Nebuchadrezzar's 1st year / Menkheppere Annals (Year 35) - the 10th Campaign

        There is little to say regarding the year 604/3 B.C. According to the Chronicle Nebuchadrezzar spent most of his 1^st official regnal year solidifying his hold on the Hatti lands, apparently marching about unopposed. It is apparent that he continued to control Syria, since in the fall of the year 604 B.C. he moved still further south to lay siege to the city of Ashkelon, near the border of Egypt. Perhaps the move was strategic. Ashkelon lies on the narrow land corridor leading from Egypt to Syria. Controlling this region would restrict altogether Egyptian land access to the Lebanon and Retenu. Ashkelon fell in the month Kislev (Nov/Dec). The city was ruthlessly sacked and looted. It was left a heap of rubble.

        The Annals for this year record a 10^th campaign for Menkheperre, restricted to the same Zahi region he occupied the previous year. In Zahi he was again forced to suppress rebellion, engaging an unnamed enemy in battle and carrying off loot in consequence.

        It is imperative that we comment on this battle. It has been badly interpreted by Breasted and others, who consider the incident as descriptive of a "revolt in Naharin" and an ensuing "battle in Naharin". This is not the case. We should read the Annals carefully.

Year35. Behold, his majesty was in the land of Zahi on the tenth victorious campaign.
When his majesty arrived at the city of Araina ('-r'-y'-n'), behold, that wretched foe [of Nahar)in ([N-h-ry-n') had collected horses and people; [his] majesty -- -- -- -- of the ends of the earth. They were numerous -- -- they were about to fight with his majesty.
Then his majesty advanced [to fight] with them; then the army of his majesty furnished an example of attack, in the matter of seizing and taking. Then his majesty prevailed against [these] barbarians by the souls of [his] f[ather] A[mon] ----- of Naharin (N-h-r-n'). They fled headlong, falling one over another, before his majesty.

        The repeated introduction to the two lists of booty suggest how the Annals for this year should be interpreted. Araina, whose precise location is contested, is apparently situated in the extreme north-east of the coastal region still controlled by Egypt. Sensing the tenuous nature of Egyptian sovereignty in the area the prince of the city - referred to by the Annals as the "wretched foe of Araina (not Naharin as Breasted translates - both names have similar endings and the ending is all that is visible)" - has chosen the opportunity to secure his independence. In preparation for the anticipated retaliation by Egypt he has apparently solicited assistance from elsewhere - "horses and people (troops)" from "the ends of the earth", the latter a reference to the region of Naharin, as we have previously noted. The Naharin mercenaries are almost certainly not a contingent of the Babylonian army, else the Chronicle would have made note of the battle. Regardless of their ethnic make-up, or their reasons for lending assistance, the fact remains that they were ineffective. In the battle of Araina they "fled headlong, falling one over another", leaving behind a few suits of armor and other objects. This cannot under any circumstances be a reference to the powerful "foe of wretched Naharin", retreating in cowardly fashion before a superior Egyptian army. In context it can only refer to mercenary troops or "soldiers of fortune" assisting the town of Araina in its rebellion against Egyptian authority.

        The Annals clearly distinguish the mercenaries and the citizens of the rebellious city. The Naharin soldiers, having no vested interest in the city, flee at the first hint of danger, leaving behind a few pieces of armor. In their absence, the citizenry of Araina, left to fend for themselves, suffered extensive losses.

        When Breasted, and others in the last century, read the name of Naharin in the text of the Annals for this year, they mistakenly assumed that this battle was fought in the region of Naharin. Thus the history books record the details of the 10^th campaign of Menkheperre. But they are clearly wrong. Menkheperre begins his Annals for his 35^th year specifically noting that he is in Zahi, near the Mediterranean coast. In that region must be found the city of Araina, and near that city must be located the scene of the battle. The historians cannot be faulted for their error. The text of the Annals for this year is badly preserved. And the historians do not have the benefit of the Chronicle to assist their interpretation.

        We should mention, in defense of this interpretation, that there is precedent for the use of mercenary troops by Syrian cities. In fact, as we will see later in the Annals, an identical situation prevails in the 42^nd year of Menkheperre, when Egypt attempts to regain a foothold in Syria. There we find, as in this instance, that troops from "wretched Naharin" were employed in defense of Syrian cities. But in the later incident they are specifically referred to as "auxiliaries among them", and thus Egyptologists have correctly interpreted the situation.

        One chapter remains to conclude our comparison of the Chronicle and the Annals through the balance of the military career of Menkheperre. Then we proceed to defend our thesis on other grounds. But before we move past the year 604/603 B.C. we should remark one more time on the implications of our thesis for the history of the Ancient Near East in the 15^th century B.C. We are concerned primarily with the mention of the Mitanni, the Hittites, and the Aramaean Syrian princes in the Annals of Menkheperre.
 

The Mitanni Again

        When Menkheperre crossed the Euphrates in 606 B.C. and fought the "wretched foe of Naharin" it was not specifically stated that the reference was to the Mitanni. In fact, in the Annals themselves the Mitanni are not mentioned. The name is supplied instead by the Barkal stela and, among others, by a document we have not previously mentioned, a so-called "Hymn of Victory" contained on a black granite tablet almost two meters high discovered by Mariette in a chamber northwest of the main sanctuary room of Karnak. There we find pictured Menkheperre Thutmose bringing gifts to Amun, who responds in praise of the king:

Thou has smitten the hordes of rebels according as I commanded thee
The earth in its length and breadth, Westerners and Easterners are subject to thee,
Thou tramplest all countries, thy heart glad;
None presents himself before thy majesty,
While I am thy leader, so that thou mayest reach hem.
Thou has crossed the water of the Great Bend of Naharin (N-h-r-n) with victory, with might.

I have come, causing thee to smite those who are in their marshes,
The lands of Mitanni (My-t-n) tremble under fear of thee BAR II 656-7

        In 1928 the preeminent linguist W.F. Albright examined a fragment of a royal stele recently discovered in Palestine in which Menkheperre boasts of having "repelled the foreigners of Mitanni (so that it has become) as one that never existed." [12] The fragment does not bear the king's name, but was assigned to Menkheperre on a variety of grounds, among them one of particular relevance to our discussion:

        A clue to the date of our inscription is provided by the reference to Mitanni in l. 3. Nearly all the allusions to this country under its native name Mitanni occur in the inscriptions of 'Thuthmosis III. The passages where the name Mtn occur in the inscriptions have been collected by Muller, Asien und Europa, 280 ff., and Burchardt, Die altkanaanaischen Fremdworte, No. 541 (emphasis mine) Ibid

        We underscore Albright's claim that references to Mitanni abound in the inscriptions of Menkheperre Thutmose (alias Piankhi), and are infrequent elsewhere. We believe that the majority date between 609 And 606 B.C. An analysis of the lists provided by Muller and Burchard would prove instructive, but would necessitate a discussion of the king's family, something we are not prepared to do at this time..
 

The Hittites Again

        When Breasted made the remark (quoted above in our discussion related to the 33^rd year of Menkheperre) concerning the "Hittites, who here make their first appearance in history", he could not have been further from the truth. In the revised history the Empire period of the Hittites is long since past when the Annals were written. The time of Ramses II, and his famous battle at Kadesh with the Hittite king Hattusilis II, is ancient history. Far from being the first appearance of the Hittites in history, in 606 B.C. we are arguably nearing the end of the nation. Another century and the Hittites all but disappear from history.

        When scholars attempt to rewrite the history of this nation, as they must, they should anticipate finding references to the time of Menkheperre Piankhi among the archives of the last kings of the nation. An investigation of the Hittite inscriptions of this period would be interesting, but would also be time consuming and of marginal utility. We leave the investigation to others. We are concerned here only to defend our proposal that the Hittite nation existed in the late 7^th century, since the traditional history states otherwise. In the view of modern historians the Hittite Empire ended around 1200 B.C.. The claim is made that only the name was preserved as a designation of a coalition of northern Syrian states which flourished in the 9^th through 7^th centuries B.C., i.e. the Hatti lands of the Chronicle.

        We do not have to venture far to prove our case. In fact, the evidence has already been reviewed in Nebuchadrezzar, the first volume of this series. In the Kawa temple inscriptions belonging to Taharka, who ruled Egypt briefly in the years 570-564 B.C., thus less than forty years after the mention of Kheta in the Annals, this terminal 25^th dynasty king boasted of ruling "every land and country ... eastward to the rising of the sun." What was implied by this statement is spelled out in detailed lists of conquests on two Karnak monuments of Taharka, a statuette found in the temple of Mut and a wall inscription from the forecourt of the Amun temple. In both lists Taharka claims to be sovereign over lands as far afield as Assur [13], including Kadesh, the Kheta, Carchemish and Naharin. We have securely dated the time of this territorial expansion to a period, early in his kingship, when Nebuchadrezzar suffered from ill health, with associated loss of ability to preserve his kingdom.

        Egyptologists were quick to discount these claims of Taharka. After all, according to them the Hittites as a nation (the Kheta) had ceased to exist six hundred earlier, and domination over Assur was an impossibility in the early 7^th century where the 25^th dynasty was mistakenly placed by 19^th century Egyptologists. Flinders Petrie, the eminent and influential British scholar, was quick to offer a disclaimer, noting that "Taharqa was as much ruler of Qedesh and Naharaina as George II was king of France, though officially so called". E.A. Wallis Budge, equally prominent and equally British, put forward an even more biting criticism. He scornfully remarked on the fact that Taharka, "in commemoration of a campaign which he did not fight, in a country which he never entered" caused "a list of great peoples of Syria and Palestine to be cut on the base of his statue as nations which he had conquered."

        We have defended Taharka's boasts. He had no reason to misrepresent the extent of his empire. In other documents he is brutally honest about his losses. Why stretch the truth in reference to his gains. And the fact that the Kheta existed forty years after the Annals reference of the year 605 B.C., and that by then it was a nation subservient to Egypt, agrees entirely with our claim that the Empire period of this nation has long since past. Enough said.
 

The Aramean Syrian States

        Throughout our discussion thus far we have said little regarding the ethnic make-up of the princes of Syria who inhabited the lands of Retenu and Lebanon and did battle with Menkheperre at Megiddo. We assume, based on a reference in the journal of Amenemheb (which we have already examined) and another in the Annals [14] (which we have not previously mentioned), that they were Arameans, and if so, that they arrived in the area around the 10th/9th centuries B.C.  Under no circumstances was this region of the country populated by Arameans in the 15^th century B.C.. The only historical source informing us of the ethnological and political make-up of Lebanon/Syria in the 15^th century B.C. is the Hebrew Bible. According to Jewish historians, a political structure in which Aramean city states existed in a loose confederation which banded together for defense, as in the battle of Qarqar in the mid 9^th century, begins only after the time of David and Solomon. This evidence suggests that the Annals were written later than the 10^th century.

        On the negative side the evidence is equally compelling.  In the 15^th century B.C. the Hebrew Bible describes the occupants of Palestine and the Lebanon, at the time of the arrival of the Hebrews under Joshua, as consisting of large ethnically divergent and semi-independant nations known as the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites. (Joshua 3:10) The Hittites in this list are not inhabitants of Anatolia or northern Syria and, if related at all to the later national group, must be distant ancestors of the Anatolian kings. They are represented as dwelling in the Lebanon region, between the Euphrates and the Sea (Joshua 1:4). It is impossible to reconcile the testimony of the Hebrew Bible in this regard with the political situation described in the Annals of Menkheperre. Yet both supposedly describe 15^th century Syria/Palestine. The date for the arrival of Joshua is based on internal chronological references. There is no good reason to doubt the validity of these references. The Annals are dated on the assumption that they were authored by an early18^th dynasty king, and that this dynasty was founded at the beginning of the 15^th century. We challenge both of these assumptions.

        The Annals and the Hebrew Bible cannot both be correct. Needless to say, Egyptologists have all too readily and far too glibly dismissed the evidence of the Jewish historians.

        Is it possible at this late date to argue the case of the Syrian princes one way or the other. The answer is a qualified yes. Archaeology might well save the day. What is needed is an archaeological site which spans the centuries between the 15^th century as described in the Hebrew Bible and the 7^th century as described in the Annals of Menkheperre. And such a site does exist. Megiddo. A brief word of explanation must suffice.

        If we are correct in our revision of history then the history of Megiddo, as recorded in the standard textbooks, is seriously in error.  According to the Annals, as interpreted by the traditional history, Megiddo in the 15^th century B.C. was a well fortified city apparently allied with the Syrian princes. In dictionaries and textbooks where the city is mentioned it is noted that Megiddo first appears in history in the Annals of Menkheperre. In evaluating the ruins of the city, excavated a number of times over the last century, archaeologists have begun their analyses of the excavation records by attempting to establish which archaeological strata corresponds to the 15^th century destruction of the city wrought by Menkheperre. Needless to say, the history of the site is badly written, since it begins with a faulty premise.

        We do not doubt that Megiddo is an ancient site. Joshua defeated a king of that city during the Israelite occupation of the country in the 15^th century B.C. (Joshua 12:21)  At the time, and for several centuries after, the town was occupied by Canaanites (cf. Joshua 17:12; Judges 1:27)  That situation prevailed throughout the period of the Judges.  Deborah and Barak, for example, confronted the Canaanites at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo (Judges 5:19). It was not until the time of David that the city came under Israelite domination for the first time and ultimately became one of Solomon's administrative districts (1 Kings 4:12). But this biblical view of the city's history contrasts sharply with the statements of the Annals which compel us to believe that the city was occupied either by Aramean Syrians or by Egypt in the 15^th century. In the Annals the Canaanites are conspicuous by their absence.

        This is neither the time nor the place to rewrite the history of Megiddo. We suggest that archaeologists reexamine the excavation records to determine whether the revised history or the traditional history best explains the evidence. In a later chapter we will look at only one critical phase of the city's occupation, a single anomaly in the archaeology of the site that can be best understood on the assumption that the Annals belong in the late 7^th century.

        When in chapter two we discussed the famous battle of Megiddo and the seven month siege of the city which followed, we were concerned primarily with the political results, not with the destruction wrought on the city. In the third chapter, when we discussed Josiah confronting Neco at Megiddo seven years later, our attention was focused exclusively on the time-line. By design we avoided asking the obvious question. Is it merely coincidence that Megiddo plays a central role in both events, separated by 800 years in the traditional history, but only seven years in the revised alternative?  Is it possible to find in the ruins of Megiddo evidence that a destruction of the city took place within the reign of Josiah?
 

Postscript

        Throughout the first book of this series we noted the repeated intransigence of 20^th century Egyptologists when confronted with evidence which contradicts long cherished views of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern history. The case of Taharka cited earlier is but one example of this attitude in action. If we seem to be belaboring the point when we devote four chapters of our book (inclusive of chapter five) to a single theme, the reader should understand to whom we are speaking. The unbiased critic should already be convinced that the Annals of Menkheperre do not belong in the 15^th century B.C.  And it is statistically near to impossible for the correspondences between the Annals and Chronicle, both temporal and political, to exist as they do unless the two documents are contemporary.