by
Damien F. Mackey
“There is no scholarly
debate that is adequate enough to explain why Idrimi chose to live among the
Habir [Habiru] in Canaan, though it is psychologically clear that Idrimi got
along well with the other refugees”.
Idrimi as a ‘habiru’
If
the C15th BC (as conventionally dated) Idrimi
(= Hadoram (Adoram), Adoniram, Joram, or Hiram) is to be-re-dated to the
time of the biblical David - and identified as the future king, Hiram - then there
must be a very good chance that Idrimi
as a habiru (renegade) in Canaan, was
part of David’s band of merry men, refugees from King Saul.
Here
is an account of how Idrimi came to
be in Canaan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrimi
In the first part of Idrimi's autobiography on his
statue, it is claimed that an incident had occurred in Halab [considered to be Aleppo]
and that he and his family had to flee as a result. Jack M. Sasson of the University
of North Carolina
speculated that Idrimi didn't claim any relationship to Halab's rulers. He
argued that Ilim-Ilimma I, Idrimi's father, was either dethroned or had
unsuccessfully attempted to usurp the throne of Halab from an unknown king.[12] Idrimi goes to Emar because of his
maternal ancestral connections to the Lords of Emar. While living in Emar, he
considered himself as a slave.
According to Tremper Longman, lines 8b-9 of the autobiography indicate that
Idrimi may have considered retaking his father's lost throne, and that he tried
to involve his brothers in his cause. As his brothers declined to participate,
Idrimi went to Alalakh alone but then fled to Ammiya in the land of Canaan.[13] According to Marc Van de Mieroop, Idrimi was unhappy at Emar for being an
"underling".[14]” ….
Now,
did David have any servant-official of compatible name (Idrimi = Hadoram, Adoniram)?
According
to the Bible Hub’s entry, “Adoniram”, there was indeed: “A receiver of tributes
under David and Solomon, and director of the thirty thousand men sent to
Lebanon to cut timber, 1 Kings
5:14. The same person is also called Adoram, by contraction, 2 Samuel 20:21 1 Kings 12:8; and also Hadoram,
2 Chronicles 10:18.”
Did
not King Hiram tell King Solomon similarly (1 Kings 5:9): ‘My servants will bring [cedar and juniper logs] down from Lebanon to the sea; and I will make them into rafts to go by sea to the
place where you direct me, and I will have them broken up there, and you shall
carry them away’?
King Hiram had been delighted to learn
that his friend, David, had a wise son to succeed him (5:7): ‘Praise
be to the Lord
today, for he has given David a wise son to rule over this great nation’. Hiram,
known to the Israelites of Solomon’s time as “Hiram King of Tyre” (5:1), king
of the coastal region of Lebanon, would come to rule territory much further to
the north, Alalakh, even with control over Ugarit (Ras Shamra).
Idrimi Takes Alalakh
Continuing with our account of Idrimi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrimi
There is no scholarly debate that is adequate
enough to explain why Idrimi chose to live among the Habir [Habiru]in Canaan, though it is psychologically clear that Idrimi
got along well with the other refugees. It was because they went through a
similar experience of being uprooted from their own hometowns. Another
possibility by looking at Tremper Longman's theory is that Idrimi was
recruiting potential allies in a greater effort to take Alalakh. But, it is
clear from these various scholarly speculations that a political motivation may
be involved in Idrimi's desire to take back Alalakh. This motive is further
indicated by author Garrett Galvin who compared Idrimi's story to the famous
Egyptian work, the Story of Sinuhe.
Comment: This Sinuhe
is a semi-mythological version of the real Moses. See my:
Moses a Judge in Egypt
The Wikipedia article continues, telling of Idrimi also as (like King Hiram) a ship-builder:
Idrimi was similar to Sinuhe in the sense that he
was a high-class refugee looking back to his roots and finding an opportunity
to take back his throne while being fueled by humiliation and anger towards his
political enemies. Galvin also argued that Idrimi's attitude of being from a
higher social class overcame the hardships he had as a refugee.[15]
The decision to take back Alalakh …
After seven years living among the Habiru in
Canaan c. 1497 BC [sic], seeking an opportunity to take back his throne, Idrimi
found his chance. Edward Greenstein and David Marcus' translation of the
inscription on lines 29–34 revealed that following the storm-god Teshub's
advice in a dream, Idrimi "made ships and had auxiliary troops board them
and proceeded via the sea to Mukishe (Mukish). Now, when my country heard of
me, they brought me large cattle and small cattle, and in one day, in unison,
the countries of Ni'i (Niya)..., Mukishe (Mukish), and my own city Alalah
(Alalakh) became reconciled with me...they concluded a treaty and established
them truly as my allies.".[16] This newfound alliance with local rulers,
created by cattle exchanges, was just the beginning of the gradual restoration
of Idrimi's royal status as the king of Alalakh. ….
Parratarna of
Mitanni
[A] lack of due
information for Parratarna and other early Mitannian kings has compelled the
likes of professor Gunnar Heinsohn and Emmet Sweeney to look for alternative
explanations.
Introduction
The
kingdom of Mitanni, estimated to have coincided with the Old Babylonian Kingdom
[OBK], is considered to have become a superpower by the time of Egypt’s
Eighteenth Dynasty.
Yet
there is a disturbing lack of archaeology, and also of documentation, for the
Mitannians.
Mirko
Novák, following a conventional line that would well separate in time OBK from
Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt, tells of the generally perceived archaeological situation
for Mitanni:
MITTANI EMPIRE AND THE QUESTION OF ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY: SOME ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
When
the Hittite king Hattušili I started his forays to Northern Syria, a certain
“King of the Hurrians” appeared as one of his main opponents. Nowadays it is
widely accepted that this person must have been one of the first rulers of the
political entity later known as “Mittani” …. Therefore, the formation of this
powerful kingdom must have taken place
during
the latest phase of the Old Babylonian Period and predated the sack of Babylon
by the Hittites under Hattušili’s grandson Muršili I by at least two generations
…. From an archaeological point of view there must be a significant overlap of
what is called “Old Babylonian” and “Mittani” Periods in Northern Mesopotamia,
although they appear in nearly all chronological charts as succeeding one the other
with a distinctive break in between.
Still,
until today archaeology has failed in establishing a stratigraphical and
chronological sequence of late Old Babylonian and early Mittanian layers on sites
in the core area of the kingdom, the so-called Habur-triangle”. …. One reason for that may be that none of the major urban capitals of the Mittani Empire has been excavated or investigated in
a serious degree. Even the locations of
its political centres Waššukanni … Ta‘idu
… and Irride … are
still uncertain. ….
Mitanni’s
great king, Parratarna (or Parshatar), Idrimi’s
contemporary, has apparently left us pitifully few records (https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Idrimi):
…. Parshatatar – Parshatatar, Paršatar, Barattarna, or
Parattarna was the name of a Hurrian king of Mitanni in the fifteenth century
BC. Very few records of him are known as sources from Mitanni are rare, most
information we have about the kingdom, especially its early history and kings
come from records outside of the state. Dates for the kings can be deduced by
comparing the chronology of Mitanni and other states, especially ancient Egypt,
at a later date, information is found in the biography of Idrimi of Alalakh. Parshatatar
conquered the area and made Idrimi his vassal, Idrimi becoming king of Aleppo,
Mitanni in his time probably extended as far as Arrapha in the east, Terqa in
the south, and Kizzuwatna in the West. Parshatatar may have been the Mitannian
king the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmosis I met at the Euphrates River in an early in
his reign. Information about his death is mentioned in a record from Nuzi dated
to the death of king Parshatatar, possibly around 1420.
This
lack of due information for Parratarna and other early Mitannian kings has compelled
the likes of professor Gunnar Heinsohn and Emmet Sweeney to look for
alternative explanations.
Connecting with
Assyria
Emmet
Sweeney, for example, has explained in his article, “Shalmaneser III and Egypt”:
http://www.hyksos.org/index.php?title=Shalmaneser_III_and_Egypt):
We see that, without exception, the Mitannian levels are followed
immediately, and without any gap, by the Neo-Assyrian ones; and the
Neo-Assyrian material is that of the early Neo-Assyrians, Ashurnasirpal II and
his son Shalmaneser III. Now, since the last Mitannian king, Tushratta, was a
contemporary of Akhenaton, this would suggest that Ashuruballit, who wrote
several letters to Akhenaton, was the same person as Ashurnasirpal II, father
of Shalmaneser III.
The end of the Mitannian kingdom is documented in a series of texts from
the Hittite capital. We are told that Tushratta was murdered by one of his
sons, a man named Kurtiwaza. The latter then feld, half naked, to the court of
the Hittite King, Suppiluliumas, who put an army at his disposal; with which
the parricide conquered the Mitannian lands. The capital city, Washukanni, was
taken, and Kurtiwaza was presumably rewarded for his treachery.
The region of Assyrian was a mainstay of the Mitannian kingdom. A few
years earlier Tushratta had sent the cult statue of Ishtar of Nineveh to Egypt.
So, if Kurtiwaza was established as a puppet king by Suppiluliumas, it is
likely that his kingdom would have included Assyria.
….
The “Middle Assyrians” were a mysterious line of kings who ruled Assyria
before the time of the Neo-Assyrians and supposedly after the time of the
Mitannians. Yet we know of no Assyrian stratigraphy which can give a clear line
from Mitannian to Middle Assyrian to Neo-Assyrian. On the contrary, as we saw,
the Mitannians are followed immediately by the Neo-Assyrians of Ashurnasirpal
II and Shalmaneser III. This can only mean that the Middle Assyrians must have
been contemporaries of the Mitannians, and were most likely Mitannian kings using
Assyrian names. We know that ancient rulers often bore several titles in
accordance with the various nations and ethnic groups over which they reigned.
Since the Mitannian royal names are Indo-Iranian, and therefore meaningless and
probably unpronounceable to the Semitic speakers of Assyria, it is almost
certain that they would also have used Assyrian-sounding titles.
That the Middle Assyrians were in fact contemporary with the Mitannians
is shown in numberless details of artwork, pottery, epigraphy, etc. (See for
example P. Pfalzner, Mittanische und Mittelassyrische Keramik (Berlin, 1995) ….
Emmet’s
conclusion about Idrimi’s powerful Mitannian
contemporary, Parratarna - that he was the ‘Assyrian’ king Shamsi-Adad I (our
biblical Hadadezer contemporary of David’s) - would now appear to make
chronological - and probably geographical - sense.
And
it is also now likely that, as we read above: “[Parratarna] Parshatatar may
have been the Mitannian king the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmosis I met at the
Euphrates River in an early in his reign”. For, according to this present series,
pharaoh Thutmose [Thutmosis] I was a late contemporary of king David’s.
Whilst
Shamsi-Adad I is quite well known, I have wondered why we know so little about
his long-reigning son, Ishme-Dagan I (c. 1776 BC - c. 1736 BC, conventional
dating). Sweeney has duly suggested that Ishme-Dagan I was the Mitannian, Shaushtatar,
son of Parratarna. Conventional date figures given for the reign of Shaushtatar are c. 1440 BC -
1415 BC.
As
we would expect, if Parratarna was Shamsi-Adad I (= David’s for, Hadadezer), then
the Mitannian king would be no ally of Idrimi
(= David’s ally, Adoniram = Hiram). And, indeed, we learn of Parratarna’s (initial,
at least) “hostility” towards Idrimi, with
possible “warfare”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrimi
…. Edward Greenstein's and David Marcus's
translation of the inscription on lines 42-51 revealed that despite
Parratarna's hostility to Idrimi while he was in exile in Canaan, he actually
respected Idrimi's coalition, maybe submitting to Idrimi out of fear that his
social outcast army could overthrow him. Idrimi said that King Parshatatar for
"seven years ... was hostile to me. I sent Anwanda to Parrattarna, the
mighty king, the king of the Hurrian warriors, and told him of the treaties of
my ancestors ... and that our actions were pleasing to the former kings of the
Hurrian warriors for they had made a binding agreement. The mighty king heard
of the treaties of our predecessors and the agreement made between them and ...
read to him the words of the treaty in detail. So on account of our treaty
terms he received my tribute ... I ... restored to him a lost estate. I swore
to him a binding oath as a loyal vassal.".[16] Here, possibly influenced by the nature
of Hittite oaths, Idrimi swore loyalty to Parshatatar after seven years despite
him overthrowing his father on the throne in Aleppo. He made his request to the
throne peacefully by restoring [Parattarna's] estate and swore him an ultimate
Hurrian loyalty oath, which was the first step to Idrimi regaining his power
again.
The inscription in lines 42-51 of Greenstein and
Marcus's translation described Idrimi's capture of Alalakh as a peaceful effort
to appease Parrattarna with tributes of restoring his estate and swearing a
loyalty oath unto him rather than using warfare to capture the city. Marc Van
de Mieroop mentioned that Idrimi "captured" Alalakh implying a
warfare approach that the inscription doesn't give. Author Paul Collins
described Idrimi's maneuver as a "greeting-present, the traditional form
of establishing and maintaining friendly relations between rulers, even those
of different rank, and reminded him (Parrattarna) of earlier oaths sworn
between the kings of Halab (Aleppo) and the kings of Mitanni." Also,
Collins mentioned that Parratarna had accepted Idrimi's tribute to him as a loyal vassal ruler. He only allowed Idrimi limited
independence of making his own military and diplomatic decisions just as long
as it didn't interfere with Mitanni's overall policy. This further allowed
Idrimi to set his sights on his diplomatic and military aims in Kizzuwatna and
act as an independent ruler.[17] Idrimi's "capture" of Alalakh
was evidenced in his statue inscription and Collins' analysis as a peaceful
movement rather than a military movement”.
No comments:
Post a Comment