by
Damien F. Mackey
Where are all the depictions of Shamash-shum-ukin?
We seem to have only a few of these.
If it is true that, as Waldo H. Dubberstein wrote, Shamash-shum-ukin held all Babylonia for sixteen years (“Assyrian-Babylonian Chronology (669-612 B. C.)”, JNES, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Jan., 1944), p. 38) during the very reign of his supposed brother, Ashurbanipal, then this extraordinary situation ought to be apparent, as well, during the reigns of my other versions (alter egos) of this same Ashurbanipal.
Most of these alter egos can be found in my recent article:
The many faces of Nebuchednezzar
(3) The many faces of Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And a new one has just been picked up in my very latest article:
Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani
(3) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
For, according to the revision crafted in these articles Ashurbanipal was, all at once, these major king names:
Ashurnasirpal;
Esarhaddon;
Nebuchednezzar;
Nabonidus
And, perhaps secondarily, Ashurbanipal was:
Ashur-bel-kala;
Ashur-Etil-Ilani;
Cambyses
All of these great names are needed, so I believe, to put ‘Humpty Dumpty’ Ashurbanipal together again!
Here I shall limit myself to only a few of these names in connection with Ashurbanipal, working backwards chronologically (as perceived by convention): King Nabonidus; King Nebuchednezzar; King Ashur-Etil-Ilani.
King Nabonidus
I think that the relationship between King Nabonidus and his son, Belshazzar, may be a good fit for that between Ashurbanipal (of whom Nabonidus was one alter ego) and Shamash-shum-ukin, enabling us to understand that Shamash-shum-ukin was the son, not the brother, of Ashurbanipal.
In the context of Nabonidus, and his lengthy absence in Tema (see Shea below), this was a truly extraordinary situation which may properly be explained only in the context of the protracted sickness of “Nebuchadnezzar” in Daniel 4.
Protracted sickness, we have found, was common to our various alter egos for Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar”, most notably Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nabonidus:
Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus
(3) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Not to mention the famed madness of Cambyses, who was apparently also called “Nebuchadnezzar”:
Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar? Part Three: ‘Sacred disease’ (read madness) of King Cambyses
(3) Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar? Part Three: ‘Sacred disease’ (read madness) of King Cambyses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Here I take up William H. Shea’s account of “the relationship of Nabonidus and Belshazzar”, which is not addressed in the Bible, except for two verses in Baruch “at the time when the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burned it with fire” (1:2).
Thus vv. 10-11:
They said, ‘Here we send you silver, so buy with the silver burnt offerings and for sin and incense, and prepare a grain offering, and offer them on the altar of the Lord our God, and pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and for the life of his son Belshazzar, so that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven.
The Lord will give us strength and light to our eyes; we shall live under the protection of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and under the protection of his son Belshazzar, and we shall serve them many days and find favor in their sight.
William H. Shea wrote in his article, “Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Book of Daniel: an update” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 133-134):
More than half a century has now passed since R. P. Dougherty 's significant monograph was published in 1929, summarizing what was known up to then about Nabonidus and Belshazzar. …. Certain further pieces of information about these two historical figures have surfaced in the meantime, and the present seems like an appropriate juncture at which to review the evidence and examine the relationship of Nabonidus and Belshazzar to the biblical record. Of Nabonidus we can only speak indirectly in this latter connection, since he is not mentioned by name in the Bible.
Mackey’s comment: While the Chaldean king “is not mentioned … in the Bible” under the name of “Nabonidus”, he does assuredly appear there in some of his many other guises, as Esarhaddon; as Ashurbanipal; as Nebuchednezzar.
William H. Shea continues:
Belshazzar, however, figures prominently in the fifth chapter of Daniel, which refers to events taking place on the night Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians.
Aside from references in works dependent upon Daniel, such as Baruch and Josephus, Belshazzar, was unknown until his identity was recovered from cuneiform sources in the last half of the nineteenth century. Before that, interpreters of Daniel generally identified him with one or another of the previously known Neo-Babylonian kings. …. Belshazzar's name was first found in Neo-Babylonian texts deciphered in the 1860s. A major advance in information about him came with publication by T. G. Pinches of the Nabonidus Chronicle. This document records that the crown prince, i.e., Belshazzar, remained in Babylonia with the army while Nabonidus was away in Tema for a number of years. …. Additional texts referring to Belshazzar appeared thereafter, a most significant one being the so-called Verse Account of Nabonidus, published in 1924 by Sidney Smith. …. This text refers specifically to the fact that Nabonidus "entrusted the kingship" of Babylon to the crown prince when he left for Tema. ….
Continuing on p. 134, William Shea writes:
1. The Datelines of Dan 7:1 and 8:1
In Dan 7:1 Belshazzar is referred to as "king of Babylon," and in 8:1 he is simply called "king." Historically, these designations and the dates of "first year" and "third year" can only apply to the time when Belshazzar managed matters in Babylonia while his father was in Tema, and they clearly imply an awareness of this arrangement in the Neo-Babylonian kingdom. Stemming from such a situation, these dates are obviously relative; they must somehow be correlated with Nabonidus' regnal years, since it was by Nabonidus' regnal years that the economic documents in Babylonia continued to be dated through his entire reign.
Mackey’s comment: Due to William H. Shea’s understandable failure to recognise Nabonidus as Nebuchednezzar, he must grapple with the presumed problem of Belshazzar being biblically called a “king” while Nabonidus was still alive, as king. But Nebuchednezzar-Nabonidus was, by now, dead, and his son Belshazzar (also Amēl-Marduk) now ruled Babylon as sole king.
And I think that we can now add another identification to Belshazzar, namely Shamsh-shum-ukin. This will enable us to tie up Waldo H. Dubberstein’s “sixteen years” for Shamash-shum-ukin with the “16th year” of Nabonidus to which William H. Shea will now refer (loc. cit.):
It is now known from C. J. Gadd's publication of Nabonidus' Harran Inscriptions that Nabonidus remained in Tema for a period of ten consecutive years during which he did not visit Babylon. …. The Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that he had taken up residence in Tema by no later than the 6th year of his reign (550/549 B.c.), and that he had returned to Babylon by the end of his 16th year (540/539). …. Unfortunately, breaks in the text of his Chronicle prevent us from delimiting the dates for this ten-year period any more precisely from this text.
On p. 135, William H. Shea will make quite clear the status of Belshazzar during his father’s absence from Babylon:
More important than determining the dates for Belshazzar's 1st and 3d years is the question of why he was identified as king in these two datelines when no cuneiform texts are known which refer to him as king. It is commonly suggested that Belshazzar was coregent with Nabonidus at this time. As senior coregent, it is natural that the economic documents written in Babylonia would have continued to be dated by Nabonidus' regnal years. There is no specific evidence, however, to indicate that Belshazzar was installed as king at this time. Entrusting the kingship to Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him king. The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar as the king's eldest son when the kingship was "entrusted" to him, and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the "crown prince" through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema. Moreover, the New Year's festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus' absence because the king was not in Babylon.
This would suggest that the crown prince, who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar's name and jointly in his name and his father's name, which fact indicates Belshazzar's importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king. ….
[End of quote]
The very same situation of the king being unable to attend the New Year’s festival, being unable to take the hand of Bel, will recur in the life of mighty Ashurbanipal, an alter ego of Nabonidus.
It is, therefore, the very same historical situation.
I wrote about it in my article:
Not able to shake the hand of Bel
https://www.academia.edu/119201480/Not_able_to_shake_the_hand_of_Bel
…. During this time of the Great King’s sickness and alienation, the Crown Prince was not authorized to take the hand of Bel at the New Year’s feast in Babylon.
And we find this situation repeated again with Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, Ashurbanipal, who, for many years did not take the hand of Bel. ….
King Nebuchednezzar
In this “hand of Bel” article I also found a vital parallel between Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar, on the one hand, and Nebuchednezzar and his son Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach), on the other.
Thus:
In the case of the latter, King Nabonidus, I have been able to identify (as an historical companion to the ‘Jonah incident’ article) a perfectly parallel situation between Nebuchednezzar, alienated from his kingdom, with his son Evil-Merodach temporarily left in charge, and Nabonidus, away from his kingdom, with his son Belshazzar temporarily left in charge.
Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified
(6) Nebuchednezzar's madness historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
“… officials … bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach
to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable
to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach”.
British Museum tablet No. BM 34113
King Ashur-Etil-Ilani
In my article on this king (see above), who I am convinced was none other than Esarhaddon/Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, I commented:
If Aššur-etil-ilāni was also Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, as I believe he was, then his successor Sîn-šar-iškun was not his brother, but his son, the ill-fated King Belshazzar (Daniel 5).
The names are of compatible meaning:
Sîn-šar-iškun (Sîn-šarru-iškun), "Sîn has established the king"; and
Belshazzar (Bēl-šar-uṣur), “Bel, protect the king”.
….
So, may I now add, is the name Shamash-shum-ukin also compatible with these:
Šamaš-šuma-ukin, "Shamash has established the name".
Conclusion
Just as King Nabonidus’ son, Belshazzar, filled in for the king during his lengthy absence from Babylon, so apparently did King Nebuchednezzar’s son, Amēl-Marduk (Belshazzar in Baruch 1:10, 11, and in Daniel 5), have to fill in for the inconvenienced Nebuchednezzar.
As with the biblical King Belshazzar, so with his biblico-historical counterpart, Amēl-Marduk, was a short sole reign terminated by a violent death.
And we saw that the Nabonidus scenario parallels Ashurbanipal, inasmuch as the Great King was unable to attend the New Year’s festival or take the hand of Bel.
Shamash-shum-ukin, Ashurbanipal’s son rather than brother, must have been filing in during the king’s reign in a way identical with Amēl-Marduk for Nebuchednezzar, with Belshazzar for Nabonidus.
The situation applies again with Ashur-Etil-Ilani and Sîn-šar-iškun, who is thought to have died a violent death while defending his city.
That is my explanation for the difficult Shamash-shum-ukin, that he was the son and eventual successor of Ashurbanipal.
His fate was apparently somewhat like that of Belshazzar, like that of Sin-shar-ishkun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ama%C5%A1-%C5%A1uma-ukin
“Šamaš-šuma-ukin's fate is not entirely clear. He is traditionally believed by historians to have committed suicide by setting himself on fire in his palace … but contemporary texts only say that he "met a cruel death" and that the gods "consigned him to a fire and destroyed his life". In addition to suicide through self-immolation or other means, it is possible that Šamaš-šuma-ukin was executed, died accidentally or was killed in some other way. …. Most of the accounts of his death state that it involved fire in some capacity, but do not give more elaborate details.
