The Book of Jubilees

Volume 2 Chapter 7

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 2

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Herman L. Hoeh

1963 1966, 1969 Edition

CHAPTER VII

THEY CROSSED THE ATLANTIC

The origin of the American Indian has puzzled Europeans from the day Columbus' sailors set foot on the Caribbean isle. Yet, just four centuries earlier, the New World was common knowledge to the educated in North Europe and the Iberian Peninsula. Its natives were even embracing the faith of the Roman Church, which had appointed an Icelander of noble birth as bishop over Iceland, Greenland and the lands of the New World! How did these facts all become lost?

THE LITTLE ICE AGE

One is so accustomed to read of 'Ice Ages' as events of the remote past, that it hardly occurs to the mind that thirteenth century Europeans witnessed a veritable Little Ice Age that completely severed communications between Europe and the New World. The Baltic froze over.

Vikings ceased to traverse the inhospitable Atlantic. In the New World the Land of the White Man -- Hvitramanna Land in Icelandic literature -- lost contact with Europe. Centuries later remnants of their population were found among the natives which had early traversed the Atlantic with them.

This chapter unfolds what really happened in Western Europe, and especially the British Isles and Denmark, from the days of Solomon to long after the fall of the Roman Empire. It will explain the astounding chronological connection between the rise of New World civilization and the sudden flight of tribes out of Northwest Europe.

WHITES DID NOT BECOME INDIANS

First, let us immediately banish a myth. White Europeans did not become Indians by merely settling in the New World and becoming lost!

The American Indians are not the 'Lost Tribes of Israel,' or Egyptians.

The American Indian looks as he does because his ancestors appeared that way before they traversed the waters of the Atlantic.

It may come as a surprise to learn it, but Europe and the Mediterranean world was early -- and comparatively late -- inhabited by 'Red Men.' Everyone has heard of the famous Phoenician sailors of the ancient Mediterranean world. They are known to have traveled far out into the Atlantic and to Northwestern Europe. The Greeks called them Phoenicians because that is what they were -- 'Red Men.' The word 'Phoenician' is derived from the Greek word for reddish dye. The ancient Egyptians painted the Phoenicians on their walled tombs and on papyri. Their skin color? Reddish. The Egyptians painted other peoples of Palestine white and black. They recognized three races of men living in Palestine in early ages.

Julius Firmicus, an early writer, stated that 'in Ethiopia all are born black; in Germany, white; and in Thrace, red.' Thrace was north of Greece and originally populated by the children of Tiras, son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2). It was from Thrace that Odin led the Agathyrsi and other tribes to Northwestern Europe when he founded the Danish kingdom.

Many of the warriors employed by the early princes of western Europe were fierce, of swarthy skin, naked and often tatooed and painted. Strabo, the Roman geographer, wrote that areas of Ireland and Britain were inhabited 'by men entirely wild.' Jerome, writing in one of his letters in the fifth century, characterizes some of them as cannibals: 'When they hunted the woods for prey, it is said they attacked the shepherd, rather than his flock; and that they curiously selected the most delicate and brawny parts, both of males and females, for their horrid repast.'

In the eighteenth century, Martin, in his volume 'Western Islands of Scotland', remarked that the complexion of the natives of the isle of Skye was 'for the most part black;' and the natives of Jura were 'generally black of complexion,' and of Arran, 'generally brown, and some of a black complexion.' The inhabitants of the Isle Gigay were 'fair or brown in complexion.' The American Indian -- commonly called the Red Man -- varies from copper brown to almost black, and, of course, almost white in some tribes.

And the famous literary companions Johnson and Boswell several times took notice of the swarthy color of some of the natives in the north and west of Scotland (Croker's 'Boswell', 1848, pp. 309-310, 316, 352). 'There was great diversity in the faces of the circle around us,' wrote Boswell; 'some were as black and wild in their appearance as any American savages whatever.' 'Our boatmen were rude singers, and seemed so like wild Indians, that a very little imagination was necessary to give one an impression of being upon an American river.'

A writer at the beginning of the nineteenth century characterized the people of Harris: 'In general the natives are of small stature .... the cheek bones are rather prominent. The complexion is of all tints.

Many individuals are as dark as mulattoes, while others are nearly as fair as Danes' ('Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal', No. vii, pp.142, 143).

In 'Pennant's Second Tour', 1772, is a line drawing of the wigwams of the half-breed natives of the Scottish Island of Jura. Here are natives, like American Indians, living in the remote islands of Europe, whose last remnants died out as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century.

AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITION

The common idea that American Indians had no means of preserving their history is a fiction based on the assumption that all Indians were on the same level of culture. Wild, rude tribes there were. But civilized nations existed too. They carefully preserved, among other things, the history of their journeys, and the duration of their habitation in the New World. When the Spanish conquistadors arrived in the New World they were amazed to find the Maya and Aztecs using bark paper to preserve history and daily records. It was obtained from the FICUS, a tree related to the mulberry. Bark was peeled off, beaten with a rubber mallet, and folded into sheets to make books. In Moctezuma's palace Bernal Diaz followed an 'accountant' who showed him 'all the revenue that was brought ... (and recorded) in his books which were made of paper which they call 'amatl', and he had a great house full of these books' (pages 184-185 of 'The Ancient Sun Kingdoms of the Americas', by von Hagen). Only a few escaped the book burning of the Spanish zealots, who sought to wipe out all vestiges of the previous culture and the lineage of their royal houses.

Some rare codices have been preserved, however. One is the 'Popol Vuh', a sacred book of the ancient Quiche Maya. In it are recorded the migrations and wanderings of their ancestors. It traces their origin eastward across the Atlantic Ocean to the Old World. Other Indians had similar origins of having to cross a great body of water from the northeast to reach their present land. (Later migrations, once they had arrived from the east, could take any direction.)

The writer of the Popul Vuh declared: 'They also multiplied there in the East .... All lived together, they existed in great numbers and walked there in the East .... There they were then, in great numbers, the black man and the white man, many of many classes, men of many tongues .... The speech of all was the same. They did not invoke wood nor stone, and they remembered the word of the Creator and the Maker

The Maya record continues: '... they came from the East ... they left there, from that great distance .... they crossed the sea' (pp. 181, 183). When they sought to establish their kingdom 'they decided to go to the East .... It had been a long time since their fathers had died East, there whence came our fathers.' Certainly they crossed the sea when they came there to the East, when they went to receive the investiture of the kingdom' (pp. 206-207).

To what line of great kings in the east were these Quiche Maya journeying? To the successors of the great ruler who conducted them, about 1000 B.C., to the Usumacinta River in Mexico.

ENTER VOTAN

The Mayas claim that their kingdom was founded by a great eastern ruler named Votan or Oden or Dan by various tribes. He was a white man who came by sea from the east and settled them in their new land. The time of their migration, according to Ordonez, was ten centuries before the present era. This Votan -- who was also worshipped as a god -- was famous for having himself journeyed to a land where a great temple was being built.

Do we have a king in Europe, living at the time Solomon's temple was being built (around 1000 B.C.), who had dominion over the seas, who was worshipped as a god, and whose name sounded like Votan? Indeed -- Woden or Odin, king of Denmark from 1040-999. He was worshipped later as a great god. Scandinavian literature is replete with accounts of his distant journeys which took him away from his homeland for many months, sometimes years.

Just as king Odin or Danus gave his name to Denmark -- Danmark -- so Odin gave his name to the 'forest of Dan' in the land of the Quiche Indians. (See pages 549 and 163 of volume V, 'Native Races of the Pacific States', by Hubert H. Bancroft.) 'Dan ... founded a monarchy on the Guatemalan plateau' (Bancroft, vol. I, p. 789). His capital, built for the Indians and their white suzerains, was named Amag-Dan.

Here we have the records of Danish kings, as early as 1000 years before the birth of Christ, sailing to the New World and planting colonies of Red Men from Europe in the Yucatan and Guatemalan highlands. Is it any wonder that it was the Danes, of all nations of Europe, who continued to communicate with the New World in the days of Eric the Red? It was the king of Denmark who ruled over Iceland in the days of Christopher Columbus. Before Columbus awakened the sleepy Mediterranean world by his important journey across the Atlantic, he first sailed to Iceland where he obtained information for his fateful voyage.

And is it not significant that it was an Icelandic nobleman, Eric Gnupson, who was consecrated by Pope Pascal II as Bishop of Greenland and the neighboring regions ('regionumque finitimarum') in 1112? (See 'Conquest by Man', Paul Herrmann, p. 287.)

EARLY TIME OF MIGRATION

Tradition universally assigns white leadership to every major recorded historic migration of the American Indian from far to the northeast. The later history of Mexico commences with the establishment of a monarchy by the Toltecs of Mexico. The Toltecs were of white descent. They led and ruled over the Indians and spoke their languages.

Charnay wrote in the 'North American Review', October 1881, 'Physically Veytia describes the Toltec as a man of tall stature, white, and bearded.' A carved head of a 'noble Aztec,' on display in the National Museum, may be seen on plate 40 in George C. Vaillant's 'Aztecs of Mexico'. The noble Aztec was not an Indian at all, but a Norseman!

Little wonder that wherever the Spanish journeyed they found the ruling classes much lighter than the people over whom they ruled. On occasion the conquistadors thought their women as fair or fairer than their Spanish women.

'The Annals of the Cakchiquels -- Lords of Totonicapan' contains direct reference to the racial descent of the nobles who led and governed the natives to the New World.

'These, then, were the three nations of the Quiches, and they came from where the sun rises, descendants of Israel, of the same language and the same customs .... When they arrived at the edge of the sea,

Balam-qitze (a native title for one in a religious office) touched it with his staff and at once a path opened, which then closed up again, for thus the great God wished it to be done, because they were the sons of Abraham and Jacob. So it was that those three nations (the 'mixed multitude' of Exodus 12:38) passed through, and with them thirteen others called Vukamag' -- meaning the 13 tribes. Israel had altogether 13 tribes including Levi.

'We have written that which by tradition our ancestors told us, who came from the other part of the sea, who came from Civan-Tulan, bordering on Babylonia' page 170. Page 169 says they '.... came from the other part of the ocean, from where the sun rises.' (Translated by Delia Goetz; published by University of Oklahoma Press, 1953.)

Was the mysterious Civan-Tulan -- meaning in Indian dialects a place of caves or ravines -- the region of Petra, where Moses led the Children of Israel? Petra is famous for its caves. Canaanite Hivites, mixed with Egyptian stock, dwelt at Petra, or Mt. Seir, at the time of the Exodus (Genesis 36:2, 20, 24). They lived at peace with the Hebrews.

This settlement of Hivites was a region dominated by Midian. A high priest who visited the land of Midian and Moab in Moses' day was named Balaam -- almost the exact spelling in the Quiche-Maya title Balam used for priests!

The people led by Odin or Votan across the Atlantic to the New World were not exclusively the sons of Tiras from Thrace; some tribes were called Chivim, reports Ordonez the early Spanish writer. It is the very Hebrew spelling used for the English word Hivites, some of whom once lived in Mt. Seir, the land of caves, near Babylonia! So the Mexican Indians were a mixed people.

CHRONOLOGY OF MEXICO

No continuous history of the Quiche-Maya civilization is extant.

We have now to turn to the Valley of Mexico for direct and surprising connection with the movement of events in Scotland where dwelt the Picts and the Maiatai (Greek for Maia folk).

From Scottish history, covered in the previous chapter and in the first volume of the Compendium, it can be established that major migrations occurred in the years 376 -- when the Scots and allies were driven out and the Picts miserably oppressed -- and in 503 -- when the Scots from Ireland drove out most of the remaining wild Picts or painted men. Where did these folk flee to? Can we establish a direct connection between these events in Pictland with the history of migration to the Valley of Mexico of the Toltecs and others in the New World?

Indeed we can.

The nation of the Scots was utterly driven out by the Romans in the year 376. The Cruithne and Picts, who remained in the land as Roman allies, were soon miserably oppressed. Rebellion broke out. The Romans dealt severely with the fleeing rebels. The Cruithne and Picts besought and obtained Scottish help to drive out the Romans and their British allies.

Now compare this with the migration of the Toltecs and their white chieftains to Mexico. The historian of the Toltecs was Ixtlilxochitl.

He reports several migrations over the centuries. But the one he takes special note of -- for its chronological import -- commenced in 387. (See Bancroft's 'Native Races of the Pacific States', Vol. 5, pp. 209, 214.) The events were these -- a rebellion broke out that led to a protracted struggle for eight years. The rebels were finally forced to flee in 384 for protection. After remaining 3 years (to 387) they continued their lengthy migration. It was now 11 years after the initial rebellion. Eleven years before 387 is 376 -- the very year the Romans drove out the Scots and suppressed the Painted Red Men of Pictland! Is this mere coincidence? Their migration took them over water and land till they reached Jalisco in Mexico. To do so they must have landed in the traditional area of the Usumacinta River, crossed the isthmus, and coasted to Jalisco on the southern extremity of the Gulf of California. After wandering many years they settled in Tulancingo. 'The third year of their stay in Tulancingo completed ... one hundred and four years since the departure from the country,' records Bancroft from Ixtlilxochitl (vol. v, p. 213). (The 104 years compose two Indian calendar cycles of 52 years each.) It was now 488.

At Tulancingo they remained another 15 years -- to 503. In 503 they migrated to the Valley of Mexico to the region of Lake Texcoco.

What caused them to migrate in 503? Is this a significant date in Scottish history? Indeed. That was the year the Scots from Ireland finally settled in Scotland and drove the wild Pictish tribes out of the country.

Strengthened by a new influx of migrants, the Toltecs journeyed (in 503) to the already-settled shores of the lake on which Mexico City now stands. There, at Tullan, for six years the Toltecs lived under a theocratic republic, each chief directing the movement of his band in war and directing their needs in times of peace. 'But in the seventh year,' records Bancroft, 'after their arrival in Tollan, when the republic was yet in a state of peace and prosperity, undisturbed by foreign foes, the chiefs convened an assembly of the heads of families and the leading men. The object of the meeting was to effect a change in the form of their government, and to establish a monarchy.' It was agreed to accept, as king, a son of a neighboring Chichimec king to be supreme ruler. 'Immediately after the accession of the young monarch' in 510, 'a law was established by him and his counsellors to the effect that no king should reign more than fifty-two years, but at the expiration of this term should abdicate in favor of his eldest son, whom he might, however, still serve as adviser. Should the king die before the allotted time had elapsed, it was provided that the state should be ruled during the unexpired term by magistrates chosen by the people' (pp. 244, 246).

This custom continued firmly established among the Toltecs at Tullan for many years. Later the practice was discontinued, though the Mexican Indians still continued to count time by 52 year cycles. The history of the American Indian from 510 to the coming of the Spanish has been carefully preserved by Ixtlilxochitl and in the Annals of Cuauhtitlan.

Modern writers in previous decades often carelessly discounted the value of these Indian records. But archaeology is forcing a renewed respect for the history of the New World as preserved by the native writers during the earliest days of the Spanish colonial period. The most readily accessible -- and one of the best works -- on early Mexico is -- 'Aztecs of Mexico', by G. C. Valliant, revised by Suzannah B. Valliant. Another useful source is Stokvis' 'Manuel'.

THE HISTORY OF TOLTECS AT TULLAN

The history of Tullan is the history of the Mayapan culture of Mexico. Earlier cultures are commonly found, but no continuous history exists before 510. The Toltecs were not the carriers of the culture of Teotihuacan, as is often stated by archaeologists (see p. 6 of Penguin edition of 'The Aztecs of Mexico' by Valliant).

The following is a summary of the history of Tullan (or Tula), restored in accordance with the earliest extant Aztec and Toltec records. Bancroft's 'Native Races of the Pacific States' may be consulted for the full story of events. It is a treasure-house of information.

(Note that the 'x' in Aztec names is pronounced as 'sh.') according to Ixtlilxochitl a struggle with Chichimecs occurred during the reign of Topiltzin.

Toltec Kings of Tulan	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Period of the Tullan	7	503-510
Republic under chieftains
Chalchiuhtlanetzin	52	510-562
Ixtlilcuechahauac	52	562-614
Huetzin I	52	614-666
Totepeuh I	52	666-718
Nacoxoc	52	718-770
Mitl-Tlacomihua	59	770-829
Queen Xihuiquenitzin	4	829-833
Izaccaltzin	52	833-885
Topiltzin I	74	885-959

Topiltzin was forced to flee leaving authority in the hands of the royal family of Ihuitimal. The confused conditions are reflected in the joint rulership presented in the next short succeeding chart. The parallel reigns also indicate that Toltec leadership was divided among powerful city-state princes in the growing Toltec Empire which spread itself in the Valley of Mexico.

Toltec Kings	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Mixcoatl Mazatin	65	804-869
Texcaltepocatl Huetzin	28	869-897
Ihuitimal	28( or 36)	897-925 (887-923)
Topiltzin I	22 (or 24)	925-947 (923-947)

The above chart indicates Ihuitimal succeeded his father in 897, but, according to the Annals of Cuauhtitlan, he replaced the fleeing Topiltzin in 887. Topiltzin returned in 923. Ihuitimal ended his reign two years later. Though Topiltzin continued on the throne to 959 (see first chart), he was succeeded in 947 as follows.

Kings of Tullan according to the Annals of Cuahtitlan	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Matlacxochitl	36	947- 983
Nauhyotzin I	14	983- 997
Queen Xiuhtlaltzin	4	997-1001
Matlaccoatzin	24 (or 28)	1001-102 (997-1025)
Tlilcoatzin	21	1025-1046
Huemac	75	1046-1121

Huemac is another name of Quetzalcoatl (Bancroft Vol. III, pp.267, 283-4). He was a ramous white man who came from the east with a religion that banned human sacrifice and used the symbol of the cross.

The name Quetzalcoatl, was originally that of an early Aztec god.

It was applied by Aztecs to any great priest who claimed to represent the deity. Huemac Quetzalcoatl disappeared and returned on several occasions during his 75 years, leaving the supreme government, in his absence, to contemporaries of the royal house. This white priest became famous over much of the New World. Who was he? And what religion was he bringing?

The answer is found by the date of his death 1121. Was there a famous white priest, with jurisdiction over areas of the Western Hemisphere who died in 1121?

Yes! Icelandic Bishop Eric Gnupson, whose domain included the New World! He died in 1121, the same year that Quetzalcoatl did. At his death in 1121 the Icelandic Thing (Parliament) met to request the pope that a new bishop be appointed (Conquest by Man, by Herrmann, pp. 286-287) . The religion of Quetzalcoatl was Roman Catholicism. When the Spanish missionaries later came to the Indians they were amazed to find so many parallels to the Catholic religion -- holy water, nuns, rosaries, the cross, penances and other traditions!

Contemporary with Huemac Quetzalcoatl were the following Tullan rulers:

Huemac II Atecpanecatl	35	1046-1081
Topiltzin Acxitl	33	1081-1114
Matlacxochitl Huemac III	2	1114-1116

Veytia gives 1116 as the date of the final overthrow of Tullan at the coming of the Aztecs (Hist. Ant. Mej., bk. 1, pp. 287-304. ) See also Bancroft, vol. 5., p. 325.

THE CITY-STATE OF CULHUACAN

A major expansion of the Toltecs occurred at the close of the end of the fourth 52 year cycle -- in 718. In that year a branch of the royal lineage founded Culhuacan. It suffered a major reverse in the year 1063 at the hands of the Chichimecs who established a new dynasty in Texcoco. The following chart covers the kings of Culhuacan until that defeat.

Kings of Culhuacan	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Nauhyotl I	50	718- 768
Mixcohuatl Camaxtli	78	768- 846
Totepueh I Nonohyatcatl I
Yohuallatonac I	59	846- 905
Quetzallacxoyatl	49	905- 954
Chalchiuh-Tlatonac I	32	954- 986
Totepeuh II	41	986-1027
Nauhyotl II	36	1027-1063

For five years (1063-1068) the local government of Culhuacan was in the hands of a Toltec noble Xiuhtemoc, to whom the late king's children were confided. The year after the defeat, a young son of the king was placed on the throne under the tutelage of Xiuhtemoc.

Kings of Culhuacan	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Nauhyotl III	60	1064-1124
Cuanhtexpetlatzin	57	1124-1181
Huetzin	21	1181-1202
Nonoalcatl	21	1202-1223
Achitometl	14	1223-1237
Cuauhtonal	14	1237-1251
NEW LINEAGE BEGINS
Mazatzin	23	1251-1274
Quetzaltzin	13	1274-1287
Chalchiuhtlatonac II	17	1287-1304
Cuauhtlix	7	1304-1311
Yohuallatonac	10	1311-1321
Tziuhtecatzin	13	1321-1334
Xihuitlemoc	18	1334-1352
Coxcox	24	1352-1376
Acamapichtli	12	1376-1388
Achitometl	12	1388-1400
Nauhyotl	13	1400-1413

The central government in the Valley of Mexico now passed into the hands of the Aztec ruler of Tenochtitlan. Prior to the Aztec dominion, the Chichimecs at Texcoco were a dominant Indian tribe. Their power commenced with the defeat of Tullan in 1063.

THE CHICHIMECS AT TEXCOCO

Chichimec Kings of Texcoco	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Xolotl	17	1063-1180
After the era of Xolotl a new lineage begins.
Nopaltzin	31	1180-1211
Tlotzin Pochotl	35	1211-1246
Quinantzin Tlaltecatzin	59	1246-1305
Techotlala	52	1305-1357
Istlilxochitl (For this king Valliant has mistakenly dropped out an entire cycle of 52 years in his reign.)	61	1357-1418
Nezahualcoyotl	54	1418-1472
Nezahualpilli	44	1472-1516
Cacama	3	1516-1519

Spanish land in Vera Cruz, native rulers to 1550 continued with limited authority. During part of the reign of Istlilxochitl, two tyrants of Tepanec dominated the country. They are below.

Tepanec Tyrants at Azcapotzalco	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Tezozomoc	84	1343-1427
Maxtla	2	1427-1429

THE AZTECS

The Mexican Indians were, at the coming of the Spanish, under the Aztec sway. Many tribes readily accepted Spanish assistance to aid them in the overthrow of their oppressive rulers. They had yet to learn that new oppressors were coming in the guise of deliverers. The following outline illustrates the gradual rise to power of the Aztecs. The story of the final overthrow of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan is so generally narrated as to need no repetition here. The city was established under Tezcuecuex in 1202 at the end of the reign of Huetzin of Culhuacan.

Aztecs of Tenochtitlan	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Tezcuecuex	33	1202-1235
Huitzilhuitl, called Mexi, after whom Mexico receives its name. Culhuacan seized Tenochtitlan. The city again became independent under Tenoch in 1325.	63	1235-1298
Tenoch, after whom the city of Tenochtitlan was named.	11	1325-1336
Tlacotin	1	1336-1337
Teuhtlehuac	12	1337-1349
LINEAGE BEGINS:
Queen Ilancueitl	34	1349-1383
Acamapichtli, reigns 8 years contemporary with previous queen.	20	1375-1395
Huitzilhuitl II	19	1395-1414
Chimalpopoca	14	1414-1428
Itzcoatl	12	1428-1440
Montezuma I	29	1440-1469
Azayacatl	12	1469-1481
Tizoc	5	1481-1486
Ahuitzetl	17	1486-1503
Montezuma II, in his reign the Spanish arrived.	17	1503-1520
Cuitlahuac (murdered on way to Honduras)	4 months	1520

The history of the Peruvian civilization must wait until Spanish history is presented. Other cities of lesser import have left us a record but those present here give the chronological outline from which a valid study of Mexican history can begin.

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 2 Chapter 5

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 2

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Herman L. Hoeh

1963 1966, 1969 Edition

CHAPTER V

THE CONQUESTS OF ODIN AND DANISH HISTORY

Many a school boy has heard of Odin, the great Norse hero. But how many realize that Odin was a real king of Denmark? That he founded the kingdom of Denmark in the days of David, king of Israel? That he visited Solomon's temple? of that Odin was the first Danish king to cross the Atlantic -- as did Danish Vikings centuries later?

For centuries Danes revered the history of their nation. Not until the atheistic educational philosophy of German schools permeated their country did the Danes discard the early history of their nation. Modern historians, imbued with the idea that myth was the only form in which early man knew how to write, treat all Danish history as myth. They have never investigated to see whether it were so. of course myth was grafted in the Middle Ages on the early history of Denmark. That tragedy befell all nations under the sway of religious superstition in the Middle Ages.

But that does not proof that the essential core of early Danish history is invalid. Today historians labor under the delusion that history was artificially created after traditional mythology had long been established. Not so. Recorded and traditional history around the world was carefully preserved in palaces and royal libraries. Only later did myth embrace history,

WHAT THE HISTORY OF DENMARK REVEALS

Now is the time to restore the lost history of Denmark. The most accessible outline of Danish history is that found in Anderson's 'Royal Genealogies'. Many other volumes contribute to the story, but only Anderson's work correctly preserves in English the chronology of the early period.

Danish written history properly begins with the first king to bear rule over the Danish or Cymbric peninsula. That king was Danus I. In Danish history he is also called Dan I. He was the first Odin or Votan -- from the Hebrew 'adonai' meaning 'lord.'

Denmark originally received its name from the tribe of the Danaan. It passed to the king who took the name of the subjects over whom he ruled.

King Dan I commenced his reign in 1040. This was the year of the break-up of the German realm. The division of German territory among the three sons of Wolfheim -- Kells, Gall and Hiller -- left the seafarers of the far northwest of Europe without leadership. To fill the void the German and Hebrew inhabitants of Denmark called upon the scion of the Trojan House to reign over them. That scion was Dan I. He lived at the time in Thrace.

THE GENEALOGY OF DAN I

The present kings of Northwestern Europe and Great Britain are all related to Dan I of Denmark. The 'Saxon Chronicle' commences the line of Dan I with the following two names: 'Noah, Sem.' Thereafter a long break occurs in the genealogy -- similar to the Biblical statement: 'Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham' (Matthew l:l).

This gap in Odin's genealogy is partially filled in by the Icelandic 'Langfedgatal'. After Sem, the 'Langfedgatal' gives the following genealogy on Odin's father's side:

'Saturnus of Krit

Jupiter

Darius

Erichhonius

Troes

Ilus

Lamedon

Priam, King of Troy

Minon or Memnon, who married Priam's daughter. Their son was Tror, whom we call Thor, the father of Hloritha.

Thor

Einridi

Vingethorr

Vingener

Moda

Magi

Seskef, or Sescef.'

In Danish literature Seskef -- sometimes spelled Sceaf -- is a title of Odin. It means a 'sheaf' of grain. Odin claimed to be a kind of savior, or a lord. He laid claim to being the sheaf that symbolically represented the Messiah (Leviticus 23:9-14).

But why should Dan I, a king of Denmark, copy a ceremony perpetuated by the law of Moses? Is there a connection between Odin and Israel?

The answer is found in who Saturnus of Krit, ancestor of Odin, really was. In modern English the name would be Saturn of Crete. There were many Saturns in antiquity, often confused with one another. Usually the name was applied to a man who flees or who hides himself.

Saturn is a Latin word derived from a root meaning to flee into hiding. The Greek term was Kronos. This particular Saturn of Crete was so famous that the Phoenician historian Sanchoniathon spoke of him. Fragments of his works have been preserved by Eusebius in 'Preparation of the Gospel', book i, ch. x. Here are his words: 'For Kronus or (Saturn), whom the Phoenicians call Israel ....' ('Corey's Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other Authors', by E. Richmond Hodges, page 21.)

Israel was the name of Jacob. That would make Odin a son of Shem and a son of Jacob. But why was Jacob called Saturn? Because Jacob became famous for fleeing or hiding from his enemies. Jacob's mother warned him of his brother Esau's wrath: 'Now, therefore, my son, hearken to my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother in Haran' (Genesis 27:43). 'And it was told Laban ... that Jacob was fled' -- this time back to Palestine. (Gen. 31:22).

But how is one to account for the title to Crete in Jacob's name? Certainly Jacob did not have title to it prior to descending into Egypt. The answer is, Jacob obtained it from Pharaoh in Egypt.

Here are the facts. Egypt was a vast Mediterranean power in the days of Jacob. One of the areas early settled by Egyptians was the island of Crete, an important naval gateway in the Mediterranean. From Crete -- Caphtor in Hebrew -- came the Philistines (Jer. 47:4 and Amos 9:7). The Philistines descended from Mizraim, father of the Egyptians (Gen. 10:13-14). Ruling over the Egyptians and Philistines in Crete and the eastern Nile Delta was a little-known dynasty of Egyptian kings. They are mentioned in the 'Book of Sothis' by Sncellus. Manetho does not include them among his dynasties.

The king of this dynasty, who was subject to the jurisdiction of the great Pharaoh in Egypt, was Rameses (l744-1715). Because of Joseph's service to the Egyptian government, the Pharaoh transferred primary title to the Land from the line of Rameses to the line of Israel -- and that included not only Goshen, but Crete!

And that is how Israel (Jacob) anciently obtained title to the island of Crete.

The 'Langfedgatal' genealogy of Odin of Denmark may therefore be clarified as follows:

Saturnus of Krit -- Israel or Jacob (1856-1709)

Jupiter, son of Saturn of Krit -- Judah

Darius, descendant of Jupiter (Judah) -- is Dara or Darda (see the family name in I Chronicles 2:4,6); Josephus calls him Dardanus (1477-1412); he fled Italy and founded Troy (the Norse geneaology skips the names of Tarah and Mahol between Judah and Darda)

Erichhonius -- Ericthonius (1412-1366), second king of Troy

Troes -- Tros (1366-1326), third king of Troy

Ilus -- Illus (1326-1277), fourth king of Troy

Lamedon -- Laomedon (1277-1233), fifth king of Troy

Priam -- Priamus (1233-1181), king of Troy during first Trojan war.

Eighth in descent from Priam was Seskef, who was Danus I or Odin (Votan), first king of Denmark -- 1040-999. Odin was a Hebrew, of the line of Judah, from whom the chief rulers were to come. 'For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler' (I Chron. 5:2).

Now consider over whom Odin ruled in Northwest Europe.

'HU THE MIGHTY'

King Danus' realm extended far beyond the reaches of the Danish peninsula. The people over whom he ruled were a collection of tribes which constituted the greatest sea power of the time -- the Pelasgians or sea people. From the list of sea powers, commented on in Volume I of the Compendium, it is proofd that the Pelasgians were Hebrews and their allies. Their chief center of habitation was Palestine. Denmark was one of several overseas settlements. Israel gained power in 1057, shortly before the break-up of Germany in Europe. They retained it until 972, when Solomon's kingdom in Palestine was split. For the Israelites to have obtained dominion of the sea in 1057 in the Mediterranean and Atlantic presupposes that they already were living along the western shores of Europe before that date.

When and how did the Children of Israel migrate to Western Europe? The answer is found in Cymbric or Welsh history.

A fragmentary Welsh record, called the Welsh Triad, reads as follows: 'First was the race of the Cymry, who came with Hu Gadarn to Ynys Prydain.' Hu came from 'the land of summer' -- a land located somewhere in what later constituted the realm of Constantinople (the capital of the eastern Roman Empire). He journeyed to Ynys Pridain -- the Welsh name of the Isle of Britain. This first major settlement preceded the migration in 1149 of Brutus of Troy to Britain.

Who was Hu Gadarn? Gadarn is a Welsh word. It means the 'Mighty.' Hu was a short form of the Old Celtic name Hesus ('Origines Celticae', by Edwin Guest, vol. 2, p. 9). Hesus is the Celtic -- and also the Spanish -- pronunciation of Jesus. Was there a famous 'Jesus' who lived in the balmy summerland of the eastern Mediterranean centuries before the time of Jesus the Christ? Most certainly! It is found in Hebrews 4:8, 'For if Jesus that is, Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.'

Jesus was merely the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. Hu or Hesus the Mighty was Joshua the Mighty, the great general who led Israel into Palestine. And the Welsh Triad records that in his later years he also settled Israel peaceably in the British Isle. From there, for trading purposes, they spread to the coasts of the continent which were subject to the German Cymry -- the descendants of the German king Cimbrus (1679-1635). That is how Israel in Denmark came to be known by the tribal name of Cymry.

As time elapsed the peninsula of Denmark became a chief area of trade and commerce. It is strategically located to dominate both North and Baltic sea trade. So together with the original German tribes of the Cymry and Dauciones were migrants from Britain. In 1040 the Hebrew Cymry called for a descendant of Judah, a royal scion of the House of Troy, to rule over them. Odin answered the call and led a migration out of Thrace into Denmark and neighboring regions. The deeds of Odin upon becoming king over the Cymry (sometimes spelled Cymbri) will be included in a later section on the American Indian.

THE KINGS OF DENMARK

Below is the genealogical and historical line of Judah that descended from Odin. Through intermarriage the line of Odin has permeated throughout Western Europe. Small wonder that the lion of Judah is the symbol on the coat of arms and shields of the royalty of Northwestern Europe.

Kings of Denmark	Lengths of Reign	Dates
1. Danus I, or Odin first king of Denmark	41	1040-999
2. Humblus, son of Odin	8	999-991
3. Lotherus, son of Odin	17	991-974
4. Boghius	5	974-969
5. Scioldus, son of Lotherus	80	969-889
6. Gram (or Gran) Slain by Suibdagerus, a king of Norway, in battle; wives were Groa a Swede, and Signe of Finland.	31	889-858
7. Suibdagerus King of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, who, by force, married Gran's daughter and conquered Denmark.	40	858-818
8. Guthormus, son of Queen Signe Reigned 14 years contemporary with Suibdagerus.	14	832-818
9. Hadingus, another son of Signe and Gram	54	818-764
10. Frotho I, son of Hadingus	77	764-687
11. Haldanus I, son of Frotho	56	687-631
12. Rhoe, son of Haldanus	63	631-568
13. Helgo, son of Haldanus Reigned contemporary with his brother.	34	628-594
14. Rolvo, son of Helgo by his own daughter Ursa. Became king after death of Rhoe; was killed by Attile, king of Sweden, who conquered Denmark.	41	568-527
15. Hotherus, great-grandson of Hadingus, son of king Hotobrodus of Sweden. King of Denmark and Sweden.	42	527-485
16. Roric Slyngeband, son of Hotherus	49	485-436
17. Wigletus, son of Roric	48	436-388
18. Guitalchus	32	388-356
19. Vermundus, son of Wigletus	61	356-295
20. Uffe, son of Vermundus	30	295-265
21. Danus II, son of Uffe	37	265-228
22. Hugletus the Little, son of Danus II	52	228-176
23. Frotho II, son of Hugletus	30	176-146

DENMARK ENTERS ROMAN HISTORY

24. Danus III, son of Frotho In his time the German Cymbrians joined the Teutons in a terrible war against Rome in 113. Italy would have been conquered if the consul Marius had not defeated them utterly.	69	146- 77
25. Fridlevus I, the Swift, son of Danus	37	77- 40
26. Frotho III, the Pacific, son of Fridlevus ('A.D.') King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.	54	40- 15
INTERREGNUM for nearly	4 years	15- 19
27. Hiarnus, a poet	2	19- 21
28. Fridlevus II, son of Frotho	12	21- 33
29. Frotho IV, the Liberal, son of Fridlevus	46	33- 79
30. Ingellus Wendemothius, son of Frotho	23	79-102
31. Olaus I, son of Ingellus	10	102-112
32. Haraldus I, reigned contemporary with brother	5	112-117
33. Frotho V, brother of Haraldus	19	112-131
34. Haraldus II, son of Haraldus I	10	131-141
35. Haldanus II, son of Haraldus II Reigned 10 years contemporary with brother, 5 years alone.	15	131-146
36. Unquinus, king of Gothland, succeeded son-in-law Haldanus in Denmark.	9	146-155
37. Sivaldus I, son of Unquinus	22	155-177
38. Sigarus, son of Sivaldus	13	177-190
39. Sivaldus II, son of Sigarus	11	190-201
INTERREGNUM -- Rule of 5 governors	40	201-241
40. Haldanus III, married Guritha, granddaughter of Sigarus.	20	241-261
41. Haraldus III, (Hilletand or Hilderand), son of Haldanus; died in Sweden after a seven-year war, during which time his daughter Haditha governed Denmark.	66	261-327
42. Olaus II, brother of Haditha	4	327-331
43. Osmund, son of Olaus	10	331-341
44. Sivardus I, son of Osmund	9	341-350
45. Buthlus, brother of Sivardus	1	350-351
46. Jarmericus, son of Sivardus	16	351-367
47. Broderus, son of Jarmericus	2	367-369
48. Sivaldus III, son of Broderus	9	370-379
49. Snio (or Sino), son of Silvaldus.	22	379-401

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

50. Roderic	10	401-411
51. Sueno I	55	411-467
52. Guitlachus	50	467-517
53. Haraldus IV	46	481-527
54. Eschyllus	16	527-543
55. Veremundus	78	543-621
56. Osmund II	75	621-696

The following kings lived in Denmark.

57. Biorno	4	696-701
58. Baldrus, son of Biorno	6	701-707
59. Haraldus V, son of Baldrus	8	707-715
60. Gormo I, son of Haraldus	50	715-765
61. Gotricus or Godfrey or Sigfrid, commences invasions of England 787	45	765-810
62. Olaus III Because Gotricus became the great legislator of the Danes, his reign is often begun from the year 777 as follows:	1	810-811
Gotricus (or Godfrey), called Sigfrid	33	777-810
Olaus III or Olabus	2	810-812

Continuing:

63. Hemmingius or Hemmingus or Heningus	4	812-816
64. Sivard II	2	816-818
65. Ringo, contemporary with Sivard II	2	816-818
66. Regner	13	818-831
67. Harald VI	3	818-821
68. Sivard III, the last heathen king of Denmark.	3	831-834

CHRISTIANITY INTRODUCED ON THE THRONE

69. Eric I, the first king of Denmark to adopt Christianity.

834-835

During much of this and the preceding period Denmark was plagued by joint reigns, disputed succession, and lesser kings who seized on part of the realm. Whole tribes left the peninsula to settle permanently in England. They were called Danes, but were, in fact, of Anglo-Saxon stock.

70. Eric II, called Barno, the Child	24	835-859
71. Canute I, surnamed the Small	20	859-879
72. Frotho VI	1	879-880
73. Gormo II (or Guthran or Gormund)	13	880-893
74. Harald VII, Parcus, or the Niggard	8	893-901
75. Gormo III or Guthram or or Godrum or Gormund	30	901-931
76. Harald VIII, called Blaatand	48	931-979
77. Sueno II or Suen-Otto, called Forked Beard	35	979-1014
78. Ericus, King of Sweden became King of Denmark in 988 for 7 years, till slain by his own servants, when Suen-Otto was restored by Scottish assistance.	7	988-995
79. Canute II or King Knut the Great, united Scandinavia under his realm, it fell apart at his death. Became king of England 1016.	21	1014-1035

From this date on any thorough work on Denmark will satisfactorily present its history. With the death of Canute a period of 2074 years ended since the founding of the monarchy.

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 2 Chapter 4

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 2

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Herman L. Hoeh

1963 1966, 1969 Edition

CHAPTER IV

JEWS GAIN POWER IN DANUBE CIVILIZATION

How did this unique influence of the Jews in Eastern Europe begin?

Scholars and historians -- many of them Jews -- have puzzled over the presence of the huge Jewish population in Eastern Europe. There is no recorded evidence that they migrated from Babylon after the Babylonian captivity. Nor are they the descendants from the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70.

Who, then, brought the Jews into Eastern Europe seven centuries before the birth of Jesus.

The answer has been in the Bible all these years! It is found in II Kings 18:13-16. 'Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying: 'I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear.' And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king's house. At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the door-posts which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.' A parallel account may be read in either II Chronicles 32 or Isaiah 36.

Notice the dates of this event -- the fourteenth year of Hezekiah -- 711-710. Sennacherib was at this time associated with his father on the throne of Assyria. A vigorous general, he captured all the fortified cities of Judah except Jerusalem, enslaved the inhabitants. Where he carried them had been unknown to historians. But the answer is preserved for us in the 'Austrian Chronicle'. He carried them into Eastern Europe along the Danube River. But how could an Assyrian king of Nineveh plant tens of thousands of Jewish captives in Europe? -- because Central Europe was then part of the Assyrian Empire.

JEWISH KINGS FROM AUSTRIAN CHRONICLE

Rulers	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Gennan, middle son of Peyman, became duke. He was overcome, records the Austrian Chronicle, by the Jews and was circumcised, accepted Jewish marriage customs, put away images and acknowledged the Hebrew faith. He called himself 'Gennan, a Jew.' There were not yet any Jewish noble, willing to give their daughters in marriage to him. So he died without wife and heir.	4	708-704
Nanman and Saptan, sons of Peyman, split the country. Nanman chose the lower and Septan the upper part. Nanman married a Hungarian duchess called Meynin (Mennin). Saptan became the Master over his brother and over all the land, also changed its name to Mittanauz. He married a Bohemian duchess called Salaim (Salan, Salann, Salim), who was a Jewess. They had two sons, Tanton and Rippan. Tanton died without wife before his father.	61	704-643
Rippan, a Jew, married a countess from Penenaw (Pennawe), named Menna. They had one son, Lantawz, and two daughters, Pamyn and Rachaym. Lantawz and Pamyn (Panym) died unmarried before their father.	57	643-586
Salant, a Jew, a duke from Hungary, married Rachaim. They had one son, Piltan II (Pilton, Pilkan) who died. After both this son and Salant had died, Rachaim remarried.	45	586-541
Laptan, a Jew from Bohemia, married Rachaim. Changed the name of the land from Mittanauz (Mittenaus) to Fannau (Fannawe). They died without an heir.	15	541-526
At that time there ruled a Jewish duke in Hungary, called Almantan. He usurped the power and conquered the dukedom of Fannaw. Almantan brought with him his wife, a Bohemian duchess, named Schlammyn (Schalmmyn). She was Jewish. They had two sons, Rantanaiz and Halman (Halbman). Halman became duke of Hungary.	40	526-486
Rantanaiz (Rattans), in his day the name of the land was changed from Fannaw to Aurata. He called himself 'Rattanaiz, a Jew.' Married Bohemian duchess called Sawlin (Sawlim). They had a son who died without name, and a daughter, Lenna.	57	486-429
Rettan, Hungarian duke, marries Lenna. He changed the name of the land from Aurata to Fyla. They had a son, Manton (Montan).	45	429-384
Flanton, married Sanna, a duchess from Bavaria. They had a son, Hegan and a daughter, Semyn. Hegan died unmarried before his father.	54	384-330
Rattan, a Hungarian duke, marries Semyn. They had one son, Attalon.	39	330-291
Attalon, married a Bohemian duchess, Magalim. They had three sons, Raban, Penyn and Effra, and Semna, a daughter. Semna died young. Penyn also died without wife and heir.	57	291-234
Raban (Rawan, Raban), married a Bohemian duchess called Sancta (Santta, Santla). They died without Elelr.	(6 months)	(234)
Effra, Attalon's youngest son, married Hungarian duchess, Samaym, who was Jewish. They had one son, Naban.	49	234-185
Naban, married a Hungarian duchess, a Jewess, Samanna. They had a son, Rolan, and a daughter, Signa who died unmarried.	52	185-133
Rolan (Nolan), changed the name of the land from Fyla to Rarasma. Married a Hungarian duchess, Sanna. They had two daughters, Eminna and Sanna. Eminna died unmarried.	32	133-101
Remar (Reinar, Reimar), a Bohemian duke, married Sanna. They had one son, Natan.	53	101- 48
Natan, married Hungarian duchess, Satym (Satyn). They had two daughters, Masym and Rachym.	41	48- 7
Masym, a duchess. She died before marrying. Her sister Rachym obtained the duchy.	2 1/2	7- 5
Raban (Naban), a Bohemian duke, married Rachim. They had two sons, Lanat (Lenat, Lamer, Laniar), and Sannet (Samet, Samer). Lanat died young.	51	5 B.C. to 47 A.D.
Sannet, married a Hungarian duchess, Enna. They had a son, Laban, and a daughter, Racha (spelled also Ratha, Rachaym, Rathaym). Laban died before his father.	34	47- 81
Saptan, duke from Bohemia married Racha. They had a son, Salamet (Salamer), and a daughter, Semna (Sanna, Senna). Salamet died unmarried before his father.	42	81-123
Rolant, a Bohemian duke marries Semna. They had a son, Rattan, a daughter, Amama II (Amania), and another son, Jannat (Jannas, Jannet, Jamer). Rattan and Amama died without heir before their father.	52	123-175
Jannat (Jannett Janner), changed the name of his inheritance from Rarasma to Corrodancia. Married a Bohemian duchess called Samanna. They had a son, Manton (Montan). With him ended the predominance of the Jewish faith, and the land lapsed again to Heathenism.	51	175-226
Manton	45	226-271

In his time heathen from Hungary and other lands forced Manton to become a heathen and to pray to images. 'He called himself Manton, a Heathen.' He married a heathen duchess from Hungary, named Signa. They had two sons, Natan (Mathan) and Reptan. Reptan died young and unmarried.

END OF JEWISH PREDOMINANCE

The sudden influx of heathenism in the hitherto predominantly Jewish patrimony was due to a mass migration from the east. This was the period of the last famous Odin or Wodan -- king of the Saxons from 256-300. He led numerous tribes from Eastern Europe following the Roman attack upon Dacia (the modern Romania). The story of Wodan will be made plain in a succeeding chapter.

Natan, married a duchess from Hungary named Salymna (Salynna). They had two sons, Salanata and Hemna (Hemma, Henna, Honna). The latter died without heir.	51	271-322
Salanata, married a Bohemian duchess called Alamynn. They had one son, Rattan, a heathen.	41	322-363
Rattan, married a Bohemian duchess, Sympna (Synna, Symna). They had a son, Fultan (Sultan, Fulkan, Fullan) who died without heir before his father.	32	363-395
Rolant, a heathen Hungarian duke was established in Corrodancia by the Romans. He brought along his wife, a Bohemian duchess called Salympna (Salymna). They had one son, Sattan.	51	395-446
Sattan, married a Hungarian duchess, Samynna. From now on the dukes in Corrodancia, were Catholic nobles. Sattan and Samynna died without an heir.	51	446-497

The Romans established Amman, a noble count, in Corrodancia. He secretly believed and practiced Catholicism.

Amman, changed the name of the land from Corrodancia to Avara. He brought along his wife Helena, a secret Christian. Later known as 'St. Amman' and 'St. Helena,' they converted much of the population. When the Romans found it out they slew Amman and many of the people, but not Helena. They had three sons, Johanns, Albrecht, and Dietreich. A11 three became dukes of Avara and changed the name to Osterland. They split the land and Johanns became the chief over his two brothers.	43	497-540
Johanns, married a noble countess from Rome called Anna. They had no heir. Albrecht became duke of Osterland, since Dietreich died shortly after Johanns.	32	540-572
Albrecht, changed the name of the land from Osterland to Oesterreich -- now the official name of Austria. He married a duchess from Bohemia, Katherin. They had a son Eberhart, a daughter Ann, and another son, Johanns. Johanns and Anna died shortly after their father.	31	572-603
Eberhart, married Osanna, a duchess from Bavaria. They had two sons, Jacob and Albrecht. They both died before father and mother Thereafter the land was turned into a margraviate.	32	603-635
Hainreich, duke from Bohemia was given Austria by the Roman emperor. Hainreich (Henry), became Margrave of Austria. He brought with him his wife, a duchess from Hungary named Ursula. They had no heir.	30	635-665
Otto -- Hainreich granted Austria to Otto of Hungary. He styled himself 'Otto, by the grace of God, Margrave of Austria and Duke of Hungary.' Married a duchess from Bohemia called Elsbet. They had two sons, Chunrat and Johans. Johans died young.	18	665-683
Chunrat, made the margraviate a dukedom. He styled himself 'Chunrat, by the grace of God a Roman king, always a multiplier of the empire, and duke of Austria. His wife was Anna, a Hungarian duchess. They had three sons, Hainreich, Steffan and Albrecht. They split the land and Albrecht became chief.	50	683-733
Albrecht, married a Bohemian duchess, Salme (Salome). They had two sons, Ludweig and Fridreich. They divided the land.	49	733-782
Ludweig, was the higher duke in Austria. Married a duchess from Hungary named Elena. They had a son, Johannes and a daughter, Dorothea, who died before her father.	32	782-814
Johannes, married a duchess from Bohemia called Anna. They had one son, Hainreich.	49	814-863
Hainreich, married a duchess from Hungary named Ursula. They had three sons, Johanns, Steffan and Philipp. Steffan and Philipp died young.	31	863-894
Johannes, married Margareta, duchess from Bohemia. They had two sons, Albrecht and Ludweig. Albrecht died unmarried prior to his father.	28	894-922
Ludweig, married a duchess from Hungary called Elsbet. They had one son, Albrecht.	42	922-964
Albrecht, married a duchess from Bohemia, Osanna. They had two sons, Ott and Hainreich. Ott died unmarried prior to his father.	28	964-992

Albrecht was a contemporary of Leopold, duke of the rising House of Babenberg. Leopold was appointed by Otto II of Germany as supreme ruler of the Austrian mark.

Hainreich, or Henry, succeeded; married a Hungarian duchess called Margareta. They had two sons, Peter and Johanns, and a daughter, Elisabet (Elspeth).	28	992-1020
Peter and Johanns Johanns was duke jointly with Peter of Austria for a year and a half, when he died without wife and heir. Peter 3 1021-1024 succeeded as duke for three years and also died without heir. His dukedom passed to the Babenbergs.	1 1/2	1020-1021

In 976 the chief authority in Austria had passed to the House of Babenberg. The powerful rule of the Babenbergs -- and the interrelationships of the royal families -- may be found in any thorough English or German history of Austria. The Babenbergs became extinct in 1246. Thereafter the realm passed into the hands of the famous Hapsburgs.

With this the history of early southeastern Europe, which began in the days of Abraham, closes.

September 25, 2011
1
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 2 Chapter 2

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 2

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Herman L. Hoeh

1963 1966, 1969 Edition

CHAPTER II

THE ANCIENT KINGS OF THE GERMANS

The settlement of the Assyrians and related peoples in early Europe is summarized by several writers in the early Middle Ages. The list of the early kings presented here is from the 'Bayerische Chronik' and 'Deutsche Chronik' by Johannes Turmair, Abensberg, 1526.

The traditional events assigned to each ancient German ruler are confirmed by both archaeological evidence and the fragmentary comments of classical historians.

The 'Bayerische Chronik' is very important for the history of Central Europe. It proofs that German history was correctly preserved in song and poetry and in contemporary written records down to Roman times. It further proofs that the length of time from the Flood to Roman times was accurately preserved except for an overlooked 24 years. This period was the 24 years from Abram's year 75 to his year 99. The later chroniclers, who placed in parallel German and Hebrew history, universally reckoned the 430 years from the Covenant that was confirmed with Abraham to Sinai as beginning when Abram was 75 years old, instead of 99. They therefore placed the Flood 24 years too late in history.

The German chronicles that were the basis of Turmair's work placed the Flood 131 years before the coming of the German patriarch Tuisto into Europe. They should have reckoned 131 plus 24 -- that is, 155 years. With this one exception, all dates from Tuisto down to the burning of Rome in 390 B.C. need no correction. All that is necessary is to add the separate lengths of reign. There are no missing lengths of reign.

German history commences with an extensive settlement of farmers in Europe from the Don River to the Rhine. The date of this migration into Europe from Mesopotamia and the Near East is placed at 2214 B.C. by German history -- just 155 years after the Flood and 40 years after the Tower of Babel.

BEGINNING OF GERMAN OR ASSYRIAN HISTORY

The real beginnings of Assyrian history were not presented in Volume I. They are restored here. One account begins with the reign of Nimrod in 2194 -- after the 60-year reign of Cush. Cush was the first Belus -- the word means 'lord' -- who bore rule after the Flood.

Early Rulers of Assyria and Babylon	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Saturn: the Nimrod of Scripture, known also as Ninus I.	56	2194-2138
Belus: great lord of Assyria -- a title of Shem as lord over all his family. The title was later taken by Asshur.	55	2138-2083
Ninus II: conquered the Middle East in 17 years (2100-2083), while his father was recognized as supreme ruler, (see Diodorus Siculus). Ninus is the name of Asshur used by classical writers.	52	2100-2048
Semiramis or Ishtar	42	2048-2006
Ninyas: called Zames (see Vol. 1 for history).	38	2006-1968

THE EARLY SETTLERS OF EUROPE

The 'Bavarian Chronicle' records in detail the earliest settlers of Europe after the Deluge. Their encampments and habitations have been recovered by archaeological research and are labeled the 'Neolithic' migrations that traversed the Danube and adjoining valleys.

Shem or Tuitsch came into Europe with members of his family, as well as with certain of the sons of Japheth and two of the sons of Ham who were of the white stock. From these have descended most of the present-day nations of Europe. The descendants of Shem include many sons of Joktan, son of Heber, and a number of the sons of Mash, son of Aram. The Biblical names (Genesis 10) of the grandsons and great-grandsons of Shem are clearly preserved in most instances by the 'Chronicle'. In the following chart, together with the names of the patriarchal settlers, appear either the areas settled, the tribes which sprang from them, or their Biblical names. An historical or classical map should be consulted for location of geographic names. In later times the descendants of these early heroes migrated west, south, north and east under population pressure.

Dukes settled by Shem in Europe	Identity, or Area settled
1. Sarmata, son of Joktan	Settled Sarmtia; is the Hazarmaveth of Gen. 10:26; colonized south Arabia; a son Tanaus gave his name to the river Tanais, now called the Don.
2. Dacus, son of Mash, grandson of Aram	settled Dacia, later also colonized in Denmark
3. Geta, another son of Mash (included in Anderson's 'Royal Genealogies', but not in 'Bavarian Chronicle')	from whom came certain of the Getae of Roman history
4. Gotha Gether (v .23)	from whom came the Goths
5. Tibiscus, late Latin spelling of Tiobo, an Italian spelling of Jobab (Gen. 10:29)	settled on the river Theiss or Tibiscus; descendants migrated into Germany (see 'Encyclopedia Britannica', article 'Archaeology')
6. Moesa, Mash (Gen. 10:23)	settled Mysia and Moesia
7. Phrygus, or Brigus, son of Mash (Gen. 10:23)	settled in Phrygia and Europe
8. Thynus, son of Mash	settled Bithynia in Asia Minor
9. Dalmata, Almodad (v. 26)	settled Dalmatia on Adriatic
10. Jader, Jerah (v .26), his descendants also settled in Arabia	founded the port called Jaderia Colonia in Illyria
11. Albanus or Albion, Abimael (v. 28)	for whom Albania is named, and also Albion or Britain; his descendants early migrated to the Isle of Britain
12. Sabus or Sau, Sheba (v. 28)	settled on the river Save; migrated to Italy as Sabines
13. Pannus or Benno, son of Mash	settled Pannonia
14. Sala or Salon Shelah (v. 24)	built the town Sala; gave his name to river Sal
15. Azalus or Aezel, Uzal (v. 27)	ancestor of the Azali; also settled in Aezeland in Pannonia
16. Hister, the Joktan of the Bible (Gen. 10:25)	settled Istria; Hister means same in Indo-European tongues that Joktan does in Hebrew -- water course (Rawlinson, 'Ancient History')
17. Adulas or Adler, Hadoram (v. 27); colonized in Arabia	anciently dwelt on Upper Rhine; his son Than gave his name to the river Thonau, now called the Danube
18. Dicla, Diklah (v. 27)	thought to have dwelt on Upper Rhine; his descendants later migrated to Gedrosia in Persia
l9. Obalus or Elb, Obal (v. 28)	from him the river Elbe takes its name
20. Epirus Ophir (v. 29)	colonized Asia from Epirus
21. Eber	built Ebersau -- the Eburodunum of Ptolemy's map
22. Hoeril, Havilah (Gen. 10:29)	gave his name to river Havel or Havila (Jacobus Schatz: 'Atlas Homannianus Illustratus', p. 121); from him descended the Heruli

The white descendants of the following patriarchs also colonized parts of Europe:

23. Arcadius, father of the Arkites (Gen. 10:17)	settled Arcadia in Greece
24. Emathius, father of Hamathites (Gen. 10:18)	settled Emathia in Macedonia
25. Tiras, son of Japheth	colonized Thrace
26. Moska, Meshech -- son of Japheth	colonized east of the Carpathians
27. Javan, son of Japheth	Hebrew name for Greece is Javan
28. Thubal, son of Japheth	Josephus records that certain of his children settled Spain
29. Gomer, son of Japheth	dwelt for a time in Italy
30. Asch, Ashkenaz -- son of Gomer	his descencants mixed with the Goths -- whence Jews who settled in Central Europe acquired name of Ashkenazim
31. Reif or Rus, Riphath -- son of Gomer	settled in Scythia and White Russia
32. Tagus, Togarmah -- son of Gomer	dwelt for a time in Southern Europe

KINGS OF ANCIENT GERMANY

Early Kings of German	Lengths of Reign	Dates
1. Tuitsch or Tuisto Chief of thirty-two dukes. Noah gave him all the land between the Don River and the Rhine or what was called Grossgermania. This is the beginning of the 'neolithic' settlement of Europe. Tuitsch is, according to all ancient German commentaries and chronicles, a son of Noah. But which son? Noah adopted Tuitsch's children as his own. The ancient Germans understood the name Tuitsch to be the title 'Teacher.' He was therefore the great patriarch of his family who taught the divine will to his children. Tuitsch is the father of Mannus (who is the Assyrian Ninus). The son of Mannus, Trebeta, is the same man who is called the son of Ninus in classical writers. The son of Mannus or Ninus -- Trebeta -- built Trier, the first town of Germany. Since the Bible calls this Ninus (who built Nineveh), Asshur, Tuitsch is therefore Shem! Tuitsch (Shem) left Europe for Egypt in 2038. His appearance in Egyptian chronological records of Dynasty I dates his arrival and government in 2037. From Armenia Tuitsch left 155 years after the Flood (131 plus 24) -- see the comments at the beginning of this chapter. With him were twenty-two descendants plus eight from Japheth and two from Ham. Tuitsch made his headquarters at Deutz (today Koeln-Deutz). The country is called Deutschland after him -- that is, the land of the great Patriarch or Teacher, Shem. In the 25th year of his reign (2190-2189) Tuitsch held a state assembly, divided lands among his descendants and ordained laws. He also brought more colonies from Mesopotamia.	176 (236)	2214-2038 (2214-1978)
2. Mannus or Mann For the last 60 years of Tuitsch's or Shem's reign in Germany, he governed his family from Egypt and Italy. It was not until 1978 that Mannus assumed the government over Western Europe, succeeding his father Tuitsch. At the beginning of his reign he sends out colonies to France and Asia Minor. His son Herman establishes the kingdoms of Phrygia, Mysia and Bithynia in Mannus' 34th year (1945-1944). Another son Trieber or Trebeta, built Trier. Nerus, another son, settled in the Netherlands. This Mannus is the Assyrian Ninus and is Asshur, son of Shem. Asshur means 'strength' in Hebrew and has the same sense as Mannus -- masculinity -- in German.	72 (66)	1978-1906 (1978-1912)
3. Eingeb or Ingaevon This son of Mannus or Ninus -- Asshur -- was the German Mercury. His wife Freia was the German Venus. He instituted the observance of Weinnachten of December 24. Eingeb is responsible for settling Germans on the North Sea from Denmark to Dunkirk. He sent his general Brigus from the Danube valley to secure Spain against the African Amazons (female warriors). Myrein, queen of the African Amazons advanced up the Danube but was defeated and slain by Eingeb's generals Seiphyl and Mopser.	36 (40)	1906-1870 (1912-1872)
4. Ausstaeb or Istaevon Son of Eingeb, Ausstaeb was the German Mars. From him are descended the Rheinlanders. In his days a great drought devastated Italy.	50 (52)	1870-1820 (1872-1820)
5. Herman Son of Ausstaeb. He taught the philosophy that war and to die in battle is most pleasing to God. He introduced the arts of warmaking to the Germans. The Druids began to flourish in Germany. Herman settled the heart of Germany, whose people were called Hermanduri or Hermiones after him.	63	1820-1757
6. Mers Son of Herman. The city of Merseburg is named after him. The Dithmarsii descended from him. Oryz, the Egyptian god-king Osiris, came with his wife Eisen up the Danube valley to Mers. They left Germany and went to Italy on their way back to Egypt. Cultural development of Germany through contact with Egypt in days of Joseph -- beer making, agriculture, forging and medicine were brought to Germany.	46	1757-1711
7. Gampar Son of Mers. He was the inventor of beer brewing. His daughter Araxa became one of the wives of Libys (the Egyptian and Spanish Hercules), the son of Oryz, and gave birth to Tuscus, Schyth, Agatyrsus, Peucinger and Gutho.	44	1711-1667
8. Schwab Son of Gampar. He gave his name to Schwaben. In his reign Eisen came to Germany and taught the people various crafts.	46	1667-1621
9. Wandler Son of Schwab. Ancestor of the German Wenden or Vandals, who were first known at the Weser, next in the countries north of the Elbe; afterwards, a colony went into Spain, then into Africa where they restored the Roman Empire; their kingdom was demolished by General Belisarius. The cities of Luebeck, Rostoch, Dantzig, and others are the relics of those first Vandals who did not migrate to North Africa. These German Vandals are different from the Wends called Slavi, Slavonians, Poles, Bohemians who settled in the ancient lands of the Vandals.	41	1621-1580
10. Deuto Son of Wandler, gave his name to the Teutones. He led a campaign into France and built there the cities of Vannes, Sens, Santgenge and Toulouse. He was deified as the German Mercury, as Eingeb had previously been.	27	1580-1553
11. Alman (Allmann or Altman) Son of Deuto, was the German Hercules. Famous for use of trained lions in war. Bore a lion in his shield. Bavarians, who descended from him, still use a lion on their coat of arms. He had many sons. Norein received Noricum (in Bavaria today). Norein was the father of part of the Bavarians. Haun was the father of the German Huns and lived with his brothers Glan and Schyter. Helvos was the father of the Helvetti in Switzerland. Baier ruled Bavaria. Mied and Math were the ancestors of the Mediomatrices in Alsace. Theur went to foreign lands.	64	1553-1489
12. Baier Son of Alman. He sent a great army of Germans and Wends from Germany, Denmark and Gothland to the Balkans. One group, the Goths under Gebreich and Vilmer, settled on the river Theissa and lived there as the Getae till the time of Valentinian. Another group, including the German Amazons, proceeded down the Danube valley to the Black Sea and on through the Crimea and the Palus Maeotis to Armenia and Cappadocia and the Taurus mountains. Here they were known as the Cimmerians. Baier was also known as Bojus of Bavaria since he was the ancestor of many Bavari. He built Prague.	60	1489-1429
13. Ingram or Ingramus Son of Baier. He sent many German colonists to Asia Minor. Tanhauser, king of the Germans in Asia Minor, and his priestess Schmirein, led a conquering army through Syria as far as Egypt. Built Hermenia, afterwards called Reginoberg (Ratisbon).	52	1429-1377
14. Adalger or Adelger Son of Ingram. German Amazons were again famous in his time under Queens Lautpotis and Martpeis. They crossed through Asia Minor to Lycia, but were defeated.	49	1377-1328
15. Larein Son of Adalger. This is the Laertes of Trojan fame, mentioned by the Roman historian Tacitus. During his rule an army set out from Germany and went via Poland and Ruthenia to the Danube valley. Here it was joined by Germans who had come to the area some 150 years earlier, and the combined forces fell into Asia Minor under their leader Mader and their queen Aloph. They passed through Phrygia and settled in Armenia.	51	1328-1277
16. Ylsing or Ulsing Son of Larein. This is the Trojan Ulysses of Tacitus. He is also the Greek Odysseus who sailed out to the Atlantic and up to the Rhine. Built Emmerick on the Main. During his reign the Germans under Galter again invaded Asia Minor and settled on the banks of the river Sangarius. Priam of Troy tried in vain to expel them, finally made a treaty, and they later helped him against the Greeks.	53	1277-1224
17. Brenner or Breno Son of Ylsing, in whose reign Prichs ruled the Germans on the Black Sea and the women under queen Themyschyr conquered Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Cappadocia.	38	1224-1186
18. Heccar (Hykar or Highter) Son of Brenner. He is the famous Hector of the First Trojan War. He was of great help to Priam. Teutschram, king of the Germans of Transylvania and son-in-law of Priam also sent help.	31	1186-1155
19. Frank (Francus or Franco) Son of Heccar. From him descended the German Franks or Franconians. In his days Amar, queen of the German Amazons, burned the temple in Ephesus.	41	1155-1114
20. Wolfheim Siclinger Son of Frank. He sent another great migration of settlers from Germany to the Black Sea.	58	1114-1056
21. Kels, Gal and Hillyr Sons of Wolfheim. They divided their father's realm after his death. Hillyr received Illyria, Gal received Gaul and Kels received Germany. Hillyr had three daughters and six sons, all of whom settled in the regions of the Balkans, Thrace and Greece.	50	1056-1006
22. Alber Son of Gal, ruled together with his six cousins. The center of his government was in France.	60	1006-946
23. Walther, Panno and Schard Another son of Gal, ruled together with Panno and Schard, the grandsons of Hillyr. From Walther Italy is called Walhen or Walschland. Panno gave his name to Pannonia. From Schard came the Schardinger or Schordisci.	62	946-884
24. Main, ngel and Treibl Sons of Walther, ruled jointly with Treibl, son of Panno. From ngel are descended the Angles who lived in Thringen and Meissen.	70	884-814
25. Myela, Laber and Penno They ruled jointly.	100	814-714
26. Venno and Helto Ruled jointly. Helto invaded and settled in Italy, expelling the former inhabitants.	70	714-644
27. Mader (Madyas) Made extensive conquests. He built Milan. He led a German campaign as far as Syria and Palestine. Of his sons, Balweis received Lombardy, Sigweis Bavaria, and Brenner Thringen and Meissen.	55	644-589
28. Brenner II and Koenman Brenner was the son of Mader. He was an 'Englnder' and king of the Schwaben. His wife was Thmrin (Tomyris), queen of the Getae, Dacians and Scythians. Brenner sent her troops to help in the war against Cyrus. He also defeated Darius who tried to invade the lower Danube region. Together Brenner and Thmrin conquered much of Asia Minor as far as Armenia. His nephew Knman, son of Sigweis, was king of the Bavarians. Brenner expelled Knman and 300,000 Bavarians from Bohemia and resettled that region with Schwaben, who then became known as Markmannen. Some of the expelled Bavarians settled in Bavaria proper, but by far the largest number of them crossed the Alps into Italy, from where they drove out some of the Etruscans. After the death of Knman, the Bavarians of Italy were ruled by the kings Zeck, Ber (who built Bern or Verona) and Breitmar.	110	589-479
29. Landein with his sons Antr and Rgr	80	479-399
30. Brenner III Son of Breitmar, was king over both Schwaben and Bavarians, and reigned over Germany and Italy. Under his leadership the Schwaben and Bavarians sacked Rome. He had sons Hrkaz, Matschr, Guotfrid and Schirm. His daughter Gueta was married to Philip of Macedon. Burning of Rome (July 390) occurred in his 9th year.	38	399-361
31. Schirm Son of Brenner III. He and his son Brenner IV ruled until 60 years after death of Alexander -- although Brenner IV dies earlier. Brenner led a massive German invasion into Greece, plundered Macedonia and the oracle at Delphi, but was killed in 279 B.C.		361-263
32. Thessel Son of Brenner IV, ruled jointly with his uncle Lauther and his brother Euring. Lauther, with his brother Lebmner, broke into Asia Minor with 20,000 men and settled in Cappadocia and Phrygia. Thessel's sons Breitmar, Ernvest and Wirdmr ruled over the Bavarians in Italy. His wife, Teutscha, was queen of Istria. The Romans defeated the Bavarians in Italy, killing Wirdmr and 40,000 of his men.	85	279-194
33. Dieth I Son of Thessel, ruled jointly with his son Diethmer. Diethmer invaded Palestine on behalf of Antiochus IV, took many Jews captive and settled them in Germany near Regensburg. Soon afterwards Hannibal attacked Italy and many of the Bavarians from Northern Italy joined him against Rome. After Hannibal's defeat there followed a war between the Romans and Bavarians in northern Italy which lasted 12 years. Finally, weary of fighting, the Bavarians left Italy, where they had dwelt for almost 400 years, and settled in Pannonia. Dieth was also driven from Italy, whereupon Diethmer, in retaliation, persuaded Philip V of Macedon to renew his hostilities with Rome. Entz and Olor, German kings in Istria and Transylvania, aided Philip, but Rome won. In Asia Minor Rome launched an attack against the German kings Orthjag, Gompelmer, Gudhor, Orgsgund and Eposgnad. These retreated eastward over the Halys, where they were defeated, sued for peace, and swore never to raid foreign nations again. The Romans also defeated king Entz of Istria.	no length given	194-172
34. Baermund and Synpol Ruled after the death of Dieth I and Diethmer.	45	172-127
35. Boiger, Kels and Teutenbuecher They ruled jointly over the Germans and Bavarians in 127 B.C. They gathered an army of 300,000 Saxons and Bavarians, intending to invade and resettle Italy, from which they had been driven some 70 years earlier. They were, however, defeated by Marius at Aquae Sextiae (102 B.C.) and Vercellae (101 B.C.). Boiger died, having reigned 27 years.	27	127-100
36. Scheirer Mithridates tried to enlist his aid in the struggles against Rome.	30	100-70
37. Ernst (Arionistus) and Vocho Ernst was king over Germany and France, his brother-in-law, Vocho, over Bavaria, Austria and Hungary. Ernst invaded France, fought there for 14 years, and settled it with 120,000 Germans. Next 33,000 Bavarians decided to go via France and Spain into Italy. They were joined by the Helvetti. Julius Caesar defeated them, sent the Helvetii back home, but allowed the Bavarians to settle in Burgundy. Caesar also defeated king Ernst.	20	70-50
38. Pernpeist He made a treaty with Persia against the Romans, made raids into Greece and even attacked Apulia and Naples by sea. The Bavarians, having been driven from Italy, lived near the Drave and Danube for 127 years. In the times of Ernst and Pernpeist they left their homes, sailed down the Danube and settled near the Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper, where they remained some 550 years. The name of the Bavarians is not encountered again for some 500 years, till the time of Attila.	10	50-40
39. Cotz, Dieth II and Creitschir		circa 40-13

In 13 B.C. Augustus made an attack against the Germans on the Danube. Later he settled 40,000 Westphalians, Hessians and Schwaben on the west bank of the Rhine.

Virtual anarchy now began to reign among the German tribes. There were anti-Roman and pro-Roman factions and these split whole tribes and even families. The ruling families soon killed each other off in family feuds and inter-tribal warfare.

The royal house that next dominated Germany came from the Sicambrian Franks. Their history appears later in the 'Compendium', chapter XII A.

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 2 Chapter 3

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 2

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Herman L. Hoeh

1963 1966, 1969 Edition

CHAPTER III

ABRAHAM IN EARLY EUROPEAN HISTORY

For centuries students have been taught that Europe was one of late areas of the world to become civilized. Educational tradition would have us believe that Egyptians were erecting mighty temples of stone, had wide astronomical knowledge, knew how to write, thousands of years before Western Europe came to the threshold of civilization.

While Egyptians and Babylonians were arrayed in gorgeous robes and painted with cosmetics, historians would have Europe's forests sparcely populated with naked white savages. Europe's dominant place in world affairs is, we are told, a relatively new phenomenon.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

EUROPE'S EARLY HISTORY SUPPRESSED

European civilization -- and its history -- is as old as Egypt's. But it has been suppressed. Not since the close of the seventeenth century has it been allowed to be taught publicly.

It did not happen in a day. It took centuries of calculated plotting and ridicule to wipe from the pages of history the record of early Europe. Historians and theologians have conspired together to label Europe's early history as 'myth.'

Their motive is plain. If theologians and historians had allowed the early history of Europe to be taught in schools and universities, they would have had to admit the authenticity and the authority of the Bible. THAT they did not want to do.

Had they not expunged the early events of Europe every one today would be reading of the journeys of Noah, Shem, Heber, Asshur and many other Biblical heroes into Europe. Children would be reading in schools today of the early settlement of Assyrians and Chaldeans in Western Europe. They would know where the 'Ten Lost Tribes' of the House of Israel migrated.

All this has been purposely hidden. But it has not all been lost. Scattered through the writings of scholars of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are fragmentary records which unveil what really happened in Europe. In museums and libraries, in state archives are still to be found documents of hoary antiquity corroborating the Biblical record.

This chapter contains the account of one of those documents. It is a history of the Danubian Valley -- the area of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Bavaria and neighboring regions. The document is the 'Oesterreichische Chronik' -- the Austrian Chronicle. It has never before been rendered into modern English. A number of copies of the Chronicle are scattered throughout Europe. The last entry in the Chronicle is of the year 1404.

ABRAHAM IN THE AUSTRIAN CHRONICLE

The Austrian Chronicle begins its consecutive history with a man of princely birth -- none other than the patriarch Abraham! But what has Abraham to do with the history of the Danubian Valley in Europe? Very much.

The most ancient Greek name for the Danube River was the River Noe. Noe is the Greek form of the Hebrew Noah.

Noah was the patriarch of the whole human family following the flood. His patriarchal authority passed on to Shem, who superseded his older brother Japheth. In each succeeding generation the hereditary right of the firstborn was passed on from father to son. Terah was eighth in descent from Shem (Genesis 11:10-26), and the heir to Noah and Shem. Terah had, according to the Biblical record, three sons. The oldest, Haran, was born when Terah was 70 years old (Gen. 11:26). He died before his father Terah did (Gen 11:28). 'And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.' Why Haran died young will be made plain shortly from the Austrian Chronicle.

Replacing Haran as heir was Terah's second son, Abram (whose name was later changed to Abraham).

In the year 1941 God called Abraham to forsake his kindred, his country -- everything. 'Now the Lord said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. And I will bless thee, and make thy name great ...'' (Gen. 12:1-2).

Abram had to give up his hereditary privileges. Though he was a 'mighty prince' (Gen. 23:6), he willingly forsook his inherited rights. 'So Abram went, 'declares verse 4.

Now consider the Austrian Chronicle. It begins with the birth of Abram (he is called Abraham throughout the Chronicle) under the Assyrian Count Sattan of Aligem (sect 41). (Several of the earliest geographic names in the Chronicle are otherwise unknown from contemporary records.) Abram 'took to wife Susanna from the land of Samam, the daughter of Terromant and his wife Sanyet.'

Of this union we read in Scripture: 'And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country' -- Assyria (Gen. 25:5-6).

From the Austrian Chronicle we learn that 'Abraham and Susanna had a son Achaim.' Then 'Abraham of Temonaria and Count Sattan of Aligemorum had war with each other, till Abraham was driven from the land in poverty.' It was in this war that Haran, Abram's older brother, was slain. Abram was driven out of Count Sattan's realm and fled to the Danube River Valley in 1945, according to the Chronicle. There he built a home and settled until the death of Count Sattan.

It was now 1942 -- three years after Abram fled. Abram, according to the Chronicle, took Achaim and Susanna and went to the land of Judeisapta -- 'the Jews' land' -- Palestine, according to the Bible. (The later scribes who copied the Austrian Chronicle assumed it was the Danube Valley because Jews were later settled there also.) From Palestine Abraham sent away eastward to Assyria Susanna and Achaim (in Isaac's second year). From there they journeyed to the Danubian settlement Abram made years before. The previous chapter revealed that the Danubian Valley was then under Assyrian hegemony.

The following sequence of landgraves and dukes is taken from the standard text of the 'Oesterreichische Chronik' -- the Austrian Chronicle. Variations in spelling are at times included. The lengths of reign and dates are in every case those of the Chronicle, which correctly preserves the chronology beginning three years before the call of Abram.

Rulers	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Abraham	30	1945-1915
Susanna, Abraham's concubine, departs Palestine for Assyria, and then the Danubian Valley.	19	1915-1896
Achaim, Abraham and Susanna's son, married a Hungarian countess named Nannaym. They had four children; one daughter, Volim; another, Rawlint; a son, Laptan; and a third daughter, Remmanna.	45	1896-1851
Raban -- Volim's husband, a baron from Bohemia; they have one son, Laptan. He changed the name of his duchy from Arratim to Sawricz.	45	1851-1806
Laptan -- Raban and Volim's son, dies without wife and heir.	3	1806-1803
Laptan, Achaim's son, marries a countess from Bohemia by name of Rama. They added Steiermark to their hereditary land. Had two sons, Rimer and Nynter.	49	1803-1754
Rymer, died without wife and heir.	(6 months)	(1754)
Nymer (Nynter), made the margraviate to a dukedom, called himself 'Nynter, a Heathen, duke of Sawricz.' Married a duchess called Sinna. Only son is Lynal.	52	1754-1702
Lynal, called the land Sannas, after his wife; married a countess from Hungary called Synna. They had three children: a son, Rantan; a daughter, Lengna; and another son, Poyna.	32	1702-1670
Rantan, died without wife and heir.	(3 months)	(1670)
Poyna (Peynna, Pyna), Lynal's youngest son, married a duchess from Bohemia, named Sanna. They had four children: a daughter, Sinna, and three sons, Pynan, Lippan, and Rimman.	51	1670-1619
Pynan, died without wife and neir.	1	1619-1618
Lippan, died without wife and heir.	(14 days)	(1618)
Rymman, died without wife and heir.	(6 months)	(1618)
Zawan (Zaban, Sawan), Synna's husband, a Hungarian duke. They have one son Rattan.	61	1618-1557
Rattan (Nattan) marries a duchess from Bohemia, named Sanna. They had two sons, Reymar and Noro.	67	1557-1490
Reymar (Rymmar) died without wife and heir.	(1 1/2 months)	(1490)
Noro (Nero), marries a wife from Carinthia, named Lenna; they had two children, a daughter, Sanna; and a son, Aucz.	43	1490-1447
Aucz, changed the name of the land from Sannas to Pannaus, called him self 'Aucz, a Heathen.' Married Lenna, a duchess from Bohemia. They had one son, Nonas.	57	1447-1390
Nonas, marries Lenna, a duchess from Lanazz. They had a daughter, Sinna.	57	1390-1333
Tanton (Tonton), count from Panticz, marries Sinna; they had two sons, Tatan and Remar. Remar died before his father.	40	1333-1293
Tatan (Taton), marries duchess from Bohemia, named Synnan (Synna); both later buried at the Danube near Vienna. They had two daughters, Sanna and Lany (Lanus). Older daughter died a year after father.	61	1293-1232
Mantan (Manthan, Mathan), a duke from Bohemia, marries Lany. They had a` son, Manan.	49	1232-1183
Manan, marries Hungarian countess, Lenna. They had a son Nanaym, and a daughter Senna. Senna died before her father.	59	1183-1124
Nanaim (Nananaym, Nanaym) marries Menna (Manna), a Hungarian duchess. They had two daughters, Lenna and Zema (Sema), and a son Ramaim. Lenna died unmarried. Ramaim (Ramaym) died a year after his father.	38	1124-1086
Mangais (Mangaizz, Mangrizz, Magais), a duke from Hungary, marries Zema. He changes the name of the land from Pannauz (Pannawz) to Tantamo (Tantamus). He calls himself 'Mangais, a Heathen.' They had one son Manan.	46	1086-1040
Manan, marries a Bohemian duchess named Sinna (Suma, Sanna, Samia). They had one daughter, Semna (Senna).	55	1040-985
Laptan, a Hungarian duke marries Semna. They had one son, Lanan.	67	985-918
Lanan, married Sanna (Senna), a duchess from Bohemia. They had two daughters, Sanna and Senna, and a son, Maran. Senna died before her father.	51	918-867
Maran, died without wife and heir	(6 months)	(867)
Manay, a duke from Bohemia, marries Sanna. They had a son, Tantan (Tanton), and a daughter, Lemna (Lenna). Lemna died unmarried.	54	867-813
Tantan, married Hungarian duchess named Malan (Malon). They had two sons, Zanan (Sanan, Janan) and Peyman, and a daughter, Peynin (Peyn, Peymin).	57	813-756
Zanan, died without wife and heir.	(3 months)	(756)
Peyman, married Hungarian duchess named Lanna. They had three sons, Nanman (spelled also Nannan, Mannan, and Nanan), Gennan and Saptan.	48	756-708

After the death of Peyman and Lanna, who had both been heathen, the 'Oesterreichische Chronik' records that the whole country accepted the Jewish faith! The next chapter reveals how and why it happened!

September 25, 2011
1
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Compendium History Vol. 1

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 One ..... The Modern Interpretation of History A Radical New View How History Is Written Not Without Bias A Case History 'Anything but Historical Truth' History Involves Interpretation The Truth about the 'Historical Method' Evidence of God Rejected as 'Myth' History Cut from Its Moorings

Chapter Two ..... 6000 Years of History It Is Never Safe to Assume No 'Prehistory' of Man Cultures, Not 'Ages' Origin of the Study of History Historians Follow the Higher Critics Framework of History Founded on Egypt Is Egyptian History Correct? Distorting History

Chapter Three ..... History Begins at Babel History Corroborates the Bible On To Egypt The Chronology of Dynasty I Shem in Egypt Dynasty II of Thinis Joseph and the Seven Years' Famine The Exodus Pharaoh of the Exodus Dynasty IV -- The Pyramid Builders

Chapter Four ..... The Missing Half of Egypt's History The Story Unfolds Moses the General History of Upper Egypt The Great Theban Dynasty XII Who Was Rameses?

Chapter Five ..... Egypt After the Exodus Who Were the Invaders? The Great Shepherds Hyksos in Book of Sothis Amalekites after 1076

Chapter Six ..... The Revival of Egypt Dynasty XVIII The Biblical Parallel Shishak Captures Jerusalem Who Was Zerah the Ethiopian? Dynasty XVIII in Manetho The Book of Sothis

Chapter Seven ..... The Era of Confusion Egypt As It Really Was The Later Eighteenth Dynasty Manetho's Evidence The El-Amarna Letters Are the 'Habiru' Hebrews? After El-Amarna

Chapter Eight ..... Egypt to the Persian Conquest The 'Israel' Inscription The 'Thirteen Fatal Years' Nebuchadnezzar and Ramesses the Great Catching Up Loose Ends Dynasty XXV, the Ethiopians Dynasty XXVI of Sais Manetho's Account of Dynasty XXVI Book of Sothis and Dynasty XXVI Another Look at the Book of Sothis Appearance of Dynasty XXIV of Sais Who Was Usimare Piankhi? Dynasty XXIII of Tanis Dynasty XXII of Bubastis So-called Dynasty XXII Dynasty XXI of Tanis What Eratosthenes Revealed

Chapter Nine ..... The Eclipse of Egypt Answer in Ezekiel Persian Kings of Egypt Egypt Rebels And Now Dynasty XX of Thebes

Chapter Ten ..... It Began at Babel Mesopotamia Rediscovered What Archaeologists Learned Analyzing the Sumerian King List History Continues at Erech

Chapter Eleven ..... Berossus and Babylonian History Another Account of Earliest Dynasties First Dynasty of Ur and Successors Now Sargon of Akkad Dynasties IV and V of Erech The Guti Dynasty Three Other Dynasties Dynasty III of Ur Dynasty of Isin Dynasty IV of Kish and the '400 Years' Dynasty of Akshak Dates of Queen Ku-Baba

Chapter Twelve ..... Hammurabi to the Fall of Babylon Why Hammurabi Dated Early The Dynasty of Larsa When Did Hammurabi Reign Damiq-ilishu Reappears' Nebuchadnezzar the First Era of Nabonassar Three Succeeding Dynasties

Chapter Thirteen ..... History of Assyria Later Assyrian Kings Who Was Shalmaneser? Predecessors of Shalmaneser III King Pul and the Bible Tiglath-pileser I and Thutmose III

Chapter Fourteen ..... History of Assyria Concluded The Kassite Dynasty The Earliest Kassites The First 1000 Years of Assyrian History Analyzing the King List

Chapter Fifteen ..... Media, India, Japan and China The Revolts of the Medes History of Early India Early Indian Kings of Magadha Scythia and the History of Japan History of China

Chapter Sixteen ..... Asia Minor and the West Modern Mythology Beginnings of History The Proof of Language The Proof of Race The Kingdom of Mitanni and the Hurrians Who Were the Hurrians? Phrygians and Hatti

Chapter Seventeen ..... How Greek History Was Corrupted Greeks Admit Homer Was Demented The Plot Centers on Troy Homer and the Lydian Kings Restoring Greek History Kings of Corinth The History of Athens The History of Sicyon Enter Sparta Who Were the Heraclidae? The History of Argos Genealogy of Danaus Sea Powers of Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean The History of Italy

Chapter Eighteen ..... The History of Ireland How Confusion Arose in Irish History The First 1000 Years The Coming of the Milesians Did David Visit Ireland? Jerimiah Goes to Ireland The Milesian Kings The Throne in Scotland

Chapter Nineteen ..... Early Britain and Western Europe The Enigma Solved Early Europe The Heraclidae Kings The Trojans and Western Europe The Testimony of Archaeology

Chapter Twenty ..... The Proof of Archaeology Archaeology in the Aegean World Palestine, Syria and Archaeology The Coming of Israel into Palestine Mesopotamian Archaeology Northern Mesopotamia Egypt in Parallel

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 2 Chapter 1

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 2

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Herman L. Hoeh

1963 1966, 1969 Edition

CHAPTER I

EARLY HISTORY OF GERMANY

The time has come to reveal the true history of Europe.

The Germans for centuries have dominated the heartland of Western Europe. Because of the geographic position Germany's transportation lines constitute the vital arteries of the continent. Without the beating of the German heart, Europe would lose its economic and political prominence in world affairs.

Ancient Roman writers would have us believe that the Germans in the Roman heyday were mere barbarians, an insignificant people roaming the forests of northern Europe. Was this Roman report the whole truth? Were the ancient Roman writers keeping back from their people the facts of German history?

Rome conquered Spain, Gaul, Southern Britain, all North Africa to the Sahara, Illyria, Greece, Asia to the Euphrates. But Rome had to draw its boundary in the north along the Rhine. Why? Why was Rome not able to subdue all Germany? Why, after centuries of bloodshed, did Rome finally succumb to the hammer blows of the Germanic Goths and Vandals? It is high time we were told the true history of early Germany.

The origin of the German people in Europe is rooted in patriarchal times. The history of early Germany, suppressed by the Romans, was revived briefly in the German-dominated Middle Ages. But before the close of the seventeenth century not even the Germans remembered their past. It had been stamped out in the name of education and religion.

But not all was lost. From early documents and local traditions it is still possible to recover what has, in recent centuries, been buried under the rubble of modern educational superstition. The Germans themselves are in great part responsible for this condition. They fostered modern historical concepts. They have tried to hide their past even from themselves -- just as they did at the close of the Hitler era. If the Germans admitted to themselves and the world who they really are, all the world would recognize in Imperial Germany the reconstituted Assyrian Empire -- once the terror of all the civilized world!

ANTIQUITY OF THE GERMAN REICH

Germany has set herself up as the bulwark of European civilization. Germany for centuries has claimed to stand as the wall of defense against the barbarism of Asia.

The German Reich long endured as the oldest political institution in Continental Europe. The German people called their Reich the Holy Roman Empire. It bore rule over Europe for a thousand years. This 'Holy Roman Empire of the German People' was officially designated by the Church in the Middle Ages as 'The Kingdom of God' on earth. Its citizens, the Germans, felt themselves true Romans and bearers of the Christian Reich or kingdom. They were therefore the chosen people of the Christian era, entrusted with a world-mission to be the protectors of Christianity.

German leaders and philosophers have never forgotten this notion of the Middle Ages that the German, in place of the Jew, has a special mission from God.

This strange concept, which lies behind modern political thinking in Germany, is plainly stated in the German work 'Die Tragdie des Heiligen Reiches' -- in English, 'The Tragedy of the Holy Roman Empire.' It is by Friedrich Heer. It is a remarkable volume. It lays bare the reason for the secret motives of the German to dominate Europe -- and the world.

GERMANS SHAPE WORLD AFFAIRS

The story of the ancestry of the German people, and their role in prophecy, is one of the strangest stories ever written. It is gripping with interest, amazing -- yes, astounding!

'The History of Germany,' writes Bayard Taylor, 'is not the history of a nation, but of a race ... Thus, even before the fall of the Roman Empire, it becomes the main trunk out of which branch histories of nearly all European nations, and ... the connecting link between ancient and modern history. The records of no other race throw so much light upon the development of all civilized lands during a period of fifteen hundred years' ('History of Germany', page iii).

Germany has contributed more military leaders than any other nation in history. Its governments have, in the past, claimed the right to rule the 'Christian world.' The German State, from its beginning, has nearly always been a confederation of states -- often an empire of German ruling over non-German. It is the German people who, more than once, have believed themselves to be the 'Herrenvolk' -- the Master Race.

The German people number over one hundred million throughout the world today. They are composed of numerous small tribes. Nations, remember, are families grown big. Take Israel as an example. The nation Israel descended from one man, Jacob (who was renamed Israel upon his conversion -- Genesis 35:9-10). But Israel had 12 sons. His family therefore was divided into 12 tribes. One reads in the Bible about 'the 12 tribes of Israel' -- Judah, Dan, Ephraim, Levi, etc. (Genesis 49:28).

The same is true of the German people. of all these tribes, perhaps the most famous name to Americans is that of the Hessians. The British hired numerous Hessians in their effort to put down the American Revolution which began in 1776. The Hessians were known to Roman historians by the tribal name 'Hatti.' Other Germans bore the names 'Alemani' 'Suabi,' and 'Quadi,' the 'Casuri.' The Romans called them collectively Germani, meaning 'War-men' (from the 'Encyclopedia Britannica', article, 'Germany').

But from where did all these Germanic people come?

Here is the answer of history: 'There can be no doubt that they Black and Caspian seas,' states 'Smith's Classical Dictionary', article, 'Germania,' p. 361. Ancient historical records confirm this admission.

The Germans can be traced in historical records to the regions surrounding the Black and Caspian seas, which border on the ancient Biblical Mesopotamia. This is the region where civilization commenced and from where the patriarchs came!

THE ANSWER FOUND

Ancient German tradition claims that their oldest city, Trier, was founded by Trever or Trebeta, a son of Ninus, king of Assyria.

'The inhabitants of Trier maintain that their city is the oldest in all Europe,' writes Josef K. L. Bihl in his textbook 'In deutschen Landen', page 69. 'Trier was founded,' he continues, 'by Trebeta, a son of the famous Assyrian King Ninus. In fact, one finds ... in Trier the inscription reading, 'Trier existed for 1300 years before Rome was rebuilt.' '

Ninus, according to Roman, Greek and Persian records, was the first ruler who began the systematic conquest of the ancient world after the death of Nimrod. He established the Assyrian Empire as the chief power over Eastern Europe and Southwest Asia, reported Diodorus of Sicily in his History.

But how is it possible that the oldest German city, Trier, founded over 2000 years before the birth of Christ, should be built by a son of Ninus, the renowned King of ancient Assyria? What connection have the Germans with Assyria?

Jerome, who lived at the time when the Indo-Germanic tribes were invading Europe, provides this startling answer: 'For 'Assur (the Assyrian) also is joined with them' ' (Letter 123, sec. 16, 'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'; quote is from Psalm 83:8).

DID THE ASSYRIANS INVADE EUROPE?

Yes! Jerome said so! But how did he know?

He saw them! He was an eyewitness to their migrations from Mesopotamia and the shores of the Black and Caspian seas!

Now consider what Sylax, the author of the 'Periplus,' who lived about 550 B.C., writes of the southern shores of the Black Sea: 'The coast of the Black Sea ... is called Assyria' (from page 261 of Perrot and Chipiez's 'History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria and Asia Minor', Vol. II.) From there the Assyrians moved north.

Only 300 years before Jerome, the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder declared the 'Assyriani' -- the Assyrians -- were dwelling north of the Black Sea ('Natural History', IV, 12, page 183). But the Assyrians did not remain there. They are not there today. of course not -- they migrated into Central Europe -- where the Germans live today!

WHAT DID ASSYRIANS LOOK LIKE?

What did the ancient Assyrians look like? Here is the answer: 'In the Zagros hills and across the plain to the Tigris, there lived a ... fair-haired ... people akin to the Guti (the Goths) who ... remained in what was afterwards Assyria, the neighbour land to Akkad' (page 5 of 'The Sumerians', by C. Leonard Woolley).

When the ancient Greek writers wanted to distinguish the Assyrians and their Hebrew captives from the Arameans or Syrians, the Greeks often called both Assyrians and their Hebrew captives 'Leucosyri' -- meaning 'whites' or 'blonds' as distinct from the very brunette Syrians who still live in Mesopotamia.

WHY GERMANS CALL THEMSELVES 'DEUTSCH'

The Germans do not call themselves 'German.' They refer to themselves as Deutschen, and to their country as Deutschland.

When the Assyrians or Germans appeared in Europe, they claimed Tuitsch as their ancestor! That is where the name 'Deutsch' comes from!

'Tuysco, the most ancient and peculiar god of all the Germans ... of this Tuisco, the first and chiefest man of many among the Germans, and after whom they do call themselves Tuytshen, that is, duytshes or duytsh people, I have already spoken.' So writes Verstegan in his 1605 publication entitled 'Restitution of Decayed Intelligence: in Antiquities'.

Whenever a German calls himself Deutsch, he is therefore saying he is a descendant of Tuitsch (Tuisco or Tuisto in Latin). And when he terms his country Deutschland, he is saying his land is Tuitsch's land. Who this Tuitsch is will be made plain in Chapter II.

WHAT LANGUAGE DID THEY SPEAK

European scholars have thoroughly studied the language of the land of Hatti -- the ancestors of the Hessians. It is an Indo-Germanic tongue -- numerous words of which were akin to Old High German. So many similarities were found that Edgar Sturtevant had to declare: 'To me it seems incredible that so remarkable a situation developed in two languages independently. I feel compelled to trace the Germanic ... to a common origin' with the language of Hatti -- common tongue of the Assyrians in Asia Minor (from 'A Comparative Grammar', page 240).

Scholars admit that for centuries the language of the people who inhabited Assyria was not merely Semitic. Semitic was the late literary language of Assyria -- the language of scholars, the language of international commerce. Modern historians and archaeologists assume that the common tongue of all Assyrian people was Semitic. They have no proof. So noted an Assyriologist as Sydney Smith admitted '... that the documents from Asia Minor and from east of Tigris are couched in Semitic dialects spoken by men unable to pronounce all the Semitic consonants ...' (p. xi, from 'Early History of Assyria to 1000 B.C.').

The same circumstance occurred during the Middle Ages all over Europe. The language of almost all European scholars -- and even their names -- until the time of the Protestant Reformation was Latin -- but Latin was not the common tongue of the people! Because most of the literature of Germany was in Latin during the Middle Ages does not proof that the common people spoke Latin.

SEMITIC BY RACE, NOT LANGUAGE

Asshur was a son of Shem. But after the tower of Babel, when the languages of the world were confused (Genesis 11), most Assyrians no longer spoke a Semitic tongue, but rather Indo-Germanic and related tongues! The Germans, therefore, are Semitic by race, but not by language!

In the days of Abraham, the Germans or Assyrians formed a great confederation of states or tribes, speaking several different languages (Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews', book I, ch. 9). One king of the Assyrians -- already discussed -- was 'Tidal, king of nations' (Genesis 14:1). The name Tidal is Indo-Germanic, not Semitic.

Most scholars have never been conscious of the fact that the use of the Semitic language in Assyria was due to the rising influence of the Aramaic people (Genesis 10:22) in Mesopotamia and certain of the sons of Abraham ('Antiquities', book I, ch. XV, sect. 1). So prominent did they become that Mesopotamia is called 'Padan-Aram' -- the plain of Aram -- in the Bible (Genesis 28:22).

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 1 Bibliography

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)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akurgal, Ekrem, 'The Art of the Hittites'. London, 1962.

Albright, William F., 'The Archaeology of Palestine', Baltimore, 1960.

Allen, Herbert J., 'Ssuma Chien's Historical Records', 'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,' April 1894, January and July 1895.

'Anatolian Studies'. 1951-. London.

Ancient and Modern Britons. (No author.) London, 1884.

'Ancient Egypt', 1914-1933. London.

'Antiquity a Quarterly Review of Archaeology'. 1927-. Gloucester, England.

Aston, W. G., 'Nihongi'. London, 1956.

Bellew, H. W., 'The Races of Afghanistan'. Calcutta, 1880.

Beloe, William, 'Herodotus, Translated From the Greek'. 4 vol. London, 1821.

'The Biblical Archaeologist'. Vol. I (1938)-. New Haven, Connecticut.

Blegen, C. W., 'Troy' ('Cambridge Ancient History, Fascicle 1'.), Cambridge, 1961.

Bosanguet, J. W., 'The Fall of Nineveh and the Reign of Sennacherib, Chronologically considered'. London, 1853.

Breasted, J. H., 'Ancient Records of Egypt'. 5 vol. Chicago, 1906.

Breasted, J. H., 'A History of Egypt'. New York, 1905.

Brinton, D. G., 'The American Race'. New York, 1891.

Brinton, Daniel G., 'The Myths of the New World'. Philadelphia, 1905.

Brugsch-Bey, H., 'Egypt Under the Pharaohs'. London, 1891.

Bryant, Jacob, 'A New System; or, an Analysis of Ancient Mythology'. Third Edition. 3 vols. London, 1807.

Budge, E. A. Wallis, 'The Book of the Kings of Egypt'. 2 vols. London, 1908.

Budge, E. A., Wallis, 'A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII. B.C. 30', 8 vols. London, 1902.

'Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research'. No. 1-. New Haven, Connecticut.

Bunsen, C. C. J., 'Egypt's Place in Universal History'. 5 vols. London, 1848.

Burn, Andrew R., 'The Lyric Age of Greece', New York, 1960.

Bury, J. B.; Cook, S. A.; Adcock, F. E., 'The Cambridge Ancient History'. 12 vols. Cambridge, 1923.

Cary, Earnest, 'The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus'. The Loeb Classical Library, 7 volumes. London, 1948-.

Ceram, C. W., 'The Secret of the Hittites', New York, 1956.

Clark, Grahame, 'World Prehistory', Cambridge, 1961.

Clerigh, Arther Ua, 'The History of Ireland to the Coming of Henry II'. London.

Clinton, Henry Fynes, Fasti Hellenici. 'The Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece from the earliest accounts to the death of Augustus'.

Contenau, G., 'La Civilisation des Hittites et des Hurrites du Mitanni'. 1948.

Dawkins, W. B., 'Early Man in Britain'. London, 1880.

Dawson, Christopher, 'The Age of the Gods. A study in the Origins of Culture in Prehistoric Europe and the Ancient East'. New York, 1928.

Domenech, Em., 'Deserts of North America'. London, 1860.

Dougherty, R. P., 'The Sealand of Ancient Arabia'. New Haven, 1932.

Drioton E. and J. Vandier, 'Peuples de l'Orient Mediterraneen I and II (L'Egypte)'. Paris, 1952.

Duruy, Victor, 'History of Rome and the Roman People'. 6 vols. London, 1883.

Edgerton, W. F. and J. A. Wilson, 'Historical Records of Rameses III'. Chicago, 1936.

Eggermont, P. H. L., 'The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya'. Leiden, 1956.

Ehrich, Robert W., 'Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology'. Chicago, 1954.

Elgood, Lieut.-Col. P. G., 'Later Dynasties of Egypt'. Oxford, 1951.

Enderbie, Percy, 'Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre Shewing the Origen and Antiquity of that Illustrious Nation.' London, 1661.

Eyre, Edward, 'European Civilization. Its Origen and Development'. 7 vols. London, 1935.

Fane, R. A. B. Ponsonby, 'The Imperial House of Japan'. Kyoto, 1959.

Gadd, C. J., 'The Fall of Nineveh'. London, 1923.

Gardiner, Sir Alan, 'Egypt of the Pharaohs'. Oxford, 1961.

Gardner, Percy, 'New Chapters in Greek History'. New York, 1892.

Garstang, John, 'The Land of the Hittites'. London, 1910.

Garstang, John and O. R. Gurney, 'The Geography of the Hittite Empire'. London, 1959.

Ghirshman, R., 'Iran from the Earliest Times to the Islamic Conquest'. Baltimore, 1954.

Giot, P. R., 'Brittany'. London, 1960.

Glanville, S. R. K., 'The Legacy of Egypt'., Oxford, 1942.

Glueck, Nelson, 'The Other Side of the Jordan'. New Haven, Connecticut, 1940.

Glueck, Nelson, 'Rivers in the Desert'. London, 1959.

Granet, Marcel, 'Chinese Civilization'. New York, 1958.

Grote, George, 'History of Greece'. 12 vols. London, 1851.

Gurney, O. R., 'The Hittites', London, 1952.

Hall, H. R., 'The Ancient History of the Near East'. London, 1913.

Hawkes, Jacquetta and Christopher, 'Prehistoric Britain'. London, 1958.

Hayes, William C., 'A Papyrus of The Late Middle Kingdom'. Brooklyn, 1955.

Hayes, William C., 'The Scepter of Egypt'. 2 vols. New York, 1953.

Helm, Rudolf, 'Eusebius Werke -- Die Chronik des Hieronymus Hieronymi Chronicon'. Leipzig, 1913.

Herrmann, Paul, 'Conquest By Man'. New York, 1954.

Hibben, F. C., 'Digging Up America'. New York, 1960.

Hodge, F. W., 'Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico'. 2 vols. New York, 1959.

Hodges, E. R., 'Cory's Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Other Authors', London, 1876.

'The Holy scriptures according to the Masoretic Text'. The Jewish Publication Society. Philadelphia, 1917.

Horn, Siegfried H. and Lynn H. Wood, 'The Chronology of Ezra 7'. Washington, D. C., 1953.

Hrozny, Bedrich, 'Ancient History of Western Asia, India and Crete'. New York, 1953.

Hutchinson, R. W., 'Prehistoric Crete', Baltimore, 1962.

Huxley, G. L., 'Achaeans and Hittites'. Oxford, 1960.

Huxley, G. L., 'Early Sparta'. London, 1962.

Jackson, John, 'Chronological Antiquities'. 3 vols. London, 1752.

Jacobsen, Thorkild, 'The Sumerian King List'. Chicago, 1939.

Jessel, E. E., 'The Unknown History of the Jews'. London, 1909.

Jones, George, 'An Original History of Ancient America'. London, 1843.

'Journal of Cuneiform Studies'. vol. I (1947)-. New Haven, Connecticut.

'The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology'. vol. I (1914)-. London.

'The Journal of Hellenic Studies'. 1881-. London.

'Journal of Near Eastern Studies'. (Previously 'The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures', Volumes I-LVIII, and Hebraica.) vol. I (1942)-. Chicago.

Kaempfer, E., 'The History of Japan'. 3 vols. Glascow, 1906.

Keating, Geoffrey, 'History of Ireland', New York, 1857.

Kenyon, Kathleen, 'Archaeology in the Holy Land'. London, 1960.

Kienitz, Friedrich K., 'Die Politische Geschichte Aegyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert von der Zeitwende'. Berlin, 1953.

King, Leonard W., 'A History of Babylon', London, 1915.

Lane-Poole, Stanley. 'The Mohammadan Dynasties'. Paris, 1925.

Langdon, S. and J. K. Fotheringham, 'The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga'. London, 1928.

Langdon, S. Y. and L. Ch. Watelin, 'Excavations at Kish'. 4 vols. Paris, 1924-1934.

Langer, William L., 'An Encyclopedia of World History'. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1952.

Legge, James, 'The Chinese Classics'. 7 vols. Hongkong, 1861.

Lempriere, J., 'A Classical Dictionary'. London, 1832.

Lenormant, Francois, 'Histoire ancienne de L'Orient'. 5 vol. Paris, 1881.

Leslie, Lieut.-Col. Forbes, 'The Early Races of Scotland'. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1866.

Logan, James, 'The Scottish Gael', 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1876.

Lorimer, H. L., 'Homer and the Monuments'. London, 1950.

Luckenbill, D. D., 'Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia'. 2 vols. Chicago.

Lysons, Samuel, 'Our British Ancestors'. London, 1865.

Macalister, R. A. S., 'The Archaeology of Ireland'. London, 1949.

Mackenzie, Donald A., 'Myths of Crete and Pre-Hellenic Europe'. London.

Mahaffy, J. P., 'The Empire of the Ptolemies'. New York, 1895.

Majumdar, R. C., 'The History and Culture of the Indian People'. Vols. 1 and 2. Bombay, 1951.

Martin, P. S. and Quimby, G. I. and Collier, D. 'Indians before Columbus'. Chicago, 1947.

Maspero, G., 'The Dawn of Civilization'. London, 1894.

Maspero, G., 'History of Egypt'. 13 vols. London.

Maspero, G., 'The Passing of the Empires'. New York, 1900.

Maspero, G., 'The Struggle of the Nations Egypt, Syria, and Assyria'. London, 1896.

Meer, P. Van der, 'The Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt'. Leiden, 1955.

Menzel, Wolfgang, 'The History of Germany'. 3 vols. London, 1848.

Mercer, S. A. B., 'The Tell El-Amarna Tablets'. 2 vols. Toronto, 1939.

Meyer, Eduard, 'Aegyptische Chronologie', Berlin, 1904.

Meyer, Eduard, 'Geschichte des Altertums'. 5 vols. Basel, 1953.

Meyerowitz, E. L. R., 'Akan Traditions of Origin'. London, 1952.

Meyerowitz, E. L. R., 'The Divine Kingship in Ghana and Ancient Egypt'. London, 1960.

Minns, Ellis, H., 'Scythians and Greeks'. Cambridge, 1913.

Mosso, Angelo, 'The Dawn of Mediterranean Civilization'. London, 1910. 'The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities'. 1929-. Stockholm.

Mylonas, G. E., 'Ancient Mycenae the Capital City of Agamemnon'. London, 1957.

O'Flaherty, Roderic, 'Ogygia, or, A Chronological Account of Irish Events'. Dublin, 1793.

Oldfather, C. H., 'Diodorus of Sicily'. The Loeb Classical Library. 10 vols. London, 1933-.

Olmstead, A. T., 'History of the Persian Empire'. Chicago, 1959.

'Orientalia', Vol. I-. Rome.

Pallis, Svend Aage, 'Chronology of The Shub-Ad Culture', Copenhagen, 1941.

Palmer, Leonard R., 'Mycenaeans and Minoans'. London, 1961.

Parker, R. A. and W. H. Dubberstein, 'Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75'. Providence, Rhode Island, 1956.

Perkins, Ann L., 'The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia'. Chicago, 1949.

Petrie, Sir W. M. Flinders, 'Abydos'. 3 vols. London, 1902-4.

Petrie, Sir W. M. Flinders, 'A History of Egypt'. 3 vols. New York, 1899-1905.

Petrie, Sir W. M. F., 'Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties'. 2 vols. London, 1900-1.

Piggot, Stuart, 'Approach to Archaeology'. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1959.

Poebel, Arno, 'The Second Dynasty of Isin According to a New King-List Tablet'. Chicago, 1955.

Posener, Georges, 'A Dictionary of Egyptian Civilization'. London, 1962.

Pott, F. L. H., 'A Sketch of Chinese History'. Shanghai, 1923.

Pritchard, James B., 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts'. Princeton, 1955.

Pumpelly, R., 'Explorations in Turkestan'. 2 vols. Washington, D. C., 1908.

Ramsay, Sir William M., 'Asianic Elements in Greek Civilization'. London, 1927.

Raphael, Max, 'Prehistoric Pottery and Civilization in Egypt'. New York, 1947.

Rawlinson, George, 'Egypt and Babylon from Sacred and Profane Sources'. New York, 1885.

Rawlinson, George, 'The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World'. 3 vols. New York, 1873.

Rawlinson, George, 'History of Ancient Egypt'. 2 vols. London, 1881.

Rawlinson, George, 'History of Herodotus'. 4 vols. London, 1862.

Rawlinson, George, 'History of Phoenicia'. London, 1889.

Rawlinson, George, 'A Manual of Ancient History'. New York, 1878.

Rawlinson, George, 'The Origin of Nations', London, 1877.

Rogers, R. W., 'A History of Babylonia and Assyria'. 2 vols. New York, 1902.

Sammes, Aylett, 'Britannia Antiqua Illustrata: or. the Antiquities of Ancient Britain'. London, 1676.

Sandys, John E., 'A History of Classical Scholarship'. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1903.

Sayce, A. H., 'The Races of the Old Testament.' London, 1891.

Schaeffer, Claude F. A., 'Stratigraphie Comparee et Chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale'. London, 1948.

Schmidtke, F., 'Der Aufbau der Babylonischen Chronologie'. Muenster, 1952.

Schoene, Alfred, 'Eusebi Chronicorum'. Berlin, 1875.

Sharpe, Samuel, 'The Early History of Egypt, from The Old Testament, Herodotus, Manetho, and the Hieroglyphical Inscriptions'. London, 1836.

Shotwell, J. T., 'An Introduction to the History of History', New York, 1922.

Smith, Sidney, 'Early History of Assyria'. London, 1928.

Smith, Sir William, 'A Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology, and Geography'. New York, 1894.

Starr, Chester G., 'The Origins of Greek Civilization 1100-650 B.C.', London, 1962.

Stock, Hanns, 'Die erste Zwischenzeit Aegyptens'. Rome, 1949.

Stokvis, A.-M.-H.-J. 'Manuel d'Histoire, de genealogie et de Chronologie de tous les Etats du globe'. 3 vols. Leiden, 1888.

Stone, J. F. S., 'Wessex Before the Celts'. New York, 1958.

Ten Cate, H. J. Houwink, 'The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera During the Hellenistic Period'. Leiden, 1961.

'An Universal History, From the Earliest Account of Time'. 20 vols. London, 1747.

Vacano, Otto-Wilhelm von, 'The Etruscans in the Ancient World'. London, 1960.

Velikovsky, Immanuel, 'Ages in Chaos'. New York, 1952.

Velikovsky, Immanuel, 'Oedipus and Akhnaton', New York, 1960.

Vieyra, Maurice, 'Hittite Art 2300-750 B.C.', London, 1955.

Wace, A. J. B. and M. S. Thompson, 'Prehistoric Thessaly', Cambridge, 1912.

Waddell, W. G., 'Manetho', The Loeb Classical Library. London, 1940.

Wathen, G. H., 'Arts, Antiquities and Chronology of Ancient Egypt'. London, 1843.

Webster, T. B. L., 'From Mycenae to Homer'. London, 1958.

Weigall, Arthur, 'A History of the Pharaohs'. 2 vols. London, 1925.

Whiston, W., 'The Complete Works of Josephus'.

Wiener, Leo, 'Africa and the Discovery of America'. 3 vol. Philadelphia, 1920.

Wilkinson, Sir J. G., 'The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians'. 3 vols. London, 1878.

Williams, F. W., 'A History of China'. New York, 1901.

Winlock, H. E., 'The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes'. New York, 1947.

Wiseman, D. J., 'Chronicle of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.)'. London, 1956.

Wright, G. Ernest, editor, 'The Bible and the Ancient Near East'. New York, 1961.

Wright, G. Ernest, 'Biblical Archaeology'. Philadelphia, 1957.

Wright, G. Ernest, 'The Pottery of Palestine From the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age'. New Haven, Connecticut, 1937.

Wylie, J. A., 'History of the Scottish Nation'. 3 vols. London, 1886.

September 25, 2011
1
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 1 Chapter 19

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 NINETEEN

Early Britain and Western Europe

Why does the history of Western Europe begin with the Romans? Eastern Asia's history begins with the chinese over 22 centuries before the birth of christ. Africa's history commenced along the Nile equally early. So did Mesopotamia's. Greek history commenced with the government of Heber in 2063. Irish history reaches into the dim past to within three centuries after the Flood. Why should the history of continental western Europe be so different? Was Europe really uninhabited all this time? If inhabited, were its people the only folk unable to write or preserve a history? For even backward people of India have a recorded chronological history beginning 1649 before the present era!

The Enigma Solved

Surprising though it may be, Western Europe does have an ancient written history! Europe was populated -- albeit sparcely -- by numerous tribes who were indeed able to preserve their remarkable past in written form. This history of early western Europe was included in some texts as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century! Yet today it is almost wholly unknown! It has been literally erased from the consciousness of men.

The people who preserved the history of early Western Europe until modern times were the Welsh and the Germans. Because of bitter jealousies between the English and the Welsh and Germans, the history of early Europe and Britain -- especially Wales -- was finally extirpated from the English school system. English historians did everything in their power to label this history as 'myth.' Educators around the world, enamoured of the theory of evolution, gradually accepted, without seriously questioning, the conclusions of the English historians. How could early Europe ever have had a written history, so went the reasoning, if Europe was still gripped by the fetters of the 'Stone Age' at the time Egypt and Mesopotamia were near the end of the 'Late Bronze Age'?

Today, however, leading archaeologists admit that the so-called Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages were not ages at all, but cultures. It is time the whole question of myth, archaeology and early European history were reopened. It is time we asked ourselves what is the time relationship between so-called Stone, Bronze and Iron cultures and written history. Did civilization and writing really begin only with the bronze period, as is commonly assumed today? Or were the first civilizations and the earliest written records the products of people who, in fact, had not yet blossomed into what is today termed the bronze period? In what period, for example, did the Hebrew patriarchs live -- the Stone? the Chalcolithic? the Early Bronze?

To answer these basic questions, let us first present the history as it has been preserved by ancient Welsh and German authors.

Early Europe

Who were the earliest Europeans to inhabit the regions now known as Britain, France, Germany and Italy? The Angles and the Saxons -- the ancestors of the English-speaking people -- did not reach the British Isles until 449 -- over four centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus! This was the same period that other tribes flowed into the Roman regions of France, Germany, Italy -- and most everywhere else in Western Europe. Who were the people that possessed this part of the world before the coming of the recent Europeans, and before the coming of the Romans?

The history of Western Europe 2000 years before the conquests of Julius Caesar is just as surprising as the history of Ireland. Early volumes covering this period include: 'Britannia Antiqua Illustrata: or, The Antiquities of Ancient Britain', by Aylett Sammes, 1676, London, Thomas Roycroft publishers: 'The Historie of Cambria, now called Wales: A part of the most famous Yland of Brytannie, written in the Brytish lanquage above two hundred years past': translated into English by H. Lhoyd, 1584; and 'Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre shewing the Origen and Antiquity of that illustrious Nation', by Bercy Enderbie, London, 1661.

The first volume mentioned -- by Aylett Sammes -- is by far the most complete and most accurate. It preserved to the very year the entire period from the beginning of settlement to the coming of Caesar. Sammes begins his book by dating the earliest record as 'A.M. 1910.' As he follows Archbishop ussher, his date is equivalent to 2094. (That is, After Man 1910 in Sammes' terminology means 1910 years after 4004.)

What is the significance of 2094? That date, famous from Mesopotamian history, is the beginning of the kingdom of Horus (Gilgamesh or Ninyas) in the land of Shinar. In 2094 Horus (Kenkenes), the son of Ninus II, left Egypt to restore the government of Nimrod, in Erech in Babylonia.

Sammes himself recognized a direct connection between the Middle East and Western Europe. The history of Western Europe, in fact, begins with the kingship of Gilgamesh in 2094 in Shinar.

But why should the early Europeans have begun their history with an event in the land of Shinar?

Because it was in the land of Shinar that they were living when Horus arrived from Egypt! It was from Shinar that Horus, or Zames Ninyas, led them to Western Europe.

Ancient Belgian and German records confirm that their oldest city, Trier, was founded by Trebeta another son of Ninus II, king of Assyria. The inhabitants of Trier maintain that their city is the oldest in all Europe,' records Josef K. L. Bihl in his text 'In deutschen Landen', p. 69. 'Trier was founded,' he continues. 'by Trebeta, a son of the famous Assyrian king Ninus. In fact one finds ... in Trier the inscription reading, 'Trier existed for 1300 years before Rome was rebuilt.''

Trebeta was a half-brother of Horus or Ninyas. His mother was not Semiramis, but a daughter of the ruler of Armenia. The Welsh or Britons knew Zames Ninyas as Samothes.

The migration from Shinar and the Assyrian realm in Mesopotamia shortly after 2094 brought Chaldeans and Assyrians, and probably Elamites as captive slaves, into Western Europe as its first civilized inhabitants. Thereafter Europe became the land to which Chaldeans and Assyrians continued to migrate as they left the Middle East.

Horus continued his rule in Western Europe until 2048, according to the traditions preserved by Sammes. That was the year his mother by duplicity came to the throne of Assyria. See Syncellus' history of Assyria, where Semiramis is assigned a 42-year reign (2048-2006) immediately prior to the 38-year reign of Zames Ninyas (2006-1968). Zames or Samothes relinquished personal dominion over Western Europe to his son in that year and returned to Assyria, where a lengthy three-way struggle ensued between himself, his mother and the king of Armenia.

Here are the first kings to rule over Western Europe.

Names of Rulers according to Sammes	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Samothes, also called Zeus or Jupiter (the Gilgamesh of Erech)	46	2094-2048
Magus, his son (the ancestor of the tribe of Magi who later migrated into Persia from Europe)	51	2048-1997
Sarron (the ancestor of the tribe of Sarronides or sacrificing priests of early Europe)	61	1997-1936
Druis (the ancestor of the tribe of Druids)	14	1936-1922
Bardus (the father of the ancient tribe of Bards)	75	1922-1847
Longho, conqueror of Scandanavia (ancestor of the Longobards who finally migrated into Italy after the fall of Rome)	28	1847-1819
Bardus II (by whom the principles of music were first taught in Germany)	37	1819-1782
Lucus Protector	11	1782-1771
Celtes, so famous he gave his name to all the early peoples of Western Europe	13	1771-1758

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

With Celtes the direct male line of kings from Samothes or Horus ceases.

The Heraclidae Kings

In the next chart will appear the line of kings who sprang from Galathea.

Names of Kings	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Hercules, the conqueror of Libya (a full account of his exploits must await Vol. II of Compendium)	19	1758-1739
Galathes (father of the tribe of the Galli)	49	1739-1690
Narbon (ruled Samothea or Britain during lifetime of his father: afterward governed entire realm from city of Narbon in Gaul)	18	1690-1672
Lugdus (the founder of Lugdunum)	51	1672-1621
Beligius (gave his name to the Beligici, later called Belgae, among whom he established his capital; he died without issue)	20	1621-1601
Jasius (a prince of a related line who, in 1602, had been made king of Italy; he had all Celtica under his rule)	68	1601-1551
Allobrox (Obtained Celtica upon death of his father; his brother Corybantus obtained Italy)	68	1551-1483
Romus	29	1483-1454
Paris	39	1454-1415
Lemanes	62	1415-1353
Olbius	5	1353-1348
Galathes II	48	1348-1300
Namnes	44	1300-1256
Remus (died without a male heir; married his daughter to Phranicus of Trojan descent)	40	1256-1216
Phranicus (he retired to Gaul and left Britain to be governed by the Druids)	67	1216-1149

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

The Trojans and Western Europe

The story of the famous Trojan kings -- once so widely discussed in Greek literature -- is little known to history students today. It begins in the days of Jasius, or Jason, who became king of Celtica in 1601. The halfbrother of Jasius is Dardanus, whom Josephus declares to be Darda or Dara (See II Chronicles 2:6). Darda was of the House of Judah and the Trojan kings therefore were Jews! Following a quarrel Dardanus fled to Asia Minor, married the daughter of a native king, and founded the vital fort of Troy.

Thus the Trojan line of kings -- to be discussed in detail in Vol. II of the Compendium -- were able to dominate Western Asia Minor. The Trojans were generally supported by the Assyrians in all their wars against the Greeks. The line of Trojan kings may be found on page 12 of Enderbie's 'Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre'.

Kings of Troy to 1181	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Dardanus (Compare the date 1477 with Eusebius' account of Dynasty XV in Egypt)	65	1477-1412
Erictanus	46	1412-1366
Tros	40	1366-1326
Ilus	49	1326-1277
Laomedon	44	1277-1233
Priamus (Priam)	52	1233-1181

In 1181 the Trojans were crushed in the First Trojan War with Greece. Aeneas, of the royal famlly, fled to Italy. A son, Brutus, expelled from Italy returned to the Aegean area and organized the enslaved Trojans, Lydians and Maeonians. The Greeks were defeated and Troy was recaptured. With the recapture of Troy in 1149 the list of Sea Powers of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean began. According to the terms of the treaty with the Greeks Brutus migrated, with all who wished to follow him, via the Mediterranean into Britain.

His sons continued to rule ancient Britain, and on occasion vast areas of the continent. The line of Brutus fell in a fratricidal war in 482.

Line of Brutus	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Brutus	24	1149-1125
Locrine	20	1125-1105
Madan	40	1105-1065
Mempricius	20	1065-1045
Ebranck	40	1045-1005

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

Brute II	12	1005-993
Leil	25	993-968
Lud	39	968-929
Baldud	20	929-909
Leir	60	909-849
Cordeilla, queen	5	849-844
Cunedag and Margan	33	844-811
Rival	46	811-765
Gurgust	84	765-681
Silvius	49	681-632
Jago	28	632-604
Kimmacus	54	604-550
Gorbodug	63	550-487
Ferrex and Porrex	5	487-482

These two sons of Gorbodug perished in a fratricidal struggle after 5 years. Thus the direct line of Aeneas and Brutus ceased -- as the Trojan line through Aeneas and Ascanius perished in Italy in 509, only 27 years before.

After the death of Porrex and Ferrex the land of Britain was divided among Rudaucus, king of Wales; Clotenus, king of Cornwall; Pinor. king of Loegria; Statorius, king of Albania, and Yevan, king of Northumberland for 48 years -- 482-434.

The total duration of the struggle that ensued upon the death of Gorbodug was 53 years -- 487-434. In 434 Molmutius Dunvallo, son of Cloten, king of Cornwall, unified the kingdom. (The ancestry of Cloten is unrecorded). He enacted remarkable laws and was the first prince of Britain to be installed with the rites and ceremonies of Coronation. He wore a golden crown and other ornaments of solemn inauguration, a custom unknown by his predecessors. This new line of kings ruled till the coming of Julius Caesar in 55.

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

Line of British Kings from Molmutius	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Molmutius	40	434-394
Belinus and Brennus	22	394-372
Gurguint	19	372-353
Guintelyn	26	353-327
Silvius II or Silisius	15	327-312
Kimarus	3	312-309
Elanius or Danius	10	309-299
Morindus	9	299-290
Gorboman	10	290-280
Archigallo	1	280-279
Elidure his brother	3	279-276
Archigallo restored	10	276-266
Elidurus again	1	266-265
Vigenius and Peridurus	9	265-256
Elidurus again	4	256-252
Gorbonian	10	252-242
Morgan	14	242-228
Emerianus	7	228-221
Ydwallo	20	221-201
Rimo	16	201-185
Geruntius	20	185-165
Gatellus	10	165-155
Coilus	10	155-145
Perrox II	5	145-140
Cherimus	1	140-139
Fulgentius	1	139-138
Eldred	1	138-137
Androgeus	1	137-136
Urianus	3	136-133
Elihud	5	133-128
Dedantius, or Dedacus	5	128-123
Detonus	2	123-121
Gurguineus	3	121-118
Merianus	2	118-116
Bleduus, or Bladud	2	116-114
Capenus	3	114-111
Ovinus	2	111-109
Sisilius	2	109-107
Bledgabedrus	10	107- 97
Archimalus	2	97- 95
Eldolus	4	95- 91
Rodianus	2	91- 89
Redargius	3	89- 86
Samulius	2	86- 84
Penisillus	3	84- 81
Phyrrus	2	81- 79
Caporius	2	79- 77
Dinellus	4	77- 73
Heli	1	73- 72
Lud	11	72- 61

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

The Testimony of Archaeology

Having thrown out the early history of Europe and Britain, historians have sought archaeology as the only remaining means of unravelling early European history. But archaeology alone is insufficient.

What historians should have done was to combine the evidence of scientific archaeological research with the testimony of written history. Then they would have known the time, the people and the leaders whose mute testimony they have uncovered from the soil. Consider, for a moment, what archaeologists have to report concerning early Britain. Take special note of the vocabulary they must use in order to clarify themselves.

The first substantial migration to British soil, report archaeologists Jaquetta and Christopher Hawkes in 'Prehistoric Britain', page 8, was of 'Neolithic' long-headed farmers. When they came, who they really were, how long they resided until the succeeding migration -- these and other questions can only be guessed at. The second migratory wave to reach British shores were a round-headed, 'bronze-culture' folk whom archaeologists have dubbed 'Beaker Folk', or 'Bell-beaker Folk.' But all this jargon does not really tell who they were. How would you know who a people really were if all you were told was that they were a 'Food-Vessel folk,' a 'Tea-kettle folk', or a 'Beerbottle People'? Or used buttons instead of zippers?

After this, archaeologists declare, came an 'Urn People,' later a 'Deverel-Rimbury' invasion followed by a 'La Tene' invasion -- and at length Julius Caesar's invasion in 55. Is it not time that sober historians cease fooling themselves by supposed knowledge that is, by itself, really no knowledge?

Now see how clear this evidence becomes when placed side-by-side with written history. In the succeeding chart is the evidence -- couched in scientific Jargon -- as recovered by archaeology, combined with the written history of Britain -- as preserved in historical sources.

Archaeological Parlance	Testimony of Written History
Paleolithic period	Remains of pre-flood world, lasted 1656 years to 2369-2368
Mesolithic period; Britain becomes an island; Maglemose semi-arctic culture	Latest pre-flood and earliest post-flood hunters migrate through Britain
'Neolithic' period; several subdivisions; farmers bring fertility cult; megalithic period	Arrival in Western Europe of Chaldeans(Hebrews) and Assyrians from Shinar under Samothes, or Zames Ninyas -- shortly after 2094; continues through several centuries; climaxes in Megalithic sites of Tuatha De Daanan after 1457 (see Irish history)
'Early Bronze': 'Beaker Folk'; round-headed; largely nomadic	Coming of Brutus and of Troy and Trojan heroes in 1149; Trojans were acquainted with Aegean civilization; peacefully penetrated land; cremated their dead and put ashes in urns for burial -- a custom common to Asia Minor
Rise of 'Wessex chieftains' and 'Urn People'; trade with Minoan civilization of Crete; period begins as 'Early Bronze,' followed by transition into 'Middle Bronze' culture	Time of expansion under Ebranck in Solomon's day

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

'Deverel-Rimbury' invasions in so-called 'Late Bronze' period; gradually replace 'Urn People'	A new, but related, people invade British Isles during days of Silvius (681-632) and Jaso (632- 604); see Sammes' 'Antiquities of Ancient Britain', p. 170; these were first wave of children of Jacob (Esau's brother) who were uprooted by Assyrians
So-called 'Early Iron' immigrants penetrate into Britain; in after years early pastoral 'Urn People' migrate out of Britain to Brittany in France	Another wave of same people who invaded in days of Silvius and Jaso now peroclate into Britain: civil war results; old line of kings overthrown and perish in 482: civil war ends in 434 with new line of kings
Another wave of 'Early Iron' invaders; originally from region of Austria and Moravia, migrants passed through Gaul and became known among archaeologists as 'La Tene' people from site of their culture in Gaul	In days of Morindus, king of Britain (299-290), invaders from Gaul attack Britain named 'Morini' or 'Moriani' in welsh records -- from whence Moravia, their original homeland, is derived; King Morindus defeats them after they had already overrun much of the country (Sammes' 'Antiquities', pp. 175-176); from archaeology comes this testimony: 'The determined and organized resistance to aggression ... discouraged the La Tene raiders and prevented them from settling in any force on the southern chalk .... no wholly La Tene type of society was established' (p. 126 of Hawkes' 'Prehistoric Britain')

And that is how history provides a clear explanation of archaeological findings. Of course the idea that iron was not in use until the 'Iron Age' is absurd. Yet this is the idea that most laymen have as a result of using such terminology.

Since much of the early history of Britain is interwoven with ancient Troy, the next chapter will present the archaeological results of the excavation at Troy, side-by-side with the record of history, especially the historical list of Sea Powers that seized upon Troy as a key to controlling the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean and Black seas.

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 1 Chapter 20

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 TWENTY

The Proof of Archaeology

Troy was an ancient fort-city occupied from antiquity into Roman times. Troy was as important in early trade routes as Suez or Singapore were in the nineteenth century to the far-flung British Empire. Each people who possessed political control of Troy remoulded the city after its own image. Nearly every twenty to twenty-five years -- about every generation -- a thorough rebuilding of the site occurred. The foundations of major buildings and often the entire floors were left IN SITU and piled upon them were the remains of the demolished buildings, with all the broken wares of that generation. With each passing age the mound on which Troy was built became higher and higher. Walls about the city rose in proportion.

Today archaeologists dig down through these buried remains and find one cultural level beneath another. The lower is in each instance the older unless a late building has been sunk deep into the mound. Periods without occupation are obvious from signs of extended erosion. According to modern historical ideas there should be an immence gap -- of about 500 years between the fall of Troy and the rebuilding of the city by the Aetolian Greeks in the 600's. The fragmentary remains of life between the final war stratum and the Aetolian city proof there was no more than the lapse of a few years! In other words the final Fall of Troy was in the early 600's, not the early 1100's.

Archaeologists have numbered each major period of occupation at the site of Troy. Beginning from the top down -- through Roman, Hellenistic and Persian periods -- one soon comes to the Greek settlements that immediately succeeded the temporary Trojan village established after the final war. The sequence of strata is continuous. If archaeologists had been honest with what they saw they could have concluded no other fact than that established already in the historical section of this Compendium.

In the left-hand column, on the following pages, are the numbers used by archaeologists to designate the strata from the top of the mound to the virgin rock below. At the right are comments about the meaning of each numbered building period, with the proper dates.

Archaeological Designation of Superimposed Deposits at Site of Ancient Troy	The Explanation of Trojan History from Classical Writers and Biblical Evidence
Beneath Roman, Hellenistic and Persian remains is a period of Greek settlement corresponding to the Late Assyrian and Chaldean Empires. Immediately under this -- NOT FIVE CENTURIES EARLIER -- appear the following strata, as labeled by archaeologists
VII b 1: post-war settlers	Trojan stragglers temporarily resettle site after Third Trojan War
VII a; seige layer over- lying city remains, preceded by earth- quake; this stratum said to end 'Late Bronze' period	Third Trojan War (687-677) involved a 10 year siege; (this stratum includes previous city built after great earthquake (710) related to events in Hezekiah's day (Isaiah 38: 7-8); Carian sea power became dominant beginning 707
VI h earthquake ends this stratum	City during Milesian Sea Power which began in 725
g f e beginning of so-called 'Late Bronze'	Three stages of city 'g' through 'e' reflect control of Egyptians for 43 years (768- 725) and the Phoenician for 45 years (813-768)
d end of 'Middle Bronze' c	Cyprus controls the Troad as a key to sea power for 32 years (845-813); two levels reflect major changes during period in Egypt and the Aegean world at Argos
b	Phrygian sea power in control of Troy for 25 years (870-845): Phrygians were allies of Kingdom of Hatti in Asia Minor
a beginning of so- called 'Middle Bronze'	Rhodes in control 23 years (893-870); culture of Greek world and Asia Minor replaces that of previous European people
V d traditional end of 'Early Bronze' in the Troad c b a	Four building periods during rule of European Thracians for 79 years (972-893); the people of Thrace at this period were civilized, cultured farming people related to the Phrygians (Franks) and Pelasgians; in later centuries a wild people, given to hunting and rapine, temporarily settled in Thrace before being driven out of Western Europe in Roman times
IV e (intermittent earthquakes appear from time to time) d c b	Pelasgian sea control during four building periods; 85 years (1057-972); this is period of Solomonic, Davidic and Phoenician sea power in Mediterranean; upon revolt in House of Israel in Solomon's last year in Palestine the maritime power passed to Hebrew settlements in Thrace
IV a -- a layer immediately overlying devastation by a tremendous earthquake III d ends in earthquake c b III a commonly designated as beginning of 'Early Bronze 3' period	Five building periods elapsed under Maeonian, or Lydian, control of the seas (during close of Hyksos period); layer III d ended in terrible earthquake of 1069 (I Samuel 14:15 and II Sam. 22); total period from 'III a' to 'IV a' covers 92 years (1149-1057); the year 1149 (at which III a begins) marks Greek defeat which ended Second Trojan War and began Maeonian sea power
II g war layer ends period	Covers period of Greek domination from 1181-1149
f war layer ends period	End the period of the First Trojan War (1181)
e (Entire period from d 'II a' to 'II g' is c commonly referred to b as 'Early Bronze 2'; alayers 'a' to 'e', though divided into 5 parts, represent 10 building periods	Building periods 'II a' to 'II f' represent the lengthy period of Hyksos domination from 1477- 1181 (Troy was refounded in 1477 by Dardanus)
I (not less than 10 building periods, commonly referred to as 'Early Bronze 1')	The period of pre-Hyksos settlement; began in 1700's and ended with Hyksos conquest

Notice the general cultural relationship between Troy, in Asia Minor, and Britain in Western Europe (where many Trojans settled before finally migrating to Brittany).

The use in archaeology of the terms 'Early,' 'Middle,' and 'Late Bronze' and 'Iron,' is deceptive. Iron was used during Troy's 'Bronze' period. The fact is, archaeologists do not really use metals as a guide. Their cultural dating is dependent on pottery, whether or not metals are even present.

Scholars label certain cultures as 'Neolithic,' or 'CHALCOLITHIC,' OR 'BRONZE,' OR 'IRON' NOT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE, BUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THESE PARTICULAR CULTURES EXISTED DURING WHAT THEY ASSUME WERE THOSE 'AGES' OR 'PERIODS.'

Archaeology in the Aegean World

Historians have long puzzled over the archaeological evidence uncovered in the Aegean world and in Asia Minor. What they found did not fit their theories.

Here is what happened, and why. First historians made the mistake of assuming that the traditional framework of Egyptian history is true. They never questioned the scheme of having each Egyptian dynasty succeed the other. It never entered their minds that there may have been extensive periods in Egyptian history during which different dynasties in Upper and Lower Egypt reigned contemporaneously.

Once the false view of Egyptian history was accepted. archaeological evidence in Egypt was made to conform to it. The so-called 'Bronze' and 'Iron' ages, for example, were dated centuries too early. This had an immediate effect on archaeological studies in the Greek world.

In Egypt archaeological evidence is often associated with inscriptions that date the remains to a specific dynasty or Pharaoh. In the Greek world this is not the case. The kings of ancient Greece did not leave inscriptions. How then is one to properly associate the remains of a Greek palace with the king who reigned in it? The answer is, archaeologists can only guess.

What they attempt to do is date the Greek pottery by evidence from Egypt. The ancient world was a trading world. Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians traded their wares in each other's ports. Egyptian pottery found its way into Greece. Greek and Phoenician pottery into Egypt.

Pottery styles change. Each century or generation created its own distinctive pottery. If pottery remains in any one of these countries could be accurately dated, then of course it could be immediately determined what kind of pottery was contemporary in the other countries.

It was assumed that Egyptian pottery could be accurately dated. By noting what kind of Greek pottery was being traded at specific periods in Egypt. archaeologists thought they had arrived at the correct method of dating Greek pottery. They overlooked only one thing. Egyptian pottery is not correctly dated. Most of it is dated centuries too early. Pottery in the Aegean world and in Asia Minor is consequently dated too early also. Greek kings long dead came to be associated with palaces and pottery styles they never saw or dreamed of. Kings were assumed to be buried in tombs that belonged, in reality, to their descendants or to others living twenty generations later.

In Egypt this curious error could not occur, because archaeological remains included royal inscriptions associating the ruler with tomb, palace or pottery. In Greece there were no inscriptions to date remains. So pottery, tombs and palaces in Greece and Asia Minor were predated in accordance with Egyptian history, but the kings were either rejected as fabulous or were dated according to Greek chronologers who usually had the kings correctly dated.

Thus Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, who fought in the First Trojan War came to be associated with pottery of the Third Trojan War. The pottery was dated centuries too early because it was found in Egypt associated with remains of Dynasties XVIII and XIX which were dated centuries too early!

In the Aegean world archaeologists use the terms Early, Middle and Late Helladic (in Greece). or Early, Middle and Late Cycladic (in the Cyclades), or Early, Middle and Late Minoan (in Crete). Each of these are also sometimes designated Early, Middle and Late Bronze by archaeologists, Mycenaean culture in the Eastern Mediterranean is another name for the so-called Late Bronze period. It is commonly thought to have originated in Mycenae in Greece during this period. Hence its name. The Mycenaean culture is assumed, today, to be the Greek culture of the First Trojan War. This assumption is based on the fact that Mycenaean remains have been found in association with remains of Dynasties XVIII and XIX of Egypt which are dated five to six centuries too early. The previous chart on the archaeological remains of Troy proofs that the culture of Greece during the First Trojan war ending in 1181 was Early Bronze. The culture of Greece during the last Trojan War was Mycenaean. Hence Agamemnon is to be associated with Early Bronze (so-called) pottery, not with Mycenaean palaces which belonged to tyrants living centuries later!

Archaeologists contend that the Mycenaean world collapsed and was followed by so-called 'Dark Ages' in Greece. Traditional Greek geometric styles of pottery, it is assumed, returned to favor after falling into disuse during the Mycenaean period. Thege geometric styles, we are asked to believe, continued down to the Hellenistic period, around 331, when Alexander conquered Persia. In most archaeology books about eight and one half centuries are allowed between the end of the Mycenaean world and Alexander the Great. But the true restoration allows less than one and one half centuries. Here is an extraordinary variation of over seven centuries between traditional interpretations or archaeological evidence and the facts.

Have archaeologists really uncovered remains abundant enough to fill the extra seven centuries demanded by their theories? Were there really 'Dark Ages' that befell Greece at the close of the Mycenaean world?

Archaeologists have, of course, found the surprising evidence. But they have been unable to believe it. There simply are not enough material remains to fill the gap artificially created by antedating the Mycenaean world to conform to the false Egyptian scheme of history taken for granted today.

Chester G. Starr, in his book 'The Origins of Greek Civilization', admits on page 77 that 'only the scantiest of physical remains' exist to fill the gap. Now consider the facts.

The so-called Mycenaean or Late Bronze or Helladic culture has been subdivided by archaeologists into three major periods. The third period has been further subdivided into three parts. At the time of the final fall of Troy in 677 Greek imports were still of the late Helladic IIIB cultural style. This style continued well into the next century during the reign of Ramesses the Great (610-544). During his reign the Mycenaean pottery styles degenerated into sub-Mycenaean or IIIC pottery styles which continued even after the overthrow of Mycenae. Greek history tells us that Mycenae was destroyed in the 470's by Argos (see 'Oxford Classical Dictionary').

But this date does not mark the introduction of Geometric pottery into Greece. Archaeologist Wilhelm Doerpfeld in his work 'Alt-Olympia', published in 1935, proofs that excavators deliberately hid their eyes from the fact that Mycenaean wares were contemporary with Geometric pottery in Greece, that Mycenaean wares were actually of Eastern or Phoenician origin and existed side by side with Greek geometric wares during the so-called Late Bronze period in the Aegean.

The geometric styles were followed by Orientalizing styles in Greek pottery. This Orientalizing style is associated with the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Aegean Isles. The list of Sea Powers presented earlier dates this period from about the time of the last Trojan War to the defeat of the Aeginetan sea power in 480. In other words, Orientalizing styles among the Greeks occurred during the sub-Mycenaean period.

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

Palestine, Syria and Archaeology

The land which boasts the most complete archaeological record is Palestine. This is partly an empty boast. The only really early city that is thoroughly documented is Jericho. Hardly any of the other early Palestinian sites are known. By contrast, much of early Syria and Mesopotamia is better documented.

Early Jericho begins with a 'Prepottery Neolithic A' culture. The duration of this culture extended over a few centuries, though it is carelessly maximized by archeologists many more hundreds of years.

The period of this culture is pre-Flood, as is the succeeding 'Prepottery Neolithic B.' It is found in strata X to XVII. It is a period of intense warfare. The city walls were being constantly rebuilt. The story of Jericho is really the account of the great walled city Cain built before the Flood. Jericho had walls long before any other city. See the latest excavation reports by Miss Kenyon.

Thereafter two new cultural strata occur. Each is a period of great retrogression, as if some calamity had befallen the people. Each is separated by a span of time in which the site was depopulated. The inhabitants used pottery. (See Chart I of 'The Archaeology of Palestine' in 'The Bible and the Ancient Near East', edited by G. E. Wright.) The site of Jericho hereafter was for several centuries abandoned. The population of Palestine disappeared. This is the period of the Flood. of human depopulation, and the meagre beginnings of the new post-Flood world. In Mesopotamia small beginnings of modern society developed.

Then over much of the Jordan valley, the southern hill country and elsewhere in Palestine a new culture sprang up. It is labeled Chalcolithic or Ghassulian after a site where first discovered.

It flourished in areas which today are far removed from any water sources. Sites with this culture extend far out into the arid plain about the Dead Sea. The culture comes to a sudden end!

Now notice the record in Genesis 13:10, 'And Lot lifted up his eyes. and behold all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt.'

Here is the so-called Ghassulian culture! It was in the days of Abraham. This culture perished with the burning of the cities of the plain in the year 1916 -- just before the birth of Isaac.

Very little is known of cultures elsewhere in Palestine prior to this time. All that has so far been recovered are remains of wretched cave cultures and open camp sites. These cave cultures, usually placed millenniums before the habitation of Jericho, include both pre-Flood remains and early post-flood deposits. Cave dwelling continued, however, long after the beginning of cities. Even Lot, when he fled from Sodom, dwelt in a cave (Gen. 19:30)

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

The Coming of Israel Into Palestine

The next archaeological period in Palestinian stratigraphy is designated 'Early Bronze IV' or 'Early Bronze III B.' It is a period at Jericho and elsewhere of frantic building of defences. 'No well-preserved constructions of Early Bronze IV have yet been discovered,' writes William Foxwell Albright in 'Archaeology of Palestine', page 77. The most spectacular remains of this period is of a gigantic open-air camp site overlooking the Dead Sea. Here is William Albright's description of it: '... overlooking the Dead Sea from an eastern terrace, is a great open-air enclosure, defended by a wall of large field stones. Inside the enclosure and around it are many ancient hearths, with quantities of sherds' -- and here an incorrect date is suggested. 'Outside, at a greater distance, are many graves dug in the ground and surrounded with small stones arranged in such a way as to resemble megalithic dolmens superficially .... Most of the graves were covered by shallow tumuli. At a little distance is a group of fallen menhirs ('messaboth'), which seem originally to have numbered seven' (p. 78). Whose camp was this? Israel's!

At this point in the cultural history of Palestine archaeologists find the country was suddenly devastated. Destruction and abandonment of towns are everywhere. A sudden reduction in population occurs. Here is the archaeological evidence of the invasion of Joshua!

Now we are in a position to place in chart form the proper relationship between archaeological finds and history. Note that during the so-called bronze culture, iron was every where in use in Palestine. A description of each period may be found in detail in the works of Albright, Glueck, Kenyon, Wright and others.

Cultural Development in Palestinian Pottery	Contemporary Historical Events
Early Bronze I-III	1916-1446 From about the destruction of Sodom to the crossing of the Jordan
Early Bronze III B also labeled by Kenyon Inter. Early Bronze- Middle Bronze or Middle Bronze I (by Albright)	1446-1441 From crossing of Jordan to the division of the land in 1441-1440: dates are found by subtracting successive judgeships from 300 years after Exodus -- 1446-1146 (see Judges 11:26).
Middle Bronze I (Kenyon) also labeled Middle Bronze II A (Albright)	1441-1391 Lifetime of Joshua and Elders, oppression of Cushanrishathaim and his defeat in 1391
Middle Bronze II (Kenyon) or II B and C (Albright) (influence of culture from Mesopotamia)	Phase 1 Judgeship of Othniel 1391-1333 (40 years) and period of Ammonite oppression (18 years)
	Phase 2 Period of major deposits 1333-1253 during lengthy time of peace -- judgeship of Ehud (during 80 years)
	Phase 3 Oppression of Jabin king 1253-1193 of Canaan (20 years); also time of Philistine incursions; judgeship of Barak (40 years) and of Deborah and Shamgar
	Phase 4 Midianite, Amalekite and 1193-1146 Maonite invasion (7 years) followed by judgeship of Gideon (40 years)
	Phase 5 Philistine invasion(40 years 1146-1091 1146-1106) and second Ammonite invasion during time of Samuel, Jephthah, Samson. Three hundred years after conquest of Palestine east of Jordan (1446) the Ammonites launched an attack upon Palestine (Judges 11:26) and overran the land for 18 years 1146-1128; parallel with this invasion the Philistines attacked Israel (in 1146) and oppressed the land 40 years (during the life of Samson); Samuel delivered the country from the Philistines in 1106: peace restored until Saul's reign, which began in 1091
Phase 5 of Middle Bronze, so-called, ends in Palestine with a sudden destruction of every major city! This is the Philistine invasion about 1091 when Saul was first made king.
Transition Middle to Late Bronze (Kenyon and Mazar)	Reign of Saul to the time of David's victory over the Philistines; period of dislocation
Late Bronze I	Later years of David, reign of Solomon and time of Thutmose's domination of Palestine

The so-called Late Bronze period in Egypt and Palestine was quite lengthy. It began much earlier than in Greece and the region of the Troad. This period has not been clearly subdivided by archaeologists because they do not know it pertains to the time of Israel and Judah It is usually assumed that it represents the pre-Israelite Canaanites.

Not only does the so-called Late Bronze continue to the time of Assyrian domination of Israel in the north of Palestine, it continued through the time of the kingdom of Judah to Nebuchadnezzar's invasion and the reign of Ramesses the Great, Throughout the Late Bronze there is evidence of war and gradual decline. Late Bronze pottery continued in use in Palestine even after the sixth century. It was the culture of the returning Jews during the Persian period. This shocking fact can be proofd from contemporary Egyptian history!

Miss Kathleen M. Kenyon points out in her book 'Archaeology of the Holy Land' (Praeger edition), page 218, that near the close of Late Bronze II the site of Megiddo has yielded a model pen-case bearing the cartouche of Ramesses III. His dates, restored earlier, are 381-350. At Bethshan a statue of Ramesses III was found in Late Bronze setting. Below Ramesses III were stelae of Seti I of the seventh century and scarabs and other objects of Thutmose III.

Late Bronze II, Level VII, of the dig at Megiddo even yielded evidence of the reign of Ramesses VI (correctly dated to 340-333) in association with a little so-called 'Philistine' pottery. This pottery is not Philistine ware at all. It is Greek and Phoenician ware of the time of Alexander the Great! It is derived from sub-Mycenaean III C, which is datable to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.

So-called 'Philistine' ware is misdated eight centuries too early. It is falsely attributed to Philistines of the time of Samuel, Saul and David! The reason for this mistake is, of course, that it is associated with Dynasty XX of Egypt, which has been misplaced by about eight centuries. 'Philistine' -- actually Aegean -- ware marks the final transition from the so-called Bronze to Iron ages in Palestine. It is commonly believed that the Iron Age began about the period of Joshua's invasion of Palestine, that so-called Philistine ware then appeared, and that the archaeological remains of David and Solomon and the kings of Israel all belong to this period. This idea is utterly false. Other than at Samaria, the so-called Iron Age in Palestine is a period of decadence and poverty. It generally represents the period of rising Greek influence in Asia and the later Hellenistic period and early Roman periods.

The site of Samaria has been used as proof that the Iron Age is the period of the Israelite kings. It proofs just the opposite, The citadel on the summit of the hill of Samaria, which is commonly attributed to Omri, Ahab and Jehu has all the characteristics of typical acropolises invariably associated with Greek towns! The Greeks under Alexander, having overthrown the Samaritans, cleared away the top of the hill of Samaria and built their garrison buildings on its summit. Archaeologists have taken for granted that Omri built it. The architectural remains show typical Greek architecture. The excavation on the hill of Samaria has not included the living quarters of the common people of the Israelite period. If all the area had been excavated, archaeologists would have found remains typical of the Israelites' culture during the so-called Late Bronze period. (See page 269 of Kenyon's 'Archaeology of the Holy Land'.)

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

Mesopotamian Archaeology

The final phase of the restoration of World History is now approaching -- the archaeology of Shinar, Assyria and Egypt. The region of Mesopotamia is best studied by taking Shinar as one unit, and the remainder of Mesopotamia as another -- the political areas of Babylonia and Assyria.

The post-Flood culture of Shinar begins with a phase known as 'Late Ubaid.' 'Early Ubaid' is pre-Flood. 'At all sites so far investigated in the South the Ubaid remains rest directly on virgin soil, and there seems little doubt that the people who bore this culture were the first settlers on the alluvium of whom we have any trace' (Perkins, 'Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia', p. 13).

The earliest known phase near Ur is known as Ubaid I. It contains Woolley's 'flood deposit.' The earliest post-Flood phase is known as Ubaid II which continues to 1938, the year of the defeat of the four kings in Palestine by Abram.

With the defeat of the Mesopotamian (Assyrian) kings in 1938 a total break ensues in the cultural complex of Ubaid III. The land is never again culturally united until the late Assyrian Empire.

The next major period is generally known as the Protoliterate Period. In older works and the most recent it commonly receives the name Jamdat Nasr, after a city in Mesopotamia. In this Period excavations at the cities of Eridu and Uruk will be noted in chart form.

City of Eridu	City of Uruk
Temple stratum III covers the period ending 1717, the close of the Hamazi Dynasty (2137-1717). In archaeological parlance this is phase 'a' of the Protoliterate Period.	Phase 'a' is composed of strata VIII-VI. Stratum VIII of the Eanna Temple contains a major cultural change. This period continues to 1777 -- the earliest recommencement of the Second Dynasty of Uruk. Stratum VII also exhibits a new, though minor cultural phase. This period extends from 1777 to 1748, the time of the rise of both Kish and Akshak. Stratum VI extends from 1748 to 1717, the date of the final restoration to power of Uruk.
Eridu Temple stratum covers phases 'b,' 'c' and 'd' of the so- called Protoliterate Period. It ends around with the rise to power of Dynasty III of Uruk.	The second phase of the Protoliterate Period covers the remains of strata V-III. Written materials begin to make their appearance in the strata, but this is not the real beginning 1649 of writing in Mesopotamia. Divisions of the later Protoliterate Period are based not so much on political events as on Temple strata V, IV and III, which correspond with 'b', 'c' and 'd.' Quite significant! -- but that is the foolishness to which scholars descend who have cut themselves off from true history.

The next Period is designated Early Dynastic I. It is properly equated with the Dynasty of Akkad (see 'Relative Chronologies of Old World Archaeology', p. 48). The cultural period extends to the initial invasion of the Guti in 1535.

Early Dynastic II extends from 1535 to about the end of the Acadian Dynasty in 1436. (Of course, these political dates are only general indicators of changes in cultural patterns.)

Early Dynastic III extends to the Elamite invasion that brought about the establishment of the cities of Isin (1301) and Larsa (1306).

The next cultural phase is properly associated with Isin, Larsa and Dynasty I of Babylon (1174-879).

Northern Mesopotamia

And now Northern Mesopotamia, especially the land of Assyria.

It is commonly taught today that Assyria and the highlands surrounding the Mesopotamian plain were settled long before the region of Shinar was dry enough to inhabit. To some extent this is true. But the duration of time cannot be archaeologically determined. Only a historical record can determine that. The duration of human settlement from the highland down the river valleys eastward to Shinar took only about one century! The city and the tower of Babel were built only 114 years after the flood ended.

The earliest cultural phase in Northern Mesopotamia is generally designated Hassuna, from a site where it was first found. Unstratified, less advanced cultures have also been found in the highlands, but they are not demonstrably older. They are of nomadic peoples and minor villages, and continued parallel for a few centuries with other cultures in the growing cities of the later pre-Flood Mesopotamian Plain.

The pre-Flood Hassuna culture is represented at the site of Nineveh by strata 1 and 2, and at Hassuna by strata I-V. The phase covers human movements somewhat before the end of the pre-Flood world in the area settled by the family of Seth.

We next find the development of a later pre-Flood culture. This northern culture is called by archaeologists the Halaf Period -- after the site of Halaf. These meaningless archaeological names would really become interesting if they had been properly connected with contemporary leaders who have molded ancient history.

Halafian is represented at Nineveh by strata 2 b and 2 c. At Hassuna by strata VI through X. At Arphchaiyyah it is represented by strata 10 through 6. At each site there is evidence of warfare at the end of the period. Violence filled that world.

The sudden end of the Halafian period signifies the end of the pre-Flood world. Just before it ended there was a new cultural development in Southern Mesopotamia. The next cultural period was once thought to commence with a heavy influence out of Iran, but now is beginning to be recognized as of local origin. The new cultural period is termed Northern Ubaid I and is the latest pre-Flood culture. Through Noah's family it continues into the post-Flood world.

The most important post-Flood phase of this new period reveals a revival of religious practice. At Tepe Gawra in Assyria, a temple began to be built. Its commencement corresponds with the new building phase of the temple at Eridu. This revival of religion can be dated from the time of Nimrod to about the year 2137 -- the return of Isis (Semiramis or Ishtar).

A complete break in cultural unity occurs at the end of Northern Ubaid II. As in Shinar the land becomes divided into numerous local cultures. This phase -- the Warka Period -- bears the same name as in the south, but it exhibits many different features. It is related to Eastern Anatolia and North Syria, the Aramaic homeland. It corresponds in time to the latter period of influence of the Arabian or Aramean Dynasty of Berossus -- 2043-1828.

Beginning with the Warka Period, the cultural phases of northern Mesopotamia are generally correctly associated with the phases of Babylonia as not to necessitate further discussion here. Any of the publications listed in the Bibliography are suitable for pursuing this section further. It is only in the earliest periods that a restoration is needful.

Note in concluding, that every cultural phase is reflected in political events. Further, observe that the common stratum occupies about the space of a generation -- not upwards of a century as postulated by evolutionary archaeology.

Egypt In Parallel

But what about the many centuries that are assigned to the 'Pre-Dynastic' cultures of early Egypt? How can these be reconciled with the demonstrable historical fact that human beings did not arrive in Egypt until the Dynastic Period? Egyptian history teaches us that there was no 'Pre-Dynastic Age' in Egypt. What have the archaeologists discovered in the Nile Valley? Is there correspondence between Egypt and Palestine and Mesopotamia that dates these assumed early cultures of Egypt? Indeed there is!

The Maadi culture in North Egypt is known to correspond with the Gerzean in South Egypt (p. 2 of 'Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology', R. W. Ehrich editor). With what period is Gerzean contemporary?

Here is the surprising answer: 'The equation of Late Gerzean and Early Bronze I in Palestine is clear' (page 5).

Again: 'Most important for establishing a synchronims are the four cylinder seals of Jemdet Nasr style (imports and imitations), two of which occur in well-documented Late Gerzean graves' (page 5).

This means that the latest so-called 'Pre-Dynastic' culture was parallel with the Protoliterate in Mesopotamia, which began about 1828. Egypt's latest 'Pre-Dynastic' (!) culture was the culture of Egypt just before the coming of the family of Jacob to Egypt -- four hundred years after the first dynasty commenced at Thinis.

Prior to the Maadi (in the North) and the Gerzean (in the South), Egyptian culture is subdivided into Merimde and Fayum in the North and Amratian, Badarian and Tasian in the South. These cultures show affinities with the Ubaid of Mesopotamia and the Neolithic of Jericho.

But how does one explain the backward cultures of the people of Egypt when the royal tombs exhibit such sophisticated tastes -- superior, in fact, to the common tastes of Palestine or Mesopotamia? Josephus answers: 'Whereas these Egyptians are the very people that appear to have never, in all the past ages, had one day of freedom, no not so much as from their own lords' ('Against Apion', II, 12). See also 'Antiquities' I, 8.

Egyptian princes and kings always lived in a fashion far beyond the inclinations, or even the knowledge, of the common fellaheen. The backward culture of early Egypt is not found stratigraphically beneath the remains of the earliest dynasty, but contemporary with it and succeeding dynasties. 'Neolithic' remains in Egypt were reproduced even to Roman times!

With this material the essential framework of history is restored. There is perfect harmony between true history, true scientific archaeology and the Bible. History and the Bible can be reconciled.

September 25, 2011
1
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

More...

Volume 1 Chapter 18

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.

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 1 Chapter 17

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!

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 1 Chapter 15

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

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!

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts

Volume 1 Chapter 16

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.

September 25, 2011
0
Published in Compendium of World History
Written by LC Geerts