Does the famous Black Obelisk really mention a king of Israel?

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

According to the neo-Assyrian revision that I have presented in some recent articles, such as e.g.:

 

Finding new opponents for the Assyrians at Qarqar

 

https://www.academia.edu/40961824/Finding_new_opponents_for_Assyrians_at_Qarqar?email_work_card=view-paper

 

1. the formidable Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, fought the Battle of Qarqar (Karkar), not against Ahab of Israel and Ben-Hadad I of Syria, amongst others, but, about a century later, against Pekah of Israel and his known confederate, Rezin of Damascus, this thereby
2. lifting Shalmaneser III right out of a revised El Amarna (EA) period where he has caused revisionists so many headaches, and
3. catapulting him into the era of Tiglath-pileser  III - of whom Shalmaneser now becomes an alter ego.  
4. Tiglath-pileser III I have already identified with (Shalmaneser III’s namesake) Shalmaneser V.

 

All of this, apart from having enormous ramifications for neo-Assyrian history in its relation to the Bible, and to Assyrian inscriptions relating to the Battle of Qarqar and associated incidents, must now affect, too, one’s interpretation of Shalmaneser III’s marvellously preserved  Black Obelisk which is generally considered to depict king Jehu of Israel as a vassal king at the feet of the Assyrian monarch.  

 

In our new context, the prostrate king depicted in the Black Obelisk must be one of the various biblical kings, presumably of Israel, who gave tribute to Tiglath-pileser III/ Shalmaneser V. Biblical kings known to have been tributary to Tiglath-pileser III/ Shalmaneser V were Menahem and Hoshea of Israel, and Ahaz of Judah.

 

We read about this, as real history, in the following piece by W. Reinsch (not my BC dates): https://watchjerusalem.co.il/639-king-ahazs-tribute-proof-from-an-assyrian-inscription

 

King Ahaz’s Tribute: Proof From an Assyrian Inscription

 

An inscription that confirms the biblical account of Ahaz’s tribute to Tiglath-Pileser iii

 

….

Discovered in 1873 by Austen Henry Layard in the ancient Assyrian palace of Nimrud, the Tiglath-Pileser iii Summary Inscription Seven lists numerous conquests and building operations of one of Assyria’s most powerful kings, reigning from circa 745 to 727 b.c.e. And the 24 x 19 centimeter clay tablet, dating to circa 729 b.c.e., contains the first known extra-biblical proof of Ahaz, king of Judah.

 

Surrounded

King Ahaz was 20 years old when he began to reign (circa 735 b.c.e.), and was on the throne for 16 years. The Bible states that Ahaz “did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God,” but instead he made idols, sacrificed his children to Molech, and observed pagan rituals (2 Kings 16:1-4; 2 Chronicles 28:1-4). As a result of his sins, God caused the surrounding nations to rise up and form a confederation against Judah.

Both king Rezin of Syria and king Pekah of Israel came and besieged Jerusalem, but could not break through the city walls. Instead, they moved south toward Elath and joined forces with the Edomites. “At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath to Aram, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Edomites came to Elath, and dwelt there, unto this day” (2 Kings 16:6; Jerusalem Publication Society). The Philistines also invaded Judah’s cities in the south: Beth-shemesh, Ajalon, Gederoth, Shocho, Gimzo and the mining region of Timnah.

Judah found itself surrounded. As a result of the invasions, it suffered great losses. “For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand in one day, all of them valiant men” (2 Chronicles 28:6; jps). The inhabitants of Judah were experiencing this suffering “because they had forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers.” God “brought Judah low because of Ahaz … for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord” (verse 19; King James Version).

 

The Tribute of Ahaz

At that time, King Ahaz sought help from the Assyrians. He sent messengers to King Tiglath-Pileser iii, saying, Come up, and save me out of the hands of my enemies. “And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria” (2 Kings 16:8; jps).

This tribute that Ahaz took from the temple is confirmed by the discovery of Summary Inscription Seven from Tiglath-Pileser’s palace. Part of the inscription reads:

 

From these I received tribute … Sanipu of Ammon, Salamanu of Moab, … Mitinti of Ashkelon, Jehoahaz [Ahaz] of Judah, Kaush-malaku of Edom, … Hanno of Gaza … including gold, silver, iron, fine cloth and many garments made from wool that was dyed in purple … as well as all kinds of lavish gifts from many nations and from the kings that rule over them.

 

The inscription uses Ahaz’s full name, Jehoahaz, whereas the Bible uses the short form, Ahaz. The text parallels the biblical account, in both tribute and specific materials that Ahaz sent to Tiglath-Pileser. It also describes the Assyrian king receiving tribute from many kings who were in the confederation against Israel—this indicates that after receiving Ahaz’s request for help, Tiglath-Pileser led a military campaign to conquer these different peoples attacking Judah. The Bible states that Tiglath-Pileser attacked King Rezin of Syria and took away many captives (verse 9). The Annals of Tiglath-Pileser mention the Assyrian king receiving tribute from Rezin.

 

Another artifact, Summary Inscription Four (circa 730 b.c.e.), confirms Tiglath-Pileser’s conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel.

Since its discovery, the clay inscription has been lost; however, Layard made a paper mache imprint, known as a squeeze, before its disappearance. The inscription reads:

 

Israel … All its inhabitants (and) their possessions I led to Assyria. They overthrew their King Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000 talents of silver as their [tri]bute, and brought them to Assyria.

 

This inscription confirms several details in the biblical account. “In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took [numerous Israelites cities], and carried them captive to Assyria. And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead” (2 Kings 15:29-30). It is possible that Hoshea colluded with Tiglath-Pileser to replace King Pekah.

 

These Summary Inscriptions add to the expanding fund of discoveries that help confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible. The biblical kings Ahaz, Pekah, Hoshea, Rezin and Tiglath-Pileser all really lived, Ahaz really did send tribute to the Assyrian king, and Tiglath-Pileser really did attack and conquer much of Israel and subdued the surrounding regions. ….

[End of quotes]

 

 

The relevant part of the Black Obelisk - that supposedly depicting Jehu, king of Israel, at the feet of the Assyrian king - is described by Bill T. Arnold (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 237):

 

Above the second panel on one side is a caption mentioning “Jehu son of Omri” (Akkadian Iaua mar Humri). The image in all probability portrays Israel's King Jehu on his knees, submitting to the Assyrian king .... The caption in full reads as follows:

 

‘I received the tribute of Jehu, the son of Omri: silver (items), gold (items), a gold bowl, a gold goblet, gold cups, gold buckets, tin (Items), a staff of the king’s hand, spears’.

 

Arnold then makes the usual point, that king Jehu was not, however, a son of Omri.

 

But, as explained at: https://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/cp/House_of_Omri.html

“Contemporary documents refer to the political units we are used to calling the Judahite and Israelite kingdoms by the name of dynastic founders.

Thus, in Aramean and Assyrian documents, but also in various biblical passages, Israel is called the “House of Omri” and Judah the “House of David” (cf. Isa 7:1). Similarly, Aram-Damascus is called the “House of Hazael.” This usage continues whether or not dynastic succession is disrupted, which means that legitimate succession is related to linguistic, ideological, and cultic rather than physiological aspects of continuity”.

 

The question must now be asked, in our revised context:

 

Who was the Black Obelisk’s Iaua mar Humri?

 

I am going to go left-field here, and suggest that he was, not a king of Israel at all, but was Ahaz king of Judah. Previously I had written on this:

 

King Ahaz of Judah is, I believe, a very good fit for

Shalmaneser III’s Iaui mar Humri.

 

He fits chronologically, given my identification of Shalmaneser III with Tiglath-pileser III, a known contemporary of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:7): “Ahaz sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, ‘I am your servant and vassal. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me’.”

 

And he, like ‘Iaui’, paid tribute to the Assyrian king (v. 8): “And Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the temple of the Lord and in the treasuries of the royal palace and sent it as a gift to the king of Assyria”, whom he later visited (v. 10): “Then King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria”.

…

Moreover, his name, as rendered in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III’s, Iauhazi, accords perfectly with Iaui (Iau-haz-i) (http://libertyparkusafd.org/Burgon/cd-roms/124bible.html):

 

…. "Iauhazi [Jehoahaz, i.e., Ahaz of Judah." Tribute is mentioned as consisting of "gold, silver, lead, iron, tin, brightly colored woollen garments, linen, the purple garments of their lands ... all kinds of costly things, the products of the sea and the dry land ... the royal treasure, horses, mules, broken to the yoke. . . ." [Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. I, sec. 801.]

 

[End of quote]

 

Similarly, Shalmaneser III had recorded: “I received from [Iaui] silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king [and] spears”.

 

I now consider there to be an historical correspondence between these records. 

 

Apparently I had also in that piece above suggested an Omride connection between Ahaz through Queen Athaliah. That may yet be a possibility.

Certainly I had, in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

(Volume One, pp. 372-373), made the point (that others have, too) that Jehu-ide blood may have flowed in the veins of Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah (through the wife of Ahaz):

 

It could be that Jehu-ide blood also flowed through his veins, from his mother’s side. This at least is the opinion of Irvine:[1]

 

It may be significant … that Hezekiah’s mother was a certain Abi, the daughter of Zechariah [2 Kings] (18:2). Quite possibly this Zechariah was the last member of the Jehu dynasty whom Shallum brutally assassinated (15:8). If so, it would appear that Ahaz had been married into the Israelite royal house. The political marriage, perhaps arranged by Jotham … would have served to buttress an alliance between the two kingdoms that had existed during the first half of the eighth century and possibly had begun as early as the Omride period ….   

 

[End of quotes]

 

That would at least make king Ahaz about as good a candidate for an Omride as Jehu.

 

Failing Ahaz as the tributary king depicted on the Black Obelisk, one would need to consider whatever other king (of Israel), e.g. Hoshea, had been a vassal of the now composite Assyrian king: (Shalmaneser III =) Tiglath-pileser III/Shalmaneser V.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Op. cit, p. 78.

Finding new opponents for Assyrians at Qarqar

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Part One:

When Syro-Ephraïm allied against Assyria

 

 

 If Syria and Israel truly were aligned against Shalmaneser III of Assyria at the

Battle of Qarqar, as is the general interpretation of the Assyrian inscriptions,

then there is only one era  of history when this could have occurred, and it was

not during the time of King Ahab and his Syrian contemporary Ben-Hadad I.

 

 

There are now various solid reasons for one to insist that a participant at the Battle of Qarqar sometimes rendered as A-ha-ab-bu Sir-’i-la-a-a (Shalmaneser III’s Kurkh Stele Inscription), cannot possibly be identified as the biblical Ahab of Israel, despite this being the popular view. Nor can that participant’s ally at Qarqar, typically rendered as ‘Adad-idri of Damascus’, be Ahab’s long-time foe, Ben-Hadad I - with whom Ahab foolishly “made a peace agreement”, but only towards the very end of the latter’s reign (I Kings 20:34).  

By that stage, Ben-Hadad I was largely a spent force and would hardly be capable of being a major player in a large coalition of Syro-Palestinians against the might of Assyria.

And King Ahab, for his part, was not known to have commanded really large armies.

Nor was Assyria, then, launching armies 120,000-strong, as Shalmaneser III claimed at Qarqar. 

 

For arguments against the possibility of Ahab and Ben-Hadad having participated at Qarqar, see my article:

 

Shalmaneser III not of the El Amarna [EA] Era

 

https://www.academia.edu/40931402/Shalmaneser_III_not_of_the_El_Amarna_EA_Era

 

Syria and Israel were again thrust together in common cause owing to the Sinai Commission, when the prophet Elijah was commanded to anoint Hazael of Syria, Jehu of Israel, and Elisha, to eradicate the House of Ahab (I Kings 19:15-17):

 

The Lord said to [Elijah], ‘Go back the way you came, and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael king over Aram [Syria]. Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet. Jehu will put to death any who escape the sword of Hazael, and Elisha will put to death any who escape the sword of Jehu’.

 

Far from Hazael and Jehu ever having formed a military partnership, though, Hazael and his son Ben-hadad II were continually at war with the Jehu-ide dynasty, Hazael being an implacable enemy of Israel. Thus, when Ben-Hadad I was on his deathbed, the prophet Elisha wept before Hazael who would murder the Syrian king and succeed him (2 Kings 8:12-13):

 

‘Why is my lord weeping?’ asked Hazael.

‘Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites’, he answered. ‘You will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women’.

Hazael said, ‘How could your servant, a mere dog, accomplish such a feat?’

‘The Lord has shown me that you will become king of Aram’, answered Elisha.  

 

At a later time, though, during the era of Jotham, of Ahaz, of Judah, the nations of Syria and Israel did finally combine to forge a formidable military partnership.

This, moreover, was in fierce opposition to the might of Assyria – {and fitting with my view that Shalmaneser III must be moved to the era of Tiglath-pileser III, and identified with him}. 

I refer to the potent partnership of Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel (e.g., 2 Kings 15:37):

 

Jotham: “(In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.)”

 

 

 

And 2 Kings 16:5-7:

 

Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem and besieged Ahaz, but they could not overpower him. At that time, Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath for Aram by driving out the people of Judah. Edomites then moved into Elath and have lived there to this day. Ahaz sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, ‘I am your servant and vassal. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me’.

 

 

Part Two:

Irhuleni and Eni-ilu of Hamath

 

 

This reconstruction necessitates that the highly troublesome for the revision,

Shalmaneser III of Assyria, must be the same as the potent Tiglath-pileser III.

Shalmaneser III must be removed from his conventional location spanning

the mid-C9th BC to the C8th BC, about a century of downward shift.

This is a massive step towards solving “The Assuruballit Problem”.

 

 

 

 

Major players in the western alliance against the might of Shalmaneser III of Assyria at the Battle of Qarqar were the kings of Hamath, Damascus, and – it is thought – Israel:

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7125-hamath

“… an inscription of Shalmaneser … (860 B.C.) states that Irhuleni, King of Hamath, made an alliance with the Hittites, with Damascus under Ben-hadad, with Ahab of Israel, and with others”.  

 

Whether or not the Sir-’i-la-a-a referred to in Shalmaneser III’s Kurkh Inscription really pertains to “Israel” (though generally accepted as being the case) has been questioned by some.   

 

What I (along with others) now think is most doubtful, as argued in Part One:

https://www.academia.edu/40941467/Syro-Ephra%C3%AFmite_coalition_against_Assyria_at_Qarqar._Part_One_When_Syro-Ephra%C3%AFm_allied_against_Assyria

is that Ahab and his contemporary Ben-Hadad I could possibly have been at Qarqar, together, as a viable force to trouble Assyria.

The only period in the history of Israel when that kingdom was aligned with Syria, in serious power, against the might of Assyria, was during the reign of Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Syria, known historical characters.

Hence, I would accept that Shalmaneser III’s reference to Sir-’i-la-a-a was a reference to Israel, but to its king, Pekah, and not to Ahab.

This new view may be supported to some degree by what I quoted from James B. Jordan in:

 

Shalmaneser III not of the El Amarna [EA] Era

 

https://www.academia.edu/40931402/Shalmaneser_III_not_of_the_El_Amarna_EA_Era

 

“But it is to be noted that the name Ahabbu might be read equally well as Ahappu and be an entirely different name than Ahab, quite probably Hurrian, which would accord well with the make-up of the confederacy”.

 

Ahappu would certainly be a closer match to the Assyrian name for Pekah (i.e. Pa-qa-ha): “Israel (lit.: "Omri-Land" Bît Humria)...all its inhabitants (and) their king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and I placed Hoshea (A-ú-si-') as king over them”.

https://people.bethel.edu/~pferris/historical/hidden/HistSynopsisLinks/tiglathinscription1.htm

 

This reconstruction necessitates, what I suggested in Part One, that the highly troublesome for the revision, Shalmaneser III of Assyria, must be the same as the potent Tiglath-pileser III. Shalmaneser III must be removed from his conventional location spanning the mid-C9th BC to the C8th BC, about a century of downward shift.

This is a massive step towards solving revision’s “The Assuruballit Problem” (TAP).

 

An important king at Qarqar opposing Shamaneser III was Irhuleni of Hamath:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irhuleni

“Irhuleni (Luwian: Urhilina) was King of Hamath. He led a coalition against the Assyrian expansion under Shalmaneser III, alongside Hadadezer of Damascus.^[1] This coalition succeeded in 853 BC in the Battle of Qarqar a victory over the Assyrians, halting their advance to the west for two years. Later Irhuleni maintained good relations with Assyria. His son was, in Luwian, Uratami.^[2]”

 

He, I suggest, was the same king of Hamath as Tiglath-pileser III’s opponent (vassal), Eni-ilu:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3141701?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

“… Tiglath-pileser appeared in the West Land, according to the inscriptions, and forced Hamath’s king, Eni-ilu (Eniel) to pay tribute to Assyria (740)”.

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7125-hamath

“In the Assyrian inscriptions it is stated that Enillu, King of Hamath, brought tribute to Tiglathpileser III. (730 B.C.), who distributed a part of it among his generals, annexing nineteen districts to Assyria and transporting 1,223 Hamathites to the sources of the Tigris”. 

 

Not surprisingly now, too - if Shalmaneser III of Assyria be the same as Tiglath-pileser III -Assyria’s attempted conquest of the city of Damascus is described in very similar terms, although the Syrian king is differently named, respectively, “Hazael” and “Rezin”.

 

From Calah re Shalmaneser III and Hazael we read:

http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANEhist/shalmaneser3Year17-18.html we read:

 

In my eighteenth year, I crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. Hazael of Damascus trusting in the size of his army, mustered a force of significant size, and established his fortress in Mount Saniru, a mountain peak at the border of Lebanon.

I met him in battled, and was able to overthrow him. I killed 6,000 of his soldiers, and apprehended 1,121 of his chariots and 470 of his cavalry, along with his camp. He ran for his life up into the mountain. I followed after him and trapped him in Damascus; his royal city. I cut down his orchards, and advanced as far as Mount Hauran destroying, devastating, and setting fire to countless cities. I carried off a great amount of their spoil. ….

 

Re Tiglath-pileser III and Rezin (Rakhianu) we read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezin

 

In order to save his life, he (Raḫiānu) fled alone and entered the gate of his city [like] a mongoose. I [im]paled his foremost men alive while making (the people of) his land watch. For forty-five days I set up my camp [aro]und his city and confined him (there) like a bird in a cage. I cut down his plantations, [...] ..., (and) orchards, which were without number; I did not leave a single one (standing). I surrounded (and) captured [the city ...]ḫādara, the ancestral home of Raḫiānu (Rezin) of the land Damascus, [the pl]ace where he was born. I carried off 800 people, with their possessions, their oxen, (and) their sheep and goats. ….

 

Common here, the Syrian king is defeated in battle, flees, takes refuge in his city of Damascus, whilst the Assyrian king cuts down his orchards.

 

 

 

 

So-called “Minoans” were the Philistines

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

  

 

 

Those whom Sir Arthur Evans fancifully named ‘the Minoans’,

based on the popular legend of King Minos, son of Zeus,

are biblically and historically attested as the Philistines.  

 

 

 

 

Gavin Menzies has followed Arthur Evans in labelling as “Minoans” the great sea-faring and trading nation that is the very focal point of his fascinating book, The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History's Greatest Mystery Revealed (HarperCollins, 2011). Though the ex-submariner, Menzies, can sometimes ‘go a bit overboard’ - or, should I say, he can become a bit ‘airborne’ (and don’t we all?) - he is often highly informative and is always eminently readable.

According to the brief summary of the book that we find at Menzies’ own site: http://www.gavinmenzies.net/lost-empire-atlantis/the-book/

 

 

... the Minoans. It’s long been known that this extraordinary civilisation, with its great palaces and sea ports based in Crete and nearby Thera (now called Santorini), had a level of sophistication that belied its place in the Bronze Age world but never before has the extent of its reach been uncovered.

 

Through painstaking research, including recent DNA evidence, Menzies has pieced together an incredible picture of a cultured people who traded with India and Mesopotamia, Africa and Western Europe, including Britain and Ireland, and even sailed to North America.

 

Menzies reveals that copper found at Minoan sites can only have come from Lake Superior, and that it was copper, combined with tin from Cornwall and elsewhere, to make bronze, that gave the Minoans their wealth. He uses knowledge gleaned as a naval captain to explore ancient shipbuilding and navigation techniques and explain how the Minoans were able to travel so far. He looks at why the Minoan empire, which was 1500 years ahead of China and Greece in terms of science, architecture, art and language, disappeared so abruptly and what led to her destruction. ...

 

[End of quote]

 

The Philistines

 

Thanks to Dr. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Loma Linda CA, 1971), we can trace the Philistines - through their distinctive pottery - all the way back to Neolithic Knossos (Crete). And this, despite J. C. Greenfield’s assertion: “There is no evidence for a Philistine occupation of Crete, nor do the facts about the Philistines, known from archaeological and literary sources, betray any relationship between them and Crete” (IDB, 1962, vol. 1, p. 534). The distinctive type of pottery that Courville has identified as belonging to the biblical Philistines is well described in this quote that he has taken from Kathleen Kenyon:

 

The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s]

 

By contrast, the pottery of the ‘Sea Peoples’ - a maritime confederation confusingly identified sometimes as the early biblical Philistines, their pottery like, but not identical to the distinctive Philistine pottery as described above - was Aegean (Late Helladic), not Cretan.  

 

The indispensable “Table of Nations” (Genesis 10), informs us that the Philistines were a Hamitic people, descendants of Ham’s “son”, Mizraim (or Egypt) (v. 6).

Genesis 10:13: “Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites”.

These earliest Philistines would be represented by the users of this distinctive pottery at Neolithic I level Knossos (Dr. Courville):

 

With the evidences thus far noted before us, we are now in a position to examine the archaeological reports from Crete for evidences of the early occupation of this site by the Caphtorim (who are either identical to the Philistines of later Scripture or are closely related to them culturally). We now have at least an approximate idea of the nature of the culture for which we are looking ….

 

… we can hardly be wrong in recognizing the earliest occupants of Crete as the people who represented the beginnings of the people later known in Scripture as the Philistines, by virtue of the stated origin of the Philistines in Crete. This concept holds regardless of the name that may be applied to this early era by scholars.

The only site at which Cretan archaeology has been examined for its earliest occupants is at the site of the palace at Knossos. At this site deep test pits were dug into the earlier occupation levels. If there is any archaeological evidence available from Crete for its earliest period, it should then be found from the archaeology of these test pits. The pottery found there is described by Dr. Furness, who is cited by Hutchinson.

 

“Dr. Furness divides the early Neolithic I fabrics into (a) coarse unburnished ware and (b) fine burnished ware, only differing from the former in that the pot walls are thinner, the clay better mixed, and the burnish more carefully executed. The surface colour is usually black, but examples also occur of red, buff or yellow, sometimes brilliant red or orange, and sometimes highly variegated sherds”.

 

A relation was observed between the decoration of some of this pottery from early Neolithic I in Crete with that at the site of Alalakh ….

 

Continuing to cite Dr. Furness, Hutchinson commented:

 

Dr. Furness justly observes that “as the pottery of the late Neolithic phases seems to have developed at Knossos without a break, it is to the earliest that one must look for evidence of origin of foreign connections”, and she therefore stresses the importance of a small group with plastic decoration that seems mainly confined to the Early Neolithic I levels, consisting of rows of pellets immediately under the rim (paralleled on burnished pottery of Chalcolithic [predynastic] date from Gullucek in the Alaca [Alalakh] district of Asia Minor). [Emphasis Courville’s]

 

While the Archaeological Ages of early Crete cannot with certainty be correlated with the corresponding eras on the mainland, it would seem that Chalcolithic on the mainland is later than Early Neolithic in Crete; hence any influence of one culture on the other is more probably an influence of early Cretan culture on that of the mainland. This is in agreement with Scripture to the effect that the Philistines migrated from Crete to what is now the mainland at some point prior to the time of Abraham.[[1]]

[End of quotes]

 

Late Chalcolithic, we have already learned, pertains to the era of Abram (Abraham), when the Philistines were apparently in southern Canaan:

 

Better archaeological model for Abraham

 

https://www.academia.edu/31214563/Better_archaeological_model_for_Abraham

 

We next find the Philistines in the land of Palestine (the Gaza region) at the time of Joshua. Was there a Philistine migration out of Crete (“Caphtor”) at the time of the Exodus migration out of Egypt? (Amos 9:7): “Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?”

Dr. John Bimson becomes interesting at this point, as previously I have written:

 

Here I take up Bimson’s account of this biblical tradition:[2]

 

There is a tradition preserved in Joshua 13:2-3 and Judges 3:3 that the Philistines were established in Canaan by the end of the Conquest, and that the Israelites had been unable to oust them from the coastal plain …. There is also an indication that the main Philistine influx had not occurred very much prior to the Conquest. As we shall see below, the Philistines are the people referred to as “the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor” in Deuteronomy 2:23 … where it is said that a people called the Avvim originally occupied the region around Gaza, and that the Caphtorim “destroyed them and settled in their stead”. Josh. 13:2-3 mentions Philistines and Avvim together as peoples whom the Israelites had failed to dislodge from southern Canaan. This suggests that the Philistines had not completely replaced the Avvim by the end of Joshua’s life. I would suggest, in fact, that the war referred to in Ex. 13:17, which was apparently taking place in “the land of the Philistines” at the time of the Exodus, was the war of the Avvim against the newly arrived Philistines.

 

As conventionally viewed, the end of MB II C coincides with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. Bimson however, in his efforts to provide a revised stratigraphy for the revision of history, has synchronised MB II C instead with the start of Hyksos rule. He will argue here in some detail that the building and refortifying of cities at this time was the work of the Avvim against the invading Philistines, with some of the new settlements, however, likely having been built by the Philistines themselves.

 

[End of quote]

 

I have further written on Dr. Bimson’s laudable effort to bring some archaeological sanity to this era:

 

Bimson has grappled with trying to distinguish between what might have been archaeological evidence for the Philistines and evidence for the Hyksos, though in actual fact it may be fruitless to try to discern a clear distinction in this case. Thus he writes:[3] 

 

Finds at Tell el-Ajjul, in the Philistine plain, about 5 miles SW of Gaza, present a particularly interesting situation. As I have shown elsewhere, the “Palace I” city (City III) at Tell el-Ajjul was destroyed at the end of the MBA, the following phase of occupation (City II) belonging to LB I …. There is some uncertainty as to exactly when bichrome ware first appeared at Tell el-Ajjul.

Fragments have been found in the courtyard area of Palace I, but some writers suggest that this area remained in use into the period of Palace II, and that the bichrome ware should therefore be regarded as intrusive in the Palace I level ….

It seems feasible to suggest that the invading Philistines were responsible for the destruction of City III, though it is also possible that its destruction was the work of Amalekites occupying the Negeb (where we find them settled a short while after the Exodus; cf. Num. 13:29); in view of Velikovsky’s identification of the biblical Amalekites with the Hyksos … the Amalekite occupation of the Negeb could plausibly be dated, like the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, to roughly the time of the Exodus …. But if our arguments have been correct thus far, the evidence of the bichrome ware favours the Philistines as the newcomers to the site, and as the builders of City II.

[End of quotes]

 

Next we come to the Philistines in the era of King Saul, for a proper appreciation of which I return to Dr. Courville’s thesis. He, initially contrasting the Aegean ware with that of the distinctive Philistine type, has written:

 

The new pottery found at Askelon [Ashkelon] at the opening of Iron I, and correlated with the invasion of the Sea Peoples, was identified as of Aegean origin. A similar, but not identical, pottery has been found in the territory north of Palestine belonging to the much earlier era of late Middle Bronze. By popular views, this is prior to the Israelite occupation of Palestine. By the altered chronology, this is the period of the late judges and the era of Saul.

… That the similar pottery of late Middle Bronze, occurring both in the north and in the south, is related to the culture found only in the south at the later date is apparent from the descriptions of the two cultures. Of this earlier culture, which should be dated to the time of Saul, Miss Kenyon commented:

 

The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s]

 

Drawings of typical examples of this pottery show the same stylized bird with back-turned head that characterized the pottery centuries later at Askelon.

… The anachronisms and anomalies in the current views on the interpretation of this invasion and its effects on Palestine are replaced by a consistent picture, and one that is in agreement with the background provided by Scripture for the later era in the very late [sic] 8^th century B.C.

[End of quotes]

 

 

---

[1] It is interesting in light of this that Dr. J. Osgood has synchronized Chalcolithic En-geddi with the era of Abraham. ‘Times of Abraham’, p. 181.

[2] ‘The Arrival of the Philistines’, p. 13.

[3] ‘The Arrival of the Philistines’, pp. 14-15.

Shalmaneser III and V

  

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

  

 

“… there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V …”. 

 



 

 

 

With that particular quote, on a previous occasion, I had introduced my brief article:

 

Shalmaneser V and Nebuchednezzar II were 'camera-shy'?

 

https://www.academia.edu/39268008/Shalmaneser_V_and_Nebuchednezzar_II_were_camera-shy

 

While it might reasonably be expected that ancient kings to whom great deeds are attributed - as is the case with Shalmaneser V (despite his supposedly short reign) and, far more especially, with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ - would have abundant statues and relief depictions dedicated to them, it was found in the above article that there is virtually nothing of this nature for these two kings combined.  

 

That irregular situation, to my way of thinking, screams out the need for alter egos.

And these I have provided in abundance for Nebuchednezzar, for example in my article:

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330399/Aligning_Neo-Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_Two_Merging_late_neo-Assyrians_with_Chaldeans

 

Various of the alter egos whom I have attached to Nebuchednezzar in this article can boast of numerous statues and relief depictions.

 

The separate issue of the neo-Assyrian king, Shalmaneser so-called V, and who else he might have been, has arisen in a recent exchange of e-mails I have had with a would-be revisionist, who has sent me his hopeful revision of Assyrian history. (Yet another one of these!)

He wrote in part:

 

Hello Dr. [sic] Mackey,

 

I've been enjoying your series on academia.com.

 

Here is the key to the Assyrian King List.  It is, like Manetho, dynasties by city, which are in parallel.  

...

Shalmaneser III is Shalmaneser V ....

 

 

Without my yet knowing very much about what this correspondent has come up with, I thought that I needed to fire off this note of caution – though not intending to dampen any enthusiasm?

 

.... It is no easy task .... I'll tell you why - you may already have realised this.

Shamaneser III has been an enormous problem for me and indeed for others.

It is one thing to say that he is Shalmaneser V, who I think he is, but quite another to show how the long reign of III can be squared off against the very short reign (conventionally speaking) of V. 

(I personally would enlarge V to embrace also Tiglath-pileser III).

You need to be able to explain the Black Obelisk of III now in your revised context. Who, for instance, is the apparent king of Israel mentioned there?

And how do the recorded names of participants in the Battle of Karkar (Qarqar), opponents of III, fit into your revised scenario?

These are only some of the issues with which you would be faced. Not sufficient simply to declare that Assyrian king X = Assyrian king Y.

 

For reasons such as the above I have held off so far with a revision of Shalmaneser so-called III. ....