Çineköy inscription of Awarikkus/Warikkas. First line reads "I am Warikkas"
Ingeborg Simon - Own work
by
Damien F. Mackey
Awarikus [Arioch] became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III … who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in
738 BCE [sic]. …. Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu,
in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with
lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum. ….
Wikipedia
Introduction
We know this great man now under some several variations of his name, Ahikar (Aḥiqar): http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html
“The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar”.”
In the Book of Tobit, he is called Ahikar, but Achior, in the Douay version.
In the Book of Judith, he is called, again, Achior.
His Babylonian name may have been, Esagil-kini-ubba:
Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba
(2) Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba
Islam turned him into a great sage and polymath, Loqmân:
Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân
https://www.academia.edu/117040128/Ahiqar_Aesop_and_Loqm%C3%A2n
but, even more incredibly, a handful of Islamic polymaths, supposedly in AD time, were based on Ahikar, as either Aba-enlil-dari or as Esagil-kini-ubba:
Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism
(3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
We know from the book of Tobit that Ahikar went to Elam (Elymaïs) (2:10): “For four years I [Tobit] remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais”.
This fact is picked up in a gloss in the Book of Judith in which Achior is referred to, rather confusingly, as Arioch (1:6):
“Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”.
Apparently, then, Ahikar actually governed Elam on behalf of the neo-Assyrians.
Thus the Book of Judith should have referred to Achior as leader of all the Elamites, rather than (causing much confusion) “Achior … the leader of all the Ammonites” (5:5).
Arioch may well be now, also, the “Arioch” of Daniel 2:
Did Daniel meet Ahikar?
(2) Did Daniel meet Ahikar?
We are now in the reign of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean.
It is most important, however, for what follows, that Nebuchednezzar be recognised as the same king as Esarhaddon, as Ashurbanipal:
King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4
(2) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4
As “King Arioch of Elam”
‘Are not my commanders all kings?’
Isaiah 10:8
We probably find Arioch as Uriakku, and Urtak, of the Assyrian records:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtak_(king_of_Elam)
Urtak or Urtaku was a king of the ancient kingdom of Elam …. He ruled from 675 to 664 BCE, his reign overlapping those of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (681-669) and Ashurbanipal (668-627). ….
Mackey’s comment: Not “kings”, but only the one king, Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal (see above).
Urtak was preceded by his brother, Khumban-Khaldash II. …. Khumban-Khaldash made a successful raid against Assyria, and died a short time thereafter. …. He was succeeded by Urtak, who returned to Assyria the idols his elder brother had taken in the raid, and who thereby repaired relations between Elam and Assyria. ….
He made an alliance with Assyria's Esarhaddon in 674 … and for a time Elam and Assyria enjoyed friendly relations … which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon's reign, and deteriorated after Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal [sic]. ….
We find Arioch, again, in the context of a geographically revised Elam (Media):
Ecbatana and Rages in Media
(1) Ecbatana and Rages in Media
as the ruler of Adana (Ecbatana) during the neo-Assyrian period, as one Wariku/ Awariku(s), which name is clearly Arioch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarikus
….
Awarikus (Hieroglyphic Luwian: 𔐓𔗬𔖱𔗜𔗔) or Warikas (Hieroglyphic Luwian: 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦) was a king of the Syro-Hittite kingdom of Ḫiyawa in Cilicia who reigned during the mid to late 8th century BCE, from around c. 738 to 709 BCE.[2][3]
Name
The name of this king is attested in Anatolian hieroglyphs in the forms 𔐓𔗬𔖱𔗜𔗔[4][5] (Awarikkus) and 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦[6][1] (Warikkas).[7]
Etymology
The name Awarikkus/Warikkas is not Luwian,[8] and several etymologies have been proposed for it, including a Hurrian one and various Greek ones:[7]
• one proposal is that the various forms go back to a unique form *Awarikas;[8]
• another suggestion is that:[9][10]
• 𔐓𔗬𔗜𔗔 was pronounced Awarkus and represented an Ancient Greek name Euarkhos (Εὔαρχος) or *Ewarkhos (*Εϝαρχος), meaning "fit for rule,"
• while 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦 corresponded to the Cypriot name recorded in Greek as Rhoikos (Ῥοῖκος) and in Eteocypriot as wo-ro-i-ko (𐠵𐠦𐠂𐠍), meaning "crooked" and "lame";
• yet another proposal is that the name was derived from Greek *Wrakios (*Ϝρακιος) > Rhakios (Ῥάκιος), attested in Mycenaean Greek as *Wroikiōn (Mycenaean Greek: 𐀺𐀫𐀒𐀍, romanized: wo-ro-ko-jo).[10]
Other attestations
….
The name Awarikkus referred to in the Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions as ʾWRK (𐤀𐤅𐤓𐤊), and Warikkas is referred to in the Hasanbeyli and Cebelireis Daǧı inscriptions as WRYK (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊)[7] and in the İncirli inscription as WRYKS (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊𐤎).[11]
In Akkadian
Awarikkus or Warikkas is referred to in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions as ᵐUrikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅅𒆠)[12]) and ᵐUriaikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅀𒅅𒆠[12]).[13][14]
Identification
The scholars Trevor Bryce and Max Gander consider Warikas and Awarikus to be the same individual,[15][16][17] while Zsolt Simon considers them to be different kings.[18]
The scholars Stephen Durnford and Max Gander consider Awarikus/Warikas to be different from the king WRYK of the Cebelireis Daǧı inscription, whom they identify as a later ruler who reigned in the 7th century BCE,[19] while Mirko Novák and Andreas Fuchs consider the king of the Cebelireis Daǧı inscription to have been identical with Awarikus/Warikas.[20]
Life
Awarikus claimed descent from one Muksas, who is also referred to in his Phoenician language inscriptions as MPŠ (𐤌𐤐𐤔), and also appears in Greek sources under the name of Mopsos (Μόψος) [Mackey: derived from Moses?] as a legendary founder of several Greek settlements across the coast of Anatolia during the early Iron Age. This suggests that Awarikus belonged to a dynasty which had been founded by a Greek colonist leader.[15][7][21][22]
Reign
Awarikus became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III,[23] who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE.[7][24][25]
Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum.[26][20]
Awarikus seems to have remained a loyal vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire throughout most of his reign, thanks to which he was able to reign in Ḫiyawa for a very long period until throughout the rules of Tiglath-pileser III and his successor Shalmaneser V, and was still reigning when Sargon II became the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[27]
Ḫiyawa under Awarikus likely cooperated with the Neo-Assyrian forces during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign in the Tabalian region in 729 BCE.[28]
In his inscription from his later reign, Awarikus claimed to have enjoyed good relations with his overlord, the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II, with Awarikus's relation with Sargon II appearing to have been an alliance or partnership through a treaty according to which Sargon II was the protector and suzerain of Awarikus.[29][7] According to this inscription, Awarikus had a very close relationship with Sargon II, and he declared that Sargon II himself and the Neo-Assyrian royal dynasty had become "a mother and father" to him and that the peoples of Ḫiyawa and Assyria had "become one house."[15]
According to this same inscription, Awarikus had built 15 fortresses in the west and east of Ḫiyawa.[30][15]
Assuming the king WRYK of the Cebelires Daǧı inscription was the same as Awarikus of Hiyawa, his kingdom might have extended to the western limits of Rough Cilicia and nearly reached Pamphylia, and would thus have included Ḫilakku.[31]
At one point during his reign, Awarikus promoted a certain Azzattiwadas to a position of authority subordinate to the crown, although exact details of Azzattiwadas's exact rank have so far not survived.[32][3][7] According to Azzattiwadas's own inscriptions, he was a servant of Baʿal and the King, and he was "father and mother," that is the de facto ruler, of the whole kingdom of Hiyawa.[33]
Alternatively, Azzattiwadas was the regent while Awarikus was still too young to rule.[34]
Monuments
An inscription by Awarikus is known from the site of Çineköy, located about 30 kilometres to the south of his capital of Adanawa.[23][35]
Other monuments of Awarikus include a stela from İncirli and a border stone from Hasanbeyli.[36]
Under direct Neo-Assyrian rule
After Sargon II's son-in-law and vassal, the king Ambaris of Bīt-Burutaš, had rebelled against the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 713 BCE, he deposed Ambaris and annexed Bīt-Burutaš.[30][35]
As part of his reorganisation of the Anatolian possessions of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the annexation of Bīt-Burutaš, in 713 BCE itself Sargon II imposed a Neo-Assyrian governor on Ḫiyawa who also had authority on Bīt-Burutaš, as well as on the nearby kingdoms of Ḫilakku and Tuwana.[37]
Under this arrangement, Awarikus became subordinate to Aššur-šarru-uṣur, who was the first governor of Que, as Ḫiyawa was called in the Neo-Assyrian Akkadian language.
Thus, Awarikus was either reduced to the status of a token king or deposed and demoted to a lower position such as an advisor of the governor, while Aššur-šarru-uṣur held all the effective power although the Neo-Assyrian administration sought to preserve, for diplomatic purposes, the illusion that Awarikus was still the ruler of Ḫiyawa in partnership with Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][38][39]
Thus Hiyawa and other nearby Anatolian kingdoms were placed the authority of Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[40][41][42] Following the appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur, Awarikus of Ḫiyawa and Warpalawas II of Tuwana became largely symbolic rulers although they might have still held the power to manage their kingdoms locally.[39]
The reason for these changes was due to the fact that, although Awarikus and Warpalawas II had been loyal Neo-Assyrian vassals, Sargon II considered them as being too elderly [sic] to be able to efficiently uphold Neo-Assyrian authority in southeastern Anatolia, where the situation had become volatile because of encroachment by the then growing power of Phrygian kingdom.[39]
Deposition
The appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur as his superior might have led to tensions between him Awarikkus, who had likely been left disillusioned with Neo-Assyrian rule after his long period of loyal service to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, Awarikus might have attempted to rebel against the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and therefore in 710 or 709 BCE he sent an embassy composed of fourteen delegates to Urartu to negotiate with the Urartian king in preparation for his rebellion.[43]
This embassy was however intercepted by the king Midas of Phrygia, who was seeking a rapprochement with the Neo-Assyrian Empire and therefore handed it over to Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][35][44]
Awarikus was consequently deposed, and possibly executed, by the Neo-Assyrian Empire for attempting to revolt, after which Ḫiyawa was annexed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire as the province of Que, and Aššur-šarru-uṣur was given full control of Que, which merely formalised the powers that he had already held.[30][45][44]
The exact fate of Awarikus is however unknown,[46] and he might already have been dead by the time that Midas handed over his delegation to Assur-sarru-usur, hence why no mention of punishing him appears in the Neo-Assyrian records.[47]
Mackey’s comment: No, Arioch was still alive and well during the reign of Esarhaddon, like Urtak (above), “… which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon’s reign”.
Aššur-šarru-uṣur (var. Ashur-resha-ishi), for his part, may well have been one of the sons of Sargon II/Sennacherib, Sharezer (šarru-uṣur), who assassinated their father:
Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib
https://www.academia.edu/119221740/Adrammelech_and_Sharezer_murdered_king_Sennacherib
Alternatively, Awarikus's conspiracy with Urartu had already been uncovered sometime between 727 and 722 BCE and he was deposed and executed during the reign of Shalmaneser V itself, while his emissaries fled to the court of Midas in Phrygia and remained there in exile for some years, until they were delivered into Neo-Assyrian hands only after Midas had aligned with the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 710/709 BCE.[48]
Legacy
….
Following Sargon II's death, the Neo-Assyrian Empire lost control of its Anatolian territories, which descended into a state of chaos.[49]
Among the territories which were destabilised in the aftermath of Sargon II's death in battle was Ḫiyawa, where Awarikus's subordinate Azzattiwadas organised a significant military force to restore authority throughout the kingdom by expelling possible Cimmerian or Phrygian invaders.[50] As part of his efforts to protect Ḫiyawa, Azzattiwadas built a series of fortifications throughout the kingdom similar to how his overlord had done, one of which was a hill-top fortified settlement named Azzattiwadaya after himself. Azzattiwadas also claimed to have expanded the territory of Ḫiyawa, to which he declared having brought prosperity, as well as filled the granaries of the city of Paḫar and replenished the grazing lands with sheep and goats.[51][52]
These actions of Azzattiwadas were done in the name of the House of Muksas, which he restored to power by placing Awarikus's son on the throne of Ḫiyawa.[53]
….
When Tobit’s (and presumably Ahikar’s) tribe of Naphtali was taken into captivity by Shalmaneser ‘the Great’, who must be recognised as Shalmaneser III/V, and also as Tiglath-pileser so-called III, or Pul, who took Naphtali into captivity (2 Kings 15:29), Tobit and his family were taken to “Nineveh”, whilst some of Tobit’s relatives, or kinsmen, Ahikar, Raguel and Gabael?, must have been taken into Media (Elam).
Since Tiglath-pileser took his Israelite captives “to Halah, and on the Habor [Khabur], the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (17:6), then Tobit’s “Nineveh” may likely have been Calah (Nimrud), given here as “Halah”.
No comments:
Post a Comment