Part Three: (Narmer) Naram Sin as Amraphel



 

by
Damien F. Mackey

 

 

When Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea).

 

[Genesis 14:1-3]

 

 

Introduction

 

So far in this series I have - after having rejected a long-held view that equated the biblical “Amraphel” with the famous Hammurabi:

 

Amraphel King of Shinar” Was Not King Hammurabi

 

http://www.academia.edu/9626715/_Amraphel_King_of_Shinar_Was_Not_King_Hammurab

 

been able, in:

 

Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham

 

http://www.academia.edu/9615175/Narmer_a_Contemporary_of_Patriarch_Abraham

 

and in:

 

Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham.

Part Two: Narmer as Naram Sin.

 

http://www.academia.edu/9716223/Narmer_a_Contemporary_of_Patriarch_Abraham._Part_Two_Narmer_as_Naram_Sin

 

to set the Patriarch Abram archaeologically in relation to the early dynastic period of Egypt - {very likely the era of Hor-Aha, “Menes”} - that also controlled southern Canaan, and that existed very close to the time of the enigmatic Narmer. The latter I have tentatively identified with the world-conquering Naram Sin of Akkad. And this synchronisation of early dynastic Egypt with Akkad accords very well with Dr. Albright’s insistence that the mighty lord of Magan, “Manium”, whom Naram Sin boasted of having conquered, was the legendary pharaoh Menes of Egypt himself.

 

The question now becomes: Can my composite Narmer = Naram Sin also be identified with the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” of Genesis 14:1?   

 

Location of Akkad

 

Creationist Anne Habermehl has set things in a completely new direction in her:

 

Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?

 

https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/

 

by convincingly re-identifying the biblical ‘land of Shinar’, generally considered to have been the same as ‘Sumer’ (southern Mesopotamia), with the Sinjar region of NE Syria. This important geographical revision of hers has provided researchers with a new opportunity to identify the as yet un-located capital city of Akkad.

Habermehl’s own suggestion for Akkad is the most ancient site of Tell Brak, which was certainly of great significance for the Akkad dynasty, and for Naram Sin. M. van de Mieroop for example, who assumes the general view that the modern site, Tell Brak, is ancient Nagar, tells (A History of the Ancient Near east. Ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, pp. 63-64):

 

In Syria the Akkadians established footholds in certain existing centers, indicated by the presence of military garrisons or trade representatives there. At Nagar (modern Tell Brak), a monumental building was erected with bricks stamped with the name of Naram-Sin. Its character - military or administrative - cannot be established, however.

 

[End of quote]

 

Such a location, rather than Sumer, would have given Naram Sin at least a geographically more central and proximate base for his foray against Egypt – whether or not (probably the latter) he had actually succeeded in completely subduing that land.

The geography of the kingdom Amraphel, too, as a ruler of “Shinar”, would likewise be thus affected.

 

Connection with Elam

 

The country of Elam is most important in any consideration of the biblical Amraphel, because of the predominance in the Genesis 14 coalition of “Chedorlaomer king of Elam”. For, after the introduction to the coalition in Genesis 14:1, in which Amraphel of Shinar seems to be given predominance, Chedorlaomer of Elam, after that, apparently takes centre stage (vv. 5-9):

 

For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

In the fourteenth year, Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him went out and defeated the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert. Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazezon Tamar.

Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboyim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out and drew up their battle lines in the Valley of Siddim against Kedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goyim, Amraphel king of Shinar and Arioch king of Ellasar—four kings against five.

 

The ‘Battle of Siddim’, as it is called, between these two coalitions of powerful kings took place, of course, in the fertile Valley of Siddim. But then we find this quite differently rendered topographically, in brackets, as the Dead Sea “(that is, the Dead Sea)”.

The explanation for this seeming anomaly is provided in

 

The "Toledoths" of Genesis

 

http://www.academia.edu/3501243/The_Toledoths_of_Genesis

 

according to which editor Moses later geographically updated for his people the various patriarchal toledôt. In this particular case: “the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea)”, the toledôt is that of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12): “These are the generations of Ishmael”.

Now, continuing with Elam, we find that it was of such singular importance at the time of the Akkadian, Naram Sin, for van de Mieroop to say  of it (op. cit., p. 63, emphasis added):

 

… 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.

[End of quote]

 

Powerful Elam at this time, far from being subservient to the Akkadian rulers, like most were, was ‘autonomous’ - but fighting alongside Akkad against the latter’s enemies. And this is exactly the situation that we encounter with the strong king Chedorlaomer (a name probably equating to Elamite Kudur-Lagmur) in his association with Amraphel.

 

Arioch and Tidal

 

As for the two other coalitional kings listed in Genesis 14:1, “Arioch king of Ellasar”, and “Tidal king of Goyim”, these were likely of secondary status by comparison with Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, and may thus have been only local rulers, e.g., ensi-governors.

H. Storck has made some potentially important observations regarding these two characters, Erioch and Tidal, in his article, “The Early Assyrian King List, The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty, and the ‘Greater Amorite’ Tradition” (C and AH Proceedings 3, 1986). Here I reproduce a summary I made of the relevant parts of this article back in 2002:

 

Storck’s identification of the name 16 [in Assyrian King List: AKL], Ushpia (Ishbak), with the “Ushpia ... known to have built at Ashur, according to a later tradition by Shalmaneser”, and his dating of this Ushpia “as a later contemporary of Abraham ... [to] the later part of Ur III dynasty” now encourages me to try to identify members of the Mesopotamian coalition of Genesis 14 during Ur III, at the time of Abraham. Since Storck has already dealt with these four kings in part, I shall begin where he does, with Arioch of Ellasar [p. 45. Storck had already noted, with reference to Poebel, that the name Azarah might be composed of a Western Semitic (WS) form, “to come forth” and WHR “moon” (month)]:

 

A certain Arioch of Ellasar, furthermore, is cited as one of the four kings against five. This Arioch may provisionally be identified with Azarah if “WRH” moon (month) is closer to the original etymology. Ellasar has received various treatments over the years: Larsa al sarri or “city of the King”, Til Assuri, “the country of Assyria” and/or “the city of Assur ....The connection between Ellasar is explained as a derived form of A LA-SAR, an ideogram denoting the city of Assyria” .... That “Assur” is meant here may receive further support if the connection with Arioch-Azarah is defensible. However, to the best of our knowledge A LA SAR is not an attested reading for Assur. We therefore suggest that it was heard as “alu Assur” and “Ellasar” is an attempt to render this, based on oral transmission.

 

Now in the later part of the Ur III dynasty era - the era for Abraham according to Storck’s view - at the time of Amar-Sin of Ur (c. 2046-2038 BC, conventional dating), we read of an official of Ashur who may well be this Arioch/Azarah. He is Zariqum. I quote regarding him from the Cambridge Ancient History [Vol. I, pt. 2 (3rd ed.), p. 602]:

 

From Ashur itself comes a stone tablet dedicated by Zariqum, calling himself governor of Ashur, 'for the life of Amar-Sin the mighty, king of Ur, king of the four regions', whereby it is certain that Ashur was a vassal-city of Ur under its next king.

 

The name Zariqum contains the main elements of both Arioch (ariq) and Azarah (zari), thus supporting Storck’s view that these are the same names, and further linking the king lists and the Bible.

But this quotation may tell us more with regard to the coalition. It in fact gives us the name of the Sumerian ruler whom Zariqum served: Amar-Sin (var. Amar-Su’en).

 

When I wrote this, with Storck’s research well in mind, I was working along the lines that Amraphel the biblical king of Shinar was actually one of the Ur III potentates, not an Akkadian ruler.

And I also considered then that the best candidate for Abram’s “Pharaoh” was one Khety III of the 10^th Egyptian dynasty, and not Hor-Aha. (More on this below, see section “Khety III”).

And so I concluded in relation to Amraphel:

 

Now Amar-Sin would make an excellent candidate for Amraphel of Shinar of Genesis 14. Basically the names are the same with a different theophoric, the god El in the biblical name replaced by the moon god, Sin. Amar-Sin was a mighty king of Shinar, belonging to the very era in which Storck has placed Abraham in relation to Mesopotamia. And I happily note that the conventional Mesopotamian dates for Amar-Sin (c. 2000 BC) correspond adequately enough to those usually estimated for Abram’s early dwelling in Canaan.

A third coalitional king was Tidal. Storck identifies this with name 1, Tudija, in AKL [op. cit., pp. 45-46]:

 

... Tid’al. This name is intended to represent the form Tudkhalia ... a Hittite name, although specific identity with one of the four Hittite kings by this name cannot be suggested. That Tid’al is but a contracted form of Tudkhalia is almost universally accepted and offers no major linguistic problems. Tudija is also a contraction or hypocoristicon of some longer name .... As such it would probably constitute the Vorlage/(pattern) of Tudkhalia.

 

Ebla seems also to refer to this name, as if belonging to a real historical person [Collier’s Encyclopedia Vol. 8, “Ebla”, Collier Inc. NY, p. 501]:

 

The tablets, for example, refer to a treaty between Ebla and King Dudiya of Ashur, or Assyria. A nearly identical name, Tudiya, is the first name on the Assyrian king lists .... Most likely both sources refer to the same person. Therefore, it appears that Tudiya ... and the other early Assyrian kings were real figures, a fact that scholars had previously doubted.

[End of quotes]

 

Khety III

 

Though I have, in this present series, opted for Hor-Aha (Menes) as the “Pharaoh” of Abram, I have nevertheless persevered, too, with the possibility of my earlier view, that that “Pharaoh” may have been Khety III (c. 2100 BC, conventional dating). See my:

 

Connecting the Biblical Patriarchs to Ancient Egypt

 

http://www.academia.edu/3689899/Connecting_the_Biblical_Patriarchs_to_Ancient_Egypt

 

So far, however, I have not been able to establish any compelling link between the 1st and 10th Egyptian dynasties (perhaps Aha “Athothis” in 1 can connect with “Akhthoes” in 10). Nevertheless, that pharaoh Khety appears to have possessed certain striking likenesses to Abram’s “Pharaoh” has not been lost on David Rohl as well, who, in From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible (Arrow Books, 2003), identified the “Pharaoh” with Khety (Rohl actually numbers him as Khety IV). And he will further incorporate the view of the Roman author, Pliny, that Abram’s “Pharaoh” had a name that Rohl considers to be akin to Khety’s prenomen: Nebkaure.  

Here, for what it is worth, is what I have written about pharaoh Khety III:

  

There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with pharaoh Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of Pharaoh and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139]. Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era - including the Hebrews themselves - who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt):

 

Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time:

The nome of This was ravaged;

Though it happened through my doing,

I learned it after it was done.

[Emphasis added].

 

Cf. Genesis 12:17-19:

 

But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai ....

So Pharaoh called Abram, and said,

‘What is this you have done to me?

Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?

Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? so that I took her for my wife?

Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone’.

As for any possible connection between Abram, Amraphel, and the Ur III dynasty, I had gone right away from my earlier enthusiasm for it, having become convinced that both the Ur III dynasty, and the Akkadian one, had need of being brought well down the time scale beyond the era of Abra[ha]m. It was only recently, with D. Petrovich’s interesting connection of the biblical Nimrod (ostensibly a much older contemporary of Abraham) with Sargon of Akkad:

 

Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological Means

 

http://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means

 

that I had cause to apply my revisionist brakes, enabling for a return to the possibility of contemporaneity between this approximate period of history and Abram. And from there I proceeded tentatively to identify Narmer with Naram Sin, and then the latter’s Egyptian foe, “Manium”, as Hor-Aha “Menes” (following Dr. Albright).

Ur III Dynasty


 

Now, with the central focus of the Akkad dynasty moved right away from Sumer, to the Sinjar region of NE Syria (thanks to Habermehl), can there be any potential for identifying the significant, but largely unheralded (by later Mesopotamians), Ur III dynasty, with that of the most celebrated dynasty of Akkad – with, say, Amar Sin, who I had previously estimated to be “an excellent candidate for Amraphel of Shinar of Genesis 14”, now to be identified with my already composite Naram Sin (= Narmer) /Amraphel?

 

That intriguing consideration of a possible merging of Akkad and Ur III will be the subject of my next article.    

 

Part Two: Narmer as Naram Sin

For Part One, see: https://www.academia.edu/9615175/Narmer_a_Contemporary_of_Patriarch_Abraham

Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham

Part Two: Narmer as Naram Sin

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

…. what makes most intriguing a possible collision of … Menes with a Shinarian potentate … is the emphatic view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Naram-Sin … had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920, pp. 89-98).

 

 

Introduction

 

In Part One I had concluded that 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)”.

 

And I asked: “Could any one of these have been Narmer?”

But I then noted that I had already concluded in articles that “Pharaoh” and “Abimelech” were one and the same ruler.

So the question really became whether Narmer could have been either:

 

1. Abram’s Pharaoh, or
2. 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, I myself am inclined to think that the Egyptian identity of Abram’s (biblical) “Pharaoh” was Menes.

Now, whilst Hor-Aha (Menes) can also loom as a possible candidate for Narmer (i) above – {Phouka, though, suggests Narmer instead as a “presumed” father of Hor-Aha} – my preference will be for (ii): Narmer, a king of Shinar, rather than a pharaoh of Egypt.

 

Certainly we know form archaeology (see Part One) that Narmer, too, was a contemporary of the patriarch Abram.

 

So what makes most intriguing a possible collision of the semi-legendary pharaoh of Egypt, Menes, with a Shinarian potentate (and possibly “Amraphel” himself – to be discussed in Part Three), 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 (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920, pp. 89-98).

With Naram Sin of Akkad (c. 2200 BC) conventionally dated about a millennium after pharaoh Menes, this 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”.

Even more “reckless” will be my further proposed lowering of the historical meeting of Menes and Naram Sin to c. 1870 BC (Osgood’s date for Abram – see my Part One). 

Whilst 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, based on Anne Habermehl’s marvellous re-location of biblical “Shinar” (long thought to be Sumer) to the Sinjar (= Shinar) region in NE Syria. See her:

 

Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?

 

https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/

   

Habermehl’s preference for the mysterious Akkad, now, in this new environment, is the most ancient site of Tell Brak. (See Abstract to her article). Naram Sin and the Akkadians were indeed prominent at this site (http://www.tellbrak.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/occupation.html):

 

Of particular importance for the late 3rd millennium Akkadian Period was Mallowan’s excavation of the ‘Palace’ (actually a fortified storehouse) of Naram-Sin, a grandson of Sargon of Agade. This building provided the first known evidence for South Mesopotamian control in the area. During the 1980s-90s, further important early Akkadian Period buildings were investigated, including a unique audience hall and temple together with administrative and ‘industrial’ areas near the Naram-Sin Palace (Area SS), and a temple and possible ‘way station’ near the north gate of the city (Area FS). Cuneiform tablets and sealed bullae from these buildings tell us something of the Akkadian and later administration.

[End of quote]

 

Another recent article that will be of importance for what follows is D. Petrovich’s

 

Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological Means

 

http://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means

 

in which the author presents a solid case for Sargon of Akkad’s being the same as the biblical Nimrod. I have tentatively accepted Petrovich’s conclusion.

This same Sargon is generally said to have been the grandfather of Naram Sin, though, according to S. Franke, “Naram-Sin [is] occasionally taken to be [Sargon’s] son” (Kings of Akkad: Sargon and Naram-Sin, p. 840: http://www.academia.edu/7801675/Kings_of_Akka). But why not include Sargon-Nimrod, too, as a potential candidate for Narmer, the contemporary of Abram? For, we read: “Several … early Judaic sources also assert that the king Amraphel, who wars with Abraham later in Genesis, is none other than Nimrod himself”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod#Traditions_and_legends

Well, apart from the far closer name resemblance of Narmer

and Naram Sin, it would be really stretching things to attempt to synchronise Sargon of Akkad - if he were Nimrod - with Abram, given the legends that associate Nimrod with the Tower of Babel, considerably before Abra[ha]m (wikipedia again):

 

In Hebrew and Christian tradition, Nimrod is considered the leader of those who built the Tower of Babel in the land of Shinar,^[4] though the Bible never actually states this. Nimrod's kingdom included the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, all in Shinar. (Ge 10:10) Therefore it was likely under his direction that the building of Babel and its tower began; in addition to Flavius Josephus, this is also the view found in the Talmud (Chullin 89a, Pesahim 94b, Erubin 53a, Avodah Zarah 53b), and later midrash such as Genesis Rabba.

[End of quote]

  

as well as Nimrod’s supposedly being a persecutor of the Abram as a child (loc. cit.):

 

A portent in the stars tells Nimrod and his astrologers of the impending birth of Abraham, who would put an end to idolatry. Nimrod therefore orders the killing of all newborn babies. However, Abraham's mother escapes into the fields and gives birth secretly. At a young age, Abraham recognizes God and starts worshiping Him. He confronts Nimrod and tells him face-to-face to cease his idolatry, whereupon Nimrod orders him burned at the stake. In some versions, Nimrod has his subjects gather wood for four whole years, so as to burn Abraham in the biggest bonfire the world had ever seen. Yet when the fire is lit, Abraham walks out unscathed.

[End of quote]

 

Dr. Albright, whilst wisely allowing that (and reckless revisionists could keep these words in mind) (op. cit., p. 89): “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”, nonetheless proceeds to make this welcome - especially given the currently vague and tentative correlations between ancient Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia – statement: “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!”

 

Impact of Akkad Upon Egypt

 

Dr. Albright was also most controversial - at least in conventional terms - in his firm opinion that the Magan that Naram Sin claimed to have conquered was Egypt. Although Magan and Meluhha are always considered in the neo-Assyrio/Babylonian records to indicate, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia, when Naram Sin uses these terms, he is supposed (for some strange reason) to be referring to, say, Oman, and to a location connecting to the Indus Valley.  However, D. Potts, discussing “the booty of Magan” taken by Naram Sin (“Potts 1986 - The booty of Magan”, Oriens Antiquus 25: pp. 271-285), makes the significant observation that: “It is striking that archaeological sites of all periods in the Oman peninsula have yielded an abundance of steatite and chlorite vessels, but practically no alabaster. This fact alone must make one sceptical of an Omani origin for the booty of Magan”.

Soundly based, therefore, does Albright’s conviction appear to be, that (op. cit., pp. 89-90):

 

Magan may now be identified beyond reasonable doubt with Egypt, despite the general impression to the contrary, shared by no less an authority than Eduard Meyer. This consensus of opinion is based partly upon erroneous data, and partly upon the sheer inertia of old preconceptions.

 

Dr. Albright’s last phrase, I think, well summarises the moribund Sothic theory of the aforesaid Eduard Meyer. See my:

 

The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited

 

https://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited

 

Albright has 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 calls him “mighty” (… Mannu dannu šar Magan). Thus he writes:

 

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]

 

The Might and Power of Naram Sin    

 

 

M. van de Mieroop tells us of the extent of Naram Sin’s mighty reach, though typically understated without the inclusion 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. [See photo above]

[End of quote]

 

Archaeology

 

Whilst Sargon and his son, Manishtusu, also refer to “Magan”, the words quoted above about “monopolizing access to trade routes”, and using “military might to guarantee access to [Magan’s] resources”, rather than perhaps overt conquest, may apply in each of their cases. But in the case of Naram Sin (and also of the biblical “Amraphel”, whether or not he equates with Naram Sin), we know that a physical conquest was actually involved.

What archaeological evidence do we have for that?

Dr John Osgood has, in “The Times of Abraham” (http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham), so important already in my Part One, archaeologically aligned as follows the invasion of the Shinarian coalition with the Syro-Palestine of Abram’s day:

 

In summary, Abraham entered the land of Canaan at approximately 1875 B.C.. In his days there was a settlement of Amorites in En-gedi, identified here with the Ghassul IV people. This civilization was ended by the attack of four Mesopotamian monarchs in a combined confederation of nations, here placed in the Uruk-Jemdat Nasr period in Mesopotamia. They were a significant force in ending the Chalcolithic of Palestine as we understand it archaeologically, and Abraham and his army were a significant force in ending the Jemdat Nasr domination of Mesopotamia, and thus the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia, by their attack on these four Mesopotamian monarchs as they were returning home.

 

Osgood then goes on to tie up all of this with Egypt and its expansion into southern Palestine, which event I think may, however - if Osgood is actually correct in associating the Mesopotamian archaeology with “Amraphel” - have occurred after, rather than just prior to, the invasion of the eastern kings, with Egypt (Pharaoh-Abimelech) now filling up the vacuum left by the demise of Narmer. 

 

Egypt was just about to enter its great dynastic period, and was beginning to consolidate into a united kingdom, when from northern Egypt a surge of Egyptian stock, including the Philistines, moved north into southern Palestine to settle, as well as to trade, identified in a number of sites in that region (most notably in the strata of Tel Areini, Level VI then V) as the Philistines with whom Abraham was able to talk face to face.

 

Now I fully accept Osgood’s concluding statement:

 

The biblical narrative demands a redating of the whole of ancient history, as currently recognised, by something like a one thousand year shortening - a formidable claim and a formidable investigation, but one that must be undertaken.