by
Damien F. Mackey
Herb Storck concluded the first part of his study by claiming that:
“Nine of the 17 tent-dwelling [Assyrian King List] kings can reasonably be identified with … ancestors of Hammurapi. This would appear to be sufficient to establish that these two genealogies drew upon a common ‘Amorite’ tradition”.
Abrahamic Connections
Herb Storck has shown, in an important article “The Early Assyrian King List ... and the ‘Greater Amorite’ Tradition” (Proc. of the 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, C and AH Press, Toronto, 1986, p. 43), that there is a genealogical link among:
(i) Abraham;
(ii) the genealogy of king Hammurabi; and
(iii) the Assyrian King List.
Storck commenced his article with the following explanation:
The Assyrian Kinglist (AKL) is one of the most important chronographic texts ever uncovered. Initially it was thought to represent a long unbroken tradition of rulership over Assyria. A closer look at the AKL by Benno Landsberger (1890-1968) ... however, dispelled this somewhat facile approach to AKL tradition. Subsequent studies by Kraus ... and Finkelstein ... have demonstrated a common underlying Amorite tradition between parts of the AKL and the Genealogy of Hammurapi (GHD). Portions of this section of the AKL containing 17 tent-dwelling kings have also been compared to biblical ... and Ugaritic ... Amorite traditions. ….
Storck’s purpose will be “to take a closer look at the 17 Assyrian tent dwellers and the greater Amorite tradition, as evidenced primarily in the genealogy of the Hammurapi [Hammurabi] Dynasty and other minor traditions”. The names of all 17 tent-dwelling kings are preserved in various lists. What is striking is that many of these names can be linked with names in the GHD, which gives the names in couplet form.
Thus, for example, names 3 and 4, Janqi (Janqu) and Sahlamu are given in GHD as Ya-am-qu-us-ha-lam-ma. Name 11, Zuabu, may be connected with Sumuabi, an ancestor of Hammurabi. Thus Storck:
Poebel sought to connect the name with Su-mu-a-bi, the name of the first king of the first dynasty of Babylon, even though in our list it is written with the sign ZU. .... Kraus, however, expressed his personal doubts as to whether this would work .... But in a recently published fragment of this portion of the AKL (E) this name was indeed written with an initial SU for ZU, thus supporting Poebel's contention somewhat. “Nevertheless, the genealogy edited by J.J. Finkelstein has Zu-um-ma-bu in the apparently parallel line, hinting that the reverse may be the case. The presence of ma as restored eases the interpretation of the name Sumu-abu” ....
Storck concluded the first part of his study by claiming that: “Nine of the 17 tent-dwelling AKL kings can reasonably be identified with GHD ancestors of Hammurapi.
This would appear to be sufficient to establish that these two genealogies drew upon a common ‘Amorite’ tradition”.
That there was still that nomadic inclination amongst the kings of the Hammurabic era may perhaps be gleaned from the fact that Shamsi-Adad I of that time is said to have had no really fixed capital, but moved about from place to place.
And we have found that Iarim-Lim (Hiram), though stationed in the coastal west, apparently had a political reach that extended all the way to Elam.
Since first writing this, I have come to realise, thanks to Royce (Richard) Erickson:
A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY
(10) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu
that the land of Elam was situated to the NW of the kingdom of Iarim-Lim, and not far away beyond the traditional Sumer in southern Iraq.
Strangely, at least initially, Hammurabic (Old Babylonian) Dynasty names appear to recur within the Yamkhad Dynasty of Iarim-Lim (Hiram), names such as Sumu-epuh (Sumuabi?) and the name Hammurabi itself.
When the ancient world conventionally dated to c. 1800 BC is shunted downwards
and re-set in what I consider to be its proper place, at c. 1000 BC
(during the United Monarchy period of Israel), then there emerges
from the supposedly earlier period of history a whole galaxy of biblical characters, including King Hiram, who were actual contemporaries of Israel’s great kings, Saul, David and Solomon.
Sufficient compelling biblical characters of the United Monarchy period emerge from the historical records of what convention has estimated as c. 1800 BC for me to accept that revisionist historian Dean Hickman had got it right when he, finally solving the problem of the ‘liquid’ chronology of king Hammurabi, re-set his era at the time of David and Solomon (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proceedings of the 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985, pp. 13-28).
A crucial connection in all of this was Hickman’s identification of the powerful king, Shamsi-Adad I, as king David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer.
Now, according to 2 Samuel 8:3, this Hadadezer was the son of Rekhob (Rehob), and Hickman was able to find that name, Rekhob, embedded in the name of the father of Shamsi-Adad I, Ilu kabkabu, or Uru kabkabu (Rukab = Rekhob).
Given this revised scenario, then the four-decade long reign of Shamsi-Adad I’s younger contemporary, King Hammurabi of Babylon, must have coincided very closely with the four-decade long reign of the great king Solomon himself.
The reign of Shamsi-Adad I’s son, Ishme-Dagan I (anything from 55 years to 11 years) would presumably have coincided with the early part of Hammurabi’s reign.
Other biblical links with history also arise from this revised scenario.
For instance: Zimri-Lim of Mari, a troublesome foe of king Hammurabi’s, can now be recognized as king Solomon’s foe, Rezon (or Rezin). And once again there is an appropriate match for the father’s name: Iahdulim (or Iahdunlim), the known father of Zimri-Lim, equates with Eliada. 1 Kings 11:23: “And God sent another trouble-maker, Rezon, the son of Eliada, who had gone in flight from his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah”.
One might also expect, now, that this well-documented era of Hammurabi of Babylon and Zimri-Lim of Mari, revised, could yield up evidence for the great King Hiram of Tyre, a loyal friend of both David’s and Solomon’s.
And that is just what we find.
A Geography of King Hiram
I have previously identified King Hiram with the powerful Amorite king, Iarim-Lim (or Yarim-Lim) of Yamkhad, whose conventional dates are c. 1780 BC – c. 1764 BC, or, according to a Middle Chronology, c. 1735 BC -?
{The element, -Lim, in the king’s name, may serve the same purpose as it did in the case above of Iahdu-lim, equating to biblical El-iada (Lim = El)}.
The power of Hiram, as Iarim-Lim, extended from Syro-Lebanon, through Babylonia, to Elam. Previously, in Chapter Two of my post-graduate thesis (2007), I had written:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973
… what may perhaps help us to gain some real perspective on potential range of rule at this approximate time in ancient history are the geographical terms of a recorded message from Iarim-Lim – whom we met as a powerful (older) contemporary of Hammurabi – to the prince of Dêr in Babylonia, whom, incidentally, Iarim-Lim calls ‘brother’ [cf. 1 Kings 9:13].
Kupper tells of it:
In this message, Iarimlim reminds his ‘brother’ that he had saved his life fifteen years before, at the time when he was coming to the help of Babylon, and that he had also given his support to the king of the town of Diniktum … to whom he supplied five hundred boats. Outraged by the prince of Dêr’s ingratitude he threatens to come at the head of his troops and exterminate him.
…. Whatever the circumstances of the [Babylon] expedition were, it says a great deal for the military power of Iarimlim, who had led the soldiers of Aleppo as far as the borders of Elam [modern Iran].
According to a report of the day (Mari Letters), Iarim-Lim’s (Yarim-Lim’s) status was greater than that of Hammurabi …:
… there are ten or fifteen kings who follow Hammurabi of Babylon and ten or fifteen who follow Rim-sin of Larsa but twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim of Yamkhad. ….
In the same Chapter Two, I had reproduced [Dr. Donovan] Courville’s argument that Iarim-Lim had conquered Alalakh from the Philistines, and that he (his dynasty) had ruled there (Alalakh Level VII) for about half a century, before the Philistines resumed their former occupation there. …. The obvious conclusion was that the people of Iarim-Lim (Amorites) had conquered this city and probably also the surrounding territory, ruling it for a period estimated to have been about 50 years. At the end of this time, the original inhabitants were able to re-conquer the site and reoccupy it.
It is perhaps this half century or so of Amorite dominance, extending as far as Elam, as we saw, that pertains also - at least in part - to the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon.
This is such an obscure dynasty prior to Hammurabi that we cannot as yet say very much about its origins.
But Herb Storck has helped to ease this situation somewhat in his fine article [“The Early Assyrian King List, The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty, and the ‘Greater Amorite’ Tradition”, Proc. 3rd Seminar Catastrophism and Ancient History, 1986, Toronto, pp. 43-50] in which he is able to posit a link between the earliest Assyrian kings and the early Hammurabic dynasty, thus concluding [p. 45]:
Nine of the 17 tent-dwelling [Assyrian King List] kings can reasonably be identified with GHD [Genealogy of the Hammurabi Dynasty] ancestors of Hammurapi.
One of these possibly is Zuabu (Assyrian King List) with Su-abu or Sumu-abum (GHD), the apparent founder of the First Babyonian Dynasty. There is also a Sumu’epuh, very similar to this name, Sumu-abum (Su-abu), preceding Iarim-Lim. …. And, most interestingly, the name Iarim-Lim here is followed by the name, Hammurabi. This may, of course, be a different Hammurabi. {In fact there was at the time of Hiram and Solomon a similarly named Huram-abi, a master-craftsman, 1 Kings 7:13, who has become the key figure in Freemasonry, as Hiram-abiff. See below}.
In my more recent article:
Of Cretans and Phoenicians
(10) Of Cretans and Phoenicians | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I have followed Josephine Quinn in rejecting the “Phoenicians” as a genuine ethnicity (In Search of the Phoenicians, Princetown UP, 2018).
They are almost completely missing from the Bible, entirely from the Old Testament.
So I would be looking for another ethnic term for the Amorite Iarim-Lim-Hiram, broadly West Semitic, like the Hebrews, whose God Hiram seems to have followed, at least to some degree (cf. I Kings 5:7).
King Solomon will refer to Hiram’s highly skilled workers as ‘Sidonians’ (v. 6): ‘So give orders that cedars of Lebanon be cut for me. My men will work with yours, and I will pay you for your men whatever wages you set. You know that we have no one so skilled in felling timber as the Sidonians’.
Whilst Dr. Courville’s estimation that the dynasty of Iarim-Lim was chronologically located to “the general era of the Exodus-Conquest” came far closer to reality (about 300 years closer), in my view, than does the conventional estimate, it was still only about halfway right according to this present (Hickman-based) re-setting of it to the time of David and Solomon.
My contribution here has been to identify this Iarim-Lim as the biblical King Hiram. This brings Iarim-Lim about half a millennium later than even Dr. Courville’s radical chronological estimation for the king and his archaeological level.
I have discussed the latter in detail in my thesis (2007), how Dr. Courville’s wrong placement of Iarim-Lim, in relation to biblical history, has led him to a degree of misalignment with the Alalakh stratigraphy.
Given that Iarim-Lim (Hiram) was an ally of King David’s, then we might expect that Iarim-Lim had suppressed (at Alalakh VII) one of David’s major enemies.
These were the Syrians (not relevant here) and the Philistines.
This may further support Courville’s conclusion that the majority of Alalakh levels pertain to the Philistine peoples.
Hiram Abiff
The semi-legendary Hiram Abiff (Abif) is loosely based upon a skilful biblical artisan sent by King Hiram to King Solomon, to assist the latter with the building of the Temple of Yahweh. King Hiram tells Solomon about the man (2 Chronicles 2:13-14):
‘I am sending you Huram-Abi, a man of great skill, whose mother was from Dan and whose father was from Tyre. He is trained to work in gold and silver, bronze and iron, stone and wood, and with purple and blue and crimson yarn and fine linen. He is experienced in all kinds of engraving and can execute any design given to him. He will work with your skilled workers and with those of my lord, David your father’.
The Hebrew words for what is here rendered as the name Huram-Abi, are:
אבי חורם
חורם אבי
In I Kings 7:13-14, however, the man is simply called “Huram” (Hiram), not Huram-Abi:
King Solomon sent to Tyre and brought Huram, whose mother was a widow from the tribe of Naphtali and whose father was from Tyre and a skilled craftsman in bronze. Huram was filled with wisdom, with understanding and with knowledge to do all kinds of bronze work. He came to King Solomon and did all the work assigned to him.
C. C. Torrey, long ago, considered that the element, Abi (אבי), was not actually part of the man’s name, but was the Hebrew for a ‘chief counsellor’, hence Huram (Hiram), the king’s “right-hand” man (“Concerning Hiram (“Huram-abi”), the Phœnician Craftsman”, JBL, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1912), pp. 151-155).
Torrey would conclude (p. 155):
To be sure, the reading ואבי gives a good deal of trouble, and not a few have preferred to regard this as the original form of the ‘second element’ of the name, and to suppose this founder of the Masonic Order to have been called “Huram abiu” … (or perhaps “Hiram abiu”).
But the accepted translation of the passage is wrong. Here, again, the noun בא has the same meaning as before. He who had been styled (by the Chronicler) “the right-hand man” of the king of Tyre is now, with one of the Chronicler’s own literary touches, termed “the right-hand man of King Solomon”.
[End of quote]
It seems that the so-called Hiram Abiff may be regarded as more allegorical than real anyway. According to http://www.ephesians5-11.org/hiram.htm for instance:
Although the most important element of Masonic symbolism deals with the death, burial and resurrection of Hiram Abiff, there is nothing in Scripture to support it. Masonic Grand Lodges have stated that the account is not based upon fact, but rather is an allegory, used to teach. ….
The ape of Christ?
Certainly, the Evangelical Truth site regards it as such (“Hiram Abiff – the false christ of Freemasonry”): http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/hiramabiff.htm
Freemasonry substitutes God’s perfect example and man’s only hope of salvation Jesus Christ for a spurious fantasy figure called Hiram Abiff.
Instead of using Christ as its model of truth, fidelity and salvation it transfers its loyalty to this phantom figure Hiram. Freemasonry teaches: “If we possess the same painstaking fidelity as our Grand Master did in the hour of tribulation then will our final reward be that which belongs to the just and perfect man.”
Hiram here becomes Masonry’s Saviour and following in his footsteps is said to ensure a glorious “final reward.” Rather than viewing Christ as the way, the truth and the life Freemasonry looks to another – Masonry’s Hiram Abiff. The Lodge practices ultimate deception here eradicating man’s great representative and furnishing a foolish non-existence religious alternative.
Acts 4:12 says: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Jesus Christ is the sinner’s only hope! He is man’s only way.
The Lost Word
According to the teaching of the 3rd Masonic degree (the Master Mason degree) there was a mystical word which was only known to three people.
These were King Solomon, Hiram, King of Tyre and a fictional Masonic character called Hiram Abiff. These three appointed fifteen craftsmen from among those working on rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem to preside over the rest of the workers.
The English working of the lecture explains: “Fifteen Fellow-Crafts of that superior class appointed to preside over the rest, finding that the work was nearly completed, and that they were not in possession of the secrets of the Master’s degree … conspired together to obtain them by any means … At the moment of carrying their conspiracy into execution, twelve of the fifteen recanted” (English ritual p. 68).
The three remaining plotters (not to be confused with the three who know the mystical word) continued undeterred. The degree records how they confronted Hiram Abiff in the Temple and “demanded of our Grand Master the secrets of a Master Mason, declaring to him that his death would be the consequence of a refusal.” The degree continues, “Hiram Abiff, true to his obligation, replied that those secrets were known only to three, and could only be made known by consent of them all.” One of the scheming Craftsmen struck Hiram with “a violent blow full in the middle of the forehead” whereupon he sunk “lifeless at the foot of the murderer” (English ritual p. 69).
In this fable, the Temple in Jerusalem was a temporary resting place for Hiram’s remains after his death, Mount Moriah being his final interment. Hearing of the news, King Solomon is said to have sent out some of his most trusted craftsmen to find the body. In the English working of this Masonic degree there were 15 workmen sent out, in the American version 12 men were sent.
Hiram usurps the place of Christ
Romans 6:3-6 says, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”
This is the only religious blueprint that God recognises and has ordained. Salvation involves our identification with Christ. Paul here uses metaphors to depict the nature and significance of salvation.
Baptism relates to our spiritual burial with Christ in conversion – representing our dying to self; resurrection refers to our rising with Him into newness of life. This passage reveals Christ’s role as man’s sole Representative, and in particular outlines the victory He secured for us through His glorious resurrection over sin, death and the grave. In turn, it shows the Christian’s direct interest and spiritual involvement in this great transaction. It is showing how Christ became our Substitute in His atoning work. Even though the Lord was sinless, He was condemned on our behalf so that we could be eternally free. He took our sin and guilt in full upon Himself.
Finally, when He rose again He did it in our stead. He therefore averted our deserved destiny, which was eternal punishment. Sinners must hence appropriate their part in that central resurrection in order to overcome eternal punishment. The cross is the focal-point of the Christian faith; outside of it there is no salvation. Colossians 2:10-14 and 3:1-4 repeat the great truth we see represented in Romans chapter 6.
It is clear that while Hiram (King of Tyre) assisted King Solomon at the building of the first Temple, there is no mention whatsoever in Scripture of any “Hiram Abiff.” This character is in fact a Masonic invention. Accordingly, there is no teaching in Holy Writ relating to Hiram’s murder and discovery, as these secret societies intimate. The teaching embodied in this story is extra-biblical. Plainly the whole thing is one elaborate Masonic fabrication. This whole secret society fixation with Hiram is a problematic area for evangelicals, as they see Christ as man’s sole Redeemer and only perfect exemplar, whereas secret societies seem to be always promoting Hiram as an alternative Christ.
Jesus cautions us in John 10:1, “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” He then goes on to explain, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9). If someone wants to experience the favour of God and one day experience eternal bliss, they must come exclusively through Christ. He is the way – the only way. Christ alone is our access to God.
How true and solemn the words of Scripture are: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
Dr. Albert Barnes explains this matter, where he comments that “The word rendered fable means properly ‘speech’ or ‘discourse’, and then fable or fiction, or a mystic discourse. Such things abounded among the Greeks as well as the Jews, but it is probable that the latter here are particularly intended. These were composed of frivolous and unfounded stories, which they regarded as of great importance, and which they seem to have desired to incorporate with the teachings of Christianity … One of the most successful arts of the adversary of souls has been to mingle fable with truth ….
[End of quotes]
King Hiram, like his ally, Solomon, had a way with words. I shall be having more to say about that when I come to consider King Solomon’s use of cryptograms in Egypt. King Hiram, completely dissatisfied with Solomon’s payment to him of 20 ordinary towns of Galilee, will rebuke his brother by calling the place the Land of Kabul (Cabul) (אֶרֶץ כָּבוּל) (I Kings 9:12-14):
… when Hiram went from Tyre to see the towns that Solomon had given him, he was not pleased with them. ‘What kind of towns are these you have given me, my brother?’ he asked. And he called them the Land of Kabul, a name they have to this day. Now Hiram had sent to the king 120 talents of gold.
Commentators immediately pick up from the context that Hiram is meaning worthless towns, despite there being no Hebrew word, Kabul,
But the erudite Cyrus Gordon, who provided readers with the key to the riddle of Samson in his great book, Riddles in History, (NY: Crown Publishers. 1974), will also, in that same book, explain what King Hiram was on about when he contemptuously called Solomon’s Galilean cities, Kabul.
Kabul – KBWL - as professor Gordon explained, is here to be understood (read) as an atbash: http://www.bible-codes.org/atbash_bible_code_river.htm
“An Atbash code occurs when the first letter of the alphabet is substituted for the last and the second for the second to last …”.
What Hiram was really saying about those twenty towns in Galilee - with the word Kabul atbash-ed, as LŠPK - was that they resembled a LŠPK: Hebrew meaning: a “Rubbish Heap”.
Was this, a cipher, the kind of “mystical word which was only known to three people. These were King Solomon, Hiram, King of Tyre [and Huram-abi]”?
The kingdom of Hiram, perhaps - in terms of power - the greatest king of his day, a veritable master-king (though his 20 follower kings will later be overshadowed by the Syrian, Ben-Hadad I, with his 32 follower kings, I Kings 20:1), appears to have extended from Alalakh, through Ugarit (ancient Akkad), Hamath (Yamkhad?), Sidon, and on to Tyre.
I have suggested that Diniktum, to where he provided boats, would have been a port.
And this is just his coastal influence.
His reach appears to have extended through Babylonia (Der) to as far as Elam.
Could it be that Hiram also ‘owned’ Babylon, that Hammurabi was none other than Hiram’s brilliant servant, Huram-abi - Hammurabi, a fellow Amorite (not native Babylonian)?
King Hiram, in a lucrative partnership with Solomon, had his sailors involved with Solomon’s fleet at Ezion-geber (I Kings 9:26-28):
King Solomon also built ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea. And Hiram sent his men—sailors who knew the sea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men. They sailed to Ophir and brought back 420 talents of gold, which they delivered to King Solomon.
Elsewhere, I have discussed a potentially further such maritime partnership assisting the Egyptian fleet of Pharaoh Hatshepsut with ships sailing to the exotic land of Punt.
Were Ophir and Punt the same place?
That was the conclusion reached by “Brugsch Pascha, the famous Egyptologist”, according to Carl Peters (“Ophir and Punt in South Africa”, Journal of the Royal African Society, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jan., 1902), p. 174).
Hiram’s friendship with Solomon’s father, David, may have dated back to when Hiram - potentially as Idrimi of Alalakh - was a refugee Habiru in Canaan, just as David (somewhat like a Robin Hood) had been forced to become in the face of King Saul’s relentless persecution of him.
Then David may have endeared himself to Hiram’s family if, perhaps, Hiram was the Joram, son of Tou (Toi) of Hamath (Yamkhad?), of 2 Samuel 8:9-10:
When Tou king of Hamath heard that David had defeated the entire army of Hadadezer, he sent his son Joram to King David to greet him and congratulate him on his victory in battle over Hadadezer, who had been at war with Tou. Joram brought with him articles of silver, of gold and of bronze.
Presumably Solomon, later, when building the Temple, would have become the beneficiary of this generous gift “of silver, of gold, and of bronze”.
Compare I Kings 9:14: “Now Hiram had sent to the king 120 talents of gold”.
If Hiram (Iarim-Lim) was essentially a ruler of the kingdom of Hamath (Yamkhad?), then why would the Bible always designate him as the “King of Tyre” (cf. 2 Samuel 5:11; I Kings 5:1; 7:13)?
Part of the explanation may be that the biblical scribes always referred to the city closest to Israel, even if a king may have ruled other (even more important) cities.
But, also, a colleague in the US (in Virginia), who is sympathetic to my identification of Hiram as Iarim-Lim of Yamkhad, has told me that Josephus writes in one place of Hiram’s leaving Tyre to go home – indicating that Tyre may not, in fact, have been King Hiram’s home base.
HIRAM AS IDRIMI OF ALALAKH
“Level VII [at Alalakh], which did not contain the [characteristic] pottery,
was the level containing the inscribed tablets of the Yarim-Lim dynasty.”
To flesh out historically the biblical kings David and Solomon (c. C10th BC) one needs also to:
(i) delve right back to a conventionally-estimated Syro-Mesopotamia of the era of c. 1800 BC so as to locate their contemporaries in Rekhob and Hadadezer (historically, Uru-kabkabu and Shamsi-Adad I); Eliada and Rezon (historically, Iahdulim and Zimri-Lim); and Hiram (historically, Iarim-Lim); and then to
(ii) dip into the conventionally-estimated Egypt of the era of c. 1500 BC to locate their Eighteenth Dynasty contemporaries in (Thutmose I and II), “Queen of Sheba” and “Shishak” (historically, Hatshepsut and Thutmose III).
In what will follow here, that same conventionally-estimated (but quite incorrect) era for the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty (c. 1500 BC) will also to found to contain a colourful character who may be yet another face of the biblical king Hiram.
Hiram as Idrimi
I had previously sought to identify this Idrimi (conventionally dated to c. 1500 BC) with one of King Solomon’s three adversaries (I Kings 11:14-26) namely, Hadad, or Hadar, the Edomite: “That name, Hadar, is the same as Hadoram (Adoram), and, as it seems to me, as Idrimi”.
But Hadoram (Adoram), or Adoniram, are also names that can be associated with the Hebrew name, Joram, and also with Hiram, as according to Abarim:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Joram.html#.Wi3KHeRlJ9A
Associated Biblical names
♂Adoniramאדנירם
♂Ahiramאחירם
♂Hadoramהדורם
הדרם
♂♕Hiramחירם
חירום
חורם
♂♕Joramיורם
Moreover, the geography of Idrimi, Alalakh, is, it seems, much more befitting of Hiram, as Iarim-Lim.
Thus I would write, in my university thesis the following (very Courville-based) sections regarding Iarim-Lim, the Philistines (Cretans) and the archaeology of Alalakh:
The Earlier Philistine History
It remains to be determined whether or not the Philistines can be traced all the way back to Crete in accordance with the biblical data; though obviously, from what has been said, to well before the time of the ‘Sea Peoples’, whose immediate origins were Aegean, not Cretan.
Courville has looked to trace just such an archaeological trail, back through the era of the late Judges/Saul; to Alalakh (modern Atchana) at the time of Iarim-Lim (Yarim-Lim) of Iamkhad (Yamkhad) and Hammurabi of Babylon; and finally to Crete in early dynastic times. I shall be basically reproducing Courville here, though with one significant chronological divergence, in regard to his dating of the Alalakh sequences. Courville has, according to my own chronological estimation for Hammurabi and Iarim-Lim, based on Hickman … dated the Hammurabic era about four centuries too early (as opposed to the conventional system’s seven centuries too early) on the time scale. Courville had wonderfully described Hammurabi as “floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea”, just after his having also correctly stated that: … “Few problems of ancient chronology have been the topic of more extensive debate among scholars than the dates to be ascribed to the Babylonian king Hammurabi and his dynasty …”. And so he set out to establish Hammurabi in a more secure historical setting. This, I do not think he managed successfully to achieve however.
Courville’s re-location of Hammurabi to the approximate time of Joshua and the Conquest is still fairly “liquid” chronologically, as it seems to me, without his having been able to establish any plausible syncretisms beyond those already known for Hammurabi (e.g. with Shamsi-Adad I and Zimri-Lim). Revisionist Hickman on the other hand, despite his radical lowering of the Hammurabic era even beyond the standard [Velikovsky-date lowering] scale, by about seven centuries to the time of kings David and Solomon (c. C10th BC), has been able to propose and develop what are to my way of thinking some promising syncretisms, e.g. between David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer, and Shamsi-Adad I (c. 1809-1776 BC, conventional dates), with the latter’s father Ilu-kabkabu being the biblical Rekhob, father of Hadadezer (2 Samuel 8:3); … and between Iarim-Lim and the biblical Joram (var. Hadoram), son of To’i, and prince of Hamath (cf. 2 Samuel 8:10 & 1 Chronicles 18:10).
….
So now, with Hammurabi and his era somewhat more securely located, as I think, than according to Courville’s proposed re-location - and hence with the potential for a more accurate archaeological matrix - we can continue on with Courville’s excellent discussion of the archaeology of the early Philistines: ….
VIII. The Culture of the Sea Peoples in the Era of the Late Judges
The new pottery found at Askelon [Ashkelon] at the opening of Iron I, and correlated with the invasion of the Sea Peoples, was identified as of Aegean origin. A similar, but not identical, pottery has been found in the territory north of Palestine belonging to the much earlier era of late Middle Bronze. By popular
views, this is prior to the Israelite occupation of Palestine. By the altered chronology, this is the period of the late judges and the era of Saul.
… That the similar pottery of late Middle Bronze, occurring both in the north and in the south, is related to the culture found only in the south at the later date is apparent from the descriptions of the two cultures. Of this earlier culture, which should be dated to the time of Saul, Miss Kenyon commented:
The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture.
The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s]
Drawings of typical examples of this pottery show the same stylized bird with back-turned head that characterized the pottery centuries later at Askelon. …
The anachronisms and anomalies in the current views on the interpretation of this invasion and its effects on Palestine are replaced by a consistent picture, and one that is in agreement with the background provided by Scripture for the later era in the very late [sic] 8th century B.C.
Courville now turns to the archaeology at the site of Alalakh on the shore of the Mediterranean at its most northeast protrusion, in order “to trace this culture one step farther back in time” (though in actual fact, by my chronology, it will bring him to approximately the same time – though a different place). ….
IX. The Culture of Level VI at Alalakh Is Related to That of the Philistines
He commences by recalling Sir Leonard Woolley’s investigations at this site in the 1930’s, during which Woolley discovered “seventeen archaeological levels of occupation”:
A solid synchronism is at hand to correlate Level VII at Alalakh with the era of Hammurabi of the First Dynasty at Babylon …. The basis for this synchronism is found in the Mari Letters where it is stated that “… there are ten or fifteen kings who follow Hammurabi of Babylon and ten or fifteen who follow Rim-sin of Larsa but twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim of Yamkhad”.
Investigations at Alalakh revealed numerous tablets inscribed in cuneiform, most of which are by the third of the three kings of the dynasty, Yarim-Lim by name.
…. Since the First Dynasty at Babylon was of Amorite origin, then so also was the Yarim-Lim dynasty of Amorite origin.
In the reports by Woolley, he indicates the find at Alalakh of two characteristic pottery types which were designated as “White-Slip milk bowls” and “Base-Ring Ware”. As the digging proceeded downward, he found that such types of pottery were plentiful in Level VI, all but disappeared in Level VII, and then reappeared in all levels from VIII to XVI.
Level VII, which did not contain the pottery, was the level containing the inscribed tablets of the Yarim-Lim dynasty. The obvious conclusion was that the people of Yarim-Lim (Amorites) had conquered this city and probably also the surrounding territory, ruling it for a period estimated to have been about 50 years. At the end of this time, the original inhabitants were able to reconquer the site and reoccupy it.
Courville now turns his attention to seeking an identity for the people from whom the city of Alalakh was taken for about half a century, but who then reoccupied it: ….
What then was this culture like …? We let Woolley tell us about the culture:
… We do indeed know extremely little about the Level VI buildings. It is to the pottery that we must look for information about Level VI, and the pottery can tell us a good deal. On the one hand we have what I have called the “nationalist revival” of the traditional painted ware which had been suppressed under the late regime, and some examples of this are perfect replicas of the old both in form and in decoration, but as time goes on, there appear modifications of the long-established types – instead of the isolated and static figures of birds or animals these become active and are combined in running scenes surrounding the whole pot without the interruption of the triglyph-like partitions which were once the rule … For the first time we get a polychrome decoration in red and black paint on a buff surface, and the design includes not only birds but the “Union Jack” motive which is specially characteristic of contemporary Palestine … [Emphasis Courville’s]
As one examines this pottery description, he will be struck with the notable similarities of decoration found on the pottery at Megiddo for the era of Philistine occupation in the time of Saul. There is the same use of red and black paint, the similar use of birds as a decoration motif, and the same use of the “Union Jack”.
Finally, Courville traces this distinctive archaeological path all the way back to Crete. I am giving only the barest outlines of his discussion here: ….
X. The Sea Peoples of Crete
With the evidences thus far noted before us, we are now in a position to examine the archaeological reports from Crete for evidences of the early occupation of this site by the Caphtorim (who are either identical to the Philistines of later Scripture or are closely related to them culturally). We now have at least an approximate idea of the nature of the culture for which we are looking …. … we can hardly be wrong in recognizing the earliest occupants of Crete as the people who represented the beginnings of the people later known in Scripture as the Philistines, by virtue of the stated origin of the Philistines in Crete. This concept holds regardless of the name that may be applied to this early era by scholars.
The only site at which Cretan archaeology has been examined for its earliest occupants is at the site of the palace at Knossos.
At this site deep test pits were dug into the earlier occupation levels. If there is any archaeological evidence available from Crete for its earliest period, it should then be found from the archaeology of these test pits. The pottery found there is described by Dr. Furness, who is cited by Hutchinson.
“Dr. Furness divides the early Neolithic I fabrics into (a) coarse unburnished ware and (b) fine burnished ware, only differing from the former in that the pot walls are thinner, the clay better mixed, and the burnish more carefully executed. The surface colour is usually black, but examples also occur of red,
buff or yellow, sometimes brilliant red or orange, and sometimes highly variegated sherds”.
A relation was observed between the decoration of some of this pottery from early Neolithic I in Crete with that at the site of Alalakh ….
Continuing to cite Dr. Furness, Hutchinson commented:
Dr. Furness justly observes that “as the pottery of the late Neolithic phases seems to have developed at Knossos without a break, it is to the earliest that one must look for evidence of origin of foreign connections”, and she therefore stresses the importance of a small group with plastic decoration that seems mainly confined to the Early Neolithic I levels, consisting of rows of pellets immediately under the rim (paralleled on burnished pottery of Chalcolithic [predynastic] date from Gullucek in the Alaca [Alalakh] district of Asia Minor). [Emphasis Courville’s]
While the Archaeological Ages of early Crete cannot with certainty be correlated with the corresponding eras on the mainland, it would seem that Chalcolithic on the mainland is later than Early Neolithic in Crete; hence any influence of one culture on the other is more probably an influence of early Cretan culture on that of the mainland.
This is in agreement with Scripture to the effect that the Philistines migrated from Crete to what is now the mainland at some point prior to the time of Abraham. ….
HIRAM IN AD ‘HISTORY’
Previously I wrote:
A Note: During the Covid lockdown I was in the process of writing a highly ambitious history of the world which included the AD era as well, I being aware that that, too, was in need of a radical revision.
This ‘book’ I had entitled: From Genesis to Hernán Cortés.
Some of AD so-called ‘history’ is actually non history, BC history projected into an alleged AD world.
Now here is an example of this BC to AD projection pertaining to Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, of Genesis 14. Previously I have written about this:
“… Chlodomer shared in the fourfold partition of his father’s kingdom in 511 …”.
Encyclopaedia Britannica
The name of the supposed C6th AD Frankish king, Chlodomer (Clodomir or Clodomer, c. 495 - 524 AD), immediately hit me - on first hearing of it - as being almost identical to the biblical name, Chedorlaomer.
And the belief that the kingdom which Chlodomer “shared” involved, as in the above quote, a “fourfold partition”, has not done anything to diminish this first impression.
For Chedorlaomer, too, was part of a fourfold coalition of kings (Genesis 14:1-11) ….
[End of quotes]
Now, here, I intend briefly to consider a potential AD projection of King Solomon’s ally, King Hiram, as the exotic Harun al-Raschid, the ally of the emperor Charlemagne.
Harun al-Raschid
Finally, the whole Charlemagnian scene does shift to the east.
H. Daniel-Rops introduces this exotic phase in the life of Charlemagne as follows, once again making allusion to Solomon (and also now to “the Queen of Sheba”) (The Church in the Dark Ages, 1959, p. 410):
Another aspect of Charlemagne’s ‘Christian policy’ struck his contemporaries very strongly; it is almost unbelievable, and brings into his career, which is almost devoid of poetic quality, a note of exotic charm similar to that which the visit of the Queen of Sheba casts upon the reign of Solomon; in other words, his relations with Haroun-al-Raschid, the Caliph of Bagdad. ….
I would be more emphatic here and suggest that it is more than “almost unbelievable”. It is unbelievable!
Harun al-Raschid (Haroun-al-Raschid) belongs to the world of fairy tales!
“Harun al-Raschid has become famous as protagonist in tales from One Thousand and One Night[s]”.
Relations
Charles exchanged diplomats with Harun al-Raschid, the Caliph of Baghdad, who sent him the white elephant Abul Abbas, which took part in all journeys and military actions of Charles between 802 and 810 AD. Arab sources do not mention these relations. Harun al-Raschid has become famous as protagonist in tales from One Thousand and One Night[s].
In a Solomonic context, Harun is not unlike the king of Israel’s great Levantine ally, Hiram, king of Tyre. Though Hiram’s power extended much further than Tyre; for he, as I have argued earlier, was also the mighty merchant-king Iarim-Lim of the Aleppo region, who was able militarily to threaten with extermination rulers as far away as Babylonia (the region of the exotic Harun), if they failed to pay for his shipbuilding services.
King Hiram had told Solomon that the Galilean towns that the latter had given him in payment for his services were “Cabul” (1 Kings 9:13), virtually “rubbish dumps”. According to Daniel-Rops (ibid.), Harun “was an intelligent, well-educated, and relatively sympathetic man …”.
And Daniel-Rops continues with his account of Harun:
Probably no Eastern ruler ever equalled the glory of this great caliph: he lived in the palace of the ‘Golden Gate’, whose famous green dome dominated the Mesopotamian plain, amongst his priceless carpets and tapestries, in the midst of a gigantic court of servants, concubines and eunuchs, and he was worthy indeed to become the hero of the Arabian Nights. But he was also a skilful diplomat and a soldier.
The architecture, the lavish courts and the multitudes of servants, as well as the skill factor in ruling and conquering, all are perfectly true of Hiram, too, especially in his partnership with the magnificent Solomon.
The royal pair had fleets of ships visiting the most exotic regions, for gold, slaves, precious myrrh and rare spices, and other quite unique flora and fauna.
I have suggested elsewhere that Solomon and Hiram were turning Palestine at the time into a zoo and a botanical gardens; a lot of which atmosphere is reflected in the exotic “Song of Songs”.
It is such a pity that the archaeologists have been looking at the wrong strata levels for the cosmopolitan Late Bronze phase of king Solomon.
“The harmonious relations between the two sovereigns were marked by exchanges of gifts, which the Carolingian chroniclers enlarge upon charmingly and freely. Everyone at Aix-la-Chapelle was enraptured by the arrival of a chess set with the figures finely carved in ivory, of spices with unknown scents, of a clock which moved by means of a cunning hydraulic mechanism, and even of elephants and other strange animals!”
Hārūn al-Rashīd | ʿAbbāsid caliph | Britannica
ʿAbbāsid wealth under Hārūn
The fabulous descriptions of Hārūn and his court in The Thousand and One Nights are idealized and romanticized, yet they had a considerable basis in fact.
Untold wealth had flowed into the new capital of Baghdad since its foundation in 762. The leading men, and still more their wives, vied in conspicuous consumption, and in Hārūn’s reign this reached levels unknown before. His wife Zubaydah, herself a member of the ʿAbbāsid family, would have at her table only vessels of gold and silver studded with gems. Hārūn’s palace was an enormous institution, with numerous eunuchs, concubines, singing girls, and male and female servants.
He himself was a connoisseur of music and poetry and gave lavish gifts to outstanding musicians and poets. The brilliant culture of the court had certain limits, however, since, apart from philology, the intellectual disciplines were in their infancy in the Arabic world. There was also a rougher and more sombre side. Instead of listening to music, Hārūn might watch cocks and dogs fighting. As caliph he had power of life and death and could order immediate execution. In the stories of his nocturnal wanderings through Baghdad in disguise, he is usually accompanied by Masrūr the executioner as well as friends like Jaʿfar the Barmakid and Abū Nuwās, the brilliant poet. ….
But see my article:
Original Baghdad was Jerusalem
(7) Original Baghdad was Jerusalem
