Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar. Part Three: ‘The Marduk Prophecy’



 



 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit

for King Nebuchednezzar

 

Part Three:
‘The Marduk Prophecy’

 

by



 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“The original work was almost certainly written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BCE) as a propaganda piece. Nebuchadnezzar I defeated the Elamites and brought the statue back to Babylon, and the work was most likely commissioned

to celebrate his victory”.

 

Joshua J. Mark

  

 

‘The Marduk Prophecy’, although conventionally dated to the neo-Assyrian era (c. 700 BC), is thought to pertain originally to the so-called ‘Middle’ Babylonian period centuries earlier. 

That is what we read, for instance, at:

https://www.ancient.eu/article/990/the-marduk-prophecy/

 

by Joshua J. Mark
published on 14 December 2016

 

The Marduk Prophecy is an Assyrian document dating to between 713-612 BCE found in a building known as The House of the Exorcist adjacent to a temple in the city of Ashur. It relates the travels of the statue of the Babylonian god Marduk from his home city to the lands of the Hittites, Assyrians, and Elamites and prophesies its return at the hands of a strong Babylonian king. The original work was almost certainly written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BCE) as a propaganda piece. Nebuchadnezzar I defeated the Elamites and brought the statue back to Babylon, and the work was most likely commissioned to celebrate his victory.

 

The author would have constructed the narrative to place the events in the past in order to allow for a 'prophetic vision' in which the present king would come to restore peace and order to the city by bringing home the statue of the god. This form of narrative was commonplace in the genre now known as Mesopotamian Naru Literature where historical events or individuals were treated with poetic license in order to make a point. In a work such as The Curse of Akkad, for example, the historical king Naram-Sin (2261-2224 BCE), known for his piety, is presented as impious in an effort to illustrate the proper relationship between a monarch and the gods. The point made would be that if a king as great as Naram-Sin of Akkad could fail in piety and be punished, how much more would a person of lesser stature fare. In The Marduk Prophecy, the events are placed far in the past in order for the writer to be able to 'predict' the moment when a Babylonian king would return Marduk to his rightful home. This piece, then, also deals with the responsibility a monarch has to his god.  ….

 

[End of quote]

 

According to Takuma Sugie, this document, supposed to have been written during the reign of the Babylonian king Nebuchednezzar I, who conquered Elam, was “re-interpreted” to apply prophetically to Ashurbanipal of Nineveh, who conquered Elam:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/orient/49/0/49_107/_pdf

 

The Reception of the Marduk Prophecy in

Seventh-Century B.C. Nineveh

 

The Marduk Prophecy is a literary composition in the guise of prophetic speech by Marduk. It is supposed to be written to praise Nebuchadnezzar I’s triumph over Elam during his reign. However, all the three surviving exemplars of this text are from the seventh-century B.C. Assyria: two from Nineveh and another from Assur. This article discusses how the Marduk Prophecy was read and re-interpreted in Nineveh at that time. Between the Marduk Prophecy and the royal literature during the reign of Ashurbanipal, the following common themes can be recognized: (1) reconstruction of the Babylonian temples, above all Esagil; (2) conquest of Elam; and (3) fulfillment of divine prophecies. On the basis of these, the author proposes that in the seventh-century Nineveh the Marduk Prophecy was regarded as an authentic prophecy predicting the achievements of Ashurbanipal, and that this is the main reason why this text was read at his court. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

The simple answer, I think, as to why a document written in praise of a Babylonian king was later considered to apply to an Assyrian ruler reigning about four centuries after the Babylonian king, is that Nebuchednezzar I and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king.

See e.g. my article:

 

Nebuchednezzar - mad, bad, then great

 

https://www.academia.edu/39013559/Nebuchednezzar_-_mad_bad_then_great

 

Our necessary ‘folding’ of conventional C12th BC Assyro-Babylonian history into the C8th-C7th’s BC serves to bring great kings into their proper alignment.

Nebuchednezzar I’s conquest of Elam now sits in place, where it should, as Ashurbanipal’s famous devastation of Elam in 639 BC (conventional dating), when “the Assyrians sacked the Elamite city of Susa, and Ashurbanipal boasted that “the whole world” was his”.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ashurbanipal#Nineveh.2C_Babylon_and_Ela

 

 

Striking parallels with Esarhaddon

 

 

“[Matthijs J. de] Jong lists the motifs shared by the Marduk Prophecy

and Esarhaddon’s inscriptions …”.

 

Takuma Sugie

 

 

 

Nor is there any surprise in learning that ‘The Marduk Prophecy’ bears striking parallels with Esarhaddon’s inscriptions for the same reason (Esarhaddon is Ashurbanipal).

And, according to this present series, Esarhaddon (Ashurbanipal) is Nebuchednezzar.

 

Takuma Sugie continues on, writing of the similarities that de Jong has picked up between the ‘Prophecy’ and the inscriptions of Esarhaddon:

 

III. Were Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal Interested in the Marduk Prophecy?

 

Recently, Matthijs J. de Jong inferred that two [sic] Assyrian great monarchs in the seventh century, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, had a particular interest in the Marduk Prophecy.13

He draws parallels between the Marduk Prophecy and the inscriptions of Esarhaddon. To take the most striking similarity, the Marduk Prophecy iii 25'-30' foretells that an ideal king “will make the great king of Dēr (šarra rabâ ša urudēr) stand up from a place not his dwelling … and bring him into Dēr and eternal Ekurdimgalkalama (ana urudēr u é-kur-UD(dimx?)-gal-kalam-ma ša dā[r]âti ušerrebšu).”14 This closely resembles a phrase recurring in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, which represents this king as the one who “brought the god Great-Anu (i.e., Ištarān) into his city Dēr and his temple Edimgalkalama and had (him) sit upon eternal dais (danum rabû ana ālišu dērki u bītišu é-dim-gal-kalam-ma ušēribuma ušēšibu parakka dārâti).”15 In addition to this, de Jong lists the motifs shared by the Marduk Prophecy and Esarhaddon’s inscriptions: (1) ascension of the Babylonian gods to heaven;16 (2) fulfillment of the days of absence;17 (3) renovation of the Esagil temple in Babylon;18 (4) Babylon’s tax exemption;19 (5) gathering of the dispersed Babylonian people;20 and so on. Furthermore, de Jong points out a community of themes shared between the Marduk Prophecy and Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions too; Ashurbanipal continued and completed his father’s [sic] project to send back Marduk’s statue and restore Esagil. Ashurbanipal also conducted several military campaigns against Elam. In the light of these parallels, de Jong supposes that Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were profoundly interested in the Marduk Prophecy, and he proposes the possibility that the Marduk Prophecy was elaborated during the reign of one of these kings. ….

 

Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’

 



"Nebuchednezzar Syndrome":

dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia

Part Seven:
Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’

by

Damien F. Mackey

　

　

　

　

　

"… the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar (626-605) used the term　"son of a nobody".

Its attestation is included here because of　the Assyrian background of this ruler

and his family (Jursa 2007: 127-28)".

Mattias Karlsson

　

　

　

The title of this multi-part series lists several buzz-words that commonly relate to the various alter egos (as I see the situation, at least) of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. In Part Two: https://www.academia.edu/37512120/_Nebuchednezzar_Syndrome_dreams_illness-madness_Egyptophobia._Part_Two_Ashurbanipal_Nabonidus_Cambyses_Artaxerxes_III

I thought it necessary to include another common one, actually a phrase, ‘son of a nobody’, having written there:

Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of　these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: "Nabonidus is　not singular　either in　not expecting　to become　king. Ashurbanipal had　felt the same".

Later on in this series I would come to include also (apart from Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus) Esarhaddon and Nabopolassar as constituting part of the "Nebuchednezzar Syndrome". Now, Esarhaddon and Nabopolassar are lumped together by Mattias Karisson, as ‘son of a nobody’, in his article:

The Expression "Son of a Nobody" in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

2016

https://www.academia.edu/24256060/The_Expression_Son_of_a_Nobody_in_Assyrian_Royal_Inscriptions

…. Esarhaddon may be the　"son of a nobody" in　question. Regarding this epithet, we here have another attestation of it as carrying a positive meaning. It is said of this "son of　a nobody", which probably alludes to Esarhaddon (or at least to this　king’s irregular ascent to the throne), even though he was of royal descent (Roux 1992: 324-25), that he "[will come out and se]ize [the throne]; he will restore the temples [and establish sacrifices of the gods; he will provide jointly for(all) the temples.]"

….

Also the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar (626-605) used the term　"son of a nobody". Its attestation is included here because of　the Assyrian background of this ruler and his family (Jursa 2007: 127-28). The text highlighted below comes from a fictive autobiography in which Nabopolassar explains his ascent to the Babylonian throne (SANER 3:C12/1:4-12). It is written on a　barrel cylinder of clay and has Babylon as provenance. It is rendered below in the translation of Da Riva (2013: 62).

When I was young, although I was the son of a nobody, I constantly sought in the sanctuaries of my lords Nabû and Marduk. ….

　

Who was the actual father of this composite king of ours?

If we turn to consider him with regard to his alter ego, "Nabonidus", then:

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/watchman-s-teaching-letter-59-march-2003

"His father was a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who is called the ‘wise prince’, though actually he seems to have been the chief priest of the once famous temple of the moon-god Sin in Mesopotamian Harran".

As for Ashurbanipal, generally considered to have been the son of Esarhaddon - but, according to my view, he was Esarhaddon - the reason why he (and logically, then, his alter egos) did not expect to become king was that he was by no means the first in line to the succession.

First came one Sin-iddina-apla, who died untimely – {making me think that he must have been the same as the ill-fated Ashur-nadin-shumi, or Nadin}:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ashurbanipal-oldest-surviving-royal-library-world-over-30000-clay-tablets-007127

Ashurbanipal had initially not been expected to succeed his father, Esarhaddon [sic], as king, since he had an older brother, Sin-iddina-apla. When this brother died in 672 BC, Ashurbanipal was made his father’s heir.

Since Ashurbanipal was not originally intended to inherit the kingship prior to his elder brother’s death, he was free to indulge in scholarly pursuits. As a result of this, he was able to read and write, and mastered various fields of knowledge, including mathematics and oil divination. It is perhaps due to this that Ashurbanipal had his royal library built after he had stabilized his empire. ….　

But apparently Ashurbanipal was not even next in line after Sin-iddina-apla.

For, at presumably the same time as Sin-iddina-apla, the oldest in line, had been appointed Crown Prince of Assyria, one Shamash-shum-ukin, he also older than Ashurbanipal, was appointed as the ruler of Babylon.

This Shamash-shum-ukin was therefore superior to Ashurbanipal.

However, that is apparently not how Ashurbanipal wanted history to know of the relationship. As explained by: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44088732.pdf

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN : A TALE OF TWO BROTHERS FROM THEARAMAIC TEXT IN DEMOTIC SCRIPT: PART 1

Author(s): Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims

Source: Revue Biblique (1946-), Vol. 92, No. 1 (JANVIER 1985), pp. 60-81

Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin were the two sons of Esarhaddon [sic] who, at their father's behest, divided his realm between them - the former becoming king of Assyria, and the latter, king of Babylon(ia). Although the two were, in theory, "equal brothers," [sic] Ashurbanipal assumed full control of Babylonia's foreign policy and even meddled in Babylonia's internal affairs. …. It was perhaps to rationalize this usurpation of the authority granted to Shamash-shum-ukin by his father that Ashurbanipal claimed to be the one who had appointed Shamash-shum-ukin to the kingship of Babylon. ….

　

Part Seven (ii):

Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’ (Mursilis)

 

 

“Mursili … was the youngest of five sons and nobody expected him to rule,

but when his father and eldest brother died, he was the only son left to be king”.

 

 

 

Here, in Mursilis, we have yet ‘another’ prince who was not expected to rule.

That may be significant given our tentative connection - through illness, not ruling prospects - of said Mursilis with our “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” Nabopolasar in Part Five of this series:

 

"Nebuchednezzar Syndrome": dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part Five: Emperors Mursilis and Nabopolassar

 

https://www.academia.edu/39704595/_Nebuchednezzar_Syndrome_dreams_illness-madness_Egyptophobia._Part_Five_Emperors_Mursilis_and_Nabopolassar

 

We read relevantly at: https://www.tumblr.com/search/hittitology

 

… Mursili II, King of Hatti (a Bronze Age kingdom and later empire in central Turkey). ….

Mursili was a badass warrior … a writer and a historian. He was the youngest of five sons and nobody expected him to rule, but when his father and eldest brother died, he was the only son left to be king. (Two of his other brothers were already local rulers in Syria, and the last brother, Zannanza, had died in an affair which is a story in its own right.) Mursili was very young at his accession, barely an adult, and after his badass father’s rule nobody took him seriously. His allies belittled him and called him a child, and when Mursili sent out envoys to negotiate, they never sent them back.

So Mursili defeated them all.

Within ten years, he had either conquered or allied himself with all the kings of the region. He was also the first Hittite king to subjugate Arzawa, a neighbouring kingdom which Hatti had been at odds with for centuries. Despite his young age, Mursili quickly became known for his success in battle. Under his rule and that of his father, the Hittite empire reached its peak.

But Mursili’s rule wasn’t just about fighting. For twenty years he struggled with a plague that was killing masses of his people. In those days, such a plague meant that the Gods were angry against the king, and Mursili clearly took it to heart. He wrote a number of extremely emotional prayers in which he asked for forgiveness, and as time went by, argued with the Gods about the unfairness of such suffering. These prayers are some of the most beautiful examples of Hittite literature.

But as if that wasn’t enough for poor Mursili, in his tenth year as king, his wife died of a mysterious illness. He accused his stepmother of cursing her (probably the most controversial thing he did) but though he was legally and religiously allowed to have her executed, he only banished her. He also wrote about this episode in his prayers, in vivid words:

I punished her with this one thing, that I sent her down from the palace. (…) Has her life now become miserable? Because she is alive, she beholds the sun of heaven with her eyes. She eats the bread of life. My punishment is the death of my wife. Has this gotten any better? Because she killed her, throughout the days of life [my soul] goes down to the dark netherworld [on her account]. For me it has been unbearable. ….

 

A few more facts about Mursili:

• he suffered from temporary speech loss that might’ve been caused by a stroke due to all the stress he was under
• he was interested in history and wrote not only annals (year-by-year events) for his own rule, but also for his father’s
• during the first years of his reign, his two surviving brothers regularly helped him out. They both died the same year as Mursili’s wife.
• he witnessed an eclipse which can (probably) be dated to the 24th of June 1312 BC. [sic] ….

     

Were pharaoh Ramses II and Esarhaddon contemporaries?

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“The first march of Necho-Ramses II toward the Euphrates is related on the obelisk

of Tanis and on the rock inscription of Nahr el Kalb near Beirut, written in his second year. The rock inscriptions of Ramses II are not as old as that of Essarhadon on the same rock”.

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

 

 
Thus wrote Dr. Velikovsky in # 211 of his: https://www.varchive.org/ce/theses.htm
 

THESES FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION
OF ANCIENT HISTORY

 
He, retaining the potent king Esarhaddon in his conventional place following Sennacherib, but dramatically lowering the mighty Ramses II of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty by some 700 years, from his conventional date of c. 1280 BC down to the time of Nebuchednezzar (so-called II), conventionally c. 580 BC, now saw Ramses II as being “not as old as … Essarhadon”.
 
This was in stark contrast to the conventional structure of things which has Ramses II (1280) ante-dating Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC) by some 600 years:
https://www.livius.org/articles/place/lykos-nahr-al-kalb/
 
In the thirteenth century BCE, the Egyptian king Ramesses II left three reliefs on the south bank of the Nahr al-Kalb, north of Berytus, which commemorated the northern campaigns that culminated in the battle of Kadesh (1274 BCE). Several centuries later, the Assyrian king Esarhaddon, having forced cities like Tyre into submission, conquered Egypt, and chose to put a memorial of his own opposite the relief of Ramesses. Ever since, armies have left inscription at the Nahr al-Kalb, a custom that was known to the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (more).
[End of quote]
 
In Ramses II and his Time (1978), Velikovsky would develop his connection between pharaoh Ramses II and Nebuchednezzar by identifying the latter as the Hittite emperor, Hattsulis, who famously engaged in a treaty with Ramses II.
 
What to say about all of this?
 
I had come to reject it completely, due to Dr. Velikovsky’s archaeologically highly dubious separation of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty away from the Eighteenth in order for Ramses II and his dynasty now to be equated with Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth (Saïte) Dynasty at the approximate time of Nebuchednezzar king of Babylon.
But that earlier estimation of mine must needs be amended, at least to some degree, owing to my more recent identification of Esarhaddon with Nebuchednezzar himself in articles such as:
 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar. Part Two: Another writer has picked up this possible connection

 

https://www.academia.edu/37525605/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar._Part_Two_Another_writer_has_picked_up_this_possible_connection

and again:

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

 
That big turnaround on my part would now lead me to conclude that the reason for the juxtaposition of Ramses II and Esarhaddon on the same rock inscription of Nahr el Kalb was because these two mighty men were contemporaneous.
 
It would also mean that Dr. Velikovsky was right after all in synchronising Ramses II with Nebuchednezzar.
Whether or not the latter was also the emperor Hattusilis, and Ramses II was also Necho II, are other considerations.
 
It does not mean however, I still think, that the Nineteenth Dynasty can be dragged right away from the Eighteenth. The necessary crunching in time comes from dragging backwards, so to speak, Nebuchednezzar, to slot into time as Esarhaddon.
 
In Ramses II and his Time (Chapter 2 Ramses II and Nebuchadnezzar in War and Peace), Velikovsky wrote (with his Nebuchednezzar as Hattusilis):
 
Treaty Between Ramses II and Nebuchadnezzar
 
Two giants, Egypt under Ramses II and Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, fought nineteen years for domination over the Middle East. Judea was the victim in this deadly struggle. She was devastated by the troops first of one despot and then of the other, but the lands of the contestants were spared the horrors of the prolonged war.
To secure victory over rebellious Judea, Nebuchadnezzar finally proposed a peace treaty to the pharaoh. Historians take it for granted that during the last siege of Jerusalem a treaty was negotiated between Babylonia and Egypt.22 The pharaoh was glad to insure the integrity of his own country and sacrificed Judea, his ally.
Jerusalem suffered an eighteen months’ siege, followed by destruction. The war between Babylonia and Egypt had terminated, and Egypt did not come to the aid of the besieged. More than this, Egypt and Babylonia pledged loyalty to each other and obligated themselves to extradite political refugees.
The peace treaty is preserved in the Egyptian language, carved on the wall of the Karnak temple of Amon. A text in the Babylonian (Akkadian) language, written on clay in cuneiform and found at the beginning of this century at Boghazkoi, a village of eastern Anatolia, is a draft of the same document. The original of the treaty was written on a silver tablet not extant today. The original language of the treaty was Babylonian, and the Egyptian text is a translation, as some expressions reveal.
The treaty was signed by Usermare Setepnere, son of Menmare, grandson of Menpehtire (the royal name of Ramses II, son of Seti, grandson of Ramses I), and by Khetasar, son of Merosar, grandson of Seplel. The treaty in the Akkadian language was signed by Hattusilis, son of Mursilis, grandson of Subbiluliumas.23
The man whose name was read Khetasar in the Egyptian and Hattusilis in the Boghazkoi text must have been the king whom we know as Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar. More than fifty times in the Scriptures his name is spelled Nebuchadrezzar; more than thirty times he is called Nebuchadnezzar.24
The adversary of Ramses II is called in the treaty the king of Hatti. Hatti, as can be learned from many cuneiform texts, was a broad ethnographical or territorial designation. In a Babylonian building inscription Nebuchadnezzar wrote: “The princes of the land of Hatti beyond the Euphrates to the westward, over whom I exercised lordship.”25
The treaty has an “oath and curse” clause. Gods of many places were invoked to keep vigilance over the treaty and to punish the one who should violate it. In the list of the gods and goddesses, the goddess of Tyre is followed by the “goddess of Dan.” But in the days before the conquest of Dan by the Danites, in the time of the Judges, that place was called Laish (Judges 18:29), and it was Jeroboam who built there a temple. The name of a place called Dan in a treaty of Ramses II, presumably of the first half of the thirteenth century, sounds like an anachronism.
The purpose of the treaty was to bring about the cessation of hostilities between the two lands. It is obvious from its text that Syria and Palestine no longer belonged to the domain of Egypt.
This is in agreement with the biblical data. The major part of the treaty is given over to the problem of political refugees. The paragraphs are written in a reciprocal manner; it is apparent that it was the great king of Hatti who was interested in the provisions for extradition of the political enemies of the Chaldeans. A special paragraph in the treaty deals with Syrian (Palestinian) fugitives:
 
Now if subjects of the great chief of Kheta transgress against him … I will come after their punishment to Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt … to cause that Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, shall be silent … and he shall turn [them] back again to the great chief of Kheta.26
[End of quotes]
 

Books on ancient Egypt hardly give Nebuchednezzar a look in

 

  

by

 

Damien F. Mackey



 

“[Toby Wilkinson] devotes only a few paragraphs to the short reign of the hapless Tutankhamen but spends many pages on the rise to power of the general Horemheb,

who set the stage for the Ramesside Dynasty, the one that established Egypt

as a great imperial power”.

 

Kathryn Lang

  

 

I am enjoying reading select bits and pieces of Toby Wilkinson’s large (nearly 650 pages) book, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt. The History of a Civilisation from 3000 BC to Cleopatra (Bloomsbury, 2010) – {even though it is based on the standard conventional dates} - because it is much easier reading than its forbidding size might at first suggest.

Something like, ‘you can’t judge a book by its cover’.

 

But what Kathryn Lang has written about Wilkinson’s meagre treatment of Tutankhamen, “only a few paragraphs”, is generous compared with his treatment of King Nebuchednezzar who actually conquered Egypt. As we shall see below, Wilkinson allows him only one mention.

 

Firstly, though, a review of the book by Kathryn Lang: books@dallasnews.com

 

Cambridge professor and eminent Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson, author of six earlier major works on ancient Egypt, has put four millennia of Egyptian lore into a lively, accessible one-volume history.

Beginning with the prehistoric peoples of the eastern Sahara who created Egypt’s “Stonehenge” at Nabta Playa, Wilkinson proceeds chronologically through the tumults and triumphs of the Pharaohs up to the final days of Cleopatra, the last Ptolemaic ruler, who spent her final intrigue-filled days in the decadent and cosmopolitan capital of Alexandria.

Written in informal, often colloquial language, Wilkinson’s history bristles with detail. Nearly 500 pages long, it’s a page-turner for anyone even modestly interested in his subject. For the more scholarly reader, he’s included a lengthy bibliographic essay and extensive bibliography, and at the front of the volume he’s provided a helpful nine-page timeline listing all of Egypt’s rulers through the Ptolemies.

In his introduction, Wilkinson says he’s become “increasingly uneasy” about ancient Egypt’s “darker side.” He intends this book to counterbalance the view that Egyptian rulers were benevolent despots and that life was good in the land of the Pharaohs. He shows in vivid and sometimes gruesome detail the brutality and ruthlessness of the kings, who came to see themselves not just as the gods’ representatives on Earth, but as living gods themselves.

His thesis is that the Pharaoh and the ruling class prospered on the backs of a peasant population that was illiterate, overtaxed and underpaid. The masses accepted this state of affairs because they believed their godlike kings would assure their safe passage from this brutish earthly existence into the heavenly one of the next.

At a fast clip, Wilkinson spins fascinating tales: of the first Pharaoh Narmer’s unification of Upper and Lower Egypt into a magnificent nation-state headquartered in the capital city of Memphis; of the astounding engineering feats and prodigious 20-year labors of 10,000 workers to build Khufu’s Great Pyramid of Giza; of the Middle Kingdom’s golden age of literature and the arts. He lingers on the 18th Dynasty, the “high-water mark of pharaonic civilization.” He tells of the accession through murder of the female Pharaoh Hatshepsut, and the rise and fall of the heretic king Akhenaten and his beauteous wife Nefertiti, who dared to banish all the gods but one, the solar god Aten.

He devotes only a few paragraphs to the short reign of the hapless Tutankhamen but spends many pages on the rise to power of the general Horemheb, who set the stage for the Ramesside Dynasty, the one that established Egypt as a great imperial power.

On through the centuries Wilkinson gallops, through bitter bloodshed and uncertain peacetimes, through ruler-sanctioned robbery of the earlier Pharaohs’ tombs, through the political fragmentation of a once-mighty empire, from the invasions of the Libyans in 1209 B.C. to the Roman conquest of 30 B.C.

Wilkinson’s is a full and rich, if hurried, march through the centuries of ancient Egypt’s glory days and ultimate domination by newer superpowers. It is also, Wilkinson warns, a cautionary tale for us as we witness the power politics of contemporary despots in the region today. ….

[End of quote]

 

The author Toby Wilkinson, I feel, really manages to bring to life various of the great pharaohs.

I am finding especially interesting his thorough treatment of the Twelfth Dynasty despot, Amenemes (Wilkinson’s “Amenemhat”) I, who is my choice for the “new king” (Exodus 1:8), oppressor of Israel when Moses was a baby. See e.g. my article:

 

Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel

 

https://www.academia.edu/38553314/Twelfth_Dynasty_oppressed_Israel

 

And I was rather keen to read about this Amenemes I in conjunction with Wilkinson’s treatment of Teti, founder of the so-called Sixth Dynasty, since I believe Teti to be an alter ego of the Twelfth Dynasty founder.

From a comparison in Wilkinson’s book we find, common to Teti, Amenemes I (over and above likenesses to which I have referred elsewhere): newness; lowly origins; surrounded by uncertainty; reliance upon trusty “lieutenants”.

 

·         Teti

 

P. 105

The throne passed instead to a commoner, a man called Teti, who swiftly married his predecessor’s daughter to secure his legitimacy. So began the Sixth Dynasty … in an atmosphere of uncertainty, court intrigue and barely managed crisis that was to haunt it until its very end.

With his rather tenuous claim to the kingship, Teti needed to surround himself with trusted lieutenants.

 

·         Amenemes I

 

P. 155 Amenmehat I, founder of a new dynasty and self-proclaimed renaissance king, was actually conscious of his non-royal origins and of the lingering resentment felt towards his rule in part of Egypt.

 

P. 161

There are strong indications that the new dynasty came to power in lawless times, by means of a coup d’état, rather than by peaceful succession ….

 

P. 162

 

Renaissance ruler

… Amenemhat I lost no time in appointing his royal lieutenants to key posts in the administration. …. Egypt’s new master was tightening his grip on the lever of government.

 

Also on p. 161, we read this startling comment: “[Nehri] … ‘I rescued my town on the day of fighting from the sickening terror of the royal house’. There is no more chilling reference to tyrannical monarchy in all of Egyptian history”.

 

Poor old Nebuchednezzar (Wilkinson’s “Nebuchadnezzar”), though, is named only once in the entire book, on p. 442 {N. Grimal has only about 4 pages on “Nebuchedrezzar”}: “Wahibra escaped with his life and fled abroad … to the court of Babylon. The Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, could scarcely believe his luck. Here was an unmissable opportunity to meddle in Egypt’s internal affairs and put a Babylonian puppet on the Throne of Horus”.

No mention whatsoever of any invasion of Egypt.