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 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 approofd by the Roman Catholic Church. The Domestic Annals were artfully expanded to make it appear that Irish history commenced centuries earlier than it did in fact. The task of the monks was rendered easy by an unusual circumstance.

Under the Irish kings, Ireland was divided into several kingships or countries. Each country had its own sovereign who was related by blood to the other royal families. Among these contemporaries there was constant strife. First one branch, then another, gained the ascendancy and held the supreme office over Ireland. Whichever king sat on the throne in the supreme office became known as an 'Ard-Riga' or Arch King. As each King usually ruled much longer over his own kingship or country than as Arch King, he would have a longer and a shorter length of reign. At times there were disputed claims to the Arch Kingship, and also joint reigns. Each of these factors made it easy for certain later monks, who followed the Septuagint, to alter and expand the official record.

The original and correct history of the Milesians in Ireland has, however, been preserved unaltered only in the Domestic Annals, the official history of ancient Ireland. They may be found in O'Flaherty's 'Ogygia'. They have been reproduced in French in A.-M.-H.-J. Stokvis' 'Manuel D'Histoire', volume II, pages 234-235. The early history of Ireland, from the flood to the coming of the Milesians, may be found in Geoffrey Keating's 'History of Ireland', but his chronology is not always correct. In the following tables the Irish spellings have been generally preserved, including the unpronounced 'h's' indicative of aspirate sounds, a Hebrew affinity.

The First 1000 Years

According to Irish history the first claim to Irish soil was made by Nin mac Piel -- that is Irish for the Assyrian king Ninus, son of Bel or Belus. But no permanent settlement was established.

Ireland remained generally uninhabited for about three hundred years after the flood -- 2368-2068 -- records Keating (p. 114). In 2068 Parthalon and a band of Hebrew warriors arrived from the Greek world and established a settlement at Inis Saimer, a small island in the river Erne, at Ballyshannon. Thirty years later -- 2038 -Parthalon died and the land was divided between his four sons; Er, Orba, Ferann, and Fergna (p. 120) (p, 118). Twenty years later (2018) a plague befell the settlers. The settlers were exterminated, save for those who fled. After 30 years of desolation -- 2018-1988 -- the remnant that fled returned to Ireland and continued to inhabit it for another 250 years until 1738. The total time which the family of the Parthalonians inhabited Ireland was 300 years -- from 2068-2018 and from 1988-1738. Keating records that at this time another catastrophe came upon the Parthalonians, possibly at the hands of Phoenician Formorians. Keating quotes (p. 118) a poetic record:

'During thirty years, full told

It lay desolate, without warriors brave,

When all its hosts died in one week

In flocks upon Mash-n-Elta.'

No Irish historian professes to know when the Formorians came to Ireland.

This second period of thirty years' desolation -- 1738-1708 -- puzzled Keating. He doubted there were two similar periods of the same length, though his sources preserved the fact that there were indeed two.

A second and related wave of migrants came into Ireland from Scythia. Irish annalists often have been laughed at because they picture these migrants sailing from the Black Sea to the North Sea through what is now European Russia. Such 'poor geography' was in fact the same geography of early classical writers, who mentioned the early ease of sailing the same route. This geography is not unusual when it is recognized that the Pripet Marshes in Russia were once -- in the centuries after the Flood -- a vast lake connected by rivers to the Black and North seas!

The migrants from Scythia at this period were called Nemedians, after Nemedh, the leader of the expedition. They dwelt in Ireland for 216 years -- 1708-1492. During much of this time they were reduced to slavery under the Formorians. A part of the Nemedians fled to Grecian Thrace to escape the oppression (p. 126). They returned to Ireland 216 years after the Nemedians first reached the shores of Ireland. Upon their return they bore the epithet Fir-Bolgs, a name derived from the circumstances of their oppression while in Grecian Thrace. The Fir-Bolgs set up a kingship upon their conquest of the Formorians. From Keating a list of Fir-Bolg rulers may be obtained (pp. 131-132).

Thirty-six years after the Fir-Bolgs returned to Ireland -- 1456 -- the first small migration of the Tuatha-De-Danaan occurred. This was during the time of the Wandering in the wilderness under Moses. The total length of Danite dominion in Ireland before the coming of the royal house of the Milesians was 440 years -- 1456-1016 (p. 168). Keating quotes the ancient poet:

'Forty years above four hundred,

There were, since came the tribes of Dana

Across the straits of the great sea,

Till Miledh's sons first heard dread Ocean

His music beat on Eri's shores.'

By other reckonings the Danite dominion was much shorter -- only 197 years -- that is, from 1213-1016 This second migratory wave in 1213, was in the days of Barak and Deborah -- 1233-1193, when 'Dan abode in ships' (Judges 5:17). Deborah and Barak had delivered the children of Israel from Jabin. king of Canaan, whose military strength lay in Hazor and Syria. Jabin lorded it over Israel for 20 years -- 1253-1233 -- before his defeat. The Irish annals speak of this oppression. Keating records that while the tribe of Dan dwelt in Greece, 'It happened that a large fleet came from Syria to make war upon the people of the Athenian territory, in consequence of which they were engaged in daily battles .... As to the Tuatha-De-Dananns, when they saw the natives of the land thus vanquished by the Syrians, they all fled out of the country, through fear of those invaders. And they stopped not until they reached the regions of Lochlinn (Scandinavia), where they were welcomed by the inhabitants, on account of their many sciences and arts .... When they had remained a long time in these cities, they passed over to the north of Alba (Scotland), where they continued seven years in Dobar and Iardobar' (pp. 136-137). Keating continues (p. 139): 'When the Tuatha-De-Danann had remained seven years in the north of Scotland (or Alba), they passed over to Ireland and landed in the north of this country.'

Many Monkish tales were later told about the Tuatha-De-Danaan to make it appear they were a fabulous people. When the tales of magic are dismissed the truth is plain. The Tuatha-De-Danann of Keating's 'History' were none other than the tribe of Dan, and the invaders from Syria were the armies of Jabin king of Canaan!

The kings who bore rule for 197 years over the Danites in Ireland are found in O'Flaherty's 'Ogygia', in Keating's 'History of Ireland', pages 142-146, and in vol. II of Stokvis' 'Manuel', page 232.

The Coming of the Milesians

The ancient royal houses of Ireland and Scotland, and later of England, are derived from the Milesian Royal House that conquered Ireland in 1016. The Milesians were named after Miledh, or Milesius, of Spain, whose sons conquered Ireland and ruled over the Danites. All the migrants from Parthalon to the Milesians were distantly related to each other. The most famous ancestor of the Milesians was Eibher Scot -- Eber of Scotia, of Scythia -- identifying the Milesians as sons of Eber, or Hebrews. The children of Eber early settled in the regions of Scythia, and gave their name to Iberia, a region in the Caucasus in Classical times. The generations between Eber and Milesius are not completely preserved in any Irish annals -- the records are complete only after the coming of the Milesians to Ireland. A late fictitious genealogy going back to Magog arose in monkish times from the known fact that Hebrews once dwelt in Scythia, which was also inhabited by Magog.

A key to the line of descent may be found in the symbols used to designate various branches of the Milesian Royal House. Examples are the Crimson Branch, the Red Branch, signifying the line of Zarah from Judah. Zarah, at his birth, appeared with red thread about his hand. He was expected to be born first, but after his hand appeared, and the thread wound about it, the other brother Pharez came unexpectedly.

The wanderings of the family of Heber to Milesius are summarized by Keating on p. 173. The final migration, under Milesius, was from Egypt, via Thrace to Spain. This was shortly before the expulsion of the Hyksos in 1076. Of this period of Milesius in Egypt, Irish records declare: 'At this time, there was a great war between Pharaoh and the king of Ethiopia. Pharaoh made Miledh the commander of his army, when he had estimated his bravery and valor, and sent him to meet the forces of Ethiopia therewith. There then ensued many engagements and conflicts, between the forces under the command of Miledh and those of the Ethiopians. In these he was so successful that his fame and renown spread through all nations, whereupon Pharaoh gave him one of his own daughters to wife ....' (Keating, p. 176).

'Miledh at length remembered ... Ireland was the land in which it was destined that his posterity should obtain a lasting sovereignty. Upon this he fitted out three ships, supplied them with crews, and took his leave of Pharaoh. He then set sail from the mouth of the Nile, into the Mediterranean, and landed on an Island near Thrace.' (Reating, p. 177.) After further migrations the prince landed in Spain to join members of the family he had left behind years before. In Spain he died. There followed a scarcity of food in Spain for about 26 years according to Irish records (p. 179).

According to the Domestic Annals a consequent invasion of the Irish coast was planned to relieve the pressure from the drought. It occurred in 1016, near the end of the reign of David king of Israel. The invasion was successful. The Tuatha-De-Danaan were forced to accept the new line of Royalty. The realm of Ireland was now divided between the two surviving sons of Milesius -- Ebher and Ghedhe the Ereamhon (or Heremon). This Ghedhe, the Heremon, has often been mistaken by the British Israel World Federation for ANOTHER king of later fame ALSO CALLED 'the Heremon' in Irish bardic literature. Heremon or Ereamhon is a title, which, in the case of Ghedhe, came to be used as a personal name.

Of this Ghedhe the Heremon, brother of Eber, the 'Annals of the Four Masters' reads: 'Tea, the daughter of Lughaidh, son of Itha, whom Eremhon married in Spain.' This Tea is an altogether different person from the Tea who came more than four centuries later to the Irish Isles. The British Israel World Federation has confounded two different events, separated by over four centuries, simply because it was and is unwilling to believe the history of Ireland as it is plainly recorded. The Tea who married Ghedhe the Heremon was a daughter of Lughaidh, the son of Ith, uncle of Miledh (also spelled Mileadh). That is exactly what Irish history records. These events occurred in David's reign, not Zedekiah's. What did happen after Zedekiah's reign will be made plain shortly.

The brothers Eber and Gede the Heremon founded a town after gaining possession of Ireland. To be the new capital of Ireland, they named it Tea-mur, the town of Tea. At different times in history it has borne other names, the most common being Tara (cp. the Hebrew word 'Torah', meaning 'Law').

Did David Visit Ireland?

Even to this day another of the names of the old site of Tara has been preserved: Dowd's Town -- which means literally David's Town. The name is found attached to an area three miles north of Tara Hill (see B.M. Ordnance Survey maps, Ireland, 91, 101). Is it possible that David king of Israel visited Ireland and Tara toward the end of his life?

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

Jeremiah Goes to Ireland

Now we come to one of the most remarkable events in history -- the joining of the lines of Pharez and Zarah in Ireland after the fall of Jerusalem in 585 B.C.

The Bible records God as saying that David would never lack a descendant to sit on his throne. Now consider, all of Zedekiah's sons were slaughtered before he was carried to Babylon. But his two daughters escaped with Jeremiah. Part of the story of how the line of David through Zedekiah continued has been preserved in Masonic tradition, and well known as recently as one century ago. Remember, kings and royalty of Britain have commonly been Masons.

According to this Masonic tradition, a Prince Eochaid of Ireland came to Jerusalem several years before 585. He was present during the siege. This Eochaid (meaning Knight) was none other than Oilioll Olchaoin, the son of Siorna Saoghlach mac Dian called the Heremon. Eochaid was blood royal of the Milesian Zarah line. After the fall of Jerusalem he married Zedekiah's daughter, named in the Masonic tradition Tea Tephi, of the Pharez line. They fled in 585 with Jeremiah and Baruch to Egypt.

The last Biblical record places them in Egypt. Masonic tradition, however, traces their journey to Ireland. Irish histories relate the arrival of a royal party in 569 B.C. (See 'The Irish Prince and the Hebrew Prophet', New York, 1896, pages 137-145). The arrivals included Prince Eochaid, his wife Tea Tephi, their son and a prophet called Ollamh Fodhla and his scribe Baruch. When they reached Tara, Eochaid was proclaimed king since his father had just died. A description from the Masonic tradition reads: 'Jeremiah had joined the hands of the prince and princess over the sacred stone (lia fail) ... and commanded the blessing of Israel's God to rest upon the throne of David.' ('The Irish Prince and the Hebrew Prophet', page 139).

This ceremony was not the marriage of Eochaid and Tea Tephi but, the symbolic joining of the lines of Zarah and Pharez.

The Milesian Kings

The following chart gives the list of kings unaltered and without need of restoration, from the Domestic Annals as preserved by O'Flaherty in his 'Ogygia'. Both the dates and lengths of reign are accurately preserved. The abbreviations after the names indicate from which branch of the Milesians the king descended. 'Er.' is the line of Ghedhe the Ereamhon; 'Eb.' is Ebher, brother of Ghedhe the Ereamhon; 'Ith' is the line of Ith or Itha, brother of Miledh or Mileadh; 'Irw' is the line of Ir, another (uncrowned) brother of Eber and Gede.

Arch Kings of Ireland	Lengths of Reign	Dates from O'Flaherty and the Domestic Annals
Ghedhe the Ereamhon mac Mileadh	14	1016-1002
Ebher mac Mileadh, rules jointly with his brother	1	1016-1015
Muimhne mac Gede the Ereamhon,
Luighne mac Gede,	3	1002- 999
Laighne mac Gede
Er mac Eber,
Orba mac Eber,
	6 months	999
Fearon mac Eber,
Feorgna mac Eber
'Irial' (Ariel) Faidh (meaning the 'prophet') mac Ereamhon	10	999- 989
Eithrial mac Irial (Er.)	20	989- 969
Conmhaol mac Eber	30	969- 939
Tighearnmas mac Follagh (Er.) (Introduces idolatry into Ireland during heyday of Baalism in Israel and Judah.)	23	939- 916
(Interregnum)	(7)	916- 909
Eochaidh I Eadghadhach mac Daire (Ith)	4	909- 905
Cearmna Fionn mac Ebric (Ir),
	40	905- 865
Sobhairce mac Ebric (Ir)
Eochaidh II Faobharglas mac Conmhaol (Eb.)	20	865- 845
Fiachadh I Labhrainne mac Smiorgoll (Er.)	24	845- 821
Eochaidh III Munho mac Mofebis (Eb.)	21	821- 800
Aonghus I Olmucadha mac Fiachadh (Er.)	18	800- 782
Eadhna I Airgtheach mac Eochaidh (Eb.)	24	782- 758
Roitheachtach I mac Maoin (Er.)	11	758- 747
Seadhna I mac Airtri (Ir)	5	747- 742
Fiachadh II Fionscothach mac Seadhna (Ir)	14	742- 728
Muineamhon mac Cas Clothach (Eb.)	5	728- 723
Faildeargdoid mac Muineamhon (Eb.)	9	723- 714
(Eochaidh) Ollamh Fodhla mac Fiachadh (Ir) (not the later prophet Ollamh Fodhla)	40	714- 674
(Elim) Fionnachta I mac Ollamh (Ir)	20	674- 654
Slanoll mac Ollamh (Ir)	17	654- 637
Ghedhe Ollgothach mac Ollamh (Ir)	12	637- 625
Fiachadh III Fionnailches mac Fionnachta (Ir)	8	625- 617
Bearnghal mac Ghedhe (Ir)	12	617- 605
Oilioll I mac Slanoll (Ir)	15	605- 590
Siorna Saoghlach mac Dian (Er.), called the Heremon. He restored the power of the line of Ereamhon. At his death a prophet called Ollamh Fodhla brought Tea Tephi to Ireland with his son Oilioll Olchaoin, who was her husband.	21	590- 569
Roitheachtach II mac Roan (Eb.)	7	569- 562
Elim I Oillfinshneachta mac Roitheachtach (Eb.)	1	562- 561
Giallchadh mac Oilioll Olchaoin (Er.), son of Tea Tephi	9	561- 552
Art I Imleach mac Elim (Eb.)	12	552- 540
Nuadhat I Fionnfoil mac Giallchadh (Er.)	13	540- 527
Breas mac Art (Eb.)	9	527- 518
Eochaidh IV Apthach mac Fionn (Ith)	1	518- 517
Fionn mac Bratha (Ir)	20	517- 497
Seadhna II Ionnarrach mac Breas (Eb.)	14	497- 483
Siomon Breac mac Aodhan Glas (Er.)	6	483- 477
Duach I Fionn mac Seadhna (Eb.)	8	477- 469
Muireadhach I Bolgrach mac Siomon (Er.)	1	469- 468
Eadhna II Dearg mac Duach (Eb.)	5	468- 463
Lughaidh I Iardonn mac Eadhna (Eb.)	5	463- 458
Siorlamh mac Fionn (Ir)	16	458- 442
Eochaidh V Uaircheas mac Lughaidh (Eb.)	12	442- 430
Eochaidh VI Fiadhmuine mac Congal Cosgarach, (Er.)	5	430- 425
Conaing Beageaglach mac Congal Cosgarach (Er.)
Lughaidh II Laimhdhearg mac Eochaidh (Eb.)	4	425- 421
Conaing Beageaglach mac Congal Cosgarach (returns, (Er.)	7	421- 414
Art II mac Lughaidh, (Eb.)	7	414- 407
Fiacha Tolgrach (Er.)
Oilioll II Fionn mac Art (Eb.)	9	407- 398
Eochaidh VII mac Oilloll (Eb.)	7	398- 391
Airgeatmhar mac Siorlamh (Ir)	10	391- 381
Duach II Ladhgrach mac Fiachadh Tolgrach (Er.)	10	381- 371
Lughaidh III Laighdhe mac Eochaidh (Eb.)	4	371- 367

(Next four reign alternately in 28 years.)

Aodh I Ruadh mac Badharn (Ir)	7	367- 360
Diothorba mac Deman (Ir)	7	360- 353
Ciombaoth mac Fionntan (Ir)	7	353- 346

The prophet Ollanh Fodhla lived about 240 years before his time. He was Jeremiah.

Machadh Mongruadh, Queen (Ir)	7	346- 339
Reachtaidh Righdhearg mac Lughaidh (Eb.)	9	339- 330
Ugaine Mor mac Eochaidh Buadhach (Er.)	30	330- 300

(Ruled Western Europe to Tyrrhenian Sea. Time of Celtic greatness in Roman history.)

Badhbhchadh mac Eochaidh Buadhach (Er.)	1 1/2 days	300
Laoghaire I Lorc mac Ugaine (Er.)	16	300- 284
Cobhthach Coal-Breagh mac Ugaine (Er.)	17	284- 267
Maen Labhraidh Loingseach mac Oilioll Aine (Er.)	14	267- 253
Melghe Molbhtach mac Cobhtach (Er.)	12	253- 241
Modhcorb mac Cobhtach Caomh (Eb.)	6	241- 235
Aonghus II Ollanh mac Oilioll (Er.)	7	235- 228
Irereo (Iarann) Gleofathach mac Melghe (Er.)	6	228- 222
Fearcorb mac Modhcorb (Eb.)	7	222- 215
Connla Camh mac Irereo (Er.)	4	215- 211
Oilioll III Caisfhiaclach mac Connla (Er.)	25	211- 186
Adhamair Foltchaon mac Fearcorb (Eb.)	5	186- 181
Eochaidh VIII Ailtleathan mac Oilioll (Er.)	7	181- 174
Fearghus I Fortamhail mac Breasal Breac (Er.)	12	174- 162
Aonghus III Tuirmheach Teamhrach mac Eochaidh (Er.)	32	162- 130
Conall I Collamhrach mac Ederscel	5	130- 125
Niadh Sedhamain mac Adhamair (Eb.)	7	125- 118
Eadhna III Aighneach mac Aonghus	10	118- 108
Criomthann I Cosgrach mac Fedhlimidh (Er.)	4	108- 104
Rudhraighe mac Sithrighe (Ir)	17	104- 87
Ionnatmar mac Niadh (Eb.)	3	87- 84
Breasal Boidhiobhadh mac Rudhraighe (Ir)	9	84- 75
Lughaidh IV Luaighne mac Ionnatmar (Eb.)	15	75- 60
Congal I Claroineach mac Rudhraighe (Ir)	3	60- 57
Duach III Dallta Deadhadh mac Cairbre Lusg (Eb.)	7	57- 50
Feachtna Fathach mac Rudhraighe (Ir)	24	50- 26
Eochaidh IX Feidhleach mac Finn (Er.)	12	26- 14
Eochaidh X Aireamh mac Finn (Er.)	10	14- 4
Ederscel mac Eoghan (Er.)	4	4-1
Nuadhat II Neacht mac Seadhna Sithbhaic (Er.)		1
Conaire I Mor mac Ederscel (Er.)	59	1- 60
(Interregnum)	5	60- 65
Lughaidh V Sriabhndearg mac Breas Fineamhnas (Er.)	8	65- 73
Conchobhar I Abhradhruadh mac Finn Fili (Er.)	1	73- 74
His year of reign corresponds to year 5 of Vespasian -- ('Annals of Tighernach')-73-74.
Criomthann II Niadhnair mac Lughaidh (Er.)	16	74- 90
Cairbre Cinncait (usurp.) and son	5	90- 95
Morann Mac-Maom
Fearadhach Finnfeachtnach mac Criomthann (Er.)	21	95- 116
Fiatach Fionn mac Daire (Er.)	3	116- 119
Fiachdh IV Finnfolaidh mac Fearadhach (Er.)	7	119- 126
Elim II mac Conrach (Ir)	4	126- 130
Tuathal I Teachtmhar mac Fiachadh (Er.)	30	130- 160
Mal mac Rochraidhe (Ir)	4	160- 164
Feidhlimidh Reachtmhar mac Tuathal (Er.)	10	164- 174
Cathaoir Mor mac Feidhlimidh Firurghlais (Er.)	3	174- 177
Conn Cedcathach mac Feidhlimidh (Er.)	35	177- 212
Conaire II mac Modha-Lamha (Er.)	8	212- 220
Art III Confhir mac Conn (Er.)	30	220- 250
Lughaidh VI Mac-Con mac Macniadh (Ith)	3	250- 253
Fearghus II Duibhdeadach mac Imchadh (Er.)	1	253- 254
Cormac Ulfada mac Art (Er.)	23	254- 277
Eochaidh XI Gonnat mac Feig (Er.)	2	277- 279
Cairbre Liffeachair mac Cormac (Er.)	17	279- 296
Fothadh I Cairptheach mac Lughaidh (Ith) and Fothadh II Airgtheach mac Lughaidh (Er.)	1	296- 297
Fiachadh V Sraibhtine mac Cairbre (Er.)	30	297- 327
Cairioll Colla-Uais mac Eochaidh Doimhlen (Er.)	4	327- 331
Muireadhach II Tireach mac Fiachadh (Er.)	26	331- 357
Caolbhadh mac Crunn Badhrai (Ir)	1	357- 358
Eochaidh XII Muighmheadhoin mac Muireadhach (Er.)	8	358- 366
Criomthann III mac Fidhach (Eb.)	13	366- 379
Niall I Naoighiallach mac Eochaidh (Er.)	26	379- 405
(Feradhach) Dathi mac Fiachra (Er.)	23	405- 428
Laoghaire II mac Niall (Er.)	35	428- 463
Oilioll IV Molt mac Dathi (Er.)	20	463- 483
Lughaidh VII mac Laoghaire (Er.)	25	483- 508
(Interregnum)	5	508- 513
Muircheartach I Mor Mac-Earca mac Muireadhach (Hereafter all are of the line of Ereamhon.)	20	513- 533

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

Tuathal II Maolgarbh mac Cormac Caoch	11	533- 544
Diarmaid I mac Fearghus Ceirrbheoil	21	544- 565
Fearghus III mac Muircheartach and Domhnall I Ilchealgach mac Muircheartach	1	565- 566
Eochaidh XIII mac Domhnall and Boadan I mac Muircheartach	2	566- 568
Ainmire mac Seadhna	3	568- 571
Baodan II mac Ninnidh	1	571- 572
Aodh II mac Ainmire	27	572- 599
Aodh III Slaine mac Diarmaid and Colman Rimidh mac Baodan	6	599- 605
Aodh IV Uairidhnach mac Domhnall Ilchealgach	7	605- 612
Maolcobha mac Aodh	3	612- 615
Suibhne Meann mac Fiachna	13	615- 628
Domhnall II mac Aodh	14	628- 642
Conall II Caol mac Maolcobha	16	642- 658
Ceallach mac Maolcobha	12	642- 654
Blathmac mac Aodh and Diarmaid II Ruaidnaigh mac Aodh	7	658- 665
Seachnasach mac Blathmac	6	665- 671
Ceannfaoladh mac Blathmac	4	671- 675
Fionnachta II Fleadhach mac Dunchadh	20	675- 695
Loingseach mac Aonghus	9	695- 704
Congal II Ceann-Maghair mac Fearghus	7	704- 711
Fearghal mac Maolduin	11	711- 722
Fogartach mac Niall	2	722- 724
Cionaoth mac Irgalach	3	724- 727
Flaithbheartach mac Loingseach	7	727- 734
Aodh V Allan mac Fearghal	9	734- 743
Domhnall III mac Murchadh	20	743- 763
Niall II Frosach mac Fearghal	7	763- 770
Donnchadh I mac Domhnall	27	770- 797
Aodh VI Oirnidhe mac Niall	22	797- 819
Conchobhar II mac Donnchadh	14	819- 833
Niall III Caille mac Aodh	13	833- 846
Maolseachlainn I mac Maolruanaidh	17	846- 863
Aodh VII Finnlaith mac Niall	16	863- 879

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

The Throne in Scotland

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

Kings of the Scots	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Loarn mac Erc	10	503-513
Fearghus I mac Erc	16	513-529

Fearghus I receives Lia Fail for coronation ceremony.

Domhangart mac Fearghus	5	529-534
Comghall mac Domhangart	24	534-558
Gabhran mac Domhangart	2	558-560
Conall I mac Comghall	14	560-574
Aodhan mac Gabhran	32	574-606
Eochaidh I Buidhe mac Aodhan	23	606-629
Conadh Cerr mac Eochaidh		629
Domhnall I Breac mac Eochaidh	13	629-642
Fearchar I mac Connchadh	7	642-649
Conall II Crandamhna mac Eochaidh Dungal I mac Duban	11	649-660
Domhnall II Donn mac Conall	13	660-673
Moalduin mac Conall	16	673-689
Fearchar II Fada mac Feradhach	8	689-697
Eochaidh II Rianamhail mac Domhangart	1	697-698
Ainbhceallach mac Fearchar		698
Sealbach mac Fearchar	25	698-723
Dungal II mac Sealbach	3	723-726
Eochaidh III Angbhaid mac Eochaidh	7	726-733
Dungal II mac Sealbach (returns)	3	733-736
Alpin mac Eochaidh	5	736-741

(Royal line suppressed until 843 by a related branch of Pictish kings. For princes of Scottish line from 741 to 843 see page 230 of Vol. II of Stokvis' 'Manuel'.)

Kings of Scotland	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Cinaeth I (Kenneth) mac Alpin (Obtains Lia Fail from son-in-law, Aodh VII Finnliath of Ireland, in 843.)	15	843-858
Domhnall III (Donald)	4	858-862
Custantin I	14	862-876
Aodh II	2	876-878
(Eochaidh V, king Strathclyde)	(11)	(878-889)
Circ mac Dungal	11	878-889
Domhnall IV	11	889-900
Custantin II	43	900-943
Maelcolaim I (Malcolm)	11	943-954
Illuilb	8	954-962
Dubh	5	962-967
Cuillen	4	967-971
Cinaeth II	24	971-995
Custantin III	2	995-997
Cinaeth III	8	997-1005
Maelcolaim II	29	1005-1034
Donnchadh I (Duncan)	6	1034-1040
Macbeathadh (Macbeth)	17	1040-1057
Lulach	1	1057-1058
Maelcolaim III Ceanmohr	35	1058-1093
Domhnall V Bane	4	1093-1097
Donnchadh II	1	1093-1094
Edgar	12	1094-1106
Alexander I	18	1106-1124
David I	29	1124-1153
Maelcolaim IV	12	1153-1165
William	49	1165-1214
Alexander II	35	1214-1249
Alexander III	37	1249-1286
Margaret	4	1286-1290
(Interregnum)	(2)	(1290-1292)

Dynasties of Baliol and of Bruce

John Baloil	4	1292-1296
(Interregnum)	(10)	(1296-1306)

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

Robert I Bruce	23	1306-1329
David II Bruce	4	1329-1333
Edward Baliol	13	1333-1346
David II Bruce (returns)	25	1346-1371

Dynasty of the Stuarts

Robert II	19	1371-1390
Robert III	16	1390-1406
James I	31	1406-1437
James II	23	1437-1460
James III	28	1460-1488
James IV	25	1488-1513
James V	29	1513-1542
Mary	25	1542-1567
James VI, becomes James I of England in 1603	58	1567-1625

With this outline the essentials of Irish history are restored. For details of the reigns of each king of Ireland consult Keating's 'History of Ireland', or O'Flaherty. The modern idea that the Irish were illiterate, and that their history is all myth, is itself a modern myth. The real myths circulating in the name of Irish history are generally limited to attempts on the part of the Catholic Church to hide the identity of the racial descent of the Irish nation. In fact, the only reason for ever inventing myth is to hide, obscure or pervert some evidence or truth. Once the source of Truth -- the Bible -- is manifest, the difference between myth and fact becomes readily apparent.

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.

Mermnadae Kings of Lydia	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Gyges	38	716-678
Ardys	49	678-629
Sadyattes	12	629-617
Alyattes	57	617-560
Croesus	14	560-546

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

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

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

Restoring Greek History

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

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

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

Kings of Corinth

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

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

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

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

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

Kings of Corinth	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Aletes	35	1069-1034
Ixion	37	1034- 997
Agelaus	37	997- 960
Prymnus	34	960- 926
	(or 35)	(960- 925)
Bacchis	36	926- 890
	(or 35)	(925- 890)
Agelas	30	890- 860
Eudemus	25	860- 835
Aristomedes	35	835- 800
Agemon	16	800- 784
Alexander	25	784- 759
Telestes	12	759- 747
Automenes	1	747- 746
The Constitution	90	746- 656
The Tyranny	73 1/2	656- 583

The History of Athens

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

Modern writers reject Athens' early history altogether of course, they have never 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.

Kings of Athens	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Cecrops	50	1556-1506
Cranaus	9	1506-1497
Amphictyon	10	1497-1487
Erecthonius	50	1487-1437
Pandion I	40	1437-1397
Erechtheus	50	1397-1347
Cecrops II	40	1347-1307
Pandion II	25	1307-1282
Aegaeus	48	1282-1234
Theseus	30	1234-1204
Menestheus	23	1204-1181

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

Demophon	33	1181-1148
Oxyntes	12	1148-1136
Aphidas	1	1136-1135
Thymoetes	8	1135-1127
Melanthus	37	1127-1090
Codrus	21	1090-1069

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

Perpetual Archons of Athens	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Medon, son of Codrus	20	1069-1049
Acastus	36	1049-1013
Archippus	19	1013- 994
Thersippus	41	994- 953
Phorbas	31	953- 922
Megacles	30	922- 892
Diognetus	28	892- 864
Pherecles	19	864- 845
Ariphron	20	845- 825
Thespieus	27	825- 798
Agamestor	20	798- 778
Aeschylus	23	778- 755
Alcmaeon	2	755- 753

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

The History of Sicyon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to return to the kingship of Aegialea or Sicyon.

Kings of Sicyon	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Aegialeus	52	2063-2011
Europs	45	2011-1966
Telchin	20	1966-1946
Apis	25	1946-1921
Thelxion	52	1921-1869
Aegydrus	34	1869-1835
Thurimachus	45	1835-1790
Leucippus	53	1790-1737
Messapus	47	1737-1690
Eratus, or Peratus	46	1690-1644
Plemnaeus	48	1644-1596
Orthopolis	63	1596-1533
Marathon	30	1533-1503
Marathus	20	1503-1483
Echireus	55	1483-1428
Corax	30	1428-1398

(The lists, as they have been handed down, add Epopeus next, followed by Lamedon, younger brother of Corax. Epopeus was a foreigner, a Shepherd King, who demolished Greek temples and altars. He is Apophis I of Egypt, Hyksos king of Dynasty XV. As Egyptian records 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.)

Lamedon	40	1398-1358
Epopeus	32	1358-1326
Lamedon again	3	1326-1323

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

Sicyon, who gave his name to the city.	45	1323-1278
	(or 42)	(1323-1281)
Polybus	40	1278-1238
	(or 43)	(1281-1238)
Inachus	42	1238-1196
Phaestus	8	1196-1188
Adrastus	4	1188-1184
Polyphides	31	1184-1153
Pelasgus	20	1153-1133
Zeuxippus	31	1133-1102
	(or 32)	(1133-1101)

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

Priests of Apollo Carneus Governing Sicyon	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Archelaus	1	1102-1101
Automedon	1	1101-1100
Theoclytus	4	1100-1096
Euneus	6	1096-1090
Theonomus	9	1090-1081
Amphichyes	12	1081-1069
	(or 18)	(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	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Eurysthenes	42	1101-1059
Agis	1	1059-1058
Echestratus	35	1058-1023
Labotas	37	1023- 986
Dorysthus	29	986- 957
Agesilaus	44	957- 913
Archelaus	60	913- 853
Teleclus	40	853- 813
Alcamenes	37	813- 776

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

Kings of Macedonia to Alexander the Great	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Caranus	28	813-785
Coenus	12	785-773
Tyrimmas	38	773-735
Perdicca I	51	735-684
Argaeus I	38	684-646
Philippus I	38	646-608
Aeropus	26	608-582
Alcetas	29	582-553
Amyntas I	50	553-503
Alexander	43	503-460
Perdicca II	28	460-432
Archelaus	24	432-408
Orestes	3	408-405
Archelaus (again)	4	405-401
Amyntas II	1	401-400
Pausanias	1	400-399
Amyntas II (again)	6	399-393
Argaeus II	2	393-391
Amyntas II (again)	18	391-373
Alexander	1	373-372
Ptolemaeus	4	372-368
Perdicca III	6	368-362
Philippus II	26	362-336
Alexander the Great	12	336-324

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

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

Who Were the Heraclidae?

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

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

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

The History of Argos

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

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

Kings of Argos to End of First Trojan War According to Castor, from Eusebius	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Inachus	50	1852-1802
Phoroneus	60	1802-1742
Apis	35	1742-1707
Argus	70	1707-1637
Criasus	54	1637-1583
Phorbas	35	1583-1548
Triopas	46	1548-1502
Crotopus	21	1502-1481
Sthenelus	11	1481-1470
Danaus, fled from Egypt to Greece	50	1470-1420
Lynceus, son-in-law of Danaus	41	1420-1379
Abas	23	1379-1356
Proetus	17	1356-1339
Acrisius	31	1339-1308
Eurystheus	45	1308-1263
Atreus and Thyestes	65	1263-1198
Agamemnon, exercised hegemony over Argos	17	1198-1181

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

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

Genealogy of Danaus

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

Belus, father of Danaus and Aegyptus The many sons of Aegyptus who ruled in Egypt constituted Dynasty VII of Memphis.

Danaus (1470-1420)

Hypermnestra, daughter of Danaus Married Lynceus (1420-1379), son of Aegyptus

Abas (1379-1356)

Acrisius (1339-1308)

Danae, a daughter Danae secretly had a son by 'Zeus' -- probably Giemshid the Persian king.

Perseus, the Alphidun of the Persian king list Perseus was grandfather of Eurystheus of Argos (1308-1263). He had a son Perses, report the Greeks. Persian history makes Perses the son of Irege, son of Perseus. Since Irege died before his father, Perseus must have adopted Perses as his son. His Persian name was Manougeher, and he was known as Phirouz -- that is, Perses.

Electryo, daughter of Perseus

Alcmena, a daughter

Heracles, a contemporary of Eurystheus

Hyllus

Cleodaeus

Aristomachus

Aristodemus

Eurysthenes (1101-1059), king of Sparta From him one of the royal Spartan kingly lines descended. The Spartans claimed descent from Abraham according to a letter they wrote to the Jews. See Josephus: 'Antiquities of the Jews', XII, iv, 10 and XIII, v. 8. The Jews admitted the truth of the statement, saying they found it in their Scriptures.

Our question is where in Scripture is Belus, the ancestor of this royal line, mentioned? The only Belus mentioned at that period in the Bible is Bela (the Latin form would be Belus), the son of Beor and brother of Balaam. Bela was a king of Edom (Genesis 36:32). Edom was the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. Here is one of the earliest indications of the settlement of the Aegean and the western parts of Turkey by the sons of Esau. The ancient Spartans were a very warlike people, at constant cross-purposes with other Greek city-states.

Now consider the chronological significance of Danaus' actual arrival in Argos. Note that Danaus first arrived in Argos in 1486 -- the actual year he fled from his brother when the Hyksos quarreled over setting up the kingship in Egypt. For the significance of 1486 see the section on Egyptian history concerning the Exodus.

Kings of Argos According to Syncellus	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Inachus, Weneg of Dynasty II of Egypt	56	1858-1802
Phoroneus	60	1802-1742
Apis	35	1742-1707
Argus	70	1707-1637
Criasus	55	1637-1582
Phorbas	25	1582-1557
Triopas	36	1557-1521
Crotopus	24	1521-1497
Sthenelus	11	1497-1486
Danaus, flees from his brother	58	1486-1428
Lynceus	35	1428-1393
Abas	37	1393-1356
Proetus	17	1356-1339

Sea Powers of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean

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

Sea Powers (Thalassocrasies) of the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean Seas to 480	Duration	Date
Lydians, who are the Maeonians	92	1149-1057
Pelasgians or Sea Peoples	85	1057- 972
Thracians	79	972- 893
Rhodians	23	893- 870
Phrygians	25	870- 845
Cyprians	32	845- 813
Phoenicians	45	813- 768
Egyptians	43	768- 725
Milesians	18	725- 707
Carians	61	707- 646
Lesbians	68	646- 578
	(or 96)	(674- 578)
Phocaeians	44	578- 534
Samians	17	534- 517
Lacedemonians (Spartans)	2	517- 515
Naxians	10	515- 505
Eritreans	15	505- 490
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 (founded 1179) and Alba (founded 1149) after the First Trojan War	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Aenaes	3	1178-1175
Ascanius	38	1175-1137
Sylvius	29	1137-1108
Aenaes Sylvius	31	1108-1077
Latinus Sylvius	50	1077-1027
Alba Sylvius	39	1027- 988
Aegyptus Sylvius	24	988- 964
Capis Sylvius	28	964- 936
Carpentus Sylvius	13	936- 923
Tiberinus Sylvius	8	923- 915
Agrippa Sylvius	41	915- 874
Aremulus Sylvius	19	874- 855
Aventinus Sylvius	37	855- 818
Procas Sylvius	23	818- 795
	(or 21)	(818- 797)
Amulius Sylvius	42	795- 753
	(or 44)	(797- 753)

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

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

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

Aenaes Sylvius	30	1108-1078
Lateinus Sylvius	50	1078-1028
Alba Sylvius	38	1028- 990
Aegyptus Sylvius	26	990- 964

Kings of Rome to the Founding of the Republic	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Romulus	37	753- 716

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

Numa Pompilius	43	715- 672
Tullus Hostilius	32	672- 640
Ancus Martius	24	640- 616
Targuinius Priscus	38	616- 578
Servius Tullius	44	578- 534
	(or 34)	(578- 544)
Tarquinius Superbus	25	534- 509
	(or 35)	(544- 509)

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

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

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

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 FIFTEEN

Media, India, Japan and China

The wide conquests of the Assyrian Empire brought her into direct contact with many nations dwelling within and beyond the confines of the Middle East. Twice Assyria attempted to conquer India. Twice she failed. Twice the Medes rose in successful revolt against the Assyrians.

A people so far removed as the Japanese also trace their history to a remarkable event in Assyrian history. Only the Chinese, of all eastern people, remained relatively apart from the West.

The Revolts of the Medes

In one sense no restoration of the Median Empire is necessary. Ctesias and Herodotus preserve accurately the chronological history of the early Median tribes and of two distinct revolts. The modern historian has created an artificial problem by rejecting the traditions of both Ctesias and Herodotus. Why were they rejected? Because many of the leading events surrounding the Medes' early rise to power were absolutely supernatural. Take the classic example in Herodotus. At least 150 years before the birth of Cyrus, the prophet Isaiah was inspired by God to record the name of Cyrus as the future conqueror of Babylon. The birth of Cyrus is narrated by Herodotus. The last Median king, wrote Herodotus, had no son, only a daughter. During the pregnancy of his daughter, Astyages was frightened by a dream in which it was revealed that the child to be born of her was destined to overthrow the grandfather and conquer the world. To thwart this portent he contrived to have the child murdered. The official appointed to accomplish the deed sublet the act to a shepherd whose wife has just suffered the loss of a young baby boy. The dead infant was substituted for the living infant Cyrus. Thus the young lad survived, eventually to rule the world.

Historians view such an account as myth. By that they mean that anything so unusual as the birth of Cyrus speaks of the intervention of God whom they refuse to acknowledge. To rid themselves of His presence and His intervention in history they must discount the writers who recorded these events.

The history of Media is preserved by several early Greek and Roman writers. Diodorus Siculus records in detail how the Medes successfully overthrew the Assyrians in 816 -- the time of the prophet Jonah. One of the royal Assyrian capitals at that time was at Rehoboth on the Euphrates. There the Medes successfully attacked the person of the king, Thonos Concolerus, also known as Sardanapallus, slew him and his armed guards and razed the city. Only the repentance of the Ninevites saved it from the Median ravages.

This was also the period of the extensive conquests of Seti I in Asia.

The Median royalty which came to power in 816 was the line of Darius the Mede. The Median kings who rose to power after the revolt in 700-699 were another and distinct line of Kings.

Here are the Median kings according to Ctesias' record from the Persian archives.

House of Arbaces Median Rings After Overthrow of Assyrians at Rehoboth	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Arbaces	28	816-788
His son Mandauces	20	788-768
Sosarmus	30	768-738
Artycas	30	738-708
Arbianes	22	708-686
Artaeus	40	686-646
Artynes	22	646-624
Astibaras	40	624-584
Aspadas (called Astyigas	35	584-549
or Astyages)	(or 38)	(584-546)

The successor of Aspadas was Darius the Mede, mentioned in Daniel 5:31 and 9:1. The Hebrews called Aspadas 'Ahasuerus'. The Greeks called Darius the Mede Cyaxeres II.

Historians have completely misunderstood the events surrounding the end of Median independence. The reason is this. There were two Median kings reigning at the same time with the same name -- Astyages, or similar spelling. One was grandfather of Cyrus the Persian; the other, Aspadas called Astyigas, was father of Darius the Mede. Before explaining any more details, it is necessary to introduce the second Median royal house and the second Astyages.

In the year 700-699, following the death of Shalmaneser III, the Medes successfully completed a second revolt against the Assyrians. Not until this year were all the Medes completely free from Assyrian dominion. Herodotus preserves the names of these Median kings who ascended the throne in 699.

House of Deioces Median Kings Following Revolt in 700-699.	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Deioces	53	699-646
Phraortes	22	646-624
Cyaxeres I	40	624-584
Astyages, grandfather of Cyrus	35	584-549

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

In 549 Astyages was overthrown by his grandson, Cyrus the Persian. Cyrus had come to the Persian throne, which he shared with his father, in the year 558. He reigned altogether 29 years (558-529).

The chronological evidence from Ctesias and Herodotus indicates the last three kings of each Median line shared the throne jointly. Each was succeeded by a son in 646, 624 and 584. An exception occurred in the case of Astyages, son of Cyaxeres I. This man, declared Herodotus, had no son, only a daughter. He ruled with a harsh hand. His daughter he gave in marriage to the king of Persia, Cambyses, who became the father of Cyrus. By contrast Josephus stated that Astyages had a son -- Darius the Mede. Historians have -- for no justifiable reason -- assumed the testimony of Josephus and Herodotus were irreconcilable. A little thought would have made it plain that each writer was discussing a different Astyages. Josephus, and Daniel too, wrote of the Astyages or Aspadas who was of the house of Arbaces. Herodotus' account was of Astyages of the house of Deioces.

The confederation of Persians and Medes, often stressed in the Bible, resulted from a political union of the house of Arbaces, which began in 816, with the young Persian monarch Cyrus. Cyrus could never have come to power had there not been strife between the two Median royal families.

Worthy of special note in the preceding charts is the date 584, ending the reigns of both Cyaxeres and Astibaras. This was 28 years after the overthrow of Nineveh (612) and marked the end of Scythian dominion in ancient Upper Asia. Who those Scythians were will become apparent in the study of Japanese history and the traditions of the Parsees of India.

History of Early India

In 1956 a remarkable book on early India was published. Its title: 'The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya.' The author, Dr. P. H. L. Eggermont, resolved several difficult problems in early Indian literature. His solutions are in complete harmony with the history of Assyria.

Many of the enigmas in Indian history could long aso have been resolved had the scholars RESPECTED the literary accounts preserved by the early scribes and priests. The first step in the solution of early Indian history began when Dr. Eggermont recognized the historicity of India's earliest literary accounts. Too many scholars had arbitrarily rejected or altered them.

Dr. Eggermont's book does not include later problems in Indian history. As these difficulties have no direct bearing on the authenticity of Biblical history they are also excluded from this compendium. Only the history to the time of King Asoka is presented here.

True Indian history begins with the famous battle of Kuruksetra in the winter of 1650-1649. At the winter solstice a heavy attack was launched against Sahadeva, Indian king of Magadha, by the 'Assuras' or 'Daityas' from the west. The Indian king perished. Had not there been some kind of supernatural change in the weather during the course of the struggle India would have been devastated. As events turned out, Assyria was defeated.

Indian scholars long ago recognized in the 'Assuras' or 'Daityas' the Assyrians of the west.

The date 1649 is paralleled in Mesopotamia. In that year king Lugal-zaggisi, of Erech's Third Dynasty, toppled Assyria's allies and suddenly seized control of the land. (See the restoration of Early Babylonian history.)

The Bahadratha dynasty rose to power in Magadha in the beginning of 1649, upon the death of Sahadeva. Names, but no dates of previous kings are preserved. The following chart outlines the history of India until about 180.

Names of Dynasties	Duration of Dynasties	Dates
Bahadratha	989	1649-660
Pradyota	138	660-522
Sisunaga	162	522-360
The Nanda	43	360-317
Maurya	131	317-186

(For the length of the Mauryas see 'Persica', No. II, 1965-1966, article by Eggermont.)

The year 1649 is not the time of the traditional migration of Aryan-speaking peoples into India. Those migrations, so famous in Indian history, did not commence until shortly before 660, toward the close of the Assyrian Empire. Aryan-speaking people were, however, already in India from earliest times.

To the plains of India the Assyrians sent into exile (around 660) tens of thousands of Ethiopians, thousands of Egyptians and multitudes from the region of the Hindu-Kush mountains in Bactria. This forced migration was the period of Assyrian conquests in Egypt and Bactria.

The wholesale dumping of captive slaves was climaxed by an Assyrian attempt to conquer India in 660. In that year Semiramis III (699-657) -- self-styled reincarnation of the 'Queen of Heaven' -- led Assyrian troops to the frontier of India. Diodorus of Sicily describes the battle in detail in his history of India. A great catastrophe befell the Assyrians. The troops of the Queen were annihilated. She fled almost alone from the battle scene -- to live on in myth and religious tradition as the thrice-born 'Queen of Heaven.'

Early Indian Kings of Magadha

Following the tragic Indian victory in 1649 Somadhi founded a new dynasty on the Ganges. Indian history, preserved in the Puranas, centers from this time onward in the modern province of Magadha. From here royal influence was exercised across the plains to the Indus River region. Though there were other princely families governing India, only one dynastic line exercised supreme authority.

Political disintegration in India did not develop until centuries later.

Following is the official account of the Dynasty of Somadhi (beginning 1649) which was overthrown at the time of the Assyrian invasion in 660. It is taken from the Vayu Purana, edited by Rajendralala Mitra, Calcutta, 1888. (Eggermont, 'Chronology of Asoka', pp. 217-218).

Royal House of Somadhi	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Somadhi	58	1649-1591
Srutasruvas	64	1591-1527
Ayutayus	26	1527-1501
Niramitra	100	1501-1401
Sukrtta	56	1401-1345
Vrhatkarman	23	1345-1322
Senajit	23	1322-1299
Srutamjaya	40	1299-1259
Nrpa	35	1259-1224
Suci	58	1224-1166
Ksema	28	1166-1138
Bhuvata	64	1138-1074
Dharmanetra	5	1074-1069
Nrpati	58	1069-1011
Suvrata	38	1011- 973
	(or 28)	(1011- 983)
Drdhasena	48	973- 925
	(or 58)	(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

In Indian literature other spellings and occasional variations in reigns are used. But the preceding is the official register and is in perfect harmony with parallel events elsewhere in the world. The extra long reign of Niramitra is not out of keeping with the contemporary Old Testament world in which men were living to be 120.

Consequent to the Assyrian invasion a change of power occurred in Magadha in 660. The Pradyota regime came to prominence. Its kings ruled to the time of the death of Cambyses in Persia.

Pradyota Dynasty in Magadha	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Pradyota	23	660-637
Palaka	24	637-613
Visakhayupa	50	613-563
Ajaka	21	563-542
Varttivarddhana	20	542-522

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

Dynasty of the Saisunagas in Magadha	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Bimbisara	28	522-494
Ajatasatru	25	494-469
Udayin	33	469-436
Sisunaga	40	436-396
Kakavarna	36	396-360

The Saisunagas in Indian literature were so famous that the length of the dynasty became artificially inflated with contemporary reigns to suit the heroic deeds of its kings. Dr. Eggermont had no need to restore the two dynasties preceding the Saisunagas. His efforts were spent primarily on the kings between the end of the Pradyotas (in 522) and the reign of Asoka. Any questions arising on this period should be directly referred to his aforementioned study published by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.

The next dynasty after 360 was composed of one king -- The Nanda, or, in Indian literature, Mahanandin. His actual length of reign was only 43 years -- 360-317.

The year 317 is the direct link between India and Greek history. At that date Eudamos and Peithon departed from the Panjab and Sindh, whereupon Candagutta occupied the Indus. The Mauryas ruled for 131 years. Dr. P.H.L. Eggermont proofs in his book that the date for the commencement of this dynasty is not 321, as long assumed, but 317, a restoration which makes Indian history harmonious with all contemporary records.

Dynasty of the Mauryas to Asoka	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Candagutta (Chandragupta)	24	317-293
Bindusara	25	293-268
Asoka	29	268-239
Dasaratha	8	239-231
Samprati	10	231-221
Salisuka	13	221-208
Somasarman	7	208-201
Satadhanvan	8	201-193
Brhadratha	7	193-186

(See Eggermont's reconstruction in Persica, No. II, 1965-1966, 'New Notes on Asoka and His Successors'.)

The year 186 marks the commencement of the Sunga Era, from which point succeeding dynasties may be accurately dated.

For a complete list of later ruling houses consult volume I of Stokvis' 'Manuel D'Histoire', p. 237.

Scythia and the History of Japan

The vast reaches of Scythia were famous in antiquity. Within its borders lived numerous unrelated tribes. Anciently the word Scythia (or Sacae) was applied to a people living in that region in the Caucasus, (Jeremiah 51:27). This area bore the name 'Land of the Rising Sun.'

But in the process of time the name Scythia passed to other tribes and peoples who dwelt in, or migrated through, the land of Scythia. Hence the Greek writers included in Scythia the Eastern Slavic people who migrated from Asia Minor into Eurasia. Diodorus Siculus refers to their queen as 'Zarina' -- Russian feminine for Czar (Book II, 34, 3). Other writers, like Paul the apostle, divided the world into Greek and Jew, Barbarian and Scythian (Colossians 3:11) -- applying the name Scythian to that people which came out of the east and migrated into Western Europe and the British Isles. The modern word Scot is, in fact, merely a corruption of the old Greek Scythian.

Herodotus describes the Eastern Scythians. To him they were unusual people, lacking body hair, with noticeably rounded face and chin, flat-nosed, speaking a peculiar language and wearing a distinctive costume (Melpomene, 23).

According to Herodotus the Scythians of antiquity were allied with the Assyrians during most of the last century of Assyrian dominion. Semiramis III -- famous for her marital relations with the 'kings of the earth' -- especially prized her relationship with these Scythians. The alliance between the two royal families endured long after the Assyrian 'Queen of Heaven' died.

In 612 the Medes and Babylonians were besieging Nineveh. Onto the scene came Scythian troops from the region of Bactria to lift the siege. The Medes, sensing what would happen if Assyria were to recover strength, submitted terms to the Scythians in exchange for breaking their alliance with Assyria. They were accepted. Nineveh fell. But the agreement cost the Medes control of much of Upper Asia for 28 bleak years. (Herodotus, Clio. 106).

At the end of that period Media and Scythia came to blows. Scythian ravages were more than the Medes could take. The Medes were victorious. The Scythians withdrew to far Asia.

The Parsees of India have preserved several traditions of these events. (The Parsees are Persian immigrants living in India.) In their sacred literature references to a famous prince Zoroaster II -- a 'son of heaven' -- are found. He came to royal prominence in 660, following defeat in India of his mother, the 'Queen of Heaven.' Zoroaster means 'seed of Ishtar.' He spread the religion of sun-worship throughout the east. The Parsees -- and scholars ever since -- have puzzled how Zoroaster II could have exercised such influence and yet not be a king of Media or Persia They overlooked Scythia.

In Parsee tradition Zoroaster lost his life in a war in Media in the year 584-583 (see 'Ency. Amer.', art. 'Zoroaster').

Is there any Oriental nation, at least in part Scythian, with a tradition of a 'son of Heaven' who came to the throne in 660, who reigned to about 584, who extended his rule from west to east, whose mother was a 'goddess' and a queen, in whose land sun-worship spread? Was Zoroaster II known under another name in the Far East?

Absolutely! In Japan. The Japanese royal throne, according to the 'Nihonji', a book of traditional and sacred history, was founded in 660. Its first emperor is assigned 76 years, to 584. He was a 'son of Heaven;' his mother a 'goddess' and a queen. In the traditions of the Nihonji it is reported of him that he said: 'Now I have heard ... that in the East there is a fair land encircled on all sides by blue mountains .... I think that this land will undoubtedly be suitable for the extension of the Heavenly task' -- that is, world conquest -- 'so that its glory should fill the universe' (p. 110 of 'Nihonji', trans. by W. G. Aston).

The Nihonji continues: 'In that year, in winter, ... the Emperor in person led the Imperial Princes and a naval force on an expedition against the East' (page 111).

In Chinese history we find the following quote: 'The barbarians invaded the territory of the Marquis of Wei I Kong in 660 B.C. The Marquis gave them battle in the marsh of Yug.' The Chinese were defeated and the barbarians passed on to the east. ('Cults and Legends of Ancient Iran and China', Sir. J. C. Coyajee, p. 47.)

The Japanese, according to their tradition, were led to their isles by a symbolic three-legged sun-crow. In Pamphylia and Lycia, in Scythian-dominated Asia Minor, coins have been found which bear the rare figures of three-legged birds in various forms. ('La Migration des Symboles', by Comte Goblet d'Alviella, page 222 of 1891 edition.) Compare this symbol with the Biblical 'wings of a great eagle' (Exodus 19:4).

Here are coincidences that cannot be explained unless Scythian tribes migrated to Japan under the authority of a prince who was a son of the Assyrian 'Queen of Heaven.' Had historians been willing to restore Assyrian history and Semiramis III to the proper place in history, had they been willing to credit the chronological framework of Japanese history, the mystery of the Scythians, of Togarmah and other peoples of North Asia would have vanished.

Of course there are legends and apparent contradictions in Japanese historical literature. But they do not alter the essential facts of history around which the legends were later woven. Historians carelessly reject most early Japanese records on the unprovable assumption that their history could not have been recorded prior to the adoption of the Chinese art of writing. Overlooked is the fact that in Scythia they were literate long before adopting Chinese culture in the east.

The Japanese Imperial family is found in most thorough histories of that nation and need not be included here. One note of caution, however. It has become all too common for historians to criticise freely what they do not want to believe. Because the early Japanese rulers appear to have governed unusually long -- 76 years, 36, 38, 35, 83, 102, 76, 57, 60, 68, etc. (but much shorter later) -- the early period is discounted. Yet Chinese sources of the same period refer to the Japanese as especially longlived people in the centuries immediately following their arrival to the isles. Also, the sons who succeeded to the throne were often not the eldest. 'Primogeniture was evidently not recognized in Japan at the time ...', writes Aston on page 110, note 1, in 'Nihonji'.

The names of Japanese emperors, by which they are known in history, are given to them after death. The first emperor received the posthumous name Jimmu Tenno -- signifying 'divine valour.' (For further references see the 'History of the Empire of Japan', compiled and translated for the Imperial Japanese Commission of the world's Columbian Exposition, 1893.)

History of China

Everyone owes a great deal of respect to the Chinese nation for being the only people whose chronological records have been preserved without need of restoration from the time of Babel till now. The history of the Chinese nation is found in the Shoo King, which means literally the 'Canon of History.'

China naturally has had her literary critics who have sought to reinterpret the ancient records. Witness the 'Bamboo Annals'. But their attempts have been consistently rejected as unwarranted opposition to the traditional history of the 'Shoo King'. Only China's unusual reverence for tradition -- and superstition -- could have preserved the framework of history for more than 4,200 years:

True, some of the events are legendary. Nevertheless, no other people's secular history is more accurate than China's. The chinese recorded their history in a form similar to the Hebrews' accounts in the books of the Old Testament. Each ruler is evaluated for his 'moral conduct.' His special contributions, good or bad, are simply evaluated. Such evaluations are, of course, subjective and may reflect later political thinking. But politics, in the modern western sense, was unknown in China.

The Chinese reckon the reigns of their rulers in calendar years commencing at approximately the winter solstice. In the earliest period it fell in what would have been the later weeks of January. (See page 99, vol. III, 1, of Legge's 'Chinese Classics'.) As centuries rolled by, the Chinese regnal year came to approximate a January-to-January year. Later still, the solstice dropped back into December.

The following list of Chinese rulers is derived from Shoo King, translated by Legge in 'Chinese Classics', III, 1, pp. 184-188. As the later history of China is recognized by all reputable scholars as valid, only the early portion is included in this Compendium.

Late in Chinese historiography it became the practice to add to the list of early rulers the legendary names of heroes from before the flood. These late additions are manifestly invalid, for no nation without the Hebrew record had access to the information after Babel.

The first man of whom Chinese sources speak is Yao, or Yaou. The traditional information about Yao is nebulous. When referring to the Mongols, the Arabian historians speak of Magog and Yagog. It is likely that the Yagog of Arabic tradition is the personage whom the Chinese tradition knows as Yao.

The results of a catastrophic flood were still apparent in Yao's day. 'The deluge assailed the heavens, and in its vast expanse encompassed the mountains, and overtopped the hills ...' (Canon of Yao).

In the lifetime of Yao a stranger named Shun came to power. The meaning of his name is obscure. Later legends found in the Shoo King attempt to create Shun a native Chinese hero. But the earliest records (some found in the Bamboo Annals) make it clear he was a black foreigner. His mother was 'Queen of the West land;' his father was Kusou, or Chusou -- Cush. From Babylonian traditions we learn that Cush and Nimrod shared jointly in the government together until Nimrod displaced his father. In Chinese records, as in Genesis, only Shun (Nimrod) appears -- for he was certainly the mainspring of the rebellion.

Shun reigned but 50 years after Babel over the Chinese people 2254-2204. Thereafter, through migration, the Chinese appear to have gained independence. A native Chinese family came to power in 2204, known in modern parlance as the Hsia Dynasty. It governed 439 years -- 2204-1765. (Some authors incorrectly pre-date these years into the December of the preceding year.)

Kings of Hsia Dynasty 2204-1765	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Yu	8	2204-2196
Ch'i	9	2196-2187
T'ai K'ang	29	2187-2158
Chung K'ang	13	2158-2145
Hsiang	27	2145-2118
Hong-Yi, a usurper		2118
Han Cho, another usurper, assassinates Hong-Yi	40	2118-2078
Shao K'ang	22	2078-2056
Ch'u	17	2056-2039
Huai	26	2039-2013
Mang	18	2013-1995
Hsieh	16	1995-1979
Pu Chiang	59	1979-1920
Chiung	21	1920-1899
Chin	21	1899-1878
K'ung Chia	31	1878-1847
Kao	11	1847-1836
Fa	19	1836-1817
Chieh Kuei	52	1817-1765

Shang (or Yin) Dynasty (1765-1121)

Under first king of this dynasty the year was made to begin at new moon nearest winter solstice.

Ch'en T'ang

13

1765-1752

In his reign China suffered from seven years of famine, shortly before that of Egypt (Jackson's 'Chronology of Most Ancient Nations', vol. II, 455).

T'ai Chia	33	1752-1719
Wu Ting	29	1719-1690
T'ai Keng	25	1690-1665
Hsiao Chia	17	1665-1648
Yung Chi	12	1648-1636
T'ai Mou	75	1636-1561
Chung Ting	13	1561-1548
Wai Jen	15	1548-1533
Ho Tan Chia	9	1533-1524
Tsu Yi	19	1524-1505
Tsu Hsin	16	1505-1489
Wu Chia	25	1489-1464
Tsu Ting	32	1464-1432
Nan Keng	25	1432-1407
Yang Chia	7	1407-1400
P'an Keng	28	1400-1372
Hsiao Hsin	21	1372-1351
Hsiao Yi	28	1351-1323
Wu Ting	59	1323-1264
Tsu Keng	7	1264-1257
Tsu Chia	33	1257-1224
Lin Hsin	6	1224-1218
Keng Ting	21	1218-1197
Wu Yi	4	1197-1193
T'ai Ting	3	1193-1190
Ti Yi	37	1190-1153
Ti Hsin (Chou)	32	1153-1121

Chou Dynasty (1121-256)

Wu Fa	7	1121-1114
Ch'eng	37	1114-1077
K'ang Chao	26	1077-1051
Chao H'ia	51	1051-1000
Mu Man	55	1000- 945

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

Kung I Hu	12	945-933
I Hsi	25	933-908
Hsiao P'ih	15	908-893
I Sieh	16	893-877
Li Hu	51	877-826
Hsuan Tsing	46	826-780
Yu Kung Nieh	11	780-769
P'ing Hsuang Chiu	51	769-718
Huan Lin	23	718-695
Chuang T'o	15	695-680
Hsi Hu Ch'i	5	680-675
Hui Lang	25	675-650
Hsiang Ching	33	650-618

(from this reign on the years in this chart are reckoned as corresponding to Roman years, January through December)

Ch'ing Jen K'uang	6	617-612
K'uang Pan	6	611-606
Ting Yu	21	605-585
Chien I	14	584-571
Ling Hsieh Sin	27	570-544
Ching Kewi	25	543-519
Ching Ch'ih	44	518-475
Yuan Jen	7	474-468
Chen Ting Chiai	28	467-440
K'ao Wei	15	439-425
Wei Lieh Wu	24	424-401
An Chiao	26	400-375
Lieh Hsi	7	374-368
Hsien Pien	48	367-320
Shen Ching Ting	6	319-314
Nan Yen	58	313-256

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

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.')

Contemporary Kings of Egypt	Great Kings of Hatti	History from Contemporary Documents
Thutmose III	Labarnas (I), founder of new dynasty	Contemporary of Solomon
Amenhotpe II	Hattusilis (I), son
Thutmose IV	Mursilis I, adopted son	Attacks and destroys Aleppo. Conquers Babylon at end of Samsu-ditana's **
Amenhotpe III		reign (905-879). After returning home is assassinated.
Akhenaten	Hantilis (I), brother-in-law	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	Expansion of Hittites as Assyrians decline and Troy falls; long struggle with Medes
Taharka	Suppiluliumas (I)
Seti I	Arnuwandas (II), son	Arnuwandas dies of plague after reigning a few months
	Mursilis (II), brother	Plague and wide spread rebellions
	Muwatallis, son	Fought with Nebuchadnezzar against **
Ramesses the Great	Urhi-Teshub, son	Ramesses at battle of 'Kadesh' in his tenth year.
	Hattusilis (III), uncle	Reigned jointly with brother and nephew. Signed treaty with Ramesses in latter's year 21.
	Tudhaliyas (III). son	West in rebellion -- struggle with Lydia
	Arnuwandas (III). son	East in rebellion -- expansion of Medo-Persians
	Suppiluliumas (II), brother	Collapse of Hittite Empire as Persians conquer Asia Minor in 546

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

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

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

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

The Kingdom of Mitanni and the Hurrians

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

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

Contemporary Kings of Egypt	Kings of Mitanni	History from Contemporary Sources
Thutmose I (1030-1017)	Suttarna I	Conquers city of Assur during Assyria's 50 years of decline (1041-991)
Thutmose II (1017-997)	Saussatar
Thutmose III	Artatama I	Thutmose III asks (997-943) for his daughter to wife.
Thutmose IV (918-909)
Amenhotpe III	Suttarna II	Amenhotpe III sought his (909-871) daughter in marriage.
	Artasura	Kingdom of Mitanni sundered.
	Tusratta, son of Suttarna II
Akhenaton (871-854)	Mittiwaza	Rise of Hurrian kingdom under Artatama II and Suttarna III. Mattiwaza became Hittite vassal. Assyria rules Mesopotamia under Assur-uballit.

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

Who Were the Hurrians?

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

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

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

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

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

Phrygians and Hatti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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