Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Articles
The Third Story
Features

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Relativity Theory

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors

 

KRONOS Vol IV, No. 1

ABIMILKI, AZARU AND NIKMED IN THE EL-AMARNA CORRESPONDENCE AND THE ASSYRIAN ANNALS

PETER J. JAMES

[Note: This article is a reply to Bronson Feldman's "Pygmalion, Prince of Tyre, and the El-Amarna Correspondence" which appeared in KRONOS II:1 (August, 1976), pp. 76-88.]

In KRONOS II:1 there appeared an article by Bronson Feldman entitled "Pygmalion, Prince of Tyre, and the El-Amarna Correspondence". Feldman reargued the case made in Ages In Chaos by Immanuel Velikovsky that the letters of King Abimilki of Tyre from the el-Amarna collection reflect the political situation of Phoenicia and Syria in the mid-9th century B.C. In addition, Feldman suggested the specific identification of Abimilki with the Pygmalion known to us from classical sources and Josephus as a 9th century ruler of Tyre. (It should be noted, however, as a matter of priority, that this suggestion was first made by Donovan Courville.)(1)

Although the phonetic change from Abimilki to Pygmalion is unlikely, (2) Feldman made the novel suggestion that the Greek form Pygmalion might be a punning at the expense of Abimilki, from [Greek text] - "dwarf". Feldman agreed, on the other hand, that this alone was not enough to prove the identity of Abimilki and Pygmalion, but held that an "examination of the el-Amarna correspondence, in conjunction with the known historical events of Pygmalion's own day, should help to provide the necessary data for our equation".

Allowing that the identification of Pygmalion with Abimilki is possibly correct, let us turn to Feldman's analysis of the political situation of mid-9th century Syria and Phoenicia, which, following Velikovsky, Feldman states is reflected in the el-Amarna letters addressed to Amenhotep III and Akhnaton. While I agree with Feldman that Velikovsky is very probably correct in his 9th-century placement of the el-Amarna archive, I would like to make a few comments on some crucial points of his paper where I feel he has omitted important facts from the discussion or has misunderstood the data.

THE DATE OF PYGMALION

Under the sub-heading "Pygmalion-Abimilki and the Royal House of Tyre", Feldman presented a short survey of the relevant political events in Syria-Palestine during the third quarter of the 9th century B.C. Towards the beginning he stated: "Sometime after the death of Mattan-Baal's father - Baalazor - Shalmaneser III came to fight Hazael the king of Damascus at Mount Shenir opposite Lebanon", referring to that Assyrian monarch's famous campaign on which he collected tribute from "Yaw, son of Omri", usually thought to be Jehu King of Israel.(3) This placement of the death of Baalazor with regard to Shalmaneser III's 18th year (841 B.C.) is incorrect: for in another edition of Shalmaneser's annals than that cited by Feldman, the name of the reigning King of Tyre at the very time of that campaign is given as Ba'li-manzer.(4) If we are prepared to accept the imperfect equation of Pygmalion with Abimilki, we have little alternative than to recognise Baalazor as a Greek form of Ba'li-manzer.

Here Feldman has missed an important chronological clue, as this mention of Baalazor in the annals of Shalmaneser III gives us the only reliable link between the "Tyrian Annals" (as reported by Josephus from Menander) and the history of Assyria, on which our chronology for this period is ultimately based. Feldman recognised the importance of chronology in the question of Abimilki's identity. Velikovsky provided a rough date for the el-Amarna archive of c. 870-840 B.C.(5) though later studies indicate that Akhnaton may have still been on the throne as late as 832 B.C.(6) Yet the most common traditional date for the foundation of Carthage, 814 B.C., would allow a date no earlier than 821 B.C. for the accession of Pygmalion, since Carthage was founded in his seventh year. To resolve this problem, Feldman argued that the dates for Pygmalion could be raised by preferring one of the earlier traditional dates for the foundation of Carthage, 846 B.C. or 826/5 B.C. However, these traditional dates are by no means the only way of locating a fixed date on which to hinge the Tyrian annals: Shalmaneser III's mention of Baalazor provides us with a much better chronological fix.

If we allow 841 B.C. as the latest year of Baalazor, and subtract the nine years credited in the Tyrian annals to his son Mattan (the Greek Belus), it is clear that the reign of Pygmalion can have begun no earlier than 832 B.C. The chronology is very tight, but taking 832 B.C. as Pygmalion's first year agrees well with one of the traditional dates for the foundation of Carthage, 825 B.C., in his seventh year. Feldman noted that this date is also in accord with the date for the foundation of Carthage indicated by Josephus, although he gave no indication of how it is calculated. Presumably, his source followed Edwin Thiele's chronology for the Kingdom and Divided Kingdom(7) - Thiele sets the beginning of Solomon's reign in 971 B.C., and Josephus(8) says that 143 years elapsed between the foundation of the Temple in his fourth year and the foundation of Carthage. From this we can calculate a rough date of 825 B.C. for the latter.

This agreement of the dates indicated by one classical tradition with the period reported by Josephus and, above all, with the chronological fix provided by the annals of Shalmaneser III encourage us to draw up a provisional chronology for the Tyrian kings of this period:

Baalazor/Ba'li-manzer 847-841 BC 6 years
Mattan (Belus) 841-832 BC 9 years(9)
Pygmalion - Abimilki? 832-785 BC 47 years
(Reign lengths from the "Tyrian Annals" in Josephus.)(10)

The highly tentative nature of this chronology needs to be emphasised. The "Tyrian Annals" pose many problems, not the least being the inconsistency of the regnal years reported by Josephus with the 143 year period that he also gives; and there would seem to be no adequate way of reconciling all the data. However, given the chronological fix of 841 B.C. as a date for Baalazor, the above chronology is the highest that can be reasonably deduced from the available data.

So, if Feldman's identification of Abimilki with Pygmalion is correct, it means that the el-Amarna letters from this ruler were written after 832 B.C. Consequently, either Akhnaton reigned until this date, or Abimilki's letters were addressed to one of his successors: we will return to this point again later. Whatever the case, the chronological implications of the mention of Baalazor in Shalmaneser III's annals quite invalidate Feldman's suggestion that Pygmalion's reign may have begun as early as 853 B.C., or at a date between then and 833 B.C. Consequently, the historical context chosen by Feldman for Abimilki's reign, during the 840's B.C., the time of the fall of Ahab's house, the coup of Jehu and the early years of Hazael of Damascus, is incorrect if he was indeed Pygmalion.

HAZAEL OF DAMASCUS

Feldman continues his discussion of the political background to the el-Amarna letters with an account of the activities of Hazael of Damascus, after his defeat by Shalmaneser III at Mount Shenir. He states his opinion that "it is unlikely" that this battle "hurt Hazael deeply". But the damage done to Hazael was certainly greater than Feldman suggests. The figures given by Shalmaneser III for the losses inflicted on Hazael may well be exaggerated, but are worth noting with regard to Feldman's statement: - 16,000 "experienced soldiers", 1,121 chariots and 470 riding horses.(11) And Shalmaneser's advance did not stop at Mount Shenir. After the battle his records describe how Hazael "disappeared to save his life (but) I followed him and besieged him in Damascus, his royal residence. (There) I cut down his gardens (outside of the city and departed). I marched as far as the mountains of Hauran, destroying, tearing down and burning innumerable towns, carrying booty away from them which was beyond counting."(12)

There is no good reason to doubt the truth of Shalmaneser's account that Hazael fled to Damascus where he was besieged - he was evidently strong enough to hold out in his capital, but he was unable to prevent the Assyrians from ravaging and pillaging his kingdom as they made their way towards Phoenicia. And the example made of Hazael's kingdom was evidently fearful enough to bring Shalmaneser III the tribute of Tyre, Sidon and Israel without striking a further blow.(13)

Why then does Feldman argue that Hazael was not seriously hurt by this defeat? Apparently, because "shortly after the clash at Shenir", Hazael marched "to attack and subdue Shomron (Samaria), the capital of Israel. He then made King Jehu his slave." I would be very glad to know where Hazael's attack on Samaria is recorded in our sources for this period. The Bible (II Kings 10:32-33) records that Hazael "smote all the coasts of Israel", and seized her Transjordanian territories, sometime during Jehu's reign, but does not mention, let alone date, any capture of Samaria under that ruler. Nor, I believe, is there any evidence that Jehu became a tributary or "slave" to Hazael.

Feldman states that "Velikovsky's proof that the Biblical Hazael is identical with the Azira of the Amarna records abides without a phrase of refutation." Perhaps so, but Feldman's own version of Hazael's reign seems to be somewhat removed from the Hazael of history, revised or otherwise.

Before returning to the dramatis personae of the el-Amarna letters, I would like to point out a further misleading passage which occurs when Feldman continues with an excursus on the desirability for a revised Egyptian chronology. The reader is given the impression that the eminent archaeologist J.D.S. Pendlebury was advocating a lowering of Egyptian dates in anticipation of Velikovsky in 1939. Feldman cites this cri de coeur from Pendlebury's The Archaeology of Crete : "It is very hard to make the existing remains [of ancient Cretan civilisation] cover the six hundred years demanded by the usual chronology, and any lowering of dates by Egyptologists would be most welcome." To correct any misunderstanding from this quotation taken out of context here is the full paragraph from Pendlebury: -

"One point, however, cannot fail to strike the reader, and that is the tremendous length of time allotted to E.M. II and III. With the dates at present accepted for Egyptian history this is unavoidable. But, while admitting that in primitive times progress is extremely slow, it is very hard to make the existing remains cover the six hundred years demanded by the usual chronology, and any lowering of dates by Egyptologists would be most welcome."(14)

It is quite clear that Pendlebury is discussing the length of the Early Minoan (E.M.) period, and not "[ancient Cretan civilisation] " in general. The length of time assigned to the Early Minoan period is dependent on the duration of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, a question well beyond the scope and intentions of Velikovsky's revised chronology. Pendlebury was simply asking for a shortening of Old Kingdom chronology, and in fact reported in the very next paragraph that revisions suggested by the Egyptologist A. Scharff were already "well on the way" to achieving this.

NIKMED OF UGARIT

Feldman next turns to el-Amarna letter 157 which reports that "fire has devoured Ugarit, the town of the King", and to the supposed proclamation of an unknown invader ordering the expulsion of all foreigners from that town, including its King, Nikmed. According to Feldman, "the identity of the invader who decreed this may be surmised from a scouring of Semitic documents that bear the name of Nikmed, the king of a Canaanite port". Feldman follows Velikovsky's identification of Ugarit, the city of Nikmed, with the "city of Nikdime" sacked by Shalmaneser III in his fourth year, 855 B.C.(15) Shalmaneser approached this city, and its sister city Nikdiera, and fought a sea battle with the inhabitants, defeating them and dying the sea red "like wool" with their blood. Velikovsky noted that this grim metaphor would have been very apt applied to Ugarit, which was a producer of red dye.(16)

Repeating Velikovsky's arguments, Feldman states: - "We know of no western port renowned for its red wool dye, having a king with a name like Nikdime, which fits the description by Shalmaneser better than Ugarit." Where Velikovsky noted that it "may be that even Shalmaneser's simile of the sea looking like dyed wool was inspired by the trade of Ugarit-Ras Shamra", Feldman seems to have assumed that this definitely was the case, and that the "city of Nikdime" was a producer of red wool dye. This is reading too much into an ordinary Assyrian expression. In his first year Shalmaneser III defeated a coalition of northern Syrian states, from Sam'al, Hattina, Adini and Carchemish, and he "dyed the mountains with their blood like red wool".(17) Were these cities also renowned for their red wool dye?

Moreover, a little "scouring of Semitic documents" outside the pages of Ages In Chaos would have shown that the "cities of Nikdime and Nikdiera" were not western ports at all; Feldman has presented a conclusion of Velikovsky's argument as if it were a known fact. The campaign of Shalmaneser III's fourth year is described in three of his inscriptions, and each gives us certain evidence of the whereabouts of the cities in question. On the Black Obelisk, (18) Shalmaneser records crossing Mount Kullar and descending into the land of Zamua where the cities lay. Another inscription from Nimrud gives much the same information as the Black Obelisk, mentioning Mount Kullar and the land of Zamua.(19) The Monolith Inscription describes how Shalmaneser marched against Mazamua and, taking the pass into the land of Bunagish, to the "cities of Nikdime (and) Nikdiera I drew near."(20) Where then were the lands of Mazamua or Zamua and Bunagish attacked by Shalmaneser in his fourth year? No names resembling these are to be found in the vicinity of Ugarit, or anywhere in northern Syria, as one would expect if the "city of Nikdime" was really the city of Nikmed. On the other hand, the land of Zamua is well known to Assyriologists as an area lying to the east of Assyria, in the midst of the Zagros range of mountains.(21)

The eastern location of Zamua is quite clear from the records of many Assyrian kings other than Shalmaneser III. Tiglath-pileser III included "the province of the land of Mazamua" in his reorganisation of Babylonia and its dependencies.(22) Adad-Nirari II included Zamua with the regions of the Lower Zab, the Lulumê-land, Kirhi and Namri, all of which lay in the mountains to the east of Assyria.(23) Sargon II, in a letter to the god Assur describing the events of his eighth campaign, gave a detailed account of his journey to Zamua. He departed from Nimrud, "and had a rough passage across the Upper Zab at its flood", then crossed the Lower Zab and marched "into the passes of Mount Kullar, a high mountain range of the Lullumî - which they (also) call the land of Zamua."(24)

To argue that Sargon would cross two rivers to the east of Assyria to reach Ugarit, and to attempt to gloss over the clear geographical pointers given by him and many other Assyrian kings, would be a fruitless task. As for the sea mentioned in Shalmaneser's account of the battle with Nikdime and Nikdiera, this must be lake Urmiah, or some other inland body of water in the Zagros area.(24a) That it was not the Mediterranean is quite clear from a passage in one of his inscriptions in which he claims to have conquered "from the sea of Nairi and the sea Zamua, which (lies) inside, and the great sea of Amurru."(25) Here the internal "sea" of Zamua is clearly distinguished from the "great sea of Amurru", the eastern Mediterranean off Syria (Amurru).

If the Nikmed/Nikdime identification proposed by Velikovsky is to hold good, a drastic revision of Assyrian historical geography will have to be undertaken. Feldman and other adherents of this point of Velikovsky's reconstruction will have to face this task, or admit that Nikmed of Ugarit is not mentioned in Shalmaneser's annals. I am personally convinced that the identification, however attractive, cannot be correct, principally because of the geographical difficulty discussed above, but also because of a further detail involving precise chronology

According to Velikovsky, followed by Feldman, Nikmed was expelled from Ugarit in 855 B.C., the fourth year of Shalmaneser III. Now, the destruction of Ugarit is reported in a letter of Abimilki of Tyre, as cited by Feldman. Even the earliest date suggested by Feldman for the reign of Pygmalion is 853 B.C. He recognises the difficulty here, but glosses over it: - "How long after that disaster of 855 B.C. he described the charnelled Ugarit we cannot tell." This is rather a weak explanation of a serious chronological difficulty; the rest of the information in Abimilki's letter, concerning troop movements and political upsets, shows that it was communicating urgent news, and it would be rather strange if it were reporting a fire some two years old. Moreover, as demonstrated above, if Abimilki was Pygmalion, his reign cannot have begun earlier than 832 B.C., which means that nearly a quarter of a century would have passed before Ugarit's fall was reported to the Pharaoh.

Once again, it is difficult to see how the "city of Nikdime" could have been Ugarit, especially if Abimilki was Pygmalion. The final proof that it was not can be turned up by a cursory glance, not even a scouring, of the Semitic documents bearing the name of Nikmed, King of Ugarit. Among the tablets found at Ras Shamra is one recording a treaty between Nikmed and Azaru, King of Amurru, (26) the Hazael of Damascus of Velikovsky's reconstruction. The precise date of Hazael's accession is not known, but can be fixed within certain limits. Shalmaneser III records a battle against Ben-Hadad of Damascus in his 14th year (845 B.C.), but his next campaign against Syria in his eighteenth year (841 B.C.) brought him into conflict with Hazael. So Hazael came to the throne between 845 and 841 B.C. How then could he have signed a treaty, as King of Amurru, with Nikmed, if the latter had been expelled in 855 B.C.? There can be no mistake in our reckoning here, as there might be in calculations based on the "Tyrian Annals", since the annals of Shalmaneser III provide the dates both for the sack of the "city of Nikdime" and the accession of Hazael. Once again the conclusion is reached that Nikmed was not expelled by Shalmaneser in 855 B.C., since he was still ruling Ugarit as late as 845 B.C.

Finally, Feldman argues that under pressure from Shalmaneser III, Abimilki prepared to leave Tyre - "and I go away with all your ships and my city", and he links this with the actual departure of Dido/Elissa recorded by Phoenician tradition. This, it should be noted, is the only specific event attributable to the reign of Pygmalion that Feldman attempts to find in Abimilki's letters, and it is, unfortunately, a very weak link. First, there is no evidence at all, contrary to Velikovsky's statement, (27) that the Phoenicians left Tyre to found Carthage under pressure from Shalmaneser III. The highly dubious reading of the name of the Assyrian king in the "Shalmaiati" of Abimilki's last letter(28) hardly constitutes proof of this. In his eighteenth year (841 B.C.) Shalmaneser took tribute from Tyre, but from afar - he did not attack the city but was bought off while he was elsewhere on the sea coast, at Ba'li-ra'si, (29) probably Mount Carmel. He took tribute from Tyre again in his twenty-first year (838 B.C.), during a further campaign against Hazael(30) - but there is no indication of actual military action against the Phoenicians.

Secondly, the threatened departure of Abimilki, because his city was short of water supplies, can hardly be equated with the Phoenician tale of Dido's flight after political and family intrigues; indeed, Feldman does not make plain the exact relationship which he sees between the two events. And, as shown above, the "Tyrian Annals", once anchored to the chronology of Assyria, give us 825 B.C. as the earliest date for Pygmalion's seventh year and Dido's flight. It would seem that Abimilki's letters were written to Akhnaton, and that they are among the latest letters of the el-Amarna collection.(31) But is it likely that Akhnaton reigned as late as 825 B.C.? Besides, 825 was the second to last year of Shalmaneser III's reign, during which all Assyria was in open rebellion against its aging tyrant - he would hardly have been in a position to threaten the Phoenician coast. None of the chronological details in Feldman's case match up, and it seems most unlikely that Abimilki's threatened departure had anything to do with the flight of Dido and the foundation of Carthage.

CONCLUSION

Feldman's case for identifying Abimilki with Pygmalion rests on insufficient evidence. It is difficult to date the reign of Pygmalion as early as the time of the el-Amarna letters (in their revised placement), and the historical context of the mid-9th century discussed by Feldman. While he repeated many of Velikovsky's arguments for a 9th century placement of the letters, Feldman did not produce any evidence to show that those from Abimilki were written by Pygmalion rather than one of his predecessors. His argument was not enhanced by a rather imaginative treatment of the reign of Hazael of Damascus, by the omission of certain key points (such as the mention of Baalazor in Shalmaneser III's annals and the treaty signed between Nikmed of Ugarit and Azaru of Amurru), and the misunderstanding of others (such as the plea of Pendlebury), nor by his uncritical acceptance and repetition of some of Velikovsky's arguments (notably his identification of Nikmed of Ugarit with the Nikdime of Shalmaneser III's annals). Of the few specific events known from the reign of Pygmalion, only the flight of Dido was sought in the el-Amarna letters, but it was not shown convincingly that this was reflected in Abimilki's correspondence.

Consequently, there is no good reason to believe that Abimilki was Pygmalion, and the chronological difficulties outlined above do not recommend the equation. Pygmalion cannot have come to the throne earlier than 832 B.C., yet eight letters were sent by Abimilki to Pharaoh Akhnaton, whose latest year has been estimated by Geoffrey Gammon at 832 B.C., (32) and by Jerome Colburn at 834/3 B.C.(33) Within the margin of error to be expected from these pioneering attempts to supply an absolute chronology for the revised placement of the XVIIIth Dynasty, and allowing for errors in the Tyrian king-lists, it is certainly not impossible that Pygmalion just might have been Abimilki. However, the chronology is, on the whole, more in favour of an identification of Abimilki with one of Pygmalion's predecessors. This writer would rather leave open, for the moment, the question of whether he was Baalazor or Mattan.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. D. Courville: The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (Crest Challenge Books, Loma Linda, 1971), Volume II, pp. 320-321.
2. Written communication from R.M. Lowery, 12th December, 1975.
3. It has been suggested recently, however, that "Yaw" was Jehoram, the son of Ahab, rather than the usurper Jehu who was not an Omride - see P. Kyle McCarter: " 'Yaw, Son of 'Omri': A Philological Note on Israelite Chronology", BASOR 216, 1974, pp. 5-7, and Edwin Thiele's reply: "An Additional Chronological Note on 'Yaw, son of 'Omri' ", BASOR 222, 1976, pp. 19-23. Thiele stresses that McCarter's reading of "Yaw" as Jehoram made no difference to his chronological scheme for the Divided Monarchy, since, within its general framework, the last year of Jehoram and the accession year of Jehu both fell in 841 B.C.
4. F. Safar, Sumer, VII, 1951, pp. 3-21.
5. I. Velikovsky: Ages In Chaos, VI: "The El-Amarna Letters and When They Were Written."
6. See notes 32 and 33 below.
7. First outlined by E. Thiele in "The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel" Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 3, 1944, pp. 137-86; developed later in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Chicago University, 1951).
8. Contra Apionem, I, 117-125.
9. N.B. Some editions of Josephus give Mattan 29 years instead of 9 years reign. If this is correct, the dates for Pygmalion must be lowered further still, to c. 812-765 B.C. A king with a Phoenician name, Ba'li, is mentioned in the annals of Shalmaneser III, twenty-first year (838 BC) - see ARAB, I, 578 and J. Laesse, Iraq, XXI, 1959, pp. 147-57. The name of his royal town is given as La-ru (?) -ba, but which state he ruled is not specified. If he was a king of Tyre he could have been Mattan, whose alternative name of "Belus" was recorded by the Greeks: this would fit the tentative chronology outlined above. The next definite mention of a king of Tyre in Assyrian annals, after Baalazor/Ba'li-manzer appears in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III: he mentions king Tubail of Tyre in 738 B.C. see Mordechai Cogan: "Tyre and Tiglath-pileser", Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XXV, 2, 1973, pp. 96-9.
10. The chronology suggested here is, I believe, new, and differs greatly from the most popular version, which is based on an 814 B.C. date for the founding of Carthage - this is followed, for example in Sabatino Moscati: The World of the Phoenicians (London, 1968). M.B. Rowton argued that the 814 date agreed well with W.F. Albright's chronology for the Divided Monarchy: Albright dated the founding of the Temple in Solomon's 4th year to 959 B.C., and subtracting Josephus' 143 (or 145 according to Rowton) year period one can arrive at 814 B.C. for the founding of Carthage - see M.B. Rowton: "The Date of the Founding of Solomon's Temple", BASOR, 119, 1950, pp. 20-22. I have used the same method here to agree the 825 traditional date with Edwin Thiele's chronology, which is preferable to that outlined by W.F. Albright in "The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel", BASOR, 100, 1945, pp. 16-22. Albright's system arrived at slightly lower dates than Thiele's, but involved quite unwarranted tampering with the Biblical data; his system seems to have gained currency more on the strength of its originator's name than on the soundness of its arguments.
11. ANET, p. 280.
12. Ibid.
13. This was a manoeuvre already successfully exploited by Shalmaneser's father Assurnasirpal II. In an undated campaign before his 17th year he demonstrated his ferocity by ravaging the north Syrian state of Luhuti; his reputation travelled before him and won him the voluntary submission of Amurru and Phoenicia as soon as he appeared on the Mediterranean coast. For a discussion of this policy see W.C. Lambert: "The Reigns of Assumasirpal II and Shalmaneser III: An Interpretation", Iraq, XXXVI, 1974, pp. 103ff.
14. J.D.S. Pendlebury: The Archaeology of Crete (London, 1939), p. 300.
15. I Velikovsky: Ages In Chaos, VIII: "Shalmaneser III Expels King Nikmed."
16. Ibid.
17. ANET, p. 277.
18. ARAB, I, 561.
19. ARAB, I, 644.
20. ARAB, I, 609.
21. For a convenient map showing the location of Zamua, see Georges Roux: Ancient Iraq (Pelican Books, 1966), p. 463.
22. ARAB, I, 764.
23. ARAB, I, 360.
24. ARAB, I, 142.
24a. E.A. Speiser suggested an identification of the "sea of Zamua" with Lake Zeribor in Iran, a much smaller body of water to the south of Lake Urmiah. Louis D. Levine, in his exhaustive study of the geographical material on Zamua in Assyrian texts, "Geographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros, I" (Iran XI, 1973, pp. 1-27), is inclined to this view. However, the identification with the larger, and more important, Lake Urmiah, still has much to recommend it.
25. ARAB, I, 616. Oppenheim translates this passage rather differently in ANET, p. 277: "[I (am) Shalmaneser . . . conqueror from] the sea of the Nairi country and the sea of the Zamua country which is nearer (to Assyria) as far (text:and) the Great Sea of Amurru. "
26. Jean Nougayrol: Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit, (Mission de Ras Shamra, Paris, 1956), pp. 281-6 and 295.
27. I. Velikovsky: Ages In Chaos, VIII: "The Phoenicians Leave for a New Home."
28. Ibid.
29. ANET, p. 280.
30. Ibid.
31. See W.F. Albright: "The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 23, 1937, p. 195.
32. G. Gammon: "A Chronology for the Eighteenth Dynasty", SISR II:3 (Special Issue: Exodus to Akhnaton), p. 93.
33. J. Colburn, "Precise Synchronization Involving the Revised Chronology," KRONOS, II:1, pp. 72-5.

ABBREVIATIONS

  • ANET - Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by J.B. Pritchard, Princeton University Press, 1969 (third ed.).
  • ARAB - Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, translated by D.D. Luckenbill (Chicago, 1931-2).
  • BASOR - Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665