by
Damien F. Mackey
Dr. Velikovsky had the rare ability of arriving at a
right conclusion,
of hitting the bullseye whilst others, perhaps more
methodical, more analytical,
but less synthetically able, and certainly far more
boring, were managing
to strike only the outer targets.
Even as one ticks off a new alter
ego for King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ it seems that yet another candidate
must needs spring to our attention.
The new field of
productivity - one that Dr. Velikovsky, though, had already cultivated about
forty years ago, with Ramses II and His
Time (1978) - is the kingdom of the mighty Hittites. Not only did I find
“Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” symptoms in emperor Mursilis (so-called II),
Velikovsky’s Nabopolassar:
having written there, e.g.:
“Most interestingly now, I find, from
re-reading Velikovsky (and others) on this subject,
that Mursilis, too - {and Nabopolassar} - had
suffered a shocking Nebuchednezzar-like illness”.
but, more recently, it appeared that
the supposed son of this Mursilis, Hattusilis (so-called III), had the same
sorts of symptoms:
“Nebuchednezzar
Syndrome”: dreams illness-madness Egyptophobia. Part Six: Illness of Emperor
Hattusilis
“Here, in this description of the emperor’s
[Hattusilis’s] dire illness, we can discern various likenesses to the case of King
Nebuchednezzar’s sickness as recounted in the Book of Daniel chapter 4:
extremely poor health at an early stage; a dream
interpreted; promise of return to health; divine terms to be fulfilled” .
That, on its
own, has set me in the direction of thinking that Velikovsky may have been
right on the mark in his identifying of Hattusilis, a known contemporary of
Ramses II ‘the Great’, with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’.
This will be
taken up again as this article progresses.
Dr. Velikovsky
had the rare ability of arriving at - in the midst of a confusing mix of
history - a right conclusion, of hitting the bullseye whilst others, perhaps
more methodical, more analytical, but less synthetically able, and certainly far
more boring, were managing to strike only the outer targets.
The Autobiography of Hattusilis, from which
Velikovsky derived much of his material in Ramses
II and His Time, seems to settle an obscure part of the neo-Babylonian
succession that I had previously mis-read.
- Dynasty XI (or Neo-Babylonian)
- Nabu-apla-usur 626–605 BC
- Nabu-kudurri-usur II 605–562 BC
- Amel-Marduk 562–560 BC
- Neriglissar 560–556 BC
- Labaši- Marduk 556 BC
- Nabonidus 556–539 BC
I had collapsed
a lot of this to:
- Nabopolassar = Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus
Amel Marduk = Neriglissar = Labash Marduk =
“Belshazzar”
just two kings.
But
- it becomes apparent from Velikovsky’s book that Neriglissar (Nergil) was the brother of Hattusilis (our Nebuchednezzar) and that Labash (Marduk) was Nirgil’s son.
“King
Nabonidus wrote: “When the days were fulfilled, and he [Nergilissar] met his
fate, Labash-Marduk, his young son, who did not understand how to
rule,
sat on the throne, against the will of the gods”.”
Dr. Immanuel
Velikovsky
This scenario,
we shall find (I believe), is well re-visited in the case of the Great King,
Ashurbanipal (my Nebuchednezzar), who rules Assyria whilst his older brother is
ruling Babylonia.
Situation
of Hattusilis like that of Ashurbanipal
“An Assyrian noble
who apparently was aware of the situation existing between
the two princes, made
it clear to his overlord, their father, that the settlement
of the succession in
this manner is no kindness to Assyria”.
Sami S. Ahmed
The arrangement between Nergil and his younger brother, Hattusilis,
reminds me greatly of that between Shamash-shum-ukin and his younger brother,
Ashurbanipal.
According to the conventional opinion of how the situation came
about (with all due allowance for the conventional wrong dates, wrong
succession, and somewhat wrong scenario):
The succession to the Assyrian throne, as settled by
Esarhaddon, (680—669 B. C.), no doubt displeased Shamash-shum-ukin. Despite the;
fact that he was the eldest, his younger brother, Ashurbanipal acquired the
lion's share and was appointed as heir for the Assyrian monarchy. Although
Shamash-shum-ukin was assigned for the kingship of Babylonia, his realm was to
be under the jurisdiction of his, brother. Evidence is quite meager of the
relationship between the two brothers during the lifetime of their father.
However, enough data are preserved to show that it was not so good. An Assyrian
noble who apparently was aware of the situation existing between the two
princes, made it clear to his overlord, their father, that the settlement of
the succession in this manner is no kindness to Assyria1.
Esarhaddon died while on his way to Egypt [sic] in 669
B. C. and Ashurbanipal assumed the responsibilities immediately. However, it was
not until the New Year festival 668—667 B. C. that he "appointed"
Shamash-shum-ukin to the Babylonian throne and the latter held the hands of
Marduk at Ashur. Thus began the first ruling year »of Ashurbanipal and
Shamash-shum-ukin as joint brothers. ….
[End of quote]
{That section was taken
from “Causes of Shamash-shum-ukin's uprising,
652—651 B. C”.
By
Sami S. Ahmed}
The real
situation was, I think - and the Autobiography
of Hattusilis will make this clearer - somewhat different from Sami Ahmed’s
explanation.
The reason why
the older brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, was not given by his
father (who was not Esarhaddon, incidentally) what Ahmed calls “the lion's share … the Assyrian monarchy”, was because
he himself had an older brother, Sin-iddina-apla, who had
been the Crown Prince.
The latter, who died an untimely death, must have been the same as the
Ashur-nadin-shumi, my “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith (and the “Nadin” of
the Book of Tobit), who had indeed died an untimely death. See e.g. my article:
"Nadin"
(Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith
This meant that,
whilst Shamash-shum-ukin continued to remain ensconced in his rulership over
Babylonia, the young brother Ashurbanipal, who had never expected to reign, now
seamlessly succeeded Sin-iddina-apla as ruler of Assyria.
By no means did
Ashurbanipal ever actually appoint Shamash-shum-ukin, despite whatever the former’s propaganda may
later have claimed.
This situation
finds its partner in Hattusilis’s being appointed to rule the kingdom of
Assyria and the Hittite lands, whilst his older brother ruled over Babylonia.
It also explains
how Nebuchednezzar, my alter ego of
Ashurbanipal (and Esarhaddon), could have ruled Assyria, as Ashurbanipal
assuredly did, when Assyria is supposed to have been destroyed as a power some
years before the reign of Nebuchednezzar had even begun.
In both the
Nebuchednezzar scenario, and the (same?) Hattusilis scenario, Assyria is still
a great world power.
It is quite
clear in the Hittite account of the dual kingship arrangement that the older
brother, “Nirgal”, held the reins (taken from Velikovsky’s Ramses II and His Time):
Autobiography
sec. 5 When my brother Nirgal obtained his insight of the matter, he gave me
not the slightest punishment, and he took me again into his favor, and gave
into my hands the army and the chariotry of the Hath Land.
Other passages
of relevance for this article arising from this ancient document (as recalled
by Velikovsky) are these:
Chapter
5
The
Autobiography of Nebuchadnezzar
Climbing
the Throne
….
Autobiography
sec. 4 My brother Nir-gal [Nergil] sat on the throne of his father, and I
became before his face the commander of the army. ... My brother ... let me
preside over the Upper Land, and I put the Upper Land under my rule.
The
Upper Land was apparently either Assyria or some part of Anatolia; the Lower
Land was Babylonia.
While
still a lad, he led his troops against the enemies who invaded the country.
….
Various
districts rebelled against the Chaldean yoke and the lad on the Assyrian
throne.
Autobiography
sec.6 All the lands of Gasgas, Pishukus, Ishupittas did rebel and took the
strongholds. And the foe went over the river Massandas and pressed into the
country.
In this
chapter of the autobiography of Hattusilis again may be found some three or
four allusions to events and circumstances described in the texts concerning
Nebuchadnezzar. Berosus wrote in his lost History of Chaldea, in a passage
preserved verbatim by Josephus Flavius, that the king of Babylonia, on hearing
of the defection of the provinces, “committed part of his army” to
Nebuchadnezzar
...
still in the prime of life, and sent him against the rebel Nebuchadnezzar
engaged
and defeated the latter in a pitched battle, and placed the district under
Babylonian rule.-
In the
first series of wars Nebuchadnezzar headed the army, although he was not king;
in this, we see, Berosus was correct.
For a chief of the army he was very young: this detail also is true. He subdued the rebellious provinces, and here again Berosus was correct. But in one detail Berosus and other later
sources
were wrong, and it is possible to check and correct it now, after
more
than two thousand years.
It
concerns the question of who sent Nebuchadnezzar against the rebels, his father
or his brother.
The
matter of succession received special attention in a previous section. The
event itself - the revolt of the provinces and its suppression - is truly
depicted by Berosus, and is repeated at length in the autobiography:
The
Gasgas Lands rebelled. ... My brother Nirgal sent me, giving me but a small
number of troops and charioteers. ... I met the foe ... and gave him battle.
And Ishtar, my Lady, helped me, and I smote him ... And this was the first act
in the prime of manhood.
Both
Hattusilis’ autobiography and Berosus’ writing about Nebuchadnezzar stress the
extreme youth of the commander of the army. As soon as the youth was made
governor of the Upper Land, even before he had earned his laurels in his first
encounter with rebels, he met opposition in the person of the former ruler of
that province.
Autobiography
sec. 4 Before me it was governed by Sin-Uas, the son of Zidas. ... And Sin-Uas,
the son of Zidas ... wished me evil. ... And accusations became loud against
me. And my brother Nirgal set action against me. Ishtar, my Lady, appeared in a
dream: “I shall trust thy care to a god. Be not
afraid.”
And thanks to the Divinity I justified myself.
The
proceeding in which Hattusilis was apparently charged with plotting to seize
the throne marked a painful period in the life of the youth. But sufficient
evidence was not produced, and the king ignored the admonitions of his father’s
adviser.
Autobiography
sec. 5 When my brother Nirgal obtained his insight of the matter, he gave me
not the slightest punishment, and he took me again into his favor, and gave
into my hands the army and the chariotry of the Hath Land.
From the
building inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar (Inscription XVII) we know that he used
this term for the land under his rule west of the Euphrates: “the princes of
the Hath land beyond the Euphrates to the west, over whom I exercised
lordship.”
Then came
the time of his great and victorious battles. He was raised from governor of
the Upper Land (either Assyria or a part of Anatolia) to king. The king of the
Upper Land was subordinate to the Great King of Hath, but it was the second
most important position in the empire. ….
If
Nebuchednezzar really was Hattusilis, then Dr. Velikovsky could not err in
identifying the (or at least a) contemporary pharaoh as Ramses II, who was
indeed a known contemporary of emperor Hattusilis.
But whether
Velikovsky was also right in identifying Ramses II of Egypt’s Nineteenth
Dynasty as a Twenty-Sixth Dynasty pharaoh is a matter that requires further
investigation.
