by
Damien F. Mackey
“Esarhaddon (flourished 7th century bc) was the king of Assyria from 680–669 bc …”.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Esarhaddon
“Ashur-etil-ilani was a king of Assyria ca. (631 BC - ca.627 BC)”.
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/464149
Here we see that Ashur-etil-ilani supposedly came to the throne of Assyria (631 BC) almost 40 years after the death of the mighty Esarhaddon (669 BC).
In between, we are told, there occurred the long reign of Ashurbanipal (669-631 BC).
Assyriologists, failing to take careful notice of the fact that Esarhaddon would also be given by Sennacherib the name of Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli, have, in their typically conventionalist Indian file approach, separated Esarhaddon as being a king other than the almost identically named (merely shortened) Ashur-etil-ilani.
This is a rupture in Assyrian history of a full generation.
Imagine how it must affect, not only Assyrian history, but all other related histories!
“Aššur-etil-ilāni … meaning "Ashur is the lord of the Tree").
The additional phrase, mukin apli, means “establisher of a legitimate heir”.
According to Sidney Smith, however (see below), this lengthy Assyrian name means: “… ‘Ashur, the hero of the gods, who hath established the son’)”.
Father Jean-Vincent Scheil, in 1915, had trouble fitting into his scheme of things this Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli, thinking that he may have been a rival brother of Esarhaddon.
What particularly interests me about the following quotation from Father Scheil is that Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli will call himself, now “son of Sennacherib”, now “son of Sargon”, just the one Assyrian king according to my scheme of things:
Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap
(2) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Father Scheil wrote, in his article, ‹Le Prisme d'Assarhaddon, Roi d'Assyrie, 681-668› (The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1915, p. 653):
There is another inscription which involves a problem of historical importance. It reads: 'I am Ashur-e-til-ilani-mukin-apli, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria, son of Sennacherib, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria, son of Sargon, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria.' It tells about restorations of temples of Assyria and Babylonia. Seeing that the successor of Sennacherib was Esarhaddon, the question arises:
Who was this Ashur-e-il-ilani-mukin-apli who claimed to be son and successor of Sennacherib?
The author is inclined to identify him with Esarhaddon. Hugo Winckler (Altorient. Forsch., II, pp. 53-9; 183-6) has already identified Ashur-e-til-ilani-ukin(-in)-ni (III R, I6, 2. 9) and Ashur-e-til-mukin-apli (ibid., I6, 8) with the latter. But it is hard to believe in this identification. We would have to assume with Winckler that the original name of this king was Ashur-ah-iddina, who according to the will of his father was to be named when he became king Ashur-etil-mukin-apli, that, as a matter of fact, on his accession he assumed the name Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli; in official documents, however, he was called Ashur-etil-ilani-ukin-ni, and as soon as he was firmly established on his throne he assumed his original name Ashur-ah-iddina. Winckler's contention that Esarhaddon as Ashur-e-itil-ilani-ukin-ni did not bear the title 'king of the kish-shati', as this title was a special designation of the rulers of Harran which at that time was in possession of his brother, the rival king, would be disproved by our inscription, in which he is named 'king of the kishshati'. Its contents show also that it was not written at the time of this king's accession, as it enumerates restorations of temples in Assyria and Babylonia. May we assume that Ashur-e-til-ilani-mukin-apli was the name of a brother of Esarhaddon who maintained himself as rival king for a considerable time?
[End of quote]
Sidney Smith, writing for CAH (Vol. III, Ch. iii), had no hesitation in identifying Esarhaddon with this Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli (“Sennacherib and Esarhaddon”). Commenting on Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon, Sidney Smith wrote (p. 69): https://classicalliberalarts.com/resources/CAMBRIDGE_ANCIENT_003.pdf
The folk who were slaughtered had themselves probably slaughtered the pro-Assyrian party shortly before. …. For eight years there was no trouble in Babylonia. Elam remained passive under the rule of Khummakhaldash, who had succeeded Menanu in 689. It was during these eight years that Sennacherib gave his son Esarhaddon the supreme authority over the southern provinces which he had himself once exercised in the north; and Esarhaddon’s mother, the queen Nakia, was probably installed in Babylon at this time too, to guide her son, and to act as his representative in his absence. From these facts some have inferred that Nakia was herself of Babylonian birth. This act, which probably took place at the end of the reign, was, in fact, a recognition of Esarhaddon as Sennacherib’s successor; and since Esarhaddon was a younger son, as is implied by his name (‘Ashur hath given a brother’), his older brother may naturally have become desperate. The event was solemnized by a ceremony in Babylon, and Esarhaddon was renamed Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli (‘Ashur, the hero of the gods, who hath established the son’). ….
[End of quote]
Turning to Ashur-Etil-Ilani, a king reigning supposedly decades later than Esarhaddon (who was Ashurbanipal) we read this typical sort of account (with my comments added): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-etil-il%C4%81ni
Aššur-etil-ilāni … meaning "Ashur is the lord of the Tree"),[7] was the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the death of his father Ashurbanipal in 631 BC to his own death in 627 BC.[n 1] Aššur-etil-ilāni is an obscure figure with a brief reign from which few inscriptions survive. Because of this lack of sources, very little concrete information about the king and his reign can be deduced.
Mackey’s comment: The reason why “Aššur-etil-ilāni is an obscure figure with a brief reign from which few inscriptions survive” is only because he has not been appropriately matched up to his more powerful alter egos, such as Esarhaddon (= Ashurbanipal/ Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus). Wikipedia continues in the same vein:
It is possible that Aššur-etil-ilāni was a weak ruler as there are no records of the king ever undertaking a military campaign or going on a hunt, activities previous Assyrian kings would famously do very often; this, in turn, may have helped to entice some of Assyria's vassals, such as the Kingdom of Judah, to break free from Assyrian control and begin to act independently. Aššur-etil-ilāni was succeeded by his brother Sîn-šar-iškun under uncertain, though not necessarily violent, circumstances.
Mackey’s comment: 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”.
It is the same basic formula:
[X] - [WILL] FAVOUR - THE KING.
Wikipedia continues, still lamenting lack of information:
There is a distinct lack of available sources in regards to the last few years of Ashurbanipal's reign and the reign of Aššur-etil-ilāni. The annals of Ashurbanipal, the primary sources for his reign, go no further than 636 BC.[8] Although Ashurbanipal's final year is often repeated as 627 BC,[9][10] this follows an inscription at Harran made by the mother of the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus nearly a century later. The final contemporary evidence for Ashurbanipal being alive and reigning as king is a contract from the city of Nippur made in 631 BC.[4] To get the attested lengths of the reigns of his successors to match, most scholars agree that Ashurbanipal either died, abdicated or was deposed in 631 BC.[11] Of the three options, a death in 631 BC is the most accepted.[12] If Ashurbanipal's reign would have ended in 627 BC, the inscriptions of his successors Aššur-etil-ilāni and Sîn-šar-iškun in Babylon, covering several years, would have been impossible since the city was seized by the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar in 626 BC to never again fall into Assyrian hands.[13]
Mackey’s comment: The Nabopolassar who seized Babylon was, in fact, the potent Assyrian king, Sargon II=Sennacherib.
Why are we so lacking in depictions of the powerful Nabopolassar?
He clearly needs one or more alter egos. On this phenomenon, see e.g. my article:
Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt
(2) Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Wikipedia continues:
Ashurbanipal had named his successor as early as 660 BC, when documents referencing a crown prince were written. He had been the father of at least one son, and probably two, early on in his reign.
These early sons were likely Aššur-etil-ilāni [sic] and Sîn-šar-iškun.
Mackey’s comment: No, Aššur-etil-ilāni was Ashurbanipal (was Esarhaddon).
Wikipedia continues:
The common assumption that Aššur-etil-ilāni came to the throne at a young age is based on the phrase "my father did not rear me" ("rear" meaning to care for someone until they're fully grown), found in one of his inscriptions. However, the same phrase appears in a prayer by Ashurbanipal and Aššur-etil-ilāni is unlikely to have been very young as he is attested to have had male children during his reign.[14]
Mackey’s comment: That “… the same phrase appears in a prayer by Ashurbanipal …”, is simply because Ashurbanipal was Aššur-etil-ilāni (Esarhaddon).
Wikipedia continues:
Aššur-etil-ilāni ascended the throne after the death of his father Ashurbanipal in 631 BC.[15] A land grant from Aššur-etil-ilāni to his rab šaqi (a general serving him since he was a young boy) Sîn-šumu-līšir suggests that Ashurbanipal died a natural death.[8] As in many other successions in Assyrian history, Aššur-etil-ilāni's rise to the Assyrian throne was initially met with opposition and unrest.[15] The same land grant to Sîn-šumu-līšir references the actions of an Assyrian official called Nabu-riḫtu-uṣur who with the help of another official, Sîn-šar-ibni, attempted to usurp the Assyrian throne.
Mackey’s comment: “Aššur-etil-ilāni's rise to the Assyrian throne was initially met with opposition and unrest”, just as in the case of Esarhaddon.
It was the very same “opposition” and the very same “unrest”.
The two Assyrian officials who “attempted to usurp the Assyrian throne” were most likely the two sons who had rebelled against, and had slain, Sennacherib, Adrammelech and Sharezer, under alternative names.
On the historical identification of these two regicide sons, see e.g. my article:
Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib
(8) Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Wikipedia continues:
Sin-shum-lishir probably assisted the king with stopping Nabu-riḫtu-uṣur and Sîn-šar-ibni.[8] As no sources indicate the opposite, the conspiracy appears to have been crushed relatively quickly.[15] Excavations at Nineveh from the time around Ashurbanipal's death show fire damage, indicating that the plot perhaps resulted in some violence and unrest within the capital itself.[16]
The spread of inscriptions by Aššur-etil-ilāni in Babylonia suggest that he exercised the same amount of control in the southern provinces as his father Ashurbanipal had, having a vassal king (Kandalanu) but exercising actual political and military power there himself. His inscriptions are known from all the major cities, including Babylon, Dilbat, Sippar and Nippur.[15] Too few inscriptions of Aššur-etil-ilāni survive to make any certain assumptions about his character. Excavations of his palace at Kalhu, one of the more important cities in the empire and a former capital, may indicate that he was less boastful than his father as it had no reliefs or statues similar to those that his predecessors had used to illustrate their strength and success.[17] The lack of such depictions may partly be because there are no records of Aššur-etil-ilāni ever conducting a military campaign or going on a hunt.
….
It is frequently assumed, without any supporting evidence, that Aššur-etil-ilāni's brother [sic] Sîn-šar-iškun fought with him for the throne.[19] Although the exact circumstances of Aššur-etil-ilāni's death and the rise of his brother Sîn-šar-iškun to the throne are unknown, there is no evidence to suggest that Aššur-etil-ilāni was deposed and/or killed in a coup.[15]
[End of quotes]
While the actual type of death of Sîn-šar-iškun is uncertain, he is generally thought to have died in defence of his capital, perhaps by suicide.
Whether he took his own life, or was assassinated, he fits perfectly as King Belshazzar, the ill-fated successor of Nebuchednezzar, whom we are studying here primarily under his name (one of many) Ashur-etil-ilani. For more of his names, see e.g. my article:
The many faces of Nebuchednezzar
(3) The many faces of Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment