Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia, 2007, by Bernard Newgrosh.
Book Review, by Vern Crisler
The following is an extended review of Bernard Newgrosh’s book on chronological revision. I’ll try to do a chapter at a time, or at least a selection at a time. To the extent that I can, I’ll also do more than exposition, but will provide some commentary, and perhaps argumentative interaction. The whole review will probably take a few months, Lord willing, and as times allows. If anyone knows of any previous online discussions of the book, please let me know.
Before beginning the content of the review, I’d first like to give the table of contents, and then in next installment examine the Introduction to the book. In the meantime, I’ll also post my Mesolithic stuff in bits and pieces, rather than waiting until I’m finished with the whole.
Contents of Chronology at the Crossroads (hereafter, CATC):
Introduction
Part One: Geopolitical Problems in the Orthodox Chronology
1. The Imperial Hittites and Their Neighbours
2. Ashur-uballit: A Question of Identity
3. The Eclipse of Mittani: Current Concepts in Hurrian History
A Thesis In Crisis: Geopolitical and Art Historical Problems in the Orthodox Chronology
Part Two: The Key to Chronology. The Construction and Editing of the Assyrian King List
4. Assyrian Chronometers
5. Problem Areas in Assyrian Chronometry
6. Concurrent Dynasties in Early Mesopotamia
7. Middle Assyrian Concurrent Dynasties
8. The Evolution of the Assyrian King List and its Second Redaction
9. The Era of Transformation
10. A Non-linear King List and the Implications for Chronology
Part Three: Western Asia in the New Chronology
11. The Struggle for Recognition
12. Absolute and Relative Chronology
13. The Struggle for Supremacy: Hatti and Assyria in the Late Bronze Age
14. The Struggle for Survival: the Hurrians in the Late Bronze Age
Part Four: Babylonia in the New Chronology
15. Problem Areas in Kassite History
16. A Time of Transition: New Perspectives on the Late Kassite Period
17. A Time of Chaos: Concurrent Dynasties in the Post-Kassite Period
18. A Chronicle of the New Chronology
Conclusion
Appendix Section
1. Attested Synchronisms
2. A Thirty or Forty Year Adjustment?
3. Two Egyptian Chronological Controversies
4. The King as Eponym
5. Concurrent Dynasties
6. Astronomical Dating
7. The Importance of Deduction in Absolute Chronology
8. Phantom Kings
9. Amorites, Hurrians and Aramaeans
10. Problems with Re-dated Hittite Texts
11. North Mesopotamian Stratigraphic and Pottery Sequences
12. Chronicles 21 and 22
Reference Section
The Assyrian King List
Bibliography
Index of Personal Names
Index of Geographical names
General Index
Some abbreviations are given after the table of contents, but I’ll only list a few
AKL = Assyrian King List
CAH = The Cambridge Ancient History
IBoT = Instanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde Bulunan Bogazköy Tableteri (Instanbul 1944, 1947, 1954; Ankara 1988).
KAV = O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts (Leipzig, 1920).
KBo = Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi
MA = Middle Assyrian; also mA.
RIMA = Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, A
VAT = siglum [abbreviation] for tablets etc in the collections of the Staatliche Museum, Berlin
Before proceeding with the review, we should give our own (tentative) chart of the relation of Assyrian kings, starting with Eriba Adad 1 down to Shalmaneser 3:
|
1. Eriba Adad 1 |
|
|
2. Assur-uballit 1 |
|
|
3. Enlil-nirari |
|
|
4. Arik-den-ili |
|
|
5. Adad-nirari 1 |
|
|
6. Shalmaneser 1, mA1 |
|
|
7. Tukulti-Ninurta 1 |
|
|
8. Assur-nadin-apli or Ashurnasirpal (0) |
Ili-hadda |
|
9. Assur-nirari 3 |
Ninurta-apil-Ekur |
|
10. Enlil-kudurri-usur |
Assur-dan 1 |
|
11. Ashur-rabi 2 |
Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur |
|
12. |
Mutakkil-Nusku |
|
13. |
Ashur-resha-ishi 1 |
|
14. Ashur-resha-ishi 2 |
Tiglath-pileser 1, mA3 |
|
15. Tiglath-pileser 2 |
Ashared-apil-Ekur |
|
16. Ashur-dan 2 |
Ashur-bel-kala |
|
17. Adad-nirari 2, 911 BC |
Eriba-Adad 2 |
|
18. Tukulti-Ninurta 2, 890 BC |
Shamshi-Adad 4 |
|
19. Name |
Ashurnasirpal 1 |
|
20. Ashurnasirpal 2, 883 BC |
Shalmaneser 2 |
|
21. Shalmaneser 3, 858 BC |
Ashur-nirari 4 |
I haven’t finished Newgrosh’s book, so I don’t know how much my correlations differ from his at this point. I believe they are fairly close, however. Lester J. Mitcham offered a very similar view sometime around 1990 in “A New Interpretation of the Assyrian King List,” in M. A. Luckerman, ed., Proceedings of the Third Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History; reviewed favorably by Herbert A. Storck in Luckerman’s journal Catastrophism and Ancient History, July 1990, Vol. XII, Part 2, pp. 221ff.
Introduction:
Newgrosh starts with the question of why study chronology. He says some have advised him to stay away from absolute chronology and work only with relative chronology. In their view, pursuing an absolute chronology is like chasing rainbows. Newgrosh, however, believes that an absolute chronology is possible, and that it’s a worthy goal, even if we can’t be certain of our chronology. Part of the task of establishing an absolute chronology is correctly interpreting the Assyrian King List (AKL), understanding who wrote it, what motives were involved, and what alterations were made to get it in its present form. Newgrosh says that every assumption made by previous authorities on the AKL has to be questioned. Accordingly his approach will, among other things, give us an evolution of the AKL, from its beginnings to the present. In the last section of the Introduction, a summary is provided for each chapter.
Unfortunately, Newgrosh says, “Minimal consideration has been given to matters archaeological: again, this has been a practical decision based on time and ability.” It’s too bad that Newgrosh neglected this area, for stratigraphy has been either the salvation or the death knell for some chronologies. For instance, both Courville and Rohl, not to mention Velikovsky, have run afoul of stratigraphic problems. Fortunately, Newgrosh recognizes the importance of stratigraphy, and has included an appendix on the subject. This was written by archaeologist Robert M. Porter, who discusses pottery sequences, Nuzi Ware, the archaeology of Tell Brak, Tell al Rimah, and of many other sites. I’ll have to come back to this appendix at a later time.
Chapter 1, The Imperial Hittites and their Neighbours.
In this chapter Newgrosh describes the conventional chronology for Late Bronze Age “Hittite” history. Accepted synchronisms are as follows:
|
Hittites |
Egyptians |
|
Suppiluliuma 1 |
Akhenaten |
|
Muwatalli 2 |
Seti 1, Ramses 2 |
|
Hattusili 3 |
Ramses 2 |
(Note: All spellings and numeral forms are mine, not necessarily Newgrosh’s.)
The Egyptian chronology is then correlated with the chronology of Assyria by way of the Hittites. (In conventional views, the middle Assyrian king Adad-nirari 1 is placed during the time of Muwatalli 2, and hence in the days of Ramses 2.) The most recent discussion of conventional chronology for this period is by Amir Harrak in his Assyria and Hanigalbat, 1987. Newgrosh extends Harrak’s discussion of the chronological difficulties of this era, and provides arguments showing the untenability of conventional chronology. If the latter is accepted as true, then the inscriptions for this period appear to show that the Assyrians and Hittites were living in different worlds.
A real problem here is that the alleged synchronisms between the Assyrians and Hittites of the Late Bronze Age are based on material that is in fragmentary condition. The identity of the sender and receiver of letters is usually difficult to determine. Referring to Peter James’s earlier discussion in Centuries of Darkness, 1991, Newgrosh says, “[T]he only clear-cut synchronism in these letters is that between a Tudhaliya of Hatti and a Tukulti-Ninurta of Assyria, in KUB III 74.” (CATC:22.) Another possible synchronism is between Tukulti-Ninurta 1 and Hattushili 3 by way of an Urhi-Teshub in KUB XXVI 70. “In nine out of the thirteen letters,” says Newgrosh, “because the Hittite king is unnamed it is necessary to adduce his identity. Similarly, the ruler of Assyria is not specified in eight out of thirteen. In the remaining five, he is cited as either a Shalmaneser or as a Tukulti-Ninurta. And here a critical assumption is revealed because, on grounds of [conventional] chronology, only Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I are deemed suitable candidates. Again, where a Tudhaliya is named, historians only consider Tudhaliya IV, Tudhaliya II (and III) being presumed inadmissible for the same reason.” (CATC:22.)
In spite of the fragmentary nature of the source material, conventional historians have presented the histories of these two countries as being in harmony with one another, but the result is strained and leaves many anomalies. First, no middle Assyrian (mA) royal inscriptions ever mention any of the Great Kings of the Hittites, despite the existence of many royal inscriptions during this time. Newgrosh says, “This is a strange silence because Middle Assyrian kings show no reticence in naming their counterparts in other neighbouring lands, especially the Great Kings of Babylon and Hanigalbat.” (CATC:23.) Second, the land of Hanigalbat (i.e., Mittani) lies between Hatti and Assyria, but the Assyrian view of Hanigalbat is very different from that of the Hittites. After the Amarna period, the Hittites took control of Carchemish from the Hurrians (biblical Horites), and installed viceroys who appear to have ruled without any challenges. This, however, is in contradiction to the claims made by the Assyrians: “The Assyrian kings Adad-nirari I and Shalmaneser I claimed to rule as far as ‘the bank of the Euphrates’ and, in particular, ‘the fortress of Harranu to Carchemish…which is on the bank of the Euphrates.” (CATC:25, citing Grayson.)
How are these situations to be reconciled? Conventional chronologists merely dismiss the Assyrian claims as untrue or exaggerated, but an Assyrian king in KUB III 73 mentions that his predecessors, middle Assyrian kings Adad-nirari and Shalmaneser, plundered the land of the Hittites. Thus, “Historians are equally at a loss to explain why, during the century of Assyrian domination of Hanigalbat [Mittani] during the reigns of Adad-nirari I, Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I, the Hittites do not record a single threat against Carchemish.” (CATC:27.)
A reasonable answer to this conundrum is that the Middle Assyrian kings have been incorrectly placed on the BC time scale in relation to the history of other ancient nations. “In summary,” says Newgrosh, “a multiplicity of contradictions is apparent. The Assyrian kings spanning the period Ashur-uballit I to Tukulti-Ninurta I describe a different world from that inhabited by the viceroys of Carchemish for the supposedly corresponding period, from Shuppiluliuma I to Tudhaliya IV.” (CATC:29.)
Another problem is that Hanigalbat (Mittani) was eliminated for a time as a major power after the days of Tushratta. It then became a vassal to the viceroys of Carchemish and the Hittite great kings. Nevertheless, the treaty between Muwatalli 2 and Alakshandu of Wilusha (Alexander of Ilios or Troy), refers to the Mittani king as a great king. So Mittani eventually regained its great king status by the time of Muwatalli 2 (during the days of Ramses 2). On the other hand, under Shattuara 1, Mittani was a vassal of the Middle Assyrian king Adad-nirari 1 (who supposedly lived during the days of Ramses 2 on conventional views). How then could Mittani have great king status and at the same time be a vassal of Assyria? (CATC, p. 30, 31.) Ramses 2 famously fought against Muwatalli at Qadesh, but lists Mittani as an independent kingdom in alliance with the Hittites, again during the time when Mittani was supposed to be a vassal to Assyria. Ramses 2 says the “vile enemy from Hatti” allied itself with several lands, among them Nahrin, which is Mittani. (CATC, p. 31.) Yet at the same time, Adad-nirari 1 said that a king of Mittani, Shattuara 1, was his vassal. So who was right, Ramses 2 or Adad-nirari 1? Was Mittani an independent state during the time of Ramses 2, or was it a vassal of the middle Assyrians during the time of Adad-nirari 1?
It’s clear that if there is a mismatch between the middle Assyrians and the Hittites, then there will also be a mismatch between the Hittites and Mittani, as well as with the Egyptians of the New Kingdom period. This is because on conventional views the Assyrians are the connecting link between Mittani and the Hittites and Egyptians. A mismatch will therefore lead to seemingly contradictory claims made by the Assyrians and Egyptians, and will make it hard to understand the history of the Hittites in relation to Mittani. “[T]he weight of evidence…,” says Newgrosh, “dictates that Mittani was independent, strong and a Hittite ally in this era – with any Assyrian threat remote at the time of the Battle of Qadesh [time of Ramses 2]. Yet the next momentous event…was Adad-nirari’s subjugation of neighbouring Hanigalbat [Mittani] – without any interference from her powerful ally, Hatti.” (CATC, p. 32.)
Newgrosh goes on to discuss CTH 76 (the treaty between Muwatalli 2 and Alakshandu) and compares it with other Hittite texts, especially KUB XXIII 102. The latter contains a record of the conquest of the Mittani great king Wasashatta (or Uasashatta) by an Assyrian king. This is probably Adad-nirari 1, and it made Adad-nirari 1 a great king himself. In the Hittite text, the unidentified Hittite king took a dim view of the Assyrian’s newly minted great king status: “[Y]ou shall not keep writing to me [about brotherhood] and Great Kingship., [It is not my] wish.” (CATC, p. 34.) Conventional scholars want to identify the sender of KUB XXIII 102 as Hittite king Urhi-Teshub or Hattusili 3 (who lived after Muwatalli 2). According to CTH 76, however, the Assyrians had already achieved great king status in the days of Muwatalli 2, whereas KUB XXIII 102 indicates that the Assyrian king had just achieved great king status after the conquest of Mittani. So either these Hittite texts contradict one another, or more likely Adad-nirari 1 has been incorrectly placed upon the BC time scale. “It is only a conventional assumption,” says Newgrosh, “that places a particular Assyrian as a contemporary of a Hittite counterpart and, alas, that assumption could be incorrect.” (CATC, p. 36.)
Other problems crop up under conventional assumptions. The document KBo XXVIII 66 was a letter sent by a Hurrian king to a Hittite king, though the names of the kings haven’t been preserved. On good grounds, however, the letter is dated to the time Hattusili 3 or Tudhaliya 4. In the letter, the Hurrian king refers to the Hittite king as his brother, presupposing a status of equality between the two kings. Nevertheless, this was during a time when, on conventional views, the Hurrian kingdom had been reduced to vassalage by Adad-nirari 1. Newgrosh says, “Since with his two crushing defeats of Hanigalbat Adad-nirari I had reduced that land to vassal status (and a vassal of Assyria), it should be impossible for a Hurrian king to write to Hattusha [Hittite capital] in a subsequent reign and claim equality status!” (CATC, p. 36.)
In addition, the document IBoT I 34 was similarly written by a Hurrian king and sent to a Hittite king, though neither name is preserved. Internal evidence has led scholars to date it to the time of Tudhaliya 4. In this letter, the Hurrian king writes from the town of Sinamu and considers himself a vassal to the Hittite king. On conventional views, however, Tudhaliya 4 and his predecessor Hattusili 3 were living during the days of Assyrian king Shalmaneser 1, a time in which the middle Assyrians had put an end to the Mittani kingdom. According to Newgrosh, “Not only is it a standard tenet that it should be ‘impossible’ to have a king of Mittani at such a late juncture, but also it would have been an astonishing achievement for a Hurrian king to have re-established himself in northern Hanigalbat at any time during the half-century of its Assyrian administration….” (CATC, p. 37.)
Another problem is with the Hittite document RPAE 263, dated to the time of Hattusili 3 or Tudhaliya 4. This text makes reference to the armies of the Ahlamu (Aramaeans) that is similar to how the Aramaean “field troops” were described at the time of Adad-nirari 2. However, the situations of Tudhaliya 4 and Adad-nirari 2 cannot be brought closer together in time since on conventional assumptions, the Hittite king lived two hundred or so years before the Assyrian king. Newgrosh says, “Similar reports of organized Ahlamu military activity are separated by over two centuries, the result of applying incompatible dating systems, Hittite and Assyrian, another illustration of the ‘wrong era problem’.” (CATC, p. 39.)
A similar problem arises with RS 34.165, a document found in the Ugarit archive and written by an Assyrian king, usually identified as either Tukulti-Ninurta 1 or Shalmaneser 1, and that mentions a Hittite king named Tudahliya (but not which one). The king who received the letter is treated as an equal to the great king of the Hittites. This would rule out the king of Ugarit as the addressee since he was subordinate to both the Hittite king and the viceroy of Carchemish, and therefore could not be a great king. A possible contemporary letter is the Hittite document KBo IV 14 which dates during the time of Tudhaliya 4. This king mentions a battle with Assyria, but middle Assyrian sources say that Assyria and Hatti were generally at peace. (CATC, pp. 41-45; this would assume that the Tudhaliya x of RS 34.165 is Tudhaliya 4, though in our view it could be Tudhaliya 2)
Newgrosh then discusses the concept of the Sea Peoples and proffers the idea that Tudhaliya 4 invaded the trading center Cyprus and in effect instituted trade sanctions that precipitated the end of the Late Bronze Age kingdoms. (CATC, p. 49.) On conventionl assumptions, Tudhaliya 4 is correlated to the middle Assyrian period, which saw flourishing trade rather than economic collapse. Thus conventional chronology fails to recognize the true cause of the collapse of the Hittite empire and consequently the end of the Late Bronze Age civilizations. Note: In the past grain shortages, climate change, economic decline, or “systems collapse” (the kitchen sink theory) have been blamed for the collapse of the Late Bronze Age and consequent inauguration of the Dark Age of Greece and elsewhere. But this is the first time I have heard anyone blame Tudhaliya 4 for it! And for good reason, too, in that trade blockades are easy enough for enterprising merchants to bypass, and thus could hardly serve as an efficient cause of the collapse of the Late Bronze Age.
The last section of Chapter 1 deals with the city of Emar (Tell Meskene), which was taken over by the Hittites at the time of Suppiluliuma 1. During the days Emar’s king Pilsu-Dagan, a Hurrian king attacked the city. Pilsu-Dagan was a contemporary of Ini-Teshub, viceroy of Carchemish who is correlated to Hittite king Tudhaliya 4. This again brings up the problem of a Hurrian power existing in a time when the whole region was, on conventional assumptions, in vassalage to the middle Assyrian kings. (CATC, pp. 50-51.) Some other difficulties involve the finding in Emar of Babylonian texts mentioning “year 2 of Meli-shipak” (a Babylonian king). On conventional views, however, Meli-shipak came to the throne a generation after the final destruction of Emar. The same problem crops up with RE 19, another document found in Emar and dated to the time of Ninurta-apil-Ekur. But again, this was a generation after Emar had already been destroyed. On the basis of these problems and others Newgrosh concludes, “Since the orthodox scheme is untenable – because the Middle Assyrian kings Adad-nirari I, Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I are not to be accommodated in the era of Muwatalli II, Hattushili III and Tudhaliya IV – a different chronological assumption will be made [in a later chapter].” (CATC, p. 53.)
Next:
Chapter 2
Ashur-uballit: A Question of Identity
To Be Continued
