Sunday, February 18, 2018

Chronologically ‘Landscaping’ King Nebuchednezzar’s “Hanging Gardens”



Image result for hanging gardens


 
by


Damien F. Mackey


 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those frequent TV documentaries about ancient cities and civilisations that promise to provide the key to hitherto unresolved mysteries can often turn out to be disappointing and even, in some cases, rather boring – these last best serving as a cure for insomnia.
Such was by no means the case, however, with Dr. Stephanie Dalley's TV doco, "Finding Babylon's Hanging Gardens", which wonderfully solved an age-old problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Synopsis of this highly absorbing program prepares us for what to expect from Dr. Dalley (http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/204433475546/finding-babylons-hanging-gardens):



A world wonder so elusive, most people have decided it must be mythical. Centuries of digging have turned up nothing. The problem is, everyone has been looking in the wrong place. This documentary will prove the Hanging Gardens of Babylon did exist. Based on the latest findings of leading Assyriologist Dr Stephanie Dalley, for the first time ever it pinpoints exactly where the Gardens were, what they looked like and how they were constructed. This investigation unfolds through over-looked clues in the British Museum, interrogation of established sources, new archaeological evidence in Northern Iraq and CGI reconstruction of the Gardens in their full glory. (From the UK). ….


 


A more complete account is given by C. Klein, referring to Dr. Dalley's book on the subject:



Hanging Gardens Existed, but not in Babylon



Mythology shrouds each of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, but none has been more mysterious than the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Archaeologists have never unearthed evidence of the soaring gardens, and scholars have questioned its very existence. Now, however, an Oxford University researcher says she knows why the Hanging Gardens of Babylon have proven so elusive. It's because they weren't in Babylon at all.


Greek and Roman texts paint vivid pictures of the luxurious Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Amid the hot, arid landscape of ancient Babylon, lush vegetation cascaded like waterfalls down the terraces of the 75-foot-high garden. Exotic plants, herbs and flowers dazzled the eyes, and fragrances wafted through the towering botanical oasis dotted with statues and tall stone columns.


Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II was said to have constructed the luxurious Hanging Gardens in the sixth century B.C. as a gift to his wife, Amytis, who was homesick for the beautiful vegetation and mountains of her native Media (the northwestern part of modern-day Iran). To make the desert bloom, a marvel of irrigation engineering would have been required. Scientists have surmised that a system of pumps, waterwheels and cisterns would have been employed to raise and deliver the water from the nearby Euphrates River to the top of the gardens.


The multiple Greek and Roman accounts of the Hanging Gardens, however, were second-hand–written centuries after the wonder's alleged destruction. First-hand accounts did not exist, and for centuries, archaeologists have hunted in vain for the remains of the gardens. A group of German archaeologists even spent two decades at the turn of the 20th century trying to unearth signs of the ancient wonder without any luck. The lack of any relics has caused skeptics to question whether the supposed desert wonder was just an "historical mirage."
However, Dr. Stephanie Dalley, an honorary research fellow and part of the Oriental Institute at England's Oxford University, believes she has found evidence of the existence of the legendary Wonder of the Ancient World. In her soon-to-be-released book "The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced," published by Oxford University Press, Dalley asserts that the reason why no traces of the Hanging Gardens have ever been found in Babylon is because they were never built there in the first place.


Dalley, who has spent the better part of two decades researching the Hanging Gardens and studying ancient cuneiform texts, believes they were constructed 300 miles to the north of Babylon in Nineveh, the capital of the rival Assyrian empire. She asserts the Assyrian king Sennacherib, not Nebuchadnezzar II, built the marvel in the early seventh century B.C., a century earlier than scholars had previously thought.
According to Oxford University, Dalley, who is a scholar in ancient Mesopotamian languages, found evidence in new translations of the ancient texts of King Sennacherib that describe his own "unrivaled palace" and a "wonder for all peoples." He also mentioned a bronze water-raising screw—similar to Archimedes' screw developed four centuries later—that could have been used to irrigate the gardens.


Recent excavations around Nineveh, near the modern-day Iraqi city of Mosul, have uncovered evidence of an extensive aqueduct system that delivered water from the mountains with the inscription: "Sennacherib king of the world…Over a great distance I had a watercourse directed to the environs of Nineveh." Bas reliefs from the royal palace in Nineveh depicted a lush garden watered by an aqueduct, and unlike the flat surroundings of Babylon, the more rugged topography around the Assyrian capital would have made the logistical challenges in elevating water to the gardens far easier for an ancient civilization to overcome.


Dalley explains that the reason for the confusion of the location of the gardens could be due to the Assyrian conquering of Babylon in 689 B.C. Following the takeover, Nineveh was referred to as the "New Babylon," and Sennacherib even renamed the city gates after those of Babylon's entrances. Dalley's assertions could debunk thoughts that the elusive ancient wonder was an "historical mirage," but they could also prove that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon are mislabeled and should truly be the Hanging Gardens of Nineveh.





But Why Did the Ancients Attribute the Famous Gardens to King Nebuchednezzar?


Were the Greeks and the Romans wrong about both the location of the Gardens and the name of the king who created them?


Whilst it appears from Dr. Stephanie Dalley's research that they did indeed get the location wrong, I do not believe that they were wrong in attributing this 'Wonder of the World' to a King Nebuchednezzar. For I, in my university thesis:



A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background



AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf



(Volume One, Chapter 7) argued that Sennacherib, as ruler of the Babylon which he had conquered, was actually called "Nebuchednezzar". That he was the Nebuchednezzar I of the so-called Middle Babylonian period, as opposed to the Nebuchednezzar II 'the Great' of a later era, to whose genius the Hanging Gardens of Babylon have traditionally been attributed. And I took this further in Volume Two of my thesis, centring upon the question of the historicity of the Book of Judith, where I identified the "Nebuchadnezzar who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh" (Judith 1:1) with Sennacherib (Nebuchednezzar I).


This radical revision involved a folding of C12th BC (conventional dating) Middle Assyro-Babylonian history with C8th BC neo-Assyro-Babylonian history, which also has some art-historical justification.


For a briefer account of all of this, see my:


 


Bringing New Order to Mesopotamian History and Chronology

https://www.academia.edu/8042890/Bringing_New_Order_to_Mesopotamian_History_and_Chronology




As I have shown in various articles, there are other phases of Assyro-Babylonian history, too, that require folding.



Concluding remark
 


Whilst the retrospective Greco-Romans were admittedly somewhat confused about the proper geography and chronology of the famous "Hanging Gardens", they had apparently discerned quite correctly that these were the grand achievement of a king named "Nebuchednezzar", who had ruled the city of Babylon.




Part Two: Name Confusions


 


“Several confusions have been identified. It would be satisfactory if we could account for them, to strengthen yet further the argument that the Hanging Garden was built by Sennacherib in Nineveh rather than by Nebuchadnezzar or Semiramis in Babylon”.


 


What a terrific book! I read it in one go.


I am referring to Stephanie Dalley’s The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced (OUP, 2013). Apart from her unscrambling of the Classical texts on the subject of the Seven Wonders of the World, and being able to conclude that it was not Nebuchednezzar II the Chaldean, but rather the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who created the ‘hanging’ gardens that became so famed in antiquity, Dalley provides an abundance of important information on Assyro-Babylonian technology, art and architecture.


Despite the necessary technicalities, this book, written by a most disciplined researcher - “a world expert on ancient Babylonian language” - is easy to read and enjoyable.


In Chapter 6, “Confusion of Names”, Dalley makes this important point (p. 107):


 


Several confusions have been identified. It would be satisfactory if we could account for them, to strengthen yet further the argument that the Hanging Garden was built by Sennacherib in Nineveh rather than by Nebuchadnezzar or Semiramis in Babylon. Four distinct pairs of names are relevant for tracing the story of the legendary garden: ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ named for Sennacherib, the city name ‘Babylon’ used for Nineveh, the river ‘Euphrates’ named instead of the Tigris, and ‘Semiramis’ confused with other queens and with ‘Nitocris”. For each of them an explanation can be given.


 


[End of quote]


 


When reading Dalley’s account here of name confusion, I was immediately reminded of the situation right at the beginning of the Book of Judith, about which I have written much. And, indeed, the point has not been missed on Dalley either. For she writes on the next page (p. 108), referring to Judith as a “late” text (but I would prefer to say a late copy of the original):


 


Sennacherib was evidently confused with Nebuchadnezzar in several late texts. In the opening words of the Book of Judith the two kings are confused: ‘It was the twelfth year of Nebuchadnezzar who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh’. When Josephus named Nebuchadnezzar as builder of the garden, both he and his readers would have been confused between Nineveh and Babylon, and between Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, because at the time they were reading his account, the Book of Judith was already in circulation.  


[End of quote]


 


For my own reconstruction of the Book of Judith’s magnificent drama as belonging entirely to the C8th BC time of Sennacherib of Nineveh, and not to the C6th BC Nebuchednezzar II of Babylon, see e.g. my articles:


 


Book of Judith Suggests Sargon as Sennacherib


 


 


and


 


“Nadin went into everlasting darkness”
 




 


 


Continuing with Stephanie Dalley’s intriguing and helpful Chapter 6, “Confusion of Names” (The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced (p. 120):


 


An accretion of legends is attached to the name ‘Semiramis’ in Greek texts, and the use of the name for more than one woman can be explained through that concept. She was variously credited with leading campaigns with her husband ‘Ninus’, and with building works in Babylon, among them the famous Hanging Garden: Diodorus Siculus wrote that she founded a large city in Babylonia on the Euphrates including the temple of the Babylonian Zeus and the Hanging Garden (he does not actually name the city), and Quintus Curtius Rufus wrote that Semiramis, not Bel, founded Babylon.


[End of quote]


Monday, January 29, 2018

Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids!


Image result for elamites

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

But, more strikingly, I draw attention to the succession of Shutrukid rulers of Elam of the era of Merodach-baladan I who can be equated, as a full succession, with those of the era of Merodach-baladan II.

 

 

 

A crucial part of my revision of ancient history, of shortening it significantly so as to eliminate those unwanted ‘Dark Ages’, has been my folding of the C12th BC into the C8th BC – a logical consequence, I would think, of Dr. I. Velikovsky’s earlier folding of the C14th BC (El Amarna) into the C9th BC.

And it appears to have art-historical support. For previously I had written on this:   

 

Art, Architecture and Other Overlaps

 

Revisionist scholars have argued for an overlap of the art and architecture of both (supposedly) historical periods in question here – but eras that I am suggesting need to be fused into one. The likes of professor Lewis M. Greenberg (“The Lion Gate at Mycenae”, Pensée, IVR III, 1973, p. 28); Peter James (Centuries of Darkness, p. 273); Emmet Sweeney (Ramessides, Medes and Persians, p. 24), and others, have all come to light with art-historical observations of striking likenesses between art works of the 13th-12th centuries BC, on the one hand, and the 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture, on the other. I, in my postgraduate university thesis,

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 


 

quoting P. James, wrote as follows about this art-historical overlap (Volume 1, Ch. 7, p. 181):

 

I should like to recall that my revision of this actual period of Mesopotamian history may have some degree of art-historical support; for, as already noted in Chapter 3 (p. 81), James claims to have found artistic likenesses between the C13th-12th’s BC and the neo-Assyrian period  – though admittedly the data is scarce [Centuries of Darkness, p. 273]: ….

 

Developments in art are also difficult to trace. Not only is there a dearth of material, but styles on either side of the gulf between the 12th and 10th centuries BC are curiously similar. One scholar noted that the forms and decoration of the intricately carved Assyrian seals of the 12th century are ‘clearly late’, as they ‘point the way to the ornate figures which line the walls of the Neo-Assyrian palace of Assurnasirpal [mid-9th century BC]’. The sculptors employed by this king, in the words of another expert on Assyrian art, ‘worked within a tradition that went back to the thirteenth century BC’. Not surprisingly, then, the dating of the few sculptures which might belong to this grey period has been hotly debated.

[End of quote]

 

The most remarkable evidence for the need of such a C12th BC into C8th BC folding are the Elamite kings, a succession of three of whom in the C12th BC appear to re-emerge, again in succession, in the C8th BC.

This sort of strange ‘afterglow’ is commonly encountered in history, but is simply accepted as a coincidence by the conventionalists.

 

This is what I wrote on the Elamite kings:

 

The Elamite/Shutrukids

 

In 1985, Lester Mitcham had attempted to identify the point of fold in the Assyrian King List [AKL], necessary for accommodating the downward revision of ancient history. (“A New Interpretation of the Assyrian King List”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of C and AH, pp. 51-56). He looked to bridge a gap of 170 years by bringing the formerly C12th BC Assyrian king,  Ninurta-apil-Ekur, to within closer range of his known C14th BC ancestor, Eriba-Adad I. In the same publication, Dean Hickman had argued even more radically for a lowering, by virtually a millennium, of formerly C19th BC king Shamsi-Adad I, now to be recognised as the biblical king, Hadadezer, a Syrian foe of king David of Israel. (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, pp. 13-28). And I myself have accepted this adjustment in:

 

Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon

 


 

Prior to all that, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had of course urged for a folding of the C14th BC Kassite king {and el-Amarna correspondent}, Burnaburiash II, with the C9th BC Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, who had conquered Babylon. (Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, 1952).

And there have been other attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history and chronology; for example, Phillip Clapham‟s attempt to identify the C13th Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib. (“Hittites and Phrygians”, C and AH, Vol. IV, pt. 2, July, 1982, p. 111). Clapham soon realised that, despite some initially  promising similarities, these two kings could not realistically be merged. (ibid., Addenda, p. 113). Whilst all of these attempts have some merit, other efforts were doomed right from the start because they infringed against established archaeological sequences. Thus Mitcham, again, exposed Sweeney’s defence of Professor Heinsohn’s radical revision, because of its blatant disregard, in part, for archaeological fact. (“Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced”, C and CW, 1988, 1, pp. 7-12).

Here I want briefly to propose what I think can be a most compelling fold; one that

 

(a) does not infringe against archaeology, and that

(b) harmonises approximately with previous art-historical observations of likenesses  between 13th-12th centuries BC and 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture. And it also has the advantage – unlike Mitcham’s and Clapham’s efforts – of

(c) folding kings with the same name.

 

I begin by connecting Merodach-baladan I and II (also equated by Heinsohn – as noted by Mitcham, op. cit.), each of 12-13 years of reign, about whose kudurrus Brinkman remarked (op. cit., p. 87, footnote 456):

 

Four kudurrus …, taken together with evidence of his building activity in Borsippa … show Merodach-baladan I still master in his own domain. The bricks recording the  building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk …, assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum‟s A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities … cannot now be readily located in the Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 …).

[End of quote]

 

My proposal here involves a C12th to C8th BC fold.

 

Image result

 

But, more strikingly, I draw attention to the succession of Shutrukid rulers of Elam of the era of Merodach-baladan I who can be equated, as a full succession, with those of the era of Merodach-baladan II. Compare:

 

 

 

C12th BC
 
C8th BC
Shutruk-Nahhunte
Shutur-Nakhkhunte
 
Kudur-Nahhunte
 
Kutir-Nakhkhunte
 
Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak)
 
‘Hallushu’ (or Halutush-Inshushinak).
 

 

This is already far too striking, I think, to be accidental. And it, coupled with the Merodach-baladan pairing, may offer far more obvious promise than have previous efforts of revision. ….

 

New evidence might even suggest that the C8th BC Shutur-Nakhkhunte, whom I have coupled with the C12th BC, Shutruk-Nahhunte, might better be named also as Shutruk-Nahhunte. This would, then, further strengthen my comparisons.


 

….

In 710 (year 12), the king of Elam came to the aid of the king of Babylonia, Merodach-baladan. There is a problem concerning his name in the Annals: he is named Humban-nikash on one occasion and Shuturnahhunte on several others. …. There are some contradictions between the Assyrian and Neo-Elamite inscriptions concerning this period, in particular the confusion between Shutur-nahhunte and Shutruk-nahhunte. …. The chronology concerning the Sargon period is now well-established: Humban-nikash I (743–717) and his successor Shutruk-nahhunte II (717–699), wrongly named Shutur-nahhunte in the Assyrian texts; Shutur-nahhunte reigned ca. 645–620. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, “Shutruknahhunte (II), his sister’s son (of Humban-nikash) ascended the throne in Elam.”97 Consequently, the name of Humban-nikash in the Annals for 710 (year 12) was a scribal error because this king had died in 717.

The sources for the reign of Shutruk-nahhunte II are the Neo-Elamite inscriptions and the Assyrian and Babylonian records, all of which differ on some points. In his own inscriptions, the Elamite king reported that he led successful campaigns to enlarge his territory, endowed temples, and set up stelae for the gods. According to the Assyrian sources, the allies of Merodach-baladan and Shutruk-nahhunte were first defeated. ….