Historiography, Ideology and Politics in the Ancient Near East and Israel

Changing Perspectives 5

Mario Liverani, Niels Peter Lemche, Emanuel Pfoh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000413090
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

In this volume, Niels Peter Lemche and Emanuel Pfoh present an anthology of seminal studies by Mario Liverani, a foremost scholar of the Ancient Near East.

This collection contains 18 essays, 11 of which have originally been published in Italian and are now published in English for the first time. It represents an important contribution to Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies, exposing the innovative interpretations of Liverani on many historical and ideological aspects of ancient society. Topics range from the Amarna letters and the Ugaritic epic, to the 'origins' of Israel.

Historiography, Ideology and Politics in the Ancient Near East and Israel will be an invaluable resource for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical scholars, as well as graduate and post-graduate students.

Part I

Ancient Near Eastern historiography

1 ‘But in the Seventh Year …’

DOI: 10.4324/9781003157717-1

It is well known that the number seven plays an important role in Ancient Near Eastern literature. For reasons unknown to us, it is often used without its specific meaning of indicating a certain amount. It has acquired a special status that ignores its particular function of being a link (in a specific position) in a systematic order.¹ Especially in biblical as well as in Mesopotamian and Ugaritic literature, we often encounter groups, lists or periods based on the number seven. No other number has this function.²

A special formula that includes this use of the number seven follows the pattern: ‘in seven years … but in the seventh year…’ (with minor variants such as ‘in six years … but in the seventh year …’ or ‘in seven years … but in the eighth year…’ – and of course days can substitute for years). This formula marks a change. What happens in the seventh year is the opposite (or at least the end) of whatever happened in the previous years. Because the symbolic use of the number seven is extremely old and common that we cannot determine whether the use of this literary formula goes back to a special ritualistic meaning connected with a period of seven days or years (such as the week, or the sabbatical year), or vice versa: the ritualistic use of periods of seven days or years originates in the stereotypical use of the formula, i.e., to point at a concrete example, we may ask whether the notion of the week is older than a story like Gen. 1:1–2:4 (where the use of the pattern of seven years might be a stereotypical literary motif rather than an ‘aetiological’ element). Whatever the case, the motif often returns in poetical texts, or more generally speaking in literary texts. We only need to mention the Ugaritic epic of Aqhat where King Dani-El, for seven days, is hosting the Košarot until they depart on the seventh day. In the same epic, Dani-El also mourns his deceased son, Aqhat, until he, in the seventh year, sacrifices to the gods and sends Paghat to revenge her brother’s murder.³ It is easy to offer more examples. Thus, the Old Testament opens with a passage using the formula: Yahweh works on the creation of the world for six days but rests on the seventh.

The use of the formula in literary texts is unproblematic as soon as it has been realised that the number seven is stripped of any function of providing precise information. It only functions to present a certain sense of something concrete (allowing for a greater literary effect) by establishing a period of time where the exact duration is of little importance and the choice of the number seven comes from a certain symbolic resonance attached to this number since immemorial times. The literary character of the motif is clear to everyone. However, it has not been sufficiently noted that the same literary motif also appears in texts having a historical content where we should have expected that an indication of time should have a real function. Because scholars have often understood such literary numbers as real, it would not be a waste of time to discuss this further. The passages which I will discuss are taken from the historical and political literature of Syria and Anatolia in the second half of the second millennium BCE, but they, in no way, constitute a complete list. These examples were only the first that came to mind without having to look further for more examples. However, when the problem has been exposed, we may draw the same conclusions relating to other similar passages.

The inscription on Idrimi’s statue, the only most valuable example of a royal inscription from Syria in the second millennium, includes two passages where we find the formula of the seven years employed.⁴ ‘For seven years I lived among the ḫabiru, let birds loose, and studied the (viscera of) lambs, but in the seventh year⁵ Hadad addressed me’, and further on:

For seven years Barattarna the mighty king, the king of the Hurrians was my enemy, but in the seventh year I wrote to Barattarna, the king of Umman-Manda, and reminded him of the peace conditions and the treaty between our fathers, etc.

The same formula is simply used in two different passages without pretending that the number seven should in any case be understood as real, and without having to identify the two periods of seven years as being identical, something scholars have occasionally done,⁶ making historical suggestions on this basis (arguing that the revolt in Aleppo was supported by the king of Mitanni), which are unfounded. The opinion formulated by the editor of the text that the number must be a real one because the inscription was intended to be read by people who themselves remembered these events, is baseless. The number is symbolic both to the reader and to the writer who did not apply a literary motif to fake anything. We also note that the number 20 years,⁷ presented by Idrimi as the length of his rule, is also a round and recurrent number⁸ and not very reliable. In the same manner, the question that the 7 years were part of his reign of 20 years (this question has actually been raised) is a waste of time since it presents this number with a real numerical function; something it did not have.

We read in the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma, as related by his son, Muršili II:

When Ḫattušaziti returned home from Egypt, my father finally conquered Karkemiš. He laid siege on it for seven days, and on the eighth day he attacked it that lasted for a day and conquered it in a terrible battle in the eighth day, in only one day.

(Güterbock 1956: 95)

Also in this case, the literary character of the motif is obvious. Furthermore, because it is a matter of days, the passage has no consequence for reconstructing chronology, which means that if an author feels that he has been misled, it is without consequence.⁹ The passage is, however, important because it shows that in texts that relate to historical reality such as the Hittite annals, the authors may make use of literary motifs.

In Ḫattušili III’s apology, the motif returns once more: ‘because of my brother I did nothing, and I suffered for seven years. But because (Urḫi-Tešub) planned to destroy me … I would not suffer anymore’ (Goetze 1925: 28). Because the meaning of this number has been misunderstood, it has caused widespread confusion. Normally, precise indications of the duration of the reigns of Hittite rulers are totally lacking, and this note has been considered (implicitly but generally) a fortunate exception. Because of this note, it has been assumed that Urḫi-Tešub really ruled for exactly seven years before he was removed from the throne by his uncle Ḫattušili III. We have only to consult widely circulated textbooks in the history of the Hittites and general Middle Eastern history to see how systematically they attribute a seven-year reign to Urḫi-Tešub.¹⁰ It is, however, clear that the number has a symbolic meaning for which reason the exact length of Urḫi-Tešub’s reign remains unknown as is the case of all other Hittite rulers.¹¹

One more Hittite text remains where we may find traces of the motif of the seven years. This text is KUB XIX 9, which has been discussed extensively in connection with the chronology of šuppiluliuma’ reign.¹² In this text, we among other things read: ‘My grandfather šuppiluliuma stayed in Amurru because these countries were strong, and it took six years to control them.’ The same text mentions 20 years as the time it took šuppiluliuma to rebuild his empire. This is obviously a round number, and because it returns a number of times, it must be considered suspicious. The six years is normally reckoned to be a real number.¹³ This number has formed the basis of reconstructions of the final phase of šuppiluliuma’s reign. It is, however, likely (if not simply certain) that the number derives from a source making use of the motif ‘for six years (I remained in Amurru, because these countries were strong), but in the seventh year (I subdued them and returned home to Ḫattuša).’ It should be noted that KUB XIX 9 is from the time of Ḫattušili, almost a century later than the period of šuppiluliuma. It may have its information from sources like the ‘Deeds of šuppiluliuma’ (where we actually found use of the motif). In my opinion, it remains a possibility that also the number of six years when šuppiluliuma stayed in Syria like the number 20, which was spent on the reconstruction of the empire, is not historical. Therefore, to base the reconstruction of the projects of šuppiluliuma on this text – in the way it has been done – may be considered a rather bold endeavour.

Notes

1. 1 On the special physiognomy of the numbers in ‘the mythical thinking,’ cf. Cassirer (1964).
2. 2 In general concerning the number seven in the Ancient Near East, see especially Hehn (1907). Since Hehn, the material has greatly increased.
3. 3 2 Aqht II 32–40; 1 Aqht I 175–86. See especially Loewenstamm (1965).
4. 4 Smith (1949: 16), respectively ll. 27–30 and 43–47. We should at the same time note the list of seven cities in ll. 65–68). Cf. on this text recently Buccellati (1962).
5. 5 The text has še-ib-i ša-na-ti (l. 29) and i-na še-ib-i ša-na-ti (l. 45) using a cardinal number and the nomen in the plural, while the correct Akkadian form would be (with an ordinal number and the substantive in the singular) *ina šebūtim šattim (Goetze [1950: 228]), which has caused problems for some commentators. The text, however, represents the local (Canaanite) form as demonstrated by the similar Phoenician form (cf. Friedrich [1951: § 315a]) and the Ugaritic (thus 2 Aqht II 39: b šb‛ ymm, etc.).
6. 6 Smith (1949: 59–60) and Klengel (1965: 182, 228). Albright (1950: 20), on the other hand, correctly considers the seven years a ‘standard cliché,’ quoting parallels from the story of Joseph.
7. 7 Reading 20 instead of 30, cf. Wiseman (1953: 6 n. 2).
8. 8 Cf., for example, the 20 years in KUB XIX 9 (we will return to this text below), also in Muršili prayer against the pestilence (Goetze [1929: 164, 206]), and in EA 59 (ll. 13, 44), and in KBo V 8, II 41 (Goetze [1934: 154]). These numbers have mistakenly been taken by Goetze as real numbers, and he constructed on this basis the annalistic sequence in his text forcing him to postulate a major lacuna (six years) in a text which is practically speaking complete (cf. against Goetze, Sturm [1935: col. 92–93]; Cavaignac [1934]; cf. recently Otten [1955]).
9. 9 Cavaignac (1950: 29) and Gurney (1952: 30). When we refer to the literary character of this motif, we may think of the conquest of Jericho after a siege of six days duration, and also in the epic of Keret, the surrender of King Pebel on the seventh day of the siege. Already a document from Mari mentions in a non-literary context a siege lasting seven days, cf. ARM I 131.
10. 10 Cf., among other, Goetze (1928: 37) (1305–1278); Cavaignac (1950: 39) (1292–1285); Gurney (1952: 216) (1282–1275); Scharff-Moortgat (1950: 496) (1290–1283); Schmökel (1957: 135) (1290–1283); Liverani (1963: tav. III) (1290–1283); etc. Only Otten (1961: 358) makes an exception, when he remarks: ‘“sieben Jahre schaute ich zu”, mag nur einen symbolischen Wert haben.’
11. 11 Those who intend to establish exact synchronisms between Urḫi-Tešub’s reign and the contemporary dynasties in Aššur and Egypt must have this in mind. Cf., recently among others, Rowton (1959: 6 n. 30); Otten, in Weidner (1959: 68); and Hornung (1964: 51, 59).
12. 12 See recently Kitchen (1962: 3–5), including references to previous scholarship.
13. 13 Cf. especially Forrer (1926: 10, 32); Goetze (1927: 117–8); Cavaignac (1932: 64, 74, 95); Redford (1959: 36–37); Liverani (1962: 37); Kitchen (1962: 4–5, 22, 47); Hornung (1964: 68); etc.

References

1. Albright, W.F. 1950. ‘Some Important Recent Discoveries: Alphabetic Origins and the Idrimi Statue’. BASOR 118: 11–20.
2. Buccellati, G. 1962. ‘La carriera di David e quella di Idrimi, re di Alalac’. Bibbia e Oriente 4: 95–99.
3. Cassirer, E. 1964. Filosofia delle forme simboliche: II: Il pensiero mitico. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. [Orig. German edn: Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. Bd. 2: Das mythische Denken. Berlin: B. Cassirer, 1925].
4. Cavaignac, E. 1932. Suppiluliuma et son temps. Paris: A. Maissonneuve.
5. ———. 1934. ‘La date et l’ordre des campagnes de Mursil’. RHA 14: 193–8.
6. ———. 1950. Les hittites. Paris: A. Maissonneuve.
7. Forrer, E. 1926. Forschungen II/1. Berlin: Selbstverlag.
8. Friedrich, J. 1951. Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
9. Goetze, A. 1925. Ḫattušiliš. Der Bericht über seine Thronbesteigung nebst den Paralleltexten. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
10. ———. 1927. ‘Zur Chronologie der Hethiterkönige’. In Kleinasiatische Forschungen I/1. A. Goetze (ed.). Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs: 115–9.
11. ———. 1928. Das Hethiterreich. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
12. ———. 1929. ‘Die Pestgebete des Muršiliš’. In Kleinasiatische Forschungen I/2. F. Sommer and H. Ehelolf (eds.). Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger: 161–251.
13. ———. 1934. Die Annalen des Muršiliš. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
14. ———. 1950. ‘Contributions to Hittite Lexicography’. JCS 4: 223–5.
15. Gurney, O.R. 1952. The Hittites. London: Harmondsworth.
16. Güterbock, H. 1956. ‘The Deeds of Suppiluliumas’. JCS 10: 41–50, 59–68.
17. Hehn, J. 1907. Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten Testament. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
18. Hornung, E. 1964. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des neuen Reiches. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
19. Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Šuppiluliumaš and the Amarna Pharaohs. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
20. Klengel, H. 1965. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 1: Nordsyrien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
21. Liverani, M. 1962. Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici (Studi Semitici 6). Roma: Centro di Studi Semitici.
22. ———. 1963. Introduzione alla storia dell’Asia anteriore antica. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici.
23. Loewenstamm, S.E. 1965. ‘The Seven Day-Unit in Ugaritic Literature’. IEJ 15: 121–33.
24. Otten, H. 1955. ‘A. Götze, Die Annalen des Muršiliš’. MIOF 3: 156–8.
25. ———. 1961. Kulturgeschichte des alten Orient. Stuttgart: Kröner Verlag.
26. Redford, D.B. 1959. ‘Some Observations on Amārna Chronology’. JEA 45: 34–37.
27. Rowton, M.B. 1959. ‘The Background of the Treaty between R...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Editorial note
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part I Ancient Near Eastern historiography
• Part II Ideology and propaganda in the Ancient Near East
• Part III Syria-Palestine in the Late Bronze Age
• Part IV The Old Testament and the history of Israel
• Index of Authors
• Index of Sources