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:
- 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, 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?
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
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment