From Genesis 36:31-32 “And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel: Bela, son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah.” This Bela, a son of Beor, reigned as one of the 8 pre-Israelite Kings of Edom who operated less formal kingdoms, instead something closer to large city-states that oversaw control over subregions in the land, similar to the period of Judges. It would make sense, an Assyrian of the noble house of Assur makes his way to Israel as many Semitics had done, and founds a pseudo-state, and potentially a couple cities.

The strange part is the cities bit, where in Genesis it says Bela’s city was Dinhabah, while the Sefer HaYashar says he founded Zoar. Dinhabah is unidentified, and while some translate this term to “Robbers Den” it would more likely be a fusion of two roots. “Din”, similar to the name Dan, or Daniel which means Judgement, and the word “Haba” from the term “To Give” in the sense of an action being performed - rather than an object being given. This would make the term something closer to “Place to Give Judgement” or “To Give Rule”, effectively a generic term to refer to a capital. This capital may have been Zoar, or the general “Land of Zoar”, located in Moab, which was effectively ruled by the chiefs of Edom.

Whether, or not these two “Bela” characters are identical is uncertain, but the story of a man from Assyria who leaves potentially due to the events at Babel, founds a city in the Plain of Sodom, gets wrapped into a global international conflict where the nephew of Abraham, Lot, is sheltered in his city, miraculously survives the destruction wrought to all other cities and becomes the first in a line of early Kings of Edom is definitely one of Biblical significance. Both Bela and Abraham make similar flights to Israel, perhaps upon a similar reasoning Bela finds the land suitable, and holy. Just like Abraham, they both get wrapped into the war of Chedorlaomer, and seemingly some form of relationship between these two families is solidified during the refuge of Lot. Quite a compelling Midrash.

The native name for the land Mesopotamia in Aramaic is actually “Bêṯ Nahraīn”, which similar to Mesopotamia - meaning ‘Land Between Two Rivers’ - translates to Home of the Rivers.2 Modern Assyrians consider themselves from the land of Nahrain, and many militant organizations of the Assyrians reference this term within their names. Most Modern Assyrians speak some form of Aramaic dialect, but Syriac operated as a Christian liturgical language for Syriac Christianity, which was followed by many of the Assyrians, first emerging around 500 BCE during the Achaemenid Persian period.3

The Assyrians were quite loyal agents of the Persian state, and often served within their armies. For centuries, this relationship was maintained, even through the Greek Seleucid period. Sometime during the Parthian period this status quo completely breaks down, likely due to the emerging border frontier between Rome and Persia, right on the edge of classical Assyrian territory. Under the Parthian Empire, Ashur actually saw a major revival in output and surplus. Temples were rebuilt to national gods, and new administrative buildings were constructed in the northern part of the city. During this period, it is debatable if Parthia even ‘controlled’ Ashur, or if it began acting as an independent city state along with a series of other local independent polities.

Along with Ashur, cities like Edessa and Duhok (known as Beth Nohadra) became effectively self-ruled. Many of these cities coincidentally contained large Jewish populations, with cities like Duhok, or Hadyab having Hebrew names like “דוהוך” and “חַדְיָב” respectively. Other verified kingdoms even formed around many of the independent cities in the region: Hatra, Adiabene, and Osroene are just three of the most notable. Sophene, Commagene, Gordyene, Atropatene, Matiene are all unified by later kingdoms, but have periods of brief independent rule. Other regions like Beth Garmai were less verified “states”, but acted as autonomous regions. Beth Garmai under the Sassanians became the province of Garmekan, which maintained a substantial Assyrian population until the 14th century when the Timurids completely slaughtered the Assyrian population of the region.4

Most of these independent polities began appearing around the 2nd century BCE and had varying ethnic characteristics. Assyrians were nearly present in all of them. Hatra for example was the first Arabian Kingdom in Mesopotamia, with their rulers taking titles like Malk (King in both Arabic and Hebrew). They primarily spoke Aramaic, but also forms of Arabic were present. Arab polytheism was thus the major religion of the Hatrans. Gordyene may be more familiar with the “Korduene” variant, implying a connection to the Kurds. Other kingdoms like Matiene are notable for potentially retaining the name of the earlier Mitanni, centered around a very similar region as the classical Mitanni empire. While bordering Assyria, the Matiene people are believed to have spoken some type of Hurro-Urartian language, potentially descended from Old Hurrian. Eventually Matiene is incorporated into the large independent polity of Atropatene.

Atropatene for its part retained the longest contiguous self-ruled Zoroastrian kingdom until the arrival of Islam in what was traditional Media. Thus they were probably Median in stock, related to Kurds in some form. Atropatene and the Zoroastrian priesthood located there were extremely powerful and may have been implicated in helping orchestrate the rise of the later Sasssians, themselves of Zoroastrian religious belief.

Located next door to Atropatene was the multi-ethnic Adiabene. Along with Osroene, Adiabene was perhaps one of the most crucial border states in the classical world. Centered around the capital of Arbela, the modern Kurdish city of Erbil, Adiabene saw an extensive nearly 500 year period as vassals under the Persians.5 Mixed with Assyrians, Arabs, Arameans, Greeks, Persians, Kurds, and even Jews, Adiabene was a central cultural transition node between ancient kingdoms. It is no surprise only just south of these states was the traditional Tannaic cities of Babel where the Talmud was being compiled. Perhaps this is why stories of the great Queen of Adiabene, Helena, were passed into the Talmud.

Helena is one of the most important figures in Jewish history, full stop. The Talmud tells the story of a Queen named Heleni HaMalka, who moved to Jerusalem and built a palace for herself and her family; notably her two sons Izates bar Monobaz and Monobaz II. She reportedly aided Jews during the war with Rome, and was a staunch financial and material supporter of the Jewish people in nearly every context. Even more importantly, Helena actually converts to Judaism, along with her son, initiating what is effectively the last remaining Jewish dynasty after the fall of Jerusalem. The Talmud extols Helena for her support, and perhaps as a result of the major impact Helena has on Jews both back then and now, the loyalty of Mesopotamian Jews was securely aligned with Adiabene. Zoroastrians were widely tolerant of Jews, and numerous communities were established in Adiabene following the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. Persians had already been seen as historical allies due to the relationship of Cyrus, and the stories in the Book of Esther showing a prominent role for Jewish bureaucrats in the Persian Empire. Persian Jews often retained their religious identity fully, with no assimilation necessary, while those in Rome were expected to make tribute to the Roman pantheon of deities. As a result, Jews in this period became some of the most vocal and vicious opponents against Rome, with Edom becoming a Messianic Talmudic stand-in for the nation of Rome.

Most events after 649 are actually poorly recorded - the eponym canon recording Assyrian year names doesn’t even exist after this point. Throughout this decade major shifts in the elite power structure began to occur, eunuchs even being granted large tracts of land, with numerous tax exemptions. This eunuch problem was unprecedented, and would continue causing problems for the royal family for the years to come.

Remember ol’ Gyges? Well in 644 BCE, after a second invasion of the Cimmerians in 657 BCE, the Cimmerians once again invaded Lydia for a third time. Potentially owing to a curse placed upon Gyges for having supported the Egyptians in 656 BCE, the Lydian capital city of Sardis is sacked, and Gyges is murdered.3 Assyrian oracles reportedly viewed this as punishment for having supported Psamtik I of Egypt in becoming Pharaoh, and ending diplomacy with Assyria. Despite this, Gyges son resumes contact with the Assyrians, but it perhaps these twisting alliances and lack of trust between Ashurbanipal and Gyges that triggered the prophet Ezekiel to feel that the ‘end times’ would be caused by the foolish lack of allegiances against raiding nomadic tribes.4

Sparse documentation through the previous decade was common, but after 639 only two inscriptions are even recorded by Ashurbanipal marking a sharp decline in the internal stability of the Assyrian bureaucracy.5 Specifically, the hollowing out of records from the Library of Ashurbanipal shows an immense political crisis for the empire given the previous rulers of Assyria all survived on a well-woven intelligence web. The breakdown in this information network - Ashurbanipal’s library being the most complete ancient library, maybe the most complete library in the world until the modern era - certainly was a major factor in the eventual inability of the Assyrians to recover control of territory.

During the final years of Ashurbanipal’s reign he tells us in his own words of the disastrous state of his realm “I cannot do away with the strife in my country and the dissensions in my family; disturbing scandals oppress me always. Illness of mind and flesh bow me down; with cries of woe I bring my days to an end. On the day of the city god, the day of the festival, I am wretched; death is seizing hold upon me, and bears me down...”6 Quite a grim conclusion to have made, realizing the inevitable downfall of everything he had worked toward for over 38 years. It’s unclear which year was Ashurbanipal’s final year of reign. His abdication or perhaps death was probably sometime in 631, or 630 BCE. No evidence of serious strife resulting from the end of his rule is present, and his sons Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun take over management of the empire in a similar arrangement to their father, and his own brother Shamsh-shum-ukin.

Very little is known about Ashur-etil-ilani. Seemingly much of the empire was run by his eunuch general Sin-sumu-lisir whose own land grant mentions the death of Ashurbanipal. Quite strange to a land grant mentioning the death of a king, but shows the integrated relationship between the eunuchs and management of the empire in these later periods. Effectively, it appears Sin-sumu-lisir was the real power behind the Assyrian throne, and not Ashur-etil-ilani. No reliefs, no statues, zero record of Ashur-etil-ilani conducting any military campaigns or going on any hunts, and an incredibly reduced royal palace indicate a ruler who was less concerned with propaganda and probably barely able to hold his position.7 One of the most notable events of his reign is actually the revolt of Josiah, King of Judah, in 628 BCE who captures the city of Ashdod, and begins colonizing the port.

After Ashur-etil-ilani’s death in 627 BCE, his brother Sîn-šar-iškun acceded to the throne with an immediate challenge from the previously mentioned eunuch Sîn-šumu-līšir. The mere fact a eunuch was able to claim the throne, the only eunuch in Assyrian history to do so, shows the complete lack of respect for the Assyrian royalty in this period after hundreds of years of genocidal treatment toward their regional subjects.8 Despite taking notable cities like Nippur and Babylon, within three months the revolt was put down.9 This was just an omen of the disaster to come.

After Babylonian puppet king Kandalanu’s death in 627, swift political machinations triggered the proclamation of Nabopolassar, member of a prominent political family from Uruk, as king of Babylon.10 Babylon and Nippur now flipped to Nabopolassar’s control, but once again retaken by Assyria in 626. At this point, Babylon was an independent entity barely held on through sheer military control, and the inability of Sin-sar-iskun to retake Babylon and Uruk spelt the formal end of Assyrian control of the south. Babylon was independent once again!

625 marked a total shift in geopolitical power, no longer a monopoly around Assyria. The aforementioned rise of the Neo-Babylonian’s under Nabopolassar, and the previous independence of Psamtik of Egypt, as well as Josiah of Judah were all accompanied by the formation of the Median ‘empire’ in 625 under Cyaxares.

Looking for triggers to this complete upheaval in the ancient political world, we could potentially point to a supposed 125 year long megadrought between 675 and 550 BCE.11 This drought clearly pushed Assyria to its limits, already not a very fertile region, the Assyrian heartland must have been continually forced to rely on external entities for survival; clearly this caused a great deal of anxiety among the Assyrian elites and may have been the cause for their brutality toward the value of human life. Seemingly, the peak of this drought would have been between 625-612, marking the beginning and end of the final years of Assyrian King Sîn-šar-iškun.

While the Babylonian war was raging for some years, the Assyrians didn’t seem particularly panicked about the state of this conflict. Indeed, they would have been familiar with previous situations, like the one between Ashurbanipal and his brother. What was worrying was in 616 when the Babylonian’s invaded the Assyrian heartland, which had been uninvaded for over 500 years, likely terrifying the Assyrians.12 Even Pharaoh Psamtik came to aid the Assyrians in this conflict, fearing a total shift in the balance of power and subsequent power vacuum. Despite all of this, Assur itself was attacked in 615, with Sinsharishkun barely repelling Nabopolassar’s army.13 While Nabopolassar was quite successful, the lack of definitive victories throughout this conflict, and the Egyptian support, implies the Assyrians were actually still reliably strong. All of this changed with the entrance of the Medians into this conflict, sometime in late 615 or early 614.1415

In 614 BC, the Medes and Babylonians sacked and destroyed Assur during a simultaneous assault on Nimrud, Nineveh, and Assur. This rendered the traditional Assyrian crowning ceremony impossible, effectively ending legitimacy of the line of Kingship which now switched to Harran, and in 612 BC, they captured and plundered Nineveh, Sinsharishkun dying in the capital’s defense. These brutal captures and subsequent sacks led to the total loss of the Assyrian state, and complete end to the Assyrian empire. Though the prince Ashur-uballit II, possibly Sinsharishkun’s son, attempted to lead the resistance against the Medes and Babylonians from Harran in the west, he was defeated in 609 BC, marking the end of the ancient line of Assyrian kings and of Assyria as an independent state.

Archaeological surveys of the Assyrian heartland have consistently shown that there was a dramatic decrease in the size and number of inhabited sites in Assyria during the Neo-Babylonian period, suggesting a significant societal breakdown in the region. Archaeological evidence suggests that the former Assyrian capital cities, such as Assur, Nimrud and Nineveh, were initially nearly completely abandoned.16

That was until 652 when he revolted against Ashurbanipal, attempting to free Babylonia.2 Despite this, their sister “Serua-eterat” legendarily tried to reconcile their differences, but disappeared into self-imposed exile after failing to broker an agreement.3 Like always, the Elamites were happy to bite at the heels of the Assyrians, and joined Shamash-shum-ukin along with the entirety of southern Mesopotamia.4

Quoting Ashurbanipal, from his perspective “In these days Shamash-shum-ukin, the faithless brother of mine, whom I had treated well and had set up as king of Babylon, – every imaginable thing that kingship calls for, I made and gave him; soldiers, horses, chariots, I equipped and put into his hands; cities, fields, plantations, together with the people who live therein, I gave him in larger numbers than my father had ordered. But he forgot this kindness I had shown him and planned evil. Outwardly, with his lips, he was speaking fair words while inwardly his heart was designing murder. The Babylonians, who had been loyal to Assyria and faithful vassals of mine, he deceived, speaking lies to them.”5 This is quite odd, because Ashurbanipal did no such thing. Ancient propaganda was less “perspective” more blatantly lying on an inscription and hoping no one would have the logistical capability to counter than message to the masses. Big stones are easy to keep from being spread, but also hard to argue with once standing.

This civil war was closer to something like a world war, that drew together massive numbers of Assyria’s vassals, enemies, and old allies. Among the allies of Shamash-shum-ukin’s diverse coalition were Chaldeans, Arameans, Babylonians, Elamites, Gutians, Amurru and even the distant Muluhha! Doubts about these final three remain, given there was no Gutian polity in this period, the Amorites were long gone (obviously, given the Israelites already existed), and Meluhha had already collapsed. Potentially, the final three might refer to a ‘bunch of kings’, something similar to the Medes. We really are unsure who these groups meant to represent. Numerous other minor polities, and various petty kings all joined in this conflict, which spiraled out of control after many of these players began shifting sides constantly. Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin both couldn’t even keep track of who was even on their side. For two years the war continued in this stalemate, having failed to do anything but deplete the military forces of the empire; foreshadowing an inability to defend the state when outside invaders would threaten conquest.

Despite his broad coalition, eventually the reality set in that Assyria could continually draw manpower reserves the longer the war lasted, while the manpower of Shamash-shum-ukin was fixed. Ashurbanipal probably understood this situation. City by city, he closed in on Babylon, finally sieging the city in 650 BCE; a siege that went on to last for an insane two years.6 Ashurbanipal’s own account of this siege claims that citizens of Babylon became so starved that they began to eat their own children, and grim thought indeed.7 While numerous other examples of Assyrian brutality and genocide abound, it is very clear that this two year siege had both the time, influence, logistical support, and government narrative approval that the entire world would have needed to become truly aware of the Assyrian nature. When the bible talks about genocidal Assyrian rulers, Ashurbanipal was the nail in the coffin to that perspective, for all ancient peoples. Ashurbanipal himself says of the matter “their carved up bodies I fed to dogs, to pigs, to wolves, to eagles, to birds of the heavens, to fishes of the deep”.8 Torture, genocide, and complete abuse of the populace was rampant. A similar fate likely met many of the other cities that opposed Ashurbanipal.

As with many historical sieges, a great fire began to spread throughout the city in 648 BCE. Traditional Assyrian accounts state that Shamash-shum-ukin “met a cruel death” and the “gods consigned him to a fire and destroyed his life”. Many took this to believe that Shamash-shum-ukin himself stepping into the flames, with his family, committing suicide in his palace. However, this is likely propaganda, as the actual Assyrian texts never claim he specifically died in a fire, just that a fire ‘destroyed his life’ which could mean a concept identical to Gehenna. If he didn’t die in this blaze, it is very likely he was executed by the Assyrians, but given that fratricide was an illegal act against a member of the Assyrian royal court it is probable they used this story as a cover up.9

Throughout this two year siege, the entire situation of Elam began to collapse. Numerous kings swapped places on the throne, and a number of strange politics resulted in Assyrian invading in 647 BCE. The weakened Elamite army, already having lost years prior during Assyria’s campaign at Der, completely dissolves against a superior organized force. Elamite rulers during this period don’t even reign from Susa, but from a site called Madaktu showing their weakened position. Despite all of this, the Elamites still refused any sort of political agreement, forcing the Assyrians to return again a year later in 646 BCE.

As the Assyrians raided further east into Elam, more centers of Elamite authority were razed to the ground, effectively cutting off the Elamite states lifeline. It was probably from this point on that a truly ‘global’ Elamite superpower ceased to exist. Records show petty kingdoms and chieftains began to pay tribute directly to Ashurbanipal as a consequence of this invasion. Among these chieftains was the kingdom of Parsua, predecessor of what would become the state of Persia.10 This shift, from the political relevancy of Elam to what would become Persua, originally a term meaning something like ‘Iranian border peoples’ was among the notable consequences of this ‘civil’ war.

Despite having completely razed the majority of Elamite centers, there was the final site of Susa which the Assyrian’s happened to raid on their way back home, brutally plundering the city. The Assyrians even went as far as desecrated royal tombs, and stole statues of Elamite gods. The earth was salted, and the over 3000 year old capital of the Elamites was wiped off the map. This was not enough. Ashurbanipal continued deporting civilians across Elamite settlements, that was if they were lucky to not be completely killed, the ultimate fate of the vast majority. This was truly as close to a genocide as it comes.11 These are not the claims of Elamites, no, the Elamites were totally wiped out, these are the facts according to the Assyrians - likely the situation was much worse than what was even reported.

“Susa, the great holy city, abode of their gods, seat of their mysteries, I conquered according to the word of Ashur and Ishtar. I entered its palaces, I dwelt there in rejoicing; I opened the treasures where silver and gold, goods and wealth were amassed [...] the treasures of Sumer, Akkad, and Babylon that the ancient kings of Elam had looted and carried away [...]. I destroyed the ziggurat of Susa [...]; I smashed its shining copper horns. [In]shushinak, god of the oracles, who resides in secret places, where no man sees his divine nature [along with the gods that surround him], with their jewelry, their wealth, their furniture, with the priests, I brought as booty to the land of Ashur [...]. I reduced the temples of Elam to naught; their gods, their goddesses, I scattered to the winds. The secret groves where no outsider had ever penetrated, where no layman had ever trod, my soldiers entered, they saw their mysteries, they destroyed them by fire. The tombs of their ancient and recent kings who had not feared [the goddess] Ishtar, my lady, and who were the cause of torments to the kings, my fathers—those tombs I devastated, I destroyed, I exposed to the sun and I carried away their bones toward the land of Ashur. [...] I devastated the provinces of Elam and [on their lands] I spread salt.”12

Never again do Assyrian annals speak of Elam. While Elam does exist as an entity in later periods, the cultural continuity of these people isn’t exactly clear. Total destruction of the old Elamite identity had shattered the unity of the kingdom, and Ashurbanipal goes so far as to ignore even incorporating the state into his empire. This truly left a lasting legacy on the ancient world, leaving a gaping power vacuum in the east. These events would ripple out in the coming decades through the revolt of Nabopolassar, the unification of the Medes as a distinct entity, the rise of Persia, and even a collapse in the status quo in the north.

While to use the name is Gyges, to Ashurbanipal and ancients the name was pronounced “Chuchas”, assuming you pronounce the ‘ch’ like the word Chanukah. Alternatively, Khukhas, or Xugas, but effectively this sound is actually one of the Biblical examples of the lost guttural “Gimel” that still exists in some Yemenite dialects. Very likely Gyges is actually the Biblical figure “Gog” from the apocalyptic vision of Ezekiel where it says “Son of man, set your face toward Gog, [toward] the land of Magog, the prince, the head of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy concerning him.”3 Given that Meshech and Tubal were also located in Anatolia during this period (see our entire text on the descendants of the Japhetites), it is highly probable Magog was also located in a nearby region. Gog was effectively the ruler of the “Land of Gog”, the pre-fix ‘mat’ meaning land. Thus the term Magog is a bit of a generic term, but when helpfully applied with the name “גוֹג” it clearly points to an identification with Gyges.4

In 665 BCE, after a prolonged period of peace, the Elamite king Urtak launched a surprise invasion of Babylonia which renewed hostilities. Urtak was quickly defeated, and forced to flee back to Elam where he died shortly thereafter leaving an unrelated monarch known as Teumman on the throne. Having been unrelated to the previous king, Ashurbanipal appears willing to give him the opportunity for a different political stance toward Assyria. This stability doesn’t last, and Teumman’s three sons escape into Assyria to be harbored by Ashurbanipal personally.5 These three sons had been contending for the throne, making it more likely Ashurbanipal had been holding out in hopes a favorable king to his policy would end up ruling Elam. Clearly, this situation would not hold.

While a period of about ten years of peace holds, Ashurbanipal uses this opportunity to remove supporters of his rivals. Chiefly among them, a Chieftain known as Bel-iqisha, of an Aramean tribe called the Gambulians rebels against Ashurbanipal seeing the writing on the wall after having been implicated in supporting Elam. Ashurbanipal actually uses another governor named Nabu-usabsi of Uruk, to attack Bel-iqisha. For his part, Nabu-usabsi claims to have been loyal, and that the sole blame for the Elamite invasion was Bel-iqisha.6 Given these territories appear to have bordered Elam, Ashurbanipal is rightfully concerned why neither of them seemingly did anything to inform him, or stop the invasion.

Nothing appears to have happened to either, except for shortly after the conflict ended Bel-iqisha mysteriously dies by a boar - actually quite likely given the ancient precedent to hunt wild animals, and the under-estimation of the ferocity of the boar which killed more humans than any other wild animal. Clearly, someone was lying, and Ashurbanipal probably forced them into conflict with one another to shake out whose loyalty was real. However, it doesn’t appear to have worked very well given that the governor of Uruk, Nabu-usabsi, is actually the uncle of the famed Nabopolassar who rebels against Assyria, destroying the entire empire.7 This unimportant internal struggle sheds light on the realities of Iron Age Assyria: a single mistake could result in a generational conflict that brings down your state.

After a period of about ten years where there was peace between Elam and Assyria, Teumman finally attacked Babylon in 653 BCE.8 In an ironic twist of fact, Ashurbanipal’s distrust of his brother Shamash-shum-ukin had finally become a problem. He left his brother with absolutely no troops to defend Babylonia, and forced reliance on Assyria’s army.9 Despite his confidence in attacking, Teumman realized he had miscalculated something, and actually retreated to the Elamite capital of Susa. Elamite king Teumman was defeated in 653 BCE, captured and executed in a battle by the Ulai river. Teumman’s head was brought back to Nineveh and displayed for the public. Inscriptions of the account, reportedly personally written by Ashurbanipal describe the account of his victory as follows: “Like the onset of a terrible hurricane I overwhelmed Elam in its entirety. I cut off the head of Teumann, their king, – the haughty one, who plotted evil. Countless of his warriors I slew. Alive, with my hands, I seized his fighters. With their corpses I filled the plain about Susa as with baltu and ashagu. Their blood I let run down the Ulai; its water I dyed red like wool.”10 The final line here stating that the water of Elam became dyed red like wool bears a striking similarity to the first plague of Egypt, potentially showing that from Assyria’s perspective this was a divine decree to destroy Elam.

Elam however, remained undefeated and continued to work against Assyria for some time, remaining a major thorn in the side of Assyria. Ironic, given the term “baltu and ashagu” refers to varieties of thorny bushes, showing how imperfect prophecy can lead to long term consequences if not carefully examined.

During their campaign in Elam, Assyria’s enemies were plotting to take down the empire. Secretly, an alliance of Persians, Cimmerians, and Medes formed, and marched to Nineveh, even reaching the city’s walls. Given the sudden attack, and preoccupation in the south, Ashurbanipal once again called up his alliance with the Scythians, who joined him in battle and defeated the invading armies. Reportedly, they kill the Median king Phraortes, but as known from earlier the Median kings were much closer to tribal leaders than real ‘kings’, and it doesn’t exactly matter due to the political vacuum having been immediately filled by an equally qualified Median ruler.11

Ashurbanipal took the throne in late 669 BCE after the death of Esarhaddon. Strangely, his brother was only crowned King of Babylon the following spring, but seemingly both brother’s ascension happened without conflict, potentially due to their grandmother Naqi’a having written up a treaty known as the Zakutu, which bound the royal family and the Assyrian elites to swear loyalty to Ashurbanipal.2 In a show of confidence toward his brother, Ashurbanipal gifts the important sacred Statue of Marduk, which had been stolen from Babylon by their grandfather Sennacherib twenty years prior. Whether or not the belated crowning of Shamash-shum-ukin was meant to defenestrate his brother's power is unknown, but the two operate synchronistically for at least 16 years.

Perhaps the delayed crowning of Shamash-shum-ukin was less suspicious than we believe, given the context of the loss of their father having been immediately during a war with Egypt, led by their rebellious king in exile, Taharqa. Resulting from this unfortunate timing, many of the Assyrian vassals took the opportunity to join Egypt in open revolt. Following a massacre at Memphis of the Assyrian garrison, Ashurbanipal, seemingly fed up with the situation, sends out his first army as King.3 This revolt was short lived, as it seems divine favor was never on the side of the Egyptians opportunistic rebellion and Ashurbanipal routes the Egyptians at Memphis, reoccupying the city, and forcing them to flee back to Nubia in the south. Interestingly, the King of Judah, Mannaseh son of Hezekiah who ruled for an incredibly long 55 year period, had seen the writing on the wall, and paid tribute to Ashurbanipal.

For this contribution, Ashurbanipal even lists Manasseh as one of the kings who assisted his campaign in Egypt, and it was perhaps for this effort that he understood it best to allow Manasseh to continue his peaceful alliance, and remain an independent kingdom; in contrast to the northern kingdom which failed this same test.4 The following years during Mannaseh’s reign are uncharacteristically stable, suggesting a savvy understanding of geopolitical consequences. However, despite, or perhaps as a result of these decisions, Manasseh was actually considered an evil king from the perspective of Torah. “And he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord; like the abominations of the nations that the Lord had driven out from before the children of Israel. And he rebuilt the high places that Hezekiah his father had destroyed, and he erected altars to the Baal, and he made an asherah as Ahab the king of Israel had made, and he prostrated himself to the entire host of the heaven, and he worshipped them. And he built altars in the house of the Lord, concerning which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem I will establish My Name.” And he built altars for the entire host of Heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. And he passed his son through fire; he practiced soothsaying and divination, and he consulted necromancers and those divine by the Jidoa bone; he did much that was evil in the eyes of the Lord, to provoke [Him].”5 Without debate, the biblical perspective on his reign is negative, perhaps resulting from his choice to not join the other Levantine states in rebellion, contrary to previous Judahite kings. The Book of Kings goes so far to essentially ignore the entire 55 years reign of Manasseh, with a final line in 2 Kings 21:17 saying “And the rest of the events of Manasseh and all that he did and his sin which he sinned, are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.”

Since we are not told very much about Manasseh’s reign from the Biblical sources, we are forced to make a few assumptions. First, Manasseh’s reinforcement of various cults was probably aligned with Assyrian imperial objectives. Second, the Assyrian’s had issues with local prophets rejecting their rule, as happened to Esarhaddon at Harran. Ashurbanipal wanted nothing to do with local prophets, who time and time again had contributed to undermining his father’s imperial policy. It was likely for this reason that Manasseh chose to execute his own grandfather, the prophet Isaiah.

Jeremiah references this saying “In vain have I smitten your children, they received no correction. Your sword devoured your prophets like a destroying lion.”6 Jeremiah goes so far as to prophesy regarding Manasseh’s failure to acquiesce to the needs of the Judahites “And I will make them a horror to all the kingdom of the earth because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for all that he did in Jerusalem.”7 Clearly there was a tension between the concept of prophecy, and the geopolitical goals of the aristocracy. Oftentimes it was through these prophets that the legitimate will of the populace were expressed, a sort of political rebuke through those who themselves were adjacent to power, often ancestrally related to the kings like in the case of Isaiah, and willing to express these people's needs. Afterall, the Torah and will of God does not acquiesce to the needs of a minority of elites, it is the law of the people, and must reflect the needs of the people at all times. This can be seen as the earliest halachic tension between what would eventually emerge as the Sadducees versus Pharisees, in effect the Priestly and Royal elite versus the People and God.

This tension was not just existent within the Judahite state, but clearly within Assyria and nearly every ancient polity through Greece, Persia, and even Rome were oracles and prophets given influence over nobility as a sort of counter-weight to the overextension of imperial ambitions. Perhaps, the Assyrians should have taken heed of the prophet’s words as more than a mere omen of future events to disprove. Perhaps both Isaiah and the oracles of Harran, combined with the oracles predicting the Egyptian revolts, were digging at a deeper truth regarding the status of the commonfolk throughout the empire; clearly their situation was bad enough that they felt open war was the only alternative.

Due to the Assyrian unwillingness to let up on their subjects, even following the death of Taharqa in 664 BCE, the Egyptians continued their resistance campaign under his nephew, and now Pharaoh, Tantamani. Tantamani marches on Thebes, takes over the city, continues his campaign toward Memphis, which forces Ashurbanipal to send an army to deal with the insurrection. As payback for these constant revolts, Ashurbanipal becomes increasingly fed-up with the Egyptians and goes so far to sack the city of Thebes, and plunder its holy relics. This would become the greatest calamity the Egyptian populace would face for centuries, perhaps being the defining moment that the old Egyptian Pharaonic order completely shattered. Ashurbanipal may have destroyed the city completely if not for the intervention of a skillful Egyptian governor named Mentuemhat. Mentuemhat operates autonomously as a sort of King/Pharaoh over Thebes, and Upper Egypt, perhaps being entrusted with this role by the Assyrians due to Mentuemhat’s own father Nesptah having been a Prophet of Amun, the most important oracle in Egypt. Maybe Mentuemhat persuaded the Assyrians of his loyalty through prophecies affirming their own rule over Egypt, that had already preexisted prior to the reign of Ashurbanipal, or maybe even before the arrival of the Assyrians in Egypt.

While previously on his way to Egypt, the prophecy at Harran predicted Esarhaddon’s complete victory, a new prophecy from the now incredibly well-respected, politically relevant city spread like wild fire through the empire. This new prophecy came from the oracle woman of Nusku, a slave-girl who claimed to receive divine prophecy from the god Nusku, son of the god Sin, stating the following: “This is the word of the god Nusku: Kingship belongs to Sasî. I shall destroy the name and the seed of Sennacherib!” The Oracle of Nusku appears to have been quite a savvy observer of ancient politics. Given that the primary deity of Harran was the moon god Sin, it is very likely that the basis of Esarhaddon’s personal appearance to the priesthood was due to the connection of Sin to a curse of an incurable skin disease. Clearly, Esarhaddon feared he had been afflicted with “Sin’s Curse”, and the priesthood, now with an increased trustworthiness across the empire, had a unique opportunity to install their chosen candidate. Theoretically, Esarhaddon’s direct appearance at Harran might have revealed the nature of his skin condition to the oracle, providing a modus operandi for declaring him illegitimate. Seemingly, the oracle was declaring the entire lineage of Esarhaddon as illegitimate, and perhaps for good reason given the persistent genetic flaw now revealed to the elites at Harran. Speculation into the background of Sasi is not definitive, but scholars suggest he may have descended from Sargon II, founder of the dynasty, making Sasi the ‘heir’ of a rival branch of the Sargonid family, perhaps one without such a genetic flaw.

Oracles and prophecy were less a direct result of divine knowledge, and more a compilation of hidden information presented in the form of revelation, often false and unable to bear any truthful fruit. According to the Jewish belief, there were dozens of minor and false prophets throughout the ancient world, but true prophecy came with three stipulations: the prophet must be humble, and have mastered themselves, the message cannot contradict any existing structural rule, and finally the words must come true exactly as stated, in their entirety. True prophecy must meet these demands, and otherwise is merely a solid prediction. This is pertinent because it appears the Oracle of Nusku was not acting on divine prophecy, as evidenced from Esarhaddon’s heir Ashurbanipal becoming king, in fact both his sons do. While we now know this to be untrue, from Esarhaddon’s perspective all he had to do was invalidate a piece of the prophecy, in order to show it untrue. There was only one way to properly falsify this prophecy, and the Oracle likely knew that the other way to stop this conspiracy would be to kill Sasi. This became a double edged sword. The oracle herself was still a target, having been viewed across the empire as something of a Joan of Arc-like figure, extremely charismatic at a time was an emerging prominence of female voices across the empire were being seen as increasingly legitimate. This is why there are records of plans to attempt to kidnap the oracle from Sasî’s residence, the very network of information Esarhaddon leveraged with his own trusted female kin was being leveraged by his own rival distant family members, and other nobility.

Strangely, and probably owing to his royal lineage and the charisma of the Oracle, Sasi was quickly able to raise the troops necessary to fight Esarhaddon, even going so far as to flip the powerful eunuch Ashur-nadin who had conquered Egypt during Esarhaddon’s seclusion. Very likely this faction had for some time, possibly since the failed invasion of Egypt, or the visit to Harran, been gaining power across the empire. Numerous reports were flooding into Esarhaddon’s court, and probably only he had the key to understand who and which actors truly were conspiring against his rule. This would go a long way to explain the near back to back substitution rituals, with only a three month gap between, probably meant to throw off political rivals and give him time to gather more information. The timing of these are too suspicious to discount, and reframe Esarhaddon again as not at all ‘paranoid’, or ‘simply too sick and mentally unstable to rule’, but rather recast him as a savvy political leader leveraging the only tools he had at his command.

Immediately following his substitution ritual, he emerged from hiding, brutally massacring all of the conspirators. This was actually the second purge of this kind, again reinforcing Esarhaddon’s now completely valid paranoia. While for a time these massacres against conspirators may have maintained stability, it is highly likely the purging of successive generations of officials left the empire absent of skilled bureaucrats. The complete and total destruction of the noble class simply left a power vacuum, evidenced that after the purge no new limmu official was selected for several months; an extremely rare situation in Assyrian history. From the Assyrian chronicle of 670 “the king killed many of his magnates in Assyria with the sword”. Remains of buildings presumed to have been the homes of Sasî’s supporters are dated to having been destroyed in 670, and new ranks were added to the royal court hierarchy increasing the separation between him and the public, showing the heightened security situation following the conspiracy.

Perhaps due to a prophecy that correctly predicted Esarhaddon’s conquest of Egypt and defeat of Sasi the Usurper, the site of Harran for the next 1500 years became a permanent religious sanctuary for moon god worshipers.1 Even well into the Islamic era in the 1400s, moon worshippers were reportedly gathering at Harran.

While having successfully defeated the conspiracy, Esarhaddon may have gotten a tad addicted to this substitution ritual, once again undertaking it in 669 BCE. At this very time, Egypt rises under Taharqa, now returned from the south attempting to free Egypt from Esarhaddon’s grip. The timing was inconvenient, and it may have taken some time for Esarhaddon to learn of the rebellion. This may also have bought his governors enough time and political cover before his return where they could cease tribute payment, and join the rebels. Finally, Esarhaddon emerged after 100 days of seclusion, this time extremely healthy by his own standards. He leaves to campaign in Egypt, for a third time.

That very year, on the 10th of Cheshvan, known in Assyrian as Araḫsamn, to us as November 669 BCE2, just before reaching the border of Egypt, Esarhaddon dies at the city of Harran.3 Lacking any evidence of theory from any ancient source, or otherwise to the contrary tells us this death was unexpected, and likely of natural causes. Ripples immediately radiate throughout the empire, but uncharacteristically, Shamash-shum-ukin accepts his role as King of Babylon, allowing Ashurbanipal to rise as King of Assyria, claiming the title King of the Four Corners of the World.

However, the ailment afflicting Esarhaddon went far beyond a simple depression. We are told from letters at the royal court, directly from the king’s physicians, which describe his condition as follows: “violent vomiting, constant fever, nosebleeds, dizziness, painful earaches, permanent skin rash covering most of his body and face, diarrhea and depression.” This seemingly puzzling set of symptoms completely stumped the Assyrian medical class, unable to find a solution they wrote “My lord, the king, keeps telling me: “Why do you not identify the nature of my disease and find a cure?” As I told the king already in person, his symptoms cannot be classified.”

Prescient to this illness was the need to hide it from all his subjects. Only the king’s royal court was aware of the truth, and to enforce this the age-old practice of anyone approaching the king being veiled, and on their knees, was continued. No doubt this tradition was a great relief to the court officials, who feared anyone seeing the total skin rash covering the skins face, and viewing it as a sign of weakness, and lack of divine favor. There may even be some who would link his early rule to this “feeble” physical situation. Ultimately, no one could provide any relief to the king, and no doubt this persistent ailment added to his fears of a royal succession crisis. Doctors today most probably would have diagnosed him with something like Lupus, which adversely affects middle eastern populations, like the Assyrians, to this day.

One strange consequence of this illness were the 100 day periods of seclusion that Esarhaddon would undertake, whereby a stand-in ‘king’ of sorts would take his place. This begins one of the earliest examples of a ‘secluded’ king providing rule from the shadows, oftentimes orders being transferred through his trusted female kin. To what degree this was Esarhaddon genuinely needing medical care, or being fed up with the plots and needing to withdraw himself from public life for extended stints to undercover the plans against his is unclear. Perhaps all of these events were interconnected, and many of the insurrections were a result of a secret knowledge of the king’s condition among the elite.

Among these insurrections was the chief eunuch Ashur-nasir being prophesied by a Babylonian prisoner hostage to replace Esarhaddon as king, a prophetess in Harran who proclaimed Esarhaddan and his lineage would be vanquished, and a usurper named Sasi would become king, and even in Assur the local governor instigated a plot after receiving a prophetic dream in which a child rose from a tomb and handed him a staff.2 As is clearly evident, prophecy was a major vehicle of political change in the ancient world. Owing to his incredibly well informed network of spies, probably led by the females in his family who like the Roman Byzantine Emperor Justinian’s wife, Theodora completely spun a web of information for her husband. After uncovering all these plots, Esarhaddon simply gets fed up and has a number of major officials put to death, ending the vast network supporting the overthrow of his reign.

Early in 671 BCE, Esarhaddon once again marched into Egypt, attempting to bring the expansive territory under Assyrian domination. This army was vastly superior, more well equipped, and given additional time to campaign than the previous invasion; the Assyrians had learned. This was unlikely to fail from the outset, we know from his army passing through Harran where a prophecy was ‘revealed’ to the king, predicting his conquest of Egypt would be successful. A careful pace and alternative route through the central Sinai caught the Egyptians off guard, and the campaign began with immense success. Seemingly, this was not satisfying to Esarhaddon.

As alluded to earlier, Esarhaddon often undertook ‘seclusions’ for 100 days. Formally, this was the “substitute king ritual” that had only rarely taken place across various kingdoms in Mesopotamia. For some reason, Esarhaddon felt the need to perform this ritual in the middle of the war with Egypt. This was not the first time he performed the ritual, but no doubt even the elites were stumped by this sudden withdrawal during a critical military campaign.

Additionally, this went beyond a mere seclusion, it was a total ritualistic and spiritual “body double” for the Assyrian king. Usually these stand ins actually had total mental deficiencies, think highly non-functional autism, or down-syndrome which otherwise would leave one totally unable to ‘socially scheme’ in any capacity. They would sleep in the king's own bed, wear his crown and royal garbs, even going so far as to eat his food and sit at the table. This entire time, Esarhaddon would remain completely hidden, being referred to as “the farmer”, a strange modification of a divine king to become a simple farmer. Obviously the Assyrians, at least those who believed this ritual held weight, were attempting to ‘redirect’ spiritual evil onto the fake king. Effectively this is similar to the Jewish, and wider middle eastern concept of the “Evil Eye” or “Ayn Hora” which can be directed toward those of good fortune, or otherwise. Ironically, at the end of these 100 days they would kill the false king anyway, regardless of what happened, just for good measure.

While no harm came to Esarhaddon during 671, he none-the-less doubled back and performed the ritual twice more during the following two years. This left him effectively unable to run the empire, which shows to what degree royal courts were always active with autonomy, just with the input of a king, and left his powerful commander chief eunuch Ashur-nasir in command. This is the same eunuch from before who would later be prophesied to replace Esarhaddon as king, perhaps this was less of a prophecy and more of a technical reality. Everyone probably understood that Ashur-nasir was running the show when Esarhaddon was out of commission.

Thankfully, Ashur-nasir was quite the competent servant, and successfully captured the city of Memphis, forcing Pharaoh Taharqa to flee. The entire Egyptian royal court, family of Taharqa, were sent back to Assyria as political prisoners, and loyal governors were installed to run Egypt in their stead.

Shamash, great lord, if I give one of my daughters in marriage to the king of the Scythians, will he speak words of good faith to me, true and honest words of peace? Will he keep my treaty and do whatever is pleasing to me?”

Based on these two questions to the oracles by Esarhaddon we can assume a number of realities about the geopolitical situation of Assyria during his reign. For one, the persistent threat of the Urartu kingdom, under King Rusas, was now aided by an alliance with the Cimmerians. As stated at the very start of this Table of Nations series, the Cimmerians are associated with the “Gomer(ians)”, themselves children of Japheth. We learn in the very first chapters of this series that the Cimmerians were a subgroup of the Scythians, identified as the principal group of Japheth. We can thus see that both of these groups, with extremely similar methodologies of nomadic horse raiding culture, were engaged as allies by both Assyria and Urartu. These direct sources from Assyria reflect both the genetic, historiological, and biblical realities of the region.

In 679 BCE, reportedly during Esarhaddon’s consultation with an oracle, the Cimmerians rode in from the north and invaded the Assyrian hinterlands. By 676 BCE, they had made their way deeper into Assyrian territory, conquering the region of Phrygia. Nearby, in the province of Cilicia, Esarhaddon came out to battle to meet the Cimmerians, and stop their campaign, defeating them completely by killing their King Teushpa with his own sword.

This may not have been a critical battle, and would have been something closer to a border raid if not contiguous with a revolt in Sidon, mirroring the consistent Levantine alliances that refused to accept Assyrian rule of Canaan. Esarhaddon marches down the coast from Cilicia, and again executes the rebellious king of Sidon. Well, only after the king Abdi-Milkutti escaped by boat, eventually being captured a year later, conveniently the year he defeated the Cimmerians. Reportedly, Esarhaddon had the heads of these two kings hung on the necks of the local nobles, whom he paraded around the city of Nineveh after carting off numerous fine goods, and slaves. He turns Sidon into a province, and renames the city “Kar-Aššur‐aḫu‐iddina (”fortress of Esarhaddon”).

Allied to the Cimmerians were the Mannaeans, through their own alliance with Urartu, which were the next target in a campaign by Esarhaddon. Afterwards, Esarhaddon turned his attention to the small vassal kingdom of Shupria. According to a demand sent by Esarhaddon to Shupria, they held a number of ‘political refugees’ from Assyria and it was the return of these likely conspirators that Esarhaddon wanted to return. Apparently, the Shuprian king agreed to give them up after a number of letters! However, Esarhaddon felt this took too long, seized the city, plundered it completely, captured and executed the refugees, and even sent similar criminals wanted by Urartu back to their kingdom in some sort of attempt at peace.1

Around this time, the year 676 BCE, Esarhaddon sends his armies into Media to defeat the Median co-kings Eparna and Shidirparna. Resulting from this victory, many factions of the Medes swear allegiance to Assyria, bringing gifts to the city of Nineveh2 - funny enough mirroring the ‘eastern Magi’ who bring gifts upon the birth of Jesus, in other words a sign of Messianic divine support for a king within Zoroastrian/Median/Magian political systems. After fighting the Medes in the Zagros Mountains, Esarhaddon campaigned further to the east than any previous Mesopotamian ruler at the site of Dasht-e Kavir deep in the Persian desert.3 Despite these lengthy campaigns in the northeast, the Medes were less of a formal kingdom led by a singular ruler, and more of a tribal coalition led by a union of chiefs, formally called kings. Taking out two of these ‘kings’ was meaningless, and shortly after another “King of the Medes”, dated as such prior to 676 in the year 678, named Kaštaritu began to raid Assyria.4 Whether or not this figure is identical to any specific Median king is unknown, but these raids were the early inkling of the Median Empire's eventual rise. Through 673 BCE these raids continued in alliance with the Cimmerians, Mannaeans, and Scythians. However, they are brought to an end by the Scythian desire to marry a daughter of Esarhaddon in tandem with other Median tribes' desire to end the conflict, and hostilities.5

In 675, the Elamites even invaded Babylonia, capturing the important city of Sippar while the Assyrians were campaigning in Anatolia. Forced to abandon his campaign, Esarhaddon turned his attention eastward. Little is known about this campaign, leaving no lasting inscriptions due to the embarrassment from the loss of Sippar, clearly this was a nasty blow to his plans. Thankfully, right after seizing Sippar, the Elamite king Khumban-khaltash II dies, leaving his heir Urtak in a tenuous position. Urtak clearly is unprepared to handle his new rule, and this already existing campaign, and chooses to secure his rule and seek peace with Esarhaddon. The two monarchs actually become allies, exchanging children of theirs to be raised in the other's court; seemingly this gesture goes well beyond a simple peace treaty, including future security and alignment between nations.6

What came next was perhaps the worst year in Esarhaddon’s life, beginning in the winter of 673, during his seventh year on the throne, he invaded Egypt. Few Assyrian sources mention this war, leading scholars to presume it was a complete loss.7 While Esarhaddon had good reason to want to conquer Egypt, after all they had sponsored many of the rebellions across the empire, the Assyrians were a bit too eager. Marching at a breakneck speed, the Assyrians arrived at the city of Ashkelon completely exhausted where the Kushite Pharaoh Taharqa engaged, and soundly defeated, the Assyrian army forcing Esarhaddon to withdraw back to Nineveh.

These campaigns did not exist inside a vacuum. While Esarhaddon had fabricated a casus belli, a reason for war, against the kingdom of Shupria, it was not without warrant on account of both his usurping brothers being likely alive, and held within the kingdom. It was perhaps even at their behest that this conflict had even begun, promoting the war between both Urartu and the Cimmerians, against Assyria. At this same time, despondent vassals began to rise up, further complicating the picture, forcing Assyrian heavy handed retribution, further enraging the levantines. Immediately following these campaigns, around the year 674 Esarhaddon crowned his heir apparent Sin-nadin-apli showing a prioritization to secure succession, but only two short years later the crown prince actually died.8 It appears that the Medians either supported his brothers, or simply refused to support the previous crown prince, but the lesson was already learned of the disloyalty of vassals upon a king’s death.

What may have finally ended these extensive campaigns might have been the death of his brother Arda-Mulissu, combined with the loss of his eldest son. Inscriptions in 673 BCE report both of his brothers being alive9, and free somewhere between the Kingdom of Urartu and Media, but shortly following in 672 BCE Esarhaddon, along with his mother Naqi’a, undergo a series of treaties with six independent rulers, along with the Medians. Within these peace treaties the Assyrians sought a guarantee of support for the two child co-heirs of Assyria and Babylon, Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin. Clearly, these treaties were meant to avoid the upheaval at the start of Esarhaddon’s own reign, showing not a paranoid ruler but a completely self aware political negotiator that at all steps had a cohesive picture and goal for the empire: expand Assyrian control through continuation of the royal dynasty.

These two new heirs were quite an interesting pick, and speak volumes for the situation Esarhaddon found himself in around the year 672 BCE. Prior to the peace treaties, he had no heir, having just lost his son, and probably had heard reports of the deaths of his brothers. While no bad blood was surely lost, the combined loss of an eldest son may have on some level triggered a shift in perspective on absolute rule within Esarhaddon. His second eldest son, Shamash-shum-ukin is given the throne of Babylon in a twist of fate, rather than the throne of Assyria. One would presume that the ‘eldest’ would be given the primary throne, but perhaps either owing to Shamash-shum-ukin’s lack of desire to rule, or an inability to, he appoints his fourth son, the famed Ashurbanipal as the primary heir and future king of Assyria.

Keen eyed readers will have picked up that Ashurbanial was not the second son, but neither was he the third. A mysterious third son named Shamash-metu-uballit, whose name translates to “Shamash has brought to life the dead” was actually next in line. Again, those who noticed his name actually implied a life full of ‘death’ would already assume that he was likely too sick to rule the empire. Perhaps a similar genetic defect plagued his eldest son, Sin-nadin-apli who had passed away, and Esarhaddon might have only done so with the knowledge both of these sons were in actuality quite ill. Some theorize that perhaps it was because Shamash-shum-ukin was born to a Babylonian woman, while Ashurbanipal was born to an Assyrian woman, the truth is that health likely played a major role in these decisions.

While any man who had experienced the loss of multiple children, a wife - his beloved, and favored wife Esharra-hammat passes away in February 672 BCE - and treacherous brothers would have an harrowed existence, Esarhaddon himself was plagued with physical and mental ailments his entire life. Whatever this disorder was, it probably had plagued his first and third sons, and perhaps the second had shown potential signs. These ‘problems’ had likely been elevated to divine problems by the Assyrian priesthood, and may have been rooted in a dislike of the Babylonian ethnic origin of Shamash-shum-ukin’s mother. The Assyrians might have preferred Ashurbanipal, while the Babylonians preferred the other son. Even his fifth eldest son, Ashur-taqisha-liblut was also a sickly child, and died before the year 672. He may have even been the first child to die, striking a grave prophecy for the health of his other heirs, resulting in his ‘paranoid’ behavior to secure his heir’s throne and ascendency through external peace treaties. All of this paints a picture of the Assyrian royal family in complete disarray, with Esarhaddon’s original plans, and close circle falling into ruin. Not unlike many of the biblical prophecies.

And then my brothers went mad. They drew their swords, godlessly, in the middle of Nineveh. But Ashur, Shamash, Bel, Nabu, Ishtar, all the gods looked with wrath on the deeds of these scoundrels, brought their strength to weakness and humbled them beneath me.” Stele of Esarhaddon.

After Sennacherib’s assassination in 681 BCE, his son Esarhaddon consolidated power around the throne. Owing to their competing interests, there was a six week long power struggle for the throne between his brothers despite Esarhaddon having been crowned prince successor by his father.1 During this war Esarhaddon successfully raised an army while his brother Arda-Mulissu attempted to take over the capital. Due to disputes within Arda-Mulissu’s faction, many of his supporters and generals defected to Esarhaddon right before their battle in Hanigalbat. This enabled Esarhaddon to march onto the capital without contention, becoming recognized as the valid King of Assyria.

After defeating the conspiracy against him, Esarhaddon chronicled his purge in a stele reading: “The soldiers, the rebels who had fomented the plot to seize the rulership of Assyria for my brothers, their ranks I examined to the last man and I laid a heavy penalty upon them, I destroyed their seed.”2 Curiously, this “destroyed their seed” language is mirrored through the Tanakh, and often leveled against the enemies of Israel in a similar way, showing how God uses the language specific to the audience to communicate divine messages.

Like both of his predecessors, Esarhaddon opts to move the capital - probably dominated by his father’s loyal servants and aides. Opting to make his main residence an old armory on the outskirts of Nimrud, built during the reign of Shalmanesser III, Esarhaddon built this location as a fortified self-sufficient fortress. The gateways of this palace could be sealed off, making it nearly impregnable to outside forces, and completely independent from the attached city. A similar city mound was built at Nineveh, far from the city center, to facilitate similar protective measures against uprisings. Clearly, Esarhaddon was constantly worried about potential revolts and uprisings, with records of him consulting the sun god Shamash containing the only known queries concerning possible betrayals in all of Assyrian history.

Perhaps remembering what was done to him by his brothers, Esarhaddon was consistently paranoid, and for good reason. “Malicious gossip, slander and falsehood they [i.e. Esarhaddon’s brothers] wove around me in a godless way, lies and insincerity. They plotted evil behind my back. Against the will of the gods, they alienated my father’s well-disposed heart from me, though in secret his heart was affected with compassion, and he still intended me to exercise kingship.”3 If Esarhaddon is to be believed, numerous plots hounded him even prior to his reign after being crowned heir by his father. Anyone raised in such an environment would develop a deep mistrust for those responsible, and seek alternative modes of exercising his rule where possible. Owing to this tenuous relationship to the other males within the royal family, his wife Ešarra-ḫammat, his mother Naqiʾa and his daughter Šērūʾa-ēṭirat were all given immense political power, unmatched by women in earlier Assyrian periods.4 These women were likely among those whose myths contributed to that earlier legend of Semmiramis, as power female rulers because something of a trend during this era. Clearly Esarhaddon felt a sort of security giving these women power, possibly due to their being no legitimate path for them to usurp the throne, but more controversially, it was simply out of a deep love that Esarhaddon trusted them over political actors. Evidence for this theory comes from Esarhaddon’s own depression following the death of his queen and many of his children.5 Despite being deeply affected by this loss - after all what human would not have felt this way after losing a wife and children - Esarhaddon remains a stalwart and measured ruler.

Beside his ability to balance the internal bureaucracy of the empire, Esarhaddon correctly identifies the cultural and religious importance of the city of Babylon, now reeling from ‘complete’ collapse under his father Sennacherib. Despite a prophecy that stated Babylon would not be restored for 70 years, Esarhaddon manipulates the priests to read the cuneiform number 70 upside down, turning it into an 11. We see how early into his reign, Esarhaddon goes so far as the manipulate divine prophecy in order to suit his goals, and solidify his own rule. He even inscribed his own name into the bricks laid throughout the roads of the streets. “For the god Marduk, Esarhaddon, king of the world, king of Assyria and Babylon” lined the processional way of the Esagila in Babylon, purportedly baked from a ritually pure kiln. Presumably, this act of good will toward the Babylonians would have certainly suited worshippers of the god Marduk across the empire, endearing their loyalty to the crown.

Esarhaddon first cleared the city of debris wrought during the destruction by Sennacherib, whom Esarhaddon completely disassociated his lineage from, barely even recognizing him as his own father and previous king. This building project was far from a simple reorganization of capital and labor, it was a complete restructuring of the city, with a massive scope across multiple generations of builders.6 The massive temple complex dedicated to the god Bel, the Esagila, was restored, as well as the Ziggurat of Babylon - potentially related to the Tower of Babylon - known as the Etemenanki.7 While likely completely different from the original Tower of Babel, probably located itself at Ur, this later “Ziggurat of Babylon” was a similar structural clone that gave rise to the persistent legends throughout the later biblical period, making the story less of a historical construction and more of a pressing sign of a collapse in kingship. The Etemenanki being rebuilt would have been seen as a sign of restored divine favor toward the rulers of Babylon, thus meaning the Assyrian crown.

Despite being an Assyrian King, the persistent draw of the cultural and religious power of Babylon continually forced Assyrian monarchs to ply to the needs of the Mesopotamians. Assyria was a warlike state, especially under the Sargonids, but Babylon and its people had a much more perceptibly ancient culture. The Assyrians were something of a “progressive” empire in many ways, flying in the face of contrived ritual in the ancient world. Their kings often simply ignored the local religious needs, but when it came to Babylon, they all felt an importance to the city, perhaps even on a personal level. Kings of Babylon were not generals that won battles, but intergenerational pseudo-religious mythological figures that were elevated to the role of gods. Many are aware of Gilgamesh, Sargon of Akkad, or Hammurabi, whose own legacy is owed to the way truly great leaders were elevated by the Mesopotamians. We do not remember either of these figures for a specific battle, or conquest, we remember them for their cultural significance and legal contributions. Great builders like Ur-Nammu, or lawgivers like his son Shulgi are still held prominent in our own society. Babylonians/Mesopotamian Kings were builders, and divine rulers, Assyrian monarchs were generals, politicians, and financiers. They came to extract, and return value to their shareholders (bureaucrats) in the homeland. This relationship undergirds the entire biblical perspective on the Assyrians, and is the impetus for the prophecy of Jonah warning the people of Nineveh for their sins.

Esarhaddon was not nearly as brutal as his father, or grandfather Sargon, but he was still far from the traditional model of a Babylonian “King of the World”. From a stele marking his rebuilding effort, we see Esarhaddon’s classic Assyrian propagandistic ego shine through “When in the reign of an earlier king there were ill omens, the city offended its gods and was destroyed at their command. It was I, Esarhaddon, whom they chose to restore everything to its rightful place, to calm their anger, and to assuage their wrath. You, Marduk, entrusted the protection of the land of Assur to me. The Gods of Babylon, meanwhile, told me to rebuild their shrines and renew the proper religious observances of their palace, Esagila. I called up all my workmen and conscripted all the people of Babylonia. I set them to work, digging up the ground and carrying the earth away in baskets.” Notably, Esarhaddon says “earlier kings”, dissociating himself from their decisions, but still blames the city’s occupants for the destruction. Effectively, he still ‘others’ the citizens of Babylon, making a clear distinction between himself as ruler, and the ruled. Marduk selects him personally, showing a relationship between Esarhaddon and the gods themselves, but notably the Babylonian chief deity Marduk, not Ashur, is the one who selects him as king.

Esarhaddon successfully rebuilt numerous buildings across Babylon: the gates, battlements, shrines to various deities, courtyards, and numerous waterworks. He even goes so far as to return many of the looted previous objects, and gold taken during the previous conquest of the city. We learn from a report “I have entered Babylon. The Babylonians have received me kindly, and daily they bless the king, saying, “What was taken and plundered from Babylon, he has returned,” and from Sippar to Bab-marrat the chiefs of the Chaldeans bless the king, saying, “(It is he) who resettled (the people) of Babylon.” However, the entire building project was not completed in the reign of Esarhaddon, despite his intensive propaganda on the matter. The walls appear to be rebuilt during later eras, while still being attributed to him, showing non-distinct delineation between who, and when different parts of the city were rebuilt.

Babylon wasn’t the only city rebuilt, Esarhaddon returned captured idol statues of Mesopotamian gods that had been held in the temples of Assyria. Statues were notably returned to the cities of Der, Larsa, and Uruk, with an additional project to clear the debris at Uruk and repair Eanna temple, dedicated to the goddess Ishtar, undertaken by Esarhaddon. Other smaller building projects were begun at sites like Nippur, Borsippa, and Akkad.8 Scholars have even gone so far as to call Esarhaddon “Babylonian King of Assyria”, rather than the reverse, marking an obvious shift in focus for the royalty showing a transition from one of conquest to a solidification of Assyrian rule in Mesopotamia. Despite these claims, his military power remained centered in the north, around the Assyrian heartland, and Babylon operated as a religious capital, more so than an economic, or military powerhouse. Numerous projects were undertaken in the north, albeit focused on military function versus civic engagement. None of these sorts of projects were undertaken in the south.9

Among Sennacherib’s projects at Nineveh was the famed “Hanging Gardens”, often incorrectly with the additional moniker “of Babylon” erroneously applied to what was an Assyrian location.1 These ‘gardens’ were more than mere greenery, often thought of in modern imagery as something like a science exhibit. The reality was these ‘gardens’ were a series of complex waterways and irrigation systems that enabled a paradise-like garden city to flourish in an otherwise inhospitable region. 50 miles of canals and aqueducts were constructed, advanced sluice gates unlike any previously engineered, and even the addition of waterproof cement. Nineveh could raise or lower water levels as needed in the city, truly making it a marvel of ancient construction and providing complex flooding protection. These “hanging gardens” were constantly in fluid motion with the changing path of the Tigris river.

This “garden” was not the only construction, a “Palace Without Rival” covering a massive 503 x 242 meter citadel was built, with over 80 rooms, guarded by 30 ton winged lion-bulls, known as Lamassu, similar to those still on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, albeit 1/4th the size of the originals, and from Ashurnasirpal’s constructions at Nimrud. Additionally, a temple to the death-god Nergal was renovated, potentially due to the fears surrounding the disastrous death of his father Sennacherib. Owing to this, many previous vassal states of his father begin to challenge Sennacherib, forcing him to deal with the uprisings one by one.

In the year 701 BCE, what began as another tributary war against the states of the Levant spiraled into the most well recorded Assyrian conflict, and perhaps even the most well recorded events in the entire Bible. This is not the place to fully untangle the rational and Biblical conflict, but Assyrian and Jewish/Greek records diverge on the result of this war. This discrepancy probably comes down to a fusing of two separate wars by Sennacherib, an earlier one where tribute was enforced, and a later crushing defeat.2 While Hezekiah indeed paid a hefty tribute to Sennacherib resulting from this war, the military aims of Assyria are unclear. If we believe they were attempting total control over the region, they once again failed. If the Assyrians were merely trying to stamp out resistance and gain tribute, then perhaps their aims were successful. I believe they failed, and the valuable use of military resources at Jerusalem led to a further instability across the empire in regions like Babylon which were a far larger threat to the cohesive identity of Assyria than the states in Israel.

During a nearly two year long struggle against the Babylonian warchief Marduk-apla-iddina (yes, the same one from before) in the year 704 BCE, just prior to the war against Israel, Sennacherib finally recaptured Babylon, forcing Marduk-apla-iddina to flee to Elam. This event's timing is important to the war against Israel and the Levantine states. 704-703 was marked by campaigns against Anatolia and Babylon, while 702 was spent solidifying gains and preparing forces for the eventual 701 campaign in the west. However, despite having placed a loyal vassal named Bel-ibni on the throne of Babylon, Marduk-alpa-iddina, together with the Chaldean warlord Mushezig-Marduk, continually threatened to return to the city. This meant that during the entire war in the Levant, Sennacherib was fielding messages from his governors of revolts and challenges to his rule in Babylon. Perhaps distracted by this, Sennacherib left without an explicit victory over the Jews, having felt a temporary tribute agreement sufficient. While we cannot be certain if Sennacherib’s concern over Babylon was why he ended his campaign in the Levant, we know that after another invasion of Babylon in the year 700 BCE, Sennacherib placed his eldest son Ashur-nadin-shumi on the throne to keep Babylon firmly under his rule.

Despite a 6 year gap in campaigns following his pacification of Babylon, Sennacherib bides his time and once again initiates a conquest of Elam with the goal of defeating Marduk-apla-iddina.3 Employing a cohort of Greek and Phoenician shipwrights, Sennacherib constructs a massive fleet to sail across the Persian gulf and invade Elam. Ironically, upon his arrival, Marduk-apla-iddina finally dies of natural causes and the entire war goal of Sennacherib is thrown into chaos.4 The whole venture, like most expensive overseas campaigns for glory, enraged various factions associated with the Elamites and Babylonians. Invading Elam itself must have been a step too far, and the Elamite King seizes this opportunity to march into Babylon while the Assyrians are preoccupied in his own territory. The Elamite King, Hallushu-Inshushinak, actually successfully captures and executes the son of Sennacherib, and ruler of Babylon, Ashur-nadin-shumi. The Elamites crown a puppet king over Babylon of their own, but just a few short months later Sennacherib defeats this usurper. Eventually, Mushezib-Marduk, that previous Chaldean warlord we mentioned allied to Marduk-apla-iddina, assembles a large multi-national force of Chaldeans, Arameans, Arabs, and Elamites to engage the Assyrians. Despite this valiant resistance for over four years, Mushezib-Marduk’s coalition was defeated in 689 BCE.

What followed this war was perhaps one of the most brutal pacifications of any population recorded. A complete policy of eradicating the entire identity of the Babylonians was undertaken by Sennacherib after a brutal fifteen month siege of the city.5 Previously, Sennacherib had attempted to pacify the pro-Babylonian factions filling the nobility of Assyria, but perhaps due to a combination of his now solidified reign and old age, or most likely in revenge for the death of his son, Sennacherib tore down Babylon’s walls, burnt the city to ashes, carried off the statue of the Babylonian god Marduk and completely diverted the Euphrates onto the path of the city making it totally uninhabitable. This destruction was so terrible that it may have contributed to his own assassination by his sons, and the later endeavor by Esarhaddon to rebuild Babylon, and release Babylonian exiles. While these events did not directly involve the Israelites, this pattern of exilic return and both Assyrian and Babylonian sin correlates to the prophetic visions that foresaw the coming regional crisis.

While mostly peaceful and lacking major military campaigns, the internal power struggle following the death of the heir apparent Ashur-nadin-shumi at Babylon sparked a succession crisis. The now eldest Arda-Mulissu, seemingly manipulated by the enraged pro-Babylon factions, was replaced by his brother Esarhaddon as proclaimed heir. What caused this decision is unknown, it may have been the growing contempt for the destruction of Babylon, but might have just as likely been Esarhaddon’s mother Naqi’a conspiring for her own son to be made heir. Naqi’a follows a similar pattern previously established by powerful Assyrian queens like Semiramis, showing how the Assyrian royal family acted as a more cohesive unit than a simple court of nobles. From Isaiah 37:38 we are told explicitly “And he [Sennacherib] was prostrating himself in the temple of Nisroch his god, and Adra-melech and Sharezer, his sons, slew him by the sword, and they fled to the land of Ararat, and his son Esarhaddon reigned in his stead.” Obviously this Adra-Melech was prince Arda-Mulissu. The previously alluded to assassination plot directly at the hands of Sennacherib’s own son Arda-Mulissu was a significant influence on the decisions of his later reign.

Resulting from this conflict, Sennacherib sends Esarhaddon to the west, somewhere in Mitanni, for his own protection, but still does not accept Arda-Mulissu as heir. Finally fed up with his father’s unwillingness to act, in a seemingly unplanned assassination Arda-Mulissu personally kills his father at the Temple of Nineveh in 681 BCE. This fractures the factions supporting Arda-Mulissu, realizing the untenable position of supporting a usurper king even if he is their preferred choice. Esarhaddon swiftly marches on Nineveh with an army only two months after his father’s murder, captures Nineveh, forces Arda-Mulissu to flee, and crowns himself King of Assyria.6

During this period, Babylon even revolted and broke free under the Chaldean warlord Marduk-apla-iddina II, in alliance with the Elamite king Ḫuban‐nikaš I. Sargon attempted to regain control of the region through a series of battles against Aramean tribes who had risen in support of Marduk-apla-iddina, but the Elamite offensive was too strong, and Sargon’s forces were defeated at Der. Likewise, in the west there were a series of revolts across the cities of Hamath, Simirra, Damascus, Samaria, and Arpad, but unlike in the east, Sargon was successful in stamping out these revolts. Sargon also undertook successful campaigns in both Anatolia and Iran, defeating rival powers and opening the path for future conquests.

In the year 717 BCE Sargon retook the major trade gateway of Carchemish, securing the city’s substantial silver reserves. Resulting from this influx of funds, Sargon understood the only way to prevent a major inflationary crisis was putting to use this silver, undertaking the painstaking process of building a new, seemingly pointless, capital city called “Dur-Sharrukin”, or “Fort Sargon”. Perhaps, the combination of previous insecurity at the capital of Nimrud, itself a newly assigned capital city roughly 150 years prior in 879 BCE by Ashurnasirpal, meant that entrenched bureaucrats loyal to the Adasides might have retained positions of influence over the monarchy. By moving to another new city, Sargon would dodge those unwilling, or un-loyal enough to relocate simply for the sake of their King. However, this process of building a new capital would take at least a decade, and it would be for some time that Sargon would inaugurate his new city.

Between 716 and 713 BCE, Sargon fought a series of wars against Urartu, the Medes, Arab tribes, and even Ionian pirates in the eastern Mediterranean, think Odysseus, and similar Argonautic Greek adventurers. These emerging ‘pirates’ were clearly a much larger problem for the Sargonids, and a few years later in 709 BCE Saron won a war against seven kings from a land called “La”, in the district of Iadnana, or possibly Athana.2 This “Land of La” is presumed to be the island of Cyprus, which in this period was being heavily Graecized and overrun by effectively marauding colonists, not far off from the Assyrian perspective of pirates. Cyprus is brought under control of the Assyrian empire, known from a victory stele that commemorates the conquest at the site of Larnaca.3 Interestingly, there are alternative readings regarding the “district of Iadnana/Athana”, which might refer not strictly to the Land of La (Cyprus), but rather to the wider Greek Islands, and Athens itself. This term “Iadnana” is quite similar to both the Greek term “Danaan/Danaoi”, but also the Torah’s term from the Table of Nations for one of the subgroups and children of Javan (Greece), the Dodanim.

One of Sargon’s last major projects was to relocate the capital to the now newly built city of Dur-Sharrukin,4 and within a year of undertaking this final move, Sargon II passed away during a campaign against Tabal, and his son - the famed Sennacherib - took the throne. The army was unable to even recover his body, frightening the Assyrians with potential disastrous implications.

Despite the intense lack of central power, Assyrian campaigns continued often with varying degrees of success. Under Shamshi-Adad in 812 BCE, major portions of Babylonia were brought under Assyrian control temporarily. His son Adad-Nirari III continued to add new territory to the empire’s frontiers. It was during this era that the famed warrior queen ‘Semiramis’ ascended to the throne of Assyria, in actuality the mother of Adad-Nirari III. Areas of Syria and Iran were added to the Assyrian empire under her lead. In actuality, her name was Shammuramat, and much of the mythology is probably fused with other stories of Assyrian consorts, but effectively her legend shows the weakness of Assyrian Kings during this period that even a Queen was capable of outlasting her husband and ruling over the empire, even leading troops directly into battle. Shammuramat effectively controlled Adad-Nirari, and after her death he begins to be dominated even by powerful figures such as the eunuch Nergal-eresh. In the year 787 BCE, Adad-Nirari finally appointed a new Turtanu named Shamshi-ilu, who occupied the position for nearly 40 years, by far the most powerful Turtanu in Assyrian history.

After the reign of Adad-Nirari, the stagnation continued unabated during the periods of his three sons Shalmanesser IV (783-773 BCE), Ashur-dan II (773-755 BCE) and Ashur-Nirari V (755-745BCE). A noticeable lack of royal documents from the reign of these three sons supports the theory that officials across the empire became more bold, and less concerned with the policy of a central dynasty. Many of the officials failed to even credit these kings for their successes, showing a rising competition for who really held power.

Coincidentally, during this period there was a major expansion of power by the Judahite Kings, specifically Jehoash and his son Amaziahu. Jehoash began major renovation efforts in Jerusalem, rebuilding the temple to a magnificent state that even rivaled the constructions of Solomon. We learn from Kings “And King Jehoash summoned Jehoiada the priest and the priests and said to them, “Why are you not repairing the damage of the house? Now, take no money from your acquaintances, but give it for the damage of the house.”2 After this renovation, the Temple truly became the central worship site for all of Judaism. Despite these renovations, Johoash’s son Amaziahu failed to destroy the ‘high places’ that still threatened to lead the Israelites astray into idolatry.

While most presume this period was a sort of ‘collapse’ this is far from the case. Even the term ‘stagnation’ is debatable. In all likelihood, as the royal dynasty began to falter, they began outsourcing autonomy to various regional rulers. There appears to be no “break” in the continuity of rule, nor do these local aristocrats attempt any major revolts. An alternative reading to this period might be a return to the Assyria of old, under their city-state structure. One where central control is deemphasized, and autonomous management of tax policy and laws becomes more permitted to a certain extent. The Assyrian royal family may have realized a structural/resource inability to maintain their empire, and perhaps reframed their methodology by increasing the autonomy of local rulers that may have threatened to usurp the throne if not given such independence.

This period ended under Tiglath Pileser III whose reign began in 745 BCE, coinciding with the reign of the Judean King Uzziah. Clearly, the rise of Assyria continued unabated; Tiglath Pileser undertook a bureaucratic reform that centralized the empire’s structure, consolidating power around his own position. He also undertook the most significant conquests up to that point, vassalizing the Levant all the way to the border with Egypt at the Sinai, and his conquest of Babylonia which saw the territory of Assyria more than double.3

Tiglath Pileser’s son Shalmaneser V appears to have had a brief five year reign, without any major disruptions. The empire remains largely stable, with the exception of Shalmaneser V having been the King responsible for the conquest of Samaria and resulting Assyrian captivity. Whether or not he was the King to specifically have undertaken the conquest, this Northern Kingdom of Israel terminates during this period. Following the reign of Shalmanesser V, the 1000 year Adaside dynasty came to a close with the rise of the Sargonids.

Arguably the largest threat to the Assyrian empire came not from the Mesopotamian rivers, or Mediterranean nomads, but from the mountainous Urartu just north of the heartland. Their geographic location right on the border certainly contributed to their rivalry, but most critically these two administrations actually shared a writing system, culture, and religion which closely mirror the autocratic bureaucracy of Assyria.1 Assyrian and Urartian shared cultural technology even went so far as Shalmanesser introducing new methods of irrigation, which may have been derived from what he saw while on campaign in Urartu; this method of shared culture through military campaigns was often the primary form of technological transfer in the ancient world. While separated from the incredibly well guarded Taurus mountain range, nevertheless, these two states often devolved into skirmishes. For his part, Shalmanesser recognized the threat of the Hurro-Urartians and sacked their capital Arzashkun in 856 BCE.2 Despite this claimed “devastation” of the Urartian kingdom, there appears to be little change in the long term problem of the Hurro-Urartians, and by 830 BCE Shalmanesser is forced to send a Tartan named Dayyan-Ashur to deal with their northern neighbors.

Only three years after his campaign in Urartu, in 853 BCE an extensive coalition of mostly Levantine states assembled against Shalmanesser at the famed Battle of Qarqar. The coalition was led by the Aramean king of Aram-Damascus named Hadadezer, but consisted of a total of 12 Kings in a complex web of alliances mirroring the Battle of the Valley of Siddim between numerous near eastern kings including Chedorlaomer and Abraham. The twelve states that composed the alliance against Shalmanesser according to the notorious Kurkh Monoliths were: Aram-Damascus (the leader), Hama, Israel, Ammon, Qedar, Arwad, Quwe, Irqanata, Shianu, Usannata, and Masura. Interestly, the list only includes 11, despite stating 12, perhaps an indication that there were more than simply 11 explicitly named kings. This number “12” should immediately stand out as the number of 12 Canaanites that would be replaced by the 12 tribes - despite there having actually been 13 including Levi, and potentially 14 including the Tribe of Machir mentioned in the Song of Deborah. An alliance of 12 ‘Canaanite’ Kings, including Israel, against the Assyrians, contemporary with the era of the two kingdoms? Let’s stop and break down this alliance.

Let’s split the list into Semitic and ‘Canaanite’ states. The Semites include: Aram-Damascus, Israel, Ammon, and Qedar (represented here as Arabia). The Canaanites include: Hama, Arwad, Quwe, Irqanata, Shianu, Usannata, and Masura. From our section on the Canaanites in the Book of Ham, potentially 5, or even 6 of these Canaanites can be directly identified among the genealogy of Noah as: Arqa (Irqa-nata), Siyanna/Usnatu, Arwad, Sumur (Masura?3), and Hama. Given their prominence in the Torah among the bene Noach, these states’ direct mention on the Kurkh Monolith would line up with what we know from written sources. We can thus presume that the “12” states, missing one, probably included a number of petty kings and princes that joined them in their resistance against Assyria.

Among these twelve, Hamath, Israel, and Arqa each send over 10,000 troops, with Hadadezar doubling that to 20,000 himself. Most of the other kings only send a few hundred troops, or a thousand at most, while Hadadezar, Iruhuleni (king of Hamath) and Ahab (king of Israel) additionally send another 1000-2000 cavalry units, mostly chariots and horsemen.4

Owing to the extensive number of chariots sent by Ahab, and his positioning as only third king on the list, many have questioned how Ahab could have supplied an even greater number of elite cavalry than Hadadezar. Archeological evidence for Israel’s ability to field 2000 chariots is slim, but a possible explanation for his forces may include the kingdoms that were themselves vassals, to allies to Ahab. This may include Judah in the south, but also the Phoenician Tyrians, and the Kingdom of Moab. While not named, the inclusion of these two may easily bring his forces up to the required number, and the Phoenicians alone probably had access to extensive economic resources for the alliance.

Moab’s inclusion under Israel would make sense, given the biblical laws enabled direct rule over the Moabites, but spared the Ammonites from Israelite control. Ammon being listed among the alliance of states with the exclusion of Moab aligns with a biblical perspective. Additionally, there is the inclusion of the chief Ishmaelite son, Qedar, and his tribe under King Gindibu of Arabia who sends 1000 camel cavalry. Gindibu is actually the first Arab mentioned in any Semitic language source, making him a fairly notable ruler of the Qedarites.5 The Qedarites were likely close allies to both the Israelites and Ammonites for many centuries, at the very least sharing economic interests over the land routes crossing Canaan that the Assyrian’s were attempting to usurp.

For his part, Hadadezer was probably closely related with the kings of Israel despite being Aramean and only distantly related to the Israelites. There was probably some sort of intermarriage between the royal families of the region between the kings of the alliance against Assyria. Interestingly, from the Tanakh in Kings 20 we learn of a war between Hadadezer, in the text named ben-Hadad, and Ahab. “And Ben-Hadad the king of Aram gathered all his army and thirty-two kings with him and horses and chariots, and he went up and besieged Samaria and waged war with it.” Strangely, later in line 34 we learn “And he said to him, “The cities which my father took from your father I will return, and you shall make streets for yourself in Damascus as my father had made in Samaria. And I will,” [said Ahab] “release him with this treaty.” And he forged with him a treaty, and he released him.” We see directly from the Tanakh that both Ahab and Hadadezer made an alliance, which would ultimately become the alliance against Shalmanesser at the Battle of Qarqar which successfully repelled Assyrian incursions into the southern Levant for centuries to come.

Following the death of Hadadezer in 841 BCE, Shalmanesser unsuccessfully attempted to capture Damascus a total of three times, possibly due to either the city's extremely fortified condition or the various prophetic decrees that Damascus would only truly fall in the future.6 The rest of his reign is marked by campaigning in the west, primarily Syria and parts of Anatolia, in attempts to exert control over the region; something that never truly materializes for the Assyrians, owing to their brutal methodology and the resulting fierce resistance.

Major Non-Assyrian cities like Arrapha (Kirkuk), and Harran were extensively dominated during this period, and treaties with Babylonian King Namu Shuma-ukin I formalized their border in the south helping stabilize the position of the Assyrian monarchy. For many centuries, Arrapha became the center of Assyrian campaigns in the east, while Harran became a provincial capital of the west. Having long been the center of the moon god cult, Harran was one of the few cities, along with Ashur, exempt from paying taxes to the Assyrian Kings; a status known as Zakutu.1 This meant Harran was exempt from the Ilku - a feudal land partitioning system - as well as the Tupsikku, effectively enforced state labor. Other than Harran and the spiritual capital of Assyria itself, Ashur, only cities like Babylon and Sippar, itself an ancient religious center, were given exemption from these obligations. Effectively, these four cities all were separated out from the technical imperial administration, having been seen by the Assyrian royalty as a major threat to their rule due to the prominent religious position held by these cities among the common population.

In the following century, Harran became the seat of the nations commanding general, called the Turtanu in Assyrian, but also known as the “Tartan תַּרְתָּן” in Hebrew from the Tanakh.2 The Tartan would soon become a major threat to Assyrian Kings and their authority, often autonomously controlling their territory. Despite this threat to their authority, Harran’s incredibly ancient moon cult forced Assyrian rulers to pay deference to the cities priesthood, with kings such as Shamaneser III and Ashurbanipal contributing to renovations of the Eḫulḫul - the nearly 2000 year old “Temple of Rejoicing”.3 These connections might run deeper than they first appear; we will see in his own section how Terah, father of Abraham, actually is connected to the moon god through the etymological relation between the Hebrew term Yerach, meaning moon. When we learn from the Medieval Midrash Sefer HaYashar that Terah was a “chief” of Nimrod’s army, thus a general who led troops into battle, we can imply Terah was effectively a Tartan of Nimrod, and even in that period Harran was a common site for ambitious political rivals. Perhaps for this reason, this story continued to resonate down through the Kings period.

During this era coinciding with the Omride Kings period, rather than the biblical Patriarchs, Ashurnasirpal II attempted to relocate the capital once again to the restored ancient city of Nimrud, which most probably is either the Biblical Rehoboth-Ir, Calah or Resen - all three cities being from Genesis 10:11-12 which states “From that land emerged Asshur, and he built Nineveh and Rehoboth ir and Calah. And Resen, between Nineveh and between Calah; that is the great city”.

We must delve into this subject briefly, but these cities, all founded by Ashur, form the core axis of the Assyrian Empire. Ashur to Nineveh is the nexus of the “Assyrian Heartland” along the banks of the upper Tigris river. Ashur was the primary capital for centuries, while Nineveh later became the primary capital under Sennacherib in 705 BCE. Between these two cities were Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen. The intermediate capital, Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, was also located between Nineveh and Ashur, and may be identified with one of these three sites. Ashur built Nineveh, and these three aforementioned cities, regardless of the later renovations under rulers who shifted their capital north.

Which of these three cities is to be identified with “Nimrud” is unclear, but the connection to the name “Nimrod”, whose land Ashur emerged from, heavily implies that one of these three sites is to be connected with the location of Nimrud. Traditionally, the site of Kalhu should be associated with Nimrod, which was probably a later name given to the site based on ancient myths about the famed Nimrod, probably a patron of Ashur. If Nimrod was the “living man” who patronized the city of Ashur who was the defied ‘founding god’ of the city, then the man responsible for founding this city would have been Nimrod, even from the perspective of the Assyrians, but we cannot be certain. Perhaps this name was chosen by Sennacherib to call back to the “greatest known ruler of Mesopotamia”, and honor his legacy as some progenitor, or perhaps specifically patron to the building of the early Assyrian cities. Maybe the Assyrian Kings even realized the “mythological” founding status of the city under Ashur, the god, was less realistic than Nimrod granting a man named Ashur rights to found colonies in Assyria. It is impossible to speculate on these causes, and we will never have proper records of these events which at the time were seemingly minor occurrences. History, sadly, does not write itself.

However, what remains most likely to me is the idea that this “Great City” was a sort of proto-megacity that combined all three of these cities into what effectively was managed like a megalopolis. This theory stems from a brief connection between the name “Rehoboth-Ir” to imply a “district” rather than a distinct city. Everything from Nineveh to Calah was part of this “Great City”, including Resen and Rehoboth-Ir, while Ashur retained its distinct identity. The “Great City” thus became the new location for Assyrian rulers capitals, and numerous important sites in the heartland of Assyria. Whatever these three cities were located, it is very probable that this “Great City” was Nimrud, which should be identified as the Biblical Calah. Nimrod was perhaps a later name rooted in the memory of Nimrod as a patron of Ashur. This would make the territory ‘between Nineveh and between Calah (Nimrud)’ the world’s earliest example of a megalopolis, something like the ancient world’s version of an authoritarian dictatorship. While comparisons may hold in some sense, ironically, Assyria was something closer to an anarchist ‘king of the hill’ rule-by-might competition for loyalty in a post collapse society than the top-down centralized surveillance state of the Egyptian Pharaohs whose own rule evidently influenced the Assyrians style of policy.

Returning to Ashurnasirpal, it was largely during his reign that Assyria became known as a brutal, dominant empire. During a major revolt at the cities of Tela and Suru, during his first campaign in 883 BCE, Ashurnasirpal ordered the cutting off of noses, ears, fingers, limbs, gouging out eyes, and even personally overseeing impalements and decapitations. These conquests mirror the campaigns of later rulers like Genghis Khan, or the resistance against the Turks of Vlad the Impaler, from where modern vampire lore descends. In many ways, Ashurnasirpal’s reign was quite “vampiric” and bloodthirsty, using violence and fear as a means of centralizing power.

Irrespective of his brutality, Ashurnasirpal was undeniably successful being the first ruler to finally defeat the Aramean kingdom of Bit Adini under their notoriously restless king Ahuni. Ahuni had often raided across the Euphrates into Assyria, threatening the very heartland of the empire, and his acceptance of vassalization under Ashurnasirpal enabled a peace between the two regions that led to Assyria extending power all the way to the Mediterranean coast. Nearly all the Phoenician cities such as Sidon, Byblos, Tyre, and Arwad all paid tribute to Ashurnasirpal, as well as important cities such as Carchemish and Patina.

The first Assyrian King whose reign is actually known in state records, notably on the Assyrian King List, is Erishum I, who ruled between 1974-1934 BCE.2 Erishum is quite an important ruler both for the Assyrians, but also for a global shift in how trade was orchestrated. Erishum is widely considered the first ruler to experiment with what we would call “free trade”, taking a hands off approach and allowing the populace to dictate foreign transactions. This was in contrast to other Mesopotamian rulers who directly oversaw, and thus took a cut of, all trade that came through the state. Financing for this trade even came through private bankers, rather than state owned public treasuries, who bore all of the risk, but would earn vastly increased share of the profits compared to any other ancient polity.3 This resulting policy is arguably the definitive shift in state law that enabled the rise of the Assyrian state bureaucracy, and eventually premeditated the structure of the Assyrian empire through trading colonies among numerous foreign states.

While it would remain nearly 600 years before the rise of the Assyrian Empire under Ashur-uballit I, the groundwork for his kingdom was laid during this “Old” Assyrian period, correlating roughly to the era of the Patriarchs. Despite various imitations to the Assyrian throne collapsing the Puzur-Ashur dynasty during a period of roughly 100 years between 1809-1701 BCE, the Kingship of Assyria was quickly restored under the nearly 1000 year long Adaside dynasty.4 Founded by King Bel-bani in the year 1700 BCE, the dynasty was purportedly named after Belbani’s father, Adasi.5 It is perhaps from here that Messianic proclamations of 1000 year dynasties originally came from, having seen what is arguably the longest stable royal lineage in world history until the modern Imperial Japanese and British Royal family whose own imperial ambitions were arguably built off the groundwork laid by the Assyrian Empire.

Following a series of successive occupations by Eshnunna, Elam, Old Babylon, and finally a 70 year vassalize under the Mitanni that was ended by a Hittite campaign Assyria rose as a fully independent state under Ashur-Ubalit I.6 Known as the Middle Assyrian Empire, this stretch of the Assyrian rule extends into the early Biblical period between 1363-912 BCE, coinciding with the events of the 5 Books and Judges just as David’s Kingdom and Solomon’s Empire began its expansion. Ashur-Ubalit I was actually the first Assyrian ruler to properly claim the title of “Sar” (King)7, owing to that earlier elevation of Ashur as the “King” of the city, and the ruler as a mere stand-in for the god. This change elevated the Assyrian ruler to an equal status with other near eastern superpowers such as the Egyptian Pharaohs, or Hittite kings. Much of this phase’s expansion was fueled by a cannibalization of the Mitanni Empire’s old network, recapitalizing them under Assyrian ownership.

After years of campaigns under progressively militarized rulers, the Assyrians had finally finished off the Mitanni and risen to co-equal status with other ancient rulers. Under the famed Tukulti Ninurta I, Assyria was brought to its greatest heights. Following the Battle of Nihriya, where the Hittites and Assyrians struggled over the flaming remnants of the Mitanni state, the Assyrians became the top power in the region. Tukulti Ninurta was so successful, that he even shifted the capital away from Ashur to the new site of Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, perhaps facing complex power competition from the priest class of Ashur who sought to re-ascend the god to primary ruler of the state. While we lack direct evidence for this power struggle, the assassination of Tukulti Ninurta - notably the most successful Assyrian King in centuries - and returning of the capital to Ashur following the death of Tukulti Ninurta heavily implies a natural power imbalance that maintained the equilibrium at Ashur.8 Later Kings continue this quest to move the capital to different cities, implying this priest class probably maintained control over the nobility for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Perhaps owing to this power struggle, the following Assyrian Kings after Tukulti Ninurta all attempted to maintain a crumbling bureaucracy. The priority was clearly “Ashur” first, rather than “Assyria”, and this sociopathic relationship drove the Middle Assyrian social dynamics. Following the 1207 assassination, Assyria entered a defined decline, coinciding with the famed Late Bronze Age Collapse and invasion of the Sea Peoples. This decline intensified into a near collapse starting with the reign of Eriba Adad II who only ruled for around 2 years between 1056 and 1054 BCE.9 Strangely, Assyria emerges as one of the only states to survive the Bronze Age Collapse, along with a much reduced Egypt. Resulting from this near global collapse, Assyria was able to easily reconquer much of their lost territory in successive decades, clearing the way for the ascension of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

Assyrian history is divided into multiple periods in traditional archeology, but for our purposes we will split their periods into Antediluvian (correlating with the Early period), Patriarchal (correlating to the Old Assyrian period) and Kingdom (correlating with both the Middle and Neo Assyrian Empires).1 While this earliest Antediluvian period certainly shows successive settlement of the city between 2600-2100 BCE, Ashur as a city lacked an independent king.2 This situation only changed following the collapse of the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, following which Puzur-Ashur I founded the official Assyrian royal lineage. During this early Antediluvian period, Assyria was merely referred to as “ālu Aššur” (city of Ashur), which shifts in later periods to “māt Aššur” (land of Ashur) to signify the emerging regional importance of Assyrian power. This shift occurs roughly between the Old and Middle Assyrian periods around the 14th century BCE during the reign of Ashur-uballit I.3

One critical difference between these periods was the titular deity of the city “Ashur”, who was actually considered the direct ruler and king of the Assyrians in the Old period.4 Rulers before the Middle period only called themselves by the title “Išši’ak” which meant governor5, showing how they felt themselves subservient to the god of the city. This is in stark contrast to the Egyptian Pharaohs, who viewed themselves as deified, but this shift toward deification of the Assyrian rulers begins to occur as their bureaucracy expands.

These differences are critical to actually understanding the words of Genesis regarding the Assyrian founding. “And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty man in the land. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.” And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land emerged Asshur, and he built Nineveh and Rehoboth ir and Calah. And Resen, between Nineveh and between Calah; that is the great city.”6 Many debates have arisen over the exact reading of these words, specifically “who founded the Assyrian cities?” There is a simple answer, according to Bereshit Rabbah “Since Asshur saw his sons obeying Nimrod and rebelling against the Omnipresent by building the tower, he departed from their midst.”7 I am in complete agreement with Midrash, and thus also Rashi who cites this as a source, clearly Nimrod is not the founder of the Assyrian cities, but Asshur emerged from Shinar as a land, meaning Mesopotamia, perhaps settling more north to escape the political gravity of the south that had built the tower located somewhere near Ur. This specifically correlates well to the era of Puzur-Ashur I, and the emergence of Assyria following the collapse of the 3rd Dynasty of Ur.

Ashur did in fact build Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calab, and Resen. The confusion regarding Nimrod or Ashur is almost exclusively resulting from the Assyrian founding mythology, and their own understanding of their lineage. From the vantage of the Assyrians, they were in continuity with the earlier Akkadians, who were themselves also Semitic people and viewed as their ancestors.8 The Akkadians were the Empire of Nimrod, and thus it was from “Akkad” that Ashur emerged. Even more interesting is the fact the Torah does not actually mention “Ashur” as a city. This is likely due to the blurred distinction between Ashur as a city, land, and also as a titular god of the Assyrian people. Lining up with the earlier point that Assyrian rulers actually never used the title “Sar” for King, and called themselves Governors of Assyria, you can easily presume that the “Ashur” from even the Biblical text is actually the king founder of Assyria, the ‘god’ himself who was credited with founding Assyria and its cities. This may be a rare case where the specific ‘identity’ of a Biblical figure is identified with something closer to a higher level emanation, effectively the ‘angel of Assyria’, rather than the true founder of a dynasty.

One curious naming convention of the Assyrian royalty was usage of the name “Baltil/a” in reference to the earliest region of Ashur. It is still unclear exactly what Baltil is meant in reference to, but it appears like some sort of regional settlement, potentially of Hurrian origin due to the attestation of this name in Hurrian sites at the nearby city of Nuzi.9 From a later Stele constructed by Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus (meaning around the sack of the first Temple in Jerusalem, 550 BCE~, over two thousand years later than the period we are currently discussing) we are told that Baltila was the capital of “Subir”. Subir is another variant of the term Subartu, which was essentially the Akkadian term for the region. Interestingly, Assyrians almost never chose to use this name “Subartu” in any form, potentially due to the derogatory nature this name took on resulting from massive importation of slaves from “Subartu”, becoming effectively synonymous with ‘slave’ in much the way the term Slav functioned.10

Temples from the early Assyrian period are clearly devoted to Ishtar11 and a number of fertility cult related nude female figurines - indicating some sort of fertility cult was present at Ashur.12 Interestingly, this aligns with the supposed “Hurrian” origin of the region as Batila - Ishtar was a titular deity of the Hurrians, known as the Goddess of the Night. Due to this connection, the Assyrians imported worship of Ishtar as their patron deity. We find that “Assur” as a deity is rarely directly worshipped in this period, implying a sort of personification of the city in later periods as the god Assur himself. The land of Assur essentially began to be regarded as ‘holy land’ for Assyrians in a similar way to how Jerusalem functioned for Israelites.13

Ashur was a unique god in the ancient world given his inexplicit origin among the city’s inhabitants. Ashur was effectively a ‘god of life’, including both death, revival, and agricultural activities - an interesting correlatary to the ‘fertility’ of Ishtar.14 We see evidence of his function as both a god over life, but also agriculture in his main associated imagery such as the “Tree of Life”. Through this symbology, Ashur retained his role as a god of death, revival, and life.15

This Tree of Life is slightly different than the one readers might be familiar with in Jewish Kabbalah. That “Sefirot” Tree of Life, known as the Etz Chaim, is a later 16th century Lurianic reformulation of earlier symbology around this so-called “Tree”. The Lurianic tree is a 10 node model based around the formulae laid out in the opening line of the Sefer Yetzirah, stating “10, not 9, 10 not 11”. In this model, the tree can be numerous ‘nodes’, and represents something much closer to an archetypal imagery around ‘flowering’ and the birthing of life itself. This may be the actual “Tree of Life” from Genesis in the Garden of Eden - often forgotten as another tree in the Garden alongside the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is the one Adam is forbidden to eat from; while the tree of life might already have been ‘eaten’ from by humanity. Similarities between these two models are impossible to ignore, and it is perhaps the difference between “Life” and “Knowledge” that perforce the different representations of these trees in symbology. Curiously, one of the Assyrian representations has 13 flower nodes, potentially mirroring the Thirthreen Attributes of Mercy, which themselves sort of operate as a separate “tree” model within Kabbalah. Interestingly, all of this is effectively synthesized by Luria himself, who doesn’t really create a 10 nodded model of the Sefirot as is typically realized, this model was already long present in Kabbalah, Luria’s innovation was the successive descension of the model through Tzimtzum (debatably defined as either contraction, or concealment) which itself enabled a multi-nodal model known as the Partzufim to emerge. Whatever the origin of these concepts, they are clearly mystical archetypes known throughout the ancient world by Semitic peoples closely related to Abraham, himself the reported author of the first 8 lines of the Sefer Yetzirah!

One critical link between Assyria and the Jewish people - which might actually support an extremely early origin for the Sefer Yetzirah and other mystical writings - is actually the script used to write Tanakh and Talmud. Known as Ktav Ashuri, which literally translates to “Assyrian Writing”, this square script is the traditional form one envisions when thinking of written Hebrew. Halachically, meaning legally, this is the only permitted script to write the Tanakh, but additionally Tefillin and Mezuzah share this requirement.16 This was most probably the script used to write Imperial Aramaic, the official language of both the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires, as well as extensively used in the Persian empire.

To help clarify what this script is, we should differentiate it from “Paleo-Hebrew”, also known as Ktav Ivri, which was a much earlier script used by the Israelites for less religious purposes. From Tractate Soferim 1:6 we learn “[The sacred texts] may not be written in [obsolete] Hebrew characters, or in the Aramaic, Median or Greek languages. If they were written in any other language or in any other characters they may not be used for the lection [in the statutory services], since they must be written in the Assyrian [script].” These “obsolete Hebrew characters” are in reference to the Paleo-Hebrew scripts previously used to write Torah scrolls, before the edicts of Ezra who is reportedly the one who enforced all sacred texts being written in Ktav Ashuri. However, a lengthy debate across the Talmud disputes the exact “switching” of the script by Ezra, with most sages agreeing that Ezra probably was not switching from Ivri to Ashuri, but rather he was switching back to Ashuri, which had been changed to Ivri incorrectly.17 This “Ktav Ivri, Hebrew Script” is still in use today, notably by the Samaritans who dispute Jerusalem as the central capital of Israel - quite an absurd conjecture.

Helpfully, we are given an explicit prophecy concerning Elam from Jeremiah, directly from the Lord: “The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning Elam at the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah the king of Judah, saying: So said the Lord of Hosts: Behold I am breaking the bow of Elam, the chief of their might. And I will bring against Elam four winds from the four ends of the heavens, and I will scatter them to all these winds, and there shall be no nation where the exiles of Elam shall not come. And I will break Elam before their enemies and before those who seek their lives, and I will bring upon them evil-the kindling of My wrath, says the Lord, and I will send the sword after them until I completely destroy them. And I will place My throne in Elam and I will destroy from there a king and princes, says the Lord. And it shall be at the end of days, [that] I will return the captivity of Elam, says the Lord.”3 The most striking line from the text tells us “there shall be no nation where the exiles of Elam shall not come” implying the descendents of the Elamites are some of the most widely spread dispersals of any nation. We will see later that while the Assyrians face similarly disastrous prophecies, they are not ‘dispersed’ throughout the nations in the same way Elam are, and thus today we are aware of one nation’s identity, but not the other. However, at the end of the text we are told that God “will return the captivity of Elam”, and the identity of this nation will once again be restored. How this interplays with the geographic boundaries of Persia is uncertain, but there must be some negotiation on the territory between these peoples.

The Books of Jeremiah might help explain why the Elamite’s lost their own explicit identity, and might also explain why Persia, descendents of the Medes, might have taken claim to what was originally Elamite territory in the Zagros mountains. Also important to keep in mind is the multi-national identity of a nation like Persia is never given an explicit “nation” on the table due to its status as an empire; likewise with Rome, or Babylonia, these ‘nations’ are really macro-nations. As mentioned, Persian rulers styled themselves as “Kings of Anshan and Susa”, originally adapted from the Elamites.4

Jeremiah offers a look into the Elamite nation around the reign of Zedekiah, who was King over Judah before the destruction of Jerusalem between 618-586 BCE. In contrast to Jeremiah, the Prophet Ezekiel gives us the result of Jeremiah’s prophecy following the Babylonian captivity “There is Elam and all its company around its grave; all of them slain, fallen by the sword, who descended uncircumcised into the nether parts of the earth, who cast their destruction in the land of the living, and they bore their disgrace with those who descend into the Pit.”5 This period refers explicitly to the Median conquest of Elam under Cyaxares, king of the Medes and Persians. Later, this subjugation was completed under Archemenid Persia which began in the year 540 BCE, shortly after the prophecy of Ezekiel which would be fulfilled within only a few years. From this point on, the nation of Elam holds no honorific titles, but the name passes into the records under a later autonomous vassal state of the Parthian’s known as “Elymais” - very likely descendants of the ancient Elamites after having been extensively Persianized. Elymais lasted for a roughly 400 year period until 220 AD when the rise of the Sassanians restores the boundary of the Persian Empire.

Curiously, Josephus considered the Persians “descendents” of the Elamites, which might wrap up their later identity into a neat picture and explain geographic realities, but fails to fully encapsulate the multi-ethnic identity of the Persians who adapted both Elamite and Median characteristics.6 Persians are a good example of a nation whose mixed ethnic stock forms a unique national character, but given the prophecies insistence of Elam’s eventual return, it is clear Persia “slots” into the Medians, rather than Elam despite sharing early royal titulary.

Interestingly, while the link is small, there are populations in Syria and Northern Turkey along the Black Sea with roughly 10% genetic L DNA. This may be a remnant of the previously discussed Mitanni, which colonized around Anatolia, but were heavily supplanted by the Armenian expansion, and the later Kurdish and Turkish colonization. These genetic links may relate to the founding legends of the Brahui, which believe their ancestors came from Syria. Syria in this context is Upper Mesopotamia, the territory belonging to the Mitanni. Whether or not the Brahui were descendents of those noble maryannu warriors, or part of a different elite caste of Mitanni society is unclear, but the clues align to help support a link between these people.

One concept that may offer a novel, but important cultural link between the Elamites and Dravidians is the concept of Ruhushak. According to scholarly definitions of the term “Ruhushak is an Elamite kinship term denoting the sister’s son of a ruler. It was used in different periods as a royal epithet.”1 Effectively, a Ruhushak is a male nephew, the term “shak” meaning son, with the female version of the term being Ruhupak (pak being daughter).2 There are similarities between this practice and the Levirite marriage practice3, which may go back to a shared priestly origin in their ancestral tie to Shem, who was the priest Melchizedek. Strangely, this link to an Elamite priesthood might have a stronger connection than readers realize.

In Zoroastrianism there is a priest-hood known as the “Magi” - from which the concept of ‘eastern magi’ and broadly magicians comes from. These Magi were sort of the power brokers of Persian empires, acting as advisors to the kings. Zoroastrianism is delineated by various different phases, but the “Magian” era of Zoroastrianism that most correlates to Persian kings shows an affinity for a concept called “Khaetvadatha”. Khaet means relative/family, and vadatha means marriage; effectively a form of incest whereby Kings would marry their nieces and nephews off to family members to “keep it in the family”. This concept is actually absent from both the oldest portions of the Avesta known as the Gathas, and was never in practice by the common population. Khaetvadatha appears like something of a priestly practice; a sort of moral bandage applied to the impropriety of the Persian kings by the Magi in the west of Iran, where they dominated the Zagros region. The absence of this practice from eastern Zoroastrianism, and the original Zoroastrian religion implies a foreign origin; clearly the Persian Kings, stooped in Elamite royal practices, picked up Khaetvadatha from the Elamite concept of Ruhushak.

The importance of these two words is reinforced by a third term “Marumakkathayam”, a system of matrilineal inheritance from India’s Kerala region - heartland of Dravidian influence in the subcontinent. The word “Marumakkathayam” is etymologically rooted in the translation “sister’s child”, or more explicitly nieces and nephews. Effectively, this maintained property and value inside a single family, and operated identical to the Khaetvadatha and Ruhushak systems of Persian and Elam respectively. The extreme similarity between these three shared practices of nephew/niece marriage attest to a highly probable overlapping cultural zone across the coasts of the Erythrean Sea - the dual Indian Ocean combined with the Persian Gulf. This region would correlate extremely to the “Elamite” people groups, and expand the Elamite cultural zone to a macro Elamo-Dravidian region.

Helping to verify the connection between the Indus civilization and Elam are numerous trade goods found in Susa such as buffalo cylinder seal impressions with the Indus script1, round seals2, jasper veined weights3, and importantly etched carnelian beads which were a unique art innovated in the Indus valley.4 This aforementioned Indus script is completely undeciphered, lacking a bilingual inscription necessary to correlate it to a known language.5 Seemingly, this was the language spoken by the Harappans. Unlike Harappan, the language of the Elamites is actually translated, but only due to Elamite’s adopting the later cuneiform system of writing from the Sumerians around 2300 BCE.6 Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite scripts are, much like the Indus script, still impossible to decipher, but show comparatively similar symbology in their writing systems.7

All of this has led to what is called the Elamo-Dravidian language family hypothesis, which connects the Elamites to their relatives in the Indus valley. Much of the modern research focuses on the Brahui language in Pakistan, which is a very distant relative of all the other “Dravidian” languages of India such as Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, or Telugu. Scholars have had trouble classifying Brahui, but an emergent unanimity for the link between Brahui and Elamite has certified the relationship between the two families. According to David McAlpin “Brahui is Elamitic. The location presents no problems. Western Brahui overlaps Elamite sites in Iranian Baluchistan.”8 Despite the similarities between Elamite and Brahui, the Brahui people might actually not be “Elamites” themselves, but simply speaking a language common to the region they may have inhabited. However, some do believe the Brahui to be descendants of the Indus Valley Harappans9, meaning it’s very possible the Harappans were more similar to Elamites than modern South Indian Dravidian peoples. Given the Brahui origin myth claims they original came from Syria10, essentially meaning Mesopotamia, we can postulate that this may be some type of mutated memory of Elamite migrations to the east, following the collapse of their independent state. While often unexplored, the Brahui origin myth of coming from “Syria” may have some tradition leftover from the Kingdom of Mitanni.

The Kingdom of Mitanni flourished between 1600-1260 BCE at the height of the Bronze Age, and served as a buffer state between the Hittites, Egyptians, and the wider Mesopotamian world (Assyrians, Akkadians, Sumerians). The Kingdom was known under numerous names: Egyptians called it “Naharin” from the Semitic riverland, as well as Matanni, the Hittites called it Hurri, the Assyrians referred to the state as “Hanigalbat”, all often used interchangeably.11 What is clear is that the Hittite name Hurri is related to the Biblical term “Churi”12, which is first used in Genesis 14:6 where we are told of their location during the war of Chedorlaomer, which should importantly be noted as the king of Elam, who smites them in their land “And the Horites in their mountain Seir, until the plain of Paran, which is alongside the desert.” Another reference in Genesis to these people notes them as the sons of Seir and adds that the land was technically part of Edom “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, and Anah; Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. These are the chieftains of the Horites, the sons of Seir in the land of Edom.”.13 Based on these Biblical texts, the Edomites undertake their own ‘conquest of the land’, similar to the Israelites conquest of other Canaanite groups; the text clearly delineates this region as promised to Esau, and his descendants the Edomites.

While seemingly distant populations from the Hurrian lands, these contained sub-regions (mount Seir) inside larger regions (Edom) are clearly colonies rather than proper states themselves. We know the Hurrians colonized all over the Near East, throughout Canaan and Mesopotamia, with some of their most important sites at Nuzi essentially located in Assyria.14 The site of Mt. Hor, depicted in the image, was clearly a critical outpost within the wider Hurro-Mitanni Empire, which probably guarded numerous garrisons across the border provinces between Canaan and Egypt. The date aligning between the earliest “Hurrian” periods during the war of Chedorlaomer, and the later “supplanting” of the Horites by the Edomites, roughly corresponding to the collapse of the Mitanni state around 1260 BCE, is a bit too coincidental to ignore. A full history of the Hurro-Mitanni people is dealt with in my text on the Nephillim (Giants).

According to Ramban: “It is possible that [the Horite] was called Hivite [from the term chivi — a snake] because he was like a serpent in the way. He was also called the Horite from the noun ‘chor’ (the hole of) the asp. For names [like Horite, Hivite] preserve the meaning and change letters, like Zerach (Zerah) and Tzochar (Zohar), of the expression: and ‘tzochar’ (white) wool; ‘tzchoroth’ (white) asses, [and in the case of the Horite and Hivite, the names were chosen to suggest the treacherous, snake-like nature of the people]. They also assign new names to praise [someone]. Thus the name Ya’akov (Jacob), an expression of guile or of deviousness, was changed to Israel [from the word sar (prince)] and they called him Yeshurun (Jeshurun) from the expression whole-hearted ‘v’yashar’ (and upright).”15 Simply put, in Ramban’s view the names Churi and Chivi effectively mean the same thing, with an asp being a specific type of snake that comes from a hole.

A tenuous link between these peoples could be the Hebrew ḥiwwî, Ḥivvite, deriving from Ḫiyawa - from the Assyrian Quwe > *Huwe > Hebrew ḥiwwî. Quwe was a Luwian speaking Neo-Hittite state in the Adana Plain that possibly derived from an older name for the Acheans/Mycenaeans: Aḫḫiyawa.16 We discussed the Achaeans/Mycenaeans extensively in our Japhetite discussions, but given the presence of Greek settlers and immigrants all around the Levant they could have imported these styles into Edom/Seir through the Hivites who are Rabbinically identified as Horites. We also previously wrote about the Hivites in their own section, who are listed as sons of Canaan under the wider Table of Nations for Noah’s family. Please see any of these three books (Nephilim, Japheth, Ham) for full discussions of these people.

While no royal annals have been found, and much of what we know is built of sparse clues from neighboring states, we do have some Mitanni texts written in their native language of Hurrian. This would imply that the Mitanni were essentially Hurrians, who effectively occupied the same role as the Mitanni but during the earlier Bronze Age around 2300 BCE. Clearly, the population of Mitanni was primarily Hurrian in stock, but something changed between the earlier era and the later “Mitanni” kingdom.

While this quick deviation to discuss the Mitanni might seem out of place in a discussion of Elamo-Dravidians, the interaction between Chedorlaomer (the Elamite’s most powerful king) and these groups places it at the center of Elamite politics. The further existence of colonies beyond the technical boundaries of the Mitanni state helped certify the wider spread for these people, and their far-flung trade links to various regions. However, the most important connection between Mitanni and the Dravidians comes from the existence of an Indo-Aryan superstrate in the Mitanni language, which itself was mainly Hurrian in origin. Consensus around the Indo-Aryan migration to Mitanni has yet to be reached, but the existence of an Indo-Aryan linguistic and genetic connection has been confirmed.17 Reportedly, this connection comes through some kind of “Indo-Aryan migration”, rather than a takeover; a similar effect occurs along the Indus during the Vedic colonization of India happening around the same period.

Numerous place and personal names of the Mitanni are blatantly Indo-Aryan in origin.18 The first Mitanni ruler with an Indo-Aryan throne name was Shuttarna I, son of the supposed founder of the Mitanni dynasty.19 The capital of Mitanni, Washukanni, also is definitively derived from an Indo-Aryan dialect.20 From a treaty between the Hittites and Mitanni around 1380 BCE, the deities Mitra, Varuna and Indra are explicitly invoked, three of the most ancient Indo-Aryan gods that were worshipped in both the Vedas and Avesta.21 The most important Mitanni text might be Kikkuli’s Horse Training Manual, which includes numerous technical terms and numbers.22

Kikkuli’s manual was one of the many necessary texts spread around the Mitanni kingdom meant to train a new class of chariot warriors that upheld the Mitanni power structure. Specifically, the military elite of Mitanni known as “Maryannu” were of Aryan descent, their language displaying a clear influence of Indo-Aryan characteristics.23 The chariot warriors were a sort of hereditary class, often deployed as a sort of mercenary group around ancient societies during the bronze age.24 One of these so called Maryannu is likely found in the Iliad under the personal name “Meriones” who appears as a talented and skilled warrior in numerous challenges.25

One of these “elite warriors”, perhaps himself a Maryannu, comes to us from Genesis where we learn about Shechem, a Hurrian prince who raped Dinah, daughter of Jacob “And Shechem the son of Hamor, the Hivvite, the prince of the land, saw her, and he took her, lay with her, and violated her.”26 While a critical line in Rabbinic Halacha, for our purposes the line affirms that there was some sort of “nobility” of Hivites operating autonomously around Canaan and the wider Near East - autonomous enough to randomly rape girls of their choosing. They were powerful enough that Jacob himself feared earning their ire, and preferred peaceful treaties to combat - despite his sons Levi and Shimeon disobeying his wishes and executing all the Shechemites after tricking them into lowering their guard.