Horrible Histories: Missing 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”. Dr Glenn Godenho Introduction Professor Gunnar Heinsohn (University of Bremen) (RIP) 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 Emmet 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. Lester 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 Medo-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). …. This extraordinary situation prompted me to write an article: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology https://www.academia.edu/113128144/Medo_Persian_history_has_no_adequate_archaeology Enigma of the Mitannians Now, in their attempt to counteract what they have perceived to be the serious 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 seemed 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” (Dr. Glenn Godenho). This is worrying, considering the host of uncertainties surrounding the Hittites. Again we read: 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”. And: 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 various of his unlikely conclusions - paved the way for an answer to this question in one of his intriguing claims: namely, that the Mitannian king, Parratarna, was the powerful Amorite, Shamshi Adad I (c. 1809-1766, conventional dating)? This one, I believe, is worthy of further investigation. 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). Emmet Sweeney has duly suggested that Ishme-Dagan I was the Mitannian, Shaushtatar, son of Parratarna. Emmet Sweeney’s bold suggestion that the Mitannian king, Parratarna, was the mighty Assyrian king, Shamshi Adad I, actually accords well with what I have already determined about the biblical King Hiram, that he was both (i) Idrimi, a contemporary of Parratarna, and (ii) Iarim-Lim, a contemporary of Shamsi-Adad I. The latter was the greatest of the kings in his day ruling the regions of Assyria and Syria, whilst Parratarna was the greatest of the kings of his day ruling the same approximate region: “Mitanni” (see map above). Moreover, it seems to make some sense to have the until-now obscure Mitannians filling in the apparently blank period of Assyrian history that occurs not long after Shamsi-Adad I, and that lasts until the El Amarna period, when Assuruballit is known to have ruled Assyria. Historian Marc van de Mieroop has a large gap in his Assyrian “King Lists” on p. 294 of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East, between: Isme-Dagan I (1775-) Assurubalit (1363-28) A massive four centuries of nothing! The Mitannian dynasty of Parratarna could perhaps nicely fill up this gap. Mitanni’s great king, Parratarna (or Parshatar, etc.), 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. Mackey’s comment: That I no longer follow the conventional Neo-Assyrian sequence - adopted here also by Emmet Sweeney - of Ashurnasirpal as the father of Shalmaneser, is apparent from e.g. my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (3) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences Emmet Sweeney continues: 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, a contemporary of King David’s) - would now appear to make perfect chronological - and probably geographical - sense. Regarding the revised era of Shamsi-Adad I, see e.g. my article: Khabur ware dates to the era of Shamsi-adad I and Hammurabi (9) Khabur ware dates to the era of Shamsi-adad I and Hammurabi And it is now also possible 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 my reconstructions, 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). Emmet 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 foe, 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.". …. 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. …. Some conclusions about Mitanni The Kingdom of Mitanni was simply, I think, the Syro-Amorite (Amurru of El Amarna) kingdom created by the mighty Shamsi-Adad I, centred on the Khabur region, and stretching from Nineveh in the E across to the Syrian coast in the NW. It is probably signified archaeologically by Khabur Ware pottery. But it belonged to the era of King David (c. 1000 BC), rather than to the chronologically inappropriate c. 1800 BC of conventional estimations. Shamsi-Adad I was none other than David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer (Dean Hickman). Mitanni was no more an Indo-European (so-called Hurrian) polity than was Abdi-hiba, El Amarna’s king of Urusalim (Jerusalem), a Hurrian. The latter was the Jewish king, Jehoram (Peter James), apparently a respecter of Hurrian gods, or goddesses in the case of Hiba (Hebat). It I wrong, so I think, to call them Hurro-Mitannians and say that the Mitannians were Hurrian speaking. The Hurrian factor The Hurrian language is “neither an Indo-European language nor a Semitic language”: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hurrian-language It may be (or be related to) the Cretan language, which Dr. Peter Revesz has cleverly interpreted as belonging to the West-Ugric family of languages: Hungarian academic in Nebraska deciphers Cretan Linear A (9) Hungarian academic in Nebraska deciphers Cretan Linear A This was almost certainly the strong Philistine influence - when Hurrian flourished - at the time of kings David and Shamsi-Adad I, and also during the El Amarna [EA] period. Kings David and Jehoram of Judah (who is Abdi-hiba of EA), both had notable conflicts with the Philistines. For the wide-ranging Philistine connections (Cherethites; Pelethites; Carians; Cretans; and so on), see my recent article: An early study of Philistine origins (8) An early study of Philistine origins See also my article: “Minoans” were basically the Philistines (8) “Minoans” were basically the Philistines It does not mean, therefore, that the Syro-Mitannians, no doubt a Semitic people, spoke Hurrian, but just that the foreign language had intruded into their own. That the Mitannian kingdom relied heavily on its chariots is most appropriate, if Shamsi-Adad I was Hadadezer. For, as we read in 2 Samuel 8:3-4: Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah, when he went to restore his monument at the Euphrates River. David captured a 1,000 of his chariots, 7,000 charioteers and 20,000 foot soldiers. He hamstrung all but a 100 of the chariot horses. I would, therefore, partly agree with the following: http://www.worldhistory.biz/ancient-history/66326-mitanni.html “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”, but not necessarily with the next bit: “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”. Urartu The Hurrians are often also termed, Hurro-Urartians. But Brock Heathcotte, solving the problem of the Mitannian capital of Wassukkani, has insisted that Mitanni and Urartu were the same place. Here is some of what he has written: “The second connection, Assuwa with Assur is also a no-brainer for the same reasons. “Wa” can be pronounced “r” so Assuwa is pronounced the same as Assur”. Brock Heathcotte Taken from Tugdamme the Hittite, Brock Heathcotte (January 28, 2017, Chapter 13): Identifying Other Enemies: Mitanni = Urartu and Assuwa = Assur Barry Curnock explained all the evidence establishing that Mitanni and Urartu are the same place in great detail in his unpublished work, and it cannot be improved upon. Suffice to say there have only been two major Hurrian-speaking nations in the past three millennia—the Mitanni of Hittite records [sic] and Urartu of the Assyrian records. The former was conquered by the Hittites, according to Hittite records, and the latter was conquered by the Cimmerians, Scythians and Medes according to Assyrian records. Modern historians confused by mistaken chronology don’t know exactly where to locate the Kingdom of Mitanni on a map of the Mideast. They end up placing it geographically northwest of Assyria inside the bend of the Euphrates river. Everyone knows Urartu was on the northern border of Assyria. But mapping is of little consequence. Moving the Hittites to the time when Urartu was a major kingdom leaves no room for doubt that Mitanni and Urartu are the same place. The allegedly missing capital city of Mitanni, Wassukanni, is not really missing at all. It was the Urartian capital city of Rusakina. Recall that Hittite “wa” was pronounced, if at all, as “r.” The second connection, Assuwa with Assur is also a no-brainer for the same reasons. “Wa” can be pronounced “r” so Assuwa is pronounced the same as Assur. Assuwa is the Hittite name for a place mentioned in two documents, the Annals of Tudhalia, and Ahhiyawa Text AhT 6. According to those documents, Assuwa was a late 8th Century leader of many small Anatolian nations or peoples. That sounds like Assyria under Sargon II. According to the Annals of Tudhaliya, the following sequence of events happened: Tudhaliya defeated the 22 allies, apparently allies of Assuwa; Tudhaliya destroyed Assuwa; Someone named Kukkuli raised a large army from Assuwa and led an uprising; The gods defeated Kukkuli and killed him; Tudhaliya was in the country of Assuwa to fight; Kaskans entered Hatti behind him and devastated the land; Tudhaliya returned to Hattusa and fought the Kaskans. Clearly Tudhaliya’s victory over Assuwa did not conquer a nation called Assuwa which seems to be a powerful place even after Tudhaliya “destroyed” it. Where did this land go? Why was it not mentioned again except in reference to the victory of Tudhaliya? It was probably not mentioned again because Assuwa was later written as Assur. Which means, of course, that it was mentioned again, just written differently. Scholars say Assuwa was a confederation of western Anatolian kingdoms that was conquered by Tudhaliya and became the namesake for the land the Romans later called Asia. Assuwa = Asia. Their conclusion is based almost entirely on a desire that one of the 22 Assuwan allies called Wilusiya should be the same as Wilusa which they want against all odds to be the same as Ilios of the Homeric epics. But when you think about that it seems preposterous. The nation and name Assuwa was lost to history about 1400 but reappeared over a millennia later to become the Roman province of Asia, c. 130? Really? Regardless of the wordplay, there was no such thing as a confederation of Asian monarchies predating the Greek Ionian and Aeolian leagues. The existence of such a confederation would imply the famous Greek leagues of city-states followed in the footsteps of petty Asian kings, which is patently absurd. Greek democrats invented citystate leagues, not Asian kings. Perhaps the Assuwa “league” was a group of Asian vassals led by a major power. But who was that major power? Not Lydia. We know their history well enough to know that can’t be, not before Gyges. Not Phrygia. It was never the hegemon of all western Anatolia. Not Ahhiyawa. They apparently were junior allies of Assuwa based on what’s written in AhT 6. Who was this major power of western Anatolia defeated by the Hittites in 1400? Nobody truly fits. There was a major Anatolian power defeated by the Hittites in the 8th and 7th Centuries—Assur. When you move the Hittites to the later dates advocated here, the land of Ahhiyawa must be found to be in Cilicia, as described earlier. And, if Ahhiyawa is in Cilicia, then Wilusa is in or near Cilicia too. (Eliaussa seems like a reasonable choice.) So, there is no reason to place the Assuwa “league” of allies in western Anatolia anyway. It should be near Cilicia. The Assyrian Empire was near Cilicia, and in fact, AhhiyawaQue was an Assyrian ally. It all adds up to Assuwa being Assur. Which of the several Tudhaliyas wrote the Annals of Tudhaliya is another interesting question. Historians first believed it was Tudhaliya IV near the end of the Hittite New Kingdom. Later they changed their minds and declared it was Tudhaliya II at the very beginning of the New Kingdom. But maybe it was Tudhaliya III, grandfather of Mursili II. There are similarities between the campaigns described in the Annals of Tudhaliya and those described in the Deeds of Suppiluliuma involving Tudhaliya III. That question requires further study. ….