Damien F. Mackey
“There is no scholarly debate that is adequate enough to explain why Idrimi chose to live among the Habir [Habiru] in Canaan, though it is psychologically clear that Idrimi got along well with the other refugees”.
Idrimi as a ‘habiru’
If the C15th BC (as conventionally dated) Idrimi (= Hadoram (Adoram), Adoniram, Joram, or Hiram) is to be-re-dated to the time of the biblical David – and identified as the future king, Hiram – then there must be a very good chance that Idrimi as a habiru (renegade) in Canaan, was part of David’s band of merry men, refugees from King Saul.
Here is an account of how Idrimi came to be in Canaan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrimi
In the first part of Idrimi’s autobiography on his statue, it is claimed that an incident had occurred in Halab [considered to be Aleppo] and that he and his family had to flee as a result. Jack M. Sasson of the University of North Carolina speculated that Idrimi didn’t claim any relationship to Halab’s rulers. He argued that Ilim-Ilimma I, Idrimi’s father, was either dethroned or had unsuccessfully attempted to usurp the throne of Halab from an unknown king. Idrimi goes to Emar because of his maternal ancestral connections to the Lords of Emar. While living in Emar, he considered himself as a slave.
According to Tremper Longman, lines 8b-9 of the autobiography indicate that Idrimi may have considered retaking his father’s lost throne, and that he tried to involve his brothers in his cause. As his brothers declined to participate, Idrimi went to Alalakh alone but then fled to Ammiya in the land of Canaan. According to Marc Van de Mieroop, Idrimi was unhappy at Emar for being an “underling”.” ….
Now, did David have any servant-official of compatible name (Idrimi = Hadoram, Adoniram)?
According to the Bible Hub’s entry, “Adoniram”, there was indeed: “A receiver of tributes under David and Solomon, and director of the thirty thousand men sent to Lebanon to cut timber, 1 Kings 5:14. The same person is also called Adoram, by contraction, 2 Samuel 20:21 1 Kings 12:8; and also Hadoram, 2 Chronicles 10:18.”
Did not King Hiram tell King Solomon similarly (1 Kings 5:9): ‘My servants will bring [cedar and juniper logs] down from Lebanon to the sea; and I will make them into rafts to go by sea to the place where you direct me, and I will have them broken up there, and you shall carry them away’?
King Hiram had been delighted to learn that his friend, David, had a wise son to succeed him (5:7): ‘Praise be to the Lord today, for he has given David a wise son to rule over this great nation’. Hiram, known to the Israelites of Solomon’s time as “Hiram King of Tyre” (5:1), king of the coastal region of Lebanon, would come to rule territory much further to the north, Alalakh, even with control over Ugarit (Ras Shamra).
Idrimi Takes Alalakh
Continuing with our account of Idrimi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrimi
There is no scholarly debate that is adequate enough to explain why Idrimi chose to live among the Habir [Habiru]in Canaan, though it is psychologically clear that Idrimi got along well with the other refugees. It was because they went through a similar experience of being uprooted from their own hometowns. Another possibility by looking at Tremper Longman’s theory is that Idrimi was recruiting potential allies in a greater effort to take Alalakh. But, it is clear from these various scholarly speculations that a political motivation may be involved in Idrimi’s desire to take back Alalakh. This motive is further indicated by author Garrett Galvin who compared Idrimi’s story to the famous Egyptian work, the Story of Sinuhe.
Comment: This Sinuhe is a semi-mythological version of the real Moses. See my:
Moses a Judge in Egypt
The Wikipedia article continues, telling of Idrimi also as (like King Hiram) a ship-builder:
Idrimi was similar to Sinuhe in the sense that he was a high-class refugee looking back to his roots and finding an opportunity to take back his throne while being fueled by humiliation and anger towards his political enemies. Galvin also argued that Idrimi’s attitude of being from a higher social class overcame the hardships he had as a refugee.
The decision to take back Alalakh …
After seven years living among the Habiru in Canaan c. 1497 BC [sic], seeking an opportunity to take back his throne, Idrimi found his chance. Edward Greenstein and David Marcus’ translation of the inscription on lines 29–34 revealed that following the storm-god Teshub’s advice in a dream, Idrimi “made ships and had auxiliary troops board them and proceeded via the sea to Mukishe (Mukish). Now, when my country heard of me, they brought me large cattle and small cattle, and in one day, in unison, the countries of Ni’i (Niya)…, Mukishe (Mukish), and my own city Alalah (Alalakh) became reconciled with me…they concluded a treaty and established them truly as my allies.”. This newfound alliance with local rulers, created by cattle exchanges, was just the beginning of the gradual restoration of Idrimi’s royal status as the king of Alalakh. ….
Parratarna of Mitanni
[A] lack of due information for Parratarna and other early Mitannian kings has compelled the likes of professor Gunnar Heinsohn and Emmet Sweeney to look for alternative explanations.
The kingdom of Mitanni, estimated to have coincided with the Old Babylonian Kingdom [OBK], is considered to have become a superpower by the time of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty.
Yet there is a disturbing lack of archaeology, and also of documentation, for the Mitannians.
Mirko Novák, following a conventional line that would well separate in time OBK from Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt, tells of the generally perceived archaeological situation for Mitanni:
MITTANI EMPIRE AND THE QUESTION OF ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY: SOME ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
When the Hittite king Hattušili I started his forays to Northern Syria, a certain “King of the Hurrians” appeared as one of his main opponents. Nowadays it is widely accepted that this person must have been one of the first rulers of the political entity later known as “Mittani” …. Therefore, the formation of this powerful kingdom must have taken place
during the latest phase of the Old Babylonian Period and predated the sack of Babylon by the Hittites under Hattušili’s grandson Muršili I by at least two generations …. From an archaeological point of view there must be a significant overlap of what is called “Old Babylonian” and “Mittani” Periods in Northern Mesopotamia, although they appear in nearly all chronological charts as succeeding one the other with a distinctive break in between.
Still, until today archaeology has failed in establishing a stratigraphical and chronological sequence of late Old Babylonian and early Mittanian layers on sites in the core area of the kingdom, the so-called Habur-triangle”. …. One reason for that may be that none of the major urban capitals of the Mittani Empire has been excavated or investigated in a serious degree. Even the locations of its political centres Waššukanni … Ta‘idu … and Irride … are still uncertain. ….
Mitanni’s great king, Parratarna (or Parshatar), Idrimi’s contemporary, has apparently left us pitifully few records (https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Idrimi):
…. Parshatatar – Parshatatar, Paršatar, Barattarna, or Parattarna was the name of a Hurrian king of Mitanni in the fifteenth century BC. Very few records of him are known as sources from Mitanni are rare, most information we have about the kingdom, especially its early history and kings come from records outside of the state. Dates for the kings can be deduced by comparing the chronology of Mitanni and other states, especially ancient Egypt, at a later date, information is found in the biography of Idrimi of Alalakh. Parshatatar conquered the area and made Idrimi his vassal, Idrimi becoming king of Aleppo, Mitanni in his time probably extended as far as Arrapha in the east, Terqa in the south, and Kizzuwatna in the West. Parshatatar may have been the Mitannian king the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmosis I met at the Euphrates River in an early in his reign. Information about his death is mentioned in a record from Nuzi dated to the death of king Parshatatar, possibly around 1420.
This lack of due information for Parratarna and other early Mitannian kings has compelled the likes of professor Gunnar Heinsohn and Emmet Sweeney to look for alternative explanations.
Connecting with Assyria
Emmet Sweeney, for example, has explained in his article, “Shalmaneser III and Egypt”: http://www.hyksos.org/index.php?title=Shalmaneser_III_and_Egypt):
We see that, without exception, the Mitannian levels are followed immediately, and without any gap, by the Neo-Assyrian ones; and the Neo-Assyrian material is that of the early Neo-Assyrians, Ashurnasirpal II and his son Shalmaneser III. Now, since the last Mitannian king, Tushratta, was a contemporary of Akhenaton, this would suggest that Ashuruballit, who wrote several letters to Akhenaton, was the same person as Ashurnasirpal II, father of Shalmaneser III.
The end of the Mitannian kingdom is documented in a series of texts from the Hittite capital. We are told that Tushratta was murdered by one of his sons, a man named Kurtiwaza. The latter then feld, half naked, to the court of the Hittite King, Suppiluliumas, who put an army at his disposal; with which the parricide conquered the Mitannian lands. The capital city, Washukanni, was taken, and Kurtiwaza was presumably rewarded for his treachery.
The region of Assyrian was a mainstay of the Mitannian kingdom. A few years earlier Tushratta had sent the cult statue of Ishtar of Nineveh to Egypt. So, if Kurtiwaza was established as a puppet king by Suppiluliumas, it is likely that his kingdom would have included Assyria.
The “Middle Assyrians” were a mysterious line of kings who ruled Assyria before the time of the Neo-Assyrians and supposedly after the time of the Mitannians. Yet we know of no Assyrian stratigraphy which can give a clear line from Mitannian to Middle Assyrian to Neo-Assyrian. On the contrary, as we saw, the Mitannians are followed immediately by the Neo-Assyrians of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III. This can only mean that the Middle Assyrians must have been contemporaries of the Mitannians, and were most likely Mitannian kings using Assyrian names. We know that ancient rulers often bore several titles in accordance with the various nations and ethnic groups over which they reigned. Since the Mitannian royal names are Indo-Iranian, and therefore meaningless and probably unpronounceable to the Semitic speakers of Assyria, it is almost certain that they would also have used Assyrian-sounding titles.
That the Middle Assyrians were in fact contemporary with the Mitannians is shown in numberless details of artwork, pottery, epigraphy, etc. (See for example P. Pfalzner, Mittanische und Mittelassyrische Keramik (Berlin, 1995) ….
Emmet’s conclusion about Idrimi’s powerful Mitannian contemporary, Parratarna – that he was the ‘Assyrian’ king Shamsi-Adad I (our biblical Hadadezer contemporary of David’s) – would now appear to make chronological – and probably geographical – sense.
And it is also now likely that, as we read above: “[Parratarna] Parshatatar may have been the Mitannian king the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmosis I met at the Euphrates River in an early in his reign”. For, according to this present series, pharaoh Thutmose [Thutmosis] I was a late contemporary of king David’s.
Whilst Shamsi-Adad I is quite well known, I have wondered why we know so little about his long-reigning son, Ishme-Dagan I (c. 1776 BC – c. 1736 BC, conventional dating). Sweeney has duly suggested that Ishme-Dagan I was the Mitannian, Shaushtatar, son of Parratarna. Conventional date figures given for the reign of Shaushtatar are c. 1440 BC – 1415 BC.
As we would expect, if Parratarna was Shamsi-Adad I (= David’s for, Hadadezer), then the Mitannian king would be no ally of Idrimi (= David’s ally, Adoniram = Hiram). And, indeed, we learn of Parratarna’s (initial, at least) “hostility” towards Idrimi, with possible “warfare”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrimi
…. Edward Greenstein’s and David Marcus’s translation of the inscription on lines 42-51 revealed that despite Parratarna’s hostility to Idrimi while he was in exile in Canaan, he actually respected Idrimi’s coalition, maybe submitting to Idrimi out of fear that his social outcast army could overthrow him. Idrimi said that King Parshatatar for “seven years … was hostile to me. I sent Anwanda to Parrattarna, the mighty king, the king of the Hurrian warriors, and told him of the treaties of my ancestors … and that our actions were pleasing to the former kings of the Hurrian warriors for they had made a binding agreement. The mighty king heard of the treaties of our predecessors and the agreement made between them and … read to him the words of the treaty in detail. So on account of our treaty terms he received my tribute … I … restored to him a lost estate. I swore to him a binding oath as a loyal vassal.”. Here, possibly influenced by the nature of Hittite oaths, Idrimi swore loyalty to Parshatatar after seven years despite him overthrowing his father on the throne in Aleppo. He made his request to the throne peacefully by restoring [Parattarna’s] estate and swore him an ultimate Hurrian loyalty oath, which was the first step to Idrimi regaining his power again.
The inscription in lines 42-51 of Greenstein and Marcus’s translation described Idrimi’s capture of Alalakh as a peaceful effort to appease Parrattarna with tributes of restoring his estate and swearing a loyalty oath unto him rather than using warfare to capture the city. Marc Van de Mieroop mentioned that Idrimi “captured” Alalakh implying a warfare approach that the inscription doesn’t give. Author Paul Collins described Idrimi’s maneuver as a “greeting-present, the traditional form of establishing and maintaining friendly relations between rulers, even those of different rank, and reminded him (Parrattarna) of earlier oaths sworn between the kings of Halab (Aleppo) and the kings of Mitanni.” Also, Collins mentioned that Parratarna had accepted Idrimi’s tribute to him as a loyal vassal ruler. He only allowed Idrimi limited independence of making his own military and diplomatic decisions just as long as it didn’t interfere with Mitanni’s overall policy. This further allowed Idrimi to set his sights on his diplomatic and military aims in Kizzuwatna and act as an independent ruler. Idrimi’s “capture” of Alalakh was evidenced in his statue inscription and Collins’ analysis as a peaceful movement rather than a military movement”.