COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

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)

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

How Greek History Was Corrupted

It is not generally admitted. But Homer, the famous epic poet of Greece, was mad. His 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey' -- recording the events surrounding the Greek struggles with Troy -- were written while Homer was demented.

Homer was not merely an insane poet. He was also a mad historian. Through Homer Greek history was altered, with diabolical cleverness. Homer telescoped three Greek wars with Troy into one. Men and events five centuries apart are artificially joined together as if contemporary. Recent archaeological investigation at Troy reveals Homer's lie. There are three wars layers -- the first and last separated by about five centuries' (See C. W. Blegen's 'Troy,' in the revised edition of the 'Cambridge Ancient History'.)

Little wonder Paul the apostle wrote of Homer -- and of Hesiod and the other demented poets: 'Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying ...' (I Timothy 1:4).

Greeks Admit Homer Was Demented

No poet in ancient Greece was ever considered worthy of special honor unless he was demented. Democritus 'denies that any one can be a great poet, unless he is mad,' wrote Cicero (Cicero, 'Divin'., i, 80). Homer was therefore mad.

Plato described the unusual kind of insanity that clutched the minds of Greece's great poet-historians and philosophers. In the 'Phaedrus' Plato characterizes 'poetic inspiration' as the 'state of being possessed by the Muses' -- a kind of 'madness, which, on entering a delicate and virgin soul, arouses and excites it to frenzy in odes and other kinds of poetry .... But he that is without the Muses' madness when he knocks at the doors of Poesy, fancying that art alone will make him a competent poet, -- he and his poetry, the poetry of sober sense, will never attain perfection, but will be eclipsed by the poetry of inspired madmen' (245 A). Again, in the 'Laws' Plato wrote that 'whenever a poet is enthroned on the tripod of the Muse, he is not in his right mind' (719 C). In 'Ion' the Greek theory of 'inspiration' is most thoroughly expressed: 'It is not by art, but by being inspired and possessed, that all good epic poets produce their beautiful poems they are dancing, even so the melic poets are not in their right mind when they are composing their beautiful strains. On the contrary, when they have fallen under the spell of melody and metre, they are like inspired revellers, and on becoming possessed, -- even as the Maenads are possessed and not in their right senses ... the soul of the melic poets acts in like manner, as they themselves admit .... And what they say is true; for the poet ... cannot compose until he becomes inspired and out of his senses, with his mind no longer in him; but, so long as he is in possession of his senses, not one of them is capable of composing, or of uttering his oracular sayings' (533 E-534 D).

In Biblical terms, Homer and all the famous Greek poet-historians were possessed of demons. It was not really the poets or philosophers who uttered the sayings, but the demon, masquerading as God, 'who is the speaker, and it is THROUGH them that he is speaking to us,' concluded the author of 'Ion'.

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

The Plot Centers on Troy

The final fall of Troy in 677 occurred at the close of the reign of Thuoris (694-677) of Egypt. Eusebius confused this Thuoris with the later queen Twosre and placed the event in her last year of reign. (See the restoration of Egyptian history in this Compendium.) The year 677 marked the rise of Media (according to Herodotus) to power in Asia Minor east of the Halys river.

The third fall of Troy in 677 climaxed a ten-year siege of the city. A Greek victory had once before occurred -- about 504 years before, in 1181. Another war, ending in 1149 -- and to be discussed later -- is generally unreported in Greek annals, for it was a Greek defeat!

Archaeology finds evidence of all three wars. Homer's epics deliberately associate the leaders and events of the third war with those of the first war. By so doing half of the history of ancient Greece was made to appear over five centuries too early. Events that transpired between 1181 and 677 were pushed back to the period 1685-1181.

The same diabolical conspiracy that worked through Homer in Greece also worked through the priesthood of Egypt. Its dynasties were deliberately placed successively so that sections of Egyptian history appeared five centuries earlier. Similar diabolic manipulations occurred in Mesopotamia. When later Greek, Roman, and now modern critics and historians found Homer in apparent agreement with the altered Egyptian and Mesopotamian data, they never thought to question Homer or the Egyptian records. The conspiracy -- the deception -- was so thorough, so far superior to human ingenuity that the whole world has been deceived by it.

Homer and the Lydian Kings

To perpetuate this deception -- for the critics and historians cannot admit they have been deceived -- we are told that Homer lived several centuries before 677, in fact, near the time of the first Greek war with Troy.

If Homer lived at that early period, counter the critics, how could Homer have been responsible for a clever twisting of historical events that occurred long after he was dead?

The answer is, Homer's own writings date his life to the time of Gyges, king of Lydia. Homer mentions ''the Gygaean lake,' so called from Gyges, king of Lydia' (J. S. Watson's footnote to Alexander Pope's translation).

Before proceeding further, it is important to inset the kings of Lydia, from which the date of Homer may be determined. Herodotus is absolutely correct in his list of late Lydian kings. Modern historians attempt arbitrarily to shorten the reigns of the Lydian monarchs. Following is a list of the last royal family -- the Mermnadae -- to rule Lydia to the time of Cyrus, king of Persia.

In 546 Sardis, the capital of Lydia, was overthrown.

Prior to the Mermnadae, another line of kings governed Lydia -- the Heraclidae. Their rule lasted 22 generations during 505 years -- 1221-716 (Herodotus, I, 7).

The history of the kingdom of Lydia, settled heavily by the children of Lud, son of Shem, has been lost. All that has been preserved are a few fragments of Xanthus' history of his nation.

Restoring Greek History

The modern interpretation of ancient Grecian civilization is a paradox. Strange though it may seem, historians today reject the valid history of Greece as error and take for granted the Homeric fable of the Trojan War!

It is time history students were told why the traditional histories of Athens, of Sparta, Sicyon and Corinth have been rejected -- and why confusion rules the dates of the Trojan War. This kind of twisted thinking took its rise in the German literary criticism of the eighteenth century. In the German schools all antiquity was rejected in total as fabulous. None of the ancients knew how to write, the critics assumed. And oral tradition was at best a weak link. Within a century the historians, trained in this literary atmosphere, began to assume the same rationalist explanations of the past. With no history left by which their speculations could be judged, the historians were free -- so they thought -- to reconstruct the Aegean world. Even the Trojan War was called into question as fabulous. It barely passed muster.

But what the historians never thought to query was the general date of the last Trojan War. The literary critics wanted to believe in the early dating of the war with Troy to make it appear as folklore. Historians, newly entering the critical field, accepted as valid the literary critics' supposition of one early Trojan War. It never occurred to them that the period of the last war over Troy had been confused with the first war and the contemporary kings of Argos and Mycenae. Once the dates of the three major Trojan Wars are determined. the problems in Greek history vanish.

Kings of Corinth

The chronological history of Greece commences later than the Tower of Babel. Hence it is necessary to begin with more recent times and build up the history of early Greece to its beginning. The starting point will be the city-state Corinth, whose dates will be immediately confirmed by those of Athens. The kings of Corinth ruled for 323 years. They were followed by a constitutional oligarchy for 90 years, then by the Tyranny of the Cypselidae. The dates of the Cypselidae are determined from nearly contemporary sources.

It should be noted that late traditional dating in the Greek world was made to conform to the Olympiads, which began at the summer solstice. The following lists may therefore generally be considered June-to-June calendar years.

The rule of the Cypselidae Tyranny lasted 73 and 1/2 years, according to Aristotle ('Politics', 1315b). It dates from 656 (June) to 583 (December). The founder of the tyranny, Cypselus, reigned altogether 30 years -- 656-626. According to Eusebius, however, he associated his son Periander with him in the government in 628, after 28 years. Periander, according to Aristotle, ruled altogether 44 years until his death in 584. The date of the death of the tyrant Periander is given by Diogenes Laertius in 'Periandros'. Laertius, quoting Sosikrates, places it at the end of Olympiad 48, 4, immediately before Olymplad 49, 1. As the Olympiads commenced in 776, the 48th Olympiad ended at the summer solstice in 584. (Each Olympiad consists of 4 years.)

The last of the Corinthian tyrants was Psammetichus, the brother or nephew of Periander. He ruled three years according to Aristotle -- 586-583 (December to December). Psammetichus came to the government SIX MONTHS AFTER Periander had completed his 40th year (reckoned from the death of Cypselus in 626), or his 42nd year (reckoned from the beginning of his reign in 628). The Armenian version of Eusebius assigns to Periander 43 years, including the calendar year in which Psammetichus came to the government.

The commencement of the Corinthian Tyranny by Cypselus in 656 marked the overthrow of the Constitutional Oligarchy. The Constitution lasted altogether 90 years -- 746-656. In the year 746 the last of the early kings of Corinth was overthrown. The revolt ended 323 years of kingship. The following chart lists the kings of Corinth from the beginning of their rule in 1069 to the revolt of 746. The significance of the year 1069 will be discussed under the history of Athens.

The History of Athens

Athens was for centuries, as it is today, the chief city of Greece. Its early history focuses on the year 1069 when an Athenian victory combined with a great earthquake to rekindle the myth of the 'fall of Atlantis.'

Modern writers reject Athens' early history altogether of course, they have never disproofd it. Their only argument is the falacious assumption that the Greeks could not have known their own history!

The following chart gives the complete framework of Athenian history which has been preserved correctly from Castor, the historian of Rhodes, in the Eusebian Chronicles. Athenian history commences with the founding of the city by Cecrops in 1556.

(Eusebius dates the fall of Troy in the First Trojan War to the year 1181, just before the summer solstice. Immediately after the war Menestheus was murdered at the Isle of Melus, before he was able to return to Athens.)

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

In 753 the Perpetual Archons were replaced by Dicennial Archons. That is, each held the office for 10 years. The seven Dicennial Archons of Athens were Charops, Aesimides, Clidicus, Hippomenes, Leocrates, Apsander, Eryxias. Their rule covered a period of 70 years -- 753-683. In 683 the government of the Athenians -- famous for their democracy -- passed into the hands of Annual Archons, the first of whom was Creon. This date is fixed by numerous evidences. See Clinton's 'Fasti Hellenici', I, 182.

The History of Sicyon

Athens was not the oldest city in Greece. That honor goes to Sicyon, a city located near Corinth. Interestingly enough, Sicyon ceased to be an important city during the flowering of Corinth, beginning in 1069. When Corinth became subject to internal strife during the reign of Periander, Sicyon again rose to prominence under the Tyranny of Clisthenes. It quickly achieved a high degree of prosperity and fame.

The ancient city-state of Sicyon lasted 1000 years, according to Apollodorus and others. Its prominence blanketed the millennium from 2063 to 1063. That the figure should be exactly 1000 years has troubled many a historian. Yet that is the plain record of history. When will men learn that the destinies of men and of cities and nations are in the hands of God who numbers all things! He determines the times and the seasons during which men rule.

There were other ancient Greek historians who reckoned the history of Sicyon differently. The information preserved from their writings assigns Sicyon dominion for only 962 years -- that is, from 2063 to 1101. Year 1101 is the time of the re-establishment of the Heraclidae at Sparta, 80 years after the fall of Troy in the First Trojan War.

Both these views of the history of Sicyon are valid. The difference is only one of viewpoint. For during the years from 1101 to 1063 the old dynasty at Sicyon was displaced by priests of Apollo Carnaeus who were subservient to the Heraclidae.

The original name of Sicyon was Aegialea. This Greek name was derived from the city's first king, Aegialeus.

The name Aegialeus in Greek means 'man of the coastland' or 'shoreland' (Smith's 'Classical Dictionary', art. 'Achaia'). Compare this with the meaning of the name Eber, or Heber, from which the word Hebrew is derived. One of the root meanings of Eber is 'shoreland' or 'shoreregion.' Another root meaning is 'migrant.' Both are very closely related. The ancient routes of migration usually took one along the shores of a river or along coastlands.

The evidence unmistakeably points to the name Aegialeus as a Greek translation of Heber. In other words, Hebrews were among the settlers of ancient Greece.

Elisha, son of Javan, also settled the Greek coastlands. From him the name Hellas came to be applied to Greece.

Early influence of Hebrew people in the Grecian land is also recorded throughout Greek history. Witness the incursions of the Hyksos -- the Edomite Heraclidae -- a branch of the Hebrews. Later the Danites from Palestine appear. The influence of Hebrews in the Grecian land helps to explain one of the most remarkable events in the Gentile world -- the choosing of the Greek nation to preserve the New Testament Scriptures.

The Greeks knew of the God of Shem because the Hebrews, a Semitic people, dwelt among them. Two thousand years in advance God was preparing the Greek people for the preservation of His Word.

Moreover the Greeks have preserved most of the history of the ancient world. Manetho has come down to us, not in the Egyptian tongue, but in the Greek language. The early history of Assyria is found in Greek, so also that of the early kings of Media.

But to return to the kingship of Aegialea or Sicyon.

(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 proofd 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.)

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

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

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.

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.

In the preceding list the duration of time is accurately preserved. But it should be noted that in several occasions the change of reign does not mark the death of the predecessor, but the appointment to royalty of the son and heir to the throne. This same type of varied dating also occurred in ancient Egypt. It has led historians to treat the records as artificial or fabricated, when they should have viewed the records as relating only part of the story.

Alexander died in his 13th year, in 323. But as the Macedonians adopted the non-accession-year system, the last incomplete year of Alexander -- 324-323 -- was assigned as the first year of his brother Phillip.

Who Were the Heraclidae?

Most everyone has assumed that the Heraclidae were Greeks by descent. That they were lnfluenced by Greek culture and language is true. But they were not originally Greek in ancestry. With occasional intermarriage they became partly Grecianized.

The Heraclidae are said to have returned 80 years after the First Trojan War. They returned to Greece from Asia Minor. Asia Minor had earlier been dominated by the Hyksos rulers -- Apophis and Khayan. The Hyksos were Amalekites and other tribes descended of Edom (see the early chapter on the history of the Hyksos in this Compendium). Was there a racial affinity between Hyksos and Heraclidae?

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

The History of Argos

The story of the taking of Troy by Agamemnon is known to almost every schoolboy who has studied literature. What is not known today is the history of Agamemnon's dynasty. How, and when it originated, through whom it began.

The complete list of rulers of the Greek cities of Argos, Mycenae, Tiryns in the Argolid plain of Greece to the first Trojan War is derived from Castor. It has been preserved in entirety by Eusebius. (See 'Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte', vol. 7, edited by Rudolf Helm.) The list is given below, with the correct dates.

Agamemnon reigned 35 years according to Eusebius -- that is, from 1215 to 1180. His first seventeen years were in his youth, when Thyestes still governed. The Greeks seized Troy in the beginning of summer, in 1181, at the very beginning of the eighteenth year of Agamemnon. The king lost his life at the end of the year upon his return to Greece.

The date of Inachus is significant. Inachus is but the Latin form of the Greek name Inachos, or the Egyptian name Weneg. The tradition is that Inachus and his immediate descendants were in some way connected with Egypt. A comparison with Dynasty II of Egypt reveals a king Weneg whose reign ended in 1852, the very year Inachus appeared in Greece! There can be no doubt that this was an early Egyptian colony in Greece. Inachus was not some unknown hero. He was of the royal family of Egypt. Note Egyptian names of son and grandson -- Phoroneus, Apis -- as added proof.

Genealogy of Danaus

Now consider the lineage of Danaus who came to Egypt with his brother Aegyptus, according to Greek tradition, from somewhere in the region of Arabia or Palestine. The lineage, given below, with dates of those who ruled in Greece, is from Henry Clinton's 'Fasti Hellenici', vol. I, p. 101. Unless otherwise stated, each is presumed a son of the name above.

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.

Sea Powers of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean

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

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.

In 753, according to the accurate account of the Roman historian Varro, Rome was re-founded for the third time. Shortly before that famous event the twins Romulus and Remus killed Amulius Sylvius in the last year of his reign. Amulius Sylvius had deprived his older brother Numitor, maternal grandfather of the twins, of the throne at Alba.

Slight variations in the preceding list occur in some authors. Eusebius assigned only 40 years to Agrippa Sylvius, predating each reign: Dionysius designated 51 to Lateinos Sylvius, postdating the reigns.

Another variation indicating joint rule is given in chart form thus:

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

In the 25th year (or 35th) year of Tarquinius Supurbus -- 510-509 -- the first Roman Consuls were appointed. They held their office about 16 months. The Consuls thereafter held their office for a Roman calendar year -- January to January. A complete list of consular magistrates may be had in Lempriere's 'A Classical Dictionary', article 'Consul'.

In several instances in the preceding list, the lengths of reign of the kings are shortened by some authors -- notably Eusebius, Cicero, Polybius -- who viewed the royal power as subordinate, on occasion, to the Senate. But the full and correct account is preserved correctly by Dionysius of Halicarnassus' 'Roman Antiquities', I, 75.

Hereafter the history of Rome is essentially correct in most histories -- though the lessons of Roman rule have yet to be learned by Man!

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

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)

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 Acadian 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 proofd to belong to the Western or centum group, to which the German, Celtic, Latin and Greek belonged. Then scholars began to recognize that this ancient language, rediscovered after 2000 years, bears a striking resemblance to Armenian.

The Armenian language has been found to share so many grammatical and lexical elements with the ancient language of the Hittites that scholars have been forced to the conclusion that Armenian developed from the Hittite-Luwian dialects of Lesser Armenia west of the Upper Euphrates. (See W. M. Austin's 'Is Armenian an Anatolian Language?' in 'Language', 18 (1942), 22 ff.)

Hittite and Armenian, for instance, are characterized by lack of grammatical gender. So many other phenomena were found to be exhibited by both groups that scholars now wonder why they did not see the relationship before. The Hittite language, a member of the 'centum' group of Indo-European languages, lives on today in Armenian.

Over the centuries the Armenian, of course, has acquired a very large number of its vocabulary words from neighboring languages. So many, in fact, that its original relationship with the Western or 'centum' group of Indo-European languages has been obscured. An excellent summary of the relationship of Armenian and Hittite is found in the revised edition of Cambridge Ancient History, vol. I, chapter iv, part iii 'The Indo-Hittite Family,' by Albright and Lambdin.

The Proof of Race

The Armenians are the only people who have preserved the well-known 'Armenoid' form of the ancient Hittite crania. Admittedly continuity of physical type and language is not necessarily related. But if both language and racial characteristics are found among two peoples who still live in almost the same geographic region, but separated by centuries of time, the proof becomes striking. Especially when it is considered that no other group of people in ancient times had the same racial strains.

The original cradle of the Armenian nationality and culture is precisely that area characterized by the greatest use of hieroglyphic script. In fact the latest Hittite inscriptions can be proofd to overlap the known presence of Armenians in the same region (in the inscriptions of Darius Hystaspes) by a number of centuries, once the ancient history of the Hittites is properly restored.

The use of the modern Armenian alphabet begins where ancient Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions cease!

Because of early predominance of population and war-like characteristics, the fame of the ancient Hittite name spread. The rulers of Asia Minor, once known as 'kings of nations' (in Abraham's day), because of the many different peoples who populated the region, came to be called 'kings of the Hittites' by Solomon's time. The Armenians ceased to be referred to under their national name and were included among the Hittites (spelled also Kheta, Chatti, or Hatti) by distant nations.

In Syria and Asia Minor, as time passed, the Arameans and Armenians gradually gained predominance over their Hittite neighbors and absorbed them. The Hittites disappeared as a separate racial stock and their name was totally lost. The names Aramean and Armenian replaced that of Hittite.

The Hebrew root 'heth' (from whence Hittite is derived) signifies 'warrior.' The Canaanite Hittites were famous warriors. As the Assyrians were a war-making nation, the world also attached the name 'Chatti' -- meaning 'warrior' or 'men of war' -- to them when they anciently migrated to the Halys River basin in Asia Minor. Thus Assyrians, like Armenians, in Anatolia also came to bear the name 'Chatti.'

Ninevite kings marched their armies through Anatolia to aid Troy in the First Trojan War shortly before the rise of the Canaanite Hittites to power. Assyrian colonists continued to live in Asia Minor for centuries thereafter. Sardanapallus, king of Assyria, 'sent his three sons and two daughters together with much of his treasure to Paphlagonia (Asia Minor) to the governor Cotta ...' (Diodorus II, 26,8). It was an Assyrian district. For the same reason Assyrians were 'removed to the land between Paphlagonia and Pontus' after the collapse of Nineveh (Diodorus II, 43,6).

After the fall of Troy in 677 the Assyrians commenced migration out of Anatolia northwest up the Danube into Europe. Roman annals within a few centuries were filled with the name Chatti, or Hatti, which later became changed to Hesse. (See 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' article 'Germany'.)

The warlike proclivity of the Hessians through the Roman period and the Middle Ages, is undoubtedly due to some absorption of Hittite stock.

The history of the Hittites of Asia Minor may now be restored in proper setting. First, it should be remembered that modern textbook writers are in utter confusion chronologically. They speak of an 'Old Kingdom' and a 'New Empire,' sometimes of a 'Middle Kingdom.' Rulers of the 'Old Kingdom' were about 750 years too early, the latter about 600! The reason for this preposterous restoration of central Anatolian history is this. 'Old Kingdom' rulers are known to parallel the close of the Hammurabi Dynasty of Babylon. As Hammurabi is often placed about 750 years too early in history, these kings of Hatti are likewise misplaced by that figure. The late kings of the supposed 'New Empire' are known to be contemporary with Ramesses the Great of Dynasty XIX of Egypt. Since this period of Egyptian history is misplaced about 600 years. the kings of the 'New Empire' are likewise placed six centuries too early.

Babylonian and Egyptian archives proof there was only one Empire period in Central Anatolia. That more than one king at a time was on occasion ruling Hatti is confirmed by the documents: 'Formerly Labarnas was king: and then his sons, his brothers, his connections by marriage and his blood-relations were united.' ('The Hittites', by O. R. Gurney, page 21.) Most of these were set over major cities in the realm -- such as Carchemish.

For the Great Kings of Hatti king lists exist, but no date lists. A restoration can provide only synchronisms with other nations. In the following chart parallel rulers in other lands are listed and dated to indicate synchronisms.

The chart begins with kings of the so-called 'Old' and 'Middle Kingdom' and continues with the 'New Empire' rulers who are known through correspondence as contemporary with the kings of Dynasty XIII and XIX of Thebes. (In spelling the following names of Hatti kings, the final 's' is used, though in numerous documents the letter is often dropped or sounded as an 'sh.')

Notice the parallel between the events in column three and the Biblical history of the rise and fall of the Arameans. During the reign of Amenhotpe III and Mursilis I -- about 890 -- the Arameans rebelled and expanded under general Naaman. In their wars against Israel they feared the possibility that Israel would hire Egyptians and Hittites, to attack them. In II Kings 7:6 the Arameans, after hearing a noise of supernatural origin. are quoted as saying: 'Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians. to come upon us.'

There are two known areas of contact from documents between these Hittite kings and Egypt and Babylon. Suppiluliumas, Mursilis, Muwatallis and Hattusilis are the known contemporaries of Ramesses the Great and his father Seti. This documented contact, including the account of the battle of Kadesh (Carchemish), determines the general dating of the late Hittite rulers. Muwatallis came to power about 616 since the first battle of Kadesh was fought in his tenth year. This was in the year 607-606, the date of the initial Egyptian struggle against Babylon and its allies. Egypt was momentarily victorious (see the restoration of Egyptian history for the period of Ramesses the Great).

An earlier area of contact is established by documentary evidence for the reign of Mursilis I, conqueror of Aleppo and Babylon at the close of the reign of Ammisaduga. Since the Babylonian king can be accurately dated, the overthrow of Babylon by the Hittite king dates the period of the early Hittite rulers. It is then merely a matter of placing the generations in between. The known number of generations of Hittite rulers and the time between Ammisaduga and his Egyptian contemporary to the reign of Ramesses the Great agrees perfectly.

The only question is the supposed parallelism between Suppiluliumas and Akhenaten and Tutankhamen. This parallelism is impossible. It arose from a false assumption. The Hittite documents of Suppiluliumas and his son mention two Egyptian rulers by name. But the names are not specific. Scholars have merely assumed that the Hittite names may refer to Akhenaten and his son. The names could just as well belong to other Egyptian kings -- in this instance to the period of the close of Dynasty XXV This is the only possible period to which the events could apply. The eighteenth dynasty, archaeologists assume, died out with the widow of Tutankhamen. This is untrue. The line of Akhenaten continued to rule to the time of Piankhi the Ethiopian. The only dynasty to cease to reign through the male line in Egypt was that of the Ethiopians at the end of Dynasty XXV. The Ethiopians were killed in battle or fled from the Assyrians. The successor dynasty was Saite, of the line of Necho, an Egyptian family appointed by the Assyrians. This line intermarried into the Ethiopian line to legitimize its reign in Egypt. It is this family that must have plotted the death of the son of Suppiluliumas who was on his way to Egypt to become heir to the Ethiopian line in Egypt.

The Kingdom of Mitanni and the Hurrians

In Mesopotamia, on the upper reaches of the Euphrates river, is a kingdom known as Mitanni in hieroglyphic and cuneiform records. This was the region in which the Median revolt occurred in 816. The history of the kingdom of Mitanni is, in fact, the history of the Medes and Midianites in the ninth and tenth centuries before the present era.

In the following chart the kingdom of Mitanni is restored to its proper place in history. In column one are the kings of Egypt. Column two, center, contains the kings of Mitanni. The third column is devoted to excerpts of important contemporary history. No date lists of the early kings of Mitanni are known.

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

Who Were the Hurrians?

But who were the Hurrians who suddenly migrate from apparently nowhere to dwell in Mitanni on the borders of the Egyptian Empire in Asia? Of all the people known in the Middle East the 'Hurrians,' or 'Harrians,' are the most controversial. They should not be. Consider the facts of history.

Tushratta (Tusratta) was the first Mitannian king of this era to claim the title 'lord of the Hurrian land' as well as 'lord of the Mitanni land.' ('Journal of Cuneiform Studies', XI, 3, p. 67, column two.) Tushratta was a contemporary of Amenhotpe III. Is there any record of a people in the days of Amenhotpe III who came to dwell on the borders of the Empire of Egypt? There certainly is. The record has already been mentioned in this Compendium in connection with Akhenaten ('Huria' in Hittite) in the beginning of chapter eight. Here it is again: 'The Ethiopians, removing from the River Indus, settled near Egypt.'

There are two branches of Ethiopians in the world. wrote Herodotus. Those who dwell in India, with straight or wavy hair; and those who dwell in Africa with frizzled hair ('Polymnia', sect. 20). The Indian Cushites. or Ethiopians, are Aryan-speaking. The leaders of the Hurrians, or Harrians. were Indo-Iranian or Aryan speaking. The Hurrians worshipped Indra, Varuna and various other gods of the Hindu pantheon. No such worship has ever been found among African tribes. No migration to Africa from the Indus is known. But the migration of Indo-Iranian people into Mesopotamia is well attested in history.

Why, then, did Manetho, in the Book of Sothis, refer to 'Egypt' as the neighborhood of the Ethiopian migration from the Indus? Because in the days of Amenhotpe III the Empire of Egypt extended to the Upper Euphrates. Literally dozens of Assyrian references speak of 'Musri' -- Egypt -- as that territory immediately west of the Upper Euphrates. See the annals of Tiglath-pileser I, for example. As late as the days of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar the city of Carchemish, on the Euphrates. was regarded as the fixed border of Egypt. That the Hurrians were Cushites is also clear from Egyptian annals which speak of 'God's Land, Syria and Cush.'

The famous migration of Cushites into Mesopotamia during the reign of Amenhotpe had been preceded by Cushite migrations from the Persian highlands over a century before. They were the Kassu or Kassites under Gande, the first Kassite king. The Kassites worshipped Maruttash, a god of India. These Ethiopian incursions from the East were paralleled by Ethiopian conquests in Asia from Egypt under the Theban kings. The influence of the children of Cush in the ancient world has never been made plain before. It reveals why so many of the descendants of Aram and Lud, sons of Shem, show strong intermixture with dark races. In most of the Middle East, the population today has become light brown, not white, as a result of such mixture.

Phrygians and Hatti

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

'Phrygia' is a Greek word. The eleventh edition of the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica', article 'Phrygia.' provides its meaning: 'Phrygia, the name of a large country in Asia Minor, inhabited by a race which the Greeks called Phryges, 'freemen'.' The Phrygians -- or Freemen -- were said to have spoken 'the original speech of mankind.' They were known for their extensive wealth. It is said of one of their kings, Midas, that everything he touched turned to gold -- figuratively, of course! They showed a high degree of artistic skill.

After the Trojan War the region of Phrygia was utterly devastated by Cimmerians -- Greek for people of Gomer. The Phrygians gradually migrated into Europe. Because they came from the region ruled by the wild Cimmerian hordes, it was common to speak of the Phrygians also as Cimmerians. The Greek name Phryges was gradually changed to Phraggoi. When the Romans encountered them, they applied the Roman word for Freemen -- Franci -- Franks in English. Procopius, in his Roman history, called the Franks Phraggoi (III, 3, 1). They finally settled in France. Is it only a coincidence that the name of the capital of their new land is Paris -- the name of the famous Trojan or Phrygian hero Paris, son of Priam?

The original region which the Greeks called Phrygia extended to the Hellespont, for the Phrygians at one time controlled the sea. This land was termed Wilusa or Uilusa in Hattic inscriptions. The Great Kings of Hatti were allied with the Phrygians of Wilusa -- a name changed in later Greek to Ilion, the plain of Troy. 'In bygone times Labarnas, my ancestor, fought against the Arzawan Lands and the Land of Wilusa; he subdued them. Now after that, Arzawa became hostile ... but never did the Land of Wilusa secede from Hatti, but from afar they remained loyal to the kings of Hatti,' declared the Treaty of Muwatallis, Great King of Hatti, with Alaksandus (Alexander) of Wilusa (Ilion, or early Phrygia). This union maintained itself even after both the Assyrians in the land of Hatti and the Phrygians were defeated at the fall of Troy in 677.

The collapse of Phrygia and the decline of the Hittites east of the Halys River basin in 677 is confirmed by Herodotus. His words are: '... the Medes bent under the Persian yoke, after they had ruled over all Asia beyond the river Halys for the space of one hundred and twenty-eight years, excepting the interval of the Scythian dominion' ('Clio', 130). The Medes succumbed to Cyrus in 549. And 128 years before is 677 the date of the Fall of Troy and the defeat of the Hatti who were Trojan allies. There were no five centuries of darkness between the so-called 'Hittite Empire' and the Medes. One followed the other. West of the Halys River the Phrygians are said by several classical writers to have been overrun in the succeeding year, 676, by the Cimmerians.

In a sense the Phrygians and Assyrians in Hatti were one vast confederation. When these people journeyed into Europe they maintained the old league. The Romans recognized among the Franks, or Phraggoi, two groups: East and West Franks. The one German, the other French. The German tribe called East Frankish was the Chatti or Hessian tribe -- the same as in ancient Anatolia. Could history repeat itself any more precisely?

In reading any book on Asia Minor -- many are now being published -- always remember that it is common practice to apply the name 'Hittite' to all peoples of Asia Minor. It properly belongs only to Canaanite Hittites, a wild and rude people who disappeared from the area after the fall of Persia.