their allegiance to Sarduri, who then undertook several military campaigns in trying to regain the power over the areas he previously had control on. His son Rusa (735 – 714) carried on with this strategy and policy, and put an enormous effort in reinforcing the army and the defense. A cautious foreign policy and treaties with neighbouring countries were part of his approach. In Assyria the new king Shalmanassar (727-722) had to focus entirely on the internal problems of his country and left Urartu undisturbed. But the situation changed completely with Sargon II on the throne in Assyria, who followed an agressive policy towards Urartu. Urartu itself got mixed up in heavy fighting with large groups of Cimmerian nomads who had come to migrate from the Don- and Krim areas to the Caucasus, and were heading south into the Urartu territories. And then in the year 714 BCE Sargon sent his armies into the southern areas of Urartu, thereafter towards Lake Urmia, where he finally defeated the armies of Urartu with their allies. A large part of the cavalry of the armed forces of Urartu was surprised by the sudden attack of Sargon and captured, Rusa could flee.

111

Sargon did destroy all the conquered land. "On Mount Uaush I inflicted a defeat on the army of Urartu, my bitter enemy, and their allies, and put them to flight. With their horses I filled the mountain ravines and gorges, and they themselves, like ants in distress, departed by toilsome roads." Sargon had his armies then continue the campaign to the northern shores of Lake Van, the rest of the country and the religious center Musasir, which he took by surprise and completely robbed it. He had achieved an enormous success with his campaigns. The Assyrian annals mentioned: "when Ursa (Rusa), king of Urartu, heard that Musasir had been destroyed and his god Haldi carried away, then with his own hand, with the iron dagger which hung at his side, he put an end to his life." Rusa's son Argishti II (714-685 BC) restored Urartu's position relative to the Cimmerians, but it was inevitable that he had to conclude a peace-treaty with the new Assyrian king Sennacherib. This took place in 705 BCE. That was the beginning of a long period of progress and prosperity, which continued under the reign of Argishti's son. Urartu was then repeatedly attacked again by invading Cimmerians, which culminated in the great invasion of 687 BC, which was repelled, but it had weakened the country considerably.

III - Reconstruction period > 700 BCE in Egypt

The Assyrian dominance in Egypt was very significant in the beginning of the 8th century BCE. Egypt had been defeated by Sennacherib in 701 BCE and had to submit to him in the bordertown of Pelusium. But the Nubians had grouped themselves again, had strengthened their army from the south, and managed gradually to fetch back the power throughout Egypt. Shebitku, although earlier defeated by the Assyrian army, remained nominally in power in Egypt until his death in 690 BCE, when he was succeeded by his brother Taharqa.

Horemhab The developments in Egypt in this period may be interpreted from another point of view. The events around Horemhab, as they probably took place in this period, will be taken as the background for another conception of history in these years. First the texts will be considered which might apply to Horemhab’s life, texts that reflect his position in the country and his relations with constantly changing rulers. Thereafter, his position and his activities will be further assessed in view of the events. The particular data are mostly taken from Velikovsky’s Archive Website. 75 Some details are known about Horemhab, which relate him to the ever changing men in power in Egypt. It will prove that he attuned his personal ambitions to the current and changing political situation and thereby tried to get the maximum benefit for himself. These details will be discussed by raising some topics:

75 I.Velikovsky, Archive Website:The Assyrian Conquest. 112

* Horemhab in relation to Crown Prince Sheshonq: Pharaoh Osorkon II let built a tomb in Memphis for prince Sheshonq, who died as a young man. He had served as High Priest of Ptah in that city. Ahmad Badawi excavated this tomb in the fifties of the last century. He discovered a relief on the lintel of the entrance door, by which Horemhab was depicted, kneeling before an offering table, with behind him the prince who had died. Horemhab was also represented with a royal cartouche, as a symbol of his royal status. 76

* Horemhab with Tirhaqa in a Temple in Karnak: On one of the walls of a small Nubian temple at Karnak Horemhab and Tirhaqa were depicted together. Tirhaqah participates in a scene in which he is praised and glorified by the people who flocked together, while Horemhab, priest and governor, turns to the people by praising the king. This scene was described by M.Le Vicomte de Rouge. 77

* The tomb of Petamenophis: At the end of the 19th century the tomb of Petamenophis was excavated in the necropolis of Thebes, which was then re-examined in the thirties of the 20th century. This high official from the Nubian period had let built an impressive tomb for himself. An inscription found in the tomb mentioned that he had been an important official of the king. In an adjacent room the cartouche of King Horemhab was found adjacent to the name of Petamenophis. 78 79

* Horemhabs tomb in Memphis: In the 19th century parts of Horemhabs tomb in Memphis where distributed by bits and pieces all over the world. Since then a large number of fragments have been recovered. The various texts made clear that Horemhab was commander of the army and also responsible for the administration of the country, appointed as such by the king. Horemhab had this also mentioned himself: “Chosen of the king, Presider over the Two Lands, in order to carry on the administration of the Two Lands, general of generals of the Two Lands.” 80 On one of the texts he was called: ”Commander-in-chief of the Army, Horemhab” , on another: “Deputy of the king, presiding over two Lands” , where he also was depicted with an ureaeus. The bas-reliefs of the tomb also show that Horemhab was portrayed in a submissive posture for the king, but the picture of the king himself was erased. He was also found in a submissive posture with a fan in his hand, in front of the king, who was depicted in much larger size, but now made unrecognizable. There he was called: “the fan/bearer to the right of the king”.

76 A.Badawi, Das Grab des Kronprinzen Scheschonk, Sohnes Osorkon´s II und Hohenpriesters von Memphis, Annales du Service des Antiquités, vol.54, 1956. 77 M.le Vicomte de Rouge, Etude sur quelques monuments de regne de Tarhaka, Melanges d´Archeologie, Vol.I,1873. Prisse d´Avennes, Monuments egyptiens,Paris, 1847. Reprinted in Bibliotheque egyptologique 28, 1918. 78 Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, Berlin, 1849/1859. 79 F.W.von Bissing, Das Grab des Petamenophis in Theben, Zeitschrift fùr Ägyptische Sprache und Altertums- kunde LXXIV, 1938. 80 James Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol.III.,1906. 113

Another text mentioned the following: “Words spoken to His Majesty……when……came the great ones of all foreign lands to beg life from him, by the hereditary prince, sole friend and royal scribe Horemhab, justified. He said, making answer to the king ……. foreigners who knew not Egypt, they are beneath thy feet forever and ever… Amun has handed them over to thee…. The battle cry is in their hearts.” 81 This also made clear that he could act as deputy of the king of the Two Lands. It is very confusing that he is wearing an uraeus on all reliefs of the tomb, the symbol of royal power. Of the said King, the reliefs are big and powerful, but the name is absent. He was only referred to as: ”The Great of Strength will send his mighty arm in front of his army… and will destroy them and plunder their towns and cast fire into ….and…foreign countries will set others in their places”. Apart from that, this text can be regarded as not appropriate to the Egyptian social context, but it does suit the martial Assyria.

* Horemhab crowned as king: A picture of Horemhab can be found in Turin, which shows that another king (His Majesty) did crown him to king of Egypt. Next to him his wife is depicted, whose name was given as Mutnedjme. Part of the text written on it reads: “Now he acted as vice-regent of the Two Lands over a period of many years……He being summoned before the Sovereign when the Palace fell into rage, and he opened his mouth and answered the King and appeased him with the utterance of his mouth.” “Then the King knew the day of his good pleasure to give him his kingship. Lo, this God distinguished his son in the sight of the entire people…..The heart of the King being content with his dealings and rejoicing at the choice of him.” From that moment on Horemhab was "Hereditary Prince and King of the Two Lands" and then he went to the palace, to "his noble daughter the Great Magic, her arms in welcoming attitude, and she embraced his beauty and established herself in front of him." But then the question remains: whose"noble daughter" is she actually? In the texts Mutnedjme was called ”Great Wife of the King, Lady of the Two Lands”, “Hereditary Princess”, ”Regent of Egypt”,…..of all the countries”.

Considerations ** The coronation The Coronation of Horemheb by an unknown but apparently very important and mighty king, will require attention in the first place. The particular king had not the slightest intention to step down in favor of Horemhab, on the contrary, of Horemhab he demanded complete obedience, even in his new status. This was the king, His Majesty, who was to be feared for his brutal, relentless warfare against foreign forces. This mighty lord could certainly not have been a native king of the previous 18th dynasty in its final chaotic stage. This would be at variance with every detail of situations, texts and events as described. And certainly, the Nubian

81 Gardiner, The Memphite Tomb of the General Haremhab, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 39, 1953. 114 king could not be considered either as being the king of this text. This particular king, crowning Horemhab without stepping back in power, could not be other than the Assyrian king, who consolidated his power after having taken possession of Egypt.

** Mutnedjme Mutnedjme played an important role during the coronation, but apparently did not bring Horemhab to the crown of Egypt because of her own status as queen of Egypt, as usual in that country. She probably became queen as the wife of Horemhab, now being king, but she was named hereditary princess of Egypt, even from all countries. She was depicted with golden scarabee's, which attracted the attention of the archaeologists. Mutnedjme must have had a very high status, as she appeared to have had large claims to the throne. That makes it plausible that she was given in marriage by the Assyrian king. The only Assyrian king who may be considered is Sennacherib.

** The Great Edict Horemhab apparently had a considerable influence and power in the country. The Assyrian power was in the background, probably with Assyrian troops for support. The southern Nubian power must have been very weak or absent in that period. Some more information can be furnished on Horemhab for this apparent stabile period. That concerns e.g. the `The Great Edict` , of which a fragmentary part has been preserved on a huge stone. It concerns an edict on rights and punishments, holding for the whole country, issued by Horemhab. “Hear ye these commands which My Majesty has made for the first time, governing the whole land, when My Majesty remembered these cases of oppression….” This Edict referred to oppression, about a formerly wicked and bad government. The new king emphasized justice, but with very severe corporal punishment for offenders, for which the Edict listed the punishment for a range of offenses.

115

Time-scheme - 4

Time Assyria Egypt

750 Pyankhi X 740 (747 – 716)

730 Shalmanasser X 720 (727 – 722) X X 710 Sargon Shabaka (722 – 702) (716 – 706) X 700 X Time Persia Egypt Shebitku 690 Sennacherib (706 – 690) X (702 – 681) 530 X 680 X Taharqa Cambyses II X Esarhaddon (690 – 665) 520 (529 – 522) X 670 (681 – 669) X Necho I X 510 660 (664) Darius I 500 (521 – 486) 650 Assurbanipal 490 640 (669 – 627) X 480 630 Psammetichos I X (664 – 610) 470 Fi rst Persian Rule 620 (525 – 404) 460 610 X Necho II 450 600 (610 – 595) Psammetichos II X 440 590 (595 – 589) X 430 580 X Merneptah 420 Darius II 570 (589 – 570) X (423 – 404) 410 560 Amyrtaeos (404 – 399) X 400 X X 550 Amasis Nepherites (399 – 394) X (570 – 526) 390 Artaxerxes II 540 (404 – 358) Achoris (394 – 382) 380 Setnakhte (382 – 379) X 530 Psammetichos III X 370 Ramses III 520 (526 – 525) (379 – 362) 360 X Ramses IV (362 – 360) X 510 Artaxerxes III 350 (358 – 338) Ramses VI 500 (360 – 342) 340 Darius III X X (338 – 330) Second Persian Rule 330 X (342-332) X

320 Alexander invaded Egypt

310

300

116

** The Inscription of Mes "The Inscription of Mes" mentioned an additional story. This document was drawn up under Pharaoh Ramses about the ownership of a property, a document that after many years was taken up again for a court at some time during the reign of the vice-roy Horemhab, in order to resolve a complaint about the legacy of that land. A number of observations appear to be of importance. This document makes explicit that Horemhab was made king of Egypt many years later than Ramses, which excludes that Horemhab lived in the declining years of the 18th dynasty. The date specified in the document also appears to be of great importance. The judicial review of the problem of the ownership of the property appears to have occurred in the year 59 during the reign of Horemhab. This appears to indicate an unacceptably long reign of the pharaoh. This can only be understood with reference to the new calendar that had started in 747 BCE in Babylonia, which was part of Assyria at the time. In that case the court ruling indicated the year 688 BCE, which was 59 years after the beginning of the era with the new calendar. This year corresponds to the time Tirhaqa claimed the kingship of all Egypt. Shortly thereafter Tirhaqa conquered the city of Memphis, whereupon Horemhab had to flee the country. Nothing is known of what has befallen him later on. Moreover, this makes apparent to what extent and in what period Assyria exercised influence on Egypt. Horemhab's kingship also fits into this concept. The court process referred to Pharaoh Ramses II, who reigned between 807-767 BCE in the reconstructed chronology, which allows a course of time of 80-100 years up to the court order mentioned.

** Horemhab’s political career The aforementioned texts, with an important man like Horemhab in an important function serving foreign occupying forces, put undoubtedly into words an age that had started in the period foregoing the domination of Sennacherib. During the reign of Osorkon II, as the last pharaoh of the Libyan Dynasty, or shortly thereafter, Horemhab must have been one of the many local reigning vice-roys of the country. With the following increased influence of the Nubians, which later on was forced to decline again, the local Libyan - Egyptian kingdoms apparently could still have some influence on the national events. Horemhab apparently managed to retain influence on the government by collaboration with the invaders from the south. After the humiliating defeat against Assyria in 720 under King Sargon, Egypt was dominated several years by Assyria until Shabaka could take over the power again in 712. Even then, the Nubians allowed the local rulers to retain their power over their own territory. Horemhab retained his high office and then later was appointed vice-roy by Tirhaqah. Sargon's son Sennacherib drove the Nubians away from the whole of Egypt in 701 BCE, whereupon Horemhab manifested his loyalty to the Assyrians, and thereupon was rewarded with the status of vice-roy by the Assyrian monarch. He then was allowed, or was forced to, to marry his daughter.

The foregoing interpretation of acting and functioning of Horemhab should place him with a reasonable degree of certainty to the late 8th and early 7th century BCE. That means that the influence of Assyria appears to have had quite an impact on Egypt in the period from about 710-690 BCE.

117

Esarhaddon Meanwhile, Sennacherib had retreated to his capital, where he had abandoned all intentions for further military activities. He was murdered while praying to a major god, whose protection and advice he implored.. Shortly after his death, his son Esarhaddon brought the entire Levant under the control of Assyria again. Egypt came to be in the range of the Assyrian armies again. In 675 BCE Esarhaddon had his armies march towards Egypt, whereupon he partly broke Egypte’s authority over the northern parts of the country. This campaign may have made it obvious that his military strategy had to be adapted, because Esarhaddon then withdrew his armies in whole or in part. He probably attempted to stabilize his military presence in the conquered Egyptian territories, or part thereof. Three-four years later Esarhaddon led an new expedition against Egypt. It was in the years 672/671 BCE. Even then he was forced again to first overpower in the Levant some of the city- states along the coast. After he had passed the Egyptian border the Assyrian advance from the fortress of Avaris was quite hard. Esarhaddon had recorded later: “ From the town of Ishupri as far as Memphis, his royal residence, a distance of fifteen day´s march, I fought daily, without interruption, very bloody battles against Tirhaqa, king of Egypt and Ethiopia, the one accursed by all the great Gods. Five times I hit him with he point of my arrows, inflicting wounds from which he should not recover, and then I laid siege to Memphis, his royal residence, and conquered it, tore down its walls, and burned it down.” Esarhaddon captured the entire household of Tirhaqa in Memphis, including his queen, sons and daughters. “All Ethiopians I deported from Egypt, leaving not even one to do hommage to me. Everywhere in Egypt I appointed new kings, governers, officers.” Not long afterwards his army also conquered Upper Egypt. But the Assyrian army could not afford to stay in Egypt for a long time, so Tirhaqa gradually succeeded in restoring the Ethiopian power over Egypt again in the following years. Esarhaddon died unexpectedly at a subsequent campaign to Egypt. That was in 669 BCE.

Assurbanipal Ashurbanipal succeeded his father as king of Assyria in 669 BCE, and a few years later he began a new major campaign against Tirhaqa, his Nubian opponent, who had taken over the power in Egypt again. Ashurbanipal took this setback very seriously, defeated the Nubian forces and persued the remnants of the army to the south of Egypt. The Assyrians then ascertained that Tirhaqa was no longer in Thebes. Ashurbanipal then re- appointed the twenty local kings in their districts, who earlier were appointed by his father. In the major cities as Memphis and Sais in Lower Egypt this was Necho again. But some of these kings were committing treason. They sent messengers to Tirhaqa with the request to free them from the Assyrians. But the Assyrians found out. “An officer of mine heard of these matters and met their cunning with cunning. He captured their mounted messengers together with their messages, which they had dispatched to Tirhaqa, king of Nubia.” Then all twenty kings were captured and transported to Nineveh.. Only Necho was kept alive. “And I, Assurbanipal, inclined towards friendliness, had mercy upon Necho, my own servant, whom Esarhaddon, my own father, had made king in Kar-bel-matate [Sais]”. 118

Necho Assurbanipal placed Necho on the throne of Egypt in 665 BCE, in the same position as was Horemhab under Sennacherib, namely as: “Conductor of the Chariot of His Majesty, Deputy of His Majesty in North and South”. Meanwhile, the Nubian Tandamane had succeeded his father Tirhaqa in 665 BCE, together with the high ambition and the aspirations for the Egyptian throne. Tandamane undertook an expedition to the north, conquered a large area and also stormed Memphis. There Necho was killed then. His son, however, had had the chance to flee abroad. Immediately thereafter, the Nubian forces were intercepted by the Assyrians and ompletely defeated. The Assyrian army marched again to the south and occupied Thebes. This time Thebes was destroyed, the population was led captive to Nineveh.

Psammetich In 664 BCE, Assurbanipal then placed the son of Necho on the throne of Egypt. This son has become known under the name given him by the Greeks: Psammetichos. Psammetich succeeded in making Egypt independent again, independent of Assyria. The political developments in the Middle East also proved very beneficial, resulting in Assyria gradually losing its dominant position. With Necho and Psamtik I a series of rulers came forward who were able to reign Egypt up to the Persian invasion in 525 BCE under King Cambyses.

Merneptah One of the last rulers in this series of Pharaoh’s was Merneptah. According to the current scientific views Ramses II was succeeded by Merneptah in the year 1213 BCE. Merneptah being the only son left to him when Ramses himself had come at high age. Merneptah is supposed to have reigned in 10 years, and is best known for the many long wars he waged against the Nubians and especially the Libyans in those years he was in power. Quite some importance has been attached to the text on a stela that Merneptah raised in his Mortuary Temple, which has become known as the Israel Stela. It has long been assumed that this paricular text could offer a reference to the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, however, the content does not give rise to any reference that could bring Merneptah in connection with the Exodus. Merneptah’s reign therefore can not be indicated by an historic reference. There is no evidence, no information, available either that could tie Merneptah to Ramses II. Much of his own royal family is unknown and his family ties remain unclear. In this recontruction his reigning period has been assessed as 589-570 BCE. He did, however, leave a large amount of texts. In addition to those on the stela mentioned, extensive war- reliefs with scenes and texts have been found on a wall of the Cour de la Cachette in the Temple of Karnak at Luxor. A notion can be formed of this Pharao on basis of these texts. They deal with his battles against Libyan invaders. That enemy was described as a force of Ekwesh, Teresh, Luka, Shekelesh and "northerners from all countries." That is a very striking description, because it relates to people from the northern shores of the Mediterranean, mainly from the Aegean world and western Anatolia. Another inscription was found in Heliopolis, reading:

119

"Regnal year 5, second month of summer, one came to say to His Majesty:" The vile chief of the Libyans ... .and every foreign country-which is with him are penetrating to transgress the boundaries of Egypt. "Then His Majesty ordered his. army to rise up against them. " 82 Merneptah appears to have had devoted a significant part of his reign to wars with the invading warriors from Libya, which should lead to a better understanding of his position in history. This will be further discussed in the following section.

Considerations ** After the first victorious campaigns Merneptah has left triumphant descriptions on the large number of enemies that were captured and killed. According to these Egyptian annals this enemy army should have been very large in size. It should be considered, however, that all these “northerners” appeared to belonged to seafaring nations, they were people who were accustomed to cross this sea in great numbers. But in Merneptah’s time they were said to first land in Cyrenaica before crossing a large desert in order to reach the Nile Delta.

** An important geo-political objection can be made, which is not bound to a timeschedule. Merneptah is supposed to have taken the throne of Egypt in 1213 BCE, the year Ramses died. This “Libyan army” should have been built up by these northerners in the first years of Merneptah’s reign. In Hatti, Tudhaliya had come to the throne, as successor of his father Hattushili. Tudhaliya was the last king-of-kings of Hatti who still had authority and power over the whole of the Anatolian peninsula. He needed all his military power for this purpose, but was quite successful. The countries on the western shores were subjected, as was Lukka. Lydia, with its capital at Sardis, did not exist yet as such. Sardis, at that time, probably belonged to the kingdom of Mira, before the town became the capital of Lydia in the chaotic developments in Anatolia at the end of the 8th century. The entire west coast, but also the south coast, of Anatolia was threatened and disrupted by invading Mycenaean- Greek warriors and traders. This also was the time of Merneptah’s reign. It is not really conceivable that very large numbers of warriors and settlers made the long journey to Cyrenaica in this specific period. But it would appear quite possible in a later period, to which attention is given in the next paragraph.

** The full name of this Pharaoh was Binerē'-meramūn Merneptah-hotphi(r)mā'e. With the last part of his name he may be considered to be a contemporary of the prophet Jeremiah, who was briefly in exile in Egypt. This Pharao was called Hophra in Hebrew, as can be read in the writings of Jeremiah. Jerusalem was taken and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon In 587 BCE. The entire population was deported. This was a disaster of unprecedented proportions for Judah. A large group of people got the chance for a safe flight to Egypt. In Jeremiah’s writings: "So they came into the land of Egypt: for they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: thus came even they to Tahpanhes". 83 This town was a border fortress in the east of the Delta, in Greek writings this fort was called Daphnae.

82 H.Bakry, The Discovery of a Temple of Merneptah on Ön, Aegyptus, 1973. 83 Jeremiah 43:7 120

A fragment of a letter was found in which an officer of the Border Guard reported to his commander: “We have finished letting the Shosu tribes of Edom pass the fortress of Merneptah-hotephima’e, which are in the Tjeku-nome (Tahpanheth), in order to sustain them and sustain their flocks through the good pasture of Pharaoh life prosperity, health!, the good sun of every land.” 84

** The Greeks called this pharaoh Apries. In The Story of my Research, Herodotus (Book IV, 159), Herodotus expalined that the Greeks migrated into Cyrene in eastern Libya in the 6th century BCE. “The Pythian priestess admonished all Greeks by an oracle to cross the sea and dwell in Libya with the Cyrenaeans; for the Cyrenaeans invited them, promising a new division of lands; and this was the oracle: “Who so delayeth to go to the fields be fully divided. Upon the Libyan land the man shall surely repent it. “ So a great multitude gathered together at Cyrene, and cut off great tracts of land from the territory of the neighbouring Libyans. “ He went on: “Apries mustered a great host of Egyptians and sent it against Cyrene; the Cyrenaeans marched out to the place Irasa and the spring Thestes, and there battled with the Egyptians and overcame them; for the Egyptians had as yet no knowledge of Greeks, and despised their enemy; whereby they were so utterly destroyed that few of them returned to Egypt.”

** Merneptah’s texts and those on Hophra in the writings of Herodotus give corresponding information about the wars between Merneptah (Hophra) with the Libyan enemy. Texts by Jeremiah are also in agreement with this concept. These wartime descriptions of Merneptah only concern the first 6-7 years of his reign, because he apparently did not want to further describe details over the last years after of his reign on the walls of the temple at Karnak or elsewhere. Herodotus reported that Merneptah’s chances at war turned out badly after these first battles with the “Libyans”. Even a part of his own army rebelled against him. He then found his death, he was probably murdered. General Amasis took the power in the country and became the next Pharaoh. On account of the foregoing, Pharao Merneptah will be identified as synonymous with Hophra, also called Apries by the Greeks, and therefore will be placed in the chronology after Psamtik II, in the years 589 – 570.

Amasis – Psammetichos III Merneptah, or Apries, in Greece, was succeeded by Amasis, who reigned more than fourty years. His son Psammetichos III was taken from the throne by Cambyses of Persia after a short reign, after which the country got into chaos and profound poverty.

84 R.Caminos, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies, Oxford University Press, London, 1954.

121

The First Persian Occupation The Persians occupied the country for a considerable time, from 525 to 404 BCE. There was a revolt some time, led by somebody known as Inaros, but the revolt was not successful. The death of the Persian king Darius in 404 BCE gave rise to another revolt. At that time the new Persian king Artaxerxes was completely engaged by other threats to the country, so that the insurgents under the leadership of Amyrtaeus succeeded in throwing off the Persian rule in the Delta. Upper Egypt remained under Persian authority for quite some time. After some years a new revolt broke out, this time led by Nepherites, who also succeeded in becoming pharao. Achoris seized power in Egypt in the year 393 BCE. Artaxerxes gradually succeeded in gaining a considerable influence in the country, meaning that Egypt practically had become a vassal of Persia. After Achoris concluded an alliance with Cypre and Athens he came into the position to crush the Persian control. Achoris died in 382 BCE.

Nectanebo I - Ramses III (379-362) The final phase of the First Persian Domination of Egypt is to be mentioned here briefly, because not long after Achoris death the army officer Nectanebo took over the power in the country, and thus formed the start for a strong and independent Egypt for a period of about 50 years. In an elaborate text, Velikovsky has taken the position that this Nectanebo is an alter-ego for Ramses III. The latter had left behind lengthy reports of mainly his military activities, which made apparent that he had to defend Egypt against invasions of the Seapeople, as they are being called. This referred to large armies of warriors from the northern shores of the Mediterranean, warriors from people living on the Islands and in Western Anatolia. 85 According to the conventional chronology, Ramesses III accepted the throne of Egypt in 1186 BCE, following on the period of the 19th Dynasty, with pharao’s like Seti and Ramses II. That was also supposed to be the time when many kingdoms and city-states in the Greek world, in Anatolia and the Levant were plunged into chaos. But quite much has proved unclear or inexplicable since then. With this reconstruction, there was a large phase shift of events and time, by which also Ramses III had to be placed somewhere in the new history as composed. Ramses III left detailed information about his kingship, as inscriptions on the walls of his funerary temple at Medinet Habu, near Thebes, but especially on a papyrus scroll that has been dubbed "The Great Harris Papyrus". It is about 40 meter long and more than 40 cm high with around 120 columns of hieratic script. It is regarded as the testament of Ramses III, and was probably written by his successor and son. These texts mentioned the excellence of the king in the construction of the many temples, his generosity and benevolence, but also gives a lot of information about the events preceding the prosperity and peace which prevailed in Egypt at the time. Some of these texts are the following: “The land of Egypt was overthrown from without, and every man was thrown out of his right; they had no chief mouth for many years formerly until other times. The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and of rulers of towns; one slew his neighbour, great and small. Other times having come after it, with empty years. Yarsu, a certain Syrian, was with them as chief. He set the whole land tributary before him together; he united his

85 I.Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea, Doubleday & Co, New York, 1977. 122 companions and plundered their possessions. They made the Gods like men, and no offerings were presented in the temples.”

“But when the Gods inclined themselves to peace, to set the land in its right according to its accustomed manner, they established their son, who came forth from their limbs, to be ruler, L.H.P, of every land, upon their great throne, Userkhare-Setepnere-Meriamon, L.H.P., Son of Re, Setnakht-Mererre- Meriamon, L.H.P. He was Khepri-Set, when he is enraged, he set in order the entire land of Egypt, he cleansed the great throne of Egypt, he was Ruler,L.H.P., of the Two Lands, on the throne of Atum. He gave ready faces, which had been turned away. Every man knew his brother who had been walled in. He established the temples in possession of divine offerings, to offer to the Gods according tp their customary stipulations.” The first text described the overthrow of power in Egypt by foreigners, then a long-term oppression, poverty, injustice and crime. The document also mentioned Yarsu, also translated as Arsu or Arsa, who in earlier times had the organization and the power to exploit and the population and plunder the country. Such a desperate and difficult situation was quite out of the question in Egypt at the end of the 18th dynasty, which in the conventional chronology is considered to precede this period in the first half of the 12th century BCE. Which was not the case either in the period at the beginning of the 8th century BCE after the death of Ramses II, as seen in the reconstructed version of history. The second text referred to a new ruler of Egyptian birth by the name of Setnakht-Mererre- Meriamon, the father en predecessor of Ramses III, who liberated the whole country from evil, enabled order and peace, in the terms of the Great Harris Papyrus. A very important part of the enemy forces which had invaded Egypt consisted of the p-r-s-t, which could not be explained and comprehended, and who finally were defined as to be the Philistines.

The political developments in the Middle East went along completely different lines, in completely different power-political situations than the ones as currently understood and interpreted on basis of the texts as left by Ramses III. The dynamic political situation in the Middle East at the beginning of the 4th century BCE at the time of Nectanebo I led to many conflicts, uprisings and wars, which prove extremely well relevant to both the messages and data left by Ramses III as those left by Nectanebo I. The total of arguments and conformity between all the two situations and developments was a sufficient reason for Velikovsky to regard the one as an alter- ego of the other. He worked that out in Peoples of the Sea. 86 The following text will further go into some of the considerations as submitted by Velikovsky.

* In late 19th century , Edouard Naville and F.L.Griffith uncovered a palace of Ramses III some ninety kilometers north-east of Cairo. Large numbers of tiles were found with mostly flower motifs, a number of them were provided with the name of Ramses III, but all were marked on the back with the first letters of the name of the designer. There was no doubt possible: all these letters belonged to the Greek alphabet of the fourth century BCE. These Greek markings were also found elsewhere in the ruins.

86 I.Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea, Doubleday & Co, New York, 1977. 123

* The glazed front of the tiles showed motifs in relief on a blue field, which strikingly reminded Naville of Persian art, as widely manufactured in Persia in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, often with the lily motifs from Persepolis. 87

* Painted coffins found in tumuli in a necropolis not far from the excavated palace of Ramses III, which were dated as being from the same time, gave references to Setnakhte, Ramses III, and some following rulers, but also with epitaphs of deceased Greeks. Implementation, painting on the coffins, some inscriptions, Cypriot pottery, all that made it plausible for the excavators that the tombs should be dated to the Greek or Roman period of Egypt, which therefore would not be in agreement with the apparently necessary date in the 12th century BCE.

* The Great Harris Papyrus, which reported the overthrow of a foreign occupation, also mentioned that this preceded the government of Setnekhte. Also the prolonged period without any royal authority was identified. There is not any other period with a long-term foreign occupation of Egypt other than the one with the Hyksos, and that one was extremely long back in Egypt’s history.

* There is also mention of a major role for Yarsu as "Grand Chancellor" or "Governor" of the country, as a high official who snatched away all possessions and wealth of the country to himself and others. Velikovsky mentioned Arsames as the most likely identification for this Governor, who in the 5th century by a number of Persian kings was appointed as satrap and governor of Egypt. On parchment scrolls his name was written as Arsjam; Greek writers called him Arsames. This Arsames had the same role and function in Egypt as Yarsu, the official mentioned in The Great Harris Papyrus, and funtioned in the first decades of the Persian occupation. Arsames is known by his vicious and complacent attitude, his disdain for the gods of the land, and his enormous self-enrichment at the expense of the Egyptian society.

* A large part of the enemy warriors was indicated as P-r-s-t, which warriors in this context were identified as Persians. During the preceding and long-lasting period of the Persian occupation, the texts written were quite often referring to the Persians by the hieroglyphic characters P-r-s, added by a sign for a foreign country. In the Canopus Decree of 238 BCE, a reference was made to the Persians by writing P-r-s-tt, as an alternative for P-r-s-t.

* The army that was preparing to invade Egypt in the time of Ramses III consisted for the major part of warriors whose name was read as Pereset. The chief officers of them were also those who were in command of the whole army. Ramses III had engraved on the walls of his funerary temple in Medinet Habu not only his military victories, but also all his enemies. The most of these enemy warriors are the Pereset. They proved to belong to a well-organized state, they were well-dressed and well-armed. Neither these Pereset, nor the other

87 Naville, The Mound of the Jews, naar T.H.Lewis, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1881. 124 warriors could be regarded as belonging to roving hordes, driven from their lands, as was supposed. 88 The clothing and headdress, the armour, the appearance of the P-r-s-t warriors, everything appears to be very decisive for Persian warriors from the 4th century BCE.

* Velikovsky compared the scripts and engravings on the many battles with the hostile invaders, that were left by Ramses III, with the annals left by Greek writers from the 4th century BCE with regard to Nectanebo I. They must have been contemporaries, of whom many writings have been preserved. The writings of Diodorus of Sicily prove to be of great importance for the understanding of all these developments. 89

It appeared that a great part of the countries around the Mediterranean were in serious trouble. The situation in Greece, in the archipelago, in western Anatolia, was chaotic, alliances were made and broken. Diodorus wrote about a general anarchy in Greece at that time, about the the many uprisings and conflicts. There was again a war going on between the Greek city-states and the islands, the hegemony in the Greek world was at stake; the Corinthian war took place in the nineties of the fourth century BCE, and continued thereafter for many years; the Spartan king Agesilaos waged war against the Persians in the western part of Anatolia; Evagoras, king of Cyprus, took part in these conflicts by coming to the aid of the Athenians; the Persian king also supported Athens in their wars; Artaxerxes II himself had to contend with many uprisings in the vast Persian Empire. In those years, Egypt received some respite in its relationship with Persia.

* The changing relationships and alliances between Greek mercenaries and their leaders, and the armies of Persia, with all their quarrels and conflicts, and the pharaoh and his Egyptian forces, all of it can be read back on the reliefs of Ramses III at Medinet Habu and the texts of The Great Harris Papyrus. The reliefs of Ramses III show some remarkable details of the so-called Sea Peoples which invaded Egypt. That relates to the appearance of the men, who all turn out to be beardless, while all the Persian warriors of Darius wore beards a hundred year earlier. It also relates to their clothing and armour. And that is also valid for the armour of the various Greek armies, such as swords, spears, shields, which clearly display a changing arma- ment, exactly as it known for the Greeks in the early 4th century BCE. Iphicrates is renowned that he had considerably improved the assault power of his warriors around 390 BCE by changing the shape of their shields, their type of spears and swords. These different types of weapons can be traced back on the reliefs of Ramses III, where the main armies, their auxiliaries and the enemies are depicted in the mutually different outfit and equipment.

In 375 BCE King Artaxerxes II began his long-delayed campaign against Egypt, where Nectanebo I already was pharaoh for several years. From Egyptian sources nothing is known of the events during his reign which might serve as background. It was, however, especially Diodorus of Sicily, who provided the information on the progress of the war in which Persians invaded Egypt, and Greek forces supplied the military assistance, which

88 L.A.Stella, Rivista di Antropologia,1951-52). 89 Diodorus of Sicily, The Historical Library, vert. Sherman,Loeb Classical Library.

125 they did alternately to the two major parties that were involved. At the beginning of that war, Nectanebo had secured the assistance of an army commanded by the Athenian general Chabrias. Diodorus reported that they were able to resist the Persians. But one year later were the Athenians forced to call back Chabrias, and had the Persians managed to charter another Athenian army commanded by Iphicrates, after which the joint forces acted against Nectanebo. That became the great war in which Nectanebo was victorious. The developments of the time, the wars of Nectanebo, appear to completely fit into the picture rendered by the reliefs and inscriptions of Ramses III. Not all details were included in this brief review. The indications that the two pharaohs Ramses III and Nectanebo I in fact are one and the same person, however, turn out to be so strong that it might be considered beyond any doubt.

The Last Ramses Kings Until the new Persian occupation in 342 BCE, a number of kings came to the throne who have been known with the name Nectanebo or Tachos, but may also be identified with the name Ramses. From most of the kings by the name Ramses hardly anything is known. They should probably be considered as family members who could exercise local power, similar to the priest-kings. Only Tachos (362-360) and Nectanebo II (360-342) could be be identified to a reasonable degree, and therewith they may be included in the list of kings with the name Ramses. Nectanebo II lost control of his country by a new invasion of the Persians in 342 BCE. The dominant military power of Persia in the Middle East appeared to have been prevailing in this period, being the time of the 30th Dynasty, the last one of all the dynasties. The 20th Dynasty, with Ramses III and the following kings with the name Ramses, is considered to act in different times according to the conventional chronology (1188-1075), but is now placed in a complete different timeframe as part of this study, but is supposed to face similar circumstances, though the enemy got another identification. Although the Persian armies were repulsed after the death of Darius II in 404 BC, Egypt had not had a chance to build up a strong defense by its own means, and had always been dependent on the help of foreign mercenaries , mostly Greeks. The assistance of foreign armies was always conditional. It was not only very expensive, it was also dependent on the political and military situation of the moment. In the winter of 343 BCE Artaxerxes III finally marched upon Egypt’s eastern border with a huge army, and the Egyptian army under Nectanebo II was defeated in the ensuing battle of Pelusium. Nectanebo fled south and probably settled in Nubia. The Persians occupied Memphis and also took over the power in the rest of Egypt. Artaxerxes III plundered the country and destroyed the fortifications and the city walls.

The original 20th dynasty was followed by some other that were put together at the time under the name of “The Third Intermediate Period”. It included a Priest Dynasty, the 21st one, and also the dynasties with the Libyan Priest-Kings and the Nubian and Assyrian periods. The latter have all been discussed. It is of importance to consider the so-called 21st Dynasty in some detail, the priests and rulers which were then living in a period following on the First Persian Occupation, and successively in parallel with the reigns of the kings of the 30th Dynasty, being the last one, with the kings Nectanebo (Ramses III) and Tachos (Ramses IV).

126

The 21st Dynasty finally ended with the expulsion of the Persians by the invading Greek armies under Alexander after the brief Second Persian Occupation.

The 21st Dynasty The period of the so-called 21st Dynasty has been extensively studied, but that has not furnished much information which could provide some insight into the political relations in Egypt, and virtually nothing about the relations with the neighbouring countries. It concerns a dark period, with a lot of detail information about family ties and tombrobbing, which happened on a large scale. It is the general opinion that this period is one of a theocratic governed country in decline and in upheaval. Ancient tombs were plundered at night on a large scale, which has given the impression of a country in great poverty. No mention was ever made of a rich culture in handicraft and trade. There also was a waning authority. A number of names are known of priest-kings from this period, who were settled in Thebes, and a few in the northern Tanis, and it appears likely that the desert oases El-Khargeh in the south and Siwa in the northern Libyan desert were in the hands of a priest kings. These priest kings appear to have controlled the power in Egypt to a large extent. The many papyrus rolls found deal largely with trials and prosecution of tombrobbers. In addition, a number of inscriptions on temples provide some information. Practically all this information deal with Upper Egypt, with Thebes as its center. Ramesses XI appeared to have played a limited role in southern Egypt in this period, probably with having influence but not possessing any real power. He derived the influence apparently as a member of the royal family who previously had been in power in the country. The data that are available are so brief that only interpretations and an arrangement in a logical order apparently can provide some idea about that time.

At Deir el Bahari, the archaeologists Maspero and Brugsch found in 1881 a burial chamber at the end of a long corridor, where a very large number of mummies of famous kings had been brought together. They were all found to be wrapped again and been provided with new bandages. The names of those kings were carefully written on the bandages, with an added indication of the person's name who had bandaged the mummy again. Some of the mummies were of previous famous kings, but also the mummy of Ramses III was found, who had died not long before. The relocation of all the mummies from their own tombs to a common, simple and highly secret new crypt was executed under the supervision of the High Priests themselves. These priests were Herihor and Paiankh, and their sons Peinuzem, Mesahert, Menkheperre, and finally Si-Amun. On that time, they all were priests with Thebes in Upper Egypt as their background. Peinoezem was the man who re-wrapped the mummy of Ramses III. This secret relocation of all these mummies must have involved a huge amount of work, which also gives an indication how seriously the situation had derailed around the robberies of the many tombs. The new depository was sealed in “year 10”.

Very broadly, a sketch has been givenof a late phase in Egyptian history, but it is desirable to go further into the matter.

127

* A story is rendered in the Mayer Papyrus A of a witness who explained at a court that he had been seized by the barbarians, who had taken the temple, and only had been set free after a very long time. That occurred nine months after Amenhotep, the High Priest of Amun, was expulsed from office. A relief of High Priest Amenhotep has been found in Karnak, on which he was depicted together with Ramesses XI.

* The Papyus Abbott provided information about the same grave robbers as the Papyrus Mayer, and dated the incident in Year 1 van Whm-mswt, corresponding to Year 19. Whm-mswt was translated as "the first year in the Repetition of Births."

* The barbarians who were named in the Papyrus Mayer appeared to be organized in army units under the command of captains, whose commander was Pinehesy. Pinehesy turned out to be a man of power, he was provided with the title "King's Son of Kush" with all the associated far reaching resources of power.

* The priest Wenamon was sent on a journey to Byblos by his superior, the High Priest Herihor. He was instructed to buy cedar wood for a new “Bark of Amun” that was to be built. The tale has been preserved and it still gives an expressive history of the state in which both Egypt and the coastal states were in, and thereby a fascinating impression of the dangerous conditions during the voyage along the coast. This voyage was dated in Year 5 of Whm-mswt. A number of scientists appear to believe that this report actually is fiction, referring to the intricate and literary structure of the plot. The social and political situation in the Levant in the fourth century BCE, however, makes the tale of Wenamon's trip to Byblos very relevant and certainly in line with the known developments of the time. It should also be noted that Herihor had let engrave the instruction to pur- chase cedar wood in Byblos in the Khonsu Temple at Karnak. Traces of Wenamon have also been found in inscriptions in the Siwa oasis, which must be dated at about the time of Nectanebo II. Cartouches of Nectanebo II were found on stone slabs in the ruins of the temple of Umm-Ebeida, together with the name of the builder Wenamon. From the latter, there was still a text: "The true master, the great leader of the foreign countries, Wenamon." 90

* Some labels on a few mummy coffins in Deir el Bahari, particularly those of Seti I and Ramses II, were marked with the name of Herihor as High Priest in the Year 6 of Whm-mswt.

* It is not clear when Herihor died. Piankh was mentioned to be High priest in Thebes, which suggests that he succeeded Herihor. The first time Piankh was being mentioned was Year 7. Herihor might have died then.

* Ramses XI was also mentioned in some document for an event in Year 7, at the appointment of Nesamoen as a scribe at Karnak. Ramses XI must still have been alive at the time. But the last time Ramses XI was referred to appeared to be Year 10.

* Piankh appeared to have marched with an army to Nubia in Year 10, where he wanted to fight Pinehesy.

90 I.Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea, Doubleday & Co., New York, 1950. 128

Earlier, Pinehesy had been the ruler in southern Egypt, appointed as Vice-roy, but he now appeared to have been driven away to Nubia, where Piankh apparently still considered him to be in a position to endanger southern Egypt. This also appears to have been the last information on Piankh.

Considerations ** A period with a length of 10 year had apparently ended , in which years were counted without any reference to a reigning pharao, as previously always had been common, but in a new calendar. The Persian occupation of the country in those years was not referred to in the preceding tekst. The Persians had invaded in 342 BCE, and ruled it over a period of 10 years until 332. Their occupation and rule ended with the expulsion of the Persians by the Greek armies under Alexander. This 10-year during count in a new calendar appears to have the same time-span as the time of the Second Persian Occupation. It also corresponds with the other calendar, which apparently was still used at the beginning of the period, to which the Papyrus Abbott was referring to when it made Year 1 of Whm-mswt equivalent to a Year 19 . The latter may be understood as the reigning time of Nectanebo II, which happened to be 18 years, plus the one year that had passed since his expulsion.

** The Persian occupation was characterized by the use of an indigenous goverment, loyal to the Persian demands. Military forces were stationed in remote scattered strongholds. Of Pinehesy e.g. is known that he in earlier times acted as head of the tax-office in the area of Thebes, at the time of the last Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses VI (then also Nectanebo II), therefore prior to the Persian occupation. It is also possible that the government of Upper Egypt was committed to Ramesses XI for a number of years before the Persians invaded the country. Pinehesy apparently sided with the Persian rulers and then was appointed vice-roy of the southern country, and therefore could dispose of large resources and power. Then came the time that Darius III, the Persian king, had to redraw his armies from Anatolia after suffering great defeats. Pinehesy also must have felt it highly desirable to leave for Nubia. And Piankh felt it necessary to send an army to that particular area in order to break the power of Pinehesy.

** Psusennes, son of the High Priest Nesoebanebded of Tanis, inherited his father’s position and was also regarded as king, as previously was the case with Herihor in Thebes. That was characteristic of the powerful position of the various priest-kings. High Priest Nesoebanebded of Tanis was also the military ruler to whom Wenamon had to hand over his mandate letters before he was allowed to embark to Byblos. Meanwhile, Egypt was taken up in the Hellenic world under the Ptolemies.

129

Conclusions

In this study it was investigated whether a major shift of historical data from the Late Bronze Age to much later centuries could be made valid in regard to all the historical data known from kingdoms being part of the 9th century and later. The background for it was the disappointing lack of sufficient archaeological data from a number of areas around the Mediterranean for a considerable space of time, which was casting doubts on the validity of the archaeological data. A considerable shift of data in the Egyptian chronology appeared to allow for a new framework, which appears to make a quite acceptale new chronology for this whole area in the Early Iron Age. The shift of the end of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty to the 9th century BCE was the starting point of this hypothesis. A number of arguments were brought forward to make this concept conceivable and acceptable. The historical data of countries like the Land of Hatti, Mitanni and Ugarit also had to be moved to this much later period, in common with those of Egypt, which led to the question whether this whole set of data and information could be placed in this entirely “new” and later period, and at the same time be integrated in a logical way with the known history of the countries of the time, as e.g. Assyria. This study rests completely on research of archaeological publications on the history of the Ancient Middle East. Almost all of the archaeological material that was found, excavated and preserved appeared to be of a fragmentary nature, and only could contribute to the total of the puzzle in small parts. The consequence of it is that the overall picture only could be made on basis of interpretation. The movement of history of the Ancient Mediterranean World to the period of the Early Iron Age appears to lead to quite satisfactory results, within the bounds of the furnished data. It is evident that very complicated changes in the existing scientifically supported Egyptian history were required, which made extensive attention to this subject very necessary. But it appears that these changed Egyptian dates and relations can be fully integrated in all the other international connections The historical data of the Land of Hatti, of Mitanni, of the city-states along the coast and of Ugarit were completely transformed to the later centuries and appear to fit very well in this new world. They also provide for a better explanation and understanding of these countries with regard to their neighbours and of the social- political developments in the area. Incidentally, it is quite remarkable that the time-space of the 9th and 8th centuries could provide for the possibility of this integration, as if the history of these areas practically appeared not to have been fully written yet. The Timescheme does hardly allow for modifications, because it is so highly dependent on the “Hittite” chronology. Would a serious change to data or time be considered or felt necessary it might lead to turn down the hypothesis used as a basis for this study.

130

Addendum 1

Radiocarbon Dating and Dendrochronology

Many scientists have had quite some scepticism about the claimed accuracy in date and time of events that have been determined for the cultures of the Ancient Middle East, or even in the chronological time frame itself. That has been the reason for the foregoing study. To achieve a better understanding of the subject, it was necessary to move several series of events and historical data over many centuries to a later time. This proved to be necessary for most of the regions and countries of the Ancient Middle East in the Late Bronze Age. The current prevailing views on the chronology of these prehistoric Late Bronze Age events, however, have been supported by C-14 Radiocarbon measurements in some instances, and occasionally by dendrochronology. A new approach to the historical time frame referred to can only be judged by its true merits when dating methods as used, being Radiocarbon Dating and Dendrochronology, also come under discussion. There appear to be serious doubts indeed by applying radio-carbon technology for dating the prehistory of the Eastern Mediterranean Area, which also applies to the statistical processing of data by dendrochronology. Critical commentary will be discussed in the following sections on both scientific methods.

C-14 Radiocarbon dating method

The published measurement results always provide a standard distribution of data, due to the uncertainties associated with the technology used in the laboratory. Therefore, Carbon-14 dates always will be quoted with a Standard Deviation. However, a number of the published data appear to be substantially inconsistent with the figures and data supplied by the archaeologists. The Standard Deviation is expressed as ± a number of years, associated with a corresponding Confidence Level. The Standard Deviation of the final figure of the laboratory test will become higher when a high Confidence Level was required. These reported deviations were not a problem for the acceptance of the data. The problem consisted of the large discrepancies that were found to exist between archaeological dates and the published C-14 dates for the relevant sites. These discrepancies were especially seen to exist for certain archaeological sites in the eastern part of the Ancient Mediterranean Area. A number of archaeologists maintain that the published C-14 dates are much too early, meaning they yield a much earlier date than is archaeologically acceptable for the corresponding sites. Dates are determined on the basis of the decay of a small amount of radioactive C14-atoms in the living organism of animals and plants over several thousands of years, a decay that started at the time the absorption of C-14 atoms from the atmosphere halted at the death of the organism. These radioactive carbonatoms were generated at the time by radiation from space. The remaining amount of radioactive material at the time

131

Addendum 1 of measurement thus determines the final date of living of the investigated subject. A number of factors appear to have had influence on the outcome, of which the most influential are:

** Volcanoes had a significant effect in the past when they released “old carbon” containing gases before they erupted. This was to have an aging effect on the radiocarbon measurements on the objects to be dated. ** The impact of the exchange of CO₂ -gases between the seawater surface and the atmosphere on the winds blowing in from sea. This exchange was also affected by the flow of “old carbon” containing water from the Deep Water Currents to the seasurface. ** The assumption of a constant ratio of C-14 and C-12 atoms in the atmosphere over time turned out to be not correct.

Corrections have been applied meanwhile for various adverse effects on the accuracy of the Radiocarbon methodology, of which dendrochronology proved to be the most important. That does not alter the fact, however, that the persisting gap between archaeological and radiocarbon dating, especially for the countries around the Eastern Mediterranean, still is a source of great concern. The problems encountered are mainly found in the time scale used for Egypt. Peter James et.al., among others, referred to this problem in "Centuries of Darkness", in which they stated that the C-14 datings did not to lead to an acceptable solution, because they prove to be very ambiguous for the whole area.91 James et al. also made the following critical remark.: "Unfortunately, calibration is not a simple matter - the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere fluctuated greatly in the past, at times falling and then rising again significantly within a single century. The calibration curve produced by comparing radiocarbon dates to the tree-ring chronology, rather than being a smooth progression, is full of short-term wiggles. At certain points a radiocarbon result can be calibrated to several alternative calendar dates, without any way of being sure which is the correct choice."

Douglas Keenan published a critical article in 2002 on the application of the C-14 dating method for the Mediterranean. 92 This article started with a brief summary:

"Several authors have claimed that radiocarbon dates in the Ancient Near East are to early. Herein, a hypothesis is presented that might explain this. Marine degassing of "old" carbon, that is C14- deficient C, induced by upwelling of old subsurface water, has been observed in modern times to cause century-scale C14 ages in the surface atmosphere. A review of the Mediterranean Sea post-ice-age circulation concludes that the subsurface waters became very old, primarily due to to millennia-long stagnation. It is hypothe-

91 Peter James et al., Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, London, 1992. 92 D.J.Keenan, Why Early-Historical Radiocarbon Dates downwind from the Mediterranean are too early, Radiocarbon, Vol. 44, nr.1, Univ. of Arizona, 2002.

132

Addendum 1

sized that as the stagnation ended, subsurface waters were brought towards the surface, where they degassed old carbon. Additionally, Anatolian dendrochronology is shown not to contradict the hypothesis. "

For the paleo-oceanographic conditions of the Mediterranean Keenan referred to scientific research where scientists had come to the conclusion that its salinity underwent a large reduction by global rising sea levels after about 9000 BCE. This was mainly caused by a high amount of fresh water flowing back from the former Black Lake. The salinity and therefore the specific gravity of the water layers on the sea-surface were thereby significantly reduced. The reduced-density surface water greatly diminished the formation of new Intermediate Water and also the (Eastern) Mediterranean Deep Water (EMDW) and reversely the flow upwards to the surface. Ultimately the continual formation of new EMDW, which was specific for the eastern part of the Mediterranean, came to a final stop. Some of the Intermediate Waters were probably also largely stagnated. This period of stagnation lasted for a significant period of time. The data as presented by Keenan suggest that the stagnation in the flow patterns started to slowly change again around 4000 BCE and probably ended until about the beginning of the current era. The current modern circulation between the various seawater levels was supposed to be fully developed again at about that time. Only the layers of water at the sea surface and directly underneath are able to absorb C-14 from the atmosphere. The stagnation in the EMDW waterlayers of the Eastern Mediterranean in that long period of time was the main factor for the large increase and storage of "old carbon". This situation was certainly augmented by the carbonisation of C-14 deficient material in the collision of the African and Eurasian- Anato- lian tectonic plates deep in the Mediterranean and the concomitant vulcanism in the distant past. Certain other effects also played their role. The layers of air above sealevel absorb the type of carbon atoms emitted by the sea-water, because of the equilibrium between the surfacewater and the air above it. Sea-vapours in this early historical time contained primarily C-14 deficient carbon atoms, which therefore showed a reduced radiation. The westerly winds blew the air, the watervapours, over the eastern regions in the Mediterranean. The resulting absorption of C-14 deficient carbon in plants and animals affected the measurements that were carried out thousands of years later, measurements that would result in too-early dates.

Dendrochronology

Radiocarbon measurements are being corrected for all kind of interferences and disturbancies that might occur, for which a correction via dendrochronology, the dating of an element of wood from the same archaeological layer, is the most important. Therefore one has to dispose of a "Standard Dendrochronology" for that particular region, a sequence of tree rings developed for a very long period of time, which were put

133

Addendum 1 together by means of many series of overlapping sequences of rings. A Standard Chronology is to be based on samples of the same species of trees, grown-up in the same climate and soil type, and preferably the same region: the geographical area of origin must exactly be known. The overlap of two sequences should be at least 80 - 100 rings, the exact number being subject of a difference of opinion. Very important is knowledge of the cutting-date of the particular tree of which wood was found, because in Anatolia wood was often used time and again. Reuse of a wooden beam was evidently a standard practice in Anatolia of Antiquity, as examples have been found that had an age of 1000 years. The matching of two sets of a series of rings can hardly be done visually, because a multitude of parallel ring patterns with the sequence and relation of their bandwidths appears to require an investigation by statistical analysis in computersoftware in order to be reliable. Douglas J.Keenan wrote a critical article in 2006 about the reliability of dendrochronology for the Old World in Anatolia. His criticism mainly focused on the Standaardchronologies of Gordion and Tille Höyük, the last location in eastern Anatolia, and their use for dating via "matching" with locally-assembled chronologies.93 Keenan's argument was mainly directed to three serious problems in the tree ring studies for Anatolia, in summary:

** The method of statistical analysis of the data used, can lead to an unnoticed incorrect match with the Standard. ** The composite chronology for Tille Höyük, using the charcoal remains of an excavated wooden gate, was composed of samples from 26 trees. It was composed of sample-sequences that had the very small overlap of respectively 30, 40 and 60 tree rings. This Standard Dendrochronology should therefore be regarded as having no value. It should also be remarked that the total chronology spanned 218 years and had to be matched to “a fixed date” by other means. ** A completely visual analysis was made, which should be regarded as having an illusory value..

A number of other problems appears to have complicated the statistical analysis, such as:

** The analysed pieces of wood may have been very old and be reused several times without being noticed as such at the analysis. ** A sequence of woodrings should only be made by using samples from one species of timber, and also from trees growing in the same region. It appeared that no attention was paid to this important requirement. That also made the outcome of the analysis unreliable. ** Anatolia has many different climatic zones, wherein conditions of soil, wind and rain appear to be quite different. It should also be noted that the climatic conditions in Anatolia have changed dramatically over the last millennia

93 Douglas J.Keenan, Anatolian Tree-ring Studies are Untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London, 2006

134

Addendum 2 Existing Chronology (1400 – 1075 BCE)

Egypt Aram Ugarit Assyria Mitanni Hatti 13 90 x x x x x x 1380 Amenhotep III Shuttarna II (1390-1353) 1370 Ammishtamru I x ( ? -1350) x 1360 - x Ashur-Uballit Tudhaliya III x (1363-1328) (1360-1344) 1350 Akhnaton Abdi-Ashirta Tushratta x (1353-1336) 1340 x Niqmaddu II Shuppiluliuma I Smenkhare (1350-1315) x Shuttarna III (1344-1322) 1330 Tuthankhamon Enlil-Ninari Ai x Aziru x x 1320 x Arik-D1206-1203)en-Ili Horemhab Arhalba (1317-1306) Murshili II 1310 (1319-1292) ? (1315-1313) x (1321-1295) 1300 Adad-Nirari I x Ramses I (1292-1290) (1305-1274) Muwatalli 1290 Niqmepa (1295-1272) Seti I x (1313-1260) Shattuara 1280 (1290-1279)- x x 1270 Murshili III x Shalmanasser I 1260 (1273-1244) Hattushili Ammishtamru II (1267-1237) 1250 (1260-1235) x Ramses II 1240 (1279-1213) x x Tukulti-Ninurta Kurunta 1230 Ibiranu (1243-1207) Tudhaliya IV Niqmaddu III (1227-1209) 1220 x (1235-1215) Merenptah(1213-1203) x 1210 x x x Arnuwanda Seti II (1203-1196) Ashur-Nadin-Apli Shuppiluliuma II 1200 x Ashur-Nirari III (1207- ? ) A.messe-Siptah Enlil-Kudurri-Usur 1190 Tawosret Ammurapi Ninurta-Apal-Ekur Sethnakte(1188-1186) (1215- ? ) x 1180

1170 Ramses III Ashur-Dan I (1186-1155) (1178-1133) 1160 x Ramses IV (1155-1148) 1150 Ramses V (1148-1143) Ramses VI (1143-1135) 1140 Ramses VII (1135-1129) x x 1130 Ramses VIII (1129-1127) Ashur-Resha-Ishi (1132-1115)- 1120 Ramses IX (1127-1108) x x 1110 Ramses X (1108-1104) Tiglath-Pileser I 1100 Ramses XI (1104-1075) (1114-1076)

135

Addendum 2

Existing Chronology Egypt (1100 – 330 BCE)

Dynasty 21 Dynasty 24 725 - 712 Smendes 1075 - 1044 Amenemnisu 1044 – 1040 Dynasty 25 Psusennes I 1040 - 990 Nubian Dynasty 712 - 664 Amenemope 993 - 984 Assyrian conquest 671 - 664 Siamun 978 - 960 Psusennes II 960 - 945 Dynasty 26 Necho I 672 - 664 Dynasty 22 Psamtik I 664 - 610 Shoshenq 945 - 924 Necho II 610 - 595 Osorkon I 924 - 889 Psamtik II 595 - 589 Takelot I 889 - 874 Apries 589 - 570 Osorkon II 874 - 850 Ahmose 570 - 526 Takelot II 850 - 825 Psamtik III 526 - 525 Shoshenq III 825 - 773 Pami 773 - 767 Dynasty 27 Shoshenq V 767 - 730 First Persian Occupation 525 - 404 Osorkon IV 730 - 715 ? Dynasty 28 404 - 399 Dynasty 23 Dynasty 29 399 - 380 Pedubast I 818 - 793 Shoshenq IV 793 - 787 Dynasty 30 Osorkon III 787 - 759 Nectanebo I 380 - 362 Takelot III 764 - 757 Tachos 362 - 360 Rudjamon 757 - 754 Nectanebo II 360 - 343 Iuput 754 - 715 ? Second Persian Occupation 343 - 332

136

Bibliography

Aldred, C. ,1957. The End of the el-Amarna Period, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Akurgal, E., 1955. Phrygische Kunst , Ankara. Astour, M.C., 1965. New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.69, no.3, Archaeological Institute of America. Badawi, A., 1956. Das Grab des Kronprinzen Scheschonk, Sohnes Osorkon´s II und Hohenpriesters von Memphis, Annales du Service des Antiquités, vol.54. Bakry, H., 1973. The Discovery of a Temple of Merneptah on Ön, Aegyptus. Beckman, G., 1983. Mesopotamians at Hattusa, Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Hattusa, JCS. 35.97-114, Yale University. Beckman, G., 1995. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol.I : Royal Ideology and State Administration in Hittite Anatolia, Simon&Schuster Macmillan, New York. Beckman,G., 2000. Hittite Chronology, Akkadica 119-120, Brussels. Bissing, F.W.von, 1938. Das Grab des Petamenophis in Theben, Zeitschrift fùr Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde LXXIV. Breasted, J., 1905. A History of Egypt, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Breasted, J., 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol.III, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Breasted, J., 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt Vol. IV, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Broekman, G.P., Demarrée,R.J., Kaper,O.E., 2009. The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21th -24th Dynasties. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Leiden. Bryce, T., 1999. The Kingdom of the Hittites, Oxford University Press, New York. Caminos, R., 1954. Late-Egyptian Miscellanies, Oxford University Press, London. Cimok,F., ed. 2008. The Hittites and Hattusa, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul. Cordani, V., 2011. One Year or Five Year War? A Reappraisal of Suppiluliuma’s First Syrian Campaign, Altoriental. Forsch., Akademie Verlag, 38 (2011) 2. Dani, Mohen, Lorenzo, Masson, 1996. History of Humanity-Scientific and Cultural Development: From the Third Millennium to the Seventh Century BC (Vol. II), Unesco. Diakonov, 1997. Armenians, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, edited by Mallory and Adams, Fitzroy Dearborn. Diodorus of Sicily, The Historical Library, vert. Sherman,Loeb Classical Library. Dirkzwager, A., 1981. Pharao So and the Libyan Dynasty, Catastrophism and Ancient History. A Journal of Interdisciplinary Study Dothan,T., 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron:The Aegean Affinities of the Sea Peoples, Archaeological Institute of America, Dubuque, Iowa. Dothan,T.,2005. Tel Miqne-Ekron, Summary of Fourteen Seasons of Excavation 1981-1996, Albright Institute/Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

137

Bibliography

Drake,B.L.,2012. The influence of climatic change on the Late Bronze Age and the Greek Dark Ages, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque, Journal of Archaeological Science. Dubovsky, Tiglath Pileser´s campaigns 734 /732 BC, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome. Emre, Kutlu, 1993. Essays on Anatolian Archaeology: The Hittite dam of Karakuyu, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden. Ensert, H.K., 2006. The Seal Impression of Tudhaliya IV, Anadolu, Anatolia 30. Fantalkin,A., 2012. Mediterranean Chronology during the Iron Age: View from the East, Tel Aviv University. Finkelstein, F., 2001. The Rise of Jeruzalem and Judah, Tel Aviv University. Frenzel et al., 2009. Quantitive Reconstruction of Climatic Variations during the Bronze Age and Early Iron Ages in Lake le Bourget, Quaterny International. Gardiner, A., 1953. The Memphite Tomb of the General Haremhab, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 39. Gardiner, A., 1964. Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford University Press, New York. Gjerstad, E. et.al., 1934-1937. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 1927-1931, Stockholm. Gordin,S., 2008. Scribal Families of Hattusa in the 13th Century BCE, Dept. of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University. Grayson, A.K., 2000. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana. Grayson, A.K., 2004. Shalmanasser III and the Levantine States: The Damascus Coalition, The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. Guido, M., 1963. Sardinia, Thames and Hudson, London. Haran, M., 1958. Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 8, No.1. Harris, J.E.,and K.E.Weeks, 11973. X-raying the Pharaoh’s, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Harrison,T.P., 2009. Exploring the Longue Durée: Lifting the Veil on a “Dark Age”:Taciynat and the North Orontes Valley during the Early Iron Age. Winona Lake, Indiana. Hawkins, J.D., 2009. The Arzawa Letters in recent perspective, British Museum Studies. Helck, W., 2006. Handbook of Ancient Egyptian Chronology,ed.Hornung, Kraus & Warburton, Brill, Leiden. Herodotus, The Histories-II. Hittites.info., Information about the Hittites, Hittite Archive Website. Hopper, R., 2010. The Monuments of Amenmesse and Sethi II: A Historical Inquiry, University of Memphis. Hout, T. van den. Fathom archive, Miles of Clay: Information Management in the Ancient Near Eastern Hittite Empire, The University of Chicago Library, Digital Collections. Jack, J.W., 1935. The Ras Shamra Tablets, T&T Clark, Edinburgh James, P., et. al., 1992. Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, London. Jaquet-Gordon, H., 1967. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 53. Jennings,R.,2010. The Hellenization of Cyprus in the Late Cypriot III and Beyond: Detecting Migrations in the Archaeological Record, University of Albany. Kaniewsky et al., 2010. Late second–early first millenium abrupt climate changes in coastal Syria and their possible significance for the history of the Eastern Mediterranean., Quaterny Research Report.

138

Bibliography

Keenan, D.J., 2002. Early-Historical RC Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol.44.1. Keenan, D.J., 2004. Radiocarbon dates from Iron Age Gordion are confounded, Ancient West & East 3:100-103. Keenan, D.J., 2006. Anatolian Treering Studies are Untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London. Killebrew, A.E., 1998. The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millenium, Aegeum 18, Cline and Harris-Cline, eds. Luik. Kroll,S., Gruber,C., Hellwag,U.,Roaf,M.,Zimansky,P.,2007. Biainili-Urartu, The Proceedings of the Munich Symposium Lepsius, 1849-1859. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, Berlin.Lowell,I.R., (transl.). Annals of Mursilis II, Association des Amis de la Civilisation Hittite. Luckenbill, D.,1921. Hittite Treaties and Letters, The American Journal of Semitic languages and Literatures, Vol.37, University of Chicago. Luckenbill, D., 1926. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Luukko, M., 2012. The Correspondence of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud. The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project (Helsinki), Eisenbraun, Winona Lake, Indiana. Mackenzie, D.A. Project Gutenberg’s Myths of Babylonia and Assyria. Martino, S. de, 2010. Studien zu den Bogazköy Texten, Pax Hethitica, Edited by Yoran Cohen, Amir Gilcen, Jared Miller, Harassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden. Melchert,H.C., 2002, Tarhuntassa in the Südburg Hieroglyphic Inscription, Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History, ed. by Yener and Hoffner, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana. Melchert,H.C., 2006. Mycenaean and Hittite Diplomatic Correspondence: Facts and Fiction. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Paper presented on Montreal Conference. Miller, J. 2007. Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibhururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text., Alt Orientalische Forschungen 34. Montet, P. 1956. Isis, Paris. Mora,C., d’Alfonso, L., 2012. Anatolia after the End of the Hittite Empire, New Evidence from Southern Cappadocia, Origini XXXIV. Murnane,W.J., 1985. The Road to Kadesh. A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization no.47. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Muscarella, O., 2003. The date of the destruction levels at Gordion, Ancient West & East 2. Muscarella, O. Winged Bull Cauldron Attachments from Iran, Metropolitan Museum Journal, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Naville, 1881. The Mound of the Jews, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. Palmer,J., 2014. The High Priests of Amun at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. Birmingham Egyptology Journal. Palmer,L.,R., 1961. Mycenaeans and Minoans, Faber and Faber, London.

139

Bibliography

Pavúk,P.,2007. Greu Wares as a Phenomenon, Project Aegeo-Balkan Prehistory, Comenius University Bratislava and Austrian Archaeological Institute Vienna. Payne, A., 2012. Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Writings from the Ancient World. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, Georgia. Petrie, 1897. Six Temples at Thebes, Bernard Quaritch, London. Rouge, M. le Vicomte de, 1918. Etude sur quelques monuments de regne de Tarhaka, Melanges d´Archeologie, Vol.I,1873. Prisse d´Avennes, Monuments egyptiens,Paris, 1847. Reprinted in Bibliotheque egyptologique 28. Sayce,A.H., 1925. The Kingdom of Van (Urartu), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol.XX, pp.169-186, Cambridge. Schaeffer, C., 1939. Cuneiform Texts of Ras Sharma-Ugarit, Oxford University Press, London. Schaeffer, C., 1983. Ugaritica V, The Center for Online Judaic Studies. Seeher,J., 2011. Gods Carved in Stone, The Hittite Rock Sanctuary of Yazlikaya, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul. Silver,C., 2010. From Priestess to Princess, Archaeology Institute of America, Archive Archaeology on Line. Singer,I., 2006. The failed reforms of Akhenaten and Muwatalli, BMSAES 6, 37-58, London. Snodgrass,A.,1980. Archaic Greece, University of California Press,Berkeley-L.A. Steiner, M., 1998. The Archaeology of Ancient Jeruzalem, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. Stella, L.A., 1951-1952. Rivista di Antropologia. Ünal.A.,1989. The Power of Narrative in Hittite Literature, Biblical Archaeologist, June-Sept. Ünal.A.,1991. Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian studies in the 2nd and Ist millennium BC: Two peoples on both sides of the Aegean Sea: Did the Achaeans and the Hittites know each other? Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Vansteenhuyse, Al-Maqdisse, Degryse, Van Lerberghe, 2006. The Distribution of Mycenaean Ceramics in the Kingdom of Ugarit, Directorate-General of Antiquities (Syria) and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Velikovsky, I. 1952. Ages in Chaos, Doubleday & Co, New York. Velikovsky, I.,1977. Peoples of the Sea, Doubleday & Co, New York. Velikovsky, I. 1978. Ramses II and his Time, Sidgwick&Jackson, London. Velikovsky, I. Archive Website:The Assyrian Conquest. Virolleaud, C., 1929. Les Inscriptions cunéiformes de Ras Shamra, Syria, Revue d’ art oriental et d’archéologie. Virolleaud, C., 1940. Suppiluliuma et Niqmad d’Ugarit, Revue hittite et asianique. Voskos,I., Knapp, A.B.,2008. Cyprus at the End pf the Late Bronze Age: Crisis and Colonization or Continuity and Hybridization? American Journal of Archaeology 112, 659-684. Waddell, W.G., 1940. Manetho, Loeb Classical Library, London. Webarchive History Department of University College London, 2008-2013. Assyrian Empire Builders. Website Gordion Archaeological Project , 2015. Penn Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Yakubovich, I., 2008. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language, The University of Chicago, Chicago. Yakubovich, I., 2009. The Luvian Enemy, Kadmos 47 (1-2), 1-19. Young, R.S., 1953. Gordion: Preliminary Report, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.59.

140