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
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
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. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment