Ashur-bel-kala and the Broken Obelisk

by Damien F. Mackey “… the Broken Obelisk … the upper part only of an obelisk with a stepped top. …. The text … recounts the achievements of a king who is thought to be Ashur-bel-kala (1073–1056 BC). ….”. John Curtis The following article gives my conclusion regarding a supposed ‘Middle’ Assyrian king: Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal (3) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu While this is already extremely radical, considering that Ashur-bel-kala (c. mid-C11th BC, conventional dating) would generally be thought to pre-date Ashurbanipal (c. 669-631 BC, conventional dating) by almost four centuries, it is entirely consistent with my necessary (as I see it) folding of the Middle and Neo Assyrian kingdoms. See e.g. my article: Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids (2) Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But there is now to be considered a further complication according to my scheme of things. If Ashur-bel-kala was Ashurbanipal, as I seriously believe him to have been, then he must also have been the various alter egos I have attached to Ashurbanipal: namely, Esarhaddon; Ashurnasirpal (I/II); Nebuchednezzar (I/II); Nabonidus (which may not even be the end of the matter). See e.g. my article: Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel (2) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The common view that the Broken Obelisk pertains to Ashur-bel-kala is disputed by Displaced Dynasties, which attributes the obelisk, instead, to Tiglath-pileser II: http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/paper_7_-_argument_3_-_redating_the_broken_obelisk..pdf In the conventional system, Tiglath-pileser so-called II is dated to c. 967–935 BC, which is about a century later than Ashur-bel-kala conventionally dated. I, on the other hand, would have Tiglath-pileser (I/II/III) being situated two reigns prior to Ashur-bel-kala. Here are some sections of the article from Displaced Dynasties, to which I shall add a few comments: Paper #7 Arguments that the 10th/9th century kings of the “dynasty of E” were vassals of the Kassite kings of the 3rd Dynasty (Argument 3: Redating the Broken Obelisk) In our previous paper we made reference to an Assyrian inscription popularly known as the “Broken Obelisk”, and with nary an ounce of proof we attributed the annals contained in this document to the mid-10th century king Tiglath-pileser II (966-935). At the time we asked the reader to simply accept this attribution, albeit tentatively, largely because the extremely lengthy proof of our claim would have unnecessarily interrupted the existing train of thought. We promised at the time to furnish proof of our claim in the following paper. We are here fulfilling our promise. We begin with a few introductory remarks. This obelisk inscription, properly interpreted, and viewed in combination with information provided in our earlier discussion of the annals of the Assyrian king Adad-Nirari II, provides compelling evidence that our interpretation of those annals is correct. And since that interpretation involved the 18th dynasty Egyptian, the Empire Hittite, and the Empire Mitanni timelines - thus proving that the Kassites, who are firmly linked to those timelines, are ruling Karduniash/Babylonia during the reign of Adad-nirari II - we are eager to establish a mid-10th century date for the Obelisk inscription. Besides, there are several tantalizing details within that inscription that demand a mid-10th century date and one in particular that dates the Obelisk precisely in early years of Kurigalzu I. For these reasons, and others not mentioned, we devote the whole of this monograph to re-dating the Broken Obelisk. The inscription is not long, and can be read online in minutes. We suggest that the reader peruse this document, whether before or after reading our interpretation. Several excellent translations are available online, but since we will be referencing the book entitled The Annals of the Kings of Assyria [AKA] edited by E.A. Wallis Budge and L.W. King, we suggest this as one possible source (see pages 128-149 of that book). Alternatively, since we will be referencing Luckenbill’s opinion of the Obelisk’s authorship from page 118 of his Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Volume I [ARAB] we suggest reading the text itself on pages 119-125 of that volume. Finally, we mention the most recent translation, that provided by A. Kirk Grayson on pages 99-105 of his Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millenium BC I (1114-859 BC) [Grayson, Assyrian Rulers = RIMA 2]. Since the Obelisk was unearthed in the British excavations in Assyria in the mid to late 19th century it has engendered intense scholarly scrutiny. The monument, of which only the upper portion remains, is inscribed on three of its four sides with five columns of text, two on the front on either side of a portrait of an unidentified Assyrian king, one on its right side, spanning the width, and two side by side on the back. The left side has been left blank. The first four columns contain the military annals of the initial years of an anonymous Assyrian king, written in the “3rd person”, while the fifth and final column records miscellaneous building repairs of what appears to be a different king, and written in the “1st person”. From the time of its discovery it has been assumed by scholars that the author of the 5th column has discovered the obelisk with its nearly four columns of text, clearly unfinished, and has added a record of his own building activities, thus preserving for posterity the annals of a predecessor, probably an ancestor, and more than likely his father or grandfather. Daniel David Luckenbill, one of the most competent and influential of the early 20th century Assyrian scholars, concurred with this opinion on page 118-19 of his Ancient Records, save in one point. He believed that the author of the 5th column was Adad-Nirari II while the unknown ancestor was likely the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser I, an extremely remote ancestor. Luckenbill’s influence caused that latter opinion to prevail in scholarly circles for at least the several decades following his 1926 publication. His identification of Adad-Nirari II as the author of the 5th column text did not received sic] the same endorsement by fellow scholars of the early 20th century, though Luckenbill himself considered the identification as “almost certain”. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st speculation has continued among Assyriologists and Babylonian scholars alike as to the identity of the 5th column author and his mysterious ancestor. Brinkman, in his 1968 publication The Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia [PKB] has devoted his appendix B on pages 383-86, to a discussion of this document. The Appendix, entitled “The Internal Chronology of the Broken Obelisk”, begins with the following paragraph: To historians concerned with the later years of the Second Dynasty of Isin (1155-1025), the Broken Obelisk has been and will remain a problematic and tantalizing document. Over the years much ink has been spilled in efforts to date this important text, which does not preserve the name of its royal author. The various monarchs proposed have ranged from Shalmaneser I (1274-1245) to Adad-nirari II (911-891). In recent years, the most generally accepted view has been that the inscription was the work of Ashur-bel-kala (1075-1057). (Brinkman PKB 383) (the dates cited have been added to the quoted text by the author of this paper to assist readers with little background in Assyrian or Babylonian history) The Second Dynasty of Isin cited by Brinkman is simply an alternative name for what we have been referencing as the 4th dynasty of the “kings of Babylon”, i.e. those kings who, according to the traditional history, initially replaced the Kassites as rulers of Babylonia, this in the approximate year 1155 B.C.. Brinkman assumes that knowledge of the Broken Obelisk could possibly inform historians regarding the “Second Dynasty of Isin” (1155-1025) because Ashurbel-kala (1075-1057) was a contemporary of several kings of that dynasty, and more so because, as scholarship evolved in the first half of the 20th century, scholars came to the near unanimous opinion that the first four columns contained a summary of “the annals and hunting exploits of Tiglath-Pileser I”, a slight variation of the opinion popularized by Luckenbill as noted above. And the lengthy reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076) overlapped a significant portion of the Isin dynasty. Having thus explained several details of the quote by Brinkman, we follow him as he continues in his Appendix to provide five reasons why the assumed authorship by Ashur-bel-kala may be correct, though we should point out that the language used by Brinkman suggests that this extremely careful scholar is not entirely convinced. We also need to mention that Brinkman is referring to the view espoused by scholars in the second half of the 20th century, one which is currently supported by the majority of scholars worldwide, wherein all five columns of the annals attest to the activity of one king, in this case Ashur-bel-kala. If we are to argue our thesis that the first four columns were authored by Tiglath-Pileser II, then clearly we must begin by discrediting the attribution of any part of the document to Ashur-bel-kala. We proceed accordingly. The initial argument by Brinkman, undoubtedly the strongest, is based on an assumed identity between an eponym which dates one of the invasions in the lengthy “ancestral” portion of the Obelisk (column 3, line 3), and an eponym supposedly found in a text belonging to Ashur-belkala, a text which actually names him as the author. The other four reasons will be dealt with when we begin to produce argument in favor of our identification. All four of those reasons will be duplicated, word for word, and used as the basis for four arguments in favor of our thesis. Thus we begin our analysis of the Broken Obelisk with a criticism of the single extremely fragile reason cited in support of the Ashur-bel-kala authorship. Assuming we are successful, and nothing remains to justify Brinkman’s (qualified) support of that viewpoint, we are free to supply more corroborative proof in defense of our claim for authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II. Arguments that Ashur-bel-kala DID NOT author the Broken Obelisk Argument 1. According to Brinkman (PKB, 383) the number one reason for supporting the Ashur-bel-kala authorship of the Broken Obelisk is as stated below. The limmu of Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs both in the annals of Ashur-bel-kala and in the Broken Obelisk; (note 2150 added) In the footnote 2150 affixed to the stated reason Brinkman adds the references: AfO VI (1930-31) 86, Teil IV; AKA 133 iii 3. See also Jaritz, JSS IV (1959) 213. Stamm (Namengebung, p. 228 and Borger (EAK I 5 n.2) present arguments for reading the limmu name as Ashur-rim-nisheshu And at the bottom of the same page he makes the statement: Weidner, Jaritz, and Borger have been the chief spokesmen for dating the Broken Obelisk to the time of Ashur-bel-kala. Before we even begin our counterargument directed specifically at the dual Ashur-ra’imnisheshu eponym references we need to note that even if absolutely correct, Brinkman’s stated reason merely allows for the possibility, not the probability, that the presence of two identical limmu names in two different inscriptions implies that both documents were authored by the same king. Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu (or Ashur-rim-nisheshu) is not an uncommon name. It was borne by one of the last kings of the Old Assyrian Period, Ashur-rim-nisheshu (1397-1391), the third predecessor of the famous Ashuruballit I and possibly his great-grandfather. It is perfectly conceivable that an individual bearing this name, but serving in the reign of some king other than Ashur-bel-kala, would be selected as a limmu official. And the reign of Tiglath-Pileser II would appear at the top of the list of possible candidates. But in this monograph we do not need to rely on this “insurance clause”, this for a very simple reason. It is simply not true that “the limmu of Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs both in the annals of Ashur-bel-kala and on the Broken Obelisk”. Brinkman ought to have stated that “The name Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs as a limmu name in the Broken Obelisk and possibly as a limmu name on another document, which document may or may not have been authored by Ashur-bel-kala”. If that weakens (or absolutely negates) the argument, so be it. We begin to defend our claim, emphasized in the previous paragraph, by actually looking at the document in question, i.e. by following up Brinkman’s initial footnote reference in support of his stated reason. Ernst F. Weidner, probably following Schroeder (OLZ XX [1917], 305), in an article entitled “Die Annalen des Konigs Assurbelkala von Assyrien”, published in the journal Archiv fur Orientforschung [AfO VI (1930-31) Teil IV] has collated two tablet inscriptions into one text, thus creating a composite document which begins by naming the king Ashur-bel-kala and ends with an (assumed) eponym name, Ashur-rim-nisheshu. On the basis of this amalgam/composite text it is claimed that the identical cuneiform name, clearly identified as a limmu name and found in column III line 3 on the Broken Obelisk, identifies the annals found on the Obelisk as belonging to Ashur-bel-kala. This opinion, largely based on the stature of the three mid-20th century German scholars who espoused it (Borger, Jarita and WeidnerJ) has been almost universally accepted by the academic community. But the opinion is not supported by the facts. …. One tablet, Assur 18265 = VAT 11240, is very small and has multiple lacunae (grossere Lucke). Only seven severely damaged lines remain and these were translated five years prior by Luckenbill in section 341 of his Ancient Records. Assur-bel-kala ….. the king without rival ….. viceroy, lord of lands …… whom Assur, Enlil ….. the ruler of the land of Assyria ….. the lands …… [who shatters] ….. Lacunae both precede and follow the remains of every line on this tablet, leaving only stock phrases which occur on dozens of cuneiform documents, since the text that is visible suggests that this inscription is from the lauditory introductory section of some larger inscription, probably, but not certainly, annals. The reverse of this first tablet is not inscribed, either that or the damaged surface precludes reading any text. Since no photographs are provided in the article we are left to guess. Not so on the second tablet, Assur 16308k, which has 14 lines on the obverse (see the line drawing of tablet Assur 16308k, Vs provided on page 89 in the article and duplicated in Figure 1 below) and a single line on the reverse (see Assur 16308k, Rs in Figure 1). The name of Ashur-bel-kala appears nowhere on this tablet, and the single line on the reverse actually consists of a single name – translated by Weidner as Ashur-rim-nisheshu. Thus we have the name of the king Ashur-bel-kala on one tablet and the name Ashur-rim-nisheshu on the other. And this of course raises the question whether or not the two tablets record parts of a single text. It is important to emphasize here that the name Ashur-rim-nisheshu on the reverse of the larger tablet is not preceded by the usual signs indicating that it is an eponym. The name stands alone. According to Weidner the balance of the reverse of the tablet is uninscribed (rest unbeschrieben). …. …. There is no visible physical evidence that suggests that the two tablet fragments were once joined together, nor anything distinctive in the language employed on the two tablets that strongly suggests they should be merged into one document. At minimum we argue that there is nothing in the fabricated composite text that could possibly justify the conclusions that have been drawn from it. And if we understand Brinkman’s language correctly, he is not totally convinced either. There is not a single line of text in the composite document that does not supply lengthy connecting phrases in order to make a coherent intelligible inscription. Let the reader decide. To assist the analysis we reproduce below the composite document as translated by A. Kirk Grayson on pages 95-96 of his Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859 BC. For Grayson the composite text is his number A.0.89.4. 1-14 Assur-bel-kal[a, great king, king of the] universe, king of Assyria, unrivalled king, [king of all the four quarters], provider for Ekur, select of the god Assur, appointee of the Lord of the Lands, [who] acts [with the support of the god Assur] in laying low his enemies, [whose] deeds the gods Assur (and) Enlil […], the unconquerable attacker, [the one to whom was entrusted] dominion of Assyria, the one who disintegrates [all enemy] lands [with the fire of] Girru (fire god), controller [of the insubmissive], the one who breaks up [the forces of the rebellious], the one who defeats [his enemies, …] throws down, is changed [the one who … in battle] has overwhelmed all princes, [… the one who …] has conquered the [lands] of all [people from Babylon of the land Adda]d to the Upper Sea [of the land Amurru and the sea of the lands Nair]I [the one who …] … has become lord of all; Lacuna Reverse Lacuna Rev. 1’) [Month of …, …th day, eponymy of] Assur-rem-nisheshu. …. Argument 2. We need to add one comment to our previous analysis of the composite document created by Ernst Weidner. In particular we want to question once again the supposed limmu name on the reverse of the larger tablet, whose purpose we failed to identify in the previous discussion. Because this argument is a stand-alone item, we treat it separately, and we begin by returning to Brinkman’s Appendix chapter entitled “Internal Chronology of the Broken Obelisk” (PKB 385). In that chapter Brinkman points out that the Broken Obelisk contains only three limmu names, “li-me Assur-[…]”, “li-me Assur-ra’im-nisheshu” and “li-me Ilu-iddina”, which serve to divide the content of the annals into four sections, each spanning a single year, or at least a portion thereof. And Brinkman is firmly convinced that the campaigns named in the second and third columns are listed in chronological order. The limmu name Assur-ra’im-nisheshu, in line 3 of column 3, serves to introduce the multiple campaigns of the third year of the king. We contrast this situation with the name of the assumed identical limmu official named on the reverse of the larger tablet examined by Ernst Weidner. In this situation the name stands in isolation on the otherwise uninscribed reverse of a tablet whose obverse is not describing an event that needs to be dated to some specific year. Limmu names are intended to date some specific action, usually military campaigns, frequently legal texts, and rarely the time of creation of a document, usually a letter from one official to another, in which case it is placed at the end of the document. And the name is always identified with the two signs designating it as a “lime”. In the case of Assur 16308k none of these characteristics apply. Even if we accept as legitimate the composite document created by Weidner by dovetailing the two tablet inscriptions, the supposed limmu name is entirely out of place, dating absolutely nothing. Not only is it not related to the 3rd year of Ashur-bel-kala, it is located at the back of a tablet whose text would precede the first year campaigns of the king. Argument 3. The reign of Ashur-bel-kala began only three years after the death of his father Tiglath-Pileser I, arguably the greatest military leader in the whole of Assyrian history, whose reign ended without a single Aramean remaining on Assyrian soil, much less an entire Aramean state referred to as the “land of Arime”, situated on his norther border. This, of course, assuming that we have correctly interpreted the “Chronicle of Tiglath-Pileser” in our previous paper. We know that 28 times in his final years Tiglath-Pileser had led his army southward, crossing the Euphrates in order to encounter Arameans, whom he promptly dispatched. This leads us to ask the obvious question. How is it that three years after the death of his father, Ashur-bel-kala, who inherited his father’s vast army, is forced to launch upwards of a dozen campaigns against various cities in this “land of Arime”, each time with limited success. That fact alone argues strongly against attributing the annals of the Broken Obelisk to this king. Mackey’s comment: In my scheme, Ashur-bel-kala arrived on the scene somewhat later than a mere “three years after the death of” Tiglath-pileser. Argument 4. There are only two scenario’s possible if scholars insist that Ashur-bel-kala wrote the annals of the Broken Obelisk. On the one hand, as is the case today, scholars might argue that he wrote the 5th column as well. To this suggestion we respond with two questions: 1) How likely is it that 3rd person annals and 1st person building inscriptions would be contained on a single monument, supposedly authored in its entirety by one king? and 2) If the annals were for a time left incomplete and Ashur-bel-kala had his scribes return to the document to add his building inscriptions, why did they not first complete the annals before adding the building inscriptions? Generations of extremely competent scholars have for centuries insisted that the annals were left incomplete, including Luckenbill. How is it that suddenly a new generation of scholars assumes otherwise? On the other hand if scholars insist on stating that Ashur-bel-kala wrote the annals but left them incomplete, only to have them completed by a descendant, then we have a succession problem. The annals end after the 4th year of their author, thus around the year 1070 BC on the assumption that they are the work of Ashur-bel-kala (1073-1056). What happened to cause the annals to cease so abruptly, and remain incompleted throughout his lengthy reign is one problem. Why were they left incomplete for 160 years is a second problem, assuming that Luckenbill is correct in arguing that the building inscriptions were added by Adad-Nirari II (911-891). All of these objections were answered in our last paper based on the premise that the Broken Obelisk annals are the work of Tiglath-Pileser II. If the reader follows our reasoning in the previous two paragraphs, he/she must consider this item as two distinct arguments against the authorship by Ashur-bel-kala, regardless of which assumption is made regarding the authorship of column 5. Mackey’s comment: In my scheme, Adad-Nirari preceded Tiglath-pileser, and hence, a fortiori, he must have preceded Ashur-bel-kala, Multiple other arguments against the assumed authorship by Ashur-bel-kala could be included in this section, but because they are focused more directly on proving the case for authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II than on disproving the case for authorship by Ashur-bel-kala, we include them in a separate section of this paper. But since these two kings are really the only viable candidates for the “authorship” position, because no other king following Ashur-bel-kala even remotely qualifies as the author of the Broken Obelisk, it matters little whether we disprove the authorship by Ashur-bel-kala or prove the authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II. They are two sides of a single coin. ….