by
Damien F. Mackey
DEIOCES (Gk. Dēïókēs), name of a Median king; this Greek form, like Assyrian
Da-a-a-uk-ku (i.e., Daiukku) and Elamite Da-a-(hi-)(ú-)uk-ka, Da-a-ya-u(k)-ka, and so on, reflects Iranian *Dahyu-ka-, a hypocoristic based on dahyu
– “land” (cf. Schmitt).
DEIOCES - Encyclopaedia Iranica
Awarikus [Arioch] became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III … who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in
738 BCE [sic]. …. Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu,
in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with
lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum. ….
Wikipedia
Introduction
Much of this introductory part will be taken from my article:
Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria’s Shalmaneser
(3) Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria's Shalmaneser
in which I further extended the identity of Ahikar (Achior, Arioch), nephew of Tobit, and governor of Elam for Assyria, to include Awarikus [Uriakku, Arioch] of Adana (Ecbatana).
We know this great man now under some several variations of his name, Ahikar (Aḥiqar): http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html
“The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar”.”
In the Book of Tobit, he is called Ahikar, but Achior, in the Douay version.
In the Book of Judith, he is called, again, Achior.
His Babylonian name may have been, Esagil-kini-ubba:
Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba
(2) Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba
Islam turned him into a great sage and polymath, Loqmân:
Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân
https://www.academia.edu/117040128/Ahiqar_Aesop_and_Loqm%C3%A2n
but, even more incredibly, a handful of Islamic polymaths, supposedly in AD time, were based on Ahikar, as either Aba-enlil-dari or as Esagil-kini-ubba:
Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism
(3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
This man was obviously monumental, leaving a giant historical and literary footprint.
We know from the Book of Tobit that Ahikar went to Elam (Elymaïs) (2:10): “For four years I [Tobit] remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais”.
This fact is picked up in a gloss in the Book of Judith in which Achior is referred to, rather confusingly, as Arioch (1:6): “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”.
Apparently, then, Ahikar actually governed Elam on behalf of the neo-Assyrians.
Thus the Book of Judith should have referred to Achior as leader of all the Elamites, rather than (causing much confusion) “Achior … the leader of all the Ammonites” (5:5).
Arioch may well be now, also, the “Arioch” of Daniel 2:
Did Daniel meet Ahikar?
(2) Did Daniel meet Ahikar?
We are now in the reign of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean.
It is most important, however, for what follows, that Nebuchednezzar be recognised as the same king as Esarhaddon, as Ashurbanipal:
King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4
(2) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4
As “King Arioch of Elam”
‘Are not my commanders all kings?’
Isaiah 10:8
We probably find Arioch as Uriakku, and Urtak, of the Assyrian records:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtak_(king_of_Elam)
Urtak or Urtaku was a king of the ancient kingdom of Elam …. He ruled from 675 to 664 BCE, his reign overlapping those of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (681-669) and Ashurbanipal (668-627). ….
Mackey’s comment: Not “kings”, but only the one king, Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal (see above).
Urtak was preceded by his brother, Khumban-Khaldash II. …. Khumban-Khaldash made a successful raid against Assyria, and died a short time thereafter. …. He was succeeded by Urtak, who returned to Assyria the idols his elder brother had taken in the raid, and who thereby repaired relations between Elam and Assyria. ….
He made an alliance with Assyria's Esarhaddon in 674 … and for a time Elam and Assyria enjoyed friendly relations … which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon's reign, and deteriorated after Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal [sic]. ….
We find Arioch, again, in the context of a geographically revised Elam (Media):
Ecbatana and Rages in Media
(1) Ecbatana and Rages in Media
as the ruler of Adana (Ecbatana) during the neo-Assyrian period, as one Wariku/ Awariku(s), which name is clearly Arioch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarikus
….
Other attestations
….
The name Awarikkus referred to in the Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions as ʾWRK (𐤀𐤅𐤓𐤊), and Warikkas is referred to in the Hasanbeyli and Cebelireis Daǧı inscriptions as WRYK (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊)[7] and in the İncirli inscription as WRYKS (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊𐤎).[11]
In Akkadian
Awarikkus or Warikkas is referred to in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions as ᵐUrikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅅𒆠)[12]) and ᵐUriaikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅀𒅅𒆠[12]).[13][14]
….
Life
Awarikus claimed descent from one Muksas, who is also referred to in his Phoenician language inscriptions as MPŠ (𐤌𐤐𐤔), and also appears in Greek sources under the name of Mopsos (Μόψος) [Mackey: derived from Moses?] as a legendary founder of several Greek settlements across the coast of Anatolia during the early Iron Age. This suggests that Awarikus belonged to a dynasty which had been founded by a Greek colonist leader.[15][7][21][22]
Damien Mackey’s comment: Is Mopsus a reflection back to Moses, the great Lawgiver?
Ahikar, as a Naphtalian Israelite, could, in a sense, have claimed descent from Moses.
Reign
Awarikus became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III,[23] who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE.[7][24][25]
Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum.[26][20]
Awarikus seems to have remained a loyal vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire throughout most of his reign, thanks to which he was able to reign in Ḫiyawa for a very long period until throughout the rules of Tiglath-pileser III and his successor Shalmaneser V, and was still reigning when Sargon II became the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[27]
Ḫiyawa under Awarikus likely cooperated with the Neo-Assyrian forces during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign in the Tabalian region in 729 BCE.[28]
In his inscription from his later reign, Awarikus claimed to have enjoyed good relations with his overlord, the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II, with Awarikus's relation with Sargon II appearing to have been an alliance or partnership through a treaty according to which Sargon II was the protector and suzerain of Awarikus.[29][7] According to this inscription, Awarikus had a very close relationship with Sargon II, and he declared that Sargon II himself and the Neo-Assyrian royal dynasty had become "a mother and father" to him and that the peoples of Ḫiyawa and Assyria had "become one house."[15]
According to this same inscription, Awarikus had built 15 fortresses in the west and east of Ḫiyawa.[30][15]
Assuming the king WRYK of the Cebelires Daǧı inscription was the same as Awarikus of Hiyawa, his kingdom might have extended to the western limits of Rough Cilicia and nearly reached Pamphylia, and would thus have included Ḫilakku.[31]
….
Monuments
An inscription by Awarikus is known from the site of Çineköy, located about 30 kilometres to the south of his capital of Adanawa.[23][35]
Other monuments of Awarikus include a stela from İncirli and a border stone from Hasanbeyli.[36]
Under direct Neo-Assyrian rule
After Sargon II's son-in-law and vassal, the king Ambaris of Bīt-Burutaš, had rebelled against the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 713 BCE, he deposed Ambaris and annexed Bīt-Burutaš.[30][35]
As part of his reorganisation of the Anatolian possessions of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the annexation of Bīt-Burutaš, in 713 BCE itself Sargon II imposed a Neo-Assyrian governor on Ḫiyawa who also had authority on Bīt-Burutaš, as well as on the nearby kingdoms of Ḫilakku and Tuwana.[37]
Under this arrangement, Awarikus became subordinate to Aššur-šarru-uṣur, who was the first governor of Que, as Ḫiyawa was called in the Neo-Assyrian Akkadian language.
Thus, Awarikus was either reduced to the status of a token king or deposed and demoted to a lower position such as an advisor of the governor, while Aššur-šarru-uṣur held all the effective power although the Neo-Assyrian administration sought to preserve, for diplomatic purposes, the illusion that Awarikus was still the ruler of Ḫiyawa in partnership with Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][38][39]
Thus Hiyawa and other nearby Anatolian kingdoms were placed the authority of Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[40][41][42] Following the appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur, Awarikus of Ḫiyawa and Warpalawas II of Tuwana became largely symbolic rulers although they might have still held the power to manage their kingdoms locally.[39]
The reason for these changes was due to the fact that, although Awarikus and Warpalawas II had been loyal Neo-Assyrian vassals, Sargon II considered them as being too elderly [sic] to be able to efficiently uphold Neo-Assyrian authority in southeastern Anatolia, where the situation had become volatile because of encroachment by the then growing power of Phrygian kingdom.[39]
Deposition
The appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur as his superior might have led to tensions between him Awarikkus, who had likely been left disillusioned with Neo-Assyrian rule after his long period of loyal service to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, Awarikus might have attempted to rebel against the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and therefore in 710 or 709 BCE he sent an embassy composed of fourteen delegates to Urartu to negotiate with the Urartian king in preparation for his rebellion.[43]
This embassy was however intercepted by the king Midas of Phrygia, who was seeking a rapprochement with the Neo-Assyrian Empire and therefore handed it over to Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][35][44]
Awarikus was consequently deposed, and possibly executed, by the Neo-Assyrian Empire for attempting to revolt, after which Ḫiyawa was annexed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire as the province of Que, and Aššur-šarru-uṣur was given full control of Que, which merely formalised the powers that he had already held.[30][45][44]
The exact fate of Awarikus is however unknown,[46] and he might already have been dead by the time that Midas handed over his delegation to Assur-sarru-usur, hence why no mention of punishing him appears in the Neo-Assyrian records.[47]
Mackey’s comment: No, Arioch was still alive and well during the reign of Esarhaddon, like Urtak (above), “… which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon’s reign”.
Aššur-šarru-uṣur (var. Ashur-resha-ishi), for his part, may well have been one of the sons of Sargon II/Sennacherib, Sharezer (šarru-uṣur), who assassinated their father:
Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib
https://www.academia.edu/119221740/Adrammelech_and_Sharezer_murdered_king_Sennacherib
When Tobit’s (and presumably Ahikar’s) tribe of Naphtali was taken into captivity by Shalmaneser ‘the Great’, who must be recognised as Shalmaneser III/V, and also as Tiglath-pileser so-called III, or Pul, who took Naphtali into captivity (2 Kings 15:29), Tobit and his family were taken to “Nineveh”, whilst some of Tobit’s relatives, or kinsmen, Ahikar, Raguel and Gabael?, must have been taken into Media (Elam).
Since Tiglath-pileser took his Israelite captives “to Halah, and on the Habor [Khabur], the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (17:6), then Tobit’s “Nineveh” may likely have been Calah (Nimrud), given here as “Halah”.
Deioces of Ecbatana
The legendary Deioces, whose name Daiukku might well remind one of Uriakku (Arioch), ruler of Adana in southern Cilicia – Ecbatana in Elam – ruled over that region for a very long time, the same time as Arioch “was the king of the Elymeans” (Judith 1:6).
Arioch, who was Tobit’s nephew Ahikar, a kind person, who “gave alms” (Tobit 14:10), befits the wise and just, lawgiving ruler, Deioces. As K. Halk tells of him (2025):
Deioces: The Legendary Founder of the Median Kingdom — Historact Platform
Deioces (Ancient Greek: Δηιόκης) was the legendary founder and the first king of the Median kingdom, an ancient polity in western Asia that played a significant role in the development of the ancient Near East. Deioces is remembered for his efforts to establish a centralized and orderly government in a region marked by chaos and disunity. His leadership laid the foundation for what would eventually become the Median Empire, a precursor to the mighty Achaemenid Empire. This article explores the life, reign, and legacy of Deioces, as well as his contributions to the formation of one of the first organized states in the region. Through his story, we gain insight into the emergence of the Medes as a powerful and influential people in ancient history.
The Background of the Median Kingdom
The Medes were an ancient Iranian [sic] people who inhabited the region that is today known as northwestern Iran.
The Median kingdom emerged during the early 1st millennium BCE, at a time when the area was dominated by various tribes and small polities. The Medes, along with other Iranian groups, began migrating into the region, where they settled and gradually assimilated with the local population. The political landscape of the region was characterized by a lack of central authority, with numerous tribes vying for power and influence.
The Rise of the Medes
The Medes are believed to have settled in the region sometime around the 9th century BCE. They were one of several Iranian-speaking groups that migrated southward from the steppes of Central Asia. Over time, the Medes established themselves as a distinct cultural and political entity, and by the 8th century BCE, they began to emerge as a significant power in the region. The early history of the Medes is largely obscure, with much of what is known coming from later sources, such as the writings of Herodotus.
The Medes faced challenges from neighboring powers, including the Assyrian Empire, which exerted considerable influence over the region. The Assyrians were a dominant force in the Near East, and their campaigns often brought them into conflict with the Medes. Despite this, the Medes managed to maintain their independence and gradually consolidated their power under the leadership of Deioces.
The Rise of Deioces
Deioces is traditionally regarded as the first king of the Medes and the founder of the Median kingdom.
According to Herodotus, Deioces was a wise and just man who gained the respect and admiration of the Median people. His rise to power was marked by his reputation for fairness and his ability to resolve disputes, which earned him a following among his fellow Medes.
The Need for Order
During the time of Deioces, the Median tribes were divided and lacked a central authority. The region was plagued by lawlessness and internal conflicts, with each tribe governed by its own leader. In this chaotic environment, Deioces distinguished himself as a man of integrity and wisdom. He became known for his ability to mediate disputes and deliver impartial judgments, which led many people to seek his counsel.
Recognizing the need for stability and order, the Medes decided to unite under a single ruler. They chose Deioces as their leader, believing that his sense of justice and fairness would bring peace and unity to their people. Deioces accepted the role of king, but he set certain conditions: he demanded that the Medes build a fortified capital and establish a centralized government that would allow him to exercise authority effectively.
The Establishment of Ecbatana
One of Deioces’ first actions as king was the construction of a new capital city, which he named Ecbatana (modern-day Hamadan in Iran). Ecbatana was strategically located and well-fortified, serving as the political and administrative center of the newly unified Median kingdom. According to Herodotus, the city was built with a series of seven concentric walls, each painted in different colors, creating an impressive and formidable fortress.
The establishment of Ecbatana as the capital was a significant step in the consolidation of Median power. It provided a central location from which Deioces could govern, and it symbolized the unity of the Median tribes under a single ruler. The construction of Ecbatana also demonstrated Deioces’ vision for a strong, centralized state that could withstand external threats and maintain internal order.
The Reign of Deioces
Deioces’ reign marked the beginning of a new era for the Medes, characterized by political stability and the establishment of a centralized government. As king, Deioces implemented a number of reforms aimed at strengthening his authority and creating a more organized and cohesive society.
Centralization of Power
One of Deioces’ primary goals was to centralize power and establish a strong monarchy. He sought to distance himself from the people, believing that a sense of awe and reverence was necessary to maintain authority.
….
… Deioces was able to create a stable and orderly government that laid the foundation for the future expansion of the Median kingdom.
Legal Reforms and Governance
As a ruler known for his sense of justice, Deioces placed a strong emphasis on the development of a legal system that would ensure fairness and equality. He established a formal system of laws and appointed judges to oversee legal matters throughout the kingdom. These judges were responsible for resolving disputes and ensuring that justice was administered impartially.
The establishment of a legal system helped to create a sense of order and stability within the kingdom. It also reinforced Deioces’ authority, as he was seen as the ultimate source of justice and the guarantor of the people’s rights. By creating a system of laws and governance, Deioces was able to transform the Medes from a collection of loosely connected tribes into a unified and organized state.
The Legacy of Deioces
….
Deioces was a visionary leader whose efforts to establish a centralized and orderly government laid the foundation for the rise of the Median kingdom and the eventual emergence of the Achaemenid Empire. His reign marked the beginning of a new era for the Medes, characterized by political stability, legal reforms, and the construction of a powerful and well-organized state. Although much of what is known about Deioces comes from the writings of Herodotus and may contain elements of legend, his legacy as the founder of the Median kingdom is undeniable.
….
No comments:
Post a Comment