Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Books on ancient Egypt hardly give Nebuchednezzar a look in


  Image result for toby wilkinson egypt

by
 
Damien F. Mackey


 

“[Toby Wilkinson] devotes only a few paragraphs to the short reign of the hapless Tutankhamen but spends many pages on the rise to power of the general Horemheb,

who set the stage for the Ramesside Dynasty, the one that established Egypt

as a great imperial power”.
 
Kathryn Lang

 

 

I am enjoying reading select bits and pieces of Toby Wilkinson’s large (nearly 650 pages) book, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt. The History of a Civilisation from 3000 BC to Cleopatra (Bloomsbury, 2010) – {even though it is based on the standard conventional dates} - because it is much easier reading than its forbidding size might at first suggest.

Something like, ‘you can’t judge a book by its cover’.

 

But what Kathryn Lang has written about Wilkinson’s meagre treatment of Tutankhamen, “only a few paragraphs”, is generous compared with his treatment of King Nebuchednezzar who actually conquered Egypt. As we shall see below, Wilkinson allows him only one mention.

 

Firstly, though, a review of the book by Kathryn Lang: books@dallasnews.com

 

Cambridge professor and eminent Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson, author of six earlier major works on ancient Egypt, has put four millennia of Egyptian lore into a lively, accessible one-volume history.

Beginning with the prehistoric peoples of the eastern Sahara who created Egypt’s “Stonehenge” at Nabta Playa, Wilkinson proceeds chronologically through the tumults and triumphs of the Pharaohs up to the final days of Cleopatra, the last Ptolemaic ruler, who spent her final intrigue-filled days in the decadent and cosmopolitan capital of Alexandria.

Written in informal, often colloquial language, Wilkinson’s history bristles with detail. Nearly 500 pages long, it’s a page-turner for anyone even modestly interested in his subject. For the more scholarly reader, he’s included a lengthy bibliographic essay and extensive bibliography, and at the front of the volume he’s provided a helpful nine-page timeline listing all of Egypt’s rulers through the Ptolemies.

In his introduction, Wilkinson says he’s become “increasingly uneasy” about ancient Egypt’s “darker side.” He intends this book to counterbalance the view that Egyptian rulers were benevolent despots and that life was good in the land of the Pharaohs. He shows in vivid and sometimes gruesome detail the brutality and ruthlessness of the kings, who came to see themselves not just as the gods’ representatives on Earth, but as living gods themselves.

His thesis is that the Pharaoh and the ruling class prospered on the backs of a peasant population that was illiterate, overtaxed and underpaid. The masses accepted this state of affairs because they believed their godlike kings would assure their safe passage from this brutish earthly existence into the heavenly one of the next.

At a fast clip, Wilkinson spins fascinating tales: of the first Pharaoh Narmer’s unification of Upper and Lower Egypt into a magnificent nation-state headquartered in the capital city of Memphis; of the astounding engineering feats and prodigious 20-year labors of 10,000 workers to build Khufu’s Great Pyramid of Giza; of the Middle Kingdom’s golden age of literature and the arts. He lingers on the 18th Dynasty, the “high-water mark of pharaonic civilization.” He tells of the accession through murder of the female Pharaoh Hatshepsut, and the rise and fall of the heretic king Akhenaten and his beauteous wife Nefertiti, who dared to banish all the gods but one, the solar god Aten.

He devotes only a few paragraphs to the short reign of the hapless Tutankhamen but spends many pages on the rise to power of the general Horemheb, who set the stage for the Ramesside Dynasty, the one that established Egypt as a great imperial power.

On through the centuries Wilkinson gallops, through bitter bloodshed and uncertain peacetimes, through ruler-sanctioned robbery of the earlier Pharaohs’ tombs, through the political fragmentation of a once-mighty empire, from the invasions of the Libyans in 1209 B.C. to the Roman conquest of 30 B.C.

Wilkinson’s is a full and rich, if hurried, march through the centuries of ancient Egypt’s glory days and ultimate domination by newer superpowers. It is also, Wilkinson warns, a cautionary tale for us as we witness the power politics of contemporary despots in the region today. ….

[End of quote]

 

The author Toby Wilkinson, I feel, really manages to bring to life various of the great pharaohs.

I am finding especially interesting his thorough treatment of the Twelfth Dynasty despot, Amenemes (Wilkinson’s “Amenemhat”) I, who is my choice for the “new king” (Exodus 1:8), oppressor of Israel when Moses was a baby. See e.g. my article:

 

Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel

 

https://www.academia.edu/38553314/Twelfth_Dynasty_oppressed_Israel

 

And I was rather keen to read about this Amenemes I in conjunction with Wilkinson’s treatment of Teti, founder of the so-called Sixth Dynasty, since I believe Teti to be an alter ego of the Twelfth Dynasty founder.

From a comparison in Wilkinson’s book we find, common to Teti, Amenemes I (over and above likenesses to which I have referred elsewhere): newness; lowly origins; surrounded by uncertainty; reliance upon trusty “lieutenants”.

 

·         Teti

 

P. 105

The throne passed instead to a commoner, a man called Teti, who swiftly married his predecessor’s daughter to secure his legitimacy. So began the Sixth Dynasty … in an atmosphere of uncertainty, court intrigue and barely managed crisis that was to haunt it until its very end.

With his rather tenuous claim to the kingship, Teti needed to surround himself with trusted lieutenants.

 

·         Amenemes I

 

P. 155 Amenmehat I, founder of a new dynasty and self-proclaimed renaissance king, was actually conscious of his non-royal origins and of the lingering resentment felt towards his rule in part of Egypt.

 

P. 161

There are strong indications that the new dynasty came to power in lawless times, by means of a coup d’état, rather than by peaceful succession ….

 

P. 162

 

Renaissance ruler

… Amenemhat I lost no time in appointing his royal lieutenants to key posts in the administration. …. Egypt’s new master was tightening his grip on the lever of government.

 

Also on p. 161, we read this startling comment: “[Nehri] … ‘I rescued my town on the day of fighting from the sickening terror of the royal house’. There is no more chilling reference to tyrannical monarchy in all of Egyptian history”.

 

Poor old Nebuchednezzar (Wilkinson’s “Nebuchadnezzar”), though, is named only once in the entire book, on p. 442 {N. Grimal has only about 4 pages on “Nebuchedrezzar”}: “Wahibra escaped with his life and fled abroad … to the court of Babylon. The Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, could scarcely believe his luck. Here was an unmissable opportunity to meddle in Egypt’s internal affairs and put a Babylonian puppet on the Throne of Horus”.

No mention whatsoever of any invasion of Egypt.
 

Monday, June 24, 2019

Kedorlaomer king of Elam


 Image result for kedorlaomer promise believer inevitable war

 
by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
 
“At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar,
Kedorlaomer 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)”.
 
Genesis 14:1-2
 
  
 
Jewish tradition identifies Nimrod with the biblical “Amraphel” king of Shinar who accompanied “Chedorlaomer” (var. Kedorlaomer) on the somewhat ill-fated campaign as recorded in Genesis 14. According to this tradition, Nimrod had formerly been “routed” by Chedorlaomer before now joining him as his “vassal” in his war with the kings of Pentapolis: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548-nimrod
 
… according to one opinion, that Nimrod was called "Amraphel" (http://d3sva65x0i5hnc.cloudfront.net/V09p309003.jpg = "he said, throw in"; Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. xiv. 1; Gen. R. xlii. 5; Cant. R. viii. 8). …. … later Nimrod came to wage war with Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, who had been one of Nimrod's generals, and who after the dispersion of the builders of the tower went to Elam and formed there an independent kingdom.
Nimrod at the head of an army set out with the intention of punishing his rebellious general, but the latter routed him. Nimrod then became a vassal of Chedorlaomer, who involved him in the war with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, with whom he was defeated by Abraham ("Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.; comp. Gen. xiv. 1-17). ….
 
[End of quote]
 
 
Now if I am correct in my proposed historical multi-identification of Nimrod in e.g. my article:
 
                                        Nimrod a "mighty man"       
 
 
then, hopefully, it ought not be too difficult to identify Chedorlaomer also during this period - he being, one might expect, the most prominent Elamite ruler at the time.
The name given to the Elamite king in Genesis, “Chedorlaomer”, appears to be a typical Elamite name, Kudur-Lagamar (“the servant of the goddess Lagamar”).
 
And, according to my reconstruction, the time-frame for Chedorlaomer is both the Akkadian and so-called Ur III period, now combined into just the one historical entity.
 
I turn again to M. Van de Mieroop’s A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 – 323 BC (Blackwell, 2004) to find out what he has to say about Elam, hoping that our Elamite king might just pop up into prominence.
On p. 63 we read that Elam was one of the primary military targets of the Akkadian kings: “The Akkadian kings focused their military attention on the regions of western Iran and northern Syria … east … Elam … Simurrum. In the north … Tuttul … Mari and Ebla”.
Van de Mieroop then becomes a little more specific (“The autonomy of Elam should not be underestimated”):
 
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.
 
On pp. 67-68, we are at last given a name, “Kutik-Inshushinak”:  
 
In the very beginning of the succeeding [sic] Ur III period, king Kutik-Inshushinak of Awan was portrayed as a major opponent to Babylonia by the kings of Ur. At that time he was governor and general of Susa, as well as king of Awan, and controlled eighty-one cities and regions, including some in the central Tigris and Diyala areas.
 
A typical account of Kutik-Inshushinak reads:
 
Kutik-Inshushinak (also known as Puzur-Inshushinak) was king of Elam from about 2240 to 2220 BC (long chronology), and the last from the Awan dynasty.[1] His father was Shinpi-khish-khuk, the crown prince, and most likely a brother of king Khita. Kutik-Inshushinak's first position was as governor of Susa, which he may have held from a young age. About 2250 BC, his father died, and he became crown prince in his stead. Elam had been under the domination of Akkad since the time of Sargon, and Kutik-Inshushinak accordingly campaigned in the Zagros mountains on their behalf. He was greatly successful as his conquests seem to have gone beyond the initial mission. In 2240 BC, he asserted his independence from Akkad, which had been weakening ever since the death of Naram-Sin, thus making himself king of Elam. He conquered Anshan and managed to unite most of Elam into one kingdom. He built extensively on the citadel at Susa, and encouraged the use of the Linear Elamite script to write the Elamite language. This may be seen as a reaction against Sargon's attempt to force the use of Akkadian. Most inscriptions in Linear Elamite date from the reign of Kutik-Inshushinak. His achievements were not longlasting, for after his death the linear script fell into disuse, and Susa was overrun by the Third dynasty of Ur [sic], while Elam fell under control of Simashki dynasty (also Elamite origin)[2].
 
[End of quote]
 
Gian Pietro Basello tells, in “Elamite Kingdom” that Puzur-Inshushinak even “conquered some parts of … Akkad” (p. 3): http://www.elamit.net/depot/resources/basello2016encyclopedia-of-empire.pdf
 
The reign of Puzur-Inshushinak stands out between the Old Akkadian and the Neo-Sumerian (Ur III) dominations: he is a king of Awan according to the above-mentioned
royal list from Susa and the titulary of a couple (FAOS7 Puzurinšušinak 7–8) of his Akkadian inscriptions found at Susa; in another (FAOS7 Puzurinšušinak 1) of these inscriptions, he boasts of having conquered a great number of places probably located in the Iranian area rather than in Mesopotamia. Thanks to Mesopotamian sources, the socalled code of Ur-Namma and a later copy of a royal inscription of Ur-Namma himself, we know that Puzur-Inshushinak also conquered some parts of Diyala and Akkad, moving afterwards into Babylonia; Ur-Namma expelled Puzur-Inshushinak’s armies from Babylonia, calling him “king of Elam.” It is difficult to ascertain if the reign of Puzur-Inshushinak was a secondary state formation in response to the previous Akkadian hegemony. ….
 
 

 

Sunday, June 23, 2019

Nabonidus repaired the head of a statue of Sargon of Akkad


 




          
by

 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
“[Nabonidus] saw in this sacred enclosure [Ebabbar] a statue of Sargon …
half of its head was missing …. Given his reverence for the gods and  
his respect for kingship, he … restored the head of
this statue, and put back its face”.
 
 
According to a late chronographic document concerning Babylon emanating from either the Seleucid or Parthian age, King Nabonidus had found a damaged statue of Sargon of Akkad the head of which he had carefully restored by his artisans.
In this particular document, Sargon of Akkad is distinguished from his “son”, Naram-Sin - though I believe, and have written to the effect (e.g. article below), that Sargon and Naram-Sin were one and the same powerful king.
 
…. [3] in the month of Ululu, [...] of this same year, in the Ebabbar, the temple of  Šamaš, which is in Sippar, and in which kings among his predecessors had searched in vain for ancient foundation - the ancient dwelling place [...] of his kingship that would make his heart glad - he revealed to him, to his humble servant who worshiped him, who was constantly in search of his holy places, the sacred enclosure of Naram-Sin, Sargon's son, and, in this same year, in a propitious month, on a favorable day, he laid the foundations of the Ebabbar, the temple of  Šamaš, above the sacred enclosure of Naram-Sin, Sargon's son, without exceeding or shrinking a finger's breadth.
He saw Naram-Sin's inscription and, without changing its place, restored it and appended his own inscription there. 
 
[4] He saw in this sacred enclosure a statue of Sargon, the father of Naram-Sin: half of its head was missing, and it had deteriorated so as to make its face hardly recognizable. Given his reverence for the gods and his respect for kingship, he summoned expert artisans, restored the head of this statue, and put back its face. He did not change its place but installed it in the Ebabbar and initiated an oblation for it. ….
[End of quote]
 
Now, King Nabonidus of Babylon was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ according to my revision. And Sargon of Akkad, the ancient ‘Humpty Dumpty’, whose head the eccentric Babylonian king was, however, able to ‘put back together again’, was the biblical Nimrod himself, perhaps the world’s first dictator-emperor.
 

See e.g. my article:
 
  Nimrod a "mighty man"       
 
 
Nimrod and Nebuchednezzar, though well separated in time the one from the other, do compare well to the extent of they both being great builders of a “Babel”, of a Babylon, who regarded themselves as gods, who defied the One God, and who were punished – perhaps even while their lips were bespeaking their own praises (cf. Genesis 11:6-7; Daniel 4:31).
 
 
King Nebuchadnezzar was a despot who would tolerate no rivals or equals, a man who had deified himself and demanded to be worshipped as a god.
He was a ruler who manifested the character of Nimrod himself who originally founded Babylon [sic] and Assyria and built the Tower of Babel.
Babylon in fact had its roots in Nimrod’s ancient empire. In Babylon you could have any religion you liked, and there were many religions, provided the god you worshipped was not greater than the King himself.
 
Nebuchadnezzar was the head of the pantheon of gods in Babylon. In his estimation of himself there was no other god higher than himself. Nebuchadnezzar, like many other rulers in the Bible and in history, was a major type of the Antichrist ….
[End of quote]
 
In “Nimrod a "mighty man"” I argued that, just as the biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar requires a handful of mighty kings, his alter egos, in fact, to complete the awesome potentate, so, too, does biblical Nimrod require to be united to his various ‘parts’ (‘faces’) comprising some of the most famous names from early dynastic history (Sargon, Naram-Sin, Shulgi, etc.). Thus I wrote:  
 
The biblical Nimrod has, at least as it seems to me, multi historical personae, just as I have found to have been the case with the much later (Chaldean) king, Nebuchednezzar.
The historical Nebuchednezzar - as he is currently portrayed to us - needs his other ‘face’, Nabonidus of Babylon, for example, to complete him as the biblical “King Nebuchadnezzar” (or “Nebuchadrezzar”); Nabonidus being mad, superstitious, given to dreams and omens, statue-worshipping, praising the god of gods (ilani sa ilani); having a son called “Belshazzar”.
The biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar also needs Ashurbanipal to fill out in detail his 43 years of reign, to smash utterly the nation of Egypt – Ashurbanipal also having a fiery furnace in which he burned people.
But Nebuchednezzar also needs Esarhaddon (conquering Egypt again) whose mysterious and long-lasting illness is so perfectly reminiscent of that of Nebuchednezzar in the Book of Daniel; Esarhaddon especially being renowned for his having built Babylon.
Nebuchednezzar has other ‘faces’ as well, he being Nabopolassar, the careful archaeologist (like Nabonidus), fussing over the proper alignment of temples and other buildings, and as the so-called Persian king, Cambyses, also named “Nebuchednezzar”, again quite mad, and being a known conqueror of Egypt. And we need to dip into Persia again, actually the city of Susa, to find Nebuchednezzar now in the Book of Nehemiah as the “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” reigning in his 20th to 32nd years (cf. Nehemiah 2:1 and 13:6).
Extending matters yet still further, our necessary revisionist folding of ‘Neo’ Babylonia with ‘Middle Kingdom’ Babylonia has likely yielded us the powerful (so-called) Middle Babylonian king Nebuchednezzar I as being another ‘face’ of the ‘Neo’ Babylonian king whom we number as Nebuchednezzar II.
 
In similar fashion, apparently, has our conventional biblico-history sliced and diced into various pieces, Nimrod the mighty hunter king.
 
[End of quote]
 

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Nimrod a “mighty man”


Image result for mesopotamian king
 
by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
“After surveying previous attempts to identify an “historical” Nimrod, the author then suggests that the biblical figure is modeled after the combined traditions 
about Sargon of Akkad and his grandson, Naram-Sin”.
 
Dr. Yigal Levin
 
 
 
Part One:
Hunting him amongst the Akkadians
 
 
Yigal Levin, when referring to “… “The Table of Nations” recorded in Genesis x”, has described as “arguably the most fascinating passage  in the Table – the Nimrod story recounted in verses 8-12” (Nimrod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and AkkadNimrod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad”, VT, Vol. 52, Fasc. 3, July 2002, p. 350). Vol. 52, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 2002),
Vol. 52, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 2002), pp. 350-366 (17 pages)
 
 
Reasonable historical candidates who have been proposed for the imposing character of biblical Nimrod are Enmerkar (Uruk, c. 4500 BC); Gilgamesh (Early Dynastic, Uruk, c. 2900 BC); Sargon of Akkad (c. 2330 BC) and Naram-Sin of Akkad (c. 2250 BC).
 
Enmerkar (Enmer “the hunter”) was David Rohl’s choice; whilst Dr. David Livingston favours the semi-legendary Gilgamesh for Nimrod.
Despite the one and a half millennia time gap between these two kings by conventional reckoning (which is mostly wrong), the fact that Enmerkar was, Gilgamesh was, a mighty man of renown, a hunter, and, more specifically, a builder of the walls of Uruk (in Enmerkar’s case, ‘a wall to protect Uruk’), it may be worthwhile (at some later stage) to test whether we are dealing here with just the one mighty king – and, possibly, with Nimrod himself.
 
David Rohl has also linked the famous Narmer, perhaps of non-Egyptian origins, with Nimrod – a connection I, too, would seriously consider being a possibility. 
 
Sargon of Akkad is Dr. Douglas Petrovich’s (amongst others) choice for Nimrod; whilst, regarding Naram-Sin, Dr. Yigal Levin has - as I, too, have recently favoured in:
 
Assyrian King Sargon II, otherwise known as Sennacherib. Part Three: Akkadian King Sargon I, otherwise known as Naram-Sin?
 
https://www.academia.edu/39616195/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_otherwise_known_as_Sennacherib._Part_Three_Akkadian_King_Sargon_I_otherwise_known_as_Naram-Sin
 
 - identified Nimrod with a combined Sargon/Naram-Sin, though, in Levin’s case (not in mine), Sargon and Naram-Sin remain separate historical entities. Thus he has written:
 
After surveying previous attempts to identify an “historical” Nimrod, the author then suggests that the biblical figure is modeled after the combined traditions about Sargon of Akkad and his grandson, Naram-Sin. Nimrod is the son of “Cush”; Sargon began his royal career at Kish right after the flood. The Sargon-Naram-Sin traditions reached the Levant during the second millennium BCE, being combined by time and distance into a composite personality.
[End of quote]
 
Or, perhaps “time and distance” have caused to be split in twain he who was originally just the one Akkadian potentate.
 
From a combination of data such as Dr. John Osgood’s archaeology for Abram (Abraham); the tradition of Abram’s having been a contemporary of Menes of Egypt; Dr. W. F. Albright’s argument for this same Menes having been conquered by Naram-Sin of Akkad; Narmer (possibly = Naram-Sin) being archaeologically attested in Palestine at this time; Albright’s and Anne Habermehl’s location of Akkad (in Shinar) in NE Syria; biblical Amraphel of Shinar a contemporary of Abram’s; and the tradition of Nimrod’s having accompanied Chedorlaomer of Elam against Syro-Palestine at the time of Abram, then I can ultimately arrive at only this one conclusion:
 
Sargon of Akkad (in Shinar) = Naram-Sin (= Nimrod) must be
the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1).
 
The name “Amraphel” may, or may not, be a Hebrew name equating to a Shinarian one.
Abarim Publications appears to have trouble nailing it:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Amraphel.html#.XQmBvuQ8R9A
Meaning
Unclear, but perhaps: One That Darkens Counsel, or The Commandment Which Went Forth
Etymology
Unclear, but perhaps from (1) the verb אמר (amar), to talk or command, and (2) the verb אפל ('pl), to be dark.
 
Before concluding: “The name Amraphel can mean One That Darkens Counsel, or in the words of Alfred Jones (Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names): One That Speaks Of Dark Things”.
 
 
There may be needed at least one further Akkadian addition to my equation: Sargon of Akkad = Naram-Sin = Nimrod, and that relates to my earlier hint of an identification between:
 
Sargon and Shar-Kali-Sharri
 
https://www.academia.edu/39473281/Sargon_and_Shar-Kali-Sharri
 
given the same apparent meaning of these two names, but more especially that the name “Sargon” (Shar-Gani) is actually included in a presumed version of the name, Shar-kali-sharri.
 
E.g. compare this: https://dinromerohistory.wordpress.com/tag/sargon
“Sargon of Akkad (also known as Sargon the Great, Shar-Gani-Sharri, and Sarru-Kan, meaning “True King” or “Legitimate King”) …”.
 
with this: https://nl.qwerty.wiki/wiki/Shar-Kali-Sharri
Shar-Kali- Sharri (shar-Gani-Sharri ; rc 2217-2193 BC …”.
 
 
 
Part Two:
Hunting him amongst the Sumerians
 
 
The biblical Nimrod has, at least as it seems to me, multi historical personae, just as I have found to have been the case with the much later (Chaldean) king, Nebuchednezzar.
The historical Nebuchednezzar - as he is currently portrayed to us - needs his other ‘face’, Nabonidus of Babylon, for example, to complete him as the biblical “King Nebuchadnezzar” (or “Nebuchadrezzar”); Nabonidus being mad, superstitious, given to dreams and omens, statue-worshipping, praising the god of gods (ilani sa ilani); having a son called “Belshazzar”.
The biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar also needs Ashurbanipal to fill out in detail his 43 years of reign, to smash utterly the nation of Egypt – Ashurbanipal also having a fiery furnace in which he burned people.
But Nebuchednezzar also needs Esarhaddon (conquering Egypt again) whose mysterious and long-lasting illness is so perfectly reminiscent of that of Nebuchednezzar in the Book of Daniel; Esarhaddon especially being renowned for his having built Babylon.
Nebuchednezzar has other ‘faces’ as well, he being Nabopolassar, the careful archaeologist (like Nabonidus), fussing over the proper alignment of temples and other buildings, and as the so-called Persian king, Cambyses, also named “Nebuchednezzar”, again quite mad, and being a known conqueror of Egypt. And we need to dip into Persia again, actually the city of Susa, to find Nebuchednezzar now in the Book of Nehemiah as the “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” reigning in his 20th to 32nd years (cf. Nehemiah 2:1 and 13:6).
Extending matters yet still further, our necessary revisionist folding of ‘Neo’ Babylonia with ‘Middle Kingdom’ Babylonia has likely yielded us the powerful (so-called) Middle Babylonian king Nebuchednezzar I as being another ‘face’ of the ‘Neo’ Babylonian king whom we number as Nebuchednezzar II.
 
In similar fashion, apparently, has our conventional biblico-history sliced and diced into various pieces, Nimrod the mighty hunter king.
I have already ventured to re-attach Nimrod to his Akkadian personae as (i) Sargon of Akkad; (ii) the deified Naram-Sin; and (iii) Shar-kali-sharri.
And to the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1).
Other possibilities being Narmer, and those semi-legendary names, Enmerkar and Gilgamesh.
 
Now here, in Part Two, I shall be looking to test whether Nimrod can ‘boast’ of having further identification amongst one, or more, of those mighty Sumerian kings of the dynasty of Ur III, who claimed to have ruled both “Sumer and Akkad”. 
 
In my recent article:
 
Assyrian King Sargon II, otherwise known as Sennacherib. Part Three: Akkadian King Sargon I, otherwise known as Naram-Sin?
 
https://www.academia.edu/39616195/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_otherwise_known_as_Sennacherib._Part_Three_Akkadian_King_Sargon_I_otherwise_known_as_Naram-Sin
 
I wrote, regarding my thesis identification of Sargon II with Sennacherib:
 
“Other factors seemingly in favour of the standard view that Sargon II and Sennacherib were two distinct kings may be, I suggest, put down to being ‘two sides of the same coin’.” And I went on to liken that situation to Sargon of Akkad and Naram-Sin, two sides of the same coin.
Now here, when considering the so-called Ur III dynasty in relation to the Akkadian dynasty, but also, when considering Ur III’s Ur-Nammu in relation to Shulgi, I think that the “coin” maxim may continue to apply.
 
Taking, firstly, the supposedly two dynasties, we find that the Akkadian one, very rich in legend, is quite poor in documentation. But might that surprising lack be supplied by the super-abundant documentation to be found with Ur III, as M. Van de Mieroop tells (A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 – 323 BC, p. 72):
 
Virtually no period of ancient Near Eastern history presents the historian with such an abundance and variety of documentation [as does Ur III]. Indeed, even in all of the ancient histories of Greece and Rome, there are few periods where a similar profusion of textual material is found.
[End of quote]
 
On the other hand, whilst the Akkadian kings were greatly celebrated down through the centuries (ibid., p. 68): “There was no doubt in the public imagination that Sargon and Naram-Sin had been the greatest kings who ever ruled. They became the paradigms of powerful rulers and were the subjects of numerous detailed stories, created and preserved for almost two millennia”, this was by no means the case with the Ur III names (ibid., p. 72): “Remarkable is the lack of interest in this period by later Mesopotamians when compared to how the Akkadian kings were remembered. …. In later centuries, only a handful of references to the Ur III kings are found”.
 
And this, despite the massive volume of Ur III documentation!
 
On p. 73, Van de Mieroop will make a further distinction between Akkadian and Ur III: “The Ur III state was indeed of a different character than its predecessor: geographically more restricted in size, but internally more centrally organized”.
 
However, the full extent of the geography of Akkadian, of Ur III, has not been properly grasped, I would suggest, with Akkadian being incorrectly centred in Sumer, and Ur III ruling, not only Sumer, but Akkad as well. (Van de Mieroop, p. 71): “Ur-Namma … he could claim … a new title, “King of Sumer and Akkad”.”
 
Despite the apparent differences, there are also plenty of similarities.
(Van de Mieroop, p. 60): “A new system of taxation was developed …. In the reign of Naram-Sin, a standardization of accounting is visible in certain levels of administration in order to facilitate central control”. [Recall Ur III: “… internally more centrally organized”].
(P. 73): “The central administration [Recall Akkadian: “… administration in order to facilitate central control”] established a system of taxation that collected a substantial part of the provinces’ resources”. 
 
Also Akkadian, Ur III, military and trade expansions were widespread.
(Van de Mieroop, p. 60): “[Sargon] claimed that he captured “fifty governors and the city of Uruk”.” P. 63: “The Akkadian kings focused their military attention on the regions of western Iran and northern Syria … east … Elam, Parahshum and Simurrum. In the north … Tuttul … Mari and Ebla”.
(P. 74): “In the Persian Gulf, Ur maintained the trade contacts that had existed since [sic] the Old Akkadian period. P. 76: “In the Ur III sources … we find references to people from the Syrian cities of Tuttul, Ebla and Urushu …”.
 
(Van de Mieroop, p. 63): “Ships from overseas areas, such as Dilmun … Magan … Meluhha … are said to have moored in Akkad’s harbor …”.
 (p. 76): “Already Ur-Namma claimed to have restored trade with Magan …”.
 
(Van de Mieroop, p. 61): “[Akkadian] introduction of an annual dating system …”.
(p. 74): “… Shulgi may have attempted to introduce a standard calendar throughout the land”.
 
(Van de Mieroop, p. 64): “[Naram-Sin] After crushing a major rebellion … took the unprecedented step … of making himself a god”.
(P. 76): “Before his twentieth year of rule Shulgi was deified”.
 
(Van de Mieroop, p. 64): “[An Inscription in Iraq refers to] “Naram-Sin, the strong one …”.
(Brit. Museum cylinder seal, no: 89131): “Shulgi, the strong man … [shul-gi nita kala-ga]”.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=368840&partId=1
This description of Naram-Sin, of Shulgi, could easily remind one of the biblical Nimrod (גִּבֹּ֖ר), gibbor, “a mighty one”, “a strong one” (Genesis 10:8).
  
Now, as in the case of the Akkadians with Sargon, and deified Naram-Sin, and Shar-kali-sharri, at least, all having been merged into the one king - different sides of the same coin, as I said - so may it possibly be with the Ur III dynasty, Ur-Nammu, and deified Shulgi, and Amar-Sin, to be merged together, but also, now to be interlaced with the Akkadians.
 
In other words, our composite biblical Nimrod-Amraphel now to become, all at once:
 
Sargon = Naram-Sin = Shar-kali-sharri = Ur-Nammu = Shulgi = Amar-Sin
 
 
Already mentioned has been “Remarkable … [the] lack of interest in this period [Ur III] by later Mesopotamians …”.
And I have read somewhere that later generations tended to focus their attention (when they did actually refer back to the Ur III kingship) upon Shulgi to the exclusion of the other names. 
There is perhaps no ancient king who so resembles the Nimrod of the Bible and traditions in his strength and heroic deeds as does the long-reigning Shulgi. To give just this one description:
http://www.ancientpages.com/2019/03/22/divine-shulgi-of-ur-influential-long-ruling-king-conqueror-and-native-akkadian-speaker-in-five-languages/

….

Shulgi Boasted Much About His Abilities And With Good Reason

 
As the most influential ruler of Ur III king, Shulgi was native Akkadian speaker who was fluent in five languages like Elamite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Amorite and even Meluhhan (Dravidian). He was trained as a scribe and organized schools for scribes. He was a self-confident ruler who declared himself a divinity and established a tradition of royal praise for himself in many hymns.
 
....
Shulgi boasts that he hunts lions and serpents in steppe…. without the aid of a net or enclosure… He claims to be so fast on his feet he can catch a gazelle on the run..” (Kramer N. S.)
….
Usually people wrote hymns for the gods, but Shulgi wrote a hymn to honor himself.
In “The Sumerian World,” Harriet Crawford writes that “by some accounts, in 2088 BC, during what is known as the King’s Run, documents show that Shulgi claimed that during a celebration of eshesh, he ran the distance of the parade (200 miles round-trip) from Nippur to Ur and back.
“That my name be established until distant days and that it leave not the mouth of men, that my praise be spread  wide in the land; I, the runner  rose in my strength… and from Nippur to Ur I resolved to travel…”
"My black-headed people marveled at me" he wrote.
The problem is that Nippur was at the distance of 100 miles from Ur. Shulgi claimed that he run 100 miles and then he run back home again. All that happened in one day and during a storm. Did Shulgi really run 200 miles in the stormy weather or was it only a way to glorify himself? ….
[End of quote]
 
Works begun by Ur-Nammu, such as the great ziggurat of Ur (a replica of the Tower of Babel?), are thought to have been completed by Shulgi.
Ur-Nammu’s Law Code is attributed by some to Shulgi instead.
Two sides of the same coin?
 
And, just to include briefly (and to conclude with) Amar-Sin, I have previously written:
 
….
Normally one will find that, prior to, say, the C8th BC approximately, the conventional history is well out of kilter with the biblical history. In the case of the Ur III dynasty, however, which some consider to be contemporaneous with Abraham, the unusual situation may actually be that these two histories are in fact closely synchronous. Revisionist scholar, David Rohl – presumably following Herb Storck (see below) – has accepted this syncretism between the two and has proceeded to identify Abraham’s contemporary, Amraphel of Shinar, with Ur III’s Amar-Sin (c. 1980 BC, conventional dating).
Despite the likes of Kenneth Kitchen arguing that the Genesis 14 coalition of kings would have to have occurred at a time in Mesopotamian history when, in the words of McClellan “no individual dynasty had complete control over the region” (Kitchen wrote on this):
 
However, by contrast with the Levant, this kind of alliance of eastern states was only possible at certain periods. Before the Akkadian Empire, Mesopotamia was divided between the Sumerian city-states, but this is far too early for our narrative (pre-2300). After an interval of Gutian interference, Mesopotamia was then dominated by the Third Dynasty of Ur, whose influence reached in some form as far west as north Syria and Byblos. After its fall, circa 2000, Mesopotamia was divided between a series of kingdoms, Isin, Larsa, Eshnunna, Assyria, etc., with Mari and various local powers in lands farther north and west. This situation lasted until the eighteenth century, when Hammurabi of Babylon eliminated most of his rivals. From circa 1600/1500 onward, Assyria and Babylon (now under Kassite rule) dominated Mesopotamia, sharing with none except briefly Mitanni (ca. 1500 to mid-thirteenth century) within the Euphrates’ west bend, and the marginal Khana and Sea-land princedoms were eliminated in due course. Thus, from circa 2000 to 1750 (1650 at the extreme), we have the one and only period during which extensive power alliances were common in Mesopotamia and with its neighbors (Kitchen 2003, p. 320) [,]
 
I think it is quite possible that this coalition could have consisted of two dominant rulers,
Amraphel and Chedorlaomer of Elam, and two of their governors.
 
Did not the neo-Assyrian kings later boast that their ‘governors were all kings’?
 
Thus the two other coalitional kings listed in Genesis 14:1, “Arioch king of Ellasar”, and “Tidal king of Goyim”, were likely of secondary status by comparison with Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, and may thus have been only local rulers, e.g., ensi-governors.
Herb 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).
[End of quotes]
 
I think that there is an excellent possibility that Amar-Sin - with whom in this article I have merged Akkadian as well as other of the Ur III king names - was likewise the biblical Nimrod-Amraphel (in league with Arioch-Zariqum).