Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt

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

Prophet Nahum and resistance to Assyria

by Damien F. Mackey “The LORD has given a command concerning you, Nineveh: ‘You will have no descendants to bear your name. I will destroy the images and idols that are in the temple of your gods. I will prepare your grave, for you are vile’.” Nahum 1:14 The writings of the prophet Nahum so resemble those of Isaiah that I concluded in my postgraduate university thesis (2007) that this was one and the same mighty prophet. Nahum as Isaiah In my section, Books of Isaiah and Nahum (Volume Two, pp. 98-102), I painstakingly compared most of the Nahum text with Isaiah, including in the Hebrew, and found example after example of either identical, or like, passages. My conclusion that Nahum was the Simeonite Isaiah: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (4) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu may be supported by the tradition (e.g. Pseudo-Epiphanius, De Vitis Prophetarum) that the prophet Nahum was a Simeonite. Moreover the Hebrew name, Nahum (נַחוּם), from the verb to comfort, could have been applied to the prophet at a later stage of his life, for the latter part of the Book of Isaiah (beginning with Chapter 40) is all about Israel being comforted: Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted (8) Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Assyrian Names Isaiah, who will write abundantly on Assyria – but usually never favourably – will tend to refer to its leaders impersonally, such as “the Assyrian” (Isaiah 10:5-19): “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! or allegorically (14:12-27): How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! In my thesis (Volume Two, p. 77), I wrote on this famous Oracle: In regard to this poem’s historical basis, Boutflower is helpful when favourably recalling Sir Edward Strachey’s “belief that the king of Babylon, against whom the “parable” of Isa. xiv was hurled, was a king of Assyria” … a king of Assyria, that is, who ruled over Babylon. … Boutflower was convinced that this was Tiglath-pileser III …. Others have not been able to unravel so skillfully as did Strachey the intertwining of Babylon and Assyria in this Oracle. Thus Moriarty: … “Some think this oracle … of ch. 14, was originally applied to Assyria and only later referred to Babylon”. Strachey’s view is, I believe, the correct one. …. The first notable exception in Isaiah will be the famous verse, Isaiah 20:1: “In the year that the Turtan, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it …”. Until the advent of modern archaeology in the C19th AD, this was the only known reference to Sargon (II), so no one knew who he actually was. By Chapter 36, though, Isaiah - probably by now copying from historical records (cf. 2 Kings 18:13) - begins to name the Assyrian king by his personal name, “Sennacherib” (36:1): “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them”. Chapters 36-38 are pre-occupied with this phase of crisis for the kingdom of Judah. Nahum’s Father With biographical and patronymical details being almost entirely absent from the Book of Nahum, we need to turn to the Book of Isaiah to find out who the father was: namely, Amos (Amoz) (1:1). He, too, has multi-identifications, most notably as Micah (also the Simeonite prophet, Zephaniah/Sophonias). Micah and his son, Isaiah, are a prophetical combination, going “barefoot and naked”, when Samaria is threatened (Micah 1:8), and when Sargon II sent his general against Ashdod (Isaiah 20:2). The combination is found named again in Judith 4:14-15: “… the magistrates of their town [“Bethulia], who in those days were Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon …”. Micah (= Amos), a Simeonite, now deceased, was the father of Uzziah (Isaiah). But what were these southern Judeans doing now in the north, in “Bethulia” (Bethel), which is Shechem? Nahum as Hosea (Uzziah) Simeonites had gone north as early as the days of King Asa of Judah: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/asas-religious-reforms “Note that Simeon’s territory originally lay in the south, surrounded by Judah’s tribal allotment (Josh. 19:1–9), but for reasons not entirely known to us, many Simeonites moved north”. This would presumably have made it more companionable for the Simeonite, Amos, to go northwards at the Lord’s command (Amos 7:14-15): “I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. But the LORD took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.” He is actually found, as Micaiah, prophesying during the reign of King Ahab of Israel. At some stage, Amos’s son, Isaiah (Nahum) must have followed his father to Bethel, for we find him, too, in the north, now as the prophet Hosea: Did Isaiah and Hosea ever meet? (9) Did Isaiah and Hosea ever meet? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu There he married, Gomer, a typically ‘adulterous’ product of the northern kingdom (Hosea 1:2-3). Never a dull moment in the life of our composite Nahum! Hosea is found as Uzziah in the Book of Judith, a man of great standing. For this Uzziah was entitled both ‘the prince of Judah’ and ‘the prince of the people of Israel’ (Douay version of Book of Judith). The rabbis of the Talmud tell that his father, Amos, was the brother of King Amaziah of Judah. The Book of Judith, probably written by the High Priest, Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, the great prophet, “the high priest Joakim” of the book (Judith 4:6) - rather than by Isaiah - is, of course, all about the conflict with the Assyrians. It, in fact, provides the key to what happened to Sennacherib’s army of 185,000. And Uzziah was there front and centre (right in the front row seat) to witness it. But he is overshadowed by that extraordinary heroine, probably a relative, Judith. Judith the “daughter of Merari” (Judith 8:1; 16:6) may well connect patronymically with Isaiah as Hosea “son of Beeri” (Hosea 1:1), whether this ancestor be another name for Amos, or a maternal ancestor, or a connection through marriage. I have never been able to be sure about this. Since M and B are frequently interchanged in W. Semitic, the name Beeri, I think, could easily merge into Merari. The Book of Hosea, likewise, is full of references to Assyria, as to its hostile advances in both the northern and the southern kingdoms. Assyrian Names The prophet Hosea actually names the two successive kings of his early time, in hypocoristicon form, as “Shalman” (Shalmaneser) and “Yareb” (Sennacherib): While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon (9) While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Due, though, to the present state of the Book of Judith: The Book of Judith: confusion of names (8) Book of Judith: confusion of names | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu we have a mix of Chaldeo-Persian names for the King of Assyria, “Nebuchadnezzar”, who is Sargon II/Sennacherib; his Commander-in-chief, “Holofernes”, who, thanks to input from Tobit (14:10), we can ascertain was Nadin/Nadab, hence Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (4) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Finally, the Commander-in-chief’s first officer, “Bagoas”, may even have been a young Nebuchednezzar: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (4) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Nahum as Jonah Once again we gain benefit from the Book of Tobit (14:4), which variously gives “Jonah” or “Nahum” (NRSV), thus enabling for another unexpected connection: Nahum was Jonah. Assyrian Names The Book of Jonah will give us nothing personal in this regard, merely referring in 3:6 to “the king of Nineveh”. I have determined him to be Esarhaddon, in his many guises, including as Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’: De-coding Jonah (4) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Book of Nahum is similarly impersonal in this regard, giving only phrases such as “a wicked counseller” (1:11) – explained as “literally, a councilor of Belial; i.e. of worthlessness”; and “King of Assyria” (3:18).

While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon

by Damien F. Mackey “Now the terrors of war will rise among your people. All your fortifications will fall, just as when Shalman destroyed Beth-arbel. Even mothers and children were dashed to death there”. Hosea 10:14 The prophet Hosea names two Assyrian kings, “Yareb” (5:13) and “Shalman” (10:14), whose identities Heath D. Dewrell has completely nailed, so I believe, in the Abstract to his article, “Yareb, Shalman, and the Date of the Book of Hosea” (2016): https://www.jstor.org/stable/43900899 …. This article examines two enigmatic figures mentioned in the Book of Hosea – King Yareb and Shalman. I suggest that the former is to be identified as the Assyrian king Sennacherib and the latter as Shalmaneser V. This has significant implications for the date of the core of the Book of Hoshea; it requires a date at least two decades later than the current scholarly consensus. …. For conventional minded scholars the whole thing is a bit of a puzzle. Thus F. C. Eiselen writes, in “Shalman”: https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/shalman.html A name of uncertain meaning, found only once in the Old Testament (Hosea 10:14), in connection with a place-name, equally obscure, "as Shalman destroyed Betharbel." Shalman is most commonly interpreted as a contracted form of Shalmaneser, the name of several Assyrian kings. If this explanation is correct, the king referred to cannot be identified. Some have thought of Shalmaneser IV, who is said to have undertaken expeditions against the West in 775 and in 773-772. Others have proposed Shalmaneser V, who attacked Samaria in 725. This, however, is improbable, because the activity of Hosea ceased before Shalmaneser V became king. Shalman has also been identified with Salamanu, a king of Moab in the days of Hosea, who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser V of Assyria; and with Shalmah, a North Arabian tribe that invaded the Negeb. The identification of BETH-ARBEL (which see) is equally uncertain. From the reference it would seem that the event in question was well known and, therefore, probably one of recent date and considerable importance, but our present historical knowledge does not enable us to connect any of the persons named with the destruction of any of the localities suggested for Beth-arbel. The ancient translations offer no solution; they too seem to have been in the dark. [End of quote] Less “in the dark” may we be if we, like Heath D. Dewrell has considered necessary, re-date the core of the Book of Hosea. But we also need a revised Assyria, according to which the reign of Sennacherib, Yareb (erib), immediately follows that of Shalmaneser, with no extra Sargon in between, because Sargon II was Sennacherib: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (5) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This conventionally shocking conclusion is reinforced, however, by the Book of Tobit, a man who actually served the great Assyrian king, Shalmaneser - so he knew what he was writing about - whose immediate successor was Sennacherib (Tobit 1:15): “When Shalmaneser died, his son Sennacherib succeeded him as emperor”. No Sargon mentioned there either - because Sargon was Sennacherib. We also need to multi-identify Shalmaneser, for example as the highly important Tiglath-pileser so-called III. By so doing, it may facilitate our understanding of Hosea 10:14, connecting Shalman(eser) with the destruction of Beth-arbel, “a place-name, equally obscure”, “uncertain”. My tentative suggestion for the “obscure” town would be Tiglath-pileser’s taking of Abel-Beth Maacah (2 Kings 15:29), with Beth-arbel as Abel-Beth (Maacah?).

Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian

by Damien F. Mackey Herodotus, in The Histories, tells of a skilful physician, Democedes of Croton, a character that I claim to be fictitious and based upon a really attested historical figure, the Egyptian, Udjahorresne[t]: Udjahorresne and Democedes (5) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The latter, who was a mentor in Egypt to Cambyses, appears under different names, all of which, I think, are mergeable the one with the other. Thus: Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne (5) Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Greek writers (whoever they really were) have supposed Greek navy men, such as Polycrates, Lysander, fighting in Greek wars, but also interfering in Egypto-Persian battles. These supposed Greeks – and presumably their Greek wars (at least in part) – were a fiction. With all of this in mind, the name Lysander (Greek: Λύσανδρος) now looms for me as a Greek-ised version of Usan[a]huru, the Assyrian rendering of the Egyptian name, Udjahorresne. Compare the two names: USAN[H]UR[U] AND [L]USAN[D]ER Lysander was supposedly, like Udjahorresne (Usanhuru) really was, a navy admiral. Lysander was named admiral of the Spartan navy in 407 BC. Lysander: The Ambitious Admiral - Spartapedia Udjahorresne … had previously held the office of navy commander. http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/displaced_dynasties_chapter_7_-_udjahorresne_-_statue__tomb.pdf Serving a Great King, Darius …. Great King Darius of Persia replaced the local satrap Tissaphernes with Darius’ younger son, Cyrus. Cyrus was an ambitious prince with a desire to foster closer ties with Sparta that they might one day assist his future claim to the Persian throne. He was thus eager to build a relationship with the incoming admiral [Lysander]. Udjahorresne … identified as a high official under Cambyses and Darius I …. Left something of a bad legacy: … scholars have wrongly maligned him, falsely accusing him of collaborating with the enemy. Lysander was a most unspartanlike Spartiate. Time and again he put him own goals before the common good, used his position for self-benefit, and promoted and celebrated himself in the most unpious fashion. In many ways, he exemplified the human flaws which characterized the unravelling of Lycurgan Sparta and its decline from power. To fill him out completely, as Udjahorresne, Lysander probably needs to be aligned also with the physician, Democedes: Udjahorresne and Democedes (6) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Assyrian contemporaries of Ramses II ‘the Great’

by Damien F. Mackey According to the typical conventional estimation of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty: https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/anc-ramses-ii-reading/#:~:text=Ramses%20II%20also%20formed%20alliances,coast%20of%20Egypt's%20Nile%20Delta. …. When Seti I died in 1279 BCE, Ramses II was only about 20 years old. He succeeded his father to the throne and became Pharaoh of Egypt. During his early reign, Ramses II faced many challenges. There were rebellions in Canaan and Libya. The Hittites were also a constant threat, as they continued to try and expand their empire. In order to protect Egypt's borders, Ramses II needed to build up his army. He did this by conscripting soldiers from all over Egypt and training them to be loyal and disciplined soldiers. Ramses II also formed alliances with other countries in the region, such as Babylon and Assyria. …. [End of quote] Checking the standard Assyrian king lists, the beginning of the reign of Ramses II would fall right withing the long reign (32 years) of king Adad-nirari I (1295-1264 BC): https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/564-566-the-assyrian-king-list/ My Assyrian Revision Adad-nirari I in my revision, on the other hand, belongs to the first half of the C8th BC, approximately half a millennium after his conventional placement (above). I explained my radical revision and re-identifying of a relevant set of Assyrian kings as follows in e.g. my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (5) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Marc Van de Mieroop will give one perfect sequence (as I see it) of four Middle Assyrian kings, who, nevertheless, need to be folded into the Neo Assyrian era, where Van de Mieroop has these four kings listed again, but now in the wrong sequence. I refer to his “King Lists” towards the end of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 -323 BC. The following I would consider to be a perfect Assyrian sequence of kings (p. 294): Adad-nirari [I] Shalmaneser [I] Tukulti-Ninurta [I] Assur-nadin-apli [I] where Tukulti-Ninurta = Sennacherib and Assur-nadin-apli = Ashurnasirpal = Esarhaddon. This sequence accords perfectly with the neo-Assyrian sequence given in Tobit 1: “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; “Esarhaddon”. But on p. 295, the same four kings will become skewed, as follows: Adad-nirari [II] Tukulti-Ninurta [II] Ashurnasirpal [II] Shalmaneser [III] …. [End of quote] If Ramses II were a ruling contemporary of Adad-nirari (I/II) – [and I don’t believe that he was, though he came close to it] - then he would have begun to reign in the first half of the C8th BC. My Egyptian Revision This is complex. It is spelled out in articles of mine such as: The Complete Ramses II (6) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ramses II and his Time, 1978) had identified Ramses II with Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. In Dr. Velikovsky’s scheme of things, Ramses II was a contemporary of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. The Nahr el-Kalb inscription juxtaposes a statue of Ramses II alongside a statue of Esarhaddon. - Conventional scholars presumably might argue that Ramses II is worn because he (c. 1280 BC, conventional dating) is much older than Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC, conventional dating). - Dr. I. Velikovsky, who made Ramses II a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar (c. 580 BC, conventional dating), would have considered Ramses II as ruling later than Esarhaddon. - I (Damien Mackey) have Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon’s predecessor, Sargon II/Sennacherib. Esarhaddon, for his part, likely scratched out his foe, Ramses II, from the Nahr el-Kalb inscription. This last point, Ramses II’s being contemporaneous with the Assyrian king, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, now needs to be explained. Assyria encountering Egypt In approximately 720 BC (conventional dating) Sargon II, very early in his reign, chased away Egypt’s young turtan (commander), Si’be. Egypt’s Turtan, Si’be This Egyptian military commander has been enormously difficult for scholars (whether they be conventional or revisionist) to identify. Was he: Ramses III; or Psibkhenno (I had liked Dr. Rohl’s attempt here due to its close transliteration); or Shabako; or Shebitku; or the biblical “So king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4)? Or some, or all, of these? As I had observed in my article: Identifying neo-Assyrian era Egyptian names, “So”, Si’be and the pharaoh Shilkanni (3) Identifying neo-Assyrian era Egyptian names, “So”, Si’be and the pharaoh Shilkanni | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Sir Alan Gardiner had looked to identify [the biblical] “So with the Sib’e, turtan of Egypt, who the annals of Sargon state to have set out from Rapihu (Raphia on the Palestinian border) together with Hanno, the King of Gaza, in order to deliver a decisive battle” (Egypt of the Pharaohs, 1961, p. 342). That conclusion was also, as we have read, the view of Charles Boutflower. Whilst I, too, have wondered if this might be the correct interpretation, such a view would need to address why one whom the Second Book of Kings had entitled ‘King’, prior to the Fall of Samaria, had become, some half a dozen or so years later, a mere Egyptian official (turtan, general); albeit an important one. Dr. Kenneth Kitchen has confidently held that So is an abbreviated form of Osorkon (IV) of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty (The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: 1100-650 BC, 1972). Revisionist, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, had also thought to locate King So to the period of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty, as one of the pharaohs Shoshenq (or Sosenk) – a good name fit in its abbreviated form (So-senk = So). Others prefer for So pharaoh Tefnakht[e] of the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty. …. [End of quote] As noted here, Si’be, as a military commander, is unlikely to have been a pharaoh. Sargon II will distinguish “Pharaoh (Pir’u) king of Egypt [Musri]”. Actually, all Ramses III; Psibkhenno; Shabako; Shebitku; the biblical “So king of Egypt” will be found to be very close to the mark. For only two Egyptian persons are represented amongst these names: namely (1) Ramses II and (2) his son, Khaemwaset. Thus, as argued in “The Complete Ramses II” article: Ramses II, whose son is Khaemwaset, is Ramses III, whose son is Khaemwaset; Ramses II is Psibkhenno (Psusennes) Ramses; Ramses II is Shabako (Sabacos = Psibkhenno); Ramses II is “King So [Sabacos] of Egypt”. Khaemwaset is Shebitku Khaemwaset. I, reluctant to let go of Dr. Rohl’s linguistic connection of Si’be with Psib-khenno, eventually, however, decided that, whilst the latter was a pharaoh, the former had to be a subordinate. Psibkhenno Ramses was Ramses II, and his turtan, Si’be, was his famous son, the highly talented (Shebitku) Khaemwaset. Sargon II will allude to Shebitku Khaemwaset (now as a sub-pharaoh to his father) in the Tang-I Var inscription. Here Sargon calls him, not Si’be (Sibu), but Shabataka. Dan’el Kahn writes of it in his article, “Was there a Co-regency in the 25th Dynasty?: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/85102-Artikeltext-228805-1-10-20211210.pdf …. According to the inscription, king Shebitku (=Shabatka) extradited Iamani to Sargon. The inscription can be dated quite certainly to 706 BC, not long before the death in battle [sic] of Sargon II. in the summer of 705 BC. …. Thus, the Tang-i Var inscription indicates that Shebitku was already king of Kush in 706 BC. This new date is at least four years earlier than has generally been thought. Frame continued and claimed that this is a "piece of information which will require Egyptologists to revise their current chronology for Egypt's twenty-fifth Dynasty", and added: "This would raise difficulties for the current Egyptian chronology". …. Egypt’s King, Šilkanni Ann E. Killebrew, writing from a conventional point of view in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, tells of the exchange between pharaoh Šilkanni and Sargon II: "With the Assyrian army in the region, Silkanni, the king of Egypt (Osorkon IV), felt compelled to send Sargon twelve magnificent horses as a gift. These were probably Kushite horses from the Dongola Reach area, already an important horse-breeding center at this time" (pg 240; also citing Heidorn). Since the Nineteenth Dynasty ruled Kush (Ethiopia) it would not surprise if: “These were probably Kushite horses from the Dongola Reach area, already an important horse-breeding center at this time". But it would surprise me if Šilkanni was, as according to the conventional estimate, Osorkon. Despite the admittedly apt name comparison of Šilkanni with Osorkon, I think that the even better fit would be Psibkhenno (Psibkhanni), who is my Ramses II. To match, the names Psibkhanni and Šilkanni one need only swap the letters b and l. The Šilkanni incident would have occurred about 4 years before the Tang-I Var inscription incident when Shebitku had joined his father as a co-ruler of Egypt/ Ethiopia. Conclusion Sargon’s (Sennacherib’s) Egyptian contemporaries were: Ramses II/Shabako (Pi’ru; Šilkanni), and his son Shebitku Khaemwaset (Si’be; Shabataka). The biblical “So King of Egypt” was likewise Ramses II, but at the time of Sargon II’s predecessor, Shalmaneser. Ramses II knew two great Assyrian kings, Shalmaneser and Sargon II/Sennacherib. What of Esarhaddon? He was Chaldean, not Assyrian.

Some Letters from Sennacherib

by Damien F. Mackey “If the "king, my lord," was Shalmaneser, we must conclude that Sargon built the city of Dur-Sharrukin, ("Sargon's Fortress"), when he was still a prince, i.e., before 721 B.C.”. Brazilian correspondent A Brazilian researcher has written to me concerning a series of letters of Sennacherib that are generally thought to constitute his correspondence, as Crown Prince, with the Assyrian king, Sargon II. If this were to prove true, then it would completely shatter my thesis, as argued in various articles, that Sennacherib was Sargon II. For example: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (7) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Book of Tobit gives the neo-Assyrian succession for this period as “Shalmaneser”, “Sennacherib”, and “Esarhaddon” (1: 15, 21), with no mention whatsoever of a Sargon. And that is the sequence that I firmly follow. Surely Tobit himself would have known the correct neo-Assyrian order. Had he not served Shalmaneser at a high official level?: Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser’s Rab Ekalli (11) Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser's Rab Ekalli | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And had he not been hounded from his home by a vengeful Sennacherib (Tobit 1:19-20) – but was later “allowed” to resume his normal existence by Esarhaddon (1:22)? The Brazilian researcher opened the correspondence with this e-mail (26th February, 2024): …. I was conducting research on Assyrian correspondence on the website https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/saa01/corpus/ and came across a series of letters from Crown Prince Sennacherib addressed to King Sargon, including mentions of Dur-Sharruken, (see letter SAA 01 039). I imagine you are already familiar with these letters and could help me understand how to interpret them. …. At the time I was researching the Tudors: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (DOC) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and my response that same day was admittedly somewhat knee-jerk and hasty, I not taking due cognizance of the mention here of “Dur-Sharruken”. I wrote back: …. These letters are like the El Amarna letters, supposedly addressed to pharaohs, but not mentioning any pharaohs - or even Egypt sometimes. They are addressed to "the king my lord", who could be Shalmaneser, or some other potentate. …. To which the correspondent sensibly replied: …. Thanks for the clarification. It's always nice to talk to you. However, one question remains. If the "king, my lord," was Shalmaneser, we must conclude that Sargon built the city of Dur-Sharrukin, ("Sargon's Fortress"), when he was still a prince, i.e., before 721 B.C. And if he was a prince, don't you think it would be too daring to build it and give it his own name, or even to build a gigantic palace? …. This time around I was a little more circumspect: .... I said, or some other potentate. How do we know that Sennacherib was then Crown Prince? And, that he was actually writing to an Assyrian monarch? …. [End of e-mail exchanges] The intriguing question (for me, at least) now arises: TO WHOM WAS SENNACHERIB WRITING? The Letters There are twelve (12) letters in this “series of letters”: They typically open with the greeting [029]: [To] the king, my lord: [your servant] Sin-ahhe-riba [Sennacherib]. Good health to the king, my lord! [Assyri]a is well,[the temp]les are well, all [the king's forts] are well. The king, my lord, can be glad indeed. Some, though, e.g. [030] do not: "[...... I have] appointed your [major]-domo in [my] palace." Same with [040]. Some thoughts Firstly, I now think it most unlikely that Sennacherib was addressing an Assyrian king. Why then say: “[Assyri]a is well …”? Neither Shalmaneser, nor Sargon (if he were not Sennacherib), would need to be told that! Secondly, with the mention of Dur-Sharruken [-kin] [039], completed in Sargon’s Year 16/17, according to my estimation (thesis, 2007, p. 393), then - presuming that these 12 letters are basically contemporaneous - Shalmaneser becomes irrelevant. Sennacherib, though, does not, if he is (as I believe) Sargon II. My tentative conclusion: Sargon II/Sennacherib was writing, as King of Assyria, to a contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty.

Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser’s Rab Ekalli

by Damien F. Mackey Tobit, an exile, must have been a person of exceptional competence to have so risen in the kingdom of Assyria to become purveyor, or quartermaster, of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser. “King Shalmaneser” ‘… Tobit of … the tribe of Naphtali, who in the days of Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians, was taken into captivity …. The Most High gave me favor and good appearance in the sight of Shalmaneser, and I was his buyer of provisions’. Tobit 1:1, 2, 13 According to the Douay version of Tobit 1, the king of Assyria bestowed upon his captive servant Tobit a virtually free roving commission (vv. 14-15): “Shalmaneser the king gave him leave to go whithersoever he would, with liberty to do whatever he had a mind. He therefore went to all that were in captivity, and gave them wholesome admonitions”. In this article I shall be trying to ascertain two things: WHO WAS THIS ASSYRIAN KING, “SHALMANESER”? WHAT WAS TOBIT’S OFFICIAL STATUS IN THE ASSYRIAN HIERARCHY? “Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians” There are five kings Shalmaneser (Assyrian: Shulmanu-asharedu) according to the conventional arrangement of Middle to Neo Assyrian history, namely: Shalmaneser I (1274 BC – 1245 BC or 1265 BC – 1235 BC); Shalmaneser II (1030–1019 BC); Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC); Shalmaneser IV (783–773 BC); Shalmaneser V (727-722 BC). Chronologically speaking, Shalmaneser so-called V would be the Assyrian king thought to be referred to in the above verses of the Book of Tobit. But I do not think that things are quite that straightforward. And indeed, as I wrote in my article: Book of Tobit and the Neo-Assyrian Kings https://www.academia.edu/14097259/Book_of_Tobit_and_the_Neo-Assyrian_Kings the sequence of Assyrian kings given in the Book of Tobit differs from that of the conventional arrangement: The relevant parts of Tobit, all occurring in chapter 1, are verses 10, 12-13, 15, 21 (GNT): Later, I was taken captive and deported to Assyria, and that is how I came to live in Nineveh. …. Since I took seriously the commands of the Most High God, he made Emperor Shalmaneser respect me, and I was placed in charge of purchasing all the emperor’s supplies. …. When Shalmaneser died, his son Sennacherib succeeded him as emperor. …. two of Sennacherib’s sons assassinated him and then escaped to the mountains of Ararat. Another son, Esarhaddon, became emperor and put Ahikar, my brother Anael’s son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire. …. The royal succession is here clearly given. “Shalmaneser”, who deported Tobit’s tribe of Naphtali (see Tobit 1:1), was succeeded at death by “his son Sennacherib”, who was, in turn, upon his assassination, succeeded by his “son, Esarhaddon”. No room here for a Sargon II. And Tobit’s “Shalmaneser” appears to have replaced Tiglath-pileser III as the Assyrian king who is said in 2 Kings 15:29 to have deported to Assyria the tribe of Naphtali: “… Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maakah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria”. [End of quotes] Now, in the case of Shalmaneser alone, my strong suspicion is that by the time that the revision has finished its work, there will be far fewer Assyrian kings Shalmaneser than I-V. And I have already diminished that number in my own revision by shifting Shalmaneser III, so-called, down the time scale by a full century and merging him with the composite: (Tiglath-pileser I =) Tiglath-pileser III = Shalmaneser V. See e.g. my article: De-coding Jonah https://www.academia.edu/58211649/De_coding_Jonah If this chronological shift is a move in the right direction, then it would mean that Tobit’s king, “Shalmaneser”, was, at the very least, the following composite: SHALMANESER III = TIGLATH-PILESER I = TIGLATH-PILESER III = SHALMANESER V Tobit’s Official Status ‘I [Tobit] was [king Shalmaneser’s] buyer of provisions’. Tobit 1:13 Tobit, an exile, must have been a person of exceptional competence to have so risen in the kingdom of Assyria to become purveyor, or quartermaster, of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser. That particular rank in Assyria, termed rab[i] ekalli or rab ša muḫḫi ekalli (“… in Middle Assyrian times the ša muḫḫi ekalli is used synonymously to rab ekalli”: https://www.academia.edu/7640201/2015_Food_and_drink_for_the_palace_the_manageme), may have been a very high one indeed. For, according to this following estimation of the rank: http://ancientpeoples.tumblr.com/post/30101734778/assyrian-rule-of-conquered-territory-the Directly under the king were three officers. The turtannu, or field marshal; the ummânu, vice-chancellor; and the rab ša muḫḫi ekalli, the major-domo. The latter was the most important and the only one with direct access to the king (though the king could of course require the audience of lower ranked men himself); even the field marshal and the vice-chancellor had to go through the major-domo to request a meeting. [End of quote] But Tobit was not the only person of high rank in this most talented family of his (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=d5PXD5saod4C&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=tobit+was+king's+quartermaster): The family of Tobit, as we meet them in the Book of Tobit, are exceptional people. Tobit himself becomes procurator general, quartermaster for King Shalmaneser, and is sent on important purchasing expeditions to Media …). His nephew Ahiqar becomes royal cupbearer, in effect the administrator of the entire empire. Their kinsman Gabiel in Media also has an important post there. …. [End of quote] And we could add to this impressive list Tobit’s very own son, Tobias, as Job (see my: Job’s Life and Times https://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times who would, for his part, rise to highest judicial office. One has only to read e.g. Job 29:7-10: ‘When I went to the gate of the city and took my seat in the public square, the young men saw me and stepped aside and the old men rose to their feet; the chief men refrained from speaking and covered their mouths with their hands; the voices of the nobles were hushed, and their tongues stuck to the roof of their mouths’. A Geography of Tobit Above we read that “Tobit … is sent on important purchasing expeditions to Media (Persia) ...”, and that his “kinsman Gabiel in Media also has an important post there”. The term “Media”, however, is likely, as has been previously determined, a mistake for “Midian”. See e.g. my article: A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit Tobit tells where his kinsman Gabael (Gabiel) was actually situated (1:14): ‘… I [Tobit] went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Rages a city of Media ten talents of silver’. Once the geography is scrutinized (as in the article), Gabael’s city of “Rages” is found to fit very well with the city of Damascus. Now we find that Damascus was indeed, at the time of Shalmaneser so-called III, a place of metalcraft supplying the king with weapons and armoury which he stored in his arsenal of Fort Shalmaneser (southern edge of the city of Kalhu, Nimrud). And we also find that king Shalmaneser’s purveyor, his rabi ekalli, was making a painstaking inventory of it all. Was this rabi ekalli Tobit himself? We read about it in Jørgen Læssøe’s People of Ancient Assyria: Their Inscriptions and Correspondence, p. 112: Heaps of armour made of bronze or of iron-plating, some of it designed to be worn by war-horses, were stored in the magazine indicated on the plan as room S.W.7; this tallies with the function of the fort as a military headquarters. Written receipts from the Assyrian quartermaster, rabi ekalli, were found acknowledging the supply, for instance, of 784 bows from the town of Arpad in Syria, or a delivery of shields from Damascus. The metalcraft of Damascus must have been even then as much renowned as the Damascus blades of more modern times. …. [End of quote]