Poorly known Kassites need enlargement
by
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).
Comments
The Lucky Day Casino bonus code is MAXBONUS 군포 출장안마 for new 안동 출장안마 players. This is 논산 출장안마 an exciting bonus code 김포 출장샵 for all new online players in the UK, and 삼척 출장마사지 the