Horrible Histories: Calamitous Chaldeans

by Damien F. Mackey The calamity here refers primarily to geography – to what has been the utterly disastrous attempt to locate the ancient land of Chaldea. “… but despite knowing the names of dozens of Chaldaean cities and towns from Assyrian records, none has ever been located, not to mention excavated, despite the fact that many of them are known to have been walled and strongly fortified”. Royce (Richard) Erickson That there is a significant Chaldean (Chaldaean) Problem, to go along with so many others in ancient geographico-history (e.g. the well-known “Sumerian Problem”), is apparent from what the late professor Gunnar Heinsohn wrote about the famed Chaldeans: https://hive.blog/heinsohn/@harlotscurse/sumerians-and-chaldaeans …. Though the ancient Greeks freely admitted that their science teachers were Chaldaeans (from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia), they never gave any hint that they trailed their inspirators by one-and-a-half millennia. They rather gave the impression that Chaldaean knowledge was obtainable by traveling Greek students. Today, we are taught that there were no Chaldaean teachers to speak of. This supposedly most learned nation of mankind, did not leave us bricks or potsherds, not to mention written treatises. …. The Cities of the Chaldaeans According to conventional history, the Chaldaeans first migrated into Lower Mesopotamia no earlier than the middle of the 10th century. They are first mentioned in the annals of the Neo-Assyrian Emperor Shalmaneser III, dated to about 850 BCE. They took no part in the glorious flowering of Mesopotamian civilization that is said to have spanned a period of several millennia before their arrival on the scene. But in the annals of Sennacherib, a Neo-Assyrian Emperor who lived around 700 BCE, we learn that the Chaldaeans had seventy-five strong, walled cities: In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan, king of Babylonia, together with the army of Elam, his ally, in the plain of Kish. In the midst of that battle he forsook his camp, and made his escape alone; (so) he saved his life. The chariots, horses, wagons, mules, which he left behind at the onset of battle, my hands seized. Into his palace, which is in Babylon, joyfully I entered. I opened his treasure-house: gold, silver, vessels of gold and silver, precious stones of every kind (name) goods and property without limit (number), heavy tribute, his harem, (his) courtiers and officials, singers, male and female, all of his artisans, as many as there were, the servants of his palace, I brought out, I counted as spoil. In the might of Assur my lord, 75 of his strong walled cities, of Chaldea, and 420 small cities of their environs (within their borders), I surrounded, I conquered, their spoil I carried off. (Luckenbill 116) According to the conventional chronology, then, the Chaldaeans are first heard of in Lower Mesopotamia in 850 BCE, and by 700 BCE they have 75 strong, walled cities and 420 small cities. That is quite a spectacular rise to power. …. [End of quotes] Quite spectacular, indeed! Professor Heinsohn’s ingenious solution to the Chaldean Problem was to point to an alternative people to identify as the Chaldeans: namely, the Sumerians. The article continues: …. Sumerian continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial, literary and scientific language in Akkadian-speaking Mesopotamian states such as Assyria and Babylonia until the 1st century AD ... The term “Post-Sumerian” is meant to refer to the time when the language was already extinct and preserved by Babylonians and Assyrians only as a liturgical and classical language for religious, artistic and scholarly purposes ... The extinction has traditionally been dated approximately to the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the last predominantly Sumerian state in Mesopotamia, about 2000 BC. However, that date is very approximate, as many scholars have contended that Sumerian was already dead or dying as early as around 2100 BC, by the beginning of the Ur III period, and others believe that Sumerian persisted, as a spoken language, in a small part of Southern Mesopotamia (Nippur and its surroundings) until as late as 1700 BC. (Wikipedia) Is this really credible? Would a language that had perhaps become extinct as early as 2100 BCE continue to be used in rituals for a further two thousand years? And if it did survive to the 1st century of the Christian era, why is it that none of the Classical writers mention it? According to Heinsohn’s chronology, however, the so-called Neo-Sumerians, who are conventionally dated to the 22nd and 21st centuries BCE, were actually contemporaries of the Medes in the 7th and 6th centuries: If we leave unscholarly dating systems aside, and resort to comparative stratigraphy, we will immediately recognize the contemporaneity of the early Greek city-states and the so-called Neo-Sumerians, who thereby are outed as the painfully-missing Chaldaeans. “Neo-Sumerian” Chaldaeans and early -6th century poleis alike, are found merely two strata-groups below Hellenism. This still leaves a head start for Chaldean scholarship. Yet, it is not measured by millennia or centuries, but by decades at most. (Heinsohn) [End of quotes] This had initially seemed to me like a very good idea. If something is missing, find a legitimate counterpart for it, as I have done so often. To give just one of many examples of my attaching an alter ego to one known to have been most significant, here the mighty Pharaoh Piankhi (Piye), but puzzlingly lacking in archaeological attestation (monuments, artifacts), see my article: The Disappearing Piankhi (8) The Disappearing Piankhi or, if one prefers it served with sauce: Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt (8) Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt Thus I ran for quite a while with professor Heinsohn’s equation: Chaldaeans = Sumerians which had impressed some of my colleagues as well. As it has turned out, however, this ingenious attempt by professor Heinsohn at a solution to the Chaldean Problem is fatally flawed. Professor Heinsohn had based himself upon the conventional view (that we all have followed) that the Sumerians and the Chaldeans were dwellers in southern Mesopotamia (Iraq). The truth of the matter is, in fact, starkly different. 1. Regarding Sumer Over time I came to realise that some famous Syro-Palestine sites, such as Ugarit, Jerusalem, Lachish, had somehow, mysteriously, found their way on to maps of central and southern Mesopotamia (known as Sumer). Ugarit (Egyptian IKAT) was Akkad; Jerusalem was Girsu; Lachish-Ashdod was Lagash (var. Lakish)-Eshnunna. That some of these names should never have appeared on such a map (SE) in the first place may be suggested by what I wrote in e.g. my article: Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello (9) Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello …. The trouble is, Girsu and Lagash (Lagaš) will disappear off the Sumerian map. Seth Richardson refers to them as ‘falling off the political map’. Thus I wrote on this: Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances - Lagash and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’, according to Seth Richardson …. : Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8. Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year. …. Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. …. The reason for why Girsu and Lagash (and other places) fall of the Mesopotamian map is because they should never have been on that particular map in the first place. Lagash (Lakish) and Eshnunna (Ashnunna) were Lachish in Judah, as I have written, in e.g.: As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash (6) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This is a long way from the land of Sumer. But it gets even worse. Having emptied the supposed lands of Sumer and Akkad of some of their most important towns and cities, and with Akkad now shifted to Ugarit in coastal NW Syria: My road to Akkad (9) My road to Akkad I now began to wonder about Sumer itself, about the “Sumerian Problem”, and about whether or not there really was such a place as Sumer. And subsequently, I wrote: “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia (9) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia In that article I tentatively proposed a brand new location for Sumer, the city of Sumur (Sumura), north of coastal Byblos. This Sumur, which figures prominently in the El Amarna letters of Rib-Addi, king of Byblos, was an important trade centre at the time. Now, approximately while I was busy totally dismantling Sumer and Akkad, another historian, unbeknownst to me, was shifting the presumably neighbouring lands of Chaldea and Elam right away from southern Mesopotamia to NW Syria (for Chaldea) and to Anatolia (for Elam). This was Royce (Richard) Erickson, who, in 2020, wrote: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (10) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY 2. Regarding Chaldea Royce Erickson’s article, which shifts the land of Chaldea (also Elam) hundreds of miles NW of its originally placed SE location, has to be, at least in my opinion, one of the greatest ever contributions to ancient geography. His map here (Figure 4) perfectly visualises this major shift: Figure 4 – Comparison of currently accepted location of Chaldaean land and tribes with the proposed alternative: Consensus View – Tagged in yellow; Proposed Alternative – Tagged in White I, later, basing myself on Royce Erickson’s article, and also mindful of comments by Seth Richardson, again, would suggest a similar NW shifting of the Sealand kingdom: Horrible Histories: Kingdom of the Sealand is ‘all at Sea’ (10) Horrible Histories: Kingdom of the Sealand is 'all at Sea' But, getting right back to the far more significant contribution by Royce Erickson, it will be his contribution to the geography of the Chaldeans that I think will turn out to be far more significant than that of any other historian. Let us conclude here by following some his brilliant argument on the subject: …. Scholarly Consensus on the Location of Chaldaea Based on Assyrian and Babylonian annals, the consensus of modern scholarly opinion is that the Chaldaeans were a Semitic people from the south, perhaps Arabia, who emigrated to Mesopotamia around 900 BC. They are first mentioned in Assyrian records by Shalmaneser III around 850 BC. He called them “Kaldu.” The exact location of their settlements in relation to Mesopotamia is not clear from the evidence. Modern scholars believe they settled in southern Babylonia adjacent to the north end of the Persian Gulf, in the large marshy delta area formed by the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. We know for certain that whatever area the Chaldaeans operated out of, it was conveniently located for what happened next. They gradually infiltrated Babylonian lands, politics, business, religion and government over a period of decades. They eventually achieved the kingship on several occasions only to be ejected by the Assyrians, who felt they had a proprietary interest in Babylonia, the cultural center of Mesopotamia. The Assyrians deeply resented “foreign” rule in Babylon, preferring to dominate it themselves from a distance. The Biblical figure Merodach Baladan was one of these intermittent Chaldaean kings of Babylon. He confronted the Assyrians politically and militarily on numerous occasions. They removed him from the Babylonian throne twice. Always in a search of allies against Assyria, he tried to recruit the Judaean king Hosea, who wisely declined. He ultimately failed, but other Chaldaean kings and nobles continued the struggle. As the conflicts intensified over time, the Assyrians made increasing efforts with varying success to eradicate the Chaldaeans and their allies in their various homelands. Returning to the question of Chaldaean geography, many factors led historians inexorably to the consensus view: 1. Proximity to Babylon. Chaldaea had to have been near Babylonia, where Chaldaeans were present as outsiders in considerable numbers, and played a significant role in Babylonian culture and politics, to some extent as a dominant caste. 2. Proximity to Elam. If we believe detailed Assyrian records, it is clear Chaldaea was also located directly adjacent to Elam, as shown on the map (Figure 2). Since the large and powerful kingdom of Elam has always been unquestionably been located by historians in southwest Iran and along the Northern Persian Gulf, the only feasible location for Chaldaea seemed to be the area at the northern end of the gulf and the Tigris-Euphrates delta, near ancient Ur. 3. Proximity to a sizeable body of water. From Assyrian narratives we know that in addition to their common land border, Chaldaea and Elam were separated in part by a fairly large navigable body of water which played an important role in the struggles between Assyria and both Chaldaea and Elam. The Assyrians referred to named ports on either side of this body. The northern Persian Gulf seemed to fit this description perfectly. 4. Direction and Endpoint of Chaldaean Migration. The Chaldaeans are assumed to be Semites who migrated to Mesopotamia from the south (Arabia), making settlement in southern Mesopotamia a natural development. 5. Biblical Ur of the Chaldees. Abram’s home city, Ur of the Chaldees, is assumed by scholars to be the same as Sumerian Ur (or Uruk), located and excavated close by to the conventional location of Chaldaea. These are persuasive points, but despite knowing the names of dozens of Chaldaean cities and towns from Assyrian records, none has ever been located, not to mention excavated, despite the fact that many of them are known to have been walled and strongly fortified. Neither have any of the hundreds of Chaldaean villages reported to have surrounded them. No archaeological remains or texts have been uncovered in the area that can be identified with any certainty as “Chaldaean.” Matching the geography of the proposed homeland with references in Assyrian military accounts proved difficult. In the same area where masses of earlier Sumerian and archaeological finds and texts have been recovered, the absence of Chaldaean material evidence is mystifying. Some assume Chaldaean sites were buried under the mud of the growing swamps of the Tigris-Euphrates delta, or swallowed up by the Persian Gulf itself. This lack of evidence has been unresolved for so long than many accept unsupported early assumptions almost without question. Alternate locations for Chaldaea have never really been considered due to the apparent historical necessity demanded by the factors listed above. Proposed Actual Location of Chaldaea …. [Refer back to Figure 4] Not fully convinced of the conventional view due to this lack of material evidence and other factors, I decided to search an area I considered particularly likely, Syria and southern Anatolia, for Chaldaean cities, towns and geographic features referenced in numerous campaign accounts. The rationale was a suspicion that the Chaldaean people and language were not Semitic, but Hurrian [Mackey’s comment: Not sold on “Hurrian” here]. This view is not unprecedented but rare in modern accounts. Therefore I used Google Map and other available historical maps and data to search known modern Turkish and Syrian site names in the area just south of the center of gravity of the ancient Hurrian nations and tribes – the land centered on northwest Syria. The idea was to match modern with ancient sites based on name matching and matching geographic relationships. Other internet resources and books provided databases of later Armenian, Greek, Roman and Byzantine names for the same location that could also be used to match Chaldaean names. From Assyrian campaign narratives I collected a list of Assyrian place names for Chaldaea and allied Aramaean tribes numbering more than seventy sites, some mentioned on several occasions by multiple kings during separate campaigns. I looked at the campaign records of Ashurnasirapal, Shalmaneser III, Tiglath Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennecherib, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal dating from approximately 850 to as late as 640 BC. A total of 70 Assyrian names of Chaldaean and Aramanean sites were identified from these sources. There are undoubtedly additional site names that were missed. But working with the limited list available, 32 certain or very likely matches based on name correlation and other geographic factors were very rapidly identified. The data collected is laid out in the following table, including original Assyrian versions of Chaldaean site names, variations of those names including later Armenian and Greek variants, modern matched site locations in Turkey or Syria by name, Assyrian kings attesting to the site, and tribal affiliation. …. Chaldaean and associated Aramaean sites in northwest Syria and adjoining Turkish areas that were recorded by the Assyrians during their Chaldaean campaigns. This distribution has interesting features that tend to validate the basic premise of Chaldaean location. It forms a coherent and compact geography that makes sense. The towns of the various tribes are located in specific areas that match Assyrian description, with Bit-Yakin closest to the sea, Bit Amukanni in the obviously geographically correlated modern Amuq Valley, with Bit Sa’alli and Bit-Silani towns just to the north where Tiglath Pileser III described them on his way to attack Dur-Atkharas, capital of Bit-Amukanni. The Amuk Valley has been known by that name from earliest times until the present. Assyrian accounts describe numerous sieges and battles in Bit-Yakin and Bit-Amukanni occuring in an area of extensive marshes. Scholarly opinion has used this information to support its identification of the northern end of the Persian Gulf, which has extensive marshes, as the land of Chaldaea. But the area I have identified as Chaldaea was also famous for its large area of marshes, represented on the map (Figure 5) by the large lake. The lake was drained during the 20th century but remains a waterlogged area to this day. In the bronze and iron ages it was a large marsh/swamp area, formed by the confluence of several rivers into the Orontes River immediately north of Dur-Yakin. An arm of the Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf of Iskenderun, provides the body of water bordering Chaldaea per Assyrian description. Bit-Agusi lands centered around the strong fortress of Arpad, which blocked the westward path of Assyrian armies heading for Bit Yakin and Bit Amukani, the heart of Chaldaean resistance to Assyria. Allied Aramaean tribes, which Assyrians also locate in the path from Assyria to the Chaldaean tribes, show up right where they are expected to be. These include the Puqudu, Yatbur and Khindaru lands just north of Bit-Amukanni. According to the current scholarly consensus all but one or two of the sites listed and displayed should be found in the area centered on the north end of the Persian Gulf in Iraq, but none has ever been located there. Attempts to deduct their locations at the north end of the Persian Gulf has met with no success. Despite the availability of detailed Assyrian military accounts, modern scholars often find it very difficult to reconcile specific campaign accounts with the accepted Chaldaean and Elamite geography. In the case of Sargon IIs lengthy and wide-ranging campaign against Merodach Baladan, the Chaldaean king of Babylon, eminient historians could not make Sargon’s narrative of his maneuvers work without postulating that he or his scribes mistook the Euphrates for the Tigris on two occasions, which seems highly unlikely, and that Sargon had divided his forces in order to conduct two or more independent simultaneous campaigns, when in fact, Sargon himself wrote nothing to justify this assumption. When Sargon’s campaign is viewed in light of the proposed alternate location of Chaldaea in northwest Syria and Elam in Anatolia, confusion between the Tigris and Euphrates goes away, as does the necessity to postulate the division of Sargon’s army and the conduct of two independent campaigns. …. The ramifications of this stellar new geography are absolutely mind-boggling!