Damien F. Mackey
“Unfortunately,
we are not much better off as regards the period of Kassite domination in Iraq
… all we have at present is about two hundred royal inscriptions – most of them
short and of little historical value – sixty kudurru … and approximately 12,000 tablets … less than 10 per
cent of which has been published. This is very little indeed for four hundred
years – the length of time separating us from Elizabeth 1”.
Georges Roux
… Kassites; likewise an ‘Indo-European’ people …
a single quote from Roux might suffice here: ….
“Hittites, Mitannians and the ruling class of
the Kassites belonged to a very large ethno-linguistic group called
‘Indo-European’, and their migrations were but part of wider ethnic movements
which affected Europe and India as well as Western Asia”.
The Kassites, ‘Mitannians’ and Hurrians all seem
to have expanded to approximately the same places eastwards at approximately
the same time (by the revision). The Subarians and Lullubi are sometimes linked
with these. An ‘Indo-European’ connection as noted by Roux, especially between
the Kassites and the so-called ‘Mitannians’, would certainly account for the
skilled horsemanship attributed to the Kassites …. The ‘Mitannians’, like the
Kassites … seem to have been something of a horseriding aristocracy or élite
amongst the Hurrians and other associated nations. The Hurrians are often
linked with the ‘Mitannians’ as Hurri-Mitannian – but were apparently
though neither Semitic nor ‘Indo-European’ in the language they spoke.
It has sometimes been called Asianic.
It is not I think too much to say that the
Kassites are an enigma for the over-extended conventional scheme. Roux has
given the standard estimate for the duration of Kassite rule of Babylonia: … “…
a long line of Kassite monarchs was to govern Mesopotamia or, as they called
it, Kar-Duniash for no less than four hundred and thirty-eight years
(1595-1157 B.C.)”. This is a substantial period of time; yet archaeology has
surprisingly little to show for it.
Roux again: ….
Unfortunately, we are not much better off as regards the period of
Kassite domination in Iraq … all we have at present is about two hundred royal
inscriptions – most of them short and of little historical value – sixty kudurru
… and approximately 12,000 tablets (letters and economic texts), less than
10 per cent of which has been published. This is very little indeed for four
hundred years – the length of time separating us from Elizabeth 1.
[Seton] Lloyd, in his book dedicated to the
study of Mesopotamian archaeology, can give only a mere 4 pages (including
pictures) to the Kassites, without even bothering to list them in the book’s Index
at the back. ….
Incredibly, though the names of the Kassites
“reveal a clearly distinct language from the other inhabitants in the region”,
as van de Mieroop writes, “and Babylonian texts indicate the existence of a
Kassite vocabulary, no single text or sentence is known in the Kassite
language”. ….
Obviously, new interpretations are required. The
Kassite period is thought to have been brought to its end by the Elamites in
the mid-C12th BC. But there emerges quite a new picture about the Kassites when
their history is condensed in the context of Velikovsky’s El Amarna revision and
this people is re-located well down the time scale. When this is done, the
extremely meagre archaeological and historical traces of the Kassites become
supplemented by the abundant archaeology and documentation from Syro-Mitanni
through to Babylonia during the early to mid C1st millennium BC. ….
As Elamites
The conventional
history of the - albeit most significant - Kassite people was exposed for its alarming
lack of positive information. We read Georges Roux (Iraq) lamenting the fact that, despite the Kassite rule of
Babylonia (Kar-Duniash) for a period
of almost 400 years, we have “very little indeed” documentation for any of
this.
My
inevitable conclusion in situations such as this, where something known to be
most significant is not proportionately represented in the archaeological, inscriptional, or
historical record - as in the case of the mighty dynasty of Ur III, for which
there is: “Remarkable … lack of interest in this period by
later Mesopotamians when compared to how long they remembered Akkad's
kings were remembered”, is that a suitable alter
ego is required.
Hence
my article in the case of Ur III:
Ur
Nammu as Hammurabi?
Another
element to factor in when dealing with the conventional chronology is the usual
over-estimation of time. The supposed four hundred years for the Kassite rule
in Babylonia is always going to be way too long. A more accurate figure would
be closer to half of this.
To
find the necessary alter ego of the
Kassites, I turn to Dr. John Osgood (“A
Better Model for the Stone Age — Part 2”: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_073-095.pdf), who identifies the Kassites amongst the ancient Elamite peoples:
a. Ancient Elam
The early pottery of the Susiana area of Khuzistan demonstrates painted
ware (dark-painted buff wares) and red and buff plain wares of long indigenous
standing.
‘This ceramic group shares shapes, motifs, and
manufacturing techniques with the Middle (c.4300-4200 B.C.) and Early (c.
5200-4800 B.C.) Susiana assemblages and represents the culmination of a
primarily local craft tradition whose roots can be traced back into the fifth
and possibly the sixth millenium B.C.’34
The above wares (Susa I) are to be placed before the Mesopotamian Uruk
period.35
If the biblical model of the Origin of Nations is assumed to be the
chronological framework, then the Susiana sequence until the end of Susa would
be contemporary with the Eridu to Ubaid series of Mesopotamia; itself to be
seen contemporary with the Hassuna to northern Ubaid series36
(see Figure 16).
Figure 16.Table
showing the time comparisons between the different cultures in Southern
Mesopotamian, Northern Mesopotamian and Iran areas.
|
So in the earliest occupation of Susiana by man we are faced with a population
which would identify geographically with the genetic Elamites, descendants of
'Elam' son of Shem, son of Noah, of Genesis 10.
Moreover, as the genetic stock multiplied, we may reasonably expect a
compounding of groups along tribal or family lines (Genesis 10:5,20,31) but, at this stage,
within the same language group characteristics as the parent Elamites. Such is
in fact the case when we consider the early groups who inhabited the region of
ancient Elam and the surrounding districts.
‘From south to the north, these were the Elamites,
Kassites, the Lullubi, and the Guti.
All belonged to the same racial groups; all spoke
related languages, and the constant pressure of the plain, which was already
organised in civilized kingdoms, forced them all to unite at about the same
time though only temporarily.’37
I am therefore suggesting that the early people of Susiana were the
biblical 'Elam' of Genesis 10, and that they also gave rise to the Kassites,
Lullubi, and Guti of Mesopotamian history ….
Here Dr. Ogood also accounts for some of those other vague (poorly
attested) ancient peoples, the Lullubi and the Guti.
In this new context, one might look
to find the obscure Kassite king Kashtiliash, so-called IV, who was conquered
by Tukulti-Ninurta I, who is my Sennacherib:
Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib
amongst Sennacherib’s Elamite foes -
my preference being for Elamite Hallutash-Inshushinak (Hallutash = Kashtiliash).
The Kassite king of Babylon, Kashtiliash IV, took the
border regions between Babylon and Assyria and fortified them. He seems to have
felt that Tukulti-Ninurta I would be dealing with the Hittites for an extended
period and would not concern himself with Babylon or the disputed territories.
Bauer comments on this writing, “We know almost nothing about this king,
Kashtiliash IV, except that he was a poor judge of men; Tukulti-Ninurta marched
down and plundered Babylon’s temples” (270). The Assyrian army sacked Babylon
and Tikulti-Ninurta I wrote that he faced down the Babylonian king personally
in battle and “trod on his royal neck with my feet like a footstool.”
With Babylon in ruins, he then took the treasures of the gods, including the
statue of the great god Marduk, back to the city of Ashur. He also took with him a large portion of the
population as slaves, including the king, who he marched “naked and in chains”
to Ashur and then placed an Assyrian official in charge of re-building and
governing Babylon. ….
Sennacherib
is known to have invaded Elam during the reign of its king Hallutash-Inshushinak. (See e.g. Antti Laato’s “Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of
History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib”, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 5, Fasc. 2, April 1995, pp. 198-226).
No comments:
Post a Comment