439-420BC in the Near East

Probable tomb of Artaxerxes I from Naqsh-i-Rustam

This blog will try and look at the Near East for the years 439-420BC, which during this period was mainly included in the Persian Empire. From the Persian period onwards, the historical sources become quite scant and we are quite heavily reliant on the writings of the Greeks, such as Thucydides, Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus.

Occasional snippets of information may come from the Hebrew biblical writings, or sacred traditions, but these will generally only concern affairs in Judea or those pertaining specifically to Jewish history. It is not that there is nothing to say for this period, but the history is now mainly written by the Greeks. So if most of what I have to say concerns the Greeks, we should remember it is because they are writing the history, not because nothing else was happening in the Persian Empire. For any events that deal with the Greeks, I will only write of them briefly as they are dealt with in greater detail in previous blogs, which will be listed at the end.

During this period Artaxerxes I was ruling as Great King of Persia. A peace had been negotiated between the Athenians and the Persians, which was possibly formalised in a treaty known as the Peace of Callias. Persia was still the largest empire in the world, stretching from the Indus River in the east, to the lands of Cyrene in the west and containing the ancient lands of Babylonia and Egypt. It was incredibly wealthy and could put larger armies in the field than any other kingdom. However, the increasing professionalism of armies in Greece, China and India meant that these vast armies may not have been the most effective in the world at that time. Still, Persia was the single most important empire in the world at this time.

In the year 439, the Samian rebellion against Athens failed. In the previous year, a Persian satrap in Asia Minor had given support to the islanders of Samos in their revolt against the Athenian Empire. Technically the Persian Empire was at peace with the Athenian Empire, but the satraps of Persia had a great deal of flexibility in their foreign affairs and the Persians could always claim that the satrap Pissuthnes was acting independently. Perhaps he was acting in his own capacity. Regardless of whether he acted on his own, or on the commands of Artaxerxes I, the revolt failed in this year. The Athenians were too preoccupied with the danger from Sparta to be interested in pursuing a quarrel with the Great King and thus peace reigned between Athens and Persia once more.

Not much can be said, to my knowledge, for the years 438, 437 and 436. Presumably things happened, but sadly I am not aware of them.

Cylinder of Talakhamani from Kush

Around the year 435 Malewiebamani the King of Kush who ruled in Meroe, died. He was succeeded by Talakhamani who was possibly his son, or perhaps a younger brother. Little is known about either of these kings save their names and places of burial. It is a sad fact that for now, the kings of Kush are little known, despite their known wealth. Malewiebamani was buried in the royal cemetery at Nuri.

Not much can be said, to my knowledge, for the year 434. Presumably things happened, but sadly I am not aware of them.

In the year 433 Nehemiah returned to Susa to serve King Artaxerxes I again. He was the personal cupbearer to the king, a position of considerable influence. However, he had been allowed to go to his homeland and served as governor of the small Persian province of Yehud Medinata, containing the city of Jerusalem and the rebuilt Temple of the Jews. His going was contingent on his returning at some point in the future, so in this year Nehemiah returned to resume his duties as cupbearer to the King.

It is possibly around this time that the book of Malachi is to be dated. This was a book containing prophecies. It called upon the returned exiles in Yehud to be more faithful in the fulfilment of their religious duties and noted the poverty that was creeping over the land as the result of the neglect of these duties. It is perhaps the last of the books of prophecy in the writings referred to as the Old Testament.

"I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty.
Malachi 3:6-7, written perhaps circa 433BC

Not much can be said, to my knowledge, for the year 432. Presumably things happened, but sadly I am not aware of them.

Kushite pyramids at Nuri

In the year 431 Talakhamani, the King of Kush who ruled in Meroe, died and was buried in Tomb 16 in the Kushite royal cemetery at Nuri. He was succeeded by his brother, or possibly nephew, Amanineteyerike.

Also in this year, the Great Peloponnesian War broke out between Athens and Sparta. This did not immediately affect the Persian Empire in the short term, but it meant that the two strongest Greek states no longer had an interest in fighting the Persians and gave the Persian Empire a measure of security.

Around the year 430, although the dates are open to interpretation, Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem from the court of the King of Persia. He was probably sent out to become governor again. It is not clear who was the governor in Jerusalem for the province of Yehud in his absence. The High Priest Eliashib probably had had some important role in the administration. The High Priest Eliashib had family ties with Tobiah the Ammonite, who together with Sanballat the Horonite, was an enemy of Nehemiah. Sanballat, Tobiah and possibly Geshem the Arabian, were governors of the small regional units bordering the province of Yehud. In the Persian Empire governors were afforded considerable freedom, which could extend to fighting wars among themselves, as long they took care to not harm the interests of the king.

Upon Nehemiah's return he found that Tobiah had been granted store rooms on the grounds of the temple. Nehemiah ordered these rooms emptied and purified, before reassigning them to their proper purpose. He also prohibited the traders from entering Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, as well as once more prohibiting the intermarriage of the Jews and their surrounding neighbours. This brought him once more into conflict with the high priestly family, which had marriage ties with Sanballat the Horonite. The account of the book of Nehemiah ends here.

Detail from the Lycian sarcophagus

Sometime later I asked his permission and came back to Jerusalem. Here I learned about the evil thing Eliashib had done in providing Tobiah a room in the courts of the house of God. I was greatly displeased and threw all Tobiah's household goods out of the room. I gave orders to purify the rooms, and then I put back into them the equipment of the house of God, with the grain offerings and the incense.
Nehemiah 13:6-7, probably written no earlier than 420BC

Not much can be said, to my knowledge, for the years 429, 428, 427 and 426. Presumably things happened, but sadly I am not aware of them.

In the year 425 the Spartans, who were faring badly in the Peloponnesian War, were sending emissaries to Persia, some of whom requested aid in various forms, but none of whom agreed with each other. Artaxerxes I sent an emissary to Sparta requesting that Sparta send one group of ambassadors who could speak for Sparta, as the current situation was too confusing. This Persian emissary was captured by the Athenians at Eion and detained. He was taken to Athens, where his cuneiform dispatches were translated and read by the Athenians. This would have let the Athenians know that the power of Persia might soon be ranged against them. Not wanting to allow the emissary to reach Sparta, but not wanting to arouse the anger of the King, the Athenians put the emissary on a ship and sent him to Ephesus, from which he could easily reach Persian territory.

The incident is a fascinating one, as it gives an insight into ancient diplomacy, but also shows that there were at least some people in Athens who were able to read cuneiform (which was probably written in the Akkadian language, but possibly Old Persian). This means that it would have been possible for Babylonian mathematical and astronomical documents to be read and understood by at least some people in Athens, and this may help explain the diffusion of knowledge in these matters that had been happening in the Greek world.

Lycian sarcophagus

During the winter ensuing, Aristides, son of Archippus, one of the commanders of the Athenian ships sent to collect money from the allies, arrested at Eion, on the Strymon, Artaphernes, a Persian, on his way from the King to Lacedaemon. He was conducted to Athens, where the Athenians got his dispatches translated from the Assyrian character and read them. With numerous references to other subjects, they in substance told the Lacedaemonians that the King did not know what they wanted, as of the many ambassadors they had sent him no two ever told the same story; if however they were prepared to speak plainly they might send him some envoys with this Persian. The Athenians afterwards sent back Artaphernes in a galley to Ephesus, and ambassadors with him, who heard there of the death of King Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, which took place about that time, and so returned home. 
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 4, written circa 400BC

Around this time, in Sidon, a beautiful sarcophagus, carved in the Greek style by Ionian artists was made. It is known as the Lycian sarcophagus of Sidon, as the style of the tomb is done in such a way that it matches the Lycian tombs in Asia Minor. The Phoenician kings seem to have developed an interest in elaborate sarcophagi, with each king wanting a more elaborate tomb than the previous. The Lycian sarcophagus is decorated with Greek mythological motifs, such as the battle between the Lapiths and Centaurs, however more generic scenes such as lion-hunting are also shown. Whereas previous Sidonian kings had taken Egyptian sarcophagi, the new generation were quite interested in copying Greek culture.

Probable tomb of Artaxerxes I at
Naqsh-i-Rustam

In the year 424 Artaxerxes I, known as Artaxerxes the Long-Handed, died, probably in or around the months of November or December. According to Ctesias, his wife Damaspia also died the same day, although he does not say why. Ctesias then says that his son took the throne under the name of Xerxes II. Xerxes II ruled for 45 days and then was murdered by his half-brother Sogdianus while Xerxes II lay in a drunken stupor. Ctesias then reports that Sogdianus took over the empire and ruled for about a year, before he was killed by his brother, who reigned as Darius II.

Now, Ctesias is well-known for being an unreliable narrator and his confounded history is one of the most infuriating pieces of historical writing to emerge from the classical world. Worse, he was supposedly a physician at the court of the king of Persia, not that long after these events took place, so he absolutely should have known the correct story. Yet, the story that is given here appears to be incorrect. There are Babylonian tablets that mention Darius II reigning within about a month after the death of Artaxerxes I, which does not leave enough time for the two kings that Ctesias mentions.

What is most likely to have happened is that there was a civil war upon the death of Artaxerxes I and that Xerxes I took over the palace, before being killed by his rival Sogdianus who was based nearby in Elam. Finally Sogdianus was defeated and killed by Darius II who probably had his powerbase in Babylonia. Thus this would explain the three kings of Ctesias and the Babylonian documents. This is speculation of course. It is entirely possible that Ctesias is just wrong.

It is likely that Amestris died in or around this time, although it is not clear that it had anything to do with the civil war. Artaxerxes I was probably buried in a rock-cut tomb in the Achaemenid cemetery at Naqsh-i-Rustam. His name is not inscribed upon the tomb, so the identification is uncertain, but probable. The tomb is decorated with a relief of the king, holding a bow and saluting Ahura Mazda, while the subject peoples of the empire are arranged below, upholding the platform.

Relief from Tomb of Artaxerxes I showing the
nations of the empire

In the year 423 Sogdianus was killed and Darius II became the undisputed king of Persia. It is possible either that Darius II revolted against Sogdianus, or, more likely, that the two half-brothers had been at war from the year before, following the death of their father Artaxerxes I.

Secydianus, then summoned Ochus to court, who promised to present himself but failed to do so. After he had been summoned several times, he collected a large force with the obvious intention of seizing the throne. He was joined by Arbarius, commander of the cavalry, and Arxanes, satrap of Egypt. The eunuch Artoxares also came from Armenia and placed the crown on the head of Ochus against his will. Thus Ochus became king and changed his name to Dariaeus. At the suggestion of Parysatis, he endeavoured by trickery and solemn promises to win over Secydianus. Menostanes did all he could to prevent Secydianus from putting faith in these promises or coming to terms with those who were trying to deceive him. In spite of this Secydianus allowed himself to be persuaded, was arrested, thrown into the ashes, and died, after a reign of six months and fifteen days. 
Ctesias, Persica, written circa 398BC

Not much can be said, to my knowledge, for the years 422 and 421. Presumably things happened, but sadly I am not aware of them.

A much later (medieval) scroll of the book of Esther

Around the year 420, although the dates are very inexact, the sacred writings of the Jews began to be collected and others were written. It is likely that the books of Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles were written in something resembling their current form at around this time.

There may have been a few additional decades of rearrangement of materials. For example Nehemiah 12:10-11 seems to have been a later interpolation giving the family tree of the High Priests down to around the year 350. But the majority of the book of Nehemiah itself almost certainly predates this and was probably written in or around this time period. Esther would later have Greek interpolations added to it, perhaps as late as the 2nd or 1st century BC, but these are clearly late additions and done in a completely separate language. I would not get too concerned over the exact dating of these books, but it is important to note that this is the probable time of their composition.

One of the sons of Joiada son of Eliashib the high priest was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite. And I drove him away from me. Remember them, my God, because they defiled the priestly office and the covenant of the priesthood and of the Levites. So I purified the priests and the Levites of everything foreign, and assigned duties to them, each to his own task. I also made provision for contributions of wood at designated times, and for the first fruits. Remember me with favour, my God.
Nehemiah 13:28-31, probably written no earlier than 420BC

It seems strange to have so little to write about the largest empire in the world for a span of two decades. Aside from the deaths and wars of kings and states on their borders, or tombs of their subject kings, or the affairs of the tiny province of Yehud, there is almost nothing to report, save that at the beginning of the period Artaxerxes I was ruling and that at the end of the period, Darius II was ruling. It is a terrible thing that there are such gaps in our knowledge, but this is the state of affairs. I will continue the story in the next blog.

Detail from the Lycian Sarcophagus

Primary Sources
Elephantine Papyri, written between circa 459-402BC
Book of Malachi, written perhaps circa 433BC
Book of Esther, written possibly as early as 420BC
Ezra, probably written no earlier than 420BC
Nehemiah, probably written no earlier than 420BC
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, written circa 400BC
Ctesias, Persica, written circa 398BC
The Parian Chronicle, written circa 216BC
Apocrypha 1 Esdras (2 Esdras in Slavonic, 3 Esdras in Appendix to Vulgate), written circa 170BC
2 Esdras (3 Esdras in Slavonic, 4 Esdras in Appendix to Vulgate: Composite work comprising 5 Ezra [chs 1-2], 4 Ezra [3-14], 6 Ezra [chs 15-16]). All three works were composed by circa AD250, but may only have been combined as late as AD800
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, written circa 40BC
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, written circa AD93
Sukkah, written perhaps circa AD230

Secondary Sources
Clarification page on books called Ezra/Esdras

Related Blog Posts:
459-440BC in the Near East
439-430BC in Greece
429-420BC in Greece
439-420BC in Rome
419-400BC in the Near East

The 10th Century BC

Carved relief from Carchemish

In two previous posts I have discussed the aftermath of the Bronze Age Collapse in Greece, Anatolia, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Elam and the Levant. In this post I will attempt to give a brief picture of the century that followed. We must remember that for this period, as for much of antiquity, we are dealing with an era that is scant in historical sources. Even the literate civilisations of antiquity leave few records for this period. Consequently our conceptions for this period are based upon a few remnants of records made at the time and scholarly reconstructions based upon archaeology and literary texts that have unknown transmission histories. In short, we can discuss this period of Near Eastern history with some confidence, but not much. New discoveries might radically change our conceptions and we must be careful not to speak too dogmatically.

For some translations I have used the excellent reshafim.org site and a site that deals with biblical history and archaeology (http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.ie). I have enjoyed reading both of these immensely so do check them out if you want further information. Translations of Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles are taken from Livius.org.

In Greece there is not much that can be said for this century. Small settlements such as the one at Lefkandi are in evidence, but there are no writings or significant archaeological finds that shed much light on the period. In Anatolia, the void caused by the collapse of the Hittite kingdom seems to have been partially filled by the Phrygians. This people was possibly originally from Europe and were situated further to the west than Hattusa (the old capital of the Hittite Empire). Later, the Assyrians would record a powerful kingdom in the region called Mushki; that might have been the same as the Phrygian kingdom, however, during the tenth century there is little evidence of this people.

(This is the) temple which Yehimilk king of Byblos rebuilt. He restored all the ruins of these temples. May Ba’al-shamem and Ba’alat of Byblos and the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos prolong the days of Yehimilk and his years over Byblos. For [he is] a legitimate king and a good king before the h[oly] gods of Byblos.
Yehimilk Inscription from the city of Byblos

Statue of Baal
with thunderbolt and mace,
treading on hills and sea.
Stele is from Ugarit
in an earlier period

Moving south through Syria and the Levant we see the Neo-Hittite states of Que and Carchemish surviving in Cilicia and on the banks of the Euphrates River. Further to the south, on the Abana River, the Arameans had taken the city of Damascus, which had been fairly unimportant up to this point. A strong kingdom was founded here and other Aramean states were founded in Hamath and a host of smaller cities in what is now Syria. In modern-day Lebanon, Phoenician cities flourished, most notably Byblos, Tyre and Sidon. These had always been coastal cities with a tradition of shipbuilding, but now that they were no longer part of imperial trade networks they became wealthy through trading in their own right. A resurgence of Egyptian power assisted in this. Egypt was no longer strong enough to  dominate the region, but wealthy enough to trade with.

History becomes a little problematic south of Phoenicia and Damascus at this period. We are in the possession of texts (the Tanakh/Old Testament of the Bible) that is said to have been written in, or at least to describe, the region in this period. As this section of the Bible is important (and canonical) to Judaism and Christianity and of interest to Islam, it is no surprise that this is a contentious and controversial source for historians. Discussions of the general historicity of the Old Testament are out of the scope of this blog. However, the broad picture given is not incompatible with the other sources for the period (even if only because these sources are largely lacking) so I will describe the picture given. The reader must bear in mind however that these texts have been transmitted rather than directly discovered like the cuneiform records of Hammurabi for example.

Reproduction of the Gezer Calendar

It’s (two) months of harvest.
It’s (two) months of sowing.
It’s (two) months of late growth.
It’s month of cutting flax
It’s month of barley harvest.
It’s month of harvest and measuring.
It’s (two) months of pruning.
It’s month of summer (fruit).
Abiyah

The Gezer Calendar; a Hebrew agricultural calendar, written using Phoenician script from the 10th Century. Abiyah is probably the name of the scribe who wrote the piece.

The Israelites around the time of the 1000’sBC were a series of loosely united tribes, sharing a common language and broadly similar religious conceptions, which at times at least, were quite similar to their neighbours. Like most tribes and cities in the region they fought intermittently, both with their neighbours and among themselves. There was probably a move towards appointing rulers around the late 1000’s. It is unclear just how much this actually amounted to. The preceding period had seen leaders arise who had been given military commands, but who had no lasting power. These were known as judges in the Old Testament sources.

The first king of Israel does not appear to have had a fixed capital and the armies that he commanded were lightly armed tribal levies at best. The first dynasty did not last and another leader united the tribes after some conflict before briefly establishing military hegemony in the region. This was followed by a period of relative peace before the military hegemony collapsed and the tribal kingdom split apart, with the tribe of Judah forming the core of a small southern kingdom and the tribe of Ephraim forming the core of a larger northern kingdom.

The northern kingdom might have conquered the southern kingdom, but around this time Egyptian power became strong enough to launch campaigns in Syro-Palestine again and around the time of the split we know that the Egyptians raided the territory of the northern kingdom. Many archaeologists question whether the united Israelite kingdom ever existed and point out that there is little evidence for much activity in the region in this period, particularly in the south. I think that the version of events described in the Old Testament sources is plausible. There are some circumstantial indications that the two kingdoms were once a single entity. Firstly, each kingdom of the region seems to have had its national god, even if the religious beliefs of the separate states were identical. Thus the Assyrians worshipped Ashur as their god while the Babylonians worshipped Marduk. However, there is no record of the phrase “God of Judah” in the Bible (the phrase “God of Israel” is used a lot), suggesting that the same state god might imply, at one point, that both kingdoms were part of the same state.

When all Israel saw that the king refused to listen to them, they answered the king:
“What share do we have in David, what part in Jesse’s son? To your tents, Israel! Look after your own house, David!”
So the Israelites went home. But as for the Israelites who were living in the towns of Judah, Rehoboam still ruled over them.
1 Kings 12:16-17 describing the breakup of the united Israelite Kingdom

Baal, a Canaanite god,
sometimes worshipped by the Israelites

The kinglists given for the northern kingdom of Israel show a high turnover of dynasties and kings, with two different capitals and nine dynasties out of nineteen kings (including one king who only ruled for nine days). In contrast the southern kingdom is portrayed as being rather more stable, with a single dynasty ruling from one capital with only one interruption. This would seem to indicate a greater legitimacy of kingship in the south (which would make sense if the north was a breakaway state). However, the records consistently favour the southern Kingdom of Judah so this point is of debatable merit. The main circumstantial evidence is that Jerusalem (the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah) is located very close to the border of the powerful northern kingdom. This choice of capitals makes little sense if the kingdom of Judah arose later in the shadow of the northern kingdom, but does make sense if the two kingdoms were once united (as the capital is close to both Judah and Israel).

All of this is of course speculation. Until more writings are discovered it is impossible to do more than speculate. The kingdom of Hamath is known to have had close dealings with the kings of this region so if this is ever properly excavated it may well shed light on this period (it is unlikely as the city is currently a major battleground in the Syrian Civil War). In short, the transmitted sources tell us that there was a united monarchy that subsequently broke into two kingdoms; Israel in the north and Judah in the south at this time. Other historical sources do not confirm or disconfirm this. In the 800’s BC we see other sources that shed light on this region.

The Old Testament also mentions kingdoms to the east and south of Israel and Judah (Ammon, Moab and Edom). These kingdoms are also not substantiated by significant archaeological evidence at this time, but later emerge in history in the next century and beyond. They are recorded as being slightly weaker than the two Israelite kingdoms and sometimes as tributary kingdoms, but they are also recorded as being able to inflict defeats upon the two Israelite kingdoms when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah became weaker.

Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plow points, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened.
1 Samuel 13:19-20 (referring to the time around 1050BC when the Philistines were much stronger than the Israelites)

Along the coast of the Mediterranean, to the west of Judah, five cities of the Philistines are recorded (Gath, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron and Ashdod). These cities were in a loose alliance and were powerful enemies of the Israelites. However, their hold on the Israelite kingdoms seems to have diminished during this period and whenever the Israelite kingdoms were strong, the Philistine cities may have paid tribute. They controlled the coastal routes from Egypt towards Phoenicia while the kingdom of Judah was confined to the hill country in the interior. The Philistines are often equated with the Peleset, a tribe of Sea Peoples mentioned by Ramesses III, and they may have been invaders to the region during the time of the Bronze Age Collapse.

Most of the information about the region in this period is taken from the Old Testament and this is a contentious source. While religious factors do determine what, if any, weight is to be given to this source, I also find that the various disciplines of history affect how people interpret this source. I have a background in classics, which has a substantial, but limited, corpus of written sources. The writings are treated with suspicion, but each document is treated as having some intrinsic merit unless there is a good reason to suspect otherwise. In other words, the records are treated as hypothetically innocent until proven guilty. Those who come from other disciplines, such as archaeology, may discount later writings about a period and focus entirely on the material evidence. These differing approaches explain a lot of the disagreements about the history of the region.

Detail from the sarcophagus of Ahiram, a ruler of Byblos

I found him sitting in his upper chamber, leaning his back against a window, while the waves of the great Syrian sea beat against the [] behind him.
 ...
Then I was silent in this great hour. He answered and said to me: "On what business hast thou come hither?"
I said to him: "I have come after the timber for the great and august barge of Amon-Re, king of gods. Thy father did it, thy grandfather did it, and thou wilt also do it." So spake I to him.
He said to me: "They did it, truly. If thou give me (something) for doing it, I will do it. Indeed, my agents transacted the business; the Pharaoh, [], sent six ships, laden with the products of Egypt, and they were unloaded into their storehouses. And thou also shall bring something for me."
...
(King of Byblos speaking)
"As for me, I am myself neither thy servant nor am I the servant of him that sent thee. If I cry out to the Lebanon, the heavens open, and the logs lie here on the shore of the sea."
Report of Wenamun: A fictionalised account of a journey by an Egyptian official to Byblos to buy timber, where the official is treated with disdain by the Phoenician king. Despite the fictionalised narrative it can be viewed as illustrative of the diminished power of Egypt.

In Egypt the Pharaohs of the 21st Dynasty continued their tenuous rule of the country. Libyan tribes continued to infiltrate the country causing instability. However, this migration may not have been an invasion in the strictest sense. Many of the tribal chieftains acknowledged the Pharaoh and at least some of them married into the royal family. Psusennes I was succeeded by Amenemope, who was succeeded by Osorkon the Elder (who is not accorded a regnal number), who was succeeded by Siamun. If the account of the alliance between Solomon of Israel and Egypt is true it is likely that Siamun was the Pharaoh who attacked Gezer as part of this alliance. There are no sources to confirm this however. Siamun was succeeded by Psusennes II who left very little evidence of his reign. After his death around 943 BC he was succeeded by Shoshenq I.

The Bubastite Portal of Shoshenq I in Karnak

... Said his majesty to the court: " ... the evil things which they have done." Said they: "... his horses after him, while they knew (it) not. Lo ... His majesty made a great slaughter among them ... he ... ed them upon the [dyke] of the shore of Kemwer.
Karnak inscription describing the campaigns of Shoshenq I in Palestine


Shoshenq was a Libyan but he was related by marriage to the previous dynasty. He limited the power of the High Priests of Amun by making the position dependent on the Pharaoh, appointing the High Priests instead of allowing hereditary dynasties of priests. With Egypt now stabilised both from internal power struggles and from Libyan pressure, Shoshenq was free to concentrate on external conquests. He attacked Palestine in the first definitively recorded Egyptian expedition in over a century. This campaign is recorded on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak. Many of the place names mentioned in the inscriptions would be familiar to readers of the Old Testament with a number of towns and cities between Ezion-Geber and Megiddo being mentioned.

In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. He carried off the treasures of the temple of the LORD and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made.
I Kings 14:23-24

Detail from the Bubastite Portal
showing the defeated peoples of Canaan

This campaign is often connected with the account of the Shishak in 1 Kings 14, however many do not accept this identification. Ancient Hebrew only really recorded consonants so the names of the kings (Shoshenq/k=Shishak) match quite neatly, however the Bubastite Portal does not mention an attack on Jerusalem, or in fact mention Jerusalem or either of the Israelite kingdoms in the description of the campaign. It is hard to know how much to read into this, as the events in 1 Kings may recount Rehoboam’s subjection to Shoshenq and huge tribute may have been a way of buying off the Pharaoh (or asking him to attack the Northern Kingdom of Israel). The Bubastite Portal appears to be both incomplete and damaged as well so it is possible that references to these events simply do not survive. The information on it appears to have been given in formulas as well, with armies of the Mitanni being mentioned despite the fact that the Mitanni Empire had vanished centuries before. In any case, despite what the first Indiana Jones movie may have implied, there is no evidence that the Ark of the Covenant was captured and taken to the city of Tanis, so there may yet be redemption for Shoshenq.

Shoshenq I was succeeded by Osorkon I who left behind little evidence of his reign. There is no evidence that he campaigned extensively in Syro-Palestine. Egypt had recovered and was once again able to exert pressure outside its borders, but it was not to reach the Euphrates again until the 600’s BC.

At the time of Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, Šamaš-muddamiq, king of Karduniaš (Babylon), drew up a battle array at the foot of Mount Yalman and Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, brought about the defeat of Šamaš-muddamiq, king of Karduniaš, and conquered him.
His chariots, and teams of horses, he took away from him.
Šamaš-muddamiq, king of Karduniaš, passed away.
Nabû-šuma-iškun, son of [Šamaš-muddamiq, ascended his father's throne?]. Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, fought with Nabû-šuma-iškun king of Karduniaš, and defeated him.
Synchronistic Chronicle describing the wars between Adad-Nirari II of Assyria and Babylonian kings. The Synchronistic Chronicle is heavily biased towards the Assyrians.

In Assyria, Ashur-Rabi II held the throne. He was succeeded by Ashur-Resh-Ishi II, Tiglath-Pileser II and Ashur-Dan II. All of these monarchs are fairly unknown to history. There is little that can be said about these kings, however a high turnover of monarchs generally destabilises a state and if each of these monarchs had long (if uneventful reigns) it may have strengthened Assyria in comparison to its neighbours. Adad-Nirari II came to power around 911 BC and embarked on a period of expansion that would (even after setbacks) see Assyria become the most powerful empire in the region. The Neo-Assyrian period is often dated from his reign and he campaigned to the west and south against the Arameans and Babylonians.

A Babylonian kudurru from this period

In the month Nisannu, in the seventh year, the Aramaeans were belligerent, so that the king could not come up to Babylon. Neither did Nabu come nor Bel come out. In the month Nisannu, in the eighth year of Nabu-mukin-apli, the king, the Aramaeans were belligerent, and Bab-nibiri ("Gate of the Crossing") of Kar-bel-matati they captured. Thus the king could not cross, Nabu did not come, and Bel did not come out. The king did not offer the sacrifices of the Akitu festival in Esagil.
…
For nine years in succession Bel did not come out nor did Nabu come.
Religious Chronicle describing festivals and rituals being disrupted by Aramean incursions during this time.

In Babylon, the Bit-Bazi Dynasty ruled for the first few decades of the tenth century before being replaced by an Elamite called Mar-biti-apla-usur, who was treated as a legitimate king, but founded no dynasty. Babylonian kings followed each other but the records are very scanty (we know that they were attacked by Arameans from the west during this time). In the last decades of the tenth century Shamash-Mudammiq became king in Babylon and fought wars with Adad-Nirari II of Assyria, which the Assyrians record as great victories for Assyria (Assyrian records have a tendency to do this regardless of the results of combat). Records of Elam for this period are so scanty that even the names of the kings are barely known.

In conclusion, this has been a fairly tame post. There are no exciting trial narratives or murder mysteries. The sources are damaged, controversial and worst of all, non-existent. Not much can be said of this time. However, the broad picture shows a gradual re-stabilisation of the powers of the Middle East, with Assyria beginning to dominate Babylon and Egypt becoming formidable again. These trends would continue throughout the next centuries with the nascent kingdoms of the Levant beginning to feel the pressure of an expansionist Assyria. This will be discussed in further posts.

Related Blog Posts:
The Early Iron Age and the Death of Kings: I (c.1200-1000BC)
The Early Iron Age and the Death of Kings: II (c.1200-1000BC)
The 9th Century BC in the Near East: I (900-800BC)
The 9th Century BC in the Near East: II (900-800BC)