More...

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

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