by Damien F. Mackey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Dr. Albright was correct in his view that the Egyptian Manium (or Mannu),
against whom the Akkadian potentate Naram-Sin (c. 2200 BC conventional dating)
successfully waged war, was none other than the legendary first pharaoh Menes,
then that must lead to the shocking conclusion that the beginning of the
Egyptian dynastic history (c. 3100 BC conventional dating) is a millennium out
of whack with Akkadian history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. W.F. Albright had estimated that the “Mani lord of Magan” whom Naram-Sin
claimed to have smote, could not have been any petty ruler, given that Naram-Sin
called him “mighty” (… Mannu dannu šar Magan). (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol.
6, No. 2, Apr., 1920). And so Albright wrote (p. 89): The fact that king Mannu
here is called dannu, ‘mighty’, is very important, as no other of the princes
conquered by Narâm-Sin has this honorific title in his inscriptions except the
latter himself who, in common with the others of his dynasty, affixes dan(n)u …
to his name: Narâm-Sin dan(n)u … Narâm-Sin, the mighty …. The lord of Magan must
have been a powerful ruler to receive so illustrious an appellative. [End of
quote] And, whilst admitting on the same page that: “It may possibly be that we
are dealing with a mere coincidence, extraordinary perhaps, but fallacious, and
that the supporting indications will reveal themselves as conspirators against
the truth”, he nonetheless proceeded to make this strong statement in favour of
his thesis: “Yet the lines of evidence, geographical, historical, chronological
and archaeological, converge so remarkably in the direction of our thesis that
we ought not shrink from the test – o bere o affogare!” My Conclusions I have
fully accepted by now that Albright’s “lines of evidence” do lead to the
conclusion that Naram-Sin’s foe, Mannu, was Menes, the first pharaoh, and that
Mannu’s country of “Magan” was - as it always is in the ancient
Syro-Mesopotamian records: EGYPT: Magan, Meluhha, Dilmun and Akkad
https://www.academia.edu/87967450/Magan_Meluhha_Dilmun_and_Akkad For instance,
following the tradition that Abram (later Abraham) was a contemporary of pharaoh
Menes (Min), I have been able further chronologically to reduce the era of the
clash between Naram-Sin and Menes to the time of Abram (c. 1900 BC). And, given
that Abram was - from archaeological evidence - a contemporary of Narmer’s, I
have ventured tentatively to identify the enigmatic Narmer (sometimes considered
to have been Menes) as the Akkadian Naram-Sin, enemy of Menes. There were
“several powerful forces in the land at the time of Abra[ha]m: namely, “Pharaoh
[of Egypt]” ([Genesis]12:15); “Amraphel king of Shinar” (14:1); and “Abimelech
king of Gerar” (20:2)”. Could any one of these have been Narmer? “Pharaoh” and
“Abimelech” of early Genesis, I have concluded, were one and the same ruler. So
the question really becomes whether Narmer could have been either: Abram’s
Pharaoh, or Abram’s foe, Amraphel, the invading king of Shinar. In Egyptian
dynastic terms, my preference for Pharaoh (= “Abimelech”) has been the
long-reigning pharaoh, Hor-Aha (c. 3100, or 3000 BC, conventional dating).
Hor-Aha, in turn, is often considered – based on his nomen – to have been the
same as the legendary “Menes”. Phouka, for instance, presents pharaoh Hor-Aha’s
“Nomen [as] Mn, Menes, ‘Established’”:
http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01me). And, given the
legendary association of Abraham with Menes, as already mentioned, I myself am
inclined to think that the Egyptian identity of Abram’s (biblical) “Pharaoh” was
Menes. Now, whilst pharaoh Hor-Aha (Menes) can also loom as a possible candidate
for Narmer – {Phouka, though, suggests Narmer instead as a “presumed” father of
Hor-Aha} – my preference is for Narmer as an Akkadian king of Shinar, rather
than as a ruler of Egypt. So what makes most intriguing a possible collision of
the semi-legendary pharaoh of Egypt, Menes, with a Shinarian potentate (and
possibly “Amraphel” himself), is the emphatic view of Dr. W. F. Albright that
Naram-Sin (of Akkad) had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin
boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself. This, as we can appreciate,
was an extremely radical conclusion for a scholar such as Albright to have
reached. And Albright’s opening words reveal that he was completely aware of
that fact: “Before proposing a synchronism between the first dynastic king of
Egypt and the greatest of early Babylonian kings, one cannot but hesitate,
fearful of seeming reckless”. Whilst Dr. W.F. Albright naturally adopted the
standard view that, with the yet undiscovered city of Akkad thought to lie
somewhere in Sumer (southern Babylonia), Naram-Sin was essentially a
Mesopotamian (“Babylonian”) king, I myself have recently moved away from this,
re-locating Akkad to Ugarit (Ras Shamra) on the Mediterranean coast (see article
“Magan … Akkad”). The Might and Power of Naram-Sin Marc van de Mieroop tells us
of the extent of Naram-Sin’s mighty reach, though typically understated without
the inclusion of Egypt and Ethiopia (A History of the Ancient Near East. Ca.
3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, p. 63): The statements of Sargon and Naram-Sin
stand out, however, because of their wide geographical range: these were
certainly the greatest military men of the time. Yet, as Naram-Sin had to repeat
many of his grandfather’s campaigns, it seems these often amounted to no more
than raids. The Akkadian kings focused their military attention on the regions
of western Iran and northern Syria. In the east they encountered a number of
states or cities, such as Elam, Parahshum, and Simurrum …. In the north they
entered the upper Euphrates area, reaching the city of Tuttul at the confluence
with the Balikh river, the cult center of Dagan that acted as a central focus of
northern and western Syria. Mari and Ebla, the most prominent political centers
of the region up till then, were destroyed. These places, which had been so
close to northern Babylonia in cultural terms during the Early Dynastic period,
were now considered to be major enemies. The accounts mention many places even
more remote, such as the cedar forests in Lebanon, the headwaters of the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers in eastern Turkey, Marhashi, east of Elam, and areas across
the “Lower Sea,” i.e., the Persian Gulf. These were reached in far-flung forays
for the procurement of rare goods, hard stone, wood, or silver. Booty from these
areas was brought to Babylonia. Several stone vessels excavated at Ur and Nippur
were inscribed with the statement that they were booty from Magan, for instance.
It seems unlikely, however, that these areas were subsequently controlled by
Akkad. Rather, the raids aimed at monopolizing access to trade routes. Ships
from overseas areas, such as Dilmun (Bahrain), Magan … and Meluhha … are said to
have moored in Akkad’s harbor. So when Naram-Sin claims that he conquered Magan,
it seems more likely that he used his military might to guarantee access to its
resources. Local circumstances determined to a great extent how Akkadian
presence was maintained in this wide region. We observe a variety of
interactions. At Susa in western Iran, for instance, the language of bureaucracy
became Akkadian and the local rulers were referred to with Sumerian titles, such
as governor (ensi) or general (shagina), which imply a full dependence on the
kings of Akkad. On the other hand, the rulers of Susa retained some degree of
authority. Naram-Sin concluded a treaty with an unnamed ruler or high official
of Susa, a document written in the Elamite language. The agreement specified no
submission to Akkad, only a promise by the Elamite to regard Naram-Sin’s enemies
as his own. The autonomy of Elam should not be underestimated. In Syria the
Akkadians established footholds in certain existing centers, indicated by the
presence of military garrisons or trade representatives there. At … modern Tell
Brak … a monumental building was erected with bricks stamped with the name of
Naram-Sin. …. So mighty did Naram-Sin become that he even began to think of
himself as a divine being (ibid., pp. 64-65): Already under Sargon the
traditional title “King of Kish” came to mean “king of the world,” using the
similarity of the name of the city of Kish and the Akkadian term for “the entire
inhabited world,” kishshatum. Naram-Sin took such self-glorification to an
extreme. First, he introduced a new title, “king of the four corners (of the
universe).” His military successes led him to proclaim an even more exalted
status. After crushing a major rebellion in the entirety of Babylonia, he took
the unprecedented step in Mesopotamian history of making himself a god. A unique
inscription found in northern Iraq, but not necessarily put there in Naram-Sin’s
days, describes this act as requested by the citizens of the capital:
‘Naram-Sin, the strong one, king of Akkad: when the four corners (of the
universe) together were hostile to him, he remained victorious in nine battles
in a single year because of the love Ishtar bore for him, and he took captive
those kings who had risen against him. Because he had been able to preserve his
city in the time of crisis, (the inhabitants of) his city asked from Ishtar in
Eanna, from Enlil in Nippur, from Dagan in Turrul, from Ninhursaga in Kesh, from
Enki in Eridu, from Sin in Ur, from Shamash in Sippar, and from Nergal in Kutha,
that he be the god of their city Akkad, and they built a temple for him in the
midst of Akkad.’ Henceforth his name appeared in texts preceded by the cuneiform
sign derived from the image of a star, which functioned as the indicator that
what followed was the name of a god. Conceptually, this placed him in a very
different realm from previous rulers. Earlier kings had been offered a cult
after death, but Naram-Sin received one while he was still alive. The court
initiated a process of royal glorification through other means as well. Perhaps
the most visible of these efforts was in the arts. Stylistic changes originating
in the reign of Sargon culminated in amazing refinement, naturalism, and
spontaneity during Naram-Sin’s reign. Most impressive is his victory stele, a
2-meter-high stone carved in bas-relief depicting the king leading his troops in
battle in the mountains. Naram-Sin dominates the composition in a pose of
grandeur, and is much larger than those surrounding him. Wearing the insignia of
royalty – bow, arrow, and battle ax – he is also crowned with the symbol of
divinity, the horned helmet.
No comments:
Post a Comment