AMAIC

All posts tagged AMAIC

Shutrukids and Elamites

Published January 30, 2018 by amaic
Image result for elamites

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. ….

Advertisements

Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ and Antiochus Epiphanes ‘Philopappus’

Published January 23, 2018 by amaic
Image result for emperor hadrian grecophile

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“The name of Hadrian’s host at Athens has not survived, but we can make a guess. One possibility is Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus.

He was one of a breed of rootless multimillionaires in whom Greek, oriental, and Roman cultural attitudes mingled”.

 

 

Already we have considered, in a set of articles, such suspicious likenesses, or “mirror image” reflections, between the Roman loving Seleucid, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ and the emperor Hadrian the Grecophile:

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image”

https://www.academia.edu/32734925/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_One_a_mirror_image_

 

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part Two: “Hadrian … a second Antiochus”

 https://www.academia.edu/35538588/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_Two_Hadrian_a_second_Antiochus_

 

as to wonder – with quite some conviction – whether (from a revisionist’s perspective):

 

“Hadrian simply was Antiochus!”

 

Does not Hadrian even replace Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ in certain Rabbinic traditions as the foreign tyrant king of the Maccabees?: “The tyrant in the rabbinic versions, however, is not Antiochus Epiphanes but Hadrian: Hadrian came and seized upon a widow …” (S. Eliyahu Rab. 30); “In the days of the shemad [the Hadrianic persecutions]…” (Pesiq. R. 43)”.

 

Again, in Part One of this particular set:

 

Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ Doubled

https://www.academia.edu/32784704/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes_Doubled

 

we came across another C2nd BC (conventional dating) “King Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ of Commagene (Armenia) and Cilicia Tracheia”, who was, suspiciously like the Seleucid king Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ of the same era, “born to a king Antiochus III”.

 

Now, supposedly three centuries later than this, we encounter a third Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (with some suspiciously late Republican Roman name elements, too: Gaius Julius) who we find to have been contemporaneous with the emperor Hadrian. And, again, “in whom Greek, oriental, and Roman cultural attitudes mingled”.

Although this new Antiochus is considered to have been a person separate from Hadrian, but a friend of the emperor’s, ‘their’ contemporaneity is, in our new context of Hadrian as potentially Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ himself, most intriguing.

 

The following is a conventional account of our ‘new’ Antiochus during Hadrian’s visit to Athens: https://erenow.com/biographies/hadrian-and-the-triumph-of-rome/14.html

 

XII

CALL OF THE EAST

….

In 112 Hadrian made his way to Athens for an extended stay. This is his first recorded visit, although (as has been seen) it is possible that his father took him there when a young child. Also, he may have been in Athens a few years before, during the fallow period after his consulship. A man of some importance in the state, Hadrian doubtless journeyed in style with a considerable entourage; it was the done thing for elite wives to accompany husbands on their travels, so the little-loved Sabina was probably present.

 

….

After the short ride from Piraeus—or possibly walk, for he enjoyed exercise—Hadrian arrived at his destination. Once through the city gates, Hadrian found himself in a broad avenue, the Panathenaic Way; on either side were colonnades, with statues of famous men and women along their front, as the street passed through an industrial district, the Kerameikos, or Potters’ Quarter, and led into the Agora, or marketplace.

….

Hadrian was well aware that Athens had long lost its political importance, but it was a cultural center with a thriving intellectual life: a rough modern analogy would be Paris in the first half of the twentieth century. This was what appealed to him. Civic buildings also contained countless works of art. In the Propylaea, the grand (and still very beautiful) marble gateway up to the Acropolis, there was a picture galley. On every corner there were shrines, temples, statues, and altars. It was as if the city was a vast open-air museum celebrating the achievements of Greek civilization.

 

The rich and well connected did not expect to stay at the various inns and hostels that could be found in most cities. A local worthy—perhaps a friend or acquaintance—or government official would offer generous hospitality. The name of Hadrian’s host at Athens has not survived, but we can make a guess. One possibility is Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus. He was one of a breed of rootless multimillionaires in whom Greek, oriental, and Roman cultural attitudes mingled.

His name contains his history: “Gaius Julius” signifies Roman citizenship, but he was of Asiatic origin, being the grandson of Antiochus IV, the last king of Commagene, a region of ancient Armenia just to the east of Cilicia … one of the wealthiest of Rome’s tributary kings. ….

….

His grandson was evidently fond of him, for his cognomen Philopappus means “lover of his grandfather.” He spent most of his time in Athens, where he became an Athenian citizen and a member of the Besa deme, or district. A generous patron of the arts, he funded cultural and athletic events. Philopappus took care to keep his lines open to senior government officials; he became a Roman senator and was a suffect consul in 109.

 

This was a man who enjoyed living lavishly and prominently—as his other cognomen, Epiphanes, or “illustrious,” indicates. He became a celebrity in the modern sense of the word, famous for nothing in particular except for conspicuous expenditure. The Athenians nicknamed him King Philopappus. Hadrian became a good friend of his and Sabina made much of his sister, a poet and bluestocking, Balbilla. The siblings will have been of special interest to him, for magic had been a family tradition: two of their ancestors were celebrated astrologers ….

There had been no emergency—political, military, or personal—forcing Hadrian to take to sea during the perilous winter months, so we may assume that he traveled in late spring—say, from May onward. He was well received, for almost immediately the Athenians offered him citizenship, which he accepted without demur, and, as with Philopappus, made him a member of the Besa deme. They then awarded him their highest honor, appointing him archon, or chief magistrate: only a handful of leading Romans had been so distinguished …. The official year ran from summer to summer and Hadrian took office immediately.

The new archon was soon hard at work, helping to ensure that the Panathenaic Games of 112 were a success. Philopappus was doubtless on hand to offer support (we know he was interested, for at some stage in his career he was appointed agonothetes, or games producer). The games were held every four years in the year preceding an Olympiad, in the height of the summer. Both body and mind were tested to the extreme.

….

Hadrian, the inveterate Grecophile, is here even described as looking just like a Greek, like “a true Hellene and Ionian”:

 

He devoured the pursuits and customs of the Athenians, having mastered not merely rhetoric, but other disciplines too, the science of singing, of playing the harp, and of medicine: [he was] a musician, geometrician, painter, and a sculptor from bronze or marble who was next to Polycleitus and Euphranor [in artistry]. Indeed, like those things in a way, he, too, was refined, so that human affairs hardly ever seem to have experienced anything finer.

Now in his mid-thirties, Hadrian was in the prime of life. He was tall and very strongly built, but elegant in appearance, with carefully curled hair. According to Dio Cassius, he was “a pleasant man to meet and possessed a certain charm.”

His features were reasonably good-looking, with a strong nose, high cheeks, and puckered eyebrows. He looked about him with an alert, even suspicious gaze. Flatterers said that his eyes were “languishing, bright, piercing and full of light,” signs of a true Hellene and Ionian. ….

 

 

Parratarna of Mitanni and Shamsi-Adad I

Published December 18, 2017 by amaic
Image result for mitannians

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

[A] lack of due information for Parratarna and other early Mitannian kings has compelled the likes of professor Gunnar Heinsohn and Emmet Sweeney to look for alternative explanations.

  

 

Introduction

 

The kingdom of Mitanni, estimated to have coincided with the Old Babylonian Kingdom [OBK], is considered to have become a superpower by the time of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty.

Yet there is a disturbing lack of archaeology, and also of documentation, for the Mitannians.

Mirko Novák, following a conventional line that would well separate in time OBK from Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt, tells of the generally perceived archaeological situation for Mitanni:

 

MITTANI EMPIRE AND THE QUESTION OF ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY: SOME ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

When the Hittite king Hattušili I started his forays to Northern Syria, a certain “King of the Hurrians” appeared as one of his main opponents. Nowadays it is widely accepted that this person must have been one of the first rulers of the political entity later known as “Mittani” …. Therefore, the formation of this powerful kingdom must have taken place

during the latest phase of the Old Babylonian Period and predated the sack of Babylon by the Hittites under Hattušili’s grandson Muršili I by at least two generations …. From an archaeological point of view there must be a significant overlap of what is called “Old Babylonian” and “Mittani” Periods in Northern Mesopotamia, although they appear in nearly all chronological charts as succeeding one the other with a distinctive break in between.

Still, until today archaeology has failed in establishing a stratigraphical and chronological sequence of late Old Babylonian and early Mittanian layers on sites in the core area of the kingdom, the so-called Habur-triangle”. …. One reason for that may be that none of the major urban capitals of the Mittani Empire has been excavated or investigated in a serious degree. Even the locations of its political centres Waššukanni … Ta‘idu … and Irride … are still uncertain. ….

 

Mitanni’s great king, Parratarna (or Parshatar), Idrimi’s contemporary, has apparently left us pitifully few records (https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Idrimi):

 

…. Parshatatar – Parshatatar, Paršatar, Barattarna, or Parattarna was the name of a Hurrian king of Mitanni in the fifteenth century BC. Very few records of him are known as sources from Mitanni are rare, most information we have about the kingdom, especially its early history and kings come from records outside of the state. Dates for the kings can be deduced by comparing the chronology of Mitanni and other states, especially ancient Egypt, at a later date, information is found in the biography of Idrimi of Alalakh. Parshatatar conquered the area and made Idrimi his vassal, Idrimi becoming king of Aleppo, Mitanni in his time probably extended as far as Arrapha in the east, Terqa in the south, and Kizzuwatna in the West. Parshatatar may have been the Mitannian king the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmosis I met at the Euphrates River in an early in his reign. Information about his death is mentioned in a record from Nuzi dated to the death of king Parshatatar, possibly around 1420.

 

This lack of due information for Parratarna and other early Mitannian kings has compelled the likes of professor Gunnar Heinsohn and Emmet Sweeney to look for alternative explanations.

 

Connecting with Assyria

 

Emmet Sweeney, for example, has explained in his article, “Shalmaneser III and Egypt”: http://www.hyksos.org/index.php?title=Shalmaneser_III_and_Egypt):

 

We see that, without exception, the Mitannian levels are followed immediately, and without any gap, by the Neo-Assyrian ones; and the Neo-Assyrian material is that of the early Neo-Assyrians, Ashurnasirpal II and his son Shalmaneser III. Now, since the last Mitannian king, Tushratta, was a contemporary of Akhenaton, this would suggest that Ashuruballit, who wrote several letters to Akhenaton, was the same person as Ashurnasirpal II, father of Shalmaneser III.

The end of the Mitannian kingdom is documented in a series of texts from the Hittite capital. We are told that Tushratta was murdered by one of his sons, a man named Kurtiwaza. The latter then feld, half naked, to the court of the Hittite King, Suppiluliumas, who put an army at his disposal; with which the parricide conquered the Mitannian lands. The capital city, Washukanni, was taken, and Kurtiwaza was presumably rewarded for his treachery.

The region of Assyrian was a mainstay of the Mitannian kingdom. A few years earlier Tushratta had sent the cult statue of Ishtar of Nineveh to Egypt. So, if Kurtiwaza was established as a puppet king by Suppiluliumas, it is likely that his kingdom would have included Assyria.

….

The “Middle Assyrians” were a mysterious line of kings who ruled Assyria before the time of the Neo-Assyrians and supposedly after the time of the Mitannians. Yet we know of no Assyrian stratigraphy which can give a clear line from Mitannian to Middle Assyrian to Neo-Assyrian. On the contrary, as we saw, the Mitannians are followed immediately by the Neo-Assyrians of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III. This can only mean that the Middle Assyrians must have been contemporaries of the Mitannians, and were most likely Mitannian kings using Assyrian names. We know that ancient rulers often bore several titles in accordance with the various nations and ethnic groups over which they reigned. Since the Mitannian royal names are Indo-Iranian, and therefore meaningless and probably unpronounceable to the Semitic speakers of Assyria, it is almost certain that they would also have used Assyrian-sounding titles.

That the Middle Assyrians were in fact contemporary with the Mitannians is shown in numberless details of artwork, pottery, epigraphy, etc. (See for example P. Pfalzner, Mittanische und Mittelassyrische Keramik (Berlin, 1995) ….

 

Emmet’s conclusion about Idrimi’s powerful Mitannian contemporary, Parratarna – that he was the ‘Assyrian’ king Shamsi-Adad I (our biblical Hadadezer contemporary of David’s) – would now appear to make chronological – and probably geographical – sense.

And it is also now likely that, as we read above: “[Parratarna] Parshatatar may have been the Mitannian king the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmosis I met at the Euphrates River in an early in his reign”. For, according to this present series, pharaoh Thutmose [Thutmosis] I was a late contemporary of king David’s.

Whilst Shamsi-Adad I is quite well known, I have wondered why we know so little about his long-reigning son, Ishme-Dagan I (c. 1776 BC – c. 1736 BC, conventional dating). Sweeney has duly suggested that Ishme-Dagan I was the Mitannian, Shaushtatar, son of Parratarna. Conventional date figures given for the reign of Shaushtatar are c. 1440 BC – 1415 BC.

 

As we would expect, if Parratarna was Shamsi-Adad I (= David’s for, Hadadezer), then the Mitannian king would be no ally of Idrimi (= David’s ally, Adoniram = Hiram). And, indeed, we learn of Parratarna’s (initial, at least) “hostility” towards Idrimi, with possible “warfare”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrimi

 

…. Edward Greenstein’s and David Marcus’s translation of the inscription on lines 42-51 revealed that despite Parratarna’s hostility to Idrimi while he was in exile in Canaan, he actually respected Idrimi’s coalition, maybe submitting to Idrimi out of fear that his social outcast army could overthrow him. Idrimi said that King Parshatatar for “seven years … was hostile to me. I sent Anwanda to Parrattarna, the mighty king, the king of the Hurrian warriors, and told him of the treaties of my ancestors … and that our actions were pleasing to the former kings of the Hurrian warriors for they had made a binding agreement. The mighty king heard of the treaties of our predecessors and the agreement made between them and … read to him the words of the treaty in detail. So on account of our treaty terms he received my tribute … I … restored to him a lost estate. I swore to him a binding oath as a loyal vassal.”.[16] Here, possibly influenced by the nature of Hittite oaths, Idrimi swore loyalty to Parshatatar after seven years despite him overthrowing his father on the throne in Aleppo. He made his request to the throne peacefully by restoring [Parattarna’s] estate and swore him an ultimate Hurrian loyalty oath, which was the first step to Idrimi regaining his power again.

 

The inscription in lines 42-51 of Greenstein and Marcus’s translation described Idrimi’s capture of Alalakh as a peaceful effort to appease Parrattarna with tributes of restoring his estate and swearing a loyalty oath unto him rather than using warfare to capture the city. Marc Van de Mieroop mentioned that Idrimi “captured” Alalakh implying a warfare approach that the inscription doesn’t give. Author Paul Collins described Idrimi’s maneuver as a “greeting-present, the traditional form of establishing and maintaining friendly relations between rulers, even those of different rank, and reminded him (Parrattarna) of earlier oaths sworn between the kings of Halab (Aleppo) and the kings of Mitanni.” Also, Collins mentioned that Parratarna had accepted Idrimi’s tribute to him as a loyal vassal ruler. He only allowed Idrimi limited independence of making his own military and diplomatic decisions just as long as it didn’t interfere with Mitanni’s overall policy. This further allowed Idrimi to set his sights on his diplomatic and military aims in Kizzuwatna and act as an independent ruler.[17] Idrimi’s “capture” of Alalakh was evidenced in his statue inscription and Collins’ analysis as a peaceful movement rather than a military movement”.

 

King Arthur not real – a composite character

Published December 15, 2017 by amaic
Image result for king arthur

 

“Arthur, as he first appears, in the book that launched his international career, is no more than an amalgam. He is a Celtic superhero created from the deeds of others”.

 

Have we not found this to have been the case with so many supposedly historical personages – that ‘they’ are in fact a fantastic mix of real (often biblical) persons? For, according to this article: http://theconversation.com/here-are-the-five-ancient-britons-who-make-up-the-myth-of-king-arthur-86874Here are the five ancient Britons who make up the myth of King Arthur”:

 

Arthur, in the Historia [Regum Britanniae], is the ultimate composite figure. There is nothing in his story that is truly original. In fact, there are five discrete characters discernible within the great Arthurian mix. Once you detach their stories from the narrative, there is simply nothing left for Arthur.

 

Though I think that the roots of the Arthurian legend may go back considerably further than the ancient Britons. That the colourful biblical King David of Israel would have had a significant influence on the Arthurian legends has been noticed at the following blog: http://community.beliefnet.com/dondiegodelaveva/blog/2009/08/17/a_king_arthur__king_david__comparison

 

 

A KING ARTHUR  & KING DAVID – COMPARISON

   

One of the more obvious simarities between the story of King Arthur & his court and the themes and element of the Bible, are many. There’s obvious parallels between some of the stories of the Bible & of Arthur is that of King David in the Old Testament.

    The Arthur legends seem to take on similar elements of the story of King David in aspects of content, theme, character parallels, and morals. 

 

LET’S  COMPARE:

The coming of age: both had to go through their right of passage to prove themselves worthy to their own people. Arthur was destined by a higher power. David is [anointed] to be king by Samuel when David killed Goliath–Arthur proved his worth by removing the sword from the stone. Samuel can be paralled to Merlin in many ways which we won’t get into.

A common theme between David & Arthur is that of a correlation between the king’s action & their dominions’ state. At their beginning both began to conquer surrounding kingdoms [1 Sam. 5:6-25] and [Malory 6-17]. The Mighty Sword Excalibur is representative to the Ark of the Covenant in some respects. Both men were great warriors & visionaries, performed good deeds & had a loyal following. Both were of royal ancestry, both were the product of illigit relations [sic] & both true parentage were hidden from their father. Both are listed as the “elect of God,” & were appointed through supernatural means, showing divine intervention & appointment. Both kings were young & inexperienced, both needed to fight their own people as well as formidable enemies before they could assume full control over their respective countries. Both fought a giant & killed it with one blow, both giants were beheaded & put on display. Both men are [presented] with a sword: David got Goliath’s, & Arthur got Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake.

Both were great soldiers, both very human, both sinned in sexual matters, both were referred to as “everlasting kings.” Both tried to create a new order out of the chaos of the time, they both united their nations, both were [known] as “Men of Blood.” Both were hero’s who had come from an underdog position. Both are someone we can relate to & strive to emulate. Their responsibilities change with the times, but their ideas remain the same: unity under justice.

The Bible has the strongest influence on King Arthur legends. The story of King Arthur is very Christian – synchronized.

 

With this in mind, we can now take a look at the article “Here are the five ancient Britons who make up the myth of King Arthur”:

 

King Arthur is probably the best known of all British mythological figures. He is a character from deep time celebrated across the world in literature, art and film as a doomed hero, energetically fighting the forces of evil. Most historians believe that the prototype for Arthur was a warlord living in the ruins of post-Roman Britain, but few can today agree on precisely who that was.

Over the centuries, the legend of King Arthur has been endlessly rewritten and reshaped. New layers have been added to the tale. The story repeated in modern times includes courtly love, chivalry and religion – and characters such as Lancelot and Guinevere, whose relationship was famously immortalised in Thomas Malory’s 1485 book Le Morte D’Arthur. The 2017 cinematic outing, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, is only the most recent reimagining.

But before the addition of the Holy Grail, Camelot and the Round Table, the first full account of Arthur the man appeared in the Historia Regum Brianniae (the History of the Kings of Britain) a book written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in around 1136.

We know next to nothing about Geoffrey, but he claimed to have begun writing the Historia at the request of Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, who persuaded him to translate an ancient book “written in the British tongue”. Many have concluded, as Geoffrey failed to name his primary source and it has never been firmly identified, that he simply made it all up in a fit of patriotism.

Whatever the origin of the Historia, however, it was a roaring success, providing the British with an heroic mythology – a national epic to rival anything written by the English or Normans.

 

Story teller

As a piece of literature, Geoffrey’s book is arguably the most important work in the European tradition. It lays the ground for not just for the whole Arthurian Cycle, but also for the tales surrounding legendary sites such as Stonehenge and Tintagel and characters such as the various kings: Cole, Lear and Cymbeline (the latter two immortalised by Shakespeare).

As a piece of history, however, it is universally derided, containing much that is clearly fictitious, such as wizards, magic and dragons.

If we want to gain a better understanding of who King Arthur was, however, we cannot afford to be so picky. It is Geoffrey of Monmouth who first supplies the life-story of the great king, from conception to mortal wounding on the battlefield, so we cannot dismiss him entirely out of hand.

A full and forensic examination of the Historia Regum Britanniae, has demonstrated that Geoffrey’s account was no simple work of make-believe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence now exists to suggest that his text was, in fact, compiled from a variety of early British sources, including oral folklore, king-lists, dynastic tables and bardic praise poems, some of which date back to the first century BC.

….

In creating a single, unified account, Geoffrey exercised a significant degree of editorial control over this material, massaging data and smoothing out chronological inconsistencies.

Once you accept that Geoffrey’s book is not a single narrative, but a mass of unrelated stories threaded together, individual elements can successfully be identified and reinstated to their correct time and place. This has significant repercussions for Arthur. In this revised context, it is clear that he simply cannot have existed.

Arthur, in the Historia, is the ultimate composite figure. There is nothing in his story that is truly original. In fact, there are five discrete characters discernible within the great Arthurian mix. Once you detach their stories from the narrative, there is simply nothing left for Arthur.

Cast of characters

The chronological hook, upon which Geoffrey hung 16% of his story of Arthur, belongs to Ambrosius Aurelianus, a late 5th-century warlord from whom the youthful coronation, the capture of York (from the Saxons) and the battle of Badon Hill is taken wholesale.

Next comes Arvirargus, who represents 24% of Arthur’s plagiarised life, a British king from the early 1st century AD. In the Historia, Arthur’s subjugation of the Orkneys, his return home and marriage to Ganhumara (Queen Guinevere in later adaptions) parallels that of the earlier king, who married Genvissa on his return south.

….

Constantine the Great, who in AD 306 was proclaimed Roman emperor in York, forms 8% of Arthur’s story, whilst Magnus Maximus, a usurper from AD 383, completes a further 39%. Both men took troops from Britain to fight against the armies of Rome, Constantine defeating the emperor Maxentius; Maximus killing the emperor Gratian, before advancing to Italy. Both sequences are later duplicated in Arthur’s story.

The final 12% of King Arthur’s life, as recounted by Geoffrey, repeat those of Cassivellaunus, a monarch from the 1st century BC, who, in Geoffrey’s version of events, was betrayed by his treacherous nephew Mandubracius, the prototype for Modred.

All this leaves just 1% of Geoffrey’s story of Arthur unaccounted for: the invasion of Iceland and Norway. This may, in fact, be no more than simple wish-fulfilment, the ancient Britons being accorded the full and total subjugation of what was later to become the homeland of the Vikings.

Arthur, as he first appears, in the book that launched his international career, is no more than an amalgam. He is a Celtic superhero created from the deeds of others. His literary and artistic success ultimately lies in the way that various generations have reshaped the basic story to suit themselves – making Arthur a hero to rich and poor, elite and revolutionary alike. As an individual, it is now clear that he never existed, but it is unlikely that his popularity will ever diminish.

 

Part Two: Also like Constantine XI

 

 “The inability to locate the emperor’s [Constantine XI’s] body led to myths that he had not died. Just as King Arthur is taken to Avalon before he can die so he can be healed of his wound and allowed to return again, so Constantine is preserved from death so he can return. In one such legend, an angel rescues the emperor as the Ottomans enter the city”.

 Tyler R. Tichelaar

 

According to Tyler R. Tichelaar, similarities can also be detected between King Arthur and Constantine XI Palaeologus (also spelled Palaiologos), considered to have been the last of the Byzantine emperors (1449-1453 AD, conventional dating):

https://childrenofarthur.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/constantine-xi-king-arthurs-last-mythical-descendant/

 

Constantine XI: King Arthur’s Last Mythical Descendant

….

I recently returned from a wonderful trip to the beautiful country of Turkey. I knew Turkey was filled with ancient history—the ruins of Ephesus, Troy, etc.—but I have always been most fascinated with the Byzantines, or the Greeks or Romans, as they called themselves. I am also struck by the similarities between Camelot and Constantinople, and particularly between King Arthur and Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor. Just as Camelot was the brief shining moment before Britain was conquered by the Saxons, so Constantinople was the last remnant of the great Roman Empire which had once ruled most of the known world, including Britain. The city’s fall to the Turks in 1453 marked the end of the Roman Empire, which had stretched on for over 2,000 years.

Constantine XI, the last emperor, had a tragic ending that inspired great myths similar to those of King Arthur, so while the two were not necessarily related, although Constantine XI was named for Constantine the Great, and Arthur is often believed to be a relative or descendant of Constantine the Great, Constantine XI may be deemed a mythical or literary descendant of King Arthur in how they are both depicted as leaders who may come again.

Constantine’s tragedy lies not only in the Fall of Constantinople, but that he was the last emperor, without even an heir. He had two wives but no children, his second wife dying in childbirth. Similarly, Arthur had no children who survived him. His end is more tragic in that his son, Mordred, and he slew each other, but nevertheless, both leaders’ endings spelled the end of an era.

The people of Constantinople, the city being all that was left of an empire, held out under siege by Mehmet II for fifty-three days before the city finally fell. In the city’s last hours, Constantine would have prayed inside Hagia Sophia before going to fight with his people as the city walls were beaten down.

….

What happened to the emperor once the city fell has become the stuff of legend. The emperor’s body was never found, or if it were, it was not recorded. One source states that Constantine’s last words were, “The city is fallen and I am still alive,” and then he tore off his imperial ornaments so he could not be distinguished from the other soldiers and made a final charge at the enemy. According to Roger Crowley in his wonderful book about the Fall of Constantinople, 1453, Constantine was very aware that he would go down in history as the emperor who let the city fall, so he may not have wanted to be identified because of the shame he felt, and he also would not have wanted to be taken alive and forced into shameful positions of submission before the conqueror, Mehmet II.

One story claims that Constantine was identified by his purple boots, and that his body was decapitated and his head sent around Asia Minor as proof of Mehmet II’s victory, but more likely, his body was never identified and he died in a mass grave with the rest of his soldiers.

The inability to locate the emperor’s body led to myths that he had not died. Just as King Arthur is taken to Avalon before he can die so he can be healed of his wound and allowed to return again, so Constantine is preserved from death so he can return. In one such legend, an angel rescues the emperor as the Ottomans enter the city. The angel turns Constantine into marble and places him under the earth in a cave near the Golden Gate where he waits to be brought back to life to re-conquer the city for the Christians.

Just as the British have hoped for Arthur to return in their hour of greatest need—during World War II, the myth was especially prevalent—the Greeks have held onto the dream of Constantine’s return.

….

During the Balkan Wars and Greco-Turkish War in the early twentieth century, the name of the then Greek King, Constantine, was used to see him as part of a prophetic myth that Constantine had returned. Although Constantine XII failed to return Constantinople to Christian hands, similar British efforts have been made to recreate King Arthur through another monarch of the same name, such as King John’s nephew in the thirteenth century being named Prince Arthur, to the brother of Henry VIII who was also Prince Arthur, and even the speculation that current Prince William will use his middle name Arthur when he someday ascends the throne of Britain.

Constantine’s return seems very unlikely to me, especially when Istanbul is a thriving busy city of nearly 20 million today, and a largely Westernized if Turkish city. Had Constantine not been the last emperor, doubtless one soon after him would have been, but his myth speaks to the affection his people had for him, that they did not wish him ill or blame him for the loss of Constantinople, but rather they see him as a tragic hero, just as Arthur lives affectionately in the British people’s bosoms.

________________________

Tyler R. Tichelaar, Ph.D. is the author of King Arthur’s Children: A Study in Fiction and Tradition, available at www.ChildrenofArthur.com

Croesus and Montezuma. Part Two: Montezuma and early Genesis

Published December 14, 2017 by amaic
Image result for king montezuma and flood

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“The first days of the world … were happy and peaceful days.”

Then came a great flood, “from which Montezuma and the coyote alone escaped.

Montezuma became then very wicked, and attempted to build a house that would reach to heaven, but the Great Spirit destroyed it with thunderbolts.”

 

 

As strongly hinted at in this series, both king Croesus of Lydia and Montezuma (Moctezuma), the emperor of the Aztecs, are fictitious characters.

And that impression becomes more manifest as we learn that a Montezuma of native American (Apache) tradition was a Genesis-like composite figure (Adam, Noah, Nimrod). For example: https://111booksfor2011.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/montezuma-and-the-great-flood/

 

Montezuma and the Great Flood

….

The Great Mystery Power created the Earth and created a big hole. He created a shape out of clay and dropped it into the hole. Out of the hole came Montezuma, followed by all the Indian tribes. Montezuma taught them the things that they should know, how to make baskets and so forth. The Earth was good. There was no winter and not a lot of anything bad to speak of.

Coyote told Montezuma that there would be a flood and that he should make a canoe for when it happened. The flood did happen, and luckily, Montezuma had made his canoe and so did Coyote. They found a piece of land sticking up and both went to it. They looked in the west, the east, and the south, only to find no dry land anywhere, but they found some in the north. The Great Mystery Power began to make people again, as they had died, and put Montezuma in charge of them all.

After a time, Montezuma decided he was a divine power himself. He should rule everything. Coyote was not his equal, but below him. Montezuma said he was the great creator power and that there was no Great Mystery Power. He commanded the people to build a tall tower for him. It went up and up and up.

Things started to change. Good turned to evil. The sun was pushed further away as a warning to Montezuma from the Great Mystery Power and now there was winter. The grand house rose higher and higher, but the Great Mystery Power made the Earth tremble and the house collapsed. When the tower fell, no one could understand each other or the animals. Montezuma vowed that he would tell the people not to worship the Great Mystery Power or to make sacrifices to it. The Great Mystery Power sent men over from a strange land to take over the land of Montezuma. These men came with metal and they were hairy and that was the end of Montezuma’s reign. ….

 

Similarly, Emmet Sweenet tells:

http://www.hyksos.org/index.php?title=Vortigern:_Legendary_Tyrant_King_of_Early_Britai

 

In Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, his wonderful compendium of lore and speculation, Ignatius Donnelly comments on a legend of the Apaches, which spoke of the world’s creation. “The first days of the world,” we are told, “were happy and peaceful days.” Then came a great flood, “from which Montezuma and the coyote alone escaped. Montezuma became then very wicked, and attempted to build a house that would reach to heaven, but the Great Spirit destroyed it with thunderbolts.” (Donnelly, Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, pp. 117-118. From Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. 3, p. 76)

 

The “house” which Montezuma attempts to build “that would reach to heaven” is elsewhere encountered in Native American tradition where it is specifically identified as a tower, and it is clear that in this story the Apaches have pieced together elements of recent history – including recent history not directly theirs – and combined these with an extremely ancient tradition, one dating from shortly after the Deluge. In biblical tradition, the Tower of Babel (the account of which directly precedes the Abraham narrative) is built in the years after the Deluge. ….

 

The following article also shows just how Genesis-based are some early traditions of America:

http://wyattmuseum.com/mythsof-the-americas/2011-591

 

“Myths”of the Americas

 

…. the mythology, religious beliefs and legends passed down through the ages (especially those about the creation of man and a massive flood) are absolutely fascinating and present evidence that is impossible to explain except in the context of the Biblical account.

“The tradition of Paradise and the Fall has been disseminated in one form or another among virtually all the races on earth since time immemorial. It should not be forgotten that the idea of evolution is only a thing of yesterday, unconnected with the thoughts and verbal traditions of past peoples and periods and diametrically opposed to the ideas of primitive races still alive today.” (MGM, p. 70).

Knowledge of the True Creator

 

Soon after arriving at Plymouth Rock, Edward Winslow was authorized, on March 22, 1621, to negotiate with the Indian “king” Massassoit and form a treaty. In later discussions with the Indians: “When Winslow told the natives of the God of the Christians they replied that this was very good, because they believed the same things of their own god, Kiehtan. Kiehtan… was the creator of all things and dwelt far away in the western skies. He also created one man and one woman, and through them the whole of humanity, but it was not known how mankind had become so widely scattered.” (MGM, p. 94).

More was learned about the religion of the natives of the Americas, and these beliefs were recorded BEFORE any missionaries had come to “enlighten” the “poor savages”. The Alacaluf who inhabited the islands at the southern tip of South America “believed in a supreme being whom they called Xolas or Kolas. The word Xolas means “star”… The Alacaluf’s supreme being is a pure spirit. God, who has never possessed a body, existed before the creation of the world, plants, animals and human beings, and is an independent, self-sustaining spirit. The Alacaluf believed in the perpetuity of this supreme being and in his fundamental kindliness.” (ibid., p. 115).

The Selknam (South America) spoke of their high god, Temaukl, with deep sincerity and great conviction. He is also referred to as “The One in heaven” or “That One There Above”, who, being a spirit, requires no food, drink, sleep, etc. He lives above the firmament, beyond the stars and never comes down to earth; yet he knows all that happens. “He created the earth and the empty void, but the various forms of existence were created by the first man, K’enos” (Adam). (It seems as if somewhere along the line, Adam got credit for actually “creating” when in actuality all he did was “name” everything). They further believe that their god “gave his people laws, precepts and commandments which were transmitted to them by K’enos”. And that “All men’s subsequently acquired knowledge and abilities were transmitted to them by K’enos”. (MGM, p. 118, 1190).

“Among the native peoples of the American continent, a firmly anchored belief in the supreme being exists principally among tribes whose culture has preserved its ancient cast.” (Ibid., p. 87) “The Deity of the Pawnees is Atius Tirawa (father spirit). He is an intangible spirit, omnipotent and beneficent. He pervades the universe, and is its supreme ruler. Upon his will depends everything that happens. He can bring good luck or bad; he can give success of failure. Everything rests with him. As a natural consequence of this conception of the Deity, the Pawnees are a very religious people. Nothing is undertaken without a prayer to the Father for assistance. (George Bird Grinnell, “Pawnee Mythology”, Journal of American Folk-Lore, VI, 1893, p. 114.)

In the myths of the Wiyot, the supreme being, Gudatrigakwitl, (Above Old Man), is the creator, who needed “no sand, earth, clay or sticks for the creation of man. God merely thought, and man was there.” God also “thought” a woman for him. They also believe the first men were bad and had to die. “God still lives today”, they say. He is immortal. (MGM, p. 88).

The East Pomo of northern California called the supreme being Marumda. He lived alone in a house of clouds in the North and created all things. But, the first men were evil and had acquired too much power- “they could fly”. So, Marumda summoned the great waters and only a few families escaped destruction, and God admonished these to “do better in the future”. (ibid., p. 89).

The Thompson Indians, the Lillooet and the Shuswap all have a profound belief in the supreme god whom they call the “Old One”, or “Old Man”. They also referred to him as the “Great Chief” or “Mystery”. Their beliefs go a step further (as do many others) and include a “mediator” called “Coyote”.

There is literally no end to the list of native people, from the Eskimos in the far north to the natives at the south end of South America, whose original beliefs were of a god who can only be the True God, the Creator. Yet, these people had no contact with the rest of the world when these beliefs were first discovered by the Europeans.

The Flood and the Tower of Babel

 

The Aztec nation, located in southern Mexico, claimed they had lived somewhere in northwestern Mexico or the southwestern US for over 1,000 years before migrating south …. Most of our knowledge of these people comes from the Aztec sacred books, known as “codices”, which were kept in their temples and which the native Aztec historians used when they wrote their chronicles. In the first half of the 1500’s, the Aztec chieftain Ixtlilxochitl, wrote “Ixtlilxochitl Relaciones”, a history relating the archives of his family and the ancient writings of his Aztec nation. He claims they were descendants to the Toltecs, who had passed down the following tale. In this account, Ixtlilxochitl presents the most complete and accurate account of the flood and events at Babel that have ever been found in ANY ancient civilization other than the Biblical account:

“It is found in the histories of the Toltecs that this age and first world, as they call it, lasted 1716 years; that men were destroyed by tremendous rains and lightning from the sky, and even all the land without the exception of anything, and the highest mountains, were covered up and submerged in water “caxtolmolatli” (translated to read “fifteen cubits”); and here they added other fables of how men came to multiply from the few who escaped from this destruction in a “toptlipetlocali;” that this word nearly signifies a close chest; and how, after men had multiplied, they erected a very high “zacuali”, which is to-day a tower of great height, in order to take refuge in it should the second world (age) be destroyed. Presently their languages were confused, and, not being able to understand each other, they went to different parts of the earth….

The Toltecs, consisting of seven friends, with their wives, who understood the same language, came to the parts, having first passed great land and seas, having lived in caves, and having endured great hardships in order to reach this land;… they wandered 104 years through different parts of the world before they reached Hue Hue Tlapalan, which was in Ce Tecpatl, 520 years after the Flood.” (IR, vol. Ix, pp. 321,322.)

This is MORE than an absolutely AMAZING account! Not only is the flood, the ark and the tower at Babel recalled, the number of years related is extremely close! The Biblical account places the flood at 1,656 years after creation week, while this account places it 1,716 years into the “first age”, a mere +60 years off. Then, this account states that it took 104 years for the 7 friends to reach their new location, not stating where they left from, BUT that they BEGAN THEIR JOURNEY WHEN THE LANGUAGES WERE CONFUSED. Then, it states that they arrived 520 years after the flood. Since they journeyed 104 years, that means began to travel 416 years after the flood. Now, we have no way to compare these dates EXCEPT in the context of the statement about the earth being “divided” during the “days” of Peleg. The Biblical account indicates that Peleg died 338 years after the flood, which makes the time of their departure only about +78 years off. And since their date for the flood is +60 years late, if we correct their departure date by +60 years, we find it to be only +18 years off. Absolutely incredible! An account written in the 1500s, relating information in Aztec records of events over 3,500 years ago, mixed in with all the other pagan myths and legends of their religion, and it is the most accurate account found anywhere else on earth that I have been able to find.

 

Papago Indian Story of the Tower at Babel

 

In 1875 and 1876, Hubert Howe Bancroft wrote a 5 volume encyclopedia on the American west, the largest collection of information on this subject, entitled “The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America”. In here, he relates another of the rare instances when the remembrance of the Tower at Babel lives on in the legends of an ancient people, the Papago Indians of Arizona: “The wild Apaches, `wild from their natal hour’, have a legend that `the first days of the world were happy and peaceful days;’ then came a great flood from which Montezuma became then very wicked, and attempted to build a house that would reach to heaven, but the Great Spirit destroyed it with thunderbolts.” (Native Races… vol. iii, p. 76.) Also in this legend mention is made of the fact that the earth was warmer in “those days” (before the flood); that all men, as well as animals shared a common tongue; and that Montezuma and his friend, the coyote were saved from drowning in a boat.

 

Story of the Rainbow After the Flood

 

The “rainbow” is included in the flood legend of the Chibcha Indians of South America. “Bochica” came from the east and traveled the earth, creating all things and imposing laws. He then disappeared into the west leaving his footprint on a rock. Following him was “Chie” whose teaching contradicted his own and who urged men to rejoice and make merry. “Bochica” then turned the evil “Chie” into an owl as punishment. But in retaliation, “Chie” helped “Chibchachum” bring a great flood. When the flood came, many people prayed and “Bochia” came and opened a breach in the earth to allow the waters to escape. When he appeared, he was sitting on a rainbow. (WM, p. 486.)

After the Flood, A Freezing, Snowing Cold Country

 

There is also a legend which gives solid evidence of the snow and cold after the flood. In 1836, Constantine Samuel Rafinesque wrote a work on the “Lenni-Lenapi” or Delaware Indians and their legends. It is called “The American Nations” and is found today in “The Lenaapae and Their Legends”, translated by Daniel Garrison Brinton, published by Scholarly Press, 1972. This particular legend begins by telling of a time “when there was nothing but sea-water on top of the land,” followed by the creation of the sun, moon, stars and man. Then, came the “golden age” followed by “the fall: “All were willingly pleased, all were easy-thinking, and all were well-happified. But after a while a snake-priest, Powako, brings on earth secretly the snake-worship (Initako) of the god of the snakes, Wakon. And there came wickedness, crime and unhappiness. And bad weather was coming, distemper was coming, and death was coming. All this happened very long ago at the first land, Netamaki, beyond the great ocean Kitahikau.”

Next follows “the Song of the Flood”, of which the following is an excerpt…. “Much water is rushing, much go to hills, much penetrate, much destroying.” After telling of “Nana-bush” who “becomes the ancestor of beings and men”, the next song tells of the condition of man after the flood.: “It freezes was there; it snows was there; it is cold was there.” They go to a milder region divide into tillers and hunter. It makes perfect sense that we should find reference to the snow, freezing and ice among these people- they traveled through it, while those nearer to Babel may not have even been aware of its existence.

 

A Belief in “Resurrection”

 

In writing about the Algonkin tribes in a letter dated August 16, 1683, William Penn wrote:

“They believe in a God and Immortality, for they say, there is a King that made them, who dwells in a glorious country Southward of them, and that the Souls of the Good shall go thither, where they shall live again. (MGM, p. 94).

One of the Thompson Indian myths relates the following:

“The Old Man says to the Coyote: `Soon I am going to leave the earth. You will not return again until I myself do so. You shall then accompany me, and we will change things in the world, and bring back the dead to the land of the living.” (Ibid., p. 91.)

In 1922, Sir James George Frazer wrote of an experience he had with the Incas of Peru- he wrote that they:

“took extreme care to preserve the nail-parings and the hairs that were shorn off or torn out with a comb; placing them in holes or niches in the walls; and if they fell out, any other Indian that saw them picked them up and put them in the places again. I very often asked different Indians, at various times, why they did this, in order to see what they would say, and they all replied in the same words, saying, `Know that all persons who are born must return to life’ (they have no word to express resurrection), `and the souls must rise out of their tombs with all that belonged to their bodies.’”.

In the same paragraph, he writes of a virtually identical belief held by the people who today inhabit the exact same area that Noah and his family lived:

“Similarly the Turks never throw away the parings of their nails, but carefully stow them in cracks of the walls or of the boards, in the belief that they will be needed at the resurrection. The Armenians do not throw away their cut hair and nails and extracted teeth, but hide them in places that are esteemed holy, such as a crack in the church wall, a pillar of the house, or a hollow tree. They think that all these severed portions of themselves will be wanted at the resurrection, and that he who has not stowed them away in a safe place will have to hunt about for them on the great day.” (GB, p. 236).

In the Americas, we also find most of the ancient myths and legends to contain a tremendous amount of sheer nonsense, full of mythical monsters and gods in the forms of animals. But much can be learned from their legends concerning their original beliefs as to where they came from, the flood, creation, and etc. As Solomon said, “There is no new thing under the sun.”- only variations on a theme. By studying the ancient beliefs of the Americas, we can clearly see they began with the knowledge possessed by the ancestors of these people who originated with Noah and his descendants.

 

“There is No New Thing Under the Sun”

 

Solomon wrote: ECC 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and THERE IS NO NEW THING UNDER THE SUN. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath already been of old time, which was before us. All knowledge possessed by mankind comes from 2 sources- that which is of God, and the corruption of true knowledge, passed on by Satan to those who will listen. ECC 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Why does man “seek out” his own “many inventions”? Men (and women), “puffed up” with pride and the belief that they possess “great wisdom and knowledge”, have led great masses of people to their eternal destruction. ISA 9:16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. And still today, as down through the ages, man still looks to the “learned men” to tell them “what is truth”.

Satan Wanted to Be Like God- So Do Men

 

The root of Satan’s fall was that he wanted to be like God: ISA 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Satan wanted, and still wants, to be worshiped as God; and he “inspires” men to desire the same. Down through the ages from the very beginning, there have been those who, even though they claimed to be followers of God, were unsatisfied with His Truth and who sought to “change” it into something pleasing to them: MAT 15:9 But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And once a person has given up his love for the truth, God’s Spirit no longer strives with them and they are unable to distinguish His Truth from Satan’s lies: ROM 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate [without or void of judgment] mind,… Satan puts whatever he wants into the minds of those who “love not the truth”, and the poor souls think they are brilliant and wise. And there are always a multitude ever ready to follow them: MAT 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Satan’s desire to be “like God” fuels his hatred towards all mankind, even those whom he has successfully deceived. Once we understand his motivation, we can see the “whole picture”- the corrupted ancient myths reflect Satan’s frantic effort to completely eradicate all knowledge of the True God from earth. They as well demonstrate man’s wholehearted cooperation in this evil work all the while convinced of their own superior “intelligence”, as Paul here explains: ROM 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Nothing demonstrates this quite so well, I believe, as studying the history books- the “learned scholars” of our present “enlightened age”, with their “superior knowledge”, go to great lengths to try to explain the ancient civilizations, “analyzing” the psychology behind their “myths” of creation, the great flood, the tower at Babel, and so on. Solomon also wrote something else: ECC 10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.

 

Horrible Histories: Unreal Urartians

Published December 13, 2017 by amaic

Exotic Eastern Anatolia & the Urartians (Lost Kingdom)

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

 

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.27) 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) …”.

 

Horrible Histories: Missing Mitannians

Published December 12, 2017 by amaic

Image result for 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.