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).

>

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.

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.

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.