Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids!

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

But, more strikingly, I draw attention to the succession of Shutrukid rulers of Elam of the era of Merodach-baladan I who can be equated, as a full succession, with those of the era of Merodach-baladan II.

 

 

 

A crucial part of my revision of ancient history, of shortening it significantly so as to eliminate those unwanted ‘Dark Ages’, has been my folding of the C12th BC into the C8th BC – a logical consequence, I would think, of Dr. I. Velikovsky’s earlier folding of the C14th BC (El Amarna) into the C9th BC.

And it appears to have art-historical support. For previously I had written on this:   

 

Art, Architecture and Other Overlaps

 

Revisionist scholars have argued for an overlap of the art and architecture of both (supposedly) historical periods in question here – but eras that I am suggesting need to be fused into one. The likes of professor Lewis M. Greenberg (“The Lion Gate at Mycenae”, Pensée, IVR III, 1973, p. 28); Peter James (Centuries of Darkness, p. 273); Emmet Sweeney (Ramessides, Medes and Persians, p. 24), and others, have all come to light with art-historical observations of striking likenesses between art works of the 13th-12th centuries BC, on the one hand, and the 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture, on the other. I, in my postgraduate university thesis,

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

quoting P. James, wrote as follows about this art-historical overlap (Volume 1, Ch. 7, p. 181):

 

I should like to recall that my revision of this actual period of Mesopotamian history may have some degree of art-historical support; for, as already noted in Chapter 3 (p. 81), James claims to have found artistic likenesses between the C13th-12th’s BC and the neo-Assyrian period  – though admittedly the data is scarce [Centuries of Darkness, p. 273]: ….

 

Developments in art are also difficult to trace. Not only is there a dearth of material, but styles on either side of the gulf between the 12th and 10th centuries BC are curiously similar. One scholar noted that the forms and decoration of the intricately carved Assyrian seals of the 12th century are ‘clearly late’, as they ‘point the way to the ornate figures which line the walls of the Neo-Assyrian palace of Assurnasirpal [mid-9th century BC]’. The sculptors employed by this king, in the words of another expert on Assyrian art, ‘worked within a tradition that went back to the thirteenth century BC’. Not surprisingly, then, the dating of the few sculptures which might belong to this grey period has been hotly debated.

[End of quote]

 

The most remarkable evidence for the need of such a C12th BC into C8th BC folding are the Elamite kings, a succession of three of whom in the C12th BC appear to re-emerge, again in succession, in the C8th BC.

This sort of strange ‘afterglow’ is commonly encountered in history, but is simply accepted as a coincidence by the conventionalists.

 

This is what I wrote on the Elamite kings:

 

The Elamite/Shutrukids

 

In 1985, Lester Mitcham had attempted to identify the point of fold in the Assyrian King List [AKL], necessary for accommodating the downward revision of ancient history. (“A New Interpretation of the Assyrian King List”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of C and AH, pp. 51-56). He looked to bridge a gap of 170 years by bringing the formerly C12th BC Assyrian king,  Ninurta-apil-Ekur, to within closer range of his known C14th BC ancestor, Eriba-Adad I. In the same publication, Dean Hickman had argued even more radically for a lowering, by virtually a millennium, of formerly C19th BC king Shamsi-Adad I, now to be recognised as the biblical king, Hadadezer, a Syrian foe of king David of Israel. (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, pp. 13-28). And I myself have accepted this adjustment in:

 

Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon

 

https://www.academia.edu/35404463/Hammurabi_and_Zimri-Lim_as_Contemporaries_of_Solomon

 

Prior to all that, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had of course urged for a folding of the C14th BC Kassite king {and el-Amarna correspondent}, Burnaburiash II, with the C9th BC Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, who had conquered Babylon. (Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, 1952).

And there have been other attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history and chronology; for example, Phillip Clapham‟s attempt to identify the C13th Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib. (“Hittites and Phrygians”, C and AH, Vol. IV, pt. 2, July, 1982, p. 111). Clapham soon realised that, despite some initially  promising similarities, these two kings could not realistically be merged. (ibid., Addenda, p. 113). Whilst all of these attempts have some merit, other efforts were doomed right from the start because they infringed against established archaeological sequences. Thus Mitcham, again, exposed Sweeney’s defence of Professor Heinsohn’s radical revision, because of its blatant disregard, in part, for archaeological fact. (“Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced”, C and CW, 1988, 1, pp. 7-12).

Here I want briefly to propose what I think can be a most compelling fold; one that

 

(a) does not infringe against archaeology, and that

(b) harmonises approximately with previous art-historical observations of likenesses  between 13th-12th centuries BC and 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture. And it also has the advantage – unlike Mitcham’s and Clapham’s efforts – of

(c) folding kings with the same name.

 

I begin by connecting Merodach-baladan I and II (also equated by Heinsohn – as noted by Mitcham, op. cit.), each of 12-13 years of reign, about whose kudurrus Brinkman remarked (op. cit., p. 87, footnote 456):

 

Four kudurrus …, taken together with evidence of his building activity in Borsippa … show Merodach-baladan I still master in his own domain. The bricks recording the  building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk …, assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum‟s A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities … cannot now be readily located in the Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 …).

[End of quote]

 

My proposal here involves a C12th to C8th BC fold.

 

 

But, more strikingly, I draw attention to the succession of Shutrukid rulers of Elam of the era of Merodach-baladan I who can be equated, as a full succession, with those of the era of Merodach-baladan II. Compare:

 

 

 

C12th BC	C8th BC
Shutruk-Nahhunte	Shutur-Nakhkhunte
Kudur-Nahhunte	Kutir-Nakhkhunte
Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak)	‘Hallushu’ (or Halutush-Inshushinak).

 

This is already far too striking, I think, to be accidental. And it, coupled with the Merodach-baladan pairing, may offer far more obvious promise than have previous efforts of revision. ….

 

New evidence might even suggest that the C8th BC Shutur-Nakhkhunte, whom I have coupled with the C12th BC, Shutruk-Nahhunte, might better be named also as Shutruk-Nahhunte. This would, then, further strengthen my comparisons.

Thus we read at: https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/061722P-front.pdf

 

….

In 710 (year 12), the king of Elam came to the aid of the king of Babylonia, Merodach-baladan. There is a problem concerning his name in the Annals: he is named Humban-nikash on one occasion and Shuturnahhunte on several others. …. There are some contradictions between the Assyrian and Neo-Elamite inscriptions concerning this period, in particular the confusion between Shutur-nahhunte and Shutruk-nahhunte. …. The chronology concerning the Sargon period is now well-established: Humban-nikash I (743–717) and his successor Shutruk-nahhunte II (717–699), wrongly named Shutur-nahhunte in the Assyrian texts; Shutur-nahhunte reigned ca. 645–620. According to the Babylonian Chronicle, “Shutruknahhunte (II), his sister’s son (of Humban-nikash) ascended the throne in Elam.”97 Consequently, the name of Humban-nikash in the Annals for 710 (year 12) was a scribal error because this king had died in 717.

The sources for the reign of Shutruk-nahhunte II are the Neo-Elamite inscriptions and the Assyrian and Babylonian records, all of which differ on some points. In his own inscriptions, the Elamite king reported that he led successful campaigns to enlarge his territory, endowed temples, and set up stelae for the gods. According to the Assyrian sources, the allies of Merodach-baladan and Shutruk-nahhunte were first defeated. ….

Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

In answer to a reader's comment on Velikovsky as follows:

 

“.... I think [Velikovsky] is appreciated because he thought of the idea of re-jigging the Egyptian chronology but seems to be rather crazy overall. Sounds as though these fellows are wise to distance themselves from him. ...”.

 

I wrote:

 

Let us get one thing very clear. The revision of ancient history as pursued by groups such as the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (UK) and Catastrophism and Ancient History (Los Angeles, CA), and now by many other individuals and groups using various forms of social media, would never have seen the light of day but for the efforts of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, a Russian Jew. Even Dr. Donovan Courville’s worthy early effort, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (I and II, Loma Linda Ca, 1971), though largely an original contribution, based itself to a great extent on Velikovsky’s important 500-year shift of the 18th Egyptian dynasty to the time of the kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon).

 

Here I am interested only in Velikovsky‟s historical revision, not his scientific interpretations,

which involve some dramatic planetary catastrophism supposedly affecting the biblical Exodus and the destruction of Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000. These, which I do not personally favour, make for some terrific reading, nevertheless, and would be exciting movie viewing. Whilst some still follow Velikovsky slavishly, both his history and his science, it was the UK branch, including some very talented individuals, who, as early as the late 70’s, tended to watch critically his historical outputs, finally rebelling outright when confronted with his extreme location of the 19th Egyptian (Ramesside) dynasty: Ramses II and His Time.

But it needs to be noted that, until that time, the UK revisionists were “Velikovskian” in their 

acceptance of the important 500-year downward shift of 18^th dynasty Egyptian history, with the “Glasgow School” slightly modifying Velikovsky with some excellent results. From that happy moment in time (around 1978) it has generally been a free-fall down the mountain.

 

So the point of this little article is that revisionists, even if now they have adopted quite a different system, owe their beginning to Immanuel Velikovsky. For whatever reason, God allowed him, and him only, a man who may not even have believed in God, to be the one to determine that 18th dynasty Egyptian history needed to be brought down the time scale by a multiplicity of centuries. But the UK (in particular) revisionists, aware that Velikovsky was regarded with contempt by the conventional scholars, whose system they themselves were undermining - though perhaps also seeking some academic respectability - and aware that Velikovsky’s latter phase revision, e.g. the 19th dynasty of Egypt, was archaeologically untenable (though loyal Velikovskians have clung to it), sought to distance themselves from Velikovsky completely, they hardly at all, or at least very scarcely, even mentioning him in their later  books and publications. And when they did mention him, they laughed him off as a “wayward polymath”, or “maverick”.

Now, whilst these epithets can perhaps be appropriate in the right context, they are mean and miserable when revisionists fail to admit their owing of any debt to Velikovsky. The most arrogant example of this, which is not only unjust to Velikovsky but which demeans all those others who have put a lot of effort into a revision of ancient history - as well as the writings of “Creationists” - was this piece in the flyleaf introducing David Rohl’s The Lost Testament (Century, 2002) as if the revision recognizing the over-extension of chronology by modern researchers had begun with him in 1995 (forgetting Velikovsky‟s beginnings in the 1940’s):

 

The earliest part of the bible is recognised as the foundation-stone of three great religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – yet over the last century archaeologists and historians have signally failed to find any evidence to confirm the events described in the “book of books”.

As a consequence, many scholars took the view that the Old Testament was little more than a work or fiction. The testimony of biblical history had, in effect, been lost. Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the Bible was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl, burst onto the scene with a new theory. He suggested that modern researchers had constructed an artificially long chronology for the ancient world - a false time-line which had dislocated the Old Testament events from their real historical setting. The alternative “New Chronology” - first published in A Test of Time: The Bible From Myth to History - created a world-wide sensation and was fiercely resisted by the more conservative elements within academia. Seven years on, however, the chronological reconstruction has developed apace and numerous new discoveries have been made. Now, in his new book, The Lost Testament, David Rohl reveals the entire story of the Children of Yahweh - set in its true historical context. An astounding number of references in the literature of neighbouring civilizations are shown to synchronise with the Old Testament accounts, confirming events which had previously been dismissed as mythical. In addition, this contemporary literature - combined with the archaeological record - reveals new information and new stories about personalities such as Enoch, Noah, Nimrod, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Sau1, David and Solomon.

The Bible has at last been recovered from the ruins of the ancient past as the “when”, “where” and “who” are explained - throwing unforeseen and fascinating new light on the world's most treasured book.

 

Rohl was one of those more talented and qualified UK revisionists, along with Dr. John Bimson and Peter James, the latter two being an integral part of the “Glasgow School”. Later (1990), Peter James’s (et al.) Centuries of Darkness, which has become something of a classic, exposed the conventional chronology and archaeology.

 

However, the so-called “New Chronology” of Rohl - somewhat similar to James’s efforts at reconstruction - situated halfway between convention and Velikovsky, fails at virtually every point despite the optimistic advertisements. It is far inferior to the respective revisions of Courville and Martin Sieff – the latter tending to persevere with the most promising aspects of Courville and “Glasgow”, but with excellent modifications and contributions of his own. Sieff, in fact, adopted the perfect approach to Velikovsky, by building upon his solid foundations, but also modifying him where there were problems, and rejecting outright Velikovsky’s glaring mistakes. He even wrote by far the best account of the psychology of Velikovsky (who was a psychiatrist), the fascinating “Velikovsky and His Heroes” (SIS Review, vol. v, no. 4, 1980/81, pp. 112-120).