Compendium of World History

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY VOLUME 1 by Herman L. Hoeh 1962 (1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One ..... The Modern Interpretation of History A Radical New View How History Is Written Not Without Bias A Case History "Anything but Historical Truth" History Involves Interpretation The Truth about the "Historical Method" Evidence of God Rejected as "Myth" History Cut from Its Moorings Chapter Two ..... 6000 Years of History It Is Never Safe to Assume No "Prehistory" of Man Cultures, Not "Ages" Origin of the Study of History Historians Follow the Higher Critics Framework of History Founded on Egypt Is Egyptian History Correct? Distorting History Chapter Three ..... History Begins at Babel History Corroborates the Bible On To Egypt The Chronology of Dynasty I Shem in Egypt Dynasty II of Thinis Joseph and the Seven Years' Famine The Exodus Pharaoh of the Exodus Dynasty IV -- The Pyramid Builders

Chapter Four ..... The Missing Half of Egypt's History The Story Unfolds Moses the General History of Upper Egypt The Great Theban Dynasty XII Who Was Rameses? Chapter Five ..... Egypt After the Exodus Who Were the Invaders? The Great Shepherds Hyksos in Book of Sothis Amalekites after 1076 Chapter Six ..... The Revival of Egypt Dynasty XVIII The Biblical Parallel Shishak Captures Jerusalem Who Was Zerah the Ethiopian? Dynasty XVIII in Manetho The Book of Sothis Chapter Seven ..... The Era of Confusion Egypt As It Really Was The Later Eighteenth Dynasty Manetho's Evidence The El-Amarna Letters Are the "Habiru" Hebrews? After El-Amarna Chapter Eight ..... Egypt to the Persian Conquest The "Israel" Inscription The "Thirteen Fatal Years" Nebuchadnezzar and Ramesses the Great Catching Up Loose Ends Dynasty XXV, the Ethiopians Dynasty XXVI of Sais Manetho's Account of Dynasty XXVI Book of Sothis and Dynasty XXVI Another Look at the Book of Sothis Appearance of Dynasty XXIV of Sais Who Was Usimare Piankhi? Dynasty XXIII of Tanis Dynasty XXII of Bubastis So-called Dynasty XXII Dynasty XXI of Tanis What Eratosthenes Revealed Chapter Nine ..... The Eclipse of Egypt Answer in Ezekiel Persian Kings of Egypt Egypt Rebels And Now Dynasty XX of Thebes

Chapter Ten ..... It Began at Babel Mesopotamia Rediscovered What Archaeologists Learned Analyzing the Sumerian King List History Continues at Erech Chapter Eleven ..... Berossus and Babylonian History Another Account of Earliest Dynasties First Dynasty of Ur and Successors Now Sargon of Akkad Dynasties IV and V of Erech The Guti Dynasty Three Other Dynasties Dynasty III of Ur Dynasty of Isin Dynasty IV of Kish and the "400 Years" Dynasty of Akshak Dates of Queen Ku-Baba Chapter Twelve ..... Hammurabi to the Fall of Babylon Why Hammurabi Dated Early The Dynasty of Larsa When Did Hammurabi Reign Damiq-ilishu Reappears' Nebuchadnezzar the First Era of Nabonassar Three Succeeding Dynasties Chapter Thirteen ..... History of Assyria Later Assyrian Kings Who Was Shalmaneser? Predecessors of Shalmaneser III King Pul and the Bible Tiglath-pileser I and Thutmose III Chapter Fourteen ..... History of Assyria Concluded The Kassite Dynasty The Earliest Kassites The First 1000 Years of Assyrian History Analyzing the King List Chapter Fifteen ..... Media, India, Japan and China The Revolts of the Medes History of Early India Early Indian Kings of Magadha Scythia and the History of Japan History of China Chapter Sixteen ..... Asia Minor and the West Modern Mythology Beginnings of History The Proof of Language The Proof of Race The Kingdom of Mitanni and the Hurrians Who Were the Hurrians? Phrygians and Hatti

Chapter Seventeen ..... How Greek History Was Corrupted Greeks Admit Homer Was Demented The Plot Centers on Troy Homer and the Lydian Kings Restoring Greek History Kings of Corinth The History of Athens The History of Sicyon Enter Sparta Who Were the Heraclidae? The History of Argos Genealogy of Danaus Sea Powers of Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean The History of Italy Chapter Eighteen ..... The History of Ireland How Confusion Arose in Irish History The First 1000 Years The Coming of the Milesians Did David Visit Ireland? Jerimiah Goes to Ireland The Milesian Kings The Throne in Scotland Chapter Nineteen ..... Early Britain and Western Europe The Enigma Solved Early Europe The Heraclidae Kings The Trojans and Western Europe The Testimony of Archaeology Chapter Twenty ..... The Proof of Archaeology Archaeology in the Aegean World Palestine, Syria and Archaeology The Coming of Israel into Palestine Mesopotamian Archaeology Northern Mesopotamia Egypt in Parallel Bibliography --------------------

CHAPTER ONE The Modern Interpretation of History By what authority have historians left God and the Bible out of history? This question may come as a surprise. Many are unaware that a radically new interpretation of history is being taught in schools and colleges today. It is a history of the world in which God and the supernatural are rejected. It is impossible to believe BOTH this history AND the Bible. Both cannot be right. The modern interpretation of world history stands in open conflict with Scripture. How did this conflict arise? When did history forget God and become confused? Why are historians so sharply divided into opposing schools over the chronological events of the ancient world? A Radical New View What many do not realize is that the modern world-view of history without God is a radically new interpretation of human experience. Almost no one today, it seems, has ever questioned whether this new interpretation is right. It is merely assumed to be right. Students in particular -- and the public in general -- have been led to believe that archaeologists, historians, scientists and theologians live with full assurance and in absolute conviction that this new interpretation of HISTORY WITHOUT GOD is correct. Nothing could be farther from the truth! One would be shocked to hear the candid admissions and private confessions of learned scholars. These men appear to write and speak with confidence. They are assumed to know the answers to history's greatest questions: how did man originate? why is man here? where is man going? But they do not know. They have no scientific way of discovering the answers. They are only guessing! One famous historian -- Hendrik Van Loon -- dared to confess this in his book "Story of Mankind". Here are his candid words: "We live under the shadow of a gigantic question mark. What are we? Where did we come from? Whither are we bound?" And his answer: "We still know very little but we have reached the point where (with a fair degree of accuracy) we can guess at many things." Astounding -- but true! Yet these guesses are masquerading today as authoritative interpretations of history!

How History Is Written Casual readers would be shocked to learn how history books are prepared. It is usually assumed that history is solely a matter of collecting factual material, judiciously evaluating it, and recording it for posterity. "Nothing could be farther from the truth," warns C. W. Ceram in "Secret of the Hittites," p. 119. A historian is not a scribe, but a JUDGE of the evidence that is brought before him. He is his own final authority. He is not judged by, but sits in judgment of, history. Whatever evidence does not conform to the commonly accepted beliefs of the age or community in which he lives

he summarily rejects! History, in other words, is based only on that part of evidence which agrees with the prevailing opinions of the society in which a historian lives. These may be shocking evaluations, but they are true. World-history texts prove it. Historians admit it! "The SELECTION of sources still rests upon the discretion of the individual historian. What he chooses as relevant depends upon his conception of the period he is studying. In this the historian is limited by his own temperament and guided by the spirit of his age." So writes C. W. Ceram in the previously mentioned volume, on page 119. Is there any wonder that different nations and peoples have divergent histories of the same events?

Not Without Bias Take as an example the history of the Second World War. Communist historians write only those facts about the war that can be shaped to suit the aims of the Communist Party. Japanese historians view the episode at Pearl Harbor quite differently from Americans. Even in America there are two or more versions about the responsibility for the Pearl Harbor incident -- depending upon the political party with which one is affiliated! Today many German historians are united in a conspiracy to hide the truth about the Hitler regime from the younger generation. The Nazi period is glossed over almost as if it did not exist! And how did historians handle the events of the First World War? In the same manner. The French historians' account of the Versailles Treaty at the end of the war was diametrically opposed to the German version. Each nation chose to accept only those facts which would lend historical support to its selfish motives. The reconstruction and interpretation of history to suit political, social, economic, religious or race prejudices is a practice of scientific historians of all nations. Much of this prejudice the writers themselves are unaware of. It is so natural to human nature that they are often convinced that their prejudices do not exist! This suppression of part of the truth is the primary reason the world has never learned the lessons of history. The secondary reason, of course, is that most individuals do not want to believe the truth of history even when it is told them.

A Case History A remarkable episode occurred in America in 1954 when the highest court of the land was confronted with a major social issue. A noted historian had become involved in the legal aspects of the case. Here is what happened, in his own words, told to fellow historians: "The problem we faced was not the historian's discovery of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; the problem instead was the formulation of an adequate gloss .... "It was not that we were engaged in formulating lies; there was nothing as crude and naive as that. But we were using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts and, above all, interpreting facts in a way to ... 'get by ...."' This candid admission strikes at the heart of the problem! Many

times educators and ministers and writers of textbooks are confronted with the conflict between truth and the beliefs and ideas of the society around them. If they are to be accepted by the people, they must conform -- by altering or rejecting part of the truth! Of course they use facts -- but how they use those facts, which facts they use, which facts they ignore or reject and the interpretation they place on the facts -- that is the crux of the problem! Trapped in the vicious whirl of intellectual pressures like so many others, the historian admitted he was forced unwittingly to face the question of whether he would compromise his conscience. He reported to fellow historians in Washington, D. C., on December 28, 1961, that he was asked to produce "a plausible historical argument that will justify ..." a certain particular decision affecting public schools. "I was facing," he continued, "the deadly opposition between my professional integrity as a historian and" -- notice it -- "a contemporary question of values, of ideals, of policy, or partisanship and of political objectives. I suppose if a man is without scruple," he noted as a concluding thought, "this matter will not bother him, but I am frank to say that it bothered me terribly ...." What an intellectual tragedy! Forced to make a decision between historical truth and the whims, the false ideas, the political partisanship of society!

"Anything but Historical Truth" After days and nights of hard labor, a lengthy document was presented to the highest court of the land. "I am convinced now that this interpretation, which we hammered out with anything but historical truth as our objective, nonetheless contains an essential measure of historical truth," he concluded. He was now convinced by his own arguments. This is exactly how every human mind works. It is this same attitude of mind that has precipitated the conflict between the Bible and the new interpretation of history. Altering history is not new to the twentieth century. It has been occurring ever since men began to write history. In the United States, for example, there are two unharmonious versions of causes of the American Civil War. Yet these different versions are officially approved as texts in schools -- depending, of course, on the geographical area! The British account of the American Revolution of 1776 differs materially from the American version. A traitor in British eyes becomes a patriot in American histories. One cannot peruse any major historical subject such as the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, or Church History without discovering Catholic, Protestant or agnostic bias. No Biblical subject can be read in any encyclopedia without noting the author's liberal, conservative or orthodox views. Or consider the life of Jesus. Could we think for a moment that Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu or Muslim would view alike the place of Jesus in history? Or the apostle Peter? Would the Anglican version agree with the Greek Orthodox or the Roman Catholic version? Yet every historian has access to the same evidence.

History Involves Interpretation

History is not mere recording of facts. Contrary to the common idea, it is essentially interpretative. "The reconstruction of ancient history is an abstracting from the facts by means of hypothesis ...", wrote G. Ernest Wright in "The Biblical Archaeologist Reader," page 19. What occurs when the hypothesis is in error? The reconstruction of history will be in error! This is one of the chief sources of confusion among historians. Each historian interprets the facts in accordance with his own hypothesis. He ignores those facts that do not fit the hypothesis. "This is inevitable for any hypothesis," admits George E. Mendenhall; for a hypothesis "is not intended as a presentation of eternal truth" (page 38 of "Biblical History in Transition," "The Bible and the Ancient Near East"). Yet many of these hypotheses ARE passing for truth in history textbooks. One of the clearest summaries of this modern method of historical study was presented by Dr. Alfred H, Kelly at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association on December 28, 1961. He declared: "History is art as well as fact: everyone in this room knows that the facts do not automatically arrange themselves without the historian's creative leap, which occurs in our craft as well as in the exact sciences ...." It is time historians took a GENUINELY creative leap and called into question the whole basic assumption of modern historical interpretation.

The Truth about the "Historical Method" The foundation of modern historical research is the "historical method" of study. Few laymen are aware of what it is. Even many historians are not aware of its limitations and its fallacies. The "historical method" of study is essentially a new approach to history. It is called SCIENTIFIC because it limits itself to the tools of scientific research and reasoning. It is not based on demonstrable fact. It rests on only one fundamental -- and unprovable -- hypothesis: THAT GOD HAS NEVER AND DOES NOT NOW INTERVENE IN, OR DETERMINE, THE COURSE OF HISTORY. Let a modern exponent of this new world-view explain it: "In any case, modern science does not believe that the course of nature can be interrupted or, so to speak, perforated by supernatural powers. "The same is true of the modern study of history, which does not take into account any intervention of God or of the devil or of demons in the course of history .... Modern men take it for granted that the course of nature and of history, like their own inner life and their practical life, is nowhere interrupted by intervention of supernatural powers." ("Jesus Christ and Mythology", by Rudolf Bultmann, pgs. 16-17.) This assumption has not been and can never be proved. There are no physical tools of science by which it may be demonstrated. It remains only a hypothesis. Yet scientists and historians take it for granted as if it were true. The modern scientific historian blindly follows the "historical method." If he did not do so, he would be cast out by his fellows. He is taught to reject everything supernatural from history texts -- EVEN WHEN EVIDENCE OF THE INTERVENTION OF GOD IS RECORDED BY EYE-WITNESSES IN ANCIENT SECULAR RECORDS. He simply refuses to believe lt. This is not true history or science. It is half truth and intellectual folly.

This unscientific approach is the universally required method of modern historical study in institutions of higher learning. One will find it explained, for example, in the well-known text "The Critical Method in Historical Research and Writing". The author, Homer Carey Hockett, warns his students against God and the supernatural in history. He writes: "Moreover there are some kinds of statements which are rejected even without being subjected to the usual tests. The historian must reject them when the tests he usually makes are not applicable. Such treatment is due statements reporting happenings which do not conform to the laws of nature as established by scientific methods." Since God cannot be scientifically tested He is rejected as myth. "It requires no justification where myths ... are involved. Their summary rejection is implied in the rule that no statement can be accepted unless it can be shown to rest upon trustworthy observation." Any who recognize God does intervene in nature is automatically assumed to be untrustworthy. "If any one asserts them he must be regarded as ignorant, superstitious, the victim of hallucination, or some other form of mental aberration" (p. 62). What does all this mean? Just this: no one wants to be accused of "ignorance," "superstition" or "mental aberration." To avoid this stigma, the student or the historian finds himself compelled to reject God and any supernatural event recorded in history. He is forced to accept ,whatever passes under the vogue of science and reject whatever is presently called "myth." No observation is accepted as trustworthy if it disagrees with the present view of the natural world in which God and the supernatural are deliberately excluded. ALL RECORDS AND EVENTS ARE REINTERPRETED to fit the fallacious and unprovable assumption that God is not in history. The "historical method" is nothing more than a new myth -- a new superstition. Its basic assumption is not only unverified, but absolutely and irrevocably refuted by the evidence of past records and of human experience WHICH HISTORIANS KNOW THEY HAVE REJECTED OR IGNORED.

Evidence of God Rejected as "Myth" To justify the use of the "historical method" historians have had to discard or gloss over literally thousands of ancient records which corroborate the history of the Bible. These secular records include not only carefully preserved annals and references to the patriarchs, but also accounts of every major Biblical event, including the deluge, the building of the Tower of Babel and the Exodus! They are all summarily discarded -- as is the Bible -- under the name of "myth." Many of these records and annals will be re-examined in this compendium and properly placed in their historical milieu. But how does a historian or a theologian prove whether the Bible or a secular record is a "myth" or a "fact." The answer is, he does not prove anything. He ASSUMES. "The beginning of Thy word is truth," declares Psalm 119:160 (trans. of Jewish Publication Society). But modern scholarship would have us assume the beginning of Scripture -- Genesis -- is untrue or "myth." Let Rudolf Bultmann explain it. "The whole conception of the world which is presupposed in the preaching of Jesus ... is mythological i.e., ... the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in

the course of events .... This conception of the world we call mythological because it is different from the conception of the world which has been formed and developed by science since its inception in ancient Greece ..." (p. 15). It is called "myth" ONLY because it differs from pagan Greek science and its modern derivative! What modern science refuses to believe is arbitrarily and without proof designated "myth." It is the very same hypothesis that atheistic, communistic materialists accept. Yet it is called "Christian scholarship." There is no essential difference between this Western God-rejecting skeptical scholarship and Communistic scholarship. Both reject the God who has intervened in the course of history. The former rejects Him in the name of humanistics and science; the latter in the name of atheistic materialism! This similarity should surprise no one. For Karl Marx, the founder of atheistic Communism, was trained in the same German universities of Bonn, Berlin and Jena and by the same men who influenced Western scholars to accept the God-rejecting "historical method."

History Cut from Its Moorings Scholarship today is in confusion -- usually dignified by the expression "learned controversy." The disagreement over the meaning of practically everything is so wide ranging, so acute, that archaeologist George E. Mendenhall wrote that it "may with perhaps less courtesy but more accuracy be called chaos"! (From "Biblical History in Transition," "The Bible and the Ancient Near East", edited by G. Ernest Wright. pp. 38, 33.) The cause of this chaos is that historical conclusions are based not so much on authorities as on theories. There has been no true respect for the history of the Bible and for accurate secular annals. The Bible has been discounted simply because it has not been understood. Scripture has often been compared to a heap of winnowed chaff. There is a reason the learned intellects have not understood the Bible. It is this: "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" -- or, as the margin reads: "a mind void of judgment" (Romans 1:28). And again, as Dr. Lamsa renders the Aramaic of I Corinthians 2:14: "For the material man rejects spiritual things, for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." The modern interpretation of history is devoid of judgment. It is based on ignoring or disregarding the very documents and the evidence that disprove it. Scholars and theologians therefore have read their own interpretations of secular records into the Bible. If necessary, they altered the text to accomodate a hypothesis. Even so conservative a scholar as A. T. Olmstead admitted when explaining the relationship of the Bible to history: "This is only to say in other words that the Bible cannot be understood by itself .... It has become obvious that before we may claim to KNOW the Bible, we must first investigate all these varied sources and arrange their data in a general narrative. Then and only then we are ready at long last to fit the Biblical stories into ancient history." ("History, Ancient World, and the Bible -- Problems of Attitude and Method", "Journal of Near Eastern Studies", Vol. II, No.

1, January 1943.) THERE is the root of the conflict that permeates theology, history, archaeology and related sciences. Men have rejected -- without examining the proof -- God as the source of truth. "Thy Word," declared Jesus, "is truth" (John 17:17). They have read their own interpretations into history and into the Bible. Each one follows his own human reasoning, apart from, and in opposition to, the revealed truth of God. Chaos is the result. "But when you have the truth, everything fits"! (E. R. Punshon, "Information Received", Penguin Books, 1955.)

CHAPTER TWO 6000 Years of History How long has Man been upon earth? Where, and through whom, did civilization originate? What about "prehistoric man"? Can the history of the Bible be reconciled with ancient history? with Egyptian and Babylonian chronology? Historians and archaeologists are sharply divided over these questions today. Many sense something is drastically wrong with the present explanation of the ancient world. How did all this scholarly doubt arise?

It is Never Safe to Assume Remove from a library shelf any volume on world history or ancient and examine its opening chapters. In it will be such expressions "it is thought," "there appears to be some basis for believing," has been suggested," "it may be presumed," "one may safely assume," "others are of the opinion" -- just to mention a few. What do all these carefully chosen expressions really signify? Just this: that no demonstrable evidence really exists for accepting as a fact what has been written in the textbook. It is mere speculation! The modern reconstruction of ancient history without God is almost 100% erroneous. And no wonder! It is derived from only a part of the historical sources that are available. It casts aside as "myth" factual and datable evidence of the past merely because God appeared in that evidence. without it, the modern historian is able only to theorize about the time or the place man appeared upon the earth. He cannot know. When these written records are rejected, not even archaeologists or geologists can come to the historians' aid and provide adequate dating. Some modern writers, relying only on geological inferences, would place the appearance of man about 25,000 to 35,000 years ago. Others suggest the period is no less than 100,000 years ago. No small number of scholars assume it may be 500,000 years ago. And there are a few who place it several hundred thousand years earlier. But how could intelligent, able men arrive at such absurdly varying figures for the origin of man and the beginnings of ancient history? They all have access, remember, to the same geological and archaeological sources of information. The answer is, they are all interpreting geologic and archaeological evidence in accordance with their private theories. They are only guessing. They have no way of knowing. One well-known writer phrased it this way: "We know that there is no absolute knowledge, that there are only theories, but we forget this. The better educated we are the harder we believe in axioms" (from Lincoln Steffens "Autobiography", page 816). But we can know. The God who has intervened in history, records of whose acts we may read of in ancient sources from many nations -- that God has made known both the time and the place of origin of man. But historians, theologians and scientists alike refuse to believe it, for it leaves them no room to guess! Before we examine these ancient secular and Biblical records, let us notice one classic illustration of the total inability of either man as: "it and

archaeology or geology to determine DURATION OF TIME. Take the case of the Neolithic (New Stone) colonists of Wessex, England -- near the site of famous Stonehenge. "Estimates of the length of their sojourn have been very varied, the most extreme being that of W. A. Sturge, President of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia in 1909, who confidently stated and considered that he had proved 'on irrefragable evidence' that the Neolithic period had lasted well over 200,000 years -- a grossly inaccurate estimate .... Five to ten generations of men, or 100-200 years, would perhaps be nearer the mark as an estimate of time ...," declared archaeologist J. F. S. Stone recently ("Wessex Before the Celts", page 51). Why such incomprehensible variations? Because no scientific means can determine the speed with which geological deposits were laid in the past -- or how long ago the deposition occurred, or the cause. Nor can any archaeology determine accurately the rate of accumulation of human remains unless there is some contemporary written evidence!

No "Prehistory" of Man The modern idea that man has been upon earth for more than 6000 years is predicated on the assumption that "prehistoric time" once existed. Almost everyone takes it for granted. Few have ever thought to question it. As used by critical historians, "prehistoric time" is said to refer to earliest antiquity that is nowhere documented in written records. Is this kind of "prehistoric time" really a fact? Turn to Genesis 1:1 for the answer. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Time is coeval with the creation, for time is measured by the movements of the created heavenly bodies. But here also is a record of what occurred at the beginning. Here is a documented account reaching back even to the beginning of time. "Prehistoric time" in this sense is therefore irreconcilable with Scripture, for there is no period of time that is not documented in the Bible. But how did the theory of "prehistoric time" originate? Why was the idea invented? Stuart Piggott, noted British archaeologist, summarized the development of the theory in his book "Approach to Archaeology." Note carefully his wording: "The first step was the realization that non-documented antiquity could in fact exist at all: that the whole creation and the sum of human history was not in fact contained within the Biblical narrative. This was the repudiation of the theological model of the past ..." (page 53). "Prehistory" was developed to explain the presence of man without the Bible. It is merely another facet of the "historical method" which denies the possibility of God in history. The fallacy of "prehistory" is clearly explained in the "Encyclopedia Americana". Here is its surprising statement: "... it is no longer accurate or logical to use the term 'prehistoric,' unless it is employed to designate that vague and hypothetical period in the beginnings of human development of which there exists no positive and tangible record ...." (from "History, its rise and development".) Could words be plainer? "Prehistoric" -- scholars now admit -- denotes nothing more than a "vague and hypothetical period ... of which there exists no positive and tangible record"! But what of the famous periods or "ages" designated the

Palaeolithic (Old Stone), the Mesolithic (Intermediate Stone), the Neolithic (New Stone), the Chalcolithic (Stone and Copper), the Bronze and the Iron?

Cultures, Not "Ages" These terms do not represent "ages." They are CULTURAL appellations. It is a historical deception to speak of the "Stone Age." There are only STONE CULTURES. "These names," writes William L. Langer in "An Encyclopaedia of World History", "are excellent to identify cultures, but their use to designate periods of time has led to much inaccuracy and confusion, as the dates of the cultures to which they refer differ widely in different parts of the world" (page 2). That is, societies using iron were contemporary with other societies using bronze or only stone. Most ancient societies used stone and bronze and iron. Today one may see backward tribes with a stone culture in New Guinea, Australia, areas of India, Africa and South America side by side with highly industrialized civilizations. These tribes are not "prehistoric." They are contemporary. Throughout history they have paralleled contemporary higher cultures, not ancestral to higher cultures as anthropologists assume. Even the Bible makes special mention of some of these degenerate tribes who anciently lived in Palestine and Sinai. The reference is found in Job 30:1-8, Jewish translation: "But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, Whose fathers I disdained to set with the dogs of my flock .... "Men in whom ripe age is perished. They are gaunt with want and famine; They gnaw the dry ground, in the gloom of wasteness and desolation. "They pluck salt-wart with wormwood; "And the roots of the broom are their food. "THEY ARE DRIVEN FORTH FROM THE MIDST OF MEN .... "In the clefts of the valleys must they dwell, "In holes of the earth and of the rocks. "Among the bushes they bray; "Under the nettles they are gathered together. "They are children of churls, yea, CHILDREN OF IGNOBLE MEN; "They were scourged out of the land." No evolution here. Only degeneration. civilized man did not descend from degraded, "primitive" tribes. But degraded tribes did descend from civilized men of low birth and degenerate habits. They were anciently driven out from the Middle East with its rising civilization, only to be rediscovered in tropical forests in recent centuries! These facts make it clear why evolutionists are forced to admit: "Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference" (from "New Views of Evolution" by George Perrigo Conger, pp. 91).

Origin of the Study of History Now we come to the origin of the scientific study of history. The

facts are surprising. Few historians are aware of the real origin of their discipline. They generally take for granted as true the principles already laid down for them by preceding historians. Yet one of the basic rules of any scientific study is never to take anything for granted. Let us pull back the curtain on the study of history and view a plot that has eluded even the historians' keen eyes. History as a scientific discipline may be said to have taken its rise with Lorenzo della Valla. He demonstrated that the "Donation of Constantine", on which the secular claims of the Roman Catholic Church were originally based, was a medieval forgery. Forgery. That word became a touchstone. Soon non-catholic scholars everywhere became critical, negative, looking for spurious documents. The Middle Ages provided many rich finds. During the same period a great revival in Classical Learning had been occurring, The popes had encouraged Catholic scholars of the Renaissance to revive the study of ancient Roman and Greek literature. In non-Catholic educational circles Classical Learning became associated with Catholicism. The inevitable occurred. Scholars who resented everything the word AUTHORITY stood for saw in the Greek and Roman Classics the symbolism of authority and tradition. Tradition would not be purged out, they reasoned, unless the Classics were also attacked and labeled as spurious. The frontal assault began. At the close of the eighteenth century Friedrich August Wolf challenged the scholarly world with his "Prolegomena ad Homerum" (1795). The ancient Greek poet Homer -- famous for having composed the two great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey -did not compose either epic in its present form, charged Wolf. Homer, he reasoned, did not know how to write. The epics, he concluded, were pieced together about the seventh century from oral traditions, long after Homer lived. They were therefore unauthentic, Wolf concluded. The floodgates of criticism were now opened wide. Thousands of youths, flocking to the German universities for their doctorates, were assigned the task of criticising classical literature. At the height of the epidemic, scarcely a single ancient work remained unimpugned as biased, untrue to fact, or unauthentic. Into the swirl of condemned poems, dramas, myths were heaved the sober histories of Herodotus, and Thucydides, the annals of the Greek city states, the Greek records of ancient Egypt, Assyria and Media. All ancient Greek and Roman history was condemned as spurious, unauthentic, fabulous, unhistorical -because writing, said the critics, had not been known. How could the Greeks have preserved authentic histories reaching back 2000 years before the time of Christ, asked the critics, if the Greeks did not even know how to write till the seventh century before our era?

Historians Follow the Higher Critics The historians of that day were greatly influenced by the subjective reasoning of the German Higher Critics. They accepted their verdict. Greek records prior to the seventh century disappeared from history books, or were labeled in footnotes as fabulous, or, at best, garbled. Nearly a half century elapsed. During that period a new science arose -- archaeology. The past was being dug up. What did the excavators discover? Writing materials and documents dating more than 2000 years before the time of Christ! And in the Greek world, too! The Greeks did know how to write after all. The critics, including

Wolf, had been wrong. The imagined illiteracy of the early Greeks was a myth. The argument that they could not have preserved their history correctly was false. But did the new evidence make any difference to the critics or to the historians? Were they willing to reconsider their conclusions? How were the historians going to explain that the basis for rejecting Greek history had been exploded? No answers came forth. The new evidence was greeted with silence. All who brought up the problem were ridiculed as unscientific. Decades have passed, but not once has the evidence been reconsidered. The plot to suppress the truth had succeeded till now. There is absolutely no reason why the records preserved by the Greeks should not be reinstated in their proper place in history. Refusal to reconsider the evidence is a standing indictment against the modern naturalistic interpretation of history. But the story does not end here. Every year saw fresh hordes of students arrive at the German universities demanding doctoral dissertations. Johann Gottlieb Fichte had made the German educational system famous the world over. Many students from abroad were coming to study in Germany under the great literary critics. The German professors insisted that their students thresh again the old classics. But this was not research. It was mere confirmation of what had already been universally accepted. With the quantity of classical raw material strictly limited in the early nineteenth century, a new field of study had to be thought up. A "new discovery" must be found, the critics agreed, if Germany was to maintain absolute educational domination of the world. Such a discovery necessarily meant something to attack, for assailing a commonly accepted idea always creates interest. What literature, the critics asked themselves, did people believe to be true, but which had not yet been subjected to higher criticism? The Bible! Protestant Germany had, since the days of Dr. Martin Luther, assumed the absolute authenticity of Scripture. What a challenge! The opening wedge of the attack had, in actuality, been made by Dr. Luther himself, for had he not denounced the epistle of James as a book of straw? All the methodology and reasoning, once feverishly applied to classical literature, was now directed in a frontal assault on the authenticity and historicity of Scripture. The Bible, proudly announced the critics, was pieced together from tradition in much the same fashion as the ancient Greek and Roman classics had been. The extremists declared it a pious fraud. The literature of the Old Testament was rejected as contrary to human experience. It was obviously unhistorical, they concluded, for no events of a supernatural nature were befalling any nation today -- and certainly not any German professors and students! There was no God punishing them for their attacks upon Him, as He had once punished Israel, or Egypt, or Babylon. Historians who had heretofore acknowledged the authority of the historical record in the Old Testament were impressed with the theories of the literary scholars. Then, too, the theory of organic evolution was mushrooming. Rationalism was king. Within a few decades the entire study of history was reshaped to meet the new theories. But how were historians to reconstruct ancient history without the Old Testament? without God? without the supernatural? with all the early classical events removed? What kind of framework would they use

to date events? History had to have some kind of chronological backbone.

Framework of History Founded on Egypt A new reconstruction and interpretation of history without God or the supernatural, and now without Genesis, was foisted upon the world in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It first created the phantom of "prehistory", as we have already noted. To bolster their concept of "ancient man," the discoveries by travellers of savage, cannibalistic tribes in far away places were heavily called upon. It became a fad to picture "early man" in the garb of a savage. The next step was to tie "prehistory" to modern history. What chronological means was to be used? The answer is two-fold: astronomy and the history of Egypt. Rationalism had disposed of all supernaturalism in history. God was excluded from nature. Uniformitarianism became a basic concept. The astronomer was now called on by the historian to date the past for thousands of years on the basis of the present movement of heavenly bodies. All ancient historical records referring to supernatural movements of the heavens were rejected as mythological. Away went "Joshua's long day," and the backward decline of the sun for ten degrees in the kingship of Hezekiah. (See II Kings 20:8-11.) From the Biblical record it would be impossible to determine the position of any solar body prior to the time of Hezekiah. But historians postulated that since God, according to their reasoning, could not intervene in the course of nature, it would be possible to date the past by calculating backward the present movements of the sun, moon and other planets, and the stars. All that was necessary, said the historians, was to discover, through archaeological means, early calendars and ancient documents that referred to positions of the sun, or moon, or the rise of the stars on certain stated calendar days. A few documents were discovered -- but, alas, they did not agree with the present movements of the heavenly body. The historians -- unwilling to admit uniformitarianism an error -- decided the mistaken numbers lay in the scribes who copied the astronomical documents. It was an easy task to change the figures on the cuneiform tablets and Egyptian papyri. Still a problem remained. Astronomical movements repeat themselves in varying cycles. The 19-year cycle of the Hebrew calendar is an illustration. No ancient date could be determined by astronomical means unless the approximate date had already been determined by historical methods. Here is where Egypt comes on the scene. Egypt seemed to provide the best solution. Her earliest documents were more likely to be preserved because of the warm, dry climate. Most of the monuments were above ground, unlike those in Mesopotamia. This made it a much easier task for the archaeologist. Egypt, decided the scholars, should become the historical standard of the world. Its civilization was certainly one of the oldest and earliest. Why not tie "prehistory" and modern history together through Egypt. Now came the difficulty. Archaeology could not always determine which Egyptian monuments and which kings reigns came first. There were no buried cities, one above another, as in Mesopotamia. No stratigraphy to determine the exact order of events. The only solution was to adopt the traditional dynastic history of Egypt. It is based on the Greek versions of Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian, who drew up the history of ancient Egypt under thirty dynasties.

The influence of Manetho on the order of events of ancient history is tremendous. This is confirmed by Sir Alan Gardiner, one of the most famous Egyptologists of the twentieth century. "That I have devoted so much discussion to what survives of Manetho ... will need no excuse for those familiar with the evolution of our science; no Egyptologist has yet been able to free himself from the shackles imposed by the native annalist's thirty Dynasties, and these are likely always to remain the essential framework of our modern expositions" ("Egypt of the Pharaohs", p. viii).

Is Egyptian History Correct? The dynastic history of Egypt is universally assumed to be correct. NO historian thinks of questioning it. It is simply one of the assumptions he has taken for granted. The time has come to explode this assumption! The story of how it became universally accepted over 2000 years ago is one of the most intriguing in all the annals of history. Let us roll back the centuries and discover the plot that changed history. The historians of the last century inherited their views of history from the classical professors, for ancient history was for a long time an aspect of classical studies. The classical professors were interested in attacking LITERATURE. But they needed history for background if they were to demonstrate that early writings were merely garbled oral traditions and mythical accounts of heroes. It suited their purpose to retain the commonly accepted view of history -- especially Homer's story of the fall of Troy. The earlier that ancient events could be placed the longer the time for oral traditions and myths to develop. The greater the likelihood for events to become garbled and untrue to fact. Thus the framework of history remained essentially the same as it has been all through the Middle Ages. Medieval and Modern Europe inherited its account of the past mainly through Catholic scholars and historians. Sextus Julius Africanus (early third century), Eusebius (early fourth century), and George the Monk, known as Syncellus (eighth to ninth century) contributed greatly to the transmission of ancient history. These men, together with the Jewish historian Josephus, obtained their information from earlier Greek documents long since lost. But from where did the Greek world obtain its history of Egypt? From the Egyptians. The framework of all history, in simple terms, is derived ultimately from Egypt -- particularly through the writings of Manetho. "In the arrangement of ... Egyptian materials within a framework of consecutive dynasties, all modern historians are dependent upon an ancient predecessor. This was an Egyptian priest and writer Manetho who lived under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.). Manetho was born at Sebennytus (now Samannud) in the Delta. Eventually he rose to be high priest in the temple at Heliopolis. Berossos of Babylon," continues Finegan, "was practically a contemporary, and the two priests became rivals in the proclamation of the antiquity and greatness of their respective lands." (From "Light from the Ancient Past", by Jack Finegan, pp. 65-66.) In Manetho's time this spirit of competition reached a climax. Egypt and Babylonia were vying with each other for influence over the Greek-speaking world. Each sought to be known as the founder of

civilization, of cultural and religious institutions, of political unity. Vanity was coupled in both by a deep sense of inferiority, for both were peoples subject to the Greeks. To rise above that feeling, each claimed to be the first people of earth, not alone in the sense of civilization, but in the sense of time.

Distorting History To justify their claims to antiquity, Manetho and Berossos utilized their early records, the king lists of the various cities, and cleverly marshalled them together in consecutive order. Manetho summarized the history of Egypt under the rule of thirty dynasties, or ruling houses, from the royal cities of Abydos, Memphis, Elephantine, Heracleopolis, Xois, Thebes, Tanis, Bubastis, Sais and other cities. The history of the royal families of each city was drawn up to make it appear that only one city at a time dominated Egypt, and that Egypt was, from its beginning, under the government of only one ruler at a time. The result was that Egypt appeared to be extremely ancient and the first land to establish unity -- thousands of years before the Greek city-states were united. It was a fraud! The internal details of the reigns of the kings of the various dynasties were scrupulously correct -- they had to be to make the history look valid -- but the order in which the dynasties appeared was a historic lie. Manetho cleverly told the history of the ruling families of each city, then attached them end to end to make Egypt appear the oldest and earliest unified nation on earth. Egypt was a confederation. Its several kings exercised authority under the most powerful who was called Pharaoh. The word "Pharaoh" means the Great House -- as there were also lesser houses ruling. Even the Bible preserves an account of more than one king in Egypt at the same time: "Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us," said the Arameans, "the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians" (II Kings 7:6). Like Egypt, the land of Assyria also had more than one king at the same time: "At that time did king Ahaz send unto the kings of Assyria to help him" (II Chronicles 28:16). Historians falsely charge these verses are untrue to fact. As an example of the strength of a great confederation, one may name Germany. Few are really aware that the German Empire, like the ancient Egyptian Empire, was a confederation governed by several kings even at the time of World War I. The supreme ruler was of the Prussian House of Hohenzollern, William II (1888-1918). Ruling with him in the German Confederation were Frederick Augustus III (1904-1918), king of Saxony: William II (1891-1918), king of Wuerttemberg Louis III (1913-1918), king of Bavaria and Ernest Augustus (1913-1918), duke of Brunswick. All lost their thrones in November of 1918. To return to the theme of the story. Succeeding chapters of this compendium will now demonstrate how the true history of Egypt may be restored. Never before has the history of the ancient world been made clear as it will now be.

CHAPTER THREE History Begins at Babel The restoration of history begins with this chapter. It has taken years of research to recover all the vital pieces of evidence needed to tell the full story. The assumptions of historians and archaeologists had first to be cleared away. The most difficult part, however, was the recovery of rejected evidence -- much of it published over 100 years ago. At last the restoration of the framework of history was complete for Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, Media. All the records went back to one momentous event. The event? The building of the City and Tower of Babel! The beginning of the civilization of this world! It commenced as an act of rebellion against the Government of God. It began with the establishment of the Government of Man. And just as one might expect, all the ancient nations began to reckon their kings from this event.

History Corroborates the Bible The Biblical account of the City and the Tower of Babel may be found in Genesis 11:1-9. In the Jewish Publication Society translation we read:

And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar: and they dwelt there. And they said one to another: 'Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said: 'Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name: lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.' And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said: 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language: and this is what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth and they left off to build the city. Therefore was the name of it called Babel: because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The most complete secular record is that found in the Akkadian Creation Epic. It is reproduced in "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", by James B. Pritchard, pages 68-69. This account, like most from ancient pagan sources, is encrusted with myth. But that does not nullify the basic historical evidence contained in the epic. Following are extracts, freely translated, from the Epic of Creation concerning the building of the City and the Tower of Babel. A vague recollection of the Supreme God is discernable. "'Now, O lord, thou who hast caused our deliverance,

What shall be our homage to thee? Let us build a shrine ....' Brightly glowed his features, like the day: 'Like that of lofty Babylon, whose building you have requested, Let its brickwork be fashioned. You shall name it "The Sanctuary"' For one whole year they molded the bricks. When the second year arrived, They raised high the shrine equaling a great height. Having built a stage-tower a great height, They set up in it an abode for Marduk, Enlil, and Ea. "This is Babylon, the place that is your home' ...'" The account in Genesis describes exactly what is given here -- the building of a Tower, or religious edifice, and of a City. The epic then continues with the establishment of human government. At this point the document is fragmentary, but a father and a son are clearly spoken of: "He set up a throne .... Another in .... 'Verily, most exalted is the son .... His sovereignty is surpassing .... May he shepherd the human race." The Biblical account reveals who these two individuals were. Cush, the father, and Nimrod, the son. "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth .... And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel ..." (Genesis 10:8, 10). With the reign of Cush and of Nimrod the history of civilization begins. At this point commences also the chronology of Egypt, of Assyria, of Babylonia and of the whole Near East. The exact date of this event was preserved down to Roman times. For Velleius Paterculus cites from Aemilius Sura, in his "Roman History", book I, section VI, the following: "Between this time (when Rome conquered Philip, king of Macedonia) and the beginning of the reign of Ninus (Nimrod) king of the Assyrians, who was the first to hold world power, lies an interval of 1995 years." Philip was conquered in 197. (All dates in this compendium which are not otherwise designated are understood to be before the present era, commonly, though mistakenly, written "B.C.") Nimrod, therefore, began his sole reign in 2192. It followed a joint reign with his father Cush for 62 years, according to Julius Africanus. That places the overthrow of Babel 2254 years before the present era. The two previous years, according to the Epic of Creation, had been spent in erecting Babel. The building of the Tower may therefore be dated 2256-2254. The Bible does not specifically date this event. But it does confirm the general period: "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided ..." (Genesis 10:25). Certainly the most spectacular confirmation of this date may be found in the history of China. For the Chinese begin their authentic history also 2254 years before the present era. This is no coincidence. China's first king was "black." His eyes shown with "double brightness." That is, theologically, "demon possessed." They called him Shun, and his father's name is spelled variously Chusou or Kusou -that is, Cush. In his days lived a very famous woman whose name may be

translated as either "the mother of the king of the west," or the "queen mother of the west " (See the "Annals of the Bamboo Books," "The Chinese Classics", by James Legge, vol. III, part I, pages 114-115.) Before presenting the chronological history of China -- which has been preserved without alteration since the Tower of Babel, let us trace in the West the story of these heroes who founded Babel. No story of history is so unusual, so filled with the unexpected.

On to Egypt The tombs of all the famous heroes who founded Babel are located in Egypt. Egypt early became the second center of civilization. One can now easily understand why both Babylonians and Egyptians claimed to be the first people in the world -- claimed their civilization and their religious customs were the earliest. In Egypt we now trace the history of what occurred immediately after Babel. Egyptian history opens with Dynasty I. Its capital was Thinis in Upper Egypt. The names of the first four rulers of Dynasty I are Menes, Athothis, Kenkenes and Uenephes. The spelling of the names is from the Greek of Manetho. The early Egyptian forms vary slightly. Who were these famous individuals? Let the Egyptians themselves provide the answer. Athothis, Egypt's second king, was Osiris. The tomb of Athothis at Abydos was "the sepulchre of the god Osiris, and, as such, became the shrine to which millions of pilgrims made their way," declared Arthur Weigall in "A History of the Pharaohs", vol. I, page 111. The Egyptian god Osiris was the Baal of the Phoenicians, the Marduk of the Babylonians, the Tammuz of the Semites, the Nimrod of the Bible. The Cairo fragment of the Annals of Dynasties I-V preserves a name of the mother of Athothis. She is Hept, meaning "the veiled one." This is a designation of Isis, the mother and wife of Osiris. The Assyrians called Isis or Hept Ishtar or Semiramis. In Scripture she is called Ashtoreth. This woman was originally the queen of Meni. Egypt's first king. She became Athothis' queen and wife after the planned death of Meni. Here is confirmation of the age-old tradition that Nimrod married his own mother. Later. Athothis himself was slain in the 28th year of his reign, according to Plutarch. The father of Athothis, and Egypt's first king, was Meni or Mena -- Menes in Greek. His name means "The Establisher" ("History of Ancient Egypt", vol. II, p. 26, by George Rawlinson), or "The Everlasting" (Waddell's "Manetho", p. 215) Menes was the first to ESTABLISH himself as king in place of the Everlasting God. Since Menes was the father of Athothis (Nimrod), he is the Cush of the Bible. "And Cush begot Nimrod, he began to be a mighty one in the earth" (Gen. 10:8). The third name in the first dynasty is Kenkenes, a Greek form of Kenken, meaning "The Terrible." He was born, according to Egyptian tradition, after the death of Osiris. His mother placed him on the throne. She claimed he was the reincarnation of Osiris, or Athothis; hence he is at times called Athothis, or Itit in early fragments. (These various names may be found in Sir Alan Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs" and in Weigall's "A History of the Pharaohs") He was also named Horus, the son of Isis. Everyone of these famous men of old had many names. Of Nimrod, we read in the Epic of Creation:

"As for us, by however many names we call him, he is our god' Let us then proclaim his fifty names ...." Listed fourth in Dynasty I is Uenephes. This king was a woman! She called herself Henneit, meaning "Neit is victorious." Neit is the Egyptian form of the Greek Athena. She also called herself Hept, which means "the veiled one," as already noted. This evidence clearly means that the wife of Meni, or Cush, was the mother and later the wife of Nimrod, and later still the mother of Kenkenes or Horus. Years later, she even propositioned her own son Horus, called Gilgamesh in Babylonian tradition, as we read in the following extracts from the Epic of Gilgamesh: "When Gilgamesh had put on his tiara, Glorious Ishtar raised an eye at the beauty of Gilgamesh: 'Come, Gilgamesh, be thou my lover! Do but grant me of thy fruit. Thou shalt be my husband and I will be thy wife'. Gilgamesh opened his mouth to speak, Thou art but a brazier which goes out in the cold; A back door which does not keep out blast and .windstorm; Pitch which soils its bearers; A waterskin which soaks through its bearer; A shoe which pinches the foot of its owner! Which lover didst thou love forever? Come and I will name for thee thy lovers: Of .... (the story of Cush is broken from the cuneiform tablet) for Tammuz, the lover of thy youth, Thou hast ordained wailing year after year. them." (Consult Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", pages 83-84. Compare the account of Tammuz with Ezekiel 8:14.)

The Chronology of Dynasty I Now we are ready to build the chronology of Egypt and of all ancient history from its beginning. Without a knowledge of who these rulers of Dynasty I are, it would be impossible to make sense of the following lengths of reign. The various pieces of information came originally from a full-length account by Manetho. The abstractors each told only part of the full story. No one list is complete in itself, but taken together -- in the same way the Bible ought to be studied -every chronological fact makes sense. Africanus

Eusebius

Eusebius (Armenian Version) Years

Years

Years

1 Menes (Cush)

62

60

30

2 Athothis (Nimrod)

57

27

25

3 Kenkenes (Horus or

Gilgamesh) 4 Uenephes (Ishtar or Isis)

31

39

39

23

42

42

Eratosthenes gives 62 for Menes and 59 for Athothis. The immediate comment that all modern historians give, is that the list is corrupt. But they have no proof. They have never assembled these figures to tell the full story. Remember, the full account of what really occurred is lost in Manetho's original work. (A few facts have been reclaimed by archaeology.) Each of the abstractors of Manetho told only part of the story. Like the writers of the four gospels, each viewed what he saw in history from a different perspective. What was important to one, did not appear as important to another. It is time scholarship had a little more respect for the documents they purport to handle so judiciously. The numbers in this list, as in almost all ancient history and also the Bible, are calendar years. That explains why they are whole figures. The immediate years after the building of Babel are assigned to Cush, although his son Nimrod reigned jointly with him. The account begins with the reign of Cush or Menes. He began to reign in Shinar, not in Egypt. He came to Egypt where he spent his last 30 years. Cush or Menes ruled altogether 62 years, after which Nimrod began his sole rule of 25 years. Nimrod settled in Egypt 60 years after the building of Babel, and reigned two years jointly with his father. His total reign in Egypt was therefore 27 years. Plutarch records that Osiris (Nimrod) had to flee Egypt at the end of 27 years. He was executed in the summer in his 28th year by Shem, in the month of Tammuz, the 17th day according to ancient tradition. These events may thus be clearly dated as follows: Menes (Cush)

60

2254-2194 (reign prior to coming of Nimrod)

Athothis (Nisrod)

27

2194-2167 (total reign in Egypt) -or-

Menes (Cush)

62

2254-2192 (total reign of Cush)

Athothis (Nimrod)

25

2192-2167 (sole reign in Egypt)

Cush came to Egypt about 2222 and united Upper and Lower Egypt under his supreme authority for 30 years -- 2222-2192. This marks the beginning of Cushite, or Ethiopian, settlement in Africa. Cush, at the time of death, may have been nearly 170 years of age. Josephus confirms this restoration of history in "Antiquities" book VIII, chapter vi, sect. 2: "All the kings from Menes, who built Memphis, ... until Solomon ... was more than one thousand three hundred years." In 2167 Nimrod (Athothis) fled to Italy and was slain there. At the flight of Nimrod, his mother-wife Uenephes also had to flee -tradition states to the Delta. At this point some continued to reckon after the era of Nimrod or Athothis, since he had no male heir. Others reckoned time after his mother-wife who went into hiding. Thirty years passed. Now see how Manetho's figures fit! It was about 57 years after Nimrod had come to Egypt. Suddenly his

widow Uenephes or Isis reappears with a son -- Kenkenes or Horus. Four years later -- 59 years after the death of Menes or Cush, she associates the son with her on the throne of Egypt. Isis or Uenephes thus temporarily triumphs over those who were responsible for the execution of Nimrod. Eight years later -- 42 years after the death of Nimrod -- the son Horus becomes supreme ruler as his mother turns over to him the reins of government. Horus or Kenkenes reigned altogether 39 years, alone for 31 years. Uenephes therefore reigned, after her return from exile, for 12 years (four years alone and eight years with her son). Afterward she returned to the throne again for 11 years following the departure of Horus for Babylonia, making a total of 23 years. (In Babylon Horus received the name Gilgamesh.) Thus every figure of Manetho, preserved from antiquity, fits. This information may therefore be summarized as follows: Athothis (Nimrod)

57

2194-2137 (years from Nimrod's coming into Egypt to return of Isis)

Uenephes (Ishtar)

12

2137-2125

Kenkenes (Horus)

31

2125-2094 (sole reign of Horus)

Uenephes -- 11 years more,

2094-2083, making a total of 23.

-orAthothis (Nimrod)

27

2194-2167 (total reign in Egypt)

Uenephes (Ishtar)

42

2167-2125 (years from flight of Nimrod to sole reign of Horus)

Kenkenes (Horus)

31

2125-2094 -or-

Athothis (Nimrod)

59

2192-2133 (years from the death of Cush to reign of Horus)

Kenkenes (Horus)

39

2133-2094 (total reign of Horus)

It is immediately noticeable that Horus or Gilgamesh left Egypt exactly 100 years after Nimrod left Babylonia to come to Egypt -2194-2094. This figure has important significance when we come to comparing Egyptian history with that of the land of Shinar or Sumer, in Mesopotamia.

Shem in Egypt The first book of Manetho lists four more kings in Dynasty I. Among them is Shem. All classical records agree as to the length of reign. The reconstructed Cairo fragment of the Palermo stone gives different figures, but the same total -- indicating there were contemporary reigns, during which more than one ruler shared the throne. A Biblical parallel to this may be observed in the case of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram in Judah (II Kings 8:16).

The figures appear as follows: Manetho

Palermo Stone Restored

5 Usaphais

20

2083-2063

34

2083-2049

6 Miebis

26

2063-2037

19

2049-2030

7 Semempses

18

2037-2019

9

2030-2021

8 Bieneches

26

2019-1993

28

2021-1993

The total length of Dynasty I is 261 years -- 2254-1993. The seventh king is especially significant. His original name in the Egyptian records is Semsem -- meaning the Great Sem or Shem. In the New Testament Greek, Shem is spelled Sem (Luke 3:36). The hieroglyphics representing Shem depict him in Asiatic, not Egyptian, dress. He appears as an old man with a long beard in priestly garb. Old indeed he was. About 430 years old! Shem left Egypt in 2019 or one year before the death of Noah in 2018 which was 350 years after the Flood Shem probably heard that Noah was approaching death in 2019. Now consider Miebis, the sixth king, and predecessor of Semsem. His tomb was defaced by Semsem. A later section, in volume II, will reveal Miebis to be Osiris II. He was slain by Semsem. The Egyptians called him Typhon. He was the "father" or ancestor of "Judah and Jerusalem," records Plutarch.

Dynasty II of Thinis The kings of the second dynasty were comparatively insignificant. Other and more powerful rulers were dominating Egypt at this time -ever since the days of Shem, but who they were will be disclosed only after the chronology of the first eight dynasties is firmly established. The change from Dynasty I to II at this point in history will also become apparent, once we begin to examine parallel dynasties who fought over the possession of Abydos and Thinis. The first four rulers of Dynasty II: Names in Manetho

Names in King lists

Years of Reign

1 Boethos

Bedjau

38

1993-1955

2 Kaiechos

Kakau

39

1955-1916

3 Binothris

Banutjeren

47

1916-1869

4 Tlas

Wadjnas

17

1869-1852

Dates

The fragment of the Palermo Stone agrees with this total. In the reign of Binothris "it was decided that women might hold the kingly office," wrote Manetho. This legal decision accounts for the bifurcation of the dynasty within two generations. Manetho's abstractors list both branches of the dynasty in successive order, giving the false impression that one followed the other. This is the

very same technique Manetho employed in listing contemporary dynasties. The Turin Papyrus and the Palermo Stone provide the information missing from Manetho. Once again all the evidence must be considered, including Manetho. The fifth king listed by Manetho and the monuments was Sethenes (Sendi in the King-lists). He reigned altogether for 41 years -1852-1811. The Palermo stone provides the added fact that he associated others with him after his 37th year. His sole reign was 37 years -1852-1815. At this point he associated Chaires and Sesochris with him on the throne. Sesochris -- the eighth in Manetho's list -- was succeeded by Cheneres -- the ninth in Manetho. Their reigns: Names in Manetho

Names in King-lists

Years of Reign In Manetho

5 Sethenes

Sendi

8 Sesochris

Neferkaseker

37 (or 41) 48

1852-1815 (or 1852-1811) 1815-1767

30

1767-1737

9 Cheneres

--

Dates

Parallel with Sesochris was Chaires, who reigned for 17 years. His successor was Nephercheres (Neferkare in the King-lists). Manetho gives him a total reign of 25 years, but the Palermo Stone and the Turin Papyrus indicate he was removed from the kingship by Sesochris after a reign of only 15 years. The Turin Papyrus preserves the record that Sesochris replaced him for 8 years. Following the usurpation by Sesochris, Nephercheres returned to the throne for 10 more years completing 25 years of reign. He was succeeded by Necherophes, the first king listed by Manetho for Dynasty III of Memphis. In chart form this information appears thus: Names in Manetho

Years of Reign

Dates

6 Chaires

17

1815-1798

7 Nephercheres

15

1798-1783

8

1783-1775

10

1775-1765

28

1765-1737

8 Sesochris (Neferkaseker) 7 Nephercheres Necherophes (reigns in Memphis)

The Turin Papyrus indicates that the return to power of Nephercheres was facilitated by another prince of royal blood who shared the throne. Though Manetho does not list him, he and his successor appear in the King-lists and in the Turin Papyrus as follows: Names in King-lists and Turin Panyrus

Years of Reign

Dates

Hudjefa

11

1775-1764

Beby (Bebty)

27

1764-1737

Thus every date from each document is accounted for. The total length of Dynasty II is 256 years -- 1993-1737, Altogether 517 years had elapsed since human government was established after the deluge.

Joseph and the Seven-Years' Famine It has been necessary to name kings not associated with Biblical events in order to establish the proper date for Dynasty III. This dynasty is one of the most important in all Egyptian history. In it are the records of Joseph's rulership and of the seven years' famine. This dynasty is usually mistakenly placed over a thousand years too early! But before proceeding, we must examine the Turin Papyrus for a most significant summary date. The Turin Papyrus contains the following entry after Dynasty VIII: "Kings since Menes, their kingdoms and years: 949 years: kingless years: 6. Total, 955." (See Gardiner's Royal Canon of Turin.) It also lists 181 years for Dynasty VI. The known length of Dynasty III is 74 years, of Dynasty IV, 123; of Dynasty V, 140; of Dynasty VIII, 140. And remember, Dynasty I and Dynasty II totaled 517 years. Yet the total for the entire period is only 955 years. There is no other possible explanation than that certain of these dynasties reigned parallel with each other. Joseph will be found listed in two of them! To return to Dynasty III -- the first dynasty of the city of Memphis. The Turin Papyrus, together with the restored Palermo Stone, provides the complete regnal years of the five successive kings who dominated the dynasty. The name Zoser, the first ruler of the dynasty is also spelled Djoser. Names of Kings in King-lists

Name in Manetho

Reigns in Turin Canon

Zoser-za (Netjrikhe)

Tosorthros

19

1737-1718

19

1718-1699

6

1699-1693

6

1693-1687

24

1687-1663

Nebka (of the royal line of Beby) Zoser-teti Nebkare Huny

Tosertasis

Dates

The end of a seven-year's famine occurred at the close of year 18 of Zoser I (end of winter 1719). No other seven-years' famine is reported during the entire history of the Pharaohs. This is the Biblical seven-years' famine under Joseph. It is at the right time. An account of the calamity is to be found on the rocks of the island of Sehel, at the First Cataract. A modern translation of it may be found in "Biblical Archaeology" by G. Ernest Wright, page 56. The account reads: "Year 18 .... I was in distress on the Great Throne, and those who are in the palace were in Heart's affliction from a very great evil, since the Nile had not come in my time

for a space of seven years. Grain was scant, fruits were dried up, and everything which they eat was short .... The infant was wailing; the youth was waiting; the heart of the old man was in sorrow .... The courtiers were in need. The temples were shut up .... Everything was found empty." (Translation by J. A. Wilson in "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", edited by J. B. Pritchard, page 31.) But where does Joseph appear in this period? The answer is found in Dynasty III and Dynasty IV of Manetho. He appears under the name Suphis (or Souphis or Saophis) -- different Greek spellings from Manetho's abstractors. Joseph in Hebrew, it should be noted, is not pronounced with an English "J" sound, but with a "Y" sound. In Manetho's Egyptian transcription of the name only the consonents "s" and "ph" appear -- hence the Greek Souphis or its variant forms. Eratosthenes wrote that the Egyptians had designated Suphis as a "money-getter" or "trafficker" (Fragment 17, "Manetho", by W. G. Waddell, page 219). Dynasty III in Manetho is made up of many rulers which do not appear in the Turin Papyrus. Only the two Djosers appear in each list, and in each case the full length of reign is preserved in Manetho. These otherwise unknown rulers are accounted fiction by modern historians. Had they only looked in the Bible they would have found one of them in the person of Joseph.

Names in Manetho

Name in King-lists

Length of Reign

Dates

1 Necherophes (previously mentioned at end of Dynasty II)

28

1765-1737

2 Tosorthros

29

1737-1708

7

1708-1701

4 Mesochris

17

1701-1684

5 Souphis (Joseph)

16

1684-1668

3 Tureis

Djoser-za

In Dynasty IV Suphis or Joseph is given 66 years by Manetho. This makes it clear that Dynasty IV -- a foreign dynasty -- parallels Dynasty III. The two records together tell the full story. Only the latter portion of Joseph's reign is preserved in the list of rulers in Dynasty III. The entire period of Joseph's public service is contained in the parallel account. The 66 years of Joseph's public service cover the years 1734-1668. Compare this date with Zoser's seven years of famine. The famine ended in 1719 after the rise in Upper Egypt of the new Nile during the summer of 1720 in Zoser's 18th year. The famine thus extends in Egypt from the spring of 1726 to the spring of 1719 (Jacob came to Egypt in the summer of 1725, after the harvest had failed two years in Palestine ) The seven harvests of great abundance were during the years 1733-1727. Joseph, according to the Bible, came to power in 1734, the year before the beginning of the seven years of

prosperity. And 1734 is the very date for the commencement of Joseph's public office, as listed in the fourth dynasty! Joseph was 30 years of age upon entering his service (Gen. 41:46). He thus served till 96 years of age, and died at 110 (50:26). But Manetho's account does not end here. There are yet four kings that complete the dynasty. These kings parallel, in part, those already mentioned, and whose reign is preserved in the Turin Papyrus. Names in Manetho Dynasty III

Names in Turin Canon and Kinglist

6 Tosertasis

Djoser-teti or Teti

Length of Reign in

7 Aches 8 Sephuris

Sahure

9 Kerpheres

Dates

19

1699-1680

42

1680-1638

30

1638-1608

26

1608-1582

In summary, the third dynasty is divided at times into two or three branches -- just as was the second dynasty. The government under this dynasty was centered at Memphis. Not every ruler was of the same rank, of course, but all exercised royal power (Genesis 41:39-44). Although Dynasty IV, in which Joseph's and Job's long reigns are recorded, is parallel with these events, it is better to restore it after the fifth and sixth dynasties are presented.

The Exodus In Manetho, Dynasty V is designated as from Elephantine -- far away to the south, in Upper Egypt on the borders of Nubia. Although Manetho lists nine kings in the dynasty, he plainly states that there were only "eight kings from Elephantine." This mystery has never been solved by historians. Their explanation is that the records are incorrect. Not so. There were only eight kings from Elephantine, because Sephres, the second in the list, was of the Memphis line and had already appeared as Sephuris in the third dynasty. He is the key to the proper dating of Dynasty V. Though from Elephantine, the government was usually centered near Memphis. The Turin Papyrus and the restored Palermo Stone give us the following summary: Names in Manetho

Names in King-lists & Canon of Turin

Years of Reign Dates in Turin Canon and Palermo Stone

1 Usercheres

Userkaf

7

1627-1620

2 Sephres (mentioned in Dynasty III as Sephuris)

Sahure

12

1620-1608

3 Nephercheres

Neferirkare

21

1608-1587

4 Sisires

Shepseskare

7

1587-1580

5 Cheres

Khaneferre

17

1580-1563

6 Rathures

Niuserre

11

1563-1552

7 Mencheres

Menkauhor

8

1552-1544

8 Tancheres

Djedkare

28

1544-1516

9 Onnos

Unis (Unas)

30

1516-1486

With Unis the dynasty comes to a catastrophic end. (He was a contemporary of the Pharaoh who perished at the Red Sea.) The king died the night of the Passover. Unis was a firstborn' He was also a cannibal! After Moses left Egypt, he commenced the frightful practice of eating the firstborn of his enemies. That is one of the reasons God slew the firstborn of Egypt. From the pyramid-tomb of Unis one may read this horrible account of his life, his blasphemous claims, and his deeds. "Behold, Unas hath arrived at the height of heaven .... Ra is on one side and Horus is on the other, and Unas is between them .... Unas hath weighed his word with the hidden god who hath no name, on the day of hacking in pieces the firstborn .... Unas devoureth men .... He ... cutteth off hairy scalps ... the cordmaster hath bound them for slaughter. Khonsu the slayer of ... hath cut their throats and drawn out their inward parts, for it was he whom Unas sent to drive them in: and Shesem hath cut them in pieces and boiled their members in his blazing cauldrons. Unas hath eaten their words of power, and he hath swallowed their spirits; the great ones among them serve for his meal at daybreak, the lesser serve for his meal at eventide, and the least among them serve for his meal at night. The old gods and the old goddesses become fuel for his furnace. The mighty ones in heaven shoot out fire under the cauldrons which are heaped up with the haunches of the firstborn; and he that maketh those who live in heaven to revolve around Unas hath shot into the cauldrons the haunches of their women of the gods in visible form. UNAS IS THE FIRSTBORN OF THE FIRSTBORN existence is ... and the offerings made unto him are more than those made unto the gods ..." (from E. A. Wallis Budge's "A History of Egypt", vol. II, pages 83-88.) Compare King Unis and his blasphemous claims with II Thessalonians 2:3-4. A remarkable analogy. Manetho adds details to this dynasty missing from the Turin Canon. His figures for length of reign clearly illustrate that several kings of Dynasty V reigned jointly as with almost every previous royal line. From Manetho's abstractors the following table may be drawn up:

Name in Manetho

Length of Reign

Dates

1 Usercheres

28

1648-1620

(The reign of Usercheres in the Turin Papyrus does not begin until 1627, after the end of its Dynasty IV, though he had previously been reigning.) 2 Sephres

13

1620-1607

3 Nephercheres

20

1607-1587

4 Sisires

7

1587-1580

5 Cheres

20

1580-1560

At this point the line of Elephantine divides into two branches. After year 17 of Cheres, Rathures came to power for 44 years and was succeeded by Unis. 6 Rathures

44

1563-1519

9 Onnos (Unis)

33

1519-1486

After the 20-year reign of Cheres, Tancheres came to power also for 44 years, with Unis as his successor as follows: 8 Tancheres 9 Onnos (Unis)

44

1560-1516

30 in Turin Canon

1516-1486

For a total period of 9 years Mencheres shared in the government, giving rise to three parallel reigns. Subdivisions of government as here illustrated were quite typical of the ancient world. An example that might be cited is the government of the later Roman Empire when subdivided into two parts, each under two emperors.

Pharaoh of the Exodus Now for the sixth dynasty. To determine its chronological place in history, we must first establish the end of Dynasty VIII. Dynasty VIII, located at Memphis, was a very weak period -- under foreign dominion, as will later be established. It lasted a total of 140 years. Many of the names of its kings have been found, but no regnal dates for any individual kings can be determined. (Consult Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 437.) This dynasty concludes the 955 years from the beginning of the government of Menes or Cush at Babel, according to the Turin Canon. Its dates are therefore 1439-1299. It was preceded by 6 kingless years, extending from 1445-1439. This period corresponds with Joshua's conquest of Goshen to the Nile (Joshua 10:41 and 11:16). Sometimes these six kingless years are attached to Dynasty VI; on other occasions the period is attached to Dynasty VIII. During this period of six kingless years occurs the ephemeral seventh dynasty. Africanus records that it comprised a kind of council with 70 kings exercising authority for 70 days. Eusebius declares there were 5 kings who ruled for 75 days. Little else is known of the period. Dynasty VI of Memphis immediately preceded this period. It lasted 181 years -- 1626-1445. The following chart is determined from archaeological evidence and the Turin Canon.

Names in Manetho

Names in Turin Canon and King-

Length of Reign

Dates

lists 1 Othoes

Teti Userkare (a usurper)

13

1626-1613

6

1613-1607

20

1607-1587

6

1587-1581

94

1581-1487

2 Phios

Piopi

3 Menthusuphis

Merenre

4 Phiops

Neferkare

5 Menthesuphis

Merenre-Antyemzaef

1

1487-1486

Nitokerty

12

1486-1474

Neferka, the younger 20

1474-1454

Nufe

2

1454-1452

Kakare (Ibi)

4

1452-1448

(name missing)

2

1448-1446

(name missing)

1

1446-1445

6 Nitocris (Manetho ends his list here)

Manetho assigns to Othoes 30 years, at the end of which time he was assassinated by his bodyguard, His total reign extended from 1643-1613. Manetho's second king Phios is assigned 53 years: 1613-1560. He reigned jointly during the early years of his young son Pepi the Great (Phiops Neferkare) Menthusuphis is assigned by Manetho 7 years, and archaeological finds indicate he reigned a year jointly with his young brother before he died (1581-1580). Compare these dates with those of Dynasty V for the Exodus. Dynasty V ended at 1486 with the death of the magician-king (Unis is called Jannes in II Timothy 3:8.) In Dynasty VI king Merenre II also dies in 1486, after only one year's reign. He was succeeded by his wife Nitocris, then by his son Neferka "the younger." Neferka's older brother, the firstborn, died at the Passover. No trace of him has been found. Compare this with Exodus 2:23, "And it came to pass in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died." This king is Neferkare -- more commonly called Pepi II -- who reigned the longest in all Egyptian history. He came to the throne at 6 years of age and died at 100. Then God calls Moses. To Moses he declared: "Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead that sought thy life" (Exodus 4:19). Merenre II was now reigning -- the Pharaoh whom Moses and Aaron met and who perished in the Red Sea. At this juncture in history Egypt collapsed. Foreign invaders enter the land -- but who they were and where they came from must wait until all the previous dynasties before the Exodus are determined.

Dynasty IV -- the Pyramid Builders To return to the story of Joseph. Parallel with Dynasty III of Memphis, was Dynasty IV, "eight kings of Memphis belonging to a different line." This dynasty includes such famous names as Cheops,

Chephren and Mycerinus -- to use the names made familiar by Herodotus. The list of kings of the fourth dynasty in the Turin Canon and on the Palermo Stone differs from Manetho after Cheops. The result, no doubt, of the tragic plague that came upon Cheops (Job). The Palermo Stone and the Turin Canon begin Dynasty IV 123 years before Dynasty V. That means it commenced the 24-year reign of Snefru in 1750. The following dates are from Turin Canon and restored Palermo Stone. Name in King-lists and on Turin Papyrus

Length of Reign

Dates

Snefru

24

1750-1726

Khufwey (Cheops)

23

1726-1703

(According to Herodotus, the Great Pyramid took 20 years to build, much of it during the time of the seven-years' famine when labor was available. The loss of authority after 23 years appears to correspond with the plague on Job. At this point the death of several of the sons of Cheops is recorded at the tombs near Gizeh) Continuing: Radjedef

8

1703-1695

27

1695-1668

7

1668-1661

28

1661-1633

Shepseskaf

4

1633-1629

(name missing)

2

1629-1627

Khafre Hardjedef Baufre

At this point this branch of the dynasty was succeeded by the kings of Dynasty V, from Elephantine. The following is the information preserved by Manetho who begins the dynasty five years earlier than does the Turin Canon. (Note that Cheops is designated as Job. See May 1958 "Good News", p. 3.) Names in Manetho

Names in Kinglists

Length of Reign

1 Soris

Snofru or Snefru

29

1755-1726

2 Suphis (Cheops or Job)

Khufwey

63

1726-1663

---

66

1734-1668

Menkaure

63

1668-1605

3 Suphis (Joseph) 4 Mencheres

Dates

Parallel with Mycerinus were the following: 5 Ratoises

---

25

1668-1643

6 Bicheris

---

22

1643-1621

7 Sebecheres

---

8 Thampthis

---

7 9

1621-1614 1614-1605

Herodotus tells us that according to Egyptian tradition there were 150 years between the beginning of the dynasty and the end of the life of Mycerinug, 1755-1605. Manetho's account appears senseless to historians because they have assumed there were no other kings than those whose records they have found through archaeology. It is often the men who were least important in their own age whose tombs or monuments have been recovered, while the individuals who loomed large at the time have vanished completely.

CHAPTER FOUR The Missing Half of Egypt's History Who was the daughter of Pharaoh who adopted Moses? Where is Moses mentioned in the story of Egypt? Who was that Ramses whose land Jacob was given to dwell in? Which Pharaoh took Sarai from Abram? Thus far only half the story of Egypt before the Exodus has been told. The first eight dynasties have told of the royal lines from Abydos or Thinis and of Memphis and Elephantine. Memphis, as most are aware, was the ancient capital of Lower Egypt. Who were the kings of Upper Egypt during this period? And of the Delta and of Middle Egypt?

The Story Unfolds The Bible is not a history textbook. It is a guide book. Without it nothing important in ancient history can be rightly understood. But this does not mean all ancient history is recorded in the Bible. Scripture is the starting point of study. It opens up solutions to secular records that otherwise would be misunderstood. This is especially true of Egypt's history. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century of our era, wrote in his "Antiquities" of the life of Moses before he fled Egypt at age 40. Just prior to the flight of Moses, the Egyptians had been overrun by the Ethiopians from the south. This is the famous period of the Ethiopian Wars. Josephus records Moses' part in them. "The Egyptians, under this sad oppression, betook themselves to their oracles and prophecies; and when God had given them this counsel, to make use of Moses the Hebrew, and take his assistance, the king commanded his daughter to produce him, that he might be the general of their army." (Book II, chapter x, part 2.) Moses' generalship is carefully recorded by Josephus in the entire chapter. The final victory was gained at the city of Saba (later Meroe), where the daughter of the Ethiopians -- Tharbis -- turned over the city as the price of her marriage to Moses. (Is this the beginning of the story in Numbers 12:1?) "Now the Egyptians," continues Josephus in the next chapter, "after they had been preserved by Moses ... told the king he ought to be slain. The king ... also ... was ready to undertake to kill Moses; but when he (Moses) had learned beforehand what plots there were against him, he ... took his flight through the deserts, and where his enemies could not suspect he would travel." Moses, it must be remembered, was heir to a throne in Egypt. The ruling Pharaoh had a daughter, but no grandchildren. Josephus explains Moses' peculiar position at the end of chapter ix of book II. "If Moses had been slain (after his adoption), there was no one, either akin or adopted, that had any oracle on his side for pretending to the crown of Egypt." Here are the needed clues. A dynasty in which Moses is General, and one which was broken at the very point in history that Moses fled. Is there such a dynasty -- one which also exercised jurisdiction in the northeastern Delta where Israel dwelt and Moses was found? Indeed there is just such a dynasty -- Dynasty XIII of Thebes! The total length of this dynasty, according to Africanus' and Eusebius' epitomes from Manetho, was 453 years, under 60 rulers. But

the version of Barbarus provides a missing detail from Manetho. It reveals that for a time the court was not only at Thebes, but at Bubastis in the Delta for the first 153 years. (See Alfred Schoene's edition of "Eusebius", page 214.)

Moses the General In the Turin Canon catalogue of kings of the thirteenth dynasty, listed number 17, is "The General," with the throne name of Semenkhkare. (Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 440; and Weigall's "History of the Pharaohs", pages 136, 151-152.) The Egyptian word for "the General" was Mermeshoi. Not in all dynastic history does this title appear again as the personal name of a ruler of Egypt. This General was Moses as will be demonstrated by a comparison with contemporary history. Two beautiful large granite statues of Mermeshoi -- the General -- have been found in the Delta at Tanis. They are of excellent workmanship. When Moses was made General or Commander of the Troops, he automatically inherited royal authority, as did Joseph before him. Only KINGS could have the supreme command of the army. That explains his appearance in this list. Before the rise to power of this famous General, the thirteenth dynasty was of Asiatic blood. Its kings at times bore the epithet "the Asiatic." There was consequently no basic prejudice in adopting the Hebrew child Moses into the family. (See Volume II, chapter II of the revised "Cambridge Ancient History", 1962) The sixteenth king listed in the Turin Canon -- just before "the General" -- was Userkare Khendjer -- the latter being an un-Egyptian personal name. He ruled over the Delta as well as Upper Egypt. A pyramid of his has been found at South Saqqara. No descendant of his is known to have succeeded to the throne. Though nothing more is known of this man's family, every evidence points to him as the Pharaoh whose daughter is mentioned in the book of Exodus. Within a few years the influence of this dynasty in the eastern Delta ceased. The kings of this period often have their names associated with King Neferkare on royal seals. This name is that of Pepi the Great. Here is the final proof that these rulers of Dynasty XIII were contemporary with the last great Pharaoh of the sixth dynasty of Memphis! More than one name on a scarab has puzzled many historians, who view Egypt as ruled generally by only one king at a time. But literally hundreds of such seals have been found. They are generally treated with discreet silence, for the implication of these seals would revolutionize the history of Egypt! (See "The Sceptre of Egypt", by William C. Hayes, Volume I, page 342.) About 40 years after the reign of the General, Egypt collapsed. With the reign of the 25th king of the dynasty, nearly all contemporary evidence ceases. Foreigners invade the country. This period is summarized by Sir Alan Gardiner by the dismal words: "... darkness descends upon the historical scene, leaving discernible in the twilight little beyond royal names ..." (page 155 of "Egypt of the Pharaohs"). No internal dates for this dynasty are now available. But the history of this and preceding dynasties of Thebes can be restored Take the evidence of Barbarus, which gives the dynasty, while centered in the Delta, 153 years. Place this date in the 41st year before the collapse of Egypt in 1486. The 41st year before 1486 brings us to 1527. (This is when Moses is nearly 40 years old during the war with Ethiopia. When Moses is forty, in 1526 he flees Egypt.) The beginning

of the dynasty was then 153 years before this, or in 1680. There were only two dynasties of Thebes before this time -- the eleventh and the twelfth. Dynasty XI ruled 143 years; the famous Dynasty XII for 212 calendar years. Add these figures up and one reaches 2035 -- the reign of Shem! Now the story of Shem is clear. Shem came into Egypt to divide the country up into various kingships, in order to prevent the rise to power of one unified kingdom over the entire world. But Shem did more than found a new kingship at Thebes -- he also established a kingship at Heracleopolis, south of Memphis. Manetho's Dynasty IX -- the first of two dynasties to be established in Heracleopolis -- ruled 409 years. It is exactly 409 years from 2035 to 1626, the date at which Dynasty VI of Memphis began. The historians' fiction of an Old and a Middle Kingdom -- under Memphis, and then Thebes -- is completely demolished by these facts of history. It is, rather, the story of the kings of Memphis in Lower Egypt and the kings of Thebes in Upper Egypt ruling in a great confederacy.

History of Upper Egypt Now, to tell the history of the kingships of Thebes and Heracleopolis which paralleled the dynasties of Thinis and Memphis and, later Elephantine. The city of Thebes, like Thinis during the second dynasty, was a small semi-independent kingdom that steadily rose to power. From archaeology the Turin Canon and monuments, the entire 143 years of the Dynasty XI can be restored as follows. Names

Length of Reign together

Dates

Mentuhotpe, Hereditary Prince and Sehertowe Inyotef

16

2035-2019

Wahankh Inyotef

49

2019-1970

8

1970-1962

Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe

51

1962-1911

Sankhkare Mentuhotpe

12

1911-1899

7 years of near anarchy

1899-1892

Nakhtnebtepnufe Inyotef

Nebtowere Mentuhotpe and others

In the days of Wahankh Inyotef a tragic war broke out in Egypt between the rulers of Heracleopolis and Thebes over control of the city of Thinis (Abydos). In this struggle the first dynasty of Thinis collapsed, and a new dynasty arose in 1993. It is interesting to note that Wahankh came to power in the year (2019) that Shem ceased to reign in Thinis. It appears that with his departure war convulsed Egypt. Once these dynasties are properly placed the whole of Egypt's ancient history makes sense -- to the very year! Since the restoration, in this compendium, must proceed solidly step by step, the events cannot be told here in logical order until the chronological position of the dynasties is positively determined. It is advisable that the lists of dynasties already given be continuously consulted.

Before we can proceed further with the story, a chart of the two dynasties of Heracleopolis and of Dynasty XI of Thebes is needed. The meaning of this chart will become apparent with the development of the story of Thebes. The figures for the length of the Heracleopolitan dynasties are falsely labeled spurious -- by historians. Now consider Dynasty XI of Thebes. Theban Dynasty XI -- 143 years -- 2035-1892 First conquest of Heracleopolis, ninth year of Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe -- 1954 Final conquest of Heracleopolis and union of all Egypt 100 years after founding of dynasty -- 1935 Years of dominion over all Egypt: 43 -- 1935-1892 Dynasty IX at Heracleopolis appears in Manetho thus: Length of rule: 409 years -- 2035-1626 -- to Dynasty VI of Memphis Length of power: 100 years -- 2035-1935 Dynasty X at Heracleopolis appears in Manetho thus: Length of rule: 204 years -- 1954-1750 -- to Dynasty IV of Memphis Length of rule: 185 years -- 1935-1750 -- to Dynasty IV of Memphis The preceding outline is explained by these facts. Three dynasties contended for the control of Egypt after Thebes obtained control of Thinis and subordinated its second dynasty. In the ninth year of Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe -- the Pharaoh to whose harem Sarah was brought -- a great war was fought over the city of Heracleopolis. So small was Egypt's population in those days that only 60 men were lost by the Thebans in their attack. This and many other evidences clearly indicate that the eleventh dynasty was one of the earliest in Egypt. This ninth year was 1954-53. This date is very significant. Barbarus, the Latin writer, designated Dynasty X of Heracleopolis as lasting 204 years. (In this account a note of caution should be observed. As Manetho listed the dynasties of Egypt, the only two dynasties of Heracleopolis were labeled Dynasty IX and Dynasty X. In any final history textbook Manetho's numbering should be discarded. and each city's dynasties should be renumbered from the beginning. Thus these two dynasties were not IX and X of Heracleopolis, but I and II of Heracleopolis.) There were exactly 204 years between 1954, when the dynasty was founded, and 1750 when Snefru brought the fourth dynasty to power at Memphis. Thus every major event in the history of the Theban kings is reflected in the history of Heracleopolis. This does not mean that Dynasty IX ceased. It continued 409 years to the beginning of Dynasty VI, as already mentioned. The war with Heracleopolis continued intermittently until the 100th year of the Theban dynasty 1935. In that year Egypt was completely united under Mentuhotpe. This date, too, is significant. Although Africanus gives the length of Dynasty IX as 409 years, Eusebius gives it only 100 years. Since it was founded in 2035, its hundred years extended to 1935 as did that of Thebes. Thus one may see that instead of these figures being corrupt and unhistorical records, each tells only part of the whole story. Already it has been noted that Dynasty X of Heracleopolis lasted 204 years. But Africanus and Eusebius state that its period of dominion was 185. It was exactly 185 years also from 1935 to 1750. The difference between these figures is 19 -- the same as between the years

1954 and 1935 in the reign of Mentuhotpe. Also Africanus and Eusebius both state that Dynasty XI of Thebes extended its rule over Egypt 43 years. From 1935 to the end of the dynasty in 1892 is exactly 43 years. All this is simple arithmetic that historians have not solved in 2000 years! Few of the names of the Heracleopolitan dynasties have been preserved. Nor has any internal dating been preserved in any records. With the addition of the twelfth dynasty at Thebes, the following chart illustrates the order of dynasties in this early period. Thinis Dynasty I -- 261 years -- 2254-1993 Dynasty II -- 256 years -- 1993-1737 Memphis Dynasty III -- 74 years -- 1737-1663 Thebes Dynasty XI -- 143 years -- 2035-1892 Dynasty XII -- 212 years -- 1892-1680 Dynasty XIII -- 453 years -- 1680-1227 -----------Heracleopolis Dynasty IX -- 100 years -- 2035-1935 Dynasty X -- 185 years -- 1935-1750 Memphis Dynasty IV -- 123 years -- 1750-1627 Dynasty V -- 140 years -- 1627-1486 Heracleopolis Dynasty IX -- 409 years -- 2035-1626 Memphis Dynasty VI -- 181 years -- 1626-1445 Dynasty VII and 6 kingless years 1445-1439 Dynasty VIII -- 140 years -- 1439-1299

The Great Theban Dynasty XII With the restoration of Dynasty XII of Thebes -- the second dynasty to rule in Thebes -- the history of early Egypt to the Exodus will be nearly complete. The lengths of reigns of Dynasty XII are firmly established, though they have come down in several forms due to the practice of associating successors on the throne prior to death of predecessor, or of dating from designation as heir to the throne. In each case the total is 212 calendar years -- 1892-1680. Names in Manetho

Ammenemes

Personal Names

Amenemhe I

Length of Reign based on the Monuments 20

Dates

1892-1872

Sesonchosis

Senwosre I

42

1872-1830

Ammanemes

Amenemhe II

32

1830-1798

(No name given)

Senwosre II

19

1798-1779

Sesostris

Senwosre III

38

1779-1741

Lachares (Lamares)

Amenemhe III

49

1741-1692

Ameres

(No name given)

Ammenemes

Amenemhe IV

9

1692-1683

Scemiophris

Sebeknofru

3

1683-1680

(Dynasty XIII of Thebes follows.) The Canon of Turin reckoned the first three kings' reigns differently, but the total again is the same. Amenemhe I is given 29 years (1892-1863). Senwosre I is given 45 years (1863-1818). Amenemhe II is given 20 years (1818-1798). These various datings, when taken together, illustrate the full tenure of public office. Manetho's figures, as they have come down to us, tell another part of the story not contained in these records. His account deletes one king and adds another, beside referring to a rule of twelve. Manetho records that Amenemhe ruled 16 years during the close of the eleventh dynasty. His 30 years of rule after the close of seven years' anarchy is not recorded by Manethos abstractors. Name in Manetho

Ammenemes

Length of Reign from Manetho

Dates

16

1908-1892

(30)

(1892-1862)

Sesonchosis

46

1862-1816

Ammanemes

38

1816-1778

Sesostris

48

1778-1730

8

1730-1722

22

1722-1700

Ameres

8

1700-1692

Ammenemes

8

1692-1684

Scemiophris

4

1684-1680

Lamares "Others" during Dodecarchy, or rule of twelve.

In late Ptolemaic times a document was written on the temple wall

at Edfu concerning a great war that occurred in the 363rd year of the era of Menes. Menes was crowned in 2254. The 363rd year is 1892. It was in this year that the climax of seven years of near anarchy was ended and the power or hegemony of Thebes was re-established over all Egypt. This same event is also recorded on the Palermo stone in the 363rd year of the kingdom. Sesostris III was one of the greatest conquerors in early Egyptian history. Manetho records that "in nine years he subdued the whole of Asia, and Europe as far as Thrace ..." Asia, of course, refers to Asia Minor and the Near East only. But our interest in this dynasty centers rather on Amenemhe III, the Pharaoh who dominated all Egypt in Joseph's day. Egyptian history rarely records a man who exerted so much energy in a positive direction. Under him Lake Moeris was developed in the Fayyum for the storage of water. He was responsible for the construction of a long canal, a kind of secondary river, along the Nile to Lake Moeris. It is named to this day the Bahr Yusuf -- the River of Joseph! The famed Labyrinth was also erected under his rule. He associated, during the middle of his reign twelve rulers with him, called the Dodecarchy. Were these the brothers of Joseph? Amenemhe III took special efforts to measure the rise of the Nile. (Volume II of "A History of the Pharaohs", by Weigall.) Before closing this period of history, it is important that one take notice of two facts that are at times misunderstood about this dynasty. Most historians date this dynasty to specific years "B.C." by astronomical methods. To do so they have recourse to altering certain readings in the documents they use. Further, historians neglect the fact that even the Egyptians state in their records that the courses of the heavens have on occasion changed. The Egyptian calendar does not determine the chronology of the time, but the proper historical restoration of the dynasties will instead enable the honest historian to determine the changes that have taken place in the Egyptian calendar. The second problem is the stated length of the Dynasty XII in the Turin Canon. The figure is "213 years, 1 month, 17 days." The total length of the dynasty was only 212 calendar years. The last ruler -Sebeknofru reigned for "3 years 10 months, 24 days." The last 10 months, together with about 3 months of the last year of Dynasty XI, when Amenemhe obtained control of Egypt prior to New Year, are added to 212 years to make 213. But the last 10 months of Sebeknofru's reign became the first year of Dynasty XIII. Hence it is not counted to Dynasty XII when calculated in sequence. (See page 71 of Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs".)

Who Was Rameses? Perhaps the greatest difficulty in reconciling the Bible has been the reference in Genesis to the land of Rameses (Genesis 47:11). It has been assumed either that the book of Genesis was a late document which inserted the name of Rameses in place of some lost original name, or that the name is original and the account of the Exodus took place after Rameses and not in the manner described in the Bible. Neither of these explanations is correct. Long before Rameses the Great was born, there were several kings, not known by modern historians, with some form of the name Rameses. The record of these kings of the Delta, foolishly rejected by all historians today, is the key to this enigma in the Bible. The names are

preserved by Syncellus in the Book of Sothis. A list of them may be found in Waddell's "Manetho", page 235. This line of kings begins with "Mestraim" -- the Mizraim of the Bible, from whom the Egyptians descended. Many early commentators thought this Mestraim was the same person as Menes, and have therefore inserted Menes' name as an explanation of Mestraim. But this is not so. Mestraim founded a dynasty at Zoan in the Delta entirely separate from that of Cush and Nimrod. Among these rulers is a Rameses who lived in the days of Joseph and the fourth dynasty. Many historians have been puzzled by the fact that the name of Rameses should appear on so many of the building blocks that went into the early buildings of the third and fourth dynasties. Their mistaken explanation is that the later Rameses had his servants take time out to carve his name on all these stones. It never occurred to them that there might actually have been a Rameses who assisted in the erection of these fabulous monuments of a by-gone era. As the history of Egypt is gradually reconstructed, the Book of Sothis will play an ever more prominent part in it. Syncellus believed the book to be a genuine list of kings from Manetho. It names many otherwise unknown kings, and places the known dynasties in the correct order. For this reason the book has been rejected for centuries as a fictitious account of Pharaonic Egypt. The Book of Sothis is one of the most important proofs of the true order of kings as presented in this restoration of Egyptian history. The kings in the Book of Sothis continue to the coming of the Persians in 525, but they will not all be listed in this compendium until their proper place in history. Following are the kings from the book of Sothis to the year 1299.

Names of Kings from Book of Sothis

Length of Reign

Dates

1. Mestraim

35

2254-2219

2. Kourodes

63

2219-2156

3. Aristarchos

34

2156-2122

4. Spanios

36

2122-2086

5,6. Two others unrecorded

72

2086-2014

7. Osiropis

23

2014-1991

8. Sesonchosis

49

1991-1942

9. Amenemes

29

1942-1913

10. Amasis

2

1913-1911

13

1911-1898

12. Anchoreus

9

1898-1889

13. Armiyses

4

1889-1885

11. Acesephthres

14. Chamois

12

1885-1873

15. Miamus

14

1873-1859

16. Amesesis

65

1859-1794

17. Uses

50

1794-1741

18. Rameses

29

1744-1715

19. Ramesomenes

15

1715-1700

20. Usimare

31

1700-1669

21. Ramesseseos

23

1669-1646

22. Ramessameno

19

1646-1627

23. Ramesse Iubasse

39

1627-1588

24. Ramesse Uaphru

29

1588-1559

6

1559-1553

254

1553-1299

25. Concharis 4 kings of Tanis

The fifth year of Concharis is the 700th year from Mestraim. Because of this statement, most commentators alter the length of reign of Concharis from 6 to 5. ("Chronological Antiquities", by John Jackson, Vol. II, page 150.) The correct figure is 6. Following Concharis were four other kings of Tanis, names not preserved, who reigned during the succeeding 254 years. Add to the 700 the last year of Concharis, plus 254 and the total is 955. This is exactly the same figure which the Turin Papyrus gives for the end of the eighth dynasty of Memphis. Both these lists are historical. They come from the same original sources. Such a figure as 955 to end an era is preposterous on the basis of coincidence. This list of Tanite (Zoan) kings is historical. Only one dynasty remains to be discussed before the coming of the Shepherd Kings. That is Dynasty XIV of Xois in the Delta. Its 76 kings lasted 484 years. It is known to be parallel with Dynasty XIII of Thebes. It commenced at the end of Dynasty III of Memphis, in 1663, following the reign of Huny and the departure of Job or Cheops in the same year, and ended in 1179. Africanus states that the dynasty exercised power for 184 years, but this covers only the time to the usurpation of power by the Shepherd kings. Few names have been preserved complete, and no regnal years are available. A complete list of the fragmentary names is printed in Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", pages 441-442. With this chapter the restoration of Egyptian history to the Exodus closes.

CHAPTER FIVE Egypt After the Exodus Numerous catastrophic events befell Egypt at the time of the Exodus. A frightful destruction of its national wealth; loss of two million people used as slaves; the death of its most powerful rulers. All public building ceases. Historians have looked vainly for this sign of the Exodus sometime in the great eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties of Thebes. They have never found it. And no wonder. The Exodus occurred at the end of the fifth dynasty, and during the sixth, thirteenth and fourteenth! Every one of these dynasties preserves the record of the calamity. After the Exodus an invasion of the Delta occurred, a natural consequence of Israel evacuating the territory. The story of the Exodus and of this invasion is recounted in the "Admonitions of Ipu-wer." A recent translation by John A. Wilson, of this early document may be found in Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", pages 441-444.

Who Were the Invaders? The Egyptian priest Manetho wrote a full account of this great event. Much of his material has been preserved by Josephus. It is found in "Against Apion", book I, chapter 14, parts 73-92. Manetho began his report by admitting, "... for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow, and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally they appointed a king of one of their number whose name was Salatis. He had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and always leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions." The name Salitis comes from a Semitic root meaning prince. It is the root of the word Sultan. These invaders came from the East. They must have passed to Egypt from Sinai. They made Egyptians slaves. Does the Bible speak of such a people who suddenly gained the dominance of this part of the world? Indeed, the Edomite Amalekites! As late as the days of King Saul the Egyptians were still partly subject to these people. In I Samuel 30:11-13 appears this account: "And they found an Egyptian in the field .... And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick." In the time of Moses, shortly after the Exodus, Balaam spoke of Amalek in these terms: "And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek the first of nations: but his latter end shall be that he perish forever" (Numbers 24:20). "The first of nations" is not a matter of time, but of position and rank. The Amalekites were a nation late to arrive, since they stemmed from Esau. But they were suddenly plummeted to greatness by seizing the Delta at the Exodus. The first people to attack the children of Israel in Sinai were

the Amalekites. "Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim" (Exodus 17:8). Had not God intervened on behalf of Israel, the Amalekites would have gained a great victory. From 1486 to 1076 the Amalekite Shepherd Kings and kindred peoples dominated the land of Egypt, as shall now be demonstrated. Historians have arbitrarily shortened this period to little more than a century and placed it much too early. But such are the vagaries of historians who have no respect for the record of history.

The Great Shepherds Manetho tells us that Dynasty XV was composed of Shepherd Kings. The Egyptian word for them is "Hyksos". Hence these people are often spoken of as "the Hyksos." In the year the Hyksos overran Egypt they established their government at Memphis -- 1486 -- and ruled Egypt for the next 259 years. Nine years after the Exodus -- in 1477 -- they established court in Thebes. This explains why Eusebius assigns them only 250 years at Thebes -- 1477-1227. The year 1477, uniquely, coincides with the founding of Troy, in Asia Minor, by a related people. Dynasty XV is listed below according to Josephus and Eusebius. The varied spellings are from transcriptions by Josephus and Eusebius. Names of Hyksos of Dynasty XV

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1 Salatis or Saites

19

1486-1467

2 Bnon

44

1467-1423

3 Pachnan or Apachnan

36

1423-1387

4 Apophis

61

1387-1326

5 Iannas or Staan

50

1326-1276

6 Archles or Assis

49

1276-1227

The name of the fifth ruler is usually spelled by modern archaeologists "Khayan" -- a title very similar to the Turkish and Tatar word Khan. The fourth king, Apophis, is an important figure in Greek history, as will be seen when restoring to the correct dates the rulers of the Greek city of Sicyon. The Greeks knew him as Epopeus. He was killed in Greece. The Great Hyksos kings of Dynasty XV tolerated the native rulers of Dynasty XIII of Thebes until 1227. In that year the Hyksos were forced to adopt a change in government at Thebes consequent to a native uprising. There followed, wrote Manetho, Dynasty XVII with 43 Shepherd Kings paralleled by 43 native kings of Thebes for 151 years. The native kings continued as vassals of the Hyksos. The 43 appointed Shepherd and native kings of Dynasty XVII ruled from 1227 to 1076, when the Hyksos were overthrown and the native Thebans of Dynasty XVII were superseded by Dynasty XVIII, In chart form the change in dynasties appears thus:

Dynasty XV 259 years

Dynasty XIII 453 years

1486-1227

1680-1227

Dynasty XVII 151 years 1227-1076

Dynasty XVII 151 years 1227-1076

The same pattern of change took place in 1179. In that year the fourteenth dynasty of Xois ceased (1663-1179). In its place arose an important new king line also called Dynasty XVII because it is related to the kings that came to power in Thebes in 1227. "They were brothers from Phoenicia and foreign kings: they seized Memphis." The Theban and Memphite branches were related by blood. The stronger ruled in Memphis the other in Thebes. This new line of Memphite kings ruled for 103 years -- 1179-1076. The names and dates are these: Names of Great Hyksos of Dynasty XVII who Ruled in Memphis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1 Saites

19

1179-1160

2 Bnon

40

1160-1120

3 Archles or Archaes

30

1120-1090

4 Aphophis

14

1090-1076

The year 1076 is clearly one of the most important in Egyptian history. At the time of the conquest of Egypt by Dynasty XV, which set up its capital at Memphis, and later held court at Thebes, a lesser dynasty of foreigners set up a new regime in Upper Egypt in Thebes. This line of kings is known as Dynasty XVI. The names of these kings have not come down through the classical writers. There were 32 kings in all, ruling 511 or 518 years. The dates commence, of course. with the fall of the fifth dynasty 1486. Many have thought these long dynastic figures preposterous. But they make good sense when studied in connection with the expeditions of Thutmose the Great. The two different lengths of reign extend to 975 and 968. They represent the 23rd and the 30th years of Thutmose. The campaign of 975 took him along the southern Phoenician coast and as far inland as Megiddo. The campaign of the 30th year brought Egyptian arms to Kadesh (Jerusalem) and to Arvad far to the north, along the upper Phoenician coast. Since the Phoenicians were associated with the Amalekites in the invasions of Egypt, under Dynasty XVII, the final overthrow of those rulers was in Egyptian records synonymous with the conquest of Phoenicia. According to Africanus, the first five kings of Dynasty XVI ruled in Thebes for 190 years -- 1487-1297. At that time another line of Shepherd kings replaced them at Thebes for 221 years according to Barbarus. These 221 years extend from 1297-1076. It is apparent therefore that after 1297 Dynasty XVI ceased to rule at Thebes. The classical writers do not state where the government of this dynasty was later centered, although toward the end it was located in Phoenicia where Thutmose ends the rule of these local kings. From Barbarus' account it is also clear that Dynasty XVII ruled at Thebes 70 years before replacing the Great Hyksos of the Fifteenth Dynasty in 1227. When Manetho stated the period as 151 years he

referred only to the time after Dynasty XV. In actuality Dynasty XVII had been reigning in Thebes since 1297 and continued for 221 years. Thus all these figures, which at first seem so senseless, fit perfectly together. In chart form it may thus be illustrated. Dynasty XVI 190 years 1487-1297

Dynasty XV 259 years 1486-1227

Dynasty XVII 221 total years 1297-1076

Dynasty XVII 151 years 1227-1076

One item yet remains for discussion -- the 48-year period between 1227-1179. The names of the chief rulers of Egypt from 1486 to 1227 are known -- Dynasty XV. So are the names of the rulers from 1179-1076 -the Memphite branch of Dynasty XVII. What is the name of the ruler between these two dynasties? Surely Egypt can hardly have left us without a name for 48 years! The answer is to be found in Africanus' account of Dynasty XV. Previously only Josephus' and Eusebius' transcriptions of Manetho were presented in chart form. It is now time to study Africanus' account. Scholars have long puzzled over Africanus' transcription of Dynasty XV from Manetho. It is most commonly thought that Julius Africanus misplaced the name of Apophis from fourth place to last place in the dynasty. This assumption is unfounded. Africanus meant exactly what he wrote -- that an Apophis did in fact continue the line of kings of Dynasty XV after 1227. This second Apophis was not included after king Archles (1276-1227) by either Josephus or Eusebius. or in the Book of Sothis. Similarly Africanus did not include the first Apophis (1387-1326) whom the other transcribers recorded. That there were in fact three Hyksos kings with the name Apophis -- two from Dynasty XV and one from Dynasty XVII -- has been amply confirmed by archaeological discovery. From the monuments modern research teams have recovered the full Egyptian names of each: Akenenre Apopi (1387-1326) who was slain in Greece: Aweserre Apopi (1227-1166) who fought a native rebellion which rocked the country in 1227: and Nebkhepeshre Apopi (1090-1076) of Dynasty XVII, whose short reign ended in the collapse of Hyksos dominion in Egypt. ("Egypt of the Pharaohs" by Gardiner, pages 157-168 and 443.) The following chart presents the data preserved from Manetho by Africanus for Dynasty XV, beginning the year after the Exodus. Dynasty XV According to Africanus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Saites

19

1486-1467

Bnon

44

1467-1423

Pachnan

61

1423-1362

(Aphophis I -- 1387-1326 -- is not included by Africanus, and a longer reign of 61 years instead of 36 years is assigned to Pachnan.) Staan (Iannas or Khian)

50

1326-1276

Archles

49

1276-1227

Aphophis (II)

61

1227-1166

This is the Hyksos ruler whose reign extended over the 48-year period between the end of Dynasty XV in 1227 and the commencement of Dynasty XVII in 1179.

Hyksos in Book of Sothis According to the Book of Sothis there were seven Hyksos kings who dominated Egypt from 1486-1227. These kings in the book of Sothis are labeled "the Seventeenth Dynasty" according to the reckoning of George Syncellus. They were, however, the kings usually known as Dynasty XV. Syncellus and Barbarus and other writers in early times apparently followed different methods in numbering Manetho's dynasties. Notice that even Africanus grouped two lines of kings -- one foreign, the other native -- under the heading "Dynasty XVII." These Hyksos kings in the Book of Sothis appear as follows: Names of Kings in Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

26 Silites

19

1486-1467

27 Baion

44

1467-1423

28 Apachnas 29 Aphophis

36 61

1423-1387 1387-1326

30 Sethos

50

1326-1276

31 Certos

29 (or 44)

1276-1247 (or 1276-1232)

32 Aseth

20

1247-1227

At this point -- 1227 -- the natives forced the Hyksos or Amalekite to accept a new line of Egyptian rulers to represent Egypt at Thebes.

Amalekites After 1076 One must not assume, from these events. however, that Amalekite power was crushed solely by the Egyptians. Biblical history proves that Saul had no small part in the final overthrow of the Shepherd Amalekites outside Egypt. Saul was king 40 years altogether (Acts 13:21). After his anointing by Samuel there were almost twenty years (1091-1071) for which we have no record in the Bible. The country went to pieces under Philistine and Amalekite invaders. Then Saul regained his power for 20 years -- 1071-1051 ("Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus, book VI, chapter XIV, section 9). One year later (following his return to power) Saul appointed his now-grown son Jonathan to assist him in a military campaign against the Philistines. This was the calendar year 1070-1069. God intervened on behalf of Israel with a tremendous earthquake that shook the earth (I Sam. 14:15). "So Saul took the kingdom over Israel" (I Sam. 14:47) after this

great event. He then gathered a great host against the Amalekites and defeated them (I Sam. 14:48). This account is amplified in I Sam. 15:1-9. It is significant that in the year 1069, in Greek history, there was an invasion of the Aegean by Amalekites and their brethren who were fleeing from war and from a terrible earthquake that had destroyed their possessions in Western Europe. Here we have the surprising Biblical evidence which reveals what befell the Hyksos in the 7 years after their expulsion from Egypt.

CHAPTER SIX The Revival of Egypt The return of Egypt to a great world power commenced with the overthrow of the Shepherd Kings in Upper Egypt. It opened the way for the most glamorous -- and the most incestuous -- of all Egyptian families -- Dynasty XVIII of Thebes. (NOTE: To view the figure placed here, see the file CMPDM1A.TIF in the Images\OtherWCG directory.) Archaeology has provided a wealth of information for this period. Yet no standard textbook has ever restored Dynasty XVIII to its rightful place in history. Because Manetho presented his history of Egypt's thirty dynasties in successive order, it was early assumed that the exodus occurred under this dynasty. Modern historians have long recognized that not one shred of evidence supports this preposterous traditional conception inherited from Catholic scholars. As a solution, they have proposed an even more preposterous theory -- that the exodus -- if it took place at all! -- was under the succeeding nineteenth dynasty. There is indeed a reference to Israel during the nineteenth dynasty of Egypt, but it is to the captivity of Israel -- not to the exodus, as will be demonstrated when restoring the Ramesside period.

Dynasty XVIII Archaeological and classical materials are sufficient to restore in detail the dynastic sequence and relationship of the kings and queens of Dynasty XVIII. Ahmose commenced the dynasty and expelled the foreign Shepherd Kings. His queen, Ahmose-Nofreteroi, is "depicted for some unaccountable reason with a black countenance," declared Sir Alan Gardiner in "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 175. The second king, Amenhotpe (Amenophis I), was pictured, black (I. Rosellini, "I Monumenti dell' Egitto e della Nubia", Pisa, 1832-44). Foucart in an article in the "Bulletin de, l'Institut Egyptien", 5 serie, II (1917), pages 268-269), presented evidence that in the Egyptian royal family of this period was Ethiopian blood. But first, to restore Dynasty XVIII to its rightful place in history. From archaeological research and the classical writers the following chronological chart may be constructed. Names of the Kings and Queen of Dynasty XVIII from archaeology

Names from Manetho

Lengths of Reign from Archaeological evidence and Manetho

Dates

Ahmose

---

25

1076-1051

Amenhotpe (Amenophis I)

---

21

1051-1030

Thutmose (I)

Chebron

13

1030-1017

Thutmose (II)

Amenophis

20

Hashepsowe (Hatshepsut)

Amessis or Smensis

21

996- 975*

Thutmose (III)

Mephres or Misaphris

54

997- 943

Amenhotpe (Amenophis II)

Mephramuthosis or Misphragmuthosis 25

943- 918

Thutmose (IV)

Tuthmosis

918-909

9

1017- 997

*Joint with Thutmose III. At this point the dynasty should be interrupted to recount the major events in Egypt which synchronize with the history of neighhoring nations and with the Bible.

The Biblical Parallel The synchronism of Biblical and Egyptian history begins in the reign of Solomon, king of Israel. "Solomon became allied to Pharaoh king of Egypt by marriage, and took Pharoah's daughter, and brought her into the city of David ..." (I Kings 3:1, Jewish Pub. Soc. trans.). (Who was the Pharaoh who became Solomon's father-in-law? The answer may be established by determining the time of Solomon's reign. It is stated in I Kings 6:1, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord" (JPS trans.). From Egyptian history the exodus may be dated Nisan (March-April) 1486. The 480th year thus extended from 1007-1006 (spring to spring). The fourth year of the reign of Solomon (1008-1007, reckoning autumn to autumn according to the civil calendar) thus corresponds to the time of Pharaoh Thutmose II. His chief wife and queen was Hashepsowe (Hatshepsut in earlier authors). As the mother of the Egyptian princess whom Solomon married is unrecorded it is presently impossible to determine from history whether Hashepsowe was Solomon's mother-in-law or step-mother-in-law. In either case she could learn firsthand of the riches and fame of Israel's king. Solomon commenced the building of the Temple in his fourth year. In the eleventh year of his reign it was completed (I Kings 6:37-38). Thereupon Solomon devoted his time to the erection of his palace. "And Solomon was building his own house thirteen years ..." (I Kings 7:1). It was now the twenty-fourth year of Solomon's reign. "And it came to pass at the end of twenty years (7 plus 13), wherein Solomon had build the two houses ..." that Hiram the king of Tyre came to visit Solomon (I Kings 9:10). But Hiram was not the only royal visitor who came about this time. "And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon because of the name of the Lord, she came to prove him with hard questions" (I Kings 10:1). Jesus called the queen of Sheba "the queen of the south" (Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31). In the book of Daniel, chapter 11, the king of the south is the ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia. Jesus' designation of the queen of Sheba as the

"queen of the south" therefore means that she was the ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia. Was a woman -- a queen -- ruling Egypt in the twenty-fourth year of Solomon? Indeed -- Maekaure Hashepsowe! Josephus, the Jewish historian, preserves an account of this famous visitor. "There was then a woman, queen of Egypt and Ethiopia book VIII, chapter vi, part 5). Many modern historians have assumed that both Jesus and Josephus were incorrect. They limit the land of Sheba exclusively to southern Arabia. It is at this point that they seem to forget their history. Ethiopia anciently extended to southern Arabia. The land of Sheba -the leading Ethiopian tribe -- included both southern Arabia and Ethiopia. Under Dynasty XVIII of Thebes Ethiopia and Egypt were united. The queen of the south was therefore also queen of Egypt -- the Hashepsowe of history. Josephus preserves the name of the Queen of Sheba. He quotes from Herodotus and calls her "Nicaule" ("Antiquities", book VIII, chapter vi, part 2). Any philologist would immediately recognize in the name Nicaule (Nikaule in Greek) only a dialectic form of the Egyptian Maekaure, the "prenomen" of Hashepsowe. Perhaps the most striking proof that Hashepsowe visited Palestine may be found recorded in the temple at Deir el Bahari. The walls of this temple enshrine the visit of the Queen to "God's Land." The event occurred in her ninth year -- 988-987 -- the year Solomon completed his great palace. In "Ancient Records of Egypt", by Breasted, volume II, may be found the English translation of the inscriptions of the expedition. Here are extracts from this most famous of all Egyptian voyages: "Sailing in the sea, beginning the goodly way towards God's-Land, journeying in peace to the land of Punt ..." (section 253). God's Land is described in detail in section 288: "I have led them on water and on land, to explore the waters of inaccessible channels, and I have reached the Myrrh-terraces." Queen Hashepsowe explored in God's Land "waters of inaccessible channels" -- an awkward modern translation meaning "spring-fed pools." Solomon built many spring-fed pools to supply the lovely artificial wooded terraces. "I made me gardens and parks," wrote Solomon, "and I planted trees in them of all kinds of fruit; I made me pools of water, to water therefrom the wood springing up with trees" (Ecclesiastes 2:5-7). "It is a glorious region of God's-Land; it is indeed my place of delight .... They took myrrh as they wished, they loaded the vessels to their hearts' content, with fresh myrrh trees, every good gift of this country, Puntites whom the people know not, Southerns of God's-Land." "Trees were taken up in God's-Land, and set in the ground in Egypt" (sect. 294). The vessels of the Queen, on the return trip up the Nile to Thebes were heavily loaded with "all goodly fragrant woods of God's-Land" and many other rarities which previously had been imported from around the world by the people of God's-Land. "Never was brought the like of this for any king who has been since the beginning" (sect. 265). Scholars have foolishly puzzled for decades over the location of "God's-Land" -- "Toneter" in Egyptian. It is really no puzzle. The word in Egyptian signifies "Divine Land" or "Holy Land." The "Holy Land" is Palestine! Egyptian inscriptions precisely define the location of God's-Land as Palestine. It lies between Egypt and Syria. In the Papyrus Harris one reads of "the products of Egypt, God's-Land, Syria and Kush"

(Breasted, op. cit., vol. IV, sect. 313). Again: "products of Egypt, products of God's-Land, products of Syria" (sects. 341, 387). From the Piankhi Stela comes the same evidence: "Then the ships were laden with silver, gold, copper, clothing, and everything of the Northland, every product of Syria, and all sweet woods of God's-Land. His majesty sailed up-stream ..." from the Mediterranean coast southward up the Nile to Upper Egypt (Breasted, op. cit., vol. IV, sect. 883). En route from Egypt to Upper Syria, Thutmose III passed by God's Land. "All plants that grow, all flowers that are in God's-Land which were found by his majesty when his majesty proceeded to Upper Retenu (Syria)" (Breasted, op. cit., vol. II, sect. 451). Amenhotpe III cut cedar in God's Land for his sacred barge: " was dragged over the mountains of Retenu (Lebanon) by the princes of all countries" (section 888). No mistaking this reference. God's Land could refer to no other region than Palestine, the Holy Land. In God's Land, or Palestine, Hashepsowe found more than one people. Inhabiting the southern portion, where the Queen first landed, were native "Puntites," presented to her as servants by the ruling people of the land. In her monuments at Deir el Bahari these "Puntites" are pictured as a short, round-headed, dark-skinned, thick-lipped people, whereas the dominant people were white men (Naville's "Deir el Bahari", Pt. III, page 12). The two peoples of the Holy Land were Israelites and Canaanites. A remnant of Canaanites -- the "Puntites" of the inscriptions -- long lived in the mountains of Seir bordering on the Gulf of Aqaba. The words "Punt" and "Puntite" came to be pronounced in Egyptian without the "t." A better spelling of the Egyptian word would be "Puoni" or "Pwene", the latter most commonly used today by scholars. (See Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 37, note 1.) When referring to wars with the Canaanite Carthaginians, the Romans spoke of Punic wars -- Punic being a synonym for Canaanite. The chief Canaanite people were the Sidonians. The father of Sidon, in classical literature, was named Pontus (Eusebius, "Preparation for the Gospel", I, x, 27). In Scripture he is Canaan. The land of Punt or Pwene was the land wherever Canaanites settled. Originally the land of "Punt" was limited to Palestine -- in Scripture "the land of Canaan" -- but in later times signified any land to which Phoenicians or Canaanites migrated. "Afterward were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad" (Genesis 10:18). Hence in Egyptian literature Punt included lands outside of Palestine or God's Land. God's Land is Palestine. The Queen of Sheba is Hashepsowe. But who is "Shishak" the king of Egypt at the close of Solomon's reign?

Shishak Captures Jerusalem In the later years of Solomon's reign, Egypt was ruled by a king named Shishak. He is introduced in I Kings 11:40, in an account of the strife between Solomon and Jeroboam. "Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam; but Jeroboam arose, and fled to Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was there in Egypt until the death of Solomon." Archaeology has as yet not found this name in Egypt, but it has appeared on tablets excavated at Ras Shamra in northern Syria. (See Dhorme's article in "Revue Biblique", XL, Jan. 1931, page 55.) The Pharaohs of Egypt usually

had many names, many of which have not yet been recovered by the archaeologists. Which king of Dynasty XVIII was Shishak? The chronological chart at the beginning of this chapter indicates he was Thutmose III, often designated "the Great." He reigned not only in the later years of Solomon, but in the time of Rehoboam. The Biblical record states that Shishak invaded Judah shortly after Solomon's death. "And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; and he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house: he even took away all; and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made" (I Kings 14:25-26). A parallel and richer account is preserved in II Chronicles 12:1-8: And it came to pass, when the kingdom of Rehoboam was established, and he was strong, that he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him. And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had dealt treacherously with the Lord, with twelve hundred chariots, and threescore thousand horsemen; and the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubim, the Sukkiim, and the Ethiopians. And he took the fortified cities which pertained to Judah, and came unto Jerusalem. Now Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam, and to the princes of Judah, that were gathered together to Jerusalem because of Shishak, and said unto them: 'Thus saith the Lord: Ye have forsaken Me, therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak.' Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said: 'The Lord is righteous.' And when the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah, saying: 'They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them: but I will grant them some deliverance, and My wrath shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they shall be his servants; that they may know My service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries.' " This momentous event in the history of Judah is dated to the fifth year of king Rehoboam. Reckoning from the fourth year of Solomon, 1008-1007 (autumn to autumn according to the civil calendar). the fifth year of Rehoboam would be 967-966. Now the thirty-first year of Thutmose III is 967-966 (spring to spring). The two regnal years overlap six months in the autumn and winter of the year 967-966. In his thirtieth year Thutmose campaigned in Judah. He did not capture Jerusalem in this year (Breasted's "Ancient Records of Egypt",

vol. II, sect. 465, footnote a). However he did harvest their grain and take hostages. Year thirty-one of Thutmose corresponds to Rehoboam's fifth. In this year Rehoboam humbled himself. Nevertheless, God allowed Thutmose to take Jerusalem. (For best Bible rendering see the Jewish Publication Society translation of II Chronicles 12:1-8.) For the list of spoils and tribute taken see Breasted, sections 471 and 473. The first Egyptian to pierce the walls of Kadesh was Amenemhab He records in his biography: "His majesty sent forth every valiant man of his army, in order to pierce the wall for the first time, which Kadesh had made. I was the one who pierced it, being the first of all the valiant: no other before me did it" (section 590). Archaeologists have spent years guessing the whereabouts of the city of Kadesh. No one, it seems, has suspected that it is Jerusalem! All scholars recognize that the word Kadesh means "Holy." When used in reference to a city, it means a Holy City. Jerusalem is many times called the Holy City in Scripture. In Daniel 9:24 Jerusalem is referred to as "the holy city." In the original Hebrew, the root word for "holy" is KADESH. Nehemiah 11:1 speaks of "Jerusalem the holy city." Again the Hebrew root for "holy" is KADESH, sometimes spelled KODESH. See also Isaiah 48:2 and numerous other passages. In all, Thutmose mentions one hundred and nineteen captured cities of Palestine. Kadesh is listed first, Megiddo second (A. Jirku, "Die aegyptischen Listen der Palaestinensischen und Syrischen Ortsnamen," "Klio Beihefte", XXXVIII, Leipzig, 1937). The wealth plundered from the Palace and the Temple in Jerusalem was engraved on the walls of the great Amon temple at Karnak and may be seen to this day. Thutmose received continuous tribute from Judaea during the succeeding years of his reign, confirming the Biblical statement that the Jews became the "servants" of Shishak (II Chronicles 12:8). In the forty-second year of Thutmose's reign he again "arrived at the district of Kadesh, captured the cities therein." (Sections 529, 531 ) This was in 955 or one year before Rehoboam died. Rehoboam reigned seventeen years in all (II Chronicles 12:13) In 954 Abijah succeeded his father -- twelve years after the capture of Jerusalem (966) Thutmose's intention was to perpetuate Egyptian rule on the kingdom of Judah. Rehoboam was old and weak after continual wars with Jeroboam. Before completing the life of Thutmose, it is important to consider two other campaigns which preceded the attack on Jerusalem. In his twenty-third year, 975 exactly 511 years after the Exodus and the coming of the Hyksos into Egypt, Thutmose commenced "the first victorious expedition to extend the boundaries of Egypt with might ... Now, at that period the Asiatics had fallen into disagreement, each man fighting against his neighbor ." (Breasted, op cit., vol II, sections 415-416). This campaign proceeded no farther north than Tripolis of the southern Lebanon. It marks the termination of the 511 years assigned to the Hyksos period by Josephus and the classical writers. Southern Phoenicia, from whence came some of the Shepherd Kings, was now subject to the Egyptians. Seven years later, 518 years after the Exodus in the thirtieth year of Thutmose III, a major campaign was carried on along the eastern Mediterranean coast to the city of Arvad (sect. 461). All of Phoenicia now passed under Egyptian sway. With this campaign the 518 years also assigned to the Hyksos period by Josephus were completed. These momentous shifts in world politics at the close of Solomon's reign were the direct result of Solomon' sin, described in I Kings

11:1-13. Historians, interpreting history without God and the Bible, have mistakenly assumed that the spectacular growth in Egyptian power was due solely to Thutmose's political astuteness. Neglected is the military situation. Thutmose could never have accomplished his extended campaigns apart from revolts against Solomon. I Kings 11 14-40 unveils what the trip-hammer blows were that cracked Israel's power. The Edomites became restive, the Arameans in Damascus independent, and ten out of the twelve tribes of Israel were anticipating the death of Solomon as a quick remedy for excessive taxation. Thutmose merely seized the spoils of a nation which had grown soft spiritually because it set its mind on physical greatness alone.

Who Was Zerah the Ethiopian? Time moves on to another generation. Thutmose is dead. In his stead reigns Amenhotpe II. In Jerusalem king Rehoboam was succeeded first by Abijah (for 3 years), then by his grandson Asa. The record is found in II Chronicles 14 and 15. Important military changes were disturbing the eastern Mediterranean seaboard. Fortified cities had to be hastily constructed throughout Judah (II Chr 14:5). An efficient army was trained during ten years of quiet. Suddenly in the fifteenth year of Asa (937-936) "there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an army of a thousand thousand (one million troops), and three hundred chariots; and he came unto Mareshah. Then Asa went out to meet him ...." Judah earnestly sought divine intervention against the great host of Lubim and the Ethiopiens (II Chr. 16:8) that had come out of Egypt. "So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar; and there fell of the Ethiopians so that none remained alive: for they were scattered before the Lord, and before His host: and they (Judah) carried away much booty" (Jewish translation), After the battle and the spoiling of the region of Gerar, the Jews "gathered themselves to Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. And they sacrificed unto the Lord in that day (Pentecost), of the spoil which they had brought ..." (II Chr. 15:10-11). Who was the Zerah whose army was totally annihilated in Asa's reign? One would hardly expect to discover the full truth of such a catastrophic defeat engraven on the monuments of the vanquished. Perchance the defeat is glossed over and made to appear a victory. No monument to our knowledge tells the story of the defeat. However, there certainly is an historical Zerah. He appears in the king lists of Ethiopia at the very time the battle occurred. Through the centuries the Ethiopians preserved the name of this man who played no small role in the history of Judah. Zerah belonged to the Dynasty of Menelik I. The dynasty began with the death of Hashepsowe in 975 B.C. Menelik, the first ruler, was the son of Solomon and an Egyptian princess. The complete king list can be found in C.F. Rey's book: "In the Country of the Blue Nile", 1927.

Dynasty of Menelik I Ruler

Length of Reign

Dates

1 Menelik I (succeeded Hashepsowe) 2 Hanyon 3 Sera I (Tomai) Sera is Zerah the Ethiopian

25 1

975-950 950-949

26

949-923

The king list continues down to the present and can be referred to in the Compendium, vol. II, appendix B. In Egypt Amenhotpe II was reigning. His authority extended south beyond Napata in Ethiopia (Breasted, "Ancient Records", vol. II, sect. 797). He succeeded his father Thutmose III in 943. Amenhotpe's first documented campaign into Palestine occurred in his year 3 (941). This was near the close of the 10th year of Asa, king of Judah. Asa had ten years of peace at the beginning of his reign (951-941). (See II Chronicles 14:1, 5, 6). A later Egyptian campaign occurred in the beginning of Amenhotpe's seventh year (937). The king set out on a grand expedition into Palestine. His seventh year corresponds to Asa's fourteenth. This date -- 937 -- is one year before Zerah's invasion. Amenhotpe's campaign, recorded on the Memphis stela, should not be confused with the Ethiopian invasion of Palestine in the spring of 936. (NOTE: To view the figure placed here, see the file CMPDM1B.TIF in the Images\OtherWCG directory.) The Memphis stela reads: "Year 7, 1st month of the third season. day 25 .... His majesty proceeded to Retenu (Palestine) .... His majesty reached Shamesh-Edom." On the Karnak stela the next move is also dated: "1st month of the third season. day 26. His majesty's crossing the ford of the Orontes on this day." He was north of Palestine. The prince of Kadesh surrendered the city to the armies of Amenhotpe. He swore fealty to the Egyptians rather than undergo a siege. But this Kadesh -- a holy city -- was Carchemish in Syria. (Consult Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 245, and footnotes 8 and 9; also Breasted's translation of the Karnak stela, section 784.)

Dynasty XVIII in Manetho Manetho's transcribers -- Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius -- are usually charged with totally corrupting this Theban dynasty. Had the archaeologists and historians spent as much time understanding Manetho's extractors. instead of condemning them, they would have recovered the full account of Amenhotpe II. The chart which follows is based solely on Manetho's transcribers. It should be compared with the first one given in this chapter which is based on archaeological evidence and on Manetho. (The abbreviations -- "J", "A", "E", "T" -following either names, or lengths of reign stand for variations in Josephus Africanus, Eusebius, or Theophilus. -- The figures of Josephus have been reduced to whole calendar years.) Names of Dynasty XVIII in Manetho

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Names from Archaeology

Tethmosis (J), called also Amose (A) and Amosis (E)

25

1076-1051

Ahmose

His son: Chebron, or Chebros (A)

13

1030-1017

Thutmose I

Amenophis (J), Ammenophthis (A) (E)

21 (A) (E)1017- 996 20 (J) 1017- 997

Thutmose II

His sister: Amessis (J), Amensis (A)

21 (J) 22 (A)

Hashepsowe (Queen of Sheba)

Her (step)son: Mephres (J) Misaphris (A), Miphres (E)

12 (J) (E) 975- 963 13 (A) 976- 963

Thutmose III (Shishak)

His son: Mephramuthosis (J) Misphragmuthosis (A) (E) Mephrammuthosis (T)

25 (J) 26 (A)(E) 20 (T)

943- 918 944- 918 963- 943

Amenhotpe II

918- 909

Thutmose IV

His son: Thmosis (J) Tuthmosis (A) (E)

9

996- 975 997- 975

The insignificant differences of spelling in the Greek are due naturally to the changes in pronunciation of Egyptian sounds over many centuries -- and to abbreviations. Several of these names have never been discovered by archaeologists. This does not mean the Greek or Hebrew writers imagined names, but rather that archaeology is limited in what it can recover from the past. Of greater historic significance are the variations in regnal years. Far from being mere scribal errors, each contributes additional information not preserved by the other epitomes of Manetho. If Manetho is to be fully understood, all the evidence must be taken together. Consider the minor variations in the reign of Thutmose II and Hashepsowe. Josephus preserves the fact that he reigned only twenty full calendar years when succeeded by his son Thutmose III. But both Africanus and Eusebius bring out the detail that one more year elapsed before his sister and queen, Hashepsowe, assumed supreme rule as Queen of Egypt. Again, Africanus assigns 22 years to Hashepsowe to indicate that she was associated with her stepson for 22 calendar years after the death of her brother. Her dominant role in government as senior co-regent for 21 years is preserved only by Josephus, who is confirmed by archaeology and monumental finds. The length of reign of Thutmose III as preserved by Manetho's abstractors has been rejected in toto. Though it appears on the surface to be irreconcilable with archaeological finds, it is nevertheless correct. Thutmose III reigned solely for only 12 years after the death of Hashepsowe. At that time he associated his son Amenhotpe II with him on the throne. Archaeology confirms a period of joint reign, but has not yet discovered its duration. Had the archaeologists opened their eyes, they would have long ago found its duration in Manetho. (See Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 245, footnote 1.) The figure of 13 calendar years for the reign of Thutmose III,

preserved by Africanus, does not commence with the death of his step-mother, but with his assumption of power in 976 -- the beginning of his 22nd year. In the year following 976 he began his military campaign into southern Phoenicia, 511 years after the Exodus. Next the reign of Amenhotpe II -- the son of Thutmose III. His frightfully long name is not what has confounded historians. It is his length of reign that no one, it seems, has made sense of. Compare the information from archaeology, in the first chart, with these figures from Manetho. It is immediately evident that Theophilus has preserved the length of the joint reign -- 20 years -- 963-943. In 943 Thutmose III died. Josephus, by contrast, has preserved Amenhotpe II's length of reign -- 25 years -- after the death of his father. But Africanus and Eusebius give yet a different length -- 26 years. They measure the length of Amenhotpe's reign from the time he held full power during the last year of his father's reign -- that is 944-943. The emphasis upon this date in Amenhotpe's reign has been corroborated by archaeology. Again the figures of the transcribers can be explained. It should be noted that none of the transcribers of Manetho has preserved all his facts. Each, however, complements the other. Why is Amenhotpe I missing as the second king in the dynasty? Tethmosis or Amose is correctly stated to be the first king. His 25 years are also confirmed by archaeology. He is plainly declared by Manetho's transcribers to be the father of Thutmose I or Chebron who was the third king of Dynasty XVIII. How are these apparent discrepancies to be resolved? It has been commonly assumed by moderns that Thutmose I was a son of the first Amenhotpe by a secondary wife. But there is absolutely no evidence from archaeology to support this hypothesis (Drioton and Vandier, "L'Egypte" (1952), page 336). Manetho's statement that he was a son of Ahmose explains, in part, why the classical writers passed over Amenhotpe I. The story of Dynasty XVIII is the story of a family through blood descent. Apparently Amenhotpe I was not in that line of descent. He may have been a younger brother of Amosis. The following list of kings, beginning from the expulsion of the Hyksos rulers in 1076, is preserved by Syncellus from the book of Sothis. Take special note of the dates of Amose.

The Book of Sothis Kings in Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

33 Amosis, also called Tethmosis

26

1076-1050

34 Chebron, his son

13

1030-1017

35 Amemphis

15

1011-1002

36 Amensis

11

1002- 991

37 Misphragmuthosis

16

991-975

38 Misphres

23

975-952

39 Tuthmosis

39

952-913

This list also placed Amosis immediately before Chebron (Thutmose I). Ahmose (Amosis) reigned into his 26th year. Syncellus therefore assigned the last incomplete year as a whole calendar year and gave him 26 -- from 1076 to 1050. In 1030 his son Chebron assumed the throne under the name of Thutmose. Manetho's other transcribers gave only the length of reign from 1076 to 1051 using the non-accession year method of reckoning. By contrast Syncellus used the accession year method of reckoning for Amosis, whereby the last incomplete year is assigned to the predecessor, not to the successor. Since Syncellus also did not include Amenhotpe I, he overlooked 20 years and proceeded to name Chebron next. To fully understand Manetho, one must combine the evidence from his transcribers with archaeological discoveries. Neither Manetho nor archaeological evidence is sufficiently complete to be used alone for the beginning reigns of this dynasty. The Book of Sothis' dates of the reigns of the first several rulers of the Theban dynasty are not necessarily indicative of the year of death. They may designate political changes. Recall the case of Joseph in the third dynasty, who lived another 14 years after completing his term in public office. In the book of Sothis king Thutmose II, the husband and brother of Amenses-Hashepsowe, is given only 15 years. This dating is confirmed by rock inscriptions at Assuan. Hashepsowe ordered Senmut, an important public officer, to prepare two great obelisks to commemorate her co-regency "in year 16" of her brother Thutmose II. It has been commonly assumed that "year 16" refers to a time in her own reign. This conclusion is totally unwarranted, for "in year 16" Hashepsowe was still "King's Sister, Divine Consort, Great King's Wife." Thutmose II was still living. The inscription is in honor of "the Divine Consort, Sovereign of the entire Two Lands" -- that is, in honor of the assumption of royal power by Hashepsowe in her brother's sixteenth year. The obelisks were not finally erected and inscribed until her joint reign with her stepson Thutmose III. (See Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. II, sections 359-362; also Weigall's "History of the Pharaohs", vol. II, pages 288-289.) Thus for five years prior to his death, Thutmose II associated his sister-wife with him on the throne as queen consort. She became senior co-regent with her stepson in 996, one year after the death of her brother. She continued in public office until 975. Why then does her reign appear to cease in 991 according to the book of Sothis? Who is the "king" named Misphragmuthosis who ceased to reign the very year that Hashepsowe died? The answer is unique in Egyptian history. The masculine name Misphragmuthosis is Hashepsowe's! Under Thutmose II she was originally only queen consort. In the year after his death she began to rule as Queen. At length -- in 991 -- she assumed masculine titles, appeared as a man and took a man's name. The monuments of Egypt picture her in her later life as a male, though they at times refer to the king as "her." Writes Sir Alan Gardiner in "Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 183: " man. The change did not come about without some hesitation, because there is at least one relief where she appears as King of Upper and Lower Egypt, and yet is clad in woman's attire." The inscriptions recovered by archaeologists indicate she commenced the idea of becoming a king as early as her second year. ("Nachrichten von der Koeniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen," 1955, page 212.) But it was not until her sixth year that

it is officially recognized in the Book of Sothis. One other hitherto unnoticed fact appears in the book of Sothis. The reign of Misphres (Thutmose III) continues 23 years after the reign of "King" Hashepsowe. At that point his grandson Thutmose IV is associated with him on the throne. The book of Sothis takes no notice of Amenhotpe II. These records indicate that the practice of Theban Dynasty XII, of associating sons and grandsons on the throne. was also a practice of Theban Dynasty XVIII. For the last nine years of Thutmose III or Shishak's life, he was associated on the throne with both son and grandson. With the reign of Thutmose IV, the first half of Dynasty XVIII is completed. The succeeding rulers of the dynasty lead into the much-misunderstood period of the Ramessides, to be unravelled in the next chapter, or two.

CHAPTER SEVEN The Era of Confusion No period of Egyptian history is in greater confusion than the close of Dynasty XVIII. To reconstruct this period scholars have limited themselves almost wholly to the meagre finds of archaeology. without any proof whatsoever, they have rejected or silently passed over the testimony of Africanus and Josephus, of the book of Sothis and the Bible. To fill up gaps in the commonly accepted interpretation of history, they have written countless volumes on the unimportant king Tutankhamen -- who reigned only ten years. They have lauded Akhenaten, the father of King Tutankhamen, as the world's "first monotheist," when he was instead, a sexual deviate who used the cloak of religion to beget children by his own mother and daughters -- not to speak of his attraction toward his son Smenkhkare. There is a reason historians have painted the closing years of Dynasty XVIII as one of religious idealism and philosophic wisdom. In some way they have to erase the presence of monotheism in Israel, and the rise of Proverb literature. Since the scholarly world has not been willing to attribute it to God, the origin has been sought in Egypt. No such foolish deduction could have been possible had historians properly placed Dynasty XVIII parallel with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Egypt As It Really Was The history of Egypt for the late eighteenth and the nineteenth dynasties is vividly described in the Bible. It is a picture quite unlike that of the early Thutmoses. Changes were becoming noticeable in the reign of Thutmose IV. But not until the accession of Amenhotpe III, the grandson of Amenhotpe II, did the history of Egypt become one of utter religious confusion, political division, folly. What happened is made clear in the book of Isaiah: "The princes of Zoan are utter fools; "The wisest counsellors of Pharaoh are a senseless counsel; "How can ye say unto Pharaoh: " 'I am the son of ancient kings'? ... "The princes of Zoan are become fools, "The princes of Noph (Memphis) are deceived; "They have caused Egypt to go astray" (Isaiah 20:11-13). Who are these princes of Zoan -- the descendants of ancient kings? Isaiah again writes of the same period: "And I" -- God is speaking -- "will spur Egypt against Egypt, "And they shall fight everyone against his brother, "And every one against his neighbor; "City against city, and kingdom against kingdom. ".... And I will give over the Egyptians "Into the hand of a cruel lord; "And a fierce king shall rule over them, "Saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:2-4).

For nearly 170 years following the expulsion of the Hyksos, Egypt was united under one royal family. But here one sees an Egypt divided, not merely into cities, but into kingdoms. What parallel dynasties ruled these feuding kingdoms? Are the records of these internal wars found on the monuments? Indeed! All these surprising Scriptures are made plain once the history of Egypt is properly restored to its true chronological position.

The Later Eighteenth Dynasty The records of Theban Dynasty XVIII have been restored through Thutmose IV. Beginning with Amenhotpe III, historians are in great confusion. Most of the controversy is suppressed in textbooks. It does not reach the ears of students. The controversy is primarily due to the serious mistake of rejecting the classical evidence from Manetho. As with the early dynasties, Manetho preserved much that archaeology has not, and perhaps never will, discover. By; contrast, much that Manetho's transcribers thought unimportant has been rediscovered by archaeology. The true picture of what really happened in the next four centuries can be told only by utilizing both Manetho and archaeological finds. So varied were the events surrounding the later years of Dynasty XVIII that no one ancient writer preserves all the details from Manetho. Not even Manetho appears to have recorded the whole account. Archaeology has unearthed many of the missing pieces of the puzzle. What is needed is to combine both Manetho and the finds of archaeology with the Bible. Historians for years have been sharply divided over the events of the last years of Amenhotpe III. Many hold that he associated his son Akhenaten with him on the throne. Though other historians deny it, Manetho confirms the association. See the chart from Africanus presented later in this chapter. The archaeologists who recognize that the father associated the son on the throne for a time have made the mistake, however, of interpreting the reign of Akhenaten as commencing, in the documents and monuments, from the beginning of his appointment. On his monuments, Akhenaten adopted the practice of dating his reign from the death of his father Amenhotpe III. The evidence of the El-Amarna correspondence absolutely proves that Akhenaten was abroad during many years of the coregency and did not return till the death of his father ("The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology", vol. 43, 1957, pages 13-14). This fact misled the opposing school of historians to deny the firmly documented coregency. From archaeology the following chart may be constructed. (See "Journal of Near Eastern Studies", vol. xxv, April 1966, Pages 113-124, by Donald B. Redford.) Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Archaeology Thutmose IV

Lengths of Reign

Dates

9

918-909

Amenhotpe III

38

909-871

Akhenaten (Orus)

17

871-854

Smenkhkare

3

854-851

Tutankhamen

10

851-841

4

841-837

59

837-778

Ay Haremhab

The classical writers took no note of the short reigns of Orus' sons Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen. For them, the entire period was assigned to Orus. Similarly archaeology knows little or nothing of the other children born to Akhenaten. King Ay, whose name appears next to last, was not of royal descent. He gained great influence in the latter years of the court of Amenhotpe III. He is mentioned in documents as father-in-law of Akhenaten. His daughter was Nefertiti, the king's chief queen. Unfortunately Ay later became the brother-in-law of Akhenaten. Ay's sister Tiy, who was the mother of Akhenaten, became also his wife toward the middle of his reign. What befell Nefertiti afterward is unrecorded in history. Young Smenkhkare -- for whom Akhenaten also had an unnatural attraction -- later returned to the old capital of Thebes while his father remained at El-Amarna. After three short years on the throne, the youth was supplanted by his younger brother Tutankhamen. Ten years later, Tutankhamen died. Ay gave Tutankhamen a sumptuous burial, then mounted the throne himself and apparently married Tutankhamen's young widow, his own granddaughter, to secure his claim to royalty. (See "Journal of Egyptian Archaeology", "King Ay, the successor of Tut-Ankh-amun," vol. XCIII (1932), pages 50-52.) Ay reigned 4 years. He died in 837. Haremhab, who succeeded Ay, was a general who played no small part in the drama that climaxed the El-Amarna period. General Haremhab controlled the army. At his coronation in 837 he married the "Queen's sister Mutnodjme" (Aldred, "Journal of Egyptian Archaeology", vol. 43. Page 39 and Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. III, Sections 22 and 28.) Haremhab thus became the king's brother-in-law and Ay's son-in-law. A comparatively long reign is usually attributed to Haremhab. The highest discovered date assigned to him is 59 years. None of the documents bear a king's name. This figure is in agreement, however, with Manetho's transcribers. Neither the mummy of Akhenaten nor of Haremhab has been found. A mummy, once thought to be Akhenaten's is undoubtedly that of Smenkhkare (Aldred, "The End of the El-Amarna Period," in December 1957 "Journal of Egyptian Archaeology").

Manetho's Evidence Now let's consider what happened to the family of Akhenaten during the lifetime of Haremhab. Africanus has correctly preserved Dynasty XVIII from Thutmose IV to a king named Ramesses. The variations of other writers will be considered later. Here is Africanus' record beginning with Thutmose IV: Names of Rulers of Dynasty XVIII

Lengths of Reign

Dates

according to Julius Africanus Tuthmosis (IV)

9

918-909

Amenophis (Amenhotpe III)

31

909-878

Orus (Akhenaten)

37

878-841

Acherres

32

841-809

Rathos

6

809-803

Chebres

12

803-791

Acherres

12

791-779

Armesis

5

779-774

Ramesses (usually mislabeled "I")

1

774-773

A break in the list occurs here. Now let's examine Eusebius before proceeding further with Africanus. Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Eusebius' Greek Text

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Amenophis (III)

31

909-878

Orus (Akhenaten)

36

878-842

Achencherses, his daughter

12 (joint)

837-825

Athoris, her brother

39

842-803

Chencheres

16

803-787

8

787-779

Acherres Cherres Armais

15 (joint) 5

794-779 779-774

Note the parallel reign of Cherres, beginning 794. This figure will be significant for dating Dynasty XXIII of Tanis later. The dating of Akhenaton's daughter. Beginning in 837, will be proved shortly. We should now consider other variants from Manetho, illustrated by this fragmentary copy. Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Eusebius' Armenian Version Amenophis (III)

Lengths of Reign

31

Dates

909-878

Orus (Akhenaten)

28

Achencherses, his daughter

---

---

871-843

16

803-787

Acherres

8

787-779

Cherres

15

794-779

Armais

5

779-774

Eusebius' account of Orus supports the archaeological record of 38 years for Amenhotpe III mentioned earlier: Amenhotpe III

38 (from archaeology)

909-871

Orus (Akhenaten)

28 (Armenian version)

871-843

Eusebius' Greek Manuscript B of the king list differs from the others. It has been misunderstood by some modern editors who have inserted, mistakenly, the figure 12 in place of 16 (that is, 841-825) for the reign of Achencherses, Akhenaten's daughter. They assumed that Eusebius has been incorrectly copied. But manuscript B of Eusebius plainly has 16. Because Cencheres also reigned 16 years, certain manuscript copies of Eusebius' original work have deleted his name and that of Athoris. (Compare Eusebius Werke, edited by Rudolph Helm, vol. I, pages 40-45 with Manetho, by W.G. Waddell, Fr. 53.) What do these variants mean? They indicate that Manetho originally gave in detail the events surrounding the reigns of Akhenaten, Tutankhamen, Smenkhkare and Ay! Now see how the year 837 -- the end of Ay's reign -- can be established from Josephus and the Book of Sothis. Names of Josephus and Theophilus

Lengths of Reign

Amenophis (Amenhotpe III) Orus (Akhenaten)

30

Dates

909-879

36 (or 38 in Eusebius)

879-843 (879-841)

Acencheres (daughter of Orus) 12 (or 16 in Eusebius)

837-825 (841-825)

Rathotis (her brother)

9

825-816 (14 missing years)

Acencheres I

12

802-790

Acencheres II

12

790-778

Harmais

4

778-774

Ramesses

1

774-773

It must first be remembered that Manetho, in his original work, presented to the world three vast tomes. These have been lost to the world. But before they perished many writers extracted material that, to them, appeared vital. Different writers viewed the multitude of Manetho's facts differently. Josephus considered certain events more important than did Africanus, for example; his dates for the reign of a king consequently might differ somewhat from Africanus. On occasion, whole reigns might be deleted as unimportant -- a fact already noted for the first half of Dynasty XVIII. Josephus' abstract contains several unusual features. First, it is not consecutive. There is a significant break between Orus and his daughter Acencheres. The second divergency is the dating of Amenhotpe III. Africanus assigns him 31 years and ends his reign in 878. Josephus and Theophilus follow the Book of Sothis and end it in 879. There is no scribal carelessness here, only a difference in evaluating events. Amenhotpe III associated his son Orus on the throne toward the end of his 31st year -- after 30 years and 10 months, to use Josephus' account. The question naturally arose, should the 31st year of Amenhotpe III be assigned to him, or to the son now that he had come to coregency? Africanus adopted the former method, dating it 878. Josephus, as well as Syncellus in the Book of Sothis, adopted the latter method, dating it 879. The same variation may be noticed for the reigns of the kings Acencheres I and II and Harmais. Africanus, in these instances, began their regnal years one year earlier than Josephus; but assigned five to Armais. The total in each instance is the same. Now see the Book of Sothis confirm the unusual dates 837-816 for Akhenaten's daughter and son -- and consequently 837 for the end of Ay's reign. Names in Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

39 Tuthmosis (IV)

39

952-913

40 Amenophthis (III)

34

913-879

41 Orus (Akhenaten)

48

879-831

42 Achencheres (a daughter)

25

841-816

43 Athoris

29

831-802

44 Chencheres

45 Acherres

46 Armais

26 (note -816-790 14 missing years in Josephus found!) 30 (or 8)

809-779 (or 787-779)

9

779-770

Very little is known of the family of Akhenaten in later years. What is known is that Acencheres, the daughter of Akhenaten. had a brother Rathotis (or Rathos). His son is Achencheres I, the Chebres of

Africanus. The next generation is Achencheres II, the Acherres II of Africanus. None of these names have been found as yet by archaeologists in Egypt. Yet they are important for their chronological value. If archaeologists had not been led astray they would have recognized the six successors of Orus as the six immediate predecessors of Piankhi, king of Nubia, of Dynasty XXV. Now consider the literary evidence for this restoration of Dynasty XVIII.

The El-Amarna Letters Amenhotpe III was an effeminate individual who purchased his pleasures by bestowing power on his friends. In his senile years he was sculptured "wearing a type of gown usually worn by women" (Cyril Aldred, "Bulletin of Metropolitan Museum of Art", Feb. 1957). Quite an about face since the days of the Queen of Sheba! The result of this personal aberration was the rise to prominence of non-royalty -- the family of Ay, for example. The reigns of Amenophis III and Akhenaten have become famous for the El-Amarna letters. The letters are official foreign correspondence. Some date from the time of Amenhotpe III, or before, though most pertain to the government of his son. It is the common assumption of the majority of historians that these letters reveal internal events in Palestine at the time Joshua was invading the Holy Land. To make the Biblical account of the conquest chronologically correspond to the time of Akhenaten, historians had to displace the history of the book of Joshua. Some went so far as to assume that Joshua lived before Moses -- since they had previously misdated the exodus in the later reign of Ramesses "the Great" or his son. Such foolish interpretations of history stand self-condemned. What the letters really indicate is an altogether different set of events. The letters reveal that many of the coastal towns of Syria and Palestine, which had owed allegiance to Egypt, were torn asunder by internal strife or were being overrun. Local princes and Egyptian officials usually sought in vain for Egyptian assistance. What power expanded in Syria and Palestine during this period? The Bible makes the answer plain. The Arameans. The El-Amarna letters were written mainly in the days of Athaliah and Joash of Judah, and of Jehu and Jehoahaz of Israel. A few are from the earlier period of the Jehorams or before. The time setting is made clear in the Bible. Asa, in whose fifteenth year (937-936) Zerah invaded the land, died after a reign of 41 years. That brings history to 910. Jehoshaphat, his son succeeded him and reigned 25 years -- to 885. This was the 24th year of Amenhotpe III. After the death of Jehoshaphat "Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah ..., then did Libnah revolt at the same time" (II Chronicles 21:10). The events move rapidly: "And the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians that are beside the Ethiopians and they came up against Judah, and broke into it up against him" -- Joash -- "and they came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people" (II Chr. 24:23). During these years Israel was being devastated by the Arameans, "Then Hazael king of Aram went up, and fought against Gath, and took it; and Hazael set his face to go to Jerusalem" (II Kings 12:18). Later, in the reign of Jehoahaz of Israel, "the anger of the Lord was

kindled against Israel, and He delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Aram and into the hand of Ben-Hadad, the son of Hazael, continually .... For there was not left to Jehoahaz of the people save fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Aram destroyed them, and made them like the dust of threshing" (II Kings 13:3, 7). Later, Israel was delivered from the power of Aram during the time of Jeroboam II. In the El-Amarna letters "Aziru" is a king of "Amurru", with his capital at "Dumasqa". All historians recognize that Dumasqa is Damascus, the capital of Aram or Syria. "Amurru" is the common name for Aram. But who is Aziru in these cuneiform documents? Hazael! The "l" and the "r" are often linguistically interchanged. The "H" has been dropped, just as it has in Josephus' spelling of Hazael -- "Azaelos." Compare the Biblical dropping of the "H" in Hadoram to Adoram (II Chron. 10:18 and I Kings 12:18). Hazael posed as Pharaoh's obedient ally -- as did most of the quarreling princes of the eastern Mediterranean coast. But he refused to render any act of submission. The king of Egypt had received many reports that Aram was not remaining loyal. In letter 162, addressed to Aziru or Hazael, the king of Egypt warns: "If thou for any object desirest to do evil, or if thou layest up evil words of hatred in thy heart, then wilt thou die by the axe of the king together with thy whole family. Render submission then to the king, thy lord, (and) thou shalt live. Thou knowest, indeed, that the king does not desire to go heavily against the whole land of Kinahhi" -- Canaan. ("The Tell El-Amarna Tablets", by Samuel A.B. Mercer, vol. II, page 523.) The letter was filled with empty words. Egypt had too many troubles of her own to afford costly expeditions to Syria.

Are the "Habiru" Hebrews? The letters to the Egyptian court also speak of the habiru -sometimes spelled khabiru. It was at first commonly assumed that it meant "Hebrew," and was indicative of Joshua's invasion of Palestine. But not one king or Canaan in Joshua's day has ever been found in the El-Amarna letters. Nor is there one word of the fall of Jericho. The conquest of Palestine recorded in the book of Joshua contrasts at every fundamental point with the world of the El-Amarna letters. Egypt was an important power in the eastern Mediterranean in the days of the kings of Israel and in the El-Amarna world, but "Joshua did not find any such Egyptian hold during his conquest" (Sir W.M. Flinders Petrie, "Palestine and Israel", page 56). Scholars have long disputed over the import of the word "habiru", or "khabiru". From the letters it was known to be equivalent to the word "sa-qaz" which means "brigands," "plunderers," "bandits," and "cutthroats." On occasion the word "khabiru" "is also written with an ideogram signifying 'cutthroats,' " declared C.J. Gadd in "The Fall of Nineveh". The Hebrew root of "khabiru" is "khaber" (spelled "chaber" in "Young's Concordance"). It means a "companion," "member of a band," hence, in a derogatory sense, "bandit." The word appears in Isaiah 1:23 as "companions of thieves": and in Proverbs 28:24 as "companion of a destroyer." The "khabiru" or "habiru" were the Aramean, Philistine, Moabite, Arabian bands of plunderers who were overrunning Phoenicia, Syria and Palestine in the days of Jehoram and Jehoahaz.

Much also has been written of the person of Abdi-hibba. Scholars assume he was the king of "Urusalim". That the name "Urusalim" is the cuneiform transcription of the name Jerusalem is plausible. But Abdi-hibba was no king of Jerusalem. In addressing the Egyptian court he wrote: "Verily, I am not a regent; I am an officer of the king, my lord. Behold I am a shepherd of the king, and I am one who bears the tribute of the king. Neither my father nor my mother, but the mighty hand of the king has set me in the house of my father" (Letter 288). The king is Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Again in Letter 287 he repeats: "Verily, this land of the city of Urusalim, neither my father nor my mother has given it to me." And in Letter 285: "Behold, I am not a regent, I am an officer of the king, my lord." Abdi-hibba was a Palestinian adventurer who had himself appointed an officer of Pharaoh to administer Egyptian affairs over a portion of the land that belonged to the city of "Urusalim". "Take silver and follow me," he was accused of saying (Letter 280). It was commonplace for the petty kingdoms of Syria and Palestine to seek Egyptian "foreign aid" in their quarrels. Isaiah reveals what God thought of it: "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, That take counsel, but not of Me: And that form projects, but not of My spirit, That they may add sin to sin; That walk to go down into Egypt, And have not asked at My mouth; To take refuge in the stronghold of Pharaoh, And to take shelter in the shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the stronghold of Pharaoh turn to your shame, And the shelter in the shadow of Egypt to your confusion. For his princes are at Zoan, And his ambassadors are come to Hanes. They shall all be ashamed of a people that cannot profit them, That are not a help nor profit But a shame, and also a reproach" (Isaiah 30:1-5, "Jewish Pub. Soc." trans.). And verse 7: "For Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose: therefore have I called her 'Arrogancy that sitteth still.' " Dissension and jealousy sundered Egypt's government during the El-Amarna period. It was, in part, the result of infiltration of foreign influence during the reign of Amenhotpe III. The book of Sothis records of his day: "The Ethiopians, removing from the River Indus, settled near Egypt." They brought with them not only the concept of marriages between uterine brothers and sisters, a practice already established in Egypt by the royalty of Sheba, but of the marriage of parents with children. Children of the union of a mother and son were deemed especially well born. Akhenaten inherited this concept through his father's marriage relationships. But the practice was revolting to many Egyptians of high rank. No known ruler among them since the time of the Ethiopian Nimrod had dared marry his own mother and beget children of her. Akhenaten did it because he regarded himself as a new incarnation of Nimrod, the sun-god. Hence the name Orus applied to the king. Orus is another spelling of Horus, third king of Egypt, who was anciently assumed to be the first incarnation of Nimrod.

The claims of Akhenaten were so widely known that in El-Amarna letter 41 the Hittite king addresses Akhenaten by the name of "Huria" -- the cuneiform of Horus. Akhenaten made religion the cloak for his perversions. He pictured himself as the solar disk, and from his nude body eminated the beams of light that were to illuminate the world. The claims of the "heretic king" threatened the power of the Theban pontiffs. To retain their influence they first supported one, then another, or a third member of the royal family. Each change was presented to especially constructed idols which moved their heads -- through secret manipulation -- in approval or disapproval of the rival royal candidates. After El-Amarna The climax to the El-Amarna age is usually thought to be the early death of Akhenaten and the return to Thebes of young king Tut, supported by the Theban priesthood. What is not understood by historians or archaeologists is the sundering of Egyptian political unity. In the next chapter it shall be proved that Libyans penetrated Lower Egypt and after the death of Ay set up a dynasty of their own. Two generations later the political center of gravity shifted to Tanis in the Delta. Egypt consequently became a significant sea power in the eighth century before the present era. Greek classical records provide numerous references to Egyptian trade, settlement and warfare in the Mediterranean during this century. Upper Egypt meanwhile saw the last kings of Dynasty XVIII retire to their homeland in Nubia. Dynasty XVIII arose in Ethiopian Nubia to oust the Hyksos. Its king Zera is called "Ethiopian," and its queen, "Queen of Sheba." (Sheba was a son of Cush, father of the Ethiopians.) When the religious controversy under Akhenaten developed, the religious and political pressures of the Upper Egyptians forced a withdrawal of the later members of the Dynasty to Napata in Nubia. Here, as we shall presently see, a branch of the family arose to new power in Nubia and Egypt in the person of Piankhi and reestablished the famous Ethiopian era in Egypt. But this Ethiopian period was not centered any longer in Thebes, but in Napata, Nubia. Historians have never understood the connection between the early Ethiopian influence in Egypt and the later Ethiopian period, because they have separated them by over five centuries. This restoration of Egyptian history makes plain the connection.

CHAPTER EIGHT Egypt to the Persian Conquest The next big surprise in Egyptian history is the dating of Ramesses the Great and Dynasty XIX. Few scholars were willing to consider the evidence, presented in 1945, for dating Ramesses about seven centuries later than the conventional dating (see "Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History," "Scripta Academica-Hierosolymitana", Scientific Report III, by Immanuel Velikovsky). Ramesses the Great was a contemporary of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon! The king of Hatti whom Ramesses fought at Kadesh was the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar. At the rise of Babylon to a world power, Nebuchadnezzar had conquered Hatti -- the ancient name of Syria, Palestine and a portion of Asia Minor. The site of the battle of Kadesh, which Ramesses made so famous in his monuments, was not a city on the Orontes River in Syria, but the famous city of Carchemish. Kadesh is a Semitic word for "holy." Kadesh was a holy city. A number of cities in the ancient world bore the name Kadesh because they were holy places. Carchemish was famous -- as was Jerusalem -- as a holy city. The Greek name of Carchemish was Hieropolis, meaning Holy City. Before proceeding with the detailed relationship between Ramesses and Nebuchadnezzar, we should first establish the chronology of the period from Manetho's transcribers. The exact dating of Dynasty XVIII (and preceding dynasties) has been established and confirmed by the Biblical record. Dynasty XIX follows Dynasty XVIII -- and therefore ruled in the eighth, seventh and sixth centuries B.C. The following table establishes the proper chronology of the period. Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII after 773 B.C. and of Dynasty XIX from Eusebius

Lengths of Reign

Date

Ramesses

68

771-705

Ammenophis

40

705-665

Sethos (Seti I)

55

665-610

Rampses (Ramesses the Great)

66

610-544

8

544-536

Ammenephthis (Merenptah) Ammenemes

Thuoris, whose husband was Sethos II

5 (See Africanus' epitome) 7

536-531

531-524

The Egyptian year at this period began January 1 531 B.C. and

January 1, 524 B.C. This makes the calendar year 525 the last full year of Thuoris. With Queen Thuoris, a contemporary of Psamtik III, this royal line of Egypt and Nubia died out as Ezekiel foretold. Dynasty XIX has been greatly confused in history books because historians carelessly discarded Manetho. They confounded several Ramesses in Manetho's list into one. It will be proved later that the Ramesses who ruled from 773 to 705 was the Ethiopian Piankhi. Modern historians have long assumed Manetho overlooked him. He didn't. Ramesses (773-705) is not a mere duplicate of Rampses (610-544). They are two different individuals. The last documented year of Ramesses the Great recorded on any monument in Egypt is year 44 -- 567-566. The dynasty withdrew to Nubia following Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Egypt.

The "Israel" Inscription This restoration of history for the first time makes sense out of the Egyptian account of "Israel" under Ramesses' son, Merenptah. The name "Israel" has been clearly found only once in all Egyptian annals. This illustrates how inadequate is archaeology when used as the whole source of knowledge. The single inscription appears from the reign of Merenptah, son of Ramesses the Great. It is often referred to as the "Israel Stela." The reference to Israel is as follows: "... Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; "Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; ... "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not ...." (See Pritchard, "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 378.) It is to be specially noted that in the Egyptian text all names are preceded with a determinative sign meaning land, except for the name of Israel. The hieroglyphic determinative which precedes the name of Israel refers to people, not land. The record of Merenptah is therefore a historical account of the disappearance of the people of Israel from Palestine. This was never completely fulfilled until the captivity of the House of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar! For decades historians have attempted to read into this document an account of the exodus, or of Joshua's invasion! Utter nonsense! It is a contemporary record of the deportation of the last remnant of the people of Israel from Palestine.

The "Thirteen Fatal Years" In Josephus' "Contra Apionem", I, 26-31, there is a remarkable account of Egyptian calumnies against the Jews involving this period. The story involves "thirteen fatal years," and foreign invaders who polluted the Egyptian religious temples. The Egyptian Manetho made it appear that the enemies of Egypt were the Jews. The enemies were not the Jews but the Assyrians who sent their troops into Egypt, conquered the land and polluted its religious worship. The setting of the event is during the time of an Amenophis. Josephus doubted such an individual lived. Josephus was correct in assuming the account was propaganda against Jews, but he was incorrect in denying the historical reality of the personages involved. Amenophis, king of Egypt, had, at the beginning of the thirteen years

of exile, a five-year-old son Sethos. Young Sethos was named Ramesses after his grandfather. Amenophis was subject to the Ethiopian king, Manetho reports. The grandfather Ramesses is the Ramesses who rules from 773-705. The Amenophis is his son who ruled during the years 705-665 (including the 13-year exile). The 5-year old son is Sethos (665-610), father of Ramesses the Great. The period is the Assyrian occupation during Dynasty XXV.

Nebuchadnezzar and Ramesses the Great As final proof of the dating of Ramesses' reign to 610-544, notice the parallels between Egypt and Chaldaea. The history of Chaldaea for this period is best summarized in the "Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings" 626-556 (B.C.), edited by D.J. Wiseman, 1956 edition. Egyptian source material may be found in J.H. Breasted's "Ancient Records of Egypt", vol. III. From these Chaldaean and Egyptian records the following events are extracted. Egyptian:

Chaldaean:

607-606 -- fourth year of Ramesses, Egyptians march through Palestine, slay Josiah of Judah, and reach Kadesh (Carchemish) on Euphrates.

607-606 -- year nineteen of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, Chaldaeans march up Euphrates, seize Kimuhu on banks of the river near Carchemish.

606-605 -- fifth year of Ramesses, Egyptians record spectacular victory in vicinity of Kadesh (Carchemish) over ruler of Hatti (Syria).

606-605 -- Babylonian Chronicle reports for twentieth year of Nabopolassar: "... the army of Egypt came to the city of Kumuhu and then captured the city." "The Egyptian army which had crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish came against the Babylonian army ... the Babylonian army withdrew quickly and retreated."

605-604 -- Ramesses silent about events in Syria and Palestine.

605-604 -- Egyptian army smashed at Carchemish. Chaldaeans seize "the whole area of the Hatti country."

604-603 -- Ramesses again silent about events in Palestines

604-603 -- Chaldaeans capture Judah and city of Ashkelon in land of Philistines.

603-602 -- eighth year -Ramesses reconquers Ashkelon, overruns Galilee and proceeds to Carche-

603-602 -- in spring of year 603 Chaldaeans marched to land of Hatti with a powerful army. employ siege

mish. Breasted comments in a footnote: "At some time between the fifth and eighth years all Palestine ... revolted against Ramses II, and he was obliged to take up the reconquest of his Asiatic possessions, at his very door, Ashkelon" (pp. 157-158). Ramesses records nothing of the outcome of his march to Carchemish (Kadesh)except that he received tribute upon reaching the Euphrates.

towers against a city whose name is broken away on the clay tablet. A notable victory is achieved. Jeremiah 46:2 comes to our aid. This victory was achieved at Carchemish -- it is the second battle for Carchemish (historians have only taken note of the first The Egyptians are totally overthrown. (Who Pharaoh Necho was in the Biblical account will be explained later.)

601-600 -- a damaged monument seems to refer to year 10 of Ramesses and a struggle for Palestine (see p. 125 of Breasted's work, vol. III).

601-600 -- Chaldaean chronicle records: the king "took the lead of his army and marched to Egypt. The king of Egypt heard (it) and mustered his army. In open battle they smote the breast (of) each other and inflicted great havoc on each other. The king ... turned back and returned to Babylon."

Here is historical confirmation of astounding significance. We have proceeded with the restoration of Egyptian history from its earliest period. That restoration required that Ramesses the Great be placed in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. -- contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar. And when the pages of history are opened for those centuries. the parallels are there! In conclusion. note the deeds of Ramesses "the Great" found on the monuments under the name of Tirhakah, in classical tradition a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar. Inscriptions found upon certain reliefs at Medinet-Habu -- the Pylon of the Ethiopians -- record the statement that a king Tirhakah claimed sovereignty over Western Mesopotamia, the land of Hatti, part of Assyria, as well as Libya and other regions of Africa (G. Daressy, "Medinet Habou", page 9). Scholars immediately recognized this vast realm was unhistorical for the Tirhakah of Dynasty XXV. The list was pronounced "worthless." Then Mariette discerned that the same record appeared elsewhere on the base of a colossal statue of Ramesses II. (See Mariette's "Karnak", page 67, plate 18.) Mariette refused to believe his eyes. But there was the evidence: This Tirhakah was indeed Ramesses "the Great." "Curiously enough," admits E.A. Wallis Budge in "A History of Egypt", vol. VI, page 157, "Tirhakah obtained the reputation of being a great traveller and conqueror, and Strabo, under the name of 'Tearko the Ethiopian,' mentions him ... as one whose expeditions were not generally known." (See "Strabo", book I, chapter 3, part 21.) "In another place he quotes Megasthenes, who says that ... Tearko the

Ethiopian advanced as far as Europe ...." (See "Strabo", book XV, chapter 1, part 6.)

Catching Up Loose Ends Now to complete the restoration of Dynasty XIX from archaeology and Manetho's transcribers. According to Eusebius, Manetho assigns 8 years (544-536) to Ammenephthis (known as Merenptah from archaeology). In Syncellus' copy of Eusebius' epitome of Manetho the figure given is 40 years -- that is 576-536. Now see this confirmed from archaeological sources: Names of Ramesses and Successors from Monuments

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ramesses

67

610-543

Merenptah

10

576-566

Sethos II

6

543-537

Siptah

6

537-531

Twosre, a queen and widow of Sethos II (Thuoris in book of Sothis)

7

531-524

Compare this chart, based on archaeological evidence, with the record of Manetho. The reign of Merenptah (Ammenephthis) is given as 8 years in the Armenian version of Eusebius. This eight year period followed the reign of Ramesses. But Syncellus' copy of Eusebius' Manetho reads 40 years. Merenptah therefore reigned jointly with his father Ramesses for 32 years. Since the 10-year reign of Merenptah is recorded in Egypt, and not solely in Nubia, these ten years are Merenptah's first ten years -- 576-566. Merenptah continued his reign in Nubia after Egypt was depopulated between 570 and 566 by the Chaldaeans. The reign of Ramesses in Nubia was followed by those of Sethos II, Siptah and Twosre. All the historical inscriptions of Siptah are Nubian graffiti, primarily from Wadi Halfa. Here again is confirmation of Ezekiel's prophecy of Egypt's 40-year desolation (Eze. 29:8-16). The tombs of these rulers are all found in Egypt. The explanation is simple. Manetho's longer figures indicate that each began to reign in Egypt jointly with Ramesses before the land became desolate. Notice these additional figures from Manetho confirming the joint reigns! Names of Rulers of Dynasty XIX according to Africanus Sethos

Lengths of Reign

Dates

51

656-605

Rapsaces (Ramesses the Great) 61

605-544

Ammenephthis (Merenptah)

20

557-537

Ramesses (Siptah -- in 60 contemporary records his name is spelled Ramesse-siptah)

591-531

Ammenemnes

26 (according to Eusebius)

557-531

50 (from book of Sothis)

574-524

Thuoris (Twosre)

For the date 656 marking the beginning of the reign of Sethos, see Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs", p. 450, especially the comment on the reign of Tanuatamun. With this, the restoration of Dynasty XIX has been completed. But what are we to do with all the other dynastic houses which, historians say, ruled Egypt during these centuries? And who is that other long-lived Ramesses dated 773-705?

Dynasty XXV, the Ethiopians Drop back in time to the end of the eighth century B.C. This is the period of Ethiopian rule of Egypt. The evidence from Assyrian sources for the proper dating of this period is so overwhelming historians have been unable to upset it. From archaeological discoveries the reigns of the recognized kings of Dynasty XXV appear as follows: Names from the Monuments and Stelae

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Shabako

15

707-692

Shebitku

3

692-689

Taharka

26

689-663

In 663 Thebes was sacked by the Assyrian king Assurbanipal. In 663 Taharka was succeeded by another Ethiopian Bakare Tanuatamun, whom the Assyrians named Urdamane. Archaeology has recovered indications of only 8 regnal years, but the history of Dynasty XXVI of Sais preserves evidence that his reign following the destruction of Thebes was 9 years -- 663-654. The account of Dynasty XXV from Eusebius provides additional information of joint rulership not discovered by archaeologists. Names of Dynasty XXV in Eusebius

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Sabacon

12

707-695

Sebichos

12

695-683

Taracus

20

683-663

The name of Tanuatamun does not appear in the dynasty. In the book of Sothis the names are as follows: 75 Sabacon; 76 Sebechon; 77 Taraces. The lengths of reign are those of Eusebius. A comparison of Eusebius' Manetho with archaeological finds indicates Shabako and Shebitku reigned as equals for 3 years -695-692, as did Shebitku and Taharka for 6 years -- 689-683. The account of Africanus differs somewhat from that of Eusebius. Names of Dynasty XXV in Africanus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Sabacon

8

705-697

Sebichos

14

697-683

Tarcus

18

683-665

The shorter reign of Sabacon will be explained later by the 46-year reign of Bochchoris, preserved by Eusebius. Thus: Bochchoris Sabacon

46

751-705

8

705-697

In Africanus it may be observed that Sebichos (Shebitku) is found associated on the throne in 697, two years earlier than the coregency indicated by Eusebius. A Biblical parallel may be observed in the relationship of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram. Jehoshaphat associated his son Jehoram on the throne with him in year 17, but it was not till year 22 that he was made full co-regent (compare I Kings 22 with II Kings 1 and 8). Again these figures illustrate that if all the information is available, the records fit perfectly. Scribal errors are not the cause of the variations. More important is the individual author's evaluation of events which leads him to emphasize different dates. The short 18-year reign of Taharka (to 665 instead of 663) is easily accounted for by Egyptian and Assyrian information. Two years after Assurbanipal attacked Memphis (667) the Assyrian records indicate Tanuatamun came to the throne. He was king of Egypt during the final Assyrian attack on Thebes in 663. Though archaeology has provided no documents mentioning a joint reign, the classical writers plainly confirm the Assyrian record. Taharka and Tanuatamun were ruling jointly for two years: 665-663. With the end of the reign of Tanuatamun the last vestiges of Ethiopian control of Egypt cease.

Dynasty XXVI of Sais The Ethiopian rule over Lower Egypt ended in 663 with the end of the reign of Taharka. Thereafter It passed to Dynasty XIX. In Lower Egypt in that year Dynasty XXVI of Sais rose to power. It was established by Assyrian authority, but its rulers were, to some extent, related to the Ethiopian Theban line by marriage. From the monument the following list of kings, parallel with Dynast; XIX Thebes in Upper Egypt, has been firmly established.

Names of Kings of Dynasty XXVI of Sais in Lower Egypt

Lengths of Reign

Dates

(Taharka)

(26)

(689-663)

Psamtik I

54

663-609

Necho

16

609-593

5

593-588

Apries (Hophra)

19

588-569

Ahmose II (Amasis)

44

569-525

Psamtik II

Psamtik III

6 months

525

The Persian invasion occurred in the year 525 and the line of Egyptian royalty passed from the scene. The princes that had ruled Egypt for centuries ceased. At this point the proof of the restoration of Egyptian history is established. It agrees to the very year -- from the Tower of Babel in 2254 to the Persian conquest in 525. Though the archaeological record for the last Saite dynasty is amply demonstrated, some scholars have been puzzled by the dating of the last king Psamtik. A record early in his year 2 has been found. The answer is, of course, that he counted the 44th year of Amasis, during which he came to the throne, as his first year. This method of pre-dating hereafter became the usual mode of reckoning the Persian rulers in native annals. Psamtik's six months of reign overlapped the end of one calendar year and the beginning of the next, hence the date "year 2" during which he was overthrown. The classical writers preserve some important additional information concerning Dynasty XXVI that is not known from archaeology.

Manetho's Account of Dynasty XXVI The evidence from Herodotus is especially valuable, as it gives a fuller view of joint reigns of the various kings. His information for the reign of Apries, the Hophra of the Bible, is as follows: Name of King

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Psammetichos I (Psamtik)

54

663-609

Nechao II

16

610-594

6

594-588

Apries

25

594-569

Amasls

44

569-525

Psammetichos II

Psammetichos III

6 months

525

The overlap of Necho II is insignificant. But it is worthy of note that Herodotus pictures Apries and Psammetichos exercising power from the same year. Both Africanus and Eusebius preserve a short reign of 6 years for Necho II, and Eusebius assigns 17 to Psammetichos. Thus: Nechao II Psammetichos

6

610-604

17

604-587

Psammetichos died in the early part of 588, near the beginning of his 17th calendar year. From this it appears that Psammetichos and his father Necho shared the throne jointly for 10 years -- 604-594. In Eusebius' "Chronicon" another set of regnal years (though improperly dated) is preserved for Apries and Psammetichos: Psammetichos II

12

599-587

Apries

30

599-569

Here again one sees that Apries exercised equal authority with Psammetichos II even prior to his sole reign, whatever the significance of the year 599 may be. Eusebius has two other variants of historical significance. He assigns Amasis 42 years only 567-525 -- dated from his expulsion by the Chaldaeans to Cyprus. Also, Eusebius assigns for the Theban reign of Psammetichos I 45 years (according to Syncellus) and 44 in the Armenian Version. These may be easily understood if 9 years (to be proved from book of Sothis) are assigned to Tanutamun, nephew of Taharka, and if 610 and 609 are considered the beginnings of the reign of Necho II. It should be remembered that Psamtik I ruled in Lower Egypt nine years before his first year at Thebes commenced. Tanuatamun

9

663-654

Psammetichos I

45

654-609

Nechao II

15

609-594

or

9

663-654

44

654-610

16

610-594

These are not scribal blunders, but consistent evaluations based upon different points of view. Some dates are predated, others postdated. The year 610 is predated. It marks the year in which Ramesses the Great, Necho's contemporary, rose to power. Dynasty XIX of Thebes and Dynasty XXVI of Sais were undoubtedly related. Their kings participated on joint ventures -- as, for example, the wars of Ramesses and Necho with Nebuchadnezzar. Before the reign of Psamtik I, Manetho preserves a number of kings not included in archaeological lists. From Africanus the following list may be drawn up. Names of Rulers of Dynasty XXVI

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Stephinates

7

684-677

Nechepsos

6

677-671

Nechao I (whom the Assyrians

8

671-663

appointed in 671) Eusebius adds the following extra information from Manetho not preserved by Africanus: Names of Rulers of Dynasty XXVI

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ammeris the Ethiopian

12

696-684

("Ameres" in Armenian Verion)

18 (in Armenian Version)

702-684

The remainder of the list is the same as Africanus'.

Book of Sothis and Dynasty XXVI Before restoring other dynasties of this period, look at the book of Sothis. It ends with additional figures for the Saite dynasty. It appears so divergent from all other records that it has been totally rejected. Yet its details agree with this restoration of history. In the following chart the dates have been inserted, after which they will be analyzed. Names in Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

77 Taraces (Takarka II)

20

683-663

78 Amaes (Tanautamun)

38

692-654

79 Stephinathes

27

684-657

80 Nechepsus

13

684-671

8

671-663

14

648-634

9

609-600

84 Psamuthes II

17

604-587

85 Uaphris (Hophra)

34

600-566

86 Amosis (Amasis)

50

575-525

81 Nechao 82 Psammetichus 83 Nechao II

Several of these dates are in chronological order, others are not. In numerous instances the reigns apparently indicate the total length of public service. They take on meaning only after a consecutive chronology for the period has been established. What is the significance of Nechepsos' 13-year reign? According to Manetho, his 7-years' reign ended in 671 at the Assyrian invasion of Esarhaddon. The 13 years of his reign must therefore precede that date. His reign parallels that of Stephinathes, beginning 684. In the Sothic list Amaes is given as the successor of Taharka.

(The break in continuity occurs after Amaes' name, not before.) Tanuatamun was his Egyptian name. Urdamane is the name in Assyrian. He was the son of Shebitku and nephew of Taharka. He reigned as late as calendar year 655-654 according to Manetho. His 38-year reign would therefore extend from 692-654. It is significant that in 692 Shebitku assumed control of the government according to the archaeological record of Dynasty XXV. Shebitku then associated his son on the throne with him when he came to power. Necho II's 9 years of reign in the book of Sothis immediately precedes an unusual 34 years of Hophra. This evidence indicates that Hophra, or Apries, assumed powers of government in 600. It explains the emphasis placed by one account of Eusebius on the next (postdated) year -- 599 -- as the commencement of the reign of both Psamtik II and Apries. But did Hophra live into the calendar year 567-566? Indeed he did. His death is recorded on the Elephantine Stela as occurring in Year 3 of Amasis. Amasis' year 3 was from 567-566. The 50-year reign of Amasis is obviously his sole rule and co-regency. And what is the origin of the unusual dating of Psammetichus? For an explanation we must turn to an earlier portion of the Book of Sothis.

Another Look at Book of Sothis The account commences with the end of Dynasty XVIII. Names in Book of Sothis

Lengths of Reign

47 Ramesses Aegyptus

Dates

68

770-702

8

702-694

49 Thuoris

17

694-677

50 Nechepsos

19

677-648

51 Psammuthis

13

648-635

4

635-631

53 Certos

20

631-611

54 Rampsis (Ramesses "the Great")

45

611-566

48 Amenophis

52

-- - (no name)

This unusual list seems clearly to be based on political events and royal family relationships otherwise unrecorded. Notice the reign of Psammuthis (Psammetichus), beginning in 648. Observe also the date 702. Compare this with the 18-year reign of Ameres from Eusebius' version of Manetho's Dynasty XXVI presented earlier. Ameris the Ethiopian succeeded Ramesses-Piankhi the Ethiopian in 702. Now turn back Egyptian history to the beginning of the Ethiopian period in Egypt.

Appearance of Dynasty XXIV of Sais

Immediately before the reign of Shabako of Dynasty XXV the city of Sais, in the Delta, became prominent in politics. Its dynasty is famous for one man, Bochchoris. His father Tefnakhte was of much less importance. The classical writers mention only Bochchoris. Archaeologists recovered the name of Tefnachte. The total duration of Dynasty XXIV was 44 years. Africanus assigns only 6 years to Bochchoris, but Eusebius and the book of Sothis each attribute 44 years to him. The variation allows for a simple explanation. Tefnakhte, Bochchoris' father, was a local prince before he became king. At the time he rose to kingship he associated his son with him on the throne. Tefnachte must have survived 38 years. The dates of the dynasty are as follows:

Name of King

Lengths of Reign

Bochchoris, or Bocchoris (the Bekenrinef of archaeology)

44

Dates 751-707

or Tefnakhte

38

751-713

Bocchoris

6

713-707

The end of the official reign of Bochchoris is 707. In one document Eusebius indicates Bochchoris survived two more years, for he assigns 46 years to his entire reign -- 751-705. Africanus informs us that Bochchoris was captured by his successor Sabacon (Shabako).

Who Was Usimare Piankhi? The pages of history must be turned back a few years again to establish the identity of the Ethiopian Usimare Piankhi, of Dynasty XXV, the immediate predecessor of Shabako, who ruled over all Egypt in the eighth century before the present era. By archaeologists Piankhi is determined to be the father of Taharka (689-663), and of Shebitku (692-689), and the brother of Shabako (perhaps the English "half-brother" would be more correct). All archaeologists have expressed surprise that Manetho would have neglected so famous a ruler! But Manetho did not neglect him! The annals of Usimare Pianki reveal who he was. No archaeologist professes to know when Piankhi obtained control of Egypt. They do know, however, that in the year 21 of his reign a rebellion broke out in Egypt against his rule. (Breasted, "Ancient Records", vol. IV, page 418). The leader of the revolt was Tefnakhte, the father of Bochchoris. In the Piankhi stela Tefnakhte is commencing his rise to power; he is not yet a king. His official title is only great prince. Upon hearing of the attempt to seize the Delta, Usimare Piankhi ordered his troops in Egypt to quell the rebels, while he remained in Napata, Nubia. The revolt was not quelled. Then, in the succeeding year (see Breasted's footnote on the dating in the Piankhi Stela), Piankhi himself led an expedition and drove Tefnakhte into the marshes of the Delta. An agreement was finally signed before the two, and local autonomy seems to have been granted Tefnakhte, the founder of

Dynasty XXIV. Now turn to the tables of the rulers of Dynasty XXIV of Sais. The 21st and 22nd calendar years of Piankhi's reign must have preceded the first year of Tefnakhte rulership (751-750) for in Piankhi's inscriptions Tefnakhte was not yet king. Here are the limits. The 21st and 22nd years of Usimare Piankhi must not be later than 751. What famous king was in Egypt already in control of Egypt in these years, whose 21st year was 753-752 and whose 22nd year was 752-751 at the latest? Only one! Ramesses Aegyptus at the end of Dynasty XVIII of Manetho. Ramesses Aegyptus (773-707) was of the Cushite line of Sheba that had been ruling Egypt from Solomon's day. They had intermarried for generations with Egyptians. Piankhi was also a Cushite or Ethiopian ruling Egypt. Archaeologists have discovered his Ethiopian name. They have completely overlooked the fact that Manetho mentioned him under his Egyptian name. Archaeological evidence indicates that Ramesses-Piankhi made Napata in Nubia his royal city, ruling Egypt from Thebes. The other kings of Dynasty XVIII who succeeded Ay also must have made Nubia their center of operations, since archaeologists have not been able to find evidence for them in Egypt. They have ruled through General Haremhab. Now consider what occurred in Lower Egypt prior to the Dynasty of Tefnakhte and Bochchoris of Sais.

Dynasty XXIII of Tanis Dynasty XXIV of Sais was preceded in Lower Egypt by Dynasty XXIII of Tanis. Here are the facts surrounding the new royal family ruling in Lower Egypt while the Thebans of Dynasties XVIII and XIX ruled from Upper Egypt. In the following table "A" and "E" stand for Africanus and Eusebius. Kings of Dynasty XXIII Petubastis (E) or Petubates (A)

Lengths of Reign 25 (E) 40 (A)

Dates 794-769 794-754

Osorthon (E) or Osorcho (A)

9 (E) 8 (A)

770-761 769-761

Psammus Zet (only in A)

10 31 (A), or 34 (A)

761-751 751-720 754-720

For the dynasty the book of Sothis provides the following: Names in Book of Sothis 68 Petubastes

Lengths of Reign

Dates

44

794-750

69 Osorthon

9

770-761

70 Psammus

10

761-751

These figures may, at first, seem confusing. They can be immediately simplified by the following arrangements.

Petubastis Osorthon

25

794-769

Petubastis

40

8

769-761

Zet

754-720

34

794-754

or Psammus

10

761-751

Zet

31

751-720

The year of overlap of Osorthon with Petubastis is probably the result of the co-regency having commenced during the 25th year. This dynasty is very important in Greek history. Africanus wrote of Petubates: "in his reign of the Olympic festival was first celebrated" ("Manetho", by Waddell, page 161). The Olympic festival commenced in 776, about the middle of Pedubastes' reign. Further, Osorthon, or Osorcho, was by the "Egyptians called Heracles." In Greek history, Heracles lived three generations before the famous Trojan War. He was also the originator of the Olympic games. No historian has ever been able to reconcile these two facts. The reason? None recognize that there were two major Trojan Wars -- one ending 1181, the other over 500 years later in 677. The full story of this dynasty and of the Trojan War must wait the restoration of Greek history. Documents have been found dated to year 6 of Pedubast and year 12 of an unnamed king, and to year 16 of Pedubast and year 2 of Yewepet. Yewepet was king of Mendes, but none of the Mendesian dynasties have been recorded by Manetho. These parallel datings with Mendesian kings are of value in dating Piankhi contemporary with Dynasty XXIII of Tanis. (See references in Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaoh's", page 449; "L'Egypte", by Drioton and Vandier, vol. II, page 542, Elgood, "Later Dynasties of Egypt", page 52.) Eusebius, unlike Africanus, ended Dynasty XXIII of Tanis with the reign of Psammus in 751, at which point he took up the Dynasty of Sais. The date of 794 for the beginning of Dynasty XXIII is undoubtedly associated with events in the reigns of Acherres (802-794) and Cherres (794-779). But neither history nor archaeology has preserved any worthwhile events for this period. In Manetho, Dynasty XXIII of Tanis was preceded by a royal family of foreign origin. It was Libyan, numbered Dynasty XXII and ruled from Bubastis.

Dynasty XXII of Bubastis Few points in Egyptian history are more misunderstood than this dynasty. Archaeologists have turned up a wealth of information pertaining to Libyans from Bubastis. But they have failed to notice that their kingly line is utterly different in number and sequence from Manetho's. First, one must compare Manetho with history. Then the archaeological evidence must be examined. Diodorus of Sicily tells us that during the reign of Horus the Libyans from North Africa west of Egypt came into Egypt during the expansion of their realm and dominated the land. That Horus is the Orus of the Greeks the Akhenaton of Dynasty XVIII! In the previous investigation of this dynasty it should be noted

that Orus or Akhenaton actually lived longer than the mere 17-years assigned to his reign by archaeological investigation. Manetho assigns him a reign that even outlasts Ay. This explains several enigmas that historians have puzzled over. The most plausible moment for the Libyans to have established their dynasty would be just after the death of Ay, in 837, while Akhenaton (Orus) still lived. At this moment in history a curtain of silence descends on the family of Akhenaton. How long Libyan control in lower Egypt lasted may be determined by examining Assyrian records of Egypt. When Essarhaddon and Assurbanipal invaded the land of Egypt in 671-663 they found no Libyan dynasty ruling at Bubastis. But 90 years earlier Piankhi the Ethiopian specifically names a Libyan as king in Bubastis. (See Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", pp. 289-295 for the Assyrian account.) The only recorded king of the Libyans mentioned in the Bible is "So, king of Egypt" (II Kings 17:4). The king's full name would be the Libyan "Soshenk" or "Soshenq". For years the name Soshenk has been mistaken for the Biblical Shishak. The assumption is that the Libyans under Soshenk attacked Jerusalem after the death of Solomon. Impossible. No philologist can demonstrate why the "n" should have disappeared from Soshenk to become Shishak. Several historians have questioned the authenticity of the Biblical So. But they need not have done so. The account of So is preserved by the Assyrians in the records of Sargon. In Assyrian the name is spelled Sib'e. The Greek Septuasint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament renders the name "Soba". According to the Biblical record So was a Delta king second in rank to the Ethiopian rulers of Upper Egypt. For that reason the Assyrians refer to him as "Turtan", or second in command, to the great "Pir'u" or Pharaoh. King So or Sib'e conspired with Hoshea, king of Israel. The time was the calendar year 722-721. The Assyrians quickly heard of it. Sargon dispatched his army to Israel. "At the beginning of my royal rule" (in 721 -- the accession year of Sargon) the Assyrian king besieged and captured Samaria, carried away 27,290 captives and imprisoned King Hoshea. "I installed over them an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king," reports Sargon. In the second year of Sargon's rule (720) "Hanno, king of Gaza and also Sib'e, the "turtan" of Egypt set out from Rapihu against me to deliver a decisive battle. I defeated them; Sib'e ran away ... and has not been seen again" (Pritchard's Texts, pp. 284-285). So disappeared from the scene in 720. Using the date of 720 as a guide for the reconstruction of the Bubastite Libyan Dynasty, the following table may be constructed. Dynasty XXII according to Africanus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Sesonchis (Sosenq)

21

836-815

Osorthon

15

815-800

Three other kings

25

800-775

Takelothis

13

775-762

Three other kings

42

762-720

It is significant that 720 also marks the full end of Dynasty XXIII of Tanis, with the demise of Zet. Assyrian power overwhelmed the petty dynasts and the Pir'u (Pharaoh) himself offered the Assyrians tribute to keep the peace. Manetho's transcribers have not recorded the names of each of the three other kings. From contemporary sources discovered through excavations in the past century the following names may be supplied. For the period extending from 762 to 720 the Ethiopian Piankhi names "King Namlot and King Yewepet. Chief ... Sheshonk, of Per-Osiris (Busiris) ... King Osorkon, who was in Per-Bast (Bubastis)." (Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. IV, pp. 423-424, 439) All these were Libyan kings in the Delta of Egypt at the time of Piankhi's war in the years 753-751. Manetho's second group of "three other kings" are here named, together with So or Sib'e. The implication is that during this period the Bubastite family ruled the Delta from three cities -Osorkon in Bubastis, Yewepet in Tentremu and Tayan, and Namlot in Hermopolis. At a later time anyone of these three kings would have been replaced in his local realm by a son or other near relative. That is probably how So, thirty years later, came to be one of three kings. For the same threefold division for the earlier period -- 800-775 -- we have the mention of a Libyan king Yewepet (who came to power in 780) as a contemporary with the Tanite king Pedibast. It is doubtful that any other names have yet been recovered.

So-called Dynasty XXII Archaeologists and historians have totally discarded Manetho's account of Dynasty XXII. They have substituted for it a totally different group of Libyan kings and mislabeled it "Dynasty XXII." They never asked themselves whether they may have found another dynasty of Libyans not mentioned by Manetho. They took for granted without proof, that Manetho couldn't be correct. It is admitted by all historians that the so-called Libyan Dynasty XXII followed Dynasty XX of Thebes. When did Dynasty XX of Thebes rule? After Dynasty XIX. But that would put Dynasty XX of Thebes after the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 -- the date for the end of Dynasty XIX. That shocking fact will be proved in the next chapter! There it will be established that Dynasty XX of Thebes governed Egypt during the fourth and third centuries B.C.! The Libyan Dynasty archaeologists have discovered therefore existed sometime during the Ptolemaic period of Egyptian history! These kings of so-called Libyan Dynasty XXII were not Pharaohs in the ancient sense. They were only local dynasts -- similar to the princes and kings of colonial areas in the nineteenth and early twentieth century of the present era. The kings of this mislabeled dynasty boasted of being related through intermarriage to the "royal sons of Ramesses" (page 327 of Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs" and other volumes for this period). Historians are hard pressed to explain away the "royal sons of Ramesses" who survived their father upwards of two centuries! They were indeed what the monuments and stelae claim, the sons of the Ramessides of Dynasty XX. The monuments and historical inscriptions of the true Dynasty XXII are scarce. Nevertheless archaeology has contributed greatly to our knowledge of the later Bubastite royal family. No small portion of it

has been derived from the foreboding Memphite Serapeum, a vast subterranean structure where Apis bulls were buried. It was reopened by the Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy I, after the Persians had forbidden its use. Discovered by Mariette in 1851, the Serapeum contained huge sarcophagi with mummies of no less than sixty-four bulls. During its lifetime an Apis bull was worshipped as the embodiment of Apis -- a name connected with Orisis. On its death and replacement by another living animal it was mummified and buried with pomp. Stelae were erected in the Serapeum designating, among numerous details, its time of birth, time of death and length of life. The chronological value of the find is obvious. Its historical value negligible. From the monuments, Nilometer inscriptions and these stelae the following restoration of the so-called Dynasty XXII of Bubastis is now possible. Here briefly is the proper restoration of the later Libyans during the Hellenistic period.

Names of Kings of Bubastis during the Ptolemaic Era (mislabeled Dynasty XXII)

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Soshenk "I"

21

308-287

Osorkon "I" (Soshenk "II" co-regent)

36

287-251

Takelot "I"

7

251-244

Osorkon "II"

23

244-221

Takelot "II"

25

221-196

Soshenk "III"

52

196-144

6

144-138

37

138-101

Pemay "the Cat" Soshenk "IV"

The Roman numerals given after the preceding rulers are those assigned by archaeologists. They are not correct and overlook completely earlier rulers of the real Dynasty XXII mentioned by Manetho. The priest Manetho lived and wrote during the early third century B.C. and died 150 years before the last of these Libyans from Bubastis reigned! No wonder they are not mentioned by Manetho! These dates are established by the following facts. Soshenk "I" built the Bubastite Portal adjoining a small temple of Ramesses III of Dynasty XX. This Portal was built sometime AFTER Ramesses III completed his temple. Ramesses III lived near the close of the Persian Period as shall be proved in the next chapter. The Bubastites were therefore contemporary with and subject to the Ptolemaic Greeks of the Hellenistic Period. The last heir of Alexander the Great died about 308. (See Mahaffey's "The Empire of the Ptolemies".) Alexander had been proclaimed a god-king by the oracle at Ammon in the Libyan desert. Apparently at the death of his last heir, about 308 B.C., the Libyans assumed the right to succeed his line. The first king

of this new dynasty, Soshenk "I," is commonly -- though erroneously -assumed to be the Shishak of the Bible. The inscriptions arraying his captured towns in the Palestine-Syria area are found on the Bubastid Portal at Thebes. In them no reference is made to Jerusalem, or to any important town in Judah. Writes Sir Alan Gardiner of the vanishing list: "The innumeration is disappointing, of the 150 and more places named only a few are well enough preserved to suggest definite routes and these skirt around the hill-country of Samaria without reaching the centre of the Israelite kingdom; nor is there any hint that they ever touched Judah at all. There are, however, some indications of a raid into Edomite territory" ("Egypt of the Pharaohs", page 330). Soshenk did not live in the fabulously rich Solomonic period. His was the period of Ptolemaic control of Egypt. His claimed capture of Palestinian and Syrian towns -- perhaps villages is the better word -occurred as a general of Egyptian troops under Ptolemy I. In the fourth year of Osorkon "I" -- 284-283 -- a vast compilation of wealth was donated to the temple service. Here again is a parallel with Ptolemaic history. In the year 284 prodigiously rich coronation ceremonies were celebrated for Ptolemy II Philadelphus. No small portion of the riches were later donated to the pagan temple service. Also, a flood in the third year of Osorkon "II" corresponds to the period of upset weather conditions mentioned in the Canopus Inscription in the 240's. In Egypt famines are cause by either too much water or an insufficient amount of water flowing in the Nile at the period of inundation. Osorkon "II," in most Biblical studies, is falsely equated with the Ethiopian Zerah of Scripture. Osorkon "II" was not an Ethiopian. Much less did he ever command a million troops in an attack on Palestine. It was Twentieth Dynasty Ramesside culture that influenced Palestine just prior to and during the years of Osorkon ("Archaeology of Palestine", by W.F. Albright, page 137). Osorkon "II" reigned after the fall of Persia, not in the days of Israel's kings. In the 15th year of Osorkon's successor Takelot II, Egypt was devastated by revolt and Nubian invasion. "Now, afterward, in the year 15 ... great wrath arose in this land .... They set warfare in the South and North ----- not ceasing to fight against those who were therein ... while years passed in hostility each one seizing upon his neighbor ..." (Breasted, "Ancient Records", vol. IV, sec. 764). It was during the last two years of the life of Ptolemy IV that Upper Egypt revolted, beginning in the year 207-206. E.A. Wallis Budge writes: "... a revolt broke out in Upper Egypt, and the Nubians endeavoured to include the Thebaid in the kingdom as in the days of Piankhi I and his successors; this rising was not quelled when Ptolemy IV died, and the Nubians carried on their revolt into the reign of his son." (Page 251 of "Egypt Under the Saites, Persians and Ptolemies", vol. vii of the series "History of Egypt".) The end of this Libyan dynasty is not necessarily indicated by the year 101. That is merely the last record in the Serapeum.

Dynasty XXI of Tanis Yet another dynasty of Manetho must be restored -- number XXI of Tanis. Historians recognize that it preceded a Libyan dynasty. The question is, which one? Should it precede Manetho's Dynasty XXII of Bubastis because it is mentioned previous to it? Or should it be associated in some way with Dynasty XX of Thebes because it is

mentioned after it? It means a difference of centuries!' The answer may be found in the Serapeum. Writes Sir Alan Gardiner in "Egypt of the Pharaohs": "Strangely enough not a single inscription of Dyn. XXI was found in the Serapeum, but the material bearing upon Dyn. XXII ... is all the richer" (p. 326). On the same page Gardiner adds: "Huge sarcophagi had contained the mummies of no less than sixty-four bulls, the earliest dating from the reign of Amenophis III and the latest extending down to the very threshold of the Christian era." Yet none from Dynasty XXI of Tanis? Absurd -- unless there was a period when use of the Serapeum was forbidden. Just such a period occurred -- under the Persians and early days of the Greeks before Ptolemy I. When Cambyses conquered Egypt he ended the religious worship of Apis bulls by ordering the Egyptian priests to devour their god as food! Not until Ptolemy I was the old worship restored to favor ("A Dictionary of Egyptian Civilization", art. "Serapeum"). Dynasty XXI of Tanis is the Persian and early Greek period and immediately precedes the mislabeled Libyan Dynasty XXII of Bubastis. When Herodotus visited Egypt around 450 B.C., he did not find this dynasty ruling in Tanis. It therefore commenced sometime later. It could not have continued further than into the reign of the first Ptolemies. Archaeology has provided evidence that the last king of Manetho's Dynasty XXI -- Psusennes II -- gave his daughter in marriage to the Bubastite Osorkon. He was the son of the Soshenq who founded the Libyan Dynasty. Therefore Psusennes was a contemporary of Soshenq and the daughter was of the same generation as Osorkon. Archaeology has recovered the latest known year of Soshenq from his monuments as year 21. Whether this was his latest year or not may be answered by Manetho. Psusennes, the contemporary of Soshenq is assigned two lengths of reign by Manetho -- 14 years and 35 years. The difference is 21! The answer is clear. Soshenq did reign only 21 years at Bubastis before Osorkon, his son, came to the throne. And those 21 years overlapped with the last 21 years of Psusennes II. With the date 308 (see preceding chart of Bubastite Libyans) for the end of the 14-year reign of Psusennes II, the entire twenty-first dynasty may now be reconstructed from Manetho. In the following chart the letters "A" and "E" stand for Africanus and Eusebius.

Kings of Dynasty XXI of Tanis Smendes Psusennes (I)

Lengths of Reign

26 41 (E) (46) (A)

Dates

417-391 391-350 (391-345)

Nephercheres

4 (A & E)

350-346

Amenophthis

9

346-337

Osochor

6

337-331

Psinaches

9

331-322

Psusennes (II)

14 (A) (35) (E)

322-308 (322-287)

The Book of Sothis preserves the following variations: 63 Psuenus

25

384-359

64 Ammenophis

9

359-350

65 Nephecheres

6

350-344

15

346-331

9

331-327

66 Saites 67 Psinaches

These charts are in perfect harmony. The Book of Sothis preserves the length of reign of Psusennes, not from the beginning of his reign, but from an event in 384 -- a little-known war between Persians and Egyptians to be explained in the next chapter. It also provides additional information regarding the longer joint reign of Amenopthis. The beginning date of 417 for the dynasty occurs during a period, which, for historians, is "a complete blank so far as Egypt is concerned" (Gardiner, "Egypt of the Pharaohs", p. 371). All that is known of the period in that the Persian king who then governed Egypt never visited the country. The Tanites were probably established to maintain Persian authority in the absence of the Persian King. The dynasty survived severe struggles between Egyptians, Greeks and Persians as the only symbol of authority in the Delta, or Lower Egypt. Its last king had only a daughter as heir, and the line was superseded by Libyans who intermarried with the Tanite line.

What Eratosthenes Revealed Up to this point little has been presented from Eratosthenes, the Alexandrian astronomer, geometer, geographer, grammarian and philosopher who became chief librarian, under Ptolemy III, of the Library at Alexandria. Eratosthenes is noted as the founder of "scientific chronology." He had access to the Theban records, preserved by the priests, of all the kings of Egypt. A fragmentary account of his complete book has come down to us through the work of George the Monk -- Syncellus. Syncellus preserved only those points of Egyptian history of most interest to the Greek mind of his day. Included were the adventures of Cush, Nimrod, Horus, Heber, Shem. Next he preserved the kings who reigned from the momentous year 1958 -- when Babylonia was recovered from the Medes -- to the time of Job (Cheops) and his successors. Then the period of the Exodus. Syncellus records nothing more of the original Eratosthenes. There is added beginning, with the king of Dynasty XXVIII, a series of rulers under the Persians and Greeks This additional list of kings is from later sources, not Eratosthenes. (See "Apollodors Chronick" by Jacoby, for proof the last section of the list is not Eratosthenes'.) The proof of the dating of this list of petty dynasts is found in the names of the so-called "kings of Thebes." None are typical of the days of Egypt's greatness. Number 32 is called the second Ammenemes.

The previous king of that name was Ammenemes of Dynasty XIX who ruled from 557-531. This earlier Ammenemes does not appear in the list ascribed to Eratosthenes though, some transcribers have incorrectly inserted his name. This second must then have been later! Number 30 is titled Ochytyrannus -- meaning a tyrant like king Ochus -- the Persian who reconquered Egypt in 343. This king of Thebes must have been after the reign of Ochus to have borne such a title! This list is really of petty princes, priests or commanders of the army of upper Egypt who pretended to greatness by the names they took. Kings Who Ruled in Thebes According to Eratosthenes

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1 Menes, a Theban of This

62

2254-2192

2 Athothes (Nimrod)

59

2192-2133

3 Athothes II (Horus)

32

2126-2094

4 Miabaes -- "His name by interpretation signifies 'humane', or 'friendly'". He is the second Osiris who was deposed and finally slain by Typhon.

19

2049-2030 (same dates as the Palermo Stone has)

5 Pemphos -- is Shem

18

2037-2019

Eratosthenes' record continues with events after 1958 6 Toegar Amachus -- Momcheiri of Memphis, "leader of men" -"he was irresistible"

79

1958-1879

6

1879-1873

8 Gosormies -- "All demanding"

30

1873-1843

9 Mares, "his son" -- "gift of the sun"

26

1843-1817

10 Anoyphis

20

1817-1797

11 Sirius

18

1797-1779

12 Chnubos or Gneuros -"gold" (Observe that Chnubos is contemporary with the seventh king of Dynasty II of This -the last half of whose reign extended from 1775

22

1779-1757

7 Stoichos, "his son" -"the unfeeling Ares" Ares is the Greek name of the god of War -- Mars

1765. In Nephercheres' reign Manetho records that the Nile flowed with honey -- not literally, but figuratively, as the land of Palestine was to flow with milk and honey -great prosperity. Hence the word "gold" as the name of the king, signifying prosperity.) 13 Rayosis

13

1757-1744

14 Baiyres

10

1744-1734

15 Saophis Comates -"trafficker, money-getter" -- that is Joseph (according to Manetho, Dynasty IV, Joseph began his reign in 1734!)

29

1734-1705

16 Saophis II (Cheops or Job) 27 (see Dynasty IV of Manetho for the same beginning date of Cheops: in 1699 a branch of Dynasty III came to power in the person of Zoser-teti or Tosertasis)

1726-1699

17 Moscheres (the year 1668 is also a major date in the internal history of Dynasties III and IV)

31

1699-1668

18 Mosthes

33

1668-1635

19 Pammes

35

1635-1600

(From here Eratosthenes proceeds to rulers of Dynasty VI who are recognized as rulers at Thebes as well as at Memphis, where the royal line originated.) 20 Appapos (Pepi "the very great"); Eratosthenes impllee that Pepi was chosen to sit upon the throne from the very date of his blrth.

100

1587-1487

21 Acheskos Okaras, the Pharaoh of the Exodus

1

1487-1486

22 Nitocris, a queen, widow of the Pharaoh who perished in the Red Sea.

6

1486-1480

Eratosthenes' original list ends here. The succeeding kings are no part of the original Eratosthenes who wrote in the third century B.C. These rulers extended two centuries beyond his time. 23 Myrtaios Ammonodotos, the Amyrteos or Amonortais of Manetho's Dynasty XXVIII of Sais

22

421-399

24 Thyosimares, "Mighty is the Sun"

12

399-387

25 Thinillo, "having increased his ancestral power"

8

387-379

26 Semphrucrates, "Heracles Harpocrates"

18

379-361

27 Chuther Taurus, a tyrant

7

361-354

28 Meures Philoscoros

12

354-342

29 Chomaephtha

11

342-331

30 Ancunios Ochytyrannus -a tyrant like Ochus" -Ochus was the Persian king who reconquered Egypt

60

331-271

31 Penteathyris

16

271-255

32 Stamenemes (Ammenemes) II

23

255-232

33 Sistosichermes, "valiant Hercules"

55

232-177

34 Mares

43

177-134

5

134-129

14

129-115

5

115-110

63

110- 47

35 Siphoas "also called Hermes" 36 Fourteen years for which name of king is lost 37 Phruron, "the Nile" 38 Amuthantaeus

The calendar year 47 marks the year of Caesar's invasion of Egypt, and the perishing of native Egyptian dynasts under Greek Ptolemaic rule. The dating of the first king of this period -- Myrtaios (421-399) -- is based on the known date 399, when, as the sole king of Dynasty XXVIII, he ceased to reign. The year 421 consequently marks his rise to power. It was undoubtedly to counteract this aspiring ruler that the Persians established Dynasty XXI of Tanis as a counterweight in 417.

The events that led up to the catastrophe of 47 is told by Budge. Ptolemy XIII died in 51 and "left his kingdom by will to his daughter Cleopatra VII., and to his elder son Ptolemy XIV., surnamed Dionysius, who was to marry his sister; three years later (B.C. 48) a violent dispute broke out between brother and sister, who had reigned jointly until that time, and Cleopatra was obliged to leave Egypt. In 47 Caesar sent troops to support her claims, and as a result her brother's forces were defeated with great slaughter. Ptolemy XIV, was accidentally drowned in crossing a river whilst trying to escape" ("A History of Egypt", vol. viii, p. 87). As commander of the Egyptian contingent under Ptolemy, the last native dynast perished in 47. This chapter of the Compendium closes the history of Egypt to the Babylonian and Persian conquests with a quick, and needed, view into two later dynasties. In all there were twenty-four recorded dynasties ruling from the time of Babel to 525 B.C. Now we come to Dynasty XX of Thebes! These are the many Ramessides III to XI. Where do they belong in Egyptian history? Is the story of Thebes not yet complete? The answer will be found in the next and final chapter on Egyptian history.

CHAPTER NINE The Eclipse of Egypt For the first 2000 years of human history, Africa -- and Egypt in particular -- was the vortex of world politics. Today Africa is militarily a void. Its native population borders on savagery in many areas. Its culture is universally primitive. Egypt and Ethiopia -- once the world's leaders -- are today backward, unprogressive nations. Why? Numerous answers have been offered. None of them is the key to the sudden decline of Egypt and of Africa.

Answer in Ezekiel The answer to the riddle of the Dark Continent lies in the book of Ezekiel, in a little-understood prophecy. Before revealing its significance, one primary fact of geography and history must be noted. The contact of Africa with the ancient Near East always passed through Egygt, or its domains. The valley of the Nile led to the heart of Africa. To cut off Africa from the influences of civilization, only one land had to be destroyed -- Egypt Now to consider the prophecy of Ezekiel -- and its historical import for today. It is found in Ezekiel 29, specifically verses 8-16: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and will cut off from thee man and beast. And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste, and they shall know that I am the Lord: because he hath said: The river is mine, and I have made it. Therefore, behold, I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from Migdol to Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. For thus saith the Lord God: At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the peoples whither they were scattered and I will turn the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their origin: and they shall be there a lowly kingdom. It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms, neither shall it any more lift itself up above the nations; and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations. And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, bringing iniquity to remembrance, when they turn after them and they shall know that I am the Lord God." Historians insist this prophecy was never fulfilled. They find no monumental evidence in Egypt that the country was without inhabitant forty long years. Of course not! There was not a single human being living in Egypt to record it -- nor any wild animal: And what Egyptian would want to record it upon return from forty years' exile? When was this prophecy fulfilled? and by whom? About the year 570 a message from God was sent to Ezekiel. It is found in Ezekiel chapters 29 and 30. In this divine message the frightful events to befall Egypt are further amplified:

"Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her abundance, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt ..." (Ezek. 29:19-20). Chapter 30:10-12 makes it even more emphatic. "Thus saith the Lord God: I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease, By the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, Shall be brought in to destroy the land; And they shall draw their swords against Egypt, And fill the land with the slain. And I will make the rivers dry, And will give the land over into the hand of evil men; And I will make the land desolate, And all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the Lord have spoken it." The military power that overthrew Egypt was from Babylon. Its king, Nebuchadnezzar, carried the Egyptians captive. But man's power alone could not have wrought what befell Africa. Forty long years following the enslavement of the Egyptians God sent a terrible drought on East Africa. Normal rains ceased. No water flowed in the Nile. The land dried up. Wild beasts could not even survive in the parched soil of Egypt. All this occurred at the time the remainder of the world was enjoying the Golden Age of human civilization. Cut off from direct contact with Europe and Asia, the native populations stagnated, then degenerated. Never again was Africa able to catch up with the world. It was the eclipse of Africa. To cover up the humiliating defeat at the hands of Babylon, the Egyptian priests later invented the story that Egypt was never more prosperous than during these 40 years! Yet archaeologically the period in Egypt is a total blank. A few remains have been attributed to this period -- a dated grave here and there. But they were only late reburials of those who died abroad in captivity and whose families could afford the expense. Historians have mistakenly taken the Egyptian priests at their word. They think they find supporting evidence in the rule of Pharaoh Amasis on the Isle of Cyprus. Without exception every ancient history text portrays Egypt militarily strong during this period. Amasis is acclaimed as the builder of an empire that included Cyprus, while Nebuchadnezzar was limited to the mainland. No one, it seems, has ever noticed that Amasis was sent into exile to Cyprus by Nebuchadnezzar's command! The only document to record the total destruction of Egypt was discovered in 1878. In that year a mutilated cuneiform cylinder was discovered, disclosing an event of Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-seventh year. It was purchased by the British Museum. The fragmentary remains are difficult to translate. The record is cast in the form of a plaintive prayer from Nebuchadnezzar to Merodach, god of Babylon. "My enemies thou usedst to destroy; thou causedst my heart to rejoice ... in those days thou madest my hands to capture; thou gavest me rest; ... thou causedst me to construct; my kingdom thou madest to increase ..." Clearly something is wrong with Nebuchadnezzar. Though he began the Egyptian campaign with brilliant success, he did not continue on the throne to see it completed. He became insane. His generals continued the efforts as the document proves: "... the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king tof Bab- ... Egypt to deliver a battle .... -sis of Egypt called up his army .... distant regions which are amidst the sea ... many ... who are in Egypt ...

carrying weapons, horses and ... he called up to assist him" (Compare "Egypt and Babylon" by George Rawlinson, pages 90-91 with Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 308). The remainder of the cylinder is unintelligible. The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 568-567. The campaign in Egypt thus occupied the space of three full years -- 570-567. In the calendar year 567-566 the destruction of Egypt was complete. Amasis was sent into exile in Cyprus. Forty years later he returned to Egypt with his people, under the scrutiny of the Persians. Amasis was succeeded by Psamtik II. His attempted rebellion brought the Persian king Cambyses to Egypt. Psamtik II offered his daughter in marriage to the Persian. The request was rebuffed. The royal dynasty of Egypt was overthrown. In 525 the Egyptian royal blood perished.

Persian Kings of Egypt Very little of the history of Egypt is known for the next century and a quarter. Most of what has been preserved comes from Greek sources. The chronology of the period is correctly preserved by Manetho. It is in full agreement with the Persian records. Minor controversial details that do not pertain to Egypt, but to Persia, will be treated there. Manetho's history of Persian dominion begins thus: "Cambyses in the fifth year of his kingship over the Persians became king of Egypt." The fifth year was 525-524, spring-to-spring reckoning in Persian annals. Cambyses reigned over Egypt three years, according to Eusebius' extract, 525-522, EXCLUSIVE reckoning. He was followed by the Magi who seized the throne and reigned for 7 months in 522. The account of Africanus differs considerably and has never been understood by historians. He records that Cambyses reigned over Egypt 6 years, INCLUSIVE reckoning, 527-522. The 8-year reign of Cambyses in Persia extentled from 529-521. Africanus reckons to the end of Cambyses' eighth year (December 31, 522 according to Egyptian reckoning) even though the Persian monarch died early in the eighth year, March 522. But what of the date 527 for the beginning of his reign in Egypt? The only possible answer is that Africanus -- and Manetho -- considered the dominion of the Persian king in Egypt as beginning in the year that the Egyptian exiles returned. Africanus thus is a witness to the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy of the 40-years' exile -- 567-527! The kings of Persia, including illegitimate rulers (in parentheses), are now listed in chart form in the traditional Greek spelling. The dates are according to the Egyptian calendar, which regularly preceded the Persian by three to four months. Dynasty XXVII -Kings of Persia Cambyses

Lengths of Reign

Dates (Egyptian reckoning)

6 (A)

Jan. 2, 527-Dec. 31, 522

3 (E)

525-522 (Conquest to Magian revolt)

(Magi

7 months (E only)

522)

Darius

36

Jan. 1, 521-Dec. 22, 486

Xerxes "the Great"

21

Dec. 23, 486-Dec. 16, 465

(Artabanus

7 months (A only)

465)

Artaxerxes

41 (A)

Dec. 17, 465-Dec. 6, 424

40 (E)

465-425

(Xerxes (II)

2 months

424)

(Sogdianus

7 months

424)

Darius (II)

19

Dec. 7, 424-Dec. 1, 405

The specific dates for the commencement of the Egyptian years may be found in "Manuel d'Histoire de Genealogie et de Chronologie de tous les Etats du Globe", by A.-M.-H.-J. Stokvis, vol 1.

Egypt Rebels Over 120 years elapsed since Persian armies marched into Egypt. Darius was now dead. Smoldering revolt suddenly flared into the open. Though Persian authority was tacitly acknowledged for a few years, Egypt became virtually independent. Persian and mercenary armies were sent against the land of the Nile. Unsuccessful attempts followed one another until 343, when Egyptian forces collapsed before a determined Persian onslaught. The history of this fast-moving period begins with Dynasty XXVIII of Sais. This dynasty -- if it even deserved that designation -consisted of one king, Amyrteos. His reign lasted only 6 years, 405-399. He was overthrown by pretenders from the city of Mendes, whose rulers constituted Dynasty XXIX. None of these dynasties were of ancient royalty. They were largely of prominent families, often of foreign descent. The duration of Dynasty XXIX was only 20 years, after which it, too, was overthrown. The evidence of Manetho, as preserved by Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus is as follows. Dynasty XXIX of Mendes according to Africanus Nepherites Achoris

Lengths of Reign

6 13

Eusebius

Lengths of Reign

Nepherites Achoris

6 13 or 12 (in the Canon)

Psammuthls

1

Psammuthis

1

Nepherltes (II)

4 months

Nepherites (II)

4 months

Muthis

1

In the Armenian version of Eusebius Muthes precedes Nepherites. Eusebius also assigns 13 years to Achoris in the Armeinan, which is the total length of his reign. The real puzzle that has confounded historians of this period is found in the Demotic Chronicle. The Chronicle places the name Psammuthis before Achoris, in apparent opposition to Manetho. The apparent contradiction would vanish if each writer were to be carefully compared with the other. Manetho and the Chronicle both preserve part of the facts: neither preserves all the details. But how could Achoris precede Psammuthis and yet have Psammuthis precede Achoris? The key is found in Eusebius' Canon, which contains one version of Manetho not found elsewhere. The Canon notes that Achoris reigned 12 years before Psammuthis. As Achoris reigned 13 years altogether, the final year must have succeeded the one-year reign of Psammuthis. That is, Achoris was deposed, and returned to the throne a year later. Remarkably, the unnamed king who follows Nepherites and precedes Psammuthis in the Demotic Chronicle is said to have been "deposed." Psammuthis usurped his throne one year. Then Achoris appears followed by Nepherites II. These details may be placed in chart form as follows:

Names of Kings of Dynasty XXIX of Mendes

Lengths of Reign

Nepherites

Dates

6

399-393

12

393-381

Psammuthis

1

381-380

Achoris (again)

1 (the 13th year)

380-379

Muthis (jointly with Achoris)

1

380-379

Nepherites (II), son of Achoris

4 months

379-378 (winter)

Achoris

It is to be noted that Muthis succeeds Psammuthis and reigns during the same calendar year that Achoris returns to the throne. This is made clear by the fact that his name is left out in Africanus' account in which Achoris is assigned 13 years. Eusebius, in one case, adds Muthis to his list in which Achoris is assigned only 12 years. Why the years commencing in 381 suddenly became politically unstable will become apparent when unveiling the mystery of Dynasty XX of Thebes! But to continue the history of Egypt with Africanus' epitome of Dynasty XXX of Sebennytus. (The monumental names are in parentheses.) Kings of Dynasty XXX of Sebennytus

Lengths of Reign

Nectanebes (Nekhtnebef) Teos (Takhos) Nectanebos (Nekhtharehbe)

Dates

18

379-361

2

361-359

18

359-341

The Demotic Chronicle (IV, 14) assigns to Nekhtnebef a reign of 19 years -- 380-361. This begins with the year that Achoris returned to power. In the previous line in the Demotic Chronicle a length of only 16 years is assigned -- 377-361. What event occurred in the calendar year beginning 377 will be clarified by the history of Dynasty XX of Thebes! The account of Dynasty XXX found in Eusebius' Canon is the same as Africanus'. But in the Armenian Version of Eusebius and in Syncellus' account of Eusebius the following differences should be noticed. Dynasty XXX of Sebennytus According to Eusebius Nectanebis

Lengths of Reign

Dates

10

371-361

Teos

2

361-359

Nectanebos

8

359-351

This epitome of Manetho is chronologically abridged. But it does indicate major military or political events for the calendar years beginning in 371 and 351. The significance of the year beginning 371 again lies in the history of Dynasty XX of Thebes. In the calendar year beginning 351 an important invasion of Egypt was unsuccessfully attempted by the Persians ("Diodorus Siculus", XV, 40, 3) See also A. T. Olmstead's "History of the Persian Empire", revised edition -- one of the most accurate texts covering this century of Egyptian quasi-independence. In 343 -- in the sixteenth year of Nectanebos -- a great Persian campaign against Egypt was mounted. The Delta soon fell. The Egyptian king fled to Ethiopia where he continued to exercise authority over Upper Egypt for another two years -- to 341. In 341 the last vestige of Egyptian independence vanished. The short-lived Persian dominion which followed constituted Dynasty XXXI. Persian Kings of Dynasty XXXI

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ochus

2

341-339

Arses

3

339-336

Darius

4

336-332

The conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great occurred in 332.

And Now Dynasty XX of Thebes The authority of Thebes over Egypt disappeared about 663 with the Assyrian conquest. For almost three centuries no native dynasty is known to have been centered in the ancient capital of Upper Egypt. Yet, according to Manetho and the archaeological record, Thebes was again to become the capital of Upper Egypt! Its rulers -- including the famous Ramessids III to XI -- constitute Dynasty XX. The famous Papyrus Harris contains a historical record of the

period immediately prior to the rise of Dynasty XX. It reads: "The land of Egypt was cast aside with every man a law unto himself. They had no chief spokesman for many years previously up to other times. The land of Egypt consisted of officials and heads of villages, one slaying his fellows both high and low. Then other times came afterwards in the empty years, and a Syrian with them made himself prince. He set the entire land tributary under his sway. He united his companions and plundered their possessions. They made the gods like the people, and no offerings were presented in the temples." The king then claims: "He brought to order the entire land, which had been rebellious. He slew the disaffected of heart who had been in Egypt. He cleansed the great throne of Egypt .... He established the temples Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 260). Here is an era of many "empty years" -- with no native kings. Only officials and village headsmen. Foreign princes had Egypt in tribute. The religion of Egypt was suppressed; its temples bare. Not in all the history of Egypt had such a time occurred from the days of Nimrod to the Persian conquest! Even the Hyksos period had its own native kings ruling under the foreign Shepherd Princes. But here is a time when no native kings ruled. Only one period in Egyptian annals corresponds to this tragic era -- the time of the Persian conquest and dominion. Dynasty XX of Thebes therefore rose to power during the period of rebellion against Persia in the fourth century before the present era. Yet historians would place the dynasty nearly eight centuries earlier -- in the time of the prophet Samuel and of king Saul! The most famous king of Dynasty XX was Ramesses III. In his 8th year he fought a tremendous battle against invaders from Asia. These invaders are usually assumed to be Philistines. History texts claim that Ramesses' victory over the "Philistines" forced them to withdraw from Egypt and settle in Palestine, where they commenced their attacks against Israel in the time of Saul. This reconstruction of history is an utter fiction! Historians have willingly forgotten that the Philistines were already dwelling in Palestine in the days of Abram -over eight centuries before the kingship of Saul. "And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days" (Genesis 21:34, also verse 32). The invaders whom Ramesses III repelled in his eighth year were "sea peoples" -- from the isles and coastlands of the northern Mediterranean. They were mercenary troops of a vast empire that ruled in Asia Minor and over Palestine. That was the Persian Empire -- and its mercenaries were Greeks and their allies! The Egyptian word Haunebu, applied by Ramesses III to the northern sea peoples, is the very same word found on Egyptian monuments in reference to Greeks! (See E. Naville's "The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen" (1887), pages 6 ff.) Ramesses III's invaders were crested soldiers. The Greeks were famous for their crested troops. Ramesses' enemies moved through Palestine. So did the Persian and Greek troops in 373. By contrast, there was no land invasion from Asia Minor through Palestine in the days of Samuel or Saul! Ramesses defeated his enemies at the time of the rising Nile. The Persians and Greeks were defeated in 373 at the time of the Nile floods ("Diodorus Siculus", XV, 41-43). Ramesses III speaks of natural calamity and unrest in the isles of the sea peoples. In 373 the Greek isles were devastated with frightful earthquakes and floods, according to Diodorus and other ancient writers.

The dates of Ramesses III may now be established as follows: Ramesses III --

31 years --

381-350.

His 8th year was 374-373, the year of his great victory. Ramesses also records victories in his 5th and 11th years over Libyan and other invaders. His 5th year began in 377, his 11th year in 371. Now turn to the account of Dynasty XXX. The year 377 marked the beginning of the 16 years assigned by the Demotic Chronicle to Nectanebes. The year 371 begins his 10-year reign according to Eusebius. Thus the reign of Ramesses III, with its records of major wars in Egypt, provides the clues for the unusual dates sometimes assigned to Dynasty XXX. The father of Ramesses III is known to historians as Setnakhte. His highest regnal date found on the monuments is Year 2. His reign, of little historical significance, was at least extended over the years 383-381. It is highly probable that he reigned no longer than these two years. A war between the Persians and Egyptians was fought about years 385-383. As Setnakhte was famous as a general, it appears that he arose in power in Thebes following the repulse of the Persian armies. The ancestry of Setnakhte is unknown, though the family was probably Ethiopian in origin. Everywhere they mimicked the ways of the famous Ethiopian king Ramesses II -- the Tarhakah of the Bible. Manetho's transcribers provide no names for these kings, nor any individual lengths of reign. The only source of evidence is from the monuments and papyri. The unusual abundance of well-preserved papyri and monuments is another strong indication of the lateness of Dynasty XX. ("Egypt of the Pharaohs", Gardiner, page 299.) From these records the following information may be deduced. Names of Kings of Dynasty XX of Thebes

Known Lengths of Reign

Setnakhte

Resultant Dates

2

383-381

Ramesse-hekaon (III)

31

381-350

Ramesse-hekamae (IV)

6

350-344

Ramesse-Amenhikhopshef (v)

4

344-340

Nebmare Ramesse (VI)

7

340-333

Usimare-akhenamun Ramesse (VII)

---

---

Ramesse-itamun-nutehekaon (VIII)

7

333-326

The records of Ramesses VII and VIII are very obscure. There are no known dates for Usimare-akhenamun Ramesse (designated Ramesses VII in Bibl. Or., xiv, 138). A badly tattered document indicates that Ramesse-itamun-nutehekaon (VIII) reigned possibly 7 years. That his reign was PARALLEL with Ramesse IX is indicated by a papyrus discussed in "The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology", xi, 72-75 and xiv, 60. Of far greater interest are the three succeeding Ramessides, listed and dated in the next chart. (A discussion of the dates follows.) Neferkare Ramesse (IX)

17

343-326

Khepermare Ramesse (X) Menmare Ramesse (XI)

3 27 --

326-323 323-296 --

The Persian conquest of Egypt in 343 brought to power a collateral branch of the Ramessid family. Ramesses V was deprived of most royal prerogatives. (See page 297 of Gardiner's "Egypt of the Pharaohs".) In his place ascended Neferkare Ramesse, in whose latter years foreigners and sea peoples -- Greeks! -- were found in Thebes. The years of Ramesses IX disclose great unrest and serious unemployment -- a result of the Persian conquest and the later penetration of the Greeks. Ramesses XI is famous for the controversial "Renaissance" -- or rebirth of Egyptian influence -- which commenced in his 19th year. The 19th year is 305-304 -- the very year that Egypt became independent under Ptolemy I. The Renaissance or "renewal of birth" is the independence of Egypt under the Ptolemies' Further, after year 17 of Ramesses XI there was a rebellion of Pinhasi in Upper Egypt coupled with a "war in the Northern District" (Lower Egypt). This struggle occurred before the Renaissance, hence in year 18. Year 18 of Ramesses XI was 306-305 -- the year that Egypt was invaded -- unsuccessfully -- by Antigonus of Syria. The remaining history of the petty rulers under the Ptolemies is exceedingly obscure -- and historically of little value. Theban and Tanite royalty are known for several generations following the Ramessides. They are mistakenly labeled by historians as Dynasty XXI -but have nothing in common with the Tanite Dynasty XXI as found in Manetho. Most of their time was spent in rewraping the mummies of the ancient pharaohs. A much misunderstood monument is the Bubastite Portal at Karnak. Containing material pertaining to Dynasty XXII and built after the reign of Ramesses III, it is at times called upon to support a false early dating of Dynasty XX. The answer is quite simple. The inscriptions are late reproductions inscribed by Bubastite officials in honor of their early and famous kings -- the Soshenks and the Osorkons. It was commonplace during the Persian and Greek period to revive the past. With this chapter the restoration of Egyptian history is complete.

CHAPTER TEN It Began at Babel Civilization began at Babel. But the thread of history first had to be traced through Egypt. Into Egypt journeyed the founders of civilization. Egypt kept the history of the past alive. The Greek and Roman historians and theologians and philosophers were universally interested in Egypt. By contrast, Mesopotamia died. Its early inhabitants migrated into Eurasia. Its history was only meagerly preserved. Later, Arabs dwelt on its barren wastes. Yet in those barren wastes lay the buried cities of ancient times, with their fallen libraries and history texts waiting the archaeologists' keen sight.

Mesopotamia Rediscovered In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries Europeans became aware of the treasures of the TELLS or mounds of the Mesopotamian flatlands. Archaeological expeditions cut into many of the most impressive ones. Hoards of private and public documents were discovered -- most of them lying to this day untranslated in the basements of European museums. A multitude of undreamed of facts were disclosed for the first time. But how were the archaeologists and historians to interpret these facts? How would they arrange the dynastic lists of hitherto unknown kings? Unfortunately the key to a true knowledge of history was being discarded at the very time excavations began in Mesopotamia. That key is God in history. Without God -- and hence without the Bible -- there were no bounds to curb historical speculation. A deliberate conspiracy to interpret every possible fact in opposition to the Bible was summarily begun. The literary critics quickly seized the opportunity. The Babylonian accounts of creation and the Flood were interpreted as the originals of Genesis. Moses, they claimed, patterned the law after Hammurabi's Code. No one questioned whether Hammurabi lived BEFORE or AFTER Moses. Or whether Genesis was written before rather than after the idolatrous Mesopotamian accounts of creation and the great Flood. Everyone assumed that the ancient arrangements of the dynastic lists of kings and city-states were in proper sequence. That the scribes might have deliberately arranged their history to make Babylonia appear older than any other part of the world did not dawn upon the first critics. Then came the astounding discovery. Business documents, public monuments, literary classics were translated which made kings contemporaries who were separated by hundreds or thousands of years in the dynastic lists of kings. What were the historians to do? Wrote Leon Legrain in 1922: "The problem of parallel dynasties is one of the most troublesome for Babylonian chronologists" (Publication of Babylonian Section of University of Pennsylvania, XIII, 17). Weldner of Austria forced the historical world to recognize the problem despite themselves. His famous articles pointing out that several successive dynasties were in fact contemporary appeared in 1923 in "Archiv fuer Keilschriftforschung" (I, 95), and in 1926 in "Archiv fuer Orientforschung" (III, 198). But the strongest evidence against the modern interpretation of history was discovered by the French at Mari on the Euphrates River.

There it was discovered that during the lifetime of Hammurabi -- who was mistakenly dated by historians to the time of Abraham -- the Benjamites were in control of Palestine and men like David were famous! (See Werner Keller's "The Bible as History", pages 49-52). How were the historians and archaeologists to interpret these astounding discoveries? Were they to date Hammurabi properly to the time of Saul and David? Not at all! Rather, they cleverly assumed that Benjamites were in Palestine long before Benjamin was born -- that the name of David was famous for nearly a thousand years before David was born! They hoped thereby to keep their interpretations of the king lists and reject the history of the Bible. It is time such nonsense were banished from history. It is time that the truth of history were made plain.

What Archaeologists Learned In the ruins of the libraries of Assyria and Babylonia the archaeologists uncovered many fragmentary and broken records of ancient Mesopotamian city-states and royal houses. These records will now be examined and the history of Babylonia restored. The scribes of Babylonia drew up their records of the past quite differently from those of Egypt. In Egypt the scribes told the entire history of each city before passing to the history of the next city. Thus the history of Memphis was completed before the history of Thebes was expounded. The Babylonian records present a striking contrast. Ancient Babylonian history may be best understood by presenting a sketch of the Sumerian account of the dynastic royal houses. Name of Dynasty First Dynasty of Kish First Dynasty of Uruk (Erech) First Dynasty of Ur Dynasty of Awan Second Dynasty of Kish Dynasty of Hamazi Second Dynasty of Uruk Second Dynasty of Ur Dynasty of Adab Dynasty of Mari Third Dynasty of Kish Dynasty of Akshak Fourth Dynasty of Kish Third Dynasty of Uruk Dynasty of Akkad, etc. Certain lists vary the order slightly or add other dynasties (a significant fact to be explained later). This list when officially drawn up by scribes, intended to convey the concept that each dynasty in turn had dominated all neighboring states. The result was the mistaken concept that Babylonia, unlike other areas, was always united under one ruler at a time, and that Babylonia, by reason of its extreme antiquity, had political and religious precedence over the world. No restoration of Babylonian history can claim completeness until these dynasties, recovered by archaeology, are properly assigned their

place in the chain of historical events.

Analyzing the Sumerian King List The Sumerian King List opens the history of postflood civilization by the following account: "After the Flood has swept over the earth and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish. In Kish, Ga ... ur became king and ruled 1,200 years ...." The First Dynasty of Kish contains three kings who ruled, according to the scribes, for 24,510 years! (Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 265.) Here certainly is a chronological account that is neither historical nor Biblical. Yet several of the kings named have left behind incontestable evidences of their reality. That the original reigns are purposely lengthened far beyond actual duration is recognized by all historians. The cause of this Babylonian flight of fancy is the same as that which prompted evolutionists and geologists to stretch out the "Ice Ages" to hundreds of thousands of years -though in reality they occurred in historical times and are found described in Greek and Roman literature. People want to believe in the extreme antiquity of Man's past. The ancient Babylonians were no exception. In his account of Babylon's first two kings, Cush and Nimrod, the priest Berossus assigned 2,400 years to Evechous (Cush) and 2,700 to Cosmaskelos (Nimrod). ("The Dawn of Civilization", by Maspero, p. 573.) These figures are significant. From Egyptian, Greek and Roman sources it has already been demonstrated in this Compendium that Cush ruled 60 years before he was succeeded by the 27-year reign of his son Nimrod. Thus Berossus multiplied the 60 years of Cush by 40 and arrived at the date 2,400. (In the Sumerian king list the figure for Ga ... ur, the first king, who is Cush, is 1,200 -- that is, 60 multiplied by 20.) Berossus multiplied the 27 years of Nimrod by 100 and obtained 2,700 years. The Babylonians used a clever mathematical trick to lengthen the reigns of the rulers of Kish. However, the device used by the priests has been solved. The dating for Dynasty I and II of Kish can be found in Appendix A of vol. II of the Compendium. But what is the special significance of the city of Kish? Why should it be considered first to bear rule in Mesopotamia? Kish is the city of Cush or Kush. It is situated near the site of ancient Babylon. It became a sacred site because people first dwelt there in the land of Shinar after the flood. From the area of Kish they commenced the erection of the city of Babel. But Babel turned out to be a failure -- "they left off to build the city" (Genesis 11:8). The government of Cush and Nimrod, begun at Babel, thus continued at Kish while the towns of Erech, Accad and Calneh were being built in the land of Shinar following the abortive attempt at Babel. The First Dynasty of Kish commenced 2256 -- the date of the beginning of the construction of the tower of Babel. The dynasty continued to 1809 at which point the Second Dynasty of Kish began (see vol. II of the "Compendium" for proof). The Second Dynasty ruled from 1809 to 1748.

History Continues at Erech The first city which Nimrod succeeded in building was Erech. The

government of Cush and Nimrod extended over this city as well as over Kish, and its history is told in the surprising annals of the First Dynasty of Uruk or Erech. From the "Sumerian King List", published by Thorkild Jacobsen, and accessible in Pritchard's often-quoted work, the first Dynasty of Uruk may be summarized as follows: Sumerian Names of Rulers (some in fragmentary form)

Lengths of Reigns in King List

Notations in King List

Mes-kiag-gasher

325 (in one text read as 32(4), see p. 85 of T. Jacobsen's "Sumerian King List".)

Son of Utu, became high priest and king. Journeyed into the Sea and reached the Mountains beyond.

En-me(r)-kar

420

Son of predecessor. He built Erech.*

Lugal-banda

1,200

A god and shepherd.

Dumu-zi

100

A god and fisherman.

Gilgamesh

126

Ur-lugal

30

A divine man, begotten by a spirit. became a high priest Son of Gilgamesh.

Udul-kalamma

15

Labasher

9

En-nun-dar-anna

8

Meshede

36

Melam-anna Lugal-ki-dul

A smith.

6 36

*Some tablets read: Under him Erech was built. Though these names may, at first sight, be meaningless, five of the rulers are mentioned by other names in the Bible and a sixth -Gilgamesh -- has already been alluded to in Egyptian history in this Compendium. To break down this list one must commence from the known facts. Dumu-zi is a variant spelling of Tammuz, a Mesopotamian name of Nimrod. Nimrod succeeded his father Cush in Babylonia after a 60-year reign. The 60 year reign of Cush has been established as 2254-2194 (see the Egyptian history of Dynasty I of Thinis). The 100 years assigned to Nimrod are, like the records of Egypt, based upon the Era of Nimrod to the coming of his successor. Though Nimrod was executed after a reign of 27 years, his Era continued to year 100, and is to be dated

2194-2094. What occurred in 2094? Who left Egypt in 2094 to come to the land of Shinar to claim the throne of Nimrod? Horus! Thus Horus of Egypt is Gilgamesh of Mesopotamia. Each claimed to be heir of Nimrod. Both were born of a Queen of Heaven -- Isis or Ishtar. Both had a "spirit" as a father -- the supposed Nimrod alive as the impregnating sun. Gilgamesh ruled in Mesopotamia, after he left Egypt, for another 126 years -- 2094-1968. This brings us down to the lifetime of Abram! Gilgamesh lived to be almost 200 years of age. This is in complete harmony with the genealogy of the Bible for the same period (Genesis 11:10-32). Gilgamesh was succeeded by Ur-lugal -- a name which means "Great King." This Great King was ruler of Erech. Erech was in the land of Shinar. Whoever controlle Erech controlled Shinar. What was the personal name of this Great King who controlled Shinar in the days of Abram? Amraphel (Genesis 14:1). Amraphel reigned 30 years before he was slain by Abram's army. The dates of Amraphel are 1968-1938. The struggle, recorded in Genesis 14 between Mesopotamian kings and the Canaanites therefore climaxed in 1938 with the death of four kings of Mesopotamia. When Assyrian history is studied this same year will be established for Arioch, king of Ellasar -- that is, king of the City of Asar or Asshur To return to the Sumerian King List. The predecessor of Dumu-zi (or Tammuz, who is Nimrod), is named Lugal-banda -- a title meaning "Little King." He is Cush. Son Nimrod was, of course, the "Great King." The 1200 years assigned to Cush are a clever expansion (20 x 60) of the true figure of 60 years already established from other sources. The correct dates are 2254-2194. But how are the two predecessors in the list -- Mes-kiag-gasher and En-mer-kar -- to be explained? Were they parallel rulers who also exercised authority in that world? The mother of Gilgamesh -- Semiramis or Ishtar -- was at one time the wife of Lugal-banda -- that is, Cush (Jacobsen, "Sumerian King List", page 91). She was also a wife and daughter-in-law of Asshur. The real grandfather of Gilgamesh, however, was not Cush, but En-mer-kar (Aelian in "De natura Animalium", vii, 21, quoted in Jacobsen's work on page 87). From these facts it is clear that the Dynasty of Erech is composed of two blood lines -- that of Cush and that of Asshur. In history there were three famous queens named Semiramis -- each one claiming to be a Queen of Heaven. The last Semiramis claimed to be thrice born. Each one of them was an Assyrian queen. Does this indicate that En-mer-kar is the Sumerian form of the Semitic name of Asshur? In the King List it is stated either that Erech was built under the rule of En-mer-kar, or that it was built by En-mer-kar. In the Bible the builder is Nimrod. But Nimrod did not build it alone! For "out of that land" Shinar -- where Erech is located -- "went forth Asshur, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah" (Genesis 10:11). This is the correct translation according to the vowel pointing of the Hebrew text. But the consonants, without the pointing, may be translated, "he" -that is, Nimrod, "went forth, being strong, and build Nineveh and Calah." The land of Assyria or Asshur is also the land of Nimrod (Micah 5:6). The original enterprise was a joint affair. Cush was originally a prominant figure at Babel. But he was superseded by Nimrod, who gained the carnal affections of his own mother. Cush soon perished and the two dominant figures remaining were Asshur and Nimrod. Then Nimrod was driven from Mesopotamia to Egypt.

Thus the entire history of the later world came to be dominated by the shadow of Asshur's children. But if En-mer-kar is Asshur, the result is that Mes-kiag-gasher is the Sumerian name of Shem! Mes-kiag-gasher was in Sumerian parlance, the "son of Utu" -- the God who warned Noah of the Flood. That is, he was a man who knew the God of creation. Mes-kiag-gasher was also a high priest. From Egyptian records historians have discovered that Semsem -- the Great Shem -- of Dynasty I of Thinis was also pictured as a high priest! This famous man crossed from Asia over the water to the mountains of Europe. Shem travelled far and wide to put down the government of Nimrod. Now consider the 325-year reign of Shem. When did it begin and when did it end? In Egypt only a small part of his life story is revealed. But in the annals of Erech one sees Shem's great figure striding over three and a quarter centuries of history! Shem had no part in the government established at Babel in opposition to the rule of God. When the terror of Nimrod loomed great over the horizon, Shem acted. He exercised, after Nimrod's seizure of power, the administration of government beginning 2191 in Shinar as patriarch and priest of the Semitic world. His full 325 years of authority lasted from 2191 till his death in 1866. This date -- 1866 -- is the exact year of the death of Shem in Scripture. According to Egyptian history the exodus occurred in 1486. This was exactly 430 years after the covenant God made with Abraham when he was 99 years old -- it was not made at the time Abram entered the land at 75. (See Genesis 17:1-8, Exodus 12:40-41 and Galatians 3:17.) The verb is not expressed in the original Hebrew of Exodus 12:40, which should properly be translated: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, completed four hundred and thirty years." Calculating back from 1486, year 99 of Abraham was 1918-1917 autumn to autumn reckoning -- for in the next spring, of 1916, Abraham was already 99 years old and in his hundredth year. Abraham was 75 when he departed from Haran following the death of his father in 1941 (Gen. 12:4). By adding the figures of the Genesis 11, from Terah to Arphaxad, the year 2367-2366 is reached (autumn to autumn). In that year -- two years after the Flood -- Arphaxad was begotten. Shem lived after he begot Arphaxad 500 years (Genesis 11:10-11). This 500 years extends from 2366 to 1866 -- the very year Shem's 325-year reign ended, according to the evidence of the Erech list! (The broken reading of 32(4) years. proposed by Sumeriologists, if correct, probably merely excludes the calendar year in which Shem died.) The 420 years of En-mer-kar are also datable. The figure probably represents the length of time between the death of Asshur in 1906 (see German history in vol. II of the "Compendium") and his becoming a head of household in 2326, when age 40 (assuming he is a twin of Arphaxad who was born in 2366). The First Dynasty of Uruk may now be restored as follows, beginning with Cush (Lugal-banda). Names of Kings

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Lugal-banda (Cush)

(60)

2254-2194

Dumu-zi (Nimrod or

100

2194-2094

Tammuz) Gilgamesh (Horus or Ninyas)

126

2094-1968

Ur-lugal (Amraphel) dies in Abram's year 78)

30

1968-1938

Utul-kalamma

15

1938-1923

Labasher

9

1923-1914

En-nun-dara-anna

8

1914-1906

36

1906-1870

6

1870-1864

36

1864-1828

Meshede Melam-anna Lugal-ki-dul

After this dynasty the kings of Shinar do not reappear in the Bible until the reign of Merodach-baladan.

CHAPTER ELEVEN Berossus and Babylonian History The writings of Berossus, the contemporary of Manetho, are altogether lost. No valid dates of individual kings have been preserved by classic writers from Berossus. Berossus' first post-flood dynasty is completely distorted. It is said to be composed of 86 Chaldean kings who supposedly reigned about 34,000 years! This dynasty includes Evechous and Kosmabelos -- Cush and Nimrod. The kings who composed the first dynasty were not successive but contemporary leaders who formed the first Democratic Council in history this side of the flood. Samuel Kramer, in his book "History Begins at Sumer", draws attention to the fact that the earliest records of democratic government are found in references to Shinar and the city of Kish. The other dynasties of Berossus strikingly confirm the Sumerian King List and Biblical history. The following chart is from Berossus' transcribers. Dynasty II

8 Medes

224 years (the Armenian copy reads 234)

Dynasty III

11 Chaldeans

NO YEARS ASSIGNED, AS DYNASTY WAS CONTEMPORARY. (In margin of Armenian version 48 years is noted.)

Dynasty IV

49 Chaldeans

458 years

Dynasty V

9 Arabians

245 years (Semiramis II reigned during this period.)

Dynasty VI

45 Chaldeans

526 years to seizure of Babylonia by Pul.

The dates for these dynasties may easily be restored. Pul, in Babylonian history, is Tiglathpileser III. He seized the city of Babylon in 729, during the third year of the reign of Ukinzer. See the "Babylonian Chronicle", Col I. Tiglathpileser considered this his first year; the Babylonians considered it his accession year assigning it to Ukinzer. Ptolemy coupled them together and designated the period as that of Chinziros and Poros. Dynasty VI continued 526 years -- 1255 to 729 Dynasty V for 245 years -- 1500 to 1255 Dynasty IV for 458 years -- 1958 to 1500 (Dynasty III for 48 years -- 2006-1958) Dynasty II for 234 years -- 2192-1958 or 224 years -- 2192-1968

The year 2192 marks not only the beginning of Nimrod's rule in Egypt, but also the Median seizure of Babylonia at the time Nimrod usurped Supreme authority at the dethroning of his father cush. This confirms Greek traditions that even Japetus (Japheth) opposed the Titans -- the followers of Nimrod. The Medes, descendents of Japheth kept their power over Babylon for 224 years to 1968 -- the year of the death of Gilgamesh. In another ten years (1968-1958) the Chaldeans regained full power. Those ten years and the previous 38 were times of great stress during which 11 Chaldean kings, including Gilgamesh, ruled contemporaneously as Berossus' Dynasty III -- 2006-1958. The date 2006 is confirmed by the Persian account of Gilgamesh. Persian historians assign him only 38 years -- 2006-1968 -- the exact duration of his rule as part of Dynasty III of Berossus. (See Al Biruni's "Ancient Nations", page 99.) The remarkable agreement of all these figures, found among different nations, is proof that the historical data have never been totally lost.

Another Account of Earliest Dynasties As generally recorded, Berossus' First Dynasty begins with Cush and Nimrod; the Second Dynasty was Median. But Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus preserve, from the most ancient records of the Temple of Belus at Babylon, an account of parallel rulers -- five Chaldean kings who were in turn succeeded by no less than six Arabians (pre-Ishmaelites). The information may be obtained from Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities", Pages 233-235. These much-misunderstood dynasties -- even Jackson did not understand their import -- perfectly correspond with the restoration of the Dynasty of Erech already presented.

First Kings of the Chaldeans after the Tower of Babel

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Porus

35

2254-2219

Nechubes

43

2219-2176

Abtus Oniballus

48 40

2176-2128 2128-2088

Zinzirus

45 (or 46)

2088-2043 (2088-2042)

(Note that the 35 years -- 2254-2219 -- of Porus are also the same for Mizraim.) Dynasty of Six Kings of the Arabians Mardocentes

Mardakos

Lengths of Reign

Dates

45 (or 44)

(2042-1998)

40

1998-1958

(the year 1958 marks the final expulsion of the Medes from Babylonia.) Sisimardacus

28

1958-1930

Nabius

37

1930-1893

Parannus

40

1893-1853

Nabonnabus

25

1853-1828

In 1828, "the Assyrian kings succeeded in the Babylonian Empire, and thenceforth Babylonia and Chaldea became a part of the Assyrian Empire" -- Page 237, Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities". This is also the year of the defeat of Erech by Ur. Syncellus preserved a total of 190 years for the Chaldean kings, and not the above total of 211 -though his separate figures add up to 211! It is exactly 190 years from 2233 to 2043. The year 2233 was famous in Babylonian history as the beginning of astronomical observation. The Babylonians began their observations 1903 years before Alexander came to Babylon in 330.

First Dynasty of Ur and Successors The city of Ur in Babylonian history is not the Ur from which Abram came. Abram's Ur was Urfa in northern Mesopotamia, not on the fringes of Shinar. According to the Sumerian King List, the First Dynasty of Ur came to power at the close of the First Dynasty of Erech. Names of Kings of First Dynasty of Ur

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Mes-Anne-padda

80 (includes reign of son A-Anne-padda)

1828-1748

Mes-kiag-Nunna

30 (or 36)

1748-1718 1748-1712

Elulu

25

1718-1693

Balulu

36

1693-1657

The significance of the 36 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna will be explained when the Dynasty of Akshak is restored. The proper dates of Dynasty I of Ur are those of the Nippur list, which gives the total as 171 -- 1828-1657. (The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 adds the parallel reign of six years of Mes-kiag-Nunna to the total.) At the close of the First Dynasty of Ur the Sumerian King List carries the government to the city of Awan in Elam (see page 224 of Pallis' "Chronology of the Shub-Ad Culture"). Reference to three kings is made, but only a cuneiform remnant of the last king's name is preserved: Kul ... 36 years. The total length of the Dynasty is 356 years -- 1657-1301. The date of the last king is therefore 1337-1301. A confirmation of these dates will be found in the succeeding history of the city of Isin and Dynasty III of Ur. Historically the date 1657 marks Elamite prominence in Southern

Mesopotamia and throws important light on the early history of India. After Awan the Sumerian King List returns to Dynasty II of Kish. Though the names of the rulers of Kish during this period are preserved, the dates assigned to its rulers are extravagant -- over 3000 years being designated to 8 kings. Kish II begins about the time of the reigns of Gilgamesh and Mes-anne-padda, whose lives overlapped; for the last king of Kish I submitted to both (see the Sumerian poem "Gilgamesh and Aqqa" in Pritchard's Texts). The true length of Dynasty II is confirmed by Kish III and IV which we will now establish. Listed after Kish II, though in part contemporary with it, is the Dynasty of Hamazi. Only one name of this dynasty is preserved: Hadanish. The total length of the dynasty is sometimes given as 360 years, sometimes as 420. It cannot be dated until Dynasty II and Dynasty III of Uruk are determined. The shattered list of Dynasty II of Uruk is in the prism given 60 years and 120 years. In other documents it ends a period of 480 years. There is a definite relationship between these figures and those of Hamazi. But Uruk II and Hamazi cannot be dated until Uruk III is established. From archaeology it is known that Uruk II was followed immediately by Uruk III -- though the King List branches off into parallel dynasties. Uruk III is composed of one King Lugal-zaggisi, who reigned 25 years. Comparative archaeology establishes that he succeeded Ur I, 1828-1657. The date of king Lugal-zaggisi is therefore 1657-1632. As Uruk II preceded Uruk III, the 480 years extend back from 1657 to 2137. That is, the year 1657 ended an era of 480 years which began in 2137. As Uruk I ended in 1828, Uruk II lasted only 171 years 1828-1657. The figure 480 is not the length of the dynasty but the dating of an era. What happened in the year 2137? Isis (Ishtar or Semiramis) came to power after the 57-year era (2194-2137) of Nimrod. It was commonplace to date reigns in the "Era of Ishtar" (see Pritchard's "Texts", page 266, in Sargon's "Chronicle", and footnote 2). In chart form the figures for Uruk II are as follows. 480 years -- 2137-1657 120 years -- 1777-1657 60 years -- 1717-1657 Now the Dynasty of Hamazi may be dated: 360 years -- 2137-1777 420 years -- 2137-1717 Both these dynasties commenced with the Era of Ishtar. In another chart these two would appear as follows: Hamazi

360 years

2137-1777

Uruk II

120 years

1777-1657

or Hamazi

420 years

2137-1717

Uruk II

60 years

1717-1657

Skipping for the moment other parallel Dynasties, notice that Uruk III was succeeded by the Dynasty of Akkad. Uruk III -- composed of one king Lugal-zaggisi -- extended for 25 years to 1632.

Now Sargon of Akkad The greatest name in Babylonian history in this period is undoubtedly that of Sargon "the Great" -- first king of the Akkadian Dynasty. The history of this dynasty has been confused by the Weld-Blundell Prism 444. The complete and correct record is that of the Nippur lists. Prism 444 is incomplete. Names of Kings of Dynasty of Akkad

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Sargon

55

1632-1577

Rimush

15

1577-1562

7

1562-1555

Naram-Sin

56

1555-1499

Sharkalisharri

24 or 25

1499-1475 1500-1475

Igigi, Nanum, Imi

3 years of confusion

1475-1472

Dudu

21

1472-1451

Shudurul

15

1451-1436

Manish-tusu

The reign of Sharkalisharri confirms Berossus, who dates the Arabian invasion in 1500. It toppled Naram-Sin from his power and brought his successor to a weakened throne. Naram-Sin died after one more year of reign. Rimush is the younger twin brother of Manish-tusu (Jacobsen, "Sumerian King List", p. 113). He overthrew an otherwise unknown Kaku of Ur. The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 is fractured in the middle of the history of this dynasty. However, its total indicates that Naram-Sin's reign is cut short and does not include part of the period of his subjection to the invading Guti hordes. It also gives different figures for the three early rulers as follows. Sargon Rimush Manish-tusu

56 years

1633-1577

9

1577-1568

15

1568-1553

Year 1633 is the accession year of Sargon. This document(W.-B. 444) by itself is not a proper standard for Babylonian history. It should be used in conjunction with the other

lists rather than by itself as is customarily done by modern authors.

Dynasties IV and V of Erech The collapse of the Dynasty of Akkad brought Erech again into prominence. In the Scheil Text the Fourth Dynasty of Uruk is listed as follows: Names of Kings of Dynasty IV of Uruk

Lengths of Reign in Scheil Text

Dates

Ur-Niginak

3

1436-1433

Ur-Gigirak

6

1433-1427

Kudda

6

1427-1421

Puzur-ili

5

1421-1416

Ur-Utuk

6

1416-1410

The Weld-Blundell prism assigns 7 years to the first king -1440-1433. Fragment C of the Susa list of these kings follows (see "Journal of Near Eastern Studies", Apr. 1960, p. 157). Name of Kings of Dynasty IV of Uruk Ur-Gigirak Lugal-me-lam Ur-Utuk

Lengths of Reign

Dates

15

1442-1427

7

1442-1435

25

1435-1410

In this list the contemporary reigns of Kudda and Puzur-ili are incorporated in the long reign of Ur-Utuk. As in Egyptian history, numerous rulers shared the government at the same time. In another fragment of the Susa list the following information is preserved for the first three kings: Ur-Niginak

30

1472-1442

Ur-Gigirak

15

1442-1427

7

1442-1435

Lugal-me-lam

What is the significance of the year 1472? It is the end of three years of confusion (1475-1472) under the Akkadian Dynasty when four kings ruled. During that period it became proverbial to ask: "who was king? who was not?" Far from being bad scribal errors, these various figures for Dynasty IV of Uruk tell much of the story that is otherwise unpreserved. The real rise to power commenced in 1472, though the kings of Uruk did not replace the kings of Akkad until 1436. The kingship over Uruk was obtained in 1410 by Utuhegal, who constitutes Dynasty V. All documents agree in giving full 7 years to

this short-lived Dynasty -- 1410-1403. Utuhegal gained prominence at the beginning of his reign by overthrowing the Guti who had invaded Babylonia 125 years before, in 1535, and wrested complete control in a second attack in 1500 (see the dates from the W.-B. Prism 444).

The Guti Dynasty Berossus designates 1500 as the year in which an Arabian dynasty of 9 kings wrested control of Babylonia from the Chaldeans. Coupled with this invasion from Arabia was one from the east under the Guti. The Guti Dynasty is not complete in any one document, but may be determined from a comparison of each of the documents. Its first King is nowhere preserved in the King Lists, but an otherwise unknown king of the Guti has been found. As he is the only Guti king known to have usurped the titles of Naram-Sin, it is quite clear that he -Erridupizir -- should head the list as the leader in the initial attack on Akkad in 1535. (Jacobsen's , "King List", p. 117, from Hilprecht's "The Earliest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and The Temple Library of Nippur". Pennsylvania Univ. Babylonian Expedition, Series D: Researches and Treatises V 1 (1910), chap. 4.) The initials in brackets in the following list indicate the source of the different reading. Their significance will be explained afterward. Kings of the Guti

Lengths of Reign

(Erridupizir)

(33 -- restored by subtraction from dynastic totals)

Dates 1535-1502

Imta

3 5 (L1)

1502-1499 1504-1499

Inkishush

6 or 7 (L1)

1499-1493 1500-1493

Sarlagab

6

1493-1487

Shulme (or Iarlagash in L1)

6

1487-1481

Elulumesh

7 (G) or 6

1481-1474 1481-1475

Inimabakesh

5

1474-1469

Igeshaush

6

1469-1463

Jarlagab

15

1463-1448

Ibate

3

1448-1445

Jarla(ngab)

3

1445-1442

Kurum

1

1442-1441

Habilkin

3

1441-1438

Laerabum

2

1438-1436

Irraum

2

1436-1434

Ibranum

1

1434-1433

Hablum

2

1433-1431

Puzur-Sin

7

1431-1424

Jarlaganda

7

1424-1417

Sium

7

1417-1410

Tirigan

40 days

1410

The second king is, in one tablet, assigned 5 years instead of 3. This indicates that Erridupizir may have reigned the last two years (1504-1502) jointly with Imta. The different lengths assigned to the reign of the third king -- Inkishush -- exactly fits the years 1500 and 1499 which overlap in the account of the Akkadian Dynasty. The variation in the reign of Elulumesh, the sixth king, is again made plain by the struggle for power recorded in the Akkadian Dynasty for 1475-1472. The king's total reign was 7 years, but only six to the year 1475, when the struggle for power in Babylonia commenced.

Three Other Dynasties The coming of the Guti into Babylonia brought further division to the land. At the city of Ur a new Dynasty rose to power and lasted 108 years according to the Nippur List. The total for the Dynasty is missing from the document, but the total for Dynasties I, II and III is plainly given as 396. Dynasty I ruled 171 years; Dynasty III, 117, as will be noticed shortly. These two figures, subtracted from 396, leave 108. The royal names of this dynasty are nearly illegible, and no internal dates are preserved. The Dynasty may be dismissed with the dates: 1535-1427. In 1427 the Dynasty of Adab succeeded Ur II according to the Sumerian King List. It exercised authority in Babylonia for 90 years -until 1337. The only name of a king of this Dynasty is that of Lugal-Annemundu. The collective verb -- "they reigned" -- indicates other names are lost. At the same time that Ur II lost control to the city of Adab, another city, far distant, on the Middle Euphrates, came into power. It was the city of Ma (e) ri. Mari later became famous as a town bordering on Israel's territory on the Euphrates. The Mari Dynasty, placed after Adab in the King Lists, was, in point of fact, contemporary. It lasted 136 years -- 1427-1291. All that has been thus far discovered of its rulers is a tattered document that looks like the following: Fragmentary Names of Mari Kings

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ansud

30

1427-1397

Total: six kings for 136 years. The year 1291 will become significant in the study of Kish IV.

Dynasty III of Ur Meanwhile the city of Ur revived and another powerful dynasty came to power -- the Third. This dynasty was made famous by Woolley's excavations at Ur. It succeeded Dynasty V of Erech, and reigned for 117 years according to the Nippur List. Its first king once was functionary of Utuhegal before Ur rebelled and seized political prominence. Utuhegal (Uruk V) ruled 1410-1403. Kings of Dynasty III of Ur according to the Nippur List

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ur-Nammu

18

1403-1385

Shulgi (often spelled: Dungi)

58

1385-1327

Amar-Sin (often spelled: Bur-Sin)

9

1327-1318

Shu-Sin

7

1318-1311

Ibbi-Sin

25

1311-1286

Fragment C of the Susa List has a different account of this Dynasty. This account is usually rejected, merely because it is different from the preceding one. But in it is a key to yet a third account of the same dynasty! The duration of Ur III was 117 years -- 1403-1286. Kings of Dynasty III of Ur according to Susa List

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ur-Namme

18

1403-1385

Shulgi

48

1385-1337

Amar-Sin

25

1339-1314

Shu-Sin

16

1318-1302

Ibbi-Sin

15

1302-1287

This list does not include the last year of Ibbi-Sin, during which he was carried captive to Elam. But, as in the Nippur List, it does

include that year in its dynastic total (123 years), which is one year more than the total assigned to all the kings (122 years).* The 48-year reign of Shulgi assigned in the Susa List stops in 1337. This date is significant. It marks the end of the Adab Dynasty (already discussed). It also is the beginning of the reign of "Kul scribe recording the Susa List does not give the last 10 years of Shulgi as it is incorporated in the long reign of Amar-Sin. The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 differs from either preceding list in its length of the reign of Shulgi, which it gives as 46 -- 1385-1339. This dating provides the clue to the proper beginning of the 25-year reign of Amar-Sin as recorded in the Susa List. Also, W.-B 444 shortens the reign of Ibbi-Sin to 24 years -- 1311-1287, ending it in the same year as the Susa scribe does. That is, it does not include the last year in which the king was taken captive. It also assigns 9 years to Shu-Sin, probably the 9 years from 1311 (when Ibbi-Sin came to power) to the year 1302 (the last year of Shu-Sin in the Susa List). (*Note: dynastic total of 123 years includes coregencies.)

Dynasty of Isin During the reign of Ibbi-Sin of Ur the Elamites made inroads into the land of Shinar. This is the time that Elamite Awan dominated part of Babylonia under its last king. The question of the corresponding years between Ibbi-Sin of Ur III and Ishbi-Irra, first king of Isin, has led to many learned articles in all the journals on Near Eastern Studies. The question cannot be determined by itself. Vital information is missing for the earliest years of Ishbi-Irra. The problem can be resolved, however, when combining the known facts with the information contained in Dynasty IV of Kish. Why no historian has ventured to correlate Kish with both dynasties is a mystery: If they had done so, they would have resolved the difficulties. The following outline history of the Dynasty of Isin begins with the correlation of Ibbi-Sin's year 24 with Ishbi-Irra's year 14, and year 25 of Ibbi-Sin with year 15 of Ishbi-Irra. This correlation is one of several possibilities commonly espoused. It is, however, the only one which harmonizes with the history of Kish IV -- a fact to be proved in a succeeding section. Kings of Isin

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ishbi-Irra

33

1301-1268

Shu-ilishu

10

1268-1258

I(d)din-Dagan

21

1258-1237

Ishme-Dagan

20

1237-1217

Lipit-Ishtar

11

1217-1206

Ur-Ninurta

28

1206-1178

Bur-Sin

21

1178-1157

Lipit-Enlil

5

1157-1152

Irra-imitti

8

1152-1144

Enlil-bani

24

1144-1120

Zambia

3

1120-1117

Iter-pisha

4

1117-1113

Ur-Dukuga

4

1113-1109

Sin-magir

11

1109-1098

Damiq-ilishu

23

1098-1075

In 1075 Damiq-ilishu was overthrown by Rimsin of Larsa, who was in turn overthrown by Hammurabi. The above list is the recognized standard for the Dynasty of Isin. Minor variations occur in two documents discussed in the "Journal of Cuneiform Studies", VIII, 4, "New Lists of the Kings of Ur and Isin." In them the year in which Ishbi-Irra came to power is treated as the accession year -- only 32 are assigned him. Ishme-Dagan is given 19 instead of 20, but Bur-Sin is assigned 22 instead of 21. In other documents the last year of Irra-imitti is replaced by a ursurper.

Dynasty IV of Kish and the "400 Years" The records of Dynasty IV of Kish are so divergent -- and unusual -- that no historian or archaeologist would accept them. "Corrupt," "worthless," are the common epithets applied. No one has tested the evidence to see if the accounts are, in fact, true'! In the Scheil Text (left) and the Weld-Blundell Prism 444 (right) Dynasties III and IV of Kish appear as follows: Names of Rulers

Scheil Text

W.-B 444

(Dynasty III) Ku-Baba, a queen

100 years

---

(Dynasty IV) Puzur-Sin

25 years

25 years

6 years

400 years

Simudar

30 years

30 years

Usiwatar

6 years

7 years

Ishtarmuti

11 years

11 years

Ishme-Shamash

11 years

11 years

3 years

7 years

Ur-Zababa

Nannia

Total 28 kings -- 586 years. The 586 years of the Scheil Text includes the 400 not listed, minus the 6 which is listed: 100 plus 25 plus (400) plus 30 plus 6 plus 11 plus 11 plus 3 equals 586. Now compare this with the evidence of the Susa Text. Notice the changed order of kings. Puzur-Sin

25 years

Ur-Zababa

400 years

Usiwatar

6 years

Ishtar-muti

11 years

Ishme-Shamash

11 years

Shu-ilishu Simudar

15 years 30 years

Who is this Shu-ilishu? "This king can be no other than the well known Shu-ilishu of Igin and, comparing the account of the Isin dynasty ... we may perhaps assume that the copyist had a loose, unplaced fragment ..." -- and thus Thorkild Jacobsen suggests that a King of Isin was misplaced by a stupid scribe into the Kish IV Dynasty! (See page 108 of his "Sumerian King List", footnote 228.) First, consider the mysterious 400 years. This period begins with the end of the reign of Puzur-Sin. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa (in the Schell Text) are a part of the 400 of the other texts. A break in the continuity of the dynasty is clearly indicated by this unusual figure. Next, consider the close of the dynasty. One list ends with Nannia -- the other with Simudar. Now to assemble these divergent facts. Shu-ilishu reigned 10 years after Ishbi-Irra according to the Isin dynastic list. His dates: 1268-1258. The W.-B Prism 444 states Shu-ilishu's total reign as 20 years, but does not count the first 10 in its total. In the Kish list from Susa his reign is given as 15 -that is, 1273-1258. The following charts indicate how the remaining kings fit around the reign of Shu-ilishu. Names of Kings

Lengths of Reign

Usiwatar

Dates

7

1291-1284

Ishtarmuti

11

1284-1273

Ishme-Shamash

11

1273-1262

7

1262-1255

Ishtar-muti

11

1284-1273

Shu-ilishu

15

1273-1258

Nannia or

Nannia

3

1258-1255

Usiwatar

6

1291-1285

Simudar

30

1285-1255

and

What is the significance of the dates 1291 and 1255? The year 1291 is the date of the overthrow of Mari and the return of the old royal family of Kish to power. And the year 1255 is the date of return of the Chaldeans to power according to Berossus! Now place the end of the 400 years in 1255. The beginning of the 400 years brings us to 1655. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa therefore extend from 1655 to 1649. This is shortly before the reign of Sargon "the Great" of Akkad. When Sargon was young he served as cupbearer to Ur-Zababa! (Pallis, "Chronology of Shub-Ad Culture", p. 360). Thus the 400 years have significance after all! The reign of Puzur-Sin covers the preceding 25 years: 1680-1655. But why should Kish IV have ended abruptly in 1649 and Ur-Zababa been slain? Archaeology answers: Lugal-zaggisi of Erech III overthrew Kish. The inhabitants were sent into exile. Years later Sargon restored the inhabitants to their estates: "Sargon, king of Agade, ... king of Kish .... restored Kish, he ordered them to take again possession of their city" (Pritchard's "Texts", p. 267). The year 1649 is also of unusual significance in the history of India. IN THE WINTER OF 1650-1649 THE ASSYRIANS WERE DEFEATED ON THE BORDERS OF INDIA, resulting in collapse of Assyrian confederates in Mesopotamia.

Dynasty of Akshak At the time Kish was overthrown Akshak was defeated also. The Dynasty of Akshak appears next. Kings of Akshak Unzi

Lengths of Reign

Dates

30

1748-1718

12 (or 6)

1718-1706 (1712-1706)

6

1706-1700

Puzur-Sahan

20

1700-1680

Ishuil

24

1680-1656

7 (or 24)

1656-1649 (1656-1632)

Undalulu

Ur-ur

Gimil-Sin

Several of the dates are paralleled with others in contemporary dynasties. Year 1748 marks the end of the long reign of Mes-Anne-pada of Dynasty I or Ur. The short reign of 6 years for Uhdalulut second king of Akshak, explains the extra 6 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna of Ur I. In chart form the two kings' reigns appear thus:

Mes-kiag-Nunna

30

1748-1718 (Ur I)

Undalulu

12

1718-1706 (Akshak)

or Mes-kiag-Nunna Undalulu

36

1748-1712

6

1712-1706

But the relationship does not end here. Under Akshak's king Puzur-Sahan aging Queen Ku-Baba of Kish III gained unusual reputation for her "pious deeds." As a result her son Puzur-Sin came to royal estate upon the death of Puzur-Sahan in 1680. (See Pallis' "Shub-Ad Culture", pp. 359-360.) Notice that in the restoration of Kish IV the year 1680 is already marked as the commencement of the reign of Puzur-Sin, the son of Queen Ku-Baba! Here again is harmony among contemporary dynasties. Though Akshak lost power in 1649 the last king, Gimil-Sin (1656-1649), is assigned in the Susa List a total reign of 24 years (1656-1632) to the reign of Sargon of Akkad.

Dates of Queen Ru-Baba Only one more Dynasty needs to be firmly established -- Kish III. Kish III is famous for a one-time woman wine merchant who became Queen. Her son and grandson ruled during her late years as the first two Kings of Kish's Dynasty IV. Since Dynasty III of Kish is at times listed first and on occasion later than the Dynasty of Akshak, it must have begun at the same time as Akshak. The dates of Kish III are therefore 1748-1648. Who the husband or the father of Queen Ku-Baba may have been is not stated in the lists. That she continued one year after the death (in 1649) of Ur-Zababa, her grandson, is clear from the statement of Sargon. He claims that she adopted him as her own son in place of her own heir now dead (S. Lloyd, "Mesopotamia", page 140). It becomes clear with this restoration that Dynasties I and II of Kish are limited to the time between 2254 and 1748, with Kish I ending in the days of Gilgamesh. With this account the clouded history of Babylonia to the era of Hammurabi closes. It is a period of nearly twelve centuries of strife division and wars.

CHAPTER TWELVE Hammurabi to the Fall of Babylon Since the building of the city of Babel, not a single recorded dynasty originated in the city precincts of Babylon for over 1000 years. Not until the renowned First Dynasty of Babylon did it become the supreme seat of political power. Hammurabi -- or rather each historian who has written about him -has made The First Dynasty of Babylon famous. It was a time of blossoming culture, of proverbial literature, of law. Vast quantities of written material have been recovered from this and succeeding centuries. Shortly after archaeologists uncovered the history of this period it was commonplace to connect Hammurabi with Amraphel of the Bible (Genesis 14). Today the equasion of Hammurabi with the generation of Abram has been abandoned. In its place confusion reigns. Dates for this famous king now range from the "short chronology" of Albright and Cornelius through the "middle" of S. Smith and the comparatively "long" chronological reckonings of Goetze. In other words, anywhere from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century before the present era.

Why Hammurabi Dated Early To bring disrepute upon the Law of God critical scholars early indulged in speculating that Babylonian law was the basis of the Hebrew Torah. Proof? -- There was none: History, when properly restored, overturns the hypothesis. Whatever influence there may have been was in the opposite direction. Culturally the Hebrews in Solomon's day led the world. The reigns succeeding Hammurabi's saw a rapid expansion in writing of proverbs and other wisdom literature -- a consequence of Solomonic influence. Historians have assumed that this literature long antedated Solomon. Contrariwise, the writing of this kind of literature in Mesopotamia can now be proved a result of direct influence of Solomon's Empire on surrounding cultures. Egypt exhibits the same literary features at the same time -- not centuries before. Now for the political restoration of the land of Shinar. In the days of Saul and David the cities of Sumer were in a three-corner struggle for supreme political dominion. In the struggle between Isin and Larsa, the latter won, only to be devoured by the city of Babylon. The events may be summarized in four concerted attacks. Babylon first reduced Isin, but was forced to yield to Larsa's military attack and final conquest of the city two years later. In another eight years, however, Babylon had grown in strength sufficiently to challenge the hegemony of Larsa over Shinar. Isin was recaptured. Then, 23 years later, Larsa succumbed to Hammurabi.

The Dynasty of Larsa To date the First Dynasty of Babylon correctly, it is first necessary to restore the royal family at Larsa to its true place in history. This dynasty rose to power during the struggles between Elam and the Third Dynasty of Ur. The last king of Isin I -- Damiq-ilishu --

was driven from the city after completing a 23-year reign (1098-1075). Rim-sin, the victor, and king of Larsa won the war and incorporated the city of Isin into his realm in his year 29 -- 1075-1074. (Where Damiq-ilishu fled, and how much longer he reigned elsewhere, will be discussed later under the First Sealand Dynasty.) From the synchronism between these two kings the entire Larsa Dynasty may be restored as follows (see "Journal of Cuneiform Studies", III, "Nippur und Isin", page 27, for lengths of reign). Kings of Larsa

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Naplanum

21

1306-1285

Emizum

28

1285-1257

Samu'um

35

1257-1222

Zaba'a

9

1222-1213

Gungunum

27

1213-1186

Abi-sare

11

1186-1175

Sumu-ilum

29

1175-1146

Nur-Adad

16

1146-1130

Sin-idinnam

7

1130-1123

Sin-iribam

2

1123-1121

Sin-iqisham

5

1121-1116

Zilli-Adad

1

1116-1115

Warad-Sin

12

1115-1103

Rim-Sin

61

1103-1042

When Did Hammurabi Reign? Larsa's last king, Rim-sin, reigned full 60 years. Then, in his year 61, Hammurabi attacked the aging king and captured Larsa in Hammurabi's year 29 -- 1043-1042. This victory became the "year-name" of the succeeding calendar year. A second synchronism (already referred to) between the First Dynasty of Babylon and Larsa is provided in a historical record from the reign of Hammurabi's father, Sin-muballit. Sin-muballit attacked Isin and reduced it to submission in his year 16, which was year 22 of Damiq-ilishu -- 1077-1076. This event became the year name of Sin-muballit's succeeding year. ("Orientalia", series 2, no. 24, "Chronological Notes," by H. Levy.) Two years later the Babylonians were driven out and Isin was overthrown by Larsa in Rim-sin's year 29. The event became the "year-name" of Rim-sin's year 30. (It was the custom in that day to name each year after some famous event in the preceding twelve months.)

Then, in year 6 of Hammurabi, Isin was recaptured by Babylon. A tablet dating from the time of the conquest bears the following double dating: "the eighth and tenth year since Isin was captured" ("Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt", by P. Van der Meer, page 44). These chronological notes make absolutely certain the dates of the First Dynasty of Babylon as follows: Names of Kings of First Dynasty of Babylon

Lengths of Reign from "Year-Names"

Dates

Sumu-abum Sumu-la-ilum

14 36

1174-1160 1160-1124

Zabum

14

1124-1110

Apil-Sin

18

1110-1092

Sin-muballit

20

1092-1072

Hammurabi (often spelled Hammurapi)

43

1072-1029

Samsu-iluna

38

1029- 991

Abi-eshuh

28

991- 963

Ammi-ditana

37

963- 926

Ammi-zaduga

21

926- 905

Samsu-ditana

26

905- 879

Of special note are the 26 years for the last king. Many books erroneously insert the figure 31. Only 26 year-names have ever been found. ("Journal of Near Eastern Studies", "The Date List of Samsu-ditana," by Samuel I. Feigin, vol. XIV, no. 3, July 1955.) The figure 31 is taken from a king list which dates the reigns differently. The two methods of dating should not be mixed promiscuously. From the king list the reigns of Hammurabi to the end of the dynasty are as follows: Names of First Dynasty of Babylon

Lengths of Reign from King List

Dates

Hammurabi

55

1072-1017

Samsu-iluna

35

1017- 982

Abi-eshuh

25

982- 957

Ammi-ditana

25

957- 932

Ammi-zaduga

22

932- 910

Samsu-ditana

31

910- 879

The total from Hammurabi to the close of the dynasty is precisely the same -- 1072-879. The early kings of the dynasty appear as follows from the king list: Sumu-abum

15

1174-1159

Sumu-la-ilum

35

1159-1124

Zabum

14

1124-1110

Apil-Sin

18

1110-1092

Sinmuballit

30

1092-1062

It is to be noticed that the king list preserves a ten-year joint reign in the early part of Hammurabi's long government -- from 1072-1062. These divergent figures are not mere scribal errors. They are genuine. Egyptian records and the Bible reflect the same practice. In most cases it is due to joint reigns -- of father with son. On occasion they are due to internal political changes of which the divergencies in dating are the sole remaining testimony. In summary: Hammurabi is the contemporary of Saul and David! The ancient king lists recovered by archaeological excavation insert two lengthy dynasties after the First Dynasty of Babylon -- the First Dynasty of the Sealand and the Dynasty of the Kassu or Kassites. The "Sealand" is referred to in the Bible as the "Desert of the Sea" in Isaiah 21:1, KJV. It was originally assumed that these dynasties were successive. Today it is recognized that they were, in part, contemporary with the First Dynasty of Babylon and with each other. The list of the Kassite kings is so badly shattered that it is not possible to restore it without recourse to Assyrian history. But it is possible at this point to present the history of the Sealand in full.

Damiq-ilishu Reappears! No greater enigma faces Mesopotamian archaeologists and historians than the mystery surrounding the Sealand Dynasty. The total reigns of its kings -- several of which are exceedingly long -- still fall 22 years short of the total of 368 years assigned to the dynasty by the ancient scribes. At first numerous readings were proposed to "restore" the text. Critics simply could not accept the simple evidence of the tablets. Not until 1921 was a clear reproduction of an original tablet made available, by C. J. Gadd. (See Pallis' "Chronology of the Shub-Ad Culture", page 309.) The evidence was clear. The scribe had indeed added 22 years too many! Or had he? The mistaken figure was presumably that of king Damiq-ilishu. But why should his reign be shortened 22 years? Could it be that the missing 22 years were the same 22 years which had elapsed in the reign of Damiq-ilishu of Isin at the time of the conquest of Isin by Sin-muballit of Babylon? Was Damiq-ilishu of Isin the same man as Damiq-ilishu of the Sealand? Indeed! And the restoration of Mesopotamian history when completed will confirm it. Damiq-ilishu was king of both Isin and the Sealand. The scribe

recorded in the Sealand Dynasty only those years of his reign which elapsed after Isin ceased to be independent. Isin, it will be remembered, was reduced to submission in year 22 of Damiq-ilishu by Babylon. Though Damiq-ilishu contained at Isin one more year -- his 23rd -- it was included in the reckoning of the Sealand because the king was independent only in the Sealand, not at Isin. Following are the kings of the Sealand (excluding the first two, which will be discussed immediately after). First Dynasty of the Sealand

Lengths of Reign

Damiq-ilishu (before & (First 22 years) after Sin-muballit's conquest of Isin) 16

Dates

(1098-1076) 1076-1060

Ishkibal

15

1060-1045

Shushshi

24

1045-1021

Gulishar

55

1021- 966

Pesgaldaramash

50

966- 916

Aidarakalamma

28

916- 888

Ekurulanna

26

888- 862

Melamkurkurra

7

862- 855

Ea-gamil

9

855- 846

Some transcribers have 26 years for Shushshi, but see Pallis' summary regarding the clear reading of 24 years. In 846 the Dynasty of the Sealand was overthrown by the Kassites in a famous war that involved Assyria and other Mesopotamian powers. In the king list appears a vague notation after Gulishar. Its implication is that another king reigned at the same time as Pesgaldaramash. Who was that other king? Listed before Damiq-ilishu in the Sealand Dynasty are two Kings of another branch of the royal house. Their reigns may readily be dated from synchronisms with the First Dynasty of Babylon. Van der Meer's study (page 21 of "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia", second edition) proves that the first of these two kings, Iluma-ilum, came to power in the year 14 of Samsu-iluna of Babylon. That is 1016-1015 (See the chart giving "year-name" sequence). Iluma-ilum reigned 60 years -- 1016-956. He was succeeded by the second in the king list: Itti-ili-nibi, who reigned for 56 years -- 956-900. Little else is known of the Sealand other than these royal names.

Nebuchadnezzar the First The end of the First Dynasty of Babylon in 879 brought to prominence a new line of kings from the city of Isin. One of its kings is the famous Nebuchadnezzar I, a predecessor of the Nebuchadnezzar of the Bible. The new Isin royalty is often referred to as the Pashe

Dynasty. It exercised its government both from its native city and from the city of Babylon. At that time in history Babylon played a role in Mesopotamia similar to the role of Thebes in Egypt. Both cities had become the political and religious capitals of their respective regions. It has been too long assumed by historians that the Second Dynasty of Isin followed the Kassite rule in Mesopotamia. It did not. It was contemporary with it. The kings of Isin record several wars with the Kassites. Nebuchadnezzar I attained the epithet "destroyer of the Kassites" consequent to his wars with them. Who the Kassites were will be discussed in the next chapter of this Compendium. The most thorough discussion of the new royal house at Isin is found in the University of Chicago Press publication: "Second Dynasty of Isin according to a New King List Tablet," by Arno Poebel. The Dynasty of Pashe or Isin II appears in chart form thus: Names of Kings or Isin II

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Marduk-kabit-ahheshu

18

879-861

Itti-marduk-balatsu

8

861-853

Ninutar-nadin-shumi

6

853-847

Nebu-kudur-uzur (or Nebuchadnezzar I)

22

847-825

Enlil-nadin-apli

4

825-821

Marduk-nadin-ahhe

18

821-803

Marduk-zapik-zeri

13

803-790

Adad-apal-iddin

22

790-768

Marduk- . .

1

768-767

Marduk- . .

12

767-755

8

755-747

Nabu-sum-libur

The names of two of the kings are partly broken away in the most complete tablet. But they may be restored by other records to be discussed later.

Era of Nabonassar At this point the history of ancient Babylonia is correct. Through all succeeding centuries the reigns after 747 have been known and available to the public. The year 747 marks the beginning of the "Era of Nabonassar" -- named after the first of a new series of kings, native and foreign, who ruled at Babylon. The ancestors of Nabonassar are broken away in the king lists. The classic account of these later kings has always been, since its writing, the Canon of Ptolemy. In early days the Babylonian

Chronicle, unearthed through archaeological expeditions, contained the same information -- only in more detail. For those who do not have ready access to the Canon of Ptolemy for the Era of Nabonassar the following list is provided. The Greek spellings of Ptolemy are not used as generally the Babylonian names find complete acceptance with scholars. A list of the kings is available in "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", by Edwin R. Thiele, page 293. Kings of Babylon from the Era of Nabonassar to the Persian Conquest

Lengths of Reign

Nabonassar

Dates

14

747-733

Nabu-nadinzir

2

733-731

Ukinzer and Pulu (Tiglathpilerer III)

5

731-726

Ululai (Shalmaneser V)

5

726-721

12

721-709

5

709-704

Marduk-appal-iddin (Mero dach-baladan) Sargon

Two kingless years

704-702

Bel-ibni

3

702-699

Assur-nadin-shum

6

699-693

Nergal-ushezib

1

693-692

Mushezib-Marduk

4

692-688

Eight kingless years

688-680

Assur-akh-iddin

13

680-667

Shamash-shum-ukin

20

667-647

Kandalanu

22

647-625

Nabopolassar

21

625-604

Nebuchadnezzar

43

604-561

Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach)

2

561-559

Nergal-shar-usur

4

559-555

17

555-538

Nabonidus (father of Belshazzar)

Babylon fell to the Persian and Median armies at an annual festival -- a new moon -- in the seventh month in year 17 of Nabonidus (539). But the calendar year continued to the beginning of spring in

538. The succeeding kings of Babylonia were the Persian rulers, whose reigns are commonly available. The finest summary of the period after the fall of Babylon is "Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75", by Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein.

Three Succeeding Dynasties Though the Second Isin Dynasty was succeeded at Babylon by king Nabonassar in 747, the king lists add three other short dynasties immediately after the Isin Dynasty. These ruled to 700, the year of the great Median rebellion against Assyria, recorded by Herodotus. These three short dynasties are listed next. Second Dynasty of the Sealand Simmash-Shipak

Lengths of Reign

18

Ea-mukin-shumi

5 months

Kashshu-nadin-ahhe

3

Dates

747-729 729 729-726

In 726 the Second Sealand Dynasty was displaced by kings from the House of Bazu. Kings of Dynasty of Bazu

Lengths of Reign

Dates

E-ulmash-shakin-shumi

17

726-709

Ninurta-Kudurri-usur

3

709-706

Shiriktum-Shukamuna

3 months

706

The year 706 witnessed an Elamite incursion into the land of Akkad, an event which ultimately made possible the rebellion of the Medes (in 700) against their Assyrian overlords. The "Elamite Dynasty", the seventh to exercise authority at Babylon, was composed of one king: Marbiti-apal-usur. He reigned for 6 years 706-700. With this the history of Southern Mesopotamia is restored, except for the Kassite kings of Karduniash. This line of kings cannot be placed until the history of Assyria is presented.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN History of Assyria In earlier days of critical study scholars were enamored of Egyptian history. Everything in the Bible was made to conform to the latest interpretation of Egyptologists. As with all fads, it wore thin. Then came an abundance of new material from Mesopotamia. Assyria proved particularly rich. In its buried palaces and libraries were unearthed long lists of Assyrian kings and of officials who gave their names to each succeeding calendar year. These lists were assumed to be consecutive. That is, one Assyrian dynasty was thought to have followed another in orderly succession for century after century. This careless interpretation of Assyrian history was a consequence of German Rationalism. If the scholars even once admitted the lists to be of parallel dynasties, they knew they would have to turn to some other source in order to assemble the dynasties correctly. That meant to the Bible, the only complete written record of the ancient world. That they would not do. Instead, they contrived to reject the historicity and authority of Scripture. As always they found a way to justify their interpretation of the Assyrian dynastic lists. In the Assyrian "limmu" lists -- lists of officials who held an office comparable to Greek "eponyms" -- there was found a reference to a summer solar eclipse. It was dated to the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale. As the lists were drawn up in successive order by the Assyrian scribes, this "limmu" year appeared to fall in 763. In that year, astronomers assured the historians, there was indeed a solar eclipse that could have been seen in Assyria. That pronouncement was deemed all-sufficient. Assyrian chronology -- as interpreted by modern scholars -- henceforth became the standard of the world. Where the Bible history did not agree with it, the Bible was arbitrarily rejected. Josephus contradicted the new interpretation. Out went Josephus. Only one little flaw in the historians' conclusions. The astronomers' evidence they accepted would be valid only if the "limmu" lists were themselves correct. What astronomers overlooked is this. They assumed that the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale was 763, when an eclipse did occur. They overlooked the fact that the "limmu" list was not drawn up until more than a century after 763. And that what really happened is that the eclipse of the year 763 was arbitrarily assigned to the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale who really held office 124 years later. The scribes who added the astronomical datum to the "limmu" year of Bur-Sagale did so to make this historical record appear confirmed by astronomy, when, in fact, it was not. The Bible records a more outstanding astronomical event than the solar eclipse of 763. This event occurred in 710 during the reign of Hezekiah. By a divine act the sun was seen in the heavens to return ten degrees in the direction in which it had arisen (Isaiah 38:8). Egyptians, too, were startled by it. Their priests, who kept the records, informed Herodotus that their history preserved an account in which the sun was seen to set that morning at the place where it was wont to rise! Ancient Peruvians, too, observed a drastic change in the heavenly movements about Hezekiah's time. See volume II of the Compendium for Yahuar Huquiz, Peruvian contemporary of Hezekiah.

Later Assyrian Kings It is now possible to restore Assyrian history to its original form. In 745 a new dynasty sat upon the Assyrian throne in Nineveh. It commenced with Tiglath-pileser III. This dynasty existed to the collapse of Assyria in 612. It is correctly dated in all modern history books. The original account of it is found in the Babylonian Chronicle and confirmed by Ptolemy's Canon of Babylonian kings. Tiglath-pileser III came to power in April of 745. The "limmu" lists designate this as his accession year, but he claimed it as his first year. Altogether he reigned 19 years. He is listed below with his successors. Dynasty of Tiglathpileser III at Nineveh

Lengths of Reign

Tiglath-pileser (III)

Dates

19

745-726

5

726-721

Sargon

17

721-704

Sennacherib

23

704-681

Essarhaddon

13

681-668

Assur-banipal

42

668-626

Assur-etililani

4

626-622

Sin-sarra-ishkun

10

622-612

4

612-608

Shalmaneser (V)

Assur-uballit (II) -- reigned in Haran after fall of Nineveh, in 612, then disappears from history.

Who Was Shalmaneser? Almost everyone has assumed that Shalmaneser V, whose inconsequential reign extended from 726-721, is the Shalmaneser of the Bible who besieged Samaria. But how, one might ask, could Shalmaneser V, who died late in 722 (in the last year of his reign), execute a three-year siege of Samaria in 721-718 after he was dead? And then wage war against Tyre, including a five-year siege of the famous emporium, as Josephus records? ("Antiquities", book IX, chap. 14.) Shalmaneser V accomplished neither of these two deeds! But the Assyrian records do reveal a Shalmaneser who did accomplish both! Who was this Shalmaneser? Surprising though it may appear, the Shalmaneser of the Biblical record -- and of Josephus -- is Shalmaneser "the Great" or the III. Ever since archaeology became a fad -- as well as a science -- scholars have assumed that Shalmaneser "the Great" was a contemporary of Israel's king Ahab and of king Jehu. They had no proof of it. They

merely wanted to believe it. The dates in the Assyrian annals were 40 years too low for the reign of Ahab (914-892) It was impossible to reconcile the Assyrian records as understood by the critics with the Bible. It was much easier to strip away about 40 years from the Biblical record and make it conform to the assumed date of Shalmaneser III. Thus the end of Solomon's reign was changed from 971 to about 930 by historians. But, ask the critics, did not Shalmaneser III refer to an Ahab of Israel and to a Jehu son of Omri in his monuments? Indeed he did! But once again the historians have had recourse to deception. The Jehu of the Bible is "the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi" (II Kings 9:2). The Jehu of the Assyrian records is another person -- the son of Omri! Two different people. How did the scholars resolve this dilemma? They concluded the Assyrians did not know what they were writing about! Furthermore, not one word is in the Bible that Jehu ever paid tribute to any Assyrian king. Assyria is not so much as mentioned in his reign. Who the Jehu of the Assyrian records is will be revealed shortly. But what of Ahab? In the Assyrian account this king of Israel is allied with the Arameans against the Assyrians. He contributed a contingent of troops to fight against Shalmaneser III at Karkar near the Euphrates. The Arameans and their allies were routed. Shalmaneser, follows up the victory by the conquest of Syria and Phoenicia and neighboring nations. (See Shalmaneser's annals in Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts".) Does this political situation conform to the era of the Ahab of the Bible? Certainly not! The Ahab of Scripture fought many battles with the Arameans, none with the Assyrians. Aram (Syria), in Ahab's day, was a powerful confederation. There is not the slightest Biblical indication that any Aramean king was the least concerned over Assyrian expansion. Nor is there any shred of evidence that Ahab, the son of Omri, ever sent troops to Aram to defend the eastern Mediterranean lands against Assyrian incursions at the time of his death. Modern historians mistakenly place the death of Ahab in 853 -- the supposed year of the battle of Karkar. In the Biblical history Ahab died fighting the Arameans, not as an ally of the Arameans at Karkar against the Assyrians! Who then is the "Ahab of Israel" mentioned by Shalmaneser "the Great" in his monuments? And at what period were Israel and Aram allied against Assyria? The last question first. II Kings 16 unveils the answer. Israel and Aram (Syria) were allied shortly before the fall of Samaria! Rezin king of Syria and Pekah king of Israel united to attack Judah. In defense the Jews sought the assistance of the Assyrians who attacked Aram first, then later Israel. But who was "Ahab of Israel"? The answer again is found in Scripture. II Kings 15:30 reveals that Hoshea made a conspiracy against Pekah, king of Israel, slew him and reigned in his stead. This occurred in the autumn of 737, the fourth year of Ahaz or twentieth of Jotham. Yet later, the Bible records Hoshea again returning to the throne, this time in the summer of 728, near the end of the twelfth year of Ahaz (II Kings 17:1). Tiglathpileser (III) records in his monuments that Hoshea has been deposed and that he had restored him to power. About nine years occurred between Hoshea's seizure of the throne and his restoration. Who was king during those years? The Bible does not reveal the answer -- but the Assyrian records do! The king was Ahab

II, who perished in his wars with Assyria. In his year 14 -- 722-721, spring-to-spring reckoning -- king Shalmaneser III sent 120,000 troops across the Euphrates to crush a revolt, which had suddenly developed along the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean. His attack met with brilliant success. The next three years are silent in Shalmaneser's annals. No record has been preserved. Then, in year 18 -- 718-717 -Shalmaneser receives tribute from "Jehu, son of Omri." The three intervening years (721-718) were those of the siege. When the war was over, the Assyrian reorganized Palestine into an Assyrian province and appointed Jehu, son of Omri, to administer Assyrian affairs temporarily in the land of Israel! Nebuchadnezzar treated the Jews in similar fashion when he appointed Gedaliah temporarily to supervise Babylonian affairs in Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 40:5). It is now possible to date the Calah Dynasty of Assyrian kings from the reign of Shalmaneser "the Great" to the revolt at Calah in 622-621. Calah, a suburb of Nineveh, was one of the three capitals of the late Assyrian Empire. It was also called Nimrud. (See page 53 of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings", by D. J. Wiseman.) Names of Assyrian Kings at Calah

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Shalmaneser "the Great" (III)

35

735-700

Shamshi-Adad (V), whose queen Semiramis (III), exercised great authority for 42 years -- 699-657

13

700-687

Adad-nirari (III)

28

687-659

Shalmaneser (IV)

10

659-649

Assurdan (III)

18

649-631

Assur-nerari (V)

10

631-621

Observe the exact parallel between these dates and the collapse of the Assyrian Empire. The last six years of Shalmaneser III's reign are the years 706-700. These years are each marked by the word "revolt" in the "limmu" canon. They are the six years of the incursion of the Elamite king Marbiti-alap-usur -- 706-700. During the reigns of the last three kings in Calah (659-621) the Assyrian Empire gradually disintegrated. Plagues ravaged the homeland. Revolt flared throughout the length and breadth of the Empire. Then a final revolt in Calah in the last year of Assur-nirari V brought the downfall of the dynasty in the calendar year 622-621. This is the very year that the Babylonian Canon records a revolt and a great victory over the Assyrian army. For details, compare the "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings", by Wiseman, with the corresponding "limmu" canons on pages 288-290 in Thiele's "Mysterous Numbers of the Hebrew Kings". Remember that Thiele misdates the reigns of Shalmaneser III and his successors 124 years too early: Predecessors of Shalmaneser III

In the Assyrian Canon are listed 20 predecessors of Shalmaneser III who reigned altogether 323 years. These kings are usually dated about 124 years too early in most books because the dynasty is made to end about 745 instead of 621! The following chart lists these 20 kings from the beginning of the dynasty through the reign of Shalmaneser III. (The cumbersome spelling of "Ashshur" is reduced to the simple Assur in this list.)

Names of Kings of The Calah Line Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of Ilu-ihadda, seized the throne Assur-dan (I) Ninurta-tukulti-Assur

Lengths of Reign

Dates

3

1058-1055

46

1055-1009

reigned for a "bab tuppisu", that is, for part of the remaining official year

Mutakkil-Nusku, his brother, fought with him, held the throne, then died.

calendar year 1010-1009

1009

Assur-resh-isshi (II)

18

1009-991

Tukulti-apil-Esarra (Tiglath-pileser I)

39

991-952

2

952-950

Assur-bel-kala

18

950-932

Eriba-Adad (II)

2

932-930

Shamshi-Adad (IV), son of Tiglath-pileser (I), deposed Eriba-Adad, seized throne

4

930-926

Assur-nasir-apli (I)

19

926-907

Shulmanu-asarid (Shalmaneser II)

12

907-895

Assur-nirari (IV)

6

895-889

41

889-848

Assur-resh-ishi (II)

5

848-843

Tukulti-apil-Esharra (Tiglath-pileser II)

32

843-811

Asarid-apil-Ekur

Assur-rabi (II)

Assur-dan (II)

23

811-788

Adad-nirari (II)

21

788-767

Tukulti-Ninurta (II)

7

767-760

Assur-nasir-apli (II)

25

760-735

Shulmanu-asarid (Shalmaneser III -- "the Great")

35

735-700

Of these kings it is known that Assur-reshishi II was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar I of Isin, and that Tiglath-pileser II of Marduk-nadin-ahhe of Isin. Van der Meer and most other historians mistakenly assumed Assur-resh-ishi I and Tiglath-pileser I were the contemporaries. This error arose when the Assyrians drew up in two opposite columns the kings of Assyria and the kings of Babylonia. Kings which were not contemporary were made to appear so, and those who were contemporary appeared not to be. A similar error occurred when the late kings counted the years between themselves and their ancestors. Kings who lived no more than 200 years earlier, for example, were recorded to have lived perhaps 500 or 600 or more years previous. The cause of this kind of error is readily determined. The king lists were drawn up with the kings of the city Assur listed first, then the kings of Calah followed by Nineveh. This naturally placed the rulers of Assur, who were contemporary with those of Calah, centuries too early and centuries apart. These errors did not, however, completely obscure the known total length of time that had elapsed since Babel. But the contradictory statements of elapsed time between any two kings led later scholars in the Greek and Roman world into confusion. Van der Meer sums up these supposed durations of time between early and late Assyrian kings by saying: "The statements of Esserhaddon and Salmanasser also fail to agree with one another"; and "hence all the statements which we have from Nabonaid are incorrect" (pages 36, 35 of "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt").

King Pul and the Bible This dynasty provides a clue to the ancestry of Tiglath-pileser III, who ascended a separate dynastic throne in 745. Tiglath-pileser III named "Adad-nirari" as his father. This is Adad-nirari II -788-767. Upon the death of the father the direct line of descent passed to Tukulti-Ninurta II. But the throne was shared with Tiglath-pileser, who, at that time, had the personal name of Pul, which he also later used when he ascended the throne of Babylon in 729. In his later annals Tiglath-pileser refers to kings Uzziah of Judah and to Menahem of Israel. As both of these rulers were dead several years before 745, historians assume that the Bible is woefully in error. It never occurred to them to verify how many years elapsed between the death of Adad-nirari and 745, years in which the young Pul might have been ruling jointly with an older brother. In the Bible the name "Pul" refers to those early years, and "Tiglath-pileser" or "Tilgath-pilneser" to the later independent reign beginning in 745. See II Kings 15:19 and 29. Also I chronicles 5:26,

which should be translated: "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, EVEN the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and HE carried them (Israel) away." Historians generally have been unwilling to recognize the possibility of joint reigns among Assyrian kings. Yet their own discoveries prove it. Events which Shalmaneser III dates as years 11 and 18 in his annals are dated to years 14 and 21 on the Black Obelisk (page 280 of Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts"). He therefore reigned 3 years jointly with his predecessor. Similarly, Sennacherib was king of Assyria in year 14 of Hezekiah -- 711-710 (II Kings 18:13) -- although he did not succeed his father until 704.

Tiglath-pileser I and Thutmose III Another king in the Calah list is very significant -Tiglath-pileser I. His reign commences in 991, almost the exact midpoint of Solomon's reign. Tiglath-pileser wrote in his annals that he beheaded the kings of Meshech at that time. "In the beginning of my reign, twenty thousand men of the land of Mushki and their five kings, who for fifty years had held the lands of Alzi and Purukuzzi, which (in former times) had paid tribute and tax unto Assur, my lord, and no king had vanquished them in battle," he beheaded. ("Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia", by Daniel David Luckenbill, vol. I, page 74.) What is the significance of the 50 years from 1041 to 991 when Tiglath-pileser I defeated Meshech (Musku)? In year 32 of Hammurabi (1041-1040) he and his allies defeated Assyria and annexed it to his expanding realm! (See Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia", page 30.) It was exactly 50 years between Hammurabi's victory and Assyria's return to power. In the latter days of Tiglath-pileser I's reign Assyria was again defeated and conquered. who was the conqueror? Thutmose III! In his annals Thutmose recorded receipt of tribute from Assur. "The tribute of the chief of Assur" (Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. II, sec. 446). In conclusion. The first king of the Calah line -Ninurta-apil-Ekur -- began his sole rule in 1058 (near the end of the reign of King Saul of Israel). The SDAS King List assigns a 13-year reign to him, implying a 10-year joint rule with a predecessor. Who were the kings that ruled Assyria before the Calah line came to power? The next chapter will answer!

CHAPTER FOURTEEN History of Assyria Concluded The history of Assyria differs greatly from the history of Babylonia. Babylonia was divided into numerous semi-independent regions and city-states. Its dynasties were usually shortlived. Assyria, by contrast, had unusually centralized government. Not more than two or three royal families dominated the life of the Empire for generations. Historians today assume that these contemporaneous dynasties succeeded one another. They place the kings of the city of Assur -- the Ellasar of the Bible -- immediately before the kings of Calah and Nineveh. Their assumption is based on the fact that the Dynasty of Assur is listed immediately before the kings of Calah. As in all the royal canons, the order in which dynasties appear does not prove they were necessarily successive. It indicates only that one line of kings may have begun earlier than another. This fact is admitted for much of early Babylonia, but adamently denied -- without proof -- when it comes to late Babylonian and Assyrian history. The kings of the city Assur were contemporary with Dynasties XVIII and XIX of Egypt. Hence they, too, must have ruled during the time of the kings of Israel and Judah -- not in the time of the judges! Numerous letters of correspondence have been found in El-Amarneh, Egypt, that passed between these Assyrian kings and those of the Egyptian Empire. The Dynasty of Assur thus constituted a third contemporary royal line ruling Assyria from the twelfth to the seventh century before the present era. The following chart restores to their proper dates the Assur kings from Enlil-Nasir II to Enlil-kudur-usur, the last king of the city Assur. Names of Kings of the City Assur

Lengths of Reign

Dates

(two preceding numbers lost) Enlil-nasir (II) deposed his brother

6

930-924

Assur-nirari (II)

7

924-917

Assur-bel-nisheshu

9

917-908

Assur-rim-nisheshu

8

908-900

Assur-nadin-ahhe (II)

10

900-890

Eriba-Adad (I), son of Assur-bel-nisheshu

27

890-863

Assur-uballit (I)

36

863-827

Enlil-nirari

10

827-817

Arik-den-ili

12

817-805

Adad-nirari (I), brother of Arik-den-ili

32

805-773

Shulmanu-asarid (Shalmaneser I)

30

773-743

Tukulti-Ninurta (I)

37

743-706

4 or 3

707-703 706-703

Assur-nirari (III), son of Assur-nasir-apli

6

703-697

Enlil-kudur-usur, son of Tukulti-Ninurta (I)

5

697-692

While Tukulti-Ninurta lived, Assur-nadin-apli, his son, seized the throne

The "Cambridge Ancient History" or any other reputable source will provide the information linking the reigns of these kings with their contemporaries in Egypt. The exact dates are determined as follows. Assur-uballit I was a contemporary of Akhenaton and Tutankhamen, and corresponded with both. In 930 a revolt occurred in the Calah line. In the preceding chart a revolt in 930 brought Enlil-nasir II to the throne. The line ceased in 692 when the last king was killed in a battle with the Kassites in Babylonia. The year 692 witnessed a great war in Babylonia which also involved Sennacherib, an Assyrian king of Nineveh (see the account in his annals).

The Kassite Dynasty The Kassite Dynasty in the King List was inserted by the ancient scribes after Dynasty I of the Sealand and before Dynasty II of Isin (the Pashe Dynasty). This position proves only that it began after ,the Sealand Dynasty (1098), but before Dynasty II of Isin (879). It is known to have been contemporary with both these royal families, as well as the line of Hammurabi. Its kings ruled over Karduniash, a territory bordering on Babylon and the Sealand. The last king of the Assur dynasty of Assyria -- Enlil-kudur-usur -- died in the same battle in which a Kassite king fell. The year was 692. From this event the list of Kassite rulers of Southern Mesopotamia can be dated consecutively back to 845. Prior to that point the names and dates are broken away. A few contemporary tablets supply the missing names almost in entirety, but they cannot be dated.

Names of Kassite Rulers from 845-692

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Nazi-bugash comes to power during struggle in 846 when Kassites overthrow Eagamil of the First Dynasty of the Sealand. Kurigalzu (the younger)

25

845-820

Nazi-maruttash

26

820-794

Kadashman-turgu

18

794-776

Kadashman-harbe

11

776-765

9 (or 6)

765-756 (765-759)

Kudur-enlil

During the three years from 759-756 two other Kassite kings (listed next) came to the throne who were not sons of Kudur-enlil. Enlil-nadin-shumi Kadashman-harbe

1 1/2 1 1/2

759-756

They were succeeded by Adad-nadin-shumi

6

756-750

Thereafter the royal line of Kudur-enlil was restored. Shagarakti-shuriash, son of Kudur-enlil Kashtiliash, son of Shagarakti-shuriash

13

750-737

8

737-729

At this point there occurs a break in the history of the Kassite Dynasty. Tukulti-ninurta I occupied Babylon for seven years -- 729-722. (observe that 729 is also the year that Tiglathpileser III "took the hands of Bel" and became king of Babylon.) An inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta I on a building informs us: "... I made ready to do battle with Kashtiliash, king of Karduniash, and brought about the overthrow of his host. His warriors I slew. In that encounter I took Kashtiliash prisoner. I trod upon his royal neck as on a footstool, naked and in bonds brought I him before Asshur my lord, Sumer and Akkad in their whole extent I brought under my power." Another document reads: "The defeat of Kashtiliash .... Tukulti-Ninurta turned back to Babylon ... he drew near, he wasted the wall of Babylon, he destroyed the Babylonians .... He set his governors over Karduniash. For seven years Tukulti-Ninurta ruled over Karduniash, thereafter the great ones of Akkad and Karduniash arose and made Adad-shumuli-nasir to sit upon his father's throne" (see pages 13-14 of Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia"). Adad-shumuli-nasir

30

722-692

The period from Kudur-enlil to Adad-shumuli-nasir has not been properly understood by any modern authors. Van der Meer espouses one view; M. B. Rowton another in the "Revised Cambridge Ancient History", Vol. I, ch. IV. The Assyrian record proves that no Kassite rulers succeeded Kashtiliash until the reign of Adad-shumuli-nasir. Therefore the only place for the reigns of Enlil-nadin-shumi, Kadashman-harbe and Adad-nadin-shumi was at some previous period. Where that period occurred is revealed by the otherwise inexplicable difference in the length of reign of Kudur-enlil -- 6 or 9 years. The Kassite king list does not place them in the actual order of their rule. It places the son and grandson of Kudur-enlil first because the scribe who drew up

the document presented the kings in their blood relationship. His list of kings was not intended to be successive. After the year 692 four more Kassite kings came to the throne. They are as follows: Kassites from 692-660

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Melishipak

15

692-677

Marduk-aplaiddin, his son

13

677-664

Zababa-shumiddin

1

664-663

Ellil-nadin-ahhe

3

663-660

In 660 the Kassites -- Cushites from the east -- were overthrown in an Assyrian attack that carried Assyrian arms to the River Indus!

The Earliest Kassites The Kassite kings make their first appearance in Southern Mesopotamia in year 8 of Samsu-iluna, son of Hammurabi. The event is commemorated in the "year-name" of year 9: "Year in which Samsu-iluna the king (defeated) the host of the Kassites." Year 8 is 1022-1021. (See p. 23 of Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia".) The first Kassite kings are listed below: Names of First Kassite Kings Gandhe (or Gandash) Agum the First, son of Gandhe

Kashtiliash I Ushshi

Lengths of Reign

16

Dates

1022-1006

12 (or 22)

1006-994 1006-984

22

984-962

8

962-954

Though succeeding names are known, the years of reign are broken away. Now consider Agum I, who is variously assigned 12 or 22 years. Who was his contemporary after 12 years of reign? Here is the answer. The great-grandfather of the Assyrian king Enlilnasir II (930-924) was Puzur-Assur. The dates of Puzur-Assur's reign have not yet been presented. (Later it will be demonstrated that they fell from 994-980.) A contemporary of Puzur-Aggur III was the Kassite king Burnaburiash. A document naming them both reads: "Puzur-Assur, king of Assur, and Burnaburiash, king of Karduniash, took oath, they established the border of that region." (Page 19 of Van der Meer's "Chronology of Ancient Western Asia", second edition.) This Burnaburiash (probably an older brother of Kashtiliash I) was contemporary with the Kassite kings Agum I and Kashtiliash I. His reign must have begun in 994. For the 109 years between Ushshi (962-954) and Kurigalzu the Younger (845-820) only a bare outline of Kassite names is preserved. By

a comparison with Egyptian and Assyrian and Babylonian history the Kassites can be associated with their contemporaries, though it is not always possible to determine which Kassite rulers were brothers, which sons. After Kashtiliash I (984-962) some lists place either Ushshi or Abirattash (who were apparently brothers). After Abirattash come either Kashtiliash II or Tazzigurumash (again probably older and younger sons of Abirattash). Inheritance of the Kassite line was passed first to brothers, then to sons. Following Tazzigurumash were Harbashipak, Tiptakzi and Agum II Kakrime, probably all brothers, since Agum II is known to be a son of Tazzigurumash. Agum II overthrew Babylon in 879, bringing to an end the First Dynasty of Babylon. (page 22 of Van der Meer's "Chronolgy of Ancient Western Asia"). No lineal descendants of Agum II are known. Agum II is the fifth generation after Gandhe in about a century and a quarter. The successor of Agum II was Burnaburiash II, who descended from a different line of Kassite kings. Burnaburiash II's long reign began in the closing years of the life of Amenhotpe III of Egypt and extended to the early years of Tut-ankhamen. (p. 17 of Van der Meer's publication). Burnaburiash's father was Kurigalzu I, a contemporary of Amenhotpe III. The two previous generations were Kadashman-harbe I and Karaindash I. Karaindash I, near the close of his life signed a treaty with Assur-bel-nisheshu (917-908). He also gave his daughter (a sister of Kadashman-harbe I) to Amen-hotpe III. Karaindash I was therefore of the generation of Thutmose IV of Egypt. The ancestry of Karaindash is not yet recovered. He may have been a descendant of Ushshi, brother of Abirattash. Burnaburiash II had three sons: Karaindash II, Ulamburiash and Kashtiliash III. Ulamburiash defeated Eagamil and conquered the Sealand in 846. Some years later the Sealand had to be reconquered by Agum III, a son of Kashtiliash III in a war which involved Nebuchadnezzar I, the king of Isin (847-825). A third son of Burnaburiash II was Karaindash II, who married the daughter of Assur-uballit of Assyria. Their son was Kadashman-harbe II (who was also named Karahardash in the Assyrian record). A rebellion broke out against Kadashman-harbe II. He was slain and a usurper, known by the names of Suzigash or Nazi-bugash, seized the throne. To avenge his grandson, Assuruballit (863-827) launched an attack on the Kassite realm. Upon the defeat and death of Nazi-bugash the throne was restored to Kurigalzu the Younger, a son of Kadashman-harbe II. This Kurigalzu has already been dated from the Kassite list as ruler from 845-820. Thus all 36 kings of the Kassites have been recovered from contemporary documents. Their government in Mesopotamia and Sumer extended from 1022-660, a period of 362 years. Because of numerous joint reigns with brothers, nephews and sons the total assigned to the Kassite kings in the King List is 576 years. There is no reason to dispute this figure, as many scholars have recently done. A final note of caution. None of the artificial lists of Kassite kings usually found in history textbooks is correct.

The First 1000 Years of Assyrian History The complete line of kings from the city Assur has not yet been restored because the two predecessors of Enlil-nasir II have their regnal years broken away in every tablet thus far discovered.

The key to these missing years lies in the early history of Assyria preserved exclusively in classical Greek sources. The Greek historian Ctesias copied out of the annals in the Persian realm the ancient histories of Assyria and Media. Historians, since the advent of archaeology, have cast aside his records as worthless. They have found no evidence of the kings -- but then they have found no written records of anything for that period. Mere lack of knowledge does not disprove the traditional record of history. In numerous cases the most important events of the past were carefully copied each generation on perishable materials -- and later preserved in the classical writers. Witness the history of the Hebrews. The history of Palestine cannot be found on stone monuments or on clay tablets. It is to be found only in the pages of a Book, the Bible. The same is true of Assyria. The earliest ages have come down through royal annals only in the pages of books. Archaeology had nothing to say about the period other than confess its own ignorance! The most complete evidence for the early Assyrian kings may be found in "Fasti Hellenici the Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece", by Henry Fynes Clinton, vol. I, p. 267. Additional works include John Jackson's "Chronological Antiquities", vol. I, pp. 247-253. The classical records in Greek and Latin are reproduced in Dr. Alfred Schoene's "Eusebi Chronicorum", especially in the "Excerpta Latina Barbari." Compare these with Dr. Rudolf Helm's "Die Chronik des Hieronymus". Ctesias begins his consecutive history with the last 38 years (2006-1968) of the reign of Gilgamesh or Ninyas. Ninyas, it should be remembered, was the Assyrian name for Gilgamesh; Horus was his Egyptian. Ctesias does not preserve any record of the short period following the 42-year reign of Semiramis I (the Egyptian Isis) to the year 2006. This was the period of Median power in Babylonia. In his History, Ctesias noted that the Assyrian power endured 1306 years before the time of the Median revolt. It was exactly 1306 years between 2006 and 700, the year the Medes obtained their freedom from the Assyrians -- only to lose it again to their own rulers! In the following chart all significant variants in names and figures are included. Names of Assyrian Rulers Preserved by Ctesias

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Ninyas (Gilgamesh)

38

2006-1968

Arius (Arioch of Genesis 14)

30

1968-1938

(Note that the year 1938 also marked the death of Amraphel of Shinar, according to the king list of Erech. Thus archaeological and classical records confirm the date of Abram's slaughter of the kings as 1938.) Aralius (Amyrus)

40

1938-1898

Xerxes (Balaeus)

30

1898-1868

Armamithres

38

1868-1830

Belochus

35

1830-1795

Balaeus

52

1795-1743

Sethos (Zaztagus, Altallus, or Altadas)

35

1743-1708

Mamythus

30

1708-1678

Aschalius (Macchaleus)

30 (or 28)

1678-1648 (1678-1650)

Sphaerus

20 (or 22)

1648-1628 (1650-1628)

(The year 1650 marked a great Assyrian attempt to conquer India. The battle was fought in the winter of 1650-1649. Assyrian losses, together with those of their allies, were sufficient to change the balance of power in Babylonia in 1649. See the history of Indian and early Babylonia for that date.) Mamylus

30

1628-1598

Sparaethus (Spartheus, or Spareus)

42

1598-1556

Ascatades

38

1556-1518

Amyntes

45

1518-1473

Belochus

25

1473-1448

Attosa (Semiramis II)

23

1448-1425

Beletares or Belochus

34

1425-1391

45

1473-1428

7

1428-1421

30

1421-1391

Attosa (Semiramis II) Beletares

(With Semiramis II the direct male line ceases. Beletares, the keeper of the royal gardens, comes to the throne, possibly through intermarriage with an heir of royal line.) Lamprides

32

1391-1359

Sosares

20

1359-1339

Lampares

30

1339-1309

Panyas

45 (or 42)

1309-1264 (1309-1267)

Sosarmus

19 (or 22)

1264-1245 (1267-1245)

Mithraeus

35

1245-1210

Teutamus (Assyrian King during the First Trojan War)

32

1210-1178

Teutaeus

44

1178-1134

Thinaeus

30

1134-1104

Dercylus

40

1104-1064

Empacmes

38

1064-1026

Laosthenes

45

1026-981

Pertiades

30

981-951

Ophrataeus

21

951-930

Ephecheres (Ophratanes)

52

930-878

Acraganes

42

878-836

Thonos Concolerus

20

836-816

In 816 the Medes end the Assyrian dynasty. The king at this time was at his royal Palace at Rehoboth-Ir on the Euphrates (Genesis 36:37). A history of the Median kings who rode to prominence in 816 will be given in another section.

Analyzing the King List Several unusual features, some not included in the preceding chart, are worth special study. First, consider king Sethos or Altadas (1743-1708). His reign, according to Syncellus, extended over half a century -- 1758-1708. Why did he come to the throne about 1758 during the reign of Balaeus? Assyrian history is silent. But Egyptian history may reveal the answer. This was the time of King Senwosre III (the Sesostris of classical writers). Senwosre III had spent his first 19 years (1779-1760) in the subjugation of Ethiopia (Breasted's "Ancient Records", vol. I). He then set out to conquer all Asia. Manetho records that "in nine years he subdued the whole of Asia (meaning Western Asia), and Europe as far as Thrace." It is very probable that the year 1758 marks the conquest of Assyria by the Egyptian Pharaoh and the beginning of a joint reign in Assyria to stabilize the weakened monarchy. In Eusebius' account of Ctesias only 32 years (1740-1708) are assigned to Sethos or Altadas. As this king's reign is the only one in the early part of the list to vary so unusually, this figure too must have significance. As the sole reign of Senwosre III ended in 1741, it may well be that the year 1740 points up the regaining of independence from Egyptian overlordship. Now consider the reigns of Sosarmus (1267-1245) and Mithraeus (1245-1210). In the "Excerpta Barbara" king Sosarmus is assigned only 20 years (1267-1247). In Africanus his successor Mithraeus is given 37 years (1247-1210). What is especially significant is that Eusebius assigns only 27 years to Mithraeus (1247-1220).

Eusebius' figure cuts the reign of Mithraeus short by 10 years. What is the significance of his figure which ends the reign in 1220 instead of 1210? Herodotus answers the question! The year 1220 marks the beginning of 520 years of Assyrian hegemony over Upper Asia, ending in the year 700 at the Median revolt (Clio -- I, sect. 95). The full significance of the year 1220 has not yet been exhausted. Syncellus' account of Ctesias includes four otherwise unknown Assyrian rulers who belong to a collateral dynasty. Their reigns total 162 years. No other writer includes them. Where should these kings be placed? Syncellus provides a clue. He placed this short dynasty at its midway point, opposite kings Teutaeus and Thinaeus. Its beginning would therefore be about 1220. Observe the missing link in Assyrian history when this short dynasty is properly placed beginning in 1220. Contemporary Kings of Assyria

Lengths of Reign

Dates

(Mithraeus)

27

1247-1220

Arabelus

42

1220-1178

Chalaus

45

1178-1133

Anebus

38

1133-1095

Babius (or Tautamus II)

37

1095-1058

(What occurred in 1058? The answer is in the next line!) Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of Ilu-ihadda, seized the throne

3

1058-1055, etc.

From here on the kings of the Calah line continue until 621. Thus the four kings of Syncellus provide the missing link that unites the testimony of Herodotus with the list of Ctesias and the record of archaeology! To return to the history of Ctesias. For the three kings Teutamus, Teutaeus and Thinaeus (1210-1104) several transcribers of Ctesias provide shortened figures. Altogether, 6 years are deleted. Who came to power during those six missing years? In chart form the three reigns appear thus: Teutamus

31 (6 missing years)

1210-1179 (1179-1173)

Teutaeus

40

1173-1133

Thinaeus

29

1133-1104

Did a new dynasty perhaps arise in the years 1179-1173? Was there a king who ruled 6 years at this period in Assyrian history? Indeed. These years witness the rise of the royal house of the city of Assur. Its first king, Assur-dugul, reigned 6 years. In his sixth year -1174-1173 -- some kind of internal catastrophy hit the city, for six kings came to the throne during the sixth and last year of Assur-dugul. Was there a special event that befell Mesopotamia in the year 1174-1173?

The year 1174-1173 was the first year of king Sumu-abum of the First Dynasty of Babylon: Heretofore no parallel event could account for the sudden appearance of government at Babylon in 1174. A major revolution in Assyria would have been necessary to allow a rival power to rise in the city Babylon, which had had no political power since the days of Nimrod. With this period as a starting point it is now possible to complete the list of kings of the city Assur and fill in the sum of the two missing reigns. Kings of the City Assur

Lengths of Reign

Assur-dugul, "son of a 'nobody'"

6

Dates 1179-1173

Assur-apla-idi, "son of a 'nobody'"; Nasir-Sin, "son of a 'nobody'": Sin-namir, "son of a 'nobody'": Ipqi-Istar, "son of a 'nobody'"; Adad-salulu, "son of a 'nobody'';

"together exercised sovereignty for a BAB TUPPISU", that is, the remainder of an official year

and Adasi, "son of a 'nobody'" 1174-1173 Belu-bani, son of Adasi

10

1173-1163

Libaiiu

17

1163-1146

Sarma-Adad (I)

12

1146-1134

En-tar-Sin, son of Sarma-Adad

12

1134-1122

Bazzaiiu, son of Belu-bani

28

1122-1094

6

1094-1088

14

1088-1074

3

1074-1071

13

1071-1058

6

1058-1052

Isme-Dasan, son of Samsi-Adad

16

1052-1036

Samsi-Adad, son of Isme-Dasan, son of Su-Ninua

16

1036-1020

Assur-nerari, son of Isme-Dasan

26

1020- 994

Puzur-Assur, son of Assur-nerari

14

994- 980

Enlil-nasir, son of Puzur-Assur

13

980- 967

Lullaiiu, "son of a 'nobody"' Su-Ninua, son of Bazzaiiu Sarma-Adad, son of Su-Ninua Erisu, son of Su-Ninua Samsi-Adad, son of Erisu

Nur-ili, son of Enlil-nasir Assur-saduni, son of Nur-ili Assur-rabi (I), son of Enlil nasir, deposed Assur-saduni, and seized the throne

12 1 month

967- 955 955

---

---

(25)

(955-930)

Assur-nadin-ahhe (I), son of Assur-rabi (I)

---

---

Enlil-nasir (II) deposed his brother Assur-nadin-ahhe

6

930-924, etc.

The lengths of the reigns of Assur-rabi and Assur-nadin-ahhe are broken away on every document. But the preceding restoration of contemporary history supplies the total length of the missing figures -- 25 years (955-930) -- a very reasonable figure for the passage of one generation. The reigns of Enlil-nasir and his successors to 692 have been presented in a former section. With this chart the restoration of Assyrian history is complete for all datable reigns. The next chapter will connect the history of Media, India and Japan with the Assyrian Empire and with famous Queen Semiramis III, the thrice-born "Queen of Heaven."

CHAPTER FIFTEEN Media, India, Japan and China The wide conquests of the Assyrian Empire brought her into direct contact with many nations dwelling within and beyond the confines of the Middle East. Twice Assyria attempted to conquer India. Twice she failed. Twice the Medes rose in successful revolt against the Assyrians. A people so far removed as the Japanese also trace their history to a remarkable event in Assyrian history. Only the Chinese, of all eastern people, remained relatively apart from the West.

The Revolts of the Medes In one sense no restoration of the Median Empire is necessary. Ctesias and Herodotus preserve accurately the chronological history of the early Median tribes and of two distinct revolts. The modern historian has created an artificial problem by rejecting the traditions of both Ctesias and Herodotus. Why were they rejected? Because many of the leading events surrounding the Medes' early rise to power were absolutely supernatural. Take the classic example in Herodotus. At least 150 years before the birth of Cyrus, the prophet Isaiah was inspired by God to record the name of Cyrus as the future conqueror of Babylon. The birth of Cyrus is narrated by Herodotus. The last Median king, wrote Herodotus, had no son, only a daughter. During the pregnancy of his daughter, Astyages was frightened by a dream in which it was revealed that the child to be born of her was destined to overthrow the grandfather and conquer the world. To thwart this portent he contrived to have the child murdered. The official appointed to accomplish the deed sublet the act to a shepherd whose wife has just suffered the loss of a young baby boy. The dead infant was substituted for the living infant Cyrus. Thus the young lad survived, eventually to rule the world. Historians view such an account as myth. By that they mean that anything so unusual as the birth of Cyrus speaks of the intervention of God whom they refuse to acknowledge. To rid themselves of His presence and His intervention in history they must discount the writers who recorded these events. The history of Media is preserved by several early Greek and Roman writers. Diodorus Siculus records in detail how the Medes successfully overthrew the Assyrians in 816 -- the time of the prophet Jonah. One of the royal Assyrian capitals at that time was at Rehoboth on the Euphrates. There the Medes successfully attacked the person of the king, Thonos Concolerus, also known as Sardanapallus, slew him and his armed guards and razed the city. Only the repentance of the Ninevites saved it from the Median ravages. This was also the period of the extensive conquests of Seti I in Asia. The Median royalty which came to power in 816 was the line of Darius the Mede. The Median kings who rose to power after the revolt in 700-699 were another and distinct line of Kings. Here are the Median kings according to Ctesias' record from the Persian archives.

House of Arbaces Median Rings After Overthrow of Assyrians at Rehoboth

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Arbaces

28

816-788

His son Mandauces

20

788-768

Sosarmus

30

768-738

Artycas

30

738-708

Arbianes

22

708-686

Artaeus

40

686-646

Artynes

22

646-624

Astibaras

40

624-584

35 (or 38)

584-549 (584-546)

Aspadas (called Astyigas or Astyages)

The successor of Aspadas was Darius the Mede, mentioned in Daniel 5:31 and 9:1. The Hebrews called Aspadas "Ahasuerus". The Greeks called Darius the Mede Cyaxeres II. Historians have completely misunderstood the events surrounding the end of Median independence. The reason is this. There were two Median kings reigning at the same time with the same name -- Astyages, or similar spelling. One was grandfather of Cyrus the Persian; the other, Aspadas called Astyigas, was father of Darius the Mede. Before explaining any more details, it is necessary to introduce the second Median royal house and the second Astyages. In the year 700-699, following the death of Shalmaneser III, the Medes successfully completed a second revolt against the Assyrians. Not until this year were all the Medes completely free from Assyrian dominion. Herodotus preserves the names of these Median kings who ascended the throne in 699. House of Deioces Median Kings Following Revolt in 700-699.

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Deioces

53

699-646

Phraortes

22

646-624

Cyaxeres I

40

624-584

Astyages, grandfather of Cyrus

35

584-549

Certain late Greek and Roman writers used figures other than those given by Herodotus and Ctesias. The preceding are the original and true figures. The variants may have risen from otherwise unknown events occurring in the Median realm, or from joint reigns. In 549 Astyages was overthrown by his grandson, Cyrus the Persian.

Cyrus had come to the Persian throne, which he shared with his father, in the year 558. He reigned altogether 29 years (558-529). The chronological evidence from Ctesias and Herodotus indicates the last three kings of each Median line shared the throne jointly. Each was succeeded by a son in 646, 624 and 584. An exception occurred in the case of Astyages, son of Cyaxeres I. This man, declared Herodotus, had no son, only a daughter. He ruled with a harsh hand. His daughter he gave in marriage to the king of Persia, Cambyses, who became the father of Cyrus. By contrast Josephus stated that Astyages had a son -- Darius the Mede. Historians have -- for no justifiable reason -- assumed the testimony of Josephus and Herodotus were irreconcilable. A little thought would have made it plain that each writer was discussing a different Astyages. Josephus, and Daniel too, wrote of the Astyages or Aspadas who was of the house of Arbaces. Herodotus' account was of Astyages of the house of Deioces. The confederation of Persians and Medes, often stressed in the Bible, resulted from a political union of the house of Arbaces, which began in 816, with the young Persian monarch Cyrus. Cyrus could never have come to power had there not been strife between the two Median royal families. Worthy of special note in the preceding charts is the date 584, ending the reigns of both Cyaxeres and Astibaras. This was 28 years after the overthrow of Nineveh (612) and marked the end of Scythian dominion in ancient Upper Asia. Who those Scythians were will become apparent in the study of Japanese history and the traditions of the Parsees of India.

History of Early India In 1956 a remarkable book on early India was published. Its title: "The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya." The author, Dr. P. H. L. Eggermont, resolved several difficult problems in early Indian literature. His solutions are in complete harmony with the history of Assyria. Many of the enigmas in Indian history could long aso have been resolved had the scholars RESPECTED the literary accounts preserved by the early scribes and priests. The first step in the solution of early Indian history began when Dr. Eggermont recognized the historicity of India's earliest literary accounts. Too many scholars had arbitrarily rejected or altered them. Dr. Eggermont's book does not include later problems in Indian history. As these difficulties have no direct bearing on the authenticity of Biblical history they are also excluded from this compendium. Only the history to the time of King Asoka is presented here. True Indian history begins with the famous battle of Kuruksetra in the winter of 1650-1649. At the winter solstice a heavy attack was launched against Sahadeva, Indian king of Magadha, by the "Assuras" or "Daityas" from the west. The Indian king perished. Had not there been some kind of supernatural change in the weather during the course of the struggle India would have been devastated. As events turned out, Assyria was defeated. Indian scholars long ago recognized in the "Assuras" or "Daityas" the Assyrians of the west. The date 1649 is paralleled in Mesopotamia. In that year king

Lugal-zaggisi, of Erech's Third Dynasty, toppled Assyria's allies and suddenly seized control of the land. (See the restoration of Early Babylonian history.) The Bahadratha dynasty rose to power in Magadha in the beginning of 1649, upon the death of Sahadeva. Names, but no dates of previous kings are preserved. The following chart outlines the history of India until about 180. Names of Dynasties

Duration of Dynasties

Dates

Bahadratha

989

1649-660

Pradyota

138

660-522

Sisunaga

162

522-360

The Nanda

43

360-317

131

317-186

Maurya

(For the length of the Mauryas see "Persica", No. II, 1965-1966, article by Eggermont.) The year 1649 is not the time of the traditional migration of Aryan-speaking peoples into India. Those migrations, so famous in Indian history, did not commence until shortly before 660, toward the close of the Assyrian Empire. Aryan-speaking people were, however, already in India from earliest times. To the plains of India the Assyrians sent into exile (around 660) tens of thousands of Ethiopians, thousands of Egyptians and multitudes from the region of the Hindu-Kush mountains in Bactria. This forced migration was the period of Assyrian conquests in Egypt and Bactria. The wholesale dumping of captive slaves was climaxed by an Assyrian attempt to conquer India in 660. In that year Semiramis III (699-657) -- self-styled reincarnation of the "Queen of Heaven" -- led Assyrian troops to the frontier of India. Diodorus of Sicily describes the battle in detail in his history of India. A great catastrophe befell the Assyrians. The troops of the Queen were annihilated. She fled almost alone from the battle scene -- to live on in myth and religious tradition as the thrice-born "Queen of Heaven."

Early Indian Kings of Magadha Following the tragic Indian victory in 1649 Somadhi founded a new dynasty on the Ganges. Indian history, preserved in the Puranas, centers from this time onward in the modern province of Magadha. From here royal influence was exercised across the plains to the Indus River region. Though there were other princely families governing India, only one dynastic line exercised supreme authority. Political disintegration in India did not develop until centuries later. Following is the official account of the Dynasty of Somadhi (beginning 1649) which was overthrown at the time of the Assyrian invasion in 660. It is taken from the Vayu Purana, edited by Rajendralala Mitra, Calcutta, 1888. (Eggermont, "Chronology of Asoka", pp. 217-218).

Royal House of Somadhi

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Somadhi

58

1649-1591

Srutasruvas

64

1591-1527

Ayutayus

26

1527-1501

Niramitra

100

1501-1401

Sukrtta

56

1401-1345

Vrhatkarman

23

1345-1322

Senajit

23

1322-1299

Srutamjaya

40

1299-1259

Nrpa

35

1259-1224

Suci

58

1224-1166

Ksema

28

1166-1138

Bhuvata

64

1138-1074

5

1074-1069

Nrpati

58

1069-1011

Suvrata

38 (or 28)

1011- 973 (1011- 983)

Drdhasena

48 (or 58)

973- 925 (983- 925)

Sumati

35

925- 890

Sucala

22

890- 868

Sunetra

40

868- 828

Satyajit

83

828- 745

Virajit

35

745- 710

Arinjaya

50

710- 660

Dharmanetra

In Indian literature other spellings and occasional variations in reigns are used. But the preceding is the official register and is in perfect harmony with parallel events elsewhere in the world. The extra long reign of Niramitra is not out of keeping with the contemporary Old Testament world in which men were living to be 120. Consequent to the Assyrian invasion a change of power occurred in Magadha in 660. The Pradyota regime came to prominence. Its kings ruled to the time of the death of Cambyses in Persia.

Pradyota Dynasty in Magadha

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Pradyota

23

660-637

Palaka

24

637-613

Visakhayupa

50

613-563

Ajaka

21

563-542

Varttivarddhana

20

542-522

At this juncture the Saisunagas replaced the Pradyota family. The Saisunagas received their name from the fourth and most famous king. Dynasty of the Saisunagas in Magadha

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Bimbisara

28

522-494

Ajatasatru

25

494-469

Udayin

33

469-436

Sisunaga

40

436-396

Kakavarna

36

396-360

The Saisunagas in Indian literature were so famous that the length of the dynasty became artificially inflated with contemporary reigns to suit the heroic deeds of its kings. Dr. Eggermont had no need to restore the two dynasties preceding the Saisunagas. His efforts were spent primarily on the kings between the end of the Pradyotas (in 522) and the reign of Asoka. Any questions arising on this period should be directly referred to his aforementioned study published by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. The next dynasty after 360 was composed of one king -- The Nanda, or, in Indian literature, Mahanandin. His actual length of reign was only 43 years -- 360-317. The year 317 is the direct link between India and Greek history. At that date Eudamos and Peithon departed from the Panjab and Sindh, whereupon Candagutta occupied the Indus. The Mauryas ruled for 131 years. Dr. P.H.L. Eggermont proves in his book that the date for the commencement of this dynasty is not 321, as long assumed, but 317, a restoration which makes Indian history harmonious with all contemporary records. Dynasty of the Mauryas to Asoka

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Candagutta (Chandragupta)

24

317-293

Bindusara

25

293-268

Asoka

29

268-239

Dasaratha

8

239-231

Samprati

10

231-221

Salisuka

13

221-208

Somasarman

7

208-201

Satadhanvan

8

201-193

Brhadratha

7

193-186

(See Eggermont's reconstruction in Persica, No. II, 1965-1966, "New Notes on Asoka and His Successors".) The year 186 marks the commencement of the Sunga Era, from which point succeeding dynasties may be accurately dated. For a complete list of later ruling houses consult volume I of Stokvis' "Manuel D'Histoire", p. 237.

Scythia and the History of Japan The vast reaches of Scythia were famous in antiquity. Within its borders lived numerous unrelated tribes. Anciently the word Scythia (or Sacae) was applied to a people living in that region in the Caucasus, (Jeremiah 51:27). This area bore the name "Land of the Rising Sun." But in the process of time the name Scythia passed to other tribes and peoples who dwelt in, or migrated through, the land of Scythia. Hence the Greek writers included in Scythia the Eastern Slavic people who migrated from Asia Minor into Eurasia. Diodorus Siculus refers to their queen as "Zarina" -- Russian feminine for Czar (Book II, 34, 3). Other writers, like Paul the apostle, divided the world into Greek and Jew, Barbarian and Scythian (Colossians 3:11) -- applying the name Scythian to that people which came out of the east and migrated into Western Europe and the British Isles. The modern word Scot is, in fact, merely a corruption of the old Greek Scythian. Herodotus describes the Eastern Scythians. To him they were unusual people, lacking body hair, with noticeably rounded face and chin, flat-nosed, speaking a peculiar language and wearing a distinctive costume (Melpomene, 23). According to Herodotus the Scythians of antiquity were allied with the Assyrians during most of the last century of Assyrian dominion. Semiramis III -- famous for her marital relations with the "kings of the earth" -- especially prized her relationship with these Scythians. The alliance between the two royal families endured long after the Assyrian "Queen of Heaven" died. In 612 the Medes and Babylonians were besieging Nineveh. Onto the scene came Scythian troops from the region of Bactria to lift the siege. The Medes, sensing what would happen if Assyria were to recover strength, submitted terms to the Scythians in exchange for breaking their alliance with Assyria. They were accepted. Nineveh fell. But the agreement cost the Medes control of much of Upper Asia for 28 bleak years. (Herodotus, Clio. 106). At the end of that period Media and Scythia came to blows. Scythian ravages were more than the Medes could take. The Medes were victorious. The Scythians withdrew to far Asia. The Parsees of India have preserved several traditions of these

events. (The Parsees are Persian immigrants living in India.) In their sacred literature references to a famous prince Zoroaster II -- a "son of heaven" -- are found. He came to royal prominence in 660, following defeat in India of his mother, the "Queen of Heaven." Zoroaster means "seed of Ishtar." He spread the religion of sun-worship throughout the east. The Parsees -- and scholars ever since -- have puzzled how Zoroaster II could have exercised such influence and yet not be a king of Media or Persia They overlooked Scythia. In Parsee tradition Zoroaster lost his life in a war in Media in the year 584-583 (see "Ency. Amer.", art. "Zoroaster"). Is there any Oriental nation, at least in part Scythian, with a tradition of a "son of Heaven" who came to the throne in 660, who reigned to about 584, who extended his rule from west to east, whose mother was a "goddess" and a queen, in whose land sun-worship spread? Was Zoroaster II known under another name in the Far East? Absolutely! In Japan. The Japanese royal throne, according to the "Nihonji", a book of traditional and sacred history, was founded in 660. Its first emperor is assigned 76 years, to 584. He was a "son of Heaven;" his mother a "goddess" and a queen. In the traditions of the Nihonji it is reported of him that he said: "Now I have heard ... that in the East there is a fair land encircled on all sides by blue mountains .... I think that this land will undoubtedly be suitable for the extension of the Heavenly task" -- that is, world conquest -- "so that its glory should fill the universe" (p. 110 of "Nihonji", trans. by W. G. Aston). The Nihonji continues: "In that year, in winter, ... the Emperor in person led the Imperial Princes and a naval force on an expedition against the East" (page 111). In Chinese history we find the following quote: "The barbarians invaded the territory of the Marquis of Wei I Kong in 660 B.C. The Marquis gave them battle in the marsh of Yug." The Chinese were defeated and the barbarians passed on to the east. ("Cults and Legends of Ancient Iran and China", Sir. J. C. Coyajee, p. 47.) The Japanese, according to their tradition, were led to their isles by a symbolic three-legged sun-crow. In Pamphylia and Lycia, in Scythian-dominated Asia Minor, coins have been found which bear the rare figures of three-legged birds in various forms. ("La Migration des Symboles", by Comte Goblet d'Alviella, page 222 of 1891 edition.) Compare this symbol with the Biblical "wings of a great eagle" (Exodus 19:4). Here are coincidences that cannot be explained unless Scythian tribes migrated to Japan under the authority of a prince who was a son of the Assyrian "Queen of Heaven." Had historians been willing to restore Assyrian history and Semiramis III to the proper place in history, had they been willing to credit the chronological framework of Japanese history, the mystery of the Scythians, of Togarmah and other peoples of North Asia would have vanished. Of course there are legends and apparent contradictions in Japanese historical literature. But they do not alter the essential facts of history around which the legends were later woven. Historians carelessly reject most early Japanese records on the unprovable assumption that their history could not have been recorded prior to the adoption of the Chinese art of writing. Overlooked is the fact that in Scythia they were literate long before adopting Chinese culture in the east. The Japanese Imperial family is found in most thorough histories of that nation and need not be included here. One note of caution,

however. It has become all too common for historians to criticise freely what they do not want to believe. Because the early Japanese rulers appear to have governed unusually long -- 76 years, 36, 38, 35, 83, 102, 76, 57, 60, 68, etc. (but much shorter later) -- the early period is discounted. Yet Chinese sources of the same period refer to the Japanese as especially longlived people in the centuries immediately following their arrival to the isles. Also, the sons who succeeded to the throne were often not the eldest. "Primogeniture was evidently not recognized in Japan at the time ...", writes Aston on page 110, note 1, in "Nihonji". The names of Japanese emperors, by which they are known in history, are given to them after death. The first emperor received the posthumous name Jimmu Tenno -- signifying "divine valour." (For further references see the "History of the Empire of Japan", compiled and translated for the Imperial Japanese Commission of the world's Columbian Exposition, 1893.)

History of China Everyone owes a great deal of respect to the Chinese nation for being the only people whose chronological records have been preserved without need of restoration from the time of Babel till now. The history of the Chinese nation is found in the Shoo King, which means literally the "Canon of History." China naturally has had her literary critics who have sought to reinterpret the ancient records. Witness the "Bamboo Annals". But their attempts have been consistently rejected as unwarranted opposition to the traditional history of the "Shoo King". Only China's unusual reverence for tradition -- and superstition -- could have preserved the framework of history for more than 4,200 years: True, some of the events are legendary. Nevertheless, no other people's secular history is more accurate than China's. The chinese recorded their history in a form similar to the Hebrews' accounts in the books of the Old Testament. Each ruler is evaluated for his "moral conduct." His special contributions, good or bad, are simply evaluated. Such evaluations are, of course, subjective and may reflect later political thinking. But politics, in the modern western sense, was unknown in China. The Chinese reckon the reigns of their rulers in calendar years commencing at approximately the winter solstice. In the earliest period it fell in what would have been the later weeks of January. (See page 99, vol. III, 1, of Legge's "Chinese Classics".) As centuries rolled by, the Chinese regnal year came to approximate a January-to-January year. Later still, the solstice dropped back into December. The following list of Chinese rulers is derived from Shoo King, translated by Legge in "Chinese Classics", III, 1, pp. 184-188. As the later history of China is recognized by all reputable scholars as valid, only the early portion is included in this Compendium. Late in Chinese historiography it became the practice to add to the list of early rulers the legendary names of heroes from before the flood. These late additions are manifestly invalid, for no nation without the Hebrew record had access to the information after Babel. The first man of whom Chinese sources speak is Yao, or Yaou. The traditional information about Yao is nebulous. When referring to the Mongols, the Arabian historians speak of Magog and Yagog. It is likely that the Yagog of Arabic tradition is the personage whom the Chinese

tradition knows as Yao. The results of a catastrophic flood were still apparent in Yao's day. "The deluge assailed the heavens, and in its vast expanse encompassed the mountains, and overtopped the hills ..." (Canon of Yao). In the lifetime of Yao a stranger named Shun came to power. The meaning of his name is obscure. Later legends found in the Shoo King attempt to create Shun a native Chinese hero. But the earliest records (some found in the Bamboo Annals) make it clear he was a black foreigner. His mother was "Queen of the West land;" his father was Kusou, or Chusou -- Cush. From Babylonian traditions we learn that Cush and Nimrod shared jointly in the government together until Nimrod displaced his father. In Chinese records, as in Genesis, only Shun (Nimrod) appears -- for he was certainly the mainspring of the rebellion. Shun reigned but 50 years after Babel over the Chinese people 2254-2204. Thereafter, through migration, the Chinese appear to have gained independence. A native Chinese family came to power in 2204, known in modern parlance as the Hsia Dynasty. It governed 439 years -2204-1765. (Some authors incorrectly pre-date these years into the December of the preceding year.) Kings of Hsia Dynasty 2204-1765

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Yu

8

2204-2196

Ch'i

9

2196-2187

T'ai K'ang

29

2187-2158

Chung K'ang

13

2158-2145

Hsiang

27

2145-2118

Hong-Yi, a usurper

2118

Han Cho, another usurper, assassinates Hong-Yi

40

2118-2078

Shao K'ang

22

2078-2056

Ch'u

17

2056-2039

Huai

26

2039-2013

Mang

18

2013-1995

Hsieh

16

1995-1979

Pu Chiang

59

1979-1920

Chiung

21

1920-1899

Chin

21

1899-1878

K'ung Chia

31

1878-1847

Kao

11

1847-1836

Fa

19

1836-1817

Chieh Kuei

52

1817-1765

Shang (or Yin) Dynasty (1765-1121) Under first king of this dynasty the year was made to begin at new moon nearest winter solstice. Ch'en T'ang

13

1765-1752

In his reign China suffered from seven years of famine, shortly before that of Egypt (Jackson's "Chronology of Most Ancient Nations", vol. II, 455). T'ai Chia

33

1752-1719

Wu Ting

29

1719-1690

T'ai Keng

25

1690-1665

Hsiao Chia

17

1665-1648

Yung Chi

12

1648-1636

T'ai Mou

75

1636-1561

Chung Ting

13

1561-1548

Wai Jen

15

1548-1533

9

1533-1524

Tsu Yi

19

1524-1505

Tsu Hsin

16

1505-1489

Wu Chia

25

1489-1464

Tsu Ting

32

1464-1432

Nan Keng

25

1432-1407

Yang Chia

7

1407-1400

P'an Keng

28

1400-1372

Hsiao Hsin

21

1372-1351

Hsiao Yi

28

1351-1323

Wu Ting

59

1323-1264

Ho Tan Chia

Tsu Keng

7

1264-1257

Tsu Chia

33

1257-1224

Lin Hsin

6

1224-1218

Keng Ting

21

1218-1197

Wu Yi

4

1197-1193

T'ai Ting

3

1193-1190

Ti Yi

37

1190-1153

Ti Hsin (Chou)

32

1153-1121

Wu Fa

7

1121-1114

Ch'eng

37

1114-1077

K'ang Chao Chao H'ia

26 51

1077-1051 1051-1000

Mu Man

55

1000- 945

Chou Dynasty (1121-256)

This king was unusually fond of horses and chariots. He lived during the time of King Solomon who exported horses and chariots throughout the world. Kung I Hu

12

945-933

I Hsi

25

933-908

Hsiao P'ih

15

908-893

I Sieh

16

893-877

Li Hu

51

877-826

Hsuan Tsing

46

826-780

Yu Kung Nieh

11

780-769

P'ing Hsuang Chiu

51

769-718

Huan Lin

23

718-695

Chuang T'o

15

695-680

Hsi Hu Ch'i

5

680-675

Hui Lang

25

675-650

Hsiang Ching

33

650-618

(from this reign on the years in this chart are reckoned as corresponding to Roman years, January through December) Ch'ing Jen K'uang

6

617-612

K'uang Pan

6

611-606

Ting Yu

21

605-585

Chien I

14

584-571

Ling Hsieh Sin

27

570-544

Ching Kewi

25

543-519

Ching Ch'ih

44

518-475

7

474-468

Chen Ting Chiai

28

467-440

K'ao Wei

15

439-425

Wei Lieh Wu

24

424-401

An Chiao

26

400-375

Lieh Hsi

7

374-368

48

367-320

6

319-314

58

313-256

Yuan Jen

Hsien Pien Shen Ching Ting Nan Yen

A list of succeeding dynasties may be found summarized in "The Year Names of China and Japan", by P. M. Susuki. A simple, though uncritical, outline of each emperor's reign is preserved in John Jackson's "Chronology of Most Ancient Nations". Few modern writers cover the earliest period (except Legge's original translation of the Shoo King in the "Chinese Classics"). If described at all, China's earliest ages are unfortunately limited to studies of potsherds and bronze statuary!

CHAPTER SIXTEEN Asia Minor and the West The journeys of the apostle Paul have made Asia Minor an important area of New Testament studies. In apostolic times the region was under Roman dominion. The inhabitants were primarily Greek, with a heavy influx of Jews into the cities of the southeastern provinces. Scattered remnants of earlier peoples existed, primarily Armenians. Today the Turk inhabits Asia Minor. But neither Turk nor Greek were the original peoples of the plains and mountains of Anatolia. Until the advent of archaeology, the history of Asia Minor was almost unknown before the Greek period. Classical writers indeed preserved marvelous tales of the region -- of the Golden Fleece -- of the Trojan War (there were really three wars!) -- of King Midas -- of Amazons -of the Phrygians who later migrated into Europe.

Modern Mythology The Greeks turned the facts of Anatolia's history into myths. Unfortunately the archaeologist and the modern historian, discarding both Greek myth and historical fact, have created new and more fabulous myths. Scholars today would have us believe, for example, that most of Asia Minor and the Greek world went through five long centuries of darkness -- "Dark Ages" is the academic label used. The early civilizations of Crete, of Greece, Cyprus and Asia Minor snuffed out for centuries -- only to suddenly reappear in full bloom 500 years later. Historians label the early civilization in the Aegean world "Mycenaean" after the site of ancient Mycenae in Greece. This civilization is assumed to have perished during the twelfth century before the birth of Jesus. Not until the seventh century does the curtain of history lift with clarity again -- according to the modern myth: Such an interpretation of history is absurd. This was long ago admitted in a publication of the Cambridge University Press: "Memphis and Mscenae", by Cecil Torr. Torr wrote on page 69: "For example, the Greek coins and gems of about 700 to 600 resemble the Mycenaean gems so closely, that any judge of art would be prepared to place the Mycenaean age immediately before 700." Not before 1200 as is done today: In Asia Minor the same absurdity exists in modern textbooks. A great Anatolian empire -- the Hatti -- is said to have perished shortly after 1200. Its greatest heyday is marked by an utter paucity of monuments. Yet in the five following centuries -- after the Empire (supposedly) perished -- the Hatti kings "left a wealth of monuments, reliefs, steles, rock carvings, most of them covered with the hieroglyphic script, in striking contrast with the relatively few monuments that have survived from Imperial times." ("Hittite Art", by Maurice Vieyra, page 7.) Of course, the only reason for a 500-year blank is that Asia Minor and Aegean history have been conformed to the misplaced chronology of Egypt. Once the history of Egypt and Mesopotamla is restored in proper historical setting, the gaps in Asia Minor and Greece disappear.

Beginnings of History Asia Minor first appears in Biblical history in the days of Abram. In Genesis 14:1 "Tidal king of Goiim" is named as ruler of Asia Minor. "Goiim" is the Hebrew word for "Nations." The history of ancient Asia Minor is the story of continuous attempts to unite the warring nations of the region into a loose confederacy. In earliest days Tidal ruled this confederacy. But the nations of Asia Minor were themselves part of a greater empire composed of kings of Shinar, Elam and Assyria. The Jewish historian Josephus describes this vast empire in "Antiquities", I, ix. "At this time, when the Assyrians had the dominion over Asia, the people of Sodom were in a flourishing condition .... the Assyrians made war upon them; and, dividing their army into four parts, fought against them. Now every part of the army had its own commander; and when the battle was joined, the Assyrians were conquerors; and imposed tribute on the kings of the Sodomites, who submitted to this slavery twelve years ... but on the thirteenth year they rebelled, and then the army of the Assyrians came upon them, under their commanders Amraphel, Arioch, Chodorlaomer, and Tidal. These kings had laid waste all Syria, and overthrown the offspring of the giants ...." Tidal was therefore an Assyrian king and general ruling over several different nations and peoples. So famous was Tidal that many later kings took the same name in Asia Minor. Historians, transliterating late cuneiform inscriptions, spell the name Tudhaliya(s) -- as, in similar fashion, they spell Tiglathpileser Tukulti-apil-Esarra. In the three succeeding centuries after the battle of Genesis 14, little is known of Asia Minor. The curtain lifts during the reign of Sargon "the Great" of Akkad. Assyrians from Mesopotamia continually migrated into Asia Minor, where they set up numerous trading posts. The Akkadian kings claim to have conquered the region. A vast collection of cuneiform tablets from this and later periods have been recovered by archaeologists. They exhibit an unusual affiliation between native rulers and Assyrian traders. An affiliation inexplicable apart from Josephus' statement that Assyrians settled and ruled Anatolia in Abram's day. So prominent were the Assyrians in Asia Minor that Sylax, the author of "Periplus" (he lived about 550), wrote of this region: "The coast of the Black Sea ... is called Assyria" (p. 261 of Perrot and Chipiez' "History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria and Asia Minor", vol. II). Assyrian kings and traders were only one of the early people to inhabit Asia Minor. Egyptian and Mesopotamian records reveal it was also the land of Meshech and Tubal (spelled Musku and Tabal in Assyrian documents), and of Armenians and Lydians. Along the coasts dwelled outposts of the children of Javan. Greek traditions speak of Amazons and Phrygians. Cappadocia, in eastern Anatolia, was a dwelling place of the children of Togarmah (Tegarma or Tilgarimmu). But how did the name "Hittite" become associated with this land of many races? Modern historians, remember, use the words "Hittite" or "Hatti" or "Chatti" to designate any or all of the diverse peoples who dwelled in Asia Minor or North Syria. Even the Bible uses similar expressions. Solomon traded with the "king of the Hittites," who dwelt in the mountainous lands north of the Arameans (I Kings 10:29).

The true "Hittite" people were children of Canaan. Canaan was the father of Heth, the Hittite. The land of the Hittites in the days of Joshua, and of the judges who followed, extended north of Palestine through Syria to the Euphrates (Judges 1:26). After the Israelite conquest of Palestine, many Hittites migrated northward through Syria into Anatolia. So famous were these people, so different from other races, that they gave their name to the whole wide regions to which they migrated. As late as the Chaldean Empire of Nebuchadnezzar the name Hatti, or Chatti, was applied to the vast area of Syria-Palestine and to part of eastern Asia Minor. In Egyptian monuments the original Canaanite Hittites were portrayed with singularly striking characteristics. They were depicted with unusually prominent noses, "somewhat broad, with lips full, the cheek-bones high, the eyebrows fairly prominent, the forehead receding like the chin, and the face hairless." "The hair is black, the eyes dark brown." ("The Races of the Old Testament", by A. H Sayce, page 133.) They were a brachycephalic or even hyperbrachycephalic people. The skin color varied from brown to yellowish and reddish. Greek tradition insists the people were a warlike, rude people, known for their frenzied dances and music. This racial type has become so characteristic a part of the Armenoid racial stock of Anatolia, the Caucasus and Syria, that one must conclude the Hittites heavily intermarried with their Armenian and Aramaic neighbors.

The Proof of Language The true Armenians are sons of Hul, son of Aram (compare Genesis 10:23 with Josephus). Armenian is an Indo-European language. Indo-European languages are divided into two groups by scholars. It had long been assumed that the Armenian belonged to the Eastern or satem group, primarily because of vocabulary. Then the ancient language of the Hittites was discovered. It proved to belong to the Western or centum group, to which the German, Celtic, Latin and Greek belonged. Then scholars began to recognize that this ancient language, rediscovered after 2000 years, bears a striking resemblance to Armenian. The Armenian language has been found to share so many grammatical and lexical elements with the ancient language of the Hittites that scholars have been forced to the conclusion that Armenian developed from the Hittite-Luwian dialects of Lesser Armenia west of the Upper Euphrates. (See W. M. Austin's "Is Armenian an Anatolian Language?" in "Language", 18 (1942), 22 ff.) Hittite and Armenian, for instance, are characterized by lack of grammatical gender. So many other phenomena were found to be exhibited by both groups that scholars now wonder why they did not see the relationship before. The Hittite language, a member of the "centum" group of Indo-European languages, lives on today in Armenian. Over the centuries the Armenian, of course, has acquired a very large number of its vocabulary words from neighboring languages. So many, in fact, that its original relationship with the Western or "centum" group of Indo-European languages has been obscured. An excellent summary of the relationship of Armenian and Hittite is found in the revised edition of Cambridge Ancient History, vol. I, chapter iv, part iii "The Indo-Hittite Family," by Albright and Lambdin.

The Proof of Race The Armenians are the only people who have preserved the well-known "Armenoid" form of the ancient Hittite crania. Admittedly continuity of physical type and language is not necessarily related. But if both language and racial characteristics are found among two peoples who still live in almost the same geographic region, but separated by centuries of time, the proof becomes striking. Especially when it is considered that no other group of people in ancient times had the same racial strains. The original cradle of the Armenian nationality and culture is precisely that area characterized by the greatest use of hieroglyphic script. In fact the latest Hittite inscriptions can be proved to overlap the known presence of Armenians in the same region (in the inscriptions of Darius Hystaspes) by a number of centuries, once the ancient history of the Hittites is properly restored. The use of the modern Armenian alphabet begins where ancient Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions cease! Because of early predominance of population and war-like characteristics, the fame of the ancient Hittite name spread. The rulers of Asia Minor, once known as "kings of nations" (in Abraham's day), because of the many different peoples who populated the region, came to be called "kings of the Hittites" by Solomon's time. The Armenians ceased to be referred to under their national name and were included among the Hittites (spelled also Kheta, Chatti, or Hatti) by distant nations. In Syria and Asia Minor, as time passed, the Arameans and Armenians gradually gained predominance over their Hittite neighbors and absorbed them. The Hittites disappeared as a separate racial stock and their name was totally lost. The names Aramean and Armenian replaced that of Hittite. The Hebrew root "heth" (from whence Hittite is derived) signifies "warrior." The Canaanite Hittites were famous warriors. As the Assyrians were a war-making nation, the world also attached the name "Chatti" -- meaning "warrior" or "men of war" -- to them when they anciently migrated to the Halys River basin in Asia Minor. Thus Assyrians, like Armenians, in Anatolia also came to bear the name "Chatti." Ninevite kings marched their armies through Anatolia to aid Troy in the First Trojan War shortly before the rise of the Canaanite Hittites to power. Assyrian colonists continued to live in Asia Minor for centuries thereafter. Sardanapallus, king of Assyria, "sent his three sons and two daughters together with much of his treasure to Paphlagonia (Asia Minor) to the governor Cotta ..." (Diodorus II, 26,8). It was an Assyrian district. For the same reason Assyrians were "removed to the land between Paphlagonia and Pontus" after the collapse of Nineveh (Diodorus II, 43,6). After the fall of Troy in 677 the Assyrians commenced migration out of Anatolia northwest up the Danube into Europe. Roman annals within a few centuries were filled with the name Chatti, or Hatti, which later became changed to Hesse. (See "Encyclopaedia Britannica" article "Germany".) The warlike proclivity of the Hessians through the Roman period and the Middle Ages, is undoubtedly due to some absorption of Hittite stock.

The history of the Hittites of Asia Minor may now be restored in proper setting. First, it should be remembered that modern textbook writers are in utter confusion chronologically. They speak of an "Old Kingdom" and a "New Empire," sometimes of a "Middle Kingdom." Rulers of the "Old Kingdom" were about 750 years too early, the latter about 600! The reason for this preposterous restoration of central Anatolian history is this. "Old Kingdom" rulers are known to parallel the close of the Hammurabi Dynasty of Babylon. As Hammurabi is often placed about 750 years too early in history, these kings of Hatti are likewise misplaced by that figure. The late kings of the supposed "New Empire" are known to be contemporary with Ramesses the Great of Dynasty XIX of Egypt. Since this period of Egyptian history is misplaced about 600 years. the kings of the "New Empire" are likewise placed six centuries too early. Babylonian and Egyptian archives prove there was only one Empire period in Central Anatolia. That more than one king at a time was on occasion ruling Hatti is confirmed by the documents: "Formerly Labarnas was king: and then his sons, his brothers, his connections by marriage and his blood-relations were united." ("The Hittites", by O. R. Gurney, page 21.) Most of these were set over major cities in the realm -- such as Carchemish. For the Great Kings of Hatti king lists exist, but no date lists. A restoration can provide only synchronisms with other nations. In the following chart parallel rulers in other lands are listed and dated to indicate synchronisms. The chart begins with kings of the so-called "Old" and "Middle Kingdom" and continues with the "New Empire" rulers who are known through correspondence as contemporary with the kings of Dynasty XIII and XIX of Thebes. (In spelling the following names of Hatti kings, the final "s" is used, though in numerous documents the letter is often dropped or sounded as an "sh.") Contemporary Kings of Egypt

Great Kings of Hatti

History from Contemporary Documents

Thutmose III

Labarnas (I), founder of new dynasty

Contemporary of Solomon

Amenhotpe II Thutmose IV

Hattusilis (I), son Mursilis I, adopted son

Amenhotpe III

Akhenaten

Hantilis (I), brother-in-law

Attacks and destroys Aleppo. Conquers Babylon at end of Samsu-ditana's reign (905-879). After returning home is assassinated. Arameans attack Hittite realm in south. Numerous disasters. Hurrians and Mitanni in Mesopotamia.

Zidantas (I) Ay

Ammunas, son

Rise of Medes (Mitanni)

Huzziyas (I) Telipinus, brother-in-law of Huzziyas

Hittites slowly revive and expand (see "Journal of Cuneiform Stud.", xi, 3, p. 73)

Alluwamnas, son in-law Hantilis (II) Piankhi

Zidantas (II)

Hittite fortunes continue to rise

Huzziyas II Tudhaliyas (II) Arnuwandas (I), a brother

Taharka

Suppiluliumas (I)

Seti I

Arnuwandas (II), son

Mursilis (II), brother Muwatallis, son Ramesses the Great

Urhi-Teshub, son

Hattusilis (III), uncle

Tudhaliyas (III). son

Expansion of Hittites as Assyrians decline and Troy falls; long struggle with Medes

Arnuwandas dies of plague after reigning a few months Plague and wide spread rebellions. Fought with Nebuchadnezzar against Ramesses at battle of "Kadesh" in his tenth year. Reigned jointly with brother and nephew. Signed treaty with Ramesses in latter's year 21. West in rebellion -struggle with

Lydia Arnuwandas (III). son

East in rebellion -expansion of Medo-Persians

Suppiluliumas (II), brother

Collapse of Hittite Empire as Persians conquer Asia Minor in 546

Notice the parallel between the events in column three and the Biblical history of the rise and fall of the Arameans. During the reign of Amenhotpe III and Mursilis I -- about 890 -- the Arameans rebelled and expanded under general Naaman. In their wars against Israel they feared the possibility that Israel would hire Egyptians and Hittites, to attack them. In II Kings 7:6 the Arameans, after hearing a noise of supernatural origin. are quoted as saying: "Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians. to come upon us." There are two known areas of contact from documents between these Hittite kings and Egypt and Babylon. Suppiluliumas, Mursilis, Muwatallis and Hattusilis are the known contemporaries of Ramesses the Great and his father Seti. This documented contact, including the account of the battle of Kadesh (Carchemish), determines the general dating of the late Hittite rulers. Muwatallis came to power about 616 since the first battle of Kadesh was fought in his tenth year. This was in the year 607-606, the date of the initial Egyptian struggle against Babylon and its allies. Egypt was momentarily victorious (see the restoration of Egyptian history for the period of Ramesses the Great). An earlier area of contact is established by documentary evidence for the reign of Mursilis I, conqueror of Aleppo and Babylon at the close of the reign of Ammisaduga. Since the Babylonian king can be accurately dated, the overthrow of Babylon by the Hittite king dates the period of the early Hittite rulers. It is then merely a matter of placing the generations in between. The known number of generations of Hittite rulers and the time between Ammisaduga and his Egyptian contemporary to the reign of Ramesses the Great agrees perfectly. The only question is the supposed parallelism between Suppiluliumas and Akhenaten and Tutankhamen. This parallelism is impossible. It arose from a false assumption. The Hittite documents of Suppiluliumas and his son mention two Egyptian rulers by name. But the names are not specific. Scholars have merely assumed that the Hittite names may refer to Akhenaten and his son. The names could just as well belong to other Egyptian kings -- in this instance to the period of the close of Dynasty XXV This is the only possible period to which the events could apply. The eighteenth dynasty, archaeologists assume, died out with the widow of Tutankhamen. This is untrue. The line of Akhenaten continued to rule to the time of Piankhi the Ethiopian. The only dynasty to cease to reign through the male line in Egypt was that of the Ethiopians at the end of Dynasty XXV. The Ethiopians were killed in battle or fled from the Assyrians. The successor dynasty was Saite, of the line of Necho, an Egyptian family appointed by the Assyrians. This line intermarried into the Ethiopian line to legitimize its reign in Egypt. It is this family that must have plotted the death of the son

of Suppiluliumas who was on his way to Egypt to become heir to the Ethiopian line in Egypt.

The Kingdom of Mitanni and the Hurrians In Mesopotamia, on the upper reaches of the Euphrates river, is a kingdom known as Mitanni in hieroglyphic and cuneiform records. This was the region in which the Median revolt occurred in 816. The history of the kingdom of Mitanni is, in fact, the history of the Medes and Midianites in the ninth and tenth centuries before the present era. In the following chart the kingdom of Mitanni is restored to its proper place in history. In column one are the kings of Egypt. Column two, center, contains the kings of Mitanni. The third column is devoted to excerpts of important contemporary history. No date lists of the early kings of Mitanni are known. Contemporary Kings of Egypt

Kings of Mitanni

History from Contemporary Sources

Thutmose I (1030-1017)

Suttarna I

Conquers city of Assur during Assyria's 50 years of decline (1041-991)

Thutmose II (1017-997)

Saussatar

Thutmose III (997-943)

Artatama I

Thutmose III asks for his daughter to wife.

Suttarna II

Amenhotpe III sought his daughter in marriage.

Artasura

Kingdom of Mitanni sundered.

Thutmose IV (918-909) Amenhotpe III (909-871)

Tusratta, son of Suttarna II Akhenaton (871-854)

Mittiwaza

Rise of Hurrian kingdom under Artatama II and Suttarna III. Mattiwaza became Hittite vassal. Assyria rules Mesopotamia under Assur-uballit.

The final comment in column three again demonstrates that Assyria and the Great Kings of Kheta or Hatti formed one vast empire far more extensive than modern historians realize.

Who Were the Hurrians? But who were the Hurrians who suddenly migrate from apparently nowhere to dwell in Mitanni on the borders of the Egyptian Empire in Asia? Of all the people known in the Middle East the "Hurrians," or "Harrians," are the most controversial. They should not be. Consider the facts of history. Tushratta (Tusratta) was the first Mitannian king of this era to claim the title "lord of the Hurrian land" as well as "lord of the Mitanni land." ("Journal of Cuneiform Studies", XI, 3, p. 67, column two.) Tushratta was a contemporary of Amenhotpe III. Is there any record of a people in the days of Amenhotpe III who came to dwell on the borders of the Empire of Egypt? There certainly is. The record has already been mentioned in this Compendium in connection with Akhenaten ("Huria" in Hittite) in the beginning of chapter eight. Here it is again: "The Ethiopians, removing from the River Indus, settled near Egypt." There are two branches of Ethiopians in the world. wrote Herodotus. Those who dwell in India, with straight or wavy hair; and those who dwell in Africa with frizzled hair ("Polymnia", sect. 20). The Indian Cushites. or Ethiopians, are Aryan-speaking. The leaders of the Hurrians, or Harrians. were Indo-Iranian or Aryan speaking. The Hurrians worshipped Indra, Varuna and various other gods of the Hindu pantheon. No such worship has ever been found among African tribes. No migration to Africa from the Indus is known. But the migration of Indo-Iranian people into Mesopotamia is well attested in history. Why, then, did Manetho, in the Book of Sothis, refer to "Egypt" as the neighborhood of the Ethiopian migration from the Indus? Because in the days of Amenhotpe III the Empire of Egypt extended to the Upper Euphrates. Literally dozens of Assyrian references speak of "Musri" -Egypt -- as that territory immediately west of the Upper Euphrates. See the annals of Tiglath-pileser I, for example. As late as the days of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar the city of Carchemish, on the Euphrates. was regarded as the fixed border of Egypt. That the Hurrians were Cushites is also clear from Egyptian annals which speak of "God's Land, Syria and Cush." The famous migration of Cushites into Mesopotamia during the reign of Amenhotpe had been preceded by Cushite migrations from the Persian highlands over a century before. They were the Kassu or Kassites under Gande, the first Kassite king. The Kassites worshipped Maruttash, a god of India. These Ethiopian incursions from the East were paralleled by Ethiopian conquests in Asia from Egypt under the Theban kings. The influence of the children of Cush in the ancient world has never been made plain before. It reveals why so many of the descendants of Aram and Lud, sons of Shem, show strong intermixture with dark races. In most of the Middle East, the population today has become light brown, not white, as a result of such mixture.

Phrygians and Hatti To turn to northwestern Anatolia. Historians have constructed from Greek annals an extensive kingdom in northwestern Asia Minor called Phrygia. Its influence is known to have extended over much of Anatolia at the very time Assyrian and Egyptian history speaks of the Empire of Hatti. "Phrygia" is a Greek word. The eleventh edition of the

"Encyclopaedia Britannica", article "Phrygia." provides its meaning: "Phrygia, the name of a large country in Asia Minor, inhabited by a race which the Greeks called Phryges, 'freemen'." The Phrygians -- or Freemen -- were said to have spoken "the original speech of mankind." They were known for their extensive wealth. It is said of one of their kings, Midas, that everything he touched turned to gold -figuratively, of course! They showed a high degree of artistic skill. After the Trojan War the region of Phrygia was utterly devastated by Cimmerians -- Greek for people of Gomer. The Phrygians gradually migrated into Europe. Because they came from the region ruled by the wild Cimmerian hordes, it was common to speak of the Phrygians also as Cimmerians. The Greek name Phryges was gradually changed to Phraggoi. When the Romans encountered them, they applied the Roman word for Freemen -- Franci -- Franks in English. Procopius, in his Roman history, called the Franks Phraggoi (III, 3, 1). They finally settled in France. Is it only a coincidence that the name of the capital of their new land is Paris -- the name of the famous Trojan or Phrygian hero Paris, son of Priam? The original region which the Greeks called Phrygia extended to the Hellespont, for the Phrygians at one time controlled the sea. This land was termed Wilusa or Uilusa in Hattic inscriptions. The Great Kings of Hatti were allied with the Phrygians of Wilusa -- a name changed in later Greek to Ilion, the plain of Troy. "In bygone times Labarnas, my ancestor, fought against the Arzawan Lands and the Land of Wilusa; he subdued them. Now after that, Arzawa became hostile ... but never did the Land of Wilusa secede from Hatti, but from afar they remained loyal to the kings of Hatti," declared the Treaty of Muwatallis, Great King of Hatti, with Alaksandus (Alexander) of Wilusa (Ilion, or early Phrygia). This union maintained itself even after both the Assyrians in the land of Hatti and the Phrygians were defeated at the fall of Troy in 677. The collapse of Phrygia and the decline of the Hittites east of the Halys River basin in 677 is confirmed by Herodotus. His words are: "... the Medes bent under the Persian yoke, after they had ruled over all Asia beyond the river Halys for the space of one hundred and twenty-eight years, excepting the interval of the Scythian dominion" ("Clio", 130). The Medes succumbed to Cyrus in 549. And 128 years before is 677 the date of the Fall of Troy and the defeat of the Hatti who were Trojan allies. There were no five centuries of darkness between the so-called "Hittite Empire" and the Medes. One followed the other. West of the Halys River the Phrygians are said by several classical writers to have been overrun in the succeeding year, 676, by the Cimmerians. In a sense the Phrygians and Assyrians in Hatti were one vast confederation. When these people journeyed into Europe they maintained the old league. The Romans recognized among the Franks, or Phraggoi, two groups: East and West Franks. The one German, the other French. The German tribe called East Frankish was the Chatti or Hessian tribe -the same as in ancient Anatolia. Could history repeat itself any more precisely? In reading any book on Asia Minor -- many are now being published -- always remember that it is common practice to apply the name "Hittite" to all peoples of Asia Minor. It properly belongs only to Canaanite Hittites, a wild and rude people who disappeared from the area after the fall of Persia.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN How Greek History Was Corrupted It is not generally admitted. But Homer, the famous epic poet of Greece, was mad. His "Iliad" and "Odyssey" -- recording the events surrounding the Greek struggles with Troy -- were written while Homer was demented. Homer was not merely an insane poet. He was also a mad historian. Through Homer Greek history was altered, with diabolical cleverness. Homer telescoped three Greek wars with Troy into one. Men and events five centuries apart are artificially joined together as if contemporary. Recent archaeological investigation at Troy reveals Homer's lie. There are three wars layers -- the first and last separated by about five centuries' (See C. W. Blegen's "Troy," in the revised edition of the "Cambridge Ancient History".) Little wonder Paul the apostle wrote of Homer -- and of Hesiod and the other demented poets: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying ..." (I Timothy 1:4).

Greeks Admit Homer Was Demented No poet in ancient Greece was ever considered worthy of special honor unless he was demented. Democritus "denies that any one can be a great poet, unless he is mad," wrote Cicero (Cicero, "Divin"., i, 80). Homer was therefore mad. Plato described the unusual kind of insanity that clutched the minds of Greece's great poet-historians and philosophers. In the "Phaedrus" Plato characterizes "poetic inspiration" as the "state of being possessed by the Muses" -- a kind of "madness, which, on entering a delicate and virgin soul, arouses and excites it to frenzy in odes and other kinds of poetry .... But he that is without the Muses' madness when he knocks at the doors of Poesy, fancying that art alone will make him a competent poet, -- he and his poetry, the poetry of sober sense, will never attain perfection, but will be eclipsed by the poetry of inspired madmen" (245 A). Again, in the "Laws" Plato wrote that "whenever a poet is enthroned on the tripod of the Muse, he is not in his right mind" (719 C). In "Ion" the Greek theory of "inspiration" is most thoroughly expressed: "It is not by art, but by being inspired and possessed, that all good epic poets produce their beautiful poems they are dancing, even so the melic poets are not in their right mind when they are composing their beautiful strains. On the contrary, when they have fallen under the spell of melody and metre, they are like inspired revellers, and on becoming possessed, -- even as the Maenads are possessed and not in their right senses ... the soul of the melic poets acts in like manner, as they themselves admit .... And what they say is true; for the poet ... cannot compose until he becomes inspired and out of his senses, with his mind no longer in him; but, so long as he is in possession of his senses, not one of them is capable of composing, or of uttering his oracular sayings" (533 E-534 D). In Biblical terms, Homer and all the famous Greek poet-historians were possessed of demons. It was not really the poets or philosophers who uttered the sayings, but the demon, masquerading as God, "who is the speaker, and it is THROUGH them that he is speaking to us,"

concluded the author of "Ion". The conclusion is absolutely clear. History has purposely been perverted by the diabolical influence of fallen spirits who seized the minds of poet-historians, such as Homer and Hesiod, and through them twisted the events of antiquity. Jesus Himself declared that Satan, the prince of demons, "deceiveth the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). One of Satan's clever artifices is manifest in the form of corrupted history! This diabolical plot to make God and His Word appear untrue has deceived the whole world.

The Plot Centers on Troy The final fall of Troy in 677 occurred at the close of the reign of Thuoris (694-677) of Egypt. Eusebius confused this Thuoris with the later queen Twosre and placed the event in her last year of reign. (See the restoration of Egyptian history in this Compendium.) The year 677 marked the rise of Media (according to Herodotus) to power in Asia Minor east of the Halys river. The third fall of Troy in 677 climaxed a ten-year siege of the city. A Greek victory had once before occurred -- about 504 years before, in 1181. Another war, ending in 1149 -- and to be discussed later -- is generally unreported in Greek annals, for it was a Greek defeat! Archaeology finds evidence of all three wars. Homer's epics deliberately associate the leaders and events of the third war with those of the first war. By so doing half of the history of ancient Greece was made to appear over five centuries too early. Events that transpired between 1181 and 677 were pushed back to the period 1685-1181. The same diabolical conspiracy that worked through Homer in Greece also worked through the priesthood of Egypt. Its dynasties were deliberately placed successively so that sections of Egyptian history appeared five centuries earlier. Similar diabolic manipulations occurred in Mesopotamia. When later Greek, Roman, and now modern critics and historians found Homer in apparent agreement with the altered Egyptian and Mesopotamian data, they never thought to question Homer or the Egyptian records. The conspiracy -- the deception -- was so thorough, so far superior to human ingenuity that the whole world has been deceived by it.

Homer and the Lydian Kings To perpetuate this deception -- for the critics and historians cannot admit they have been deceived -- we are told that Homer lived several centuries before 677, in fact, near the time of the first Greek war with Troy. If Homer lived at that early period, counter the critics, how could Homer have been responsible for a clever twisting of historical events that occurred long after he was dead? The answer is, Homer's own writings date his life to the time of Gyges, king of Lydia. Homer mentions "'the Gygaean lake,' so called from Gyges, king of Lydia" (J. S. Watson's footnote to Alexander Pope's translation). Before proceeding further, it is important to inset the kings of Lydia, from which the date of Homer may be determined. Herodotus is

absolutely correct in his list of late Lydian kings. Modern historians attempt arbitrarily to shorten the reigns of the Lydian monarchs. Following is a list of the last royal family -- the Mermnadae -- to rule Lydia to the time of Cyrus, king of Persia.

Mermnadae Kings of Lydia

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Gyges

38

716-678

Ardys

49

678-629

Sadyattes

12

629-617

Alyattes

57

617-560

Croesus

14

560-546

In 546 Sardis, the capital of Lydia, was overthrown. Prior to the Mermnadae, another line of kings governed Lydia -the Heraclidae. Their rule lasted 22 generations during 505 years -1221-716 (Herodotus, I, 7). The history of the kingdom of Lydia, settled heavily by the children of Lud, son of Shem, has been lost. All that has been preserved are a few fragments of Xanthus' history of his nation.

Restoring Greek History The modern interpretation of ancient Grecian civilization is a paradox. Strange though it may seem, historians today reject the valid history of Greece as error and take for granted the Homeric fable of the Trojan War! It is time history students were told why the traditional histories of Athens, of Sparta, Sicyon and Corinth have been rejected -- and why confusion rules the dates of the Trojan War. This kind of twisted thinking took its rise in the German literary criticism of the eighteenth century. In the German schools all antiquity was rejected in total as fabulous. None of the ancients knew how to write, the critics assumed. And oral tradition was at best a weak link. Within a century the historians, trained in this literary atmosphere, began to assume the same rationalist explanations of the past. With no history left by which their speculations could be judged, the historians were free -so they thought -- to reconstruct the Aegean world. Even the Trojan War was called into question as fabulous. It barely passed muster. But what the historians never thought to query was the general date of the last Trojan War. The literary critics wanted to believe in the early dating of the war with Troy to make it appear as folklore. Historians, newly entering the critical field, accepted as valid the literary critics' supposition of one early Trojan War. It never occurred to them that the period of the last war over Troy had been confused with the first war and the contemporary kings of Argos and Mycenae. Once the dates of the three major Trojan Wars are determined. the problems in Greek history vanish.

Kings of Corinth

The chronological history of Greece commences later than the Tower of Babel. Hence it is necessary to begin with more recent times and build up the history of early Greece to its beginning. The starting point will be the city-state Corinth, whose dates will be immediately confirmed by those of Athens. The kings of Corinth ruled for 323 years. They were followed by a constitutional oligarchy for 90 years, then by the Tyranny of the Cypselidae. The dates of the Cypselidae are determined from nearly contemporary sources. It should be noted that late traditional dating in the Greek world was made to conform to the Olympiads, which began at the summer solstice. The following lists may therefore generally be considered June-to-June calendar years. The rule of the Cypselidae Tyranny lasted 73 and 1/2 years, according to Aristotle ("Politics", 1315b). It dates from 656 (June) to 583 (December). The founder of the tyranny, Cypselus, reigned altogether 30 years -- 656-626. According to Eusebius, however, he associated his son Periander with him in the government in 628, after 28 years. Periander, according to Aristotle, ruled altogether 44 years until his death in 584. The date of the death of the tyrant Periander is given by Diogenes Laertius in "Periandros". Laertius, quoting Sosikrates, places it at the end of Olympiad 48, 4, immediately before Olymplad 49, 1. As the Olympiads commenced in 776, the 48th Olympiad ended at the summer solstice in 584. (Each Olympiad consists of 4 years.) The last of the Corinthian tyrants was Psammetichus, the brother or nephew of Periander. He ruled three years according to Aristotle -586-583 (December to December). Psammetichus came to the government SIX MONTHS AFTER Periander had completed his 40th year (reckoned from the death of Cypselus in 626), or his 42nd year (reckoned from the beginning of his reign in 628). The Armenian version of Eusebius assigns to Periander 43 years, including the calendar year in which Psammetichus came to the government. The commencement of the Corinthian Tyranny by Cypselus in 656 marked the overthrow of the Constitutional Oligarchy. The Constitution lasted altogether 90 years -- 746-656. In the year 746 the last of the early kings of Corinth was overthrown. The revolt ended 323 years of kingship. The following chart lists the kings of Corinth from the beginning of their rule in 1069 to the revolt of 746. The significance of the year 1069 will be discussed under the history of Athens. Kings of Corinth

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Aletes

35

1069-1034

Ixion

37

1034- 997

Agelaus

37

997- 960

Prymnus

34 (or 35)

960- 926 (960- 925)

Bacchis

36 (or 35)

926- 890 (925- 890)

Agelas

30

890- 860

Eudemus

25

860- 835

Aristomedes

35

835- 800

Agemon

16

800- 784

Alexander

25

784- 759

Telestes

12

759- 747

Automenes

1

747- 746

The Constitution

90

746- 656

The Tyranny

73 1/2

656- 583

The History of Athens Athens was for centuries, as it is today, the chief city of Greece. Its early history focuses on the year 1069 when an Athenian victory combined with a great earthquake to rekindle the myth of the "fall of Atlantis." Modern writers reject Athens' early history altogether of course, they have never disproved it. Their only argument is the falacious assumption that the Greeks could not have known their own history! The following chart gives the complete framework of Athenian history which has been preserved correctly from Castor, the historian of Rhodes, in the Eusebian Chronicles. Athenian history commences with the founding of the city by Cecrops in 1556. Kings of Athens

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Cecrops

50

1556-1506

Cranaus

9

1506-1497

Amphictyon

10

1497-1487

Erecthonius

50

1487-1437

Pandion I

40

1437-1397

Erechtheus

50

1397-1347

Cecrops II

40

1347-1307

Pandion II

25

1307-1282

Aegaeus

48

1282-1234

Theseus

30

1234-1204

Menestheus

23

1204-1181

(Eusebius dates the fall of Troy in the First Trojan War to the year 1181, just before the summer solstice. Immediately after the war

Menestheus was murdered at the Isle of Melus, before he was able to return to Athens.) Demophon

33

1181-1148

Oxyntes

12

1148-1136

Aphidas

1

1136-1135

Thymoetes

8

1135-1127

Melanthus

37

1127-1090

Codrus

21

1090-1069

Codrus, the last Athenian king, perished in a great war in 1069. Though she lost her king, Athens triumphed over her foes. It was in this very year -- 1069 -- that Athen's enemies turned the rule of Corinth over to Aletes. Who they were will be noted shortly. To honor the fallen king, Athenians agreed that no other man in after days should have the honor of that office. Thereafter Athenian rulers assumed the title of Archon. Until 753 the Archons held office throughout their lifetime. The Perpetual Archons are listed next. Perpetual Archons of Athens

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Medon, son of Codrus

20

1069-1049

Acastus

36

1049-1013

Archippus

19

1013- 994

Thersippus

41

994- 953

Phorbas

31

953- 922

Megacles

30

922- 892

Diognetus

28

892- 864

Pherecles

19

864- 845

Ariphron

20

845- 825

Thespieus

27

825- 798

Agamestor

20

798- 778

Aeschylus

23

778- 755

Alcmaeon

2

755- 753

In 753 the Perpetual Archons were replaced by Dicennial Archons. That is, each held the office for 10 years. The seven Dicennial Archons of Athens were Charops, Aesimides, Clidicus, Hippomenes, Leocrates, Apsander, Eryxias. Their rule covered a period of 70 years -- 753-683.

In 683 the government of the Athenians -- famous for their democracy -passed into the hands of Annual Archons, the first of whom was Creon. This date is fixed by numerous evidences. See Clinton's "Fasti Hellenici", I, 182.

The History of Sicyon Athens was not the oldest city in Greece. That honor goes to Sicyon, a city located near Corinth. Interestingly enough, Sicyon ceased to be an important city during the flowering of Corinth, beginning in 1069. When Corinth became subject to internal strife during the reign of Periander, Sicyon again rose to prominence under the Tyranny of Clisthenes. It quickly achieved a high degree of prosperity and fame. The ancient city-state of Sicyon lasted 1000 years, according to Apollodorus and others. Its prominence blanketed the millennium from 2063 to 1063. That the figure should be exactly 1000 years has troubled many a historian. Yet that is the plain record of history. When will men learn that the destinies of men and of cities and nations are in the hands of God who numbers all things! He determines the times and the seasons during which men rule. There were other ancient Greek historians who reckoned the history of Sicyon differently. The information preserved from their writings assigns Sicyon dominion for only 962 years -- that is, from 2063 to 1101. Year 1101 is the time of the re-establishment of the Heraclidae at Sparta, 80 years after the fall of Troy in the First Trojan War. Both these views of the history of Sicyon are valid. The difference is only one of viewpoint. For during the years from 1101 to 1063 the old dynasty at Sicyon was displaced by priests of Apollo Carnaeus who were subservient to the Heraclidae. The original name of Sicyon was Aegialea. This Greek name was derived from the city's first king, Aegialeus. The name Aegialeus in Greek means "man of the coastland" or "shoreland" (Smith's "Classical Dictionary", art. "Achaia"). Compare this with the meaning of the name Eber, or Heber, from which the word Hebrew is derived. One of the root meanings of Eber is "shoreland" or "shoreregion." Another root meaning is "migrant." Both are very closely related. The ancient routes of migration usually took one along the shores of a river or along coastlands. The evidence unmistakeably points to the name Aegialeus as a Greek translation of Heber. In other words, Hebrews were among the settlers of ancient Greece. Elisha, son of Javan, also settled the Greek coastlands. From him the name Hellas came to be applied to Greece. Early influence of Hebrew people in the Grecian land is also recorded throughout Greek history. Witness the incursions of the Hyksos -- the Edomite Heraclidae -- a branch of the Hebrews. Later the Danites from Palestine appear. The influence of Hebrews in the Grecian land helps to explain one of the most remarkable events in the Gentile world -- the choosing of the Greek nation to preserve the New Testament Scriptures. The Greeks knew of the God of Shem because the Hebrews, a Semitic people, dwelt among them. Two thousand years in advance God was preparing the Greek people for the preservation of His Word. Moreover the Greeks have preserved most of the history of the ancient world. Manetho has come down to us, not in the Egyptian tongue,

but in the Greek language. The early history of Assyria is found in Greek, so also that of the early kings of Media. But to return to the kingship of Aegialea or Sicyon. Kings of Sicyon

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Aegialeus

52

2063-2011

Europs

45

2011-1966

Telchin

20

1966-1946

Apis

25

1946-1921

Thelxion

52

1921-1869

Aegydrus

34

1869-1835

Thurimachus

45

1835-1790

Leucippus

53

1790-1737

Messapus

47

1737-1690

Eratus, or Peratus

46

1690-1644

Plemnaeus

48

1644-1596

Orthopolis

63

1596-1533

Marathon

30

1533-1503

Marathus

20

1503-1483

Echireus

55

1483-1428

Corax

30

1428-1398

(The lists, as they have been handed down, add Epopeus next, followed by Lamedon, younger brother of Corax. Epopeus was a foreigner, a Shepherd King, who demolished Greek temples and altars. He is Apophis I of Egypt, Hyksos king of Dynasty XV. As Egyptian records proved he died in 1326, it is clear that Lamedon preceded Epopeus, then was driven into exile. He returned, in old age, and ended his reign shortly afterward.) Lamedon

40

1398-1358

Epopeus

32

1358-1326

3

1326-1323

Lamedon again

(According to Sycellus, Lamedon reigned altogether 43 years. Eusebius assigns him only 40 years -- the years prior to his exile. Eusebius attributes 35 years (from 1358-1323) to the era of Epopeus, and takes no note of Lamedon's reign after his return.)

Sicyon, who gave his name to the city.

45 (or 42)

1323-1278 (1323-1281)

Polybus

40 (or 43)

1278-1238 (1281-1238)

Inachus

42

1238-1196

Phaestus

8

1196-1188

Adrastus

4

1188-1184

Polyphides

31

1184-1153

Pelasgus

20

1153-1133

Zeuxippus

31 (or 32)

1133-1102 (1133-1101)

(The year 1102-1101 marks the return of the famous Heraclidae, in the 80th year after the fall of Troy (1181) in the First Trojan war. In his last year Zeuxippus was compelled to share the throne with the priests of Apollo Carneus, appointed at the return of the Heraclidae.) Priests of Apollo Carneus Governing Sicyon

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Archelaus

1

1102-1101

Automedon

1

1101-1100

Theoclytus

4

1100-1096

Euneus

6

1096-1090

Theonomus

9

1090-1081

Amphichyes

12 (or 18)

1081-1069 (1081-1063)

The year 1069 (for the reign of Amphichyes) is the date of the decisive struggle when Athens maintained her independence against a grand alliance of foreign peoples, associated with the Heraclidae. In 1069 Corinth superseded Sicyon as the dominant city in the Corinthian plain.

Enter Sparta One of the most famous cities in the classical Greek period was Sparta. Castor wrote the history of this famous city. Though now lost, its bare outline is preserved by Eusebius and others. Sparta was founded by the Heraclidae 80 years after the First Trojan War. From here, a generation later they launched an attack on Athens. Though finally defeated, they were yet strong enough to establish a new line of native kings in Corinth friendly to Sparta. The Spartan kingship,

descended from the Heraclidae, was very unusual in that two royal houses ruled the throne at the same time for almost 900 years. A full list of the two royal houses is preserved in Lempriere's "Classical Dictionary", article "Lacedaemon." The following short summary from Eusebius is all that needs be included in this Compendium. Many doubts have arisen over the dates of the Spartan kings due to the tradition among them of dating the reigns from the time of appointment to the throne as minors. In most instances Spartan kings are known to have lived into the reigns of successors who are listed chronologically as kings when only minors under tutelage. Agidae Kings of Sparta to the First Olympic according to Eusebius Eurysthenes

Lengths of Reign

Dates

42

1101-1059

1

1059-1058

Echestratus

35

1058-1023

Labotas

37

1023- 986

Dorysthus

29

986- 957

Agesilaus

44

957- 913

Archelaus

60

913- 853

Teleclus

40

853- 813

Alcamenes

37

813- 776

Agis

About the year 813, when Alcamenes came to the throne, a migration into Macedonia occurred. A new line of kings was founded in Macedonia of Greco-Heraclidae descent. From this line ultimately sprang Alexander the Great, as illustrated in the following chart. Kings of Macedonia to Alexander the Great

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Caranus

28

813-785

Coenus

12

785-773

Tyrimmas

38

773-735

Perdicca I

51

735-684

Argaeus I

38

684-646

Philippus I

38

646-608

Aeropus

26

608-582

Alcetas

29

582-553

Amyntas I

50

553-503

Alexander

43

503-460

Perdicca II

28

460-432

Archelaus

24

432-408

Orestes

3

408-405

Archelaus (again)

4

405-401

Amyntas II

1

401-400

Pausanias

1

400-399

Amyntas II (again)

6

399-393

Argaeus II

2

393-391

18

391-373

Alexander

1

373-372

Ptolemaeus

4

372-368

Perdicca III

6

368-362

Philippus II

26

362-336

Alexander the Great

12

336-324

Amyntas II (again)

In the preceding list the duration of time is accurately preserved. But it should be noted that in several occasions the change of reign does not mark the death of the predecessor, but the appointment to royalty of the son and heir to the throne. This same type of varied dating also occurred in ancient Egypt. It has led historians to treat the records as artificial or fabricated, when they should have viewed the records as relating only part of the story. Alexander died in his 13th year, in 323. But as the Macedonians adopted the non-accession-year system, the last incomplete year of Alexander -- 324-323 -- was assigned as the first year of his brother Phillip.

Who Were the Heraclidae? Most everyone has assumed that the Heraclidae were Greeks by descent. That they were lnfluenced by Greek culture and language is true. But they were not originally Greek in ancestry. With occasional intermarriage they became partly Grecianized. The Heraclidae are said to have returned 80 years after the First Trojan War. They returned to Greece from Asia Minor. Asia Minor had earlier been dominated by the Hyksos rulers -- Apophis and Khayan. The Hyksos were Amalekites and other tribes descended of Edom (see the early chapter on the history of the Hyksos in this Compendium). Was there a racial affinity between Hyksos and Heraclidae?

The Greeks called these people Heraclidae after an ancestor Heracles. Who that man was may be discovered by investigating the history of Argos in Greece.

The History of Argos The story of the taking of Troy by Agamemnon is known to almost every schoolboy who has studied literature. What is not known today is the history of Agamemnon's dynasty. How, and when it originated, through whom it began. The complete list of rulers of the Greek cities of Argos, Mycenae, Tiryns in the Argolid plain of Greece to the first Trojan War is derived from Castor. It has been preserved in entirety by Eusebius. (See "Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte", vol. 7, edited by Rudolf Helm.) The list is given below, with the correct dates. Kings of Argos to End of First Trojan War According to Castor, from Eusebius

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Inachus

50

1852-1802

Phoroneus

60

1802-1742

Apis

35

1742-1707

Argus

70

1707-1637

Criasus

54

1637-1583

Phorbas

35

1583-1548

Triopas

46

1548-1502

Crotopus

21

1502-1481

Sthenelus

11

1481-1470

Danaus, fled from Egypt to Greece

50

1470-1420

Lynceus, son-in-law of Danaus

41

1420-1379

Abas

23

1379-1356

Proetus

17

1356-1339

Acrisius

31

1339-1308

Eurystheus

45

1308-1263

Atreus and Thyestes

65

1263-1198

Agamemnon, exercised hegemony over Argos

17

1198-1181

Agamemnon reigned 35 years according to Eusebius -- that is, from 1215 to 1180. His first seventeen years were in his youth, when Thyestes still governed. The Greeks seized Troy in the beginning of summer, in 1181, at the very beginning of the eighteenth year of Agamemnon. The king lost his life at the end of the year upon his return to Greece. The date of Inachus is significant. Inachus is but the Latin form of the Greek name Inachos, or the Egyptian name Weneg. The tradition is that Inachus and his immediate descendants were in some way connected with Egypt. A comparison with Dynasty II of Egypt reveals a king Weneg whose reign ended in 1852, the very year Inachus appeared in Greece! There can be no doubt that this was an early Egyptian colony in Greece. Inachus was not some unknown hero. He was of the royal family of Egypt. Note Egyptian names of son and grandson -- Phoroneus, Apis -- as added proof.

Genealogy of Danaus Now consider the lineage of Danaus who came to Egypt with his brother Aegyptus, according to Greek tradition, from somewhere in the region of Arabia or Palestine. The lineage, given below, with dates of those who ruled in Greece, is from Henry Clinton's "Fasti Hellenici", vol. I, p. 101. Unless otherwise stated, each is presumed a son of the name above. Belus, father of Danaus and Aegyptus The many sons of Aegyptus who ruled in Egypt constituted Dynasty VII of Memphis. Danaus (1470-1420) Hypermnestra, daughter of Danaus Married Lynceus (1420-1379), son of Aegyptus Abas (1379-1356) Acrisius (1339-1308) Danae, a daughter Danae secretly had a son by "Zeus" -- probably Giemshid the Persian king. Perseus, the Alphidun of the Persian king list Perseus was grandfather of Eurystheus of Argos (1308-1263). He had a son Perses, report the Greeks. Persian history makes Perses the son of Irege, son of Perseus. Since Irege died before his father, Perseus must have adopted Perses as his son. His Persian name was Manougeher, and he was known as Phirouz -- that is, Perses. Electryo, daughter of Perseus

Alcmena, a daughter Heracles, a contemporary of Eurystheus Hyllus Cleodaeus Aristomachus Aristodemus Eurysthenes (1101-1059), king of Sparta From him one of the royal Spartan kingly lines descended. The Spartans claimed descent from Abraham according to a letter they wrote to the Jews. See Josephus: "Antiquities of the Jews", XII, iv, 10 and XIII, v. 8. The Jews admitted the truth of the statement, saying they found it in their Scriptures. Our question is where in Scripture is Belus, the ancestor of this royal line, mentioned? The only Belus mentioned at that period in the Bible is Bela (the Latin form would be Belus), the son of Beor and brother of Balaam. Bela was a king of Edom (Genesis 36:32). Edom was the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. Here is one of the earliest indications of the settlement of the Aegean and the western parts of Turkey by the sons of Esau. The ancient Spartans were a very warlike people, at constant cross-purposes with other Greek city-states. Now consider the chronological significance of Danaus' actual arrival in Argos. Note that Danaus first arrived in Argos in 1486 -the actual year he fled from his brother when the Hyksos quarreled over setting up the kingship in Egypt. For the significance of 1486 see the section on Egyptian history concerning the Exodus. Kings of Argos According to Syncellus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Inachus, Weneg of Dynasty II of Egypt

56

1858-1802

Phoroneus

60

1802-1742

Apis

35

1742-1707

Argus

70

1707-1637

Criasus

55

1637-1582

Phorbas

25

1582-1557

Triopas

36

1557-1521

Crotopus

24

1521-1497

Sthenelus

11

1497-1486

Danaus, flees from his brother

58

1486-1428

Lynceus

35

1428-1393

Abas

37

1393-1356

Proetus

17

1356-1339

Sea Powers of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean One of the most interesting documents of antiquity is a list of Sea Powers (Thalassocracies) preserved by Eusebius from Diodorus. This list begins with the revival of anti-Greek Heraclidae power in the second Trojan War under the Maeonians who settled in Lydia. The Maeonians are mentioned in the Bible, in Judges 10:12 as Maonites, and as allies of the Midianites and Amalekites. (See also Judges 6:33.) "The Journal of Hellenic Studies", Vol. XXVII (1907), page 83, provides the most important scholarly study of the Thalassocracies yet made.

Sea Powers (Thalassocrasies) of the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean Seas to 480

Duration

Date

Lydians, who are the Maeonians

92

1149-1057

Pelasgians or Sea Peoples

85

1057- 972

Thracians

79

972- 893

Rhodians

23

893- 870

Phrygians

25

870- 845

Cyprians

32

845- 813

Phoenicians

45

813- 768

Egyptians

43

768- 725

Milesians

18

725- 707

Carians

61

707- 646

Lesbians

68 (or 96)

646- 578 (674- 578)

Phocaeians

44

578- 534

Samians

17

534- 517

2

517- 515

Naxians

10

515- 505

Eritreans

15

505- 490

Lacedemonians (Spartans)

Aeginetans

10

490- 480

In the year 480 Xerxes marches his armies from Asia into Europe. Several significant figures appear in the preceding list of Sea Powers. The year 1149 marks the period of the Second Trojan War, and the defeat of the Greeks. In archaeological finds at Troy, two war layers immediately follow one another -- one ending in 1181, the second in 1149. Troy, it must be noted, was a key port, the control of which was essential if the Lydians or Maeonians were to gain control of the seas. A third war layer, during the Mycenaean period, is separated by about five centuries of deposits. The name Pelasgians in Greek annals referred to the Phoenicians and Israelites. Notice that the period of Pelasgian domination in Greek literature (1057-972) covered the period of Phoenician greatness and of Solomon's reign, referred to so often in the Bible. Notice also the period of the Carian control of the sea. Diodorus (V, 84) declares that the Carians continued to grow in sea power even after the war with Troy. The Third Trojan War was ended in 677. This was the very period of Carian dominance. The Carians were also famous as hired mercenaries during the early years of Psammetichus of Egypt. But what of the Egyptian sea power? No sea power of Egypt is known between 768-725 according to the modern interpretation of Egyptian history. When Egyptian history is restored, however, this period is very significant. The year 768 is the second year of Osorthon, of Dynasty XXIII of Tanis on the shore of the Mediterranean. Osorthon is called Heracles by the Greeks and was famous for his sea expeditions. Take special note also of the dates of sea power of the Cyprians and the Phoenicians. Compare these with the chart in a succeeding chapter on the archaeological sequence of Troy. Note that the Mycenaean Late Bronze period at Troy commences during this period. This list of sea powers will offer strong evidence that the Mycenaean culture was not native Greek, but Phoenician. That the homeland of Mycenaean wares was the Syrian coast, and that the extensive settlement of Phoenician colonies in the Greek world occurred during this and succeeding centuries. The Mycenaean culture paralleled native Greek wares with their geometric designs.

The History of Italy Troy is famous in European history. After the third war over Troy, many peoples from Asia Minor migrated into Northwestern Europe and carried the name of Troy with them. London became New Troy. In France appeared Troyes. The refugees of the First Trojan War settled also in Italy. They founded Lavinium two years after the First Trojan War -- that is, in 1179 -- and later the city of Alba (the site of the Pope's summer palace today) at the time of the Second Trojan War in 1149. (Consult Dionysius or Diodorus for these details.) The Trojan royal house founded in Italy a line of kings that reigned in Alba from 1178 until 753, when the center of government passed to Rome. Latinus, king of Latium who preceded the Trojans, died in 1178, three years after fall of Troy in 1181. In Greek his name is spelled "Lateinos". Aenaes the Trojan, son-in-law of Latinus, succeeds him. Early Kings of Lavinium

Lengths of Reign

Dates

(founded 1179) and Alba (founded 1149) after the First Trojan War Aenaes

3

1178-1175

Ascanius

38

1175-1137

Sylvius

29

1137-1108

Aenaes Sylvius

31

1108-1077

Latinus Sylvius

50

1077-1027

Alba Sylvius

39

1027- 988

Aegyptus Sylvius

24

988- 964

Capis Sylvius

28

964- 936

Carpentus Sylvius

13

936- 923

Tiberinus Sylvius

8

923- 915

Agrippa Sylvius

41

915- 874

Aremulus Sylvius

19

874- 855

Aventinus Sylvius

37

855- 818

Procas Sylvius

23 (or 21)

818- 795 (818- 797)

Amulius Sylvius

42 (or 44)

795- 753 (797- 753)

In 753, according to the accurate account of the Roman historian Varro, Rome was re-founded for the third time. Shortly before that famous event the twins Romulus and Remus killed Amulius Sylvius in the last year of his reign. Amulius Sylvius had deprived his older brother Numitor, maternal grandfather of the twins, of the throne at Alba. Slight variations in the preceding list occur in some authors. Eusebius assigned only 40 years to Agrippa Sylvius, predating each reign: Dionysius designated 51 to Lateinos Sylvius, postdating the reigns. Another variation indicating joint rule is given in chart form thus: Aenaes Sylvius

30

1108-1078

Lateinus Sylvius

50

1078-1028

Alba Sylvius

38

1028- 990

Aegyptus Sylvius

26

990- 964

-----------------------

Kings of Rome to the Founding of the Republic Romulus

Lengths of Reign

37

Dates

753- 716

(An Interregnum of one year followed -- 716-715) Numa Pompilius

43

715- 672

Tullus Hostilius

32

672- 640

Ancus Martius

24

640- 616

Targuinius Priscus

38

616- 578

Servius Tullius

44 (or 34)

578- 534 (578- 544)

Tarquinius Superbus

25 (or 35)

534- 509 (544- 509)

In the 25th year (or 35th) year of Tarquinius Supurbus -- 510-509 -- the first Roman Consuls were appointed. They held their office about 16 months. The Consuls thereafter held their office for a Roman calendar year -- January to January. A complete list of consular magistrates may be had in Lempriere's "A Classical Dictionary", article "Consul". In several instances in the preceding list, the lengths of reign of the kings are shortened by some authors -- notably Eusebius, Cicero, Polybius -- who viewed the royal power as subordinate, on occasion, to the Senate. But the full and correct account is preserved correctly by Dionysius of Halicarnassus' "Roman Antiquities", I, 75. Hereafter the history of Rome is essentially correct in most histories -- though the lessons of Roman rule have yet to be learned by Man!

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN The History of Ireland At first thought it may appear unusual that the Emerald Isle should have a recorded history far older than Rome. There is a reason. Unlike Italy, for example, which for centuries felt the ravages of foreign invaders who drove out, in successive waves, each predecessor, Ireland remained under the continuous dominion of one people. Irish history begins, not with the Tower of Babel, but at the end of the flood. Irish history is the only literature which specifically connects Israel with its past. It has long been assumed that late monks invented this relationship under Catholic influence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Catholic influence elsewhere never associated the ancient world with Israel -- except the obvious case of Egypt. And in Ireland the Catholic monks did their best to make it appear that Ireland was not settled by Hebrews at all, but by Magog! This Irish "myth" had its origin among the Catholic monks.

How Confusion Arose in Irish History The history of Ireland under the Milesian kings has come down to us in two forms -- a short and a long form. The long form arose out of an attempt to make Irish history conform to the faulty chronology of the Septuagint Version approved by the Roman Catholic Church. The Domestic Annals were artfully expanded to make it appear that Irish history commenced centuries earlier than it did in fact. The task of the monks was rendered easy by an unusual circumstance. Under the Irish kings, Ireland was divided into several kingships or countries. Each country had its own sovereign who was related by blood to the other royal families. Among these contemporaries there was constant strife. First one branch, then another, gained the ascendancy and held the supreme office over Ireland. Whichever king sat on the throne in the supreme office became known as an "Ard-Riga" or Arch King. As each King usually ruled much longer over his own kingship or country than as Arch King, he would have a longer and a shorter length of reign. At times there were disputed claims to the Arch Kingship, and also joint reigns. Each of these factors made it easy for certain later monks, who followed the Septuagint, to alter and expand the official record. The original and correct history of the Milesians in Ireland has, however, been preserved unaltered only in the Domestic Annals, the official history of ancient Ireland. They may be found in O'Flaherty's "Ogygia". They have been reproduced in French in A.-M.-H.-J. Stokvis' "Manuel D'Histoire", volume II, pages 234-235. The early history of Ireland, from the flood to the coming of the Milesians, may be found in Geoffrey Keating's "History of Ireland", but his chronology is not always correct. In the following tables the Irish spellings have been generally preserved, including the unpronounced "h's" indicative of aspirate sounds, a Hebrew affinity.

The First 1000 Years According to Irish history the first claim to Irish soil was made

by Nin mac Piel -- that is Irish for the Assyrian king Ninus, son of Bel or Belus. But no permanent settlement was established. Ireland remained generally uninhabited for about three hundred years after the flood -- 2368-2068 -- records Keating (p. 114). In 2068 Parthalon and a band of Hebrew warriors arrived from the Greek world and established a settlement at Inis Saimer, a small island in the river Erne, at Ballyshannon. Thirty years later -- 2038 -Parthalon died and the land was divided between his four sons; Er, Orba, Ferann, and Fergna (p. 120) (p, 118). Twenty years later (2018) a plague befell the settlers. The settlers were exterminated, save for those who fled. After 30 years of desolation -- 2018-1988 -- the remnant that fled returned to Ireland and continued to inhabit it for another 250 years until 1738. The total time which the family of the Parthalonians inhabited Ireland was 300 years -- from 2068-2018 and from 1988-1738. Keating records that at this time another catastrophe came upon the Parthalonians, possibly at the hands of Phoenician Formorians. Keating quotes (p. 118) a poetic record: "During thirty years, full told It lay desolate, without warriors brave, When all its hosts died in one week In flocks upon Mash-n-Elta." No Irish historian professes to know when the Formorians came to Ireland. This second period of thirty years' desolation -- 1738-1708 -puzzled Keating. He doubted there were two similar periods of the same length, though his sources preserved the fact that there were indeed two. A second and related wave of migrants came into Ireland from Scythia. Irish annalists often have been laughed at because they picture these migrants sailing from the Black Sea to the North Sea through what is now European Russia. Such "poor geography" was in fact the same geography of early classical writers, who mentioned the early ease of sailing the same route. This geography is not unusual when it is recognized that the Pripet Marshes in Russia were once -- in the centuries after the Flood -- a vast lake connected by rivers to the Black and North seas! The migrants from Scythia at this period were called Nemedians, after Nemedh, the leader of the expedition. They dwelt in Ireland for 216 years -- 1708-1492. During much of this time they were reduced to slavery under the Formorians. A part of the Nemedians fled to Grecian Thrace to escape the oppression (p. 126). They returned to Ireland 216 years after the Nemedians first reached the shores of Ireland. Upon their return they bore the epithet Fir-Bolgs, a name derived from the circumstances of their oppression while in Grecian Thrace. The Fir-Bolgs set up a kingship upon their conquest of the Formorians. From Keating a list of Fir-Bolg rulers may be obtained (pp. 131-132). Thirty-six years after the Fir-Bolgs returned to Ireland -- 1456 -- the first small migration of the Tuatha-De-Danaan occurred. This was during the time of the Wandering in the wilderness under Moses. The total length of Danite dominion in Ireland before the coming of the royal house of the Milesians was 440 years -- 1456-1016 (p. 168). Keating quotes the ancient poet: "Forty years above four hundred, There were, since came the tribes of Dana

Across the straits of the great sea, Till Miledh's sons first heard dread Ocean His music beat on Eri's shores." By other reckonings the Danite dominion was much shorter -- only 197 years -- that is, from 1213-1016 This second migratory wave in 1213, was in the days of Barak and Deborah -- 1233-1193, when "Dan abode in ships" (Judges 5:17). Deborah and Barak had delivered the children of Israel from Jabin. king of Canaan, whose military strength lay in Hazor and Syria. Jabin lorded it over Israel for 20 years -1253-1233 -- before his defeat. The Irish annals speak of this oppression. Keating records that while the tribe of Dan dwelt in Greece, "It happened that a large fleet came from Syria to make war upon the people of the Athenian territory, in consequence of which they were engaged in daily battles .... As to the Tuatha-De-Dananns, when they saw the natives of the land thus vanquished by the Syrians, they all fled out of the country, through fear of those invaders. And they stopped not until they reached the regions of Lochlinn (Scandinavia), where they were welcomed by the inhabitants, on account of their many sciences and arts .... When they had remained a long time in these cities, they passed over to the north of Alba (Scotland), where they continued seven years in Dobar and Iardobar" (pp. 136-137). Keating continues (p. 139): "When the Tuatha-De-Danann had remained seven years in the north of Scotland (or Alba), they passed over to Ireland and landed in the north of this country." Many Monkish tales were later told about the Tuatha-De-Danaan to make it appear they were a fabulous people. When the tales of magic are dismissed the truth is plain. The Tuatha-De-Danann of Keating's "History" were none other than the tribe of Dan, and the invaders from Syria were the armies of Jabin king of Canaan! The kings who bore rule for 197 years over the Danites in Ireland are found in O'Flaherty's "Ogygia", in Keating's "History of Ireland", pages 142-146, and in vol. II of Stokvis' "Manuel", page 232.

The Coming of the Milesians The ancient royal houses of Ireland and Scotland, and later of England, are derived from the Milesian Royal House that conquered Ireland in 1016. The Milesians were named after Miledh, or Milesius, of Spain, whose sons conquered Ireland and ruled over the Danites. All the migrants from Parthalon to the Milesians were distantly related to each other. The most famous ancestor of the Milesians was Eibher Scot -Eber of Scotia, of Scythia -- identifying the Milesians as sons of Eber, or Hebrews. The children of Eber early settled in the regions of Scythia, and gave their name to Iberia, a region in the Caucasus in Classical times. The generations between Eber and Milesius are not completely preserved in any Irish annals -- the records are complete only after the coming of the Milesians to Ireland. A late fictitious genealogy going back to Magog arose in monkish times from the known fact that Hebrews once dwelt in Scythia, which was also inhabited by Magog. A key to the line of descent may be found in the symbols used to designate various branches of the Milesian Royal House. Examples are the Crimson Branch, the Red Branch, signifying the line of Zarah from Judah. Zarah, at his birth, appeared with red thread about his hand. He was expected to be born first, but after his hand appeared, and the

thread wound about it, the other brother Pharez came unexpectedly. The wanderings of the family of Heber to Milesius are summarized by Keating on p. 173. The final migration, under Milesius, was from Egypt, via Thrace to Spain. This was shortly before the expulsion of the Hyksos in 1076. Of this period of Milesius in Egypt, Irish records declare: "At this time, there was a great war between Pharaoh and the king of Ethiopia. Pharaoh made Miledh the commander of his army, when he had estimated his bravery and valor, and sent him to meet the forces of Ethiopia therewith. There then ensued many engagements and conflicts, between the forces under the command of Miledh and those of the Ethiopians. In these he was so successful that his fame and renown spread through all nations, whereupon Pharaoh gave him one of his own daughters to wife ...." (Keating, p. 176). "Miledh at length remembered ... Ireland was the land in which it was destined that his posterity should obtain a lasting sovereignty. Upon this he fitted out three ships, supplied them with crews, and took his leave of Pharaoh. He then set sail from the mouth of the Nile, into the Mediterranean, and landed on an Island near Thrace." (Reating, p. 177.) After further migrations the prince landed in Spain to join members of the family he had left behind years before. In Spain he died. There followed a scarcity of food in Spain for about 26 years according to Irish records (p. 179). According to the Domestic Annals a consequent invasion of the Irish coast was planned to relieve the pressure from the drought. It occurred in 1016, near the end of the reign of David king of Israel. The invasion was successful. The Tuatha-De-Danaan were forced to accept the new line of Royalty. The realm of Ireland was now divided between the two surviving sons of Milesius -- Ebher and Ghedhe the Ereamhon (or Heremon). This Ghedhe, the Heremon, has often been mistaken by the British Israel World Federation for ANOTHER king of later fame ALSO CALLED "the Heremon" in Irish bardic literature. Heremon or Ereamhon is a title, which, in the case of Ghedhe, came to be used as a personal name. Of this Ghedhe the Heremon, brother of Eber, the "Annals of the Four Masters" reads: "Tea, the daughter of Lughaidh, son of Itha, whom Eremhon married in Spain." This Tea is an altogether different person from the Tea who came more than four centuries later to the Irish Isles. The British Israel World Federation has confounded two different events, separated by over four centuries, simply because it was and is unwilling to believe the history of Ireland as it is plainly recorded. The Tea who married Ghedhe the Heremon was a daughter of Lughaidh, the son of Ith, uncle of Miledh (also spelled Mileadh). That is exactly what Irish history records. These events occurred in David's reign, not Zedekiah's. What did happen after Zedekiah's reign will be made plain shortly. The brothers Eber and Gede the Heremon founded a town after gaining possession of Ireland. To be the new capital of Ireland, they named it Tea-mur, the town of Tea. At different times in history it has borne other names, the most common being Tara (cp. the Hebrew word "Torah", meaning "Law"). Did David Visit Ireland? Even to this day another of the names of the old site of Tara has been preserved: Dowd's Town -- which means literally David's Town. The name is found attached to an area three miles north of Tara Hill (see B.M. Ordnance Survey maps, Ireland, 91, 101). Is it possible that David

king of Israel visited Ireland and Tara toward the end of his life? At the time of the founding of Tara shortly after 1016 an event occurred involving a beautiful woman who was "sorrowful to a harlot." The passage, quoted in the poem of Cuan O'Lochain ("Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy", vol. xviii, 1839, and other works), has never been fully understood. It can hardly refer to Tea who had long been married to Gede the Heremon. But, if David gave his daughter Tamar in marriage to Irial, the son of Gede, then all becomes clear. Tamar had been violated by her half-brother. She left the scene of the unfortunate event in a torn garb and remained unmarried in her brother's Absalom's house. See II Samuel 13. It was not until after the death of Absalom that David was free to depart for Ireland, very probably to give his disconsolate daughter in marriage to a prince of the line of Zarah.

Jeremiah Goes to Ireland Now we come to one of the most remarkable events in history -- the joining of the lines of Pharez and Zarah in Ireland after the fall of Jerusalem in 585 B.C. The Bible records God as saying that David would never lack a descendant to sit on his throne. Now consider, all of Zedekiah's sons were slaughtered before he was carried to Babylon. But his two daughters escaped with Jeremiah. Part of the story of how the line of David through Zedekiah continued has been preserved in Masonic tradition, and well known as recently as one century ago. Remember, kings and royalty of Britain have commonly been Masons. According to this Masonic tradition, a Prince Eochaid of Ireland came to Jerusalem several years before 585. He was present during the siege. This Eochaid (meaning Knight) was none other than Oilioll Olchaoin, the son of Siorna Saoghlach mac Dian called the Heremon. Eochaid was blood royal of the Milesian Zarah line. After the fall of Jerusalem he married Zedekiah's daughter, named in the Masonic tradition Tea Tephi, of the Pharez line. They fled in 585 with Jeremiah and Baruch to Egypt. The last Biblical record places them in Egypt. Masonic tradition, however, traces their journey to Ireland. Irish histories relate the arrival of a royal party in 569 B.C. (See "The Irish Prince and the Hebrew Prophet", New York, 1896, pages 137-145). The arrivals included Prince Eochaid, his wife Tea Tephi, their son and a prophet called Ollamh Fodhla and his scribe Baruch. When they reached Tara, Eochaid was proclaimed king since his father had just died. A description from the Masonic tradition reads: "Jeremiah had joined the hands of the prince and princess over the sacred stone (lia fail) ... and commanded the blessing of Israel's God to rest upon the throne of David." ("The Irish Prince and the Hebrew Prophet", page 139). This ceremony was not the marriage of Eochaid and Tea Tephi but, the symbolic joining of the lines of Zarah and Pharez.

The Milesian Kings The following chart gives the list of kings unaltered and without need of restoration, from the Domestic Annals as preserved by O'Flaherty in his "Ogygia". Both the dates and lengths of reign are accurately preserved. The abbreviations after the names indicate from

which branch of the Milesians the king descended. "Er." is the line of Ghedhe the Ereamhon; "Eb." is Ebher, brother of Ghedhe the Ereamhon; "Ith" is the line of Ith or Itha, brother of Miledh or Mileadh; "Irw" is the line of Ir, another (uncrowned) brother of Eber and Gede.

Arch Kings of Ireland

Lengths of Reign

Dates from O'Flaherty and the Domestic Annals

Ghedhe the Ereamhon mac Mileadh

14

1016-1002

Ebher mac Mileadh, rules jointly with his brother

1

1016-1015

3

1002- 999

Muimhne mac Gede the Ereamhon, Luighne mac Gede, Laighne mac Gede Er mac Eber, Orba mac Eber, 6 months

999

Fearon mac Eber, Feorgna mac Eber "Irial" (Ariel) Faidh (meaning the "prophet") mac Ereamhon

10

999- 989

Eithrial mac Irial (Er.)

20

989- 969

Conmhaol mac Eber

30

969- 939

Tighearnmas mac Follagh (Er.) (Introduces idolatry into Ireland during heyday of Baalism in Israel and Judah.)

23

939- 916

(Interregnum)

(7)

916- 909

4

909- 905

40

905- 865

20

865- 845

24

845- 821

Eochaidh I Eadghadhach mac Daire (Ith) Cearmna Fionn mac Ebric (Ir), Sobhairce mac Ebric (Ir) Eochaidh II Faobharglas mac Conmhaol (Eb.) Fiachadh I Labhrainne mac Smiorgoll (Er.)

Eochaidh III Munho mac Mofebis (Eb.)

21

821- 800

Aonghus I Olmucadha mac Fiachadh (Er.)

18

800- 782

Eadhna I Airgtheach mac Eochaidh (Eb.)

24

782- 758

Roitheachtach I mac Maoin (Er.)

11

758- 747

5

747- 742

14

742- 728

Muineamhon mac Cas Clothach (Eb.)

5

728- 723

Faildeargdoid mac Muineamhon (Eb.)

9

723- 714

40

714- 674

(Elim) Fionnachta I mac Ollamh (Ir)

20

674- 654

Slanoll mac Ollamh (Ir)

17

654- 637

Ghedhe Ollgothach mac Ollamh (Ir)

12

637- 625

8

625- 617

Bearnghal mac Ghedhe (Ir)

12

617- 605

Oilioll I mac Slanoll (Ir)

15

605- 590

Seadhna I mac Airtri (Ir) Fiachadh II Fionscothach mac Seadhna (Ir)

(Eochaidh) Ollamh Fodhla mac Fiachadh (Ir) (not the later prophet Ollamh Fodhla)

Fiachadh III Fionnailches mac Fionnachta (Ir)

Siorna Saoghlach mac Dian (Er.), called the Heremon. He restored the power of the line of Ereamhon. At his death a prophet called Ollamh Fodhla brought Tea Tephi to Ireland with his son Oilioll Olchaoin, who was her husband.

21

590- 569

Roitheachtach II mac Roan (Eb.)

7

569- 562

Elim I Oillfinshneachta mac Roitheachtach (Eb.)

1

562- 561

Giallchadh mac Oilioll Olchaoin (Er.), son of Tea Tephi 9

561- 552

Art I Imleach mac Elim (Eb.)

552- 540

12

Nuadhat I Fionnfoil mac Giallchadh (Er.) 13

540- 527

Breas mac Art (Eb.)

9

527- 518

Eochaidh IV Apthach mac Fionn (Ith) 1

518- 517

Fionn mac Bratha (Ir)

20

517- 497

Seadhna II Ionnarrach 14 mac Breas (Eb.) Siomon Breac mac Aodhan Glas (Er.) 6

497- 483

Duach I Fionn mac Seadhna (Eb.)

8

477- 469

Muireadhach I Bolgrach mac Siomon (Er.)

1

469- 468

Eadhna II Dearg mac Duach (Eb.)

5

468- 463

Lughaidh I Iardonn mac Eadhna (Eb.) 5

463- 458

Siorlamh mac Fionn (Ir)

16

458- 442

Eochaidh V Uaircheas mac Lughaidh (Eb.)

12

442- 430

Eochaidh VI Fiadhmuine mac Congal Cosgarach, (Er.)

5

430- 425

Lughaidh II Laimhdhearg mac Eochaidh (Eb.)

4

425- 421

Conaing Beageaglach mac Congal Cosgarach (returns, (Er.)

7

421- 414

7

414- 407

Oilioll II Fionn mac Art (Eb.)

9

407- 398

Eochaidh VII mac Oilloll (Eb.)

7

398- 391

Airgeatmhar mac Siorlamh (Ir)

10

391- 381

Duach II Ladhgrach mac Fiachadh Tolgrach (Er.)

10

381- 371

4

371- 367

483- 477

Conaing Beageaglach mac Congal Cosgarach (Er.)

Art II mac Lughaidh, (Eb.) Fiacha Tolgrach (Er.)

Lughaidh III Laighdhe mac Eochaidh (Eb.)

(Next four reign alternately in 28 years.)

Aodh I Ruadh mac Badharn (Ir)

7

367- 360

Diothorba mac Deman (Ir)

7

360- 353

Ciombaoth mac Fionntan (Ir)

7

353- 346

The prophet Ollanh Fodhla lived about 240 years before his time. He was Jeremiah. Machadh Mongruadh, Queen (Ir)

7

346- 339

Reachtaidh Righdhearg mac Lughaidh (Eb.)

9

339- 330

30

330- 300

Ugaine Mor mac Eochaidh Buadhach (Er.)

(Ruled Western Europe to Tyrrhenian Sea. Time of Celtic greatness in Roman history.) Badhbhchadh mac Eochaidh Buadhach (Er.)

1 1/2 days

300

Laoghaire I Lorc mac Ugaine (Er.)

16

300- 284

Cobhthach Coal-Breagh mac Ugaine (Er.)

17

284- 267

Maen Labhraidh Loingseach mac Oilioll Aine (Er.) 14

267- 253

Melghe Molbhtach mac Cobhtach (Er.)

12

253- 241

6

241- 235

Aonghus II Ollanh mac Oilioll (Er.) 7

235- 228

Irereo (Iarann) Gleofathach mac Melghe (Er.)

6

228- 222

Fearcorb mac Modhcorb (Eb.)

7

222- 215

Connla Camh mac Irereo (Er.)

4

215- 211

Oilioll III Caisfhiaclach mac Connla (Er.) 25

211- 186

Modhcorb mac Cobhtach Caomh (Eb.)

Adhamair Foltchaon mac Fearcorb (Eb.)

5

186- 181

Eochaidh VIII Ailtleathan mac Oilioll (Er.) 7

181- 174

Fearghus I Fortamhail mac Breasal

174- 162

12

Breac (Er.) Aonghus III Tuirmheach Teamhrach mac Eochaidh (Er.)

32

162- 130

Conall I Collamhrach mac Ederscel

5

130- 125

Niadh Sedhamain mac Adhamair (Eb.)

7

125- 118

10

118- 108

4

108- 104

Eadhna III Aighneach mac Aonghus Criomthann I Cosgrach mac Fedhlimidh (Er.) Rudhraighe mac Sithrighe (Ir)

17

104-

87

Ionnatmar mac Niadh (Eb.)

3

87-

84

Breasal Boidhiobhadh mac Rudhraighe (Ir)

9

84-

75

Lughaidh IV Luaighne mac Ionnatmar (Eb.)

15

75-

60

Congal I Claroineach mac Rudhraighe (Ir)

3

60-

57

Duach III Dallta Deadhadh mac Cairbre Lusg (Eb.)

7

57-

50

Feachtna Fathach mac Rudhraighe (Ir)

24

50-

26

Eochaidh IX Feidhleach mac Finn (Er.)

12

26-

14

Eochaidh X Aireamh mac Finn (Er.)

10

14-

4

4

4-

1

Ederscel mac Eoghan (Er.) Nuadhat II Neacht mac Seadhna Sithbhaic (Er.) Conaire I Mor mac Ederscel (Er.)

1 59

1-

60

(Interregnum)

5

60-

65

Lughaidh V Sriabhndearg mac Breas Fineamhnas (Er.)

8

65-

73

Conchobhar I Abhradhruadh mac Finn Fili (Er.)

1

73-

74

His year of reign corresponds to year 5 of Vespasian -- ("Annals of Tighernach")-73-74. Criomthann II Niadhnair mac Lughaidh

(Er.)

16

74-

90

5

90-

95

Cairbre Cinncait (usurp.) and son Morann Mac-Maom Fearadhach Finnfeachtnach mac Criomthann (Er.)

21

95- 116

Fiatach Fionn mac Daire (Er.)

3

116- 119

Fiachdh IV Finnfolaidh mac Fearadhach (Er.) 7

119- 126

Elim II mac Conrach (Ir)

4

126- 130

30

130- 160

4

160- 164

Tuathal I Teachtmhar mac Fiachadh (Er.) Mal mac Rochraidhe (Ir)

Feidhlimidh Reachtmhar mac Tuathal (Er.) 10 Cathaoir Mor mac Feidhlimidh Firurghlais (Er.) 3

164- 174 174- 177

Conn Cedcathach mac Feidhlimidh (Er.)

35

177- 212

Conaire II mac Modha-Lamha (Er.)

8

212- 220

30

220- 250

3

250- 253

Fearghus II Duibhdeadach mac Imchadh (Er.) 1

253- 254

Cormac Ulfada mac Art (Er.)

23

254- 277

2

277- 279

17

279- 296

Art III Confhir mac Conn (Er.) Lughaidh VI Mac-Con mac Macniadh (Ith)

Eochaidh XI Gonnat mac Feig (Er.) Cairbre Liffeachair mac Cormac (Er.) Fothadh I Cairptheach mac Lughaidh (Ith) and

1 Fothadh II Airgtheach mac Lughaidh (Er.) Fiachadh V Sraibhtine mac Cairbre (Er.)

296- 297

30

297- 327

4

327- 331

Cairioll Colla-Uais mac Eochaidh Doimhlen (Er.) Muireadhach II Tireach mac Fiachadh

(Er.)

26

331- 357

Caolbhadh mac Crunn Badhrai (Ir)

1

357- 358

Eochaidh XII Muighmheadhoin mac Muireadhach (Er.)

8

358- 366

Criomthann III mac Fidhach (Eb.)

13

366- 379

Niall I Naoighiallach mac Eochaidh (Er.) 26

379- 405

(Feradhach) Dathi mac Fiachra (Er.)

23

405- 428

Laoghaire II mac Niall (Er.)

35

428- 463

Oilioll IV Molt mac Dathi (Er.)

20

463- 483

Lughaidh VII mac Laoghaire (Er.)

25

483- 508

5

508- 513

Muircheartach I Mor Mac-Earca mac Muireadhach (Hereafter all are of the line of Ereamhon.) 20

513- 533

(Interregnum)

(Sent Lia Fail -- Stone of Destiny to Scotland (in 513) to officially establish branch dynasty under Fearghus mac Erc -- 513-529. See the history of the kings of Scotland.) Tuathal II Maolgarbh mac Cormac Caoch

11

533- 544

Diarmaid I mac Fearghus Ceirrbheoil

21

544- 565

Fearghus III mac Muircheartach and Domhnall I Ilchealgach mac Muircheartach 1

565- 566

Eochaidh XIII mac Domhnall and Boadan I mac Muircheartach

2

566- 568

Ainmire mac Seadhna

3

568- 571

Baodan II mac Ninnidh

1

571- 572

27

572- 599

Aodh III Slaine mac Diarmaid and Colman Rimidh mac Baodan

6

599- 605

Aodh IV Uairidhnach mac Domhnall Ilchealgach

7

605- 612

Maolcobha mac Aodh

3

612- 615

Aodh II mac Ainmire

Suibhne Meann mac Fiachna

13

615- 628

Domhnall II mac Aodh

14

628- 642

Conall II Caol mac Maolcobha

16

642- 658

Ceallach mac Maolcobha

12

642- 654

Blathmac mac Aodh and Diarmaid II Ruaidnaigh mac Aodh

7

658- 665

Seachnasach mac Blathmac

6

665- 671

Ceannfaoladh mac Blathmac

4

671- 675

20

675- 695

Loingseach mac Aonghus

9

695- 704

Congal II Ceann-Maghair mac Fearghus

7

704- 711

11

711- 722

Fogartach mac Niall

2

722- 724

Cionaoth mac Irgalach

3

724- 727

Flaithbheartach mac Loingseach

7

727- 734

Aodh V Allan mac Fearghal

9

734- 743

Domhnall III mac Murchadh

20

743- 763

7

763- 770

Donnchadh I mac Domhnall

27

770- 797

Aodh VI Oirnidhe mac Niall

22

797- 819

Conchobhar II mac Donnchadh

14

819- 833

Niall III Caille mac Aodh

13

833- 846

Maolseachlainn I mac Maolruanaidh

17

846- 863

Aodh VII Finnlaith mac Niall

16

863- 879

Fionnachta II Fleadhach mac Dunchadh

Fearghal mac Maolduin

Niall II Frosach mac Fearghal

Viking invasions ravaged Ireland in 843 under Niall III Caille. While Niall was reigning, his son Aodh VII Finnlaith presented (in 843) the Lia Fail permanently to the king of Scotland, whose daughter he married. (See O'Flaherty's "Ogygia".) The Scottish king, Kenneth mac Alpin (843-858), thereby became full heir to the now-bankrupt Irish line which was forced to submit to Viking rule. The throne line was thus transferred to Scotland, from whence it would be transferred, in a

few centuries, to England.

The Throne in Scotland In 503 a migration to Scotland established the direct line of Eremon in the new land. Kings of the Scots

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Loarn mac Erc

10

503-513

Fearghus I mac Erc

16

513-529

Fearghus I receives Lia Fail for coronation ceremony. Domhangart mac Fearghus

5

529-534

Comghall mac Domhangart

24

534-558

Gabhran mac Domhangart

2

558-560

Conall I mac Comghall

14

560-574

Aodhan mac Gabhran

32

574-606

Eochaidh I Buidhe mac Aodhan

23

606-629

Conadh Cerr mac Eochaidh Domhnall I Breac mac Eochaidh

629 13

629-642

7

642-649

Conall II Crandamhna mac Eochaidh Dungal I mac Duban

11

649-660

Domhnall II Donn mac Conall

13

660-673

Moalduin mac Conall

16

673-689

8

689-697

Eochaidh II Rianamhail mac Domhangart 1

697-698

Ainbhceallach mac Fearchar

698

Fearchar I mac Connchadh

Fearchar II Fada mac Feradhach

Sealbach mac Fearchar

25

698-723

Dungal II mac Sealbach

3

723-726

Eochaidh III Angbhaid mac Eochaidh

7

726-733

Dungal II mac Sealbach (returns)

3

733-736

Alpin mac Eochaidh

5

736-741

(Royal line suppressed until 843 by a related branch of Pictish kings. For princes of Scottish line from 741 to 843 see page 230 of Vol. II of Stokvis' "Manuel".) Kings of Scotland Cinaeth I (Kenneth) mac Alpin

Lengths of Reign 15

Dates 843-858

(Obtains Lia Fail from son-in-law, Aodh VII Finnliath of Ireland, in 843.) Domhnall III (Donald)

4

858-862

14

862-876

2

876-878

(11)

(878-889)

Circ mac Dungal

11

878-889

Domhnall IV

11

889-900

Custantin II

43

900-943

Maelcolaim I (Malcolm)

11

943-954

Illuilb

8

954-962

Dubh

5

962-967

Cuillen

4

967-971

24

971-995

Custantin III

2

995-997

Cinaeth III

8

997-1005

29

1005-1034

Donnchadh I (Duncan)

6

1034-1040

Macbeathadh (Macbeth)

17

1040-1057

1

1057-1058

35

1058-1093

Domhnall V Bane

4

1093-1097

Donnchadh II

1

1093-1094

Edgar

12

1094-1106

Alexander I

18

1106-1124

Custantin I Aodh II (Eochaidh V, king Strathclyde)

Cinaeth II

Maelcolaim II

Lulach Maelcolaim III Ceanmohr

David I

29

1124-1153

Maelcolaim IV

12

1153-1165

William

49

1165-1214

Alexander II

35

1214-1249

Alexander III

37

1249-1286

4

1286-1290

(2)

(1290-1292)

Margaret (Interregnum)

Dynasties of Baliol and of Bruce John Baloil (Interregnum)

4

1292-1296

(10)

(1296-1306)

In 1296 Edward I of England declared himself king of Scotland and removed the coronation stone -- Lia Fail -- from Scone to Westminster. Robert I Bruce

23

1306-1329

David II Bruce

4

1329-1333

Edward Baliol

13

1333-1346

David II Bruce (returns)

25

1346-1371

Dynasty of the Stuarts Robert II

19

1371-1390

Robert III

16

1390-1406

James I

31

1406-1437

James II

23

1437-1460

James III

28

1460-1488

James IV

25

1488-1513

James V

29

1513-1542

Mary

25

1542-1567

James VI, becomes James I of England in 1603

58

1567-1625

With this outline the essentials of Irish history are restored. For details of the reigns of each king of Ireland consult Keating's "History of Ireland", or O'Flaherty. The modern idea that the Irish were illiterate, and that their history is all myth, is itself a modern

myth. The real myths circulating in the name of Irish history are generally limited to attempts on the part of the Catholic Church to hide the identity of the racial descent of the Irish nation. In fact, the only reason for ever inventing myth is to hide, obscure or pervert some evidence or truth. Once the source of Truth -- the Bible -- is manifest, the difference between myth and fact becomes readily apparent.

CHAPTER NINETEEN Early Britain and Western Europe Why does the history of Western Europe begin with the Romans? Eastern Asia's history begins with the chinese over 22 centuries before the birth of christ. Africa's history commenced along the Nile equally early. So did Mesopotamia's. Greek history commenced with the government of Heber in 2063. Irish history reaches into the dim past to within three centuries after the Flood. Why should the history of continental western Europe be so different? Was Europe really uninhabited all this time? If inhabited, were its people the only folk unable to write or preserve a history? For even backward people of India have a recorded chronological history beginning 1649 before the present era! The Enigma Solved Surprising though it may be, Western Europe does have an ancient written history! Europe was populated -- albeit sparcely -- by numerous tribes who were indeed able to preserve their remarkable past in written form. This history of early western Europe was included in some texts as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century! Yet today it is almost wholly unknown! It has been literally erased from the consciousness of men. The people who preserved the history of early Western Europe until modern times were the Welsh and the Germans. Because of bitter jealousies between the English and the Welsh and Germans, the history of early Europe and Britain -- especially Wales -- was finally extirpated from the English school system. English historians did everything in their power to label this history as "myth." Educators around the world, enamoured of the theory of evolution, gradually accepted, without seriously questioning, the conclusions of the English historians. How could early Europe ever have had a written history, so went the reasoning, if Europe was still gripped by the fetters of the "Stone Age" at the time Egypt and Mesopotamia were near the end of the "Late Bronze Age"? Today, however, leading archaeologists admit that the so-called Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages were not ages at all, but cultures. It is time the whole question of myth, archaeology and early European history were reopened. It is time we asked ourselves what is the time relationship between so-called Stone, Bronze and Iron cultures and written history. Did civilization and writing really begin only with the bronze period, as is commonly assumed today? Or were the first civilizations and the earliest written records the products of people who, in fact, had not yet blossomed into what is today termed the bronze period? In what period, for example, did the Hebrew patriarchs live -- the Stone? the Chalcolithic? the Early Bronze? To answer these basic questions, let us first present the history as it has been preserved by ancient Welsh and German authors.

Early Europe Who were the earliest Europeans to inhabit the regions now known as Britain, France, Germany and Italy? The Angles and the Saxons -- the

ancestors of the English-speaking people -- did not reach the British Isles until 449 -- over four centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus! This was the same period that other tribes flowed into the Roman regions of France, Germany, Italy -- and most everywhere else in Western Europe. Who were the people that possessed this part of the world before the coming of the recent Europeans, and before the coming of the Romans? The history of Western Europe 2000 years before the conquests of Julius Caesar is just as surprising as the history of Ireland. Early volumes covering this period include: "Britannia Antiqua Illustrata: or, The Antiquities of Ancient Britain", by Aylett Sammes, 1676, London, Thomas Roycroft publishers: "The Historie of Cambria, now called Wales: A part of the most famous Yland of Brytannie, written in the Brytish lanquage above two hundred years past": translated into English by H. Lhoyd, 1584; and "Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre shewing the Origen and Antiquity of that illustrious Nation", by Bercy Enderbie, London, 1661. The first volume mentioned -- by Aylett Sammes -- is by far the most complete and most accurate. It preserved to the very year the entire period from the beginning of settlement to the coming of Caesar. Sammes begins his book by dating the earliest record as "A.M. 1910." As he follows Archbishop ussher, his date is equivalent to 2094. (That is, After Man 1910 in Sammes' terminology means 1910 years after 4004.) What is the significance of 2094? That date, famous from Mesopotamian history, is the beginning of the kingdom of Horus (Gilgamesh or Ninyas) in the land of Shinar. In 2094 Horus (Kenkenes), the son of Ninus II, left Egypt to restore the government of Nimrod, in Erech in Babylonia. Sammes himself recognized a direct connection between the Middle East and Western Europe. The history of Western Europe, in fact, begins with the kingship of Gilgamesh in 2094 in Shinar. But why should the early Europeans have begun their history with an event in the land of Shinar? Because it was in the land of Shinar that they were living when Horus arrived from Egypt! It was from Shinar that Horus, or Zames Ninyas, led them to Western Europe. Ancient Belgian and German records confirm that their oldest city, Trier, was founded by Trebeta another son of Ninus II, king of Assyria. The inhabitants of Trier maintain that their city is the oldest in all Europe," records Josef K. L. Bihl in his text "In deutschen Landen", p. 69. "Trier was founded," he continues. "by Trebeta, a son of the famous Assyrian king Ninus. In fact one finds ... in Trier the inscription reading, 'Trier existed for 1300 years before Rome was rebuilt.'" Trebeta was a half-brother of Horus or Ninyas. His mother was not Semiramis, but a daughter of the ruler of Armenia. The Welsh or Britons knew Zames Ninyas as Samothes. The migration from Shinar and the Assyrian realm in Mesopotamia shortly after 2094 brought Chaldeans and Assyrians, and probably Elamites as captive slaves, into Western Europe as its first civilized inhabitants. Thereafter Europe became the land to which Chaldeans and Assyrians continued to migrate as they left the Middle East. Horus continued his rule in Western Europe until 2048, according to the traditions preserved by Sammes. That was the year his mother by duplicity came to the throne of Assyria. See Syncellus' history of Assyria, where Semiramis is assigned a 42-year reign (2048-2006) immediately prior to the 38-year reign of Zames Ninyas (2006-1968). Zames or Samothes relinquished personal dominion over Western Europe to

his son in that year and returned to Assyria, where a lengthy three-way struggle ensued between himself, his mother and the king of Armenia. Here are the first kings to rule over Western Europe. Names of Rulers

Lengths of Reign

Dates according to Sammes

Samothes, also called Zeus or Jupiter (the Gilgamesh of Erech)

46

2094-2048

Magus, his son (the ancestor of the tribe of Magi who later migrated into Persia from Europe)

51

2048-1997

Sarron (the ancestor of the tribe of Sarronides or sacrificing priests of early Europe)

61

1997-1936

Druis (the ancestor of the tribe of Druids)

14

1936-1922

Bardus (the father of the ancient tribe of Bards)

75

1922-1847

Longho, conqueror of Scandanavia (ancestor of the Longobards who finally migrated into Italy after the fall of Rome)

28

1847-1819

Bardus II (by whom the principles of music were first taught in Germany)

37

1819-1782

Lucus Protector

11

1782-1771

Celtes, so famous he gave his name to all the early peoples of Western Europe

13

1771-1758

Celtes' mother was named Galathea. In her honor he named his daughter Galathea also. As celtes had no son he gave his daughter in marriage to Hercules (who has been identified with Seir the Horite from Josephus). From her Hercules had a son named Galathes, the ancestor of a tribe named Galli -- one of the Gauls or Galatians. This tribe, joined with others, later migrated into Asia Minor and gave its name to the region of Galatia. With Celtes the direct male line of kings from Samothes or Horus ceases.

The Heraclidae Kings In the next chart will appear the line of kings who sprang from Galathea. Names of Kings

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Hercules, the conqueror of Libya (a full account of his exploits must await Vol. II of Compendium)

19

1758-1739

Galathes (father of the tribe of the Galli)

49

1739-1690

Narbon (ruled Samothea or Britain during lifetime of his father: afterward governed entire realm from city of Narbon in Gaul)

18

1690-1672

Lugdus (the founder of Lugdunum)

51

1672-1621

Beligius (gave his name to the Beligici, later called Belgae, among whom he established his capital; he died without issue)

20

1621-1601

Jasius (a prince of a related line who, in 1602, had been made king of Italy; he had all Celtica under his rule)

68

1601-1551

Allobrox (Obtained Celtica upon death of his father; his brother Corybantus obtained Italy)

68

1551-1483

Romus

29

1483-1454

Paris

39

1454-1415

Lemanes

62

1415-1353

Olbius

5

1353-1348

Galathes II

48

1348-1300

Namnes

44

1300-1256

Remus (died without a male heir; married his daughter to Phranicus of Trojan descent)

40

1256-1216

Phranicus (he retired to Gaul and left Britain to be governed by the Druids)

67

1216-1149

In 1149 Brutus of Troy came to Britain with his troops.

The Trojans and Western Europe The story of the famous Trojan kings -- once so widely discussed in Greek literature -- is little known to history students today. It begins in the days of Jasius, or Jason, who became king of Celtica in 1601. The halfbrother of Jasius is Dardanus, whom Josephus declares to be Darda or Dara (See II Chronicles 2:6). Darda was of the House of Judah and the Trojan kings therefore were Jews! Following a quarrel Dardanus fled to Asia Minor, married the daughter of a native king, and founded the vital fort of Troy. Thus the Trojan line of kings -- to be discussed in detail in Vol. II of the Compendium -- were able to dominate Western Asia Minor. The Trojans were generally supported by the Assyrians in all their wars against the Greeks. The line of Trojan kings may be found on page 12 of Enderbie's "Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre". Kings of Troy to 1181

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Dardanus (Compare the date 1477 with Eusebius' account of Dynasty XV in Egypt)

65

1477-1412

Erictanus

46

1412-1366

Tros

40

1366-1326

Ilus

49

1326-1277

Laomedon

44

1277-1233

Priamus (Priam)

52

1233-1181

In 1181 the Trojans were crushed in the First Trojan War with Greece. Aeneas, of the royal famlly, fled to Italy. A son, Brutus, expelled from Italy returned to the Aegean area and organized the enslaved Trojans, Lydians and Maeonians. The Greeks were defeated and Troy was recaptured. With the recapture of Troy in 1149 the list of Sea Powers of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean began. According to the terms of the treaty with the Greeks Brutus migrated, with all who wished to follow him, via the Mediterranean into Britain. His sons continued to rule ancient Britain, and on occasion vast areas of the continent. The line of Brutus fell in a fratricidal war in 482. Line of Brutus

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Brutus

24

1149-1125

Locrine

20

1125-1105

Madan

40

1105-1065

Mempricius

20

1065-1045

Ebranck

40

1045-1005

(Ebranck was a great conqueror, made an alliance with the king of Italy, occupied all Gaul and much of Germany, threatened to invade the eastern Mediterranean. Does this explain the unusual behavior of King David of Israel in his late years when he sought to take a census of the House of Israel in preparation for a vast military program?) Brute II

12

1005-993

Leil

25

993-968

Lud

39

968-929

Baldud

20

929-909

Leir

60

909-849

5

849-844

Cunedag and Margan

33

844-811

Rival

46

811-765

Gurgust

84

765-681

Silvius

49

681-632

Jago

28

632-604

Kimmacus

54

604-550

Gorbodug

63

550-487

5

487-482

Cordeilla, queen

Ferrex and Porrex

These two sons of Gorbodug perished in a fratricidal struggle after 5 years. Thus the direct line of Aeneas and Brutus ceased -- as the Trojan line through Aeneas and Ascanius perished in Italy in 509, only 27 years before. After the death of Porrex and Ferrex the land of Britain was divided among Rudaucus, king of Wales; Clotenus, king of Cornwall; Pinor. king of Loegria; Statorius, king of Albania, and Yevan, king of Northumberland for 48 years -- 482-434. The total duration of the struggle that ensued upon the death of Gorbodug was 53 years -- 487-434. In 434 Molmutius Dunvallo, son of Cloten, king of Cornwall, unified the kingdom. (The ancestry of Cloten is unrecorded). He enacted remarkable laws and was the first prince of Britain to be installed with the rites and ceremonies of Coronation. He wore a golden crown and other ornaments of solemn inauguration, a custom unknown by his predecessors. This new line of kings ruled till the coming of Julius Caesar in 55.

Native British kings continued even under the Roman Caesars, revived after the departure of the Romans, and were finally replaced by the direct Davidic line from Ireland, Scotland and England by Edward I. Line of British Kings from Molmutius

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Molmutius

40

434-394

Belinus and Brennus

22

394-372

Gurguint

19

372-353

Guintelyn

26

353-327

Silvius II or Silisius

15

327-312

3

312-309

10

309-299

Morindus

9

299-290

Gorboman

10

290-280

Archigallo

1

280-279

Elidure his brother

3

279-276

Archigallo restored

10

276-266

Elidurus again

1

266-265

Vigenius and Peridurus

9

265-256

Elidurus again

4

256-252

Gorbonian

10

252-242

Morgan

14

242-228

7

228-221

Ydwallo

20

221-201

Rimo

16

201-185

Geruntius

20

185-165

Gatellus

10

165-155

Coilus

10

155-145

Perrox II

5

145-140

Cherimus

1

140-139

Kimarus Elanius or Danius

Emerianus

Fulgentius

1

139-138

Eldred

1

138-137

Androgeus

1

137-136

Urianus

3

136-133

Elihud

5

133-128

Dedantius, or Dedacus

5

128-123

Detonus

2

123-121

Gurguineus

3

121-118

Merianus

2

118-116

Bleduus, or Bladud

2

116-114

Capenus

3

114-111

Ovinus

2

111-109

Sisilius

2

109-107

10

107- 97

Archimalus

2

97- 95

Eldolus

4

95- 91

Rodianus

2

91- 89

Redargius

3

89- 86

Samulius

2

86- 84

Penisillus

3

84- 81

Phyrrus

2

81- 79

Caporius

2

79- 77

Dinellus

4

77- 73

Heli

1

73- 72

Lud

11

72- 61

Bledgabedrus

In the seventh year of his sons Angrogaenus and Theomantius, when Cassibelan their uncle usurped the kingdom, Julius Caesar entered Britain. The seventh year is 55-54. Caesar first came in autumn of 55.

The Testimony of Archaeology

Having thrown out the early history of Europe and Britain, historians have sought archaeology as the only remaining means of unravelling early European history. But archaeology alone is insufficient. What historians should have done was to combine the evidence of scientific archaeological research with the testimony of written history. Then they would have known the time, the people and the leaders whose mute testimony they have uncovered from the soil. Consider, for a moment, what archaeologists have to report concerning early Britain. Take special note of the vocabulary they must use in order to clarify themselves. The first substantial migration to British soil, report archaeologists Jaquetta and Christopher Hawkes in "Prehistoric Britain", page 8, was of "Neolithic" long-headed farmers. When they came, who they really were, how long they resided until the succeeding migration -- these and other questions can only be guessed at. The second migratory wave to reach British shores were a round-headed, "bronze-culture" folk whom archaeologists have dubbed "Beaker Folk", or "Bell-beaker Folk." But all this jargon does not really tell who they were. How would you know who a people really were if all you were told was that they were a "Food-Vessel folk," a "Tea-kettle folk", or a "Beerbottle People"? Or used buttons instead of zippers? After this, archaeologists declare, came an "Urn People," later a "Deverel-Rimbury" invasion followed by a "La Tene" invasion -- and at length Julius Caesar's invasion in 55. Is it not time that sober historians cease fooling themselves by supposed knowledge that is, by itself, really no knowledge? Now see how clear this evidence becomes when placed side-by-side with written history. In the succeeding chart is the evidence -couched in scientific Jargon -- as recovered by archaeology, combined with the written history of Britain -- as preserved in historical sources. Archaeological Parlance

Testimony of Written History

Paleolithic period

Remains of pre-flood world, lasted 1656 years to 2369-2368

Mesolithic period; Britain becomes an island; Maglemose semi-arctic culture

Latest pre-flood and earliest post-flood hunters migrate through Britain

"Neolithic" period; several subdivisions; farmers bring fertility cult; megalithic period

Arrival in Western Europe of Chaldeans(Hebrews) and Assyrians from Shinar under Samothes, or Zames Ninyas -shortly after 2094; continues through several centuries; climaxes in Megalithic sites of Tuatha De Daanan after 1457 (see Irish history)

"Early Bronze": "Beaker Folk"; round-headed; largely nomadic

Coming of Brutus and of Troy and Trojan heroes in 1149; Trojans were acquainted with Aegean civilization; peacefully

penetrated land; cremated their dead and put ashes in urns for burial -- a custom common to Asia Minor Rise of "Wessex chieftains" and "Urn People"; trade with Minoan civilization of Crete; period begins as "Early Bronze," followed by transition into "Middle Bronze" culture

Time of expansion under Ebranck in Solomon's day

Numerous books separate "Wessex Chieftains" from "Urn People." They were the same people -- Wessex chieftain burials were merely those of the aristocracy; urn burials those of the common people, See page 106 of Wessex, by J. F. S. Stone. "unfortunately we have," writes Stone, "absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the existence of any contemporary habitation or occupation site in Wessex." Had the scholars combined the "Urn People" with the Wessex chieftains, they would have had the contemporary sites of occupation. "Deverel-Rimbury" invasions in so-called "Late Bronze" period; gradually replace "Urn People"

A new, but related, people invade British Isles during days of Silvius (681-632) and Jaso (632604); see Sammes' "Antiquities of Ancient Britain", p. 170; these were first wave of children of Jacob (Esau's brother) who were uprooted by Assyrians

So-called "Early Iron" immigrants penetrate into Britain; in after years early pastoral "Urn People" migrate out of Britain to Brittany in France

Another wave of same people who invaded in days of Silvius and Jaso now peroclate into Britain: civil war results; old line of kings overthrown and perish in 482: civil war ends in 434 with new line of kings

Another wave of "Early Iron" invaders; originally from region of Austria and Moravia, migrants passed through Gaul and became known among archaeologists as "La Tene" people from site of their culture in Gaul

In days of Morindus, king of Britain (299-290), invaders from Gaul attack Britain named "Morini" or "Moriani" in welsh records -from whence Moravia, their original homeland, is derived; King Morindus defeats them after they had already overrun much of the country (Sammes' "Antiquities", pp. 175-176); from archaeology comes this testimony: "The determined and organized resistance to aggression ... discouraged the La Tene raiders and prevented them from settling in any force on the southern chalk ....

no wholly La Tene type of society was established" (p. 126 of Hawkes' "Prehistoric Britain") And that is how history provides a clear explanation of archaeological findings. Of course the idea that iron was not in use until the "Iron Age" is absurd. Yet this is the idea that most laymen have as a result of using such terminology. Since much of the early history of Britain is interwoven with ancient Troy, the next chapter will present the archaeological results of the excavation at Troy, side-by-side with the record of history, especially the historical list of Sea Powers that seized upon Troy as a key to controlling the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean and Black seas.

CHAPTER TWENTY The Proof of Archaeology Troy was an ancient fort-city occupied from antiquity into Roman times. Troy was as important in early trade routes as Suez or Singapore were in the nineteenth century to the far-flung British Empire. Each people who possessed political control of Troy remoulded the city after its own image. Nearly every twenty to twenty-five years -- about every generation -- a thorough rebuilding of the site occurred. The foundations of major buildings and often the entire floors were left IN SITU and piled upon them were the remains of the demolished buildings, with all the broken wares of that generation. With each passing age the mound on which Troy was built became higher and higher. Walls about the city rose in proportion. Today archaeologists dig down through these buried remains and find one cultural level beneath another. The lower is in each instance the older unless a late building has been sunk deep into the mound. Periods without occupation are obvious from signs of extended erosion. According to modern historical ideas there should be an immence gap -of about 500 years between the fall of Troy and the rebuilding of the city by the Aetolian Greeks in the 600's. The fragmentary remains of life between the final war stratum and the Aetolian city prove there was no more than the lapse of a few years! In other words the final Fall of Troy was in the early 600's, not the early 1100's. Archaeologists have numbered each major period of occupation at the site of Troy. Beginning from the top down -- through Roman, Hellenistic and Persian periods -- one soon comes to the Greek settlements that immediately succeeded the temporary Trojan village established after the final war. The sequence of strata is continuous. If archaeologists had been honest with what they saw they could have concluded no other fact than that established already in the historical section of this Compendium. In the left-hand column, on the following pages, are the numbers used by archaeologists to designate the strata from the top of the mound to the virgin rock below. At the right are comments about the meaning of each numbered building period, with the proper dates. Archaeological Designation of Superimposed Deposits at Site of Ancient Troy

The Explanation of Trojan History from Classical Writers and Biblical Evidence

Beneath Roman, Hellenistic and Persian remains is a period of Greek settlement corresponding to the Late Assyrian and Chaldean Empires. Immediately under this -- NOT FIVE CENTURIES EARLIER -- appear the following strata, as labeled by archaeologists

VII b 1: post-war settlers

Trojan stragglers temporarily resettle site after Third

Trojan War VII a; seige layer overlying city remains, preceded by earthquake; this stratum said to end "Late Bronze" period

Third Trojan War (687-677) involved a 10 year siege; (this stratum includes previous city built after great earthquake (710) related to events in Hezekiah's day (Isaiah 38: 7-8); Carian sea power became dominant beginning 707

VI h earthquake ends this stratum

City during Milesian Sea Power which began in 725

g f e beginning of socalled "Late Bronze" d end of "Middle Bronze"

c

V

Three stages of city "g" through "e" reflect control of Egyptians for 43 years (768725) and the Phoenician for 45 years (813-768)

Cyprus controls the Troad as a key to sea power for 32 years (845-813); two levels reflect major changes during period in Egypt and the Aegean world at Argos

b

Phrygian sea power in control of Troy for 25 years (870-845): Phrygians were allies of Kingdom of Hatti in Asia Minor

a beginning of socalled "Middle Bronze"

Rhodes in control 23 years (893-870); culture of Greek world and Asia Minor replaces that of previous European people

d traditional end of "Early Bronze" in the Troad c b a

IV e (intermittent earthquakes appear from time to time) d

Four building periods during rule of European Thracians for 79 years (972-893); the people of Thrace at this period were civilized, cultured farming people related to the Phrygians (Franks) and Pelasgians; in later centuries a wild people, given to hunting and rapine, temporarily settled in Thrace before being driven out of Western Europe in Roman times Pelasgian sea control during four building periods; 85 years (1057-972); this is period of Solomonic, Davidic and Phoenician sea power in

Mediterranean; upon revolt in House of Israel in Solomon's last year in Palestine the maritime power passed to Hebrew settlements in Thrace

c b

IV a

-- a layer immediately overlying devastation by a tremendous earthquake III d ends in earthquake c b III a commonly designated as beginning of "Early Bronze 3" period II

I

g war layer ends period

Five building periods elapsed under Maeonian, or Lydian, control of the seas (during close of Hyksos period); layer III d ended in terrible earthquake of 1069 (I Samuel 14:15 and II Sam. 22); total period from "III a" to "IV a" covers 92 years (1149-1057); the year 1149 (at which III a begins) marks Greek defeat which ended Second Trojan War and began Maeonian sea power Covers period of Greek domination from 1181-1149

f war layer ends period

End the period of the First Trojan War (1181)

e (Entire period from d "II a" to "II g" is c commonly referred to b as "Early Bronze 2"; a layers "a" to "e", though divided into 5 parts, represent 10 building periods

Building periods "II a" to "II f" represent the lengthy period of Hyksos domination from 14771181 (Troy was refounded in 1477 by Dardanus)

(not less than 10 building periods, commonly referred to as "Early Bronze 1")

The period of pre-Hyksos settlement; began in 1700's and ended with Hyksos conquest

Notice the general cultural relationship between Troy, in Asia Minor, and Britain in Western Europe (where many Trojans settled before finally migrating to Brittany). The use in archaeology of the terms "Early," "Middle," and "Late Bronze" and "Iron," is deceptive. Iron was used during Troy's "Bronze" period. The fact is, archaeologists do not really use metals as a guide. Their cultural dating is dependent on pottery, whether or not metals are even present. Scholars label certain cultures as "Neolithic," or "CHALCOLITHIC," OR "BRONZE," OR "IRON" NOT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE, BUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THESE PARTICULAR CULTURES EXISTED DURING WHAT THEY ASSUME WERE THOSE "AGES" OR "PERIODS."

Archaeology in the Aegean World Historians have long puzzled over the archaeological evidence

uncovered in the Aegean world and in Asia Minor. What they found did not fit their theories. Here is what happened, and why. First historians made the mistake of assuming that the traditional framework of Egyptian history is true. They never questioned the scheme of having each Egyptian dynasty succeed the other. It never entered their minds that there may have been extensive periods in Egyptian history during which different dynasties in Upper and Lower Egypt reigned contemporaneously. Once the false view of Egyptian history was accepted. archaeological evidence in Egypt was made to conform to it. The so-called "Bronze" and "Iron" ages, for example, were dated centuries too early. This had an immediate effect on archaeological studies in the Greek world. In Egypt archaeological evidence is often associated with inscriptions that date the remains to a specific dynasty or Pharaoh. In the Greek world this is not the case. The kings of ancient Greece did not leave inscriptions. How then is one to properly associate the remains of a Greek palace with the king who reigned in it? The answer is, archaeologists can only guess. What they attempt to do is date the Greek pottery by evidence from Egypt. The ancient world was a trading world. Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians traded their wares in each other's ports. Egyptian pottery found its way into Greece. Greek and Phoenician pottery into Egypt. Pottery styles change. Each century or generation created its own distinctive pottery. If pottery remains in any one of these countries could be accurately dated, then of course it could be immediately determined what kind of pottery was contemporary in the other countries. It was assumed that Egyptian pottery could be accurately dated. By noting what kind of Greek pottery was being traded at specific periods in Egypt. archaeologists thought they had arrived at the correct method of dating Greek pottery. They overlooked only one thing. Egyptian pottery is not correctly dated. Most of it is dated centuries too early. Pottery in the Aegean world and in Asia Minor is consequently dated too early also. Greek kings long dead came to be associated with palaces and pottery styles they never saw or dreamed of. Kings were assumed to be buried in tombs that belonged, in reality, to their descendants or to others living twenty generations later. In Egypt this curious error could not occur, because archaeological remains included royal inscriptions associating the ruler with tomb, palace or pottery. In Greece there were no inscriptions to date remains. So pottery, tombs and palaces in Greece and Asia Minor were predated in accordance with Egyptian history, but the kings were either rejected as fabulous or were dated according to Greek chronologers who usually had the kings correctly dated. Thus Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, who fought in the First Trojan War came to be associated with pottery of the Third Trojan War. The pottery was dated centuries too early because it was found in Egypt associated with remains of Dynasties XVIII and XIX which were dated centuries too early! In the Aegean world archaeologists use the terms Early, Middle and Late Helladic (in Greece). or Early, Middle and Late Cycladic (in the Cyclades), or Early, Middle and Late Minoan (in Crete). Each of these are also sometimes designated Early, Middle and Late Bronze by archaeologists, Mycenaean culture in the Eastern Mediterranean is another name for the so-called Late Bronze period. It is commonly thought to have originated in Mycenae in Greece during this period.

Hence its name. The Mycenaean culture is assumed, today, to be the Greek culture of the First Trojan War. This assumption is based on the fact that Mycenaean remains have been found in association with remains of Dynasties XVIII and XIX of Egypt which are dated five to six centuries too early. The previous chart on the archaeological remains of Troy proves that the culture of Greece during the First Trojan war ending in 1181 was Early Bronze. The culture of Greece during the last Trojan War was Mycenaean. Hence Agamemnon is to be associated with Early Bronze (so-called) pottery, not with Mycenaean palaces which belonged to tyrants living centuries later! Archaeologists contend that the Mycenaean world collapsed and was followed by so-called "Dark Ages" in Greece. Traditional Greek geometric styles of pottery, it is assumed, returned to favor after falling into disuse during the Mycenaean period. Thege geometric styles, we are asked to believe, continued down to the Hellenistic period, around 331, when Alexander conquered Persia. In most archaeology books about eight and one half centuries are allowed between the end of the Mycenaean world and Alexander the Great. But the true restoration allows less than one and one half centuries. Here is an extraordinary variation of over seven centuries between traditional interpretations or archaeological evidence and the facts. Have archaeologists really uncovered remains abundant enough to fill the extra seven centuries demanded by their theories? Were there really "Dark Ages" that befell Greece at the close of the Mycenaean world? Archaeologists have, of course, found the surprising evidence. But they have been unable to believe it. There simply are not enough material remains to fill the gap artificially created by antedating the Mycenaean world to conform to the false Egyptian scheme of history taken for granted today. Chester G. Starr, in his book "The Origins of Greek Civilization", admits on page 77 that "only the scantiest of physical remains" exist to fill the gap. Now consider the facts. The so-called Mycenaean or Late Bronze or Helladic culture has been subdivided by archaeologists into three major periods. The third period has been further subdivided into three parts. At the time of the final fall of Troy in 677 Greek imports were still of the late Helladic IIIB cultural style. This style continued well into the next century during the reign of Ramesses the Great (610-544). During his reign the Mycenaean pottery styles degenerated into sub-Mycenaean or IIIC pottery styles which continued even after the overthrow of Mycenae. Greek history tells us that Mycenae was destroyed in the 470's by Argos (see "Oxford Classical Dictionary"). But this date does not mark the introduction of Geometric pottery into Greece. Archaeologist Wilhelm Doerpfeld in his work "Alt-Olympia", published in 1935, proves that excavators deliberately hid their eyes from the fact that Mycenaean wares were contemporary with Geometric pottery in Greece, that Mycenaean wares were actually of Eastern or Phoenician origin and existed side by side with Greek geometric wares during the so-called Late Bronze period in the Aegean. The geometric styles were followed by Orientalizing styles in Greek pottery. This Orientalizing style is associated with the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Aegean Isles. The list of Sea Powers presented earlier dates this period from about the time of the last Trojan War to the defeat of the Aeginetan sea power in 480. In other words, Orientalizing styles among the Greeks occurred during the sub-Mycenaean period.

The rise of Athens after the Persian wars led to Athenian wares dominating the markets of the world, beginning in the 470's. This is the time of the spread of Attic black-figured ware -- not a century and a quarter earlier as is usually assumed. Archaeologists, of course, have carelessly overlooked the significance of the ancient list of Sea Powers which proves that Athens did not control the seas until after the defeat of Xerxes. Classic styles of Greek ware, soon developed, continued to the late fourth century when Hellenistic tastes took on new dimensions with Alexander's conquests.

Palestine, Syria and Archaeology The land which boasts the most complete archaeological record is Palestine. This is partly an empty boast. The only really early city that is thoroughly documented is Jericho. Hardly any of the other early Palestinian sites are known. By contrast, much of early Syria and Mesopotamia is better documented. Early Jericho begins with a "Prepottery Neolithic A" culture. The duration of this culture extended over a few centuries, though it is carelessly maximized by archeologists many more hundreds of years. The period of this culture is pre-Flood, as is the succeeding "Prepottery Neolithic B." It is found in strata X to XVII. It is a period of intense warfare. The city walls were being constantly rebuilt. The story of Jericho is really the account of the great walled city Cain built before the Flood. Jericho had walls long before any other city. See the latest excavation reports by Miss Kenyon. Thereafter two new cultural strata occur. Each is a period of great retrogression, as if some calamity had befallen the people. Each is separated by a span of time in which the site was depopulated. The inhabitants used pottery. (See Chart I of "The Archaeology of Palestine" in "The Bible and the Ancient Near East", edited by G. E. Wright.) The site of Jericho hereafter was for several centuries abandoned. The population of Palestine disappeared. This is the period of the Flood. of human depopulation, and the meagre beginnings of the new post-Flood world. In Mesopotamia small beginnings of modern society developed. Then over much of the Jordan valley, the southern hill country and elsewhere in Palestine a new culture sprang up. It is labeled Chalcolithic or Ghassulian after a site where first discovered. It flourished in areas which today are far removed from any water sources. Sites with this culture extend far out into the arid plain about the Dead Sea. The culture comes to a sudden end! Now notice the record in Genesis 13:10, "And Lot lifted up his eyes. and behold all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt." Here is the so-called Ghassulian culture! It was in the days of Abraham. This culture perished with the burning of the cities of the plain in the year 1916 -- just before the birth of Isaac. Very little is known of cultures elsewhere in Palestine prior to this time. All that has so far been recovered are remains of wretched cave cultures and open camp sites. These cave cultures, usually placed millenniums before the habitation of Jericho, include both pre-Flood remains and early post-flood deposits. Cave dwelling continued, however, long after the beginning of cities. Even Lot, when he fled from Sodom, dwelt in a cave (Gen. 19:30)

The culture which follows the overthrow of the cities of the plain is designated "Early Bronze I." It is subdivided into sections "A", "B" and "C". This culture has been associated, mistakenly, with Dynasty I of Egypt. It is indeed found in the tomb of Semempses (Shem) in Egypt (pp. 59, 70 of "Pottery of Palestine", by G. E. Wright). All that proves is that it was the family of Shem which introduced it widely among the Canaanites after the destruction of Sodom. Early Bronze I was succeeded by Early Bronze II and III. The latter ends abruptly in 1446, at the crossing of the Jordan under Joshua.

The Coming of Israel Into Palestine The next archaeological period in Palestinian stratigraphy is designated "Early Bronze IV" or "Early Bronze III B." It is a period at Jericho and elsewhere of frantic building of defences. "No well-preserved constructions of Early Bronze IV have yet been discovered," writes William Foxwell Albright in "Archaeology of Palestine", page 77. The most spectacular remains of this period is of a gigantic open-air camp site overlooking the Dead Sea. Here is William Albright's description of it: "... overlooking the Dead Sea from an eastern terrace, is a great open-air enclosure, defended by a wall of large field stones. Inside the enclosure and around it are many ancient hearths, with quantities of sherds" -- and here an incorrect date is suggested. "Outside, at a greater distance, are many graves dug in the ground and surrounded with small stones arranged in such a way as to resemble megalithic dolmens superficially .... Most of the graves were covered by shallow tumuli. At a little distance is a group of fallen menhirs ("messaboth"), which seem originally to have numbered seven" (p. 78). Whose camp was this? Israel's! At this point in the cultural history of Palestine archaeologists find the country was suddenly devastated. Destruction and abandonment of towns are everywhere. A sudden reduction in population occurs. Here is the archaeological evidence of the invasion of Joshua! Now we are in a position to place in chart form the proper relationship between archaeological finds and history. Note that during the so-called bronze culture, iron was every where in use in Palestine. A description of each period may be found in detail in the works of Albright, Glueck, Kenyon, Wright and others. Cultural Development in Palestinian Pottery

Contemporary Historical Events

Early Bronze I-III

1916-1446 From about the destruction of Sodom to the crossing of the Jordan

Early Bronze III B also labeled by Kenyon Inter. Early BronzeMiddle Bronze or Middle Bronze I (by Albright)

1446-1441 From crossing of Jordan to the division of the land in 1441-1440: dates are found by subtracting successive judgeships from 300 years after Exodus -- 1446-1146 (see Judges 11:26).

Middle Bronze I

1441-1391 Lifetime of Joshua and

(Kenyon) also labeled Middle Bronze II A (Albright) Middle Bronze II (Kenyon) or II B and C (Albright) (influence of culture from Mesopotamia)

Elders, oppression of Cushanrishathaim and his defeat in 1391 Phase 1 Judgeship of Othniel 1391-1333 (40 years) and period of Ammonite oppression (18 years) Phase 2 Period of major deposits 1333-1253 during lengthy time of peace -- judgeship of Ehud (during 80 years) Phase 3 Oppression of Jabin king 1253-1193 of Canaan (20 years); also time of Philistine incursions; judgeship of Barak (40 years) and of Deborah and Shamgar Phase 4 Midianite, Amalekite and 1193-1146 Maonite invasion (7 years) followed by judgeship of Gideon (40 years) Phase 5 Philistine invasion(40 years 1146-1091 1146-1106) and second Ammonite invasion during time of Samuel, Jephthah, Samson. Three hundred years after conquest of Palestine east of Jordan (1446) the Ammonites launched an attack upon Palestine (Judges 11:26) and overran the land for 18 years 1146-1128; parallel with this invasion the Philistines attacked Israel (in 1146) and oppressed the land 40 years (during the life of Samson); Samuel delivered the country from the Philistines in 1106: peace restored until Saul's reign, which began in 1091 Phase 5 of Middle Bronze, so-called, ends in Palestine with a sudden destruction of every major city! This is the Philistine invasion about 1091 when Saul was first made king.

Transition Middle to Late Bronze (Kenyon and Mazar)

Reign of Saul to the time of David's victory over the Philistines; period of dislocation

Late Bronze I

Later years of David, reign of Solomon and time of Thutmose's domination of Palestine

The so-called Late Bronze period in Egypt and Palestine was quite lengthy. It began much earlier than in Greece and the region of the Troad. This period has not been clearly subdivided by archaeologists because they do not know it pertains to the time of Israel and Judah It is usually assumed that it represents the pre-Israelite Canaanites. Not only does the so-called Late Bronze continue to the time of Assyrian domination of Israel in the north of Palestine, it continued through the time of the kingdom of Judah to Nebuchadnezzar's invasion and the reign of Ramesses the Great, Throughout the Late Bronze there is evidence of war and gradual decline. Late Bronze pottery continued in use in Palestine even after the sixth century. It was the culture of the returning Jews during the Persian period. This shocking fact can be proved from contemporary Egyptian history! Miss Kathleen M. Kenyon points out in her book "Archaeology of the Holy Land" (Praeger edition), page 218, that near the close of Late Bronze II the site of Megiddo has yielded a model pen-case bearing the cartouche of Ramesses III. His dates, restored earlier, are 381-350. At Bethshan a statue of Ramesses III was found in Late Bronze setting. Below Ramesses III were stelae of Seti I of the seventh century and scarabs and other objects of Thutmose III. Late Bronze II, Level VII, of the dig at Megiddo even yielded evidence of the reign of Ramesses VI (correctly dated to 340-333) in association with a little so-called "Philistine" pottery. This pottery is not Philistine ware at all. It is Greek and Phoenician ware of the time of Alexander the Great! It is derived from sub-Mycenaean III C, which is datable to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. So-called "Philistine" ware is misdated eight centuries too early. It is falsely attributed to Philistines of the time of Samuel, Saul and David! The reason for this mistake is, of course, that it is associated with Dynasty XX of Egypt, which has been misplaced by about eight centuries. "Philistine" -- actually Aegean -- ware marks the final transition from the so-called Bronze to Iron ages in Palestine. It is commonly believed that the Iron Age began about the period of Joshua's invasion of Palestine, that so-called Philistine ware then appeared, and that the archaeological remains of David and Solomon and the kings of Israel all belong to this period. This idea is utterly false. Other than at Samaria, the so-called Iron Age in Palestine is a period of decadence and poverty. It generally represents the period of rising Greek influence in Asia and the later Hellenistic period and early Roman periods. The site of Samaria has been used as proof that the Iron Age is the period of the Israelite kings. It proves just the opposite, The citadel on the summit of the hill of Samaria, which is commonly attributed to Omri, Ahab and Jehu has all the characteristics of typical acropolises invariably associated with Greek towns! The Greeks under Alexander, having overthrown the Samaritans, cleared away the top of the hill of Samaria and built their garrison buildings on its summit. Archaeologists have taken for granted that Omri built it. The architectural remains show typical Greek architecture. The excavation on the hill of Samaria has not included the living quarters of the common people of the Israelite period. If all the area had been excavated, archaeologists would have found remains typical of the

Israelites' culture during the so-called Late Bronze period. (See page 269 of Kenyon's "Archaeology of the Holy Land".) As a result of antedating the so-called Iron Age culture by about eight centuries, the period after the exile under the Persians is nearly a total blank in archaeological works (see Kenyon's work, pages 298-299). On page 301, Miss Kenyon writes: "The only architectural remains belong to official buildings presumably associated with the Persian administration, and the few rich burials probably belong to members of the official hierarchy." In reality, the few structures found are those of the Hellenistic period.

Mesopotamian Archaeology The final phase of the restoration of World History is now approaching -- the archaeology of Shinar, Assyria and Egypt. The region of Mesopotamia is best studied by taking Shinar as one unit, and the remainder of Mesopotamia as another -- the political areas of Babylonia and Assyria. The post-Flood culture of Shinar begins with a phase known as "Late Ubaid." "Early Ubaid" is pre-Flood. "At all sites so far investigated in the South the Ubaid remains rest directly on virgin soil, and there seems little doubt that the people who bore this culture were the first settlers on the alluvium of whom we have any trace" (Perkins, "Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia", p. 13). The earliest known phase near Ur is known as Ubaid I. It contains Woolley's "flood deposit." The earliest post-Flood phase is known as Ubaid II which continues to 1938, the year of the defeat of the four kings in Palestine by Abram. With the defeat of the Mesopotamian (Assyrian) kings in 1938 a total break ensues in the cultural complex of Ubaid III. The land is never again culturally united until the late Assyrian Empire. The next major period is generally known as the Protoliterate Period. In older works and the most recent it commonly receives the name Jamdat Nasr, after a city in Mesopotamia. In this Period excavations at the cities of Eridu and Uruk will be noted in chart form. City of Eridu

City of Uruk

Temple stratum III covers the period ending 1717, the close of the Hamazi Dynasty (2137-1717). In archaeological parlance this is phase "a" of the Protoliterate Period.

Phase "a" is composed of strata VIII-VI. Stratum VIII of the Eanna Temple contains a major cultural change. This period continues to 1777 -the earliest recommencement of the Second Dynasty of Uruk. Stratum VII also exhibits a new, though minor cultural phase. This period extends from 1777 to 1748, the time of the rise of both Kish and Akshak. Stratum VI extends from 1748 to 1717, the date of the final restoration to power of Uruk.

Eridu Temple stratum covers phases "b," "c" and "d" of the socalled Protoliterate Period. It ends around 1649 with the rise to power of Dynasty III of Uruk.

The second phase of the Protoliterate Period covers the remains of strata V-III. Written materials begin to make their appearance in the strata, but this is not the real beginning of writing in Mesopotamia. Divisions of the later Protoliterate Period are based not so much on political events as on Temple strata V, IV and III, which correspond with "b", "c" and "d." Quite significant! -- but that is the foolishness to which scholars descend who have cut themselves off from true history.

-----------------------The next Period is designated Early Dynastic I. It is properly equated with the Dynasty of Akkad (see "Relative Chronologies of Old World Archaeology", p. 48). The cultural period extends to the initial invasion of the Guti in 1535. Early Dynastic II extends from 1535 to about the end of the Akkadian Dynasty in 1436. (Of course, these political dates are only general indicators of changes in cultural patterns.) Early Dynastic III extends to the Elamite invasion that brought about the establishment of the cities of Isin (1301) and Larsa (1306). The next cultural phase is properly associated with Isin, Larsa and Dynasty I of Babylon (1174-879).

Northern Mesopotamia And now Northern Mesopotamia, especially the land of Assyria. It is commonly taught today that Assyria and the highlands surrounding the Mesopotamian plain were settled long before the region of Shinar was dry enough to inhabit. To some extent this is true. But the duration of time cannot be archaeologically determined. Only a historical record can determine that. The duration of human settlement from the highland down the river valleys eastward to Shinar took only about one century! The city and the tower of Babel were built only 114 years after the flood ended. The earliest cultural phase in Northern Mesopotamia is generally designated Hassuna, from a site where it was first found. Unstratified, less advanced cultures have also been found in the highlands, but they are not demonstrably older. They are of nomadic peoples and minor villages, and continued parallel for a few centuries with other cultures in the growing cities of the later pre-Flood Mesopotamian Plain. The pre-Flood Hassuna culture is represented at the site of Nineveh by strata 1 and 2, and at Hassuna by strata I-V. The phase covers human movements somewhat before the end of the pre-Flood world in the area settled by the family of Seth. We next find the development of a later pre-Flood culture. This northern culture is called by archaeologists the Halaf Period -- after

the site of Halaf. These meaningless archaeological names would really become interesting if they had been properly connected with contemporary leaders who have molded ancient history. Halafian is represented at Nineveh by strata 2 b and 2 c. At Hassuna by strata VI through X. At Arphchaiyyah it is represented by strata 10 through 6. At each site there is evidence of warfare at the end of the period. Violence filled that world. The sudden end of the Halafian period signifies the end of the pre-Flood world. Just before it ended there was a new cultural development in Southern Mesopotamia. The next cultural period was once thought to commence with a heavy influence out of Iran, but now is beginning to be recognized as of local origin. The new cultural period is termed Northern Ubaid I and is the latest pre-Flood culture. Through Noah's family it continues into the post-Flood world. The most important post-Flood phase of this new period reveals a revival of religious practice. At Tepe Gawra in Assyria, a temple began to be built. Its commencement corresponds with the new building phase of the temple at Eridu. This revival of religion can be dated from the time of Nimrod to about the year 2137 -- the return of Isis (Semiramis or Ishtar). A complete break in cultural unity occurs at the end of Northern Ubaid II. As in Shinar the land becomes divided into numerous local cultures. This phase -- the Warka Period -- bears the same name as in the south, but it exhibits many different features. It is related to Eastern Anatolia and North Syria, the Aramaic homeland. It corresponds in time to the latter period of influence of the Arabian or Aramean Dynasty of Berossus -- 2043-1828. Beginning with the Warka Period, the cultural phases of northern Mesopotamia are generally correctly associated with the phases of Babylonia as not to necessitate further discussion here. Any of the publications listed in the Bibliography are suitable for pursuing this section further. It is only in the earliest periods that a restoration is needful. Note in concluding, that every cultural phase is reflected in political events. Further, observe that the common stratum occupies about the space of a generation -- not upwards of a century as postulated by evolutionary archaeology.

Egypt In Parallel But what about the many centuries that are assigned to the "Pre-Dynastic" cultures of early Egypt? How can these be reconciled with the demonstrable historical fact that human beings did not arrive in Egypt until the Dynastic Period? Egyptian history teaches us that there was no "Pre-Dynastic Age" in Egypt. What have the archaeologists discovered in the Nile Valley? Is there correspondence between Egypt and Palestine and Mesopotamia that dates these assumed early cultures of Egypt? Indeed there is! The Maadi culture in North Egypt is known to correspond with the Gerzean in South Egypt (p. 2 of "Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology", R. W. Ehrich editor). With what period is Gerzean contemporary? Here is the surprising answer: "The equation of Late Gerzean and Early Bronze I in Palestine is clear" (page 5). Again: "Most important for establishing a synchronims are the four cylinder seals of Jemdet Nasr style (imports and imitations), two of

which occur in well-documented Late Gerzean graves" (page 5). This means that the latest so-called "Pre-Dynastic" culture was parallel with the Protoliterate in Mesopotamia, which began about 1828. Egypt's latest "Pre-Dynastic" (!) culture was the culture of Egypt just before the coming of the family of Jacob to Egypt -- four hundred years after the first dynasty commenced at Thinis. Prior to the Maadi (in the North) and the Gerzean (in the South), Egyptian culture is subdivided into Merimde and Fayum in the North and Amratian, Badarian and Tasian in the South. These cultures show affinities with the Ubaid of Mesopotamia and the Neolithic of Jericho. But how does one explain the backward cultures of the people of Egypt when the royal tombs exhibit such sophisticated tastes -superior, in fact, to the common tastes of Palestine or Mesopotamia? Josephus answers: "Whereas these Egyptians are the very people that appear to have never, in all the past ages, had one day of freedom, no not so much as from their own lords" ("Against Apion", II, 12). See also "Antiquities" I, 8. Egyptian princes and kings always lived in a fashion far beyond the inclinations, or even the knowledge, of the common fellaheen. The backward culture of early Egypt is not found stratigraphically beneath the remains of the earliest dynasty, but contemporary with it and succeeding dynasties. "Neolithic" remains in Egypt were reproduced even to Roman times! With this material the essential framework of history is restored. There is perfect harmony between true history, true scientific archaeology and the Bible. History and the Bible can be reconciled. --------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akurgal, Ekrem, "The Art of the Hittites". London, 1962. Albright, William F., "The Archaeology of Palestine", Baltimore, 1960. Allen, Herbert J., "Ssuma Chien's Historical Records", "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society," April 1894, January and July 1895. "Anatolian Studies". 1951-. London. Ancient and Modern Britons. (No author.) London, 1884. "Ancient Egypt", 1914-1933. London. "Antiquity a Quarterly Review of Archaeology". 1927-. Gloucester, England. Aston, W. G., "Nihongi". London, 1956. Bellew, H. W., "The Races of Afghanistan". Calcutta, 1880. Beloe, William, "Herodotus, Translated From the Greek". 4 vol. London, 1821. "The Biblical Archaeologist". Vol. I (1938)-. New Haven, Connecticut. Blegen, C. W., "Troy" ("Cambridge Ancient History, Fascicle 1".), Cambridge, 1961. Bosanguet, J. W., "The Fall of Nineveh and the Reign of Sennacherib, Chronologically considered". London, 1853. Breasted, J. H., "Ancient Records of Egypt". 5 vol. Chicago, 1906. Breasted, J. H., "A History of Egypt". New York, 1905. Brinton, D. G., "The American Race". New York, 1891. Brinton, Daniel G., "The Myths of the New World". Philadelphia, 1905. Brugsch-Bey, H., "Egypt Under the Pharaohs". London, 1891. Bryant, Jacob, "A New System; or, an Analysis of Ancient Mythology". Third Edition. 3 vols. London, 1807. Budge, E. A. Wallis, "The Book of the Kings of Egypt". 2 vols. London, 1908. Budge, E. A., Wallis, "A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII. B.C. 30", 8 vols. London, 1902. "Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research". No. 1-. New Haven, Connecticut.

Bunsen, C. C. J., "Egypt's Place in Universal History". 5 vols. London, 1848. Burn, Andrew R., "The Lyric Age of Greece", New York, 1960. Bury, J. B.; Cook, S. A.; Adcock, F. E., "The Cambridge Ancient History". 12 vols. Cambridge, 1923. Cary, Earnest, "The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus". The Loeb Classical Library, 7 volumes. London, 1948-. Ceram, C. W., "The Secret of the Hittites", New York, 1956. Clark, Grahame, "World Prehistory", Cambridge, 1961. Clerigh, Arther Ua, "The History of Ireland to the Coming of Henry II". London. Clinton, Henry Fynes, Fasti Hellenici. "The Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece from the earliest accounts to the death of Augustus". Contenau, G., "La Civilisation des Hittites et des Hurrites du Mitanni". 1948. Dawkins, W. B., "Early Man in Britain". London, 1880. Dawson, Christopher, "The Age of the Gods. A study in the Origins of Culture in Prehistoric Europe and the Ancient East". New York, 1928. Domenech, Em., "Deserts of North America". London, 1860. Dougherty, R. P., "The Sealand of Ancient Arabia". New Haven, 1932. Drioton E. and J. Vandier, "Peuples de l'Orient Mediterraneen I and II (L'Egypte)". Paris, 1952. Duruy, Victor, "History of Rome and the Roman People". 6 vols. London, 1883. Edgerton, W. F. and J. A. Wilson, "Historical Records of Rameses III". Chicago, 1936. Eggermont, P. H. L., "The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya". Leiden, 1956. Ehrich, Robert W., "Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology". Chicago, 1954. Elgood, Lieut.-Col. P. G., "Later Dynasties of Egypt". Oxford, 1951. Enderbie, Percy, "Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre Shewing the Origen and Antiquity of that Illustrious Nation." London, 1661. Eyre, Edward, "European Civilization. Its Origen and Development". 7

vols. London, 1935. Fane, R. A. B. Ponsonby, "The Imperial House of Japan". Kyoto, 1959. Gadd, C. J., "The Fall of Nineveh". London, 1923. Gardiner, Sir Alan, "Egypt of the Pharaohs". Oxford, 1961. Gardner, Percy, "New Chapters in Greek History". New York, 1892. Garstang, John, "The Land of the Hittites". London, 1910. Garstang, John and O. R. Gurney, "The Geography of the Hittite Empire". London, 1959. Ghirshman, R., "Iran from the Earliest Times to the Islamic Conquest". Baltimore, 1954. Giot, P. R., "Brittany". London, 1960. Glanville, S. R. K., "The Legacy of Egypt"., Oxford, 1942. Glueck, Nelson, "The Other Side of the Jordan". New Haven, Connecticut, 1940. Glueck, Nelson, "Rivers in the Desert". London, 1959. Granet, Marcel, "Chinese Civilization". New York, 1958. Grote, George, "History of Greece". 12 vols. London, 1851. Gurney, O. R., "The Hittites", London, 1952. Hall, H. R., "The Ancient History of the Near East". London, 1913. Hawkes, Jacquetta and Christopher, "Prehistoric Britain". London, 1958. Hayes, William C., "A Papyrus of The Late Middle Kingdom". Brooklyn, 1955. Hayes, William C., "The Scepter of Egypt". 2 vols. New York, 1953. Helm, Rudolf, "Eusebius Werke -- Die Chronik des Hieronymus Hieronymi Chronicon". Leipzig, 1913. Herrmann, Paul, "Conquest By Man". New York, 1954. Hibben, F. C., "Digging Up America". New York, 1960. Hodge, F. W., "Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico". 2 vols. New York, 1959. Hodges, E. R., "Cory's Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Other Authors", London, 1876. "The Holy scriptures according to the Masoretic Text". The Jewish

Publication Society. Philadelphia, 1917. Horn, Siegfried H. and Lynn H. Wood, "The Chronology of Ezra 7". Washington, D. C., 1953. Hrozny, Bedrich, "Ancient History of Western Asia, India and Crete". New York, 1953. Hutchinson, R. W., "Prehistoric Crete", Baltimore, 1962. Huxley, G. L., "Achaeans and Hittites". Oxford, 1960. Huxley, G. L., "Early Sparta". London, 1962. Jackson, John, "Chronological Antiquities". 3 vols. London, 1752. Jacobsen, Thorkild, "The Sumerian King List". Chicago, 1939. Jessel, E. E., "The Unknown History of the Jews". London, 1909. Jones, George, "An Original History of Ancient America". London, 1843. "Journal of Cuneiform Studies". vol. I (1947)-. New Haven, Connecticut. "The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology". vol. I (1914)-. London. "The Journal of Hellenic Studies". 1881-. London. "Journal of Near Eastern Studies". (Previously "The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures", Volumes I-LVIII, and Hebraica.) vol. I (1942)-. Chicago. Kaempfer, E., "The History of Japan". 3 vols. Glascow, 1906. Keating, Geoffrey, "History of Ireland", New York, 1857. Kenyon, Kathleen, "Archaeology in the Holy Land". London, 1960. Kienitz, Friedrich K., "Die Politische Geschichte Aegyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert von der Zeitwende". Berlin, 1953. King, Leonard W., "A History of Babylon", London, 1915. Lane-Poole, Stanley. "The Mohammadan Dynasties". Paris, 1925. Langdon, S. and J. K. Fotheringham, "The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga". London, 1928. Langdon, S. Y. and L. Ch. Watelin, "Excavations at Kish". 4 vols. Paris, 1924-1934. Langer, William L., "An Encyclopedia of World History". Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1952. Legge, James, "The Chinese Classics". 7 vols. Hongkong, 1861. Lempriere, J., "A Classical Dictionary". London, 1832.

Lenormant, Francois, "Histoire ancienne de L'Orient". 5 vol. Paris, 1881. Leslie, Lieut.-Col. Forbes, "The Early Races of Scotland". 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1866. Logan, James, "The Scottish Gael", 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1876. Lorimer, H. L., "Homer and the Monuments". London, 1950. Luckenbill, D. D., "Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia". 2 vols. Chicago. Lysons, Samuel, "Our British Ancestors". London, 1865. Macalister, R. A. S., "The Archaeology of Ireland". London, 1949. Mackenzie, Donald A., "Myths of Crete and Pre-Hellenic Europe". London. Mahaffy, J. P., "The Empire of the Ptolemies". New York, 1895. Majumdar, R. C., "The History and Culture of the Indian People". Vols. 1 and 2. Bombay, 1951. Martin, P. S. and Quimby, G. I. and Collier, D. "Indians before Columbus". Chicago, 1947. Maspero, G., "The Dawn of Civilization". London, 1894. Maspero, G., "History of Egypt". 13 vols. London. Maspero, G., "The Passing of the Empires". New York, 1900. Maspero, G., "The Struggle of the Nations Egypt, Syria, and Assyria". London, 1896. Meer, P. Van der, "The Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt". Leiden, 1955. Menzel, Wolfgang, "The History of Germany". 3 vols. London, 1848. Mercer, S. A. B., "The Tell El-Amarna Tablets". 2 vols. Toronto, 1939. Meyer, Eduard, "Aegyptische Chronologie", Berlin, 1904. Meyer, Eduard, "Geschichte des Altertums". 5 vols. Basel, 1953. Meyerowitz, E. L. R., "Akan Traditions of Origin". London, 1952. Meyerowitz, E. L. R., "The Divine Kingship in Ghana and Ancient Egypt". London, 1960. Minns, Ellis, H., "Scythians and Greeks". Cambridge, 1913. Mosso, Angelo, "The Dawn of Mediterranean Civilization". London, 1910.

"The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities". 1929-. Stockholm. Mylonas, G. E., "Ancient Mycenae the Capital City of Agamemnon". London, 1957. O'Flaherty, Roderic, "Ogygia, or, A Chronological Account of Irish Events". Dublin, 1793. Oldfather, C. H., "Diodorus of Sicily". The Loeb Classical Library. 10 vols. London, 1933-. Olmstead, A. T., "History of the Persian Empire". Chicago, 1959. "Orientalia", Vol. I-. Rome. Pallis, Svend Aage, "Chronology of The Shub-Ad Culture", Copenhagen, 1941. Palmer, Leonard R., "Mycenaeans and Minoans". London, 1961. Parker, R. A. and W. H. Dubberstein, "Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75". Providence, Rhode Island, 1956. Perkins, Ann L., "The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia". Chicago, 1949. Petrie, Sir W. M. Flinders, "Abydos". 3 vols. London, 1902-4. Petrie, Sir W. M. Flinders, "A History of Egypt". 3 vols. New York, 1899-1905. Petrie, Sir W. M. F., "Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties". 2 vols. London, 1900-1. Piggot, Stuart, "Approach to Archaeology". Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1959. Poebel, Arno, "The Second Dynasty of Isin According to a New King-List Tablet". Chicago, 1955. Posener, Georges, "A Dictionary of Egyptian Civilization". London, 1962. Pott, F. L. H., "A Sketch of Chinese History". Shanghai, 1923. Pritchard, James B., "Ancient Near Eastern Texts". Princeton, 1955. Pumpelly, R., "Explorations in Turkestan". 2 vols. Washington, D. C., 1908. Ramsay, Sir William M., "Asianic Elements in Greek Civilization". London, 1927. Raphael, Max, "Prehistoric Pottery and Civilization in Egypt". New York, 1947. Rawlinson, George, "Egypt and Babylon from Sacred and Profane Sources".

New York, 1885. Rawlinson, George, "The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World". 3 vols. New York, 1873. Rawlinson, George, "History of Ancient Egypt". 2 vols. London, 1881. Rawlinson, George, "History of Herodotus". 4 vols. London, 1862. Rawlinson, George, "History of Phoenicia". London, 1889. Rawlinson, George, "A Manual of Ancient History". New York, 1878. Rawlinson, George, "The Origin of Nations", London, 1877. Rogers, R. W., "A History of Babylonia and Assyria". 2 vols. New York, 1902. Sammes, Aylett, "Britannia Antiqua Illustrata: or. the Antiquities of Ancient Britain". London, 1676. Sandys, John E., "A History of Classical Scholarship". 3 vols. Cambridge, 1903. Sayce, A. H., "The Races of the Old Testament." London, 1891. Schaeffer, Claude F. A., "Stratigraphie Comparee et Chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale". London, 1948. Schmidtke, F., "Der Aufbau der Babylonischen Chronologie". Muenster, 1952. Schoene, Alfred, "Eusebi Chronicorum". Berlin, 1875. Sharpe, Samuel, "The Early History of Egypt, from The Old Testament, Herodotus, Manetho, and the Hieroglyphical Inscriptions". London, 1836. Shotwell, J. T., "An Introduction to the History of History", New York, 1922. Smith, Sidney, "Early History of Assyria". London, 1928. Smith, Sir William, "A Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology, and Geography". New York, 1894. Starr, Chester G., "The Origins of Greek Civilization 1100-650 B.C.", London, 1962. Stock, Hanns, "Die erste Zwischenzeit Aegyptens". Rome, 1949. Stokvis, A.-M.-H.-J. "Manuel d'Histoire, de genealogie et de Chronologie de tous les Etats du globe". 3 vols. Leiden,

1888.

Stone, J. F. S., "Wessex Before the Celts". New York, 1958. Ten Cate, H. J. Houwink, "The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and

Cilicia Aspera During the Hellenistic Period". Leiden, 1961. "An Universal History, From the Earliest Account of Time". 20 vols. London, 1747. Vacano, Otto-Wilhelm von, "The Etruscans in the Ancient World". London, 1960. Velikovsky, Immanuel, "Ages in Chaos". New York, 1952. Velikovsky, Immanuel, "Oedipus and Akhnaton", New York, 1960. Vieyra, Maurice, "Hittite Art 2300-750 B.C.", London, 1955. Wace, A. J. B. and M. S. Thompson, "Prehistoric Thessaly", Cambridge, 1912. Waddell, W. G., "Manetho", The Loeb Classical Library. London, 1940. Wathen, G. H., "Arts, Antiquities and Chronology of Ancient Egypt". London, 1843. Webster, T. B. L., "From Mycenae to Homer". London, 1958. Weigall, Arthur, "A History of the Pharaohs". 2 vols. London, 1925. Whiston, W., "The Complete Works of Josephus". Wiener, Leo, "Africa and the Discovery of America". 3 vol. Philadelphia, 1920. Wilkinson, Sir J. G., "The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians". 3 vols. London, 1878. Williams, F. W., "A History of China". New York, 1901. Winlock, H. E., "The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes". New York, 1947. Wiseman, D. J., "Chronicle of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.)". London, 1956. Wright, G. Ernest, editor, "The Bible and the Ancient Near East". New York, 1961. Wright, G. Ernest, "Biblical Archaeology". Philadelphia, 1957. Wright, G. Ernest, "The Pottery of Palestine From the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age". New Haven, Connecticut, 1937. Wylie, J. A., "History of the Scottish Nation". 3 vols. London, 1886.

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY VOLUME 2 by Herman L. Hoeh 1963 1966, 1969 Edition

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Chapter I Early History of Germany Antiquity of the German Reich Germans Shape World Affairs The Answer Found Did the Assyrians Invade Europe? What Did Assyrians Look Like? Why Germans Call Themselves "Deutschen" What Language Did They Speak? Semitic by Race, Not Language Chapter II The Ancient Kings of the Germans The Early Settlers of Europe Kings of Ancient Germany Chapter III Abraham in Early European History Europe's Early History Suppressed Abraham in the Austrian Chronicle Chapter IV Jews Gain Power in Danube Civilization Jewish Kings from Austrian Chronicle

End of Jewish Predominance Chapter V The Conquests of Odin and Danish History What the History of Denmark Reveals The Genealogy of Dan I "Hu the Mighty" The Kings of Denmark Denmark Enters Roman History Christianity Introduced on the Throne Chapter VI Scotland -- Key to History of New World What Historians Claim First Major Settlement Line of Judah in Scotland Earliest History of Scotland Early Line of Scottish Kings Kings of Cruithne Continued Chapter VII They Crossed the Atlantic The Little Ice Age Whites Did Not Become Indians American Indian Tradition Enter Votan Early Time of Migration Chronology of Mexico The History of Toltecs at Tullan The City-State of Culhaucan The Chichimecs at Texcoco The Aztecs Chapter VIII The History of Spain Only Recently Suppressed Earliest Kings over the Spanish Invasion from Africa Abraham's Children Chaos in Spain Time of the Sea Powers Chapter IX Italy, Home of Pagan Religion Italy in the Ancient World What Italian History Reveals The History of Etruria The History of the Latins

Chapter X The Story of the Peruvian Indians Modern Scholarship Discarded the Facts What Archaeologists Found Illustration from Burma The Inca Rulers Chapter XI Ancient Persia and Turkestan Early Kings of Persia The Second Race The First Race Turkestan, Turks and Mongols Ogus Khan The History of Armenia Chapter XII Trojan Migration to France Trojan Kings of Isauria Trojan Kings of Sicambria and Pannonia Kings of Agrippina Princes of Brabant Dukes of Brabant Kings of Frisia Dukes of Frisia Second Group of Kings of Frisia Trojan Kings of the Belgians Kings of the Celts in Gaul Chapter XII A Further Migrations to France Sicambrian Kings The Kings of the Franks Dukes of the East Franks The Hapsburgs Enter The Dukes of Gaul Kings of France In Retrospect Chapter XIII History of Sweden and the Saxons The Record Speaks Renewed Migration Dynasty of Yngling Dynasty of Stenkil Saxon History Chapter XIV The History of Arabia Who Were the First Arabs?

The Jorhamites of Hejaz The Kingdom of Yemen Arabia's Indian-Ocean Neighbors Chapter XV The Miracle of the Red Sea Do Miracles Happen Today? Background of the Story Where Is Goshen? The Land of Rameses Goshen During the Plagues The Night of the Exodus Israel Built Pyramids What Road Did Israel Take? Where Are These Places? Crossing the Red Sea Egypt Left Desolate Egypt's Historians Admit What Happened Chapter XVI Journey to Petra After Mount Sinai -- Where? What Does "Kadesh" Mean? Located in Mount Seir! Israel Whipped in Seir Yet Another Proof! Where Was the "Wilderness of Wandering"? Encampments Listed in Order Bene-Jaakan is Kadesh! The Return to Kadesh "Sela" Another Name for Petra Where Did Aaron Die? Where Was the King's Highway? Journey Northward in the Arabah Petra Occupied by Israel Chapter XVII Where Did the Twelve Apostles Go? Jesus' Commission Tells "House of Israel" Identified What New Testament Reveals Three Missing Words Wars Reveal Where To Whom Did Peter Write? Remnant of Ten Tribes on Shores of Black Sea What Greek Historians Report Simon Peter in Britain! And Andrew His Brother And the Other Apostles? And Ireland Too!

Paul in Britain, Too? On the Shores of the Caspian Sea Where Did Matthew Go? Chapter XVIII Since the First Man Scientific Confusion Why Hypotheses? Uncovering the Facts How Geologists Think Discarding the Facts Facts of Geology Confirmation of Genesis One The World of Adam The Sin of Cain and Geology Early Post-Flood World Appendix A The Enigma of Dynasty I and II of Kish Resolved Appendix B Ethiopian King List Agdazyan Dynasty Dynasty of Menelik I The Christian Sovereigns Dynasty of Atse Sovereigns Issued from Zagwe A Jewish Dynasty House of Gondar Tribe of Ori Line of Ham Appendix C Kashmir -- Chronology from the Rajatarangini Gonandiya Dynasty Usurping Dynasty Restored Gonandiya Dynasty Karkota Dynasty The Dynasty of Utpala First Lohara Dynasty Second Lohara Dynasty ------------------INTRODUCTION The first volume of the COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY exposed the radical new interpretation of history now taught on all levels of modern education. It revealed the fallacy of the "historical method." It explained WHY God is left out of history.

Volume I restored the history of ancient Egypt, of Assyria and Babylonia, of Media and India, of Greece, Ireland and Britain. This volume completes that restoration. For the first time, in this second volume, the early history of Europe will be made plain. Its connection with the New World, with American Indian civilization, with the early Biblical heroes is an astounding revelation. CHAPTER I EARLY HISTORY OF GERMANY The time has come to reveal the true history of Europe. The Germans for centuries have dominated the heartland of Western Europe. Because of the geographic position Germany's transportation lines constitute the vital arteries of the continent. Without the beating of the German heart, Europe would lose its economic and political prominence in world affairs. Ancient Roman writers would have us believe that the Germans in the Roman heyday were mere barbarians, an insignificant people roaming the forests of northern Europe. Was this Roman report the whole truth? Were the ancient Roman writers keeping back from their people the facts of German history? Rome conquered Spain, Gaul, Southern Britain, all North Africa to the Sahara, Illyria, Greece, Asia to the Euphrates. But Rome had to draw its boundary in the north along the Rhine. Why? Why was Rome not able to subdue all Germany? Why, after centuries of bloodshed, did Rome finally succumb to the hammer blows of the Germanic Goths and Vandals? It is high time we were told the true history of early Germany. The origin of the German people in Europe is rooted in patriarchal times. The history of early Germany, suppressed by the Romans, was revived briefly in the German-dominated Middle Ages. But before the close of the seventeenth century not even the Germans remembered their past. It had been stamped out in the name of education and religion. But not all was lost. From early documents and local traditions it is still possible to recover what has, in recent centuries, been buried under the rubble of modern educational superstition. The Germans themselves are in great part responsible for this condition. They fostered modern historical concepts. They have tried to hide their past even from themselves -- just as they did at the close of the Hitler era. If the Germans admitted to themselves and the world who they really are, all the world would recognize in Imperial Germany the reconstituted Assyrian Empire -- once the terror of all the civilized world! ANTIQUITY OF THE GERMAN REICH Germany has set herself up as the bulwark of European civilization. Germany for centuries has claimed to stand as the wall of

defense against the barbarism of Asia. The German Reich long endured as the oldest political institution in Continental Europe. The German people called their Reich the Holy Roman Empire. It bore rule over Europe for a thousand years. This "Holy Roman Empire of the German People" was officially designated by the Church in the Middle Ages as "The Kingdom of God" on earth. Its citizens, the Germans, felt themselves true Romans and bearers of the Christian Reich or kingdom. They were therefore the chosen people of the Christian era, entrusted with a world-mission to be the protectors of Christianity. German leaders and philosophers have never forgotten this notion of the Middle Ages that the German, in place of the Jew, has a special mission from God. This strange concept, which lies behind modern political thinking in Germany, is plainly stated in the German work "Die Trag"die des Heiligen Reiches" -- in English, "The Tragedy of the Holy Roman Empire." It is by Friedrich Heer. It is a remarkable volume. It lays bare the reason for the secret motives of the German to dominate Europe -- and the world. GERMANS SHAPE WORLD AFFAIRS The story of the ancestry of the German people, and their role in prophecy, is one of the strangest stories ever written. It is gripping with interest, amazing -- yes, astounding! "The History of Germany," writes Bayard Taylor, "is not the history of a nation, but of a race ... Thus, even before the fall of the Roman Empire, it becomes the main trunk out of which branch histories of nearly all European nations, and ... the connecting link between ancient and modern history. The records of no other race throw so much light upon the development of all civilized lands during a period of fifteen hundred years" ("History of Germany", page iii). Germany has contributed more military leaders than any other nation in history. Its governments have, in the past, claimed the right to rule the "Christian world." The German State, from its beginning, has nearly always been a confederation of states -- often an empire of German ruling over non-German. It is the German people who, more than once, have believed themselves to be the "Herrenvolk" -- the Master Race. The German people number over one hundred million throughout the world today. They are composed of numerous small tribes. Nations, remember, are families grown big. Take Israel as an example. The nation Israel descended from one man, Jacob (who was renamed Israel upon his conversion -- Genesis 35:9-10). But Israel had 12 sons. His family therefore was divided into 12 tribes. One reads in the Bible about "the 12 tribes of Israel" -- Judah, Dan, Ephraim, Levi, etc. (Genesis 49:28). The same is true of the German people. of all these tribes, perhaps the most famous name to Americans is that of the Hessians. The

British hired numerous Hessians in their effort to put down the American Revolution which began in 1776. The Hessians were known to Roman historians by the tribal name "Hatti." Other Germans bore the names "Alemani" "Suabi," and "Quadi," the "Casuri." The Romans called them collectively Germani, meaning "War-men" (from the "Encyclopedia Britannica", article, "Germany"). But from where did all these Germanic people come? Here is the answer of history: "There can be no doubt that they Black and Caspian seas," states "Smith's Classical Dictionary", article, "Germania," p. 361. Ancient historical records confirm this admission. The Germans can be traced in historical records to the regions surrounding the Black and Caspian seas, which border on the ancient Biblical Mesopotamia. This is the region where civilization commenced and from where the patriarchs came! THE ANSWER FOUND Ancient German tradition claims that their oldest city, Trier, was founded by Trever or Trebeta, a son of Ninus, king of Assyria. "The inhabitants of Trier maintain that their city is the oldest in all Europe," writes Josef K. L. Bihl in his textbook "In deutschen Landen", page 69. "Trier was founded," he continues, "by Trebeta, a son of the famous Assyrian King Ninus. In fact, one finds ... in Trier the inscription reading, 'Trier existed for 1300 years before Rome was rebuilt.' " Ninus, according to Roman, Greek and Persian records, was the first ruler who began the systematic conquest of the ancient world after the death of Nimrod. He established the Assyrian Empire as the chief power over Eastern Europe and Southwest Asia, reported Diodorus of Sicily in his History. But how is it possible that the oldest German city, Trier, founded over 2000 years before the birth of Christ, should be built by a son of Ninus, the renowned King of ancient Assyria? What connection have the Germans with Assyria? Jerome, who lived at the time when the Indo-Germanic tribes were invading Europe, provides this startling answer: "For 'Assur (the Assyrian) also is joined with them' " (Letter 123, sec. 16, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers"; quote is from Psalm 83:8). DID THE ASSYRIANS INVADE EUROPE? Yes! Jerome said so! But how did he know? He saw them! He was an eyewitness to their migrations from Mesopotamia and the shores of the Black and Caspian seas! Now consider what Sylax, the author of the "Periplus," who lived about 550 B.C., writes of the southern shores of the Black Sea: "The coast of the Black Sea ... is called Assyria" (from page 261 of Perrot

and Chipiez's "History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria and Asia Minor", Vol. II.) From there the Assyrians moved north. Only 300 years before Jerome, the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder declared the "Assyriani" -- the Assyrians -- were dwelling north of the Black Sea ("Natural History", IV, 12, page 183). But the Assyrians did not remain there. They are not there today. of course not -- they migrated into Central Europe -- where the Germans live today! WHAT DID ASSYRIANS LOOK LIKE? What did the ancient Assyrians look like? Here is the answer: "In the Zagros hills and across the plain to the Tigris, there lived a ... fair-haired ... people akin to the Guti (the Goths) who ... remained in what was afterwards Assyria, the neighbour land to Akkad" (page 5 of "The Sumerians", by C. Leonard Woolley). When the ancient Greek writers wanted to distinguish the Assyrians and their Hebrew captives from the Arameans or Syrians, the Greeks often called both Assyrians and their Hebrew captives "Leucosyri" -meaning "whites" or "blonds" as distinct from the very brunette Syrians who still live in Mesopotamia. WHY GERMANS CALL THEMSELVES "DEUTSCH" The Germans do not call themselves "German." They refer to themselves as Deutschen, and to their country as Deutschland. When the Assyrians or Germans appeared in Europe, they claimed Tuitsch as their ancestor! That is where the name "Deutsch" comes from! "Tuysco, the most ancient and peculiar god of all the Germans ... of this Tuisco, the first and chiefest man of many among the Germans, and after whom they do call themselves Tuytshen, that is, duytshes or duytsh people, I have already spoken." So writes Verstegan in his 1605 publication entitled "Restitution of Decayed Intelligence: in Antiquities". Whenever a German calls himself Deutsch, he is therefore saying he is a descendant of Tuitsch (Tuisco or Tuisto in Latin). And when he terms his country Deutschland, he is saying his land is Tuitsch's land. Who this Tuitsch is will be made plain in Chapter II. WHAT LANGUAGE DID THEY SPEAK European scholars have thoroughly studied the language of the land of Hatti -- the ancestors of the Hessians. It is an Indo-Germanic tongue -- numerous words of which were akin to Old High German. So many similarities were found that Edgar Sturtevant had to declare: "To me it seems incredible that so remarkable a situation developed in two languages independently. I feel compelled to trace the Germanic ... to a common origin" with the language of Hatti -- common tongue of the

Assyrians in Asia Minor (from "A Comparative Grammar", page 240). Scholars admit that for centuries the language of the people who inhabited Assyria was not merely Semitic. Semitic was the late literary language of Assyria -- the language of scholars, the language of international commerce. Modern historians and archaeologists assume that the common tongue of all Assyrian people was Semitic. They have no proof. So noted an Assyriologist as Sydney Smith admitted "... that the documents from Asia Minor and from east of Tigris are couched in Semitic dialects spoken by men unable to pronounce all the Semitic consonants ..." (p. xi, from "Early History of Assyria to 1000 B.C."). The same circumstance occurred during the Middle Ages all over Europe. The language of almost all European scholars -- and even their names -- until the time of the Protestant Reformation was Latin -- but Latin was not the common tongue of the people! Because most of the literature of Germany was in Latin during the Middle Ages does not prove that the common people spoke Latin. SEMITIC BY RACE, NOT LANGUAGE Asshur was a son of Shem. But after the tower of Babel, when the languages of the world were confused (Genesis 11), most Assyrians no longer spoke a Semitic tongue, but rather Indo-Germanic and related tongues! The Germans, therefore, are Semitic by race, but not by language! In the days of Abraham, the Germans or Assyrians formed a great confederation of states or tribes, speaking several different languages (Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", book I, ch. 9). One king of the Assyrians -- already discussed -- was "Tidal, king of nations" (Genesis 14:1). The name Tidal is Indo-Germanic, not Semitic. Most scholars have never been conscious of the fact that the use of the Semitic language in Assyria was due to the rising influence of the Aramaic people (Genesis 10:22) in Mesopotamia and certain of the sons of Abraham ("Antiquities", book I, ch. XV, sect. 1). So prominent did they become that Mesopotamia is called "Padan-Aram" -- the plain of Aram -- in the Bible (Genesis 28:22). CHAPTER II THE ANCIENT KINGS OF THE GERMANS The settlement of the Assyrians and related peoples in early Europe is summarized by several writers in the early Middle Ages. The list of the early kings presented here is from the "Bayerische Chronik" and "Deutsche Chronik" by Johannes Turmair, Abensberg, 1526. The traditional events assigned to each ancient German ruler are confirmed by both archaeological evidence and the fragmentary comments of classical historians. The "Bayerische Chronik" is very important for the history of

Central Europe. It proves that German history was correctly preserved in song and poetry and in contemporary written records down to Roman times. It further proves that the length of time from the Flood to Roman times was accurately preserved except for an overlooked 24 years. This period was the 24 years from Abram's year 75 to his year 99. The later chroniclers, who placed in parallel German and Hebrew history, universally reckoned the 430 years from the Covenant that was confirmed with Abraham to Sinai as beginning when Abram was 75 years old, instead of 99. They therefore placed the Flood 24 years too late in history. The German chronicles that were the basis of Turmair's work placed the Flood 131 years before the coming of the German patriarch Tuisto into Europe. They should have reckoned 131 plus 24 -- that is, 155 years. With this one exception, all dates from Tuisto down to the burning of Rome in 390 B.C. need no correction. All that is necessary is to add the separate lengths of reign. There are no missing lengths of reign. German history commences with an extensive settlement of farmers in Europe from the Don River to the Rhine. The date of this migration into Europe from Mesopotamia and the Near East is placed at 2214 B.C. by German history -- just 155 years after the Flood and 40 years after the Tower of Babel. BEGINNING OF GERMAN OR ASSYRIAN HISTORY The real beginnings of Assyrian history were not presented in Volume I. They are restored here. One account begins with the reign of Nimrod in 2194 -- after the 60-year reign of Cush. Cush was the first Belus -- the word means "lord" -- who bore rule after the Flood. Early Rulers of Assyria and Babylon

Lengths of Reign

Saturn: the Nimrod of Scripture, known also as Ninus I. Belus: great lord of Assyria -- a title of Shem as lord over all his family. The title was later taken by Asshur. Ninus II: conquered the Middle East in 17 years (2100-2083), while his father was recognized as supreme ruler, (see Diodorus Siculus). Ninus is the name of Asshur used by classical writers.

56 55

52

Dates 2194-2138 2138-2083

2100-2048

Semiramis or Ishtar

42

Ninyas: called Zames (see Vol. 1 for history).

38

2048-2006 2006-1968

THE EARLY SETTLERS OF EUROPE The "Bavarian Chronicle" records in detail the earliest settlers of Europe after the Deluge. Their encampments and habitations have been recovered by archaeological research and are labeled the "Neolithic" migrations that traversed the Danube and adjoining valleys. Shem or Tuitsch came into Europe with members of his family, as well as with certain of the sons of Japheth and two of the sons of Ham who were of the white stock. From these have descended most of the present-day nations of Europe. The descendants of Shem include many sons of Joktan, son of Heber, and a number of the sons of Mash, son of Aram. The Biblical names (Genesis 10) of the grandsons and great-grandsons of Shem are clearly preserved in most instances by the "Chronicle". In the following chart, together with the names of the patriarchal settlers, appear either the areas settled, the tribes which sprang from them, or their Biblical names. An historical or classical map should be consulted for location of geographic names. In later times the descendants of these early heroes migrated west, south, north and east under population pressure. Dukes settled by Shem in Europe 1. Sarmata, son of Joktan

Identity, or Area settled

settled Sarmatia; is the Hazarmaveth of Gen. 10:26; colonized south Arabia; a son Tanaus gave his name to the river Tanais, now called the Don.

2. Dacus, son of Mash, grandson of Aram

settled Dacia, later also colonized in Denmark

3. Geta, another son of Mash (included in Anderson's "Royal Genealogies", but not in "Bavarian Chronicle")

from whom came certain of the Getae of Roman history

4. Gotha Gether (v .23)

from whom came the Goths

5. Tibiscus, late Latin spelling of Tiobo, an Italian spelling of Jobab (Gen. 10:29)

settled on the river Theiss or Tibiscus; descendants migrated into Germany (see "Encyclopedia Britannica", article "Archaeology")

6. Moesa, Mash (Gen. 10:23)

settled Mysia and Moesia

7. Phrygus, or Brigus, son of Mash (Gen. 10:23)

settled in Phrygia and Europe

8. Thynus, son of Mash Minor

settled Bithynia in Asia

9. Dalmata, Almodad (v. 26)

settled Dalmatia on Adriatic

10. Jader, Jerah (v .26), his descendants also settled in Arabia 11. Albanus or Albion, Abimael (v. 28)

founded the port called Jaderia Colonia in Illyria

for whom Albania is named, and also Albion or Britain; his descendants early migrated to the Isle of Britain

12. Sabus or Sau, Sheba settled on the river Save; (v. 28) migrated to Italy as Sabines 13. Pannus or Benno, son of Mash 14. Sala or Salon Shelah (v. 24)

settled Pannonia built the town Sala; gave his name to river Sal

15. Azalus or Aezel, Uzal (v. 27)

ancestor of the Azali; also settled in Aezeland in Pannonia

16. Hister, the Joktan of the Bible (Gen. 10:25)

settled Istria; Hister means same in Indo-European tongues that Joktan does in Hebrew -- water course (Rawlinson, "Ancient History")

17. Adulas or Adler, Hadoram (v. 27); colonized in Arabia

anciently dwelt on Upper Rhine; his son Than gave his name to the river Thonau, now called the Danube

18. Dicla, Diklah (v. 27)

thought to have dwelt on Upper Rhine; his descendants later migrated to Gedrosia in Persia

l9. Obalus or Elb, Obal (v. 28)

from him the river Elbe takes its name

20. Epirus Ophir (v. 29)

colonized Asia from Epirus

21. Eber

built Ebersau -- the Eburodunum of Ptolemy's map

22. Hoeril, Havilah (Gen. 10:29)

gave his name to river Havel or Havila (Jacobus Schatz: "Atlas Homannianus Illustratus", p. 121); from him descended the Heruli

The white descendants of the following patriarchs also colonized parts of Europe: 23. Arcadius, father of the Arkites (Gen. 10:17)

settled Arcadia in Greece

24. Emathius, father of Hamathites (Gen. 10:18)

settled Emathia in Macedonia

25. Tiras, son of Japheth

colonized Thrace

26. Moska, Meshech -son of Japheth

colonized east of the Carpathians

27. Javan, son of Japheth 28. Thubal, son of Japheth

Hebrew name for Greece is Javan Josephus records that certain of his children settled Spain

29. Gomer, son of Japheth 30. Asch, Ashkenaz -son of Gomer

dwelt for a time in Italy his descencants mixed with the Goths -- whence Jews who settled in Central Europe acquired name of Ashkenazim

31. Reif or Rus, Riphath -- son of Gomer

settled in Scythia and White Russia

32. Tagus, Togarmah -son of Gomer

dwelt for a time in Southern Europe

KINGS OF ANCIENT GERMANY Early Kings of German

Lengths of Reign

Dates

1. Tuitsch or Tuisto 176 2214-2038 (236) (2214-1978) Chief of thirty-two dukes. Noah gave him all the land between the Don River and the Rhine or what was called Grossgermania. This is the beginning of the "neolithic" settlement of Europe. Tuitsch is, according to all ancient German commentaries and chronicles, a son of Noah. But which son? Noah adopted Tuitsch's children as his own. The ancient Germans understood the name Tuitsch to be the title "Teacher." He was therefore the great patriarch of his family who taught the divine will to his children. Tuitsch is the father of Mannus (who is the Assyrian Ninus). The son of Mannus, Trebeta, is the same man who is called the son of Ninus in classical writers. The son of Mannus or Ninus -- Trebeta -- built Trier, the first town of Germany. Since the Bible calls this Ninus (who built Nineveh), Asshur, Tuitsch is therefore Shem! Tuitsch (Shem) left Europe for Egypt in 2038. His appearance in Egyptian chronological records of Dynasty I dates his arrival and government in 2037. From Armenia Tuitsch left 155 years after the Flood (131 plus 24) -- see the comments at the beginning of this chapter. With him were twenty-two descendants plus eight from Japheth and two from Ham. Tuitsch made his headquarters at Deutz (today Koeln-Deutz). The country is called Deutschland after him -- that is, the land of the great Patriarch or Teacher, Shem. In the 25th year of his reign (2190-2189) Tuitsch held a state assembly, divided lands among his descendants and ordained laws. He also brought more colonies from Mesopotamia.

2. Mannus or Mann

72 1978-1906 (1978-1912)

(66)

For the last 60 years of Tuitsch's or Shem's reign in Germany, he governed his family from Egypt and Italy. It was not until 1978 that Mannus assumed the government over Western Europe, succeeding his father Tuitsch. At the beginning of his reign he sends out colonies to France and Asia Minor. His son Herman establishes the kingdoms of Phrygia, Mysia and Bithynia in Mannus' 34th year (1945-1944). Another son Trieber or Trebeta, built Trier. Nerus, another son, settled in the Netherlands. This Mannus is the Assyrian Ninus and is Asshur, son of Shem. Asshur means "strength" in Hebrew and has the same sense as Mannus -- masculinity -- in German. 3. Eingeb or Ingaevon (40)

36 1906-1870 (1912-1872)

This son of Mannus or Ninus -- Asshur -- was the German Mercury. His wife Freia was the German Venus. He instituted the observance of Weinnachten of December 24. Eingeb is responsible for settling Germans on the North Sea from Denmark to Dunkirk. He sent his general Brigus from the Danube valley to secure Spain against the African Amazons (female warriors). Myrein, queen of the African Amazons advanced up the Danube but was defeated and slain by Eingeb's generals Seiphyl and Mopser. 4. Ausstaeb or Istaevon (52)

50 1870-1820 (1872-1820)

Son of Eingeb, Ausstaeb was the German Mars. From him are descended the Rheinlanders. In his days a great drought devastated Italy. 5. Herman

63

1820-1757

Son of Ausstaeb. He taught the philosophy that war and to die in battle is most pleasing to God. He introduced the arts of warmaking to the Germans. The Druids began to flourish in Germany. Herman settled the heart of Germany, whose people were called Hermanduri or Hermiones after him. 6. Mers

46

1757-1711

Son of Herman. The city of Merseburg is named after him. The Dithmarsii descended from him. Oryz, the Egyptian god-king Osiris, came with his wife Eisen up the Danube valley to Mers. They left Germany and

went to Italy on their way back to Egypt. Cultural development of Germany through contact with Egypt in days of Joseph -- beer making, agriculture, forging and medicine were brought to Germany. 7. Gampar

44

1711-1667

Son of Mers. He was the inventor of beer brewing. His daughter Araxa became one of the wives of Libys (the Egyptian and Spanish Hercules), the son of Oryz, and gave birth to Tuscus, Schyth, Agatyrsus, Peucinger and Gutho. 8. Schwab

46

1667-1621

Son of Gampar. He gave his name to Schwaben. In his reign Eisen came to Germany and taught the people various crafts. 9. Wandler

41

1621-1580

Son of Schwab. Ancestor of the German Wenden or Vandals, who were first known at the Weser, next in the countries north of the Elbe; afterwards, a colony went into Spain, then into Africa where they restored the Roman Empire; their kingdom was demolished by General Belisarius. The cities of Luebeck, Rostoch, Dantzig, and others are the relics of those first Vandals who did not migrate to North Africa. These German Vandals are different from the Wends called Slavi, Slavonians, Poles, Bohemians who settled in the ancient lands of the Vandals. 10. Deuto

27

1580-1553

Son of Wandler, gave his name to the Teutones. He led a campaign into France and built there the cities of Vannes, Sens, Santgenge and Toulouse. He was deified as the German Mercury, as Eingeb had previously been. 11. Alman (Allmann or Altman)

64

1553-1489

Son of Deuto, was the German Hercules. Famous for use of trained lions in war. Bore a lion in his shield. Bavarians, who descended from him, still use a lion on their coat of arms. He had many sons. Norein received Noricum (in Bavaria today). Norein was the father of part of the Bavarians. Haun was the father of the German Huns and lived with his brothers Glan and Schyter. Helvos was the father of the Helvetti in Switzerland. Baier ruled Bavaria. Mied and Math were the ancestors of the Mediomatrices in Alsace. Theur went to foreign lands.

12. Baier

60

1489-1429

Son of Alman. He sent a great army of Germans and Wends from Germany, Denmark and Gothland to the Balkans. One group, the Goths under Gebreich and Vilmer, settled on the river Theissa and lived there as the Getae till the time of Valentinian. Another group, including the German Amazons, proceeded down the Danube valley to the Black Sea and on through the Crimea and the Palus Maeotis to Armenia and Cappadocia and the Taurus mountains. Here they were known as the Cimmerians. Baier was also known as Bojus of Bavaria since he was the ancestor of many Bavari. He built Prague. 13. Ingram or Ingramus

52

1429-1377

Son of Baier. He sent many German colonists to Asia Minor. Tanhauser, king of the Germans in Asia Minor, and his priestess Schmirein, led a conquering army through Syria as far as Egypt. Built Hermenia, afterwards called Reginoberg (Ratisbon). 14. Adalger or Adelger

49

1377-1328

Son of Ingram. German Amazons were again famous in his time under Queens Lautpotis and Martpeis. They crossed through Asia Minor to Lycia, but were defeated. 15. Larein

51

1328-1277

Son of Adalger. This is the Laertes of Trojan fame, mentioned by the Roman historian Tacitus. During his rule an army set out from Germany and went via Poland and Ruthenia to the Danube valley. Here it was joined by Germans who had come to the area some 150 years earlier, and the combined forces fell into Asia Minor under their leader Mader and their queen Aloph. They passed through Phrygia and settled in Armenia. 16. Ylsing or Ulsing

53

1277-1224

Son of Larein. This is the Trojan Ulysses of Tacitus. He is also the Greek Odysseus who sailed out to the Atlantic and up to the Rhine. Built Emmerick on the Main. During his reign the Germans under Galter again invaded Asia Minor and settled on the banks of the river Sangarius. Priam of Troy tried in vain to expel them, finally made a treaty, and they later helped him against the Greeks.

17. Brenner or Breno

38

1224-1186

Son of Ylsing, in whose reign Prichs ruled the Germans on the Black Sea and the women under queen Themyschyr conquered Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Cappadocia. 18. Heccar (Hykar or Highter)

31

1186-1155

Son of Brenner. He is the famous Hector of the First Trojan War. He was of great help to Priam. Teutschram, king of the Germans of Transylvania and son-in-law of Priam also sent help. 19. Frank (Francus or Franco)

41

1155-1114

Son of Heccar. From him descended the German Franks or Franconians. In his days Amar, queen of the German Amazons, burned the temple in Ephesus. 20. Wolfheim Siclinger

58

1114-1056

Son of Frank. He sent another great migration of settlers from Germany to the Black Sea. 21. Kels, Gal and Hillyr

50

1056-1006

Sons of Wolfheim. They divided their father's realm after his death. Hillyr received Illyria, Gal received Gaul and Kels received Germany. Hillyr had three daughters and six sons, all of whom settled in the regions of the Balkans, Thrace and Greece. 22. Alber

60

1006-946

Son of Gal, ruled together with his six cousins. The center of his government was in France. 23. Walther, Panno and Schard

62

946-884

Another son of Gal, ruled together with Panno and Schard, the grandsons of Hillyr. From Walther Italy is called Walhen or Walschland. Panno gave his name to Pannonia. From Schard came the Schardinger or Schordisci.

24. Main, Žngel and Treibl

70

884-814

Sons of Walther, ruled jointly with Treibl, son of Panno. From Žngel are descended the Angles who lived in Th ringen and Meissen. 25. Myela, Laber and Penno

100

814-714

They ruled jointly. 26. Venno and Helto

70

714-644

Ruled jointly. Helto invaded and settled in Italy, expelling the former inhabitants. 27. Mader (Madyas)

55

644-589

Made extensive conquests. He built Milan. He led a German campaign as far as Syria and Palestine. Of his sons, Balweis received Lombardy, Sigweis Bavaria, and Brenner Th ringen and Meissen. 28. Brenner II and Koenman

110

589-479

Brenner was the son of Mader. He was an "Engl"nder" and king of the Schwaben. His wife was Th"m"rin (Tomyris), queen of the Getae, Dacians and Scythians. Brenner sent her troops to help in the war against Cyrus. He also defeated Darius who tried to invade the lower Danube region. Together Brenner and Th"m"rin conquered much of Asia Minor as far as Armenia. His nephew K"nman, son of Sigweis, was king of the Bavarians. Brenner expelled K"nman and 300,000 Bavarians from Bohemia and resettled that region with Schwaben, who then became known as Markmannen. Some of the expelled Bavarians settled in Bavaria proper, but by far the largest number of them crossed the Alps into Italy, from where they drove out some of the Etruscans. After the death of K"nman, the Bavarians of Italy were ruled by the kings Zeck, Ber (who built Bern or Verona) and Breitmar. 29. Landein with his sons Ant"r and R"g"r 30. Brenner III

80 38

479-399 399-361

Son of Breitmar, was king over both Schwaben and Bavarians, and reigned over Germany and Italy. Under his leadership the Schwaben and Bavarians sacked Rome. He had sons H"rkaz, Matsch"r, Guotfrid and Schirm. His daughter Gueta was married to Philip of Macedon. Burning of Rome (July 390) occurred in his 9th year.

31. Schirm

361-263

Son of Brenner III. He and his son Brenner IV ruled until 60 years after death of Alexander -- although Brenner IV dies earlier. Brenner led a massive German invasion into Greece, plundered Macedonia and the oracle at Delphi, but was killed in 279 B.C. 32. Thessel

85

279-194

Son of Brenner IV, ruled jointly with his uncle Lauther and his brother Euring. Lauther, with his brother Lebmner, broke into Asia Minor with 20,000 men and settled in Cappadocia and Phrygia. Thessel's sons Breitmar, Ernvest and Wirdm"r ruled over the Bavarians in Italy. His wife, Teutscha, was queen of Istria. The Romans defeated the Bavarians in Italy, killing Wirdm"r and 40,000 of his men. 33. Dieth I

no length given

194-172

Son of Thessel, ruled jointly with his son Diethmer. Diethmer invaded Palestine on behalf of Antiochus IV, took many Jews captive and settled them in Germany near Regensburg. Soon afterwards Hannibal attacked Italy and many of the Bavarians from Northern Italy joined him against Rome. After Hannibal's defeat there followed a war between the Romans and Bavarians in northern Italy which lasted 12 years. Finally, weary of fighting, the Bavarians left Italy, where they had dwelt for almost 400 years, and settled in Pannonia. Dieth was also driven from Italy, whereupon Diethmer, in retaliation, persuaded Philip V of Macedon to renew his hostilities with Rome. Entz and Olor, German kings in Istria and Transylvania, aided Philip, but Rome won. In Asia Minor Rome launched an attack against the German kings Orthjag, Gompelmer, G"udhor, Orgsgund and Eposgnad. These retreated eastward over the Halys, where they were defeated, sued for peace, and swore never to raid foreign nations again. The Romans also defeated king Entz of Istria. 34. Baermund and Synpol

45

172-127

Ruled after the death of Dieth I and Diethmer. 35. Boiger, Kels and Teutenbuecher

27

127-100

They ruled jointly over the Germans and Bavarians in 127 B.C. They gathered an army of 300,000 Saxons and Bavarians, intending to invade and resettle Italy, from which they had been driven some 70 years

earlier. They were, however, defeated by Marius at Aquae Sextiae (102 B.C.) and Vercellae (101 B.C.). Boiger died, having reigned 27 years. 36. Scheirer

30

100-70

Mithridates tried to enlist his aid in the struggles against Rome. 37. Ernst (Arionistus) and Vocho 20

70-50

Ernst was king over Germany and France, his brother-in-law, Vocho, over Bavaria, Austria and Hungary. Ernst invaded France, fought there for 14 years, and settled it with 120,000 Germans. Next 33,000 Bavarians decided to go via France and Spain into Italy. They were joined by the Helvetti. Julius Caesar defeated them, sent the Helvetii back home, but allowed the Bavarians to settle in Burgundy. Caesar also defeated king Ernst. 38. Pernpeist

10

50-40

He made a treaty with Persia against the Romans, made raids into Greece and even attacked Apulia and Naples by sea. The Bavarians, having been driven from Italy, lived near the Drave and Danube for 127 years. In the times of Ernst and Pernpeist they left their homes, sailed down the Danube and settled near the Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper, where they remained some 550 years. The name of the Bavarians is not encountered again for some 500 years, till the time of Attila. 39. Cotz, Dieth II and Creitschir

circa 40-13

In 13 B.C. Augustus made an attack against the Germans on the Danube. Later he settled 40,000 Westphalians, Hessians and Schwaben on the west bank of the Rhine. Virtual anarchy now began to reign among the German tribes. There were anti-Roman and pro-Roman factions and these split whole tribes and even families. The ruling families soon killed each other off in family feuds and inter-tribal warfare. The royal house that next dominated Germany came from the Sicambrian Franks. Their history appears later in the "Compendium", chapter XII A. CHAPTER III

ABRAHAM IN EARLY EUROPEAN HISTORY For centuries students have been taught that Europe was one of late areas of the world to become civilized. Educational tradition would have us believe that Egyptians were erecting mighty temples of stone, had wide astronomical knowledge, knew how to write, thousands of years before Western Europe came to the threshold of civilization. While Egyptians and Babylonians were arrayed in gorgeous robes and painted with cosmetics, historians would have Europe's forests sparcely populated with naked white savages. Europe's dominant place in world affairs is, we are told, a relatively new phenomenon. Nothing could be further from the truth! EUROPE'S EARLY HISTORY SUPPRESSED European civilization -- and its history -- is as old as Egypt's. But it has been suppressed. Not since the close of the seventeenth century has it been allowed to be taught publicly. It did not happen in a day. It took centuries of calculated plotting and ridicule to wipe from the pages of history the record of early Europe. Historians and theologians have conspired together to label Europe's early history as "myth." Their motive is plain. If theologians and historians had allowed the early history of Europe to be taught in schools and universities, they would have had to admit the authenticity and the authority of the Bible. THAT they did not want to do. Had they not expunged the early events of Europe every one today would be reading of the journeys of Noah, Shem, Heber, Asshur and many other Biblical heroes into Europe. Children would be reading in schools today of the early settlement of Assyrians and Chaldeans in Western Europe. They would know where the "Ten Lost Tribes" of the House of Israel migrated. All this has been purposely hidden. But it has not all been lost. Scattered through the writings of scholars of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are fragmentary records which unveil what really happened in Europe. In museums and libraries, in state archives are still to be found documents of hoary antiquity corroborating the Biblical record. This chapter contains the account of one of those documents. It is a history of the Danubian Valley -- the area of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Bavaria and neighboring regions. The document is the "Oesterreichische Chronik" -- the Austrian Chronicle. It has never before been rendered into modern English. A number of copies of the Chronicle are scattered throughout Europe. The last entry in the Chronicle is of the year 1404. ABRAHAM IN THE AUSTRIAN CHRONICLE

The Austrian Chronicle begins its consecutive history with a man of princely birth -- none other than the patriarch Abraham! But what has Abraham to do with the history of the Danubian Valley in Europe? Very much. The most ancient Greek name for the Danube River was the River Noe. Noe is the Greek form of the Hebrew Noah. Noah was the patriarch of the whole human family following the flood. His patriarchal authority passed on to Shem, who superseded his older brother Japheth. In each succeeding generation the hereditary right of the firstborn was passed on from father to son. Terah was eighth in descent from Shem (Genesis 11:10-26), and the heir to Noah and Shem. Terah had, according to the Biblical record, three sons. The oldest, Haran, was born when Terah was 70 years old (Gen. 11:26). He died before his father Terah did (Gen 11:28). "And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees." Why Haran died young will be made plain shortly from the Austrian Chronicle. Replacing Haran as heir was Terah's second son, Abram (whose name was later changed to Abraham). In the year 1941 God called Abraham to forsake his kindred, his country -- everything. "Now the Lord said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. And I will bless thee, and make thy name great ...'" (Gen. 12:1-2). Abram had to give up his hereditary privileges. Though he was a "mighty prince" (Gen. 23:6), he willingly forsook his inherited rights. "So Abram went, "declares verse 4. Now consider the Austrian Chronicle. It begins with the birth of Abram (he is called Abraham throughout the Chronicle) under the Assyrian Count Sattan of Aligem (sect 41). (Several of the earliest geographic names in the Chronicle are otherwise unknown from contemporary records.) Abram "took to wife Susanna from the land of Samam, the daughter of Terromant and his wife Sanyet." Of this union we read in Scripture: "And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country" -- Assyria (Gen. 25:5-6). From the Austrian Chronicle we learn that "Abraham and Susanna had a son Achaim." Then "Abraham of Temonaria and Count Sattan of Aligemorum had war with each other, till Abraham was driven from the land in poverty." It was in this war that Haran, Abram's older brother, was slain. Abram was driven out of Count Sattan's realm and fled to the Danube River Valley in 1945, according to the Chronicle. There he built a home and settled until the death of Count Sattan. It was now 1942 -- three years after Abram fled. Abram, according to the Chronicle, took Achaim and Susanna and went to the land of Judeisapta -- "the Jews' land" -- Palestine, according to the Bible. (The later scribes who copied the Austrian Chronicle assumed it was the Danube Valley because Jews were later settled there also.) From Palestine Abraham sent away eastward to Assyria Susanna and Achaim (in

Isaac's second year). From there they journeyed to the Danubian settlement Abram made years before. The previous chapter revealed that the Danubian Valley was then under Assyrian hegemony. The following sequence of landgraves and dukes is taken from the standard text of the "Oesterreichische Chronik" -- the Austrian Chronicle. Variations in spelling are at times included. The lengths of reign and dates are in every case those of the Chronicle, which correctly preserves the chronology beginning three years before the call of Abram. Rulers

Lengths of Reign

Abraham

30

Susanna, Abraham's concubine, departs Palestine for Assyria, and then the Danubian Valley.

Dates

1945-1915 19

1915-1896

Achaim, Abraham and Susanna's son, married a Hungarian countess named Nannaym. They had four children; one daughter, Volim; another, Rawlint; a son, Laptan; and a third daughter, Remmanna.

45

1896-1851

Raban -- Volim's husband, a baron from Bohemia; they have one son, Laptan. He changed the name of his duchy from Arratim to Sawricz.

45

1851-1806

Laptan -- Raban and Volim's son, dies without wife and heir.

3

Laptan, Achaim's son, marries a countess from Bohemia by name of Rama. They added Steiermark to their hereditary land. Had two sons, Rimer and Nynter.

49

Rymer, died without wife and heir.

1806-1803

(6 months)

1803-1754

(1754)

Nymer (Nynter), made the margraviate to a dukedom, called himself "Nynter, a Heathen, duke of Sawricz." Married a duchess called Sinna. Only son is Lynal.

52

Lynal, called the land 32 Sannas, after his wife; married a countess from Hungary called Synna. They had three children: a son, Rantan; a daughter, Lengna; and another son, Poyna. Rantan, died without wife and heir.

1702-1670

(3 months)

Poyna (Peynna, Pyna), 51 Lynal's youngest son, married a duchess from Bohemia, named Sanna. They had four children: a daughter, Sinna, and three sons, Pynan, Lippan, and Rimman. Pynan, died without wife and neir. Lippan, died without wife and heir. Rymman, died without wife and heir.

Reymar (Rymmar) died without wife and heir. Noro (Nero), marries a wife from Carinthia,

(1670) 1670-1619

1

1619-1618

(14 days)

(1618)

(6 months)

Zawan (Zaban, Sawan), 61 Synna's husband, a Hungarian duke. They have one son Rattan. Rattan (Nattan) marries a duchess from Bohemia, named Sanna. They had two sons, Reymar and Noro.

1754-1702

67

1618-1557

1557-1490

(1 1/2 months) 43

(1618)

(1490)

1490-1447

named Lenna; they had two children, a daughter, Sanna; and a son, Aucz. Aucz, changed the name of the land from Sannas to Pannaus, called him self "Aucz, a Heathen." Married Lenna, a duchess from Bohemia. They had one son, Nonas.

57

1447-1390

Nonas, marries Lenna, a duchess from Lanazz. They had a daughter, Sinna.

57

1390-1333

Tanton (Tonton), count from Panticz, marries Sinna; they had two sons, Tatan and Remar. Remar died before his father.

40

1333-1293

Tatan (Taton), marries duchess from Bohemia, named Synnan (Synna); both later buried at the Danube near Vienna. They had two daughters, Sanna and Lany (Lanus). Older daughter died a year after father.

61

1293-1232

Mantan (Manthan, Mathan), a duke from Bohemia, marries Lany. They had a` son, Manan. Manan, marries Hungarian countess, Lenna. They had a son Nanaym, and a daughter Senna. Senna died before her father.

49

59

Nanaim (Nananaym, Nanaym) marries Menna (Manna), a Hungarian duchess. They had two daughters, Lenna and Zema (Sema), and a son Ramaim. Lenna died unmarried. Ramaim (Ramaym) died a year after

1232-1183

1183-1124

38

1124-1086

his father. Mangais (Mangaizz, Mangrizz, Magais), a duke from Hungary, marries Zema. He changes the name of the land from Pannauz (Pannawz) to Tantamo (Tantamus). He calls himself "Mangais, a Heathen." They had one son Manan.

46

Manan, marries a 55 Bohemian duchess named Sinna (Suma, Sanna, Samia). They had one daughter, Semna (Senna). Laptan, a Hungarian duke marries Semna. They had one son, Lanan.

1086-1040

1040-985

67

Lanan, married Sanna (Senna), a duchess from Bohemia. They had two daughters, Sanna and Senna, and a son, Maran. Senna died before her father.

985-918

51

Maran, died without wife and (6 months) heir Manay, a duke from Bohemia, marries Sanna. They had a son, Tantan (Tanton), and a daughter, Lemna (Lenna). Lemna died unmarried.

54

Tantan, married Hungarian 57 duchess named Malan (Malon). They had two sons, Zanan (Sanan, Janan) and Peyman, and a daughter, Peynin (Peyn, Peymin). Zanan, died without wife and heir. Peyman, married Hungarian duchess named Lanna. They had three sons, Nanman (spelled also Nannan,

918-867

(867) 867-813

813-756

(3 months)

(756)

48

756-708

Mannan, and Nanan), Gennan and Saptan. After the death of Peyman and Lanna, who had both been heathen, the "Oesterreichische Chronik" records that the whole country accepted the Jewish faith! The next chapter reveals how and why it happened! CHAPTER IV JEWS GAIN POWER IN DANUBE CIVILIZATION How did this unique influence of the Jews in Eastern Europe begin? Scholars and historians -- many of them Jews -- have puzzled over the presence of the huge Jewish population in Eastern Europe. There is no recorded evidence that they migrated from Babylon after the Babylonian captivity. Nor are they the descendants from the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70. Who, then, brought the Jews into Eastern Europe seven centuries before the birth of Jesus. The answer has been in the Bible all these years! It is found in II Kings 18:13-16. "Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying: 'I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear.' And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king's house. At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the door-posts which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria." A parallel account may be read in either II Chronicles 32 or Isaiah 36. Notice the dates of this event -- the fourteenth year of Hezekiah -- 711-710. Sennacherib was at this time associated with his father on the throne of Assyria. A vigorous general, he captured all the fortified cities of Judah except Jerusalem, enslaved the inhabitants. Where he carried them had been unknown to historians. But the answer is preserved for us in the "Austrian Chronicle". He carried them into Eastern Europe along the Danube River. But how could an Assyrian king of Nineveh plant tens of thousands of Jewish captives in Europe? -because Central Europe was then part of the Assyrian Empire. JEWISH KINGS FROM AUSTRIAN CHRONICLE Rulers

Lengths of Reign

Gennan, middle son of Peyman, became duke. He was overcome,

4

Dates 708-704

records the Austrian Chronicle, by the Jews and was circumcised, accepted Jewish marriage customs, put away images and acknowledged the Hebrew faith. He called himself "Gennan, a Jew." There were not yet any Jewish noble, willing to give their daughters in marriage to him. So he died without wife and heir. Nanman and Saptan, sons of 61 Peyman, split the country. Nanman chose the lower and Septan the upper part. Nanman married a Hungarian duchess called Meynin (Mennin). Saptan became the Master over his brother and over all the land, also changed its name to Mittanauz. He married a Bohemian duchess called Salaim (Salan, Salann, Salim), who was a Jewess. They had two sons, Tanton and Rippan. Tanton died without wife before his father.

704-643

Rippan, a Jew, married a 57 countess from Penenaw (Pennawe), named Menna. They had one son, Lantawz, and two daughters, Pamyn and Rachaym. Lantawz and Pamyn (Panym) died unmarried before their father.

643-586

Salant, a Jew, a duke from Hungary, married Rachaim. They had one son, Piltan II (Pilton, Pilkan) who died. After both this son and Salant had died, Rachaim remarried.

586-541

Laptan, a Jew from Bohemia, married Rachaim. Changed the name of the land from Mittanauz (Mittenaus) to Fannau (Fannawe). They

45

15

541-526

died without an heir. At that time there ruled 40 a Jewish duke in Hungary, called Almantan. He usurped the power and conquered the dukedom of Fannaw. Almantan brought with him his wife, a Bohemian duchess, named Schlammyn (Schalmmyn). She was Jewish. They had two sons, Rantanaiz and Halman (Halbman). Halman became duke of Hungary.

526-486

Rantanaiz (Rattans), in his day the name of the land was changed from Fannaw to Aurata. He called himself "Rattanaiz, a Jew." Married Bohemian duchess called Sawlin (Sawlim). They had a son who died without name, and a daughter, Lenna.

486-429

57

Rettan, Hungarian duke, marries Lenna. He changed the name of the land from Aurata to Fyla. They had a son, Manton (Montan).

45

429-384

Flanton, married Sanna, a duchess from Bavaria. They had a son, Hegan and a daughter, Semyn. Hegan died unmarried before his father.

54

384-330

Rattan, a Hungarian duke, marries Semyn. They had one son, Attalon. Attalon, married a Bohemian duchess, Magalim. They had three sons, Raban, Penyn and Effra, and Semna, a daughter. Semna died young. Penyn also died without

39

57

330-291

291-234

wife and heir. Raban (Rawan, Raban), married a Bohemian duchess called Sancta (Santta, Santla). They died without Elelr.

(6 months)

Effra, Attalon's youngest 49 son, married Hungarian duchess, Samaym, who was Jewish. They had one son, Naban. Naban, married a Hungarian duchess, a Jewess, Samanna. They had a son, Rolan, and a daughter, Signa who died unmarried. Rolan (Nolan), changed the name of the land from Fyla to Rarasma. Married a Hungarian duchess, Sanna. They had two daughters, Eminna and Sanna. Eminna died unmarried.

(234)

234-185

52

32

185-133

133-101

Remar (Reinar, Reimar), a Bohemian duke, married Sanna. They had one son, Natan.

53

101- 48

Natan, married Hungarian duchess, Satym (Satyn). They had two daughters, Masym and Rachym.

41

48- 7

Masym, a duchess. She died before marrying. Her sister Rachym obtained the duchy.

2 1/2

7- 5

Raban (Naban), a Bohemian duke, married Rachim. They had two sons, Lanat (Lenat, Lamer, Laniar), and Sannet (Samet, Samer). Lanat died young. Sannet, married a Hungarian

51

34

5 B.C. to 47 A.D.

47- 81

duchess, Enna. They had a son, Laban, and a daughter, Racha (spelled also Ratha, Rachaym, Rathaym). Laban died before his father. Saptan, duke from Bohemia married Racha. They had a son, Salamet (Salamer), and a daughter, Semna (Sanna, Senna). Salamet died unmarried before his father. Rolant, a Bohemian duke marries Semna. They had a son, Rattan, a daughter, Amama II (Amania), and another son, Jannat (Jannas, Jannet, Jamer). Rattan and Amama died without heir before their father.

42

52

Jannat (Jannett Janner), 51 changed the name of his inheritance from Rarasma to Corrodancia. Married a Bohemian duchess called Samanna. They had a son, Manton (Montan). With him ended the predominance of the Jewish faith, and the land lapsed again to Heathenism. Manton

45

81-123

123-175

175-226

226-271

In his time heathen from Hungary and other lands forced Manton to become a heathen and to pray to images. "He called himself Manton, a Heathen." He married a heathen duchess from Hungary, named Signa. They had two sons, Natan (Mathan) and Reptan. Reptan died young and unmarried. END OF JEWISH PREDOMINANCE The sudden influx of heathenism in the hitherto predominantly Jewish patrimony was due to a mass migration from the east. This was the period of the last famous Odin or Wodan -- king of the Saxons from 256-300. He led numerous tribes from Eastern Europe following the Roman attack upon Dacia (the modern Romania). The story of Wodan will be made plain in a succeeding chapter.

Natan, married a duchess from Hungary named Salymna (Salynna). They had two sons, Salanata and Hemna (Hemma, Henna, Honna). The latter died without heir. Salanata, married a Bohemian duchess called Alamynn. They had one son, Rattan, a heathen.

51

271-322

41

322-363

Rattan, married a Bohemian duchess, Sympna (Synna, Symna). They had a son, Fultan (Sultan, Fulkan, Fullan) who died without heir before his father.

32

363-395

Rolant, a heathen Hungarian duke was established in Corrodancia by the Romans. He brought along his wife, a Bohemian duchess called Salympna (Salymna). They had one son, Sattan.

51

395-446

Sattan, married a Hungarian duchess, Samynna. From now on the dukes in Corrodancia, were Catholic nobles. Sattan and Samynna died without an heir.

51

446-497

The Romans established Amman, a noble count, in Corrodancia. He secretly believed and practiced Catholicism. Amman, changed the name of the land from Corrodancia to Avara. He brought along his wife Helena, a secret Christian. Later known as "St. Amman" and "St. Helena," they converted much of the population. When the Romans found it out they slew Amman and many of the people, but not Helena. They had three sons, Johanns, Albrecht, and

43

497-540

Dietreich. A11 three became dukes of Avara and changed the name to Osterland. They split the land and Johanns became the chief over his two brothers. Johanns, married a noble countess from Rome called Anna. They had no heir. Albrecht became duke of Osterland, since Dietreich died shortly after Johanns.

32

540-572

Albrecht, changed the 31 name of the land from Osterland to Oesterreich -- now the official name of Austria. He married a duchess from Bohemia, Katherin. They had a son Eberhart, a daughter Ann, and another son, Johanns. Johanns and Anna died shortly after their father. Eberhart, married Osanna, a duchess from Bavaria. They had two sons, Jacob and Albrecht. They both died before father and mother Thereafter the land was turned into a margraviate.

572-603

32

Hainreich, duke from Bohemia was given Austria by the Roman emperor. Hainreich (Henry), became Margrave of Austria. He brought with him his wife, a duchess from Hungary named Ursula. They had no heir. Otto -- Hainreich granted 18 Austria to Otto of Hungary. He styled himself "Otto, by the grace of God, Margrave of Austria and Duke of Hungary." Married a duchess from Bohemia called Elsbet. They had two

603-635

30

635-665

665-683

sons, Chunrat and Johans. Johans died young. Chunrat, made the margraviate a dukedom. He styled himself "Chunrat, by the grace of God a Roman king, always a multiplier of the empire, and duke of Austria. His wife was Anna, a Hungarian duchess. They had three sons, Hainreich, Steffan and Albrecht. They split the land and Albrecht became chief.

50

683-733

Albrecht, married a 49 Bohemian duchess, Salme (Salome). They had two sons, Ludweig and Fridreich. They divided the land.

733-782

Ludweig, was the higher duke in Austria. Married a duchess from Hungary named Elena. They had a son, Johannes and a daughter, Dorothea, who died before her father.

32

Johannes, married a duchess from Bohemia called Anna. They had one son, Hainreich.

49

Hainreich, married a 31 duchess from Hungary named Ursula. They had three sons, Johanns, Steffan and Philipp. Steffan and Philipp died young.

782-814

814-863

863-894

Johannes, married Margareta, duchess from Bohemia. They had two sons, Albrecht and Ludweig. Albrecht died unmarried prior to his father.

28

894-922

Ludweig, married a duchess from Hungary called Elsbet.

42

922-964

They had one son, Albrecht. Albrecht, married a duchess 28 from Bohemia, Osanna. They had two sons, Ott and Hainreich. Ott died unmarried prior to his father.

964-992

Albrecht was a contemporary of Leopold, duke of the rising House of Babenberg. Leopold was appointed by Otto II of Germany as supreme ruler of the Austrian mark. Hainreich, or Henry, succeeded; married a Hungarian duchess called Margareta. They had two sons, Peter and Johanns, and a daughter, Elisabet (Elspeth).

28

Peter and Johanns 1 1/2 Johanns was duke jointly with Peter of Austria for a year and a half, when he died without wife and heir. Peter 3 succeeded as duke for three years and also died without heir. His dukedom passed to the Babenbergs.

992-1020

1020-1021

1021-1024

In 976 the chief authority in Austria had passed to the House of Babenberg. The powerful rule of the Babenbergs -- and the interrelationships of the royal families -- may be found in any thorough English or German history of Austria. The Babenbergs became extinct in 1246. Thereafter the realm passed into the hands of the famous Hapsburgs. With this the history of early southeastern Europe, which began in the days of Abraham, closes. CHAPTER V THE CONQUESTS OF ODIN AND DANISH HISTORY Many a school boy has heard of Odin, the great Norse hero. But how many realize that Odin was a real king of Denmark? That he founded the kingdom of Denmark in the days of David, king of Israel? That he visited Solomon's temple? of that Odin was the first Danish king to cross the Atlantic -- as did Danish Vikings centuries later? For centuries Danes revered the history of their nation. Not until

the atheistic educational philosophy of German schools permeated their country did the Danes discard the early history of their nation. Modern historians, imbued with the idea that myth was the only form in which early man knew how to write, treat all Danish history as myth. They have never investigated to see whether it were so. of course myth was grafted in the Middle Ages on the early history of Denmark. That tragedy befell all nations under the sway of religious superstition in the Middle Ages. But that does not prove that the essential core of early Danish history is invalid. Today historians labor under the delusion that history was artificially created after traditional mythology had long been established. Not so. Recorded and traditional history around the world was carefully preserved in palaces and royal libraries. Only later did myth embrace history, WHAT THE HISTORY OF DENMARK REVEALS Now is the time to restore the lost history of Denmark. The most accessible outline of Danish history is that found in Anderson's "Royal Genealogies". Many other volumes contribute to the story, but only Anderson's work correctly preserves in English the chronology of the early period. Danish written history properly begins with the first king to bear rule over the Danish or Cymbric peninsula. That king was Danus I. In Danish history he is also called Dan I. He was the first Odin or Votan -- from the Hebrew "adonai" meaning "lord." Denmark originally received its name from the tribe of the Danaan. It passed to the king who took the name of the subjects over whom he ruled. King Dan I commenced his reign in 1040. This was the year of the break-up of the German realm. The division of German territory among the three sons of Wolfheim -- Kells, Gall and Hiller -- left the seafarers of the far northwest of Europe without leadership. To fill the void the German and Hebrew inhabitants of Denmark called upon the scion of the Trojan House to reign over them. That scion was Dan I. He lived at the time in Thrace. THE GENEALOGY OF DAN I The present kings of Northwestern Europe and Great Britain are all related to Dan I of Denmark. The "Saxon Chronicle" commences the line of Dan I with the following two names: "Noah, Sem." Thereafter a long break occurs in the genealogy -- similar to the Biblical statement: "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew l:l). This gap in Odin's genealogy is partially filled in by the Icelandic "Langfedgatal". After Sem, the "Langfedgatal" gives the following genealogy on Odin's father's side:

"Saturnus of Krit Jupiter Darius Erichhonius Troes Ilus Lamedon Priam, King of Troy Minon or Memnon, who married Priam's daughter. Their son was Tror, whom we call Thor, the father of Hloritha. Thor Einridi Vingethorr Vingener Moda Magi Seskef, or Sescef." In Danish literature Seskef -- sometimes spelled Sceaf -- is a title of Odin. It means a "sheaf" of grain. Odin claimed to be a kind of savior, or a lord. He laid claim to being the sheaf that symbolically represented the Messiah (Leviticus 23:9-14). But why should Dan I, a king of Denmark, copy a ceremony perpetuated by the law of Moses? Is there a connection between Odin and Israel? The answer is found in who Saturnus of Krit, ancestor of Odin, really was. In modern English the name would be Saturn of Crete. There were many Saturns in antiquity, often confused with one another. Usually the name was applied to a man who flees or who hides himself. Saturn is a Latin word derived from a root meaning to flee into hiding. The Greek term was Kronos. This particular Saturn of Crete was so famous that the Phoenician historian Sanchoniathon spoke of him. Fragments of his works have been preserved by Eusebius in "Preparation of the Gospel", book i, ch. x. Here are his words: "For Kronus or (Saturn), whom the Phoenicians call Israel ...." ("Corey's Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other Authors", by E. Richmond Hodges, page 21.) Israel was the name of Jacob. That would make Odin a son of Shem and a son of Jacob. But why was Jacob called Saturn? Because Jacob became famous for fleeing or hiding from his enemies. Jacob's mother warned him of his brother Esau's wrath: "Now, therefore, my son, hearken to my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother in Haran" (Genesis 27:43). "And it was told Laban ... that Jacob was fled" -this time back to Palestine. (Gen. 31:22). But how is one to account for the title to Crete in Jacob's name? Certainly Jacob did not have title to it prior to descending into Egypt. The answer is, Jacob obtained it from Pharaoh in Egypt. Here are the facts. Egypt was a vast Mediterranean power in the days of Jacob. One of the areas early settled by Egyptians was the island of Crete, an important naval gateway in the Mediterranean. From

Crete -- Caphtor in Hebrew -- came the Philistines (Jer. 47:4 and Amos 9:7). The Philistines descended from Mizraim, father of the Egyptians (Gen. 10:13-14). Ruling over the Egyptians and Philistines in Crete and the eastern Nile Delta was a little-known dynasty of Egyptian kings. They are mentioned in the "Book of Sothis" by Sncellus. Manetho does not include them among his dynasties. The king of this dynasty, who was subject to the jurisdiction of the great Pharaoh in Egypt, was Rameses (l744-1715). Because of Joseph's service to the Egyptian government, the Pharaoh transferred primary title to the Land from the line of Rameses to the line of Israel -- and that included not only Goshen, but Crete! And that is how Israel (Jacob) anciently obtained title to the island of Crete. The "Langfedgatal" genealogy of Odin of Denmark may therefore be clarified as follows: Saturnus of Krit -- Israel or Jacob (1856-1709) Jupiter, son of Saturn of Krit -- Judah Darius, descendant of Jupiter (Judah) -- is Dara or Darda (see the family name in I Chronicles 2:4,6); Josephus calls him Dardanus (1477-1412); he fled Italy and founded Troy (the Norse geneaology skips the names of Tarah and Mahol between Judah and Darda) Erichhonius -- Ericthonius (1412-1366), second king of Troy Troes -- Tros (1366-1326), third king of Troy Ilus -- Illus (1326-1277), fourth king of Troy Lamedon -- Laomedon (1277-1233), fifth king of Troy Priam -- Priamus (1233-1181), king of Troy during first Trojan war. Eighth in descent from Priam was Seskef, who was Danus I or Odin (Votan), first king of Denmark -- 1040-999. Odin was a Hebrew, of the line of Judah, from whom the chief rulers were to come. "For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler" (I Chron. 5:2). Now consider over whom Odin ruled in Northwest Europe. "HU THE MIGHTY" King Danus' realm extended far beyond the reaches of the Danish peninsula. The people over whom he ruled were a collection of tribes which constituted the greatest sea power of the time -- the Pelasgians

or sea people. From the list of sea powers, commented on in Volume I of the Compendium, it is proved that the Pelasgians were Hebrews and their allies. Their chief center of habitation was Palestine. Denmark was one of several overseas settlements. Israel gained power in 1057, shortly before the break-up of Germany in Europe. They retained it until 972, when Solomon's kingdom in Palestine was split. For the Israelites to have obtained dominion of the sea in 1057 in the Mediterranean and Atlantic presupposes that they already were living along the western shores of Europe before that date. When and how did the Children of Israel migrate to Western Europe? The answer is found in Cymbric or Welsh history. A fragmentary Welsh record, called the Welsh Triad, reads as follows: "First was the race of the Cymry, who came with Hu Gadarn to Ynys Prydain." Hu came from "the land of summer" -- a land located somewhere in what later constituted the realm of Constantinople (the capital of the eastern Roman Empire). He journeyed to Ynys Pridain -the Welsh name of the Isle of Britain. This first major settlement preceded the migration in 1149 of Brutus of Troy to Britain. Who was Hu Gadarn? Gadarn is a Welsh word. It means the "Mighty." Hu was a short form of the Old Celtic name Hesus ("Origines Celticae", by Edwin Guest, vol. 2, p. 9). Hesus is the Celtic -- and also the Spanish -- pronunciation of Jesus. Was there a famous "Jesus" who lived in the balmy summerland of the eastern Mediterranean centuries before the time of Jesus the Christ? Most certainly! It is found in Hebrews 4:8, "For if Jesus that is, Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." Jesus was merely the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. Hu or Hesus the Mighty was Joshua the Mighty, the great general who led Israel into Palestine. And the Welsh Triad records that in his later years he also settled Israel peaceably in the British Isle. From there, for trading purposes, they spread to the coasts of the continent which were subject to the German Cymry -- the descendants of the German king Cimbrus (1679-1635). That is how Israel in Denmark came to be known by the tribal name of Cymry. As time elapsed the peninsula of Denmark became a chief area of trade and commerce. It is strategically located to dominate both North and Baltic sea trade. So together with the original German tribes of the Cymry and Dauciones were migrants from Britain. In 1040 the Hebrew Cymry called for a descendant of Judah, a royal scion of the House of Troy, to rule over them. Odin answered the call and led a migration out of Thrace into Denmark and neighboring regions. The deeds of Odin upon becoming king over the Cymry (sometimes spelled Cymbri) will be included in a later section on the American Indian. THE KINGS OF DENMARK Below is the genealogical and historical line of Judah that descended from Odin. Through intermarriage the line of Odin has permeated throughout Western Europe. Small wonder that the lion of

Judah is the symbol on the coat of arms and shields of the royalty of Northwestern Europe. Kings of Denmark

Lengths of Reign

1. Danus I, or Odin first king of Denmark

41

Dates

1040-999

2. Humblus, son of Odin

8

999-991

3. Lotherus, son of Odin

17

991-974

4. Boghius

5

5. Scioldus, son of Lotherus

974-969 80

969-889

6. Gram (or Gran) 31 Slain by Suibdagerus, a king of Norway, in battle; wives were Groa a Swede, and Signe of Finland.

889-858

7. Suibdagerus 40 King of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, who, by force, married Gran's daughter and conquered Denmark.

858-818

8. Guthormus, son of Queen Signe Reigned 14 years contemporary with Suibdagerus.

14

832-818

9. Hadingus, another son of Signe and Gram

54

818-764

10. Frotho I, son of Hadingus

77

764-687

11. Haldanus I, son of Frotho

56

687-631

12. Rhoe, son of Haldanus

63

631-568

13. Helgo, son of Haldanus Reigned contemporary with his brother.

34

628-594

14. Rolvo, son of Helgo by his own daughter Ursa. Became king after death of Rhoe; was killed by Attile, king of Sweden, who conquered

41

568-527

Denmark. 15. Hotherus, great-grandson 42 of Hadingus, son of king Hotobrodus of Sweden. King of Denmark and Sweden.

527-485

16. Roric Slyngeband, son of Hotherus

485-436

49

17. Wigletus, son of Roric 18. Guitalchus

48

436-388

32

388-356

19. Vermundus, son of Wigletus

61

20. Uffe, son of Vermundus

30

356-295 295-265

21. Danus II, son of Uffe

37

265-228

22. Hugletus the Little, son of Danus II

52

228-176

23. Frotho II, son of Hugletus

30

176-146

DENMARK ENTERS ROMAN HISTORY 24. Danus III, son of Frotho In his time the German Cymbrians joined the Teutons in a terrible war against Rome in 113. Italy would have been conquered if the consul Marius had not defeated them utterly. 25. Fridlevus I, the Swift, son of Danus

69

37

146- 77

77- 40

26. Frotho III, the Pacific, 54 40- 15 son of Fridlevus ("A.D.") King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. INTERREGNUM for nearly 4 years 15- 19 27. Hiarnus, a poet 28. Fridlevus II, son of Frotho

2

19- 21 12

21- 33

29. Frotho IV, the Liberal, son of Fridlevus

46

30. Ingellus Wendemothius, son of Frotho

33- 79

23

31. Olaus I, son of Ingellus

79-102

10

102-112

32. Haraldus I, reigned 5 contemporary with brother 33. Frotho V, brother of Haraldus 34. Haraldus II, son of Haraldus I

112-117

19

35. Haldanus II, son of Haraldus II Reigned 10 years contemporary with brother, 5 years alone.

112-131

10

131-141

15

131-146

36. Unquinus, king of Gothland, succeeded son-in-law Haldanus in Denmark. 37. Sivaldus I, son of Unquinus

9

22

146-155

155-177

38. Sigarus, son of Sivaldus

13

39. Sivaldus II, son of 11 Sigarus INTERREGNUM -- Rule of 5 governors

177-190 190-201 40

201-241

40. Haldanus III, married Guritha, granddaughter of Sigarus.

20

241-261

41. Haraldus III, (Hilletand or Hilderand), son of Haldanus; died in Sweden after a seven-year war, during which time his daughter Haditha governed Denmark.

66

261-327

42. Olaus II, brother of

4

327-331

Haditha 43. Osmund, son of Olaus

10

44. Sivardus I, son of Osmund

331-341

9

341-350

45. Buthlus, brother of Sivardus

1

350-351

46. Jarmericus, son of Sivardus

16

351-367

47. Broderus, son of Jarmericus

2

367-369

48. Sivaldus III, son of Broderus

9

370-379

49. Snio (or Sino), son of Silvaldus.

22

379-401

The next seven kings lived mostly abroad. They succeeded each other as father and son. 50. Roderic

10

401-411

51. Sueno I

55

411-467

52. Guitlachus

50

53. Haraldus IV 54. Eschyllus

46

543-621

75

621-696

4

58. Baldrus, son of Biorno 59. Haraldus V, son of Baldrus

61. Gotricus or Godfrey or

527-543

78

56. Osmund II The following kings lived in Denmark.

60. Gormo I, son of Haraldus

481-527

16

55. Veremundus

57. Biorno

467-517

696-701 6

701-707 8

707-715

50

715-765

45

765-810

Sigfrid, commences invasions of England 787 62. Olaus III 1 Because Gotricus became the great legislator of the Danes, his reign is often begun from the year 777 as follows:

810-811

Gotricus (or Godfrey), called Sigfrid

33

Olaus III or Olabus

777-810

2

810-812

Continuing: 63. Hemmingius or Hemmingus or Heningus 64. Sivard II

4

2

812-816

816-818

65. Ringo, contemporary with Sivard II

2

66. Regner

13

818-831

3

818-821

67. Harald VI 68. Sivard III, the last heathen king of Denmark.

3

816-818

831-834

CHRISTIANITY INTRODUCED ON THE THRONE 69. Eric I, the first king of Denmark to adopt Christianity.

1

834-835

During much of this and the preceding period Denmark was plagued by joint reigns, disputed succession, and lesser kings who seized on part of the realm. Whole tribes left the peninsula to settle permanently in England. They were called Danes, but were, in fact, of Anglo-Saxon stock. 70. Eric II, called Barno, the Child 71. Canute I, surnamed the Small

24 20

835-859 859-879

72. Frotho VI

1

879-880

73. Gormo II (or Guthran or Gormund)

13

74. Harald VII, Parcus, or the Niggard

8

75. Gormo III or Guthram or or Godrum or Gormund

30

901-931

76. Harald VIII, called Blaatand

48

931-979

77. Sueno II or Suen-Otto, called Forked Beard 78. Ericus, King of Sweden became King of Denmark in 988 for 7 years, till slain by his own servants, when Suen-Otto was restored by Scottish assistance. 79. Canute II or King Knut the Great, united Scandinavia under his realm, it fell apart at his death. Became king of England 1016.

880-893 893-901

35

979-1014

7

988-995

21

1014-1035

From this date on any thorough work on Denmark will satisfactorily present its history. With the death of Canute a period of 2074 years ended since the founding of the monarchy. CHAPTER VI SCOTLAND -- KEY TO HISTORY OF NEW WORLD The Key to the history of the New World has been lost. Not a single historian or archaeologist knows the true origin of American Indian civilization. And no wonder! They have thrown away the keys to that history. One of those keys will be found in Danish history. The other -- and most important -- key in the checkered history of rugged Scotland. WHAT HISTORIANS CLAIM

The famous eight-volume "History of Scotland", by John Hill Burton, begins the history of Scotland this way: "It is in the year 80 of the Christian era that the territory in later times known as Scotland comes out of utter darkness, and is seen to join the current of authentic history. In that year Julius Agricola brought Roman troops north ...." This is a typical -- but mistaken -- view of Scottish history. Historians have made an idol out of Roman records. What the Romans either refused to preserve, or carelessly neglected to record, is all too often treated with contempt by modern historians. Scotland was never long under the Roman heel. The Romans were not particularly interested in its rocky highlands. Consequently they did not occupy themselves with recording the major events of the past that befell its inhabitants. Today, numerous documents are available covering the history of Scotland from very early times. These chronicles are usually disparaged in historical circles -- or at most treated as quaint and curious documents. But to restore the lost history of Scotland from them is frowned on with disdain. Yet in these records are the missing links which, until now, have sundered the Old World from the New. It is time the true story of Scotland were made known. Here, in outline form, are the major events that make Scottish history. FIRST MAJOR SETTLEMENT The geographic location of Scotland is important in its history. Scotland is the link between Scandinavia and Britain and Ireland. Its shores provide control of the far reaches of the North Sea and the ocean. Scotland was consequently invaded, peaceably and by frightful devastation, several times in its history. The first permanent settlement of Scotland, for which we have recorded history, begins with the coming of Danus I of Denmark in 1040. When the Cimbric tribes called upon an heir of the Trojan throne to establish his domain in Denmark, Odin responded immediately. Out of southeastern Europe he marched into Denmark. Coming with him was a mixed tribe known as the Agathyrsi. Agathirsi was their name, declares an old Scottish Chronicle. ("Controversial Issues in Scottish History", by W. H. Gregg, p. 125.) Odin settled them in Scotland under their leader Cruithne -- after whom they were called Cruithnians or Cruithne. Herodotus, the Greek historian, traces the Agathyrsi to their origin in the Scythian plains of what is now the southern Ukraine The Agathyrsi were a mixed race. Various struggles led to a catastrophe among the Agathyrsi who came with Odin. They found themselves without women! As a consequence they sought wives among neighboring tribes. They landed in Ireland at the time of the establishment of the Milesian monarchy under Ghede the Herimon (1016-1002). Following a few

skirmishess an agreement was reached. The Milesians of Ireland agreed to give wives to the Agathyrsi from their daughters on one condition: that the Agathyrsi would pass on their inheritance through their daughters, not their sons. This was to acknowledge that any royalty which might follow derived kingship from their Milesian wives, not from the Agathyrsi men. On this condition the Agathyrsi departed again for Scotland. LINE OF JUDAH IN SCOTLAND The women who journeyed in that day to Scotland were Milesians -of the family of Mileadh. In volume I of the Compendium the history of the kingly line from Mileadh to the present throne in Great Britain was given in its entirety. Its ancient connection with the throne of David, in Judah, was made plain. But the genealogy of Mileadh was not included. The line of Mileadh, in Irish records, properly begins with Easru in Egypt. The name Easru is Old Irish for Ezra or Azariah. Easru was a friend of Moses. One Irish tradition has him crossing the Red Sea with the children of Israel. Another tradition has him journeying, after the Exodus, to Scythia. Irish annalists became confused by these two movements of Easru and his family. It never occurred to them that he might have crossed the Red Sea with Moses, and then, at a later time journeyed to Scythia. No Irish records preserve the ancestry of Easru or Azariah. Many myths were later created by Irish monks to account for this blank. It seems not to have occurred to them that the Bible might record the ancestry of Easru, ending at the Exodus. The previous volume of the Compendium established the significant fact that the symbol of the line of Easru and Mileadh was the Crimson or Red Branch -- signifying the royal line Zarah, Judah's son (Genesis 38:30). Now open the Bible to the genealogy of Judah. "And the sons of Zarah: Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara .... And the sons of Ethan: Azariah" (I Chronicles 2:6, 8). Here is an Azariah, of the family of Judah -- and of Zarah, the Red Branch. Azariah was of the same generation as Moses -- both were great-great-grandsons of Jacob (compare with Exodus 6:16-20). Notice also that Azariah's descendants did not enter Palestine. His genealogy is not continued beyond the Exodus. That is significant. Further, the name Azariah in Hebrew is often shortened to Ezra (see any Biblical encyclopaedia). Its Old Irish form would be Easru. So here we have an Azariah (or Ezra), of the same generation as Moses, Living at the time of the Exodus, whose descendants did not settle in Palestine, and who was of the Crimson Branch. At the same time Irish history reveals an Easru -- Old Irish for Azariah or Ezra -- living in Moses' day, crossing the Red Sea, but not settling in Palestine, whose descendants in after generations used the symbol of the Crimson Branch! Here is the line of Zarah -- Judah! Easru is Azariah, Judah's great-great-grandson.

In chart form (from the Bible and Stokvis' Manuel) the Milesian princely line appears thus: Jacob Judah Zarah Ezra Ethan Azariah, who is Easru Sru Eibher Scot Beogamon Ogamon Tait Agnamhan Lamhfinn Heber Glunfionn Agnonfinn Eimhear Glas Nenuaill Nuadhat Aldoid Earchada Deaghata Bratha Breogan Bile Mileadh Ghede the Herimon, now gave daughters of the royal family to the Cruithne. From these noble women sprang a line of kings that finally united with the Scots in the person of Kenneth Mac Alpin in 843. In after ages the Cruithne came to be known, falsely, as Picts. The true Picts were another people altogether -- an uncivilized people who painted themselves. Because the Cruithne ruled over the Picts who lived in the Scottish highlands, later writers called them both "Picts." The wild, unsettled Picts later disappeared from Scotland. Where? -- historians do not know. But Scottish history tells! But first, to summarize the story of the half-Jewish kings who descended from the Cruithnians and the Hebrew Milesian women. EARLIEST HISTORY OF SCOTLAND The complete king list -- and an accurate chronology of all the kings of the Cruithne -- has come down to us in the "Pictish Chronicle." The record begins with the first settlement of the Agathyrsi in 1040. That is the year they were planted in Northwest Europe by Odin of Denmark, who led them out of their ancient homeland in Thrace.

The "Pictish Chronicle" begins with the name of Cruithne and seven sons, who divided the Scottish realm between them. The entire period from the first migration in 1040 to the death of Cruithne and his sons was 100 years. Thereafter the royal line was inherited from the mother's side, not the father's, in accordance with the original agreement with the Milesians. The following chart is taken from the "Pictish Chronicle." King's Names

Lengths of Reign

Cruidne (or Cruithne), son of Cinge (or Kinne), father of the Agathyrsi dwelling in Scotland.

100

Dates

1040- 940

The seven sons of Cruithne: Circui

60

Fidaich

40

Forteim

70

Floclaid

30

Got

12

Ce, that is, Cecircum Fibaid

15 24

The entire period of Cruithne and his seven sons is contained in the 100 years assigned to Cruithne. None of the sons' reigns can be dated. The kingship after 940 was passed on to the following: Gedeolgudach Denbacan

80 100

940-860 860-760

Finnechta (Olfinecta)

60

760-700

Guididgaedbrecach

50

700-650

Gestgurtich

40

650-610

Wurgest

30

610-580

Brudebout

48

580-532

"From Brudebout descended 30 kings of the name of Brude, who

reigned during 150 years in Ireland and in Albany," records the Chronicle. Albany was the seat of authority in Scotland. The following names indicate that the realm was divided into numerous principalities -- probably 15 -- over each of which two generations of kinglets reigned. Thirty kings by name of Brude Brude Gest

150

532-382

Brude Uleo

Brude Urgest

Brude Gant

Brude Point

Brude Urgant

Brude Urpoint

Brude Gnith

Brude Leo

Brude Urgnith

Brude Feth

Brude Gart

Brude Urfeichir

Brude Urgart

Brude Cal

Brude Clnd

Brude Urcal

Brude Urclnd

Brude Cint

Brude Uip

Brude Urcint

Brude Uruip

Brude Feth

Brude Grith

Brude Urfeth

Brude Urgrith

Brude Ru

Brude Muin

Brude Ero

Brude Urmuin

Gilgidi

101

382-281

Tharan

100

281-181

Morleo

15

181-166

Deocilunan

40

Cimoiod, son of Arcois Deord

166-126 7

50

126-119 119- 69

Bliciblitherth

5

69- 64

Dectoteric, brother of Diu Usconbuts

40 30

Carvorst

24 B.C.- 7 A.D.

40

Deoartavois

64- 24

7- 47

20

47- 67

Uist

50

67-117

Ru

100

117-217

Gartnaithboc

4

Vere

217-221

9

Breth, son of Buthut Vipoignamet Canutulachma

221-230 7

230-237

30

237-267

4

267-271

Wradech Vechla

2

271-273

Garnaichdi Uber

60

273-333

Talore, son of Achivir -(Nectanus, a contemporary Pictish king was slain in 361)

75

333-408

Drust, son of Erp or Irb

45

408-453

Though the "Pictish Chronicle" continues the history of the Cruithne without interruption, it is important that the list be stopped here to discover who Drust, the son of Erp, was. EARLY LINE OF SCOTTISH KINGS Erp is the Pictish name for the Scottish Erc. Who was this Erc? Late Scottish historians confused this Erp or Erc with Erc the father of Fearghus. Fearghus mac Erc reigned 513-529. This was about a century after Drust mac Erp (or Erc). The two Ercs are not the same person. This is clearly proved by all early Scottish historians. "In two particulars at least, none of the early writers have disagreed: that in the year 503 an invasion of Caledonia took place under the leadership of Fergus mac Erc, and that he and his followers had come to

stay" ("Controversial Issues in Scottish History", Gregg, page 35). Then who was the other Erc whose son, a century earlier, returned to rule over the Picts? The answer is found in the early history of the Scots who migrated from Scythia in the year 331-330. In 331 Alexander the Great overthrew the Persian realm. Many nations who had been held in virtual slavery gained their freedom. One of these people was the House of Israel. Israel was invaded in 721 by Shalmaneser of Assyria. After a three-year siege her people were taken into captivity. Ezekiel, over a century later was given a vision in which he saw that the House of Israel would not be released from their enslavement until 390 years had elapsed from the time of the siege of Samaria (Ezekiel 4:3-5). It was precisely 390 years from 721, when the siege against Samaria began, to 331, the date of the final overthrow of Persia and the deliverance out of captivity of the Hebrews. Some of them immediately commenced a migration to the land settled long before by their brethren. In the year 331-330 they journeyed out of Scythia to Scotland -- the word Scotland originally meant the land of the Scyths. In Scotland they sent to Ireland for a Scythian-Mileslan prince, of the line of Mileadh, to rule over them. A prince was dispatched, together with a small army. His name was Fergus, the son of Ferquhard. It was his family from which Erp or Erc, the father of Drust, king of the "Picts,'' sprang. Before returning to complete the line of "Pictish" kings, we shall present a summary of the earliest kings to rule over the Scots in Scotland. (It should be remembered that Scotland and Pictland were but two of several early divisions of that land now known as Scotland.) This material is taken from Boethus and Buchanan. The correct outline is that preserved in Anderson's "Royal Genealogies". Buchanan mistakenly shortens the total of the dynasty 16 years. But Roman history confirms the longer form preserved by Anderson on page 753. First Kings of the Scots

Lengths of Reign

1. Fergus 25 He died in shipwreck off the coast of Ireland, where he went to quell some commotions.

330-305

2. Feritharis 15 Brother of Fergus succeeds, since Fergus' sons are too young.

305-290

3. Mainus 29 Fergus' younger son chosen king, the older, Ferlegus, being condemned for conspiring in his uncle's

290-261

Dates

death. 4. Dornadilla A son of Mainus

28

261-233

5. Nothatus 20 Dornadilla's brother; his own son too young to succeed to the throne. A very cruel and despotic ruler, he was slain.

233-213

6. Reuther 26 Dornadilla's son. Dowal, the murderer of Nothatus, exercised great influence over the still young Reuther.

213-187

7. Reutha 17 Son of Nothatus, cousin of Reuther. Reuther's brother rules for his nephew, who is only ten years old. Reutha resigned the government in favour of Thereus his nephew.

187-170

8. Thereus 12 Reuther's son. A cruel and unwise tyrant, driven into exile in his twelfth year, Conan elected viceroy.

170-158

9. Josina 24 Thereus' brother. He greatly honored physicians, as he had been educated among them.

158-134

10. Finnan 30 Josina's son. Established that kings should not decide on great matters without authority of the great council. Ne was devoted to Druidical superstitions.

134-104

11. Durstus

104- 95

9

Finnan's son. A vile and debauched ruler. Pretending to reform his life, he invited the nobles and had them slain. He was slain in the ensuing battle. 12. Evenus 19 Paternal cousin to Durstus. Exacted oath of allegiance from his subjects. 13. Gillus 3 A crafty tyrant, slain by Cadwal, his viceroy, in battle.

95- 76

76- 73

14. Evenus II 17 Son of Doval; grandson of Josina.

73- 56

15. Ederus 48 Son of Dochamus, Durstus' son.

56- 8

16. Evenus III 7 A wicked and licentious king; the son of Ederus. He was put in prison by the nobles and there murdered by a fellow prisoner.

8- 1

17. Metellanus Son of Ederus' brother.

29

"1 B.C."- 29 "A.D."

18. Caractacus 20 Son of Cadallanus and of Eropeia, Metellanus' sister.

29- 49

19. Corbred I Caractacus' brother.

18

49- 67

20. Dardanus 4 Metellanus' nephew. A cruel and licentious ruler, he was captured in battle and beheaded.

67- 71

21. Corbred II.

71-106

35

Corbred's son. After many battles with the Romans, he died at peace. 22. Luctacus 3 A licentious prince, son of Corbred II. He was slain by his nobles. 23. Mogaldus (Mogallus) Grandson of Galdus and maternal nephew of Lactacus, son of the sister of Corbred II. Started his reign well but ended it in the ways of his predecessor. Was slain by the nobles.

106-109

36

109-145

24. Conarus 14 Mogaldus' son. He was a partner in the conspiracy against his father. He himself was a lecherous tyrant, was put in prison after only 2 years. Argadus became governor; Conarus was finally slain in prison in 159.

145-159

25. Ethodius 33 Mogaldus' sister's son. He was murdered for personal reasons by an Irish harper.

159-192

26. Satrael 4 Ethodlus' brother, the son was not yet mature enough. This man murdered the nobles and friends of Ethodius, so he could do away with the sons, in order to keep the reign in his family. Was finally strangled by his own servants. 27. Donald I. Another brother of

21

192-196

196-217

Ethodius. The first "Christian king" of Scotland. First to coin gold and silver money in the land. 28. Ethodius II. 21 Son of Ethodius, an intellectually weak and base-minded man. Directed by his nobles, slain by own officers. 29. Athirco 12 Son of Ethodius. Began his reign decently, but degenerated and committed suicide when pursued by his nobles. Athirco's brother, Dorus, flees from the noble Nathalocus with the three sons of Athirco.

217-238

238-250

30. Nathalocau 12 A son of Athirco's brother, he usurped the kingdom; was a cruel tyrant and was slain by the nobles.

250-262

31. Findochus 11 A son of Athirco. A good ruler, he was slain by his own brother at the instigation of Donald the Islander.

262-273

32. Donald II. 1 Findochus' brother. In battle Donald is wounded and dies shortly after. 33. Donald III 12 Donald the Islander usurped the kingship without any right to it, and ruled very cruelly. He was finally slain by Crathilinthus.

273-274

274-286

34. Crathilinthus 24 The son of Findochus, who was hidden for years. After a long series of battles with the wild Picts, and after purging the land of the idolatrous superstition of the Druids and enforcing Christianity, he died.

286-310

35. Fincormach Crathilinthus' cousin. A just ruler.

310-357

47

36. Romachus 3 Son of oldest brother of Crathilinthus. Obtained the kingdom by force from the two sons of two other brothers of Crathilinthus. Defeated incursions of the wild Picts. His murder ended his evil reign.

357-360

37. Angusianus 1 Son of a brother of Crathilinthus. Angusianus was slain in battle with the Picts' king Nectanus.

360-361

38. Fethelmachus 3 Son of the third brother of Crathilinthus, Devastating the forces of the Picts in battle, they sent assassins who murdered the king. 39. Eugenius I (Evenus)

361-364

12

364-376

Fincormach's son. He was killed in battle against the Romans and their Pictish allies. The Scottish kingdom was obliterated. The dead king's brother, with his son Erc, and his grandson, fled to Denmark where he was received by Sivaldus III. The Scottish population scattered throughout Scandanavia. The Romans soon turned on the Cruithne -- who were still dwelling in Pictland along with the wild Picts. The Cruithne were miserably oppressed. After three decades they came to an agreement with the Scots and promised to restore the Scots to the throne if they would deliver them from oppression. The son of Erc or Erp returned in 408 at the head

of a Scottish army, delivered the Cruithne and restored the throne. This son of Erc or Erp was not Ferghus, as later traditions assumed, but Drust, who became the new king of the Cruithne or Picts. Drust was famous in poetry for having fought 100 battles and lived 100 years. As he ended his reign in 453, he was born 353. He was therefore only 23 years old at the time of the flight of his grandfather and father. Before continuing the remarkable history of the wild Picts which culminated in 503 in Scotland, we should continue with the line of Scottish kings who now sat on the throne over the Cruithne (or the Agathyrsi Picts). KINGS OF CRUITHNE CONTINUED Kings of the Cruithne

Lengths of Reign

(Drust, son of Erp or Erc

45

Talore, son of Aniel

453-457 25

Drest Gurthinmoth

30

Galanau Etelich Dadrest

408-453)

4

Necton Morbet, son of Erp

512-524

1

524-525 1

525-526

Drest, son of Udrost, reigned 5 jointly with Drest, son of Gyrom Drest, son of Gyrom, continues to reign alone

457-482 482-512

12

Drest, son of Gyrom

Dates

5

526-531 531-536

Gartnach, son of Gyrom

7

536-543

Cealtraim, son of Gyrom

1

543-544

Talorg, son of Muircholaich

11

544-555

Drest, son of Munait

1

555-556

Galam, with Aleth

1

556-557

Galam, with Brideo

1

557-558

Bride, son of Mailcon

30

558-588

Gartnaich, son of Domelch Nectan

11 20

588-599 599-619

Cineoch, son of Luthrn

19

Garnard, son of Wid

4

Bridei, son of Wid

619-638 638-642

5

642-647

Talore, brother of the two former kings

12

Talorcan, son of Enfret

4

659-663

Gartnait, son of Donnel

6

663-669

Drest, brother of Gartnait

7

669-676

Bridei, son of Bill

647-659

21

Taran, son of Entisidich Bredei, son of Derili

676-697 4

697-701

11

701-712

Necton, or Naitan, son of Derili

15

712-727

Drest and Alpin reigned together

5

727-732

Onnust, or Oengus, son of Urgust, or Fergus

31

Bredei, son of Uiurgust

2

732-763 763-765

Kinoid, or Kinoth son of Wirdech

12

765-777

Elpin, or Alpin son of Wroid

3

777-780

Drest, or Durst son of Talorgan

4

780-784

Talargan, son of Onnust Canaul, son of Tarla

2

784-786

5

Castantin, or Constantine, son of Urguist, or Fergus

786-791 30

Unnust, or Hungus, son of Urguist Drest, son of Constantine, and

12 3

791-821 821-833 833-836

Taloran, son of Utholl, reigned together. Uwen, or Eogan, son of Unnust

3

Wrad, son of Bargoit Bred Brude

836-839

3

839-842

3

Keneth MacAlpin, first king of all Scotland, united line of Cruithne (or "Picts") with the Milesian Scottish line of Ferghus mac Erc.

842-845 16

843-859

This completes the history of the Picts who descended from the intermarriage of the Cruithne and the Judaic Milesian royal house. From the reign of Kenneth MacAlpin the history of the throne of David has already been presented in volume I. But what befell those wild, tribal Picts who gave their name to the Cruithne -- and who painted themselves? Remnants of them continued to be referred to as late as the seventeenth century. Most of the population, however, suddenly disappeared in 503 upon the coming of the Milesian Scots out of Ireland under the leadership of Fearghus mac Erc. Those wild Picts were the people who left the many strange and intriguing remains in the Northern Isles of Britain -- the mounds, the flint knives, the stonehewn tombs, the carvings. The next chapter explains the link between Scotland and the New World. CHAPTER VII THEY CROSSED THE ATLANTIC The origin of the American Indian has puzzled Europeans from the day Columbus' sailors set foot on the Caribbean isle. Yet, just four centuries earlier, the New World was common knowledge to the educated in North Europe and the Iberian Peninsula. Its natives were even embracing the faith of the Roman Church, which had appointed an Icelander of noble birth as bishop over Iceland, Greenland and the lands of the New World! How did these facts all become lost? THE LITTLE ICE AGE One is so accustomed to read of "Ice Ages" as events of the remote past, that it hardly occurs to the mind that thirteenth century Europeans witnessed a veritable Little Ice Age that completely severed communications between Europe and the New World. The Baltic froze over.

Vikings ceased to traverse the inhospitable Atlantic. In the New World the Land of the White Man -- Hvitramanna Land in Icelandic literature -- lost contact with Europe. Centuries later remnants of their population were found among the natives which had early traversed the Atlantic with them. This chapter unfolds what really happened in Western Europe, and especially the British Isles and Denmark, from the days of Solomon to long after the fall of the Roman Empire. It will explain the astounding chronological connection between the rise of New World civilization and the sudden flight of tribes out of Northwest Europe. WHITES DID NOT BECOME INDIANS First, let us immediately banish a myth. White Europeans did not become Indians by merely settling in the New World and becoming lost! The American Indians are not the "Lost Tribes of Israel," or Egyptians. The American Indian looks as he does because his ancestors appeared that way before they traversed the waters of the Atlantic. It may come as a surprise to learn it, but Europe and the Mediterranean world was early -- and comparatively late -- inhabited by "Red Men." Everyone has heard of the famous Phoenician sailors of the ancient Mediterranean world. They are known to have traveled far out into the Atlantic and to Northwestern Europe. The Greeks called them Phoenicians because that is what they were -- "Red Men." The word "Phoenician" is derived from the Greek word for reddish dye. The ancient Egyptians painted the Phoenicians on their walled tombs and on papyri. Their skin color? Reddish. The Egyptians painted other peoples of Palestine white and black. They recognized three races of men living in Palestine in early ages. Julius Firmicus, an early writer, stated that "in Ethiopia all are born black; in Germany, white; and in Thrace, red." Thrace was north of Greece and originally populated by the children of Tiras, son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2). It was from Thrace that Odin led the Agathyrsi and other tribes to Northwestern Europe when he founded the Danish kingdom. Many of the warriors employed by the early princes of western Europe were fierce, of swarthy skin, naked and often tatooed and painted. Strabo, the Roman geographer, wrote that areas of Ireland and Britain were inhabited "by men entirely wild." Jerome, writing in one of his letters in the fifth century, characterizes some of them as cannibals: "When they hunted the woods for prey, it is said they attacked the shepherd, rather than his flock; and that they curiously selected the most delicate and brawny parts, both of males and females, for their horrid repast." In the eighteenth century, Martin, in his volume "Western Islands of Scotland", remarked that the complexion of the natives of the isle of Skye was "for the most part black;" and the natives of Jura were "generally black of complexion," and of Arran, "generally brown, and some of a black complexion." The inhabitants of the Isle Gigay were "fair or brown in complexion." The American Indian -- commonly called

the Red Man -- varies from copper brown to almost black, and, of course, almost white in some tribes. And the famous literary companions Johnson and Boswell several times took notice of the swarthy color of some of the natives in the north and west of Scotland (Croker's "Boswell", 1848, pp. 309-310, 316, 352). "There was great diversity in the faces of the circle around us," wrote Boswell; "some were as black and wild in their appearance as any American savages whatever." "Our boatmen were rude singers, and seemed so like wild Indians, that a very little imagination was necessary to give one an impression of being upon an American river." A writer at the beginning of the nineteenth century characterized the people of Harris: "In general the natives are of small stature .... the cheek bones are rather prominent. The complexion is of all tints. Many individuals are as dark as mulattoes, while others are nearly as fair as Danes" ("Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal", No. vii, pp. 142, 143). In "Pennant's Second Tour", 1772, is a line drawing of the wigwams of the half-breed natives of the Scottish Island of Jura. Here are natives, like American Indians, living in the remote islands of Europe, whose last remnants died out as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century. AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITION The common idea that American Indians had no means of preserving their history is a fiction based on the assumption that all Indians were on the same level of culture. Wild, rude tribes there were. But civilized nations existed too. They carefully preserved, among other things, the history of their journeys, and the duration of their habitation in the New World. When the Spanish conquistadors arrived in the New World they were amazed to find the Maya and Aztecs using bark paper to preserve history and daily records. It was obtained from the FICUS, a tree related to the mulberry. Bark was peeled off, beaten with a rubber mallet, and folded into sheets to make books. In Moctezuma's palace Bernal Diaz followed an "accountant" who showed him "all the revenue that was brought ... (and recorded) in his books which were made of paper which they call "amatl", and he had a great house full of these books" (pages 184-185 of "The Ancient Sun Kingdoms of the Americas", by von Hagen). Only a few escaped the book burning of the Spanish zealots, who sought to wipe out all vestiges of the previous culture and the lineage of their royal houses. Some rare codices have been preserved, however. One is the "Popol Vuh", a sacred book of the ancient Quiche Maya. In it are recorded the migrations and wanderings of their ancestors. It traces their origin eastward across the Atlantic Ocean to the Old World. Other Indians had similar origins of having to cross a great body of water from the northeast to reach their present land. (Later migrations, once they had arrived from the east, could take any direction.) The writer of the Popul Vuh declared: "They also multiplied there

in the East .... All lived together, they existed in great numbers and walked there in the East .... There they were then, in great numbers, the black man and the white man, many of many classes, men of many tongues .... The speech of all was the same. They did not invoke wood nor stone, and they remembered the word of the Creator and the Maker The Maya record continues: "... they came from the East ... they left there, from that great distance .... they crossed the sea" (pp. 181, 183). When they sought to establish their kingdom "they decided to go to the East .... It had been a long time since their fathers had died East, there whence came our fathers.' Certainly they crossed the sea when they came there to the East, when they went to receive the investiture of the kingdom" (pp. 206-207). To what line of great kings in the east were these Quiche Maya journeying? To the successors of the great ruler who conducted them, about 1000 B.C., to the Usumacinta River in Mexico. ENTER VOTAN The Mayas claim that their kingdom was founded by a great eastern ruler named Votan or Oden or Dan by various tribes. He was a white man who came by sea from the east and settled them in their new land. The time of their migration, according to Ordonez, was ten centuries before the present era. This Votan -- who was also worshipped as a god -- was famous for having himself journeyed to a land where a great temple was being built. Do we have a king in Europe, living at the time Solomon's temple was being built (around 1000 B.C.), who had dominion over the seas, who was worshipped as a god, and whose name sounded like Votan? Indeed -Woden or Odin, king of Denmark from 1040-999. He was worshipped later as a great god. Scandinavian literature is replete with accounts of his distant journeys which took him away from his homeland for many months, sometimes years. Just as king Odin or Danus gave his name to Denmark -- Danmark -so Odin gave his name to the "forest of Dan" in the land of the Quiche Indians. (See pages 549 and 163 of volume V, "Native Races of the Pacific States", by Hubert H. Bancroft.) "Dan ... founded a monarchy on the Guatemalan plateau" (Bancroft, vol. I, p. 789). His capital, built for the Indians and their white suzerains, was named Amag-Dan. Here we have the records of Danish kings, as early as 1000 years before the birth of Christ, sailing to the New World and planting colonies of Red Men from Europe in the Yucatan and Guatemalan highlands. Is it any wonder that it was the Danes, of all nations of Europe, who continued to communicate with the New World in the days of Eric the Red? It was the king of Denmark who ruled over Iceland in the days of Christopher Columbus. Before Columbus awakened the sleepy Mediterranean world by his important journey across the Atlantic, he first sailed to Iceland where he obtained information for his fateful voyage. And is it not significant that it was an Icelandic nobleman, Eric

Gnupson, who was consecrated by Pope Pascal II as Bishop of Greenland and the neighboring regions ("regionumque finitimarum") in 1112? (See "Conquest by Man", Paul Herrmann, p. 287.) EARLY TIME OF MIGRATION Tradition universally assigns white leadership to every major recorded historic migration of the American Indian from far to the northeast. The later history of Mexico commences with the establishment of a monarchy by the Toltecs of Mexico. The Toltecs were of white descent. They led and ruled over the Indians and spoke their languages. Charnay wrote in the "North American Review", October 1881, "Physically Veytia describes the Toltec as a man of tall stature, white, and bearded." A carved head of a "noble Aztec," on display in the National Museum, may be seen on plate 40 in George C. Vaillant's "Aztecs of Mexico". The noble Aztec was not an Indian at all, but a Norseman! Little wonder that wherever the Spanish journeyed they found the ruling classes much lighter than the people over whom they ruled. On occasion the conquistadors thought their women as fair or fairer than their Spanish women. "The Annals of the Cakchiquels -- Lords of Totonicapan" contains direct reference to the racial descent of the nobles who led and governed the natives to the New World. "These, then, were the three nations of the Quiches, and they came from where the sun rises, descendants of Israel, of the same language and the same customs .... When they arrived at the edge of the sea, Balam-qitze (a native title for one in a religious office) touched it with his staff and at once a path opened, which then closed up again, for thus the great God wished it to be done, because they were the sons of Abraham and Jacob. So it was that those three nations (the "mixed multitude" of Exodus 12:38) passed through, and with them thirteen others called Vukamag" -- meaning the 13 tribes. Israel had altogether 13 tribes including Levi. "We have written that which by tradition our ancestors told us, who came from the other part of the sea, who came from Civan-Tulan, bordering on Babylonia" page 170. Page 169 says they ".... came from the other part of the ocean, from where the sun rises." (Translated by Delia Goetz; published by University of Oklahoma Press, 1953.) Was the mysterious Civan-Tulan -- meaning in Indian dialects a place of caves or ravines -- the region of Petra, where Moses led the Children of Israel? Petra is famous for its caves. Canaanite Hivites, mixed with Egyptian stock, dwelt at Petra, or Mt. Seir, at the time of the Exodus (Genesis 36:2, 20, 24). They lived at peace with the Hebrews. This settlement of Hivites was a region dominated by Midian. A high priest who visited the land of Midian and Moab in Moses' day was named Balaam -- almost the exact spelling in the Quiche-Maya title Balam used for priests! The people led by Odin or Votan across the Atlantic to the New

World were not exclusively the sons of Tiras from Thrace; some tribes were called Chivim, reports Ordonez the early Spanish writer. It is the very Hebrew spelling used for the English word Hivites, some of whom once lived in Mt. Seir, the land of caves, near Babylonia! So the Mexican Indians were a mixed people. CHRONOLOGY OF MEXICO No continuous history of the Quiche-Maya civilization is extant. We have now to turn to the Valley of Mexico for direct and surprising connection with the movement of events in Scotland where dwelt the Picts and the Maiatai (Greek for Maia folk). From Scottish history, covered in the previous chapter and in the first volume of the Compendium, it can be established that major migrations occurred in the years 376 -- when the Scots and allies were driven out and the Picts miserably oppressed -- and in 503 -- when the Scots from Ireland drove out most of the remaining wild Picts or painted men. Where did these folk flee to? Can we establish a direct connection between these events in Pictland with the history of migration to the Valley of Mexico of the Toltecs and others in the New World? Indeed we can. The nation of the Scots was utterly driven out by the Romans in the year 376. The Cruithne and Picts, who remained in the land as Roman allies, were soon miserably oppressed. Rebellion broke out. The Romans dealt severely with the fleeing rebels. The Cruithne and Picts besought and obtained Scottish help to drive out the Romans and their British allies. Now compare this with the migration of the Toltecs and their white chieftains to Mexico. The historian of the Toltecs was Ixtlilxochitl. He reports several migrations over the centuries. But the one he takes special note of -- for its chronological import -- commenced in 387. (See Bancroft's "Native Races of the Pacific States", Vol. 5, pp. 209, 214.) The events were these -- a rebellion broke out that led to a protracted struggle for eight years. The rebels were finally forced to flee in 384 for protection. After remaining 3 years (to 387) they continued their lengthy migration. It was now 11 years after the initial rebellion. Eleven years before 387 is 376 -- the very year the Romans drove out the Scots and suppressed the Painted Red Men of Pictland! Is this mere coincidence? Their migration took them over water and land till they reached Jalisco in Mexico. To do so they must have landed in the traditional area of the Usumacinta River, crossed the isthmus, and coasted to Jalisco on the southern extremity of the Gulf of California. After wandering many years they settled in Tulancingo. "The third year of their stay in Tulancingo completed ... one hundred and four years since the departure from the country," records Bancroft from Ixtlilxochitl (vol. v, p. 213). (The 104 years compose two Indian calendar cycles of 52 years each.) It was now 488. At Tulancingo they remained another 15 years -- to 503. In 503

they migrated to the Valley of Mexico to the region of Lake Texcoco. What caused them to migrate in 503? Is this a significant date in Scottish history? Indeed. That was the year the Scots from Ireland finally settled in Scotland and drove the wild Pictish tribes out of the country. Strengthened by a new influx of migrants, the Toltecs journeyed (in 503) to the already-settled shores of the lake on which Mexico City now stands. There, at Tullan, for six years the Toltecs lived under a theocratic republic, each chief directing the movement of his band in war and directing their needs in times of peace. "But in the seventh year," records Bancroft, "after their arrival in Tollan, when the republic was yet in a state of peace and prosperity, undisturbed by foreign foes, the chiefs convened an assembly of the heads of families and the leading men. The object of the meeting was to effect a change in the form of their government, and to establish a monarchy." It was agreed to accept, as king, a son of a neighboring Chichimec king to be supreme ruler. "Immediately after the accession of the young monarch" in 510, "a law was established by him and his counsellors to the effect that no king should reign more than fifty-two years, but at the expiration of this term should abdicate in favor of his eldest son, whom he might, however, still serve as adviser. Should the king die before the allotted time had elapsed, it was provided that the state should be ruled during the unexpired term by magistrates chosen by the people" (pp. 244, 246). This custom continued firmly established among the Toltecs at Tullan for many years. Later the practice was discontinued, though the Mexican Indians still continued to count time by 52 year cycles. The history of the American Indian from 510 to the coming of the Spanish has been carefully preserved by Ixtlilxochitl and in the Annals of Cuauhtitlan. Modern writers in previous decades often carelessly discounted the value of these Indian records. But archaeology is forcing a renewed respect for the history of the New World as preserved by the native writers during the earliest days of the Spanish colonial period. The most readily accessible -- and one of the best works -- on early Mexico is -- "Aztecs of Mexico", by G. C. Valliant, revised by Suzannah B. Valliant. Another useful source is Stokvis' "Manuel". THE HISTORY OF TOLTECS AT TULLAN The history of Tullan is the history of the Mayapan culture of Mexico. Earlier cultures are commonly found, but no continuous history exists before 510. The Toltecs were not the carriers of the culture of Teotihuacan, as is often stated by archaeologists (see p. 6 of Penguin edition of "The Aztecs of Mexico" by Valliant). The following is a summary of the history of Tullan (or Tula), restored in accordance with the earliest extant Aztec and Toltec records. Bancroft's "Native Races of the Pacific States" may be consulted for the full story of events. It is a treasure-house of

information. (Note that the "x" in Aztec names is pronounced as "sh.") Toltec Kings of Tulan according to Ixtlilxochitl

Lengths of Reign

Dates

Period of the Tullan Republic under chieftains

7

503-510

Chalchiuhtlanetzin

52

510-562

Ixtlilcuechahauac

52

562-614

Huetzin I

52

614-666

Totepeuh I

52

666-718

Nacoxoc

52

718-770

Mitl-Tlacomihua

59

Queen Xihuiquenitzin

770-829 4

829-833

Izaccaltzin

52

833-885

Topiltzin I

74

885-959

A struggle with Chichimecs occurred during the reign of Topiltzin. Topiltzin was forced to flee leaving authority in the hands of the royal family of Ihuitimal. The confused conditions are reflected in the joint rulership presented in the next short succeeding chart. The parallel reigns also indicate that Toltec leadership was divided among powerful city-state princes in the growing Toltec Empire which spread itself in the Valley of Mexico. Toltec Kings

Lengths of Reign

Mixcoatl Mazatin

65

Texcaltepocatl Huetzin

Dates 804-869

28

869-897

Ihuitimal

28 (or 36)

897-925 (887-923)

Topiltzin I

22 (or 24)

925-947 (923-947)

The above chart indicates Ihuitimal succeeded his father in 897, but, according to the Annals of Cuauhtitlan, he replaced the fleeing

Topiltzin in 887. Topiltzin returned in 923. Ihuitimal ended his reign two years later. Though Topiltzin continued on the throne to 959 (see first chart), he was succeeded in 947 as follows. Kings of Tullan Lengths of Reign according to the Annals of Cuahtitlan

Dates

Matlacxochitl

36

947- 983

Nauhyotzin I

14

983- 997

Queen Xiuhtlaltzin

4

Matlaccoatzin

997-1001

24

1001-1025

(or 28) (997-1025) Tlilcoatzin

21

1025-1046

Huemac

75

1046-1121

Huemac is another name of Quetzalcoatl (Bancroft Vol. III, pp. 267, 283-4). He was a ramous white man who came from the east with a religion that banned human sacrifice and used the symbol of the cross. The name Quetzalcoatl, was originally that of an early Aztec god. It was applied by Aztecs to any great priest who claimed to represent the deity. Huemac Quetzalcoatl disappeared and returned on several occasions during his 75 years, leaving the supreme government, in his absence, to contemporaries of the royal house. This white priest became famous over much of the New World. Who was he? And what religion was he bringing? The answer is found by the date of his death 1121. Was there a famous white priest, with jurisdiction over areas of the Western Hemisphere who died in 1121? Yes! Icelandic Bishop Eric Gnupson, whose domain included the New World! He died in 1121, the same year that Quetzalcoatl did. At his death in 1121 the Icelandic Thing (Parliament) met to request the pope that a new bishop be appointed (Conquest by Man, by Herrmann, pp. 286 -287) . The religion of Quetzalcoatl was Roman Catholicism. When the Spanish missionaries later came to the Indians they were amazed to find so many parallels to the Catholic religion -- holy water, nuns, rosaries, the cross, penances and other traditions! Contemporary with Huemac Quetzalcoatl were the following Tullan rulers: Huemac II Atecpanecatl Topiltzin Acxitl

35 33

1046-1081 1081-1114

Matlacxochitl Huemac III

2

1114-1116

Veytia gives 1116 as the date of the final overthrow of Tullan at the coming of the Aztecs (Hist. Ant. Mej., bk. 1, pp. 287-304. ) See also Bancroft, vol. 5., p. 325. THE CITY-STATE OF CULHUACAN A major expansion of the Toltecs occurred at the close of the end of the fourth 52 year cycle -- in 718. In that year a branch of the royal lineage founded Culhuacan. It suffered a major reverse in the year 1063 at the hands of the Chichimecs who established a new dynasty in Texcoco. The following chart covers the kings of Culhuacan until that defeat. Kings of Culhuacan

Lengths of Reign

Nauhyotl I

50

Dates

718- 768

Mixcohuatl Camaxtli Totepueh I Nonohyatcatl I

78

768- 846

Yohuallatonac I

59

846- 905

Quetzallacxoyatl

49

905- 954

Chalchiuh-Tlatonac I

32

954- 986

Totepeuh II

41

986-1027

Nauhyotl II

36

1027-1063

For five years (1063-1068) the local government of Culhuacan was in the hands of a Toltec noble Xiuhtemoc, to whom the late king's children were confided. The year after the defeat, a young son of the king was placed on the throne under the tutelage of Xiuhtemoc. Kings of Culhuacan

Lengths of Reign

Nauhyotl III

60

Cuanhtexpetlatzin Huetzin

1064-1124 57

21

Dates

1124-1181 1181-1202

Nonoalcatl

21

1202-1223

Achitometl

14

1223-1237

Cuauhtonal

14

1237-1251

NEW LINEAGE BEGINS Mazatzin

23

1251-1274

Quetzaltzin

13

1274-1287

Chalchiuhtlatonac II Cuauhtlix

17 7

Yohuallatonac

1287-1304 1304-1311

10

1311-1321

Tziuhtecatzin

13

1321-1334

Xihuitlemoc

18

1334-1352

Coxcox

24

Acamapichtli

1352-1376

12

1376-1388

Achitometl

12

1388-1400

Nauhyotl

13

1400-1413

The central government in the Valley of Mexico now passed into the hands of the Aztec ruler of Tenochtitlan. Prior to the Aztec dominion, the Chichimecs at Texcoco were a dominant Indian tribe. Their power commenced with the defeat of Tullan in 1063. THE CHICHIMECS AT TEXCOCO Chichimec Kings of Texcoco

Lengths of Reign

Xolotl 17 After the era of Xolotl a new lineage begins. Nopaltzin Tlotzin Pochotl

1063-1180

31

1180-1211

35

Quinantzin Tlaltecatzin Techotlala

Dates

1211-1246 59

52

1246-1305 1305-1357

Istlilxochitl 61 (For this king Valliant has mistakenly dropped out an entire cycle of 52 years in his reign.)

1357-1418

Nezahualcoyotl

54

Nezahualpilli

44

Cacama

3

1418-1472 1472-1516 1516-1519

Spanish land in Vera Cruz, native rulers to 1550 continued with limited authority. During part of the reign of Istlilxochitl, two tyrants of Tepanec dominated the country. They are below. Tepanec Tyrants at Azcapotzalco

Lengths of Reign

Tezozomoc

84

Maxtla

2

Dates

1343-1427 1427-1429

THE AZTECS The Mexican Indians were, at the coming of the Spanish, under the Aztec sway. Many tribes readily accepted Spanish assistance to aid them in the overthrow of their oppressive rulers. They had yet to learn that new oppressors were coming in the guise of deliverers. The following outline illustrates the gradual rise to power of the Aztecs. The story of the final overthrow of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan is so generally narrated as to need no repetition here. The city was established under Tezcuecuex in 1202 at the end of the reign of Huetzin of Culhuacan. Aztecs of Tenochtitlan

Lengths of Reign

Tezcuecuex

33

Dates

1202-1235

Huitzilhuitl, called Mexi, 63 after whom Mexico receives its name.

1235-1298

Culhuacan seized Tenochtitlan. The city again became independent under Tenoch in 1325. Tenoch, after whom the city of Tenochtitlan was named.

11

1325-1336

Tlacotin

1

Teuhtlehuac

1336-1337 12

1337-1349

LINEAGE BEGINS: Queen Ilancueitl

34

Acamapichtli, reigns 8 years contemporary with previous queen. Huitzilhuitl II

1414-1428

12

1428-1440 29

1440-1469

12

Tizoc

5

Ahuitzetl

17

Montezuma II, in his reign the Spanish arrived.

1375-1395

1395-1414 14

Montezuma I Azayacatl

20

19

Chimalpopoca Itzcoatl

1349-1383

1469-1481 1481-1486 1486-1503 17

Cuitlahuac 4 months (murdered on way to Honduras)

1503-1520 1520

The history of the Peruvian civilization must wait until Spanish history is presented. Other cities of lesser import have left us a record but those present here give the chronological outline from which a valid study of Mexican history can begin. CHAPTER VIII THE HISTORY OF SPAIN Who would guess today, from reading Spanish history, that Spain was, in Old Testament times, one of the most important countries in the world? That famous Biblical characters as Togarmah and Seir the Horite and Tarshish made their appearance in this fabulous land? Today the early history of Spain is virtually unknown. Scholars

treat it in much the same fashion as the history of every other nation in Europe. Her past -- before Roman rule -- is made to appear a chronological blank. What little is written before that time mainly emphasizes broken pottery and similar artifacts. The real history is vitally interesting. It holds the key to the settlement of the Peruvian Indian in Latin America. Spain was also the link between Palestine and Ireland. Whoever controlled Spain was in a position to dominate the Western Mediterranean. ONLY RECENTLY SUPPRESSED Until very recent times Spanish writers took pride in presenting their national history. They were not ashamed of it. Today, in the face of "higher criticism," Spanish scholars have suppressed the truth of her beginnings. What once was recognized to be fact is now relegated to the limbo of myth for no other reason than early Spanish history reads very much like the Bible! Early Spanish history does not begin in Spain. It begins far to the east -- in the lands bordering the ancient Assyrian Empire. Similarly, the history of the Hebrews of the Bible does not begin with Palestine, but with the land of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia. In its earliest period the history of the Iberian Peninsula is not primarily the story of the Spanish people at all. It is the history of other people who migrated through that land, or temporarily dominated it. Few books in English preserve the history we are now entering upon. The two works most readily available in libraries are Anderson's "Royal Genealogies" and the 20 volume "Universal History", published in 1748. The Spanish material is contained in volume xviii. Our story opens in Asia Minor, in the region of the city of Tarsus. Paul the apostle was born here. Tarsus was a port first settled by the children of Tarshish. From Tarsus in Cilicia they gradually migrated into Spain, where they founded the city of Tartessus. The earliest homeland of the children of Tarshish in Asia Minor was originally ruled over by Tubal, son of Japheth. Spanish history begins with his government at Babel. The land about Tarsus in Asia Minor long bore the name of Tubal. The Assyrians, in their cuneiform documents, referred to it as Tabal. It extended from the area of what is eastern Turkey today into the Caucasus to the Russian plains. The most valuable area in the ancient land of Tabal was the excellent farming and trading region of Iberia in the Caucasus -- the modern Georgia. From this vast area, the descendants of Tubal migrated into the Russian steppes. But their subjects, the children of Tarshish, migrated westward toward Spain. Early Spanish history is in a sense the story of the Spanish people, but the record of their foreign rulers. The following outline summarizes the important events preserved of the early history of the Spanish people beginning from the Tower of Babel.

EARLIEST KINGS OVER THE SPANISH Name of Rulers

Lengths of Reign

Tubal 156 Grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:2). Came to power at Babel. Ruled over territory in eastern Asia Minor (Turkey) where Tarshish, the father of the Spaniards, originally settled.

Dates

2254-2098

Iberus, a son of Tubal He gave his name to the entire peninsula, which is still known as the Iberian Peninsula. Later his descendants migrated from Spain to Iberia in the Caucasus.

37

2098-2061

Eubalda (or Idubeda) Son of Iberus, last of the line of Tubal to rule over the children of Tarshish.

64

2061-1997

Brigus 52 Son of Mash, the son of Aram (Gen. 10:23). Previously settled a colony in Eastern Europe under Asshur; now leads a colony to Spain by sea. An Aramaic large nosed element may be seen in the Spanish population to this day. The ancient city of Damascus, Syria, was named after his father Mash. Brigus (Brigo) organized his people into pastoral units (whence our "brigades"), which multiplied so rapidly that colonies were forced to leave Spain in search of new homes. Some of his children from Europe early

1997-1945

carried his name into Phrygia (Asia Minor). There the family became associated with Meshech, brother of Tubal. Brigo's father, Mash, became known by the name Meshech (I Chr. 1:17). Brigo's family in Spain soon became associated with the children of Togarmah, who next entered Spain. Tagus Ormah 30 The Togarmah, son of Gomer, of the Bible (Gen. 10:2). Late Latin writers split his name into two syllables, and added Latin "-us" ending. Togarmah invaded Italy one year after his domination of Spain. Both were yet sparcely populated lands and afforded new, hospitable areas. During his reign he sent many bands to seek habitations elsewhere, ultimately passing eastward into the far northern reaches of Asia (Ezekiel 38:6). The Tagus River of Southern Spain was named for him. Bet(us), or Boetus,

1945-1915

32 1915-1883 (or 31) (1915-1884) son of Togarmah; Bet(us) gave his name to the Bet(us) river (now called Guadalquivir). In his day the children of Tarshish, known as Turditanians, in Spanish histories, settled the southwestern part of Spain. Boetus encouraged the development of learning. The children of Betus were soon forced to migrate out of Europe, with the rest of the family of Togarmah, and at length settled in Tibet -- which means the plateau of Bet! The family of Togarmah was superseded by an invasion from the south.

INVASION FROM AFRICA Having become again a civilized land and wealthy due to changes in climate and the presence of many gold mines, Spain aroused the cupidity of Egyptian and other North African nations. Gerion or Deabus, a Lybian, with many men and ships invaded and conquered Spain and forced the Spaniards to dig gold for their African overlords. African cultural elements were introduced. Many Spanish slaves died from overwork under this tyranny. The history of this period is as follows: Rulers of Spain (continued) Gerion, the giant

Lengths of Reign

34 (or 35) Gerion was the seventh generation from Ham. He descended through Cush, Saba (the Seba of Gen. 10:7), Gog, Triton, Ammon and Hiarba (compare the last name with the Biblical "Arba" of Joshua 15:13, who was the father of the Anakim glants).

Dates

1883-1849 (1884-1849)

The Lomnini 42 The Lomnini were three giant sons of Gerion. They were allowed to continue to rule in the land after an invasion in 1849 by an Egyptian army under Osyris Denis (Dionysius in Greek).

1849-1807

Osyris slew Gerion in 1849, upon which part of his tribe took to ship and sailed to the New World. A tradition found among the Toltecs of Mexico and preserved by Ixtlilxochitl declares there once were giants in their land. Even the date of the arrival of these giants has been preserved by the Toltec historian. It was 520 years after the flood. (Bancroft "Native Races of the Pacific States", vol. V, p. 209. ) The year of the flood was 2370-2369. And 520 years AFTER the flood -- that is, after 2369 -- is 1849, the very year a great battle was fought in Spain during which Gerion was slain and many of the giants were expelled. Later Indian tradition records the perishing of these giants in the New World in a struggle with the Indians. One of the Lomnini in Spain, meanwhile, was given to wife a sister of Osyris. A son of the union, Norac, settled Sardinia and built the

city of Norca. Sardinia is famous for traditionally being inhabited by giants who left the megalithic remains and giant tombs. Early British tradition also assigns to swarthy giants the building of many of the megalithic monuments or henges. To avenge the death of their father, the three Lomnini brothers conspired with Typhon, brother of Osyris. Typhon assassinated his brother Osyris. After the death of Osyris, Hercules appears on the scene. Rather than drench the whole land in a bloodbath, he challenged the three sons of Gerion to personal combat -- three against one -- and slew them all. Hercules then turned the government of southern Spain over to Hispal, his son and one of his generals, and departed with the bulk of his army to Italy. Who were Osyris, Typhon and Heracles of Spanish, Italian and North African tradition? Note the time setting. These events are long after the death of Nimrod (2167) or of Miebis (2037), who was the second Osiris. The dates of these events correspond to the latter half of Dynasty II in Egypt. It is the period of the patriarch Jacob. The Hercules of these traditions has already been proved to be Seir the Horite. In Spanish history Hercules is often referred to as "Oron," meaning the Horite. He was a king of Egypt -- a descendant of Horus. He slew the giant Antaeus, another king of Egypt, records Josephus the Jewish historian. Who are all these supposedly mythological rulers? The surprising answer is that they have all been listed in Volume I -- they are kings of the second half of Dynasty II of Egypt. Notice the parallels. Antaeus -- an opponent of Osiris -- was a man of giant stature. So was Sesochris (Neferkaseker), who reigned 1815-1767. Typhon, the slayer of Osiris, was pictured as a destroyer in the Greek traditions of this period. King Chaires (Aka) bore the title "Destroyer." His reign began also in 1815. Following a war in Egypt against the faction of Osiris III, he temporarily received the "united kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt and the seal of the accursed one" -- Osiris. Then who was Osiris III -- the Osiris Dionysius of Spanish history? None other than king Sendi (the Sethenes of Manetho). His body, according to the tradition, was cast into the Nile. Reports Weigall of him: "No trace of the king's tomb has been found; and ... he seems to have met with disaster at the end" ("The History of the Pharaoh's", page 136). And now notice Hercules in this same dynasty. Hercules -- the Seir the Horite of Scripture -- was renowned for having subdued Libya, and the vast territories that lie west of Egypt. He was called Heracles Libycus. Did one of the Pharaoh's of this same period conquer Libya? Certainly -- Necherophes. Manetho records of him: "In his reign Libya revolted, but, on account of an unexpected increase of the moon, they submitted through fear." Now to continue with the outline of Spanish history. Hercules -Seir the Horite -- put Hispal his son over the country. He could be none other than Shobal of Genesis 36:20. It is common for a silent "h"

to appear before Spanish names. The successor to Hispal or Shobal was Hispan, a grandson of Hercules. Is there a grandson of Seir the Horite by that name? See the name in Genesis 36:26 -- Eshban! He was a son of Dishon, another son of Seir. Now it ought to be plain why Scripture records the genealogy of this famous man. Without it, there would be no means of understanding who the rulers of these times were. When we come to Italian history, we shall see how they link up with the family of Jacob. Meantime, the history of Spain in chart form is presented below. Hispal, son of Hercules. He built the city Hispalis, later known as Sepila, now Seville.

17

Hispanus, grandson of Heracles. Gave his name to Hispania (Spain) in consequence of extending his rule (during his first year 1790-1789) into central and northern regions of the peninsula previously settled only by wild tribes. He built towers to control the region of Gallicia in Spain.

1807-1790

32

1790-1758

Once again Spanish history has a bearing on the New World. The attack by Hispanus on these rude tribes in the northern regions on the shores of the Bay of Biscay is recorded in Toltec history. Ixtlilxochitl records that a second invasion from the east occurred 2236 years after the creation of man (Bancroft, vol. v, p. 209). Notice how this figure corresponds with both the Bible and Spanish history. At the death of Hispanus, Hercules, that is, Seir the Horite, reappears in Spain and Western Europe in his old age. Hercules 19 Note that these dates correspond exactly with those of his rule in Britain and Gaul. It is significant that Hercules' family should appear so prominently in Western Europe. They must already have been driven out of Mt. Seir by Esau. Hercules left no heir to the Spanish throne He was succeeded by one of his generals.

1758-1739

ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN Hesperus 11 Spanish records declare Hesperus to be one of the two captains (not his sons) who accompanied Hercules in his original exploits into Spain. He gave his name Hesperus to Spain and Italy which in early times were called Hesperia Minor and Hesperia Major respectively. He was driven out of Spain into Italy by his brother, who succeeded him. Atlas

12 (10) Sometimes called Italus. A brother of Hesperus, the other captain of Hercules, a famous astronomer; dethroned and exiled Hesperus.

1739-1728

1728-1716 (1728-1718)

Josephus, the Jewish historian, also wrote about these two famous captains of Hercules in "Antiquities", I, xv. Here are his words: "Abraham after this married Keturah" -- Genesis 25, "by whom six sons were born to him ..." Then Josephus names Midian, a son of Abraham, who begat "Ephas and Ophren," called Ephah and Epher in the Bible. "It is related of this Ophren, that he made war against Libya, and took it; and that his grandchildren, when they inhabited it, called it (from his name) Africa; and indeed Alexander Polyhistor gives his attestation to what I here say; who speaks thus: ' ... from the other two (Apher and Japhran) the country of Africa took its name; because these men were auxiliaries to Hercules, when he fought against Libya and Antaeus.' " Josephus understood that the two famous captains of Hercules were the grandsons of Abraham. Hesperus, who was later exiled in a family quarrel, was the Biblical Ephah. Atlas, the strong man and astronomer, was Epher. It is his line that continued to control the western Mediterranean for several generations. The late Greek writers at times confused this Atlas, who was also known from Italian history as Atlas Italus Kitim (because he ruled the land of Kittim), with another Atlas. That other Atlas was surnamed Maurus and was the descendant, in Greek tradition, of Japetus and Asia. Japetus or Iapetus was the Japheth of the Bible. Atlas Maurus is associated with Spain and North Africa because his people were

migrating from the borders of Asia westward to the New World. The only son of Japheth whose children left Western Asia and Eastern Europe was Tiras. Atlas Italus Kitim was succeeded by a son -Oris or Sicorus, son of Atlas (or 45)

44 1716-1672 (1718-1673)

Anus or Sicanus, son of Sicorus 31 1672-1641 (or 32) (1673-1641) Gave his name to people whom he led through Italy to Sicily. From these Sicani the island of Sicily was anciently called Sicania. Sicileus or Siculus, son of 45 Sicorus (or 44)

1641-1596 (1641-1597)

Crossed into Italy. He changed the name of Sicania to Sicilia. Lusus, son of Siculus (or 60)

29

1596-1567 (1567-1507)

He gave his name to Lusitania (now Portugal) Ulus or Siculus, son of Lusus 64 1567-1503 (or 60) (1567-1507) He was also known as Neptune. He had great fleets of ships. Ulus again led an army into Sicily to aid the colonists whose presence there was still being opposed. At the close of his reign, in 1503, a city was founded on the coast of Spain by refugees from Greece. The year 1503 is the date of a great devastation in Thessaly, the flood of Deucalion, in which many perished. In this period -- the "neolithic" -the inhabitants of Thessaly were culturally like Mexican Indians ("The Origins of Greek Civilization", C. G. Starr, p. 17, footnote) Again notice the harmony of these records.

CHAOS IN SPAIN Testa 70 A descendant of Triton (thus related to Gerion), seized southwestern Spain and called himself king of Spain.

1503-1433

Romus, son of Testa 33 In his third year "Liber Pater," or Bacchus (Iacchus), reduced Spain to his sway. He was from the East. His title belonged to Hesus the Mighty of Celtic tradition. Hesus was Joshua (Jesus in Greek). He pursued the Canaanites and drove them out of Western Europe Palatuus, son of Romus

19

1433-1400

1400-1381

Cacus Licinius 36 A native prince who rebelled and deposed Palatuus in a year-long struggle.

1381-1345

Palatuus restored In his days Erithrus, king of Tyre, came to Spain.

6 (or 15)

1345-1339 (1345-1330)

Erithree, or Erithrus, king of Tyre

66

1339-1273

Corgoras Mellicola, son of Erithree He divided Spain into several provinces.

75

Hebides or Habis, grandson 49 of Gorgoras (or 64)

1273-1198

1198-1149 (1198-1134)

Following the recapture of Troy in 1149 many groups of people, conquered as well as conquerors, sought new homes. As a result several areas of western and northern Spain were populated. The Lydians achieved dominance after 1149 over all the Mediterranean region, heading the list of Thalassocracies or Sea Powers. Their dominion in Spain began in 1149. Each of the Sea Powers in turn dominated Spain until Nebuchadnezzar the Great of Babylon made Spain a part or the Chaldean Empire for 9 years. After that, the Spaniards of Gades invited the Carthaginians to come and rule over them. The Carthaginians

remained until expelled by the expanding Roman Empire. TIME OF THE SEA POWERS As ancient Troy was the key to control of the Eastern Mediterranean, so Spain was to the Western Mediterranean. There are noticeable variations between the two regions that are worth noting. In volume I of the Compendium, in the chapter on Greek history, the list for the Eastern Mediterranean appears. Below is the Spanish evidence for the West, including the Atlantic littoral. Sea Powers for Western Mediterranean to 530 Lydians

Duration 48

Dates

1149-1101

-----------------------------Thracians

86

970-884

Rhodians

20

884-864

Phrygians

26

864-838

Cyprians

39

838-799

Phoenicians

41

799-758

Egyptians

35

758-723

Milesians

29

723-694

Carians

48

694-646

Lesbians

68

646-578

Phocaeians

48

578-530

There is a gap deliberately inserted in this list. It is similar to attempts elsewhere to expurgate any record of the Pelasgians, who were the Hebrews of the Kingdom of Israel. The missing item should be Pelasgians

131

1101-970

This list indicates that the Hebrews became dominant in Spain at the time the Lydians resettled in the Grecian world in 1101. The 9 years of Nebuchadnezzar's dominion began in 578 and lasted until 569, the year his insanity commenced. He gained dominion over the Mediterranean through the Phocaeian fleets. Nebuchadnezzar established,

as his representative in Spain a long-lived hero named Aganthonius who ruled 80 years (578-498) to the coming of the Carthaginians in 498. With this, the early history of the Spanish is restored. Its important connection with Biblical and secular history is obvious -and especially so when one remembers that Spanish historians also mention the 26 years' drought in Spain referred to in Irish Annals. This was the famine in David's time, and precipitated the establishment of the Hebrew throne in Ireland. CHAPTER IX ITALY, HOME OF PAGAN RELIGION Nearly everyone has heard of the ancient pagan Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. But almost no one knows that they were originally great rulers of Italy. The whole modern Christian world has been influenced by Roman Catholicism. The story in pre-Roman times was the same. Instead of paganism spreading to Rome from Greece, it really spread from Italy to Greece. It was the vogue of the last century to ridicule the myths of Rome and of Greece. The gods and goddesses were regarded as mere human inventions -- rigments of the superstitious madness of the ancients. To admit that they were originally flesh-and-blood human beings would have been tantamount to admitting the reality of the Bible. For several of the heroes-made-god of ancient Italy are characters of the Bible. ITALY IN THE ANCIENT WORLD There is a very special reason that Italy became the home of religious apostasy in the West. The pagan mystery religions had a very special problem confronting them in Italy. They had to counter the teachings of Noah! Yes, Noah appears as a ruler in the early history of Italy! Noah lived both sides of the Flood. He knew what life meant. Apart from him the whole human family would have been wiped from off the face of the earth. The world's religious leaders knew that if they were to succeed they must, in some way, counterfeit, in Italy, the teachings of Noah -just as later they were to counterfeit the teachings of Christ. The parallel is exact. To counterfeit Christ, they took Christ's name and labeled their superstition "Christian." They began to worship Christ. "This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain worship they me, teaching for doctrines commands of men" (Mark 7:6-7). To subdue the doctrines Noah preached, they made a pretense of following him -- claiming they were doing what he commanded them, claiming to do it by his authority. And when Noah died they began to

worship him! They called him, in their mysteries, Janus -- the one who could look into both worlds because he experienced the worlds on either side of the Flood. WHAT ITALIAN HISTORY REVEALS The history of Italy was preserved down to Roman times. Not until the Middle Ages was it allowed to die a natural death. What could not be disproved was left undiscussed. The scholarly world soon forgot the records in its possession. Those who did take note of them began labeling them as recent inventions -- just as they did the history of every other nation. Now let us open the pages of Italian history and see what really occurred in ancient Italy. The history of Italy opens -- as might be expected -- with human government beginning at the Tower of Babel. Italian history begins immediately after the Flood -- with the land without inhabitants for 108 years. The first family to settle in Italy, according to ancient history, was Gomer. But why should this be so unusual, when one considers the contemporary history of Spain? Gomer's children generally passed eastward out of Europe into Asia. Archaeology traces the movements of the earliest cultures of the children of Gomer from southern Europe into Asia. (See the previous chapter on the history of Spain under the family of Togarmah.) Because Gomer was the earliest hero this side the Flood to populate limited areas of Europe, it became a Middle-Age superstition to label all the people of Europe the descendants of Gomer. Most Bible maps are so labeled today. But they are wrong. In the very first chapter, on the history of Germany, is proof that Shem's descendants now inhabit Western Europe. The fiction that Gomer was the ancestor of these people was deliberately, and knowingly, invented to cloak the identity of the House of Israel and of the Chaldeans and Assyrians. The Germans do not want their identity known to the world. Nor do the Chaldeans. And the House of Israel wants to believe it is Gentile. Now to continue the history of Italy as preserved to us from the same sources which give us German, Spanish and early British history. Patriarchs, Rulers and Kings of Italy

Years

Uninhabited after the Flood.

Dates

108

2369-2261

Janus (Noah) plants colonies 33 in Mediterranean. Janus was also called Vertumnus because through him the seasons continue in their cycle. Noah exercised authority in the period that both Shem and Heber appear dominant on the world scene elsewhere.

2261-2228

Gomer -- his son Ashkenaz (Ochus) succeeded him.

58

Ochus, son of Gomer.

50

2228-2170 2170-2120

Camese (Ham)

19

2120-2101

Janus (Noah again)

82

2101-2019

Cranus Razenus, son of Janus 54 or Noah -- Shem; the name means the crowned one, and father of many races or peoples.

2019-1965

Aurunus, son of predecessor -Aram -- from whom descended the Ausonians or Uzites.

1965-1922

43

Tagus Ormah (Togarmah), son of Gomer. Togarmah augmented and established a religious system which came to be called the "rites of Janus." Here was an early parallel of the later pagan attempt to establish its religion on the world in the name of Christ. Togarmah obtained the designation Malot because he AUGMENTED -- the meaning of malot -- the pagan rites. Is it not significant that those lands most filled with hideous pagan superstition are the very areas settled by the sons of Gomer and especially Togarmah -- Tibet and Siberia? The Tibetans acquired their rites from Italy! Sicanus, son of Togarmah. His wife was Ceres, who was worshipped as goddess of agriculture. It was her ideas which encouraged priests of the pagan religion to support themselves by living off the agricultural labor of others. Sicanus left only a daughter, Proserpina, who was married

30

42

1922-1880

1880-1850

to Orcus, king of the Molossi in Epirus. Thereafter the government passed to petty kings or Tyrants. Reign of Enachi Tyrants. 30 This period corresponds in part to the time of the African invasion of Spain. Their overthrow was recorded in Greek myth as the war with the giants. Were these sons of Anak?

1850-1820

Osiris Apis 10 1820-1810 Osyris of Egypt drove out (or 12) 1820-1808 tyrants and reigned in their stead. He is Sendi, King of Egypt. Lestrigonians, sons of Neptune, the son of Osiris. For last ten years of his reign Hercules warred against Lestrigo.

45 (or 43)

Heracles, Seir the Horite in Scripture; called "Oron" -- the Horite -- in Spanish Literature.

30

Tuscus, son of Heracles. He drilled people in art of war. Alteus, son of Tuscus. Hesperus, brother of Atlas.

1765-1735

27 7

Cambon, son of Blasco, called

1735-1708 1708-1701

11

Italus Atlantus Kittim. 19 (See history of Spain for his identity.) Atlas left only a daughter Roma (or Electra); she was therefore of the family of Abraham through Keturah's son Midian, according to Josephus and the records of Spain. Morges, a prince of the Morgetae in Italy.

1810-1765 (1808-1765)

1701-1690 1690-1671

20

1671-1651 50

1651-1601

Corito or Corythus. Married (33) jointly (1634-1601) Roma (Electra) daughter of with Roma Atlas Kitim; she was the concubine of a Jupiter. Sammes' "Britannia Antiqua Illustrata" is of major assistance in clarifying Anderson's "Royal Geneologies" during this period. See also "Historia" by Bartholome Gutierrez, page 165. Jasius 50 A descendant of Jupiter, but not from Electra. In the year 1601 the throne of Britain had become vacant and Jasius was chosen to fill the vacant throne in Britain. From Britain he ruled all Celtica and Italy. At his death the throne of Britain was separated from Italy. The royal line continues in Italy thus:

1601-1551

Corybantus. 48 Corybantus was the son of Jasius and Cybele. He and his mother divided Italy into 12 provinces and set over them 12 rulers, after which they retired into Phrygia. A few Israelites were fleeing from Egypt at this period due to persecution by the Egyptians. Tyrrenus migrates with Lydians from Asia Minor.

1551-1503

51

1503-1452

After his reign the unity of Italy ceased. Not until the rise of the Roman Republic did all the numerous tribes in Italy again become united under one government. Hereafter the history of Italy is the story of the Kings of the Tuscans and of Kittim. The history parallel to the Kingdom of Etruria will be presented after that of the Tuscans. THE HISTORY OF ETRURIA The story of Etruria or Tuscany is essentially the history of those invading nations who dwelt in Italy, but were not descended from Kittim. The people of Etruria were a heterogeneous group of tribes.

Kings of the Tuscans

Lengths of Reign

Tharcon I (34)

23

1452-1429 (1452-1418)

Abas

15 (15)

1429-1414 (1418-1403)

Olanus

21 (23)

1414-1393 (1403-1380)

Veibenus Oscus

(48)

42

1393-1351 (1380-1332)

34 (17)

1351-1317 (1332-1315)

Tharcon II

46

1317-1271 (1315-1271)

(44) Tiberinus, expels Pelasgi from Italy in time of Jabin, king of Canaan.

30

1271-1241

Mezentius. 22 He was expelled for his tyranny and fled to Cerytes during the rule of Tharcon III. Mezentius afterwards aided Turnus against Aeneas.

1241-1219

Tharcon III

1219-1199

20

Ocnus Blanor Pipinus

46 52

Nicius Fesulanus. 47 He expelled the Phoenicians from the isle of Corsica, and built the city of Nicea. Piseus. 52 He is credited with several inventions. This is the era of Solomon and world wide growth in culture and in foreign trade.

Dates

1199-1153 1153-1103 1101-1054

1054-1002

Thuscus

39

1002- 963

Amnus

25

963- 938

Felsinus. 43 He built Felsina the metropolis of the Tuscans.

938- 895

Bon

28

895- 867

Atreius

27

867- 840

Marsias

18

840- 822

Etalus Coelius

39

822- 783

21

783- 762

Galerius Arbanus Lucumo

20

762- 742

Lukius

25

742- 717

Cibitus

82

717- 635

Lucumo Clusinus 58 635- 577 King Tarquinus Priscus of (or 38 to the time (635- 597) Rome wasted Tuscany about of struggle 596, but at their entreaty with Rome.) a peace was concluded in 584, By this peace they gave to Tarquin a crown of gold, an ivory chair, a sceptre with an eagle at the end of it, a purple robe embroidered with gold, a gown and 12 axes, which Tarquin received with the senate's consent. Rhaetus 20 He gave name to the Rhetians, a people of the Alps. King Serbius Tullius of Rome triumphed three times over the Tuscans, who were at last forced to submit.

577- 557

Hyellus

557- 513

Porcena Clusius 513-455

44 58

Tolumnius Laertes

24

455- 431

Eques Tuscus

40

431- 391

Livius Fidenatus

48

391- 343

Elbius Tuscus

32

343- 311

Turrenus 41 A major blow was struck, beginning in 285, against Etruria. The king surrendered his government to the Romans. So closed the independent history of the Tuscan tribes in Etruria, many of whom now scattered into neighboring regions. Subordinate princes continued as follows until the reign of Emperor Otho.

311- 270

Titus (Tito)

270- 230

40

Volturrenus

48

Cecinna

56

Menippus

46

Menodorus

36

Mencenate

56

230- 182 182- 126 126- 80 80- 44 B.C. 44 - 13 A.D.

Seinao

23

13- 36

Scevino

33

36- 69

Otho Torentius (the Emperor Otho)

1 (actually 69 ruled only 3 months -Jan. 15-Apr. 19, 69)

THE HISTORY OF THE LATINS Meanwhile the descendants of the children of Kittim were being ruled over by descendants of the family of Abraham. The famous woman

Electra or Roma was daughter of Atlas Kittim. Josephus reveals Atlas to have been Epher, Abraham's grandson. His daughter is called the concubine of Jupiter (see Icelandic history earlier in this volume), From Electra, who later married Cambon, came a line of rulers who were later accounted gods or divine heroes. The list carries us down to the coming of Aeneas of Troy, recorded in Volume I. All these royal lines were related to the family of Abraham. List of Kings

Length of Reign

Roma, previously concubine 46 of Jupiter. Romanessus, son of 79 Roma. Picus

57

Dates 1634-1588 1588-1509

1509-1452

Faunus

30

1452-1422

Annus

54

1422-1368

Vulcan

36

1368-1332

Marte (Mars) sometimes referred to as Janus. Saturn, arrived from Crete in 1331. Picus, sometimes called Jupiter. Faunus the younger. Latinus (Lateinos)

23 36 34 24 38

1332-1309 1309-1273 1273-1239 1239-1215 1215-1177

The year 35 of Latinus was 1181-1180. Aeneas of Troy arrived that year (see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, I, 44). In year 38 (1178-1177) Latinus died and Aeneas succeeded -- by the Roman non-accession year system. To conclude the surprising early history of Italy, here is a slightly different mode of reckoning the earliest rulers. Anderson's "Royal Genealogies" records, from documents extant in the sixteenth century, the lengths of reigns from the time of Shem's settlement of colonies in Europe. That event may be dated from the "Bavarian Chronicle" to 2214. Gomer 127 (2214-2087); Janus or Noah 45 (2087-2042); Sabatius Saga, a son of Cush who fled Armenia via Germany to Italy, 31 (2042-2011); Cranus 61 (2011-1950); Arunus 41 (1950-1909); Malot Tages 38 (1909-1871); Sicanus 30 (1871-1841); Tyrants 38 (1841-1803); Osyris 10 (1803-1793); Lestrigo 33 (1793-1760); Hercules

30 (1760-1730); Tuscus 35 (1730-1695); Alteus 20 (1695-1675); Atlas Italus Kittim 16 (1675-1659); Morges 9 (1659-1650); Camboblasco 50 (1650-1600); Jasius 49 (1600-1551); Coribantus 41 (1551-1510). Coribantus and his mother set twelve princes over twelve provinces and departed to Phrygia in Asia Minor. As Coribantus is otherwise assigned a total of 48 years (1551-1503), his 41-year reign indicates that the twelve princes governed the last seven years of his reign (1510-1503). CHAPTER X THE STORY OF THE PERUVIAN INDIANS Strange as it may seem, the Peruvian Indians preserved their history back to Babel. Pre-Inca records specifically refer to and date correctly the reigns of Cush, Nimrod and Horus, or Gilgamesh! Every generation of rulers over the children of Tiras are named to the coming of the Incas. Yet today all this has been lost to public knowledge. MODERN SCHOLARSHIP DISCARDED THE FACTS Modern scholars have done little to acquaint us with the true history of early Peru. In the early centuries following the Spanish conquest of Peru and neighboring regions, many native records came into the possession of the conquerors. The assumption that the Incas knew only how to tie knots in a string to remind them of the past is absurd. Granted, the 'quipus' -- or knotted strings -- were used. The Peruvian Indians also painted records of past events. They had trained priests whose function was to record and repeat the traditions of the past. The fact that the Spanish did recover the history of the Peruvian Indians from the beginning is in itself proof that a great many records were available. No nation which was able to achieve the architectural wonders of the Peruvian highlands would lack the means to preserve its heritage. The modern view of Peruvian history is that it cannot be established more than a century before the commencement of the Spanish colonial period. Archaeologists have done amazingly well in recovering cultural artifacts buried in the ground, but they have thus far been unwilling to associate what they find with early Peruvian history found in the authentic Indian records by the conquerors. The slightest study of Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa's "History of the Incas" would have confirmed the accuracy of his outline. Archaeology everywhere substantiates the written record wherever it has been carefully preserved. Sir Clements Markham has contributed heavily toward Inca and Pre-Inca studies by his two books "The Incas of Peru" and "History of the Incas." The former contains the list of kings from the beginning as preserved by Montesinos. It gives just over 100 names out of which

nearly 80% have the lengths of reign preserved. Montesinos did not give sufficient information to establish every reign, but the list is so nearly complete that it is not at all difficult to determine contemporary events between Peru and the rest of the world. The latter volume preserves an invaluable outline of the Inca period. WHAT ARCHAEOLOGISTS FOUND Archaeologists are not settled on terminology, but they have described Peruvian remains rather well. The story begins with an Incipient Era of hunting and early agriculture. There follows a Developmental Era that is usually not well divided. It ought to be expressed in two, rather than three phases -- the Formative and the Cultist -- to use archaeological Jargon. There is great technical progress and a widespread religious cult. A complete break ends the Cultist period. Thereafter a Florescent Era appears, around 350 B.C., with many new techniques indicative of a dynamic period. In some ways the level of the artistic sense, however, does not advance. Then comes a Climactic Era, commencing shortly after 500 A.D. It is divided into Expansionist, Urbanist and Imperialist periods. The Expansionist commences with conquest and political and social unification. It breaks down into disruption and decadence. Local autonomy with large centers of population characterize the Urbanist. The Imperialist is a great military Empire, which was superseded, in 1532, by the Spanish Colonial period. Archaeologists and historians alike have limited the Inca rule exclusively to the Imperialist and generally date it around 1440. Had they read the Inca history they would have found that the entire Climactic Era, beginning shortly after 500 A.D. belongs to the Incas. Sarmiento de Gamboa commences Inca rule in 565 A.D. And rightly so. The history of the Inca royal family corresponds in exact detail, period by period, with Expansionist, Urbanist and Imperialist. One objection often presented to such an extensive Inca period is the unusually long length of life necessitated for the rulers. Several are over a hundred years old. The argument would be valid if it were possible to demonstrate that human beings cannot live that long! But human beings do often live to be well over one hundred years of age. For example, long after Moses wrote that the life span of man centers about 70 years, individuals are still recorded as living past 120 years. In those days the Peruvian highlands were virgin, and fit for vigorous living. In some instances the length of reign is due to birth of a son in the Inca's old age -- or to a birth of an heir after the death of a predecessor. History, when confirmed by archaeology, should be allowed to speak for itself. Now to illustrate the history of Peru, from the Tower of Babel to the Spanish Colonial period. Notice that the names of even the earliest rulers appear in the native dialect. Many of the names are titles or epithets.

Names of Peruvians Beginning at Babel

Lengths of Reign

Dates

The first 18 are of the Pirua Dynasty. The relationship of one to another is not always stated. 1 Pirua Pacari Manco (Ayar Uchu), the Cush of the Bible.

60

2. Manco Capac I, the Nimrod 30 of Scripture. He built the first city after the flood. (Markham, "Hist. of the Incas", p. 51) 3. Huanacahui Pirua 4. Sinchi Cozque 5. Inti Capac Yupanqui

50 60 50

6. Manco Capac II, is Horus; 20 note that in Inca records he has same name as Nimrod does in Inca tradition.

2254-2194

2194-2164

2164-2114 2114-2054 2054-2004 2004-1984

ILLUSTRATION FROM BURMA The date 2004 is a remarkable parallel for the return to power of Horus in Mesopotamia in 2006. Clearly the ancestors of the Peruvians lived outside Mesopotamia, bordering on the River Tyras. As confirmation of the exactness of Peruvian material, compare the following figures which have been extracted from the earliest history of Burma. Notice the same figure 2004 for Maradzi II. The ancestors of the Burmese Arakan people were at that time also living in the steppes of Russia. Early Kings who Ruled Over People who now live in Arakan, Burma Marayu, is Cush Maradzi I, is Nimrod

Lengths of Reign Dates from Burmese Records (Stokvls' "Manuel") 62 32

2254-2192 2192-2160

The name is derived from the Hebrew root "marad," to rebel. A Maradzu is a great rebel. Maraonleng Mararwayleng Marabheng

53

2160-2107

48

2107-2059

55

Maradzi II, is Horus

2059-2004

33

2004-1971, etc.

Now to continue with the Peruvian Kings. Figures below are approximately the points of reign since the lengths of reign are in some cases lost. 7. Tupac Capac

--

1950

8. Tini Capac Yupanqui

--

1900

9. Titu Capac Yupanqui

--

1875

10. Inti Capac Pirua Amaru

--

1850

11. Capac Sayhua Capac

60

1800

12. Capac Tinia Yupanqui

40

1750

13. Ayar Tacko

25

1725

14. Huascar Titu

30

1700

15. Quispi Titu

--

1675

16. Titu Yupanqui Patchacutec I -17. Titu Capac 18. Paullu Ticac Pirua A new line of kings

25 30

1650 1625 1600

commences with Amauta. The word signifies a Magian, or priest. 19. Lloque Tesag Amauta, a priest 50 or Magian

1575

Is there not a connection here with the Empire of Sargon and his sons in Mesopotamia? They had a vast empire, and on more than one occasion Sargon voyaged across the seas. (See Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts".) 20. Cayo Manco Amauta I

--

21. Huascar Titu Tupac

33

22 Manco Capac III Amauta 23 Ticac Pupac

1525 1500

50 30

24. Paullu Tutu Capac

1450 1425

19

1400

25. Cayo Manco Amauta II

30

1375

26. Marasco Patchacutec

40

27. Paullu Atauchi Capac

--

1300

14

1275

28. Lluqui Yupanqui 29. Lluqui Ticac

8

1325

1265

30. Capac Yupanqui I

50

1225

31, Tupac Yupanqui I

18

1200

32. Manco Auqui Tupac Patchacutee 50 33. Sinchi Apusqui Huarma Huiracocha 40

1120

34. Auqui Quitu Atauchi 35. Ayay Manco 36. Huiracocha Capac

1150

4 --

1100 1075

15

1060

37. Tchinchi Roca Amauta

20

1040

38. Tupac Amaru Amauta

25

1020

39. Capac Raymi Amauta

--

1000

This ruler instituted certain festivals in his name. He is parallel with the time of Odin I of Denmark and of Solomon. He was the mainspring behind the development of what archaeologists call the Cultist Era. This Era is illustrative of the contact between Old and New World during certain significant ages. 40. IllJa Tupac --

3

41. Tupac Amauta

-3

42. Huanacauri I --

990

4

--

43. Toca Corca Apu Capac

45

960

44. Huampar Xayri Tupac I

32

925

45. Hinac Huillja Amauta Pachacuti 35 46. Capac Yupanqui II Amauta

900

35

860

47. Huampar Xayri Tupac II

--

830

48. Cayo Manqui Auqui

3

820

49. Hinac Huillja

30

800

50. Inti Capac Amauta

30

760

51. Ayar Manco Capac

--

730

52. Yahuar Huquiz, gives his name to five intercalary days added to calendar to adjust spring equinox

30

710

53. Capac Titu Yupanqui

23

680

54. Tupac Curi I Amauta

39

640

55. Tupac Curi II

40

600

56. Huillcanota Amauta

60

540

57. Tupac Yupanqui II

43

500

58. Illja Tupac Capac --

4

--

59. Titu Raymi Cozque

31

460

60. Huqui Nina Auqui

43

430

61. Manco Capac IV

23

390

62. Cayo Manco Capac

20

63. Sinchi Ayar Manco

7

365 360

A major invasion occurs in his reign from the Southeast. This begins the true Florescent Era, as labeled by archaeologists. 64. Huaman Tacko Amauta

5

65. Titu Yupanqui Pachacuti II

--

66. Titu Huaman Quitu

--

67. Cozque Huaman Titu

-325

--

68. Cuis Manco 69. Huillja Titu

355

--

50

275

30

70. Xayri Tupac

240

40

71. Tupac Yupanqui III 72. Huayna Tupac I 73. Huanacauri II

200 25

175

37

140

10

130

74. Huillja Huaman

60

70

75. Huaman Capac

40

30

76. Paullu Raymi

19

10

77. Manco Capac V Amauta

--

10

78. Auqui Atau Huillja

35

40

79. Manco Titu Capac

32

90

80. Huayna Tupac II

50

140

81. Tupac Cauri Pachacuti 82. Arantial

--

--

170 200

83. Huari Titu Capac

--

84. Huispa Titu Auqui

225

18

250

85. Toco Cozque

--

270

86. Ayar Manco

22

290

87. Cuntur Roca

--

88. Amaru

320

--

340 From here on a definite sequence of dates is possible.

89. Sinchi Roca 365-406

41

90. Illja Toca

62

91. Lluqui Yupanqui 92. Roca Titu

406-468 45

468-513

25

93. Inti Mayta Capac Pachacuti

513-538 27

538-565

This concludes the Pre-Inca Era. Notice that when Montesino's account is properly begun at Babel it is in perfect harmony with the time element in the next era. THE INCA RULERS The succeeding chart illustrates the story of the great Inca period. It begins in 565. Is it significant that this is the year of a major movement of peripheral peoples out of the British Isles in the days of Gildas? ("Ency. Brit.", art. "Cave," in eleventh ed.) The Incas were of a complexion much lighter than their subjects. The comments in the following section may be verified in J. A. Mason's "Ancient Civilizations of Peru", p. 110. Inca Kings

Lengths of Reign Dates or Until an Heir According

Chosen

to Sarmiento

Beginning of Expansionist Period 1. Manco Capac

100

565-665 A.D.

2. Sinchi Roca

19

665-684

According to Garcilassan's account this king begins expansion. 3. Lloqui Yupanqui

111

684-795

Extended domain to Lake Titicaca. 4. Mayta Capac

110

795-905

Increases realm to Tiahuanaco and headwaters of coastal rivers. He is the first great conqueror. 5. Capac Yupanqui

89

905-994

Troubles develop toward end of his reign. The succeeding kings belong to the Urbanist period. 6. Inca Roca

103

994-1097

Near total collapse at beginning of his reign. He subjugates areas only 20 miles from capital of Cuxco. 7. Titu Cuisi Hualpa (Yahuar-huaccac) 8. Viracocha Inca

96

1097-1193

101

1193-1294

Wars with Chanca, Lupaca and Colla. His own capital besieged. Inca Urcon, dethroned

--

--

The succeeding Incas belong to the Imperialist period.

9. Inca (Cusi) Yupanqui Pachacuti 103

1294-1397

Begins conquests in the vicinity of Cuzco. 10. Tupac Inca Yupanqui

67

11 Huayna Capac

60

12. Huascar Inca

7

13. Atahuallpa Tupac Huallpa

2

1531-1533

--

1533 1533-1544

17

Quispe Yupanqui Tupac Amaru

1464-1524 1524-1531

14. Manco Inca, crowned by Pizarro 11 Xayri Tupac

1397-1464

1544-1561 8

3

1561-1569 1569-1572

With this restoration, though partly incomplete, the early history of South America comes into its proper place in World History. CHAPTER XI ANCIENT PERSIA AND TURKESTAN One thousand years of Persian history is missing from today's history textbooks. Most writers begin their account of Persia about the time of Cyrus the Great. A few archaeological notes usually precede the story. But the real history of Persia (or Iran) for a thousand years before Cyrus has been deliberately removed from history books. EARLY KINGS OF PERSIA Persia, the modern Iran, like most other nations, has preserved its history from early times. Traditions and legends have no doubt been added along the way. But the main framework and sequence of events is so clearly preserved that no doubt about the facts need exist. Of course there is a reason why early Persian history is rejected. It includes several Biblical heroes! That alone, in the eyes of modern interpreters of history, is enough to condemn any record. Early Persian history has been preserved not only by Persian and

Arabic writers, but in a few rare translations into modern languages. Perhaps the most complete is Shea's "Early Kings of Persia." A less complete account may be recovered from D'Herbelot's "Bibliotheque Orientale." More complete is the analysis in "Universal History," Vol. V. Before recounting in brief the history of Persia, it would be well to compare, below, the table of rulers from Mirkhond, the Persian historian, with that of other oriental authors. One is immediately aware of figures that at first glance seem preposterous. But each one has significant meaning. They are not all lengths of reign -- several are based on time lapses since the beginning of important eras. Without these long figures, it would not be possible to restore Persian history. Table of Persian Rulers

From Mirkhond From Other Oriental Authors

Dynasty or Pishdadians or Judges 1. Kajomaras or Cajoumaras

40

2. Siamek, a son, slain after very brief reign.

560

--

--

Kajomaras resumes kingdom -An interregnum. 3. Hushang

--

200

50

4. Tamurash, said to be grandson of Hushang

50 30

--

5. Giemshid or Giamschid, descendant of Kajomaras

30

6. Dahak or Zahak (Zoak), an Arab

--

7. Aphridun, or Feridoun, son of Giemshid

10. Apherasiab or Afrasiab,

30 1000

--

8. Manugjahr or Manougeher surnamed Phirouz; son of Irege, son of Feridoun 9. Nodar or Nudar, a son

30

120

120

7 12

500

7 12

descendant of Tur, the son of Feridoun 11. Zaab, Zab, Zoub, or Bazab, heir of the house of Kajomaras

--

12. Gustasp, or Kischtasp, son of Zaab

30

--

30 or 20

Dynasty of Kaianites 1. Kaikobad 2. Kaikaus

100

120

150

150

3. Kaikhosru or Kaihosru

60

60

120

120

5. Gushtasp, Gustasp or 120 Kishtasp, son of Lohrasp

120

4. Lohrasp or Lohorasb

6 Ardshir, surnamed Bahaman, grandson of Gustasp 7. Queen Homai

112

32

8. Darab I (Persian spelling of Darius) 9. Darab II

112 32 4

14

14 --

After him came Iscander Ben Filoukous -- Alexander the son of Philip. The time element at the close of this list is clear. The days of Alexander the Great have been reached. Darab II is Persian king Darius III Codomannus. He was slain in 330, after Alexander overthrew his empire. But most of the preceding names in the table of kings are not those found in history books. The answer is that Persia's last king was not a direct descendant of the great Persian kings of history. This table of Persian royal names is an account of another branch of royalty -- the family of Darius Codomannus. Once we know the date of Darab II -- his reign ends in 330 -- it is possible to restore the whole list, if we just take the figures exactly as they are. The following chart is the restoration of the Dynasty of the Kaianites -- combining both Mirkhond and other oriental writers.

THE SECOND RACE The Second Race, or Dynasty of the Kaianites

Lengths of Time

Dates

l. Kaikobad 100 1042-942 He reigned 20 years with (or 120) (1062-942) a predecessor. 2. Kaikaus, grandson of 150 Kaikobad The 150 years represent the duration of time since the death of his grandfather.

942-792

3. Kaikhosru, grandson of 60 Kaikaus He died without male heir.

792-732

4. Lohorasp, a near relative 120 of Kaikhosru Note that the year of his death is 612 -- the date of the fall of Nineveh. Lohorasp was an ally of Assyria. He joined with the Assyrians in their conquest of the Jews in Palestine in the days of king Manasseh. He perished in 612 in a revolt which carried Persia from the Assyrian camp to that of the Medes and Babylonians.

732-612

5. Gustasp, called Hystaspes 120 in Greek literature. Nearly 30 years after he came to power in a revolt against his father, Gustasp was involved in a war with the inhabitants of Turkestan and Scythia. This is the struggle which occurred in 584 between Media and Scythia (see Vol. I of the Compendium). The long reigns assigned to this family may reflect the

612-492

practice of choosing the youngest heir. In several instances a grandson is the successor. Or the figures may represent reckoning by eras and may not distinguish the separate reigns of father and son, who may also have had the same throne names. 6. Ardshir Bahaman, surnamed Dirazdest -- the longhanded. He is the Artaxerxes Longimanus of history. Here again the assigned length extends beyond the life of the king, and is in fact the practice of reckoning in eras.

112

492-380

7. Queen Homai daughter of 32 Ardshir according to most Persian authors. 8. Darab I, her son, say the 4 eastern traditions, by her (or 14) own father. The date 358 is that of Artaxerxes III Ochus of history texts.

380-348 348-344 (358-344)

9. Darab II, slain in 330

344-330

14

THE FIRST RACE Persian historians commonly refer to the early judges and kings of their land as the "first race" and the "second race." The second has just been restored. The first is now possible to date. Its last king or Judge, Gustasp, ended his reign in 1042, at which time he was succeeded by Kaikobad of the "second race." With 1042 as ending date, the reign of Kajomaras would begin in 1741. Observe how all these figures fit as pieces of a puzzle. The First Race of Persian Rulers

Lengths of Time

1. Kajomaras, a descendant 40 of Aram (560) What occurred in 2261? What era does this mark? It is 108 years after the flood.

Dates

1741-1701 (2261-1701)

Now check Italian history. There we notice that 2261 is the date when Noah began to send out colonies to inhabit new areas of the world. This separation of the land to various families and races is what Nimrod rebelled against. So Persian history confirms what has already been established from ancient Italian records preserved among the Etruscans. Note that 1741 marks the end of the sole reign of Senwosre III or Sesostris, the great Egyptian conqueror of the Near East -- including Persia. 2. Siamek Shortly after ascending the throne he was slain (1701). Kajomaras returns to power

30

1701-1671

After Kajomaras no supreme rulers in Persia are recorded for a space of 200 years -- 1671-1471. This period of Interregnum has an important bearing on the history of the Tatars. And also on Assyria (see Vol. I of Compendium). 3. Hushang, surnamed Pishdud 50 (meaning judge). Hushang began the Dynasty of judgekings -- the Pishdadians, Who was this man? His Persian name -- Hushang -would be Husham in Hebrew. Is there in the Biblical record a Husham living about the time of Moses and Joshua? Indeed there is! Turn to the record in Genesis 36:31 and 34: "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel of Temani reigned ...." This Husham or Hushang, famous in the Biblical record, is the Temanite king who ruled

1471-142I

over the children of Esau or Edom. His native land was in Persia -- proving how early certain of the children of Esau were moving out of the land of Edom by the Red Sea into the land of Persia and Turkestan, Husham was king over the widely scattered tribes of Edom. He was the great ruler who ordered Moses not to cross his territory in the year 1448-1447. But Husham's is not the only name that will appear in Persian history from this list in Genesis 36. 4. Tahmurash 5. Giemshid

30 30

1421-1391 1391-1361

6. Dahak, a famous man out of Arabia who came to power in the last years of Giemshid. He drove the latter into exile, hunted him down when he discovered Giemshid had a son, and finally slew him. What do the 1000 years represent? There is only one possible explanation. He came to the Persian throne 1000 years after the Flood -- 2369-1369. In 1369 he drove Giemshid from the throne. The time of Dahak's power in Persia is therefore 8 years -- 13691361. In 1361 a son of Giemshid, now three years old, came to the throne with the death of Dahak. 7. Alphidun 120 The new king lived 123 years. He married the daughter of Dahak. He divided his realm between his sons. To Tur he gave Turkestan. To Irege, son of a Persian woman,

1361-1241

the realm of Persia was assigned. From Tur the Temanite inhabitants of Turkestan took the name Turan or Turk. In the family quarrels which followed, all the sons of Alphidun were slain, and the kingship passed to Manougeher, son of Irege. 8. Manougeher, surnamed Phirouz 120 From him the people of Iran called Persians. Phirouz is the Perses of Greek tradition who lived at the time of the war with Troy! But what of the figure 500? Answer: Manougeher came to power in 1241, exactly 500 years after Kajomaras came to the royal estate -- 1741-1241. 9. Nodar

7

10. Apherasiab 12 He was a great Khan of Turkestan, a descendant of Tur, and joined Persia with Tartary. Constant rebellion led at length to the establishment of a descendant of Kajomaras on the Persian throne. 11. Zaab or Bazab 30 Who was this Zaab? Turn to Genesis 36:39. Hadar, king of Edom, married "Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-zahab" ("Jewish Publ. Soc."). (Mezahab is the KJV spelling.) Bazab is but an altered and shortened spelling of the Hebrew Me-zahab (the letters "b" and "m" being easily interchangeable in Indo European tongues -- cf. Emher for Eber in Irish).

1241-1121

1121-1114 1114-1102

1102-1072

Hadar is the last king in Edom who began to reign before Saul. The chronology of Persia is in perfect harmony with the Biblical account. Here again is proof that the Bible is the foundation of knowledge. Without the list of rulers of Edom in Genesis 36, it would not be possible to understand fully who the early rulers of Persia were. 12. Gustasp or Kischtasp 30 The 20 years of certain (or 20) oriental writers is the duration of the joint reign with Kaikobad. Persian historians declare that Kishtasp was the son of a Jewess of the tribe of Benjamin. This was the very time of the dominance of Benjamin in Israel -- and especially the family of Kish, the father of Saul. The reign of Gustasp was put to an end by struggles with Apherasiab of Turkestan. In this time of national struggle, an heir of the line of Nodar and Zaab established Persian independence from the Turks and founded the Dynasty of the Kaianites or the "second race" of Persian historians.

1072-1042 (1062-1042)

And that restores the amazing 1000 years of missing Persian history. TURKESTAN, TURKS AND MONGOLS In the vast stretches north of Persia live a medley of peoples. Mongols, Tatars, Turks, Turkomen, and Persians, among many others. The history of this area is intimately connected with ancient Persia. The nomadic tribes inhabiting the region have not preserved any chronological framework of their past history, but their line of great Khans has sufficient parallels that the main events of Turkestan or Eastern Scythia may be ascertained.

The Bible labels this vast area the land of Gog (see Ezekiel 38). Gog was a descendant of Japheth. The western half of these vast reaches belongs today to the Soviet Union. The eastern part is Mongolia and a part of China (Sinkiang Province). The whole area is called Turkestan by geographers. The word Turk has in the Turkic or Mongolian languages the meaning of "strong warrior." The Mongoloid Turkic people trace their ancestry back to Turk, the adopted son of Japheth. (The Mongoloid Turks are to be distinguished from the Caucasian Osmanli Turks of modern Turkey -the sons of Teman who acquired the name Turk from living in that geographic area.) The son of Turk in Tatar history was Taunak Khan. (Khan means ruler.) He was, at least in part, an earlier contemporary of Kajomaras of Persia. Taunak is affirmed to have lived 240 years, according to Abu'l Ghazi Bahadur Khan's "Genealogical History of the Tatars," published in 1730 in London. This is well within the ages listed in Genesis for the patriarchs immediately after the Flood. Taunak was succeeded in order by Jelza Khan, Dibbakui Khan and Kajuk Khan -- the latter two having long reigns. The son of Kajuk was Alanza Khan or Ilingeh Khan. His was a period of growing prosperity and luxury. He was the father of Tatar Khan, from whom the Tatars trace their name, and of Mogul Khan, from whom the Moguls or Mongols trace their name. The son of Mogul Khan was Kara Khan. In his day there was a rapid spread of idolatry, declare the Mohammedan Tatar historians. Hushang of Persia was ruler in Persia. OGUS KHAN In the days of Kara Khan, after the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, his son Oguz or Ogus Khan revolted against the idolatry of his father (see the "Universal History", Vol. XX). Later, Ogus, after 72 years of war, created a vast Mongol Empire. He subjected Cathay (part of China), Tashkent, Samarkand and all Turkestan, Kashmir, part of Armenia and Iran. Iran at this time was without unified leadership during the reign of Giemshid (1391-1361). Oguz Khan carried his conquests (Diodorus of Sicily II, 43) to Egypt. Interestingly, this is the time of the Hyksos rule in Egypt. And one of the Hyksos rulers had the name of Khayan or Khan. This king could be none other than Oguz Khan. His 116 year reign from Tatar history is therefore 1392-1276. Ogus Khan was succeeded by Kiun Khan (1276-1206). His name means the "sun". The history of Persia indicated that hereafter the kings of Persia dominated the accessible steppes of Turkestan. This would be the time of Alphidun, who set his son Tur over Turkestan. He was followed by Apherasiab. In order there followed Juldus Khan, Mengli Khan, Tengis Khan and Il Khan. In the days of Il Khan (in the 600's B.C.) the Tatars warred against the Mongols and nearly obliterated them. Il had a son Kajan who survived the struggle. For 400 years the Mongols disappear from the pages of Tatar history into the vastnesses of the mountains of Asia.

Now to return to the time of Alanza Khan and his son Tatar Khan. The Tatars in the Soviet Union trace their early Khans from Tatar the brother of Mogul. From Tatar descended Buka, Jalanzak and Ettala Khan. Ettala's son Attaisis Khan fought bloody wars -- in the days of Ogus Khan of the Mongols. He was followed by Orda, Baydu and Siuntz Khan. The latter in a grand alliance destroyed the Mongol power. After this great victory the Tatars split up under petty rulers and have left us but few names of their rulers. Based on the number of generations this victory over the Mongols occurred in the 600's. After multiplying in the mountains bordering on Mongolia, the Moguls finally rose to power in the late 200's. In another fifty years they challenged the Tatars, conquered them and became the masters of much of eastern Scythia. The Tatars and Mongols - descendants of Turk whom Japheth adopted as his son - preserved for posterity the names of over 20 Khans (see Vol. XX of "Universal History") who ruled Mongolia and adjacent territory until the twelfth century of the present era, Then it was that the Mongols burst forth on the world, ravaged Asia and plunged with terrible swiftness west into the heart of Europe under Jenghis Khan. THE HISTORY OF ARMENIA The principal source of Armenian history is that of Moses Khoren, a celebrated writer of the fifth century. In part his material is derived from the books of Mar-Abas Catina, a learned Aramean of the second century B.C. Modern archaeology provides additional information beginning with the period of the late Assyrian Empire. Armenian history has been treated in much the same manner as Persian history. Prior to the Assyrian period all is rejected without being examined to see if it corresponds with the parallel accounts of other nations. Armenian history begins with the account of Haik or Haig, the son of Togarmah, the son of Gomer. What's wrong with Biblical characters suddenly appearing on the scene shortly after the Flood? Nothing -unless one doesn't want to acknowledge the plain facts of the Bible and history. Historians acknowledge the land about Armenia, as late as the days of Shalmaneser the Great, was known as the land of Togarmah. of course, that is from archaeology! Armenians descend from Aram, son of Shem (see Josephus). Intermarriage between Togarmah's family and Aram's has undoubtedly given rise to the unique character of the Armenians. The following tables, prepared by Michael Chamich and St. Martin, are taken from the "Collection des Historiens Anciens et Modernes de l'Armenie" by Victor Langlois, Paris, 1880, vol. II, pp. 385-386. PATRIARCHS OF ARMENIA Kamer, Gomer,

37

2178-2141

Armais

40 1816-1776

son of Japheth Togarmah Haik

198 81

Armenak

2141-1943

1943-1862 46

Amassia Gegham

1862-1816

Harma

32 1776-1744 50 1744-1694 31 1694-1663

Armenak, declares Issaverdenz, "with a large body of his people, advanced a few days journey to the northeast," and colonized a new area of the Armenian plateau. (Page 56 of "Armenia and the Armenians," Vol. I.) The family of Aram paralleled the family of Togarmah, rather than succeeding it as most Armenian historians claim. Aram, son of Shem

58

2108-2050

Aram "was the first to raise the Armenian name to any degree of renown." One of his "followers" was Mishag or Mishak. Certainly here we have the family of Aram and his son Mash or Meshech of the Bible. Ara the Handsome

26

2050-2024

Semiramis, Queen of Assyria, offered to marry Ara. He refused. And in an ensuing battle between the Assyrians and Armenians, Ara perished. Semiramis raised Garthos to the throne in his father's stead. Sometimes his name is spelled Kardos. During his day Semiramis and Ninyas struggled for the throne in Assyria. She fled to the Armenian king. Out of gratitude for having been placed on the throne, he raised an army and marched with Semiramis against Ninyas Zames. Both Kardos and Semiramis were slain and Ninyas came to the throne in 2006 in Assyria. Kardos, called Ara Araian

18

2024-2006

Anoushavan

63

2006-1943

Anoushavan had no heir to the throne; submits to Assyria as do his successors; he is succeeded by Haik in 1943. Paret

50 1663-1613

Geghak

30 1228-1198

Horo

3 1198-1195

Arbak

44 1613-1569

Zavan

37 1569-1532 Zarmair, slain by Achilles

Pharnas I

53 1532-1479

12 1195-1183

Interregnum 2 1183-1181

Sour

45 1479-1434

Shavarsh II 43 1181-1138

Havanak

30 1434-1404

Perch I

35 1138-1103

Vashtak

22 1404-1382

Arboun

27 1103-1076

Haikak I

18 1382-1364

Perch II

Ampak I

14 1364-1350

Bazouk

Arnak Shavarsh I Norair Vestam

17 1350-1333 6 1333-1327

Ampak II

13 1303-1290 4 1290-1286

Gorak Hrant I

50 1036- 986 44 986- 942

Houssak

24 1327-1303

Kar

Endzak

Hoy

40 1076-1036

Kaipak

31

942- 911

27 911- 884 45

884- 839

Pharnouas I 33

839- 806

18 1286-1268

Pharnas II 40

806- 766

25 1268-1243

Skaiordi

17

766- 749

15 1243-1228 KINGS OF ARMENIA

Parouyr, 48 749- 701 Haikak II 36 606- 570 frees Armenia from Assyria Erouand I 4 570- 566 Hratchia 22 701- 679 Tigran I 45 566- 521 Pharnouas, 13 679- 666 the second Vahagn 25 521- 496 Pachouych

35

666- 631

Aravan

20

496- 476

Kornak

8

631- 623

Nerseh

35

476- 441

Phavos

17

623- 606

Zarah

46

441- 395

---------------------Armog

9

395- 386

Neoptolemus 2

323- 321

Bagam

14

386- 372 Hrant II, or 4 321- 317 Orontes, subject to Greeks

Van

20 372- 352 Ardoates 33 317- 284 Vahe 23 352- 329 (20) (352-332) Hrant II, or 45 284- 239 died in war with Alexander Orontes the Great Artavazanes 50 239-189 Mihram 6 329- 323 a Persian appointed by Artaxias 30 189-159 Alexander Artavazd 10 159-149 Kurkjian's "History of Armenia" may be consulted for succeeding periods. Armenian history commences with a settlement of colonists in 2247, seven years after the episode at Babel. These colonists were subject to the rulers in Babylonia for 139 years. They gained their independence in 2108. This date is traditionally assigned to Haik, but rightfully belongs to Aram. Armenian history clearly places the family of Aram contemporary with Semiramis and Ninyas. Since Togarmah settled Armenia earlier than Aram, the line of Aram was inserted after the line of Gomer. It should have been made parallel. The family of Gomer continued down to the time of Paret in 1663. Note that the period assigned to Gomer and Togarmah in Armenian history corresponds with Italian and Spanish history. The white branch of the family was settling in Europe, while the Oriental branch migrated eastward. It appears that Ul, the son of Aram who settled Armenia, is Ara -the "r" replacing the "l". CHAPTER XII TROJAN MIGRATION TO FRANCE After Troy fell, in 1181, the populace in the conquered regions fled from the Greeks to various parts of Europe. One of these groups was led by Aeneas and finally reached Italy. But, there were other groups who left Troy after the First Trojan War. Another group of Trojan refugees was led by Francio the son of the ill-fated Hector, and heir to the line of Samothes in Gaul. These fled to the northern shore of the Black Sea, then returned to Isauria in Asia Minor, from where they migrated to Pannonia and then on to Western Europe. From these Trojans is descended the house of the Dukes of Brabant (an old province embracing parts of modern Belgium and the Netherlands). From this Assyro-Judaic family came Charlemagne, the first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. A complete list of these Trojan rulers, from Hector down to Charlemagne, is found in the work by Jhr. C. A. Rethaan Macaré entitled

"Oude Kronijk van Brabant", in the "Codex Diplomaticus Neerlandicus," series 2, part 3, published by Het Historisch Genootschap te Utrecht, Utrecht, Holland in 1855. The chronology starts with 1181 and continues right down the line without complications till Silvius Brabon II, who begins to reign in 732. The beginning and end of each reign is synchronized with contemporary Biblical history, which, incidentally, is presented in its correct chronology down to a period long after the dividing of the monarchy. Between Silvius Brabon II and Troylus II (370-331) complications are introduced. The author will state a certain figure for the length of the reign, yet this will completely disagree with the length of reign obtained through his cross references to contemporary Roman history. Silvius Brabon II, for example, is stated to have reigned 60 years. Yet, the cross references of the beginning and end of his reign in terms of Roman history show that he reigned only 32 years. The difficulty is readily overcome when we realize that the Trojan rulers of this period shared the throne jointly with either a successor or a predecessor. The author preserved the correct lengths of individual reigns only in the cross references to contemporary Roman history. Charlemagne, too, it must be remembered, ruled jointly with his brother. The recording of joint reigns ceases after Troylus II and the chronology again becomes uniform. Troylus II ruled jointly with his successor, Priamus VI. It will be noticed, below, that even in the figures for his sole reign, the last year overlaps with the first year of his successor. This is stated in the author's cross references to contemporary Roman and Greek history. Under the Princes and Dukes of Brabant there are two short interregnums which become apparent from the chronology, one in A.D. 456-459 and the other in A.D. 714-715. We must remember that this is the story of Brabant though the individuals concerned had other dominions and offices as well. Charlemagne, for example, was a Duke of Brabant, but he was also King of the Franks and Holy Roman Emperor at the same time. The short interregnums therefore mean nothing more than that the title to the dukedom was vacant for that period of time. The ruler himself was usually alive, but simply did not claim the dukedom. This is only a matter of internal politics and does not affect the chronology of the history as a whole. TROJANS KINGS OF ISAURIA Kings

Length of Reign

1. Francio, son of Hector, flees from Troy with his brother Turcus to Maeotis, where they rule 21 years. From

21 10

Dates 1181-1160 1160-1150

there they migrate to Isauria, where Francio drives out his brother Turcus and reigns 10 years. 2. Hector II, marries daughter of king of Cilicia. 3. Troylus

31

1150-1119

56

1119-1063

4. Francio II, whose brother Priam led a migration of Trojans from Isauria to Pannonia, where they remained till expelled by Gratian.

--

TROJAN KINGS OF SICAMBRIA AND PANNONIA Kings

Length of Reign

Dates

1. Priamus II, son of 27 Francio II, commences his reign on the Danube in the 118th year after the fall of Troy, builds city Sycambria.

1063-1036

2. Eneas, marries his aunt, the daughter of Francio II of Isauria.

57

1036- 979

3. Priamus III, had a Scythian wife.

14

979- 965

4. Silvius Brabon, had six 49 sons. Wandalus settled among the Vandals, Polex gave his name to Poland, Russo went into Russia, Himus migrated to Maeotis, Frixius went to Frisia, and Brabon Silvius inherited his father's throne.

965- 916

5. Brabon Silvius I

35

6. Hector III, in whose days six Sicambrian heroes or rulers, led by one Yber, migrated overland from Sicambria to France with about 4000 men. They built a city and called it Paris, after the son of Priam. Themselves they called Parisii. 7. Francio Brabon, had a son Troylus and a daughter Ylia. She became, according to the author, the mother of Romulus and Remus.

916- 881

34

881- 847

76

847- 771

8. Troylus I

32

771- 739

9. Brabon II

7

739- 732

10. Silvius Brabon II 32 joint (60)

732- 700 (732- 672)

11. Hector Brabon, had 37 two sons, Demophon and Palamides. Demophon went to Rome where he married the daughter of Ancus Marcius and had by her a son called Tarquinus, who became king of Rome. 12. Palamides, had three 52 sons, Deyphebus, joint (61) Parriis and Brabon. Deyphebus went to Dacia, Parriis to some islands in the Pontus. 13. Brabon III, had two sons, 57 Priam and Dyomedeus. The

700- 663

663- 611 (672- 611)

611- 554

latter went to Africa and built there a mighty city. 14. Priamus IV

32 joint (50)

15. Philymeus,had three sons, Priam, Archadius and Macedo. From Macedo came the Macedonii, Archadius migrated to Arcadia in Greece and became the first duke of that land. Julius Caesar is descended from him. 16. Priamus V 17. Brabon IV

30

552- 522

20

522- 502

50 joint with son (11)

18. Laomedon

24

19. Pelius, had two sons, Troylus and Hybertius. The latter sailed with his followers to Hybernia (Ireland). 20. Troylus II

554- 522 (572- 522)

452- 428

58 joint (68)

39 joint (42)

21. Priamus VI 22. Francio III 23. Brabon V 24. Silvius Brabon III

502- 452 (452- 441)

428- 370 (441- 373)

370- 331 (373- 331)

7

332- 325

9

325- 316

4

316- 312 21

25. Brabon Troylus VI

33

312- 291 291- 258

26. Brabon VII

22

258- 236

27. Brabon VIII

16

236- 220

28. Priamus VII

28

220- 192

29. Hector IV

31

192- 161

30. Brabon IX

4

161- 157

31. Priamus VIII

19

157- 138

32. Francio IV, had 14 20 sons and 7 daughters. With him the account of the kings of Sycambria and Pannonia ceases, although the line continued to reign till the time of Gratian.

138- 118

"Brabon junior," the youngest son of Francio IV. He entered the services of his relative the duke of Arcadia in Greece, and was rewarded for his distinguished service with a wife of noble birth. Ten years after the death of his father, his wife gave birth to a son who was named Brabon Silvius. At the same time Julius Caesar was born to the duke of Arcadia. "Brabon Silvius" accompanied Julius Caesar in the Roman conquest of Gaul. Julius Caesar conquered the kingdom of Agrippina (Cologne), killed the king, and sent the king's sister Silvana to his father the duke of Arcadia. At that time there stayed with the duke of Arcadia a man named "Karolus." His father, also called Karolus, was a powerful figure and leader of a military division at Nijmegen. He was born of the old Trojan line, being the son of a certain Pharamunt who had 14 sons. This must be none other than Francio IV (138-118). "Karolus," the son of Karolus, received a bad reputation because of his licentious life. So his father sent him away from home to the duke of Arcadia. Here, according to the Chronicle, he married the duke's daughter "Zwana," who, upon their return to the Low Countries, gave birth to a son called "Octavianus". This Octavianus later became Roman Emperor Augustus. Karolus junior also had two daughters, Octaviana and Zwana. Zwana was given by her uncle Julius Caesar in marriage to Brabon Silvius. After the death of Karolus, Julius Caesar adopted Octavianus. The kingdom of Agrippina he gave to Brabon Silvius. KINGS OF AGRIPPINA King 1. Brabon Silvius

Length of Reign

Dates

2. Karolus I

91

B.C. 53- 39 A.D.

3. Karolus II

41

39- 80

4. Karolus III

65

80- 145

5. Karolus IV

10

145- 155

6. Karolus V

105

155- 260

7. Karolus VI

3

8. Karolus VII, conquered 62 Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Ireland. 9. Brabon 10. Karolus VIII

41 12

11. Angisus, during whose reign, in 378 A.D., Gratian drove the Sycambri from Pannonia. They came to the lower Rhine under their leader Priamus. Angisus fought Gratian, but lost 30,000 men and was captured. He spent seven years as a captive of the Romans, being finally liberated by Theodosius upon the latter's accession to the throne. Maximus, a rival emperor, devastated parts of northern Gaul, and then gave these to Brabon, the six-yearold eldest son of Angisus. This Brabon thus became the first prince of Brabant, and his position was subsequently recognized by Emperor Theodosius. Angisus had another son, Karolus, who succeeded him in the kingdom.

260- 263 263- 325

325- 366 366- 378

12. Karolus IX was succeeded by two other kings who are not named. The last was driven out by Franks, who took over the kingdom of Agrippina and made it part of the Frankish realm. PRINCES OF BRABANT Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Brabon I, was made prince of Brabant in the seventh year of his life. He reigned for 32 years after the death of his father. In his days Clodius, king of the Franks, destroyed the kingdoms of Agrippina and Thuringia, and annexed Brabant. Brabon and his descendants became loyal servants of the Frankish kings.

Dates

32

424- 456

(456- 459)

2. Brabon II

60

459- 519

3. Brabon III

51

519- 570

4. Karolomannus, the last 45 prince. After his death Brabant became a dukedom.

570- 615

DUKES OF BRABANT Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Pippinus of Landen, (35) ruled three years jointly or 32 with his father, becomes mayor of the palace to the Frankish king. 2. Grimoaldus, son of Pepin.

13

Dates (612- 647) 615- 647

647- 660

3. Angisus, husband of 25 Begga, daughter of Pepin. This Angisus was son of Arnulph, Bishop of Metz, who was the son of Arnold, the son of Anselbert. Anselbert was married to Blitilda, daughter of Lothair I (Clothair), king of Austrasia and Neustria.

660- 685

4. Pippinus II, of Heristal.

29 685- 714 (714- 715)

5. Karolus Mertellus

26

715- 741

6. Karolomanus, renounced his dukedom, entered a monastery in 6th year of reign.

6

7. Pippinus III "the 21 Short," son of joint (27) Karolus Mertellus. By the time Pippinus III came to power, his inheritance included not only Brabant, but also Austrasia, Thuringia, Burgundy, Neustria and Provence. In 752 he was elected King of the Franks, and reigned till his death in 768. 8. Karolomannus, son of Pippinus, ruled jointly with his brother Karolus Magnus.

3

9. Karolus Magnus, 43 assumed sole rule joint (46) after his brother's death, became Roman Emperor in 800.

741- 747

747- 768 (741- 768)

768- 771

771- 814 (768- 814)

KINGS OF FRISIA In 321 B.C. a line of princes migrated via India to the area of northern Holland and northwestern Germany under their leader Friso. Friso descended from Ragan or Reu (Gen. 11:19) according to "La Grande Chronique ... de Hollande, Zelande" etc., p. 28. Friso was an adventurer in the service of Alexander the Great. After being released from service, he came with a group of settlers from the river Indus to Europe. There he gained power (313) over the local counts by means of intrigue. A descendant, Friso, became king in 287, commencing a secondary line of rulers. Name of King

Length of Reign

Dates

Friso I

68

313- 245

Adel I

(94)

245- 151

Ubbo

(80)

151- 71

Asinga Ascon or "Black Adel" Diocarus Segon, joint during imprisonment of his cousin by Duke of Brabant. Dibbaldus Segon

(81) (35)

A.D. 11- 46

(39)

Tabbo

B.C. 71- 11 A D.

46- 85

(45)

85- 130

DUKES OF FRISIA Ruler 1. Asconius 2. Adelboldus

Length of Reign 43

4. Ubbo 5. Haron Ubbo 6. Odilbaldus 7. Udolphus Haron

130- 173

14

3. Titus Boiocalus

Dates

173- 187

53 59

187- 240 240- 299

36 25

299- 335 335- 360

32

360- 392

After this Frisia again becomes a kingdom. SECOND GROUP OF KINGS OF FRISIA Name of King

Length of Reign

1. Richardus Uffo

43

Dates 392- 435

2. Odilbaldus

35

435- 470

3. Richoldus

63

470- 533

4. Beroaldus

57

533- 590

5. Adgillus I 6. Radbodus I 7. Adgillus II 8. Gondobaldus 9. Radbodus II

82

590- 672

51 14

672- 723 723- 737

12 26

737- 749 749- 775

Frisia, which had already been conquered by the Franks, was made an integral part of the Frankish realm in 775 by Charlemagne. From that time on it was ruled by dukes appointed by the Franks. King lists are derived from "Hamconius" and "Oera Linda Boek." TROJAN KINGS OF THE BELGIANS While the descendants of Hector fled Troy and migrated to France, Bavo led another group into Western Europe. This is the little known story of the royal family that governed the Celts and the Belgians on the Continent. Archaeologists have found a vast cultural complex on the Rhine River and its tributaries. The almost unknown account of this area is preserved to us by Jacques de Guyse in his "Histore de Hainaut," a French translation of his original Latin work of the thirteenth century. (Hainaut is an ancient division of Belgium.) Archaeologists, of course, admit that the Belgian people came from the steppes of Eastern Europe. But just who the people of Belgium, Holland, Frisia, Luxembourg and Northern France are, archaeology has no answer. Yet we do not have to remain in ignorance. History has the answer -- if scholars only had the wit to see. But as with so many records, historians have rejected what they do not want to believe. They have carefully hidden the Jewish-Trojan origin of the royal houses

of Western Europe. The Belgian line commences with Bavo, the son of a sister of Laomedon, king of Troy. Bavo was therefore a cousin of King Priam. Following the fall of Troy a migration into Europe occurred along the Danube. It reached the Rhine by 1179. Bavo, reported Jacques de Guyse, "encountered with pleasure the descendants of the Assyrians who have followed Trebeta, and who had been compatriots of the Trojans and served the same deities" ("Table Generale de l'Histoire de Hainaut," II, page 388). Here, in outline form, is Jacques de Guyse's account of the Belgian rulers after the fall of Troy in 1181. Only the most important details are included from the copious annals of Hainaut. Priest-kings of the Belgians

Length of Reign

Bavo

13

Dates

1179-1166

Bavo the Belgian (Belginius)

44

1166-1122

Bavo the Lion (Leonius)

20

1122-1102

Bavo the Wolf (Lupinus)

50

1102-1052

Bavo Brunus

35

Brunehuldis Bruno

1052-1017

67

1017- 950

36

Aganippus I

950- 914

29

Aganippus II, husband of the British Queen Cordelia.

914- 885 50

885- 835

Audengerius

39

835- 796

Herisbrandus

20

796- 776

With Herisbrand ended the rule of the priest-kings over the Belgians. Political upheaval forced a change in form of government and brought a strong-willed, able warrior to the royal estate. In 776 -the year of the first Olympiad in Greece -- Ursus, whose name means "bearlike," obtained the throne and organized much of continental Western Europe under his power. The Annals of Hainaut give the following account of the kings of Belgium from 776-470. King Ursus

Length of Reign 34

Dates 776- 742

Ursa, daughter of Ursus

1 and a half

Gurguncius (Gurgust in British history).

28

Sisillius (was made ruler over the Belgians while his father governed the Britons).

10

742- 741 741- 713 713- 703

Friscembaldus I

31

703- 672

Friscembaldus II

32

672- 640

Waringerus Leonius

15 10

640- 625 625- 615

Leopardus I

5

615- 610

Leopardus II

30

610- 580

Leopardinus

32

580- 548

A political struggle for two years left the Belgians without a king. Camber

20

Melbrandus

15

Blanduinus

6

Suardus Leo Walacrinus

15 7

546- 526 526- 511 511- 505 505- 490 490- 483

13

483- 470

There followed a number of dukes, annually elected, none of whose names have come down in history. The last, Missenus, whose son came to the throne in 386, is the only one whose name has been preserved. The actual duration of power of the dukes over the provinces of Belgium is traditionally given as 104 years -- evidently from 490 to 386. It therefore appears that they came into prominence with the death of Suardus. The new line of kings which existed until the Roman victory in 52 is as follows:

King

Length of Reign

Dates

Leo I

60

386- 326

Leo II

56

326- 270

Leo III

76

270- 194

Leo IV

96

194- 98

Leo V

20

98- 78

Goomerus

8

78- 70

Taynardus

14

70- 56

Usarius, slain by the Romans in Caesar's campaign of 52. Andromadas

4

6 months

56- 52 52

Rome crushed all Gaul and Belgium in 52. KINGS OF THE CELTS IN GAUL During the period that the priest-kings of the line of Bavo ruled over the Belglans, the Celts in Europe were being governed by another line. This line of kings sprang from Francus, scion of the House of Troy, and last king of the Britons before the coming of Brutus. Francus, according to the historian Freculphe (see Vol. 19 of "Histoire de Hainaut," sec. cclxvii), began a line of kings that ultimately ruled in Gaul. He originally turned over the government of Britain to the Druids (until the time of Brutus). He supported the Trojans against the Greeks. After the Greek victory, he continued to govern the remnants of the Celts along the lower reaches of the Danube basin. An outline of these little-known kings of the Celts is given below. Kings of the Celts

Length of Reign

Dates Francus, his reign in British records extends over another 20 years of Druidic rule before the coming of Brutus in 1149. Sicamber

51

47

1216-1169

1169-1118

Priam II

23

Hector. Hector had three sons: Brabon, Polidamus and Troilus. The lastnamed succeeded him. Troilus

1118-1095 28

22

Trogotus. Trogotus led (76) a migration near the beginning of his reign from Pannonia and Hungary into Gaul. Observe how this record accords with the known migrations about 1040 to Denmark and Scotland and Sweden. (The length of reign of Trogotus is missing, but may with great probability be reconstructed as above. The possible proof will be noted later.) Tongres Teuto

34 32

1095-1067

1067-1045 (1045- 969)

969- 935 935- 903

Agrippa

28

903- 875

Ambrio

33

875- 842

Thuringus

34

842- 808

Camber

32

808- 776

The length of reign of Trogotus given above is indicated by the following. The only known Agrippa in the history of Western Europe at this period of history is the Trojan king of Alba in Italy. Not uncommonly have the kings of Italy and Alba ruled Celtica in Gaul. Jasius did in 1601-1551. A later Silvius came to the British throne (see Vol. I of "Compendium" on British history). This Agrippa could hardly be other than the Agrippa of Italy. Though sometimes assigned 41 years, Eusebius assigns him 40 years in Alba -- 915-875. If Eusebius' figure is used, the 28-year reign of Agrippa over the Celts may be dated 903-875. Then the reign of Camber would be 808-776. It makes sense. Camber reigned until the very year (776) that Ursus began his rule in Belgium. When Ursus came to power he demanded allegiance of

both Celts and Germans. From this restoration it becomes clear that whoever controlled the ancient city Trier (which was then part of Belgium) was in a favorable position to dominate over the Celts of Gaul. A similar situation occurred over 1500 years later when Charlemagne ruled all Western Europe from Aachen, a city near Trier. CHAPTER XII A FURTHER MIGRATIONS TO FRANCE The old Trojan House, of the line of Dardanus, was restored to power after the Greek defeat at Troy in 1149. The Greeks did not preserve the history of this restoration for two reasons. One, they did not want to recall their defeat in 1149. Second, their writers deliberately confused the history of Troy to make it appear that only one great war occurred between the victorious Greek states and the Trojans. This corruption of Trojan history was the direct result of trying to make Greek history conform to a distorted account of Egyptian history. The full story of the royal Trojan House that returned to power in Troy has been preserved -- of all places -- in the records of the Spanish Hapsburgs! The reason? The Hapsburgs were in fact lineal descendants of the House of Troy! A complete list of Trojan rulers after the fall of Troy in 1181 may be found in the original Spanish work by Bartholome Gutierrez entitled: "Historia del estado presente y antiguo, de la mui noble y mui leal ciudad de Xerez de la Frontera." It was published in Xerez, Spain in 1886. A son of Priam, during that fateful 10-year war which ended in 1181, was named Helenus (See "Lempriere's Classical Dictionary," art. "Helenus".) Through him the royal line was preserved in the Near East. Helenus was given, by the Greeks, a part of Epirus. After 1149 his descendants captured control of Troy from the Greeks and the Jewish House of Dardanus was once again restored to Troy. The Spanish history records the following names of his descendants who governed Troy until the Third Trojan War which ended the city in 677. -----------------NOTE: To view the four figures placed here, see these files in the Images\OtherWCG directory: 1. CMPDM2A.TIF 2. CMPDM2B.TIF 3. CMPDM2C.TIF 4. CMPDM2D.TIF ------------------Princes of Troy (with the common Latin endings)

1. Zenter, son of Helenus and grandson of Priam.

9. Zaberian

2. Francus

10. Plaserius II

3. Esdron

11. Antenor I

4. Zelius 5. Basavelian I

12. Trianus or Priam II 13. Helenus II

6. Plaserius I

14. Plesron II

7. Plesron I

15. Basavelian II

8. Eliacor 16. Alexander -- the Paris of the last war against Troy. There were about 17 generations (including Helenus) in somewhat over five centuries or approximately 30 years per generation during this period. Members of the Trojan royal family and most of the population fled to the northern shores of the Black Sea in eastern Europe after 677. For the next two and a third centuries after 677 (the date of the final fall of Troy in a third war) there were the following 12 generations -- averaging about 21 years between generations. None of these men were kings in the strict sense until Antenor, who died in 445. The genealogy of the Jewish Trojan House continues as follows: 1. Priam III, son of Alexander or Paris.

8. Marcomir

2. Gentilanor

9. Priam IV

3. Almadius

10. Helenus IV

4. Dilulius 5. Helenus III

11. Antenor II, who assumed kingly power among the refugees from Troy in Southeastern Europe

6. Plasserius III 7. Dilulius II

12. Marcomir

But, before we continue with Marcomir, the son of Antenor, another part of the story should be told. The 8th century anonymous "Frankish Chronicle" (De Rebus Francorum) states that after the fall of Troy in 1181 about 12,000 Trojans fled by ship across the Black Sea to the mouth of the Tanais. From there they spread to the Maeotic Swamps and as far as the borders of Pannonia. This account agrees very well with the report of Dionysius of

Halicarnassus in his "Roman Antiquities," I, 46, 47, who states that after the fall of Troy "... a larger number escaped than were taken prisoner ... the Achaeans, intent on capturing the citadel, were giving no thought to the pursuit of the multitude who were escaping from the city .... Aeneas abandoned the palace; and opening the gates he marched forth with the rest of the fugitives in good order ... they were joined not only by the inhabitants of Dardanus ... but by the whole populace of Ophyrnium .... this force of the Trojans became a very large one." In other words, a large number of people escaped. Dionysius goes on to state that they obtained permission from the Greeks to travel about unmolested in order to find a new country in which to settle. Aeneas headed to the Greek coast near Thessalonika, and from there southwards to the Mediterranean and Italy. But others took a different route. "... Ascanius, his eldest son, with some of the allies, chiefly Phrygians, (went) to the country of Dascylitis (near the Bosphorus) .... But Ascanius did not tarry there for any length of time ...." He returned to the site of Troy and tried to reestablish the city. Here Dionysius breaks off the account about Ascanius. We know, however, that Ascanius did not remain at the site of Troy, for Virgil and others report him as being with his father Aeneas in Italy shortly afterwards. But what of the Phrygian army that was with Ascanius? It did not go with him to Italy. This could be, however, the army of 12,000 which according to the "Chronicle" settled at the mouth of the Danube. Fredegarius Scholasticus, claiming Jerome as his authority, says that the Trojans fled, some to Macedonia, some to the Danube under a king Friga. Greek historians, like Strabo, generally confirm this exodus to Macedonia, but are silent about Friga. Since this name can mean, in Greek, simply "the Phrygian", this just indicates that the Phrygians, under some obscure Phrygian leader, crossed over to the European shore and settled in Macedonia, Pannonia and near the mouth of the Danube. Fredegarius, the "Frankish Chronicle" and Hugo of St. Victor all agree with "Smith's Dictionary" in stating that the Phrygians settled in that general area of the Balkans. The Macedonians, according to the latter, called the Phrygians Bryges. Gregory of Tours also states that the Franks were originally in Pannonia. From the lower Danube and Pannonia the Trojan Phrygians moved on into Europe. Fredegarius and the later "K"nigschronik" both claim that they moved under a king Franko or Francio to the mouth of the Rhine where they built New Troy at Xanten (a rivulet named after Xanthus, the river of Phrygia). That a New Troy was built at Xanten is attested to by the Romans, who called the town of Xanten Troia Nova. (See "Der Grosse Brockhaus," article "Troia Nova".) In the same way Julius Caesar called the Londoners Trinovantes in reference to their city having been founded as New Troy by Brutus. The original settling of the Franks at the mouth of the Rhine is supported by Procopius: "... the Rhine empties into the ocean ... and this is where the Germans lived of old ... who are now called Franks" (Procopius of Caesarea, "History of the Wars," V, xii, 7, 8). Holland,

in other words, was the first home of the Franks in Western Europe. It is in the region of Scythia Minor that Hunibald, the Frankish chronicler, begins his history. According to him the Trojans, having dwelt in this region for a number of years after the fall of Troy, are finally involved in a series of wars with the Goths from Scandinavia. In 445 B.C. their leader Antenor falls in battle against the Goths. From this point in history begins Hunibald's list of Frankish kings. The Trojans who left Troy in 677 after the Third Trojan War went to the area of the Black Sea where they joined the group that had been led there by Ascanius after the First Trojan War in 1181. Both were Trojans, both went to the northern shores of the Black Sea but, at different times. Both record the same kings as they proceed across Europe. SICAMBRIAN KINGS Kings

Length of Reign

Dates

1. Antenor: a king over Trojan settlers on the Black Sea, himself of royal Trojan blood. Died in 445. 2. Marcomirus I: king of the 28 Sicambri (from the German Cimbri in whose ancient territory they settled). In 441 he brought the people out of Scythia and seated them on the Danube. During a council he was told by a pagan priest to go west where Brutus of Troy had previously gone. A pagan prophecy promises him victory over the Gauls and the Romans. Sends embassy to Saxons and asks for land in which to settle. In April 439 B.C. they leave the lower Danube and move overland, first north, then west, to the mouth of the Rhine. A total of 489,360 persons (including 175,658 warriors but not including slaves and servants) take part. Marcomirus had brothers Priam, Panthenor and Sunno. They settled the

444- 416

country now called West Friesland, Gelders and Holland. Marcomirus crossed the Rhine and conquered part of Gaul. One of his brothers was made governor. Then the conquest of all Gaul was gradually completed. Marcomirus, according to the "Chronicle of Hunibald", dies 926 years before the death of the first Christian king of the Franks, Clovis, in 511. 3. Antenor I marries Cambra, 30 the beautiful daughter of Belinus, king of Britain. She introduces worship of Janus, establishes herself as prophetess and priestess of Diana. From Cambra the Scythian Trojans begin to call themselves Sicambri. Antenor's nephew, Grun, builds Gr"ningen in 386 B.C. Antenor conquered Phrygia -the original Trojan homeland -- and slew all the males. (This recalls Judah's punishment of the Edomites, many of whom were now living in Phrygia.) He died in 386 when Artaxerxes Mnemon, king of Persia, having finished the Cyprian War, led an army of 300,000 men against the Cadusians. 4. Priamus: under him Sicambrians 26 adopt Saxon language, Greek being retained only by priests for purposes of religious worship. Neumagen, near the mouth of the Rhine, becomes seat of Jupiter worship established by Cambra. 5. Helenus I: he erected an oratory to Pallas, whom he worshipped by sacrificing

19

416- 386

386- 360

360- 341

to her captive children. In 353 he slew 16,000 Gauls (Chaldeans) in battle in the land of the Tungri. 6. Diocles: he has wars with 39 both the Gauls and the Goths. In 331 B.C. Goths from Scania attack Saxons, but are repelled by a combined Sicambro-Saxon force. He aided the Saxons against the Goths in 327. In his absence the Gauls invaded his kingdom. By the valour of his officers they were expelled, losing 78,000 men, besides captives and children.

341- 302

7. Helenus II: an effeminate 14 individual, unable to ward off attacks of Gauls. He was deposed in 288, after which 8 years of government under priestly rule followed.

302- 288

8. Bassanus Magnus: the warlike 36 brother of Helenus, liked to present an image of selfrighteousness. So very severe in his laws that he executed his own son for adultery and put away his wife for reviling him for it, and sent her to her father. In his eighth year he built many forts against incursions of the Gauls and finally obtained the full kingship in his possession. In his sixteenth year built the city Bassanburg, where many of his successors had their residence. Trithemius calls this Aix la Chapelle). In 285 B.C, is attacked by father-in-law, king of the Orkneys, but repells him. In 264 B.C. takes over duties as priest of Jupiter, which leads to his ultimate

288- 252

deification as "Theobasan." In 257 B.C. leads a successful campaign as far south as Koblenz. At this time Heligastus, the great prophet of the Sicambri, flourished. Bassanus later conquered from the Saxons all the country from the entrance of the Rhine to Mentz. In year 29 he slew Thaborinus, king of the Togazani (now Westphalians). He put his son on the throne in 252 and then disappeared. 9. Clodomir I: in his third year the Gauls demanded restitution of their lands. Clodomir overcame them by the aid of the king of Thuringia and Saxony.

18

252- 234

10. Nicanor: married 34 Constantina, daughter of king of Britain. In his first year he aided the Saxons against the Slavs and Goths and returned with much spoil. In his third year he aided his father-in-law against the king of the Orcades. In 222 B.C. Sicambrians, Saxons and Thuringians defeat the Goths. In year 15 he was defeated by the Goths from Scandinavia, but afterwards expelled them. In 215 B.C. he aided the king of Britain in a war against the Orkneys, but was unsuccessful because of lack of experience in warfare on the sea.

234- 200

11. Marcomirus II: successfully attacked the Romans, Gauls, Goths in his first year. In his fifth year

28

200- 172

he commanded the acts of the Gauls to be written in rhyme and sung by the bards. 12. Clodius I: in his tenth 11 year the Romans and Gauls wasted his country. Being next year aided by the Saxons, he defeated them, but fell himself in the battle. 13. Antenor II: he concluded a peace with the Gauls for ten years and abolished the Trojan custom of sacrificing his enemies' children.

172- 161

16

14. Clodomirus II: in his 20 tenth year the Gauls broke the peace. They were overcome in 125, the last year of his reign. 15. Merodachus: in his fifth 28 year he levied an army of 220,000 of his own people with Saxons and Germans and entered Italy as far as Ravenna. In his fifteenth year, because of several inundations of the sea and the Rhine, the Sicambri and Cimbri were forced to transplant themselves to the interior -- the Hercynian Forest -- about modern Bohemia. In his twentieth year the Romans and Gauls invaded their territories and set the Goths and Slavs on the Saxons that they might not aid the Sicambri. In year 23 (102-101) the Sicambri joined the Cimbri in a war against Rome. They were all defeated by Marius.

161- 145

145- 125

125- 97

After this defeat Merodachus, with a fresh army, marched against the Gauls, gave them a great defeat and settled again in their old country. 16. Cassander: in his second 21 year the Romans and Gauls entered his kingdom. In his ninth year he aided Arabius, king of the Saxons, against Berobista, king of the Goths, who after five years again invaded Germany. Cassander, aided by Damercus king of the Thuringi, expelled the Goths. 17. Antharius: in his 35 twentieth year some of Caesar's soldiers revolted to the Sicambri, who refused to deliver them up at Caesar's demand. Caesar, in revenge, entered their country and marched all the way to Britain 55-54. In 41 Antharius and 2000 of his men were slain by the Gauls. He was the last "King of the Sicambri". Hereafter the Sicambri were called Franks or Franconians after the name of his son and successor, Francus.

97- 76

76- 41

THE KINGS OF THE FRANKS 18. Francus marries a pagan 28 priestess, daughter of king of Thuringia. In his third year the Goths encroached upon the country and remained there for ten years, after which Francus

41- 13

expelled them. In the fourth year the name of Sicambri was changed to Franci by an edict at the people's request. The next year, being at war with the Goths, the Gauls wasted his dominions. As punishment he levied an army of 300,000 men and invading their country took much spoil and killed 200,000 people of all sexes and ages. The Romans hearing of this victory sent Lollius with forces into Germany. A long struggle with Rome followed. He made a league with the Germans and Saxons after their Roman allies were defeated. 19. Clodius II or Clogio: 30 an astronomer and diviner. This king of the Franconians fought the Romans in his second year. 20. Herimerus: he was slain in battle by Romans and Gauls.

B.C. 13- 18 A.D.

12

18- 30

21. Marcomirus III: a 18 brother of Herimerus. Phrysius, a brother of Marcomirus was governor of Frisia.

30- 48

22. Clodomirus III: he 12 devastated northern Gaul in 55 A.D. He recovered all that his predecessors had lost and fought with the Romans near Mentz and wasted the country of Triers.

48- 60

23. Antenor III: he drowns in the Rhine with much of his army while retreating from Gaul.

6

60- 66

24. Ratherius: he renewed 21 the league with the Germans and Saxons in 74. He founded Rotterdam and was buried there.

66- 87

25. Richimerus I: he was 24 strongly religious and even became a pagan high priest. In 97 he repelled a Gothic attack on Saxony. He sent 18,000 settlers under son Sunno into Saxony to secure it against Goths. He fought with the Romans and Gauls near Basana (now Aix-laChapelle) in 99. He received aid of Winderchind, king of the Saxons, and Verminfrid, king of the Thuringi, in 101. He opposed the Goths who invaded Germany. The Franks, Germans and Saxons planted colonies in that part of Germany, which is now called Brandenburg, in 106.

87- 111

26. Odomar: made a league with the Romans and Gauls. Founder of Utrecht and builder of Odemarsheim in 117.

14

111- 125

27. Marcomirus IV:marries Athilde, daughter of the king of Britain His son, Frank, builds Helenopolis (Frankfort), another son becomes pagan priest. He rebuilt Marburg in the Landgraviate of Hesse.

21

125- 146

28. Clodomirus IV:marries Hasilda, daughter of the king of Rugen.

17

146- 163

29. Farabertus: he renewed the

20

163- 183

ancient league with the Germans. In his reign the Dutch (Niederl"nder) are first mentioned. 30. Sunno or Hunno:warred with the Romans and Gauls. Upon the death of the Emperor Severus, in 211, he entered Gaul and wasted it with fire and sword.

28

31. Hildericus: he built a 40 castle on an isle in the Rhine and called it Hildeburg, 214. Introduced a period of cultural and architectural expansion.

183- 211

211- 251

32. Bartherus: the Franks attacked in 256 -- the year the last Odin invaded Saxony and led many of the tribes of Israel to northwestern Europe. Raids of Franks, Thuringians and Bavarians continue to 259 in Gaul and Italy. In 262 Franks and Saxons carry a raid as far south as Tarragona, which they besiege. They spoiled Italy, as far as Ravenna, 264 and razed the town of Aragon to the ground, 267.

18

251- 269

33. Clodius III or Clogio: in 283 he entered Gaul, and having slain many Romans, recovered some of that which he had formerly lost. But, the Romans again expelled him in 289.

27

269- 296

34. Walter 35. Dagobertus I

8

296- 304 11

304- 315

36. Clodius IV or Clogio: the Romans and Gauls invaded Franconia in 317. Clogio was slain in battle.

2

315- 317

37. Clodomirus V: brother of 18 Clogio IV. Sends in 322 A.D. 30,000 colonists to river Main and establishes Dukedom of Franconia which survives under 21 Dukes till Pepin the Short. He aided the Sarmata against the Romans, of whom he slew 36,000 in 321. The Franks were now permitted to resettle themselves where Holland, Utrecht, Gelders, part of Friesia, Westphalia and Brabant now lie. The Franks now split, the East Franks settling in Germany. Their dukes are listed later. 38. Richimir II: opposed Constantius with 200,000 men in 342. He fought with the Romans and was slain in battle in 348.

317- 335

13

39. Theodomirus: makes Tongres his capital, attacks and burns Trier. Was taken by the Emperor Julian, who slew him and his mother. 40. Clodius V or Clogio: to 18 revenge his father's death he took Cambray, slew many Romans, entered Gaul and annexed much of it (as far as the Sagon River) to his dominions. In 369 Valentinian I defeats him by surprise attack. Pepin and Charlemagne are descended from this king's third son, Hector.

335- 348

10

348- 358

358- 376

41. Marcomirus V: the last 15 "King of the Franks" until reign of Pharamund. He obtained a great victory over the Romans at Cologne in 382 and recovered all that the Emperor had possessed, except Armorica or Little Brittany, in 390. He was slain in battle in 391. The Romans overpowered the Franks, commanded them to elect no more kings but dukes, in the reign of Theodosius the Great. 42. Dagobert II: appointed governor (not king) after the death of Marcomirus, refuses Romans tribute. Valentinian II admires courage of Franks, is unable to retaliate because otherwise occupied and finally killed by Arbogast a Frank.

5

43. Genebaldus: also a mere governor, dies without heir.

21

44. Pharamundus: he is the 5th duke of Franconia and was elected king.

7

376- 391

391- 396

396- 417

417- 424

45. Clodius VI: teaches Franks to wear hair long to distinguish them from Gauls.

20

424- 444

46. Meroveus: after whom Franks were called Merovingians Takes Trier, makes great gains in Gaul.

12

444- 456

47. Hildericus II: this 1 appears to have been a joint year with Meroveus, his father. At death of Meroveus the son was deposed

455- 456

by Egidius and rebellious nobles. Hildericus II flees to Thuringia. Egidius: a Roman, set up 3 by nobles in place of Hildericus. He was deposed. Hildericus: reinstated.

456- 459

22

459- 481

48. Clodoveus or Clovis: 30 accepts Roman Catholic religion. Baptized in 496 A.D.

481- 511

DUKES OF THE EAST FRANKS Duke

Length of Reign

1. Genebald I: brother of Clodomlr IV, migrated with East Franks to the upper Rhine and became their first duke. 2. Marcomer 3. Claudius 4. Marcomer II

30

322- 352

21 10

Dates

352- 373 373- 383

16

5. Pharamund became king of 15 the West Franks in 417. He is reckoned by early historians as the first king of France. In 424 the succession passed to Clodion who founded the Merovingian Dynasty. Its kings all wore long hair. They kept their kingly office until the Pope suggested to the East Franks (Germans) that they could gain the power over the Merovingians by cutting the king's hair. The last Merovingian was accordingly tonsured. The government thereafter passed to Pippin, father of the German king Charlemagne, who

383- 399 399- 414

restored the Roman Empire in the west in 800. The history of the Merovingians, who descended from the Trojan line and the house of Judah, is made especially interesting in a book entitled "The Long-haired Kings," by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill. (See especially chapter 7.) The Merovingians recognized that though they came from Judah, they were not of the throne of David and would hold their power only so long as they kept a Nazarite tradition -- long hair -symbolizing their subjection to a Higher Power -- God -- who rules supreme among men. (See Numbers 6.) 6. Marcomer III: Pharamund 14 with 414- 428 ruled in Franconia or Pharamund East Frankland 399-414; he ruled all France from 4 sole reign 428- 432 417 till 424. Marcomer III, Pharamund's brother, ruled in Franconia until Pharamund died in 428 (see "Mirror of History"). 7. Priamus

12

8. Genebaldt II 9. Sunno

432- 444

20

444- 464

23

10. Clodius II: a West Frank, became duke of the East Franks (Germans).

464- 487 16

487- 503

11. Clodomir

21

503- 524

12. Hugbald

26

524- 550

13. Helenus

30

550- 580

14. Gottfried

24

580- 604

15. Genebaldt III

20

604- 624

16. Clodomir II

23

624- 647

17. Heribert

30

18. Clodoueus III

12

19. Grosswert

677- 689

26

20. Gosspert 21. Hetan

647- 677

689- 715

14

715- 729

20

Interregnum under Pepin

729- 749 12

749- 761

The succeeding history of the Franks is so well known and thoroughly documented as to be everywhere available. Hunibald's chronicle helps clear up misunderstandings about the Franks presented by the incomplete accounts of other medieval writers. Tyro Prosper (Augustine's friend), for instance, contradicts practically every other ancient historian by stating that the first king of the Franks was Priam, the father of Marcomir, Sunno and Genebald, who lived around 382 A.D. This Priam was none other than Dagobert II (391-396). Priam was another of Dagobert's names. Dagobert had three sons Marcomir, Sunno and Genebald. He was the first governor (i.e. first ruler of lower rank than king) of the Franks. Tyro Prosper obviously did not have all his facts straight. Another great misconception about the Franks is an alleged migration from Pannonia in the days of emperor Valentinian. The "Frankish Chronicle" and Hugo of St. Victor both state that Caesar Valentinian attempted to exact tribute from the Franks living in Pannonia, after these had helped him defeat the Alani. The Franks, refusing to pay, were eventually forced to leave Pannonia and settle at the mouth of the Rhine. Some loopholes in this story are immediately evident. First of all, Roman history is silent about any dealings with the Franks or other Germans in Pannonia in the days of Valentinian. Secondly, Valentinian I was emperor in the West, and died in an expedition against the Quadi. He was never active in the East. The same is true for Valentinian II, in whose reign the co-emperor Theodosius defeated a league of Huns, Goths and Alans in Moesia. This incident may possibly be partly responsible for the story that the Franks helped Valentinian to defeat the Alans. Hunibald again comes to our aid. He informs us that both the Valentinians fought against the Franks in the West, not in Pannonia. Valentinian I fought against Clogio V in 369. It was Valentinian II, in the West, who tried to impose the tribute on the Franks in the reigns

of Marcomirus V and Dagobert II. The chroniclers probably confused Priam (Dagobert II) and his sons Marcomir, Sunno and Genebald, with the original migration from Pannonia under Marcomir I and his brothers Priam, Panthenor and Sunno. As a result of this confusion, the migration was misplaced by some 700 years. Again, this just serves to demonstrate how valuable Hunibald's account is in presenting us with the true picture. There is a bit of difficulty regarding the name Sicambri by which the Franks were for a while known. Hunibald states that it was derived from Cambra, the wife of Antenor I. The "Frankish Chronicle," Hugo of St. Victor and Aethicus Hister maintain, on the other hand, that Sicambria was a city near the shore of the Black Sea and that from it the people were called Sicambri. Aethicus Hister, the Scythian geographer of c. 650 A.D., relates in his "Cosmographia" the interesting fact that Caracalla -- whom he calls Romulus -- encountered some Franks in the vicinity of Troy in 214 A.D. Aethicus states that after occupying the area of Troy (see also Dio's "Roman History" 78.16.7) Caracalla "fought with Francus and Vassus, who were of royal descent, and they were defeated .... For Francus and Vassus had concluded an alliance with the Albani (Goths) and they were both moving their armies against Romulus (Caracalla); they crossed Histria (the region of Istria on the Dalmatian coast) .... After the most bloody encounter Romulus defeated them. When Francus and Vassus saw that their armies had been cut down they fled with a few who remained ... the land was ruined, laid waste and reduced to desolation; they were driven from their own belongings and together with a few companions ... entered Raetia and reached uninviting and deserted Germany ..." Here we have a small group of Franks moving into Germany. Could this be where the chroniclers mentioned earlier got their idea of a migration under a Francus? A little later Franks again appear on the lower Danube, but this time as settlers actually brought in from Germany by Probus (276-281). Zosimus relates in his History: "But the Franks having applied to the Emperor, and having a country given to them, a part of them afterwards revolted, and having collected a great number of ships, disturbed all Greece; from whence they proceeded into Sicily, to Syracuse, which they attacked, and killed many people there. At length they arrived in Africa, whence they were repulsed by a body of men from Carthage, yet they returned home (to the Rhine) without any great loss" (Book I). This adventurous excursion is also mentioned by Vopiscus and Capitolinus. Hunibald's Chronicle is from Johannes Trittenheim, "Chronik von der Francken Ursprung," Frankfurt, 1605. THE HAPSBURGS ENTER What connection have the Austrian Hapsburgs with the Trojan kings of the East Franks? Much more than historians today recognize. From Pharamond, king of the Franks, came a princely line of rulers who

intermarried with Austrian royalty. This line is preserved in the "Historia de Xerez" by Gutierrez, From Pharamond descended: Clodion Merovius Childeric Clodovius Clotarius, whose son Sigibert became a king in Austria Sigibert Childubert, king of Austrasia and Burgundy Theodobert, king of Austrasia Ligibert, duke of Austrasia Othobert, count of Altemburg Amprinetus Hectobert Rampert Guntramus I Luiffridus I Luiffridus II Hundifridus Gumtramus II Bertus Rapatus, whose son became count of Hapsburg Werner, count of Hapsburg Otho Werner II Werner III

Albert I Rudolf I Albert II Rudolf II: of Hapsburg, who became Holy Roman Emperor in 1273. THE DUKES OF GAUL At the end of the First Trojan War in 1181 still another group left Troy. These Trojans were led by Franco the son of Hector. The story of their migration to Gaul is extant. It is found in a medieval French chronicle -- "Le Myreur d'Histoire" ("The Mirror of History"). This line of rulers is preserved from France to Clovis. (NOTE: To view the chart placed here, see the file CMPDM2E.TIF in the Images\OtherWCG directory.) Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Franco I: he left Troy 10 with Aeneas and Antenor. They sailed to Sizille (probably Sicily). Franco traveled to Italy and North Africa. Then with 3,000 of his followers he settled in southern Gaul. They called the area Franche. The people were sons of Franco or Franchois. After his death they were known as Gauls.

Dates 1181-1171

2. Melus: a son of Franco. 51 He rebuilds Troy in 1145. His daughter, Odela, married Silvius the king of Italy.

1171-1120

3. Bosses: a son of Melus. He defeated Ascanius, king of Italy, in a battle. Bosses later married Grata the daughter of Ascanius. This may have settled the dispute between them.

1120-1096

24

4. Ector I: he was the 16 grandson of Broncus. Broncus was a son of Silvius and Odela. Ector founded Troy in Burgogne.

1096-1080

5. Alemaine: son of Bosses. He conquered all Germany and fortified many cities. Allemania, a section of Germany, derives its name from him. 6. Castor: founds the city of Castre. Died in a fight with Silvius, king of Italy.

22

30

1080-1058

1058-1028

7. Ylion I

40

1028- 988

8. Alienoir

28

988- 960

9. Gossain

12

960- 948

19

948- 929

10 Ector II 11. Athanaise

21

929- 908

12. Franco II: married 10 Ydoneas the daughter of Agrippa king of the Latins. 13. Yborus I: son of Franco II and Ydoneas. He had a war with his cousin, the king of Italy. Founded Lutesse. 14 Anthenoire I

15

17

15. Yolens: he conquered Cyprus. 16. Prian I

908- 898

883- 866 43

26

17. Yborus II: he repelled two attacks on Gaul from Amulius king of the Latins. His daughter, Oderne, married Gaffre

898- 883

866- 823 823- 797

22

797- 775

the king of Africa. After Yborus died Amulius married his widow. 18. Ector III

50

19. Ylion II: he founded Limoges. 20. Nay: he founded Turnay.

775- 725 40

725- 685 34

685- 651

21. Alymodes: he married the 74 daughter of a Roman senator. He was victorious in a war with the Roman king Priscus. One of his children, Aquitaine, gave his name to the region in France.

651- 577

22. Orlins (Aurelian): built 54 and gave his name to Orleans. 23. Avrengnas: Auvergne derives its name from this ruler. 24. Yborus III

14

40

27. Flandroc

469- 441

48

33

28. Turrus (Turnus): founded Tours. That section of France called "Touraine" derives its name from him.

523- 509

509- 469

25. Frisones: Frise in 28 Champagne is named after him. 26. Flambo: the Gauls took Rome as far as the capitol during his rule.

577- 523

441- 393

393- 360 59

360- 301

29. Brugen: Bruges was founded by him. His brother Amyrus founded Amiens.

25

301- 276

30. Duanus (Duaynus)

16

276- 260

31. Camberacion: founded

55

260- 205

Cambray. 32. Bretanges: Brittany is named after him. 33. Cletus

10 22

195- 173

34. Franco III: he joined the Flemish and Burgundians against Rome. The Romans under Scipio were defeated. 35. Prians II

205- 195

53

173- 120

56

120- 64

36. Yborus IV: Julius Caesar invaded Gaul and took Paris while he ruled. 37. Franco IV

40

28

38. Trojolus (Troielus) I

B.C. 24- 5 A.D. 29

39. Cloberius (Cloveius)

5- 34

45

40. Ector IV: he defeated the Romans and captured Emperor Domitian.

64- 24

47

34- 79 79- 126

41. Franco V: he was made duke of the Gauls by the Sicambrians.

25

126- 151

42. Anthenoir II: he was duke of Gaul and count of Flanders.

31

151- 182

43. Ector V

5

182- 187

44. Franco VI

8

187- 195

45. Troiolus II

27

195- 222

46. Marcones I: wars were fought in which the Romans lost nearly 30,000 soldiers.

44

222- 266

47. Ector VI; the Germans held Paris for a short time.

16

266- 282

48. Porus: Diocletian was defeated by the dukes of Gaul and Brittany. Martin Bishop of Tongre baptized Porus. 49. Marcones (Merones) II

19

282- 301

32

301- 333

50. Anthenoir III

10

51. Ector VII

1

343- 344

32

344- 376

52. Prian III 53. Marchones III

333- 343

under regent 7 376- 383 joint with son 34 383- 417 sole (31) (383- 414)

KINGS OF FRANCE 1. Pharamond 2. Clodius 3. Meroveux

11 20 10

417- 428 428- 448 448- 458

4. Celdris

23

458- 481

5. Cloveis

30

481- 511

These are kings after Marcomirus V (376-391). Compare this list with that from the "Chronicle of Hunibald." IN RETROSPECT Historians would have us believe that Western Europe was inhabited by wild and barbarian Celts and Germans while Rome flourished in power and glory. But, the evidence proves that civilized people migrated to Gaul and the Low Countries centuries before the founding of Rome. In 1181 Troy fell to the Greek invaders. Franco, a son of Hector, fled to Southern Gaul. His group was later known as Gauls. Caesar subdued them during campaigns in Aquitania and Provence. Bavo and his followers arrived in Belgica in 1179. They were known as Belgians or Batavians. Another migration leaving in 1181 was led by Francus. They ultimately reached Celtica. The Celts lost their independence to Ursus (Belgian king) in 766. In 52 Caesar conquered both Gaul and Belgium.

Francio began a movement which eventually settled in Pannonia. One of their rulers, Brabon Silvius, was given Agrippina by Julius Caesar. In 378 A.D. Gratian drove the Sicambrians out of Pannonia. Maximus allowed them to migrate to Brabant. Clodius, king of the Franks, annexed Brabant. Thus, Brabon became a servant and Brabant a dukedom. Trojans under Ascanius (1181) and Alexander (677) joined each other on the Danube. The trek across Europe began in 445. By 439 they reached the mouth of the Rhine. The Sicambrian and Frankish kings ruled the Trojans there. During the reign of Clodomirus V (317-335) the Franks split (East and West). Marcomirus V was the last king of the Franks until Pharamund. CHAPTER XIII HISTORY OF SWEDEN AND THE SAXONS The Swedes, too, have a remarkable history which modern critical historians have largely rejected. Rejected, not because the historians have disproved the facts, but because they simply do not want to believe the records. Who today would believe that there was an Odin? -- a god who made his appearance among the Swedes and Saxons? The idea would be laughed out of school because there were no gods! It seems never to have occurred to historians that" the heathen would have called a flesh-and-blood king a god -- and deified him. Has the twentieth century already forgotten a man named Hitler whom the German Propaganda Minister Goebbels called "Mein Fuehrer und mein Gott" -- "My Fuehrer and my God"? THE RECORDS SPEAK Let Swedish history speak for itself. The early chronicles and sagas of the Scandinavians reveal a remarkable story. The regnal lists give us the time setting The story they have to tell does not agree with the modern concept of northern barbarians who had no sense of history until perhaps nine or ten centuries after the Christian Era. History writers have been so enamored of Rome that any record not preserved by the Romans is looked upon as unhistorical. What is unhistorical is the view that the Romans preserved all that merits the name history. Rome did not preserve. Rome destroyed. And anyway, of what interest would the history of Scandinavia have been to Roman circus-lovers? In the Middle Ages Swedish writers began the process of digesting the mass of information preserved in their early chronicles and sagas. Among them the name Bertius should be especially named. Bertius' "History of Sweden" has been in part, though not altogether correctly, summarized by James Anderson in his "Royal Genealogies."

The early history of Scandinavia is a remarkable confirmation of the Biblical record and of the early history of the German and Mediterranean peoples. It begins with the story of the dispersal of the families of the earth by Noah. It was this God-decreed event against which Nimrod rebelled. Why should people not be free to go where they pleased? After all this was their earth! Or so he thought. From Persian and Italian history it has already been determined that the migration to various parts of the world began in 2261. Swedish chronicles trace the history of this migration and of the peoples who have since inhabited Scandinavia. The story opens with the migration of Magog out of the region of Ararat or Armenia. The family of Magog at first settled in the vast reaches of the Eurasian steppes. From there most of his descendants spread north and east through Bactria and Turkestan into Mongolia and China. A few spread northwest -- by 2260, says Bertius -- into the North Russian plains and the lands bordering on the Baltic. At this very day may be found a semi-Mongoloid people -- the Lapps -- inhabiting the Scandinavian Arctic with their reindeer. Sweden was also inhabited in early times by Goths -- whom all writers admit were the children of Gether, the son of Aram. Now notice the chronological record of these early events from Bertius outlined here: 1. Magog

43

2. Suevus or Sweno, the older brother of Gether. His Biblical name is Uz, the father of the Suevonians, Ausonians and Sitonians (see Gen. 10:23). 3. Gether, younger son of Aram 4. Ubbo, who settled Upsal Significantly, the date 2101 also brings Noah into Italy again. The year 2000 is the time of the division of Europe by Tuisto, king of the Germans. 5. Siggo

10

2260-2217 56

60 101

2217-2161

2161-2101 2101-2000

2000-1990

Danish history declares that from this date -- 1990 -Scandinavia, and in particular Denmark, had Judges, rather than kings, who governed for the space of 950 years. It was exactly 950 years until 1040 and the coming of king Odin -- Danus I of Denmark (see Danish history). Swedish history continues with names of famous Scandinavian Judges -- in some cases they assumed the royal title. Bertius lists them as

follows: 6. Eric I, began in 1990 7. Uddo

11. Biorn I 12. Gethar II

8. Ale

13. Siggo II

9. Osten I

14. Berich or Eric

10. Karl or Charles I MIGRATION OUT OF SWEDEN Berich became king in 1511 according to Bertius. He ruled the Goths 40 years. According to Jordanus, the historian of the Goths, Berich led them out of Scandinavia to the Middle East. This is also the period of the sudden appearance in Mesopotamia of the Gothic people -the Guti. (At that time, as in later days, the Goths were widely scattered. Many had settled in the regions of Bactria northeast of Mesopotamia; others had been in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia.) Berich or Eric appears in Greece in the Athenian list of kings. There his name is Erichthonius He came to power in Athens the year of the Exodus -1487. After Berich, Bertius' Swedish history preserves only one other name -- the fifteenth in order -- Humulf. He is called the successor of Berich. Swedish history does not pick up again until the time of Humble, son of Danus I of Denmark. At this point in Swedish history Bertius has placed his list upwards of between two and three centuries too early. His confusion arose from misunderstanding who Danus I of Denmark was. There was an earlier Danus -- in the 1200's. He led the Tuatha De Danaan (who had come from Greece in the time of Jabin king of Canaan) from Scandinavia to Scotland and then into Ireland. That Danus was not Danus I of Denmark. RENEWED MIGRATION Swedish history recommences after the period of judges, just after the time of Danus I. Danus led a Hebrew-Trojan migration to Northwestern Europe. Properly restored from a comparison with contemporary Danish history, Bertius' list of Swedish rulers should appear as follows: 16. Humble, son of Danus I of Denmark. The figure and date at the right are from Danish

(8)

(999- 991)

history Bertius gives no figure. 17. Gothlias

(40)

(991- 951)

18. Sigtaug

33

951- 918

19. Scarin

40

918- 878

20. Suibdager, king of Norway. 60 He ruled Denmark for 40 years

878- 818

21. Hasmund, son of Suibdager

818- 770

22. Uffo, son of Hasmund 23. Hunding

44

770- 726

48

24. Regner, son of Hunding and younger brother-in-law of Frotho I of Denmark. 25. Hotobrod, son of Regner He was associated with his father on the throne during a period of Danish domination of Sweden. 26. Atilla I

48

49

726- 678 29

65

678- 649

678- 613

613- 564

27. Hothar, king of Sweden and 78 Denmark Hothar is usually dated 527-485 in Danish history. And his son Roric in Denmark is given 49 years -- 485436, But the list of Danish kings in "Historisch -- und Geographisches" Lexicon by Jacob Iselin, art. "Danemarck," assigns 50 years to Roric -486-436. This confirms the Swedish dating. The year 486-485 was the climax of a Danish revolt against Hotobrod. 28. Roric 84 He reigned jointly with his father for many years, while his father governed

520- 436

564- 486

Denmark. 29. Attila II, or Atisle

30

30. Botwildus, son of Attila II

436- 406 42

406- 364

31. Charles II

48

364- 316

32. Gramus

--

316-

From here on there is no record of the lengths of reign of any Swedish ruler until the time of Augustus Caesar. The political divisions of the country probably acknowledged no supreme ruler over the whole of the land. Only the following list of names is recorded for the intervening period. 33. Tordo I 34. Gotharus 35. Adolphus, son of Gotharus 36. Algodus I 37. Erich II 38. Lindornus, son of Eric II 39. Alrich or Abric He became king of Sweden in the days of Augustus Caesar. Following his murder Eric III ascended the throne. 40. Eric III 22 18 B.C. to A.D. 5 Bertius gives the longer (or 79) 75 B.C. to A.D. 5 figure, which must indicate that a lengthy struggle for the kingship occurred in the days of Alrich and Eric. Hereafter there is a consecutive list of kings. The political stability of Sweden returned. Swedish history now continues to the time of Njord or Nearch -256. The following list of Swedish kings may be readily found in James Anderson's "Royal Genealogies." Unfortunately the author failed to take note of no Year 0. Consequently all these Swedish kings are dated one year too early! The corrected dates are below.

41. Godrich

30

5- 35

42. Haldan I

36

35- 71

43. Filmer

14

71- 85

44. Nordian

16

85- 101

45. Siward I

31

101- 132

46. Charles II

38

132- 170

47. Erich IV

12

170- 182

48, Haldan II (Bergiamus), died without heir

13

182- 195

49. Unguin 9 He ruled Denmark 146-155. He came to the Swedish throne in his old age.

195- 204

50. Ragwald

17

204- 221

51. Amund I

5

221- 226

52. Haron

9

226- 235

53. Siward II

6

235- 241

54. Ingo I, Gylfe 6 Odin appears in his day. 55. Nearch or Njord

241- 247 9

247- 256

DYNASTY OF YNGLING 56. Froda or Frey called Yngve

2

256- 258

57. Urbarus

5

258- 263

58. Ostevus

1

263- 264

59. Fiolmus

10

264- 274

5

274- 279

60. Swercher I

61. Waland or Vanland

4

279- 283

The Yngling family began to reign in 256, the year Saxon history (which will appear at the end of this chapter) brings the family of Odin to Northwestern Europe. The people whom Odin brought originally came from Asaheim -- the home or land of God ("the gods" in pagan Swedish terminology). Many writers have placed the migration of this period three centuries too early. They have confused another Odin -Danus III (146-77) -- with this later Odin. 62. Wisbur

6

63. Domalder

19

64. Domar

7

308- 315

22

315- 337

65. Attila III

283- 289

66. Dignerus or Dygve

5

67. Dagerus or Dag 68. Alricus

24 2

337- 342 342- 366 366- 368

69. Ingemarus I

11

70. Ingelderus

4

71. Germundus 12

73. Egilus

6

368- 379 379- 383

5

72. Hakon

383- 388 388- 400 400- 406

74. Gotharus or Ottar 75. Fasto

289- 308

16 6

406- 422 422- 428

76. Gumundus

6

428- 434

77. Adelus

4

434- 438

78. Osten II

16

438- 454

79. Ingemarus II

2

454- 456

80. Holstenus

5

456- 461

81. Biornus II

4

461- 465

82. Ragwaldus II

17

83. Swartmannus

28

465- 482 482- 510

84. Tordo II

1

510- 511

85. Rodulf

17

511- 528

86. Hatinus

21

528- 549

87. Attila IV

16

549- 565

88. Tordo III

18

565- 583

89. Algodus

24

583- 607

90. Godstagus 91. Arthus 92. Hakon II

24 19

607- 631 631- 650

21

650- 671

93. Charles IV

6

671- 677

94. Charles V

9

677- 686

95. Borgerus

15

686- 701

96. Eric V 97. Tordo IV

17

701- 718

47

718- 765

98. Biorn III

16

765- 781

99. Alaric II

33

781- 814

100. Biorn IV

11

101. Bratemunder

814- 825 3

825- 828

102. Siward III

15

828- 843

103. Heroth

14

843- 857

104. Charles VI

12

105. Biorn V

15

106. Ingold

8

857- 869 869- 884 884- 892

107. Claus I

9

892- 901

108. Ingo II

7

901- 908

109. Eric VI

19

908- 927

110. Eric VII

14

927- 941

111. Eric VIII

40

941- 981

112. Olaus II, the Lap-king

38

981-1019

113. Amund II

21

1019-1040

114. Amund III

2

1040-1042

115. Hakon Ruffus

13

1042-1055

DYNASTY OF STENKIL 116. Stenchil

5

1055-1060

117. Ingo II, first Christian 5 king of Sweden and Gothland. 118. Halsten 119. Philip

1060-1065

16

1065-1081

30

120. Aquin or Ingo IV

1081-1111 19

1111-1130

Ingo is said to have been poisoned in 1125. A struggle for the throne ensued. As there was no direct male heir of the house of Stenkil, the descendants on the female side of the family claimed right to rule. 121. Ragnald, king of the Upper Swedes during period of confusion. 122. Mangus I, a Danish prince, king of West Gothland

4

1130-1134

123. Swecher II, chosen in 1133, began to reign in 1134 (see "Encyclopaedia Britannica," eleventh edition, art. "Sweden"). Most thorough histories on Sweden are complete and accurate from this period. A helpful work to consult is the "History of Sweden" by Cronholm. Some dates may vary because the end of reign does not always mark the date of death.

SAXON HISTORY Saxon history is intimately tied to the history of Denmark and especially Sweden. The Saxon throne in England today goes back to the same royal lines that anciently governed Denmark and Sweden. Each ultimately stems from the Jewish Trojan House of Darda or Dardanus. Let us pick up our investigation of this Jewish royal family that came from Troy to Denmark under Odin or Danus I in 1040. In the chapter on Danish history the records of Iceland and Phoenicia proved that Jacob or Israel was the ancestor of the ancient Trojan royal house. From Israel the line descended through Judah and Zarah to Dardanus. Dardanus carved out an important inheritance for himself at Troy. The lineage of Dardanus is brought down after the first fall of Troy for several generations to Sceaf or Odin (Danus) in the Icelandic records. From the Danish royal house the following branch sprang, giving rise to the Saxon royal house that today governs England. This collateral line is preserved in the old "Saxon Chronicle" and in the Icelandic Langfedgatal. Spellings vary slightly, and not every generation is recorded in each. For that matter neither did Matthew record every generation of Jesus' lineage. This list commences with Shem, son of Noah and continues with Sceaf or Odin I (1040-999) Beadwig

Beu Gearwa

Wala

Fingondwelf

Hathra

Frederewelf

Itermond Heremod Celdwa

Freolf Fredewald Woden (256-300)

This Odin -- only a part of whose ancestors appear above -- is a famous hero in all Scandinavian literature His fame rests upon having led a vast multitude from the Near East, on the borders of the Roman Empire, to Northwest Europe. The real name of Woden was Bodo. He is found also listed among the early princes of Saxony The following list preserves the traditional chronology and genealogy of Bodo's immediate ancestors who ruled the Saxons to the time of Bodo the Woden. Kings Over the Saxons 1. Harderich

Lengths of Reign 93

Dates

90 B.C. to A.D. 4

2. Anserich 3. Wilke I

4

4- 8

22

8- 30

4. Svarticke I

46

30- 76

5. Svarticke II

4

76- 80

6. Sigward 7. Witekind I 8. Wilke II 9. Marbod

20

80- 100

6

100- 106

84

106- 190

66

10. Bodo or Woden 44 His queen was named Frea.

190- 256 256- 300

From Bodo sprang, among many others, the following princes after 300: 11. Witte I

50

300- 350

12. Witte II

50

350- 400

13. Witigislus

34

400- 434

14. Hengist

14

434- 448

Hengist traditionally sailed to England in 449 and established several sons on thrones over the various divisions of the Anglo-Saxons. They finally united into the single royal house that now, through many intermarriages, rules the British Isles. In his continental realm Hengist left his son Hartwaker who ruled 32 years -- 448-480. The line continued in Saxony in Germany until Witekind II, the Great -- 768-785. Witekind was conquered by Charlemagne in 785. CHAPTER XIV THE HISTORY OF ARABIA Arabia may be blanketed by arid plateaus and inhospitable deserts. But Arabia is also a vast land inhabited by many different tribes. Few have ever compared it with Europe. Many of the great nations of Europe would be lost in Arabia's solitudes. Arabia also has its past history -- one which joins together and confirms the accounts of neighboring nations. Arabia borders -- by land

and sea -- on Mesopotamia and Persia, on Syria and Palestine and on Egypt and Ethiopia. Whatever happened in the heartland of the ancient world inevitably affected the trade routes of Arabia. WHO WERE THE FIRST ARABS? The most famous name in Arabian history is that of Ishmael. Ishmael, Abram and Hagar's son, is the progenitor of most of the Arab world. Then why are not the people called Ishmaelites today? Why do we not call the peninsula of Arabia the peninsula of Ishmael? How did Ishmaelites acquire the designation Arab? Answer: the land was already known as Arabia before Ishmael was born! The word Arab is derived from the Hebrew root "arab." It means evening, dusk, and also sterile (desert). The vast arid land of Arabia lay immediately to the west and south of Babylonia from whence human beings spread after Babel. It was only natural that they should call the land which lay to the west Arabia. As they migrated in Arabia they called the land to the south Yemen. Yemen means right and south (cf. the Biblical Ben-jamin) -- because in the Middle East people face east (not north) in defining directions. Any who dwelt in this vast peninsula came to be known as Arabs. In fact, one of the earliest heroes in Arabia came to be known simply as Yarab -- the Arabian. His real name was Jerah, the son of Joktan. And with him we open the history of Arabia. A simple account of Arabian history may be found in "Universal History," Vol. XVIII. It is immediately noticed that Arabian emphasis is on heroes, not time. Events can be dated only to contemporary generations. Only Yemen has an accurate chronology. This weakness is still witnessed in the Islamic calendar. It is lunar, but not solar. It neglects the seasons and loses seven months in nineteen solar years. Arabian history opens up before the time of Ishmael, as one might readily expect. It begins with the life of Joktan, the son of Heber. The Arabs call Joktan by the name Kahtan. Joktan was the father of thirteen sons mentioned in the Bible, eleven of whom journeyed into Europe where their descendants mainly live today. Several of those sons early planted colonies along the trade routes of the world -- just as have the children of Peleg, Joktan's brother, in the modern world. Among the sons who planted colonies along south Arabia were Hazarmaveth, Jerah and Hadoram (whom the Arabs call Jorham). Ophir also planted colonies in other areas of the world. In later history the sons of Hazarmaveth migrated out of Arabia, joined with the Elamites and journeyed into Europe after the fall of Persia. There they came to be known as Sarmatians. THE JORHAMITES OF HEJAZ The children of Hadoram or Jorham founded Hejaz. There princes

reigned until the time of Ishmael, who is said by Arabian historians to have married the daughter of Modad, a daughter of one of the princes of Jorham's family. The family of Ishmael afterward expelled the Jorhamites from Arabia. The names of the early princes of the Jorhamites have been preserved by Arab historians. Their account is summarized here: 1. Jorham, the brother of Yarab, founded Hejaz; he is Hadoram, the brother of Jerah. 2. Abd Yalil, the son of Jorham. 3. Jorsham, the son of Abd Yalil. 4. Abdo'l Madan, the son of Jorsham. 5. Nogailah, the son of Abdo'l Madan. (Note the name Medan at nearly the same time in Abraham's family.) 6. Abdo'l Masih, the son of Nogailah. 7. Modad, the son of Abdo'l Masih. 8. Amru, the son of Modad. 9. Al Hareth, brother of Amru. This name will appear again, though much later, in the form of Aretas, the king who sought to lay hands on the apostle Paul at Damascus. 10. Amru, the son of Al Hareth. 11. Basher, the brother of Amru. 12. Modad, the son of Amru, the son of Modad. It was his daughter whom Ishmael married, according to Arabian historians. His other wife his mother chose out of Egypt. Thereafter the name of Kedar (Kidar in Arabic) appears. Kedar was the son of Ishmael by the daughter of Modad. After the conquest of the Jorhamites, the family of Kedar continued to rule over the Hejaz for nine generations until Adnan, the last one named. There follows a blank period of about 1200 years, after which the Ishmaelites reappear under another leader called Adnan in 122 B.C. One branch of his descendants later established themselves as the Sherifs of Mecca. King Hussein of Jordan is their direct descendant. THE KINGDOM OF YEMEN

In Arabia, at the southwest corner, is the modern Yemen -- Yaman in Arabic. It means south. It is a land of many diverse tribes -- many non-Ishmaelite. Yemen was founded by Kahtan -- the Joktan of the Bible. Yemen anciently controlled the entrance to the Red Sea from the Indian Ocean. Hence its early importance to the Hebrew family. Hamza Ben-el-Hasan of Isfahan has preserved the history and chronology of Yemen to the time of Mohammed. The best summary of his work is found in "Geschichte der Araber vor Muhamed" by August Ruhle von Lilienstern, Berlin, 1836, pp. 103 ff and especially Tafel I. Rulers of Yemen

Length of Reign

Dates

1. Kahtan or Joktan, first (His brother Peleg was established his rule in born 2268) Yemen, then went into Europe where he was known as Hister (meaning same as original Hebrew JOKTAN). 2. Yarab, son of Kahtan, from whom the Kahtan Arabs of the south derive their origin. His Biblical name is Jerah. 3. Yashab, son of Yarab. 4. Abd Shems, surnamed Saba, son of Yashab. He led successful expeditions against enemies in the peninsula. In 1978 he expanded his power across the Red Sea into Ethiopia, where he established himself as the head of a new Joktanite dynasty. In Ethiopian history he is known as Akbunas Saba. Abd Shems had several sons, among whom were Hamyar, Amru and Cahlan. Cahlan succeeded his father on the throne in Ethiopia in 1923 under the name of Nakehte Kalnis. 5, Hamyar, son of Abd Shems, began his reign, according

(See Ethiopian history for dates)

150

1709-1559

to Abulfeda, 129 years after the death of Hud (whom Arabs say is Eber). Hamyar drove the remnant of the Themudites or Troglodytes out of Yemen. These were later found by Greek Geographers on the African shore of the Red Sea. 6. Wayel, son of Hamyar, succeeded to the kingdom. Other writers mention Cahlan -- which implies a division of land among the princes. 7. Alsacsac, son of Wayel. 8. Yaafar, son of Alsacsac. 9. Dhu Rujash. At this point it ought to be noted that the number of generations over so long a period corresponds almost exactly to the Biblical record from Abraham to David. There were 14 generations in the Bible in just under 1000 years. As in the Biblical record the inheritance often passed to a son born late in life (as in the case of David, the youngest son of Jesse). 10. Al Numan, son of Yaafar. 11. Ashman, son of Numan. 12. Shaddad, son of Ad, son of Al Matata, son of Abd Shems. He was a very powerful prince in Arabic tradition He lived during the time of the great Hyksos expansion in the Middle East. Arab tradition claims he ruled 260 years. 13. Lokman, brother of Shaddad.

14. Dhu Sadad, brother of Lokman.

-1150

15. Al Hareth, son of Dhu 125 Sadad. In his time Yemen became immensely wealthy. Reason? The Trojan war. With trade shut off from Scythia, it was inevitable that there should be an expansion of commerce along the southern route.

1150-1025

16. Dhu'l Karnain Assaab. (Joint reign with successor who is assigned entire period.) 17. Dhutl Manar Abrahah, son of Assaab.

183

18. Africus, son of Dhu'l 164 Manar Abrahah. His name signifies the connection between Egypt, Ethiopia and South Arabia at this time. He settled North Africa with Berbers from Palestine and Egypt. 19. Dhu'l Adhaar Amru, son of Africus, made foreign expeditions.

1025- 842 842- 678

25

678- 653

75

653- 578

20. Sharhabil, descendant of Alsacsac. (Joint reign.) 21. Al Hodhad, son of Sharhabil.

22. Balkis, son of Hodhad. In 20 some Arabic sources his name is confused with Belkis -- the Arabic name for the Queen of Sheba. 23. Nasherol'neam, descendant of Sharhabil. 24. Shamer Yaraash, son of Nasher. He gave his name

85 37

578- 558

558- 473 473- 436

to Samarkand in Central Asia. At this time there must have been extensive migration of Edomites and Joktanites out of Arabia into Central Asia, around Turkestan. 25. Abu Malec, son of Shamer.

55

436- 381

26. Amran, son of Amer, descendant of Cahlan, the brother of Hamyar. 27. Amru, son of Amer (both brothers reign jointly, but the chronology is reckoned after the reigns of Abu Malec and Al Akran). 28. Al Akran, descendant of Abu Malec.

53

381- 328

29. Dhu Habshan, son of Al Akran.

70

30. Tobba, younger brother of Al Akran.

163

258- 95

31. Colaicarb, son of Tobba.

35

95- 60

32. Abu Carb Asaad (Tobba). He is mentioned in the Koran. He revived religious interest among the Arabians and Hamyarites. He adorned the Kaaba, the sacred stone building at Mecca, and introduced Judaism among the Hamyarites, The Arab historian Ibu Khaldun reports that Abu Carb sent large military expeditions into Central Asia. Two of these reached Tibet and China, where they caused a great blood bath. On the way back many warriors of the Hamyarite armies settled in Tibet. Tribes using the

20

328- 258

60- 40

Hamyarite alphabet were still found in that region in modern times (Marquart, "Osteurop"ische und Ostasiatische Streifzüge", p. 84). Abu Carb was murdered, possibly for religious reasons. 33. Hassan ben Tobbai, son Abu Carb.

70

34. Amru Tobbai (Dhu Lawad), son of Hassan. 35. Abd Celal

40 B.C.- 31 A.D. 63

74

31- 94 94- 168

36. Tobba, grandson of Hassan.

78

168- 246

37. Al Haroth, son of Amru. (Joint reign.) He was king of Hamyarites who embraced Judaism. 38. Morthed, son of Celal, also surnamed Dhu Lawad.

41

246- 287

39. Waciaa, son of Morthed.

37

287- 324

40. Abrahah, son of Alsabah (Joint reign). 41. Sabban (Joint reign). 42. Sabbash (Joint rule with Abrahah).

15

43. Hassan, descendant of Amru (Joint rule with Sabban).

324- 339 57

339- 396

44. Dhu Shanater. He was finally dethroned for unnatural lusts, having abused several youths of the noblest families.

27

396- 423

45. Yusuf Dhu Nowas

20

423- 443

46. Dhu Jadan, the last of the Hamyaritic monarchs.

60

443- 503

He sought to enforce Judaism in opposition to Christianity. The Ethiopians, with help of Byzantium, defeated Dhu Jadan. He perished in the sea, fleeing from the Ethiopians. Ethiopia ruled Yemen for the next 72 years (503-575) until the Persian conquest. 47. Arnat

20

48. Abrahah

23

49. Iecsoum (Yacsum) 50. Masruk

503- 523 523- 546 17

12

51. Seif Ebn Dhu Yazan, a descendant of the old royal family of Hamyar, recovered the throne from the Ethiopians with the aid of the Persian Khosru Anushirwan. Seif was, however, slain by certain Ethiopians whom he had failed to expel. After 575 the Persians appointed princes until the time of Mohammedan conquest of Yemen.

546- 563 563- 575 575

Arabian historians reckon 3000 years to the end of the Kingdom of Yemen. And it is indeed exactly 3000 years from the end of the Flood to the death of Mohammed in 632, when the government of Arabia passed to the Ishmaelite caliphs, the successors of Mohammed. ARABIA'S INDIAN OCEAN NEIGHBORS To complete Volume II, we must recount the brief history of Arakan, in Burma, and the history of early India before 1649. The Arakanese, in Burma, have preserved a remarkable history going back to the Tower of Babel. The initial part of it was cited in the early history of Peru. A continuation of that chart is given below. It traces the migration of peoples out of Mesopotamia into the Ganges valley. For several centuries after the age of Horus (Maradzi II of Arakanese history) there are Hindu names ending in -sandra in the list of rulers. Abruptly the names change. There followed a migration of

Southeast Asians out of India into the area of Arakan along the Burmese coast. During the time in India the early Hindu rulers utilized the nonaccession-year method of dating. That is, the last calendar year of a king (during which he died or was deposed) was also reckoned as the first calendar year of his successor. This same method was used in the nation Israel to the time of Jehu -- in contrast to the accession-year system of Judah. Arakanese records fill in the missing years of Indian history to 1649. Properly restored from the palm-leaf records, their early rulers appear as follows: Maradzi II (Horus)

Marakeng

Ngatshapo (a usurper)

33 2004-1971, Babylonian accession-year reckoning Year 1 1971-1970 Year 32 1940-1939, early Indian nonaccessionyear reckoning Year 1 Year 21

1940-1939 1920-1919

Dwaratsandra

Year 1 1920-1919 Year 40 1881-1880

Tholatsandra

Year 1 1881-1880 Year 33 1849-1848

Tsandathuriyatsandra Year 37

Year 1 1849-1848 1813-1812

Kalatsandra

Year 1 1813-1812 Year 40 1774-1773

Titsandra

Year 1 Year 31

Madhuthatsandra Year 20

1774-1773 1744-1743

Year 1 1744-1743 1725-1724

Dzeyatsandra

Year 1 1725-1724 Year 40 1686-1685

Mokkhatsandra

Year 1 1686-1685 Year 26 1661-1660

Gunnatsandra

Year 1 1661-1660 Year 12 1650-1649

Three Usurpers in one calendar year.

1650-1649, ending early Indian nonaccessionyear reckoning

At this point the names of kings ending in -sandra cease. The succeeding centuries of Indian history may be found restored in Volume I of the Compendium. The migration in 1649 of Mongoloid peoples out of India to Arakan in Burma was a consequence of the war with Assyria in 1649. CHAPTER XV THE MIRACLE OF THE RED SEA Did the children of Israel really cross the Red Sea? We are told in the Bible that Israel fled Egypt during the Days of Unleavened Bread. That they were driven out because the Egyptians had been supernaturally punished by God. But at the last minute, Pharaoh changed his mind! It took yet another miracle to deliver the children of Israel out of Egypt, says the Bible -- the "miracle of the Red Sea." Did this miracle really happen? DO MIRACLES HAPPEN TODAY? It is time Christians recognized it takes a miracle today to separate from this world, to come out of this world's society, and to live as God has ordained! Those who say that the miracle of the Red Sea did not happen are the same people who today say we do not have to rely on any supernatural power to overcome this world. The supreme lesson to be learned from the Days of Unleavened Bread is that, after Christ has passed over our mistakes and overlooks our past, we have to go through a period of separating from this world -and in this process we cannot extricate ourselves from this world without a divine miracle. This miracle is something that God, not man, has to perform -- just as God performed, according to the Scripture, the miracle of the Red Sea! God told the children of Israel, "Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord." Now consider the story of what really took place during the seven days of Unleavened Bread -- from the time the children of Israel left the land where they observed the Passover to the time they crossed he Red Sea. Modern critics have all kinds of theories as to the directions the

children of Israel took when they journeyed in Egypt from the city of Rameses, where they met at the night of the Festival, to the Red Sea. One sometimes wonders where the children of Israel would have been taken had all the modern critics instead of Moses led them from Pharaoh! What portion of the land of Egypt did Israel journey through upon leaving? What is the route of the Exodus? Did the crossing of the Red Sea really occur? BACKGROUND OF THE STORY The background of the story is found in Genesis 15:18. "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates." Is this "river of Egypt" the Nile? Some modern critics tell us "no." They claim it is, instead, a dry river bed, which flows only in the winter, in midst of the Sinai peninsula. But the Bible plainly declares it is the River of Egypt, not the river of the Sinai peninsula. It is not the river of the Philistines. It is the river of Egypt! There is only one river of Egypt -- the Nile. God gave Abraham's descendants dominion to the river of Egypt, not a dry river bed in the middle of the Sinai desert. His descendants -the British and other Western Europeans -- built the Suez Canal. The very fact that God used Israel to bulled the Suez Canal is in itself proof that the children of Israel should possess the land of Egypt about Suez to the Nile! Certainly from fulfilled prophecy the river of Egypt is the Nile -- Joshua 15:4. This Scripture tells us that the border of the land in the south "passed toward Azmon, and went out unto the river of Egypt; and the goings out of that coast were at the sea: this shall be your south coast." Also in verse 47, "Ashdod with her towns and her villages, Gaza with her towns and her villages, unto the river of Egypt, and the great sea, and the border thereof." In I Kings 8:65 we find the same border: "And at that time Solomon held a feast, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath (near the Euphrates) unto the river of Egypt" celebrated a festival. Now we want to find out if God ever caused the children of Israel to possess the territory east of the Nile. Was the land east of the Nile ever possessed by the children of Israel? WHERE IS GOSHEN? Notice what the Egyptians themselves promised for the children of

Israel because of what Joseph did for them. Here is what we find in Genesis 45:10, "And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen," says Joseph to his father at Pharaoh's command, "and thou shalt be near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and thy herds, and all that thou hast." Jacob and all of the family of Israel could dwell in the land of Goshen. But -- where is the land of Goshen? Modern scholars tell us that it is a small, semi-desolate area east of the Nile halfway between the Nile and the Suez Canal today. This is supposed to be the land with which God blessed Jacob in the land of Egypt. Because critics have assumed this is the land of Goshen, they cannot believe that there were 600,000 Israelite men, beside women and children, at the time the exodus occurred. Of course in this area which the scholars tell us is the land of Goshen, there couldn't have even been 6,000 men, beside women and children, with all of their cattle. The fact is, scholars haven't understood where the land of Goshen is. Genesis 46:28 tells us more of the story. "And he (Jacob) sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct his face unto Goshen." Jacob was coming down from Beersheba in Palestine into Egypt. "And they came into the land of Goshen. And Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up (northward) to meet Israel his father, to Goshen, and presented himself unto him." Did you notice that Joseph was not in the land of Goshen? Joseph dwelt where Pharaoh was. And Pharaoh was at Memphis, the capital of lower Egypt. "Joseph made ready his chariot, AND WENT UP TO MEET Israel his father." He went up to Goshen. He was going NORTH. Therefore, the land of Goshen was NORTH of the capital of Egypt at this time. Now verses 33 and 34 of Genesis 46: "And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation?" -- Joseph instructs his father to say this -- "That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers; that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians." Egyptians often hired foreigners to tend to their cattle. So the purpose was to have the children of Israel dwell in the land of Goshen to tend cattle there. Chapter 47, verge 5 continues the story. "And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee: The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle." Did you notice that Pharaoh said to the children of Israel, "The land of Egypt is before you, the best of the land, the land of Goshen." This is the portion of Egypt that Pharaoh is actually turning over to the children of Israel because of what Joseph did! Remember, God told Abraham that his descendants were going to

control land to the river of Egypt -- the Nile. This is how God began to fulfill that promise! Now to verse 10: "And Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from before Pharaoh. And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded." The best of the land, in verse 6, is called "the land of Goshen," while in verse 11, it is called "the land of Rameses." Obviously, then, the land of Goshen and the land of Rameses are the same! It is the best of all the land of Egypt. THE LAND OF RAMESES One of the titles belonging to rulers of Egypt was "Rameses." This title, one of several applied to the rulers of Egypt, existed from the beginning of Egyptian history -- long before the Pharaoh "Rameses the Great" of history, who actually began to reign in 773 (see Vol. I of the Compendium). Ancient Egypt was a feudalistic world. In feudalism the king claims theoretically to own everything He leased the land out to his princelings and lords (who lease parts of their land to others of still lower rank), but the king reserves a certain portion for himself. Pharaoh naturally reserved the best land for himself -- the land of Goshen. It belonged personally to Pharaoh. So Pharaoh was not taking land leased to his lords. He is granting this territory to Joseph, who was next highest in the kingdom, for his service. The fee for receiving the land of Goshen of Rameses is stated in verse 6 "And if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over MY cattle." Where were Pharaoh's cattle? In the land of Goshen, the land of Rameses. Pharaoh knew that if Joseph could bless all Egypt as he had done, his family would also be bound to bless his own stock. But in so doing, the Egyptians granted the right of the children of Israel to this territory. And by command of their ruler all the land of Goshen, the land of Rameses, is given to the children of Israel -- as partial fulfillment of God's promise that Abraham's seed should extend to the river of Egypt, to the Nile. GOSHEN DURING THE PLAGUES Continuing the story with Exodus 8:22. Another dynasty has risen up; Moses is dealing with a new Pharaoh. One of the plagues is about to occur: "I will sever in that day," God says, "the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou (Pharaoh) mayest know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth. And I will put a division between my people and thy people: tomorrow shall this sign be." And this sign did occur, "... the Lord did so" (verse 24). These flies contaminated and plagued all the land of Egypt where the

Egyptians were, but the flies did not plague the land where the children of Israel dwelt. The land of Goshen is a particular territory where the children of Israel were dwelling. This was the land that had once belonged to the royal house. God makes a separation between that land and the rest of the land of Egypt. Verse 26, chapter 9 tells us almost the same thing: "Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel were, was there no hail." Now to Exodus 12:29, the night of the Passover. "And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt" -- this was midnight on the 14th day -- "from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon (or the prisonhouse) and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said. Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also. And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said (if they were to stay there any longer), We be all dead men." In verses 34 and 35 the story continues. "The children of Israel next night -- the 15th of Abib -- having "spoiled the Egyptians" and driven their cattle, the Israelites came to the city of Rameses. Stop for the moment and consider these facts. God told Moses, "Go not out of your houses until the morning." Moses and Aaron naturally would have remained in their house this night -- all of the night of the 14th. But Pharaoh, who was not a firstborn son, came out of his house by night to find Moses and urge him and all Israel to leave. Modern critics tell us that Pharaoh at this time lived in the city of Thebes in upper Egypt, the land of ancient Sheba. But they are all wrong! Pharaoh's headquarters was at the city of Memphis. The ruling dynasty in Moses' day came from Xois in the Delta, but the capital of all lower Egypt was at Memphis. This is where the government administration originated. It was at Memphis that Pharaoh that night rose up and went to Moses, and said, "Get out of the land and all your people, and he was urgent on them." Pharaoh could not have been far from where Moses was. That very night, he saddled his camel and went to Moses and Aaron! Wherever the children of Israel observed the Passover was a place very near the city of Memphis! Remember, Israel dwelt in all the land of Goshen, but they had assembled in one particular area to keep the Passover. From this area they journeyed on the daylight part of the 14th of Abib to the city of Rameses, and met there the next night, the night of the 15th! THE NIGHT OF THE EXODUS

"The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle" (Ex. 12:37-38). From here the children of Israel left on the night of the 15th! (Deut. 16:1). Numbers 33:3 makes it even plainer. The children of Israel "departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians." Between the morning after the Passover and the next night, "the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians Jewels of silver, and Jewels of gold, and raiment: And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them," that is, paid them, "such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians," that is, they took their wages that the Egyptians withheld from them for nearly two centuries. Then they gathered at Rameses. Where was this city? Let us read what Josephus plainly tells us. Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews", Book II, Chapter XV. "So the Hebrews went out of Egypt, while the Egyptians wept, and repented that they had treated them so hardly ... Now they took their journey by Letopolis, a place at that time deserted, but where Babylon was built afterwards, when Cambyses laid Egypt waste." So Rameses was the city of Letopolis, which later under Persian rule, was called the city of Babylon. Did you know there was also a Babylon in Egypt as well as in Mesopotamia where Nimrod started his kingdom? (NOTE: To view the chart placed here, see the file CMPDM2F.TIF in the Images\OtherWCG directory.) What city is this today? Josephus, writing in Greek, calls this the city of Letopolis -- a Greek name for Rameses. Polis means city in Greek. A metropolis is a "mother city." So Letopolis was the city of Letona -- one of the names of Semiramis or Easter, the Queen of Heaven. It is the same from which Latin has come. So this was one of the cities dedicated anciently to the Queen of Heaven. No wonder it was also called Babylon later! "Smith's Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography" says of the city of Babylon in Egypt that it "is in later times called Fostat OR OLD CAIRO, a fortress in lower Egypt on the right bank of the Nile exactly opposite to the pyramids of Giza, and at the beginning of the canal which connected the Nile with the Red Sea. The city of Rameses, built by the children of Israel in honor of the Pharaoh, was Letopolis, the very city which today the Mohammedans call Old Cairo! Notice the accompanying map. God gave the children of Israel the land all the way to the Nile River. The land east of the Nile toward

Palestine was the land of Goshen. That's where the cattle of Israel were grazing. The capital city of lower Egypt was Memphis. That is where Pharaoh had his court. The children of Israel, when they assembled in Rameses, were assembling at Old Cairo. Since they reached Rameses or Old Cairo on the night after the Passover, they must have assembled for the Passover a little to the south of Old Cairo -- near Memphis, Pharaoh's capital. Memphis is on the west side of the Nile. Old Cairo is a little farther north on the east of the Nile River. Old Cairo is but a suburb of modern Cairo today. It is just an old section of town. Most visitors are not even permitted today to see Old Cairo because it is such a ramshackle place -- though it is not as deserted today as the children of Israel found it then. That is why they met there -- because there weren't Egyptians living in that area. Many Bible maps cannot be relied upon. They disagree with each other and with the Bible. The producers of these maps do not use the Bible as evidence, but their human theories instead! Josephus at least should know as much as the scholars today. And when you put his evidence with the Bible, it's very clear that it had to be near the city of Memphis where they kept the Passover! As the congregation of Israel were leaving northward they gathered at the city of Rameses, which Josephus calls Letopolls -- Babylon or Old Cairo in Egypt. ISRAEL BUILT PYRAMIDS Israel naturally had their headquarters near Memphis because at Memphis, the Egyptian orders were issued. That is the region where the pyramids were built. Interestingly enough, as we go through the account of Josephus we find the following surprising facts. Josephus tells us in his "Antiquities of the Jews" (Book II. Chapter IX) that the children of Israel "were forced to channel (make channels for the river), to build walls for the Egyptians and make cities and ramparts .... they set them also to build pyramids (after the pattern of the Great Pyramid), and by all this wore them out ..." The majority of the pyramids start from Old Cairo and go south, not north. The children of Israel must have labored in the area centered at the region of Old Cairo and on south throughout the heart-land of Egypt. Notice a plain statement in the "Imperial Bible Dictionary" (published in England, Volume 5, subject, "Rameses"): "Immediately south of this region of Old Cairo there is an area where there were ancient quarries in a rocky mountain, from which much of the material for the pyramids was procured, and in which the poor Jews are said by Manetho (an Egyptian historian) to have worked." This confirms what Josephus tells us in his work entitled "Apion", Book I, Chapter 26. Near these quarries on the east of the Nile

opposite Memphis is an area called "Mera-vad-Musa, or the 'Habitation (or dwelling) of Moses.' " Moses was the leader and as he communicated back and forth with Pharaoh it is logical that opposite Memphis, where many of the lesser pyramids were built, Moses should have his headquarters -- to this day bearing the name, "the Habitation of Moses." Now continuing with the "Imperial Bible Dictionary": "From thence (that is, Mera-vad-Musa or the "Habitation of Moses") they moved northward, passing, as Josephus says, by ancient Babylon or Old Cairo, and then by or over the city of modern Cairo, proceeding along the direct route to the land of Canaan, as far as Succoth, or Berket el Hadj, the 'Pool of the Pilgrims' ..." "Succoth" merely means booths -- or an encampment. It was there Moslem pilgrims, to this day, can go from Egypt over to Mecca, the holy city of the Mohammedan religion. It is on the way that led out of Egypt to the wilderness of the Red Sea. But let us go on to Numbers 33 and read the rest of the account. "And they departed from Rameses (Old Cairo) in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month ... and went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians. For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the Lord had smitten among them: upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments. And the children of Israel removed from Rameses, and pitched in Succoth. "And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness. And they removed from Etham, and turned again (literally turned back) unto Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah." The miracle of the Red Sea! Did it really happen? WHAT ROAD DID ISRAEL TAKE? Now let us pick up the story with Exodus 13:17: "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines." Here we have the first of several highways named. In ancient Egypt there were major roads which went out of Egypt. One was "the way of the Red Sea" which was southeast from the Delta. Another was "the way of Etham," or "the wilderness of Shur" which went from Egypt through Beersheba. It was the road by which Jacob came down into Egypt. The third is "the way of the land of the Philistines" which went up from the coast through Gaza by the Mediterranean. See the accompanying map. As Israel was proceeding north through Old Cairo, they could have easily taken the way, or the highway of the Philistines -- the Philistine highway. Many assume that this road must have been by the Mediterranean.

They are wrong! The way of the land of the Philistines extended far into Egypt. While the Israelites were still in Egypt, they could have traveled by the road that led northward to the land of the Philistines. But, instead of taking that, near as it was, God said, "Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and return to Egypt," God led the people about through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea. This is another road. This is the most southerly of the three major roads in Egypt. Instead of taking the northerly route which would have taken them through the land of the Philistines, or the middle route in an easterly direction through Beersheba, they took the road leading southeast into Sinai and Arabia. God led them, not straight north, but through the way of the Red Sea. This is the common road that even to this day the Moslem pilgrims take to the holy city of Mecca in Arabia. It is a road that has been used from the very beginning of time when human beings have dwelt in the land of Egypt. Continuing: "And the children of Israel went up harnessed (or, in ranks of five) out of the land of Egypt" marching up the road. "And Moses took the bones of Joseph (perhaps from the Great Pyramid just west of Old Cairo?) with him: for he had straightly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you. And they took their journey from Succoth," the first stopping point on this road which went toward the Red Sea. And from there, they took their journey "and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness (of Sinai)." At this point, they could have gone straight out of Egypt into Sinai, and Pharaoh never could have caught them! All they had to do was to follow the road just as the Arabs do today -- out of Egypt through the Sinai peninsula down through Arabia to Mecca. Here they were at the border of Egypt, just north of the Red Sea, not by the Mediterranean. What happened next? Now "the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night" (Ex. 13:21). It took them the seven days of Unleavened Bread to leave Egypt altogether. God "took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people" (verse 22). "And the Lord spake unto Moses (Ex. 14:1-2), saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn (don't continue, but turn sharply to the right) and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea." They now camp by the seashore. WHERE ARE THESE PLACES? The "Imperial Bible Dictionary" tells us again. "Pihahiroth, therefore, must have been the name of some natural locality, such as a mountain, or a range of mountains, a cliff,

precipice, cape or promontory. It is said of the children of Israel, when (they were) overtaken by Pharaoh at the Red Sea, that they were entangled in the land, being shut in by the 'wilderness' or mountains (Ex. 14:3)." Israel could not have gone farther in its line of march. Pharaoh had them bottled up in front of the Pihahiroth range of mountains! Did God make a mistake in leading them by the hand of Moses? Israel ended up on an area at the upper portion of the Red Sea by the Gulf of Suez where there is a huge mountain range that comes right down to the sea. When they got into this area, it was like entering a bag. They could not go any farther by land. The only place they could go was out into the water because the mountain range comes right down to the seashore. Opposite Pihahiroth was Baalzephon. This must have been a city where Baal was worshipped. Zephon means "the north." This was "Baal of the North" -- the Baal that comes down from the north pole, clad in red and white every December 25! This was the ancient seat of Santa Claus worship. They also camped near Migdol. Where was it? Trumbull, in his book called "Kadesh-Barnea", page 377, reveals something about the city of Migdol: "A short distance to the northwest of Suez ... there is a station, or a pass, known as El Maktal" -- the Migdol. "It is directly on the line of the Hajj, route." The Hajj is a modern Arabic term for "the way of the Red Sea." The modern El Maktal is "near the track noted ... as the 'Way of the Bed'ween into Ancient Egypt.' " "Wilkinson judged 'from its name and position,' that this represents 'the Migdol of the Bible.' " As they encamped before Pihahiroth, which is a mountain range, and Baalzephon, then Baalzephon was on the north, and Pihahiroth was the mountain range on the south. Then between Migdol, in the west, and the Red Sea, in the east, there is an area large enough for the children of Israel to be bottled up. The Red Sea is nearly 8 miles across here! There is a very extensive area -- many thousands of feet wide -- which could have opened up for the children of Israel to cross. CROSSING THE RED SEA Let's continue with Exodus 14:3: "For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in." And God hardened Pharaoh's heart, "And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel." Pharaoh overtook them camping by the Red Sea on what probably was the sixth day of Unleavened Bread. The Israelites were now frightened. They said in verse 12, "Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians. For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wildernese. And

Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever. The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace. And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward" -- into the water? No! Notice: "But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea." The miracle was wrought when Moses stretched his rod forth. The sea parted thousands of feet wide! Then the winds came in to drive back the waters and to build them up as a wall on either side! Now verse 21: "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back." It was a miracle! Contrary to seasonal weather a strong wind blew "all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his charlots, and his horsemen. And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And took off their chariot wheels, that they drove them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them against the Egyptians. And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their charlots, and upon their horsemen. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it." Here was an area wide enough for 600 chosen chariots of the Egyptians to race through, beside a great many troops in order to capture the nearly 2,000,000 Israelite men, women and children. Verse 28, the waters "returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea ... Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses." EGYPT LEFT DESOLATE Pharaoh was dead. His army was slain. There was not one left. There was not even a solitary messenger to tell the Egyptians what happened (Ps. 106:11). Read Exodus 15:4: "Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea. The

depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone. Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy." God won the battle for the children of Israel. They were delivered out of the land of Egypt. They now rested on the peaceful shores of Sinai, where even today such names as "Ayn Musa" and "Ras Musa" testify to the Exodus. (See the map.) Not one of the Israelites perished, but all the Egyptians who pursued were overthrown. Josephus adds some vivid details to the same story! "The number that pursued after them was six hundred chariots, with fifty thousand horsemen, and two hundred thousand footmen, all armed. They also seized on the passages by which they imagined the Hebrews might fly, shutting them up between inaccessible precipices and the sea; for there was ... a (ridge of) mountains that terminated at the sea, which were impassable by reason of their roughness, and obstructed their flight; wherefore they there pressed upon the Hebrews with their army" ("Antiquities of the Jews", Josephus, Book III, ch. xv, sec. 3). A few verses in Psalm 77 are worth reading at this point. "I will remember the works of the Lord: surely I will remember thy wonders of old. I will meditate also of all thy work, and talk of thy doings" (verse 11). What were God's doings? We find them in verse 16: "The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water: the skies sent out a sound: thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook. Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known. Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron." Thunder and rain and great lightning shook the land that night. In early morning the waters just poured in on Pharaoh as his chariot became stuck in the mud at the bottom of the sea -- and he is there to this day! Psalm 78 also tells us a little about it. Verse 12: "Marvellous things did he in the sight of their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan." The word "field" here is properly translated elsewhere as "country" or "kingdom." The "land of Egypt" is "the field," or "the country," or "the kingdom of Zoan." Zoan gave its name to Egypt because it was the earliest city built in Egypt (Numbers 13:22 says that it was built 7 years after Hebron and was apparently the first city built in post-flood Egypt). The country of Egypt was named after Zoan just as Israel was often named after Samaria, or Judah was named after Jerusalem. The miracles that God wrought were in the land of Egypt -- in the land of Zoan. They mean the same thing! These miracles did not occur in some obscure field outside the city of Zoan near the Mediterranean! EGYPT'S HISTORIANS ADMIT WHAT HAPPENED

That is the story of the miracle of the Red Sea. And it is corroborated from the Egyptians' own record of history! From the Exodus forward, Egypt was for almost four centuries overrun by Amalekites (or Hyksos, the Egyptian word for "shepherds") and punished for having enslaved the Israelites. Even as late as the days of Saul and David the Amalekites dominated Egypt. In I Samuel 30 David meets an Egyptian slave led by his Amalekite master to die in the wilderness. "And David said to him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me ..." (verse 13). The ancient Egyptian historian Manetho admits all this: "There was a king of ours whose name was Timaus (a petty dynast) at the time of the Exodus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts (the Amalekites), and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with them ..." ("Against Apion" by Josephus, Book I, Part 14). So the historical record of Egypt, when rightly understood, confirms the Bible. There was neither Pharaoh nor army left to defend the country! They disappeared in the Red Sea without leaving a trace. Not until the days of King Saul did Egypt recover her former power. The miracle of the Red Sea did happen! The Bible is true! CHAPTER XVI JOURNEY TO PETRA Why should the valley through Petra be named after Moses -- if Moses was never there? Could it be that Moses and the children of Israel actually assembled in Petra before entering the Promised Land? Why are so many chapters in the Bible devoted to the minute details of the journey of Israel from Egypt to Palestine? Have these chapters hitherto undisclosed historical meaning? AFTER MOUNT SINAI -- WHERE? Today, almost no one supposes Israel ever saw Petra. Yet not more than two centuries ago it was common knowledge among scholars that Moses, Aaron, Miriam and the children of Israel journeyed through Petra! Now notice what really happened when Israel was about to leave Mount Sinai. It is found in Numbers 10:11-12. "And it came to pass on the twentieth day of the second month, in the second year (after the Exodus), that the cloud was taken up from off the tabernacle .... And the children took their journeys" -- the original Hebrew reads "set forward by stages" (Jewish translation) -- "out of the wilderness of

Sinai; and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran." From Numbers 9:15 to 23, we learn that the encampments of Israel were determined by the movement of the cloud above the tabernacle. When the cloud was stationary, the people abode in their tents. When the cloud ascended and moved forward, the people followed it. The Eternal -- the God of Israel, who later came in the flesh as Christ -- was in that cloud! He was leading Israel. He determined their movements. Where did He take them? To "the wilderness of Paran," says Numbers 10:12. But where is Paran? Men assume it may mean the Sinai Peninsula, southwest of Palestine. They are only guessing! They don't really know! Where does the Bible say it is? First, let's understand what the word "Paran" means. "Young's Concordance" gives the surprising definition: "Full of caverns." Paran comes from the Hebrew root meaning "to dig out," or "to cut out," according to the "Encyclopaedia Biblica"; hence, "to embellish or decorate" ("Strong's Concordance"). Here is a wilderness famous for a place in it which is full of caverns or caves! -- embellished or decorated with tombs! Is this place Petra? We shall see. Certainly no city is more famous for its beautifully carved caves than Petra! Notice also that Ishmael -- the ancestor of the Arabians -- "dwelt in the wilderness of Paran" (Genesis 21:21). It does not say he dwelt in Sinai. The scripture reads Paran. And where is the ancestral home of the Arabs? In Arabia, east of the Sinai Peninsula! That indicates that the wilderness of Paran borders on Arabia! Now turn to Numbers 12:16. Note what it says -- the children of Israel pitched their tents "in the wilderness of Paran." From here Moses sent the twelve men to spy out the land of Palestine. "And Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran according to the commandment of the Lord" (Numbers 13:3). After forty days "they came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh" (Numbers 13:26). Kadesh is a city (Numbers 20:16). WHAT DOES "KADESH" MEAN? Why was this city called "Kadesh"? In Hebrew, the word Kadesh means "holy." (See "Young's Concordance".) What made the place holy? God did! God is holy. God dwelled in the cloud over the tabernacle. The cloud abode in the wilderness of Paran in Kadesh. God's presence sanctified the city and gave the name Kadesh to it. Kadesh has more than one name. In the book of Numbers, God commanded Israel to go up and possess the land, beginning from "Kadesh" (Numbers 13:26). But in Deuteronomy 9:23 we read: "Likewise when the Lord sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, 'Go up and possess the land which I have given you'; then ye rebelled ...." Kadesh-barnea is therefore another name for Kadesh. Why should the city of Kadesh also be called "Kadesh-barnea"? The

Hebrew word "barnea" comes from two Hebrew words, "bar" and "nua". The root meaning of "nua" (sometimes spelled "nuwa") is "to waver or wander." It is often translated in the Old Testament as "wanderer," "vagabond," "fugitive." "Bar" means "son." It is used in such expressions as Bartimaeus, meaning "the son of Timaeus" (Mark 10:46), "Simon Bar-Jona" -- Simon the son of Jona (Matthew 16:17). It was at Kadesh (Numbers 13:26) that the Israelites wavered in their faith. They refused to trust God (Numbers 14:1, 11). As a punishment they had to wander or be fugitives in the wilderness. "And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was consumed" (Numbers 32:13). Kadesh was never referred to as Kadesh-barnea until after the Israelites wavered in their faith and had to wander as a punishment (Numbers 32:8). The significance of the name barnea, then, is "the wandering sons." Observe, now, in what mountain range Kadesh is to be found. LOCATED IN MOUNT SEIR! "And we journeyed from Horeb, and went through all that great and dreadful wilderness which ye saw, by the way to the hill country of the Amorites, as the Lord our God commanded us: and we came to Kadesh-barnea" (Deuteronomy 1:19). The "hill country of the Amorites" is defined by Moffatt in Judges 1:36 as extending "from the Scorpion Pass ("Akrabbim" in King James Version) to Sela and beyond it." Sela is Petra! Consider another vital point. To reach Kadesh from Horeb or Sinai (Horeb is another name for Sinai -- Malachi 4:4 and Deuteronomy 4:10-13), the usual eleven-day route went "by the way of Mount Seir"! Or, in other words, Israel journeyed by the Mount Seir road! But where is Mount Seir? Mount Seir is that chain of mountains between Arabia and the Arabah or "plain" mentioned so often in the Bible. It lies east of the Arabah and extends from the Gulf of Aqaba north to near the Dead Sea. Most maps in the back of a Bible will have these places located correctly. These maps, however, misplace Kadesh. The "Kadesh" usually located in the Sinai Peninsula is not the city Moses describes, but is the "Kedesh" of Joshua 15:23 instead -- another place altogether. Now consider this: if the wilderness of Paran and Kadesh were in the Sinai Peninsula southwest of Palestine, there would be no reason for traveling by the way of Mount Seir! The only reason one would have to travel by the Way of Mount Seir -- or by the Mount Seir Road -- is that Paran and Kadesh lay east of the Sinai Peninsula -- in other words, in the vicinity of Petra! Take another scripture -- Deuteronomy 1:6-7: "The Lord our God spoke unto us in Horeb, saying: 'Ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain; turn you, and take your journey, and go to the hill-country of the Amorites and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the Arabah

(in the King James Version it is called "the plain"), in the hill-country, in the Lowland, and in the South, and by the sea-shore of the Canaanites, and Lebanon, as far as the great river, the river Euphrates' " (Jewish translation). Did you notice that? Israel was to journey to the Amorite hill-country, where Kadesh was located. From there they were to enter the promised land from the east, to proceed westward to the shore of the Mediterranean, and then go north to Lebanon and the Euphrates (verse 21). The first part of the promised land they would enter was the Arabah -- the wilderness just west of Petra in Mount Seir! Here is just one more proof that Kadesh and the wilderness of Paran were east of the Arabah -- east of the Sinai Peninsula -- in Mount Seir, in the vicinity of Petra! ISRAEL WHIPPED IN SEIR But this is not all the evidence. Notice! When Israel refused to trust God, He sternly told them: "Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them see it" (Numbers 14:23). Upon receiving this rebuke, they imperiously said: "Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the Lord hath promised: for we have sinned. And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the Lord .... Go not up, for the Lord is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies .... But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: ... Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah" (Numbers 14:40-45). Notice where this disaster befell Israel. The people were defeated even to Hormah. Where is Hormah? "And the Amorites" -- who were Canaanites -- "came out against you, as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir, even unto Hormah"! (Deuteronomy 1:42-45.) It was in Seir -- in the mountain range where Petra is located -that Israel was handed this severe defeat. This was not somewhere in the Sinai wilderness. This was in Seir. The Bible says so! YET ANOTHER PROOF! Kadesh is also said to be located in "the Wilderness of Zin." "For ye rebelled," God told Moses, "against my commandment in the desert of Zin, in the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the water before their eyes: that is the water of Meribah in Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin" (Numbers 27:14). Since Kadesh is located in the wilderness of Paran and in the wilderness or Zin, it certainly appears that Zin and Paran are two different names for the same wilderness, doesn't it? What does "Zin" mean? Here is the answer! The spies began to search the promised land from the city of

Kadesh-barnea. That is recorded in Deuteronomy 1:19-23. Kadesh was their starting point. It was an important city on the border of the promised land. It was in fact one of the promised "gates of your enemies" (Genesis 22:17). But according to Numbers 13:21, we discover that "they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin 26). The Wilderness of Zin is mentioned no less than ten times in the Bible. Invariably the only city associated with it is Kadesh. Kadesh is also the only city associated with Paran. Remember that Paran means "caverns." But what does Zin mean? It comes from the Hebrew root meaning a mountainous crag, as if piercing the sky! (See "Strong's Concordance".) Here is what the "Encyclopaedia Biblica" says: Zin "may mean the 'wall' of rock within which the wilderness of Zin lies"! What better description could we find for the region of Petra than this! Petra is famous for its stupendous crags jutting high into the sky. Is it a coincidence that Petra -- with its rocky crags and its caves -- is the only city in the region of Arabia from which the words Paran and Zin can both be derived? Some have been confused between the "Wilderness of Zin" and the "Wilderness of Sin." They are not the same. They are spelled differently in Hebrew. The Wilderness of Sin was reached by Israel before they even came to Sinai (Exodus 16:1). The wilderness of Zin was reached after Israel departed from Sinai. Sin was northwest of Sinai. Zin was far to the northeast of Mount Sinai. WHERE WAS THE "WILDERNESS OF WANDERING"? The epoch-making night following the return of the twelve spies, "all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept" (Numbers 14:1). Their anger rose to rebellion next day. They hurled the accusation "Would God we had died in this wilderness" (verse 2). When God heard it, He ordered Moses to tell the people: "Tomorrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea" (verse 25, last half). Remember, Israel was already in the wilderness of Zin or Paran. Now God orders them to leave Kadesh and go into the wilderness by the Way of the Red Sea -- that is, by the Red Sea Road. They reached Kadesh by the Mount Seir Road. Now they are to leave by another route for an area called "the wilderness." After their crushing defeat that morning at Hormah, Moses reported: "And ye returned and wept before the Lord; but the Lord would not hearken to your voice, nor give ear unto you. So you abode in Kadesh many days" -- how long? "According unto the days (the forty days of anxious waiting for the spies' return) that you abode there" (Deuteronomy 1:45-46). God would not let them remain in Kadesh any longer. He was determined that they were to leave that day for the wilderness, rather

than enter Palestine. They did not deserve the promised land. They despised it. The many days of waiting, in which they dwelled in Kadesh, comprised over forty long days. When the spies returned, they rebelled. Thus, instead of entering the land of Canaan, Moses wrote: "Then we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea, as the Lord spake unto me" (Deuteronomy 2:1). The children of Israel now move southwest from Kadesh. They take the road that leads to the Red Sea in order to journey into the wilderness. This is the wilderness which they had asked to die in (Numbers 14:2) -- and in it they were going to die! Moses called it "that great and dreadful wilderness" -- the edge of which they passed through when journeying from Sinai to Mount Seir (Deuteronomy 1:19). This wilderness in the Sinai Peninsula has been called throughout history simply Et Tih -- meaning "the Wilderness"; or Badiyat et-Tih Beni Israel -- meaning "the Wilderness of the Wanderings of the Children of Israel." This designation runs back in the Arabian historians as far back as we have any track of their name for this desert," says Trumbull, on page 67 of "Kadesh-barnea". Nowhere in all the Bible is this area ever called Zin or Paran! It is entirely mislabeled on most Bible maps today. Nearly thirty-seven and one-half years were spent wandering in this desolate, arid region. No notice is taken of any wilderness encampments during those years. Only a few major events occurring during the period are recorded in Numbers 15 through 19. ENCAMPMENTS LISTED IN ORDER Before we proceed further, let's consider Numbers 33. This entire chapter is devoted to the encampments of the children of Israel. This list of seemingly unimportant encampments may have far more importance for us today than we dream! Everything is placed in the Bible for a purpose! Turn now to Numbers 33. Beginning with verse 1: "These are the journeys of the children of Israel .... And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord." Then Moses lists the stopovers to Sinai (verse 15). We have read in Deuteronomy 1:2 that the trip could be made from Sinai to Kadesh in eleven days of normal travel. The Israelites took longer, of course. Sometimes they remained a week (Numbers 12:15) or a month (Numbers 11:20) in one location before moving. In the list in Numbers 33, the name "Kadesh" appears only once as an encampment (verses 36-37). In this list it appears just before the short journey to Mount Hor. It is therefore the second time Israel entered Kadesh. Since the children of Israel were in Kadesh twice, it is hardly likely that the first stop there should have been omitted in Numbers 33. Nor indeed is it! In Numbers 12:16, observe that the camping points between Hazeroth and the wilderness of Paran are skipped over. In Numbers 33:18-30 you

will find them listed. Mount Shapher (verse 23) is one of the famous mountain peaks in the Mount Seir range. "The Mount Shapher of Moses ... is the Jebel Shafeh of the Arabs, (which gave its name to) the mountain range lying NNE (north-northeast) of Akabah, and extending from the head of that gulf to the neighborhood of Petra and Mount Hor," wrote Charles Forster in "Sinai Photographed," page 144. This one peak gave its name to the entire range of mountains inhabited by the descendants of Seir. The remaining stops after Mount Shapher take us east along Mount Seir to Bene-Jaakan (verse 31). BENE-JAAKAN IS KADESH! Notice Numbers 33:37. In the fortieth year of the exodus, Israel journeyed from Kadesh to Mount Hor where Aaron died. But when Moses related the same movements orally, he said: "And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth (Beeroth means "wells") of the children of Jaakan to Mosera: where Aaron died" (Deuteronomy 10:6). This scripture indicates that Mosera is another name applied to Mount Hor and that Bene-Jaakan is another name for Kadesh. Mogera means "chastisement" in Hebrew ("Young's Concordance"). It was at Mount Hor that Aaron died as a chastisement for disobeying God at Kadesh. It is certainly a fitting name for the Mount. Now what does "Bene-Jaakan" mean? The name "Bene-Jaakan" is merely another way of saying "children of Jaskan." The usual Hebrew word for child or son is BEN. So the locale designated Bene-Jaakan is the place where the descendants of Jaakan settled. But who was Jaakan? Jaakan is spelled Jakan in I Chronicles 1:42 and Akan in Genesis 36:27. Jaakan was a son of Ezer. Ezer was a son of Seir the Horite (Genesis 36:20-21). The word Horite came to mean cave-dweller according to many authorities. That makes the children of Jaakan Horites or cave-dwellers. And what city in Mount Seir is more famous for its caves than Petra? History tells us that the Horites originally cut out the gaping caverns in Petra! Certainly Bene-Jaakan is another name tor Petra! The few children of Jaakan at Kadesh did not resist the Israelites when Israel came to Kadesh the first time, or else they would not have been there to meet the Israelites nearly forty years later! It appears also that a few of the Kenites dwelt around Petra and dominated the region. The Kenites had their strong dwelling place "in a rock" -- "in Sela" according to the original Hebrew (Numbers 24:21). Sela is Petra. Moses' father-in-law -- a priest himself -- was a Kenite (Judges 1:16) probably from Sela, where the children of Jaakan also dwelt. And is not this also an indication that Moses' experiences in the wilderness for forty years prior to the exodus were to train him to lead the nation Israel through Sinai to the safety of Kadesh on the borders of Canaan? But to return to Numbers 33 . After leaving Kadesh the first time,

the children of Israel did not need to stop at Mount Hor. They proceeded southwest into the Arabah and came to Horhagidgad, then to Jotbathah, then to Ebronah (verses 32-34), This took them into the Sinaitic wilderness where no further encampments are recorded for about thirty-seven years! God saw no need to take out time with the route of their miserable wanderings. The account in Numbers 33 next picks up the journey of Israel from Eziongeber to Kadesh again (verses 35, 36) about the beginning of the fortieth year after the exodus. THE RETURN TO KADESH Thirty-nine years have now elapsed since the Exodus from Egypt. "Then came the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, to the desert of Zin in the first month (of the fortieth year, according to Josephus): and the people abode in Kadesh; and Miriam (the sister of Moses) died there, and was buried there" (Numbers 20:1). The Bible records that Miriam was buried in Kadesh. In William Whiston's footnote in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews," Book IV, Chapter IV, Section 7, we read that "her sepulchre is still extant near Petra, the old capital city of Arabia Petraea, at this day; as also that of Aaron, not far off"! Now notice what happened next. "And there was no water for the congregation: and they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron .... And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts to drink." Then "Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also." "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron. Because ye believed Me not, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel" -- God had ordered Moses to speak to the rock, not to strike it, to show that it was God alone who could produce the water at the precise moment -"therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them" (Numbers 20:2, 7-8, 10-12). What rock is it that Moses struck? It is SELA in Hebrew! "SELA" ANOTHER NAME FOR PETRA There are two Hebrew words commonly rendered rock. One is "sela," the other is "tsur." The word "tsur" may mean "a cliff, a rock, a

boulder." When Moses struck "the rock in Horeb," thirty-nine years before, he did not strike Sela or Petra. He struck "tsur"! Observe: "Behold, I," spoke God to Moses, "I will stand before thee there upon the rock (tsur) in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock (tsur), and there shall come water out of it .... And he called the name of the place Massah (meaning "temptation"), and Meribah (meaning "strife"), because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?" (Exodus 17:6-7). This rock -- "tsur" -- is referred to spiritually in I Corinthians 10:4: "And they did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them (a better translation is "went with them"): and that Rock was Christ." The waters which sprang from the two different rocks, nearly thirty-nine years apart, were both called "Meribah" (Exodus 17:7; Numbers 20:13, 24). That has led some to confuse the events. Meribah means "strife." In both instances the children of Israel strove with God. To distinguish between the two, Moses was inspired to use the expression "Meribah in Kadesh" (Numbers 27:14), or "Meribah-Kadesh" (Deuteronomy 32:51), for the later strife over water at Sela. About four months have now elapsed since Israel came to Kadesh the second time. "And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, journeyed from Kadesh, and came unto Mount Hor. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying, Aaron shall be gathered unto his people" (Numbers 20:22-24). WHERE DID AARON DIE? The same event is recorded in Numbers 33:37-38. A little to the southwest of Petra is a 4800 foot mountain called Jebel Nebi Harun by the Arabs. It means Mount of the Prophet Aaron. It is the traditional site of the death of Aaron. Josephus, the Jewish historian in the time of the apostles, tells us that Aaron died on one of the "high mountains" which encompasses "Petra"! Mount Hor is by Petra! -- "by the coast of the land of Edom" (Numbers 20:23). If you will scrutinize modern Bible maps you will see that some scholars speculate that Mount Hor might have been Mount Madurah in the Negeb, in the South of Palestine. But this area was well within the promised land. God never gave it to Edom. It is far to the west of Edom's borders. It is not where Aaron died. Aaron died on the southern border of Edom in Seir. From Petra -- called Kadesh or Kadesh-Barnea in the account of the Exodus -- Moses expected to lead Israel into Palestine. The direct route from Petra to east of Jordan was by the King's Highway. Now we pick up the story of the Exodus with Moses' request to journey on this important road-link with Eastern Palestine.

WHERE WAS THE KING'S HIGHWAY? When Moses and the Israelites were at Kadesh they sent messengers to the king of Edom asking permission to "go by the king's highway" (Numbers 20:17) . Edom refused passage. "And the children of Israel said unto him, 'We will go by the highway: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it'." In response to this second request we read: "And he said" -- this is Edom's reply -- "Thou shalt not go through." They refused again. "And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him" (Numbers 20:19-21). Israel was not permitted to go through Edom by the King's Highway. Where was this highway? Part of it may still be seen today. It lay east of the Dead Sea and east of Mount Seir. It is nearly identical with today's main-traveled road from Amman to the Gulf of Aqaba. All of us who have visited Petra have had to travel the same general route of this ancient highway! It is the only highway in the region! This route east of Palestine and Mount Seir has always been known in history as the King's Highway. What was Israel going to do, now that Edom refused them passage by this route? JOURNEY NORTHWARD IN THE ARABAH After Israel had moved from Eziongeber to Kadesh the second time, God said to Moses: "Ye have compassed this mountain long enough; turn northward. And command thou the people, saying: 'Ye are to pass through the border of your brethren the children of Esau, that dwell in Seir After Kadesh was reached and the King's Highway closed to them, Moses summarizes the next few months by saying: "So we passed by from our brethren the children of Esau, that dwell in Seir, through the way of the Arabah (the King James Version has "plain"), from Elath and from Eziongaber" (Deuteronomy 2:8). Since Edom refused passage, Israel had to turn back, pass by Mount Hor, and continue northward through the Arabah to by-pass the territory of Edom. Most Bible maps would have the children of Israel going southward around Mount Seir and then taking the King's Highway in order to by-pass Edom! It shows how little most scholars read their Bibles. Israel had to go west of Edom through the Arabah in order to avoid cutting through the border of Edom. Upon leaving Mount Hor, Israel journeyed to Gudgodah and to Jotbath (Deuteronomy 10:7). These two places on the road from Petra to the Arabah Road are probably spelling variants of the two locations -Hor-hagidgad and Jotbathah -- which Israel stopped at about thirty-eight years earlier when leaving Kadesh the first time (Numbers 33:33).

This clearly proves that the Eternal was leading the children of Israel into the Arabah from Kadesh both times -- the first time southward by the Red Sea Road into the wilderness; the second time by the same Red Sea Road northward to compass the land of Edom (Numbers 21:4). This road is called the "Arabah Road" in Deuteronomy 2:8, because it ran the length of the Arabah, north and south of Petra. When the Canaanites heard that Israel was proceeding northward (Deuteronomy 2:3, 8), "by the way of the spies" (Numbers 21:1) -- that is, by the way which the spies used to enter Palestine when they searched the land forty days -- then the Canaanites fought Israel and were this time defeated (Numbers 21:3). These verses show that Israel proceeded northward, not southward, on the Arabah Way -- the "Way of the Plain," sometimes called the "Way of the Red Sea." To go the Way of the Red Sea does not mean one has to go to the Red Sea. It would, of course, be the route leading to the Red Sea, but one may be going in the opposite direction on the road -- just as Israel did! This Arabah road stretched from the Gulf of Aqaba northward to near the Dead Sea. En route north, they came to Punon (Numbers 33:42). The settlement of Punon is north of Petra and in the Arabah. It is an area of extensive copper mines. (See Kelleres "The Bible as History," page 143.) Its modern Arabic name is Phenan. The stop at Punon immediately preceded the stop at Oboth (Numbers 33:43). Now compare this with Numbers 21:9 and 10. Notice that at Punon -- the stop just before Oboth -- Moses made a "serpent of brass" -- an alloy of copper. Certainly there is no mistaking where Punon is! The very next encampment is on "the border of Moab" (Numbers 33:44). Not until they reached the northern border of Edom did Israel cut eastward between Moab and Edom along the brook Zered (Deuteronomy 2:8, last part, and 13). This was thirty-eight years after they left Kadesh the first time (Deuteronomy 2:14). They had to journey eastward because Israel had rejected the direct route into Palestine from the south nearly forty years earlier! PETRA OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL Next, let us skip over to the time Israel under Joshua took the promised land. Remember that Kadesh rightfully belonged to Israel (Deuteronomy 1:19-20). Observe what Joshua did: "And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon" (Joshua 10:41). Here the easternmost limit of southern Palestine is the city Kadesh-barnea. Compare this with Joshua 15:1-3: "This then was the lot of the tribe of Judah ... even to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward .... And their south border was from the shore of the salt sea ... and passed along to Zin, and ascended up on the south side unto Kadesh-barnea." And again: "So Joshua took all that land ... and the Arabah ("the

plain" in King James Version) ... even unto the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir" (Joshua 11:16-17). "Mount Halak" is not quite a clear translation of the original Hebrew. The word "Halak" means smooth, bare. "Smith's Bible Dictionary" indicates it is "the mountain range on the east side of the 'Arabah, or one of the bare mountain summits in that range." "Hastings' Bible Dictionary" declares: " The Arabah Valley gradually rises toward the summit level, which it reaches immediately in front of Mount Hor on the borders of Seir; and to this line of elevation the term 'smooth' would not be inapplicable, while at the same time it would be on the line of communication between southern Palestine and Petra, the capital of Seir." Observe that all these verses point out that Israel occupied the Arabah just west of Mount Seir even to the barren mountain region of Petra. Yet we found (Joshua 10:41) the easternmost border city is Kadesh-barnea. Surely Petra and Kadesh are the same from these verses! Years later Judah had to recapture Petra after the Edomites rebelled (II Kings 8:20; 14:7). Petra belonged to Israel. The capital of Edom was not Petra, but Bozrah (Amos 1:12; Jeremiah 49:13, 22). Petra was the gate by which Israel controlled their Edomite enemies. Consider another important fact. Josephus, Eusebius and Jerome wrote that the Aramaic, Assyrian and Arabic name for Petra was Rekem ("Antiquities", Book IV, Chapter VII, Section 1). Rekem comes from the Arabic word for "rock." "But in the Aramaic versions Rekem is the name of Kadesh," according to the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"! This authority, under article "Petra," further states: "Sometimes the Aramaic versions give the form Rekem-Geya (for Kadesh), which recalls the name of the village El-ji, southeast of Petra." So Petra is mentioned literally dozens of places in Scripture after all! CHAPTER XVII WHERE DID THE TWELVE APOSTLES GO? Why has the truth about the journeys of the twelve apostles been kept from public knowledge? We read plainly of Paul's travels through Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy. But the movements of the original twelve apostles are cloaked in mystery. Why? NOW IT CAN BE TOLD! Did it ever seem strange that most of the New Testament, following the book of Acts, was written by Paul, and not by Peter? Why, after Peter initiated the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10 and 11), did he and others

of the twelve apostles suddenly vanish from view? And why only Peter and John reappear, for a fleeting moment, in Jerusalem at the inspired conference recorded in Acts 15? We read, after Acts 15, only of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. Why? What happened to the twelve apostles? Let's understand! There is a reason why the journeys of the twelve apostles have been cloaked in mystery -- until now! You probably have been told that Jesus chose the twelve disciples, ordained them apostles, sent them, first to preach to the Jews. When the Jews, as a nation, rejected that message, you probably have supposed that they turned to the Gentiles. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the apostle Paul, called years later as a special apostle, who was commissioned to bear the gospel to the Gentiles. To Ananias, who was sent to baptize Paul, Christ gave this assurance: "Go thy way: for he" -- Saul, later named Paul -- "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15). It was Paul, not any of the twelve, who said: "From henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles" (Acts 18:6). Jesus would not have called Paul as a special apostle to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, if the original twelve had been commissioned to preach to the Gentiles. Then to whom -- and where -- were the twelve apostles sent? JESUS' COMMISSION TELLS Notice the surprising answer -- in Matthew 10:5-6: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Jesus meant what He said! He "commanded them." The twelve were forbidden to spread the gospel among the Gentiles. It was Paul who was commissioned to that work. The twelve were to go, instead, to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" -- the Lost Ten Tribes! Granted, Christ did send Peter to the home of Cornelius (Acts 10 and 11) to open the gospel to the Gentiles, but Peter's life mission was to carry the gospel to "the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Peter merely opened the door, as the chief apostle, for the Gentiles. It was Paul who went through the door and brought the gospel to the nations. Granted, Peter, in his capacity of chief apostle, made one trip to the gentile Samaritans. But that was not to bring the gospel to them. Philip had done that! Peter and John merely prayed for the Samaritans that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (See Acts 8, verses 5, and 14 through 17.) Now we know to whom the twelve apostles were sent. They were not sent to the Gentiles, but to "the lost sheep of the House of Israel." It was Paul who went to the Gentiles. Now to discover where Peter and others of the twelve went after

they left Palestine. That has been one of the best-kept secrets of history! If the world had known the lands to which the twelve apostles journeyed, the House of Israel would never have been lost from view! But God intended, for a special purpose, which few understand, that the identity of the House of Israel should not be revealed until this pulsating twentieth century! "HOUSE OF ISRAEL" IDENTIFIED From the sons of Jacob -- surnamed Israel -- sprang twelve tribes. Under David they were united as one nation -- Israel. After the death of Solomon, David's son, the twelve tribes were divided into two nations. The tribe of Judah split off from the nation Israel in order to retain the king, whom Israel had rejected. Benjamin went with Judah. The new nation thus formed, with its capital at Jerusalem, was known as the "House of Judah." Its people were called Jews. The northern ten tribes, who rejected Solomon's son, became known as the "House of Israel." Its capital, later, was Samaria. Whole books of the Old Testament are devoted to the power struggles between the "House of Israel" and Judah. The first time the word "Jews" appears in the Bible you will discover the king of Israel, allied with Syria, driving the Jews from the Red Sea port of Elath (II Kings 16:6-7). The northern ten tribes, the House of Israel, were overthrown in a three-year siege (721-718) by the mighty Assyrian Empire. Its people were led into captivity beyond the Tigris River and planted in Assyria and the cities of the Medes around lake Urmia, southwest of the Caspian Sea. In the now-desolate cities of the land of Samaria the Assyrians brought in Gentiles from Babylonia. These Gentiles (II Kings 17) had become known as Samaritans by the time of Christ. The House of Israel never returned to Palestine. The nation became known in history as the "Lost Ten Tribes." To them Jesus sent the twelve apostles! The House of Judah -- the Jews -- remained in Palestine until the Babylonian invasion, which commenced in 604 B.C. Judah was deported to Mesopotamia. Seventy years later they returned to Palestine. In history they now become commonly known as "Israel" because they were the only descendants of Jacob -- or Israel -- now living in Palestine. The ten tribes -- the House of Israel -- became lost in the land of their exile. Jesus "came to his own" -- the House of Judah, the Jews -- "and his own received him not" (John 1:11). Jesus was of the lineage of David, of the House of Judah. When His own people -- the Jews -rejected Him, He did not turn to the Gentiles. It was Paul who did. Instead, Jesus said to the Gentile woman: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Mat. 15:24). To fulfill, later, that divine mission -- for Jesus was soon slain on Golgotha to pay for the sins of the world -- He commissioned His twelve disciples. They were commanded: "Go to the lost sheep of the

House of Israel." They did go, but history has lost sight of where they went! Their journeys have been shrouded in mystery -until now! WHAT NEW TESTAMENT REVEALS The history of the early New Testament church is preserved in the book of Acts. But have you ever noticed that Acts ends in the middle of the story? Luke doesn't even finish the life of Paul after his two-years' imprisonment ended! Why? You will find the answer in Christ's commission to Paul. Even before Paul was baptized, Christ had planned the future work he was to accomplish. First, Paul was to teach the Gentiles -- which he did in Cyprus, Asia Minor and Greece. Second, he was to appear before kings -an event brought about by a two-year imprisonment at Rome. At the end of that two-year period, during which no accusers had appeared, Paul would automatically have been released according to Roman law. It is at this point that Luke strangely breaks off the story of Paul's life. See Acts 28:31. But Paul's third mission was not yet accomplished! Christ had chosen Paul for a threefold purpose -- "to bear (His) name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15). There is the answer. He, too, was to end his work among the Lost Ten Tribes! Luke was not permitted by Christ to include in Acts the final journeys of Paul's life. It would have revealed the whereabouts of the children of Israel! It was not then God's time to make that known. But the moment has now come, in this climactic "time of the end," to pull back the shroud of history and reveal where the twelve apostles went. THREE MISSING WORDS Now turn to the book of James. To whom is it addressed? Read it: "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting" (first verse). You probably never noticed that before. This book is not addressed to the Gentiles. It is not addressed exclusively to Judah -- the Jews. It is addressed to all twelve tribes. To the House of Judah and to the House of Israel -- the Lost Ten Tribes. Have you ever noticed that the letter of James, like the book of Acts, ends abruptly, without the normal salutations? Read it -- James 5:20. Compare it with Paul's epistles. In the original inspired Greek New Testament everyone of Paul's letters ends with an "Amen." Everyone of the four gospels ends with an "Amen." The book of Revelation ends with an "Amen " This little word "Amen," of Hebrew derivation, signifies

completion. In the Authorized Version (most modern versions are incorrect, and in several instances carelessly leave off the proper ending found in the Greek) every one of the New Testament books ends with an "Amen" except three -- Acts, James and II John. In these three, and these three only, the word "Amen" is not in the inspired original Greek. It is purposely missing. Why? Each missing "Amen" is a special sign. It indicates God wants us to understand that certain missing knowledge was not to be made known to the world -- until now, when the gospel is being sent around the world as a final witness before the end of this age. God purposely excluded from the book of Acts the final chapters in the history of the early true Church. If they had been included, the identity and whereabouts of Israel and the true Church would have been revealed! It is part of God's plan that the House of Israel should lose its identity and think itself Gentile. If the book of James had ended with the ordinary salutation, the nations of Israel would have been disclosed. Paul often ends his letters with names of places and people. See the last verses of Romans, Colossians, Hebrews, for example. This is the very part missing, purposely, from James! And why was the short letter of III John missing an "Amen"? Let John himself tell us, "I had many things to write: but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee" (verse 13). John reveals, in the letter, a pagan conspiracy. It was a diabolical attempt by Simon Magus and his false apostles to seize the name of Christ, gain control of the true Church, and masquerade as "Christianity." God did not permit John to make known, in plain language, the names of the leaders of that conspiracy, and the city of their operation. That is why John cut his letter short. The missing "Amen" is to tell us to look elsewhere in the Bible for the answer. It is described, if you have eyes to see, in Revelation 17, Acts 8 and many other chapters of the Bible. The time to unmask that conspiracy is now (II Thessalonians 2), just before the return of Christ. But to return, for a moment, to the letter of James. WARS REVEAL WHERE From James 4:1 we learn that wars were being waged among the lost tribes of Israel. "From whence come wars and fightings among you?" asks James. What wars were these? No wars existed among the Jews until the outbreak, several years later, of the revolt against the Romans. These wars absolutely identify the lost House of Israel -- the lands to which the twelve apostles journeyed. James wrote his book about A.D. 60 (he was martyred about two years later according to Josephus) The world was temporarily at peace -- cowed by the fear of Roman military might. just prior to A.D. 60 only two areas of the world were torn by wars and civil fightings. When you discover which areas these were, you will have located where the Lost Ten Tribes, addressed

by James, were then living! All one need do is search the records of military history for the period immediately before and up to the year A.D. 60! The results will shock you! Those two lands were the British Isles and the Parthian Empire! (See the accompanying map for the location of Parthia.) But these were not the only lands to which the exiled House of Israel journeyed. Turn, in your Bible, to I Peter. TO WHOM DID PETER WRITE? To whom did Peter address his letters? Here it is. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (I Peter 1:1). These were not Gentiles. Peter was not the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8). Paul was. Peter was chief apostle to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Notice the word "strangers." It does not mean Gentiles. The original Greek is parepidemos. It means "a resident foreigner," literally, "an alien alongside." It refers not to Gentiles, but to non-Gentiles who dwelt among Gentiles, as foreigners and aliens. Abraham, for example, was a stranger, an alien, when he lived among the Canaanite Gentiles in Palestine. Peter was addressing part of the lost ten tribes who dwelt among the Gentiles as aliens or strangers. He was not writing primarily to Jews. He would not have addressed them as "strangers," for he himself was a Jew. Now notice the regions to which Peter addressed his letter. You may have to look at a Bible map to locate them. They are all located in the northern half of Asia Minor, modern Turkey. These lands lay immediately west of the Parthian Empire! Paul did not preach in these districts. Paul spent his years in Asia Minor in the southern, or Greek half. "Yea, so have I strived," said Paul, "to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation" (Romans 15:20). Paul did not preach in the areas where Peter and others of the twelve apostles had carried the gospel. Nowhere in your New Testament can you find Paul preaching in Pontus, or Cappadocia, or Bithynia. These regions were under the jurisdiction of Peter and certain of the twelve. Paul did spread the gospel in the province of Asia -- but only in the southern half, in the districts around Ephesus. Paul was expressly forbidden to preach in Mysia, the northern district of the Roman province of Asia. "After they" -- Paul and his companions -- "were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered (permitted) them not. And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas" (Acts 16:7, 8). Those were the regions in which the lost sheep of the House of Israel dwelt as strangers among the Gentiles! Paul did preach, on his first journey, in southern Galatia, in the

cities of Iconium, Lystra, Derbe (Acts 14). But nowhere in the New Testament do you find Paul journeying into northern Galatia -- the area to which Peter addresses his letter to the tribes of Israel! REMNANT OF TEN TRIBES ON SHORES OF BLACK SEA Notice the historic proof -- confirming Peter's letters -- that a remnant of the House of Israel was settled on the shores of the Black Sea in northern Asia Minor in early New Testament times. Greek writers, in the time of Christ, recognized that the regions of northern Asia Minor were non-Greek (except for a few Greek trading colonies in the port cities). New peoples, the Greeks tell us, were living in northern Asia Minor in New Testament times. Here is the surprising account of Diodorus of Sicily: "... many conquered peoples were removed to other homes, and two of these became very great colonies: the one was composed of Assyrians and was removed to the land between Paphlagonia and Pontus, and the other was drawn from Media and planted along the Tanais (the River Don in ancient Scythia -- the modern Ukraine, north of the Black Sea, in southern Russia )." See book II, s.43. Notice the areas from which these colonies came -- Assyria and Media. The very areas to which the House of Israel was taken captive! "So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day" (II Kings 17:23). "The king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the River of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes" (verse 6). The House of Israel dwelt in captivity as aliens or strangers among the Assyrians. When the Assyrians were later removed from their homeland to northern Asia Minor, part of the House of Israel migrated with them! Here's the proof from Strabo, the geographer. Strabo named the colonists in northern Asia Minor "White Syrians" (12, 3, 9), instead of Assyrians. There were therefore, two peoples -- Assyrians and White Syrians. Who were these so-called "White Syrians"? None other than the House of Israel which had been carried into Assyrian captivity. "Syria" was the Greek name for the whole eastern Mediterranean coastal strip north of Judea. Because the House of Israel lived in Palestine -- southern Syria in Greek terminology -- the Greeks called them "White Syrians." By contrast, the dark-complexioned Arameans remained in Syria and dwell there to this day. When the Assyrians were compelled to migrate to Northern Asia Minor, their former slaves -- the "White Syrians" or ten-tribed House of Israel -- migrated with them! We find them still there in New Testament times. To these people -- the lost sheep of the House of Israel -- the strangers among the Assyrians (I Peter 1:1) -- the apostle Peter addresses his first letter! Could anything be plainer? The chief apostle to the House of Israel writing to a part of the ten lost tribes dwelling among the Assyrians who originally carried them captive!

We shall see later when and where these "lost sheep" migrated from Asia Minor to Northwest Europe. Now to draw back the curtain of history. See where each of the twelve apostles preached. You'll be amazed at the revelation.

WHAT GREEK HISTORIANS REPORT Why is it that almost no one has thought of it before? If multitudes of Greeks in Southern Asia Minor were being converted to Christ by the ministry of Paul, and at the same time multitudes among the lost ten tribes of the House of Israel were being converted in northern Asia Minor, should not those Greeks have left the record of which of the twelve apostles carried the gospel there? Consider this also. The Greeks have not lost the Greek New Testament. They have handed it down from generation to generation. Is it not just as likely that Greek scholars should have preserved the true account of the ministry of the twelve apostles? They have done just that! Yet almost no one has believed them! What the Greeks report is not what most people expect to find! Some, who do not understand the difference between the House of Israel and the Jews, imagine the apostles went exclusively to Jews. Even some of those who know where the House of Israel is today often cannot believe that several of the tribes of Israel were not, in the apostles' day, where they are today. Scholars have long puzzled over the remarkable information which the Greeks have handed down. These historical reports of the apostles are altogether different from the spurious apocryphal literature of the early Roman Catholic Church. Greek historians, in the early Middle Ages, have left us information from original documents that apparently are no longer extant. They had firsthand sources of information not now available to the scholarly world. What do those Greek historians report? One valuable source of information is the Greek and Latin "Ecclesiasticae Historiae" of Nicephorus Callistus. Another, in English, is "Antiquitates Apostolicae" by William Cave. Universal Greek tradition declares that the apostles did not leave the Syro-Palestinian region until the end of twelve years' ministry. The number 12 symbolizes an organized beginning. Before those twelve years were up one of the apostles was already dead -- James, the brother of John. He had been beheaded by Herod (Acts 12). But where did the remaining apostles go? SIMON PETER IN BRITAIN! Begin with Simon Peter. Peter was made by Christ the chief among the twelve apostles to coordinate their work. Of necessity Peter would

be found traveling to many more regions than he would personally be ministering to. The question is where did he spend most of his time? We know Peter was for a limited time at Babylon in Mesopotamia, from which he wrote the letters to the churches in Asia Minor (I Peter 5:13). Babylon was the major city from which the apostles in the east worked. Similarly Paul and the evangelists under him used Antioch in Syria as their chief city (Acts 14:26). The order in which Peter, in verse one of his first epistle, named the provinces of Asia Minor -from east to west and back -- clearly proves that the letter was sent from Babylon in the east, not Rome in the west. Rome did not become designated as "Modern Babylon" until Christ revealed it, much later, after Peter's death, in the book of Revelation, chapter 17. Where did Peter spend most of his time after those first twelve years in Palestine? Metaphrastes, the Greek historian, reports "that Peter was not only in these Western parts" -- the Western Mediterranean -- "but particularly that he was a long time" -- here we have Peter's main life work to the Lost Ten Tribes -- "... a long time in Britain, where he converted many nations to the faith." (See marginal note, p. 45, in Cave's "Antiquitates Apostolicae.") Peter preached the gospel in Great Britain, not in Rome. The true gospel had not been publicly preached in Rome before Paul arrived in A.D. 59. Paul never once mentions Peter in his epistle to the brethren in Rome, most of whom had been converted on Pentecost in 31 A.D. Not even the Jews at Rome had heard the gospel preached before Paul arrived! Here is Luke's inspired account of Paul's arrival in Rome: "And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together." Continuing, Acts 28:21. "And they" -- the Jews at Rome -"said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against. And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening" (verses 21-23). Here is absolute proof the Jews at Rome had never heard the apostle Peter preach. Oh yes, there had been a "Peter" in Rome -- ever since the days of Claudius Caesar. That Peter was in a high office. He was chief of the Babylonian Mysteries. His office was that of a "Peter" -- meaning an Interpreter or Opener of Secrets. The word "peter", in Babylonian and Hebrew, means "opener" -- hence it is used in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament for "firstling" -- one that first opens the womb. That Peter of Rome was named Simon, too. Simon Magus (Acts 8). He was the leading conspirator in the plot hatched by the priests of the pagan Babylonian-Samaritan mysteries. These plotters sought to seize upon the name of Christ as a cloak

for their diabolical religion. These conspirators became the founders of what today masquerades in the world, falsely, as the "Christian Religion." (See III John.) Simon Peter, Christ's apostle, was in Britain, not Rome, preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God. The very fact that Peter preached in the British Isles is proof in itself that part of the Lost Ten-Tribed House of Israel was already there. Simon Peter was commissioned to go to the lost ten tribes. And significantly, about A D 60 great wars overtook Britain. That is just what James warned of in his epistle (the fourth chapter, verse 1) to the twelve tribes of Israel! Could history be any clearer? WHERE ARE PETER AND PAUL BURIED? For centuries the Christian world has taken for granted that Peter and Paul are buried in Rome. No one, it seems, has thought to question the tradition. Granted, Paul was brought to Rome about A.D. 67. He was beheaded, then buried on the Ostian Way. But are his remains still there? Granted, too, that universal tradition declared the apostle Peter was also brought to Rome in Nero's reign and martyred about the same time. Many pieces of ancient literature -- some spurious, some factual -- confirm that Simon Magus, the false apostle, who masqueraded as Peter, also died at Rome. The question is -- which Simon is buried today under the Vatican? Is there proof that the bones of the apostles Peter and Paul were moved from Rome, and are not there now? Yes! There is a reason the Vatican has been hesitant to claim the apostle Peter's tomb has been found! They know that it is Simon Magus, the false Peter, who is buried there, not Simon Peter the apostle. Here is what happened In the year 656 Pope Vitalian decided the Catholic Church was not interested in the remains of the apostles Peter and Paul. The Pope therefore ordered them sent to Oswy, King of Britain! Here is part of his letter to the British king: "However, we have ordered the blessed gifts of the holy martyrs, that is, the relics of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and of the holy martyrs Laurentius, John, and Paul, and Gregory, and Pancratius, to be delivered to the bearers of these our letters, to be by them delivered to you" (Bede's "Ecclesiastical History", bk. III, ch. 29). Could anything be more astounding? The bones of Peter and Paul (termed "relics" in the Pope's letter) sent by the Pope from Rome to Britain -- to the land of Israel! About a century and a half earlier Constantius of Lyons took the relics of all the apostles and martyrs from Gaul and buried them in a special tomb at St. Albans in Britain. (Life of St. Germanus.) Is it significant that the work of God and God's College in Britain are in St. Albans? Think that over.

AND ANDREW HIS BROTHER Britain, after A.D. 449, was settled by hundreds of thousands of new people not there in Peter's day. History knows them as Angles and Saxons. They came originally from the shores of the Black Sea -- where the House of Israel dwelt! In A.D. 256 they began to migrate from northern Asia Minor along the shores of the Black Sea to the Cymbric Peninsula (Denmark) opposite Britain. These were the people to whose ancestors Peter wrote his epistles. Which one of the twelve apostles preached to their ancestors -the so-called "White Syrians" -- while they abode by the Bosporus and on the Black Sea? Listen to the answer from Greek historians: "In this division Andrew had Scythia, and the neighboring countries primarily alloted him for his province. First then he travelled through Cappadocia, (Upper) Galatia and Bithynia, and instructed them in the faith of Christ, passing all along the Euxine Sea" -- the old name for the Black Sea! -- "... and so into the solitude of Scythia." One early Greek author gives these journeys in special detail, just as if Luke had written an account of the other apostles as he did of Paul. Andrew "went next to Trapezus, a maritime city on the Euxine Sea, whence after many other places he came to Nice, where he stayed two years, preaching and working miracles with great success: thence to Nicomedia, and so to Chalcedon; whence sailing through the Propontis he came by the Euxine Sea to Heraclea, and from thence to Amastris .... He next came to Sinope, a city situated upon the same sea, ... here he met with his brother Peter, with whom he stayed a considerable time ... Departing hence, he went again to Amynsus and then ... he proposed to return to Jerusalem" -- the headquarters church "Whence after some time he betook himself ... to the country of Abasgi (a land in the Caucasus ) ... Hence he removed into ... Asiatic Scythia or Sarmatia, but finding the inhabitants very barbarous and intractable, he stayed not long among them, only at Cherson, or Chersonesus, a great and populous city within the Bosporus (this Bosporus is the modern Crimea), he continued for some time, instructing them and confirming them in the faith. Hence taking ship, he sailed across the sea to Sinope, situated in Paphlagonia ..." (pp. 137-138 of Cave's "Antiquitates Apostolicae.") Here we find Andrew preaching to the very areas in Asia Minor which Paul bypassed. From this region, and from Scythia north of the Black Sea, migrated the ancestors of the Scots and Anglo-Saxons, as we have already seen. They are of the House of Israel -- or else Andrew disobeyed his commission! And what of the modern Scottish tradition that Andrew preached to their ancestors? Significant? Indeed! AND THE OTHER APOSTLES? And where did Simon the Zealot carry the gospel? Here, from the

Greek records, is the route of his journey: Simon "directed his journey toward Egypt, then to Cyrene, and Africa ... and throughout Mauritania and all Libya, preaching the gospel .... Nor could the coldness of the climate benumb his zeal, or hinder him from shipping himself and the Christian doctrine over to the Western Islands, yea, even to Britain itself. Here he preached and wrought many miracles ...." Nicephorus and Dorotheus both wrote "that he went at last into Britain, and ... was crucified ... and buried there" (p. 203 of Cave's Antiq. Apost.). Think of it. Another of the twelve apostles is found preaching to the Lost Tribes of Israel in Britain and the West. But what is Simon the Zealot doing in North Africa? Were remnants of the House of Israel there, too? Had some fled westward in 721 B.C at the time of the Assyrian conquest of Palestine? Here is Geoffrey of Monmouth's answer: "The Saxons ... went unto Gormund, King of the Africans, in Ireland, wherein, adventuring thither with a vast fleet, he had conquered the folk of the country. Thereupon, by the treachery of the Saxons, he sailed across with a hundred and sixty thousand Africans into Britain ... (and) laid waste, as hath been said, well-nigh the whole island with his countless thousands of Africans" (bk. xi, sect. 8, 19). These countless thousands were not Negroes, or Arabs. They were whites -- Nordics -- who came from North Africa and Mauritania, where Simon preached. These Nordics, declares the "Universal History" (1748-Vol. xviii, p. 194), "gave out, that their ancestors were driven out of Asia by a powerful enemy, and pursued into Greece; from whence they made their escape" to North Africa. "But this ... was to be understood only of the white nations inhabiting some parts of western Barbary and Numidia." What white nation was driven from the western shores of western Asia? The House of Israel! Their powerful enemy? The Assyrians! For almost three centuries after the time of Simon Zelotes they remained in Mauritania. But they are not in North Africa today. They arrived in Britain shortly after A.D. 449 at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. In A.D. 598, when the bishop of Rome sent Augustine to bring Catholicism to England he found the inhabitants were already professing Christians! Their ancestors had already heard the message from one of the twelve apostles! AND IRELAND TOO! Another of the apostles sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel was James, the son of Alphaeus. Some early writers were confused by the fact that two of the twelve apostles were named James. James, son of Alphaeus, was the one who left Palestine after the first twelve years. The deeds of this apostle are sometimes mistakenly assigned to James, John's brother. But that James was already martyred by Herod (Acts 12:2).

Where did James, son of Alphaeus, preach? "The Spanish writers generally contend, after the death of Stephen he came to these Western parts, and particularly into Spain (some add Britain and Ireland) where he planted Christianity" (p. 148 of Cave's work) Note it. Yet another apostle sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel ends in the British Isles -- in Ireland as well as in Britain! Eusebius, in his third book of "Evangelical Demonstrations", chapter 7, admitted that the apostles "passed over to those which are called the British Isles." Again he wrote: "Some of the Apostles preached the Gospel in the British Isles." Could anything be plainer? Even in Spain James spent some time. Why Spain? From ancient times Spain was the high road of migration from the eastern Mediterranean Sea to the British Isles. The ancient royal House of Ireland for a time dwelt in Spain. The prophet Jeremiah passed through Spain into Ireland with Zedekiah's daughters (Jeremiah 41:10; 43:6). Even today a vital part of the Iberian Peninsula -Gibraltar -- belongs to the birthright tribe of Ephraim -- the British! PAUL IN BRITAIN, TOO? Turn, now, to added proof of the apostles' mission to the lost sheep of the House of Israel in the British Isles. From an old volume, published in 1674, by William Camden, we read: "The true Christian Religion was planted here most anciently by Joseph of Arimathea, Simon Zelotes, Aristobulus, by St. Peter, and St. Paul, as may be proved by Dorotheus, Theodoretus and Sophronius." ("Remains of Britain," page 5) Paul is now included! Had Paul planned to go from Italy into Spain and then Britain? ... Here is his answer: "... I will come by you into Spain" (Rom. 15:28). Clement of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthians, confirms Paul's journey to the West. But did that include Britain? Listen to the words of the Greek church historian Theodoret. He reports: "That St. Paul brought salvation to the isles that lie in the ocean" (book i, on Psalm cxvi. p. 870). The British Isles. But was that merely to preach to the Gentiles? Not at all. Remember that the third and last part of Paul's commission, after he revealed Christ to the kings and rulers at Rome, was to bear the name of Jesus to the "children of Israel" (Acts 9:15) -- the Lost Ten Tribes. This is not a prophecy concerning Jews, whom Paul had previously reached in the Greek world of the eastern Mediterranean. This is a prophecy of Paul's mission to the British Isles! Could anything be more astounding? ON THE SHORES OF THE CASPIAN SEA James referred to Israel as scattered abroad. We have found them in Northwest Europe. And in North Africa, from whence they migrated

into Britain in the fifth century And in northern Asia Minor, associated with the Assyrians. In 256 they began to migrate from the regions of the Black Sea to Denmark, thence into the British Isles in 449. But remnants of the Ten Lost Tribes were yet in another vast region beyond the confines of the Roman Empire. That region was known as the Kingdom of Parthia. Who the Parthians were has long remained a mystery. They suddenly appear near the Caspian Sea around 700 B C. as slaves of the Assyrians. "According to Diodorus, who probably followed Ctesias, they passed from the dominion of the Assyrians to that of the Medes, and from dependence upon the Medes to a similar position under the Persians." (Rawlinson's "Monarchies," Vol. IV, p. 26, quoted from Diod. Sic., ii 2, 3; 34, 1 and 6.) The Parthians rose to power around 250 B.C. in the lands along the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. That was the very land into which Israel was exiled! What puzzles historians is that the Parthians were neither Persians, nor Medes, nor Assyrians or any other known people. Even their name breathes mystery -- until you understand the Bible. The word Parthian means exile! (See Rawlinson's "The Sixth Monarchy," page 19.) The only exiles in this land were the ten tribes of Israel! The Parthians included none other than the exiled Lost Ten Tribes who remained In the land of their captivity until A D. 226. That's when the Persians drove them into Europe. Now consider this. James addressed his letter to the twelve tribes of Israel scattered abroad. He warns the Israelites against the wars being waged among themselves. When James wrote his letter about A.D. 60 the world was at peace except for two regions -- Britain and Parthia! There is no mistaking this. Parthia and Britain were Israelite. Which of the twelve apostles carried the gospel to the Parthian Israelites? The Greek historians reveal that Thomas brought the gospel to "Parthia, after which Sophornius and others inform us, that he preached the gospel to the Medes, Persians, Carmans, Hyrcani, Bactrians, and the neighbor nations" (Cave's "Antiq. Apost.", p. 189). These strange sounding names are the lands we know today as Iran (or Persia) and Afghanistan. In apostolic days the whole region was subject to the Parthians. Though many Israelites had left the region already, multitudes remained behind, spread over adjoining territory. They lost their identity and became identified with the names of the districts in which they lived. Josephus, the Jewish historian, was familiar with Parthia as a major dwelling place of the Ten Tribes. He declares: "But then the entire body of the people of Israel (the Ten Tribes) remained in that country (they did not return to Palestine); wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers" ("Antiq. of the Jews", bk. xi, ch. v, 2). There it is! The very area to which Thomas sojourned was, reports

Josephus, filled with uncounted multitudes of the Ten Tribes! Josephus was, apparently, unaware of those who had already migrated westward. But he does make it plain that only the House of Judah ever returned to Palestine. The House of Israel was "beyond Euphrates till now"! Parthia was defeated by Persia in 226 A.D. Expelled from Parthia, the Ten Tribes and the Medes moved north of the Black Sea, into Scythia. (See R. G. Latham's "The Native Races of the Russian Empire," page 216.) From there, around A.D. 256, the Ten Tribes migrated with their brethren from Asia Minor into Northwest Europe. This migration was occasioned by a concerted Roman attack in the east. It backfired on the Romans, for hordes of Israelites and Assyrians suddenly broke through the Roman defenses in the West that same year! Thomas also journeyed into Northwest India, east of Persia, where the "White Indians" dwelt. These "White Indians" -- that is, whites living in India -- were also known as "Nephthalite Huns," in later Greek records. Any connection with the tribe of Naphtali? They were overthrown in the sixth century and migrated into Scandinavia. The archaeology of Scandinavia confirms this event. Bartholomew shared, with Thomas, the same vast plains, according to Nicephorus. Bartholomew also spent part of his time in neighboring Armenia and a portion of Upper Phrygia in Asia Minor. Nicephorus termed the area, in his history, the "Western and Northern parts of Asia," by which he meant Upper Asia Minor, modern Turkey today. This was the same district to which Andrew carried the gospel, and to which Peter sent two of his letters. Jude, also named Libbaeus Thaddaeus, had part in the ministry in Assyria and Mesopotamia. That is part of Parthia which Josephus designated as still inhabited by the Ten Tribes. The Parthian kingdom, which was composed of the Ten Tribes ruling over Gentiles, possessed Assyria and Mesopotamia during most of the New Testament period. From the famous city Babylon, in Mesopotamia, Peter directed the work of all the apostles in the East (Parthia). Scythia and Upper Asia (meaning Asia Minor) were the regions assigned to Philip. (See Cave's "Antiq. Apost.", p. 168). Scythia was the name of the vast plain north of the Black and the Caspian Seas. To this region a great colony of Israelites migrated after the fall of the Persian Empire in 331. From Scythia migrated the Scots. The word Scot is derived from the word Scyth. It means an inhabitant of Scythia. The Scots are part of the House of Israel. Interestingly, the word Scythia, in Celtic, has the same meaning that Hebrew does in the Semitic language -- a migrant or wanderer! WHERE DID MATTHEW GO? Matthew, Metaphrastes tells us, "went first into Parthia, and having successfully planted Christianity in those parts, thence travelled to Aethiopia, that is, the Asiatic Aethiopia, lying near India." For some centuries this region of the Hindu Kush, bordering on

Scythia and Parthia, was known as "White India." It lies slightly east of the area where the Assyrians settled the Israelite captives. A natural process of growth led the House of Israel to these sparcely populated regions. From there they migrated to Northwest Europe in the sixth century, long after the Apostles' time. Dorotheus declares Matthew was buried at Hierapolis in Parthia. The Parthian kingdom was, in fact, a loose union of those lost tribes of Israel who dwelt in Central Asia during this period. The Persians finally drove them all out. Whenever Parthia prospered, other nations prospered. Whenever the Parthians suffered reverses, other nations suffered. Remember the Scripture: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee" (Genesis 12:3). Ethiopic and Greek sources designate Dacia (modern Romania) and Macedonia, north of Greece, as part of the ministry of Matthias. Dacia was the extreme western part of Scythia. From Dacia came the Normans who ultimately settled in France and Britain. The French tradition that Mary, the mother of Jesus, journeyed into Gaul (modern France) lends heavy weight to John's having been in Gaul in his earlier years. It was to John that Jesus committed Mary's care. She would be where he was working. Paul knew Gaul to be an area settled by the House of Israel. He bypassed Gaul on his way from Italy to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28) Gaul must have been reached by one of the twelve. How plain! How can any misunderstand! Here is historic proof to confirm, absolutely, the identity and location of "the House of Israel." The identity of Israel, from secular sources, is itself also independent and absolute proof of where the twelve apostles carried out God's work. CHAPTER XVIII SINCE THE FIRST MAN Never has there been an age like this one. An avalanche of scientific information is pouring down upon specialist and layman alike. No one is able to keep up with the torrent of new knowledge. But is man the wiser for all this new knowledge? Are the latest conclusions of geology, of archaeology, or history any nearer the truth? Or are we being crushed by the sheer weight of new ignorance -- new superstitions, this time garbed in the respectable clothes of Scientific Knowledge? SCIENTIFIC CONFUSION It would seem this ought to be the wisest, most knowledgeable generation that has ever lived. But it is not! And there is a reason.

Never in the history of the world have so many been speculating so much. Speculation, hypothesizing, intellectual guessing have become the lifeblood of the sciences -- especially the social sciences. The result is an age typified by a chaos of ideas. Professor Mendenhall labels the present confused state of human knowledge thus: it "may with perhaps less courtesy but more accuracy be called chaos" ("Biblical History in Transition"). The reason? Only those facts which fit an hypothesis are concerned! The purpose of hypothesis is not eternal truth -- only intellectual curiosity to see whether the hypothesis be so! Is it any wonder that the scholarly world is in confusion? That the genuine history of man has been rejected and forgotten? That Scripture is labeled "unscientific" and "myth"? This second volume of the "Compendium" is devoted to that forgotten history of man.

WHY HYPOTHESES? Can the facts of geology, of archaeology, of human history and the Bible be reconciled? Not if the method of study now in vogue in the educational world is used! Crowning the heap of discarded theories with another hypothesis will not resolve the problems. Yet a solution is possible. The facts of geology, of archaeology, of human history and the Bible are reconcilable. It is the hypotheses and theories of Science and Theology that are not! No one, caught up in the vicious cycle of intellectual guessing, finds it easy to divorce facts from hypotheses. But once one is willing to do that, the gnawing questions of science and history find answers. Why haven't men been willing to face facts, and forget hypothesizing? The answer is simple. Facts do not automatically organize themselves into clear and unmistakable answers. There is always the need of some kind of yardstick, some standard, to guide man in organizing the myriads of facts lying mutely before him. A geological stratum by itself does not answer when? or why? A potsherd by itself does not reveal who? or when? Even a written record by itself often fails to convey motive, proof of accuracy, or history of transmission. Scholars and scientists must of necessity resort to some external framework or yardstick by which the recovered facts may be judged. Only two choices are available -- hypothesis or Divine Revelation. The educated world has chosen the former. It has, without proof, rejected the latter. Hypotheses appeal to human vanity, to intellectual curiosity, to the desire to hear of something new. Divine Revelation requires acknowledgement of a Higher Power, the subjection of human reason to the revealed Mind of the Creator. But human reason revels in its own superiority. By nature it opposes and exalts itself against Higher Authority.

No wonder educators take for granted that the facts of geology, of archaeology, or human history contradict the Bible. Not until human beings are willing to acknowledge God, to acknowledge His Authority, His Revelation, will they ever come to a satisfactory -- and satisfying -- explanation of Man and the Universe. Not until human reason is conquered will the scholarly world enjoy the privilege of understanding the meaning of geology, of archaeology, of history and the Bible. UNCOVERING THE FACTS Scientific and historical journals are filled with "learned" conflicts and controversies. These conflicts are not due to a lack of factual material. There are often "too many" facts. Controversies in philosophy, in science, in education are the direct result of hypothesizing. Theories and hypotheses by their very nature breed controversy. What is needed is a true view of the factual material already available. Present material is more than sufficient to solve every one of the primary questions regarding Man, his origin in time, and the record of his experiences. Why don't today's educators know the answers to these problems? Because they have discarded the key that would unlock the answers. That key is God's revelation of essential knowledge for man -- the Bible. But men don't want God telling them anything authoritatively. They therefore refuse even to test whether the Bible is authoritative. It's time we examined the facts of science. Examined, in brief outline, the beginnings of human society -- the relationship of geology and archaeology to human history and the Bible. It is possible, if we divorce theory from the facts, to discover the answers to every one of the following basic questions: Do the facts of geology confirm the Bible? Was the earth inhabited before the creation of man -- before creation week recorded in Genesis 1? Where in geologic strata, does Creation Week of Genesis 1 occur? Is the geographical description of the Garden of Eden and of the great river that went out of it toward the east (Gen. 2:10) confirmed by geology? What happened to the earth as a result of the sin of Cain? Why did his descendants wander over the earth, hunting instead of farming? What is the relationship between pre-Flood Man and fossil Man? What does archaeology reveal about the first sixteen centuries of human existence? Where do the so-called "Ice Ages" fit in Bible history? Why did so many forms of animal and human life disappear at the close of the geologic period labeled "Pleistocene" by scientists? Is this the Biblical Flood? Every one of these questions has an answer. The answers are so plain even a child can understand them -- if unprejudiced. The factual material has already been recorded for us by generations of historians,

scientists and archaeologists. Yet they don't understand what they have discovered. They view everything from the evolutionary standpoint. It has simply never occurred to them that what they uncovered confirmed the Bible, and not evolution! HOW GEOLOGISTS THINK Most people do not know how a geologist reaches his conclusions. A geologist, of course, is one who makes a study of earth history. He investigates the rock structure of the surface of the earth. Let's accompany a geologist on one of his field trips. A geologist working in the field discovers strata of sandstone, or limestone, or silt. Perhaps in them are fossils. He wants to know when the strata were deposited. How does he decide? The answer is: HE DOESN'T! Being a very careful man -- a scientific man -- he will go to a paleontologist for the answer. And who is a paleontologist? He is a scientist who makes a special study of fossils. It is his function to explain to the geologist the apparent age of the fossils. And how does the paleontologist know the apparent age of the fossils? From geology? No! How can he learn it from geology when even the geologist does not know the age of fossil strata until he goes to the paleontologist who studies the fossils!! Then how does the paleontologist discover how old fossils are? Simple! He turns to the evolution theory! Life, the paleontologist tells the geologist, developed from the very simplest cell into the varied complex creatures that inhabit the earth today. "But what is the age of the fossils?" asks the geologist. "Let me explain that," replies the paleontologist. "Evolution is a very slow process. It may take millions of years for one species of life to slowly develop into another totally different species. The age of your strata are determined by how long we think it took that particular species of fossils to develop. of course, we paleontologists don't all agree on these details. You might get a different answer from another paleontologist! After all, even though we all believe evolution is a fact, we do not know exactly how it occurs -- or even the exact order in which various species of life evolved." And that, in simple language, is what happens! The age of the fossils is guessed at by the paleontologist. The source of his knowledge (or misknowledge) is not geology, but the evolution theory. He takes it for granted. He assumes the theory is a fact -- or reasons as if it were a fact. The geologist then deduces the age of the strata from the assumed age of the fossils. DISCARDING THE FACTS All too often the geologist discovers that, according to the assumed age of the fossils, "younger strata" are below "older strata"

-- in the wrong order -- reversed! "Oh, that's all right," the paleontologist will conclude. "just consider that the strata were laid in the right order and that later a fracture in the earth's crust occurred which placed them in the wrong order." "But there was no fracture or fault line in the deposits. The strata were laid down exactly as I found them." "Don't let that concern you," the paleontologist might tell the geologist. "You are at liberty to insert fracture or fault lines where there were none, and to remove them where you plainly saw them. After all, the evolution theory explains what happened even if you did not find the evidence!" That is THE WAY evolutionary science is practiced. This illustration was in fact presented in a public lecture in one of the most famous institutions of higher learning in Southern California. The geologist giving the lecture added this word of advice: "It is better not to go to different paleontologists. Otherwise there will be no consistency in the dating of fossils. It is much better to consult the same paleontologist, for then, at least, one will be CONSISTENT IN HIS ERROR!" It is this kind of foolish scientific thinking -- if it can be called thinking -- that masquerades as intellectual. This is the kind of thinking that has been used to ridicule and reject the authority of Scripture. This is the trunk of the evolutionary tree. Once it is chopped down all the twiggy side arguments fall with it! Evolution is based on deceptive, circular reasoning. It is an unproved and unprovable hypothesis. It is made to seem rational by a fantastic use of hundreds of millions -- even billions -- of years. But no evolving fossil -- bridging the gaps from one Genesis kind to another -- has ever been found. No half-evolved living species, has ever been seen by man. God-ordained varieties of each kind -- yes! But no evolution from one Genesis kind to another! It is time we opened our eyes to the falsehoods in modern education. Naturally, geologists have found many important and true facts. Once we divorce the facts from the theories and hypotheses, true earth history becomes plain. Now take a look at the facts as they are found. See how they fit the Bible account. THE FACTS OF GEOLOGY First, look at the recent astounding discoveries of geology. They are of such magnitude as to revolutionize the whole field of scientific studies. They tell an incredible story. Geologists, like all scientists, are noted for the care which they take in exact observations and measurements -- though in theorizing they know no bounds to their wildest speculations. After decades of careful firsthand observation, geologists came to

recognize a definite, worldwide break in the geological strata. They didn't understand its meaning. They never looked into the Bible to see if an answer were there. The strata below the break revealed a world entirely different from the one we see around us today. Nowhere in the lower strata does one find fossil Man, or remains warm-blooded creatures so characteristic of our world. Missing, too, are the angiosperms -plants having their seeds enclosed in an ovary. Evolutionary geologists immediately jumped to the conclusion that this was a "proof" of evolution. They couldn't have been more mistaken. Above the break, the strata reveal forms of life vividly described in Genesis 1. There are human remains, many varieties of mammals, birds and flowering trees. Why the sudden appearance of new kinds of life? What is the meaning of this break in the geological horizon? Is it mentioned in the Bible? Most scientists and historians never looked to see. The theologians never stopped to investigate. But the facts are plain for all to see. There has been no past evolution of living matter. CONFIRMATION OF GENESIS ONE Genesis 1 has been woefully misunderstood. "Creation Week" is not the record of the original creation of matter, but an account of re-creation! The first chapter of Genesis contains two distinct accounts. The first two verses are a brief account of the creation of matter and physical energy -- of a beautiful earth fit for habitation -- "in the beginning." The second account is about the work of re-creation following a frightful catastrophe which befell the first world. That catastrophe is briefly summarized in verse 2 of Genesis 1. These verses, according to the original inspired Hebrew text, read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth had become without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." God created the world fit for habitation. It was not created a waste. Isaiah 45:18 reveals: "... God himself that formed the earth ... he created it not in vain (the original Hebrew is the same as in Genesis 1:2 -- meaning "not a waste"), he formed it to be inhabited." The first or pre-Adamic creation was turned into a chaotic wreck. Virtually all life perished. (Psalm 104: 28-29.) The whole face of the earth was covered with water. The Biblical record of Genesis 1:2 is confirmed by the enigmatic break which scientists have found in the geological strata. The strata below the break are the remains of the pre-Adamic world! WHAT INTERNATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL YEAR REVEALED For scores of years geologists assumed the ocean floors were the

quiet resting places of thousands of feet of mud and slime. Then came the shocking truth. Those thousands of feet of mud were not there. The geologists could hardly believe their eyes. An immense catastrophe had befallen the earth. Everywhere men sent down into the oceans their coring devices they discovered the ocean depths had suffered a tremendous volcanic upheaval. To heighten the shock of the discovery, scientists found the catastrophe had struck the ocean depths at the same moment in geological history that it had struck the land masses. On land it had been recognized as a worldwide break in the geological strata. To this upheaval geologists assign the label "Cretaceous" -- meaning "chalky" -- because of the nature of the chalky deposits in England where the strata were first studied. Geologists thought they would find strata in the sea below the so-called "Cretaceous" deposits -- just as they find them on the continents. They didn't. Reported Ericson and Wollin: "... no sediment older than Upper Cretaceous time has been found in the ocean basins because there is none there to find" ("The Deep and the Past", p. 266). None to find? of course! On the ocean floors the world before man has been buried under tremendous volcanic eruptions. The authors continue: "The paleontological and geophysical evidence tells in clear enough language that some sort of drastic reorganization of the floors of the oceans must have taken place toward the end of the Lower Cretaceous Period .... We can be sure (that is usually a sure sign that scholars, historians, and scientists are guessing) that this volcanic transformation did not take place within the span of a few years; if it had, all marine life would have come to a sudden end as a gargantuan bouillabaisse of boiled fish. To avoid catastrophe of this sort, we need only be more liberal with time; we have plenty of it at our disposal .... "Whence came the energy and why should its effect have been concentrated at the beginning of the Upper Cretaceous?" (Pages 267-268.) Read that astounding quote again! The facts are plain! There was a singular catastrophe which virtually ended all life between what geologists call the "Lower" and "Upper Cretaceous" -- that is, the dividing line between the world before Adam and the world since the creation of man. Geologists throw around time as though it were a mere toy! By giving themselves time enough they hope to alleviate the necessity of accepting the truth of Genesis 1:2. THE WORLD OF ADAM To continue picking up the highlights of geology which confirm the Biblical record -The second chapter of Genesis, verses 8 to 15, preserves a

remarkable account of the geography of the land of Eden where Man first dwelt. Many Scripture passages indicate it was the land of Palestine, with the Garden lying eastward in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Josephus, the Jewish historian, confirms this picture in "Antiquities of the Jews," I, i, 3. In Eden sprang forth a vast stream of water that flowed eastward through the Garden. It divided into four parts, three of which flowed toward the north and east -- the other southward. Where, in geological history, would one find this geographical description of the river system of Palestine and the environs of Jerusalem? In the strata that geologists label "Upper Cretaceous"! In Palestine it is the next geological event which follows the geological break previously referred to. Jewish geologists, unaware of what they have discovered, have even presented a simple sketch of this astounding evidence. On page 35 of E. A. Speiser's "At the Dawn of Civilization" is a geologic map of Palestine in the so-called "Upper Cretaceous." Immediately to the east of Jerusalem may be seen in outline the area through which the waters from the Garden flowed. The present Jordan Valley and Dead Sea were not then formed. With these geological points established in brief, it is not difficult to place the subsequent geological and archaeological deposits in their Biblical background. The first few centuries of human life on earth are consequently parallel with the "Upper Cretaceous" and "Tertiary" deposits of geological science. These deposits are of course dated by evolutionary scientists as millions of years old. Time, to them, means nothing. Geologists have no means of dating accurately these deposits. They assume their extreme antiquity because they first assumed the evolutionary hypothesis to be a fact! The Evolutionary hypothesis is not a fact. It has never been proven and by its very nature can never be proven. Once evolution is recognized for what it is -- a mere figment of human imagination -- the whole geological timetable collapses! THE SIN OF CAIN AND GEOLOGY Cain is an important figure in theology. He is equally important to history and geology. Geology? Indeed! As a result of the sin of Cain the entire history of human society -- and the earth's surface -changed. Notice the Biblical record: "And now art thou cursed from the earth ... when thou tillest the ground" -- Cain, says Josephus, sought to gain his livelihood by farming methods which depleted the soil -"It shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive (or wanderer) and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth" (Gen. 4:11-12). God put a stop to Cain's way -- the way of getting. If Cain and his heirs had been allowed to continue their agricultural pursuits, soils all over the world would long ago have been rendered unfit for cultivation. Human life might well have been snuffed out by mass

starvation. The geological record tells us what God did to save the soil from utter depletion. Mountain chains arose where there were none before. Seas dried up. The balmy semi-tropical climate of the world rapidly shifted into torrid and frigid zones. Wherever Cain wandered his agricultural pursuits came to naught. When it should have rained, the weather turned dry. Just as he was about to reap the ripening crop, a storm blew in. Nothing turned out right. Cain was forced to turn to hunting and gathering the sparse wild fruits and berries. He and the generations who followed him eked out a wretched living. All this is recorded in geology and archaeology. In the so-called "Tertiary" geological deposits, which follow the "Upper Cretaceous," immense surface changes are recorded. The climate began to turn cooler. Desert regions developed in the wake of mountain building. Pluvial and arid periods fluctuated. "Tertiary" deposits are overlain by what geologists call "Quarternary" or "Pleistocene" deposits. The climate in the northern hemisphere became even colder. Vast snowfalls engulfed the regions now labeled Canada and Europe on our maps. The Arctic zone expanded. Fluctuations in sea level occurred. All along the continental shore lines the changing beach levels left their mark. Many may still be seen today. Geologists mislabel this pre-Flood period "Ice Ages." This period witnessed the spread of human habitation around the world. Giants appeared according to Genesis. Fossil remains of giant human beings of this period have been found by geologists. This is the time of so-called "Paleolithic Man," or "Neanderthal Man" and the "Mousterian Culture," of the mammoth and reindeer hunters of the "Upper Paleolithic." Their culture exactly fits the curse that befell Cain. Cain and his descendants became wanderers and vagabonds over the face of their earth. They were reduced to hunting and gathering because the soil would not yield normal crops. These ancient changes in the weather are a type of the changes of the weather now beginning to hit the earth in this twentieth century! With an increase in human population over the centuries, Cain saw a way around his punishment. He reasoned that if he could monopolize the salt trade, he could become rich. Every human being needs salt to live. He headed for the region of the Dead Sea. There he built an important city and surrounded it with walls. Josephus describes it in detail. The Bible refers to it as the city of Enoch, which Cain built and named in honor of his son (Gen. 4:17). Archaeologists have found it -- the first walled city built before the Flood. On its site was later built the post-Flood city of Jericho. The British archaeologist Miss Kenyon has devoted much time and patience to the excavation of this important discovery (see her book Digging Up Jericho). At Jericho and all over the eastern Mediterranean lands rapid changes in culture developed. Population increased. Many village sites dot the countryside. Intermarriage of races was a consequence of the family of Cain settling among the family of Seth in the Middle East. Numerous fossil skeletons attest to this fact mentioned in Gen. 6:1-2. The complete story of culture changes before the Flood may be

easily pieced together from Emmanuel Anati's "Palestine Before the Hebrews," F. C. Hibben's "Prehistoric Man in Europe" and Speiser's afore-quoted book. "The Bible and the Ancient Near East" provides the proper sequence of cultures in its fourth chapter, "The Archaeology of Palestine," by G. E. Wright. These and other studies make it clear that the Flood occurred at the end of the geological epoch called the "Pleistocene." The "Recent" which follows geologically is the post-Flood world. This event is also marked in geological records by the sudden disappearance of many forms of animal life -- especially the mammoths. EARLY POST-FLOOD WORLD In archaeological parlance the pre-Flood world in the Middle East drew to a close with the "Natufian," the "Tahunian," pre-pottery and pottery Neolithic and related cultures. As this dissertation is being written, important new discoveries in Anatolia and Southeast Europe are adding to our knowledge of so-called "Neolithic" culture just prior to the Flood. Already archaeologists are aware that their designation "Neolithic" is a misnomer. It was not a complex of cultures based on polished stone without metals. Everywhere copper artifacts are, turning up in the Middle East -- in Persia, in Greece and along the Danube, in Anatolia and the fringes of Mesopotamian plains. Scripture makes plain that the knowledge and use of copper alloys and iron characterized the closing stages of the pre-Flood world (see Genesis 4:22). These so-called Early Neolithic cultures are mistakenly dated (by radio-carbon) to the last half of the sixth millennium and to the fifth. Radio-carbon dates that are earlier than the 4300's ± 300 B.C. generally belong to Pre-Flood societies. Those sites and artifacts dated by archaeologists to the 4300's ± 300 and later appear in every known instance to be of the post-Flood world. This indicates that radio-carbon dates for the time of the Flood are about 2000 ± 300 years off! The immediate post-Flood world is, in Mesopotamia and Palestine, labeled by archeologists as a transitional "Neolithic-Chalcolithic" culture stage. It is rather a senseless term! The term is meant to imply a general but limited use of metal. In short order Palestinian society developed into a so-called "Early Chaleolithic" period. Wherever these two cultural phases appear in the Middle East, there is evidence of a break with the past. The world population suddenly appears to have shrunk to almost nothing. Migrations are on miniature scale. Areas of human habitation are limited, compared with the evidences of tremendous population in the Early Neolithic which ended in the Flood. Of the pre-Flood world we have this startling quote from Anati in "Palestine Before the Hebrews": "... the density of population must have been then one of the greatest in Palestine. Frequently the distance from one settled spot to another is no more than a thousand

feet" (p. 231). Post-Flood Palestine was, by contrast, sparsely settled. Human habitation, springing out of Syria and Mesopotamia, was limited in the Early Chalcolithic to sites along the coast, in the mountains and along the Jordan plain. An increase in population is noted in the succeeding cultural phase -- the Ghassulian of archaeological parlance. This is the period in which Abraham appeared in Palestine. Abraham generally made southern Palestine, headquarters. Its chief town was Beersheba. It is not surprising that during this period Beersheba was the cultural center of Palestine, rather than the more populous north. It was at Beersheba that the remains of the earliest known domesticated horse was found by archaeologists ("Palestine before the Hebrews", p. 241). Abraham's descendants ever since have been famous breeders of horses. The lush Jordan Valley became desolate during the Ghassulian. When Tell el-Ghassul was excavated by the Pontifical Institute immense quantities of ash were found. It was immediately recognized as the time of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. Later, archaeologists -confronted with this plain evidence of Scripture -- rejected the identification and placed the Ghassulian culture 1500 years too early! And with that the evidence of geology and archaeology missing from Volume I is completed. Geology, archaeology, history and the Bible stand reconciled. APPENDIX A THE ENIGMA OF DYNASTY I AND II OF KISH RESOLVED The lengths of reigns assigned to the rulers of Dynasties I and II of Kish are clearly not the true lengths of reign. They are all too long. Yet they cannot be explained merely by scribal errors. The figures are intentionally long. The Babylonian priestly scribes at an early period intentionally lengthened the original figures to make Babylon excessively ancient. The question is: Can the true lengths of reign still be deduced from the figures now preserved? The answer is Yes! What the Babylonians did was very clever. To preserve the original figures which they had in their possession -- and yet hide them -- they resorted to a clever mathematical trick. To understand, let's look at the Sumerian and Babylonian method of numbering. Today we are familiar with the use of decimals -- multiples of ten. But we are generally unfamiliar with the Babylonian use of multiples of sixes and sixties. Samuel Kramer explains it for laymen in "The Sumerians, Their History, Culture and Character," p. 92. To express the number 60, for example, the Sumerians used a particular symbol. But to express 600 they used another symbol, not 10 x 60. To express 3,600, they used another symbol, not 6 x 600. Now what the clever priest-kings did was this: They took for example, a man whose length of reign was 14 years and altered the figures the following way. They multiplied the 4, the first figure to

the left of the decimal point by 60. The result was 240. Then they multiplied the 1, the second figure to the left of the decimal point by 600. The result was 1 x 600 + 4 x 60 = 840. By working back from the expanded figures now preserved, it is possible to determine the real lengths of reigns of the priest-kings of Kish who were elected to the office. The Dynasty, it should be noted, is placed before that of Erech. It indicates that events which led to the establishment of Nimrod's political government in 2254, began two years earlier in a religious revolt that expressed itself in the building of the Tower of Babel in 2256. Rulers of Dynasty Length of Calculation II of Kish -Reign from of True Priest-Kings King List Reign Su-

more than 201, not more than 205

Dadasig

more than 1785, not more than 1789

Mamagal

420

Kalbum, son of Mamagal. Tuge Mennumna Lugalmu Ibbi-Ea

Actual Reign

0 x 600 + 3 x 60 = 3 yrs. + mos.

2 x 600 + 9 x 60 = 29 yrs. + mos

0 x 600 + 7 x 60 = 7 yrs.

132 360

0 x 600 + 2 x 60 = 2 yrs. + mos 0 x 600 + 6 x 60 = 6 yrs.

180 420

0 x 600 + 3 x 60 = 3 yrs. 0 x 600 + 7 x 60 = 7 yrs.

290

0 x 600 + 4 x 60 = 4 yrs. + mos.

Eight kings are said to have reigned 3792 years; the correct total is given in the Document L1 (see p. 97 of Jacobsen's "Sumerian King List"). For all other figures, see pp. 328-329 of S. N. Kramer's, "The Sumerians, their History, Culture and Character." Rulers of Dynasty II Actual Length Dates of of Kish of Reign Reign SuDadasig

3

1809-1806 29

1806-1777

Mamagal

7

1777-1770

Kalbum, son of Mamagal. Tuge

2

6

1768-1762

Mennumna

3

Lugalmu

1762-1759

7

Ibbi-Ea

1770-1768

1759-1752

4

1752-1748

Rulers of Dynasty Length of Calculation I of Kish -Reign from of True Priest-Kings King List Reign Gaur

1200

Gulla-Nidaba-annapad

Actual Reign

2 x 600 + 0 x 60 = 20 yrs. 960

1 x 600 + 6 x 60 = 16 yrs.

Pala-kinatim

900

Nangishlishma and Bahina

6960 1 x 3600 + 5 x 600 + 6 x 60 = 156 yrs.

Buanum

840

1 x 600 + 4 x 60 = 14 yrs.

Kalibum

960

1 x 600 + 6 x 60 = 16 yrs.

Galumum Zukakip Atab Mashda Arurim, son of Mashda.

840 900 600 840

1 x 600 + 5 x 60 = 15 yrs.

1 x 600 + 4 x 60 = 14 yrs. 1 x 600 + 5 x 60 = 15 yrs. 1 x 600 + 0 x 60 = 10 yrs. 1 x 600 + 4 x 60 = 14 yrs.

720

1 x 600 + 2 x 60 = 12 yrs.

Etana, the shep1560 herd, who ascended to heaven, who MADE FIRM ALL THE LANDS.

2 x 600 + 6 x 60 = 26 yrs.

Balih

400

0 x 600 + 6 x 60 = 6 yrs.+ mos.

Enmenunna

660

Melan-Kish, son of Enmenunna.

1 x 600 + 1 x 60 = 11 yrs.

900

1 x 600 + 5 x 60 = 15 yrs.

Barsalnunna, son of Enmenunna.

1200

2 x 600 + 0 x 60 = 20 yrs.

Meszemug, son of Barsalnunna.

140

Tizkar, son of Meszamug. Ilku Iltasadum

0 x 600 + 2 x 60 = 2 yrs.+ mos.

305

0 x 600 + 5 x 60 = 5 yrs.+ mos.

900

1 x 600 + 3 x 60 = 15 yrs.

1200

Enmebaraggesi, who smote the weapons of the land of Elam.

2 x 600 + 0 x 60 = 20 yrs.

900

Agga, son of Enmebaraggesi.

1 x 600 + 5 x 60 = 15 yrs.

625

1 x 600 + 0 x 60 = 10 yrs.+ mos.

"Twenty-three kings reigned 24,510 years." Rulers of Dynasty I of Kish Priest-Kings Gaur

Actual Length of Reign

Dates of Reign

20 2256-2236 Reckoned from commencement of building Tower of Babel

Gulla-Nidaba-annapad Pala-kinatim Nangishlishma and Bahina

16 15

2236-2220 2220-2205

156

2205-2049

Buanum

14

2049-2035

Kalibum

16

2035-2019

Galumum Zukakip

14 15

2019-2005 2005-1990

Atab

10

Mashda

1990-1980

14

1980-1966

Arurim, son of Mashda.

12

1966-1954

Etana, the shepherd.

26

Balih, son of Etana.

6

1928-1922

11

1922-1911

Enmenunna

1954-1928

Melan-Kish, son of Enmenunna.

15

1911-1896

Barsalnunna, son of Enmenunna.

20

1896-1876

Meszamug, son of Barsalnunna.

2

1876-1874

Tizkar, son of Meszamug.

5

Ilku

1869-1854

15

Iltasadum

20

1874-1869

1854-1834

Enmebaraggesi, who smote the weapons of the land of Elam.

15

Agga, son of Enmebaraggesi.

10

1834-1819 1819-1809

APPENDIX B ETHIOPIAN KING LIST The following list of rulers is taken from "In the Country of the Blue Nile" by C. F. Rey, London, 1927 (Appendix A). It is exactly correct in the original archives. The dates are stated in years according to the Gregorian calendar. They begin in September -- hence autumn to autumn reckoning. This list of rulers is as valuable as the Chinese Shoo King. AGDAZYAN DYNASTY OF THE POSTERITY OF THE KINGDOM OF JOCTAN Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Akbunas Saba I. Saba

55

Dates 1978-1923

is the Arabian Abd Shems, son of Jerah (Yarab), the son of Joktan. 2. Nakehte Kalnis. Kalnis is Kahlan of Arabian tradition, the son of Abd Shems.

40

3. Kasiyope (queen) 4. Sabe I 5. Etiyopus I

1923-1883

19 15

1883-1864 1864-1849

56

1849-1793

6. Lakndun Nowarari

30

1793-1763

7. Tutimheb

20

1763-I743

8. Herhator I

20

1743-1723

9. Etiyopus II

30

1723-1693

10. Senuka I

17

1693-1676

11. Bonu I

8

1676-1668

12. Mumazes (queen)

4

1668-1664

13. Aruas, daughter of Mumazes.

7 months

1664

14. Amen Asro I

30

1664-1634

15. Ori (or Aram) II

30

1634-1604

16. Piori I

15

17. Amen Emhat I 18. Tsawi

1604-1589 40

15

1589-1549 1549-1534

19. Aktissanis

10

1534-1524

20. Mandes

17

1524-1507

21. Protawos

33

1507-1474

22. Amoy

21

1474-1453

23. Konsi Hendawi

5

24. Bonu II

1453-1448

2

25. Sebi III (Kefe)

1448-1446 15

1446-1431

26. Djagons

20

1431-1411

27. Senuka II

10

1411-1401

28. Angabo I (Zaka Laarwe) 29. Miamur

50

2 days

30. Helena (queen) 31. Zagdur I

1340-1300

30

1300-1270

34. Akate (Za Sagado) IV

36. Hermantu I

1351-1340

40

33. Her Hator (Za Sagado) III

35. Titon Satiyo

1351

11

32. Her Hator II

1401-1351

1

1270-1269

20

1269-1249

10

1249-1239

5 months

37. Amen Emhat II

5

1239 1239-1234

38. Konsab I

5

1234-1229

39. Sannib II

5

1229-1224

40. Sanuka III

5

1224-1219

41. Angabo II

40

42. Amen Astate 43. Herhor

30 16

1219-1179 1179-1149 1149-1133

44. Wiyankihi I

9

1133-1124

45. Pinotsem I

17

1124-1107

46. Pinotsem II

41

1107-1066

47. Massaherta

16

1066-1050

48. Ramenkoperm

14

49. Pinotsem III

1050-1036

7

50. Sabi IV

1036-1029

10

1029-1019

51. Tawasaya Dews

13

52. Makeda

1019-1006

31

1006- 975

The year 975 is the year of death of Hatshepsowe, who is Makeda. Her daughter married Solomon, Their son, Menelik, was adopted by Makeda as her heir since she had no son of her own. Menelik thus was of the line of Sheba, of Joktan and Peleg -- which explains the racial intermixture of the Ethiopian royalty. Fifty-two sovereigns reigned over Ethiopia before the advent of Mehelik I. DYNASTY OF MENELIK I Ruler

Length of Reign

Dates

1. Menelik I

25

975-950

2. Hanyon

1

950-949

3. Sera I (Tomai). This is Zerah the Ethiopian -here expressly recorded by name in the history of Abyssinia.

26

949-923

4. Amen Hotep Zagdur

31

923-892

5. Aksumay Ramissu

20

892-872

6. Awseyo Sera II 7. Tawasya II

38

872-834

21

8. Abralyus Wiyankihi II

834-813 32

9. Aksumay Warada Tsahay 10. Kashta Hanyon 11. Sabaka II

813-781 23

13

758-745

12

12. Nicauta Kandake (queen)

781-758

745-733 10

733-723

13. Tsawi Terhak Warada Nsgash

49

723-674

6

674-668

14. Erda Amen Awseya, or Urdemane of Assyrian records of Assurbanipal 15. Gasiyo Eskikatir

--

668

16. Nuatmeawn (Tanautamun)

4

17. Tomadyon Piyankihi III

12

18. Amen Asero

16

19. Piyankihi IV, or Awtet

664-652 652-636

34

20. Zaware Nebret Aspurta

41

21. Saifay Harsiataw II

668-664

12

602-561 561-549

22. Ramhay Nastossanan 23. Handu Wuha Abra

636-602

4

549-535

11

535-524

24. Safelya Sabakon

31

524-493

25. Agalbus Sepekos

22

493-471

26. Psmenit Waradanegash

21

471-450

27. Awseya Tarakos

12

450-438

28. Kanaz Psmis, son of Awseya Tarakos

13

438-425

29. Apras

10

425-415

30. Kashta Walda Ahuhu 31. Elalion Taake 32. Atserk Amen III 33. Atserk Amen IV 34. Hadina (queen) 35. Atserk Amen V

20 10 10 10 10 10

415-395 395-385 385-375 375-365 365-355 355-345

36. Atserk Amen VI

10

345-335

37. Nikawla Kandake (queen) 38. Bassyo

10

7

335-325

325-318

39. Akawsis Kandake III (queen)

10

40. Arkamen II

318-308

10

308-298

41. Awtet Arawura

10

298-288

42. Kolas II (Kaletro)

10

288-278

43. Zawre Nebrat

16

278-262

44. Stiyo

14

262-248

45. Safay

13

248-235

46. Nikosis Kandake IV (queen)

10

47. Ramhay Arkamen IV

235-225

10

48. Feliya Hernekhit

15

225-215 215-200

49. Hende Awkerara

20

200-180

50. Agabu Baseheran

10

180-170

51. Sulay Kawswmenun

20

52. Messelme Kerarmer

8

170-150 150-142

53. Nagey Bsente

10

142-132

54. Etbenukewer

10

132-122

55. Safeliya Abramen 56. Sanay

20 10

57. Awsena (queen)

102- 92 11

58. Dawit II

10

59. Aglbul

8

122-102

92- 81 81- 71 71- 63

60. Bawawl

10

63- 53

61. Barawas

10

53- 43

62. Dinedad

10

43- 33

63. Amoy Mahasse

5

33- 28

64. Nicotnis Kandake V

10

28- 18

65. Nalke

5

18- 13

66. Luzay

12

13- 1

67. Bazen

17

B.C. 1- 17 A.D.

Before Christ 119 sovereigns reigned. THOSE WHO REIGNED AFTER THE BIRTH OF CHRIST Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Sartu Tsenfa Assegd 2. Akaptah Tsenfa Ared 3. Horemtaku

Dates

21

17- 38

8

38- 46

2

46- 48

4. Garsemot Kandake VI. Jen 10 Daraba, favourite of Queen Garsemot Kandake, crowned by Gabre Hawariat Kandake, had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem according to the law of Orit (the ancient law), and on his return Philip the Apostle taught him the gospel, and after he had made him believe the truth he sent him back. 5. Hatoza Bahr Asaged

28

6. Mesenh Germasir

7

7. Metwa Germa Asfar 10

9. Agba

1

58- 86 86- 93

9

8. Adgale II

48- 58

93-102 102-112 112-113

10. Serada

16

113-129

11. Malis Alameda

4

129-133

12. Hakabe Nasohi Tsiyon

6

133-139

13. Hakli Sergway

12

139-151

14. Dedme Zaray

10

151-161

15. Awtet

2

161-163

16. Alaly Bagamay

7

163-170

17. Awadu Jan Asagad

30

18. Zagun Tsion Hegez

5

200-205

19. Rema Tsion Geza

3

205-208

20. Azegan Malbagad

7

208-215

21. Gafale Seb Asagad

1

215-216

22. Tsegay Beze Wark

4

216-220

23. Gaza Agdur

9

220-229

24. Agduba Asgwegwe 25. Dawiza

8 1

26. Wakana (queen) 27. Hadawz

170-200

229-237 237-238

2 days

238

4 months

238

28. Ailassan Sagal

3

238-241

29. Asfehi Asfeha

14

30. Atsgaba Seifa Arad 31. Ayba

6 17

32. Tsaham Laknduga 33. Tsegab

241-255

261-278 9

10

255-261

278-287 287-297

34. Tazer

10

297-307

35. Ahywa Sofya (queen)

7

307-314

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOVEREIGNS 1. Ahywa. Her regnal name was Sofya, and she was the mother of Abreha Atsbeha. 2. Abreha Atsbeha, reigned partly with his mother.

26

3. Atsbeha, alone.

12

4. Asfeh Dalz

7

5. Sahle

340-352 352-359

14

359-373

6. Arfed Gebra Maskal

4

7. Adhana I (queen) 8. Riti 9. Asfeh II

12. Abreha II 13. Ilassahl

1

16. Abreha III

1

383-384 5

384-389

15

389-404

7 months

404

2 months

404

2

404-406

4

406-410

10

17. Adhana II (queen) 18. Yoab

377-382 382-383

14. Elagabaz I 15. Suhal

373-377

5

10. Atsbeha II 11. Amey

314-340

410-420 6

10

420-426 426-436

19. Tsaham I

2

436-438

20. Amey II

1

438-439

21. Sahle Ahzob

2

22. Tsebah Mahana Kristos

439-441 3

441-444

23. Tsaham II

2

444-446

24. Elagabaz II

6

446-452

25. Agabi

1

452-453

26. Lewi

2

453-455

27. Ameda III

3

28. Armah Dawit

455-458 14

458-472

29. Amsi

5

472-477

30. Salayba

9

477-486

31. Alameda

8

32. Pazena Ezana

486-494 7

494-501

Of the posterity of Sofya and Abreha Atsbeha until the reign of Pazena Ezana thirty-one sovereigns reigned over Ethiopia. DYNASTY OF ATSE (EMPEROR) KALEB UNTIL GEDAJAN Ruler 1. Kaleb 2. Za Israel

Length of Reign 30

4. Kostantinos

14 28

5. Wasan Sagad 6. Fere Sanay 7. Advenz

501-531

1 month

3. Gabra Maskal

Dates

531 531-545 545-573

15 23

573-588 588-611

20

611-631

8. Akala Wedem

8

631-639

9. Germa Asafar

15

639-654

10. Zergaz

10

654-664

11. Dagena Mikael 12. Bahr Ekla 13. Gum

26

664-690

19

690-709

24

709-733

14. Asguagum

5

733-738

15. Latem

16

738-754

16. Talatam

21

754-775

17. Gadagosh

13

18. Aizar Eskakatir

1/2 day

19. Dedem

5

20, Wededem

788 788-793

10

21. Wudme Asfare 22. Armah

775-788

793-803

30

803-833

5

23. Degennajan 24. Gedajan

833-838 19

838-857

1

25. Gudit

857-858

40

26. Anbase Wedem 27. Del Naad

858-898 20

898-918

10

918-928

Twenty-seven sovereigns of the posterity of Kaleb SOVEREIGNS ISSUED FROM ZAGWE Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Mara Takla Haymanot, his regnal name was Zagwe.

13

Dates 928- 941

2. Tatawdem

40

941- 981

3. Jan Seyum

40

981-1021

4. Germa Seyum

40

1021-1061

5. Yermrhana Kristos

40

1061-1101

6. Kedus Arbe (Samt)

40

1101-1141

7. Lalibala 8. Nacuto Laab 9. Yatbarak

40

1141-1181 40

1181-1221

17

1221-1238

10. Mayari

15

1238-1253

11. Harbay

8

1253-1261

Of the posterity of Mara Takla Haymanot (whose regnal name was Zagwe) until the reign of Harbay eleven sovereigns reigned over Ethiopia. A JEWISH DYNASTY, WHICH WAS NOT RAISED TO THE THRONE, DURING THE PERIOD OF THE PRECEDING DYNASTY 1. Mahbara Wedem 2. Agbea Tsyon 3. Tsinfa Arad 4. Nagash Zare 5. Asfeh 6. Yakob 7. Bahr Asagad 8. Edem Asagad SOVEREIGNS FROM EMPEROR YEKUNO AMLAK, DESCENDED FROM THE ANCIENT REIGNING DYNASTIES Ruler 1. Yekuno Amlak

Length of Reign 15

Dates 1261-1276

2. Yasbeo Tseyon

9

3. Tsenfa Arad

1276-1285

1

4. Hesba Asagad

1285-1286 1

5. Kedme Asagad

1286-1287

1

6. Jan Asagad

1287-1288

1

1288-1289

7. Sabea Asagad

1

8. Wedma Ared

15

1290-1305

9. Amda Tseyon

30

1305-1335

10. Saifa Ared

28

11. Wedma Asfare 12. Dawit

1335-1363 10

1363-1373

30

1373-1403

13. Tewodoros 14. Yeshak

1289-1290

4

1403-1407

15

1407-1422

15. Andreyas

6 months

1422

16. Hesba Nan

4

1422-1426

17. Bedl Nan (6 months with Andreyas & 6 months)

1

18. Amde Tseyon

7

19. Zara Yakob

34

20. Boeda Maryam 21. Iskender

10 16

22. Amda Tseyon 23. Naod

1427-1434 1434-1468 1468-1478 1478-1494

1 13

1426-1427

1494-1495 1495-1508

Of the posterity of Yekuno Amlak up to the reign of Naod 23 sovereigns ruled over Ethiopia.

ELEVATION TO THE THRONE OF ATSE (EMPEROR) LEBNA DENGEL, AND THE INVASION OF ETHIOPIA BY GRAN Ruler

Length of Reign

Dates

1. Lebna Dengel

32

1508-1540

2. Galawdewos

19

1540-1559

3. Minas

4

1559-1563

Fifteen years after Atse (Emperor) Lebna Dengel came to the throne Gran devastated Ethiopia for fifteen years. THE HOUSE OF GONDAR Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Sartsa Dengel 2. Yakob

34

Dates 1563-1597

9

1597-1606

3. Za Dengel

1

1606-1607

4. Susneyos

28

1607-1635

5. Fasil

35

1635-1670

6. Degu-Johannis

15

7. Adyam Sagad Iyasu

25

8. Takla Haymanot 9. Tewoflus

1670-1685 1685-1710

2

1710-1712

3

1712-1715

10. Yostos

4

1715-1719

11. Dawit

5

1719-1724

12. Bakaffa

9

1724-1733

13. Birhan Sagad Iyasu 14. Iyoas 15. Johannis

24 15

1733-1757 1757-1772

5 mos. & 5 dys.

1772

16. Takla Haymanot

8

17. Solomon

1772-1780

2

18. Takla Giyorgis

1780-1782 5

1782-1787

Of the posterity of Sartsa Dengel up to the reign of King Takla Giyorgis eighteen sovereigns reigned over Ethiopia. SOVEREIGNS OF ABYSSINIA SUBSEQUENT TO THE FOREGOING LIST From about 1730 up to the advent of Theodore in 1855 these kings exercised no real power. They were murdered, deposed, restored and driven out again, or treated as nonentities by anyone of the great Rases or semi-independent kings who were strong enough to maintain themselves against their rivals, such as, for example, Ras Mikael Suhul of Tigre (1730-1780), Ras Guksa of Amhara a Galla (1790-1819), and the son (Ras Marye) and grandson (Ras Ali) of the latter. In 1813, indeed, no less than six nominal "Kings of Kings of Ethiopia" were all alive, having been successively turned out of office by others. The names of all these kings (who were actually raised to the throne) are, however, given below in order to maintain continuity, together with the dates (according to our calendar) of their chequered reigns. Ruler 1. Yasus

Length of Reign 1

1787-1788

2. Takla Haymanot 3. Iskias

1 6

1788-1789 1789-1795

4. Baeda Maryam 5. Junus

Dates

2 --

6. Adimo

1795-1797 1797

2

7. Egwala Sion

1797-1799 19

1799-1818

8. Joas

3

1818-1821

9 Gigar

5

1821-1826

10. Baeda Maryam III 11. Gigar (again)

-4

1826 1826-1830

12. Iyasu IV 13. Gabra Kristos

2

1830-1832 --

14. Sahala Dengel 15. Johannes III

1832

8

1832-1840

1

1840-1841

16. Sahala Dengel (again)

14

1841-1855

At this time the empire was re-established by Theodore. 17. Theodore

13

1855-1868

18. John IV

21

1868-1889

19. Menelik II

24

1889-1913

20. Le; Yasu

3

1913-1916

21. Zauditu, empress, and Tafari Makonnen, regent and heir. 22. Haile Selassie I, is the title of Tafari Makonnen after Zauditu's death. Except for period of Italian annexation (1936 1942) he has ruled to the present time.

14

--

1916-1930

1930

For purposes of comparison, it should be remembered that the present Abyssinian autumn-to-autumn calendar is seven or eight years behind ours, according to the period of the year. That is, the Ethiopian date differs by eight years from 1st January to 10th September. It differs by seven years from 11th September to 31st December. Thus the year which the Abyssinians regard as A.D. 1 is for us September A.D. 8 to September A.D. 9. This difference is not of course exactly the same all the way back throughout the List of Kings, as revisions of the calendar took place at various dates throughout the period. But it is near enough for general comparison. TRIBE OF POSTERITY OF ORI OR ARAM An Aramaic royal line spread into Africa, as well as into Shinar

and Syria. In Africa, the sons of Aram through Mash (and perhaps Uz also) migrated into Egypt and Ethiopia, mixing with Israel, Cush and the Egyptians. Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Ori or Aram, son of Shem.

60

2. Gariak I. Mash, son of 66 Aram, settled Charax Spasini (see Josephus). Greek word Charax is translation of Ethiopian Gariak. This Gariak I would appear to be of the family of Mash. These Arameans spread into Africa, just as Cush, north of God's Land (Palestine) are reported in Syria and Mesopotamia.

Dates 2222-2162 2162-2096

3. Gannkam

83

2096-2013

4. Borsa (queen)

67

2013-1946

5. Gariak II

60

1946-1886

6. Djan I

80

1886-1806

7. Djan II

60

1806-1746

8. Senefrou=Snefru. Job was son-in-law of Snefru.

20

9. Zeenabzamin

58

1746-1726 1726-1668

10. Sahlan

60

1668-1608

11. Elaryan

80

1608-1528

12. Nimroud

60

13. Eylouka (queen)

1528-1468 45

1468-1423

14. Saloug

30

1423-1393

15. Kharid

72

1393-1321

16. Hogeb

100

1321-1221

17. Makaws

70

1221-1151

18. Assa

30

1151-1121

19. Affar

50

1121-1071

20. Milanos

62

1071-1009

21. Soliman Tehagui. Soliman, an elderly man probably in his 90's, died the year in which he received the news of the overthrow of Zerah and the Ethiopians and their allies (937-936).

73

1009- 936

Twenty-one sovereigns of the Tribe of Ori ruled. THE LINE OF HAM, CUSH AND SABTAH IN NUBIA (THE SUDAN) Ruler

Length of Reign

1. Kam = Ham. Date of Ham is predated to the autumn preceding overthrow of Babel. The Chinese predated to the winter solstice.

78

2. Kout = Cush. Son of Ham.

50

Dates 2255-2177

2177-2127

3. Habassi

40

2127-2087

4. Sebtah

30

2087-2057

5. Elektron

30

2057-2027

6. Neber

30

2027-1997

7. Amen I

21

1997-1976

8. Nehasset Nais (queen) 9. Horkam 10. Saba II

30 29 30

1976-1946 1946-1917 1917-1887

11. Sofard

30

12. Askndou

1887-1857

25

1857-1832

13. Hohey

35

1832-1797

14. Adglag

20

1797-1777

15. Adgala

30

1777-1747

16. Lakniduga

25

1747-1722

17. Manturay

35

1722-1687

18. Rakhu

30

19. Sabe I

1687-1657

30

20. Azagan

1657-1627

30

21. Sousel Atozanis 22. Amen II 23. Ramenpahte 24. Wanuna

1627-1597 20

15 20 3 days

25. Piori II, father of the 15 Ethiopian whom Moses married when he overthrew Cush in Nubia. The daughter of Piori betrayed the city and her father in 1527.

1597-1577 1577-1562 1562-1542 1542 1542-1527

Twenty-five sovereigns of the tribe of Kam ruled in the land of Cush. APPENDIX C KASHMIR -CHRONOLOGY FROM THE RAJATARANGINI The following information is taken from the "Rajatarangini, a Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir", by Kalhana, translated by A. Stein, 2 volumes, Westminster, 1900. Kalhana's account of Kashmir is thorough. The history need not be presented here as it can be found in detail in his chronicle. Modern scholars misunderstand Kalhana's method of using whole calendar years.

Of course, Kalhana added months and days to the whole calendar years in those instances where the exact month and day of a ruler's death was known. But, Kalhana did not intend the months and days to be counted, for they were already included in the first calendar year of the succeeding king. The first native Kashmir dynasty -- the Gonandiya dynasty -lasted for 1002 years. It was followed by a usurping dynasty for 192 years. The restored Gonandiya dynasty lasted 588 calendar years. Next, the Karkota dynasty ruled 253 years -- ending in 855 A.D. Working backward we discover that Kalhana began the Gonandiya dynasty of Kashmir in 1181 B.C. This is a significant date since it corresponds to the end of the first Trojan war and the defeat of the Trojan alliance. Prior to 1181 the land of Kashmir had been part of the Indo-Persian, Assyrian and Trojan alliance against the Greeks. Hence, the beginning of this line of rulers indicates a breakup in the alliance. The Indo-Iranian peoples of Kashmir became independent under their own kings. GONANDIYA DYNASTY Ruler

Length of Reign

Dates

Gonanda III

35

1181-1146

Vibhisana I

53

1146-1093

Indrajit Ravana Vibhisana II

35

1093-1058

30 35

Nara I (Kimnara) Siddha

1058-1028

40 60

1028- 993 993- 953 953- 893

Utpalaksa

30

893- 863

Hiranyaksa

37

863- 826

Hiranyakula

60

826- 766

Vasukula

60

766- 706

Mihirakula

70

706- 636

Baka Ksitinanda

63 30

636- 573 573- 543

Vasunanda

52

543- 491

Nara II

60

491- 431

Aksa

60

431- 371

Gopaditya

60

371- 311

Gokarna

57

311- 254

Khinkhila-Narendraditya

36

Yudhisthira

254- 218

39

218- 179

USURPING DYNASTY Ruler

Length of Reign

Pratapaditya I

Dates

32

179- 147

Jalaukas

32

147- 115

Tunjina I

36

115- 79

Vijaya

8

79- 71

Jayendra

37

71- 34

Samdhimati-Aryaraja

47

B.C. 34- 14 A.D.

RESTORED GONANDIYA DYNASTY Ruler

Length of Reign

Meghavahana

34

Dates 14- 48

S'resthasena-Pravarasena I (Tunjina II)

30

48- 78

Hiranya, with Toramana

30

78- 108

Matrgupta

4

108- 112

Pravarasena II

60

112- 172

Yudhisthira II

39

172- 211

Lahkhana-Narendraditya

13

Ranaditya (Tunjina III)

211- 224

300

Vikramaditya

224- 524

42

Baladitya

524- 566

36

566- 602

THE KARKOTA DYNASTY Ruler

Length of Reign

Durlabhavardhana-Prajnaditya

Dates

36

602- 638

Durlabhaka-Pratapaditya II

50

Candrapida-Vajraditya

8

688- 696

Tarapida-Udayeditya

4

696- 700

Muktapida-Lalitaditya

36

700- 736

Kuvalayspida

1

Vajraditya-BappiyakaLalitaditya

736- 737 7

Prthivyapida

737- 744

4

Samgramapida I Jajja

744- 748

7 days 3

Lalitapida

31

782- 794

Cippatajayspida-Brhaspati

Utpalapida

751- 782

12

Samgramapida II (Prthivyspida)

Anangapida

748

748- 751

Jayapida-Vinayaditya

Ajitapida

638- 688

7 12

37

794- 801 801- 813

813- 850 3

2

850- 853 853- 855

THE DYNASTY OF UTPALA

Ruler

Length of Reign

Avantivarman

28

Dates 855- 883

S'amkaravarman

18

Gopalavarman

2

883- 901 901- 903

Samkata

10 days

903

Sugandha

2

903- 905

Partha

16

905- 921

Nirjitavarman (Pangu)

1

921- 922

Cakravarman

11

S'uravarman I

1

933- 934

Partha (restored)

1

934- 935

Cakravarman (restored)

922- 933

--

S'amkaravardhana

1

935 935- 936

Cakravarman

1

936- 937

Unmattavanti

2

937- 939

S'uravarman II

--

Yasaskaradeva Varnata Samgramadeva Parvagupta

939

9

939- 948

1 day

948

--

948

2

948-950

Ksemagupta

8

950- 958

Abhimanyu

14

958- 972

Nandigupta

1

Tribhuvana (gupta) Bhimagupta

972- 973 2

5

973- 975 975- 980

Didda

23

980-1003

FIRST LOHARA DYNASTY Ruler

Length of Reign

Dates

25

1003-1028

Samgramaraja Hariraja

22 days

Ananta

35

1028-1063

Kalasa

26

1063-1089

Utkarsa

1028

22 days

Harsa

12

1089 1089-1101

SECOND LOHARA DYNASTY Ruler

Length of Reign

Uccala

10

Radda-S'ankharaja

Dates

1101-1111 1 day

1111

Salhana

1

1111-1112

Sussala

8

1112-1120

Bhiksacara

1

Sussala (restored)

1120-1121 7

Jayasimha (Simhadeva)

1121-1128 22

1128

Jayasimha was still on the throne when Kalhana completed his history in 1150 A. D. BIBLIOGRAPHY Works quoted in this volume of the Compendium and not found here are generally included in Bibliography at end of Volume I. Akermana John Yonge, "Remains of Pagan Saxondom". London, 1860.

Alexander, William L., "The Ancient British Church". London, 1889 Anderson, Alan Orr, "Early Sources of Scottish History". Edinburgh, 1922. Angus, S., "The Mystery Religions and Christianity". London, 1928. Arnold, Channing and F. J. T. Frost, "The American Egypt. A Record of Travel in Yucatan". London, 1909. Avebury, Lord, "Pre-Historic Times". London, 1900. Avery, Catherine B., Ed., "The New Century Classical Handbook". New York, 1962. Ayer, Joseph Cullen, Jr., "A Source Book for Ancient Church History". New York, 1941. Baikie, James, "The Sea Kings of Crete". London, 1926. Bancroft, Hubert Howe, "The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America". 5 vol. New York, 1875. Berington, Joseph, "A Literary History of the Middle Ages". London, 1814. Bingham, Hiram, "Lost City of the Incas". London, 1951. Bingham, Joseph, "The Antiquities of the Christian Church". 2 vol. London, 1920. Bradley, Henry, "The Story of the Goths". London, 1891. Bradley, R. N., "Malta and the Mediterranean Race". London, 1912. Brion, Marcel, "The World of Archaeology India, China, and America". London, 1959. Browne, G. F., "The Church In These Islands Before Augustine". New York, 1897. Browne, James, "A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans". Edinburgh, 1852. Browne, James, "The History of Scotland, its Highlands, Regiments, and Clans". 8 vol. London, 1909. Buckle, Henry Thomas, "Introduction to the Civilization in England". New York, 1904.

Burton, John Hill, "The History of Scotland". 8 vol. Edinburgh, 1897. Camden, William, "Remains Concerning Britain". London 1674. Cameron, Mary Lovett, "Old Etruria and Modern Tuscany". London, 1909. Cano, Benito, "Coronica General De Espana". Madrid, 1791. Catrou and Rouille, "The Roman History". 6 vol. London 1728. Cave, William, "Antiquitates Apostolicae -- The History of the Apostles". London, 1684. Childe, V Gordon, "The Prehistory of Scotland". London 1935. Churton, Edward, "The Early English Church". London. Clark, Grahame, "Prehistoric England". London, 1962. Cobern, Camden M., "The New Archaeological Discoveries and Their Bearing on the New Testament". London, 1918. Coulton, G. G., "Medieval Panorama". Cambridge, 1949. Crichton, Andrew, "Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern". 2 vol. New York, 1841. Cunnington, M. E., "An Introduction to the Archaeology of Wiltshire". 1949. de Bourbourg, LeAbbe Brasseur, "Histoire Des Nations Civilisees Du Mexique et de L'Amerique -- Centrale". Paris, 1857. de Hirsch-Davies, J. E., "A Popular History of the Church in Wales". London, 1912. de Laet, S. J., "The Low Countries". London, 1958. de Leon, Pedro de Cieza, Trans. Victor W. von Hagen, "The Incas". Oklahoma, 1959. de Nadaillac, "Prehistoric America". New York, 1884. de Ocampo, Battasar, "History of the Incas". Cambridge, 1907. de Paor, M. snd D., "Early Christian Ireland". London, 1959. de Pufendorf, Baron Samuel, "Histoire de Suede". Amsterdam, 1730. de Sahagun, Bernardino, "A History of Ancient Mexico". 1932.

Elton, Oliver, translator, "The Danish History of Saxo Grammaticus". London, 1894. Evans, J. D., "Malta". London, 1959. Evans, John, "The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain". New York, 1872. Ferrero, Guglielmo, "Characters and Events of Roman History". New York, 1909. Foster, J. W., "Pre-Historic Races of the United States of America". Chicago, 1878. Gallenkamp, Charles, "Maya -- The Riddle and Rediscovery of a Lost Civilization". New York, 1959. Geddes, Michael, "The Church History of Ethiopia". London, 1694. Geoffrey of Monmouth, "History of the Kings of Britain". New York, 1958. Gilles, J. A., "Six Old English Chronicles", including Ethelwerd's chronlele, Asser's Life of Alfred, Geoffrey of Monmouth's British History, Gildas and Nennius. London, 1908. Gjerset, Knut, "History of the Norwegian People". New York, 1932. Gregg, William H., "Controversial Issues in Scottish History". London, 1910. Guest, Edwln, "Origines Celticae". 2 vol. London, 1883. Harvey, G. E., "History of Burma". London, 1925. Heyerdahl, Thor., "American Indians in the Pacific". Stockholm, 1952. Holmes, T. Rice, "Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar". London, 1907. Hubert, Henri, "The Rise of the Celts". London, 1934. Johnson, Walter, "Byways in British Archaeology". Cambridge, 1912. Jones, Inigo, "Stone-heng". London, 1655. Kadar, Zoltan, "Die Kleinasiatisch -- Syrischen Kulte Zur Romerzeit in Ungarn". Leiden, 1962.

Kelly, Matthew, Editor and Translator, "Cambrensis Eversus". Dublin, 1848. Kephart, Calvin, "Races of Mankind, Their Origin and Migration". London, 1961. Krickeberg, Walter, "Altmexikanische Kulturen". Berlin, 1956. Laing, Samuel, Translator, "The Kings of Norway, or The Heimskringla". London, 1844. Lebreton, Jules and Jacques Zeilkr, "The History of the Primitive Church". 3 vol. London, 1949. Lhoyd, H., "The Historie of Cambria". 1584. Lothrop, Samuel (and staff), "Essays in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology". Cambridge, Mass., 1961. MacAirt, Sean., "The Annals of Inisfallen". Dublin, 1951. MacCullouch, J. A., "The Religion of the Ancient Celts". Edinburgh, 1911. MacDonald, E., "A Gaelic Dictionary", 3 vol. Scotland, 1902. MacKenzie, Donald A., "Ancient Man in Britain". London, 1923. MacRitchie, David, "The Testimony of Tradition". London, 1890 Markham, Sir Clements, "The Incas of Peru". London, 1910. Mason, J. Alden, "The Ancient Civilizations of Peru". Edinburgh, 1951 Means, Philip A., "Ancient Civilizations of the Andes". New York, 1931. Menzel, Wolfgang, "Germany From the Earliest Period". New York, 1899. Merryweather, F. Somner, "Bibliomania in the Middle Ages". London, 1933. Mierow, Charles Christopher, "The Gothic History of Jordanes". New York, 1960. Mueller, F. Max, "Chips from a German Workshop", Vol. 3. London, 1870. Nicephoros, "Ecclesiasticae Historiae", Vol. 1. 1630. "Norroena The History and Romance of Northern Europe. 1906, Saxo Edition.

Olrik, Axel; Hollander, Lee M., Translator, "The Heroic Legends of Denmark". New York, 1919. O'Rahilly, Thomas F., "Early Irish History and Mythology". Dublin, 1946. Pallottino, M., "The Etruscans". London, 1956. Plowden, Francis, "An Historical Review of the State of Ireland". 2 vol. London, 1803. Powell, T. G. E., "The Celts". London, 1959. Prescott, William H., "History of the Conquest of Peru". 2 vol. Philadelphia, 1880. Rahner, Hugo, "Greek Myths and Christian Mystery". London, 1963. Rice, T. Talbot, "The Scythians". London, 1959. Ripley, William Z., "The Races of Europe". London, 1900. Ritson, Joseph, "Annals of the Caledonians, Picts, and Scots". 2 vol. Edinburgh, 1828. Rivet, Paul, "Maya Cities". London, 1954. Robertson, John, "The Saxon and the Celt". London, 1897. Sankalla, H. D,, "Indian Archaeology Today. New York, 1962. Schliemann, Dr. Henry, Tiryns "The Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns". London, 1886. Skene, William F., "John of Fordun's Chronicle of the Scottish Nation". Edinburgh, 1872. Smith, Dr. William and Prof. Wace, Editors, "Dictionary of Christian Biography Literature, Sects and Doctrines". Boston, 1877. Stenberger, Marten, "Sweden". London. Steward, Julian H., Editor, "Handbook of South American Indians. 6 vol. Washington, 1946. Stillingfleet, Edward, "Antiquities of the British Churches". London, 1830 Story, Robert H., "The Apostolic Minist in the Scottish Church".

Edinburgh, 1847. Thompson, J. Eric S., "Maya Heiroglyphic Writing". Oklahoma, 1962. Trevelyan, George Macaulay," History of England". London, 1926. Turner, Sharon, "The History of the Anglo-Saxons". London, 1807. Vaillant, George C., "Aztecs of Mexico". New York, 1962. Verrill, A. Hyatt and Ruth Verrill, "America's Ancient Civilizations". New York, 1953. Villani, Giovanni, "Cronica". Vol. 1. Florence, 1823. Waddell, L. A., "The British Edda". London, 1930. Wade-Evans, A. W., "Nennius' History of the Britons". London, 1938. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., "The Long-Haired Kings". London, 1962.