From: Subject: HAMMURABI AND THE REVISED CHRONOLOGY Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:17:45 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/kronos/vol0801/078hammu.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 HAMMURABI AND THE REVISED CHRONOLOGY

Hammurabi And The Revised Chronology

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

Editor's Note: The present article is a modified and = partially=20 updated version of one of the original unpublished chapters of Ages in = Chaos.=20 Readership response is welcome. - LMG

King Hammurabi is the best known of the early monarchs of = ancient=20 times due to his famous law code, found inscribed on stone. This great = lawgiver=20 of ancient Babylon belonged to the First Babylonian Dynasty which came = to an=20 end, under circumstances shrouded in mystery, some three or four = generations=20 after Hammurabi. For the next several centuries, the land was in the = domain of a=20 people known as the Kassites. They left few examples of art and hardly = any=20 literary works - theirs was an age comparable to and contemporaneous = with that=20 of the Hyksos in Egypt, and various surmises were made as to the = identity of the=20 two peoples.* A cartouche of the Hyksos king Khyan was even found in=20 Babylonia(1) and another in Anatolia, (2) a possible indication of the = extent of=20 the power and influence wielded by the Hyksos.

* In the original version of the present text, Velikovsky theorized = that=20 the Kassites were both contemporaneous "and apparently identical with = the=20 Hyksos"; and though he later abandoned this equation, his conjecture = is worth=20 noting as a matter of intellectual interest. - = LMG

Until a few decades ago, the reign of Hammurabi was dated to = around=20 the year 2100 before the present era. This dating was originally = prompted by=20 information contained in an inscription of Nabonidus, the last king of = Babylon,=20 who reigned in the sixth century until the conquest of his land by = Cyrus.=20 Whereas his son and co-ruler, Belshazzar, occupied himself with the=20 administration of the land, Nabonidus indulged in an avocation: he = showed a=20 marked interest in archaeology, and excavated the foundations of ancient = temples, looking for old inscriptions.(2a)

In the foundations of a temple at Larsa, Nabonidus found a plaque of = King=20 Burnaburiash. This king is known to us from the el-Amarna correspondence = in=20 which he participated. On that plaque Burnaburiash wrote that he had = rebuilt the=20 temple erected seven hundred years before by King Hammurabi. The = el-Amarna=20 letters, according to conventional chronology, were written about -1400. = Thus,=20 if Burnaburiash lived then, Hammurabi must have lived about -2100.

When Egyptologists found it necessary to reduce the el-Amarna Age by = a=20 quarter of a century, the time of Hammurabi was adjusted accordingly, = and placed=20 in the twenty-first century before the present era. It was also = observed: "The=20 period of the First Dynasty of Babylon has always been a landmark in = early=20 history, because by it the chronology of Babylonia can be fixed, with a=20 reasonable margin of error."(3) The period of Hammurabi also served as a = landmark for the histories of the Middle East from Elam to Syria, and = was used=20 as a guide for the chronological tables of other nations.

Since the dates for Hammurabi were established originally on the = evidence of=20 the plaque of King Burnaburiash found by Nabonidus which indicated that = King=20 Hammurabi had reigned seven hundred years earlier - the revision of = ancient=20 history outlined in Ages in Chaos would set a much later date = for=20 Hammurabi, for it places the el-Amarna correspondence and King = Burnaburiash in=20 the ninth, not the fourteenth, century. Burnaburiash wrote long letters = to=20 Amenhotep III and Akhnaton, bore himself in a haughty manner, and = demanded=20 presents in gold, jewels, and ivory. In the same collection of letters, = however,=20 there are many which we have identified as originating from Ahab of = Samaria and=20 Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem, and from their governors.(4)

Therefore, seven hundred years before this correspondence would bring = us to=20 the sixteenth century, not the twenty-first. Also, the end of the First=20 Babylonian Dynasty - in circumstances recalling the end of the Middle = Kingdom in=20 Egypt - would point to some date close to -1500, or even several decades = later.

A connecting link was actually found between the First Babylonian = Dynasty and=20 the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt, the great dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. = At=20 Platanos on Crete, a seal of the Hammurabi type was discovered in a tomb = together with Middle Minoan pottery of a kind associated at other sites = with=20 objects of the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, (5) more exactly, of its = earlier=20 part.(6) This is regarded as proof that these two dynasties were=20 contemporaneous.

In the last several decades, however, a series of new discoveries = have made a=20 drastic reduction of the time of Hammurabi imperative. Chief among the = factors=20 that demand a radical change in the chronology of early Babylonia and = that of=20 the entire Middle Eastern complex a chronology that for a long time was = regarded=20 as unassailable - are the finds of Mari, Nuzi, and Khorsabad.

At Mari on the central Euphrates, among other rich material, a = cuneiform=20 tablet was found which established that Hammurabi of Babylonia and King=20 Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria were contemporaries. An oath was sworn by the = life of=20 these two kings in the tenth year of Hammurabi, The finds at Mari = "proved=20 conclusively that Hammurabi came to the throne in Babylonia after the = accession=20 of Shamshi-Adad I in Assyria".(7)

Shamshi-Adad I could not have reigned in the twenty-first century = since there=20 exist lists of Assyrian kings which enable us to compute regnal dates. = Being=20 compilations of later times, it is admitted by modern research that "the = figures=20 in king lists are not infrequently erroneous".(8) But in 1932 a fuller = and=20 better-preserved list of Assyrian king names was found at Khorsabad, = capital of=20 Sargon II. Published ten years later, in 1942, it contains the names of = one=20 hundred and seven Assyrian kings with the number of years of their = reigns,=20 Shamshi-Adad I, who is the thirty-first on the list, but the first of = the kings=20 whose regnal years are given in figures, reigned much later than the = time=20 originally allotted to Hammurabi whose contemporary he was.

The Khorsabad list ends in the tenth year of Assur-Nerari V, which is = computed to have been -745; at that time the list was composed or = copied. By=20 adding to the last year the sum of the regnal years, as given in the = list of the=20 kings from Shamshi-Adad to Assur-Nerari, the first year of Shamshi-Adad = is=20 calculated to have been -1726 and his last year -1694. These could be = the=20 earliest dates; with a less liberal approach, the time of Shamshi-Adad = needs to=20 be relegated to an even later date.

The result expressed in the above figures required a revolutionary = alteration=20 in Babylonian chronology, for it reduced the time of Hammurabi from the=20 twenty-first century to the beginning of the seventeenth century. The=20 realization that the dating of Hammurabi must be brought forward by = three and a=20 half centuries created "a puzzling chronological discrepancy", (9) which = could=20 only be resolved by making Hammurabi later than Amenemhet I of the = Twelfth=20 Dynasty.

The process of scaling down the time of Hammurabi is an exciting = spectacle.=20 Sidney Smith and W. F. Albright competed in this scaling down; as soon = as one of=20 them offered a more recent date, the other offered a still more recent = one, and=20 so it went until Albright arrived at -1728 to -1686 for Hammurabi, and = S. Smith=20 - by placing Shamshi-Adad from -1726 to -1694 - appeared to start = Hammurabi at=20 -1716.(10)

If Hammurabi reigned at the time allotted to him by the finds at Mari = and=20 Khorsabad - but according to the finds at Platanos was a contemporary of = the=20 Egyptian kings of the early Twelfth Dynasty then that dynasty must have = started=20 at a time when, according to the accepted chronology, it had already = come to its=20 end. In conventionally-written history, by -1680 not only the Twelfth = Dynasty,=20 but also the Thirteenth, or the last of the Middle Kingdom, had = expired.* On the=20 accepted timetable, the Hyksos (Dynasties 14 to 17) ruled from that year = for one=20 century, until, in -1580, the Eighteenth Dynasty initiated the era of = the New=20 Kingdom.

* There is even apparent disagreement among Egyptologists as to = which=20 dynasties constitute the Middle Kingdom as well as the time of its = end. E.g.,=20 Aldred includes the Thirteenth Dynasty and has it ending in 1640 B.C. = Muller=20 includes the Thirteenth and has it ending in 1650 B.C. Gardiner and = Stevenson=20 Smith do not include the Thirteenth and end the Twelfth in 1786 B.C. = Wilson=20 does not include the Thirteenth and ends the Twelfth ca. 1800 B.C. = Steindorff=20 and Seele likewise exclude the Thirteenth and end the Twelfth in 1780 = B.C.,=20 and so on. - LMG

We have previously discussed the difficulties that followed = from=20 leaving only one hundred years for the Hyksos period.(11) The great = change in=20 scenery between the end of the Middle Kingdom and the New Kingdom made = Flinders=20 Petrie claim that an additional period of 1461 years (one Sothic period) = must be=20 placed between the two eras; but this view did not prevail. Nor were = retained as=20 valid the historical sources (Josephus-Manetho) that allotted 511 years = for the=20 Hyksos period; nor was the consideration of cultural changes, as = advocated by H.=20 R. Hall - who pleaded for four or five centuries for the Hyksos period - = given a=20 chance.

When the end of the Twelfth Dynasty was brought down to -1680, there = was no=20 time left for the Thirteenth; and with only one century for the Hyksos, = the=20 bottom of the Middle Kingdom had apparently reached a level below which = it could=20 not be reasonably or securely dropped. This also constituted a barrier = against=20 any further reduction of Hammurabi's time. Nevertheless, an attempt was = made to=20 eliminate the Hyksos period altogether: of the five hundred and eleven = years of=20 Hyksos rule, as given by Manetho and preserved by Josephus, not a single = year=20 was left.(12) This proposed elimination of the Hyksos period, though = made by a=20 qualified scholar, was received with mixed reactions. But even this = elimination=20 did not bring the scales of the balance to rest.

Even without a further reduction of Hammurabi's time, the scaling = down of his=20 date by Albright and Smith was sufficient to call for a general lowering = of the=20 dates assigned to all west Asian and Aegean material.(13) Consequently, = three to=20 four centuries were subtracted from all west Asian and Aegean chronology = of the=20 period corresponding to the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. Only the beginning = of the=20 New Kingdom was not moved from -1580, for it was regarded as "absolutely = certain" and "mathematically certain".(14)*

* Despite the convictions of Hall and Breasted, the beginning of = the New=20 Kingdom has, in fact, been assigned by Egyptologists variously to 1546 = B.C.=20 (Steindorff and Seele), 1550 B.C (Wilson), 1552 B.C. (Lange), 1570 = B.C.=20 (Muller and Stevenson Smith), 1557 B.C. (Woldering), 1575 B.C. = (Gardiner), and=20 1567 B.C. (Michalowski). This is hardly consistent, much less = "certain". -=20 LMG

Yet the finds in Mesopotamia required a further lowering of the dates = of the=20 First Babylonian Dynasty. In one case of Middle East chronology before = the New=20 Kingdom - the date of the so-called Cappadocian tablets - a full six = hundred=20 years was excised. On tablets from Araphkha and Nuzi, seal impressions = of the=20 First Babylonian Dynasty were found. These tablets dated from the = fifteenth=20 century, "which points to a much later date than currently = accepted".

If Hammurabi lived in the sixteenth century and the First Babylonian = Dynasty=20 ruled until the beginning of the fifteenth century, then many dates of = early=20 history must be revised even more drastically But the Middle Kingdom in = Egypt=20 could not be lowered below -1580 because such a shift would make a = portion of=20 the Middle Kingdom contemporary with the New Kingdom.

In my reconstruction of ancient history, the beginning of the New = Kingdom is=20 shown to correspond with the later part of Saul's reign, in the second = half of=20 the eleventh century. The Middle Kingdom (Thirteenth Dynasty) ended not = in -1720=20 or -1680 but shortly after -1500. The Hyksos period regains its place in = history: it continued for over four hundred years and corresponds in = Biblical=20 history to the time of the Wandering in the Desert, the Conquest of = Canaan, the=20 Judges, and to a part of Saul's reign.

The Assyrian king lists lend support to our reconstruction by = exposing the=20 need to lower the dates of the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty With Hammurabi = belonging=20 to the sixteenth century, the time of Burnaburiash is in the ninth = century. This=20 is also the period to which we ascribed the el-Amarna correspondence; = and not=20 the Assyrian and Babylonian material, but the Biblical and Egyptian = evidence=20 compelled us to move the beginning of the New Kingdom from -1580 to ca. = -1040,=20 and the time of el-Amarna to ca. -860 until -840 or -830.

The archaeological facts discussed above lead to the conclusion that = the=20 First Babylonian Dynasty reigned from the eighteenth century to the very = beginning of the fifteenth and was contemporaneous with the Egyptian = Twelfth and=20 Thirteenth Dynasties - the Middle Kingdom.* The time of the Kassites in=20 Mesopotamia corresponds more precisely to the time of the Hyksos in = Egypt and=20 Syria.** The fall of this Amalekite (Hyksos) Empire brought down their = power=20 "from Havila [in Mesopotamia] to Shur, over against Egypt" (I Samuel = 15:7).

* While accepting Velikovsky's placement of the Exodus and the end = of the=20 Middle Kingdom to ca. 1450 B.C., Dr. John J. Bimson has argued for a = 320 year=20 duration for the Thirteenth Dynasty. Thus the XIIth and XIIIth = Dynasties are=20 made to span the period from 1975-1450 B.C. This would obviously = require a=20 different dating for Hammurabi than that proposed by Velikovsky. = Bimson was=20 not concerned with the date of Hammurabi, however, and the subject did = not=20 come up. (See J.J. Bimson, "A Chronology for the Middle Kingdom" in=20 SISR III:3, pp. 64-69 and SISR IV:1, pp. 11-18.) -=20 LMG

** According to conventional dating, "The Kassites, a mountain = people who=20 had threatened Babylon from the time of Samsuiluna, Hammurabi's son = (17th=20 cent. B.C.), found their path clear after the transient conquest of = Babylon by=20 the Hittite king Mursilis I (ca 1550). None of the known architectural = monuments of Kassite origin, however, dates back further than the 15th = century; they continue until the 12th century, when Kassite domination = ended."=20 (A. Moortgat, "Mesopotamia", Encyclopedia of World Art, IX, = p. 768 .)=20 - LMG

The discoveries at Platanos, Nuzi, Mari, and Khorsabad = demand that=20 the Middle Kingdom in Egypt be brought down to the fifteenth century, = and though=20 they involve archaeological material of an epoch preceding the period = discussed=20 in Ages in Chaos, they give strong support to the = reconstruction=20 presented therein.

REFERENCES

1. B. Porter and R. Moss, = Topographical=20 Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Relief sand = Paintings,=20 Vol. VII (Oxford, 1951), p. 396.
2. H. Stock, "Der Hyksos Chian in = Bogazköy",=20 Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 94 = (1963),=20 pp. 73ff.
2a. Regarding Nabonidus' archaeological activity, Roust had = this to=20 say: "Other temples in Mesopotamia - including the great temple of = Marduk in=20 Babylon - also benefited from his zeal, and the eagerness with which, = before=20 building anew, he sought the temenu, or foundation-deposit, = which=20 authenticated the sacred ground testifies to his attachment to the = religious=20 traditions of Sumer and Akkad. On account of his lengthy excavations in = search=20 of these written documents, Nabonidus has been nicknamed 'the royal=20 archaeologist', though neither his aims nor his methods had anything to = do with=20 archaeology. Nevertheless, the king certainly shared with his subjects = that=20 passion for the study of the past which characterizes his epoch" = (Ancient=20 Iraq, pp. 347-348). - LMG
3. Sidney Smith, Alalakh = and=20 Chronology (London, 1940), p. 2.
4. Ages in Chaos, = Chapters=20 6-8. [But cf. Peter J. James, "The Dating of the El-Amarna Letters", = SISR II:3,=20 pp. 80-85 and Martin Sieff, "The Two Jehorams", SISR II:3, pp. = 86-90=20 for different identifications which, nonetheless, also support a ninth = century=20 B.C. dating for the el-Amarna letters. - LMG]
5. F. Matz, = "The=20 Maturity of Minoan Civilization" in The Cambridge Ancient = History=20 (Third ed.), Vol. II, pt. 1 (1973), p. 144.
6. But cf. Smith, = Alalakh and=20 Chronology, n. 58.
7. Ibid., p. 16.
8. = Ibid., p.=20 3.
9. Ibid., p. 16.
10. Cf. A. Ungnad, "Die Venustafeln = und das=20 Neunte Jahr Samsuilunas", Mitt. altorient. Ges., XIII, Heft 3, = 1940. -=20 JNS; [However, G. Roux (Ancient Iraq, p. 397, n. 12) cites dates of = 1792-1750=20 B.C. for Hammurabi as put forward by S. Smith. And - following Smith - = Saggs,=20 Parrot, Frankfort, and Amiet accept 1792-1750 B.C. Following Albright, = Woolley=20 and Moortgat date Hammurabi to 1728-1686 B.C. As recently as 1964, = Strommenger=20 placed Hammurabi in the years 1930-1888 B.C. Aside from Velikovsky, the = most=20 drastic reduction of Hammurabi's dates was made by Donovan Courville. In = The=20 Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (Loma Linda, 1971), II, p. = 300,=20 Courville places the reign of Hammurabi in the period ca. 1411-1368 B.C. = (see=20 Chapter XVII, "The Era of Hammurabi"). This would make Hammurabi exactly = contemporaneous with Moses which raises some interesting questions, = though=20 beyond the scope of the present paper. - LMG]
11. Ages = in=20 Chaos, Chapter 2.
12. R. Weill, XIIe dynastie, = royauté de=20 Haute-Egypte et domination Hyksos dans le Nord (Cairo, = 1953).
13. Smith,=20 Alalakh and Chronology, op. cit.
14. H. R. Hall, "Egyptian=20 Chronology" in The Cambridge Ancient History (First ed.), Vol. = I, p.=20 170; J. H. Breasted, A History of Egypt (2nd ed.), p. 22. [Also = see=20 Peoples of the Sea, p. 231. - LMG]=20

\cdrom\pubs\journals\kronos\vol0801\078hammu.htm=20