Some Serious Anomalies with Conventional Neo-Assyrian Chronology



 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“There are many ‘anomalies’ in the current chronological/archeological understanding of the synchronisms between Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria”.

 

Toby has written: http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1874

 

Hello all,

I am continuing to review David Rice’s ‘Time and Prophecy’ in regards [to] the period of the Kings in scripture. Inasmuch as Mr Rice’s chronology seems to mirror the popular Thiele, many of these ‘anamolies’ apply to the general consensus.

This posting just deals with the first 6 of the 7 anomalies I’ve come up with in regards to synchronizing Hezekiah, King of Judah, with the Assyrian Kings. ….

 

Synchronizing Hezekiah with Tiglathpileser (King of Assyria) Shalmaneser (King of Assyria and Babylon) Merodachbaladan (King of Babylon), Sargon (King of Assyria and Babylon) and Sennacherib (King of Assyria and Babylon).

 

Introduction

 

There are many ‘anomalies’ in the current chronological/archeological understanding of the synchronisms between Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria. Most of them, in this discussion have to do with one event, that of the siege of the cities of Judah by Sennacherib which modern chronologists [say] happened in Sennacherib, king of Babylon Year 4 which corresponds to Hezekiah, king of Judah, year 14. In my opinion, modern chronologers fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice.

 

Part I – the 7 anomalies

 

Anomaly 1

Firstly, in the [British] Museum, there is an ‘inscription’ on a winged bull. Stafford and Jo Anne North write this about it:

 

"Also in Room 10 are two huge winged bulls, with attendant genies, from Khorsabad, the Palace of Sargon discovered in 1843. An inscription from the stomach of this bull says that King Hezekiah of Judah paid tribute to Sargon. While the Bible does not mention this, it does mention that Hezekiah's father paid such tribute and Hezekiah may have continued that early in his reign. Later, however, he rebelled against Assyria."

--- http://www.oc.edu/faculty/stafford.north/britmus/Tour-2003.htm

 

However, consider the following scripture:

2Ki 18:13, 14 Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did ---- Sennacherib---- king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.

 

Here it says that Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib, while the Winged Bull in the British Museum says that Hezekiah paid tribute to SARGON. Certainly, Hezekiah could have paid tribute to both of them.

However, Damien Mackey, in an internet article entitled: ‘A Revolutionary Thesis, Sargon is Sennacherib’ … claims they are one and the same person.

 

[Mackey. See up-dated: “Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib” https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sen]

 

Now, scriptures also, in Isaiah 20, refer to Sargon. Could the scriptures refer to the same person with different names? YES! --- such is the case with Tiglathpileser (the Assyrian name) and PUL (the Babylonian AND Assyrian name). Tiglathpileser died only 5 years prior to Sargon’s [accession] to the throne. I’ll cover this in more detail later, but when you read about the next few anomalies, think about how well this would explain the anomalies. ---IF--- you don't like my explanation, then I suggest, you try to come up with an alternate.

I should mention, for now, that the biggest objection to this ‘Sargon = Sennacherib’ theory, is that there is some evidence that Sargon was Sennacherib's father, and further, that when Sargon was killed, Sennacherib ascended the throne. I will later show, that if you trace this back to the source of the evidence, you will see, that the rock inscriptions which supposedly make this claim, do not in fact, even contain the name SARGON; rather, the translators of the text inserted the name SARGON in square brackets, indicating that the name SARGON was not in the inscription, but that they thought he should have been! Here is one example, written in 1936, by Stephen L Caiger D B, and found at:

(http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChXIII.htm)

-----------------------------------------------

"Sargon, however, did not long survive this triumph. He died in 705 BC, as recorded in the Limmu List:

705 BC: ... a soldier entered the camp of the king of Assyria [Sargon], and killed him in the month Abib. And Sennacherib sat on the throne.

(Pinches, op.cit., p.372.) [Sennacherib—Sin-ahe-erba.]"

-----------------------------------------------

Anomaly 2

Secondly, in regards to the 1800 foot long tunnel which Hezekiah dug through limestone to divert the water from the spring called Gihon, Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer, on Thursday, September 11, 2003; Page A03, states:

 

"Scholars for years thought that Hezekiah ordered the tunnel constructed to secure Jerusalem's water supply in anticipation of the arrival of King Sennacherib's Assyrian armies. Sennacherib, who spent most of his career putting down revolts by peoples conquered by his father, Sargon, besieged Jerusalem but never entered it. Recent excavations have challenged this version of events. These show that Gihon Spring already lay within Jerusalem's battlements when Sennacherib laid siege, so "it's not so easy to know why the tunnel was built, since the water supply was already protected," Stager said. "Everybody figures it had something to do with the Assyrians, but they aren't quite sure what."

 

Here is what scripture says:

 

2 Ch 32:1,4, 30 (1) After these things, and the establishment thereof, ----Sennacherib--- king of Assyria came, and entered into Judah, and encamped against the fenced cities, and thought to win them for himself. …(4) So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water? …(30) This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David.

 

The scripture says that Hezekiah built the tunnel and walls AFTER Sennacherib encamped against the fenced cities of Judah; however, the article says: ‘Recent excavations have challenged this version of events. These show that Gihon Spring already lay within Jerusalem's battlements when Sennacherib laid siege’.

 

Well, which version is correct?

 

Well, suppose, that Damien Mackey is correct, and that Sargon and Sennacherib are the same person. Well, first, Sargon came to Judah and `encamped against the fenced cities of Judah'. There were several cities in the country called Judah which had walls:

 

Ezr 9:9 For we [were] bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.

 

Anomaly 3

Thirdly, according to the chronology of modern scholars, Merodach-Baladan had been dead for at least 9 years when he visited Hezekiah!

Let me explain. David Rice says wrote in Time and Prophecy, Appendix G, page 96:

 

"(5) Shalmaneser was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by Sargon the same month he died (Tebet, month 10), and on the throne of Babylon by Merodach-Baladan the following Nisan, which the narrative implies began his first year. Merodach-Baladan ruled for 12 years when he was replaced by Sargon. (Grayson 73-75) " pg 96, Time and Prophecy.

 

Please note, Mr Rice says that Sargon became King of Assyria, the same year as Merodach-Baladan became King of Babylon, then 12 years later, Merodach-Baladan died, and Sargon, in addition to being king of Assyria, became king of Babylon for 5 years. Sennacherib succeeded Sargon. This means, that, in Mr Rice's chronology, Merodach-Baladan died 5 years before Sennacherib Year 1, king of Babylon. Now, 4 years after this (9 years after Merodach-Baladin's death), Mr Rice has Sennacherib, in his Babylonian Year 4, invading Jerusalem on the famous Hezekiah Year 14 – the year Hezekiah got sick. This is a problem for Isaiah, consider:

 

Isa 39:1 At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered.

 

Isaiah has Merodach-Baladan visiting Hezekiah sometime after he (Hezekiah) recovered from his sickness. Hezekiah was sick in year 14, and sometime after this, he recovered. The problem is Merodach-Baladan, according to Mr Rice's scheme, had been dead for at least 9 years!

 

Anomaly 4

All of Sennacherib's [soldiers] were killed, yet somehow Sennacherib took 200,150 prisoners.

Damien Mackey in ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’, quoting Boutflower says that Sennacherib said this:

 

As for Hezekiah of Judah, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong walled cities, as well as the small cities in their neighbourhood, which were without number - by levelling with battering-rams and advancing the siege engines, by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breaches, I besieged and captured. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil.

 

However, scripture says this:

2 Kings 19:25,36 (35) And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses. (36) So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.

 

Sennacherib claimed to take 200,150 Judahites captive, yet scripture claims the angel of the Lord killed Sennacherib's 185,000 Assyrian soldiers – "they were all dead corpses". –IF— all of Sennacherib's solders were dead, then how did Sennacherib bring back 200,150 prisoners?

Well, a reasonable explanation, is that Sennacherib invaded Judah twice. The first time, he kicked butt, while his butt got kicked the second time. If the first invasion matches the details of invasion described in the Sargon inscriptions, which it does, then this would lend weight to the idea that Sargon is Sennacherib!

 

Anomaly 5

Fifthly – Where's the gold?

First, Hezekiah gives Sennacherib all the gold.

 

2Ki 18:14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.

2 Ki 18:15 And Hezekiah gave [him] all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.

2Ki 18:16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the doors of the temple of the LORD, and [from] the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.

 

Then, he shows it to Merodachbaladan!

 

Isa 39:1,2, 6 (1) At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered. (2) And Hezekiah was glad of them, and shewed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not. (6) Behold, the days come, that all that [is] in thine house, and [that] which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD.

 

Anomaly 6

Sixthly, too many events occurred in Hezekiah Year 14 = Sennacherib year 4.

As I stated in the introduction, in my opinion, modern chronologers fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice. Well, suppose they are correct. Here are some of the events which would have had to happen in that one year.

Sennacherib, along with 185,000 solders, claimed to come to Judah and ‘leveled’ "46 of his strong walled cities" How long would it take to [travel] to ‘level’ one city? Well, say it took two weeks to [travel] from Ninevah to the first ‘strong walled city’, then say it took 3 days to level it; then say, it took 2 days to travel to the next `strong walled city' and 3 more days to level it. You would end up with 2 weeks + 5 days/city * 46 cities = 244 days. Hmmmm… not

likely. Sometime during this [warmongering], Sennacherib sent some messengers to Hezekiah, asking him to surrender, which, Hezekiah politely refused, however, he stripped the temple of gold and silver and gave Sennacherib 30 talents of gold and several hundred talents of silver and quickly began construction of an 1800 foot long, 4 foot wide and 12 foot tall, tunnel through solid limestone. In addition, Hezekiah started construction and repairs on the walls of Jerusalem. All this stress made Hezekiah sick unto death, but he prayed to God, and God said he would live 15 more years and would send a sign such that the sun's shadow would go back 10 degrees Then, Sennacherib, his solders, and his 200,150 prisoners, had to travel 2 weeks back to Ninevah with 200,150 prisoners, drop them off at the local slave market, and travel 2 weeks back to Judah… 272 days. But when they got there, drats, old Hezekiah had finished building his tunnel and put up walls. Hmmmm…. Not likely. Then, they sieged Jerusalem, but the angel of the Lord killed all of his solders, so he traveled two weeks back to Ninevah… i.e. 286 days!!!

In the meantime, according to Isaiah 39, Hezekiah had recovered from his sickness, and the Merodach-Baladan, who had been dead for over 9 years, rose from the grave and paid Hezekiah a visit!

Whereupon, Hezekiah somehow showed Merodach-Baladan all the gold and silver in the temple, which somehow managed to magically reappear. ….

“As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II”.

 

 

Toby has further written:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1893

 

Greetings all,

 

I have mentioned several times now, that there is evidence that Sargon and Sennacherib are indeed the same person. I do not claim that their reigns overlapped each other, but I believe that Sargon (the Assyrian name) came to be called Sennacherib … much as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL …. I have given evidence from the Eponym and Assyrian King lists; and I have given evidence from scripture.

But there is more.

This part is just a few snippets from … Damien Mackey’s internet article called ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’. It is a fairly long article, but I wanted you all to see at least a couple of his major points. The rest of this section is all from his article:

 

What had struck me, however, was that Sargon's 12th and 15th year campaigns were worded very similarly to Sennacherib's first two campaigns.

 

Sargon: "In my twelfth year of reign, Marduk-apal-iddina [Merodach-baladan] and Shuturnahundu, the Elamite ... I ... smote with the sword, and conquered ..."

 

Sennacherib: "In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan ... together with the army of Elam, his ally ....".

 

And:

 

Sargon: "Talta, king of the Ellipi ... reached the appointed limit of life ... Ispabara [his son] ... fled into ... the fortress of Marubishti, ... that fortress they overwhelmed as with a net. ... people ... I brought up."

 

Sennacherib: "... I turned and took the road to the land of the Ellipi. ... Ispabara, their king, ... fled .... The cities of Marubishti and Akkuddu, ... I destroyed .... Peoples of the lands my hands had conquered I settled therein".

 

Added to this was the possibility that they had built their respective 'Palace Without Rival' close in time, because the accounts of each were worded almost identically …. Eric Aitchison alerted me to the incredible similarity in language between these two accounts:

 

Sargon: "Palaces of ivory, maple, boxwood, musukkani-wood (mulberry?), cedar, cypress, juniper, pine and pistachio, the "Palace without Rival"2a), for my royal abode .... with great beams of cedar I roofed them. Door-leaves of cypress and maple I bound with ... shining bronze and set them up in their gates. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which in the tongue of Amurru they call a bit-hilanni, I built before their gates. Eight lions, in pairs, weighing 4610 talents, of shining bronze, fashioned according to the workmanship of Ninagal, and of dazzling brightness; four cedar columns, exceedingly high, each 1 GAR in thickness ... I placed on top of the lion-colossi, I set them up as posts to support their doors. Mountain-sheep (as) mighty protecting deities, I cunningly constructed out of great blocks of mountain stone, and, setting them toward the four winds ... I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, - the (enemy) towns which my hands had captured I sculptured thereon and I had them set up around their (interior) walls; I made them objects of astonishment".

Sennacherib: "Thereon I had them build a palace of ivory, maple, boxwood, mulberry (musukannu), cedar, cypress ... pistachio, the "Palace without a Rival"2a), for my royal abode. Beams of ceda .... Great door-leaves of cypress, whose odour ... I bound with shining copper and set them up in their doors. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which they call in the Amorite tongue a bit-hilani, I constructed inside them (the doors) .... Eight lions, open at the knee, advancing, constructed out of 11,400 talents of shining bronze, of the workmanship of the god Nin-a-gal, and full of splendour ... two great cedar pillars, (which) I placed upon the lions (colossi), I set up as posts to support their doors. Four mountain sheep, as protecting deities ... of great blocks of mountain stone ... I fashioned cunningly, and setting them towards the four winds (directions), I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, the enemy tribes, whom my hands had conquered, dragged through them (the doors), and I set them up around the walls, - I made them objects of astonishment".

……

 

Conventional Theory's Strengths

 

(i) Primary

 

I can find only two examples of a primary nature for the conventional view.

By far the strongest support for convention in my opinion is Esarhaddon's above-quoted statement from what is called Prism S - and it appears in the same form in several other documents as well - that he was 'son of Sennacherib and (grand)son of Sargon'. Prism A in the British Museum is somewhat similar, though much more heavily bracketted ….:

 

[Esarhaddon, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king] of [Sumer] and Akkad, [son of Sennacherib, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria, [(grand)son of Sargon, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria ....

 

The first document, Prism S, would be enough to stop me dead in my tracks, were it not for other evidences in support of my proposed merger.

The other, quasi-primary evidence is in regard to Sennacherib's accession. One reads in history books of supposed documentary evidence telling that Sargon was killed and that Sennacherib sat on the throne. Carl Olaf Jonsson gives it, bracketed again, as follows ….:

 

For the eponym Nashur(a)-bel (705 BC) one of the Eponym Chronicles (Cb6) adds the note that the king (= Sargon) was killed, and that Sennacherib, on Ab 12, took his seat on the throne.

 

What one notices in all of the above cases of what I have deemed to be primary evidence is that bracketting is always involved. Prism S, the most formidable testimony, has the word "(grand)son" in brackets. In Prism A, the entire titulary has been square bracketed, which would indicate that Assyriologists have added what they presume to have been in the original text, now missing. And, regarding Sennacherib's accession, Jonsson qualifies the un-named predecessor king with the bracketted "(= Sargon)".

 

It was customary for the Assyrian kings to record their titulary back through father and grandfather. There are two notable exceptions in neo-Assyrian history: interestingly, Sargon and Sennacherib, who record neither father nor grandfather. John Russell's explanation for this omission is as follows ….:

 

In nearly every other Assyrian royal titulary, the name of the king was followed by a brief genealogy of the form "son of PN1, who was son of PN2," stressing the legitimacy of the king. As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II. Tadmor suggests that Sennacherib omitted his father's name either because of disapproval of Sargon's policies or because of the shameful manner of Sargon's death ....

This may be, but it is important to note that Sargon also omitted the genealogy from his own titulary, presumably because, contrary to this name (Sargon is the biblical form of Šarru-kên: "the king is legitimate"), he was evidently not truly the legitimate ruler. Perhaps Sennacherib wished to avoid drawing attention to a flawed genealogy: the only way Sennacherib could credibly have used the standard genealogical formulation would have been with a statement such as "Sennacherib, son of Sargon, who was not the son of Shalmaneser", or "who was son of a nobody", and this is clearly worse than nothing at all.

 

That there was some unusual situation here cannot be doubted. And the bracketing that we find in Esarhaddon's titulary may be a further reflection of it. By contrast, Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanipal, required no such bracketing when he declared: I am Assurbanipal ... offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon ...; grandson of Sennacherib ...".

….

 

Horrible Histories: Unreal Urartians

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Very little is known about this ancient place and the origins of its people.

Who were they? Where did they come from? The earliest documentary mention of the land of Urartu can be found in Assyrian sources”.

Recurring words historians will use to describe the ancient Urartians and their kingdom of Urartu (or Ararat) are “mysterious” and “enigmatic”.

For instance: http://www.ancientpages.com/2014/06/22/mysterious-lost-kingdom-of-urartu-and-its-enigmatic-history/

Mysterious Lost Kingdom Of Urartu

And Its Enigmatic History

A. Sutherland – AncientPages.com – The lost kingdom of Urartu is shrouded in mystery because very little is known about this ancient place  and the origins of its people.

This time our journey takes us to ancient Armenia where we look for traces of the mysterious lost kingdom of Urartu as it was called by the Assyrians.

The Hebrews referred to it as Ararat and in more modern times it has been named Kingdom of Van.

Mackey’s comment: it was there, “on the mountains of Ararat”, that the Ark landed.

See e.g. my:

Mountain of landing for the Ark of Noah

https://www.academia.edu/35414295/Mountain_of_landing_for_the_Ark_of_Noah

The article, “Mysterious Lost Kingdom Of Urartu”, continues with further obscurities:

The kingdom’s beginnings are lost in the mists of pre-history, but before it was destroyed, Urartu was situated in Eastern Turkey, Iran and the modern Armenian Republic.

The earliest documentary mention of the land of Urartu can be found in Assyrian sources.

Based on what we know, the people of Urartu were famous metalworkers, spoke a language that was related to Hurrian (a language that has no other known connections), and they adapted the Assyrian cuneiform script for their own purposes.

….

Although it cannot be said with certainty, it appears that from the ninth century on, Urartu was ruled by a single dynasty ….

The true origin of the people of Urartu is unknown. Some historians think these people people migrated from somewhere to the west into the Armenian plateau, then for the most part known as Nairi. They called themselves Khaldians or children of the god Khaldis, just as the name of the Assyrians reflects the name of their god Assur.

….

Several attempts have been made to decipher the cuneiform inscriptions of Armenia through the present-day Armenian language.

The failure of these attempts has led some to believe that the inscriptions in question must be in some unknown, alien tongue, neither Indo-European nor Semitic.

….

Sooner or later everything must come to [an] end, and so did the existence of the Kingdom of Urartu. The fall of the Kingdom of Urartu is shrouded in darkness. The kingdom was succumbed in around 585 – 590 BCE. However, there is no written account of this event and this timescale is not undisputed.

Similarly, again, we read at: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/ancient-artifacts-shed-new-light-mysterious-kingdom-urartu/

Ancient Artifacts Shed New Light On

The Mysterious Kingdom Of Urartu

….

The mysterious kingdom of Urartu does still hold many ancient secrets. The kingdom’s beginnings are lost in the mists of pre-history, but before it was destroyed, Urartu was situated in Eastern Turkey, Iran and the modern Armenian Republic.

In ancient times the kingdom of Urartu was known under a variety of different names. The Assyrians called it Urartu and the Hebrews referred to it as Ararat, and in more modern times it has been named Kingdom of Van.

Very little is known about this ancient place and the origins of its people. Who were they? Where did they come from? The earliest documentary mention of the land of Urartu can be found in Assyrian sources.

Based on what we know, the people of Urartu were famous metalworkers, spoke a language that was related to Hurrian (a language that has no other known connections), and they adapted the Assyrian cuneiform script for their own purposes.

….

Obviously people of Urartu knew their kingdom was about to vanish and made a last attempt to hide some precious objects with hope these would survive as a reminder of the kingdom’s existence.

Unfortunately, a large number of these artifacts, including most of the inscribed objects, have not been excavated. For example, many Urartian cemeteries with their hundreds of burial goods have been robbed, while only a few (such as the cemetery at Altintepe) have been properly excavated. This means that archaeologists have been deprived of a complete and contextual knowledge of the culture and precious history has been lost once again.

This brilliant era of Urartu did not last long and the kingdom disappeared rapidly from history. ….

North, south, east, or west?

http://www.catastrophism.com/amember/plugins/protect/new_rewrite/login.php?v=-any&url=/online/pubs/journals/cat-anc/vol0402/071hitt.htm

“That the Kingdom of Urartu was imperialistic can be deduced by the fortress-like citadels constructed in strategic positions, presumably harboring military garrisons. But where did they come from, we may wonder'! The barbarian north? The Semitic south? Or Anatolia? Velikovsky identified the Hittites with the Chaldeans, and the Chaldeans in turn with the Urartians … and claims that "striking similarities" occur between Hitttite and Urartian art. Khaldis (or Khaldia) was a Urartian deity recorded by Sargon II following his capture of the city of Musasir (site unknown) around 714 B.C. …. As the chief deity of the captured city its image was ritualistically removed from its shrine, signifying subjugation. Assuming Khaldis to be the ancestor god, these people may then tentatively be identified with the Armenian tribe known to the Greeks and Romans several centuries later as the "Chalybes" ...”.

Somewhat more positive about the Urartians is revisionist Robert H. Hewsen, who has written as follows (“Anatolia and Historical Concepts”): http://archive.is/t134Y#selection-83.1-83.32

According to Velikovsky's chronology the Hurrians would disappear in ca. 865, while, in ca. 860 - five years later - we first hear in Assyrian records of Aramu, king of a state first called in Assyrian Uruatri and then Urartu.²¹⁾ This state was a federation of smaller states and peoples of the Armenian Plateau welded together through the arms of the Kings of Biaina.²²⁾ The history of this Urartian federation and of its long struggle with Assyria is rather well known thanks to its conspicious inscriptions, and these enable us to determine that its language was closely akin to Hurrian. Indeed, Burney, one of the few western authorities on Urartu, states `the Urartian language was closely related to Hurrian, so much so that, whatever the reservations of some philologists, it may legitimately be described as latter-day Hurrian.²³⁾

Now using the conventional chronology, archaeology has discovered that one of those ubiquitous dark ages exists on the Armenian Plateau between the disappearance of the Hurrians and the emergence of the Urartian state, a period which Burney describes as somewhere between six to ten centuries in duration.²⁴⁾ According to Velikovsky's chronology, Burney exaggerates. The imaginary gap would be somewhere between seven and eight centuries and would not represent any dark age.

Rather, its presence would be due to the inaccuracies of the traditional chronology. Since the dates of the Hurrians and Mitannians are bound to those of the so-called Hittites, and the date of the Hittites is bound to what Velikovsky considers the erroneous chronology of Egypt, these dates, he feels have led to the unnatural separation of the Hurrians and the Urartians by perhaps as much as 700 to 800 years.

The Urartian federation would thus be nothing [more] than a new Hurrian formation which arose immediately following, and perhaps because of, the destruction of Mitanni in the ninth century BC. The traditional and incessant hostility between the Urartians and the Assyrians may well have begun as a result of the Assyrian role in the destruction of Mitanni.²⁵⁾

Now, I mentioned earlier that Velikovsky notes that the Urartians were called Khaldu and that Chaldeans were encountered by Xenophon on his march through Armenia in 401-400 BC. Actually the term Chaldean for the Urartians is an arbitrary one adopted by Lehmann-Haupt, who, since the Assyrians were called after their chief god, Ashur, patterned the name of the Urartians after their chief god, Khaldis, and who believed that the Chaldeans encountered by Xenophon 200 years after the fall of Urartu were surviving Urartians under their native name.²⁶⁾

We know now, however, that the Chaldeans of the Armenian Plateau were only one component of the Urartian federation, which actually called itself `Biainili.<sup>27)</sup> Thus, while Velikovsky errs in thinking them to have been remnants of the Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean state which he identifies with the `Hittite' Empire of central Anatolia.

The chronological revisions of Velikovsky affect the lesser peoples of eastern Anatolia as well. North of the Hittites lived the warlike Kashka tribes. First cited, in the conventional chronology, in ca. 1350 BC, Velikovsky's revisions would make them actually appear in ca. 850 BC. Since the Kashka are believed to be identical to the Qulha of eighth century Urartian sources, the new chronology places them between the Kashka and the Qulha. Since the Qulha are one of the peoples who went into the blend which produced the later Georgian people of Caucasia, the exact date of their first appearance is of some import for our understanding of the formation of Colchis, the earliest Georgian political entity.²⁸⁾

Finally, there is one other people whose traditional date is bound to that of the Hittites and thus to the traditional chronology of Egypt. These are the Hayasa, a people who traditionally flourished in the fourteenth century BC but, according to Velikovsky, in the ninth. Since the Armenians call themselves Hayk' (singular Hay), it has usually been accepted that, while Herodotus (7.73) calls them simply a Phrygian colony, they were probably an amalgamation of an Indo-European-speaking Phrygian tribe with local, perhaps Hurrian-speaking, Hayasa. The only problem was the chronology. The Armenians first appear in the sixth century BC, whereas the Hayasa were thought to have flourished in the fourteenth. Velikovsky's chronology reduces this gap by over 600 years and the link between the Hayasa and the Hayk'/Armenians becomes more secure.²⁹⁾

In conclusion, let me note that none of the evidence which I have gathered in this paper can be interpreted as proof of the exactness of Velikovsky's chronological revisions. Rather, I have merely attempted to apply his thesis to a particular part of the ancient East. I have tried to demonstrate that nothing he has to say presents any undue difficulties for this field but rather tends to simplify and clarify the history of the area. While this does not make Velikovsky correct, it certainly gives us pause. I cannot but urge all specialists to address themselves without prejudice to an investigation of their own areas of interest and expertise in the light of Dr. Velikovsky's work.

If ancient history stands in need of being rewritten, so be it. It will not be the first time. Perhaps we should at least attempt to determine if it is necessary for us to begin.^{30) ….}

Missing Mitannians



by

 Damien F. Mackey

“The Mitannians are perhaps one of the most enigmatic Near Eastern Superpowers.

Despite their impressive empire, we know remarkably little about them,

especially compared to the Egyptians or the Hittites”.

Introduction

Professor Gunnar Heinsohn (University of Bremen) and Emmet Sweeney, historical revisionists, have, in recent times, arrived at some startling conclusions about ancient history - some of these warranting further critical examination, whilst other of their views appear to me to be extreme and well wide of the mark. In order to account for an apparent lack of due stratigraphy for, say, the Mitannians, or the neo-Assyrians, or the Medo-Persians, this pair (not always in perfect agreement) will attempt to merge any one of these with a far earlier kingdom, for instance, the ancient Akkadians to be merged as one with the neo-Assyrians.

Lester Mitcham, however, was able to expose Sweeney’s choices for comparisons using firm archaeological data in his article, “Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced” (SIS Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, No 1, May 1988).

The Akkadians and the neo-Assyrians were found to be two quite distinct peoples, well-separated in time, and speaking and writing quite different languages.

Mitcham demonstrated similarly the archaeological impossibility of Heinsohn’s and Sweeney’s bold efforts to fuse the Old Babylonian Dynasty of Hammurabi with the Persians – King Hammurabi supposedly being the same as Darius the Great.

Once again, different peoples, different geographies, different times.

Heinsohn and Sweeney do have, though, some degree of support for their argument that the Persian Empire, as classically presented, is seriously lacking in due archaeological strata. For professor Heinsohn, in his far-reaching article, “The Restoration of Ancient History” (http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/heinsohn.txt), refers to the results of some conferences in the 1980’s pointing to difficulties regarding the extent of the Medo-Persian empires:

In the 1980's, a series of eight major conferences brought together the world's finest experts on the history of the Medish and Persian empires. They reached startling results. The empire of Ninos [pre-Alexander period (3)] was not even mentioned. Yet, its Medish successors were extensively dealt with-to no great avail. In 1988, one of the organizers of the eight conferences, stated the simple absence of an empire of the Medes [pre-Alexander period (2)]:  "A Median oral tradition as a source for Herodotus III is a hypothesis that solves some problems, but has otherwise little to recommend it ... This means that not even in Herodotus' Median history a real empire is safely attested.  In Assyrian and Babylonian records and in the archeological evidence no vestiges of an imperial structure can be found. The very existence of a Median empire, with the emphasis on empire, is thus questionable" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "Was there ever a Median Empire?", in A. Kuhrt, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory, Leiden, 1988, p. 212).

Two years later came the really bewildering revelation.  Humankind's first world empire of the Persians [Pre-Alexander Period (1)] did not fare much better than the Medes.  Its imperial dimensions had dryly to be labelled "elusive" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "The quest for an elusive empire?", in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History IV. Centre and Periphery, Leiden l990, p. 264). ….

Enigma of the Mitannians

In their attempt to counteract what they have perceived to be the problem of the dearth of solid historical evidence for the Mitannians, professor Heinsohn and Emmet Sweeney arrived at the conclusion that the Mitanni and Median empires were one and the same.

Admittedly, the Mitannians seem to be a people without an adequate archaeology, a series of kings without precise geographical location.

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/superpowers-near-east/0/steps/19016

“The Mitannians are perhaps one of the most enigmatic Near Eastern Superpowers. Despite their impressive empire, we know remarkably little about them, especially compared to the Egyptians or the Hittites”.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mitanni

“[Mitanni’s] heartland was the Khābūr River region, where Wassukkani, its capital, was probably located”. But: http://www.worldhistory.biz/ancient-history/66326-mitanni.html

“They established a capital at Wassukanni, the location of which remains unknown”.

http://www.worldhistory.biz/ancient-history/66326-mitanni.html

“Very little of a definite nature is known about Mitanni’s leaders, internal history, and society. It appears that Mitannian society was dominated by a chariotowning warrior class known as the mary-annu, who owned large country estates and bred horses and sheep. Some or all of the members of this class may have been Indo-Europeans, suggesting some sort of cultural or political fusion of that group and the Hurrians in Mitanni”.

Who were the Mitannians?

And, might Emmet Sweeney have - amidst all of his unlikely conclusions - paved the way for an answer to this question in one of his bold claims: namely, that the Mitannian king Parratarna was Shamshi Adad I?  

I intend further to investigate this.