This chapter reviews some of the Babylonian business documents discussed in the NCUSES.
The information discussed in this chapter is also closely related to how the clay tablet VAT 4956 discussed in the previous chapter should be evaluated when it states the date as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
The 43rd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II
At this stage, attention is drawn to a different interpretation of this new chronology regarding the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. From the related appendices, the chronological tables show that the length of his reign is estimated to be a little over 43 and a half years between 625-581 BCE. There are several reasons for this change, for which evidence of archaeological finds is presented in this chapter.
There is no need to present any entirely new archaeological discovery here, as Assyriologist Ronald H. Sack recounted the findings quoted here in a book published in 1972. The related information is as follows:
‘Archaeological finds mention the fourth month of the year of the reign of Amel-Marduk, the successor to Nebuchadnezzar II, or tammuz. . . Another archaeological record mentions the sixth (Ululu) month of the 43rd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.’2-1
It seems that scholars have not seriously considered this and other similar contradictions.
Scholar David B. Weisberg writes in the Journal of near eastern studies about Ronald Sack's writing.2-2 In connection with the dates of the clay tablets, he states that the businessman in Uruk was unaware of the change of power that had taken place. However, that sounds like from mere fiction. Scholar Weisberg ignores the fact that the king's death was followed by a period of public mourning, proclaimed nationwide. Thus, it is probable that the city of Uruk also spent time of mourning after the death of Nebuchadnezzar II. After the proclamation of the time of mourning, the rapid messenger set out to report it to other parts of the kingdom. The journey from Babylon to Uruk was less than 200 kilometers. It may be considered probable that a period of mourning was proclaimed in Uruk within a week of its proclamation in Babylon. However, one might ask the question, how could that be possible so soon? Let's look into that.
Local conditions in Babylonia
Uruk. It was one of the notable centers of Babylon, which was therefore sought to be kept up to date. Some of the influential servants of Nebuchadnezzar II may have come from that area.
Road condition. Because Uruk was a remarkable city, there was probably a better road connection from there than Babylon to many other places. Apparently local traders used these roads regularly.
Rider speed. Many today work out and walk very long distances. They can confirm that it is possible can go that about 170 kilometers a week even walking if there are good roads. It would only require about 15 miles of walking in a day. With a horse in good condition, the journey is much faster.
That statement by researcher Weisberg - which merely repeats the general position of researchers - does not seem to be justified, given the local customs of the time.
In this thesis, the hypothesis put forward by the scholars that there was a long (even several months) information gap during the change of reign of the kings is considered unlikely. Since Uruk was close to Babylonia and was one of the major centres of the empire (possibly Neriglissar, an influential officer of Nebuchadnezzar II, was from that region),2-3 such an information blackout would have been very exceptional.
A similar contradiction is that the clay tablet BM 55806 mentions the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar II and the tenth (Tebetu) month, which corresponds to December-January. In this clay tablet, however, its date is somewhat damaged. Unfortunately, the author does not have access to source material for the researchers' materials on this clay painting. According to one source (the reliability of the source cannot be verified), this clay tablet has not been officially approved by scientists at that time. The reason for this is that a damaged year can be interpreted to mean 43 years and a damaged month can somehow be interpreted to mean something other than 10 months.
Scholars generally estimate that the accession year of Amel-Marduk's reign was the same as the last year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign.
So what does this mean? First of all, it must be stated that there is no basis for developing such fictions that Amel-Marduk had become king even before the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. Instead, it can be concluded that those archaeological records must have had a different calendar year.
Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar
There is a similar overlap between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II's successor, Amel-Marduk, and that of Neriglissar.
However, let's take a brief look at Neriglissar, who ruled for a total of about four years. Earlier it was already stated that he was apparently in a prominent position as an officer of Nebuchadnezzar II. It therefore seems that he may have been quite old when he became king, which partly explains why his reign was short. Some have speculated that he may have been the same person mentioned in the Bible at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem. The Bible describes the event as follows:
‘After the city was conquered, the chief men of the king of Babylon set up their headquarters at the central gate of the city. Among them were Nergalsareser, commander of Sin-Magir, Nebu-Sarsekim, captain of the court, and Nergalsareser, commander of the army. ’2-4
That first-mentioned Nergalsareser, the commander, was the person in question, whom some consider to be the same, later known as Neriglissar, who was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II. If that were the case, that Neriglissar was 30 years old at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem, he would have been 77 years old when he became king. While this may seem like old age, it would have been by no means exceptional. It may be that he somehow imagined himself to be the ‘deliverer of the people of Babylon’ after seizing power from his predecessor. Why he did this, a little later.
But back to thing. The clay tablets BM 75106 and BM 61325 are dated 7 and 10 months in the year considered the last (second) year of the reigning King Amel-Marduk.2-5 However, BM 75489 is dated the 2nd month of the reign of Neriglissar who ruled after him.2-6
These is probably also a matter of different calendar years. When this information is put into practice, it opens up new perspectives on the course of history. Let’s deal with these years at this point according to the old chronology, making it easier for readers to identify with that period.
The second month of Neriglissar's accession year (Ajaru), would have been 560 BCE. at the earliest in April-May. Indeed, the 10th month of Amel-Marduk's second reign (BM 61325) would have been December-January 561/560 BCE. (But as will be seen later, it may be possible that Amel-Marduk ruled for more than 18 years longer, for a total of 21 years.)
When these archaeological data are applied, the fourth month of Amel-Marduk's reign must have been a year earlier, the month of January 563 BCE., and the 43rd year of Ululu in Nebuchadnezzar II should be two years earlier, August-September 564 BCE. (Time is counted here from 539 BCE. back, which date has been confirmed).
This would mean that Nebuchadnezzar II would have become king of Babylon according to ancient chronology in 607 BCE. and his 37th year of government would have begun as early as the spring of 570 BCE. These years are here, therefore, applying the current old chronology.
This is a simple but very consistent conclusion. At the very least, this necessary correction forces us to look at the VAT 4956 data from a new perspective. This brief review shows that, even using the old chronology used by current scholars, this clay tablet cannot date to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign.
Based on these observations, in this study it is considered very possible that Nebuchadnezzar II died only in the last month of the 43rd year, i.e. Addaru month. After this, a mourning period of 30 days was apparently declared in Babylon (This may have been a common length of mourning at that time. Compare the death date of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon and the inauguration of his successor Ashurbanipal2-7), after which a new king, Amel-Marduk, became king during the month of Nisannu. The mourning period in ancient times can be assumed to have been influenced by external factors, i.e. how popular the king had been and whether there was a national state of war.
King Jehoiachin's 37 years in prison
Consistent with the above is the related period of 37 years found in the Bible.
It is said that King Amel-Marduk released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison during his reign. It is said to have taken place in the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin, on the 27th day of its 12th month.2-8 In the 12th anniversary of Jerusalem, the captivity of the king of Judah is recorded in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar II:
And he besieged the city of Judah, and on the second day of the month Adar took hold of the king, and took the king2-9
According to the old chronology, it was then February or March of 597 BCE.
From the above, it is noted that Jehoiachin had also been in exile for three days less than 37 years. A simple calculation reveals that the year of Amel-Marduk's rise to power would have been in the winter of 560 BCE in progress. But that is clearly too late, as Neriglissar, Amel-Marduk's successor, became king that year.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment