March/April 606 - March/April 605 B.C.

According to the Chronicle

The 20^th year of Nabopolassar is perhaps the most eventful year documented in the Chronicle, with the possible exception of the one following, the year of his death. All of the activity takes place at the western bend of the Euphrates.

This year, 606-605 B.C., is dominated by three events - 1) the loss to Egypt of the city of Kimuhu which had been captured late in the previous year (May - August 606 B.C.); 2) Nabopolassar's capture of three towns across the Euphrates from Quramati, apparently in reaction to his loss of Kimuhu (September 606 B.C. - January 605 B.C.); and finally, 3) the loss of Quramati (and the associated loss of the three cities), as the Egyptian army responded in kind (February 605 B.C.). We reproduce the entire content of the Chronicle for this year, eleven brief lines of cuneiform text.

In the twentieth year the army of Egypt came to the city of Kimuxu against the garrison which the king of Akkad had set up within (it) and for four months they did battle against the city and then captured the city. They slew the garrison of (set there by) the king of Akkad.. In the month of Tisri (Sept/Oct) the king of Akkad mustered his army, marched along the bank of the Euphrates and pitched his camp at Quramati which is on the bank of the Euphrates. He sent his troops across the Euphrates and they seized the towns of Šunadiri, Elammu and Dakhammu which are in the country across the river. Spoil from them they took. In the month of Sebat (Jan/Feb), the king of Akkad returned to his own country. The Egyptian army which had crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish came against the Babylonian army which was stationed at Quramati but the Babylonian army withdrew quickly and retreated. (B.M. 21946 lines 16-26)

There are several interpretive problems associated with this section of the Chronicle. In the first place the location of the cities Kimuhu and Quramati is not firmly established. The map below (figure 1) is essentially that produced by Wiseman [2], who locates Kumuhu south of Carchemish and Quramati still further south, though we note that Wiseman discusses possible alternative locations of these cities. We have added the conjectured site of Niy concerning which there is considerable disagreement.[3] There is also a problem determining precisely when the "army of Egypt" arrived at the city of Kimuhu to begin its four month siege. We assume this siege ended only a short time before the Babylonian counteroffensive of the month Tisri (September/October). This would date its beginning sometime in May. Finally there is the question: what portion of the Egyptian army was present at each event? Wiseman assumes that the defeat of Kimuhu was accomplished using only a residual Egyptian force, an opinion based in part on the extremely long time it took for the assault to succeed, four months compared with the two months or less that it had taken Nabopolassar to seize the city (from Egypt?) the previous year.

Figure 1: The Western Bend of the Euphrates in 606 B.C.

Throughout his discussion Wiseman assumes that Carchemish contains an Egyptian garrison, and that the city has been under Egyptian control since at least 609 B.C.. It is Carchemish, he argues, which provided the troops to retake Kimuhu, and to capture Quramati early in 606 B.C. He is correct on all points save one. As we will soon see, the siege of Kimuhu was, as Wiseman suggests, the action of a small segment of the Egyptian army. But these troops did not originate in Carchemish.

We reproduce Wiseman's entire discussion here. We will have cause to comment on it as we proceed.

Kimuhu was a strategic site commanding a river crossing. Its capture by the Babylonians guarded against any Egyptian thrust down the river and gave a base from which the Egyptian line of communication from Hamath to Carchemish might be threatened. The importance of Kimuhu is further attested by the swift reaction of the Egyptians to its capture, for after Nabopolassar's departure, they marched to besiege the town. The Babylonian garrison would be limited in numbers, and as the siege lasted four months it is clear that the besiegers did not represent the full strength of the Egyptian army. At last the town fell, the Babylonian garrison being slain by the Egyptians. Nabopolassar at once called out his army and marched up the east bank of the Euphrates to camp at Quramati. He then sent detachments across the river to seize the towns of Šunadiri, Elammu and Dahammu. These places are otherwise unknown and were perhaps only small villages whose capture gave the Babylonians a bridgehead which served both to guard the river ford and also to hinder any possible outflanking movement by the Egyptians were they to try joining up with dissident forces in the Hindanu and Suhu regions down the river. The location of Quramati depends on that of Kimuhu which lay south of Carchemish and above Meskeneh, where the river bends eastward. Quramati being south of Kimuhu may have lain on the bank ... (pp. 21,22)

Wiseman goes on to discuss possible locations of Quramati further downriver from where he places it on the map. He then continues ...

Having disposed his troops in a defensive position, Nabopolassar returned to Babylon in Sebat (January/February 605 B.C.). This was the last time he was destined to lead his army in battle. Very soon afterwards, the Egyptian forces took the initiative , for they crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish and marched down the left bank towards the Babylonians at Quramati. The latter had already displayed their weakness by failing to advance upstream in order to recapture Kimuhu, and they now moved off before the enemy made contact with them Their retreat may have been due, in part, to lack of leadership, for there is no record that the crown-prince remained with the army after Nabopolassar's return to Babylon. (p. 22)

This is the sum total of the Chronicle record for this year as interpreted by Wiseman. In view of the complexity of the Egyptian/Babylonian interaction we wonder how the Annals will compare.

According to the Annals.

It is significant that Menkheperre spent his entire 33^rd year engaged in military activity at the bend of the Euphrates. That fact is self evident from even a cursory reading of the Annals of his 8^th campaign. Egyptologists concur. The only question is whether the Annals and the Chronicle agree in their portrayal of events at this location.

We should note, before we begin to compare the two documents, that we must ignore completely the interpretation given the Annals for this year (and the next) by the current generation of scholars. When Breasted, whose opinion is representative, states that "in this year the king carries out the greatest campaign of his Asiatic wars, viz., the conquest of the Euphrates, he is clearly representing the 33^rd year of Menkheperre as that king's initial visit to region, one in which he encounters and defeats the city of Carchemish. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Annals say nothing about an Egyptian attack on Carchemish, either this year or the next. The belief that Menkheperre fought a battle with this city on his 8^th campaign is derived from the tomb inscriptions of Amenemheb, on the assumption that this dignitary did not follow a chronological order as he reviewed his military career. And we have previously argued against this mistaken opinion. Amenemheb fought in the land of Carchemish (in league with Ashuruballit against the Babylonian/Median coalition ) on Menkheperre's 5^th campaign, not against Carchemish on the 8^th campaign. Let us read the Annals to see what actually happened.

Year 33. Behold, his majesty was in the land of Retenu; [he] arrived ----- .
[He set up a tablet] east of this water; he set up another beside the tablet of his father, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Okheperkere.
Behold, his majesty went north capturing the towns and laying waste the settlements of that foe of wretched Naharin (N-h-ry-nA)
-- he [pursu]ed after them an iter (ytr) of sailing; not one looked behind him, but (they) fled, forsooth, like a [herd] of mountain goats; yea, the horses fled ----- .
[List of the booty taken] among the whole army, consisting of; princes, 3; their wives, 30; men taken, 80; 606 slaves, male and female, with their children; those who surrendered (and) their wives, ----- (he) harvested their grain. His majesty arrived at the city of Niy (Nyy), going south-ward, when his majesty returned, having set up his tablet in Naharin (N-h-ry-nA), extending the boundaries of Egypt. ------------. BAR II 477-481

If the first line of this year's inscription is inconclusive, because the end of the line is damaged, the record is set straight from other documents which state that Menkheperre moved through Syria (Retenu) to the Euphrates, which he proceeded to cross. It was early in his 33^rd year. According to the Barkal stele, en route to Naharin Menkheperre stopped at the Orontes River, while he still had access to timber, to construct makeshift boats with which to ferry his army across the Euphrates. Clearly he intended to embark on a trans-Euphrates campaign. Assuming that a month or so was occupied in this endeavor, and that he began his campaign as usual early in the spring, he must have arrived at Naharin near the end of the second month of his regnal year. This is consistent with the Chronicle, which states that the Egyptian siege of Kimuhu began early in Nabopolassar's (and thus Menkheppere's ) regnal year.

We assume that Menkheperre began the siege of Kimuhu the moment he arrived at the Euphrates. Then, leaving a small contingent of his army to continue the siege (which explains it's lengthy duration), he crossed the Euphrates near the city of Niy and headed north to conquer the lands between Carchemish and Harran, those lost by Amenemheb and a division of the Egyptian army, in alliance with Ashuruballit, three years earlier. On this northern campaign Menkheperre set to flight that "foe of wretched Naharin", presumably a reference to the Medes who now controlled the area. There are also hints in the Annals for this year that he encountered the Kheta (the Hittites), though not necessarily adversarily. More will be said of the Hittites in a moment.

Menkheperre's trans-Euphrates campaign must have occupied considerable time, to judge from the size of the booty, and the fact that this is the only event in which he participated this year. We assume the campaign lasted four or five months. By the time of his return to Niy (the last action specifically mentioned in the Annals) the siege of Kimuhu had already ended. Either that or the return of the army precipitated its surrender. It was now the fall of the year, as once again we find the Egyptians harvesting the grain of the region.

The fact that the Egyptian king condensed five months of significant military activity into a few lines of text is not surprising. As we have seen in earlier sections of the Annals, Menkheperre is more concerned with itemizing the tribute brought home to Amun than he is with any detailed description of how that tribute was obtained. The brevity of the record also explains why the assault of Kimuhu is not mentioned specifically. Since Menkheperre omits any details of his four months of war with the "foe of wretched Naharin", we should not be perplexed at his omission of other specifics of his 8^th campaign, in particular the siege of a single city.

We assume that Menkheperre returned to Egypt in September of 606 B.C., his authority in the Euphrates region re-established. A lacuna exists in the Annals immediately following the mention of his return to Niy. More than likely his exit from the region was recorded there. Apparently a garrison of troops was left at Carchemish to safeguard the area, a precaution necessitated by the threat of retaliation by the Medes and/or the Babylonians.

We obtain no additional specifics from the Annals. The balance of the inscription for the 8^th campaign consists of a list of booty. This list is instructive but before we examine it in detail we need to supply the sequel to the events noted, based largely on the Chronicle. In September/October of the year, after Menkheperre returned to Egypt, Nabopolassar moved to recapture Kimuhu. Moving up the Euphrates to Quramati, a city already loyal to Babylon, he crossed the Euphrates and attacked and seized the towns of Sunadiri, Elammu, and Dahammu. These were not insignificant towns, in spite of Wiseman's comment to the contrary. Their capture took the Babylonian king four months, from Tishri (September/October) to Shabat (January/February), thus into the Julian year 605 B.C., but still within Nabopolassar's 20^th year. According to the Chronicle, in a section quoted earlier:

In the month of Sebat, the king of Akkad returned to his own country. The Egyptian army which had crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish came against the Babylonian army which was stationed in Quramati but the Babylonian army withdrew quickly and retreated. (BM 21946 ll. 23-26)

There is no problem understanding why Nabopolassar returned home rather than attempt the recapture of Kimuhu. The siege of the three trans-Euphrates cities had taken longer than anticipated. And since he died six months later we can safely assume he was ill Regardless, his withdrawal from Quramati served as a signal for the Egyptian garrison at Carchemish to respond, putting an end to Babylon's intrusion into Egyptian territory. We have already noted Wiseman's opinion that the responsive attack on Quramati did not involve the Egyptian king, nor the bulk of the Egyptian army. He was correct. Menkheperre had long since departed for Egypt where he remained for the balance of his 33^rd year.

According to the Chronicle the auxiliary force from Carchemish defeated the Babylonian garrison at Quramati immediately after the departure of Nabopolassar, either that same month or at the latest the next (Adar), since the Chronicle cites the event as the last incident in the 20^th year of Nabopolassar. It is therefore still within the 33^rd year of Menkheperre.

Tribute from the 8th Campaign.

We pick up the record of the Annals where we left it moments ago following Menkheperre's exit from Naharin. The inscription proceeds immediately with further lists of tribute. Since Menkheperre has already itemized the bounty he received on his four month campaign against the "foe of wretched Naharin", these further items must refer to material goods received by the army resident in Syria after his departure for Egypt.

The list begins with tribute received from "the chiefs of this country", presumably a reference to Naharin. It continues by itemizing tribute forthcoming from Zahi and Lebanon, isolating for special mention the important "gifts" from the Kheta and from the "chief of Shinar". The record for the year concludes with an account of the marvels derived from Egypt's Mediterranean trade (from the land of Punt) and from Wawat, south of Egypt.

We are particularly interested in the references to the Kheta and to the "chief of Shinar".

The tribute of the chief of Shinar, real lapis lazuli, 4(+x) deben; artificial lapis lazuli, 24 deben; lapis lazuli of Babylon ----- of real lapis lazuli; a rem's head of real lapis lazuli; 15 kidet; and vessels -----.
The tribute of Kheta the Great, in this year: 8 silver rings, making 401 deben, of white precious stone, a great block (t'gw) wood

The problematic nature of these two names for the traditional history is all but ignored by Breasted in his commentary on the Annals. His reflections are restricted to a single sentence, remarkable for its oversight.

Even far-off Babylon sends gifts, which, of course, the king calls tribute, and also the Hittites, who here make their first appearance in history. BAR II 476 p. 202

We are perplexed by this abbreviated comment, which entirely ignores the problem. Neither the Kheta nor the "chief of Shinar" belong in this list, at least on the assumption that the Annals belong in the 15^th century B.C. The matter is sufficiently serious to warrant further comment. We begin with the Kheta.

Tribute from Hatti

In the traditional history the Hittites of the 15^th century B.C. are an emerging nation centered in central Anatolia. Their very existence was unknown to the scholarly world until the excavations at Boghazkeui and the discovery of the Amarna correspondence in the 19^th century. According to the traditional history, by the mid 14^th century B.C. this nation expanded its sphere of influence to include almost all of Anatolia, save for the eastern shores of the Aegean, thus becoming, along with Mitanni, a dominant force in Asian politics. But in the 15^th century the Kheta nation was in its infancy. Its territorial expansion was yet a century in the future. Its sovereignty did not reach as far south as northern Syria nor eastward to the western bend of the Euphrates. Then how did Menkheperre come into contact with the Hittites near the western bend of the Euphrates during his 8^th campaign? In the 15^th century the Hittites should be 250 miles north and west of this region.

On the other hand, on the assumption that Menkheperre belongs to the late 7^th century, the mention of the Kheta is not only non-problematic, it is anticipated in any campaign in the vicinity of Carchemish. By this time in history the Hittites controlled lands bordering the Euphrates north and west of this city. Repeatedly, when describing activity near the western bend of the Euphrates, the Chronicle makes reference to these Hatti lands. It is entirely expected that Menkheperre would have some dealings with this nation in the course of his 8^th campaign [4]

Tribute from Babylon

A similar problem is inherent in the assumed reference to tribute from Babylon. If the "chief of Shinar" is understood as a reference to the king of Babylon, we wonder why tribute would be forthcoming from such a remote location, 400 hundred miles distant from the Euphrates arena where the Egyptian king has just encountered the foe of Naharin. It is precisely the same argument we raised in relation to the mention of "far off Assyria" and Babylon following the first campaign. A response from the distant Babylonians in the 15^th century B.C. is highly unlikely, and the interpretation provided by Breasted is accordingly suspect.

But the difficulty with tribute from the "chief of Shinar" does not end there. There is a more fundamental problem. The text does not actually refer to a "king of Babylon". It mentions only a "chief of Shinar" who includes with his tribute "lapiz lazuli from Babylon". The question needs to be raised: Who is the "chief of Shinar" mentioned in this context?

When scholars first read this phrase in the Annals they were immediately confronted with a problem. This king is clearly accorded special mention by Menkheperre, as if he has played a significant role in the course of the 8^th campaign. In context he must be located in the western Euphrates region, or bordering those lands, as were the Kheta. But no important city or city state by that name existed in the 15^th century. The only name that came to the mind of scholars, both because it had had dealing with Egypt following the 1^st campaign, and because the list of tribute mentioned "lapiz-lazuli from Babylon", was Babylon itself. Therefore, according to the understanding of early Egyptologists, Shinar(?) (Š'-n-g-r') must be a reference to the region of biblical Shinar in lower Mesopotamia, used here by metonymy for Babylon. Such at least was the identification proposed by Brugsch in the 19^th century. Meyer argued around the same time that the name refers to "the Sanhar of the Amarna letters", which led him ultimately to the same conclusion as Brugsch, since he identified Sanhar with Shinar. But these arguments are labored. Why such an oblique reference to a Babylonian king? We have a better solution.

With the 33^rd year of Menkheperre identified with the 20^th of Nabopolassar there is no problem with the references to the "chief of Shinar" or the "lapiz-lazuli from Babylon". The Egyptian army resident in Carchemish has just caused the Babylonian garrison to flee Qablinu, thus freeing the cities of Sunadiri, Elammu, and Dahammu. In this scenario we do not expect either tribute or "gifts" to be forthcoming from Babylon to Egypt. But we do expect an expression of gratitude on the part of the three liberated cities. Since Sunadiri is mentioned first in the triumvirate, we expect it was the major city in the group. We assume that in appreciation for its liberation from Babylon the chief of Sunadiri, probably on behalf of the three cities, sent to Menkheperre gifts of lapiz lazuli, some of which derived from the Babylonian conquerors, now departed. We note that the Annals actually record the city name as Shanagira (Š'-n-g-r'). Only by a linguistic stretch were Brugsch and Meyer able to transcribe the name as Shinar, all but ignoring the third consonant. But Shunadiri and Shanagira are virtually identical, assuming only a variant "plosive" sound for the problematic third consonant. And if we remember that the annalist would have heard the name of the remote and otherwise inconsequential city at second hand, we can tolerate the discrepancy.[5]

Amenemheb Again

Before we move on to examine the eventful 21^st year of Nabopolassar, the 34^th of Menkheperre, we focus our attention one more time on the biographical inscriptions of Amenemheb. Thus far we have noted a striking correspondence between the memoirs of this military officer and the Annals of the king. There has been no need to assume that these memoirs are confused and non sequential. Rather, confusion has been introduced by Egyptologists into the interpretation of the Annals based on this errant assumption. But if the journal of Amenemheb is written in chronological order we expect that it may shed some light on Menkheperre's 33^rd year. We pick up his tomb inscription where we left it in the last chapter.

I saw my lord in -- -- -- -- -- -- in all his forms in the country of the ends of [the earth] -- -- -- H' -- . Then I was raised to be the -- -- [-- --] of the army, like -- --.
Again I beheld his victory in the country of Tikhsi the wretched, in the city of Mero-- . I fought hand to hand therein before the king. I brought off Asiatics, 3 men, as living prisoners. Then my lord gave to me the god of honor; list thereof: 2 golden necklaces, 4 arm rings, 2 flies, a lion, a female slave, and a male slave.
Again [I beheld] another excellent deed which the Lord of the Two Lands did in Niy. He hunted 120 elephants, for the sake of their tusks and [--]. I engaged the largest which was among them, which fought against his majesty; I cut off his hand while he was alive [before] his majesty, while I stood in the water between two rocks. Then my lord rewarded me with gold; [he] gave -- -- -- and 3 changes of clothing." BAR II 586-588

In the opinion of Breasted the three incidents recorded here belong in three different time periods. The first is a campaign in an unknown country for which no corresponding year in the Annals is given. The second, the battle in Tikhsi, is assumed to belong to the tenth campaign dated to the 35^th year of the king, though the Annals for that campaign name no such country. Only the elephant hunt at Niy is assigned to the 33^rd year, the only time Menkheperre is known to have visited that area. We argue instead that they all belong to the king's 33^rd year.[6]

The text of the first few lines is broken and uncertain, but sufficient remains to determine that a battle was fought in a "country of (at) the ends of the earth". In context this can only be a reference to the region of Naharin. And the obscured reference to " H' " may well refer to the Hitties, Amenemheb supplying the vowel omitted by the Annals.

The "country of Tikhsi, the wretched" is also a reference to the Naharin area. There is no clear indication to the contrary in any documentary source. The name occurs elsewhere notably in only two other inscriptions, and in each case it can be argued that the reference is to the area north and east of Carchemish.[7] It is likely that this is the name of a city or region occupied by the "wretched foe of Naharin".

And finally, the concluding mention of an elephant hunt in the vicinity of Niy only confirms the interpretation given to the preceding references. We assume this sporting reprieve occurred at the end of Menkheperre's trans Euphrates campaign, immediately prior to his return to Egypt. Any other interpretation of this section of Amenemheb's tomb inscription is strained.

Menkheperre was at this moment on top of the world, literally and figuratively. The capture of the towns of Sunadiri, Elammu, and Dahammu by Nabopolassar, which followed by weeks the elephant hunt and the return of Menkheperre to Egypt, was but a temporary setback, set right by the garrison from Charchemish in the capture of Qablinu at year's end. At the conclusion of his 33^rd year Mehkheperre ruled the lands from "Yeraza to the marshes of the earth", the goal established in his 1^st campaign of victory [8] But within months, much of this newly won territory would be lost.

Aakheperkare

Before moving on to the next eventful year a concluding remark is necessary. In the Annals for this year there is a reference to Menkheperre setting up a tablet in Naharin "beside the tablet of his father, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Okheperkere". Lest we be accused of avoiding the issue we need to intrude on our discussion and comment briefly on this genealogical reference.

In the traditional history Aakheperkere is typically, though not universally, identified as the grandfather of the 18^th dynasty king Menkheperre Thutmose. The critic will therefore argue, with some merit, that an 18^th dynasty king is much more likely to refer to Aakheperkere as his "father" than is a distant 25^th dynasty pharaoh with only pretended connections to the Empire period. To that anticipated objection we say only two things at this time. In the first place we argue that the word translated "father" in this instance typically means no more than "ancestor". It is used frequently by Egyptian kings in reference to illustrious predecessors many generations removed., regardless of family connections. And it must be admitted by the staunchest critic that Aakheperkere is the true father of neither the 18^th dynasty nor the 25^th dynasty Menkheperre.

In the second place it goes without saying that Piankhi adopted the name of the 18^th dynasty Menkheperre with good reason. It was not a random choice of names. As we will see in later chapters, Piankhi was not the only member of his extended family to borrow names from 18^th dynasty pharaohs. It is by no means certain therefore, that the Aakheperkere mentioned in the Annals for this year is in fact the 18^th dynasty patriarch by that name. [9] But if he is, then we understand the sentiment which motivates Piankhi to refer to him as "father". It is a well known fact that the 25th dynasty kings, and their 26th dynasty successors, mimmicked the 18th dynasty pharaohs in many aspects of art and culture. For Piankhi, as for others of his generation, there existed a special affinity for or psychological bonding with the Empire pharaohs. Their choice of names is but one aspect of this phenomenon. At the appropriate time we will discuss the confusion that has resulted from this widespread use of 18^th dynasty names by 25^th dynasty pretenders, the results of which are manifest in a controversy arereferred to by Egyptologists under the umbrella term "The Thutmoside Succession". We will say more about Aakheperkere at that time.