Joe Baker
Re: Nekau II
Thu Mar 29, 2007 06:53
218.215.198.175 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

Hi Tory

Nekau II became king July 22, 610 BCE at the earliest. In my arrangement he does not march into Syria until sometime in the autumn of 609 BCE or later

This is obviously not mainstream. Are you saying the Egyptian army that crossed the Euphrates in the 4th Babylonian month (Du'uzi) was not the one Nekau lead north? But an earlier one that had been stationed in Assyrian controlled territory. Are you saying that only after that army returned across the Euphrates from Harran (in/after the 6th Babylonian month of Ululu) did the second Egyptian army under Nekau arrive in Assyrian controlled territory? Are you then saying that at that time (609) Nekau removed Aššur-uballit and took over the remaining Assyrian territory? This must have caused some conflict with the remaining Assyrian forces. One would wonder why the Babylonians did not take advantage of it rather then direct operations elsewhere in late 609, 608 and early 607.

Is there any evidence of the Assyrian army to speak of after 609?

No (maybe). The operations in late 609, 608 and early 607 do not name the enemy. However as they mention the regions of Izalla and Uraštu it was undoubtedly the Assyrians of the Tur-Abdin and Upper Tigris Basin - and recent salvage excavations shows this area was one of the last to hold out. (Note however that there is the possibility that a garrison of the king of [Assyria] is mentioned in late 609 in Uraštu but the inscription here, is too damaged to read). In IMO the 607 operation against Kimuhu would also be against Assyrians for the chronicle frequently does not name the enemy but it must have been Assyrians because operations are said to be in the land of Assyria or in areas known to have been controlled by Assyrians. For example look at the 611 operation against Ruggulitu (near Carchemish). No enemy is named but it must have been the Assyrians. So too in 609. Now in 606 things changed and so the Chronicle starts to mention the army of Egypt as the only enemy force.

With Wiseman, Kimuhu was attacked by the Babylonians in the month of Kislimu of 607 in order to check the Egyptians further north:

Would not trust Wiseman here. He completely gets the location of Kimuhu wrong. He places it on the Euphrates south of Carchemish (somewhere below Til Barsip). This city must be Assyrian Kummuh, to the north of Carchemish, at Samosat. The main Euphrates crossing point north of Carchemish (and, as the province of the Turtanu, the centre for Assyrian military forces in the region) and so a logical step once Harran (610) and Izalla (609) had been conquered.

In my last post I pointed out that Herodotos said at 1.199 "There is one custom amongst these Babulonian people which is wholly shameful: every woman who is a native of the country must once in her life go and sit in the temple of Aphrodite and there give herself to a strange man ... As he throws a silver coin, the man has to say, 'In the name of the goddess Mulitta' - that being the Assurian name for Aphrodite". To which you replied

He believed that an "Assyrian name" for a particular goddess was used by ethnic Babylonians. He means "Syrian name"; Mulitta comes from the name of the goddess mldth in the Ugaritic pantheon.

Now I have not got my references here but it is my understanding that Mulitta/Illiltu is the Akkadian/Babylonian name of NIN.LIL, the consort of EN.LIL (Illil), who became identified with Ištar. In Aššur her name was Mulissu (although in late Assyrian "ss" was pronounce "šš" i.e. Aramaic Mlš). Here too she was associated with Ištar/Iššar (her name was pronounce Issar in late Assyrian times, i.e. Aramiac 'sr). As such Herodotos's source is Babylonian (Mulitta) not Assyrian (Mulissa), yet he called the language Assyrian. Thus here Herodotos' Assyrian clearly means Babylonian.

Regards Joe


  • Re: Nekau IITory, Wed Mar 28 15:34
    Hi Joe, "Can not see this scenario. Especially as under your scheme all the planning and then this migration of Syrian workers and then the abandoning of the project all occurred within a few short... more
    • Re: Nekau II — Joe Baker, Thu Mar 29 06:53
      • Re: Nekau IITory, Thu Mar 29 17:09
        Hi Joe, "Are you saying the Egyptian army that crossed the Euphrates in the 4th Babylonian month (Du'uzi) was not the one Nekau lead north? But an earlier one that had been stationed in Assyrian... more
        • Re: Nekau IIJoe Baker, Sat Mar 31 06:41
          Hi Tory Now I see your view of 609. What a year for Nekau. His first army on the Euphrates crossed that river with the Assyrian army and attacked Harran. Meanwhile back on his borders he used a... more
          • Re: Nekau IITory, Sun Apr 1 13:18
            Hi Joe, JB: "Now I see your view of 609. What a year for Nekau. His first army on the Euphrates crossed that river with the Assyrian army and attacked Harran. Meanwhile back on his borders he used a... more
            • Re: Nekau IIJoe Baker, Mon Apr 9 07:12
              Hi Tory for Ululu II in 608, Albrecht Goetz remarked that the tablet recording an intercalary Ululu and dated Year 19 (NCBT 1156) is of dubious quality as evidence because no royal name appears in... more
              • Re: Nekau IITory, Wed Apr 11 17:03
                Hi Joe, You've read the Brinkman and Kennedy paper in JCS closer than I did. According to Goetz it is impossible, because of the appearence of the tablet, to assign NCBT 1156 to either Kandalanu or... more
                • Re: Nekau IIJoe Baker, Mon Apr 23 07:13
                  Hi Tory At last I have finally seen a copy of Wiseman's Chaldaean Chronicles and am able to say Wiseman's identification of a Kimuhu, as a city south of Carchemish, and different from the northern... more
Click here to receive daily updates