COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY - Vol. 1 - Herman Hoeh PDF
COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY - Vol. 1 - Herman Hoeh PDF
COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY - Vol. 1 - Herman Hoeh PDF
VOLUME 1
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty of the Ambassador College
Graduate School of Theology
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Theology
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 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
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
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
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,
"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
60
Athothis (Nisrod)
27
Menes (Cush)
62
Athothis (Nimrod)
25
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
57
Uenephes (Ishtar)
12
2137-2125
Kenkenes (Horus)
31
-orAthothis (Nimrod)
27
Uenephes (Ishtar)
42
Kenkenes (Horus)
31
2125-2094
-or-
Athothis (Nimrod)
59
Kenkenes (Horus)
39
5 Usaphais
20
2083-2063
34
2083-2049
6 Miebis
26
2063-2037
19
2049-2030
7 Semempses
18
2037-2019
2030-2021
8 Bieneches
26
2019-1993
28
2021-1993
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
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
1783-1775
10
1775-1765
28
1765-1737
8 Sesochris (Neferkaseker)
7 Nephercheres
Necherophes
(reigns in Memphis)
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
1699-1693
1693-1687
24
1687-1663
Tosertasis
Dates
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
1708-1701
4 Mesochris
17
1701-1684
5 Souphis (Joseph)
16
1684-1668
3 Tureis
Djoser-za
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
Names in
King-lists &
Canon of Turin
1 Usercheres
Userkaf
1627-1620
2 Sephres (mentioned
in Dynasty III
as Sephuris)
Sahure
12
1620-1608
3 Nephercheres
Neferirkare
21
1608-1587
4 Sisires
Shepseskare
1587-1580
5 Cheres
Khaneferre
17
1580-1563
6 Rathures
Niuserre
11
1563-1552
7 Mencheres
Menkauhor
1552-1544
8 Tancheres
Djedkare
28
1544-1516
9 Onnos
Unis (Unas)
30
1516-1486
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
1587-1580
5 Cheres
20
1580-1560
44
1563-1519
9 Onnos
(Unis)
33
1519-1486
44
1560-1516
30 in Turin
Canon
1516-1486
Names in Manetho
Names in Turin
Canon and King-
Length of
Reign
Dates
lists
1 Othoes
Teti
Userkare (a usurper)
13
1626-1613
1613-1607
20
1607-1587
1587-1581
94
1581-1487
2 Phios
Piopi
3 Menthusuphis
Merenre
4 Phiops
Neferkare
5 Menthesuphis
Merenre-Antyemzaef
1487-1486
Nitokerty
12
1486-1474
1474-1454
Nufe
1454-1452
Kakare (Ibi)
1452-1448
(name missing)
1448-1446
(name missing)
1446-1445
6 Nitocris
(Manetho ends
his list here)
Length of Reign
Dates
Snefru
24
1750-1726
Khufwey (Cheops)
23
1726-1703
1703-1695
27
1695-1668
1668-1661
28
1661-1633
Shepseskaf
1633-1629
(name missing)
1629-1627
Khafre
Hardjedef
Baufre
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
---
25
1668-1643
6 Bicheris
---
22
1643-1621
7 Sebecheres
---
8 Thampthis
---
7
9
1621-1614
1614-1605
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
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
Mentuhotpe, Hereditary Prince
and Sehertowe Inyotef
Length of Reign
together
Dates
16
2035-2019
49
2019-1970
1970-1962
Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe
51
1962-1911
Sankhkare Mentuhotpe
12
1911-1899
7 years of
near anarchy
1899-1892
Wahankh Inyotef
Nakhtnebtepnufe Inyotef
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
Senwosre II
19
1798-1779
Sesostris
Senwosre III
38
1779-1741
Lachares
(Lamares)
Amenemhe III
49
1741-1692
Ameres
Ammenemes
Amenemhe IV
1692-1683
Scemiophris
Sebeknofru
1683-1680
Length of Reign
from Manetho
Dates
16
1908-1892
(30)
(1892-1862)
Sesonchosis
46
1862-1816
Ammanemes
38
1816-1778
Sesostris
48
1778-1730
1730-1722
22
1722-1700
Ameres
1700-1692
Ammenemes
1692-1684
Scemiophris
1684-1680
Lamares
"Others" during
Dodecarchy, or
rule of twelve.
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
Length of Reign
Dates
1. Mestraim
35
2254-2219
2. Kourodes
63
2219-2156
3. Aristarchos
34
2156-2122
4. Spanios
36
2122-2086
72
2086-2014
7. Osiropis
23
2014-1991
8. Sesonchosis
49
1991-1942
9. Amenemes
29
1942-1913
10. Amasis
1913-1911
13
1911-1898
12. Anchoreus
1898-1889
13. Armiyses
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
39
1627-1588
29
1588-1559
1559-1553
254
1553-1299
25. Concharis
4 kings of Tanis
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
1486-1227
1680-1227
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
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
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
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
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
1017- 997
"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
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
13
1030-1017
Thutmose I
Amenophis (J),
Ammenophthis (A) (E)
Thutmose II
21 (J)
22 (A)
Hashepsowe
(Queen of
Sheba)
Her (step)son:
Mephres (J)
Misaphris (A),
Miphres (E)
Thutmose III
(Shishak)
25 (J)
26 (A)(E)
20 (T)
943- 918
944- 918
963- 943
Amenhotpe II
918- 909
Thutmose IV
996- 975
997- 975
Lengths of Reign
Dates
26
1076-1050
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
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
918-909
Amenhotpe III
38
909-871
Akhenaten (Orus)
17
871-854
Smenkhkare
854-851
Tutankhamen
10
851-841
841-837
59
837-778
Ay
Haremhab
Lengths of Reign
Dates
according to Julius
Africanus
Tuthmosis (IV)
918-909
31
909-878
Orus (Akhenaten)
37
878-841
Acherres
32
841-809
Rathos
809-803
Chebres
12
803-791
Acherres
12
791-779
Armesis
779-774
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
12 (joint)
837-825
39
842-803
Chencheres
16
803-787
787-779
Acherres
Cherres
Armais
15 (joint)
5
794-779
779-774
Lengths of Reign
31
Dates
909-878
Orus (Akhenaten)
28
Achencherses, his
daughter
---
---
871-843
16
803-787
Acherres
787-779
Cherres
15
794-779
Armais
779-774
38 (from
archaeology)
909-871
Orus (Akhenaten)
28 (Armenian
version)
871-843
Lengths of Reign
30
Dates
909-879
36
(or 38 in Eusebius)
879-843
(879-841)
837-825
(841-825)
825-816
(14 missing years)
Acencheres I
12
802-790
Acencheres II
12
790-778
Harmais
778-774
Ramesses
774-773
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)
779-770
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.
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
66
610-544
544-536
Ammenephthis (Merenptah)
Ammenemes
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
Chaldaean:
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."
604-603 -- Chaldaeans
capture Judah and city of
Ashkelon in land of
Philistines.
603-602 -- in spring of
year 603 Chaldaeans marched
to land of Hatti with a
powerful army. employ siege
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).
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Ramesses
67
610-543
Merenptah
10
576-566
Sethos II
543-537
Siptah
537-531
531-524
Lengths of Reign
Dates
51
656-605
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
692-689
Taharka
26
689-663
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
705-697
Sebichos
14
697-683
Tarcus
18
683-665
46
751-705
705-697
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
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
594-588
Apries
25
594-569
Amasls
44
569-525
Psammetichos II
Psammetichos III
6 months
525
610-604
17
604-587
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
663-654
Psammetichos I
45
654-609
Nechao II
15
609-594
or
663-654
44
654-610
16
610-594
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Stephinates
684-677
Nechepsos
677-671
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
12
696-684
("Ameres" in Armenian
Verion)
18 (in Armenian
Version)
702-684
Lengths of Reign
Dates
20
683-663
78 Amaes (Tanautamun)
38
692-654
79 Stephinathes
27
684-657
80 Nechepsus
13
684-671
671-663
14
648-634
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
Lengths of Reign
47 Ramesses Aegyptus
Dates
68
770-702
702-694
49 Thuoris
17
694-677
50 Nechepsos
19
677-648
51 Psammuthis
13
648-635
635-631
53 Certos
20
631-611
45
611-566
48 Amenophis
52
-- - (no name)
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Bochchoris, or
Bocchoris (the
Bekenrinef of archaeology)
44
751-707
Tefnakhte
38
751-713
Bocchoris
713-707
or
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
Lengths of Reign
Dates
44
794-750
69 Osorthon
770-761
70 Psammus
10
761-751
Petubastis
Osorthon
25
794-769
Petubastis
40
769-761
Zet
754-720
34
794-754
or
Psammus
10
761-751
Zet
31
751-720
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
25
800-775
Takelothis
13
775-762
42
762-720
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Soshenk "I"
21
308-287
Osorkon "I"
(Soshenk "II" co-regent)
36
287-251
Takelot "I"
251-244
Osorkon "II"
23
244-221
Takelot "II"
25
221-196
Soshenk "III"
52
196-144
144-138
37
138-101
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
Lengths of Reign
26
41 (E)
(46) (A)
Dates
417-391
391-350
(391-345)
Nephercheres
4 (A & E)
350-346
Amenophthis
346-337
Osochor
337-331
Psinaches
331-322
Psusennes (II)
14 (A)
(35) (E)
322-308
(322-287)
25
384-359
64 Ammenophis
359-350
65 Nephecheres
350-344
15
346-331
331-327
66 Saites
67 Psinaches
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
62
2254-2192
2 Athothes (Nimrod)
59
2192-2133
3 Athothes II (Horus)
32
2126-2094
19
2049-2030
(same dates
as the
Palermo
Stone has)
5 Pemphos -- is Shem
18
2037-2019
79
1958-1879
1879-1873
30
1873-1843
26
1843-1817
10 Anoyphis
20
1817-1797
11 Sirius
18
1797-1779
22
1779-1757
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
29
1734-1705
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
100
1587-1487
1487-1486
1486-1480
22
421-399
12
399-387
25 Thinillo, "having
increased his ancestral
power"
387-379
26 Semphrucrates, "Heracles
Harpocrates"
18
379-361
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
134-129
14
129-115
115-110
63
110- 47
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:
Lengths of Reign
Dates
(Egyptian reckoning)
6 (A)
3 (E)
525-522 (Conquest to
Magian revolt)
(Magi
7 months
(E only)
522)
Darius
36
21
(Artabanus
7 months
(A only)
465)
Artaxerxes
41 (A)
40 (E)
465-425
(Xerxes (II)
2 months
424)
(Sogdianus
7 months
424)
Darius (II)
19
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
Psammuthis
Nepherltes (II)
4 months
Nepherites (II)
4 months
Muthis
Lengths of Reign
Nepherites
Dates
399-393
12
393-381
Psammuthis
381-380
Achoris (again)
1 (the 13th
year)
380-379
380-379
4 months
379-378
(winter)
Achoris
Lengths of Reign
Nectanebes (Nekhtnebef)
Teos (Takhos)
Nectanebos (Nekhtharehbe)
Dates
18
379-361
361-359
18
359-341
Lengths of Reign
Dates
10
371-361
Teos
361-359
Nectanebos
359-351
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Ochus
341-339
Arses
339-336
Darius
336-332
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
Setnakhte
Resultant
Dates
383-381
Ramesse-hekaon (III)
31
381-350
Ramesse-hekamae (IV)
350-344
Ramesse-Amenhikhopshef (v)
344-340
340-333
---
---
Ramesse-itamun-nutehekaon (VIII)
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
3
27 --
326-323
323-296 --
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.
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
En-me(r)-kar
420
Son of predecessor.
He built Erech.*
Lugal-banda
1,200
Dumu-zi
100
Gilgamesh
126
Ur-lugal
30
A divine man,
begotten by a spirit.
became a high priest
Son of Gilgamesh.
Udul-kalamma
15
Labasher
En-nun-dar-anna
Meshede
36
Melam-anna
Lugal-ki-dul
A smith.
6
36
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
1923-1914
En-nun-dara-anna
1914-1906
36
1906-1870
1870-1864
36
1864-1828
Meshede
Melam-anna
Lugal-ki-dul
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
Dynasty III
11 Chaldeans
Dynasty IV
49 Chaldeans
458 years
Dynasty V
9 Arabians
Dynasty VI
45 Chaldeans
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
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
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
1562-1555
Naram-Sin
56
1555-1499
Sharkalisharri
24 or
25
1499-1475
1500-1475
3 years of
confusion
1475-1472
Dudu
21
1472-1451
Shudurul
15
1451-1436
Manish-tusu
56 years
1633-1577
1577-1568
15
1568-1553
Lengths of Reign
in Scheil Text
Dates
Ur-Niginak
1436-1433
Ur-Gigirak
1433-1427
Kudda
1427-1421
Puzur-ili
1421-1416
Ur-Utuk
1416-1410
Lengths of Reign
Dates
15
1442-1427
1442-1435
25
1435-1410
30
1472-1442
Ur-Gigirak
15
1442-1427
1442-1435
Lugal-me-lam
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
1493-1487
1487-1481
Elulumesh
7 (G)
or 6
1481-1474
1481-1475
Inimabakesh
1474-1469
Igeshaush
1469-1463
Jarlagab
15
1463-1448
Ibate
1448-1445
Jarla(ngab)
1445-1442
Kurum
1442-1441
Habilkin
1441-1438
Laerabum
1438-1436
Irraum
1436-1434
Ibranum
1434-1433
Hablum
1433-1431
Puzur-Sin
1431-1424
Jarlaganda
1424-1417
Sium
1417-1410
Tirigan
40 days
1410
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Ansud
30
1427-1397
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Ur-Nammu
18
1403-1385
58
1385-1327
1327-1318
Shu-Sin
1318-1311
Ibbi-Sin
25
1311-1286
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
1157-1152
Irra-imitti
1152-1144
Enlil-bani
24
1144-1120
Zambia
1120-1117
Iter-pisha
1117-1113
Ur-Dukuga
1113-1109
Sin-magir
11
1109-1098
Damiq-ilishu
23
1098-1075
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
25 years
Ur-Zababa
400 years
Usiwatar
6 years
Ishtar-muti
11 years
Ishme-Shamash
11 years
Shu-ilishu
Simudar
15 years
30 years
Lengths of Reign
Usiwatar
Dates
1291-1284
Ishtarmuti
11
1284-1273
Ishme-Shamash
11
1273-1262
1262-1255
Ishtar-muti
11
1284-1273
Shu-ilishu
15
1273-1258
Nannia
or
Nannia
1258-1255
Usiwatar
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)
1706-1700
Puzur-Sahan
20
1700-1680
Ishuil
24
1680-1656
7
(or 24)
1656-1649
(1656-1632)
Undalulu
Ur-ur
Gimil-Sin
Mes-kiag-Nunna
30
1748-1718
(Ur I)
Undalulu
12
1718-1706
(Akshak)
or
Mes-kiag-Nunna
Undalulu
36
1748-1712
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
1222-1213
Gungunum
27
1213-1186
Abi-sare
11
1186-1175
Sumu-ilum
29
1175-1146
Nur-Adad
16
1146-1130
Sin-idinnam
1130-1123
Sin-iribam
1123-1121
Sin-iqisham
1121-1116
Zilli-Adad
1116-1115
Warad-Sin
12
1115-1103
Rim-Sin
61
1103-1042
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
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
15
1174-1159
Sumu-la-ilum
35
1159-1124
Zabum
14
1124-1110
Apil-Sin
18
1110-1092
Sinmuballit
30
1092-1062
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
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
862- 855
Ea-gamil
855- 846
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
861-853
Ninutar-nadin-shumi
853-847
Nebu-kudur-uzur (or
Nebuchadnezzar I)
22
847-825
Enlil-nadin-apli
825-821
Marduk-nadin-ahhe
18
821-803
Marduk-zapik-zeri
13
803-790
Adad-apal-iddin
22
790-768
Marduk- . .
768-767
Marduk- . .
12
767-755
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
Lengths of Reign
Nabonassar
Dates
14
747-733
Nabu-nadinzir
733-731
731-726
Ululai (Shalmaneser V)
726-721
12
721-709
709-704
Marduk-appal-iddin (Mero
dach-baladan)
Sargon
704-702
Bel-ibni
702-699
Assur-nadin-shum
699-693
Nergal-ushezib
693-692
Mushezib-Marduk
692-688
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)
561-559
Nergal-shar-usur
559-555
17
555-538
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
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
709-706
Shiriktum-Shukamuna
3 months
706
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.
Lengths of Reign
Tiglath-pileser (III)
Dates
19
745-726
726-721
Sargon
17
721-704
Sennacherib
23
704-681
Essarhaddon
13
681-668
Assur-banipal
42
668-626
Assur-etililani
626-622
Sin-sarra-ishkun
10
622-612
612-608
Shalmaneser (V)
Lengths of Reign
Dates
35
735-700
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
Lengths of Reign
Dates
1058-1055
46
1055-1009
reigned for
a "bab tuppisu",
that is, for
part of the
remaining
official year
calendar
year
1010-1009
1009
Assur-resh-isshi (II)
18
1009-991
Tukulti-apil-Esarra
(Tiglath-pileser I)
39
991-952
952-950
Assur-bel-kala
18
950-932
Eriba-Adad (II)
932-930
930-926
Assur-nasir-apli (I)
19
926-907
Shulmanu-asarid
(Shalmaneser II)
12
907-895
Assur-nirari (IV)
895-889
41
889-848
Assur-resh-ishi (II)
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)
767-760
Assur-nasir-apli (II)
25
760-735
Shulmanu-asarid
(Shalmaneser III -- "the Great")
35
735-700
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
930-924
Assur-nirari (II)
924-917
Assur-bel-nisheshu
917-908
Assur-rim-nisheshu
908-900
Assur-nadin-ahhe (II)
10
900-890
27
890-863
Assur-uballit (I)
36
863-827
Enlil-nirari
10
827-817
Arik-den-ili
12
817-805
32
805-773
Shulmanu-asarid
(Shalmaneser I)
30
773-743
Tukulti-Ninurta (I)
37
743-706
4 or 3
707-703
706-703
703-697
Enlil-kudur-usur, son of
Tukulti-Ninurta (I)
697-692
Names of Kassite
Rulers from 845-692
Lengths of Reign
Dates
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
756-750
13
750-737
737-729
30
722-692
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
13
677-664
Zababa-shumiddin
664-663
Ellil-nadin-ahhe
663-660
Lengths of Reign
16
Dates
1022-1006
12
(or 22)
1006-994
1006-984
22
984-962
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
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Ninyas (Gilgamesh)
38
2006-1968
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
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
23
1448-1425
Beletares
or
Belochus
34
1425-1391
45
1473-1428
1428-1421
30
1421-1391
(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
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).
Lengths of Reign
Dates
(Mithraeus)
27
1247-1220
Arabelus
42
1220-1178
Chalaus
45
1178-1133
Anebus
38
1133-1095
37
1095-1058
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
Dates
1179-1173
"together exercised
sovereignty for a
BAB TUPPISU", that
is, the remainder of
an official year
10
1173-1163
Libaiiu
17
1163-1146
Sarma-Adad (I)
12
1146-1134
12
1134-1122
28
1122-1094
1094-1088
14
1088-1074
1074-1071
13
1071-1058
1058-1052
16
1052-1036
16
1036-1020
26
1020- 994
14
994- 980
13
980- 967
12
1 month
967- 955
955
---
---
(25)
(955-930)
---
---
930-924,
etc.
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
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)
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Deioces
53
699-646
Phraortes
22
646-624
Cyaxeres I
40
624-584
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
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).
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
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
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
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Bimbisara
28
522-494
Ajatasatru
25
494-469
Udayin
33
469-436
Sisunaga
40
436-396
Kakavarna
36
396-360
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Candagutta (Chandragupta)
24
317-293
Bindusara
25
293-268
Asoka
29
268-239
Dasaratha
239-231
Samprati
10
231-221
Salisuka
13
221-208
Somasarman
208-201
Satadhanvan
201-193
Brhadratha
193-186
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Yu
2204-2196
Ch'i
2196-2187
T'ai K'ang
29
2187-2158
Chung K'ang
13
2158-2145
Hsiang
27
2145-2118
Hong-Yi, a usurper
2118
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
13
1765-1752
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
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
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
1264-1257
Tsu Chia
33
1257-1224
Lin Hsin
1224-1218
Keng Ting
21
1218-1197
Wu Yi
1197-1193
T'ai Ting
1193-1190
Ti Yi
37
1190-1153
Ti Hsin (Chou)
32
1153-1121
Wu Fa
1121-1114
Ch'eng
37
1114-1077
K'ang Chao
Chao H'ia
26
51
1077-1051
1051-1000
Mu Man
55
1000- 945
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
51
769-718
Huan Lin
23
718-695
Chuang T'o
15
695-680
Hsi Hu Ch'i
680-675
Hui Lang
25
675-650
Hsiang Ching
33
650-618
617-612
K'uang Pan
611-606
Ting Yu
21
605-585
Chien I
14
584-571
27
570-544
Ching Kewi
25
543-519
Ching Ch'ih
44
518-475
474-468
28
467-440
K'ao Wei
15
439-425
Wei Lieh Wu
24
424-401
An Chiao
26
400-375
Lieh Hsi
374-368
48
367-320
319-314
58
313-256
Yuan Jen
Hsien Pien
Shen Ching Ting
Nan Yen
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.
Great Kings of
Hatti
History from
Contemporary
Documents
Thutmose III
Labarnas (I),
founder of new
dynasty
Contemporary of
Solomon
Amenhotpe II
Thutmose IV
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
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
Suttarna II
Artasura
Kingdom of Mitanni
sundered.
Thutmose IV
(918-909)
Amenhotpe III
(909-871)
Tusratta, son
of Suttarna II
Akhenaton
(871-854)
Mittiwaza
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,"
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Gyges
38
716-678
Ardys
49
678-629
Sadyattes
12
629-617
Alyattes
57
617-560
Croesus
14
560-546
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
747- 746
The Constitution
90
746- 656
The Tyranny
73 1/2
656- 583
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Cecrops
50
1556-1506
Cranaus
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
33
1181-1148
Oxyntes
12
1148-1136
Aphidas
1136-1135
Thymoetes
1135-1127
Melanthus
37
1127-1090
Codrus
21
1090-1069
Lengths of Reign
Dates
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
755- 753
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,
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
1326-1323
Lamedon again
45
(or 42)
1323-1278
(1323-1281)
Polybus
40
(or 43)
1278-1238
(1281-1238)
Inachus
42
1238-1196
Phaestus
1196-1188
Adrastus
1188-1184
Polyphides
31
1184-1153
Pelasgus
20
1153-1133
Zeuxippus
31
(or 32)
1133-1102
(1133-1101)
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Archelaus
1102-1101
Automedon
1101-1100
Theoclytus
1100-1096
Euneus
1096-1090
Theonomus
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
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
408-405
Archelaus (again)
405-401
Amyntas II
401-400
Pausanias
400-399
Amyntas II (again)
399-393
Argaeus II
393-391
18
391-373
Alexander
373-372
Ptolemaeus
372-368
Perdicca III
368-362
Philippus II
26
362-336
12
336-324
Amyntas II (again)
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
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
65
1263-1198
Agamemnon, exercised
hegemony over Argos
17
1198-1181
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
58
1486-1428
Lynceus
35
1428-1393
Abas
37
1393-1356
Proetus
17
1356-1339
Duration
Date
92
1149-1057
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
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
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
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)
30
1108-1078
Lateinus Sylvius
50
1078-1028
Alba Sylvius
38
1028- 990
Aegyptus Sylvius
26
990- 964
-----------------------
Lengths of Reign
37
Dates
753- 716
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)
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
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
14
1016-1002
1016-1015
1002- 999
6 months
999
10
999- 989
20
989- 969
30
969- 939
23
939- 916
(Interregnum)
(7)
916- 909
909- 905
40
905- 865
20
865- 845
24
845- 821
21
821- 800
18
800- 782
24
782- 758
11
758- 747
747- 742
14
742- 728
728- 723
723- 714
40
714- 674
20
674- 654
17
654- 637
12
637- 625
625- 617
12
617- 605
15
605- 590
21
590- 569
569- 562
562- 561
561- 552
552- 540
12
540- 527
527- 518
518- 517
20
517- 497
Seadhna II Ionnarrach
14
mac Breas (Eb.)
Siomon Breac mac Aodhan Glas (Er.) 6
497- 483
477- 469
469- 468
468- 463
463- 458
16
458- 442
12
442- 430
430- 425
425- 421
421- 414
414- 407
407- 398
398- 391
10
391- 381
10
381- 371
371- 367
483- 477
367- 360
360- 353
353- 346
The prophet Ollanh Fodhla lived about 240 years before his time. He was
Jeremiah.
Machadh Mongruadh, Queen (Ir)
346- 339
339- 330
30
330- 300
1 1/2 days
300
16
300- 284
17
284- 267
267- 253
12
253- 241
241- 235
235- 228
228- 222
222- 215
215- 211
211- 186
186- 181
181- 174
174- 162
12
Breac (Er.)
Aonghus III Tuirmheach Teamhrach
mac Eochaidh (Er.)
32
162- 130
130- 125
125- 118
10
118- 108
108- 104
17
104-
87
87-
84
84-
75
15
75-
60
60-
57
57-
50
24
50-
26
12
26-
14
10
14-
4-
1
59
1-
60
(Interregnum)
60-
65
65-
73
73-
74
(Er.)
16
74-
90
90-
95
21
95- 116
116- 119
119- 126
126- 130
30
130- 160
160- 164
164- 174
174- 177
35
177- 212
212- 220
30
220- 250
250- 253
253- 254
23
254- 277
277- 279
17
279- 296
1
Fothadh II Airgtheach mac Lughaidh (Er.)
Fiachadh V Sraibhtine mac
Cairbre (Er.)
296- 297
30
297- 327
327- 331
(Er.)
26
331- 357
357- 358
358- 366
13
366- 379
379- 405
23
405- 428
35
428- 463
20
463- 483
25
483- 508
508- 513
513- 533
(Interregnum)
11
533- 544
21
544- 565
565- 566
566- 568
568- 571
571- 572
27
572- 599
599- 605
605- 612
612- 615
13
615- 628
14
628- 642
16
642- 658
12
642- 654
658- 665
665- 671
671- 675
20
675- 695
695- 704
704- 711
11
711- 722
722- 724
724- 727
727- 734
734- 743
20
743- 763
763- 770
27
770- 797
22
797- 819
14
819- 833
13
833- 846
17
846- 863
16
863- 879
Lengths of Reign
Dates
10
503-513
16
513-529
529-534
24
534-558
558-560
14
560-574
32
574-606
23
606-629
629
13
629-642
642-649
11
649-660
13
660-673
16
673-689
689-697
697-698
698
25
698-723
723-726
726-733
733-736
736-741
Lengths of Reign
15
Dates
843-858
858-862
14
862-876
876-878
(11)
(878-889)
11
878-889
Domhnall IV
11
889-900
Custantin II
43
900-943
Maelcolaim I (Malcolm)
11
943-954
Illuilb
954-962
Dubh
962-967
Cuillen
967-971
24
971-995
Custantin III
995-997
Cinaeth III
997-1005
29
1005-1034
Donnchadh I (Duncan)
1034-1040
Macbeathadh (Macbeth)
17
1040-1057
1057-1058
35
1058-1093
Domhnall V Bane
1093-1097
Donnchadh II
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
1286-1290
(2)
(1290-1292)
Margaret
(Interregnum)
1292-1296
(10)
(1296-1306)
23
1306-1329
David II Bruce
1329-1333
Edward Baliol
13
1333-1346
25
1346-1371
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
58
1567-1625
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
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
46
2094-2048
51
2048-1997
61
1997-1936
14
1936-1922
75
1922-1847
Longho, conqueror of
Scandanavia (ancestor of the
Longobards who finally
migrated into Italy after
the fall of Rome)
28
1847-1819
37
1819-1782
Lucus Protector
11
1782-1771
13
1771-1758
Lengths of Reign
Dates
19
1758-1739
49
1739-1690
18
1690-1672
51
1672-1621
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
68
1551-1483
Romus
29
1483-1454
Paris
39
1454-1415
Lemanes
62
1415-1353
Olbius
1353-1348
Galathes II
48
1348-1300
Namnes
44
1300-1256
40
1256-1216
67
1216-1149
Lengths of Reign
Dates
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
12
1005-993
Leil
25
993-968
Lud
39
968-929
Baldud
20
929-909
Leir
60
909-849
849-844
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
487-482
Cordeilla, queen
Lengths of Reign
Dates
Molmutius
40
434-394
22
394-372
Gurguint
19
372-353
Guintelyn
26
353-327
Silvius II or Silisius
15
327-312
312-309
10
309-299
Morindus
299-290
Gorboman
10
290-280
Archigallo
280-279
279-276
Archigallo restored
10
276-266
Elidurus again
266-265
265-256
Elidurus again
256-252
Gorbonian
10
252-242
Morgan
14
242-228
228-221
Ydwallo
20
221-201
Rimo
16
201-185
Geruntius
20
185-165
Gatellus
10
165-155
Coilus
10
155-145
Perrox II
145-140
Cherimus
140-139
Kimarus
Elanius or Danius
Emerianus
Fulgentius
139-138
Eldred
138-137
Androgeus
137-136
Urianus
136-133
Elihud
133-128
Dedantius, or Dedacus
128-123
Detonus
123-121
Gurguineus
121-118
Merianus
118-116
Bleduus, or Bladud
116-114
Capenus
114-111
Ovinus
111-109
Sisilius
109-107
10
107- 97
Archimalus
97- 95
Eldolus
95- 91
Rodianus
91- 89
Redargius
89- 86
Samulius
86- 84
Penisillus
84- 81
Phyrrus
81- 79
Caporius
79- 77
Dinellus
77- 73
Heli
73- 72
Lud
11
72- 61
Bledgabedrus
Paleolithic period
Mesolithic period;
Britain becomes an
island; Maglemose
semi-arctic culture
"Neolithic" period;
several subdivisions;
farmers bring fertility
cult; megalithic period
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
Trojan War
VII a;
seige layer overlying city remains,
preceded by earthquake; this stratum
said to end "Late
Bronze" period
VI h earthquake ends
this stratum
g
f
e
beginning of socalled "Late Bronze"
d
end of "Middle
Bronze"
c
a
beginning of socalled "Middle
Bronze"
d traditional end of
"Early Bronze" in
the Troad
c
b
a
IV e (intermittent earthquakes
appear from
time to time)
d
c
b
IV a
g
war layer ends
period
f
war layer ends
period
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
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.
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
Middle Bronze I
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)
Late Bronze I
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
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.
1888.