King Solomon and King Hiram

In contrast, ‘Before Solomon’s time, Israel was not known for maritime trade’ (King et al, p. 183, 2001). However, ‘the biblical text describes how important trading by sea became for Israel’ (ibid) during his reign so that ‘“King Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion-Geber, which is near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom” (1 Kings 9:26)’ (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tyre.html). Having given above backgrounds, it might have been quite plausible for both kings; Solomon and Hiram of Tyre, to have embarked on a co-operative joint venture in a following way: ‘The fleet was Solomon’s, but it was manned by Phoenicians skilled in sailing. Together Solomon and Hiram may have controlled trade from the Red Sea eastward to Africa and Arabia. “They [sailors of Solomon and Hiram] went to Ophir, and immediately imported from there four hundred twenty talents [14,400 kilograms] of gold, which they delivered to King Solomon” (1 Kings 9:28)’ (ibid). Furthermore, ‘Solomon built a commercial fleet called “ships of Tarshish”, a biblical term signifying heavy, seagoing merchantmen. From the context it is evident that these ships were able to make long voyages: “For the king [Solomon] had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks” (1 Kings 10:22)’ (ibid). 

King Solomon

Despite there have been various academic arguments, it would be safe to say that the location of both Ophir and Tarshish yet remain uncertain. More importantly, the points here could be summed up as following: ‘What Solomon gained by the alliance was knowledge of the Phoenician manner of trading… he built ships and sent his own servants, under Phoenician masters, to trade with (a gold-producing country, possibly) Arabia. The profits went into the king’s coffers. As Arabia was a gold-producing country, we need not suppose that South Africa was reached by these fleets. Whether the commerce of India reached him by this route is not certain. The list of products imported has sometimes been interpreted in this sense. But one or two obscure words in a comparatively late text can hardly establish the conclusion’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14135b.htm). In addition, the relationship between Israel and Tyre worked beneficial for both nations because ‘Tyre depended upon Israel for its food supply (Acts 12:20), while Israel made use of the two major assets of Tyre: its access to the sea-trading routes and its abundant supply of timber (1 Kings 5:8-11) [Patterson & Austel, 1988: 58]’ (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tyre.html).

Full Text: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/solomons-temple-and-king-hiram-of-tyre/

King Hiram and his kingdom Tyre

Seven years of time was not the sole investment Solomon made for the construction of the Holy Temple but also it took expensive materials and the vast amount of labour force. Nonetheless, it is said that ‘Solomon spared no expense for the building’s creation. He ordered vast quantities of cedar wood from King Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 5:20-25), had huge blocks of the choicest stone quarried, and commanded that the building’s foundation be laid with hewn stone. To complete the massive project, he imposed forced labor on all his subjects, drafting people for work shifts that sometimes lasted a month at a time. Some 3,300 officials were appointed to oversee the Temple’s erection (1 Kings 5:27-30). Solomon assumed such heavy debts in building the Temple that he is forced to pay off King Hiram by handing over twenty towns in the Galilee (1 Kings 9:11)’ (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Temple.html). 

However, 1 Kings continues to describe that ‘Hiram was not happy with’ the towns he was given ‘and complained to Solomon that they were worthless (9:12-13)’ (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tyre.html) whilst Solomon was not an incompetent ruler who could balance his financial problems by only selling off some parts of his territory. Furthermore, Hiram was one of the most important allies for Solomon and his kingdom ever since his father’s reign. Now, it would be appropriate to take a glance at King Hiram and the background history of Tyre, his kingdom. 

King Hiram

According to the web site referenced above, ‘The city of Tyre was located on two islands 600-700m from the mainland and 40 km south of Sidon… and we have evidence that she was inhabited from early in the 3rd millennium BC. The first written reference appears in an Egyptian Execration text dating from c. 1780-1750 BC [Katzenstein & Edwards, 1992]. The book of Joshua refers to Tyre a “the fortified city” (19:29), an apt description of a fortress with strong walls ascending from the very edge of the sea… The island had two ports, one on the North side, the other on the South, but lacked agricultural land, an adequate supply of fresh water, fuel and room for burials [Liverani, 1988: 932]. The city’s population is estimated to have been about 30 000 in its heyday [Katzenstein & Edwards, 1992]. To support these inhabitants water and food had to be ferried to the island from the mainland city which contained large freshwater springs [Pritchard, 1955: 477]… The city grew rich through its extensive trade in timber with Egypt and in turn relied on Pharoah’s protection… as Egyptian power declined during the 12th Century BC… Tyre fell victim to the invasion of the Sea Peoples’ (ibid).

Full text: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/solomons-temple-and-king-hiram-of-tyre/

The Holy of Holies

For the main purpose of this huge construction, a special room known as the Holy of Holies was situated inside of the Holy Temple in order to provide a suitable place for housing the Ark of Covenant. On the contrary to the magnificent outlook of the Temple, it is said that it’s ‘most important room contained almost no furniture at all’ (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Temple.html). The distinctive uniqueness of this room could be imaginable from the following descriptions too: 

‘In Solomon’s Temple the Holy of Holies formed a part of the house of Yhwh (I Kings vi. 1 et seq.), which was 60 cubits in length, 20 cubits in breadth, 30 cubits in height, and built of stone (Josephus, “Ant.” viii. 3, § 2: “white marble”), and was divided into two sections by a partition of cedar-wood with a door covered by a costly curtain (Josephus, l.c.§ 3; II Chron. iii. 14). The section farthest from the entrance, designated also as the “debir” (the “oracle” “the most holy place,” I Kings vi. 5, R. V. margin), was 20 cubits high and presented the shape of a cube. The stone of this inner or hinder part, like the outer room, was completely hidden with cedar boards carved with knops or gourds and open flowers and then covered with pure gold. This room must have been without light. In it was placed the Ark (ib. vi. 18, 19)’ (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7830-holy-of-holies).

Accordingly, the following custom followed to be established presumably due to the notion of the Holy of Holies: ‘That part of the Tabernacle and of the Temple which was regarded as possessing the utmost degree of holiness (or inaccessibility), and into which none but the High Priest—and he only once during the year, on the Day of Atonement—was permitted to enter’ (ibid).

Full Text: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/solomons-temple-and-king-hiram-of-tyre/

How the construction of The Holy Temple began

King Solomon is known for his construction projects like fortress cities of Meggido, Hazor and Gezer and his own palace in Jerusalem. Among them, the most important achievement during his reign must have been the construction of the Holy Temple. The Old Testament describes how magnificent the Temple used to be: ‘The length by cubits after the ancient measure was threescore cubits (103.5 feet / 31.5 metres), and the breadth twenty cubits (34.5 feet / 10.5 metres). And the porch that was before the house, the length of it, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and the height a hundred and twenty (207 feet / 63 metres); and he overlaid it within with pure gold’ (2 Chronicles 3:3-4).

However, it was not Solomon, who originally intended to build the Temple in Jerusalem, but David, his father and previous king of Israel, who brought back the Ark of Covenant from the House of Abinadab to Jerusalem, the capital city of his kingdom. Therefore, it would be quite natural to presume that David ‘had wanted to build the great Temple… as a permanent resting place for the Ark of the Covenant which (allegedly) contained the Ten Commandments’ (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Temple.html). However, according to the Old Testament, it was God who forbade David to do so by saying, ‘Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood’ (1 Chronicles 28:3).

King David

Accordingly, it was after the death of David when Solomon, his successor king, first issued the order for the construction of the Temple and actually, it is said that the ‘Construction began in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign and took seven years’ (http://www.templemount.org/solomon.html) to complete.

Full Text: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/solomons-temple-and-king-hiram-of-tyre/

The Treaty of Kadesh (c. 1259 BCE)

Given the situation after the battle of Kadesh, ‘Hattusilis evaluated the condition of his empire and… he became increasingly friendly with Egypt. In the twenty-first year of Ramesses’ reign, ca. 1259, Hattusilis and Ramesses created a diplomatic treaty, the first document of its kind. Hattusilis sealed this deal by marrying his daughter to Ramesses’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm).

This diplomatic treaty between Hattusilis III, of Hittites, and Ramesses II, of Egypt, is known as the Treaty of Kadesh. It is argued that its contents can be roughly summarised in a couple of following points:

a)      Mutual military assistance: ‘If domestic or foreign enemies marches against one of these two countries and if they ask help from each other, both parties will send their troops and chariots in order to help. If a nobleman flees from Hatti and seeks refuge in Egypt, the king of Egypt will catch him and send back to his country’ (http://www.istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr/web/30-125-1-1/muze_-_en/collections/ancient_orient_museum_artifacts/treaty_of_kadesh).

b)      Mutual extradition: ‘If people flee from Egypt to Hatti or from Hatti to Egypt, those will be sent back. However, they will not be punished severely, they will not shed tears and their wives and children will not be punished in revenge (ibid).

In addition, due to the troublesome situation of the Hittite empire, the treaty also made sure of Egypt’s support for the ‘Security in the problem of Hattusilis’ succession’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm).

The contents of the Treaty had been known through a text ‘carved on a stele in the Egyptian Tempel of Karnak in Egyptian hieroglyphs’ (http://www.istanbularkeoloji.gov.tr/web/30-125-1-1/muze_-_en/collections/ancient_orient_museum_artifacts/treaty_of_kadesh) until the discovery of a clay tablet at Boğazköy in 1906. The tablet was written ‘in Akkadian, then the language of diplomacy’ (ibid) and it ‘had many missing pieces and contained only about half of the text. During later excavations, four pieces belonging to the main text were found and the missing parts were completed’ (ibid).

The Treaty of Kadesh

Due to the fact that ‘it is the first written peace treaty in the history, a 2-meter long copper copy of the original tablet’ (ibid) is hanged on a wall of ‘the United Nations building in New York, demonstrating to modern statesmen that international treaties are a tradition going back to the earliest civilizations’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm).

For reading the full text: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-battle-and-the-treaty-of-kadesh/

Hittite's vassal treaty system introduced by Suppiluliuma I

To make the background a little bit clearer for better understanding, it would be useful to go back the time to Suppiluliuma I’s reign, where the seed of Hittite’s issues was sown:

‘Without any known exceptions, previous usurpers came to the throne through assassination, not civil war. The reason for this was fairly straight forward. Until the empire (introduces the vassal treaty system), armies were led by generals who were appointed by the king on a campaign-by-campaign basis. Therefore a general had little opportunity to build up a power base against his sovereign.

The vassal treaty system would ultimately undermine this system. Šuppiluliuma I introduced the widespread use of the treaty to control vassal kings. His reasons were undoubtedly sound. He made treaties with kings of distant lands which he could not reasonably incorporate into the closely controlled provincial system. But, from the very beginning, this system demonstrated a dismal record for maintaining a vassal’s loyalty. Even worse… this system was internalized by Muwattalli(sh) II when he created the kingdom of Hakpiš for Hattušili. This may have meant a reduction in imperial expenditure on this deeply troubled region, but it also meant that there was now an army whose loyalty was centred around the vassal king(Hattusili), rather than upon the Great King (Muwattallish II). Whether or not he realized it, Muršili III (legitimate successor of Muwattalish II) undoubtedly had the right idea when he tried to eliminate this threat to his authority. In the end, however, Muršili proved unable to undo the damage done by his father. Hattušili used the army of Hakpiš to defeat the imperial army and seize the imperial throne (http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2FLate+Late+Empire.htm).

Even though Hattusili III, attempting to establish his legitimacy and authority, forced ‘the loyalty oath which the Men of Hatti were required to swear to the new Great King’ (ibid), it seems that, due to the vassal treaty system, his reign failed to bring back stability to the empire. Especially in the west part, it is said that ‘Hattušili rapidly lost control of the situation’ (ibid) because vassal kings ‘were sworn to support the legitimate king, and to attack a usurper. If ever a vassal wished to throw off the yoke of Hittite rule, he was now presented with the perfect excuse to do so’ (ibid).

Suppiluliuma I

Further reading: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-battle-and-the-treaty-of-kadesh/

16 years between the Battle of Kadesh and the Treaty of Kadesh

Reasons why it took about 16 years before ratification of the Treaty of Kadesh after the battle itself could be explained by looking at the damages the battle brought to the both participants; Egypt and Hittite empires.

‘Though Muwatallish had halted Egyptian expansion and defined a peaceful border of the Hittite Empire, this battle had serious consequences for the Hittites. During the conflict with Egypt, Assyria had annexed Mitanni, removing the buffer that the Hittites so relied upon. For Egypt, the defeat of her army led to an all-out revolt by her Canaan vassals, and with them went the last great possessions of the Pharaoh’s beyond the Sinai’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm).

Furthermore, Hittite saw a huge turmoil after the death of king Muwatallish II, which caused civil war between the legitimate successor Mursilli III, son of the deceased king, and the challenger Hattusili, a younger brother of the deceased. According to official accounts, ‘Hattušili took up Muršili when Muwattalli(sh) died and made him Great King… Hattušili was loyal to Muršili, but Muršili broke his word to Hattušili and did wrong against him, so that Hattušili revolted against this oppression. The judgment of the gods made Hattušili victorious’ (http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2FLate+Late+Empire.htm).

Hattusili III

Full text: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-battle-and-the-treaty-of-kadesh/

Both sides claim victory - the Battle of Kadesh

Despite the survival of various historical evidences, the conclusion of the Battle of Kadesh is equivocal due to the fact that both sides - Ramesses II, the Egyptian Pharaoh, and Muwatallish II, the Great King of Hittite, - claimed victory:

‘Ramesses claimed a great victory at Kadesh and had a scribe take down his account of the glorious battle; Muwatalli(sh)’s account differed considerably, most notably in that he set down Kadesh as a Hittite victory. While Ramesses failed to achieve his objective of capturing the city, he did break the Hittite army on the field and, while Muwatalli(sh) retained control of Kadesh, he failed to crush the Egyptians as he hoped to’ (http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/78/).

In addition, the reference from the web site above focuses on Muwatallish II’s mysterious inaction at the decisive point during the battle when Ramesses II was trapped to self-inflicted predicament by having outdistanced other divisions. It argues, ‘At this point Muwatalli(sh) only needed to march from the walls of Kadesh to trap Ramesses’ forces between his army by the river and his advance but, for reasons unknown, he decided to remain in the city and never committed his reserve troops to battle’ (ibid).

Muwatallish II

Read more detail: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-battle-and-the-treaty-of-kadesh/

The Battle of Kadesh (1275 BCE)

In 1275 BCE – ‘in the fifth year of his reign’ (http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/78/) – Ramesses II ‘marched from Egypt toward Syria to secure the border City of Kadesh (from the rule of Hittite empire), a valuable stop on the trade routes of the day’ (ibid), leading his ‘force of around 20,000’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm) divided in four divisions. It is said that the detail of the battle can be vividly pictured since enough documents were written by the both sides, including various reports, bulletins and even a poem by the Pharaoh himself. According to these accounts, it seems that the battle roughly went like the following way:

‘Ramesses, completely confident of victory, marched his first division in such haste that he soon outdistanced the other three. Nearing Kadesh, two bedouins were taken prisoner and interrogated as to the whereabouts of Muwatalli(sh, the Hittite king,) and his army, answering that the army was nowhere near Kadesh and that Muwatalli(sh) feared the might of Egypt and the young Pharaoh. The bedouins were actually spies, however, planted by the Hittites, and Muwatalli(sh) had already fortified Kadesh and his chariots (3,500 of them) and infantry (37,000 men) were waiting just over the next hill… (Then) Ramesses captured some other spies who revealed the unpleasant truth of his situation but the intelligence came too late. In his zeal to capture Kadesh and conquer the Hittite king, Ramesses had cut himself off from the rest of his army. He hastily sent messengers to the other three divisions just before the Hittite chariots crashed into his camp… ‘(http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/78/) 

‘Ramesses… sped in haste, with his small personal guard, to strategic hill near the marauding Hittites, erecting a fort and valiantly fending off his enemies, despite overwhelming numbers. Relief was at hand, when the second army that had travelled by boat, arrived and fought of the now disorganized Hittite forces. The enemy withdrew and took to Kadesh’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm). 

Finally, Ramesses lead the remains of his divisions all together, which featured ‘the faster and more agile two-man… chariot(s) as compared with the three-man, heavier, Hittite vehicle(s)’ (http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/78/)and drove ‘the Hittite forces back to the Orontes river where many drowned’ (ibid).

Ramesses II

Full text is available:  http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-battle-and-the-treaty-of-kadesh/

Suppiluliumas I and Sety I

Suppiluliumas I, now the king of Hittite empire, at first attempted an alliance with Egypt, however, ‘he eventually decided against such a step’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm), then persuaded ‘Ugarit – the last main Egyptian stronghold in Syria – to defect’ (ibid), and he ‘led a successful assault against the Pharaoh’s forces in Syria, pushing Egyptian boundaries back behind Kadesh’ (ibid). At that time, ‘Egypt was in no position to rebuke the Hittite advances’ (ibid) and it would be also worth to mention that although her real intention is uncertain, ‘the widow of the young-king Tutankhamun asked for the betrothal’ (ibid) of a son of Suppiluliumas I at this occasion, that resulted in only to see ‘the Hittite prince…assassinated on his way to her’ (ibid).

Nevertheless, the newly established XIX Dynasty saw ‘the rise of the more aggressive and military-apt’ (ibid) Pharaohs and it was Sety I, one of such Pharaohs, who ‘set the stage for the conflict between Egypt and the Hittites’ (ibid). Although he ‘had secured Palestine and Kadesh for Egypt… (being) content with the victory, (Sety I) had made no provision for holding the city’ (http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/78/) so that his ‘attempt to capture (Kadesh) was… proved unsuccessful’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm). 

Before the Battle of Kadesh, rulers of both empires replaced to the next generation; Muwatallish II, the king of Hittites, who ‘rose to power in 1308 BCE, and was content with defending the current borders of the Hittite empire, roused to action only when required’ (ibid) and Ramesses II, son of Pharaoh Sety I, who succeeded the throne in c. 1279 BCE ‘at the age of just 15’ (http://www.pbs.org/empires/egypt/newkingdom/ramesses.html). Nonetheless, the former was careful enough on defence policy and he ‘had been making regular incursions into Egyptian territory for some time and, having now fortified Kadesh’ (http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/78/).

Sety I

For reading the full text: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-battle-and-the-treaty-of-kadesh/

Historical background for the Battle of Kadesh (c. 1275 BCE)

The Battle of Kadesh was fought between two powerful empires at the time; Egypt and Hittite, in circa 1275 BC. It is known as one of important battles fought in the ancient Middle East for a couple of unique elements attached to it; 1) it is ‘the first true battle for study, for it is the first time in history where enough historical evidence survives, from both sides, to paint a fairly accurate picture’ (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kades.htm), and 2) as a result of the battle, the earliest peace treaty known in the human history emerged...

When the battle was fought, in circa 1275 BCE, Egypt and Hittite were both acknowledged as super-powers of the day. However, both empires had to overcome their political instabilities in the preceding decades before the battle, respectively; The Hittites, based on Anatolia, had ‘lost much of their northern Syrian territories to the Hurrians’ (ibid) before the succession of Suppiluliumas I, who restored ‘Hittite prestige’ (ibid) largely by introducing vassal treaty system, whilst Egypt had been ‘Occupied with her religious revolution’ (ibid) took place in the end of the XVIII Dynasty, led by Amenhotep IV, who changed his name to Akhenaten due to his religious conversion.

Akhenaten

For full text: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-battle-and-the-treaty-of-kadesh/